The [ Homoion ]

 GOD is both One and Three: neither as One nor as Three can we speak of likeness in connection with Him; for likeness, as Athan. says, relates not to things but to their qualities, and to speak of likeness between Father, Son, and Spirit, is to imply that instead of being One and the Same, They are three distinct beings. Again, so far as They are three, They do but differ from each other, and are not merely unlike; They are [ali]ke in nothing, viewed as Persons; They have not so much likeness as to admit (in the ordinary sense) of numbering. Those things, strictly speaking, alone are like or equal which are not the same: the Three Divine Persons are not like Each Other, whether viewed as Three or One.

 However, in the difficulty of finding terms, which will serve as a common measure of theological thought for the expression of ideas as to which there is no experimental knowledge or power of conception, and in the necessary use of economical language, both these terms, likeness and equality, have been received in orthodox teaching concerning the Supreme Being. The Athanasian Creed declares that the Three Persons in the Godhead have "æqualis gloria," and are "co-æquales," and S. Athanasius himself in various places uses the word "like," though he condemns its adoption in the mouth of Arians, as being insufficient to exclude error.

 That is, he accepts it as a word of orthodoxy as far as it goes, while he rejects it as sufficient to serve as a symbol and test. Sufficient it is not, even with the strong additions, which the Semi-Arians made, of [ homoios kata panta, homoios kat' ousian ] or [ homoiousios ], and [ aparallaktos eikon ], because what is like, is, by the very force of the term, not equivalent to the same. Thus he says, Syn. § 41 and 53, "Only to say ' Like according to substance,' is very far from signifying ' Of the substance' (vid. art. Eusebius ); thus tin is only like silver, and gilt brass like gold ... No one disputes that like is not predicated of substances, but of habits and of qualities. Therefore in speaking of Like in substance, we mean Like by participation, [ kata metousian ], and this belongs to creatures, for they, by partaking, are made like to God ... not in substance, but in sonship, which we shall partake from Him ... If then ye speak of the Son as being such by participation, then indeed call Him like God in substance and not in nature God, ... but if this be extravagant, He must be, not by participation, but in nature and truth, Son, Light, Wisdom, God; and being so by nature and not by sharing, therefore He is properly called, not Like in substance with the Father, but One in substance," that is, not [ homoiousios ], but [ homoousios ], Consubstantial.

 Yet clear and decided as is his language here, nevertheless, for some reason (probably from a feeling of charity, as judging it best to inculcate first the revealed truth itself as a mode of introducing to the faithful and defending the orthodox symbol, and showing its meaning and its necessity,) he uses the phrases [ homoios kata panta ], and [ homoiousios ] more commonly than [ homoousios ]: this I have noted elsewhere.

 E.g. [ homoios kata panta ]. "He who is in the Father, and like the Father in all things." Orat. i. 40. "Being the Son of God, He must be like Him." Orat. ii. § 17. "The Word is unlike us, and like the Father." Orat. iii. § 20; also i. § 21, 40; ii. § 18, 22. Ep. Ægypt. 17.

 And [ homoios kat' ousian ]. " ... Unless indeed they give up shame, and say that 'Image' is not a token of similar substance, but His name only." Orat. i. § 21. Vid. also Orat. i. 20 init. 26; iii. § 11, 26, 67. Syn. § 38. Alex. Enc. § 2.

 Also Athan. says that the Holy Trias is [ homoia heautei ], instead of using the word [ homoousia ]. Serap. i. 17, 20, 38; also Cyril. Catech. vi. 7.

 In some of the Arian Creeds we have this almost Catholic formula, [ homoion kata panta ], introduced by the bye, marking the presence of what may be called the new Semi-Arian school. Of course it might admit of evasion, but in its fulness it included "substance." At Sirmium Constantius inserted the above (Epiph. Hær. 73, 22) in the Confession which occurs supr. vol. i. p. 72. On this occasion Basil subscribed in this form: "I, Basil, Bishop of Ancyra, believe and assent to what is aforewritten, confessing that the Son is like the Father in all things; and by 'in all things,' not only that He is like in will, but in subsistence, and existence, and being; as divine Scripture teaches, spirit from spirit, life from life, light from light, God from God, true Son from true, Wisdom from the Wise God and Father; and once for all, like the Father in all things, as a son is to a father. And if any one says that He is like in a certain respect, [ kata ti ], as is written afore, he is alien from the Catholic Church, as not confessing the likeness according to divine Scripture." Epiph. Hær. 73, 22. S. Cyril of Jerusalem uses the [ kata panta ] or [ en pasin homoion ], Catech. iv. 7; xi. 4 and 18; and Damasc. F. O. i. 8, p. 135.

 S. Athanasius, in saying that like is not used of substance, implies that the common Arian senses of [ homoion ] are more natural, and therefore the more probable, and therefore also the less admissible by Catholics, if the word came into use. These were, 1. likeness in will and action, as [ symphonia ], of which vid. Orat. iii. 11. 2. likeness to the idea in God's mind in which the Son was created. Cyril. Thesaur. p. 134. 3. likeness to the divine act or energy by which He was created. Basil. contr. Eun. iv. p. 282. Cyril. in Joan. c. 5. iii. p. 304. 4. like according to the Scriptures, which of course was but an evasion. 5. like [ kata panta ], which was, as they understood it, an evasion also.

 According to Athanasius, supr. p. 371, the phrase "unvarying image" was, in truth, self-contradictory, for every image varies from the original because it is an image. Still he himself frequently uses it, as other Fathers, and Orat. i. § 26, uses [ homoios tes ousia ].

 As "of the substance" declared that our Lord was uncreate, so "one in substance" declared that He was equal with the Father; no term derived from "likeness," even "like in substance," answering for this purpose, for such phrases might all be understood of resemblance or representation . vid. Decr. § 23, Hyp. Mel. and Hil. Syn. 89. Things that are like cannot be the same; whereas Athan. contends for the [ tauton tei homoiosei ], the same in likeness, Decr. § 20. "Una substantia religiose prædicabitur, quæ ex nativitatis proprietate et ex naturæ similitudine ita indifferens sit, ut una dicatur." Hil. Syn. § 67.

 By "the Son being equal to the Father," is but meant that He is His "unvarying image;" it does not imply any distinction of substance. "Perfectæ æqualitatis significantiam habet similitudo." Hil. de Syn. 73. But though He is in all things the Father's Image, this implies some exception, for else He would not be an Image, merely like or equal, as I said just now, but the same. "Non est æqualitas in dissimilibus, nec similitudo est intra unum." ibid. 72. Hence He is the Father's image in all things except in being the Father, [ eikon physike kai aparallaktos kata panta homoia toi patri, plen tes agennesias kai tes patrotetos ]. Damasc. de Imag. iii. 18, p. 354. vid. also Basil contr. Eun. ii. 28. Theod. Inconfus. p. 91. Basil. Ep. 38, 7 fin. For the Son is the Image of the Father, not as Father, but as God. The Arians on the other hand, objecting to the phrase "unvarying image," asked why the Son was not in consequence a Father, and the beginning of a [ theogonia ]. vid. Athan. Orat. i. § 14, 21. Eunom. in Cyril. Thes. pp. 22, 23.

 The characteristic of Arianism in all its shapes was the absolute separation of Father from Son. It considered Them as two [ ousiai ], like perhaps, but not really one; this was their version of the phrase [ teleios ek teleiou ]. Semi-Arians here agreed with Arians. When the Semi-Arians came nearest to orthodoxy in words, it was the [ perichoresis ] that was the test whether they fell short in words alone, or in their theological view.