Chapter VI.—Authorities in Support of the Council. Theognostus; Dionysius of Alexandria; Dionysius of Rome; Origen.

25. This then is the sense in which they who met at Nicæa made use of these expressions. But next that they did not invent them for themselves (since this is one of their excuses), but spoke what they had received from their predecessors, proceed we to prove this also, to cut off even this excuse from them. Know then, O Arians, foes of Christ, that Theognostus177, a learned man, did not decline the phrase ‘of the essence,’ for in the second book of his Hypotyposes, he writes thus of the Son:—

“The essence of the Son is not one procured from without, nor accruing out of nothing178, but it sprang from the Father’s essence, as the radiance of light, as the vapour179 of water; for neither the radiance, nor the vapour, is the water itself or the sun itself, nor is it alien; but it is an effluence of the Father’s essence, which, however, suffers no partition. For as the sun remains the same, and is not impaired by the rays poured forth by it, so neither does the Father’s essence suffer change, though it has the Son as an Image of Itself180.”

Theognostus then, after previously investigating in the way of an exercise181, proceeds to lay down his sentiments in the foregoing words. Next, Dionysius, who was Bishop of Alexandria, upon his writing against Sabellius and expounding at large the Saviour’s Economy according to the flesh, and thence proving against the Sabellians that not the Father but His Word became flesh, as John has said, was suspected of saying that the Son as a thing made and originated, and not one in essence with the Father; on this he writes to his namesake Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, to allege in his defence that this was a slander upon him. And he assured him that he had not called the Son made, nay, did confess Him to be even one in essence. And his words ran thus:—

“And I have written in another letter a refutation of the false charge they bring against me, that I deny that Christ was one in essence with God. For though I say that I have not found this term anywhere in Holy Scripture, yet my remarks which follow, and which they have not noticed, are not inconsistent with that belief. For I instanced human birth as being evidently homogeneous, and I observed that undeniably parents differed from their children only in not being the same individuals, otherwise there could be neither parents nor children. And my letter, as I said before, owing to present circumstances I am unable to produce; or I would have sent you the very words I used, or rather a copy of it all, which, if I have an opportunity, I will do still. But I am sure from recollection that I adduced parallels of things kindred with each other; for instance, that a plant grown from seed or from root, was other than that from which it sprang, yet was altogether one in nature with it182: and that a stream flowing from a fountain, gained a new name, for that neither the fountain was called stream, nor the stream fountain, and both existed, and the stream was the water from the fountain”

26. And that the Word of God is not a work or creature, but an offspring proper to the Father’s essence and indivisible, as the great Council wrote, here you may see in the words of Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, who, while writing against the Sabellians, thus inveighs against those who dared to say so:—

“Next, I may reasonably turn to those who divide and cut to pieces and destroy that most sacred doctrine of the Church of God, the Divine Monarchy183, making it as it were three powers and partitive subsistences184 and god-heads three. I am told that some among you who are catechists and teachers of the Divine Word, take the lead in this tenet, who are diametrically opposed, so to speak, to Sabellius’s opinions; for he blasphemously says that the Son is the Father, and the Father the Son, but they in some sort preach three Gods, as dividing the sacred Monad into three subsistences foreign to each other and utterly separate. For it must needs be that with the God of the Universe, the Divine Word is united, and the Holy Ghost must repose185 and habitate in God; thus in one as in a summit, I mean the God of the Universe, must the Divine Triad186 be gathered up and brought together. For it is the doctrine of the presumptuous Marcion, to sever and divide the Divine Monarchy into three origins,—a devil’s teaching, not that of Christ’s true disciples and lovers of the Saviour’s lessons. For they know well that a Triad is preached by divine Scripture, but that neither Old Testament nor New preaches three Gods. Equally must one censure those who hold the Son to be a work, and consider that the Lord has come into being, as one of things which really came to be; whereas