Part II Chapter I §1 Article 1: The Hypostatic Union — Positive Dogmatic Teaching

Chapter I: The Dogma of the Hypostatic Union

§1: The Hypostatic Union of the Two Natures in Christ

Article 1: The Positive Dogmatic Teaching of Revelation, as Defined Against Nestorianism

SECTION i THE HYPOSTATIC UNION OF THE TWO NATURES IN CHRIST ARTICLE i THE POSITIVE DOGMATIC TEACHING OF REVELATION, AS DEFINED AGAINST NESTORIUS i. Nestorianism and the Church. — The Nestorian heresy, which denied the personal unity of Christ, grew out of the Christological teaching of Diodorus of Tarsus 1 and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who has been called a “Nestorius before Nestorius.” 2 Nestorianism was anathematized by the Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus, A. D. 431. Among its most prominent champions were Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa, whose writings, together with certain excerpts from the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia, were condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (A. D. 553) under the name of the Three Chapters.3 1 Died about 394. On Diodorus Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. see Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, 318 sqq. pp. 315 sqq. 8 Cfr. Llveque, Stud* sur le Pape 2 Theodore of Mopsuestia, a dis- Virgile, Paris 1887; W. H. Hutton, ciple of Diodorus, died about the The Church of the Sixth Century, year 428. An account of his life London 1897. and teachings will be found in 89 9o UNITY IN DUALITY a) Nestorius was a Syrian by birth and became Patriarch of Constantinople in 428. In this position he at once began to disseminate with great obstinacy the Christological heresies of his master Theodore. These heretical teachings may be summarized as follows : ( 1 ) Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Mary, is a different person from the Divine Logos or Son of God. As there are in Christ two different and distinct natures, so there are in Him also two different and distinct persons, one divine, the other human. (2) These two persons are, however, most intimately united, the Logos or Son of God indwelling in the man Jesus as in a temple. The man Jesus by this indwelling of the Logos becomes a * God-bearer 99 (deifer, d€o6po^), or God in a figurative sense, like as Moses was called * the god of Pharao.” (3) It follows that the Divine Logos is not united with the man Jesus in mode of a physical union (Iv

NESTORIANISM 9i from the fact that he consistently rejected the term [da wrooracris.4 b) As St. Athanasius had defended the orthodox faith against Arianism, and as St. Augustine had stood forth as the champion of revealed truth against Pelagianism, so St. Cyril of Alexandria waged the Church’s battle against the heresy of Nestorius. St. Cyril was a man of strong faith and extensive theological knowledge.5 ” If we except Athanasius,” observes Bardenhewer, “none of the other Greek Fathers exercised so farreaching an influence on ecclesiastical doctrine as Cyril ; and if we except Augustine, there is none among all the other Fathers whose works have been adopted so extensively by ecumenical councils as a standard expression of Christian faith.” 6 As the champion of the true faith against the Nestorians, St. Cyril was commissioned by Pope Celestine I. to preside over the Third General Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431. His twelve anathematisms against Nestorius 7 were approved by that Council as “canonical,” t. e., as articles of faith, and Nestorius himself was deposed and excommunicated. The word $€ot6ko^ so vehemently opposed by the Nestorian heretics, became the tessera of orthodoxy, and justly so, for it expresses the true doctrine regarding the Person of our divine Redeemer as pregnantly as the Nicene term byuoovmov expresses the true doctrine concerning His Divinity. The first of St. Cyril’s anathema4Cfr. Marius Mercator (Migne, Greek and Latin) of these anatheP. L., XLVIII); Franzelin, De matisms in Alzog-Pabisch-Byrne, Verbo Incarnato, thes. 22 sqq.; Manual of Universal Church HisLoofs, Nestoriana, 1904. tory, Vol. I, pp. 596 sq., where 6 He died June 27, 444. there is also a good account of the • Bardenhewer- Shahan, Patrology, Council of Ephesus. Cfr. Denzinp. 362. ger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 113 7 The reader will find the text (in sqq. tisms (or Canon i) reads: “Si quis non confitetur Deum esse veraciter Emmanuel et propterea Dei genitricem8 sanctam Virginem: — peperit enim secundum carnem carnem factum Dei Verbum,9 anathema sit — If any one do not confess that Emmanuel is truly God and that, therefore, the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God: — for she gave birth, according to the flesh, to the Word of God made flesh — let him be anathema.” The second anathematism (Canon 2), while it does not formally define the mode of union between the Logos and His manhood, describes it practically as hypostatic: “Si quis non confitetur, carni secundum subsistentiam10 unitum Dei Patris Verbum, unumque esse Christum cum propria came, eundem scil. Deum simul et hominem,11 anathema sit — If any one do not confess that the Word of God the Father is hypostatically united to the flesh, and that Christ is one with His own flesh, alike God and man, let him be anathema.” The remaining ten anathematisms (or canons) condemn the Nestorian errors in detail. 2. The Dogma of the Hypostatic Union Demonstrated from Sacred Scripture. — Though the term “Hypostatic Union/’ as in fact the entire technical phraseology in which the Church couches her teaching on the union of the two natures in Christ, is not found in the Bible, the doctrine itself is undoubtedly Scriptural. This can be shown (a) by a general and (b) by a special argument. 0cot6kov. 1000* Mffraffip, t. hypo*

