Antiochian theologians were at first on his side. He seems to have endeavoured more earnestly than the greatest teachers of his school, Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, to make intelligible the oneness of the person of Christ. An absolute decision is not possible in this case, as the chief dogmatic works of Diodore and Theodore are lost. But even if appearance speak the truth—I shall return to this question later[1]—it is nevertheless without doubt, that the fundamental ideas and the decisive formulas which we find in Nestorius were part of the traditional teaching of his school.
It was not Diodore or even Theodore who first created these formulas; they had already been used by Eustathius bishop of Antioch (who was deposed in 330). We are able to observe this, although only small fragments of his works are preserved[2]. It is proved not only by the idea, that it was not the Logos who was born, who suffered, but the man, whom he joined with
- ↑ See below p. 126.
- ↑ The only book of Eustathius which is preserved intact (De Engastrimytho, Migne, ser. graeca 18, 613–676) is of little value here. The fragments of other works were first collected by J. A. Fabricius (Bibliotheca graeca ed. Harles ix, 1804, pp. 136–149)—these fragments (about 35 in number) are the most important ones—; in Migne (18, 676–696) the number of fragments is enlarged to about 50; and a collection of 86 fragments (of which those, which were formerly known, for the most part are not given in full text) is to be found in S. Eustathii, episcopi Antiocheni, in Lazarum, Mariam et Martham homilia christologica (which is spurious) … edita cum commentario de fragmentis eustathianis opera et studio Ferdinandi Cavallera, Paris, 1905.
