5/3/25, 12:07 AM Newman Reader - Tracts - St.

Cyril's Formula

V. On St. Cyril's Formula [mia physis sesarkomene]

(From the Atlantis of July, 1858.)

Analysis of the argument

{331} 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 {332} 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."

https://www.newmanreader.org/works/tracts/cyril/cyril1.html 1/14
5/3/25, 12:07 AM Newman Reader - Tracts - St. Cyril's Formula

Recapitulation—The Word's Nature—is One—and is Incarnate—Fortunes of the

Formula.

[Mia Physis tou Theou Logou Sesarkomene]

1.
The {333} THIS celebrated Formula of St. Cyril's, perhaps of St.
enquiry
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 First of all, and in as few words as possible, and ex abundanti cautela:—
upon the
Every Catholic holds that the Christian dogmas were in the Church from
use of
terms. 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 {334} 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.

2.

Even before we take into account the effect which would naturally be
Phraseo-
logy of
produced on the first Christians by the novelty and mysteriousness of
science doctrines which depend for their reception simply upon Revelation, we
gradually have reason to anticipate that there would be difficulties and mistakes
perfected, 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 {335} carelessness, partly from the
necessary developments of language, partly from the exuberance of
human thought, partly from the defects of our vernacular tongue.
https://www.newmanreader.org/works/tracts/cyril/cyril1.html 2/14
5/3/25, 12:07 AM Newman Reader - Tracts - St. Cyril's Formula

especially Language then requires to be refashioned even for sciences which are
in the
province
based on the senses and the reason; but much more will this be the
of revela- case, when we are concerned with subject-matters, of which, in our
tion. present state, we cannot possibly form any complete or consistent
conception, such as the Catholic doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation.
Since they are from the nature of the case above our intellectual reach,
and were unknown till the preaching of Christianity, they required on
their first promulgation new words, or words used in new senses, for
their due enunciation; and, since these were not definitely supplied by
Scripture or by tradition, nor for centuries by ecclesiastical authority,
variety in the use, and confusion in the apprehension of them, were
unavoidable in the interval. This conclusion is necessary, admitting the
premisses, antecedently to particular instances in proof.

Mistakes Moreover, there is a presumption equally strong, that the variety and
during
confusion which I have anticipated, would in matter of fact issue here or
the
process. there in actual heterodoxy, as often as the language of theologians was
misunderstood by hearers or readers, and deductions were made from
it which the teacher did not intend. Thus, for instance, the word Person,
used in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, would on first hearing suggest
Tritheism to one who made the word synonymous with individual; and
Unitarianism to another, who accepted it in the classical sense of a mask
or character. {336}

Even to this day our theological language is wanting in accuracy: thus,

we sometimes speak of the controversies concerning the Person of
Christ, when we mean to include in them those which belong to the two
natures which are predicated of Him.

3.

Indeed, the difficulties of forming a theological phraseology for the

Reluctance
whole of Christendom were obviously so great, that we need not wonder
of early
Catholics at the reluctance which the first age of Catholic divines showed in
to attempting it, even apart from the obstacles caused by the distraction
pursue it and isolation of the churches in times of persecution. Not only had the
words to be adjusted and explained which were peculiar to different
schools or traditional in different places, but there was the formidable
necessity of creating a common measure between two, or rather three
languages,—Latin, Greek, and Syriac. The intellect had to be satisfied,
error had to be successfully excluded, parties the most contrary to each
other, and the most obstinate, had to be convinced. The very confidence
which would be felt by Christians in general that Apostolic truth would
never fail,—and that they held it themselves, each in his own country,
and the orbis terrarum with them, in spite of all verbal contrarieties,—
would indispose them to define it, till definition became an imperative
duty.

illustrated I think this plain from the nature of the case; and history confirms me
by the
in the instance of the imposition of the homoüsion, which, as one of the

