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 ^ and Theodore of Mop- suestia, who has been called a "Nestorius before Nestorius." ^ Nestorianism was anathematized by the Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephe- sus, 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 Mop- suestia, were condemned by the Fifth Ecumen- ical Council of Constantinople (A. D. 553) under the name of the Three Chapters.^
1 Died about 394. On Diodorus Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. see Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, 318 sqq.
pp. 315 sqq. 3 Cfr. Leveque, Etude 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
90 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 : ( i ) Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Mary, is a different per- son 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 " (deifer, 6eo(f>6pos), or God in a figurative sense, like as Moses was called " the god of Pharao." (3) It follows that the Divine Logos is united with the man Jesus not by way of a physical union (evwo-w — Ka6' vTrocrramv) , but by a merely external, accidental, moral union ( quently, the Incarnation must be defined, not as an as- sumption of manhood by God, but simply as an indwelling of the Logos (cvoiKj^o-is) in the man Jesus. (4) It fol- lows further that Mary is not the " Mother of God " (^coTo/cos), but merely the mother of a man (avOpwrro- TOKos), and should therefore properly be called Mother of Christ (xpLiTTOTOKo^) ; the term " Mother of God " can be applied to her only in a metaphorical sense, inasmuch as she was 6eo86xo 6po rius repeatedly referred to this synthesis of the Person of the Divine Logos with the human person of Christ as ?v Trpoa-wTTov, but he meant one moral or juridical person composed of two different hypostases, as Is apparent
NESTORIANISM 91
from the fact that he consistently rejected the term fxla
VTTOCTTaatS.*
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.^ " If we except Athanasius," observes Bardenhewer, " none of the other Greek Fathers exercised so far- reaching 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 ex- pression of Christian faith." • As the champion of the true faith against the Nestorians, St. Cyril was com- missioned by Pope Celestine I. to preside over the Third General Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431. His twelve anathematisms against Nestorius ^ were approved by that Council as " canonical," i. e., as articles of faith, and Nestorius himself was deposed and excommunicated. The word 6€ot6ko torian 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 ofioovmov expresses the true doctrine con- cerning His Divinity. The first of St. Cyril's anathema-
4 Cfr. Marius Mercator (Migne, 7 The reader will find the text (in P. L., XLVIII). On Nestorius' Greek and Latin) of these anathe- life cfr. Nau, Nestorius, pp. v sqq., matisms in Alzog-Pabisch-Byrne, Paris 1910. On a new view of his Manual of Universal Church His- teaching, see Appendix, infra, pp. tory. Vol. I, pp. 596 sq., where 296 sq. there is also a good account of the
5 He died June 27, 444. Council of Ephesus. Cfr. Denzin-
6 Bardenhewer- Shahan, Patrology, ger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 113 p. 362. sqq.
92 UNITY IN DUALITY
tisms (or Canon i) reads: "Si quis non confitetur Deum esse veraciter Emmanuel et propterea Dei geni- tricem ^ sanctam Virginem: — peperit enim secundum carnem carnem factum Dei Verbum,^ 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 subsistentiam ^" unitum Dei Patris Verbum, unumque esse Christum cum propria came, eundem scil. Deum simid et hominem,^^ 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 anathe- matisms (or canons) condemn the Nestorian errors in de- tail.
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.
8 OtorSKOP- 10 Ka6' iwdaraffiv, «'• e., hypo-
0 ffipKa yeyopdra rhv iK 0eo«5 statically. A6yov. 11 t6p avrbv 5r}\ov6Ti Qein dftov
Kal &vOpurrov.
THE HYPOSTATIC UNION PROVED 93
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 ^^ and true man.^^ Now the Christ who is true God is identical with the Christ who is true man. Consequently, both classes of attri- butes belong equally to one and the same person, i. e., the Godman Jesus Christ. In other words, there are not two persons sharing the divine and the human attributes between them in such man- ner 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 hypo- statically 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.
a) The most pregnant sentence in the Gospels is undoubtedly John I, 14: "Et Verbum caro
factum est koL b Ao'yos aap^ eye'vcro And the
Word was made flesh." Who is the subject of the predicate phrase: "was made flesh"? It is
12 Cfr. svpra. Part I, Chapter i. 13 Cfr. sHpra, Part I, Chapter 2.
94 UNITY IN DUALITY
the "Logos/' whom we have shown to be the Son of God, Himself true God, the Second Per- son of the Divine Trinity." This Logos was made flesh, i. e., became man. Consequently, the one Incarnate Logos is both God and man, and therefore Godman (^OedvOpw-n-osy
And what is the meaning of the word cye'vero? 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 learn- ing 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 posi- tively excludes a creatural beginning or any transub- stantiation 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 In- carnation, 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 sub- stantial 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
liCfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Divine Trinity, pp. 49 sqq.
