文集 第 1 章

BOOK ONE. 1. When at the city of Nicaea in Bithynia, by three hundred and eighteen bishops, the faith of the Church was being confirmed out of the evangelical and apostolic doctrines by spiritual vigour, there the perfidy of Arius was exposed in the presence of the Emperor Constantine; and being refuted in the dogma of his perfidy by the sentence of those same bishops, he was separated from the Church, lest so impious a doctrine, long lurking in the Church, should insinuate itself into the minds of all. But when the emperor learned that the whole faith of the Church, as it had been handed down by the apostles, was being most holily confirmed by the Fathers, he ordered that same Arius, as a rebel against the sacred faith, to be banished into exile. But just as the serpent ensnared Eve in paradise by deceitful persuasions,

so too the perfidy of Arius, through a certain henchman, brought ruin upon Constantia, the sister of that same prince. And the venom of the devil lay hidden in her, until it should find the time of bursting forth with which it had filled her. She therefore, when on the last day of her death she enjoyed a visit from her brother, at once held out to him, with a word, the poisoned apple of innocence. And straightway, after the example of the first man, all unknowing he slips down the path of transgression; and lending his mind to the viperous requests, Arius—who had long before been banished by him as a sacrilegious man—was recalled from exile to the slaughter of faithful souls; and unfolding his faith to the prince with crafty disputations, he vainly asserted that he had not been condemned by the bishops.

For this very cause the same emperor ordered a synod to be assembled at Alexandria, so that, if a true assertion were recognized, pardon following upon the sentence might be restored to the Church; and so that all, rejoicing at his correction, might thereafter proceed more peaceably to the dedication of the Church of Jerusalem. Then, while his case was being deliberated by the bishops at greater length, that same Emperor Constantine, in a certain suburb called Nicomedia, having ordered his final judgment, in the thirty-first year of his reign closed his last day. 2. This ordinance of his testament he handed over to the aforesaid henchman of Arius, to be kept for Constantius.

And when he, coming after the death of his father, had taken up the empire, the henchman handed over the testament to Constantius, just as it had been entrusted by Constantine. Indeed, for the sake of this matter, that same presbyter Evangelus was held in such intimacy with him that he was now called not presbyter, but father of the empire; and he who had been raised to be emperor for the sake of ruling seemed to be made subject under the rule of this presbyter. By his request—nay rather, by his command—Arius was recalled into the Church;

and the untrained prince, retaining his doctrine with impious thoughts, rejected the catholic faith, and departing from the traditions of the fathers in a sacrilegious manner, is seen to have brought no light persecution upon the Church of God and upon the priests in his times. At which time also he made very many martyrs and many confessors. Others too he left half-alive, their eyes gouged out and their knees cut off; and not a few, seized by raging fury and madness, he condemned, banishing them from their own dwellings. In these the saying of the Lord is seen to be fulfilled: 'If,' He says, 'they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you' (John 15:20).

He therefore, before he should by guile assemble the priests of the Lord from the whole world at Ariminum or Seleucia, desiring to make everything one, ordered a certain judge named Probus, supported by his authority, to be present as arbiter between that same Arius and Athanasius—that man, indeed, whom he had found faithful in his realm and, beyond all other men, learned in all worldly arts. And he, with all public cares set far aside, chose to fulfil with all speed the task enjoined upon him, that he might both obey the imperial commands and prove the most truthful faith by his own examination.

And so, when he had come to the city of Laodicea in Syria in the second year of the reign of Constantius, sitting before the tribunal in the auditorium, with crowds standing about on this side and that, he addressed Arius and Athanasius in these words: 3. 'Admonished by the sacred command of the glorious and most pious Emperor Constantius, I have ordered that the matter of the faith be ventilated between you.' Arius and Athanasius said: 'And who is so senseless as to dare to refuse the imperial commands?' Probus the judge said: 'Then let the sacred letter of the venerable Augustus be read.' And it was recited thus: 'Constantine Constantius, pious, perpetual, victor and triumpher, ever Augustus, to Probus the judge, greeting.'

'Having by divine gift obtained the paternal empire, this is what must first of all be sought by us: that, with heretical conduct wiped from the minds of the perfidious, the whole world, joined to our sacred faith, may rejoice—since he who shall convert the impious from the way of error will save his soul, and will cover the multitude of their sins. And since we now find very many associates in this crime, cultivating this perfidy with sacrilegious rite, asserting that they retain the whole rule of the faith, who not only deceive men by impious seduction, but also do injury to the unbegotten majesty, joining the created substance of the Son to the divinity:

'We admonish that, having received the authority of our clemency, you cause the examination of this matter to be conducted between Arius the venerable presbyter and Athanasius, bishop of the same error. Persuading them especially that, with perversity of spirit laid aside, both should submit their necks to a faith of true and proved character: lest, despising the commands of our piety and clemency with their wonted audacity of rashness, they provoke us to grave wrath. And although you have not yet received the laying-on of hands of this faith, yet by the wisdom in which you excel beyond others, we trust that you can faithfully define everything without acceptance of any person, in a manner more pleasing to God than to man.' And in another hand: 'We wish you good health. Given at Constantinople on the twelfth day before the Kalends of January.' 4.