https://www.newmanreader.org/works/tracts/cyril/cyril1.html 3/14
5/3/25, 12:07 AM Newman Reader - Tracts - St. Cyril's Formula
hom- first and most necessary {337} steps, so again was apparently one of
oüsion,
the most discouraging, in giving a scientific expression to doctrine. This
formula, as Athanasius, Hilary, and Basil affirm, had been disowned as
consistent with heterodoxy by the Councils of Antioch, A.D. 264-72, yet,
in spite of this disavowal on the part of bishops of the highest authority,
it was imposed on all the faithful to the end of time in the Ecumenical
Council of Nicæa, A.D. 325, as the best and truest safeguard, as it really
is, of orthodox teaching. The misapprehensions and protests, which,
after such antecedents, its adoption occasioned for many years, may be
easily imagined. Though above three hundred bishops had accepted it,
large numbers of them in the next generation were but imperfectly
convinced of its expedience; and Athanasius himself, whose
imperishable name is bound up with it, showed himself most cautious in
putting it forward, though it had the sanction of an Ecumenical Council.
He introduces the word, I think, only once into his three celebrated
Orations, and then rather in a formal statement of doctrine than in the
flow of his discussion, viz. Orat. i. 4. Twice he gives utterance to it in
the Collection of Notes which make up what is called his fourth Oration
(Orat. iv. 9, 12.) We find it indeed in his de Decretis Nic. Conc. and his
de Synodis; but there it constitutes his direct subject, and he discusses
it in order, when challenged, to defend it. And in his work against
Apollinaris he says [homoousios he trias], i. 9. But there are passages
of his Orations in which he omits it, when it was the natural word to
use; vid. the notes on Orat. i. 20, 21, and 58 fin. Oxf. transl. Moreover,
the word does not occur in the {338} Catecheses of St. Cyril of
Jerusalem, A.D. 347, nor in the recantation made before Pope Julius by
Ursacius and Valens, A.D. 349, nor in the cross-questionings to which St.
Ambrose subjected Palladius and Secundianus, A.D. 381. At Seleucia,
A.D. 359, a hundred and fifty Eastern Bishops (with the exception of a
few Egyptians) were found to abandon it, while at Ariminum in the same
year the celebrated scene took place of four hundred bishops of the
West being worried and tricked into a momentary act of the same
character. They had not yet got it deeply fixed into their minds, as a sort
of first principle, that to abandon the Formula was to betray the faith.
We may think how strong and general the indisposition was thus to
regard the matter, when even Pope Liberius consented to sign a creed in
which it was omitted (vid. Athan. Histor. Arian. 41 fin.)

and by This disinclination on the part of Catholics to dogmatic definitions was

other
not confined to the instance of the [homoousion]. It was one of the
terms,
successful stratagems of the Arians to urge upon Catholics the propriety
of confining their statement of doctrine to the language of Scripture,
and of rejecting [hypostasis, ousia], and similar terms, which when
once used in a definite sense, that is, scientifically, in Christian teaching,
would become the protection and record of orthodoxy.

especially In the instance of the word [hypostasis], we find Athanasius, Eusebius

the hypo-
of Vercelli, and other Catholic Confessors of the day, recognizing and
stasis;
allowing the two acceptations then in use, in the Council which they
held in Alexandria, A.D. 362. {339}

https://www.newmanreader.org/works/tracts/cyril/cyril1.html 4/14
5/3/25, 12:07 AM Newman Reader - Tracts - St. Cyril's Formula

4.

Such a reluctance to fix the phraseology of doctrine cannot be logically

yet this
taken to imply an indisposition towards dogma itself; and in matter of
no proof
of care- fact it is historically contemporaneous with the most unequivocal
lessness dogmatic statements. Scientific terms are not the only token of science.
about Distinction or antithesis is as much a characteristic of it as definition can
dogma. be, though not so perfect an instrument. The Epistles of Ignatius, for
instance, who belongs to the Apostolical age of the Church, are in places
unmistakeably dogmatic, without any use of technical terms. Such is the
fragment preserved by Athanasius (de Syn. 47): [Heis iatros esti
sarkikos kai pneumatikos, genetos kai agenetos], &c. I refer the reader
to the remarks on those Epistles made in Tract ii. in this volume; also
supra, p. 51; but the subject would admit of large illustration.

Athanasius Indeed no better illustration can be given of that intrinsic independence

dogmatic,
of a fixed terminology which belongs to the Catholic Creed, than the
though
without writings of Athanasius himself, the special Doctor from whom the
professing subsequent treatises of Basil, the two Gregories, and Cyril are derived.
science. This great author scarcely uses any of the scientific phrases which have
since been received in the Church and have become dogmatic; or, if he
introduces them, it is to give them senses which have long been
superseded. A good instance of his manner is afforded by the long
passage, Orat. iii. 30-58, which is full of {340} theology, with scarcely a
dogmatic word. The case is the same with his treatment of the
Incarnation. No one surely can read his works without being struck with
the force and exactness with which he lays down the outlines and fills
up the details of the Catholic dogma, as it has been defined since the
controversies with Nestorius and Eutyches, who lived in the following
century; yet the word [theotokos], which had come down to him, like
[homoousios], by tradition, is nearly the only one among those which
he uses, which would now be recognized as dogmatic.

5.

Sometimes too he varies the use which he makes of such terms as

His varying
really are of a scientific character. An instance of this is supplied by
application
of hy- hypostasis, a word to which reference has already been made. It was
postasis. usual, at least in the West and in St. Athanasius's day, to speak of one
hypostasis, as of one usia, of the Divine Nature. Thus the so-called
Sardican Creed, A.D. 347, speaks of [mia hypostasis, hen autoi hoi
hairetikoi ousian prosagoreuousi]. Theod. Hist. ii. 8; the Roman Council
One hypo- under Damasus, A.D. 371, says that the Three Persons are [tes autes
stasis
taught
hypostaseos kai ousias]; and the Nicene Anathematism condemns those
in 4th who say that the Son [egeneto ex heteras hypostaseos e ousias]; for
century, that the words are synonymes I have argued, after Petavius against
Bull, in one of the Dissertations to which I have already referred, vid.
supr. p. 78. Epiphanius too speaks of [mia hypostasis], Hær. 74, 4,
Ancor. 6 (and though he has [hai hypostaseis] Hær. 62, 3. 72, 1, yet he
is {341} shy of the plural, and prefers [pater enupostatos, huios
enupostatos], etc., ibid. 3 and 4. Ancor. 6, and [tria] as Hær. 74, 4,
https://www.newmanreader.org/works/tracts/cyril/cyril1.html 5/14
5/3/25, 12:07 AM p ] [
Newman Reader - Tracts - St. Cyril's Formula]
where he says [tria enupostata tes autes hypostaseos]. Vid. also [en
hypostasei teleiotetos]. Hær. 74, 12. Ancor. 7 et alibi); and Cyril of
Jerusalem of the [monoeides hypostasis] of God, Catech. vi. 7, vid. also
xvi. 12 and xvii. 9 (though the word may be construed one out of three
in Cat. xi. 3), and Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. xxviii. 9, where he is
speaking as a natural, not as a Christian theologian.

and in 3rd In the preceding century Gregory Thaumaturgus had laid it down that
century.
the Father and Son were [hypostasei hen]; and the Council of Antioch,
between A.D. 264 and 272, calls the Son [ousiai kai hypostasei theon
theou huion]. Routh, Reliq. t. 2, p. 466. Accordingly Athanasius
expressly tells us, "Hypostasis is usia, and means nothing else but [auto
to on]," ad Afros, 4. Jerome says that "Tota sæcularium litterarum
schola nihil aliud hypostasin nisi usiam novit." Epist. xv. 4. Basil, the
Semi-Arian, that "the Fathers have called hypostasis usia." Epiph. Hær.
73, 12 fin. And Socrates says that at least it was frequently used for
usia, when it had entered into the philosophical schools. Hist. iii. 7.

Three by On the other hand the Alexandrians, Origen (in Joan. ii. 6 et alibi),
Alexan-
Ammonius (ap. Caten. in Joan. x. 30, if genuine), Dionysius (ap. Basil.
drians.
de Sp. S. n. 72), and Alexander (ap. Theod. Hist. i. 4), speak of more
hypostases than one in the Divine Nature, that is, of three; and
apparently without the support of the divines of any other school, unless
Eusebius, who is half an Alexandrian, be an exception. Going down
beyond the middle of the {342} fourth century and the Council of A.D.
362 above referred to, we find the Alexandrian Didymus committing
himself to bold and strong enunciations of the three Hypostases, beyond
what I have elsewhere found in patristical literature.

Both one It is remarkable that Athanasius should so far innovate on the custom of
and three
his own Church, as to use the word in each of these two applications of
by Athan-
asius, it. In his In illud Omnia he speaks of [tas treis hypostaseis teleias]. He
says, [mia he theotes, kai heis theos en trisin hypostasesi], Incarn. c.
Arian. if the work be genuine. In contr. Apoll. i. 12, he seems to
contrast [ousia] and [physis] with [hypostasis], saying [to homoousion
henosin kath' hypostasin ouk epidechomenon esti, alla kata physin].
Parallel instances occur in Expos. Fid. 2, and in Orat. iv. 25, though the
words may be otherwise explained. On the other hand, he makes usia
and hypostasis synonymous in Orat. iii. 65, 66. Orat. iv. 1 and 33 fin.
Vid. also Quod Unus est Christus, and the fragment in Euthym. Panopl.
p. 1, tit. 9; the genuineness of both being more than doubtful.

who inno- There is something more remarkable still in this innovation, in which
vates on
Athanasius permits himself, on the practice of his Church. Alexander, his
the Alexan-
drian immediate predecessor and master, published, A.D. 320-324, two formal
usage, letters against Arius, one addressed to his namesake of Constantinople,
the other encyclical. It is scarcely possible to doubt that the latter was
written by Athanasius; it is so unlike the former in style and diction, so
like the writings of Athanasius. Now it is observable that in the former
the word hypostasis occurs in its Alexandrian {343} sense at least five
times; in the latter, which I attribute to Athanasius, it is dropt, and usia
https://www.newmanreader.org/works/tracts/cyril/cyril1.html 6/14
5/3/25, 12:07 AM Newman Reader - Tracts - St. Cyril's Formula

is introduced, which is absent from the former. That is, Athanasius has,
on this supposition, when writing in his Bishop's name a formal
document, pointedly innovated on his Bishop's theological language,
and that the received language of his own Church. I am not supposing
he did this without Alexander's sanction. Indeed, the character of the
Arian polemic would naturally lead Alexander, as well as Athanasius, to
be jealous of the formula of the [treis hypostaseis], which Arianism was
using against them; and the latter would be confirmed in this feeling by
his subsequent familiarity with Latin theology, and the usage of the Holy
See, which, under Pope Damasus, as we have seen, A.D. 371, spoke of
one hypostasis, and in the previous century, A.D. 260, protested by
anticipation, in the person of Pope Dionysius, against the use which
might be made, in the hands of enemies, of the formula of the three
hypostases. Still it is undeniable that Athanasius does at least once
speak of three, though his practice is to dispense with the word and to
use others instead of it.

