Page:Lesser Eastern Churches.djvu/107

Rh to these technical Syriac words that we may end this chapter by a summary explanation of them.

From the root īth () we have īthyâ and īthuthâ. These mean simply essence, nature. Only a Monophysite would deny that there are two īthuthe in Christ.

Parṣufâ is transcribed, a foreign word used only to represent the Greek. We saw that Nestorius admitted one "prosopon of union" in our Lord (p. 71). So the Syrian Nestorians speak of one parṣufâ, keeping rather the idea of a mask which covers the two personalities. The meaning of these two words, then, is fairly clear. There is nothing to complain of in their use by these people. Nor is there any particular difficulty about the word kyânâ. This means nature, and corresponds exactly to. The Monophysite, of course, says that there is one kyânâ in Christ; we shall not quarrel with the Nestorian who says there are two. The last word, the most difficult, is ḳnumâ. They use this for the Greek ; and just as that word is the difficult and ambiguous one in Greek (p. 68), so is ḳnumâ the great contention in Syriac. All Nestorians say there are two ḳnume in our Lord. That is their formula: two kyâne, two ḳnume, one parṣufâ. The question, then (just as in the case of hypostasis), is what they mean by their ḳnumâ. If it means merely a real, individual nature (as opposed to a universal concept), they agree with us; if it means what we mean by "person," their phrase "two ḳnume" is pure Nestorianism. But, once more, it is not because of their use of abstruse Syriac terms that we called modern Syrians heretics. It is because they reject the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, because they deny the standard