Section xiv.ii.v: Defence of the Council's Phrases, “from the essence,” And “one in essence
CCEL ThML source edition
Philip Schaff
21. Therefore if they, as the others, make an excuse that the terms are strange, let them consider the sense in which the Council so wrote, and anathematize what the Council anathematized; and then if they can, let them find fault with the expressions. But I well know that, if they hold the sense of the Council, they will fully accept the terms in which it is conveyed; whereas if it be the sense which they wish to complain of, all must see that it is idle in them to discuss the wording, when they are but seeking handles for irreligion. This then was the reason of these expressions; but if they still complain that such are not scriptural, that very complaint is a reason why they should be cast out, as talking idly and disordered in mind. And let them blame themselves in this matter, for they set the example, beginning their war against God with words not in Scripture. However, if a person is interested in the question, let him know, that, even if the expressions are not in so many words in the Scriptures, yet, as was said before, they contain the sense of the Scriptures, and expressing it, they convey it to those who have their hearing unimpaired for religious doctrine. Now this circumstance it is for thee to consider, and for those ill-instructed men to give ear to. It has been shewn above, and must be believed as true, that the Word is from the Father, and the only Offspring905 proper to Him and natural. For whence may one conceive the Son to be, who is the Wisdom and the Word, in whom all things came to be, but from God Himself?
However, the Scriptures also teach us this, since the Father says by David, ‘My heart uttered a good Word906,’ and, ‘From the womb before the morning star I begat Thee907;’ and the Son signifies to the Jews about Himself, ‘If God were your Father, ye would love Me; for I proceeded forth from the Father908.’ And again; ‘Not that anyone has seen the Father, save He which is from God, He hath seen the Father909.’ And moreover, ‘I and My Father are one,’ and, ‘I in the Father and the Father in Me910,’ is equivalent to saying, ‘I am from the Father, and inseparable from Him.’ And John in saying, ‘The Only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him,911’ spoke of what He had learned from the Saviour. Besides, what else does ‘in the bosom’ intimate, but the Son’s genuine generation from the Father?
22. If then any man conceives God to be compound, as accident912 is in essence, or to have any external envelopement913, and to be encompassed, or as if there is aught about Him which completes the essence, so that when we say ‘God,’ or name ‘Father,’ we do not signify the invisible and incomprehensible essence, but something about it, then let them complain of the Council’s stating that the Son was from the essence of God; but let them reflect, that in thus considering they utter two blasphemies; for they make God corporeal, and they falsely say that the Lord is not Son of the very Father, but of what is about Him. But if God be simple, as He is, it follows that in saying ‘God’ and naming ‘Father,’ we name nothing as if about Him, but signify his essence itself. For though to comprehend what the essence of God is be impossible, yet if we only understand that God is, and if Scripture indicates Him by means of these titles, we, with the intention of indicating Him and none else, call Him God and Father and Lord. When then He says, ‘I am that I am,’ and ‘I am the Lord God914,’ or when Scripture says, ‘God,’ we understand nothing else by it but the intimation of His incomprehensible essence Itself, and that He Is, who is spoken of915. Therefore let no one be startled on hearing that the Son of God is from the Essence of the Father; but rather let him accept the explanation of the Fathers, who in more explicit but equivalent language have for ‘from God’ written ‘of the essence.’
For they considered it the same thing to say that the Word was ‘of God’ and ‘of the essence of God,’ since the word ‘God,’ as I have already said, signifies nothing but the essence of Him Who Is. If then the Word is not in such sense from God, as a son, genuine and natural, from a father, but only as creatures because they are framed, and as ‘all things are from God,’ then neither is He from the essence of the Father, nor is the Son again Son according to essence, but in consequence of virtue, as we who are called sons by grace. But if He only is from God, as a genuine Son, as He is, then the Son may reasonably be called from the essence of God.
23. Again, the illustration of the Light and the Radiance has this meaning. For the Saints have not said that the Word was related to God as fire kindled from the heat of the sun, which is commonly put out again, for this is an external work and a creature of its author, but they all preach of Him as Radiance916, thereby to signify His being from the essence, proper and indivisible, and His oneness with the Father. This also will secure His true unchangableness and immutability; for how can these be His, unless He be proper Offspring of the Father’s essence? for this too must be taken to confirm His identity with His own Father. Our explanation then having so religious an aspect, Christ’s enemies should not be startled at the ‘One in essence,’ either, since this term also has a sound sense and good reasons. Indeed, if we say that the Word is from the essence of God (for after what has been said this must be a phrase admitted by them), what does this mean but the truth and eternity of the essence from which He is begotten? for it is not different in kind, lest it be combined with the essence of God as something foreign and unlike it. Nor is He like only outwardly, lest He seem in some respect or wholly to be other in essence, as brass shines like gold and silver like tin. For these are foreign and of other nature, are separated off from each other in nature and virtues, nor is brass proper to gold, nor is the pigeon born from the dove917; but though they are considered like, yet they differ in essence.
