Contra Arianos Liber Unus

S. FULGENTIUS’S ONE BOOK AGAINST THE ARIANS, CONTAINING TEN RESPONSES TO TEN OBJECTIONS. It has been said that the Father ineffably begot the Son from himself, that is, from that which he himself is. It has been added that he was born not from without, but from God. These things do not require a response, because they agree with our faith. First Objection. What is said to this? If he was born from God, he is from within God; but if he is not from within, neither is he from him; if different terms are now employed, what does it avail, if the truth itself is not professed? Response. Indeed, when Father and Son are named, a diversity of terms is recognized in these two names; rather, through these two different terms, a single nature of each is signified: because the diversity of these names does not divide the natures, but shows the truth of the generation, so that from one true Father we may acknowledge one true Son to have existed; and thus, while the true generation of the Father and the true nativity of the Son are proclaimed, in one begetter and one begotten not only the unity of substance, but also the property of each person may be recognized, lest either he who begot be thought to have been born, or he who was born be thought to be other than he who begot.

For the Father is not himself the Son, since in each the property of the persons is preserved. But what the Father is, that also the Son is, because God from God, perfect from perfect, immeasurable from immeasurable, omnipotent from omnipotent, the coeternal Son was born from the eternal Father, the same truth saying: “All things that the Father has are mine” (John 17:10). Therefore “Father” and “Son” are relative names, which do not separate the nature of the begetter and the begotten, but without doubt signify one nature. But we call that relative which we refer to the recognition of another, so that while we name one, we point out the other: just as among men these relatives are often named: father and son, son and father, father-in-law and son-in-law, son-in-law and father-in-law; for a man is called father so that he may be known to have begotten a son, and that one is called son so that he may be shown to have been born from a father. Nor in this diversity of names is a diversity of natures found, since each is similarly called a man, although one is named father and the other son.

Therefore, the nature of the Father and the Son could not be known as one if these were not different terms, since if both were called Fathers, they would certainly be dissimilar in nature: for each would consist from himself and would not have a common substance with the other, nor would the divinity be one, for those who would not have one nature; and it would follow that two Fathers would beget two Sons, since unless a true offspring existed from each individually, the truth of the paternal name would appear in no one. But now, in the case of two Sons born from different Fathers, although there could be no difference in the relative name, let it be considered whether there could be a common nature. Who does not see that the name of Son is one in each, but that the nature of each is not one? Rather, each Son has a common nature not with the other Son, with whom he shared one name of relation, but with the Father from whom he had come into being. But why should we dispute further about two Fathers and two Sons?

The truth of this assertion does not require a diversity of persons, but can more easily be supported for its own demonstration by the consideration of a single man, through which it may be understood that relative names, by their own diversity, do not show a diversity of natures, but pertain especially to the signification of persons, so that, namely, when one is shown, the person of the other is also known. Moreover, that name "father" is always common to the Son as well—not insofar as a personal relation is shown, but insofar as a substantial property is demonstrated. For was not Seth, born of the father Adam, and begotten by one not begotten, called the son of the father Adam? Therefore, until he reached manly age so that he might beget a son, he could not be called father; and before he begot, he was only a son; but when he begot, he then also began to be a father.

With the addition, therefore, of the name of father, no natural diversity was made in him; and when one man had begun to have these two designations, his nature was not changed, or divided, or doubled: for he was a son, because he came from a father; he was a father, because he begot a son; yet he did not have the nature of the son, in which he was born, in such a way that, remaining in it, he could not be a father; nor did he acquire another essence with the name of father, so that he lost the substance of the son, in which he had been born; but, what is true, just as he was a man when he came to be a son by being born, so he remained a man when he became a father by begetting; nor was he anything other than a man, which Adam was, from whom he himself was born, and which Enos was, who was begotten from him. Therefore, in God the Father and God the Son, with the property of the persons preserved, let it not be said to be impossible what is also proved by the evidence of any man, but let us discern what is known to pertain to relation, what to substance. For the names Father and Son are of relation; the name of substance is one, which is said, God. Therefore, the names of relation each retain their own; the name of substance, however, they possess one in common, because, although one is called Father and the other Son, yet the Son is God just as the Father is God: for by those two names true generation is known, but by this one common name substantial unity is demonstrated.

Objection 2. We never recall having read those things which were set forth above, because it is written concerning him: "Who shall recount his generation?" (Isaiah 53). And as if no one, Scripture says, who might recount it? These men are to be noted, that they say they can know, because his generation is ineffable, not unknowable. Response. It is written: "I believed, therefore I spoke"; and we believe, therefore we speak (2 Corinthians 4:13), and we confidently profess that the generation of the Son is ineffable, not unknowable; for it does not follow that what cannot be recounted cannot be known, since no one is able to recount God himself, yet it is not permitted to anyone to be ignorant of him with impunity. Indeed, God is so knowable, while being ineffable, that the blessed Apostle pronounces some inexcusable on this account, because, having known God, they did not glorify him as God or give thanks (Romans 1:21). For if our Lord did not wish to be known by us, he would not have said: "If you had known me, you would certainly have known my Father as well" (John 14:17).

Nor would He have rebuked Philip when he said, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us," by saying, "Have I been with you so long, and you have not known me? Philip, he who has seen me has seen the Father." For by this word the Lord wished to show that everything which was sought was to be found in Him. For it cannot be that the Son, in whom corporally dwells the whole fullness of divinity (Colossians 2:9), should have anything less than the eternal and immense Father. Therefore God is not unknowable, though He is ineffable; but He is known by the faithful so that He may be loved, although He cannot be described by human tongues or even by angelic ones. For the Apostle Paul shows that ignorance of God is nothing other than the servitude of demons, saying: "But then indeed, being ignorant of God, you served those who are not gods by nature" (Galatians 4:9). Therefore, just as we ought not to be ignorant of Christ's divinity, although we cannot describe it, so too, although no one has the capacity to describe His birth, knowledge of it is not taken away from the faithful. For who would proclaim one who is born, if he were ignorant of his birth? Who would call Him Son, and not know that He was begotten? Who could believe in the Father, if he did not consider that He begot? Truly the Father begot, and truly the Son was born. Therefore we are given to acknowledge the true birth of the Son, although we are not given to describe how He was born. For the prophet did not say, "But who has known His generation?" but "who has described it?" (Isaiah 53:8).