a) The general argument may be formulated thus. Sacred Scripture attributes to Christ two distinct series of predicates, the one divine, the other human. It represents Him to us both as true God 12 and true man.13 Now the Christ who is true God is identical with the Christ who is true man. Consequently, both classes of attributes belong equally to one and the same person, i. e.9 the Godman Jesus Christ. In other words, there are not two persons sharing the divine and the human attributes between them in such manner that the divine attributes belong to the one, while the human attributes belong to the other; but one individual, namely, the Divine Person of the Logos or Son of God, is alike God and man, because He possesses both a divine and a human nature. Technically this truth is expressed in the proposition: Godhead and manhood are hypostatically united in Christ. b) Of the many texts which can be adduced from Sacred Scripture in proof of this dogma we shall subject only one or two to an analysis from the Christological point of view. «) The most pregnant sentence in the Gospels is undoubtedly John I, 14: Et Verbum caro factum est — & Aoyos aapt cycWo — And the Word was made flesh. Who is the subject of the predicate phrase: “was made flesh”? It is 12Cfr. supra, Part I, Chapter x. 18 Cfr. supra, Part I, Chapter a. the “Logos,” whom we have shown to be the Son of God, Himself true God, the Second Person of the Divine Trinity.14 This Logos was made flesh, i. e., became man. Consequently, the one Incarnate Logos is both God and man, and therefore Godman (fcaitfpwwos). And what is the meaning of the word cycWo? A creature can ” become ” or ” be made ” (fieri aliquid) in a threefold sense, (i) It can simply begin to exist, as, e. g., ” the world became,” that is, it began to exist. (2) It may undergo a substantial change ; thus water was changed into wine at the wedding of Cana. (3) It may assume a new mode of being, over and above that which it already possesses. This new mode of being may be due either to an intrinsic quality, such as learning or sanctity ; or to a purely extrinsic relation, such as the generalship of an army. It is quite evident that the Incarnation of the Logos cannot be taken in either the first or the second of the above mentioned meanings. The notion of the divine, eternal, immutable Logos positively excludes a creatural beginning or any transubstantiation of the Godhead into flesh, i. e., manhood. Hence the third meaning alone is the true one. It does not, however, do full justice to the mystery of the Incarnation, because in a creature a new state or condition can never be a substance but is always necessarily an accident, whereas in the Divine Logos the assumption of manhood means a mode of being based upon substantial union, without exercising the slightest intrinsic effect upon the Logos Himself. To express the same truth in simpler terms: The union of the Logos with l4Cfr. Pohle-Preutt, The Divim Trinity, pp. 49 sqq. human nature results in one Divine Person possessing two distinct natures. This is what theologians call the Hypostatic Union. P) The teaching of St. Paul agrees with that of St. John. Witness the following passage from Phil. II, 6 sq. : ”… qui quum in forma Dei 15 esset, non rapinam arbitratus est esse se aequalem Deo,1* sed semetipsum exinanivit formam servi accipiens,11 in similitudinem hominum f actus et habitu inventus ut homo — Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as man.” The subject of this sentence is Christ. St. Paul asserts of Him : ( 1 ) That He was “in the form of God,” which means that He was consubstantial with God, and therefore Himself God; 18 and (2) that He “took the form of a servant* and was in consequence thereof *found as man.” Here we have a clear assertion of the Incarnation of God, which, according to St. Paul, involves self-abasement (exinanitio, kcW«). in what sense are we to take exinanitio or kenosis? Does it mean that the Godhead annihilated itself, or that God ceased to be God? That would be intrinsically impossible, and, besides, verse 11 of 15 ip fxop(pv Geov. i8 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Diving 16 T^ elvot X

