For example, Peter shares in what is common to humanity and substance: namely, rationality, mortality, and the capacity to receive mind and knowledge; so likewise Paul and John, though distinct in their individual characteristics and not confused with one another, also partake in what is common to the substance—they too are rational, mortal, and capable of receiving mind and knowledge. And not because each hypostasis, subsisting distinctly and separately, possesses rationality, mortality, and the aptitude for receiving mind and knowledge, is the substance thereby divided. For the division of substance would mean that one of the hypostases would belong to a different substance—say, by being irrational, or immortal, or incapable of receiving mind and knowledge—which would subtract from the substance and the generic name, and thus divide what is common to the homogeneous hypostases where uniformity in all respects no longer exists. Guided by such understandings, and lifted beyond our own poverty, we also employ words and names in our contemplation of the Holy Trinity—even if they are not free from the coarseness of bodily imagery—because, as far as possible, they offer us some understanding of that sublime, incorporeal power that holds all things. We conceive mentally that the generic signification and substance is divinity, and under this substance are comprehended the three hypostases: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We must make allowance for the poverty of our terminology—I say this often—for comprehension implies circumscription, whereas the divine nature is neither circumscribed nor capable of being comprehended, nor can it be contained under the notion of substance, because it is beyond substance. But why is it fitting to tolerate this manner of speaking with moderation? Because otherwise, we cannot think or speak about the things of God except through meanings and words that are lower and customary. Therefore, each hypostasis also possesses what is common, expressed within its own distinct signification, which is found within itself.
For example, the Father, possessing His own innascibility, which distinguishes Him from the others and characterizes His hypostasis, also possesses in Himself that which is common and generic to substance and its signification—He is both unbegotten and God, good, light, life; likewise, the Son, possessing the property of His hypostasis—generation from the Father—also has in Himself that which pertains to what is common and belongs to substance, and He too is God, begotten, good, light, life; and the Holy Spirit as well, having procession as the sign of His hypostasis, possesses in Himself that which is generic and pertains both to substance and to the individual, and is light proceeding, life, God. This can also be learned again from the instruction of the wise Basil concerning divine matters. For in his canonical epistle beginning, "As much as the painful rumor that had struck our ears distressed us, so much did our most religious brother and bishop Bosporius gladden us by recounting better things about your piety", he wrote the following: BASIL: "This idea of light, which one may apply to the Father, also agrees with the Son: for true light to true light, according to the very concept of light itself, admits no difference. Since the Father is unoriginated light and the Son is begotten light, and both are light and light, it is right to call them consubstantial, to express the equal dignity of their nature. For not only those who are brothers in relation to one another are said to be consubstantial—as some wrongly think—but even cause and that which derives existence from it, being of the same nature, are called consubstantial. This very word also corrects Sabellius's error: for it removes the identity of hypostasis and introduces the perfect concept of persons. For nothing is consubstantial with itself, but one is consubstantial with another." Similarly, Gregory the Theologian, in his oration on baptism, wrote: GREGORY: "This divine reality, partaking in and ruling over all life, is one divinity and power, uniquely existing in three, and containing three distinct beings, unequal neither in substance nor nature, nor praised more in superiority or submission, but entirely equal, entirely the same—just as one beauty and magnitude of the heavens is the immense fusion of three immensities. Each of them is God known individually, and together the three are conceived as God, the former because of consubstantiality, the latter because of monarchy."
That each of them appears as God individually does not mean a division of substance; rather, a division of substance would be if one of the hypostases were of another, dissimilar, and not of the same nature—this Gregory also explains in his oration To Those Who Came from Egypt, stating: GREGORY: "Whoever is estranged from God, and thus cuts that one substance which is superior to all into a disparity of natures—it would be no wonder if he himself were cut down by the sword, and his portion cast among the unbelievers, as the fruit of his perverse and depraved doctrine, to be reaped both now and in the future." Likewise, in his oration on the Holy Spirit, Gregory wrote: GREGORY: "For us there is one God, because one is the divinity, and all that is from Him has one relation, though they are believed to be three. For neither is one more God and another less God, nor is one before and another after; they are not divided by will, nor split in power, nor can anything divided be applied here as among divisible things—but divinity is indivisible in those who are divisible, to speak briefly, like one mingled light in three suns joined together." And again, near the end of the same oration, he says: GREGORY: "Let there not be admitted three separate principles as though multiplying gods; for it is equally impious to unite as Sabellius did and to divide as Arius did." Therefore, since these things are so, and the instruction of such divine men and mystagogues, drawn from the words of Holy Scripture, teaches us that the begotten light, the Son and Word—who according to hypostasis is distinct from the unbegotten light, the Father, and from the proceeding light, the Holy Spirit—was incarnate and made human and hypostatically united to flesh endowed with a rational soul, that one among the three, the only one, not all three together, who received existence from the Father as His principle, and is not Himself the principle, and who is not God of Himself: how then shall we not say that the union was clearly made between the hypostasis of the one divine Word and one flesh endowed with mind and soul, and not a union of substances, which would confound all hypostases in their commonality?
Indeed, the Son is one hypostasis from among those underlying substance and belonging to the generic category; but substance and the generic designation—namely, divinity—comprehends the three hypostases: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, since each hypostasis fully partakes of the nature of substance and is God. Yet again, because of the poverty of our language, we pray to Him who is above all, that He may be merciful to us, because He is good by substance, of whom all partake, while He, as perfect, partakes of none. But since it is impossible for us to approach divine realities otherwise, we use familiar words to form our expressions. Thus, Saint Basil also, in his letter to Terentius, shows that talk about divine substance starts from our human experience, writing: BASIL: "If it is necessary to express briefly what we also think, we would say that the same relation which exists between the universal and the particular exists between substance and hypostasis. For each of us also exists through the general notion of substance, and through the individual properties that define one or another person. In that case, the substance is common—goodness, divinity, or whatever else we can conceive—while hypostasis is seen in the particularity of fatherhood, sonship, or sanctifying power." Just as in our case humanity, as substance, includes many hypostases—Peter, Paul, John, and all others—so too Peter, Paul, and John are hypostases participating equally in that same substance, each fully and without diminishment sharing in humanity and being a man, distinguished by his personal character and united with the other consubstantial hypostases in complete similarity and without difference of genus or of what is common, but none of them is the entire substance or humanity which includes each of the hypostases; likewise, in the case of the Holy Trinity, the entire substance is the divinity which comprehends the three hypostases—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—yet each of the hypostases participates equally in the substance, is fully God, and differs not at all from the others in consubstantial being, but is separated and distinguished from them by its own property—unbegottenness, generation, or procession—preserving its unique identity without confusion. Therefore, the Son, who was united with flesh endowed with a rational soul and became man, is one hypostasis among those found in the very substance of divinity, and not the entire substance or divinity that comprehends all three hypostases and signifies the common nature.