And when it had been recited, Probus the judge said: 'Let the sacred letter of the venerable prince which has been read be entered into the records.' He added: 'Perceiving that in the worship of idols there resides no majesty of true godhead, I wish to subject myself to the Christian doctrines, by which it is established that there is one and true God, who created all things that are seen and that are not seen by the power of His word. And since, though many are reckoned under the title of the Christian name, they are said to wander far from the truth of His faith—namely by thinking diverse things and following various established dogmas—I now greatly desire to know what is the faith of right doctrine, to which, with all the windings of doubt removed, I may tenaciously cling;

'lest, desiring to be stripped of error by blindness, I be entangled in the greater errors of darkness, if at random and without any discernment of examination I become the imitator of some sect, whichever first presents itself—not knowing whether it be proved true or supported by truth. And therefore, if it please—nay rather, since it ought to please—let each one of you set forth in our sight the opinion of his faith; so that, an examination being held, that which is found firmer than all and truer, to this let us all by right yield, and let us follow this without hesitation, the error of falsehood set apart.' Arius and Athanasius said:

'How can we crush small for you the secrets of so great a mystery, and lodge the judgment of an untried matter with you, who have not yet washed away the stains of paganism by the perception of true doctrine?' Probus the judge said: 'This is indeed what I desire with all my strength to know: what is the right and truthful doctrine, in which it behoves me to receive the sacraments of the hidden mystery. For I do not now desire that the deep secrets of the mysteries be laid open to me; but I now demand that those things be demonstrated which are held outwardly in your faith and are publicly preached. That is, that one and the same is the true God, the Maker of things visible and invisible.

'And because I am not unaware that you profess this with one mouth, what cause has arisen that you are divided into so many varied sects, so that which is true and which is false cannot at all be understood by us—before, by your contest, held with a worthy moderation of patience, we more diligently learn what is fitting? 5. Athanasius said: 'Since you are imbued with every kind of letters and exceedingly learned in philosophic disciplines, you ought by no means to marvel that among us very many and varied dogmas of novelties have arisen, when among you too as many novelties of opinions have emerged as there are well-nigh the names of their authors.

'For since there are three religions in the world—of the Jews, of the pagans, and of the Christians—each single religion, by many and far-separated diversities of opinions, departing from itself, has been divided into various sects of its own peculiar institution; while each one, allured by the sweetness of a more recent opinion which presents not the truth but the likeness of truth, abandons the line handed down of old by the fathers: thereby irremediably wandering through trackless ways, in that he uses novelty in place of antiquity, as though he were treading the path of the ancient boundary and of the way handed down by the fathers. For either he thinks too much, or he believes too little, and therefore knows not how to walk the middle and straight road.

'I have premised these things for this reason, that I might demonstrate to you the clearest signs for exploring the truth, so that you may most easily recognize that he is enwrapped in the error of depravity who, abandoning the ancient institutions of the apostolic faith, himself dreams up for himself, according to the judgment of his own will, the faith which he ought to follow.' Arius said: 'Most excellently does Athanasius profess that the error of perfidy consists in abject and newly-invented novelties of things, the apostolic testimony agreeing with this very point, where it says: ''Avoid profane novelties of words'' (1 Tim. 6:20). Wherefore I beseech you not to depart from this track of inquiry, by investigating more diligently and attentively who uses a new, and who an ancient, sacrament of the faith.' Probus the judge said:

'In order that these things which you assert may easily become known, and may come to the light of truth, with all the mist of ambiguity removed, set forth the rule of the ancient faith, and, just as it was handed down by the apostles, make it known to our ears.' Arius and Athanasius said: 'We believe in God the Father almighty, and in Jesus Christ His Son our Lord, and in the Holy Spirit. This is the rule of our faith, which the Lord delivered to the apostles by heavenly teaching, saying: ''Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.''' 6. Probus the judge said:

'I am held fast, stunned with great astonishment at the miracle, perceiving that three gods are proclaimed by you, whereas I had believed that one must take refuge in the majesty of the singular power of one God. Wherefore, what is the reason of this faith, or what these names of three things and of three appellations indicate, I beseech you, deign to inform us briefly.' Arius and Athanasius said: 'We do not confess three gods in the professions of our faith, but we faithfully profess that we believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.' Probus the judge said: 'Set forth, then, your faith more fully, and declare what or of what sort is the belief in this faith of yours.' Arius said:

'For I confess that the unbegotten Father, before all times, ineffably begot the Son, through whom and in whom He made the visible creatures and the invisible: who in the last times, for the salvation of the human race, sent by the Father, bore a true man in the world, whom He inviolably received of the Virgin Mary without admixture of human shame. Who, although He is God and Lord of His creature, yet cannot be either compared in all things to His begetter or made equal to Him in anything—Him whom He professes both as His God and as the author of His origin. Nor yet for that reason are there two gods, because this one too is God; nor for that reason is He not God, because the Father alone is God. Just as not for that reason is He not good, because the Father alone is good;

'since the Son too is not only good, but also the creator of good things. And just as it is not taken from Him that He should not be good, although the Father alone is good by the very profession of the Son, so it is not taken from Him that He should not be God, although the Father alone is God. And just as the goodness of the Son does not prejudice the singularity of the paternal goodness, so His deity does not stand in the way of the Father's being the only and singular God. And in this manner we profess one God—not denying, as I have said, that the Son is God, but placing in the Father alone the authority of the one divinity.' Athanasius said: 'Well has Arius defined by his profession that the Father from Himself ineffably begot the Son before all times;

'but whether he means to assert that the Son was begotten of the very essence or nature of the Father, or from elsewhere, this for the moment he has kept silent in his discourse. For I confess that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of one substance and of one nature—so that I believe the Son to be begotten not out of nothing, nor out of something, but of the Father; and the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father. And although I profess that there are three persons subsisting in their own property, yet the nature of these is one, and one divinity is proved.' 7. Probus the judge said:

'Although this varied and far-dissimilar diversity of your opinions strikes a great mist of confusion into our minds, yet, so that we may quickly be stripped of these ambiguities and may learn what is the profession of the true faith, deign to fortify the opinions of your assertions with clearer testimonies of divine Scripture. And lest by a long compass of speech you wander far off in the confusion of intermixed disputation, set forth your faith singly, as I have said. But now let Arius proceed, and let him not be loath to build up his faith with truthful testimonies.' Arius said: 'Since you have commanded me to engage first, let Athanasius answer whether God is of a simple nature.' Athanasius said: 'What impious man would deny this?'

