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 Macrostich sent into Italy; sixth, at Sirmium; seventh, at the same place; and eighth also, as given above in §8; ninth, at Seleucia; tenth, at Constantinople; eleventh, at Antioch.

15. Arius and those with him 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 the blessed Alexander. However, after his expulsion, when he was with Eusebius and his fellows, he drew up his heresy upon paper, and imitating in the Thalia no grave writer, but the Egyptian Sotades, in the dissolute tone of his metre³⁵⁰²

3502 Cf. Orat. i. §§2–5; de Sent. D. 6; Socr. 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. Suid. ibid. Horace’s Ode. ‘Miserarum est neque 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 a majore. 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. [The metre of the fragments of the ‘Thalia’ is obscure, there are no traces of the Ionic foot, but very distinct anapæstic cadences. In fact the lines resemble ill-constructed or very corrupt anapæstic tetrameters catalectic, as in a comic Parabasis. For Sotades, the Greek text here reads corruptly Sosates.]

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 without beginning because of Him who has a beginning. And adore Him as everlasting, because of Him who in time has come to be. The Unbegun made the Son a beginning of things originated; 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 essence³⁵⁰³

3503 This passage ought to have been added supr. p. 163, note 8, as containing a more direct denial of the ὁμοούσιον

3504 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.

3505 ἀνεπιμικτοί, that is, he denied the περιχώρησις, vid. supr. Orat. iii. 3, &c.

3506 [John i. 18, best mss., and cf. Hort, Two Diss. p. 26.

3507 ἐπινοίαις, that is, our Lord’s titles are but names, or figures, not properly belonging to Him, but [cf. Bigg. B. L. p. 168 sq.]

3508 κατὰ κατάληψιν, 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 was, that all men could know Almighty God perfectly.

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

To Our Blessed Pope³⁵⁰⁹

3509 [The ordinary title of eminent bishops, especially of the bishop of Alexandria.]

Our faith from our forefathers, which also we have learned from thee, Blessed Pope, is this:—We acknowledge One God, alone Ingenerate, alone Everlasting, alone Unbegun, 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 begat an Only-begotten Son before eternal times, through whom He has made both the ages and the universe; and begat 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 begotten; nor as Valentinus pronounced that the offspring of the Father was an issue³⁵¹⁰

3510 What the Valentinian προβολὴ was is described in Epiph. Hær. 31, 13 [but see D.C.B. iv. 1086 sqq.] Origen protests against the notion of προβολή, Periarch. iv. p. 190, and Athanasius Expos. §1. The Arian Asterius too considers προβολὴ to introduce the notion of τεκνογονία, Euseb. contr. Marc. i. 4. p. 20. vid. also Epiph. Hær. 72. 7. Yet Eusebius uses the word προβάλλεσθαι. Eccl. Theol. i. 8. On the other hand Tertullian uses it with a protest against the Valentinian sense. Justin has προβληθὲν γέννημα, Tryph. 62. And Nazianzen calls the Almighty Father προβολεὺς of the Holy Spirit. Orat. 29. 2. Arius introduces the word here as an argumentum ad invidiam. Hil. de Trin. vi. 9.

3511 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.

3512 υἱοπατόρα. The term is ascribed to Sabellius, Ammon. in Caten. Joan. i. 1. p. 14: to Sabellius and [invidiously to] Marcellus, Euseb. Eccl. Theol. ii. 5: Cf., as 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, and Greg. Nyssen. contr. Eun. xii. p. 733: to certain heretics, Cyril. Alex. in Joann. p. 243: to Praxeas and Montanus, Mar. Merc. p. 128: to Sabellius, Cæsar. Dial. i. p. 550: to Noetus, Damasc. Hær. 57.

3513 [On Hieracas, see D.C.B. iii. 24; also Epiph. Hær. 67; Hil. Trin. vi. 12.]

