Adversus Arium et Sabellium de patre et filio

Of Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, Against Arius and Sabellius. My heart belched forth a good word, the psalmist said just now. This good word of God, some, following Arius and Achillius, putting forth the most impious utterance, dared to proclaim a creature and a product, and drew many into their own error; others, following Sabellius, holding the opposite of these, attempt to abolish the hypostasis of the Son, and, thinking to honor the Father himself, who is one, with two names, call him Son-Father. These two opinions have been set, like two traps, by the aforementioned; but there is a middle way, narrow and confined, which leads to life according to the Gospel. Most men, deviating from this, become prey to one or the other. You seem to me to fear falling into either and to avoid the very path of truth, thinking that one ought not to handle discourse about God. See, then, lest while being cautious of the error of the two, you incur the penalty of impiety. The Savior himself, standing before the true path, cries out, saying: I am the way and the truth; do not deviate to the right or to the left, lest you encounter either. And again: I am the door of the sheep; he who does not enter through me, but climbs up from elsewhere, is a thief and a robber, who, caught in a trap, will perish. Let those, therefore, who have turned their mind to the error of either side hear that, according to nature, our Savior Jesus Christ is and is called Son of God, and is not a product, named son by usage as we are, and that he does not have a beginning, but is eternal.

For this reason, even in unending ages, he will co-reign with the Father in his own hypostasis. But perhaps someone might say: everything without beginning and unbegotten would be; how could the Son be fittingly called without beginning, whose very name implies a beginning? For "Son" is named from having been begotten. And no one would deny that begetting falls under a beginning; if, then, he is Son, it is shown to us from the begetting that he has taken a beginning. And perhaps he will also have an end, someone might say according to philosophical reasoning; and the Apostle says that he will be subject to the one who subjected all things to him and will hand over the kingdom to the Father and God, as it has been supposed that he, not existing before being begotten, will again pass into non-being. Come up with me onto the secure faith, do not be swept away as by a violent wind by the deception of such reasonings, like chaff which the wind casts out, from the narrow and straight road into the abysses of perdition. For if the Father of all is unbegotten and eternal, wise and powerful, and the Apostle, proclaiming the faith in him, announces to all that Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God, how could they dare to bring his begetting under time and suppose it not eternal nor without beginning? For if, according to the supposition of some, the begetting of our Savior has fallen under the portion of time, then not only the Son but also the Father is dishonored, according to the Son's saying: "You know neither me nor the Father." "He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father," the one as not existing before coming to be, the other as not having power and wisdom before the Son existed.

Such persons would consequently suppose that the Father was not even God at any time before the generation of the Son. For how could he be God if he did not possess power and wisdom? But if it is declared by the divine scriptures that he is eternally God, then he must be believed to have wisdom and power, that is, Christ, with him always. I remember that I promised earlier to show you, as through a mirror, the image of the matters concerning the Father and the Son, since the things pertaining to the divine nature are not subject to human speech. For when God himself † has not spoken to us according to the power of his own greatness, but measures his own voice to human ears, so that we may be capable of receiving the divine voice with our ears. Indeed, he also measures his own unbearable and incomprehensible greatness to the sight of men, and being God, he appeared as man; for he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, so that we humans might be able to behold God. Just as we are persuaded that he, not being a man, appeared as a man, but by nature was and is God, having circumscribed his incomprehensible greatness in a body and, through himself as through a mirror, having revealed to us the whole greatness of God, so that using this as a lens, we might become spectators of the Father also—for being the image of the invisible God according to the Apostle, he said, "He who has seen me has seen the Father"—so also through the things said in the scriptures according to the measure of our ears, which are in many ways not fitting to the divinity because of the weakness of speech, we analogously behold him in our mind.

