In his De Decretis 19-20, Athanasius recalls the debate over the nature of the Son. However, since he intersperses his own commentary, it is difficult to extract the give and take of the debate itself. Therefore we have included this in an appendix rather than in the text above.

Athanasius, Decr. 19-20

19.  The council wished to do away with the irreligious phrases of the Arians and to use instead the acknowledged words of the Scriptures, that the Son is not from nothing but “from God,” and is “Word” and “Wisdom,” and not creature or work, but a proper offspring from the Father. But Eusebius and his fellows, led by their inveterate heterodoxy, understood the phrase “from God” as belonging to us, as if in respect to it the Word of God did not differ from us in any way because it is written, “There is one God, from whom are all things” [1 Cor. 8:6]  and again, “Old things are passed away, behold, all things are become new, and all things are from God” [2 Cor. 5:17].  But the Fathers, perceiving their craft and the cunning of their irreligion, were forced to express more distinctly the sense of the words “from God.” Accordingly, they wrote “from the essence of God,” in order that “from God” might not be considered common and equal in the Son and in things originate, but that all others might be acknowledged as creatures, and the Word alone as from the Father. For though all things be said to be from God, yet this is not the sense in which the Son is from him. As to the creatures, “of God” is said of them on this account, in that they exist not at random or spontaneously, nor come to be by chance, according to those philosophers who refer them to the combination of atoms, and to elements of similar structure—nor as certain heretics speak of a distinct Framer—nor as others again say that the constitution of all things is from certain angels—but in that (whereas God is) it was by him that all things were brought into being through his Word, not existing before.

But as to the Word, since he is not a creature, he alone is both called and is “from the Father.” It is significant in this sense to say that the Son is “from the essence of the Father,” for to nothing originate does this attach. In truth, when Paul says that “all things are from God,” he immediately adds, “and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things,” in order to show all men that the Son is other than all these things which came to be from God (for the things which came to be from God, came to be through his Son); and that he had used his foregoing words with reference to the world as framed by God, and not as if all things were from the Father as the Son is. For other things are not like the Son, nor is the Word one among others. He is Lord and Framer of all. On account of this did the holy council declare expressly that he was of the essence of the Father, that we might believe the Word to be other than the nature of things originate, being alone truly from God; and that no subterfuge should be left open to the irreligious. This then was the reason why the council wrote “of the essence.” 20.  Eusebius and his companions were put to shame by the arguments against them and did not dare to contradict when the bishops said that the Word must be described as the true power and image of the Father, in all things exact and like the Father, and as unalterable, and as always, and as in him without division (for never was the Word not, but he was always, existing everlastingly with the Father, as the radiance of light). Nevertheless, they were caught whispering to each other and winking with their eyes, that “like,” and “always,” and “power,” and “in him,” were, as before, common to us and the Son, and that it was no difficulty to agree to these. As to “like,” they said that it is written of us, “Man is the image and glory of God” [1 Cor. 11:7]; “always,” that it was written, “For we who live are always” [2 Cor. 4:11]; “in him,” “In him we live and move and have our being” [Acts 17:28]; “unalterable,” that it is written, “Nothing shall separate us from the love of Christ” [Rom. 8:35]; as to “power,” that the caterpillar and the locust are called “power” and “great power,” and that it is often said of the people, for instance, “All the power of the Lord came out of the land of Egypt” [Exod. 12:41]; and there are others also, heavenly ones, for Scripture says, “The Lord of powers is with us, the God of Jacob is our refuge” [Ps. 46:7].