yet Now then we have to find an explanation of this difference of usage

without
amongst Catholic writers in their application of the word. It is difficult to
changing
the believe that so accurate a thinker as Athanasius really used an
general important term in two distinct, nay, contrasted senses; and I cannot but
sense of question the fact, so commonly taken for granted, that the divines of
the term, the beginning of the fourth century had appropriated any word
whatever definitely to express either the idea of Person as contrasted
with that of Essence, or of {344} Essence as contrasted with Person. I
altogether doubt whether we are correct in saying that they meant by
hypostasis, in one country Person, in another Essence. I think such
propositions should be carefully proved, instead of being taken for
granted, as at present is the case. Meanwhile, I have an hypothesis of
my own. I think they used the word in East and West with only such a
slight variation in its meaning, as would admit of Athanasius speaking of
one hypostasis or three, without any great violence to that meaning,
which remained substantially one and the same. What this sense is I
proceed to explain.

6.

The Schoolmen are known to have insisted with great earnestness on

which de-
the numerical unity of the Divine Being; each of the Three Divine
notes the
one Persons being one and the same God, unicus, singularis, et totus Deus.
Supreme In this, however, they did but follow the recorded doctrine of the
Being Western theologians of the fifth century, as I suppose will be allowed by
critics generally. So forcible is St. Austin upon the strict unity of God,
that he even thinks it necessary to caution his readers against
supposing that he could allow them to speak of One Person as well as of
Three in the Divine Nature, de Trin. vii. 11. Again, in the Creed
Quicunque, the same elementary truth is emphatically insisted on. The
neuter unum of former divines is changed into the masculine, in
enunciating the mystery. "Non tres æterni, sed unus æternus." I
suppose this means, that Each Divine Person is to be received as the
one God as entirely and absolutely as He would be held to be, if {345}

https://www.newmanreader.org/works/tracts/cyril/cyril1.html 7/14
5/3/25, 12:07 AM Newman Reader - Tracts - St. Cyril's Formula

we had never heard of the other Two, and that He is not in any respect
less than the one and only God, because They are Each that same one
God also; or in other words, that, as each human individual being has
one personality, the Divine Being has three.

as indivi- Returning then to Athanasius, I consider that this same mystery is

dual, per-
implied in his twofold application of the word hypostasis. The polytheism
sonal,
and pantheism of the heathen world imagined,—not the God whom
natural reason can discover, conceive, and worship, one, individual,
living, and personal,—but a divinitas, which was either a quality,
whether energy or life, or an extended substance, or something else
equally inadequate to the real idea which the word, God, conveys. Such
as the God a divinity could not properly be called an hypostasis or said to be in
of natural hypostasi (except indeed as brute matter in one sense may be called an
theology,
hypostasis), and therefore it was, that that word had some fitness,
especially after the Apostle's adoption of it, Hebr. i. 3, to denote the
Christian's God. And this may account for the remark of Socrates, that it
was a new word, strange to the schools of ancient philosophy, which
had seldom professed pure theism, or natural theology. "The teachers of
philosophy among the Greeks," he says, "have defined usia in many
ways; but of hypostasis they have made no mention at all. Irenæus the
grammarian affirms that the word is barbarous." Hist. iii. 7. The better
then was it fitted to express that highest object of thought, of which the
"barbarians" of Palestine had been the special witnesses. When the
divine hypostasis was confessed, the {346} word expressed or
suggested the attributes of individuality, self-subsistence, self-action,
and personality, such as go to form the idea of the Divine Being to the
natural theologian; and, since the difference between the theist and the
Catholic divine in their idea of His nature is simply this, that, in
opposition to the Pantheist, who cannot understand how the Infinite can
be Personal at all, the one ascribes to Him one personality and the other
three, it will be easily seen how a word, thus characterized and
circumstanced, would admit of being used, with but a slight modification
of its sense, of the Trinity as well as of the Unity.

and also as Let us take, by way of illustration, the word [monas], which, when
being any
applied to intellectual beings, includes idea of personality. Dionysius of
and each
of the Alexandria, for instance, speaks of the [monas] and the [trias]: now,
Three would it be very harsh, if, as he has spoken of "three hypostases [en
Divine monadi]," so he had instead spoken of "the three [monades]," that is, in
Persons. the sense of [trisupostatos monas], as if the intrinsic force of the word
monas would preclude the possibility of his use of the plural [monades]
being mistaken to imply that be held more monads than one? To take
an analogous case, it would be about the same improper use of plural
for singular, if we said that a martyr by his one act gained three
victories, instead of a triple victory, over his three spiritual foes.

