Вестник Православного Свято-Тихоновского гуманитарного университета: Серия I. Богословие, философия (Dec 2019)
Criticism and apology of the doctrine of “homoeousia” in latin patristics of the 4th century: Marius Victorinus vs. Hilary of Poitiers
Abstract
This article studies the doctrine of “homoeousion” (“similarity in substance”) of Father and Son in Latin patristics of the 4th century. It highlights a non-concordant reaction of Western Niceans to this doctrine, which was proposed in 358 by the leader of Homoeusians Basil of Ankyra. The article analyses the conciliatory position taken as to the Homoeousians and their doctrine by St. Hilary of Poitiers in his treatise De synodis. It is shown that St. Hilary introduces the concept of similarity to sililarity by essence or nature and equals such similarity with the equality of the nature, which also presupposes the unity of essence and allows one to avoid modalism. The similarity of Father and Son in some other aspects (properties, powers, actions, glory) is always considered by St. Hilary as insuffi cient and secondary in relation to the similarity or equality by nature. Thus, trying to forge a link between Western Niceans and Homoeousians, St. Hilary suggested that the Homoeousian terminology should be used along with the Homousian or as its complement, particularly by introducing the concept of “dissimilar similarity” of Father and Son by essence, which is identical with their homoiousia. Completely diff erent position as to the attitude to homoeousia was taken by Marius Victorinus. The article looks at the question of the degree of familiarity of Victorinus with theology of Homoeousians as well as at the circumstances around writing the fi rst book of his treatise Contra Arium. It is shown that Victorinus uses Aristotle’s logic and proves that the concept of similarity by essence is logicaly contradictory, as with its help it is impossible to express the idea of perfect equality of Father and Son, nor it is possible to substantiate the dissimilarity of Son and created beings. The articles makes the point that the conciliatory stand as to Homoeousians taken by St. Hilary was not accepted by the church, whereas the position of Marius Victorinus, which coincided with that of St. Athanasius the Great, came to be dominant.
Keywords
