Page:Nestorius and his place in the history of Christian doctrine.djvu/90

78 of Mopsuestia, speaks about two in Christ, viz. the of the Godhead and the  of the manhood, are more numerous than Professor  s book leads us to suppose. Nestorius as an adherent of the Antiochian school could as little realise a really existing nature without as without , for the whole of the characteristics which make the nature must, in his opinion, as necessarily have a form of appearance, i.e. a , as a real being by which they are borne, i.e. an. One place in the Treatise of Heraclides is very characteristic in this respect. Here Nestorius is asking Cyril: Which of the natures do you think is without, ''that of the Godhead or that of the manhood? Then you will no longer be able to say that the God-Logos was flesh and that the flesh was Son''. That is: if you think the Godhead without then there will be lacking the form of appearance which the manhood could take on, and if the manhood, then