the divine oracles witness to a generation suitable to Him and becoming, but not to any fashioning or making. A blasphemy then is it, not ordinary, but even the highest, to say that the Lord is in any sort a handiwork. For if He came to be Son, once He was not; but He was always, if (that is) He be in the Father, as He says Himself, and if the Christ be Word and Wisdom and Power (which, as ye know, divine Scripture says), and these attributes be powers of God. If then the Son came into being, once these attributes were not; consequently there was a time, when God was without them; which is most absurd. And why say more on these points to you, men full of the Spirit and well aware of the absurdities which come to view from saying that the Son is a work? Not attending, as I consider, to this circumstance, the authors of this opinion have entirely missed the truth, in explaining, contrary to the sense of divine and prophetic Scripture in the passage, the words, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways unto His works187.’ For the sense of ‘He created,’ as ye know, is not one, for we must understand ‘He created’ in this place, as ‘He set over the works made by Him,’ that is, ‘made by the Son Himself.’ And ‘He created’ here must not be taken for ‘made,’ for creating differs from making. ‘Is not He thy Father that hath bought thee? hath He not made thee and created thee188?’says Moses in his great song in Deuteronomy. And one may say to them, O reckless men, is He a work, who is ‘the First-born of every creature, who is born from the womb before the morning star189,’ who said, as Wisdom, ‘Before all the hills He begets me190?’ And in many passages of the divine oracles is the Son said to have been191 generated, but nowhere to have192 come into being; which manifestly convicts those of misconception about the Lord’s generation, who presume to call His divine and ineffable generation a making193. Neither then may we divide into three Godheads the wonderful and divine Monad; nor disparage with the name of ‘work’ the dignity and exceeding majesty of the Lord; but we must believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Christ Jesus His Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and hold that to the God of the universe the Word is united194. For ‘I,’ says He, ‘and the Father are one;’ and, ‘I in the Father and the Father in Me.’ For thus both the Divine Triad, and the holy preaching of the Monarchy, will be preserved.”

27. And concerning the everlasting co-existence of the Word with the Father, and that He is not of another essence or subsistence, but proper to the Father’s, as the Bishops in the Council said, you may hear again from the labour-loving195 Origen also. For what he has written as if inquiring and by way of exercise, that let no one take as expressive of his own sentiments, but of parties who are contending in investigation, but what he196 definitely declares, that is the sentiment of the labour-loving man. After his prolusions then (so to speak) against the heretics, straightway he introduces his personal belief, thus:—

“If there be an Image of the Invisible God, it is an invisible Image; nay, I will be bold to add, that, as being the likeness of the Father, never was it not. For when was that God, who, according to John, is called Light (for ‘God is Light’), without a radiance of His proper glory, that a man should presume to assert the Son’s origin of existence, as if before He was not? But when was not that Image of the Father’s Ineffable and Nameless and Unutterable subsistence, that Expression and Word, and He that knows the Father? for let him understand well who dares to say, ‘Once the Son was not,’ that he is saying, ‘Once Wisdom was not,’ and ‘Word was not,’ and ‘Life was not.’”

And again elsewhere he says:—

“But it is not innocent nor without peril, if because of our weakness of understanding we deprive God, as far as in us lies, of the Only-begotten Word ever co-existing with Him; and the Wisdom in which He rejoiced; else He must be conceived as not always possessed of joy.”

See, we are proving that this view has been transmitted from father to father; but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, how many fathers can ye assign to your phrases? Not one of the understanding and wise; for all abhor you, but the devil alone197; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning sowed you with the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council198, for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word have handed down to us199. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy; and this is a chief reason why these apply themselves to calumniate the Council. For it is not the terms which trouble them200, but that those terms prove them to be heretics, and presumptuous beyond other heresies.

