by the craft of men, in subtlety for the circumventing of error. A And David says: "Mother Sion shall say, 'A man and a man was born in her, and the Most High Himself founded her.'" For this man who was born in her, He Himself is the Most High, as B in another psalm he says: "And let them know that Thy name is Lord; Thou alone art the Most High over all the earth." We have written these things in part, in order that, as the Apostle said, we may be no longer children, tossed about and carried about with every wind of doctrine, C by the sleight of men, in craftiness unto the method of error.
NOTICE TO THE EPISTLE TO THE BISHOPS OF AFRICA
I. It has long been observed by the learned Baronius that it is a mistake to think that the Africans—to whom this epistle is sent—were Cyrenaicans; a point which is indeed most clearly refuted by this very passage, namely number 10, where Athanasius says that this epistle was sent and subscribed to, not by himself alone, but by all the bishops of Egypt and the Libyas. For when he mentions the Libyas, in numbers 1 and 10, he indicates without doubt both Libyas, the Cyrenaic or Pentapolitan and the Marmaric, and whatever territory, under the name of Libya, extends from Cyrenaica to Egypt; both of which were then under the patriarchate of Alexandria. And indeed, Athanasius is accustomed, when writing synodical epistles from Alexandria, to join Libya and Pentapolis or Cyrenaica with Egypt, as on page 99. Finally, where he enumerates ecclesiastical provinces, he always distinguishes Africa from Libya and Pentapolis or Cyrenaica, as can be seen above on pages 97 and 157, and in the subscriptions of Sardica; so that it is most certain that by the name "Africa" here, and elsewhere, is designated the western coast, in which Carthage was situated.
II. Furthermore, the reason why the Africans were given this epistle by Athanasius and other bishops is clear from the outset; for they were warned not to obey men who, burning with a desire to abrogate the Nicene faith, were leaving no stone unturned in order to give force to those things which were falsely claimed to have been issued at Ariminum, although in truth they had been written D and proposed at Nice in Thrace. After this, the Nicene synod is commended in this epistle, both for its piety and for the multitude of bishops who gathered to celebrate it, which is shown to be superior to the various Arian conventicles in several respects. Then the history of the events at the Nicene synod is woven, for the purpose of maintaining the word *homoousion*; and finally, the divinity of the Holy Spirit is defended in a few words. It is a singular detail that is recounted towards the end, that the Egyptian and Libyan bishops were joined by such a tight bond of charity that, when some were absent, those who were present would subscribe in their stead.
III. In what year this epistle was written does not at all appear among the writers of that age; a recent author assigned the year 371 to it, to whom, however, we shall reluctantly assent, though he is most skilled, because he assigns that synod to a time too late for the other works which Athanasius produced until his death to have been able to obtain a sufficient span of time. Wherefore, we think it can more conveniently be assigned to about the year 369, as is argued more fully in the Life of Athanasius.
OF THE NINETY BISHOPS OF EGYPT AND LIBYA, AND OF BLESSED ATHANASIUS, AGAINST THE ARIANS, TO THE MOST HONORABLE BISHOPS IN AFRICA.
EPISTLE OF THE NINETY BISHOPS OF EGYPT AND LIBYA AND ALSO OF THE BLESSED ATHANASIUS AGAINST THE ARIANS, TO THE MOST HONORABLE BISHOPS IN AFRICA.
A Sufficient indeed are the things which have been written by our beloved fellow-minister Damasus, bishop of great Rome, and by so many bishops gathered with him, and no less also the things written by other synods held in Gaul and Italy regarding the sound and orthodox faith which Christ bestowed, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers who met at Nicaea from our entire inhabited world have handed down. For at that time, such great zeal was shown against the Arian heresy, so that those who had fallen into it might be drawn back, and those who had invented it might be exposed. B To this, therefore, the whole world formerly assented, and even now, with many synods having taken place, all were reminded, those throughout Dalmatia, and Dardania, and Macedonia, and the Epirus, and Greece, and Crete, and the other islands, and Sicily and Cyprus, and Pamphylia, Lycia and Isauria, and all Egypt and the Libyas, and the majority of those in Arabia acknowledged this; and they admired those who had signed, because, if any bitterness from the root of the Arians still remained sprouting up among them—we speak of Auxentius, Ursacius, and Valens, and those who hold the same opinion as them—they were, by these letters, cut off and cast aside. The decrees at Nicaea are therefore sufficient and enough, as we have said before, both for the subversion of every impious heresy and for the protection and benefit of ecclesiastical teaching. But since we have heard that some, desiring to fight
against it, attempt to name some synod as having taken place in Ariminum A (17), and contend that this one should prevail rather than that one, we have thought it necessary to write and remind you, that you might not tolerate such men. For this is nothing else but a new offshoot of the Arian heresy. For those who repudiate the synod that was held against it (namely, that which took place in Nicaea), what else do they desire (18) than that the party of Arius should prevail? What, then, are such men worthy of, if not to be called Arians themselves, and to share in the same punishment as they, who have neither feared God, who says: *Do not remove the eternal boundaries which your fathers have set* (19); and, *He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him die the death* (19). Nor have they felt any reverence for the Fathers, who placed under anathema all who held views contrary to their confession (20).
2. Therefore was the Nicene synod ecumenical, with three hundred and eighteen bishops assembled B concerning the faith on account of the Arian impiety; so that no longer might there be synods held in parts or provinces under the pretext of faith; or, if they were held, that they might not prevail. For what is lacking to it, that one should seek newer things? It is full of piety, beloved; it has filled the whole world. The Indians have known it, and as many as are Christians among other barbarians. Vain, certainly, is the effort of those who have often attempted to oppose it. For such men have already held ten and more (22) synods, changing their opinion in each one, taking some things away from the previous ones, and changing or adding other things in those that followed. And they have profited nothing by writing, destroying their own writings, and using force until now, ignorant of that which is written: *Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up* (20). C But the word of the Lord, which was brought forth through the ecumenical synod at Nicaea, abides forever. For if one compares number with number, those at Nicaea are more numerous than those by parts, just as the whole is greater than the part. And if one should wish to discern what may be the cause for why the Nicene synod was held, and why so many others have been celebrated, one will find that the Nicene indeed possessed a legitimate cause, while the others were convened through hatred, contention, and violence. For that one was gathered because of the Arian heresy and because of the solemnity of Pascha; because those in Syria, Cilicia, and those living in Mesopotamia were dissenting from us, and were celebrating Pascha at the same time as the Jews. But thanks be to the Lord, that there was one mind among all, both concerning the faith and D concerning that holy solemnity. And this indeed was the cause of the Nicene synod; but those after it are numberless, and were devised against the ecumenical synod.
B those who have Ariminum or any other synod other than that at Nicaea in their mouths? Or who would not hate those who, having set aside the decrees of the Fathers, prefer to them those things more recently composed at Ariminum through strife and violence? And who would wish to associate with such men, who do not even approve of their own work? For they who in their ten or more synods, as we have said, write one thing at one time and another at another, make it plain that they are themselves the accusers of each one of them. And they suffer something like that which the traitors among the Jews of that time suffered; for just as they, having forsaken the only fountain of living water, "hewed them out broken cisterns that can hold no water," as is written by the prophet Jeremiah; so these men, fighting against the one and ecumenical C synod, have hewed out for themselves many synods, and all of them were empty, appearing like a "fruitless sheaf." Let us not, therefore, tolerate those who name the Ariminum or any other synod besides that which took place at Nicaea. For even those themselves who name Ariminum seem not to know what was done there; for otherwise they would have been silent. For you know, beloved, having learned from those who came from your province to Ariminum, how Ursacius, Valens, Eudoxius, and Auxentius—and Demophilus was there with them—were deposed, when they wished to write things other than those at Nicaea; for when they were also requested to anathematize the Arian heresy, they refused, and preferred rather to be its protectors. But the bishops, who were truly the genuine servants of the Lord and D held the true faith, being nearly two hundred in number, wrote that they were satisfied with the one at Nicaea alone, and that nothing more or less should be sought or thought beyond it. These things they also made known to Constantius, who had commanded the synod to take place. But those who had been deposed at Ariminum, having gone to Constantius, caused those [bishops] to be treated most indignantly, and with threats added, that those who had passed judgment against them would not be permitted to return to their own dioceses, and that they would suffer violence in Thrace during that very winter, so that in this way they might endure the innovations made by them.
4. If, therefore, any propose Ariminum, let them first bring forward the deposition of those I have mentioned, and the rescripts of the bishops, saying that nothing more should be sought beyond those things which were confessed by the Fathers at Nicaea, 714
A nor should any other synod be named besides that one. But they hide these things, and put forward those that were done by violence in Thrace; from which it is evident that they are actors of the Arian heresy, and alien to the sound faith. But if one were to wish to compare that great synod with the synods of these men, he would discover the piety of the former and the madness of the latter. Those who assembled at Nicaea had not been deposed before, but confessed that the Son is from the substance of the Father. These men, however, having been deposed once and again, and a third time at Ariminum itself, dared to write that one must not say that God has substance or hypostasis B. From these things it is permitted to observe, brothers, that the Nicene Fathers breathe the Scriptures, as God Himself says in Exodus: *I am who I am*; and through Jeremiah: *Who is in his substance, and has seen his word?* and a little later: *And if they had stood in my hypostasis, and had heard my words.* C But hypostasis is substance, and has no other meaning than this very being itself—which Jeremiah calls *existence*, saying, *And they did not hear the voice of my existence.* For hypostasis and substance is the same thing as existence. For it is, and it exists. Understanding this, Paul also wrote to the Hebrews: *Who being the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his hypostasis.* But these men, who think themselves experts in the Scriptures and call themselves wise, since they do not want to speak of hypostasis in God (for this they wrote at Ariminum D and in others of their synods), how were they not justly deposed, saying even themselves, as the fool in his heart, *There is no God*? Again, the Nicene Fathers taught that the Son and Word is not a creature or a thing made, having read: *All things were made through him*; and, *In him all things were created and consist.* These men, however, being Arians rather than Christians, in others of their synods have dared to call him a creature, and one of the things made, of which he himself, the Word, is the creator and maker. For if all things were made through him, and he himself were also a creature, then he would have created himself. And how can that which is created create? Or how is he who creates created?
5. But not even so are they ashamed, saying such things as bring them hatred before all; and thoughtlessly mentioning the synod at Ariminum, when it is plain that they were condemned there. But as for that pronouncement written at Nicaea, namely that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, for the sake of which they pretend to fight against the synod, and
A buzz about it everywhere like gnats, they either stumble against it in their ignorance, just as those others stumble against the stone of stumbling laid in Sion; or else they know it full well, yet on that account they fight and incessantly murmur, because this is indeed the true and accurate verdict against their heresy. For it is not the words that grieve them, but their own condemnation contained therein. And they themselves are the authors of this, too, even if they wish to conceal it, though they know it well; yet it is fitting for us to speak, so that from these things also the accuracy with truth of the great synod may be shown. For when the assembled bishops wished to remove the phrases of impiety invented by the Arians—the "out of nothing," and the calling the Son a creature and a product, and "there was when He was not," and that He is of mutable nature—and to write instead those recognized in the Scriptures: that by nature the Word is the only-begotten from God, the power and sole wisdom of the Father, true God, as John said; and as Paul wrote, the radiance of His glory and the B stamp of the substance of the Father; those around Eusebius, being dragged along by their own evil doctrine, conferred with one another: "Let us agree, for we too are from God; for there is one God, from whom are all things, and, The old things have passed away, behold, all things have become new. Now all things are from God." They were also thinking of what is written in the Shepherd: "Believe first of all that God is one, who created and brought all things into order, and made them exist from what was not." But the bishops, having perceived their craftiness and the evil artifice of their impiety, explained the "from God" more clearly and wrote that the Son is from the substance of God; so that while creatures, because they do not exist from themselves without a cause, but have a beginning of existence, are said C to be from God, the Son alone is held to be proper to the substance of the Father; for this is characteristic of the only-begotten and true Word with the Father. And this is the pretext for the writing of "from the substance." Again, when the bishops asked those few who seemed to think otherwise whether they would call the Son not a creature, but the power and sole wisdom of the Father, and an eternal image, similar to the Father in all things, and true God, those around Eusebius were caught nodding to one another, because these terms apply also to us; for we too are called the image and glory of God, and it has been said of us, "For always we who live." D
For there are many powers: "And all the power of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt." And the caterpillar and the locust are called a great power. And, "The Lord of powers is with us, the God of Jacob is our protector." But we have not only the fact that we are God's own, but also that He called us brethren. If they also call the Son true God, it does not grieve us; for since He has been made, He exists as true.
6. A This was the corrupt thinking of the Arians. But the bishops, having observed their guile, gathered from the Scriptures the "radiance," and the "fountain," and the "river," and the "figure of the substance" [Heb. 1:3]; and also that passage, "In Thy light we shall see light" [Ps. 35:10]; and that, "I and the Father are one" [Jo. 10:30]. Finally, they wrote more clearly and concisely that the Son is consubstantial with the Father; for all the aforementioned terms have this meaning. And their grumbling, that the words are unscriptural, is refuted by them as vain, since they themselves bring forward impiety from unscriptural sources; for these things are never written: "from non-being," and, "there was a time when He was not." Yet they complain that they are condemned by words that, although unscriptural, are understood piously. They themselves, being as it were from the dunghill, truly speak "from the earth" [Jo. 3:31]; but the bishops, not having invented these terms for themselves, but having the testimony from the Fathers, wrote thus. For ancient bishops, close to one hundred and thirty years ago, both in great Rome and in our own city, by their writings rebuked those who said that the Son is a created thing and not consubstantial with the Father. B Eusebius, who was bishop of Caesarea, was not unaware of this; for he who previously was in favor of the Arian heresy, but later subscribed at that very synod in Nicaea, wrote to his own people, affirming: "We know that certain of the learned and illustrious bishops and writers of old have used the term 'consubstantial' regarding the divinity of the Father and the Son."
7. Why then do they still mention Ariminum, by which they were deposed? Why do they reject the synod in Nicaea, in which their own Fathers subscribed and confessed that the Son is out of the substance and consubstantial with the Father? Why do they run around? For they are contending not only against the bishops who assembled in Nicaea, but against their own great bishops, and finally against their own [predecessors]. Whose heirs and successors, then, are they? How can they call those "Fathers" whose confession C they reject?
A And if they think they can gainsay this, let them speak, or rather let them answer, so that by contradicting themselves they may be refuted. Do they believe the Son when He says, "I and the Father are one," B and, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father"? "Yes," they would say, "because it is written, we believe it." But if they are asked to explain how they are one, and how he who has seen the Son has seen the Father, they will surely answer, "Through likeness"—unless they have fallen completely into the company of those who hold the same opinion as them, and are called Anomoeans. But if they are asked again, "In what way is He like?" they will boldly say, "By perfect virtue and agreement, in that He wills the same thing as the Father, and wills nothing that the Father does not will." But let them learn that he who is made like unto God by virtue and by will has the capacity for change; yet the Word is in no way such as this, unless perhaps He is like us in some partial way, even if He is not like in substance. B This is indeed peculiar to us, who are generated and possess a created nature. For although we cannot be like God in substance, nonetheless, by improving in virtue, we imitate God, our Lord having granted us this, as He says: "Be ye merciful, as your Father also is merciful." C And, "Be ye perfect, as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Now, no one would deny that created things are mutable, since angels have transgressed, Adam disobeyed, and all have need of the grace of the Word. But that which is mutable can never be like the immutable God, just as the created cannot be like the Creator. For this reason, considering us, the holy one said, "O God, who shall be likened unto thee?" and, "Who is like unto thee among the gods, O Lord?" calling those gods who were created, but became partakers of the Word, as He Himself said: "If He called them gods, unto whom the word of God came." But things that are partakers could not be the same as, nor equal to, the One of whom they are partakers. D Concerning Himself, therefore, He said, "I and the Father are one," as things that were generated are not. Since those who hold up the synod of Ariminum propose [this view], let them answer whether a created substance can say, "What things I see the Father doing, these also I do." For created things are made, and do not make—unless, indeed, they made themselves. Surely, if, as they say, the Son is a creature and the Father made Him, the Son would certainly have made Himself as well, being able to do what the Father does, as He Himself said. But such a thing is absurd and entirely unsustainable; for no one can make himself. D 8. Again, let them say whether created things can say, "All things that the Father hath are mine."
A For He possesses the power to create, the power to fashion, eternity, omnipotence, and immutability. But created things cannot possess the power to create, for they are created; nor can they be eternal, for their existence has a beginning; nor can they be omnipotent and immutable, for they are subject to power and are of a changeable nature, as the Scriptures say. Therefore, if these properties belong to the Son, it is evident, as the synod said, that they are not from virtue, as we have said, but from His own substance; He is not from another substance, but from that of the Father, to which these properties belong as His own. And what could that be which is proper to the substance of the Father, and a fruit from it, or how else should it be named, if not consubstantial? For what one sees in the Father, that also one sees in the Son—in the Son, I say, not by participation, but according to substance. And this is what is meant by: *I and the Father are one*, and, *He who hath seen me hath seen the Father*. B Furthermore, it is also useful to demonstrate their folly from this: if the Son were like the Father by virtue—which is followed by volition and non-volition, and by progress in character, as you say—these things are peculiar to quality; therefore, you are saying that God is composite, made of quality and substance. But who among you could endure such things being said? For God, who composed all things so that they might exist, is not composite, nor is He of such a nature as those things which were made by Him through the Word—God forbid! For He is a simple substance, in which there is no quality, nor, as James said, any *transmutation or shadow of turning*. Therefore, if it is shown that He does not proceed from virtue—since there is no quality in God, nor in the Son—it must be that He is proper to the substance; and you would certainly have to acknowledge this, unless intelligence has utterly perished in you. C Now, as to that which is proper and identical to the divine substance and is a natural fruit from it, what else could it be but, consequently, consubstantial with the Begetter? For this is the mark of the Son toward the Father. And he who does not say this does not believe that the Word is by nature and truly the Son.
9. Since the Fathers understood these things, they wrote that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and they anathematized those who said that the Son is from another subsistence; they did not fashion these words for themselves, but they themselves had learned them from the Fathers who were before them, as we have said. Since these things have been thus demonstrated, the Ariminian synod brought forth by them is superfluous, and the other synod D called "of the faith" by them is also superfluous. For the Nicene is sufficient, which is in agreement with the ancient bishops, and in which their own Fathers subscribed—whom it would have behooved them to revere, so that they might not be considered anything other than Christians. If even after such things, and after the
A testimony of the bishops, and after the subscription of their own Fathers, they pretend to be ignorant and fear the word "consubstantial," let them say and think in a more simple and genuine way that the Son is by nature the Son; and let them anathematize, as the synod commanded, those who say that He is a creature, or a work, or that He is from non-existent things, or, "There was a time when the Son of God was not"; and that He is mutable and alterable, and from a different substance; and in this way let them flee from the Arian heresy. And we trust that, by sincerely anathematizing these things, they will immediately confess that the Son is from the substance of the Father and consubstantial with the Father. For this reason, the Fathers, after saying that the Son is consubstantial, B immediately added: "But the Catholic Church anathematizes those who say that He is a creature, or a work, or from non-existent things, or that 'There was a time when He was not'"; so that by these words they might make known what the term "consubstantial" signifies. And the power of "consubstantial" is known from the fact that the Son is not a creature or a work; and he who says "consubstantial" does not think that the Word is a creature; and he who anathematizes the aforementioned things at the same time thinks that the Son is [one] with the Father; and he who says "consubstantial" calls Him the genuine and true Son of God. And he who calls Him legitimate C understands the words: "I and the Father are one," and, "He who has seen me has seen the Father."
10. It was fitting, therefore, that we should not write more on these matters; but because we are writing to those of you who know them, we have spoken briefly, praying that the bond of peace may be preserved among all, and that all who are of the Catholic Church may say the same thing and think the same thing. And we are writing not as if we were teaching, but as if we were reminding you. We who write are not only we, but also all the ninety or so bishops of Egypt and Libya. For this is the mindset of all, and we always subscribe for one another if it happens that someone is not present. Being thus disposed, therefore, when it happened that we gathered together, we also wrote to our beloved D Damasus, the bishop of the great city of Rome, concerning Auxentius, who had invaded the church in Milan, recounting his affairs: that he is not only a follower of the Arian heresy, but is also answerable for many evils, having committed these things together with Gregory, his partner in impiety; and marveling that he has not yet been deposed and cast out of the Church. And we gave thanks to his piety, as well as to those who had gathered in the great city of Rome, because by casting out those around Ursacius and Valens, and those who think as they do, they have preserved the concord of the Catholic Church; which, as we hope it may be preserved among you also, we urge you not to tolerate, as we said above, those who, on the occasion of the faith, [seek to mislead] the multitude.
who desire to be saved, we exhort you not to endure, as we have already said, the swarm of synods brought forward under the pretext of faith: that at Ariminum, that at Sirmium, that in Isauria, that in Thrace, those in Constantinople, and those at Antioch—many and A disorderly as they are. But let only the faith confessed at Nicaea by the Fathers prevail among you; in which also all the Fathers, even those now fighting against it, were present, as we have said before, and to which they subscribed; so that the Apostle may say of us also: "I praise you, that in all things you are mindful of me, and as I have delivered to you the traditions, you keep them."
11. For this Nicene synod is truly a monument inscribed against all heresies. It confutes those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit and call Him a creature. For when the Fathers had treated of faith in the Son, they immediately added: "We believe also in the Holy Spirit," so that, having confessed a perfect and full faith in the Holy Trinity, they might exhibit therein the mark of the Christian faith and the teaching of the Catholic Church. B For it is manifest to you and to all, and no Christian could have a doubtful mind on this point, that our faith is not in a creature, but in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; and in one Holy Spirit, one God known in the holy and perfect Trinity. In whose name being baptized, and in which being united to the Godhead, we believe that we shall inherit the kingdom of heaven in Christ Jesus our Lord, through whom to the Father be glory and power for ever. Amen. C
ADMONITION TO THE EPISTLE TO EPICTETUS
1. This epistle has been most celebrated among ancient writers: for Epiphanius brings it forward in its entirety in his 77th Heresy; Cyril also makes mention of this in his epistle to John of Antioch and in other places: and he says that it had been corrupted long ago by heretics, because they saw that their errors were being refuted in it; yet that it had been restored to its pristine integrity by him through the collation of copies. But such corrupted copies have not reached our own age: for it is that which now exists in the published Athanasian works, and is altogether orthodox, and very similar to that which is read in Epiphanius. Moreover, the passage of Cyril is cited by Rusticus the deacon, *Against the Acephali*, ch. 2. The *Epistle to Epictetus* is also mentioned, and excerpts from it are brought forward, by councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, Pope Leo, Theodoret, and Gelasius in his book *On the Two Natures in Christ*, all of whom are to be noted in their own places below. Likewise, many passages are brought forward from here by Leontius of Byzantium in his second book, towards the end. And Apollinarius himself, a man truly most deplorable, in a fragment of his epistle to Serapion preserved in Leontius of Byzantium, says that he [wrote] the epistle.