Tag: Ousios

He was “universally acknowledged to be the most scholarly bishop of his day.” (Hanson, 46; cf. 153)

“Neither Arius nor anti-Arians speak evil of him.” (Hanson, 46)

“Immediately after the Council (Eusebius wrote) to his flock at Caesarea in order to justify his having signed the Creed which the Council had drawn up.” (Hanson, p. 158)

That letter is recorded in The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus I:8.

Objectionable Expressions

Hanson refers to the Creed’s “new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day.” (Hanson, p. 846)

Ayres wrote in 2004: “A vast amount of scholarship over the past thirty years has offered revisionist accounts of themes and figures from the fourth century” (Ayres, p. 2).

“The four decades since 1960 have produced much revisionary scholarship on the Trinitarian and Christological disputes of the fourth century.” (Ayres, p. 11)

“The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack (published around the year 1900) can today be completely ignored.” (Hanson, p. 95)

Traditional Account a Travesty

R.P.C. Hanson, perhaps the foremost English scholar on the fourth-century Arian Controversy, described the traditional account as a complete travesty. For example:

In the traditional account, the Trinity doctrine was established as orthodoxy when the Controversy began. In reality, subordination was orthodox. (See Article)

In the traditional account, Arius caused the Controversy by developing a novel heresy. In reality, Arius was a conservative. (See Article)

In the traditional account, Athanasius bravely defended orthodoxy. In reality, similar to Sabellianism, he believed that the Father and Son are a single Person. This view was already rejected as heresy in the third century. (See Article)

In the traditional account, the Church finally adopted Nicene theology at the Council of Constantinople in 381. In reality, the emperors functioned as the head of the church and they decided what the church should believe. (See Article)

Authors Quoted

Following the last full-scale book on the fourth-century Arian Controversy in English by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, only a handful of full-scale books on the Arian Controversy have been published. This article series is largely based on the following books:

R.P.C. Hanson – The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987

Lewis Ayres – Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004. (Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology, Durham University)

Rowan Williams – Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987 (Archbishop)

Khaled Anatolios – Retrieving Nicaea, 2011 (Professor of historical theology, Boston College School of Theology and Ministry)

You have probably had some intimation, beloved, of the transactions of the great council convened at Nicea in relation to the faith of the Church … we have deemed it necessary to submit to you:

• • • In the first place, an exposition of the faith proposed by us in written form, and then
    • a second which has been promulgated, consisting of ours with certain additions to its expression.

The “us” seems to refer to Eusebius’ delegation. The “second which has been promulgated” refers to the Nicene Creed, as was formally promulgated. 

“The declaration of faith set forth by us, which when read in the presence of our most pious emperor seemed to meet with universal approbation. …

When these articles of faith were proposed, there seemed to be no ground for opposition. No, even our most pious emperor himself was the first to admit that they were perfectly correct and that he himself had entertained the sentiments contained in them.”

Scholars comment:

Eusebius wrote: “When this statement of faith was laid before us there was no loophole for opposition, but our blessed Emperor himself was the first to witness that it was entirely orthodox.” (Hanson, p. 160)

Constantine dominated the Council.

“Simonetti remarks that the Emperor was in fact the head of the church.” (Hanson, p. 849)

“Anyone familiar with Eusebius of Caesarea’s writings to and for Constantine would be bound to recognize that there were those with anti-Nicene sympathies who saw hierarchical relation between God and the Logos extending downwards through the emperor to the rest of creation.” (Williams, 14)

“The truth is that in the Christian church of the fourth century there was no alternative authority comparable to that of the Emperor.” (Hanson, p854)

“Constantine took part in the Council of Nicaea and ensured that it reached the kind of conclusion which he thought best” (Hanson, p. 850).

“The history of the period shows time and time again that local councils could be overawed or manipulated by the Emperor or his agents. The general council was the very invention and creation of the Emperor. General councils, or councils aspiring to be general, were the children of imperial policy and the Emperor was expected to dominate and control them.” (Hanson, p. 855)

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the Word of God—
God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life—
the only-begotten Son,
born before all creation,
begotten of God the Father before all ages,
by whom also all things were made …

We believe also in one Holy Spirit. …

Scholars comment:

Eusebius’ profession of faith “avoids all the controversial points raised by the Arian Controversy” but is “a blameless orthodoxy according to the standards of 325.” (Hanson, p. 160)

Theos had a flexible meaning.

