De Fide Orthodoxa Contra Arianos

On the Orthodox Faith, Against the Arians, or On the Divinity and Consubstantiality of the Son, a Treatise. Confession of Faith.—We believe in God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord our Jesus Christ, the Son of God, only-begotten of the Father, that is, from the substance of the Father: God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made: of one substance with the Father, which the Greeks call *homoousion*; through whom all things were made, whether in heaven or on earth; who for us men and for our salvation descended and was incarnate, and was made man, suffered, rose on the third day, ascended to the heavens, and is to come from there to judge the living and the dead: and in the Holy Spirit. But those who say: There was a time when he was not, and before he was born he was not, and that the Son of God is mutable or convertible; these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes, amen.

Prologue.—Led by zeal for the Catholic faith, I had already published a little book against the Arians, which I had given to be read with the author's name suppressed, because it pleased, it was believed worthy of transcription. From him I earnestly requested that, for the time being, with the author undisclosed, he would read it to learned and prudent men; so that if anything should move them, because something seemed to them placed in excess or deficiency, it could be corrected by the counsel of many. For there is no one who so arrogantly assumes the summit of heavenly doctrine for himself as to think that he holds all mysteries clearly comprehended, since the apostle Paul says: "Whoever therefore thinks he knows something, does not yet know how he ought to know" (1 Cor. 8:2); and, "Now we see through a mirror in a riddle; then face to face" (1 Cor. 13:12). But if all things written there should appear to all to be in accordance with the true faith, then he himself would not deny it to those who asked. That he did this is manifest. And because the work was judged worthy by the judgment of all, both for the Catholic confession and for the heretical response, many wished either to read or to transcribe it.

But there was no lack of someone who, either out of zeal for teaching or out of a duty of charity, would examine more scrupulously what was said by me; and he would say that certain things were either superfluous or ambiguous, which could be taken by some in a different way than they were spoken by me. Hence, I have again set forth these same things in plainer language in this little book, so that I might show the simplicity of my meaning and remove any scruple from readers. For this is what they say can be criticized: that when we placed the Word of God from the person of the Son, we think that this Word is to be understood in the way that grammarians teach—as the breath of the mouth striking the air, perceptible to hearing. But we know not the wisdom of this world, which is destroyed, but that wisdom which is from God, which reveals the Word of God as God, when it says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made" (John 1:1 and following). Hence, I confess I am amazed that this could have been understood in such a way that we would deny the proper person of the Word, which is the Son. No one names merely in word someone whom he truly professes to exist in his own person more often: for how have we confessed either the true Son or the true Father, if we have not truly preserved the property of the persons of both the Father and the Son?

But because we have used the term "one God," we are thought to have denied the persons. And from this, what we have set forth has seemed plausible. We name the Father and the Son in such a way that we assign one God in these persons and names. Moreover, again, Father and Son, although they are called by two names, are nevertheless one in reason and substance. And when I posit Father and Son, I assign a unity of kind. All these things have been judged capable of being understood as if these terms are placed between Father and Son in the same way as a name and surname are of one person, although from what was said above or below this suspicion could have been dismissed. For I had said that the Son of God was born from nowhere else than properly from the Father, whole from whole, entire from entire, perfect from perfect, and consummate power; how could I have posited the Father himself as the Son himself, and in this way called one person by two names, especially since I condemned this sect, that is, the Sabellian, in the same booklet, and wrote the distinction of persons according to the term? For no one can say "they are one" or "unity of kind" for one person, unless he assigns it to persons.

Who among Catholics is ignorant that the Father is truly Father, the Son truly Son, and the Holy Spirit truly Holy Spirit? As the Lord Himself says to His apostles: "Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19). This is the perfect Trinity consisting in unity, which we profess to be of one substance. For we do not make a division in God according to the condition of bodies; but according to the power of the divine nature, which is not in matter, we believe that the persons of the names truly subsist, and we testify that the unity of divinity exists. Nor do we call the Son of God an extension of some part from the Father (as some have thought), nor a word without reality, as if we take it as the sound of a voice; but we believe that the three names and three persons are of one essence, of one majesty and power. And therefore we confess one God, because the unity of majesty forbids that many be called gods by a plurality of terms.

Finally, we name the Father and the Son in a Catholic manner, but we cannot and must not say that there are two gods; not because the Son of God is not God—indeed, He is true God from true God—but because we know the Son of God from no other source than from the one Father Himself, and therefore we say that there is one God. For this is what the prophets, what the apostles handed down, what the Lord Himself taught when He says: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). "One" refers, as I have said, to the unity of the divinity; "are" assigns it to the persons. But the Apostle also says: "There is one God the Father, from whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and not through Him." But not all have knowledge in these matters (1 Cor. 8:6). Concerning this, having explained these words, which were causing a scruple—not for me, who know what I have said, but for others—I think the occasion for a misinterpretation has been removed. For the profession of faith is clear, the person with the terms is established, and a single divinity has been assigned.

