Chapter 2. History of Arian opinions

Arius's own sentiments; his Thalia and Letter to S. Alexander; corrections
by Eusebius and others; extracts from the works of Asterius; letter of
the Council of Jerusalem; first Creed of Arians at the Dedication of
Antioch; second, Lucian's on the same occasion; third, by Theophronius;
fourth, sent to Constans in Gaul; fifth, the Macrostiche sent into Italy;
sixth, at Sirmium; seventh, at the same place; and eighth also, as
given above in Chapter 1; ninth, at Seleucia; tenth, at Constantinople
eleventh, at Antioch.

§. 15.

{94} 1. ARIUS and his friends thought and professed thus: "God made the Son out of nothing, and called Him His Son;" "The Word of God is one of the creatures;" and "Once He was not;" and "He is alterable; capable, when it is His will, of altering." Accordingly they were expelled from the Church by Alexander of blessed memory. However, after his expulsion, when he was with the Eusebians, he drew up his heresy upon paper, and imitating, as if in festivity [Note 1], no grave writer, but the Egyptian Sotades, in the dissolute tone of his metre [Note A], he writes at great length, for instance as follows:—

2. Blasphemies of Arius

God Himself then, in His own nature, is ineffable by all men.
Equal or like Himself He alone has none, or one in glory.
And Ingenerate we call Him, because of Him who is generate by nature.
We praise Him as Unoriginate because of Him who has an origin.
And adore Him as everlasting, because of Him who in time has come to be.
The Unoriginate made the Son an origin of things generated;
And advanced Him as a Son to Himself by adoption.
He has nothing proper to God in proper subsistence;
For He is not equal, no, nor one in substance
[Note B] with Him.
Wise is God, for He is the teacher of Wisdom
[Note C].
There is full proof that God is invisible to all beings,
Both to things which are through the Son, and to the Son is He invisible.
I will say it expressly, how by the Son is seen the Invisible;
By that power by which God sees, and in His own measure,
The Son endures to see the Father, as is lawful.
Thus there is a Three, not in equal glories.
Not intermingling with each other
[Note D] are their subsistences.
One more glorious than the other in their glories unto immensity.
Foreign from the Son in substance is the Father, for He is Unoriginate.
Understand that the One was; but the Two was not, before it was in existence.
It follows at once that, though the Son was not, the Father was God.
Hence the Son, not being, (for He existed at the will of the Father,)
Is God Only-begotten, and He is alien from either.
Wisdom existed as Wisdom by the will of the Wise God.
Hence He is conceived in numberless conceptions
[Note E].
Spirit, Power, Wisdom, God's glory, Truth, Image, and Word.
Understand that He is conceived to be Radiance and Light.
One equal to the Son, the Supreme is able to generate.
But more excellent, or superior, or greater, He is not able.
At God's will the Son is what and whatsoever He is.
And when and since He was, from that time He has subsisted from God.
He, being a strong God, praises in His degree the Superior.
To speak in brief, God is ineffable to His Son.
For He is to Himself what He is, that is, unspeakable.
So that nothing which is called comprehensible
[Note F]
Does the Son know to speak about; for it is impossible for Him
To investigate the Father, who is by Himself.
For the Son does not know His own substance,
For, being Son, He really existed, at the will of the Father.
What argument then allows, that He who is from the Father
Should know His own parent by comprehension?
For it is plain that, for That which hath origin
To conceive how the Unoriginate is,
Or to grasp the idea, is not possible.

§. 16.

3. And what they wrote by letter to Alexander of blessed memory, the Bishop, runs as follows:—

To our Blessed Pope [Note G] and Bishop, Alexander, the Presbyters
and Deacons send health in the Lord.

Our faith from our forefathers, which also we have learned from {97} thee, Blessed Pope, is this:—We acknowledge one God, alone Ingenerate, alone Everlasting, alone Unoriginate, alone True, alone having Immortality, alone Wise, alone Good, alone Sovereign; Judge, Governor, and Providence of all, unalterable and unchangeable, just and good, God of Law and Prophets and New Testament; who generated an Only-begotten Son before eternal times, through whom He has made both the ages and the universe; and generated Him, not in semblance, but in truth; and that He made Him subsist at His own will unalterable and unchangeable; perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures; offspring, but not as one of things generated; nor as Valentinus pronounced that the offspring of the Father was an issue [Note H]; nor as Manichæus taught that the offspring was a portion of the Father, one in substance [Note I]; nor as Sabellius, dividing the One, speaks of a Son-and-Father [Note K]; nor as Hieracas, of one torch from another, or as a lamp divided into two [Note L]; nor was He who was before, afterwards generated or new-created into a Son [Note M], as thou too thyself, Blessed {98} Pope, in the midst of the Church and in Session hast often condemned; but, as we say, at the will of God, created before times and before ages, and gaining life and being from the Father, who gave subsistence to His glories together with Him. For the Father did not, in giving to Him the inheritance of all things, deprive Himself, of what He has ingenerately in Himself; for He is the fountain of all things.

Thus there are Three Subsistences. And God, being the cause of all things, is Unoriginate and altogether Sole; but the Son being generated apart from time by the Father, and being created and founded before ages, was not before His generation, but being generated apart from time before all things, alone was made to subsist by the Father. For He is not eternal or co-eternal or co-ingenerate with the Father, nor has He His being together with the Father, as some speak of relations [Note N], introducing two ingenerate origins, but God is before all things as being a One and an Origin of all. Wherefore also He is before the Son; as we have learned also from thy preaching in the midst of the Church. So far then as from God He has His being, and glories, and life, and all things are delivered unto Him, in such sense is God His origin. For He is above Him, as being His God and before Him. But if the terms from Him and from the womb, and I come forth from the Father, and I am come [Rom. xi. 36. Ps. cx. 3. John xvi. 28.] [Note 2], be understood by some to mean as if a part of Him, or as an issue, then the Father is according to them compounded and divisible and alterable and material, and, as far as their belief goes, has the circumstances of a body, who is the Incorporeal God.

This is a part of what the Arians cast out from their heretical hearts.

§. 17.

4. And before the Nicene Council took place, similar statements {99} were made by Eusebius's party, Narcissus, Patrophilus, Maris, Paulinus, Theodotus, and Athanasius of Nazarbi [Note O]. And Eusebius of Nicomedia wrote over and above to Arius, to this effect, "Since your sentiments are good, pray that all may adopt them; for it is plain to any one, that what has been made was not before its generation; but what came to be, has an origin of being." And Eusebius of Cæsarea in Palestine, in a letter to Euphration the Bishop, did not scruple to say plainly that Christ was not true God [Note P]. And Athanasius of Nazarbi uncloaked the heresy still further, saying that the Son of God was one of the hundred sheep. For writing to Alexander the Bishop, he had the extreme audacity to say: "Why complain of the Arians, for saying, The Son of God is made as a creature out of nothing, and one among others? For all that are made being represented in parable by the hundred sheep, the Son is one of them. If then the hundred are not created and generated, or if there be beings beside that hundred, then may the Son be not a creature nor one among others; but if those hundred are all generate, and there is nothing besides the hundred save God alone, what extravagance do the Arians utter, when, as comprehending and reckoning Christ in the hundred, they say that He is one among others?" And George who now is in Laodicea, and then was presbyter of Alexandria, and was staying at Antioch, wrote to Alexander the Bishop; "Do not complain of the Arians, for saying, 'Once the Son of God was not,' for Esaias came to be Son of Amos, and, whereas Amos was before Esaias came to be, Esaias was not before, but came to be afterwards." And he wrote to the Arians, "Why complain of Alexander the Pope [Note 3], saying, that the Son is from the Father? for you too need not fear to say that the Son was from God. For if the Apostle wrote, All things are {100} from God [1 Cor. xi. 12.], and it is plain that all things are made of nothing, though the Son too is a creature and one of things made, still He may be said to be from God in that sense in which all things are said to be from God." From him then the Arians learned to pretend to the phrase from God, but not in a good meaning. And George himself was deposed by Alexander for certain reasons, and among them for manifest irreligion; for he was himself a presbyter, as has been said before.

§. 18.

5. On the whole then such were their statements, as if they all were in dispute and rivalry with each other, which should make the heresy more irreligious, and display it in a more naked form. And as for their letters I have them not at hand, to dispatch them to you; else I would have sent you copies; but, if the Lord will, this too I will do, when I get possession of them. And one Asterius [Note Q] from Cappadocia, a many-headed Sophist, one of the Eusebians, whom they could not advance into the Clergy, as having done sacrifice in the former persecution in the time of Constantius's grandfather, writes, with the countenance of the Eusebians, a small treatise, which was on a par with the crime of his sacrifice, but answered their wishes; for in it, after comparing, or rather preferring,  the locust and the caterpillar to Christ, and saying that Wisdom in God was other than Christ, and was the Framer as well of Christ as of the world, he went round the Churches in Syria and elsewhere, with introductions from the Eusebians, that as he had once been at pains to deny the truth, so now he {101} might make free with it. The bold man intruded himself into forbidden places, and seating himself in the place of Clerks [Note R], he used to read publicly this treatise of his, in spite of the general indignation. The treatise is written at great length, but portions of it are as follows:—

"For the Blessed Paul said not that he preached Christ, His, that is, God's, 'proper Power' or 'Wisdom,' but without the article, God's Power and God's Wisdom [1 Cor. i. 24.], preaching that the proper power of God Himself was distinct, which was connatural and co-existent with Him ingenerately, generative indeed of Christ, creative of the whole world; concerning which he teaches in his Epistle to the Romans, thus, The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things which are made, even His eternal Power and godhead [Rom. i. 20.]. For as no one would say that the Godhead there mentioned was Christ, but the Father Himself, so, as I think, His eternal power is also not the Only-begotten God, but the Father who begat Him. And he tells us of another Power and Wisdom of God, namely, that which is manifested through Christ, and made known through the works themselves of His Ministry."

And again:—

"Although His eternal Power and Wisdom, which truth argues to be Unoriginate and Ingenerate, would appear certainly to be one and the same, yet many are those powers which are one by one created by Him, of which Christ is the First-born and Only-begotten. All however equally depend upon their Possessor, and all His powers are rightly called His, who has created and uses them; for instance, the Prophet says that the locust, which became a divine punishment of human sin, was called by God Himself, not only the power of God, but the great power. And the blessed David too in many of the Psalms, invites, not Angels alone, but Powers also to praise God. And while he invites them all to the hymn, he presents before us their multitude, and is not unwilling to call them ministers of God, and teaches them to do His will."

§. 19.

6. These bold words against the Saviour did not content him, but he went further in his blasphemies, as follows:—

"The Son is one among others; for He is first of things generated, and one among intellectual natures; and as in things visible the sun is one among what is apparent, and it shines upon the {102} whole world according to the command of its Maker, so the Son, being one of the intellectual natures, also enlightens and shines upon all that are in the intellectual world."

And again he says, Once He was not, writing thus:—"And before the Son's generation, the Father had pre-existing knowledge how to generate; since a physician too, before he cured, had the science of curing." [Note 4] And he says again: "The Son was created by God's beneficent earnestness; and the Father made Him by the superabundance of His Power." And again: "If the will of God has pervaded all the works in succession, certainly the Son too, being a work, has at His will come to be and been made." Now though Asterius was the only person to write all this, the Eusebians felt the like in common with him.

§. 20.

7. These are the doctrines for which they are contending; for these they assail the Ancient Council, because its members did not propound the like, but anathematised the Arian heresy instead, which they were so eager to recommend. On this account they put forward, as an advocate of their irreligion, Asterius who sacrificed, a sophist too, that he might not spare to speak against the Lord, or by a show of reason to mislead the simple. And they were ignorant, the shallow men, that they were doing harm to their own cause. For the ill savour of their advocate's idolatrous sacrifice, betrayed still more plainly that the heresy is Christ's foe. And now again, the general agitations and troubles which they are exciting, are in consequence of their belief, that by their numerous murders and their monthly Councils, at length they will undo the sentence which has been passed against the Arian heresy [Note 5]. But here too they seem ignorant, or to pretend ignorance, that even before Nicæa that heresy was held in detestation when Artemas [Note S] was laying its foundations, and before him Caiaphas's assembly and that of the Pharisees his contemporaries. And at all times is this school of Christ's foes detestable, and will not cease to be hateful, {103} the Lord's Name being full of love, and the whole creation bending the knee, and confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father [Phil. ii. 11.].

§. 21.

8. Yet so it is, they have convened successive Councils against that Ecumenical One [Note 6], and are not yet tired [Note T]. After the Nicene, the Eusebians had been deposed; however, in course of time they intruded themselves without shame upon the Churches, and began to plot against the Bishops who withstood them, and to substitute in the Church men of their own heresy. Thus they thought to hold Councils at their pleasure, as having those who concurred with them, whom they had ordained on purpose for this very object [Note 7]. Accordingly, they assemble at Jerusalem, and there they write thus:—

The Holy Council assembled in Jerusalem [Note U] by the grace of God, to the Church of God which is in Alexandria, and to all throughout Egypt, Thebais, Libya, and Pentapolis, also to the Bishops, Priests, and Deacons throughout the world, health in the Lord.