Arius said: 'Let him answer whether also all things that are said of God are to be taken according to essence.' Athanasius said: 'I would not rashly pronounce that all things which are said of God ought to be taken according to essence; except for certain relative cases of nouns, uttered according to the customary expression of human speech, which are not properly fitted to God, but to persons and times, or to whatever kinds of things. That is, when He says He does not know, or again confesses that He has come to know. Or when He bears repentance for things done by Himself, and now shows Himself angry, now appeased. All of which, if we wish to take according to essence, we without doubt profess the divine nature to be passible and improvident;

'into which either ignorance, or a knowledge arisen in time, should fall; which both sadness by repenting should consume, and gladness by exalting and quickening should sustain. And what else will this be, than to suffer changeable things, and by instability to flow this way and that? Whence it is most manifestly proved that not all things ought to be understood as said of God according to essence; but we profess, more surely than sure, that some things correspond to the dispensation, not befitting His nature.' Probus the judge said: 'Although you have answered sufficiently and learnedly, with praiseworthy brevity, that not all things are said of God according to essence, yet I desire to hear these things from you more at large, when the time of the disputation of your turn shall be at hand.

'Now meanwhile (as I have already premised before) let Arius, as he had begun, proceed.' 8. Arius said: 'If you carefully attend to those things which I set forth at the beginning, there you will find the whole belief of our faith.' Athanasius said: 'That the Son subsists before the ages, Arius truly professes. But that He was born of the Father, he concedes only by the sound of the voice and a feigned confession of words, not by the property of truth—while he separates Him too far from the substance of the paternal nature, and affirms Him to be subject to the Father by the condition of nature, not by the reason of dispensation.' Probus the judge said:

'Give a most clear sign of your faith, and signify by a brief discourse how you believe, so that the matter of disputation may also be fitted to the standard of the proposed confession.' Athanasius said: 'Lest I burden your senses with too long a discourse, I conclude my faith in a brief speech. I confess that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in deity, in power, in greatness, in nature. Nor do I assert anything new or strange in this Trinity, as though it had not existed before but was afterward added; but (as I have said) I believe it to be of one nature and of one substance.' Arius said: 'I, just as I confess three persons remaining in their own property, so I confess three substances—of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

'For one is the substance of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit. Nor can the begotten nature of the Son, or the created nature of the Holy Spirit, in any way be compared to the unbegotten substance of the Father. Whence neither equal in power, nor similar in greatness, nor partners in nature, are they believed by us in faithful confession.' Probus the judge said: 'If this is the whole in which you seem to dissent from one another—namely, that one says the substances of the Trinity are diverse, the other that it is one—the reason of the disputation now demands that you fortify your assertions more robustly, not with the subtlety of arguments coming designedly from the industry of the dialectic art, but with the simple and pure documents of divine Scripture.' 9. Arius said:

'I believe that forgetfulness has by no means withdrawn from the mindful senses of your prudence the prosecution of Athanasius, by which he most elegantly pleaded that he ought to be branded with the error of depravity who follows new and unaccustomed inventions of words, adding to the apostolic dogmas what it is agreed was not handed down by them.' Probus the judge said: 'So I remember.' Arius said: 'Then let the decrees of the Council of Nicaea be set forth by reading; and you will recognize that Athanasius, or his authors, corrupted the apostolic faith by the addition of new words, to such an extent that, having used royal favour, they decreed that those who clung to the ancient doctrines of the fathers should be banished by edicts.' Probus the judge said:

'If the reason of the present matter requires that the decree of the Council of Nicaea be brought forth into the midst, let Athanasius too signify this by his prosecution, so that by the assent of the will of both, if there is anything in what is referred to, it may be recited openly.' Athanasius said: 'It befits the case that the opportunity of reading what was done be not denied.' Probus the judge said: 'Then, as he desires, let the reading of the aforesaid decree be ventilated.' And it was read thus: 'We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord our Jesus Christ, the Son of God, born of the Father, only-begotten—that is, of the substance of the Father: God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made:

'of one substance with the Father (which the Greeks call homoousion): through whom all things were made, whether those in heaven or those on earth. Who for our salvation descended, and was incarnate, was made man, suffered, rose again on the third day, ascended into the heavens, and is to come to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. But those who say: ''There was a time when He was not, and before He was born He was not,'' and that He was made of things not existing, or of another substance or essence—saying that God is mutable or convertible—these the catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.' 10. Arius said: 'You perceive, most excellent Probus, that the decrees of this council were written down with the audacity of rashness, to the insult of the apostolic

'faith. For what need was there that this new word homoousion be inserted into the ancient rules of dogma? For shall we say that the apostles, or their disciples, and all the successors in order who, living in the confession of Christ until that time, were ignorant of the word homoousion, followed the sacrilege of impiety in the truth of the faith—namely for this reason, that, deprived of the notion of this name, they went on to Christ without the assertion of this very preaching?

'For if, as these men utterly lie, a new doctrine was being introduced by us against the statutes of the apostles, it would surely have been fitting that the new doctrine brought in by us should run counter to the ancient doctrines of the apostles, and that novelty should be barred by antiquity—not that antiquity should be perverted by novelty. Why does he impose this name upon me to be followed? Why does he more violently drag me to a novelty of this kind? Why does he add this word to the apostolic faith, of which neither the prophets indeed, nor the apostles, anywhere make mention? What, I ask, is that name, without which the faith cannot be whole, without which Christians are stripped of the honour of the Christian religion? For one of two things must necessarily be followed in this case.'