Just as God, circumscribed by a body, has been seen by us through the eyes, so also the Word has been proclaimed as lesser than God through the ears. It has been shown, as we said earlier, through Scripture itself that human speech cannot encompass God and the things concerning him. For since no part of speech has been left that indicates the eternity of the Son, Scripture, by means of a preposition as if by a riddle, signifies that he is contemporaneous with the Father, saying: "Before the morning star I begot you," and "Before all hills he begets me," and before each creation. By placing this part of speech before, Scripture declares him without beginning; for that which is preeminent over all, and especially when it says "before the ages," turns our mind toward the eternal and the beginningless. How then, while always sitting together with the Father, is the Son permitted to be Son and to have been begotten? I set before you an image of these things, since speech does not reach what is according to nature: the ray from the sun. How would you not say that the light from the lamp has also been born? But just as the sun is not first and then the ray, but simultaneously with the sun's being or having come to be, the ray both is and has come to be, and simultaneously with the lamp's existence, the light and that which is born from the lamp appear not after some time but born together with it, so God is not first and his wisdom afterwards, but simultaneously with the existence of the God of all (and he always was), his wisdom, that is Christ, also was; yet, being born from God and a product, the wisdom of him who reveals it is appropriately called a offspring.

The phrase "Before all hills he begets me" indicates that the Savior is always being begotten for men by the Father. And the phrase "Today I have begotten you," although he was pre-begotten and always coexistent, by using the temporal part "today," the Scripture signifies that he is always being co-begotten for those who proceed in succession, as long as "today" is called. But if ever the "today" of this world should be limited by its ends, he is no longer begotten, but having been once begotten for all, and having been seated as judge and arbiter of all, both living and dead, he will reign with the Father for eternity. Lest the phrase "The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works" should implant thoughts in those whose mind is corrupted, this too must not be passed over. For the translators, having slightly deviated from the precision of the Hebrew of the Scriptures into the Greek, said "created me," but if you investigate, you would find "made me." Nevertheless, even "created me," when accurately understood, is shown to be not discordant with "made me." For if it had only said "The Lord created me," it would have left a question for some; but since it added "beginning of his ways for his works," it would be clearly understood that it said "The Lord made me to preside over his works and entrusted to me the beginning of his ways." For when did the Father have a beginning of his ways, or when was he not active, or from whom did he receive the ability and the activity? For not always having all things with himself is indicative

the notion that he has received something from someone else, as if some other god older than him is to be conceived. "Who has given in advance, and will it be repaid to him?" says scripture. But if all things are from him, then never will a beginning of his ways and his works be found, but he is always active. And if all things have come to be through the Son and not one thing has come to be without him, then it is clearly shown that he always has the working wisdom with himself. And if the Father always works, but nothing has been worked without the Son, then it is vain for them to suppose that he was created at some later time, so that he might work. But the phrase "He created me as a beginning of his ways" means that he entrusted his ways to me, so that they might be under my authority; for "beginning" does not refer to time, but to the power of rule. For the apostles also say that he made him both Lord and Christ. And if "he made" were to be called a product and a creature, then there would be two whom he made, one Lord and the other Christ. But that Christ is called king is known to no one; rather, "he made" signifies that two authorities were entrusted to him by the Father, the lordly and the royal, or rather one authority honored by two or more titles. Therefore, let each of those entangled in the respective errors be persuaded that the Son is always with the Father, both begotten and without beginning: without beginning in that he always coexists with the Father, and begotten in that he has the Father as the cause of his being, as we said concerning the lamp, stating that the lamp itself is the cause of the light, yet not prior to the light, but is contemporaneous.

Thus also he will be for eternity and will never cease reigning, since he never began, but always having worked together with the father, he manifests himself through having said: "My father works even until now, and I work." The phrase "even until now" seeks the "from which"; but since the "from which" occurs in time, by omitting the "from which" and saying only "even until now," he indicated that he has always worked together with him in all things. For he works even until now, generating, vivifying, increasing, guiding all things, and will never cease; for idleness is not fitting for God, nor will he grow weary from working so as to cease. I think, then, that the Arians have used as a pretext the evangelical saying, "He who sent me is greater than I," from which they have supposed him to be a creature and a product, and that the reply to the one who addressed him as a good teacher, "No one is good except the one God," has given them the suspicion that, being a man, he had the appellation "son" as a catachrestic title; and the saying in Mark, "No one knows the consummating day and hour, not even the angels of the heavens, nor the son, but only the father," I think gives them the suspicion that the son has become alien to the father's substance. But those of Sabellius, having read "I and the father are one" and "He who has seen me has seen the father" and "When he hands over the kingdom to the father and God" without accurate judgment, have fallen into the greatest error of impiety, thinking that the son came forth from the father temporarily through a human desertion, and then after the correction of human transgressions, having been dissolved, he has entered into and been mixed with the father.

