Back

[Eusebeia]

{410} [Eusebeia], [asebeia], &c., here translated piety, &c., stand for orthodoxy and heterodoxy, &c., throughout, being taken from St. Paul's text, [mega to tes eusebeias mysterion], 1 Tim. iii. 16, iv. 8. "Magnum pietatis mysterium," Vulg.

E.g. [ten tes aireseos asebeian], Decr. init. [hoson eusebous phroneseos he Areiane hairesis esteretai]. ibid. § 2. [ti eleipe didaskalias eis eusebeian tei katholike ekklesiai]; Syn. § 3. [he oikoumenike sunodos ton Areion exebale ou pherousa ten asebeian]. Orat. i. § 7, et passim. Hence Arius ends his letter to Eusebius Nic. with [alethos Eusebie]. Theod. Hist. i. 4.

A curious instance of the force of the word as a turning-point in controversy occurs in a Homily, (given to S. Basil by Petavius, Fronto Ducæus, Combefis, Du Pin, Fabricius, and Oudin, doubted of by Tillemont, and rejected by Cave and Garnier,) where it is said that the denial of our Lady's perpetual virginity, though "lovers of Christ do not bear to hear that God's Mother ever ceased to be Virgin," yet "does no injury to the doctrine of religion," [meden toi tes eusebeias paralumainetai logoi], i.e. (according to the above explanation of the word) to the orthodox view of the Incarnation. vid. Basil. Opp. t. 2, p.599. vid. on the passage Petav. de Incarn. xiv. 3, § 7, and Fronto-Duc. in loc. Pearson refers to this passage, and almost translates {411} the [logos eusebeias] by "mystery," Apost. Creed, Art. 3. "Although it may be thought sufficient as to the mystery of the Incarnation, that, when our Saviour was conceived and born, His Mother was a Virgin, though whatsoever should have followed after could have no reflective operation upon the first-fruit of her womb, ... yet the peculiar eminency," &c.

John of Antioch, however, furnishes us with a definition of pietas, as meaning obedience to the word of God. He speaks, writing to Proclus, of a letter which evidenced caution and piety, i.e. orthodoxy: "piety, because you went along the royal way of Divine Scripture in your remarks, rightly confessing the word of truth, not venturing to declare anything of your own authority without Scripture testimonies; caution, because together with divine Scripture you propounded also statements of the Fathers, in order to prove what you advanced." ap. Facund. i. 1. {412}

[Theandrike energeia]

Operatio Deivirilis, "the Man-God's action." By the word [energeia] meant in theology the action or operation, the family of acts, which naturally belongs to and discriminates the substance or nature of a thing from that of other things; and not only the mere operation, but also inclusively the faculty of such operation; as certain nutritive or medicinal qualities adhere, and serve as definitions, to certain plants and minerals, or as the [energeia] and the [ergon] of a seraph may be viewed as being the adoration of the Holy Trinity.

This being laid down, it would seem to follow that our Lord, having two natures, has two attendant [erga] and two [energeiai], and this in fact is the Catholic doctrine; whereas the Monothelites maintained He had but one, as if, with the Monophysites, they held but one nature of Christ, the divine and human energies making up one single third energy, neither divine nor human,—for, in the Monophysite creed, God and man made one third and compound being, who would necessarily have one compound energy, and, as will is one kind of energy, one only will.

This one and only energy of our Lord, as proceeding from what they considered His one composite nature, they denoted by the orthodox phrase, "[energeia theandrike]," diverting it from its true sense. Catholic {413} theologians, holding two energies, one for each nature, speak of them in three ways, viz. as a divine energy, a human, and a union or concurrence of the two; this last they call [theandrike], but in a sense quite distinct from the use of the word by the Monothelites. Sometimes our Lord exerts His divine energia, as when He protects His people; sometimes His human, as when He underwent hunger and thirst; sometimes both at once, as in making clay and restoring sight, or in His suffering for His people; but in this last instance, there is no intermingling of the divine and the human, and, though it may be spoken of as a double energy, still there are in fact two, not one.

It is this [theandrike energeia] that is spoken of in the following passages:—

"And thus when there was need to raise Peter's wife's mother who was sick of a fever, He stretched forth His hand humanly, but He stopped the illness divinely. And in the case of the man blind from the birth, human was the spittle which he gave forth from the flesh, but divinely did He open the eyes through the clay. And in the case of Lazarus, He gave forth a human voice, as man; but divinely, as God, did He raise Lazarus from the dead." Orat. iii. 32.

"When He is said to hunger and thirst, and to toil, and not to know, and to sleep, and to weep, and to ask, and to flee, and to be born, and to deprecate the chalice, and in a word to undergo all that belongs to the flesh, let it be said, as is congruous, in each case, ‘Christ's then hungering or thirsting for us in the flesh, and saying He did not know, and being buffeted and {414} toiling for us in the flesh, and being exalted too, and born and growing in the flesh, and fearing and hiding in the flesh, and saying, If it be possible let this chalice pass from Me, and being beaten and receiving gifts for us in the flesh; and in a word, all such things for us in the flesh,'" &c. Orat. iii. § 34.

"When He touched the leper, it was the man that was seen; but something beyond man, when He cleansed him," &c. Ambros. Epist. i. 46, n. 7. Hil. Trin. x. 23 fin. vid. Incarnation and Two Natures, and S. Leo's extracts in his Ep. 165. Chrysol. Serm. 34 and 35. Paul. ap Conc. Eph. t. iii. (p. 1620, Labbe.) {415}

[Theomachos, Christomachos]

VID. Acts v. 39. xxiii. 9. text. rec. These epithets are in very frequent use in Athan., in speaking of the Arians; also [antimachomenoi toi soteri]. Ep. Encycl. § 5. And in the beginning of the controversy, Alexander ap. Socr. i. 6, p. 10, p. 11, p. 13. Theod. Hist. i. 3, p. 729. And so [theomachos glossa]. Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 27 fin. [christomachon]. in his Ep. 236 init. Vid. also Cyril. Thesaur. p. 19, p. 24. [Theomachoi] is used of other heretics, e.g. the Manichees, by Greg. Naz. Orat. 45. § 8.

The title contains, in Athan.'s use of it, an allusion to the antediluvian giants; e.g. [gigantas theomachountas], Orat. iii. § 42. vid. also Naz., of the disorderly bishops during the Arian ascendency. Orat. 43. 26, and Socr. v. 10. Sometimes the mythological giants are spoken of. Orat. ii. § 32. In Hist. Arian. 74, he calls Constantius a [gilas].

[logomachia] too is used with reference to the divine [logos] and the fight against Him, as [christomachein] and [theomachein]. Thus [logomachein meletesantes, kai loipon pneumatomachountes, esontai met' oligon nekroi tei alogiai]. Serap. iv. 1. {416}

[Theotes] (vid. Trinity)

IF the doctrine of the Holy Trinity admits of being called contrary to reason, this must be on the ground of its being incompatible with some eternal truth, necessary axiom, &c., or with some distinct experience, and not merely because it is in its nature inconceivable and unimaginable; for if to be inconceivable makes it untrue, then we shall be obliged to deny facts of daily experience, e.g. the action of the muscles which follows upon an act of the will.

However, clear as this is, the language by which we logically express the doctrine will be difficult to interpret and to use intelligently, unless we keep in mind the fundamental truths which constitute the mystery, and use them as a key to such language.

E.g. the Father's Godhead is the Son's, or is in the Son. Orat. i. § 52. [He patrike autou theotes]. Orat. i. § 45, 49. ii. § 18, 73. iii. § 26. [he patrike physis autou]. i. § 40. [to patrikon phos ho huios]. iii. § 53. [he theotes kai he idiotes tou patros to einai tou huiou esti]. iii. § 5. The Son is worshipped [kata ten patriken idioteta]. i. § 42. He has [ten tes homoioseos henoteta]. Syn. § 45. He is [ho autos tei homoiosei] to the Father. Decr. § 20. He has [ten henoteta tes physeos kai ten tautoteta tou photos]. Decr. § 24. [tautoteta tes physeos], Basil, Ep. 8, 3. [tes ousias], Cyril. in Joan. iii. p. 302. He is [ex ousias {417} ousiodes]. Orat. iv. § 1. [he ousia haute tes ousias tes patrikes esti gennema]. Syn. § 48. And we are told of the prophet [ekboesantos ten patriken hypostasin peri autou]. Orat. iv. § 33. vid. the present author's Tract, [mia physis], § 6 fin.

[physis] seems sometimes in Athanasius to be used, not for [ousia], as would be the ordinary application of the word, but for [hypostasis] or person. Thus he says, "whereas the nature of the Son is less divisible relatively to the Father" than radiance is relatively to the sun, ... "wherefore should not He be called consubstantial?" de Syn. § 52. And at least this is 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 one substance; but "three Natures" is the One Eternal Divine Nature viewed in that respect in which He is Three. And so S. Hilary, "naturæ ex naturâ gignente nativitas," de Syn. 17; and "essentia de essentiâ," 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] viewed as begotten. These phrases {418} 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 St. 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." Orat. i. § 52.

The [monas theotetos] is [adiairetos]. Orat. iv. § 1, 2. Though in Three Persons, they are not [memerismenai], Doin. ap. Basil. Sp. S. n. 72. Athan. Expos. F. § 2; not [aperrhegmenai], Naz. Orat. 20. 6; not [apexenomenai kai diespasmenai], Orat. 23. 6, &c.; but [ameristos en memerismenois he theotes]. Orat. 31. 14.

Though the Divine Substance is both the Father Ingenerate and also the Only-begotten Son, it is not itself [agennetos] or [gennete]; which was the objection urged against the Catholics by Aetius, Epiph. Hær. 76, 10. Thus Athan. says, de Decr. § 30, "He has given the authority of all things to the Son, and, {419} having given it, is once more, [palin], the Lord of all things through the Word." vol. i. p. 52. Again, "the Father having given all things to the Son, has all things once again, [palin] ... for the Son's Godhead is the Godhead of the Father." Orat. iii. § 36 fin. Hence [he ek tou patros eis ton huion theotes arrheustos kai adiairetos tunkanei]. Expos. F. 2. "Vera et æterna substantia, in se tota permanens, totam se coæternæ veritati nativitatis indulsit." Fulgent. Resp. 7. And S. Hilary, "Filius in Patre est et in Filio Pater, non per transfusionem, refusionemque mutuam, sed per viventis naturæ perfectam nativitatem." Trin. vii. 31.

[Theotokos]

Vid. Mary. {420}

[Katapetasma]

"AS Aaron did not change," says Athanasius, Orat. ii. 8, "by putting on his High-priest's dress, so that, had any one said, 'Lo, Aaron has this day become High-priest,' he had not implied that he then had been born man, ... so in the Lord's instance the words, 'He became' and 'He was made' must not be understood of the Word, considered as the Word," &c. &c.

This is one of those protests by anticipation against Nestorianism, which in consequence may be abused to the purposes of the opposite heresy. Such expressions as [peritithemenos ten estheta, ekalupteto, endusamenos soma], were familiar with the Apollinarians, against whom S. Athanasius is, if possible, even more decided. Theodoret objects, Hær. v. 11, p. 422, to the word [prokalumma], when applied to our Lord's manhood, as implying that He had no soul; vid. also Naz. Ep. 102 fin. (ed. 1840). In Naz. Ep. 101, p. 90, [parapetasma] is used to denote an Apollinarian idea. Such expressions were taken to imply that Christ was not in nature man, only in some sense human; not a substance, but an appearance; yet S. Athan. (if Athan.) contr. Sabell. Greg. 4, has [parapepetasmenen], and [kalumma], ibid. init.; S. Cyril Hieros. [katapetasma], Catech. xii. 26, xiii. 32. after Hebr. x. 20, and Athan. {421} ad Adelph. 5; Theodor. [parapetasma], Eran. 1, p. 22, and [prokalumma], ibid. p. 23, and adv. Gent. vi. p. 877; and [stole], Eran. 1. c. S. Leo has "caro Christi velamen," Ep. 59, p. 979. vid. also Serm. 22, p. 70; Serm. 25, p. 84. {422}

[Kurios, Kurios]

THE meaning of [kurios], when applied to language, on the whole presents no difficulty. It answers to the Latin propriè, and is the contrary to impropriè. Thus Athan. says, "When the thing is a work or creature, the words 'He made' &c. are used of it properly, [kurios]; when an offspring, then they are no longer used [kurios]." Orat. ii. § 3.

But the word has an inconvenient latitude (vid. art. Father Almighty, fin.) Sometimes it is used in the sense of archetypal or transcendent, as when Athan. says, "The Father is [kurios] Father, and the Son [kurios] Son," Orat. i. § 21; and in consequence in Their instance alone is the Father always Father and the Son always Son, ibid. Sometimes the word is used of us as sons, and opposed to figuratively, [ek metaphoras], as in Basil c. Eunom. ii. 23; while Hilary seems to deny that we are sons propriè. Justin says, [ho monos legomenos kurios huios], Apol. ii. 6, but here [kurios] seems to be used in reference to the word [kurios], Lord, which he has just been using, [kuriologein] being sometimes used by him as by others in the sense of "naming as Lord," like [theologein]. vid. Tryph. 56. There is a passage in Justin's ad Græc. 21, where he (or the anon. writer), when speaking of [ego eimi ho on], uses the word in the same ambiguous sense; [ouden gar onoma epi theou kuriologeisthai dunaton]; as if [kurios], {423} the Lord, by which "I am" is translated, were a sort of symbol of that proper name of God which cannot be given.

On [kuriologia], vid. Lumper, Hist. Theol. t. 2, p. 478.

[Logos,
endiathetos kai prophorikos]

Vid. art. Word. {424}

[Metousia]

To all creatures in different ways or degrees is it given to participate in the Divine attributes. In these it is that they are able or wise or great or good; in these they have life, health, strength, well-being, as the case may be. And the All-abounding Son is He through whom this exuberance of blessing comes to them, severally.

They are partakers, in their measure, of what He possesses in fulness. From the Father's [ousia], which is His too, they have through Him a [metousia]. Here lies the cardinal difference of doctrine between the Catholic and Arian: Arians maintain that the Son has only that [metousia] of God, which we too have. Catholics hold Him to be God, and the Source of all divine gifts. The antagonism between Athanasius and Eusebius is the more pointed, by the very strength of the language of the latter. He considers the Son [ex autes tes patrikes] [not [ousias], but] [metousias, hosper apo peges, ep'] [vid. supr. Eusebius] [auton procheomenes, pleroumenon]. Eccl. Theol. i. 2. But Athanasius, [oude kata metousian autou, all' holon idion autou gennema]. Orat. iii. § 4.

Athanasius considers this attribute of communication to be one of the prerogatives of the Second Person in the Divine Trinity. He enlarges on this {425} doctrine in many places: e.g. "if, as we have said before, the Son is not such by participation, 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, if so, it follows that He, as 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 of Him, we partake of the Father; inasmuch as the Word is proper to the Father. Whence, if He was Himself too from participation, and not the substantial Godhead and Image of the Father, He would not deify, being deified Himself. For it is not possible that he who but possesses from participation, should impart of that portion to others, since what he has is not his own, but the Giver's; as what he has received is barely the grace sufficient for himself." Syn. § 51.

"As the Father has life in Himself, so has He also given to the Son to have life in Himself," not by participation, but in Himself. What the Father gives to the Son is a communication of Himself; what He gives to His creatures is a participation. Vid. supr. Orat. i. § 16. "To say that God is wholly partaken is equivalent to saying that He begets." {426}

[Mia physis]
(of our Lord's Godhead and of His Manhood).

TWO natures are united in One Christ, but it does not follow that their union is like any other union of which we have cognisance, such, for instance, as the union of body and soul. Beyond the general fact, that both the Incarnation and other unions are of substances not homogeneous, there is no likeness between it and them. The characteristics and circumstances of the Incarnation are determined by its history. The One Self-existing Personal God created, moulded, assumed, a manhood truly such. He, being from eternity, was in possession and in the fulness of His Godhead before mankind had being. Much more was He already in existence, and in all His attributes, when He became man, and He lost nothing by becoming. All that He ever had continued to be His; what He took on Himself was only an addition. There was no change; in His Incarnation, He did but put on a garment. That garment was not He, or, as Athan. speaks, [autos], or, as the next century worded it, "His Person." That [autos] was, as it had ever been, one and the same with His Divinity, [ousia], or [physis]; it was this [physis], as one with His Person, which took to Itself a manhood. He had no other Person than He had had from the beginning; His manhood had no Personality of its own; {427} it was a second [physis], but not a second Person; it never existed till it was His; for its integrity and completeness it depended on Him, the Divine Word. It was one with Him, and, through and in Him, the Divine Word, it was one with the Divine Nature; it was but indirectly united to It, for the medium of union was the Person of the Word. And thus being without personality of its own, His human nature was relatively to Himself really what the Arians falsely said that His divinity was relatively to the Father, a [peri auton], a [peribole], a [sumbebekos], a "something else besides His substance," Orat. ii. § 45, e.g. an [organon]. Such was His human nature; it might be called an additional attribute; the Word was "made man," not was made a man.

Thus Athanasius almost confines the word [ousia] to denote the Word, and seldom speaks of His manhood as a nature; and Cyril, to denote the dependence of the manhood upon His Divine Nature, has even used of the Incarnate Lord the celebrated dictum, [mia physis tou theou logou sesarkomene]. This was Cyril's s strong form of protesting against Nestorianism, which maintained that our Lord's humanity had a person as well as the Divine Word, who assumed it.

Athan.'s language is remarkable: he says, Orat. ii. § 45, that our Lord is not a creature, though God, in Prov. viii. 22, is said to have created Him, because to be a creature, He ought to have taken a created substance, which He did not. Does not this imply that he did not consider His manhood an [ousia] or [physis]? He says that He who is said to be created, is not at once in His {428} Nature and Substance a creature: [he lexis ti heteron deloi peri ekeinon, kai ou to legomenon ktizesthai ede tei physei kai tei ousiai ktisma]. As the complement of this peculiarity, vid. his constant use of the [ousia tou logou], when we should use the word "Person." Does not this corroborate St. Cyril in his statement that the saying, "[mia physis sesarkomene]" belongs to Athanasius? for whether we say one [physis] or one [ousia] does not seem to matter. Observe, too, he speaks of something taking place in Him, [peri ekeinon], i.e. some adjunct or accident, (vid. art. [peribole] and [sumbebekos],) or, as he says, Orat. ii. § 8, envelopment or dress. In like manner he presently, ii. § 46, speaks of the creation of the Word as like the new-creation of the soul, which is a creation not in substance but in qualities, &c. And ibid. § 51, he contrasts the [ousia] and the [he anthropinon] of the Word; as in Orat. i. 41, [ousia] and [he anthropotes]; and [physis] with [sarx], iii. 34, init.; and [logos] with [sarx], 38, init. And he speaks of the Son "taking on Him the economy," ii. § 76, and of the [hypostasis tou logou] being one with [ho anthropos], iv. 35; why does he not, instead of [anthropinon], use the word [physis]?

It is plain that this line of teaching might be wrested to the purposes of the Apollinarian and Eutychian heresies; but, considering Athan.'s most emphatic protests against those errors in his later works, as well as his strong statements in Orat. iii., there is no hazard in this admission. We thus understand how Eutyches came to deny the "two natures." He said that such a doctrine was a new one; this is not true, for, not to mention other Fathers, Athan. Orat. iv. fin, speaks {429} of our Lord's "invisible nature and visible," (vid. also contr. Apoll. ii. 11, Orat. ii. 70, iii. 43,) and his ordinary use of [anthropos] for the manhood might quite as plausibly be perverted on the other hand into a defence of Nestorianism; but still the above peculiarities in his style may be taken to account for the heresy, though they do not excuse the heretic. Vid. also the Ed. Ben. on S. Hilary (præf. p. xliii.), who uses natura absolutely for our Lord's Divinity, as contrasted to the dispensatio, and divides His titles into naturalia and assumpta.

St. Leo secured at Chalcedon this definition of the "Two Natures" of Christ, instead of the Alexandrian "One Nature Incarnate." In this he did but follow the precedent of the Nicene Fathers, who recalled the dogmatic authority of the [homoousion], which in the preceding century had been superseded at Antioch.

[Monarchia]

Vid. Father Almighty. {430}

[Monogenes]

THE Arians had a difficulty as to the meaning, in their theology, of the word [monogenes]. Eunomius decided that it meant, not [monos gennetheis], but [gennetheis para monou]. And of the first Arians also Athan. apparently reports that they considered the Son Only-begotten because He [monos] was brought into being by God [monos]. Decr. § 7. The Macrostich Confession in like manner interprets [monogenes] by [monos] and [monos], Syn. § 26, (supr. vol. i. p. 107,) i.e. the only one of the creatures who was named "Son," and the Son of one Father (with Eunomius above), in opposition to the [probole] of the Gnostics. (vid. Acacius in Epiph. Hær. p. 839.) Naz., however, explains [monos] by [ouch hos ta somata]. Orat. 25. 16. vid. the Eusebian distinction between [homoousios] and [homoiousios], Soz. iii. 18, in art. [homoousios] infr. It seems, however, that Basil and Gregory Nyssen, (if I understand Petav. rightly, Trin. vii. 11, § 3,) consider [monogenes] to include [hypo monou], as if in contrast to the Holy Spirit, whose procession is not from the Father only, or again not a gennesis.

If it be asked, what the distinctive words are which are incommunicably the Son's, since so many of His names are given also to the creature, it is obvious to answer, and [idios huios] and [monogenes], which are in Scripture, and the symbols "of the substance," and {431} "one in substance," used by the Council; and this is the value of the Council's phrases, that, while they guard the Son's divinity, they allow full scope, without risk of trenching on it, to the Catholic doctrine of the fulness of the Christian privileges. vid. art. Son. For [Agapetos], vid. Matt. iii. in Scripture Passages. {432}

The [Homoion]

GOD is both One and Three: neither as One nor as Three can we speak of likeness in connection with Him; for likeness, as Athan. says, relates not to things but to their qualities, and to speak of likeness between Father, Son, and Spirit, is to imply that instead of being One and the Same, They are three distinct beings. Again, so far as They are three, They do but differ from each other, and are not merely unlike; They are [ali]ke in nothing, viewed as Persons; They have not so much likeness as to admit (in the ordinary sense) of numbering. Those things, strictly speaking, alone are like or equal which are not the same: the Three Divine Persons are not like Each Other, whether viewed as Three or One.

However, in the difficulty of finding terms, which will serve as a common measure of theological thought for the expression of ideas as to which there is no experimental knowledge or power of conception, and in the necessary use of economical language, both these terms, likeness and equality, have been received in orthodox teaching concerning the Supreme Being. The Athanasian Creed declares that the Three Persons in the Godhead have "æqualis gloria," and are "co-æquales," and S. Athanasius himself in various places uses the word "like," though he condemns its {433} adoption in the mouth of Arians, as being insufficient to exclude error.

That is, he accepts it as a word of orthodoxy as far as it goes, while he rejects it as sufficient to serve as a symbol and test. Sufficient it is not, even with the strong additions, which the Semi-Arians made, of [homoios kata panta, homoios kat' ousian] or [homoiousios], and [aparallaktos eikon], because what is like, is, by the very force of the term, not equivalent to the same. Thus he says, Syn. § 41 and 53, "Only to say 'Like according to substance,' is very far from signifying 'Of the substance' (vid. art. Eusebius); thus tin is only like silver, and gilt brass like gold ... No one disputes that like is not predicated of substances, but of habits and of qualities. Therefore in speaking of Like in substance, we mean Like by participation, [kata metousian], and this belongs to creatures, for they, by partaking, are made like to God ... not in substance, but in sonship, which we shall partake from Him ... If then ye speak of the Son as being such by participation, then indeed call Him like God in substance and not in nature God, ... but if this be extravagant, He must be, not by participation, but in nature and truth, Son, Light, Wisdom, God; and being so by nature and not by sharing, therefore He is properly called, not Like in substance with the Father, but One in substance,"—that is, not [homoiousios], but [homoousios], Consubstantial.

Yet clear and decided as is his language here, nevertheless, for some reason (probably from a feeling of charity, as judging it best to inculcate first the revealed truth itself as a mode of introducing to the faithful {434} and defending the orthodox symbol, and showing its meaning and its necessity,) he uses the phrases [homoios kata panta], and [homoiousios] more commonly than [homoousios]: this I have noted elsewhere.

E.g. [homoios kata panta]. "He who is in the Father, and like the Father in all things." Orat. i. 40. "Being the Son of God, He must be like Him." Orat. ii. § 17. "The Word is unlike us, and like the Father." Orat. iii. § 20; also i. § 21, 40; ii. § 18, 22. Ep. Ægypt. 17.

And [homoios kat' ousian]. " ... Unless indeed they give up shame, and say that 'Image' is not a token of similar substance, but His name only." Orat. i. § 21. Vid. also Orat. i. 20 init. 26; iii. § 11, 26, 67. Syn. § 38. Alex. Enc. § 2.

Also Athan. says that the Holy Trias is [homoia heautei], instead of using the word [homoousia]. Serap. i. 17, 20, 38; also Cyril. Catech. vi. 7.

In some of the Arian Creeds we have this almost Catholic formula, [homoion kata panta], introduced by the bye, marking the presence of what may be called the new Semi-Arian school. Of course it might admit of evasion, but in its fulness it included "substance." At Sirmium Constantius inserted the above (Epiph. Hær. 73, 22) in the Confession which occurs supr. vol. i. p. 72. On this occasion Basil subscribed in this form: "I, Basil, Bishop of Ancyra, believe and assent to what is aforewritten, confessing that the Son is like the Father in all things; and by 'in all things,' not only that He is like in will, but in subsistence, and existence, and being; as divine Scripture teaches, {435} spirit from spirit, life from life, light from light, God from God, true Son from true, Wisdom from the Wise God and Father; and once for all, like the Father in all things, as a son is to a father. And if any one says that He is like in a certain respect, [kata ti], as is written afore, he is alien from the Catholic Church, as not confessing the likeness according to divine Scripture." Epiph. Hær. 73, 22. S. Cyril of Jerusalem uses the [kata panta] or [en pasin homoion], Catech. iv. 7; xi. 4 and 18; and Damasc. F. O. i. 8, p. 135.

S. Athanasius, in saying that like is not used of substance, implies that the common Arian senses of [homoion] are more natural, and therefore the more probable, and therefore also the less admissible by Catholics, if the word came into use. These were, 1. likeness in will and action, as [symphonia], of which vid. 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. Basil. contr. Eun. iv. p. 282. Cyril. in Joan. c. 5. iii. p. 304. 4. like according to the Scriptures, which of course was but an evasion. 5. like [kata panta], which was, as they understood it, an evasion also.

According to Athanasius, supr. p. 371, the phrase "unvarying image" was, in truth, self-contradictory, for every image varies from the original because it is an image. Still he himself frequently uses it, as other Fathers, and Orat. i. § 26, uses [homoios tes ousia].

As "of the substance" declared that our Lord was uncreate, so "one in substance" declared that He was equal with the Father; no term derived from {436} "likeness," even "like in substance," answering for this purpose, for such phrases might all be understood of resemblance or representation. vid. Decr. § 23, Hyp. Mel. and Hil. Syn. 89. Things that are like cannot be the same; whereas Athan. contends for the [tauton tei homoiosei], the same in likeness, Decr. § 20. "Una substantia religiose prædicabitur, quæ ex nativitatis proprietate et ex naturæ similitudine ita indifferens sit, ut una dicatur." Hil. Syn. § 67.

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. "Perfectæ æqualitatis significantiam habet similitudo." Hil. de Syn. 73. But though He is in all things the Father's Image, this implies some exception, for else He would not be an Image, merely like or equal, as I said just now, but the same. "Non est æqualitas 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 to the phrase "unvarying image," asked why the Son was not in consequence a Father, and the beginning of a [theogonia]. vid. Athan. Orat. i. § 14, 21. Eunom. in Cyril. Thes. pp. 22, 23.

The characteristic of Arianism in all its shapes was the absolute separation of Father from Son. It {437} considered Them as two [ousiai], like perhaps, but not really one; this was their version of the phrase [teleios ek teleiou]. Semi-Arians here agreed with Arians. When the Semi-Arians came nearest to orthodoxy in words, it was the [perichoresis] that was the test whether they fell short in words alone, or in their theological view. {438}

[Homoousios]

THE term [homoousios], one in substance or consubstantial, was accepted as a symbol, for securing the doctrine of our Lord's divinity, first by the infallible authority of the Nicene Council, and next by the experimental assent and consent of Christendom, wrought out in its behalf by the events of the prolonged Arian controversy.

It had had the mischance in the previous century of being used by heretics in their own sense, and of incurring more or less of suspicion and dislike from the Fathers in the great Council of Antioch, A.D. 264-272, though it had been already in use in the Alexandrian Church; but, when the momentous point in dispute, the divinity of the Son, was once thoroughly discussed and understood, it was forced upon the mind of theologians that the reception or rejection of this term was the difference between Catholic truth and Arianism.

"We were aware," says Eusebius to his people, "that, even among the ancients, some learned and illustrious Bishops and writers have used the term 'one in substance,' in their theological teaching concerning the Father and Son." And Athanasius in like manner, ad Afros 6, speaks of "testimony of ancient Bishops about 130 years since;" and in de Syn. § 43, of "long before" the Council of Antioch. Tertullian, {439} Prax. 13 fin., has the translation "unius substantiæ," as he also has "de substantia Patris," in Prax. 4; and Origen perhaps used the word, vid. Pamph. Apol. 5, and Theognostus and the two Dionysius's, Decr. § 25, 26. And before them Clement had spoken of the [henosis tes monadikes ousia], "the union of the single substance," vid. Le Quien in Damasc. Fid. Orth. i. 8. Novatian too has "per substantiæ communionem," de Trin. 31. Vid. Athan. ad Afros 5, 6; ad Serap. ii. 5. S. Ambrose tells us, that a Letter written by Eusebius of Nicomedia, in which he said, "If we call Him true Son of the Father and uncreate, then are we granting that He is one in substance, [homoousion]," determined the Council on the adoption of the term. de Fid. iii. n. 125. He had disclaimed "of the substance," in his Letter to Paulinus. Theod. Hist. i. 4. Arius, however, had disclaimed [homoousion] already, Epiph. Hær. 69, 7, and again in the Thalia. Gibbon's untenable assertion has been already observed upon (vid. Nicene Tests) supr., viz., that the Council was at a loss for a test, and that on Eusebius's "ingenuously confessing that his [homoousios] was incompatible with the principles of [his] theological system, the fortunate opportunity was eagerly embraced by the Bishops," as if they were bent at all hazards, and without reference to the real and substantial agreement or disagreement of themselves and the Arians, to find some word which might accidentally serve to exclude the latter from communion.

When the Semi-Arians objected that the Council of Antioch, 264-272, determined that the Son is not {440} consubstantial with the Father, de Syn. supr. 49-52, Athan. answered in explanation that Paul of Samosata took the word in a material sense, as indeed Arius did, calling it the doctrine of Manes and Hieracas. S. Basil, contr. Eunom. i. 19, agrees with Athan., but S. 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. Doubtless, however, both reasons told in causing its rejection. But Montfaucon and Bull consider it a difficulty. Hence, it would seem, the former, in his Nova Collectio, t. ii. p. 19, renders [oukoun] by ergo non; he had not inserted non in his addition of Athanasius.

The objections made to the word [homoousion] were, 1. that it was not in Scripture; 2. that it had been disowned by the Antiochene Council against Paul of Samosata; 3. that it was of a material nature, and belonged to the Manichees; 4. or else that it was of a Sabellian tendency; 5. that it implied that the divine substance was distinct from God.

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, {441} and appealing to a doctrine which might be plausibly maintained, that spirits are incommensurable with one another, or that each is at most not more than sui similis, 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 Catholics wished to express, viz. that there was no such distinction between Them as made the term "like" necessary, or even possible, 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 existing correlation, so the Eternal Father and Son are Persons under one common individual substance.

"The East," says Sozomen, "in spite of its being in dissension after the Antiochene Council" of the Dedication, "and thenceforth openly dissenting from the Nicene faith, in reality, I think, concurred in the sentiment of the majority, and with them confessed the Son to be of the Father's substance; but from contentiousness certain of them fought against the term 'One in substance;' some, as I conjecture, having originally objected to the word ... others from habit ... others, aware that the resistance was unsuitable, leaned to this side or that to gratify parties; and many thought it weak to waste themselves in such strife of words, and peaceably held to the Nicene decision." Hist. iii. 13. {442}

Athan. is very reserved in his use of the word [homoousion] in these three Orations. Indeed I do not recollect his using it but once, Orat. i. § 9, and that in what is almost a confession of faith. Instead he uses [homoios kata panta, homoios kat' ousian, homophyes], &c.

[Contributed by Dan Meardon, Cary, NC, USA]

Continue

Top | Contents | Works | Home

Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman
Copyright © 2007 by The National Institute for Newman Studies. All rights reserved.