36. The Council, then, comprehending this [3613] , and aware of the different senses of the same word, that none should suppose, that the Son was said to be from God' like the creation, wrote with greater explicitness, that the Son was from the essence.' For this betokens the true genuineness of the Son towards the Father; whereas, by the simple phrase from God,' only the Creator's will in framing is signified. If then they too had this meaning, when they wrote that the Word was from the Father,' they had nothing to complain of in the Council; but if they meant of God,' in the instance of the Son, as it is used of the creation, then as understanding it of the creation, they should not name the Son, or they will be manifestly mingling blasphemy with religiousness; but either they have to cease reckoning the Lord with the creatures, or at least to refrain from unworthy and unbecoming statements about the Son. For if He is a Son, He is not a creature; but if a creature, then not a Son. Since these are their views, perhaps they will be denying the Holy Laver also, because it is administered into Father and into Son and not into Creator and Creature, as they account it. But,' they say, all this is not written: and we reject these words as unscriptural.' But this, again, is an unblushing excuse in their mouths. For if they think everything must be rejected which is not written, wherefore, when the Arian party invent such a heap of phrases, not from Scripture [3614] , Out of nothing,' and the Son was not before His generation,' and Once He was not,' and He is alterable,' and the Father is ineffable and invisible to the Son,' and the Son knows not even His own essence;' and all that Arius has vomited in his light and irreligious Thalia, why do not they speak against these, but rather take their part, and on that account contend with their own Fathers? And, in what Scripture did they on their part find Unoriginate,' and the term essence,' and there are three subsistences,' and Christ is not very God,' and He is one of the hundred sheep,' and God's Wisdom is ingenerate and without beginning, but the created powers are many, of which Christ is one?' Or how, when in the so-called Dedication, Acacius and Eusebius and their fellows used expressions not in Scripture, and said that the First-born of the creation' was the exact Image of the essence and power and will and glory,' do they complain of the Fathers, for making mention of unscriptural expressions, and especially of essence? For they ought either to complain of themselves, or to find no fault with the Fathers.
37. Now, if certain others made excuses of the expressions of the Council, it might perhaps have been set down, either to ignorance or to caution. There is no question, for instance, about George of Cappadocia [3615] , who was expelled from Alexandria; a man, without character in years past, nor a Christian in any respect; but only pretending to the name to suit the times, and thinking religion to be a' means of gain' (1 Tim. vi. 5). And therefore there is no reason to complain of his making mistakes about the faith, considering he knows neither what he says, nor whereof he affirms; but, according to the text, goeth after all, as a bird' (1 Tim. i. 7; Prov. vii. 22, 23, not LXX.?) But when Acacius, and Eudoxius, and Patrophilus say this, do not they deserve the strongest reprobation? for while they write what is unscriptural themselves, and have accepted many times the term essence' as suitable, especially on the ground of the letter [3616] of Eusebius, they now blame their predecessors for using terms of the same kind. Nay, though they say themselves, that the Son is God from God,' and Living Word,' Exact Image of the Father's essence;' they accuse the Nicene Bishops of saying, that He who was begotten is of the essence' of Him who begat Him, and Coessential' with Him. But what marvel if they conflict with their predecessors and their own Fathers, when they are inconsistent with themselves, and fall foul of each other? For after publishing, in the so-called Dedication at Antioch, that the Son is exact Image of the Father's essence, and swearing that so they held and anathematizing those who held otherwise, nay, in Isauria, writing down, We do not decline the authentic faith published in the Dedication at Antioch [3617] ,' where the term essence' was introduced, as if forgetting all this, shortly after, in the same Isauria, they put into writing the very contrary, saying, We reject the words coessential,' and like-in-essence,' as alien to the Scriptures, and abolish the term essence,' as not contained therein [3618] .
38. Can we then any more account such men Christians? or what sort of faith have they who stand neither to word nor writing, but alter and change every thing according to the times? For if, O Acacius and Eudoxius, you do not decline the faith published at the Dedication,' and in it is written that the Son is Exact Image of God's essence,' why is it ye write in Isauria, we reject the Like in essence?' for if the Son is not like the Father according to essence, how is He exact image of the essence?' But if you are dissatisfied at having written Exact Image of the essence,' how is it that ye anathematize those who say that the Son is Unlike?' for if He be not according to essence like, He is surely unlike: and the Unlike cannot be an Image. And if so, then it does not hold that he that hath seen the Son, hath seen the Father' (John xiv. 9), there being then the greatest possible difference between Them, or rather the One being wholly Unlike the Other. And Unlike cannot possibly be called Like. By what artifice then do you call Unlike like, and consider Like to be unlike, and pretend to say that the Son is the Father's Image? for if the Son be not like the Father in essence, something is wanting to the Image, and it is not a complete Image, nor a perfect radiance [3619] . How then read you, In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily?' and, from His fulness all we received' (Coloss. ii. 9; John i. 16)? how is it that you expel the Arian Aetius as an heretic, though ye say the same with him? for he is your companion, O Acacius, and he became Eudoxius's master in this so great irreligion [3620] ; which was the reason why Leontius the Bishop made him deacon, that using the name of the diaconate as sheep's clothing, he might be able with impunity to pour forth the words of blasphemy.
39. What then has persuaded you to contradict each other, and to procure to yourselves so great a disgrace? You cannot give any good account of it; this supposition only remains, that all you do is but outward profession and pretence, to secure the patronage of Constantius and the gain from thence accruing. And ye make nothing of accusing the Fathers, and ye complain outright of the expressions as being unscriptural; and, as it is written, opened your legs to every one that passed by' (Ez. xvi. 25); so as to change as often as they wish, in whose pay and keep you are. Yet, though a man use terms not in Scripture, it makes no difference so that his meaning be religious [3621] . But the heretic, though he use scriptural terms, yet, as being equally dangerous and depraved, shall be asked in the words of the Spirit, Why dost thou preach My laws, and takest My covenant in thy mouth' (Ps. l. 16)? Thus whereas the devil, though speaking from the Scriptures, is silenced by the Saviour, the blessed Paul, though he speaks from profane writers, The Cretans are always liars,' and, For we are His offspring,' and, Evil communications corrupt good manners,' yet has a religious meaning, as being holy,--is doctor of the nations, in faith and verity,' as having the mind of Christ' (Tit. i. 12; Acts xvii. 28; 1 Cor. xv. 33; 1 Tim. ii. 7; 1 Cor. ii. 16), and what he speaks, he utters religiously. What then is there even plausible, in the Arian terms, in which the caterpillar' (Joel ii. 25) and the locust' are preferred to the Saviour, and He is reviled with Once Thou wast not,' and Thou wast created,' and Thou art foreign to God in essence,' and, in a word, no irreverence is unused among them? But what did the Fathers omit in the way of reverence? or rather, have they not a lofty view and a Christ-loving religiousness? And yet these, they wrote, We reject;' while those others they endure in their insults towards the Lord, and betray to all men, that for no other cause do they resist that great Council but that it condemned the Arian heresy. For it is on this account again that they speak against the term Coessential, about which they also entertain wrong sentiments. For if their faith was right, and they confessed the Father as truly Father, believed the Son to be genuine Son, and by nature true Word and Wisdom of the Father, and as to saying that the Son is from God,' if they did not use the words of Him, as of themselves, but understood Him to be the proper offspring of the Father's essence, as the radiance is from light, they would not every one of them have found fault with the Fathers; but would have been confident that the Council wrote suitably; and that this is the right faith concerning our Lord Jesus Christ.
40. But,' say they, the sense of such expressions is obscure to us;' for this is another of their pretences,--We reject them [3622] ,' say they, because we cannot master their meaning.' But if they were true in this profession, instead of saying, We reject them,' they should ask instruction from the well informed; else ought they to reject whatever they cannot understand in divine Scripture, and to find fault with the writers. But this were the venture of heretics rather than of us Christians; for what we do not understand in the sacred oracles, instead of rejecting, we seek from persons to whom the Lord has revealed it, and from them we ask for instruction. But since they thus make a pretence of the obscurity of such expressions, let them at least confess what is annexed to the Creed, and anathematize those who hold that the Son is from nothing,' and He was not before His generation,' and the Word of God is a creature and work,' and He is alterable by nature,' and from another subsistence;' and in a word let them anathematize the Arian heresy, which has originated such irreligion. Nor let them say any more, We reject the terms,' but that we do not yet understand them;' by way of having some reason to shew for declining them. But I know well, and am sure, and they know it too, that if they could confess all this and anathematize the Arian heresy, they would no longer deny those terms of the Council. For on this account it was that the Fathers, after declaring that the Son was begotten from the Father's essence, and Co-essential with Him, thereupon added, But those who say'--what has just been quoted, the symbols of the Arian heresy,--we anathematize;' I mean, in order to shew that the statements are parallel, and that the terms in the Creed imply the disclaimers subjoined, and that all who confess the terms, will certainly understand the disclaimers. But those who both dissent from the latter and impugn the former, such men are proved on every side to be foes of Christ.
41. Those who deny the Council altogether, are sufficiently exposed by these brief remarks; those, however, who accept everything else that was defined at Nicæa, and doubt only about the Coessential, must not be treated as enemies; nor do we here attack them as Ario-maniacs, nor as opponents of the Fathers, but we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers [3623] , who mean what we mean, and dispute only about the word. For, confessing that the Son is from the essence of the Father, and not from other subsistence, and that He is not a creature nor work, but His genuine and natural offspring, and that He is eternally with the Father as being His Word and Wisdom, they are not far from accepting even the phrase, Coessential.' Now such is Basil, who wrote from Ancyra concerning the faith [3624] . For only to say like according to essence,' is very far from signifying of the essence,' by which, rather, as they say themselves, the genuineness of the Son to the Father is signified. Thus tin is only like to silver, a wolf to a dog, and gilt brass to the true metal; but tin is not from silver, nor could a wolf be accounted the offspring of a dog. [3625] But since they say that He is of the essence' and Like-in-essence,' what do they signify by these but Coessential [3626] ?' For, while to say only Like-in-essence,' does not necessarily convey of the essence,' on the contrary, to say Coessential,' is to signify the meaning of both terms, Like-in-essence,' and of the essence.' And accordingly they themselves in controversy with those who say that the Word is a creature, instead of allowing Him to be genuine Son, have taken their proofs against them from human illustrations of son and father [3627] , with this exception that God is not as man, nor the generation of the Son as issue of man, but such as may be ascribed to God, and is fit for us to think. Thus they have called the Father the Fount of Wisdom and Life, and the Son the Radiance of the Eternal Light, and the Offspring from the Fountain, as He says, I am the Life,' and, I Wisdom dwell with Prudence' (John xiv. 6; Prov. viii. 12). But the Radiance from the Light, and Offspring from Fountain, and Son from Father, how can these be so fitly expressed as by Coessential?' And is there any cause of fear, lest, because the offspring from men are coessential, the Son, by being called Coessential, be Himself considered as a human offspring too? perish the thought! not so; but the explanation is easy. For the Son is the Father's Word and Wisdom; whence we learn the impassibility and indivisibility of such a generation from the Father [3628] . For not even man's word is part of him, nor proceeds from him according to passion [3629] ; much less God's Word; whom the Father has declared to be His own Son, lest, on the other hand, if we merely heard of Word,' we should suppose Him, such as is the word of man, impersonal; but that, hearing that He is Son, we may acknowledge Him to be living Word and substantive Wisdom.