Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria

^A show that he had collected into one volume the most holy prelate, along with those written back to him by the bishops established throughout the individual cities, for the defense of the Catholic position, as Sozomen (b) testifies in addition to Socrates (a). But out of all the letters that antiquity reports Alexander wrote, only two remain complete today; to these is added the same Alexander’s brief allocution concerning the deposition of Arius and his associates, addressed to the priests and deacons of Alexandria and Mareotis. The former of the letters, therefore, which we refer to as having been received by Theodoret (c), is inscribed to Alexander, the bishop of Constantinople, who shared the same name. We know from what occurs at the beginning that this letter was written after the Alexandrian synod had been held. For thus the holy Father (d) says: "And we indeed," he says, "since we were slow to detect the things relevant to their (the Arians') own life and nefarious attempts because of their own hiding places, by the common suffrage of all we have expelled them from the assembly of the Church that adores the divinity of Christ." ^B Furthermore, as the illustrious Valesius observes, from another place in the same letter (e) we learn that Alexander wrote it before the one he directed to all the Churches. For in that place the blessed prelate speaks thus: "I do not know how three bishops, ordained in Syria, by consenting to them (the Arians), incite them to worse things." He refers, of course, as the critic (f) says, to Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, Theodotus of Laodicea, and Paulinus of Tyre; for Arius, in his letter to Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, which Theodoret cites (g), testifies that these men had been condemned by a sentence of anathema by our Alexandrian prelate. Alexander would not have failed to mention this bishop of Nicomedia in this letter to his namesake Alexander, had he written it at a later time.

IV. As for the inscription of the same letter, ^C besides the things we have noted regarding it from Pagi and Baluze, it will be useful to cite here the opinion of the most learned Holstenius. Thus, therefore, he says (h): "Since in this letter Alexander addresses not just one person, but several in succession... my mind is fixed on this opinion: that this is not a private or tractatory letter, but a circular and general one, sent to the various bishops of Europe. No one will easily deny this, if he is not entirely ignorant of the final part of this letter and the form and manner of ecclesiastical letters... Not that I deny this letter was written to Alexander, the bishop of Constantinople; but that copies of the same were also sent to other neighboring bishops, or to those who were then staying in the royal city for the sake of ^D business, as I shall show it to have been sent as a circular." Nor would I here oppose to Theodoret the worthless authority of Gelasius of Cyzicus’s *Diobolaris* rhapsody, who asserts that this Alexander had not yet been at the head of the Church of Constantinople at this time; and who writes that shortly after the Council of Nicaea, as a layman still a presbyter, he attended in place of Metrophanes, who was worn out by extreme old age. The narration of an uncertain author regarding the 318 Fathers of the Council of Nicaea follows his authority, which exists in the *History of the Saints* by Lipomanus; I remember having transcribed a copy of it at one time from a royal manuscript in Gaul. These things, I say, are not of such weight as to diminish the authority of Theodoret and other better authors in our esteem. So far Holstenius. Nor would it be inappropriate to consult Montfaucon, who inquires quite learnedly (i) what that *tomos* or "volume" is, in this very letter (j), which Alexander of Alexandria sent to Alexander of Byzantium to be subscribed to by the bishops throughout the world.

V. Regarding the remaining two written monuments that follow above, since they were transcribed from the excellent Athanasian edition, it is better to hear the most celebrated editor himself speaking beforehand about them (k): "We are editing," he says, "the *Kathairesis* or Deposition of Arius and his associates, so named in the royal manuscript from which it is taken; although it is strictly nothing else but the speech in which the archbishop Alexander, having summoned the Alexandrian and Mareotic priests and deacons, exhorts them in his presence to support his encyclical letter, in which the condemnation of Arius and his associates is narrated, with their own suffrage and subscription. This work, previously unpublished, was inserted by the distinguished V. C. Cotelerius into his notes on the Fathers of the first century (l), lest it should perish entirely. But since it was placed there outside of its proper context, it seemed good to add it here, especially since it brings no small light to the most complex beginnings of the Arians. To this we add the encyclical letter of Alexander, which so adheres to the preceding Deposition that it should in no way be separated from it: wherefore it was worth the effort to join them together here in turn, just as they lie in the same royal manuscript. This letter is found in Socrates (m), but is sprinkled with many errors, and the subscriptions of the Alexandrian clergy are missing there. Likewise, it is read in Gelasius (n) with the subscriptions, but is also beset with errors: and the subscriptions are so mutilated that it was strictly necessary to prepare a new edition of it, as will be plain to anyone examining it. Here Alexander narrates the events at the outbreak of the Arian heresy, and in the condemnation of Arius and his followers; and he warns the bishops not to

comply with Eusebius of Nicomedia, the patron of Arius, in the event that the latter should write letters to them in favor of the heresiarch. So far this learned man. He subsequently illustrated both treatises once more ^A against the views of Tillemont, who seems to have misunderstood the acts of the deposition of Arius and his associates. Furthermore, we add to these writings of the holy Father two fragments from his same letter to Æglon the Cynopolitanean bishop, which are read in the collection of Saint Maximus the Confessor.

Finally, we wish to advise the reader that at the end of the Valesian Theodoret there exist two dissertations by Holstenius, in which that most learned man excellently illustrates both letters of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, as we hinted a little earlier.

LUCAS HOLSTENIUS: TWO DISSERTATIONS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF THE NICENE COUNCIL. DISSERTATION ONE

^B It has seemed good to begin the matter from the "egg," as they say, and to examine the remaining fragments of the Nicene Council: I have thought it proper to exhibit the specimen of this private labor and study of mine in this public assembly, since your kindness has imposed upon me the necessity of speaking. These are the two letters of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, which are taken from the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates and Theodoret and constitute the [proparaskeue] (preparation) for the Nicene Council. Assuredly they are excellent and composed [deinos] (skilfully), to which the Latin version of Christophorson is joined; but it has been interpolated in some places by the Roman editors. Thus, I thought I would provide you with a taste not only of the version of the Councils, but of universal ecclesiastical history. But your patience must first be entreated by me, so that you may not be annoyed to follow one who aspires ^C to proceed through the roughness of the speech with an even mind. For whether chance or design has brought before me subject matter which by no means admits of the ornament of speech, it—as the prince of orators said concerning geographical matters—is in no way [anthroposraphistai] (capable of being transcribed by human hand). Moreover, since I have begun to exercise the sharpness of my wit and the censure of my judgment upon another’s labor, just as I abjure calumny with genuine candor and the best faith, so I pray against envy, lest anyone think that by attacking the errors of others I am seeking praise for my own learning or industry. These are public studies, by the promotion of which we seek public utility, not private praise. But I humbly ask you, most eminent princes, since your will and authority have drawn me into this place, that by the aura of your humanity and benevolence, you may lift the course of my speech, which is tossing between rocks and shallows.

Alexander narrates the apostasy of Arius and the blasphemous dogmas by which he strove to ^D remove Christ the Lord from the state and rank of divinity, and to cast the Creator down to the census of a creature. In these, there are some things in the Greek text that are arranged rather incorrectly, or observed less accurately by the translator, or in which the ancient translator Epiphanius Scholasticus seems to have followed a different reading of his own time. Since these are matters of closer consideration, it is of no use to mention them individually. That which must be indicated is that when Arius and his associates were asked whether the Word of God, which they asserted to be created, could be changed—just as the devil had been changed—they were not afraid to answer, "It is possible." They add the reason, expressed thus in the Roman edition: *Τρεπτῆς γὰρ φύσεώς ἐστι γενητὸς, καὶ τρεπτὸς ὑπάρχων*. Which they translate: "For he is made of a mutable nature, and exists as mutable." In this matter, I seek the judgment of both the British translators and the Roman edition. For, to pass over the sense of the passage which was long ago correctly expressed by the ancient translator, who, weighing the burdens and the moments of this reasoning, or being a little more versed in the reading of the Greeks, does not easily notice that from the habit of speaking itself, a less correct distinction has produced a faulty version? Arius asserted that the Son of God, [τὸν Λόγον], could be changed; adding the reason, [τρεπτῆς γὰρ φύσεώς ἐστι]. "For He is of mutable nature," or "He possesses a mutable nature," [γενητὸς καὶ τρεπτὸς ὑπάρχων], "inasmuch as He is made or created, and therefore is mutable." Wherefore the word [γενητὸς] is by no means to be neglected in this place, in which the whole force and nerve of that impious assertion consists: which Alexander himself repeats in the following letter, but derived in more transparent words. They say, he says, that the Son of God, when He had not been before, was made afterwards, and was made such, when He was made, as the rest of men are. [Συναναλαμβάνοντες τῇ τῶν ἁπάντων κτίσει καὶ τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ], comprehending also the Son of God among the remaining creatures.

^A And consequently they add, that He is of a mutable nature, and capable of virtue and vice. You see, by this supposition, that the Son of God was made or created, and that the necessary consequence derived from this is that He is also mutable. And thus Damascene reasons, in book 1 *De orthodoxa fide*, ch. 3: *Things created are, by all means, mutable. For those things which began to exist from change, will be subject to change in every way, either by perishing, or by being altered according to choice.* Created things, he says, are also altogether subject to mutation. For the things whose existence begins from mutation will necessarily be subject to mutation, while they either perish or are altered by their own will. Thus, indeed, Arius asserted the Son of God to be ^B *capable of virtue and vice*: since, as Justin Martyr writes somewhere in his *Questions*: *The sign of mutation is to receive the notions of good and evil;* a sign and mark of mutation is to bring good and evil into one's soul.

Having exposed the dogmas of Arius, Alexander opposes to them the orthodox sentiment of the Catholic Church, so that, by the light of truth being brought forth, he might dispel the darkness of the Stygian. He urges against those Christ-fighters the authority of St. John: who proclaims that the Word was in the beginning, and that all things were made through Him. Then he insists with arguments: if the Word is the only-begotten Son of God, how do they assert that *He is one of the things made*? That He is one from among the creatures? And if all things were made through Him, *how can He be equal to those things which were made through Him*? Who can be equal to things which were made through Him? In which final place Gelasius of Cyzicus and the interpreter Epiphanius read more correctly long ago: *how can He be one of those which are known to have been made through Him?* Which reading the construction of the Greek language openly requires. Although, as to the sense of the passage, it matters nothing whether you read *isos* with the common text, or *eis* with the ancient interpreter. If, however, *isos* is retained, the construction must be changed in this way: *How then can He be equal to things which were made through Him,* and not *one of the things which were made through Him.* Thus St. Paul, Phil. 2:6, says that Christ did not think it robbery ^D *to be equal to God*. Thus Alexander himself in the following epistle writes that the Arians preached that Christ was *equal to all things*; which the Roman version renders: *that Christ is nothing more excellent than other men*: most narrowly indeed. For Arius was not restricting that equality to men alone, but to every creature as well, both of the rational and irrational. For there is nothing else in that place, *to be equal to all things*, than to be here *numbered with all things*, that is, that the Word, according to their opinion, being made and created from nothing, must be inserted into the number of all other creatures, as being equal and on par in condition and essence with all other creatures. Although I would prefer to translate *to ison*, in these places, as *equal* [in quality/standing] rather than *on par*, which even profane authors use throughout for a contemporary or coeval; it is very convenient for expressing [the argument] against the Arians.

These few observations upon Alexander's former encyclical, or catholic, epistle shall suffice. There follows now another of the same [author], *unnumbered* in the Roman edition, which I know not by what negligence was admitted in so diligent a work: since both Theodoret and the *Tripartita* attest that it was inscribed and sent to Alexander, bishop of Constantinople. Indeed, when I had first perused this epistle, and observed that Alexander was addressing not just one person, but many in succession, the suspicion arose that the title had been omitted in the Roman edition by a deliberate decision. Which, having been done by negligence, I discovered afterwards from a list of errata. However that may be, this opinion remains fixed for me, that this is not some private or tractarian epistle, but itself also one that is circular and general, sent to various bishops of Europe. Which no one will easily deny who has both read the final part of this epistle with care, and is not entirely ignorant of the form and mode of ecclesiastical epistles. For both the closing of these letters is clearly the same as that of the preceding encyclicals, by which he imparts greetings to the rest of the clergy through the bishops: as well as by the fact that, just as in the rest of the context of the letter, so also at the end, he shows that he is addressing many in his discourse. Whence one must confess it was written to many as well. Since that has been most truly no less than learnedly observed by Francesco Bernardino Ferrario in book III *De antiquo epistolarum ecclesiasticarum genere*, that the custom had long prevailed that the same titles of honor would be repeated at the end of the epistles by which they had been addressed at the beginning to those to whom they were writing. But wherefore these things, you ask? Not to deny that this epistle was written to Alexander, bishop of Constantinople; but to show that copies of the same were also sent through a circular to other neighboring bishops, or to those who were then residing in the royal city for the sake of business. Nor would I here oppose to Theodoret the futile authority of the *Diobolaris* of Gelasius of Cyzicus, who affirms that this Alexander had not yet presided over the Constantinopolitan Church at this time: and who writes that he, still a private presbyter, was present, a little after the Nicene Council, in place of Metrophanes, who was worn out by extreme old age. Whose account the narration of an uncertain author regarding the 318 Fathers of the Nicene Council also follows, which exists in the *Lives of the Saints* of Lipomanus; a copy of which I remember transcribing at one time from the Royal codex in Gaul. These things, I say, are not of such weight as to undermine for us the trustworthiness of Theodoret and other better authors. But now we approach the epistle itself: at whose threshold the word *protheoseōs* offends the Roman editors, for which they substitute *proairesein* (choice) marked by obelisks. But I must confess I do not know what cause they had for expunging a most Greek word by a list of errata. A word, I say, that is proper, and used not only by Polybius, as appears from Suidas, but also once and again by St. Paul. Rom. 8:28, *tois kata prothesin kletois*, called according to purpose, and

Ephes. 1:11, *prooristhentes kata prothesin*, predestined according to purpose; and after Paul, every saintly Father. Clement of Alexandria also in book 1, *eunoias prothesin*, the purpose of celibacy, and in book 7, *tous kata prothesin dikaious*, the righteous according to purpose, called them following the Apostle. Justin Martyr in question 19 to the orthodox writes that palpitations, sneezings, and ringing in the ears occur *para ten hemeteran prothesin*, against our purpose. I omit others. Indeed, Constantine the Great wrote in a letter to our Alexander and Arius regarding *mian psyches prothesin*, one purpose of soul. What then? Does not Alexander himself presently in this very page repeat *ten mochtheran prothesin*, the wicked purpose? Which, that he might not be slaughtered by the critics, he could show to be safe and unharmed, as he says ^B below regarding those bishops to whom he writes, *orthe prothesei*, with a right purpose, he trusts. You see, I think, hearers, how cautiously and religiously one must walk in the writings of the ancients, and how nothing should be altered rashly. Moreover, if anyone compares the beginning of this letter in Greek with the ancient version of Epiphanius, he will find that his codex presented a far different meaning.

To that *prothesei* of wicked men, which I just mentioned, responds what follows, that they are driven by the impulse of the devil as if goaded, *eis ten prokeimenen autois hedonen*, to the pleasure set before them. Since by this a certain and determined counsel of the mind is signified, I think it is more rightly translated by the ancient interpreter as "the pleasure set before their mind," than by Camerarius as "obvious pleasure," or by our British interpreter as "pleasures that happen to offer themselves." For who does not see that *ten tychousan hedonen*, any pleasure, and *ten prokeimenen*, that which is set before, differ very widely from one another; seeing that the former implies chance, while the latter, as I said, has linked to it the purpose of will and counsel? ^C He adds that the reason for his writing was to warn the rest of the orthodox that those wicked ones must be avoided: *Me tis auton tolmese*, he says, *kai tais humeterais paroikiais epibenai*, "Let no one of them dare to set foot in your parishes also." As the old and genuine interpreter of Theodoret translates this correctly and simply, so our Englishman, with a grand and importunate ambit of words, renders it leaving traces of his own error on the Churches. These things are said by me because I would wish for "drones" and "finery" to be removed far from the chaste oratory of the holy Fathers: and I judge that these, just as they themselves studiously avoided them, should not be admitted into their versions to express their mind. Thus, at the beginning of the next page, the old interpreter translates *ten soterion Christou oikonomian kai di' hemas tapeinosin*, "the saving dispensation of Christ and the humility assumed for us," just as the rest of the Fathers of the Latin Church and the common interpreter of the Scriptures love to speak; where our man preferred "economy" and "abjection" rather than "humiliation."

Then follows a passage, truly remarkable, where Alexander excellently describes the wicked arts of the Arians, by which they attacked the truth and its defenders, both by open force and by hidden fraud and secret tunnels. ^D Now, first, those enemies of God were cast out of the camps of the Church to flee to the Gentiles and Jews, and to join themselves with them in a bond of league to destroy the Christian religion: with them they sought to gain favor and praise for themselves, while they exposed the dogmas and sacred rites of the Christians, which were a stumbling-block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles, to the laughter and mockery of the same; whence it was necessary that the ruin of religion should follow. Then, against the champions of truth themselves, they incited riots, seditions, and most grievous persecutions: so that the Church of God, bereft of their protection, might fall a prey to them. These are the two heads of the accusation. In what ways the Arians endeavored to bring about each of these, he presently shows. The latter, to be sure, he says, they effect by inciting seditions and persecutions, by harassing the Catholics, and by bringing lawsuits against them, through the friendship and solicitations of weak women: they would traduce Christianity while their own young women wander about the cities freely without measure or modesty: both of which are against the teaching of the Apostle, who in the first to Timothy 5:19 commands that widows of sixty years should be chosen, but that younger ones or *juvenculas* are to be avoided. Then, indeed, in the thirteenth verse of the same chapter, he warns them not to be idle, wandering from house to house, talkative and curious, etc. Nor is there any doubt that this whole passage is to be understood and explained from these words of the Apostle. In expressing the sense of which our interpreter is wonderfully secure, tearing apart and confusing everything at will. Whence, instead of one continuous statement of Alexander, he exhibits for us mere disjointed sweepings, which to follow in detail would be tedious. I marvel that both the old and the new interpreter, by inverting the spirit of a single Greek word, as if caught in a more violent storm, have struck upon a reef. The words of Alexander are: *Ten goun Hellenon te kai Ioudaion asebe peri Christou doxan kratynantes, ton par' auton epainon hos eni malista therontai*. Where neither perceived that *par' auton* should be read with a smooth breathing; and that not the Arians themselves, but the Greeks and the Jews are meant, among whom the Arians most studiously sought praise by attacking Christ with joint effort. Which thing, however, did not escape Camerarius, the interpreter of Theodoret, and Langus, the interpreter of Nicephorus. Although in the latter it is read not *par' auton*, but *par' autois*. But just like all other heretics, so Arius also imitated the nature and arts of his father the devil, and deluded the simplicity of the more yielding sex with a feigned appearance of piety. And when he had despoiled Christ of the glory of his divinity, he did not hesitate to invade and subvert his most holy flock. And he, who first of all of them drew to his side seven hundred virgins consecrated to Christ, while in the meantime he had conciliated to himself seven presbyters and twelve deacons. So, indeed, *euliston kai sphaleron kai euparagōgon to tōn gynaion genos*. But since Alexander writes in this place that the Church was attacked by Arius through the agency of women, would anyone hesitate...

^A to inquire with equal obscurity and equal investigation whether the holy man understands these seduced and foolish virgins, or rather some other class of women—whom he himself calls, if we believe the English translator, "impure little women" and "tender harlots"? But I truly fear that he expressed the mind and words of Alexander too harshly. For those he translates as "impure," Alexander calls by a term borrowed from St. Paul: γυναικάρια ἄτακτα. For thus the Apostle, in II Thessal. III, 6, warns us to withdraw ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀδελφοῦ ἀτάκτως περιπατοῦντος, "from every brother who walks inordinately." Where the Greek scholiast excellently says: "Ατακτός ἐστιν ὁ δίχα τάξεως καὶ τῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ νόμων περιπατῶν. Which I would indeed explain thus: that he is called *ataktos* or "inordinate" who does not observe the order of his vocation and the laws proposed by God—to whom I do not think the name "impure" should properly be attributed. No one, I believe, would take "impure little women" to mean anything other than those who, immersed in the mire of pleasures and lusts, foully make their bodies available to others. ^B But the point is more serious that what Alexander, in a place cited above by us, simply calls νεωτέρας is translated as "tender harlots." The Roman editors, interpolating in this place, substituted "tender young women"—which is indeed a milder expression, but I do not know if it is sufficiently in line with Alexander's mind. So that we may perceive this more clearly and fully, it will be necessary to digress somewhat broadly concerning those women who once held a rank, order, or office of ministry in the Church, the origin of which we shall explain, deducing it at the same time from the sacred letters. And to me, they seem rightly to be reducible to three classes. The first in dignity is the institution of virgins, not introduced yesterday or today, as the heretics of our time impudently and ignorantly affirm, but born together with the Church, or even older than the Church itself—inasmuch as we recognize its examples or preludes in the Old Covenant as well. Although its glory shone much more brightly in the New, where the Son of the Virgin, spouse of the Church, the chaste virgin, consecrated virginity more gloriously by His teaching and by His example; and the Apostle set forth his counsel concerning the "angelic life" (περὶ ἰσαγγέλου πολιτείας) at length to the Corinthians in his first Epistle, chapter VII. Following virginity is the *viduatus*—to use the word of Tertullian—or the order of widows who, after the first marriage, or, as the same Tertullian says, after one marriage had been ended, renounced the sex and the age. Concerning these women, the Apostle's precept also exists to Timothy in his first Epistle, Ch. V, v. 9: "Let a widow be chosen not less than sixty years old." In this place, the Apostle lists both the virtues required in a widow and, furthermore, defines the age for one to be chosen. But for what end, for what work, for what ministry was she chosen? The Greek scholiast, who in other matters is accustomed to present the sap and marrow of the Holy Fathers, seems to hesitate: Φασὶ δὲ τὰς εἰς τὸ χηρικόν τεταγμένας λέγειν· "They say," he says, "that the Apostle speaks of those who were ordained to widowhood." ^C But what the scholiast himself understands by *chērikon* (κηρικόν) seems equally obscure, and requiring the same investigation. St. Jerome, in his letter to Salvina *On Maintaining Widowhood*, explaining this place of the Apostle, takes it to refer to a college or, as we say now, a hospice of widows who were maintained at the public expense of the Church. "He wishes," he says, "those to be sustained by the resources of the Church who cannot work with their own hands; who are truly widows, whom both age and life prove." But I fear that the Apostle's mind cannot be restricted solely to this maintenance of the poor and elderly widows. For that they were accustomed to be chosen and placed over the ministry of the Church, proved by their virtues and age, is also proven by the argument that the Apostle first bids these widows to learn how to govern their own households well: Μανθανέτωσαν πρῶτον, he says, τὸν ἴδιον οἶκον εὐσεβεῖν. For he delivers a similar "proof" (πρόπειραν) of public duty to the same Timothy regarding a bishop just before this, namely, the proper governance of one's private family. But what need is there for a circuitous argument, when both by the private authority of the Holy Fathers and the public authority of councils it is incontestably (*ἀναντιρρήτως*) proven that by the "widows" here, the Apostle understands those women whom the Greeks call *diakonous* (διακόνους)—the Latins "ministras" (ministers), as is evident from that famous letter of Pliny the Younger concerning the Christians—and "deaconesses"? Concerning whom the Apostle had already spoken clearly, but briefly, in chapter III of the same Epistle. For when he deals with the testing and receiving of deacons, he adds, or rather interweaves, Γυναῖκας ὡσαύτως σεμνάς, etc., "women likewise chaste," etc. "Women," says the Greek scholiast, οὐ τὰς οιασδήποτε, ἀλλὰ τὰς διακόνους: "Not just any women," he says, "does he understand, but deaconesses." For why would he mention just any women from the common crowd among the clergy? Nor does St. Jerome speak otherwise in his Commentary on this place. "He orders," he says, "women likewise to be chosen as deacons." Whence it is understood that he speaks of those whom they still call "deaconesses" in the East today. It appears, therefore, that the name *diakonōn* (διακόνων) is common in this passage of the Apostle to persons of both sexes ministering in the Church, which was later distinguished into *diakonous* (deacons) and *diakonissas* (deaconesses). St. Jerome also testifies that these deaconesses are also understood by St. Paul under the name of widows, and he notes as follows regarding the Apostle's words on the election of a widow: "He wished such deaconesses to be chosen as might be an example to all." Epiphanius also testifies in his *Heresy of the Collyridians*, ch. 4, where he warns that it must be noted that the *ecclesiastical order* (τὸ ἐκκλησιαστικὸν τάγμα) does not extend beyond deaconesses; adding: Χήρας τε ὠνόμασε, καὶ τούτων τὰς ἔτι γραοτέρας πρεσβύτιδας, οὐδαμοῦ δὲ πρεσβυτερίδας ἢ ἱερείας. "He named widows," he says, "and among these, those who were still older, *presbytidas* (seniores), but nowhere *presbyteridas* or priestesses." By this weapon Epiphanius slays the Collyridians, who, joined to their own husbands—that is, ἔνγαμοι καὶ ὕπανδροι—wickedly arrogated to themselves the office of offering in the Church. Since the Apostle did not grant to women a rank higher than the diaconate in the Church, and did not grant it even to the unmarried, but...

wished it to be conferred on widows. In this passage Epiphanius clearly describes the office of ^A deaconesses, as he also does in his *Exposition of the Catholic Faith* which he appended to his work against heresies. He adds this also, regarding the rank from which they were chosen and adopted into the Church’s ministry: "Deaconesses," he says, "are established for this purpose alone, that they may serve women for the sake of decency and honesty where necessity dictates, whether they are to be initiated into the washing of baptism or whether their bodies are to be examined." And these, he says, are "monogamous, having professed continence," or widows who have remained so after a single marriage, or "perpetual virgins." Three kinds of holy women are enumerated here, from which the order of deaconesses consisted: first, virgins without marriage from birth; second, virgins in marriage by consent or agreement; third, the genus of widows who observe continence after a first marriage by choice, as Tertullian elegantly distinguishes in his *Exhortation to Chastity*, and St. Jerome, following Tertullian, in his epistle to Ageruchia *On Monogamy*. Truly, as I said at the beginning, since the greatest part of this order consisted of widows, "widows" and "deaconesses" were called by an almost interchangeable name. Thus St. Basil the Great in his canonical epistle to Amphilochius, ch. 24: "The Apostle has directed that a widow who has been enrolled in the number of widows—that is, who has been accepted into the diaconate by the Church—is to be despised if she marries." But most clearly of all, the twenty-first canon of the Council of Epaon abolishes this order in the Church: "We utterly abolish from every region of ours," it says, "the consecration of widows, whom they call deaconesses." Even though the First Council of Orange had already suppressed it, whose judgment, besides that of Epaon, the Second Council of Orleans also confirmed. Although, from the words of St. Jerome brought up a little earlier, it appears that in the Latin Church this order was either never received or had already died out.

^B There also laughs at this, Cyprian, or whoever is the author of the book *On the Singularity of Clerics*, who is certainly akin to Cyprian. And he says: "They offer excuses still of charity, who, according to the word of Isaiah, turning bitterness into sweetness, cover bare foulness with the veil of a good name: while among them, under false affection, true affection is violated." And it is evident from canon 18 of the Council of Ancyra that they were called not only "beloved" but also "sisters," whose words are these: "We have forbidden virgins who live with certain men as sisters." We also forbid virgins living with some men as sisters. Also, the emperors Arcadius and Honorius testify in Law 19, in the Code *De episcopis et clericis*: "It is not fitting," he says, "for him who conducts a life commendable to the age to be stained by the company of a sisterly title." But the name *syneisaktoi*, or "subintroduced" women, is more frequent, by which the Antiochenes are witnessed by the Fathers of the Council of Antioch (in Eusebius, bk. VII, ch. 24) to have called the *agapetae* or "beloved" cohabitants of Paul of Samosata and his clergy: whence it seems to have been received into the universal Church. But before I return to the path from this detour, it is fitting to investigate more closely the origin of the name and the thing itself, since both ^C are equally obscured. And Balsamon indeed, in his commentary on the 3rd canon of the Council of Nicaea, says: "Regarding the *syneisaktoi*, much talk has occurred at various times." That is, regarding the subintroduced, frequent mention has been made at different times; and some indeed said that *epeisaktos* or *syneisaktos* is "she who is introduced in place of a lawful wife and cohabits with someone in a fornicating manner," who is introduced in the place of a legitimate wife and cohabits with someone in a meretricious union. Others, however, said it is so called of "any woman whatsoever cohabitating with someone who is a stranger, even if she is beyond suspicion," meaning a woman cohabiting with someone, being entirely a stranger, joined by no bond of blood or relationship, even if she is immune from all suspicion. And he proves this latter opinion as the truer one, and does so by the authority of the canonical epistle of St. Basil the Great to the presbyter Gregory, whom, though a seventy-year-old man, he orders to be separated from a young woman who was subintroduced, under threat of excommunication. Many things could be brought forward for both derivations regarding *eisaktoi*, or "introduced" concubines among the ancients. Regarding whom even the common interpreter of the Holy Scriptures uses the word "superintroduction" in Gen. xxxi, v. 50. Many examples of excellent authors would also suffice, by which it would be difficult to teach that *epeisaktos* was used for "external" or "stranger," unless I should have wandered too far and off the track by now. But so that I may explain my opinion on the origin of the *eisaktoi* in a few words, the third also remains ^D a genus of ecclesiastical women, not that public one, but private—if indeed it is right to say that an ecclesiastical genus of women exists—which he says about the mathematicians, always forbidden in the Church and always retained. A genus, I say, of women uncertain, various, and manifold, both in reality and in name. Those cohabitants of the clergy, not only of the roof, but often also of the bed. Whom indeed the clerics themselves called *agapetae* or "beloved," and "sisters": the others called them *syneisaktoi* or *epeisaktoi*, that is, subintroduced and strangers. Clerics of every order had long ago been accustomed to receive such women into their houses, and either virgins who had professed holy living for the sake of mutual solaces of piety, as they said, or girls orphaned of parents, and therefore to be fostered by some pious and chaste guardianship, or women necessary for the private ministry of the family and house, whether freeborn or servants. This suspect and shameful cohabitation they covered with the specious veil of Christian affection and brotherhood. But the divine Jerome laughs at the deception of such a vain name in his epistle to Eustochium *On the Custody*

of the Virgin, where he writes that he considers this kind of woman or sister—a *kakozelia*—to have crept into the Church, or rather into the houses of the clergy. Since, as the divine Paul testifies ^A (I Cor. ix, 5), it was the custom for most, and indeed for the chief of the apostles, to lead about (ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα περιάγειν) a sister, a little woman. This is the place that the uxorious ministries of the heretics invoke in vain to excuse their shameful marriages. Receive the constant judgment of the holy Fathers against these men, signed with the words of Tertullian: "He does not show that wives were led about by the apostles, but simply women who, according to the same institution as the Lord, were ministering by following them." Thus he speaks in the book *On Monogamy*. Nor did Cyprian (in his book *On the Singleness of the Clergy*), Ambrose, or the Greek Fathers who agree with the Latin, speak otherwise. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and that most praiseworthy Greek scholiast on the epistles of the divine Paul, say: "Wealthy women who believed followed some of the apostles, providing for their necessary needs, so that they, being free of concern regarding this matter, might occupy themselves solely with preaching." That is to say, certain wealthy faithful women followed some of the apostles, providing for their necessary expenses so that the men, freed from this care, might attend only to preaching. But as concerns our subject, you have here a religious company, and a cohabitation joined by the glue of piety; you have women who are not wives: you have the title of a sisterhood of pious kinship; you have the word "to lead about" (περιάγειν) accommodated to the journeys of the apostles. To this, in the fixed and certain abode of the clergy, *syneisakton*—that is, to have a woman introduced along with oneself or as a cohabitant—corresponds not at all poorly. For those Antiochene Fathers, as cited by Eusebius, use this mode of speech when they say they are not unaware "how many have fallen by reason of *syneisaktos* (the bringing in of a woman with them)," noting how many have collapsed while joining women to themselves in cohabitation. By no dissimilar reasoning, the same Apostle, in Galatians ii, spoke of *pareisaktous pseudadelphous*—that is, according to the Vulgate interpreter, "false brothers subintroduced." Hence, without doubt, it prevailed in the Latin Church that *syneisaktous* and *epeisaktous* should also be called "subintroduced" by the term of Holy Scripture, which they would have more correctly called "co-introduced" or "super-introduced." But I return finally to where I digressed. From those things which I have discussed thus far concerning the triple genus of women, I judge it to be sufficiently evident that this third ^B genus—namely, the *epeisaktous*—was most opportune for disturbing affairs, whom Alexander therefore calls "disorderly little women" (*atakta gynaikaria*), because they recognized no laws of modesty and were restrained by no bridle of shame. Furthermore, that this plague afflicted the Church above all is concluded with the most certain argument: that the Nicene Fathers, in order to remedy the evils of the Church, judged that this carcinoma should be addressed at almost the first opportunity. Whence, in the third canon, they most severely interdicted the custom of *syneisaktoi* to all those in the clergy, in whatever grade or name they might live. And from this I believe it is clear what sort of graspings of women, whose ^A immodest wanderings of young girls Alexander understood in this place.

We now proceed to a step with the same Alexander, who writes that the Arians, condemned by the authority of the council, had circulated through neighboring provinces and attempted the minds of the catholic bishops, *schēmati men eirēnēs kai henōseōs axiōsin hypokrinomenous*. Since our interpreter translates this: "with the appearance of peace and concord feigned, putting forward a petition for pardon," I confess that I do not understand his mind at all, just as I do not understand that of Camerarius: "The design of peace and concord having been simulated." For who will persuade us that *axiōsis* signifies either a petition for pardon or a design in this or any other passage among Greek writers? And even if it did signify that to the greatest extent, how could that be reconciled either to the thing itself or to the mind of Alexander? Epiphanius, the ancient interpreter, says they feign that "they exercise the dignity of peace and unity." Suidas truly teaches with several examples that *axiōsis* signifies "dignity"; and commonly among the Greeks, *hoi ep' axiōseōs* are those who are constituted in dignity. But what place is there for exercising dignity for these wanderers in a foreign province? I think *axiōsis* in this place should be explained as *boulēma*, that which we seek and ask for, or the end and scope toward which the will tends, and which it desires to obtain for itself, since the verb *axioō* signifies to seek and to ask for to a great extent. So that the sense of the passage is that those wanderers, under the appearance of peace and union, dissemble their own mind and what they seek and aim at, and, to speak with the common people, their intention; while in reality they are working at this: to seduce those to whom they approach, and to draw them into their own parties. ^D

Then, to pass over certain lighter matters, further on, at the beginning of the Gospel of John, he presses the Arians in various ways. When he had said that all things were made through the Word, he himself subjoins: "If therefore all things were made through him, how is it that he who bestows substance upon all created things did not exist at some time?" *Ou gar pōs ho Logos to poioun tois genomenois tēs autēs einai physeōs diorizetai.* Which words both the ancient and the new interpreters pervert by translating thus: "For no reason wills that that which creates should be of the same nature as that which is created"; since the *Logos* in this place should by no means be understood as referring to apodictic reason, but to the eternal Word. Therefore it should be translated: "For the Word which creates is not said or posited to be of the same nature as created things," namely by John the evangelist whose words he has premised. Although this is manifest enough of itself to everyone, the very *akolouthia* (sequence) of the passage and the construction of the Greek language prove it. For he subjoins a reason taken from the words of the Gospel, why the *Logos* cannot be of the same nature as created things, *ei gar autos men ēn en archē*, "if indeed he," namely the *Logos*, "was in the beginning": but all other things were made through him. But our interpreter, with the preceding words badly translated, had nowhere to refer the word *autos*, spoiled the meaning, nor expressed any sound opinion in the following periods. But with the parenthesis inserted, he wonders at himself and others...

and he hurls not a few strong and valid arguments against the Arians. But since both your patience and my own physical strength are failing, we shall reserve the rest for a more convenient time.

SECOND DISSERTATION (a)

I connect the abruptly ended thread of the first dissertation to spin out the remainder of the planned critique. Bishop Alexander presses against the blasphemies of Arius, citing the authority of John the Evangelist, who, on the very threshold of his Gospel, testifies that the Word was in the beginning, and that all other things were created through the Word. He teaches that in this passage the Evangelist used the word *ēn*, or "was," for a secret and religious purpose, and that he refrained from the use of the term *geneseōs* (generation) and *poiēseōs* (creation). First, that he might not use the same words for the Creator and the creature. Second, because he believed that the production of the eternal Word exceeds the understanding not only of evangelists, but even of angels. Third, because he considered it impious to scrutinize those secret mysteries of the Divinity with curious investigation. In expressing the sense of this passage, interpreters have more than once stumbled, since the Greek words themselves are not without fault. I will indicate only this: when he says, *to ēn, hyperairein tēs tōn genētōn dianoias*—that the word "was" transcends the entire understanding of creatures—it should undoubtedly be read *genētōn* (created) and not *gennētōn* (begotten); the former is derived from *ginesthai* (to be made), and the latter from *gennasthai* (to be begotten). Although these words are related in origin and meaning, sacred and profane authors distinguish them carefully; yet in the common editions of Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and others, they may be observed confused in countless places. For *genesis* and *genēton*, as Proclus says in book II of his *Timaeus*, signify the *proodos* (procession) from the Demiurge: that is, the creation and production from nothing. Whence, as Justin Martyr says in his *Responses to the Greeks*: *to genesthai kai to poieisthai lexei men ou tauton, ergō de tauton*—"To be made and to be done are not the same in word, but in deed they are the same." *Gennēsis*, however, is a *probolē* (emanation) from the Father, that is, generation, or, to speak with the common run of theologians, the production of a living being from a living being, similar to the producer in substance and nature. And *gennēton*, as found in the same Justin, is *to gennētōs ginomenon, sive to gennētōs to einai echon*—that which subsists by way of generation. Whence Clement of Alexandria, seeing that the name *geneseōs* was sometimes used indiscriminately even for generation, distinguishes them in the fourth book of his *Stromata*, so that one kind pertains to that which is begotten (*tōn gennōmenōn*), and another to that which is made (*tōn ginomenōn*), so that no one might confuse *genēton* (created) and *gennēton* (begotten). Whence Plato also, at the beginning of the *Timaeus*, proposes for inquiry: *Peri tou pantos, ei gegonen ē agenes estin*—"Whether the universe is created or uncreated." It is a fact, or not a fact. This is, as Proclus explains, *ei genētos ē agenētos ho kosmos* (whether the world is generated or ungenerated). And thus that most ancient philosopher of Italy, Ocellus Lucanus, in his distinguished work, undertook to prove *to pan anolethron einai kai agenēton*—that the world is free from beginning and end. For the fact that *agenēton* is written everywhere in the common editions of Ocellus, I have discovered to be contrary to the best Vatican codices, with which I once carefully compared that golden little work. Therefore, we shall rightly call this universe, and whatever is contained within the universe of created things, *genēton* (generated/created) by reason of its primary production; but *gennēton* (begotten), by no means: for that is fitting only to the eternal Word, to whom alone the Father said: *Yios mou ei sy, egō sēmeron gegenmēka se*—"Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." But everything else *di’ autou egeneto, kai chōris autou egeneto oude hen, ho gegonen*—was made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. Whence also the royal Psalmist: *Autos eipen, kai egenēthē*—"He spoke, and they were made" (Ps. CXVII, 20). On the other hand, the world is rightly *agenētos* (ungenerated/uncreated), but not *agennētos* (unbegotten). The Son of God, however, is *agennētos* (unbegotten), and not *agenētos* (ungenerated). These things might perhaps seem trivial, were it not that by a single letter's interval, the straight path of the Catholic truth is separated from the precipices of most grievous errors. Whence we see that John Damascene, in book I, chapter 9, annotated these things with great care, and Epiphanius, in his heresy LXIX, most severely rebuked the Arians for confusing these names. How well, moreover, the English interpreter explains *ta genēta* by the word "mortals," we shall see in a more convenient place. It is also inept that our same interpreter calls the eternal Word, the efficient cause of all things, *to poioun* (the Maker), when the entire craftiness of the Arians consists in this sort of confusion of words, which this most holy author here distinguishes with the utmost diligence. It would certainly be safer, with the common interpreter of the Scriptures, to use the word "making" and "maker," leaving aside those new affectations of language which cause nausea to a mind raised on the Holy Scriptures. Thus, in the progress of the discourse, where Alexander removes the sons adopted by grace as far as possible from the eternal Word, the true and proper Son of God; because He is the Son of God by nature, while they, having laid aside the spirit of bondage, *to tēs huiothesias labontes pneuma*. This is, as our interpreter rendered, having assumed the Spirit of the adoption of sons, they become adopted sons. Why not rather, with the divine Paul in Rom. VIII, 15, "having received the Spirit of adoption," or "the Spirit of adop- (the rest of the page is cut off)

act of receiving generally presupposes grace and the gift of God, while to take, or to assume, seems to indicate in a certain way one's own authority. For what the Apostle says in Heb. V, 4: "No man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God," in the same way, no one takes to himself the grace of the Holy Spirit, unless it has been given to him from above by the Father of lights, from whom every good gift and every perfect gift descend. To this I should add that he preferred to render the phrase ^A *ponēreuomenōn synodon*, the assembly of the wicked, rather than the "council of the malignant," as the words of Scripture have it.

But it would be a long task to examine everything, as often as the interpreter either shears away or inverts the mind of the author, or substitutes for clear and manifest meanings those that are doubtful and obscure for us. I hurry to a passage in the entire epistle that is, in my own judgment, the most difficult, which is read at the beginning of page 15 of the Roman edition. Alexander says that the Arians, in order to despoil Christ of the glory of His divinity, always had on their lips those words and those places of Scripture which pertain to His passion and emptying, being utterly forgetful of those which serve to signify His glory, majesty, and equality with the Father. To the number of these belongs that saying in John X: "I and the Father are one." Alexander, about to explain the Catholic sense of this passage against Arius, subjoins this *epexēgēsis*: "Which the Lord indeed says, not declaring Himself to be the Father: Οὐδὲ τὰς τῇ ὑποστάσει δύο φύσεις μίαν εἶναι σαφηνίζων." That is, as the interpreter renders it word for word: "Nor declaring two natures according to *hypostasis* to be one." But, he says, because the Son perfectly preserves the Father's likeness. It was asked of me what the sense of these words might be: "Nor declaring two natures according to *hypostasis* to be one." For since here there is no discussion of the mystery of the Incarnation, or *oikonomia*, and the hypostatic union of the Word and flesh, but the passage pertains to the mystery of the most holy Trinity, or *theologia*, it seems manifestly to posit two diverse and distinct natures of the Father and the Son: which was the wicked dogma of Arius, to refute whom the whole of this epistle is opposed. What then? Should one perhaps say, "a physician of others, he himself is full of sores"; but far be it that any one should attempt to besmirch a most holy man with such a stain! As for me, while I turned the meaning of this passage over in my mind, two reasons occurred to me by which, if it could not be explained, it might at least be excused. Namely, that the author, to refute the opinion of the Arians, adopted their own words and formulas. Or, if we would have it that he spoke in his own sense and with his own words, [we might suppose] he took *physis*, or nature, for *hypostasis*: which perhaps is not without examples among the most ancient authors. But as I weigh these things more closely, neither seems to me to be admitted by the sense of the passage. For it is most manifest that he speaks in his own words, not those of the Arians. Next, no matter how one might bring forward examples of the word *physis*, or nature, having been taken for *hypostasis* at times, nothing, however, bolsters this ^B intent: for when he himself uses the name of *nature* in the sense commonly used by the Church, and tenaciously defends this against Arius, namely that there is one and the same nature of the Father and the Son, and conversely contends that the Son is not of the same nature as created things. Wherefore it remains that we should say that the Greek words, as they are now commonly read, have been corrupted either by the malice of heretics or the ignorance of scribes. Which anyone among you, listeners, will easily concede, who does not ignore how much calamity and error both of these plagues have brought to the writings of the holy Fathers: which wandered with too free a stride through the East at one time, when the Church, dissected into heresies and partisan studies, sought by such-like evil arts the patronage of its own cause. Moreover, the ancient interpreter of ecclesiastical history, Epiphanius Scholasticus, clearly shows the defect caused in this passage, for it appears he once read the Greek words not changed, but with the article transposed, in this way: *Oud' etē tē hypostasei dyo physeis tēn mian einai saphēnizōn*, while he translates: "Nor declaring two natures substantially which is one." Anyone who considers the matter with me in this way will easily perceive that this is the true and Catholic sense of this passage. The faith of the Catholic Church, which venerates one God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity, proceeds in a middle path like a royal road, avoiding the impending monsters of heresies on either side, which bark against the truth with insane clamor: so that it neither confuses the persons with Sabellius, nor separates the substance with Arius. It is constant that Alexander also followed this cynosure of Catholic truth in this place, who, having proposed the words of Christ, removing from either side the two adulterous senses, subsequently subjoins the third, which is true and genuine. "I," he says, "and the Father are one," not as though he were affirming that He is the Father, by which he removes the confusion of persons and the *huiopatōr* of Sabellius. Nor as though he were declaring that there are two natures substantially, which is one: that is, not as though he were dividing the one and most simple nature of the Father and the Son into two: by which he removes the separation of substance introduced by Arius. At last, having removed the extremes of error from either side, he cast the Catholic mind of this ^D place, namely that the Son is by nature like the Father in all things, and that He is the unvaried image of the Father: by which he confesses both one and the same nature of the Father and the Son, and the distinct hypostases of the prototype and the image. But here someone might pluck my ear and not unreasonably ask what "two natures according to *hypostasis*" might mean, since it is not easy to find such a mode of speaking among the other Fathers of the Church. But it can be shown in more than one place of this epistle that the word *hypostasis* is used by our author not so much to signify a subject individual or distinct by personal properties, or a personal subsistence, as a mode of subsisting, which Justin Martyr, and others...

have often used to denote. ^A And herein our interpreter departs from the text: *As through him, as through an unspotted and living mirror, the Father of the divine image might be beheld.* These are the interpretations of others. I would not presume to say that no one has penetrated the mind of the author, but I may truly say this: that a misplaced distinction has cast a mist of glaucoma over their eyes. But since, from this slight occasion of error, an elegant subject for discussion presents itself, I will premise this at the beginning: just as the ancients have handed down that the most noble mixture of Corinthian bronze was born from the melting together of gold and other metals, so from various passages of the divine utterances, fused together and inlaid with one another, as if from gold tried seven times, there shines forth that most beautiful and truly golden character of speech of the holy Fathers. Those who neglect this in the treatment of sacred matters usually turn out—to use the words of the Apostle—as *sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal*, puffed up with the persuasive words of human wisdom but destitute of the demonstration of the Spirit and of power. ^B To me, however, among the other monuments of the holy Fathers which are now at hand, the epistolary monuments of Alexander seem to bear the appearance of a most beautiful piece of vermiculated or mosaic work. Thus they shine, distinguished by the perpetual emblems of holy Scripture. This, if nothing else, this one passage clearly shows. For since in the Book of Wisdom, ch. vi, among other innumerable eulogies, divine Wisdom is called *the brightness of eternal light, and the unspotted mirror of the energy of God, and the image of his goodness*—that is, *the candor of eternal light, and the mirror without stain of the majesty of God, and the image of his goodness*—who does not see the passage adumbrated with vivid colors following the example of divine Paul? Under his guidance and auspices, I would divide those two epithets of the mirror, *unspotted* and *living*, which have been wrongly joined by interpreters, by inserting a distinction, and I would refer the latter to the divine image: *As if through an unspotted mirror, and the living divine image of him, the Father is contemplated.* For through him, as through an unspotted mirror and through the true or living divine image, the Father himself is also beheld. ^C And indeed, since the Apostle, at Colossians i, verse 15, had called the Son *the image of the invisible God*, and Arius was wickedly abusing that text to establish his own error, our author wisely uses the added word ^D *living*, or *living image*, to defend the most perfect likeness between the Father and the Son with a most significant term against the impudence of the heretics, and to teach that the living Word proceeded from the living Father. For since there is a twofold image, as the leader of the scholastics teaches in Part I, q. 35—and as Epiphanius long ago taught in his *Heresy of the Anomoeans*, cap. 3: the one in a thing of the same nature, like the image of a King in the Son; the other expressed in a thing of a different nature, such as the image of a prince on a coin, or in a painting, or a statue. Or, to use the words of Epiphanius, the one through generative consubstantiality, the other depicted through colors, or by another.

^A Alexander calls the Son of God an animate divine image, and that expression attributes nothing lowly or unworthy to God, but signals to us its supreme and living likeness, expressed to the life, of the Father’s nature and glory. Furthermore, this expression is taken from the common usage of Greek, as the opinion of some old author in Stobaeus testifies, to whom the king is called an animate image of God. So too that very famous eulogy by Longinus of Eunapius: "A living library and a walking museum." And Marcellus, teacher of the Emperor Arcadius, in the lexicographer Suidas (perhaps less known, but in an encomium no less elegant): "An ornament of every virtue, or, to put it more harmoniously, a certain animate virtue" — the ornament of all virtue, or rather, a living and animate virtue. The Latins have successfully expressed these refinements of Greek speech. For what are "breathing statues" and "bronzes breathing more softly" and "living faces from marble" in Maro? What of Propertius’s "vivid and spirited statues"? What of Ammianus’s "breathing figments of statues," if not *empsycha* (animate)?

But I foresee the harbor nearby, which I shall enter if, concerning various points that the interpreter errs upon at the end of this epistle, I add one more thing. Alexander, in order to bridle the curiosity of heretics, asserts that the *hypostasis* of the Son, or mode of existence, is, as I have said, inscrutable to all generated nature; nor can the nature of rational beings comprehend how the Father begat the Word. In both these points our new interpreter hallucinates. First, because he rendered *genētēn physin* (generated nature), of which I spoke above, as "mortal nature." For created nature must not be circumscribed by such narrow limits, since the angels also are *genētoi*, or created, whom, however, with the saner part of the theologians, I would not call mortal by any means. Nor is the second member, *hē tōn logikōn physis* (the nature of rational beings), explained better as "human nature and participant in reason." Unless someone might doubt that to the nature of rational beings, the angels also belong, and indeed by a principal right? To whom, however, just as much as to humans, the mystery of divine generation is unknown and ineffable, Alexander himself testifies above. "The subsistence of the Only-Begotten," he says, "surpasses not only the skill of the evangelists, but perhaps even the intellect of the angels." But what our interpreter seems to leave in doubt, the other Fathers affirm clearly and constantly.

And now, among the Greeks, let Eusebius alone be present to me for giving testimony. In Book I of *Ecclesiastical Theology*, chapter 12, he affirms that the generation of the Only-Begotten is unsearchable not only to us, but also to all powers superior to our own. Let Ambrose be added from the Latins, in *De Fide*, Book I, chapter 5: "It is impossible for me to know the secret of the generation. The mind fails, the voice is silent, not mine alone, but also that of the angels." Which passage also opportunely admonishes me to silence, so that, the course of the dissertation finished, I may pass the torch to others.

SAINT ALEXANDER, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA. EPISTLES ON THE ARIAN HERESY AND ON THE DEPOSITION OF ARIUS.

From Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, Book 1, Chapter 4.

Epistle of Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, to Alexander, bishop of Constantinople. ^A

I. To my most beloved and like-minded brother, Alexander, Alexander sends greeting in the Lord.

The desire of wicked men, a desire greedy for domination and money, is always wont to lie in wait for the greater Churches, while those men, on various occasions, oppose ecclesiastical piety. For, goaded by the devil who works within them, and incited to the lust they have proposed to themselves, having cast off all religion, they trample upon the fear of God’s judgment. Concerning them, I, being the one who suffers, have felt it necessary to signify to your piety, so that you might guard against such men, lest any of them presume to set foot into your Churches as well, either by themselves or through others: for these evildoers are skilled in using simulation to perpetrate fraud, and in using letters composed and adorned with lies, which may deceive a person intent on a simple and sincere faith. Arius, therefore, and ^B Achillas, having recently formed a conspiracy, emulating the ambition of Colluthus, have proven themselves far worse than he. For Colluthus indeed, while blaming these very men, ^C had found at least a pretended pretext for his own evil plan. ^D

^A; but they, beholding his merchandise of Christ, were no longer willing to remain subject to the Church, but having built for themselves dens of thieves, they hold meetings in them without ceasing, contriving by night and by day calumnies against Christ and against us. They, accusing all the apostolic and pious faith, have established a workshop to oppose Christ in the manner of the Jews, denying the divinity of our Savior, and preaching that He is equal to all others. And having selected every phrase regarding His saving dispensation and His humiliation for our sake, they attempt to gather from these the proclamation of their own impiety, turning away from the words concerning His divinity from the beginning and His ineffable glory with the Father ^B. Therefore, by confirming the impious opinion of the Greeks and Jews concerning Christ, they hunt for praise from them by every possible art, fabricating all those things which are ridiculed by them against us, and stirring up seditions and persecutions against us day by day. And this they do, indeed, by assembling judicial tribunals, through the entreaties of minor women whom they have misled; and by slandering Christianity, they go around every street, shamelessly leading astray those who are younger among them. But they have even dared to rend the seamless tunic of Christ ^C, which the executioners themselves once did not choose to divide.

II. We, for our part, when we had understood—though tardily, on account of their hiding—things that are befitting their life and their impious endeavors, cast them out by common vote from the assembly of the Church which adores the divinity of Christ ^D. Yet they, on the contrary, by moving about against us, have undertaken to go to our fellow-ministers who think the same as we do, pretending in the guise of peace and unity to desire an agreement; but in reality, they are striving to snatch some of them into their own disease through smooth words, and are requesting more verbose letters from them, so that by reading them to those who have been deceived by them, they may make them remain persistently in the error in which they have fallen, hardening them in impiety, as if they had bishops who think the same as they do and who support them. Furthermore, those things which they wrongly taught and practiced among us, they [i.e., those whom they deceived] acknowledge to them, for which they were also cast out.

^A Or rather, they hand these things down in silence, or they deceive by veiling them in fabricated speeches and writings. For with persuasive and fawning conversations they hide their soul-destroying teaching, and they carry off anyone who is exposed to deception, not refraining even from slandering our piety everywhere. Whence it happens that some, by signing their letters, receive them into the Church—a matter which, I think, brings the greatest infamy of reproof upon the fellow-ministers who dare to do this, since neither does the apostolic rule permit this, but it even rekindles the diabolical operation against Christ in their own actions. And so, without any delay, beloved, I have summoned the courage and confidence to declare to you the unbelief of such men, who say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, ^B and that He who was not before came into being later, having become such when He did come into being, just as every man is born. For, they say, God made all things out of nothing, including the Son of God in the creation of all things, both rational and irrational. Consistently with this, they also say that He is of a mutable nature, capable of virtue and vice. And having once laid down this position, that the Son of God is from nothing, they overturn the divine Scriptures concerning His eternity, by which the immutability and divinity of the Wisdom and the Word, which is Christ, are demonstrated.

III.

^A IV. Verily, that the Son of God was not made from nothing, and that there was no time when He was not, the evangelist John teaches abundantly, writing thus concerning Him: “The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.” For when the divine Master wished to show that the Father and the Son are two things inseparable from one another, He called Him being in the bosom of the Father. And, furthermore, that the Word of God is not reckoned among those things which have come to be from nothing, the same John says: “All things were made through Him.” For he declared His unique subsistence by saying: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; all things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.” If, then, all things were made through Him, how could He who bestowed existence upon created things not have existed at some time? For the Word, which is the Maker, is not at all to be distinguished as being of the same nature as created things; since He Himself was in the beginning, while all things were made through Him and created from nothing. For that which exists appears to be contrary to those things which have come to be from nothing, and stands apart from them by a great distance. ^B For the former indicates that there is no interval between the Father and the Son, the soul being unable to imagine such a thing even with the slightest effort. But that the world should be created from nothing denotes a more recent and novel origin of substance, since all things whatsoever received such a constitution from the Father through the Son. Therefore, looking upon the existence [τοῦ ἦν] of the Word of God as something vast and transcending the intellect of created beings, the most pious John shrank from calling it a birth or a creation, nor dared he to use the same syllables for the Creator as for the created. ^C Not that He was unbegotten—for the Father alone is unbegotten—but because the ineffable subsistence of the only-begotten God is beyond the grasp of the evangelists, and perhaps even of the angels.

V. Wherefore, I do not believe that anyone among the pious ^D would judge...

that one who is so ^A bold as to inquire into these matters, prompted by a lack of understanding, is doing anything other than seeking what is harder for you and investigating what is too high for you. For if the knowledge of many other things, which are incomparably less significant than these, remains hidden from human comprehension—such as those things mentioned by Paul: *What eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and has not entered into the heart of man, which God has prepared for those who love him*; and further, that God tells Abraham he cannot count the stars; and again, *The sand of the seas and the drops of rain, who shall count them?*—how then could anyone be so inquisitive as to investigate the subsistence of the Word of God, unless he were seized by a melancholic disposition? Regarding which the prophetic Spirit says: *Who shall recount his generation?* And our Savior Himself, wishing to relieve the pillars of all those in the world ^B of the knowledge of these things, sought to unburden them of that knowledge, saying that it is unnatural for all of them to grasp it, but that the knowledge of this most divine mystery belongs to the Father alone. For *no one*, He said, *has known who the Son is, except the Father; and no one has known who the Father is, except the Son.* Regarding which, I believe, the Father also said: *My secret is for me and for my own.*

VI. That it is extreme madness to think that the Son of God was made from things that do not exist, and that He implies a temporal procession—since that which is made from things that do not exist necessarily has a temporal ^C essence—the thing itself indicates, even if those foolish men do not understand the madness of their own words. For the phrase "He was not" must be reckoned in time or in some interval of an age. If, then, it is true that *all things were made through Him*, it is manifest that every age and time and interval, and the "when" in which "He was not" is found, were made through Him. And how would it not be absurd that He who created the times and the ages and the seasons, in which "He was not" is intertwined, should Himself be said at some time not to exist?

For it is alien to sense and full of every ignorance to say that the one who is the author of anything is later than that thing which he caused. For according to their opinion, the space of time in which they say the Son of God did not exist precedes the Wisdom of God, the creator of all things; and the Scripture, which calls Him ^A the firstborn of all creation, lies according to them. Consonant with this, the most clarion-voiced Paul also cries out, saying of Him: "Whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the ages." But also: "In Him all things were created, those in the heavens and those upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether principalities, or powers, or lordships, or thrones: all things have been created through Him and for Him; and He is before all things."

VII. On the Son's Eternal Generation

VII. Since, therefore, the position ^B of "from non-being" appears utterly alien to all piety, it is necessary to say that the Father is always the Father. And the Father is Father because the Son is always present, for whose sake He is termed Father. And since the Son is ever present with Him, the Father is ever perfect, being lacking in nothing that is good; not temporally, nor by an interval, nor from non-being did He beget the only-begotten Son. For what is it that is not impious to say—that the Wisdom of God, who says: "I was by Him, fitting together, I was the one in whom He delighted," did not exist at some time; or that the Power of God did not exist at some time; or that His Word was at some time ^C mutilated; or that the other things were ever lacking, from which the Son is known and the Father is characterized? For he who says that the radiance of glory does not exist simultaneously removes also the original light, of which it is the radiance. And if the Image of God was not always, it is clear that He of whom He is the image does not always exist. But further, by the non-existence of the character of the substance of God, He who is in every way characterized by Him is also removed. From which one can see the sonship of our Savior, which has no commonality with the sonship of the rest. For just as His ineffable substance has been shown to excel, by an incomparable ^D preeminence, all things to which He Himself granted existence, so too His sonship, existing according to the nature of the paternal divinity, differs with an ineffable preeminence from those who have been adopted as sons through Him. For He, indeed, exists of an immutable nature, being perfect and lacking nothing in all things; but they, being subject to change in either direction, stand in need of help from Him. For what progress could the Wisdom of God have, or what could the Truth Itself take on, or God the Word? How could Life, or the true Light, be improved? And if this is the case, how much more unnatural is it that wisdom should at some time be capable of folly, or the Power of God be entangled with weakness, or the Word be obscured by irrationality, or darkness be mixed with the true Light? The Apostle himself says: "What fellowship..."

has light with darkness, or what concord has Christ with Belial?" And Solomon denies that it is possible for the way of a serpent upon a rock—which, according to Paul, is Christ—to be comprehended by thought. Human beings and angels, however, being His creatures, have received a blessing to make progress, exercising themselves in the pursuit of virtue and in the lawful commandments, so that they might not fall into vices. For this reason our Lord, since He is by nature the Son of the Father, is worshipped by all. But they, having put off the spirit of slavery, and having received the spirit of adoption through good deeds and progress, being benefitted by Him who is by nature the Son, themselves become sons by adoption.

^B VIII. Paul declared His genuine, proper, natural, and preeminent sonship when he said regarding God: "Who did not spare His own Son, but for our sake—that is, for the sake of those who are not sons by nature—delivered Him up." For, to distinguish Him from those who are not sons properly, he called Him His own proper Son. And in the Gospel it is read: "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Furthermore, in the Psalms the Savior says: "The Lord said to me: You are my Son." By manifesting genuineness, He signifies that there are no others who are His genuine sons besides Him. And what is that which is said, "From the womb, before the morning star, I have begotten You"? Does this not clearly indicate a natural sonship of the paternal birth, which He obtained not by careful conduct or the exercise of progress, but by the property of nature? ^C Hence, the only-begotten Son of the Father possesses a firm and stable sonship; whereas the adoption of rational beings, not being theirs by nature but prepared by moral fitness and the grace of God, is known by the Word to be mutable. For we have been taught that God said through the prophet Isaiah: "The sons of God, seeing the daughters of men, took wives for themselves," and what follows; and, "I begat sons and exalted them, but they despised me."

IX. Having much to say, beloved, I pass on, ^D since their nature does not seem capable of these things. For angels apply themselves to that which they have once embraced; nor do they move gradually toward what they choose, but with the first impulse they reach the highest summit, such that they can neither progress further nor fall back. For they are devoid of matter, which generates weakness and inconstancy. It must, however, be said that angels were so created by God at first that they were mutable, capable of virtue and vice, and able both to progress for the better and to fall into the worse. That this was the opinion of the ancient theologians is evident both from Alexander and from the fact that Arius and others asserted that the Son of God was mutable and capable of virtue and vice. Nor did any of the Catholics ever object to them that angels are not of a mutable nature. For they knew that this is the property of God alone, who in the Holy Scriptures explicitly says: "I am, and I do not change." Angels, however, though they change with difficulty, are nonetheless subject to change.

^A I pass over this by way of counsel, since I consider it importunate to admonish further those who are doctors and in agreement with us. For you are taught by God, and are not ignorant that the doctrine which has recently reared its head against ecclesiastical piety is that of Ebion and Artemas; and that it is nothing other than an imitation of Paul of Samosata, the bishop of Antioch, who was removed from the Church by the counsel and judgment of the bishops everywhere. Lucian, who succeeded him, remained excluded from the communion of three bishops [(24)] for many years. Having drained the dregs of their impiety, there have now sprung up for us from non-existence those hidden shoots of theirs, Arius, to wit, and Achillas, and the remaining crowd of impious men adhering to them. And I know not how three bishops [(25)] ordained in Syria, by consenting to them, incite them to worse things; the judgment of whom let it be reserved for your examination. ^B Those who, while retaining in their memory the extraneous sayings concerning the saving passion, and the abasement, and the emptying, and what they call his poverty, and all those things which the Savior underwent for our sake, bring them forward to refute his supreme and eternal divinity. But they have become forgetful of those words which designate his natural glory and nobility and his abiding with the Father; of which kind is that: "I and the Father are one" [(28)]. Which the Lord says, not proclaiming himself to be the Father, nor clarifying that the two natures [(27)] are one in subsistence; but that the Son is naturally disposed to preserve the likeness of the Father exactly, having from nature impressed upon him the likeness of him in all things, and being an unchanging image of the Father, and an expressed impress of the prototype. Whence also to Philip, who at that time desired to see, the Lord abundantly reveals it. To him when he says: "Show us the Father," he replies: "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father," ^C as if through an unblemished looking-glass and an animate divine image, the Father himself is contemplated. To which the most holy men in the Psalms say:* "In thy light—"

CONCERNING THE TERM "EXCLUDED FROM THE SYNAGOGUE"

[(24)] "Remained excluded from the synagogue of three bishops." Interpreters have not understood the force of this word. Those whom Baronius followed, writing in the year 318, say that Lucian had been ejected from the Church by three bishops who were succeeding one another. But Alexander does not say this, but only says that Lucian had caused a schism in the Church of Antioch, and had celebrated gatherings separately under three bishops who were succeeding one another. For this is what the word [(24)] signifies. Therefore, Epiphanius Scholasticus has not ill-interpreted this passage in this way: "Whom Lucian succeeding, remained outside the synagogues of the three bishops for a long time." Basil in his first epistle to Amphilochius uses the term [(24)] in the same sense, where he distinguishes between heresy, and schism, and [(24)]. But [(24)], he says, are illegitimate assemblies which are held by insubordinate presbyters or bishops and laymen. For example, if someone convicted of a crime, and suspended from sacred ministry, does not appear before judgment, but wishes to perform his ministry, and gathers the people. Between [(24)] and schism, there is little difference. Furthermore, the cause of the schism for Lucian was the doctrine of Paul of Samosata, which he was defending, as Alexander teaches. For whose sake he separated himself for a long time from three bishops, Domnus, Timaeus, and Cyrillus. But he was truly returned to the unity of the Church, as is gathered from Alexander. For Alexander does not write that he remained in schism until the end of his life, but only that he was separated for a long time. ^D Moreover, Alexander borrowed this word from the Gospel of John, chap. xvi, where Christ predicts to his apostles that the Jews would cast them out of their synagogues.

[(25)] "Three bishops." He understands Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, Theodotus of Laodicea, and Paulinus of Tyre. For that these were struck with anathema by Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, Arius testifies in his letter to Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, which is recounted by Theodoret, *Hist. eccl.* lib. 1, cap. 5.

[(26)] "Let it be reserved." In the codex of Leo Allatius, and in the Basilian edition, it is read [(26)]. Just as it is also written in Nicephorus.

[(27)] "That there are two natures in subsistence." Alexander says that there are two, not simply and absolutely, but personally two, because in two persons one nature exists. Wherefore [(27)] is the same as person.

the honor shown to the Son, ^A is shown also to the Father; and with good reason: for every impious utterance dared against the Son has its reference back to the Father. For we shall see light. Therefore he who honors the Son, honors ^B the Father, and rightly so: for every impious utterance dared against the Son has its reference back to the Father.

X. And what more is there to wonder at, my beloved, that I am about to write, if I set forth the false slanders devised against me and against our most pious people? For those who have set themselves in battle array against the divinity of the Son of God do not shrink from uttering ungrateful insults against us; they who do not deign to compare anyone of the ancients to themselves, nor do they hold themselves equal to the teachers with whom we have conversed from childhood. But neither do they consider any of our fellow ministers everywhere to have attained to a ^B moderate degree of knowledge; they boast that they alone are wise and possessors of nothing, and that they alone are the inventors of dogmas, and that those things which have never entered into the mind of any other man under the sun have been revealed to them alone. O impious arrogance! O immense madness! O empty glory, appropriate to those who are affected by black bile! O pride of Satan, which has settled into their wicked minds! Neither the religious perspicuity of the ancient Scriptures, nor the concordant piety of our fellow ministers concerning Christ, has shamed them or repressed their boldness against Him. The very demons themselves will not endure their impiety, since they take care not to utter any impious word against the Son of God.

XI. And let these things be considered by us for the present strength of our argument against those who, having wallowed in unskilled matter ^C like dust, have set out to attack Christ and have endeavored to slander our piety toward Him. For these inventors of silly fables say that we, in turning away from the impious and Scripturally unsupported blasphemy that He is from non-existent things, teach that there are two unbegotten beings. These ignorant men assert that one of two things must necessarily be said: either that He is from non-existent things, or else that there are two unbegotten beings; not knowing, the reckless men, that there is a long interval between the unbegotten Father and those things created by Him from nothing, both rational and irrational, between which the monogenetic nature mediates, by which all things from non-existent ^D things the Father of the Word of God has made; which has been begotten from the Father who is himself, as…

the Lord also somewhere testified, saying: ^A *He who loves the Father, loves also the Son who is begotten from him.*

XII. Concerning these things, we believe as follows, in accordance with the mind of the apostolic Church: In one unbegotten Father, who has no cause of his essence from any, who is immutable and unalterable, always being the same and in the same state, admitting neither progress nor diminution; who is the giver of the Law and Prophets and Gospels, and Lord of the patriarchs and apostles and all the saints. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the monogenetic, begotten not from the non-existent, but from the Father who is, not according to the likenesses of bodies, by incisions or outflows of divisions, as seems to be the opinion of Sabellius and Valentinus, but in an unspeakable and ineffable manner, according to him who said, as we brought forward above: *Who shall declare his generation?* since his subsistence is ^B unsearchable to every begotten nature, even as the Father himself is unsearchable, for the reason that the rational nature is not able to grasp the knowledge of the divine generation from the Father; which things it is not necessary for me to teach to men who are moved by the Spirit of truth, for the voice of Christ that has already reached us regarding this matter is sounding in our ears and teaching us: *No one knows who the Father is, except the Son; and no one knows who the Son is, except the Father.* We have learned that he is immutable and unalterable like the Father, in need of nothing, and a perfect Son, lacking nothing of him except the fact that he alone is unbegotten. For he is an exact and unvaried image of the Father. For that the image is full of all things, through which the greater likeness is manifest, is clear, as the Lord himself taught us, saying: ^C *The Father is greater than I.* And in accordance with this, we also believe that the Son always is from the Father. For he is the brightness of his glory, and the stamp of the paternal subsistence. But let no one take the "always" to mean the "Unbegotten," as they think whose senses of the soul are impaired. For neither "was," nor "always," nor "before the ages" is the same as "Unbegotten." But neither can human thought strive to coin a name that signifies the unbegotten. And I believe that you likewise understand it thus, and I have confidence in the correct disposition of you all concerning all things, that in no manner whatsoever do these names signify the unbegotten. For it seems ^D

as though these names were an extension of time; they are not able, however, to signify the divinity of the Only-Begotten according to His worth, or as it were, His antiquity. But the holy men, as each one strove to set forth the mystery according to his ability, and asked pardon from their hearers through a reasonable defense, ^A saying: "As far as we have attained." And if, because of what is beyond the human, the men expect some utterance from our lips that is greater, saying that "things known in part" are to be done away—it is evident that the "He was," and the "always," and the "before the ages," and whatever else it may be, is far inferior to what is hoped for, and is not the same as the Unbegotten. Therefore, for the unbegotten Father, one must preserve His proper dignity, holding that no one is the cause of His existence; but to the Son one must render the proportionate honor, attributing to Him the birth from the Father without beginning, and as we have attained, rendering Him worship, speaking of the "He was," and the "always," and the "before the ages" regarding Him only piously and reverently; not, however, rejecting His divinity, but attributing to the image and impress of the Father the exact resemblance in all things. But we declare that the "unbegotten" is an idiom belonging to the Father alone ^B, inasmuch as the Savior Himself said: "The Father is greater than I."

Beyond this pious opinion concerning the Father and the Son, as the divine Scriptures teach us, we confess one Holy Spirit, who has renewed both the holy men of the Old Testament and the divine teachers of that which is called the New. [We confess] one and only catholic and apostolic Church: which is indeed always unassailable, even if the whole world determines to make war against her ^C; but she is the victor over every most impious insurrection of the heretics who rise up against her. For her Bridegroom has confirmed our souls with these words: "Take heart, I have overcome the world."

After this, we acknowledge the resurrection of the dead; the first-fruits of which became our Lord Jesus Christ, who truly bore flesh, and not in appearance only, taken from Mary the Theotokos. At the end of the ages, He descended to the human race for the removal of sin, was crucified and died, yet did not on that account suffer any loss of His own divinity. He rose from the dead, was taken up into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Majesty ^D.

XIII. I have written these things in part in this letter, judging it burdensome to go through each point in detail, as I said before, since they do not escape your religious diligence. These things we teach, these we preach. These are the apostolic dogmas of the Church, for which we also willingly endure death, thinking little of those who force us to deny them, and not casting away the hope placed in them, even if they inflict violence by applying torments. ^A Opposing these, Arius and Achillas and those with them who are enemies of the truth were expelled from the Church, as being alien to our pious doctrine, according to the blessed Paul who says: *If anyone preaches to you a gospel other than that which you have received, let him be anathema*, even if he feigns to be an angel from heaven. But also, *If anyone teaches otherwise, and does not assent to the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is puffed up, knowing nothing*, and so forth. ^B Therefore, let none of you receive these men who have been anathematized by the brotherhood, nor accept those things which are said or written by them. For the impostors lie about everything; they will never speak the truth. For they go about the cities, planning nothing but how, under the guise of friendship and in the name of peace, they may give and receive letters through hypocrisy and flattery, by which they may lead into error the few weak women deceived by them and laden with sins, and so forth.

XIV. Therefore, those who have dared such things against Christ; who have sought to ridicule the Christian religion publicly in part, and in part to traduce it and mark it for reproach in the courts; who in a time of peace have stirred up persecution against us, as far as it lay within them; who have emasculated the ineffable mystery of the generation of Christ: ^C these men, I say, turn away from, most beloved and like-minded brethren, and join your votes against their mad audacity, in accordance with the example of our fellow ministers who have been indignant and have written letters to me against them, and have signed our Tome. Which I have also sent to you through my son Apion the deacon, partly from all Egypt and the Thebaid, partly from Libya and Pentapolis, and from Syria, and further from Lycia and Pamphylia, Asia, Cappadocia, and other surrounding regions. In imitation of whom, I trust to receive letters also from you. ^D For since many remedies have been prepared by me for those who have been harmed, this remedy in particular has been devised for curing the multitude that has been deceived by them, that they may comply with the consent of our fellow ministers, and through this hasten to return to repentance. Greet one another together with the brethren who are with you.

^A I pray for you, beloved. May I be gladdened by your Christ-loving soul.

COPY

To the beloved and most honored fellow ministers of the Catholic Church everywhere, Alexander sends greetings in the Lord.

1. Since the body of the Catholic Church is one, and it is commanded in the holy Scriptures to keep the bond of harmony and peace, it is necessary that we write and signify to one another what takes place with each ^B of us, so that whether one member suffers or rejoices, we may either suffer or rejoice with one another. In our parish, therefore, there have lately arisen lawless men and Christ-fighters, teaching an apostasy which one might reasonably suspect and call the forerunner of the Antichrist. I truly wished to commit this matter to silence, that the evil might perhaps be consumed in the leaders of the heresy alone, and not, by passing into other places, defile the ears ^C of some of the simpler sort. But since Eusebius, now in Nicomedia, thinking that the affairs of the Church depend upon him—because, having abandoned Berytus and set his eyes in desire upon the Church of the Nicomedians, he has not been brought to judgment for it—is now also the protector of these apostates, and has set about writing everywhere to support them, so that he might draw some who are ignorant of the matter into this most shameful and Christ-opposing heresy; it has been necessary for me, not being ignorant of what is written in the law, to no longer suppress the matter in silence, but to signify it to you all, so that you may know both those who have become apostates and the wretched words ^D of their heresy; and if Eusebius writes, pay no heed to him. For while he desires to renew now, through these men, his old maliciousness which had been silenced by time, he pretends indeed to be writing on their behalf; yet he proves by his actions that he is doing this for his own sake.

^A And Achilles, Aithales, Carpones, another Arius, and Sarmates, who were once presbyters; and Euzoius, Lucius, Julius, Menas, Helladius, and Gaius, who were once deacons; and with them Secundus and Theonas, who were once called bishops. Now, these are the things they have invented and speak of, contrary to the Scriptures.

III. "God was not always the Father, but there was a time when God was not the Father. The Word of God was not always; but He came into being from things that were not. For God, who is, has made Him who is not, out of that which is not; wherefore there was a time when He was not. The Son is a creature and a product; He is neither like the Father in substance, nor is He the true and natural Word of the Father, nor His true Wisdom; but He is one of the things made and created. He is only called Word and Wisdom abusively, since He Himself was made by the proper Word of God and by the Wisdom which is in God, in which God made both all other things and Him as well. Therefore, He is mutable and changeable in His nature, just as are all rational beings. The Word is foreign, alien, and separated from the substance of God. The Father is also ineffable to the Son; for the Word neither perfectly nor accurately knows the Father, nor is He able to see Him perfectly. For the Son does not ^B even know His own substance as it is; for He was made for our sake, in order that God might create us through Him as through an instrument. And He would not have come into existence, had God not willed to create us." When someone asked them if the Word of God could change, as the devil was changed, they were not afraid to answer, "Yes, He can; for being created and made, He is of a mutable nature."

IV. Those who say these things—the Arians—and who affirm them with such impudence, we, together with the bishops of Egypt and Libya, nearly one hundred in number, assembled and anathematized them and their followers. But Eusebius and his associates have received them, and have labored to mix falsehood with truth, and impiety with piety. But they shall not succeed; for truth conquers, and there is no communion of light with darkness, nor any concord of Christ with Belial (2 Cor. VI, 14). For who has ever heard such things? Or who, hearing them now, is not astonished, and ^D closes his ears so as not to [have the filth of these words touch his hearing; for who hearing...]

John saying, *In the beginning was the Word* (Joan. I, 1), does not condemn those who say, "There was once when he was not"? Or who, hearing in the Gospel, *The only-begotten Son* (Joan. I, 18), and, *Through him all things were made* (Joan. I, 3), will not hate those who utter that he is one of the things made? For how can he who is the one through whom all things were made, be himself one of those things? Or how is he "only-begotten" if, according to them, he is numbered among all things, if indeed he himself is also a creature and a thing made? And how could he truly be from non-existents, when the Father says, *My heart has poured forth a good Word* (Psal. XLIV, 1), and, *From the womb before the morning star have I begotten thee* (Psal. CIX, 3)? Or how is he dissimilar in substance to the Father, he who is the perfect image and splendor of the Father, and who says, *He who has seen me, has seen the Father* (Joan. XIV, 9)? And if the Son is the Word and Wisdom of God, how is it that *there was a time when he was not*? For it is the same as saying that God was at some time without Reason and Wisdom. But how can he be changeable and alterable, he who says of himself, *I am in the Father, and the Father in me* (Joan. XIV, 10), and, *I and the Father are one* (Joan. X, 30); and who says through the Prophet, *See me, that I am, and I am not changed* (Malach. III, 6)? For even if that saying could be referred to the Father, it is more fittingly spoken now of the Word, because even having become man, he was not changed; but as the Apostle says, *Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, the same also into the ages* (Hebr. XIII, 8). And who persuaded them to say that he was made for our sake (Hebr. II, 10), even though Paul writes, *Through whom are all things, and through whom all things exist*?

^B V. As for that blasphemy of theirs, where they say that the Son does not perfectly know the Father, we must not be surprised; for once they have set their minds to war against Christ, they also assault these words of his: *As the Father knows me, I also know the Father* (Joan. X, 15). If, therefore, the Father knows the Son only in part, it is evident that the Son should also not know the Father perfectly. But if it is impious to say this, and the Father knows the Son perfectly, it is clear that just as the Father knows his own Word, so also the Word knows his own Father, of whom he is the Word.

VI. By saying these things and unfolding the divine ^C Scriptures, we have often refuted them. But they, like chameleons, keep changing their opinion, striving to claim for themselves that saying: *When the impious man has come into the depths of evils, he scorns* (Prov. XVIII, 3). Many heresies have indeed existed before them, which, having dared more than was right, have fallen into madness. But these men, who by all their petty assertions strive to abolish the divinity of the Word, have brought it about that, in a way, those earlier heresies seem righteous, since they themselves are closer to the Antichrist.

^A For this reason, they were also denounced and were anathematized by the Church. We grieve, indeed, at the destruction of these people; and most especially because, although they had once learned the things pertaining to the Church, they have now leapt away. Yet we are not surprised; for this is what happened to Hymenaeus and Philetus, and before them to Judas, who, although he had followed the Savior, later became a traitor and an apostate. And concerning these very men, we have not remained uninstructed; for the Lord has foretold it: "Take heed that no one deceives you; for many shall come in my name, saying that 'I am he', and 'the time has drawn near'; and they shall deceive many: do not go after them." Paul, after having learned these things from the Savior, wrote: "That in the latter times, ^B some shall depart from the sound faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, who turn away from the truth."

VII. Since, therefore, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has both by Himself given instructions, and through the Apostle has given signals concerning such men, we, having ourselves heard their impiety, have justifiably anathematized such men, as we said before, and have declared them to be strangers to the Catholic Church and to the faith. We have also made this known to your godliness, beloved and most honorable fellow-ministers, so that if any of them should dare to come to you with insolence, you may not receive them, nor believe Eusebius or anyone else writing to you about them. For it befits us, being Christians, to turn away from all those who speak or think against Christ as enemies of God and corrupters of souls, ^C and not even to say "Hail" to such people, lest we ever become participants in their sins, as the blessed John commanded. Greet the brothers who are with you; those who are with me greet you.

Alexandria, presbyters. Colluthus, presbyter, I concur with what is written, and with the deposition of Arius and those who have acted impiously with him. Alexander, presbyter, likewise. Dioscorus, presbyter, likewise. Dionysius, presbyter, likewise. Eusebius, presbyter, likewise. ^D Alexander, presbyter, likewise. Nilaras, presbyter, likewise. Arpocration, presbyter, likewise. Agathus, presbyter. Nemesius, presbyter. Longus, presbyter. Silvanus, presbyter. Perous, presbyter.

Apis, presbyter. Proterius, presbyter. Paulus, presbyter. Cyrus, presbyter, in like manner.

Deacons. ^A Ammonius, deacon, in like manner. Macarius, deacon. Pistus, deacon, in like manner. Athanasius, deacon. Eumenes, deacon. Apollonius, deacon. Olympius, deacon. Aphthonius, deacon. Athanasius, deacon. Macarius, deacon, in like manner. ^B Paulus, deacon. Petrus, deacon. Ambytianus, deacon. Gaius, deacon, in like manner. Alexander, deacon. Dionysius, deacon. Agathon, deacon. Polybius, deacon, in like manner. Theonas, deacon. Marcus, deacon. Commodus, deacon. Serapion, deacon. Nilus, deacon. Romanus, deacon, in like manner.

Presbyters of Mareotis. ^C Apollonius, presbyter, I concur with these written things, and with the deposition of Arius, and of those who have acted impiously with him. Ingenius, presbyter, in like manner. Ammonius, presbyter. Dioscorus, presbyter. Sostras, presbyter. Theon, presbyter. Tyrannus, presbyter. Copres, presbyter. Ammonas, presbyter. Orion, presbyter. Serenus, presbyter. Didymus, presbyter. ^D Heracles, presbyter. Boccon, presbyter. Agathus, presbyter. Achillas, presbyter. Paulus, presbyter. Thalelaeus, presbyter. Dionysius, presbyter, in like manner.

Deacons. Sarapion, deacon, in like manner. Justus, deacon, in like manner. Didymus, deacon. Demetrius, deacon. Maurus, deacon. Alexander, deacon. Marcus, deacon. Comon, deacon. Tryphon, deacon. Ammonius, deacon. Didymus, deacon. Ptollarion, deacon. Seras, deacon. Gaius, deacon. ^B Hierax, deacon. Marcus, deacon. Theonas, deacon. Sarmaton, deacon. Carpon, deacon. Zoilus, deacon, in like manner.

III.

DEPOSITION OF ARIUS

Alexander, to the presbyters and deacons of Alexandria and the Mareotis, present to those present, beloved brothers in the Lord, greeting.

Although you have already subscribed to the letters I sent to those around Arius, urging them to renounce their impiety and submit to the sound and Catholic faith, and although you have thereby demonstrated your own right intent and the agreement of the Catholic Church in its dogmas; nevertheless, because I have also indicated in my letters to all my fellow ministers everywhere the matters concerning Arius and his associates, I have deemed it necessary to convene you, the clergy of the city, and to summon you from the Mareotis, especially since Chares and Pistus, presbyters, and Sarapion, Parammon, Zosimus, and Irenaeus, deacons, among you, have passed over to the party of Arius and have desired to be deposed along with them; so that you may know what has now been written, demonstrate your own agreement in these things, and add your own vote to the deposition of those around Arius and those around Pistus. For it is fitting that you should know what is written by me, and that each one of you should hold it in your heart as if it had been written by yourself. ^D

IV. Two fragments from the epistle to Aeglon, Bishop of Cynopolis, against the Arians.

(From St. Maximus the Confessor, among his theological and polemical opuscula, Opp. tom. II, pp. 152-155, Paris edition, 1675.)

I. ^A St. Alexander, Pope of Alexandria, from the epistle to Aeglon, Bishop of Cynopolis, against the Arians.

Natural will is the free power of every intelligent nature, as it has nothing involuntary in accordance with its essence.

II. ^B Natural operation is the innate motion of every substance. Natural operation is the substantial and notifying account of any nature. Natural operation is the force of every substance that makes it known.

ADMONITION REGARDING THE FOLLOWING SERMON

I stated in the *Spicilegium Romanum*, vol. III, p. 694, that many writings of the ancients, which we entirely lack, could be elicited from the Oriental manuscripts of the Vatican Library. And indeed, besides those exquisite fragments of the Fathers which I published in the aforementioned place, I had already previously brought forth larger works from the same source: specifically, the historical chapters of Zacharias of Mitylene, the canonical treatises of Ebediesu and Abulpharagius, the canons of the Armenians, several sermons of Severus of Antioch, and recently fragments of St. Cyril against the Synusiasts and Diodorus and Theodore. Now, however, among those first items that I mentioned, the Vatican Arabic codex 101 furnished me a good portion of a sermon by St. Alexander, Patriarch of Alexandria; which sermon I later obtained in its entirety in the Syriac Vatican codex 368, a fact I once indicated in ^C *Scriptorum veterum*, vol. V, p. 42. Now behold, after the Greek writings of the Alexandrian Cyril, I order this sermon of the Alexandrian to be brought to light in both Syriac and Latin (since we lack the Greek words), with the assistance provided to me by Matthew Sciahuano and Francis Mehasebo, most learned Maronites, lest the mouth of a bishop of such great antiquity, authority, and fame should fall silent any longer.

Furthermore, the testimonies of the truth of the matter are, first, those fragments from the Arabic codex which bear the name of Alexander, Archbishop of Alexandria (*Spicil. Rom.*, vol. III, p. 699), and which now appear in series in their appropriate places in the complete sermon inscribed to the same author. Next, the Syrian author Sabariesus, in Assemani, *Bib. or.* vol. III, p. 543, quotes from the Arabic chronicle of Mocaffaeus a fragment of our Alexander, which likewise (wonderful to tell!) occurs in our complete sermon at section 3. Although Mocaffaeus indeed calls Alexander the "Roman Pope," this is clearly an error, rightly corrected by Assemani in the index (*p. 658*), who suggests reading "the Alexandrian." Then—besides the fact that ^D many errors are wont to creep in for scribes—the Syriac codex now teaches us the truth of the matter, as it inscribes this sermon to Alexander, the bishop of the city of Alexandria. Moreover, the custom of the Orientals of designating as "Romans" all who were subject to the Roman Empire and used the Greek or even Latin language is sufficiently established. They even call the Byzantine Empire itself "Roman" constantly, as the Byzantine historians themselves are accustomed to do, who speak thus ambitiously in their books after Constantinople usurped the name of New Rome.

The passage, therefore, related by Mocaffaeus, stands thus: "Alexander the Roman patriarch says: 'The hand which created Adam, itself was pierced by the nail upon the cross. The mouth which breathed the breath of life into Adam, drank vinegar. The foot which was pierced by the nail, founded the earth.'" These words, I say, while perhaps a bit loosely rendered, are nevertheless undoubtedly taken from this sermon of ours at section 5. However, the much richer passage that precedes in that place, and which has been distinguished by quotation marks by us, corresponds much more evidently and precisely with the Arabic interpretation of the sermon published in our *Spicilegium*. Otherwise, it is not to be wondered at if a sermon that passed from Greek into Syriac, and from that into the Arabic language, has suffered a few small variations in these transfusions. Indeed, there seem to have existed two editions of this sermon among the Alexandrians, or rather among the Orientals; for in the Syriac Vatican codex, after the complete sermon, another fragment of the same is appended, not without a few variant readings.

actions. But that I may believe the Arabic interpretation to be derived from the second Syriac, I use this indication: that the fragment of the Arabic codex 101 corresponds more with the later Syriac than with the earlier. And so, although I had decided to omit that addition, because it seemed very similar to the complete sermon, yet because I later discovered the Arabic portion to conspire rather with this Syriac part, so as not to weaken the force of my argument in any way, I have taken care to have this Syriac repetition printed, at least in a reduced form.

But indeed, a welcome opportunity for publishing this sermon has arrived, because at this time the festal epistles or orations of the great Athanasius (lost in Greek) are being issued from the English presses, having likewise been discovered in a Syriac codex; to which, as is just and deserved, the sermon of Alexander will become a companion. For Alexander was the educator of Athanasius from boyhood, whom he always held as a familiar, an old man to a youth, and most dear, a participant even at his daily table, and a faithful librarian; he himself ordained him deacon and took him with him to the Council of Nicaea, so that he might devote himself to service there, *συναγωνιζόμενον αὐτῷ ἐκεῖ*, as Socrates explicitly states (Hist. lib. 1, 15); whom finally, as he was dying, he repeatedly addressed by name, and as he was the man to become his successor, he earnestly entreated the Alexandrian clergy, a thing which in fact occurred with infinite benefit to the Christian cause; so that we may refer such a man and such a bishop as Athanasius to the care of Alexander. Now, as Alexander embraced the youth Athanasius with every duty, so that same Alexander, when he was younger, had been extremely familiar with the bishop and martyr Peter, and had been designated by him as successor after Achillas, the brother of the same. For, as is read in the Life of Peter (a) edited by us (Spicil. t. III, p. 682), the glorious martyr, having been placed in prison and soon to be struck down for the faith, destined both of them as bishops for the Alexandrian see after himself, saying: “You, Achillas, first, but Alexander second.” And immediately: “Kissing the hands and feet of Peter, Achillas and Alexander turned to tears and were shaken by most bitter sobbing.”

Whatever remained until now of the writings of Alexander, preserved by ecclesiastical historians, attacks Arius and his pupils; understand that there are two epistles, of which the former is utterly distinguished, being like a most complete treatise, and greater than all praise. And yet these two remain from seventy; for Epiphanius attests that as many were written by him (Haer. LXIX, 4): “*Ἀλέξανδρος ἐπίσκοπος γράφει ἐπιστολὰς ἐγκυκλίους, αἵτινες παρὰ φιλοκάλοις ἔτι σῴζονται, ὡς τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἑβδομήκοντα.* Alexander the bishop writes encyclical epistles, which are still preserved among the studious, numbering nearly seventy.” Fragments of one of these are cited by Maximus (Opp. t. II, p. 152, 155). Would that these might show themselves in at least the Syriac codices, which has recently happened most fortunately for the Athanasians! Now, in such a shipwreck of the writings of Alexander, let us receive with a willing mind at least one sermon delivered in a public assembly, in which, among other useful things, the divinity of Christ is preached everywhere. Nor is eloquence lacking (which we said was attributed to him by Gelasius), polished, that is, popular, and worthy of an episcopal mouth.

The Syriac Vatican codex has provided this sermon of Alexander, parchment, ancient, written in Chaldaic letters in a double column. It contained sixty homilies (of which nine are now missing, due to lost folios) of the orthodox Fathers: Greg. Nyssenus, Greg. Nazianzen, Basil, Amphilochius, John Chrysostom, Proclus, Isaac (and even one of Eusebius of Alex., for there is an error in the catalog, with another name substituted, "On the Lord’s Day"). Among these, this sermon of Alexander holds the twentieth place; which the author had written in Greek, and, as I have demonstrated, the Syrians and Arabs translated into their own languages; regarding whose sincerity the aforementioned testimonies of the codices and authors do not in any way allow us to doubt.

S. ALEXANDRI EPISCOPI ALEXANDRIAE SERMO DE ANIMA ET CORPORE DEQUE PASSIONE DOMINI.

1. The Word, which is sent down from heaven without envy, is suitable for the irrigating of our hearts, if we have been prepared for its virtue, not just by saying...

and also by listening. ^A For just as rain does not produce fruit without the earth, nor the earth without rain, so neither does the Word bear fruit without hearing, nor hearing without the Word. Moreover, the Word becomes fruitful when we pronounce it; hearing likewise, when we listen to it. Therefore, when the Word exerts its power, provide yourselves also with a hearing that is free from envy; and when you approach to listen, purge yourselves of all envy and incredulity. For envy and incredulity are the worst of things, ^B and both are opposed to righteousness: for envy is opposed to charity, and incredulity to faith; and this is no different from the way bitterness is opposed to sweetness, darkness to light, evil to good, death to life, and falsehood to truth. But indeed, whosoever abounds in these vices which are repugnant to virtue, these men are in a certain way dead; ^C for the envious and the incredulous hate charity and faith; and those who do this are established as enemies of God.

2. Since you, therefore, most beloved brothers, know that envious and incredulous men are enemies of righteousness, beware of them; embrace faith and charity, by the aid of which all holy men who have existed from the beginning of the world until this day have attained salvation. ^D Moreover, do not show the fruit of charity by words alone, but also by works, that is, by pious [actions] for the sake of God

^A God; for indeed the Lord Himself shows us His own charity toward us, not by words only, but also by deed, since He gave Himself up for our salvation. Furthermore, we were not made exactly as the rest of the world, by word alone, but also by work. For God made the world to exist by the power of a single word; yet us He produced by the efficacy of the word as well as of the [deed]. For it was not enough for God to say: "Let us make man after our image and likeness," ^B but the work immediately followed the word: for having taken dust from the ground, He formed man from it, conformable to His own image and likeness, and breathed into him the breath of life, so that Adam became a living soul.

3. But since man had subsequently inclined himself toward death by his sin, it was necessary that that form should be refashioned again for salvation by the same artificer of his. For the form indeed lay rotting under the earth; nevertheless, that inspiration, which had been like the breath of life, was detained, separated from the body, in a dark place which is ^C called hell. There was, therefore, a separation of soul from body; the one [was] relegated to the infernal regions, this [other] dissolved into dust: and there was a great interval, so that they could not come together again; because when the flesh is dissolved, the body rots; [and] the soul being bound, its action ceases. For just as, when a king is delivered into chains, the city falls; or when a leader is captured, the army is dispersed; or when the governor is deposed, ^D the ship founders; so too, with chains cast upon the soul, its body has collapsed, like a city without a king, its members dissolved, as happens in an army having lost its leader, and plunged into death, which has come to pass for the ship destitute of its governor. The soul, therefore, was directing man, when

^A it was still present to the body; like a king to a city, a general to an army, a pilot to a ship. Yet she was powerless to rule it, from the moment she was herself immovably bound and plunged into error; because she turned aside from the right path, followed tempters, and devoted herself to fornication, the worship of idols, and bloody slaughters: by which crimes she destroyed the man belonging to her. But at last, having been brought down into the underworld, she was detained there by the wicked tempter. ^B Otherwise, just as a king restores a fallen city, a general collects a dispersed army, and a sailor repairs a broken ship; so, I say, the soul was providing help to its body while it still lasted, before it was dissolved into dust, not having yet been bound by chains itself. But after the soul was bound not by material chains, but by sins, and was therefore rendered powerless to act, then she abandoned her body on earth, ^C and having been cast down into the underworld, she became the footstool of death and contemptible to all.

4. Man went out from paradise to that ^D region which is [full] of injustice, fornication, adulteries, and bloody slaughters,

^A a sink [of iniquity], where he also met his destruction; for all things conspired for his slaughter, and they plunged him into ruin as soon as he entered here. Meanwhile, man was devoid of any consolation, and of all help and rest. For when has it ever been well with man? Was it in the maternal womb? But shut up there, he differed little from one dead. Or while he was being nourished with milk at the breast? Not even then did he experience any joy. Or rather, while he was growing into adolescence? ^B And yet, at that time, dangers were most imminent on account of youthful passions. Or finally, when he was growing old? Verily, even then he began to groan, pressed down by the weight of old age and the expectation of death. For what else is old age, if not the expectation of death? In truth, all earth-dwellers die, young and old, ^C little ones and adults: for no stature of body exempts one from death. Why, then, is man tormented with such great sorrow? Doubtless, the sight of death produces sadness: for in a dead man we see a changed countenance, a lifeless figure, a body shrunken with emaciation, a silent mouth, cold skin, sunken eyes, ^D motionless limbs, a corpse cast upon the ground, flesh wasting away, gelid veins, whitened bones, joints dissolved, and all things being reduced to dust, so that man exists no longer. What, then, is man? A temporary flower, I say, which does not appear in the maternal womb, thrives in youth, and withers and departs into death in old age.

^A 5. Age verily, after all this servitude of death and the corruption of man, God visited His own creature, whom He had fashioned according to His own image and likeness; and He did this, that man might not be a perpetual plaything of death. Therefore, God sent His incorporeal Son from heaven, that He might take on flesh in a virgin womb; and thus, just as you are, He became man, so that He might save man who was lost, and gather together all his scattered members. For Christ, while He coupled man to His own Person, unified that which the separation of death had dispersed in the body. Christ suffered, so that we might live eternally. (84) "For otherwise, why had Christ to die? Had He committed something worthy of death? Why did He clothe Himself in flesh, He who was invested with glory? And since He was God, why did He become man? And while He reigned in heaven, why did He descend to earth and become incarnate in the Virgin's womb? What necessity, I pray, compelled God to descend to earth, to assume flesh, to be wrapped in swaddling clothes in a manger, ^C to be nourished at the breast, to receive baptism from a servant, to be lifted onto a cross, to be buried in an earthly sepulcher, to rise from the dead on the third day? What necessity, I ask, constrained Him?" It is sufficiently explained that the ignominies of man's ^D

^A grace were suffered, that He might deliver him from death, and with the mouth of the prophet might cry out, saying: "I have suffered like a woman giving birth." For He truly suffered for us pains, ignominy, tortures, and even death itself and burial. For He Himself says through the prophet: "He made me descend into the deep." Who, then, made Him descend? The impious nation, of course. Behold, O men, behold what recompense Israel made! They killed their Benefactor, returning evil for good, affliction for joy, death for life! They killed by nailing to the wood Him who had raised their dead, healed their lame, cleansed their lepers, and given light to their blind. Behold, O men, behold all you peoples, new wonders! ^C They hung upon the wood Him who stretched out the earth: they pierced with nails Him who established the foundations of the world: they circumscribed Him who circumscribed the heaven: they bound Him who absolved sinners: they gave Him vinegar to drink, who provided the drink of righteousness: they fed Him with gall, who offered the food of life: they mangled the hands and feet ^D of Him who wrought healing for their own hands and feet: they forcibly closed the eyes of Him who had restored sight to them: they delivered to the sepulcher Him who raised the dead both before His passion and while hanging on the wood.

^A For indeed when our Lord suffered on the wood, the monuments were broken open, hell was laid bare, souls leaped forth, the dead returned to life, and many of these were seen in Jerusalem while the mystery of the cross was being perfected: at which time our Lord trampled upon death, dissolved enmity, bound the strong, and erected the trophy of the cross, having raised His body upon it that the body might appear on high, while death was crushed under the foot of the flesh. Then the heavenly virtues marveled, the angels were struck with awe, the elements trembled, and the whole creation was shaken when it beheld the new mystery and terrifying spectacle being accomplished in the world. ^B Yet the whole populace, unaware of the mystery, exulted in derision of Christ; although the earth quaked, and the mountains and valleys and the sea were shaken, and the whole of God’s creation seethed in tumult. The luminaries of heaven grew dim, the sun fled, the moon disappeared, the stars withdrew their light, and the day ceased; the angel, struck with fear, went forth from the temple after the veil was rent, and darkness covered the earth in which the Lord had closed His eyes. ^C Meanwhile, hell shone with light, because that Star descended thither. But the Lord did not come to the netherworld in body, but in spirit; for He worked everywhere: indeed, while He was raising the dead in body, He was delivering souls by His spirit. For when the body of our Lord was affixed to the wood, the sepulchers, as we have said, were opened, hell was unlocked, the dead received life, and the souls were sent back into the world; for because the Lord ^D [original-script column: see facsimile]

^A had conquered, he had trampled upon death, he had covered the enemy with shame; and therefore the souls came forth from the lower regions, and the dead appeared upon the earth.

7. You see, therefore, how great the power of Christ’s death was! ^B Since neither the creature bore his setting with an equal mind, nor did the elements bear his passion, nor did the earth retain his body, nor did hell his spirit. All things were troubled and shaken in the passion of Christ. The Lord, as he had previously cried out to Lazarus: "Come forth from your tombs, you dead, and from your burial places; for I, Christ, communicate resurrection to you." At that time, indeed, the earth could no longer contain the buried body of our Lord; but it cried out: "Spare me, my Lord, spare me from my iniquities, ^C withdraw me from wrath, absolve me from the curse, because I have received the blood of the righteous, and not only have I buried human bodies, but I buried your own body as well." What, then, is this wondrous mystery? Why, Lord, did you descend into the earth, if not for the sake of man who was dispersed everywhere throughout the lands? Since your beautiful image was scattered in every place. ^D Even if you had commanded with but a single little word, all the bodies would have immediately stood before you. Now because you came into the earth, and sought the members of your own handiwork, take up your man, receive your deposit, reclaim your image and your Adam.

^A Then the Lord rose on the third day from the grave, leading man to the knowledge of the Trinity. Then all the nations of the human race were saved through Christ. He alone underwent judgment; many thousands were set free. But He, having become like the man whom He had saved, ascended to the height of the heavens, to offer to the Father not gold or silver or precious stones, but the man ^B whom He had formed according to His own image and likeness; and the Father, extolling this man with His right hand, placed him on a lofty throne, and made him judge of the peoples, leader of the angelic hosts, charioteer of the cherubim, true son of Jerusalem, spouse of the virgin, and king, for ever and ever. Amen.

ADDENDUM IN THE CODEX WITH VARIOUS READINGS.

Therefore, God, willing to visit His own form, which He had fashioned according to His image and likeness, in the last times sent forth His Son, incorporeal and unique, into the world, who, being incarnate in the virginal womb, would be born as perfect man, so that He might raise up the lost man, gathering his dispersed members. ^C For otherwise, why was it necessary for Christ to die? Was He Himself guilty of death? And since He was God, why was He made man? Why did He descend to the earth, who reigned in heaven? ^D (86) "Who compelled God to lower Himself to the earth, to take flesh from the holy Virgin, to be wrapped in swaddling clothes, to be nourished with milk, in the manger to be laid, in the Jordan to be baptized, by the people to be mocked, on the wood to be fixed, in the bosom of the earth to be buried, and on the third day from the dead to rise again, for the sake of redemption giving His soul...

for our soul, His flesh for our flesh, His blood for our blood, and His death for our death. For the death that man had incurred, this Christ discharged when He died. O new and ineffable mystery! ^A The judge is judged; He who absolveth from sins is bound; He is mocked who formed the world. He who extended the heavens is extended on the cross. He who provided manna for food is fed with gall; He who giveth life is dead; He who resurrecteth the dead is delivered to the sepulcher. The powers were astonished, the angels marveled, the elements trembled, the ^B whole created order was shaken, the earth quaked, and its foundations reeled. The sun fled, the elements were overturned, the daylight receded; for they could not endure to behold their Lord crucified. Creation, struck with wonder, said: "What is this novelty of mystery? The judge is judged, and is silent; the invisible is seen, and is not confounded; the incomprehensible is seized, and does not protest; the immense is encompassed by measure, and does not resist; the impassible suffers, nor does He avenge His own injury; the immortal dies, ^C nor does He complain; the heavenly is buried, and bears it with equanimity. What mystery, I ask, is this? Truly, creation is stupefied." But when our Lord rose from the dead and trampled upon it, when He bound the strong man and liberated man, then all creation on account of Adam marveled at the judge who was judged, the invisible who was seen, the impassible who suffered, the immortal who died, the heavenly who was buried in the earth. For our Lord became man; ^D He was condemned, that He might impart mercy; He was bound, that He might loosen; He was seized, that He might liberate; He suffered, that He might heal our passions; He died, that He might restore life to us; He was buried, that He might raise us up.

For when the Lord suffered, His humanity—which He possessed like to man—suffered; and the sufferings of him who was like Him, He dissolved; and by dying, He slew death. ^A Therefore He descended into the earth, that pursuing death, He might slay that rebellious slayer of men. For one indeed underwent judgment, and myriads were liberated: one was buried, and myriads have risen again. This is the Mediator between God and men: this is the resurrection and salvation of all: this is the guide of those who wander, the shepherd who liberates men, the life of the dead, the charioteer of the cherubim, the leader of the angels, and the King of kings; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. ^B [original-script column: see facsimile]

S. EUSTATHIUS, BISHOP OF ANTIOCH AND CONFESSOR. NOTICE.

(Galland, *Veterum Patrum Bibliotheca*, IV, Prolegomena, p. xxiv.)

I. Eustathius’s lineage and homeland. Illustrious with the title of Confessor. He first received the church of Beroea in Syria, as Jerome testifies (a). In the persecution of either Diocletian or Licinius, he asserted the faith of Christ; and thus, he was honored with the title of Confessor by Athanasius (b), Chrysostom (c), Theodoret (d), and others. Subsequently, having been called to the Antiochene see from Beroea by common suffrage (e), he was ^A substituted in the place of Philogonius, who had succeeded Paulinus, as we learn from Jerome (f): and his translation was confirmed by the authority of the Nicene Synod, as Theophanes writes (g). A strenuous defender of the Catholic faith against the Arians, he was present at that same Nicene Synod; where, since he held a preeminent place among those Fathers, conspicuous for the dignity of his see, his doctrine, and his piety, he is said to have spoken before the Emperor Constantine and to have contributed greatly to the profligacy of the Arian heresy (h). In addition to this, he wrote many things against the dogma of the Arians, of which mention is made by Jerome and Theodoret. Wherefore he incurred the hatred and envy of Eusebius of Nicomedia and his Arian associates: these men therefore prepared snares for such a great man and invented charges; and the writers of ecclesiastical history report that it was through their efforts eventually that he was deposed.

II. Furthermore, using the words of the illustrious Lequien (i): “Pagius contends that his unjust deposition took place in the year 327 (j); Tillemont (k) in the year 331, and that it was ratified again in 340.” Sozomen indeed states clearly (l) that a sedition was stirred up at Antioch in the time of the Emperor Constantius on account of the deposed Eustathius. Moreover, the Antiochene bishopric would not have been offered to Eusebius of Caesarea [which Eusebius himself asserts (m)], had the Antiochene Church not been widowed of its orthodox and legitimate prelate by the Arians. Thus, the widowing of that church occurred at least in the year 331. But Eustathius prolonged his life until the year of Christ 370, when Demophilus the Arian took over the Constantinopolitan see. (Theodoret, however, reports (n) that Eustathius died before the ordination of Meletius, *pro Meletiou cheirotonias Eustathiou teteleutekotos*, that is, before the year 361.) For at that time, says Socrates (o), those who favored the Consubstantial faith, thinking they had found an opportune moment, designated a certain Evagrius, a supporter of their faith, as bishop (of the royal city, that is), and he was ^B ordained by that Eustathius who had formerly been bishop of Antioch, *kai cheirotonei touton Eustathios, ho palai pote episkopos Antiocheias gegonos*; who, having been recalled from exile by Jovian, was at that time staying in Constantinople in order to confirm those who held the faith of the Consubstantial, and was hidden there at the time. So he writes: and Sozomen agrees with him (p). Both add that the Arians, driven to sedition, were the cause why the Emperor relegated Eustathius again to Bizya in Thrace, and Evagrius elsewhere.

What truly happened to Eustathius after this, or in what year or place he finally departed from the living, is not entirely clear: but he evidently died at a great age, and certainly as a nonagenarian. Jerome writes that he was buried at Trajanopolis in Thrace (q) (and Chrysostom agrees with him, saying (r), *tou somatos autou taphentos en Thrake*). Theodorus Lector (s) and from him Theophanes (t) relate that his relics were brought from Philippi in Macedonia to Antioch by Calandion the patriarch at the beginning of his patriarchate, after the hundredth year from his passing, *meta hekaton ete tou thanatou Eustathiou*, so that he died around the year 382.

III. But the ancients relate that Saint Eustathius was not only very famous for his excellent and brave deeds, but they also celebrate his doctrine and erudition with many praises. He was a man, says Sozomen (u), who was ^C distinguished in other matters as well,