صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

SECTION II.

Of the new Language introduced at and after the Council of Nice.

NEW ideas always require new terms; and unfortunately, the nice distinctions which were now made with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, required more words than had ever been used by theologians before; nor was there any thing in the Greek philosophy to correspond to the distinctions that were now to be expressed. Besides, the Latin tongue was much less copious than the Greek; and this afforded a new source of embarrassment and contradiction among those who wished to say the same thing.

To express the difference between the three persons, it was necessary to have one term which might be applied to them all, and another to each of them separately; for though they were one in a certain respect, that is, as God, they must be called three in another, that is, as persons in the Godhead. The two terms that were candidates for this latter office in the Greek language were ουσια and ὑποστασις, essence and hypostasis; and though it was acknowledged, that in the Greek philosophy these words had been used without any difference, it was thought necessary to make a distinction between them now. Theodoret, after observing that, "in the external philosophy there was no difference between essence and hypostasis, says, that with the fathers they differed as common and particular, or as genus and species, or individual."* Socrates, however, says, that "the word hypostasis was not used by the ancient philosophers, but that by the moderns it was always used for essence." †

Before the Arian controversy it had, as I have observed, been uniformly said by the orthodox, that the Father and the Son were different in their essence. Origen expressly says this, as well as that the Son was subject to the Father.t Also Athanasius, in his fifth oration against the Arians, maintains that essence and hypostasis mean the same thing. The

* Καία δε γε την των πατέρων διδασκαλίαν, ἣν έχει διαφοραν το κοινον ύπερ το ίδιον, η το γενος ύπερ το είδος, η το ατομον, ταύτην ή εσια προς την υποςασιν εχει. Dial. i. Opera, IV. p. 4. (P.)

† Ισεον μεν οι ὅτι εἰ και οι παλαιοι φιλοσοφοι την λέξιν παρέλιπον, αλλα όμως δι νεωτεροι των φιλοσοφων συνεχως αντι της εσίας, τῇ λέξει της υποτασεως απεχρήσανίο. Hist. L. iii. C. vii. p. 180. (P.)

* Ει γαρ έτερος, ώς εν αλλοις δεικνυται, κατ' εσίαν, και υποκείμενος εςιν ὁ ύιος του warpos. De Oratione, p. 48. (P.)

author of a treatise ascribed to him says, «Whoever asserts that there are three hypostases, that is, three substances, he, under the name of piety, asserts three natures;” * and this according to the orthodox constituted the Polytheism of the Arians. "Accordingly, it was agreed," says Sozomen, "in a council held at Alexandria, which Athanasius attended, that the word essence should be avoided, except in disputing with the Sabellians." It was also maintained in the Council of Sardica at which Athanasius was present, that "there is one essence of the Father, Son, and Spirit, which essence the heretics call hypostasis.”

It was with respect to this difference about essence and hypostasis, that Gregory Nazianzen says, "It was ridiculous, though lamentable, that so small a difference in words should occasion a difference in faith ;” and that " Athanasius, perceiving it was a difference in words only, having addressed both parties with gentleness and good nature, and after carefully examining the meaning of the words, when he found that the two parties did not differ in sense, gave them liberty with respect to words, but held them strictly bound with respect to the things signified by them." §

The Latins having no terms to express both essence and hypostasis, as is observed by Gregory Nazianzen, || used the word substance to express both; and, accordingly, they were much chagrined at the Greeks for making any difference between them. Jerome expresses his resentment on this subject, saying, that, "in the secular schools they had no

Quisquis autem tres ὑποφασεις dicit, id est, tres substantias, is, sub nomine pietatis, tres naturas conatur asserere.' Opera, II. p. 581. (Ρ.)

† Εν τουτῳ δε πολλων πόλεων επισκοποι συνελθοντες εις Αλεξανδριαν άμα Αθανασιῳ και Ευσεβίῳ, τα δεδογμενα εν Νικαια κρατύνεσιν ὁμουσιον τε τῷ πατρι και τῳ ὑιῳ το ἅγιον πνευμα ὡμολόγησαν και τριαδα ωνομασαν· ου μονῳ τε σωματι, αλλα και ψυχη τέλειον χρηναι δοξάζειν ανθρωπον, ὃν ὁ Θεος λογος ανελαβεν, εισηγησανίο, καθα και τους παλαι εκκλησιαςικοις φιλοσοφοις εδοκει· επει δε ἡ περι της εσίας και ύποςάσεως ζήτησις τας εκκλησίας εταρατίε, και συχναι περι τελων ερίδες και διαλέξεις ησαν, εν μαλα σοφως μοι δοκέσιν ὁρισαι, μη εξ αρχης ευθυς επι Θεου τείοις χρησθαι τοις ονομασι, πλην ήνικα τις την Σαβελλίς δοξαν εκβάλλειν επειρωίο. L. v. C. xii. p. 198. (Ρ.)