Why then, O wise one, do you think that unlearned hearers should be misled and deceived by a change and subtle misuse of words when you write: GRAMMARIAN: "How then should we not say that the substance of divinity is without deficiency in Christ, since we say that He is perfect God? And how, when we also confess Him to be perfect man, shall we not confess that the whole substance of humanity is in Him? For He did not take only part of humanity, as Apollinaris said, namely flesh without a rational soul." Furthermore, remember the words of the wise Basil, which you yourself cited, yet without understanding, darkened in understanding by ignorance and impiety—the words found in the letter to Terentius: BASIL: "For each of us also exists through the general notion of substance, and through the individual properties that define one or another person." Therefore, each hypostasis fully partakes of the substance in what is common, yet it is not itself the entire substance or the generic concept that encompasses all hypostases. For example, Peter partakes of what is common to humanity and is indeed a perfect man, yet he is not the very thing that is common, nor the entire substance or total humanity. In the same way, the Word of God partakes of what is common to the substance and is perfect God, but He is not the common reality or the entire substance and divinity which comprehends the three hypostases; and when He became man without change, and united to Himself one flesh endowed with a rational soul in a hypostatic manner, He fully partook of what is common to humanity and our substance, but He did not hypostatically unite to Himself humanity as a whole, nor was He composed from that entirety. Hence, it is evident that Christ, being both perfect God and perfect man, is one hypostasis among those included in the divine substance, but not the whole divinity or substance which comprises the three hypostases; and being one hypostasis also incarnate, He did not unite to Himself the entire substance of humanity, which includes all human hypostases, but only one flesh with a rational soul, which lies under the substance and generic name of humanity. Therefore, it is not the entire substance of divinity, which generically and commonly includes the three hypostases.
Nor again is the whole substance of humanity, which in its general designation includes all men, what was united and formed the one hypostasis of Christ. So break, then, the pen of impiety, which, though cunning in deceit, collapses into utter foolishness and writes: GRAMMARIAN: "Shall we not therefore confess that the whole substance of humanity is in Him?" For the Word of God did not hypostatically unite to Himself the whole of humanity, nor the entire substance, nor that which is common, nor the universal genus; but when He assumed one body, which is subject to the substance and genus of all humanity—namely, flesh animated by a rational and intelligent soul—He fully and perfectly partook of humanity and became consubstantial with us according to the flesh, as it is written that He shared in the same things as we do and was made like us in all things, yet without sin (Heb 2:14–17). Just as He is consubstantial with the Father and the Spirit according to divinity, so too He became truly man. What, then, becomes of those scarecrows you thought to frighten the simple like children with, when you said: GRAMMARIAN: "For He did not take part of humanity, as Apollinaris said—namely, flesh without a rational soul—but assumed the whole substance, which is flesh animated by an intelligent and rational soul; for this is what is found perfectly in all men and thus is rightly called substance"? Know, then, O wise one—though drunk again and again by the wine of impiety and desiring even the unlearned to share in your madness—that each one of us is a perfect, not partial, participant in that which is common to substance, as the wise Basil taught in divine matters when he wrote to Terentius: that is, we partake of rationality, mortality, and the capacity to receive mind and knowledge. But we are not ourselves the whole substance or the generic concept which includes all rational, mortal hypostases capable of mind and knowledge—that is what "man" is.
Likewise, the Word of God perfectly partook of that which is common to the substance when He was united to one body with a rational soul, but He was not incarnate into the whole substance and every rationally animated body. Your own words lead you to this error when you say: GRAMMARIAN: "but He assumed the whole substance, which is flesh animated by an intelligent and rational soul." It is one thing to say that every hypostasis subject to a genus and substance perfectly partakes in that which is common in substance; it is another to call it the whole substance. For the whole substance is a kind of generic designation that comprehends many hypostases, whereas the hypostasis perfectly participates in substance, just as each of the homogeneous hypostases does; yet no single hypostasis, simply because it perfectly partakes in substance, is called the whole substance that includes all hypostases of its kind. Shall we then say that Paul's soul, which participates in the rationality of substance and the capacity for mind and knowledge, is the whole substance of all rational souls, just because others likewise participate in what is common? Will we then imagine that all souls are united to Paul's flesh by composition? Or, conversely, because Paul's body is homogeneous or consubstantial with other human bodies and perfectly partakes of what is common to substance, shall we say it is the total substance of all human flesh and that all human flesh is composed with Paul's soul? That would be absurd and sheer madness! For if every hypostasis were considered the whole substance simply because it partakes in what is common to the substance, we would destroy and confuse the distinction between the terms "substance" and "hypostasis," and there would be no way to differentiate them; no longer would one term signify what is common and the other what is proper. Thus, likewise, the Word of God, being one hypostasis and having that which is common to the substance—that is, divinity—perfectly in Himself, is thereby perfect God, but not the whole divinity or substance comprehending the three hypostases. Nor, because what is common to the substance is found concretely in the Father and the Holy Spirit, and because the Father is perfectly God and the Spirit perfectly God and they are united in consubstantiality, will we then say that the entire substance of divinity was united to the flesh from Mary that had a rational soul? Nor again, conversely, because the flesh of the incarnate Word of God, endowed with mind and soul, perfectly participates in what is common to substance and the generic humanity of all, shall we imagine that it is the whole substance and genus of mankind, so that—according to your ignorant ramblings—the whole substance of humanity is in the Word and that the Word is, in a general way, incarnate into all humanity.
CHAPTER—EIGHTEEN
This text is a clear refutation of the claim that "Christ is in two substances according to the common meaning of substance," showing that such a view leads to the absurd and blasphemous conclusion that the entire Holy Trinity is incarnate in the whole of humanity.
