Page:Nestorius and his place in the history of Christian doctrine.djvu/126

114 The western theologians were, however, aware of the fact, that such phrases were only inaccurate and incomplete statements, for only by virtue of the addition "ex humana substantia" did these phrases suit the undivided Christ, while as regards the Logos they were nothing more than forms of speech.

Nevertheless, in spite of this difference there can, in my opinion, be no doubt, that there must have been a kinship between the western and the Antiochian tradition. Adolf k, it is true, does not admit this. He says that the Antiochians were going the same way as Paul of Samosata, and he even thinks that the explanations of Theodore of Mopsuestia about the relation of the Logos and the man in Christ, and about Christ's natures, will, feelings and so on were, here and there, literally identical with those of Paul of Samosata. The christology of Paul of Samosata, as to itself, is considered by him to be an advanced form of the christology of Hermas and the so-called Monarchians of Rome. Between Tertullian's doctrine of two natures in Christ, however, and the doctrine of the Monarchians he sees no connection; he looks upon Tertullian's doctrine, in so far as it goes farther than Irenaeus on whose works Tertullian was dependent, as formulated by Tertullian