This then is what I conceive Athanasius to mean, by sometimes

speaking of one, sometimes of three hypostases. The word hypostasis
neither means Person nor Essence exclusively; but it means the one
personal God {347} of natural theology, the notion of whom the
https://www.newmanreader.org/works/tracts/cyril/cyril1.html 8/14
5/3/25, 12:07 AM Newman Reader - Tracts - St. Cyril's Formula

Catholic corrects and completes as often as he views Him as a Trinity; of

which correction Nazianzen's language ([on autos kata ten physin kai
ten hypostasin], Orat. xxviii. 9), completed by his usual formula (vid.
Orat. xx. 6) of the thee hypostases, is an illustration. The specification
of thee hypostases does not substantially alter the sense of the word
itself, but is a sort of catachresis by which this Catholic doctrine is
forcibly brought out (as it would be by the phrase "three monads"), viz.
that each of the Divine Persons is simply the Unus et Singularis Deus. If
it be objected, that by the same mode of reasoning, Athanasius might
have said catachrestically not only three monads or three hypostases,
but three Gods, I deny it, and for this reason; because hypostasis is not
equivalent to the simple idea of God, but is rather a definition of Him,
and that in some special elementary points, as essence, personality,
&c., and because such a mere improper use or varying application of the
term would not tend to compromise a truth, which never must even in
forms of speech be trifled with, the absolute numerical unity of the
Supreme Being. Though a Catholic could not say that there are three
Gods, he could say that the definition of God applies to unus and tres.
Perhaps it is for this reason that Epiphanius speaks of [tria enupostata,
sunupostata, tes autes hypostaseos]. Hær. lxxii. 4 (vid. Jerome, Ep. xv.
3), in the spirit in which St. Thomas, I believe, interprets the "non tres
æterni, sed unus æternus," to turn on the contrast of adjective and
substantive. {348}

Latitude Petavius makes a remark which is apposite to my present purpose.

in the
"Nomen Dei," he says, de Trin. iii. 9, §10, "cum sit ex eorum genere
sense of
the term quæ concreta dicuntur, formam significat, non abstractam ab individuis
proprietatibus, ... sed in iis subsistentem. Est enim Deus substantia
aliqua divinitatem habens. Sicut homo non humanam naturam
separatam, sed in aliquo individuo subsistentem exprimit, ita tamen ut
individuum ac personam, non certam ac determinatam, sed confuse
infiniteque representet, hoc est, naturam in aliquo, ut diximus,
consistentem ... sic nomen Dei proprie ac directe divinitatem naturamve
divinam indicat, assignificat autem eundem, ut in quapiam persona
subsistentem, nullam de tribus expresse designans, sed confuse et
universe." Here this great author seems to say, that even the word
"Deus" may stand, not barely for the Divine Being, but besides "in
quapiam persona subsistentem," without denoting which Person; and in
like manner I would understand hypostasis to mean the monas with a
like undeterminate notion of personality (without which attribute the
idea of God cannot be), and thus, according as one hypostasis is spoken
of, or three, the word may be roughly translated, in one case "personal
substance," or "being with personality," in the other "substantial
person," or "person which is in being." In all cases it will be equivalent
to the [theotes], the [monas], the divine [ousia], &c., though with that
peculiarity of meaning which I have insisted on.

illustrated These remarks might be illustrated by a number of passages from

from Atha-
Athanasius, in which he certainly implies {349} that the [monas], that
nasius,
&c. is, the indivisible, numerically one God, is at once Father and Son; that
the Father, who is the [monas], gives to the Son also to be the
https://www.newmanreader.org/works/tracts/cyril/cyril1.html 9/14
5/3/25, 12:07 AM Newman Reader - Tracts - St. Cyril's Formula

[monas]; and to have His (the Father's) hypostasis, i.e. to be that

hypostasis, which the Father is. For instance, he says that the [monas
theotetos] is [adiairetos], though Father and Son are two;—Orat. iv. 1,
2. He speaks of the [tautotes tes theotetos], and the [henotes tes
ousias], Orat. iii. 3; of the [henotes tes homoioseos], de Syn. 45; of the
[tautotes tou photos], de Decr. 24; of "the Father's hypostasis being
ascribed to the Son," Orat. iv. 33; of the [patrike theotes] being [to
einai tou huiou], Orat, iii. 3; of [to einai tou huiou] being [tes tou patros
ousias idion]. ibid.; of the Son being the [patrike idiotes], Orat. i. 42; of
the Father's [theotes] being in the Son, de Syn. 52 (whereas the Arians
made the two [theotetes] different in kind); of the Son's [theotes] being
the Father's, Orat. iii. 36; of the Son's [patrike theotes], Orat. i. 45, 49;
ii. 18, 73; iii. 26; of the Son's [patrike physis], Orat. i. 40; of the Son
being [to patrikon phos], iii. 53; and of the Son being the [pleroma tes
theotetos], Orat. iii. 1. Vid. also Didym. Trin. i. 15, p. 27; 16, p. 41; 18,
p. 45; 27, p. 80; iii. 17, p. 377; 23, p. 409. Nyss. Test. c. Jud. i. p. 292;
Cyril, c. Nest. iii. p. 80 b.

