took place[1] so that this is that and that is this[2]. Professor Bethune-Baker, who did not enter into a discussion of the last quoted formulas, says in reference to the former (viz.: The manhood is the πρόσωπον of the Godhead and the Godhead is the πρόσωπον of the manhood[3]): "These words come near to eliminating 'personality,' as we understand it, altogether, or at all events they suggest the merging of one personality in the other, each in each. This in fact seems to be the meaning of Nestorius. He is in search of the real centre of union and he finds it here. He uses the term πρόσωπον to express that in which both the Godhead and manhood of our Lord were one, even while remaining distinct from one another, each retaining its own characteristics[4]." I think that Professor Bethune-Baker is here still striving to find a metaphysical centre of union. In my opinion the idea of Nestorius is most easily[5] understood by us, if we look at Philippians ii, 6 ff. The form of a servant and the form
- ↑ B. 305 = N. 193: L'union des prosôpons a eu lieu en prôsopon. Comp. B. 213 = N. 129: L'union est en effet dans le prosôpon et non clans la nature; B. 275 = N. 174: Il n'y a pas un autre et un autre dans le prosôpon; B. 281 = N. 177: Nous ne disons pas un autre et un autre, car il n'y a qu'un seul prosôpon pour les deux natures.
- ↑ B. 331 = N. 211: C'est dans le prosôpon, qu'a eu lieu l'union, de sorte que celui-ci soit celui-là et celui-là, celui-ci. These last words are to be found very often.
- ↑ Comp. p. 81 with note 3. Similar sentences recur again and again.
- ↑ p. 97.
- ↑ About the difficulties which remain see below, p. 90, note 1.
