{"collection":"chr","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/chr/ecf/207/2070014.htm","path":"chr/ecf/207/2070014.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/207/2070014.htm","text":"Chapter X.\u2014The Creed of Jerusalem: Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.\n\u00a7 1. The Creed. The ancient Creed which was used by the Church of Jerusalem in the middle of the fourth Century, and which Cyril expounded in his Catechetical Lectures, was recited by him to the Catechumens at the end of the fifth Lecture, to be committed to memory, but not to be written out on paper (\u00a7 12). Accordingly it is not found in any of the MSS., but instead of it the Nicene Creed with the Anathema is there inserted in Codd. Roe, Casaub. This could only have been added after Cyril\u2019s time, when the motives for secrecy had ceased.\nThe Creed which Cyril really taught and expounded may be gathered from various passages in the Lectures themselves, and especially from the Titles prefixed to them.\nWith the Creed of Jerusalem thus ascertained, it will be instructive to compare the Nicene formula, and for this purpose we print them in parallel columns.\np. lv\nCREED OF S. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM.\nFrom S. Athanasius, De Decretis Fidei Nic\u00e6n\u00e6.\n\u03a0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b1 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd 331 ,\n\u1ffe\u039f\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd 334 .\n\u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b1 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1fbd\u0399\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd 335 ,\n\u03b4\u03b9\u1fbd \u03bf\u1f57 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf 336 ,\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03c9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 337 ,\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 338 ,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u1fc3 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 339 ,\n\u03bf\u1f57 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 340 .\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 341 .\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f13\u03bd \u03b2\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd 342 ,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd 343 .\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b1 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1fbd\u0399\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd,\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6,\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2,\n\u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6,\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af,\n\u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2,\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1fbd \u1f21\u03bc\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd 344\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03c9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1,\n\u03a4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f26\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f26\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f26\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf, \u1f22 \u1f10\u03be \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f22 \u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f22 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f22 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a8\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6. \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f21 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1.\n\u00a7 2. Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. \u201cThe doctrinal position of S. Cyril is admirably described, and his orthodoxy vindicated by Cardinal Newman in the following passage of his Preface to the Lectures in the Library of the Fathers. \u201cThere is something very remarkable and even startling to the reader of S. Cyril, to find in a divine of his school such a perfect agreement, for instance as regards the doctrine of the Trinity, with those Fathers who in his age were more famous as champions of it. Here is a writer, separated by whatsoever cause from what, speaking historically, may be called the Athanasian School, suspicious of its adherents, and suspected by them; yet he, when he comes to explain himself, expresses precisely the same doctrine as that of Athanasius or Gregory, while he merely abstains from the particular theological term in which the latter Fathers agreeably to the Nicene Council conveyed it. Can we have a clearer proof that the difference of opinion between them was not one of ecclesiastical and traditionary doctrine, but of practical judgment? that the Fathers at Nic\u00e6a wisely considered that, under the circumstances, the word in question was the only symbol which would secure the Church against the insidious heresy which was assailing it, while S. Cyril, with Eusebius of C\u00e6sarea, Meletius and others shrank from it, at least for a while, p. lvi as if an addition to the Creed, or a word already taken into the service of an opposite heresy, and likely to introduce into the Church heretical notions? Their judgment, which was erroneous, was their own; their faith was not theirs only, but shared with them by the whole Christian world 345 .\u201d\nIn regard to the doctrine of the Trinity in general the two great heresies which distracted the Church in S. Cyril\u2019s day were Sabellianism and Arianism, the one \u201cconfounding the Persons,\u201d the other \u201cdividing the substance\u201d of the indivisible Unity of the Godhead. Both these opposite errors Cyril condemns with equal energy: \u201cDo thou neither separate the Son from the Father, nor by making a confusion believe in a Son-Fatherhood 346 .\u201d Again he says: \u201cOur hope is in Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost. We preach not three Gods: let the Marcionites be silenced; but with the Holy Ghost through One Son we preach One God. The Faith is indivisible; the worship inseparable. We neither separate the Holy Trinity, like some (that is the Arians); nor do we, as Sabellius, work confusion 347 .\u201d \u201cHe says not, I am the Father, but the Father is in Me, and I am in the Father. And again He said not, I and the Father am one, but, I and the Father are One, that we should neither separate them, nor make a confusion of Son-Father 348 .\u201d\nIn the sequel of this last passage Cyril proceeds to argue that this unity of the Father and the Son lies in their Nature, \u201csince God begat God,\u201d in their Kingdom 349 , in their Will 350 , and in their joint Creation 351 , thus at each step rejecting some prominent heretical tenet.\nThe question, however, of Cyril\u2019s orthodoxy depends especially upon his supposed opposition to the Creed of Nic\u00e6a, of which no evidence is alleged except his attendance at the Council of Seleucia, and the absence from his Lectures of the word \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\nThe purpose of Cyril\u2019s attendance at Seleucia was to appeal against his deposition by Acacius, and there is apparently no evidence of his having taken part in the doctrinal discussions, or signed the Creed of Antioch 352 . What is certain is that Cyril\u2019s bitterest enemies who refused to sit with him in the Council were Acacius and his Arian allies, who expressly rejected both \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 and \u201caltogether denied the Nicene formula and censured the Council, while the others, who were the majority, accepted the whole proceedings of the Council, except that they complained of the word \u2018Co-essential,\u2019 as obscure, and so open to suspicion 353 .\u201d It thus appears that Cyril\u2019s friends at Seleucia were partly those who approved the word \u201c Co-essential,\u201d and partly those of whom Athanasius speaks as \u201cbrothers, who mean what we mean, and dispute only about the word 354 .\u201d It needed in fact the profound insight of an Athanasius to foresee that in the end that word must triumph over all opposition, and be accepted by the Universal Church as the one true safeguard of the Christian Faith. Meanwhile it was the standard round which debate, and strife, and hatred, and persecution, were to rage for fifty years with unexampled fury.\nWas Cyril to be blamed, ought he not rather to be commended, for not introducing such a war-cry into the exposition of an ancient Creed, in which it had no place, the Creed of his own Church, the Mother of all the Churches, whose Faith he as a youthful Presbyter was commissioned to teach to the young Candidates for Baptism?\nBut if we compare his doctrine with that of the Nicene formula, we shall find that, as Dr. Newman says, \u201cHis own writings are most exactly orthodox, though he does not in the Catechetical Lectures use the word \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd 355 .\u201d\nThe first point to be noticed in the comparison is the use of the title \u201cSon of God.\u201d p. lvii For this Eusebius in his Creed had substituted \u201cWord of God.\u201d Athanasius explains the significance of the change: \u201cUniting the two titles, Scripture speaks of \u2018Son\u2019 in order to herald the natural and true offspring of His essence (\u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2); and on the other hand that none may think of the offspring as human, in again indicating His essence it calls Him Word, and Wisdom, and Radiance, for from this we infer that the generation was impassible (\u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03c2), and eternal, and becoming to God 356 .\u201d\nCyril is here in full accord with Athanasius: in his Creed he found \u201cSon of God,\u201d and in his exposition he states that the Father is \u201cby nature and in truth Father of One only, the Only-begotten Son 357 :\u201d \u201cOne they are because of the dignity pertaining to the Godhead, since God begat God 358 :\u201d \u201cThe Son then is Very God, having the Father in Himself, not changed into the Father 359 .\u201d When he says that the Son is in all things like (\u1f45\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd) to Him who begat Him; begotten Life of Life, and Light of Light, Power of Power, God of God, and the characteristics of the Godhead are unchangeable (\u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 ) in the Son 360 ,\u201d he is using in all good faith the very words of the orthodox Bishops at Nic\u00e6a, \u201c\u1f45\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u1f70\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af 361 .\u201d\nThe further significance which Athanasius ascribes to the title \u201cLogos,\u201d is also expressed fully and repeatedly by Cyril: \u201cWhenever thou hearest of God begetting, sink not down in thought to bodily things, nor think of a corruptible generation, lest thou be guilty of impiety 362 .\u201d\nThe \u201cpassionless generation,\u201d to which so much importance was attached at Nic\u00e6a and by Athanasius, is also asserted by Cyril when he says that God \u201cbecame a Father not by passion (\u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2) 363 .\u201d The eternal generation is most emphatically declared again and again: the Son, he says, \u201cbegan not His existence in time, but was before all ages eternally and incomprehensibly begotten of the Father; the Wisdom, and the Power of God, and His Righteousness personally subsisting 364 :\u201d \u201cThroughout His being (\u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f57\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f26\u03bd), a being by eternal generation, He holds His royal dignity, and shares His Father\u2019s seat 365 .\u201d Believe that of One God there is One Only-begotten Son, who is before all ages God the Word; not the uttered word diffused into the air, nor to be likened to impersonal words; but the Word, the Son, Maker of all who partake of reason, the Word who heareth the father, and Himself speaketh 366 .\u201d\nThe importance of such language is better understood when we remember that Marcellus, \u201canother head of the dragon lately sprung up in Galatia 367 ,\u201d entirely rejected the word \u201cBegotten,\u201d as implying a beginning, and \u201ccontradicting the eternity of the Logos, so distinctly proclaimed by S. John.\u201d An eternal generation, as stated by Athanasius and others, was to him unimaginable. The Logos in His pre-existence was unbegotten, and could not be called Son, but only the Logos invested with human nature was Son of God and begotten 368 .\u201d These heretical opinions of Marcellus had been condemned in several Councils within a few years preceding Cyril\u2019s Lectures.\nThe next supposed proof of Cyril\u2019s opposition to the Nicene doctrine is that he has not adopted in his Lectures the phrases \u201cof the essence (\u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2) of the Father,\u201d and \u201cof one essence (\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd) with the Father.\u201d This omission is the chief ground of the reproaches cast upon the memory of Cyril by the writers of Ecclesiastical History; for this he was described by Jerome as an Arian, and by Rufinus as a waverer, while his formal acceptance of the terms used at Nic\u00e6a is called by Socrates and Sozomen an act of repentance. By others he was denounced as \u1fbd\u0391\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c6\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd because he had addressed his letter to Constantius as \u201cthe most religious king,\u201d and never used the word \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd in his Lectures.\np. lviii We shall be better able to estimate the justice of these reproaches, if we consider first the history of these words \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 and \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, and the reasons which Cyril may have had for not employing them in the instruction of youthful Candidates for Baptism.\nIt is strange to find that seven hundred years before the great controversy at Nic\u00e6a on the introduction of the word \u039f\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 into the Creed, it had been the war-cry of almost as fierce a conflict between rival schools of philosophy.\n\u201cThere appears,\u201d says Plato in the person of the Eleatic stranger, \u201cto be a sort of war of the giants going on between them because of the dispute concerning \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1. Some of them are dragging all things down from heaven and from the invisible to earth, grasping rocks and oaks in their hands; for of all such things they lay hold, in obstinately maintaining that what can be touched and handled alone has being (\u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9), because they define \u2018being\u2019 and \u2018body\u2019 as one; and if any one else says that what is not a body has being, they altogether despise him, and will hear of nothing but body\u2026.Therefore their opponents cautiously defend themselves from above out of some invisible world, mightily contending that certain intelligible and incorporeal ideas are the true essence (\u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd) 369 .\u201d\nIt is apparently to this passage of Plato that Aristotle refers in describing the ambiguity of the word \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 370 : \u201cNow \u039f\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 seems to belong most manifestly to bodies: wherefore animals and plants and their parts we say are \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9, also natural bodies as fire and water and earth and all such things, and all either parts of these, or products either of parts or the whole, as the heaven and its parts, stars, moon, and sun. But whether these are the only \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 or there are others also, or none of these but others of a different kind, is a matter for inquiry. Some think that the boundaries of bodies, as a surface, and a line and a point and a unit (\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ac\u03c2), are \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9, even more so than body and solid. Further, one class of persons thinks that besides things sensible there is no \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, and another that there are many things, and these more enduring (\u1f00\u0390\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1), as Plato thinks that the ideas (\u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03b7) and the mathematical elements are two kinds of \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, and that the \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 of sensible bodies is a third.\u201d\nIn proceeding to define the term, Aristotle says that \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 is used in four senses if not more: the essential nature (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03af \u1f26\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9), the universal (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd) the genus, and a fourth the subject (\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd). Under, this fourth sense he proceeds to discuss the application of the term \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 to the matter, the form, and the resulting whole. Without going further we may see that the use of the word in philosophy was full of difficulty and ambiguity.\nThe ambiguity is thus expressed by Mr. Robertson 371 : \u201cWe may look at a concrete term as denoting either this or that individual simply (\u03c4\u03cc\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b9), or as expressing its nature, and so as common to more individuals than one. Now properly (\u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2) \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 is only appropriate to the former purpose. But it may be employed in a secondary sense to designate the latter, in this sense species and genera are \u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9, the wider class being less truly \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 than the former.\u201d Perhaps the earliest use of \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 in Christian writings is in Justin M. 372 , where he describes the Logos as \u201chaving been begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission (\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd), as if the \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 of the Father were divided, as all other things when divided and cut are no longer the same as before.\u201d His example was fire, from which other fires are kindled, while it remains undiminished and unchanged. According to Dr. Newman 373 , \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 here means \u201csubstance, or being.\u201d\nIn Clement of Alexandria 374 , \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 means a \u201cnature\u201d common to many, for he speaks of the Gnostic Demiurge as creating an irrational soul \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd with the soul of the beasts;\u201d and again as implanting in man \u201csomething co-essential (\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd) with himself, inasmuch as he is invisible and incorporeal; his essence (\u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd) he called \u201cthe breath of life,\u201d but the thing formed (\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03c9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd) became \u201ca living soul,\u201d which in the prophetic Scriptures he p. lix confesses himself to be. Again in \u00a742 of the same Fragment, according to the Valentinians, \u201cthe body of Jesus is co-essential (\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd) with the Church.\u201d\nSo Hippolytus 375 speaks of the Son Incarnate as being \u201cat one and the same time Infinite God and finite Man, having the nature (\u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd) of each in perfection:\u201d and again, \u201cThere has been effected a certain inexpressible and irrefragable union of the two (the Godhead and the Manhood) into one subsistence (\u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd).\u201d\nIn Origen we find the two words \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 (essence, or substance) and \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 (individual subsistence) accurately distinguished. Quoting the description of Wisdom, as being the breath (\u1f00\u03c4\u03bc\u03af\u03c2) of the power of God, and pure effluence (\u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1) from the glory of the Almighty, and radiance (\u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1) of the Eternal Light 376 ,\u201d he says that \u201cWisdom proceeding from Him is generated of the very substance of God,\u201d and adds that \u201cthese comparisons most manifestly shew that there is community of substance between Father and Son. For an effluence appears to be \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, that is, of one substance with that body from which it is an effluence or vapour.\u201d\nOn the other hand he writes, \u201cWe worship the Father of the Truth, and the Son who is the Truth, being in subsistence (\u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9) two 377 .\u201d On this passage Bishop Bull remarks: \u201cThe words \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 and \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 in ancient times were variously used, at least by the Christians. That is to say, sometimes \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 was taken by them for what we call \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, and vice versa, \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 for what we call \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2: sometimes the ancients even before the Council of Nic\u00e6a used \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 for what we now call \u2018person\u2019 or \u2018subsistence 378 \u2019.\u201d This Bishop Bull presently explains again as \u201can individual thing subsisting by itself, which in rational beings is the same as person.\u201d\nFor examples of these interchanges of meaning, we may notice that the Synod of Antioch (a.d. 269), in the Epistle addressed to Paul of Samosata before his deposition, speaking of the unity of Christ\u2019s Person, says that \u201cHe is one and the same in His \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3 379 .\u201d On this passage Routh remarks that \u201cThe words \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 and \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 are sometimes employed by the ancients for a personal subsistence (persona subsistente), as is plainly testified by Photius.\u201d\nIn the earlier part 380 of the same Epistle the Son is described as \u201cbeing before all ages, not in foreknowledge, but in essence and subsistence (\u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9).\u201d\nThe confusion arising from the uncertainty in the use of these two words is well illustrated in the account which Athanasius 381 himself gives of this same Synod of Antioch: \u201cThey who deposed the Samosatene, took Co-essential (\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) in a bodily sense, because Paul had attempted sophistry and said, \u2018Unless Christ has of man become God, it follows that He is Co-essential with the Father; and if so, of necessity there are three essences (\u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9), one the previous essence, and the other two from it;\u2019 and therefore guarding against this they said with good reason, that Christ was not Co-essential (\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd).\u201d Athanasius then explains on what grounds the Bishops at Nic\u00e6a \u201creasonably asserted on their part, that the Son was Co-essential.\u201d Athanasius himself states that, in giving this explanation of the rejection of \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd by the Bishops who condemned the Samosatene, he had not their Epistle before him 382 ; and his statement, that Paul used the term not to express his own view, but to refute that of the Bishops, is thought to be opposed to what Hilary says 383 , \u201cMale \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd Samosatenus confessus est: sed numquid melius Ariani negaverunt?\u201d\nThat the statement of Athanasius himself is not free from difficulty is clear from the way in which so great a Theologian as Bishop Hefele endeavours to explain it: \u201cAthanasius says that Paul argued in this way: If Christ is \u1ffe\u039f\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 with the Father, then three subsistences (\u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9) must be admitted\u2014one first substance (the Father), and two more recent (the Son and p. lx the Spirit); that is to say, that the Divine Substance is separated into three parts 384 .\u201d The logical subtlety of Paul was better understood by Basil the Great 385 : \u201cFor in truth they who met together about Paul of Samosata found fault with the phrase, as not being distinct; for they said that the word \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 gave the idea of an \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 and of those derived from it, so that the title \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd assigned the \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 separately to the subjects to which it was distributed: and this notion has some reason in the case of copper and the coins made from it; but in the case of God the Father, and God the Son, there is no substance conceived to be antecedent and superior to both: for to say and to think this surpasses all bounds of impiety.\u201d\nThe confusion arising from the uncertainty in the use of these words had been the cause of strife throughout the Christian Church for more than twenty years before the date of Cyril\u2019s Lectures; and though it was declared at the Council of Alexandria (362) to be but a controversy about words 386 , it had long been and long afterwards continued to be a fruitful cause of dissension between men who, when forced to explain their meaning, were found to be in substantial agreement. That Cyril abstained from introducing into his elementary teaching terms so provocative of dangerous controversy, is a reason for commendation, not for censure. But if it is alleged that he denied or doubted or failed to assert the essential Godhead of the Son, the suspicion is unfounded and easily refuted. To the many passages already quoted concerning the eternal generation of the Son, it will be enough to add one single sentence which ought to dispel all doubt of his orthodoxy. \u201cThe Only-begotten Son, together with the Holy Ghost, is partaker of the Godhead of the Father (\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2).\u201d The word chosen by Cyril to express the Divine Essence (\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2) common to the three Persons of the Godhead is at least as appropriate as \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1.\nIf we now look at the particular errors mentioned in the Anathema of the Nicene Council, we shall find that every one of them is earnestly condemned by Cyril.\n\u201cOnce He was not (\u1fcf\u0397\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f26\u03bd). This famous Arian formula is expressly rejected in Cat. xi. \u00a7 17: \u201cNeither let us say, There was a time when the Son was not.\u201d The eternity of the Son is asserted again and again, in reference, for instance, to His generation 387 , His Priesthood 388 , and His throne 389 .\n\u201cBefore His generation He was not\u201d (\u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f26\u03bd). Compare with this Cyril\u2019s repeated assertions that \u201cthe Son is eternally begotten, by an inscrutable and incomprehensible generation 390 ,\u201d \u201cthe Son of God before all ages, without beginning 391 ,\u201d that \u201ctime intervenes not in the generation of the Son from the Father 392 .\u201d\n\u201cHe came to be from nothing\u201d (\u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf). Cyril\u2019s language is emphatic: \u201cAs I have often said, He did not bring forth the Son from non-existence (\u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) into being, nor take the non-existent into Sonship 393 .\u201d\n\u201cThat He is of other subsistence or essence\u201d (\u1f10\u03be \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2). It is certain that Cyril has given no countenance to the error or errors condemned in this clause, but is in entire agreement with the Council.\nOn the question whether \u1f7a\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 and \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 have in this passage the same or different meanings, see Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. II. 9, 11, p. 314 (Oxf. Ed.). Athanasius expressly states that they are perfectly equivalent: \u201cSubsistence (\u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) is essence (\u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1), and means nothing else but very being, which Jeremiah calls existence (\u1f55\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03be\u03b9\u03c2).\u201d Basil distinguishes them, and is followed by Bishop Bull, whose opinion is controverted by Mr. Robertson in an Excursus on the meaning of the phrase, on p. 77 of his edition of Athanasius in this Series. The student who desires to pursue the subject may consult in addition to the works p. lxi just named, and the authorities therein mentioned, Dr. Newman\u2019s Arians of the Fourth Century, especially chap. v. sect. i. 3, and Appendix, note iv., on \u201cthe terms \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 and \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 as used in the early Church;\u201d Mr. Robertson\u2019s Prolegomena, ch. ii. \u00a7 3 (2) (b); and the Rev. H. A. Wilson\u2019s Prolegomena to Gregory of Nyssa, ch. iv., in this Series.\nCyril, Cat. iv. 9; xii. 3; Mystag. ii. 7.\nlvi:345 lvi:346 lvi:347\nCat. xvi. \u00a7 4. See the notes on this and the preceding passage.\nlvi:348 lvi:349 lvi:350\nAthan. Contra Arian, Or. ii. \u00a7 31, 1: \u201cFor the Word of God is Framer and Maker, and He is the Father\u2019s Will. Cf. Or. iii. \u00a7 63 fin.\nlvi:351\nIb. Or. iii. \u00a7 11, 3: \u201cSuch then being the Son, therefore when the Son works, the Father is the Worker.\u201d\nlvi:352\nThere is, I believe, no extant list of signatures: \u201cWhether the few Homo\u00fcsians and Hilary were among those who signed is not said\u201d (Hefele, Councils, II. p. 264.)\nlvi:353 lvi:354 lvi:355 lvii:356 lvii:357 lvii:358 lvii:359 lvii:360 lvii:361 lvii:362 lvii:363 lvii:364 lvii:365 lvii:366 lvii:367 lvii:368\nZahn, Marcellus of Ancyra, as quoted by Hefele, Councils, II. p. 31, slightly abridged. See also Hefele, p. 186.\nlviii:369\nPlato, Sophist. \u00a7 246. \u201cThe passage is quoted by Theodoret, Gr\u00e6carum affectionem Curatio, ii. p. 732.\u201d (Heindorf.)\nlviii:370 lviii:371\nAthanasius, Proleg. p. xxxi., in this Series.\nlviii:372 lviii:373 lviii:374 lix:375 lix:376\nWisdom of Solomon vii. 25, quoted by Origen, Fragm. in Epist. ad Hebr\u00e6os, Lommatzsch, V. p. 300.\nlix:377 lix:378\nDef. Fid. Nic. II. c. 9, \u00a7 11.\nlix:379\nRouth, Rel. Sacr., III. p. 299.\nlix:380 lix:381\nDe Synodis, c. 45, p. 474, in this Series.\nlix:382 lix:383 lx:384 lx:385\nEpist. 300 (al. 52), quoted by Bull, D.F.N. ii. 1, \u00a7 11.\nlx:386\nAthan. Tomus ad Antiochenos, \u00a7\u00a7 5, 6.\nlx:387 lx:388 lx:389 lx:390 lx:391 lx:392 lx:393\n\u00a7 14. Cf. S. Alex. Epist. apud Theodoret, \u00a7 4: \u201cThat the Son of God was not made \u2018from things which are not,\u2019 and that \u2018there was no time when He was not,\u2019 the Evangelist John sufficiently shews\u201d (Ante-Nic. Library).","title":"Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Ser. II, Vol. VII: The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril.: The Creed of Jerusalem: Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.","type":"page"}