Chapter 3. On the symbols "Of the Substance" and "One in substance"
§ 33. {129} 1. BUT since they are thus minded both towards each other and towards those who proceeded them, proceed we to ascertain from them what extravagance they have seen, or what they complain of in the received phrases, that they should thus disobey their fathers, and contend against an Ecumenical Council [Note A]? "The phrases 'of the substance' and 'one in substance,'" say they, "do not please us, for they are an offence to some and a trouble to many." [Note B] This {130} then is what they allege in their writings; but one may reasonably answer them thus: If the very words were by themselves a cause of offence to them, it must have followed, not that some only should have been offended, and many troubled, but that we also and all the rest should have been affected by them in the same way; if on the contrary all men are well content with the words, and they who wrote them were no ordinary persons but men who came together from the whole world, and to these testify in addition the 400 Bishops and more who have now met at Ariminum, does not this plainly prove against those who accuse the Council, that the terms are not in fault, but the perverseness of those who misinterpret them? How many men read divine Scripture wrongly, and as thus conceiving it, find fault with the Saints? such were the Jews formerly, who rejected the Lord, and the Manichees at present who blaspheme the Law [Note 1]; yet are not the Scriptures the cause to them, but their own evil humours. If then ye can shew the terms to be actually unsound, do so and let the proof proceed, and drop the pretence of offence created, lest you come into the condition of the Pharisees formerly, when, on their pretending offence at the Lord's teaching, He said, Every plant, which My Heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up [Matt. xv. 13.]. By which He shewed that not the words of the Father planted by Him were really an offence to them, but that they misinterpreted good words and offended themselves. And in like manner they who at that time blamed the Epistles of the Apostle, impeached, not Paul, but their own deficient learning and distorted minds. § 34. 2. For answer what is much to the purpose, Who are they whom you pretend are offended and troubled at these terms? of those who are religious towards Christ not one; on the contrary they defend and maintain them. But if they are Arians who thus feel, what wonder they should be distressed at words which destroy their heresy? for it is not the terms which offend them, but the proscription of their irreligion which afflicts them [Note 2]. Therefore let us have no more murmuring against the Fathers, nor pretence of this kind; or next [Note C] you will be making complaints of the Lord's Cross, {131} that it is to Jews an offence and to Gentiles foolishness [1Cor. i. 23. 24.], as said the Apostle [Note D]. But as the Cross is not faulty, for to us who believe it is Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God, though Jews rave, so neither are the terms of the Fathers faulty, but profitable to those who rightly read, and subversive of all irreligion, though the Arians so often burst [Note 3] with rage as being condemned by them. 3. Since then the pretence that persons are offended does not hold, tell us yourselves, why is it you are not pleased with the phrase "of the substance," (this must first be enquired about,) when you yourselves have written that the Son is generated from the Father? If when you name the Father, or use the word "God," you do not signify substance, or understand Him according to substance, who is that He is, but signify something else about Him [Note 4], not to say inferior, then you should not have written that the Son was from the Father, but from what is about Him or in Him [Note E]; and so, shrinking from saying that God is truly Father, and making Him compound who is simple, in a material way, you will be authors of a new blasphemy. And, with such ideas, do you of necessity consider the Word and the title "Son," not as a substance but as a name [Note 5] only; and in consequence the views ye have ye hold as far as names only, and your statements are not positive points of faith, but negative opinions. § 35. 4. But this is more like the crime of the Sadducees, and of those among the Greeks who had the name of Atheists. It follows that you deny that creation too is the handy-work of God Himself that is; at least, if "Father" and "God" do not signify the very substance of Him that is, but {132} something else, which you imagine: which is irreligious, and most shocking even to think of. But if, when we hear it said, I am that I am [Ex. iii. 14.], and, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth [Gen. i. 1.], and, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord [Deut. vi. 4.], and, Thus saith the Lord Almighty, we understand nothing else than the very simple, and blessed, and incomprehensible substance itself of Him that is, (for though we be unable to master that He is, yet hearing "Father," and "God," and "Almighty," we understand nothing else to be meant than the very substance of Him that is [Note 6];) and if ye too have said, that the Son is from God, it follows that you have said that He is from the "substance" of the Father. And since the Scriptures precede you which say, that the Lord is Son of the Father, and the Father Himself precedes them, who says, This is My beloved Son [Matt. iii. 17.], and a son is no other than the offspring from his father, is it not evident that the Fathers have suitably said that the Son is from the Father's substance? considering that it is all one to say in an orthodox sense "from God," and to say "from the substance." For all the creatures, though they be said to be generated from God, yet are not from God as the Son is; for they are not offsprings in their nature, but works. Thus, it is said, in the beginning God, not "generated," but made the heaven and the earth, and all that is in them [Gen. i. 1.]. And not, "who generates," but who maketh His angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire [Ps. civ. 4.]. And though the Apostle has said, One God, from whom all things [1 Cor. viii. 6.], yet he says not this, as reckoning the Son with other things; but, whereas some of the Greeks consider [Note 7] that the creation was held together by chance, and from the combination of atoms [Note 8], and spontaneously from elements of similar structure [Note 9], and has no cause; and others consider that it came from a cause, but not through the Word; and each heretic has imagined things at his will, and tells his fables about the creation; on this account the Apostle was obliged to introduce from God, that he might thereby certify the Maker, and show that the universe was framed at His will. And accordingly he straightway proceeds: And one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things [1 Cor. viii. 6.], by way of excepting the Son from that "all," [Note 10] (for what is called God's {133} work, is all done through the Son; and it is not possible that the things framed should have one generation with their Framer,) and by way of teaching that the phrase of God, which occurs in the passage, has a different sense in the case of the works, from what it bears when used of the Son; for He is offspring, and they are works: and therefore He, the Son, is the proper offspring of His substance, but they are the handywork of His will. §. 