3514 Bull considers that the doctrine of such Fathers is here spoken of as held that our Lord’s συγκατάβασις to create the world was a γέννησις, and certainly such language as that of Hippol. contr. Noet. §15. favours the supposition. But one class of [Monarchians] may more probably be intended, who held that the Word became the Son upon His incarnation, such as Marcellus, vid. Euseb. Eccles. Theol. i. 1. contr. Marc. ii. 3. vid. also Eccles. Theol. ii. 9. p. 114 b. μηδ᾽ ἄλλοτε ἄλλην κ.τ.λ. 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.’ infr. §26. Again, Athanasius, Orat. iv. 15, 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.

3515 Eusebius’s letter to Euphration, which is mentioned just after, expresses this more distinctly—‘If they coexist, 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 τὰ πρός τι 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, ἀεὶ ὁ θεός, ἀεὶ ὁ υἱ& 231·ς ἅμα πατήρ, ἅμα υἱ& 231·ς. Theod. H. E. i. 4.

3516 ἥκω, and so Chrys. Hom. 3. Hebr. init. Epiph. Hær. 73. 31, and 36.

This is a part of what Arius and his fellows vomited from their heretical hearts.

17. And before the Nicene Council took place, similar statements were made by Eusebius and his fellows, Narcissus, Patrophilus, Maris, Paulinus, Theodotus, and Athanasius of [A]nazarba³⁵¹⁷

3517 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. [On Maris (who was not at Ariminum, and scarcely at Antioch in 363) see D.C.B. s.v. (2). On Theodotus see vol. i. of this series, p. 320, note 37. On Paulinus, ib. p. 369.]

3518 [Of Balaneæ, see Ap. Fug. 3; Hist. Ar. 5.]

3519 Quoted, among other passages from Eusebius, in the 7th General Council, Act. 6. p. 409. [Mansi. xiii. 701 D]. ‘The Son Himself is God, but not Very God.’ [But see Prolegg. ubi supr. note 5].

18. 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 had 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 Asterius³⁵²⁰

3520 Asterius has been mentioned above, p. 155, note 2, &c. Philostorgius speaks of him as adopting Semi-Arian terms; and Acacius gives an extract from him containing them, ap. Epiph. Hær. 72. 6. 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. [See Prolegg. ii. §3 (2) a, sub. fin.]

3521 None but the clergy might enter the Chancel, i.e. in Service time. Hence Theodosius was made to retire by S. Ambrose. Theod. v. 17. The Council of Laodicea, said to be held a.d. 372, forbids any but persons in orders, ἱερατικοί, to enter the Chancel and then communicate. Can. 19. vid. also 44. Conc. t. i. pp. 788, 789. It is doubtful what orders the word ἱερατικοὶ is intended to include. vid. Bingham, Antiqu. viii. 6. §7.

For the Blessed Paul said not that he preached Christ, His, that is, God’s, ‘own Power’ or ‘Wisdom,’ but without the article, ‘God’s Power and God’s Wisdom’ (1 Cor. i. 24), preaching that the own power of God Himself was distinct, which was con-natural and co-existent with Him unoriginately, 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 divinity’ (Rom. i. 20). For as no one would say that the Deity there mentioned was Christ, but the Father Himself, so, as I think, His eternal power is also not the Only-begotten God (Joh. i. 18), 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 Unbegun 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 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 a power of God, but a great power (Joel ii. 25). And the blessed David too in several 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. 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 originate, and one among intellectual natures; and as in things visible the sun is one among phenomena, and it shines upon the 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 origination, the Father had pre-existing knowledge how to generate; since a physician too, before he cured, had the science of curing³⁵²²

3522 Ep. Æg. 13.

20. 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 anathematized the Arian heresy instead, which they were so eager to recommend. This was why 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 heresy³⁵²³

3523 Vid. infr. §32.

3524 [On Artemas or Artemon and Theodotus, see Prolegg. ii. §3 (2) a.]