If anything in the words still seems ambiguous to readers, the words must be referred to the meanings, because it is not the simplicity of the words, but the obstinacy of a bad understanding that reeks of fault. But when our meaning agrees with the truth, the words also ought to agree with the most sincere reason. Hence let the academic disputant depart from Christian simplicity. CHAPTER ONE.—We know indeed many and grave heresies to boil up from very many, and like poison, to pour the virus of their cancer into the inmost heart: but those can either be easily overcome or easily avoided, whose every plan of the heart is betrayed at their first proposition. But those with whom we have many things in common can easily strike innocent minds, devoted to God alone, with a fraudulent fellowship, while they defend the virus of their evils through our goods. For nothing can be more dangerous than those heretics who, although they run through everything soundly, yet with one word, as if with a drop of poison, infect that pure and simple faith of the Lord’s, and thereafter of the apostolic tradition.

Hence we must be very cautious, lest something of this kind stealthily insinuate itself into our senses or ears; for nothing drives one so much toward death as violating faith under the pretext of faith. For just as gypsum mixed with water feigns the color of milk, so here, under a plausible confession, a hostile tradition is suggested. Therefore, it is not the similarity of the confession, but the mind's intention, by which the confession itself is confirmed, that must be weighed. Finally, if you attend more diligently and accurately to why they wished to remove the name of substance from the evangelical and apostolic faith and from the tradition of the Fathers, you will undoubtedly prove that the Arian heresy, abbreviated by a subtle shortcut, was introduced by the removal of this name. Nor do I affirm this from suspicion or opinion, nor do I stand as an Academic disputant, as they themselves think, to twist simple meanings with verbal subtlety; but rather, I set forth twisted and perverse things, composed with a slender argument, into the light of knowledge, so that known and discovered iniquity may more easily be avoided by men.

For what cause, what reason is there, that what had been handed down to all Churches to be taught and to be believed, and what our apostolic fathers placed against all heresies, and especially the Arian, as a kind of bulwark of truth, by which they blocked all approaches of pestilential doctrine, purified by the Holy Spirit, set down by Catholic reasoning, is now labored to be removed, not without great effort, by those who are marked with the stigma of the Arian stain, unless it be to fabricate that the Son of God is mutable and convertible, as though He did not consist of the Father's own substance: to whom they ascribe a beginning in time, and an origin from nothing, a name from another, as they have always taught, on account of which they have often been condemned, and now they might freely, securely, and unhesitatingly hand over and insinuate these things to the Churches? CHAPTER 11. — You see, therefore, that they have set forth everything in their treatise not by evangelical faith, but by crafty malice to deceive any simple persons. It ought now to be not so much suspected as manifest to all, that they have set forth "God from God" in the way that Arius used to hand down: that He was made from God, not born from God. If He is born, He is of one substance; if He is made, He is not a true Son; and if He is not a true Son, He is not a true God; or if He is a true God, and is not from the Father, there are two, each having their own wills and diverse commands; or if they are one only by concord and association, and not also by substance, then, as I have said, He is not a true God.

Thus God will be, as Moses was to Pharaoh (Exod. 7:1), in power, not in kind: the Son likewise must be believed to be, as it was said to the people through Isaiah: "I have begotten sons and exalted them" (Isa. 1:9); and elsewhere: "You are gods and sons of the Most High, all of you" (Ps. 81:6). But also the firstborn will be regarded as Israel was called the firstborn son of God (Exod. 4:22). And not only that, but the firstborn of the whole creation is considered as if firstborn in the order of created things; so that from this they assign some kind of sequence to the things to be created in the world. Finally, having removed the term "of one substance," that is, "similar to its maker," they set it down; since likeness is one thing, truth another. For man was made in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26), yet he is not God; nor is it to be believed that man existed as what God is. Thus they wish the Son of God to be similar, so that they say he is similar from elsewhere, not from the one holy and blessed substance of the Father. If he is not from the substance of the Father, he is from nothing, that is, from non-existent things, as Arius himself taught; for with the removal of what the Father is, from wherever the Son may have come, it is necessary that he have both a beginning from nothing and an origin in time: for nothing is without beginning except God alone.

Hence the Son, as the Lord Himself says: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). He said this to show that the names of two persons exist in the majesty of one deity, just as the Prophet says from the voice of God: "My heart has belched forth a good Word, I declare my works to the king" (Ps. 44:1 [45:1]). You see, therefore, that this good Word is the Son of God, whom we believe to be born from nowhere else than from the paternal breast, and, so to speak, from the womb of the heart of God. Moreover, he calls him king because he himself is the king of kings: God the Lord, to whom all divine works submit, who said: "All that the Father has are mine" (John 16:15). Concerning this, the Evangelist also says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made" (John 1:1 and following). Therefore, what was in the beginning must be believed to have always existed: but it exists from nowhere else than from the one who has no beginning, that is, from the heart of the Father; because it says, "my heart has belched forth a good Word" (Ps. 44:2 [45:2]). For it did not say: "In the beginning the Word was made"; but "In the beginning," it says, "was the Word." Whatever beginning of the Word you wish to assign, you will find it prejudged, because it says, "In the beginning it was.