THE HYPOSTATIC UNION PROVED 95
human nature results in one Divine Person possessing two distinct natures. This is what theologians call the Hy- postatic Union.
P) The teaching of St. Paul agrees with that of St. John. Witness the following passage from Phil. II, 6 sq. : ". . . qui qiiiim in forma Dei ^^ esset, non rapinam arbitratus est esse se aequalem Deo,^^ sed semetipsum exinanivit for- mam servi accipiens,^^ in similitudinem hominum f actus et habifu inventus tit 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 serv^ant, 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 : ( i ) That He was "in the form of God," which means that He was consubstantial with God, and therefore Himself God; ^^ and (2) that He "took the form of a servant" and was in con- sequence thereof "found as man." Here we have a clear assertion of the Incarnation of God, which, according to St. Paul, involves self-abasement (exinanitio, iccvtinns). 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 in- trinsically impossible, and, besides, verse 11 of
15 ^y fiop ^ Oeov, 18 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Divine
1* t6 elvai laa Gew. Trinity, pp. 6i sq.
IT fu}p ^v 5ovXoi' \a^ip.
96 UNITY IN DUALITY
the same chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians reads : "The Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father." ^^ Consequently the phrase "God . . . emptied himself" can only mean that He who was God "took ^^ the form of a servant," i. e., assumed human nature, inas- much 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.^^
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. No. 19; F. J. Hall (an American
20 Accipiens, \a^uv. Anglican divine), The Kenotic The-
21 On the Kenosis see P. J Toner, " The Modern Kenotic The cry," in the Irish Theological Quar terly, Vol. I (1906), Nos. i and 2
' Kenosis ' According to St. Luke,'
ory, New York 1898; A. Tanquerey, S. S., Synopsis Theol. Dogmat., II, n. 116; M. Waldhauser, Die Kcnose und die modcrne protestantische
W. T. C. Sheppard, O. S. B., "The Christologie, Mainz 1912; F. Prat,
S. J., La Thiologie de Saint Paul,
in the same review, Vol. V (1910), Vol. II, pp. 339 sqq., Paris 1912.
THE HYPOSTATIC UNION PROVED 97
Chalcedon does not represent Christ's own teach- ing, but merely the upshot of philosophical specu- lation," -- cannot stand in the light of our Lord's self-assertion,^^ 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 Tradi- tion, 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 at- tempts to make it appear that there are two persons in Him.
a) " Hypostatic Union " as a technical term is fore- shadowed in the writings of the Fathers long before
22 Cfr. H. P. Liddon, The Di- pp. 291 sqq., Paderbom 191 1. The
vinity of Our Lord and Sainour 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 Theologie de
Felder, O. M. Cap., Jesus Christus, Saint Paul. Vol. II.
Apologie seiner Messianitat und 23 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, £«-
Gottheit gegenuber der neuesten un- chiridion, n, 2031. glaubigen Jesus-Forschung, Vol. I,
98 UNITY IN DUALITY
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,^* both of Mary and of God, capable of suffering and yet impassible, J6sus Christ our Lord." -^ It was plainly on the supposition of the Hy- postatic Union that St. Melito of Sardes spoke of " God suffering at the hands of the Israelites." ^"
Of great importance is the teaching of St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 202), from which we extract four leading propositions. He declares : ( i ) That one and the same person is both God and man. "Si enim alter quidem passus est, alter autem impassibilis mansit, et alter qui- dem natus est, alter vera in eum qui natus est descendit et rursus reliquit eum, non unus, sed duo monstrantur. . . . Unum autem eum, et qui natus est et qui passus est, novit apostolus: ipse est Verhum Dei, ipse unigenitus a Patre, Christus lesus Dominus noster." ^'' Whence it follows (2) that God is man and the man Jesus is true God : " Verhum caro erit, Filius Dei Ulius hominis . . . et hoc foetus quod et nos, Deus fortis est et inenarrabile habet genus." '^^ It follows further (3) that the Word Incarnate possesses human as well as divine attributes: " Verhum Dei suo sanguine nos redemit et in Eucharistia calicem suum sanguinem, panem suum corpus ^® confirma- vit." ^° 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 " hlasphemae regulae quae dividunt Dominum ex altera
2* iv aapKl yevSfievos Qe6s. 27 Adv. Haer., Ill, 16, 9.
26 Ep. ad Eph., VII, 2. ' 26 Ibid., IV, 33, 11.
26 Fragm. 8 (Migne, P. G., V, 20 alua tSiov^ ffufxa tSioy.
%a2i). 80 Ibid., V, 2, 2.
THE HYPOSTATIC UNION PROVED 99
et altera substantia [i. e. hypostasi] dicentes eum fac- tum" 31
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 [ac- knowledge 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 na- tures, the divine and the human, there are not two sons." '-
Among the older Latin writers the dogma of the Hy- postatic Union was most concisely formulated by Tertul- lian, " Videmus duplicem statum [t. e. naturam] non confusum, sed coniunctum in una persona, Deum et hominem lesum." ^^
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." ^^
Sirriilarly St. Augustine : " Nunc vero ita inter Dcum et homines mediator [Christus] apparuit, ut in unitate personae copulans utramque naturam et solita sublimaret insolitis et insolita solitis temperaret." ^^
As the above-quoted Patristic texts show, Irenseus and Tertullian employed the later ecclesiastical formula "in unitate personae" (= Hypostatic Union) even be- fore St. Augustine. Hippolytus ^® at least foreshadowed
silWrf., Ill, 16, 6. Cfr. Franze- ZiDe Incom., V, 5.
lin, De Incarn., thes. 18. 35 £/>., 137, HI, 9 (Migne, P. L.,
32 £^ ad Cledon., I. XXXIII, 519). Cfr. Petavius, De
33 Contr. Prax., c 27. Cfr. J. F. Incarn., Ill, 1 1 ; J. SchweU, Theol. Bethune-Baker, " Tertullian's Use Dogmat., Vol. II, pp. 371 sqq., of Substantia, Natura, and Per- Vindobonae 1880.
sona," in the Journal of Theol. 36 Died about the year 236.
StudUs, Vol. IV (1902-3), pp. 440
sqq.
lOO UNITY IN DUALITY
it when, misconceiving the essence of the Most Holy Trinity, he said : " For neither was the Logos without His flesh ^^ and in Himself the perfect only-begotten Son, although He was the perfect Logos, nor could the flesh subsist ^^ apart from the Logos, because it had its subsistence ^® in the Logos." *•*
A most valuable witness is Epiphanius,*^ who in de- veloping his " theory of the Incarnation " says : " The Logos has united body and spiritual soul in one unity and one spiritual Hypostasis." ^^ The meaning of this prolep- tic expression is made clear by a famous parallel passage, which not only contains the significant term vTroarrjaavTa, but distinctly accentuates the absence of a human person- ality in Christ. " We do not," writes Epiphanius, " intro- duce 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 be- came 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,^' and in a most perfect manner incorporated into Himself a complete human nature." **
As witnesses to Primitive Tradition we may also regard those among the Fathers who employ the term wap^w as a synonym for vTroo-rao-is. Thus St. Athanasius: " Unum esse Christum secundum indeficientem existen-
87 iffapKos, epuT7)Ta Kcl fiLav weviMariKiii^
88 viroaravat' iinSffraffiv-
89 ffvaraaiy. *8 eZs iavrbv di virovri^aavTa iOContr. No'et., 15. Ti)v ffdpKa.
41 Died about 403. ** reXelws els iavrbv dparrka-
42 Haeres., 20, n. 4 (Migne, P. C, ffdfievov. Haer., 77, 29 (Migne, XLI, 277) : iTvvevi!>aai els filav P- G., XLII, 685).
THE HYPOSTATIC UNION PROVED loi
tiam [i. e. subsistentiam],*^ ut unus sit utrumque, perfec- tus secundum omnia Deus dt homo idem!' *•
No further proof is needed to show that the Fathers who flourished before the Third General Council, incul- cated the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union and prepared the technical terminology subsequently adopted by the Church.
^) The argument from Tradition derives spe- cial weight from the matter-of-fact references made by the Fathers to the ecclesiastical sym- bolum, which, because based upon the "Apostles' Creed," was regarded as the most powerful bul- wark against Christological heresies.'*^
The Council of Ephesus (A. D. 431) refused to draw up a special symbolum against Nestorius ^^ on the ex- press ground that his heretical teaching was suffi- ciently 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 " " embodies an over- whelming argument for the personal imity of Christ, in- asmuch 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,
*5 KfxB' Svap^ip iveXiirf}, *7 Cfr. Rufinus, Comment, in
46 Contr. Apollin., I, i6 (Migne, Symbol., 3 sqq.
P. G., XXVI, 1124). On Athana- *S"Non esse fidem alteram con-
sius' rare use of the term Hypos- scribendam." Synod. Ephes. Ad.,
tasis see Newman, Select Treatises VI.
of St. Athanasius, Vol. II, p. 158,- 49 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En-
9th impression, London 1903. chiridion, n. i sqq.
