Prologue #

¹ The Queen of the South, as recorded in the Book of Kings, visited to hear Solomon’s wisdom. Similarly, King Hiram sought to test Solomon. Following these ancient examples, your revered Majesty has decided to listen to my confession of faith. But I am no Solomon, and my wisdom is not extraordinary. Your Majesty is not just the ruler of a single nation; you are the Augustus, the ruler of the entire world, who has commanded that the Faith be presented in a book, not for your instruction, but for your approval.

² Why, august Emperor, should your Majesty need to learn the Faith that you have devoutly and lovingly followed since your earliest childhood? As Scripture says, “Before I formed you in your mother’s womb, I knew you, and before you were born, I sanctified you.” Sanctification comes not from tradition, but from inspiration; thus, cherish the gifts of God. What no man has taught you, God has surely given and inspired.

³ Your sacred Majesty, as you prepare for war, has requested a book expounding the Faith, knowing that victories are achieved more by the commander’s faith than by the soldiers’ valor. Abraham led three hundred and eighteen men into battle and returned with the spoils of countless enemies. By the power of the sign of our Lord’s Cross and Name, he overcame the might of five kings and their armies, avenged his neighbor, and secured victory and the ransom of his brother’s son. Similarly, Joshua the Son of Nun, when he could not defeat the enemy with the strength of his entire army, overcame them with the sound of seven sacred trumpets, in the place where he saw and recognized the Captain of the heavenly host. In preparation for victory, your Majesty, as Christ’s loyal servant and defender of the Faith, has asked me to set forth this Faith in writing.

⁴ Truly, I would prefer to take on the duty of encouraging others to keep the Faith rather than arguing about it; the former involves sincere confession, while the latter can lead to reckless assumptions. However, since Your Majesty does not need encouragement and I cannot excuse myself from my duty of loyalty, I will embark on a bold yet humble endeavor—not so much to reason and debate about the Faith, but to gather a multitude of witnesses.

⁵ Of the Acts of Councils, I shall let that one be my chief guide which three hundred and eighteen priests, appointed, as it were, after the judgment of Abraham, made (so to speak) a trophy raised to proclaim their victory over the infidel throughout the world, prevailing by that courage of the Faith, wherein all agreed. Verily, as it seems to me, one may herein see the hand of God, forasmuch as the same number is our authority in the Councils of the Faith, and an example of loyalty in the records of old.

Chapter 1 #

¹ Now, this is the declaration of our Faith: we affirm that God is One. We neither separate His Son from Him, as the heathen do, nor deny, with the Jews, that He was begotten of the Father before all worlds and later born of the Virgin. Nor do we, like Sabellius, confuse the Father with the Word, claiming that the Father and the Son are one and the same Person. Nor do we, like Photinus, believe that the Son first came into existence in the Virgin’s womb. We also reject the view of Arius, who believed in multiple diverse Powers, thereby implying the existence of more than one God, similar to the heathen. For it is written: “Hear, O Israel: the Lord your God is one God.”

² For “God” and “Lord” are names of majesty and power, as God Himself says: “The Lord is My name”, and as the prophet declares elsewhere: “The Lord Almighty is His name.” Therefore, He is both God and Lord, either because His rule is over all, or because He sees all things and is universally revered.

³ If, then, God is One, the name and the power of the Trinity are also one. Christ Himself says: “Go, baptize the nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Notice, it is in the name, not in the names.

⁴ Moreover, Christ Himself says: “I and the Father are One.” He said “One” to emphasize that there is no separation of power and nature. But He also said “We are” so that you may recognize the distinction between Father and Son, understanding that the perfect Father begot the perfect Son, and the Father and the Son are One not by confusing their Persons, but by their unity of nature.

⁵ Therefore, we affirm that there is one God, not two or three Gods, as the impious heresy of the Arians wrongly claims with its blasphemies. The Arian heresy wrongly asserts that there are three Gods by dividing the Godhead of the Trinity. However, the Lord, in instructing to baptize the nations in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, has shown that the Trinity is of one power. We confess the Father, Son, and Spirit, recognizing in the perfect Trinity both the fullness of Divinity and the unity of power.

⁶ As the Lord says, ‘Every kingdom divided against itself shall quickly be overthrown.’ Now, the kingdom of the Trinity is not divided. Therefore, if it is not divided, it is one, for that which is not one is divided. The Arians, however, falsely portray the kingdom of the Trinity as something that could be easily overthrown by division against itself. But truly, since it cannot be overthrown, it is clearly undivided. For no unity is divided or torn asunder, and therefore neither age nor corruption has any power over it.

Chapter 2 #

¹ Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter into the kingdom of heaven’, as Scripture says. Therefore, august Sovereign, faith must not be merely a matter of performance, for it is written, “The zeal of your house has devoured me.” Let us, then, with faithful spirit and devout mind, call upon Jesus our Lord, believing that He is God, so that whatever we ask of the Father, we may obtain in His name. For the Father’s will is that He be entreated through the Son, and the Son’s will is that the Father be entreated.

² The grace of His submission aligns with our teachings, and His powerful acts are consistent with this. For whatever the Father does, the Son also does in the same way. The Son performs the same actions and does them in a similar manner, but it is the Father’s will that He be approached regarding what He plans to do. This is so you may understand that it’s not that He cannot do it differently, but that there is a single power being displayed. Therefore, the Son of God truly deserves to be adored and worshiped, for by the power of His divinity, He has established the foundations of the world and has shaped our affections through His submission.

³ Therefore, we should believe that God is good, eternal, perfect, almighty, and true, as we find Him described in the Law, the Prophets, and the rest of the holy Scriptures. For without these attributes, there would be no God. God, being God, must be inherently good, as fullness of goodness is of His nature. He who created time cannot be confined by it, nor can God be imperfect, for anything lesser than perfection lacks what is needed to be equal to something greater. This, then, is the teaching of our faith—that God is not evil, that nothing is impossible with God, that God transcends time, and that no being is above God. If I am mistaken, let my adversaries prove it.

⁴ Since Christ is God, He is inherently good, almighty, eternal, perfect, and true; for these attributes are inherent to the essential nature of the Godhead. Therefore, let our adversaries deny the Divine Nature in Christ—otherwise, they cannot deny to God what is proper to the Divine Nature.

⁵ To prevent anyone from falling into error, let us consider the signs given to us by holy Scripture, by which we may know the Son. He is called the Word, the Son, the Power of God, and the Wisdom of God. He is the Word because He is without blemish; the Power because He is perfect; the Son because He is begotten of the Father; the Wisdom because He is one with the Father, one in eternity, one in Divinity. The Father is not one Person with the Son; there is a clear distinction between Father and Son that arises from generation. Therefore, Christ is God of God, Everlasting of Everlasting, and Fulness of Fulness.

⁶ These are not merely names, but signs of power manifested in works. While there is the fullness of Godhead in the Father, there is also the fullness of Godhead in the Son—not diverse, but one. The Godhead is not confused, for it is unity; it is not manifold, for in it there is no difference.

⁷ Moreover, if, as it is written, all those who believed had one soul and one heart; if everyone who clings to the Lord is one spirit, as the Apostle has said; if a man and his wife are one flesh; if all we mortal men, in terms of our general nature, are of one substance; if this is what the Scripture says about created beings, that though they are many, they are one, who cannot in any way be compared to Divine Persons, then how much more are the Father and the Son one in Divinity, with whom there is no difference either of substance or of will!

