Coptica 15, 2016

Letter by Anba Yūsāb, Bishop of Jirjā and Akhmīm 7 (hypostasis),” 27 which also attempts to clarify the distinction between ousia and hypostasis by referring to Hebrews 1:3: For, if we have explained that “person” is the combination of the specific qualities in each [member of the Trinity] and it is admitted, as in the case of the Father, that that which is observed of an individualizing nature is something through which He alone is known, and in the same manner a like belief is held concerning the Only-begotten, how does the Scripture in this passage [Heb 1:3] ascribe the name of “person” to the Father alone, and say that the Son is a form “of his person,” characterized not by His own, but by the distinguishing marks of the Father? For, if the person is the special sign of the existence of each member and, further, it is admitted that being “unbegotten” is peculiar to the Father, but the Son has been formed by the attributes peculiar to the Father, then no longer, as it seems, does it remain to the Father exclusively to be called the “Unbegotten” in the sense of Himself alone, if, indeed, the existence of the Only-begotten is characterized by the property peculiar to the Father. 28 It is clear that Yūsāb, Ibn Kabar, Ibn al-Makīn, and Basil all considered Hebrews 1:3 a crucial text for defining hypostasis. The hypostasis of the Incarnate Son on the cross was the cause of our salvation. They followed the argument that particularity, what Basil called “individualizing nature,” is specific to and defines hypostasis. Both Yūsāb and Basil made it clear that nature and hypostasis are not interchangeable, nor are ousia and hypostasis. That Yūsāb’s argument is shared by Ibn Kabar, Ibn al-Makīn, and Basil, the latter being a Father respected by both Orthodox and Catholics, makes a convincing case in his letter. This argument makes clear the confusion caused by Leo’s use of the terms form, nature, and substance interchangeably. He confused particularity with the general; he mixed up the general nature with the particularity of the hypostasis. Yūsāb makes clear that the Coptic Orthodox Church does not use nature and 27 This letter is “also found among the works of St. Gregory of Nyssa addressed to his brother St. Peter of Sebaste.” It has been assigned to Basil for stylistic reasons and manuscript evidence. It was also assigned to Basil at the Council of Chalcedon. It was written in either 369 or 370. A.C. Way, trans., R. Deferrari, ed., Saint Basil Letters, vol. 1 (1-185), The Fathers of the Church 13 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1981), 84. Manuscript evidence indicate that the writings of the Cappadocians were available in Coptic so Ibn Kabar and Ibn al-Makīn could have very well been familiar with such an argument. H. Takla, “Coptic Literature,” in L.M. Farag, ed., The Coptic Christian Heritage, History. Faith, and Culture (Abingdon: Routledge, 2014), 213. 28 Ibid ., 93; my emphasis.