him also, however sharply he distinguished between the Logos and the man in Christ, asserting the oneness of the πρόσωπον, the μοναδικὸν πρόσωπον, in contrast to the oneness of the natures which was taught by the Arians[1]. He, too, spoke of the Logos (or of the pre-existent son of God) as the image of God, and of Christ as the image of the son of God or the image of the archetype of the image of God[2]; he too—only to mention one further line of thought common to him and Nestorius—dealt with Melchisedek as a type of Christ, in order to refute by means of Hebrews vii. 3 (ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ) the idea, that the Logos was born[3]. The theological tradition followed by Nestorius can thus be traced at least to Eustathius.
But it dates from a still earlier period. To prove this, I will start by pointing to the fact that Nestorius himself found in Leo's letter views which agreed with
- ↑ Cavallera, 7, p. 67: μοναδικὸν τὸ πρόσωπον· οὐκ εἶπον μοναδικὴν τὴν φύσιν …, ἀλλ' εἶπον ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν … ἐν τῷ διαφόρῳ τῶν φύσεων γνωριζόμενον—; comp. Cav. 82, p. 98.
- ↑ Migne, p. 677 cd (Cav. 21): οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν ὁ Παῦλος (Rom. 8, 29) συμμόρφους τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ· ἄλλο μέν τι δεικνύων τὸν υἱὸν εἶναι, ἄλλο δὲ τὴν εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ· ὁ μὲν γὰρ υἱὸς … εἰκών ἐστι τοῦ πατρός …, ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπος, ὃν ἐφόρεσεν, εἰκών ἐστι τοῦ υἱοῦ—; comp. p. 693 (Cav. 70) and Cavallera 452 2 p. 85: τὸ γοῦν τῆς ψυχῆς ὄμμα ἀδόλωτον ἔχοντες πρὸς τὸ τῆς ⟨υἱότητος?⟩ πρωτότυπον καὶ τῆς εἰκόνος μόρφοωμα προσβλέποντες δοξάζομεν τὸ τῆς εἰκόνος ἀρχέτυπον, comp. Cav. 82, p. 98, where Baruch 3, 36–38 is quoted.
- ↑ Cavallera, 3, p. 63.
σκηνώσας ᾤκησεν ὁ θεός—; Migne, p. 684 c (Cav. 28): πάσχει μὲν ὁ νεώς—; comp. p. 109 notes 1, 2 and 6.
