On the Orthodox Faith, Against the Arians

—You see, then, that they have set down everything in their treatise, not according to evangelical faith, but by cunning malice, in order to seduce whatever simple people. It ought now to be, not so much suspected, as manifest to all, that they have set down God of God in the same way that Arius used to teach, namely that he was made of God, not born of God. But if he is born, he is of one substance: if he was made, he is not a true Son: and if he is not a true Son, neither is he true God: or if he is true God, and is not of the Father, then there are two, each having his own will, and diverse rule: or if they are one only by concord and fellowship, still he is not truly, as I have said, God by substance.

Thus he will be God as Moses was to Pharaoh, by power, not by kind: the Son too will have to be believed in the way it was said to the people through Isaiah: I have begotten and exalted sons; and elsewhere: You are gods and sons of the Most High, all of you. But he will also be held as firstborn, in the way Israel too was called by God the firstborn son. And likewise the firstborn of all creation, as though he were held to be firstborn in the order of things made; so that from him they may assign a certain sequence for the things of the world to be created.

Finally, with ὁμοούσιον removed, that is, the term "of one substance," they set down ὁμοιούσιον, that is, similar to its maker; whereas likeness is one thing, truth another. For man too was made after the image and likeness of God, and yet he is not God: nor should it be believed that, because God is God, man came to be so. Thus they wish the Son of God too to be similar, in such a way that they say he is similar from elsewhere, not from that one holy and blessed substance of the Father. But if he is not of the Father's substance, he is ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, that is, from things not existing at all, as the same Arius taught: for once it is removed that he is what the Father is, from wherever the Son has come, it is necessary that he have both a beginning from nothing, and an origin from time: for nothing is without a beginning, except God alone.

Whence also the Son, as the Lord himself says: I and the Father are one. This he said in order to show the terms of two persons within the majesty of one deity, just as also the Prophet from the voice of God: My heart, he says, has poured forth a good Word, I speak my works to the king. You see, then, that this good Word is the Son of God, whom we believe born from nowhere else than from the paternal breast, and, so to speak, from the womb of the heart of God. And accordingly he calls him king, because he himself is king of kings: God the Lord, to whom all divine works are subject, who said: All things that the Father has are mine.

Of this also the Evangelist: In the beginning, he says, was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made through him, and without him was made nothing. Therefore, that which was in the beginning must be believed to have always been: but not from anywhere else than from him who has no beginning, that is, from the heart of the Father; because, he says, my heart has poured forth a good Word. For he did not say: In the beginning the Word was made; but, in the beginning, he says, was the Word. Whatever beginning you wish to assign to the Word, you will have it already prejudged, because, he says, in the beginning it was.

Not that we say there are two principles from a diversity of things, but because the Word, the Son, is always with the Father, and is born of the Father. And therefore he whose origin has no beginning must be believed to be co-eternal with the Father; for neither can the Father ever be named without the Son, nor the Son be called without the Father: and for this reason the Son is always, because the Father is always.

And, he says, the Word was God. What is God, always is; lest, if he had not always been, he could not be true God, just as also in the name of Wisdom, because according to the Apostle he himself is the Wisdom of the Father. I, he says, came forth from the mouth of the Most High. Not therefore from anywhere else than from the Father, because he is always with the Father. And therefore he is called the Wisdom of God, that the Father may never be believed to have been without Wisdom, that is, without his Son. This is that ineffable Wisdom, which in Solomon is described as the beginning of the ways of God, either founded, or begotten, or created; yet he says it was so founded as to show that it was always with God. For what beginning will you give to God, that you might be able to assign a beginning to his Wisdom?

For God did not found his Wisdom in such a way as if he had once been without Wisdom: but when he says "the beginning of his ways," he shows the beginning of the movement of some work, so that this may be the beginning which the Wisdom of God has, namely that it proceeded from God for the creating of all things, both heavenly and earthly, not that it began to exist in God. Wisdom, therefore, is created—nay, begotten—not for herself, who always was, but for those things which had to be made by her; so that, since it could not be known how great and of what sort she was, her power and might might be known from the effect of her works: and so that what we conjecture of created things, we might rather fear then, when we marvel at the things made.