36. 5. The Council, then, comprehending this [Note 11], and aware of the different senses of the same word, that none should suppose, that the Son was said to be from God like the creation, wrote with greater explicitness, that the Son was "from the substance." For this betokens the true genuineness of the Son towards the Father; whereas, in its being said simply "from God," only the Creator's will concerning the framing of all is signified. If then they too had this meaning, when they wrote that the Word was "from the Father," they had nothing to complain of in the Council [Note 12]; but if they meant "of God," in the instance of the Son, as it is used of the creation, then as understanding it of the creation, they should not name the Son, or they will be manifestly mingling blasphemy with religiousness; but either they have to cease reckoning the Lord with the creatures, or at least to make statements not unworthy, and not unbecoming of the Son. For if He is a Son, He is not a creature; but if a creature, then not a Son. Since these are their views, perhaps they will be denying the Holy Laver also, because it is administered into Father and into Son; and not into Creator and Creature, as they account it. 6. "But," they say, "all this is not written: and we reject these words as unscriptural." But this, again, is an unblushing excuse in their mouths. For if they think every thing must be rejected which is not written, wherefore, when the Arian party invent such a heap of phrases, not from Scripture [Note 13], "Out of nothing," and "the Son was not before His generation," and "Once He was not," and "He is alterable," and "the Father is ineffable and invisible to the Son," and "the Son knows not even His own substance;" and all that Arius has vomited in his light and irreligious Thalia, why do not they speak against these, but rather take their {134} part; and on that account contend with their own Fathers? And, in what Scripture did they on their part find "ingenerate," and the name of "substance," and "there are two subsistences," and "Christ is not very God," and "He is one of the hundred sheep," and "God's Wisdom is ingenerate and inoriginate, but the created powers are many, of which Christ is one?" [Note 14] Or how, when in the so-called Dedication, the party of Acacius and Eusebius used expressions not in Scripture [Note 15], and said that "the First-born of the creation" was "the unvarying Image of the divine substance, and power, and will of God,'' do they complain of the Fathers, for making mention of unscriptural expressions, and especially of substance? For they ought either to complain of themselves, or to find no fault with the Fathers. §. 37. 7. Now, if certain others made excuses of the expressions of the Council, it might perhaps have been set down, either to ignorance or to reverence. There is no question, for instance, about George of Cappadocia [Note F], who was expelled from Alexandria; a man, without character in years past, nor a Christian in any respect; but only pretending to the name to suit the times, and thinking religion to be a means of gain [1 Tim. vi. 6.]. And therefore reason is there, none should complain of his making mistakes about the faith, considering he knows neither what he says, nor whereof he affirms; but, according to the text, goeth after all, as a bird [vid. Prov. vii. 22, 23.]. But when Acacius, and Eudoxius, and Patrophilus say this, do not they deserve the strongest reprobation? for while they write what is {135} unscriptural themselves, and have accepted many times, the term "substance" as suitable, especially on the ground of the letter of Eusebius [Note 16], they now blame their predecessors for using terms of the same kind. Nay, though they say themselves, that the Son is "God from God," and "Living Word," "Unvarying Image of the Father's substance;" they accuse the Nicene Bishops of saying, that He who was begotten is "of the substance" of Him who begat Him, and "One in substance" with Him. But what marvel the conflict with their predecessors and their own Fathers, when they are inconsistent to themselves, and fall foul of each other? For after publishing, in the so-called Dedication at Antioch, that the Son is unvarying Image of the Father's substance, and swearing that so they held and anathematizing those who held otherwise, nay, in Isauria, writing down, "We do not decline the authentic faith published in the Dedication at Antioch," [Note 17] where the term "substance" was introduced, as if forgetting all this, shortly after, in the same Isauria, they put into writing the very contrary, saying, We reject the words "one in substance," and "like in substance," as alien to the Scriptures, and demolish the term "substance," as not contained therein [Note 18]. §. 38. 8. Can we then any more account such men Christians? or what sort of faith have they who stand neither to word nor writing, but alter and change every thing according to the times? For if, O Acacius and Eudoxius, you "do not decline the faith published at the Dedication," and in it is written that the Son is "Unvarying Image of God's substance," why is it ye write in Isauria, "we reject the Like in substance?" for if the Son is not like the Father according to substance, how is He "unvarying image of the substance?" But if you are dissatisfied at having written "Unvarying Image of the substance," how is it that ye "anathematize those who say that the Son is Unlike?" for if He be not according to substance like, He is altogether unlike: and the Unlike cannot be an Image. And if so, then it does not hold that He that hath seen the Son, hath seen the Father [John xiv. 9.], there being then the greatest difference possible between Them, or rather the One being wholly Unlike the Other. And Unlike cannot possibly be called Like. By what artifice then do ye call Unlike like, and {136} consider Like to be unlike, and so pretend to say that the Son is the Father's Image? for if the Son be not like the Father in substance, something is wanting to the Image, and it is not a complete Image, nor a perfect radiance [Note G]. How then read ye, In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily [Coloss. ii. 9.]? and, from His fulness have all we received [John i. 16.]? how is it that ye expel the Arian Aetius as an heretic, though ye say the same with him? for thy companion is he, O Acacius, and he became Eudoxius's master in this so great irreligion [Note H]; which was the reason why Leontius the Bishop made him deacon, that using the name of the diaconate as a sheep's clothing, he might be able with impunity to pour forth the words of blasphemy. §. 