“The word theos or deus, for the first four centuries of the existence of Christianity had a wide variety of meanings. There were many different types and grades of deity in popular thought and religion and even in philosophical thought.” (Hanson Lecture).

Read Article

Eusebius wrote:

“He (the emperor) exhorted all present to give them their assent and subscribe to these very articles [as proposed by Eusebius], thus agreeing in a unanimous profession of them—with the insertion, however, of that single word, homoousios.”

Scholars wrote:

Constantine “pressed for its inclusion.” (Hanson, p. 211)

“Constantine did put forth the Nicene creed term ‘homoousios’. The emperor favored the inclusion of the word homoousios, as suggested to him by Hosius. The emperor at first gave the council a free hand, but was prepared to step in if necessary to enforce the formula.” (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85)

“What seemed especially objectionable to many bishops and theologians of the East was the concept put into the creed by Constantine himself, the homoousios.” (Bernard Lohse, (A Short History of Christian Doctrine, 1966, p51-53)

Eusebius wrote: “An expression which the emperor himself explained as not indicating corporeal affections or properties. Consequently, the Son did not subsist from the Father either by division or by cutting off. For, said he, a nature that is immaterial and incorporeal cannot possibly be subject to any corporeal understanding; hence, our conception of such things can only be in divine and mysterious terms. Such was the philosophical view of the subject taken by our most wise and pious sovereign.”

Scholars comment:

Eusebius “alleges that the Emperor himself qualified the addition of ‘consubstantial’ by saying that it must not be understood “in the sense of any corporeal experiences.” It also does not mean that the Son “exists as a result of division or any subtraction from the Father.” (Hanson, p. 165)

Eusebius wrote: “and the bishops, because of the word homoousios, drew up this formula of faith.”

The Alexander Alliance

“Those of the party of Alexander, however, were not fully satisfied. They were favored by the emperor, and followed the strategy of accepting the Creed of Caesarea while demanding a more precise definition of some of its key terms. … The Alexandrian party then presented a carefully worked out statement, which they said was a revised form of the Creed of Caesarea, with certain steps taken to close loopholes that could be interpreted in Arian fashion.” (Erickson)

“The decisions of Nicaea were really the work of a minority” (Henry Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church, 2nd Ed 1963, p 41).

“Now when this declaration of faith was propounded by them, we did not neglect to investigate the distinct sense of the expressions ‘of the substance of the Father’ and ‘consubstantial with the Father’.

“On justifiable grounds we resisted to the last moment the introduction of certain objectionable expressions. … We received them without dispute when, on mature deliberation as we examined the sense of the words, they appeared to agree with what we had originally proposed as a sound confession of faith.”

Origen rejected the term ousios.

“Origen had rejected the term (substance) years before for fear that it attributed materiality to the divine.” (Steven Wedgeworth)

Epiphanius stated that “Origen often declared ‘that the only-begotten God is alien from the Father’s Godhead and substance’ (ousia)” (Hanson, p. 62)

From the Father’s Substance:

Eusebius wrote:

“When we did, questions and answers were put forth, and the meaning of these terms was clearly defined. At that point it was generally admitted that ousios (substance or essence) simply implied that the Son is of the Father indeed, but does not subsist as a part of the Father. To this interpretation of the sacred doctrine—which declares that the Son is of the Father but is not a part of his substance—it seemed right to us to assent. We ourselves, therefore, concurred in this exposition.”

“Thus also the declaration that ‘the Son is consubstantial with the Father’ having been discussed, it was agreed that this must not be understood in a corporeal sense, or in any way analogous to mortal creatures; inasmuch as it is neither by division of substance, nor by abscission [cutting off], nor by any change of the Father’s substance and power, since the underived nature of the Father is inconsistent with all these things.

That he is consubstantial [homoousios] with the Father then simply implies that the Son of God has no resemblance to created things, but is in every respect like the Father only who begat him; that he is of no other substance or essence but of the Father.”

