The present state of the Socinian controversy, and the doctrine of the Catholick fathers concerning a trinity in unity by William Sherlock ...

SECT. II. Some Rules for expounding the Homoousion; and in what Sense the Fathers understood it.

SEcondly, Let us now examine what account the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers give of the Homoousion, and in what sense they understood it. But before I tell you what they expresly say of this matter, I shall observe by the way two or three Rules they give us for expounding the Homoousion, which are of great use in this Enquiry.

1. The first is, To give the Homoousion the right place in our Creed, as the Nicene Fathers have done. They do not tell us abruptly, in the first place, That the Son is con∣substantial, or of one Substance with the Father. They first tell us, That Jesus Christ our Lord is the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father, that is, of the Sub∣stance of his Father, before all Worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; and then they add, Of One Substance with the Fa∣ther.

This St. Hilary lays great stress on, and his Reason is very considerable;* 1.1 be∣cause if in the first place we say, Father and Son are consubstantial, or of One Substance, this is capable of an Hereti∣cal as well as Orthodox Sense, as we have already heard; for they may be One Substance in the Sabellian Notion, as that signifies One Person; or One by the Division or Partition of the same

Substance, of which each has a part; for all these per∣verse Senses may be affix'd to it, when this word Consubstan∣tial, or One Substance, stands singly by it self, or is put in the first place, without any thing to limit or determine its signification. And therefore a true Catholick Christian must not begin his Creed with saying, That Father and Son are of One Sub∣stance;* 1.2 but then he may safely say One Substance, when he has first said, The Father is unbegotten, the Son is born, and subsists of his Father, like to his Fa∣ther in all Perfections, Honour, and Nature; not of nothing, but born; not unborn, but coaeval; not the Father, but the Son of the Father; not a Part of the Father, but All that the Father is; not the Author, but the Image, the I∣mage of God, begotten of God, and born God; not a Creature, but God; not Another God, of a different Kind and Substance, but One God, as having the same Essence and Nature, which differs in nothing from the Substance of the Father; that God is One, not in Person, but Na∣ture, Father and Son having nothing unlike, or of a diffe∣rent kind in them: And after this we may safely add, That Father and Son are One Substance, and cannot deny it without Sin.

This is as plain as words can make it, and needs no Com∣ment, but fixes and determines the Catholick Sense of the Homoousion. For if we must acknowledge the Son to be con∣substantial, or of one Substance with the Father, in no other sense than as a True and Real Son is consubstantial, a Son, not created out of Nothing, but begotten of his Fa∣thers Substance; the Son of God, who in his own proper Person is true and perfect God; not a part of God, but all

that God is; not One God, as One Person with the Father, but as having the true Divine Nature distinctly in his own Person. This is a Demonstration that the Nicene Consub∣stantiality, is the Consubstantiality of Two real substantial Persons, who have the same Nature distinctly subsisting in each of them.

2 Another Rule for expounding the Homoousion is, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are equipollent terms; that to be of one Substance, and to be in all things alike to each other, signify the same thing. I know the Fathers condemned the Arian Homoiousion; for they asserted, That the Son was like the Father, in opposition to his being of the same Nature with the Father, and therefore this was an imperfect likeness and resemblance, or indeed no likeness at all; for a created and uncreated Nature are at such an infinite distance, as to have no true and real likeness to each other; to be sure not such a likeness as there must be between a Son and a Father: Nay sometimes they would not allow, that likeness can be properly applied to two in∣dividual Natures of the same species, as to two individual human Natures, which are not like to each other, but are the same. But yet whether it was proper or improper, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be upon all ac∣counts, and every way perfectly alike, was allowed to be very Orthodox; and therefore St. Hilary in his Book de Synodis, approves several Oriental Creeds as very Ortho∣dox, though they left out the Homoousion, because they in the most express terms confessed the perfect likeness and similitude of Nature between Father and Son;* 1.3 which they guarded with the utmost Caution, a∣gainst the perverse Interpretations both of the Sabellian and Arian Hereticks. And he disputes at large, That perfect similitude is a sameness and equality of

Nature; and calls God to witness, that be∣fore he ever heard of those words Homo∣ousion, and Homoiousion,* 1.4 he always thought that what is signified by both these words, is the same: that perfect likeness of Nature is the sameness of Nature; for nothing can be perfectly alike, which has not the same Nature. And this he says he learnt from the Evangelists and Apostles, before ever he heard of the Nicene Faith, which he had not heard of till a little before he was ba∣nished for that Faith. This observa∣tion is of great use, as St. Hilary notes, to confute Sabellianism, and to fix the true sense of the Homoousion: for if to be Consubstantial, or of one Nature, signifies a perfect likeness, similitude, and equality of Nature, Consubstantiali∣ty must at least signify Two, who are thus consubstantial, as likeness, simili∣tude and equality does; and these Two must have One and the same Nature, not in the sense of Singularity, and Sa∣bellian Unity, but of likeness and simili∣tude: that Father and Son are One Substance, not as One Person is One with himself, but as Two Persons are One by a perfect likeness and similitude of Nature, which must be the true meaning of Consubstantial, if Consubstantiali∣ty and likeness of Nature be the same.

3. I observe farther, That the Catholick Fathers did not make the Homoousion the Rule of Faith, that whatever sense some critical Wits can put on it, must therefore be owned for the Catholick Faith; but they chose it as the most comprehensive word, to comprize the true Catholick

Faith, and to detect the Frauds of Hereticks. They taught no new Faith by this word, but what the Catholick Church had always taught, but secured the Faith by it against the shifts and evasions of H••reticks. This is the defence they made to the Arian Objection, That it was an unscriptural word; they confessed the word Homoou∣sios was not to be found in Scripture, but the Faith expressed by that word was:* 1.5 Thus St. Austin answers Pascen∣tius, and tells us, That Christ himself has taught us the Homoousion, where he says, I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and I and my Father are One; and expounds this of the Unity, Dig∣nity, and Equality of Nature: And adds, That it is not the word, but the thing signified by that word, which is so terrible to Hereticks; and if they would dispute to purpose, they must not reject the word, but the doctrine it contains. And thus Laurentius, who presided in that Dispute, gives judgment in this Controversy,* 1.6 That the Homoousion was not the Name of the Christian Faith, but signified the Equality of the Trini∣ty; and that though this word be not in Scripture, yet the thing signified by it is true; and we must believe honou∣rably of the Unity, lest we injure the Trinity.

We may find enough to this purpose in Athanasius, De Decret. Syn. Nic. and elsewhere, of which more presently. And therefore St. Hilary, in his Book de Synodis, which he wrote to some Catholick Bishops, who were very Or∣thodox in the Faith, and yet doubted of this word Ho∣moousion,

tells them,* 1.7 That they are to consider what the Synod intended by that word, and not reject the word, un∣less they rejected the Faith taught by it, and would profess those Arian Do∣ctrines, which the Council condemned in it.

This is the constant language of the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, when the Dispute is concerning the use of this word, which gives us this certain Rule for expounding the Homoousion, that we must understand it in no other sense than what the Nicene Fathers intended by it; for if we do, we may acknowledge the Homoousion, and yet deny the Nicene Faith. What they taught by this word, that we must own; and what they rejected by it, we must reject. And though we may fancy that this word signi∣fies more than what the Nicene Fathers understood by it, (as we have heard what perverse Senses the Hereticks fixt on it) yet it being not a Scriptural, but an Ecclesiastical word, it must be expounded to that Sense, and no other, which placed it in the Creed.

Notes

• * 1.1

  In his igitur tot tamque gravibus fidei periculis, verborum brevitas temperanda est, ne impie dici existi∣metur, quod pic intelligitur: ne secu∣ra atque innocente conscientia, per oc∣casionem haereticorum reus sermo sit, dicturus unam substantiam Catholicus Patris & Filii, non inde incipiat; neque hoc quasi maximum teneat, tan∣quam sine hoc vera fides nulla sit. Hilar. de Synodis.
• * 1.2

  Unam substantiam dicet, cùm ante dixerit, pater ingenitus est, filius na∣tus est, subsistit ex Patre, Patri simi∣lis est, virtute, honore, natura, &c.

  Et post haec unam substantiam pa∣tris & filii decendo, non errat, at unam substantiam negando, jam peccat.

  Nemo unam substantiam brevi & nudo sermone putet praedicandam: ut possit religiose deci, una esse substantia.

  Nihil solitarium ex divinis sacra∣mentis ad suspicionem audientium, & ad occasionem blasphemantium profera∣mus. Ante nativitas filii, ante sub∣jectio, ante similitudo naturae praedi∣canda est, ut non impie unius & Pater & Filius substantiae praedicetur. Ibid.
• * 1.3

  Si ergo naturam neque aliam, ne∣que dissimilem ci, quem impassibiliter generabat, dedit, uon potest aliam dedisse, nisi propriam; ita similitudo proprietas est, proprietas aequalitas est, & aequalitas nihil differt; qui autem nihil differunt, unum sunt; non unione personae, sed aequalicate a••••urae. Hil. de Synod.
• * 1.4

  Testor Dominum coeli atque terra me cùm neutrum audissem, semper tamen utrumque sensisse, quòd per homaeusion homousion eperteret intelligi; id est, nihil simile sibi secundum naturam esse posse, nisi quod esset ex cadem naturâ.

  Fidem Nicaenam nunquam nisi exu∣laturus audivi, sed mihi homousii & homaeusii intelligentiam Evan∣gelia & Apostoli intimaverunt. Ib. in fine.

  Religiosè unam substantiam prae∣dicamus, dummodò unam substantiam proprietatis similitudinem intelliga∣mus, ut quod unum sunt, non singula∣rem significet, sed aequales. Aequali∣tatem dico, id est, indifferentiam si∣militudinis, ut similitudo habeatur aequalitas. Aequalitas verò unum idcirco dicitur esse, quod par sit, unum verò in quo par significatur, non ad unicum vindicetur.—

  Credamus & dicamus esse unam substantiam, sed per naturae proprie∣tatem, non ad significationem impiae unionis. Una sit ex similitudine non ex solitudine. Hilar. de Synod.

  Ita similitudinis aequalitas nec so∣litudinem habet, nec diversitatem, quia omnis aequalitas nec diversa nec sola sit. Idem l. 7. de Trin.
• * 1.5

  Deus qued est genuit, ejusdem sub∣stantiae, ejusdem essentiae, sine tempore, sibi coaeternum genuit—Hanc Dei Trinitatis substantiam unam homu∣sion verbo Graeci complecti breviter maluerunt. Non enim nomen est, sed res terribilis est in verbo hujusmodi sonaus. Quod verbum apertè ipse Fi∣li••s declarat, cùm dicit, ego & Pa∣ter unum sumus. In isto uno consistit substantia una.—Contra hoc pug∣netur, quod possidet, quod habet, quod docet verbum Graecum, non contra ip∣sum verbum, quod auribus retinuit syllabis articulatum. Contra divitio••s, contra aequalitatem naturae, quod pos∣sidet verbum, &c. Altercatio inter Aug. & Pascentium. To. 2.
• * 1.6

  Nec esse nomen fidei homusion, sed aequalitatem magis ipsius Trinita∣tis — Laurentius vir clarissimus dixit, sic ergo & homusion quod in dubium veniebat te proponente, & si scriptum non est, res ipsa tamen, quae latet in verbo, vera est. Credatur honorificè Unitati, ne fiat injuria Tranitati. Ibid.
• * 1.7

  Displicet cuiquam in Synodo Ni∣caena homousion esse susceptum? Hoc si cui displicet, necesse est placeat quod ab Arianis est negatum. Nega∣tum enim idcirco est homousion, ne ex substantia Dei Patris Deus Filius natus, sed secundum Creaturas ex nihilo conditus praedicaretur — Hilar. de Synod. prope finem.