102 UNITY IN DUALITY
contain the typical locution : ets ha Kvpiov 'Irjaow XpLVTov, — a formula plainly directed against the oft-repeated at- tempts, dating from the time of Cerinthus, to " dissolve " Jesus Christ into two different and distinct persons, vis.: the Son of God and the man Jesus in whom the Lo- gos indwells.^" 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: "Em Xpiarov exofitv — We have one Christ. St. Epiphanius, to whom we are indebted for our knowledge of this incident,^^ also reports the in- structive fact that the Eastern bishops demanded of their catechumens an elaborate profession of faith in the uni- personality of Christ, thereby rejecting in advance the Nestorian as well as the Monophysite heresy. This creed contains such passages as the following : " We beheve ... 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.^^ . . . For the Word was made flesh, not by undergoing a transformation, or by changing His Divinity into humanity. . . . For the Lord Jesus Qirist is one and not two, the same God, the same King." ■**
b) A still better view of the primitive eccle- siastical Tradition can be obtained from those pas- sages of Patristic literature which professedly discuss and explain the dogma that there is but one person in Christ.
BO Cfr. 1 John IV, 3 : " Et omnis B2 e/j iavrhv ffipKa dvair\i-
spiritus, qui solvit lesum, ex Deo cavra els (liav i/ylav ivdrriTa.
non est — And every spirit that dis- 63 Epiph., Ancoratus, V, n. 12.
solveth Jesus, is not of God." Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri-
61 Haer., 57. dion, n. 13. For a fuller discussion
THE HYPOSTATIC UNION PROVED 103
a) In voicing their firni belief in the Son of Mary as Son of God, and therefore true God,'* 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 H}'postases in Christ, the Divine Trinity would consist of four Per- sons. Thus the African Bishops, including St. Augus- tine, compelled the Gallic monk Leporius, who, besides propagating the Pelagian heresy, was also a precursor of Nestorianism, to abjure the doctrine of a twofold per- sonality in Christ on the ground that it would introduce a fourth person into the Trinity.^'
/8) 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 be- tween 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 H)'postasis or Person as against two complete natures." The Council of Ephesus quoted St. Gregory Nazianzen '' as follows : " Aliud quidem et aliud sunt ea, ex quibus Sahator, . . . iion tamen alms et alius, absit. Ambo enim haec connexione^'' unum sunt, Deo nimiriim humanitatem atque homine divinita-
of this point consult Franzelin, De soli Deo demus, et seorsum quae
Verba Incarnato, thes. 17; Stentrup, sunt hominis soli homini reputemus,
Christologia, Vol. I, thes. 12. quartam manifestissime inducimus
54 V. supra. Part I, Chapter i. in Trinitate personam et de uno
65 " Quartam se subintroducere in Filio Dei non unum, sed facere in-
Trinitate personam." — In his re- cipimus duos Christos." (Libell.
tractation, composed about the year Emendat. 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 67 (nr/Koaaei,
104 UNITY IN DUALITY
tern suscipiente.^^ . . . Porro aliud et aliud dico, contra quam in Trinitate res habet: illic enim alius atque alius, ne personas confundamus, non autem aliud atque aliud, quoniam tria quoad divinitatem unum et idem sunt." ***
y) The sarcastic objection of certain Pagan and Jew- ish writers, that the Christians " adored a crucified man as divine " and " degraded the immutable God " to the leveFof 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 as- semble together before dawn to say prayers to Christ as their God."*' . . ." The notorious scoffer Lucian railed: " Their chief lawgiver [Christ] has persuadtd 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." "^ The philosopher Celsus reproaches the Christians as fol- lows : " 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,
08 0eou fjikv evavdpwTTriaavT^i, not necessarily mean a poem in
dvOptbnov Be OeioOivros. measure and verse, but could sig-
59 Ep. ad Cledon., I (Migne, P. nify a liturgical dialogue. Light-
G., XXXVII, 179). Cfr. Franzelin, foot considers himself justified in
De Verba Incarnato, thes. 19. identifying with the liturgy of bap-
60 ". . . essent soliti stato die tism the scene described by Pliny,
ante lucem convenire carmenque and Batiflfol is inclined to adopt this
Christo quasi deo dicere secum in- view. Cfr. P. Batiffol, The Cred-
vicem." Ep., X, 97. (Text of ibility of the Gospel (Engl. tr. of
Pliny's letter and of Trajan's re- "Orpheus" et I'^vangile), pp. 31 sq.,
script in Kirch, Enchiridion Fon- London 19 12.
