Exposition of the Nicene Creed 1–13

The firmness and steadiness of your Christ-loving soul in the faith is in no way shaken, even if enemies sow the tares of unbelief over it. For you received the faith from your ancestors, and you have piety as the support of this life of yours; since this true faith has set the world right, and quenched error, and driven out demons, and shown a pious empire more brilliant in its trophies; and the experience of events has become a witness to what I say. For the most pious emperors have routed a good many usurpers, casting them down from afar by prayer; and they have often repelled the madness of barbarians, fortified by faith and by the piety of their ancestors. For since they hold the faith unmoved, God keeps their empire safe from plots; for just as an assault of barbarians is made against bodies, so the demon arms a war against souls, fighting the truth with words of deceit. The Lord indicated these things more gently and told them well to his own disciples in another way: he named the word of piety good seed, and called the teachings of unbelief sown over it tares; and he calls the teaching a heavenly farming, knowing the crop to be the piety of those who have believed genuinely. For a farmer does not so rejoice when he reaps sheaves as Christ is gladdened when he gathers genuine faith as fruit from the steadfast. For since he himself came out to sow the word, he says: “I came out from the Father, and I have come.” And “I came out” indicates the condescension of the Godhead, while “I have come” signifies his own appearing.

Next he also states the cause of his coming, saying: “The sower went out to sow.” And this good farmer sowed the good word of the right faith, showing himself to be God who became man for men's sake; not a mere man honoured by God, as some have supposed, but, as I said, God who chose fellowship with men. For this is the first honour and salvation of men: that God chose the things of man out of love for mankind. These things, then, he says about himself, showing himself both God and man: the one he is by his nature, the other he became out of love for mankind. For he came down to men, and for this reason became man, truly being this which he appeared to be; and he has remained what he was. He did not lay aside that when he became this; he did not change the Godhead, but took to himself the manhood from Mary; he did not cease to be what he was, but became what he was not. For the same one says both things about himself. He indicates that he is God, equal to his own Father, by the words “I and the Father are one,” and “He who has seen me has seen my Father”; and he shows himself to be man by the words “Why do you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you?” He does not indicate some other one by the divine properties and show another by the human sufferings; but he calls himself, one and the same, God, and shows himself to be man. For he was one and the same, being this and shown to be that. For he shows himself consubstantial with the Father and of equal honour with men: the one he is by nature, the other he chose out of love for mankind. For the manhood did not stand apart from the Godhead, as those who now divide Christ say, making the mystery a matter of a shared name and muddying the simplicity of our faith with the art of words, so that by words they may abolish the economy. For what was brought about by the economy, let them tell us, if then, as always, God was divided from man? But we speak of the economy of God and of his condescension through self-emptying: that God the Word himself became man, not changed in his nature, but working the union as a wonder. And this economy has surpassed every human account.

[Chapter 3] For this reason the great Paul too attaches human sufferings to God himself; not teaching a passible Godhead, but speaking of the good God's fellow-suffering with men, worked as a wonder. For God, having willed to suffer human things for men, and yet having a nature that does not admit sufferings, came down to be united to what can suffer, so that the union might make the suffering God's also, since the nature of God did not admit sufferings. And showing this, the great Paul said: “We proclaim the wisdom of God hidden in a mystery, which none of the rulers of this age has known; for if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” And yet the Lord of glory is impassible; but he accepted a cross, having united to himself what is able to suffer. The great Peter also recalled this when he healed the man lame from birth and was marvelled at, the Jews gazing intently at him and astonished at the miracle; answering them, he spoke thus: “Men of Israel, why do you marvel at this, or why do you gaze at us, as though by our own power or piety we had made him walk? The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus, whom you handed over and denied before the face of Pilate, when he had decided to release him. But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and you killed the Author of life.” And yet the Author of our life is immortal; but, united to what is mortal, he was killed, he says. For the union with God does not allow the sufferings to be confined to a man alone. For this reason he calls the only-begotten Son of God Jesus, showing that the name given at Mary's hands to that infant had become his; and he calls the same one both Jesus and Author of life, showing the same to be at once the maker of all things and a man who tasted death.

