TEXT

3

ON THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA (DE DECRETIS)

Introduction

Athanasius's treatise in defense of the Council of Nicaea was written sometime in the 350s. A seeming reference to impending violence against Athanasius and his supporters (“in a little while, they will turn to outrage and after that they will threaten the cohort and the captain” (cf. Jn 18:12)) has led some scholars to place it ca. 351, when the anti-Nicene emperor Constantius was redirecting his attention to Church affairs after having been preoccupied with the Persian threat and an insurrection by the general Magnentius. Conversely, it has been argued that it is a mere rhetorical trope to depict “the heretics” as threatening violence and that the overall preoccupation of the treatise, which is to defend the use of ousia-language, is intelligible only in light of the explicit rejection of ousialanguage in the so-called “Second Formula of the Synod of Sirmium” in 357. Thus, the treatise would have been composed ca. 357–359. While it is not possible to adjudicate the question with absolute certainty, the earlier dating seems more plausible. Certainly, the dissatisfaction with Nicene ousia-language did not erupt ex nihilo at the sparsely attended Synod of Sirmium in 357, though that event undoubtedly represented a climactic crystallization of a growing momentum. Indeed, as Athanasius himself goes on to show, it was only with reluctance that the Nicene fathers themselves adopted such terminology. On the other hand, while the violence of the “Arians” is a consistent trope in Athanasius's polemic, there is a marked difference in tone between his allegation here of impending violence and his reporting of the misdeeds of his opponents once he is again sent away into exile in the winter of 356.

The occasion of the letter is a dispute between some Nicene sympathizers and “Eusebians,” in which the latter had criticized Nicaea's use of unscriptural terms in designating the relation of the Son to the Father as “from the essence” and “homoousios. ”

Characteristically, Athanasius quickly turns the tables, pointing out that it is the Arians who need to be on the defensive when it comes to the discussion of “such a great and ecumenical council” (4) at which they were condemned. Once again, his strategy of conflating all anti-Nicene factions as “Arians” gives him an opportunity to accuse his opponents of inconsistency. Eusebius of Caesarea, one of those who had sympathized with Arius's anti-Nicene views, had nevertheless subscribed to the Nicene formula. Why were these present “Arians” then turning away from the doctrines of “those who formerly taught them” (4)? Athanasius distinguishes between “those Arians” of Nicaea and “these” contemporary Arians only to underscore the assertion that, despite all variation and inconsistency, they are both the same in ultimately asserting that “the Son is not true God” (6). Having located this question as the fixed and inescapable center of the theological debate, he engages his opponents by querying their interpretation of the uniqueness of the Son. Asterius figures prominently as the source of various construals of the precedence of the Son that do not amount to a sharing in the divine nature. Athanasius counters each of these interpretations in turn (6– 10) before turning to a defense of Nicene doctrine. In contrast to the varying and self-contradictory positions of the anti-Nicene factions, Athanasius presents the Council of Nicaea as one that upholds the consistent teaching of both Scripture and tradition. Because the being of the uncreated God cannot be inferred from created realities, human beings must rely on scriptural symbols (paradeigmata) for indications of the relation of the Son to the Father (12). The interplay of these symbols indicates that the Son is not a creature and that his being is correlative to the Father's being (12–17). It was this scriptural truth that the Nicene Council wished to teach and safeguard and it was only the obstinacy and deceitfulness of the “Arians” that forced the Nicene fathers to use non-scriptural words in order to maintain the meaning of Scripture (18–23). The ousia-language of Nicaea, therefore, must be understood in light of its scriptural provenance and, apophatically, in keeping with the immaterial and transcendent reality to which it signifies (24). Athanasius then attempts to trace a trajectory of tradition that includes Theognostus, Dionysius of Alexandria, and his Roman namesake, as well as Origen, in support of Nicene teaching (25–27). He concludes that it is the anti- Nicene designation of God as “unoriginated” (agenetos) that is unscriptural, both according to its letter and its sense (28–31). Whereas the designation of God as “unoriginated” merely contrasts the uncreated God with creatures, the title of “homoousios” is ultimately a way of signifying that the relation of Father and Son is enfolded within the divine being, while humanity is then enfolded within that relation through the Incarnation of the Word and the Spirit's abiding in humanity (31).

The text translated here is that of the critical edition of AW II/I.

Text

1. You have done well in making known to me the discussion which you had with the supporters of Arius, in which were involved some of the party of Eusebius and many of the brothers who adhere to the teachings of the Church. I applauded your Christ-loving vigilance, which excellently refuted the impiety of the heresy. On the other hand, I was astounded at their shamelessness, in that, despite the fact that the Arian arguments have been shown to be corrupt and futile, and even after they have been condemned by all and convicted of every perversity, they still complain like the Jews, saying: “Why did those gathered at Nicaea put forth these unscrip-tural terms: ‘from the essence’ (ek tēs ousias) and ‘homoousios'?” But you, as a learned and articulate man, convicted them of talking nonsense, despite their pretences. Nevertheless, in the invention of these pretences of theirs, they are not acting inconsistently with their own evil minds. For they are as variable and unstable in their minds as chameleons in their colors; when exposed, they blush; when questioned, they are at a loss; but finally, putting aside all shame, they set about devising their pretexts. And if someone confronts them about these things, they exert themselves to invent things that have no standing in reality, and as the Scriptures say, they “plot about vain things” (Ps 2:1), only to remain in their impiety.

Such efforts on their part are nothing but an obvious indication of their irrationality, which, as I have said before, is an imitation of Jewish malice. For the latter also, when convicted by the truth, and unable to face it, devised pretexts, saying: “What sign do you do, that we may see and believe in you? What work do you perform?” (Jn 6:30), when in fact there were so many signs that even they said, “What should we do? For this man works many signs?” (Jn 11:47). Indeed, the dead were raised, the lame walked, the blind regained their sight, lepers were cleansed, water became wine, and five thou sand were filled from five loaves of bread. Everyone marveled and worshipped the Lord, confessing that the prophecies were fulfilled in him, and that he was God, the Son of God. Only the Pharisees, despite the appearance of signs that shone brighter than the sun, still grumbled in their ignorance, saying: “Why do you, a human being, make yourself to be God?” (Jn 10:33). They were senseless and truly blind in their understanding. What they should have said, on the contrary, is: “Why did you, being God, become a human being?” For his works showed that he is God, so that they might worship the goodness of the Father, and marvel at his dispensation (economian) for our sake. But they did not say this, nor did they wish to see what was happening. Or, rather, they did see (for one could not help but see these things). But then they merely changed course and began to grumble again: “Why do you heal the paralytic on the Sabbath, and on the Sabbath make the one who was blind from birth to see again?” (cf. Jn 5:16, 9: 1ff.). This, again, was a pretence and mere grumbling. For the Lord was healing every infirmity and disease on the other days also, but they murmured in their usual manner, preferring to have the suspicion of ungodliness imputed to them, by calling him Beelzebub (cf. Mk 3:22), rather than to recant their own wickedness. Despite the Savior manifesting his own divinity many times in many ways and preaching the Father to all, they, like those who kick against the goad, contradicted him with silly talk, only so that they may find a pretext to separate themselves from the truth, as the divine proverb says.

2. Therefore, as the Jews who at that time did such wicked things and denied the Lord were fittingly dispossessed of the laws and of the promise made to their fathers, so the Arians who are now Judaizing seem to me to be in the same position as that of Caiaphas and the Pharisees of that time. Seeing that their heresy is bereft of good sense, they invent pretexts: “Why is this written and not that?” But do not be amazed if they now contrive such machinations, for in a little while, they will turn to outrage and after that they will threaten the cohort and the captain (cf. Jn 18:12); their evil thinking seems to be sustained by such things. Having denied the Word and Reason of God, it is only fitting that they are utterly bereft of reason, and being cognizant of this, I would not have ventured answers to their questions. But, since you, in your benevolence, have asked to know what transpired at the synod, I have not delayed, but rather immediately set forth what went on then, showing briefly the extent to which the Arian heresy is bereft of a pious disposition and how they merely invent pretexts.

See for yourself, beloved, if it is not so. If they are confident about the evil things that they invented when the devil planted this perversity within them (Mt 13:25), let them defend themselves against the accusations brought against them when they were proved to be heretics, and only then should they question, if they can, the things that were defined in opposition to them. For no one who is convicted of murder or adultery has an opportunity after the trial to censure the judge's pronouncement and ask him why he spoke in this way and not that. Indeed, to do so would not result in the acquittal of the one who is judged, but rather would aggravate the charge brought against him, on account of his rashness and presumption. Therefore, let them prove that their way of thinking is pious. For they were denounced and convicted, and had no complaints until then, and it is just that those who are under accusation should not venture beyond defending themselves. Or, if their conscience is besmirched and they see themselves to be impious, let them not censure what they do not understand, lest they bring upon themselves both the charge of impiety and the reproof of ignorance. Rather, let them enquire into the matter as those who love to learn, so that, coming to know things which they had not known previously, they may cleanse their impious ears with the stream of truth and the doctrines of piety.