⁸ For how else shall we say that God is One? Divinity allows for plurality, but the unity of power excludes numerical quantity, since unity is not a number, but rather the principle of all numbers.

Chapter 3 #

¹ The oracles of the prophets bear witness to the close unity that holy Scripture declares exists between the Father and the Son in their Godhead. For thus says the Lord of Hosts: “Egypt has labored, and the merchandise of Cush and the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over to you and be yours; they shall follow you; they shall come over in chains and bow down to you. They will plead with you, saying: ‘Surely God is in you, and there is no other, no God besides you.’ Truly, you are a God who hides yourself, O God of Israel.”

² Listen to the words of the prophet: “In You,” he says, “is God, and there is no God beside You.” How does this align with the teaching of the Arians? They must deny either the Divinity of the Father or the Son unless they firmly believe in the unity of the same Divinity.

³ “In You,” he says, “is God”—because the Father is in the Son. For it is written, “The Father, who abides in Me, Himself speaks, and the works that I do, He Himself also does.” Furthermore, we read that the Son is in the Father, saying, “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.” Let the Arians, if they can, refute this kinship in nature and unity in work.

⁴ There is, therefore, God in God, but not two Gods; for it is written that there is one God. There is Lord in Lord, but not two Lords, as it is likewise written: “Serve not two lords.” The Law says: “Hear, O Israel! The Lord your God is one God.” Moreover, in the same Testament, it is written: “The Lord rained from the Lord.” It is said, “The Lord sent rain from the Lord.” Similarly, in Genesis, you may read: “And God said” — and God made, and further down, “And God made man in the image of God.” Yet it was not two gods, but one God who made man. In both instances, the unity of operation and name is upheld. Surely, when we read “God of God,” we do not speak of two Gods.

⁵ Again, in the forty-fourth Psalm, the prophet not only calls the Father God but also proclaims the Son as God, saying: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.” And further on: “God, even your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.” This God who anoints, and the God who in the flesh is anointed, is the Son of God. For who are the fellows of Christ in His anointing except those who are in the flesh? You see, then, that God is anointed by God, but in being anointed by taking upon Himself the nature of mankind, He is proclaimed the Son of God, yet without breaking the principle of the Law.

⁶ So again, when you read, “The Lord rained from the Lord,” acknowledge the unity of the Godhead, for unity in operation does not allow for more than one individual God, as the Lord Himself has shown, saying: “Believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; or believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.” Here, too, we see that the unity of the Godhead is signified by unity in operation.

⁷ The Apostle, careful to prove that there is one Godhead of both Father and Son, and one Lordship, lest we should fall into any error, whether of heathen or Jewish ungodliness, showed us the rule we ought to follow, saying: “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.” Just as in calling Jesus Christ Lord, the Apostle did not deny that the Father was Lord, likewise, in saying “One God, the Father,” he did not deny true Godhead to the Son. Thus, he taught not that there was more than one God, but that the source of power was one, since Godhead consists in Lordship, and Lordship in Godhead, as it is written: “Know that the Lord, He is God; it is He who has made us, and not we ourselves.”

⁸ Therefore, “in You is God”, by unity of nature, and “there is no God beside You”, by reason of personal possession of the Substance, without any reserve or difference.

⁹ Again, Scripture speaks in the Book of Jeremiah of One God, yet acknowledges both Father and Son. Thus we read: “He is our God, and in comparison with Him none other shall be accounted of. He has revealed all the ways of teaching and given them to Jacob, His servant, and to Israel, His beloved. After these things, He appeared upon earth and conversed with men.”

¹⁰ Indeed, the prophet speaks of the Son, for it was the Son Himself who conversed with men, and this is what he says: “He is our God, and in comparison with Him none other shall be accounted of.” Why do we even question Him, when such a revered prophet unequivocally states that there’s none like Him? How can we compare anyone else when divinity is singular? This confession comes from a people deeply rooted in faith, not in the art of debate.

¹¹ Come, Holy Spirit, aid Your prophets, in whom You habitually reside, and in whom our faith rests. Should we trust the intellectuals of this age if we do not trust the prophets? But where are these wise individuals, where are the scholars? When our humble farmer planted figs, he discovered mysteries beyond the philosopher’s grasp, for God often uses the simple to baffle the wise. Should we listen to the Jews? After all, God was once revealed among them. Yet, they reject the cornerstone of our faith, for they do not recognize the Father since they deny the Son.

Chapter 4 #

¹ Nature itself attests to the Oneness of God, as the cosmos is unified. Our faith proclaims the existence of one God, as both the Old and New Testaments affirm. The unity of the Spirit, wholly pure, is confirmed by the singular act of Baptism, performed in the name of the Trinity. The prophets declare, the apostles comprehend, the voice of the singular God. The Magi too believed in this one God, offering gold, frankincense, and myrrh at Christ’s birthplace, acknowledging His Kingship with gold, worshiping Him as God with incense, and foreseeing His burial with myrrh. Gold symbolizes royalty, incense divinity, and myrrh burial.

² What, then, was the significance of the symbolic gifts presented in the humble stable, if not to reveal the distinction between the divinity and humanity in Christ? He is perceived as a man, yet worshipped as the Lord. He lies wrapped in swaddling clothes, yet radiates amidst the stars; the manger displays His humble birth, while the stars declare His sovereignty. It is His humanity that is wrapped in garments, while His divinity receives the service of angels. Thus, the dignity of His inherent majesty remains intact, and His genuine embrace of human flesh is affirmed.

³ This is the essence of our faith. In this manner, God ordained that His presence be acknowledged by all. So did the three children believe, and they did not feel the flames into which they were cast. These flames, intended to consume unbelievers, proved harmless as dew to the faithful. For those whose hearts were steadfast in faith, the flames ignited by others turned cold, as the power of torment was rightfully vanquished in the face of faith. For among them was the One in the guise of an angel, offering comfort, so that within the Trinity’s unity, the Supreme Power might be glorified. God was exalted, the Son of God manifested in the angel of God, while the children were vessels through which holy and spiritual grace resounded.

Chapter 5 #

¹ Now, let us delve into the debates of the Arians concerning the nature of the Son of God.

² They argue that the Son of God is unlike His Father. To attribute such dissimilarity to a human would be considered an insult.

³ They claim that the Son of God had a commencement in time, yet He Himself is the originator and controller of time and all within it. As humans, we aspire beyond temporal constraints. We originated at a certain point and anticipate an existence beyond time. We long for immortality—so how can we deny the eternity of God’s Son, whom God proclaims to be inherently eternal, not bestowed with eternity by grace?

⁴ They argue that He was created. But who would equate an author with his creations, and suggest that he is what he has brought into being?

⁵ They reject His goodness. Their blasphemy serves as its own condemnation, leaving no room for hope of pardon.

⁶ They deny His true status as the Son of God, and they deny His omnipotence. Although they acknowledge that all things are created through the Son’s agency, they attribute the ultimate source of creation to the power of God. Yet, what is power if not the perfection of nature?

⁷ Moreover, the Arians refute the unity of the Son with the Father in divinity. Then let them nullify the Gospel and silence the voice of Christ. For Christ Himself declared: “I and the Father are one.” This assertion does not stem from me; it is the declaration of Christ. Is He deceitful, that He should utter falsehoods? Is He unjust, that He should assert what He is not? However, we will address these matters individually and in more depth, at their appropriate junctures.

⁸ Given that the heretic asserts that Christ is dissimilar to His Father and endeavors to uphold this through intricate argumentation, we must turn to Scripture: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ; for in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.”