Have you not read, O Sabellian-minded one, even this passage of apostolic scripture, which would stand against your opinion? For it says, after other things: "According to the activity of the power of his might, which he has exercised in Christ, having raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavens, above every beginning and authority and power and lordship and everything named not only in this age but also in the age to come." Does not even the evangelical voice persuade you that the Son is not temporary, but that also in the future age the judgment over all has been entrusted to the Son? For the Father, it says, judges no one; but he has given all judgment to the Son, so that they may honor the Son as they honor the Father. And elsewhere the apostle says: "In the revelation of the Lord Jesus, from heaven with angels of his power in a flame of fire, giving vengeance to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." See how those who do not obey will pay the penalty, it says, eternal destruction, when he comes to be glorified among his saints. They will pay it to the Son, whom you suppose no longer exists. But if you wish to know what that "When he hands over the kingdom to the Father and God" is, I shall not hide it from you, even if you have proven hard to receive the truth. And it seems to me to stand against the command of Christ: "Do not cast your pearls before swine," but imitating God, I shall partake of good hopes, and I shall not hide the truth even from the impious; for the rain falls alike, and the light of day is extended equally to the just and the unjust.

Then, being so philanthropic, will you not learn the truth? Will you not lend the ears of your mind, so that you may be persuaded that there is not even the slightest contradiction among the things said in the scriptures, but that the whole is harmonious and concordant with the whole? Therefore, you must not understand according to your supposition the passage: "Then he himself will be subjected to the one who subjected all things to him," and: "When he delivers the kingdom to the father and god." For if in all respects he was made like humanity and suffered with it, according to the prophet: "He himself bears our sins and is pained on our behalf," and: "He himself took our weaknesses and bore our diseases," since he also put on the flesh that receives these; and: "On our behalf," it says, "he committed sin," not having committed it but as if he had committed it, so that we might be justified; and: "Having become a curse on our behalf," so that he might redeem us from the curse, and he was called accursed, having chosen to share a name with us in sympathy; if in all these things he became like humanity, having taken up the very form of a slave, putting forward his own person as if he himself had transgressed on behalf of humanity, he moved the father to pity, calling upon him. And since not all humanity was subjected to the son, he himself, as not having been subjected, seemed and was understood to be taking upon himself, in the eyes of the father, the insubordination of the people. But if ever all were subjected to the son (for we do not yet see all subjected to him), he will say: "All are subjected to me." And when all have been subjected to him, then he himself will appear subjected to the one who subjected all things to him. For if we all were Christ's, then Christ would be and would be subjected to God.

If we are not yet Christ's, then Christ is not yet God's, he who suffers for us. Therefore, when we all become Christ's, then Christ will be God's, subordinating to the Father through himself all those whom he had previously received from him, so that God may be all things in all. But since it seems that he is not yet subordinated to the Father, because those who have been guaranteed by him and whose image he bears are not yet subordinated to him. When all things are subordinated to him, then he will appear to be handing over the kingdom to the Father and God. By kingdom we must understand not the dignity of holding the scepter; for the Father no longer needs royal dignity, so that he might receive from the Son what he had previously granted to him for use, as if recalling this. For such, it seems to me, is what you are hinting at. Moreover, you are impious not only toward the Son, by abolishing his hypostasis, but also toward the Father, by showing that he was not always king, having once granted the kingdom to the Son and then receiving it back from him as if in need of the dignity. He will hand over to him not the dignity of the kingdom, as I said before, but those who have been ruled by him and subordinated to him. Having offered and handed over this kingdom, he will say: "This is a kingdom, this is a priesthood, a holy nation, a people for my possession, and Behold, I and the children whom God gave me"; for he himself gave them to him, having subordinated all nations to him: "For I will give you nations as your inheritance, and your possession the ends of the earth." And know that the saying "I and the Father are one" does not abolish the hypostasis of the Son.

