Page:Nestorius and his place in the history of Christian doctrine.djvu/84

72 natures in Christ. Cyril, on the contrary, expressly condemned the, the  excluded for him the existence of two  in Christ. In explaining this theory he is not always fortunate, and in his terminology he is not always consistent. Professor r is right in saying: "His use of the expression  gives strong support to the view that he used the parallel expression  in the sense of substantial rather than in the sense of personal oneness ." Nevertheless his real theory is clearly to be perceived. The divine Logos, he thinks, who naturally has his or is an, remained the one and the same that he was before the incarnation, also after having assumed human nature. He took in his a human body, soul and intellect as his own body, soul and intellect, so that his human nature had, therefore, no. Christ's human nature was, according to Cyril, nothing more than all the human characteristics taken as a whole, which the had as such. It existed, so to speak, before the incarnation as the nature or substance of the human race; but after the incarnation, because of the