If the affirmation of the homousion is true, then the preaching of the apostles will be false, which for long ages flourished without this name. But if the apostolic faith, lacking this name, is true (as indeed it is), then this teaching will without doubt be false, which has added the novelty of a name to the ancient faith. Turn over all the volumes of the New and the Old Testament, to see whether anywhere you can find the word homousion set down in the sacred pages. XI. Probus the judge said: What is brought against these things? Athanasius said: Do you take offense only at the novelty of the name, or do you also shrink from the very power of the thing which has obtained this word? Arius said: I do not sufficiently understand what you mean. Athanasius said:

Since an ancient thing has received a new name, the power of the new thing did not accrue by means of the new word; this then is what I ask: whether the thing, which is ancient, is to be condemned by you together with the novelty of the name. Arius said: You speak tortuous things, worthy of every marvel of folly. For if homousion is a new name, there is no doubt that the thing too is new which it appears to signify. Athanasius said: So you condemn the thing and the name alike? Arius said: Just so, plainly. Athanasius said: Then if I shall have shown that a new name has been attached to a thing that is ancient and handed down by the apostles, will you at last confess yourself defeated? Or even so do you condemn the ancient thing together with the novelty of the name? Arius said: This you will not show. Probus the judge said:

And what reason of cause demanded that an ancient thing should receive a new name? For surely, before it obtained the designation of this name, did it not remain without the property of a name? This seems to me to have no logical consequence. Arius said: Excellently put. Athanasius said: It is always the way of ecclesiastical discipline, whenever some new doctrine of heretics arises, that against the insolent novelties of their questions—while the realities remain unchangeably the same—it changes the designations of names and expresses the natures of things more significantly; yet in such a way that these accord with the powers of the existing realities, and rather demonstrate that those same realities existed of old, and do not insinuate any novelty of origin.

And, to make what I say plainer, I will use an example. At the very beginning of the preaching of the Christian religion, all who believed in our Lord Jesus Christ were called not Christians, but only disciples. And because many authors of new dogmas arose, opposing the apostolic teaching, and all of them called their followers disciples, there was no distinction of name between true and false disciples; since whether they were followers of Christ, or of Dositheus, or of Cephas, or of Theudas, or of a certain Judas, or even of John—men who professed that they believed, as it were, in Christ—they were all reckoned under the one name of disciples.

Then the apostles, meeting together at Antioch, as their Acts (in Luke's narration) indicate, called all the disciples by a new name, that is, Christians, distinguishing them from the common designation of false disciples; so that also the word of the divine oracle through Isaiah might be fulfilled, in which he says: 'On those who serve me a new name shall be called' (Isaiah 65:15, according to the Septuagint). XII. Holding fast, then, to this form handed down by the apostles—of using new names—the Church, against the various heretics, as the principle of sound faith required, issued various novelties of names. Finally, the Church imposed upon the Father the new name of 'unbegottenness.'

For when the Sabellian heresy wished to assert that the Father was begotten of the Virgin, the Church, confessing the contrary, handed down that the Father is unbegotten. And indeed in the divine Scriptures we nowhere read of the Father as 'unbegotten.' Therefore Sabellius can turn his audacity against this charge in the form of a question, and use the same kind of proposition as you do, in which he may say: Why do you, without any regard for shame, do violence to the divine Scriptures by professing the Father to be unbegotten—something which you cannot show to be written?

Likewise, because that same Sabellius professes by impious dogma that He was not only begotten but also suffered, you—when you assembled together, among the other sanctions of faith which you promulgated—declared that the Father is impassible, which we approve that you established religiously and holily. But this very thing that man cries out against: How far do you extend the audacity of your license, by professing what you have not read written—the Father impassible—which neither the prophets handed down, nor the authority of the authentic creed transmitted, but which was presumed by your rashness? Again you go on, and you established this faith of religious confession concerning the Son, calling Him God of God, light of light.

Now here, against Photinus—who assigns to the Son a beginning from the nature of human generation—measure for yourself, I pray you, how great an occasion of false accusation lies open. For why does he not bring forward similar grounds of complaint? Why does he not likewise rage with similar outcry, saying: What are you saying, what are you establishing, what are you handing down to posterity to be followed by your judgment, when you confess the Son to be God of God, light of light? Show me whether you have read this written in that form of faith, that is, in the authentic creed which the apostles handed down. But I am content, even if it were not written there, that at least it be read to me from the prophets, that it be shown from the writings of the apostles. Who could tolerate these novelties of words?

Who would suffer himself to admit to his understanding that which neither the prophets nor the apostles handed down? XIII. Likewise, by many and most celebrated decrees of your councils you have established that the Son is like the Father. Let Eunomius now rise up, who confesses Him to be unlike, and say: Where have you read this? Where could you find it written? Did the Father or the Son use this expression of Himself? Therefore you, Arius, who today bind me with such a knot, that I should show the homousion to be set down expressly—either confess that, against the insolent and stealthy depravities of heretical understanding, certain names of confession were not rashly presumed, but were gathered by logical consequence and inserted into the authorities of faith:

so that there have been, by a religious understanding, as many resolutions of so many new words as there have been occasions of perfidy sought or supplied. Or, if you are unwilling to confess this, I will deal with you by your own objections. Show me—not from conjectures, not from likelihoods, not from things akin to reason, not from things that invite to understanding, not by the persuasion of pious faith to profess it, but by the pure and naked propriety of words—show me this written: that the Father is unbegotten, or impassible, and the Son God of God, light of light, or like the Father. I do not want you to tell me: this the principle of faith requires; this piety teaches; the logical sequence of the Scriptures summons me to this profession of name. I do not want, I say, that you hold out such things to me;

because you reject me too when I bring forward similar things for the proof of the homousion. But take in your hands the codices of the divine volumes, and read the names of the aforesaid words set down with the same sound and the same syllables. Either show that the Son is written to be like the Father, or confess Him unlike. There is no place by which you may break out here, no place by which you may again escape. No power of disentangling is afforded you, entangled as you are by the knots of your own proposition. Either grant me to prove the homousion from logical consequences—that is, the faith of one substance—or, if you are unwilling to grant it, then all the things which you yourself confess must be denied by you; because you will nowhere be able to find where they are set down. XIV. Probus the judge said:

If it is the custom of ecclesiastical practice that certain designations of words are set down nakedly in the authority of faith for the sake of restraining the movements of heretics—which nevertheless are clothed by reason out of the logical consequence of existing realities, so long as their truth, from which they take their origin, is found to be contained in the divine writings—what do you say, Arius? Do you grant that the homousion (as Athanasius says) is proved from the divine Scriptures through the fitting qualities of professions, or not? Arius said: This man, by I know not what cunning of the syllogistic art, tries to elude my objection. For I desire this to be shown to me: whether the homousion is written down by the authority of the dominical reading. And therefore let him either read it set down expressly, or withdraw from its confession.