But if you should say Wisdom is so created that you understand the Son of God to be a creature; the Apostle meets you, condemning those who worship a creature, saying: Wherefore God gave them up to the desire of their heart unto uncleanness; to dishonor their own bodies among themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed God for ever. This is, I say, that Wisdom of God, who says: I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, the foundress and maker of the universe, that is, the Son of God, through whom are all things, and in whom are all things; because, as the Apostle said: In him were all things established in the heavens and on the earth, visible and invisible, whether Thrones, or Dominations, or Powers, or Principalities, or Authorities: all things were created through him and in him, and he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Hence also Solomon: Since she is one, he says, she can do all things; and, remaining in herself, she renews all things, and through the nations passes into holy souls. Confirming this, the Apostle says that Christ dwells in the inner man; so that through him, by whom from the beginning all things were made, through him also at the end all things might be saved.

—But you say to me that ὁμοούσιον, that is, the word "of one substance," is used, all the more because they worship the Creator, keeping indeed the very things which the Apostle said: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, of things on earth, and of things under the earth, and every tongue should confess. And Moses: Let all the angels of God worship him, he says. And David: All kings shall worship him. This indeed would not be said in the Scriptures, but because he himself is the Word, the Son, the maker of all things. But you say that ὁμοούσιον ought not to be named, because it is not contained in the divine Scriptures. I also ask, man, you who forbid this; if it ought not to be named for this reason, because it is not written, is it because it may not be so believed either? But if it must be so believed, why should it not be so professed?

For, says the Apostle, with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. But if it ought not to be named for this reason, because it is not to be so believed either; then the assertion of the Arian taint has prevailed, which for this reason denied the Father and the Son to be of one substance; because it introduces the Son of God as made now out of nothing, now out of the Father, but from another substance, when he willed and how he willed and whence he willed—provided only it may feign that he existed from elsewhere, and not from that which the Father is. And though it calls him born, this is but in word; for again it understands everything that is born to be made, on the ground that we too are called begotten of God, though it is agreed we are his handiwork.

But if you are not an Arian, and acknowledge the true Son to be born of the true Father, not made; why do you not say that he is of one substance with the Father? In vain, man, do you fear to profess what you believe; and in vain do you believe, if you do not so believe, and you are rightly marked as a heretic. And although you have altered the word by which you think you have refused to call the Son of God a creature; yet when you add: "as one of those things which were made"; you clearly show that you did not refuse to call him a creature as though he ought not to be understood as made; but you do not wish him made in the way that one of these things which were made is made, yet still made. For you speak of "made" in another sense, as it were a perfect creature, through whom all things were made; provided you still understand him as made, though not as the rest are made.

But to return to what I was saying, that you claim the word ὁμοούσιον, that is "of one substance," is not found in the divine Scriptures, grant for the moment that this is so, on the ground that wherever "substance" is read, it is taken as a thing of God, not God himself; although you likewise profess another thing that is not written, namely, God of God, light of light: what do you say to this? Either hold the whole with me, or give up the whole. For if you fear to say the word "of one substance" for this reason, because it is not written; you ought equally to fear to profess God of God, and light of light. But I prove that God of God, light of light, and the word "of one substance" are contained in the divine Scriptures.

For since the Son of God himself, who is God, says in his Gospel: I came forth from the Father; rightly and deservedly do we profess God of God, because we know that the Son of God, true God, was born of God the Father, true God. But not in that manner in which we are called gods, or as Moses is said to be a god to Pharaoh; but because he is the true Son, born of the true Father, he must truly and confidently be called God of God, and thus light of light. What is not written, you indeed say with me, but you do not at all agree with me in sense.