They are one in essence, one in rank, one in mind, one in understanding, but not one in hypostasis. It will also be shown from the Apostle that the "one" is not of one and the same hypostasis, as it is often arranged. For just as in the case of the planter and the waterer, the name distributed among them divides the hypostasis, and each will receive his own reward according to his own labor, so let the "one" be understood as not annulling the other hypostasis. Since neither of these has been shown to be discordant with the other, but rather they are in harmony with the right faith, cease from thinking the thoughts of Sabellius, turn away from evil-mindedness, and do good by being persuaded by the truth. These things alone are sufficient for you as proof that you think wrongly. Know that you too have been unfortunate in the Ario-maniac faith of Achilles. Why, having left the straight path, have you driven into the pits of dishonor against the Son, supposing him to be a creation and alien to the essence of God? Are not even the names alone sufficient for you as proof that he was born from the Father, that he is called wisdom and power of God? Wisdom and power, which are uncreated and unconstructed, but are virtues of the soul and, as it were, offshoots of a mind rooted in the shoot of wisdom, you would certainly agree. But if wisdom, that is the Son, who is the most ancient of all time and creation, has been created and constructed at some time, as you said, see that you do not seem to me to be declaring something discordant with your own opinion: "Without him nothing came into being.

Or if you claim to set forth this, and you have attempted to show us clearly that there would be some other wisdom older than this, through which the second was constructed. For without wisdom it is impossible for anything to be constructed. Therefore wisdom is eternal with the Father and firstborn of all creation, so that through it all things might be constructed. And the Son is also called Word, so that he might be shown to be begotten and not supposed to be created; for a word is begotten but not created, being uttered through the mouth but moved from the heart. The Father bears witness to me, saying, "My heart has belched forth a good word." And the Son agrees: "I came forth from the mouth of the Most High." How could my mind bear such a great burden of audacity as to suppose him to be a creation? You have heard from those who preceded concerning the Son; now hear also from the one who has now come, that the "was" placed in the imperfect tense has the significance of eternity: "In the beginning was the Word." But the beginning of God is not grasped by human speech. Therefore, as we have said in the preceding, whatever part of speech the Scripture has placed, the "in the beginning," understand for me a divine beginning that is eternal. And the "was" is also indicative of the same. And "the Word" shows the consubstantial hypostasis with the Father.

But so that we may not think that the Son ever existed when he was invisible, hidden in the Father, and so that we may not suppose a word that is uttered and a word that is internal (for such a word must exist in some thought or in a letter, not having a subsistence by itself), for these reasons John also said, "And the Word was not in God, but toward God," ascribing to the Word a distinct subsistence, subsisting from the Father's essence. In the same way, and so that wisdom might not be understood as the craftsmany kind, which has its being in something, either in a man or in a construction, he said, "He was toward God," so that he might be understood as God from God existing. And he also received the appellation: "And the Word was God"; and he is God because he would have no beginning, since he would not otherwise be God—which not only we, but also the children of philosophers declare, of whom it is not fitting that you should have a lesser knowledge concerning God. And so that we might believe that he subsists, being himself God from himself, the Father formed him in human fashion, circumscribing him with flesh, so that he might manifest the Son to human eyes. And knowing that he subsists as God, do not imagine the Son as more insignificant or lesser because he said, "The Father who sent me is greater than I." For it was necessary that he, when becoming man, should indicate his own greatness through humble words. He himself said, "Let your neighbor praise you, and not your own mouth." For what? Was it not necessary that he, being humble, should show himself as less than the Father, of

of the uncontained and all-filling one, was at that time circumscribed by flesh and measured by human eyes? Moreover, to call the cause of his existence greater than himself is not alien to the truth. For if he is not God, where is wisdom? And if he is not the Father, where is the Son? But observe how the Son is altogether and in every way humble-minded while simultaneously displaying divine magnitude: first, when he says to the young man who addressed him as good, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except the one God." And he declared this fittingly. For, as if he were to say, "I have appeared to you as a man, O young man, and you, addressing me as one of the scribal teachers, added the epithet 'good.' But no human is good; the appellation belongs only to God. So you have named in vain as good the one who has appeared to you as a man for the time being." Thus, by this declaration, he displayed humility to the man, saying, "No one is good, as you suppose." But by adding "except the one God," he, being himself and the Father one, mystically, along with humility, expounded the truth and showed himself a participant with the Father in goodness. Therefore, the statements "I and the Father are one" and "I am in the Father and the Father is in me" demonstrate equality with the Father. For the Son must be perfect, from the perfect Father.