⁹ They concentrate all the potency of their arguments in dialectical dispute, which philosophers themselves acknowledge as lacking the power to establish truth and serving only to tear down. However, it was not through dialectic that God chose to rescue His people; for the kingdom of God thrives on the simplicity of faith, not on wordy disputes.

Chapter 6 #

¹ The Arians claim that Christ is dissimilar to the Father; we reject this notion. In fact, we recoil in horror from such a statement. However, I do not wish for your esteemed Majesty to rely solely on argument and our debates. Let us turn to the Scriptures, to the teachings of the apostles, prophets, and Christ Himself for guidance. In essence, let us seek the counsel of the Father, whose honor these individuals claim to defend, to ascertain if the Son is deemed inferior to Him. Yet, to denigrate the Son does not bring honor to the Father. It cannot please the Father if the Son is considered inferior instead of equal to Him.

² I humbly beseech your revered Majesty to permit me, if only briefly, to address these individuals directly. Yet, whom shall I select as a reference? Eunomius? Or Arius and Aëtius, his mentors? For while there are many names, there is one shared disbelief, steadfast in malevolence but fractured in demeanor; unified in deception yet fostering discord in joint endeavor. However, I fail to comprehend why they cannot unite in consensus.

³ The Arians disavow Eunomius as an individual, yet they cling to his disbelief and follow in the footsteps of his wrongdoing. They claim that he has overly propagated the writings of Arius. Indeed, an abundant dissemination of error! They commend the one who issued the directive but reject the one who carried it out! Hence, they have now splintered into various factions. Some adhere to Eunomius or Aëtius, while others follow Palladius, Demophilus, Auxentius, or those who continue in this vein of disbelief. Still, others align with different instructors. Is Christ, then, divided? No; rather, those who separate Him from the Father, with their own hands, sever themselves apart.

⁴ Seeing that men who do not agree with one another have all conspired against the Church of God, I will refer to those I must answer as heretics. For heresy, like some mythical hydra, has grown strong from its wounds; although often cut down, it has risen again, destined to meet its destruction in flames. Or, like a fearsome and monstrous Scylla, divided into many forms of disbelief, it presents a façade of being a Christian sect. However, those unfortunate souls whom it finds adrift in the chaos of its unholy waters, amidst the wreckage of their faith, it, surrounded by beastly monsters, tears apart with the cruel fangs of its blasphemous teachings.

⁵ This monstrous cavern, your esteemed Majesty, reputedly strewn with concealed dens, and the entire vicinity thereof, where the cliffs of disbelief reverberate with the cries of her dark hounds, we must navigate with ears guarded. For it is written: “Hedge your ears about with thorns,” and again: “Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers,” and furthermore: “A man who is a heretic, after the first reproof, avoid, knowing that such a one is perverted, and sins, being self-condemned.” Therefore, like wise navigators, let us set the sails of our faith on the course where we can pass most securely, and once more follow the shores of the Scriptures.

Chapter 7 #

¹ The Apostle asserts that Christ is the image of the Father, for he refers to Him as the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. Note “firstborn,” not “first-created,” so that He may be understood to be both begotten by His nature and first by His eternity. In another passage, the Apostle also proclaims that God appointed the Son heir of all things, through whom He also made the worlds, who is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His being. The Apostle designates Christ as the image of the Father, yet Arius claims He is unlike the Father. Then why is He called an image if He bears no resemblance? People do not desire their portraits to be dissimilar to them, yet Arius argues that the Father is unlike the Son and implies that the Father has begotten one unlike Himself, as if incapable of generating His likeness.

² The prophets proclaim: “In Your light we shall see light,” and again: “Wisdom is the radiance of eternal light, the spotless mirror of God’s majesty, the image of His goodness.” Consider these profound descriptors! “Brightness,” because in the Son, the Father’s glory shines brightly; “spotless mirror,” because the Father is revealed in the Son; “image of goodness,” because it is not one body seen reflected in another, but the entirety of the Godhead’s power manifested in the Son. The term “image” instructs us that there is no distinction; “expression” signifies that He is the exact representation of the Father’s essence; and “brightness” proclaims His eternity. Truly, the image is not of a physical visage, not one composed of colors, nor crafted in wax, but purely derived from God, emanating from the Father, drawn from the source itself.

³ Through this image, the Lord revealed the Father to Philip, saying, “Philip, whoever sees Me sees the Father as well. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me?” Indeed, whoever looks upon the Son sees a portrait of the Father. Pay attention to what kind of portrait is being referred to. It is Truth, Righteousness, the Power of God: not silent, for it is the Word; not unfeeling, for it is Wisdom; not empty or foolish, for it is Power; not lifeless, for it is Life; not dead, for it is the Resurrection. Thus, you see that while an image is mentioned, it signifies the Father, of whom the Son is the image, since no one can be their own image.

⁴ I could present more from the testimony of the Son; however, to avoid the appearance of excessive self-assertion, let us consult the Father. For the Father declared, “Let us make man in Our image and likeness.” The Father addresses the Son in “Our image and likeness,” yet you claim that the Son of God is unlike the Father.

⁵ John declares, “Beloved, we are children of God, and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be: but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him.” What utter madness! What shameless obstinacy! We are humans, and to the extent possible, we shall resemble God. Do we dare to deny that the Son is like God?

⁶ Indeed, the Father has proclaimed: “Let us make man in Our image and likeness.” At the inception of the universe itself, as I understand, the Father and the Son coexisted, and I perceive one creation. I heed the One who speaks. I recognize the One who acts, yet I read of one image, one likeness. This likeness pertains not to diversity but to unity. Therefore, whatever you claim for yourself, you appropriate from the Son of God, for indeed, you cannot be in the image of God except through the aid of the image of God.

Chapter 8 #

¹ It is evident, then, that the Son is not dissimilar to the Father. Thus, we can more readily confess that He is also eternal, for He who is like the Eternal must indeed be eternal. However, if we affirm the eternal nature of the Father while denying it for the Son, we essentially assert a distinction between them, as the temporal contrasts with the eternal. Both the Prophet and the Apostle declare the eternal nature of the Son, and the Old and New Testaments abound with testimony to His eternity.

² Let’s examine them sequentially. In the Old Testament, among numerous testimonies, it is stated: “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” I won’t provide my interpretation here, but I’ll ask plainly: Who is the speaker of these words — the Father or the Son? Indeed, whichever perspective you adopt, you’ll either be persuaded or, if you’re a believer, enlightened. So, who then utters these words — the Father or the Son? If it’s the Son, He declares, “Before Me no god was formed”; if it’s the Father, He asserts, “Nor shall there be any after Me.” One has none preceding, the other has none following; as the Father is revealed in the Son, likewise the Son is revealed in the Father. Whenever you mention the Father, you inherently reference His Son, for no one fathers themselves; and when you speak of the Son, you acknowledge His Father, as no one can be their own offspring. Thus, neither can the Son exist without the Father, nor the Father without the Son. Consequently, the Father is eternal, and so is the Son.

³ “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.” Notice, “was,” “was,” “was,” and “was” repeated four times. Where did the blasphemer find any indication that He was not? Furthermore, John, in another passage — in his Epistle — refers to That which was in the beginning. The duration of the “was” is boundless. No matter how extensive a period you imagine, the Son still “was.”

