asserted. There is, as Nestorius himself says, a difference between the Lord Jesus Christ and the Logos[1]; or: the terms God-Logos and Christ do not have the same meaning[2]. For, though Christ is not outside the Logos[3], nevertheless the Logos is not limited by the body[4]. Christ spoke of the Logos as of his πρόσωπον and as if he were one and had the same πρόσωπον[5]; there appeared one spirit, one will, one inseparable and indivisible intellect as in one being[6]; we regard this one as that one and that one as this one, although this one and that one remain[7]. But if one keeps in mind that Nestorius rejected the idea of a substantial union which would include an alteration of the Logos, then one must say that he came as near as possible to the idea of a union. Where a substantial union is excluded, there the union can only come about on a spiritual plane. Hence Nestorius says that the incarnation took place through an intelligent and rational soul[8]. By means of the soul a relation is set up between
- ↑ B. 120 = N. 133.
- ↑ B. 254 = N. 153.
- ↑ l.c.
- ↑ B. 239 = N. 144.
- ↑ B. 79 = N. 51.
- ↑ B. 102 = N. 67 (see above, p. 88, note 7: comme).
- ↑ B. 348 = N. 223.
- ↑ B. 128 = N. 83.
Nestorius' terminology, especially of the meaning of πρόσωπον in his works. In B. 240 f. = N. 145 (Ces choses [corps et âme] s'unissent en une nature et en prosôpon naturel. Dieu prit pour lui la forme du serviteur et non d'un autre pour son prosôpon et sa filiation; ainsi sont ceux qui sont unis en une nature. II prit la forme du serviteur, etc.) the words ainsi sont ceux qui sont unis en une nature must have been inadvertently transposed: their place, in my opinion, is before Dieu prit pour lui, etc.
