Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers Series 2 - The Still Small ...

guished from another, the definition by which each is known will no longer tally in all particulars
with the definition of another, even though in some points it be found to agree.
3. My statement, then, is this. That which is spoken of in a special and peculiar manner
is indicated by the name of the hypostasis. Suppose we say “a man.” The indefinite meaning
of the word strikes a certain vague sense upon the ears. The nature is indicated, but what
subsists and is specially and peculiarly indicated by the name is not made plain. Suppose
we say “Paul.” We set forth, by what is indicated by the name, the nature subsisting. 2024
This then is the hypostasis, or “understanding;” not the indefinite conception of the essence
or substance, which, because what is signified is general, finds no “standing,” but the
conception which by means of the expressed peculiarities gives standing and circumscription
to the general and uncircumscribed. It is customary in Scripture to make a distinction of
this kind, as well in many other passages as in the History of Job. When purposing to narrate
the events of his life, Job first mentions the common, and says “a man;” then he straightway
particularizes by adding “a certain.” 2025 As to the description of the essence, as having no
bearing on the scope of his work, he is silent, but by means of particular notes of identity,
mentioning the place and points of character, and such external qualifications as would individualize,
and separate from the common and general idea, he specifies the “certain man,”
in such a way that from name, place, mental qualities, and outside circumstances, the description
of the man whose life is being narrated is made in all particulars perfectly clear.
If he had been giving an account of the essence, there would not in his explanation of the
nature have been any mention of these matters. The same moreover would have been the
account that there is in the case of Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite, and each
of the men there mentioned. 2026 Transfer, then, to the divine dogmas the same standard
of difference which you recognise in the case both of essence and of hypostasis in human
affairs, and you will not go wrong. Whatever your thought suggests to you as to the mode
of the existence of the Father, you will think also in the case of the Son, and in like manner
too of the Holy Ghost. For it is idle to bait the mind at any detached conception from the
conviction that it is beyond all conception. 2027 For the account of the uncreate and of the
incomprehensible is one and the same in the case of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Ghost. For one is not more incomprehensible and uncreate than another. And since
it is necessary, by means of the notes of differentiation, in the case of the Trinity, to keep
2024 ὑφεστῶσαν. ὑπόστασις is derivatively that which “stands under” or subsists, ὃ ὑφέστηκε. cf. my note
on Theodoret, p. 36.
2025 Job i. 1, LXX.
2026 Job ii. 11.
2027 The mss. vary as to this parenthetical clause, and are apparently corrupt. The rendering above is conjec-
tural, but not satisfactory.
To his Brother Gregory, concerning the difference between and …
427
138