⁴ In this concise passage, our fisherman has blocked the path of all heresy. That which existed in the beginning transcends time, unbounded by any commencement. Let Arius, therefore, cease his arguments. Furthermore, that which was with God is not merged or confused with Him but is distinguished by its immaculate perfection as the Word dwelling alongside God; thus, let Sabellius remain silent. “And the Word was God.” This Word, therefore, doesn’t pertain merely to spoken words but signifies celestial excellence, thus rebutting Photinus’ doctrine. Moreover, the fact that He was with God in the beginning demonstrates the indivisible unity of the eternal Godhead in the Father and the Son, to the disgrace and discomfiture of Eunomius. Finally, since all things are declared to have been made by Him, He is clearly revealed as the author of both the Old and New Testaments, leaving no foothold for the assaults of the Manichaeans. Thus, the adept fisherman has ensnared them all in a single net, rendering them powerless to deceive, although they are unprofitable catch.

Chapter 9 #

¹ Tell me, you heretic — for the Emperor’s remarkable leniency allows me this brief opportunity to address you, not because I wish to engage in dialogue with you or am eager to hear your arguments, but because I am willing to expose them — tell me, I ask, was there ever a moment when God Almighty was not the Father, yet still was God? You remain silent on the matter of time. Well and astutely evaded! Indeed, if you introduce time into the argument, you will indict yourself, as you must concede that there was a period when the Son did not exist, even though the Son governs and creates time. He cannot have come into being after His own creation. Therefore, you must necessarily recognize Him as the sovereign and architect of His creation.

² I do not contend, you reply, that the Son did not exist before time; however, when I refer to Him as Son, I affirm that His Father existed prior to Him, for, as you assert, a father precedes his son. But what does this imply? You reject the notion that time preceded the Son, yet you suggest that something preceded the Son’s existence — some entity within time — and you depict certain stages of generation occurring in between, implying that the generation from the Father was a temporal process. If He commenced being a Father, then initially He was God, and subsequently He became a Father. How, then, is God immutable? For if He was initially God and then became a Father, it follows that He has undergone change due to the subsequent and later act of generation being added.

³ May God protect us from such madness; for we introduced this question solely to refute the impiety of the heretics. The devout spirit affirms a generation that transcends time, thus declaring the Father and the Son to be co-eternal, and does not assert that God has ever undergone change.

⁴ Therefore, let Father and Son be revered together, just as they are united in their divinity; let not blasphemy separate those whom the intimate bond of generation has united. Let us honor the Son, so that we may honor the Father also, as stated in the Gospel. The Son’s eternal existence embellishes the majesty of the Father. If the Son has not existed from eternity, then the Father has experienced alteration; however, since the Son is eternal, it follows that the Father has never changed, as He is perpetually immutable. Therefore, those who deny the Son’s eternity would inadvertently suggest that the Father is subject to change.

Chapter 10 #

¹ Now, consider another argument that vividly demonstrates the eternity of the Son. The Apostle asserts that God’s Power and Godhead are eternal, and he declares that Christ is the Power of God — as it is written that Christ is the Power of God and the Wisdom of God. Therefore, if Christ is the Power of God, it logically follows that, since God’s Power is eternal, Christ Himself is also eternal.

² You cannot, then, heretic, construct a false doctrine based on the pattern of human procreation, nor can you gather material for such a task from our conversation, for we cannot fully grasp the vastness of the infinite Godhead, “in whose greatness there is no end”, with our limited language. If you were to attempt to explain a person’s birth, you would inevitably refer to a specific moment in time. Indeed, the Divine Generation transcends all things; it extends far beyond, soaring high above all comprehension and emotion. As it is written: “No one comes to the Father except through Me.” Whatever, therefore, you conceive regarding the Father — even His eternity — you can only grasp it through the Son’s assistance. No understanding can reach the Father except through the Son. “This is My beloved Son,” the Father declares, “in whom I am well pleased.” Note the word ‘is’ — He who is, what He is, forever. Hence, David is inspired to say: “O Lord, Your Word abides forever in heaven” — for that which abides does not fail in existence or in eternity.

³ Do you inquire how He can be a Son if He does not have a Father existing before Him? I ask you in return: when or how do you suppose the Son was begotten? As for me, the understanding of the mystery of His generation is beyond my grasp — my mind falters, my voice falters — and not just mine, but even the angels’. It surpasses Powers, surpasses Angels, surpasses Cherubim, Seraphim, and all beings with feeling and thought, for it is written: “The peace of Christ, which surpasses all understanding.” If the peace of Christ exceeds all understanding, how much more wondrous must His generation be, which is beyond all understanding?

⁴ Therefore, like the angels, cover your face with your hands, for it is not granted to you to peer into these surpassing mysteries! We are allowed to understand that the Son is begotten, not to argue about the manner of His begetting. I cannot deny the one; as for the other, I am hesitant to delve into, for if Paul declares that the words he heard when caught up into the third heaven were not to be spoken, how can we elucidate the mystery of this generation from and of the Father, which we cannot hear or comprehend with our understanding?

⁵ If you insist on applying the rule of human generation to constrain me, so that you may assert that the Father existed before the Son, then consider whether examples drawn from the generation of earthly beings are appropriate to illustrate the Divine Generation. If we speak according to what is customary among men, you cannot deny that, in humanity, changes in the father’s existence occur before those in the son’s. The father is the first to grow, to enter old age, to experience grief, to shed tears. Therefore, if the son comes after him in time, he is older in experience than the son. If a child is born, the parent cannot escape the shame of begetting.

⁶ Why take such pleasure in that line of questioning? You hear the name of the Son of God; either abolish it or acknowledge His true nature. When you hear mention of the womb, understand it as the truth of undeniable begetting. When His heart is spoken of, understand that here is God’s word. When His right hand is mentioned, confess His power. When His face is described, acknowledge His wisdom. These words are not to be interpreted as when we speak of bodies, when we speak of God. The generation of the Son is beyond comprehension; the Father begets without any physical process, yet from Himself and in incomprehensibly ancient times, He has begotten true God from true God. The Father loves the Son, but you question His nature anxiously; the Father delights in Him, yet you, like the Jews, regard Him with hostility; the Father knows the Son, yet you, like the pagans, insult Him.

Chapter 11 #

¹ You inquire whether it is conceivable that He who is the Father could not be prior in existence. I challenge you to indicate when the Father existed while the Son did not; demonstrate this, gather it from either argument or evidence in Scripture. If you rely on arguments, you have surely been instructed that God’s power is eternal. Furthermore, you have encountered the Scripture which states: “O Israel, if you will listen to me, there shall be no new god in you, neither shall you worship a foreign god.” The first of these commands signifies His eternity, while the second indicates His possession of an identical nature, so that we cannot believe Him to have come into existence after the Father, nor can we suppose Him to be the Son of another Divinity. For if He did not exist eternally with the Father, He would be a new God; if He is not of the same Divinity as the Father, He would be a foreign God. Yet He is not subsequent to the Father, for He is not a new God; nor is He a foreign God, for He is begotten of the Father, and because, as it is written, “He is God above all, blessed forever”.

² If the Arians consider Him to be a foreign God, why do they worship Him, when it is written: “You shall worship no foreign God?” If they do not worship the Son, let them openly confess it, and the matter is settled — so that they do not deceive anyone with their pretense of religion. This, then, is the testimony of the Scriptures. If you have any others to present, it is your responsibility to do so.