the same chapter of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians reads : The Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father. 19 Consequently the phrase “God … emptied himself” can only mean that He who was God “took 20 the form of a servant,” i. e., assumed human nature, inasmuch as the Son of God appeared among men not alone in the form of God, but also in “the form of a servant” (human nature). It follows that, according to St. Paul’s teaching, the two natures are in Christ combined in a Personal or Hypostatic Union.21 All the arguments which prove the Divinity of Christ likewise demonstrate the Hypostatic Union, because Holy Scripture declares that the man Jesus is true God. This could not be if Divinity and humanity were not united in Him as in one individual subject. In that case we should have to say with Nestorius: The man Jesus bears in His person the Godhead. The assertion of certain Modernists, that “the Christological teaching of SS. Paul and John, and of the councils of Nicaea, Ephesus, and 19 Phil. II, II. 20 A+cipiens, Xa/3«v. 21 On the Kenosis see P. J. Toner, “The Modern Kenotic Theory*” in the Irish Theological Quarterly, Vol. I (1906), Nos. 1 and a; W. T. C Sheppard, O. S. B., ” The • Kenosis ’ According to St. Luke/’ in the same review, Vol. V (1910), No. 19; F. J. Hall (an American Anglican divine), The Kenotic Theory, New York 1898; A. Tanquerey, S. S., Synopsis Theol. Dogmat., II, n. 116; M. Waldhauser, Die Kenose und die moderne protestantische Christologie, Mainz 1912; F. Prat, S. J., La Thiologie de Saint Paul, Vol. II, pp. 239 sqq., Paris 1912. Chalcedon does not represent Christ’s own teaching, but merely the upshot of philosophical speculation/’ 22 cannot stand in the light of our Lord’s self-assertion,23 which substantially agrees with the doctrine of the Apostles, the Fathers, and the Councils. 3. The Patristic Argument. — The Fathers of the first four centuries (there is no need of extending the argument beyond 431) condemned the heresy of Nestorius before it was broached. To bring out their teaching effectively we shall consider it (a) as the simple testimony of Tradition, and (b) in its deeper speculative bearings. a) The ante-Ephesine Fathers testify to the traditional belief of Primitive Christianity in the dogma of the Hypostatic Union whenever, in their characteristic simple language, they ascribe divine attributes to the man Christ, or human attributes to the Divine Logos, and insist on the inseparable unity of Jesus against any and all attempts to make it appear that there are two persons in Him. a) ” Hypostatic Union ” as a technical term is foreshadowed in the writings of the Fathers long before 22Cfr. H. P. Liddon, The Di- pp. 291 sqq., Paderborn 191 1. The trinity of Our Lord and Saviour Christological teaching of St. Paul Jesus Christ, pp. 229 sqq., London, is exposed with great acumen and Oxford, and Cambridge 1867; H. very fully by Prat, La Thiologie de Felder, O. M. Cap., Jesus Christus, Saint Paul, Vol. II. Apologie seiner Messianitat und 28 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, EnCottheit gegen&ber der neuesten un- chiridion, n. 2031. glaubigen Jesus-Forschung, Vol. I, Nestorius. Pre-eminent among the so-called Apostolic Fathers in this respect is St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107), who says: “One is the physician, both bodily and spiritual [i. e. divine], begotten and unbegotten, God existing in the flesh,24 both of Mary and of God, capable of suffering and yet impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord.” 25 It was plainly on the supposition of the Hypostatic Union that St. Melito of Sardes spoke of ” God suffering at the hands of the Israelites.” 26 Of great importance is the teaching of St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 202), from which we extract four leading propositions. He declares: (1) That one and the same person is both God and man. “Si enitn alter quidetn passus est, alter autem itnpassibilis mansit, et alter quideftn natus est, alter vero in eum qui natus est descendit et rursus reliquit eum, non unus, sed duo monstrantur… . Unutn autem eum, et qui natus est et qui passus est, novit apostolus: ipse est Verbum Dei, ipse unigenitus a Patre, Christus Iesus Dominus noster” 27 Whence it follows (2) that God is man and the man Jesus is true God : ” Verbum caro erit, Filius Dei Alius hominis … et hoc foetus quod et nos, Deus fortis est et inenarrabile habet genus.”2* It follows further (3) that the Word Incarnate possesses human as well as divine attributes: ” Verbum Dei suo sanguine nos redemit et in Eucharistia calicem suum sanguinem, panem suum corpus 29 confirniavit.” 80 And lastly (4) that the union of Godhead and manhood in Christ must be conceived as hypostatic. For, as Irenaeus points out, St. John Himself refuted the ” blasphemae regulae quae dividunt Dominum ex altera 24 & vapid yevSfievos Qe6s, 27 Adv. Haer., Ill, 16, 9. 25 Bp. ad Eph., VII, 2. 28 Ibid., IV, 33, 11. 26 Fragm. 8 (Migne, P. C, V, 20 al/ia tdtov,

