his old friend[1], Nestorius had never taught, nay he had even expressly rejected such assertions[2]. Nestorius can therefore be regarded as orthodox according to the Antiochian interpretation of the Chalcedonian definition.
The formulas contained in Leo's letter, as we shall see later more accurately, had their root in a view somewhat different from that of Nestorius, but Nestorius had endeavoured more earnestly than Leo to make intelligible the oneness of the person of Christ[3], and in any case he himself approved of Leo's letter[4]. Thus according also to the western interpretation of the Chalcedonian definition Nestorius can be regarded as orthodox.
On the other hand, an interpretation according to the Cyrillian tradition could not have been accepted by Nestorius, and measured by the standard of such an interpretation he could not be regarded as orthodox. Such an interpretation, however, had considerable difficulties. For, while to western thinking Cyril's letters, which were recognised at Chalcedon, had been made acceptable by interpretation, there was at that time in the East no Cyrillian theology, i.e. no theology
- ↑ Mansi, vii, 189 b: ἀνάθεμα Νεστορίῳ καὶ τῷ μὴ λέγοντι τὴν ἁγίαν Μαρίαν θεοτόκον καὶ τῷ εἰς δύο υἱοὺς περίζοντι τὸν ἕνα υἰὸν τὸν μονογενῆ.
- ↑ Comp. above p. 31 f. and 74 and his epistola ad Constantinopolitanos (comp. above p. 24 f.), ch. 2, Nau, p. 374.
- ↑ Leo asserted the unitas personae, but made no attempt to show how this unitas personae was to be imagined (comp. below p. 113).
- ↑ See above p. 22.