To all of us who have come together into one place from different provinces, to the great celebration, which we have held at the consecration of the Saviour's Martyry [Note X], built to God the {104} King of all, and to His Christ, by the zeal of the most religious Emperor Constantine, the grace of Christ provided a higher gratification, in the conduct of that most religious Emperor himself, who, by letters of his own, banishing from the Church of God of all jealousy, and driving far away all envy, by means of which, the members of Christ had been for a long season in dissension, exhorted us, what was our duty, with open and peaceable mind to receive Arius and his friends, whom for a while jealousy which hates virtue had contrived to expel from the Church. And the most religious Emperor bore testimony in their behalf by his letter to the exactness of their faith, which, after inquiry of them, and personal communication with them by word of mouth, he acknowledged, and made known to us, subjoining to his own letters their orthodox teaching in writing [Note Y], which we all confessed to be sound and ecclesiastical. And he reasonably recommended that they should be received and united to the Church of God, as you will know yourselves from the transcript of the same Epistle, which we have transmitted to your reverences. We believe that yourselves also, as if recovering the very members of your own body, will experience great joy and gladness, in acknowledging and recovering your own bowels, your own brethren and fathers; since not only the Presbyters who are friends of Arius are given back to you, but also the whole Christian people and the entire multitude, which on occasion of the aforesaid men have a long time been in dissension among you. Moreover it were fitting, now that you know for certain what has passed, and that the men have communicated with us and have been received by such a Holy Council, that you should with all readiness hail this your coalition and peace with your own members, specially since the articles of the faith which they have published preserve indisputable the universally confessed apostolical tradition and teaching.

§. 22.

9. This was the first of their Councils, and in it they were speedy in divulging their views, and could not conceal them. {105} For when they said that they had banished all jealousy, and, after the expulsion of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, recommended the reception of Arius and his friends, they shewed, that their measures against Athanasius himself then, and before against all the other Bishops who withstood them, had for their object their receiving Arius's party, and introducing the heresy into the Church. But although they had approved in this Council all Arius's malignity, and had ordered to receive his party into communion, as they had set the example, yet feeling that even now they were short of their wishes, they assembled a Council at Antioch under colour of the so-called Dedication [Note Z]; and, since they were in general and lasting odium for their heresy, they publish different letters, some of this sort, and some of that; and what they wrote in one letter was as follows:—

[Note 8] We have not been followers of Arius,—how could Bishops, such as we, follow a Presbyter?—nor did we receive any other faith beside that which has been handed down from the beginning [Note A]. But, after taking on ourselves to examine and to verify his faith, we have admitted him rather than followed him; as you will understand from our present avowals.

For we have been taught from the first, to believe in one God, the God of the Universe, the Framer and Preserver of all things both intellectual and sensible.

And in One Son of God, Only-begotten, existing before all ages, and being with the Father who begat Him, by whom all things were made, both visible and invisible, who in the last days according to {106} the good pleasure of the Father came down, and took flesh of the Virgin, and fulfilled all His Father's will; and suffered and rose again, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and cometh again to judge quick and dead, and remaineth King and God unto all ages.

And we believe also in the Holy Ghost; and if it be necessary to add, we believe concerning the resurrection of the flesh, and the life everlasting.

§. 23.

10. Here follows what they published next at the same Dedication in another Epistle, being dissatisfied with the first, and devising something newer and fuller:—

[Note 9] We believe [Note B], conformably to the evangelical and apostolical tradition, in One God, the Father Almighty, the Framer, and Maker, and Preserver of the Universe, from whom are all things.

And in One Lord Jesus Christ, His Only-begotten Son, God, by whom are all things, who was begotten before all ages from the Father, God from God, whole from whole, sole from sole [Note 10], perfect from perfect, King from King, Lord from Lord, Living Word, Living Wisdom, true Light, Way, Truth, Resurrection, Shepherd, Door, both unalterable and unchangeable [Note C], unvarying image [Note D] of the Godhead, Substance, Will, Power, and Glory of the {107} Father; the first born of every creature, who was in the beginning with God, God the Word, as it is written in the Gospel, And the Word was God; by whom all things were made, and in whom all things consist; who in the last days descended from above, and was born of a Virgin according to the Scriptures, and was made Man, Mediator [Note E] between God and man, and Apostle of our faith, and Prince of life, as He says, I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me; who suffered for us and rose again on the third day, and ascended into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of the Father, and is coming again with glory and power, to judge quick and dead.

And in the Holy Ghost, who is given to those who believe for comfort, and sanctification, and initiation, as also our Lord Jesus Christ enjoined His disciples, saying, Go ye, teach all nations, baptising them in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost; that of Father being truly Father, and of Son being truly Son, and of the Holy Ghost being truly Holy Ghost, the names not being given without meaning or effect, but denoting accurately the peculiar subsistence, rank, and glory of each that is named, so that they are three in subsistence, and in agreement one [Note F]. {108}

Holding then this faith, and holding it in the presence of God and Christ, from beginning to end, we anathematise every heretical heterodoxy [Note G]. And if any teaches, beside the sound and right faith of the Scriptures, that time, or season, or age [Note H], either is or has been before the generation of the Son, be he anathema. Or if any one says, that the Son is a creature as one of the creatures [Note 11], or an offspring as one of the offsprings, or a work as one of the works, and not the aforesaid articles one after another, as the divine Scriptures have delivered, or if he teaches or preaches beside what we have received, be he anathema. For all that has been delivered in the divine Scriptures, whether by Prophets or Apostles, do we truly and conscientiously both believe and follow [Note I].

§. 24.

11. And one Theophronius [Note K], Bishop of Tyana, put forth before them all the following statement of his personal faith. And they subscribed it, accepting the faith of this man:—

[Note 12] God knows, whom I call as a witness upon my soul, that so I believe:—in God the Father Almighty, the Creator and Maker of the Universe, from whom are all things:

And in His Only-begotten God Son, God, Word, Power, and Wisdom, our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things; who was begotten from the Father before the ages, perfect God from perfect God [Note L], {109} and being with God in subsistence, and in the last days descended, and was born of the Virgin according to the Scriptures, and was made man, and suffered, and rose again from the dead, and ascended into the heavens, and sat down on the right hand of His Father, and cometh again with glory and power to judge quick and dead, and remaineth for ever:

And in the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, which also God promised by His Prophet to pour out upon His Servants, and the Lord promised to send to His disciples: which also He sent, as the Acts of the Apostles witness.

But if any one teaches, or holds in his mind, aught beside this faith, be he anathema; or holds with Marcellus of Ancyra [Note M], or Sabellius, or Paul of Samosata, be he anathema, both himself and those who communicate with him.

§. 25.

12. Ninety Bishops met at the Dedication under the Consulate of Marcellinus and Probinus, in the 14th of the Indiction [Note N], Constantius the most irreligious [Note 13] being present. Having thus conducted matters at Antioch at the Dedication, thinking that their composition was deficient still, and fluctuating moreover in their own views, again they draw up afresh another formulary, after a few months, professedly concerning the faith, and despatch Narcissus, Maris, Theodorus, {110} and Mark into Gaul [Note O]. And they, as being sent from the Council, deliver the following document to Constans Augustus of blessed memory [Note P], and to all who were there:—

[Note 14] We believe [Note Q] in One God, the Father Almighty, Creator and Maker of all things; from whom the whole family in heaven and on earth is named.

And in His Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who before all ages was begotten from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, by whom all things were made in the heavens and on the earth, visible and invisible, being Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and Life, and True Light; who in the last days was made man for us, and was born of the Holy Virgin; who was crucified, and dead, and buried, and who rose again from the dead the third day, and was taken up into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of the Father; and is coming at the end of the world, to judge quick and dead, and to render to every one according to his works; whose Kingdom endures indissolubly into infinite ages [Note R]; for He shall be seated on the right hand of the Father, not only in this world but in that which is to come. {111}

And in the Holy Ghost, that is, the Paraclete; which, having promised to the Apostles, He sent forth after His ascension into heaven, to teach them and to remind of all things; through whom also shall be sanctified the souls of those who sincerely believe in Him.

But those who say, that the Son was from nothing, or from other subsistence and not from God, and, there was time when He was not, the Catholic Church regards as aliens [Note S].

§. 26.

13. As if dissatisfied with this, they hold their meeting again after three years, and dispatch Eudoxius, Martyrius, and Macedonius of Cilicia [Note T], and some others with them, to the parts of Italy, to carry with them a faith written at great length, with numerous additions over and above those which had gone before. They went abroad with these, as if they had devised something new.

[Note 15] We believe in one God the Father Almighty, the Creator and Maker of all things, from whom the whole family in heaven and on earth is named. {112}

And in His Only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who before all ages was begotten from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, by whom all things were made, in heaven and on the earth, visible and invisible, being Word and Wisdom and Power and Life and True Light, who in the last days was made man for us, and was born of the Holy Virgin, crucified and dead and buried, and rose again from the dead the third day, and was taken up into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of the Father, and is coming at the end of the world to judge quick and dead, and to render to every one according to his works, whose Kingdom endures unceasingly unto infinite ages; for He sitteth on the right hand of the Father not only in this world, but also in that which is to come.

And we believe in the Holy Ghost, that is, the Paraclete, which, having promised to the Apostles, He sent forth after the ascension into heaven, to teach them and to remind of all things: through whom also shall be sanctified the souls of those who sincerely believe in Him.

But those who say, (1) that the Son was from nothing, or from other subsistence and not from God; (2) and that there was a time or age when He was not, the Catholic and Holy Church regards as aliens. Likewise those who say, (3) that there are three Gods; (4) or that Christ is not God; (5) or that before the ages He was neither Christ nor Son of God; (6) or that Father and Son, or Holy Ghost, are the same; (7) or that the Son is Ingenerate; or that the Father generated the Son, not by choice or will; the Holy and Catholic Church anathematises.

(1.) For neither is safe to say that the Son is from nothing, (since this is nowhere spoken of Him in divinely inspired Scripture,) nor again of any other subsistence before existing beside the Father, but from God alone do we define Him genuinely to be generated. For the divine Word teaches that the Ingenerate and Unoriginate, the Father of Christ, is One [Note U].

(2.) Nor may we, adopting the hazardous position, "There was once when He was not," from unscriptural sources, imagine any interval of time prior to Him, but only that God generated Him apart from time; for through Him both times and ages came to be. Yet we must not consider the Son to be co-unoriginate and co-ingenerate with the Father; for no one can be properly called Father or Son of one who is co-unoriginate and co-ingenerate with him [Note X]. But we acknowledge that the Father who alone is Unoriginate and {113} Ingenerate, hath generated inconceivably and incomprehensibly; and that the Son hath been generated before ages, and in no wise is ingenerate Himself like the Father, but to have the Father who generated Him as His origin; for the Head of Christ is God [1 Cor. xi. 3].

(3.) Nor again, in confessing three realities [Note 16] and three Persons, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost according to the Scriptures, do we therefore make Gods three; since we acknowledge the Self-complete and Ingenerate and Unoriginate and Invisible God to be one only [Note 17], the God and Father of the Only-begotten, who alone hath being from Himself, and alone vouchsafes this to all others bountifully.

(4.) Nor again in saying that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is one only God, the only Ingenerate; do we therefore deny that Christ also is God before ages: as the disciples of Paul of Samosata, who say that after the incarnation He was by advance [Note 18] made God, from being by nature a mere man. For we acknowledge, that though He be subordinate to His Father and God, yet, being before ages begotten of God, He is God perfect according to nature and true, and not first man and then God, but first God and then becoming man for us, and never having been deprived of being [Note Y].

(5.) We abhor besides, and anathematise those who make a pretence of saying that He is but the mere Word of God and unexisting, having His being in another,—now as if pronounced, as some speak, now as mental [Note Z],—holding that He was not Christ or Son of God or {114} mediator [Note 19] or image of God before ages; but that He first became Christ and Son of God, when He took our flesh from the Virgin, not four hundred years since. For they will have it that then Christ began His Kingdom, and that it will have an end after the consummation of all and the judgment [Note A]. Such are the disciples of Marcellus and Scotinus [Note B] of Galatian Ancyra, who, equally with Jews, negative Christ's existence before ages, and His Godhead, and unending Kingdom, upon pretence of supporting the divine Monarchy. We, on the contrary, regard Him not as simply God's pronounced word or mental, but as Living God and Word, existing in Himself, and Son of God and Christ; being and abiding with His Father before ages, and that not in foreknowledge only [Note C], and ministering to Him for the whole framing whether of things visible or invisible. For He it is, to whom the Father said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness [Gen. i. 26.] [Note 20], who also was seen in His own Person [Note D] by the patriarchs, gave the law, spoke {115} by the prophets, and at last, became man, and manifested His own Father to all men, and reigns to never-ending ages. For Christ has taken no recent dignity [Note 21], but we have believed Him to be perfect from the first, and like in all things to the Father [Note E].

(6.) And those who say that the Father and Son and Holy Ghost are the same, and irreligiously take the Three Names of one and the same Reality [Note 22] and Person, we justly proscribe from the Church, because they suppose the illimitable and impassible Father to be limitable withal and passible through His becoming man: for such are they whom the Latin calls the Patropassians, and we Sabellians [Note F]. For we acknowledge that the Father who sent, remained in the peculiar state of His unchangeable Godhead, and that Christ who was sent fulfilled the economy of the incarnation.

