“And in one Lord Jesus Christ”

[ABOVE: Guillaume Chaudière, Origen—Andre Thevet, Histoire des plus ilustres et scavans hommes de leurs siecles, 1671. public domain, Wikimedia]


RATHER, therefore, as an act of the will proceeds from the understanding, and neither cuts off any part nor is separated or divided from it, so after some such fashion is the Father to be supposed as having begotten the Son, His own image; namely, so that, as He is Himself invisible by nature, He also begot an image that was invisible. For the Son is the Word, and therefore we are not to understand that anything in Him is cognizable by the senses. He is wisdom, and in wisdom there can be no suspicion of anything corporeal. He is the true light, which enlightens every man that comes into this world; but He has nothing in common with the light of this sun. 

Our Savior, therefore, is the image of the invisible God, inasmuch as compared with the Father Himself He is the truth: and as compared with us, to whom He reveals the Father, He is the image by which we come to the knowledge of the Father, whom no one knows save the Son, and he to whom the Son is pleased to reveal Him. —Origen, De Principiis (c. 220–230), chapter 2, translated by Frederick Crombie


 THE bishop [Alexander] greatly wastes and persecutes us, and leaves no stone unturned against us. He has driven us out of the city as atheists, because we do not concur in what he publicly preaches, namely, God always, the Son always; as the Father so the Son; the Son co-exists unbegotten with God; He is everlasting; neither by thought nor by any interval does God precede the Son; always God, always Son; he is begotten of the unbegotten; the Son is of God Himself. . . .

We say and believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that He does not derive His subsistence from any matter; but that by His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, He was not. For He was not unbegotten. —Arius, “Letter to Bishop Eusebius” (c. 318), preserved in book I, chapter 4 of the Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret (c. 450), translated by Blomfield Jackson


 NOW . . . it is an insane thing to think that the Son was made from things which are not, and was in being in time, the expression, “from things which are not,” itself shows, although these stupid men understand not the insanity of their own words. . . . [The Lord] concerning whom we thus believe, even as the Apostolic Church believes. In one Father unbegotten, who has from no one the cause of His being, who is unchangeable and immutable, who is always the same, and admits of no increase or diminution; who gave to us the Law, the prophets, and the Gospels; who is Lord of the patriarchs and apostles, and all the saints. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God; not begotten of things which are not, but of Him who is the Father; not in a corporeal manner, by excision or division as Sabellius and Valentinus thought, but in a certain inexplicable and unspeakable manner, according to the words of the prophet cited above: Who shall declare His generation? —Alexander of Alexandria, “Letter to Alexander of Constantinople” (324), translated by James B. H. Hawkins


 FOR who can even imagine that the radiance of light ever was not, so that he should dare to say that the Son was not always, or that the Son was not before His generation? Or who is capable of separating the radiance from the sun, or to conceive of the fountain as ever void of life, that he should madly say, “The Son is from nothing,” who says, “I am the life,” or “alien to the Father’s essence,” who, says, “He that has seen Me, has seen the Father?” For the sacred writers wishing us thus to understand, have given these illustrations; and it is unseemly and most irreligious, when Scripture contains such images, to form ideas concerning our Lord from others which are neither in Scripture, nor have any religious bearing. —Athanasius, De Decretis (c. 350–356), chapter 3, translated by John Henry Newman

By various ancient authors

[Christian History originally published this article in Christian History Issue #158 in 2026]

Next articles

Taking care of (church) business

The 20 canons of the council and other church issues

Paul L. Maier

Who came to the Council of Nicaea?

The council was overwhelmingly Eastern

D. H. Williams

Against the world and for the Trinity

We know almost nothing of Athanasius’s early life

Jennifer Woodruff Tait

CH 158 timeline: debating Jesus's divinity

Events that led to the Council of Nicaea and the controversies that came after

the editors
Show more
Subscribe to Christian History

Subscription to Christian History magazine is on a donation basis

Subscribe
Support us

Christian History Institute (CHI) is a non-profit Pennsylvania corporation founded in 1982. Your donations support the continuation of this ministry

Donate