Page:Nestorius and his place in the history of Christian doctrine.djvu/83

Rh means, as Aristotle said, the ultimate reality which is the bearer of all the attributes which are called the nature of a thing, the substance in the sense in which the earlier philosophy, that of the middle ages included, made use of this term and which was afterwards criticised by Locke and Hume. The term could also be used in a generic sense and then received a meaning similar to kind or nature, but  means only that which  could mean in addition to its other meaning, viz., a single and really existing being, whether material or immaterial.

As regards the doctrine of the Trinity these two terms, originally synonymous to some extent, were differentiated: one spoke of and  in the Trinity; but, as Professor  r rightly observed, there is not any clear evidence that a similar usage, a similar differentiation between  and , had been extended in the time of Cyril to the christological problem. Hence in the discussion between Cyril and Nestorius on the relation of the Godhead and manhood in Christ the term must be understood as essentially synonymous with. Now Nestorius, just as the earlier Antiochians, believed that the natures of Christ, as both really existing in him, had each their : he spoke of two with as little scruple as of two