25.1 Οἱ μὲν οὖν ἐν τῇ Νικαίᾳ συνελθόντες ταύτην ἔχοντες τὴν διάνοιαν τοιαύτας καὶ τὰς λέξεις ἔγραψαν. ὅτι δὲ οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς πλάσαντες ἐπενόησαν ταύτας, ἐπειδὴ καὶ τοῦτο προφασίζονται, ἀλλ' ἄνωθεν παρὰ τῶν πρὸ αὐτῶν παραλαβόντες εἰρήκασι, φέρε καὶ τοῦτο διελέγξωμεν, ἵνα μηδὲ αὕτη αὐτοῖς ἡ πρόφασις περιλείπηται. μάθετε τοίνυν, ὦ χριστομάχοι Ἀρειανοί, ὅτι Θεόγνωστος μέν, ἀνὴρ λόγιος, οὐ παρῃτήσατο τὸ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας εἰπεῖν. γράφων γὰρ περὶ υἱοῦ ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ τῶν ὑποτυπώσεων οὕτως εἴρηκεν· «οὐκ ἔξωθέν τίς ἐστιν ἐφευρεθεῖσα ἡ τοῦ υἱοῦ οὐσία οὐδὲ ἐκ μὴ ὄντων ἐπεισήχθη,» ἀλλὰ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας ἔφυ ὡς τοῦ φωτὸς τὸ ἀπαύγασμα, ὡς ὕδατος ἀτμίς. «οὔτε γὰρ τὸ ἀπαύγασμα οὔτε ἡ ἀτμὶς αὐτὸ τὸ ὕδωρ ἐστὶν ἢ αὐτὸς ὁ ἥλιος οὔτε ἀλλότριον», καὶ οὔτε ἡ τοῦ υἱοῦ οὐσία αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ πατὴρ οὔτε ἀλλότριος, ἀλλὰ ἀπόρροια «τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας, οὐ μερισμὸν ὑπομεινάσης τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας. ὡς γὰρ μένων» ὁ ἥλιος ὁ αὐτὸς οὐ μειοῦται ταῖς ἐκχεομέναις ὑπ' αὐτοῦ αὐγαῖς, οὕτως οὐδὲ ἡ οὐσία «τοῦ πατρὸς ἀλλοίωσιν ὑπέμεινεν εἰκόνα ἑαυτῆς ἔχουσα τὸν υἱόν». ὁ μὲν οὖν Θεόγνωσ τος τὰ πρότερα ὡς ἐν γυμνασίᾳ ἐξετάσας, ὕστερον τὴν ἑαυτοῦ δόξαν τιθεὶς οὕτως εἴρηκεν. ∆ιονύσιος δὲ ὁ γενόμενος ἐπίσκοπος τῆς Ἀλεξανδρείας κατὰ Σαβελλίου γράφων τήν τε κατὰ σάρκα οἰκονομίαν τοῦ σωτῆρος διὰ πλειόνων ἐξηγούμενος καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς διελέγχων τοὺς Σαβελλίζοντας, ὅτι μὴ ὁ πατήρ ἐστιν ὁ γενόμενος σάρξ, ἀλλ' ὁ τούτου λόγος, ὡς εἶπεν ὁ Ἰωάννης, ἐπειδὴ ὑπενοήθη ὡς ποίημα καὶ γενητὸν λέγων τὸν υἱὸν καὶ μὴ ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί, γράφει πρὸς τὸν ὁμώνυμον αὐτῷ ∆ιονύσιον τὸν ἐπίσκοπον Ῥώμης ἀπολογούμενος συκοφαντίαν εἶναι ταύτην κατ' αὐτοῦ. μήτε γὰρ ποιητὸν εἰρη κέναι τὸν υἱόν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁμοούσιον αὐτὸν ὁμολογεῖν διεβεβαιώσατο. ἔχει