Probus the judge said: But you see how he turns your question back upon you, and binds you with the same articles you use, by the manifestation of your own profession, by proof, as you yourself demand, so that you should show him, set down nakedly from the canonical writings, that the Father is unbegotten or impassible, or God of God, or light of light, or that the Son is like the Father? All of which, if you cannot in the least demonstrate to be expressly set down, the necessity of denying them will press upon you. To which crisis, as it seems to me, this reasoning alone can come to your aid: that you grant that those things which are set down nakedly in your councils have flowed from the fountains of the Scriptures.

For he will not, by this vice of contention, demand the proof of a naked word, the sense of whose faith you may know to abound more copiously in the Scriptures. Therefore seek the sense from which the nature of this word drew its origin; and when you have found the sense, do not doubt that you have likewise found the name. XV. Athanasius said: By however many reasons he may act, he can in no way be removed from this intention. For he knows most certainly that if it should come to this, that from the logical consequence of the Scriptures it be taught that there is one substance of the Father and the Son (which is the homousion), he can most easily be overcome; and therefore, driven by the peril of diffidence and fear, he demands the proof of a naked word. But he must again be bound by his own professions.

You demand of me that I show written that there is one substance of the Father and the Son (that is, the homousion). But you confess three usiae, that is, three substances. Show me then where you have read 'three usiae.' For if I ought to deny the 'one' (that is, the homousion) for this reason, because I do not find it written nakedly, how do you dare to confess three usiae, when you can nowhere demonstrate this written? Probus the judge said: If there exists any proof from the divine authorities, set down expressly and specifically, by which it may be established that there are three usiae of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and three natures (as you confess), let it be brought forward, by which Athanasius may decline from the confession of one substance (which is the homousion).

For when you shall have shown the triusion to be set down expressly in the Scriptures, it will appear that Athanasius, by the rashness of a most pertinacious obstinacy, has up to now persisted in the confession of the homousion, which he could not demonstrate to be set down expressly. But if you yourself also cannot demonstrate three usiae, you will seem to me to be bound by the same necessity of condition. Athanasius said: Let him teach the three usiae to be set down expressly, and I make a cession of the one substance, which is the homousion. Arius said: If the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three, there are necessarily three substances also, in which each person is known to subsist separately and more distinctly in its own propriety. Athanasius said:

Here arguments are of no avail, here the truth is gathered by logical consequence: the propriety of testimonies is demanded. Read the triusion set down specifically. Do not say by conjecturing: If they are three—Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit—there are necessarily three substances also. For I too can by a similar conjecture more truly suppose: If the Father and the Son are one (because He Himself says, 'I and the Father are one'), how is there not one substance? But this path of disputation you have utterly refused to enter, while you demand of me a testimony set down specifically (by demonstrating the homousion). Therefore by a similar reasoning, you too read the three usiae set down specifically and expressly.

For if I ought to deny the homousion because I cannot show this written nakedly, then necessarily I ought to confess the triusion, if I shall recognize it set down expressly by your showing it. XVI. Arius said: Does the Father subsist properly, or not? Athanasius said: Unless you read the three usiae set down expressly, I will give no answer to your interrogations. For who does not see whither your objection tends? You wish, by the argument of a crafty interrogation, to establish diverse substances of the Father and the Son; but here there is no need of arguments, where by a more manifest testimony of propriety the proof of three substances is demanded.

But if you desire to pass from the propriety of testimonies to the logical consequence of realities, let this very thing be made known to the public conscience: that you were unable to demonstrate three usiae set down expressly. And when we have both been released from this article, it will be necessary that I satisfy your objections or interrogations. Probus the judge said: As far as the aim of your disputation shows, neither you can show the homousion, nor this man the triusion, set down expressly and specifically. Wherefore, lest you tarry longer in childish contention over superfluous matters, cease at last, both of you, from this exaction of pure proof; and from logical consequence gather either the homousion or the triusion from the authority of the Scriptures.

For it will not be lawful to doubt about the designation of a name, which a copious accumulation of testimonies will be able to corroborate more firmly. Arius said: Since your sentence has decreed this—that we ought, by the persuasions of reasonings, from the causes of consequent realities, to gather the powers of the aforesaid names, lest it seem to Athanasius that, through the difficulty of demonstrating the truth, I have sought the proofs of the propriety of the word as a pretext—I will do so, just as has been promulgated by the sentence of your decree. For I wished rather to use a shortcut, lest the aim of the reasoning, wandering too far, should obscure the truth with ambiguous meanings. Athanasius said:

The faith cannot come into doubt which, supported by the bulwark of truth, scatters the thicker clouds of falsehoods with the light of its radiant brightness. For that cannot lack its own powers which has no need to be aided from without by the props of supports. I. Likewise on the following day Probus the judge said: Since I do not doubt that you will keep with an undeviating sentence the pacts of the covenant you entered upon, by which you seem to have mutually granted to one another that you would prove the profession of one substance, or of three substances, by the clear examination of disputation, out of the logical consequence of the divine writings;

having set aside, that is, the question demanding the proof of a pure word and one set down expressly—now this very principle of the agreement requires that, all the cavilling of human argumentation being put aside, you should teach from the sacred volumes of the divine authorities whether there is one or there are diverse substances of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. For the proof of this matter not only my mind (as I suppose), but the mind of almost all mortals, is so suspended in hanging expectation that, if the merits of so great a business permitted, it would desire to arrive—without the postponement of any single day, or the interval of any moment—at the summit of truth and at the goal of a most manifest knowledge.

Wherefore, lest so religious an aim of the faithful and one desirous of truth be frustrated, all the allurement of luxuriant oratory being cast out, treat of the matter, of the cause, of the relevant points, of the necessary things; cautiously avoiding, as I said, every roundabout of words and the trappings of speech that wander far from the cause, and the charm of discourses, so that the narration of your disputation may be adorned by truth rather than by the buskin of swelling eloquence. Athanasius said: Although long ago I have repeatedly and very often disputed in writing concerning the unity of substance, and have committed my disputations to writing, to which scarcely anything more could be added by me in this disputation:

nevertheless, because these things were said outwardly with no one opposing at hand, I find it necessary to repeat these same things again, and to submit them to this examination of public action, by which they may be able to be corroborated by the sentence of your judgment. II. Probus the judge said: If they shall not have been weakened by the replies of Arius, then they will be able to be confirmed by our sentence. Arius said: Why are these snares of fraud set forth? Why, in the patronage of an abominable assertion, is the judge's sentence anticipated by preference? Let us first do what the necessity of demonstrating the truth imposes upon us as to be done. Let the profession of our faith be impressed upon the human hearing. Let the judges perceive by what manners, by what reasons, and finally by what proofs our assertion is supported:

and then at last we will demand the promulgation of the sentence from the judge—which assuredly in no way hangs upon our own choice. Probus the judge said: It behooves you to remember the preface of mine recently held at the beginning of this action, and your own pledge inserted long ago into the past proceedings; by which it was urged that, the superfluous being omitted, one ought to descend to the citadel of the business; which at last you ought at some time to do. Arius said: Let him teach that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of one substance, of one power, of one dignity, of one glory, of one majesty, of one virtue and honor—which by a quite improvident and too incautious profession he is wont to boast to the peoples. Athanasius said:

You profess that the Son is truly born of the Father, or not? Arius said: Do you yourself profess that the Father cannot be subject to the fault of any deification or division, or not? Athanasius said: I profess it strongly. Arius said: I too profess that the Son is born of the Father. Athanasius said: Do you think that to be 'born of (ex) the Father' is what is also 'born from (de) the Father'? Arius said: It suffices for you that I have said He is born of (ex) the Father; which I also most easily show. Why do you use crafty arguments? But 'born from (de) the Father' has nowhere been able for the present to occur to me. That He is written 'of (ex) the Father,' however, I recall, the apostle John saying: 'Whoever loves the Father loves Him who is born of (ex) Him' (1 John 5:1). Athanasius said:

So you think there is no difference whether He is said to be born 'of (ex) Him' or 'from (de) Him'? Arius said: If you can demonstrate to me 'the Son born from (de) the Father' set down expressly, I will estimate what I ought to think therefrom. But, because I am not unaware that in very many copies it is set down variously, so that in those very places where 'from (de) Him' is read, in other codices 'of (ex) Him' is read—yet whether this came about through the fraud of interpolators or through the signification of one and the same thing (that is, that this 'of Him' is the same as 'from Him')—this cannot sufficiently bring any prejudice to our faith. III. Athanasius said: In this your prosecution, conducted very diligently, I perceived a certain reasoning set forth.

But because you said only that no prejudice could be brought in these words to our faith, and did not designate that it could not to both of ours, I marvelled enough; and I judge that, hastening to fortify your own faith, you so set it down, hoping that I could thereupon easily pass over without any proof. In the Gospel also the Son said concerning the Father: 'God is Spirit' (John 4:24). And, that He might show Himself born of the Father, He said: 'What is born of (de) the flesh is flesh; and what is born of (de) the Spirit is spirit' (John 3:6). And, 'I came forth from (de) God the Father' (John 16:27). Behold, I have shown the Son born from (de) the Father, the Son Himself saying it. Arius said:

You use arguments quite crafty and suspicious, in saying that I said this for the fortification of my faith. But, that all ambiguity of suspicion may be taken away from your meanings—as I said above—to the faith of both of us, whether He be said born 'of (ex) Him' or 'from (de) Him,' it can bring absolutely no prejudice in anything. Athanasius said: The Father, begetting from Himself, that is from His very Self, the Son—did He beget that which He Himself is, or something else? Arius said: Assuredly He begot that which He Himself is, because God begot God, light begot light, the perfect begot the perfect, the omnipotent begot the omnipotent. Athanasius said:

Therefore not from without, nor from nothing, nor from any preceding or subsequent matter, but from His very Self He begot. And He begot nothing other than that which He Himself is. Arius said: One begot another. Athanasius said: We too confess that one begot another, that is, the Father the Son; but if He begot from His very Self, that is from that which He Himself is, and that which He Himself is, then the Son cannot be of another substance, or of a different kind; and thus He will be of one and the same substance with the Father. Arius said: If you knew into how many errors of perfidy the profession of one substance inclines, you would never indeed make mention of this name between the Father and the Son.

Nor would you have concluded your disputation, divided into certain steps of interrogations, with such an article, so as to lead it to this end of impious profession. Athanasius said: That it is impious and sacrilegious to profess diverse substances of the Father and the Son, and that it is pious and religious to believe them of one substance, know, O Arius, that I cannot be utterly ignorant. And this I will demonstrate to have been gathered not by human opinion, nor found out by conjectures and arguments, but handed down by the magisterium of heavenly doctrine. IV. Probus the judge said: First assign to me the force and quality of the term, and then at last you will be able to demonstrate whether it befits the Father and the Son. Athanasius said:

Substance is indeed distinguished by two kinds of designations. And there is indeed one kind of quality, which indicates the essence of an existing nature; but there is another kind of substance, by which he who has is distinguished from those things which he has. And, that this may be made plainer, what I say I assign by a manifest exposition. For example: a man is the substance of his own kind and nature. Again, if there is anything which one possesses from without, that is in the matter of gold, or silver, and of other kinds, it is called his substance. And although there seems to be one designation of the same word, it nevertheless appears to signify two things.