39. What then has persuaded you to contradict each other [Note 19], and to procure to yourselves so great a disgrace? You cannot give any good account of it; this supposition only remains, that all you do is but outward profession and pretence, to secure the countenance of Constantius and the gain from thence accruing. And ye make nothing of accusing the Fathers, and ye complain outright of the expressions as being unscriptural; and, as it is written, have opened thy feet to every one that passed by [Ez. xvi. 25.]; so as to change as often as they wish, in whose pay and keep you are. 9. Yet, though a man use terms not in Scripture, it makes no difference, so that his meaning be religious [Note I]. But the {137} heretic, though he use scriptural terms, yet, as being equally dangerous and depraved, shall be asked in the words of the Spirit, Why dost thou preach My laws, and takest My covenant in thy mouth? [Ps. l. 16.] Thus whereas the devil, though speaking from the Scriptures, is silenced by the Saviour, the blessed Paul, though he speaks from profane writers, The Cretans are always liars [Tit. i. 2.], and, For we are His offspring [Acts xvii. 28.], and, Evil communications corrupt good manners [1 Cor. xv. 33.], yet has a religious meaning, as being holy,—is doctor of the nations, in faith and verily, as having the mind of Christ [1 Tim. ii. 7.], and what he speaks, he utters religiously. What then is there even plausible, in the Arian terms, in which the caterpillar and the locust [Joel ii. 25.] [Note 20] are preferred to the Saviour, and He is reviled with "Once Thou wast not," and "Thou wast created," and "Thou art foreign to God in substance," and, in a word, no insult is spared against Him? On the other hand, what good word have our Fathers omitted? yea rather, have they not a lofty view and a Christ-loving religiousness? And yet these men have written, "We reject the words;" while those others they endure in their insults towards the Lord, and betray to all men, that for no other cause do they resist that great Council but that it condemned the Arian heresy. For it is on this account again that they speak against the term One in substance, about which they also entertain wrong sentiments. For if their faith was orthodox, and they confessed the Father as truly Father, believed the Son to be genuine Son, and by nature true Word and Wisdom of the Father, and as to saying that the Son is from God, if they did not use the words of Him as of themselves, but understood Him to be the proper offspring of the Father's substance, as the radiance is from light, they would not every one of them have found fault with the Fathers; but would have been confident that the Council wrote suitably; and that this is the orthodox faith concerning our Lord Jesus Christ. §. 40. 10."But," say they, "the sense of such expressions is {138} obscure to us;" for this is another of their pretences,—"We reject them," [Note 21] say they, "because we cannot master their meaning." But if they were true in this profession, instead of saying, "We reject them," they should ask instruction from the well informed; else ought they to reject whatever they cannot understand in divine Scripture, and to find fault with the writers. But this were the crime of heretics rather than of us Christians; for what we do not understand in the sacred oracles, instead of rejecting, we seek from persons to whom the Lord has revealed it, and from them we ask for instruction. But since they thus make a pretence of the obscurity of such expressions, let them at least confess what is annexed to the Creed, and anathematize those who hold [Note 22] that "the Son is from nothing," and "He was not before His generation," and "the Word of God is a creature and work," and "He is alterable by nature," and "from another subsistence;" and in a word let them anathematize the Arian heresy, which has originated such irreligion [Note 23]. Nor let them say any more, "We reject the terms," but that "we do not yet understand them;" by way of having some reason to shew for declining them. But well know I, and am sure, and they know it too, that if they could confess all this and anathematize the Arian heresy, they would no longer deny those terms of the Council [Note 24]. For on this account it was that the Fathers, after declaring that the Son was begotten from the Father's substance, and One in substance with Him, thereupon added, "But those who say," (what has just been quoted, the symbols of the Arian heresy,) "we anathematize;" I mean, in order to shew that the statements are parallel, and that the terms in the Creed imply the disclaimers subjoined, and that all who confess the terms, will certainly understand the disclaimers. But those who both dissent from the latter and impugn the former, such men are proved on every side to be foes of Christ. §. 41. 11. Those who deny the Council altogether, are sufficiently exposed by these brief remarks; those, however, who accept every thing else that was defined at Nicæa, and quarrel only about the One in substance, must not be received as enemies; nor do we here attack them as Ario-maniac's, nor as opponents of the Fathers, but we discuss the matter with them as {139} brothers with brothers [Note 25], who mean what we mean, and dispute only about the word. For, confessing that the Son is from the substance of the Father, and not from other subsistence [Note 26], and that He is not a creature nor work, but His genuine and natural offspring, and that He is eternally with the Father as being His Word and Wisdom, they are not far from accepting even the phrase "One in Substance;" of whom is Basil of Ancyra, in what he has written concerning the faith [Note K]. For only to say "like according to substance," is very far from signifying "of the substance," [Note 27] by which, rather, as they say themselves, the genuineness of the Son to the Father is signified. Thus tin is only like to silver, a wolf to a dog, and gilt brass to the true metal; but tin is not from silver, nor could a wolf be accounted the offspring of a dog [Note L]. But since they say that He is "of the substance" and "Like in substance," what do they signify by these but "One in substance?" [Note M] For, while to say only "Like in substance," does not necessarily convey "of the substance," on the contrary, to say "One in substance," is to signify the meaning of both terms, "Like in substance," and "of the substance." And accordingly they themselves in controversy with those who say that the Word is a creature, instead of allowing Him to be genuine Son, have taken their proofs against them from human illustrations of son and father [Note N], with this exception that God is not as man, nor the generation of the Son as offspring of man, but as one which {140} may be ascribed to God, and it becomes us to think. Thus they have called the Father the Fount of Wisdom and Life, and the Son the Radiance of the Eternal Light, and the Offspring from the Fountain, as He says, I am the Life [John xiv. 6.], and, I Wisdom dwell with Prudence [Prov. viii. 12.]. But the Radiance from the Light, and Offspring from Fountain, and Son from Father, how can these be so suitably expressed as by "One in substance?" 12. And is there any cause of fear, lest, because the offspring from men are one in substance, the Son, by being called One in substance, be Himself considered as a human offspring too? perish the thought! not so; but the explanation is easy. For the Son is the Father's Word and Wisdom; whence we learn the impassibility and indivisibility [Note 28] of such a generation from the Father [Note N sic]. For not even man's word is part of him, nor proceeds from him according to passion [Note 29]; much less God's Word; whom the Father has declared to be His own Son, lest, on the other hand, if we {141} merely heard of "Word," we should suppose Him, such as is the word of man, unsubsistent [Note 30]; but that, hearing that He is Son, we may acknowledge Him to be a living Word and a substantive [Note 31] Wisdom. §. 42. Accordingly, as in saying "offspring," we have no human thoughts, and, though we know God to be a Father, we entertain no material ideas concerning Him, but while we listen to these illustrations and terms [Note 32], we think suitably of God, for He is not as man, so in like manner, when we hear of "one in substance," we ought to transcend all sense, and, according to the Proverb, understand by the understanding that is set before us [Prov. xxiii. 1.]; so as to know, that not by will, but in truth, is He genuine from the Father, as Life from Fountain, and Radiance from Light. Else [Note 33] why should we understand "offspring" and "son," in no corporeal way, while we conceive of "one in substance" as after the manner of bodies? especially since these terms are not here used about different subjects, but of whom "offspring" is predicated, of Him is "one in substance" also. And it is but consistent to attach the same sense to both expressions as applied to the Saviour, and not to interpret "offspring," as is fitting, and "one in substance" otherwise; since to be consistent, ye who are thus minded and who say that the Son is Word and Wisdom of the Father, should entertain a different view of these terms also, and understand in separate senses Word, and in distinct senses Wisdom. But, as this would be extravagant, (for the Son is the Father's Word and Wisdom, and the Offspring from the Father is one and proper to His substance,) so the sense of "offspring" and "one in substance" is one, and whoso considers the Son an offspring, rightly considers Him also as "one in substance." §. 43. 13. This is sufficient to shew that the phrase of "one in substance" is not foreign nor far from the meaning of these much loved persons [Note 34]. But since, as they allege [Note 35], (for I have not the Epistle in question,) the Bishops who condemned Samosatene [Note O] have laid down in writing that the Son is not one in substance with the Father, and so it comes to pass that {142} they, for reverence and honour towards the aforesaid, thus feel about that expression, it will be to the purpose reverently to argue with them this point also. Certainly it is unbecoming to make the one company conflict with the other; for all are fathers; nor is it religious to settle, that these have spoken well, and those ill; for all of them have gone to sleep in Christ. Nor is it right to be disputatious, and to compare the respective numbers of those who met in the Councils, or the three hundred may seem to throw the lesser into the shade; nor to compare the dates, lest those who preceded seem to eclipse those that came after. For all, I say, are Fathers; and, any how the three hundred laid down nothing new, nor was it in any self-confidence that they became champions of words not in Scripture, but they started from their Fathers, as the others, and they used their words. For there were two Bishops of the name of Dionysius, much older than the seventy who deposed Samosatene, of whom one was of Rome, and the other of Alexandria; and a charge had been laid by some persons against the Bishop of Alexandria before the Bishop of Rome, as if he had said that the Son was made, and not one in substance with the Father. This had given great pain to the Roman Council; and the Bishop of Rome expressed their united sentiments in a letter to his namesake. This led to his writing an explanation which he calls the Book of Refutation and Apology; and it runs thus: §. 44. 14. And [Note 36] I have written in another Letter, a refutation of the false charge which they bring against me, that I deny that Christ is one in substance with God. For though I say that I have not found or read this term any where in holy Scripture, yet my remarks [Note 37] which follow, and which they have not noticed, are not inconsistent with that belief. For I instanced a human production, which is evidently homogeneous, and I observed that undeniably fathers differed from their children, only in not being the same individuals; otherwise there could be neither parents nor children. And my Letter, as I said before, owing to present circumstances, I am unable to produce, or I would have sent you the very words I used, or rather a copy of it all; which, if I have an opportunity, I will do still. But I am sure from recollection, that I adduced many parallels of things kindred with each other, for instance, that a plant grown from seed or from root, was other than that from which it sprang, and yet altogether one in nature with it; and that a stream flowing from a fountain, changed its appearance and its {143} name, for that neither the fountain was called stream, nor the stream fountain, but both existed, and that the fountain was as it were father, but the stream was what was generated from the fountain. §. 45. 15. Thus the Bishop. If then any one finds fault with the Fathers at Nicæa, as if they contradicted the decisions of their predecessors, he may reasonably find fault also with the Seventy, because they did not keep to the statements of their own predecessors; for such were the two Dionysii and the Bishops assembled on that occasion at Rome. But neither these nor those is it religious to blame; for all were legates of the things of Christ, and all gave diligence against the heretics, and while the one party condemned Samosatene, the other condemned the Arian heresy. And rightly did both these and those define, and suitably to the matter in hand. And as the blessed Apostle, writing to the Romans, said, The Law is spiritual, the Law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good [Rom. vii. 14, 12]; (and soon after, What the Law could not do, in that it was weak [Ib. viii. 3.],) but wrote to the Hebrews, The Law made no one perfect [Heb. vii. 19.]; and to the Galatians, By the Law no one is justified [Gal. iii. 11.], but to Timothy, The Law is good, if a man use it lawfully [1 Tim. i. 8.]; and no one would accuse the Saint of inconsistency and variation in writing, but rather would admire how suitably he wrote to each, to teach the Romans and the others to turn from the letter to the spirit, but to instruct the Hebrews and Galatians to place their hopes, not in the Law, but in the Lord who gave the Law;—so, if the Fathers of the two Councils made different mention of the One in substance, we ought not in any respect to differ from them, but to investigate their meaning, and this will fully shew us the meaning of both the Councils. For they who deposed Samosatene, took One in substance in a bodily sense, because Paul had attempted sophistry and said, "Unless Christ has of man become God, it follows that He is One in substance with the Father; and if so, of necessity there are three substances, one the previous substance, and the other two from it;" and therefore guarding against this they said with good reason, that Christ was not One in substance [Note P]. For {144} the Son is not related to the Father as he imagined. But the Bishops who anathematized the Arian heresy, understanding Paul's craft, and reflecting that the word "One in substance," has not this meaning when used of things immaterial [Note Q], and especially of God, and acknowledging that the Word was not a creature, but an offspring from the substance, and that the Father's substance was the origin and root and fountain of the Son, and that He was of very truth [Note 38] His Father's likeness, and not of different nature, as we are, and separate from the Father, but that, as being from Him, He exists as Son indivisible, as radiance is with respect of Light, and knowing too the illustrations used in Dionysius's case, the "fountain," and the defence of "One in substance," and before this the Saviour's saying, symbolical of unity [Note 39], I and the Father are one [John x. 30.], and he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father [Ib. xiv. 9.], on these grounds reasonably asserted on their part, that the Son was One in substance. And as, according to a former remark, no one would blame the Apostle, if he wrote to the Romans about the Law in one way, and to the Hebrews in another; in like manner, neither would the present Bishops find fault with the ancient, in regard to their interpretation, nor again on the view of theirs and of the need of their so writing about the Lord, would the ancient censure the present. {145} 16. Yes surely, each Council had a sufficient reason for its own language; for since Samosatene held that the Son was not before Mary, but received from her the origin of His being, therefore the assembled Fathers deposed him and pronounced him heretic; but concerning the Son's Godhead writing in simplicity, they arrived not at accuracy concerning the One in substance, but, as they understood the word, so spoke they about it. For they directed all their thoughts to destroy the device of Samosatene, and to shew that the Son was before all things, and that, instead of becoming God from man, God had put on a servant's form, and the Word had become flesh, as John says. This is how they dealt with the blasphemies of Paul; but when the party of Eusebius and Arius said that though the Son was before time, yet was He made and one of the creatures, and as to the phrase "from God," they did not believe it in the sense of His being genuine Son from Father, but maintained it as it is said of the creatures, and as to the oneness [Note R] of likeness [Note 40] between the Son and the Father, did not confess that the Son is like the Father according to substance, or according to nature, but because of Their agreement of doctrines and of teaching [Note 41]; nay, when they drew a line and an utter distinction between the Son's substance and the Father, ascribing to Him an origin of being, other than the Father, and degrading Him to the creatures, on this account the Bishops assembled at Nicæa, with a view to the craft of the parties so thinking, and as bringing together the sense from the Scriptures, cleared up the point, by affirming the "One in substance;" that both the true genuineness of the Son might thereby be known, and that to things generated {146} might be ascribed nothing in common with Him. For the precision of this phrase detects their pretence, whenever they use the phrase "from God," and gets rid of all the subtleties with which they seduce the simple. For whereas they contrive to put a sophistical construction on all other words at their will, this phrase only, as detecting their heresy, do they dread; which the Fathers did set down as a bulwark [Note S] against their irreligious speculations, one and all. §. 46. 17. Cease we then all contention, nor any longer conflict we with each other, though the Councils have differently taken the phrase "One in substance," for we have already assigned a sufficient defence of them; and to it the following may be added:—We have not derived the word "Ingenerate" from Scripture, (for no where does Scripture call God Ingenerate,) yet since it has many authorities in its favour, I was curious about the term, and found that it too has different senses [Note 42]. Some, for instance, call what is, but is neither generated, nor has any cause at all, ingenerate; and others, the increate [Note 43]. As then a person, having in his mind the former of these senses, viz. "that which has no cause," might say that the Son was not ingenerate, yet would not be blaming any one he perceived looking to the other meaning, "not a work or creature but an eternal offspring," and affirming accordingly that the Son was ingenerate, (for both speak suitably with a view to their own object,) so, even granting that the Fathers have spoken variously concerning the One in substance, let us not dispute about it, but take what they deliver to us in a religious way, when especially their anxiety was directed in behalf of religion. FootnotesA. The subject before us,
naturally rises out of what has gone before. Athan. has traced out the
course of Arianism to what seemed to be its result, the resolution of
it into a better element or a worse,—the precipitation of what was
really unbelieving in it in the Anomœan form, and the gradual
purification of that Semi-arianism which prevailed in the Eastern
Sees, vid. p. 103, note T. The Anomœan creed was hopeless; but with
the Semi-arians all that remained was the adjustment of phrases. They
had to reconcile their minds to terms which the Church had taken from
philosophy and adopted as her own. Accordingly, Athan. goes on to
propose such explanations as might clear the way for a re-union
of Christendom. The remainder of his work then is devoted to the
consideration of the "one in substance" (as contrasted with "like in
substance,") which had confessedly great difficulties in it. Vid. p.
147, note U. B.
This is only stating what the above Confessions have said again and
again. The objections made to it were: 1. that it was not in
Scripture; 2. that it had been disowned by the Antiochene Council
against Paul of Samosmata; 3. that it was of a material nature, and
belonged to the Manichees; 4. that it was of a Sabellian tendency; 5.
that it implied that the divine substance was distinct from God. C.
[hora]. Vid. Orat. i. § 15. iv. § 10. Serap. ii. 1. [kairos].
De Decr. § 15. init. D.
"THE
Apostle" is the common title of S. Paul in antiquity. E.g. "By
partaking of the Son Himself, we are said to partake of God, and this
is that which Peter has said, 'that ye may be partakers of the
divine nature;' as says also the Apostle, 'Know ye not that ye
are the temple of God, &c.'" Orat. i. § 16. [infra p. 204].
"When 'the Apostle is mentioned,' says S. Augustine, if it is not
specified which, Paul only is understood, because he is more
celebrated from the number of his Epistles, and laboured more
abundantly than all the rest," ad Bonifac. iii. 3. St. Peter is
called the Apostle. Orat. i. 47 [infra p. 248]. E.
Vid. Orat. i. § 15 [infra p. 202]; supra, de Decr. P. 38, note Z.
Thus Eusebius calls our Lord "the light throughout the universe,
moving round ([amphi]) the Father." de Laud. Const. P. 501. It
was a Platonic idea, which he gained from Plotinus; whom he quotes
speaking of his second Principle as "radiance around, from Him indeed,
but from one who remains what He was; as the sun's bright light
circling around it, ([peritheon],) ever generated from it,
which nevertheless remains." Evang. Præp. xi. 17. vid. above, p. 51,
note B. F.
George, whom Athanasius, Gregory Naz., and Socrates, call a
Cappadocian, was born, according to Ammianus, in Epiphania of Cilicia,
at a fuller's mill. He was appointed pork-contractor to the army, as
mentioned above, § 12. and being detected in defrauding the
government, he fled to Egypt. Naz. Orat. 21. 16. How he became
acquainted with the Eusebian party does not appear. Sozomen tells us
that he recommended himself to the see of Alexandria, by his zeal for
Arianism and his [to drasterion]; and Gregory calls him
the hand of the heresy as Acacius (?) was the tongue. Orat. 21. 21. He
made himself so obnoxious to the Alexandrians, that in the reign of
Julian he was torn to pieces in a rising of the heathen populace. He
had laid capital informations against many persons of the place, and
he tried to persuade Constantius, that as the successor of Alexander
its founder he was proprietor of the soil and had a claim upon the
houses built on it. Ammian. xxii. 11. Epiphanius tells us, Hær. 76,
1, that he made a monopoly of the nitre of Egypt, farmed the beds of
papyrus, and the salt lakes, and even contrived a profit from the
undertakers. His atrocious cruelties to the Catholics are well known.
Yet he seems to have collected a choice library of philosophers and
poets and Christian writers, which Julian seized on; Pithæus in loc.
Ammian. also Gibbon, ch. 23. G.
Athan. here says, that when they spoke of "like," they could not
consistently mean any thing short of "likeness of substance," for this
is the only true likeness; and that, while they used the words [aparallaktos
eikon], unvarying image, to exclude all essential likeness
was to suppose instead an image varying utterly from its original. It
must not be supposed from this that he approves the phrase [homoios
kat' ousian] or [homoiousios], in this Treatise, for infr.
§ 53. he rejects it on the ground that when we speak of "like," we
imply qualities, not substance. According to him then the phrase "unvarying
image" was, strictly speaking, self-contradictory, for every image
varies from the original because it is an image. Yet he himself
frequently uses it, as other Fathers, and Orat. i. § 26. uses [homoios
tes ousias]. And all human terms are imperfect; and "image"
itself is used in Scripture. H.
Aetius was the first to carry out Arianism in its pure Anomœans form,
as Eunomius was its principal apologist. He was born in humble life,
and was at first a practitioner in medicine. After a time he became a
pupil of the Arian Paulinus; then the guest of Athanasius of Nazarbi;
then the pupil of Leontius of Antioch, who ordained him deacon, and
afterwards deposed him. This was in 350. In 351 he seems to have held
a dispute with Basil of Ancyra, at Sirmium; in the beginning of 360 he
was formally condemned in that Council of Constantinople, which
confirmed the Creed of Ariminum, and just before Eudoxius had been
obliged to anathematize his confession of faith. This was at the very
time Athan. wrote the present work. I.
vid. p. 31, note P. And so S.