7.

Since, as has been said above, hypostasis is a word more peculiarly

Usia has
Christian than usia, I have judged it best to speak of it first, that the
a like
meaning, meaning of it, as it is ascertained {350} on inquiry, may serve as a key
for explaining other parallel terms. Usia is one of these the most in use,
certainly in the works of Athanasius, and we have his authority, as well
as St. Jerome's, for stating that it had been simply synonymous with
hypostasis. Moreover, in Orat. iii. 65, he uses the two words as
equivalent to each other. If this be so, what has been said above, in
explanation of the sense he put on the word hypostasis, will apply to
usia also.

This conclusion is corroborated by the proper meaning of the word usia

itself, which answers to the English word "being." But, when we speak
of the Divine Being, we mean to speak of Him, as what He is, [ho on],
including generally His attributes and characteristics, and among them,
at least obscurely, His personality. By the "Divine Being" we do not
commonly mean a mere anima mundi, or first principle of life, or system
of laws. Usia then, thus considered, agrees very nearly in sense, from
its very etymology, with hypostasis. Further, this was the sense in which
Aristotle used it, viz. for what is "individuum," and "numero unum;" and
it must not be forgotten that the Neo-Platonists, who exerted so great
an influence on the Alexandrian Church, professed the Aristotelic logic.
Nay, to St. Cyril himself, the successor of Athanasius, whose formula
these remarks are intended to illustrate, is ascribed a definition, which
makes usia to be an individual essence: [ousia, pragma authuparkton,
me deomenon heterou pros ten heautou sustasin]. Vid. Suicer. Thes. in
voc.

and is pre- Yet this is the word, and not hypostasis, which Athanasius {351}
ferred by
commonly uses, in controversy with the Arians, to express the divinity
Athanasius
of the Word. In one passage alone, as far as I recollect, does he use

https://www.newmanreader.org/works/tracts/cyril/cyril1.html 10/14
5/3/25, 12:07 AM Newman Reader - Tracts - St. Cyril's Formula

hypostasis: [ou ten hypostasin chorizon tou theou logou apo tou ek
Marias anthropou]. Orat. iv. 35. His usual term is usia:—for instance,
[ten theian ousian tou logou henomenon physei toi heautou patri]. In
Illud Omnia, 4. Again, [he ousia haute tes ousias tes patrikes esti
gennema]. de Syn. 48;—two remarkable passages, which remind us of
the two [ousiai] and two [physeis], used by the Alexandrian Pierius
(Phot. Cod. 119), and of the words of Theognostus, another
Alexandrian, [he tou huiou ousia ek tes tou patros ousias ephu]. ap.
Athan. de Decr. Nic. c. 25. Other instances of the usia of the Word in
Athanasius are such as the following, though there are many more than
can be enumerated:—Orat. i. 10, 45, 57, 59, 62, 64 fin.; ii. 7, 9, 11, 12,
13, 18, 22, 47, 56.

as a syn- In all these instances usia, I conceive, is substantially equivalent to

onyme for
hypostasis, as I have explained it, viz. expressing the divine [monas]
hypostasis
with an obscure intimation of personality inclusively; and here I think I
am able to quote the words of Father Passaglia, as agreeing (so far) in
what I have said. "Quum hypostasis," he says, de Trinitate, p. 1302,
"esse nequeat sine substantia, nihil vetabat quominus trium
hypostasum defensores hypostasim interdum pro substantia sumerent,
præsertim ubi hypostasis opponitur rei non subsistenti, ac efficientiæ." I
should wish to complete his admission by adding, "Since an intellectual
usia ordinarily implies an hypostasis, there was nothing to hinder usia
being used, when {352} hypostasis had to be expressed." Nor can I
construe usia in any other way in the two passages from In Illud Omnia,
4, and de Syn. 48, quoted above, to which may be added Orat. ii. 47,
init. where Athanasius speaks of the Word as [ten ousian heautou
ginoskon monogene sophian kai gennema tou patros]. Again he says,
Orat. iv. 1, that he is [ex ousias ousiodes kai enousios, ex ontos on].

If we want a later instance, and from another school, of usia and

hypostasis being taken as practically synonymous, when contrasted with
the economia, we may find one in Nyssen c. Eunom. Orat. v. p. 169.

8.