As the wise Paul said, "Adulterating the word of truth" (2 Tim 2:15), and again, "Adulterating the word of God in the wickedness of men, in the cunning of deceit" (2 Cor 4:2), so that, as it is written, "Children are tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine" (Eph 4:14). This grammarian, while professing to confess the hypostatic union of the substances and that Christ is "in two natures," also confesses Him to be "in two substances." At times he writes: "Thus, when Saint Cyril says 'nature' in the singular without adding 'of the Word,' he means the common substance of divinity," and elsewhere: "If therefore two substances remained immutably and unconfusedly after being united in a true and hypostatic union, and formed one person and one hypostasis of Christ, how does he not say that there are two substances in Christ?" He adds many similar statements. But realizing that his words lead to the implication that these substances refer to what is common and include many hypostases, resulting in the need to say that the Holy Trinity is incarnate in all humanity, he tries to escape the foolish error he fell into by saying: "I do not say that the Father or the Holy Spirit is incarnate, but I say that the substance of divinity without defect is in Christ, where I say He is perfect God; and since I confess Him perfect man, I say that the whole substance of humanity is in Him; and thus again I say that the union of two substances is in Christ." Yet he is found to return by a roundabout and deceitful route to the same blasphemy, as the earlier argument shows, when it exposed the malice of his schemes.
For Christ is not the whole substance of divinity, but one hypostasis of the divine substance as understood in the Trinity, which is the Son, the Word immutably incarnate in one body with a rational soul, which He assumed from the Virgin Mary through hypostatic union, in which He shows the Father as an image shows its model, and as the hypostatic Word manifests the intellect that begot Him—not as if He is poured into the hypostasis of the Father, which would be the impious mixture of Sabellius and Marcellus. So also the Holy Spirit reveals the Son, since He proceeds from the Father and is somehow joined to the Word, and is thus called both the Spirit of God, namely the Father, and the Spirit of Christ. Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "We have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God" (1 Cor 2:12), and to the Romans: "If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him" (Rom 8:9). And Gregory, namesake of the miracles of Christ, in the faith revealed to him through John the Evangelist and the Virgin Mary, said: "One Holy Spirit, having existence from the Father and manifested through the Son to men, is the perfect image of the perfect Son." This is not a division of divinity but the correct order of theology, without which the knowledge of divinity is impossible, insofar as we may attain it. For we must be led by the light of the Holy Spirit; for Basil, in his letter on the Holy Spirit to Amphilochius, chapter 26, wrote: "Thus worship in the Spirit indicates the activity of our mind as if done in the light, as you can learn from what was said to the Samaritan woman. For when she thought worship should occur in a certain place by custom, our Lord taught her otherwise, saying one must worship in Spirit and in truth," calling Himself truth. "Just as in the Son we say worship happens, as in the image of God and the Father, so in the Spirit as showing the divinity of the Lord in Himself. Therefore, in worship the Spirit is not separated from the Father and the Son. For if you are outside Him, you will not worship at all; but if you are in Him, you will in no way separate Him from God, no more than you would separate light from visible things; for it is impossible to see the image of the invisible God except in the light of the Spirit, and he who sees the image cannot remove the light from the image. For that which is the cause of vision must be seen together with what is seen.
Therefore, through the illumination of the Spirit we see the splendor of the glory of God, and through the character we are led to the one of whom He is the character and imprint of the same form." From this we learn that there is no confusion of hypostases in the Holy Trinity, but that each hypostasis exists in the divine substance with its own proper meaning: through what is common to the substance, there is no difference among the consubstantial hypostases, and there is complete similarity and one and the same essence; through what is proper, there is immunity from confusion, so that because of this equality in what is common, the other hypostases are seen and recognized in each one that shares the same substance. To this also points the saying of the Lord: "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" (Jh 14:9), as also Saint John, bishop of Constantinople, in his commentary on the Gospel of John, wrote in explanation of this very saying: "Since the Son is what the Father is, while remaining distinct, He rightly shows in Himself the one who begot Him." Later, distinguishing the hypostases, he wrote: "He who has seen Me has seen the Father," so that no one would say the Father and the Son are the same person. "For if He were the Father, He would not say: He who has seen Me has seen Him." And a little further on: "For Philip was seeking knowledge through vision, and since he thought he had seen Christ, he wanted also to see the Father in the same way, but he showed that he had not even seen Christ. If someone says that here 'seeing' means 'knowing,' we will not argue against it: for He says, 'He who knows Me knows the Father.' But this is not what He says; rather, wanting to show consubstantiality, He said: He who knows My substance, knows the substance of the Father" (Jh 14:7). Therefore, does the one who says this seem to you to divide the substance of the Father and the Son, or to suggest that each hypostasis is the whole divine substance, since it has in itself its own proper property concretely, and because it has no difference from the consubstantial hypostases, it is said to partake of the same one substance with them, since one substance exists above all the homogeneous hypostases? For thus also each one of us is in human substance, distinguished by proper characteristics, and because of the homogeneity of men who share the same substance, he is believed to be of one substance with them, since the same substance equally comprehends all; yet no hypostasis, merely by being in human substance, is said to be the whole of humanity, which extends over all hypostases and comprehends them all.
From this, then, we learn that there is no confusion of hypostases in the Holy Trinity, but that each hypostasis exists in the divine substance with its proper meaning: through what is common to the substance, it has no difference from the consubstantial hypostases and possesses complete similarity and the same essence; through its property, however, it is immune from confusion, so that because of this equality in what is common, the other hypostases that share the same substance are seen and recognized in each one. To this also leads the Lord's own saying: "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" (Jh 14:9), just as Saint John, bishop of Constantinople, explained in his commentary on the Gospel of John: "Because the Son remains what the Father is, He rightly shows His begetter in Himself;" and later, distinguishing the hypostases, he says: "He who has seen Me has seen the Father," lest anyone say that the Father and the Son are the same person. "For if He were the Father, He would not say: He who has seen Me has seen Him." And again: "Philip sought knowledge through vision, and since he thought he had seen Christ, he wanted to see the Father likewise, but Jesus showed that he had not even seen Him. If someone says here that 'seeing' means 'knowing,' we will not argue: for He said, 'He who knows Me knows the Father.' But this is not what He says; rather, wishing to show consubstantiality, He said: He who knows My substance knows the substance of the Father" (Jh 14:7). Does the one who says this, then, seem to you to divide the substance of the Father and the Son, or to claim that every hypostasis is the whole divine substance, though each possesses its own concrete property and, since it has no difference from the consubstantial hypostases, is said to share the same substance with them, because one substance exists above all homogeneous hypostases?