But perhaps you might say this: If the Father, being perfect, fills all things, what place is left for the Son, who is also perfect, to occupy? But I declare that they have become receptive and containing of one another. For he says, "I am in the Father and the Father is in me." And those who contain one another would be equal to one another in magnitude. How then could they be in one another? You have chosen to hear this entirely: for one must be contained by the other. The contained is in the container, but the container would not again be contained by the contained. Do not think that God has some void in himself in which he receives the contained. For this is to be understood in the case of humans: we are neither receptive of others nor do we enter into another. And if we were to enter, we would both contain and be encompassed by a void. But in the case of God, one must conceive something like this: just as if in a human soul two or more sciences, such as medicine and philosophy and any others, were to come together simultaneously, they are not crowded by one another in the space of mind and soul, though many in number, being spacious and yielding place to one another, yet filling the soul and not withdrawing one from the other, so as to present a single appearance of substance to the most observant of men, since they are established upon one and the same mind, but differ from one another in that medicine is one thing and philosophy another; so indeed the Father and the Son, having come into the same place and having become receptive of one another and being one, as we said a little earlier, differ from one another only in hypostasis and appellation, and they are in one another.

And just as the fragrance of myrrh diffused in the air, both being in the same place, appear to be intermingled, but in truth you will find that the air is one thing and the fragrance another; and again, light from the sun and the breaths of the winds, though permeating each other and appearing to be mixed, have a great difference—for light and winds are not at all the same as each other—so liken the divinity, and if you conceive something greater than what can be demonstrated by argument, you would find that each of the two are one in essence and concord, and the one is formed into Father and Son, as we said before, in hypostasis and appellation. But you will certainly raise this objection to me: If the Father has filled all things, and again the Son also, what place is left for the opposing power? For it would not befit God to have the enemy with himself. But if the ruler of evil is somewhere, and God is not there, then God would be shown to be circumscribed and partial. But I declare that God is everywhere, and that where God is not, there is nothing, even if the ruler of evil happens to be somewhere. For not even the rays of the sun, over filth and mire,

Borne they are not defiled, but rather are destructive, drying up by the heat. So also our God is called a consuming fire, and the fire opposed to him will be burned, so that to his friends he may be a lamp and light, but to his enemies a consuming fire: "He will set fire," it says, "to his enemies round about." Hence also the ruler of evil, wishing to escape the fiery bolts of God, runs through every place; but finding God everywhere, he passes through all humanity. If he finds some boiling in spirit, he flees even from their heat. But having found a lair in someone not having the spirit of God, swept and adorned for a little while, he rests and will be consumed together with the host; for the one who receives the enemy who rises against God, making him a friend, will be seen as an enemy likewise. I think it is sufficient to go through these matters also for demonstration. And let this not be left out by me, either unnoticed or passed over in the rush to other things as if driven by a violent wind: how, along with everything else, does not even the Son know the day, he who has the Father in himself and himself is in the Father? But this too has the appearance of an excess of humility. For the Son of God had to humble himself exceedingly, since he also took up the rest of his conduct most excellently to an extreme. By saying that he did not know, he manifested humility to his hearers; but so that he might not seem to be lying, he said, "Unless the Father alone knows," denying knowledge in word, but confessing it by the power of the riddle; for if only the Father knows, then the Son also knows, since he and the Father are one.

Two achievements have thus accrued to humanity from this: a basis for humility and ignorance of the end, on account of which life is sustained. What could be more difficult to know, the day of the end or God the Father himself? If he knew the Father, saying, "That you may know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father," how could he not know the day, of which he himself was the creator? For without him nothing came to be. And with this argument having been demonstrated in these brief points, let it not hinder anyone from the straight faith. You, then, who follow Sabellius and Arius, who have come to be in such great disagreement, having recognized the whole truth from what has been said, come together with me in friendship, and having entered into the trap between the two, you will find the road of truth, traveling which you will see eternal life.