not able to go into details, and there are many things which he has failed to observe. There is a third Roman-Catholic research into the doctrine of Nestorius (Jugie, article "Éphèse, concile de" in the Dictionnaire de la théologie catholique, Fasc. 37. Paris, 1911, pp. 137–163), which, as I understand, endeavours more eagerly than Dr Junglas to show that Nestorius was justly condemned; but I have not had the opportunity to read this article.
As regards my own treatment of the matter, I do not pretend to have exhausted the subject nor to have found the definite and final answers to the various questions aroused about Nestorius' life and doctrine by his Liber Heraclidis. I trust that I have indicated more clearly than Professor Bethune-Baker has already done the way by which we may arrive at a real understanding of Nestorius' peculiar ideas. Others, I hope, may be stimulated by the present lectures to a further study of Nestorius' christology. The subject is deserving of interest. For there is no other christology in the ancient church so "modern" as his and perhaps that of his teachers whose dogmatical works are lost.
Halle on the Saale, Germany,
January 20th, 1914.