For just as each of us exists in human substance, distinguished by proper characteristics, and because of the homogeneity of men who share the same substance is believed to be of one substance with them—since the same substance comprehends all equally—yet no hypostasis, merely by being in the substance of humanity, is considered to be the whole of humanity, which extends over all hypostases and comprehends them all. It must also be known that paternity or innascibility, generation, and procession are not empty names nor relations devoid of reality, as Gregory the Theologian says somewhere, but that paternity naturally exists in the divinity, so that the Father is God; and that sonship or generation naturally exists in the divinity, so that the Son or Offspring is God; likewise, that procession naturally exists in the divinity, so that the Proceeding One, the Holy Spirit, is God. And if you again speak of light or anything else common, understand it as unbegotten light, begotten light, and proceeding light—three lights in the hypostases; for there is not one hypostatic light under three names, which would now refer to what is or is called the Father, then to the Son, and then to the Holy Spirit, but rather three lights exist in the hypostases. Therefore, one light is recognized and believed, because of the participation in substance, the absolute similarity and identity, one will, one operation, and one brightness of communication shining from them upon those graced by participation. Gregory the Theologian expressed this in his oration on the Holy Spirit: "As in three suns mutually joined, there is one blending of light." Likewise, Saint Basil, in his Epistle to the Canonicum, as cited above, wrote: "Since the Father is unbegotten light, and the Son is begotten light, and both are light and light, they rightly called it consubstantiality, to indicate equality of dignity in nature." And when writing to Amphilochius, he said of the impious Sabellius: "He too, in many places confusing the concept, attempts to separate persons and says that the same hypostasis is always transformed according to circumstance." The wise John, bishop of Constantinople, when explaining the revered Gospel of his namesake, wrote in the seventy-fourth homily, on the verse: "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me" (Jh 14:11): "You should have needed nothing more upon hearing 'Father' and 'Son' to show kinship in substance. But if this does not suffice for you to show the equality of honor and consubstantiality, at least learn it from the works." And again in the following homily: "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete" (Jh 14:16), that is, another like Me. Let those be ashamed who suffer from the disease of Sabellius and those who have an improper view of the Spirit. For even the miracle of the word strikes down diametrically opposed heresies with one blow. For in saying 'another' He shows the difference of hypostases, and in saying 'Paraclete' He shows the kinship of substance."
CHAPTER—NINETEEN
A demonstration clarifying what was considered and shown in the previous chapter, namely, that the same blasphemy is incurred by the assertion: "In Christ is the whole substance of divinity and the whole substance of humanity," and that one who does not think in such a base way does not divide the substance of the divinity.
If, therefore, the Son is the begotten Light, showing in Himself as in an image the unbegotten Light, the Father, and yet is not confused in hypostasis with the Begetter, and the Paraclete is someone other than the Holy Spirit and differs from Him in hypostasis, yet due to the absence of difference in the common substance the Son, who became incarnate and human, is both seen and understood as image — then what division do you think occurs in this holy Trinity and one divine substance, which exists equally, similarly, and immutably in the three hypostases? Is it because the Word of God assumed union with flesh endowed with a soul and mind that we should impiously say He fell into diversity of substance or was separated from His eternity, glory, royal dignity, power, or will? For this is what constitutes a division of substance, as has already been shown through the inspired voice of the Doctors. But the Son suffered none of this, because He is God, and always is, and is with God, and is never separated, according to the kinship of substance, from the Father or the Spirit, since, remaining what He was—immutably and infinitely—He assumed what He was not, that is, our humanity, in a union according to hypostasis, ineffably and as only He knows. So what is this division you suspect? Explain it to us, O grammarian: do you think it is a division and cutting of substance to deny that the entire substance—that is, the divinity—which comprehends the three hypostases, was incarnate? For your assertion implies this, namely, that the union of the incarnation involves "two substances" and is "according to the common notion," so that the holy Trinity is considered to have been incarnate in all humanity and the whole substance of our kind.
Once again, this absurdity arises for you, who, trapped in the narrowness of your reasoning, claim to flee from saying that the Father or the Holy Spirit was incarnate and yet assert that the whole divinity is in the hypostasis of the Son—know then that you unknowingly fall into the same impiety. For the Son Himself is not the whole divinity but one hypostasis of the three in which the whole divinity exists. Neither the hypostasis of the Father nor that of the Holy Spirit is confused with that of the Son. Even though in the Son, as in a living and undivided image, the archetype—namely, the Father—is manifested and seen, the image is not, for that reason, the same in hypostasis as the archetype, nor are the two contracted into one hypostasis. For whose image would it be, unless the archetype were hypostatically distinct, to which the image bears the supreme likeness? For the image is not of itself, but entirely of another, just as something consubstantial is said of another and not of itself, as the wise Basil also wrote in his letter to the Canonicum: "For nothing is consubstantial with itself, but one is with another." Therefore, with vain words you think you honor piety by saying: "not as if the Father is the Son or the Son the Father," when in fact you are found confusing the hypostases by saying: "In Christ is the whole divinity and the whole humanity," thereby impiously concluding that Christ exists in two substances according to a generic notion, so that it ends up that the entire substance of divinity, which is the holy Trinity, is incarnate in the whole substance of humanity and in the whole human race. For this is the generic notion of substances: that substance is comprehensive of many hypostases—not that one hypostasis, sharing the same substance with homogeneous hypostases, is that comprehensive substance itself, as a man shares in humanity. Otherwise, it would follow that a hypostasis is also a substance because it shares substance, which is not only ridiculous but borders on impiety. Thus, for you who imagine yourself to be wise, as the prophet Micah said, "Night shall be to you from the vision, and darkness from the divination—the sun shall go down upon you, and the day shall be darkened" (Mi 3:6), for this is your divination and perilous guesswork; and confusion shall be yours like those who dream, for your thoughts are dark and like dreams they shall be mocked and opposed by all, for none shall listen. You have endured the same fate as he of whom another prophet said: "As if a man fled from the face of a lion and a bear met him, and he entered his house, leaned his hand against the wall, and a serpent bit him" (Am 5:19).