et altera substantia [i. e. hypostasi] dicerites eum factum:’ 81 Substantially the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union was also taught by St. Gregory of Nazianzus. He writes : ” If any one introduces two sons, the one of God the Father, and the other of the mother, but does not [acknowledge them to be] one and the same, he shall forfeit the adoptive sonship which has been promised to those who have the true faith. For though there are two natures, the divine and the human, there are not two sons.” 32 Among the older Latin writers the dogma of the Hypostatic Union was most concisely formulated by Tertullian. ” Videmus duplicem statum [i. e. naturam] non conjusum, sed coniunctum in una persona, Deum et hominem lesum.” 83 St. Ambrose has a beautiful passage on the Person of Christ : ” Non enim alter ex Patre, alter ex virgine” he says, ” sed idem aliter ex Patre, aliter ex virgine/’ 84 Similarly St. Augustine : ” Nunc vero ita inter Deum et homines mediator [Christus] apparuit, ut in unitate personae copulans utramque naturam et solita sublimaret insolitis et insolita solitis temperaret.” 85 As the above-quoted Patristic texts show, Irenaeus and Tertullian employed the later ecclesiastical formula “in unitate personae” (= Hypostatic Union) even before St. Augustine. Hippolytus 86 at least foreshadowed Zllbid., Ill, 16, 6. Cfr. Franzelin, De I near n., thes. 18. 32 Bp. ad Cledon., I. 83 Confr. Prax., c. 27. Cfr. J. F. Bethune-Baker, ” Tertullian’s Use of Substantia, Natura, and Persona/* in the Journal of Theol. Studies, Vol. IV (1902-3), pp. 440 sqq. 84 De Incarn., V, 5. 35 Ep.t 137, III, 9 (Migne, P. L., XXXIII, 519). Cfr. Petavius, De Incarn., Ill, 11; J. Schwetz, Theol. Dogmat., Vol. II, pp. 371 sqq., Vindobonae 1880. 86 Died about the year 236. 5- ‘^Ji it when, misconceiving the essence of the Most Holy Trinity, he said : ” For neither was the Logos without His flesh87 and in Himself the perfect only-begotten Son, although He was the perfect Logos, nor could the flesh subsist88 apart from the Logos, because it had its subsistence 88 in the Logos.* 40 A most valuable witness is Epiphanius,41 who in developing his * theory of the Incarnation ” says : ” The Logos has united l^ody and spiritual soul in one unity and one spiritual Hypostasis.” 42 The meaning of this proleptic expression is made clear by a famous parallel passage, which not only contains the significant term Woo-T^aavra, but distinctly accentuates the absence of a human personality in Christ. ” We do not,” writes Epiphanius, ” introduce two Christs or two kings and sons of God, but the same God and the same man. Not as if the Logos dwelled in the man, but because He wholly became man … the Word was made flesh. He does not say, ’ The flesh became God/ because he wished to emphasize above all things that the Logos descended from Heaven and took on flesh from the womb of the Blessed Virgin,48 and in a most perfect manner incorporated into Himself a complete human nature.” 44 As witnesses to Primitive Tradition we may also regard those among the Fathers who employ the term faapfe as a synonym for wrooroo-w. Thus St. Athanasius: ” Unum esse Christum secundum indeficientem existen87 AaapKos. hu-rnra kqlX fxiav xyevfiartK^v 42 Haeres., 20, n. 4 (Migne, P. G., a&pevov* Haer., 77, 29 (Migne, XLI, 277)1 ovptv&rat e/r plav P* G., XLII, 685). 88 VTOOTavai* 89