3. This is what happened at the Council of Nicaea to the party of Eusebius: While the impious ones were eager for quarrel and attempted to fight against God, saying things that were most impious, the bishops assembled there (of whom there were three hundred, more or less) gently and kindly asked them to provide an explanation and show what pious foundations there are for the things they said. But no sooner did they begin speaking than they were condemned and began to fight among themselves. With the realization that their heresy was quite untenable, they fell dumb and remained so, and thus confessed through silence the shame which befell their vacuous opinions. Then the bishops, having annulled the phrases invented by them, put forth against them the sound and ecclesiastical faith, and when all subscribed to it, the party of Eusebius also subscribed to it in those same words which they now censure. I speak of “from the essence” (ek tēs ousias) and “one in essence” (homoousios) and that the Son of God is not a creature nor work nor one of the things that come to be, but that the Word is offspring from the essence of the Father (gennēma tēs ousias tou patros).

And the strange thing is that Eusebius, from Caesarea of Palestine, having subscribed afterwards to what he had denied the day before, wrote to his own church, saying that this is the faith of the Church and the tradition of the fathers. Thus he showed clearly to all that they had previously been mistaken and were foolishly contending against the truth. Although he was embarrassed at the time to use these terms and wanted to excuse himself to his church, nevertheless, since he did not deny in his letter the “one in essence” and the “from the essence,” he clearly intends to imply them. Thus he involved himself in a conundrum. For, by way of defending himself, he proceeded to denounce the Arians for having written that the Son was not before his coming to be and thus denying him existence before the coming in the flesh. Acacius also knows this, even if he is now behaving hypocritically and denying the truth because he is afraid of the present circumstances. Therefore, I have appended Eusebius's letter at the end, so that you may know the presumption shown against their own teachers by the enemies of Christ, and especially Acacius.

4. Are they not acting wrongfully merely by wishing to contradict such a great and ecumenical synod? Are they not transgressing in presumptuously setting themselves against the definitions that were well crafted against the Arian heresy, and that were witnessed to even by those who formerly had taught them impiety? Even if those who belong to the party of Eusebius did change after they had subscribed to these definitions, and like dogs turned back to their own vomit of impiety (2 Pet 2:22), are not these present dissenters even more worthy of contempt in that they sacrifice the freedom of their own souls and want to adopt as their leaders in heresy those who are, as James said, “duplicitous people, unstable in all their ways” (Jas 1:8), not having one mind but turning now this way and now that, now speaking in approval but soon after censuring what they have said, then again approving what they have just censured? But, as the Shepherd has said, this is the offspring of the devil, and the mark of peddlers of cheap wares, rather than teachers. For true teaching is what the fathers have handed down, and truly, this is the mark of teachers: to confess the same things among each other and not to disagree among themselves or with their own fathers. Those who are not so disposed are not to be called true teachers but knaves. Thus, the Greeks, who do not confess the same things but disagree among themselves, do not have the true teaching. But the saints, who are truly heralds of the truth, agree with each other and do not differ among themselves. Even though they existed at different times, they all traveled along the same path, being prophets of the one God, and preaching harmoniously the same Word.

5. Thus Abraham had adhered to what Moses taught. And what Abraham adhered to was acknowledged also by Noah and Enoch, who distinguished the clean from the unclean and became well-pleasing to God. Abel also gave witness in the same way, having knowledge of the things which he had learned from Adam, who was himself taught by the Lord who said, when he came at the consummation of the ages for the banishment of sin, “I do not give to you a new commandment, but an old commandment which you have heard from the beginning” (cf. 1 Jn 2:7). Therefore also Paul, the blessed apostle who learned from the Lord, in setting forth matters that pertain to the Church did not wish deacons, much less bishops, to be double minded (1 Tim 3:8). In chastising the Galatians, he made an absolute declaration, saying: “If anyone preaches to you a gospel other than what you have received, let him be anathema, as I have said before and say again. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than what you have received, let him be anathema” (Gal 1:8– 9).

Therefore, since the apostle has spoken thus, let them either anathematize the party of Eusebius who have changed and now say things that are different from those to which they have subscribed; or, if they acknowledge that they had subscribed well, let them not complain against so great a council. But if they do neither one nor the other, then clearly they also are carried about by every wind and wave (cf. Eph 4:14), and dragged around by the minds of others, not their own. In that case, neither are they now trustworthy in their allegations. But let them then stop casting blame on what they don't understand. Or else, not knowing how to discriminate, they will simply “call evil good and good evil, and consider the bitter to be sweet, and the sweet bitter” (Isa 5:20). In fact, they wish to grant authority to what has been judged to be bad and rejected, while they violently slander what was well defined. There should have been no need for us still to defend these things that were defined nor to make a response to their foolish pretexts, nor for them to be still eager for quarrel. But they should rather adhere to what was subscribed to by the leaders of their heresy, seeing that, whereas the later reversal of the party of Eusebius was suspicious and malevolent, the fact that they had subscribed after being able to give at least a brief defense of themselves is proof that the Arian heresy is truly impious. For they would not have subscribed earlier, unless they had condemned the heresy; and they would not have condemned it if not for their being ashamed and confounded on all sides. Thus their reversal is evidence of their querulous eagerness for impiety. Therefore these also, as I have said, should be silent. But since they are impelled toward what is shameful and perhaps consider that they are better able than the others to maintain their grip on this diabolical impiety and even though I have already responded with a thorough refutation against them in the first letter that I wrote to you, nevertheless let us now put them to the test as we then did those others, examining each of their statements. For it will be shown no less now as then that their heresy is unwholesome and demonic.

6. They speak, in fact, in just the same way that those others used to think and dared to speak: “Not always Father, not always Son. The Son was not before his generation but he also came to be from non-being. Therefore God has not always been Father of the Son. But when the Son came to be and was created, then it was that God was called his Father. For the Word is a creature and a work and foreign and unlike (anomios) in essence to the Father. Neither is the Son by nature the true Word of the Father nor his unique and true Wisdom, but he is a creature and one of the things made, and is called Word and Wisdom only improperly, for just like all things, he also came to be by the Word which is in God. Therefore, the Son is not true God.”

I wish to ask them first of all, in order that they may at least be able to understand the things that they are saying: What is a son and what does this name signify? For the divine Scriptures signify to us a double sense pertaining to that name. One is that of which Moses speaks in the law: “If you attend to the voice of the Lord your God, to guard all his commandments, all that I have commanded to you today, to do what is good and pleasing before the Lord your God, then you are sons of the Lord our God” (Deut 13:19, 14:1). Likewise, John says in the gospel: “To as many as receive him, he gives power to become sons of God” (Jn 1:12). The other sense is that according to which Isaac is the son of Abraham, and Jacob the son of Isaac, and the patriarchs the sons of Jacob. So according to which of these senses do they consider the Son of God to be, when they go about mythologizing in this way about him? Indeed, I know well that they will proceed into the same impiety together with those who belong to Eusebius.

For if it is according to the first sense, in which those gain the grace of the name through the improvement of their conduct and thus receive power to become sons of God (for this is what the others have said), then it would appear that he does not differ from us at all; and neither would he be only-begotten, since he also would have come into possession of the name of Son by virtue. For even if, as they say, it was foreknown that he would become such, and thus received at once with his coming into being the name and the grace of the name, he would still in no way differ from those who receive the name consequent to their actions, insofar as he also is confessed to be son in that way. For Adam also received grace at once with his coming into being and he was placed in paradise. Yet he was in no way different from Enoch who was transported there some time after his birth, after pleasing God. Nor did he differ from the apostle who also, consequent to his actions, was taken up into paradise (cf. 2 Cor 12:4), nor from the thief who, through his confession, received the promise that he would immediately be in paradise (cf. Lk 23:43).

7. But when they are pressured on these points, perhaps they will respond in the same way that has often brought shame upon them: “In this way we consider the Son to have precedence over the others and he is said to be only-begotten for this reason: that he alone came to be by God alone, whereas all the others were created by God through the Son.” Now who suggested to you this foolish new idea that prompts you to say that “the Father alone by himself crafted the Son alone, but all the others came to be through the Son, as through a subsidiary assistant”? If it is because of the labor involved that God was adequate to the task of crafting only the Son but not the others, it is indeed impious to say such things, especially for those who have heard Isaiah say: “The eternal God, the God who fashioned the ends of the earth, does not hunger nor grow weary, and his understanding is beyond scrutiny” (Isa 40:28). Rather, he is the one who gives strength to the hungry and, through his own Word, grants rest to those who toil. But if he disdained to craft by himself those who would be after the Son, as something beneath him, this also is an impious proposition. For there is no arrogance in God, who comes down into Egypt with Jacob; and corrects Abimelech for Abraham's sake, because of Sarah (cf. Gen 20); who speaks face to face with the man Moses (Ex 33:11); who comes down to Mount Sinai (cf. Ex 19:18); and wages war for the people against Amalech, by a secret grace (cf. Ex. 17).