³ Let us now delve deeper and draw the truth to a conclusion through reasoning. Although arguments typically yield to human testimony, nevertheless, heretic, argue as you may. You assert that experience teaches us that the being which begets is prior to that which is begotten. I reply: Follow our common experience across all its aspects, and if the rest align with this, I do not oppose your request for this point to be granted; but if there is no such alignment, how can you expect agreement on this single point when you lack support in all other aspects? Since you appeal to what is customary, it follows that when the Son was begotten of the Father, He was a young child. You have witnessed Him as an infant, crying in the cradle. As the years passed, He progressed from strength to strength — for if He shared in the frailty of begotten things, He must also have experienced not only the weakness of birth but also the weakness of life.

⁴ Perhaps you are driven to such folly as to not hesitate in attributing these things to the Son of God, measuring Him, as you do, by the standard of human frailty. What if, while you cannot deny Him the title of God, you are inclined to prove Him, due to His weakness, to be a man? What if, while you scrutinize the Person of the Son, you are casting doubt on the Father, and while you hastily pass judgment on the Former, you include the Latter in the same condemnation!

⁵ If we suppose, borrowing from the customary process of human generation, that the Divine Generation has been confined within the constraints of time, then it logically follows that the Father bore the Son in a physical womb and endured the burden while ten months passed. But how can generation, as it typically occurs, occur without the involvement of the other sex? You observe that the common pattern of generation was not the origin, and you believe that the processes of generation, which are governed by certain necessities to which bodies are subject, have always existed. You request the customary pattern, while I inquire about the distinction of sex; you insist on the assumption of time, while I focus on the sequence; you investigate the end, while I consider the beginning. Surely, it is the end that relies on the beginning, not the other way around.

⁶ You claim that everything that is begotten has a beginning, and therefore, because the Son is the Son, He must have a beginning and came into existence within the bounds of time. Let this be accepted as the declaration of their own lips; as for me, I acknowledge that the Son is begotten, but the remainder of their assertion fills me with horror. Man, do you acknowledge God and diminish His honor with such slander? May God deliver us from this madness.

Chapter 12 #

¹ The next objection is as follows: If the Son does not possess the characteristics that all sons have, then He is not a Son. May the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit forgive me, for I would pose this question with all reverence. Surely the Father exists and endures forever; likewise, created things are as God has ordained them. Is there any among these creatures that is not subject to the constraints of place, time, or the fact of having been created, or to some originating cause or creator? Certainly not. Then, is there any among them of which the Father has need? To suggest such a thing would be blasphemy. Therefore, cease to attribute to the Godhead what is only appropriate to created beings, or if you insist on forcing the comparison, consider where your wickedness leads. God forbid that we should even glimpse its end.

² We uphold the response dictated by piety. God is Almighty, and thus the Father requires none of those things, for in Him there is no alteration, nor any room for such assistance as we require, we whose weakness is sustained by such means. But He who is Almighty, clearly He is uncreated, and not bound to any place, and transcends time. Before God, there was nothing — indeed, even to speak of anything being before God is a serious sin. If you concede that in the essence of God the Father there is nothing implying a need for sustenance, because He is God, it follows that nothing of this kind can be imagined to exist in the Son of God — nothing that suggests a beginning or growth, since He is truly God from truly God.

³ Since we do not find the usual order prevailing, be satisfied, Arian, to believe in a miraculous generation of the Son. Be content, I say, and if you do not believe me, at least respect the voice of God saying, “To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?” and again: “God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind.” Indeed, if God works mysteriously, considering that He does not accomplish any work or shape anything or bring it to completion through the labor of hands or in any course of days, for He spoke, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created, why should we not believe that He, whom we acknowledge as a Creator, working mysteriously, discerning it in His works, also begot His Son in a mysterious manner? Indeed, it is fitting that He should be seen as having begotten the Son in a unique and mysterious manner. Let Him who possesses unrivaled majesty also have the glory of a mysterious generation.

⁴ Not only does Christ’s generation from the Father demand our wonder, but His birth from the Virgin also does. You claim that the former is similar to the way in which we humans are conceived. I will demonstrate — indeed, I will compel you yourself to confess — that the latter also bears no resemblance to the manner of our birth. Tell me, how was it that He was born of Mary? With what law did His conception in a Virgin’s womb comply? How could there be any birth without the seed of a man? How could a maiden become pregnant? How could she become a mother without experiencing the usual intercourse between wives and husbands? There was no visible cause — and yet a son was begotten. How, then, did this birth occur under a new law?

⁵ If, then, the usual process of human generation was not observed in the case of the Virgin Mary, how can you insist that God the Father should beget in the same manner as you were begotten? Surely the common process is determined by the distinction of sex, for this is inherent in the nature of our flesh. But where there is no flesh, how can you expect to find the frailty of flesh? No one questions someone who is superior to oneself; to believe is enjoined upon you, without permission to question. For it is written, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Language is inadequate to describe not only the generation of the Son, but even the works of God, for it is written: “All His works are done in faithfulness.” His works, then, are done in faithfulness, but not His generation? Indeed, we question what we do not see, we who are commanded to believe rather than inquire about what we see.

Chapter 13 #

¹ It will be asked: In what manner was the Son begotten? As one who is eternal, as the Word, as the brightness of eternal light, for brightness comes into existence instantly. This example is from the Apostle, not from me. Do not think, then, that there was ever a moment when God was without wisdom, any more than there was ever a time when light was without radiance. Do not judge divine matters by human standards, Arian, but believe the divine where you do not find the human.

² The heathen king saw in the fire, alongside the three Hebrew children, the form of a fourth, resembling an angel, and because he perceived that this angel excelled all others, he deemed Him to be the Son of God, whom he had not read about, but in whom he believed. Similarly, Abraham saw three and worshiped one.

³ When Peter saw Moses and Elijah on the mountain with the Son of God, he was not confused about their nature and glory. He didn’t ask them what he should do but instead turned to Christ. Although he was ready to honor all three, he waited for instructions from Christ alone. However, because he mistakenly thought that he should set up three tabernacles for the three of them, God the Father corrected him with a powerful voice, saying, “This is My dearly beloved Son: listen to Him.” In other words: Why do you consider your fellow servants equal to your Lord? This is My Son. Moses is not My Son, nor is Elijah My Son, but This is My Son. The Apostle quickly understood the rebuke; he fell on his face, humbled by the Father’s voice and the glorious beauty of the Son. However, the Son, who always lifts up those who have fallen, raised him up. Then he saw only the Son of God, for the servants had withdrawn, making it clear that He alone was the Lord and the only one entitled to be called Son.

⁴ What, then, was the purpose of that vision? It didn’t signify that Christ and His servants were equal but revealed a mystery: it demonstrated that the Law and the Prophets, in harmony with the Gospel, declared the Son of God, whom they had foretold, to be eternal. Therefore, when we hear of the Son coming forth from the womb and the Word from the heart, let us believe that the Son was not created by hands but begotten of the Father—not the work of a craftsman, but the offspring of a parent.

⁵ Therefore, He who said, “This is My Son,” did not say, “This is a creature of time,” nor “This being is of My creation, My making, My servant,” but “This is My Son, whom you see glorified.” This is the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, who appeared to Moses in the burning bush, about whom Moses says, “He Who is has sent me.” It was not the Father who spoke to Moses in the bush or in the desert, but the Son. It was of this Moses that Stephen said, “This is he who was in the assembly in the wilderness with the Angel.” This, then, is He who gave the Law, who spoke with Moses, saying, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob.” This, then, is the God of the patriarchs, and this is the God of the prophets.

