Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 April 2018
The study proposes an analysis of the concepts of ousia and hypostasis in the theology of the Council of Antioch which condemned Paul of Samosata in 268 CE. The authentic reports preserved from the assembly unveil the fact that the synodals who condemned Paul of Samosata employed the two terms interchangeably to denote the individual entity or person rather than the common essence or nature of the Father and Son. Additionally, they defended Christ's divinity before time and simultaneously assumed a certain subordinationism. The study additionally explores the Sitz im Leben of this theology, an accepted language embraced in the Eastern part of the Roman world in the third century. The article further traces the elements of this Antiochene theology in the fourth century in what was traditionally viewed as the “Arian” councils held in Antioch in 341 and 345 as well as in such authors as Eusebius of Caesarea and the Homoiousians. While Antioch 341 and 345 distanced themselves from Arianism, it is more coherent to interpret them, together with Eusebius and the Homoiousians, through this new hermeneutical lens, namely Antioch 268, rather than the traditional polarization between Nicaea and Arianism.
1 Different sources report either 70 or 80 bishops of Syria, Palestine, and Asia Minor; see Simonetti, Manlio, “Antioch,” in The Encyclopedia of the Early Church (ed. Di Berardino, Angelo; New York: Oxford University Press, 1992) 48Google Scholar.
2 See Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 7.29 (The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers [ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wallace; 10 vols.; 1886–1900; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999]), NPNF2 1:313.
3 Ibid., 6.33.
4 The Letter of Six Bishops was edited by Loofs, Friedrich, Paulus von Samosata: Eine Untersuchung zur altkirchlichen Literatur- und Dogmengeschichte (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1924) 320–24Google Scholar; Bardy, Gustave, Paul de Samosate: Étude historique (Louvain: Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, 1929) 13–19Google Scholar, and Schwartz, Eduard, Eine fingierte Korrespondenz mit Paulus dem Samosatener (München: Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1927) 42–46Google Scholar. The Letter was considered authentic by Loofs, Bardy, and de Riedmatten, Henri, Les actes du procès de Paul de Samosate: Étude sur la Christologie du IIIe au IVe siècle (Paradosis 6; Fribourg: Éditions St-Paul, 1952) 121–34Google Scholar, in which de Riedmatten also dismisses Schwartz's arguments that the Letter might have been a forgery.
5 De Riedmatten, Les actes du procès, 133. It is plausible that the dossier included the transcription of the dialogue between Malchion and Paul, usually called the Acts of the Process. Today, we have only a few debatable fragments of these Acts preserved in different authors and florilegia. G. Bardy, M. Richard, J. N. D. Kelly, A. Grillmeier, R. L. Sample, F. W. Norris, H. C. Brenecke, and R. P. C. Hanson doubt the authenticity of these documents, considering them an Apollinarian composition of the fourth century. To the contrary, R. Lorenz, T. D. Barnes, W. H. C. Frend, R. D. Williams, M. Simonetti, C. Stead, L. Perrone, and U. M. Lang argue for the authenticity of the fragments; see, Lang, U. M., “The Christological Controversy at the Synod of Antioch in 268/9,” JTS 51 (2000) 54–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 56.
6 I simply use the term “orthodox” in its general, or basic, minimal sense which denotes a normative, standard, or correct doctrine.
7 See also Prestige, G. L., God in Patristic Thought (London: SPCK, 1959) 206–8Google Scholar, and Behr, John, The Way to Nicaea (The Formation of Christian Theology 1; Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2001) 207–36, at 218–20Google Scholar.
8 See George of Laodicaea, Epistula dogmatica, in Epiphanius, Pan. 73.12.3: “The Son has a hypostasis, he is subsisting, and he is an existent entity, not a word, and he is called substance” (ὁ υἱὸς ὑπόστασιν ἔχει καὶ ὑπάρχων ἐστὶ καὶ ὤν ἐστιν, οὐχὶ δὲ ῥ
μά ἐστιν, οὐσίαν εἰπε
ν καὶ τὸν υἱόν). For the Greek text, see Epiphanius III: Panarion (haereses 65–80). De Fide (ed. Karl Holl and Jürgen Dummer; GCS 37; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1985) 285. Unless otherwise mentioned, translations are mine.