What you say is false. “For he made us and not we ourselves” (Ps 100:3). He is the one who, through his own Word, has made all things, both the small and the great, and there can be no division among creation, such that we can say that this belongs to the Father and that belongs to the Son, but creation is of the one God, who uses his own Word as a hand and works all things in him. God himself showed this when he said, “My hand has made all things” (Isa 66:2); and Paul learned it and taught it: “One God, from whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things” (1 Cor 8:6). Therefore it is he who now and always speaks to the sun and it rises, but when he commands the clouds it rains upon a portion of the earth and the earth dries up where it does not rain. He orders the earth to give forth its fruits, and he forms Jeremiah in the womb (cf. Jer 1:5). But if he does these things now, then there is no doubt that in the beginning he did not disdain to make all things through the Word. For these things are simply parts of the whole.

8. But if it is because the rest of the creatures were not able to withstand the working of the Unoriginate's immediate hand, and it is only the Son who came to be by God alone whereas the others came to be through the Son, as through an assistant and helper— for Asterius the Sacrificer has written this and Arius transcribed it and gave it to his own and henceforth these deranged people use this phrase like a broken reed without knowing that it is rotten to the core—if, indeed, things that come to be are incapable of enduring the hand of God, and yet by your own account the Son is one of those things that have come to be, how is it that he himself was enabled to come to be by God alone? Moreover, if things that come to be need a mediator in order that they may come into being, and yet, according to you, the Son also has come to be, then there needs to have been a mediator before him, in order for him to be created. Yet again, since that mediator would itself be a creature, it follows that it would have needed yet another mediator for its own constitution. And if you conceive of another mediator, you would have to preconceive yet another mediator for it, until you fall into infinity. So there would always be need of a mediator and creation would not be able to be constituted, since, as you say, none of what comes to be is able to withstand the immediate hand of the Unoriginate.

But if you perceive the absurdity of this and then try to say that although the Son was a creature he was made capable of coming into being through the Unoriginate, then it necessarily follows that all the other things that have come into being were also capable of being made by the Unoriginate himself. For, according to you, he is a creature just like all those others are. And thus, according to your impious and foolish conception, the coming into being of the Word would be ultimately pointless since God is adequate for making all things by himself, while things that come to be are capable of enduring the immediate hand of God.

Since this is such mindless madness, let us see if indeed this piece of sophistical speaking by these impious ones is not manifestly more irrational than all their others. Adam alone came to be by God alone, through the Word. Yet, for all that, no one would say that Adam has any precedence over all other people or that he was different from those after him, even if he alone was made and fashioned by God alone while all of us came to be from Adam and were constituted through the succession of the species. This makes no difference, so long as he was fashioned from the earth, and at first did not exist but later came to be.

9. But even if one grants to the first-made (Protoplastos) a precedence because of his being found worthy of the hand of God, such a precedence would be referred to him in respect of honor not of nature. For he came to be from the earth, just like all the rest; and the same hand that fashioned Adam then now and always fashions also those after him and constitutes them in existence. As I said before, God himself said the same thing to Jeremiah: “Before I fashioned you in the womb, I knew you” (Jer 1:5); and of everything he says, “My hand has made all these things” (Isa 66:2). And again, through Isaiah, he says, “Thus says the Lord your Redeemer, who fashioned you in the womb. I am the Lord who commands all things, who alone stretched out the heaven and spread out the earth” (Isa 44:24). David, knowing this, sang in the psalm: “Your hands made me and fashioned me” (Ps 119:73). And the one who says in Isaiah, “Thus says the Lord who has fashioned me in the womb a servant to him” (Isa 49:5), means the same thing. Therefore he does not differ from us at all, according to nature, even if he precedes us in time, since we are all constituted and created by the same hand. So if it is in this way that you conceive of the Son of God, O Arians— that he subsists and comes to be in this way—he would not differ at all with respect to nature from the others, according to you, insofar as he also was not and came to be, and the grace of the name was co-created for him because of his virtue. For, according to what you say, he also is one of those of whom the Spirit says in the psalms, “He spoke and they came to be. He commanded and they were created” (Ps 33:9). But then, through whom did God command, in order for him to be created? For there must be a Word, by whom God commands and in whom the works are created. But you have no one to present in that role, apart from the Word which you deny, unless you again invent some other notion.

“Oh, yes,” they will say, “we have found another.” Once I heard the followers of Eusebius saying this: “We hold that it is for this reason that the Son of God has precedence over the others and is said to be only-begotten, in that he alone participates the Father, whereas all the others participate the Son.” Thus have they labored in transforming and altering their words like colors. All the same, they will be exposed to be like those who are bound to the earth (cf. Jn 3:31) and devoid of reason, wallowing in the mud of their own ideas (cf. 2 Pet 2:22).

10. He is the Son of God. Now, if we were called “sons of the Son,” then their fabrication would be plausible. But if we also are called sons of God, of whom he too is Son, then clearly we too participate the Father who says, “sons I have begotten and exalted” (Isa 1:2). For if we did not participate him, he would not have said, “I have begotten” (ibid.). But if it is he himself who begot us, then no other but he is our Father. And, yet again, it makes no difference if the Son possesses something more and has come into being first, while we have come into being later and are lesser, so long as we all participate and are called sons of the same Father. For “greater” and “lesser” do not indicate different natures but are referred to each one depending on the practice of virtue. So one is placed over ten cities and another over five (cf. Lk 19:17, 19) and some are seated “on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Mt 19:28); while others hear, “Come, blessed of my Father” (Mt 25:34), and “Well done, good and faithful servants” (Mt 25:23).

But since they think in this way, it is consistent for them to fantasize that God is not always father of such a son, and that such a son does not always exist himself, but came into being as a creature from non-being, and did not exist before he was begotten. But such a one is other than the true Son of God. But since their perseverance in saying such things incurs defilement—it is in fact the attitude of the Sadduccees and the Samasotene—it only remains to say that the Son of God is son in the other sense, in which Isaac is the son of Abraham. It is natural knowledge, after all, that a son is one who is begotten from someone by nature and not acquired from outside the nature, and such is the signification of the name of “son.”

“Well, then, is the generation of the Son one of human passibility?” (For, like their predecessors, they also will likewise wish to ignorantly contradict.) In no way! For God is not like a human being, nor are human beings like God. Human beings are created from matter and this passable essence, while God is immaterial and incorporeal. If indeed the same language is sometimes applied to both God and human beings in the divine Scriptures, nevertheless those who are perspicacious will be attentive in their reading, as Paul has counseled (1 Tim 4: 13), and thus distinguish and discern what is written according to the nature of each of the things signified. In this way, they will not confuse the sense by understanding the things of God humanly or by considering human things as referring to God. That would be to mix wine with water (cf. Isa 1:22) and to throw alien fire on the altar along with the divine fire (cf. Lev 10:1).

11. Indeed God creates and yet it is said of human beings also that they create. And whereas God is being, human beings are also said to be, having received being from God. Is it the case, therefore, that God creates as do human beings? Or that God's being is like that of humans? Never! We receive the terms referring to God in one way, and we conceive of those that refer to human beings in another. For God creates, without need of anything, by calling into being what is not (cf. Rom 4:17) while humans first pray and then fashion the subsisting matter, receiving the knowledge of making from the God who has created all things through his own (idios) Word. Moreover, humans, who are of themselves incapable of being, exist in place and are encompassed and sustained in the Word of God, while God is self-existent, containing all things and being contained by none, and is in all things according to his own goodness and power, but outside all things according to his own nature. Just as the mode by which human beings create is not that by which God creates, neither do human beings exist as God exists. Therefore, the generation of human beings is other than that of the Son from the Father. For the offspring of human beings are in a way parts of those who generate them, since the nature of their bodies is not simple but composed of parts and variable. Moreover, human beings exhaust themselves in the act of generating and are replenished again by ingesting food and so men become fathers of many children over time. But God, being without parts, is Father of the Son without partition or passibility, for neither outflow nor influx pertain to the Incorporeal as they do to human beings. Since his nature is simple, he is Father of the one and only Son.

Because of this, he is only-begotten and is alone in the bosom of the Father (cf. Jn 1:18), and the Father shows that he alone is from himself, saying: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am pleased” (Mt 3:17). He is Word of the Father, in whom the impassibility and indivisibility of the Father can be contemplated. Indeed, not even the word of human beings is begotten by passibility and partition, much less that of God. Therefore he is seated at the right hand of the Father as Word, for where the Father is, there also is his Word. But we stand in order to be judged by him, as beings that are made. And, while he is worshipped on account of his being Son of the Father who is worshipped, we worship and confess him to be Lord and God, since we are creatures and other than he is.

12. Considering all these things, let the one who wishes among them look further into the matter and let there be someone to shame them by asking if it is fitting to say of the one who is from God, as his own (idion) offspring, that he is from nothing. Or, once the matter has been so much as merely considered, is there any sense (logon) at all in the notion that what is from God has been added to him, so that one would dare to say that the Son is not always? For on this point, once again, the generation of the Son exceeds and transcends human conceptions. We become fathers of our own children in time because we ourselves later come into being after formerly not being, but God, who exists forever, is forever Father of the Son.