tium Hist. Eccl. Antiqu., Freiburg 81 De Morte Peregrini, 13. 1910, pp. 18 sqq.) "Carmen" does
PATRISTIC FORMULAS 105
ugly instead of beautiful, unhappy instead of happy, the worst instead of the best." "^
4. Patristic and Conciliar Formulas. — By way of deepening and strengthening the ar- gument 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) di- vinity and (His) humanity there exists a sub- stantial, physical, natural union." ®^
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 quibits, i. 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 TertuUian, 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 Sa-
Apostate), cfr. Maranus, De Di- viour Jesus Christ, pp. 593 sqq.;
vinit. lesM 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. Chand-
the 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 191 2. tion), see Garrucci, II Crocifisso 63 Unio substantialis, physica, se-
Graffito, Rome 1857. The "Graffito cundum naturam — tvwaii Kar'
blasfemo," as this caricature of ovalav^ Kara (pvaiv rj tf>vai.K-fi
the adoration of our crucified Lord oiaiw&n^^
io6 UNITY IN DUALITY
physical unity. Thus Justin Martyr calls Christ Aoyov fiopcfxiiOevTa Kai avOpwTrov yevo/xevov,^'^ meaning that the Logos assumed human nature after the manner of a substantial form. Gregory Nazianzen 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 authorita- tive interpreter of the teaching of the Greek Fathers, explains the true bearing of this formula against Mono- physitic 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." ""^
b) Another formulation of the same truth, and one which admitted of no misunderstanding, was "Verhum naturam humanam fecit suam pro- priam," i. e., The Logos made human nature en- tirely His own.
The meaning of this formula is thus explained by St. Cyril : " Sicut suiim cuique nostrum corpus est pro- prium, eodem modo etiam Unigeniti corpus proprium illi erat et non alterius." '''^ St. Athanasius (d. 373) eluci- dates it as follows : " Errant docentes, alium esse qui
84 Apol., I, n. s. On the Chris- «T kot* oialav.
tology of St. Justin see Tixeront, 68 Ep. ad Cledon., I.
History of Dogmas, Vol. I, pp. 223 60 oiiffiudr},
•q., St. Louis 1910. 10 De Fide Orth., Ill, 3. Cfr.
68 KarcL xi^tv, Petavius, De Incarn., Ill, 4.
88 (rvvijcp6al re Kal ffvpiTrrecOai- ''i Contr. Nestor., I, 1.
PATRISTIC FORMULAS 107
passus est FUius, et alium qui passus non est; non est enim alius praeter ipsum Verbum quod mortem et pas- sionem suscepit. . . . Formam servi ipsum Verhiim suam propriam fecit physicd generatione . . . et caro facta est secundum naturam propria Deo; non quasi caro consub- stantialis esset diznnitati Verbi vdut coaeterna, sed ei se- cundum naturam propria facta est et indivisa per unio- nem (i3ia Kara 'vaiv yevofievq #cai dStotpcTOS Kara evwcrtv) eX semine David et Abraham et Adam, ex quo et nos pro- geniti sumus. . . . Consubstantiale {bfxoovmov) enim et impassibile et immortaU cum consubstantiali non habet unitatem secundum hypostasin, sed secundum naturam, secundum hypostasin vero exhibet propriam perfec- tionem {T(Xu6TriTa= totietatem in se). . . . Si F ilium et Spiritum S. ita dicitis Patri consubstantialem sicut carnem passibilem, . . . vel inviti quaternitatem pro Trinitate in- ducitis, docentes carnem esse Trinitati consubstantia- lem." «
This is a dogmatic locus classicus of prime importance. Its salient points may be paraphrased as follows: (i) 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," ^^ formally, by virtue of a " physical and inseparable union." (2) The " physical union " thus consummated does not, how- ever, result in consubstantiality of the flesh with the God- head (which would be Monophysitism) , but is based on an " unitas secundum hypostasin," which attains its climax in the rtXeioTifs and excludes the preposterous inference that there are in Christ two Sons, one who suffers, and an- other who does not suffer.^* (3) Disregard of this im-
T2 Contr. Apollin., I, 12 (Migne, 73 V. supra, p. 38 sq.