21. Yet so it is, they have convened successive Councils against that Ecumenical One, and are not yet tired. After the Nicene, Eusebius and his fellows 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. Accordingly, they assemble at Jerusalem, and there they write thus:—

The Holy Council assembled in Jerusalem³⁵²⁵

3525 [See Apol. Ar. 84; Hist. Ar. 1; Prolegg. ii. §5. The first part of the letter will be found supr. Apol. Ar. p. 144.]

3526 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.

22. This was the beginning of their Councils, and in it they were speedy in divulging their views, and could not conceal them. 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 and his fellows, 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 Dedication³⁵²⁷

3527 [Prolegg. ch. ii. §6 (2).]

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. But, after taking on ourselves to examine and to verify his faith, we admitted him rather than followed him; as you will understand from our present avowals.

For we have been taught from the first, to believe³⁵²⁸

3528 1st Confession or 1st of Antioch, a.d. 341. [See Socr. ii. 10.]

And in One Son of God, Only-begotten, who existed before all ages, and was with the Father who had begotten Him, by whom all things were made, both visible and invisible, who in the last days according to the good pleasure of the Father came down; and has taken flesh of the Virgin, and jointly fulfilled all His Father’s will, and suffered and risen 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. Here follows what they published next at the same Dedication in another Epistle, being dissatisfied with the first, and devising something newer and fuller:

We believe³⁵²⁹

3529 2nd Confession or 2nd of Antioch, a.d. 341. 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. [On its attribution to Lucian, see Prolegg. ubi supr., and Caspari Alte. u. Neue Q. p. 42 note.]

And in One Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, Only-begotten God (Joh. i. 18), by whom are all things, who was begotten before all ages from the Father, God from God, whole from whole, sole from sole³⁵³⁰

3530 Vid. 10th Confession, infr. §30.

3531 These strong words and those which follow, whether Lucian’s or not, mark the great difference between this confession and the foregoing. The words ‘unalterable and unchangeable’ are formal anti-Arian symbols, as the τρεπτὸν or alterable was one of the most characteristic parts of Arius’s creed. vid. Orat. i. §35, &c.

3532 On ἀπαράλλακτος εἰκὼν κατ᾽ οὐσίαν, which was synonymous with ὁμοιούσιος, vid. infr. §38. supr. p. 163, note 9. It was in order to secure the true sense of ἀπαράλλακτον that the Council adopted the word ὁμοούσιον ᾽Απαράλλακτον is accordingly used as a familiar word by Athan. de Decr. §§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; cf. S. Alexander τὴν κατὰ πάντα ὁμοιότητα αὐτοῦ ἐκ φύσεως ἀπομαξάμενος, in Theod. H. E. i. 4. Χαρακτήρ, Hebr. i. 3. contains the same idea. Basil. contr. Eunom. i. 18.

3533 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, like Philo and the Platonists, consider Him as made in the beginning the ‘Eternal Priest of the Father,’ Demonst. v. 3. de Laud. C. 3, 11, ‘an intermediate divine power,’ §§26, 27, and notes.

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, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost’ (Matt. xxviii. 19); namely of a Father who is truly Father, and a Son who is truly Son, and of the Holy Ghost who is 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 one³⁵³⁴

3534 On this phrase, which is justified by S. Hilary, de Syn. 32, and is protested against in the Sardican Confession, Theod. H. E. ii. 6 [see Prolegg. ubi supr.]

Holding then this faith, and holding it in the presence of God and Christ, from beginning to end, we anathematize every heretical heterodoxy³⁵³⁵

3535 The whole of these anathemas are [a compromise]. The Council anathematizes ‘every heretical heterodoxy;’ not, as Athanasius observes, supr., §7, the Arian.

3536 Our Lord was, as they held, before time, but still created.

3537 This emphatic mention of Scripture is also virtually an Arian evasion, admitting of a silent reference to themselves as interpreters of Scripture.

24. And one Theophronius³⁵³⁸

3538 On this Creed see Prolegg. ubi supr.

God³⁵³⁹

3539 3rd Confession or 3rd of Antioch, a.d. 341.

And in His Only-begotten Son, Word, Power, and Wisdom, our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things; who has been begotten from the Father before the ages, perfect God from perfect God³⁵⁴⁰

3540 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. In consequence they insisted on His τὸ τέλειον, 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.) And Athan. condemns the notion of ‘the λόγος ἐν τῷ θεῷ ἀτελὴς, γεννηθεὶς τέλειος, Orat. iv. 11. 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. Τέλειος 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, holding as they did no real condescension or assumption of a really new state, they would use the term of His divine Nature more freely than the Catholics sometimes had. ‘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.

And in the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth (Joh. xv. 26), which also God promised by His Prophet to pour out (Joel ii. 28) 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 with Marcellus of Ancyra³⁵⁴¹

3541 [See Prolegg.] Marcellus wrote his work against Asterius in 335, the year of the Arian Council of Jerusalem, which at once took cognisance of it, and cited Marcellus to appear before them. The next year a Council held at Constantinople condemned and deposed him.

25. Ninety Bishops met at the Dedication under the Consulate of Marcellinus and Probinus, in the 14th of the Indiction³⁵⁴²

3542 a.d. 341.

3543 [Cf. Prolegg. ii. §6 (3) init.]

We believe³⁵⁴⁴

3544 4th Confession, or 4th of Antioch, a.d. 342. The fourth, fifth, and sixth Confessions are the same, and with them agree the Creed of Philippopolis [a.d. 343, see Gwatkin, Stud. p. 119, espec. note 2].

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 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 consummation of the age, to judge quick and dead, and to render to every one according to his works; whose Kingdom endures indissolubly into the infinite ages³⁵⁴⁵

3545 These words, which answer to those [of our present ‘Nicene’ Creed], are directed against the doctrine of Marcellus [on which see Prolegg. ii. §3 (2) c, 3]. Cf. Eusebius, de Eccl. Theol. iii. 8. 17. cont. Marc. ii. 4.

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 aliens³⁵⁴⁶

3546 S. Hilary, as we have seen above, p. 78, by implication calls this the Nicene Anathema; but it omits many of the Nicene clauses, and evades our Lord’s eternal existence, substituting for ‘once He was not,’ ‘there was time when He was not.’ 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.

26. As if dissatisfied with this, they hold their meeting again after three years, and dispatch Eudoxius, Martyrius, and Macedonius of Cilicia³⁵⁴⁷

3547 Little is known of Macedonius who was Bishop of Mopsuestia, or of Martyrius; and too much of Eudoxius. This Long Confession, or Macrostich, which follows, is remarkable; [see Prolegg, ch. ii. §6 (3), Gwatkin, p. 125 sq.]

We believe³⁵⁴⁸

3548 5th Confession or Macrostich, a.d. 344. [Published by the Council which deposed Stephen and elected Leontius bishop of Antioch.]

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 consummation of the age to judge quick and dead, and to render to every one according to his works, whose Kingdom endures unceasingly unto the infinite ages; for He sitteth on the right hand of the Father not only in this age, 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 begat the Son, not by choice or will; the Holy and Catholic Church anathematizes.

(1.) For neither is safe to say that the Son is from nothing, (since this is no where 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 Unbegun, the Father of Christ, is One³⁵⁴⁹

3549 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. Here, in their explanation of the ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, or from nothing, they do but deny it with Eusebius’s evasion, supr. p. 75, note 5.

(2.) Nor may we, adopting the hazardous position, ‘There was once when He was not,’ from unscriptural sources, imagine any interval of time before Him, but only the God who has 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-unbegun and co-ingenerate with the Father; for no one can be properly called Father or Son of one who is co-unbegun and co-ingenerate with Him³⁵⁵⁰

3550 They argue after the usual Arian manner, that the term ‘Son’ essentially implies beginning, and excludes the title ‘co-unoriginate;’ but see supr. §16, note 1, and p. 154, note 5.

3551 [The four lines which follow are cited by Lightfoot, Ign. p. 91. ed. 2, as from de Syn. §3.]

(3.) Nor again, in confessing three realities 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 Unbegun and Invisible God to be one only³⁵⁵²

3552 Cf. §28, end.

(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 advance³⁵⁵³

3553 ἐκ προκοπῆς, de Decr. §10, note 10.

3554 These strong words, θεὸν κατὰ φύσιν τέλειον καὶ ἀληθῆ 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; so that ‘perfect according to nature’ and ‘true,’ will not be directly connected with ‘God’ so much as opposed to, ‘by advance,’ ‘by adoption,’ &c.

(5.) We abhor besides, and anathematize 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 mental³⁵⁵⁵

3555 The use of the words ἐνδιάθετος and προφορικός, mental and pronounced, to distinguish the two senses of λόγος, 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 ἐνδιάθετος and προφορικός. ad Autol. ii. 10 and 22, S. Cyril as ἐνδιάθετος, in Joann. p. 39. but see also Thesaur. p. 47. When the Fathers deny that our Lord is the προφορικὸς λόγος, 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. Orat. ii. 35; Hil. de Syn. 46; Cyr. Catech. xi. 10; Damas. Ep. ii. p. 203; Cyril in Joann. p. 31; Iren. Hær. ii. 12. n. 5. Marcellus is said by Eusebius to have considered our Lord as first the one and then the other. Eccl. Theol. ii. 15.

3556 This passage seems taken from Eusebius, and partly from Marcellus’s own words. S. Cyril speaks of his doctrine in like terms. Catech. xv. 27.

3557 i.e. Photinus. [A note illustrating the frequency of similar nicknames is omitted. On Photinus, see Prolegg. ch. ii. §3. ad fin.]

3558 Cf. Euseb. contr. Marc. i. 2.

3559 Cf. §27, notes.

3560 αὐτοπροσωπῶς 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, πρόσωπον, of the Father,’ and ‘in the person of God,’ ad Autol. ii. 22. the word not then having its theological sense.

3561 ὅμοιον κατὰ πάντα. Here again we have a strong Semi-Arian or almost Catholic formula introduced by the bye. Of course it admitted of evasion, but in its fulness it included ‘essence.’ [See above §8, note 1, and Introd.]

(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 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 Romans call Patripassians, and we Sabellians³⁵⁶²

3562 See vol. i. of this series, p. 295, note 1. 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 our Lord’s absolute divinity. It would naturally follow 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. §23, note 2. §27, Anath. 12, note.

(7.) And at the same time those who irreverently say that the Son has been 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 (Prov. viii. 22), ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways for His works,’ we do not understand Him to have been originated 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 origination with the rest. For divine Scripture teaches us really and truly that the Only-begotten Son was generated sole and solely³⁵⁶³

3563 The Confession still insists upon the unscripturalness of the Catholic positions. On the main subject of this paragraph the θελήσει γεννηθὲν, cf. Orat. iii. 59, &c. The doctrine of the μονογενὲς has already partially come before us in de Decr. §§7–9. pp. 154 sq. Μόνως, not as the creatures. vid. p. 75, note 6.

3564 The following passage is in its very form an interpolation or appendix, while its doctrine bears distinctive characters of something higher than the old absolute separation between the Father and the Son. [Eusebius of Cæs. had] considered Them as two οὐσίαι, ὅμοιαι like, but not as ὁμοούσιοι; his very explanation of the word τέλειος was ‘independent’ and ‘distinct.’ Language then, such as that in the text, was the nearest assignable approach to the reception of the ὁμοούσιον; [and in fact, to] the doctrine of the περιχώρησις, of which supr. Orat. iii.

3565 De Decr. §8.

3566 De Decr. §26.

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 our affairs: and that all in the West may know, both the audacity of the slanders of the heterodox, and as to the Orientals, their ecclesiastical mind in the Lord, to which the divinely inspired Scriptures bear witness without violence, where men are not perverse.

