|
HOME | GREEK LANGUAGE |
LIBRARIES |
BLOG | HELP | SEARCH | BOOKSTORE | FREEWARE |
|
|
Translated by Cardinal Newman.
St Athanasius the Great Resources Online and in Print
|
11 Pages
Page 2
(4) With the rivalry of parties at Antioch, a weighty question of theological terminology was indirectly involved. The word hupostasis had been used in the Nicene anathema as a synonym of ousia (see Excursus A, pp. 77 sqq. above), and in this sense it was commonly used by Athanasius in agreement with the New Testament use of the word (Westcott on Heb. i. 3), with Dionysius of Rome, and with the West, to whom hupostasis was etymologically identified with 'Substantia' their (perhaps imperfect) equivalent for ousia. On the other hand, the general tendency of Eastern Theology had been to use hupostasis in the sense of Subject or Person, for which purpose it expressed the idea of individual essence less ambiguously than prosopon. This was the use of the word adopted by Origen, Dionysius Alex. (supr. de Sent. Dionys.), Alexander of Alexandria (in his letter Thdt. H. E. i. 4. p. 16, l. 19), and by Athanasius himself in an earlier work (p. 90, supr.) At Antioch the Eustathians appear to have followed the Nicene and Western usage, using the word to emphasise the Individual Unity of God as against Arian or Subordinationist views, while the Meletians protested against the Marcellian monarchianism by insisting on three Hypostases in the Godhead. The contradiction was mainly verbal, the two parties being substantially at one as to the doctrine, but varying in its expression. Hence the wise and charitable decision of the council, which came naturally from one who, like Athanasius, could use either expression, though he had come to prefer the Western to the Eastern use [3673] .
The Tome was carried to Antioch by the five bishops named at the beginning of S:1, and there subscribed by Paulinus and Karterius of Antaradus. As to its effect among the friends of Meletius our information is only inferential (see Gwatkin, Studies, p. 208). On the supposed disciplinary legislation of this council in relation to the Syntagma Doctrinae, see Prolegg. ch. ii. S:S:9.
N.B. The translation of the present tract as well as that of the ad Afros and of Letters 56, 59, 60, 61, was made independently of that by Dr. Bright in his Later Treatises of S. Athanasius (see Prolegg. ch. i. S:2), but has been carefully collated with it, and in not a few cases improved by its aid. For a fuller commentary on these pieces than has been possible in this volume, the reader is referred to Dr. Bright's work.
[3673] It may be well to trace briefly the sense of these technical terms, the history and significance of which is a forcible reminder of the inability of Theology to bring the Infinite within the categories of the Finite, to do more than guard our Faith by pointing out the paths which experience has shewn to lead to some false limitation of the fulness of the Revelation of God in Christ. The distinction (drawn out Prolegg. ch. ii. S:3 (2) b) between the primary and secondary sense of ousia in Greek metaphysics does not easily fit the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The ousia common to Father and Son is not the name of a Species, as 'Man' applies to Peter and Paul. But neither can the idea of prote ousia be reconciled with inherence in three distinct personal existences. (Cf. supr. p. 409, note 7.) But here the word hupostasis comes in to help our imagination. The word (see Socr. H. E. iii. 7. Westcott, ubi supr. and Newman, Arians, App. 4), from various literal senses came to be transferred to the philosophical vocabulary, doing duty as verbal substantive not only for huphestanai but for hupokeisthai. Like the concrete hupokeimenon it was applied (a) to matter as underlying form, (b) to substance as underlying attributes. In this latter use it served to distinguish prote from deutera ousia, expressing moreover a complete self-contained existence in a way that ousia did not. When therefore the idea of personal individuality has to be expressed, hupostasis is more suitable than ousia. But the ambiguity of the latter word remains. Those who preferred to speak of mia hupostasis thought of the Divine Essence rather as prote ousia, and of One Personal God, with whom Father, Son, and Spirit were each absolutely and fully identified (perichoresis), while with those who preferred preis hupostaseis the idea of the Divine ousia approximated to deutera ousia, and guarded against Tritheism solely by holding fast to the Monarchia of the Father. The corrective to each position lay in the recognition of the other, i.e. of its own incompleteness. (See further Prolegg. ubi supr. and Zahn, Marcell. p. 87, sq.)
Reference address : https://www.elpenor.org/athanasius/letter-antioch.asp?pg=2