CHAPTER—TWENTY
The Doctrine of Cyril on Substance and Hypostasis, by Which Impiety, Madness, and Blasphemy Are Exposed
Listen now—if you are willing—for once again, in a subdued voice, we will speak to you the words drawn from the inspired voice of the Fathers, especially the distinguished teacher Cyril, who teaches that the identity of substance in the Holy Trinity does not result in a mixing of hypostases, and that the substance is that which comprehends the individual hypostases. For Cyril wrote in the first discourse of his treatise on the holy and consubstantial Trinity, addressed to one Hermias and composed by way of dialogue: "It has a natural and ineffable unity, not a confusion among the hypostases—as some mistakenly think—that would make the Father and the Son the same; rather, with both existing and subsisting, and each having its own proper existence, the identity of substance preserves the unity." Asked whether the Son exists in His own substance apart from the Father's, he answers: "Not in another substance apart from that which is His as God, but in the hypostasis which is the Son's." Asked whether substance and hypostasis are different, he replies: "Indeed, for there is a great difference between them: substance is that which comprehends the individual hypostases." He continues by distinguishing substance as a common reality (like "man"), which includes individuals (like Peter or Paul) who are each specific hypostases; thus, substance signifies the common nature, while hypostasis refers to each individual instance that shares in it, without confusion or merging. Therefore, as you heard from the Doctor, since substance, because of its homogeneity, comprehends the individual hypostases under it—being the bearer of the common definition of the genus—you must stop blaspheming and impiously imagining that the hypostatic union, which is the incarnation of the Word of God, is a union of substances.
This union concerns one of the three hypostases, not one mixed with the consubstantial hypostases of the Father and the Holy Spirit, but existing separately, though united with them by the kinship of substance; the hypostasis of the Son was incarnate in one body, endowed with a soul and mind, born of the ever-virgin and God-bearing Mary, and belonging under the substance of all humanity, being consubstantial with us all, as we are arranged under the same genus and substance. For He took from the seed of Abraham and became like us in all things, His brothers, except sin (Heb 2:17; 415). Even though a hypostasis fully and perfectly participates in the substance and is not excluded from the limits of substance—and participates in it just as the other hypostases of the same kind do—yet it is not therefore the whole substance that comprehends all hypostases. For substance possesses the common nature of the genus, encompassing every hypostasis included by homogeneity, whereas hypostasis holds the place of a species, in that it exists distinctly and separately; and substance is referred to it along with its consubstantial hypostases, but it itself comprehends nothing, nor does it confuse or mix consubstantial hypostases simply because it is related to them by kinship. Therefore, it has been shown by the things examined and sealed, as it were, by the testimony of God-bearing Doctors, that in the divine incarnation and becoming human, there was no hypostatic union or natural composition of substances, but of one hypostasis—the Word of God—with one body, clearly animated by a rational soul; for substances, according to their common signification, are those which comprehend many hypostases. And since you have everywhere confessed that Emmanuel is recognized in two natures, that is, substances united, and you have stated that by "substances" you mean not individual hypostases but the common signification—what follows from this is nothing other than your claiming that the one substance which comprehends the three hypostases of the Trinity has been incarnate into the entire substance of humanity, which includes each and every human being.
CHAPTER—TWENTY-ONE
In rightly confessing Emmanuel to be from two natures, we do not say that He is from two substances—inasmuch as this would imply a union conceived according to the commonality of substance—nor again do we say that He is from two persons, as this impious man has falsely and vainly accused us.
So clouded is your mind, that you have attempted to strengthen that statement, which is so absurd that it surpasses all blasphemy and malice, as though it reflected our own belief. For what do you even say, as though declaring something firm, admirable, and altogether sincere and unforced? GRAMMARIAN: "But how shall we say that Christ is also 'from two natures,' if the name 'natures' is not understood by them to mean 'substances'? For they will not dare claim that this term refers to hypostases marked with distinctive characteristics. If they do, they will be compelled to say that Christ is 'from two persons,' since a hypostasis marked by distinguishing character signifies a person. But I refer to a hypostasis so marked lest, following the habitual deceit of the heretics, they assert a hypostasis lacking such character—for in that case, hypostasis conveys the meaning of substance." How, then, do they claim Christ to be consubstantial with the Father and consubstantial with us, and yet do not cease to confess two who are consubstantial, while denying two substances? Then tell me: if we were to agree with you beyond what ought to be believed, and were to say that Christ is from two substances in the common sense of the term, and foolishly were to understand the substance of the Holy Trinity as being composed together with the entire substance of humanity, would you not persist in the same error and think that, because of our weakness, your position is somehow validated? But know clearly, O valiant one, that we do not share in such madness. For while we confess that Christ is from two natures, we say that He exists from one hypostasis of the Word of God and from one flesh animated by a rational soul, not from two substances understood according to the generic and common meaning.
For these are inclusive of many hypostases and lead you into drunken confusion—namely, into the blasphemous claim that the Holy Trinity has been incarnated in the entire human race. For this is the meaning of "substance" in the common sense, not what the hypostasis partakes of as substance. For just as Paul fully partakes in what is common to the substance of humanity, he is not therefore rightly considered to be the entire substance of humanity; likewise, the Word of God Himself, being one hypostasis, because He united to Himself one flesh animated by a rational soul and partook of the common substance of humanity, is not for that reason to be thought composed with the whole human race. And how did you presume to be ignorant that, when we say Emmanuel is from two natures, we do not understand "natures" as substances indicative of commonality and inclusive of many hypostases, but rather as the one hypostasis of the Word Himself and the one rationally animated flesh, from which, unchangeably, the one incarnate nature and hypostasis of the Word has been compacted and composed and exists—without thereby being forced to assert that the union occurred also from two persons? Especially since you read the letter I wrote to Maron? In that letter, the proposition you raised is presented and answered in these words: it is useful to include it to show that we are saying nothing new but consistently holding to the same sound doctrine, and to show that you vainly seek to do harm and fix the eye of your mind in the darkness of impiety, refusing to behold the brightness of truth. And thus the matter stands: "But the adversary always objects to us: HERETICAL PROPOSITION: 'What then? Do you, by saying "from two natures" and "from two hypostases," also say that Emmanuel is from two persons?'" Yet we respond even to this: when hypostases are found in their own proper subsistence and separately, then each hypostasis is circumscribed by its own person; but when, from the concurrence of two natures and hypostases, a natural union arises, and one nature and hypostasis is formed without confusion—as one may observe in the case of a human like ourselves—then those natures and hypostases, from which that one nature and hypostasis comes to be, no longer appear under their proper characteristics, nor as two persons, but are also circumscribed by one person.