(7.) And at the same time those who irreverently say that the Son was generated, not by choice or will, thus encompassing God with a necessity which excludes choice and purpose, so that He begat the Son unwillingly, we account as most irreligious and alien to the Church; in that they have dared to define such things concerning God, beside the common notions concerning Him, nay, beside the purport of divinely inspired Scripture. For we, knowing that God is absolute and sovereign over Himself, have a religious judgment that He generated the Son voluntarily and freely; yet, as we have a reverent belief in the Son's words concerning Himself, The Lord hath created Me a beginning of His {116} ways for His works [Prov. viii. 22.], we do not understand Him to be generated, like the creatures or works which through Him came to be. For it is irreligious and alien to the ecclesiastical faith, to compare the Creator with handiworks created by Him, and to think that He has the same manner of generation with the rest. For divine Scripture teaches us really and truly that the Only-begotten Son was generated sole and solely [Note G].

(8.) Yet [Note H], in saying that the Son is in Himself, and both lives and exists like the Father, we do not on that account separate Him from the Father, imagining place and interval between their union in the way of bodies. For we believe that they are united with each other without mediator or distance [Note 23], and that they exist inseparable; all the Father embosoming the Son, and all the Son hanging and adhering to the Father, and alone resting on the Father's breast continually [Note 24]. Believing then in the All-perfect Trinity, the most Holy, that is, in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and calling the Father God, and the Son God, yet we confess in them, not two Gods, but one dignity of Godhead, and one exact harmony of dominion, the only Father being Head over the whole universe wholly, and over the Son Himself, and the Son subordinated to the Father; but, excepting Him, ruling over all things after Him which through Himself have come to be, and granting the grace of the Holy Ghost unsparingly to the holy at the Father's will. For that such is the account of the Divine Monarchy [Note 25] towards Christ, the sacred oracles have delivered to us.

Thus much, in addition to the faith before published in epitome, we have been compelled to draw forth at length, not in any officious display, but to clear away all unjust suspicion concerning our opinions, among those who are ignorant of what we really hold: and that all in the West may know, both the audacity of the slanders of the heterodox, and as to the Orientals, their ecclesiastical judgment {117} in the Lord, to which the divinely inspired Scriptures bear witness without violence, where men are not perverse.

§. 27.

14. However they did not stand even to this; for again at Sirmium [Note I] they met together  [Note K] against Photinus [Note L], and there composed a Faith again, not drawn out into such length, nor so full in words; but subtracting the greater part and adding in its place, as if they had listened to the suggestions of others, they wrote as follows:— {118}

[Note 26] We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Creator and Maker of all things, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named [Eph. iii. 15.].

And in His Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus the Christ, who before all the ages was begotten from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, by whom all things were made, in heaven and on the earth, visible and invisible, being Word and Wisdom and True Light and Life, who in the last days was made man for us, and was born of the Holy Virgin, and crucified and dead and buried, and rose again from the dead the third day, and was taken up into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of the Father, and is coming at the end of the world, to judge quick and dead, and to render to every one according to his works; whose Kingdom being unceasing endures unto the infinite ages; for He shall sit on the right hand of the Father, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come.

And in the Holy Ghost, that is, the Paraclete; which, having promised to the Apostles, to send forth after His ascension into heaven, to teach and to remind them of all things, He did send; through whom also are sanctified the souls of those who sincerely believe in Him.

(1.) But those who say that the Son was from nothing or from other subsistence [Note 27] and not from God, and that there was time or age when He was not, the Holy and Catholic Church regards as aliens.

(2.) Again we say, Whosoever says that the Father and the Son are two Gods, be he anathema [Note M].

(3.) And whosoever, saying that Christ is God, before ages Son of God, does not confess that He subserved the Father for the framing of the universe, be he anathema [Note N]. {119}

(4.) Whosoever presumes to say that the Ingenerate, or a part of Him [Note 28], was born of Mary, be he anathema.

(5.) Whosoever says that according to foreknowledge [Note 29] the Son is before Mary and not that, generated from the Father before ages, He was with God, and that through Him all things were generated, be he anathema.

(6.) Whosoever shall pretend that the substance of God was enlarged or contracted [Note 30], be he anathema.

(7.) Whosoever shall say that the substance of God being enlarged made the Son, or shall name the enlargement of His substance the Son, be he anathema.

(8.) Whosoever calls the Son of God the mental or pronounced Word [Note 31], be he anathema.

(9.) Whosoever says that the Son from Mary is man only, be he anathema.

(10.) Whosoever, speaking of Him who is from Mary God and man, thereby means God the Ingenerate [Note 32], be he anathema.

(11.) Whosoever shall explain I am the First and I am the Last, and besides Me there is no God [Is. xliv. 6.], which is said for the denial of idols and of gods that are not, to the denial of the Only-begotten, be he anathema.

(12.) Whosoever, because it is said The Word was made flesh [John i. 14.], shall consider that the Word was changed into flesh, or shall say that He underwent an alteration and took flesh, be he anathema [Note O]. {120}

(13.) Whosoever, as hearing the Only-begotten Son of God was crucified, shall say that His Godhead underwent corruption, or passion, or alteration, or diminution, or destruction, be he anathema.

(14.) Whosoever shall say that Let Us make man [Gen. i. 26.] [Note 33] was not said by the Father to the Son, but by God to Himself, be he anathema [Note P].

(15.) Whosoever shall say that Abraham saw, not the Son, but the Ingenerate God or part of Him, be he anathema [Note Q].

(16.) Whosoever shall say that with Jacob, not the Son as man, but the Ingenerate God or part of Him, did wrestle, be he anathema [Note R].

(17.) Whosoever shall explain, The Lord rained fire from the Lord [Gen. xix. 24.] not of the Father and the Son, and says that He rained {121} from Himself, be he anathema. For the Son Lord rained from the Father Lord.

(18.) Whosoever hearing that the Father is Lord and the Son Lord and the Father and Son Lord, for there is Lord from Lord, says there are two Gods, be he anathema. For we do not place the Son in the Father's order, but as subordinate to the Father; for He did not descend upon Sodom without the Father's will [Note 34], nor did He rain from Himself, but from the Lord, that is, the Father authorising it. Nor is He of Himself set down on the right hand, but He hears the Father saying, Sit Thou on My right hand [Ps. cx. 1.].

(19.) Whosoever says that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are one Person, be he anathema.

(20.) Whosoever, speaking of the Holy Ghost as Paraclete, shall speak of the Ingenerate God, be he anathema [Note S].

(21.) Whosoever shall deny, what the Lord taught us, that the Paraclete is other than the Son, for He hath said, And another Paraclete shall the Father send to you, whom I will ask [John xiv. 16.], be he anathema.

(22.) Whosoever shall say that the Holy Ghost is part of the Father or of the Son [Note 35], be he anathema.

(23.) Whosoever shall say that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost be three Gods, be he anathema.

(24.) Whosoever shall say that the Son of God at the will of God came to be, as one of the works, be he anathema.

(25.) Whosoever shall say that the Son was generated, the Father not wishing it [Note 36], be he anathema. For not by compulsion, forced by physical necessity, did the Father, as He wished not, generate the Son, but He at once willed, and, after generating Him from Himself apart from time and passion, manifested Him.

(26.) Whosoever shall say that the Son is ingenerate and unoriginate, as if speaking of two unoriginate and two ingenerate, and making two Gods, be he anathema. For the Son is the Head, which is the origin of all: and God is the Head, which is the origin of Christ [Note 37]; for thus to one unoriginate origin of the universe do we religiously refer all things through the Son.

(27.) And in accurate delineation of the idea of Christianity we say this again: Whosoever shall not say that Christ is God, Son of God, and being before ages, and having subserved the Father in {122} the framing of the Universe, but that from the time that He was born of Mary, from thence He was called Christ and Son, and took an origin of being God, be he anathema.

§. 28.

15. Casting aside the whole of this, as if they had discovered something better, they propound another faith, and write at Sirmium in Latin what is here translated into Greek [Note T].

[Note 38] Whereas it has seemed good that there should be some discussion concerning faith, all points have been carefully investigated and discussed at Sirmium in the presence of Valens, and Ursacius, and Germinius, and the rest.

It is held for certain that there is one God, the Father Almighty, as also is preached in all the world.

And His One Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, generated from Him before the ages; and that we may not speak of two Gods, since the Lord Himself has said, I go to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God [John xx. 17.]. [Note 39] On this account He is God of all, as also the Apostle has taught: Is He God of the Jews only, is He not also of the Gentiles? yea of the Gentiles also: since there is one God who shall justify the circumcision from faith, and the uncircumcision through faith [Rom. iii. 29, 30.]; and every thing else agrees, and has no ambiguity.

But since many persons are disturbed by questions concerning what is called in Latin "Substantia," but in Greek "Usia," that is, to make it understood more exactly, as to "One in substance," or what is called, "Like in substance," there ought to be no mention of any of these at all, nor exposition of them in the Church, for this reason and for this consideration, that in divine Scripture nothing is written about them, and that they are above men's knowledge and above men's understanding; and because no one can declare the Son's generation, as it is written, Who shall declare His generation? [Is. liii. 6.] for it is plain that the Father only knows how He generated the Son, and again the Son how He has been generated by the Father. And to none can it be a question that the Father is greater: for no one can doubt that the Father is greater in honour and dignity and Godhead, and in the very name of the Father, the Son Himself testifying, The Father that sent Me is greater than I. [Note 40] And no one is ignorant, that it is a Catholic doctrine, that there are two Persons of Father and Son, and that the Father is greater, and the Son subordinated [Note 41] to the Father together with all things which the Father has subordinated {123} to Him, and that the Father has no origin, and is invisible, and immortal, and impassible; but that the Son has been generated from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, and that His generation, as aforesaid, no one knows, but the Father only. And that the Son Himself and our Lord and God, took flesh, that is, a body, that is, man, from Mary the Virgin, as the Angel heralded beforehand; and as all the Scriptures teach, and especially the Apostle himself, the doctor of the Gentiles, Christ took man of Mary the Virgin, through which He suffered. And the whole faith is summed up [Note 42], and secured in this, that a Trinity should ever be preserved, as we read in the Gospel, Go ye and baptise all the nations in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost [Matt. xxviii. 19.]. And entire and perfect is the number of the Trinity; but the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, sent forth through the Son, came according to the promise, that He might teach and sanctify the Apostles and all believers [Note U].

§. 29.

16. After drawing up this, and then becoming dissatisfied, they composed the faith which to their shame they paraded with "the Consulate." And, as is their wont, condemning this also, they caused Martinian the notary to seize it from the parties who had the copies of it [Note X]. And having got the Emperor Constantius to put forth an edict against it, they form another dogma afresh, and with the addition of certain expressions, according to their wont, they write thus in Isauria.

[Note 43] We decline not to bring forward the authentic faith published at {124} the Dedication at Antioch [Note Y]; though certainly our fathers at the time met together for a particular subject under investigation. But since "One-in-substance" and "Like-in-substance," [Note 44] have troubled many persons in times past and up to this day, and since moreover some are said recently to have devised the Son's "Unlikeness" [Note 45] to the Father, on their account we reject "One-in-substance" and "Like-in-substance," as alien to the Scriptures, but "Unlike" we anathematise, and account all who profess it as aliens from the Church. And we distinctly confess the "Likeness" [Note 46] of the Son to the Father, according to the Apostle, who says of the Son, Who is the Image of the Invisible God [Col. i. 15.].

And we confess and believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

And we believe also in our Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, generated from Him impassibly before all the ages, God the Word, God from God, Only-begotten, light, life, truth, wisdom, power, through whom all things were made, in the heavens and on the earth, whether visible or invisible. He, as we believe, at the end of the world, for the abolishment of sin, took flesh of the Holy Virgin, and was made man, and suffered for our sins, and rose again, and was taken up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and is coming again in glory, to judge quick and dead.

We believe also in the Holy Ghost, which our Saviour and Lord named Paraclete, having promised to send Him to the disciples after His own departure, as He did send; through whom He sanctifieth all in the Church who believe, and are baptised in the name of Father and Son and Holy Ghost.

But those who preach aught besides this Faith the Catholic Church regards as aliens. And that to this faith that is equivalent which was published lately at Sirmium, under sanction of his religiousness the Emperor, is plain to all who read it.

§. 30.

17. Having written thus in Isauria, they went up to Constantinople [Note Z], and there, as if dissatisfied, they changed it, as {125} is their wont, and, with certain additions against  using even "Subsistence" of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, they transmitted it to the Council at Ariminum, and compelled even the Bishops in those parts to subscribe it, and those who contradicted them they got banished by Constantius. And it runs thus:—

[Note 47] We believe in One God the Father Almighty, from whom are all things;

And in the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten from God before all ages and before all origin, by whom all things were made, visible and invisible, and begotten as only-begotten, only from the Father only [Note A], God from God, like to the Father that begat Him according to the Scriptures; whose generation no one knows, except the Father alone who begat Him. He as we acknowledge, the Only-begotten Son of God, the Father sending Him, came hither from the heavens, as it is written, for the undoing of sin and death, and was born of the Holy Ghost, of Mary the Virgin according to the flesh, as it is written, and conversed with the disciples, and having fulfilled the whole economy according to the Father's will, was crucified and dead {126} and buried and descended to the parts below the earth; at whom hell itself shuddered: who also rose from the dead on the third day, and abode with the disciples, and, forty days being fulfilled, was taken up into the heavens, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, to come in the last day of the resurrection in the Father's glory, that He may render to every man according to his works.

And in the Holy Ghost, whom the Only-begotten Son of God Himself, Christ, our Lord and God, promised to send to the race of man, as Paraclete, as it is written, "the Spirit of Truth," which He sent unto them when He had ascended into the heavens.

