|
THE emperors 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 rising 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.
|
|