And this has already been demonstrated from what we previously considered; nevertheless, for a fuller instruction, I will add other words of Saint Cyril. Indeed, in his second letter to Nestorius he wrote: CYRIL: "Therefore we must not divide into two sons our one Lord Jesus Christ. In no way is it beneficial to right faith to think so, even if some promote a union of persons. For Scripture has not said that the Word united to Himself the person of a man, but that the Word became flesh (Jh 1:14). And that the Word became flesh means nothing else than that He in like manner shared in blood and flesh as we do (Heb 2:14). He made our body His own and was born of a woman, without ceasing to be what He is, namely God, and born from God the Father, but remaining what He was even in the assumption of flesh." We included this in the letter to Maron, which clearly shows that those say two persons and two sons and Christs and hypostases and natures who claim that the Word united to Himself the person of a man. But this is exactly what those say who first imagine an infant formed in the womb of the Virgin and grant a time in which he exists in his own subsistence, and thus they make the Word of God dwell in him by affective adherence, and by this spread the notion of a union according to person, indeed excluding the union in accord with the true faith. And it is easy to see how Saint Cyril, in the writings divinely inspired against the impious Diodore, shows him speaking impiously in one passage: DIODORE: "When the flesh of Mary was not yet assumed, it was from the earth and no different from other flesh. Just as Levi was tithed while still in the loins [of Abraham] (Heb 7:9–10), and after being born received the dignity: so too the Lord, while in the womb of the Virgin and of her substance, did not yet have the dignity of sonship; but when He was formed and became a temple for the Word of God, by receiving the Only-Begotten, He assumed the dignity of the name and participated in the dignity itself." To which also he who, according to the apostolic testimony, is able to refute those who contradict the preaching of the gospel (Tit 1:9), says: CYRIL: "O excellent one, I shall say, who spew forth words burdened with great ignorance and stupidity!
Indeed, that holy body came from Mary, but even from the first moment of composition or subsistence in the womb, it was holy as the body of Christ; and no one will find any time in which it was not His, but rather a common body, as you said, and equal to other flesh." Therefore, what pertains to the hypostatic union and natural conjunction is that this flesh, endowed with soul and mind, which was conceived in the most pure womb of the God-bearing Virgin, is said to have subsisted in union with the Word of God itself and to have received the beginning of composition, so that the coming into existence of the flesh coincided with its union with the Word, which is older than the ages. For He who was conceived is understood as He who was incarnate and united to the flesh, which by its own nature can be conceived; and He, according to the time of conception, is rightly called the one conceived and born according to the flesh (Gal 4:4). For the phrase "the Word became flesh" (Jh 1:14), with respect to the Word itself, which is by nature without flesh, shows that the flesh subsisted and gradually grew into human form, and in no way came into subsistence apart from its union with Him. For even the holy martyr and bishop of Alexandria, Peter, teaches this in his book on the divinity, writing: PETER: "Therefore also the Evangelist affirms the truth, saying: 'The Word became flesh and dwelt among us' (Jh 1:14), clearly from the moment the angel greeted the Virgin and said, 'Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you' (Lk 1:28). For this word 'the Lord is with you' can now be heard from Gabriel like the phrase 'God the Word is with you'; for it signifies that He is both being formed in the womb and becoming flesh, as it is written: 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the one to be born will be called holy, the Son of God' (Lk 1:35)." AND AGAIN, AFTER OTHER THINGS: "God the Word, without a man, by the will of God who can do all things, became flesh in the womb of the Virgin. For He did not need the action or presence of a man. Rather, more than any man, the power of God worked, when it overshadowed the Virgin with the Holy Spirit, who came with her."
Therefore, the mystery, by the inspired Scripture and the voice of those theologian doctors who have explained it, teaches us that the infant did not subsist in his own distinct subsistence or was conceived separately in the womb of the God-bearing Virgin Mary, according to the empty thoughts of heretics, but that the Word Himself, older than the ages, from the beginning and indivisible moment of composition and formation in the womb, united to Himself the flesh endowed with soul and mind, as it came into existence and subsistence; and that the moment of the flesh's transition into existence and its union with the Word of God is one and the same, so that He is understood to have become an infant according to the flesh without change, whose nature, being that of God, is most perfect. And we necessarily confess one person, namely the Word older than the ages, immutably incarnate and made man, and again one hypostasis and one incarnate nature of the Word, not two persons, nor two hypostases, nor two natures, because the Word did not unite to Himself the person of a man previously formed in the womb of the God-bearing Virgin Mary, but rather He Himself, through dispensation and out of mercy, became man.
CHAPTER—TWENTY-TWO
Thus, the formula "Christ is conceived and spoken of as being from two natures or hypostases" offers a contemplation of the distinction between the elements united without confusion, to be considered only in thought within the composition, and after the thought of union, it avoids all duality—of substances, persons, natures, or hypostases—introduced by the impious.
And when we say that Christ Himself is from two natures or hypostases, we mean this as if separating by thought only those things from which He is or is naturally composed. For we do not speak as if a duality of hypostases existed first, and then was compacted into one hypostasis, since that is both unlearned and impossible; for things that subsist separately and singly in duality—how could they be compacted into one hypostasis? Therefore, what subsists as one by composition without change from things differing in species and substance—such as man like us, composed of soul and body—truly is in one hypostasis, yet offers itself to be seen by intellect alone as composed from two natures, but does not subsist in two natures or hypostases. For both are not seen to subsist in their own subsistence, but only that from the composition of two, one hypostasis is perfectly formed. This is also illustrated and confirmed by the wise-in-the-Spirit Cyril, who shows that when we separate only by subtle contemplation the elements from which the one and only Christ is, we say that the union was made from two natures or hypostases; but when we apprehend the union with separation and division as if in contemplation, we no longer say "two" after the thought of union, because they do not subsist separately and in their own subsistence, but from both one incarnate nature and hypostasis of the Word is found. Thus he wrote in the first letter to Succensus: CYRIL: "But when we consider this, we do no harm to the union in unity by saying that it is from two natures; but after the union, we do not separate the natures nor divide the one and indivisible into two sons, but we say one Son and, as the Fathers said, one incarnate nature of the Word."