9 See George of Laodicaea, Epistula dogmatica, in Epiphanius, Pan. 73.12.6 (GCS 37:285): “The fathers expressly called the Son a substance” (οἱ πατέρες τὸν υἱόν, φημί, οὐσίαν ἐκάλεσαν). The same passage includes as well the relevant expression: “But being a Son, he is a substance” (ἀλλ’ υἱo;ς ὢν οὐσία ἐστίν). Winrich A. Löhr similarly observes that the Homoiousian bishops convened at Sirmium in 358 invoked the Council of Antioch 268 which condemned the ὁμοούσιος as a concept leading to Sabellianism; see Löhr, Winrich A., “A Sense of Tradition: The Homoiousian Church Party,” in Arianism after Arius: Essays on the Development of the Fourth Century Trinitarian Conflicts (ed. Barnes, Michel R. and Williams, Daniel H.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993) 89Google Scholar.
10 See George of Laodicaea, Pan. 73.12.8 (GCS 37:285): “The fathers, therefore, called substance this hypostasis” (ταύτην ο
ν τὴν ὑπόστασιν οὐσίαν ἐκάλεσαν οἱ πατέρες).
11 De Riedmatten, Les actes du procès, 129.
12 Ibid., 122.
13 See Letter of Six Bishops 2 (Loofs, Paulus, 324). For further studies on the second- and third-century use of the term “unbegotten,” employed as a divine name associated with the Father, in contradistinction with the term “only-begotten,” associated with the Son, see Kopecek, Thomas A., A History of Neo-Arianism (Cambridge, MA: The Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1979) 242–66Google Scholar; Radde-Gallwitz, Andrew, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Transformation of Divine Simplicity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) 67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; DelCogliano, Mark, Basil of Caesarea's Anti-Eunomian Theory of Names (VCS 103; Leiden: Brill, 2010) 99–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, “The Influence of Athanasius and the Homoiousians on Basil of Caesarea's Decentralization of ‘Unbegotten,’”JECS 19 (2011) 197–223. As DelCogliano shows, in the fourth century, the interpretations of this distinction were radically different between anti-Nicene and pro-Nicene authors. While the former implied that the Son has to be generated and have a beginning like all the other creatures (even he is a special one), the pro-Nicenes argued that the distinction has never implied this philosophical view, that “unbegotten” may be applied as well to the Son, and generally it does not deny the unity or similarity of essence of the Son, or his eternity.
14 De Riedmatten, Les actes du process, 131.
15 Letter of Six Bishops 2 (Loofs, Paulus, 324): 
. See also Letter of Six Bishops 9 (Loofs, Paulus, 330).
16 Letter of Six Bishops 9 (Loofs, Paulus, 330): 
.
17 According to the Letter of Six Bishops 2 (Loofs, Paulus, 324), the Father “cannot be seen” (
).
18 Ibid. It is worth noting as well that the association of a more apophatic language and this epistemological vision of an unknown Father later became the theological mark of several authors from Arius to Eusebius of Caesarea, and was rejected by Eunomius, who presumed that humans were able to know the essence of the Father as much as the Son may know it.
19 Letter of Six Bishops 3 (Loofs, Paulus, 325).
20 Letter of Six Bishops 4–5 (Loofs, Paulus, 326–27). For angelomorphic christology, see Gieschen, Charles A., Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden: Brill, 1998)Google Scholar.
21 See the eighteenth anathema of the council in Athanasius, Syn. 27.
22 See Simonetti, Manlio, “Note sulla teologia trinitaria di Origene,” Vetera Christianorum 8 (1971) 273–307Google Scholar, at 286; Hanson, R. P. C., The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318–381 (1st ed. 1988; repr. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005) 66Google Scholar, who follows Prestige, God in Patristic Thought, 197. Likewise, Williams, Rowan embraces the same opinion in his classical Arius: Heresy and Tradition; Revised Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001) 143–44Google Scholar, as well as Edwards, Mark J. in his Origen against Plato (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002) 69–76Google Scholar. One has to mention at the same time that Markschies, Christoph, Origenes und sein Erbe. Gesammelte Studien (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009) 174–87Google Scholar, and Ramelli, Ilaria L. E., “Origen, Greek Philosophy, and the Birth of the Trinitarian Meaning of Hypostasis,” HTR 105 (2012) 302–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 304–6, consider that Origen understood οὐσία rather as essence. Markschies, however, also follows Stead in pointing out that the word οὐσία may include other meanings or nuances than “essence,” for instance “staff,” “property,” or “special character”; see Markschies, Origenes, 186.
23 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.33.1 (NPNF 2 1:277, slightly modified).
24 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.33.2.
25 Jerome, Vir. ill. 76.
26 Photius, Lex. 119.93a-b. English translation by Freese, John H., The Library of Photius (London: SPCK, 1920) 209Google Scholar. For the Greek text, see Henry, René, Bibliothèque: Texte établi et traduit (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1959) 100Google Scholar.
27 See, for instance, Williams, Rowan D., “The Logic of Arianism,” JTS 34 (1983) 56–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
28 Epiphanius, Pan. 73.16.1 (GCS 37:288).
29 Simonetti, Manlio, Studi sull'arianesimo (Rome: Editrice Studium, 1965) 168Google Scholar.
30 I am indebted to the anonymous reviewer for this observation.
31 As exceptions we may count, for instance, the synod summoned by Meletius of Antioch in 363, which paradoxically accepted the Nicene creed (Acacius of Caesarea was also present). However, a new council held in Antioch in 367 would refute the Nicene creed again, and reestablish the creed of Antioch 341. Another exception is the council of Antioch 378, which assumed a Homoiousian position.
32 See Parvis, Sara, Marcellus of Ancyra and the Lost Years of the Arian Controversy 325–345 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) 162–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
33 For the list of participants, see Parvis, Marcellus of Ancyra, 260.
34 Athanasius, Syn. 22 (NPNF 2 4:461).
35 Ibid.
36 See, Athanasius, Syn. 23.3: τς θεότητος οὐσίας τε καὶ βουλς καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης το
πατρὸς ἀπαράλλακτον εἰκόνα. For the Greek text, see Opitz, Hans-Georg, ed., Athanasius Werke 2/7. De synodis Arimini et Seleuciae (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1935) 249Google Scholar.
37 See Asterius, Fr. 10.4–5: θεὸς θεόν, οὐσίας τε καὶ βουλς καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης ἀπαράλλακτον εἰκόνα; Greek text in Vinzent, Markus, ed., Asterius von Kappadokien. Die theologischen Fragmente (VCS 20; Leiden: Brill, 1993) 86Google Scholar.
38 See DelCogliano, Mark, “Eusebian Theologies of the Son as the Image of God before 341,” JECS 14 (2006) 459–84 at 468–69Google Scholar.
39 Ibid., 479, n. 43.
40 Athanasius, Syn. 23.3 (Athanasius Werke 2/7:249): 
. See also Oratio III contra Arianos 10 (a document sometimes associated with Athanasius, but of debated authorship), in which the Son is also characterized as “consonant in everything” (
) with the Father (Athanasius Werke 1/1/3. Oratio III contra Arianos [ed. Karin Metzler and Kyriakos Savvidis; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2000] 317), as well as Fr. 72 of Marcellus, who reports that Asterius affirmed that the Father and the Son “harmonize in everything” (
) and have a strict consonance/harmonization in all words and works (
); see Marcellus, Fragmenta, in Eusebius Werke IV. Contra Marcellum, De ecclesiastica theologia (ed. Erich Klostermann and Günther C. Hansen; GCS 14; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1906) 198.
41 Stuart G. Hall notes that Origen was the first to make a similar assertion; Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991) 142. Thus, the Alexandrine was probably the first to affirm that the Father and the Son are two distinct hypostases but one in terms of “harmony” or “symphony” (
) and will (Cels. 8.12; SC 150:200).
42 See Athanasius, Syn. 24–25. For modern commentators, see Hanson, The Search, 291; Simonetti, Manlio, La crisi ariana nel quarto secolo (Rome: Institutum patristicum Augustinianum, 1975) 164Google Scholar; and Kopecek, A History of Neo-Arianism, 73.
43 See, for instance, Löhr, Winrich A., Die Entstehung der homöischen und homöusianischen Kirchenparteien: Studien zur Synodalgeschichte des 4. Jahrhunderts (Bonn: Wehle, 1986) 10–21Google Scholar. It is worth noting especially his opinion that, “die ‘4.antiochenische Formel’ wurde das dominierende Synodalbekenntnis im Osten” (idem, 13); likewise, “Zum Erweis der ‘Orthodoxie’ der orientalischen Bischöfeistdem Synodalschreiben die sogenannte ‘4.antiochenische Formel’ angefügt.” (idem, 21). Hanson confirms this position while stating that the fourth creed of Antioch 341 “was destined to be used for nearly fifteen years as the basis for all other creeds which were designed to be ecumenical” (The Search, 292). In the same way, Mark DelCogliano and Andrew Radde-Gallwitz assert that it became the “standard creed in the East for more than twenty years and was reissued at many subsequent eastern councils”; see “Introduction” to Basil of Caesarea: Against Eunomius (Washington, DC: CUA Press, 2011) 27.
44 Löhr, Die Entstehung, 18. Hanson (The Search, 292) makes a similar remark: “[T]he only possible interpretation of hypostasis as used in the anathema is that it is meant to be identical with ousia: any other interpretation would make this out to be a flagrantly Sabellian statement.”
45 Ibid. If Eusebius of Nicomedia signed this document, then he made a doctrinal step forward from the Council of Nicaea 325, when he apparently signed the creed but not the attached anathemas, which refuted the same positions with the Dedication Creed; see the Letter of Recantation—preserved in Socrates, H.E. 1.14 and Sozomen, H.E. 2.16—which Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea wrote from exile in 327, asking the emperor to allow their return. Antioch 341 seems to represent a certain progress in Eusebius's public acknowledgment of the divinity of the Son.
46 Hanson, The Search, 290.
47 Hilary of Poitier, Syn. 32.
48 For Arius, see his Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia (preserved in Theodoret of Cyrus, H.E. 1.5) and his confession sent to Alexander (preserved in Athanasius, Syn. 16); for Eusebius, see below his Letter to Paulinus of Tyre (preserved in Theodoret of Cyrus, H.E. 1.5), and the formulation of the axiom that it is impossible to have two unbegotten principles, the Father and the Son; for Asterius, see Fr. 3, 12, 44 (in Vinzent, Asterius von Kappadokien, 82, 88, 108 respectively).
49 
, in Athanasius, Syn. 26 (Athanasius Werke 2/7:252).
50 See Athanasius, Syn. 27 (NPNF 2 4:464): “But those who say that the Son was from nothing or from other subsistence (
) and not from God (
), and that there was a time or age when He was not, the holy and catholic church regards as aliens.” For the Greek text, please see Athanasius Werke 2/7:254.
51 Athanasius, Syn. 27 (Athanasius Werke 2/7:256): 
, 
.
52 Kelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Creeds (2nd ed.; London: A. and C. Black, 1960) 271Google Scholar.
53 Ibid., 274.
54 Hanson, The Search, 291.
55 Ibid., 290.
56 Gwynn, David M., The Eusebians: The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the “Arian Controversy” (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) 225Google Scholar. For a survey of the impressive influence of the council of Antioch 341 in the subsequent debates and councils of the fourth century, see Bardy, Gustav, Recherches sur saint Lucien d'Antioche et son école (Paris: Beauchesne, 1936) 96–119Google Scholar.
57 See de Riedmatten, Les actes du process, 127 and 129.
58 See Beeley, Christopher A., The Unity of Christ: Continuity and Conflict in Patristic Tradition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012) 49Google Scholar.
59 See, for instance, Strutwolf, Holger, Die Trinitätstheologie und Christologie des Euseb von Caesarea. Eine dogmengeschichtliche Untersuchung seiner Platonismus rezeption und Wirkungsgeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Troiano, Marina S., “Il Contra Eunomium III di Basilio di Cesarea e le Epistolae ad Serapionem I–IV di Atanasio di Alessandria: Nota comparativa,” Aug 41 (2001) 59–91Google Scholar; Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) 221CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hildebrand, Stephen M., The Trinitarian Theology of Basil of Caesarea: A Synthesis of Greek Thought and Biblical Truth (Washington, DC: CUA Press, 2007) 80, n. 10Google Scholar; DelCogliano, Mark, “Basil of Caesarea on Proverbs 8:22 and the Sources of Pro-Nicene Theology,” JTS 59 (2008) 183–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Inowlocki, Sabrina and Zamagni, Claudio, eds., Reconsidering Eusebius: Collected Papers on Literary, Historical, and Theological Issues (Leiden: Brill, 2011)Google Scholar; Beeley, Unity of Christ.
60 See, for instance, Simonetti, Studi sull'arianesimo, 102, and Luibhéid, Colm, Eusebius of Caesarea and the Arian Crisis (Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 1981) 20–40Google Scholar.
61 Marcellus, Fr. 82 (GCS 14:203).
62 See Eusebius, Praep. ev. 7.12.2: “with the uncaused and unbegotten substance of the Father of everything . . . [there is] a second divine substance and power” (μετὰ τὴν ἄναρχον καὶ ἀγένητον το θεο τ
ν ὅλων οὐσίαν . . . δευτέραν οὐσίαν καὶ θείαν δύναμιν). For the Greek text, see des Places, Édouard, ed., Eusèbe de Césarée. La préparation évangélique (SC 215; Paris: Cerf, 1975) 222Google Scholar; see also Eusebius, Praep. ev. 7.15.6 (SC 215:238).
63 See Eusebius, Eccl. theol. 2.6.2 (GCS 14:103): “of an incorporeal substance, beyond words and linguistic expression” (τς ἀσωμάτου καὶ ἀλέκτου καὶ ἀνεκφράστου οὐσίας). For Origen, see, e.g., Cels. 6.64 and 7.45.
64 Eusebius, Dem. ev. 4.1.5; see also Luibhéid, Eusebius, 30.
65 Eusebius, Dem. ev. 4.3.13; 4.6.3; Hist. eccl.1.3.13.
66 Eusebius, Praep. ev. 11.21.6. For the Greek text, see des Places, Édouard, ed., Eusèbe de Césarée. La Préparation évangélique, Livre XI (SC 292; Paris: Cerf, 1982) 156Google Scholar.
67 See Eusebius, Eccl. theol. 2.17.6 (GCS 14:121).
68 Eusebius, Dem. ev. 4.3.11. For the Greek text, see Ivar A. Heikel, ed., Eusebius Werke VI. Demonstratio euangelica (GCS 23; Berlin: J. C. Hinrich, 1913) 154: οὔτι πω κατὰ στέρησιν ἢ μείωσιν ἢ τομὴν ἢ διαίρεσιν (“not by deprivation, or diminution, or severance, or division”); 4.3.13 (GCS 23:154): οὐ κατὰ διάστασιν ἢ τομὴν ἢ διαίρεσιν ἐκ τς το πατρὸς οὐσίας προβεβελημένον; see also 4.15.52 (GCS 23:181), 5.1.8 (GCS 23:211), 5.1.9 (GCS 23:211).
69 See Luibhéid, Eusebius, 23. For the orthodoxy of Eusebius's Christology, see Beeley, Christopher, “Eusebius’ Contra Marcellum: Anti-Modalist Doctrine and Orthodox Christology,” ZAC 12 (2009) 433–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
70 Eusebius, Eccl. theol. 3.21.1 (GCS 14:181) and 2.14.21 (GCS 14:118). See also Eusebius, Eccl. theol. 1.10.1 (GCS 14:68), 2.17.3 (GCS 14:120), and Marc. 1.14.35 (GCS 14:25): τ
πατρὶ ὁμοιότατος. At the same time, as Lienhard shows, Eusebius regards the Father and the Son as distinct in terms of substances, functions, and ranks, for example in Eusebius, Eccl. theol. 2.7 and 2.23; see Lienhard, Joseph T., Contra Marcellum: Marcellus of Ancyra and Fourth-Century Theology (Washington, DC: CUA Press, 1999) 120Google Scholar.
71 Eusebius, Praep. ev. 7.15.6 (SC 215:238). To mention other anti-Nicene names who used a similar position, one of the fragments preserved from Marcellus of Ancyra unveils that Narcissus, the bishop of Neronias, believed with Eusebius of Caesarea that there are not only two substances, but even three; see Marcellus, Fr. 116. For the Greek text, see Vinzent, Markus, ed., Markell von Ankyra: Die Fragmente, Der Brief an Julius von Rom (VCS 39; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 108CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It is worth noting that, according to Vaggione, Eunomius apparently developed a similar system of three οὐσίαι, while affirming in his Apologia Apologiae 1.2a: “Our whole doctrine is summed up in the highest and principal essence, in the essence which exists through it but before all others, and in the essence which is third in terms of origin and the activity which produced it” (Eunomius: The Extant Works [ed. Richard P. Vaggione; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987] 102).
72 Eusebius, Ep. Caes., 10–11. For the Greek text, see Brennecke, Hanns C., ed., Athanasius Werke 3/1. Dokumente zur Geschichte des Arianischen Streites (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007) 45Google Scholar; English translation: NPNF 2 2:11 (italics in original).
73 Eusebius, Ep. Caes. 12 (Athanasius Werke 3/1:45); trans., NPNF 2 2:11. See also Ep. Caes. 7 (Athanasius Werke 3/1:44); trans., NPNF 2 2:11: “[The emperor] exhorting all present to give them their assent, and subscribe to these very articles, thus agreeing in a unanimous profession of them, with the insertion, however, of that single word ‘homoousios’ (consubstantial), an expression which the emperor himself explained, as not indicating corporeal affections or properties; and consequently that the Son did not subsist (ὑποστναι) from the Father either by division or abscission: for he said, a nature which is immaterial and incorporeal (τὴν ἄυλον καὶ νοερὰν καὶ ἀσώματον φύσιν) cannot possibly be subject to any corporeal affection.”
74 Eusebius, Ep. Caes. 13 (Athanasius Werke 3/1:45–46); trans., NPNF 2 2:11. Compare with the expression τ πατρὶ κατὰ πάντα ὅμοιον ε
ναι appearing in the Macrostich formula of 345, in Athanasius, Syn. 26.6 (Athanasius Werke 2/7:253).
75 And this is what the other anti-Nicene writers—from Arius to Asterius, to Eusebius of Nicomedia, to Aetius, to Eunomius, to the Homoiousians—realized, and they subsequently opposed the Nicene ὁμοούσιος in order to preserve the metaphysics of οὐσία as individual substance, which they probably considered philosophically more accurate and historically more traditional.
76 I am not the first to assert that Homoiousians understood οὐσία as individual substance. Simonetti maintains the same thing in his Studi sull'arianesimo, 169. Likewise, Hubertus Drobner affirms the following about Basil of Ancyra: “Er verstand unter οὐσία eine individuelle Substanz, so daß er in der Gottheit drei ὑποστάσεις und drei οὐσίαι vertrat.” See Drobner, H., Lehrbuch der Patrologie (Freiburg: Herder, 1994; repr. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2004) 243Google Scholar.
77 For the main literature on the topic see Gummerus, J., Die homöusianische Partei bis zum Tode des Konstantius. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des arianischen Streites in den Jahren 356–361 (Helsinki: A. Deichert, 1900)Google Scholar; Jefrey N Steenson, “Basil of Ancyra and the Course of Nicene Orthodoxy” (PhD diss., Oxford University, 1983); Löhr, Die Entstehung; idem, “A Sense of Tradition”; Timothy Barnes, “A Note on the Term Homoiousios,” ZAC 10 (2007) 276–85; Barnes shows that the term ὁμοιούσιος occurs in the summer of 358 at the council of Sirmium (see Barnes, “A Note,” 283) and disappears in the synodal acts subsequent to 360 (idem, 285). Nevertheless, the term comes out later, in 378, when Macedonians hold a council in Antioch/Caria, and apparently refute the Nicene ὁμοούσιον, while proposing instead the term ὁμοιούσιος (see Sozomen, H.E. 7.2; Socrates only confirms the event in H.E. 5.4).
78 Epiphanius, Pan. 73.4.2. For the Greek text, see Holl, Karl and Dummer, Jürgen, ed., Epiphanius III. Panarionhaer. 65–80; De fide (GCS 37; Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1985) 273Google Scholar. As DelCogliano shows, Homoiousians were influenced by Athanasius's arguments regarding the theological importance of the term “Father” (which is relative and implies a Son) and diminished the importance of the concept of unbegotten” (see “The Influence of Athanasius”). However, Athanasius, the Homoiousians, and Basil of Caesarea preserve the distinction between “unbegotten” and “only-begotten.” Yet, the generation of the Son does not imply his lack of divinity but his eternal co-existence with the Father (see Basil, Eun. 2.17).
79 See The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Books II and III (Sect 47–80, De fide) (trans. Frank Williams; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 347: “Every ‘father’ is understood to be the father of an essence like his.”
80 Epiphanius, Pan. 73.4.4 (GCS 37:273). For an analysis of the terms οὐσία and ἐνέργεια in Basil's vision, see Steenson, Basil of Ancyra.
81 Epiphanius, Pan. 73.9.7 (GCS 37:280).
82 Epiphanius, Pan. 73.11.2 (GCS 37:282): “giving only the likeness of activity and not of substance” (μόνην τὴν κατ’ἐνέργειαν ὁμοιότητα διδοὺς τς κατ’οὐσίαν).
83 See George's assertion in note 8, preserved in Epiphanius's Pan. 73.12.6.
84 Epiphanius, Pan. 73.12.6 (GCS 37:285): “But the Son, being the Logos, is not the speaking activity of God, but being a Son means that he is a substance” (ὁ δὲ υἱός, λόγος ὤν, οὐχὶ ἐνέργεια λεκτική ἐστι το θεο, ἀλλ’ υἱὸς ὢν οὐσία ἐστίν). See also Simonetti's similar interpretation of the text in his Studi sull'arianesimo, 169.
85 Epiphanius, Pan. 73.12.8 (GCS 37:285): ταύτην ον τὴν ὑπόστασιν οὐσίαν ἐκάλεσαν οἱ πατέρες.
86 Epiphanius, Pan. 73.16.1 (GCS 37:288).
87 Epiphanius, Pan. 73.15.1;4-5; 73.18.8.
88 Simonetti, Studi sull'arianesimo, 169.
89 Ibid, 171–77.
