Letter on the Councils of Ariminum in Italy and Seleucia in Isauria

ADMONITION CONCERNING THE LETTER ON THE SYNODS

I. That the Letter on the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia was composed towards the end of the year 359, in which those synods were celebrated, is proven by many passages therein: for in the very beginning, Athanasius says he is about to narrate the events that occurred in that synod, which was then on everyone’s lips; and he testifies even more clearly in number 4 that the Sirmian profession of faith bears the consulship of the year in which he was writing, *from the present consulship*. The consuls, indeed, were the same then as those who had been inscribed on the Sirmian formula of faith, Eusebius and Hypatius, who belong to the year 359. And indeed it is clear from the appendix which the holy Doctor added to the end of this work, that not all the events that occurred at Ariminum had yet been brought to him when he undertook this little work. Therefore, nothing regarding the fall of the Ariminensian Fathers, nor anything regarding the legates circumvented at Nice by the craft of the Arians, is contained here, although these things occurred in that very year.

II. Why, then, as learned men have long since observed, those things which are read in number 30, *These things having been written in Isauria, having traveled to Constantinople*, etc., down to these words in number 32, *Having traveled thus far*, where Athanasius brings forth the Constantinopolitan formula of faith, mentions the Antiochene one, and speaks of the death of Constantius—all of which undoubtedly happened after the year 359—there remains no room for doubt that Athanasius inserted these things into a letter he had written long before. Thus, the aforementioned words, *Having traveled thus far*, etc., followed immediately after the Isaurian profession of faith cited in number 29, to which they most fittingly cohere; then, once those things we mentioned above were interposed by Athanasius, these were separated from what preceded them.

III. Moreover, they do not rest upon a very firm argument who think this letter was sent to the solitaries, since neither the name of monks or solitaries is used anywhere in the manuscript codices, nor is it addressed as such to monks in Socrates or Sozomen; rather, with the former, it is inscribed *To the acquaintances*, and with the latter, *To those suitable*. Therefore, it neither contradicts nor can it be conjectured whether he sent this letter to monks. But the cause that moved him to write it, Athanasius indicates not obscurely at the very beginning of the work, where he says he set these things down in writing both to satisfy the desire and the desire for learning of his friends, and so that their minds would not remain in suspense while many were narrating the events of the synod in various ways—whence some infer that it was sent to monks, an argument led, as everyone sees, by very slight evidence indeed.

IV. Furthermore, although this alone might appear to have been Athanasius’s purpose, to narrate the facts of the events at Ariminum and Seleucia, when that matter is finished, he proceeds to other things, and to clearly demonstrate the fluctuating mind of the Arians regarding their faith, he reviews the various formulas of faith published by them in various places and times, and cites them verbatim; these were so vast in number that Socrates, book II, chapter 52, not unjustly calls them a labyrinth. Having finished these, he defends the term *homoousios* with most valid arguments, as well as by the example of the ancient Fathers, against the calumnies and objections of the Arians. There are, therefore, three parts to this letter. In the first, he treats of the synods of Ariminum and Seleucia. In the second, of the blasphemies of the Arians and their various professions of faith. In the third, of the required consubstantiality. Concerning each, some things must be treated.

V. In the first part, before he begins the narration of the events at Ariminum, he treats of the formula of faith of Sirmium published in the year 359, during the consulship of Eusebius and Hypatius. And he vehemently assails their principal authors, Ursacius, Valens, Gaius, and Germinius, because they prefixed the Emperor Constantius and the year of the consulship to their own faith, as if they had only then begun to believe. He says that this formula of faith was proposed to the Fathers gathered at Ariminum and was repudiated by them. Hence, he relates the letter of the Ariminensian Fathers to the Emperor Constantius, where the events that occurred in the Seleucian synod, and the deposition of the aforementioned Arian bishops, are narrated. Then he briefly reviews the events that occurred in the Seleucian synod and inveighs bitterly against Acacius of Caesarea; and thus the first part of this letter is concluded.

VI. In the second part, he proceeds to review the various Arian blasphemies and formulas of faith, and having started with the *Thalia* of Arius, he brings forward not a small fragment of it, filled with impiety. Following this is the confession of faith which, at the beginning of the Arian heresy, Arius himself, with his followers, offered to Alexander, Archbishop of Alexandria, around the year 319. Thence he relates the huge blasphemies uttered by some of the leaders of the Arians, to which he adds the letter of the synod of Jerusalem of the year 335, where Arius and his men are admitted to the communion of the Church by the Eusebian bishops. When they had justly fallen under the suspicion of Arianism, in order to remove it, they published a formula of faith in a synod held in the year 341 at Antioch, on the occasion of the dedication of the Golden Basilica; Constantius had summoned a great number of bishops to this celebration. Athanasius relates it in its entirety.

^A and he appends the second and third [formulae], published in the same place and year by the Arians, when they were repentant of their previous professions of faith.

VII. After these, he brings forward the fourth Arian formula of faith, which, a few months having intervened, they composed anew in the same year, 341 as we suppose, and having sent legates to the Gauls, they offered it to Augustus Constantius. Three years having passed from this, they wrote a fifth profession of faith, longer than all the rest ^B, and sent legates to deliver it into Italy. Which is followed by the sixth in number, published in the second Sirmian synod against Photinus in the year 351, to which 27 anathemas are appended. To this, Athanasius adds a seventh, likewise published at Sirmium in the year 357, which Hosius signed, compelled by the force of tortures from the Arians. Afterwards, he mentions that which is eighth in number, and which, with the name of the emperor prefixed and the consulate of the same year, was placed in the first position at the beginning of this epistle.

VIII. The ninth follows, published in the same year, 359, at Seleucia, where the *homoousion* and likewise the *homoiousion* are rejected, but the *anomoion* is condemned with anathema. The tenth, admitted in the Constantinopolitan synod of the year 360, is read here in its entirety. Finally, the eleventh, written at Antioch in the year 361, is not read word for word, but some of its sentiments are brought forward. Furthermore, we leave it to the reader to note what each confession of faith comprises, or in what points any one of them differs from the others.

IX. In the third part of the epistle, he defends the terms "substance" and "consubstantial" against the Arians with many arguments. He warns, however, that he will not treat as enemies those men who, while not admitting only the term *homoousion*, would receive all the other writings of the Nicene synod, and with the name alone brought into controversy, would in reality agree with the Catholics: of which kind he says Basil of Ancyra is. Hence he contends against those who greatly desired the *homoousion* to be repudiated, and who asserted that this term had been condemned in the Antiochene synod against Paul of Samosata: and he affirms that that synod did not hold the same view as the Nicene, but that both synods accepted the term *homoousion* in a different way, and he brings forward a passage of Dionysius of Alexandria ^C, who testifies that he admits the term "consubstantial." Moreover, he proves by the example of Ignatius and another anonymous Father that it is permissible for one speaking of divine matters to use terms which are nowhere found in the Scriptures, provided they are not repugnant to sound faith. And with very many other arguments brought forward to assert consubstantiality, he finally closes the epistle, and by way of appendix, appends the epistle of Constantius to the Ariminan synod, and the synod's response to it.

X. Socrates, book 1, c. 13, cites a book of Athanasius entitled *Synodicon*: of which he excerpts some things from the Nicene subscriptions which do not exist in this epistle; whence it must be judged to have been an entirely different work. For it does not pertain to the present undertaking of Athanasius to review catholic synods; and since Socrates himself elsewhere praised this book under a different name, he sufficiently hints that this work is distinct from the *Synodicon*.

SYNOPSIS OF THE EPISTLE ON THE SYNODS

OF OUR HOLY FATHER ATHANASIUS, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, EPISTLE ON THE SYNODS HELD AT ARIMINUM IN ITALY AND AT SELEUCIA IN ISAURIA

^A Perhaps word has reached you also of the synod that is currently being spoken of everywhere; for the letters of the emperor and the prefects have gone out on all sides summoning those who were to attend it. But because you are eager for knowledge and desire to learn the things that have taken place, I have thought it consistent to declare to you also those matters which I have seen and accurately investigated, so that you might not, in hearing from others, have a wavering mind—especially since some are accustomed to report the events differently from how they actually occurred. ^B The assembly therefore did not take place at Nicaea, as had been ordained; rather, a second decree was issued, so that the bishops in the western regions should meet at Ariminum in Italy, and those in the eastern regions should be assembled at the place in Isauria called Seleucia the Rugged. The pretext for such a gathering, as they trumpeted it, was to discuss the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. For those who provided this pretext were, from Pannonia, Ursacius, Valens, and a certain Germinius; and from Syria, Acacius, Eudoxius, and Patrophilus, who is bishop of the city that takes its name from the Scythians. For these men, since they have always been of the Arian party, and understand neither what they believe nor what they affirm, gradually deceiving individuals and sowing the seed of heresy,

^A they have snatched away some of those who appeared to be of some standing, and have even duped the Emperor Constantius himself, who is a heretic, by fashioning a pretext concerning the faith in order to bring about a synod; thinking that they could cover up the Nicene synod and persuade everyone to change their minds, so that impiety might prevail everywhere instead of the truth.

2. And first of all, I myself wonder (and I think anyone of sense will perceive this), that when a universal synod had been proclaimed, and all were awaiting it, it should have been suddenly divided; and that some assembled in one place, and others gathered themselves in another. ^B Yet this was perhaps the work of Providence, so that in the one synod the sincere and pure disposition of the faith might be shown, while in the other the suspect and doubtful character of the men might be exposed. Then, together with the true brothers who are here with me, I pondered this, and we were troubled within ourselves, considering the inappropriateness of such a commotion. For what was so urgent that the inhabited world should be thrown into confusion, and those who were called clergy at that time should run up and down, asking how they might believe in our Lord Jesus Christ? For if they believed, they would not have been asking as though they did not have it. This gave no small cause for scandal to the catechumens, and to the Gentiles it provided not a moderate, but an abundant source of laughter, that Christians, as if just awakened from sleep, should be asking how they ought to believe concerning Christ. Yet those who are called clergy among them, even though they claim for themselves the position of masters over the people, have now proved themselves unbelieving, by asking for what they do not possess. Nor do Ursacius and his associates, ^C who were the authors of these things, perceive what a treasure of wrath they are storing up for themselves, while the Lord says through the saints: "Woe to those through whom my name is blasphemed among the Gentiles," and by His own mouth in the Gospels says: "Who therefore shall scandalize one of these little ones, it were better for him that a millstone be hung about his neck, and he be cast into the depths of the sea," or as Luke added, "than that he should scandalize one of these little ones."

3. For what was lacking in the teaching of the Catholic Church, that they should now inquire about the faith, and prefix the consulate of the present time to the definitions of faith put forth by them? For Ursacius, Valens, ^D and Germinius with their associates have done what was never before found among the

Christians. For, having written as they themselves wished to believe, they set forth the consulate, the month, and the day of the present time, that they might show to all sensible men that their faith did not exist before, but only now, under Constantius, has it begun. For they wrote everything with an eye to their own heresy. Beyond this, while pretending to write about the Lord, they designate another master for themselves, Constantius; for he it was who provided them with the power of impiety, and him they called an eternal emperor, while they deny the eternal Son—so openly are they Christ-fighters for the sake of their own impiety.

But perhaps the chronographia—the chronology—of the holy prophets is an excuse for them to cite the consulate. But if they have dared to utter this, they display their own ignorance all the more clearly. For the prophecies of the holy ones possess a memory ^B of times. Isaiah, for instance, and Hosea lived in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah; Jeremiah in the days of Josiah, and Ezekiel and Daniel under Cyrus and Darius, and others prophesied at other times, not as if they were laying down the beginning of religion; for it existed before them, and was always, and even before the foundation of the world God prepared this for us in Christ; nor did they signify the times of their own faith, as they were believers even before those times, but they indicated the times of their own proclamation. And the proclamation looked first and above all to the coming of the Savior; and, secondly, to the things that were to befall the Jews and the nations. The time, moreover, was indicated not of the beginning of the faith, as I said above, but of the prophets themselves, at which ^C they were and prophesied such things. But these wise men of the present day, not explaining history, nor foretelling future things, but having written, "The Catholic faith has been set forth," they immediately added the consulate, the month, and the day; so that, just as the holy ones wrote the times of their histories and of their own ministry, so these might signify the time of their own faith. And would that they had written concerning their own faith only—for then indeed it did truly begin—and that they had not dared to speak as if it were the Catholic faith. For they did not write: "Thus we believe," but rather, "The Catholic faith has been set forth."

4. The audacity of their intent exposes ^D their ignorance; and this novel method of writing is of a piece with the Arian heresy. For by writing thus, they have shown when they began to believe.

And just as, according to the evangelist Luke, “a decree went out” ^A regarding the census, and this decree did not exist before but began from those days in which it was issued by the author, so too these men, by writing, “The faith has now been set forth,” have shown that their heretical opinion is something recent, and did not exist before. But if they add, “of the Catholic Church,” they have inadvertently fallen into the madness of the Phrygians, so that they too, like them, say: “To us it was first revealed, and from us the faith of Christians begins.” And just as those men attributed to Maximilla and Montanus, so these men, in place of Christ, ^B attribute the sovereignty to Constantius. But if, according to them, the faith has its beginning from the present consulship, what will the Fathers and the blessed martyrs do? Or what will they themselves do regarding those who were instructed by them in the Christian religion, but fell asleep before this consulship? How will they raise them up, so that they might erase in them what they had taught them, and insert the novelties they have now written? Such indeed is their ignorance, and their only skill lies in fabricating excuses—and those absurd, incredible, and such as may be refuted with no trouble at all.

5. For the Nicene synod was not gathered rashly, but out of ^C urgent necessity and for a legitimate cause; for the peoples of Syria, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia were limping in their observance of the feast, and were celebrating the Passover with the Jews. The Arian heresy, too, had risen up against the Catholic Church and had as its patrons those around Eusebius, who worked for its interests and laid snares for the pious. This was the cause for gathering an ecumenical synod, so that everywhere one day might be observed for the feast, and the heresy that had sprouted might be condemned with an anathema. And this is what happened: the Syrians complied, and ^D the Arian heresy was declared the forerunner of the Antichrist, and having been refuted, a correct exposition of the faith was issued. Yet, although there were so many and such great men who wrote it, they dared nothing of the sort that these three or four men have done. For they did not prefix a consulship, and month, and day; but regarding the Passover, they wrote, “It has been decreed as follows,” for it was then decreed that all should follow the custom. But concerning the faith, they did not say, “It has been decreed,” but, “Thus the Catholic Church believes,” and they immediately confessed what they believed, to show that their opinion was not recent, but apostolic, and that what they wrote was not discovered by them, but is what the apostles taught.

^A

6. But what reasonable cause have the synods now being convened by them? For if some other more recent heresy has arisen after the Arian one, let them state the items of its invention, and who its authors are; and let them write and anathematize the heresies that existed before this synod, among which is the Arian, just as those at Nicaea did, so that they too might appear to have some plausible excuse for saying something newer. But if nothing of the sort has happened, nor can they demonstrate it, but rather, they themselves, holding the impiety of Arius, utter these things, and are refuted and change their minds daily—what is the need for synods, when the one held at Nicaea is sufficient against the Arian and other heresies, all of which it condemned through the sound faith? For even that notorious Aetius, who was called the Atheist, does not grow bold having discovered a private madness, but, tossed by the storms into the Arian heresy, he himself also suffered shipwreck along with those deceived by him. In vain, therefore, do they run about pretending that they requested the synods for the sake of the faith. For the divine Scripture is more sufficient than all things; but if there is also need of a synod concerning this, there are the records of the Fathers; for those who gathered at Nicaea did not neglect this either, but they wrote so well that those who look into their writings with a sincere mind are able to be reminded by them of the piety towards Christ that is proclaimed in the divine Scriptures. ^B

7. Therefore, since there is nothing reasonable among them, and they are at a loss everywhere, and although they fabricate excuses, this is what remains for them to say: ^C "We, contradicting those before us and transgressing the traditions of the Fathers, requested that a synod be held; but fearing again that our effort might prove vain if the bishops were gathered into one place, we requested the synod to be divided into two parts, so that, being separated, we might show them what we had written and, by threatening Constantius, the patron of the impiety, we might be able to suborn the greater number of them, and thus make void what was done at Nicaea, while pretending the simplicity of what was written by us." Even if they have not said these things in these very words, they have certainly done and disturbed all things with this intention. Indeed, although they have said and written many things many times in different synods, they never once mentioned the Arian heresy as evil; but if anyone ever present happened to denounce the heresies, they themselves defended the Arian, which the synod at Nicaea had anathematized; and rather, these men... ^D

^A genuinely accepted the exponents of Arius. This is a great proof, therefore, that the purpose of the present synods was not for the sake of truth, but for the subversion of what was done at Nicaea. And the fact that even in these very synods such things were done by them and their likes shows that these charges are none the less true. It is necessary, therefore, to declare how each event took place.

8. When everyone was expecting to meet together, as the emperor's letters invited, in order that a single ^B synod might be celebrated, they were divided; and some went down to Seleucia, the so-called Rugged, while others came together at Ariminum. There were in that place [at Ariminum] four hundred bishops and more; to this place went also Germinius, Auxentius, Valens, Ursacius, Demophilus, and Gaius. But when all the bishops were deliberating from the holy Scriptures, these men exhibited a paper; and reading the consulate, they demanded that this be preferred to the whole synod, and that nothing more be sought from the heretics, nor should their intent be examined: but that they should be satisfied with these writings alone, which are set forth in the following manner:

The Catholic Faith, published in the presence of our master, the most pious and victorious emperor Constantius Augustus, the eternal, the venerable, under the consulship of the most illustrious Flavius Eusebius and Flavius Hypatius, at Sirmium, on the eleventh day before the kalends of June

We believe in one only and true God, the Father almighty, creator ^C and maker of all things; and in one only-begotten Son of God, begotten of God impassibly before all ages, and before every beginning, and before all time that can be conceived, and before every comprehensible substance; by whom the ages were framed and all things were made.

^A And we know him to be begotten, the only-begotten, solely from the Father alone, God from God, like to the Father who begat him, according to the Scriptures; whose generation no one knows, except the Father alone who begat him. This only-begotten Son of God we know to have come down from the heavens by the Father's will for the putting away of sin, and to have been born of Mary the Virgin, and to have consorted with the disciples, and to have fulfilled every dispensation according to the Father's will, to have been crucified and to have died, and to have descended into the lower parts of the earth ^B and to have set in order those things there; whom the gatekeepers of Hades seeing, trembled, and to have risen from the dead on the third day, and to have consorted with the disciples, and having fulfilled every dispensation, and forty days being completed, to have been taken up into the heavens, and to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and to be about to come on the last day of the resurrection with the Father's glory, to render to each according to his works; and as regards the Holy Spirit, the same only-begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, promised to send to the race of men, the Paraclete, according to what is written: "I go to my Father, and I will ask the Father, and he will send you another Paraclete. The Spirit of truth, he will take from mine, and will teach and remind you of all things." But as the name of "substance" was set down by the Fathers too simply, ^C and being misunderstood by the peoples brings offense, because it is not contained in the Scriptures, it has been decided that it be removed, and that there be no mention of substance in God at all for the future, because the divine Scriptures nowhere make mention of the substance of the Father and the Son. But we say that the Son is like the Father in all things, as the holy Scriptures also say and teach.

9. Having read these things, not long after this the craftiness of those who had written them was detected. For the bishops having proposed that the Arian heresy be anathematized along with the other heresies, and all having agreed to this, Ursacius and Valens with their associates refused; and finally they were convicted as having written these things not sincerely, ^D but for the purpose of destroying what had been done at Nicaea, in order that they might introduce the evil-named heresy. Wondering, therefore, at their deceitful words and crafty intent, the bishops said: "We have not come together because we were in need of faith (for we have in ourselves a sound faith), but that we might put to shame those who oppose the truth and attempt to innovate. If, therefore, you, as if beginning to believe now, [write these things...]*

*(Note: The page ends at this mid-sentence fragment; the next page continues from "γραφώσαντα ταῦτα...").*

these things, you are not yet clerics, having the beginning of being catechized; but if you have come with the same mind with which we assembled, let there be harmony among all, and let us condemn heresies with anathema, and let us keep the things of the Fathers, so that there may no longer be excuses for convening synods, since those who assembled at Nicaea once took control of everything, and did everything for the sake of the Catholic Church. But when the bishops all agreed again 54, the aforementioned refused; and thereafter, condemning them as ignorant, deceitful, and rather as heretics, all voted with the synod held at Nicaea, and all judged it sufficient; and they declared the aforementioned Ursacius and Valens, Germinius, Auxentius, Gaius, and Demophilus ^B to be heretics, and having deposed them as being not truly Christians, but Arians, they wrote against them in Roman [Latin], which when translated into Greek according to the meaning 55, is as follows:

10.

Copy of the letter of the synod to the Emperor Constantius 57.

By the command of God 58 and by the decree of your piety, we believe that those things which were formerly dogmatized have come to pass. For we all, the bishops from all the cities of the West, assembled in the same place at Ariminum 59, so that the faith of the Catholic Church might be known, and those who think the opposite might be evident. ^C For as we examined it for a long time, we found that the faith which has remained from ancient times, which also the prophets and the Gospels and the apostles preached through our Lord Jesus Christ, the guardian of your empire and the bestower of your salvation, which we have always held, appeared acceptable 60, and we must keep it, and keeping it, we must preserve it until the end. For it seemed improper and unlawful to change anything of what has been rightly and justly defined, and of the things considered in common at Nicaea with the most glorious Constantine, your father and emperor, whose teaching 61 and mind spread and was preached into the ears and minds of all men, which alone proved to be the opponent and slayer of the Arian heresy; through which not only this, but also other heresies were pulled down. In which, indeed, to add anything is dangerous 64, and to take anything away is perilous; for if either were to happen 63, there will be license for the enemies to do whatever they wish.

^A For this reason, Ursacius and Valens, since they had long ago been participants in and allies of the Arian heresy—and having been separated from our communion—were condemned. Being desirous of participating in it [the communion] for the faults to which they had confessed, they sought to obtain penance and pardon, as the documents created by them testify; through all of which there was mercy, and forgiveness of their accusations. And the time, when these things were being done, was when the assembly of the synod was being gathered at Milan, with the presbyters of the Roman Church also being present. At the same time, recognizing that Constantine, who is worthy of memory after his death, had with all precision and inquiry set forth the faith which had been written down, ^B and since he had been baptized as one of the human race, and had departed toward the peace that is owed, we thought it absurd that after him anything should be changed, or that so many holy confessors and martyrs—who were the very writers and inventors of this doctrine—should be looked down upon; they who had remained thinking in all things according to the ancient rule of the Church, whose faith God also handed down to these times of your reign through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom it has also been granted to you to reign, and to rule over the world among us. Again, therefore, those pitiful and miserable men in their disposition, with an unlawful audacity, declared themselves heralds of an ungodly opinion, and attempted to overturn the whole structure of the truth. For as the assembly of the synod was being gathered at your command, even they revealed the intent of their own deceit. For they attempted, ^C through some craftiness and confusion while bringing forward something, to innovate, having found as accomplices in such a faction Germinius, Auxentius, and Gaius, those who bring about strife and dissension; whose teaching, being but one, has surpassed every multitude of blasphemies. And when we perceived that they were not of such a mind, nor were they of the same opinion, concerning those things in which they were thinking wrongly, they brought themselves into our council, as if to appear to be writing something else; yet the time was short for their intentions to be exposed. In order, therefore, that the affairs of the Church may not always fall into such matters, and that trouble and confusion, rolling about, may not confound everything, it seemed firm to keep the things long ago determined by law and immovable; and that the aforementioned should be separated from our communion; for which reason we have sent legates to your clemency to instruct you in the truth, ^D who will manifest the mind of the synod through this letter. And to the legates, before all things, we firmly commanded this: that they should not present their embassy in any other way than that the ancient statutes remain most firm, so that your wisdom might also know that it was not the case that, if what the aforementioned Valens and Ursacius, Germinius and Gaius had promised were removed, peace could be established. For rather, a disturbance has been brought upon all regions and upon the Church of Rome.

^B III. Therefore, we entreat your clemency that you would regard and hear our envoys with placid ears and a serene countenance: may your clemency not permit anything to be overturned to the injury of those things of old, but let those things stay as they are, which we have received from our forefathers, who we trust were wise and did not act without the Holy Spirit of God; because by this novelty not only are the faithful people disturbed, but even the infidels are hindered from coming to the faith. We pray also that you would command that those many bishops who are detained at Ariminum—among whom are very many who are exhausted by age and poverty—might return to their own province, lest the people of the Churches suffer when destitute of their own bishops. ^C This also we demand the more frequently, that nothing be innovated, nothing diminished; but that those things remain incorrupt which have remained in the times of your father’s holy piety and in your own religious ages. And may your holy prudence no longer permit us to be wearied or dislodged from our sees, but may we always have leisure for the quiet prayers which they always have both for your safety, and for your kingdom, and for the peace which the Divinity may bestow upon you deep and perpetual for your merits. Our envoys, moreover, will bring the subscriptions and the names of the bishops or legates, just as the same other writing instructs your holy and religious prudence.

DECREE OF THE SYNOD

11. ^C So far as was becoming, most dear brethren, the Catholic Synod and the holy Church have, with their own patience and long-suffering, endured not ignobly Ursacius, and Valens, and Gaius, and Germinius, and Auxentius; who, by thinking differently at different times, have confused all the Churches, and who now have dared to attempt to insert their heretical thought into the minds of the Christians. For they desire to subvert the treatise held at Nicaea, ^D which was set against the Arian heresy and the rest. Moreover, they have brought to us a confession written by themselves, which it was not permitted for us to receive. Now, indeed, they have been proclaimed heretics to us beforehand, and for many days it has been concluded...

^A that they should be condemned, and deposed by our own voice, present as they are. Now, therefore, declare what seems right to you, so that the knowledge of each one may be made certain by his signature. The bishops said with one accord: It is our pleasure that the aforementioned enemies be deposed, so that the catholic faith may remain in peace. And the things that were done at Ariminum (93) had such a swift conclusion. For no one there dissented, but all together with one mind wrote down the decrees, and deposed the Arians (94).

12. Now, these are the things that took place at Seleucia in Trachitis. The month was what is called September by the Romans, and Thoth by the Egyptians, and Gorpiaeus by the Macedonians; and the day of the month according to the Egyptians was the sixteenth, to which all who were summoned to assemble arrived. There were there about one hundred and sixty bishops. But as many among them were being accused, and the accusers were crying out against them—Acacius and Patrophilus, and Uranius from Tyre, and Eudoxius who had burst into the Church of the Antiochians, and Leontius and Theodotus, and Evagrius, and Theodulus, and Georgius ^B who was driven out from the whole inhabited world—they attempt a crafty scheme (95). For fearing the proofs brought against them by the accusers, they enlisted others of the faction of Arius, who were mercenaries hired for this very impiety, and had been ordained by Secundus, who was deposed by the great synod; from Libya, Stephanus and Seras (96), and Polydeuces, who were accused of various crimes; and furthermore Pancratius and Ptolemaeus, of the Meletian sect, and pretending to wish to inquire about the faith, they did not escape notice fearing their accusers; and they defended the heresy, and then they were divided. And some were with those around Acacius, who were suspect, and very few in number (97); but the others were the multitude. Those around Acacius, therefore, using the boldness of their madness, ^C completely denied what had been written at Nicaea, and disparaged the synod itself; but the others (and these were the multitude) accepted all the other things of the synod, but only the term *consubstantial* did they object to, under the pretext that it was suspect because of its obscurity. As they therefore lingered in that place, and the accusers were pressing, while the accused were fleeing, and because of this were being carried away all the more into impiety (98) and blaspheming against the Lord, the multitude of the bishops was indignant, and they deposed Acacius, Patrophilus, Uranius, Eudoxius, and Georgius, the former tax-collector, and others from Asia, ^D acting in accord.

^A Leontius, and Theodosius, Euagrius, and Theodulus; and they have declared Asterius, Eusebius, Augarus, and Basilicus, and Phoebus, and Fidelius, and Eutychius, and Eustathius, and Magnus, to be excluded from communion. And they have done this because, when summoned to defend themselves against the charges of which many were accusing them, they did not appear; and they decreed that they should remain in this state until, by making their defense, they might prove themselves innocent of the crimes brought against them. And having written to the diocese of each concerning the judgment that had been passed against them, they went up to the most impious Augustus Constantius, reporting to him what had been done; for this was the directive they had. And this has been the end of the council at Seleucia.

13. For who would not praise the piety of the bishops ^B who gathered at the synod of Ariminum, who endured such great toil of travel and dangers of the sea in order that they might depose those who sided with Arius and keep intact the definitions of the Fathers, having deliberated upon this piously and canonically? For each of them believed that if they were to overturn the decrees of those before them, they would be giving those who came after them a pretext to overturn the things now established by them. And who would not condemn the rashness of the party of Eudoxius and Acacius, who, through their zeal and favor for the Ariomanites, ^C sacrifice the honor of their own Fathers? For what faith is there in their actions, if the acts of those who came before are destroyed? Or why do they call those "Fathers" whom they have succeeded, yet whose judgment they condemn? Especially what can Acacius say concerning his own teacher, Eusebius, who not only subscribed to the council at Nicea, but also through a letter made clear to the people under him that this was the true faith which was confessed in the council at Nicea? For even if he excused himself by his own discretion through that letter, yet he did not deny the words, but even rebuked the Arians, saying that when they said the Son was not before He was begotten, they also did not want Him to exist before Mary. ^D What, then, will they teach the peoples who were instructed by them? That the Fathers erred? And how will they themselves be trusted by those whom they teach to disobey their own teachers? With what eyes will they look upon the monuments of the Fathers, whom they now call heretics? Why do they attack the Valentinians, the Cataphrygians, and the Manichaeans, yet call those "holy" who, as they themselves suspect, speak things similar to them? Or how can they themselves still be bishops, if they were ordained by such as whom they malign as heretics? But if those men thought wrongly and, by their writings, led the inhabited world into error, let their memory cease entirely; and if their writings are to be cast out, go you yourselves and cast out the remains of these men from the cemeteries, so that all may know that they were deceivers, but you are parricides.

14. Certainly the blessed Apostle praises the Corinthians ^D with the words: "That you are mindful of me in all things: and as I delivered to you the traditions, so you hold them." But these men, such...

things about their predecessors, will dare to say to the people things which are the exact opposite: "We do not praise you for being mindful of the Fathers, but rather we approve of you when you do not hold their traditions." And so, let them go on to disparage their own base origins and say, "We were born not of godly men, but of heretics." For it is fitting that men who, as I said before, betray the honor of the Fathers and their own salvation to the Arian heresy should speak in this way; and who do not fear to hear what is written ^B in the divine Proverb: "A wicked generation curses its father" (Prov. xxx, 11), nor do they fear the threats placed in the Law against such people. Therefore, because of their zeal for the heresy, they are of such a stubborn mind. But do not be troubled on this account, nor take their boldness to be the truth. For they even fight against themselves, and having departed from the Fathers, they have no single mind, but are tossed by various and diverse opinions; and while they dispute against the Nicene Council, they themselves have also celebrated many councils, yet in each of which they have set forth a creed, they have remained ^C faithful to none; nor will they ever cease doing this, because, seeking wrongly, they will never find the wisdom they have hated. I have therefore necessarily subjoined a part of the things written by Arius, and whatever I could collect of the expositions of faith which they have set forth in various councils; so that you might know and marvel for what reason, while they contend against an ecumenical council and against their own Fathers, they are not ashamed. Arius and those who held with him, saying, "God made the Son out of nothing, and called Him His Son; the Word of God is one of the creatures," and, "There was once when He was not; and He is mutable, ^D and is able, when He wills, to change," were cast out of the Church by Alexander of blessed memory.

15. But Arius, having been cast out and being with Eusebius, arranged his heresy in a document, and, as if in a Thalia, imitating neither the prudent nor anyone wise, but in character and in the dissolution of his meter, the Egyptian Sotades, he wrote many things, of which this is a part:

BLASPHEMIES OF ARIUS

God Himself, as He is, is unspeakable to all. He alone has nothing equal or like to Him, nor anyone of equal glory. We call Him unbegotten because of Him who is by nature begotten; we celebrate Him as without beginning because of Him who has a beginning; we acknowledge Him as eternal because of Him who was born in time. He who is without

^A beginning, by nature, is not equal, no, not even coessential with Him (16). God is wise, because He is the teacher of wisdom Himself. A sufficient proof is that God is invisible to all, to those through the Son, and to the Son Himself He is invisible in the same way. I shall state plainly how the Invisible is seen by the Son: by the power with which God is able to see, by individual measures the Son sustains seeing the Father, as is permitted. That is to say, the Trinity is not in similar glories; their subsistences are unmixed with one another; one is more glorious than the other in glory to infinity. The Father is a stranger to the Son according to essence, because He exists without beginning. Understand that the Monad was, but the Dyad was not, before it existed. Immediately, therefore, while the Son did not exist, the Father is God. Finally, the Son, not being (yet having existed by the Father's will), is Only-Begotten God, and is an alien to both. Wisdom existed as wisdom by the will of the wise God. Therefore He is conceived by countless conceptions: Spirit, Power, Wisdom, Glory of God, Truth, and Image, and Word is He. Understand that He is also conceived as Radiance and Light. The Superior is able to beget a Son equal to Himself, but ^B more excellent, or better, or greater, by no means (17). By the will of God, the Son is as great and as much as He is, from the time and from when, and from then, He arose from God; being a strong God, He celebrates the Superior in part. To put it briefly, to the Son, God is ineffable; for what He is to Himself, that is to say, unutterable; so that the Son is not able to understand or express any of the things said according to comprehension. For it is impossible for Him to investigate the Father, Who is by Himself. For the Son Himself does not know His own essence; for being the Son, He truly existed by the Father's will. For what reason could it come to pass that He who is from the Father could know and comprehend the Begetter Himself? For it is clearly evident that that which has a beginning cannot conceive or comprehend that which has no beginning, as it is.

16. The things which the Arians wrote through their letter to the man of blessed memory, Bishop Alexander, are these: ^C

TO THE BLESSED POPE AND OUR BISHOP ALEXANDER, THE PRESBYTERS AND DEACONS IN THE LORD, SALUTATION.

Our faith received from our ancestors, which we have also learned from you, blessed pope, is this: We acknowledge one God, alone unbegotten, alone eternal, alone without beginning, alone true, alone having immortality, alone wise, alone good, alone potent, judge of all.

the ^A ruler, the administrator, the immutable and inalterable, the just and the good, the God of the Law, of the Prophets, and of the New Testament; who begat the only-begotten Son before eternal times, through whom He also made the ages and all things. He begat Him, however, not in appearance, but in truth, making Him to subsist by His own will, an immutable and inalterable perfect creature of God, yet not as one of the creatures; a begotten one, yet not as one of the begotten; nor ^B as Valentinus taught that the product of the Father was an emission; nor as Manichæus introduced the product as a consubstantial part of the Father; nor as Sabellius, dividing the Monad, called Him Son-Father; nor as Hieracas, as a lamp from a lamp, or as a torch divided into two. Nor was He who was before, subsequently begotten or created into a Son—as even you yourself, blessed Pope, in the midst of the Church and in the assembly, have many times refuted those who suggested these things. But, as we say, by the will of God He was created before times and before ages, and from the Father He received [the gift] that He should live and exist, and the Father also bestowed glories upon Him. For the Father, in giving Him the inheritance of all things, did not deprive Himself of those things which He has in Himself ingenerately; for He is the source of all things. Wherefore there are three Hypostases. And God, being the cause of all things, is the only one without beginning. But the Son, having been begotten by the Father without time, and created and founded before ages, was not before He was begotten, but, having been begotten before all things without time, He alone was made to subsist ^C by the Father. For He is not eternal, or co-eternal, or co-ingenerate with the Father; nor has He His existence together with the Father, as some say of things relative to one another, introducing two ingenerate principles; but as the Monad and the principle of all things, so God is before all things. Wherefore He is also before the Son, as we have learned from you, who have preached this in the midst of the Church. Insofar, then, as He has from God His existence, and His glories, and His life, and all things have been delivered unto Him, to that extent God is His principle. For He rules over Him, as being His God and as being before Him. But if the [expression] "from Him," and "from the womb," and "I came forth from the Father and I am come," is conceived by some as if He were a portion of Him, consubstantial, and as an emission,

then the Father will be composite, and divisible, and mutable, and, according to them, the incorporeal God will suffer things proper to a body, as far as it depends on them. Such are some of the things which the Arians have vomited forth from their heretical heart.

^B 17. But before the Nicene synod was celebrated, those around Eusebius, Narcissus, Patrophilus, Maris, Paulinus, Theodotus, and Athanasius of Nazarba, had written similar things; among whom Eusebius of Nicomedia went so far as to write these things to Arius: "Since you think rightly, pray that all may think so; for it is manifest to all that what is made did not exist before it was made. But that which is made begins to have its being." And Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, writing to Euphration [of Balanea], the bishop, did not fear to say openly that Christ is not the true God. But Athanasius of Nazarba uncovered the heresy even more nakedly, when he said that the Son of God is one of the hundred sheep. For in his letters to Bishop Alexander, he dared to bring forward these things: "Why do you rebuke the Arians for saying that the Son of God was created and made from non-living things, and that He is one of all? For since all created things are indicated by the parable of the hundred sheep, the Son Himself is one of them. If, therefore, those hundred are not created things and works, or if there exists anything else besides those hundred, then surely the Son is not a creature, nor one of all. But if those hundred are all created things, and there is nothing outside those hundred besides God alone, what absurdity do the Arians say if, by including and numbering Christ among those hundred, they affirm Him to be one of all?" ^C Georgius, however, who is now bishop at Laodicea, and was then a presbyter of Alexandria, and was staying in Antioch, wrote these things to Bishop Alexander: "Do not rebuke those around Arius for saying: 'There was a time when the Son of God was not,' for indeed Isaiah was the son of Amos, and Amos himself existed before Isaiah existed; but Isaiah did not exist before, but existed after these things." But to the Arians he wrote in these words: "Why do you rebuke Pope Alexander for saying that the Son is from the Father? For you ought not to fear to say that the Son is also from God. For if the Apostle wrote, 'But all things are from God' (1 Cor. XI, 12), and it is manifest that all things were made from non-existent things, and the Son is also a creature, and one of the things that were made, ^D [the Son could also be said to be from God, just as all things are said to be from God.]

^A From that source, therefore, those who hold to the opinions of Arius learned to feign the expression "from God," and to speak the words, yet not to think rightly. As for Georgius himself, he was deposed by Alexander for other reasons, and also because he appeared impious; for he was a presbyter, as has been said before.

18. In short, they wrote in such a way that each one struggled and strove to see who could increase the impiety of the heresy more, and who could show it forth more nakedly. I do not have their letters readily at hand so as to send them; if I did, however, I would have sent you copies of them too. If the Lord wills, I will do this as well if I am able to procure them. And a certain Asterius from Cappadocia, a many-headed sophist, one of the followers of Eusebius—since he had sacrificed in the former persecution, the one under the grandfather of Constantius, and could not be promoted to the clergy by them—composed a treatise with the consent of the followers of Eusebius, such as they themselves desired. It was a work equal in boldness to his sacrifice: for in this, having compared the locust and the caterpillar ^B to Christ, or rather having preferred them to Him, and saying that there is another wisdom in God besides Christ, which is the creator of Christ and of the world, he went around the churches in Syria and the others, relying on the recommendation of the followers of Eusebius; in order that, having hardened his heart to deny Christ once, he might now also set himself more boldly against the truth. That most audacious man, therefore, forced his way into places where he had no right to enter, and sitting in the place of the clerics, he read his treatise in public, even though others were indignant at him. The treatise itself is written at great length. These are parts of it: "For the blessed Paul did not say that he preached Christ as his own power, or his wisdom—that is, God's—but without addition, the power of God and the wisdom of God; teaching that there is one power of God ^C himself, inborn to him and existing with him unoriginated, which is, he says, generative, plainly of Christ, and creative of the whole world; concerning which, teaching in the Epistle to the Romans, he said: 'For his invisible things from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and divinity.' Just as no one would say that the divinity mentioned here is Christ, but rather that it is the Father himself; so, I think, his eternal power is not the only-begotten God, but the Father who begat him. He teaches that there is another power and wisdom of God, which is shown through Christ, and is recognized through the works of his ministry itself." And again: "Even if his eternal power and wisdom, which exists without beginning and generation, according to the arguments of truth ^D

are many ^A created by him one by one, of which Christ is the first-begotten and only-begotten; nevertheless, all of them alike depend upon their possessor, and all are rightly called the powers of him who created them and uses them. For example, the prophet calls the locust, which was sent by God as a punishment for human sins, not only the power of God, but calls it a 'great power' from God Himself. And the blessed David, in many of the psalms, bids not only the angels but also the powers to praise God; and in exhorting all to hymnody, he also manifests their multitude, and does not refuse to call them ministers of God, and teaches that they do his will."

19. ^B He dared these things against the Savior; yet he did not stop here, but rather increased his blasphemies, saying that the Son is one of all things: "For he is first of the generated, and is one of the intelligible natures; and just as the sun, among the things that fall under the eyes, is one of those that are seen, yet shines upon the whole world according to the command of its Creator; so also the Son, being one of the intelligible natures, enlightens and shines upon all who are in the intelligible world." And again he says: "There was once, when he was not," writing thus: "And indeed before the generation of the Son, the Father possessed the fore-existing knowledge of generating; just as a physician, before those whom he might heal were present, possessed the knowledge of healing." And again he says: "By a bountiful volition was the Son created, and the Father fashioned him by a store of power." And again: "If the will of God has passed through all things in order, it is evident that the Son, being a work, has come into existence and been made by ^C will." Asterius wrote these things alone; but the Eusebians held these same things in common with him.

20. These are the things for which they contend, and because of which they fight against the ancient synod; because the Fathers who met there did not write things similar to theirs, but rather struck with anathema the Arian heresy, which these men were zealous to establish. Therefore, they designated Asterius—that sophist who had sacrificed to idols—as the advocate of their impiety, so that he might refrain ^D neither from speaking against the Lord, nor from using clever arguments composed to ensnare the more simple-minded. But those ignorant men did not know that they were acting to their own ruin. For the stench of the sacrifice offered to idols by their advocate proved the heresy to be all the more hostile to Christ. For this reason, even now they move and disturb everything, thinking that if they should have more

many killed, and convene synods every month, the judgment ^A late against the Arian heresy will at last be obliterated. They seem, however, to be ignorant again, or if they do know, to feign ignorance, that even before the Nicene council this heresy was abominable, at the time when Artemas was laying its foundations 50; and before him, the assembly of Caiaphas and of the Pharisees of that time. And the workshop of those who war against Christ is always execrable, and it will never cease to be odious, because the Lord's name is most beloved, and every creature bows its knees and confesses, “that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

21. Yet they do not tire of holding frequent synods against the ^B universal council. For although after the Nicene council the followers of Eusebius were deposed, afterwards they nevertheless shamelessly invaded the Churches and began to plot against the bishops who resisted them, and in their place to appoint men of their own heresy into the Churches; so that when they wish they may hold synods, having those who act in concert with them, whom they had purposely ordained for this very reason. They meet, therefore, at Jerusalem 53, and write as follows.

The holy synod, gathered at Jerusalem by the grace of God, to the Church of God that is in Alexandria, and to those 54 throughout all Egypt, and Thebais, and Libya, and Pentapolis, and to the ^C bishops and presbyters and deacons throughout the world, greeting in the Lord 55.

To all of us who have assembled in one place from different provinces for the great festival, which we celebrated at the Dedication of the Martyrium of the Savior, built by the zeal of the most pious emperor Constantine 56 to the King of all, God, and to His Christ, the grace of Christ 57 brought greater joy—a grace which the most pious emperor himself also bestowed through his own letters, exhorting us to our duty; having cast all envy out of the Church of God, and having driven far away all malignity, through which the members of Christ disunited long ago; so that we might receive Arius ^D and his followers with a simple and peaceful mind—men whom hateful envy had for some time kept outside the Church. For the most pious emperor testified to these men through his letter, [attesting] to the uprightness of their faith, which, having inquired of them, and having heard them speaking with his own voice, he indicated to us as having been approved by himself, and by his letters placed before us the sound confession of the faith of these men.

^A which we have all recognized as sound and ecclesiastical. And justly did he exhort that these men be received and joined to the Church of God, as you yourselves shall soon know from the copies of that same letter which we have sent to your piety. We believe that for you yourselves, as you recover members of your own body, there will be great joy and gladness, when you recognize and receive back your own heart's blood, your own brothers and fathers; not only the presbyters who were of the following of Arius who are being restored to you, but all the people and the entire multitude, who for a long time were estranged from you because of the previously mentioned men. ^B And it is truly fitting that, knowing what has been done, and how these men communicated with us and were received by so great a holy synod, you should most readily embrace both the union and the peace with your own members, especially as the faith set forth by them preserves, without contention, the apostolic tradition and teaching which is acknowledged by all. ^C

22. This was the beginning of their synods, where they quickly declared their purpose, and could not conceal it. For when they said that all envy had been removed, and, after Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, had been sent into exile, wrote that Arius and his men ought to be received, they clearly showed that it was for this reason they had laid snares for Athanasius and for all the other bishops who opposed them, in order that they might receive Arius and his associates and introduce the heresy into the Church. And although they had praised all the perverse opinions of Arius in that synod, and had decreed that they should be admitted to communion—a thing which had already been done by them—nevertheless, thinking that something was still lacking for their plan, they convened a synod at Antioch under the pretext of the so-called Encænia. And because they were always being accused by everyone of heresy, they issued writings in various and diverse ways. But in one of their letters they wrote as follows:

"We were never followers of Arius; for how could we, being bishops, follow a presbyter? ^D Nor have we received any other faith than that which was handed down from the beginning. But having ourselves examined and tested his faith, we have rather admitted him, than followed him."

For you shall know from what is said. For we have learned from the beginning to believe in one God, the God of all, the maker and provider of all things intelligible and sensible; and in one only-begotten Son of God, existing before all ages, and co-existing with the Father who begat Him, by whom all things were made, both visible and invisible; and who in the last days, according to the good pleasure of the Father, descended and took flesh from the Virgin, and fulfilled all His Father’s will, and suffered, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father, and is to come again to judge the living and the dead, and remains king and God for ever. We believe also in the Holy Spirit; and if it be necessary to add it, we believe also concerning the resurrection of the flesh and the life everlasting.”

^B 23. Again, in another epistle of the same Encænia, when they repented of their former actions and had devised certain newer and more numerous things, they published the following:

“We believe, following the evangelical and apostolical tradition, in one God, the Father Almighty, the creator and maker and provider of all things, from whom are all things; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, the only-begotten God, by whom are all things, who was begotten of the Father before the ages, God of God, whole of whole, only of only, perfect of perfect, king of king, ^C Lord of Lord, the living Word, living Wisdom, true Light, Way, Truth, Resurrection, Shepherd, Door, unchangeable and inalterable, the exact image of the deity, substance, counsel, power, and glory of the Father, the firstborn of every creature, who was in the beginning with God, God the Word, according to what is said in the Gospel: ‘And the Word was God,’ by whom all things were made, and in whom all things consist; who in the last days descended from above, and was born of the Virgin according to the Scriptures, and became man, ^D the mediator between God and man, the apostle of our faith, and the author of life, as He says: ‘I have descended from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me;’ who suffered for us, and.

arose on the third day, and ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father; and is coming again with glory and power, to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit, who is given for consolation, and sanctification, and perfection to those who believe, just as our Lord Jesus Christ commanded his disciples, saying: ‘Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit;’ that is to say, the Father is truly Father, the Son is truly Son, and the Holy Spirit is truly Holy Spirit; the names are not set forth thoughtlessly or uselessly, but accurately signify the hypostasis, order, and glory proper to each of those named; so that in hypostasis they are three, but in harmony, one. Holding this faith, therefore, and preserving it from beginning to end in the sight of God and of Christ, we anathematize every perverse heretical doctrine. And if anyone teaches otherwise than the sound and correct faith of the Scriptures, saying that time, or an age, or a world existed before the Son was begotten, let him be anathema. And if anyone says that the Son is a creature, as one of the creatures, or a product, as one of the products, or a work, as one of the works, and not as the divine Scriptures have handed down each of the aforementioned things one by another; or if he teaches or evangelizes anything else, beyond what we have received, let him be anathema. For we truly and religiously believe and follow all that has been handed down from the divine Scriptures by the prophets and apostles.”

^B 24. Furthermore, a certain Theophronius, bishop of Tyana, proposed this formula of faith composed by himself before everyone, to which, his faith having been approved, all subscribed:

“God knows, whom I call to witness upon my soul, that I believe thus: namely, in one God the Father Almighty, creator and maker of all things, from whom are all things. And in his only-begotten Son, God, Word, power, and wisdom, our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, born of the Father before the ages, perfect God from perfect God; who is with God in hypostasis; who in the last days descended, and was born of the Virgin according to the Scriptures, and was made man, suffered, and rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of his Father; and is coming again with glory and power to judge the living and the dead, and remains forever. And in the Holy Spirit ^{C D}

the Comforter, the Spirit of truth, which God promised by the prophet to pour out upon his servants, and which the Lord promised to send to his disciples, and which he also sent, as the Acts of the Apostles testify. If anyone teaches, or holds in his own mind, anything contrary to this faith, let him be anathema; and whoever agrees with Marcellus of Ancyra, or Sabellius, or Paul of Samosata, let both he and those who communicate with him be anathema. ^A

25. Now the bishops who were gathered together at the Dedication were ninety in number, during the consulship of Marcellinus and Probinus, in the fourteenth indiction, with the most impious Constantius being present there. Having done these things at Antioch at the time of the Dedication, and thinking that they had not yet written their faith perfectly—as they were people possessed of a wavering mind—they again drew up another document concerning the faith after a few months, and sent Narcissus, Maris, Theodorus, and Marcus into the Gauls. And they, having been sent as if from a synod, delivered these things to Constantius Augustus of blessed memory, and to all who were there: ^B

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, creator and maker of all things, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named; and in his only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten of the Father before all ages; God from God, light from light; through whom all things were made in heaven and in earth, visible and invisible; who is the Word, and wisdom, and power, and life, and true light; who in the last days was made man for us, and was born of the holy Virgin, was crucified, and died, and was buried; and rose again from the dead on the third day, and was taken up into heaven, ^C and sits at the right hand of the Father; and is coming at the consummation of the age to judge the living and the dead, and to render to each according to his works; whose kingdom is indissoluble and continues into infinite ages. For he shall be sitting at the right hand of the Father, not only in this age, but also in the one to come; and in the Holy Spirit, that is, the Comforter, whom he promised to the apostles, and after his ascent into heaven he sent, to teach them and remind them of all things; through whom also the souls of those who believe in him sincerely shall be sanctified. But those who say that the Son is from non-existent things, or from another sub- ^D

substance, and not from God—and that there was a time when he was not—the Catholic Church considers as aliens ^A.

26. But as if they repented of these things, three years later they gathered their council again, and sent Eudoxius, Martyrius, and Macedonius, the bishop from Cilicia, and with them certain others, into the parts of Italy, bringing a formula of faith written at great length, and having more additions than the previous ones; for as though they had thought up certain newer things, they set out carrying these. ^B

I. We believe in one God, the Father almighty, creator and maker of all things, from whom every fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named. And in his only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, begotten of the Father before all ages: God from God, light from light, through whom all things were made, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible; who is the Word, and wisdom, and power, and life, and the true light; who in the last days for our sake became man, and was born of the holy Virgin, was crucified, died, and was buried, and rose again from the dead on the third day, and was taken up into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; who shall come at the consummation of the age to judge the living and the dead, and to render to each according to his works; whose kingdom, being unending, remains ^C unto the infinite ages. For he sits at the right hand of the Father, not only in this age, but also in the one to come. We believe also in the Holy Spirit, that is, the Paraclete, whom he promised to the apostles after his ascent into heaven, and sent to teach them and to bring all things to their remembrance, through whom also the souls of those who have believed in him sincerely shall be sanctified.

II. But those who say that the Son is from non-existent things, or from another substance, and not from God, and that there was a time, or age, when he was not, the Catholic and holy Church considers as aliens. Likewise also those who say that there are three Gods, or that Christ is not God, or that before the ages he was neither Christ nor the Son of God, or that the same is Father and Son, or Holy Spirit; or an unbegotten Son, or that ^D

he did not generate the Son by his own choice or will, the holy and catholic Church anathematizes.

III. ^A For it is not safe to say that the Son is from things which are not, since this is nowhere found concerning him in the divinely inspired Scriptures; nor from any other substance having pre-existed besides the Father, but we define that he was genuinely generated from God alone; for divine discourse teaches that the Father of Christ is one, unbegotten and without beginning. Nor do we heed those who, without Scriptural authority, rashly say, "There was a time when he was not," nor must any interval of time preceding him be imagined, but only God who generated him without time; for times and ages have been made through him. Nor must it be thought that the Son is co-unbeginning and co-unbegotten with the Father; for no one can properly be called father or son of one who is co-unbeginning and co-unbegotten. But we know that the Father, who alone is ^B without beginning and unbegotten, generated in an ineffable way and incomprehensible to all; and that the Son was generated before the ages, and that he himself is not unbegotten in the same way as the Father, but has as his beginning the Father who generated him: for the head of Christ is God.

IV. Nor yet, because we confess three realities and three persons, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, according to the Scriptures, do we therefore make three Gods; since we know one only God, the self-existent and unbegotten and without beginning and invisible, the God and Father of the Only-begotten, who alone has being from himself, and alone ^C bountifully grants this to all other things. Nor, while we say that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the one only God and the only unbegotten, do we on that account deny that Christ also is God before the ages; as do those who are from Paul of Samosata, who later say that he was deified after the incarnation, from a progress, inasmuch as he had been born a simple man by nature. For we know that he, even if he is subject to the Father and to God, is nevertheless, having been generated from God before the ages, God perfect and true by nature, and not that he became God after being a man, but that he was made man from God for our sake, and has ^D never ceased to be.

V. Furthermore, we abhor and anathematize those who falsely call him only a bare and non-subsistent Word of God, having his being in another, now indeed as a prolative Word, as it is called by some, and now as an internal one;

but they contend that Christ himself and the Son of God, the mediator, and the image of God, did not exist before the ages, but that Christ himself and the Son of God came to be at that time when he assumed our flesh from the Virgin, not yet four hundred years ago. For they contend that from that time Christ had the beginning of his kingdom, and that this kingdom will have an end after the consummation and the judgment.

VI. ^B Such are the followers of Marcellus and Photinus of Ancyra-Galatia, who deny the pre-eternal existence and divinity of Christ, and his everlasting kingdom, like the Jews, under the pretext of seeming to establish the monarchy. For we know him to be not merely a prolative Word or an internal Word of God, but the living God, the Word existing in himself, and the Son of God and Christ, and he did not merely exist before the ages with his own Father through foreknowledge, nor did he merely dwell with him, but he served the Father in the creation of all things, whether visible or invisible. For this is he to whom the Father said, "Let us make man in our image and likeness," who appeared face to face to the patriarchs, who gave the law, and spoke through the prophets, and in the end became man, and manifested his own Father to all men, and reigns unto the infinite ages. For Christ received no new dignity; but we believe him to have been perfect from of old and in all things like the Father.

VII. ^C But those who say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same, impiously accepting these three names for one and the same thing and person, we deservedly excommunicate from the Church; because they subject the Father, who can be neither comprehended nor suffer, to comprehension and passion through the incarnation; of which kind are those who among the Latins are called Patropassians, and among us are called Sabellians. For we know that the Father who sent him remained in the own state of his immutable divinity, while Christ, who was sent, fulfilled the dispensation of the Incarnation.

VIII. ^D Likewise, those who with the utmost impiety say that the Son was not begotten by choice or by will, attributing to God a certain involuntary and forced necessity, so that he begat the Son against his will, we judge to be most impious and alien from the Church; because this is contrary to the common sentiments concerning God, and indeed contrary to the mind of the divinely inspired Scripture.

^A For knowing God to be His own master and Lord, we piously believe that He has begotten the Son spontaneously and voluntarily. And fearing that which is said concerning Himself, "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works" (Prov. viii, 22), we do not understand Him to have been generated in the same way as the creatures or works that were made through Him. For it is impious and alien from the ecclesiastical faith to compare the Creator to the things created by Him, and to think that He was brought forth in the same manner of generation as other creatures. Indeed, the divine Scriptures teach us that the only-begotten Son was generated solely and uniquely, purely and truly.

IX. But while we say that the Son exists, lives, and subsists by Himself, just as the Father does, we do not on that account separate Him from the Father, conceiving of any ^B spaces or intervals between their union in a bodily fashion. For we believe that they are joined to one another without any intermediary or interval, and that they exist inseparable from one another; the whole Father enfolding the Son, and the whole Son hanging from and clinging to the Father, and resting eternally solely in the Father’s bosom. Therefore, believing in the entirely perfect and most holy Trinity—that is, in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit—and calling the Father God, and likewise the Son God, we do not confess two Gods, but we acknowledge one dignity of the Godhead and one absolute concord of the kingdom; ^C so that the Father alone rules over all things whatsoever, and even over the Son Himself, but the Son is subject to the Father; and, except for Him, He rules over all things that were made through Him, and abundantly bestows the grace of the Holy Spirit upon the saints by the Father’s will. For thus the sacred writings have handed down to us the doctrine that the monarchy in Christ is constituted.

X. We have been compelled to explain these things more extensively after the faith previously set forth in summary, not out of any superfluous ambition, but so that we might remove every alien suspicion concerning our faith from those who are ignorant of our affairs, and that all those in the West may know—both ^D the insolence of the calumny of the heterodox, and at the same time the ecclesiastical [judgment] of the Orientals in the Lord

witnessed unfailingly by the divinely-inspired Scriptures before those who have not distorted their minds.

27. But they did not stop even with this; for gathering again at Sirmium against Photinus, they then composed a creed again, not so long, nor written in so many words, but having removed most and added others, as if they had received them at the suggestion of certain parties, they wrote these things:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the creator and maker of all things, from whom every family in heaven ^B and on earth is named; and in his only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, begotten of the Father before all ages: God from God, light from light, through whom all things were made, those in the heavens and those on the earth, visible and invisible; who is the Word and Wisdom and true Light and Life; who in the last days was made man for our sake and was born of the holy Virgin, and was crucified, and died, and was buried; and who rose from the dead on the third day, and was taken up into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and he is to come at the consummation of the age to judge the living and the dead, and to render to each according to his works; whose kingdom, being unending, remains into the infinite ages. For he shall be sitting at the right hand of the Father, not only in this age, ^C but also in the coming one. And in the Holy Spirit, that is, the Paraclete, which, having promised to the apostles to send after his ascent into heaven, he sent, that he might teach them and summon all things to their mind; through whom also the souls of those who sincerely believe in him are sanctified.

I. But as for those who say that the Son is from non-existent things, or from another substance, and not from God: or that there was a time or age when he did not exist, the holy and catholic Church recognizes these as aliens to itself.

II. Again, therefore, we say: If anyone says the Father and the Son are two Gods, let him be anathema.

III. And if anyone, while saying Christ is God and the Son of God before the ages, does not confess that he ministered to the Father in the creation of all things, let him be anathema. ^D

IV. If anyone dares to say that the unbegotten one, or any part of him, was born of Mary, let him be anathema.

V. If anyone, according to foreknowledge, says that he was born before Mary, if anyone, according to foreknowledge, says he who is from Mary...

is the Son, and that he was not born of the Father before the ages to be with God, and that all things were not made through him, let him be anathema.

VI. If anyone says that the substance of God is dilated or contracted, let him be anathema.

VII. If anyone says that the dilated substance of God makes the Son, or names the dilatation of his substance the Son, let him be anathema.

VIII. If anyone says that the Son of God is an internal or a prolate word, let him be anathema.

IX. If anyone says that the Son born of Mary is merely a man, let him be anathema.

X. If anyone, in saying that he who is from Mary is God and man, understands him to be the unbegotten God himself, let him be anathema.

XI. If anyone, in a Jewish manner, interprets the statement, "I am the first God, and I am after these, and beside me there is no God," which was spoken for the destruction of idols and false gods, as the destruction of the Only-begotten God who is before the ages, let him be anathema.

XII. If anyone, hearing the statement, "The Word became flesh," thinks that the Word was changed into flesh, or says that in assuming flesh he underwent any mutation, let him be anathema.

XIII. If anyone, hearing that the Only-begotten Son of God was crucified, says that his divinity underwent corruption, passion, mutation, diminution, or destruction, let him be anathema.

XIV. If anyone says that in the statement, "Let us make man," the Father did not speak to the Son, but that God spoke to himself, let him be anathema.

XV. If anyone says that Abraham did not see the Son, but the unbegotten God or a part of him, let him be anathema.

XVI. If anyone says that it was not the Son who wrestled with Jacob in the form of a man, but the unbegotten God or a part of him, let him be anathema.

XVII. If anyone does not interpret the statement, "The Lord rained fire from the Lord," as referring to the Father and the Son, but says that he rained it of himself, let him be anathema; for the Son is the Lord who rained [fire] from the Lord the Father.

XVIII. If anyone, hearing "the Lord the Father" and "the Lord the Son," or "the Lord the Father and the Son," because the Lord is from the Lord, says there are two Gods, let him be anathema. For we do not equate the Son with the Father, but understand him to be subordinate to the Father. For neither did he descend into Sodom without the will of the Father, nor did he rain [fire] of himself, but from the Lord, that is, by the authority ^A of the Father.

^A nor does he sit at the right hand of the Father by his own authority, but he hears the Father saying: "Sit at my right hand" (Ps. cix, 1).

XIX. If anyone says that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one person, let him be anathema.

XX. If anyone, calling the Holy Spirit the Paraclete, says that he is unbegotten God, let him be anathema.

XXI. If anyone, as the Lord has taught us, does not call the Paraclete another than the Son—for He said, "And the Father will send you another Paraclete, whom I will ask" (Joan. xiv, 16)—let him be anathema.

XXII. If anyone says that the Holy Spirit is a part of the Father or of the Son, let him be anathema.

XXIII. If anyone says that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three Gods, let him be ^B anathema.

XXIV. If anyone says that the Son of God was made by the will of God as one of the things that were made, let him be anathema.

XXV. If anyone says that the Son was begotten against the will of the Father, let him be anathema. For the Father did not beget the Son compelled by any natural necessity, as if unwilling; but as soon as He willed it, He brought Him forth, begotten of Himself without time and without passion.

XXVI. If anyone says that the Son is unbegotten and without beginning, so as to speak of two things without beginning and two unbegotten things, and makes two Gods, let him be anathema. For the Head, which is the beginning of all things, is the Son; but the Head, which is the beginning of Christ, is God; for thus do we piously lead all things ^C through the Son to the one God, who is the beginning of all things without beginning.

XXVII. And again, accurately explaining the sense of Christianity, we say: If anyone denies Christ to be God, the Son of God, existing before the ages, and having ministered to the Father in the creation of all things; but says that from the time when He was born of Mary, from then He was called Christ and Son, and then began to be God, let him be anathema.

28. [These people], having rejected all these things, as if they had devised something superior, establish a formula of the doctrine of the faith, and write these things in Sirmium in Latin, which have been translated into Greek:

"Since it was thought that there was some dispute concerning the faith, ^D and because some, having devised something superior, are setting forth another faith, they write these things in Sirmium in Latin, which have been translated into Greek:"

everything was diligently discussed and examined at Sirmium, in the presence of Valens, Ursacius, Germinius, and the others. It is established that there is one God, the Father almighty, as is believed throughout the whole world. And one only-begotten Son of his, our Lord Jesus Christ, begotten of him before the ages. That we should not speak of two Gods, since the Lord himself has said: “I go unto my Father and your Father, to my God and your God” (John xx, 17). Thus he is the God of all, as the Apostle also taught: “Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith” (Rom. iii, 29, 30). And as for the rest, everything was in agreement, nor could they find any discrepancy. ^B But as for the matter which disturbed some or many, regarding the term for "substance"—which in Greek is called *ousia*, that is, to understand it more precisely, *homousion* (of the same substance), or what is called *homoiousion* (of similar substance)—no mention of these should be made at all, nor should anyone preach them, for this reason and cause: because they are not contained in the divine Scriptures, and because they are beyond human knowledge and the human mind; and because no one can describe the generation of the Son, as it is written: “Who shall declare his generation?” (Isa. liii, 8). For it is manifest that only the Father knows how he begat his Son, and the Son how he was begotten of the Father. There is no ambiguity that the Father is greater. To no one can it be doubtful that the Father is greater in honor, dignity, splendor, majesty, and by the very name of Father, with the Son himself testifying: ^C “My Father that sent me is greater than I” (John xiv, 28). And no one is ignorant that this is catholic: that there are two persons, of the Father and of the Son; that the Father is greater, and the Son is subject to the Father, together with all things which the Father subjected to him. That the Father has no beginning, and is invisible, and immortal, and impassible; but that the Son was begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light. And that no one knows the generation of this Son, as previously stated, except the Father alone. But this same Son and our Lord and God took flesh or a body, that is, a man, from the womb of the Virgin Mary, as the angel preached. And as all the Scriptures teach, and especially the teacher of the Gentiles himself, the Apostle, that he ^D took on man from the Virgin Mary, through whom he suffered

^A The summary of the whole faith, and its stability, is that the Trinity should always be preserved, as we have read in the Gospel: “Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” And the number of the Trinity is whole and perfect. And the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, sent through the Son, came according to the promise, that he might instruct and sanctify the Apostles and all who believe.

29. Having written these things and repented, they produced that formula of faith which they blushed later to have published with the consulship. But as if they disapproved of this as well, they took care that copies should be taken away from those who had them, through Martinianus the notary. And having caused the Emperor Constantius to issue an edict against it, they handed over another one; and having added, as is their custom, certain words, they wrote these things in Isauria:

596 ^B We do not refuse to bring forward the authentic faith exposed at the Dedication in Antioch, even if our fathers at that time gathered for the question proposed. But, since these terms—"consubstantial" and "co-essential"—have troubled many in past times and even now; and especially since it is said that it is now being innovated by some that the Son is "unlike" the Father; for this reason, we reject the "consubstantial" and "co-essential" as terms alien to the Scriptures: and the "unlike"—^C for that is what we are excluding as alien to the Scriptures; but we anathematize the "unlike"—

"—^A and we deem all those who hold such views as aliens to the Church. But we clearly confess the Son to be like the Father, according to the Apostle, who says concerning the Son, "Who is the image of the invisible God." We also confess and believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. We believe also in our Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, who was begotten of Him impassibly before all ages, God the Word, God from God, the Only-begotten, light, life, truth, wisdom, power, by whom all things were made, those in heaven and those on earth, whether visible or invisible. We believe that He, in the fullness of the ages, took flesh from the holy Virgin for the putting away of sin and became man; suffered for our sins, and rose again, and was taken up into the heavens, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. We also believe in the Holy Spirit, whom our Savior and Lord called the Paraclete, having promised to send Him to the disciples after His departure, which He also sent; by whom He sanctifies those in the Church who believe and are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But as for those who preach anything apart from this faith, the Catholic Church recognizes them as aliens. That the confession of faith recently published at Sirmium, in the presence of our most pious emperor, contains the same as this, is known to all who have read it.

30. Having written these things in Isauria, they went up to Constantinople, and, as if they repented of what they had written, they changed these things according to their habit, adding, however, some slight phrases so as not even to speak of *hypostasis* in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and they sent these same [confessions] to those who had gathered at Ariminum, forcing all the bishops of these regions to subscribe to them. And if any resisted, they caused them to be sent into exile by Constantius. These things are as follows:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, from whom are all things; and in the only-begotten Son of God, who was begotten of God before all ages, and before every principle; by whom all things were made, visible ^D and invisible..."

and who was begotten as the Only-begotten, alone from the Father alone, God from God, like to the Father who begat him, according to the Scriptures; whose generation no one knows except the Father alone who begat him. We know that this only-begotten Son of God came down from heaven, the Father sending him, as it is written, for the destruction of sin and death; and that he was born of the Holy Spirit and of Mary the Virgin according to the flesh, as it is written; and that he consorted with the disciples, and when the whole dispensation had been fulfilled according to the will of the Father, he was crucified, died, was buried, and descended into the lower parts of the earth, whom Hades itself trembled to behold; who also rose from the dead on the third day, and consorted with his disciples; and when the forty days were fulfilled, he was ^B taken up into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father, to come in the last day of the resurrection in the glory of the Father, that he may render to each according to his works. And we believe in the Holy Spirit, whom the only-begotten Son of God himself, Christ, our Lord and God, promised to send to the human race as the Paraclete, as it is written: The Spirit of truth, whom he sent to them when he ascended into heaven. But the name of "substance," which was set down by the Fathers more simply, and being unknown to the people, caused offense, because it is not contained in the Scriptures, it was decided to remove it, and that no mention of it should be made at all in the future; since the divine Scriptures nowhere mention the substance of the Father and the Son. Indeed, "hypostasis" also ought not to be named concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But we say that the Son is like to the Father, ^C as the divine Scriptures say and teach. And let all heresies, both those already condemned and any that may arise hereafter, which are contrary to this set-forth confession, be anathema. 31. But they did not even stand by these positions; for having departed from Constantinople to Antioch, they changed their opinion by which, according to the sacred Letters, they had handed down in writing that the Son is like to the Father; and having devised what they thought up, they began again to return to their former views, and to say that the Son is in every respect unlike the Father, and that the Son is in no place like to the Father; and they were so far led away from their original mind, that even regarding those who speak more openly of the ^D Arians, they began to accept them...

^A and to hand over the churches to them, so that from this position of security they might more confidently proffer their blasphemies. And so, on account of the great impudence of their blasphemy, they were called Anomoi by everyone, possessing also the name of 'Exoukontioi,' and having as patron of their impiety the heretic Constantius; who, having persevered in impiety until the end, and being even then at the point of death, saw fit to be baptized, not by pious men, but by Euzoius, who, because of the Arian heresy, had been deposed not once but many times, both when he was a deacon and when he sat at Antioch.

52. ^B Up to this point, therefore, the men aforesaid had advanced, and were eventually deposed. But I know well that even so, those who have practiced simulation until now will not stay their step, but will always continue their conspiracies against the truth, until, coming to themselves, they too say: "Let us arise and go to our Fathers, and let us say to them: We anathematize the Arian heresy, but we acknowledge the Nicene synod"—for against this is their contention. Who, then, possessed of even a little sense, will any longer endure these men? Who, seeing them in each synod taking some things away and adding others, does not perceive that they possess a ^C suspicious and deceitful mindset regarding Christ? Who, seeing them extending through long passages both their formulation of faith and their defense regarding the matters of which they are accused, does not see that they are convicting themselves, and writing many things on purpose so that they may appear, by means of ill-timed vainglory and such great verbosity, to carry off the simple and to hide what kind of heresy they hold? But just as the pagans, as the Lord said, gain nothing by babbling in their prayers, so these men, having poured forth so many things, have not been able to extinguish the judgment passed ^D against the Arian heresy; rather, being more and more convicted, they were deposed, and rightly so. For what document of theirs would anyone hearing it accept? Or with what confidence would they themselves instruct those coming to them? For if all the documents have one and the same agreement, what is the need for many? And if the need for so many has arisen, it is clear that each one is deficient and not complete; and this they themselves prove more than we do, in that they change and transform everything. The multitude of the synods and the difference in what is written proves that those who gathered in them are fighting against the Nicene synod, but are yet too weak to oppose the truth.

53. Seeing that they were so disposed toward one another and toward those before them, come now, let us who have examined these things learn from them what absurdity or what faulty meaning they observed in the things that were written...

seeing that they were disobedient to their parents and were fighting ^A against the ecumenical synod? The words "from the essence," they say, and "consubstantial," do not please us. For these things have scandalized some and disturbed many. Those men, indeed, in writing such things, have spoken thus; but one might reasonably answer them as follows: If, then, these very words are, of themselves, the cause of scandal to these people, it ought not to be that just some were scandalized and many were disturbed, but that we and all others were affected in the same way by them. But if all people embrace these words, and those who wrote them were not ordinary men but were gathered from the whole world, and those bishops—four hundred and more—who have now met at Ariminum bear witness to them, how does this not ^B clearly refute those who speak against the synod, proving that the words themselves are not to be blamed, but rather the malice of those who interpret them perversely? How many are there who, having read the divine Scriptures maliciously and understood them perversely, bring accusations against the saints because of them! Such were formerly the Jews, who did not receive the Lord, and now the Manichaeans, who blaspheme the Law; yet the cause of this thing was not the Scriptures, but their own perversity. If, therefore, you can prove the words themselves to be base, do so, and let reason lead the way to the proof; and do not plead as an excuse those who are scandalized, lest you suffer the same fate as the Pharisees of that time. For indeed, even when they feigned that they were scandalized by the teachings of the Lord, the Lord said to them: "Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up." ^C By saying this, He showed that it was not the Father's words, "planted" by Him, that were a scandal to them, but that they themselves, by receiving what was well-said in a bad way, were scandalized. For those who in the past criticized the Apostle's epistles were exposing, not Paul, but their own ignorance and perverse mind.

54. But answer me (for it is worth while to ask this from them): who are they whom you offer as an excuse for being scandalized and disturbed by these things? For clearly, no one among those who think piously about Christ is so, since they defend and assert them. But if it is the Arians who are suffering this, what is the wonder if they are angry at those who are removing their heresy from their midst? For those words are not a scandal to them, but a source of grief, because they are like an inscription on a pillar ^D denouncing their impiety. Do not, therefore, cease to murmur against our Fathers and to use such things as an excuse; otherwise, it remains for you to criticize also the Lord's cross, because it is a scandal to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles, as the Apostle said. But just as the cross is not evil—for to us who believe it is Christ, the power of God, and the wisdom of God—even if the Jews...

rage; so too the words ^A of the Fathers are not perverse, but useful to those who read them with an open mind, and they utterly destroy all impiety—even if the Arians tear themselves apart many times, seeing themselves condemned by them. Since, therefore, the pretext concerning those who are scandalized has been shown to be implausible, tell us, then, why the expression "out of the essence" does not please you? For this is the first thing that must be asked: although you yourselves wrote that the Son was begotten "out of the Father"? If, therefore, when you name the Father, or when you use the word "God," you do not signify his essence, nor do you understand the One who exists as He is in his essence, but [refer to] something else about Him, or—what is worse, and which I do not wish to be attributed to me—you ^B signify something else through these terms, you ought not to have written that the Son is "out of the Father," but rather "out of things about Him" or "in Him." In this way, by avoiding the acknowledgment that God is truly Father, and by thinking that He who is truly simple is composite and corporeal, you would become inventors of a more recent blasphemy. Since you think in this way, you necessarily consider the Word and the Son to be not essence, but mere names; and eventually you hold your own fancy only in name, and you believe and think that what you say has no existence and is nowhere to be found.

55. But the audacity belongs rather to the Sadducees and to those who are called atheists ^C among the Greeks. Hence, you would not even say that the creation is a product of the true God, if the terms "Father" and "God" do not signify the very essence of the One who exists, but something else that you invent. But to think even this is utterly impious and most shameful. Yet when we hear: "I am who I am" (Exod. iii, 14); and, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. i, 1); and, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one Lord" (Deut. vi, 4); and, "Thus saith the Lord Almighty" (Gen. xvii, 1); we understand nothing else but the very simple, blessed, and incomprehensible essence of Him who is. For even if we are unable to grasp ^D what He is, nevertheless, when we hear the words "Father," "God," and "Almighty," we understand that nothing else is signified than the essence of Him who is. You yourselves also said that the Son is "out of God," meaning thereby that you said He is "out of the essence" of the Father. Since, moreover, before you, the Scriptures call the Lord the Son of the Father, and before them, the Father Himself has said, "This is my beloved Son" (Matth. iii, 17)—and the Son is nothing other than the offspring out of the Father—how then do they not appear...

^A to have spoken incorrectly, when they said that the Son is from the substance of the Father, if they supposed that it is the same thing, in all sincerity, to say "from God" as to say "from the substance"? For all creatures, even if they are said to have come into being from God, are not from God in the same way as the Son is; for they are not offspring, but are by nature created things. In the beginning, then, God did not beget, but "made heaven and earth and all that is in them," as it is written. And it is not said of Him who begets, but "who makes His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire." But if the Apostle said, "One God, from whom are all things," he did not say this to include the Son among all things, but because many of the Greeks suppose that the ^B creation came to be by chance and from the combination of atoms, and from similar elements spontaneously, and that it has no author; while others think that it came into being from a cause, yet not through the Word; and each of the heretics invents according to his own fancy and tells myths about the nature of things. For this reason, the Apostle necessarily said "from God" in order to make known the Maker and to declare that the creation of all things was made by His will. Immediately, therefore, he adds, "And one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things," in order to set the Son apart from all things; for all things that are said to be of God have been made through the Son. Nor can created things have the same generation as the Creator; and in order to teach that the phrase "from God," which is used here, is understood in one way regarding created things and in another way regarding the Son. For the latter is offspring, while the former are created things. Therefore, the Son ^C is the proper offspring of the Father's substance, while the others are creatures of His will.

56. When the synod itself observed this and perceived that the same term has different meanings—lest some should suspect that the Son of God is said to be "from God" just as the creatures are—they wrote more clearly that the Son is from the substance of God. For from this it is truly indicated that the Son is the genuine offspring of the Father; but from the phrase "from God," when used simply, the will of the Creator in creating is signified. If, therefore, they themselves wrote "from the Father" regarding the Word while having the same intent, let them not reproach the synod; but if, as it is written regarding the creation, they understand the phrase "from God" ^D in the same way regarding the Son, they ought, when applying to themselves what is said of the creation, not to name the Son, lest they seem to mix blasphemy with piety, and it was right either not to enumerate the Lord among the creatures, or not to attribute unworthy and altogether...

unfitting things to the Son. For if He is Son, He is not a creature; but if He is a creature, He is not the Son. If they think in this way, they will perhaps even deny the holy bath of baptism, because it is given into the Father and into the Son, and not into a Creator and a creature, as they themselves think. But "these things are not written," they say, and "we reject these expressions as unwritten." But this also is again a shameless pretext for them. For if they think that things not written should be rejected, why do they not oppose those who, around Arius, devised such a rabble of terms from unwritten sources: "out of nothing," and "the Son was not before He was begotten," and "there was once when He was not," and "He is mutable," and "the Father is ^B ineffable and invisible to the Son," and "the Son does not know His own essence," and as many things as Arius, thinking his own thoughts, vomited forth in his ridiculous and impious *Thalia*? They have not spoken against these; rather, they even contend for them, and because of these they struggle against their own Fathers. From what Scripture, moreover, have they themselves found "unbegotten," and the word "essence," and "there are three hypostases," and "Christ is not true God," and "He is one of the hundred sheep," and "the Wisdom of God is indeed unbegotten and without beginning, but there are many created powers, one of which is Christ"? Or how is it that, when in the so-called *Encenia* Acacius and Eusebius used terms not taken from Scripture,—saying that the firstborn of creation is an image of the essence, power, counsel, and glory without ^C variation—they murmur against the Fathers for mentioning words that do not exist in Scripture, and for using the word "essence"? For it would have been appropriate for them either to murmur against themselves or to find no fault with the Fathers.

37. If, therefore, others were making excuses for the expressions of the synod, there might be a suspicion that they were doing so from ignorance or religious caution; and indeed regarding George the Cappadocian, who was driven out from Alexandria, there is no argument. He is a man who is neither commended by any past way of life, nor is he in any way even a Christian, but who merely feigned the name for the sake of the moment and made piety a source of gain. Wherefore no one would rightly blame him for erring concerning the faith—a man who neither knows what he says nor the things ^D about which he affirms, but as it is written, follows all like a fool. But when Acacius, Eudoxius, and Patrophilus say these things, how are they not worthy of all condemnation? For, since they themselves also...

write what is not in the Scriptures, and have often accepted the name of "substance" as sound, especially because of the letter of Eusebius, they now accuse their predecessors for having used such expressions. Yet, although they themselves have said that the Son is God from God, and a living Word, an image of the Father’s substance ^A in all things unchangeable, they reproach those at Nicaea for having said that He who is begotten is "from the substance" and "consubstantial" with the Begetter. But why is it a wonder if they fight against their elders and their own fathers, when they are at variance even with themselves and stumble over their own words? For having declared at the so-called "Dedication" (Encaenia) in Antioch that the Son is an image of the Father’s substance without any dissimilarity, and having sworn that they so believe, and having anathematized those who think otherwise—nay, having even written in Isauria: "We do not refuse the authentic faith set forth at the Dedication in Antioch ^B (and the name of 'substance' is written there)," as if forgetful of these things—a little later in that same Isauria they wrote the contrary, saying: "The consubstantial and the substance-like, that is, 'consubstantial' and 'substance-like', we reject as alien to the Scriptures; and we remove the name of 'substance' from our midst, since it is not found in the Scriptures."

38. Who then will any longer deem such men to be Christians? Or what faith is found among those with whom neither words nor writings are firm, but everything is changed and inverted according to the occasion? For if, O Acacius and Eudoxius, you do not refuse the faith set forth at the Dedication, and in it is written that the Son is an image of the Father’s substance ^C without discrepancy, why do you write in Isauria, "we reject [it]"? For if the Son is not like the Father according to substance, how will He be an image of the substance without discrepancy? But if you have repented of having written that He is an image of the substance without discrepancy, why do you anathematize those who say that the Son is unlike [the Father]? For if He is not like according to substance, He is plainly unlike. Moreover, that which is unlike can never be an image. If, however, it is as you say, then he who has seen the Son has not seen the Father, as there is the greatest possible difference; or rather, the one is absolutely unlike the other. But that which is unlike cannot be called like. By what contrivance, then, do you call that which is unlike "like," and think of the like as unlike, and pretend by saying that the Son is an image of ^D the Father? For if the Son is not like the Father according to substance, something is lacking in the image, and it is not a full image, nor a perfect radiance. Why then do you read this: "In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily," and, "Of his fullness have we all received"? How do you think to cast out the Arian Aetius as a heretic

^A even while you say the same things as he? For he is a friend to you, Acacius, and he became a teacher of impiety to Eudoxius, for which reason even Leontius the bishop ordained him deacon, that, as a wolf under the clothing of a sheep, using the title of the diaconate, he might be able to vomit forth at liberty the words of his blasphemy.

59. What then is it that persuades you to fall into such a contradiction against yourselves, and to bring upon yourselves such shame? But you could say nothing reasonable; this alone is left to be understood: that you are now acting a part in everything, and that you are feigning and fabricating everything on account of the patronage of Constantius ^B and the gain that accrues to you from such a person. You readily accuse the Fathers, and you simply use as a pretext the expressions, as being unscriptural; and, according to the writing, "you have spread your feet for every passerby," so that you change your opinion as often as those who hire you with wages and rewards desire. Yet, even if one speaks words that are not in Scripture, it makes no difference, so long as he holds a pious mind. But the heretical man, even if he uses words taken from the Scriptures, is nonetheless suspect, and being corrupted in his mind, he shall hear from the Spirit: "Why do you declare my statutes, ^C and take my covenant into your mouth?" Thus the devil, though speaking from the Scriptures, was silenced by the Savior; but the blessed Paul, even if he speaks from those outside: "Cretans are always liars," and, "For we are also his offspring," and, "Evil communications corrupt good manners,"—nevertheless, being holy, he keeps a pious mind; and having the mind of Christ, he is a teacher of the nations in faith and truth; and what he says, he speaks with piety. What persuasive power then is there in the ^D petty phrases of the Arians, in which the caterpillar and the locust are preferred to the Savior, and these insults are cast at Him by them: "You were not once," and "You were created," and "You are a stranger to God according to essence," and in short not a single blasphemy is left out by them? What, on the other hand, have the Fathers left out that pertains to the commendation or praise of Christ? Does there not rather dwell in those holy men a sublime sentiment concerning Christ, and an extraordinary piety towards Him? And yet these men dared to write: "We reject those things"; while they tolerate such curses against Christ, they openly make it clear to all that they fight against that great synod for no other reason than that it condemned the Arian heresy. For this is also the reason they disparage the term "consubstantial," because they themselves think wickedly about it also. For if…

they believed rightly, and confessed the Father truly as Father, and believed the Son to be the genuine Son and the Word true by nature and the Wisdom of the Father; and if, when it is said that the Son is from God, they did not mean it as it is said of creatures, but understood Him to be the proper offspring of the Father’s substance, even as radiance has its origin from light; they would by no means have accused the Fathers ^A individually, but would rather have confidently said that the synod wrote well, and that such is the correct faith regarding our Lord Jesus Christ.

40. But, they say, the meaning of these expressions is obscure to us. For this was a futile excuse of men: because we cannot grasp the interpretation of the words, we reject them. But if they were speaking with a sincere mind, they should not have said, "We reject them," but were about to inquire so that they might learn from those who are skilled; otherwise let them reject whatever they do not understand in the divine Scriptures, and let them accuse those who wrote them. But such audacity belongs to heretics rather than to us Christians. For what we do not understand in the sacred utterances, we do not therefore reject, but we inquire of those to whom the Lord has revealed them, and we ask to learn from them. But since they pretext the obscurity of such terms, let them at least confess those things which are immediately appended, and let them anathematize those who think that the Son is from things non-existent, and that "He was not before He was begotten," and that the Word of God is a creature and a work, and that He is mutable by nature, and from another substance; and finally, let them anathematize the Arian heresy which invented such impiety ^B. And from now on, let them not say, "We reject these words," but rather, "We do not yet understand them," so that they may thus have some plausible reason for refusing them. But I know well and am persuaded, and they themselves also know this, that if they confess these things and anathematize the Arian heresy, they will not deny those expressions of the synod. For this is why the Fathers, having said that the Son is begotten from the substance of the Father and is consubstantial with the Father, immediately added: "But those who say [those] aforementioned things, which are of the Arian heresy, we anathematize"; in order to show that these things were said by them by way of parallel, and that those words ^C signify these things; and whoever confesses the former, will certainly think these things also; but those who do not think these things, nay, who actually disapprove of those words, these are indeed proven on all sides to be enemies of Christ.

41. Furthermore, for the refutation of those who reject the whole synod, these few things suffice. As for those who accept everything else written at Nicaea, but ^D concerning only the...

^A consubstantial (homoousion) are in doubt, it is not right to treat them as enemies. For we do not approach them as we do the Ariomanites, or as adversaries of the Fathers, but we argue as brothers with brothers, who hold the same opinion as we do, with the controversy having been brought about by the word alone. For since they confess that the Son is from the substance of the Father and not from another hypostasis, and that He is not a creature nor a work, but a genuine and natural offspring, and existing eternally ^B with the Father, being Word and Wisdom, they are not far from accepting the term "consubstantial" as well. Such is Basil of Ancyra, who wrote concerning the faith. For to say only "similar according to substance" does not entirely signify "from the substance," by which word more especially, as they themselves have said, the Son’s being the genuine Son of the Father is signified. For tin is only similar to silver, and a wolf to a dog, and brass that looks like gold to true gold, but neither is tin from silver, nor can a wolf be thought of as the son of a dog. But since they have said that He is both from the substance and similar in substance, what else do they signify by these things if not the consubstantial? ^C For just as he who says only "similar in substance" does not altogether make known that He is from the substance, so he who says "consubstantial" takes in the meaning of both expressions, both "similar in substance" and "from the substance." And indeed, when they themselves again argue against those who say that the Word is a creature and do not wish Him to be the genuine Son, they have borrowed arguments against them from human examples of son and father, with this exception, however, that God is not as man, nor is the generation of the Son ^D like a human birth, but such is as befits God, and as it behooves us to understand. For they have called the Father the source of wisdom and of life, and the Son the radiance of eternal light, and they have said that He is the offspring from the source, who says: "I am the life" (John XIV, 6), and, "I, Wisdom, dwell in counsel" (Prov. VIII, 12). But the radiance from light, and the offspring from a source, and the Son from the Father, how could one appropriately name this if not as "consubstantial"? Must we then, because the offspring of men are consubstantial, be on our guard lest the Son, being called consubstantial, might also be thought of as a human offspring? Heaven forbid! It is not so. But this has a prompt solution; for the Son is the Word and Wisdom of the Father, by which the impassible and indivisible nature of the generation from the Father is made known. For the Word…

^A of men is not a part of them, nor does it proceed from them by passion, much less that of God, whom the Father has declared to be His Son; so that no one, hearing only "Word," should think Him to be such as is that of men, subsisting without substance; but hearing that He is Son, he should recognize Him to be the living Word and the substantial Wisdom.

42. Furthermore, just as when we speak of the offspring, we do not understand it in a human manner; and when we acknowledge the Father to be God, we do not conceive any corporeal idea concerning Him—but while we hear those examples and such-like words, we understand them in a manner befitting God, for God is not as man—so also when we hear the "consubstantial," we ought to transcend every sense and, according to the Proverb, ^B understand spiritually the things set before us; so as to know that He is not by will, but truly the genuine Son from the Father, as life from a fountain, and radiance from light. For why do we understand "offspring" and "Son" not corporally, but "consubstantial" as if from bodies, especially since these things are not said of one thing and another, but of Him concerning whom the offspring is spoken, concerning Him also the consubstantial was said? And it is right to preserve the same understanding for both expressions regarding the Savior, and not to interpret the word "offspring" correctly, but the "consubstantial" otherwise; for it is consequent, if you are disposed in such a way and say that the Son is the Word and Wisdom of the Father, that you should have a different opinion concerning these, and understand the Word in one way, and the Wisdom in another. ^C But just as that is absurd—for the Son is the Word and Wisdom of the Father, and there is one fetus from the Father, and proper to His substance—so there is one and the same significance of offspring and consubstantial; and whoever thinks the Son to be a fetus, he rightly thinks Him to be consubstantial.

43. And these things are indeed sufficient to prove that the opinion of the beloved is not alien, nor far from the consubstantial. But since, as they themselves say (for I did not have the letter), the bishops who condemned him of Samosata handed down in writing that the Son of God is not consubstantial with the Father, ^D and for the rest they themselves, for the sake of piety and honor toward the men who said these things, are so disposed toward that word, it would be worth the effort to discuss this matter piously with them. For it is not fitting to set these against those; for all are Fathers; nor would it be holy to determine that these have spoken well and those badly; for all have fallen asleep in Christ. Furthermore, there must be no contention, nor should the number of those who were gathered be compared, lest the three hundred appear to be obscured by the fewer, nor should the times

be measured over again, lest those who preceded seem to be effacing those who came after them. For all, as has been said before, are Fathers; and yet even those who took liberties did not rely on unwritten ^A phrases; but setting out from the Fathers, they too made use of their words. For long before the seventy who deposed the Samosatene, there were two Dionysii, one of whom was bishop of Rome, and the other of Alexandria. But when some had accused the bishop of Alexandria to the bishop of Rome, as stating that the Son was a thing made and not consubstantial with the Father, the synod in Rome was indignant; and the bishop of Rome wrote back to his namesake concerning the opinion of all. And then he, in defense of himself, entitles his book *Elenchus and Apologia*. He writes these things to him:

44. ^B "And in another letter I wrote, in which I refuted the reproach which they bring against me, which is a lie, as though I did not say that Christ is consubstantial with God. For even if I say that I have not found this name, nor read it anywhere in the holy Scriptures, yet my arguments which follow, which they have passed over in silence, are not at variance with this meaning. For I even ^C adduced human offspring, which is clearly of the same nature, saying that parents are different from their children precisely in this, that they themselves are not their children; otherwise it would be necessary that neither parents should exist, nor children. But, as I said before, I do not have the letter itself with me now, due to the present circumstances; but at any rate I would have sent you the very words I then wrote, or rather a copy of the entire letter, and I will send it if I should have the means. I know, however, and remember that I added many examples of related things. ^D For I said that a plant, growing from a seed or a root, is something other than that from which it sprouted, and yet it is strictly of the same nature; and that a river flowing from a fountain has received both a different shape and a different name; for neither is the fountain called a river, nor the river a fountain, and both are in existence, and the fountain is as it were the Father, and the

river is the water flowing from the fountain. Thus far that bishop. ^A

45. If, therefore, anyone finds fault with those who assembled at Nicaea, as having spoken things contrary to those who were before them, he might with reason find fault also with the Seventy, that they did not observe the things of those before them; for before them were the Dionysii, and the bishops who at that time had assembled at Rome. But it is not right to blame either these or those; for all were acting on behalf of Christ, and all had manifested zeal against the heretics; and some condemned the Samosatene, and others the Arian heresy. Rightly and well did both the one and the other write in accordance with the subject matter before them. And just as the blessed Apostle, writing to the Romans, said, "The law is spiritual," and, "The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good," and a little later, "For what was impossible for the law, in that it was weak"; whereas to the Hebrews he wrote, "The law made nothing perfect"; and to the Galatians, "In the law no one is justified"; and to Timothy, that "The law is good, if one uses it lawfully"; yet no one would accuse the holy man as though he were writing things contrary and conflicting, but rather would admire that he wrote in a manner appropriate to each party, so that the Romans and the others might learn to turn from the letter to the Spirit, while the Hebrews and Galatians might be taught not to have their hope in the Law, but in the Lord who gave the Law: so too, if the Fathers of both synods made mention of the consubstantial ^C in different ways, we ought by no means to differ from them, but to investigate their intention, and we shall certainly discover the harmony of both synods. For those who deposed the Samosatene accepted the term "consubstantial" in a bodily sense, when Paul wished to quibble and say: "If Christ did not become God from a man, then He is consubstantial with the Father, and it is necessary that there be three substances, one prior and two proceeding from it." For this reason, rightly fearing such a sophism of the Samosatene, they said that Christ is not consubstantial; for the Son is not in relation to the Father as that man imagined. But those who anathematized the Arian heresy, having perceived the craftiness of Paul, and having considered that the consubstantial is not to be understood in this way regarding incorporeal things, and especially regarding God, and recognizing that the Word is not a creature, but a progeny from the substance; and that the substance of the Father is the beginning, root, and fountain of the Son, and that He is ^D the true likeness of the Begetter, not as something alien in nature, as we are, separated from the Father;

as we are, He is separated from the Father; ^A but as existing from Him, the Son is indivisible, just as the radiance is related to the light. Having also the examples of those around Dionysius—the word regarding the “fount,” and the defense of the *consubstantial*—and before these, the Savior’s word, which is an index of unity, “I and the Father are one,” and, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father,” for this reason they, too, have rightly called the Son consubstantial. And just as, as I said before, no one would blame the Apostle if he wrote about the Law in one way to the Romans and in another way to the Hebrews, so neither would the men of the present day blame the ancients if they consider their interpretation; nor would the ancients blame those who came after them, if they observe their interpretation and the necessity for which they wrote as they did about the Lord. For each synod ^B has a reasonable cause for why some have spoken in one way, and others in another. For since the Samosatene held that the Son did not exist before Mary, but had received the beginning of His existence from her, for this reason those who gathered at that time deposed him and declared him a heretic. But because they wrote more simply concerning the divinity of the Son, they did not arrive at the accurate interpretation of the *consubstantial*, but spoke of the consubstantial according to how they had conceived it. For their whole care was focused on overturning what the Samosatene had devised, and on declaring before all else that the Son exists, and that God did not become God from among men, but being God, He took the form of a servant, and being the Word, became flesh, as John said; and thus was the action taken against the blasphemy of Paul. But since those around Eusebius and Arius, while saying that the Son was before time, taught nonetheless that He had been created, and that He was one of the creatures, and did not believe that the phrase “from God” meant a genuine Son from the Father, but rather as they did concerning creatures, so they asserted that He was “from God”; and did not speak of the oneness of the Son’s likeness ^C to the Father according to the substance, nor according to the nature—as a son is like a father—but only on account of the agreement of doctrines and teaching; nay, they even marked off and alienated the substance of the Son completely from the Father, devising for Him a different beginning of existence than the Father, and casting Him down into the category of creatures; for this reason those who gathered at Nicaea, having observed the craftiness of those who so thought, and having gathered the sense from the Scriptures, by writing more clearly, declared the *consubstantial*, so that the genuine Son might truly be known from this, and that created things might have nothing in common with Him. For the accuracy of this word confutes their hypocrisy, if they say—

the expression "from God" indeed exposes them, and casts out all their plausibilities whereby they lead the simple-minded astray. Since, therefore, they are able to sophisticate and transform everything as they wish, they fear this word alone, as it confutes their heresy; which the Fathers wrote as a rampart against all their impious devising ^A.

46. Let all contention cease, and let us no longer clash with one another, or dispute whether the synods have accepted the term "consubstantial" in various ways. For we have ^B reasonable arguments in their defense, not only those already mentioned, but also this one: namely, although we have not learned this word, "unbegotten" [ingenitum], from the Scriptures—for the Scriptures nowhere call God "unbegotten"—yet, since many eminent men have made mention of that name, we have inquired accurately into it, and have recognized that this name has various meanings. For some signify by "unbegotten" that which exists, but was not generated, and has no cause at all; others, however, mean that which is not created. If anyone, therefore, looking to the former significance, by which "unbegotten" is understood as that which has no cause, should say that the Son is not unbegotten, he would not on that account accuse another who, holding the opinion that He is neither a work nor a creature, but an eternal offspring, might call the Son "unbegotten." For both, looking to their own respective scope, have spoken well. Thus, too, if some of the Fathers have spoken about the "consubstantial" in one way, and others in another, let us not contend; but let us receive their statements piously, since they, for the most part, devoted their whole effort to piety ^C.

47. Ignatius certainly, who was appointed bishop at Antioch after the apostles, and who was also a martyr of Christ, writing about the Lord, said: "There is one Physician, fleshly and spiritual, begotten and unbegotten, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God." But certain teachers after Ignatius also write themselves: "One is the unbegotten, the Father, and one is the genuine Son from Him, a true offspring, the Word and Wisdom of the Father." If, therefore, we are disposed against them also, let our fight be also against the synods. But if ^D we are persuaded of their faith in Christ, we have confidence that blessed Ignatius also...

also wrote correctly, calling Him "begotten" on account of the flesh (for the Word became flesh), but "unbegotten" in that He is not of created things or things begotten, but is the Son from the Father. We are not ignorant, moreover, that those who have said the Father is the one "unbegotten," did not write this as if the Word were a created thing or a work, but because the Father has no cause; nay rather, because the Father Himself is the Father of Wisdom, and has made all created things in Wisdom. Why, then, do we not gather into one fellowship of piety both the Fathers who deposed the Samosatene and those who branded the Arian heresy with infamy, instead of separating them and failing to think rightly concerning them? For those men also, as I have said, having their attention fixed upon the sophistry of the Samosatene and his explanation of it, wrote that He is not "consubstantial," while these men, understanding the words rightly, have said that the Son is consubstantial. Indeed, regarding those men who were pious towards Christ, I have written these few words in accordance with such thoughts. And if I had had access to the letter which they say those men wrote, I think I should have discovered more reasons why those blessed men were compelled to write in that way. For it is right and fitting for us to think in this way and to preserve a noble spirit toward the Fathers, if at least we are not illegitimate children, but have received our traditions from them, and from them the teaching of piety. ^B 48. Let this, then, be said to be the mind of the Fathers, and let it be believed. Come, however, let us again examine the matter calmly and with a good conscience with them, making mention of what has been said before: may it not be truly shown that the bishops who assembled at Nicaea thought rightly? If the Word is a made thing, and alien from the substance of the Father, so as to be separated from the Father by a separation of difference in nature, He certainly would not be consubstantial with the Father, but rather of the same nature as the created things, even if He excels them in grace. But if we confess that He is not a work, but the genuine offspring from the substance of the Father, it would follow reasonably that He is also inseparable from the Father, being of the same nature ^C as He is, inasmuch as He is begotten of Him. And being such, He is rightly called consubstantial. Furthermore, if the Son is not such by participation, but in His substance is the Word and Wisdom of the Father, and this substance is the offspring and likeness of the Father’s substance, just as the radiance is the likeness of the light; and the Son says, "I and the Father are one" (John x, 30), and "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John xiv, 9) — how are these sayings to be understood? Or with what mind are we to receive them, that we may maintain that the Father and the Son are one? For ^D

if they hold it to be on account of any consensus of dogmas, and by a lack of disagreement with the Father, as the Arians say, such a mind is perverse. For indeed the saints—and much more also the angels and archangels—have such a consensus ^A with God, and there is no disagreement among them. For the devil, who disagreed, was seen falling from the heavens, as the Lord said. Therefore, if the Father and the Son are one on account of this consensus, then those created beings who agree with God in this way would also be one, and each of them could say: "I and the Father are one." But if this is absurd—as indeed it truly is—then it is necessary to understand the unity of the Son and the Father according to their substance. For created things, however much consensus they may have with their Maker, have this only by movement, by participation, and by mind—which, when the devil did not keep, he was cast out of heaven. But the Son, being a product from the substance ^B of the Father, is one in substance with Him who begat Him.

49. Therefore, ^C because of words [of Scripture] indicating unity, He is said to have equality with the Father, and hence the Scriptures assert the same things of the Son that they say of the Father, with this exception only: that the Father is called Father. For the Son Himself said: "All things whatsoever the Father has are mine," and He said to the Father: "All my things are thine, and thine are mine." Of this kind is the title "God," for "The Word was God"; and "the Almighty," as in "Thus says He who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty"; and that He is "the Light," for "I am," He says, "the Light"; and that He is the creative cause, for "All things were made through Him," and "What things I see the Father doing, these I also do"; and that He is "eternal," for "His eternal power and divinity also," and "In the beginning was the Word," and "He was the true light which enlightens every man coming into the world"; and that He is "Lord," for "The Lord rained fire and brimstone from the Lord," and the Father says, "I am the Lord," and "Thus says the Lord God Almighty," while regarding the Son, Paul says: "One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things." Angels minister to the Father, ^D but the Son is worshipped by them: "And let all the angels of God worship Him." He is also said to be the Lord of angels, for "angels were ministering to Him," and "the Son of man shall send His angels"; and that He is honored as the Father: "In order," He says, "that they may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father"; and that He is equal to God: "Who did not count being equal to God a thing to be grasped."

^A And from the True, truth, and from the Living, life, as from the source, truly the Father, the Son gives life and raises the dead just as the Father does; for so it is written in the Gospel. Now regarding the Father it is written: "The Lord your God, the Lord is one," and, "The God of gods, the Lord, has spoken, and called the earth"; but regarding the Son, "God is the Lord, and He has shined upon us," and, "God of gods shall be seen in Sion." Again, touching God, Isaiah says: "What god is like You, taking away iniquities and passing over injustices?" But the Son said to those whom He wished: "Your sins are forgiven you," and when the Jews grumbled, He proved that forgiveness by deed, saying to the paralytic: "Arise, take up your bed, and go into your house." And concerning God, Paul said: "Now to the King of the ages," but concerning the Son, David sang: "Lift up your gates, you princes, and be lifted up, you everlasting doors, and the King of glory shall enter in," and Daniel heard: "His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom," and, "His kingdom shall not be destroyed." And in short, whatever you may find said concerning the Father, you would find just as much said concerning the Son, with the sole exception that He is not the Father, as has been said above. ^B

59. If, therefore, anyone thinks of another root and another Father because of the equality of the things said, that thought is insane. But if, because the Son is from the Father, all things of the Father are, as in an image and character, in the Son, let us judge ^C kindly: is a foreign substance capable of such things? And if such a one is of a different nature and of a foreign substance, and not rather consubstantial with the Father? For we must beware lest, in transferring the properties of the Father to that which is dissimilar in substance to Him, and in marking the Godhead of the Father in that which is dissimilar in nature and foreign in substance, we introduce another, strange substance, capable of the properties of the first substance, and be put to shame by God Himself, who says, "My glory I will not give to another," and be found worshiping a stranger, and be considered such as were the Jews of that time, saying, "Why are you, being a man, making yourself God?" when they also, transferring the things ^D of the Spirit, blasphemed, saying, "By Beelzebub He casts out demons." And if this is improper, it is clear that He is not of a dissimilar substance.

but consubstantial with the Father. For if the things of the Father are naturally the Son's, and the Son Himself is from the Father, and because of this unity of divinity and nature, He and the Father are one, and he who has seen the Son has seen the Father, He is deservedly termed consubstantial by the Fathers; for one who was of a different substance could not possess such things. ^B

51. Furthermore, if, as we said above, the Son is not by participation: but while all created things have the grace from God by participation, He Himself is the Father's Wisdom and Word, with whom He has all things in common; it is clear that ^C He who is the Father's deifying and illuminating power, in whom all things are deified and vivified, is not of a substance alien to the Father, but is consubstantial. For by participating in Him, we participate in the Father, because the Word is the Father's own. Whence, if He too were from participation, and not of Himself a substantial divinity and image of the Father, He would not have deified others, being deified Himself. For it cannot be that he who has from participation should communicate that which is participated to others, because what he has is not his own, but His who gave it, and what he received, he received barely sufficient grace for himself. ^D Nevertheless, let us sincerely examine the reason why some, it is said, reject the "consubstantial," lest the Son be shown to be even more consubstantial with the Father from this very fact. They say, therefore, as you wrote, that the Son ought by no means to be called consubstantial with the Father; because he who says "consubstantial" implies three things: some substance which underlies, and those who are begotten from it to be consubstantial; and they conclude from this: "If, therefore, the Son is consubstantial with the Father, it is necessary that their substance from which they were begotten should underlie them, and that there should not be the Father and the Son, but both should be brothers." Although these are the explanations of the Greeks, and we have no need of their reasonings; nevertheless, let us see, regarding those things that are called "consubstantial"—those which are siblings from a substance previously conceived—whether they are consubstantial to each other, or to the substance from which they were begotten. For if to each other, they will be of different substance and unlike the substance that begat them; for the "different-substantial" is opposed to the "consubstantial." But if each is consubstantial to the substance that begat it, it is clear that that which is begotten from something is consubstantial with its begetter, and there is no longer any need to seek for three substances, but only to seek whether this is truly from that. For even if it happen that there be not two brothers, but only one begotten from that substance, the one begotten would not, by reason of there being no other, be called "different-substantial"; but even being alone, He would be Himself consubstantial with the One who begat Him. For what should we say concerning the daughter of Jephthah, that she was an only-begotten; "And there was not," he says, "another."

And of the widow’s son, whom the Lord raised from the dead, who also himself had no brother, but was an only-begotten; was not each of them consubstantial with him who begat him? Assuredly they were; for they were children, and this is the property of children toward their parents. ^A Thus also, the Fathers, having said that the Son of God is from the substance, have reasonably called Him consubstantial; for this force and property the radiance also has toward the light. It follows from these things that created things did not come to be from nothing. For men, who beget with some passion, operate on the underlying material, and they could not do otherwise. But if we do not conceive of creating in God in human fashion, much less ought we to conceive of begetting in Him in human fashion, nor conceive of the consubstantial in a corporeal manner; but we must depart ^B from created things, and, laying aside human images and all sensations whatsoever, ascend to the Father, lest we unknowingly take the Son away from the Father and add Him to His own creatures.

52. Furthermore, if we confess the Father and the Son, do we speak of two principles, or two Gods, as Marcion and Valentinus do? Or do we say that the Son has some other mode of divinity and is not the image and figure of the Father, because He is begotten of Him? Let Him be dissimilar; for such substances are altogether foreign to one another. But if we recognize one and the only divinity, that of the Father, and that the Son is His Word and Wisdom, ^C and believing this, we do not say there are two Gods, and we think of the unity of the Son with the Father not by the likeness of doctrine, but according to substance, and in truth; so that for this reason we do not say two Gods, but one God, as there is one species of divinity, as light and the radiance are. For this was seen by the patriarch Jacob, and the Scripture says: "And the sun rose upon him, when he passed the species of God." ^D When the holy prophets saw this and understood whose Son and image He is, they said: "The word of the Lord came to me." Knowing the Father who is beheld and revealed in Him, they were confident to say: "The God of our fathers appeared to me, the God of Abraham, and Isaac and Jacob." Since this is the case, why are we afraid to call Him consubstantial, who is one with the Father, and appears as such as the Father is, according to likeness and one divinity? For if, as has been said often, He has no property or likeness with the paternal substance as Son, we are right to be afraid to use that word; but if He is

^A the proper illumination and creative power of the Father, without whom the Father neither creates nor is known (for all things have been created through Him and consist in Him), why, when we grasp the reality, do we shrink from uttering the word that signifies this? For what does it mean to be thus of one nature with the Father, or His consubstantial, if not this? God did not take the Son to Himself as something foreign, as if He had need of a minister, nor are created things equal in dignity to the Creator, so that they should be honored as He is, or that we should suppose that they and the Father are one. Or let someone be bold enough to divide these, and say that the sun and its radiance are two lights, or that they are some different substance, or that the radiance is an accident of the sun, and not that it is a simple and pure offspring from the sun; so that there are two things, the sun and the radiance, yet but one light, because this is an offspring from the sun. Since the nature of the Son is such, and even more inseparable ^B from the Father, and since the divinity did not accrue to the Son, but the paternal divinity is in the Son, so that he who sees the Son sees the Father in Him, why should one who is such not be called consubstantial?

53. These things are surely sufficient to persuade you not to blame those who have said that the Son is consubstantial with the Father. However, let us examine the word "consubstantial" itself on its own merits, that we may know whether one ought to use the word "consubstantial" at all, whether it is a proper term, and whether it is fittingly used of the Son. For you yourselves know, and no one would doubt, that "like" is not said of substances, but of forms and qualities. For of substances, one should speak not of likeness, but of identity. A man is said to be like a man, not according to his substance, but according to his appearance and ^C character; for in substance they are of one nature. Again, a man is not said to be unlike a dog, but of a different nature; therefore, that which is of the same nature is also consubstantial, and that which is of a different nature is also of a different substance. Therefore, he who says "like in substance" says that it is like by participation; for likeness is a quality, which can happen to a substance. But this would be proper to created things; for they are made like to God by participation. For "when," he says, "He shall appear, we shall be like Him," being like, clearly, not in substance, but in the sonship, which we receive from Him. If, therefore, you also say that the Son is by participation, let Him be called "of like substance" by you. But if He is called this, He will not be truth, nor light at all, nor God by nature. For things which are by participation are called "like," not in truth, but by a likeness of the truth, so that what is participated in can fall away and be removed ^D from those who participate. But this, again, is proper to creatures and created things. Therefore, if this is absurd, it cannot be by participation, but by nature and...

truth, that the Son is light, wisdom, and God. But being such by nature and not by participation, He could not properly be called "similar in substance" ^A, but "consubstantial." And as for that which no one would say of other things (for it was shown that "similar" is not used of substances), who, I ask, would not think it foolish, and perhaps even most serious, to propose this of the Son, and not rather call Him consubstantial?

54. For this reason, the Synod at Nicaea rightly wrote what it was fitting to say, that the Son is begotten from the substance of the Father and is consubstantial. Having learned these things ^B, let us not fight against shadows, especially knowing that those who wrote these things did not do so with the intent of wrongly explaining the truth, but in order to defend the truth and piety toward Christ, and to overthrow the blasphemies of the Ariomaniacs against Him, and thus they promulgated their faith. For it must be considered and accurately understood that when we say "dissimilar in substance" and "of a different substance," we do not signify the true Son, but one of the created things, an adopted Son by title, which is what the heretics think; but when we say "consubstantial" without contention, we signify the genuine Son who exists by nature from the Father, even if for this reason the enemies of Christ are often broken with rage. These things, which I have known and heard from the discussions of prudent men, I have written in brief. But you, remaining on the foundation of the apostles ^C and holding fast to the traditions of the Fathers, pray that now at last every contention and zeal may cease, and the foolish questions of the heretics and all logomachy may be condemned; and that the ill-named and murderous heresy of the Arians may be wiped away, and the truth may shine forth in the hearts of all, so that all everywhere may say the same thing and think the same thing; and with no remnant of Arian blasphemy left, it may be said and confessed throughout every Church: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" in Christ Jesus our Lord, through whom to the Father be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.

55. After writing about the synods, I learned that the most impious Constantius had written to ^D the bishops remaining at Ariminum; and I took care to receive the copies from genuine brethren, and to send them to you, along with the replies of the bishops, so that you might know both the impious deceit of the emperor and the firm and unshakable resolve of the bishops regarding the truth.

Interpretation of the Epistle

^A Constantius Victor and Triumphator Augustus, to all the bishops who have assembled at Ariminum.

That we always hold most special care for the divine and adorable law, even your gentleness does not ignore; however, we have not yet been able to see the twenty bishops sent by your prudence, who undertook to carry out your embassy; for a necessary expedition against the barbarians urged us on: and, as you know, the business of the divine law must be handled with a mind free from all anxiety. Wherefore we ordered the bishops to await our return at Adrianople, so that, after matters pertaining to the state have been rightly settled, we may then at last be able to hear and weigh what they may suggest. Let it not, therefore, be burdensome to your constancy to await their return, so that, when they have returned, bringing our replies to you, you may be able to bring to a conclusion those things which look to the advantage of the Catholic Church. The bishops received these things, via the three who brought word.

Example of the Epistle of the Bishops

We have received the letters of your clemency, most religious lord emperor, in which you signify that, due to the necessity of public business, you have not yet been able to admit our legates to your presence: and you bid us await their return, until your piety may learn through them what has been decreed by us according to the tradition of our ancestors. ^B We, however, even now by these letters profess and affirm that we shall in no way depart from our purpose: for this we enjoined upon our legates also. We ask, therefore, that with a placid countenance you may order both these writings of our mediocrity to be read, and that you may accept with kindness those things which we entrusted to our legates. Furthermore, your benignity understands with us how great the grief and sadness is now, that in your most happy times, so many churches are destitute of bishops, and for this reason we ask your clemency again and again, ^C lord emperor most dear to God, that before the severity of the winter, if indeed it shall please your piety, you may order us to return to our churches, so that we may be able to our omnipotent God, and our Lord and Savior Christ, His only-begotten...