Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Chapter XV. The Arians, inasmuch as they assert the Son to be “of another substance,” plainly acknowledge substance in God. The only reason why they avoid the use of this term is that they will not, as Eusebius of Nicomedia has made it evident, confess Christ to be the true Son of God.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter XV.
The Arians, inasmuch as they assert the Son to be
“of another substance,” plainly acknowledge substance in
God. The only reason why they avoid the use of this term is that
they will not, as Eusebius of Nicomedia has made it evident, confess
Christ to be the true Son of God.
123. How can the
Arians deny the substance of God?2309
| 2309 i.e. how can
they say there is no Divine Substance, that the use of the term
“substance” is illegitimate? | How
can they suppose that the word “substance” which is found
in many places of Scripture ought to be debarred from use, when they
themselves do yet, by saying that the Son is “ἑτεροούσιος,”
that is, of another substance, admit substance in God?
124. It is not the term itself, then, but
its force and consequences, that they shun, because they will not
confess the Son of God to be true [God].2310
For though the process of the divine
generation cannot be comprehended in human language, still the Fathers
judged that their faith might be fitly distinguished by the use of such
a term, as against that of “ἑτεροούσιος
,” following the authority of the prophet, who saith:
“Who hath stood in the truth (substantia) of the Lord, and
seen His Word?”2311
Arians,
therefore, admit the term “substance” when it is used so as
to square with their blasphemy; contrariwise, when it is adopted in
accordance with the pious devotion of the faithful, they reject and
dispute against it.
125. What other reason can there be for their
unwillingness to have the Son spoken of as “ὁμοούσιος,”
of the same substance, with the Father, but that they are unwilling
to confess Him the true Son of
God? This is betrayed in the letter of Eusebius of
Nicomedia. “If,” writes he, “we say that the
Son is true God and uncreate, then we are in the way to confess Him to
be of one substance (ὁμοούσιος)
with the Father.” When this letter had been read before the
Council assembled at Nicæa, the Fathers put this word in their
exposition of the Faith, because they saw that it daunted their
adversaries; in order that they might take the sword, which their
opponents had drawn, to smite off the head of those opponents’
own blasphemous heresy.2312
126. Vain, however, is their plea, that they
avoid the use of the term, because of the Sabellians;2313
| 2313 The Sabellians
reduced the distinction of Persons in the Trinity to a distinction of
three different self-manifestations of one and the same Person,
appearing at different times in different aspects or characters, as
“one man in his time plays many parts.” They,
therefore, would mean, if they said that the Son was ὁμοούσιος
with the Father, that He was identical with Him.
Another perverse use of the term supervened upon the argument that if
the Father and the Son were ὁμοοὐσιοι there
must be some οὐσία, identical with
neither, but in which both, so to speak, had a share, by virtue of
participation in which they existed and were what they were—a
theory which adapted the Platonic doctrine of Universal Ideas to
expound the mysteries of the Godhead. It was the perverse use of
the term by such persons as Paul of Samosata (condemned by the Synod of
Antioch, 269 a.d.) that caused it to be
received at first with suspicion even by the orthodox at the Nicene
Synod in 325 a.d. The true doctrine
would be to this effect, that in relation to the Persons, the Godhead
is not a separate, more comprehensive entity, existing independently,
and the fount of existence to each and all of the Persons—not as
the Platonic αὐτάνθρωπος
(ideal or archetypal man), for example, to the πολλοὶ
ἄνθρωποι (sundry
individuals), but is in each of the Persons fully and completely, yet
without destruction of its unity. The Godhead is a πρώτη
οὐσία, a single, individual
substance. So also is each One of the Three Persons—but
their inter-relation is such that neither is the Godhead anything apart
from them, nor they anything apart from the Godhead or from each
other. It is the Three together that constitute the
One Οὐσία or Essence, it is
the definition of this Essence that applies to Each of them equally,
without difference, whilst Each Person retains His Personal
characteristics and Personal (not natural or substantial)
“differentia.” Speaking logically, the Three
Persons are “of one definition;” speaking metaphysically,
they are “of one Essence.” Now both “of one
definition” and “of one essence” may be rendered
by ὁμοούσιοι. | whereby they betray their own
ignorance, for a being is of the same substance (ὁμοούσιον) with
another, not with itself. Rightly, then, do we call the Son
“ὁμοούσιος”
(of the same substance), with the Father, forasmuch as that term
expresses both the distinction of Persons and the unity of nature.
127. Can they deny that the term
“οὐσία” is met with in
Scripture, when the Lord has spoken of bread, that is,
“ἐπιούσιος,”2314
and Moses has written
“ὑμεῖς
ἔσεσθέ μοι
λαὸς
περιούσιος
”?2315
What does
“οὐσία” mean, whence
comes the name, but from “οὖσα
ἀεί,”2316
| 2316 The derivation is
philologically incorrect, for οὐσία is formed upon the fem.
of the pres. part. of εἶναι, but for all that it
embodies a certain truth, inasmuch as οὐσία in its abstract use
denotes simple existence, without reference to conditions. | “that which endures for
ever? For He Who is, and is for ever, is God; and
therefore the Divine Substance, abiding everlastingly, is called
οὐσία. Bread is
ἐπιούσιος,
because, taking the substance of abiding power from the substance of
the Word, it supplies this to heart and soul, for it is written:
“And bread strengtheneth man’s heart.”2317
| 2317 Ps. civ. 15. The term ἐπιούσιος
has a spiritual import, inasmuch as the life of the body,
supported by bread, is not all but should be subordinate to the
spiritual life—the healthy body to be the instrument and vehicle
of the healthy soul, for man’s real life (though he is not
apt to think it such) is not dependent on bread alone—his
whole existence is not material, though one side of it is.
St. Ambrose, however, seems rather disposed to overlook the physical
material bread (which we are certainly taught to pray for) for the sake
of the supra-sensible Bread of Heaven and Food of Angels. |
128. Let us, then, keep the precepts of our
forefathers, nor with rude and reckless daring profane the symbols
bequeathed to us. That sealed book of prophecy, whereof we have
heard, neither elders, nor powers, nor angels, nor archangels, ventured
to open; for Christ alone is reserved the peculiar right of opening
it.2318
Who amongst us dare unseal the
book of the priesthood, sealed by confessors, and long hallowed by the
testimony of many?2319
| 2319 A reference to the
Synod of Ariminum. See Bk. I. xiii. 122. | They who
have been constrained to unseal, nevertheless have since, respecting
the deceit put upon them, sealed again; they who dared not lay
sacrilegious hands upon it, have stood forth as martyrs and
confessors. How can we deny the Faith held by those whose victory
we proclaim?E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