If then it be thus with the Son, let Him be a creature as we are, and not One in essence; but if the Son is Word, Wisdom, Image of the Father, Radiance, He must in all reason be One in essence. For unless it be proved that He is not from God, but an instrument different in nature and different in essence, surely the Council was sound in its doctrine and correct in its decree918.
24. Further, let every corporeal reference be banished on this subject; and transcending every imagination of sense, let us, with pure understanding and with mind alone, apprehend the genuine relation of son to father, and the Word’s proper relation towards God, and the unvarying likeness of the radiance towards the light: for as the words ‘Offspring’ and ‘Son’ bear, and are meant to bear, no human sense, but one suitable to God, in like manner when we hear the phrase ‘one in essence,’ let us not fall upon human senses, and imagine partitions and divisions of the Godhead, but as having our thoughts directed to things immaterial, let us preserve undivided the oneness of nature and the identity of light; for this is proper to a son as regards a father, and in this is shewn that God is truly Father of the Word. Here again, the illustration of light and its radiance is in point919.
Who will presume to say that the radiance is unlike and foreign to the sun? rather who, thus considering the radiance relatively to the sun, and the identity of the light, would not say with confidence, ‘Truly the light and the radiance are one, and the one is manifested in the other, and the radiance is in the sun, so that whoso sees this, sees that also?’ but such a oneness and natural property, what should it be named by those who believe and see aright, but Offspring one in essence? and God’s Offspring what should we fittingly and suitably consider, but Word, and Wisdom, and Power? which it were a sin to say was foreign to the Father, or a crime even to imagine as other than with Him everlastingly. For by this Offspring the Father made all things, and extended His Providence unto all things; by Him He exercises His love to man, and thus He and the Father are one, as has been said; unless indeed these perverse men make a fresh attempt, and say that the essence of the Word is not the same as the Light which is in Him from the Father, as if the Light in the Son were one with the Father, but He Himself foreign in essence as being a creature. Yet this is simply the belief of Caiaphas and the Samosatene, which the Church cast out, but these now are disguising; and by this they fell from the truth, and were declared to be heretics. For if He partakes in fulness the light from the Father, why is He not rather that which others partake920, that there be no medium introduced between Him and the Father?
Otherwise, it is no longer clear that all things were generated by the Son, but by Him, of whom He too partakes921. And if this is the Word, the Wisdom of the Father, in whom the Father is revealed and known, and frames the world, and without whom the Father doth nothing, evidently He it is who is from the Father: for all things originated partake of Him, as partaking of the Holy Ghost. And being such, He cannot be from nothing, nor a creature at all, but rather a proper Offspring from the Father, as the radiance from light.
Source notes
The Arians allowed that our Lord was like and the image of the Father, but in the sense in which a picture is like the original, differing from it in substance and in fact. In this sense they even allowed the strong word ἀπαράλλακτος unvarying [or rather exact] image, vid. beginning of §20. which had been used by the Catholics (vid. Alexander, ap. Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 740.) as by the Semiarians afterwards, who even added the words κατ᾽ οὐσίαν, or ‘according to substance.’ Even this strong phrase, however, κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ἀπαράλλακτος εἰκὼν, or ἀπαραλλάκτως ὅμοιος, did not appear to the Council an adequate safeguard of the doctrine. Athan. notices de Syn. that ‘like’ applies to qualities rather than to essence, §53. Also Basil. Ep. 8. n. 3. ‘while in itself,’ says the same Father, ‘it is frequently used of faint similitudes and falling very far short of the original.’ Ep. 9. n. 3. Accordingly, the Council determined on the word ὁμοούσιον as implying, as the text expresses it, ‘the same in likeness,’ ταὐτὸν τῇ ὁμοιώσει, that the likeness might not be analogical. vid. the passage about gold and brass, §23 below, Cyril in Joan. 1. iii. c. v. p. 302. [See below de Syn. 15, note 2.]
Gen. v. 3.
vid. Euseb.’s Letter, supr.
γέννημα, offspring; this word is of very frequent occurrence in Athan. He speaks of it, Orat. iv. 3. as virtually Scriptural. Yet Basil, contr. Eunom. ii. 6–8. explicitly disavows the word, as an unscriptural invention of Eunomius. ‘That the Father begat we are taught in many places: that the Son is an offspring we never heard up to this day, for Scripture says, “unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given.”’ c. 7. He goes on to say that ‘it is fearful to give Him names of our own to whom God has given a name which is above every name;’ and observes that offspring is not the word which even a human father would apply to his son, as for instance we read, ‘Child, (τέκνον,) go into the vineyard,’ and ‘Who art thou, my son?’ moreover that fruits of the earth are called offspring (‘I will not drink of the offspring of this vine’), rarely animated things, except indeed in such instances as, ‘O generation (offspring) of vipers.’ Nyssen defends his brother, contr. Eunom. Orat. iii. p 105. In the Arian formula ‘an offspring, but not as one of the offsprings,’ it is synonymous with ‘work’ or ‘creature.’ On the other hand Epiphanius uses it, e.g. Hær. 76. n. 8. and Naz. Orat. 29. n. 2. Eusebius, Demonstr. Ev. iv. 2. Pseudo-Basil. adv. Eunom. iv. p. 280. fin.