Not that we speak of two principles from the diversity of things, but because the Word, the Son, is always with the Father, and was born from the Father. And therefore, whose origin has no beginning, he must be believed to be coeternal with the Father; because the Father can never be named without the Son, nor the Son be called without the Father: and by this, the Son is always, because the Father is always. And, he says, the Word was God. What is God always is; for if it were not always, it could not be true God, as also in the name of Wisdom, because according to the Apostle, he himself is the Wisdom of the Father (1 Cor. 1:24). I, he says, came forth from the mouth of the Most High (Ecclus. 24:5). Therefore not from elsewhere than from the Father, because always with the Father. And therefore he is called the Wisdom of God, so that we may never believe that the Father was without Wisdom, that is, without his Son. This is that ineffable Wisdom, which in Solomon is described as the beginning of the ways of God, whether founded, or begotten, or created (Prov. 8:22); which, however, he says is founded in such a way that he shows it was always with God. For what beginning will you assign to God, so that you can assign a beginning to his Wisdom? For God did not found his Wisdom as if he were at some time without Wisdom: but when he says the beginning of his ways, he shows the beginning of the motion of some work, so that the Wisdom of God has this beginning, that it proceeded from God to create all things, both heavenly and earthly, not that it began to be in God.

Wisdom was therefore created, or rather begotten, not for herself, who always was, but for those things which needed to be brought forth from her; so that, since how great and of what kind she was could not be known, her virtue and power might be known from the effect of her works: so that what we judge concerning created things, we would then fear the more, the more we marvel at what has been made. But if you say that Wisdom was created in such a way that you understand the Son of God as a creature, the Apostle confronts you, condemning those who worship a creature, saying: "For this reason God delivered them into the desire of their heart for uncleanness; so that they afflict their own bodies with contumely: who have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and have worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed God forever" (Rom. 1:25). This, I say, is that Wisdom of God which says: "I came forth from the mouth of the Most High" (Ecclus. 24:5), the maker and effectress of the universe, that is, the Son of God, through whom are all things, and in whom are all things; because as the Apostle said: "In him all things are established in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether Thrones, or Dominations, or Virtues, or Principalities, or Powers: all things are created through him and in him, and he is the one of all, and all things consist in him" (Col. 1:16). Hence also Solomon: "Though she is one, she can do all things; and remaining in herself, she renews all things, and transfers herself through generations into holy souls" (Wis. 7:27).

Confirming this, the Apostle says: "that he might dwell in the man" (Ephesians 3:16); and through whom all things were made in the beginning, through him all things are saved in the end. Chapter III.—But you say to me, that is, the name of one substance is for this reason rather that they adore the Creator, following the same things which the Apostle said: "that in the name of Jesus all bend the knee, of celestial, terrestrial, and infernal beings, and every tongue confesses" (Philippians 2:10). And Moses says: "Let all the angels of God adore him" (Deuteronomy 32:43). And David: "All kings will adore you" (Psalm 71:11). This indeed would not be said in the Scriptures, but because he himself is the Word, the maker of all things. But you say it ought not to be named, because it is not contained in the divine Scriptures. I ask also, man, who forbids this; whether it ought not to be named because it is not written, or because it is not permitted to believe so? If it is to be believed thus, why should I not profess it thus? For, says the Apostle, "belief is in the heart for righteousness: but confession is made by the mouth for salvation" (Romans 10:10).

If it is not right to name it, then neither is it right to believe it; the assertion of the Arian stain has prevailed, which denied that the Father and the Son are of one substance for this reason: because it represents the Son of God as made sometimes from nothing, sometimes from the Father, but from a different substance, when it wished and how it wished and from where it wished, provided only that it fabricates him as having come into existence from elsewhere, and not from that which the Father is. And even if it says he is born, it does so only in word; because again it understands everything that is born as made, since we too are called sons of God by birth, who are manifestly a creation. But if you are not an Arian, and you acknowledge the true Son as born from the true Father, not made, why do you not say that he is of one substance with the Father? In vain, man, do you profess what you believe; and in vain do you believe, if you do not believe thus, and you are rightly marked as a heretic. And although you have altered the statement by which you seemed to have forbidden the Son of God to be called a creation, yet when you add: "like any of those things which are made," you openly show that you did not wish him not to be called a creation because he ought not to be understood as made; but you wish him not to be made as any of those things which are made, yet still made. For you say he is made in another way, namely as a perfect creation, through whom all things were made; provided only that you understand him as made, even if not like the rest.

But to return to what you say, that the term "of one substance" is not found in the divine Scriptures, consider this for the moment: that wherever substance is read, it is understood as God, not as a god; although you also profess other things that are not written, namely, God from God, light from light. What do you say to this? Either hold everything with me, or omit everything. For if you fear to say the term "of one substance" because it is not written, you ought likewise to fear to profess God from God and light from light. But I prove that God from God, light from light, and the term "of one substance" are contained in the divine Scriptures. For since the Son of God himself, who is God, says in his Gospel: "I came forth from the Father" (John 16:27), rightly and deservedly we profess God from God, because we know that the Son of God, true God from true God, was born from God the Father. But not in the way that we are called gods (Psalm 81:6), or as Moses was called the god of Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1): but because he is the true Son, born from the true Father, he is truly and confidently to be called God from God, and likewise light from light.

