Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Sozomen/Book III/Chapter 18
Chapter XVIII.—Concerning the Doctrines held by the Sons of Constantine. Distinction between the Terms “Homoousios” and “Homoiousios.” Whence it came that Constantius quickly abandoned the Correct Faith.
The emperors[1]
had, from the beginning, preserved their father’s view about
doctrine; for they both favored the Nicene form of belief. Constans
maintained these opinions till his death; Constantius held a similar
view for some time; he, however, renounced his former sentiments when
the term “consubstantial” was calumniated, yet he did not
altogether refrain from confessing that the Son is of like substance
with the Father. The followers of Eusebius, and other bishops of the
East, who were admired for their speech and life, made a distinction,
as we know, between the term “consubstantial”
(homoousios) and the expression “of like substance,”
which latter they designated by the term,
“homoiousios.” They say that the term
“consubstantial” (homoousios) properly belongs to corporeal
beings, such as men and other animals, trees and plants, whose
participation and origin is in like things; but that the term
“homoiousios” appertains exclusively to incorporeal beings,
such as God and the angels, of each one of whom a conception is formed
according to his own peculiar substance. The Emperor Constantius was
deceived by this distinction; and although I am certain that he
retained the same doctrines as those held by his father and brother,
yet he adopted a change of phraseology, and, instead of using the term
“homoousios,” made use of the term
“homoiousios.” The teachers to whom we have alluded
maintained that it was necessary to be thus precise in the use of
terms, and that otherwise we should be in danger of conceiving that to
be a body which is incorporeal. Many, however, regard this distinction
as an absurdity, “for,” say they, “the things which
are conceived by the mind can be designated only by names derived from things
which are seen; and there is no danger in the use of words, provided
that there be no error about the idea.
Footnotes
[edit]- ↑ An independent survey of the imperial and clerical views.