tiatn [i. e. subsistentiam],4* ut unus sit utr unique y perfectus secundum omnia Deus it homo idem.” 46 No further proof is needed to show that the Fathers who flourished before the Third General Council, inculcated the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union and prepared the technical terminology subsequently adopted by the Church. P) The argument from Tradition derives special weight from the matter-of-fact references made by the Fathers to the ecclesiastical symbolum, which, because based upon the “Apostles’ Creed/’ was regarded as the most powerful bulwark against Christological heresies.47 The Council of Ephesus (A. D. 431) refused to draw up a special symbolum against Nestorius48 on the express ground that his heretical teaching was sufficiently refuted by the Nicene Creed. In matter of fact the profession of faith in “the only-begotten Son of God, conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified, dead, and buried ” 49 embodies an overwhelming argument for the personal unity of Christ, inasmuch as all these human predicates are attributed directly to the ” Son of God,” not to the man Jesus. While the Latin translations do not specially stress the ” unity ” of Christ, the Oriental creeds all, or nearly all, «/ca0* titapiiv dveknri}. 47 Cfr. Rufinus, Comment, in 46 Contr. Apollin., I, 16 (Migne, Symbol., 3 sqq. P. G.t XXVI, 1 1 24). On Athana- 4BNon esse fidem alteram consiiis’ rare use of the term Hypos- scribendam. Synod. Ephes. Act., tasis see Newman, Select Treatises VI. of St. Athanasius, Vol. II, p. 158, 49 Cfr. Dcnzinger-Bannwart, En9th impression, London 1903. chiridion, n. x sqq. contain the typical locution : ck eva Kuptov ‘Iiqaovv Xpiorov, — a formula plainly directed against the oft-repeated attempts, dating from the time of Cerinthus, to ” dissolve ” Jesus Christ into two different and distinct persons, viz.: the Son of God and the man Jesus in whom the Logos indwells.50 In opposition to this heretical doctrine, as taught, e. g., by the Patripassionist Noetus, the presbyters of Smyrna solemnly emphasized the teaching of their symbol: “Eva Xpurrbv exofiev — We have one Christ. St. Epiphanius, to whom we are indebted for our knowledge of this incident,51 also reports the instructive fact that the Eastern bishops demanded of their catechumens an elaborate profession of faith in the unipersonality of Christ, thereby rejecting in advance the Nestorian as well as the Monophysite heresy. This creed contains such passages as the following : ” We believe … in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from God the Father, … who incorporated in a sacred union the flesh, not in some other man, but in Himself.52 … For the Word was made flesh, not by undergoing a transformation, or by changing His Divinity into humanity… . For the Lord Jesus Christ is one and not two, the same God, the same King.” 53 b) A still better view of the primitive ecclesiastical Tradition can be obtained from those passages of Patristic literature which professedly discuss and explain the dogma that there is but one person in Christ. 50 Cf r. x John IV, 3 : ” Et omnis 52 e/, iavrbv a&pica &var&spiritus, qui solvit Iesum, ex Deo aavra els fiLav iylav Mrtira. non est — And every spirit that dis- 53 Epiph., Ancoratus, V, n. 12. solveth Jesus, Is not of God.” Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, EnchiriMHaer., 57. dion, n. 13. For a fuller discussion o) In voicing their firm belief in the Son of Mary as Son of God, and therefore true God,64 not a few of the Fathers point out an absurd inference that flows inevitably from the teaching of Nestorius, to wit: If (as Nestorius alleged) there were two Hypostases in Christ, the Divine Trinity would consist of four Persons. Thus the African Bishops, including St. Augustine, compelled the Gallic monk Leporius, who, besides propagating the Pelagian heresy, was also a precursor of Nestorianism, to abjure the doctrine of a twofold personality in Christ on the ground that it would introduce a fourth person into the Trinity.55 P) It was quite natural for the Fathers to seek out points of similarity between Christ the Godman and the Blessed Trinity. In developing these analogies, several Patristic writers describe the relation between nature and person in Christ as the opposite of that existing between the Godhead and the Three Divine Hypostases. In the Trinity, they say, there are * three Hypostases (or Persons) in one absolute unity of nature,* whereas in Christ there is ” only one Hypostasis or Person as against two complete natures.” The Council of Ephesus quoted St. Gregory Nazianzen 56 as follows : ” Aliud quidem et aliud sunt ea, ex quibus Salvator, … non tamen alius et alius, absit. Ambo enim haec connexione 57 unum sunt, Deo nimirum humanitatem atque homine divinitaof this point consult Franzelin, De soli Deo demus, et seorsum quae Verbo Incarnato, thes. 17; Stentrup, sunt hominis soli homini reputemus, Christologia, Vol. I, thes. 12. quart am manifestissime inducimus 54 V. supra, Part I, Chapter 1. in Trinitate personam et de uno 55 * Quartam se subintroducere in Filio Dei non unum, sed facere inTrinitate personam/’ — In his re- cipimus duos Christos.* {Lib ell. tractation, composed about the year Emend at, ad Episc. Gall., n. 5.) 418, Leporius declares: “Si ergo 56 St. Gregory of Nazianzus died ita hominem cum Deo natum esse about 390. dicamus, ut seorsum quae Dei sunt 57 avyKpdff€i0 tern suscipiente.** … Porto aliud et aliud dico, contra quam in Trinitate res habet: illic enitn alius atque alius, ne personas confundamus, non autem aliud atque aliud, quoniam tria quoad divinitatem unutn et idem sunt.” 69 y) The sarcastic objection of certain Pagan and Jewish writers, that the Christians ” adored a crucified man as divine ” and ” degraded the immutable God ” to the leveI~of a ” mutable man born of a woman,” was met by the Fathers with the declaration that Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, is not merely a man, but also true God, and that He is consequently both God and man by virtue of a miraculous and incomprehensible union. Pliny, in his well-known letter to the Emperor Trajan, says: ” They [the Christians] confessed that they used to assemble together before dawn to say prayers to Christ as their God.60 …” The notorious scoffer Lucian railed : ” Their chief lawgiver [Christ] has persuaded them that they were all brethren, one of another, as soon as they had gone over, i. e., renounced the Greek gods and adored that crucified sophist and live according to his laws.” 61 The philosopher Celsus reproaches the Christians as follows : ” God is good, beautiful, blessed, most magnificent and beautiful of form. But if he would descend to men, he must change Himself and become bad instead of good, 58 Qeov fit* lvo.vBpiaiH\ao.vr%%i irdpunrov & $€

