81. Your letter on the meaning of ὁμοούσιον and ὁμοιούσιον, which Valens, Ursacius and Germinius demanded should be read at Sirmium, I understand to have been on certain points no less cautious than outspoken. And with regard to ὁμοούσιον and ὁμοιούσιον your proof has left no difficulty untouched. As to the latter, which implies the similarity of essence, our opinions are the same. But in dealing with the ὁμοούσιον, or the one essence, you declared that it ought to be rejected because the use of this word led to the idea that there was a prior substance which two Persons had divided between themselves. I see the flaw in that way of taking it. Any such sense is profane, and must be rejected by the Church’s common decision. The second reason that you added was that our fathers, when Paul of Samosata was pronounced a heretic, also rejected the word ὁμοούσιον, on the ground that by attributing this title to God he had taught that He was single and undifferentiated, and at once Father and to Himself. Wherefore the Church still regards it as most profane to exclude the different personal qualities, and, under the mask of the aforesaid expressions, to revive the error of confounding the Persons and denying the personal distinctions in the Godhead. Thirdly you mentioned this reason for disapproving of the ὁμοούσιον that in the Council of Nicæa our fathers were compelled to adopt the word on account of those who said the Son was a creature: although it ought not to be accepted, because it is not to be found in Scripture. Your saying this causes me some astonishment. For if the word ὁμοούσιον must be repudiated on account of its novelty, I am afraid that the word ὁμοιούσιον which is equally absent in Scripture, is in some danger.

0534A 81. Epistola Sirmium delata de homousii et homoeusii expositione. Homousion ob nativitatem male respuitur.---Epistolam, quam a vobis de homousii et de homoeusii expositione apud Sirmium Valens et Ursacius et Germinius poposcerunt legi, intelligo in quibusdam non minus 509 circumspectam esse, quam liberam. Et ipsa homousii et homoeusii demonstratio nihil reliquit difficultatis. Et quidem de homoeusio, quod est similis essentiae, commune judicium est. De homousio vero, quod est unius essentiae, tractantes, primum idcirco respuendum pronuntiastis, quia per verbi hujus enuntiationem substantia prior intelligeretur, quam duo inter se partiti essent. Intelligo vitium in intelligentia. Et profanus hic sensus est, et communi judicio ab Ecclesia respuendus. 0534B Secundo quoque id addidistis, quod patres nostri, cum Paulus Samosateus haereticus pronuntiatus est, etiam homousion repudiaverint: quia per hanc unius essentiae nuncupationem solitarium atque unicum sibi esse Patrem et Filium praedicabat. Et hoc sane nunc quoque profanissimum Ecclesia recognoscit, Patrem et Filium in his nominum professionibus ad unionis ac singularis solitudinem negata personarum proprietate revocare. Tertio etiam haec causa improbandi homousii commemorata a vobis est: quia in synodo, quae apud Nicaeam fuit, coacti patres nostri propter eos qui creaturam Filium dicebant, nomen homousii indidissent: quod non recipiendum idcirco sit, quia nusquam scriptum reperiretur. Quod a vobis dictum satis miror. Si enim homousion 0534C propter novitatem repudiandum sit; vereor ne et homoeusion periclitetur, quia nusquam scriptum reperiatur.