their part tied to the Cyrillian tradition. Without doubt, however, there is no real harmony between these different standards of faith. For Leo's letter declares: Agit utraque forma cum alterius communione, quod proprium est, verbo scilicet operante quod verbi est et carne exequente quod carnis est; unum horum coruscat miraculis, alterum succumbit injuriis[1], but Severus of Antioch, the well-known later monophysite, was right, when he said: οὐ γὰρ ἐνεργεῖ ποτε φύσις οὐχ ὑφεστῶσα προσωπικῶς[2], and for Cyril the human nature of Christ was a φύσις οὐχ ὑφεστῶσα, as is shown by his understanding of the ἕνωσις καθ' ὑπόστασιν[3]. Nay, in his epistola synodica to Nestorius[4] he even anathematised the διαιρεῖν τὰς ὑποστάσεις μετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν and required a union of the natures καθ’ ἕνωσιν φυσικήν[5]. This disharmony between the Cyrillian tradition and that of the western church represented by Leo showed itself also during the proceedings of the council in a very distinct manner, when the wording of the creed was deliberated. The first draft of this creed contained the words ἐκ δύο φύσεων εἶς[6], which corresponded to the
- ↑ Ch. iv; Mansi, v, 1375 c d; Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole, 3rd edition, p. 325.
- ↑ Doctrina patrum, ed. F. Diekamp, Münster, 1907, p. 310, 19 f.
- ↑ Comp. above, p. 72.
- ↑ Comp. above, p. 44.
- ↑ Anath. 3, Migne, 77, 120 c.
- ↑ This document was not inserted in the Proceedings (Mansi, vii, 100 d: ὅρον, ὃν ἔδοξε μὴ ένταγῆναι τοῖσδε τοῖς ὑπομνήμασι) and now, therefore, is lost, but there cannot be any doubt, that it contained the words ἐκ δύο φύσεων εἶς (comp. Mansi, vii, 103 d:
