Why the Council Chose Its Words

Now Eusebius and his party were examined at great length at that earlier time, and they convicted themselves, as I said before. On this they signed, and after this change of mind they kept quiet and stayed out of sight. But the present party, in the fresh arrogance of impiety and in their dizziness about the truth, are fully bent on accusing the council. So let them tell us from what sort of Scriptures they have learned, or who is the saint who taught them, that they have heaped together the phrases “out of nothing,” and “he was not before he was begotten,” and “once he was not,” and “changeable,” and “pre-existence,” and “at the will.” These are their fables, made up in mockery of the Lord. For the blessed Paul says in his letter to the Hebrews, “By faith we understand that the ages were framed by the Word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that appear.” But the Word has nothing in common with the ages; for he is the one who exists before the ages, and through whom the ages came into being. And in the Shepherd it is written (since they appeal to this book too, though it is not part of the canon), “First of all, believe that God is one, who created all things and set them in order and brought all things from nothing into being.” But this again does not refer to the Son. It speaks of all the things that came into being through him, and he is distinct from them. For it is not possible to count the Maker of all among the things made by him, unless someone is so out of his mind as to say that the architect is the same as the buildings he puts up. [a]

Why, then, when they themselves have invented unscriptural phrases for the purposes of impiety, do they accuse those who use such phrases reverently? For impiety is utterly forbidden, even if someone tries to disguise it with clever expressions and plausible arguments. But reverence is admitted by all to be lawful, even when it is presented in unfamiliar phrases, provided only that they are used with a reverent intent and with the wish to make them express reverent thoughts. Now these remarks have shown that the groveling phrases of Christ’s enemies were full of impiety, both formerly and now. But the council’s definition against them, if it is examined carefully, will be found to be altogether a statement of the truth, especially if close attention is paid to the occasion that gave rise to these expressions. That occasion was a reasonable one, and it was as follows.

The council wished to do away with the impious phrases of the Arians and to use instead the acknowledged words of the Scriptures: that the Son is not from nothing but “from God,” and is “Word” and “Wisdom,” and not a creature or a work, but the Father’s own offspring. But Eusebius and his party, led by their long-standing heterodoxy, understood the phrase “from God” as something that belongs to us as well, as if in this respect the Word of God differed in nothing from us. They did so because it is written, “There is one God, from whom are all things,” and again, “Old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new, and all things are from God.” But the fathers, seeing through their craftiness and the cunning of their impiety, were forced to express the sense of the words “from God” more distinctly. So they wrote “from the substance of God,” so that “from God” might not be thought common to the Son and to the things that have come into being, and equal in both, but so that all other things might be acknowledged as creatures, and the Word alone as from the Father. For though all things are said to be from God, this is not in the sense in which the Son is from him. As to the creatures, “from God” is said of them because they do not exist at random or of themselves, nor come into being by chance. It is not meant as those philosophers say who trace them to a combination of atoms and to elements of similar structure, nor as certain heretics say who speak of a separate Maker, nor as others again say, that the ordering of all things comes from certain angels. Rather, it is said because God is, and it was by him that all things were brought into being through his Word, when before they were not. But as to the Word, since he is not a creature, he alone is both called and is “from the Father.” And to say that the Son is “from the substance of the Father” expresses this meaning, for it applies to nothing that has come into being. In truth, when Paul says that “all things are from God,” he immediately adds, “and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.” He does so to show everyone that the Son is other than all these things that came into being from God (for the things that came into being from God came into being through his Son), and that his earlier words referred to the world as framed by God, and not as if all things were from the Father as the Son is. For other things are not as the Son is, nor is the Word one among others, for he is Lord and Maker of all. For this reason the holy council declared expressly that he was from the substance of the Father, so that we might believe the Word to be other than the nature of the things that have come into being, being alone truly from God, and so that no loophole should be left to the impious. This, then, was the reason why the council wrote “from the substance.” [d]