Indeed Asterius, by title the sophist, had said the like in writing, having learned it from them, and before him Arius having learned it also, as has been said. But the bishops discerning in this too their dissimulation, and whereas it is written, “Deceit is in the heart of the irreligious who imagine evil,” were again compelled on their part to collect the sense of the Scriptures, and to re-say and re-write what they had said before, more distinctly still, namely, that the Son is homoousios with the Father.  This was to signify that the Son was from the Father, and not merely like, but the same in likeness, and to show that the Son’s likeness and unalterableness was different from that which is ascribed to us, which we acquire from virtue on the ground of observance of the commandments. For bodies which are like each other may be separated and become at distances from each other, as are human sons relatively to their parents (as it is written concerning Adam and Seth, who was begotten of him like him “after his own pattern”). But the generation of the Son from the Father is not according to the nature of men, and not only like, but also inseparable from the essence of the Father. He and the Father are one, as he himself has said, and the Word is ever in the Father and the Father in the Word, as the radiance stands towards the light (as this the phrase itself indicates). Therefore the council, understanding this, suitably wrote homoousios that they might both defeat the perverseness of the heretics, and show that the Word was other than created things. For, after thus writing, they at once added, “But they who say that the Son of God is from nothing, or created, or alterable, or a work, or from other essence, these the holy catholic church anathematizes.” And by saying this, they showed clearly that “of the essence” and homoousios are destructive of those catchwords of irreligion, such as “created,” and “work,” and “originated,” and “alterable,” and “he was not before his generation.” And he who holds these contradicts the council; but he who does not hold with Arius must hold and intend the decisions of the council, suitably regarding them to signify the relation of the radiance to the light, and from there gaining the illustration of the truth.

The Anonymous Church History 2.11.12-12.7 gives the following account of the debate, including a speech by Hosius of Cordoba,

———————–

Our bishops opposed their assertion that the Son of God is “not from God” by saying that he is “God from God.” They opposed their assertion that he is “not true God” by writing that he is “true God from true God.” They opposed their assertion that he is a “created being” by defining that he is “begotten, not made.” They opposed their assertion that he is “of a different essence” by saying that “the Son is homoousios with the Father, that is, begotten from the being of the Father.” They declared that he is creator and craftsman of the visible and the invisible in keeping with the apostolic faith entrusted to the church from the beginning after they had provided evidence from Scripture, as this account will show.

Rendering the deadly poisons ineffective with this antidote, they proceeded to write down the apostolic faith they had agreed upon even more clearly.  The holy, general, ecumenical council of our holy fathers gathered at Nicaea spoke through the blessed, holy Bishop Hosius of Cordova in Spain, who was also representing the bishop of Rome along with the previously named priests from his see. Through an interpreter, he said: 

“The deity is not one person as the Jews think, but three persons in true substance, not merely in name. Both the Old and New Testament proclaim this in many passages.  The Old Testament, speaking rather physically, treats the Word as a spoken word. The New Testament, however, shows that the Word is God: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God’ [John 1:1]. It also shows that he is a perfect person from what is perfect, for the Son is not partially God, but wholly God, just like the Father is, for he is of the same essence as the Father, who begot him in an inexpressible way.  In the same way, the Holy Spirit coexists with the Father and the Son, for he is of the same essence and the same substance as the Father and the Son

Therefore, we must confess that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit have one will, one reign, one authority, one lordship over all created beings, both perceivable and only conceivable, one divine nature, and one essence. We must not mix or divide the indescribable, blessed Trinity.  Rather, we must proclaim the Father, who always truly exists and subsists as Father of the true Son; the Son, who always truly exists and subsists as Son of the true Father; and the Holy Spirit, who always truly exists and subsists as Holy Spirit—an inseparable, indescribable, truly incomprehensible, inexpressible Trinity—with the conviction that there is one deity which has one divine essence.  We confess this deity in accordance with the true accurate doctrine of the faith, which the Lord entrusted to us from the beginning through his holy apostles and our holy fathers of old who faultlessly guarded the holy faith. We are ready, with the Holy Spirit’s goodwill, to prove this with many passages from the Holy Scriptures.”

Previous: Sources Used

Next: The Subscribers to the Nicene Creed and Canons

Back to The Council of Nicaea According to the Sources

Last updated: 12-19-2024 by JSW

No Responses yet