But we are disputing concerning that kind of substance by which each nature, on account of that which it is or subsists, is named a substance. And whatever it begets from itself, that is from its own self, can be nothing other than that which it itself is. Finally, a human father begetting a son begets a man of his own kind, that is, of his own substance, because a man begets a man. And they are rightly said to be of one substance, because the truth of nativity does not admit a diversity of substances. But there is a diversity of substance—as I might say for example's sake—if a man should beget a beast, or if a beast of any kind should beget a beast of another kind, that is, if an ox should beget an ass, or if a sheep should beget a goat:

which, because it proceeds into a diversity of kind, will be a monstrous generation, in no way preserving the propriety of its own nature. Again, in the qualities of the elements, it is worth observing what is the diversity or propriety of substances. For example: the nature of each fire or of light is seen to furnish from itself that which it itself is; as light furnishes brightness, as fire furnishes burning; and subsisting in this kind of its own function, it is seen to preserve the inviolate nature of its own substance. But if light should beget from itself darkness, it will be liable to change, furnishing a matter of a kind other than itself; for in this it will be able to preserve the unimpaired substance of its own immutability, if it furnishes from itself that which it itself is.

But if, as I said, that which it furnishes from itself were to be other than that very thing which furnishes it, then it could be said to be of another substance—which the quality, or order, or principle of all natures by no means admits. Come now then, if it seems good, let us raise the eye of the mind from earthly and visible things to higher things, and from these things which have been made let us recognize the substance of the unseen power; taught by the magisterium of apostolic authority, in which it says that the invisible power of the Godhead ought to be understood from those things which have been made (Romans 1:20). Arius therefore said that the Son was born of the Father, and that God begot God, light light. In which profession one of two things must without doubt be held.

For either, begetting from His very Self, He begot that which He Himself is, and on this account the Son will be of one substance with the Father; or, if He begot a God of another kind than Himself, it cannot be called a true nativity, which could not preserve the propriety of the substance of the begetter. And the reasoning of the disputation is led to this: that either He was not born at all, or He was degenerate; both of which to confess will seem most absurd and impious. V. Probus the judge said: If Arius knows anything to avail him against these things, let him not delay to declare it. Arius said: I do not think Athanasius is ignorant that God is of a simple and immutable nature; who, if (as he himself asserted) He generated from His own substance, will without doubt be mutable.

For it is necessary, by generating out of His very Self that which He Himself is, that He either lost a part of His substance through the generation of derivation, or could have suffered the fault of division. For I confess that the substance of God the Father neither put forth anything out of His very Self, nor was derived into the qualities of parts, nor felt—or could feel—anything of section or detraction, or anything of this kind which is subject to passion. Athanasius said: But neither do we believe the divine nature to lie subject to these conditions of passions; rather we faithfully confess that the impassible Father impassibly begot from His very Self, that is from that which He Himself is, the Son.

Nor do the kinds of divisions, or derivations, and of parts and of all things or passions—which, driven by an empty fear of solicitude, you wished to object—turn us aside from the truth of our profession, so that we should deny that God could on this account beget out of His very Self, lest He seem to lie subject to these passions. What therefore is more religious, or what more holy, or more in accord with the divine laws—weigh it, I beseech you, O hearers, on the even scale of judgment. Raise the eyes of your mind, and fearing the terrible day of the future examination, perceive with religious intention of mind what more befits catholic and apostolic truth: whether to confess that the omnipotent God impassibly begot the Son out of His very Self, or rather to suppose the other thing—

that, lest He should lie subject to the fault of passion, He could not beget the Son out of His very Self, that is out of His own substance. For I assert this, I affirm this by the most clear profession of voice: that, just as God is impassible, so also He is omnipotent. I believe therefore that He could beget from His own substance, and yet was not made subject to the fault of any passion; since division and derivation, contraction, accession, flux, or whatever kinds of passions of this sort there can be, befit corporeal and tangible things, and things composed out of diversity. But God, who is circumscribed by no signs of corporeal shape, nor distinguished by any lineaments of members, cannot lie subject to the fault of passion.

And rightly do I profess generation in Him, because He begot; and rightly nonetheless do I confess it impassible, because He never was passible. VI. Arius said: Surely then, because omnipotence cannot be denied in God, must it on that account be confessed that He cannot suffer those things which the wholly incorrupt substance of His divinity by no means admits? Whence it will seem quite dishonorable, and full enough of impiety, that through the profession of one substance we should believe neither the Father to subsist properly, nor the Son to exist in His own propriety.

For the whole drift of this impious treachery tends to this: that, with the persons of the Father and the Son intermingled and gathered together out of diverse things into a single coagulated mass and thus confounded, they may be quite unable to subsist (as I have said) in the singularity of their own proper distinction. This too, exceedingly horrible and to be banished far from the minds of the faithful, is contained in the treachery of your profession: that the inviolable Father, by generating from His own substance, could in no way avoid the defect of corruption and division. Athanasius said:

Bound the more tightly, as by indissoluble knots, by the truth of the divine generation, through I know not what contrivances of an impious intent (from which it is certain the divine nature is free), you gape after some refuge of escape, and cast corruption against the incorruptible, passion against the impassible, impotence against the omnipotent. But though you repeat these things again and again, no reverence for the divine majesty can restrain you from such impious objections; rather, as far as I see, with no regard for shame, you rush headlong to do injury to the venerable nativity of the Son, who ought to be worshipped.

