following the Cyrillian tradition, which could digest Leo's letter. The quarrels about the decision of Chalcedon show how disagreeable it was to the majority of the Eastern Christians.
Hence as long as we apply no other standard than the Chalcedonian definition, the statement of Professor Bethune-Baker, that Nestorius was orthodox, is not to be held a false one. It was a tragic feature in the fortune of Nestorius, that he had already been condemned, when the council, whose creed he could have accepted, was held.
The Chalcedonian definition, however, was not the final one. The uncertainty as to how its formulas were to be interpreted was removed. The first step of importance in this direction was the Henotikon of the Emperor Zeno in 482[1]. This edict, indeed, did not condemn the Chalcedonian definition, but in actual opposition to Leo's letter and to its assertion about the operation of each nature in Christ[2] it expressly declared: ἑνὸς εἶναί φαμεν τά τε θαύματα καὶ τὰ πάθη[3], condemning at the same time everyone who then or earlier, at Chalcedon or elsewhere, thought otherwise[4]. That means that an interpretation of the Chalcedonian definition according to the Cyrillian tradition only was to be regarded as right, while Leo's letter with all its
