TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
NB: the Latin word "substantia" doesn't exactly translate to the English "substance", as it much better translates to the English "hypostasis" or "essence" in the biblical context.
In respect of the normative hypostasis rendition of substantia, Tertullian may be taken as positing that Jesus [the man] and his Father share one hypostasis, but this is contrary to biblical doctrine, where Heb 1:3 says that the Son is the imprint or facsimile of the hypostasis of God. In this biblical sense, hypostasis conveys the idea of subsistence or being.
Marius Victorinus concedes that there is another Greek word in vogue amongst Trinitarians, which is Gk. ousia (substance proper) and he explores the relevance of this word and its usage in the context of hypostasis and also ploutos (riches) in p.202ff Theological Treatises on the Trinity (Early Church Father 069).
The Father and Son share one one nature (Gk. physis) 2 Pet 1:4, and - at least in heaven - one form (Gk. morphē) Phil 2:6 and many other things (all the properties of God cf. Jn 1:1c).
From what I can gather, ousia is defined by Marius as hypostasis with a form. Thus every hypostasis has a corresponding ousia. The problem (for Tertullian and also for orthodox Trinitarians) then is that is different hypostases do not share the same ousia, but only the same form (morphe) and nature (physis) &etc. In Marius's view it is possible to conceive of the hypostasis of God as either ploutos or ousia provided the referent is God.
Obviously this needs more research, but I don't think Tertullian was ever justified in asserting the Father and the (heavenly) Son as comprising more than one divine form, nature, riches, throne &etc. To confound their subsistences, i.e. their hypostases, as Tertullian does, was philosophically and theologically wrong (just my working hypothesis at present).
I think this is what you may be looking for.
Notice Tertullian's sense of time and change of doctrine in the text below, i.e. his word's
- (novare) "to make new"
- (nove) "new"
- (iam) "now"
- Contrasted with ("retro") "formerly"
Tertullian of Carthage (circa.145-225 A.D./C.E.)
Liber Adversus Praxeam
Translation By Alexander Souter, 1920
Chapter 31.2(A)
"Sic Deus voluit novare sacramentum ut nove unus crederetur per Filium et Spiritum..."
"God wished to make the mystery [Lit., "the sacrament"] new in such a manner that He should be believed to be "ONE" in a new way through the Son and the Spirit..." (Souter)
Chapter 31.2(B)
"...ut coram iam Deus in suis propriis nominibus et personis cognosceretur qui et retro per Filium et Spiritum praedicatus non intellegebatur.”
"...in order that God might now be known openly, in His proper Names and Persons, who in ancient times [Lit , "before" "formerly"] was not plainly understood, though declared through the Son and the Spirit...” (Holmes)
Or:
"...who was not understood even when he was preached by the Son and the Spirit." (Google Translate)
Liber Adversus Praxeam
Translation By Alexander Souter, 1920
Chapter 31.2(A)
"Sic Deus voluit novare sacramentum ut nove unus crederetur per Filium et Spiritum..."
"God wished to make the mystery [Lit., "the sacrament"] new in such a manner that He should be believed to be "ONE" in a new way through the Son and the Spirit..." (Souter)
Chapter 31.2(B)
"...ut coram iam Deus in suis propriis nominibus et personis cognosceretur qui et retro per Filium et Spiritum praedicatus non intellegebatur.”
"...in order that God might now be known openly, in His proper Names and Persons, who in ancient times [Lit , "before" "formerly"] was not plainly understood, though declared through the Son and the Spirit...” (Holmes)
Or:
"...who was not understood even when he was preached by the Son and the Spirit." (Google Translate)