And so that you may not think of this one as one subject and that one as another, Paul, mingling the divine things with the human, says both about one and the same, showing God become man, and therefore the same one doing some things divinely and enduring others as man; God was not changed, nor did he falsify what appeared. For the union was a wonder beyond expectation; for if a confusion of natures had produced the union, what happened would have been no marvel; but as it is, it shows you a sign and a wonder. Do not, then, seek a reason for things that happened beyond reason and were worked as wonders by divine power, which took hold of the order of nature and surpassed the thoughts of men. For if you cannot give a reason for the birth according to the flesh (for that the same woman should be a virgin and become a mother the order of nature does not know, but the power of God decreed it; and all who boast of being Christians would agree with us on this), how do you seek by reasoning the unspeakable union of God with man? But I think the sensible man ought to know what he should inquire into concerning God and what he ought to believe. Whatever God works according to our nature may be inquired into and searched out by our thoughts; but whatever he works as a wonder beyond our reason and nature we ought to hold by faith, not inquire into with arguments. Such is this very matter now set before our discussion. God chose to suffer for men; he did what he willed. “For the Lord has done all things whatsoever he willed.” Not that he became passible in the divine nature (far from it!); but, being able to do what he willed, he chose birth from a virgin, since before this he had consented to become man. So he who chose our race did not refuse the birth. And signifying this, the great Paul says: “God sent forth his Son, born of a woman”; because grace made him who is and him who became one, God working a wonder, not exchanging natures.

Where now is the man who cries out: “My good sir, Mary did not give birth to God”? You are undoing, man, God's condescension toward men; for this is how God came down to men: that, being God by nature, he accepted birth for the salvation of men. Do you abolish the birth? Then you have undone the saving condescension. Do you set aside the grace? Then you have lost salvation. Are you ashamed of him who was born? Then the Lord Jesus will be ashamed of you in the kingdom of heaven. “For whoever is ashamed of me,” he says, “and of my words, I too will be ashamed of him before my Father who is in heaven.” And yet if it was not God who endured human things, but a manhood like ours stood apart from the Godhead, neither of the natures would have been producing shame. For the man would have been preaching virtue, and God healing diseases. What, then, was it that he said one must not be ashamed of, when the man had done nothing worthy of shame, nor had God accepted anything less than his own Godhead? But since, being God, he endured human things, he says, so that you may not reproach God with sufferings and be ashamed of the economy which he carried out out of love for mankind: “Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, I too will be ashamed of him in the kingdom of heaven.” Hearing these words, the great Paul cried out: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel.” For what shame does the gospel have, wonderful Paul? What do you suspect, that you say, “I am not ashamed of the gospel”? You preach virtue, you teach God's love for mankind, you heal the sick, you drive out the demons, you raise the dead. What then is it that you boast of when you say, “I am not ashamed”? I speak, he says, of God who suffered human things for men; which seems a shame to the many, but I am not ashamed. For I do not introduce a passible nature, but I teach God's love for mankind. “For we preach Christ crucified,” he says, “to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness.” And who is the Christ who was crucified? Tell us. “But to those who are called,” he says, “both Jews and Greeks, we preach Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” These things are thought foolishness by the Greeks; for when the Greeks hear of the wisdom of God crucified, they break into broad laughter, supposing that the believer speaks of a passible Godhead.

Do not, then, think God weak by attending to the sufferings; but consider the abundance of his power, who through a supposed weakness undid our weakness. “For the weakness of God is stronger than men,” Paul says. And what, then, is the weakness of God, unless one reckons that my weakness has become his? For how is the maker of the heavens weak? What weakness has he who created all things by a word? What sort of weakness belongs to God, who bound the earth within unseen limits? But since he who wished to dissolve our weaknesses has made my weakness his own, Paul says: “The weakness of God is stronger than men.” And since Paul also said, “The foolishness of God is wiser than men,” what would they call the foolishness of God, if not this which we say of God: that he who is impassible by nature accepted sufferings? This the Greeks judge foolish, not knowing how to believe the facts, but busying themselves over everything with their thoughts. But we call these things the power and abundance of God. But this, he says, which is judged foolish among the Greeks but believed as wisdom among us, has proved wiser than men. For the wickedness of men which the wisdom of the world did not undo, this supposed foolishness of God scattered; which to us is a matter of faith, but has been thought foolishness by Greeks and unbelievers. But we have the proof of our faith in the facts, reaping the benefit of the supposed weakness in God; for it healed our diseases. And the supposed foolishness of God conquered the wisdom of the world by piety. So do not condemn the suffering, nor slander what seems foolish to unbelievers; for these very things that the unbelievers speak of brought the economy to success. Why, then, do you seek a reason for God's wonders, and not attend to his achievements?

But some have given themselves over to the reasonings of unbelievers: they wish to be thought Christians, but are unwilling to believe the wonders of God. They say one Son, but think of two things signified by “Son”; they say one Christ, but make this title a shared name, in order to set man apart from God, and separate God the Word from man, and divide the union by which God, in his economy, opened heaven to men. For God's appearing on earth made men citizens of heaven. And they abolish the honour of our nature, wishing to set aside the fellowship of God with men that was brought about out of love for mankind. For if neither God shared in the affairs of men, as he both willed and as was possible, nor man was united to the Godhead, but each is divided from the other by its own properties and nature, what is the economy, let them tell us? What condescension of God will they speak of? Who emptied himself, being in the form of God? Who humbled himself, being in the eminence of the Godhead? Who became poor, being rich in Godhead? How has the Lord of glory been crucified, unless he had acquired a union with him who was nailed? And how did the Jews kill the Author of life, unless he is united in every respect to him who died, in no way standing apart? And how has the Son of Man come down from heaven, unless he is exactly united to him who came down, not so as to remain below, but so as to draw up with himself the one united to him who lay below? You do not go up with God, man, unless you confess God's condescension. One is he who came down, and so also he who went up, as Paul says; not one and another, but he is the same, no longer divided, no longer thought of as two after the union. For “He who came down,” he says, “is himself also he who went up far above men, that he might fill all things.” The things once regarded as two the economy has made one. So no longer say two after the indissoluble union. What grace has united, let thought not divide.

This the fathers too taught, having received the mystery of the economy from the apostles. This the three hundred and eighteen gathered at Nicaea decreed concerning the Only-begotten. Whoever says he obeys them while thinking of Christ as two fights against their meaning and has utterly denied their faith. For while all of them spoke of one Son, as of one Father, this man, holding that two are signified by the title “Son”, has denied the faith of those who spoke of one Son. But so that what has been said may become clearer, we will set out the very words of the Fathers, drawing their interpretation not from outside, but from what they themselves said. The exposition of their faith runs thus: “We believe in one God, Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father as only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came into being, both those in heaven and those on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh and became man, suffered, and rose on the third day, and went up into the heavens, and is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. But those who say, ‘There was once when he was not,’ and ‘Before he was begotten he was not,’ and that he came into being from things that are not, or who claim that the Son of God is of another hypostasis or substance, or changeable, or alterable, these the catholic and apostolic church anathematizes.” These words of the Fathers set out for us the faith concerning the Only-begotten like a rule, correcting every human notion. For as a rule corrects a mistaken perception about the straightness of a piece of wood, becoming the proof of its crookedness, so this statement corrects the thinking of men against notions that wish to distort our faith. Let us follow these, believing the words, not weaving problems. For they said, “We believe”; they do not offer demonstrations by arguments. Let us therefore also believe that what has been said is so, abstaining entirely from all curious inquiry. For we do not call to account what was believed by the Fathers; but we confess that these things were so brought about by God, faith confirming our understanding. So everyone who thinks otherwise than this exposition is a stranger to Christians, even if he seems to say something plausible about our faith. For not even among those outside does anyone demand a proof of the first principle of what he learns; he receives the principle from his teacher by faith, moving no argument against it.

Let this exposition of the Fathers, then, be the starting point of faith concerning the Only-begotten. For their inquiry concerned the Only-begotten: Arius then, as Nestorius now, had sown tares over the seed of piety and attempted to wound the glory of the Only-begotten, saying that the only-begotten is the Word of the Father, but falls short of the Master's dignity and glory. For this reason the Fathers, gathered then as now, made our piety a law, closing the ears of the simpler against all the sophisms about the Only-begotten. Therefore, though the inquiry set before them concerned the Only-begotten, the Fathers set out the rule of faith making their beginning from the Father: they place first the one Father of the Son, so that, as in the case of the … and yet there was never any inquiry about the God and Father. Why, then, did they make the beginning of the exposition from the Father, when there was no inquiry about him? But they said “Father” first because they were contriving something wise and great for the security of our faith. We shall come to know their wisdom by attending carefully to their words. “We believe in one God, Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible.” For who among those of sound mind, who use their thoughts according to nature, does not know this? It is clear to all; but the Fathers begin their statement thus, not to say what is known to all, but because, as they knew one Father, so they also knew one Lord Jesus Christ; … as you have conceived of “one God almighty”, so also concerning the only-begotten Son we shall conceive of one, nowhere thinking of two things signified by the title “Son”. For just as, having said one Father, they did not declare a double notion of him, so also, having said one Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, they do not wish him to be shown double in any way. For in the case of God neither does the title “Father” signify two, nor does the name “Son” indicate two things signified. Teaching this, then, the Fathers began from the teaching about the one Father and then added one only-begotten Son also, our Lord Jesus Christ, so that by the oneness of the Father we might grasp the notion of the one Son. … to those who have believed thus in one Lord Jesus Christ,

But he who wished to muddy the simplicity of our faith with imported arguments, and was checked by Christ, says that “Son” and “Christ” are a name common to several, opening by this a door to blasphemy against Christ; and he says that in the case of the Saviour these terms indicate two realities, saying of each that the name is one but the realities two: he says the naming is one, but posits two things signified. But if, sir, as you call the name of the Son one, so you also think of the reality signified as one, you speak of one Son and follow the Fathers. But if you say that the name “Son” is one, and posit the name “Christ” as one, but say that different substances are signified by this name, you do not agree with the Fathers in the way they believed in one God, Father almighty. For if their inquiry had been about a name, and they had said one Son, your sophism would have had room, positing the name as one but the things signified as several. But if they had little to say about names, and called the only-begotten Son one, why do you get tangled in a title, leaving aside what is indicated, and what they call one, attending to the reality, you set out as one name signifying several realities? For Nestorius too interpreted this expression of the Fathers about the Son, in the letter he wrote in reply to Cyril, archbishop of great Alexandria, who had spoken boldly about the doctrine of piety, had resolved to turn him from his error by letter, and had set out the faith of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers to shame him. Replying, Nestorius says this in these very words: “If you will lend me your ears for brotherly healing, I will set before you the very utterances of those holy men, freeing them from the slander against them, and against the divine Scriptures through them.” Then, quoting the expression of the Fathers, he says thus: “We believe, then, … also in the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Here at once observe a theft shamelessly dared. For since the Fathers, wishing the Son to be thought of as one, said, “We believe also in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God,” he steals the “one” from the Fathers' expression, so as to have room to gather two things signified by “Son”. But you have been caught, my good sir, removing what is crucial in our faith. For they did not say, “We believe also in the Lord Jesus Christ,” as you said by false reasoning; but having said, “We believe in one God, Father almighty,” they went on, “And in one Lord Jesus Christ.” You, however, removing the “one” said of the Son, open by this theft a door to error, so that you may be able to say that “Son” and “Christ” signify two things, the one possessing the honour by nature, the other by grace. And thus you may be able to turn Christians away from worshipping him who was crucified for us, as one honoured by God by grace beyond the others. For those who have what is by nature have no need of what is by grace from God. Hence it comes over me to marvel how Nestorius, having removed the crucial parts of the Fathers' exposition in order to construct these things, says that he agrees with the exposition of their faith. For if he agrees with what was said, let the more crucial part not be stolen; but if you remove from the exposition of the Fathers what most of all shows their faith, as hostile to your notions, how can you say you agree with those whom you do not wish to obey? But putting the dignity of the Fathers around your error as bait, by this you draw the simpler into deception, pretending to put forward an ancient faith, while turning this very faith aside to your error by thefts of words.

And since he also calls the name “Jesus” a title of the human nature alone (for the Virgin, he says, gave this name to the infant at the oracle of the angel who said, “You shall call his name Jesus”), and, turning this over constantly in his letter to the great and most holy bishop Cyril, he says, “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea,” and next, “Our Lord Jesus Christ was born,” and “They found Jesus in the midst of the teachers,” everywhere wishing the human nature to be called by the title “Jesus”: see how the [exposition] of the Fathers overturns this notion. For they declare that he who is signified as the Only-begotten from the Father is the same one; and they called him who was born one and consubstantial with the Father, and Jesus and Christ and Son of God, nowhere setting either apart from the other by their properties. For having said, “We believe also in one Lord Jesus Christ,” they added, “the Son of God”; and having said this, so that you may not think of this one as one and that one as another, “begotten from the Father as only-begotten”, clearly the same one, “that is, from the substance of the Father.” For even if they say something that we do not understand by nature, yet the union shows it to you to be true. Therefore they also said of the Son, “God from God, light from light, true God from true God, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came into being,” thinking of this one as that one, since that one, who was first, became this one. For this reason they use “Jesus” for the same one, knowing him to be both God the Word and become man.

Nestorius, however, despises Jesus as one nourished with milk, looks down on him as one who grew with time, and, as one who received circumcision, deprives him of the Godhead; he does not harm the dignity of his Godhead, but deprives himself of both glory and salvation. And saying these things, he says he takes courage from the exposition of the faith. But that is not how the Fathers at Nicaea insulted Jesus, my good sir; rather, they called him the only-begotten Son of God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, since the most exact union of the economy makes this one that one, for that one, who was first, became this one without change. For he was not changed in nature, but worked the union of the economy as a wonder. So, no longer thinking of two realities after the union of God with man, the Fathers rightly signify God the Word when they say Jesus, and, speaking against the theologian, they interpret the Jesus who was seen as the Word; not confusing the natures, but showing the union. For this reason the divine Scriptures say that Jesus, born of Mary, was begotten from God and not made, and that the Lord of glory was crucified, as Paul says: “For if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory,” so that you may in no way set the Lord of glory apart from him who was nailed to the wood. For the union brought it about that this Word, the impassible one, suffered the things of what is passible; for this is union: that the properties of the things united come together into one, so that both these things and those are said of the Son. For this reason the Apostle says: “The Lord of glory has been crucified.” And again he says to us: “One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things,” thinking of that one as Jesus, and calling this one God the Word, through whom all things came into being.