Ps. xlv. 1.
Ib. cx. 3.
John viii. 42.
Ib. vi. 46.
Ib. x. 30, and xiv. 10.
Ib. i. 18.
συμβεβηκός. Cf. Orat. iv. 2. also Orat. i. 36. The text embodies the common doctrine of the Fathers. Athenagoras, however, speaks of God’s goodness as an accident, ‘as colour to the body,’ ‘as flame is ruddy and the sky blue,’ Legat. 24. This, however is but a verbal difference, for shortly before he speaks of His being, τὸ ὄντως ὂν, and His unity of nature, τὸ μονοφυὲς, as in the number of ἐπισυμβεβηκότα αὐτῶ. Eusebius uses the word συμβεβηκὸς in the same way [but see Orat. iv. 2, note 8], Demonstr. Evang. iv. 3. And hence S. Cyril, in controversy with the Arians, is led by the course of their objections to observe, ‘There are cogent reasons for considering these things as accidents συμβεβηκότα in God, though they be not.’ Thesaur. p. 263. vid. the following note.
περιβολὴ, and so de Syn. §34. which is very much the same passage. Some Fathers, however, seem to say the reverse. E.g. Nazianzen says that ‘neither the immateriality of God nor ingenerateness, present to us His essence.’ Orat. 28. 9. And S. Augustine, arguing on the word ingenitus, says, that ‘not every thing which is said to be in God is said according to essence.’ de Trin. v. 6. And hence, while Athan. in the text denies that there are qualities or the like belonging to Him, περὶ αὐτὸν, it is still common in the Fathers to speak of qualities, as in the passage of S. Gregory just cited, in which the words περὶ θεὸν occur. There is no difficulty in reconciling these statements, though it would require more words than could be given to it here. Petavius has treated the subject fully in his work de Deo. i. 7–11. and especially ii. 3. When the Fathers say that there is no difference between the divine ‘proprietates’ and essence, they speak of the fact, considering the Almighty as He is; when they affirm a difference, they speak of Him as contemplated by us, who are unable to grasp the idea of Him as one and simple, but view His Divine Nature as if in projection (if such a word may be used), and thus divided into substance and quality as man may be divided into genus and difference.
Ex. iii. 14, 15.
In like manner de Synod. §34. Also Basil, ‘The essence is not any one of things which do not attach, but is the very being of God.’ contr. Eun. i. 10 fin. ‘The nature of God is no other than Himself, for He is simple and uncompounded.’ Cyril Thesaur. p. 59. ‘When we say the power of the Father, we say nothing else than the essence of the Father.’ August. de Trin. vii. 6. And so Numenius in Eusebius, ‘Let no one deride, if I say that the name of the Immaterial is essence and being.’ Præp. Evang. xi. 10.
Athan.’s ordinary illustration is, as here, not from ‘fire,’ but from ‘radiance,’ ἀπαύγασμα, after S. Paul [i.e. Hebrews] and the Author of the Book of Wisdom, meaning by radiance the light which a light diffuses by means of the atmosphere. On the other hand Arius in his letter to Alexander, Epiph. Hær. 69. 7. speaks against the doctrine of Hieracas that the Son was from the Father as a light from a light or as a lamp divided into two, which after all was Arian doctrine. Athanasius refers to fire, Orat. iv. §2 and 10, but still to fire and its radiance. However we find the illustration of fire from fire, Justin. Tryph. 61. Tatian contr. Græc. 5. At this early day the illustration of radiance might have a Sabellian bearing, as that of fire in Athan.’s had an Arian. Hence Justin protests against those who considered the Son as ‘like the sun’s light in the heaven,’ which ‘when it sets, goes away with it,’ whereas it is as ‘fire kindled from fire.’ Tryph. 128. Athenagoras, however, like Athanasius, says ‘as light from fire,’ using also the word ἀπό& 207·ῥοια, effluence: vid. also Orig. Periarch. i. 2. n. 4. Tertull. Ap. 21. Theognostus, quoted infr. §25.
vid. de Syn. §41.
As ‘of the essence’ declared that our Lord was uncreate, so ‘one in essence’ declared that He was equal with the Father; no term derived from ‘likeness,’ even ‘like in essence’ answering for this purpose, for such phrases might all be understood of resemblance or representation. vid. §20, notes 8, 9.
Athan. has just used the illustration of radiance in reference to ‘of the essence:’ and now he says that it equally illustrates ‘one in essence;’ the light diffused from the sun being at once contemporaneous and homogeneous with its original.
Vid. §10 init. note 4.
The point in which perhaps all the ancient heresies concerning our Lord’s divine nature agreed, was in considering His different titles to be those of different beings or subjects, or not really and properly to belong to one and the same person; so that the Word was not the Son, or the Radiance not the Word, or our Lord was the Son, but only improperly the Word, not the true Word, Wisdom, or Radiance. Paul of Samosata, Sabellius [?], and Arius, agreed in considering that the Son was a creature, and that He was called, made after, or inhabited by the impersonal attribute called the Word or Wisdom. When the Word or Wisdom was held to be personal, it became the doctrine of Nestorius.