Subject 4. (Being Subject 1. continued.)

. 9, 10.

Unless Father and Son are two in name only, or as parts and so each
imperfect, or two gods, they are consubstantial, one in Godhead, and
the Son from the Father.

. 9.

{523} 1. I and the Father are One [John x. 3.] [Note A]. That two are one, you say, is either that one has two names, or again one is divided into two [Note B]. Now if one is divided into two, that which is divided must need be a body, and neither of the two perfect, for each is a part and not a whole [Note C]. But if again one have two names, this is the expedient [Note D] of Sabellius, who said that Son and Father were the same, and denied Each of Them, the Father when he confessed a Son, and the Son when he confessed a Father. But if the two are one, then of necessity while there are two, there is one according to the Godhead, and according to the Son's consubstantiality [Note 1] to the Father, and the Word's being from the Father Himself [Note E]; so that {524} there are two, because there is Father and Son [Note F], that is, the Word [Note G], and one because one God [Note 2]. For if this is not so, He would have said, I am the Father, or I and the Father am; but, in fact, in the I He signifies the Son, and in the And the Father, Him who begat Him; and in the One [John xiv. 10.] the one Godhead and His consubstantiality [Note H]. For the Same is not, as the Gentiles hold, Wise and Wisdom [Note 3]; or the Same Father and Word; for it were unsuitable [Note 4] for Him to be His own Father [Note 5]; but the divine teaching knows Father and Son, and Wise and Wisdom, and God and Word; while it altogether guards His indivisible and inseparable and indissoluble nature in all things.

. 10.

2. But if any one, on hearing that the Father and the Son are two, misrepresent us as preaching two Gods [Note I], (for this is what some feign to themselves, and forthwith cry out scoffingly, "You hold two Gods,") we must answer to such, If to acknowledge Father and Son, is to hold two Gods, it instantly [Note 6] follows that to confess but one, we must deny the Son and Sabellianise. For if to speak of two, is to fall into Gentilism, therefore if we speak of one, we must fall into Sabellianism. But this is not so; perish the thought! but, as when we say that Father and Son are two, we still confess one God, so when we say that there is one God, let us consider Father and Son two, while they are one in the Godhead, and in the Father's Word, being indissoluble and indivisible and inseparable from Him. And let the fire and the radiance from it be a similitude of man, which are two in being and in appearance, but one in that its radiance is from it indivisibly.

Top | Contents | Works | Home


Footnotes

A. This and the next section are in great part a repetition of Orat. iii. 4. but with differences which are remarkable; as written at different times against different opponents. Mention is made of [sophia] and [sophos] here, and not there; the objection of "two gods" is not found there as being written against the Arians. A more striking differencc in regard to the word [homoousion] is noticed infr. note H. An illustration is taken from fire here, from light there.
Return to text

B. This doctrine is imputed to Hieraces supr. p. 97. to Valentinus, though in a different sense, by Nazianz. Orat. 33, 16. Vid. also Clement. Recogn. i. 69.
Return to text

C. contr. Sabell. Greg. . 6, c.
Return to text

D. [Sabelliou to epitedeuma], and so infr. 15. [Areianon to phronema], and 23. [Manichaion kai Ioudaion to epitedeuma]. Again, [tou Samostaeos to phronema]. Orat. i. 38. [Ellenikon to phronema]. Orat ii. 22 init. [ethnikon kai Areianon he toiaute plane]. ad Adelph. 3 init. [Areianon ta toiauta tolmemata]. contr. Apoll. ii. 11. fin. [Oualentinou touto to eurema]. Serap. i. 10. b. vid. also Orat. iii. 39, c. 50, b. 51, e. Serap. i. 20, d. ii. 2 init. On the contrary, [ouk estin outos ho nous christianon]. iii. 7 fin.
Return to text

E. He is laying down the Catholic explanation of Oneness in contrast to those heretical or hypothetical statements with which he commenced the chapter; viz. that the Godhead is numerically one, that there is one substance, and that there is but one [arche] or [pege theotetos].
Return to text

F. vid. latter part of note F at p. 211 supr. on S. Gregory Nyssen's statement that "the First Person in the Holy Trinity is not God, considered as Father."
Return to text

G. Which Marcellus, as other heretics, denied. vid. supr. p. 41, note E.
Return to text

H. Here again is the word [homoousion]. Contrast the language of Orat. iii. when commenting on the same text, in the same way; e.g. [en tei idioteti kai oikeioteti tes physeos, kai tei tautoteti tes mias theotetos], . 4.
Return to text

I. Marcellus urged this against, to say the least, the Arian doctrine, Euseb. p. 69. and Eusebius retorts it upon him, p. 119, d. also p. 109.
Return to text

Top | Contents | Works | Home


Margin Notes

1. [homoousion].
Return to text

2. p. 515, note X.
Return to text

3. p. 518, r. 3.
Return to text

4. p. 515, r. 1.
Return to text

5. p. 514, note O.
Return to text

6. [hora], p. 415, note C.
Return to text

Top | Contents | Works | Home


Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman
Copyright 2007 by The National Institute for Newman Studies. All rights reserved.