And because it is written of the Father: God is light; and of the Son: He was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world; and: The light shines in darkness, that is, Christ in the world; and the darkness did not overtake it; that is, those men whose heart is blinded by the darkness of ignorance did not recognize Christ, the true God and true Son of God. But the Lord himself says: I am the light of the world: he who has followed me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

Therefore, because the Father is light and the Son is light, rightly is it "light of light." But you assert "light out of light" as though from the Father, who is the true light, another light were made, which is not of the Father's own substance: but as any other light, though made by God, is yet far other than he who made it; and therefore you say "light out of light," not "light of light." Since therefore I have said these things beforehand, though you do not understand them with me, yet however you pronounce them, since they are not written. Do you not likewise profess with me the word "of one substance," which you think is not contained in the Scriptures—unless it be that there you have found how to cover your malignant meanings with a hidden deceit in both cases; so that you might express this very thing with me in the sound of the voice, yet far separate the understanding of what is said?

Just as also those heretics who deny the resurrection of the flesh, in order to deceive the souls of the simple, pronounce a woe twice upon those who do not rise again in the flesh. But if you should question them why they said this, when you know that they utterly deny the resurrection of the flesh, they will tell you: Woe indeed shall be to him who has not been baptized in the flesh, so that his soul, while it is in the body, may rise, through baptism, from the death of its sins as from the tomb of its crimes, in that same body. For they defend the resurrection in the flesh of the soul alone, through the grace of the living font; for they exclude the salvation of the flesh itself. And these, by a plausible confession, seduce the minds of the innocent with hidden deceit.

And as a deadly draught, tempered with the sweetness of honey, by its deceiving pleasantness is wont to kill; so also this evil, through the flattery of the ears, contaminating the senses of the hearers with a certain taint, infects them with the contagion of the clinging vice.

Finally, even now they could name ὁμοούσιον, just as they name the other terms in word only, if they had a way to twist it toward another meaning with their perverse sense: but when they saw that they would be shut in by this word, they wished that no mention whatsoever should be made of it; lest either by professing it they should be believed to hold it, or by holding it they should seem to have professed it: excusing themselves with subtle cleverness, on the ground either that it was not written, or that God ought not to be spoken of in terms of substance, lest He be believed to be corporeal. For God, they say, brings it about that there is substance, yet not that God Himself should be reckoned within substance; since, they say, every substance admits of contraries. But God, who can admit nothing diverse, ought not to be called substance.

I would pardon you if you said this simply, if you wished to know the reason of the matter, if you were coming to this question as an untutored man, if you were not the very one who has always asserted the Son of God to be either of another substance, or of things not existing at all: but since you are the very same man who on this point has often been convicted, often has confessed, often has denied, and by changing more often has been condemned in yet other ways: who even now, stirring up everything by force, ambition, and power, throws all into confusion; how do you suppose that I can pardon you for so frequently going back over the same matters? But lest this perversity seem condemned rather by prejudgment than by examination, let me answer you briefly concerning this objection. You forbid, then, that substance be named in God, as though whatever is called substance were held to be of one and the same kind of thing.

Or are you ignorant that celestial things are constituted otherwise than earthly things; but that even among the celestial and worldly things themselves there is a great difference? For angels have received their substances in one way, and each of the several powers of their own constitutions in another, as the Apostle says: One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, another the glory of the stars. So too in this world, just as there are diverse kinds of things, so also there are diverse bodies of living creatures, and each has a substance proper to its own kind, as the Apostle says: Not all flesh is the same flesh. If therefore the things that were made by God have diverse qualities of their substances, do you suppose that in God there is such a substance as that which is possessed by any of these things that were made, such that it could admit contraries? God forbid. For what is the substance of God?

The very fact that He is God—simple, singular, pure, mixed with no composition, limpid, good, perfect, blessed, whole, entirely holy. Or do you suppose that which is God to be something empty and void? For it is blasphemy to say this, that He through whom all things have their being should be thought empty—He who brought forth all things by His word, composed them by reason, perfected them by power, by whose nod and command all things are ruled, and to whom all things are subject. And rightly you read it written of God: I am who am; and: He who is has sent me. And the Savior Lord Himself says: This is eternal life, that they may know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent. Therefore God exists in substance according to His own essence, the knowledge of whom is eternal life, who is also so great that He cannot be spoken of in terms of measure. He is then rightly estimated when He is called inestimable, whether you will or not.

