The Arian Word “Unoriginate”

This, in fact, is why they borrowed the term “Unoriginate” from the Greeks. The unsoundness of their phrases had been exposed at that time, and from then on they lay open to the charge of impiety. So they took up this word, so that under its shelter they might count the Word of God, through whom these very things came into being, among the things that have come into being and among the creatures. So shameless are they in their impiety, so obstinate in their blasphemies against the Lord. If this shamelessness comes from ignorance of the term, they ought to have learned it from those who gave it to them. Those men have not hesitated to say that even Intellect, which they derive from the Good, and the Soul, which proceeds from Intellect, are nevertheless unoriginate, though it is known where each of them comes from. For they understand that by saying so they do not belittle that first Origin from which the others come. That being so, let the Arians say the same themselves, or else not speak at all about what they do not know. [a]

But if they think they understand the subject, then they must be questioned. For the expression is not from divine Scripture; as elsewhere, they are contending for positions that are not in Scripture. I have explained the reason and the sense with which the council, and the fathers before it, defined and published “from the substance” and “of one substance,” in agreement with what Scripture says of the Savior. So now let them answer in their turn, if they can: what led them to this phrase that is not in Scripture, and in what sense do they call God Unoriginate? In fact, I am told that the word has different senses. The philosophers say that it means, first, “what has not yet come into being, but may”; next, “what neither exists nor can come into being”; and third, “what exists, but neither came into being nor had any origin of its being, but is everlasting and indestructible.” Now perhaps they will want to pass over the first two senses because of the absurdity that follows from them. By the first, things that have already come into being, and things that are expected to come into being, would be unoriginate; and the second is more absurd still. So they will go on to the third sense and use the word in that. Yet in this sense too their impiety will be just as great.

For if by “unoriginate” they mean what has no origin of being, what has not come into being and was not created, but is eternal, and they say that the Word of God is the opposite of this, who does not see through the craft of these enemies of God? Who would not stone such madmen? They are ashamed to bring forward again those first phrases they made up, which were condemned, and so the wretches have found another way to express them, by means of what they call “unoriginate.” For if the Son is one of the things that have come into being, it follows that he too came into being from nothing. If he has an origin of being, then he did not exist before he was begotten. And if he is not eternal, then there was once when he was not.

If that is what they think, they ought to declare their false teaching in their own phrases, and not hide their perversity under the cloak of the Unoriginate. Instead, these evil-minded men do everything with craft, like their father the devil. As he tries to deceive by putting on the guise of others, so these men have put forward the term “Unoriginate,” so that they might pretend to speak reverently of God, while they harbor a hidden blasphemy against the Lord and teach it to others under a veil. But once this trick is found out, what is left for them? “We have found another,” say the evildoers. And they go on to add to what they have already said that “Unoriginate” means what has no author of its being, but itself stands as author to the things that have come into being. Ungrateful men, and truly deaf to the Scriptures! They do everything and say everything, not to honor God, but to dishonor the Son, not knowing that whoever dishonors the Son dishonors the Father. [f]

For first, even if they speak of God in this way, that still does not prove the Word to be one of the things that have come into being. For again, since he is the offspring of the Father’s substance, it follows that he is with him eternally. The name “offspring” takes nothing away from the nature of the Word. And “Unoriginate” does not take its sense by contrast with the Son, but with the things that come into being through the Son. Think of someone who speaks to an architect and calls him the builder of a house or a city. By that name he is not referring to the son who is born to him. He calls him a craftsman because of the art and skill he shows in his work, meaning that he is not like the things he has made. And while he knows the nature of the builder, he also knows that the one he begets is something other than his works. With regard to his son he calls him father, but with regard to his works, creator and maker. In the same way, whoever says in this sense that God is unoriginate names him from his works. He means not only that God did not come into being, but that he is the maker of the things that did. Yet he knows all the while that the Word is other than the things that have come into being, and that he alone is the Father’s own offspring, through whom all things came into being and hold together.