After what I have said of usia and hypostasis, it will not surprise the
and physis
reader if I consider that physis also, in the Alexandrian theology, was
also,
equally capable of being applied to the Divine Being viewed as one, or
viewed as three, or as each of the three separately. Thus Athanasius
says, [mia he theia physis]. contr. Apoll. ii. 13. fin, and de Incarn. V.
fin. Alexander, on the other hand, calls the Father and Son [tas tei
hypostasei duo physeis] (as Pierius, to whom I have already referred,
uses the word), Theod. Hist. i. 4, p. 15; and so Clement, also of the
Alexandrian school, [he huiou physis he toi monoi pantokratori
prosechestate], Strom. vii. 2. In the same epistle Alexander speaks of
the [mesiteuousa physis monogenes]; and Athanasius speaks of the
[physis] of the Son being less divisible from the Father than the
radiance from the sun, de Syn. 52, vid. also Orat. i. 51. Cyril too,
Thesaur. xi. p. 85, speaks of [he gennesasa physis] and [he
gennetheisa ex autes]; and in one {353} passage, as Petavius, de Trin.

https://www.newmanreader.org/works/tracts/cyril/cyril1.html 11/14
5/3/25, 12:07 AM Newman Reader - Tracts - St. Cyril's Formula

iv. 2, observes, implies three [physeis] in one [ousia]. Cyril moreover

explains as well as instances this use of the word. The [physis tou
logou], he says, signifies neither hypostasis alone, nor what is common
to the hypostases, but [ten koinen physin en tei tou logou hypostasei
holikos theoroumenen]. ap. Damasc. F. O. iii. 11. And thus Didymus
speaks of the [analloiotos physis en tautoteti ton prosopon hestosa].
Trin. i. 9.

and [Eidos] is a word of a similar character. As it is found in John v. 37, it

[eidos].
may be interpreted of the Divine Essence or of Person; the Vulgate
translates "neque speciem ejus vidistis." In Athan. Orat. iii. 3, it is
synonymous with [theotes] or usia; as ibid. 6 also; and apparently ibid.
16, where the Son is said to have the [eidos] of the Father. And so in de
Syn. 52. Athanasius says that there is only one [eidos theotetos]. Yet,
as taken from Gen. xxxii. 31, it is considered to denote the Son; e.g.
Athan. Orat. i. 20, where it is used as synonymous with Image, [eikon].
In like manner He is called "the very [eidos tes theotetos]." Ep. Æg. 17.
But again in Athan. Orat. iii. 6, it is first said that the [eidos] of the
Father and Son are one and the same, then that the Son is the [eidos]
of the Father's [theotes], and then that the Son is the [eidos] of the
Father.

9.

So much on the sense of the words [ousia, hypostasis, physis], and

These
[eidos], among the Alexandrians of the fourth and fifth centuries, as
terms in-
applicable denoting fully and absolutely all that the natural theologian attaches to
in their the notion of the Divine Being,—as denoting the God of natural
full sense theology, with {354} only such variation of sense in particular passages
to the as the context determines, and as takes place when we say, "God of
Word's heaven," "God of our fathers," "God of armies," "God of peace;" (all of
humanity,
which epithets, as much as "one" or "three," bring out respectively
different aspects of one and the same idea,) and, when applied to the
second Person of the Blessed Trinity, meaning simply that same Divine
Being, Deus singularis et unicus, in persona Filii. Now then the question
follows, which brings us at once upon the Formula, which I have
proposed to illustrate; viz., since the Word is an [ousia, hupostasis], or
[ousia], can the man, [anthropos],—manhood, humanity, human
nature, flesh,—which He assumed, be designated by these three terms
in a parallel full sense, as meaning that He became all that "a human
being" is, man with all the attributes and characteristics of man? Was
the Word a man in the precise and unrestricted sense in which any one
of us is a man? The Formula denies it, for it calls Him [mia physis
sesarkomene], not [duo physeis]; and in the sense which I have been
ascribing to those three terms, it rightly denies it; for in the sense in
which the Divine Being is an usia, etc., His human nature is not an usia,
etc.; so that in that sense there are not two [physeis], but one only, and
there could not be said to be two without serious prejudice to the
Catholic dogma.

10.

https://www.newmanreader.org/works/tracts/cyril/cyril1.html 12/14
5/3/25, 12:07 AM Newman Reader - Tracts - St. Cyril's Formula
yet they I have said, "in the sense in which the Divine Being is an usia;" for
are so
doubtless this and the other terms in question {355} need not be, and
applied,
are not always taken in the sense which attaches to them in the above
passages.