Therefore that very fact of being is the substance of that thing which is maintained to exist; which nevertheless, as has already been said, how great and of what sort it is, cannot be conceived by mind, nor estimated by sense, nor defined by thought; provided only it be established that that which is believed to exist, does exist; so that from that very fact of being God, the Son should proceed, that the Son may be true, and the Father true in the Son, and the Son in the Father. This will be ὁμοούσιος, that is, of one substance with the Father, just as the Lord Himself says: I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and: I and the Father are one; and: I went forth from the Father; and: He who sees me sees the Father also.

Not without reason, because the Son of God was born of God the Father; and therefore, from the unity of substance and the majesty of the Godhead, they are one, just as Jeremiah also prophesied: Who shall stand in the substance of the Lord, and see the Word of the Lord? And again: If they had stood in my substance, and had heard my words, I would have turned them away from their most evil pursuits. And in Solomon: My substance is my sweetness (Wisdom 16:21).

—Since therefore you know this unity of substance in the Father and the Son not only by prophetic but also by evangelical authority, how do you say that ὁμοούσιον is not found in the divine Scriptures, as though ὁμοούσιον were something other than what He says: I went forth from God the Father; and: I and the Father are one: or what the prophets openly disclosed concerning the substance of God? This, however, is the reasoning of the name, that you should believe in a unity of substance in the Father and the Son, although you cannot define the reality itself, which is inexpressible; so that whether you say light of light, or word of word, or spirit of spirit, or lord of lord; whatever you may say of Him, you should nonetheless believe the Father and the Son to be of one essence: and understand the Son from that very fact that He is the Father.

For if you should make some comparison of Him drawn from these things which are seen, by the very dissimilarity of the things you would not show forth reason, but would introduce a contentious dispute, as He by whose voice it is written: To whom will you compare me? And accordingly, since God can be likened to nothing, let it suffice to believe that which is felt to be, since He willed Himself to be believed, not to be described. Finally, if from this very thing which you profess along with me, you wish to draw some likeness in speaking of God, I do not know whether you could define more clearly that which you have compared: for instance, when you say light from light, if you should be compelled by a scrupulous account to explain it, I ask, how do you believe light to be from light?

As it were a lamp from a lamp, or as it were a sun from a sun; so that you would introduce, under this example, either two lamps or two suns, as it were two gods? Or would you mark "light from light" as the splendor of the light of the same lamp, or the brightness of the sun shining forth from the same sun, so that you liken the Father to the source-form of light, and show the Son as the splendor of its brightness; which the Prophet said of Him: With Thee is the fountain of life, and in Thy light we shall see light; or as Solomon, when he says: He is the brightness of eternal light, and the spotless mirror of the majesty of God, and the image of His goodness (Wisdom 7:26); or as the Apostle here proclaimed our Savior to be the image of the invisible God, in that the image of the sun is its own light, which proceeds from that same sun.

But how much could be answered to these points, which generate disputes—something the Apostle forbids—it would take long to say: since indeed it is certain that that light which God is cannot be estimated, comprehended, or defined; nor can anything truly among the things that are in this world be compared to the divine majesty; because nothing of all these things which are seen or spoken of can be estimated by a fitting likeness according to that which God is, since He is greater than the very understandings and senses themselves. Therefore He forewarned that you should believe the divinity of the substance, and know the true Son from the true Father: but that you ought not to inquire concerning the quality of the thing; because you cannot know of what sort or how great it is. This is what the prophets, this is what the apostles proclaimed. Finally, according to our capacity, according to our powers, according to our faith, let us behold what God is, and let us see whether anything can be compared to Him.