Gregory says in a well-known passage; "Why art thou such a slave
to the letter, and takest up with Jewish wisdom, and pursuest
syllables to the loss of things? For if thou wert to say, 'twice
five,' or 'twice seven,' and I concluded 'ten' or 'fourteen' from your
words, or from 'a reasonable mortal animal' I concluded 'man,' should
I seem to you absurd? how so, if I did but give your meaning?
for words belong as much to him who demands them as to him who
utters." Orat. 31. 24. vid. also Hil. contr. Constant. 16.
August. Ep. 238, n. 4-6. Cyril. Dial. i. p. 391. Petavius refers to
other passages, de Trin. iv. 5. § 6. K.
Basil, who wrote against Marcellus, and was placed by the Arians in
his see, has little mention in history till the date of the Council of
Sardica, which deposed him. Constantius, however, stood his friend,
till the beginning of the year 360, when Acacius supplanted him in the
Imperial favour, and he was banished into Illyricum. This was a month
or two later than the date at which Athan. wrote his first draught or
edition of this work. He was condemned upon charges of tyranny, and
the like, but Theodoret speaks highly of his correctness of life and
Sozomen of his learning and eloquence. vid. Theod. Hist. ii. 20. Soz.
ii. 33. A very little conscientiousness, or even decency of manners,
would put a man in strong relief with the great Arian party which
surrounded the Court, and a very great deal would not have been enough
to secure him against their unscrupulous slanders. L.
So also de Decr. § 23. p. 40. Hyp. Mel. et Euseb. Hil. de Syn. 89.
vid. p. 35, note U; p. 64, note I. The illustration runs into this
position, "Things that are like, cannot be the same." vid. p. 136,
note G. On the other hand, Athan. himself contends for the [tauton
tei homoiosei], "the same in likeness." de
Decr. § 20. p. 35. vid. infr. note R. M.
vid. Socr. iii. 25. p. 204. a. b. Una substantia religiose prædicabitur
quæ ex nativitatis proprietate et ex naturæ similitudine
ita indifferens sit, ut una dicatur. Hil. de Syn. 67. N.
Here at last Athan. alludes to the Ancyrene Synodal Letter, vid. Epiph.
Hær. 37, 5 and 7. about which he has kept a pointed silence above,
when tracing the course of the Arian confessions. That is, he treats
the Semi-arians as tenderly as S. Hilary, as soon as they break
company with the Arians. The Ancyrene Council of 358 was a protest
against the "blasphemia," or second Sirmian Confession, which Hosius
signed. N
[sic]. It is usual with the Fathers to use the two terms
"Son" and "Word," to guard and complete the
ordinary sense of each other. Their doctrine is that our Lord is both,
in a certain transcendent, prototypical, and singular sense; that in
that high sense they are coincident with one another; that they are
applied to human things by an accommodation, as far as these are
shadows of Him to whom properly they really belong; that being but
partially realised on earth, the ideas gained from the earthly types
are but imperfect; that in consequence if any one of them is used
exclusively of Him, it tends to introduce wrong ideas respecting Him;
but that their respective imperfections lying on different sides, when
used together correct each other. vid. p. 18, note O; and p. 43, note
D. The term Son, used by itself, was abused into Arianism, and the
term Word into Sabellianism; again the term Son might be accused of
introducing material notions, and the term Word of imperfection and
transitoriness. Each of them corrected the other.
"Scripture," says Athan., "joining the two, has said
'Son,' that the natural and true offspring of the substance may be
preached; but that no one may understand a human offspring, signifying
His substance a second time, it calls Him Word, and Wisdom, and
Radiance." Orat. i. § 28 [infra p. 221]. vid. p. 20, note T.
vid. also iv. § 8. Euseb. contr. Marc. ii. 4, p. 54. Isid. Pel. Ep.
iv. 141. So S. Cyril says that we learn "from His being called
Son that He is from Him, [to ex autou]; from His being called
Wisdom and Word, that He is in Him," [to en autoi].
Thesaur. iv. p. 31. However, S. Athanasius observes, that properly
speaking the one term implies the other, i.e. in its fulness.
"Since the Son's Being is from the Father, therefore He is in the
Father." Orat. iii. § 3 [infra p. 402]. "If not Son, not
Word either; and if not Word, not Son. For what is from the Father is
Son; and what is from the Father, but the Word, &c." Orat. iv. §
24 fin. [infra p. 542]. On the other hand the heretics accused
Catholics of inconsistency, or of a union of opposite errors, because
they accepted all the Scripture images together. But Vigilius of
Thapsus says, that "error bears testimony to truth, and the
discordant opinions of misbelievers blend in concordance in the rule
of orthodoxy." contr. Eutych. ii. init. Grande miraculum, ut
expugnatione sui veritas confirmetur. ibid. circ. init. vid. also i.
init. and Eulogius, ap. Phot. 225, p. 759. O.
There were three Councils held against Paul of Samosata, of the dates
of 264, 269, and an intermediate year. The third is spoken of in the
text, which, contrary to the opinion of Pagi, S. Basnage, and
Tillemont, Pearson fixes at 265 or 266. P.
