[ Theotes ] (vid. Trinity )

 IF the doctrine of the Holy Trinity admits of being called contrary to reason, this must be on the ground of its being incompatible with some eternal truth, necessary axiom, etc., or with some distinct experience, and not merely because it is in its nature inconceivable and unimaginable; for if to be inconceivable makes it untrue, then we shall be obliged to deny facts of daily experience, e.g. the action of the muscles which follows upon an act of the will.

 However, clear as this is, the language by which we logically express the doctrine will be difficult to interpret and to use intelligently, unless we keep in mind the fundamental truths which constitute the mystery, and use them as a key to such language.

 E.g. the Father's Godhead is the Son's, or is in the Son. Orat. i. § 52. [ He patrike autou theotes ]. Orat. i. § 45, 49. ii. § 18, 73. iii. § 26. [ he patrike physis autou ]. i. § 40. [ to patrikon phos ho huios ]. iii. § 53. [ he theotes kai he idiotes tou patros to einai tou huiou esti ]. iii. § 5. The Son is worshipped [ kata ten patriken idioteta ]. i. § 42. He has [ ten tes homoioseos henoteta ]. Syn. § 45. He is [ ho autos tei homoiosei ] to the Father. Decr. § 20. He has [ ten henoteta tes physeos kai ten tautoteta tou photos ]. Decr. § 24. [ tautoteta tes physeos ], Basil, Ep. 8, 3. [ tes ousias ], Cyril. in Joan. iii. p. 302. He is [ ex ousias  ousiodes ]. Orat. iv. § 1. [ he ousia haute tes ousias tes patrikes esti gennema ]. Syn. § 48. And we are told of the prophet [ ekboesantos ten patriken hypostasin peri autou ]. Orat. iv. § 33. vid. the present author's Tract, [ mia physis ], § 6 fin.

 [ physis ] seems sometimes in Athanasius to be used, not for [ ousia ], as would be the ordinary application of the word, but for [ hypostasis ] or person. Thus he says, "whereas the nature of the Son is less divisible relatively to the Father" than radiance is relatively to the sun, ... "wherefore should not He be called consubstantial?" de Syn. § 52. And at least this is an Alexandrian use of the word. It is found in Alexander ap. Theod. Hist. i. 3, p. 740, and it gives rise to a celebrated question in the Monophysite controversy, as used in S. Cyril's phrase, [ mia physis sesarkomene ]. S. Cyril uses the word both for person and for substance successively in the following passage: "Perhaps some one will say, 'How is the Holy and Adorable Trinity distinguished into three Hypostases, yet issues in one nature of Godhead?' Because, the Same in substance, necessarily following the difference of natures, recalls the minds of believers to one nature of Godhead." contr. Nest. iii. p. 91. In this passage "One Nature" stands for one substance; but "three Natures" is the One Eternal Divine Nature viewed in that respect in which He is Three. And so S. Hilary, "naturæ ex naturâ gignente nativitas," de Syn. 17; and "essentia de essentiâ," August de Trin. vii. n. 3, and "de seipso genuit Deus id quod est," de Fid. et Symb. 4: i.e. He is the Adorable [ theotes ] viewed as begotten. These phrases mean that the Son who is the Divine Substance, is from the Father who is the [same] Divine Substance. As (to speak of what is analogous, not parallel) we might say that "man is father of man," not meaning by man the same individual in both cases, but the same nature, so here we speak, not of the same Person in the two cases, but the same Individuum. All these expressions resolve themselves into the original mystery of the Holy Trinity, that Person and Individuum are not equivalent terms, and we understand them neither more nor less than we understand it. In like manner as regards the Incarnation, when St. Paul says, "God was in Christ," he does not mean absolutely the Divine Nature, which is the proper sense of the word, but the Divine Nature as existing in the Person of the Son. Hence too (vid. Petav. de Trin. vi. 10, § 6) such phrases as "the Father begat the Son from His substance." And in like manner Athan. just afterwards speaks of "the Father's Godhead being in the Son." Orat. i. § 52.

 The [ monas theotetos ] is [ adiairetos ]. Orat. iv. § 1, 2. Though in Three Persons, they are not [ memerismenai ], Doin. ap. Basil. Sp. S. n. 72. Athan. Expos. F. § 2; not [ aperrhegmenai ], Naz. Orat. 20. 6; not [ apexenomenai kai diespasmenai ], Orat. 23. 6, etc.; but [ ameristos en memerismenois he theotes ]. Orat. 31. 14.

 Though the Divine Substance is both the Father Ingenerate and also the Only-begotten Son, it is not itself [ agennetos ] or [ gennete ]; which was the objection urged against the Catholics by Aetius, Epiph. Hær. 76, 10. Thus Athan. says, de Decr. § 30, "He has given the authority of all things to the Son, and, having given it, is once more, [ palin ], the Lord of all things through the Word." vol. i. p. 52. Again, "the Father having given all things to the Son, has all things once again, [ palin ] ... for the Son's Godhead is the Godhead of the Father." Orat. iii. § 36 fin. Hence [ he ek tou patros eis ton huion theotes arrheustos kai adiairetos tunkanei ]. Expos. F. 2. "Vera et æterna substantia, in se tota permanens, totam se coæternæ veritati nativitatis indulsit." Fulgent. Resp. 7. And S. Hilary, "Filius in Patre est et in Filio Pater, non per transfusionem, refusionemque mutuam, sed per viventis naturæ perfectam nativitatem." Trin. vii. 31.