ugly instead of beautiful, unhappy instead of happy, the worst instead of the best.” 62 4. Patristic and Conciliar Formulas. — By way of deepening and strengthening the argument from Tradition we will devote a few pages to an explanation of the various formulas employed by the Fathers before the Council of Ephesus, and by some of the later councils, to elucidate the dogma of the Hypostatic Union. a) One of the most popular of these formulas was the following: “Between (Christ’s) divinity and (His) humanity there exists a substantial, physical, natural union.” 63 This formula was not, of course, coined in the interest of Monophysitism, but merely to express the truth that the constituent elements of Christ (termini ex quibus, t. e., His Divinity and humanity) are substances, and that the result of their union (terminus qui) is a substantial, 62 Quoted by Origen, Contr. Cel- is called, is a rough sketch, traced sum, IV, 14. On the arguments, in all probability by the hand of based upon the ” Hypostatic Union,” some pagan slave in one of the of Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Arno- earliest years of the third century bius, Origen, Lactantius, Cyril of of our era. Cfr. also H. P. Liddon, Alexandria (against Julian the The Divinity of Our Lord and SaApostate), cfr. Maranus, De Di- viour Jesus Christ, pp. 593 sqq. ; vinit, Jesu Christi, II, 2; III, 2-4. C. M. Kaufmann, Handbuch der On the caricature of the Cruci- christlichen Archaologie, pp. 254 fixion discovered A. D. 1856 beneath sqq., Paderborn 1905; P. J. Chandthe ruins of the Palatine palace, lery, S. J., Pilgrim-Walks in Rome, (the figure on the cross bears an 2nd ed., p. 216, London 1905; H. ass’s head, before which stands a Grisar, History of Rome and the Christian in the posture of adora- Popes, Vol. Ill, p. 71, London 19 12. tion), see Garrucci, 11 Crocifisso «3 Unio substantial, physica, seGraffito, Rome 1857. The “Graffito cundum naturam — (poxtis kclt’ blasfemo,” as this caricature of ovalav, kclto,

U.VITY IX DUALITY physical unity. Thus Justin Martyr calls Christ Smyrna iu>f4«$irrm, tuu mSpwv yaro/un*,** meaning that the Logos a turned human nature after the manner of a substantial form, Gregory Xazianzen exclaims: “If any one says that the Godhead was operative in Him [Christ] as in a prophet in mode of grace,** but was not united with Him and does not unite with Him** substantially ** let him be devoid of every higher inspiration… . Let him who worships not the Crucified, be anathema.” ** St. John of Damascus, who was no doubt the most authoritative interpreter of the teaching of the Greek Fathers, explains the true bearing of this formula against Monophysitic misconstructions as follows: “We call it a substantial,** that is a true and not an apparent union. Substantial, not as if two natures had coalesced into one single, composite nature, but because they are united in the one composite Hypostasis of the Son of God.” 70 b) Another formulation of the same truth, and one which admitted of no misunderstanding, was “Vcrbum naturam humanam fecit suatn propriatn,” f. e.t The Logos made human nature entirely His own. The meaning of this formula is thus explained by St. Cyril: “Sicut suum cuique nostrum corpus est proprium, eodem modo ctiam Unigcniti corpus proprium Mi trot ft Hon altcrius.”11 St. Athanasius (d. 373) elucidates it as follows: “Errant docentes, alium esse qui •« Afiolt I, n. 5, On the Chris* 67 gar* oMar, toloty of St. Justin see Tixeront, 68 £/». ad Cledon., I. History it/ Dogmas, Vol. I, pp. sis *»otat

