Page:Nestorius and his place in the history of Christian doctrine.djvu/115

Rh the one of the Logos being thought of as the actual subject of the operation of the divine and human nature of Christ. Really, however, this doctrine of the Enhypostasia is identical with the Cyrillian view of the Anhypostasia of Christ's human nature, for actually it assumed that the Logos and the human nature became one being in the same sense as understood by Cyril, when he used the term and the phrase  which had come in the orthodox tradition through the Apollinaristic forgeries. There was now only the possibility of abstract separation of the natures in Christ. As a shibboleth of their Cyrillian-Chalcedonian orthodoxy, the Scythian monks used the phrase:, and this phrase was really characteristic. For, like Cyril, it makes the Logos the subject even of the sufferings, while by the addition of, which naturally was not uncyrillian, it was asserted, that the natures were not mixed through the union; and to some extent justice was done also to Leo's letter, which contended that it was the human nature which suffered. The Antiochian tradition naturally was considered to be insupportable by this new orthodoxy. The Scythian monks, therefore, acted consistently in demanding that Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, the famous teachers of the Antiochian