Coptica 15, 2016

10 Lois Farag

aspects. One aspect is the ethereal and spiritual soul, which is like the angels; the other aspect is the rational mind, which is simple because it is created in God’s image. When God said “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Gen 1:26 RSV), the image and similarity meant the rational aspect of humanity. Yūsāb continues that the unity of the two aspects of the soul indicates that man became one subject ( ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ mawḍū c wāḥid ) of one essence and one nature. The unity of the two aspects of the rational soul is expressed in the physical activities that originate from the soul united naturally to the body. For example, the body expresses certain spiritual sentiments like standing in prayer, kneeling, standing in supplication, fasting and vigilance, sometimes to extents that are beyond physical capacity and endurance. In this case the two natures are united in one nature. When the ethereal spiritual soul guides the body, the body becomes spiritual. Those who pursue virtue and live a spiritual life are called spiritual people. Those who follow the rational mind and are focused on the works of the body are called carnal beings whose body has overwhelmed the soul and conquered it. Yūsāb gives as an example the time of Noah, when the whole population is described as carnal. This does not mean that the ethereal/ spiritual soul left or was separated from the body of the people at the time of Noah. When two natures unite they become one soul though we know that the soul is both spiritual and rational. Though composed of these different natures the human being has one essence and one nature. 39F 40 Therefore, after the union, Christ also has one nature. We do not describe the unity as “one” and “another”, for such descriptions of unity introduce quantity ( ﻛﻤﻴﺔ kimmīya ) or multiplicity into the Incarnation and not oneness. 40F 41 This was one of the arguments of Timothy II (r. 458-480) against the Chalcedonian Definition. 41F 42 Yūsāb emphasizes his understanding of unity: It does not mean mixture or confusion as it does for Eutyches, and it does not divide or separate as it does for Nestorius. But as Cyril wrote, unity means one nature of God the Word Incarnate. 42F 43 He concludes his argument by quoting verbatim Cyril’s Third and Fourth Anathemas, which summarize this understanding of unity and warn against dividing the hypostases and dividing the words of the evangelists. 43F 44 40 Ms. Theol. 5 , 176r, 176v, 177r. 41 Ms. Theol. 5 , 177r, 177v. When Yūsāb writes that after the unity Christ is not “one” and “another” ( ,)ﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻭ ﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ he is directly referring to Leo’s description of unity in his Letter 28. 42 R.Y. Ebied and L.R. Wickham, “Timothy Aelurus: Against the Definition of the Council of Chalcedon,” in C. Laga, J.A. Munitiz and L. Van Rompay, eds, After Chalcedon: Studies in Theology and Church History offered to Professor Albert Van Roey for His Seventieth Birthday , Orientalia Lovanienisia Analecta 18 (Louvain: Peeters, 1985), 115-166, at 152. 43 Ms. Theol. 5 , 177v. 44 “Anathema III: If anyone divideth the hypostases after the union in respect of the One Christ, connecting them by a mere association in dignity or authority or rule, and not rather by