† Ημεις δε ταυτην παρειληφαμεν και δεδιδαγμεθα, και ταυτην εχομεν την καθολικήν και αποςολικήν παραδοσιν και πιςιν και ὁμολογίαν, μιαν είναι ὑποςασιν ἦν αυτοι δι αιρετικοί εσίαν προσαγορεύεσι, του πατρός και του ύις και άγιο πνευματος. Theodoreti, Hist. L. ii. C. viii. p. 81. (P.)

§ Ως λιαν γελοίον η ελεεινον πίςεως εδοξε διαφορά ή περι τον ήχον μικρολογια-Ταυτ' εν όρων και ακέων ὁ μακαριος εκείνος προσκαλεσάμενος αμφότερα τα μέρη έτωσι πράως και φιλανθρώπως, και τον νουν των λεγομενων ακριβως εξετασας, επειδη συμφρονώντας ευρε, και ουδεν διεςωίας κατα τον λόγον, τα ονοματα συγχωρησας, συνδει τοις πράγμασι. Οι. xxii. pp. 395, 396. (Ρ.)

|| Της γαρ μιας ουσίας, και των τριων ὑποςασεων λεγομενων μεν ὑφ ̓ ἡμων ευσεβώς το μεν γαρ την φυσιν δηλοι της Θεοίητος, το δε τας των τριών ιδιοτητας, νοεμενων δε και παρα τοις Ιταλοις όμοιως, αλλ' ου δυναμενοις δια ςενότητα της παρ' αυτοις γλωτίης και ονομαίων πενίαν, διελείν απο της ουσίας την ύποςασιν, και δια τουτο αντεισαγέσης τα προσωπα ἵνα μη τρεις ουσίαι παραδειχθώσι. Οr. xxi. p. 395. (Ρ.)

difference; and who," says he, "will dare to say there are three substances? Let it suffice us to say there is one substance, and three subsisting persons, perfectly equal and co-eternal. Let us say nothing of three hypostases, but keep to one." Austin also thought that no difference should be made between essence and hypostasis, and said, that in Latin they said, indifferently, that there was one essence or substance, and three persons. † This is likewise asserted by Gregory Nazianzen, in the passage quoted above.

Notwithstanding the dislike that was taken to the word essence, it was thought necessary to make use of it at the Council of Nice, in order to censure the Arians, who held that the Son was created out of nothing; and if the term essence be the same with substance, and the logos be, as the orthodox said, "God of God," or one God made out of another, the term uovo, consubstantial, was, no doubt, very proper to express their idea of his origin, as opposed to that of the Arians. An account of the objections that were made to the use of the term at that time, of the reasons for adopting it, and of the sense in which it was admitted, is thus given by the historian Socrates. He says, that "the term consubstantial was objected to as implying the production of one thing from another, either according to division, or fluxion, or prolation; prolation signifying the production of a branch from a root; fluxion, that of children from a father; and division, the making two or three masses of gold from one; and that the generation of the Son resembles none of these." +

In defence of the term it was said, that "God is not to be considered as a material being, but as immaterial, intellectual, and incorporeal, and therefore incapable of any bodily affections; and that the subject is to be considered in a divine and hidden manner."§ At length, it was interpreted

"Tota sæcularum literarum schola nihil aliud hypostasin, nisi usiam, novit. Et quis, rogo, ore sacrilego tres substantias prædicabit?-Sufficiat nobis dicere, unam substantiam, tres personas subsistentes, perfectas, æquales, co-æternas. Taceantur tres hypostases: si placet, et una teneatur." Epist. lvii. Opera, I. p. 417. (P.)

+"Non audiemus dicere unam essentiam, tres substantias, sed unam essentiam vel substantiam, tres autem personas." De Trinitate, L. v. C. ix. Opera, III.

p. 321. (P.)

* Επει γαρ έφασαν ὁμουσιον είναι, ὁ εκ τινος εςιν, η κατα μερισμόν, η κατα ρευσιν, η κατα προβολήν· κατα προβολην μεν, ώς εκ ῥίζων βλαςημα· κατα δὲ ῥευσιν, ὡς ὁι πατρικοι παιδες· κατα μερισμον δεώς βαλει χρυσίδες δυο ή τρεις· κατ' ουδεν δε τείων εςιν ὁ ὑιος. Hist. L. i. C. viii. p. 22. (P.)

§ Μητε γαρ δυνασθαι την αΰλον και νοεραν, και ασωμαῖον φυσιν, σωματικον τι παθος ἔφιςασθαι θείοις δε και απορρήτοις ξημασί, προσηκει τα τοιαυία νοειν. Ibid. p. 24. (Ρ.)

to mean "from no other essence or hypostasis, than that of the Father only;" so that the mode of production, about which they could not agree, was left undetermined.

66

The reasoning of Chrysostom on this subject seems to be fair, and to justify the fathers of Nice; for he says, that every thing that is generated is always consubstantial with that which generates, not in man only, but in all living creatures, and in plants;"† that is, every thing produces its like; and the maxim must apply to the case of the Divine Being, as well as to every other; so that if the Son was really produced from the Father, from his own essence, and not created out of nothing, he must necessarily be consubstantial with the Father.

