able to speak of one person in our sense of the word also. This one person, it is true, is not simply the Logos, as this is not limited by the body, but still less is he a mere man. This Jesus Christ of history is the beginner of a new humanity and at the same time the personal revelation of God, and he is the one because he is the other. Only the renewed manhood could become the image of God, but even this was only possible because the God-Logos was acting here in the manhood by means of a union of giving and taking[1].
Is this orthodox? The answer I will give in the next lecture.
IV
It was not the personal character of Nestorius which caused his tragic fortune; if he was guilty, it was his doctrine which was to be blamed—this we saw in the preceding lecture. We have tried, therefore, to gain an idea of his teaching. Was Nestorius orthodox? What is his position in the history of dogma?—these are the questions which will occupy us to-day.
The question as to whether Nestorius was orthodox cannot be regarded as really answered by the anathema of the so-called third ecumenical council of Ephesus,