But the testimonies of divine authority shall restrain you, as you rove the more unbridledly and float, by a kind of natural license, like one tossed in the surging eddy of a billowy sea; and, confined within the fixed bounds of the divine profession, they will not suffer you to pass beyond the limits of the lawful ordinances. Therefore the divine majesty is impressed upon human understanding by that sacred oracle of His profession, whereby He testifies that He has ineffably begotten the Son from the hidden recesses of His substance, and says: From the womb before the morning star I begot Thee (Ps. 110:3). One thing therefore is to be held in this attestation of the divine profession. For either He incorruptibly begot the Son from His ineffable substance, or, lest He be corrupted, He did not beget at all.

But I choose this part of the entire faith, which more religiously persuades us to serve God who bears witness concerning Himself: nor will any obstacles of human passion, descending from the sacrilege of unbelief, be able in any way to recall me, so that I should rightly not believe that God could beget, lest after the manner of human custom He should be subject to corruption: since I do not doubt that this is enough for me to profess, namely, that He was born of God's substance, who is acknowledged to have proceeded from the womb of the Father. VII. Arius said: As far as the drift of your discourse shows, you wish to introduce a God who is composite and liable to corruption; you who in this matter do not even fear to admit a bodily naming of a 'womb.'

It will therefore be necessary that He be either composed of members, if He has a womb; or, as I said, liable to corruption, if He generated from His own substance. Athanasius said: You would rightly charge me with having so thought, if I, by the presumption of my own rashness, without any testimony of the divine law, had affirmed that God has a womb. But since God Himself, to repel the madness of those unwilling to believe, deigned to declare this concerning Himself, that He might more evidently teach by the naming of 'womb' that He generated the Son not from without, not from elsewhere, but from Himself, that is, from His own substance, why do you fix upon me the mark of faulty credulity? when you might rather say this to God: If you have a womb, you will be composite; if you have begotten from yourself, you will be liable to corruption.

For 'womb' is so understood in God without any composition of members, just as eyes, and ears, and hands, and feet are said to be in Him without any lineaments of distinction. As therefore you must understand eyes, because He sees all things; ears, because He hears all things; hands, because He works all things; feet, because He is everywhere; so you must take 'womb' to mean that He ineffably begot from Himself. Nor ought you to suppose unfaithfully that, if He begot from Himself, He could surely be corrupted; rather it is fitting faithfully to profess that He could beget Him as omnipotent and incorruptible, and could not be corrupted by this very generation. For if He is believed to have been born wondrously of the Virgin against the nature of things incorruptibly;

how much more is He to be believed incorruptibly begotten of the Father? For if the substantial nature of the Virgin—which, being of itself of corruptible condition, could be subject to passion and corruption—with the inviolate integrity of her modesty and with the maidenly enclosures unbroken, generated a son with wondrous integrity of incorruption; why should we not rather believe, as I have said, that the incorruptible God could not be corrupted, the Son having been incorruptibly begotten of Him? O new and unspeakable, damnable madness of a monstrous opinion, to confess that the Virgin could not be corrupted by childbearing, and to dread that God should be subject to the defect of corruption, that He could not generate from His own substance!

Since, therefore, God willing it, a Virgin of corruptible nature generated a son without any loss of modesty: could He Himself, who beyond all comparison remains more incorruptible than every nature, not grant Himself this, that He might incorruptibly generate the Son from His own substance? Therefore, since both the utterances of the divine Scriptures testify, and Arius in his earlier discourse confessed, that God begot the Son from Himself, judge, O excellent and upright sir, which view better agrees with the divine Scriptures: whether mine, who for this reason confess the Son to be of one substance with the Father, namely because He is recognized to be born from Him, and not from elsewhere:

and for this reason again I profess that He begot incorruptibly, because the most excellent substance of the divine majesty could by its ineffable power in no way be subject to corruption; or that man's view, who is placed in so great a strait of wavering understanding that he knows not whither to set back the foot of his faith. For, unwilling to confess that God incorruptibly begot from His own substance, he is dragged into the necessity of this confession, that he must deny that He begot at all. But this very thing—to deny it—he will never without doubt be able to do, with prophetic and apostolic voices everywhere meeting him and crying out with clear utterance. VIII.

Probus the judge said: Whatever I have been able to recognize in this assertion of your discourses, the final sentence of our examination will retain. But now, if you think there yet remains to you anything from the divine Scriptures agreeable to your faith, deign to bring it forth, so that in the course of the disputation we may most easily track down what the principle of truth contains. Athanasius said: Since I perceive your excellency to be most earnestly and faithfully intent upon this matter, namely that we should prove from the divine volumes the Son to be born of the Father's substance—although the verdict of all my discourses is shown to be such, that, just as the human race, or that of any animals whatever, begets things like to its own substance;

so that neither does man beget an ox, nor an ox a man, but each thing procreates after its own likeness, that is, of its own substance; I ought by no means to wonder that God could generate the Son from His own substance, to whom all power is subject. But that my discourse may not wander apart without the testimony of the Scriptures, I undertake, fortified by His help, to prove from the divine oracles that the Son was ineffably born of the Father's substance; so that when by a luminous course of disputation—not one coming from the argument of philosophic art, but, as I said, from divine documents—I shall have demonstrated it, then at last let Arius fall silent, when, by my teaching, he shall have learned from the lawful utterances that the Son was begotten of the Father's substance.

The blessed Apostle, writing to the Hebrews concerning the Son, says: Since He is, he says, the image of the invisible God, and bearing the figure of His substance (Heb. 1:3; Col. 1:15). Jeremiah also, the most prudent of the prophets, discourses concerning the person of God the Father and says: If they had stood in My substance, and had heard My word, they would have turned them from their most wicked pursuits (Jer. 23:22). And that he might prove he had spoken concerning the Son, the same prophet adds and says: Who has stood in My substance and seen My word (Jer. 23:18)? For that the Son is the Word, the prophet David testifies, speaking of the person of the Father, saying: My heart has uttered forth a good word (Ps. 45:1).