What is not written, you say is pure, but you do not agree with me at all. And because it is written of the Father: God is light (1 John 1:5); and of the Son: There was the true light, which illumines every man coming into this world; and: The light shines in the darkness, that is, Christ in the world; and the darkness did not overtake it (John 1:5, 9); that is, men whose heart is blinded by the darkness of ignorance did not recognize Christ as true God, as true Son of God. But the Lord Himself says: I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life (John 8:12). Therefore, because the Father is light, and the Son is light, rightly light from light. But you assert "light from light" as if from the Father, who is the true light, another light was made, which is not from the substance of the Father itself: but as any other light, although made by God, is yet far different from the one who made it; and therefore you say "light from light," not "light of light." Since I have set forth these things, although you do not understand me, nevertheless, however you pronounce them, since the written text does not give it, you do not give the term "of one substance," which you think is not contained in the Scriptures, and you profess it together with me: except that there you had a way to conceal your malicious intentions with hidden deceit in both, so that you would express this same thing with me in the sound of the voice, but separate the understanding of the saying far from me?

Just as those heretics who deny the resurrection of the flesh, in order to deceive the souls of the simple, say "Woe to those who do not rise in the flesh." But if you examine them as to why they said this, you will know that they deny the resurrection of the flesh altogether; they will tell you: "Woe to him who has not been baptized in the flesh, so that his soul, while it is in the body, from the tomb of its sins, as from a sepulcher of crimes, may be baptized, and fall back into the same." They defend only the resurrection of the soul through the grace of the life-giving bath; for they exclude the salvation of the flesh itself. And so, by a plausible confession, they seduce innocent minds with hidden fraud. Just as a lethal potion, tempered with the sweetness of honey, destroys by its deceptive sweetness, so this evil, through the blandishment of the ears, contaminates the senses of the hearers with a certain stain, infecting them with the contagion of the adhering vice. CHAPTER IV.—Finally, they could now, as with other things, name it in word, if they had a way to pervert it to another meaning with a perverse sense; but since they saw themselves enclosed in this word, they wished no mention of it to be made at all; lest either by professing it they believe it, or by believing it they appear to profess it: excusing themselves with subtle ingenuity, either that it was not written, or that God ought not to be said to be in substance, lest he be believed to be corporeal.

God, they will say, makes substance to exist, yet God Himself is not to be reckoned as substance; for, they claim, every substance admits of contraries. But God, who can admit nothing diverse, ought not to be called substance. I would forgive you if you said these things simply, if you wished to know the reason of the matter, if you approached this question as a novice, if you were not the same person who always asserted that the Son of God was either of another substance or from non-existing things. But since you are the same man who, often convicted, often confessed, often denied, often subdued by changing your position, and who even now, driven by ambition and power, stirs up everything in confusion, how do you think I can forgive you when you repeatedly retract the same things? But lest this perversity seem condemned by prejudice rather than by examination, I shall briefly answer this objection of yours. You therefore forbid that substance be named in God, as if everything that is called substance is considered to be of one kind. Do you not know that heavenly things are constituted in one way, earthly things in another; and that even among heavenly and worldly things themselves there is a great difference? For angels, and each of the virtues, received the substances of their constitutions in one way, and in another way, as the Apostle says: "There is one brightness of the sun, another brightness of the moon, another brightness of the stars" (1 Cor. 15:41).

Thus also in this world, just as there are diverse kinds of things, so too are there diverse bodies of living beings, and for all, the substance of each its own kind, as the Apostle says: "Not all flesh is the same flesh" (1 Cor. 15:39). If, therefore, things made by God have diverse qualities of their own substances, do you think that in God there is such a substance as that which some created thing has, so that it can receive contraries? Far from it. For what is the substance of God? That which God Himself is: simple, singular, pure, unmixed with any concretion, clear, good, perfect, blessed, whole, holy entirely. Or do you think that God is something empty and void? For this is blasphemy to say, that He through whom all things have stood firm, who brought forth everything by His word, composed it by reason, perfected it by power, by whose nod and command all things are governed and all things serve, should be thought empty. And rightly is it written of God: "I am who I am" (Exod. 3:14); and "He who is, sent me" (Exod. 4:13). And the Lord Savior Himself says: "This is eternal life, that they may know You alone as the true God, and Jesus Christ whom You sent" (John 17:3). Therefore God is in His substance by His essence, the knowledge of whom is eternal life, who is as great as cannot be spoken. He is then worthily esteemed when He is called inestimable, whether you wish it or not.