Again, the bishops said that the Word must be described as the true Power and Image of the Father, exactly like the Father in all things, unchangeable, always, and in him without division. For the Word never was not, but always was, existing eternally with the Father, as the radiance of light. Eusebius and his party put up with this, not daring to contradict, since they were put to shame by the arguments urged against them. But all the same they were caught whispering to each other and winking, saying that “like,” and “always,” and “power,” and “in him” were, as before, common to us and the Son, and that there was no difficulty in agreeing to these. As to “like,” they said that it is written of us, “Man is the image and glory of God”; as to “always,” that it is written, “For we who live are always”; as to “in him,” “In him we live and move and have our being”; as to “unchangeable,” that it is written, “Nothing shall separate us from the love of Christ.” As to “power,” they said that the caterpillar and the locust are called “power” and “great power,” and that it is often said of the people, for instance, “All the power of the Lord came out of the land of Egypt”; and that there are other, heavenly powers too, for Scripture says, “The Lord of powers is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge.” Indeed Asterius, called the Sophist, had said the same in writing, having learned it from them, and Arius before him, having learned it too, as has been said. But the bishops saw through their pretense in this too. And since it is written, “Deceit is in the heart of the impious who plan evil,” they were again compelled on their part to gather up the sense of the Scriptures, and to say again and write again, still more distinctly, what they had said before: namely, that the Son is “of one substance” with the Father. By this they meant to signify that the Son was from the Father, and not merely like him, but the same in likeness, and to show that the Son’s likeness and unchangeableness was different from the copying that is ascribed to us, which we gain through virtue by keeping the commandments. [h]

For bodies that are like each other can be separated and come to be at a distance from each other, as human sons are from their parents (as it is written of Adam and Seth, who was begotten by him, that he was like him, after his own pattern). But the generation of the Son from the Father is not according to the nature of men. He is not only like, but also inseparable from the substance of the Father. He and the Father are one, as he has said himself, and the Word is always in the Father and the Father in the Word, as the radiance stands toward the light, for this is what the phrase itself indicates. Therefore the council, understanding this, fittingly wrote “of one substance,” so that they might both defeat the perversity of the heretics and show that the Word was other than the things that have come into being. For after writing this, they at once added, “But those who say that the Son of God is from nothing, or created, or changeable, or a work, or from another substance, these the holy catholic church anathematizes.” By saying this they showed clearly that “from the substance” and “of one substance” destroy those catchwords of impiety, such as “created,” and “work,” and “brought into being,” and “changeable,” and “he was not before he was begotten.” Whoever holds these contradicts the council. But whoever does not hold with Arius must hold and intend the decisions of the council, rightly taking them to signify the relation of the radiance to the light, and gaining from there the illustration of the truth.

Therefore if they, like the others, make the excuse that the terms are unfamiliar, let them consider the sense in which the council wrote them, and anathematize what the council anathematized; and then, if they can, let them find fault with the expressions. But I know well that if they hold the council’s meaning, they will fully accept the terms in which it is expressed. And if it is the meaning they want to complain of, everyone must see that it is idle for them to argue about the wording, when they are only looking for handles for impiety. This, then, was the reason for these expressions. But if they still complain that such terms are not scriptural, that very complaint is a reason why they should be thrown out, as men who talk idly and are disordered in mind. And let them blame themselves in this matter, for they set the example, beginning their war against God with words not found in Scripture. However, if anyone is interested in the question, let him know that even if the expressions are not in the Scriptures in so many words, still, as was said before, they contain the sense of the Scriptures; and in expressing it, they convey it to those whose hearing is sound for reverent teaching. Now this is a matter for you to consider, and for those ill-taught men to listen to. It has been shown above, and must be believed as true, that the Word is from the Father, and is his only Offspring, his own and natural. For where may one conceive the Son to be from, he who is the Wisdom and the Word, in whom all things came into being, but from God himself? However, the Scriptures also teach us this. For the Father says through David, “My heart uttered a good Word,” and, “From the womb, before the morning star, I begot you.” And the Son signifies to the Jews about himself, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came forth from the Father.” And again, “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except he who is from God; he has seen the Father.” And moreover, “I and my Father are one,” and, “I in the Father and the Father in me,” is the same as saying, “I am from the Father and inseparable from him.” And John, in saying, “The only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him,” spoke of what he had learned from the Savior. Besides, what else does “in the bosom” point to but the Son’s true generation from the Father? [m]

