[ Ousia, on ]

 USIA, substance . The word [ ousia ] in its Greek or Aristotelic sense seems to have stood for an individual substance, numerically one, which is predicable of nothing but itself. Improperly, it stood for a species or genus, vid. Petav. de Trin. iv. 1, § 2, but, as Anastasius observes in many places of his Viæ dux, Christian theology innovated on the sense of Aristotelic terms. vid. c. 1, p. 20; c. 6, p. 96; c. 9, p. 150; c. 17, p. 308. There is some difficulty in determining how it innovated. Anastasius and Theorian, (Hodeg. 6, Legat. ad Arm. pp. 441, 2,) say that it takes [ ousia ] to mean an universal or species, but this is nothing else than the second or improper Greek use. Rather, in speaking of God, it takes the word in a sense of its own, such as we have no example of in creation, of a Being numerically one, subsisting in three persons; so that the word is a predicable, or in one sense universal, without ceasing to be individual; in which consists the mystery of the Holy Trinity. However, heretics, who refused the mystery, objected it to Catholics in its primary philosophical sense; and then, standing simply for an individual substance, when applied to Father and Son, it either implied the parts of a material subject, or it involved no real distinction of persons, i.e. Sabellianism. The former of these two alternatives is implied in Athan.'s text by the "Greek use;" the latter by the same phrase as used by the conforming Semi-Arians, A.D. 363. "Nor, as if any passion were supposed of the ineffable generation, is the term 'substance' taken by the Fathers, etc., nor according to any Greek use," etc. Socr. iii. 25. Hence came such charges against Catholicism on the part of Arians as Alexander protests against, of either Sabellianism or Valentinianism, [ ouk ... hosper Sabellioi kai Balentinoi dokei ], etc. Theod. Hist. i. 3, p. 743. Hence Paul's argument against the Antiochene Council in Athan.'s and in Hilary's report.

 By the substance of God we mean nothing more or less than God Himself. "If God be simple, as He is, it follows that in saying 'God' and naming 'Father,' we name nothing as if about ([ peri ]) Him, but signify His substance, and that alone." Decr. § 22.

 In like manner de Synod. § 34. Also Basil, "The substance is not any one of things which do not attach, but is the very being of God." contr. Eunom. i. 10 fin. "The nature of God is no other than Himself, for He is simple and uncompounded." Cyril Thesaur. p. 59. "When we say the person of the Father, we say nothing else than the substance of the Father." August. de Trin. vii. 6. And so Numenius in Eusebius, "Let no one deride, if I say that the name of the Immaterial is substance and being." Præp. Evang. xi. 10.

 In many passages Athan. seems to make usia synonymous with hypostasis, but this mode of speaking only shows that the two terms had not their respective meanings so definitely settled and so familiarly received as afterwards. Its direct meaning is usually substance, though indirectly it came to imply subsistence. He speaks of that Divine Essence which, though also the Almighty Father's, is as simply and entirely the Word's as if it were only His. Nay, even when the Substance of the Father is spoken of in a sort of contrast to that of the Son, as in the phrase [ ousia ex ousias ], (e.g. "His substance is the offspring of the Father's substance," Syn. § 48, and [ ex ousias ousiodes kai enousios ], Orat. iv. 1,) harsh as such expressions are, it is not accurate to say that [ ousia ] is used for subsistence or person, or that two [ ousiai ] are spoken of (vid. art. [ physis ]), except, that is, by Arians, as Eusebius (art. Eusebius ). We find [ physis tou logou ], Orat. i. § 51 init., meaning His usia without including the idea of His Person. vid. art. [ eidos ].

 Other passages may be brought, in which usia and hypostasis seem to be synonymous, as Orat. iii. § 65. "The Apostle proclaims the Son to be the very impress, not of the Father's will, but of His usia, saying, 'the impress of His hypostasis ;' and if the Father's usia and hypostasis is not from will, it is very plain neither is from will what belongs to the Father's hypostasis ." And so Orat. iv. § 1: "As there is one Origin, and therefore one God, so one is that substance and subsistence which indeed and truly and really exists." And "The Prophet has long since ascribed the Father's hypostasis to Him." Orat. iv. § 33. And [ he hypostasis ousia esti, kai ouden allo semainomenon echei e auto to on ... he gar hypostasis kai he ousia hyparxis esti ]. ad Afros, 4.

 For the meaning in the early Fathers of [ ousia, hypostasis, physis ], and [ eidos ], vid. the author's "Theological Tracts," art. [ Mia physis ].