Therefore, that which is, that is the substance of that thing which is defended as existing; which, however, as has already been said, as to its extent and quality, can be conceived neither by the mind, nor estimated by the senses, nor defined by the intellect, provided only that it is agreed to exist, that which is believed to exist; so that from that very thing which God is, the Son exists, so that the Son is true, and the Father is true in the Son, and the Son in the Father. This will be, that is, of one substance with the Father, as the Lord himself says: "I in the Father, and the Father in me" (John 14:10); and: "I and the Father are one" (Ibid., 10:30); and: "I came forth from the Father" (Ibid., 16:28); and: "He who sees me, sees the Father" (Ibid., 14:9). Not undeservedly, because the Son of God was born from God the Father; and therefore they are one in unity of substance and in majesty of divinity, just as Jeremiah also prophesied: "Who will stand in the substance of the Lord, and see the Word of the Lord?" (Jer. 23:18). And again: "If they had stood in my substance, and if they had heard my words, I would have turned them away from their worst teachings" (Ibid., 22). And in Solomon: "My substance, my sweetness is" (Wis. 16:21).

CHAPTER V.—Since, therefore, you recognize this unity of substance in the Father and the Son not only by prophetic but also by evangelical authority, how can you say that it is not found in the divine Scriptures, as if it were something other than what is said: "I came forth from God the Father" (John 16:28); and: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30); or what the prophets openly intimated concerning the substance of God? Now, this is the rationale of the term, that you believe in the unity of substance in the Father and the Son, even though you cannot define the thing itself, which is ineffable; so that whether you say light from light, or word from word, or spirit from spirit, or lord from lord, whatever you say concerning Him, you nevertheless believe the Father and the Son to be of one essence: and you understand the Son from that very thing which the Father is. For if you make any comparison from those things which are seen, by that very dissimilarity of things you will not set forth the rationale, but will introduce a contentiousness of disputations, as it is written by whose voice: "To whom will you compare me?" (Isaiah 46:5). And therefore, God, to whom nothing can be likened, suffices to be believed as He Himself is perceived, as He Himself wished to be believed, not to be indicated.

Finally, if concerning this very point which you profess along with me, you wish to draw some comparison in God, I do not know whether you could define more precisely what you have compared: for instance, when you say light from light, if you are compelled by a scrupulous exposition to explain it, I ask how you believe light from light? Whether as a lamp from a lamp, or as the sun from the sun, so that you introduce either two lamps or two suns, as it were two gods under this example? Or do you designate the splendor of the same lamp’s light, or the brightness of the sun shining from the same sun, as light from light, so that you liken the figure of the Father to the matrix of light, and show the Son as the splendor of brightness? As the Prophet said of him: “With you is the fountain of life, and in your light we shall see light” (Ps. 35:10); or as Solomon says: “The radiance of eternal light, and the spotless mirror of God’s majesty, and the image of his goodness” (Wis. 7:26); or as the Apostle here proclaimed our Savior to be the image of the invisible God, because the light of the sun is its own image, which proceeds from the same sun (Col. 1:15).

But how much could be answered to these things, which generate the quarrels that the Apostle forbids (2 Tim. 2:24), is long to tell: especially since it is established that that light which God is cannot be estimated, comprehended, and defined: nor can anything truly from among those things which are in this world be compared to the divine majesty; because nothing of all those things which are seen or spoken can be considered a worthy likeness according to what God is, since He is greater than the intellects and senses themselves. Therefore He forewarned that you should believe in the divinity of the substance, and recognize the true Son from the true Father: but that you should not inquire about the quality of the thing; because you cannot know what sort or how great it is. For this the prophets, this the apostles proclaimed. CHAPTER VI.—Finally, according to our capacity, according to our strength, according to our faith, let us consider what God is, and see whether anything can be compared to Him. Certainly this is He of whom and when it is said, He cannot be spoken: when He is estimated, He cannot be estimated: when He is compared, He cannot be compared: when He is defined, He grows by His own definition. He who covers the sky with His hand, encloses the whole circuit of the world in His fist. Whom all things do not know in their entirety, and by fearing, know. Whose name and power this world serves, and the momentary succession of the elements themselves, succeeding one another, bears witness.

See, therefore, if there can be anything to which the Father and the Son can be compared; for the Son is such as the Father is; for He would not say that He Himself is one with the Father unless He knew Himself to be such as the Father is. There is a certain Reason, which is named among the Greeks, which distinguishes persons or names between the Father and the Son; because the Son Himself is called Reason. Yet this Reason is called by many names: sometimes Word, sometimes Power, sometimes Wisdom, sometimes Right Hand, sometimes Arm, sometimes Pearl, sometimes Treasure, sometimes Nets, sometimes Plow, sometimes Fountain, sometimes Rock, sometimes Cornerstone, sometimes Lamb, sometimes Man, sometimes Calf, sometimes Eagle, sometimes Lion, sometimes Way, sometimes Truth, sometimes Life. And thus, since He is God, all things in all, so that through these names the mysteries of the divine arrangements are known, not so that the majesty of the Son of God is shown as properly defined. For what is the Son of that which the Father is? Another same. For He is also called Word for this reason, because He proceeded from the divine mouth itself, and the Father neither commanded nor did anything without Him. He is called Power, because He is truly from God and always with God, and all the power of the Father consists in Him. He is called Wisdom, because, coming from the heart of the Father, He has revealed heavenly secrets to believers. He is called Right Hand, because through Him all divine works have been perfected. He is called Arm, because all things are contained by Him. He is called Pearl, so that nothing more precious than Him is held.