Therefore, we worthily recognize divine generation, insofar as it is permitted for a human being, when we both call it true generation and proclaim that very generation, which is true, as ineffable. The Son is therefore truly acknowledged as born from the substance of the Father, while his nativity, which is from the ineffable God, is proclaimed ineffable; for undoubtedly the true nativity of the Son is ineffable, because his substance is one with that of the ineffable begetter. Objection 3. It is proper to profess his generation in such a way as the Lord Himself says through the Scriptures: "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways, before the ages he established me" (Proverbs 8:22). And it follows: "And before all hills he begot me." And again: "I came forth from the Father and came into this world" (John 16:29). And again: "The Lord said to me, 'You are my Son, today I have begotten you'" (Psalm 2:7). And after he was known in the flesh, the evangelist professes concerning him, saying: "And we saw his glory, glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14). And the Apostle says: "Who is the Firstborn of all creation" (Colossians 1:15). Behold, we profess him as created, established, and begotten, without any irrational ambiguity.

Response. In each nativity of Christ, one does not err who, in Christ the Son of God and of man, professes both the full divinity from the Father and the full humanity from the mother, and thus recognizes each substance as true in him, having distinguished with faithful piety what pertains to eternity or to temporality. For we ought not to be ignorant that he himself, who without beginning according to divinity is the creator born from the Father, was created in time according to the flesh from a human being. In that nativity which has no beginning, the majesty of the eternal divinity is acknowledged; in this one, however, the mercy of the eternal divinity is found. For he who was not created, but the creator born from the creator, had by his goodness created the human being; he himself afterward, by his mercy, was created from a human being. Nor did he disdain to become his own work, so that through him the state of his work might be restored. Therefore, the wisdom that wills this creation, in order to foretell the mystery and to show the future sacrament of its Incarnation, spoke in a prophetic manner, by which future events are customarily narrated under the enunciation of past time: "The Lord created me at the beginning of his ways in his work" (Proverbs 8:22).

It shows the reason for creation when it does not keep silent that it was created as the beginning of the ways of God in his work. For to show that this being called created belongs not to that eternal nativity but to this time in which the Son of God is found to have taken on flesh, let what it set before be considered: “If I announce to you,” it says, “the things that happen daily, I will recount the things that have been from eternity, to declare them” (Ecclus. 24:21). Therefore, since these things happen daily, it warns that things made from eternity are to be announced, showing that what it is going to say to us belongs not to eternity but to time. For this reason it immediately added: “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways in his work.” Therefore, that wisdom was created is not before the ages but from the age; but that the Son was created as the beginning of the ways, what else is it but that he himself was made a way for us, so that with him as guide and ruler, through the grace of adoption which we have received, by divine gift an entrance might lie open for us to the progress of virtues? That this may appear more clearly, we must attend to the fact that the Son was made the beginning of creation not to found a new creation again, but to renew the old, already long lost. For the apostles also are found to have made this beginning of creation, by whose office he restored what had previously collapsed, as the blessed James says concerning God the Father: “He willingly begot us by the Word of truth, that we might be some beginning of his creation” (James 1:18).

It is therefore shown by the clearest indications that in this passage creation is to be referred not to the establishment of all creatures, but to the restoration of men: just as holy David prayed, when terrified by the recollection of a double crime—not only of violated marriage, but also of the innocent husband slain. Therefore, while he was meditating on washing away the stain of such a great crime with a flood of tears, he poured forth this amid the groans which were witnesses of his grief: "Create a pure heart in me, O God, and renew a right spirit in my inward parts" (Ps. 50:12). Signifying that a pure heart being created in him was the same as a right spirit being renewed in his inward parts. For this reason, therefore, Christ wished to be created, and his apostles to be made the beginning of this creation, so that through him man, who had perished by oldness, might be renewed. But before the age, Wisdom said that she was founded, in order to demonstrate her nativity, by which she was born from the Father, as immutable: for what is said to be founded is torn away by no reasoning, and what is not torn away is not changed. However, so that the nativity of his divinity may be known to be without beginning, what follows should be attended to: "Before he made the earth, before he established the abysses, before the fountains of waters proceeded, before the mountains were stabilized, before all the hills, she bore me" (Prov. 8:23-26). This "before," when it is said, entirely anticipates every beginning.

It is to be considered that wherever that divine and eternal nativity of the Son is demonstrated, it is not said when he was born, but "before" is always placed, so that whatever a man may wish to think of eternity and infinity, the nativity of the Son is always thought of before everything that is conceived by thought; and thus the nativity of the Son of God is known to be without beginning, in which nothing other than "before" is perpetually found. But we would like an answer to be given to us, whether that which is begotten is the same as that which is created? If both are thought to be one, then let the world be said to have been begotten by God, from whom it cannot be begotten, and created. Let even unbelieving men be called sons of God, who have not been freed from the power of darkness; let them be called heirs of future blessedness, who do not receive the faith of the Savior. But if, as is true, it is one thing to be created, another to be begotten, let it be distinguished in what substance Christ is said to be created by God, and in what substance he is proclaimed to have been begotten from the Father. For the very passage of Scripture very easily shows to those who seek, in what created nature Christ is to be said. Namely, in that in which he names the Lord, so that he may show the truth of the form of a servant in himself, as he also speaks in the Psalm, saying: "Lord, I am your servant; I am your servant and the son of your handmaid" (Ps. 115:16). Therefore, a servant was born from a handmaid, who was begotten from the Father as Lord. On account of the form of a servant, therefore, he said: "The Lord created me"; he does not say that he was created by the Father, but by the Lord.

For where he is said to have been born according to divinity, the Father is immediately named, as he himself truly said: "I came forth from the Father, and I have come" (John 8:42); and the blessed evangelist says of him: "And we saw his glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father" (John 1:14). You see that here he did not say "from the Lord," but "from the Father." Moreover, when the Apostle calls him the Firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15), creation is understood as that which is restored, not that which is originally made: the creation of the sons of God, by which those who were his servants have become his brothers, who, according to the Apostle's saying, does not shrink from calling us brothers, saying: "I will declare your name to my brothers, in the midst of the Church I will praise you." And again: "I will be confident in him." And again: "Behold, I and the children whom God has given me: since therefore the children also partook of blood and flesh, likewise he himself participated in the same; so that through death he might destroy the one who held the power of death, that is, the devil; in order to free those who through fear of death were subject to servitude throughout their whole life. For he never laid hold of angels, but he laid hold of the seed of Abraham. Hence he had to be made like his brothers in all things, so that he might become merciful, and a faithful high priest before God, to atone for the sins of the people. For in that he himself suffered and was tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted" (Hebrews 2:11-18).

We hear Christ having brothers; we hear the seed of Abraham; we hear him who held dominion over death destroying it through death; we hear him tempted; we hear him suffering—and do we doubt that Christ is the Firstborn of the whole creation according to the mystery of the Incarnation? For the blessed Apostle again shows by the testimony of his own preaching in what sense we ought to take him as Firstborn: "We know," he says, "that for those who love God, all things cooperate for good, for those who are called holy according to a purpose. For those whom he foreknew and predestined to be made conformable to the image of his Son, so that he himself is the Firstborn among many brothers" (Rom. 8:28-29). Therefore, he who according to divinity was always the Only-begotten without brothers became, according to his humanity, the Firstborn among many brothers. This is more clearly taught by another testimony of the Apostle, where the Firstborn is named from the dead (Col. 1:18). For what is the Firstborn from the dead, except the first man among sinful men, Christ Jesus, exalted into the Son of God? He was born, not as a sinner from sinners, but as a man from men; he was born a man, taken up by God without any sin, so that he might reconcile sinful men to God, freed from all sin. Indeed, such a man had to be taken up by God, through whom men could be joined to God by a gratuitous justification. Therefore, he is the Firstborn of the whole creation (Col.

I, 15) that creature indeed concerning which we heard the blessed apostle James say a little while ago: "He voluntarily begot us by the word of truth, that we might be some beginning of his creature" (James 1:18). Concerning this creature the apostle Paul also says: "If therefore there is in Christ a new creature" (2 Cor. 5:17). Concerning which creature David also had foretold: "Send forth your Spirit and they shall be created, and you shall renew the face of the earth" (Ps. 103:30). Otherwise, if according to the divine nativity Christ is taken as the Firstborn of the whole creature, by what testimonies is he shown to be the Firstborn from the dead before every creature? Since those who had not yet been created could not be said to be dead. Therefore we acknowledge Christ as Only-begotten from the Father; we profess him as Firstborn from the Virgin: in that nativity indeed he is truly Only-begotten, in which without beginning from God alone God alone was born; in this nativity, however, he is the Firstborn of the whole creature (Col. 1:16), that is, of those whom he deigned to adopt as brothers to himself through faith. But as many as received him, he gave them the power to become sons of God, to those who believe in his name (John 1:12). This generation is also recognized as foretold in the second psalm, where Christ says from the person of the assumed man: "The Lord said to me, You are my son, today I have begotten you" (Ps. 2:7).

To show that this was said according to the mystery of the future Incarnation, he added: "Ask of me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance and the ends of the earth as your possession." For how would he, in the form of God, ask to possess the ends of the earth, when he promises and gives the kingdom of heaven, which is greater, to his faithful? Therefore he who, remaining in the form of God, became a servant for the salvation of servants, in his servant form asked to receive the nations as inheritance and possession, and the ends of the earth, he who according to his divine nature, just as he made with the Father all things that are in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, so he always possessed all things together with the Father. That this generation, which the second psalm intimates pertains to the mystery of the Incarnation, the book of the Acts of the Apostles testifies, with Paul speaking in the synagogue; of which this passage is found addressed to the Jews: "And we announce to you that which was promised to our fathers, because this God has fulfilled for our children, raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm: 'You are my son, today I have begotten you'" (Acts 13:33). Therefore what the psalm said, the Apostle shows was said to the Son, according to that which he proclaims was raised from the dead. Let it therefore be attended to which nature in Christ rose from the dead, and it will be understood according to what Christ, begotten today, received the ends of the earth to possess.

Therefore, let the property of each nature be recognized in Christ, so that without error it can be understood that he is both created and founded and begotten. For he is begotten and founded according to that which, concerning the Lord, the Lord was ineffably born from the Lord; but he is created according to the human generation by which the servant was born from the handmaid, so that he whom the Father alone begot from nature before all things might, for our salvation, generate him from grace. Hence, we must recognize both natures in Christ the Lord, so that we may neither appear proud against the Creator, nor be considered ungrateful for the benefit of our Savior, lest before the Savior he who denies the true divinity of the Creator God the Father should deny to himself the salvation he seeks. Objection 1. But those who irrationally presume to say that the Son was born from the substance of the Father should nevertheless teach through the Scriptures how it is not a false profession of error, when one who says that his generation is ineffable also asserts that he was born from the substance of the Father.

Response. The defect of an assertion is recognized when someone tries to destroy the rule of another’s faith in such a way that he does not put forward a firm statement of his own belief. We therefore believe and confess that the Son of God was born from the substance of the Father, that is, from what the Father is. For whatever is not the substance of God, we cannot worship or venerate as God, observing more carefully the precept of the law which says: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord.” And, “You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve him alone” (Deut. 6:4, 13). We believe this God to be not only the Father, but the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For our faith, by which we worship and fear one God, is neither contracted by a union of person nor separated by a diversity of substance: so that we neither worship gods in a pagan manner by worshipping diverse substances, nor deny the Son and the Spirit with Sabellius, by not preserving the persons in the Trinity. The right belief of this faith is instilled in us in truth not only by prophetic but also by apostolic doctrine. For Isaiah, when he is deemed worthy of the vision of God, intimates the belief of this faith, with two seraphim crying out a third time: “Holy, holy, holy” (Isa. 6:5); and once adding: “Lord God of hosts.” Why is “Holy” said three times, if not because the person in the Divinity is threefold? Why is “Lord God” said once, if not because the substance in the Divinity is one?

The Lord also, wishing to bless the people through Moses, commanded that this blessing be given in this manner: "Thus (he says) you shall bless my people, and I will bless them. May the Lord bless you and keep you; may the Lord turn his face toward you and have mercy on you. May the Lord lift up his face upon you and give you peace" (Num. 6:23-26). The Lord is named three times, and always one Lord is named, so that in the Trinity, which is the true God, neither the property of the persons is confused nor the substantial unity denied. David also, pleasing to God in all things, under this belief desires the grace of divine blessing to be poured upon the faithful people with these words: "May God bless us, our God, may God bless us, and may all the ends of the earth fear him" (Ps. 66:8). With this sentence the blessed Apostle agrees, who, when he had said in a certain place: "One God the Father, from whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him" (1 Cor. 8:6), also said concerning the Holy Spirit: "Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you are sealed unto the day of redemption" (Eph. 4:30). When he remembered that he had said from the Father and through the Son in the Holy Spirit, in order to show that this Trinity is one God, he says in another place: "Since from him, and through him, and in him are all things." And what he singularly added: "glory to him for ever and ever" (Rom. 11:36).

That the Son was born from the substance of the Father, the Christian faith rightly proclaims, and holy Scripture records. The apostle Paul says of the Son of God, "Who, though He is the splendor of the glory and the figure of His substance" (Heb. 1:3). The Lord again says to Jeremiah: "Take up a lament over the mountains, and men have not heard the voice of my substance, from the birds of the air to the beasts" (Jer. 9:10). Moreover, that the Son is the substance of the Father, the book of Wisdom clearly shows, saying: "You fed your people with the food of angels, you provided them with bread prepared from heaven, without labor, having in itself every delight and every flavor of sweetness: for you were showing your substance and your sweetness, which you have toward your children" (Wis. 16:20-21). That the bread given from heaven is the substance and sweetness of God, Scripture testifies; that the bread truly given from heaven is the Son of God, is shown by the words of the Son Himself, who says: "I am the living bread, which came down from heaven" (John 6:41). Of which David says: "Man ate the bread of angels" (Ps. 77:25). Behold, that the Son existed from the substance of the Father, we not only reasonably believe, but also confirm with testimonies, Scripture saying: "He who loves the begetter, loves him who was born from him" (1 John 5:1); because the faith that believes what it believes is not ignorant, even if it cannot yet see what it hopes and believes.

But those who deny that the Son was born from the substance of the Father must certainly state from what they think the Son of God came to exist: whether from nothing, or from something. If He came to exist from nothing, He must be called a creature, not the Creator. But if He is said to be from something, then even that something God Himself made, from which He begot the Son. Or is it perhaps said that He had something coeternal from which He could beget the Son? If something coeternal is supposed from which the Son is believed to have been begotten, the error of the Manichaeans is confirmed by this assertion. But if there was nothing from which the Son could be begotten, and yet He is not said to be born from the substance of the Father, then it remains that those who strive to proclaim Him lesser in divinity must plainly admit that the Son of God came to exist from nothing. But perhaps it is said that the Son was born from the will of the Father: let it be stated, then, whether the Father begot the Son from Himself or from elsewhere. For if He begot Him from Himself, the will could not have preceded the generation, because it is impious to believe that something which was not always present newly occurred in God. From this it is understood that God indeed created every creature from nothing by His will, but He begot the Son by substance or nature. But if the Son is said to have been born from elsewhere, either His origin is asserted to be from nothing, or (as was said above) something always existing apart from God is proclaimed, contrary to the rule of true faith.

The blessed Apostle, knowing that the Son was born true God from the essence of the Father, and for this reason is one Lord God with the Father, and not unmindful of the Lord's command by which we are forbidden to serve two lords, commanded that the Lord Christ be served as true God, whom he knew was to be honored equally with the Father, the Lord Himself saying: "That all may honor the Son, as they honor the Father" (John 5:23). Whom the Apostle John, with the Lord Himself speaking within him, testifies is true God, saying: "That we may be in the true Son of God, Jesus Christ; He is true God and eternal life" (1 John 5:20). Therefore, the rule of true faith is to be held, by which the Son of God is believed to have been ineffably born without beginning from the substance of the Father, that is, from that which He Himself is, and is worshipped as true God together with the Father, and is held. For it is not permitted to Christians to serve as true God one who is not God by nature; nor is it lawful for anyone to serve Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, otherwise than as true God. For the blessed Paul, who had forbidden serving those who are not gods by nature, most clearly manifests that he who serves Christ pleases God, saying: "The kingdom of God is not food and drink, but justice and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit: For he who serves Christ in this, pleases God" (Romans 14:17).

Therefore, knowing that Christ is true God, let us not dare to separate him from the equality of the paternal substance: for he is true God who is God by nature; and he is God by nature who possessed divinity from eternity by true birth, not by the grace of a gift. For what is born is connected by kind; what is adopted, however, is advanced solely by generosity. Objection 5. The disturbances of minds, which are spoken of without reason, when they are urged to be considered, truth does not seem to be grasped by them, nor professed, because of this: that it is absurd to say or believe that the Father and the Son are unbegotten. He who persuades himself to contrive these things wishes to deceive himself by fraud, which indeed demands that this be said to those who assert that the Father and the Son are equal. Response. Those who have wished to call the Father and the Son unbegotten do indeed disturb minds, either sluggish or ignorant; but this is not done by those who are known to proclaim the Father and the Son equal. For in two unbegotten beings, a diverse divinity is found. In one begotten (or only-begotten), from one unbegotten, a natural unity is demonstrated. Indeed, two unbegotten beings cannot have one nature, where neither does one find in one a true generation from itself, nor does one from the other truly acknowledge in itself the substance of birth. We, however, call the Father and the Son neither two unbegotten nor two begotten, nor do we confuse them personally, nor do we separate them substantially.

Therefore we call them equal without ambiguity, because we find them in no way different from each other: one begot the one, the one was born from the one. And because from the immutable Father there came forth an immutable Son, and the eternal and perfect Father begot a coeternal and perfect Son, for this reason the Son could have neither a lesser nor a different substance from the true substance which he has from the true Father. For it is an insult to the divine nature if the Father, in begetting the Son, could not be in the Son as great as he remains in himself, and the natural power is taken away from the Begetter (which is an abomination) if equality of the paternal substance is denied to the Son, since apostolic doctrine does not keep silent about this, with the evangelist John saying: "For this reason the Jews wanted to kill him, because not only did he break the Sabbath, but he also called God his Father, making himself equal to God" (John 5:18). The evangelist's truthful authority declared this equality, not the malevolent opposition of the Jews (as it seems to some). Just as he truly said that Jesus broke the Sabbath, and truly said that he called God his Father, so he truly said that by the profession of the Father's name he made himself equal to the divinity and omnipotence of the Begetter. This equality the true Son himself, preaching and demonstrating, says: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). And in another place, "Everything that the Father does, the Son also does likewise" (John 5:19).

The same one says: "Father, glorify your Son, so that the Son may glorify you" (John 17:1). And in another place: "That all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father" (John 5:23). And many other things, which we omit to avoid prolixity. Therefore, that he makes himself equal to God through the profession of the paternal man, that he is one with the Father, that he does all the things that the Father does, likewise the same, that he is glorified and himself glorifies, that he demands equality of paternal honor for himself—just as these things do not befit a lesser being, so they show him equal, with the scruple of doubt removed. Objection 6. Meanwhile, when it is said about light, they do not understand what is written, because the Father of the light is one, and the one who is called light is another, and he shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend him. Therefore, it must be noted what the law commands or instructs the minds of men, because between that author of light and this light shining in darkness, which illuminates every man coming into this world, through which the Son was made life, and light was shown to men, that which is shown to have been made is not the Father, and cannot be equal.

Response. This always demonstrates the equality of the Father and the Son, so that whatever is of detraction or honor is simultaneously common to both. Hence it happens that, when the Son is separated from the equality of the Father contrary to the rule of faith, more is detracted from the Father than from the Son. This is more clearly demonstrated by the assertion of this passage, wherein, when the Son alone is believed to be called light, the name of light is denied to the Father himself, who begot the light. But he who does not substantially possess the name of light cannot substantially have the name of Deity. For the blessed John the apostle says: "Because God is light" (1 John 1:5). Therefore, if he who is God is light, he who is not light is not God; hence the Son is to be believed as light from light, because God was born from God, lest, when the Son is called light, God the Father be intolerably blasphemed. And lest we think that we call the Father light by conjecture rather than by truth, we must also prove this with testimonies. In the holy scriptures it is said concerning Wisdom: "Wisdom is more mobile than all moving things; but it reaches everywhere on account of its purity; it is a vapor of the power of God, and a certain emanation from the pure clarity of almighty God. And therefore no impurity falls into it, for it is the brightness of eternal light, and the spotless mirror of the majesty of God, and the image of his goodness.

The brightness of the eternal light is called Wisdom, which eternal light the whole of Christendom professes to be the Father. But if by chance some think that this eternal light, whose brightness is Wisdom, should not be understood as the Father, it is necessary that, while they deny God the Father to be the eternal light, they seek another eternal light, whose brightness they may clearly show Wisdom to be. But let them themselves know how they can find either a light which is not God, or another light, besides Wisdom, which is coeternal with God. Therefore, let it be known that the light is the Father of the light, so that at least in this way the Son may not be doubted or denied to be equal to the Father. With one testimony we have already taught that God the Father is light; it is better if we also demonstrate this same thing by apostolic preaching. The blessed Paul testifies that we are sons of God, saying: "Whoever are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God: for you have not received the spirit of servitude again in fear, but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, in which we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself bears witness to our spirit that we are sons of God" (Rom. 8:14, 15, 16). John the evangelist also says: "But as many as believed in him, he gave them the power to become sons of God" (John 1:12).

Thus Paul, to show that God, whose sons we are, is light, also called those same sons sons of light, saying: "But you, brothers, are not in darkness, so that that day may seize you like a thief; for you are all sons of light and sons of the day" (1 Thess. 5:4-5). And the Son says to the disciples: "That you may be sons of your Father, who is in heaven" (Matt. 5:45). But that the Son himself is light, no one will be able to deny, concerning whom the evangelist says: "He was the true light which illuminates every man coming into this world" (John 1:9). And again: "And the life was the light of men, and the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it" (John 1:5). The Son himself also testifies with his own voice that he is light, saying: "I am the light of the world" (John 8:12). But that the Father may be recognized in the Son, light in light, is fully taught in the testimony of John, who says: "God is light, and there are no darknesses in him"; and he added: "If we walk in the light, as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another" (1 John 1:5, 7). And to show that he had said this concerning the Father, he added: "And the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from every sin" (1 John 1:7). He asserted that the Father, whom he called light, is in light. What, then, is that light, if not the true light which illuminates every man coming into this world (John 1:9)?

It has therefore been shown that the Father is light, just as the Son is light; it is also demonstrated that the Son is day, just as the Father is day, the prophet saying: "Proclaim from day to day his salvation" (Ps. 95:2). For this reason, let it be acknowledged that the Father is in the Son, who is light, and the Son is in the Father, who is light, with the light itself testifying concerning itself: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me" (John 14:12); as if it were saying: I am in the light, and the light is in me. And where no diversity of light is found, let the equality of divinity not be denied: lest, while God is said to be light by apostolic preaching, he who is not said to be light should also be denied to be God (which is unlawful). Objection 7. We have omitted superfluous arguments, which would not create disgust for the hearers, and a response has been given to that which the opinion was seeking for explanation. And because between the Father and the Son there is a distance, and what is said is not, for the reason that there is no difference between them, the Savior himself says, who is to be believed: "Another is he who bears witness concerning me" (John 5:32). Likewise, the Son himself says concerning the Holy Spirit: "And I will send you another Paraclete" (John 14:16). He said that the Father is another, and he said that the Paraclete is another, and when the divine laws and sacraments are not attended to, men become professors of paganism, when they assert that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God.

Response. True faith never has superfluous reasons, but always has and has had correct ones, nor does any distaste arise from these, provided that the truth is heard without a spirit of contention. For this reason, when it said "another" of the Father, it was to distinguish the persons, not to demonstrate a substantial distance. For when it said "another," it showed that he has his own person; but in naming him Father, it demonstrated that he has one substance with him, in this way: if indeed the Father who bears witness to the Son is truly another, so that the person of each is distinguished, he is also truly Father, so that the substantial unity is demonstrated. But if the Father's paternity is true, then the offspring's nativity is also true; and if the Son's nativity is true, there cannot be substantial diversity between Father and Son. For the true and eternal substance, from which true nativity proceeded, just as it could not be diminished or divided by begetting, so remaining whole in itself, it granted its entire self to the coeternal truth of nativity, so that, of course, not only would equality without diversity exist between the begetter and the begotten, but also natural unity would remain without confusion or detriment. For the name and truth of divine nativity, just as it shows the distinct person of the begetter and the begotten, so it does not allow their substance to be thought diverse.

Therefore, the Father is called "another" in order to demonstrate the truth of the generation, not so that He might be thought either prior or more powerful. For if we must understand that the one whom we hear called "another" is more powerful, we are compelled also to confess that the Paraclete Spirit, because He is called "another," is more powerful than the Son. For just as the Son said that the Father is "another," so He named the Paraclete "another." If, therefore, it pleases, and the truth of the faith demands, that the one who is called "another" is considered better, since the Father is called "another" and the Paraclete is called "another," then the Son would be subjected to both, so that at least the Paraclete would be equal to the Father, who, because He is called "another," is said to be set before the Son; so that by this communion of the pronoun, the communion of divinity is demonstrated in the Father and the Paraclete. But if the Paraclete, although He is called "another," is nevertheless not preferred to the Son, then the Father is not to be preferred to the Son because He is called "another." For by this pronoun, the distinction of persons is shown, not of nature. Finally, lest we, by the ambiguity of the word, abandon the rule of truth and be carried about by devious errors, the Lord Himself has shown us both that He retains one substance with the Father and that He has a different person, saying in the Gospel: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). This saying, those who strive to diminish the significance of the divine unity in the Father and the Son, attempt to refer not to substantial unity but to harmony of will.

If the Lord had wished to be understood in this way, He could have said: "I and the Father are of one will," not "I and the Father are one." But now let each choose what he wishes: whether he thinks that in God to be is one thing and to will another, or whether he believes that to be is the same as to will, so that the truth of this dominical saying may appear more clearly to him. For if one says that in God the will, which is said to will, is one thing, and the essence, which is known to be, is another, then what was said according to essence—"I and the Father are one"—cannot be referred to the will. For "to be" is derived from essence; but if (as is certain) it is thought that in God to be is the same as to will, then when the unity of will is asserted, the substantial unity is also not denied, so that in His saying "one" it is recognized that He is not other than what the Father is, and in His saying "are" it is recognized that the Son Himself is not who the Father is. Our fathers, who followed this doctrine of Christ in all things, said that the Father and the Son are of one substance. This in Greek is called *homoousion*, for that reason, namely, because in Greek a new heresy had then emerged which strove to separate the Only-begotten from the substance of the Begetter, so that whoever accepted that doctrine would appear not as a worshiper of the Creator, but rather of a creature. It is remarkable, however, that in this word some attend only to the sound, and do not investigate the meaning of the saying, since many things were not spoken in ancient times, and have been added to the profession of faith according to the opportunities of times and causes.

just as "unbegotten Father" is nowhere read in the canonical Scriptures, and yet according to the truth of the faith He is proclaimed unbegotten—against Sabellius, namely, who understands the Father and the Son as one not by communion of substance, but confuses them by singularity of person. But if the sound, not the sense, is considered in words, let the Church not be deemed by the name "catholic," which is found placed neither in the Old nor in the New Testament. But if all these things, though they are in no canonical volume, are nevertheless worthily held in the faith, why should the Homousion be thought forbidden to us—to consider not the sound of the word, but the sense; not to attend to the novelty of the term, but to understand the power of the sacrament? It is strange, however, that those who, for belief in one substance, wish us to be called Homousians, how they do not wish to be called Triusians for three and diverse substances; although even if they shun being designated by such a name, the quality of their belief shows them to be that. Worthily, therefore, do we worship the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit as one God, the property of the persons being preserved; since the true faith neither admits three gods, as the polytheistic pagans do, nor asserts its God to be created, as the worshippers of the creature proclaim.

Objection 8. Let those who desire to follow salutary precepts take heed that it is a crime and exceedingly blasphemous; for the falsity of a profession can never benefit those who seek to worship or venerate God by injuring Him through blasphemy. If injury is not tolerated from men, how can it be tolerated from the Lord Himself, the author? For He shows His rebuke against the unfaithful, saying: "This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me" (Isaiah 29:13). Response. The apostolic faith does not injure God, but honors Him, asserting that the divine substance could neither be diminished nor changed; and therefore it proclaims the Son equal to the Father, because the one substance of both preserves the fullness of its perfection in each. Injury is then inflicted upon God when, through a diversity of divinity, a creature is worshipped together with the Creator; since the name of creation is to be understood in the Son only insofar as He was made man from men for the redemption of men. Likewise, if the Lord wished the Holy Spirit to be understood as a creature, He would never command that He be joined to Himself and the Father in the sacrament of baptism, saying: "Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19).

Objection 9. Concerning His generation, of which it was said, "From the womb before the daystar I begot you" (Psalm 102:5), who would doubt that this was said of a carnal birth? Since the very superscription shows you, for understanding, what the prophet says: that He was begotten in the splendors of the saints before the daystar. And "the splendor of the saints" (ibid.) is shown to be the proclamation of the prophets, and their prophecy concerning Him was fulfilled so as to manifest that it was He Himself, the prophet saying, "From the womb before the daystar I begot you," and it came to pass that He was splendid, which the prophetic mouth foretold: that He would be born through a virgin. Who would doubt that this birth occurred as Scripture records? Response. He is greatly deceived who does not believe that this passage of Scripture pertains to the divine nativity, and, hearing that God said, "From the womb before the daystar I begot you," because a carnal womb cannot be believed to exist in God, thinks that the sense of this passage is to be fitted only to that generation which is according to the flesh, since the preceding verse rather suggests an understanding of divine generation, in which the Father says to the Son, "With you is the beginning" (ibid.), so that it is recognized that the Father and the Son are one beginning. The name "womb," however, is said by a transferred term, by which the divine nature itself is signified; just as the incorporeal substance of God is accustomed to be named by corporeal names, so that the senses of men may be led, by the words customary to their own nature, to an understanding of the divinity. For the eyes of God are said to see all things.

as it is written, "In every place, the eyes of God watch the good and the bad" (Proverbs 15:3). But who would doubt that God sees everything through His own nature, just as we confess that He fills all things through the infinity of His nature? And we find various names of bodily members applied to God (as has been said) so that through the efficacies of these things the incorporeal property of His substance may be understood. Thus, then, He said here that He begot the Son from the womb, so that no one would think that the Son, whom we hear was begotten from the womb, is alien from the Father's nature. But when He said "before the daystar," He shows that the Son's birth is perpetual and not subject to a temporal beginning: for "daystar" is the name of a star, and at the beginning of the world, when God established the lights and stars, He ordered them to serve for days, months, seasons, and years (Genesis 1:14), by which cycles of names all time revolves. But in the "splendors of the saints," the prophecies of the prophets have not been correctly understood: for the splendor of the saints consists not in the office of preaching, but in the clarity of the resurrection; concerning which splendor the Lord says: "Then the just will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father" (Matthew 13:43).

This splendor of the future resurrection the prophet Daniel also commemorates in these words: "And many of those sleeping in the earth's hollow, in the covering, shall arise, these into eternal life, and these into perpetual reproach and confusion; and those who understand shall shine like the splendor of the firmament, and many of the just, like stars forever" (Daniel 12:2). But this splendor will then be granted to the saints by the Lord when, according to the Apostle's saying, He will reform the body of our humility, conformed to the body of His glory (Philippians 3:21). In this splendor, therefore, the saints will then fully understand that the Father and the Son are one principle; and that they do not differ from each other either in substance or in majesty. Therefore, although we confess that the Son was procreated in the flesh from the womb of the Virgin, we nevertheless do not doubt that He was begotten from the womb of the Father, that is, from the Father's substance; indeed, we confess that the Son was born true God from the womb of God, just as we do not doubt that a true man proceeded from the womb of the Virgin, lest (which God forbid) if a true man is believed to have been born from the substance of the mother, and a true God is denied from the substance of the Father, human nature, which was able to procreate what it is, be esteemed more powerful than the divine substance, which was unable to generate a true God.

Objection 10. It is no small disgrace that a mind which understands poorly is deceived by its own deceits, so that sometimes two are said to be one, sometimes three are one. Does not the gift of a benefit occur when one is not designated with two? It is a mockery to believe that God consists of one from three parts, when (what is worse) it is said of them that one God is to be believed in this way, since the Father is not himself the Son, nor the Son himself the Holy Spirit; concerning whom they profess that they have differences among themselves, but that each one cannot have his own honor unless a malicious heart is found to join them in one God. Response. No one is deceived by any deceits, whether his own or others', who worships one God in such a way that he knows him in the Trinity, neither confusing the persons nor separating the substance. And he understands that one nature to be one God, in which he recognizes the eternity of true divinity; for it is said to us: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is one" (Deut. 6:4). Likewise: "You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve him alone" (Ibid., 13). But if we ought to take the Lord God as only the Father, then we should neither serve the Son as God nor adore him, for whatever does not pertain to the nature of the sole Lord God ought not to be adored by us as God.

What then shall we say about the Son, whom in the heavens all angels and every power always adore and praise, to such an extent that even when placed in the form of a servant and diminished a little less than the angels on account of the passion of death, the angels are commanded to adore him, as Moses says: "Rejoice, O heavens, together with him, and let all the angels of God adore him" (Psalm 96:8). Men also, divinely inspired, David joins to this adoration, saying: "All the kings of the earth shall adore him, all nations shall serve him" (Psalm 71:11). How then is he adored by both men and angels, if he is separated from the substance of the one God? How do we dare to show him the servitude which is owed only to God, if his nature is not one with the Father? For because God is one, it is said to us through the prophet: "I am God, and there is no other besides me: just and saving, and there is no other besides me: turn to me, and you will be saved, because from the ends of the earth I am God, and there is no other. I swear by myself, since justice has gone forth from my mouth, and my words will not be turned back: for the whole universe shall bow the knee to me, and every tongue shall swear by God" (Isaiah 45:21 and following). Behold God, who in this place, calling himself only God, testifies that there is no other besides him. But if anyone is unwilling to understand the entire Trinity here, he will be forced to assign this utterance to the Son alone.

For what God is there, other than whom there is no other, except the one to whom Isaiah says: "Egypt has labored, and the merchandise of the Ethiopians and of Saba; men of high stature shall pass over to you, they shall be servants, and after you they shall follow bound in chains, and they shall adore you, and in you they shall pray, because in you is God, and there is no God besides you; for you are God, and we did not know, God of Israel, the Savior." They shall blush and be ashamed, all who oppose him, and they shall go in confusion (Ibid., 14, et seq.). Behold, in him is God, and besides him there is no God, and he himself is the God of Israel, the Savior. But above, the one who said: "I am God, and there is no other besides me," added: "Just and saving, there is no other besides me." But who is just, except the one to whom David says: "You have loved justice, and hated iniquity" (Ps. 44:8)? And who indeed is the savior, except the one about whom the angel spoke to Joseph in a dream, saying: "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for what is born in her is from the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus; for he himself will save his people from their sins" (Matt. 1:20)? And to whom does it fittingly belong to say: "Turn to me, and you will be saved, because from the ends of the earth I am God, and there is no other" (Isa. 45:22), except to the Son? Of whom David says: "All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall adore in his sight" (Ps. 21:38).

Therefore what follows: "I swear by myself," who is to be believed to say this, unless it is the one who is found to have sworn before Abraham in this manner? But those who contend that the Son is lesser than the Father according to the divine nature assert that this is not the Father, but the Son. However, whether this God, who swears by himself, has anyone greater than himself, the blessed Paul shows us, writing to the Hebrews: "For God, promising Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, swore by himself, saying: 'I will surely bless you and multiply you'" (Heb. 6:13). Therefore, this God, who swears by himself because he has no one greater by whom to swear—let us see what follows: "For," he says, "justice shall go forth from my mouth, and my words shall not be turned back; for the whole world shall bow the knee to me, and every tongue shall swear by God" (Isa. 45:23). From whose mouth, then, did justice go forth, if not from the one of whom Isaiah said: "A rod shall come forth from the root of Jesse, and a flower from his root shall arise, and the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him" (Isa. 11:1). And a little later: "He shall judge the poor in justice, and shall reprove in equity for the meek of the earth" (ibid., 4). Then follows: "This God, besides whom there is no other," and he says: "My words shall not be turned back.

Whose voice is this, if not that of the one who says in the Gospel, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away" (Matt. 24:35)? He further adds, "This God, besides whom there is no other," and says: "For to me the whole world will bow the knee, and every tongue will swear by God." But concerning whom this ought to be understood, Paul, taught by the magisterium of Christ, shows us, who writes to the Romans thus: "For none of us lives for himself, and none dies for himself. For whether we live, we live for the Lord; whether we die, we die for the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's" (Rom. 14:7-8). And, to show that he had said this about Christ, he added: "For in this Christ both died and rose again, that he might have dominion over the dead and the living. But you, what do you judge your brother? Or why do you despise your brother? For we shall all stand before the tribunal of God" (Rom. 14:9-10)? And immediately he subjoins a prophetic testimony, saying: "For it is written: 'I live, says the Lord, because every knee shall be bowed to me, and every tongue shall confess God' (Isa. 45:24)." But that we shall stand before the tribunal of Christ, he himself testifies again, saying: "For we must all be manifested before the tribunal of Christ, so that each may receive the things of his own body, according as he has done, whether good or evil" (2 Cor. 5:10).

The same apostle teaches that every knee should be bent to him, saying: "That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, on earth, and in the underworld; and every tongue confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father" (Phil. 2:10-11). Now let us reconsider all that has been said above. God says: "I am God, and there is no other besides me." And in the person of the Son, Isaiah says: "Because God is in you, and there is no God besides you; for you are God, and we did not know. God of Israel, the Savior" (Isa. 45:15). But the God of Israel is one God. The rest follows, which we have shown by the above testimonies to pertain to the Son: for he swears by himself, having no one greater; he saves his people; he judges justly; every knee is bent to him, of those in heaven, on earth, and in the underworld; every tongue confesses him, from whom the repayment of deeds is to be rendered. Therefore, he himself, of whom all these things are said through the prophet, says: "I am God, and there is no other besides me." Do we so understand this God, besides whom there is no other, as the Son alone, that we separate the Father and the Holy Spirit from him? Far be it: for this is impossible. For besides God the Father, God the Son does not exist, because he is from the Father and is in the Father. Besides the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit does not exist, because he is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, and is in the Father and in the Son.

From this it is known that this Trinity is one Lord God, of whom it is said: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord" (Deut. 6:4). And: "You shall adore the Lord your God, and serve him alone." To this Lord the prophet Isaiah also says: "Lord, we know no other besides you; we name your name." But our Savior shows this name, saying to his disciples: "Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19). This is the name of the Lord, besides whom we know no other, and by whose name when named we are freed from death, we are rescued from the power of darkness, so that we may be transferred into the kingdom of the Son. Therefore in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit we receive unity of substance; we dare not confuse the persons. For the blessed apostle John testifies, saying: "There are three who bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and the three are one" (1 John 5:7). This also the most blessed martyr Cyprian, in his epistle on the Unity of the Church, confesses, saying: "He who breaks the peace and concord of Christ acts against Christ; he who gathers elsewhere outside the Church scatters the Church of Christ." And to show that the one Church belongs to the one God, he immediately inserted these testimonies from the Scriptures. The Lord says: "I and the Father are one." And again: Of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: "And the three are one.

For also in the book On the Lord’s Prayer, in order to show that the Trinity is of one deity and has no diversity within itself, he recalled that Daniel and the three youths were accustomed to pour forth prayer through the revolving cycles of three-hour periods. There, both in the course of the three hours and in the single offering of prayer, he clearly demonstrates that the Trinity is one God. Therefore we do not worship one God from three parts, but, retaining the rule of apostolic faith, we confess the Son, perfect and coeternal, begotten without beginning from the perfect and eternal Father, and not unequal in power, and equal in nature. Likewise we confess that the Holy Spirit is nothing other than God, neither diverse from the Son nor from the Father, nor confused in the Son or in the Father. For the Spirit of the Father and the Son is one and the same, wholly proceeding from the Father, wholly consisting in each, and is not divided in the individual persons, because it is inseparably common to both.