¹ You ask me, most revered of priests, how one should respond to the Arians, who, with blasphemous speech, attempt to assert: “It is impossible,” they say, “for the Begotten not to be younger than the Unbegotten.” In addressing this, I shall not so much undertake a detailed exposition as make a confession of faith, first ensuring that I do not obscure matters that are already difficult in themselves with an overly elaborate style. Instead, I will present certain indications of a humble understanding, which seem to serve more for comprehension than for ornamentation. Therefore, I respond as disciples are accustomed to answering when questioned by their teachers. Thus, I speak at your blessed command, so that I may examine the matter; I acknowledge my lack of knowledge, so that I may be taught. For if I were to remain silent before one so learned, I would scarcely be able to discern what it is that I do not know.

² When speaking about the “Unbegotten,” we must understand that the substance of things is one thing, while the names of things are another. For example, when you say “gold” or “silver,” you are not immediately bringing forth the metal itself, but only the words that name the metal. Indeed, gold is one thing in its actual nature, and another in the way it is named; it is one thing when we speak of it, and another when we hold it.

³ “Begotten” and “unbegotten” signify divinity, but they are not divinity itself; they are descriptions of nature, not nature itself. The designation of “unbegotten” and “begotten” serves to indicate from whom each derives existence, so that one may understand that the Father is not from the Son, but the Son is from the Father. “Principle from principle” is both one and without beginning, just as when you say “God from God,” yet not two gods, but one God.

⁴ Thus, “begotten,” “unbegotten,” and “proceeding from both” refer to persons, not natures. For the majesty that is indivisible between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit can be distinguished by names, but it cannot be arranged in degrees of rank.

⁵ At this point, you must carefully focus your mind. You may say, “Because the Son is from the Father, He must be later than the Father.” Let us, then, strengthen our understanding with some comparisons and consider whether something can come from another without being later in time than that from which it originates.

⁶ For example, the very name “son” is believed to be derived from the name “father,” yet it is not found to be later, because if the son were not born, the father would not be called “father.” Here, then, is a name that is entirely coeval with the one from whom it comes, for although the Son is from the Father, it is the Son who gives the Father His name. The very person of the one being born bestows upon the begetter the title of fatherly affection. Since the Son is from the Father, neither is He later, nor is the Father proved to be earlier.

⁷ Similarly, when the Son is called the “Arm” of the Father, in reference to His works, consider this: the arm proceeds from the body, yet the arm is not younger than the body. A word is spoken from the mouth, yet though it is brought forth from the lips, it is not proven to be later than the voice itself. Fire and heat are inseparably united; though heat undoubtedly comes from fire, fire is not understood to exist prior to its own heat. Behold, then, something that appears to exist from another, yet is inseparably joined to that from which it originates, without any interval of time between them.

⁸ When we come to God, that is, to the Begotten, we find that He is the Just One and Justice itself, the Wise One and Wisdom itself, the Merciful One and Mercy itself. We understand, in accordance with the Apostle, that justice and wisdom arise absolutely from God, who is just and wise. And just as there was never a time when He was just without justice or wise without wisdom, so too the Son is from the Father, but the Father could never have existed without the Son.

⁹ Without a doubt, the Arians do not dare to deny our Saviour, but in claiming that He is lesser, they fail to acknowledge Him as God. For God, by His very nature, exists in the fullness of His dignity, and their impiety is evident in their initial confession, where they profess to worship one God. Yet, by asserting that one is younger and the other older, they make two gods and tear apart the unity of the divine essence. Indeed, the very notion of someone being “lesser” necessarily implies the existence of another who is “greater.” But who could be greater than Him who declares of Himself: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last”, and who, when questioned by the Jews about His identity, responded: “The Beginning, who also speaks to you”? He confirms this truth through the prophetic voice: “Before me no god was formed, and after me there shall be none”.

¹⁰ If the Father speaks these words, then He affirms that no lesser being came into existence after Him. If the Son speaks them, then He declares that no being existed before Him at all. The prophetic Scripture further clarifies: “This is our God, and no other shall be reckoned beside Him”, and again: “He was seen among men and lived among them”.

¹¹ Thus, in accordance with these truths, between the Begotten and the Unbegotten, there is neither an order of precedence, for they are one, nor any distinction in time, for He is the First. He cannot be subordinated, for He alone is God, nor can He be called lesser, for He is complete in Himself. Therefore, God alone is perfect, of a simple nature, incomprehensible, and impassible—even though we rightly and beneficially confess that, according to the flesh, He truly suffered for us.

¹² After this, you next ask me how, in accordance with the substance of God, it is written in a certain letter: “He perceived nothing with the feeling of one who suffers, but He perceived with the affection of one who suffers along with another.”

¹³ First of all, it is easy to understand—something even the philosophers were not unaware of—that in humans, various affections, such as justice, mercy, holiness, goodwill, and piety, are qualities that come and go; thus, they are called affections. But in God, these qualities are not experienced passively, because they are known to be present in Him continually and by nature. Therefore, what in humans is affection and grace, in God is power and nature.

¹⁴ As for the statement: “He perceived nothing with the feeling of one who suffers, but He perceived with the affection of one who suffers along with another,” why should anyone hesitate to speak in this way, when even the words of the prophets recall: “O Lord, do not rebuke me in Your anger, nor discipline me in Your wrath”, and “The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind”? Again, it is written: “The Lord was angry with His people and abhorred His inheritance”. Likewise, Scripture describes God as having loved Jacob and hated Esau.

¹⁵ He is said to grieve over our sins and rejoice in His works. He even subjects Himself to human affections when He declares: “I regret having made man”. From the heights of heaven, He speaks: “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”. He also seems to express the affection of one who suffers along with another when He says: “I was hungry, and you gave Me food; I was thirsty, and you gave Me drink”, along with many similar passages that readily come to mind.

¹⁶ Just as a priest who is skilled in many languages and placed among various nations would adjust his words according to the understanding of each listener—speaking Hebrew to a Hebrew, Greek to a Greek, and Latin to a Roman—so too does God, when He speaks with humanity, condescend to take on human language. Indeed, He even chose to assume human form, bearing witness to our affections through the sounds of our understanding and the order of our expressions.

¹⁷ For when He describes the functions of the five human senses, He speaks in this way: “The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and His ears are open to their prayers”, and again, “The mouth of the Lord has spoken”. Likewise, “He smelled the pleasing aroma”, and “My hand has made all these things”, and “Heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool”. By using bodily imagery, He conveys to our hearts the realities of His works.

¹⁸ Thus, in His indescribable condescension toward the human race—He who does not disdain to call His servants friends and sons—He allows us, in turn, to speak with Him in human words and manner.

¹⁹ Moreover, the wrath of God is His justice, the fury of God is the force of His severity, the oath of God is His definitive decree, and the repentance of God is often the changing of His judgment. And when He says that He is harmed by someone persecuting Him, He is actually revealing the guilt of the one causing harm.

²⁰ If these modes of human speech were taken away, then all means of speaking about God and understanding Him would be entirely cut off from us. Why, then, should it not be said in such cases: “But He felt it with the compassion of one who suffers with another”?

²¹ If, then, a simple and direct answer is sufficient for the discerning teacher, let us move on to the third question, which you command me to answer—namely, what in human affairs should be considered corporeal and what incorporeal.

²² On this matter, I will not speak based on my own presumptions but according to the judgment of the holy elders. For these things can neither harm the soul nor fail to nourish faith; rather, they can even serve to strengthen and equip us against the errors of the Arians, so that the Son may be clearly seen as equal to the Father.

²³ Therefore, when engaging in a higher level of discussion, the mind and intellect must be prepared for a more refined understanding. Some of the most learned Church Fathers assert that certain things are invisible, while others are incorporeal. They define everything that has been created as possessing some form of matter, making it comprehensible to its Creator and, in some sense, bodily in nature. For they claim that even the nature of souls and angels is bodily, since it is, from the beginning, limited and confined by space.

²⁴ Indeed, as we read in one of Saint Jerome’s treatises: “They believe that the spirits of the stars are embodied globes.” And likewise: “If angels are said to have even heavenly bodies that can become impure, then what do you suppose is to be thought of man?” Yet, despite this, you deny that the soul is bodily simply because, according to some opinions, it is neither localized nor possesses qualities or quantity—a belief that, in truth, should be held regarding God’s majesty alone.

²⁵ For we read in one of the most authoritative treatises of the Fathers: “To enter and to fill all things is possible only for the Trinity, which so penetrates the entire intellectual nature that it not only surrounds and encompasses it but also enters into it, and, like something incorporeal entering a body, can be infused within it.”

²⁶ Although we may affirm that certain natures are spiritual—such as angels, archangels, and the other heavenly powers, as well as our own soul or even the subtle substance of the air—these must by no means be considered incorporeal. For they do possess a body in their own way, through which they exist, though it is far more refined and incomparably more subtle than our own bodies. As the Apostle states: “There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies”. From this, it is clear that nothing is truly incorporeal except God alone, and therefore, only He is able to penetrate all spiritual and intellectual substances.

²⁷ Since these things are so, you object that the soul is therefore not corporeal because, as has been said, it is neither local nor does it subsist by quality or quantity. The danger of such a belief will be demonstrated in what follows. For now, however, the argument of our discussion will depend on this point: if the soul is neither local nor subject to quantity, we must undoubtedly concede that it is incorporeal. But if I can demonstrate that it is determined by quantity and enclosed in a place, then you yourself can no longer doubt that it is also contained within a body. How can it not be local when it is inserted into the limbs, bound to the internal organs, and held within the confines of its own substance by its movements alone? But if you think it should be asserted that the soul is not local because it ranges through various sensations and is carried away by different thoughts, you must first understand that the state of the soul is one thing, and the movement of thought that arises from it is another. Therefore, it is rather to be considered that whenever the soul imagines something, it is more occupied with its own inner movements, and if it seems to perceive anything, this is rather imprinted upon it as in the mirror of recollection. For when a person thinks of a loved one who is absent, does he immediately satisfy his longing as if he were seeing them in person? Or when, for example, he pictures in his mind the likeness of Peter or Paul, does he immediately penetrate the innermost dwellings of paradise, where we know they dwell? Or when he envisions in his heart the flames of that rich man from Scripture, having read about them, does he thereby descend into the depths of the underworld, to those places of torment that are inaccessible to the living?

²⁸ All these things are undoubtedly either fashioned within the hidden depths of the heart through various images, or, if restless thought is stirred by an unsteady motion and wanders beyond the soul’s dwelling, it still acts in a local manner. Whether it contemplates a city or any region, it remains fixed only in that place to which the intention of the mind carries it. It may imagine certain things, but it cannot grasp all things at once. So when the soul thinks of Alexandria or Jerusalem, if, as you suppose, it is truly present there in its entirety, let it report to us the layout of the places, the faces of the people, the movements, and the actions of the crowds. Yet the very fact that we are now engaged in mutual discourse through the activity of our spirits—though I sense that I am speaking with you in my own consciousness, I do not feel that I have actually come to you—demonstrates otherwise. For if the soul is truly believed to be carried along with its senses, then whenever it remembers something, it must be present in thought to that very thing. Behold, in this present moment, I am thinking of you, and through the remembrance of my mind, I see you. Yet I do not in any way know what you are doing—whether you are at rest, reading, or praying. This happens because I reach you through the affection of my heart, not through the actual reality of my substance. Indeed, the nature of our souls does not consist in the movements we experience—sometimes good, sometimes bad. For if the soul were to be defined by its thoughts, why does it persist in its own strength and vigor even when those thoughts fade away and perish? How many of our countless thoughts and concerns, even beneficial ones, must die away and contribute instead to the greater freedom of the inner life! If the soul consisted in them, it could not possibly survive their passing. Hence, reason speaks more clearly to our understanding: each soul either gives birth within itself to multiple thoughts, conceived by reflecting on the causes of things, or it scatters its senses—like various duties or services—toward different needs, while it itself remains at rest within the chamber of its body, from which it will one day depart.

²⁹ Therefore, to again provide a sufficient example that the soul is local, was not the soul of Lazarus present within his body while he was alive? But when life departed from the dwelling of his body, did it not go into exile? And then, when it was called back, did it not return to the lifeless body from which it had been absent? Do you claim that the soul is not local, even though you see it expelled from its dwelling place and then restored to the very place from which it had departed? But why should I speak of this concerning a corruptible man, when even He whose flesh did not see corruption possessed a soul that was indeed immaculate, yet local? For while He was on the cross, He certainly held His soul within Himself, but when He lay in the tomb, He undoubtedly sent it outside of Himself. How can the soul not be local, when the body contains it, life unites it, and death separates it? But if, as you say, the nature of souls does not allow them to be local, then are those souls that are imprisoned in the depths of hell not absent from the region of paradise? Tell me, I ask you, if souls are not local, how is it that the vast chasm, with its sorrowful separation, divides sinners from the gatherings and companionship of the righteous, so that they cannot cross from here to there, nor from there to here? It is now entirely clear that whatever is contained within space must be limited by quantity. If you acknowledge that the soul is local, then concede that it is also corporeal. Tell me, did not the glorious soul of our Redeemer leave this world when He ascended into heaven?

³⁰ However, I do not doubt that even angels are local beings, for it is certain that at times they dwell in the heavens, at times they move through the empty expanse of the air, and at times they are sent to earthly realms. The divine word describes them as ascending and descending in the vision of the patriarch, which they could not do if they were not local but instead present everywhere. The most blessed Gabriel, who testifies that he stands before the Lord, was surely absent from heaven when he announced to Mary that the Lord of heaven would be conceived in her womb. While he stood before the eyes of the Lord’s mother, he was not hovering over the seas, nor was he filling the vast and empty air with his presence, but he occupied only the place where he stood. Since this is so, whatever occupies a place must have a body, and I do not understand how one who is sent from place to place is not bound by the laws of locality. For he is transferred as if by movement, he descends by weight, moves with agility, travels, returns, departs, and ascends. Indeed, even he—whom I believe to be local—is no longer in heaven from the moment he was cast out of heaven. And he did not merely reveal himself to be local, but also dragged down with him a third of the stars when he was hurled from the heights.

³¹ Tell me, if he has no body, what exactly fell during that casting down? Why do you deny him a corporeal nature when you do not dare to deny his ruin? And if, as you claim, he has no body, then he cannot burn. Yet where, except in a body, will he feel that fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels? I think it is unnecessary to discuss whether he has taken on some form of density from the elements through his dwelling in the air. Tell me, if he had no body, how could there be any condensation of substance in the air? How could this so-called density have gathered around him unless he had brought something corporeal with him from that celestial height? Will some foreign body suffer torment in his place? Recognize, then, even from your own reasoning, that he has a body. For a body is something that can be corrupted, defiled, and damaged by any external influence.

³² He who was once the firstborn of the angels has now become the prince of darkness. Once beautiful in form, he is now degenerate; once resplendent with heavenly brightness, he is now defiled by the dreadful horror of infernal sin. A body, I say, is something that can be cast out of its dwelling place, confined by size, altered in quality, and afflicted by pain. Since this is the case, consider into what great error those fall who claim that the soul is incorporeal. First of all, since God, the Creator of the universe, is said to have made all things with number and weight, then if the soul is believed to be the only thing in all creation that is not corporeal or local, and if it is not contained by any place, it would be said to be diffused everywhere, entering all things, filling all things, and being present everywhere. This would mean that the creature is united with its Creator, and that frailty is joined to its Author, so that the soul would no longer be regarded as something belonging to God, but as a part of God Himself. See into what depths of error its defenders have fallen! Indeed, to us, things above our understanding are invisible, but to Him who made all things from nothing, they are as comprehensible as they are corporeal. Just as He established all things by His work, so He incorporated them with matter, and, as He assigned weight, number, and measure to all things—including the soul—so also did He give them quantity.

³³ Just as He assigned weight, number, and measure, so too did He give quantity. Among these matters, if, as has been said, someone were to claim that in the nature of angels there is some subtle mixture of air that, when combined, would be found susceptible to flames, then, according to this view, if what burns is airy, the punishment would rage not within it, but outside of it. However, without a doubt, there is no substance other than that of the body in which the force of pain can take hold. See where reckless and ignorant reasoning leads—by speaking of something as incorporeal, it also declares it to be incomprehensible, and thus attributes to a created work what belongs only to the Creator, granting to created things the privileges of divine majesty and extending to the creature an undeserved power, to the injury of the Creator. If we carefully examine where such conclusions lead, we see that this very belief was what cast the devil down from that blessed seat of heaven and caused the angels to lose their dignity, for they presumed to claim the nature of God for themselves.

³⁴ There is only one God who is incorporeal, for He is incomprehensible and diffused everywhere. He did not take His origin from any corporeal matter of creation. For this reason, the Son is coeternal with the Father, since He was not made by any work nor confined by any beginning. He exists above all things, which, being comprehensible and corporeal to their Maker, He fashioned within the body of the world. By His incorporeal majesty, He is diffused above all. Begotten from the unbegotten—that is, from the Father—yet always with the Father, He reigns over all that He has brought forth from nothing, in the undivided unity of the Holy Spirit. Amen.