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.'