Sect. 97The Consubstantiality of the Son Defined by the Council of NicæaThe Consubstantiality of the Son Defined by the Council of Nicæa
I. The term ὁμοούσιος, “consubstantial,” was used by the Council of Nicæa to define the identity of substance in God the Father and the Son. When applied to the consubstantiality of a human father and his son, it implies only a specific identity of substance; that is, that father and son are of a like substance, but are not numerically one and the same substance. The Arians, applying the human sense to the term, argued that the Council admitted three Divine Beings or three Gods. Protestant writers, and even some Catholic theologians, have lately repeated the Arian calumny, wherefore we deem it necessary to show briefly, from the post-Nicene tradition, the numerical identity of the one Essence in the Three Persons, in virtue of which the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are one and the same God.
II. The simple fact that the dogma of the Trinity admits of no other Christian interpretation than that the Three Persons are one God, suffices to prove that the Catholic Church held the dogma in this sense, during the fourth as well as during all other centuries. The same may, however, be gathered also from the following considerations.
1. The Homoousion consequent upon generation, is thus explained by the Fathers against the sophisms of the Arians. In the Divine generation, the Substance of the Father is communicated to the Son as it is in human generation, with this difference, however, that, on account of the simplicity and indivisibility of the Divine Substance, it is communicated in its entirety, whereas the human father only communicates and parts with a portion of his substance (cf. St. Athan., De Decr. Nic. Syn., nn. 20, 23, 24). In God, as in man, generation implies a communication of life. But in man the communication consists in giving a new life; in God the communication necessarily consists in the giving of the same identical life. For if the life received by the Son were a new life, it would not even be similar to the eternal life of the Father; and, consequently, the generation would not be Divine. The difference, then, in the substance and life of the Father and the substance and life of the Son, is merely in this: the Father possesses them as uncommunicated, the Son possesses the same as communicated or received (St. Basil, C. Eunom., 1. ii., at the end). These two arguments show also that, in the mind of the Fathers, no specific unity is possible in God, but only numerical identity of substance and life.
2. The attributes which the Fathers give to the unity of the Divine Persons are such as to mark it as identity of Essence and not merely as specific unity. They describe it as substantial and indivisible coherence and inseparability, far above the unity which similarity or relationship establishes between human persons, and more like the organic unity of parts of the same whole, such as the unity of root, stem, and branch; or of body, arm, and finger. But, considering the simplicity of the Divine Substance, a coherence such as described can only be conceived as the simultaneous possession of the same Substance by the Three Persons. The Fathers further compare the unity of the Divine Persons to the inherence and immanence of the qualities and faculties of created minds in the substance of the mind; pointing out, at the same time, this difference, that the Son and the Holy Ghost are not accidents of the Father, but are His own Substance, as inseparable from the Father as His own Wisdom and Holiness (cf. St. Athanasius, Or. Contra Arianos, iv., n. I sqq.; and St. Gregory of Nazianzum, Or., 31 (al. 37), n. 4). They describe the mutual co-inherence of the Persons as consequent upon their consubstantiality, and as being the principle of the unity of Divine actions (see Petav., De Trin., 1. iv., c. 16). They oppose the unity of essence as it exists in God to that which exists between human persons—that is, to a specific or mental unity (see St. Greg. of Naz., l.c., n. 14, 16). Lastly, they use the strongest terms at their disposal to describe the unity of the three Divine Persons as the most perfect possible identity of substance (Kilber, De Deo, disp. v.).
3. That the Fathers taught the absolute unity of the Divine Essence appears also from the way in which they spoke of the mystery of the Trinity. Far from being the greatest of all mysteries, it would not be a mystery at all if the unity of the Persons were not more than a specific unity (St. Basil, De Sp. S., c. 18; St. Greg. of Nyssa, Or. Cat., n. 3). The doctrine of the Fathers holds the right mean between the errors of the Jews and the Sabellians on the one hand, and those of the Arians and pagans on the other. For with the former it denies the multiplication of the Divine Nature, yet without denying the distinction of Persons; with the latter it admits the distinction of Persons, yet without limiting their unity to a similarity or likeness of essence (St. Greg, of Nyssa., l.c.). The Fathers represent the unity of Essence as admitting of no other distinction than that based upon the divers relations of origin; so that there would be no difference whatsoever, except for this relation of origin and the consequent manner of possessing the Divine Essence. But, if the Essence itself were multiplied, the Persons would be three distinct Persons of the same species, independently of their origin (St. Greg. Naz., Or., 31 (al. 37), n. 3).
4. Finally, the two great controversies in connection with the Council of Nicæa throw much light on the present question. They are the controversy with the Semi-Arians, against whose ὁμοιούσιος (similarity of Substance) the Catholics successfully defended the ὁμοούσιος; and the controversy among the Catholics themselves on the question “whether not only one οὐσία, but also one ὑπόστασις, ought to be affirmed of the Trinity.” The Latin doctors, who translated ὑπόστασις by substantia (and some Greeks who understood it in the same sense) objected to the expression “three hypostases,” because it seemed to imply a trinity of Substances, and consequently a triplication of the Essence. The Greeks, however, explained that such was not the meaning they wished to convey by the expression used, but that they agreed with their Latin opponents on the point of doctrine. They had used the words, “three hypostases,” only because the Greek τρία πρόσωπα (which corresponds with the Latin tres personœ) had been misused by the Sabellians to confuse the real distinction of the Divine Persons. (See Kuhn, § 29; Franzelin, th. ix., n. ii.; Card. Newman, Arians, 365, 432.)
This question was thoroughly debated in the seventh century, when the doctrine of Tritheism was formally brought to the fore, and when the discussions on the two natures of Christ and His twofold operation made a thorough investigation of the unity of the Divine Essence necessary. The opponents of the Monothelites, notably Sophronius, and the Councils held against them, leave no doubt as to what was the doctrine of the Church.
III. The absolute numerical and substantial unity of the Divine Essence is essentially connected with the received expression that the Three Persons are one God and not three gods. If the Essence was divided or distributed among three persons, there would be three gods. Nor could any other form of unity, added to such merely specific unity, prevent the division of essence. No community of origin, of love, of operation, of compenetration, will prevent separate substances from being separate substances. Besides, a perfect unity of operation cannot be conceived in separate substances, any more than perfect compenetration or inexistence: hence, where these are, there is unity of substance. If, therefore, the Fathers sometimes give the community of origin, of love, and operation, etc., as a reason why the Three Persons are one God, they do not intend to give the adequate and formal reason, which is, according to the teaching of the Fathers themselves, the absolute unity and identity of the Divine Essence, expressed in the ὁμοούσιος.
IV. In consequence of the absolute identity of Essence or Substance, the Three Persons, although each of Them is God, are not three Gods, but one God. “We are forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say that there are three Gods or three Lords” (Athanasian Creed). According to a rule common to all languages, the plural of substantive nouns and predicates signifies not only a plurality of subjects designated by the nouns, but also a multiplication of the substance named, in each of the many subjects. This is because in all languages substantive nouns designate the substance and the subject in which it is. But in God, the Substance expressed by the noun God is not multiplied or distributed among the subjects who hold it; therefore the Three Persons are one God, not three Gods. (Cf. St. Thomas, I., q. 39.) The same law of language applies to verbal nouns like Creator, Judge, but not to adjective and verbal predicates like living, saving. (See Card. Newman, Arians, p. 185; St. Athan., ii. 438.)
I. The term ὁμοούσιος, “consubstantial,” was used by the Council of Nicæa to define the identity of substance in God the Father and the Son. When applied to the consubstantiality of a human father and his son, it implies only a specific identity of substance; that is, that father and son are of a like substance, but are not numerically one and the same substance. The Arians, applying the human sense to the term, argued that the Council admitted three Divine Beings or three Gods. Protestant writers, and even some Catholic theologians, have lately repeated the Arian calumny, wherefore we deem it necessary to show briefly, from the post-Nicene tradition, the numerical identity of the one Essence in the Three Persons, in virtue of which the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are one and the same God.
II. The simple fact that the dogma of the Trinity admits of no other Christian interpretation than that the Three Persons are one God, suffices to prove that the Catholic Church held the dogma in this sense, during the fourth as well as during all other centuries. The same may, however, be gathered also from the following considerations.
1. The Homoousion consequent upon generation, is thus explained by the Fathers against the sophisms of the Arians. In the Divine generation, the Substance of the Father is communicated to the Son as it is in human generation, with this difference, however, that, on account of the simplicity and indivisibility of the Divine Substance, it is communicated in its entirety, whereas the human father only communicates and parts with a portion of his substance (cf. St. Athan., De Decr. Nic. Syn., nn. 20, 23, 24). In God, as in man, generation implies a communication of life. But in man the communication consists in giving a new life; in God the communication necessarily consists in the giving of the same identical life. For if the life received by the Son were a new life, it would not even be similar to the eternal life of the Father; and, consequently, the generation would not be Divine. The difference, then, in the substance and life of the Father and the substance and life of the Son, is merely in this: the Father possesses them as uncommunicated, the Son possesses the same as communicated or received (St. Basil, C. Eunom., 1. ii., at the end). These two arguments show also that, in the mind of the Fathers, no specific unity is possible in God, but only numerical identity of substance and life.
2. The attributes which the Fathers give to the unity of the Divine Persons are such as to mark it as identity of Essence and not merely as specific unity. They describe it as substantial and indivisible coherence and inseparability, far above the unity which similarity or relationship establishes between human persons, and more like the organic unity of parts of the same whole, such as the unity of root, stem, and branch; or of body, arm, and finger. But, considering the simplicity of the Divine Substance, a coherence such as described can only be conceived as the simultaneous possession of the same Substance by the Three Persons. The Fathers further compare the unity of the Divine Persons to the inherence and immanence of the qualities and faculties of created minds in the substance of the mind; pointing out, at the same time, this difference, that the Son and the Holy Ghost are not accidents of the Father, but are His own Substance, as inseparable from the Father as His own Wisdom and Holiness (cf. St. Athanasius, Or. Contra Arianos, iv., n. I sqq.; and St. Gregory of Nazianzum, Or., 31 (al. 37), n. 4). They describe the mutual co-inherence of the Persons as consequent upon their consubstantiality, and as being the principle of the unity of Divine actions (see Petav., De Trin., 1. iv., c. 16). They oppose the unity of essence as it exists in God to that which exists between human persons—that is, to a specific or mental unity (see St. Greg. of Naz., l.c., n. 14, 16). Lastly, they use the strongest terms at their disposal to describe the unity of the three Divine Persons as the most perfect possible identity of substance (Kilber, De Deo, disp. v.).
3. That the Fathers taught the absolute unity of the Divine Essence appears also from the way in which they spoke of the mystery of the Trinity. Far from being the greatest of all mysteries, it would not be a mystery at all if the unity of the Persons were not more than a specific unity (St. Basil, De Sp. S., c. 18; St. Greg. of Nyssa, Or. Cat., n. 3). The doctrine of the Fathers holds the right mean between the errors of the Jews and the Sabellians on the one hand, and those of the Arians and pagans on the other. For with the former it denies the multiplication of the Divine Nature, yet without denying the distinction of Persons; with the latter it admits the distinction of Persons, yet without limiting their unity to a similarity or likeness of essence (St. Greg, of Nyssa., l.c.). The Fathers represent the unity of Essence as admitting of no other distinction than that based upon the divers relations of origin; so that there would be no difference whatsoever, except for this relation of origin and the consequent manner of possessing the Divine Essence. But, if the Essence itself were multiplied, the Persons would be three distinct Persons of the same species, independently of their origin (St. Greg. Naz., Or., 31 (al. 37), n. 3).
4. Finally, the two great controversies in connection with the Council of Nicæa throw much light on the present question. They are the controversy with the Semi-Arians, against whose ὁμοιούσιος (similarity of Substance) the Catholics successfully defended the ὁμοούσιος; and the controversy among the Catholics themselves on the question “whether not only one οὐσία, but also one ὑπόστασις, ought to be affirmed of the Trinity.” The Latin doctors, who translated ὑπόστασις by substantia (and some Greeks who understood it in the same sense) objected to the expression “three hypostases,” because it seemed to imply a trinity of Substances, and consequently a triplication of the Essence. The Greeks, however, explained that such was not the meaning they wished to convey by the expression used, but that they agreed with their Latin opponents on the point of doctrine. They had used the words, “three hypostases,” only because the Greek τρία πρόσωπα (which corresponds with the Latin tres personœ) had been misused by the Sabellians to confuse the real distinction of the Divine Persons. (See Kuhn, § 29; Franzelin, th. ix., n. ii.; Card. Newman, Arians, 365, 432.)
This question was thoroughly debated in the seventh century, when the doctrine of Tritheism was formally brought to the fore, and when the discussions on the two natures of Christ and His twofold operation made a thorough investigation of the unity of the Divine Essence necessary. The opponents of the Monothelites, notably Sophronius, and the Councils held against them, leave no doubt as to what was the doctrine of the Church.
III. The absolute numerical and substantial unity of the Divine Essence is essentially connected with the received expression that the Three Persons are one God and not three gods. If the Essence was divided or distributed among three persons, there would be three gods. Nor could any other form of unity, added to such merely specific unity, prevent the division of essence. No community of origin, of love, of operation, of compenetration, will prevent separate substances from being separate substances. Besides, a perfect unity of operation cannot be conceived in separate substances, any more than perfect compenetration or inexistence: hence, where these are, there is unity of substance. If, therefore, the Fathers sometimes give the community of origin, of love, and operation, etc., as a reason why the Three Persons are one God, they do not intend to give the adequate and formal reason, which is, according to the teaching of the Fathers themselves, the absolute unity and identity of the Divine Essence, expressed in the ὁμοούσιος.
IV. In consequence of the absolute identity of Essence or Substance, the Three Persons, although each of Them is God, are not three Gods, but one God. “We are forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say that there are three Gods or three Lords” (Athanasian Creed). According to a rule common to all languages, the plural of substantive nouns and predicates signifies not only a plurality of subjects designated by the nouns, but also a multiplication of the substance named, in each of the many subjects. This is because in all languages substantive nouns designate the substance and the subject in which it is. But in God, the Substance expressed by the noun God is not multiplied or distributed among the subjects who hold it; therefore the Three Persons are one God, not three Gods. (Cf. St. Thomas, I., q. 39.) The same law of language applies to verbal nouns like Creator, Judge, but not to adjective and verbal predicates like living, saving. (See Card. Newman, Arians, p. 185; St. Athan., ii. 438.)
Seção 33% da obra, de A Manual of Catholic Theology (Wilhelm & Scannell, sobre a Dogmatik de Scheeben). Ver o original.