⁶ It is of the Son, therefore, that we read. Let your mind understand the reading and your tongue confess it. Discard arguments where faith is required; let dialectic be silent, even in its own schools. I am not concerned with what philosophers say; I am interested in what they do. They sit desolate in their schools. Witness the victory of faith over argument. Those who engage in subtle disputes are abandoned daily by their followers, while those who believe with simplicity grow in number each day. Not philosophers but fishermen, not masters of dialectic but tax-gatherers, are now finding credence. The former, through indulgence in pleasures and luxuries, have burdened themselves with the cares of the world; the latter, through fasting and mortification, have freed themselves from it. Thus, sorrow begins to attract more followers than pleasure.

⁷ Now let’s examine how far Arians and pagans differ. The pagans invoke gods who are of different sexes and unequal in power; the Arians assert a Trinity where there is also inequality of power and diversity of Godhead. The pagans claim that their gods came into existence at some point in time; the Arians falsely declare that Christ began to exist within time. Have they not all steeped their impiety in the vats of philosophy? However, while the pagans exalt what they worship, the Arians insist that the Son of God, who is God, is a mere creature.

Chapter 14 #

¹ It is now evident, as I believe, your sacred Majesty, that the Lord Jesus is neither unlike the Father nor one who began to exist in the course of time. We still need to refute another blasphemy and demonstrate that the Son of God is not a created being. Here is the quickening word that we read for our guidance, for we have heard the passage where the Lord says: “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to all creation.” He who says “all creation” excludes nothing. How, then, do those who call Christ a creature stand? If he were a creature, could he have commanded that the Gospel should be preached to himself? Therefore, he is not a creature, but the Creator, who entrusts to his disciples the task of teaching created beings.

² Christ is not a created being; as the Apostle has said, “created beings are given over to futility.” Is Christ subject to futility? Moreover, the same Apostle states that “creation groans in labor pains even until now.” So, does Christ share in this groaning and suffering—He who has freed us miserable mourners from death? The Apostle also says, “Creation shall be set free from the slavery of corruption.” Therefore, we see a significant difference between creation and its Lord: creation is enslaved, but “the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.”

³ Who was the first to fall into the error of declaring that the One who created and made all things is a creature? Did the Lord, I would ask, create Himself? We read that all things were made by Him, and without Him, nothing was made. So, did He make Himself? We read—and who can deny it?—that God made all things in wisdom. If so, how can we suppose that wisdom was made in itself?

⁴ We read that the Son is begotten, as the Father says: “I brought you forth from the womb before the morning star.” We read of the first-born Son, of the only-begotten—first-born because there is none before Him; only-begotten because there is none after Him. Again, we read: “Who shall declare His generation?” Generation, mind you, not creation. What argument can be brought against testimonies so great and mighty as these?

⁵ Moreover, God’s Son reveals the distinction between generation and grace when He says: “I go up to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God.” He did not say, “I go up to our Father,” but “I go up to My Father and your Father.” This distinction signifies a difference, as the Father who is Christ’s is our Creator.

⁶ Additionally, He mentioned, “My God and your God,” clarifying that while He and the Father are unified, the Father shares the same nature with Him. We, on the other hand, begin to see God as our Father through the Son’s role, not because of our inherent nature, but due to grace — it appears He’s directing our attention to the coexistence of both divine and human natures in Christ — the divinity inherited from His Father and the humanity from His Mother. The divine nature precedes all existence, while the human nature is derived from the Virgin Mary. Initially, speaking as the Son, He referred to God as His Father, and then, speaking from His human perspective, acknowledged Him as God.

⁷ Throughout the Scriptures, we consistently find evidence that when Christ refers to God as His God, He does so from His human perspective. For instance, in His cry, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” He experiences suffering in His human nature. Likewise, when He says, “From My mother’s womb You are My God,” it is a reference to His human birth. Indeed, when He declares, “From My mother’s womb You are My God,” He is expressing that the One who has always been His Father becomes His God from the very moment He is born from His Mother’s womb.

⁸ Considering that we find in the Gospels, the writings of the Apostles, and the Prophets references to Christ as begotten, how could the Arians have the audacity to claim that He was created or made? They should have reflected on where they have encountered descriptions of Him as created or made. It’s been clearly demonstrated that the Son of God is begotten of God, born of God. Let them, therefore, carefully consider where they have encountered the idea that He was made, since He was not made God, but rather born as God, the Son of God. Later, according to His human nature, He was indeed made man of Mary.

⁹ When the appointed time arrived, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law. Note carefully: His Son, not one among many, not shared with another, but uniquely His own. By calling Him His Son, the Apostle indicates that the Son’s nature entails eternal generation. The Apostle confirms that He was later made of a woman, signifying not the making of His divinity but the assumption of a human body — made of a woman by taking on flesh, made under the Law by obeying the Law. The former, the spiritual generation, predates the Law; the latter occurs after the Law.

Chapter 15 #

¹ The heretics’ habitual citation of the Scripture that “God made Him both Lord and Christ” is without merit. Let these uninformed individuals read the entire passage and grasp its meaning. As it is written, “God made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” It was not the divine nature but the human flesh that was crucified. Indeed, this was possible because flesh can be crucified. Therefore, it does not logically follow that the Son of God is a created being.

² Let’s address that passage they misuse—let them understand the meaning of the words, “The Lord created Me.” It is not “the Father created,” but “the Lord created Me.” The flesh acknowledges its Lord, while praise reveals the Father; our created nature recognizes the first and loves and knows the latter. So, who can fail to see that these words point to the Incarnation? The Son speaks of Himself as created in relation to His humanity when He says, “Why are you seeking to kill Me, a man, Who have told you the truth?” He is referring to His human nature, in which He was crucified, died, and was buried.

³ Moreover, there’s no doubt that the writer expressed as past what was yet to come; for this is the nature of prophecy, to speak of future events as though they were already happening or had already occurred. For instance, in the twenty-first Psalm, you have read: “Fat bulls of Bashan have surrounded me,” and again: “They divided my garments among them.” The Evangelist demonstrates that these words were spoken prophetically about the time of the Passion. To God, future events are already present, and for Him, who knows all things beforehand, they are as if they were already done and over with, as written: “Who has made the things that are to be.”

⁴ It’s no surprise that He declares His position to have been established before all worlds, considering that Scripture tells us He was foreordained before all times and ages. The passage you’ve cited reveals how the words in question serve as a genuine prophecy of the Incarnation: “Wisdom has built her house; she has set up seven pillars. She has prepared her meat and mixed her wine; she has also set her table. She has sent out her servants, and she calls from the highest point of the city, ‘Let all who are simple come to my house!’” Indeed, in the Gospel, we witness the fulfillment of all these things after the Incarnation. Christ revealed the mysteries of the Holy Supper, sent out His apostles, and proclaimed with a loud voice, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink.” What follows in the Gospel corresponds to what came before, and we see the entire narrative of the Incarnation succinctly presented through prophecy.

⁵ Numerous other passages could easily be identified as prophecies of this nature regarding the Incarnation, but I won’t dwell on them extensively in order to avoid making the treatise overly verbose.

Chapter 16 #

¹ Now, I will specifically ask the Arians whether they consider “begotten” and “created” to be synonymous. If they assert they are the same, then they deny any distinction between generation and creation. Consequently, they would have to concede that there is no difference between us, Christ, and the elements, as we are all created. However, even in their great folly, they would not dare to make such a claim.

² Moreover — though it’s foolish to grant what is untrue — I inquire of them: if, as they believe, there is no distinction in the terms, why do they not invoke Him whom they worship by the superior designation? Why do they not embrace the word of the Father? Why do they reject the honorable title and instead employ a disparaging name?