He is called a treasury, because in him all the wealth and riches of the heavenly kingdoms are acknowledged to be stored. He is called a net, because through him and in him the diverse multitude of nations, like fish from the sea of the world, is gathered through the water of baptism into the Church, where the distinction between good and evil is recognized. He is called a plow, because by the sign of his cross hard hearts are subdued, so that they may be prepared for the necessary seed. He is called a fountain of living water, because from him thirsty hearts are irrigated by the grace of heavenly water. He is called a rock, because he provides strength to believers and hardness to unbelievers. He is called a cornerstone, because, as the one and mediator, he has joined together both walls of the New and Old Testaments, containing them in himself. He is called a lamb, to demonstrate the innocence and passion of Christ. He is called a man, because he deigned to be born in the flesh for us men. He is called a calf, because he endured suffering for our salvation. He is called an eagle, because after the venerable resurrection, like the king of birds, he flies to the Father’s seat. He is called a lion, because he is the king of kings, who shattered death and the devil by the power of his might. He is the way, because through him is the ascent. He is truth, because he knows no falsehood. He is life, because he himself gives life to all things.

You see, therefore, through these terms that the meanings of divine dispositions and works are prefigured; yet is God himself properly defined by them? Therefore the Father is God, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, inestimable. And his Son, our God and Lord, is as great as the Father is; but he is from nowhere else than from the Father: because, he says, I came forth from the Father (John 16:28), that is, light from light. CHAPTER VII. — But let the heretic not seize some occasion from this, when I posit two names or two persons, that is, of Father and Son, as if I were speaking of two gods, as they fabricate two from diversity: but we name Father and Son in such a way that we designate one God in these persons and names. Let the philosophers see to it, let their disciples the heretics see to it, who are varied by the diversity of powers: For us, however, there is one God the Father, as the Apostle said, from whom are all things, and we from him: and one Lord Jesus Christ, God the Son of God, through whom are all things, and we through him (1 Cor. 8:6).

For through the two, what else is understood but the substance of the two divided into parts, and the will and commands, as well as the nature of acting and commanding, dissociated along with the names themselves? Moreover, the Father and the Son, although believed to be two persons, are nevertheless one in reason and substance. For a partnership of unequals is an offense to the better, and it is to the injury of him who is true God that another who is not true is compared to him. But when I posit Father and Son, I assign a unity of kind; and if I divide that unity into persons, yet the distinctions of persons are again consigned to the unity of their own names by the bond of natural law. Hence the Son is as great as the Father will appear, whole from whole, entire from entire, perfect from a perfect and consummate virtue, as the Apostle says: "In whom all the fullness of the divinity dwells bodily" (Colossians 2). For Jeremiah, the most accepted of the prophets, knowing this unity of divinity in the Father and the Son, says: "This is our God, and no other shall be counted besides him; who found every path of wisdom and gave it to his servant Jacob and to his beloved Israel. After this he was seen on earth and lived among men" (Baruch 3:36 and following).

And Isaiah himself proclaims this, saying: "Thus says the Lord God: Egypt shall be weary, and the traffic of the Ethiopians, and the Sabaeans; men of high stature shall come over to you, they shall be your servants, and they shall walk after you bound in fetters, and they shall entreat you; because in you is God, and there is no other God besides you: for you are God" (Isaiah 45:14). Lest you think I have said this with that arrogance with which Sabellius is said to have spoken—who professes the Father himself to be the Son himself—we do not so compress everything into one meaning as to be caught by the deceit of other heretics. But because in the name itself the undivided authority of the persons is recognized, and the Son is named not generically but personally from the Father; accordingly, we ascribe to the Father everything that is the Son's, and to the Son everything that is the Father's. Nothing will appear to be the Father's that is judged to be the Son's, nor the Son's that is defended as the Father's; because the unity of majesty does not allow the gods to be called by a plural term, since it is established that the Father and the Son are of one substance, whence each is called one God.

We fear this above all: that unless the Father and the Son are one, the interpolated nativity falls back into disrepute upon the author. For this pleased the heretics: that that omnipotent, invisible, immense God should degenerate in the Son, and be changed not only in power but in condition, as if the Father could not have from himself one such as he himself is. Therefore we defend the true Son from the true Father, who always was and is of one substance with the Father. And this is what the Greeks call *homoousion*, that is, one with another the same; so that the persons would be heard by name, and the names would not separate the substance. CHAPTER VIII.—But to expose the whole mystery of the Arian heresy, I will briefly indicate why they are unwilling to believe the Son to be from the Father's substance. For they say: Since God the Father is omnipotent, invisible, inconvertible, immutable, perfect, always the same, eternal; but the Son is visible, because he has often been seen by the patriarchs; and convertible and mutable, because he showed himself in various forms: if he were from the Father's substance, they say, it could never happen that before the assumption of flesh he would be seen as either visible or mutable; rather he would have remained in the equality in which the Father is, from whose substance he came; because what is from the Father must be believed to be incapable of being seen, changed, or converted.

It comes to the cause, because with the descent into Mary, when He filled the Virgin's womb, another was certainly born from her than that which had come. Hence, they say, the substance, once corrupted, changes its state, loses its order, and by that very transformation is formed from God into man, from spirit into flesh. And certainly every translation is the destruction of the former. And on this account they say: If the Son were from the substance of the Father, then the Father would already seem lesser by the transmission or end of His own substance; and therefore they preferred to believe the Son to be from another substance, which could be converted, changed, and seen; because this is not permitted to be believed of the substance of the Father. This is the cause of the error, this is the origin of the Arian heresy; while they do not understand the power of God, nor do they recognize the arrangement of so great a mystery, so as to compare God with human conditions. To whom it must first be answered that the Son of God was not seen as He was God, but as man was able to grasp concerning God; then, that by various figures He Himself is not mutable and convertible, but this is of God's power, that when He deigns to reveal Himself to individuals as He wills, He changes the appearance, not the substance: nor does He lose the property of quality, but according to the merit of the beholder He applies a tempering of majesty; yet He Himself remains the same, as He always is, in the property of His own substance, as it is written: "You will change them and they will be changed; but you yourself are the same, and your years will not fail" (Ps. 101).

For even though there are many things among those which are seen in this world, which are changed from one thing into another, so that they cease to be what they were, and become what they previously were not—as mud, when it is shaped into a man, ceases to be mud; or fish, or birds, when they proceed from water, are no longer water, because they are something else; as potter's clay when it hardens into a potsherd; as stone, when it is dissolved and boiled into lime; as sand when it is changed into glass, and other things which it would be long to enumerate—yet there is a great difference, foolish heretic, between those things which are made and the one who made all things as he willed. Things which are made serve their prescribed condition; but he who made them is of his own will and proper right. Nor can he be changed into something other than what he is, compelled by any force; but he shows himself as he wills and to whom he wills. For if angels have often been seen in the form of men, and yet are not other than what they know themselves to be, nor do they change their substance when they assume the form of a human body, how much more so our Lord himself, who made all things, who granted to the angels themselves, by his own institution, that they could do this!

To this is added that we approve the Son of God, as has already been said, to have been seen by the Fathers, not so that the whole of what God is was seen in him, but the arrangements of future things, which were to be fulfilled at their respective times, were discerned in him through an image. For who could have seen the Son of God before he assumed visible matter, as it pleased him, or deigned to clothe himself in a human body? Although he was seen by Abraham (Gen. 18:14), yet he was seen in the form of a human body, by which it was shown that he would come in a man in the last times. Jacob also elsewhere in an angel (Gen. 28:13), and likewise is seen in a man. He showed himself in an angel to indicate that he was the messenger of a great plan; in a man, however, with whom he is also described as having wrestled, to indicate especially the image of the future struggle which he would have with Israel when he had come in human form. But so that Israel, that is, the man seeing God, might believe him to be the Lord with whom he wrestled in such a contest under the figure of a man, he received the name (Gen. 32:24). "I saw," he says, "God face to face, and my soul was saved" (Ibid., 50). And indeed he had seen the figure of a man, which the Son of God, God, had put on.

To Moses in the bush he appeared in a flame of fire (Exod. 3:2), so that he might show light to believers, judgment to unbelievers; because Christ is salvation to believers and punishment to unbelievers, as the Apostle says: "To some the odor of life unto life, to others the odor of death unto death" (2 Cor. 2:16). He preceded the people of Israel in a column of cloud by day, and by night in a column of fire as a guide of the journey (Exod. 13:21); so that he might show the grace of baptism through the cloud, and the gift of the Holy Spirit through the fire; because the apostle Paul writes that the Fathers were baptized in the cloud (1 Cor. 10:2), and the Acts of the Apostles declare that the Spirit is like fire (Acts 2:3). You see therefore throughout, heretic, that the characters of the divine Scriptures were shown to the Fathers in honor of God; yet not God himself, as he is properly, was revealed. Finally, when Moses prayed that he might see the face of God purely, what did God immediately say to him? "You cannot," he said, "see my face; for man shall not see my face and live" (Exod. 33:20). By this very fact that sight is denied, a brightness is assigned, which indeed is so great as it is to be believed, which is indicated as invisible. Since Moses, who arranged, indicated, and expressed the position of the sky, the orders of the world, the changes of the elements, and finally the ornaments of the whole world; to whom the Lord himself bore witness saying: "There will be none among the prophets like my servant Moses, to whom I spoke face to face, mouth to mouth" (Num.

aid, (2 Cor. 5:19). Yet he could not see God purely. He was indeed worthy of all prophecy, but not to the extent of being able to behold God, since he was only a man. And indeed we defend all these words of the Son, whom we know spoke with Moses on Mount Sinai (Exod. 31:18), who had come from the Father to perform and explain matters; because it was fitting that from the beginning everything be ordered, explained, and remain through him, since this principal reason for having a Son was established. And yet this appearance is understood in such a way that he seemed to be seen by assuming some visible material arrangement, as I said, while preserving his invisibility, which his interposed majesty removed from the sight of all. For he was not revealed to human eyes in such a way that the whole deity appeared in him; but, like a mirror, when he enclosed within his light the features conceived as if into a full likeness of a man, so, with the preceding radiance of his majesty, what was seen within showed an image of the truth, not properly God himself.