Suppose, then, that someone thinks of God as compound, as an accident is in a substance; or as having some outer covering and being enclosed; or as if there is something about him that completes his substance, so that when we say “God,” or name “Father,” we do not signify his invisible and incomprehensible substance itself but something about it. Then let such people complain of the council’s stating that the Son was from the substance of God. But let them reflect that in thinking this they utter two blasphemies: they make God bodily, and they falsely say that the Lord is not the Son of the Father himself but of what is about him. But if God is simple, as he is, it follows that in saying “God” and naming “Father,” we name nothing as if about him, but signify his substance itself. For though it is impossible to comprehend what the substance of God is, still, if we only understand that God is, and if Scripture points to him by these titles, then we, meaning to point to him and to no other, call him God and Father and Lord. When, then, he says, “I am who I am,” and, “I am the Lord God,” or when Scripture says “God,” we understand by it nothing else but a pointing to his incomprehensible substance itself, and that he who is spoken of is. Therefore let no one be startled on hearing that the Son of God is from the substance of the Father. Let him rather accept the explanation of the fathers, who in more explicit but equivalent language wrote “from the substance” in place of “from God.” For they considered it the same thing to say that the Word was “from God” and “from the substance of God,” since the word “God,” as I have already said, signifies nothing but the substance of him who is. If, then, the Word is not from God in the sense in which a son, true and natural, is from a father, but only as creatures are, because they are framed, and as “all things are from God,” then neither is he from the substance of the Father, nor again is the Son a Son by substance, but in consequence of virtue, as we are who are called sons by grace. But if he alone is from God as a true Son, as he is, then the Son may rightly be called from the substance of God. [o]

Again, the illustration of the light and the radiance has this meaning. The saints have not said that the Word was related to God as a fire kindled from the heat of the sun, which is commonly put out again; for that is an outside work and a creature of its maker. Rather, they all preach him as Radiance, to signify by this that he is from the substance, the Father’s own and indivisible, and that he is one with the Father. This will also secure his true unchangeableness and immutability; for how can these be his unless he is the Father’s own Offspring, from his substance? For this too must be taken to confirm his sameness with his own Father. Since our explanation, then, is so reverent, Christ’s enemies should not be startled at “of one substance” either, since this term too has a sound sense and good reasons. Indeed, if we say that the Word is from the substance of God (and after what has been said they must admit this phrase), what does this mean but the truth and eternity of the substance from which he is begotten? For it is not different in kind; otherwise it would be joined to the substance of God as something foreign and unlike it. Nor is he like only outwardly; otherwise he would seem in some respect, or wholly, other in substance, as brass shines like gold, and silver like tin. For these are foreign to each other and of another nature. They are separated from each other in nature and in their properties; brass does not belong to gold, nor is the pigeon born from the dove; and though they are thought alike, they differ in substance. If, then, it is like this with the Son, let him be a creature as we are, and not of one substance. But if the Son is Word, Wisdom, Image of the Father, Radiance, he must in all reason be of one substance. For unless it is proved that he is not from God, but an instrument different in nature and different in substance, surely the council was sound in its teaching and correct in its decree. [q]

Further, let every bodily notion be banished from this subject. Rising above every image of the senses, let us grasp with pure understanding and with the mind alone the true relation of son to father, the Word’s own relation to God, and the unvarying likeness of the radiance to the light. For as the words “Offspring” and “Son” bear, and are meant to bear, no human sense but one fit for God, so when we hear the phrase “of one substance,” let us not fall back on human senses and imagine partitions and divisions of the Godhead. Instead, with our thoughts directed to things that are not material, let us keep undivided the oneness of nature and the sameness of the light. For this belongs to a son in relation to a father, and in this it is shown that God is truly Father of the Word. Here again the illustration of light and its radiance applies. Who would presume to say that the radiance is unlike the sun and foreign to it? Rather, who, considering the radiance in relation to the sun and the sameness of the light, would not say with confidence, “Truly the light and the radiance are one; the one is shown in the other, and the radiance is in the sun, so that whoever sees this sees that also”? But such a oneness and natural belonging, what should those who believe and see rightly call it but an Offspring of one substance? And God’s Offspring, what should we fittingly and suitably think it to be but Word, and Wisdom, and Power? It would be a sin to say that this was foreign to the Father, and a crime even to imagine it as anything but with him eternally. For by this Offspring the Father made all things and extended his providence to all things; by him he exercises his love for mankind; and so he and the Father are one, as has been said. Unless, indeed, these perverse men make a fresh attempt and say that the substance of the Word is not the same as the Light that is in him from the Father, as if the Light in the Son were one with the Father, but he himself were foreign in substance, being a creature. Yet this is simply the belief of Caiaphas and of the man from Samosata, which the church cast out, but which these men are now disguising; and by this they fell from the truth and were declared heretics. For if he shares fully in the light from the Father, why is he not rather himself that which others share in, so that no go-between is brought in between him and the Father? Otherwise it is no longer clear that all things came into being through the Son, but rather through the one in whom he too shares. And if this is the Word, the Wisdom of the Father, in whom the Father is revealed and known and frames the world, and without whom the Father does nothing, then plainly he is the one who is from the Father. For all things that have come into being share in him, as sharing in the Holy Spirit. And being such, he cannot be from nothing, nor a creature at all, but rather the Father’s own Offspring, as the radiance is from the light. [r]