P. C, XXVI, 11 13). 7iV. supra, p. 97 sq.
io8 UNITY IN DUALITY
portant consideration would involve the error of Tetra- dism, which is destructive of the Trinity/^
This definition of the Hypostatic Union as an appro- priation 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 ChurchJ'
c) A third formula, employed almost exclu- sively by St. Cyril, and found hardly anywhere before his time, reads: "Una natura Verhi in-
CttTnatd/ (/-iia v(n
Cardinal Newman explains this formula as follows: " I. sonal, in the fulness of its attributes — the One God. And, TOV Aoyov being added, it is that One God, consid- ered in the Person of the Son. 2. It is called (ila (i) because, even after the Incarnation, it and no other na- ture is, strictly speaking, tSta, 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 ataapKwixeyr] in order to express the dependence, subordination, and restriction of His humanity, which (a) has neither riye/xovLKov nor per- sonality; (b) has no distinct wott^s, though it involved a
76 V. supra, p. 103. su«h an important role at the Coun-
76 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
dioti, n. 123), in the famous Epis- the Monothelites. (Cfr, Denzinger-
tula Dogmatica ad Flavianum of Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 291-) Pope Leo the Great, which played
PATRISTIC FORMULAS 109
new yewT^cns; (c) is not possessed of the fulness of characteristics which attaches to any other specimen of our race. On which account, while it is recognized as a perfect nature, it may be spoken of as existing after the manner of an attribute rather than of a substantive being, which it really is, as in a parallel way Catholics speak of its presence in the Eucharist, though corporeal, being after the manner of a spirit." ^^
Theodoret asserts that this formula was consonant with the mode of conception and expression current in Alexandria, and for this very reason was impugned as Monophysitic by John of Antioch and others of the Antiochene school. Leontius of Byzantium tells another story. " You must know," he says,^* " that St. Cyril was the first among the orthodox to employ the phrase, * the one incarnate nature of the Divine Logos.' We say, * among the orthodox,' because Apollinaris often used the same formula, and for this reason the blessed Cyril was looked upon as an ApoUinarist by the Orien- tals. But he was not an ApoUinarist. It is unfair to reject everything that the heretics say. We should re- pudiate only that which is wrong." Had he foreseen the abuse to which this formula and his own authority were later on subjected by the Monophy sites, Cyril would no doubt have couched his teaching in clearer terms. But in the sense in which he used it, and wished others to understand it, the formula [ila vai tirely orthodox, and it was only by a gross misconstruc- tion that the Monophysitic heretics were able to twist it in favor of their false teaching of a [xovrj vaK. St. Cyril used the phrase mainly against the Nestorian
77 Newman, " On St. Cyril's For- cal. New Edition, London 1895, pp. inula fiia (piitris ffeaapKcc/ieviij " in 380 sq. Tracts Theological and Ecclesiasli- 78 De Sectis, Act. 8.
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 (/xia) foreign to his mind, as is evidenced by the addition of the word creaapKoifiivrj, to which he calls particular at- tention in his Ep. 46 ad Succensum, and also from the fact that in St. Cyril's mind natura Verhi was merely another term for Verhum subsistens in natura divina, i. e., the Divine Hypostasis of the Logos, Manifestly, therefore, by fiia vais (reaapKiafiivt] St. Cyril meant purely and solely the Incarnate Word. In the second place it must be noted that St. Cyril did not fail to defend the dogma of the inconfusion of both natures in Christ against his accusers and critics, who were numerous already during his lifetime. Thus he says in his Epi- stola ad Acac. Melit.: " Ea, ex quibus est unus Filius ac Dominus lesus Christus, consideratione complexi duas naturas dicimus unitas esse, post unitionem vera, utpote sublatd iam divisione in duos, unam credimus esse Filii naturam, utpote unius, sed inhumanati et incarnati; ^® quum vero Deus Verbum inhumanatus et incarnatu^ dicitur, procul abiiciatur conversionis suspicio; mansit enim, quod erat." It is not surprising, therefore (and this is the third point in our argument), that the for- mula fjiia the various synods subsequently held against the Mono- phy sites. Thus the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Con- stantinople (A. D. 553) defines: "Si quis . . . 'unam naturam Dei Verbi incarnatam ' dicens non sic has voces accipit, sicut Patres docuerunt, quod ex divina natura et humana, unitione secundum subsistentiam factd,^° unus
78 fulav elvai iriareiofjifii riiv tov so rijs ifuaeuis Kad' iviaraffip
Qeov (pvcrip^ its ivds^ irXiiv evav yevofiivTjs. OpuiriiaavTOs nal ae
PATRISTIC FORMULAS iii
Christus f actus est, sed ex huiusmodi vocibus tinam naturam she siibstantiam deitatis et carnis Christi^^ in- troducere conatur, talis anathema sit." ®-
d) A fourth formula expresses the truth that there is but one personaHty in Christ in these terms: "Diiae naturae ratione tantum (Kara
Oiwplav^ vo^aei^ SiaKpiaei^ distlfl gHUfltur ."
