Page:Nestorius and his place in the history of Christian doctrine.djvu/109

Cyrillian tradition, but Leo asserted in his letter, that the unity of Christ's person was seen "in two natures^[1]," and especially blamed Eutyches for not having been willing to concede the duality of the natures after the incarnation, while allowing the term ἐκ δύο φύσεων εἶς^[2]. The Roman legates, therefore, energetically opposed the phrase ἐκ δύο φύσεων in the draft of the creed^[3] and they succeeded in substituting ἐν δύο φύσεσιν for ἐκ δύο φύσεων^[4]. One self-consistent view, therefore, could not be attained in Chalcedon; a compromise had to be made. And it was made by recognising as standards of faith at the same time Leo's letter and Cyril's epistola dogmatica and epistola ad Orientales^[5]. Cyril's epistola synodica, which understood the ἕνωσις καθ’ ὑπόστασιν in the sense of a ἕνωσις φυσική, was not

definitio … ex duabus naturis habet, and 106 c: Dioscorus dicebat: "Quod ex duabus naturis est, suscipio, duas non suscipio"; sanctissimus autem archiepiscopus Leo duas naturas dicit esse in Christo … Quem igitur sequimini? sanctissimum Leonem, aut Dioscorum?

1. Ch. 5, Mansi, v, 1379 b: Propter hanc unitatem personae in utraque natura intelligendam (comp. the preceding note).
2. Ch. 6, Mansi, v, 1386 f.
3. Mansi, vii, 101 a b; comp. above, p. 96 f. note 6.
4. Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole, 3rd edition, p. 166; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, 2nd edition, ii, 470 f. note 1.
5. Mansi, vii, 113 b c. The meaning of the sentence τὰς τοῦ μακαρίου Κυρίλλου … συνοδικὰς ἐπιστολὰς πρός τε Νεστόριον καὶ πρὸς τοὺς τῆς ἀνατολῆς … ἐδέξατο is illustrated by the fact, that Cyril's epistola dogmatica and epistola ad Orientales, but not his epistola synodica, were previously (Mansi, vi, 959 a b, 959 d, 971 a b, 973 c) approved. Comp. p. 98 note 1.