We infer knowledge regarding the origination of particular things by reference to similar things. But since “no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son reveals Him” (Mt 11:27), the sacred writers to whom the Son was revealed have given to us a certain image (eikona) derived from visible things, saying, “who is the radiance of his glory and the expression of his being” (Heb 1:3), and again, “for with you is the fountain of life and in your light we shall see light” (Ps 35:10). And when the Word rebukes Israel, he says, “You have abandoned the fountain of Wisdom” (Bar 3:12). This is the fountain which says, “You have abandoned me, the fountain of living water” (Jer 2:13). And while the symbol (paradeigma) bears only a slight and very dim resemblance compared to what we yearn for, it is possible nevertheless to conceive from it something greater than human nature and to refrain from considering the generation of the Son to be equal to our own. For who can even conceive that there was once no radiance of light, so as to dare to say that the Son is not always, or that the Son was not before he was begotten? Or who can unloose the radiance from the sun or conceive the fountain as once bereft of life, so as to insanely say of the one who says “I am the life” (Jn 14:6) that “the Son is from non-being,” or to say of the one who says, “the one who has seen me has seen the Father” (Jn 14:9), that he is alien to the Father's essence? The sacred writers have given such symbols (paradeigmata) because they want us to form our understanding in accordance with them. So it is absurd and very impious that, while Scripture has these images (eikonas), we should conceive of the Lord by other ones that are neither in Scripture nor have any pious rationale.

13. Therefore, let them say where they learned these things or from whom was it handed down to them so that they should begin to conceive such things about the Savior. They will say, “We have read in the Proverbs: ‘The Lord has created me as a beginning of his ways, for his works’ (Prov 8:22).” The followers of Eusebius also used to insist on saying this, while you have written to me showing that these ones also, although they have been overcome and refuted by many demonstrations, have gone about all the same throwing this phrase around every which way, saying that the Son is one of the creatures and counting him among the things which have come to be. But it seems to me that they have failed to properly understand this passage too. For it has a pious and very correct sense, which if they had known, they would not have blasphemed the Lord of glory (cf. 1 Cor 2:8).

Let them compare their statements above with this passage and they will see that there is a great difference between them. Who is there of right mind who will not see at once that the things which are created and made are external to the Maker, whereas our discourse has shown already that the Son exists not externally but from the Father who begets him? For it is the case with a human being also, that he creates a house but begets a son, and there is no one who would turn this around and say that the house and the ship are begotten by the one who makes them, while the son is made and created by him, nor that the house is an image of its creator while the son is unlike his begetter. Rather, one will agree that the son is image (eikona) of the Father, while the house is a work of art, unless one is sick in mind and has come to the point of losing one's senses. Certainly the divine Scriptures know better than anyone the nature of each thing. Regarding creatures, Scripture says, through Moses: “In the beginning God made heaven and earth” (Gen 1:1). But, regarding the Son, it shows no other but the Father himself saying, “From the womb before the morning star, I have begotten you” (Ps 109:3). And again: “You are my son, Today I have begotten you” (Ps 2: 7). The Lord himself says about himself in the Proverbs: “Before all hills he begets me” (Prov 8:25). Regarding things which have come to be and were created, John says, “All things came to be through him” (Jn 1:3). But when he preaches about the Lord, he says: “The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known” (Jn 1:18). Therefore: if Son, then not a creature; if a creature, then not Son. For great is the difference between these. The same one cannot be both creature and Son, as if his being can be considered to be both from God and from outside (exōthen) God.

14. “So is this passage simply pointless?” This is what they keep buzzing all around us, like a swarm of mosquitoes. Not at all; it is not pointless but is rather quite to the point. He is indeed said to be created also, but that is when he became a human being; for this is what properly belongs to (idion) being human. Such a meaning will be found to be well laid out in the sayings of the Scriptures by one who undertakes the reading of them not as if it were some subsidiary matter, but rather searches out the time and the persons and the purpose of what is written, and on this basis judges and contemplates what is read. He will thus discover and come to knowledge of the time of this text: that, forever being Lord, he later, at the completion of the ages, became human; and, being Son of God, he became also the son of Man. Such a reader will also perceive the purpose: that, wishing to nullify our death, he took to himself a body from the Virgin Mary so that, having offered this as a sacrifice (thusian) for all to the Father, “he might set free us all who, through fear of death, had been subject to slavery our whole life long” (Heb 2:15). As to the person (prosōpon), it is that of the Savior: but it is said when he takes a body and then says, “The Lord created me as a beginning of his ways for his works” (Prov 8:22). For just as it well befits the Son of God to be eternal and to be in the bosom of the Father, so also, upon becoming human, it is fitting for him to say, “The Lord created me.” Then it was that this was said of him.

He also hungered and was thirsty, and enquired where Lazarus was laid, and suffered and rose. And just as when we hear that he is Lord and God and true light, we perceive him as being from the Father, so it is right that when we hear “created” and “servant” and “suffered” not to refer these to the divinity, for they are out of place there, but rather to measure these statements in reference to the flesh which he bore for us. For these things properly belong (idia) to the flesh and the flesh is not another's but is the Word's. If someone wishes to learn the benefit that results from this, he will discover that also: “For the Word became flesh” (Jn 1:14) in order that he may offer it for the sake of all and so that we, receiving from his Spirit, may be enabled to be divinized. In no other way would we attain to this, if it were not that he himself put on our created body. For thus have we begun to be called “people of God” and people who are in Christ. But just as when we receive the Spirit we do not destroy our proper being (idian ousian), so also, when the Lord becomes a human being for our sakes and puts on a body, he is none the less God. He was not lessened by the covering of the body, but rather divinized it and made it immortal.

15. These things then are sufficient for uncovering the malignity of the Arian heresy. As the Lord has granted it, out of their own words they have been routed and refuted as impious. But let us now advance and demand of them some answers. Now that they have been defeated on their own terms, it is time for them to be questioned on ours. Perhaps in this way they will even become embarrassed and recognize to what point they have fallen, these foul-minded people. We have learned from the Holy Scriptures that the Son of God, as we have said, is the Word itself and Wisdom of the Father. For the apostle says: “Christ the power of God and wisdom of God” (1 Cor 1:24). And John, having said, “And the Word became flesh,” immediately adds, “and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (Jn 1:14). Since the Word is only-begotten Son, it is in this Word and in Wisdom that heaven and earth and all that is in them have come to be. And that the source and fountain of this wisdom is God, we have learned from Baruch, where Israel is reprimanded that it has “forsaken the fountain of Wisdom” (Bar 3:12). So if they deny the Scriptures, then they are immediately estranged from the name of Christians and they would be appropriately called atheists and the worst enemies of Christ. For they have brought these names upon themselves. But if they agree with us that the sayings of the Scriptures are divinely inspired, let them dare to openly say what they secretly think, that once God was word-less and wisdom-less, and let them madly say: “There was once when he was not,” and “Before he was generated, Christ was not.” Let them also declare again that the fountain has not generated wisdom from itself but has acquired it from outside, so that they may dare to say, “From non-being there came to be the Son.” It seems that this is no longer a fountain, but some kind of pond which receives water from outside and is gratuitously furnished with the name of fountain.

16. I believe that no one with even a little sense would doubt that this is replete with impiety. But since they keep babbling inarticulately, saying, “Word and Wisdom are only names of the Son,” it is necessary to enquire of them as follows: If these are only names of the Son, then he is other than them. But, on the one hand, if he is greater than the names, it is not legitimate for what is greater to be signified by what is lesser. On the other hand, if he is lesser than the names, then certainly there is a cause for his acquiring the better name and this is again to impute progress to him, which is no less of an impiety than the previous ones. To call the one who is in the Father, and in whom the Father is (Jn 10:38, 14:10, 11), who said: “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10:30), whom “whoever has seen has seen the Father” (Jn 14:9), as if he is improved by something external (exōthen) surpasses all madness

But once they are driven back and constrained by great difficulties, like the party of Eusebius, they at last resort to this, which Arius mythologizes in his songs and in the Thalia of his, raising a new objection: “God speaks many words. Which of these do we call Son and only-begotten Word of the Father? You senseless ones who are anything but Christians! First of all, to say such things about God is not far from taking God for a human being who thus speaks and turns aside from his first words to his second, as if the one Word of God is not sufficient to accomplish all the work of creation and providence, by the will of the Father. That God would speak many words would indicate the weakness of all of them, each one in need of the help of another. But that God should have one Word, which indeed is the truth, manifests the power of God and the perfection of the Word that is from him, as well as the pious understanding of those whose thinking accords with this truth.