Like the preceding formulas this one too was directed against the dualistic heresy of Nestorius, and therefore the Fathers who employed it, among them St. Cyril, can- not reasonably be suspected of harboring Monophysitic errors. An authentic interpretation of the phrase ra- tione tantum was furnished by the Fifth Ecumenical Council (A. D. 553) as follows: "Si quis . . . non tantiimmodo contemplatione^^ diiferentiam eorum accipit, ex quibus et compositus est — non interemptd proprietate propter unitatem (unus enim ex utraque et per unum utraqtte) — sed propter ea numero utitur, tamquam divisas et propria subsistentid consistentes naturas habeat,^* talis anathema sit." «= How foreign the idea of identifying the two natures in Christ was to the Fathers and the councils that made use of this formula, is plain from the subjoined expression of Pope Agatho, which was read at the Sixth General Council of Constantinople,
81/i/oi' vaiv Utoi ovalav. 1895; Petavius, De Incarnatione,
82Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En- IV, 6 sqq.; Franzelin, De Verba
chiridion, n. 220. Cfr. also the Lat- Incarnalo. thes. 35; Stentrup, Chris-
eran Council of 649, held under tologia. Vol. I, thes. 47; Janssens,
Martin I (Denzinger-Bannwart, /. c, De Christo-Homine. I, pp. 214 sqq.
n. 258). For a more detailed dis- 83^^ ^g Oewpiq. liovtf
cussion of St. Cyril's formula and 84,1,5 Kexuipifffiivas Kai Idiovirt-
its fortunes consult J. H. Newman, ffrdrovs Ixet Toy 0i'ff«j
Tracts Theological and Ecclesiasti- 85 Can. 7, apud Denzi'nger-Bann-
f"'. PP- 331 sqq., new ed., London wart. Enchiridion, n. 219.
112 UNITY IN DUALITY
A. D. 680: " Utramque naturam unius eiusdemque Dei Verbi incarnati, i. e. humanati, inconfuse, mseparahiliter, incommutabiliter esse cognovimus, sold intelligentid *' quae unita sunt discernentes . . .: aequaliter enim et divisionis [Nestorii] et commixtionis [Eutychetis] de- testamur errorem." *^
e) A fifth formula, which was employed chiefly against Apollinaris, ran as follows: '*'Verhum assumpsit carnem mediante animd." ^^
This formula expresses the dogma of the Hy- postatic Union in so far as it describes the Logos as "assuming" flesh animated by a ra- tional soul {i. e., a true and complete human na- ture), into the Divine Person. The Athanasian Creed enunciates the same truth in almost iden- tical 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 seu secundum hy- postasin (^o-^' Wdo-Tao-tv)/' which has been gener- ally received as a test and touchstone of Catholic belief since the Council of Chalcedon. It was framed against the errors of both Nestorianism
80 fiSvTg vo'i)(Tei- 88 For an explanation of its mean-
87 Ilardouin, Coll, Cone, t. Ill, ing see supra, p. 57 sq.
p. 1079. Cfr. Petavius, De Incar-
natione, IV, 10; VI, 9.
THE TERM HYPOSTASIS 113
and Monophysitism. Against Nestorianism it upholds the physical and substantial, in contra- distinction to a purely moral and accidental union of' the two natures in Christ. Against Mono- physitism 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," i. e., not as a moral but as a physical union of person.
The definitive fixation of the synodal term vimaram to denote the Person of Christ in contradistinction to His twofold owrla or ^v process of development, in the course of which the word gradually changed its meaning.^* Originally vTrocrraais denoted " substructure, foundation, mire, broth." "*' In course of time the term came to be applied metaphorically to the " subject-matter " of an address, narrative, or poem : and finally it was used to designate " reality " as opposed to " semblance " or " appearance." ®^ Though the transi- tion would seem to be simple and natural enough, we
89 " Language . . . requires to be for their due enunciation ; and since refashioned even for sciences which these were not definitely supplied are based on the senses and the rea- by Scripture or by tradition, nor, son; but much more will this be the for centuries by ecclesiastical au- case, when we are concerned with thority, variety in the use, and con- subject-matters, of which, in our fusion in the apprehension of them, present state, we cannot possibly were unavoidable in the interval." form any complete or consistent con- (Newman, The Arians of the Fourth ception, such as the Catholic doc- Century, pp. 433 sq., new ed., Lon- trines of the Trinity and Incarnation. don 1901).