And similarly, in the letter to Acacius, bishop of Melitene, Cyril writes: "Therefore, apprehending in thought those things from which the one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ is, we say that two natures have been united; yet, after the union, as if the division into two is now removed, we believe that there is one nature of the Son, as of one who is truly incarnate and made man." And again: "For certainly one is the nature of the Word; we know it to be incarnate and made man. But if anyone inquires more curiously how it became incarnate and man, he will see that God the Word, who is from God, took the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men, as it is written" (Phil 2:7). And according to this, only the distinction of the natures or hypostases can be understood, for divinity and humanity are not the same in natural quality; otherwise, how did the Word, being God, empty Himself and descend to the lower things, that is, to our level? And in the second letter to Succensus, proceeding with the same expressions and ideas, Cyril writes: "Let man like us again be our example. We understand two natures in him as well, one of the soul, the other of the body. But separating them by mere thoughts and apprehending their distinction through subtle contemplation or the intellect's imaginings, we do not place the natures separately, nor do we allow any actual power of division into them, but we understand them as one, so that those two natures are not now two, but both complete one living being." Is it not evident to anyone wisely listening that there is indeed one person, namely one and only Lord and God Jesus Christ, and one nature and hypostasis of the incarnate Word of God? But if one considers those things from which Christ is or is naturally composed, and if one perceives and gathers through the intellect and the eyes of the mind as finely as possible the distinction of those things brought together, one will see the natural essence of two natures; yet being enlightened by the power of union and discovering that these do not subsist separately or in their own subsistence but are completed in one hypostasis and one nature of the incarnate Word, one will not be able to call them two in hypostasis, even if they appeared as two in contemplation.
For the power of union suppresses and prevents the force of division, so that these two are no longer two, but are ineffably completed as one according to composition. And the natures and hypostases from which Christ is composed are seen to be united without confusion or change, yet no person can be recognized in either of them, because they do not subsist separately and in their own subsistence or duality, but from both there is one hypostasis and consequently one person and one incarnate nature of the Word of God. Thus, we have clearly shown how, when saying "from two natures," we do not understand the natures as substances in the common sense, which are inclusive of many hypostases, such that, according to the foolishness of your impiety, the whole humanity and the entire human race would be assumed by the holy Trinity; but we understand one hypostasis of the Word of God, which is only separated in contemplation, and one hypostasis of flesh rationally ensouled and assumed from the God-bearing Virgin, understood in composition without change, and that both remained what they were, but by no means subsisting in their own subsistence and in the duality of natures, as we have often said, but by the concurrence into one, completed one incarnate nature and hypostasis of the Word, and one person.
CHAPTER—TWENTY-THREE
Where hypostases subsist individually and separately, distinct persons are attributed to them; but where these hypostases come together into a natural union and complete one hypostasis out of two, they have one person.
That hypostases, when they subsist individually and separately, are assigned distinct persons, but when these hypostases come together into a natural union and form one hypostasis out of two, they have one person, is clearly shown again by the sacred voice of Cyril, advancing into the discussion with a well-balanced and measured doctrine, as though weighing matters on the scale of the sanctuary (cf. Lev 19:35–36). In his letter to Valerian, he wrote: CYRIL: "But again, this man, sharp for contemplation and cunning for calumny, showed me his attentive ear, and said: 'If one is he who dwells, and another he in whom he is said to dwell, how is it not necessary that the hypostases be divided and that each subsists separately? Where then is the one person? For they pretend to say there is one person of Christ, but with two hypostases placed separately and in themselves, there will certainly be two persons.' But they enter, as legislators, establishing absolutely and entirely what they think is right. They say: 'Separating hypostases, we unite a person.' And how is that not incredible, unlearned, and impossible?" The same Doctor, who said here that to hypostases subsisting separately and distinctly, two persons are accordingly attributed—not one, as those say who follow the opinions of Nestorius, gathering persons through a homonymy of sonship and equality of dignity—also knew that in the hypostatic and natural union, the hypostases or natures from which the one and only Christ is composed appear unconfused, and that one nature and hypostasis of the incarnate Word is formed from them, as we shall learn from the things that follow.
Thus he wrote in the Scholia: CYRIL: "That the natures or hypostases remained unconfused, we shall know from this: for the gold that was laid upon the wood remained what it was, and the wood was indeed adorned by the beauty of the gold, yet it did not cease to be wood. The Ark, moreover, can be established in many words as a type of Christ, for it went before the sons of Israel, seeking rest for them. For Christ also says somewhere: 'I go to prepare a place for you' (Jn 14:2)." And titling the scholion to which these words are attached, he wrote: CYRIL: "That, although the Word was united in true union with the humanity, the hypostases remained unconfused." How then, rebelling against such clear doctrine, according to the rule you yourself established, do you dare to say and write, with obscurity and deceptive darkness, GRAMMARIAN: "For a hypostasis marked by character gives the notion of a person. But I say a hypostasis marked by characters so that, according to the usual deceit of heretics, they may not posit a hypostasis lacking character—for then 'hypostasis' would take on the meaning of 'substance'"? So through your prudence, the wise Cyril has been made to support the heretics, though he said that the hypostases from which Emmanuel is composed remained unconfused, and did not separate them into two persons marked by character as you did, because they subsist in composition with one another, not in their own individual subsistence, but in one hypostasis and nature of the incarnate Word! You say, moreover, that these hypostases which appear in the composition should not be called hypostases, but substances. Then, regarding the proper meaning of words, the Doctor erred, and your diligence for correction bound him to your view! But we too will follow you and immediately employ you as our interpreter. So tell us: how should we understand the hypostasis of the Word, the Son, the Radiance, the Character of the Father's hypostasis, the Image—not to be a hypostasis, but a substance, since the substance of divinity, according to its common meaning, comprehends the three hypostases, and it is not lawful to think that because hypostases immutably participate in the substance, that the Father's or Spirit's hypostasis is poured out into the Son; and how, moreover, must we not also consider that single flesh, animated by a rational soul, which the Word united to itself hypostatically, as a substance according to the common meaning?
For the blessed Cyril, scorning your refined verbal accuracy, wrote to Nestorius in the third chapter of the Anathemas, where especially it was fitting to speak with precision: CYRIL: "If anyone separates the hypostases in the one Christ after the union, joining them only by a union of dignity or authority, and not rather by the union according to nature, let him be anathema" (cf. Gal 1:8). Therefore, for those who—as Scripture says—have ears to hear (Mt 11:15), and are of steady mind, nothing clearer than these words is needed, to refute your voluntary loquacity and to demonstrate the truth. But since it has altogether pleased you to act impiously, and this you have devised in your heart, as if inscribing it on the column of those who oppose God, "Let them be clean to me, because I will walk in the error of my heart" (cf. Ps 101:2–3), and you have hardened your face like a rock and refused discipline (cf. Jer 5:3), you come forward; and although you know nothing of yourself, you even dare to explain what is so plainly stated in sentences and words, bringing forward those same fables. For in your lamentable little book you wrote these things to us.
CHAPTER—TWENTY-FOUR
The grammarian unlearnedly and audaciously twists the words of Saint Cyril, claiming that the union of hypostases according to natural union is a union of substances in the common sense.
GRAMMARIAN: "Moreover, let them not be deceived, by the fact that the term hypostasis is often understood by the holy Fathers as 'substance,' as also pleases Saint Cyril. For in the third anathema he says: 'If anyone divides the hypostases in the one Christ after the union…'" But here the word hypostasis does not mean subsistent being; for this God-bearing man, constantly fighting against the blasphemies of Nestorius, would not have named hypostases in Christ if he had not taken them as substances. Consider, you who have heard this, how great is the ignorance and how bold the audacity, and how, even when words fail them, they are not ashamed. Now it is time for me to use the words of Jeremiah, who knew and understood how to speak of such men as they deserved: "They are confounded because they have failed, yet they were not ashamed, nor did they acknowledge their folly; therefore they shall fall in their ruin, and in the time of their visitation they shall perish" (Jer 8:12). Behold, then, the visitation of your base and audacious follies has come, and destruction has risen against them. Where, O excellent one, have you shown Cyril saying: "I understood or spoke of hypostases as substances"? This is like saying that when someone named a man, he meant a horse. Therefore, I will not hesitate, to refute your shameless chatter, to again quote the full anathema: CYRIL: "If anyone divides the hypostases in the one Christ after the union, joining them only by a conjunction according to dignity or authority, and not rather by the conjunction which is according to the natural union, let him be anathema." Show, good man, in these words that Cyril is pleased to understand hypostases as substances in the natural union of Emmanuel, as you said. But he does not say so; for if he had wished it, he would have said it—what was there to prevent him?
This pleases you and you alone, impious interpreter, who falsely claim and conjecture about his meaning, and throw out empty words: GRAMMARIAN: "Nor indeed would that God-bearing man, who always fought against the blasphemies of Nestorius, have named hypostases in the one Christ, if he had not taken them as substances." So what then, clever and subtle interpreter? Because Nestorius often names two natures, dividing the one Christ, should we foolishly say, following your non-divine divination, that Saint Cyril does not confess Christ to be from two natures or understand natures as substances? Or where does he write to him: "You, Nestorius, understand natures as hypostases, but I as substances"? Show that he wrote this anywhere, and you will win us over without controversy. But just as Cyril reproached Nestorius for his error in saying there are two natures, so he reproached him again for saying that the one Christ is two hypostases, because by dividing the natures and hypostases, Nestorius was necessarily asserting two persons, two sons, and two Christs, whom he joined, as he said, only according to dignity, homonymy of sonship, and virtue. And just as he demanded of him to confess the natural union of hypostases, so too of natures, since he recognized no difference between nature and hypostasis, for one hypostasis—one of the Trinity, not the Trinity itself—united to itself hypostatically one flesh, born of the Theotokos Mary and endowed with soul and mind, not the whole substance or whole genus of humanity. Nor was the natural union made from substances according to the common meaning, as you say. For one nature and hypostasis of the Word was incarnate, and only in contemplation with the eyes of the soul do we consider two natures or hypostases in the ineffable and unconfused concurrence; for flesh, rationally animated, subsists in the union with the Word, and the union does not permit, after the thought of the inseparable union, so divine and beyond reason, a division into two, so that what is seen as two in thought is no longer two, but one nature is shown completed from both: the nature of the Son, inhumanated and incarnate. Again, we can openly and clearly show from the words of Saint Cyril himself that he required Nestorius to confess a union sometimes of natures, sometimes of hypostases, as though one flesh united to the Word hypostatically, not of substances according to common signification.
For he wrote in the second tome against the blasphemies of the impious Nestorius: CYRIL: "But the inventor of a new piety, though he feigns to say one Christ, everywhere separates the natures and sets each apart, asserting they are not truly united; and covering this with the pretense of sin, as it is written (Ps 140:4), he contrives a certain mode of adhesion, only according to the equality of dignity, as I said, as will also be shown from his words; and he makes the Word of God to indwell by participation, as in a mere man, but divides the evangelical sayings, now attributing some properly to the Word alone, now to the one born of woman. Yet how is it not clear to all that, though he was God by nature, he became man, the Only-Begotten, not by external or affective adhesion, as he says, but by a true union, ineffable and beyond understanding? And so he is conceived as one and alone; and every saying is attributed to him, and as from one person all things are said; for now there is conceived one nature after the union, namely, the incarnate nature of the Word." Behold, he reproaches Nestorius for dividing the natures and not declaring that they were truly united. What else does he say? CYRIL: "He does not say they were truly united among themselves"; and immediately he shows that Nestorius, dividing the natures and joining them only according to dignity, made them persons divided and each subsisting on its own; but he himself considers them ineffably and beyond understanding united and subsisting in composition, not separately in duality, and recognizes one person, and one nature of the Word incarnate. Nor did he say: "I understand natures as substances according to common signification." Moreover, it must be noted how he requires the blasphemer himself to confess a true union. For he wrote also in the same tome shortly after: CYRIL: "But he, having none of these doctrines in his mind, fell into outrageous impiety, dividing Christ into two persons and into two hypostases completely divided from one another, and attributing to each the words proper to each; and again he says one Christ Jesus the Lord, as a man adhering to God only by dignity, not by true union, that is, by natural union.