But the name of "Substance," which was set down by the Fathers in simplicity, and being unknown by the people, caused offence, because the Scriptures contain it not, it has seemed good to take away, and for the future to make no mention of it at all; since the divine Scriptures have made no mention of the Substance of Father and Son. For neither ought Subsistence to be named concerning Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. But we say that the Son is Like the Father, as the divine Scriptures say and teach; and all the heresies, both those which have been afore condemned already, and whatever are of modern date, being contrary to this published statement, be they anathema [Note B].

§. 31.

18. [Note 48] However, they did not stand even to this; for coming down from Constantinople to Antioch, they were dissatisfied that they had written at all that the Son was "Like the Father, as the Scriptures say;" and putting their ideas upon paper, they began reverting to their first doctrines, and said that "the Son is altogether Unlike the Father," and that the "Son is in no manner Like the Father," and so much did they change, as to admit those who spoke the Arian doctrine nakedly and to deliver to them the Churches with licence to bring forward the words of blasphemy with impunity [Note C]. Because then of the extreme shamelessness of {127} their blasphemy they were called by all Anomœans, having also the name of Exucontian [Note D], and the heretical Constantius for the patron of their ungodliness, who persisting up to the end in irreligion, and on the point of death, thought good to be baptized [Note E]; not however by religious men, but by Euzoius [Note F], who for his Arianism had been deposed, not once, but often, both when he was a deacon, and when he was in the see of Antioch.

§. 32.

19. The forementioned parties then had proceeded thus far, when they were stopped and deposed. But well I know, not even under these circumstances will they stop, as many as have have now dissembled [Note G], but they will always be making {128} parties against the truth, until they return to themselves and say, "Let us rise and go to our fathers, and say unto them, We anathematise the Arian heresy, and we acknowledge the Nicene Council;" [Note H] for against this is their quarrel. Who then, with ever so little understanding, will bear them any longer? who, on hearing in every Council some things taken away and others added, but comprehends their treachery and secret depravity against Christ? who on seeing them embodying to so great a length both their professions of faith, and their own exculpation, but sees that they are giving sentence against themselves [Note 49], and studiously writing much which may be likely by an officious display and an abundance of words to seduce the simple and hide what they are in point of heresy? But as the heathen, as the Lord said, using vain words in their prayers, are nothing profited; so they too, after all their words were spent, were not able to extinguish the judgment pronounced against the Arian heresy, but were convicted and deposed instead; and rightly; for which of their formularies is to be accepted by the hearer? or with what confidence shall they be catechists to those who come to them? for if they all have one and the same meaning, what is the need of many? [Note 50] But if need has arisen of so many, it follows that each by itself is deficient, not complete; and they establish this point better  than we can, by their innovating on them all and re-making them [Note 51]. And the number of their Councils, and the difference of their statements is a proof that those who were present at them, while at variance with the Nicene, are yet too feeble to harm the Truth.

Top | Contents | Works | Home


A. Again, Orat. i. § 2-4. he calls him the Sotadean Arius: and speaks of the "dissolute manners," and "the effeminate tone," and the "jests" of the Thalia; a poem which, he says shortly before, "is not even found among the more respectable Greeks, but among those only who sing songs over their wine, with noise and revel," [infra p. 182]: vid. also de Sent. D. 6 Constantine also after the [Ares Areie], proceeds, [epischeto de se he goun Aphrodites homilia]. Epiph. Hær. 69. 9 fin. Socrates too says that "the character of the book was gross and dissolute." Hist. i. 9. The Arian Philostorgius tells us that "Arius wrote songs for the sea and for the mill and for the road, and then set them to suitable music," Hist. ii. 2. It is remarkable that Athanasius should say the Egyptian Sotades, and again in Sent. D. 6. There were two Poets of the name; one a writer of the Middle Comedy, Athen. Deipn. vii. 11; but the other, who is here spoken of, was a native of Maronea in Crete, according to Suidas (in voc.), under the successors of Alexander, Athen. xiv. 4. He wrote in Ionic metre, which was of infamous name from the subjects to which he and others applied it. vid. Suic. ibid. Some read "Sotadicos" for "Socraticos," Juv. Satir. ii. 10. vid. also Martial Ep. ii. 86. The characteristic of the metre was the recurrence of the same cadence, which virtually destroyed the division into verses, Turneb. in Quinct. i. 8. and thus gave the composition that lax and slovenly air to which Athaniasius alludes. Horace's Ode, "Miserarum est nec amori, &c." is a specimen of this metre, and some have called it Sotadic; but Bentley shews in loc. that Sotades wrote in the Ionic à majore, and that his verse had somewhat more of system than is found in the Ode of Horace. Athenæus implies that all Ionic metres were called Sotadic, or that Sotades wrote in various Ionic metres. The Church adopted the Doric music, and forbade the Ionic and Lydian. The name "Thalia" commonly belonged to convivial songs; Martial contrasts the "lasciva Thalia" with "carmina sanctiora," Epigr. vii. 17. vid. Thaliarchus, "the master of the feast," Horat. Od. i. 9. If one were to attempt to form a judgment on the nature of Arius's proceeding, it would be this; that he attempted to popularize his heresy by introducing it into the common employments and recreations of life, and having no reverence, he fell into the error of modern religionists, who, with a better creed, sing spiritual songs at table, and use in their chapels glees and opera airs. This would be more offensive of old even than now, in proportion to the keener sensibilities of the South and the more definite ideas which music seems to have conveyed to their minds; and more especially in a case where the metre Arius employed had obtained so shocking a reputation, and was associated in the minds of Christians with the deeds of darkness, in the midst of which in those heathen times the Church lived and witnessed.
Return to text

B. This passage ought to have been added to note T, p. 35. supr. as containing a more direct denial of the [homoousion]; so incorrect is Gibbon's assertion, that on Eusebius's "ingenuously confessing that it was incompatible with the principles of their theological system, the fortunate opportunity was eagerly embraced by the Bishops," as if they were bent at all hazards, and without reference to the real and substantial agreement or disagreement of themselves and the Arians, to find some word which might accidentally serve to exclude the latter from communion.
Return to text

C. That is, Wisdom, or the Son, is but the disciple of Him who is Wise, and not the attribute by which He is Wise, which is what the Sabellians said, vid. Orat. iv. § 2. and what Arius imputed to the Church.
Return to text

D. [anepimiktoi], that is, he denied the [perichoresis], vid. infra, Orat. iii. 3, &c.
Return to text

E. [epinoiais], that is, our Lord's titles are but names, or figures, not properly belonging to Him but only existing in our minds.
Return to text

F. [kata katalepsin], that is, there is nothing comprehensible in the Father for the Son to know and declare. On the other hand the doctrine of the Anomœans, who in most points agreed with Arius, was, that all men could know Almighty God perfectly; according to Socrates, who says, "Not to seem to be slandering, listen to Eunomius himself, what words he dares to use in sophistry concerning God; they run thus:—'God knows not of His substance more than we do; nor is it known to Him more, to us less; but whatsoever we may know of it, that He too knows; and what again He, that you will find without any distinction in us.'" Hist. iv. 7.
Return to text

G. Alexander is also so called, Theod. Hist. i. 4, p. 749. Athanasius, Hieron. contr. Joan. 4. Heraclas, also of Alexandria, by Dionysius apud Euseb. Hist. vii. 7. Epiphanius of Cyprus, Hieron. Ep. 57, 2. John of Jerusalem, Hier. contr. Joan. 4. Cyprian of Carthage, Ep. ap. Cypr. 31. Augustine of Hippo, Hier. Ep. 141 init. Lupus, Pragmatius, Leontius, Theoplastus, Eutropius, &c. of Gaul, by Sidon. Apoll. Ep. vi. &c. Eutyches, Archimandrite, Abraham Abbot, are called by the same name, in the Acts of Chalcedon.
Return to text

H. What the Valentinian [probole] was, is described in Epiph. Hær. 31, 13. The Æons, wishing to shew thankfulness to God, contributed together ([eranisamenous]) whatever was most beautiful of each of them, and moulding these several excellencies into one, formed this Issue, [probalesthai problema], to the honour and glory of the Profound, [buthos], and they called this star and flower of the Pleroma, Jesus, &c. And so Tertullian "a joint contribution, ex ære collatitio, to the honour and glory of the Father, ex omnium defloratione constructum," contr. Valent. 12. Accordingly Origen protests against the notion of [probole], Periarch. iv. p. 190. and Athanasius Expos. § 1. The Arian Asterius too considers [probole] to introduce the notion of [teknogonia], Euseb. contr. Marc. i. 4. p. 20. vid. also Epiph. Hær. 72. 7. Yet Eusebius uses the word [proballesthai]. Eccles. Theol. i. 8. On the other hand Tertullian uses it with a protest against the Valentinian sense. Justin has [problethen gennema], Tryph. 62. [p. 150 O.T.] And Nazianzen calls the Almighty Father [proboleus] of the Holy Spirit. Orat. 29. 2. Arius introduces the word here as an argumentum ad invidiam. Hil. de Trin. vi. 9.
Return to text

I. The Manichees adopting a material notion of the divine substance, considered that it was divisible, and that a portion of it was absorbed by the power of darkness, vid. Appendix to Translation of S. Augustine's Confessions, ii. pp. 320 sqq.
Return to text

K. [huiopatora]. This word is made the symbol of the Noetians or Sabellians by both Catholics and Arians, as if their doctrine involved or avowed Patripassianism, or that the Father suffered. Without entering upon the controversy raised by Beausobre (Hist. Manich. iii. 6. § 7, &c.), Mosheim (Ant. Constant. sæc. ii. § 68. iii. 32.), and Lardner (Cred. part ii. ch. 41.), on the subject, we may refer to the following passages for the use of the term. It is ascribed to Sabellius, Ammon. in Caten. Joan. i. 1. p. 14: to Sabellius and Marcellus, Euseb. Eccl. Theol. ii .5: to Marcellus, Cyr. Hier. Catech. xv. 9. also iv. 8. xi. 16. Epiph. Hær. 73. 11 fin.: to Sabellians, Athan. Expos. Fid. 2. and 7 Can. Constant, and Greg. Nyssen. contr. Eun. xii. p. 733: to certain heretics, Cyril. Alex. in Joann. p. 243. [p. 282 O.T.] to Praxeas and Montanus, Mar. Merc. p. 128: to Sabellius, Cæsar. Dial. i. p. 550: to Noetus, Damasc. Hær. 57.
Return to text

L. Hieracas was a Manichean. He compared the Two Divine Persons to the two lights of one lamp, where the oil is common and the flame double, thus implying a substance distinct from Father and Son, or to a flame divided into two by (for instance) the papyrus which was commonly used instead of a wick. vid. Hilar. de Trin. vi. 12.
Return to text

M. Bull considers that the doctrine of such Fathers is here spoken of as held that our Lord's [synkatabasis] to create the world was a [gennesis], and certainly such language as that of Hippol. contr. Noet. § 15. favours the supposition. But one class of the Sabellians may more probably be intended, who held that the Word became the Son on His incarnation, such as Marcellus, vid. Euseb. Eccles. Theod. i. 1. contr. Marc. ii. 3. vid. also Eccles. Theol. ii. 9. p. 114. b. [med allote allen k.t.l.]. Also the Macrostich says, "We anathematize those who call Him the mere Word of God, not allowing Him to be Christ and Son of God before all ages, but from the time He took on Him our flesh; such are the followers of Marcellus and Photinus, &c." infra, § 26 [pp. 113, 114]. Again, Athanasius, Orat. iv. 15 [infra p. 531], says that, of those who divide the Word from the Son, some called our Lord's manhood the Son, some the two Natures together, and some said "that the Word Himself became the Son when He was made man." It makes it more likely that Marcellus is meant, that Asterius seems to have written against him before the Nicene Council, and that Arius in other of his writings borrowed from Asterius. vid. de Decret. § 8.
Return to text

N. Eusebius's letter to Euphration, which is mentioned just after, expresses this more distinctly—"If they co-exist, how shall the Father be Father and the Son Son? or how the One first, the Other second? and the One ingenerate and the other generate?" Acta Conc. 7. p. 301. The phrase [ta pros ti] Bull well explains to refer to the Catholic truth that the Father or Son being named, the Other is therein implied without naming. Defens. F. N. iii. 9. § 4. Hence Arius, in his Letter to Eusebius, complains that Alexander says, [aei ho theos, aei ho huios; hama pater, hama huios]. Theod. Hist. i. 4.
Return to text

O. Most of these original Arians were attacked in a work of Marcellus's which Eusebius answers. "Now he replies to Asterius," says Eusebius, "now to the great Eusebius," [of Nicomedia,] "and then he turns upon that man of God, that indeed thrice blessed person Paulinus, [of Tyre.] Then he goes to war with Origen … Next he marches out against Narcissus, and pursues the other Eusebius," himself. "In a word, he counts for nothing all the Ecclesiastical Fathers, being satisfied with no one but himself." contr. Marc. i. 4. There is little to be said of Maris and Theodotus. Nazarbi is more commonly called Anazarbus, and is in Cilicia.
Return to text

P. This is quoted, among other passages from Eusebius, in the 7th General Council, Act. 6. p. 409. [t. 8. 1148 e ed. Col.] "The Son Himself is God, but not Very God."
Return to text

Q. Asterius has been mentioned above, p. 13, note B. Philostorgius speaks of him as adopting Semi-arian terms; and Acacius gives an extract from him containing them, ap. Epiph. Hier. 72. 6. and doubtless both he (to judge by his fragments) and Eusebius write with much less of revolting impiety than others of their party. Thus in one of the extracts made in the text he distinguishes after the manner of the Semi-arians between the [gennetike] and the [demiougike dunamis]. Again, the illustration of the Sun in another much resembles Euseb. Dem. iv. 5. So does his doctrine, supr. de Decr. § 8. that the Son was generated to create other beings, and that, because they could not bear the hand of the Almighty, also vid. Orat. ii. 24. cf. Dem. iv. 4. Eccl. Theol. i. 8. 13. Præp. vii. 15. but especially Eusebius's avowal, "not that the Father was not able, did He beget the Son; but because those things which were made were not able to sustain the power of the Ingenerate, therefore speaks He through a Mediator. contr. Sabell. i. p. 9. At the same time if he is so to be considered, it is an additional proof that the Semi- arians of 325 were far less Catholic than those of 359. He seems to be called many-headed with an allusion to the Hydra, and to his activity in the Arian cause and his fertility in writing. He wrote comments on Scripture.
Return to text

R. None but the Clergy might enter the Chancel, i.e. in Service time. Hence Theodosius was made to retire by St. Ambrose. Theod. v. 17. The Council of Laodicea, said to be held A.D. 372, forbids any but persons in orders, [hieratikoi], to enter the Chancel and then communicate. Can. 19. vid. also 44. Conc. t. 1, p. 788, 789. It is doubtful what orders the word [hieratikoi] is intended to include. vid. Bingham Antiqu. viii. 6, § 7.
Return to text

S. Artemas or Artemon was one of the chiefs of a school of heresy at Rome at the end of the second century. Theodotus was another, and the more eminent. They founded separate sects. Their main tenet is what would now be called Unitarianism, or that our Lord was a mere man. Artemas seems to have been more known in the East; at least is more frequently mentioned in controversy with the Arians, e.g. by Alexander, Theod. Hist. i. 3, p. 739.
Return to text

T. It will be observed, that the Eusebian or court party from 341 to 358, contained in it two elements, the more religious or Semi-arian which tended to Catholicism, and ultimately coalesced with it, the other the proper Arian or Anomœan which was essentially heretical. During the period mentioned, it wore for the most part the Semi-arian profession. Athanasius as well as Hilary does justice to the Semi-arians; but Athanasius does not seem to have known or estimated the quarrel between them and the Arians as fully as Hilary. Accordingly, while the former is bent in this treatise in bringing out the great fact of the variations of the heretical party, Hilary, wishing to commend the hopeful Semi-arians to the Gallic Church, makes excuses for them, on the ground of the necessity of explanations of the Nicene formulary, "necessitatem hanc furor hereticus imponit." Hil. de Syn. 63. vid. also 62. and 28. At the same time, Hilary himself bears witness quite as strongly as Athan. to the miserable variations of the heretical party, vid. supr. p. 76, note K. as Amianus in p. 75, note H. The same thing is meant in Nazianzen's well-known declaration against Councils, "Never saw I Council brought to a useful issue, nor remedying, but rather increasing existing evils." Ep. 130.
Return to text

U. This Council at Jerusalem was a continuation of one held at Tyre at which Athan. was condemned. It was very numerously attended; by Bishops (as Eusebius says, Vit. Const. iv. 43.), from Macedonia, Pannonia, Thrace, Asia Minor, Syria, Arabia, Egypt, and Libya. One account speaks of the number as being above 200. He says that "an innumerable multitude from all provinces accompanied them." It was the second great Council in Constantine's reign, and is compared by Eusebius (invidiously) to the Nicene, c. 47. At this Council Arius was solemnly received, as the Synodal Letter goes on to say.
Return to text

X. This Church, called the Martyry or Testimony, was built over the spot made sacred by our Lord's death, burial, and resurrection, in commemoration of the discovery of the Holy Cross, and has been described from Eusebius in the preface to the Translation of S. Cyril's Catechetical Lectures, p. xxiv. It was begun A.D. 326, and dedicated at this date, A.D. 335, on Saturday the 13th of September. The 14th however is the feast of the Exaltatio S. Crucis both in East and West.
Return to text

Y. This is supposed to be the same Confession which is preserved by Socr. i. 26, and Soz. ii. 27, and was presented to Constantine by Arius in 330. It says no more than "And in the Lord Jesus Christ His Son, who was begotten from Him before all the ages God and Word, through whom all things were made, both in the heavens and upon earth;" afterwards it professes to have "received the faith from the holy Evangelists," and to believe "as all the Catholic Church and as the Scriptures teach," The Synodal Letter in the text adds "apostolical tradition and teaching." Arius might safely appeal to Scripture and the Church for a creed which did not specify the point in controversy. In his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia before the Nicene Council where he does state the distinctive articles of his heresy he appeals to him as a fellow pupil in the School of Lucian, not to tradition. Theod. Hist. i. 4.
Return to text

Z. i.e. the dedication of the Dominicum Aureum, which had been ten years in building, vid. the description of it in Euseb. Vit. Const. iii. 50. This Council is one of great importance in the history, though it was not attended by more than 90 Bishops according to Ath. infr. or 97 according to Hilary de Syn. 28. The Eusebians had written to the Roman see against Athan., and eventually called on it to summon a Council. Accordingly, Julius proposed a Council at Rome; they refused to come, and instead held this meeting at Antioch. Thus in a certain sense it is a protest of the East against the Pope's authority. Twenty-five Canons are attributed to this Council, which have been received into the Code of the Catholic Church, though not as from this Council, which took at least some of them from more ancient sources. It is remarkable that S. Hilary calls this Council an assembly of Saints, de Syn. 32. but it is his course throughout to look at these Councils on their hopeful side. vid. note T.
Return to text

A. The Council might safely appeal to antiquity, since, with Arius in the Confession noticed supr. note Y, they did not touch on the point in dispute. The number of their formularies, three or four, shews that they had a great difficulty in taking any view which would meet the wishes and express the sentiments of one and all. The one that follows, which is their first, is as meagre as Arius's, quoted note Y.
Return to text

B. This formulary is that known as the Formulary of the Dedication. It is quoted as such by Socr. ii. 39, 40. Soz. iv. 15. and infr. § 29. Sozomen says that the Eusebians attributed it to Lucian, alleging that they had found a copy written by his own hand; but he decides neither for or against it himself. Hist. iii. 5. And the Auctor de Trinitate (in Theodoret's works, t. 5), allows that it is Lucian's, but interpolated. Dial. iii. init. vid. Routh, Reliqu. Sacr. vol. iii. p. 294-6, who is in favour of its genuineness; as are Bull, Cave, and S. Basnage. Tillemont and Coustant take the contrary side; the latter observing (ad Hilar. de Synod. 28) that Athanasius, infr. § 36, speaks of parts of it as Acacius's, and that Acacius attributes its language to Asterius. The Creed is of a much higher cast of doctrine than the two former, (§ 22 and note Y.) containing some of the phrases which in the fourth century became badges of Semi-arianism.
Return to text

C. These strong words and those which follow, whether Lucian's or not, mark the great difference between this confession and the foregoing. It would seem as if the Eusebians had at first tried the assembled Bishops with a negative confession, and finding that they would not accept it, had been forced upon one of a more orthodox character. It is observable too that even the Council of Jerusalem, but indirectly received the Confession on which they re-admitted Arius, though they gave it a real sanction. The words "unalterable and unchangeable" are formal Anti-arian symbols, as the [trepton] or alterable was one of the most characteristic parts of Arius's creed. vid. Orat. i. § 35, &c.
Return to text

D. On [aparallaktos eikon kat' ousian], which was synonymous with [homoiousios], vid. infr. § 38. and one of the symbols of Semi-Arianism, (not as if it did not express truth, but because it marked the limit of Semi-Arian approximation to the absolute truth,) something has been said, supr. p. 35, note N. It was in order to secure the true sense of [aparallakton] that the Council adopted the word [homoousian]. [Aparallakton] is accordingly used as a familiar word by Athan. de Decr. supr. § 20, 24. Orat. iii. § 36. contr. Gent. 41, 46 fin. Philostorgius ascribing it to Asterius, and Acacius quotes a passage from his writings containing it. (vid. supr. note Q.) Acacius at the same time forcibly expresses what is meant by the word, [to ektupon kai tranes ekmageion tou theou tes ousias]; and S. Alexander before him, [ten kata panta homoioteta autou ek physeos apomaxamenos]. Theod. Hist. i. 3. (as, in the legend, the impression of our Lord's face on the cloth at His crucifixion.) [Charakter], Hebr. i. 3, contains the same idea. "An image not inanimate, not framed by the hand, nor work of art and imagination, ([epinoias],) but a living image, yea, the very life ([autoousa]); ever preserving the unvarying ([to aparallakton]), not in likeness of fashion, but in its very substance." Basil. contr. Eunom. i. 18. The Auctor de Trinitate says, speaking of the word in this very Creed, "Will in nothing varying from will ([aparallaktos]) is the same will; and power nothing varying from power is the same power; and glory nothing varying from glory is the same glory." The Macedonian replies, "Unvarying I say, the same I say not." Dial. iii. p. 993. Athan. de Decr. 1. c. seems to say the same. That is, in the Catholic sense, the image was not [aparallaktos], if there was any difference, unless He was one with Him of whom He was the image. vid. Hil. Supra, p. 76, note I.
Return to text

E. This statement perhaps is the most Catholic in the Creed; not that the former are not more explicit in themselves, or that in a certain true sense our Lord may not be called a Mediator before He became incarnate, but because the Arians, even Eusebius, seem to have made his mediatorship consist essentially in His divine nature, whereas this Confession speaks of our Lord as made Mediator when He came in the flesh. On the other hand, Eusebius, like Philo and the Platonists, considers Him as made in the beginning, the "Eternal Priest of the Father," Demonst. v. 3. de Laud. C. 3, p. 503 fin. "an intermediate divine power," 11, p. 525. "mediating and joining generated substance to the Ingenerate," 12, p. 528. vid. infr. pp. 115. and 119. notes F. and O.
Return to text

F. This phrase, which is of a more Arian character than any other part of the Confession, is justified by S. Hilary on the ground, that when the Spirit is mentioned, agreement is the best symbol of unity, de Syn. 32. It is protested against in the Sardican Confession. Theod. Hist. ii. 6. p. 846. A similar passage occurs in Origen, contr. Cels. viii. 12. to which Huet. Origen, ii. 2. n. 3. compares Novatian. de Trin. 22. The Arians insisted on the "oneness in agreement" as a fulfilment of such texts as "I and My Father are one;" but this subject will come before us in Orat. iii. § 10. vid. infr. § 48.
Return to text

G. The whole of these anathemas are an Eusebian addition. The Council anathematises "every heretical heterodoxy;" not, as Athanasins observes, supr. § 7. the Arian.
Return to text

H. The introduction of these words "time," "age," &c., allows them still to hold the Arian formula "once He was not;" for our Lord was, as they held, before time, but still created.
Return to text

I. This emphatic mention of Scripture is also virtually an Arian evasion; to hold certain truths, "as Scripture has delivered," might either mean because and as in fact, or so far as, and admitted of a silent reference to themselves as interpreters of Scripture.
Return to text

K. Nothing is known of Theophronius; his Confession is in great measure a relapse into Arianism proper; that is, as far as the absence of characteristic symbols is a proof of a wish to introduce the heresy. For the phrase "perfect God" will be mentioned in the next note.
Return to text

L. It need scarcely be said, that "perfect from perfect" is a symbol on which the Catholics laid stress, Athan. Orat. ii. 35. Epiph. Hær. 76, p. 945. but it admitted of an evasion. An especial reason for insisting on it in the previous centuries had been the Sabellian doctrine, which considered the title "Word" when applied to our Lord to be adequately explained by the ordinary sense of the term, as a word spoken by us. vid. on the [logos prophorikos], infr. p. 113, note Z. In consequence they insisted on His [to teleion], perfection, which became almost synonymous with His personality. Thus the Apollinarians, e.g. denied that our Lord was perfect man, because his person was not human. Athan. contr. Apoll. i. 2. Hence Justin, Tatian, are earnest in denying that our Lord was a portion divided from the Divine substance, [ou kat' apotomen], &c. &c. Just. Tryph. 128. [p. 229 fin. O.T.] Tatian. contr. Græc. 5. And Athan. condemns the notion of the [logos en toi theoi ateles, gennetheis teleios]. Orat. iv. 11 [infra p. 526]. The Arians then, as being the especial opponents of the Sabellians, insisted on nothing so much as our Lord's being a real, living, substantial, Word, vid. Eusebius passim. "The Father," says Acacius against Marcellus, "begat the Only-begotten, alone alone, and perfect perfect; for there is nothing imperfect in the Father, wherefore neither is there in the Son, but the Son's perfection is the genuine offspring of His perfection, and superperfection." ap. Epiph. Hær. 72, 7. [Teleios] then was a relative word, varying with the subject-matter, vid. Damasc. F. O. i. 8, p. 138. and when the Arians said that our Lord was perfect God, they meant, "perfect, in that sense in which He is God"—i.e. as a secondary divinity.—Nay, in one point of view they would use the term of His Divine Nature more freely than the Catholics sometimes had. For, Hippolytus, e.g. though of course really holding His perfection from eternity as the Son, yet speaks of His condescension in coming upon earth as a kind of completion of His Sonship, He becoming thus a Son a second time; whereas the Arians holding no real condescension or assumption of a really new state, could not hold that our Lord was in any respect essentially other than He had been before the incarnation. "Nor was the Word," says Hippolytus, "before the flesh and by Himself, perfect Son, though being perfect Word, Only-begotten; nor could the flesh subsist by itself without the Word, because that in the Word it has its consistence: thus then He was manifested One perfect Son of God." contr. Noet. 15.
Return to text

M. Marcellus wrote his work against Asterius not later than 335, the year of the Arian Council of Jerusalem, which at once took cognizance of it, and cited Marcellus to appear before them. The next year a Council held at Constantinople condemned and deposed him, about the time that Arius came thither for re-admission into the Church. From that time his name is frequently introduced into the Arian anathemas, vid. Macrostich. § 26. By adding those "who communicate with him," the Eusebians intended to strike at the Roman see, which had acquitted Marcellus in a Council held in June of the same year.
Return to text

N. The commencement and the origin of this mode of dating are unknown. It seems to have been introduced between A.D. 313 and 315. The Indiction was a cycle of 15 years, and began with the month of September. St. Athanasius is the first ecclesiastical author who adopts it.
Return to text

O. This deputation had it in purpose to gain the Emperor Constans to the Eusebian party. They composed a new Confession with this object. Theodore of Heraclea, (who made commentaries on Scripture and is said to have been an elegant writer,) Maris and Narcissus, were all Eusebians; but Mark was a Semi-arian. As yet the Eusebian party were making use of the Semi-arians, but their professed Creed had already much degenerated from Lucian's at the Dedication.
Return to text

P. Constans had lately become master of two-thirds of the Empire by the death of his elder brother Constantine, who had made war upon him and fallen in an engagement. He was at this time only 22 years of age. His enemies represent his character in no favourable light, but, for whatever reason, he sided with the Catholics, and S. Athanasius, who had been honourably treated by him in Gaul, speaks of him in the language of gratitude. In his apology to Constantius, he says, "thy brother of blessed memory filled the churches with offerings," and he speaks of the "grace given him through baptism," § 7. [Hist. tracts p. 161 O.T.] Constans was murdered by Magnentius in A.D. 350, and one of the calumnies against Athanasius was that he had sent letters to the murderer.
Return to text

Q. The fourth, fifth, and sixth Confessions are the same, and with them agree the Creed of Philippopolis (A.D. 347, or 344 according to Mansi). These extend over a period of nine years, A.D. 342-351, (or 15 or 16 according to Baronius and Mansi, who place the 6th Confession, i.e. the 1st Sirmian, at 357, 358 respectively), and make the stationary period of Arianism. The two parties of which the heretical body was composed were kept together, not only by the court, but by the rise of the Sabellianism of Marcellus (A.D. 335) and Photinus (about 342). This too would increase their strength in the Church, and is the excuse, which Hilary himself urges, for their frequent Councils. Still they do not seem to be able to escape from the argument of Athanasius, that, whereas new Councils are for new heresies, if but one new heresy had risen, but one new Council was necessary. If these four Confessions say the same thing, three of them must be superfluous, vid. infr. § 32. However, in spite of the identity of the Creed, the difference in their Anathemas is very great, as we shall see.
Return to text

R. These words, which answer to those afterwards added at the second General Council (381-3) are directed against the doctrine of Marcellus, who taught that the Word was but a divine energy, manifested in Christ and retiring from Him at the consummation of all things, when the manhood or flesh of Christ would consequently no longer reign. "How can we admit," says Marcellus in Eusebius, "that that flesh, which is from the earth and profiteth nothing, should co-exist with the Word in the ages to come as serviceable to Him?" de Eccl. Theol. iii. 8. Again, "if He has received a beginning of His Kingdom not more than four hundred years since, it is no paradox that He who gained that kingdom so short a while since, should be said by the Apostle to deliver it up to God. What are we told of the human flesh, which the Word bore for us, not four hundred years since? will the Word have it in the ages to come, or only to the judgment season?" iii. 17. And, "Should any ask whether that flesh which is in the Word having become immortal, we say to him, that we count it not safe to pronounce on points of which we learn not for certain from divine Scripture." cont. Marc. ii. 4.
Return to text

S. S. Hilary, as we have seen above, p. 67. by implication calls this the Nicene Anathema; and so it is in the respects in which he speaks of it; but it omits many of the Nicene clauses, and with them the condemnation of many of the Arian articles. The especial point which it evades is our Lord's eternal existence, substituting for "once He was not," "there was time when He was not," and leaving out "before His generation He was not," "created," "alterable," and "mutable." It seems to have been considered sufficient for Gaul, as used now, for Italy as in the 5th Confession or Macrostich, and for Africa as in the Creed of Philippopolis.
Return to text

T. Little is known of Macedonius who was Bishop of Mopsuestia, or of Martyrius; and too much of Eudoxius. This Long Confession, or Macrostich, whieh follows, is remarkable for the first signs of the presence of that higher party of Semi-arians who ultimately joined the Church. It is observable also that the more Catholic portions occur in the Anathemas, as if they were forced in indirectly, and that with an inconsistency with the other statements, for not only the word "substance" does not occur, but the Son is said to be made. At this date the old Semi-arians, as Eusebius, Asterius, and Acacius were either dying off, or degenerating into most explicit impiety; the new school of Semi-arians consisting for the most part of a younger generation. S. Cyril delivered his Catechetical Lectures two or three years later than this Creed, viz. 347 or 348. Silvanus, Eleusius, Meletius, Eusebius of Samosata are later still.
Return to text

U. It is observable that here and in the next paragraph the only reasons they give against using the only two Arian formulas which they condemn is that they are not found in Scripture, which leaves the question of their truth untouched. Here, in their explanation of the [ex ouk onton], or from nothing, they do but deny it with Eusebius's evasion; that nothing can be from nothing, and every thing must be from God. vid. p. 62, note E.
Return to text

X. They argue after the usual Arian manner, that the term "Son" essentially implies beginning, and excludes the title "co-unoriginate;" whereas the Catholics contended (as alluded to supr. p. 98, note N.) that the word Father implied a continuity of nature, that is, a co-eternal existence with the Father. vid. p. 10, note U.
Return to text

Y. These strong words [theon kata phusin teleion kai alethe] are of a different character from any which have occurred in the Arian Confessions. They can only be explained away by considering them used in contrast to the Samosatene doctrine; Paul saying that that dignity, which the Arians ascribed to our Lord before His birth in the flesh, was bestowed on Him after it. vid. p. 115, ref. 1. Thus "perfect according to nature" and "true," will not be directly connected with "God" so much as opposed to, "by advance," "by adoption," &c. p. 108, note I.
Return to text

Z. The use of the words [endiathetos] and [prophorikos], mental and pronounced, to distinguish the two senses of [logos], reason and word, came from the school of the Stoics, and is found in Philo, and was under certain limitations allowed in Catholic theology. Damasc. F. O. ii. 21. To use either absolutely and to the exclusion of the other would have involved some form of Sabellianism, or Arianism as the case might be; but each might correct the defective sense of either. S. Theophilus speaks of our Lord as at once [endiathetos] and [prophorikos]. ad Autol. ii. 10, 22, S. Cyril seems as [endiathetos], in Joann. p. 39 [p. 44 O.T.]; on the other hand he says, "This pronounced word of ours, [prophorikos], is generated from mind and unto mind, and seems to be other than that which stirs in the heart, &c., &c. ... so too the Son of God proceeding from the Father without division, is the expression and likeness of what is proper to Him, being a subsistent Word, and living from a Living Father." Thesaur. p. 47. When the Fathers deny that our Lord is the [prophorikos logos], they only mean that that title is not, even as far as its philosophical idea went, an adequate representative of Him, a word spoken being insubstantive, vid. Athan. Orat. ii. 35. Hil. de Syn. 46. Cyr. Catech. xi. 10. Damas. Ep. ii. p. 203, nec prolativum ut generationem ei demas, for this was the Arian doctrine. "The Son [says Eunomius] is other than the Mental Word, or Word in intellectual action, of which partaking and being filled He is called the Pronounced Word, and expressive of the Father's substance, that is, the Son." Cyril in Joann. p. 31. [p. 36 O.T.] The Gnostics seem to have held the [logos prophorikos]. Iren. Hær. ii. 12, n. 5. [p. 120 O.T.] Marcellus is said by Eusebius to have considered our Lord as first the one and then the other. Eccl. Theol. ii. 15. Sabellius thought our Lord the [prophorikos] according to Epiph. Hær. p. 398, Damasc. Hær. 62. Paul of Samosata the [endiathetos]. Epiph. Hær. 65. passim. Eusebius, Eccles. Theol. ii. 17. describes our Lord as the [prophorikos] while he disowns it.
Return to text

A. This passage seems taken from Eusebius, and partly from Marcellus's own words. vid. supr. note R. S. Cyril speaks of his doctrine in like terms. Catech. xv. 27.
Return to text

B. i.e. Plotinus of Sirmium, the pupil of Marcellus is meant, who published his heresy about 343. A similar play upon words is found in the case of other names; though Lucifer seems to think that his name was really Scotinus and that his friends changed it. de non parc. pp. 203, 220, 226. Thus Noetus is called [anoetos]. Epiph. Hær. 57, 2 fin. and 8; and Eudoxius [adoxios]. Lucifer, pro Athan. i. p. 65. Moriend. p. 258; Eunomians among the Latins, (by a confusion with Anomœan), [anomoi], or sine lege, Cod. Can. lxi. 1. ap. Leon. Op. t. 3. p. 443. Vigilantius dormitantius, Jerom. contr. Vigil. init.; Aerius [aerion pneuma eschen], Epiph. Hær. 75, 6 fin. Of Arius, [ares, areie], vid. supr. p. 91, note Q. Gregory, [ho nustazon]. Anast. Hod. 10, p. 186; Eutyches, [dystyches], &c. &c. Photinus seems to have brought out more fully the heresy of Marcellus; both of whom, as all Sabellians excepting Patripassians, differed from Arians mainly in this point alone, when it was that our Lord came into being; the Arians said before the worlds, the Samosatenes, Photinians, &c. said on His human birth; both parties considered Him a creature, and the true Word and Wisdom were attributes or energies of Almighty God. This Lucifer well observes to Constantius in the course of one of the passages above quoted, "Quid interesse arbitraris inter te et Paulum Samosatenum, vel eum tum ejus discipulum tuum conscotinum, nisi quia tu ante omnia dicas, ille vero post omnia"? p. 203, 4. A subordinate difference was this, that the Samosatene, Photinian, &c., considered our Lord to be really gifted with the true Word, whereas Arians did scarcely more than consider Him framed after the pattern of it. Photinus was condemned, after this Council, at Sardica, (347 if not 344,) and if not by Catholics at least by Eusebians; at Milan (348) by the Catholics; and perhaps again in 351, when he was deposed. He was an eloquent man and popular in his diocese, and thus maintained his ground for some years after his condemnation.
Return to text

C. "This passage of the Apostle," Rom. i. 1, "[Marcellus] I know not why perverts, instead of declared, [horisthentos], making it predestined, [prooristhentos], that the Son may be such as they who are predestined at foreknowledge." Euseb. contr. Marc. i. 2 Paul of Samosata also considered our Lord Son by foreknowledge, [prognosei]. vid. Routh, Reliqu. t. 2. p. 466. and Eunomius, Apol. 24.
Return to text

D. [autoprosopos] and so Cyril. Hier. Catech. xv. 14 and 17. (It means, "not in personation,") and Philo contrasting divine appearances with those of Angels; Leg. Alleg. iii. 62. On the other hand, Theophilus on the text, "The voice of the Lord God walking in the garden," speaks of the Word, "assuming the person, [prosopon], of the Father," and "in the person of God," ad Autol. ii. 22. the word not then having its theological sense.
Return to text

E. [homoion kata panta]. Here again we have a strong Semi-arian or almost Catholic formula introduced by the bye, marking the presence of what may be called the new Semi-arian school. Of course it admitted of evasion, but in its fulness it included "substance." At Sirmium Constantius inserted it in the Confession which occurs supr. vid. p. 84, note A. On this occasion Basil subscribed in this form: "I, Basil, Bishop of Ancyra, believe and assent to what is aforewritten, confessing that the Son is like the Father in all things; and by 'in all things,' not only that He is like in will, but in subsistence, and existence, and being; as divine Scripture teaches, spirit from spirit, life from life, light from light, God from God, true Son from true, Wisdom from the Wise God and Father; and once for all, like the Father in all things, as a son is to a father. And if any one says that He is like in a certain respect, [kata ti], as is written afore, he is alien from the Catholic Church, as not confessing the likeness according to divine Scripture." Epiph. Hær. 73. 22. S. Cyril of Jerusalem uses the [kata panta] or [en pasin homoion], Catech. iv. 7. xi. 4 and 18. and Athan. Orat. i. § 21. and ii. § 18 and 22. Damasc. F. O. i. 8, p. 135.
Return to text

F. Eusebius also, Eccles. Theol. i. 20. says that Sabellius held the Patripassian doctrine. Epiph. however, Hær. p. 398, denies it, and imputes the doctrine to Noetus. Sabellius's doctrine will come before us infr. Orat. iv.; meanwhile it should be noticed, that in the reason which the Confession alleges against that heretical doctrine it is almost implied that the divine nature of the Son suffered on the Cross. They would naturally fall into this notion directly they gave up their belief in our Lord's absolute divinity. It would as naturally follow to hold that our Lord had no human soul, but that His pre-existent nature stood in the place of it:—also that His Mediatorship was no peculiarity of His Incarnation. vid. p. 107, note E; p. 119, note O.
Return to text

G. The Confession does not here comment on the clause against our Lord's being Ingenerate, having already noticed it under paragraph (2). It will be remarked that it still insists upon the unscripturalness of the Catholic positions. The main subject of this paragraph, the [thelesei gennethen], which forms great part of the Arian question and controversy, is reserved for Orat. iii. § 59, &c. in which Athanasius formally treats of it. He treats of the text Prov. viii. 22. throughout Orat. ii. The doctrine of the [monogenes] has already partially come before us in de Decr. § 7-9. p. 12, &c. [Monos], not as the creatures. vid. p. 62, note F.
Return to text

H. This last paragraph is the most curious of the instances of the presence of this new and nameless influence, which seems at this time to have been springing up among the Eusebians, and showed itself by acts before it has a place in history. The paragraph is in its very form an interpolation or appendix, while its doctrine bears distinctive characters of something higher than the old Semi-arianism. The characteristic of that, as of other shapes of the heresy, was the absolute separation which it put between the Father and the Son. They considered Them as two [ousiai, homoiai] like, but not as [homoousioi]; this very explanation of the word [teleios] was "independent" and "distinct." Language then, such as that in the text, was the nearest assignable approach to the reception of the [homoousion]; all that was wanting was the doctrine of the [perichoresis], of which infr. Orat. iii. It is observable that a hint is thrown out by Athanasius about "suggestions" from without, a sentence or two afterwards. It is observable too that in the next paragraph the preceding doctrine is pointedly said to be that of "the Orientals."
Return to text

I. Sirmium was a city of lower Pannonia, not far from the Danube, and it was the great bulwark of the Illyrian provinces of the Empire. There Vetranio assumed the purple; and there Constantius was born. The frontier war caused it to be from time to time the Imperial residence. We hear of Constantius at Sirmium in the summer of 357. Ammian. xvi. 10. He also passed there the ensuing winter. ibid. xvii. 12. In October, 358, after the Sarmatian war, he entered Sirmium in triumph, and passed the winter there. xvii. 13 fin. and with a short absence in the spring, remained there till the end of May, 359. vid. p. 84, note A.
Return to text

K. In the dates here fixed for the Confessions of Sirmium, Petavius has been followed, who has thrown more light on the subject than any one else. In 351, the Semi-arian party was still stronger than in 345. The leading person in this Council was Basil of Ancyra, who is generally considered their head. Basil held a disputation with Photinus. Silvanus too of Tarsus now appears for the first time; while, according to Socrates, Mark of Arethusa, who was more connected with the Eusebians than any other of his party, drew up the Anathemas; the Confession used was the same as that sent to Constans, that of the Council of Philippopolis, and the Macrostich.
Return to text

L. There had been no important Oriental Council held since that of the Dedication ten years before, till this of Sirmium; unless indeed that of Philippopolis requires to be mentioned, which was a secession from the Council of Sardica. S. Hilary treats its creed as a Catholic composition. de Syn. 39-63. Philastrius and Vigilius call the Council a meeting of "holy bishops" and a "Catholic Council." de Hær. 65. in Eutych. v. init. What gave a character and weight to this Council, which belonged to no other Eusebian meeting, was, that it met to set right a real evil, and was not a mere pretence with Arian objects. Photinus had now been eight or nine years in the open avowal of his heresy, yet in possession of his see. Nothing is more instructive in the whole of this eventful history than the complication of hopefulness and deterioration in the Oriental party, and the apparent advance yet decline of the truth. Principles, good and bad, were developing on both sides with energy. The fall of Hosius and Liberius, and the dreadful event of Ariminum, are close before the ruin of the Eusebian power. As to the Bishops present at this Sirmian Council, we have them described in Sulpitius: "Part of the Bishops followed Arius, and welcomed the desired condemnation of Athanasius; part, brought together by fear and faction, yielded to a party spirit; a few, to whom faith was dear and truth precious, rejected the unjust judgment." Hist. ii. 52; he instances Paulinus of Treves, whose resistance, however, took place at Milan some years later. Sozomen gives us a similar account, speaking of a date a few years before the Sirmian Council. "The East," he says, "in spite of its being in faction after the Antiochene Council" of the Dedication, "and thenceforth openly dissenting from the Nicene faith, in reality, I think, concurred in the sentiment of the majority, and with them confessed the Son to be of the Father's substance; but from contentiousness certain of them fought against the term 'One in substance;' some, as I conjecture, having originally objected to the word … others from habit … others, aware that the resistance was unsuitable, leaned to this side or that to gratify parties; and many thought it weak to waste themselves in such strife of words, and peaceably held to the Nicene decision." Hist. iii. 13.
Return to text

M. This Anathema which has occurred in substance in the Macrostich, and again infra, Anath. 18 and 23. is a disclaimer on the part of the Eusebian party of the charge brought against them with reason by the Catholics, of their in fact holding a supreme and a secondary God. In the Macrostich it is disclaimed upon a simple Arian basis. The Semi-arians were more open to this imputation; Eusebius, as we have seen above,  distinctly calling our Lord a second and another God. vid. p. 63, note G. It will be observed that this Anathema contradicts the one which immediately follows, and the 11th, in which Christ is called God; except, on the one hand, the Father and Son are one God, which was the Catholic doctrine, or, on the other, the Son is God in name only, which was the pure Arian or Anomœan.
Return to text

N. The language of Catholics and heretics is very much the same on this point of the Son's ministration, with this essential difference of sense, that Catholic writers mean a ministration internal to the divine substance and an instrument connatural with the Father, and Arius meant an external and created medium of operation. vid. p. 12, note Z. Thus S. Clement calls our Lord "the All-harmonious Instrument ([organon]) of God." Protrept. p. 6; Eusebius "an animated and living instrument ([organon empsuchon],) nay, rather divine and vivific of every substance and nature." Demonstr. iv. 4. S. Basil, on the other hand, insists that the Arians reduced our Lord to "an inanimate instrument." [organon apsuchon], though they called Him [hypourgon teleiotaton], most perfect minister or under-worker. adv. Eunom. ii. 21. Elsewhere he says, "the nature of a cause is one, and the nature of an instrument, [organon], another; ... foreign then in nature is the Son from the Father, since such is an instrument from a workman." de Sp. S. n. 6 fin. vid. also n. 4. fin. and n. 20. Afterwards he speaks of our Lord as "not intrusted with the ministry of each work by particular injunctions in detail, for this were ministration," [leitourgikon], but as being "full of the Father's excellencies," and "fulfilling not an instrumental, [organiken], and servile ministration, but accomplishing the Father's will like a Creator, [demiourgikos]." ibid. n. 19. And so S. Gregory, "The Father signifies, the Word accomplishes, not servilely, nor ignorantly, but with knowledge and sovereignty, and, to speak more suitably, in a father's way, [patrikos]." Orat. 30. 11. And S. Cyril, "There is nothing abject in the Son, as in a minister, [hypourgoi], as they say; for the God and Father injoins not [epitattei], on His Word, 'Make man,' but as one with Him, by nature, and inseparably existing in Him as a co-operator," &c. in Joann. p. 48. [p. 55 O.T.] Explanations such as these secure for the Catholic writers some freedom in their modes of speaking, e.g. we have seen, supr. p. 15, note D. that Athan. speaks of the Son, as "enjoined and ministering," [prostattomenos, kai hypourgon], Orat. ii. § 22. Thus S. Irenæus speaks of the Father being well-pleased and commanding, [keleuontos], and the Son doing and framing. Hær. iv. 75. [p. 438 O.T.] S. Basil too, in the same treatise in which are some of the foregoing protests, speaks of "the Lord ordering, [prostassonta], and the Word framing." de Sp. S. n. 38. S. Cyril of Jerusalem, of "Him who bids, [entelletai], bidding to one who is present with Him," Cat. xi. 16. [p. 118 O.T.] vid. also [hypereton tei boulei], Justin. Tryph. 126. [p. 227 O.T.] and [hypourgon], Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 10. [exupereton thelemati], Clem. Strom. vii. p. 832.
Return to text

O. The 12th and 13th Anathemas are intended to meet the charge which is alluded to pp. 115, 123, notes F and U, that Arianism involved the doctrine that our Lord's divine nature suffered. Athanasius brings this accusation against them distinctly in his work against Apollinaris, "Idle then is the fiction of the Arians, who suppose that the Saviour took flesh only, irreligiously imputing the notion of suffering to the impassible godhead." Contr. Appollin. i. 15. vid. also Ambros. de Fide, iii. 31. Salig in his de Eutychianismo ant. Eutychen takes notice of none of the passages in the text.
Return to text

P. This anathema is directed against the Sabellians, especially Marcellus, who held the very opinion which it denounces, that the Almighty God spake with Himself. Euseb. Eccles. Theol. ii. 15. The Jews said that Almighty God spoke to the Angels. Basil. Hexaem. fin. Others that the plural was used as authorities on earth use it in way of dignity. Theod. in Gen. 19. As to the Catholic Fathers, as is well known, they interpreted the texts in the sense here given. It is scarcely necessary to refer to instances; Petavius, however, cites the following. First those in which the Eternal Father is considered to speak to the Son. Theophilus, ad Autol. ii. 18; Novatian, de Trin. 26; Tertullian, de Carn. Christ 5; Synod. Antioch. contr. Paul. ap. Routh. Reliqu. t. 2, p. 468; Basil. Hexaem. fin.; Cyr. Hieros. Cat. x. 6.; Cyril. Alex. Dial. iv. p. 516; Athan. contr. Gentes, 46. Orat. iii. § 29 fin.; Chrysost. in Genes. Hom. viii. 3; Hilar. Trin. iv. 17. v. 8; Ambros. Hexaem. vi. 7; Augustin. ad Maxim. ii. 26. n. 2. Next those in which Son and Spirit are considered as addressed. Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 18; Pseudo-Basil. contr. Eunom. v. p. 315; Pseudo-Chrysost. de Trin. t. i. p. 832; Cyril. Thesaur. p. 12; Theodor. in Genes. 19. Hær. v. 3. and 9. But even here, where the Arians agree with Catholics, they differ in this remarkable respect, that in this and the following Canons they place certain interpretations of Scripture under the sanction of an anathema, showing how far less free the system of heretics is than that of the Church.
Return to text

Q. This again, in spite of the wording, which is directed against the Catholic doctrine, and of an heretical implication, is a Catholic interpretation. vid. (besides Philo de Somniis, i. 12.) Justin. Tryph. 56, and 126. Iren. Hær. iv. 10. n. 1. Tertull. de Carn. Christ. 6. adv. Marc. iii. 9. adv. Prax. 16. Novat. de Trin. 18. Origen. in Gen. Hom. iv. 5. Cyprian. adv. Jud. ii. 5. Antioch. Syn. contr. Paul. apud Routh. Rell. t. 2. p. 469. Athan. Orat. ii. 13. Epiph. Ancor. 29 and 39. Hær. 71, 5. Chrysost. in Gen. Hom. 41. 7. These references are principally from Petavius; also from Dorscheus, who has written an elaborate commentary on this Council. The implication alluded to above is, that the Son is of a visible substance, and thus is naturally the manifestation of the Invisible God. Petavius maintains, and Bull denies (Def. F. D. iv. 3), that the doctrine is found in Justin, Origen, &c. The Catholic doctrine is that the Son has condescended to become visible by means of material appearances. Augustine seems to have been the first who changed the mode of viewing the texts in question, and considered the divine appearance, not God the Son, but a created Angel. vid. de Trin. ii. passim. Jansenius considers that he did so from a suggestion of S. Ambrose, that the hitherto received view had been the origo hæresis Arianæ, vid. his Augustinus, lib. proœm. c. 12. t. 2. p. 12. The two views are not inconsistent with each other. It is remarkable that in this and the next anathema for "partem ejus" in Hilary, Petavius should propose to read "patrem" against the original text in Athan. [meros autou], and the obvious explanation of it by the phrase [meros homoousiou], which was not infrequently in the mouths of Arian objectors. vid. supr. p. 97, note I.
Return to text

R. This and the following Canon are Catholic in their main doctrine, and might be illustrated, if necessary, as the foregoing.
Return to text

S. It was an expedient of the Macedonians to deny that the Holy Spirit was God because it was not usual to call Him Ingenerate; and perhaps to their form of heresy which was always implied in Arianism, and which began to show itself formally among the Semi-Arians ten years later, this anathema may be traced. They asked the Catholics whether the Holy Spirit was Ingenerate, generate, or created, for into these three they divided all things. vid. Basil. in Sabell. et Ar. Hom. xxiv. 6. But, as the Arians had first made the alternative only between Ingenerate and created, and Athan. de Decr. § 28. supr. p. 53, note G. shews that generate is a third idea really distinct from one and the other, so S. Greg. Naz. adds processive, [ekporeuton], as an intermediate idea, contrasted with Ingenerate, yet distinct from generate, Orat. xxxi. 8. In other words, Ingenerate means, not only not generate, but not from any origin. vid. August. de Trin. xv. 26.
Return to text

T. The Creed which follows was not put forth by a Council, but at a meeting of a few Arian Bishops, and the author was Potamius, Bishop of Lisbon. It is important as marking the open separation of the Eusebians or Acacians from the Semi-arians, and their adoption of Anomœan tenets. Hilary, who defends the Eusebian Councils up to this date, calls this a "blasphemia," and upon it followed the Semi-arian Council by way of protest at Ancyra. St. Hilary tells us that it was the Confession which Hosius was imprisoned and tortured into signing. Whether it is the one which Pope Liberius signed is doubtful; but he signed an Arian Confession about this time.
Return to text

U. It will be observed that this Confession; 1. by denying "two Gods," and declaring that the One God is the God of Christ, implies that our Lord is not God. 2. It says that the word "substance," and its compounds, ought not to be used as being unscriptural, mysterious, and leading to disturbance; 3. it holds that the Father is greater than the Son "in honour, dignity, and godhead;" 4. that the Son is subordinate to the Father with all other things; 5. that it is the Father's characteristic to be invisible and impassible. On the last head, vid. supr. p. 115. 119 notes F. O. They also say that our Lord, hominem suscepisse per quem compassus est, a word which Phœbadius condemns in his remarks on this Confession; where, by the way, he uses the word "spiritus" in the sense of Hilary and the Ante-Nicene Fathers, in a connection which at once explains the obscure words of the suppositious Sardican Confession, (vid. above, pp. 84, 85, note C,) and turns them into another evidence of this additional heresy involved in Arianism. "Impassibilis Deus," says Phœbadius, "quia Deus Spiritus ... non ergo passibilis Dei Spiritus, licet in homine suo passus." Now the Sardican Confession is thought ignorant, as well as unauthoritative, (e.g. by Natalis. Alex. Sæc. 4. Diss. 29.) because it imputes to Valens and Ursacius the following belief, which he supposes to be Patripassianism, but which exactly answers to this aspect and representation of Arianism: [hoti ho logos kai hoti to pneuma kai estaurothe kai esphage kai apethanen kai aneste]. Theod. Hist. ii. 6. p. 844.
Return to text

X. Some critics suppose that the transaction really belongs to the second instead of the third Confession of Sirmium. Socrates connects it with the second. Hist. ii. 30.
Return to text

Y. The Semi-arian majority in the Council had just before been confirming the Creed of the Dedication; hence this beginning. vid. supr. p. 89, note O. They had first of all offered to the Council the third Sirmian, or "Confession with a Date," supr. § 3. which their coadjutors offered at Ariminum, Soz. iv. 22. and at the end of the present they profess that the two are substantially the same. They seem to mean that they are both Homœan or Scriptural Creeds; they differ in that the latter, as if to propitiate the Semi-arian majority, adds an anathema upon Anomœan as well as on the Homoüsion and Homœusion.
Return to text

Z. These two sections seem to have been inserted by Athan. after his Letter was finished, and contain later occurrences in the history of Ariminum, than were contemplated when he wrote supra, ch. i. n. 15. init. vid. note H, in loc. In this place Athan. distinctly says, that the following Confession, which the Acacians from Seleucia adopted at Constantinople, was transmitted to Ariminum, and there forced upon the assembled Fathers. This is not inconsistent with what seems to be the fact, that the Confession was drawn up at a Council hold at Nice in Thrace near Adrianople in Oct. 359, whither the deputies from Ariminum had been summoned by Constantius. vid. Hilar. Fragm. viii. 5. There the deputies signed it, and thence they took it back to Ariminum. In the beginning of the following year 360 it was confirmed by a Council at Constantinople, after the termination of that of Ariminum, and to this confirmation Athanasius refers. Socrates says, Hist. ii. 37 fin. that they chose Nice in order to deceive the ignorant with the notion that it was Nicæa, and their creed the Nicene faith, and the place is actually called Nicæa, in the Acts of Ariminum preserved by Hilary, p. 1346. Such a measure, whether or not adopted in matter of fact, might easily have had success, considering the existing state of the West. We have seen, supr. p. 76, note I, that St. Hilary had not heard the Nicene Creed till he came into Asia Minor A.D. 356. and he says of his Gallic and British brethren, "O blessed ye in the Lord and glorious, who hold the perfect and apostolic faith in the profession of your conscience, and up to this time know not creeds in writing. For ye needed not the letter, who abounded in the Spirit; nor looked for the hand's office for subscription, who believed in the heart, and professed with the mouth unto salvation. Nor was it necessary for you as bishops to read, what was put into your hands as neophytes on your regeneration. But necessity hath brought in the usage, that creeds should be expounded and subscriptions attached. For when what our conscience holds is in danger, then the letter is required; nor surely is there reason against writing what there is health in confessing." de Syn. 63. It should be added that at this Council Ulphilas the Apostle of the Goths, who had hitherto followed the Council of Nicæa, conformed, and thus became the means of spreading through his countrymen the Creed of Ariminum.
Return to text

A. [monos ek monou] Though this is an Homœan or Acacian, not an Anomœan Creed, this phrase may be considered a symptom of Anomœan influence; [monos para] or [hupo, monou] being one special formula adopted by Eunomius, explanatory of [monogenes], in accordance with the original Arian theory, mentioned de Decr. § 7. supra, p. 12. that the Son was the one instrument of creation. Eunomius said that He alone was created by the Father alone; all other things being created by the Father, not alone, but through Him whom alone He had first created. vid. Cyril. Thesaur. 25. p. 239. St. Basil observes that, if this be a true sense of [monogenes], then no man is such, e.g. Isaac, as being born of two, contr. Eunom. ii. 21. Acacius has recourse to Gnosticism, and illustrates the Arian sense by the contrast of the [probole] of the Æons, which as described supra, p. 97, note H, was [ek pollon]. ap. Epiph. Hær. 72, 7. p. 839.
Return to text

B. Here as before, instead of speaking of Arianism, the Confession anathematises all heresies. vid. supr. p. 108, note G. It will be observed, that for "Like in all things," which was contained in the Confession (third Sirmian) first submitted to the Ariminian Fathers, is substituted simply "Like." Moreover, they include hypostasis or subsistence though a Scripture term, in the list of proscribed symbols. vid, also ad Afros. 4. The object of suppressing [hypostasis], seems to have been that, since the Creed, which was written in Latin, was to go to Ariminum, the West might be forced to deny the Latin version or equivalent of [homoousion], unius substantiæ, or hypostasis, as well as the Greek original. This circumstance might be added, to those enumerated supra, p. 69, &c. to shew that in the Nicene formulary substance and subsistence are synonymous.
Return to text

C. Acacius, Eudoxius, and the rest, after ratifying at Constantinople the Creed framed at Nice and subscribed at Ariminum, appear next at Antioch a year and a half later, when they throw off the mask, and, avowing the Anomœan Creed, "revert," as St. Athanasius says, "to their first doctrines," i.e. those with which Arius started. The Anomœan doctrine, it may be observed, is directly opposed rather to the Homœusian than to the Homoüsion, as indeed the very symbols shew; "unlike in substance," being the contrary to "like in substance." It doubtless frightened the Semi-arians, and hastened their return to the Catholic doctrine.
Return to text

D. From [ex ouk onton], "out of nothing," one of the original Arian positions concerning the Son. Theodoret says that they were also called Exacionitæ, from the nature of their place of meeting. Hær. iv. 3. and Du Cange confirms it so far as to shew that there was a place or quarter of Constantinople called Exocionium or Exacionium.
Return to text

E. At this critical moment Constantius died, when the cause of truth was only not in the lowest state of degradation, because a party was in authority and vigour who could reduce it to a lower still; the Latins committed to an Anti-Catholic Creed, the Pope a renegade, Hosius fallen and dead; Athanasius wandering in the deserts, Arians in the sees of Christendom, and their doctrine growing in blasphemy, and their profession of it in boldness, every day. The Emperor had come to the throne almost when a boy, and at this time was but 44 years old. In the ordinary course of things, he might have reigned till, humanly speaking, orthodoxy was extinct. This passage shews that Athanasius did not insert these sections till two years after the composition of the work itself; for Constantius died A.D. 361.
Return to text

F. Euzoius, at this time Arian Bishops of Antioch, was excommunicated with Arius in Egypt and at Nicæa, and was restored with him to the Church at the Council of Jerusalem. He succeeded at Antioch S. Meletius, who, on being placed in that see by the Arians professed orthodoxy, and was forthwith banished by them.
Return to text

G. [hypekrinanto]. hypocrites, is almost a title of the Arians (with an apparent allusion to 1 Tim. iv. 2. vid. Socr. i. p. 13. Athan. Orat. i. § 8), and that in various senses. The first meaning is that, being heretics, they nevertheless used orthodox phrases and statements to deceive and seduce Catholics. Thus the term is used by Alexander in the beginning of the controversy. vid. Theod. Hist. i. 3, pp. 729. 746. Again, it implies that they agreed with Arius, but would not confess it; professed to be Catholics, but would not anathematise him. vid. Athan. ad Ep. Æg. 20. or alleged untruly the Nicene Council as their ground of complaint, infr. § 39. Again, it is used of the hollowness and pretence of their ecclesiastical proceedings, with the Emperor at their head; which were a sort of make-belief of spiritual power, or piece of acting, [dramatourgema]. Ep. Encycl. 2 and 6. It also means general insincerity, as if they were talking about what they did not understand, and did not realise what they said, and were blindly implicating themselves in evils of a fearful character. Thus Athan. calls them [tous tes Areiou anias hypokritas]. Orat. ii. § 1, init. [infra p. 181], and he speaks of the evil spirit making them his sport, [tois hypokrinomenois ten manian autou], ad Serap. i. 1. And hence further it is applied, as in this place, though with severity, yet to those who were near the truth, and who, though in sin, would at length come to it or not, according as the state of their hearts was. He is here anticipating the return into the Church of those whom he thus censures. In this sense, though with far more severity in what he says, the writer of a Tract, imputed to Athan. against the Catholicising Semi-Arians of 363, entitles it "on the hypocrisy of Meletius and Eusebius of Samosata." It is remarkable that what Athan. here predicts was fulfilled to the letter, even of the worst of these "hypocrites." For Acacius himself, who in 361 signed the Anomœan Confession above recorded, was one of those very men who accepted the Homoüsion with an explanation in 363.
Return to text

H. Considering that Athanasius had now been for several years among the monasteries of the deserts, in close concealment, (unless we suppose he really had issued thence and was present at Seleucia,) this is a remarkable instance of accurate knowledge of the state of feeling in the heretical party, and of foresight. From his apparent want of knowledge of the Anomœans, and his unhesitatingly classing them with the Arians, it would seem in a great measure to arise from the intimate comprehension of the doctrine itself in dispute and of its bearings. There had been at that time no parallel of a great aberration and its issue.
Return to text

Top | Contents | Works | Home

Margin Notes

1. [hos en thaliai].
Return to text

2. [heko] and so Chrys. Hom. 3. Hebr. Init. Epiph. Hær. 73. 31. and 36.
Return to text

3. p. 96, note G.
Return to text

4. p. 65, note M.
Return to text

5. vid. infr. § 32.
Return to text

6. p. 49, note O.
Return to text

7. p. 84, note B.
Return to text

8. ist Confession or 1st of Antioch, A.D. 341.
Return to text

9. iid Confession or 2nd of Antioch, A.D. 341.
Return to text

10. Vid. xth Confession, infr. § 30.
Return to text

11. vid. p. 10, note U.
Return to text

12. iiid Confession or 3d of Antioch, A.D. 341.
Return to text

13. p. 90, note P.
Return to text

14. ivth Confession, or 4th of Antioch, A.D. 342.
Return to text

15. vth Confession or Macrostich, A.D. 345.
Return to text

16. [pragmata].
Return to text

17. p. 123, note U.
Return to text

18. [ek prokopes]. p. 16, note I.
Return to text

19. p. 107, note E.
Return to text

20. vid. p. 120, notes P and Q.
Return to text

21. p. 113, note Y.
Return to text

22. [pragmatos], p. 113, ref. 1.
Return to text

23. de Decr. § 8. supr. p. 13.
Return to text

24. de Decr. § 26. supr. p. 46.
Return to text

25. p. 45, note H.
Return to text

26. vi. Confession, or 1st Sirmian, A.D. 351.
Return to text

27. vid. note on Nic. Anath. p. 66.
Return to text

28. p. 114, note C.
Return to text

29. p. 114, note C.
Return to text

30. Orat. iv. § 13.
Return to text

31. p. 113, note Z.
Return to text

32. p. 112, n. (2.)
Return to text

33. p. 114, ref. 2. [Margin note 20]
Return to text

34. p. 118, note N.
Return to text

35. p. 120, n. (16.)
Return to text

36. p. 115, n. (7.)
Return to text

37. p. 98, cir. fin. p. 113, n. (2.)
Return to text

38. vii. Confession, or 2nd Sirmian, A.D. 357.
Return to text

39. [poreuomai].
Return to text

40. vid. John x. 29. Ib. xiv. 28.
Return to text

41. [hypotetagmenon].
Return to text

42. [kephalaion]. vid. de Decr. § 31. p. 56. Orat. i. § 34. Epiph. Hær. 73. 11.
Return to text

43. ix. Confession, at Seleucia A.D. 359.
Return to text

44. [homoiousion].
Return to text

45. [anomoion].
Return to text

46. [homoion].
Return to text

47. x. Confession at Nice and Constantinople. A.D. 359, 360.
Return to text

48. xi. Confession at Antioch. A.D. 361.
Return to text

49. p. 6, note O.
Return to text

50. p. 110, note Q.
Return to text

51. p. 81, note T.
Return to text

Top | Contents | Works | Home

Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman
Copyright © 2007 by The National Institute for Newman Studies. All rights reserved.