Did the Cappadocians teach one or two substances?

"One substance" means that Father and Son are one single substance. That is known as numerical sameness. But if homoousios in the Nicene Creed is translated as "same substance," it means that Father and Son are two distinct substances that are the same qualitatively. That is known as generic sameness. For a further discussion, see Homoousion in the Nicene Creed . The current question is based on the Wikipedia article on the Cappadocian fathers and on the book - Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004, by Lewis Ayres; a Catholic theologian and Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology at Durham University in the United Kingdom. All LA-references are to his book. My question is, did the Cappadocians teach numeric or generic sameness? This question is important because the Cappadocians are said to have given us the Trinity doctrine: > “In some accounts Basil (of Caesarea - the first and main Cappadocian) is the architect of the pro-Nicene triumph:” > He “develops an account of the distinctions between persons and > essence of such power that the final victory of pro-Nicene theology > under the Emperor Theodosius is inevitable.” (LA, 187) This question is also important because, in the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, the Nicene Creed uses the term homoousios to say that the Father and Son are one single substance. But that would be unlikely if the Cappadocians taught two distinct substances. The Wikipedia article states that the Cappadocians in their writings "made extensive use of the (now orthodox) formula **one substance** (ousia) in three persons (hypostases)". "One substance" implies numeric sameness; one and the same substance. However, if I read what the Cappadocians wrote, as quoted in that article and by Lewis Ayres, it does not sound to me as if they taught numerical sameness: > Firstly, Basil did not base his theology on the Nicene Creed. He began > his theological life as a Homoiousian, meaning 'similar in substance'. > Homoiousians believed, in other words, in two distinct substances: > > - “It has been traditional to speak of Basil as initially a Homoiousian.” (LA, 188) > - He has a “preference for Homoiousian-sounding language.” (LA, 189) > - “Throughout Contra Eunomium 1–2 Basil continues to speak of essential ‘likeness’, and does not yet treat the language of Nicaea as > a fundamental point of departure for his theology.” (LA, 204) Secondly, Basil said that the Son is "identical in substance and power" to the Father. (LA, 207) I assume “identical” here means two distinct substances and powers that are the same: > “In Basil, the Father's sharing of his being involves the generation > of one identical in substance and power.” (LA, 207) Thirdly, one might argue that the views above were Basil's early views and later changed. However: > “Basil himself eventually adopted” the principle that “homoousios > implying the very picture of coordinate realities (equal in rank, > quality, or significance) ... while a robust conception of the Father > as source would protect against unacceptable consequences,” namely, > that there are “three equal principles in the universe.“ (LA, 207) > Again, Basil taught two or three distinct substances. Fourthly, Basil used humans as examples to explain the relationship between the Father and the Son. For example: - “Basil's possible use of an analogy between the three divine ‘persons’ and three human persons.” (LA, 207) - “Basil discusses the individuation of Peter and Paul as analogous to the individuation of Father and Son.” (LA, 207) - Basil assumed “that human persons are particularly appropriate examples” of “the nature of an individual divine person” (LA, 207-8) In other words, the Cappadocians said that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of the same substance but different hypostases **just like humans**. Fifthly, Basil describes Father as Son as if they have two distinct minds: - “At On the Holy Spirit 16.38 Basil … speaks of the Father choosing to work through the Son—not needing to. Similarly, the Son chooses to work through the Spirit, but does not need to.” (LA, 208) If the Cappadians did not teach numerical sameness of substance, then the 325 creed most certainly also did not. My further question is then also, if the Cappadocians taught generic sameness, who gave us the Trinity doctrine in which the Father, Son and Spirit are one single substance? Was that a later development?