e.g. Hypo- 1. Hypostasis, for instance, is used for substance as opposed to

stasis
appearance or imagination, in Hebr. xi. 1. And in like manner Epiphanius
speaks of the Word's [sarkos hypostasin alethinen]. Hær. 69, 59. And
Irenæus, of "substantia carnis," Hær. iii. 22, which doubtless in the
original was hypostasis, as is shown by the [ou dokesei, all' hypostasei
aletheias], ibid. v. 1. In a like sense Cyril of Jerusalem seems to use the
word, Cat. vii. 3, ix. 5, 6, x. 2. And Gregory Nyssen, Antirrh. 25 fin. and
apparently in the abstract for existence, c. Jud. p. 291. And Cyril of
Alexandria, whose Formula is in question, in his controversy with
Theodoret. [Sustasis] is used for it by Athan. c. Apoll. i. 5, ii. 5, 6, etc.
Vid. also Max. Opp. t. 2, p. 303, and Malchion ap. Routh. Rell. t. 2, p.
484. The two words are brought together in Hippol. c. Noët. 15 fin.
(where the word hypostasis is virtually denied of the human nature),
and in Nyss. Test. c. Jud. i. p. 292. Also, [he sarx ouk hypostasis
idiosustatos egegonei]. Damasc. c. Jacob. 53. For [idiosustatos], vid.
Didym. Trin. iii. 23, p. 410. Ephraëm, ap. Phot. Cod. 229, p. 785 fin.
Max. Opp. t. 2, pp. 281 and 282.

and usia, 2. If even hypostasis may be found of the Word's humanity, there is
more reason to anticipate such an application of the other terms which I
have classed with it. Thus as regards usia: [theos on homou te kai
anthropos teleios ho autos, tas duo autou ousias epistosato hemin],
says Melito ap. Routh. Rell. t. 1, p. 115. And Chrysostom, [ouchi tas
ousias suncheon], in Psalm. 44, p. 166; also in {356} Joann. Hom. ii. 2.
Vid. also Basil. in Eunom. i. 18. Nyssen, Antirrh. 30. Cyril. 2 ad Succ. p.
144. But the word (i.e. substantia) is more common in this sense in
Latin writers:—e.g. Tertullian. de Carn. Christ. 13, 16, etc. Præscr. 51.
Novat. de Trin. 11 and 24. Ambros. de Fid. ii. 77. Augustin. Epist. 187,
10. Vincent. Commonit. 13. Leon. Epist. 28, p. 811. As to Alexandrian
writers, Origen calls the Word's soul, substantia, Princip. ii. 6, n. 3, as
Eusebius, [noera ousia], de Const. L., p. 536. Petavius quotes
Athanasius as saying, [to soma koinen echon tois pasi ten ousian], de
Incarn. x. 3, § 9, t. 6, p. 13, but this may be external to the union, as
[aparchen labon ek tes ousias tou anthropou], Athan. de Inc. et c. Ar. 8
fin.

and 3. The word physis has still more authorities in its favour than usia; e.g.
physis; [physeis duo, theos kai anthropos], Greg. Naz. Orat. xxxvii. 11. Epist.
101, pp. 85, 87. Epist. 102, p. 97. Carm. in Laud. Virg. v. 149. de Vit.
sua, v. 652. Greg. Nyssen. c. Apoll. t. 2, p. 696. c. Eunom. Orat. 5, p.
168. Antirrh. 27. Amphiloch. ap. Theod, Eran. i. 66. Theod. Hær. v. 11.
p. 422. Chrysostom, in 1 Tim. Hom. 7, 2. Basil. Seleuc. Orat. 33, p.
175. And so natura, in Hilar. Trin. xi. 3, 14, in Psalm. 118, lit. 14, 8. Vid.
also Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, etc. For other instances, vid. Conc.
Chalc. Act. 2, t. 2, p. 300. Leon. Epist. 165. Leont. c. Nestor. ap. Canis.
t. 1, p. 548. Anastas. Hodeg. x. p. 154 (ed. 1606), Gelas. de D. N. (in
https://www.newmanreader.org/works/tracts/cyril/cyril1.html 13/14
5/3/25, 12:07 AM Newman Reader - Tracts - St. Cyril's Formula

Bibl. P. Paris. Quart. 1624), t. 4, p. 423. As for Alexandrian writers, I do

not cite Origen (e.g. in Matth. t. 3, pp. 852, 902, t. 4, Append. p. 25,
etc.), because we cannot be sure that the word was found in the
original Greek. But we have [theos {357} en physei, kai gegonen
anthropos physei], Petr. Alex. ap. Routh. Rell. t. 3, p. 344-346. And [En
ekaterais tais physesi huios tou theou] Isid. Pelus. Epist. i. 405. And
Athanasius himself, [he morphe tou doulou] is [he noera tes anthropon
sustaseos physis sun tei organikei katastasei]. c. Apoll. ii. 1. Vid. also i.
5, ii. 11. Orat. ii. 70, iii. 43. Nor must it be forgotten that Cyril himself
accepted the two [physeis]; vid. some instances at the end of Theod.
Eran. ii. Vid. also c. Nest. iii. p. 70, d. e. and his Answers to the
Orientals and Theodoret.

Continue

Top | Contents | Works | Home

Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman

Copyright © 2007 by The National Institute for Newman Studies. All rights reserved.

https://www.newmanreader.org/works/tracts/cyril/cyril1.html 14/14