[ Sumbebekos ]

 OR Accident. The point in which Arians and Sabellians agreed was that Wisdom was only an attribute, not a Person, in the Divine Nature, for both denied the mystery of a Trinity in Unity. Hence St. Athanasius charges them with holding the Divine Nature to be compounded of substance and quality or accident, the latter being an envelopment or [ peribole ] or [ peri ton theon ]. Vid. as quoted below. Decr. § 22, and so Syn. § 34, [ hexin sumbainousan kai aposumbainousan ]. Orat. iii. § 65. [ sumbama ]. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. iii. p. 150. Also Or. ii. § 38. Serap. i. 26. Naz. Orat. 31. 15 fin. For [ peri ton theon ], vid. Decr. § 22, de Syn. § 34. Orat. i. § 14, 27; ii. 45; iii. § 65.

 Thus Eusebius calls our Lord "the light throughout the universe, moving round ([ amphi ]) the Father." de Laud. Const. i. p. 501. It was a Platonic idea, which he gained from Plotinus, whom he quotes speaking of his second Principle as "radiance around, from Him indeed, but from one who remains what He was; as the sun's bright light circling around it, ([ peritheon ],) ever generated from it, while the sun itself nevertheless remains." Evang. Præp. xi. 17. vid. Plotin. 4. Ennead. iv. c. 16.

 Eusebius could afford to use Platonic language, because he considered our Lord to be external to the Divine Nature; hence he can say, (as Marcellus could not,) by way of accusation against him, [ suntheton eisegen ton theon, ousian dicha logou sumbebekos de tei ousiai ton logon ]. Eccl. Theol. ii. 14, p. 121. However, Athan. says the same of the Arians, vid. references, supr. in this article; also ad Afros. 8. Basil. Ep. 8, 3. Cyril. Thes. p. 134. For the Sabellians vid. Ath. Orat. iv. 2; perhaps Epiph. Hær. 73, p. 852; and Cyril. Thes. p. 145. Basil. contr. Sabell. 1. Nyssen. App. contr. Eunom. i. p. 67, etc. Max. Cap. de Carit. t. i. p. 445. Damasc. F. O. i. 13, p. 151.

 "If then any man conceives as if God were composite, so as to have accidents in His substance, or any external envelopment, and to be encompassed, or as if there were aught about Him which completes the substance, so that when we say 'God,' or name 'Father,' we do not signify the invisible and incomprehensible substance, but something about it, then let them complain of the Council's stating that the Son was from the substance of God; but let them reflect, that in thus considering they commit two blasphemies; for they make God material, and they falsely say that the Lord is not Son of the very Father, but of what is about Him. But if God be simple, as He is, it follows that in saying 'God' and naming 'Father,' we name nothing as if about Him, but signify His substance itself." Athan. Decr. § 22.

 And so elsewhere, he says, when resisting the Arian and Sabellian notion that the wisdom of God is only a quality in the Divine Nature, "In that case God will be compounded of substance and quality; for every quality is in a substance. And at this rate, whereas the Divine Monad is indivisible, it will be considered compound, being separated into substance and accident." Orat. iv. 2. vid. also Orat. i. 36. This is the common doctrine of the Fathers. Athenagoras, however, speaks of God's goodness as an accident, "as colour to the body," "as flame is ruddy and the sky blue," Legat. 24. This, however, is but a verbal difference, for shortly before (23) he speaks of His being, [ to ontos on ], and His unity of nature, [ to monophues ], as in the number of [ episumbebekota autoi ]. Eusebius uses the word [ sumbebekos ] in the same way, Demonstr. Evang. iv. 3. And hence St. Cyril, in controversy with the Arians, is led by the course of their objections to observe, "There are cogent reasons for considering these things as accidents, [ sumbebekota ], in God, though they be not." Thesaur. p. 263.