NICEA'S Ltn., ( Con-Substantia ) WAS ACCUSED OF ORIGINATING WITH "...MONTANUS..." - THE FALSE PROPHET - ACCORDING TO SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS & SOZOMEN
LATIN
TEXT: “...Etenim qui consubstantialis vocem aversabantur,
Sabellii ac Montani dogma ab iis qui vocem illam probabant, induci
arbitrabantur ; atque ideirco impios illos vocabant, utpote qui Filii
Dei existentiam tollerent. Contra vero illi qui consubstantialis
vocem tuebantur, cum multorum deorum cultum adversarios introducere
censerent, eos tanquam superstitionem gentilium invehentes
aversabantur...” - (Page 113-114, Section 57-58, CAP. XXIII.
Quomodo Eusebius Nicodediensis et Theognis Nicaenus, resumpta fiducia
Nicaenam fidem subvertere conati sunt, structis Athanasio insidiis.
SOCRATIS SCHOLATICI, HERMIAE SOZOMENI – HISTORIA ECCLESIASTICA,
M.P.G.)
SOCRATES
SCHOLASTICUS (circa. 380-Unknown C.E.):
“...FOR THOSE WHO WERE ADVERSE TO THE TERM
[Ltn., ( con-substantialis
)] “OF THE SAME-SUBSTANCE,” CONSIDERED THOSE WHO APPROVED, TO BE
LEADING IN [Ltn., ( dogma
)] THE DOGMA OF SABELLIUS - AND - ( MONTANUS ), - accounting and calling them
impious,{*} for
the reason that [they were] [Ltn., ( tollerent
)] elevating the existence of the Son of God. On the other side, however, those who defended the term [Ltn.,
( con-substantialis
)] “of the same-substance,” were judging their enimies to be [and] with bringing in the worship of
many gods, as if the ones just
mentioned were bringing in the credulous-superstition [Ltn., (
Gentilium )] of the
Gentiles, these, they were detesting...” -
(Book 1, Chapter 23:57-58; “THE ECCLESIASTICAL
HISTORY OF SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS,” Translated by Matt13weedhacker
28/02/2012-Revised-14/03/12.)
[FOOTNOTE
*]: GREEK TEXT ADDS: “...And through this blasphemed
calling-out/speaking-out-that...”
SALMINIUS
HERMIAS SOZOMEN (circa. Unknown-448 C.E.): “...At this period,
the bishops had another tumultuous dispute among themselves,
CONCERNING THE PRECISE MEANING OF THE TERM:
“CON-SUBSTANTIAL.”
Some thought that this term could not be admitted without blasphemy ;
that it implied the non-existence of the Son of God ; AND
THAT IT INVOLVED THE
ERROR OF - ( MONTANUS ) - AND
SABELLIUS. Those, on the other hand, who defended the term,
regarded their opponents as Greeks (or pagans), and considered their
sentiments led to polytheism...” - (Page 71, Chapter 28,
“Ecclesiastical History,” By Sozomen Kessinger Publishings Legacy
Reprint Series 2004.)