This is in fact the objection which Arius urges against the One in
substance, supr. § 16. when he calls it the doctrine of Manichæus
and Hieracas, vid. p. 97, note L. The same objection is protested
against by St. Basil, contr. Eunom. i. 19. Hilar. de Trin. iv. 4. Yet,
while S. Basil agrees with Athan. in his account of the reason of the
Council's rejection of the word, St. Hilary on the contrary reports
that Paul himself accepted it, i.e. in a Sabellian sense, and
therefore the Council rejected it. "Male homoüsion Samosatenus
confessus est, sed numquid melius Arii negaverunt." de Syn. 86. Q.
The Eusebians tried to establish a distinction between [homoousion]
and [homoiousion] "one in substance" and "like
in substance," of this sort; that the former belonged to things
material, and the latter to immaterial, Soz. iii. 18. a remark which
in itself was quite sufficient to justify the Catholics in insisting
on the former term. For the heretical party, starting with the notion
in which their heresy in all its shades consisted, that the Son was a
distinct being from the Father, and appealing to (what might be
plausibly maintained) that spirits are incommensurable with one
another, or that each is sui simile, concluded that "like
in substance" was the only term which would express the relation
of the Son to the Father. Here then the word "one in
substance" did just enable the Catholics to join issue with them,
as exactly expressing what the Catholics wished to express, viz. that
there was no such distinction between Them as made the term
"like" necessary, but that Their relation to Each Other was analogous
to that of a material offspring to a material parent, or that as
material parent and offspring are individuals under one common species,
so the Eternal Father and Son are Persons under one common individual
substance. R.
[ten tes homoioseos henoteta]:
and so [tauton tei homoiosei] de Decr. § 20. p.
35; [ten henoteta tes physeos kai ten
tautoteta tou photos]. ibid. § 24. p. 41 init.;
also § 73. And Basil. [tautoteta tes physeos].
Ep. 8. 3: [tautoteta tes ousias]. Cyril in Joan.
lib. iii. c.v. p. 302. [p. 350 O.T.] Hence it is uniformly asserted by
the Catholics that the Father's godhead, [theotes], is
the Son's; e.g. "the Father's godhead being in the Son," infr. § 52
[p. 155]; [he patrike physis autou]. Orat. i. §
40 [infra p. 237]; "worshipped [kata ten patriken
idioteta]. § 42 [infra p. 240]; [patriken autou
theoteta]. § 45 fin. § 49 fin. ii. § 18. § 73 fin. iii.
§ 26; "the Father's godhead and propriety is the being, [to einai],
of the Son," iii. § 5 fin. [infra p. 406]. The Father's godhead is
the Son's. [to patrikon phos ho huios]. iii. § 53 [p.
475]; [mian ten theoteta kai to idion tes
ousias tou patros]. § 56 [p. 478]; "As the water is the same
which is poured from fountain into stream, so the godhead of the
Father into the Son is intransitive and indivisible, [arrheustos
kai adiairetos]. Expos. § 2. vid. p. 155, note F. This is
the doctrine of the Una Res, which, being not defined in General
Council till the fourth Lateran, many most injuriously accuse the
Greek Fathers, as the two Gregories, of denying. That Council is not
here referred to as of authority. S.
[epiteichisma]; in
like manner [sundesmon pisteos]. Epiph. Ancor. 6.
"Without the confession of the 'One in substance,'" says
Epiphanius, "no heresy can be refuted; for as a serpent hates the
smell of bitumen, and the scent of sesame-cake, and the burning of
agate, and the smoke of storax, so do Arius and Sabellius hate the
notion of the sincere profession of the 'One in substance.'" Hær.
69. 70. "That term did the Fathers set down in their formula of
faith, which they perceived to be a source of dread to their
adversaries; that they themselves might unsheathe the sword which cut
off the head of their own monstrous heresy." Ambros. de Fid. iii.
15. Margin Notes1. vid. Orat. i. 8. iv. 23. 2.
p. 32, ref. 1. p. 36, ref. 2. p. 138, ref. 4. 3.
p. 29, note L. 4.
p. 38, note Z. 5.
p. 41, note E; p. 114, note B. 6.
p. 34, note S. 7.
de Decr. p. 33, ref. 1. 8.
Epicurus. 9.
Anaxagoras. 10.
p. 33, fin. p. 54. fin. 11.
de Decr. §. 19. p. 32. 12.
p. 130, ref. 2. 13.
p. 31, note P. 14.
supr. § 17. 15.
p. 106, note B. 16.
pp. 62-64. 17.
supr. § 29. 18.
supr. § 8. 19.
p. 81, note T. 20.
§ 18. p. 101. 21.
§ 8. 22.
p. 31, note P. 23.
p. 108, note G. 24.
p. 5, note L. 25.
vid. p. 141, ref. 5. 26.
Note, p. 66. 27.
p. 64, note I. 28.
[apathes ameriston]. 29.
de Decr. § 10. p. 17. 30.
[anupostaton]. 31.
[enousion]. 32.
p. 153, note D. 33.
vid. Epiph. Hær. 73. 3. &c. 34.
p. 157, note I. 35.
vid. Hilar. De Syn. 81 init. Epiph. Hær. 73. 12. 36.
vid. de Decr. § 25. p. 44. 37.
[epicheiremata]. 38.
[autoalethes]. 39.
[henoeide] p. 148. ref. 7. 40.
vid. Epiph. Hær. 73. 9. fin. 41.
p. 107, note F. 42.
p. 52, note D. 43.
p. 52, note E. Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman |