De Fide Orthodoxa

II. ON THE ORTHODOX FAITH, AGAINST THE ARIANS, OTHERWISE ON THE DIVINITY AND CONSUBSTANTIALITY OF THE SON, A TREATISE. PROLOGUE. A 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, born of the Father as only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father: God from God, light from light, true God from true God; born, 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 again on the third day, ascended into the heavens, and is to come from there to judge the living and the dead. And 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.

Led by love of the Catholic Faith, I had already some time ago published a little book against the Arians, which I had given to a friend to read; and because it pleased him, he believed it should be copied. I earnestly requested of him that, meanwhile, with the author's name withheld, he would read it to learned and prudent men, so that if he knew anyone who thought that something in it was set down as too much or too little, it could be corrected by the counsel of many. For there is no one who so arrogantly assumes for himself the sum of heavenly doctrine as to think that he retains all mysteries clearly comprehended, since the apostle Paul says: "Whoever thinks he knows something does not yet know how he ought to know" (1 Cor. 8:2); and: "Now we see through a glass, darkly; then face to face" (1 Cor. 13:12). But if, indeed, everything that was written there should appear to all to be in accordance with the true faith, then he himself would not refuse it to those who asked. That he did this is manifest. And because the matter was deemed worthy both of such a Catholic confession and of a heretical response, by the judgment of all, many wished either to read it or to copy it.

But there was not lacking someone who, out of zeal for teaching or for the duty of charity, would more scrupulously reconsider what was said by us; and he said that certain things were either superfluous or ambiguous, which could be understood by some in a different way than they were spoken by me. Therefore, I have again set forth these same matters in plainer language in this little book, so that I might both show the simplicity of my meaning and remove any scruple from readers. For this is what they say can be reproached: that where we placed the Word of God from the person of the Son, we think this Word is to be understood as the grammarians teach—air struck by the breath of the mouth, perceptible to hearing. But we know not the wisdom of this world, which is destroyed, but that wisdom which is from God, which signifies 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 1:1-3). Hence I confess I marvel that this could have been understood in such a way, as if we denied the proper person of the Word, which is the Son. No one names a person merely in word, when he more often professes that he truly exists in his own person: for how have we confessed either a true Son or a true Father, if we did not preserve the true property of the persons of both the Father and the Son?

But because we used the word "one God," we are thought to have denied the persons. And hence what we set forth 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 a surname are of one person, although from what was said above or below this suspicion could have been excluded. For I had said that the Son of God was born from no other source than properly from the Father, whole from whole, complete from complete, perfect from perfect, and consummate power; how could I have posited the Father himself as the Son himself to himself, and in this way called one person by two names, especially since I condemned this sect, that is, Sabellianism, in the same little book, and wrote of the distinction of persons according to the term? For no one can say "they are one" or assign a unity of kind for a single person, unless it is to persons.

Who among Catholics is ignorant that the Father is truly Father, the Son truly Son, and the Holy Spirit truly Holy Spirit? Just 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 exist, and we testify to the unity of the divinity. Nor do we call the Son of God an extension of some bread from the Father (as some have thought), nor do we take Him as a word without reality, like the sound of a voice; but we believe that the three names and three persons are of one essence, one majesty, and one power. And therefore we confess one God, because the unity of majesty forbids that the plurality of the term be called gods.

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

If there still seems something ambiguous to readers in the words, the words ought to be referred to the meanings; for it is not simplicity of words, but obstinacy of evil understanding that smells 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 I. Nothing is more dangerous than those heretics with whom we share many things in common. These, although they seem to run through everything entirely, with only one word they infect the simple faith. With the removal of the term "substance," which these men wish to take away from the evangelical and apostolic faith and from the tradition of the fathers, the Arian heresy is subtly introduced. The reason why they have labored to remove this name. We know indeed that many and grave heresies boil forth from very many, and like poison, they 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 share many things in common can easily strike innocent minds devoted only to God with a fraudulent fellowship, while they defend the virus of their evils through our goods. For nothing can be more dangerous than these heretics, who, although they run through everything entirely, 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.

We must be very much on our guard, lest something of this kind steal secretly into our senses or our ears; for nothing drives so strongly toward death as to violate faith under the pretext of faith. For just as gypsum mixed with water counterfeits the color of milk, so here, through a plausible confession, a hostile tradition is insinuated. For this reason, it is not the similarity of the confession, but the mind's meaning, by which the confession itself is confirmed, that must be weighed. Finally, if you attend more diligently and accurately: 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 the Arian heresy, abbreviated by a subtle shortcut, introduced by the removal of this name. Nor do I affirm this gathered from suspicion or opinion, nor do I, as they themselves think, stand as an Academic disputant, so as to twist simple meanings with verbal subtlety; but 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.

What cause, then, or what reason has arisen, that what had been handed down to all churches as to be taught and believed, and what our fathers, apostolic men, set against all heresies, and especially the Arian, as a kind of bulwark of truth, by which they might block all approaches of pestilential doctrine—purified by the Holy Spirit, established by catholic reasoning—should now be labored to be removed, not without great effort, by those who are bound by the reproach of the Arian stain, unless it be that they may pretend the Son of God is mutable and convertible, as not having been constituted from the Father’s own substance; to whom they ascribe a beginning in time, 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 may freely, securely, and without hesitation hand down and insinuate these things to the churches? CHAPTER II. Concerning the refutation of the Arian heresy through the firmest reasons and the evidence of sacred Scripture: testimonies. They so posit God the Son from God as if he were made from God, not born from God. They remove the term and substitute another. They understand that wisdom which is the Son of God to be a creature.

You see, therefore, that they have set everything in their treatise not by evangelical faith, but by crafty malice to deceive the simple. It ought now to be not so much suspect as manifest to all, that they have posited "God from God" in the way Arius used to teach, 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 powers; or if they are one only by concord and association, but not also by substance, then, as I have already said, he is not a true God. Thus he will be God, as Moses was to Pharaoh (Exod. 7:1), by power, not by kind; the Son also will have to be believed as it was said to the people through Isaiah: "I have begotten sons and exalted them" (Isa. 1:2); and elsewhere: "You are gods, and all sons of the Most High" (Ps. 81:6). But also the firstborn will be regarded as Israel was called the firstborn son of God (Exod. 4:22). And not even the firstborn of all creation will be regarded as if he were considered firstborn in the order of things made; so that from him they assign some kind of sequence to the things to be created in the world.

Finally, having removed the term "of one substance," they posited that the Son is "similar" to his maker; yet similarity 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 may say he is similar from elsewhere, not from the one holy and blessed substance of the Father. For if he is not from the Father's substance, he is from nothing, that is, from non-existent things, as Arius himself taught: for with that which the Father is removed, from wherever the Son may 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 in order to show that the terms for two persons exist in the majesty of a single divinity, just as the prophet says from the voice of God: "My heart has brought forth a good Word: I declare my works to the king" (Ps. 44:2). You see, therefore, that this good Word is the Son of God, whom we believe was born not from elsewhere than from the paternal breast, and, so to speak, from the womb of God's heart. And accordingly 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 is 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 1:1-3). Therefore, what was in the beginning must be believed to have always existed; but neither is it from elsewhere than from the one who has no beginning, that is, from the heart of the Father; for it says, "My good word burst forth" (Psalm 44:2). 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 there are two principles from the diversity of things; but because the Word, the Son, is always with the Father, and was born from the Father. Hence, the one whose origin has no beginning must be believed to be coeternal with the Father; because neither can the Father ever be named without the Son, nor the Son be called without the Father: and through this, the Son is always, because the Father is always.

And God, it says, was the Word. That which is God always is, for if it were not always, it could not be true God; just as also in the name of Wisdom, because according to the Apostle (1 Cor. 1:21) He Himself is the Wisdom of the Father. "I," it says, "came forth from the mouth of the Most High" (Sirach 24:5). Therefore, He is from nowhere else than from the Father, because He is always with the Father. And for this reason He is called the Wisdom of God, so that the Father may never be believed to have been without Wisdom, that is, without His Son. This is that ineffable Wisdom which in Solomon (Proverbs 8:22) is described as either founded, or begotten, or created as the beginning of the ways of God; yet He says it was so founded as to show that 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 speaks of the beginning of His ways, He indicates the beginning of the movement 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 exist in God. Therefore, Wisdom was created, or rather begotten, not for itself, which always was, but for those things which had to be made by it; so that, since how great and of what kind it was could not be known, its power and might might be known from the effect of its works: so that what we estimate from created things, we might then fear more when we marvel at what is made.

But if you say that Wisdom is created, so 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 over to the desire of their hearts for uncleanness, so that they dishonor their own bodies among themselves, who turned the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed God forever (Rom. 1:24-25). This, I say, is that Wisdom of God which says: I came forth from the mouth of the Most High (Sir. 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 Dominions, or Virtues, or Principalities, or Powers: all things were created through him and in him; and he is before all things, and all things consist in him (Col. 1:16-17). Hence also Solomon: Though it is one, he says, it can do all things; and remaining in itself, it renews all things, and transfers itself through nations into holy souls (Wis. 7:27). Which the Apostle confirms when he says (Eph. 3:16) that Christ dwells in the inner man; so that through whom all things were made from the beginning, through him all things may be saved in the end.

CHAPTER III. The arguments by which the Arians build up their heresy are refuted, especially their claim that it ought not to be admitted because it is not contained in the divine Scriptures. But you say to me, that is, the name "of one substance" ought not to be admitted for this reason rather than because they worship the creator, preserving in any case what the Apostle said: "That in the name of Jesus all should bend the knee, of the heavenly, earthly, and infernal beings; and every tongue should confess" (Philippians 2:10). And Moses says: "Let all the angels of God adore him" (Deuteronomy 32:43, according to the LXX). And David: "All kings will adore him" (Psalm 71:1). This indeed would not be said in the Scriptures, but because he is the Word, the Son, 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 you, man, who forbid this: is it because 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 so, why is it not to be professed so? For the Apostle says: "It is with the heart that belief is made for righteousness; but with the mouth confession is made for salvation" (Romans 10:10).

If, therefore, it is not to be named because it is not to be believed in that way, then the assertion of the Arian stain has prevailed, which denied that the Father and the Son are of one substance, because it represents the Son of God as having been made sometimes from nothing, sometimes from the Father, but from another substance, when it wished, and as it wished, and from where it wished; provided only that it fabricates that He came into existence from elsewhere, and not from that which the Father is. And even if it says He was born, it does so only in word; because it again understands everything that is born as having been made, in that we too are called begotten by God, we who are known to be a creation. But if you are not an Arian, and you acknowledge the true Son as born, not made, from the true Father, why do you not say that He is of one substance with the Father? You fear in vain, O man, to profess what you believe; and you believe in vain if you do not believe thus, and you are rightly marked as a heretic. And although you may have changed the saying by which you are thought to have forbidden the Son of God to be called a creation, yet when you add: "Just as something of those things which are made," you openly show that you did not wish Him to be called a creation not because He ought not to be understood as made, but you wish Him not to be made as something of those things which are made, but nevertheless made. For you say He is made in another way, as a perfect creature, through whom all things are made; provided only that you understand Him also to be made, though not as the rest.

But to return to what you say—that the term "of one substance" is not found in the divine Scriptures: suppose for the moment that this is so, because wherever "substance" is read, it is taken to refer to the property of God, not to God Himself; although you likewise profess something else that is not written, namely, "God from God, light from light." What do you say to this? Either hold entirely with me, or omit entirely. For if you are afraid to say the term "of one substance" because it is not written, you ought likewise to be afraid 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), we rightly and deservedly profess "God from God," because we know that the Son of God, true God, was born from true God the Father. But not in the sense that we are called gods (Psalm 81:6), or that 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 along with me, but you do not at all feel it with me. And because it is written of the Father: God is light (1 John 1:5); and of the Son: He was the true light, which illuminates every man coming into this world (John 1:9); and: The light shines in the darkness (John 1:5); that is, Christ in the world; and the darkness did not overtake it; namely, those men whose heart is blinded by the darkness of ignorance did not recognize Christ as true God and true Son of God. But the Lord Himself says: I am the light of the world: he who follows me will not go 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 true light, another light was made, which is not from the substance of the Father Himself: but as if 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." Therefore, when I have prefaced these things, although you do not understand them with me, yet you pronounce them in some way, even though they are not written. Do you not also profess the term "of one substance," which you think is not contained in the Scriptures, along with me equally? Except that there you had a way to conceal your malignant thoughts with hidden deceit in both cases; so that you would express this very thing with me in the sound of your voice, but yet separate the understanding of the saying far apart?

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 question them why they have said this, since you know that they altogether deny the resurrection of the flesh, they will say to you: "Woe indeed will be to him who has not been baptized in the flesh, so that his soul, while it is in the body, may rise from the death of its sins, as from a tomb of crimes, through baptism, in the same body." For they defend the resurrection of the soul alone through the grace of the life-giving font in the flesh; but they exclude the salvation of the flesh itself. And these, through a plausible confession, seduce the minds of the innocent with hidden deceit. And as a lethal draught, tempered with the sweetness of honey, is wont to destroy by its deceiving pleasantness, so also this evil, through a blandishment of the ears, contaminating the senses of the hearers with a certain stain, infects them with the contagion of an adhering vice. CHAPTER IV.

By what argument the Arians attempt to prove that God is not a substance. The dissolution of the same argument. Finally, even now they could, just as they do with other things, name it verbally, if they had some way to pervert it to another meaning with a twisted sense. But since they saw themselves caught by 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, on the grounds that either it was not written, or that God ought not to be called a substance, lest He be thought corporeal. For God, they say, brings it about that substance exists, yet He Himself is not to be reckoned as a substance; indeed, they claim, since every substance admits of contraries, God, who can admit nothing diverse, ought not to be called a substance. I would forgive you if you said this simply, if you came to this question as a novice, if you were not the same person who always asserted that the Son of God was either from another substance or from non-existent things. But since you are the same one who, often convicted on this point, often confessed, often denied, and more often changed your position and were condemned; who even now, stirring up trouble with violence, ambition, and power, throw everything into confusion—how do you think I can forgive you for constantly rehashing the same things? But lest this perversity seem to be condemned by prejudice rather than by examination, I shall briefly reply to you concerning this objection.

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 celestial things are constituted in one way, earthly things in another; and that even among celestial 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, just 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). So also in this world, just as there are diverse kinds of things, so also there are 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" (Ibid., 39). If, therefore, those things which were made by God have diverse qualities of their substances, do you think that in God there is such a substance as something of these which was made has, so that it can receive contraries? Far from it. For what is the substance of God? It is that which God Himself is: simple, singular, pure, mixed with no concretion, limpid, good, perfect, blessed, whole, entirely holy. Or do you think that what God is is something empty and void? For it is blasphemy to say this, that He should be thought empty, through whom all things have stood firm, who brought forth all things by the Word, composed them by reason, perfected them by power, by whose nod and command all things are governed, all things serve.

And you read well in Scripture concerning God: "I am who I am" (Exod. 3:14); and "He who is sent me" (Ibid.). 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 exists in substance as His own 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, this is the substance of a thing, which is defended as being; which, however, as has already been said, as to how much and of what kind it is, can neither be conceived by the mind, nor estimated by the senses, nor defined by the understanding; provided only that it is agreed that it is what it is believed to be; 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" (John 10:30); and "I came forth from the Father" (John 16:28); and "He who sees me, sees also my Father" (John 14:9). Not undeservedly, because the Son of God was born from God the Father; and therefore they are one in respect of unity of substance and of the majesty of the Godhead, just as Jeremiah also prophesied: "Who will stand in the substance of the Lord, and see the Word of the Lord?" (Jer. 23:18, according to the LXX). 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 pursuits" (Ibid., 22).

And in Solomon: "My substance is my sweetness" (Wis. 16:21). CHAPTER V. Since the unity of substance in the Father and the Son is confirmed not only by prophetic but also by evangelical authority, it cannot be said that it is not found in sacred literature. What the rationale of the name is. Moreover, if the Arian wishes to institute a comparison in God by some likeness, he cannot define a comparison more expressly than when he says, light from light. Therefore, since 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 it says: "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 name, that you believe in the unity of substance in the Father and the Son, although 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 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 some comparison from these things which are seen, in that matter, by the very dissimilarity of the things you will not show the rationale, but you will introduce a wrangling of disputes, as it is written by whose voice: "To whom will you compare me?" (Isa. 46:53).

Therefore, God, to whom nothing can be likened, suffices to be believed as he is perceived, as he himself wished to be believed, not to be judged. Finally, if concerning this very thing which you profess with me, you wish to apply some likeness to God, I do not know whether what you have compared you can define more precisely: for example, when you say light from light, if you are compelled to explain it with a scrupulous account, I ask how you believe light from light? Whether as a lamp from a lamp, or as a sun from a sun; so that you introduce either two lamps or two suns, like two gods under this example? Or do you designate the splendor of the light of the same lamp, 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 in the splendor of brightness; as the prophet said concerning this: "With you is the fountain of life, and in your light we will see light" (Ps. 35:10); or as Solomon says: "It is the radiance of eternal light, and the spotless mirror of the majesty of God, and the image of his goodness" (Wis. 7:26); or as the Apostle here (Col. 1:15) 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.

But how much could be said in response to these things that generate disputes, which the Apostle forbids (2 Tim. 2:24), it is tedious to recount: especially since it is established that that light which is God cannot be estimated, comprehended, or defined; nor can anything among those things that are in this world be truly compared to the divine majesty, because nothing of all those things that are seen or spoken can be estimated by a fitting 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 substance of the divinity, and recognize the true Son from the true Father: but that you should not inquire about the quality of the matter, because you cannot know what kind or how great it is. For this the prophets, this the apostles proclaimed. CHAPTER VI. What God is. Whether anything can be compared to Him. There is a certain Reason, which is named among the Greeks, that distinguishes the persons or names between the Father and the Son. That Reason is called by many names. For what reason individual things are said about the Son.

Finally, according to our capacity, our strength, and our faith, let us consider what God is, and see whether anything can be compared to him. Certainly this is he of whom, when it is spoken, it cannot be spoken; when it is estimated, it cannot be estimated; when it is compared, it cannot be compared; when it is defined, it grows by its own definition. He who opens the sky with his hand, closes the whole circuit of the world with his fist. Whom all things do not know, and by fearing, know. Whose name and power this world serves, and the very momentary succession of the elements succeeding one another bears witness. See, therefore, whether 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 call himself 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. This Reason, however, 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. And thus, while God is 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 itself is properly defined and shown.

For what is the Son in relation to what 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 Father's authority resides in him. He is called Wisdom, because, coming from the Father's heart, he has unlocked heavenly secrets for believers. He is called Right Hand, because through him all divine works have been completed. He is called Arm, because from him (??) (??). He is called Pearl, so that nothing more precious than it may be held. He is called Treasure, so that in him all the wealth and riches of the heavenly kingdoms may be recognized as stored. He is called 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 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 Fountain of Living Water, because from him thirsty hearts are irrigated by the grace of heavenly water. He is called Rock, because he provides strength to believers and hardness to unbelievers. He is called Cornerstone, because he, one and a mediator, has joined together both walls of the Old and New Testaments, containing them in himself. He is called Lamb, so that the innocence and passion of Christ may be shown. He is called Man, because he deigned to be born in the flesh for us men.

He is called the Lamb because he endured suffering for our salvation. He is called the Eagle because after the venerable resurrection, as king of the birds, he flies to the Father’s seat. He is called the 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 the Truth, because he knows no falsehood. He is the Life, because he gives life to all things. Do you see, therefore, that through these terms the meanings of the divine dispositions and works are indicated beforehand, yet God himself is not properly defined? Therefore the Father is God, immeasurable, eternal, incomprehensible, inestimable. And his Son is God and our Lord, as great as the Father is: but from no other source than the Father; because “I,” he says, “came forth from the Father,” that is, light from light. CHAPTER VII. On the removal of the occasion of error which a heretical man might take from the fact that two names or two persons, that is, of the Father and the Son, are established, as if two gods were spoken of.

But let the heretic not seize an occasion from this, when I posit two names or two persons, that is, of the Father and the Son, as if I were speaking of two gods, as they fabricate two from diversity: we, however, name the Father and the Son in such a way that we designate one God in these persons and names. Let the philosophers see to it, let their heretical disciples see to it, who vary by a diversity of powers: for us, nevertheless, there is one God the Father, as the Apostle said (1 Cor. 8:6), from whom all things; and we are from him: and one Lord Jesus Christ, God the Son of God, through whom all things; and we through him. For what else is understood by "two" than a substance divided into parts between two, and a nature of acting and commanding dissociated along with the names themselves, so that both will and commands are divided? 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 superior; and another who is not true is compared to the injury of him who is the true God. But when I posit the Father and the Son, I assign a unity of kind: and if I divide it in persons, yet the distinctions of persons are again sealed by the same names into the unity of their own natural law covenant.

Hence the Son is as great as the Father will appear, whole from whole, entire from entire, perfect from a perfect and consummate power, just as the Apostle says: "In whom all the fullness of divinity dwells corporally" (Colossians 2:9). For Jeremiah, the most received of the prophets, knowing this unity of divinity in the Father and the Son, says: "This is our God, and no other shall be accounted besides him; who found every path of wisdom, and gave it to his servant Jacob, and to his beloved Israel. After these things he was seen on earth, and conversed with men" (Baruch 3:36-38). And Isaiah preaches the same thing, saying: "Thus says the Lord God: Egypt is wearied, and the traffic of the Ethiopians; and the tall men of Saba shall pass over to you; they shall be your servants, and shall walk after you bound in fetters, and shall entreat you; because in you is God, and there is no other God besides you; for you are God" (Isaiah 14:14).

Lest you think I have said this with the same arrogance with which Sabellius is said to have spoken—who professes the Father himself and the Son himself to be the same—we do not compress everything into one meaning in such a way that we are caught by the deceit of other heretics. But because in the very name of the persons an undivided authority is recognized, and the Son is named not generically but personally from the Father; accordingly, we ascribe to the Father everything that the Son is, and to the Son everything that the Father is. Nothing will be seen as belonging to the Father that is judged to belong to the Son, nor to the Son that is defended as belonging to the Father; because the unity of majesty does not permit 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. Fearing above all else that unless the Father and the Son are one, the interpolated birth of the author would fall back into disrepute; for this pleased the heretics, that the omnipotent, invisible, immense God would degenerate in the Son, not only in power but with a changed condition, as if the Father could not have from himself such a one 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, that is, with the Son another thing itself; so that the persons would be made distinct by name in hearing, and not so that names would separate the substance.

CHAPTER VIII The mystery of the Arian heresy is revealed. Why they are unwilling to believe the Son is from the substance of the Father. Responses are given to the Arian arguments. There is a great difference between those things which were made and Him who made everything. Just as God showed Himself to the fathers in many and various forms, who nevertheless according to His divinity could not be seen. Conclusion of the disputation. But to expose the entire mystery of the Arian heresy: why they are unwilling to believe the Son is from the substance of the Father, I shall briefly explain. 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 fathers; and convertible and mutable, because he showed himself in various forms: if he were from the substance of the Father, they say, it could never happen that before the assumption of flesh he would become either visible or mutable; rather, he would have remained in the equality in which the Father is, from whose substance he was; because that which is from the Father must be believed to be incapable of being seen, changed, or converted.

He comes to the cause, because when he descended into Mary, when he filled the Virgin's womb, something else was born from her than what had come. Hence, they say, the substance, once corrupted, changes its state, loses its order, and by that very change, he who is to be formed passes from God into man, from spirit into flesh. And certainly every translation is the destruction of the former state. And through this they say: If the Son were from the substance of the Father, then the Father would already appear lesser in his own substance, either by transmission or by end; and therefore they preferred to believe the Son is from another substance, because he can be converted, changed, and seen; since this is not permitted to be believed about 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, that they compare God to human conditions. To whom it must first be answered in this place that the Son of God was not seen as God was, but as man was able to grasp of God; then that by various forms he himself is not changeable and convertible, but that this is of the power of God, that when he deigns to reveal himself to individuals, as he wishes, he changes his appearance, not his 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 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 (Psalm 101:28).

For even if 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 come forth from water, are no longer water because they are something else; as the potter's clay, when it is hardened into a potsherd; as stone, when it is dissolved by firing 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, O heretic, between those things which have been made, and Him who made all things, just as He willed. Things which have been made serve the condition assigned to them; but He who made them is of His own will and of His own right. Nor can He be changed into something other than what He is, by any compulsion; 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 shape 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 should be able to do this?

To this is added that we approve of the Son of God, as has already been said, as seen by the fathers, in such a way that not everything in him which is God was seen; 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 put on man himself? And although he was seen by Abraham (Gen. 18:1), 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 sees him elsewhere as an angel, elsewhere equally in a man (Gen. 28:13). He showed himself as an angel to indicate that he was of great counsel; in a man, 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 would have come as a man. But so that Israel (Gen. 32:24), that is, the man seeing God, might believe that the one with whom he wrestled in such a great contest under the figure of a man was the Lord, he received that name. "I saw," he says, "God face to face, and my soul was saved" (Ibid., 30). And indeed he had seen the figure of a man, which the Son of God, God, had put on.