³ If, as I believe, there is indeed a distinction between “created” and “begotten,” then when we encounter the assertion that He is begotten, we certainly won’t interpret “begotten” and “created” as synonymous terms. Therefore, let them acknowledge Him as begotten of the Father, born of the Virgin, or let them explain how the Son of God can be both begotten and created. A single nature, especially the Divine Essence, rejects internal conflict.

⁴ But let’s set aside our personal opinions for now. Instead, let’s turn to Paul, who, inspired by the Spirit of God and foreseeing these debates, pronounced judgment against pagans in general and Arians in particular. He declared that they were condemned by God’s judgment for worshiping the creature rather than the Creator. Indeed, you can find it written: “God gave them over to the cravings of their hearts, that they might dishonor their bodies among themselves, they who exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever.”

⁵ Thus, Paul forbids me from worshiping a creature and reminds me of my obligation to serve Christ. Therefore, it logically follows that Christ is not a created being. The Apostle, identifying himself as Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, would not worship anything created. How, then, could he consider himself a servant of Christ if he believed that Christ was a created being? Let these heretics cease either to worship Him whom they label a created being or to refer to Him as a creature whom they pretend to worship. By pretending to be worshippers, they might actually fall into greater impiety. A domestic enemy is worse than a foreign one, and their use of the name of Christ to dishonor Him only compounds their guilt.

⁶ What better interpreter of the Scriptures could we possibly seek than that teacher of the Gentiles, that chosen vessel — selected even from among the persecutors? He who once persecuted Christ now confesses Him. Certainly, Paul was more acquainted with the wisdom of Solomon than Arius ever could be, and he was deeply versed in the Law. Therefore, based on his reading, Paul did not assert that Christ was created, but rather that He was begotten. For Paul had read, “He spoke, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created.” I ask, was Christ made with a mere word? Was He created by a command?

⁷ Indeed, how could there be any created nature in God? God’s nature is uncompounded; nothing can be added to Him. Only the divine is inherent in His nature. He fills all things, yet He Himself is not confused with anything; He penetrates all things, yet He Himself cannot be penetrated. He is present in all His fullness simultaneously, in heaven, on earth, in the deepest depths of the sea. He is invisible to the eye, His speech cannot be fully expressed, His essence cannot be fully comprehended. He is followed by faith, adored with devotion. Thus, every title that excels in spiritual depth, in expressing glory, honor, and power, rightfully belongs to God.

⁸ Since the Father is well pleased with the Son, believe that the Son is worthy of the Father, that He came from God, as He Himself affirms, saying: “I came from God, and I have come” and again: “I came from God.” He who proceeded and came forth from God can possess no attributes except those that are proper to God.

Chapter 17 #

¹ Therefore, Christ is not just God, but very God — very God from very God, so much so that He Himself is the Truth. If we ask His name, it is Truth; if we inquire about His inherent status and dignity, He is truly the very Son of God, God’s own Son, as it is written, “He did not spare His own Son but gave Him up for us all.” “He gave Him up,” that is, in regard to His flesh. His status as God’s own Son declares His divinity; His being truly God demonstrates that He is God’s own Son. His compassion is the pledge of His humility, His sacrifice, of our salvation.

² To prevent anyone from misinterpreting the Scripture that God gave Him up, the Apostle himself has said elsewhere, “Peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins,” and again: “Even as Christ loved us and gave Himself for us.” Therefore, if He was given up by the Father and gave Himself up willingly, it’s evident that the action and the will of the Father and the Son are one.

³ Therefore, if we investigate His inherent superiority, we find it lies in His being begotten. To deny that the Son of God is begotten of God is to deny that He is God’s own Son. Denying Christ as God’s own Son would classify Him with the rest of mankind, as no more a Son than any other person. However, if we examine the unique characteristic of His generation, it is this: that He came forth from God. In our human experience, when something comes out, it usually implies that something already exists, and what is said to come out appears to emerge from hidden and inward places. However, even in the brief passages presented to us, we observe the unique characteristic of the Divine Generation. The Son does not seem to have come forth from any specific place, but rather as God from God, a Son from a Father. He did not have a beginning in the course of time; He came forth from the Father by being born, as He Himself, who was born, said: “I came forth from the mouth of the Most High.”

⁴ If the Arians do not acknowledge the nature of the Son, if they do not believe the Scriptures, let them at least believe in the mighty works. To whom does the Father say, “Let us make man,” if not to His true Son? In whom else could He recognize His Image, if not in one who is truly His? A son by adoption is not the same as the true Son, and the Son would not say, “I and the Father are one,” if He were not truly the same as the Father. Therefore, when the Father says, “Let us make,” the one speaking is true. How could the one who creates be anything but true? Shouldn’t the honor given to the one who speaks also be given to the one who creates?

⁵ How could the Father commend His will to Him for perfect cooperation, and His works for perfect realization, unless He knew Him to be His true Son? The Son works the works that the Father does, and the Son gives life to whom He wills, as it is written. Therefore, He is equal in power and free in His will. Thus, unity is maintained, as God’s power lies in the fact that the Godhead is proper to each Person, and freedom is not found in any difference, but in the unity of will.

⁶ When the apostles, caught in a storm at sea, witnessed the waters rising around their Lord’s feet and saw His fearless stride on the water amidst the raging waves, and when the ship, battered by the waves, found peace as soon as Christ entered it, and they observed the waves and winds obeying Him — even though they did not yet fully believe in their hearts, they acknowledged Him to be God’s true Son, saying, “Truly, you are the Son of God.”

⁷ Similarly, consider the confession of the centurion and those with him when the foundations of the world shook at the Lord’s Passion — and this, heretic, you deny. The centurion declared, “Truly, this was the Son of God.” It is “said the centurion” — not “says the Arian.” The centurion, with blood-stained hands but a devout mind, affirms both the truth and the eternity of Christ’s generation. And you, O heretic, deny its truth and reduce it to a matter of time! I wish you had only stained your hands rather than your soul! But you, unclean in both deed and intent, seek the death of Christ, as far as you can, by considering Him as insignificant and weak. Moreover, this is an even worse sin: although the Godhead cannot be wounded, you strive to kill not His body, but His glory in Christ.

⁸ We cannot doubt that He is truly God, whose genuine divinity even executioners believed in and demons confessed. We don’t need their testimony now, but it carries more weight than your blasphemies. We have summoned them as witnesses to shame you, while also citing the words of God so that you might believe.

⁹ The Lord declares through Isaiah: “In the mouth of those who serve Me, a new name shall be called, which shall be blessed over all the earth. They shall bless the true God, and those who swear on earth shall swear by the true God”. Isaiah spoke these words when he saw God’s glory, and it is plainly stated in the Gospel that he saw the glory of Christ and spoke of Him.

¹⁰ Listen again to what John the Evangelist wrote in his Epistle: “We know that the Son of God has appeared and has given us understanding, so that we may know the true God. And we are in him who is true — even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life”. John calls Him the true Son of God and the true God. Therefore, if He is the true God, He is surely uncreated, without any trace of falsehood or deceit, possessing no confusion within Himself, nor any unlikeness to His Father.

Chapter 18 #

¹ Exactly, Christ is God of God, Light of Light, truly God of truly God; begotten of the Father, not made; of one substance with the Father.