Surely He is the One of whom, even when He is spoken of, He cannot be spoken; when He is estimated, He cannot be estimated; when He is compared, He cannot be compared; when He is defined, He grows by His very definition. He who covers the heaven with His hand, encloses the whole circuit of the world with His fist. Whom all things do not know in His entirety, and know only by fearing. To whose name and power this world is subject; and the very momentary alternation of the elements succeeding one another bears witness. See, then, whether there can be anything to which the Father and the Son can be compared; because such is the Son as is the Father; for He would not have said Himself to be one with the Father, unless He knew Himself to be such as the Father is. There is a certain reason, which among the Greeks is called λόγος, which distinguishes between the Father and the Son as persons or names; because the Son Himself is also called reason.

Yet this reason is called by many names: now Word, now Power, now Wisdom, now Right Hand, now Arm, now Pearl, now Treasure, now Net, now Plough, now Fountain, now Rock, now Cornerstone, now Lamb, now Man, now Calf, now Eagle, now Lion, now Way, now Truth, now Life. And thus, since He is God, all in all, these names serve so that the mysteries of the divine dispensations may be known through them, not that the majesty itself of the Son of God should be shown as properly defined by them. For what is the Son in relation to that which the Father is? Another, yet the same. For He is called Word for this reason, because He proceeded from the very divine mouth, and the Father commanded or did nothing without Him. He is called Power, because He is truly of God and always with God, and all the power of the Father consists in Him. He is called Wisdom, because, coming from the heart of the Father, He has unveiled the heavenly secrets to believers.

He is called the Right Hand, because through Him all the divine works have been accomplished. He is called Arm, because by Him all things are held together. He is called Pearl, so that nothing may be held more precious than He. He is called Treasure, so that in Him all the wealth and riches of the heavenly kingdoms may be recognized as stored up. He is called Net, because through Him and in Him, out of the sea of the world, a diverse multitude of nations, like fish, is gathered together through the water of baptism into the Church, where the distinction between the good and the wicked is recognized. He is called Plough, because by the sign of His cross hard hearts are made subject, so that they may be prepared for the necessary seed. He is called the Fountain of living water, because from Him thirsting hearts are watered by the grace of heavenly water. He is called Rock, because He grants firmness to believers, hardness to unbelievers.

He is called Cornerstone, because He, one and mediator, containing both walls of the New and Old Testament in Himself, has joined them together. He is called Lamb, so that the innocence and passion of Christ may be shown. He is called Man, because according to the flesh He deigned to be born for us men. He is called Calf, because for our salvation He endured to suffer. He is called Eagle, because after His venerable resurrection, like the king of birds, He flies up to the seat of the Father. He is called Lion, because He Himself is King of kings, who by the power of His might crushed death and the devil. He is Way, because through Him is the ascent. Truth, because He knows no falsehood. Life, because He Himself gives life to all things.

Do you see, then, that through these names the meanings and the disposition and the divine works are shown forth beforehand, yet God Himself is not thereby properly defined? Therefore the Father is God, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, inestimable. And His Son too is God and our Lord, as great as the Father is; but from no other source than the Father: for, He says, I went forth from the Father, that is, light from light.

—But lest the heretic seize upon this as some occasion, when I set forth two names, or two persons, that is, of the Father and the Son, as though I said two gods, as those men fashion two gods out of diversity: we, however, name Father and Son in such a way that we signify one God in these persons and names. Let the philosophers see to it, let the heretics, their disciples, see to it, who are varied by a diversity of powers: but for us there is one God the Father, as the Apostle said, from whom are all things, and we from Him: and one Lord Jesus Christ, God the Son of God, through whom are all things, and we through Him.

For by "two," what else is understood than a substance divided into parts belonging to two, and, along with the names themselves, a nature dissociated, both the will and the commands of acting and ordaining being divided? Moreover, although the Father and the Son are believed to be two persons, yet by reason and substance they are one. For the fellowship of unequal things is an offense to the better, and it is not fitting, to the injury of Him who is the true God, that another not true be compared to Him. But when I set forth Father and Son, I assign a unity of kind: and if I divide that unity into persons, nevertheless the distinctions of the persons are again marked, by the same names, into a unity of themselves by the natural bond of law.

Whence also the Son is as great as the Father will be seen to be, whole from whole, entire from entire, perfect from perfect and consummated power, just as the Apostle says: In whom all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily. For Jeremiah too, most accepted of the prophets, knowing this unity of the Godhead in Father and Son, says: This is our God, and none other shall be reckoned beside him: who found out all the way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved. Afterward he was seen upon earth, and conversed among men. And Isaiah proclaims this very thing, saying: Thus says the Lord God: Egypt has labored, and the merchandise of the Ethiopians and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall pass over to you, they shall be your servants, and shall walk after you bound in fetters, and they shall make supplication to you; because God is in you, and there is no other God besides you: for you are God.

Lest you think I have said this with that arrogance for which Sabellius is reported—who professes the Father himself to be the Son himself—we do not so compel the whole into one meaning that we are caught by the deceit of other heretics. But because in the very name of the persons an undivided authority is recognized, and the Son is named from the Father not according to kind but personally; accordingly we ascribe to the Father wholly what belongs to the Son, and to the Son wholly what belongs to the Father. Nothing will be seen not to be the Father's, that is judged to be the Son's; nor the Son's, that is defended as the Father's; because the unity of majesty does not allow gods to be called by a plural word: since indeed it is agreed that the Father and the Son are of one substance, whence each is called one God.

Fearing this above all else, that unless the Father and the Son are one, the interpolated nativity might recoil into reproach of its Author; for this pleased the heretics, that that omnipotent, invisible, immeasurable God should degenerate in the Son, not merely in power but with condition changed, as though the Father could not have from himself one such as he himself is. Accordingly we defend the true Son from the true Father, who always was, being of one substance with the Father. And this is what the Greeks call ὁμοούσιον, that is, one and the same thing along with one; so that the persons might be distinguished by hearing them named, and not so that the words might separate the substance.

—But that I may expose the whole mystery of the Arian heresy, I shall briefly indicate why they refuse to believe the Son to be of the Father's substance. For they say: Since the Father is God omnipotent, invisible, unchangeable, immutable, perfect, always the same, eternal: but the Son is visible, because he was often seen by the fathers; and changeable and mutable, because he showed himself in various forms—if he were, they say, of the Father's substance, it could never happen that before the assumption of flesh he should be seen either visible or mutable; rather he would have remained in the equality in which the Father is, from whose substance he was; because what is from the Father must be believed not able to be seen, nor changed, nor converted.

It adds to the case, that when he descended into Mary, when he filled the Virgin's womb, something else altogether was born from her than what had come. Whence now, they say, the substance being corrupted, changes its state, loses its order, being forthwith formed by that very change from God into man, from spirit into flesh. And indeed every transference is the destruction of the former thing. And hence they say: If the Son were of the Father's substance, then the Father too would already be seen to be lesser, either by the handing-over or the ending of his substance: and accordingly they preferred to believe the Son to be of another substance, since it can be changed, and altered, and seen; because this may not be believed of the Father's substance.

This is the cause of the error, this the origin of the Arian heresy; while they do not understand the power of God, nor recognize the arrangement of so great a mystery, so that they compare God to human conditions. To whom it must first be answered, in this place, that the Son of God was not seen as God was, but as man was able to grasp of God; then, that he himself is not mutable and convertible in various forms, but that this is the power of God, that when he deigns to reveal himself to each, as he wills, he changes his appearance, not his substance; nor does he lose the propriety of his quality, but according to the merit of the beholder he applies a tempering of majesty; yet he himself, the same, as he always is, remains in the propriety of his substance, just as it is written: You shall change them, and they shall be changed; but you are the same yourself, and your years shall not fail.

For though there are many things among those seen in this world which are converted from one thing into another, so that they cease to be what they were, and become what they had not previously been—as clay, when it is shaped into a man, ceases already to be clay; or fish, or birds, when they come forth from water, are thereafter not water, because they are something else; as the potter's clay when it is hardened into a pot; as stone, when it is dissolved by burning into lime; as sand when it is changed into glass, and other things which it would be long to enumerate. But there is a great difference, foolish heretic, between those things which have been made, and him who made all things as he willed. Those things which have been made are subject to their assigned condition; but he who made them is of his own will and his own right.

Nor can he be changed by anything compelling into other than what he is; but as he wills, and to whomever he wills, he shows himself. For if angels have often been seen in the form of men, and yet are nothing other than what they know themselves to be, nor change their substance when they take on the form of a human body; how much more the Lord himself, who made all things, who by his own institution granted to the angels themselves that they might do this!

To this is added, that we approve the Son of God as seen by the Fathers, as has already been said, in such a way that not the whole of what he is as God was seen in him: but the dispositions of things to come, which were to be fulfilled each in its own time, were discerned in him through an image. For who could see the Son of God, before he took on visible matter, as it pleased him, or deigned to put on man himself? Though he was seen by Abraham, yet he was seen in the form of a human body, whereby it might be shown that in the last times he would come in man. Jacob too elsewhere saw him in an angel, elsewhere likewise sees him in a man.

He showed himself in an angel so as to indicate himself as the messenger of great counsel; but in a man, with whom he is also described as wrestling, so as especially to indicate the image of the future wrestling which he was to have with Israel, in that he had come in the manner of a man. But that Israel might believe him to be the Lord, with whom he wrestled in such great struggle under the form of a man, Israel—that is, "man seeing God"—received his name. I have seen God, he says, face to face, and my soul has been saved. And indeed he had seen the form of a man, which God the Son of God had put on. He appeared to Moses in the bush, in a flame of fire, that he might show light to believers, judgment to unbelievers; because Christ is salvation to believers, punishment to unbelievers, as the Apostle says: To some the odor of life unto life, to others the odor of death unto death.

He went before the people of Israel as leader of the journey, in a pillar of cloud by day, and by night in a pillar of fire; that he might show the grace of baptism through the cloud, and the gift of the Holy Spirit through the fire; because the apostle Paul writes that the Fathers were baptized in the cloud, and the Acts of the Apostles declare the Spirit to be as fire. You see then throughout, heretic, that the marks of the divine Scriptures were shown beforehand to the Fathers in honor of God; yet not that God himself was properly revealed as he is. Finally, when Moses prayed that he might see the face of God purely, what did God immediately say to him? You shall not be able, he said, to see my face; for man shall not see my face, and live. By this very fact that the sight is denied, a splendor is assigned, which indeed is as great as it must be believed to be, being shown as invisible.

Since then Moses, who arranged, indicated, and expressed the position of the heavens, and the orders of the world, and the changes of the elements, and finally the ornaments of the whole world; to whom the Lord himself bore witness, saying: There shall be no one among the prophets like my servant Moses, to whom I have spoken face to face, mouth to mouth; could not, nevertheless, see God purely. Rightly indeed worthy of all prophecy, but not to such a degree as to be able to behold God, in that he was only a man. And indeed we maintain all these words to belong to the Son, whom we know to have spoken with Moses on Mount Sinai, who had come from the Father to do and explain matters; because it was fitting that all things from the beginning should be ordered, explained, and maintained through him, so that this might stand as the chief reason for having a Son.

And thus he is understood to have been seen in such a way, that he seemed to have taken on the arrangement of some visible matter, as I have said, with his invisibility, of course, kept intact, which majesty diffused throughout has set apart from the sight of all. For he was not so revealed to human sight, that the whole deity appeared in him: but, after the manner of a mirror, when it encloses within its own light the countenances conceived, as it were to the full likeness of a man; so, with the splendor of his majesty going before, he was seen within that which showed an image of the truth, not properly God himself.

So too, when he deigned to put on man, he brought no stain upon eternity, so as to change spirit into flesh, but so that, having taken up man, he might grant to him immortality and the eternity of heavenly life. For though the Apostle says that he emptied himself, by taking on the form of a servant, we do not by any means accept that he was so emptied, that the same Spirit became something other than what he had been: but that, laying aside meanwhile the honor of his majesty, he put on a human body, by taking up which the salvation of the nations came about.

For just as when the sun is covered by a cloud, its brightness is restrained, not blinded; and that light, which spread through the whole world fills all things with its clear splendor, is enclosed by the quite small obstacle of a cloud, not taken away: so too that man whom the Lord Jesus, our Savior, that is, God and the Son of God, put on; he did not thereby suppress God in him, but concealed him.

Finally, when on the mountain he raised himself a little beyond that very man, the apostles, being men, fell to the ground, almost blinded by the flash of his light, their very life imperiled, had not the Lord, mercifully compressing again the honor of his majesty, come to their aid, according to that saying: No one has seen God, and lived. Just as the brightness of the sun, when it does not reach as far as our sight, remains intact in itself; because what is not seen is due to our weakness, whose eyes the darkness of clouds has covered: so he proves that he was hidden not by any diminishment of his own splendor, but, as I have said, by the benefit of the flesh, for whose sake the Son of God endured to be the son of man.

For indeed the Virgin conceived of the Spirit of God, and what she conceived, this she bore, that is, God joined to his own man, as I have already said, just as he himself said: What is born of flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit; because God is spirit, and he was born of God. Just as the Angel also said to the Virgin Mary: The Spirit of God shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you. Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God.

You see then that the Spirit himself, that is, the Son of God, came to the Virgin; and thence proceeded the Son of God and of man; nor yet that by that very garment of flesh the Son of God was changed; but that he is the very same in man, who had been before the world with the Father; through whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made, just as the Evangelist says: The world was made through him, and the world did not know him.

Moreover, it is madness to believe that we can be freed by him who, in order to free us, was lost; that he might be born, was oppressed; that he might receive immortality, passed over into death. But far be it, heretic, that the sense of your iniquity should be admitted by catholics; for we believe the Word and Spirit, that is, the Son of God, to be immutable and unconvertible; who, when he put on man, did not overturn his condition, did not lose his order, did not change his substance: but illumined the very impurities of that body with the eternal light of his own splendor; so that through the path of his body the light of the Holy Spirit and the grace of eternal life might overflow to us.

Whom, although we believe him to have suffered and been buried, yet it was that man who suffered, whom the Son of God took up, whom he put on, whom he bore. But because whatever that man suffered was wholly referred to its author, therefore the death and passion is judged to be the Lord's; for it is established that what is of God is immortal: what is of man is perishable.

On the third day also he rose again—not God into man, but rather man into God.

He ascended into the heavens, offered to his Father that man as a most acceptable gift, and sat down at the right hand of the Father, according to what is written: The Lord said unto my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand.

He sent to us the Holy Spirit from his own self, and from that same one substance of his, as protector, sanctifier, and guide unto eternal life, as it is written from the voice of God: I will pour out of my Spirit upon my servants, and upon my handmaids. And again: The Spirit shall proceed from me. And the Lord and Savior himself says: He shall receive of mine; of that, indeed, which is the Son, since the Son too is of that which is the Father.

From thence he is to come at the appointed time, to judge the living and the dead; that he may render to believers their rewards, and to unbelievers their punishments.

Whose kingdom is eternal, immortal; having neither beginning nor end: to whom be honor and glory forever and ever.

—You who read these things, I beseech you by God, do not twist the simplicity of the sense into ambiguity, nor draw it otherwise than as it has been said; for we confess the Father to be the true Father, and the Son of God to be the true Son of God, and we believe the Holy Spirit to be truly the Holy Spirit: confessing three persons of one substance, and of one divinity. But the sect of Sabellius, and of Photinus, and likewise of Arius, and whatever other sects there are which run counter to the rule of truth, we condemn. But the treatise of the Council of Nicaea we embrace, preserving it with the whole striving of our mind and with our whole faith; for we know this treatise to have been set forth against all heresies with unconquered truth.