Still, however, the term essence was not relished. The reason of this is more particularly given by Socrates, who says, that "the word essence, though used with simplicity by the fathers, yet being unknown to the common people, and not being contained in the Scriptures, gave offence; so that it was thought proper to disuse it, and that no mention should be made of the essence of God for the future; but that it should rather be said, that the Son is like to the Father in all things."+

Notwithstanding the opposition made by the Latin Church, the language adopted by the Council of Nice continued to be in use; though even so late as the time of Basil, the signification of these terms was not so well settled, but that many persons, he says, confounded essence with hypostasis. §

The term Quois, nature, it seems, had been proposed by some, but with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, Gregory Nazianzen says, that he preferred the word essence. And in time the term essence was established as the general

Και μη είναι εξ ἑτερας τε ύποςάσεως και εσίας, αλλ' εκ τε πατρος. Hist. L. i. C. viii. p. 25. (P.)

+ Τέτο γαρ εχι ταις γραφαις μόνον, αλλα και τη κοινη παντων των ανθρωπων δόξη, και τη των πραγμαίων φύσει μαχομενον εσιν· ὅτι γαρ ὁμοεσιος ὁ γεννηθεις τῷ γεννησαντι, ουκ επ' ανθρ θρωπων μονον, αλλα και επί ζωων ἁπανίων, και επι δενδρων τελο ίδοι τις αν. Opera, I. p. 406. (P.)

Hom. xxxii.

* Το δε όνομα της εσίας δια το απλεςερον υπο των πατέρων τεθείσθαι, αγνοεμενον δε υπο των λαων, σκανδαλον φερειν, δια το μηδε τας γραφας τελο περιεχιεν, ήρεσε τελο περιαιρεθήναι και παντελως μηδεμιαν μνήμην εσίας επί Θεού είναι το λοιπε, δια το τας θείας γραφας μηδαμε περι πατρος και ὑις εσίας μεμνήσθαι· ὁμοιον δε λεγομεν τον ύιον τῷ πατρι κατα παντα. Hist. L. ii. C. xxxvii. p. 137. (P.)

§ Επειδη πολλοι το κοινον της εσίας, επι των μυςικων δογμαίων μη διακρινονίες απο το των ύποςάσεων λογο, ταις αυλαίς συνεμπιπτουσιν ὑπονοιαις· και οιονται διαφέρειν μηδεν εσιαν N ÚπOOTAσIV λEYE. Epist. Opera, III. p. 63. (P.)

|| Αν αν τις ορθώς εσιαν μάλλον η φυσιν καλοιή.. Οr. xlv. p. 717. (Ρ.)

name, applicable to each of the three persons, and hypostasis was applied to them severally; so that it was thought proper to say, that the Trinity consisted of three hypostases in one essence; and also the term gorwжоν, person, was used as synonymous to hypostasis. † This term was probably borrowed from the Latin persona, which was always used in the Latin Church to denote the difference between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; for they said that there were "three persons in one Divine essence," or God. This, however, was deviating a little from the original use of the term, which expressed a difference of character, such as the same person might appear in at different times, and therefore savoured a little of Sabellianism.

Notwithstanding every thing seemed to be well settled about the meaning of these terms, yet as they were applied to a subject concerning which men could not pretend to have any ideas, they were no more than mere sounds; and those who pretended to see farther into the subject than others, still continued to differ, and even to refine about the use of the terms; and the most ancient signification was not wholly lost sight of. Thus Damascenus says, that "the word hypostasis has two significations, viz. one of mere existence, in which it does not differ from substance, and sometimes that which subsists of itself, by which individuals of the same species are distinguished, as Peter and Paul;"‡ that is, hypostasis may in one sense be used for essence, to which, as I have observed, it was originally synonymous.

SECTION III.

Illustrations of the Doctrine of the Trinity.

HAVING settled this new doctrine of the Trinity, and ascertained the use of the terms in which it was thought proper to express it, I come to give a view of the principal

"Substantiæ (purews) declaratio videtur sicut commune et universale quiddam esse, nomina vero subsistentiarum singularum (vñogaσɛıç) sub illo universale prædicantur." Cyril Alex. De Trinitate, L. i. Opera, II. p. 362. (P.)

* Το μεν έν, τῇ εσια γιγνωσκονίες, και τῳ αμεριςῳ της προσκυνήσεως τα δε τρία, ταις ὑποφασεσιν ειτ' εν προσώποις, ὁ τισι φιλον. Gr. Nazianzeni, Opera, Or. xxxii. p. 520. (P.)

"Hypostaseos nomen duplicem significationem habet. Interdum enim simplicem existentiam significat. Quo significatu inter substantiam et hypostasim nihil interest. Unde etiam nonnulli sanctorum patrum, naturas, hoc est hypostases ipsas appellarunt. Interdum rursus eam, quæ per se est, ac seorsim subsistit, existentiam; qua significatione individuum id quod numero differt, significat, ut Petrum, Paulum, ac certum aliquem equum." Dialectica, C. xlii. Opera, p. 641. (P.) VOL. VI. 2 s

« السابقةمتابعة »