Coptica 15, 2016

8 Lois Farag

hypostasis synonymously; unlike Leo, it does not use form, substance, and nature interchangeably. Yūsāb then denies the accusations that the Copts profess Eutychian theology and that Pope Dioscorus gave absolution to Eutyches in the Council of Ephesus II based on his theology. Yūsāb clarifies that the absolution was based on Eutyches acknowledging the Nicene faith, since the Nicene Symbol is the mark of orthodoxy. He also asserts that the faith of Dioscorus was distinctively non-Eutychian since he confessed that the unity of natures were “without mixture, without confusion, and without change.” 29 Yūsāb is referring to the liturgical confession recited in the liturgy immediately before partaking of the Eucharist. This statement has its roots in Cyril’s words that, in the case of Christ, the divinity and the humanity “came together in a mysterious and incomprehensible union without confusion or change. The manner of this union is entirely beyond conception.” This incomprehensible union in the one nature of the Word Incarnate occurred without confusion or mixture, says Cyril. If anyone thinks in another way, that person will “be offering us two sons and two Christs.” 30 Cyril also wrote in his First Letter to Succensus that the unity “took place without blending, without change, without alteration.” 31 Another major point of concern to Yūsāb is the notion of the unity of Christ: What are the elements of this unity and how do we define unity? He starts with the explicit reference to Cyril’s assertion that after the union we speak only of one nature, for whoever claims two natures annuls the meaning of unity. 31F 32 Yūsāb provides the example of the simple being ( ﺍ ﻻﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺫﺝ al-insān al-sādhij ). According to Yūsāb, a human being is composed of a mortal flesh, a sensitive living soul, and a rational soul. Every being who is mortal, living and rational is a human being. Yūsāb then inquires if the mortal portion of the human being is an essence ( ﺟﻮﻫﺮ jawhar , οὐσία) or an accident ( ﻋَﺮَﺽ c araḍ ). If the mortal flesh is an essence and not an accident and the same applies to the living soul and the rational soul, then a person has three essences. Do we speak about three essences for the human being? Does Christ then have four essences? 32F 33 It is clear that is not the case. After the soul is united with the body we speak about one essence and one nature of the human person, not two. When natures unite they 29 Ms. Theol. 5 , 173r. 30 J. A. M C Guckin, trans. Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ (Crestwood, NY, 1995), 77-79. 31 John I. McEnerney, St. Cyril of Alexandria Letters 1-50 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2007), Letter 45; p. 192. 32 Ms. Theol. 5 , 173r. 33 It is interesting to note Bindley’s comment on Leo’s letter: “The same sort of difficulty arose later in scholastic theology when St. Thomas Aquinas found it necessary to postulate ‘accidents’ without a ‘subject’ in the doctrine of Transubstantiation.” Bindley, Oecumenical Documents , p. 123.