δὲ αὐτοῦ ἡ λέξις οὕτως· καὶ δι' ἄλλης ἐπιστολῆς ἔγραψα, ἐν οἷς ἤλεγξα καὶ ὃ προφέρουσιν ἔγκλημα κατ' ἐμοῦ ψεῦδος ὄν, ὡς οὐ λέγοντος τὸν Χριστὸν ὁμοούσιον εἶναι τῷ θεῷ. εἰ γὰρ καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦτό φημι μὴ εὑρηκέναι που τῶν ἁγίων γραφῶν, ἀλλά γε τὰ ἐπιχειρήματά μου τὰ ἑξῆς, ἃ σεσιωπήκασι, τῆς διανοίας ταύτης οὐκ ἀπᾴδει. καὶ γὰρ ἀνθρωπίνην γονὴν παρεθέμην δῆλον ὡς οὖσαν ὁμογενῆ, φήσας πάντως τοὺς γονεῖς μόνον «ἑτέρους εἶναι τῶν τέκνων, ὅτι μὴ αὐτοὶ εἶεν τὰ τέκνα, ἢ μήτε γονεῖς ἀναγκαῖον ὑπ» άρχειν εἶναι μήτε τέκνα. καὶ τὴν μὲν ἐπιστολήν, ὡς προεῖπον, διὰ τὰς περιστάσεις «οὐκ ἔχω προκομίσαι· εἰ δ' οὖν, αὐτά σοι τὰ τότε ῥήματα, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ πάσης ἂν» ἔπεμψα τὸ ἀντίγραφον· ὅπερ ἂν εὐπορήσω, ποιήσω. οἶδα δὲ καὶ μέμνημαι πλείονα «προσθεὶς τῶν συγγενῶν ὁμοιώματα· καὶ γὰρ καὶ φυτὸν εἶπον ἀπὸ σπέρματος ἢ ἀπὸ» ῥίζης ἀνελθὸν ἕτερον εἶναι τοῦ ὅθεν ἐβλάστησε, καὶ πάντως ἐκείνῳ καθέστηκεν ὁμοφυές. «καὶ ποταμὸν εἶπον ἀπὸ πηγῆς ῥέοντα ἕτερον ὄνομα μετειληφέναι· μήτε γὰρ τὴν» πηγὴν ποταμὸν μήτε τὸν ποταμὸν πηγὴν λέγεσθαι καὶ ἀμφότερα ὑπάρχειν καὶ τὸν «ποταμὸν εἶναι τὸ ἐκ τῆς πηγῆς ὕδωρ». Ὅτι δὲ οὐ ποίημα οὐδὲ κτίσμα ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγος, ἀλλὰ ἴδιον τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας γέννημα ἀδιαίρετόν ἐστιν, ὡς ἔγραψεν ἡ μεγάλη σύνοδος, ἰδοὺ καὶ ὁ τῆς Ῥώμης ἐπίσκοπος ∆ιονύσιος γράφων κατὰ τῶν τὰ Σαβελλίου φρονούντων σχετλιάζει κατὰ τῶν ταῦτα τολμώντων λέγειν καί φησιν οὕτως· «ἑξῆς δ' ἂν εἰκότως λέγοιμι καὶ» πρὸς τοὺς διαιροῦντας καὶ κατατέμνοντας καὶ ἀναιροῦντας τὸ σεμνότατον κήρυγμα «τῆς ἐκκλησίας τοῦ θεοῦ, τὴν μοναρχίαν, εἰς τρεῖς δυνάμεις τινὰς καὶ μεμερισμένας ὑποστάσεις» καὶ θεότητας τρεῖς. πέπυσμαι γὰρ εἶναί τινας τῶν παρ' ὑμῖν κατηχούντων «καὶ διδασκόντων τὸν θεῖον λόγον ταύτης ὑφηγητὰς τῆς φρονήσεως, οἳ κατὰ διάμετρον,» ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, ἀντίκεινται τῇ Σαβελλίου γνώμῃ. ὁ μὲν γὰρ βλασφημεῖ αὐτὸν «τὸν υἱὸν εἶναι λέγων τὸν πατέρα καὶ ἔμπαλιν, οἱ δὲ τρεῖς θεοὺς τρόπον τινὰ κηρύττουσιν,» εἰς τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις ξένας ἀλλήλων παντάπασι κεχωρισμένας διαιροῦντες τὴν ἁγίαν «μονάδα. ἡνῶσθαι γὰρ ἀνάγκη τῷ θεῷ τῶν ὅλων τὸν θεῖον λόγον, ἐμφιλοχωρεῖν δὲ» τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐνδιαιτᾶσθαι δεῖ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα. ἤδη καὶ τὴν θείαν τριάδα εἰς ἕνα, ὥσπερ «εἰς κορυφήν τινα, τὸν θεὸν τῶν ὅλων τὸν παντοκράτορα λέγω, συγκεφαλαιοῦσθαί τε» καὶ συνάγεσθαι πᾶσα ἀνάγκη. Μαρκίωνος γὰρ τοῦ ματαιόφρονος δίδαγμα εἰς τρεῖς «ἀρχὰς τῆς μοναρχίας τομὴ καὶ διαίρεσις, παίδευμα ὂν διαβολικόν, οὐχὶ δὲ τῶν ὄντως «μαθητῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ τῶν ἀρεσκομένων τοῖς τοῦ σωτῆρος μαθήμασιν. οὗτοι γὰρ» τριάδα μὲν κηρυττομένην ὑπὸ τῆς θείας γραφῆς σαφῶς ἐπίστανται, τρεῖς δὲ θεοὺς οὔτε «παλαιὰν οὔτε καινὴν διαθήκην κηρύττουσαν. οὐ μεῖον δ' ἄν τις καταμέμφοιτο καὶ» τοὺς ποίημα τὸν υἱὸν εἶναι δοξάζοντας καὶ γεγονέναι τὸν κύριον ὥσπερ ἕν τι τῶν ὄντως «γενομένων νομίζοντας, τῶν θείων λογίων γέννησιν αὐτῷ τὴν ἁρμόττουσαν καὶ πρέπουσαν,» ἀλλ' οὐχὶ πλάσιν τινὰ καὶ ποίησιν προσμαρτυρούντων. βλάσφημον οὖν οὐ «τὸ τυχόν, μέγιστον μὲν οὖν, χειροποίητον τρόπον τινὰ λέγειν τὸν κύριον. εἰ γὰρ γέγονεν υἱός,» ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν· ἀεὶ δὲ ἦν, εἴ γε ἐν τῷ πατρί ἐστιν, ὡς αὐτός φησι, καὶ εἰ λόγος «καὶ σοφία καὶ δύναμις ὁ Χριστός. ταῦτα γὰρ εἶναι τὸν Χριστὸν αἱ θεῖαι λέγουσι γραφαί,» ὥσπερ ἐπίστασθε· ταῦτα δὲ δυνάμεις οὖσαι τοῦ θεοῦ τυγχάνουσιν. εἰ τοίνυν γέγονεν «ὁ υἱός, ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν ταῦτα, ἦν ἄρα καιρός, ὅτε χωρὶς τούτων ἦν ὁ θεός. ἀτοπώτατον» δὲ τοῦτο. καὶ τί ἂν ἐπὶ πλέον περὶ τούτων πρὸς ὑμᾶς διαλεγοίμην, πρὸς ἄνδρας «πνευματοφόρους καὶ σαφῶς ἐπισταμένους τὰς ἀτοπίας τὰς ἐκ τοῦ ποίημα λέγειν τὸν» υἱὸν ἀνακυπτούσας; αἷς μοι δοκοῦσι μὴ προσεσχηκέναι τὸν νοῦν οἱ καθηγησάμενοι «τῆς δόξης ταύτης καὶ διὰ τοῦτο κομιδῇ τοῦ ἀληθοῦς διημαρτηκέναι, ἑτέρως ἢ βούλεται» ταύτῃ ἡ θεία καὶ προφητικὴ γραφὴ τὸ κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ ἐκδεξά «μενοι. οὐ μία γὰρ ἡ τοῦ ἔκτισεν, ὡς ἴστε, σημασία· ἔκτισε γὰρ ἐνταῦθα ἀκουστέον» ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐπέστησε τοῖς ὑπ' αὐτοῦ γεγονόσιν ἔργοις, γεγονόσι δὲ δι' αὐτοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ. «οὐχὶ δέ γε τὸ ἔκτισε νῦν λέγοιτ' ἂν ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐποίησε· διαφέρει γὰρ τοῦ ποιῆσαι τὸ» κτίσαι. οὐκ αὐτὸς οὗτός σου πατὴρ ἐκτήσατό σε καὶ ἐποίησέ σε καὶ ἔκτισέ σε; τῇ «ἐν τῷ ∆ευτερονομίῳ μεγάλῃ ᾠδῇ ὁ Μωσῆς φησι. πρὸς οὓς καὶ εἴποι ἄν τις· ὦ ῥιψοκίνδυνοι ἄνθρωποι,» ποίημα ὁ πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, ὁ ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου «γεννηθείς, ὁ εἰπὼν ὡς σοφία· πρὸ δὲ πάντων βουνῶν γεννᾷ με;» καὶ πολλαχοῦ δὲ τῶν θείων λογίων γεγεννῆσθαι, ἀλλ' οὐ γεγονέναι τὸν υἱὸν λεγόμενον εὕροι τις ἄν. «ὑφ' ὧν καταφανῶς ἐλέγχονται τὰ ψεύδη περὶ τῆς τοῦ κυρίου γεννήσεως ὑπολαμβάνοντες» οἱ ποίησιν αὐτοῦ τὴν θείαν καὶ ἄρρητον γέννησιν λέγειν τολμῶντες. οὔτ' οὖν κατα «μερίζειν χρὴ εἰς τρεῖς θεότητας τὴν θαυμαστὴν καὶ θείαν μονάδα οὔτε ποιήσει κωλύειν» τὸ ἀξίωμα καὶ τὸ ὑπερβάλλον μέγεθος τοῦ κυρίου, ἀλλὰ πεπιστευκέναι εἰς θεὸν πατέρα «παντοκράτορα καὶ εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, ἡνῶσθαι» δὲ τῷ θεῷ τῶν ὅλων τὸν λόγον· ἐγὼ γάρ, φησί, καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν· καὶ ἐγὼ ἐν «τῷ πατρί, καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί. οὕτω γὰρ ἂν καὶ ἡ θεία τριὰς καὶ τὸ ἅγιον κήρυγμα» τῆς μοναρχίας διασώζοιτο. Περὶ δὲ τοῦ ἀιδίως συνεῖναι τὸν λόγον τῷ πατρὶ καὶ μὴ ἐξ ἑτέρας οὐσίας ἢ ὑπο στάσεως, ἀλλὰ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς ἴδιον γέννημα αὐτὸν εἶναι, ὡς εἰρήκασιν οἱ ἐν τῇ συν όδῳ, ἐξέστω πάλιν ὑμᾶς ἀκοῦσαι καὶ παρὰ τοῦ φιλοπόνου Ὠριγένους. ἃ μὲν γὰρ ὡς ζητῶν καὶ γυμνάζων ἔγραψε, ταῦτα μὴ ὡς αὐτοῦ φρονοῦντος δεχέσθω τις, ἀλλὰ τῶν πρὸς ἔριν φιλονεικούντων ἐν τῷ ζητεῖν· ἃ δὲ ἀδεῶς ὁρίζων ἀποφαίνεται, τοῦτο τοῦ φιλοπόνου τὸ φρόνημά ἐστι. μετὰ γοῦν τὰ ὡς ἐν γυμνασίᾳ λεγόμενα πρὸς τοὺς αἱρετικοὺς εὐθὺς αὐτὸς ἐπιφέρει τὰ ἴδια λέγων οὕτως· «εἰ ἔστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀο «ράτου, ἀόρατος εἰκών· ἐγὼ δὲ τολμήσας προσθείην ἄν, ὅτι καὶ ὁμοιότης τυγχάνων «τοῦ πατρὸς οὐκ ἔστιν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν. πότε γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ὁ κατὰ τὸν Ἰωάννην φῶς λεγόμενος,» ὁ θεὸς γὰρ φῶς ἐστιν, ἀπαύγασμα οὐκ εἶχε τῆς ἰδίας δόξης, ἵνα τολμήσας τις ἀρχὴν «δῷ εἶναι υἱοῦ πρότερον οὐκ ὄντος; πότε δὲ ἡ τῆς ἀρρήτου καὶ ἀκατονομάστου καὶ» ἀφθέγκτου ὑποστάσεως τοῦ πατρὸς εἰκών, ὁ χαρακτήρ, ὁ λόγος ὁ γινώσκων τὸν «πατέρα» οὐκ ἦν; κατανοείτω γὰρ ὁ τολμῶν καὶ λέγων· «ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν ὁ υἱός», «ὅτι ἐρεῖ καὶ τὸ σοφία ποτὲ οὐκ ἦν καὶ λόγος οὐκ ἦν καὶ ζωὴ οὐκ ἦν». καὶ πάλιν ἐν ἑτέροις οὕτω λέγει· «ἀλλ' οὐ θέμις ἐστὶν οὐδὲ ἀκίνδυνον διὰ τὴν ἀσθένειαν ἡμῶν τὸ» ὅσον ἐφ' ἡμῖν ἀποστερεῖσθαι τὸν θεὸν τοῦ ἀεὶ συνόντος αὐτῷ λόγου μονογενοῦς, «σοφίας ὄντος ᾗ προσέχαιρεν· οὕτω γὰρ οὐδὲ ἀεὶ χαίρων νοηθήσεται». Ἰδοὺ ἡμεῖς μὲν ἐκ πατέρων εἰς πατέρας διαβεβηκέναι τὴν τοιαύτην διάνοιαν ἀπο δεικνύομεν, ὑμεῖς δέ, ὦ νέοι Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ τοῦ Καιάφα μαθηταί, τίνας ἄρα τῶν ῥημάτων ὑμῶν ἔχετε δεῖξαι πατέρας; ἀλλ' οὐδένα τῶν φρονίμων καὶ σοφῶν ἂν εἴποιτε· πάντες γὰρ ὑμᾶς ἀποστρέφονται, πλὴν μόνου τοῦ διαβόλου. μόνος γὰρ ὑμῖν οὗτος τῆς τοιαύτης ἀποστασίας πατὴρ γέγονεν, ὁ καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν ὑμῖν ἐπισπείρας τὴν ἀσέβειαν ταύτην καὶ νῦν λοιδορεῖν τὴν οἰκουμενικὴν σύνοδον πείσας ὑμᾶς, ὅτι μὴ τὰ ὑμέτερα ἀλλὰ ταῦτα γεγράφασιν, ἅπερ οἱ ἀπ' ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται τοῦ λόγου γενόμενοι παρα δεδώκασιν. ἣν γὰρ ἡ σύνοδος ἐγγράφως ὡμολόγησε πίστιν, αὕτη τῆς καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐστί. ταύτην ἐκδικοῦντες οἱ μακάριοι πατέρες οὕτως ἔγραψαν καὶ κατέκριναν τὴν ἀρειανὴν αἵρεσιν· διὸ μάλιστα καὶ διαβάλλειν τὴν σύνοδον ἐπιχειροῦσιν. οὐ γὰρ αἱ λέξεις αὐτοὺς λυποῦσιν, ἀλλ' ὅτι ἐν αὐταῖς ἀπεδείχθησαν αἱρετικοὶ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων αἱρέσεων τολμηρότεροι.