17. If only they were willing to confess the truth, even on the basis of what they themselves say! For once they concede that God brings forth words, they clearly acknowledge that he is Father. Having acknowledged this, let them observe that by not willing to grant that there is one Word of God, they end up imagining him to be the Father of many! And not willing to deny that there is in fact a Word of God, they yet do not acknowledge that this Word is the Son of God. But this is ignorance of the truth and inexperience of the divine Scriptures. For if God is Father of a word at all, how is it that the one who is begotten is not the Son? Moreover, who then would be the Son of God if not his Word? For there are not many words, so that each would be deficient, but the Word is one, so that he alone is perfect; and since God is one, one also must be his image (eikona), which is the Son. And the Son of God, as one can learn from the divine oracles themselves, is himself the Word of God and the Wisdom and the Image and the Hand and the Power. For the offspring of God is one, and these names are indications of his generation from the Father.

So if you speak of the Son, you indicate what is from the Father by nature. And if you ponder the Word, you think upon the one who is from the Father and inseparable from him. And when you speak of Wisdom, you think just as much of the one who is not from outside (exōthen) but from him and in him. If you name the Power and the Hand, you speak again of what is proper (idion) to the essence (ousia). And if you speak of the Image, you signify the Son, for what would be like God except the Offspring which is from him? Certainly, the things that came to be through the Word have been established in Wisdom. And the things that have been established in Wisdom have been made in the Hand and have come to be through the Son.

We have the assurance of these things not from outside but from the Scriptures. God himself speaks through the prophet Isaiah, saying, “My hand established the earth and my right hand has made firm the heavens” (Isa 48:13). And again: “I will cover you in the shadow of my hand, in which I have made the heaven to stand and established the earth” (Isa 51:16). David, upon learning this and knowing that the hand is the same as Wisdom, sings, “You have made all things in wisdom. The earth is filled with your creation” (Ps 104:24). Likewise, Solomon also, receiving the teaching from God, says: “God established the earth in Wisdom” (Prov 3:19). And John, knowing that the Word is the Hand and the Wisdom, preached: “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through Him, and apart from Him nothing came to be” (Jn 1:1–3). The apostle, seeing that the Son is the Hand and the Wisdom and the Word, says: “In times past, God spoke in partial and diverse ways to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days, he has spoken to us in the Son, whom he has appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the ages” (Heb 1:1–2). And again, “One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through him” (1 Cor 8:6). Yet again, knowing that the Image of the Father is the Word and the Son and the Wisdom, he says in the letter to the Colossians, “Giving thanks to the God and Father who has made us worthy to share the inheritance of the saints in light, who delivered us from the power of darkness and transported us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation, so that all things were created in him, both those in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominations or principalities or powers. All things were created through him and for him and he is before all things, and all things hold together in him” (Col 1:12– 17). As all things were created through the Word, who is the Image, they are thus created in the Image. Therefore, the one who contemplates the Lord in this way will not fall upon “the rock of stumbling” (Rom 9:32), but rather will come to the brightness in the light of truth. For this is truly the outlook of piety, even if these lovers of strife burst asunder, who neither have reverence for God nor shame at being refuted by proofs.

18. At that time, the party of Eusebius was thoroughly interrogated. When they ended up bringing condemnation upon themselves, as I said before, they subscribed and then fell silent and gave up. But since these ones go about swaggering with impieties and confused about the truth, busying themselves with nothing other than abusing the council, let them tell us from what sort of scriptures they have been taught or by which of the saints have they heard the sayings which they have gathered up for themselves: “from non-being” and “he was not before he was generated” and “there was once when he was not,” and “changeable” and “beginning to be” and “by will,” in all of which they mythologize, making child's play at the expense of the Lord. For the blessed Paul in his epistle to the Hebrews says, “We understand by faith that the ages were established by the word of God, what is visible having come to be from what is invisible” (Heb 11:3). But the Word has nothing in common with the ages, for he exists before the ages, through whom also the ages have come to be. And it is written in the Shepherd (since they use it as a pretext even though it is not from the canon): “Believe first of all, that God is one, who has created all things and ordered and made all things from non-being into being.” But, once again, this is not at all about the Son. Rather, it is speaking about all the things which have come to be through him, he being other than these. One cannot count together the maker with the things which come to be by him, unless one is crazed enough to say that the architect is the same as the buildings which are made by him.

So why then do they bring forward unscriptural phrases for the sake of impiety, and yet accuse those who use unscriptural phrases piously? For impiety is in every way to be shunned, even if someone tries to cloak it in many words and persuasive sophistries. But piety is sanctioned by all, even if someone uses unusual words, providing only that the one speaking has a pious conception and wishes to signify reverently, through these words, what he has conceived. Now it has already been shown by our discourse that the aforementioned sayings of the enemies of Christ were mere piddling words which, then as now, are full of all impiety. But if someone enquires accurately into the things written and defined by the council, he will find that it completely embraces the sense of the truth, especially if one were to enquire with a love of learning and hear the fitting reason for the use of these words. And it is this:

19. The council wished to banish the impious phrases of the Arians and to inscribe the words confessed by the Scriptures: that the Son is not from nonbeing but from God; that he is Word and Wisdom, neither creature nor something made, but from the Father as his own (idion) offspring. But the party of Eusebius, compelled by their longstanding perversity, wished the designation of his being “from God” to be taken as something in common with us and the Word of God to be no different from us in this respect, as it is written: “one God from whom are all things” (1 Cor 8:6) and “the old things have passed away; behold all that is new has come to be; and all this is from God” (2 Cor 5:17, 18). So the fathers of the council, seeing their deceit and the mac hinations of their impiety, finally found it necessary to proclaim the “from God” more clearly and to write “the Son is from the essence of the Father” (ek tēs ousias tou theou), so that “from God” may not be considered to be the same and equal in the case of the Son as it is with things that have come to be; but that it may be confessed that while all others are creatures, the Word is uniquely from the Father. For even if all things are said to be from God, this is altogether otherwise than how the Son is. In the case of created things, they are said to be from God in that they do not exist randomly and unaccountably; neither do they attain their origination by chance, as those who speak of an origination that comes about from the intertwining of atoms and of like parts; nor, as certain heretics say, is there another creator, nor, as again others say, do all things have their subsistence through some angels. Rather, all things are said to be from God because the existent God, by himself and through the Word, brought all things that formerly did not exist into being. But the Word is said to be and is alone from the Father because he is not a creature; and the Son's being “from the essence of the Father” is indicative of this sense, which does not pertain to anything that has come into being.

Certainly, Paul does say that all things are from God, but he immediately adds: “and one Lord Jesus Christ, from whom are all things” (1 Cor 8:6), in order to show to all, that the Son is other than all things which have come into being from God. For the things which have come into being from God have come to be through the Son. Paul said this because it is by God that creation comes to be, not because all things are from the Father in just the same way that the Son is. Neither are all things as the Son, nor is the Word one of “all things,” for he is Lord and Fashioner of all things. That is why the holy council proclaimed in a clearer way that he is “from the essence of the Father,” in order to proclaim the confession that the Word is other than the nature of things which have come to be and is alone truly from God, and in order to leave no more pretext for the deceit of the impious. This then is the reason for their having written “from the essence.”

20. Yet again, when the bishops said that it is necessary to proclaim the Word as true power and image of the Father and unchangeably like the Father in all things (homoion te kai aparallakton auton kata panta to patri) and inalterable and that he is always and inseparably in the Father—for never was he not, but rather, the Word is always with the Father, as the radiance and the light—the party of Eusebius persevered, though because of their shame at the refutations leveled against them, they did not dare to contradict. Instead, they were caught winking their eyes and murmuring among themselves that “like” (homoion) and “always” and the name of “Power” and “in him” are also common to us and the Son, so that it would not hurt them to agree with us. As to “like,” because it is written of us also, “the human being is the image and glory of God” (1 Cor 11: 7); as to “always,” because it is written, “we who live are always…” (2 Cor 4: 11); “in him,” because “in him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17: 28); “inalterable,” because it is written, “Nothing will separate us from the love of Christ” (Rom 8:39); as to “Power,” because the caterpillar and the locust are called “power” and “great power” (cf. Joel 2:25) whereas it is often written in reference to the people, as “all the power of God came out from the land of Egypt” (Ex 12:41); and there are other heavenly powers, for it says, “the Lord of powers is with us; our stronghold is the God of Jacob” (Ps 46:8).