So also, when he deigned to put on a man, he brought no stain upon his eternity, not that he might change spirit into flesh, but that he might bestow upon the man he assumed the immortality and eternity of heavenly life. For although the Apostle says that he emptied himself, by taking on the form of a servant, we do not understand him to have been so emptied that the same Spirit became something other than what he had been; but rather that, having for a time laid aside the honor of his majesty, he might put on a human body, by which, once assumed, he might become the savior of the nations. For just as when the sun is covered by a cloud, its brightness is compressed, not blinded; and that light, which, diffused through the whole orb, bathes everything in clear splendor, is enclosed by a very small obstacle of cloud, not removed: so also that man whom the Lord Jesus, our Savior, that is, God and the Son of God, put on, did not intercept God in him, but concealed him. Finally, when on the mountain he raised himself a little beyond that man, the apostles, blinded by the brilliance of his light, fell to the ground, being men (Matt. 17:6), and were in danger of their lives, had not the Lord, by again suppressing the honor of his majesty, mercifully come to their aid, according to that saying: No one sees God and lives (Exod. 33:20).

Just as the brightness of the sun, when it does not reach our sight, is hidden from us, because what is not seen is due to our weakness, whose eyes the darkness of clouds covers: so it proves that it is not by its own detriment that its proper radiance lay hidden; but by the benefit of the flesh, as I have said, on account of which the Son of God endured being the son of man. For indeed the Virgin conceived from the Spirit of God, and what she conceived, she bore, that is, God united with his man, as I have already said, just as he himself said: "What is born of flesh is flesh, and what is born of spirit is spirit" (John 3:6); because God is spirit, and was born of God. Just as the Angel also said to the Virgin Mary: "The Spirit of God will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore what will be born from you, holy, will be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). You see therefore that the Spirit himself, that is, the Son of God, came to the Virgin; and from there the Son of God and of man proceeded: yet not by this clothing... was the Son of God changed; but he is the same himself in the man, who had been before the world with the Father; through whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made, as the Evangelist says: "The world was made through him, and the world did not know him" (John 1:10).

Moreover, it is the mark of a madman to believe that one can be freed by him who, in order to free, was lost; in order to be born, was oppressed; in order to receive immortality, passed over to death. But far be it, heretic, that the sense of your iniquity should be admitted by Catholics; for we believe in the immutable and inconvertible Word and Spirit, that is, the Son of God; who, when He put on man, did not change His state, did not lose His order, did not alter His substance: but He illuminated the filth of that same body with the eternal light of His own glory; so that to us, through the path of His body, the grace of the Holy Spirit and of eternal life might overflow. And although we believe that He suffered and was buried, yet it was that man who suffered, whom the Son of God took up, whom He put on, whom He bore. But because everything that man suffered was referred back to the author; therefore the death and passion are judged to be the Lord's; for it is established that what is of God is immortal, what is of man is perishable.

On the third day he rose again, not God into man, but rather man into God. He ascended into heaven, offered to his Father that man as a most welcome gift, and sat down at the right hand of the Father, according to what is written: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand (Ps. 109:1). He sent us the Holy Spirit from his own, and from that same substance of his, as protector, sanctifier, and guide into eternal life, as it is written from the voice of God: I will pour out from my Spirit upon my servants and my handmaids (Joel 2:29). And again: The Spirit will go forth from me (Isa. 57:16). And our Lord and Savior himself says: He will receive from mine (John 16:15); from that, certainly, which the Son is, because the Son is also from that which the Father is. Thereafter, at a predetermined time, he will come to judge the living and the dead, so as to give rewards to believers and punishments to unbelievers. His kingdom is eternal, immortal; it has neither beginning nor end: to him is honor and glory for ever and ever.

CONCLUSION. — You who conceal these things, I beseech you by God, do not twist the simplicity of the sense into ambiguity, nor draw them otherwise than as they have been spoken; for we confess the Father as true Father, and the Son of God as true Son of God, and the Holy Spirit as truly Holy Spirit: confessing three persons of one substance and of one divinity. But the sect of Sabellius, and of Photinus, and also of Arius, and any others that come against the rule of truth, we condemn. Moreover, we embrace the treatise of the Synod of Nicaea, preserving it with every effort of mind and with complete faith; for we know that this treatise is set against all heresies with invincible truth.