To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
AND this brings me to a more particular Account of the Homoousion, and what the Nicene Fathers under∣stood by it.
Eusebius Pamphili, who at first doubted about the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that Christ was of the substance of the Father, and consubstantial, or of One Substance with him; gives an account to his Coesareans of the Reasons which
moved him afterwards to subscribe to that Form of Faith; as appears by his Letter to them, recorded in Socrates his Ecclesiastical History. He tells them, That he did not admit these words without due examination; but when he found there was nothing meant by them, but what was truly Catholick and Orthodox, he com∣plied for Peace sake.* 1.1 For by the Son's being of his Father's Substance, they meant no more than that he was of the Father, not as a part of the Father, or of his Substance; and when the Son is said to be consubstantial with the Fa∣ther, they did not understand this after the manner of Bodies by division,* 1.2 ab∣scission, or any change of the Father's Substance; but the only meaning is, That the Son has nothing like a crea∣ted Nature, but is in every respect per∣fectly like his Father, as not being of any other Substance or Nature, but of the Father.
Athanasius gives us a very particular account what it was that forced the Ni∣cene Fathers to add those two words to their Creed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that the Son is of the Substance of the Fa∣ther, and Consubstantial, or of One Substance with the Father; which was to cut off all Evasions and Subterfuges from the Arian Hereticks, and to force them to confess the Truth, or to confess their Heresy, which they endeavoured to palliate and conceal under ambigu∣ous words.
When the Nicene Fathers taught, That the Son is of the Father,* 1.3 the Arians were contented to allow this, but meant no more by it, but that the Son is of the Father, as all other Creatures are of God; and therefore they added, That the Son is of the Substance of God, to distinguish him from all Crea∣tures; and this is the true interpreta∣tion of that Phrase, That the Son is of the Substance of the Father, that he is no Creature.
Thus when the Fathers taught, That the Word was the true Power and Image of the Father in all things, and inva∣riably like the Father, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Arians owned this also in a qualified sense, because Creatures are said to be the Power, the Image,* 1.4 the Likeness of God, and therefore they were forced to express the sense of Scripture, and what sense they understood the Scripture in, concerning the Son's being the Like∣ness and Image of God, by adding, that the Son is Consubstantial, or of One Sub∣stance with the Father, to declare that the Son is not so of the Father as meerly to be like him,* 1.5 but to be the very same in likeness and similitude to the Father; and to be inseparably uni∣ted to his Father's Substance, and that he and the Father are One, as he him∣self hath said. The Word is always in the Father, and the Father in the Word,
like the light and its splendor; and this the word Homocu∣sios signifies, and was used by the Council to this very end, to distinguish and separate the Word from all created Nature, as appears from the Anathema they immediately denounce against those who said, That the Son of God was produced out of nothing,* 1.6 was a Creature, of a mutable Nature, the Workmanship of God, or of any other Substance but the Sub∣stance of the Father: And therefore he adds, That those that dislike these words, ought to consider the sense in which the Synod uses them, and to anathematize what the Synod anathematizes; and then if they can, let them quarrel with the words; though he is very confident that no man who owns the sense of the Council, and under∣stands the words in their sense, can dislike the words. From whence it appears, that Athanasius would have allowed those for Orthodox Christians (as I observed before St. Hi∣lary did) who should confess the Eternal Generation of the Son, that there was no time before he was, and that he had no beginning of Being; that he is no Creature, nor of any other Substance, but only of the Father, and that he always was inseparably united to him, and one with him, though they should have boggled at those words, That the Son is of the Substance of the Father, and con∣substantial with him. But the true reason why the Nicene Fathers did so earnestly contend for these words, of the Substance of the Father, and Consubstantial, was because they found by experience, that no other words would hold the Arian Hereticks, who concealed their Poyson under any other form of words, though in appearance very Or∣thodox; as the Catholick Bishops found to their cost in the Council of Ariminum, and upon several other occasions; which* 1.7 is the account the Synod of Paris gives the Eastern
Bishops of this matter: But though they desired that all would agree in the use of this word, as most expressive of the true Catholick Faith, yet they never rejected the Com∣munion of any Bishops merely upon this account, while they prosessed the true Catholick Faith, which the Nicene Council intended to signify by this word, and condemned those Arian Blasphemies which they intended to condemn by it.
Before this Council had taken the Homoousion into their Creed, and made it the Test of the Catholick Faith, Dio∣nysius Bishop of Alexandria, in his Book against the Sabel∣lians, had let drop some Expressions, for which he was charged with denying the Homoousion, and accused for it to his Name-sake Dionysius, then B••shop of Rome, which oc∣casioned his Apology to the Roman Bishop, which Athana∣sius gives us an account of.
He owns, That he did say that the word Homoousion was not to be found in Scripture,* 1.8 yet what he taught of Christ did plainly signify what is meant by the Homoousion, that he is no Creature, but homogeneous, or of the same Nature with his Father, which he explained by Human Births, which are manifestly of the same kind; there being no difference of Nature between Parents and Chil∣dren, who differ only in this, That Pa∣rents are not their own Children; whereby he signified that God the Fa∣ther and God the Son had but one and the same Nature, though the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father. The same, he says, he represented by other similitudes of Homogeneous Pro∣ductions; as a Root and its Branches,
the Fountain and Rivers, which are not the same with each other, but have the same Nature. These are true Catholick Representations of the Homoousion, and this Dionysius thought a sufficient Justification of his Faith, and Athanasius thought so too, with∣out using that term; especially if we add what he discourses more at large, de Sent. Dionysii contra Aria∣nos.
I shall only observe farther, That the Learned Dr. Bull takes this very way to prove that the Ante Nicene Fathers did own the Faith of the Homoousion, or that the Son is consubstantial to the Father, though we seldom meet with the word it self in their Writings; because they teach the same things which the Nicene Fathers intended by that word:* 1.9 As 1. When they affirm the Son of God is not only of the Father, but that he proceeds from, and is begotten of the Father. 2. That the Son is the True, Genuine, Pro∣per, Natural Son of God. 3. When they explain the Ge∣neration of the Son, by the Root and its Branches, the Sun and its Rays, the Fountain and River, which are of the same Nature, and therefore represent the Father and Son to be of the same Substance. 4. When they except the Son of God out of the number of Creatures, and deny him to be a Creature. 5. When they ascribe such things to the Son, as are proper and peculiar only to the True God. 6. When they affirm the Son of God not only to be God, but expresly own him to be true God, God by Na∣ture, and One God with the Father.
This is the true Notion of the Homoousion; and now let any man judge, Whether a Consubstantial Trinity be a Tri∣nity of Personal Characters, Relations, or Names, or of
Real, Substantial, Subsisting Persons. If we will allow ei∣ther the Nicene Fathers, or the Arian Bishops to be well in their wits, can we think that there would have been any such Disputes between them, as whether the Son be Co∣eternal with the Father, or had a Beginning? whether there were any time, the least conceivable moment be∣fore the Son was? whether he was made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, crea∣ted out of nothing, as all other Creatures are, or begot∣ten of the Substance of the Father, and is the true, ge∣nuine, natural Son of God, or a Son only by Adoption? whether he be true perfect God, in opposition to the most perfect created Nature, or be only a made and Creature-God? whether he be Consubstantial with the Father, or have only a Nature like the Fathers, but not the same? and whether he be like his Father in all things, in Substance and Essence, or only in Will and Affection. I say, Could any men in their wits dispute such matters as these, un∣less both sides were agreed, that the Son is a Real, Substan∣tial Son, as human Sons are, who are begotten of the Substance of their Parents; that he has a Subsistence of his own, distinct from his Father's Subsistence; that he has a Substance of his own, eternally begotten of his Father's Substance, and therefore the same, but proper and pecu∣liar to his own Person, which makes him the Son, and not the Father. For till these things are agreed, there is no foundation for the other Disputes; for if the Son have no real Subsistence of his own, who would dispute whether he began to subsist in time, or did subsist from all Eternity? If he have no Substance of his own, is it not ludicrous to dispute whether he be of the Father, that is, have his Substance of his Father's Substance, or be a new created Substance, as like his Father's Substance as a created Sub∣stance can be, but not the same? For if he have no di∣stinct Substance of his own, neither of these can be true. To what purpose is it to dispute, whether he be a begotten
or created God, if he be not as true and perfect a Person, and as true and perfect God (upon the Catholick Hy∣pothesis) in his own Person, as the Father himself is?
In short, to conclude this Argument, If the Homoousion signifies, that the Son of God, who is Consubstantial to his Father, is no Creature, was not made out of Nothing, had no Beginning of Being, is of his Father's Substance, begotten of his Substance from all Eternity, a true and perfect Son of a true and perfect Father, and upon all ac∣counts the very same that the Father is, excepting that he is the Son and not the Father, it is impossible the Nicene Fa∣thers should have been either Sabellians or Modalists.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. H. E. l. 1. c. 8.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ath. de Decr. Syn. Nicaenae. p. 267.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid. p. 269.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.
Conc. T. 2. Col. 8 21.
— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ath. Syn. Nic. decret. p. 274.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Ibid.
Defens. Fidei Nice∣nae. p. 66.