DE SYNODIS -- COUNCILS OF ARIMINUM AND SELEUCIA (PARTS I, II & III)
DE SYNODIS
(Written 359, added to after 361.)
The de Synodis is the last of the great and important group of writings of
the third exile. With the exception of 30, 31, which were inserted at a later
recension after the death of Constantius (cf. Hist. At. 32 end), the work was
all written in 359, the year of the 'dated' creed ( 4 <greek>apo</greek>
<greek>ths</greek> <greek>nun</greek> <greek>upateias</greek>) and of the fateful
assemblies of Rimini and Seleucia. It was written moreover after the latter
council had broken up (Oct. 1), but before the news had reached Athanasius of the
Emperor's chilling reception of the Ariminian deputies, and of the protest of the
bishops against their long detention at that place. The documents connected
with the last named episode reached him only in time for his postscript ( 55).
Still less had he heard of the melancholy surrender of the deputies of Ariminum at
Nike on Oct. 10, or of the final catastrophe (cf. the allusion in the inserted
30, also Prolegg. ch. if. 8 (2) fin.).
The first part only (see Table infra) of the letter is devoted to the
history[1] of the twin councils. Athanasius is probably mistaken in ascribing the
movement for a great council to the Acacian or Homecan anxiety to eclipse and
finally set aside the Council of Nicaea. The Semi-Arians, who were ill at ease
and anxious to dissociate themselves from the growing danger of Anomceanism, and
who at this time had the ear of Constantius, were the persons who desired a
doctrinal settlement. It was the last effort of Eastern 'Conservatism' (yet see
Gwatkin, Studies, p. 163) to formulate a position which without admitting the
obnoxious <greek>omoousion</greek> should yet condemn Arianism, conciliate the
West, and restore peace to the Christian world. The failure of the attempt, gloomy
and ignominious as it was, was yet the beginning of the end, the necessary
precursor of the downfall of Arianism as a power within the Church. The cause of
this failure is to be found in the intrigues of the Homoeans, Valens in the
West, Eudoxius and Acacius in the East. Nicked was chosen by Constantius for the
venue of the great Synod. But Basil, then in high favour, suggested Nicomedia,
and thither the bishops were summoned. Before they could meet, the city was
destroyed by an earthquake, and the venue was changed to Nicked again. Now the
Homoeans saw their opportunity. Their one chance of escaping disaster was in the
principle 'divide et impera.' The Council was divided into two: the Westerns were
to meet at Ariminum, the Easterns at Seleucia in Cilicia, a place with nothing
to recommend it excepting the presence of a strong military force. Hence also
the conference of Homoecan and Semi-Arian bishops at Sirmium, who drew up in the
presence of Constantius, on Whirsun-Eve, the famous 'dated' or 'third Sirmian'
Creed. Its wording (<greek>omoion</greek> <greek>kata</greek>
<greek>panta</greek>) shows the predominant influence of the Semi-Arians, in spite of the
efforts of Valens to get rid of the test words, upon which the Emperor insisted.
Basil moreover issued a separate memorandum to explain the sense in which he
signed the creed, emphasising the absolute likeness of the Son to the Father
(Bright, Introd., lxxxiii., Gwatkin, pp. 168 sq.), and accepting the Nicene doctrine
in everything but the name. But for all Basil might say, the Dated Creed by the
use of the word <greek>omoion</greek> had opened the door to any evasion that
an Arian could desire: for <greek>omoion</greek> is a relative term admitting of
degrees: what is only 'like' is ipso facto to some extent unlike (see below,
53). The party of Basil, then, entered upon the decisive contest already
outmanoeauvred, and doomed to failure. The events which followed are described by
Athanasius ( 8--12). At Ariminum the Nicene, at Seleucia the Semi-Arian cause
carried all before it. The Dated Creed, rejected with scorn at Ariminum, was
unsuccessfully propounded in an altered form by Acacius at Seleucia. The rupture
between Homoeans and Semi-Arians was complete. So far only does Athanasius carry
his account of the Synods: at this point he steps in with a fresh blow at the
link which united Eastern Conservatism with the mixed multitude of original Arians
like Euzoius and Valens, ultra Arians like Aetius and Eunomius, and Arianising
opportunists like Acacius, Eudoxius, and their tribe. In the latter he
recognises deadly foes who are to be confuted and exposed without any thought of
compromise; in the former, brethren who misunderstand their own position, and whom
explanation will surely bring round to their natural allies. In this twofold aim
the de Synodis stands in the lines of the great anti-Arian discourses (supra,
p. 304). But with the eye of a general Athanasius suits his attack to the new
position. With the Arians, he has done with theological argument; he points
indignantly to their intrigues and their brow-beating, to their lack of consistent
principle, their endless synods and formularies ( 21-32); concisely he exposes
the hollowness of their objection to the Nicene formula, the real logical basis
upon which their position rests ( 33-40, see Bright, xc.-xcii.). But to the
Semi-Arians he turns with a serious and carefully stated vindication of the
<greek>omoousion</greek>. The time has come to press it earnestly upon them as the
only adequate expression of what they really mean, as the only rampart which can
withstand the Arian invasion. This, the last portion ( 41-54) of the letter,
is the raison d'etre of the whole: the account of the Synods is merely a means
to this end, not his main purpose; the exposure of Arian principles and of Arian
variations subserves the ultimate aim of detaching from them those of whom
Athanasius was now hoping better things. It may be said that he over-rated the
hopefulness of affairs as far as the immediate future was concerned. The weak
acceptance by the Seleucian majority (or rather by their delegates) of the Arian
creed of Nike, the triumph of Acacius, Eudoxius and their party as Constantius
drifted in the last two years of his life nearer and nearer to ultra-Arianism (de
Syn. 30, 31, his rupture with Basil, Theodt. ii. 27), the ascendancy of
Arianism under Valens, and the eventual consolidation of a Semi-Arian sect under the
name of Macedonius, all this at the first glance is a sad commentary upon the
hopefulness of the de Synodis. But(1) even if this were all the truth,
Athanasius was right: he was acting a noble part In the de Synodis 'even Athanasius
rises above himself.' Driven to bay by the pertinacity of his enemies, exasperated
as we see him in the de Fuga and Arian History, 'yet no sooner is he cheered
with the news of hope than the importunate jealousies of forty years are hushed
(contrast Ep. AEg. 7) in a moment, as though the Lord had spoken peace to the
tumult of the grey old exile's troubled soul' (Gwatkin, Studies, p. 176, Arian
Controv., p. 98). The charity that hopeth all things is always justified of her
works.(2) Athanasius, however, was right in his estimate of the position. Not
only did many of the Semi-Arians (e.g. the fifty-nine in 365) accept the
<greek>omoousion</greek>, but it was from the ranks of the Semi-Arians that the men
arose who led the cause of Nicaea to its ultimate victory in the East. There
accompanied Basil of Ancyra from the Seleucian Synod to Constantinople a young
deacon and ascetic, who read and welcomed the appeal of Athanasius. Writing a few
months later, this young theologian, Basil of Caesarea, adopts the words of the
de Synodis: 'one God we confess, one in nature not in number, for number belongs
to the category of quantity, ... neither Like nor Unlike, for these terms
belong to the category of quality (cf. below, 53) ... He that is essentially God
is Coessential with Him that is essentially God. ... If I am to state my own
opinion, I accept "Like in essence" with the addition of "exactly" as identical in
sense with "Coessential" ... but "exactly like" [without "essence"] I suspect.
... Accordingly since "Coessential" is the term less open to abuse, on this
ground I too adopt it' (Epp. 8, 9, the Greek in Gwatkin, Studies, p. 242)(2).
Basil the Great is, not indeed the only, but the conspicuous and abundant
justification of the insight of Athanasius in the de Synodis.
Turning to subordinate parts of the Letter, we may note the somewhat
unfair use made of the unlucky blunder of the Dated Creed, as though its compilers
thereby admitted that their faith had no earlier origin. The dating of the creed
was doubtless 'an offence against good taste as well as ecclesiastical
propriety' (as sad a blunder in its way as Macaulay's celebrated letter to his
constituents from 'Windsor Castle'), and it was only in human nature to make the most
of it. More serious is the objection taken to the revolting title
A<greek>ugoustou</greek> <greek>tou</greek> <greek>aiwniou</greek> (which set a bad
precedent for later times, Bright, lxxxiv, note 4) in contrast to the denial of the
eternity of the Son. At any rate, lending itself as it did to such obvious
criticisms, we are not surprised to read ( 29) that the copies of the creed were
hastily called in and a fresh recension substituted for it.
Lastly it must be remembered that Athanasius does not aim at giving a
complete catalogue of Arian or Arianising creeds, any more than at giving a full
history of the double council. Accordingly we miss(1) the confession of Arius and
Euzoius, presented to Constantine in 330;(2) The confession(4) 'colourless in
wording, but heterodox in aim,' drawn up at Sirmium(3) against Photinus in 347
(Hil. Fragm. 2. 21 sq. Hefele, vol. i. p. 192);(3) The formulary propounded by
the Emperor at Milan in 355 (Hil. Syn. 78);(4) The confession of the council of
Ancyra(4), 358, alluded to 41, see n. 9);(5) The Anomoean Ecthesis of
Eudoxius and Aetius, Constantinople 359 (Thdt. H.E. ii. 27).
In the de Synodis we have a worthy conclusion of the anti-Arian writings
which are the legacy and the record of the most stirring and eventful period of
the noble life of our great bishop.
The translation of this tract by Newman has been more closely revised than
those of the 'de Decretis' and the first three 'Discourses,' as it appeared
somewhat less exact in places. In 10, 11, the Athanasian version has been
followed, as, inaccurate as the version certainly is in places, this seemed more
suitable to an edition of Athanasius; moreover, it appears to preserve some more
original readings than the Hilarian text. The notes have been curtailed to some
extent, especially those containing purely historical matter.
COUNCILS OF ARIMINUM AND SELEUCIA
PART I. HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
Reason why two Councils were called. Inconsistency and folly of calling any;
and of the style of the Arian formularies; occasion of the Nicene Council;
proceedings at Ariminum; Letter of the Council to Constantius; its decree.
Proceedings at Seleucia; reflections on the conduct of the Arians.
1. PERHAPS news has reached even yourselves concerning the Council, which
is at this time the subject of general conversation; for letters both from the
Emperor and the Prefects(1) were circulated far and wide for its convocation.
However, you take that interest in the events which have occurred, that I have
determined upon giving you an account of what I have seen myself, and accurately
ascertained, which may save you from the suspense attendant on the reports of
others; and this the more, because there are parties who are in the habit of
misrepresenting what has happened. At Nicaea then, which had been fixed upon, the
Council has not met, but a second edict was issued, convening the Western
Bishops at Ariminum in Italy, and the Eastern at Seleucia the Rugged, as it is
called, in Isauria. The professed reason of such a meeting was to treat of the
faith touching our Lord Jesus Christ; and those who alleged it, were Ursacius,
Valens, and one Germinius(2) from Pannonia; and from Syria, Acacius, Eudoxius, and
Patrophilus(3) of Scythopolis. These men who had always been of the Arian
party, and 'understood neither how they believe or whereof they affirm,' and were
silently deceiving first one and then another, and scattering the second
sowing(4) of their heresy, influenced some who seemed to be somewhat, and the Emperor
Constantius among them, being a heretic(5), on some pretence about the Faith, to
call a Council; under the idea that they should be able to put into the shade
the Nicene Council, and prevail upon all to turn round, and to establish
irreligion everywhere instead of the Truth.
2. Now here I marvel first, and think that I shall carry every sensible
man whatever with me, that, whereas a General Council had been fixed, and all
were looking forward to it, it was all of a sudden divided into two, so that one
part met here, and the other there. However, this was surely the doing of
Providence, in order in the respective Councils to exhibit the faith without guile or
corruption of the one party, and to expose the dishonesty and duplicity of the
other. Next, this too was on the mind of myself and my true brethren here, and
made us anxious, the impropriety of this great gathering which we saw in
progress; for what pressed so much, that the whole world was to be put in confusion,
and those who at the time bore the profession of clergy, should run about far
and near, seeking how best to learn to believe in our Lord Jesus Christ?
Certainly if they were believers already, they would not have been seeking, as though
they were not. And to the catechumens, this was no small scandal; but to the
heathen, it was something more than common, and even furnished broad
merriment(1), that Christians, as if waking out of sleep at this time of day, should be
enquiring how they were to believe concerning Christ; while their professed
clergy, though claiming deference from their flocks, as teachers, were unbelievers
on their own shewing, in that they were seeking what they had not. And the party
of Ursacius, who were at the bottom of all this, did not understand what wrath
they were storing up (Rom. ii. 5) against themselves, as our Lord says by His
saints, 'Woe unto them, through whom My Name is blasphemed among the Gentiles'
(Is. lii. 5; Rom. ii. 24); and by His own mouth in the Gospels (Matt. xviii.
6), 'Whoso shall offend one of these little ones, it were better for him that a
millstone were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the depth of
the sea, than,' as Luke adds, 'that he should offend one of these little ones'
(Luke xvii. 2).
3. What defect of teaching was there for religious truth in the Catholic
Church(2), that they should enquire concerning faith now, and should prefix this
year's Consulate to their profession of faith? For Ursacius and Valens and
Germinius and their friends have done what never took place, never was heard of
among Christians. After putting into writing what it pleased them to believe,
they prefix to it the Consulate, and the month and the day of the current year(3);
thereby to shew all sensible men, that their faith dates, not from of old, but
now, from the reign of Constantius(4); for whatever they write has a view to
their own heresy. Moreover, though pretending to write about the Lord, they
nominate another master for themselves, Constantius, who has bestowed on them this
reign of irreligion(5); and they who deny that the Son is everlasting, have
called him Eternal Emperor; such foes of Christ are they in addition to
irreligion. But perhaps the dates in the holy Prophets form their excuse for the
Consulate; so bold a pretence, however, will serve but to publish more fully their
ignorance of the subject. For the prophecies of the saints do indeed specify their
times (for instance, Isaiah and Hosea lived in the days of Uzziah, Jotham,
Ahaz, and Hezekiah; Jeremiah in the days of Josiah; Ezekiel and Daniel prophesied
under Cyrus and Darius; and others in other times); yet they were not laying the
foundations of divine religion; it was before them, and was always, for before
the foundation of the world God prepared it for us in Christ. Nor were they,
signifying the respective dates of their own faith; for they had been believers
before these dates. But the dates did but belong to their own preaching. And
this preaching spoke beforehand of the Saviour's coming, but directly of what was
to happen to israel and the nations; and the dates denoted not the
commencement of faith, as I said before, but of the prophets themselves, that is, when it
was they thus prophesied. But our modern sages, not in historical narration,
nor in prediction of the future, but, after writing, 'The Catholic Faith was
published,' immediately add the Consulate and the month and the day, that, as the
saints specified the dates of their histories, and of their own ministries, so
these may mark the date of their own faith. And would that they had written,
touching 'their own(6)' (for it does date from today); and had not made their
essay as touching 'the Catholic,' for they did not write, 'Thus we believe,' but
'the Catholic Faith was published.'
4. The boldness then of their design shews how little they understand the
subject; while the novelty of their phrase matches the Arian heresy. For thus
they shew, when it was they began their own faith, and that from that same time
present they would have it proclaimed. And as according to the Evangelist Luke,
there 'was made a decree' (Luke ii. 1) concerning the taxing, and this decree
before was not, but began from those days in which it was made by its framer,
they also in like manner, by writing, 'The Faith is now published,' shewed that
the sentiments of their heresy are novel, and were not before. But if they add
'of the Catholic Faith,' they fall before they know it into the extravagance of
the Phrygians, and say with them, 'To us first was revealed,' and 'from us
dates the Faith of Christians.' And as those inscribe it with the names of
Maximilla and Montanus(7), so do these with 'Constantius, Master,' instead of Christ.
If, however, as they would have it, the faith dates from the present Consulate,
what will the Fathers do, and the blessed Martyrs? nay, what will they
themselves do with their own catechumens, who departed to rest before this Consulate?
how will they wake them up, that so they may obliterate their former lessons,
and may sow in turn the seeming discoveries which they have now put into
writing(8)? So ignorant they are on the subject; with no knowledge but that of making
excuses, and those unbecoming and unplausible, and carrying with them their own
refutation.
5. As to the Nicene Council, it was not a common meeting, but convened
upon a pressing necessity, and for a reasonable object. The Syrians, Cilicians,
and Mesopotamians, were out of order in celebrating the Feast, and kept Easter
with the Jews(9); on the other hand, the Arian heresy had risen up against the
Catholic Church, and found supporters in Eusebius and his fellows, who were both
zealous for the heresy, and conducted the attack upon religious people. This
gave occasion for an Ecumenical Council, that the feast might be everywhere
celebrated on one day, and that the heresy which was springing up might be
anathematized. It took place then; and the Syrians submitted, and the Fathers pronounced
the Arian heresy to be the forerunner of Antichrist(10), and drew up a
suitable formula against it. And yet in this, many as they are, they ventured on
nothing like the proceedings(11) of these three or four men(12). Without pre-fixing
Consulate, month, and day, they wrote concerning Easter, 'It seemed good as
follows,' for it did then seem good that there should be a general compliance; but
about the faith they wrote not, 'It seemed good,' but, 'Thus believes the
Catholic Church;' and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to shew
that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolical; and what they wrote
down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles.
6. But the Councils which they are now setting in motion, what colourable
pretext have they(1)? If any new heresy has risen since the Arian, let them
tell us the positions which it has devised, and who are its inventors? and in
their own formula, let them anathematize the heresies antecedent to this Council of
theirs, among which is the Arian, as the Nicene Fathers did, that it may
appear that they too have some cogent reason for saying what is novel. But if no
such event has happened, and they have it not to shew, but rather they themselves
are uttering heresies, as holding Arius's irreligion, and are exposed day by
day, and day by day shift their ground(2), what need is there of Councils, when
the Nicest is sufficient, as against the Arian heresy, so against the rest,
which it has condemned one and all by means of the sound faith? For even the
notorious Aetius, who was surnamed godless(3), vaunts not of the discovering of any
mania of his own, but under stress of weather has been wrecked upon Arianism,
himself and the persons whom he has beguiled. Vainly then do they run about with
the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine
Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the
point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not
neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading
their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ
announced in divine Scripture(4).
7. Having therefore no reason on their side, but being in difficulty
whichever way they turn, in spite of their pretences, they have nothing left but to
say; 'Forasmuch as we contradict our predecessors, and transgress the
traditions of the Fathers, therefore we have thought good that a Council should meet(5);
but again, whereas we fear lest, should it meet at one place, our pains will
be thrown away, therefore we have thought good that it be divided into two; that
so when we put forth our documents to these separate portions, we may
overreach with more effect, with the threat of Constantius the patron of this
irreligion, and may supersede the acts of Nicaea, under pretence of the simplicity of
our own documents.' If they have not put this into words, yet this is the meaning
of their deeds and their disturbances. Certainly, many and frequent as have
been their speeches and writings in various Councils, never yet have they made
mention of the Arian heresy as objectionable; but, if any present happened to
accuse the heresies, they always took up the defence of the Arian, which the
Nicene Council had anathematized; nay, rather, they cordially welcomed the
professors of Arianism. This then is in itself a strong argument, that the aim of the
present Councils was not truth, but the annulling of the acts of Nicaea; but the
proceedings of them and their friends in the Councils themselves, make it
equally clear that this was the case:--For now we must relate everything as it
occurred.
8. When all were in expectation that they were to assemble in one place,
whom the Emperor's letters convoked, and to form one Council, they were divided
into two; and, while some betook themselves to Seleucia called the Rugged, the
others met at Ariminum, to the number of those four hundred bishops and more,
among whom were Germinius, Auxentius, Valens, Ursacius, Demophilus, and
Gains(6). And, while the whole assembly was discussing the matter from the Divine
Scriptures, these men produced(7) a paper, and, reading out the Consulate, they
demanded that it should be preferred to every Council, and that no questions should
be put to the heretics beyond it, nor inquiry made into their meaning, but
that it should be sufficient by itself;--and what they had written ran as
follows:--
The Catholic Faith[8] was published in the presence of our Master the most
religious and gloriously victorious Emperor, Constantius, Augustus, the
eternal and august, in the Consulate of the most illustrious Flavii, Eusebius and
Hypatius, in Sirmium on the 11th of the Calends of June 9.
We believe in one Only and True God, the Father Almighty, Creator and
Framer of all things:
And in one Only-begotten Son of God, who, before all ages, and before all
origin, and before all conceivable time, and before all comprehensible essence,
was begotten impassibly from God: through whom the ages were disposed and all
things were made; and Him begotten as the Only-begotten, Only from the Only
Father, God from God, like to the Father who begat Him, according to the
Scriptures; whose origin no one knoweth save the Father alone who begat Him. We know
that He, the Only-begotten Son of God, at the Father's bidding came from the
heavens for the abolishment of sin, and was born of the Virgin Mary, and conversed
with the disciples, and fulfilled the Economy according to the Father's will,
and was crucified, and died and descended into the parts beneath the earth, and
regulated the things there, Whom the gate-keepers of hell saw (Job xxxviii. 17,
LXX.) and shuddered; and He rose from the dead the third day, and conversed
with the disciples, and fulfilled all the Economy, and when the forty days were
full, ascended into the heavens, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and
is coming in the last day of the resurrection in the glory of the Father, to
render to every one according to his works.
And in the Holy Ghost, whom the Only-begotten of God Himself, Jesus
Christ, had promised to send to the race of men, the Paraclete, as it is written, 'I
go to My Father, and I will ask the Father, and He shall send unto you another
Paraclete, even the Spirit of Truth He shall take of Mine and shall teach and
bring to your remembrance all things' (Job. xiv. 16, 17, 26; xvi. 14).
But whereas the term 'essence,' has been adopted the Fathers in
simplicity, and gives offence as being misconceived by the people, and is not contained
in the Scriptures, it has seemed good to remove it, that it be never in any case
used of God again, because the divine Scriptures nowhere use it of Father and
Son. But we say that the Son is like the Father in all things, as also the Holy
Scriptures say and teach(1).
9. When this had been read, the dishonesty of its framers was soon
apparent. For on the Bishops proposing that the Arian heresy should be anathematized
together with the other heresies too, and all assenting, Ursacius and Valens and
those with them refused; till in the event the Fathers condemned them, on the
ground that their confession had been written, not in sincerity, but for the
annulling of the acts of Nicaea, and the introduction instead of their unhappy
heresy. Marvelling then at the deceitfulness of their language and their
unprincipled intentions, the Bishops said: 'Not as if in need of faith have we come
hither; for we have within us faith, and that in soundness: but that we may put to
shame those who gainsay the truth and attempt novelties. If then ye have drawn
up this formula, as if now beginning to believe, ye are not so much as clergy,
but are starting with school; but if you meet us with the same views with
which we have come hither, let there be a general unanimity, and let us
anathematize the heresies, and preserve the teaching of the Fathers. Thus pleas for
Councils will not longer circulate about, the Bishops at Nicaea having anticipated
them once for all, and done all that was needful for the Catholic Church(2).'
However, even then, in spite of this general agreement of the Bishops, still the
above-mentioned refused. So at length the whole Council, condemning them as
ignorant and deceitful men, or rather as heretics, gave their suffrages in behalf
of the Nicene Council, and gave judgment all of them that it was enough; but as
to the forenamed Ursacius and Valens, Germinius, Auxentius, Gaius, and
Demophilus, they pronounced them to be heretics, deposed them as not really Christians,
but Arians, and wrote against them in Latin what has been translated in its
substance into Greek, thus:--
10. Copy of an Epistle from the Council to Constantius Augustus(3).
We believe that what was formerly decreed was brought about both by God's
command and by order of your piety. For we the bishops, from all the Western
cities, assembled together at Ariminum, both that the Faith of the Catholic
Church might be made known, and that gainsayers might be detected. For, as we have
found after long deliberation, it appeared desirable to adhere to and maintain
to the end, that faith which, enduring from antiquity, we have received as
preached by the prophets, the Gospels, and the Apostles through our Lord Jesus
Christ, Who is Keeper of your Kingdom and Patron of your power. For it appeared
wrong and unlawful to make any change in what was rightly and justly defined, and
what was resolved upon in common at Nicaea along with the Emperor your father,
the most glorious Constantine,--the doctrine and spirit of which [definition]
went abroad and was proclaimed in the hearing and understanding of all men. For
it alone was the conqueror and destroyer of the heresy of Arius, by which not
that only but the other heresies(4) also were destroyed, to which of a truth it
is perilous to add, and full of danger to minish aught from it, since if either
be done, our enemies will be able with impunity to do whatever they will.
Accordingly Ursacius and Valens, since they had been from of old abettors and
sympathisers of the Arian dogma, were properly declared separate from our communion,
to be admitted to which they asked to be allowed a place of repentance and
pardon for the transgressions of which they were conscious, as the documents drawn
up by them testify. By which means forgiveness and pardon on all charges has
been obtained. Now the time of these transactions was when the council was
assembled at Milan(4a), the presbyters of the Roman Church being also present. But
knowing at the same time that Constantine of worthy memory had with all accuracy
and deliberation published the Faith then drawn up; when he had been baptized
by the hands of men, and had departed to the place which was his due, [we think
it] unseemly to make a subsequent innovation and to despise so many saints,
confessors, martyrs, who compiled and drew up this decree; who moreover have
continued to hold in all matters according to the ancient law Church; whose faith
God has imparted even to the times of your reign through our Master Jesus Christ,
through whom also it is yours to reign and rule over the world in our day(5).
Once more then the pitiful men of wretched mind with lawless daring have
announced themselves as the heralds of an impious opinion, and are attempting to
upset every summary of truth. For when according to your command the synod met,
those men laid bare the design of their own deceitfulness. For they attempted in a
certain unscrupulous and disorderly manner to propose to us an innovation,
having found as accomplices in this plot Germinius, Auxentius(5a), and Gaius, the
stirrers up of strife and discord, whose teaching by itself has gone beyond
every pitch of blasphemy. But when they perceived that we did not share their
purpose, nor agree with their evil mind, they transferred themselves to our
council, alleging that it might be advisable to compile something instead. But a
short time was enough to expose their plans. And lest the Churches should have a
recurrence of these disturbances, and a whirl of discord and confusion throw
everything into disorder, it seemed good to keep undisturbed the ancient and
reasonable institutions, and that the above persons should be separated from our
communion. For the information therefore of your clemency, we have instructed our
legates to acquaint you with the judgment of the Council by our letter, to whom
we have given this special direction, to establish the truth by resting their
case upon the ancient and just decrees; and they will also assure your piety
that peace would not be accomplished by the removal of those decrees as Valens and
Ursacius alleged. For how is it possible for peace-breakers to bring peace? on
the contrary, by their means strife and confusion will arise not only in the
other cities, but also in the Church of the Romans. On this account we ask your
clemency to regard our legates with favourable ears and a serene countenance
and not to suffer aught to be abrogated to the of the dead; but allow us to abide
by what has been defined and laid down by our forefathers, who, we venture to
say, we trust in all things acted with prudence and wisdom and the Holy Spirit;
because by these novelties not only are the faithful made to disbelieve, but
the infidels also are embittered(5b). We pray also that you would give orders
that so many Bishops who are detained abroad, among whom are numbers who are
broken with age and poverty, may be enabled to return to their own country, lest
the Churches suffer, as being deprived of their Bishops. This, however, we ask
with earnestness, that nothing be innovated upon existing creeds, nothing
withdrawn; but that all remain incorrupt which has continued in the times of your
Father's piety and to the present time; and that you will not permit us to be
harassed, and estranged from our sees; but that the Bishops may in quiet give
themselves always to prayers and worship, which they do always offer for your own
safety and for your reign, and for peace, which may the Divinity bestow on you
for ever. But our legates are conveying the subscriptions and titles of the
Bishops, and will also inform your piety from the Holy Scriptures themselves.
11. Decree of the Council(6).
As far as it was fitting and possible, dearest brethren, the general
Council and the holy Church have had patience, and have generously displayed the
Church's forbearance towards Ursacius and Valens, Gaius, Germinius, and Auxentius;
who by so often changing what they had believed, have troubled all the
Churches, and still are endeavouring to foist their heretical spirit upon the faith of
the orthodox. For they wish to annul the formulary passed at Nicaea, which was
framed against the Arian heresy. They have presented to us besides a creed
drawn up by themselves from without, and utterly alien to the most holy Church;
which we could not lawfully receive. Even before this, and now, have they been
pronounced heretics and gainsayers by us, whom we have not admitted to our
communion, but condemned and deposed them in their presence by our voices. Now then,
what seems good to you, again declare, that each one's vote may be ratified by
his subscription.
The Bishops answered with one accord, It seems good that the aforenamed
heretics should be condemned, that the Catholic faith may remain in peace.
Matters at Ariminum then had this speedy issue; for there was no
disagreement there, but all of them with one accord both put into writing what they
decided upon, and deposed the Arians(7).
12. Meanwhile the transactions in Seleucia the Rugged were as follows: it
was in the month called by the Romans September, by the Egyptians Thoth, and by
the Macedonians Gorpi'us, and the day of the month according to the Egyptians
the 16th(8), upon which all the members of the Council assembled together. And
there were present about a hundred and sixty; and whereas there were many who
were accused among them, and their accusers were crying out against them,
Acacius, and Patrophilus, and Uranius of Tyre, and Eudoxius, who usurped the Church
of Antioch, and Leontius(8a), and Theodotus(8b), and Evagrius, and Theodulus,
and George who has been driven from the whole world(9), adopt an unprincipled
course. Fearing the proofs which their accusers had to shew against them, they
coalesced with the rest of the Arian party(who were mercenaries in the cause of
irreligion for this purpose, and were ordained by Secundus, who had been deposed
by the great Council), the Libyan Stephen, and Seras, and Polydeuces, who were
under accusation upon various charges, next Pancratius, and one Ptolemy a
Meletian(10). And they made a pretence(11) of entering upon the question of faith,
but it was clear they were doing so from fear of their accusers; and they took
the part of the heresy, till at length they were divided among themselves. For,
whereas those with Acacius and his fellows lay under suspicion and were very
few, the others were the majority; therefore Acacius and his fellows, acting with
the boldness of desperation, altogether denied the Nicene formula, and
censured the Council, while the others, who were the majority, accepted the whole
proceedings of the Council, except that they complained of the word 'Coessential,'
as obscure and so open to suspicion. When then time passed, and the accusers
pressed, and the accused put in pleas, and thereby were led on further by their
irreligion and blasphemed the Lord thereupon the majority of Bishops became
indignant(12), and deposed Acacius, Patrophilus, Uranius, Eudoxius, and George the
contractor(1), and others from Asia, Leontius, and Theodosius, Evagrius and
Theodulus, and excommunicated Asterius, Eusebius, Augarus, Basilicus, Phoebus,
Fidelius, Eutychius, and Magnus. And this they did on their non-appearance, when
summoned to defend themselves on charges which numbers preferred against them.
And they decreed that so they should remain, until they made their defence and
cleared themselves of the offences imputed to them And after despatching the
sentence pronounced against them to the diocese of each, they proceeded to
Constantius, the most irreligious(2) Augustus, to report to him their proceedings, as
they had been ordered. And this was the termination of the Council in Seleucia.
13. Who then but must approve of the conscientious conduct of the Bishops
at Ariminum? who endured such labour of journey and perils of sea, that by a
sacred and canonical resolution they might depose the Arians, and guard inviolate
the definitions of the Fathers. For each of them deemed that, if they undid
the acts of their predecessors, they were affording a pretext to their successors
to undo what they themselves then were enacting(3). And who but must condemn
the fickleness of Eudoxius, Acacius, and their fellows, who sacrifice the honour
due to their own fathers to partizanship and patronage of the Ariomaniacs(4)?
for what confidence can be placed in their acts, if the acts of their fathers
be undone? or how call they them fathers and themselves successors, if they set
about impeaching their judgment? and especially what can Acacius say of his own
master, Eusebius, who not only gave his subscription in the Nicene Council,
but even in a letters signified to his flock, that that was true faith, which the
Council had declared? for, if he explained himself in that letter in his own
way(6), yet he did not contradict the Council's terms, but even charged it upon
the Arians, that their position that the Son was not before His generation, was
not even consistent with His being before Mary. What then will they proceed to
teach the people who are under their teaching? that the Fathers erred? and how
are they themselves to be trusted by those, whom they teach to disobey their
Teachers? and with what eyes too will they look upon the sepulchres of the
Fathers whom they now name heretics? And why do they defame the Valentinians,
Phrygians, and Manichees, yet give the name of saint to those whom they themselves
suspect of making parallel statements? or how can they any longer be Bishops, if
they were ordained by persons whom they accuse of heresy(7)? But if their
sentiments were wrong and their writings sedated the world, then let their memory
perish altogether; when, however, you east out their books, go and east out their
remains too from the cemeteries, so that one and all may know that they are
seducers, and that you are parricides.
14. The blessed Apostle approves of the Corinthians because, he says, 'ye
remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you'
(1 Cor. xi. 2); but they, as entertaining such views of their predecessors,
will have the daring to say just the reverse to their flocks: 'We praise you not
for remembering your fathers, but rather we make much of you, when you hold not
their traditions.' And let them go on to accuse their own unfortunate birth,
and say, 'We are sprung not of religious men but of heretics.' For such language,
as I said before, is consistent in those who barter their Fathers' fame and
their own salvation for Arianism, and fear not the words of the divine proverb,
'There is a generation that curseth their father' (Prov. xxx. 11; Ex. xxi. 17),
and the threat lying in the Law against such. They then, from zeal for the
heresy, are of this obstinate temper; you, however, be not troubled at it, nor take
their audacity for truth. For they dissent from each other, and, whereas they
have revolted from their Fathers, are not of one and the same mind, but float
about with various and discordant changes. And, as quarrelling with the Council
of Nicaea, they have held many Councils themselves, and have published a faith
in each of them, and have stood to none(8), nay, they will never do otherwise,
for perversely seeking, they will never find that Wisdom which they hate. I
have accordingly subjoined portions both of Arius's writings and of whatever else
I could collect, of their publications in different Councils; whereby you will
learn to your surprise with what object they stand out against an Ecumenical
Council and their own Fathers without blushing.
PART II. HISTORY OF ARIAN OPINIONS.
Arius's own sentiments; his Thalia and Letter to S. Alexander; corrections by
Eusebius and others; extracts from the works of Asterius; letter of the Council
of Jerusalem; first Creed of Arians at the Dedication of Antioch; second,
Lucian's on the same occasion; third, by Theophronius; fourth, sent to Constans in
Gaul; fifth, the Macrostich sent into Italy; sixth, at Sirmium; seventh, at the
same place; and eighth also, as given above in 8; ninth, at Seleucia; tenth,
at Constantinople; eleventh, at Antioch.
15. Arius and those with him thought and professed thus: 'God made the Son
out of nothing, and called Him His Son;Word of God is one of the creatures;'
and 'Once He was not;' and 'He is alterable; capable, when it is His Will, of
altering.' Accordingly they were expelled from the Church by the blessed
Alexander. However, after his expulsion, when he was with Eusebius and his fellows, he
drew up his heresy upon paper, and imitating in the Thalia no grave writer, but
the Egyptian Sotades, in the dissolute tone of his metre(1), he writes at great
length, for instance as follows:--
Blasphemies of Arius.
God Himself then, in His own nature, is ineffable by all men. Equal or
like Himself He alone has none, or one in glory. And Ingenerate we call Him,
because of Him who is generate by nature. We praise Him as without beginning because
of Him who has a beginning. And adore Him as everlasting, because of Him who
in time has come to he. The Unbegun made the Son a beginning of things
originated; and advanced Him as a Son to Himself by adoption. He has nothing proper to
God in proper subsistence. For He is not equal, no, nor one in essence(2) with
Him. Wise is God, for He is the teacher of Wisdom(3). There is full proof that
God is invisible to all beings; both to things which are through the Son, and to
the Son He is invisible. I will say it expressly, how by the Son is seen the
Invisible; by that power by which God sees, and in His own measure, the Son
endures to see the Father, as is lawful. Thus there is a Triad, not in equal
glories. Not intermingling with each other(4) are their subsistences. One more
glorious than the other in their glories unto immensity. Foreign from the Son in
essence is the Father, for He is without beginning. Understand that the Monad was;
but the Dyad was not, before it was in existence. It follows at once that,
though the Sire was not, the Father was God. Hence the Son, not being (for He
existed at the will of the Father), is God Only-begotten(4a), and He is alien from
either. Wisdom existed as Wisdom by the will of the Wise God. Hence He is
conceived in numberless conceptions(5): Spirit, Power, Wisdom, God's glory, Truth,
Image, and Word. Understand that He is conceived to be Radiance and Light. One
equal to the Son, the Superior is able to beget; but one more excellent, or
superior, or greater, He is not able. At God's will the Son is what and whatsoever
He is. And when and since He was, from that time He has subsisted from God. He,
being a strong God, praises in His degree the Superior. To speak in brief, God
is ineffable to His Son. For He is to Himself what He is, that is, unspeakable.
So that nothing which is called comprehensible(6) does the Son know to speak
about; for it is impossible for Him to investigate the Father, who is by
Himself. For the Son does not know His own essence, For, being Son, He really existed,
at the will of the Father. What argument then allows, that He who is from the
Father should know His own parent by comprehension? For it is plain that for
that which hath a beginning to conceive how the Unbegun is, or to grasp the idea,
is not possible.
16. And what they wrote by letter to the blessed Alexander, the Bishop,
runs as follows:--
To Our Blessed Pope(7) and Bishop, Alexander, the Presbyters and Deacons send
health in the Lord.
Our faith from our forefathers, which also we have learned from thee,
Blessed Pope, is this:--We acknowledge One God, alone Ingenerate, alone
Everlasting, alone Unbegun, alone True, alone having Immortality, alone Wise, alone Good,
alone Sovereign; Judge, Governor, and Providence of all, unalterable and
unchangeable, just and good, God of Law and Prophets and New Testament; who begat an
Only-begotten Son before eternal times, through whom He has made both the ages
and the universe; and begat Him, not in semblance, but in truth; and that He
made Him subsist at His own will, unalterable and unchangeable; perfect creature
of God, but not as one of the creatures; offspring, but not as one of things
begotten; nor as Valentinus pronounced that the offspring of the Father was an
issue(8); nor as Manich'us taught that the offspring was a portion of the Father,
one in essence(9); or as Sabellius, dividing the Monad, speaks of a
Son-and-Father(10); nor as Hieracas, of one torch from another, or as a lamp divided into
two(11); nor that He who was before, was afterwards generated or new-created
into a Son(12), as thou too thyself, Blessed Pope, in the midst of the Church
and in session hast often condemned; but, as we say, at the will of God, created
before times and before ages, and gaining life and being from the Father, who
gave subsistence to His glories together with Him. For the Father did not, in
giving to Him the inheritance of all things, deprive Himself of what He has
ingenerately in Himself; for He is the Fountain of all things. Thus there are Three
Subsistences. And God, being the cause of all things, is Unbegun and altogether
Sole, but the Son being begotten apart from time by the Father, and being
created and founded before ages, was not before His generation, but being begotten
apart from time before all things, alone was made to subsist by the Father. For
He is not eternal or co-eternal or co-unoriginate with the Father, nor has He
His being together with the Father, as some speak of relations(1), introducing
two ingenerate beginnings, but God is before all things as being Monad and
Beginning of all. Wherefore also He is before the Son; as we have learned also from
thy preaching in the midst of the Church. So far then as from God He has
being, and glories, and life, and all things are delivered unto Him, in such sense
is God His origin. For He is above Him, as being His God and before Him. But if
the terms 'from Him,' and 'from the womb,' and 'I came forth from the Father,
and I am come(2)' (Rom. xi. 36; Ps. cx. 3; John xvi. 28), be understood by some
to mean as if a part of Him, one in essence or as an issue, then the Father is
according to them compounded and divisible and alterable and material, and, as
far as their belief goes, has the circumstances of a body, Who is the
Incorporeal God.
This is a part of what Arius and his fellows vomited from their heretical
hearts.
17. And before the Nicene Council took place, similar statements were made
by Eusebius and his fellows, Narcissus, Patrophilus, Maris, Paulinus,
Theodotus, and Athanasius. of [A]nazarba(3). And Eusebius of Nicomedia wrote over and
above to Arius, to this effect, 'Since your sentiments ire good, pray that all
may adopt them; for it is plain to any one, that what has been made was not
before its origination; but what came to be has a beginning of being.' And Eusebius
of C'sarea in Palestine, in a letter to Euphration the Bishop(3a), did not
scruple to say plainly that Christ was not true God(4). And Athanasius of
[A]nazarba uncloked the heresy still further, saying that the Son of God was one of the
hundred sheep. For writing to Alexander the Bishop, he had the extreme
audacity to say: 'Why complain of Arius and his fellows, for saying, The Son of God is
made as a creature out of nothing, and one among others? For all that are made
being represented in parable by the hundred sheep, the Son is one of them. If
then the hundred are not created and originate, or if there be beings beside
that hundred, then may the Son be not a creature nor one among others; but if
those hundred are all originate, and there is nothing besides the hundred save
God alone, what absurdity do Arius and his fellows utter, when, as comprehending
and reckoning Christ in the hundred, they say that He is one among others?'
And George who now is in Laodicea, and then was presbyter of Alexandria, and was
staying at Antioch, wrote to Alexander the Bishop; 'Do not complain of Arius
and his fellows, for saying, "Once the Son of God was not," for Isaiah came to be
son of Amos, and, whereas Amos was before Isaiah came to be, Isaiah was not
before, but came to be afterwards.' And he wrote to the Arians, 'Why complain of
Alexander the Pope, saying, that the Son is from the Father? for you too need
not fear to say that the Son was from God. For if the Apostle wrote (1 Cor. xi.
12), 'All things are from God,' and it is plain that all things are made of
nothing, though the Son too is a creature and one of things made, still He may be
said to be from God in that sense in which all things are said to be 'from
God.' From him then those who hold with Arius learned to simulate the phrase 'from
God,' and to use it indeed, but not in a good meaning. And George himself was
deposed by Alexander for certain reasons, and among them for manifest
irreligion; for he was himself a presbyter, as has been said before.
18. On the whole then such were their statements, as if they all were in
dispute and rivalry with each other, which should make the heresy more
irreligious, and display it in a more naked form. And as for their letters I had them
not at hand, to dispatch them to you; else I would have sent you copies; but, if
the Lord will, this too I will do, when I get possession of them. And one
Asterius(5) from Cappadocia, a many-headed Sophist, one of the fellows of Eusebius,
whom they could not advance into the Clergy, as having done sacrifice in the
former persecution in the time of Constantius's grandfather, writes, with the
countenance of Eusebius and his fellows, a small treatise, which was on a par with
the crime of his sacrifice, yet answered their wishes; for in it, after
comparing, or rather preferring, the locust and the caterpillar to Christ, and saying
that Wisdom in God was other than Christ, and was the Framer as well of Christ
as of the world, he went round the Churches in Syria and elsewhere, with
introductions from Eusebius and his fellows, that as he once made trial of denying,
so now he might boldly oppose the truth. The bold man intruded himself into
forbidden places, and seating himself in the place of Clergy(6), he used to read
publicly this treatise of his, in spite of the general indignation. The treatise
is written at great length, but portions of it are as follows:--
For the Blessed Paul said not that he preached Christ, His, that is,
God's, 'own Power' or 'Wisdom,' but without the article, 'God's Power and God's
Wisdom' (1 Cor. i. 24), preaching that the own power of God Himself was distinct,
which was con-natural and co-existent with Him unoriginately, generative indeed
of Christ, creative of the whole world; concerning which he teaches in his
Epistle to the Romans, thus, 'The invisible things of Him from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being understood by the things which are made, even His
eternal power and divinity' (Rom. i. 20). For as no one would say that the
Deity there mentioned was Christ, but the Father Himself, so, as I think, His
eternal power is also not the Only-begotten God (Joh. i. 18), but the Father who
begat Him. And he tells us of another Power and Wisdom of God, namely, that
which is manifested through Christ, and made known through the works themselves of
His Ministry.
And again:--
Although His eternal Power and Wisdom, which truth argues to be Unbegun
and Ingenerate, would appear certainly to be one and the same, yet many are
those powers which are one by one created by Him, of which Christ is the First-born
and Only-begotten. All however equally depend upon their Possessor, and all
His powers are rightly called His, who created and uses them; for instance, the
Prophet says that the locust, which became a divine punishment of human sin, was
called by God Himself, not only a power of God, but a great power (Joel ii.
25). And the blessed David too in several of the Psalms, invites, not Angels
alone, but Powers also to praise God. And while he invites them all to the hymn, he
presents before us their multitude, and is not unwilling to call them
ministers of God, and teaches them to do His will.
19. These bold words against the Saviour did not content him, but he went
further in his blasphemies, as follows:
The Son is one among others; for He is first of things originate, and one
among intellectual natures; and as in things visible the sun is one among
phenomena, and it shines upon the whole world according to the command of its Maker.
so the Son, being one of the intellectual natures, also enlightens and shines
upon all that are in the intellectual world.
And again he says, Once He was not, writing thus:-- 'And before the Son's
origination, the Father had pro-existing knowledge how to generate; since a
physician too, before he cured, had the science of curing(7).' And he says again:
'The Son was created by God's beneficent earnestness; and the Father made Him
by the superabundance of His Power' And again: 'If the will of God has pervaded
all the works in succession, certainly the Son too, being a work, has at His
will come to be and been made.' Now though Asterius was the only person to write
all this, Eusebius and his fellows felt the like in common with him.
20. These are the doctrines for which they are contending; for these they
assail the ancient Council, because its members did not propound the like, but
anathematized the Arian heresy instead, which they were so eager to recommend.
This was why they put forward, as an advocate of their irreligion, Asterius
who sacrificed, a sophist too, that he might not spare to speak against the Lord,
or by a show of reason to mislead the simple. And they were ignorant, the
shallow men, that they were doing harm to their own cause. For the ill savour of
their advocate's idolatrous sacrifice betrayed still more plainly that the heresy
is Christ's foe. And now again, the general agitations and troubles which they
are exciting, are in consequence of their belief, that by their numerous
murders and their monthly Councils, at length they will undo the sentence which has
been passed against the Arian heresy(8). But here too they seem ignorant, or to
pretend ignorance, that even before Nich'a that heresy was held in
detestation, when Artemas(9) was laying its foundations, and before him Caiaphas's
assembly and that of the Pharisees his contemporaries. And at all times is this gang
of Christ's foes detestable, and will not cease to be hateful, the Lord's Name
being full of love, and the whole creation bending the knee, and confessing
'that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father' (Phil. ii. 11).
21. Yet so it is, they have convened successive Councils against that
Ecumenical One, and are not yet tired. After the Nicene, Eusebius and his fellows
had been deposed; however, in course of time they intruded them selves without
shame upon the Churches, and began to plot against the Bishops who withstood
them, and to substitute in the Church men of their own heresy. Thus they thought
to hold Councils at their pleasure, as having those who concurred with them,
whom they hail ordained on purpose for this very object. Accordingly, they
assemble at Jerusalem, and there they write thus:--
The Holy Council assembled in Jerusalem(1) by the grace of God, &c .....
their orthodox teaching in writing(2), which we all confessed to be sound and
ecclesiastical. And he reasonably recommended that they should be received and
united to the Church of God, as you will know yourselves from the transcript of
the same Epistle, which we have transmitted to your reverences. We believe that
yourselves also, as if recovering [the very members of your own body, will
experience great joy and gladness, in acknowledging and recovering [your own
bowels, your own brethren anti lathers; since not only the Presbyters, Arius and his
fellows, are given back to you, but also the whole Christian people and the
entire multitude, which on occasion of the aforesaid men have a long time been in
dissension among you. Moreover it were fitting, now that you know for certain
what has passed, and that the men have communicated with us and have been
received by so great a Holy Council, that you should with all readiness hail this
your coalition and peace with your own members, specially since the articles of
the faith which they have published preserve indisputable the universally
confessed apostolical tradition and teaching.
22. This was the beginning of their Councils, and in it they were speedy
in divulging their views, and could not conceal them. For when they said that
they had banished all jealousy, and, after the expulsion of Athanasius, Bishop of
Alexandria, recommended the reception of Arius and his friends, they showed
that their measures against Athanasius himself then, and before against all the
other Bishops who withstood them, had for their object their receiving Arius and
his fellows, and introducing the heresy into the Church. But although they had
approved in this Council all Arius's malignity, and had ordered to receive his
party into communion, as they had set the example, yet feeling that even now
they were short of their wishes, they assembled a Council at Antioch under
colour of the so-called Dedications and, since they were in general and lasting
odium for their heresy, they publish different letters, some of this sort, and some
of that and what they wrote in one letter was as follows:
We have not been followers of Arius,--how could Bishops, such as we,
follow a Presbyter?--nor did we receive any other faith beside that which has been
handed down from the beginning. But, after taking on ourselves to examine and to
verify his faith, we admitted him rather than followed him; as you will
understand from our present avowals.
For we have been taught from the first, to believe(4) in one God, the God
of the Universe, the Framer and Preserver of all things both intellectual and
sensible.
And in One Son of God, Only-begotten, who existed before all ages, and was
with the Father who had begotten Him, by whom all things were made, both
visible and invisible, who in the last days according to the good pleasure of the
Father came down; and has taken flesh of the Virgin, and jointly fulfilled all
His Father's will, and suffered and risen again, and ascended into heaven, and
sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and cometh again to judge quick and
dead, and remaineth King and God unto all ages.
And we believe also in the Holy Ghost; and if it be necessary to add, we
believe concerning the resurrection of the flesh, and the life everlasting.
23. Here follows what they published next at the same Dedication in
another Epistle, being dissatisfied with the first, and devising something newer and
fuller:
We believe(5), conformably to the evangelical and apostolical tradition,
in One God, the Father Almighty, the Framer, and Maker, and Provider of the
Universe, from whom are all things.
And in One Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, Only-begotten God (Joh. i. 18), by
whom are all things, who was begotten before all ages from the Father, God from
God, whole from whole, sole from sole(6), perfect from perfect, King from
King, Lord from Lord, Living Word, Living Wisdom, true Light, Way, Truth,
Resurrection, Shepherd, Door, both unalterable and(7) unchangeable; exact Image(1) of
the Godhead, Essence, Will, Power and Glory of the Father; the first born of
every creature, who was in the beginning with God, God the Word, as it is written
in the Gospel, and the Word was God' (John i. I); by whom all things were made,
and in whom all things consist; who in the last days descended from above, and
was born of a Virgin according to the Scriptures, and was made Man, Mediator(2)
between God and man, and Apostle of our faith, and Prince of life, as He says,
'I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that
sent Me' (John vi. 38); who suffered for us and rose again on the third day, and
ascended into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of the Father, and is
coming again with glory and power, to judge quick and dead.
And in the Holy Ghost, who is given to those who believe for comfort, and
sanctification, and initiation, as also our Lord Jesus Christ enjoined His
disciples, saying, 'Go ye, teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the
Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost' Matt. xxviii. 19); namely of a Father who
is truly Father, and a Son who is truly Son, and of the Holy Ghost who is
truly Holy Ghost, the names not being given without meaning or effect, but denoting
accurately the peculiar subsistence, rank, and glory of each that is named, so
that they are three in subsistence, and in agreement one(3).
Holding then this faith, and holding it in the presence of God and Christ,
from beginning to end, we anathematize every heretical heterodoxy(4). And if
any teaches, beside the sound and right faith of the Scriptures, that time, or
season, or age(5), either is or has been before the generation of the Son, be he
anathema. Or if any one says, that the Son is a creature as one of the
creatures, or an offspring as one of the offsprings, or a work as one of the works,
and not the aforesaid articles one after another, as the divine Scriptures have
delivered, or if he teaches or preaches beside what we received, be he anathema.
For all that has been delivered in the divine Scriptures, whether by Prophets
or Apostles, do we truly and reverentially both believe and follow(6).
24. And one Theophronius(7), Bishop of Tyana, put forth before them all
the following statement of his personal faith. And they subscribed it, accepting
the faith of this man:--
God s knows, whom I call as a witness upon my sold, that so I believe:--in
God the Father Almighty, the Creator and Maker of the Universe, from whom are
all things.
And in His Only-begotten Son, Word, Power, and Wisdom, our Lord Jesus
Christ, through whom are all things; who has been begotten from the Father before
the ages, perfect God from perfect God(9), and was with God in subsistence, and
in the last days descended, and was born of the Virgin according to the
Scriptures, and was made man, and suffered, and rose again from the dead, and ascended
into the heavens, and sat down on the right hand of His Father, and cometh
again with glory and power to judge quick and dead, and remaineth for ever:
And in the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth (Joh. xv. 26),
which also God promised by His Prophet to pour out (Joel ii. 28) upon His
servants, and the Lord promised to send to His disciples: which also He sent, as the
Acts of the Apostles witness.
But if any one teaches, or holds in his mind, aught beside this faith, be
he anathema; or with Marcellus of Ancyra(10), or Sabellius, or Paul of
Samosata, be he anathemas both himself and those who communicate with him.
25. Ninety Bishops met at the Dedication under the Consulate of
Marcellinus and Probinus, in the 14th of the Indiction(1), Constantius the most
irreligious being present. Having thus conducted matters at Antioch at the Dedication,
thinking that their composition was deficient still, and fluctuating moreover in
their own opinions, again they draw up afresh another formulary, after a few
months, professedly concerning the faith, and despatch Narcissus, Maris,
Theodorus, and Mark into Gaul(2). And they, as being sent from the Council, deliver
the following document to Constans Augustus of blessed memory, and to all who
were there:
We believes in One God, the Father Almighty, Creator and Maker of all
things; from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named. (Eph. iii. 15.)
And in this Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who before all ages
was begotten from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, by whom all
things were made in the heavens and on the earth, visible and invisible, being Word,
and Wisdom, and Power, and Life, and True Light; who in the last days was made
man for us, and was born of the Holy Virgin; who was crucified, and dead, and
buried, and rose again from the dead the third day, and was taken up into
heaven, and sat down on the right hand of the Father; and is coming at the
consummation of the age, to judge quick and dead, and to render to every one according
to his works; whose Kingdom endures indissolubly into the infinite ages(4); for
He shall be seated on the fight hand of the Father, not only in this age but in
that which is to come.
And in the Holy Ghost, that is, the Paraclete; which, having promised to
the Apostles, He sent forth after His ascension into heaven, to teach them and
to remind of all things; through whom also shall be sanctified the souls of
those who sincerely believe in Him.
But those who say, that the Son was from nothing, or from other
subsistence and not from God, and, there was time when He was not, the Catholic Church
regards as aliens(5).
26. As if dissatisfied with this, they hold their meeting again after
three years, and dispatch Eudoxius, Martyrius, and Macedonius of Cilicia(6), and
some others with them, to the parts of Italy, to carry with them a faith written
at great length, with numerous additions over and above those which have gone
before. They went abroad with these, as if they had devised something new.
We believe(7) in one God the Father Almighty, the Creator and Maker of all
things, from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named.
And in His Only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who before all ages
was begotten from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, by whom all things
were made, in heaven and on the earth, visible and invisible, being Word and
Wisdom and Power and Life and True Light, who in the last days was made man for
us, and was born of the Holy Virgin, crucified and dead and buried, and rose
again from the dead the third day, and was taken up into heaven, and sat down on
the right hand of the Father, and is coming at the consummation of the age to
judge quick and dead, and to render to every one according to his works, whose
Kingdom endures unceasingly unto the infinite ages; for He sitteth on the right
hand of the Father not only in this age, but also in that which is to come.
And we believe in the Holy Ghost, that is, the Paraclete, which, having
promised to the Apostles, He sent forth after the ascension into heaven, to teach
them and to remind of all things: through whom also shall be sanctified the
souls of those who sincerely believe in Him.
But those who say,(1) that the Son was from nothing, or from other
subsistence and not from God;(2) and that there was a time or age when He was not, the
Catholic and Holy Church regards as aliens. Likewise those who say,(3) that
there are three Gods:(4) or that Christ is not God;(5) or that before the ages He
was neither Christ nor Son of God;(6) or that Father and Son, or Holy Ghost,
are the same;(7) or that the Son is Ingenerate; or that the Father begat the
Son, not by choice or will; the Holy and Catholic Church anathematizes.
(1.) For neither is safe to say that the Son is from nothing, (since this
is no where spoken of Him in divinely inspired Scripture,) nor again of any
other subsistence before existing beside the Father, but from God alone do we
define Him genuinely to be generated. For the divine Word teaches that the
Ingenerate and Un-begun, the Father of Christ, is One (8).
(2.) Nor may we, adopting the hazardous position, 'There was once when He
was not,' from unscriptural sources, imagine any interval of time before Him,
but only the God who has generated Him apart from time; for through Him both
times and ages came to be. Yet we must not consider the Son to be co-unbegun and
co-ingenerate with the Father; for no one can be properly called Father or Son
of one who is co-unbegun and co-ingenerate with Him(9). But we acknowledge(10)
that the Father who alone is Unbegun and Ingenerate, hath generated
inconceivably and incomprehensibly to all: and that the Son hath been generated before
ages, and in no wise to be ingenerate Himself like the Father, but to have the
Father who generated Him as His beginning; for 'the Head of Christ is God.' (1 Cor.
xi. 3.)
(3.) Nor again, in confessing three realities and three Persons, of the
Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost according to the Scriptures, do we
therefore make Gods three; since we acknowledge the Self-complete and Ingenerate and
Unbegun and Invisible God to be one only(1), the God and Father (Joh. xx. 17) of
the Only-begotten, who alone hath being from Himself, and alone vouchsafes this
to all others bountifully.
(4.) Nor again, in saying that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is one
only God, the only Ingenerate, do we therefore deny that Christ also is God
before ages: as the disciples of Paul of Samosata, who say that after the
incarnation He was by advance(2) made God, from being made by nature a mere man. For we
acknowledge, that though He be subordinate to His Father and God, yet, being
before ages begotten of God, He is God perfect according to nature and true(3),
and not first man and then God, but first God and then becoming man for us, and
never having been deprived of being.
(5.) We abhor besides, and anathematize those who make a pretence of
saying that He is but the mere word of God and unexisting, having His being in
another,--now as if pronounced, as some speak, now as mental(4),--holding that He
was not Christ or Son of God or mediator or image of God before ages; but that He
first became Christ and Son of God, when He took our flesh from the Virgin,
not quite four hundred years since. For they will have it that then Christ began
His Kingdom, and that it will have an end after the consummation of all and the
judgment(5). Such are the disciples of Marcellus and Scotinus(6) of Galatian
Ancyra, who, equally with Jews, negative Christ's existence before ages, and His
Godhead, and unending Kingdom, upon pretence of supporting the divine
Monarchy. We, on the contrary, regard Him not as simply God's pronounced word or
mental, but as Living God and Word, existing in Himself, and Son of God and Christ;
being and abiding with His Father before ages, and that not in foreknowledge
only(7), and ministering to Him for the whole framing whether of things visible or
invisible. For He it is, to whom the Father said, 'Let Us make man in Our
image, after Our likeness s, (Gen. i. 26), who also was seen in His own Person(9)
by the patriarchs, gave the law, spoke by the prophets, and at last, became man,
and manifested His own Father to all men, and reigns to never-ending ages. For
Christ has taken no recent dignity, but we have believed Him to be perfect
from the first, and like in all things to the Father(1).
(6.) And those who say that the Father and Son and Holy Ghost are the
same, and irreligiously take the Three Names of one and the same Reality and
Person, we justly proscribe from the Church, because they suppose the illimitable and
impassible Father to be limitable withal and passible through His becoming
man: for such are they whom Romans call Patripassians, and we Sabellians(2). For
we acknowledge that the Father who sent, remained in the peculiar state of His
unchangeable Godhead, and that Christ who was sent fulfilled the economy of the
Incarnation.
(7.) And at the same time those who irreverently say that the Son has been
generated not by choice or will, thus encompassing God with a necessity which
excludes choice and purpose, so that He begat the Son unwillingly, we account
as most irreligious and alien to the Church; in that they have dared to define
such things concerning God, beside the common notions concerning Him, nay,
beside the purport of divinely inspired Scripture. For we, knowing that God is
absolute and sovereign over Himself, have a religious judgment that He generated the
Son voluntarily and freely; yet, as we bare a reverent belief in the Son's
words concerning Himself (Prov. viii. 22), 'The Lord created me a beginning of His
ways for His works,' we do not understand Him to have been originated like the
creatures or works which through Him came to be. For it is irreligious and
alien to the ecclesiastical faith, to compare the Creator with handi-works created
by Him, and to think that He has the same manner of origination with the rest.
For divine Scripture teaches us really and truly that the Only-begotten Son
was generated sole and solely"(2a). Yet(3), in saying that the Son is in Himself,
and both lives and exists like the Father, we do not on that account separate
Him from the Father, imagining place and interval between their union in the
way of bodies. For we believe that they are united with each other without
mediation or distance(4), and that they exist inseparable; all the Father
embosoming the Son, and all the Son hanging and adhering to the Father, and alone
resting on the Father's breast continually(4a). Believing then in the All-perfect
Triad, the most Holy, that is, in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and
calling the Father God, and the Son God, yet we confess in them, not two Gods,
but one dignity of Godhead, and one exact harmony of dominion the Father alone
being Head over the whole universe wholly, and over the Son Himself, and the
Son subordinated to the Father; but, excepting Him, ruling over all things after
Him which through Himself have come to be, and granting the grace of the Holy
Ghost an-sparingly to the saints at the Father's will. For that such is the
account of the Divine Monarchy towards Christ, the sacred oracles have delivered
to us.
Thus much, in addition to the faith before published in epitome, we have
been compelled to draw forth at length, not in any officious display, but to
clear away all unjust suspicion concerning our opinions, among those who are
ignorant of our affairs: and that all in the West may know, both the audacity of the
slanders of the heterodox, and as to the Orientals, their ecclesiastical mind
in the Lord, to which the divinely inspired Scriptures bear witness without
violence, where men are not perverse.
27. However they did not stand even to this; for again at Sirmium(5) they
met together(5a) against Photinus(6) and there composed a faith again, not
drawn out into such length, not so full in words; but subtracting the greater part
and adding in its place, as if they had listened to the suggestions of others,
they wrote as follows:--
We believe(7) in One God, the Father Almighty, the Creator and Maker of
all things, 'from whom all fatherhood in heaven and earth is named(8);
And in His Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus the Christ, who before all
the ages was begotten from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, by whom
all things were made, in heaven and on the earth, visible and invisible, being
Word and Wisdom and True Light and Life, who in the last of days was made man for
us, and was born of the Holy Virgin, and crucified and dead and buried, and
rose again from the dead the third day, and was taken up into heaven, and sat
down on the right hand of the Father, and is coming at the consummation of the
age, to judge quick and dead, and to render to every one according to his works;
whose Kingdom being unceasing endures unto the infinite ages; for He shall sit
on the fight hand of the Father, not only in this age, but also in that which is
to come.
And in the Holy Ghost, that is, the Paraclete; which, having promised to
the Apostles to send forth after His ascension into heaven, to teach and to
remind them of all things, He did send; through whom also are sanctified the souls
of those who sincerely believe in Him.
(1.) But those who say that the Son was from nothing or from other
subsistence(9) and not from God, and that there was time or age when He was not, the
Holy and Catholic Church regards as aliens.
(2.) Again we say, Whosoever says that the Father and the Son are two
Gods, be he anathema(10).
(3.) And whosoever, saying that Christ is God, before ages Son of God,
does not confess that He has sub-served the Father for the framing of the
universe, be he anathema(11).
(4.) Whosoever presumes to say that the Ingenerate, or a part of Him, was
born of Mary, be he anathema.
(5.) Whosoever says that according to foreknowledge(1) the Son is before
Mary and not that, generated from the Father before ages, He was with God, and
that through Him all things were originated, be he anathema.
(6.) Whosoever shall pretend that the essence of God is dilated or
contracted(2), be he anathema.
(7.) Whosoever shall say that the essence of God being dilated made the
Son, or shall name the dilation of His essence Son, be he anathema.
(8.) Whosoever calls the Son of God the mental or pronounced Word(3), be
he anathema.
(9.) Whosoever says that the Son from Mary is man only, be he anathema.
(10.) Whosoever, speaking of Him who is from Mary God and man, thereby
means God the Ingenerate(4), be he anathema.
(11.) Whosoever shall explain 'I God the First and I the Last, and besides
Me there is no God,' (Is. xliv. 6), which is said for the denial of idols and
of gods that are not, to the denial of the Only-begotten, before ages God, as
Jews do, be he anathema.
(12.) Whosoever hearing 'The Word was made flesh,' (John i. 14), shall
consider that the Word has changed into flesh, or shall say that He has undergone
alteration by taking flesh, be he anathema(5).
(13.) Whosoever hearing the Only-begotten Son of God to have been
crucified, shall say that His Godhead has undergone corruption, or passion. or
alteration, or diminution, or destruction, be he anathema.
(14.) Whosoever shall say that Let Us make man' (Gen. i. 26), was not said
by the Father to the Son, but by God to Himself, be he anathema(6).
(15.) Whosoever shall say that Abraham saw, not the Son, but the
Ingenerate God or part of Him, be he anathema(7).
(16.) Whosoever shall say that with Jacob, not the Son as man, but the
Ingenerate God or part of Him, has wrestled, be anathema(8).
(17.) Whosoever shall explain, 'The Lord rained fire from the Lord' (Gen.
xix. 24), not of the Father and the Son, and says that He rained from Himself,
be he anathema. For the Son, being Lord, rained from the Father Who is Lord.
(18.) Whosoever, hearing that the Father is Lord and the Son Lord and the
Father and Son Lord, for there is Lord from Lord, says there are two Gods, be
he anathema. For we do not place the Son in the Father's Order, but as
subordinate to the Father; for He did not descend upon Sodom without the Father's will,
nor did He rain from Himself, but from the Lord, that is, the Father
authorising it. Nor is He of Himself set down on the fight hand, but He hears the Father
saying, 'Sit Thou on My right hand' (Ps. cx. I).
(19.) Whosoever says that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are
one Person, be he anathema.
(20.) Whosoever, speaking of the Holy Ghost as Paraclete, shall mean the
Ingenerate God, be he anathema(9).
(21.) Whosoever shall deny, what the Lord taught us, that the Paraclete is
other than the Son, for He hath said, 'And another Paraclete shall the Father
send to you, whom I will ask,' (John xiv. 16) be he anathema.
(22.) Whosoever shall say that the Holy Ghost is part of the Father or of
the Soul be he anathema.
(23.) Whosoever shall say that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost
are three Gods, be he anathema.
(24.) Whosoever shall say that the Son of God at the will of God has come
to be, as one of the works, be he anathema.
(25.) Whosoever shall say that the Son has been generated, the Father not
wishing it(2), be he anathema. For not by compulsion, led by physical
necessity, did the Father, as He wished not, generate the Son, but He at once willed,
and, after generating Him from Himself apart from time and passion, manifested
Him.
(26.) Whosoever shall say that the Son is without beginning and
ingenerate, as if speaking of two un-begun and two ingenerate, and making two Gods, be he
anathema. For the Son is the Head, namely the beginning of all: and God is the
Head, namely the beginning of Christ; for thus to one unbegun beginning of the
universe do we religiously refer all things through the Son.
(27.) And in accurate delineation of the idea of Christianity we say this
again; Whosoever shall not say that Christ is God, Son of God, as being before
ages, and having subserved the Father in the framing of the Universe, but that
from the time that He was born of Mary, from thence He was called Christ and
Son, and took an origin of being God, be he anathema.
28. Casting aside the whole of this, as if they had discovered something
better, they propound another faith, and write at Sirmium in Latin what is here
translated into Greek(3).
Whereas(4) it seemed good that there should be some discussion concerning
faith, all points were carefully investigated and discussed at Sirmium in the
presence of Valens, and Ursacius, and Germinius, and the rest.
It is held for certain that there is one God, the Father Almighty, as also
is preached in all the world.
And His One Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, generated from Him
before the ages; and that we may not speak of two Gods, since the Lord Himself
has said, 'I go to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God' (John xx.
17). On this account He is God of all, as also the Apostle taught: 'Is He God
of the Jews only, is He not also of the Gentiles? yea of the Gentiles also:
since there is one God who shall justify the circumcision from faith, and the
uncircumcision through faith' (Rom. iii. 29, 30); and every thing else agrees, and
has no ambiguity.
But since many persons are disturbed by questions concerning what is
called in Latin 'Substantia,' but in Greek 'Usia,' that is, to make it understood
more exactly, as to 'Coessential,' or what is called, 'Like-in-Essence,' there
ought to be no mention of any of these at all, nor exposition of them in the
Church, for this reason and for this consideration, that in divine Scripture
nothing is written about them, and that they are above men's knowledge and above
men's understanding; and because no one can declare the Son's generation, as it is
written, 'Who shall declare His generation' (Is. till. 8)? for it is plain that
the Father only knows how He generated the Son, and again the Son how He has
been generated by the Father. And to none can it be a question that the Father
is greater for no one can doubt that the Father is greater in honour and dignity
and Godhead, and in the very name of Father, the Son Himself testifying, The
Father that sent Me is greater than I' (John x. 29, Ib. xiv. 28). And no one is
ignorant, that it is Catholic doctrine, that there are two Persons of Father
and Son, and that the Father is greater, and the Son subordinated to the Father
together with all things which the Father has subordinated to Him, and that the
Father has no beginning, and is invisible, and immortal, and impassible; but
that the Son has been generated from the Father, God from God, Light from Light,
and that His origin, as aforesaid, no one knows, but the Father only. And that
the Son Himself and our Lord and God, took flesh, that is, a body, that is,
man, from Mary the Virgin, as the Angel preached beforehand; and as all the
Scriptures teach, and especially the Apostle himself, the doctor of the Gentiles,
Christ took man of Mary the Virgin, through which He has suffered. And the whole
faith is summed up(5), and secured in this, that a Trinity should ever be
preserved, as we read in the Gospel, 'Go ye and baptize all the nations in the Name
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost' (Matt. xxviii. 19). And
entire and perfect is the number of the Trinity; but the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost,
sent forth through the Son, came according to the promise, that He might teach
and sanctify the Apostles and all believers(6).
29. After drawing up this, and then becoming dissatisfied, they composed
the faith which to their shame they paraded with ' the Consulate.' And, as is
their wont, condemning this also, they caused Martinian the notary to seize it
from the parties who had the copies of it(7). And having got the Emperor
Constantius to put forth an edict against it, they form another dogma afresh, and with
the addition of certain expressions, according to their wont, they write thus
in Isauria.
We declines not to bring forward the authentic faith published at the
Dedication at Antioch(9); though certainly our fathers at the time met together for
a particular subject under investigation. But since 'Coessential' and
'Like-in-essence,' have troubled many persons in times past and up to this day, and
since moreover some are said recently to have devised the Son's 'Unlikeness' to
the Father, on their account we reject 'Coessential' and 'Like-in-essence,' as
alien to the Scriptures, but 'Unlike' we anathematize, and account all who
profess it as aliens from the Church. And we distinctly confess the 'Likeness' of the
Son to the Father, according to the Apostle, who says of the Son, 'Who is the
Image of the Invisible God' (Col. i. 15).
And we confess and believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of
heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
And we believe also in our Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, generated from Him
impassibly before all the ages, God the Word, God from God, Only-begotten,
light, life, truth, wisdom, power, through whom all things were made, in the
heavens and on the earth, whether visible or invisible. He, as we believe, at the end
of the world, for the abolishment of sin, took flesh of the Holy Virgin, and
was made man, and suffered for our sins, and rose again, and was taken up into
heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and is coming again in
glory, to judge quick and dead.
We believe also in the Holy Ghost, which our Saviour and Lord named
Paraclete, having promised to send Him to the disciples after His own departure, as
He did send; through whom He sanctifieth those in the Church who believe, and
are baptized in the Name of Father and Son and Holy Ghost.
But those who preach aught beside this faith the Catholic Church regards
as aliens. And that to this faith that is equivalent which was published lately
at Sirmium, under sanction of his religiousness the Emperor, is plain to all
who read it.
30. Having written thus in Isauria, they went up to Constantinople(1), and
there, as if dissatisfied, they changed it, as is their wont, and with some
small additions against using even 'Subsistence' of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
they transmitted it to those at Ariminum, and compelled even those in the said
parts to subscribe, and those who contradicted them they got banished by
Constantius. And it runs thus:-
We believe(2) in One God, Father Almighty, from whom are all things;
And in the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten from God before all ages and
before every beginning, by whom all things were made, visible and invisible,
and begotten as only-begotten, only from the Father only(3), God from God, like
to the Father that begat Him according to the Scriptures; whose origin no one
knows, except the Father alone who begat Him. He as we acknowledge, the
Only-begotten Son of God, the Father sending Him, came hither from the heavens, as it
is written, for the undoing of sin and death, and was born of the Holy Ghost, of
Mary the Virgin according to the flesh, as it is written, and convened with
the disciples, and having fulfilled the whole Economy according to the Father's
will, was crucified and dead and buried and descended to the parts below the
earth; at whom hades itself shuddered: who also rose from the dead on the third
day, and abode with the disciples, and, forty days being fulfilled, was taken up
into the heavens, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, to come in the
last day of the resurrection in the Father's glory, that He may render to every
man according to his works.
And in the Holy Ghost, whom the Only-begotten Son of God Himself, Christ,
our Lord and God, promised to send to the race of man, as Paraclete, as it is
written, 'the Spirit of truth' (Joh. xvi. 13), which He sent unto them when He
had ascended into the heavens.
But the name of 'Essence,' which was set down by the Fathers in
simplicity, and, being unknown by the people, caused offence, because the Scriptures
contain it not, it has seemed good to abolish, and for the future to make no
mention of it at all; since the divine Scriptures have made no mention of the Essence
of Father and Son. For neither ought Subsistence to be named concerning
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost But, we say that the Son is Like the Father, as the
divine Scriptures say and teach; and all the heresies, both those which have been
afore condemned already, and whatever are of modern date, being contrary to this
published statement, be they anathema(4).
31. However, they did not stand even to this: for coming down from
Constantinople to Antioch, they were dissatisfied that they had written at all that
the Son was 'Like the Father, as the Scriptures say;' and putting their ideas
upon paper(5), they began reverting to their first doctrines, and said that 'the
Son is altogether unlike the Father,' and that the 'Son is in no manner like the
Father,' and so much did they change, as to admit those who spoke the Arian
doctrine nakedly and to deliver to them the Churches with licence to bring
forward the words of blasphemy with impunity(6). Because then of the extreme
shamelessness of their blasphemy they were called by all Anomoeans, having also the
name of Exucontian(7), and the heretical Constantius for the patron of their
irreligion, who persisting up to the end in irreligion, and on the point of death,
thought good to be baptized(8); not however by religious men, but by Euzoius(9),
who for his Arianism had been deposed, not once, but often, both when he was a
deacon, and when he was in the see of Antioch.
32. The forementioned parties then had proceeded thus far, when they were
stopped and deposed. But well I know, not even under these circumstances will
they stop, as many as have now dissembled(10) but they will always be making
parties against the truth, until they return to themselves and say, 'Let us rise
and go to our fathers, and we will say unto them, We anathematize the Arian
heresy, and we acknowledge the Nicene Council;' for against this is their quarrel.
Who then, with ever so little understanding, will bear them any longer? who, on
hearing in every Council some things taken away and others added, but
perceives that their mind is shifty and treacherous against Christ? who on seeing them
embodying to so great a length both their professions of faith, and their own
exculpation, but sees that they are giving sentence against themselves, and
studiously writing much which may be likely by their officious display and
abundance of words to seduce the simple and hide what they are in point of heresy? But
as the heathen, as the Lord said, using vain words in their prayers (Mat. vi.
7), are nothing profited; so they too, after all this outpouring, were not able
to quench the judgment pronounced against the Arian heresy, but were convicted
and deposed instead; and rightly; for which of their formularies is to be
accepted by the hearer? or with what confidence shall they be catechists to those
who come to them? for if they all have one and the same meaning, what is the need
of many? But if need has arisen of so many, it follows that each by itself is
deficient, not complete; and they establish this point better than we can, by
their innovating on them all and remaking them. And the number of their
Councils, and the difference of their statements is a proof that those who were present
at them, while at variance with the Nicene, are yet too feeble to harm the
Truth.
PART III. ON THE SYMBOLS 'OF THE ESSENCE AND 'COESSENTIAL.'
We must look at the sense not the wording. The offence excited is at the
sense; meaning of the Symbols; the question of their not being in Scripture. Those
who hesitate only at 'coessential,' not to be considered Arians. Reasons why
'coessential' is better than 'like-in-essence,' yet the latter may be interpreted
in a good sense. Explanation of the rejection of 'coessential' by the Council
which condemned the Samosatene; use of the word by Dionysius of Alexandria;
parallel variation in the use of Unoriginate; quotation from Ignatius and another;
reasons for using 'coessential;' objections to it; examination of the word
itself; further documents of the Council of Ariminum.
33. But since they are thus minded both towards each other and towards
those who preceded them, proceed we to ascertain from them what absurdity they
have seen, or what they complain of in the received phrases, that they have proved
'disobedient to parents' (Rom. i. 30), and contend against an Ecumenical
Council(1)? 'The phrases "of the essence" and "coessential,"' say they, 'do not
please us, for they are an offence to some and a trouble to many.' This then is
what they allege in their writings; but one may reasonably answer them thus: If
the very words were by themselves a cause of offence to them, it must have
followed, not that some only should have been offended, and many troubled, but that
we also and all the rest should have been affected by them in the same way; but
if on the contrary all men are well content with the words, and they who wrote
them were no ordinary persons but men who came together from the whole world,
and to these testify in addition the 400 Bishops and more who now met at
Ariminum, does not this plainly prove against those who accuse the Council, that the
terms are not in fault, but the perverseness of those who misinterpret them? How
many men read divine Scripture wrongly, and as thus conceiving it, find fault
with the Saints? such were the former Jews, who rejected the Lord, and the
present Manichees who blaspheme the Law(3); yet are not the Scriptures the cause to
them, but their own evil humours. If then ye can shew the terms to be actually
unsound, do so and let the proof proceed, and drop the pretence of offence
created, lest you come into the condition of the Pharisees of old. For when they
pretended offence at the Lord's teaching, He said, 'Every plant, which My
heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up' (Matt. xv. 13). By which He
shewed that not the words of the Father planted by Him were really an offence to
them, but that they misinterpreted what was well said, and offended themselves.
And in like manner they who at that time blamed the Epistles of the Apostle,
impeached, not Paul, but their own deficient learning and distorted minds.
34. For answer, what is much to the purpose, Who are they whom you pretend
are offended and troubled at these terms? of those who are religious towards
Christ not one; on the contrary they defend and maintain them. But if they are
Arians who thus feel, what wonder they should be distressed at words which
destroy their heresy? for it is not the terms which offend them, but the
proscription of their irreligion which afflicts them. Therefore let us have no more
murmuring against the Fathers, nor pretence of this kind; or next(4) you will be
making complaints of the Lord's Cross, because it is 'to Jews an offence and to
Gentiles foolishness,' as said the Apostle s (1 Cor. i. 23, 24). But as the Cross
is not faulty, for to us who believe it is 'Christ the power of God and the
wisdom of God,' though Jews rave, so neither are the terms of the Fathers faulty,
but profitable to those who honestly read, and subversive of all irreligion,
though the Arians so often burst with rage as being condemned by them. Since then
the pretence that persons are offended does not hold, tell us yourselves, why
is it you are not pleased with the phrase 'of the essence (this must first be
enquired about), when you yourselves have written that the Son is generated from
the Father? If when you name the Father, or use the word 'God,' you do not
signify essence, or understand Him according to essence, who is that He is, but
signify something else about Him(6), not to say inferior, then you should not
have written that the Son was from the Father, but from what is about Him or in
Him(7); and so, shrinking from saying that God is truly Father, and making Him
compound who is simple, in a material way, you will be authors of a newer
blasphemy. And, with such ideas, you must needs consider the Word, and the title
'Son,' not as an essence but as a name(7a) only, and in consequence hold your own
views as far as names only, and be talking, not of what you believe to exist, but
of what you think not to exist.
35. But this is more like the crime of the Sadducees, and of those among
the Greeks who had the name of Atheists. It follows that you will deny that
even creation is the handy-work of God Himself that is; at least, if 'Father' and
'God' do not signify the very essence of Him that is, but something else, which
you imagine: which is irreligious, and most shocking even to think of. But if,
when we hear it said, 'I am that I am,' and, 'In the beginning God created the
heaven and the earth,' and, 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord,'
and, 'Thus saith the Lord Almighty' (Ex. iii. 14; Gen. i. I; Deut. vi. 4), we
understand nothing else than the very simple, and blessed, and incomprehensible
essence itself of Him that is, (for though we be unable to master what He is, yet
hearing 'Father,' and 'God,' and 'Almighty,' we understand nothing else to be
meant than the very essence of Him that is(8)); and if ye too have said, that
the Son is from God, it follows that you have said that He is from the 'essence'
of the Father. And since the Scriptures precede you which say, that the Lord
is Son of the Father, and the Father Himself precedes them, who says, 'This is
My beloved Son' (Matt. iii. 17), and a son is no other than the offspring from
his father, is it not evident that the Fathers have suitably said that the Son
is from the Father's essence? considering that it is all one to say rightly
'from God,' and to say 'from the essence.' For all the creatures, though they be
said to have come into being from God, yet are not from God as the Son is; for
they are not offsprings in their nature, but works. Thus, it is said,' in the
beginning God,' not 'generated,' but 'made the heaven and the earth, and all that
is in them' (Gen. i. 1). And not, 'who generates,' but 'who maketh His angels
spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire' (Ps. civ. 4). And though the Apostle
has said,' One God, from whom all things' (1 Cor. viii. 6), yet he says not
this, as reckoning the Son with other things; but, whereas some of the Greeks
consider that the creation was held together by chance, and from the combination
of atoms (9); and spontaneously from elements of similar structure (10), and has
no cause; and others consider that it came from a cause, but not through the
Word; and each heretic has imagined things at his will, and tells his fables
about the creation; on this account the Apostle was obliged to introduce 'from
God,' that he might thereby certify the Maker, and shew that the universe was
framed at His will. And accordingly he straightway proceeds: And one Lord Jesus
Christ, through whom all things' (1 Cor. viii. 6), by way of excepting the Son
from that 'all'(for what is called God's work, is all done through the Son; and it
is not possible that the things framed should have one origin with their
Framer), and by way of teaching that the phrase 'of God,' which occurs in the
passage, has a different sense in the case of the works, from what it bears when used
of the Son; for He is offspring, and they are works: and therefore He, the
Son, is the proper offspring of His essence, but they are the handywork of his
will.
36. The Council, then, comprehending this(1), 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 Layer 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(2), '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(3), 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. 1. 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(3a) 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(4),' 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(4a).
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(5). 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(6); 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(6a). 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. 1. 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 gain 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 fight 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 theme(7),' 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 Nicaea, 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(8), 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(9). 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.(10) But since they
say that He is 'of the essence' and 'Like-in-essence,' what do they signify by
these but 'Coessential(11)?' 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
essences' 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(12), 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(1). For not even man's word is part of him, nor proceeds
from him according to passion(2); 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.
42. Accordingly, as in saying 'offspring, we have no human thoughts, and,
though we know God to be a Father, we entertain no material ideas concerning
Him, but while we listen to these illustrations and terms, we think suitably of
God, for He is not as man, so in like manner, when we hear of 'coessential,' we
ought to transcend all sense, and, according to the Proverb, 'understand by the
understanding what is set before us' (Prov. xxiii.(1)); so as to know, that
not by will, but in truth, is He genuine from the Father, as Life from Fountain,
and Radiance from Light. Else(3) why should we understand 'offspring' and
'son,' in no corporeal way, while we conceive of 'coessential' as after the manner
of bodies? especially since these terms are not here used about different
subjects, but of whom 'offspring' is predicated, of Him is 'coessential' also. And it
is but consistent to attach the same sense to both expressions as applied to
the Saviour, and not to interpret 'offspring' in a good sense, and 'coessential'
otherwise; since to be consistent, ye who are thus minded and who say that the
Son is Word and Wisdom of the Father, should entertain a different view of
these terms also, and understand Word in another sense, and Wisdom in yet another.
But, as this would be absurd (for the Son is the Father's Word and Wisdom, and
the Offspring from the Father is one and proper to His essence), so the sense
of 'Offspring' and 'Coessential' is one, and whoso considers the Son an
offspring, rightly considers Him also as 'coessential.'
43. This is sufficient to shew that the meaning of the beloved ones(4) is
not foreign nor far from the 'Coessential.' But since, as they allege(5) (for I
have not the Epistle in question), the Bishops who condemned the Samosatene(6)
have said in writing that the Son is not coessential with the Father, and so
it comes to pass that they, for caution and honour towards those who have so
said, thus feel about that expression, it will be to the purpose cautiously to
argue with them this point also. Certainly it is unbecoming to make the one
conflict with the others; for all are fathers; nor is it religious to settle, that
these have spoken well, and those ill; for all of them fell asleep in Christ. Nor
is it right to be disputations, and to compare the respective numbers of those
who met in the Councils, lest the three hundred seem to throw the lesser into
the shade; nor to compare the dates, lest those who preceded seem to eclipse
those that came after. For all, I say, are fathers; and yet not even the three
hundred laid down nothing new, nor was it in any self-confidence that they became
champions of words not in Scripture, but they fell back upon fathers, as did
the others, and used their words. For there have been two of the name of
Dionysius, much older than the seventy who deposed the Samosatene, of whom one was of
Rome, and the other of Alexandria. But a charge had been laid by some persons
against the Bishop of Alexandria before the Bishop of Rome, as if he had said
that the Son was made, and not coessential with the Father. And, the synod at
Rome being indignant, the Bishop of Rome expressed their united sentiments in a
letter to his namesake. And so the latter, in defence, wrote a book with the
title 'of Refutation and Defence;' and thus he writes to the other:
44. And(7) I wrote in another Letter a refutation of the false charge
which they bring against me, that I deny that Christ is coessential with God. For
though I say that I have not found or read 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 a human production, which is evidently
homogeneous, and I observed that undeniably fathers 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 many 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, and yet altogether one in nature with it;
and that a stream flowing from a fountain, changed its appearance and its name,
for that neither the fountain was called stream, nor the stream fountain, but
both existed, and that the fountain was as it were father, but the stream was
what was generated from the fountain.
45. Thus the Bishop. If then any one finds fault with those who met at
Nicaea, as if they contradicted the decisions of their predecessors, he might
reasonably find fault also with the seventy, because they did not keep to the
statements of their own predecessors; but such were the Dionysu and the Bishops
assembled on that occasion at Rome. But neither these nor those is it pious to
blame; for all were charged with the embassy of Christ, and all have given
diligence against the heretics, and the one party condemned the Samosatene, while the
other condemned the Arian heresy. And rightly have both these and those written,
and suitably to the matter in hand. And as the blessed Apostle, writing to the
Romans, said, 'The Law is spiritual, the Law is holy, and the commandment holy
and just and good' (Rom. vii. 14, 12); and soon after, 'What the Law could not
do, in that it was weak' (Ib. viii. 3), but wrote to the Hebrews, 'The Law has
made no one perfect' (Heb. vii. 19); and to the Galatians, 'By the Law no one
is justified' (Gal. iii. 11), but to Timothy, 'The Law is good, if a man use it
lawfully' (1 Tim. i. 8); and no one would accuse the Saint of inconsistency
and variation in writing, but rather would admire how suitably he wrote to each,
to teach the Romans and the others to turn from the letter to the spirit, but
to instruct the Hebrews and Galatians to place their hopes, not in the Law, but
in the Lord who had given the Law;--so, if the Fathers of the two Councils made
different mention of the Coessential, we ought not in any respect to differ
from them, but to investigate their meaning, and this will fully show us the
agreement of both the Councils. For they who deposed the Samosatene took
Coessential in a bodily sense, because Paul had attempted sophistry and said, 'Unless
Christ has of man become God, it follows that He is Coessential with the Father;
and if so, of necessity there are three essences, one the previous essence, and
the other two from it;' and therefore guarding against this they said with good
reason, that Christ was not Coessential(8). For the Son is not related to the
Father as he imagined. But the Bishops who anathematized the Arian heresy,
understanding Paul's craft, and reflecting thatthe word 'Coessential' has not this
meaning when used of things immaterial(9), and especially of God, and
acknowledging that the Word was not a creature, but an offspring from the essence, and
that the Father's essence was the origin and root and fountain of the Son, and
that he was of very truth His Father's likeness, and not of different nature, as
we are, and separate from the Father, but that, as being from Him, He exists
as Son indivisible, as radiance is with respect to Light, and knowing too the
illustrations used in Dionysius's case, the 'fountain,' and the defence of'
Coessential' and before this the Saviour's saying, symbolical of unity(10), I and
the Father are one' and 'he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father' (John x. 30,
Ib. xiv. 9), on these grounds reasonably asserted on their part, that the Son
was Coessential. And as, according to a former remark, no one would blame the
Apostle, if he wrote to the Romans about the Law in one way, and to the Hebrews
in another; in like manner, neither would the present Bishops find fault with
the ancient, having regard to their interpretation, nor again in view of theirs
and of the need of their so writing about the Lord, would the ancient censure
their successors. Yes surely, each Council has a sufficient reason for its own
language; for since the Samosatene held that the Son was not before Mary, but
received from her the origin of His being, therefore those who then met deposed
him and pronounced him heretic; but concerning the Son's Godhead writing in
simplicity, they arrived not at accuracy concerning the Coessential, but, as they
understood the word, so spoke they about it. For they directed all their thoughts
to destroy the device of the Samosatene, and to shew that the Son was before
all things, and that, instead of becoming God from man, He, being God, had put
on a servant's form, and being Word, had become flesh, as John says (Phil. ii.
7; Joh. i. 14). This is how they dealt with the blasphemies of Paul; but when
Eusebius, Arius, and their fellows said that though the Son was before time, yet
was He made and one of the creatures, and as to the phrase 'from God,' they did
not believe it in the sense of His being genuine Son from Father, but
maintained it as it is said of the creatures, and as to the oneness(1) of likeness(2)
between the Son and the Father, did not confess that the Son is like the Father
according to essence, or according to nature as a son resembles his father, but
because of Their agreement of doctrines and of teaching(3); nay, when they
drew a line and an utter distinction between the Son's essence and the Father,
ascribing to Him an origin of being, other than the Father, and degrading Him to
the creatures, on this account the Bishops assembled at Nicaea, with a view to
the craft of the parties so thinking, and as bringing together the sense from
the Scriptures, cleared up the point, by affirming the 'Coessential;' that both
the true genuineness of the Son might thereby be known, and that to things
originate might be ascribed nothing in common with Him. For the precision of this
phrase detects their pretence, whenever they use the phrase 'from God,' and gets
rid of all the subtleties with which they seduce the simple. For whereas they
contrive to put a sophistical construction on all other words at their will,
this phrase only, as detecting their heresy, do they dread; which the Fathers set
down as a bulwark(4) against their irreligious notions one and all.
46. Let then all contention cease, nor let us any longer conflict, though
the Councils have differently taken the phrase 'Coessential,' for we have
already assigned a sufficient defence of them; and to it the following may be
added:--We have not derived the word 'Unoriginate' from Scripture, (for no where does
Scripture call God Unoriginate,) yet since it has many authorities in its
favour, I was curious about the term, and found that it too has different
senses(5). Some, for instance, call what is, but is neither generated, nor has any
personal cause at all, un-originate; and others, the uncreate. As then a person,
having in view the former of these senses, viz. 'that which has no personal
cause,' might say that the Son was not unoriginate, yet would not blame any one whom
he perceived to have in view the other meaning, not a work or creature but an
eternal offspring,' and to affirm accordingly that the Son was unoriginate, (for
both speak suitably with a view to their own object); so, even granting that
the Fathers have spoken variously concerning the Coessential, let us not dispute
about it, but take what they deliver to us in a religious way, when especially
their anxiety was directed in behalf of religion.
47. Ignatius, for instance, who was appointed Bishop in Antioch after the
Apostles, and became a martyr of Christ, writes concerning the Lord thus:
'There is one physician, fleshly and spiritual, originate and unoriginate(6), God in
man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God;(1) whereas some teachers
who followed Ignatius, write in their turn, 'One is the Unoriginate, the
Father, and one the genuine Son from Him, true offspring, Word and Wisdom of the
Father(7).' If therefore we have hostile feelings towards these writers, then have
we right to quarrel with the Councils; but if, knowing their faith in Christ,
we are persuaded that the blessed Ignatius was right in writing that Christ was
originate on account of the flesh (for He became flesh), yet unoriginate,
because He is not in the number of things made and originated, but Son from Father;
and if we are aware too that those who have said that the Unoriginate is One,
meaning the Father, did not mean to lay down that the Word was originated and
made, but that the Father has no personal cause, but rather is Himself Father of
Wisdom, and in Wisdom has made all things that are originated; why do we not
combine all our Fathers in religious belief, those who deposed the Samosatene as
well as those who proscribed the Arian heresy, instead of making distinctions
between them and refusing to entertain a right opinion of them? I repeat, that
those, in view of the sophistical explanation of the Samosatene, wrote, 'He is
not coessentials(8);' and these, with an apposite meaning, said that He was.
For myself, I have written these brief remarks, from my feeling towards persons
who were religious to Christ-ward; but were it possible to come by the Epistle
which we are told that the former wrote, I consider we should find further
grounds for the aforesaid proceeding of those blessed men. For it is right and meet
thus to feel, and to maintain a good conscience toward the Fathers, if we be
not spurious children, but have received the traditions from them, and the
lessons of religion at their hands.
48. Such then, as we confess and believe, being the sense of the Fathers,
proceed we even in their company to examine once more the matter, calmly and
with a kindly sympathy, with reference to what has been said before, viz. whether
the Bishops collected at Nicaea do not really prove to have thought aright.
For if the Word be a work and foreign to the Father's essence, so that He is
separated from the Father by the difference of nature, He cannot be one in essence
with Him, but rather He is homogeneous by nature with the works, though He
surpass them in grace(9). On the other hand, if we confess that He is not a work
but the genuine offspring of the Father's essence, it would follow that He is
inseparable from the Father, being connatural, because He is begotten from Him.
And being such, good reason He should be called Coessential. Next, if the Son be
not such from participation, but is in His essence the Father's Word and
Wisdom, and this essence is the offspring of the Father's essence(10), and its
likeness as the radiance is of the light, and the Son says, 'I and the Father are
One,' and, 'he that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father' (John x. 30; xiv. 9), how
must we understand these words? or how shall we so explain them as to preserve
the oneness of the Father and the Son? Now as to its consisting in agreement(1)
of doctrines, and in the Son's not disagreeing with the Father, as the Arians
say, such an interpretation is a sorry one; for both the Saints, and still more
Angels and Archangels, have such an agreement with God, and there is no
disagreement among them. For he who disagreed, the devil, was beheld to fall from
the heavens, as the Lord said. Therefore if by reason of agreement the Father and
the Son are one, there would be things originated which had this agreement
with God, and each of these might say, 'I and the Father are One.' But if this be
absurd, and so it truly is, it follows of necessity that we must conceive of
Son's and Father's oneness in the way of essence. For things originate, though
they have an agreement with their Maker, yet possess it only by influence(2), and
by participation, and through the mind; the transgression of which forfeits
heaven. But the Son, being an offspring from the essence, is one by essence,
Himself and the Father that begat Him.
49. This is why He has equality with the Father by titles expressive of
unity(3), and what is said of the Father, is said in Scripture of the Son also,
all but His being called Father(4). For the Son Himself said, 'All things that
the Father hath are Mine' (John xvi. 15); and He says to the Father, 'All Mine
are Thine, and Thine are Mine' (John xvii. 10),--as for instance(4a), the name
God; for 'the Word was God;'--Almighty, 'Thus saith He that is, and that was,
and that is to come, the Almighty' (John i. 1; Apoc. i. 8):--the being Light, 'I
am,' He says, 'the Light' (John viii. 12):--the Operative Cause, 'All things
were made by Him,' and, 'whatsoever I see the Father do, I do also' (John i. 3;
v. 19):--the being Everlasting, 'His eternal power and godhead,' and, 'In the
beginning was the Word,' and, 'He was the true Light, which lighteth every man
that cometh into the world;'--the being Lord, for, 'The Lord rained fire and
brimstone from the Lord,' and the Father says, 'I am the Lord,' and, 'Thus saith
the Lord, the Almighty God;' and of the Son Paul speaks thus, 'One Lord Jesus
Christ, through whom all things' (Rom. i. 20; John i. I; ib. 9; Gen xix. 24; Isa.
xlv. 5; Am. v. 16; I Cor. viii. 6). And on the Father Angels wait, and again
the Son too is worshipped by them, 'And let all the Angels of God worship Him;'
and He is said to be Lord of Angels, for 'the Angels ministered unto Him,' and
'the Son of Man shall send His Angels.' The being honoured as the Father, for
'that they may honour the Son,' He says, 'as they honour the Father;'--being
equal to God, 'He counted it not a prize to be equal with God' (Heb. i. 6; Matt.
iv. II; xxiv. 31; John v. 23; Phil. ii. the being Truth from the True, and Life
from the Living, as being truly from the Fountain, even the Father;--the
quickening and raising the dead as the Father, for so it is written in the Gospel. And
of the Father it is written, 'The Lord thy God is One Lord,' and, 'The God of
gods, the Lord, hath spoken, and hath called the earth;' and of the Son, 'The
Lord God hath shined upon us,' and, 'The God of gods shall be seen in Sion.' And
again of God, Isaiah says, 'Who is a God like unto Thee, taking away
iniquities and passing over unrighteousness?' (Deut. vi. 4; Ps. 1. I; cxviii. 27;
lxxxiv. 7, LXX.; Mic. vii. 18). But the Son said to whom He would, 'Thy sins are
forgiven thee;' for instance, when, on the Jews murmuring, He manifested the
remission by His act, saying to the paralytic, 'Rise, take up thy bed, and go unto
thy house.' And of God Paul says, 'To the King eternal;' and again of the Son,
David in the Psalm, 'Lift up your gates, O ye rulers, and be ye lift up ye
everlasting doors, and the King of glory shall come in.' And Daniel heard it said,'
His Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom, and His Kingdom shall not be destroyed'
(Matt. ix. 5; Mark ii. II; 1 Tim. i. x 17; Ps. xxiv. 7; Dan. iv. 3; vii. 14).
And in a word, all that you find said of the Father, so much will you find said
of the Son, all but His being Father, as has been said.
50. If then any think of other beginning, and other Father, considering
the equality of these attributes, it is a mad thought. But if, since the Son is
from the Father, all that is the Father's is the Son's as in an image and
Expression, let it be considered dispassionately, whether an essence foreign from the
Father's essence admit of such attributes; and whether such a one be other in
nature and alien in essence, and not coessential with the Father. For we must
take reverent heed, lest transferring what is proper to the Father to what is
unlike Him in essence, and expressing the Father's godhead by what is unlike in
kind and alien in essence, we introduce another essence foreign to Him, yet
capable of the properties of the first essence(5), and lest we be silenced by God
Himself, saying, 'My glory I will not give to another,' and be discovered
worshipping this alien God, and be accounted such as were the Jews of that day, who
said, 'Wherefore dost Thou, being a man, make Thyself God?' referring, the
while, to another source the things of the Spirit, and blasphemously saying, 'He
casteth out devils through Beelzebub' (Isa. xlii. 8; John x. 33; Luke xi. 15). But
if this is shocking, plainly the Son is not unlike in essence, but coessential
with the Father; for if what the Father has is by nature the Son's, and the
Son Himself is from the Father, and because of this oneness of godhead and of
nature He and the Father are one, and He that hath seen the Son bath seen the
Father reasonably is He called by the Fathers 'Coessential;' for to what is other
in essence, it belongs not to possess such prerogatives.
51. And again, if, as we have said before, the Son is not such by
participation, but, while all things originated have by participation the grace of God,
He is the Father's Wisdom and Word of which all things partake(6), it follows
that He, being the deifying and enlightening power of the Father, in which all
things are deified and quickened, is not alien in essence from the Father, but
coessential. For by partaking of Him, we partake of the Father; because that
the Word is the Father's own. Whence, if He was Himself too from participation,
and not from the Father His essential Godhead and Image, He would not deify(7),
being deified Himself. For it is not possible that He, who merely possesses
from participation, should impart of that partaking to others, since what He has
is not His own, but the Giver's; and what He has received, is barely the grace
sufficient for Himself. However, let us fairly examine the reason why some, as
is said, decline the 'Coessential,' whether it does not rather shew that the Son
is coessential with the Father. They say then, as you have written, that it is
not right to say that the Son is coessential with the Father, because he who
speaks of 'coessential' speaks of three, one essence pre-existing, and that
those who are generated from it are coessential: and they add, 'If then the Son be
coessential with the Father, then an essence must be previously supposed, from
which they have been generated; and that the One is not Father and the Other
Son, but they are brothers togethers(8)' As to all this, though it be a Greek
interpretation, and what comes from them does not bind us(9), still let us see
whether those things which are called coessential and are collateral, as derived
from one essence presupposed, are coessential with each other, or with the
essence from which they are generated. For if only with each other, then are they
other in essence and unlike, when referred to that essence which generated them;
for other in essence is opposed to coessential; but if each be coessential with
the essence which generated them, it is thereby confessed that what is
generated from any thing, is coessential with that which generated ill and there is no
need of seeking for three essences, but merely to seek whether it be true that
this is from that(10). For should it happen that there were not two brothers,
but that only one had come of that essence, he that was generated would not be
called alien in essence, merely because there was no other from the essence
than he; but though alone, he must be coessential with him that begat him. For
what shall we say about Jephtha's daughter; because she was only-begotten, and 'he
had not,' says Scripture, 'other child' (Jud. xi. 34); and again, concerning
the widow's son, whom the Lord raised from the dead, because he too had no
brother, but was only-begotten, was on that account neither of these coessential
with him that begat? Surely they were, for they were children, and this is a
property of children with reference to their parents. And in like manner also, when
the Fathers said that the Son of God was from His essence, reasonably have they
spoken of Him as coessential. For the like property has the radiance compared
with the light. Else it follows that not even the creation came out of nothing.
For whereas men beget with passion(1), so again they work upon an existing
subject matter, and otherwise cannot make. But if we do not understand creation in
a human way', when we attribute it to God, much less seemly is it to
understand generation in a human way, or to give a corporeal sense to Coessential;
instead of receding from things originate, casting away human images, nay, all
things sensible, and ascending(3) to the Father(4), lest we rob the Father of the
Son in ignorance, and rank Him among His own creatures.
52. Further, if, in confessing Father and Son, we spoke of two beginnings
or two Gods as Marcion and Valentinus(5), or said that the Son had any other
mode of godhead, and was not the Image and Expression of the Father, as being by
nature born from Him, then He might be considered unlike; for such essences are
altogether unlike each other. But if we acknowledge that the Father's godhead
is one and sole, and that of Him the Son is the Word and Wisdom; and, as thus
believing, are far from speaking of two Gods, but understand the oneness of the
Son with the Father to be not in likeness of their teaching, but according to
essence and in truth, and hence speak not of two Gods but of one God; there
being but one Form(6) of Godhead, as the Light is one and the Radiance; (for this
was seen by the Patriarch Jacob, as Scripture says,' The sun rose upon him when
the Form of God passed by,' Gen. xxxii. 31, LXX.); and be holding this, and
understanding of whom He was Son and Image, the holy Prophets say, 'The Word of
the Lord came to me;' and recognising the Father, who was beheld and revealed in
Him, they made bold to say, 'The God 'of our fathers hath appeared unto me, the
God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob' (Exod. iii. (16)); this being so,
wherefore scruple we to call Him coessential who is one with the Father, and appears
as doth the Father, according to likeness and oneness of godhead? For if, as
has been many times said, He has it not to be proper to the Father's essence, nor
to resemble, as a Son, we may well scruple: but if this be the illuminating
and creative Power, specially proper to the Father, without Whom He neither
frames nor is known (for all things consist through Him and in Him); wherefore,
perceiving the fact, do we decline to use the phrase conveying it? For what is it
to be thus connatural with the Father, but to be one in essence with Him? for
God attached not to Him the Son from without(7), as needing a servant; nor are
the works on a level with the Creator, and honoured as He is, or to be thought
one with the Father. Or let a man venture to make the distinction, that the sun
and the radiance are two lights, or different essences; or to say that the
radiance accrued to it over and above, and is not a simple and pure offspring from
the sun; such, that sun and radiance are two, but the light one, because the
radiance is an offspring from the Sun. But, whereas not more divisible, nay less
divisible is the nature(8) of the Son towards the Father, and the godhead not
accruing to the Son, but the Father's godhead being in the Son, so that he that
hath seen the Son hath seen the Father in Him; wherefore should not such a one
be called Coessential?
53. Even this is sufficient to dissuade you from blaming those who have
said that the Son was coessential with the Father, and yet let us examine the
very term 'Coessential,' in itself, by way of seeing whether we ought to use it at
all, and whether it be a proper term, and is suitable to apply to the Son. For
you know yourselves, and no one can dispute it, that Like is not predicated of
essence, but of habits, and qualities; for in the case of essences we speak,
not of likeness, but of identity. Man, for instance, is said to be like man, not
in essence, but according to habit and character; for in essence men are of
one nature. And again, man is not said to be unlike dog, but to be of different
nature. Accordingly while the former are of one nature and coessential, the
latter are different in both. Therefore, in speaking of Like according to essence,
we mean like by participation; (for Likeness is a quality, which may attach to
essence), and this would be proper to creatures for they, by partaking, are
made like to God. For 'when He shall appear,' says Scripture, 'we shall be like
Him' (1 John iii. 2), like, that is, not in essence but in sonship, which we
shall partake from Him. If then ye speak of the Son as being by participation, then
indeed call Him Like-in-essence; but thus spoken of, He is not Truth, nor
Light at all, nor in nature God. For things which are from participation, are
called like, not in reality, but from resemblance to reality; so that they may
swerve, or be taken from those who share them. And this, again, is proper to
creatures and works. Therefore, if this be out of place, He must be, not by
participation, but in nature and truth Son, Light, Wisdom, God; and being by nature, and
not by sharing, He would properly be called, not Like-in-essence, but
Coessential. But what would not be asserted, even in the case of others (for the Like
has been shewn to be inapplicable to essences), is it not folly, not to say
violence, to put forward in the case of the Son, instead of the 'Coessential?'
54. This is why the Nicene Council was, correct in writing, what it was
becoming to say, that the Son, begotten from the Father's essence, is coessential
with Him. And if we too have been taught the same thing, let us not fight with
shadows, especially as knowing, that they who have so defined, have made this
confession of faith, not to misrepresent the truth, but as vindicating the
truth and religiousness towards Christ, and also as destroying the blasphemies
against Him of the Ario-maniacs. For this must be considered and noted carefully,
that, in using unlike-in-essence, and other-in-essence, we signify not the true
Son, but some one of the creatures, and an introduced and adopted Son, which
pleases the heretics; but when we speak uncontroversially of the Coessential, we
signify a genuine Son born of the Father; though at this Christ's enemies
often burst with rage(9). What then I have learned myself, and have heard men of
judgment say, I have written in few words; but do you, remaining on the
foundation of the Apostles, and holding fast the traditions of the Fathers, pray that
now at length all strife and rivalry may cease, and the futile questions of the
heretics may be condemned, and all logomachy(1); and the guilty and murderous
heresy of the Arians may disappear, and the truth may shine again in the hearts
of all, so that all every where may 'say the same thing'(1 Cor. i. 10), and
think the same thing(2), and that, no Arian contumelies remaining, it may be said
and confessed in every Church, 'One Lord, one faith, one baptism' (Eph. iv. 5),
in Christ Jesus our Lord, through whom to the Father be the glory and the
strength, unto ages of ages. Amen.
Postscripts
55. After I had written my account of the Councils(3), I had information
that the most irreligious(4) Constantius had sent Letters to the Bishops
remaining in Ariminum; and I have taken pains to get copies of them from true brethren
and to send them to you, and also what the Bishops answered; that you may know
the irreligious craft of the Emperor, and the firm and unswerving purpose of
the Bishops towards the truth.
Interpretation of the Letter(5).
Constantius, Victorious and Triumphant, Augustus, to all Bishops who are
assembled at Ariminum.
That the divine and adorable Law is our chief care, your excellencies are
not ignorant; but as yet we have been unable to receive the twenty Bishops sent
by your wisdom, and charged with the legation from you, for we are pressed by
a necessary expedition against the Barbarians; and as ye know, it beseems to
have the soul clear from every care, when one handles the matters of the Divine
Law. Therefore we have ordered the Bishops to await our return at Adrianople;
that, when all public affairs are well arranged, then at length we may hear and
weigh their suggestions. Let it not then be grievous to your constancy to await
their return, that, when they come back with our answer to you, ye may be able
to bring matters to a close which so deeply affect the well-being of the
Catholic Church.
This was what the Bishops received at the hands of three emissaries.
Reply of the Bishops.
The letter of your humanity we have received, most God-beloved Lord
Emperor, which reports that, on account of stress of public affairs, as yet you have
been unable to attend to our deputies; and in which you command us to await
their return, until your godliness shall be advised by them of what we have
defined conformably to our ancestors. However, we now profess and aver at once by
these presents, that we shall not recede from our purpose, as we also instructed
our deputies. We ask then that you will with serene countenance command these
letters of our mediocrity to be read; but also that you will graciously receive
those, with which we charged our deputies. This however your gentleness
comprehends as well as we, that great grief and sadness at present prevail, because
that, in these your most happy days, so many Churches are without Bishops. And on
this account we again request your humanity, most God-beloved Lord Emperor,
that, if it please your religiousness, you would command us, before the severe
winter weather sets in, to return to our Churches, that so we may be able, unto
God Almighty and our Lord and Saviour Christ, His Only-begotten Son, to fulfil
together with our flocks our wonted prayers in behalf of your imperial sway, as
indeed we have ever performed them, and at this time make them.
ADDITIONAL NOTE.
[The 'list of Sirmian confessions' published by Newman as an Excursus to
the de Synodis is omitted here. It will be found printed as 'Appendix iii.' to
his Arians of the Fourth Century.
The Excursus on a Creed ascribed (at the Council of Ephesus, see Hard.
Cons. i. 1640, Hahn. 83; Routh Rell. iii. 367) to the 70 bishops who condemned
Paul of Samosata, at Antioch A.D. 269, and containing the formula
<greek>dmoousion</greek> (against this, supr. 43 -- 47), is also omitted, as beating only
very indirectly on the de Synodis. Caspari Alte und Neue Quellen (xi), p. 161,
has thoroughly investigated the Confession since Newman wrote, and has proved
(what Newman half suspected) that the document is of Apollinarian origin. As
Caspari was unaware of Newman's discussion, this result comes as the result of two
independent investigations pursued on very different lines.]