Since they are from the nature of 90 Cfr. Diod- Sicul., Bibliothect,
the case above our intellectual reach, XIH, 82; Aristot., Hist. Animal.,
and were unknown till the preach- 11, i.
ing of Christianity, they required »i Cfr. Aristot, Mund., IV, 21:
on their first promulgation new koO' vrdffTOaip (car* iiujxuriP.
words, or words used in new senses.
114 UNITY IN DUALITY
have no evidence of Woorao-ts being used in the sense of substantia prima (ovaia Trpwrr)), i. e. an individual.*^ In the Epistles of St. Paul Woo-rao-is never occurs in the sense of " person " or " substance," but only in that of " foundation " or " basis," or at*most, " essence." ** Up to the Nicene Council Woo-Tao-t? in ecclesiastical usage was synonymous with ovaU.^* Even St. Augustine con- fessed his ignorance of any difference in meaning between the two terms.®^
But the vagaries of Trinitarian and Christological heretics soon made it imperative to draw a sharp dis- tinction between substantia prima (oiala irpoy-rq) and sub- stantia secunda {ovaia Seurepa). This led to the choice of vTToo-Taais 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.^^ Nestorius no doubt attached the same technical meaning to the word Woo-Taaw as we do to-day; else why should he have so stubbornly rejected the phrase fxia (m-oo-Tao-is, while he was quite willing to accept ev Trpoawvov? His opponent St. Cyril, however, was not so consistent in his use of the term; he repeatedly employs it as synonymous with vaL
92 "Those who taught the Greek 95 Cfr. De Trinitate, V, 8: "I philosophy among the Greeks," ob- know not what difference they in- serves the church historian Socrates tend to put between ovaia and {Hist. Eccles., Ill, 7), " have de- V7r6aTa(n.s."
fined oiffia in different ways, but 98 For a fuller explanation of the
they made no mention of vv6- meaning of these terms see Pohle-
ffTOcrtj." Preuss, The Divine Trinity, pp. 220
93 2 Cor. IX, 4; XI, 17; Heb. sqq.
Ill, 14; I, 3. 9T St. Cyril, Contr. Theodoret..
94 Cfr. Cone. Nicaen., I (apud ad anath. 3: ^ rov A670V vir&- Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, p. trraats Vi'^ovp tpvffis-
54) : ^{ iripas inroardaeus ^ oialas.
THE TERM HYPOSTASIS 115
For this same reason it is probable tliat cv&mtis KaO" uTTOCTTaaiv,®^ found in the decrees of the Council of Ephesus, means " physical," t. e., substantial, rather than " hypostatic " union, though objectively, no doubt, the phrase embodies an expression of belief in the per- sonal unity of our Lord. This ambiguity in the use of the term continued up to the Council of Chalcedon (A. D. 451), which employed Wdorao-is and irpoaunrov as synonyms, thus rendering the Nestorian distinction between /xta (nroCTrao-ts and tv irpoaanrov meaningless.®^ Finally, the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (A. D. 553) rejected the phrase Suo Woorao-as ^roi hvo irpoawira, and expressly defined the union of the two na- tures in Christ as strictly hypostatic (unitio secundum subsistentiam) .^°°
Readings : — Garnerius, De Haeresi et Libris Nestorii (Migne, P. L., XLVIII, 1089 sqq.).— J. Kopallik, Cyrillus von Alexan- drien, Mainz 1881. — Funk-Cappadelta, A Manual of Church His- tory, 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, Miinchen 1910. — Bethune- Baker, 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., Wiirz- burg 1894.
98 V. supra, p. 90. The Avians of the Fourth Century,
WV. supra, p. 87 sq. pp. i86, 432 sqq.; Idem, SeUct
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 for-
123 sqq.; Petavius, De Incarn., VI, tunes of certain parallel terms ap-
17; Newman, Tracts Theological and plied to the Blessed Trinity consult
Ecclesiastical, pp. 333 sqq. On the Pohle-Preuss, The Ditfine Trinity,
terms ousia and hypostasis, as used pp. 224 sqq., 271 sqq. in the early Church, see Newman,
ii6 UNITY IN DUALITY
ARTICLE 2
SPECULATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION