{"collection":"chr","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/chr/ecf/210/2100237.htm","path":"chr/ecf/210/2100237.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/210/2100237.htm","text":"The Arians, inasmuch as they assert the Son to be \u201cof another substance,\u201d 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.\n123. How can the Arians deny the substance of God? 2309 How can they suppose that the word \u201csubstance\u201d 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 \u201c\u1f11\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2,\u201d that is, of another substance, admit substance in God?\n124. 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 \u201c\u1f11\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 ,\u201d following the authority of the prophet, who saith: \u201cWho hath stood in the truth (substantia) of the Lord, and seen His Word?\u201d 2311 Arians, therefore, admit the term \u201csubstance\u201d 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.\n125. What other reason can there be for their unwillingness to have the Son spoken of as \u201c\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2,\u201d of the same substance, with the Father, but that they are unwilling p. 260 to confess Him the true Son of God? This is betrayed in the letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia. \u201cIf,\u201d writes he, \u201cwe say that the Son is true God and uncreate, then we are in the way to confess Him to be of one substance (\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) with the Father.\u201d When this letter had been read before the Council assembled at Nic\u00e6a, 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\u2019 own blasphemous heresy. 2312\n126. Vain, however, is their plea, that they avoid the use of the term, because of the Sabellians; 2313 whereby they betray their own ignorance, for a being is of the same substance (\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd) with another, not with itself. Rightly, then, do we call the Son \u201c\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\u201d (of the same substance), with the Father, forasmuch as that term expresses both the distinction of Persons and the unity of nature.\n127. Can they deny that the term \u201c\u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u201d is met with in Scripture, when the Lord has spoken of bread, that is, \u201c\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2,\u201d 2314 and Moses has written \u201c\u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u201d? 2315 What does \u201c\u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u201d mean, whence comes the name, but from \u201c\u03bf\u1f56\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f00\u03b5\u03af,\u201d 2316 \u201cthat which endures for ever? For He Who is, and is for ever, is God; and therefore the Divine Substance, abiding everlastingly, is called \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1. Bread is \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, because, taking the substance of abiding power from the substance of the Word, it supplies this to heart and soul, for it is written: \u201cAnd bread strengtheneth man\u2019s heart.\u201d 2317\n128. 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 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?\ni.e. how can they say there is no Divine Substance, that the use of the term \u201csubstance\u201d is illegitimate?\n259:2310\nOr to be the true Son of God, Son by nature, not by adoption.\n259:2311 260:2312\nCf. 1 Sam. xvii. 51.\n260:2313\nThe 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 \u201cone man in his time plays many parts.\u201d They, therefore, would mean, if they said that the Son was \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 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 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 there must be some \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, 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\u2014a 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\u2014not as the Platonic \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 (ideal or archetypal man), for example, to the \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 (sundry individuals), but is in each of the Persons fully and completely, yet without destruction of its unity. The Godhead is a \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, a single, individual substance. So also is each One of the Three Persons\u2014but 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 \u039f\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 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) \u201cdifferentia.\u201d Speaking logically, the Three Persons are \u201cof one definition;\u201d speaking metaphysically, they are \u201cof one Essence.\u201d Now both \u201cof one definition\u201d and \u201cof one essence\u201d may be rendered by \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9.\n260:2314\nS. Matt. vi. 11. \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2=\"required for our subsistence, proper for our sustenance.\u201d See Alford in loc.\n260:2315 260:2316\nThe derivation is philologically incorrect, for \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 is formed upon the fem. of the pres. part. of \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, but for all that it embodies a certain truth, inasmuch as \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 in its abstract use denotes simple existence, without reference to conditions.\n260:2317\nPs. civ. 15. The term \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 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\u2014the healthy body to be the instrument and vehicle of the healthy soul, for man\u2019s real life (though he is not apt to think it such) is not dependent on bread alone\u2014his 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.\n260:2318 260:2319\nA reference to the Synod of Ariminum. See Bk. I. xiii. 122.","title":"Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Ser. II, Vol. X: Dogmatic...","type":"page"}