[ Homoousios ]

 THE term [ homoousios ], one in substance or consubstantial, was accepted as a symbol, for securing the doctrine of our Lord's divinity, first by the infallible authority of the Nicene Council, and next by the experimental assent and consent of Christendom, wrought out in its behalf by the events of the prolonged Arian controversy.

 It had had the mischance in the previous century of being used by heretics in their own sense, and of incurring more or less of suspicion and dislike from the Fathers in the great Council of Antioch, A.D. 264-272, though it had been already in use in the Alexandrian Church; but, when the momentous point in dispute, the divinity of the Son, was once thoroughly discussed and understood, it was forced upon the mind of theologians that the reception or rejection of this term was the difference between Catholic truth and Arianism.

 "We were aware," says Eusebius to his people, "that, even among the ancients, some learned and illustrious Bishops and writers have used the term 'one in substance,' in their theological teaching concerning the Father and Son." And Athanasius in like manner, ad Afros 6, speaks of "testimony of ancient Bishops about 130 years since;" and in de Syn. § 43, of "long before" the Council of Antioch. Tertullian, Prax. 13 fin., has the translation "unius substantiæ," as he also has "de substantia Patris," in Prax. 4; and Origen perhaps used the word, vid. Pamph. Apol. 5, and Theognostus and the two Dionysius's, Decr. § 25, 26. And before them Clement had spoken of the [ henosis tes monadikes ousia ], "the union of the single substance," vid. Le Quien in Damasc. Fid. Orth. i. 8. Novatian too has "per substantiæ communionem," de Trin. 31. Vid. Athan. ad Afros 5, 6; ad Serap. ii. 5. S. Ambrose tells us, that a Letter written by Eusebius of Nicomedia, in which he said, "If we call Him true Son of the Father and uncreate, then are we granting that He is one in substance, [ homoousion ]," determined the Council on the adoption of the term. de Fid. iii. n. 125. He had disclaimed "of the substance," in his Letter to Paulinus. Theod. Hist. i. 4. Arius, however, had disclaimed [ homoousion ] already, Epiph. Hær. 69, 7, and again in the Thalia. Gibbon's untenable assertion has been already observed upon (vid. Nicene Tests ) supr., viz., that the Council was at a loss for a test, and that on Eusebius's "ingenuously confessing that his [ homoousios ] was incompatible with the principles of [his] theological system, the fortunate opportunity was eagerly embraced by the Bishops," as if they were bent at all hazards, and without reference to the real and substantial agreement or disagreement of themselves and the Arians, to find some word which might accidentally serve to exclude the latter from communion.

 When the Semi-Arians objected that the Council of Antioch, 264-272, determined that the Son is not consubstantial with the Father, de Syn. supr. 49-52, Athan. answered in explanation that Paul of Samosata took the word in a material sense, as indeed Arius did, calling it the doctrine of Manes and Hieracas. S. Basil, contr. Eunom. i. 19, agrees with Athan., but S. Hilary on the contrary reports that Paul himself accepted it, i.e. in a Sabellian sense, and therefore the Council rejected it. "Male homoüsion Samosatenus confessus est, sed numquid melius Arii negaverunt?" de Syn. 86. Doubtless, however, both reasons told in causing its rejection. But Montfaucon and Bull consider it a difficulty. Hence, it would seem, the former, in his Nova Collectio, t. ii. p. 19, renders [ oukoun ] by ergo non ; he had not inserted non in his addition of Athanasius.

 The objections made to the word [ homoousion ] were, 1. that it was not in Scripture; 2. that it had been disowned by the Antiochene Council against Paul of Samosata; 3. that it was of a material nature, and belonged to the Manichees; 4. or else that it was of a Sabellian tendency; 5. that it implied that the divine substance was distinct from God.

 The Eusebians tried to establish a distinction between [ homoousion ] and [ homoiousion ] "one in substance" and "like in substance," of this sort: that the former belonged to things material, and the latter to immaterial, Soz. iii. 18, a remark which in itself was quite sufficient to justify the Catholics in insisting on the former term. For the heretical party, starting with the notion in which their heresy in all its shades consisted, that the Son was a distinct being from the Father, and appealing to a doctrine which might be plausibly maintained, that spirits are incommensurable with one another, or that each is at most not more than sui similis, concluded that " like in substance" was the only term which would express the relation of the Son to the Father. Here then the word "one in substance" did just enable the Catholics to join issue with them, as exactly expressing what Catholics wished to express, viz. that there was no such distinction between Them as made the term "like" necessary, or even possible, but that Their relation to Each Other was analogous to that of a material offspring to a material parent, or that, as material parent and offspring are individuals under one existing correlation, so the Eternal Father and Son are Persons under one common individual substance .

 "The East," says Sozomen, "in spite of its being in dissension after the Antiochene Council" of the Dedication, "and thenceforth openly dissenting from the Nicene faith, in reality, I think, concurred in the sentiment of the majority, and with them confessed the Son to be of the Father's substance; but from contentiousness certain of them fought against the term 'One in substance;' some, as I conjecture, having originally objected to the word ... others from habit ... others, aware that the resistance was unsuitable, leaned to this side or that to gratify parties; and many thought it weak to waste themselves in such strife of words, and peaceably held to the Nicene decision." Hist. iii. 13.

 Athan. is very reserved in his use of the word [ homoousion ] in these three Orations. Indeed I do not recollect his using it but once, Orat. i. § 9, and that in what is almost a confession of faith. Instead he uses [ homoios kata panta, homoios kat' ousian, homophyes ], etc.