Asterius, who is called “the sophist,” has written these things, having learned from them and, along with him, Arius also, as has been said. But the bishops, perceiving their hypocrisy here also and seeing that, according to what is written, “deceit is in the hearts of the impious who plot evil” (Prov 12:20), found it necessary again to gather together the sense of the Scriptures and to speak more clearly the things which they said before, and to write, “the Son is one in essence (homoousion) with the Father,” in order to signify that the Son is not only like, but from the Father as the same in likeness (tauton te homoiōsei), and in order to show that the likeness and inalterability of the Son is other than the imitative likeness that is ascribed to us and which we attain through virtue by keeping the commandments. For it is possible for bodies which are like each other to become in some way separated and distant from one another, which happens with the sons of human beings in relation to their begetters, as it is written concerning Adam and Seth, who was begotten of Adam and who was like him “according to his kind” (Gen 5:3). But since the generation of the Son from the Father is other than that which pertains to the nature of human beings and he is not only like (homoios) but also inseparable from the essence (ousia) of the Father and he and the Father are one, as he himself said (Jn 10:30), and the Word is always in the Father and the Father in the Word (cf. Jn 10:38)—as is the radiance in relation to the light (for this is what the phrase means)— the council, understanding all this, aptly wrote “one in essence” (homoousion). They did this in order to overturn the perversity of the hypocrites and to show that the Word is other than the things which come to be. For immediately after writing it, they added: “But those who say that the Son of God is from non-being or is a creature or changeable or made or from another essence (ousia), these the holy and catholic Church anathematizes.” In saying this, they made it manifestly clear that “from the essence” and “of one essence” are abrogations of the trite slogans of the impious: such as that he is a “creature” and “made” and something which has come into being (genēton) and changeable and that he was not before he was generated. The one who thinks such things is contradicting the council. But the one who does not think along with Arius necessarily holds and takes to mind the teachings of the council and views them appropriately, as indicating a relation like that of the radiance to the light, and in this way attains to an image of the truth.

21. Therefore, if these ones also adopt the pretext that the words of the council are alien, let them attend to the sense in which the synod wrote them and let them anathematize what the council has anathematized. Then, if they can, let them complain about the words. But I know well enough that if they were to adhere to the sense of the council, they would accept completely the words that express that sense. But if they wish to censure the sense, it should be clear to all that there is no point for them to be talking about the council's words, and that they are only inventing for themselves a basis for impiety and that is the motivation for their own words.

But if they keep murmuring that it is because the words of the council are not scriptural, then let them be cast out on those very grounds, as people who speak vacuously and whose mind is unsound. Let them accuse themselves on this very score, for it was they who first provided the cause for this when they began to fight God using unscriptural terms. Nevertheless, let it be known to anyone who wishes to learn, that even if the words are not as such in the Scriptures, yet, as has been said before, they contain the sense (dianoian) of the Scriptures and they express this sense and communicate it to those who have ears that are whole and hearken unto piety.

This is what you should take into consideration and these ignorant ones should pay heed to it: It has been shown in the preceding and it is to be believed as true, that the Word is from the Father and is alone proper (idion) to him and his offspring by nature. Or else, from where or from which other should one conceive the Son to be, who is Wisdom and Word, in whom all things came to be, except from God himself? But we have also learned this from the Scriptures, where the Father says through David: “My heart has poured out a good word” (Ps 44:2), and “From the womb before the morning star I have begotten you” (Ps 110:3), while the Son manifests himself to the Jews by saying, “If God were your father, you would have loved me. For I have come from the Father” (Jn 8:42), and again, “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the one who is from God; He has seen the Father” (Jn 6:46). Certainly, to say “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10:30) and “I am in the Father and the Father is in me” (Jn 14:10) is the same as saying, “I am from the Father and inseparable from him.” Having learned these things from the Father, John spoke, saying, “the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has revealed him” (Jn 1:18). But what else does “in the bosom” signify but the authentic generation of the Son from the Father?

22. But if one considers God to be composite, as an essence in which there is accident, or to have any external covering and to be enveloped and concealed (kaluptesthai), or if one thinks that there is something around him (peri auton) which completes his essence, so that when we say “God” or name him “Father,” we are not signifying the invisible and incomprehensible essence itself but something of what is around God, then let them censure the council for having written that “the Son is from the essence of God.” But let them observe well that to think in this way is to blaspheme twice over, for they are insinuating the notion of a bodily god and they are falsely declaring that the Lord is not the Son of the Father himself but of what is around the Father. But if God is simple, as indeed he is, then quite clearly when we say “God” and name the Father we are not naming something around him, but are signifying his very essence (ousia). For even if it is impossible to comprehend what is the being and essence (ousia) of God, if only we understand that God is and consider that the Scriptures signify him in these terms, we intend to signify none other than him when we say “God” and “Father” and “Lord.” Therefore when he says “I am who is” (Ex 3:14) and “I am the Lord God” (Ex 20:2) and whenever Scripture says “God” we recognize that this signifies nothing other than his incomprehensible essence (ousia) itself and we understand that the one of whom they speak is the one who is.

Therefore, let no one be shocked to hear that the Son of God is from the being of God. Rather, let him be receptive to the fathers who wrote “from the essence” (ek tēs ousias), according to a purified sense, as more explicit and yet equivalent to “from God.” They considered that it was the same to say that the Word is “from God” as it is to say “from the essence of God,” since, as I have said, “God” signifies nothing other than the essence (tēn ousian) of the One who is. Therefore, if the Word is not from God as a genuine son who is from his father by nature, but is said to be from the Father in the same way that all creatures are said to be so, because of their having been created {by the Father}, then indeed he is not from the being of the Father, nor is he a son according to essence (kat ousian), but because of virtue, as are we who are called sons by grace. But if he is alone from God as genuine Son, as indeed is the case, then it is well said that the Son is from the being of God.

23. The symbol (paradeigma) of the light and the radiance also has the same meaning. For the sacred writers did not say that the Word was related to God like a fire which is ignited from the heat of the sun and which is usually extinguished again, for this is an external product and creation of its maker. But they all preached of him as Radiance, in order to disclose his being properly and inseparably from the essence and his unity with the Father. Thus will his unchangeability and inalterability also be truly secured, for how can he be unchangeable and inalterable if he is not the proper (idion) offspring of the Father's essence? For it is necessary, in regard to this also, to safeguard his identity with his own Father.

Since this explanation is thus shown to be pious, the enemies of Christ should not be shocked by the “homoousios” either, since this term also has a sound sense and rationale. For if we say that the Word is from the essence of God (let this at last be confessed by them!), what is that except to say that he is truly and eternally of the essence from which he is begotten? For he is not different in kind, as if he were something foreign and dissimilar (anomoion) that is mixed in with the essence of the Father. Nor is his likeness merely extrinsic, as if he were in some other respect or completely of a different essence (heteroousios), just as brass shines like gold and silver and tin. These are foreign to one another and of different natures and are separate in their natures and their powers. Brass is not proper (idion) to gold, any more than a pigeon is from a dove. Even though they are considered to be like (homoia) each other, they are nevertheless different in essence. Therefore, if that is how the Son is, then he is a creature like us and not one in essence (homoousios). But if the Son is Word, Wisdom, Image of the Father, and Radiance, then it follows reasonably that he is “one in essence.” Unless it is established that he is not from God but is an instrument, of a different nature and a different essence, then the council has decreed aptly and thought rightly.

24. Moreover, every bodily thought must be shunned in these matters. With a pure mind and transcending all conceptions that arise from sensation, let us contemplate with the mind alone the authentic kinship of the Son and the Father and the Word's belonging to God (logou tēn pros ton theon idiotēta) and the unchanging likeness (homoiotēta) of the radiance to the light. Just as “offspring” and “Son” are terms that have not a human signification but one that is appropriate to God, and that is how they are used, so when we hear the term “homoousios,” let us not fall back on our human senses and think of parts and divisions of divinity. Rather, let us bring to mind incorporeal realities and not tear asunder the unity of nature and the identity of light, for such is the proper (idion) relation of the Son to the Father, showing God to be truly Father of the Word.

Once again, the symbol (paradeigma) of the light and the radiance is indispensable. Who would dare to say that the radiance is unlike (anomoion) and foreign to the sun? Or rather, who, upon beholding the relation of the radiance to the sun and the identity of the light, would not confidently say that the light and the radiance are really one and that the one is shown in the other and the radiance is in the sun, so that the one who beholds this sees the other? How then can those who believe and see rightly refer to such a unity and natural identity (idiotēta) except as “offspring, one in essence”? And what should one fittingly and appropriately think about the offspring of God but that he is Word and Wisdom and Power, of which neither is it legitimate to say that he is foreign to the Father, nor is it proper to fantasize that he is not eternally with the Father. For it is by this offspring that the Father has made all things and through whom he loves humanity, extending his providence to all things.

Therefore, he and the Father are one, as has been said. But perhaps those perverse-minded people will dare to go further and say that the being of the Word is other than the light which is in him from the Father, so that the light which is in the Son is one with the Father, but he himself, as a creature, is foreign in essence. But this is simply the belief of Caiaphas and the Samosatene, which the Church has banished and through which they fell from the truth and were declared to be heretics, and which these ones are now concealing. For if he participates wholly the light from the Father, why is he not himself what is participated, so that there be not found a medium between him and the Father? For if he is not thus, then it no longer appears that all things have come into being through him, but rather that they have come to be through that which he himself also participates. But if the Word is thus, being the Wisdom of the Father in whom the Father is revealed and known and creates and without whom the Father does nothing, then clearly he is “from the Father.” For all things that came into being participate in him by participating the Holy Spirit. Being so, he is not “from non-being” nor a creature at all, but rather is the proper offspring from the Father, as the radiance is from the light.