He appeared to Moses in a bush, in a flame of fire (Exod. 3:2), to show light to believers, judgment to unbelievers; because Christ is salvation to believers, 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); to 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, heretic, through all these things, the characters of the divine Scriptures pre-shown to the fathers in honor of God; yet not God himself, as he is in his proper nature, revealed. Finally, when Moses prayed that he might see the face of God purely, what did God immediately say to him? "You will not be able," he said, "to see my face; for no man shall see my face and live" (Exod. 33:20). By this very fact that the sight is denied, a brightness is assigned, which is indeed as great as it must be believed to be, which is indicated as invisible. Therefore, when Moses, who set forth, 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 universe; to whom the Lord himself bore witness, saying: "There will be none among the prophets like my servant Moses, to whom I have spoken face to face, mouth to mouth" (Num.

smoke of the fire of the law (Exod. 19:18; 20:18); yet he could not see God purely. Worthy indeed of all prophecy, but not to such an extent that he could behold God, inasmuch as he was only a man. And indeed we defend all these things as 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 all things from the beginning be ordered, explained, and maintained through him, so that this principal reason for having a Son would be established. And yet this vision is understood in such a way that he was seen by assuming some visible material arrangement, as I have said, preserving his invisibility, which his interposed majesty withheld 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 as a mirror encloses faces conceived within its light almost to the full likeness of a man, so, with the preceding radiance of his majesty, what was seen within it displayed an image of the truth, not God himself properly.

Thus also, when He deigned to put on a man, He did not bring blemish upon eternity; not that He might change spirit into flesh, but that, by taking up a man, He might bestow the immortality and eternity of heavenly life. For although the Apostle says that He emptied Himself (Phil. 2:7) by taking the form of a servant, we do not understand that He was so emptied that the same Spirit became something other than what He had been; but that, laying aside for a time the honor of His majesty, He might put on a human body, by which, once taken up, the salvation of the nations would be accomplished. For just as the sun, when it is said to be covered by a cloud, has its brightness compressed, not blinded; and that light which, diffused throughout the whole world, 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 (Matt. 17:6), the apostles, men indeed, fell to the ground, almost blinded by the brilliance of His light, and were in danger of their lives, had not the Lord, compressing again the honor of His majesty, mercifully come to their aid, according to that saying: No one has seen God and lived (Exod. 33:20).

Just as the brightness of the sun, when it does not shine all the way to our sight, remains intact for itself—because what is not seen is due to our own weakness, whose eyes the darkness of clouds covers—so too does it prove that it did not lie hidden to the detriment of its own radiance, but by the benefit of the flesh, as I have said, on account of which the Son of God endured being the son of a 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 He was born from 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 both God and man proceeded; yet the Son of God was not changed by that garment of flesh; but He Himself is the same in the man who He was 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 liberated by him who, in order to liberate, was lost; in order to be born, was oppressed; in order to receive immortality, passed over into 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 through the path of His body the light of the Holy Spirit and the grace of eternal life might overflow to us. 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 of the Lord are spoken of; for it is established that what is of God is immortal; what is of man is perishable.

On the third day he also rose again, not God into man, but rather man into God. He ascended into the heavens, offered to his Father that man as a most pleasing 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 to us the Holy Spirit from his own and selfsame substance, 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. 57:6). And our Lord and Savior himself says: From mine, he says, he will receive (John 16:15); from that, namely, 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 that he may render rewards to believers and punishments to unbelievers. His kingdom is eternal, immortal; it has neither beginning nor end: to him are honor and glory for ever and ever.

I implore you, by God, who read these words, not to twist the simplicity of the sense into ambiguity, nor to draw them otherwise than they have been spoken; for we confess the Father as true Father, and the Son of God as true Son of God, and we believe the Holy Spirit as truly Holy Spirit: confessing three persons of one substance and of one divinity. But we condemn the sect of Sabellius and of Photinus, as well as that of Arius, and if there are any others which come against the rule of truth. Moreover, we embrace the treatise of the Synod of Nicaea, preserving it with every effort of the mind and with entire faith; for we know that this treatise is set against all heresies with invincible truth.