Like the Father:

“He defends his acceptance of homoousion … also because … the Son of God bears no likeness to creatures … but that he is likened in all things only to the Father … and that he is of no other hypostasis and ousia but only of the Father’.” (Hanson, p. 165)

Not ‘one substance’

“We can therefore be pretty sure that homoousios was not intended to express the numerical identity of the Father and the Son” (Hanson, p. 202).

“Eusebius’ discussion nicely demonstrates the extent to which the promulgation of homoousios involved a conscious lack of positive definition of the term” (Ayres, p. 91).

In every respect like the Father

The Dedication Creed says that the Son is the “exact image of the Godhead and the substance and will and power and glory of the Father.” In other words, even in substance, the Son is like the Father. This creed still maintains the Father and Son as distinct Persons (hypostases) and seems to interpret the term homoousios in the Nicene Creed in a generic sense of two distinct Beings who are alike in substance. This view was later held by the Homoi-ousians.

Of no other Substance

The phrase, “He is ‘of no other substance or essence but of the Father,” is similar to the fourth anathema of the Creed. It is not another way of saying that the Son’s substance is the SAME AS the Father’s, but means that the Son was DERIVED FROM the Father’s substance. (Read Article)

“It appeared well to assent to the term homoousios ‘since we were aware that even among the ancients some learned and illustrious bishops and writers have used the term ’consubstantial,’ in their theological teaching concerning the Father and Son.”

Scholars comment:

“In writing these words, Eusebius could not have been thinking of anyone other than the bishop Dionysius of Alexandria and the ecclesiastical writer Origen. … They were in fact the only two reliable pre-Nicene theologians who gave him the example of an acceptable, that is, non-Monarchian interpretation of the term.” (P.F. Beatrice) (Sabellianism was an example of Monarchianism.)

“Dionysius of Alexandria seems to have … admitted that the term was acceptable, but only when it is understood as synonymous with the term δυογενής (‘belonging to the same class’) used of a Father and a Son.” (Ayres, p. 94)

But Origen did NOT use the term.

“It is almost certainly right to conclude that Origen could not have spoken of the Son as homoousios with the Father.” (Williams, p. 132).

“The likelihood of Origen having described the Son as consubstantial with the Father is very slim” (Hanson, p. 68).

“On the same grounds, we admitted also the expression ‘begotten, not made’. For ‘made … is a term applicable in common to all the creatures which were made by the Son, to whom the Son has no resemblance. Consequently, he is no creature like those which were made by him but is of a substance far excelling any creature. The Divine Oracles teach that this substance was begotten of the Father by such a mode of generation as cannot be explained nor even conceived by any creature.” 

“We have also considered the anathema pronounced by them after the declaration of faith inoffensive because it prohibits the use of illegitimate terms, from which almost all the distraction and commotion of the churches have arisen.”

Again the “them,” confirms that “the decisions of Nicaea were really the work of a minority” (Bettenson, quoted above).

“We deemed it incumbent on us, beloved, to acquaint you with the caution which has characterized both our examination of and concurrence in these things and that on justifiable grounds we resisted to the last moment the introduction of certain objectionable expressions as long as these were not acceptable. We received them without dispute when, on mature deliberation as we examined the sense of the words, they appeared to agree with what we had originally proposed as a sound confession of faith.”

Constantine exerted influence.

“The Origenists had considerable reservation about references to the ‘Father’s substance’, including ‘out of the Father’s substance’ and ‘of the same substance as the Father’. The emperor exerted considerable influence. Consequently, the statement was approved by all except three.” (Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons)

Eusebius accepted homoousion with “obvious reluctance.” (Hanson, p. 165)

“Emperor Constantine, through the Council of Nicaea in 325, attempted to unite Christianity and establish a single, imperially approved version of the faith. Ironically, his efforts were the cause of the deep divisions created by the disputes after Nicaea.” ¹Smither, Edward L., ed. (2014-02-14). Rethinking Constantine: History, Theology, and Legacy. p. 65–66.

“Homoousios … in the subsequent strife between orthodoxy and heresy became the object of dissension. ” ²A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Bernard Lohse, 1966, p51-53