(From the Atlantis of July, 1858.)
Analysis of the argument
The inquiry—turns upon the use of terms—Phraseology of science gradually perfected—especially in the province of Revelation—Mistakes during the process—Reluctance of early Catholics to pursue it—illustrated by the Homoüsion—and by other terms—especially the hypostasis.
Yet this no proof of carelessness about dogma—Athanasius dogmatic, though without science—his varying application of hypostasis—One hypostasis taught in fourth century—and in third—Three by Alexandrians—both One and Three by Athanasius,—who innovates on the Alexandrian usage,—yet without changing the general sense of the term—which denotes the One Supreme Being—as individual, personal—and the God of natural theology—and also as being any or each of the Three divine Persons—Latitude in the sense of the term—illustration from Athanasius.
Usia has a like meaning—and is preferred by Athanasius,—as a synonyme for hypostasis—and physis also—and eidos.—These terms are inapplicable in their full sense to the Word’s humanity—yet they are so applied—e.g. hypostasis—and usia—and physis—but not in their full sense.
Especially not physis—first on Scripture grounds—next on grounds of reason—The divine physis must retain the fulness of its attributes—therefore the human physis must have a restricted meaning—How then is there a human physis at all?—Hence the form and the force of Cyril’s Formula.
Illustration from the Council of Antioch—which teaches the unalterableness of the divine usia—together with the Catholic Doctors generally—with Athanasius—and other Fathers—some of whom therefore attribute the human conception to the operation of the Word—Thus Cyril too by the “One Nature” denotes—the Word’s eternity,—unity,—unalterableness.
The same Council teaches that the Word’s usia occupies the humanity—and that the humanity is taken up into the Word’s usia—as, analogously, the creation also is established in His usia—Contrast between physis and usia—The proper meaning of physis—shows the delicacy of applying the term to His humanity—which is in a state above nature—and therefore was not commonly called a physis—till Leo and the Council of Chalcedon.
This is clear from the early Fathers—who appropriate the term to the divinity—and describe the humanity as an envelopment—as an adjunct—as a first-fruit—not, as homoüsion with us—and omit the obvious contrast of the Two Natures—The term “man” equivalent to “nature.”
Recapitulation—The Word’s Nature—is One—and is Incarnate—Fortunes of the Formula.
The
enquiry
[Mia Physis tou Theou Logou Sesarkomene]
1.
This celebrated Formula of St. Cyril’s, perhaps of St. Athanasius’s, was, as is well known, one of the main supports of the Monophysites, in controversy with the Catholics of the fifth and following centuries. It has been so fully discussed by theologians from his day to our own, that it hardly allows of any explanation, which would be at once original and true; still, room is left for collateral illustration and remarks in detail; and so much shall be attempted here.
turns
upon the
use of
terms.
First of all, and in as few words as possible, and ex abundanti cautela:—Every Catholic holds that the Christian dogmas were in the Church from the time of the Apostles; that they were ever in their substance what they are now; that they existed before the formulas were publicly adopted, in which, as time went on, they were defined and recorded, and that such formulas, when sanctioned by the due ecclesiastical acts, are binding on the faith of Catholics, and have a dogmatic authority. With this profession once for all, I put the strictly theological question aside; for I am concerned in a purely historical investigation into the use and fortunes of certain scientific terms.
Phraseo-
logy of
science
gradually
perfected,
2.
Even before we take into account the effect which would naturally be produced on the first Christians by the novelty and mysteriousness of doctrines which depend for their reception simply upon Revelation, we have reason to anticipate that there would be difficulties and mistakes in expressing them, when they first came to be set forth by unauthoritative writers. Even in secular sciences, inaccuracy of thought and language is but gradually corrected; that is, in proportion as their subject-matter is thoroughly scrutinised and mastered by the co-operation of many independent intellects, successively engaged upon it. Thus, for instance, the word Person requires the rejection of various popular senses, and a careful definition, before it can serve for philosophical uses. We sometimes use it for an individual as contrasted with a class or multitude, as when we speak of having “personal objections” to another; sometimes for the body, in contrast to the soul, as when we speak of “beauty of person.” We sometimes use it in the abstract, as when we speak of another as “insignificant in person;” sometimes in the concrete, as when we call him “an insignificant person.” How divergent in meaning are the derivatives, personable, personalities, personify, personation, personage, parsonage! This variety arises partly from our own carelessness, partly from the necessary developments of language, partly from the exuberance of human thought, partly from the defects of our vernacular tongue.