Epistle 2, chapter 3 (continued).§. 47. 18. Ignatius, for instance, who was appointed Bishop in Antioch after the Apostles, and became a martyr of Christ, writes concerning the Lord thus: "There is one physician, fleshly and spiritual, generate and ingenerate, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God;" [Note 1] whereas some teachers who followed Ignatius, write in their turn, {147} "One is the Ingenerate, the Father, and one the genuine Son from Him, true offspring, Word and Wisdom of the Father." [Note T] If therefore we have hostile feelings towards these writers, then have we right to quarrel with the Councils; but if, knowing their faith in Christ, we are persuaded that the blessed Ignatius was orthodox in writing that Christ was generate on account of the flesh, (for He was made flesh,) yet ingenerate, because He is not in the number of things made and generated, but Son from Father, and are aware too that the parties who have said that the Ingenerate is One, meaning the Father, did not mean to lay down that the Word was generated and made, but that the Father has no cause, but rather is Himself Father of Wisdom, and in Wisdom hath made all things that are generated, why do we not combine all our Fathers in religious belief, those who deposed Samosatene as well as those who proscribed the Arian heresy, instead of making distinctions between them and refusing to entertain a right opinion of them? I repeat, that these, looking towards the sophistical explanation of Samosatene, wrote, "He is not one in substance;" [Note U] and those with an apposite meaning, said that He was. For myself, I have written these brief remarks, from my feeling towards persons who were religious to Christ-ward; but were it possible to come by the Epistle which we are told that they wrote, I consider we should find further grounds for the aforesaid proceeding of these blessed men. For it is right and meet thus to feel, and to maintain a good understanding with the Fathers, if we be not spurious children, but have received the traditions from them, and the lessons of religion at their hands. §. 48. 19. Such then, as we confess and believe, being the sense of the Fathers, proceed we even in their company to examine {148} once more the matter, calmly and with a good understanding, with reference to what has been said before, viz. whether the Bishops collected at Nicęa did not really exercise an excellent judgment. For if the Word be a work and foreign to the Father's substance, so that He is separated from the Father by the difference of nature, He cannot be one in substance with Him, but rather He is homogeneous by nature with the works, though He surpass them in grace [Note 2]. On the other hand, if we confess that He is not a work but the genuine offspring of the Father's substance, it would follow that He is inseparable from the Father, being connatural [Note 3], because He is begotten from Him. And being such, good reason He should be called One in Substance. Next, if the Son be not such from participation [Note 4], but is in His substance the Father's Word and Wisdom, and this substance is the offspring of the Father's substance [Note 5], and its likeness as the radiance is of the light, and the Son says, I and the Father are One [John x. 30.], and, he that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father [Ib. xiv. 9.], how must we understand these words? or how shall we so explain them as to preserve the oneness of the Father and the Son? Now as to its consisting in agreement [Note 6] of doctrines, and in the Son's not disagreeing with the Father, as the Arians say, such an interpretation will not stand; for both the Saints and still more Angels and Archangels have such an agreement with God, and there is no disagreement among them. For he who was in disagreement, the devil, was beheld to fall from the heavens, as the Lord said. Therefore if by reason of agreement the Father and the Son are one, there would be things generate which had this agreement with God, and each of these might say, I and the Father are One. But if this be shocking, and so it truly is, it follows of necessity that we must conceive of Son's and Father's oneness in the way of substance. For things generated, though they have an agreement with their Maker, yet possess it only by influence [Note 7], and by participation, and through the mind; the transgression of which forfeits heaven. But the Son, being an offspring from the substance, is one in substance, Himself and the Father that begat him. §. 49. 20. This is why He has equality with the Father by titles expressive of unity [Note 8], and what is said of the Father, is {149} said in Scripture of the Son also, all but His being called Father [Note X]. For the Son himself says, All things that the Father hath are Mine [John xvi. 15.]; and He says to the Father, All Mine are Thine, and Thine are Mine [Ib. xvii. 10.];—as for instance [Note 9], the name God; for the Word was God [John i. 1.];—Almighty, Thus saith He that is, and that was, and that is to come, the Almighty [Apoc. i. 8.];— the being Light, I am, He says, the Light [John viii. 12.];—the Operative Cause, All things were made by Him [Ib. i. 3.], and, whatsoever I see the Father do, I do also [Ib. v. 19.];—the being Everlasting, His eternal power and godhead [Rom. i. 20.], and, In the beginning was the Word [John i. 1.], and, He was the true Light, which Lighteth every man that cometh into the world [Ib. 9.];—the being Lord, for, The Lord rained fire and brimstone from the Lord [Gen. xix. 24.], and the Father says, I am the Lord [Isa. xlv. 5.], and, Thus saith the Lord, the Almighty God; and of the Son Paul speaks thus, One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things [1 Cor. viii. 6.]. And on the Father Angels serve, and again the Son too is worshipped by them, And let all the Angels of God worship Him [Heb. i. 6.]; and He is said to be Lord of Angels, for the Angels ministered unto Him [Matt. iv. 11.], and the Son of Man shall send His Angels [Ib. xxiv. 31.]. The being honoured as the Father, for that they may honour the Son, He says, as they honour the Father [John v. 23.];—being equal to God, He thought it not robbery to be equal with God [Note Phil. ii. 6.];—the being Truth from the True and Life from the Living, as being truly from the Fountain of the Father;—the quickening and raising the dead as the Father, for so we read in the Gospel. And of the Father it is written, The Lord thy God is One Lord [Deut. vi. 4.], and, The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken, and hath called the earth [Ps. l. 1.]; and of the Son, The Lord God hath shined upon us [Ib. cxviii. 27.], and, The God of gods shall be seen in Sion [Ib. lxxxiii. 7. Sept.]. And again of God, Esaias says, Who is a God like unto Thee, taking away {150} iniquities and passing over unrighteousness? [Mic. vii. 18.] but the Son said to whom He would, Thy sins be forgiven thee [Matt ix. 5.]; for instance, when, on the Jews murmuring, He manifested the remission by His act, saying to the paralytic, Rise, take up thy bed, and go unto thy house [Mark ii. 11.]. And of God Paul says, To the King eternal [1 Tim. i. 17.]; and again of the Son, David in the Psalm, Lift up your heads, O ye gates, and be ye lift up ye everlasting doors, and the King of glory shall come in [Ps. xxiv. 7.]. And Daniel heard it said, His Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom [Dan. iv. 3.], and His Kingdom shall not be destroyed [Ib. vii. 14.]. And in a word, all that you find said of the Father, so much will you find said of the Son, all but His being Father, as has been said. §. 50. 21. If then any think of other origin, and other Father, considering the equality of these attributes, it is a mad thought. But if, since the Son is from the Father, all that is the Father's is the Son's as in an Image and Expression, let it be considered dispassionately, whether a substance foreign from the Father's substance admit of such attributes; and whether such a one be other in nature and alien in substance [Note 10], and not one in substance with the Father. For we must take reverent heed, lest transferring what is proper [Note 11] to the Father to what is unlike him in substance, and expressing the Father's godhead by what is unlike in kind [Note 12] and alien in substance, we introduce another substance foreign to Him, yet capable of the properties of the first substance [Note Y], and lest we be silenced by God Himself, saying, My glory I will not give to another [Isa. xlii. 8.], and be discovered worshipping this alien God, and be accounted such as were the Jews of that day, who said, Wherefore dost Thou, being a man, make Thyself God? [John x. 33.] referring, the while, to another source the things of the Spirit, and blasphemously saying, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub [Luke xi. 15.]. But if this is shocking, plainly the Son is not unlike in substance, but one in substance with the Father; for if what the Father hath is by nature the Son's, and the Son {151} Himself is from the Father, and because of this oneness of godhead and of nature He and the Father are one, and He that hath seen the Son bath seen the Father, reasonably is He called by the Fathers "One in substance;" for to what is other in substance, it belongs not to possess such prerogatives. §. 51. 22. And again, if as we have said before, the Son is not such by participation [Note 13], but, while all things generated have, by participation, the grace of God, He is the Father's Wisdom and Word, of which all things partake [Note 14], it follows that He being the deifying and enlightening power of the Father, in which all things are deified and quickened, is not alien in substance from the Father, but one in substance. For by partaking [Note 15] of Him, we partake [Note 16] of the Father; because that the Word is proper to the Father. Whence, if He was Himself too from participation, and not from the Father His substantial Godhead and Image, He would not deify [Note 17], being deified Himself. For it is not possible that He, who but possesses from participation, should impart of that partaking to others, since what He has is not His own, but the Giver's; and what He has received, is barely the grace sufficient for Himself. 23. However, let us fairly enquire why it is that some, as is said, decline the "One in substance," whether it does not rather shew that the Son is one in substance with the Father. They say then, as you have written, that it is not right to say that the Son is one in substance with the Father, because he who speaks of one in substance speaks of three, one substance pre-existing, and that those who are generated from it are one in substance: and they add, "If then the Son be one in substance with the Father, then a substance must be previously supposed, from which they have been generated; and that the One is not Father and the Other Son, but they are brothers together." [Note Z] As to all this, though it be a Greek {152} interpretation, and what Greeks say have no claim upon us [Note A], still let us see whether those things which are called one in substance and are collateral, as derived from one substance pre-supposed, are one in substance with each other, or with the substance from which they are generated. For if only with each other, then are they other in substance and unlike, when referred to that substance which generated them; for other in substance is opposed to one in substance; but if each be one in substance with the substance which generated them, it is thereby confessed that what is generated from any thing, is one in substance with that which generated it; and there is no need of seeking for three substances, but merely to seek whether it be true that this is from that [Note B]. For should {153} it happen that there were not two brothers, but that only one had come of that substance, he that was generated would not be called alien in substance, merely because there was no other from the substance than he; but though alone, he must be one in substance with him that begat him. For what shall we say about Jephthae's daughter; because she was only-begotten, and he had not, says Scripture, other child [Jud. xi. 34.]; and again, concerning the widow's son, whom the Lord raised from the dead, because he too had no brother, but was only-begotten, was on that account neither of these one in substance with the parent? Surely they were, for they were children, and this is a property of children with reference to their parents. And in like manner also, when the Fathers said that the Son of God was from His substance, reasonably have they spoken of Him as one in substance. For the like property has the radiance compared with the light. Else it follows that not even the creation came out of nothing. For whereas men beget with passion [Note 18], so again they work upon an existing subject matter, and otherwise cannot make. But if we do not understand creation in a human way [Note C], when we attribute it to God, much less seemly is it to understand generation in a human way, or to give a corporeal sense to One in substance; instead of receding from things generate, casting away human images, nay, all things sensible, and ascending [Note 19] to the Father [Note D], lest we rob the Father of the Son in ignorance, and rank Him among His own creatures. §. 52. 24. Further, if, in confessing Father and Son, we spoke of two origins or two Gods, as Marcion [Note 20] and Valentinus [Note 21], or said that the Son had any other mode of godhead, and was not the Image and Expression of the Father, as being by {154} nature born from Him, then He might be considered unlike; for such substances are altogether unlike each other. But if we acknowledge that the Father's godhead is one and sole, and that of Him the Son is the Word and Wisdom; and, as thus believing, are far from speaking of two Gods, but understand the oneness of the Son with the Father to be, not in likeness of their teaching, but according to substance and in truth, and hence speak not of two Gods but of one God; there being but one Face [Note E] of Godhead, as the Light is one and the Radiance; (for this was seen by the Patriarch Jacob, as Scripture says, The sun rose upon him when the Face of God passed by [Gen. iii. 31. Sept.]; and beholding this, and understanding of whom He was Son and Image, the holy Prophets say, The Word of the Lord came to me; and recognising the Father, who was beheld and revealed in Him, they were bold to say, The God of our fathers hath appeared unto me, the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob [Exod. iii. 16.];) this being so, wherefore scruple we to call Him one in substance who is one with the Father, and appears as doth the Father, according to likeness and oneness of godhead? For if, as has been many times said, He has it not to be proper to the Father's substance, nor to resemble, as a Son, we may well scruple: for if this be the illuminating and creative Power, specially proper to the Father, without whom He neither frames nor is known, (for all things consist through Him and in Him;) wherefore, having cognizance of this truth, do we decline to use the phrase conveying it? For what is it to be thus connatural with the Father, but to be one in substance with Him? for God attached not to Him the Son from without [Note 22], as needing a servant; nor are the works on a level with the Creator, and are honoured as He is, or to be thought one with the Father. Or let a man venture to make the distinction, that the sun and the radiance are two lights, or different substances; or to say that the radiance accrued to it over and above, and is not a single {155} and uncompounded offspring from the sun; such, that sun and radiance are two, but the light one, because the radiance is an offspring from the Sun. But, whereas not more divisible, nay less divisible is the nature [Note F] of the Son towards the Father, and the godhead not accruing to the Son, but the Father's godhead being in the Son, so that he that hath seen the Son hath seen the Father in Him; wherefore should not such a one be called One in substance? §. 53. 25. Even this is sufficient to dissuade you from blaming those who have said that the Son was one in substance with the Father, and yet let us examine the very term "One in substance," in itself, by way of seeing whether we ought to use it at all, and whether it be a proper term, and is suitable to apply to the Son. For you know yourselves, and no one can dispute it, that Like is not predicated of substances, but of habits, and qualities; for in the case of substances we speak, not of likeness, but of identity [Note G]. Man, {156} for instance, is said to be like man, not in substance, but according to habit and character; for in substance men are one in nature. And again, man is not said to be unlike dog, but to be other in nature. Therefore, in speaking of Like according to substance, we mean like by participation [Note 23] (for Likeness is a quality, which may attach to substance,) and this is proper to creatures, for they, by partaking [Note 24], are made like to God. For when He shall appear, says Scripture, we shall be like Him [1 John iii. 2.]; like, that is, not in substance but in sonship, which we shall partake from Him. If then ye speak of the Son as being by participation [Note 25], then indeed call Him Like in substance; but thus spoken of, He is not Truth, nor Light at all, nor in nature God. For things which are from participation, are called like, not in reality, but from resemblance to reality; so that they may fail, or be taken from those who share them. And this, again, is proper to creatures and works. Therefore, if this be extravagant, He must be, not by participation, but in nature and truth Son, Light, Wisdom, God; and being by nature, and not by sharing, He would properly be called, not Like in substance, but One in substance. But what would not be asserted, even in the case of others, (for the Like has been shewn to be inapplicable to substance,) is it not folly, not to say violence, to put forward in the case of the Son, instead of the "One in substance?" §. 54. 26. This justifies the Nicene Council, which has laid down, what it was becoming to express, that the Son, begotten from the Father's substance, is one in substance with Him. And if we too have been taught the same thing, let us not fight with shadows, especially as knowing, that they who have so defined, have made this confession of faith, not to misrepresent the truth, but as vindicating the truth and religiousness towards Christ, and also as destroying the blasphemies against Him of the Ario-maniacs [Note 26]. For this must be considered and noted carefully, that, in using unlike in substance, and other in substance, we signify not the true Son, but some one of the creatures, and an introduced and adopted Son, which pleases the heretics; but when we speak {157} uncontroversially of the One in substance, we signify a genuine Son born of the Father; though at this Christ's enemies often burst with rage [Note 27]. 27. What then I have learned myself, and have heard men of judgment say, I have written in few words; but ye remaining on the foundation of the Apostles, and holding fast the traditions of the Fathers, pray that now at length all strife and rivalry may cease, and the futile questions of the heretics may be condemned, and all logomachy [Note H]; and the guilty and murderous heresy of the Arians may disappear, and the truth may shine again in the hearts of all, so that all every where may say the same thing, and think the same thing [Note I]; and that, no Arian contumelies remaining, it may be said and confessed in every Church, One Lord, one faith, one baptism, in Christ Jesus our Lord, through whom to the Father be the glory and the strength, unto ages of ages. Amen. {158} §. 55. Postscript 28. After I had written my account of the Council [Note 28], I had information that the most irreligious [Note 29] Constantius had sent Letters to the Bishops remaining in Ariminum; and I have taken pains to get copies of them from true brethren and to send them to you, and also what the Bishops answered; that you may know the irreligious craft of the Emperor, and the firm and unswerving purpose of the Bishops towards the truth. Interpretation of the Letter [Note K] Constantius, Victorious and Triumphant, Augustus, to all Bishops who are assembled at Ariminum. That the divine and adorable Law is our chief care, your excellencies are not ignorant; but as yet we have been unable to receive the twenty Bishops sent by your wisdom, and charged with the legation from you, for we are pressed by a necessary expedition against the Barbarians; and as ye know, it beseems to have the soul clear from every care, when one handles the matters of the Divine Law. Therefore we have ordered the Bishops to await our return at Adrianople; that, when all public affairs are well-arranged, then at length we may hear and weigh their suggestions. Let it not then be grievous to your constancy to await their return, that, when they come back with our answer to you, ye may be able to bring matters to a close which so deeply affect the well-being of the Catholic Church. 29. This was what the Bishops received at the hands of three messengers. Reply of the Bishops The letter of your humanity we have received, most religious Lord Emperor, which reports that, on account of stress of public affairs, as yet you have been unable to attend to our legates; and in which you command us to await their return, until your godliness shall be advised by them of what we have defined conformably to our ancestors. However, we how profess and aver at once by these presents, that we shall not recede from our purpose, as we also instructed our legates. We ask then that you wilt with serene countenance command these letters of our mediocrity to be read before you; as well as will graciously receive those, with which we charged our legates. This however, your gentleness comprehends as well as we, that great {159} grief and sadness at present prevail, because that, in these your most happy days, so many Churches are without Bishops. And on this account we again request your humanity, most religious Lord Emperor, that, if it please your religiousness, you would command us, before the severe winter weather sets in, to return to our Churches, that so we may be able, unto God Almighty and our Lord and Saviour Christ, His Only-begotten Son, to fulfil together with our flocks our wonted prayers in behalf of your imperial sway, as indeed we have ever performed them, and at this time make them. FootnotesT. The writer is not known. The President of
Magdalen has pointed out to the Editor the following similar passage
in St. Clement: [hen men to agenneton, ho pantokrator
theos, hen de kai to progennethen di'ou ta panta egeneto, kai
choris autou egeneto oude hen]. Strom. vi. 7, p. 769. U.
There is much to say on the subject of the rejection of the [homoousion]
at this Council of Antioch; but it branches into topics too far from
the text of Athanasius to allow of its satisfactory discussion in this
volume. The lamented Dr. Burton, in Mr. Faber's Apostolicity of
Trinitarianism, vol. 2. p. 302. is the last writer who has denied the
rejection of the symbol; but (as appears to the present writer,) not
on sufficient grounds. Reference is made to a Creed or Ecthesis, found
among the acts of Ephesus, and said to have been published against
Paul; and on this some remarks are made in Note p. 165. X.
By "the Son being equal to the Father," is but meant
that He is His "unvarying image;" it does not imply any
distinction of substance. "Perfectę ęqualitatis significantiam
habet similitudo." Hil. de Syn. 73. But though He is in all
things His Image, this implies some exception, for else He would not
be like or equal, but the same. "Non est ęqualitas in
dissimilibus, nec similitudo est intra unum." ibid. 72. Hence He
is the Father's image in all things except in being the Father, [eikon
physike kai aparallaktos kata panta homoia toi patri, plen
tes agennesias kai tes patrotetos].
Damasc. de Imag. iii. 18, p. 354. vid. also Basil contr. Eun. ii. 28.
Theod. Inconfus. p. 91. Basil. Ep. 38, 7 fin. For the Son is the Image
of the Father, not as Father, but as God. The Arians on the other
hand, objecting the phrase "unvarying image," asked why the
Son was not in consequence a Father, and the beginning of a [theogonia].
vid. Athan. Orat. i. 21 [infra p. 210]. Vid. infra, note Z. Y.
Arianism was placed in the perilous dilemma of denying Christ's
divinity, or introducing a second God. The Arians proper went off in
the former side of the alternative, the Semi-arians on the latter; and
Athan., as here addressing the Semi-arians, insists on the greatness
of the latter error. This of course was the objection which
attached to the words [homoiousion aparallaktos eikon],
&c. when disjoined from the [homoousion]; and Eusebius's
language, supr. p. 63, note G, shows us that it is not an imaginary
one. Z.
And so Eunomius in S. Cyril, "'Unless once the Son was not,' saith he,
'or if eternal, and co-existent with the Father, you make Him not a
Son but a brother.'The Father and the Son are not from any
pre-existing origin, that they should be thought brothers, but the
Father is origin of the Son, and brought forth the Son, and remaineth
Father, and is not called Son of any; and the Son is Son, and
remaineth what He is, and is not called brother of any by nature. What
place then shall brotherhood have in such?" Thesaur. pp. 22, 23. vid.
Athan. Orat. i. § 14. A.
vid. p. 52, note D. The word [ousia] in its Greek or
Aristotelic sense seems to have stood for an individual substance,
numerically one, which is predicable of nothing but itself. Improperly
it stood for a species or genus, vid. Petav. de Trin. iv. 1, § 2,
but, as Anastasius observes in many places of his Vię dux,
Christian theology innovated on the sense of Aristotelic terms. vid.
c. 1. p. 20. c. 6. p. 96. c. 9. p. 150. c. 17. p. 308. There is some
difficulty in determining how it innovated. Anastasius and
Theorian, Hodeg. 6. Legat. ad Arm. pp. 441, 2. say that it takes [ousia]
to mean an universal or species, but this is nothing else than the
second or improper Greek use. Rather it takes the word in a sense of
its own, such as we have no example of in things created, viz. of a
Being numerically one, subsisting in three persons; so that the word
is a predicable or in one sense universal, without ceasing to
be individual; in which consists the mystery of the Holy Trinity.
However, heretics, who refused the mystery, objected it to Catholics
in its primary philosophical sense; and then, as standing for an
individual substance, when applied to Father and Son, it either
implied the parts of a material subject, or it involved no real
distinction of persons, i.e. Sabellianism. The former of these two
alternatives is implied in the text by the "Greek use;" the
latter by the same phrase as used by the conforming Semi-Arians, A.D. 363. "Nor, as if any passion were
supposed of the ineffable generation, is the term 'substance' taken by
the Fathers, &c., nor according to any Greek use,"
&c. Socr. iii. 25. Hence such charges against Catholicism on the
part of Arians as Alexander protests against, of either
Sabellianism or Valentinianism, [ouk ... hosper Sabellioi
kai Balentinoi dokei]. Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 743. In like
manner, Damascene, speaking of the Jacobite use of [physis] and
[hypostasis] says, "Who of holy men ever thus spoke? Unless ye
introduce to us your St. Aristotle, as a thirteenth Apostle, and
prefer the idolater to the divinely inspired." cont. Jacob. 10. p.
399. and so again Leontius, speaking of Philoponus, who from the
Monophysite confusion of nature and hypostasis was led into Tritheism.
"He thus argued, taking his start form Aristotelic principles; for
Aristotle says that there are of individuals particular substances as
well as one in common." de Sect. v. fin. B.
The argument, when drawn out, is virtually this: if, because two
subjects are consubstantial, a third is pre-supposed of which they
partake, then, since either of these two is consubstantial with that
of which both partake, a new third must be supposed in which it and
the pre-existing substance partake, and thus an infinite series of
things consubstantial must be supposed. The only mode (which he puts
first) of meeting this, is to deny that the two things are
consubstantial with the supposed third; but if so, they must be
different in substance from it; that is, they must differ from that,
as partaking of which, they are like each other,—which is absurd.
vid. Basil. Ep. 52. n. 2. C.
vid. de Decr. § 11. supr. p. 18, note O: also Cyril, Thesaur. iv. p.
29: Basil. contr. Eun. 23: Hil. de Syn. 17. D.
S. Basil says in like manner that, though God is Father [kurios]
properly, (vid. Orat. i. 21 fin. and p. 16, note K. p. 18, note O. p.
56, note K.) yet it comes to the same thing if we were to say that He
is [tropikos] and [ek metaphoras], figuratively,
such, contr. Eun. ii. 24; for in that case we must, as in other
metaphors used of Him, (anger, sleep, flying,) take that part of the
human sense which can apply to Him. Now [gennesis]
implies two things,—passion, and relationship, [oikeiosis
physeos]; accordingly we must take the latter as an
indication of the divine sense of the term. On the terms Son, Word,
&c., being figurative, or illustrations, and how to use them, vid.
also de Decr. § 12. supr. p. 20; Orat. i. § 26, 27; ii. § 32; iii.
§ 18. 67; Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 17; Hil. de Trin. iv. 2. Vid. also
Athan. ad Serap. i. 20. and Basil. Ep. 38, n. 5. and what is said of
the office of faith in each of these. E.
[henos ontos eidous theotetos]; the word [eidos],
face or countenance, will come before us in Orat. iii. 16. It is
generally applied to the Son, as in what follows, and is synonymous
with hypostasis; but it is remarkable that here it is almost
synonymous with [ousia] or [physis]. Indeed in one sense
nature, substance, and hypostasis, are all synonymous, i.e. as one and
all denoting the Una Res, which is Almighty God. They differed, in
that the word hypostasis regards the One God as He is the Son.
The apparent confusion is useful then as reminding us of this great
truth; vid. the next note. F.
[physis], nature, is here used for person. This seems an
Alexandrian use of the word. It is found in Alexander ap. Theod. Hist.
i. 3, p. 740. And it gives rise to a celebrated question in the
Monophysite controversy, as used in S. Cyril's phrase [mia physis
sesarkomene]. S. Cyril uses the word both for person
and for substance successively in the following passage. "Perhaps
some one will say, 'How is the Holy and Adorable Trinity distinguished
into three Hypostases, yet issues in one nature of Godhead?'
Because the Same in substance necessarily following the difference
of natures, recalls the minds of believers to one nature of
Godhead." contr. Nest. iii. p. 91. In this passage "One
Nature" stands for a reality; but "three Natures" is
the One Eternal Divine Nature viewed in that respect in which He is
Three. And so S. Hilary, naturę ex naturā gignente nativitas; de Syn.
17; and essentia de essentiā, August. de Trin. vii. n. 3, and de
seipso genuit Deus id quod est, de Fid. et Symb. 4. i.e. He is the
Adorable [theotes] or Godhead viewed as begotten. And
Athan. Orat. iv. § 1. calls the Son [ex ousias ousiodes].
vid. supr. p. 148. ref. 4. These phrases mean that the Son who is
the Divine Substance, is from the Father who is the [same]
divine substance. As (to speak of what is analogous not
parallel,) we might say that "man is father of man," not
meaning by man the same individual in both cases, but the same nature,
so here we speak not of the same Person in the two cases, but the same
Individuum. All these expressions resolve themselves into the original
mystery of the Holy Trinity, that Person and Individuum are not
equivalent terms, and we understand them neither more nor less than we
understand it. In like manner as regards the Incarnation, when S. Paul
says "God was in Christ;" he does not mean absolutely the
Divine Nature, which is the proper sense of the word, but the Divine
Nature as existing in the Person of the Son. Hence too, (vid. Petav.
de Trin. vi. 10, § 6.) such phrases as "the Father begat the Son
from His substance." And in like manner Athan. just
afterwards, speaks of "the Father's Godhead being in the
Son." vid. supr. p. 145., note R. G.
S. Athanasius, in saying that like is not used of substance, implies
that the proper Arian senses of the [homoion] are more natural,
and therefore the more probable, if the word came into use. These
were, 1. likeness in will and action, as [symphonia],
of which infr. Orat. iii. 11; 2. likeness to the idea in God's
mind in which the Son was created. Cyril. Thesaur. p. 134; 3. likeness
to the divine act or energy by which He was created.
Pseudo-Basil. contr. Eun. iv. p. 282; Cyril. in Joan. lib. iii. c. 5.
p. 304 [p. 352 O.T.]; 4. like according to the Scriptures;
which of course was but an evasion; 5. like in all things, [kata
panta], which was, as they understood it, an evasion also. H.
And so [tais logomachiais]. Basil de Sp. S. n. 16. It is used
with an allusion to the fight against the Word, as [christomachein]
and [theomachein]. Thus [logomachein meletesantes,
kai loipon pneumatomachountes, esontai met'ologon nekpoi tei
alogiai]. Serap. iv. 1. I.
This sentiment will give opportunity for a note on the Semi-arians,
which has been omitted in its proper place, § 41 and 43. vid. p. 141.
ref. 5. There S. Athanasius calls certain of them "brethren"
and "beloved," [agapetoi]. S. Hilary too calls
them "sanctissimi viri." de Syn. 80. On the other hand,
Athan. speaks severely of Eustathius and Basil. Ep. Ęg. 7. and Hilary
explains himself in his notes upon his de Syn. from which it appears
that he had been expostulated with on his conciliatory tone. Indeed
all throughout he had betrayed a consciousness that he should offend
some parties, e.g. § 6. In § 77, he had spoken of "having
expounded the faithful and religious sense of 'like in substance,'
which is called Homϟsion." On this he observes, note 3,
"I think no one need be asked to consider why I have said in this
place 'religious sense of like in substance,' except that I
meant that there was also an irreligious; and that therefore I
said that 'like' was not only equal but the 'same.'" vid.
p. 139, note L. In the next note he speaks of them as not more than
hopeful. Still it should be observed how careful the Fathers of the
day were not to mix up the question of doctrine, which rested on
Catholic tradition with that of the adoption of a certain term which
rested on a Catholic injunction. Not that the term was not in duty to
be received on account of its Catholic sense, and where the Catholic
sense was held, the word might by a sort of dispensation be waived. It
is remarkable that Athanasius scarcely mentions the word "One in
substance" in his Orations or Discourses which are to follow; nor
does it occur in S. Cyril's Catecheses, of whom, as being suspected of
Semi-Arianism, it might have been required, before his writings were
received as of authority. The word was not imposed upon Ursacius and
Valens, A.D.
349, by Pope Julius; nor in the Council of Aquileia in 381, was it
offered by St. Ambrose to Palladius and Secundianus. S. Jerome's
account of the apology made by the Fathers of Ariminum is of the same
kind. "We thought," they said, "the sense corresponded
to the words, nor in the Church of God, where there is simplicity, and
a pure confession, did we fear that one thing would be concealed in
the heart, another uttered by the lips. We were deceived by our good
opinion of the bad." ad Lucif. 19. K.
These two Letters are both in Socr. ii. 37. And the latter is in Theod.
Hist. ii. 15. p. 878. in a different version from the Latin original. Margin Notes1. vid. Ign. ad Eph. 7. 2.
supr. p. 11. 3.
[homophue]. 4.
[metousias]. 5.
p. 155, note F. 6.
[symphonia], p. 107, note F. yet vid. Hipp. Contr. Noet.
7. 7.
[kinesei] vid. Cyril. Contr. Jul. viii. p. 274. Greg.
Nyss. de Hom. Op. p. 87. 8.
[enoeidesi], p. 144, ref. 2. 9.
vid. Orat. iii. § 4. 10.
[allotriousios]. 11.
[idia]. 12.
[anomoiogenei]. 13.
[metousias]. 14.
de Decr. § 10. p. 15, note E. 15.
[metalambanontes]. 16.
[metechomen]. 17.
[etheopoiese] Orat. ii. § 70. de Decr. § 14.
supr. p. 23. 18.
Orat. i. § 28. 19.
Naz. Orat. 28. 2. 20.
p. 45, note H. 21.
Orat. i. 3. 22.
de Decr. § 31. and p. 14, note B. 23.
[metousia]. 24.
[metoche]. 25.
[metousia]. 26.
p. 91, note Q. 27.
p. 29, note I. 28.
p. 88, note H. 29.
p. 90, note P. Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman |