HOMOOUSION

(See Trinity .) This is the critical word of the Nicene Creed, and is used to expre the real Divinity of Christ , and that, as derived from, and one with, the Father . The word was adopted from the nece ity of the case, in a sense different from the ordinary philosophical use of it. Ὁμοούσιος properly means of the same nature, i. e. under the same general nature, or species; i. e. is applied to things which are but similar to each other, and are considered as one by an abstraction of our minds. Thus Aristotle speaks of the stars being ὁμοούσια with each other; and Porphyry, of the souls of brute animals being ὁμοούσιαι to ours. When, however, it was used in relation to the incommunicable e ence of God , there was obviously no abstraction po ible in contemplating him, who is above all comparison with his works. His nature is solitary, peculiar to himself, and one; so that, whatever was accounted to be ὁμοούσιος with him, was nece arily included in his individuality by all who would avoid recurring to the vaguene of philosophy, and were cautious to distinguish between the incommunicable e ence of Jehovah and all created intelligences. And hence the fitne of the term to denote without metaphor the relation which the Logos bore in the orthodox creed to his eternal Father . Its use is explained by A than as i us as follows: “Though,” he says, “we cannot understand what is meant by the οὐσία of God , yet we know as much as this, that God exists ( εῖναι ), which is the way in which Scripture speaks of him; and after this pattern, when we wish to designate him distinctly, we say God , Father , Lord . When then he says in Scripture, ‘I am ὁ ὤν ,’ and ‘I am Jehovah, God ,’ or uses the plain word ‘ God ,’ we understand by such statements nothing but his incomprehensible οὐσία , and that he, who is there spoken of, exists ( ἐστίν ). Let no one then think it strange, that the Son of God should be said to be ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ , of the substance of God ; rather, let him agree to the explanation of the Nicene fathers, who, for the words ἐκ Θεοῦ , substituted the ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας . They considered the two phrases substantially the same, because, as we have said, the word God denotes nothing but the οὐσία αὐτοῦ τοῦ ὄντος . On the other hand, if the word be not in such sense ἔκ τοῦ Θεοῦ , as to be the true Son of the Father according to his nature, but be said to be ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ , merely as all creatures are such as being his work, then indeed he is not ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός , nor Son κατ’ ὑσίαν , but so called from his virtue, as we may be who receive the title from grace. Bishop Bull says that ὁμοούσιος is used by standard Greek writers to signify that which is of the same substance, e ence, or nature. And he shows at large that the term was not invented by the Nicene Fathers, but was known in its present theological acceptation long before; by Irenæus, by Origen, (as Dionysius of Alexandria and A than as i us testify,) by Gregory Thaumaturgus, . See the 2nd section of that exhaustive and irrefragable treatise, the Defensio Fidei Nicænæ. See also Suicer in voc., from which it appears that the ante-Nicene fathers defined the word as signifying “that which is of the same nature, e ence, eternity, and energy,” without any difference.