25. It is in this same sense that those gathered in Nicaea decreed these terms. But let us now prove that they did not invent these things and manufacture them on their own, as these ones allege, but spoke what they received from those before them. So this pretence also will be snatched away from them. Learn, therefore, O Christ-fighting Arians, that Theognostus, that learned man, did not shirk from saying “from the essence.” Writing on the Son in the second book of the Hypotyposes, he speaks thus:

The essence (ousia) of the Son is not something adjoined from outside, nor is it acquired from non-being, but it came forth from the essence of the Father, as the radiance of the light and the water's vapor. The radiance and the vapor are not the sun itself nor the water itself, yet neither is the relationship between them one of otherness. And neither is the essence (ousia) of the Son itself the Father, nor is it other; but it is an outflow of the essence of the Father, which does not thereby undergo division. Just as the sun remains itself and is not lessened by the rays emanated by it, so neither does the essence of the Father undergo alteration in having the Son as an image of itself.

That is how Theognostus spoke, having previously investigated by way of enquiry and later putting this forward as his own opinion. As for Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, he was writing against Sabellius and explaining in detail the economy of the Savior according to the flesh, thereby refuting the Sabellians and showing that it is not the Father who became flesh but his Word, as John said (Jn 1:14). But since he was alleged to have said that the Son was something made, and came to be (genēton) and not of one essence (homoousios) with the Father, he wrote to his namesake, Dionysius the bishop of Rome, and defended himself, saying that this was a slander against him. He assured him that he did not say that the Son was made, but rather confessed him even to be “of one essence.” His words are as follows:

I also wrote another letter, in which I refuted the false accusation which was brought against me to the effect that I did not say that the Son was of one essence (homoousion) with God. For although I say that I do not find this title anywhere in the holy Scriptures, yet the following proposals, of which they are silent, are not discordant with this meaning. I offered the example of human birth as being clearly a case of homogeneity and I said that surely the parents are other than the children only in that they are not themselves the children; otherwise there would necessarily be neither parents nor children. As I said before, I do not have this letter to hand, because of circumstances. Otherwise, I would have sent you the words used there, or rather a copy of the whole letter, which, if I find a way, I will still do. But I do know and recall that I offered many likenesses of kinship. I said that the plant which comes forth from the seed or the root is other than that from which it sprouts, and yet it is altogether of the same nature. And I said that the stream which flows from a fountain takes a different name, for neither is the fountain called a stream nor the stream a fountain; both are existent and the stream is the water from the fountain.

26. You can also look to Dionysius, the bishop of Rome, to see that the Word of God is neither made nor a creature but is the inseparable and proper (idion) offspring of the Father's being, as the great council has written. He is writing against those who believe the doctrines of Sabellius and denounces those who dare to say these things. This is how he speaks:

Next, it is proper that I should speak about those who divide and cut into pieces and destroy the most sacred preaching of the church of God, that of the divine monarchy, partitioning it into three powers and divided entities (hypostases) and divinities. It has become known to me that there are some among you, catechists and teachers of the divine word, who are leaders in this belief, which is, so to speak, diametrically opposed to the belief of Sabellius. For he blasphemed in saying that the Son is himself the Father and vice versa; while, on the other hand, these preach a kind of doctrine of three gods, separating the holy oneness (monad) into three entities that are foreign to each other and completely separated. But the divine Word must be united to the God of all, and the Holy Spirit must dwell and abide in God. For it is necessary to sum up and gather together the divine triad into one as into a kind of summit, I mean the God and Ruler of all. But the sundering and separation of the monarchy into three principles (archas) is the doctrine of the foolish-minded Marcion. It is a diabolical teaching, not belonging to the real disciples of Christ who are content with the Savior's teaching, and who know well that a triad is preached by the Holy Scriptures, but that neither the Old nor the New Covenant preaches three gods.

One should not censure any less those who believe that the Son is made and who consider the Lord to have come into being as one of the things that have really come to be. The sacred utterances indeed witness to a birth that is befitting and appropriate to him, but not to some kind of fashioning or making. So it is no ordinary blasphemy, but a great one, to say that the Lord is some kind of handmade thing. For if he became Son, then there was when he was not (en hote ouk en). But he existed always, if indeed he is “in the Father,” as he himself says, and if Christ is Word and Wisdom and Power. For the Sacred Scriptures say that Christ is these things, as you know. But these are powers of God. Therefore, if the Son came into being, there was when these things were not; then there was a time when God was without these. But this is most absurd. Why, then, should I say anything more about these people to you, men who are bearers of the Spirit and who know clearly the absurdities that emerge from saying that the Son is made?

Those who expound this conception seem to me not to have taken account of all this, and so they have strayed completely from the truth, taking “He created me as a beginning of his ways,” in a sense that is otherwise than what the holy and prophetic Scripture intends. As you know, there is not only one sense for “created.” Here, “created” is to be taken as “He has set over the works which have come to be through him,” which have come to be, that is, through the Son himself. For “created” does not here mean “made.” “To make” differs from “to create.” “Is he not your Father who has acquired you and made you and created you?” says Moses in the great song of Deuteronomy (Deut 32:6). And one could say to them: “O reckless people! Is he made, he who is the first born of all creation (Col 1:15), who is begotten from the womb before the morning star (Ps 110:3), who says as Wisdom, ‘Before all the hills, he begets me’ (Prov 8:25)?” And everywhere in the sacred utterances, one could find the Son spoken of as generated but not as having come into being (genmsthai… ou gegonenai), from which those are clearly refuted who make false assumptions about the generation of the Lord and who dare to speak of his divine and ineffable generation as a making. Therefore, one must not partition the awesome and divine oneness (monada) into three divinities, nor dilute the honor and surpassing greatness of the Lord as something “made,” but rather believe in God the Father and ruler of all and in Jesus Christ his Son and in the Holy Spirit, uniting the Word to the God of all. “For I,” he says, “and the Father are one” (Jn 10:30) and “I am in the Father and the Father in me” (Jn 14:10). Thus both the divine triad and the holy preaching of the monarchy are secured.

27. As to the Word's being eternally coexistent with the Father and not of another essence or subsistence (me heteras ousias hypostaseos) but belonging (idion) to the essence of the Father, as those in the council said, you may hear this also from the diligent Origen. Those things which he has written by way of enquiry and speculation one should not take as his own beliefs but of those who are engaged in the contention of an enquiry that is undertaken with a view to debate. But it is the declarations that he makes when he is defining matters freely which represent the mind of that diligent one. Thus, after what he says to the heretics by way of tentative speculation, he immediately puts forward his own words in this way:

If he is an image of the ineffable God, then he is an ineffable image. But I will be so bold as to add that, being the likeness of the Father, there is not {any time} when he was not. For when was it that God, who is called “Light” by John (“For God is light” (1 Jn 1:5)), did not have the radiance of his own glory, so that someone may dare to ascribe a beginning to the Son, as formerly not being? When was he not, who is the image of the ineffable and unnameable and unspeakable subsistence (hypostasis) of the Father, the reflection (Heb 1:3) and Word who “knows the Father” (Jn 10: 15)? Let the one who dares to say, “there was when the Son was not,” observe well that he is also saying that Wisdom once was not and the Word once was not and the Life once was not.

And also in another place, he says, “But it is neither proper nor without danger if, through our weakness, we deprive God, as far as that lies within us, of his only begotten Word which coexists always with him, being the Wisdom in whom he rejoiced (Prov 8:30). In this way he will be conceived as not always rejoicing.”

See, then, how we prove that this conception has been transmitted from fathers to fathers. But you, O new Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, which fathers do you have to show for your sayings? You cannot speak of any among those who are understanding and wise, for all reject you, except only the devil. It is he alone who has become the father of such apostasy, he who from the beginning has sown this impiety in you and now has persuaded you to revile the ecumenical council because it did not decree your terms, but those which the eyewitnesses and servants of the Word from the beginning have handed down. For the faith which the council confessed in writing is that of the Catholic Church, and this is what was vindicated by the blessed fathers when they made their declaration the way they did and condemned the Arian heresy. But that is espe cially why these ones are trying to overturn the council. It is not the words that pain them, but the fact that by these words they are shown to be heretics and their heresy more audacious than the others.

28. Of course, when their own words were at that time shown to be thoughtless and easily refuted, once and for all, as impious, they resorted finally to the use of the term “unoriginated” (agenētos), which is from the Greeks, so that on the pretext of this term, they may again number the Word of God, through whom are all things that have come to be, among those very things which came to be and are created. That is how shameless they are in their impiety and how contentious they are in their blasphemies against the Lord. If it is out of ignorance that they are so shameless in their use of this term, then they should have learned better from those who gave it to them. For these latter were not afraid to say that even Mind, which they say is from the Good, and Soul, which is from Mind, are unoriginated, even though it is known what they are from. They realize that by saying this they are not detracting from the First, from whom these proceed. So let them either speak likewise or not speak at all about things they don't understand.

But if they think that they are knowledgeable, then they must be questioned, especially since the term is not from the Sacred Scriptures; for once again they are being contentious and speaking unscripturally. I have already explained the reason and the sense according to which the council with one voice decreed “from the being” (ek tēs ousias) and “one in essence” (homoousios). The synod, and the fathers who were before it, wrote and proclaimed this on the basis of what is signified about the Savior in the Scriptures. But now, let these ones answer also, if indeed they can, how they found this unscriptural term and in what sense they say that God is “unoriginated.” Indeed, I have heard that the term has various senses. They say that what has not yet come into being but can become is “unoriginated”; and also what neither exists nor can come into being; and thirdly, the term signifies what exists but has neither come into being nor had a beginning of being, but is everlasting and imperishable. Perhaps, then, they will wish to set aside the first two meanings, as issuing in absurdity. According to the first, both the things that have already come into being and those that are expected to come into being are unoriginated. But the second is even more absurd. So they proceed to the third sense and use “unorigniated” in that sense. But in saying this, they are no less impious. For if they say that the unoriginated is what has no beginning of its being and has neither come into being nor is created but is everlasting, whereas the Word of God is the opposite of such, who does not see at once the villainy of these enemies of God? Who would not stone those who are so crazed? Since they were ashamed to persist in uttering the original slogans of their myths, by which they were refuted, the wretched lot invented another way of again indicating the same meaning by using this term, “unoriginated.” But if the Son is among those things which have come into being, then clearly he also came into being “from non-being”; and if he has a beginning of his being, then he was not before he was generated; and if he is not eternal, “there was once when he was not.”

29. Therefore, since that is what they think, it was incumbent upon them to articulate their heterodoxy in their own words, and not to hide their perversity with the title of “unoriginated.” But that is not what they do, these malicious ones! They do everything with deceit, in the style of their father the devil (cf. Mt 7:15). Just as he tries to deceive by using the appearance of others, so these have contrived the title of “unoriginated,” so that, while pretending to speak well of God, they may harbor a hidden blasphemy against the Lord and, under this veil, communicate it to others.

But since this sophistry of theirs has been uncovered, let them say whatever else they have left over. “We have found,” say the malicious, adding to their former words, “that what is unoriginated is that which does not have a cause (aition) for its being, but rather is itself the cause of the coming to be of what has come into being.” Thankless people and truly deaf to the Scriptures, who in all things act and speak not for the honor of God, but for the dishonor of the Son. They do not know that whoever dishonors the Son dishonors the Father. First of all, even if they call God by this title, it does not prove that the Word is among the things which come into being, since as offspring of the being of the Father, he is forever with him. Therefore, this title does not take anything away from the nature of the Word, nor does the designation of “unoriginated” have its signification in relation to the Son, but in relation to the things which come to be through the Son. It is the same as when someone speaks to an architect and calls him a maker of a house or city; one does not include within that designation the son who is begotten of him, but calls him “maker” with a view to the skill and knowledge that go into his making, thus signifying that the architect is not the same as the things that come to be through him. But knowing the nature (physin) of the maker, one realizes that the one who is begotten from him is other than these things which are made by him. With reference to his son, one calls him father; but on account of the works which he makes, he is called creator and maker. Likewise, the one who thus calls God “unoriginated” (agenēton) names him from the works which he makes, signifying not only that he is not originated (me genēton), but that he is also maker of the things that are originated (genēton). Nevertheless, one recognizes that the Word is other than the things which originated in being and is alone the Father's own (idion) offspring, through whom all things came into being and are constituted.

30. The prophets also call God “ruler of all,” but they do not call him so as if the Word were one of the “all”; for they knew that the Son is other than the things which came into being and is himself ruler of all, according to his likeness (homoiotēta) to the Father. They call God “ruler of all” because the Father rules over all the things which he has made through the Son, having granted authority over all these to the Son and in granting it, is still himself Lord of all things through the Word. Again, when they speak of God as the “Lord of powers” (cf. Ps 45:8), they do not say this as if the Word were one of these powers, but on account of the fact that whereas he is Father of the Son, he is also Lord of the powers which come into being through the Son. And, again, since the Word is “in the Father” (cf. Jn 14:10) he is Lord of all these powers and rules over all things; for everything that the Father has is the Son's (cf. Jn 16:15). Inasmuch as this is the sense contained in these titles, let the one who wishes to call God “unoriginated” do so, provided only that this implies not that the Word is one of the things that are originated, but rather, as I said before, that God is not originated and moreover that he is also Maker of originated things through his own Word.

Furthermore, even if the Father is called “unoriginated,” the Word is still also the Image of the Father and of one essence (homoousios) with him. Being Image, he is other than originated things and other than all; for he has identity (idtotēta) and likeness (homoiōsin) with the One whose Image he is. Therefore, the one who calls the Father unoriginated (agenēton) and almighty perceives in the Unoriginated and Almighty his Word and Wisdom, which is the Son. But these amazing people, so reckless in their impiety, did not discover the title of “unoriginated” in their efforts to honor God, but on account of their maliciousness concerning the Savior. If they were concerned about honor and praise, then they should have acknowledged God as “Father” and called him so; that would have been better than naming him “unoriginated.” In calling God “unoriginated” they are speaking of him only as Maker, with reference to the things that have originated in being, as I said before, so that they can indicate the Son to be a work, according to their own fancy. But the one who calls God “Father” immediately signifies the Son also, who is in him, and is not ignorant that all things that came into being were created through the Son who is.

31. Therefore, it would be more truthful to signify God by reference to the Son and call him Father than to call and name him “unoriginated,” by reference only to his works. The latter title signifies the works which came into being from the will of God through his Word, whereas the title of “Father” acknowledges the integral (idion) offspring from his being. As much as the Word transcends the things which come into being, by so much and more does calling God “Father” surpass calling him “unoriginated.” Indeed the latter is unscriptural and dubious, having multiple significations; whereas the former is simple and scriptural and more truthful and signifies only the Son. Moreover, the term “unoriginated” was fashioned by the Greeks, who do not know the Son, but the name of “Father” has been made known and granted to us by our Lord. Knowing whose son he was, he said, “I am in the Father and the Father in me” (Jn 14:10); and “the one who has seen me has seen the Father” (Jn 14:9); and “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10: 30). We do not find it anywhere that he calls the Father “unoriginated.” When teaching us to pray, he does not say, “When you pray, say ‘God Unoriginated’” but rather, “When you pray, say ‘Our Father who is in heaven’” (cf. Mt 6:9). It was his will also that the summit of our faith should have the same form, so he commanded us to be baptized not into the name of the unoriginated and the originated nor into the name of the uncreated and the created, but into the name of Father, Son and the Holy Spirit (Mt 28:19). By this consecration, we too are truly made into sons, and saying the name of the Father, we also acknowledge through this name the Word who is in the Father. But if he wills that we call his own proper (idion) Father “our Father,” we must not for that reason compare ourselves to the Son, who is so by nature. For the Father is called such by us on account of the Son. It is because the Word carried our body and came to be among us that God is called our Father, on account of the Word in us. The Spirit of the Word, in us and through us, names the Word's own Father as our Father, and this is the meaning of the apostle's saying, “God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying out, ‘Abba, Father’” (Gal 4:6).

32. But since their ways are full of malice and they have been refuted as far as the name of “unoriginated,” perhaps they will wish to say: “One should have spoken concerning our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ from what is written about him in the Scriptures, and not have introduced unscriptural terms.” Well, sure, that is the way it should have been; and I would also say as much. For the manifestations of the truth that are derived from the Scriptures are more accurate than those from other places. But, as I said, it was the wrong-headedness and the untrustworthy deceitful impiety of Eusebius's party that forced the bishops to proclaim more explicitly terms that would overturn their impiety. Moreover, it has been shown already that what was written by the council has a right sense, whereas it has become clear that the slogans of the Arians are rotten and that their ways are malicious. Even though the title of “unoriginated” has its own proper sense and can be applied piously, they interpret it according to their own will and fancy in a way that brings dishonor to the Savior, just to be contentious, like giants who war against God. But they did not remain uncondemned when they offered their earlier slogans and neither were they able now to escape detection when they interpreted the “unoriginated” so maliciously, although it can be understood rightly and piously. They were shamed in the midst of all and their heresy was everywhere stigmatized.

These things I have recalled, as much as I could, in order to clarify the things that took place at that time, at the council. Yet I know that the lovers of debate among those who war against Christ will still not wish to be converted even after hearing these things. They will persevere in seeking after other pretexts, and after these, they will invent yet others. According to the prophecy, “if the Ethiopian will change his skin and the leopard his spots” (Jer 13:23), then will those who have been taught impiety be willing to think piously. But you, beloved, read this by yourself when you receive it. If you judge it to have merit, let it be read to the brothers there present, so that they also, having learned these things, may embrace the council's zeal for the truth and the exactitude of its understanding, while condemning the impudence of the Christ-fighting Arians and the foolish allegations which they have labored to invent among themselves for the sake of their impious heresy. For glory, honor, and adoration is befitting to God the Father along with his Word and Son who with him is without beginning, together with the all-holy and life-giving Spirit, now and unto the endless ages of ages. Amen.

↑ Back to top