In the same way, when the prophets called God All-ruling, they did not give him that name as though the Word were included in that “all.” For they knew that the Son was other than the things that have come into being, and himself sovereign over them, in keeping with his likeness to the Father. They named God so because he is ruler over all the things he has made through the Son, and because he has given authority over all things to the Son; and having given it, he is once more himself the Lord of all things through the Word. Again, when they called God Lord of the powers, they did not say it as if the Word were one of those powers. They said it because, while he is Father of the Son, he is Lord of the powers that have come into being through the Son. For again, the Word too, as being in the Father, is Lord of them all and sovereign over all; for whatever the Father has belongs to the Son. [g]

Since this is the force of such titles, let a man call God unoriginate in the same way, if he likes. But let him not do it as though the Word were one of the things that have come into being. Let him do it because, as I said before, God not only did not come into being, but through his own Word he is the maker of the things that did. For though the Father is called that, the Word is still the Father’s Image and of one substance with him. Being his Image, he must be distinct from the things that have come into being, and from everything else; for he has what belongs to the one whose Image he is, and his likeness. So whoever calls the Father unoriginate and almighty perceives in the Unoriginate and the Almighty his Word and his Wisdom, who is the Son. But these wonderful men, so quick to impiety, hit on the term “Unoriginate” not out of care for God’s honor but out of malice toward the Savior. If they had cared for honor and reverent language, it would have been far more right and good to acknowledge God as Father and call him so, than to give him this name. For in calling God unoriginate they are, as I said before, naming him from the things that came into being, and as a Maker only, so that they may imply that the Word is a work, as they please. But whoever calls God Father signifies his Son along with him, and cannot fail to know that, since there is a Son, all things that came into being were created through this Son.

So it will be much more accurate to name God from the Son and call him Father, than to name him from his works alone and call him Unoriginate. The latter term refers to the works that have come into being at God’s will through the Word, but the name of Father points to the offspring that is his own, from his substance. And as far as the Word surpasses the things that have come into being, by so much and more does calling God Father surpass calling him Unoriginate. The latter is not in Scripture, and it is open to suspicion because it has various senses. The former is simple and scriptural, and more accurate, and it alone implies the Son. “Unoriginate” is a word of the Greeks, who do not know the Son. But “Father” has been acknowledged and graciously given by our Lord. For he, knowing whose Son he was, said, “I in the Father and the Father in me,” and, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father,” and, “I and the Father are one.” But nowhere is he found calling the Father Unoriginate. Moreover, when he teaches us to pray, he does not say, “When you pray, say, ‘O God Unoriginate,’” but rather, “When you pray, say, ‘Our Father, who are in heaven.’” [i]

And it was his will that the summary of our faith should point the same way. He has told us to be baptized, not in the name of Unoriginate and Originate, not into the name of Uncreated and Creature, but into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For with such an initiation we too are truly made sons. And in using the name of the Father, we acknowledge from that name the Word who is in the Father. Yet if he wills that we should call his own Father our Father, we must not on that account measure ourselves against the Son by nature. It is because of the Son that the Father is called so by us. For since the Word bore our body and came to be in us, it is because of the Word in us that God is called our Father. For the Spirit of the Word in us names his own Father as ours through us. This is what the apostle means when he says, “God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, ‘Abba, Father.’”

But perhaps, refuted about the term “Unoriginate” as well, they will say, true to their evil nature, “About our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ too, it was right to state from the Scriptures what is written there about him, and not to bring in expressions that are not in Scripture.” Yes, it was right, I say too. For the signs of truth are more exact when drawn from Scripture than from other sources. But the ill will and the shifting, crafty impiety of Eusebius and his party compelled the bishops, as I said before, to publish more plainly the terms that overthrew their impiety. What the council wrote has already been shown to have an orthodox sense, while the Arians have been shown to be corrupt in their phrases and evil in their intentions. The term “Unoriginate” has its own sense and can be used reverently. Yet they use it, according to their own idea and as they please, to dishonor the Savior, all for the sake of keeping up, like the giants, their quarrelsome fight against God. But as they did not escape condemnation when they brought forward those earlier phrases, so too, when they misconstrued “Unoriginate,” which in itself can be used well and reverently, they were found out and disgraced before everyone, and their heresy was banned everywhere. [m]

This, then, as well as I could, is my account, explaining what was done earlier at the council. But I know that the quarrelsome among Christ’s enemies will not be inclined to change even after hearing this. They will always be hunting for other pretexts, and after those for still others. For as the prophet says, “If the Ethiopian can change his skin, or the leopard his spots,” then those who have been schooled in impiety will be willing to think reverently. But you, beloved, when you receive this, read it by yourself. And if you approve of it, read it also to the brothers who happen to be with you, so that they too, on hearing it, may welcome the council’s zeal for the truth and the exactness of its meaning, and may condemn the zeal of Christ’s enemies, the Arians, and the empty pretexts they have taken the trouble to invent among themselves for the sake of their impious heresy. For to God and the Father belong the glory, honor, and worship, with his Son and Word, who exists together with him, and with the all-holy and life-giving Spirit, now and to endless ages of ages. Amen.