OF OUR HOLY FATHER ATHANASIUS, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, EPISTLE: That the Council of Nicaea, having observed the craftiness of the Eusebians, fittingly and piously set forth what was decreed against the Arian heresy.
A 1. You have done well to signify to me the discussion that took place on your part with those who uphold the cause of Arius, among whom were some of the companions of Eusebius, and also many of the brethren who favor the cause of the Church. As for your Christ-loving vigilance, I have received it with approval, as it has well refuted the impiety of the heresy. But I have marveled at their impudence, in that, although the arguments of the Arians were shown to be hollow and vain, and they themselves were condemned by all for every manner of wickedness, nevertheless, even after this, they kept murmuring, after the manner of the Jews, saying: "Why did those who assembled at Nicaea write unscriptural terms, 'out of the essence' and 'consubstantial'?" B You, for your part, as a learned man, proved that they were merely indulging in empty talk, even when they put on such a front; but they do nothing strange, given their own malice, as they invent excuses. For they are varied and fickle in their opinions, like chameleons in their colors; and when they are refuted, they blush; when they are examined, they are at a loss; and then they proceed to shamelessness and make excuses. And if anyone should refute them even on these points, they labor until they invent things that do not exist, and, according to the Scripture, "meditate vanity," in order that they may only persist in their impiety. Indeed, such a pretense is nothing other than a clear manifestation of their own irrationality, and an imitation, as I said, of Jewish malice. For when they are refuted
and unable to look it in the face, they make excuses, saying: "What sign do you perform, that we may see and believe you? What work do you do?" Although so many signs had been performed that even they were compelled to say, "What are we doing? For this man performs many signs." For the dead were being raised, the lame were walking, the blind were receiving their sight, lepers were being cleansed, water was becoming wine, and five thousand people were satisfied from five loaves. And all the people were marveling and worshiping the Lord, confessing that in Him the prophecies were being fulfilled and that He is God, the Son of God; the Pharisees alone, even though the signs were clearer than the sun, nonetheless murmured again like ignorant men and said: "Why do you, being a man, make yourself God?" Senseless men and truly blind in their understanding! It would have behooved them to say the opposite: "Why do you, being God, become man?" For the works showed Him to be God, that they might worship the goodness of the Father and marvel at the economy which He undertook for our sake. This they neither said, nor did they wish to see the things that were happening—or if they did see (for it was inevitable to see them), they murmured again, shifting their ground: "Why do you heal the paralytic on the Sabbath, and make the man born blind receive his sight at that time?" This was again a mere pretext, and nothing but murmuring. For when the Lord healed every disease and every infirmity on other days, they habitually complained, and they preferred to harbor a suspicion of godlessness, calling Him Beelzebul, rather than admit their own wickedness. Yet even so, as the Savior manifested His own divinity in many parts and in many ways, and preached the Father to all, they nonetheless countered Him, as if kicking against the pricks, babbling senselessly, only that they might, according to the divine proverb, find excuses to separate themselves from the truth.
2. The Jews of that time, therefore, who acted so wickedly and denied the Lord, were justly rendered foreigners to the laws and the promise made to the fathers; and the Arians now, by Judaizing, seem to me to suffer the same fate as Caiaphas and the Pharisees of that time. For seeing that their heresy contains nothing reasonable, they devise pretexts: "Why is this written, and not that?" And do not wonder if they scheme such things now; for in a little while they will turn to insults, and after that they will threaten us with the cohort and the tribune; for in these things lies their supposed defense of their bad doctrine. For the
A Word of God being denied, they are rightly deprived of all reason; and these things being well known, I would have answered nothing to those who ask. But since your Disposition has demanded to know the things that were done in the synod, I have not put it off, but have immediately, as it then happened, shown them, demonstrating in a few words how far the Arian heresy is bereft of pious thought, and that they only invent pretexts. Consider further with yourself, beloved, whether it is not so. If they trust in the evils which they themselves have devised, sowing among themselves the devil's malignity, let them apologize for the things for which, being accused, they were proved heretics, and then finally let them find fault, if they can, with the things decreed against them; for no one convicted of murder or adultery has the right, after the judgment, to find fault with the sentence of the judge, or why he spoke not in this way but in that. For this does not free the one condemned, but rather increases his guilt through his rashness and boldness. B Accordingly, let these men also either show their own mind to be pious—for when accused they were convicted, having made no complaint beforehand; and it is just that those who are accused should do nothing else but defend themselves—or, if they have a foul conscience and see themselves acting impiously, let them not blame things of which they are ignorant, that they may not bear the double evil of being condemned for the crime of impiety and also of ignorance. Let them rather examine it more studiously, so that, recognizing what they before were ignorant of, they may wash their own impious ears with the stream of truth and the dogmas of piety. For thus it happened also in the Council of Nicea for the party of Eusebius.
3. As they were contentious in their impiety, and undertook to fight against God, the things said on their part were full of impiety. But the gathered bishops (who were more or less three hundred) C mildly and humanely demanded of them that they give an account and pious demonstrations regarding the things they were saying. But when they had scarcely begun to speak, they were proved worthy of condemnation by all; for they were disputing among themselves, and seeing the great helplessness of their own heresy, they remained speechless, and by their silence confessed the shame of their own evil doctrine. The bishops, therefore, having finally done away with the terms invented by them, thus set forth the sound and ecclesiastical faith against them; and when all had subscribed, the party of Eusebius also subscribed to these very words D which these men now find fault with; I mean, to the "from the substance" and the "consubstantial," and that the Son of God is not a creature or a work, nor one of the things brought into being, but that the Word is an offspring from the substance of the Father. And, what is paradoxical, Eusebius, he from Cæsarea of Palestine, although resisting up to the day before, yet later, having subscribed, sent to his own Church, saying that this was the faith of the Church and the tradition of the Fathers;
A and he showed clearly to all that they were previously in error and were striving in vain against the truth. For even if he was ashamed at that time to write with these terms, and apologized to the Church as he wished, nevertheless, by not denying in the letter the "consubstantial" and "from the essence," he clearly wished to signify this. And a serious thing befell him: for, as if defending himself, he eventually accused the Arians, because, having written "The Son was not before He was begotten," they did not wish Him to exist even before the begetting according to the flesh. And Acacius knows this, unless he too, fearing the present time, now feigns and denies the truth. I have therefore appended B at the end the letter of Eusebius, so that from this you may know of the Christ-fighters and, in particular, the superfluous treachery of Acacius toward his own teachers.
4. How then are these men not acting unjustly, even if they only contemplate C opposing such a great and ecumenical synod? How do they not break the law in daring to oppose what was well defined against the Arian heresy, and witnessed to by those who had previously taught them to be impious? And if, even after subscribing, those around Eusebius changed their minds, and like dogs returned to their own vomit of impiety, how are those who now oppose us not even more worthy of hatred, since they surrender the freedom of their own souls to others, and wish to have these men as leaders of the heresy? They are, as James said, double-minded and unstable in all their ways, not having one opinion, but changing differently from time to time, now praising what they D say, and shortly after blaming what they have said, and again praising what they were recently disparaging. This, as the Shepherd has said, is an offspring of the devil, and is a mark of hucksters rather than of teachers. For true teaching, as the Fathers have handed it down, and the true mark of teachers, is to confess the same things to one another, and not to dispute either with themselves or with their own fathers. For those who are not disposed in this way would be called wicked, and not true teachers. The Greeks, for instance, not confessing the same things, but even disputing among themselves, do not possess the true teaching; whereas the saints and the truly heralds of the truth agree with one another, and do not differ among themselves. For even if they existed in different times, they are all striving toward the same end, being prophets of the one God, and proclaiming with one voice the same Word.
A For as for such men, they are desolate. Knowing this, I would have answered nothing to those who ask these things; but since your Charity requested to know what was done in the Synod, I did not delay, but immediately, as it then happened, I made it known, showing in few words how much the Arian heresy is deprived of pious wisdom, and that they only invent pretexts. And you too, beloved, consider if it is not so. If they rely on the evils they themselves invented, the devil having sown his perversity among them, let them make their defense concerning the things for which, being accused, they were proved heretical, and then let them blame, if they can, the things decreed against them; for no one who has been convicted of murder or adultery, after the judgment, has any room to find fault with the verdict of the judge, as to why he spoke not in one way, but in another. For this does not free the one condemned, but rather increases his guilt through his rashness and audacity. Therefore, let them either show their own mind to be pious—for having been accused, they were convicted, not having complained beforehand; and it is just that those who are accused should do nothing else but defend themselves—or if they have a foul conscience, and perceive themselves to be acting impiously, let them not blame what they do not know, lest they bring upon themselves a double evil: the guilt of impiety and the reproach of ignorance. Rather, let them examine things with a desire to learn, so that, having acknowledged what they formerly did not know, they may wash their own impious ears with the stream of truth and the dogmas of piety. B For so it happened in the Synod at Nicaea to those around Eusebius. Denying the Word of God, they reasonably lacked any logic, and they were attempting vanity; the things said by them were full of impiety. But the bishops who had assembled (there were more or less three hundred) meekly and humanely demanded that they give an account and pious proofs concerning the things they were saying. As they were convicted merely by speaking, and were fighting among themselves, seeing the great helplessness C of their own heresy, they remained speechless, and by their silence confessed the shame of their perverseness. The bishops, therefore, having eventually removed the terms invented by them, thus set forth against them the sound and ecclesiastical faith; and all having signed, those around Eusebius also signed these same terms which they now find fault with: I mean the "from the essence" and the "consubstantial," and that the Son of God is neither a creature, nor a work, nor of things generate, but that the Word is a generation from the essence D of the Father. And the remarkable thing is that Eusebius, he from Caesarea in Palestine, who had been resisting even the day before, nevertheless signed later, and wrote to his own Church, saying that this is the faith of the Church and the tradition of the Fathers; and he clearly showed to all that he...
they had previously erred and had contended in vain against the truth. For even if he was then ashamed to write in these words, and excused himself to the Church as he wished, yet by his letter, in not denying the "consubstantial" and the "from the essence," he clearly desires to signify this. And a strange thing has happened to him: [(32)] for, as if defending himself, he subsequently accused the Arians, because, in writing, "The Son was not before he was begotten," they did not wish Him to be even before the birth according to the flesh. And Acacius knows this, unless he too, fearful now on account of the times, plays the hypocrite and denies the truth. I have therefore appended [(33)] at the end the letter of Eusebius, B so that from this you may learn of the Christ-haters and the excessive perfidy of Acacius toward his own masters. [(34)] And how is it not lawless to dare to look askance at the things well defined against the Arian heresy, and witnessed by those who earlier taught them to be impious? But if, even after signing, those around Eusebius changed their minds, and like dogs returned to their own vomit of impiety, how are those who now contradict us not all the more worthy of hatred, because they serve up the freedom of their own souls to others, [(35)] and wish to have these same men as leaders of the heresy? Men, as James said, double-minded and unstable in all their ways, not holding one opinion, but changing now one way and now another, and at one time praising what they say, and after a little while blaming what they have uttered, and again praising what they had attacked a short while before. This, however, as the Shepherd says, [(36)] is an offspring of the devil, and is a mark of hucksters rather than of teachers. For there is, as the Fathers have handed down, true doctrine, and this is the true proof of teachers: to confess the same things to one another, and not to dispute either against themselves or against their own fathers. For those who are not so disposed would be called wicked, and not true teachers. The Greeks, C at all events, not confessing the same things, but even disputing among themselves, do not possess true doctrine; but the holy ones, and truly the heralds of the truth, agree with one another and do not differ among themselves. For even if they arose in different times, yet they press toward the same goal, being prophets of the one God, and in harmony evangelizing the same Word. Further, that the expression "He was not before He was begotten" is anathematized was not considered strange, since it is confessed by all that the Son of God is before His birth according to the flesh. For double-mindedness is a daughter of the devil D and shameful, while the truth is that which is confessed by all. Since these things are so, why do they not take shame, having been reduced to helplessness on every side? Since the one who has turned has done so, but Abraham has kept the faith, such a one...
as Noah and Enoch understood, discerning A clean and unclean, and becoming well-pleasing to God. And indeed, Abel also bore witness in this way, since he understood these things which he had learned from Adam, who himself had learned them from the Lord, who also, having come at the consummation of the ages for the putting away of sin, said: "I write no new commandment to you, but an old commandment, which you heard from the beginning." For this reason, the blessed Apostle Paul, having learned these things from Him, when prescribing for ecclesiastical order, did not wish even deacons—let alone B bishops—to be double-tongued; and rebuking the Galatians, he declared generally, saying: "If anyone preaches to you anything other than what you have received, let him be accursed, as I have said before, and say again. But even if we or an angel from heaven preach to you anything other than what you have received, let him be accursed." Since the Apostle says these things, let them either hold under anathema those around Eusebius who changed their positions and speak things other than what they signed; or if they acknowledge that they signed rightly, let them not grumble against so great a synod. But if they do neither of these things, it is clear that they themselves are also "tossed about by every wind and wave," being dragged along not by their own opinions, but by the opinions of others; and being such, they are not worthy of belief even now, when they bring forward such excuses. But let them also cease accusing things they do not understand; perhaps, not even knowing how to discern, they simply call the evil good and the good evil; and they think the bitter to be sweet and the sweet bitter. In truth, they wish to maintain things that have been judged evil and rejected, while they struggle to disparage things that have been rightly determined. It was necessary, therefore, that we should no longer offer any defense against these things, nor reply to their empty excuses; nor should they themselves continue to be contentious, but rather agree with those things which the leaders of their heresy signed, knowing that the subsequent change of heart by those around Eusebius is a matter of suspicion and malice; for the fact that they signed after having the opportunity to offer at least a brief defense, this itself truly demonstrates how impious the Arian C heresy is. For they would not have signed if they had not condemned it, and they would not have condemned it unless they had been reduced to a helpless state there too D; their change is a sign of their persistence in impiety. Therefore, as has been said, they ought to be quiet. But since they are skilled in shamelessness, and perhaps think they can better preside over this diabolical impiety than those others—even though I have already, through my previous letter to you, used a broader refutation against them—nevertheless, come, even now let us...
examine these men, as we did the others, item by item concerning what they say. For it will be shown that even now their heresy is no less unhealthy, but is truly demoniacal. They have dared to say: A “God was not always Father; the Son was not always; for the Son was not before he was begotten, but he also came to be from things that were not; therefore, God was not always Father of the Son; but when the Son came to be and was created, then also God was called his Father. For the Word is a creature and a product, and is foreign and unlike in essence to the Father. And the Son is neither by nature the true Word of the Father, nor is he his only and true Wisdom, but he is a creature and one of those things that have been made, and is only abusively called Word and Wisdom. For through the Word that is in God he himself was made, even as were all things. B Hence, the Son is not the true God.”
To them, I would first wish to ask this: What in the world is a “son,” and what is this name indicative of? So that, in this way, they might be able to understand even what is said by them. For the divine Scripture indicates to us a twofold meaning of this name: one, concerning which Moses says in the Law: “If you listen to the voice of the Lord your God, to keep all his commandments which I command you today, to do what is good and pleasing in the sight of the Lord your God, you are sons of the Lord our God.” C Just as John also says in the Gospel: “As many as received him, to them he gave power to become children of God.” And another meaning, according to which Isaac is the son of Abraham, and Jacob of Isaac, and the patriarchs of Jacob.
Now, according to which of these, then, did they suppose the Son of God to be, that they should spout such myths about him? For I know well that they will coincide in the same impiety as the followers of Eusebius. If, indeed, they mean it according to the first sense—as are those who, by an improvement of character, attain to the grace of the name and receive authority to become children of God (for this is what those others also claimed)—then it will seem that the Word differs nothing from us, nor would he be the Only-Begotten, having obtained the appellation of Son on account of virtue. For even if, as they say, foreknown as being such, he D anticipates, and together with... [alt-version omitted]
his being, receives both the name and the glory of the name; yet he will differ nothing from those who receive the name after their actions, as long as he is testified to be Son for this reason alone. For Adam, having anticipated the grace, and immediately upon his creation being placed in paradise, differed nothing from Enoch, who was translated after a period of time following his birth, when he had pleased God, nor from the Apostle, who was caught up into paradise after his own deeds, nor indeed from that thief, who, on account of his confession, immediately received the A promise that he would be in paradise. Many times have they been put to shame by stating: "We think the Son has more than other things, and for this reason is called Only-Begotten, because He alone was made by God alone, and all other things were created by God through the Son." Who, I ask, suggested this foolish and novel notion to you, that you should say: "The Son alone was produced by the Father alone, while all other things were made through the Son as if by an assistant"? For if you believe that God was content to produce the Son alone because of the weariness of laboring, and no longer the rest; such thoughts about God are truly impious, especially for those who have heard Isaiah saying: "The eternal God, the God who has fashioned the ends of the earth, shall not hunger, neither shall he weary, and there is no searching of his understanding" B. For he rather gives strength to those who hunger, and by his own Word refreshes those who are weary. But if you say he deemed it unworthy of himself to produce the things after the Son directly, this too is impious. For there is no pride in God, who both goes down into Egypt with Jacob, and for the sake of Abraham corrects Abimelech because of Sarah, and speaks mouth to mouth with Moses who was a man, and descends upon the mount Sinai, and secretly assisted the people by overcoming Amalek. But you are lying even when you say this. For "He made us, and not we ourselves"; he is the one who through his Word made all things, both small and great; and it is not right to divide the creation so as to say, "This is of the Father, and this of the Son"; but all things belong to one God, as one using his own Word as a hand and doing all things in Him. And God himself, showing this, said: "My hand has made all these things" C; and Paul, having learned this, taught: "One God, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things." He therefore always, and even now, commands the sun, and it rises, and gives orders to the clouds, and it rains upon one portion; but upon that on which it does not rain, it withers. And the earth he commands to yield its fruits, and he forms Jeremiah in the womb. If, then, he does these things now himself, it is not in doubt that also from the beginning he did not deem it unworthy of himself to [effect] all things, both small...
for these are parts of the whole.
D But they say that because the created things were unable to bear the unalloyed hand of the Unbegotten, the Son alone was made by God alone, and the rest were made through the Son as a minister and assistant. Asterius, who apostatized, wrote this; and Arius, having transcribed it, gave it to his own followers. From then on, these senseless men use this little phrase as a broken reed, ignoring the rot within it. For if it were impossible for created things to bear the hand of God—and according to you the Son is one of the created things—how was he himself able to be made by God alone? And if, in order for created things to come to be, there was need of a mediator, and yet the Son is, according to you, a created thing, there should also have been some intermediary before him, in order for him to be created; and since that mediator would also be a creature, it is evident that he too would have needed another mediator for his own constitution. If someone imagines another, he must pre-imagine that one's mediator, so that one would fall into infinity. But if a mediator is always required, not even the creation will be able to subsist, because, as you say, none of the created things is able to bear the unalloyed hand of the Unbegotten.
But if, observing the absurdity, you begin to say that the Son, though a creature, was capable of being made by the Unbegotten, then by necessity all other things, being created things, could have been made directly by the Unbegotten. For he is, according to you, a creature, just as all these other things are. Consequently, the generation of the Word is rendered superfluous according to your impious and foolish invention, since God would be sufficient to work all things himself, and all created things would be able to bear the unalloyed hand of God. Since this mental derangement of theirs is foolish, let us see if this sophism of the impious does not appear even more irrational than their other ones.
Adam alone was made by God alone through the Word; yet would anyone say that Adam has something more than all men or differs from those after him, because he alone was fashioned and formed by God alone, whereas we all are born from Adam and consist by a succession of the race, as long as it is clear that he too was fashioned from the earth, and being not before, he afterwards became? Let such a person consider the being deemed worthy of the hand of God as a matter of honor, not of nature, and let him attribute the "more" to his honor, not his nature. For he was made from earth, just as all others were; and the hand that fashioned Adam then,
ON THE DECREES OF THE NICENE SYNOD
his posteros forms and composes. This God himself said to Jeremiah, as I have mentioned before: "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." B Regarding all others, he says, "My hand has made all these things." And again through Isaiah he says, "Thus says the Lord who redeems you and forms you in the womb: I am the Lord who does all things, I stretched out the heaven alone, and established the earth." David, also, who was not unaware of these things, sang, "Your hands have made me and fashioned me." And the person whose words are read in Isaiah, "Thus says the Lord, who formed me from the womb to be a servant to himself," signifies the same. Therefore, he will differ in nothing from us by nature, even if he precedes us in time, so long as it is established that we are all fashioned and formed by the same hand. If, therefore, O Arians, this is your opinion concerning the Son of God, that he too was produced and made in this same way, then, according to you, there will be no difference between him and the others as far as nature is concerned, as long as you contend that he, who previously was not, then came to be, and that the grace of his name was bestowed upon him only on account of his virtue; for he would be one of those about whom, as you imagine, the Holy Spirit says in the Psalms: "He spoke, and they were made; he commanded, and they were created." Who, then, is he to whom God commanded that he too might be created? For there must be a Word to whom God commands, and in whom created things are brought into existence. But you could not point to any other Word than the one you deny, unless perhaps it pleases you, once again, to invent some new fiction. C "It is so," they say; "we have found the answer" (the same, no doubt, that I once heard the Eusebians use): "We conceive that the Son of God has something more than the others and is called the Only-begotten, because he alone is a partaker of the Father, while all other things are partakers of the Son." Thus, they labor to change and alter their arguments just as they change colors; yet they will be shown to be, even thus, those who speak vanity from the earth, and wallow in their own thoughts as in mire. For if, because we are called sons, it were a plausible argument of theirs; but if we also are called sons of God, of whom he is the Son, it is surely clear that we also are partakers of the Father, who says: "I have begotten and exalted sons." For if we were not partakers of him, he would not say, "I have begotten"; but if he himself has begotten, then he who is our Father is no other than he. D It matters not at all if he has something more and was made first, and we have something less and were made after him, provided that we are all partakers of the same, and are called sons of the same Father. For "more" or "less" does not indicate a different nature; for to each person, the pursuit of virtue adds this, and one is established over ten cities, and another over five; and some shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging...
the twelve tribes of Israel; and others hear: Come, ye blessed of my Father; and, Well done, good and faithful servant. Thinking such things as these, they naturally imagine that God the Father was not always Father of such a Son, nor was such a Son always, but that he was made a creature out of nothing, and did not exist before he was begotten; for this one is different from the true Son of God. But since it is not pious for them to say these things—for this opinion is rather that of the Sadducees and of the Samosatene—it remains that, according to the other understanding, by which Isaac is the son of Abraham, they should confess that the Son of God is also such; for nature recognizes as a son that which is begotten of someone by nature, and not acquired from without, and this is the meaning of the name. Is the generation of the Son, then, subject to human passion? (For perhaps they, like those of old, will wish to object to this, being ignorant.) By no means. For God is not as man; since neither are men as God. For they were created from matter, and that matter is subject to passion, but God is simple and incorporeal. But if the same words are sometimes used in the divine Scriptures for God and for men, it is for discerning men, as Paul enjoined, to attend to the reading and thus to distinguish, and to judge what is written according to the nature of each of the things signified, and not to confuse the sense, so that the things of God may not be understood after a human manner, nor the things of men be ever thought of as concerning God. For this is to mix wine with water, and to place strange fire upon the altar with the divine fire. Again, it is said that God creates; and God is, He who is; the term "being" is also applied to men, because they have received this from God. Does God, then, create as men do? Or is He in such a way as man is? God forbid! We understand the words differently when applied to God, and differently when we think of them in regard to men. For God creates by calling things which were not into being, needing nothing; but men work upon underlying matter, having first prayed, and having received the knowledge of how to make from God, who created all things through His own Word. Furthermore, humanity, not being able to exist by itself, is contained in places, and subsists in the Word of God; but God is by Himself, containing all things, and contained by nothing; He is in all things according to His goodness and power, but is again outside of all things according to His own nature. As, therefore, men do not create in the same manner as God creates, nor are men in the same way as God is, so the generation of men is in one way, and the generation of the Son from the Father is in another. For the offspring of men are, in a way, parts of those who beget them, since the very nature of bodies is not simple, but fluid
and has its composition from parts. A For men, in begetting, emit, and again, from the food they take, that which is introduced flows into them; for which cause, men also become fathers of many children in the course of time. But God, being indivisible, is indivisibly and impassibly the Father of the Son. For there is neither an outflowing of the incorporeal, nor does any inflow occur into Him, as is the case with men. Being simple in nature, He is the Father of one and only the Son; therefore He is the Only-begotten, and is the only one in the bosom of the Father, and the Father shows Him to be solely from Himself, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. This is the Word of the Father, B in whom it is possible to understand the impassibility and indivisibility of the Father. For not even the word of men is begotten with passion and divisibility; much less is the Word of God. Wherefore, He Himself sits at the right hand of the Father as the Word; for where the Father is, there also is His Word; but we stand to be judged before Him, as creatures; and He is worshipped because He is the Son of the adorable Father, but we worship, confessing Him to be Lord and God, because we are creatures and distinct from Him.
12. Since these things are so, let him who wishes among them consider, and let there be someone to put them to shame: if it is permissible C to say of that which is from God and His own offspring, that it is from nothing, or if there is any reason for it to enter at all into the mind of anyone, that the being from God has happened to Him, so that one might even dare to say that the Son is not always? For in this, again, the generation of the Son has surpassed and transcended the thoughts of men. For we become fathers of our own children in time, since we ourselves, not being before, came into existence later; but God, being always, is always the Father of the Son. And the generation of the former has its proof from things that are D likewise; but since *no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son, and to whom the Son may reveal Him*; for this reason, the saints to whom the Son has revealed Him have given us a certain image from visible things, saying: *Who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person*; and again: *For with Thee is the fountain of life, in Thy light we shall see light*; when the Word also, reproving Israel, says: *Thou hast forsaken the fountain of wisdom*; and this is the fountain which says: *Me they have forsaken, the fountain of living water*. And the example is small and very dim compared to what is desired; it is possible, however, from it to understand more than the nature of man, and not to think that our nature and that [...]
A of the Son’s generation are similar. For who can even think that there was ever a time when the radiance did not exist, so as to dare to say that the Son was not always, or that the Son did not exist before he was begotten? Or who is able to separate the radiance from the sun, or to conceive of the fountain of life as ever being destitute of its own life, so that in his madness he might say that the Son is out of nothing, he who says, "I am the life," or that he is alien to the Father’s substance, he who says, "He who has seen me has seen the Father"? Thus, because the saints wished us to understand, they have given us such examples; and it is absurd B and extremely impious, when Scripture contains such images, for us to seek our knowledge of the Lord from other things that are neither written nor have any thought for piety.
15. Therefore, let them say from what source they learned this, or who it was that handed down to them such things, that they began to suspect these things regarding the Savior? We have read, they will say, in the Proverbs: "The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works." Indeed, those around Eusebius seemed to say this too, and you yourself in your writing indicated that, although they were refuted by many proofs and were convicted, they nevertheless continued to carry this text up and down, claiming that the Son is one of the C creatures, and counting him among created things. But they also seem to me not to have understood this well; for it contains a pious and very correct meaning, which, if they themselves had understood it, they would not have blasphemed the Lord of glory. Let them compare what has been said before with this text, and they will see that there is a great difference between them. For who of sound mind does not perceive that things created and made are outside of the maker, whereas the Son, as the discourse has shown above, does not exist from outside, but from the Father who begets him? For a man builds a house, but he begets a son, and no one would say by reversing the order that the house and D the ship are begotten by the one constructing them, while the son is created and made by the same; nor, again, that the house is an image of the one creating, while the son is unlike the one begetting; but rather, one will acknowledge the son as the image of the father, and the house as a creation of art, unless perhaps someone is sick in his mind and has lost his wits. Certainly, the divine Scripture, knowing the nature of each thing, says regarding created things through Moses: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"; but regarding the Son, it signifies no other than the Father himself saying: "From the womb before the morning star I have begotten thee"; and again: "Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee"; and the Lord himself says regarding himself in the Proverbs:
their studies on slandering the synod: let them answer us from what Scriptures they have drawn these, or from what Fathers they have heard such terms, which it has seemed good to them to heap together. A For if they are from non-existent things, he was not before he was begotten; and if the "when he was not" and the (89) "changeable" and "the priority of existence" and "volition" are added—terms against the Lord with which they impiously trifle. For the blessed Paul indeed says in the Epistle to the Hebrews: By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen are not made of things which do appear (90). But there is nothing in common between the Word and the worlds; for He Himself is prior to the ages, through whom the ages have come into being. But in the Shepherd it is written (92) (since they even cite this book, although it is not of the canon): First of all believe that there is one God, who created and perfected all things, and made them to be out of nothing (93). But this again has nothing to do with the Son; for he is speaking of all things that were made through Him, from which He Himself is certainly different. B For it cannot be that the Creator should be numbered among the things which He Himself made, unless perhaps someone is so foolish as to wish that the architect be the same as the buildings constructed by him. Why, therefore, do they accuse those who hold right and pious views of using non-scriptural terms, when they themselves are not ashamed to fabricate unwritten terms to support their impiety? For surely it is not permitted for anyone at all to be wicked, even if he tries to cover his impiety with varied and specious sophisms: everyone must confess that it is a holy thing to worship piety, even if one uses new words, provided that the one who speaks thinks piously, and through those words intends what he has thought and signifies what he wishes. Therefore, those things recited by the enemies of Christ are shallow words, as we showed before and now show by our discourse, and are full of all impiety. But if anyone wishes to weigh carefully the things written and decreed against them by the synod, he will find nothing in them but pure truth, especially if he should diligently inquire how necessary it was. C
19. When the impious synod of the Arians wished to abolish the terms of their impiety, and to use the confessed words of the Scriptures—namely, that the Son is not "from things non-existent," but "from God," as also that He is "the Wisdom," and not something created or made, but is the offspring proper to the Father—the followers of Eusebius, drawn on by a long-standing heresy, wished D that "from God" should be common to us and to them, and that the Word of God should in no way differ from us.
A Therefore, since it is written: "One God, of whom are all things," and again: "The old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new; and all things are of God," the Fathers, having perceived the craftiness and the evil artifice of their impiety, were compelled to define "from God" more clearly. They wrote that the Son is "from the substance of God," so that "from God" might not be thought common to the Son and to things created, but that it might be believed that while all other things were created, the Word alone is from the Father. For although all things are said to be "from God," it is stated in a different way than as the Son is. For created things, because they do not exist by chance or spontaneously, nor do they have their origin by accident—according to those who say that all things result from the conjunction of atoms and similar things; or as some heretics say, that there is another creator; or as others again say that the existence of all things is from certain angels—but because, God being, all things have come into being from Him through the Word, not having existed before, for this reason it is said that they are "from God." But the Word, since He is not a creature, is said to be—and truly is—only from the Father. And the mark of this understanding is that the Son is "from the substance of the Father," for this does not apply to any created thing. B Indeed, when Paul says that all things are "from God," he immediately adds: "And one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things," in order to show to all that the Son is different from all the things that have come to be from God; for the things that have come to be from God have come to be through the Son. He said this on account of the creation that has come from God, and not because all things are from the Father as the Son is. For neither are all things as the Son is, nor is the Word one of all things; for He is the Lord and Creator of all. For this reason, the holy synod stated more clearly that He is "from the substance" of the Father, so that the Word might be believed to be something other than the nature of created things, being the only one truly from God, and that no longer might any pretext for deception be left to the impious. This, then, was the reason for writing "from the substance."
20. When the bishops said again that it must be written that the Word is the true power and image of the Father, and like to the Father in all things and unchangeable, and that He is always, and is in Him indivisibly—for He never was not, but the Word always existed, being eternally with the Father, as the radiance of light—the followers of Eusebius were unable to stand against this, not daring to contradict it because of the shame they felt for that on which they had been refuted. C Yet, they were caught again, muttering among themselves and signaling with their eyes that the words "like," "always," "power," and "in Him" are again common to us and the Son, and that nothing in these things—
A to be agreed upon. For "like" was written also concerning us: "Man is the image and glory of God." And "always," because it is written: "For we who are alive are always." And "in Him," because "In Him we live and move and are." And "unchangeable" too, because it is written: "Nothing shall separate us from the love of Christ." And concerning "power," because even the caterpillar and the locust are called a power, and a great power, and it is often written regarding the people, as: "All the power of the Lord went forth out of the land of Egypt." And there are also other heavenly powers: "For the Lord of hosts," He says, "is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge." For such things Asterius, the one called the Sophist, having learned from them, wrote, and before him Arius, having learned B them, as has been said. But the bishops, having perceived their hypocrisy in this matter, and that, according to the Scripture, "there is deceit in the hearts of the wicked who devise evils," were compelled themselves again to gather the meaning from the Scriptures, and to say and write more clearly what they had said before, that the Son is consubstantial with the Father; so that they might signify that the Son is not only like, but is the same in likeness from the Father, and to show that the likeness and unchangeableness of the Son is other than the imitation spoken of in us, which we acquire from virtue through the keeping of the commandments. For as for bodies that happen to be like each other, it is possible for them to be separated and to be far from one another, as are the sons of men in relation to those who begat them, as it is written concerning Adam and the one begotten of him, Seth, how he was like him according to his appearance. Since, however, the generation of the Son from the Father is altogether other than the nature of men, and (the Son) is not only like, but is also inseparable from the Father's substance, and He himself and the Father are one, as He Himself has said, and the Word is always in the Father and the Father in the Word, just as the radiance is in relation to the light—for the word itself signifies this—for this reason C the synod, having perceived this, rightly wrote "consubstantial," so that they might both overthrow the malice of the heretics and show that the Word is separate from created things. And indeed, having written this, they immediately added: "But those who say that the Son of God is from nothing, or from non-existent things, or is created, or changeable, or a work, or from another substance, these the holy and catholic Church anathematizes." By saying these things, they declared clearly that the (terms) "from the substance" and "consubstantial" are destructive of the terms of impiety, which are "creature," "work," "begotten" (in the sense of created), "changeable," and "He was not before He was begotten." For anyone who thinks these things opposes the synod; but he who does not hold the views of Arius must necessarily hold and understand the things of the synod, D rightly seeing how (the Son) is the radiance toward the light, and from it receiving the image of the truth.
21. Therefore, if they refuse to admit these words as being new and foreign, let them admit the very intent which the synod wished to indicate by them; and let them say anathema to those to whom the synod likewise said anathema; and for the rest, if they can, let them find fault with the words themselves. But I well know that, having understood the intent of the synod, they will by all means approve the words also that belong to that intent. But if they wish to find fault with this too, it is manifest to all that they are speaking in vain and concerning those things, and are only devising for themselves pretexts for impiety. This, then, is the pretext for such words; but if, because they are not written, they complain again, they are immediately to be rejected as speaking empty things and having a mind that is not sound. Let them also blame themselves in this, that they, having provided the first pretext of this kind, began to fight against God from things unwritten. Yet let anyone who is studious know this: that even if the words are not thus in the Scriptures, nevertheless, as was said before, they possess the meaning from the Scriptures, and, when pronounced, they signify this B to those who have ears that are sound and whole in piety. It is permitted to you to observe this, and to the uneducated to hear it. It has been shown in the preceding sections, and this is what it is true to believe, that the Word is from the Father, and alone His own and natural offspring. For whence could anyone conceive the Son, who is the wisdom and the Word, in whom all things were made, to be, if not from God Himself? Yet we have learned this also from the Scriptures, the Father saying through David: "My heart hath uttered a good Word," and, "From the womb, before the day-star, have I begotten thee." And the Son Himself, pointing out to the Jews concerning Himself: "If God were your Father, ye would love me; for I came forth from the Father;" and again, "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he that is from God, he hath seen the Father." And furthermore, "I and the Father are one," and, "I am in the Father, and the Father in me," is equal to saying: "I am from the Father, and I am inseparable from Him." And John also, saying: "The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him," has spoken these things having learned them from the Savior. For what else does "in the bosom" signify, than the true generation of the Son from the Father?
22. If, therefore, anyone thinks that God is composite, as if an accident were in His substance, or that He has some garment externally and is covered by it, or that there are certain things around Him that complete His substance, so that when we name God or call Him Father, we do not signify His invisible and incomprehensible substance itself, C but something of those things which are about it; let them find fault D
A with the synod for having written that the Son is from the substance of God; but let them understand that they are guilty of two impieties by thinking in this way: for they both introduce a certain corporeal God, and they falsely claim that the Lord is not the Son of His own Father, but of the things that are around Him. But if God is something simple, as indeed He is, it is clear that when we speak of God and name the Father, we are not naming anything as being around Him, but are signifying His very substance. For even if it is not possible to comprehend what the substance of God is at all, yet, when we only understand that God exists, and Scripture indicates Him by these words, we do not mean any other than Him when we call Him God and Father and Lord. B When, therefore, He says: "I am who I am," and, "I am the Lord God," and wherever Scripture says "God," we, reading these things, understand that nothing else is signified than His own incomprehensible substance, and that He is what they say He is. No one, therefore, should be astonished when he hears that the Son of God is from the substance of God, but rather should he assent to the Fathers who, to clarify the very notion of the matter, for the sake of greater perspicuity and by way of synonymous words, explained "from God" with these words, "from the substance of God." For they considered it the same thing to say "from God" as to say that the Word is "from the substance of God," since the word "God," as I said, signifies nothing else than the substance of Him who is. If, therefore, the Word is not from God in such a way that He is the true Son by nature from the Father, but is said to be "from God" only in the same way as all created things—because, forsooth, they were made by God—then He is C neither from the substance of the Father, nor is the Son Himself the Son by substance, but only by virtue, not otherwise than we, who are called sons by grace. But if He alone is from God as the true Son, He must rightly be called Son from the substance of God, as indeed He is.
23. Certainly, it is clear that the reality is as has been said, by the example of light and radiance. For the holy ones did not think the Word stands in relation to God as fire that is kindled from the heat of the sun, which is also wont to be extinguished—for this would be an external D work and a creature of the Maker—but they all proclaimed Him to be "radiance," in order to signify that He is from the substance, proper and indivisible, and to declare His unity with the Father. For in this way, it will also be preserved that He is truly immutable and free from variation; for how else could He be such, if He were not the proper offspring of the Father's substance? For need exists in this respect also to preserve the identity with His own Father. Since the Word has thus appeared to be pious, it follows that the Christ-opponents should not be offended by the word "consubstantial," since it contains a completely sound sentiment and is confirmed by reason. For indeed, since the Word is from the substance of God
what else A should this phrase signify than that true and eternal substance from which He was begotten? He is not of a different species, lest something external and dissimilar should be mingled with the substance of the Father; nor is He merely similar from without, lest He should appear to be of another part or altogether of a different substance, just as polished brass and gold, or silver and tin. For these are alien and of a different nature from one another, and are separated by their nature and kind; and neither is brass peculiar to gold, nor does a wood-pigeon come from a dove; but although they are thought to be similar, they are nevertheless of a different nature from one another. If, then, the Son also were like this, let Him be a creature B just as we are, and not consubstantial; but if He is the Son, the Word, the Wisdom, the Image of the Father, the Radiance, then He may rightly be said to be consubstantial. For if He were not from God, but were shown to be an instrument of a different kind and different substance, then the Synod would rightly have written and conceived correctly.
24. Far removed, however, from these thoughts should be all corporeal imagination; C and, having transcended all sensory perception, let us perceive with pure intelligence and with the mind alone the sonship of the Son to the Father, and the property of the Word toward God, and the unvarying likeness of the radiance to the light. For, as the offspring and the Son is not in a human manner, but as it beseems God, so it is spoken of and so it is; in the same way, when we hear the word "consubstantial," we should not fall into human perceptions or imagine partitions and divisions of the Godhead. Rather, as we ponder things that are incorporeal, let us not divide the unity of the nature and the identity of the light. For this is the property of the Son toward the Father, and this shows that God is truly the Father of the Word. Again, the D example of the light and the radiance is necessary for this. For who would dare to say that the radiance is alien and dissimilar to the sun? Or who, observing the radiance toward the sun and the identity of the light, would not confidently say: "Truly the light and the radiance are one thing, and this is shown in that, and the radiance exists in the sun, so that the one who sees this sees also that"? And how could those who believe and see rightly call such unity and natural property anything other than a consubstantial offspring? For as for the offspring of God, whom would anyone appropriately and fittingly conceive of, other than the Word, and Wisdom, and Power, which it is neither holy to say is alien to the Father, nor lawful to imagine that it was not always with the Father? For by this offspring the Father has made all things, and extending His providence over all things through Him, He bestows His kindness; and thus He and the Father are one, as has been said; unless, perhaps, those evil-minded men, daring once again to contend that there is one substance of the Word and another light which is in Him from the Father, so that...
the light in the Son is one thing A in relation to the Father, while He Himself is foreign in substance, as a created thing. But this is strictly the opinion of Caiaphas and of the Samosatene, which the Church has cast out, but which they now hypocritically maintain; for which reason they themselves, having fallen away from the truth, have been proven heretics. For if He is a participant at all in the light that is from the Father, why is He not rather that which is participated in, so that some middle point between Him and the Father might not be found? For if it is not so, it can no longer be demonstrated that all things were made through the Son, but [were made] through that [intermediate] of which He Himself also is a participant. But if He is the Word and the Wisdom of the Father, in whom the Father is revealed and known, and creates, and without whom the Father does nothing, it is B evident that He Himself is that which is from the Father; for all originated things are participants of Him, just as they are participants of the Holy Spirit. And being thus, He will not be from nothing, nor in any way a created thing, but rather a proper offspring from the Father, just as the radiance is from the light.
25. Those who gathered at Nicaea, having this judgment, wrote also these very words. But come, let us also refute this—that they did not devise these terms themselves, as they also attempt to object, but that they spoke having received them from those before them—so that not even this pretext may remain for them. Learn, therefore, you Christ-fighting Arians, that Theognostus, a learned man, did not decline to say "from the substance." For writing concerning the Son in the second of his *Hypotyposes*, he said this: C "The substance of the Son is not something discovered from the outside, nor was it brought in from non-existence, but it sprang from the Father's substance, as the radiance of light and the vapor of water; for neither the radiance nor the vapor is the water itself or the sun itself, nor again is it something alien, but it is an emanation from the Father's substance, the Father's substance undergoing no division. For as the sun remains the same and is not diminished by the rays poured forth from it, so neither did the Father's substance undergo any alteration, having the Son as its own image." Theognostus, then, having examined the former points as if for the sake of exercise, afterwards set forth his own opinion in this way. D Dionysius as well, just as Origen, attributes other things to the Son—whether having been caught in ungodliness like him, or, as one might say, having been forced to compose an apology on his behalf, offering these things for the sake of exercise and not as his own view. In the seventh [book], however, which he inscribes concerning the work of God, he treats more piously of other matters, and especially at the end of the discourse concerning the Son. Theognostus was read—
A became bishop of Alexandria and wrote against Sabellius, explaining at length the dispensation of the Savior according to the flesh, and from this refuting the Sabellians, demonstrating that it is not the Father who became flesh, but His Word, as John saith 8 : inasmuch as he was suspected of having called the Son a work and a creature, and not consubstantial with the Father, he wrote to Dionysius, bishop of Rome, who was his namesake, excusing himself and saying that this [accusation] was a calumny against him. For he asserted that he had neither called the Son a work, but also that he confessed Him to be consubstantial. His own words are as follows: “And in another letter I wrote, wherein I refuted the charge which they bring against me as being a falsehood, that I do not say that Christ is consubstantial with God. For although I say that I have not found this name anywhere in the holy B Scriptures, yet my subsequent arguments, 17 which they have passed over in silence, do not disagree with this notion. For I also adduced human generation, which is clearly of the same nature, saying that parents are altogether only other than their children, because they themselves are not the children, nor is it necessary that they should be either parents or children. And the letter itself, as I said, I cannot bring forward on account of present circumstances; but if [I could], I would have sent you the words themselves of that time, or rather the copy of the whole letter, which I will do if I have the opportunity. But I remember and am well aware that I added many more of these kindred examples; for I spoke of a plant sprung from a seed or root, which is other than that from which it sprouted, and yet is altogether of the same nature with it; and I spoke of a river flowing from a C fountain, which has taken another name; for neither is the fountain called a river, nor the river a fountain, and both are real, and the river is the water from the fountain.”
26. But that the Word of God is no work nor creature, but is the proper and inseparable offspring of the Father’s substance, as the great synod wrote, behold, Dionysius, bishop of Rome, also writing against those who think the thoughts of Sabellius, is indignant against those who dare to say these things, and speaks as follows: “But it would be reasonable to speak against those who divide, 20 and cut asunder, and destroy the most sacred proclamation of the Church of God, the Monarchy, into three forces of some kind, and separated hypostases and three D divinities: for I have heard that some of those who teach and preach the divine Word among you are instructors of this opinion, who are in diametrical opposition, so to speak, to the sentiment of Sabellius.”
For he blasphemes, calling the Son the Father, and vice versa; while these [others] in a way preach three Gods, dividing the holy unity into three foreign substances, entirely separated from one another. For the divine Word must necessarily be united to the God of all, and the holy Spirit must necessarily reside and dwell in God; and thus, the divine Trinity must necessarily be gathered and summarized into one, as if into a certain head—I mean God almighty, the God of all. For the teaching of the foolish Marcion, [which results in a] cutting and division of the monarchy into three principles, is indeed diabolical, and not that of the true disciples of Christ and those who are pleased with the teachings of the Savior. For these know clearly that a Trinity is preached by the divine Scripture, but they know that neither the Old nor the New Testament preaches three Gods.
No less to be blamed, moreover, are those who think the Son is a work and imagine that the Lord has been made, as if he were one of those things which were truly made, whereas the divine Scripture testifies that he has been begotten in a manner becoming and appropriate to Him, and not formed or made. B It is not a slight, then, but the greatest impiety to say that the Lord is in any way a created thing. For if the Son has been made, there was once when he was not; but he always was, seeing that he is in the Father, as he himself declares, and if Christ is the Word and Wisdom and Power. For the divine Scriptures say that Christ is these things, as you know, and these happen to be powers of God. If, then, the Son has been made, there was a time when these were not; there was, therefore, a time when God was without these. But this is most absurd.
And why should I discourse further on these things to you, men full of the Spirit, to whom are clearly explored the absurdities that follow from the opinion of those who contend that the Son is a created thing, to which those who lead this opinion do not seem to me to have paid attention, and have therefore wandered completely from the truth, in that they explain against the mind of the divine and prophetic Scripture these words: "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways"? For the meaning of the word "created," as you know, is not one. C For "created" here should be understood as "appointed" over the works made by Him—works made, I say, through the Son Himself. But this word "created" is not to be understood here as "made," since to make and to create differ from each other. Hence Moses in the great ode of Deuteronomy says: "Is not he himself your Father, who possessed you, and made you, and created you?" Thus one might rightly rebuke those, [saying]: "O rash and reckless men! Is the firstborn of all creation a created thing, he who was begotten from the womb before the morning star, he who as Wisdom says: 'Before all the hills he begets me'?" D Finally, [in] the divine Scriptures...
A one might find the Son said to be begotten, but never created; by which the falsehoods of those who presume concerning the Lord's generation and dare to call his divine and ineffable generation a manufacture are clearly refuted. Therefore, one ought not to divide the wonderful and divine Monad into three godheads; nor, because of a manufacture, should one hinder the dignity and surpassing greatness of the Lord; but one must believe in God the Father almighty, and in Christ Jesus his Son, and in the Holy Spirit, and that the Word of the God of all is united [to him]. For "I," he says, "and the Father are one," and, "I am in the Father, and the Father in me." For in this way both the divine Trinity and the holy proclamation of the monarchy would be preserved.
B 27. That the Word is eternally with the Father, and is not of another substance or hypostasis, but is proper to the Father, as those in the synod have declared, let it be permitted to you to hear again from the industrious Origen. For whatever he wrote as if inquiring and exercising, these one should not receive as his own opinion, but as that of those with whom he is arguing; but what he defines and affirms with confidence, this is the true opinion of that most diligent man. Accordingly, after the things said by way of exercise against the heretics, he immediately brings forward his own mind, speaking thus: "If he is the image of the invisible God, he is an invisible image. But I would dare to add that, since he is the likeness of the Father, it is impossible that there should have been a time when he was not. For when did God, who according to John is called light (for God is light), lack the radiance of his own glory, so that C anyone should dare to attribute a beginning of existence to the Son, as if he had not existed before? And when, indeed, was the Word not—the Word, I say, which both knows the Father and is the character and image of the same substance, which cannot worthily be expressed, nor named, nor uttered? For let him who dares to say 'There was once when the Son was not' understand that he will also say that Wisdom was once not, and the Word was not, and Life was not." And again in other places he says thus: "But it is neither lawful nor without danger, because of our weakness, to deprive God, as far as is in us, of the Word which was always with him, he who was the Wisdom in which he delighted; for so he will not be thought to have been eternally delighted." D See, we demonstrate that such a thought has proceeded from Fathers to Fathers; but you, O new Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, whom can you show to be your fathers of such words? None of the prudent and wise would you be able to name; for all reject you except the devil alone; for this one alone has been the father of such a defection for you, he who at the beginning sowed this impiety in you, and now has persuaded you to revile the ecumenical synod, because not...
your own, but those things have been written A which those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word have delivered. For the faith which the synod confessed in writing, this is that of the catholic Church. Defending this, the blessed Fathers so wrote, and condemned the Arian heresy; for which reason especially they attempt also to calumniate the synod. For it is not the words that grieve them, but that in them they were proved to be heretics, and more daring than other heresies.
28. B Indeed, at that time, once their futile little words were exposed, and as they were always proved to be impious, they made use of the term *ageneitos* (unbegotten) from the Greeks, so that under the pretext of this name also they might again account the Word of God among things generated and among creatures, through whom those generated things were made; so shameless are they towards impiety, and contentious towards blasphemies against the Lord. If, then, they are so shameless because they are ignorant of the meaning of this word, they ought to have learned from those very persons from whom they received it; for even those who say that mind is from the Good, and soul from the mind, although knowing from what they are, yet were not afraid to call them also *ageneita* (unbegotten), knowing that, even saying this, they do not diminish the First, from whom even these have their nature; and C it was fitting therefore for them either to speak in this way, or by no means to discourse upon things they do not know. But if they think they understand what this word signifies, it is absolutely necessary that we examine them, especially since the word is not gathered from the divine Scriptures, but they strive for it, speaking without scriptural authority. For I have recounted for what cause and with what sense the synod [spoke] of the "from the essence" and the "consubstantial" consistently with those things stated about the Saviour from the Scriptures, and as many Fathers before them set forth and wrote, or else it would not be from the beginning. Since, however, it is unbegotten, it must also be incorruptible. And if this is the case, and there is nothing else that moves itself other than soul, by necessity soul would be unbegotten and immortal. D For that which is always in motion is immortal; but that which moves another, and is moved by another, having a cessation of motion, has a cessation of life. Only that which moves itself, since it does not abandon itself, never ceases to be moved; but it is even the fountain and origin of motion for other things, as many as are moved. An origin, however, is unbegotten. For it is necessary that everything that is generated should come to be from an origin, but the origin itself from nothing. For if the origin were to come to be from anything, it would not be from an origin. Yet since it is unbegotten, it is necessary also that it be incorruptible. And if this is the case, if that which moves itself is nothing else but soul, it must necessarily follow that the soul is unbegotten and immortal. Thus far Plato, who, although in this place he asserts that the soul is unbegotten, yet elsewhere, namely in the Timaeus, he expressly teaches that it was created by the highest God.
A Let them also, if they are able, answer how they found this unscriptural term, or with what understanding they call God "unbegotten"; for I have heard that the name has various meanings. For they say that "unbegotten" is said of that which has not yet been begotten, but can be; and again, of that which neither exists nor can come into being; and thirdly, its meaning is that which exists, but is neither begotten nor has had a beginning of being, but is eternal and incorruptible. Perhaps, then, they will wish to pass over the first two meanings, because of the absurdity which follows from them; for according to the first, both things that have already come into being and those expected to come into being would be "unbegotten"; for the second contains an even greater absurdity than this. They will therefore proceed to the third, naming the "unbegotten" in accordance with that. But even in saying this, they are none the less impious. For if they call that "unbegotten" which has no beginning of being, and is neither begotten nor created, but is eternal, and if they say that the Word of God is the contrary of this, who does not perceive the craftiness of the God-fighters? Who would not stone them for being so mad? Since they are ashamed to bring forward their first tales and babblings, for which they were condemned, the wretches have devised other ways of signifying the same things through the name B of, as they say, the "unbegotten." For if the Son is of the things that are begotten, clearly He too has come to be out of things that are not; and if He has a beginning of being, He was not, therefore, before He was begotten; and if He is not eternal, there was once when He was not. C 29. It was surely right for them, holding such opinions, to signify their own sentiment in their own words, and not to cover their perversity with the term "unbegotten." But the perverse men do not do this; they do everything with craft, after the example of their father the devil. For just as he attempts to deceive by wearing borrowed garments, so these men devised the naming of the "unbegotten" so that, pretending to speak well of God, they might keep hidden the blasphemy against the Lord, and signify it to others under a veil. But even when this sophistry of theirs is known, what other course is left to them, let them say. We have found, say the evildoers, and adding to the former; they say that "unbegotten" is that which has no cause of being, but is itself the cause of being for things that are begotten. Ungrateful and in truth ignorant of the Scriptures, they who do everything and say everything not through honor for God, but through dishonor for the Son, not knowing that he who dishonors the Son dishonors the Father. For first, even if they were to name God thus, the Word is not thereby shown to be one of the things that are begotten. For as He is an offspring from the essence of the Father, so D likewise He exists eternally with Him. Nor for this
A does this name destroy the nature of the Word, nor does the term "unbegotten" have its meaning in relation to the Son, but in relation to the things which have come to be through the Son. And just as one who addresses an architect and calls him the "builder" of a house or city does not by this title count in the son who was begotten of him, but—because of the art and knowledge in building B—designates him as one who is not like the things that have come to be through him, and, knowing the nature of the one who fashioned, knows that the one begotten of him is something other than those structures; and so, because of the Son, he calls him Father, and because of the works, creator and maker: in the same way, one who thus calls God "unbegotten" names him from his works, signifying not only that he is not a created thing, but also that he is the Maker of created things. Nevertheless, he knows the Word to be something other than created things, and that He alone is the proper offspring of the Father, through whom all things have come to be and consist.
30. For when the prophets called God Almighty, they were not adorning Him with this name in order to imply that the Word was one of all things; for they knew the Son to be something other than created things, and that He rules over all things, in accordance with the likeness of the Father—but rather that He Himself is Lord of all things which He has made through the Son, and has given the authority over these things to the Son, and having given it, He Himself again rules over all things through the Word. And again, in calling God the "Lord of Hosts," they did not say this because the Word was one of these hosts, but because He is the Father of the Son, and the Lord of the hosts which came to be through the Son. For indeed, even the Word Himself, being in the Father, is Lord of all these things and rules over all, for all things that the Father has are the Son's. Just as, therefore, this has such a meaning, so let anyone who wishes to call God "unbegotten" say it, if it seems good to him, provided however that it is not because the Word is one of the created things, but because, as I said before, God is not only not a created thing, but is also the Maker of created things through His own Word. For even when the Father is named in such a way, the Word is still the image of the Father and consubstantial with the Father; and being His image, He would be separate from created things and from all things. C For of whomsoever He is the image, He possesses the property and likeness of that one, so that he who calls the Father unbegotten and almighty, must understand also in the Unbegotten and Almighty the Word and Wisdom of Him, which is the Son. But those admirable men, so prone to impiety, not caring for the honor of God, devised the name of the "Unbegotten" as a sign of their malice toward the Savior. For if the honor and veneration of God had been their concern, it would have been better and more excellent for them to know and call God Father, rather than to name Him in that other way.
A For when they call God "unoriginate," they designate Him merely as the maker from the things that have been made, as I said before, so that they may also signify that the Word is a creature, according to their own pleasure. But he who calls God Father immediately signifies by the very name the Son also, and he cannot be ignorant that, since the Son exists, through the Son all things were created.
31. Therefore, it is B better and more truthful to signify God by the Son and to call Him Father than to name Him "unoriginate" solely from His works. For the latter name signifies the works that have been made through the Word by the will of God, whereas the name of Father makes known the proper offspring from His essence. And by as much as the Word differs from originated things, by so much more excellent is it to call God Father than to call Him unoriginate. For that latter term is unscriptural and suspect, having a multiple meaning; whereas the former is simple, scriptural, truer, and signifies the Son alone. Moreover, "unoriginate" was found by the Greeks who do not know the Son, but "Father" was made known and bestowed by our Lord. For He Himself, knowing whose Son He was, said: C *I am in the Father, and the Father in me*; and, *He who has seen me has seen the Father*; and, *I and the Father are one*. And nowhere does He appear to call the Father "unoriginate" Himself. Nay, when teaching us to pray, He did not say: "When you pray, say O unoriginate God," but rather: *When you pray, say: Our Father who art in the heavens*. And He willed that the head of our faith should point to this same thing. For He did not command us to be baptized into the name of Unoriginate and Originate, nor into the name of Uncreated and Creature, but into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit; for thus, being perfected, we are also truly made sons of God, and D while naming the name of the Father, we recognize from this name the Word who is in the Father. So if He also allows Himself to be called our Father, we ought not on that account to equate ourselves to the Son according to nature; for even this is said by us on His account. For since the Word took on our body and became among us, consistently, because of the Word who is in us, God is also called our Father. For the Spirit of the Word who is in us calls His own Father our Father through us; and this is the sense of the Apostle saying: *God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying: Abba, Father*.
32. But perhaps, being refuted, since they are evil in their ways, they will wish to say also themselves: "It was fitting that concerning our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ also, we should speak from the Scriptures..."
and not introduce words that are not written" — yes, I would say, it was indeed fitting; for the signs of truth are more accurate when drawn from the Scriptures than when derived from other sources. A But the malice and the crafty, double-dealing impiety of those around Eusebius forced the bishops, as I said before, to set forth more clearly the terms that overturn their impiety. It has been shown that what was written by the synod possesses a correct sense, and that the arguments of the Arians are rotten and their behavior malignant. For even the term "unbegotten" (ἀγένητον), which has a proper meaning of its own and can be used in a pious way, they twist according to their own designs, as they please, to the dishonor of the Savior, merely to contend against God like giants. B But neither did they remain uncensured when they brought forward those arguments, nor could they, while wrongly understanding the term "unbegotten"—which can be spoken of well and piously—escape notice; for they were put to shame in everything, and their heresy was branded everywhere. These things I have recorded as I was able, recalling what was done at the synod at that time. I know, however, that the contentious ones among the Christ-opponents will not, even after hearing this, wish to change, but will run about again seeking other pretexts, and after these will invent others still. For, according to the prophet: "If the Ethiopian can change his skin, or the leopard its spots," then they too, who have learned to be impious, will be inclined to think piously. C You, however, my beloved, having received these things, read them to yourself; and if you approve of them as being correct, I would like you to read them to the brethren who may be present, so that they too, having learned these things, may approve of the zeal for the truth and the precision of thought of the synod, and may condemn the stubbornness and vain pretexts of the Christ-opposing Arians, which they have trained themselves to concoct for the sake of their own impious heresy—since to God the Father belong glory, honor, and worship, together with His co-eternal Son and Word, and with the all-holy and life-giving Spirit, now and unto the unending ages of ages. Amen.
EPISTLE OF EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA TO THE PEOPLE OF HIS DIOCESE
See in Eusebius of Caesarea, vol. XX of this edition of the Patrologia Graeca.
ADMONITION ON THE EPISTLE REGARDING THE OPINION OF DIONYSIUS
A I. Although the account of time which we have followed until now cannot be discerned with certainty in this epistle, since Athanasius, burning with the sole zeal of defending Dionysius, hardly touches at all upon the condition of those times. Yet, there are not lacking conjectures that move us to place it after the treatise or epistle on the Nicene decrees. For they indicate, as read in no. 19, that it was written in approximately the same time, namely, that the Arians were then murmuring here and there against the Nicene synod, which fits the time of the preceding epistle perfectly. Likewise, a not insignificant argument is drawn from the manner of beginning this epistle: for, having employed almost the same words at the beginning, he directs this one, just as the previous one, to a man accustomed to attending to the controversies held between Catholics and Arians, whence it may be conjectured that both were sent to the same person. Indeed, we suspect that the occasion for writing this arose from the preceding one: insofar as Athanasius had there brought forward a passage of Dionysius to clarify the word *homoousion* against the Arians; this seems to have been the reason why the Arians attempted to twist the writings of Dionysius to their own opinion, though in vain. But these conjectures do not entirely remove every ground for doubt.
B II. The Arians, therefore, having been refuted everywhere by the arguments of Catholics, attempted to support their heresy with the authority of Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, by bringing forward his letters written in the year 263: where, while he was refuting the error of the Sabellians, he had fallen into certain comparisons, by which, though contrary to the author’s intention, the divinity of the Word seemed to be harmed. However, having been accused on this matter subsequently before his namesake, Dionysius of Rome, he wrote certain books and an Apology to refute that accusation. From these latter writings of his predecessor, Athanasius extracts certain clear passages by which he very opportunely refutes Arian impudence and clearly demonstrates that Dionysius was a Catholic and most alien from the opinion of Arius.
C III. Furthermore, there are excellent passages of Dionysius to be found here, by which, thirdly, the accusation of Dionysius's adversaries in the third century is repelled; and fourthly, the slander and evil doctrine of the Arians are refuted; they possess equal force today to refute the new Arians, who attack the divinity of the Word with no less impiety than those ancients: and who market their own opinion as one commonly accepted in the prior centuries of the Church. For, to say nothing of other things, it is plain from those points contained in no. 19 that the words *ek tes ousias* and *homoousion* were already then used and common; so that for one speaking about the Son, to have impugned those words would be considered erroneous; to have omitted them, suspicious. But above all other sayings of Dionysius, this illustrious sentence, which should be inscribed in golden letters, stands out, by which all heresies arising against the Trinity are overthrown, no. 17: Οὕτω μὲν ἡμεῖς εἰς τε τὴν Τριάδα τὴν Μονάδα πλατύνομεν ἀδιαίρετον, καὶ τὴν Τριάδα πάλιν ἀμείωτον εἰς τὴν Μονάδα συγκεφαλαιούμεθα. "Thus we expand the Unity into the Trinity without division, and again we gather the Trinity without diminution into the Unity." This sentence, I say, which was hitherto missing in all the published Greek editions of Athanasius, now appears for the first time in Greek, restored by the faith of all the manuscripts. It had indeed collapsed because the words *Triada* and *Monada* ended in exactly the same way.
D IV. And truly, this is not the only sentence that had fallen out of the Greek text: for there are many others in this epistle omitted by the fault of copyists, because two clauses placed together happened to end in either the same word or a similarly ending word: all of which have now been happily restored by the help of the best manuscripts. And indeed there is nothing more frequent to be seen in the whole course of Athanasius's works than whole clauses omitted by this type of error. So that even from this, it may be clear to everyone how necessary a new edition of the works of this same holy doctor was.
V. Furthermore, the fact that Eusebius, who treats the deeds of Dionysius quite extensively, does not say even a word about this history; from this, indeed, the already common and all-too-firm suspicion of his Arianism is increased. He surely shrewdly kept silent about a history ruinous to his heresy: which other Arians, as Athanasius says, published more incautiously, to their own ruin. However, it appears from certain places in this epistle that Arius himself spread that rumor about Dionysius: unless perhaps Athanasius signifies "Arius" tropically for the "Arians": whom he also introduces as speaking as if he were still living; even though there is hardly any room for doubt that this epistle was written after Arius was dead.
OF OUR HOLY FATHER ATHANASIUS, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA. Regarding Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria: that he too held the same opinion against the Arian heresy as the Synod of Nicaea; and that the Ariomaniacs slander him in vain, as being of the same opinion as themselves.
OF OUR HOLY FATHER ATHANASIUS, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA. That Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, held the same opinion against the Arian heresy as the Nicene Synod: and that the Arians falsely accuse him of holding the same doctrine as they do.
A 1. You have signified to me, not long ago, your discussion among you against the enemies of Christ; for even before your love wrote to me of it, I had diligently inquired and learned these things, and had heard of them with great pleasure. I have therefore greatly approved your piety, which thinks so rightly concerning our blessed Fathers; and I have even now found the madness of the Arians to be as I had explored it. For since no argument consistent with their heresy is available to them, and no legitimate proof derived from the Holy Scriptures is found, they have hitherto always used impudent cavils and crafty sophisms; but now they have even dared to slander the Fathers: which thing is by no means foreign to their malignity, but is rather entirely proper to it. For if they have dared to meditate against the Lord and against His Christ, what wonder is it if they also slander the man of blessed memory, Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, as if he were of one mind and opinion with themselves? B For whomsoever among them they think to praise for the establishment of their own heresy, even if they call him blessed, they do not simply, but even gravely accuse him; just like certain robbers and men of indecent behavior who, when they are reproached for their own misdeeds, count honest men as their associates, falsely attributing their own character to the probity of those others.
2. If, therefore, they trust in the opinions and sayings of their . . .
have anything—whether taken from the Scriptures, or even some human argument that is pious for their defense. But if they have nothing of the sort, let them keep silent; for they will find nothing from any source that will not rather serve to refute them. From the Scriptures, on the one hand, is John saying: *In the beginning was the Word* (John I, 1), which they say *was not before He was begotten*; and David, on the other, singing from the person of the Father: *My heart has poured forth a good Word* (Ps. XLIV, 1), which they claim is merely a product of thought and that it has come to be from non-existence. Then again, with John proclaiming the Gospel that *All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made* (John I, 3), and Paul writing: *One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things* (I Cor. VIII, 6), and elsewhere: *For in Him all things were created* (Col. I, 16)—what boldness will these men have, and will they not rather incur shame, opposing the sayings of the saints when they say that the Creator of all things is a work, and that He in whom all things were made and subsisted is a creature?
B Not even any human reasoning that is pious is left to them for their defense. For who among men, whether Greek or barbarian, if he confesses God, will attempt to call Him a creature, or say that He did not exist before He was brought into being? Or what man, having heard from Him whom he believes to be the only God saying: *This is my beloved Son* (Matth. III, 17), and, *My heart has poured forth a good Word*, would dare even to say that the Word who has come forth from the heart of God has come to be from non-existence, or that the Son is a creature and not the proper offspring of Him who speaks? And again, who, hearing Him whom he believes to be Lord and Savior saying: *I in the Father and the Father in me* (John XIV, 10), and, *I and the Father are one* (John X, 30), would attempt to divide that which He has joined and kept undivided? C
3. These men, therefore, while they themselves perceive this, lacking any boldness in their own position, falsely attribute fictive opinions to pious men. Yet it would have been more fitting for them, being destitute of everything, and observing that they are interrogated on all sides and are at an impasse and agape, to repent rather, turning away from the path of error, and not to count among their number those whom they do not know, lest, being refuted also by them, they bring upon themselves greater shame. Perhaps, however, they will never wish to desist from such knavery; for they are in this respect emulators of D Caiaphas and his associates.
A For this, too, they have emulated those around Caiaphas, just as they have learned from them to deny Christ. For those men also, though the Lord had performed so many works by which He made known that He was Christ the Son of the living God, and though they were convicted by Him, maintained and spoke thereafter entirely against the Scriptures, and were unable even for a moment to look upon the refutations brought against them, but fled to the patriarch, saying: "We have Abraham for our father," thinking that in this they could cover their own folly. But neither did those men profit anything by saying this, nor will these men, by naming Dionysius, be able to escape the charge leveled against them—for the Lord refuted even those men for the things in which they were transgressing, saying: "Abraham did not do this." B And the same Truth will again refute these men, for they are acting impiously and lying, seeing that Dionysius the bishop did not hold the opinions of Arius, nor was he ignorant of the Truth. But both the Jews of that time and these new ones of today have inherited from their father the devil his madness against Christ. A great proof, then, that they are not speaking the truth but are slandering the man is the fact that he was never condemned for impiety by other bishops and cast out of his bishopric, as these men were cast out of the clergy, nor did he withdraw from the Church for the sake of defending a heresy, but he fell asleep in her piously, and his memory is to this day celebrated with the Fathers and is written down. For if he had held their opinions, or if he had not rendered an account of what he wrote, there is no doubt that he would by all means have suffered the same penalty as they did.
4. And these things were sufficient for the complete refutation C of the new Jews, who deny the Lord, slander the Fathers, and attempt to deceive all Christians. However, because they fancy that they have occasions for slandering the bishop from certain parts of his letter, come, let us examine these too, so that their empty babbling may be demonstrated from them, and that they might, even if late, finally stop blaspheming the Lord, and might confess, even if only with the soldiers, seeing the creation bearing witness, that truly this is the Son of God, and not a creature. They say, then, that the blessed D
A Dionysius said in his letter that the Son of God is a work and a generated being, and that He is not by nature proper to the Father, but alien in substance, just as the husbandman is in relation to the vine, and the shipwright in relation to the craft; for, in that He is a work, He did not exist before He was generated. And he wrote, though we ourselves also admit that such is his letter; but just as he wrote this, so also he wrote very many others, and they ought to have read those as well, so that from all of them, and not from the one alone, the faith of the man might be shown. For just as when a shipwright has built many triremes, his skill is judged not from one, but from all of them together. If, therefore, he wrote the letter they speak of simply as an exposition of his own faith, or if he wrote this one alone, let them accuse him as they wish; for in that case, there is truly an argument for accusation. But if the circumstances of time and person B compelled him to write such things, and he afterwards wrote other letters defending himself against what he was suspected of, they should have considered the causes, rather than rashly casting envy upon the man, so that they might not appear to be merely hunting for small words while passing over the truth which reveals itself in his other letters. For even a husbandman tends to the same kind of trees in one way or another, according to the quality of the soil; and one would not on that account blame him because he prunes one, grafts another, plants this one, and pulls up another; but rather, having learned the cause, he will admire the variety of the man's skill. If, therefore, they have not read his writings in a perfunctory way, let them mention also the subject of the letter; for thus their calumny and the wickedness of their intent will be revealed. Since, however, they either do not know or are ashamed [to say], it is necessary for us to declare it.
5. In the Upper Pentapolis of Libya, certain C bishops held the opinions of Sabellius, and they prevailed so much with their inventions that, little by little, the Son of God was scarcely preached in the churches. When Dionysius learned this—for he himself had the care of those churches—he sent and advised the authors of this to cease from their wickedness; but as they did not cease, but rather continued in their impiety even more impudently, he was compelled by the necessity of their impudence to write such a letter, and the human [nature] of the Savior from the Gospels to set forth; so that, since they were acting more boldly, the Son…
A denying and attributing His human [attributes] to the Father, he might show that it is not the Father, but the Son who became man for our sakes, and [thereby] persuade the unlearned that the Father is not the Son, and thus little by little lead them to the true divinity of the Son and the knowledge concerning the Father. This is the argument of the letter, and for this reason he wrote it thus, because of those who so brazenly wished to change the faith of the truth.
6. What similarity, then, is there between the heresy of Arius and the opinion of Dionysius? Or why is Dionysius cited like Arius, since there is such a great discrepancy between the two? The one is a teacher of the Catholic Church, while the other proved to be the inventor of a new heresy. Arius indeed, in order to set forth his own false doctrine, wrote the *Thalia* B in effeminate and ridiculous modes, imitating the Egyptian Sotades. But Dionysius wrote other letters, and he also made a defense concerning the matters for which he was suspected, and he appeared to think correctly. If, therefore, he writes things contrary to himself, let them not drag him into their own company; for he would not be trustworthy in this regard. But if, having written the letter to Ammonius and having fallen under suspicion, he then purified himself for the sake of removing that [suspicion], and after the defense did not change his opinion, it would be manifest that he wrote even the things that were under suspicion in accordance with an economy; nor ought the things written and done according to an economy to be taken in a malignant sense and distorted toward the C private desire of each one. For even a physician often applies to certain wounds those remedies which do not seem appropriate to some, as he himself knows, having no other goal than health. This is also the way of a prudent teacher: to adapt himself and to speak according to the character of those being taught, until he has brought them into the way of perfection.
7. But if they accuse him for the sole reason that he wrote thus (for the arguments which the Arians borrow from him are truly accusations), what, I ask, will they do if they hear the great and blessed apostles speaking in the Acts, Peter saying with these words: D "Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as you yourselves know:"
A Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain; and again: "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him does this man stand here before you whole." And as Paul explains at Antioch in Pisidia, B saying: "God removed Saul and raised up unto them David to be their king, to whom also he gave testimony, saying: I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after my own heart, which shall fulfill all my will. Of this man’s seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus." And again at Athens: "The times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent: because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." Or if they hear that great martyr Stephen saying: D "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God." For it is time now for them to become even more bold and to say—for nothing is too daring for them—that even the apostles themselves held the views of Arius, since they proclaim that Christ was a man from Nazareth, and that he was passible.
8. Since they imagine such things, did the apostles use these words because they believed Christ was only a man and nothing more? God forbid! Let no such thought ever enter anyone’s mind. But they, as wise architects and stewards of the mysteries of God, did not handle the matter without a legitimate cause. For the Jews of that time, since they were in error themselves C and were leading the Gentiles into error, thought Christ was merely a man coming from the seed of David, just like the other children born of David, and they did not believe that he was God, nor that the Word was made flesh. For this reason, with great prudence, the blessed apostles first explained the human nature of the Saviour to the Jews, so that, once they had fully persuaded them through the manifest and conspicuous miracles that Christ had indeed come, they might lead them from there to believe in his divinity, by demonstrating his works
A that they are not of man but of God. Indeed, Peter, while calling Christ a passible man, immediately subjoined: "This is the Author of life"; and in the Gospel he confesses: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And in his Epistle he calls Him the shepherd of souls, and Lord of himself as well as of the angels and powers. Again, Paul, who says that Christ is a man from the seed of David, writes in his Epistle to the Hebrews: "Who is the radiance of the glory and the stamp of his substance"; and to the Philippians: "Who, being in the form of God, did not account it a robbery to be equal to God." But as for naming B Him the Author of life, and Son of God, and radiance, and stamp, and equal to God, and Lord, and shepherd of souls, what else could this mean than that the Word of God—through whom all things were made, and who is indivisible from the Father, just as the radiance is to the light—was in the flesh?
9. Dionysius himself, being tutored by the apostles—for when the heresy of Sabellius had already crept in, he was compelled, as I said, to write such an epistle, and to cast against them the words spoken about the Savior in a humble and human manner, in order that, by cutting those men off through these human references to prevent them from saying that the Father is the Son, he might pave an easier way for them toward the teaching concerning the divinity of the Son, when in subsequent epistles he speaks of Him from the Scriptures as Word, Wisdom, Power, Vapor, and Radiance of the Father. In these letters written for his own defense, he speaks openly of the faith and confesses his piety toward Christ. Therefore, just as the apostles are not to be blamed for the words they uttered concerning the humanity of the Lord (for the Lord indeed became man), but are rather worthy of admiration for their prudent dispensation and teaching adapted to the time; so Dionysius is not to be considered an Arian on account of the letter to Euphranor and Ammonius C written against Sabellius. For even if he used humble words and examples, these are derived from the Gospels; and he has a legitimate reason for writing them, namely the bodily advent of the Savior, on account of which these and similar things were written. For just as He himself is the Word of God, so afterward "the Word became flesh"; and, "In the beginning was the Word."
A The Virgin, at the completion of the ages, had Him in her womb, and the Lord became man. And one is the subject indicated by both expressions; for "The Word became flesh." The statements made concerning His divinity and His incarnation hold a meaning proper and suitable to each of the things spoken of. He who describes the human aspects of the Word knows also of His divinity; and he who explains His divinity is not ignorant of the things proper to His incarnate B arrival. But like an expert and reputable money-changer, distinguishing among individual things, he will walk in the straight path of piety. Thus, when he speaks of Him weeping, he knows that the Lord, having become man, shows weeping as part of His humanity, but he raises Lazarus as God. And he knows that He is hungry and thirsty bodily, but divinely satisfies five thousand with five loaves; and he knows that the human body lies in the tomb, but he is not ignorant that the same body is raised by the Word Himself, as the body of God.
10. Dionysius, teaching these things, wrote in his letter to Euphranor and Ammonius concerning what was said humanly about the Savior, for the sake of refuting C Sabellius: "For those things spoken of Him humanly are: 'I am the vine, the Father is the vine-dresser'; and, 'Being faithful to Him who made Him'; and, 'He created'; and, 'Having become so much better than the angels.'" He was not ignorant, however, of: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me"; and, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." For we know him to have written these things in other letters, and indeed, writing these things there, he also made mention of the human aspects of the Lord. For just as, "Being in the form of God, He did not count it a prize to be equal to God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant"; and, "Being rich, He became D poor for our sake"; so, while the accounts concerning His divinity are exalted and rich, there are also lowly and poor expressions concerning His incarnate arrival. That these things were spoken humanly concerning the Savior, it is fitting to consider from the following: the vine-dresser is external to the vine in essence, but the branches are of the same essence, kindred, and indivisible from the vine, and they possess one and the same origin, both they and the vine itself. And as the Lord said, He Himself is the vine, we are the branches. If, therefore, the Son is consubstantial with us, and
besides being that which we are, He is also the Word of the Father, while we were created from the earth and are descendants of Adam, then this saying ought not to be referred to the divinity of the Word, but rather A to His human advent. For the Savior Himself said: *I am the vine, you are the branches, and the Father is the husbandman.* For as regards the body, we are of the same kind as the Lord, and for this reason He said: *I will declare thy name unto my brethren.* And just as the branches are consubstantial with the vine and come forth from it, so we, having bodies of the same nature as the body of the Lord, receive from His fullness, and we have that body as a root for the resurrection and salvation. The Father, moreover, is called the husbandman; for He Himself, through the Word, cultivated the vine, which is the humanity of the Savior B, and He Himself, through this same Word, prepared for us the way to the kingdom; and *no one comes to the Lord except the Father draw him* to Him.
11. Since this is the proper interpretation of this opinion, it is most fittingly written concerning this vine: *He who is faithful to Him who made Him*; and, *Being made so much better than the angels*; and, *He created*. For at the time when He took that which He had to offer on our behalf—and this was the body from the Virgin Mary—then it is written that He was created, made, and fashioned; for such expressions are appropriate to men. Yet it is not the case that after assuming the body He became better than the angels, lest He be thought to have been C inferior or equal to them before; but rather, Paul, writing to the Jews and comparing the human ministry of the Lord with the ministry of Moses, said: *Being made so much better than the angels*; for the law was announced through angels; because the law was given through Moses, but grace and the gift of the Spirit came through Jesus Christ. And at that time the law was announced from Dan even to Beersheba; but now *their sound has gone out into all the earth*, and the nations worship Christ, and through Him they know the Father. Therefore, those things were written about the Savior in a human sense, and it is not otherwise. D
12. A Ergone Dionysius, as the enemies of Christ boast, when he writes of the human elements of the Son, and thus speaks of Him as a work, indicates that he is one of the men? Or, because he said the Word is not proper to the essence of the Father, did he think Him to be consubstantial with us men? But he did not write thus in his other epistles; rather, he appears therein to think correctly, and is able by those very ones to shout against these people, saying: "I am not of your same opinion, O God-fighters; nor did our writings provide an occasion for impiety to Arius; but when writing to Ammon and Euphranor on account of the Sabellians, I made mention of the husbandman and the vine, and of other such utterances; B in order that, by demonstrating the human elements of the Lord, I might persuade them not to say that it is the Father who became man." For as the husbandman is not the vine, so He who existed in the body is not the Father, but the Word; and the Word, having become in the vine, was called the vine because of the bodily kinship with the branches, which we are. In that frame of mind, therefore, I wrote to Euphranor and Ammon; but against your shamelessness, I set forth the other epistles written by me, so that the prudent may know the defense contained in them, and my correct opinion concerning the faith in Christ. It was C right, then, for the Arians, if they had a sound mind, to think and consider such things concerning the bishop; for all things are plain to those who understand, and right to those who find knowledge. But since, not having learned the faith of the Catholic Church, they have fallen into impiety, and consequently have a darkened mind, they think that even right things are twisted, and they call light darkness, and darkness they think is light; it is necessary also to set forth the things from the other epistles of Dionysius, and the cause of them, for the sake of a fuller condemnation of the heretics; for having learned from them ourselves, so we think and write concerning the man.
13. The reason for which he wrote the other
A epistles is this. When Dionysius, the bishop, having learned about the matters in Pentapolis, and being moved by a zeal for piety—as I have already said—wrote against the heresy of Sabellius, the epistle to Euphranor and Ammonius, certain of the brethren from the Church, men indeed of sound doctrine, but not having inquired of him for what reason he had written thus, betook themselves to Rome and accused him before his namesake, Dionysius, the bishop of Rome. Upon hearing these things, he wrote in the same breath against those who hold the opinions of Sabellius, and against those who hold the views that Arius uttered when he was cast out of the Church. He declared that it was an impiety equal and directly opposite, both that of Sabellius and that of those who say that the Word of God is a creature, a work, and a thing made. B He also sent letters to Dionysius to indicate the matter for which he had been accused by them. He himself at once wrote back, and entitled the books *Refutation and Apology*. Here, I would have you observe the execrable workshop of the Christ-haters, and in what way they have moved these things to their own ignominy: for since Dionysius, bishop of Rome, wrote also against those who say the Son of God is a creature and a thing made, it is clearly evident that the heresy of the Arian Christ-haters has not been anathematized only now, but has long since been condemned by all. Then, when Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, cleared himself concerning the epistle he had written, it is manifest that he neither held the opinion which they ascribe to him, nor was he at all imbued with the perverse doctrine of Arius.
14. And it would indeed be enough for a perfect refutation of the Arians, C and for the demonstration of their calumny, that Dionysius cleared himself regarding those things which they even boast about; for he wrote not in a spirit of contention, but for the sake of defending himself and removing suspicion; and in refuting these accusations, what else does he do but lift the entire suspicion of the crime, and in this very act prove the Arian sycophants to be what they are? But that they may be even more confounded by those things which he wrote for his own defense, come, I will also set before you his own words; for you shall know from them that the Arians are men of perverse mind, and that Dionysius is foreign to their heterodoxy. For he entitled his epistle *Refutation and Apology*. D What does this mean, other than that he refutes those who are lying, and makes apology for those things which he wrote? He demonstrates that he did not write as Arius suspected, but that, of those things said in a human manner regarding the Lord,
A he did not fail to know that this is the Word and Wisdom, inseparable from the Father. Next, B he complains that his accusers do not report his statements in their entirety, but truncate them, and that they speak not with a good conscience, but with an evil one, according to their own desire; and these he likens to those who slandered the Epistles of the blessed Apostle. This complaint of his entirely removes all malicious suspicion. For if he considers the calumniators of Paul to be like those who slandered himself, he declares nothing else than that he wrote in such a way because he held the same views as Paul. Indeed, he meets every single word spoken by the accusers, and provides a solution to all their arguments; and whereas he had most clearly refuted Sabellius in those former writings, in these latter ones he declares his own faith to be entirely pious. Therefore, to those who maintain that this is the opinion of Dionysius: «God was not always Father; the Son was not always, but God was at one time without the Word, and the Son himself did not exist before he was begotten; but there was a time when he was not; for he is not eternal, but came to be later,» observe how he responds to these things. Most of his words, by which he examines the matters brought into question, or draws certain conclusions from the arguments he has presented, or refutes his opponents through interrogation, or condemns his detractors, these I shall pass over on account of the length of the discourses, and I shall set forth only those things which pertain to their accusation. Therefore, for the sake of clearing himself, in the first book, which is entitled *Elenchus and Apologia* [Refutation and Apology], having prefaced certain things, he wrote as follows:
15. «For there was never a time when God was not Father.» And in what follows he professes, «That Christ has always been, and that he has existed as Word, and Wisdom, and Power. For it is not the case that God was barren of these, and then afterwards begat the Son. Rather, the Son does not have his existence from himself, but from the Father.» And after a few words, he says again regarding the same subject: «Since he is the radiance of eternal light, he is himself also entirely eternal. For since the light is always existing, it is manifest that the radiance always exists; for it is understood to be light by the very fact that it shines, and it is impossible for light not to shine. Let us come again to the examples. If there is a sun, there is also radiance, there is also day: but if none of these exist, it is far from the case that the sun is present. If the sun were eternal, the day also would never cease: but as it is (for the matter is not so), when the sun begins, the day begins, and when it ends, it ends. But God is eternal light, which never began, and will never end. Eternal, therefore, is the radiance which shines before him and coexists with him, which is without beginning and ever-generated, shining forth from him, which is the Wisdom that says: *I was she in whom he delighted; and daily I rejoiced before his face, at all times*.» And again he adds, after a few words regarding the same, saying: «Since, therefore, the eternal...
A Father is, eternal is also the Son, light from light. For if there be a begetter, there is also a son; but if there be no son, how and of whom can he be a begetter? But both are, and they are always.» Then he adds these things again: «Since, then, God is light, Christ is the splendor; and since the Spirit also is [for the Spirit, he says, is God], consistently also Christ is called vapor: For, he says, he is the vapor of the power of God.» And from the second [book] again he says: «But only the Son always co-existing with the Father, and filled with the Existent One, he himself also is of the Father.»
16. These things having been spoken ambiguously, they needed an interpreter; but since he wrote clearly and frequently concerning the same things, let Arius gnash his teeth B, seeing his heresy being destroyed by Dionysius, and hearing what he does not wish, as he says: «God was always Father, and the Son is not eternal simply, but since the Father is eternal, the Son also would be eternal, and co-exists with him as the splendor with the light.» But they, even if they have only suspected Dionysius of holding the views of Arius, let them lay aside such blasphemy concerning him. For what kinship is there between them, when Arius says, «The Son was not before he was begotten, but there was a time when he was not,» whereas Dionysius teaches: «But God is eternal light, which neither began nor shall ever end; therefore, eternal light is set before us, and the splendor co-exists with him, beginningless and C everlasting, shining forth from him.» And indeed, against the other suspicion of those who say that because Dionysius names the Father, he does not name the Son; and again, when he says Son, he does not mention the Father, but divides and separates and partitions the Son from the Father; Dionysius answers and puts them to shame in the second book, with these words:
17. «Each of the names spoken by me cannot be separated or divided from its neighbor: I mentioned the Father, and before I brought in the Son, I signified him already in the Father: I brought in the Son, and even if I had not previously named the Father, he would have been implied in the name of the Son: D I added the Holy Spirit, but I also joined at once from whence and through whom he came.» But they do not know that neither is the Father alienated from the Son in that he is Father—for that name is the beginning of the conjunction—nor is the Son separated from the Father; for the Father is the name that denotes the union.
A In their hands is the Spirit, which can be separated neither from the One sending, nor from the One bearing. How, then, could I, who use such names, believe that these are separated and entirely divided from one another?" And after a few words he adds: "Thus do we extend the indivisible unity into the Trinity, B and gather the Trinity again, which cannot be diminished, into unity."
18. Hence, he again refutes in the first book his accusers who lied, saying that he had counted the Son among created things and that he was in no way consubstantial with the Father, with these words: "But where I said there were certain created and formed things to be considered, I brought forward their examples cursorily as being less useful, when I said: Neither is the plant the same as the husbandman, nor the ship the same as the shipwright; then I dwelt upon things more appropriate and C more natural to the subject; and I explained more fully those things which were of more certain faith, with various examples I had thought out, which I also wrote to you in another letter, in which I refuted the lie they bring against me, as though I said that Christ is not consubstantial with God. For although I admit that I have not found this word anywhere in the holy Scriptures, nor read it, yet my arguments which follow, and which they have passed over in silence, do not differ from this sentiment. For I brought forward human offspring as an example, which is clearly of the same kin, saying that parents differ from children D only in this, that they themselves are not children: otherwise it would necessarily follow that neither parents nor children exist. But as I said before, because of present circumstances I do not have the letter with me; otherwise I would have sent you the very words I wrote at that time, or rather a copy of the whole letter, and I will send it when I have a copy of it. I remember, moreover, that I added very many similarities from related things. For I said that a plant sprouting from a seed or from a root is different from that whence it sprouted, even though it is entirely of the same nature, and that a river flowing from a fountain receives a different form and name; for the fountain is not called a river, nor the river a fountain, and both exist; and the fountain is as it were the Father
A, and the river is the water from the fountain. But they feign that they do not even see these and similar things written, but as it were go blind; and with two unconnected phrases, as if with stones, they attempt to pelt me from afar, ignoring that for obscured matters which need addition in order to be understood, not only do other examples often bring light, but even contrary ones. In the third book he says: “Life was born from Life; and as a river flowed from a fountain, and a brilliant light was kindled from an inextinguishable light.”
19. Having heard these things, who henceforth will accuse those B who suspect Dionysius of holding the Arian view of insanity? For behold, through these things he openly tramples upon his entire heresy with the reasonings of the truth. For the statement, “He was not before He was born,” and the statement, “There was a time when He was not,” he refutes by the metaphor of the effulgence; and by saying that His Father was never without offspring. That statement, moreover, which they make, “from non-existent things,” he refutes by saying that the Word is like a river from a fountain, and a sprout from a root, and a son from a parent, and light from light, and life from life. And as for their separating and dividing the Word from God, he repudiates that by saying that the Trinity, which can neither be divided nor diminished, is gathered into a unity. Furthermore, he openly rejects their claim that the Son is alien to the substance of the Father, when he says that the Son is consubstantial with the Father. On this account, one might also marvel C at the impudence of the impious; for while Dionysius, whom they claim held views equal to their own, says that the Son is consubstantial, they nevertheless buzz around him just like gnats, as if the synod had not rightly committed the word “consubstantial” to writing. For if they consider Dionysius their friend, let them not deny the doctrine of one who thinks as they do. But if they think that it was not rightly said, why do they boast of Dionysius, who says the very same thing, as thinking as they do? Especially since he does not appear to say these things in passing, but, having written other letters beforehand, he convicts those who falsely accused him of saying that the Son is not consubstantial with the Father; and he refutes those who thought that he had said the Word was a creature D, denying that he thinks as they suppose—but even though he uttered those words, he testifies that he said them for this sole purpose: to show that it is not the Father, but the Son, who clothed Himself with the created, fashioned, and made body; wherefore the Son is said to have been created, fashioned, and made.
A Indeed, since he had previously written 87 such phrases, he bids the Arians a long farewell, and demands a good conscience from his hearers; setting forth the difficulty, or perhaps the incomprehensibility, of the matters under investigation, so that they might not judge the words, but the intention of the writer 88; and especially when most things testify to his frame of mind. He himself, then, said: "I brought forward the examples of the plant and the husbandman 89 in a passing manner, as being less useful; but I dwelt on those that are more proper, and discoursed at greater length on the truer things." But he who says this shows that it is truer to say that the Son is eternal and from the Father, than that He is made; for by this latter word the bodily nature of the Lord is signified, but by the former, the eternity of His Divinity.
B Assuredly, in these matters he also asserts that those who brought charges against him—as if he did not speak of the Son as being consubstantial with the Father—were refuted by him, not lightly, but with wisdom and true demonstration, saying: "Even if I did not find this word in the Scriptures, yet gathering the meaning from the Scriptures themselves, I knew that, being Son and Word, He could not be alien from the essence of the Father." For that he does not think the Son is a creature or a work—for they have slandered him on this point too—he says thus in his second book: "If any of the calumniators, because I called God the maker and creator of all things, thinks that I also called Him the creator of Christ, let him mark that I first called Him Father, in which word the Son is already included. 90 For after having said that the Father is the maker, I added: 'Nor is He Father of those things of which He is the maker, if Father is properly understood to be He who has begotten'—for we shall examine the breadth of the title 'Father' in the following sections 91—'nor is the Father a maker, if the craftsman alone were to be called a maker.' For among the Greeks, the wise are also called makers of their own discourses; C and 92 the Apostle said, *A maker of the law* 93; and men are made makers of virtue or vice in their hearts, as God said: *I waited for it to bring forth judgment, but it brought forth iniquity.*"
21. Truly, let one who hears these things remember the divine oracle saying: *Whithersoever the ungodly turns, he vanishes 94.* For behold, in various ways turning themselves about day by day, the impious vanish, not having even in this a pretext against Dionysius. For he clearly teaches that there is no work, nor creaDture [that is solely of Him, but that the Son is not a creature].
A He blames, and at the same time heals, those who slander him as having called God a maker, in that they failed to notice he had first called God Father, in which name the Son is also inscribed. By saying this, he demonstrates that the Son is not of the number of things made, nor is God a maker, but that God is the Father of His own Word. And since some, through ignorance (or with a bad conscience), brought it against him that he had called God the maker of Christ, for this reason he apologizes in various ways, saying that not even thus could his own words be reproached: for he affirms that he used the name "maker" because of the flesh which the Word had assumed, which was indeed a thing made. "But if anyone should suspect that this was said of the Word, even in that way they ought to have heard it without a spirit of contention: for as I do not think that the Word is a thing made, nor do I call God a maker, but his Father; even if, when discussing the Son, I should casually call God his maker, even then the matter would not lack a defense. For B the wise Greeks call themselves the makers of their own books, even though they are also the fathers of their own books; while the divine Scripture calls us makers of the movements of the heart, when it calls us makers of the law, and of judgment, and of justice." Thus, from whatever side the matter is viewed, he clearly demonstrates that the Son is neither a created nor a made thing, and that he himself is a stranger to the perverse doctrine of the Arians.
22. C But let no Arian, nor anyone else, suspect him of saying that the Son so coexists with the Father that the names indeed are joined together, but the realities are most distant from one another, and that the Son has not always coexisted with the Father; but that from the time the Son came to be, from that time God was called Father, and henceforth coexists with Him, as happens among men. But let him reflect and remember the things said above, and he will see that the faith of Dionysius is correct. For while he says: "For there was not a time when God was not a Father," and again: "But God is eternal light, which never began, and will never end; therefore, the eternal radiance exists before Him, and coexists with Him, without beginning, and eternally begotten, shining forth from Him," it was right that no one at all should suspect such things D of him. 5 And the examples of the fountain and the river, and of the root and the
Spirit, and the vapor, shames those who fight against Christ and blather the opposite against him.
23. But Arius has also gathered this opinion for himself as if from a dung heap, and adds: "The Word is not proper to the Father, but there is one Word in God; B yet this Lord is strange and alien to the substance of the Father; and he is called Word merely by a mode of thinking, and is not by nature the true Son of God; but he is called Son also by adoption, as a creature." And while saying such things, he boasts among those who are ignorant of the truth, as if Dionysius also held the same opinion in this matter. See, I pray, what the faith of Dionysius was concerning these things, and by what power he opposes such wicked thoughts of Arius. For he writes in his first book as follows: C "It has been said before, indeed, that God is the source of all good things; and the Son is written to be the river flowing from Him; for the word is an emanation of the mind, and, to speak in a human manner, it is poured out from the heart through the mouth, becoming different from the word in the heart, and the mind rushing forth through the tongue. For the one remains after it has sent forth, and is as it was; D but the other, having been sent forth, flies off and is carried everywhere; and thus each is in the other, being different from the other; and they are one, while being two; for thus also the Father and the Son are one, and have been said to be in one another." And in the fourth book he says as follows: "For as our mind pours forth from itself the word, as the Prophet said: *My heart has poured forth a good word* (Ps. XLIV, 2); and each is different from the other, possessing its own place separated from the rest, the one dwelling and moving in the heart, and the other on the tongue and mouth; yet they do not stand apart, nor are they utterly deprived of one another, nor is the mind without a word, nor the word without a mind; but the mind makes the word, having appeared in it; and the word shows the mind, having come to be in it; and the mind is, as it were, the word remaining, and the word the mind rushing forth; and the mind changes into the word, and the word wheels the mind around to the hearers. And thus the mind is established in the souls of those who hear through the word, entering in along with the word; and the mind is, as it were, the father of the word, being by itself; the
A just as the Son, the Word, is of the mind: it is impossible for [the Word] to be before [the mind], nor was it ever brought into existence anywhere outside [the mind], but it blossomed forth from it. Thus, the Father, the supreme and universal mind, possesses from the beginning the Son, the Word, as His interpreter and angel.”
24. Arius either never heard these things, or if he heard them, the unlearned man did not understand them; for if he had understood, he would not have spread such lies about the bishop; nay, rather, out of an ingrained hatred for the truth, he would have attacked him with revilements, just as we have been attacked. For since he is an enemy of Christ, he most willingly persecutes those who think the things of Christ, as the Lord Himself foretold: "If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you" (Jo. xv, 20). But if the patrons of impiety think that Dionysius agrees with them, let them write and profess the same things: let them write of the vine and the B husbandman, of the boat and the shipwright. And at the same time, let them confess also what he himself handed down for the sake of defending consubstantiality: namely, the sentiment in which he says that the Son is from the substance of the Father, as well as His eternity, the kinship of the mind with the word, of the fountain with the river, and the rest; so that even from the discrepancy of the things themselves they might know how he spoke of the former things by way of accommodation [εconomia], but of the latter as the reason of pious faith demands. And subsequently, by professing these things, let them repudiate their own contrary opinions. For what does the faith of Dionysius have in common with the malignancy of Arius? Does not Arius say the Word is merely according to a mode of thought, C while Dionysius says He is truly and by His nature the Word of God? And the one renders the Word foreign to the Father, while the other teaches that He is proper and indivisible from the Father’s substance, just as the word is from the mind, and the river from the fountain. If, therefore, anyone can divide and alienate the word from the mind, or separate the river from the fountain, and cut them off as if by a built wall; or if one dares to say the river is of a different substance from the fountain and demonstrate the water to be different from it; or to sever the splendor from the light and affirm the splendor to be of a foreign substance and not to proceed from the light, let him rave D with Arius; for such a man will appear not to possess even a human mind. But if nature itself knows these things to be indivisible, and that the product of them is proper to them, let no one hereafter think with Arius, nor dare to calumniate Dionysius; but let him rather admire, from these very things, both the perspicuity of his discourse and the correctness of his faith.
A 25. For as regards that insanity of Arius, which says that the Word which is in God is one thing, and that concerning which John speaks, "In the beginning was the Word," is another; and that there is one proper wisdom in God, and another concerning which the Apostle speaks, "Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God"—Dionysius again opposes and refutes this false doctrine. Behold, once more, how he writes in the second book concerning these matters: "In the beginning was the Word; but the Word that put forth the Word was not the Word; for the Word was with God. The Lord has been created as Wisdom; therefore, He who sent forth Wisdom was not Wisdom—'For I was,' He says, 'that in which He was rejoicing.' Christ is Truth; but 'Blessed,' he says, 'be the God of truth.'" In this, he refutes both Sabellius and Arius, and shows both heresies to be equal in impiety: for neither is the Father of the Word the Word, nor is that which is from the Father a work, but a proper offspring of His substance. And again, the Word that has proceeded is not the Father; nor, again, is this Word one out of many, but He is the only Son of the Father, true and genuine by nature, who also now is in Him, and is eternally and indivisibly from Him. So also the Lord is Wisdom and Truth, and He is not a second to another wisdom; but He alone is He through whom the Father made all things, and in whom He established the various substances of things that have come to be; and through Him He is known to whomsoever He wills; and in Him He performs and accomplishes the providence of all things. For Dionysius acknowledges Him alone to be the Word of God. This is the faith of Dionysius; for I have written down a few things collected from his epistles, which are able to afford you an occasion to add more, and to the Arians a very great shame for their slander against the bishop. For in all things and in each C instance, through what he wrote, he has refuted their evil-mindedness and branded their heresy.
26. From these things, therefore, it is shown that the epistle to Euphranor and Ammonius was also written by him with another meaning, for the sake of economy; for his apology also shows this. And this argument is truly a persuasive basis for the refutation of the madness of Sabellius, so that he who desires to swiftly refute such persons should not make the starting point from those things which denote the divinity of the Word—that the Son is Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and that "I and the Father are one"—lest those men, misinterpreting what is well said, should procure for themselves a pretext for shameless contention, hearing that "I...
A and the Father are one," and "He who has seen me has seen the Father." But one should put forward the things said about the Saviour in a human manner, as He Himself has done; such as hungering, growing weary, and that He is the vine, and that He prayed and suffered. For the more humbly these things are spoken, by so much more is it demonstrated that it was not the Father who became man. For it is necessary that, when the Lord is called a vine, there also exist a husbandman; and when He prays, there be one who hears; and when He asks, there be one who gives. Indeed, such sayings far more easily demonstrate the madness of the Sabellians, because it is absolutely necessary that there be one who prays and another who hears, one who is the vine and another who is the husbandman. For as many words as are spoken as if to alienate the Son from the Father, these are said concerning Him by reason of the flesh, which He bore for our sake. For things that are created are by nature alien to God. Therefore, since He took on the nature of created flesh, as John says, "The Word became flesh," although He is by nature proper to and inseparable from the Father, nevertheless, by reason of that flesh, the Father is said even to be far from Him; for He Himself suffers the things that are proper to the flesh to be said of Him, so that it might be shown that the body was not of another, but was His own. And such being the thought, Sabellius will be the more quickly convicted, in that it is not the Father who became flesh, but His Word, who also redeemed that flesh and offered it to the Father. And when one has thus refuted and persuaded him, he will then be the more readily instructed concerning the divinity of the Word: namely, that He is the Word and Wisdom, the Son and Power, the radiance and the imprint. For it is necessary here again to understand that, since the Word exists, the Father of the Word must also exist; and since Wisdom exists, Her progenitor must also exist; and since the radiance exists, the Light must also exist; and thus that the Son and the Father are one.
27. Dionysius, knowing these things, wrote them; and by these he silenced Sabellius, and by these he overturned the Arian heresy. For just as the human qualities of the Saviour overthrow Sabellius, so also, against the Ariomanites, one must construct arguments not from human attributes, but from those which signify the divinity of the Word; so that they, too, misinterpreting the things spoken of the Lord on account of the body, might not think the Word to be such as we men are, and so persist in their own madness. But if they are taught concerning the divinity, they will condemn their own perversity, and, having more easily learned that the Word
flesh, these will furthermore distinguish what pertains to the human and what belongs to the godhead. Since these things are so, and Dionysius the bishop has been shown by his writings to be pious, what are the Ariomaniacs now to do? Whom will they further dare to accuse falsely, since they have been convicted of falsehood by the aforementioned? For it is necessary that they, having fallen from the foundation of the apostles and being possessed of a wavering mind, should seek a support, and finding none, should henceforth falsely accuse the Fathers. But no one will any longer put faith in them, even if they labor to spread slanders; for their heresy has been condemned by all: unless perhaps they choose henceforth to speak of the devil, for he alone agrees with them; nay rather, he himself is the one who suggested the heresy to them. Who then would henceforth call those whose leader is the devil Christians, and not rather diabolicals? So that they might be called not only enemies of Christ, but also diabolicals, unless perhaps they change their view, and deny the impiety they devised, and acknowledge the truth; for this would profit them, though it is fitting for us to pray thus for all who are led astray.
NOTICE ON THE EPISTLE TO DRACONTIUS
I. Dracontium, a monk and a leader of monks, having been appointed to the episcopacy of Hermopolis Parva, both that he might avoid the impending persecution, and because he feared to undertake so great an office, fled and hid himself. When this was brought to the attention of Athanasius, he strove to recall Dracontium to the office imposed upon him, and exhorted him to endure calamities for the sake of Christ and his flock. Then he brings forward the examples of Moses, Elijah, Elisha, and the apostles, who had not refused to undergo the most grievous trials for the people of God. He likewise lists monks who, having been promoted to the episcopacy, bore that burden with praise and to the benefit of the peoples. That Dracontium complied with these admonitions of Athanasius is evident. For at the beginning of the persecution stirred up by the Arian George, while he was bishop, he was forced into exile. And having stayed for some years in the place of his exile, called Clysma, finally, after the death of Constantius, when peace was granted to the Church, he took part in the synod of Alexandria. But these things belong elsewhere.
II. That this epistle was written when Constantius's final persecution was imminent, and the solemnity of Easter was approaching, is suggested by a great many points of the same passage. Wherefore it seems it should be referred to the year 354 or 355. For the time of this epistle cannot be delayed beyond the year 355; for at the beginning of the year 356, before Lent, that immense Arian persecution began to rage. Nor can it have been written before the year 354: since only toward the end of the year 353, long after Lent, did the Arians openly machinate their snares and conspiracies against Athanasius and the Catholics. Therefore, it seems it must be assigned to one or the other year, 354 or 355: to which of the two it pertains, is uncertain.
OF OUR HOLY FATHER ATHANASIUS, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, EPISTLE TO DRACONTIUS
1. A I hesitate as to what I should write to you. Am I to blame you for declining the episcopate, or for watching the times and hiding out of fear of the Jews? Yet in either way, what you have done is worthy of blame, beloved Dracontius. For it was not fitting that you, having received the grace, should hide yourself, nor, being a man of discernment, that you should provide B others with pretexts for flight. For many, upon hearing these things, have been scandalized—not because you act in this way simply, but because you do so while observing the times and the calamities threatening the Church. And I fear that, while you flee on your own account, you may be found in danger before the Lord on account of others. For if it is better for him who causes one of the little ones to stumble that a millstone be hung about his neck and that he be cast into the depths of the sea (Matt. xviii. 6), what will you suffer, becoming a scandal to so many? For the consent that emerged contrary to expectation in the Alexandrian region regarding your appointment will necessarily be divided by your withdrawal; the bishopric of that region will be seized by many—and by many who are not upright, but whom you yourself know well. Further, the Gentiles who, at the time of your ordination, promised to become Christians, will remain Greeks, since your piety depreciates the grace that was given them.
A What apology, then, will you be able to offer for such things? With what words will you be able to wash away and wipe off faults of this kind? What remedy will you provide for those who have fallen and been scandalized through you? Or how, once peace has been torn asunder, will you be able to stitch it together again? O beloved Dracontius, instead of joy you have brought us sorrow; instead of consolation, lamentation. For we expected that you would be a consolation to us, but now we see you fleeing; and we foresee that, being called into judgment, you will be reproved, and having been placed in danger, you will repent. And who shall spare you, as the prophet has said? Who shall turn back to you in peace, seeing the brethren, for whom Christ died, suffering harm because of your flight? For you ought to know and not doubt that, before you were ordained, you lived for yourself; but, having been ordained, you belong to those for whom you were ordained. And before you received the grace of the episcopacy, no one knew you; but now that you have become a bishop, the peoples are expecting you to bring them food, namely, the teaching from the Scriptures. If, then, while they are waiting, they suffer from famine, and you feed only yourself, and our Lord Jesus Christ comes, and we stand before Him, what defense would you have, when He sees His own sheep starving? For if you had not received the denarii, He would not have blamed you; but since you received them, and buried and hid them B, He would rightly blame you, saying those words—which may it never be that your piety even hears—"You ought to have cast my denarii to the bankers, that I, coming, might have received them back from them."
C 3. I beseech you, spare yourself—spare yourself, that you may not be in danger; and us, that we may not be brought to mourn for you. Have a care for the Church, so that many of the little ones may not be harmed on your account, and that others may not seize upon a pretext to withdraw. For if you were afraid of the times, and, trembling, acted in this way, that was not a manly sentiment; for it was necessary to show zeal for Christ in such matters, and all the more to speak boldly in these crises, saying the words of the blessed Paul: "In all these things we are more than conquerors." And especially because it is not fitting to serve the times, but the Lord. But if the arrangement of the Churches does not please you, and you do not believe that the ministry of the episcopacy has its reward, but have brought yourself to despise the Savior who ordained these things: I beseech you, do not think such things, nor endure those who counsel you to this effect; for these things are not worthy of Dracontius. For what the Lord has ordained through the apostles, these things remain good and firm; and the fear of the brethren will be quieted. D And in this way it will come to pass that the fear of the brethren is stilled.
A If all men had always been of the same mind as those who are now your counselors , how would you have become a Christian if there were no bishops? And if those who come after us also adopt such a frame of mind, how could the Churches possibly subsist? Or do your counselors perhaps think that you have received nothing, since they seem to despise it? But in this, too, they are mistaken. For it would follow from their reasoning that there is no such thing as the grace of the laver, if there are some who despise it. But you have indeed received it, my beloved Dracontius; do not tolerate such counselors, nor deceive yourself. For this gift will be required by God who gave it. Or have you not heard the Apostle saying, "Do not neglect the grace that is in you"? Or have you not read how he commends the one who doubled the money, while he condemned the one who hid it? May you return quickly, so that you too may be among those who are praised. Or tell me, whom do your counselors want you to imitate? We must live our B lives according to the aim of the saints and Fathers, and imitate them; and we must know that if we depart from them, we become strangers and alienated from their communion. Whom, then, do they want you to imitate? The man who hesitates and wishes to follow, but delays and deliberates on account of his own kin? Or the blessed Paul, who, at the moment he was entrusted with the ministry, did not confer with flesh and blood? For even though he said, "I am not worthy to be called an apostle," yet, knowing what he had received and not being ignorant of the giver, he wrote: "For woe to me if I do not preach the gospel." And just as there was woe for him if he had not preached, so, in teaching and proclaiming the Gospel, he had his disciples as his joy and crown. For this reason the saint was diligent to preach as far as Illyricum, and did not hesitate to go on to Rome, nor to journey to Spain, so that in proportion to his labor, he might receive a greater reward. He boasted, therefore, that he had fought the good fight, and was confident that he would receive a great crown. Therefore, my beloved Dracontius, whom are you imitating by acting in this way? Him, or those who are not like him? I, for my part, pray that both you and I may become imitators of all the saints.
5. Perhaps some of your counselors were the reason for your hiding, because you affirmed not only in word but also by oath that if you were ordained, you would by no means remain? For I hear those men whispering these things into your ears, and furthermore, they consider themselves religious in saying this; but if they were truly religious, they would have feared, above all, God who bestowed this ministry upon you. For if they had read the divine scriptures, they would not have counseled you to do otherwise. D For it is time for them to realize that even Jeremiah...
A should be blamed, and that the great Moses should be accused, because they did not listen to their counsel, but fearing God, they performed their ministry, and, prophesying, they were brought to perfection. For indeed, even they, when sent, and having already received the grace of prophecy, did at first excuse themselves; yet afterwards, they were afraid, and did not (67) disparage the one who sent them. Whether therefore you are weak of voice and slow of tongue, at least fear God who fashioned you; or if you call yourself too young for preaching, at least revere Him who knew you before you were fashioned; or if you have given a word (and the word was to the saints as an oath), at least read Jeremiah, how even he, having said, "I will not call upon the name of the Lord," yet afterwards, fearing the fire that was within him (68), did not act as he had said, nor did he hide himself as if trapped by an oath; but fearing Him who had entrusted the ministry to him, he completed the prophecy. Or do you not know, beloved, that even Jonah, while fleeing (69), became what he became, but after this he prophesied again?
6. Do not, therefore, follow any other counsel than this. For the Lord knows our affairs better than we do ourselves, and He knows to whom He entrusts His Churches. Even if one should not happen to be worthy, B yet let him not (70) look back toward his former life, but let him perform the ministry, so that he may not, in addition to his mode of life, bring upon himself the curse resulting from neglect. For, beloved Dracontius, knowing these things and being a man of understanding, are you not stirred in your soul? Do you not care lest any of those entrusted to you should perish? Do you not burn as if with the (71) fire of conscience? Do you not fear the day of judgment, in which not one of those now counseling you will be present to help? For each one of those entrusted with anything will give an account. For what did the excuse benefit him who hid the denarius? Or what did those words benefit Adam, "The woman deceived me"? Beloved Dracontius, even if you are truly weak, yet it is fitting for you to take up (72) this care, so that the Church may not be deserted, and so that the enemies, having found an opportunity in your flight, may not harm her. You ought to gird yourself, so that you do not leave us alone in the struggle; you ought to labor with us (73), so that together with everyone you may also receive the reward.
7. Hasten, therefore, beloved, no longer delaying, D and do not tolerate those who would hinder you, but remember Him who has given this [ministry]; and come here to us who love you, who counsel you in the matters of the Scriptures (74), so that you may be sent forth by us, and serving in the
A Churches, might make mention of us. For it is not you alone who were ordained from among the monks, nor were you alone who presided over a monastery, nor were you alone beloved by monks; but you know that Serapion (76) is a monk, and presided over so many monks; nor has it escaped you how many monks Apollos has become a father to. You know Agathon (77), and you are not ignorant of Ariston; you remember Ammonius, who traveled abroad with Serapion. Perhaps also word has reached you about Muis, who dwells in the Thebaid, and you could learn about Paul who lived at Latos (79), and about many others. And yet these men, once ordained, did not resist, but having the example of Elisha, and knowing the things concerning Elijah, and having learned of the things concerning the disciples and apostles, they undertook the care, and did not despise the ministry, nor did they become worse for it; but rather, since they expect the reward of their labor, they themselves progress toward the better, while exhorting others to progress. How many have they turned back from the worship of idols? How many have they turned away from demonic habits by their admonitions? How many have they brought to the Lord as servants, so that even those who see these signs are seized with wonder? Or is it not a great sign to cause a maiden to live in virginity, a young man to practice continence, and an idolater to recognize Christ (81)?
8. Do not, therefore, let the monks be a hindrance to you, as if you were the only one ordained from among the monks; neither offer as an excuse that you will become worse because of this: for you can even become better if you imitate Paul, and emulate the deeds of the saints. For you know that such men, when they were appointed dispensers of the mysteries, C indeed strove more directly toward the prize of the upward calling. When did Paul undergo martyrdom, and expect to receive the crown, if not when he was sent to teach? When did Peter offer his confession, if not when he was preaching the Gospel, and had become a fisher of men? When was Elijah taken up, if not when he had fulfilled his entire prophecy? When did Elisha receive a double portion in the spirit, if not after he had left all and followed Elijah? Why did the Savior choose disciples, if not to send them out?
9. Wherefore, D having these men as an example, beloved Dracontius, do not say, nor be persuaded by those who say, that the episcopate is a cause of sin, and that from this occasions of sin arise. For it is lawful for you...
A even in the episcopate to hunger and thirst, just as Paul did. You can abstain from wine, as Timothy did, and fast frequently, as Paul used to do; so that, by fasting according to his example, you may be able to satisfy others with your teaching; and, while enduring thirst by not drinking, you may offer drink to others through your instruction. Therefore, let not those who advise you put these things forward. For we know of bishops who fast, and monks who eat. We know of B bishops who abstain from wine, and monks who drink; we also know of bishops who perform signs, and monks who do not. Many of the bishops have not even married, yet monks have been found who became fathers of children; just as, conversely, we see bishops who are parents of children, while monks have had no offspring. We have seen, on the other hand, clerics who endured hunger and monks who fasted. For it is permitted to act in this way, and in that way it is not forbidden. But let everyone everywhere strive; for the crown is bestowed not according to the place, but according to the deed.
10. Therefore, do not listen to those who give you contrary advice, but rather make haste, and do not delay; especially since the holy feast is approaching, so that the people may not celebrate the feast without you, and bring C great danger upon yourself. For who will preach the Paschal feast to them while you are absent? Who will announce the day of the resurrection to them while you are in hiding? Who will urge them to celebrate with fitting piety while you are fleeing? Oh, how useful will your arrival be to many, and how harmful will your flight be to many! And who will approve of you in these things? And why do they advise you not to accept the episcopate, while they themselves desire to have presbyters? For if you are wicked, let them not dwell with you; D but if they recognize that you are capable, let them not envy others. For if according to their opinion to teach and to preside is an occasion of sin, let them not be taught themselves, nor have presbyters, lest both they and those who teach them become worse than they already are. But do not pay attention to these human words, nor listen to those who advise such things, as I have often said; but rather make haste and turn back to the Lord, so that, while you care for His sheep, you may also remember us. For this reason I have urged our beloved Hierax the presbyter, and Maximus the lector, to go to you, that they also might exhort you with words, so that you may be able to learn from this with what affection I have written, and what is the danger of resisting an ecclesiastical ordination.
ADMONITION TO THE ENCYCLICAL OR CIRCULAR EPISTLE TO THE BISHOPS OF EGYPT AND LIBYA AGAINST THE ARIANS
A I. In some Greek manuscripts, as well as in printed Latin editions, this epistle is inscribed *First Oration against the Arians*; but erroneously, as is now apparent to all learned men. For this is distinct and separate from the four *Orations against the Arians*, and there is no connection between it and them; moreover, this epistle is entirely complete in itself, whereas those four *Orations* so cohere with one another that the first does not imply any preceding work, but is the beginning of a new one, and only the fourth is the end and conclusion of the other three. But this will be discussed more fully in the *Admonition* concerning those same four *Orations*.
B II. As to the time when this epistle was written, there is absolutely no room for doubt. For it is certain from section 7 that it was sent when George the Cappadocian was just about to be intruded into the see of Alexandria, which happened in the year 356, during Lent, and therefore before the 7th of April, on which day Easter fell in that year. It is likewise established that it was written after the 9th day of the month of February, after St. Athanasius, when Syrianus had hostilely broken into the church of St. Theonas, had divinely escaped the hands and snares of the Arians and had withdrawn from Alexandria, and was already wandering in foreign regions, as he himself writes in sections 5 and 20.
C III. Nor are we unaware that Baronius, at the year of Christ 306, number 44, traces the Meletian schism from this epistle to the year 306, and concludes that it was written in the year 361 from these words of St. Athanasius, section 22: *Οἱ μὲν (Μελετιανοὶ) πρὸ πεντήκοντα καὶ πέντε ἐτῶν σχισματικοὶ γεγόνασιν· οἱ δὲ (Αρειανοὶ) πρὸ τριάκοντα καὶ ἓξ ἐτῶν ἀπεδείχθησαν αἱρετικοί, καὶ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἀπεβλήθησαν ἐκ κρίσεως πάσης τῆς οἰκουμενικῆς συνόδου.* That is: "The Meletians became schismatics fifty-five years ago; and the Arians were declared heretics thirty-six years ago, and were rejected from the Church by the judgment of the entire universal synod." But since Baronius himself, from the *Testimony of the Alexandrian people*, which was issued the day before the Ides of February after the consulship of Arbæthion and Lollianus, that is, after the year 355, rightly gathers that George was intruded in the year 356; and since, as we have already said, it is most certain from section 7 that this epistle was written when George had not yet occupied the see of Alexandria, but was shortly to invade it, it must necessarily be admitted that it was composed in this very year 356.
D IV. There is no doubt, however, that the cause of error for Baronius was this translation by Nannius: "They (the Meletians) became schismatics fifty-five years ago: these (the Arians) indeed were declared heretics thirty-six years ago, and removed from the Church, and that by the judgment of a universal synod." For from this, Baronius concludes that thirty-six years had passed since the Nicene council when Athanasius wrote these things, and therefore that this epistle is of the year 361. But it is right to distinguish this passage in such a way that the word *ἀπεδείχθησαν* (were declared) is referred to Alexander of Alexandria, who, of course, was the first to declare Arius a heretic in the Alexandrian synod; but the rest that follows is attributed to the Nicene synod. Thus, indeed, in sections 12 and 13, Arius, uttering blasphemies, is said to have been declared a heretic by Alexander (*αἱρετικὸς ἀπεδείχθη*). Likewise, in the first *Oration against the Arians*, section 3, the holy prelate testifies that after Arius was condemned by Alexander, his followers were no longer called Christians, but Arians.
V. Furthermore, this is the argument of the epistle. St. Athanasius vehemently beseeches the bishops of Egypt and Libya to resist the attempts and deceits of the Arians most validly and courageously, especially when he heard that some of them had met together to write about the faith, with the intention of sending letters to them, to which, if they wished to subscribe, they might live in safety; but if they dared to contradict, they would be sent into exile. He also marvelously exposes the inconstancy of the Arians, who, in fact, met every year to determine the faith, and yet nonetheless rescinded what they had previously defined. He also refutes and repels their impiety, as well as that of the Meletians, and their trickery and violence with various arguments. He also warns that one must be most careful against their writings, which they were accustomed to adorn with the words of Scripture so as to deceive the unwary more easily. Shortly before the end, he recounts the death of Arius; and lastly, with truly apostolic ardor, he exhorts those bishops to unconquerable strength of mind, and to endure anything whatsoever rather than desist from the Nicene faith and the defense of the truth.
OF OUR HOLY FATHER ATHANASIUS, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, ENCYCLICAL EPISTLE TO THE BISHOPS OF EGYPT AND LIBYA AGAINST THE ARIANS
1. All the things which our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as Luke wrote, both did and taught, He performed for the sake of our salvation, which was the purpose of His coming. For, as John says, He came not to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. Yet, among all the things which He accomplished, His goodness is especially to be admired in this: that He did not keep silent even concerning those who were to wage war against us, but most clearly foretold them, so that when those things should come to pass, we might be found with our minds fortified by His teaching, seeing that He has warned us in these words: "There shall arise false"
prophets and false Christs, and shall show great signs and wonders, so that they might lead into error, if possible, even the elect: behold, I have foretold you." A For the teachings and gifts deposited in us by Him are many and surpass human nature; for they are a pattern of heavenly life, and power against demons, and adoption B as sons, and what surpasses every gift and is peerless, the knowledge of the Father and of the Word Himself, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. But the mind of man is strongly inclined toward evil; and indeed our adversary the devil, envying us because such great goods have come to us, goes about seeking to snatch away the seeds of the Word that are in us. For this reason, then, just as if sealing in us our teachings like private treasures through B prophecy, the Lord said: "Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying: I am he; and the time has drawn near; go ye not therefore after them." The Word has granted us a great gift, that we should not be deceived by the very appearance of things, but rather, even if these things happen to be covered, we might be able by the grace of the Spirit to discern them. For because C the inventor of wickedness and the great demon, the devil, is altogether detestable in himself, and is driven off by all as soon as he appears—as a serpent, as a dragon, as a lion seeking whom he may snatch and devour—for this reason he hides and conceals what he truly is; but he cunningly puts forward the name which all desire, so that when he has deluded men with a false appearance, he may then bind those who have been deceived with his own chains. And just as if someone, wishing to drag the children of others into captivity, were to put on the appearance D of their absent parents, and by that artifice were to lure and carry far away the children, as they burn with longing for their parents, and then destroy them: in the same way, the wretched and crooked devil, not daring to show himself as he is, and knowing how much men are lovers of the truth, feigns this merely in appearance, and in this manner spreads his own venom into those who follow him.
2. Thus he once deceived Eve [(2)]
A by speaking, but faking the words of God, and corrupting their true meaning. In this way he also suborned the wife of Job, persuading her to feign love for her husband, while in reality teaching her to utter blasphemies against God himself. Thus, the crafty one deludes and deceives men by outward appearances, stealing them away and dragging each one into his own pit of wickedness. Long ago, having deceived the first man, Adam, and having thought that through him he had secured everyone in his power, he leaped up in his arrogance and said, "I will take hold of the whole world by my hand like a nest, and as eggs that have been abandoned I will gather them, and there is no one who shall escape me or gainsay me." But when the Lord appeared and the enemy had proof B of His human dispensation, as he was unable to deceive the flesh which Christ bore, then he who had promised to take hold of the whole world began from that time, on account of Christ, to be a laughingstock even to children, like a sparrow, in his pride. For now a young infant, putting his hand into the hole of asps, mocks him who deceived Eve; and all those who rightly believe in the Lord trample upon him who said, "I will place my throne above the clouds, I will ascend, I will be like the Most High." C Thus, then, that one suffers with shame; yet even if the shameless one dares again to reshape himself, nevertheless, miserable as he is, he is known even now all the more by those who wear the sign on their foreheads, and is rebuffed all the more bitterly, humbled and put to shame. For even if, creeping now as a serpent, he should transform himself into an angel of light, he will have no advantage from this, since he is not hidden; for we have been instructed that even if an angel from heaven should evangelize us differently from what we have received, he is to be anathema.
3. But if, again, he wishes to hide his own lie and simulates D the truth by speaking through his lips, yet we, not being ignorant of his designs, are able to say, as the Spirit has spoken against him: But to the sinner
B God said: Why do you declare my statutes? And: Praise is not seemly in the mouth of a sinner. For not even if the deceiver speaks the truth is he worthy of belief, as we learn from Scripture, which commemorates the perversity he employed against Eve. The Lord also repressed his boldness, and first of all on the mountain, where he revealed the various folds of his breast and showed who that crafty one was—namely, not one of the saints, but Satan the tempter—and hence said: Get behind me, Satan; for it is written: You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve; and again, when he commanded the demons crying out from the tombs to be silent. For it was indeed true what they were crying out, and they did not lie then when they said: You are the Son of God, and the Holy One of God; but He did not wish the truth to be proclaimed through an unclean mouth, and especially through them, lest, by using this as a pretext for mixing in the peculiar will of their own malice, they might sow it upon sleeping men. For this reason neither did He Himself endure them speaking such things, nor, wishing us to tolerate such like, did He warn us by His own lips, saying: Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. And by the holy apostles: Do not believe every spirit. For such is the character of the countervailing operation, C and such are the fabrications of the heresies: for each of them has the lying demon—who from the beginning was perverse and became a murderer—as the father and author of its own conceit; and being ashamed to utter his loathsome name, they falsely adorn themselves with the name of the Savior, which is illustrious and more excellent than all, and they dare to adorn themselves with the words of the Scriptures. But while they utter the words, they conceal the true meaning, and in this way each one, with its own conceit insidiously cloaked, becomes a murderer of those whom they lead into error.
4. But what will the Gospel profit those who deny the law, especially when from the old the new things have arisen, and in turn the new bear witness to the old? For those who reject the old, how will they acknowledge those things which have flowed from them? For the apostle Paul D
A became a minister of the Gospel of God, which He had promised before by His prophets in the holy Scriptures. The Lord Himself also said: *Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of me.* How then will they be able to confess the Lord, if they do not first search the Scriptures which are concerning Him? For the disciples claim to have found Him of whom Moses and the prophets wrote. And again, why do the Sadducees hold to the Law, when they themselves reject the prophets? For God, who gave the Law, Himself promised to raise up prophets in the Law, so that He might be the same Lord of both the Law and the prophets; and thus, whoever rejects one of these must of necessity reject the other also. And again, what profit can the Old Testament be to the Jews, who have not recognized the Lord whose advent is predicted therein? For if they believed the writings of Moses, they would have believed the words of the Lord. *For He wrote of me,* He says. And again, what profit does the Samosatene receive B from the Scriptures, he who does not fear to deny the Word of God, and the bodily advent of the Word, which is signified and indicated in both the Old and New Testaments? And finally, what do the Scriptures profit the Arians, and why do they put them forward—they who assert that the Son of God is a created thing, and who, just like the Gentiles, serve the created thing rather than God the Creator? For each of these heresies has nothing in common with the Scriptures regarding its own peculiar impiety; and the patrons of these heresies know this, that the Scriptures occupy a position that is not merely significantly, but in fact entirely, opposed to the doctrine of each of their heresies. Nevertheless, in order to lead the simpler sort into error—such persons as are described in the Proverbs, where it is written, *The innocent believeth every word*—they feign to meditate upon and use the words of Scripture, not unlike their father the devil, so that from the sound of the words they may appear to have the correct belief C and, subsequently, persuade pitiable men to think contrary to the Scriptures. Truly, in each of the heresies the devil, having fashioned himself in this way, has himself supplied words full of deceit; for regarding these the Lord has said, *There shall arise false Christs and false prophets, so as to deceive many.* Therefore the devil has come, saying through each of them: "I am Christ, and the truth is with me," and the slanderer has caused all of them, both individually and collectively, to lie. And the D
A paradox is that all the heresies fight against one another regarding the evils which each one has invented, yet they are bound together only in lying; for they all have one father who has sown the lie in all of them. The believer, therefore, and disciple of the Gospel, having the gift 43 to discern spiritual things, and having built for himself the house of faith upon the rock, stands firm and remains safe from their deception; but the simple man, as I said before 44, and one not instructed strongly, such a person looking only at the words and not perceiving the meaning, is immediately dragged away by their wiles. For this reason, it is good and necessary to pray to receive the gift of discernment of spirits, so that each one may know, according to the commandment of John, whom he ought to reject, and whom he ought to receive as friends and B as being of the same faith. One could indeed write much if one had the mind to treat these matters thoroughly; for the impiety and perversity of heresies will appear to be great and varied, and the craftiness of those who deceive to be very terrible. But since the divine Scripture is more sufficient than all else, for this reason, having advised those who wish to know much about these matters to have recourse to the divine words 47, I myself have hastened to indicate what is now pressing, and this is why I particularly wrote in this way.
5. In these regions, C true and orthodox brothers 48 have reported that certain members of the sect of Arius have gathered together and written, as they wished, about the faith, and desire to send a letter to you, so that you may either subscribe, as it pleases them—or rather as the devil has suggested to them 50—or else whoever opposes 51 them is sent into exile. For they are already beginning to harass 52 the bishops of these regions. From this, then, the manner of those writing becomes clear. For those who write in such a way, so that the end of their letters 53
contain exile and other punishments, what could such men be if not enemies of Christians, and friends of the devil and his demons? Especially since, while the most God-fearing emperor Constantius is a man of philanthropy, they proclaim against his will what they themselves desire. For indeed they do this with much cunning, and for two reasons, as it appears to me. One, so that with your signatures, they may seem to put an end to the notoriety of Arius, while they themselves go unnoticed as not thinking the thoughts of Arius; and, secondly, that by writing these things, they may seem to obscure the synod that took place at Nicaea, B and the faith that was set forth in it against the Arian heresy. But this, rather, proves more clearly their malice and their heterodoxy; for if they believed rightly, they would be content with the faith set forth at Nicaea by the whole ecumenical synod. And if they thought that they were being slandered and were called Arians in vain, they ought not to be eager to change the things written against Arius, so that the things written against him might not be judged as being against themselves. But now they do not act in this way, but as if they themselves were Arius, they fight on their own behalf. For mark, I ask you, C how they care nothing for the truth, but say and do everything for the sake of defending the Arian heresy. For those who dare to calumniate what has been rightly defined, and attempt to write other things besides them, what else are they doing but accusing the Fathers themselves, and standing in defense of the heresy against which they had stood and pronounced a just judgment? For indeed, the things that they write now, they do not write out of concern for the truth, as I said before, but rather they act playfully and do this with artifice, for the deception of men, so that in the sending of letters, they might cause the ears of the common people to be occupied with these matters, and gain time for themselves before they are accused; and thus, through this delay, hiding their impiety, they may have a place to spread the heresy, which, like a gangrene, consumes everything everywhere.
6. Therefore, they move and disturb everything, and even so D they are not content with their own decrees; for every year, as those who write up contracts, they gather together and they, too, pretend to write about the faith, so that from this also they may reap more laughter and disgrace, inasmuch as
those decrees are rescinded, not by others, but by themselves. A For if they had confidence in what they had formerly written, they would not have sought to write a second time; nor, having abandoned those, would they be writing these now, which, in any case, they intend to change again, in a very short time, if they should find an opportunity, as is their habit, to plot against someone. For when they plot against anyone, they especially pretend to be writing about the faith, so that, just as Pilate washed his hands, so too these—these dragons—might slay those who worship Christ, B and so that, by defining things as if they were concerning the faith, they might appear, as I have often said, to avoid the charge of heterodoxy. But they will be able to neither hide nor escape; for as long as they provide a defense only for themselves, they are always their own accusers, and justly so; for they do not answer those who convict them, but, as they wish, they persuade only themselves. When, therefore, the accused judges himself, what acquittal can there be for the crime? This is why they are always writing, and, by always altering the same things, they have an uncertain faith, or rather, they have a manifest lack of faith C and a perverse mind. And it seems to me that they suffer this quite deservedly. For since they have departed from the truth and desire to overturn the faith that was rightly drawn up at Nicaea, they have loved, as it is written, to move their feet; for this reason, they too, like Jerusalem of old, toil and labor, making changes, writing different things at different times, only that they may buy time and remain enemies of Christ, leading men astray from the truth.
7. Who then, for whom the truth is of the greatest importance, will be able to endure such men any longer? Who will not rightly turn away from them as they write? Who will not condemn their rashness? D For they, being few in number, wish their own opinion to prevail over all others; desiring their own gatherings—held in corners and held in suspicion—to have authority, they strain every nerve to dissolve the general, sincere, and pure synod, and to render it invalid; they, I say,