passus est Filius, et aliutn qui passus non est; non est enim alius praeter ipsum Verbum quod mortem et passionem suscepit… . Formam servi ipsum Verbum suam propriam fecit physicd generatione … et caro facta est secundum naturam propria Deo; non quasi caro consubstantialis esset divinitati Verbi vdut coaeterna, sed ei secundum naturam propria facta est et indivisa per unionem (iBia Kara vaiv ycvoftcny Kal aSta/pero? Kara iwaiv) ex semine David et Abraham et Adam, ex quo et nos progeniti sumus… . Consubstantiale (o/aoowwov) enim et impassibile et immortale cum consubstantiali non habet unitatem secundum hypostasin, sed secundum naturam, secundum hypostasin vero exhibet propriam perfectionem (T€Xet6rqra = totietatem in se)… . Si Filium et Spiritum S. ita dicitis Patri consubstantialem sicut carnem pas sxbil em, … vel inviti quaternitatem pro Trinitate inducitis, docentes carnem esse Trinitati consubstantialem/’ 72 This is a dogmatic locus classicus of prime importance. Its salient points may be paraphrased as follows: (1) The union of divinity and humanity is conceived after the manner of an intussusception of humanity by the Divine Logos, — actively, by virtue of ” physical generation from the seed of David and Abraham and Adam,” 78 formally, by virtue of a ” physical and inseparable union.” (2) The ” physical union ” thus consummated does not, however, result in consubstantiality of the flesh with the Godhead (which would be Monophysitism), but is based on an ” unitas secundum hypostasin,” which attains its climax in the TcXaSr/p and excludes the preposterous inference that there are in Christ two Sons, one who suffers, and another who does not suffer.74 (3) Disregard of this im72 Contr. Apollin., I, 12 (Migne, 78 V. supra, p. 58 aq. P. G., XXVI, 1 1 13). 7* V. supra, p. 97 aq. 8 io8 UNITY IN DUALITY portant consideration would involve the error of Tetradism, which is destructive of the Trinity.75 This definition of the Hypostatic Union as an appropriation of humanity by the Logos accurately expresses the true meaning of the mystery of the Incarnation, and it need not surprise us, therefore, to find it in vogue even after the classic formula unio secundum hypostasin had been definitively fixed by the Church.76 c) A third formula, employed almost exclusively by St. Cyril, and found hardly anywhere before his time, reads: “Una natura Verbi inCQVflQtO, (f1^* ^ tov Aoyov (J€aapKfUvrj^ J9 Cardinal Newman explains this formula as follows: ” I. vai9 is the Divine Essence, substantial and personal, in the fulness of its attributes — the One God. And, tov Aoyov being added, it is that One God, considered in the Person of the Son. 2. It is called /ua (1) because, even after the Incarnation, it and no other nature is, strictly speaking, ?&a, His own, the flesh being * assumpta’ ; (2) because it, and no other, has been His from the first; and (3) because it has ever been one and the same, in nowise affected as to its perfection by the Incarnation. 3. It is called aeaapK^fiivrj in order to express the dependence, subordination, and restriction of His humanity, which (a) has neither fftefwvucov nor personality ; (b) has no distinct mdnys, though it involved a 75 V. supra, p. 103. such an important role at the Coun76 It recurs in the numerous cil of Chalcedon (A. D. 451), and writings of St. Cyril, in the decrees especially in the decrees of the of the Council of Ephesus (Can. 11, Sixth Ecumenical Council held at apud Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri- Constantinople, A. D. 680, against dion, n. 123), In the famous Epis- the Monothelites. (Cfr. Denzingertulo Dogmatica ad Flavian urn of Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 291.) Pope Leo the Great, which played new yiwrpn

no UNITY IN DUALITY figment of “two independently subsisting natures,” which would involve a dualism of persons in Christ. A fusion of both natures into one (/u’a) v(f

PATRISTIC FORMULAS in Christus foetus est, sed ex huiusmodi vocibus unatn naturatn sive substantia™, deitatis et carnis Christi81 introduces conatur, talis anathema sit/’ 82 d) A fourth formula expresses the truth that there is but one personality in Christ in these terms: *Duae naturae ratione tantum (*ti