² Yes, indeed, our forefathers, guided by the Scriptures, affirmed this, and they also believed that impious doctrines should be explicitly condemned in their decrees. This was to ensure that the disbelief of Arius would be exposed and could not disguise itself with deception or camouflage. Indeed, those who are afraid to express their thoughts openly attempt to conceal them with false appearances. Like the censor’s rolls, the Arian heresy is not explicitly named but is indicated by the condemnation pronounced against it. This is so that those who are curious and eager to hear about it may be protected from falling into error, knowing that it is already condemned before they hear it. This is done with the intention that they might believe.

³ The decree states that anyone who claims there was a time when the Son of God did not exist, or that He did not exist before He was born, or who says He was created out of nothing, or is of a different substance or essence, or that He is capable of changing, or that there is any shadow of turning with Him — these people are declared accursed by the Catholic and Apostolic Church.

⁴ Your sacred Majesty has agreed that those who preach such doctrines are justly condemned. It was not by human decision or counsel that three hundred and eighteen bishops convened, as I previously explained in detail, but rather so that the Lord Jesus might demonstrate, through the sign of His Name and Passion, that He was present among those gathered in His name. The number three hundred was a sign of His Cross, and the number eighteen was a sign of the Name Jesus.

⁵ This was also the teaching of the First Confession at the Council of Ariminum, and of the Second Correction after that Council. The letter sent to Emperor Constantine attests to the Confession, and the Council that followed confirms the Correction.

Chapter 19 #

¹ Arius, therefore, claims: “There was a time when the Son of God was not.” But Scripture states: “He was,” not “He was not.” Furthermore, St. John wrote: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.” Observe how often the verb “was” appears, whereas “was not” is nowhere to be found. Whom, then, are we to believe? St. John, who lay on Christ’s bosom, or Arius, wallowing in the outpouring of his own inner turmoil?—so wallowing that we might understand how Arius, in his teaching, showed himself to be like Judas, receiving a similar punishment.

² For Arius’ bowels also gushed out—decency forbids saying where—and he burst asunder in the midst, falling headlong and defiling those foul lips with which he had denied Christ. Arius was torn apart, just as the Apostle Peter said of Judas: because he bought a field with the price of evil-doing, and falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. It was no accidental manner of death, as similar wickedness was met with similar punishment, so that those who denied and betrayed the same Lord might likewise undergo the same torment.

³ Let us move on to further points. Arius says: “Before He was born, the Son of God did not exist.” But Scripture says that all things are maintained in existence by the Son’s power. How, then, could He, who did not exist, bestow existence upon others? Again, when the blasphemer uses the words “when” and “before,” he certainly uses terms that denote time. How, then, can the Arians deny that time existed before the Son, yet claim that things created in time existed before the Son, given that the very words “when,” “before,” and “did not exist once” imply the concept of time?

⁴ Arius claims that the Son of God came into being out of nothing. But then how is He the Son of God—how was He begotten from the womb of the Father—how do we read of Him as the Word spoken from the abundance of the heart, except for the purpose of believing that He came forth, as it is written, from the Father’s innermost, unapproachable sanctuary? A son is referred to as such either through adoption or by nature; we are called sons through adoption. Christ, however, is the Son of God by His true and eternal nature. So, how can He, who fashioned all things out of nothing, Himself be created out of nothing?

⁵ Anyone who does not know where the Son is from does not truly have the Son. Because the Jews did not know His origin, they did not have the Son. This is why the Lord said to them, “You do not know where I came from,” and also, “You have neither recognized who I am nor known my Father. Whoever denies that the Son is from the Father does not know the Father, from whom the Son originates; and likewise, they do not know the Son because they do not know the Father.”

⁶ Arius says: “[The Son is] of another Substance.” But what other substance is elevated to equality with the Son of God, so that simply by virtue of it, He is the Son of God? Or what right do the Arians have to criticize us for speaking, in Greek, of the οὐσία, or in Latin, of the Substantia of God, when they themselves, by saying that the Son of God is of another Substance, affirm a divine Substantia?

⁷ However, if they wish to dispute the use of the words “divine Substance” or “divine Nature,” they can easily be refuted, for Holy Scripture often speaks of οὐσία in Greek or Substantia in Latin, and as we read, St. Peter urges us to become partakers in the divine Nature. But if they insist that the Son is of another Substance, they contradict themselves with their own words. They both acknowledge the term Substance, which they fear, and they place the Son on the same level as the creatures they claim to elevate Him above.

⁸ Arius calls the Son of God a creature, but not like the rest of the creatures. Yet, what created being is not different from another? Man is not like an angel, earth is not like heaven, the sun is not like water, nor is light like darkness. Arius’ preference, therefore, is empty—he has only masked his deceitful blasphemies with a sorry dye, aiming to deceive the foolish.

⁹ Arius declares that the Son of God may change and waver. How, then, is He God if He is changeable, when He Himself has said: “I am, I am, and I do not change”?

Chapter 20 #

¹ However, now I must confess the confession of the Prophet Isaiah, which he makes before declaring the word of the Lord: “Woe is me, my heart is stricken, for I, a man of unclean lips, and living in the midst of a people of unclean lips, have seen the Lord of hosts.” Now, if Isaiah said “Woe is me,” upon looking upon the Lord of hosts, what shall I say of myself, who, being a man of unclean lips, am compelled to discuss the divine generation? How can I dare to speak of things that fill me with fear, when David prays for a guard over his mouth concerning matters he understands? Oh, that one of the Seraphim would bring a burning coal from the celestial altar to cleanse my unclean lips with its fire, taking it with the tongs of the two testaments!

² Since then the Seraph came down in a vision to the Prophet, while You, O Lord, in revealing the mystery, have come to us in the flesh, do not by any deputy or messenger, but by Yourself, cleanse my conscience from my secret sins, so that I, once unclean but now made clean by Your mercy through faith, may sing in the words of David: “I will make music to You upon a harp, O God of Israel, my lips shall rejoice in all my song to You, and so too shall my soul, whom You have redeemed.”

³ And so, O Lord, as we turn away from those who slander and hate You, come to us and sanctify the ears of our sovereign ruler, Gratian, and all others who may read this little book. Cleanse my ears as well, so that no traces of the unbelief they have heard remain. Purify our ears thoroughly, not with water from a well, river, or stream, but with words that cleanse like water, clearer than any water, and purer than any snow—Your words: “Though your sins are as scarlet, I will make them white as snow.”

⁴ Moreover, there is a Cup, which You use to purify the hidden chambers of the soul, a Cup not of the old order, nor filled from a common vine—a new Cup, brought down from heaven to earth, filled with wine pressed from the wondrous cluster, which hung in fleshly form upon the tree of the Cross, even as the grape hangs upon the vine. From this Cluster, then, comes the Wine that gladdens the heart of man, uplifts the sorrowful, is fragrant with, and pours into us the ecstasy of faith, true devotion, and purity.

⁵ With this Wine, therefore, O Lord my God, cleanse the spiritual ears of our sovereign Emperor. Just as people, when uplifted by common wine, find love for rest and tranquility, cast out the fear of death, feel no injuries, seek not what belongs to others, and forget their own concerns, may he, too, be filled with Your wine, loving peace. May he be confident in the joy of faith, never knowing the death that comes from unbelief. May he show loving patience, have no part in the wrongdoings of others, and hold the faith more dearly than family and children, as it is written: “Leave all that you have, and come, follow Me.”

⁶ With this Wine, Lord Jesus, purify our senses so that we may adore and worship You, the Creator of all things visible and invisible. Indeed, You cannot help but be invisible and good, You who have granted invisibility and goodness to the works of Your hands.