UNITY IN DUALITY A. D. 680: * Utramque naturam unius eiusdemque Dei Verbi incarnati, i. e. humanati, inconfuse, inseparabiliter, incommutabiliter esse cognovimus, sold intelligentid 86 quae unita sunt discernentes …: aequaliter enim et divisionis [Nestorii] et commixtionis [Eutychetis] detestamur errorem!9 87 e) A fifth formula, which was employed chiefly against Apollinaris, ran as follows: “Verbum assumpsit carnem mediant e anima” 88 This formula expresses the dogma of the Hypostatic Union in so far as it describes the Logos as “assuming” flesh animated by a rational soul (i. e., a true and complete human nature), into the Divine Person. The Athanasian Creed enunciates the same truth in almost identical terms: “Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God; One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of Person.” f) The sixth formula is the classical one: “Unio naturarum hypostatica sen secundum hypostasin (*°>F Mora™)/9 which has been generally received as a test and touchstone of Catholic belief since the Council of Chalcedon. It was framed against the errors of both Nestorianism M yMvyn vofoei. 88 For an explanation of its mean87 Hardouin, Coll. Cone, t. Ill, ing see supra, p. 57 sq. p. 1079. Cfr. Petavius, De Incarnatione, IV, 10; VI, 9. THE TERM HYPOSTASIS 113 and Monophysitism. Against Nestorianism it upholds the physical and substantial, in contradistinction to a purely moral and accidental union of the two natures in Christ. Against Monophysitism it denies any fusion or mixture of the two natures. Hence the union between Godhead and manhood in Christ must be conceived as strictly personal or “hypostatic/’ L e., not as a moral but as a physical union of person. The definitive fixation of the synodal term Wootcuns to denote the Person of Christ in contradistinction to His twofold ovoxa or

UNITY IN DUALITY have no evidence of wrooroaw being used in the sense of substantia prima (ovata irpwrrj), I. e. an individual.92 In the Epistles of St Paul tmoaraais never occurs in the sense of ” person ” or ” substance,” but only in that of ” foundation ” or ” basis,” or at most, ” essence.” 98 Up to the Nicene Council vwoaiwns in ecclesiastical usage was synonymous with owta.M Even St. Augustine confessed his ignorance of any difference in meaning between the two terms.98 But the vagaries of Trinitarian and Christological heretics soon made it imperative to draw a sharp distinction between substantia prima (owria irpTrj) and substantia secunda (oMa Scvripa). This led to the choice of viroorooif for substantia prima, with special emphasis upon the notes of inseitas and integritas, and particularly upon that of perseitas. Thus originated the technical term Hypostasis, which, when applied to rational beings, is equivalent to Person.96 Nestorius no doubt attached the same technical meaning to the word wrooroaw as we do to-day; else why should he have so stubbornly rejected the phrase yia viroorao-tt, while he was quite willing to accept %v irpoaamovl His opponent St. Cyril, however, was not so consistent in his use of the term; he repeatedly employs it as synonymous with ucrt$. 54): i£ Mpas iticoeT&aews 1j THE TERM HYPOSTASIS 115 For this same reason it is probable that cvoxrw kclP wroaraaivy98 found in the decrees of the Council of Ephesus, means “physical,” i. e., substantial, rather than ” hypostatic ” union, though objectively, no doubt, the phrase embodies an expression of belief in the personal unity of our Lord. This ambiguity in the use of the term continued up to the Council of Chalcedon (A. D. 451), which employed Woorcuns and wpoawrov as synonyms, thus rendering the Nestorian distinction between fiia wrooraais and cv irpovwrov meaningless.” Finally, the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (A. D. 553) rejected the phrase Bvo vTrooraacw rjroi Bvo wpoatoira, and expressly defined the union of the two natures in Christ as strictly hypostatic (unitio secundum subsistentiam ) .10° Readings : — Garnerius, De Haeresi et Libris Nestorii (Migne, P. L., XLVIII, 1089 sqq.).— J. Kopallik, Cyrillus von Alexandrien, Mainz 1881. — Funk-Cappadelta, A Manual of Church History, Vol. I, pp. 154 sqq., London 1910. — Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. 361 sq., 369, 641.— T. Gilmartin, A Manual of Church History, Vol. I, pp. 267 sqq.* 3rd ed., Dublin 1909. — L. Fendt, Die Christologie des Nestorius, Kempten 1910. — BethuneBaker, Nestorius and His Teaching, London 1908. — F. Nau, Le Livre de Heraclide de Damas, Paris 1910.— Loofs, Nestoriana, Halle 1905.— Ph. Kuhn, Die Christologie Leos I, d. Gr., Wiirzburg 1894. 08 V. supra, p. 90. The Arians of the Fourth Century, 00 V. supra, p. 87 sq. pp. 186, 432 sqq.; Idem, Select 100 V. supra, p. no sq. Cfr. Treatises of St. Athanasius, Vol. II, Janssens, De Deo-Homine, I, pp. pp. 426 sqq., 454 sqq. On the for123 sqq.; Pctavius, De Incorn., VI, tunes of certain parallel terms ap17; Newman, Tracts Theological and plied to the Blessed Trinity consult Ecclesiastical, pp. 333 sqq. On the Pohle-Preuss, The Divine Trinity, terms ousia and hypostasis, as used pp. 224 sqq., 271 sqq. in the early Church, see Newman,