27. However they did not stand even to this; for again at Sirmium³⁵⁶⁷

3567 Sirmium [Mitrowitz on the Save] was a city of lower Pannonia, not far from the Danube, and 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.

3568 [Cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. §7]. The leading person in this Council was Basil of Ancyra. Basil held a disputation with Photinus. Silvanus too of Tarsus now appears for the first time: while, according to Socrates, Mark of Arethusa drew up the Anathemas; the Confession used was the same as that sent to Constans, of the Council of Philippopolis, and the Macrostich.

3569 S. Hilary treats their 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 was, that it met to set right a real evil, and was not a mere pretence with Arian objects.

We believe³⁵⁷⁰

3570 6th Confession, or 1st Sirmian, a.d. 351.

3571 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 of 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 consummation of the age, 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 age, 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 subsistence³⁵⁷²

3572 Vid. p. 77, sqq.

(2.) Again we say, Whosoever says that the Father and the Son are two Gods, be he anathema³⁵⁷³

3573 This Anathema which has occurred in substance in the Macrostich, and again infr. Anath. 18 and 23. is a disclaimer 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. 75, note 7. 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.

(3.) And whosoever, saying that Christ is God, before ages Son of God, does not confess that He has subserved the Father for the framing of the universe, be he anathema³⁵⁷⁴

3574 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. Thus S. Clement calls our Lord ‘the All-harmonious Instrument (ὄργανον) of God.’ Protrept. p. 6; Eusebius ‘an animated and living instrument (ὄργανον ἔμψυχον), 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,’ ὀργανον ἄψυχον, though they called Him ὑπουργὸν τελειότατον, most perfect minister or underworker. adv. Eunom. ii. 21. Elsewhere he makes them say, ‘the nature of a cause is one, and the nature of an instrument, ὀργάνου, 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. 19, and 20. 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, πατρικῶς. Orat. 30. 11. Cf. S. Cyril, in Joann. p. 48. Explanations such as these secure for the Catholic writers some freedom in their modes of speaking, e.g. Athan. speaks of the Son, as ‘enjoined and ministering,’ προσταττόμενος, καὶ ὑπουργῶν, Orat. ii. §22. Thus S. Irenæus speaks of the Father being well-pleased and commanding, κελεύοντος, and the Son doing and framing. Hær. iv. 75. S. Basil too, in the same treatise in which are some of the foregoing protests, speaks of ‘the Lord ordering,’ προστάσσοντα, and the word framing.’ de Sp. S. n. 38, S. Cyril of Jerusalem, of ‘Him who bids, ἐντελλεται, bidding to one who is present with Him,’ Cat. xi. 16. vid. also ὑπηρετῶν τῇ βουλῇ, Justin. Tryph. 126, and ὑπουργόν, Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 10. ἑξυπηρετῶν θελήματι, Clem. Strom. vii. p. 832.

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

(5.) Whosoever says that according to foreknowledge³⁵⁷⁵

3575 §26, n. 7.

(6.) Whosoever shall pretend that the essence of God is dilated or contracted³⁵⁷⁶

3576 Orat. iv. §13.

(7.) Whosoever shall say that the essence of God being dilated made the Son, or shall name the dilation of His essence Son, be he anathema.

(8.) Whosoever calls the Son of God the mental or pronounced Word³⁵⁷⁷

3577 §26, n. 4.

(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 Ingenerate³⁵⁷⁸

3578 §26 (2) n. (2).

(11.) Whosoever shall explain ‘I God the First and I 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, before ages God, as Jews do, be he anathema.

(12.) Whosoever hearing ‘The Word was made flesh,’ (John i. 14), shall consider that the Word has changed into flesh, or shall say that He has undergone alteration by taking flesh, be he anathema³⁵⁷⁹

3579 The 12th and 13th Anathemas are intended to meet the charge which is alluded to §26 (6), note 2, that Arianism involved the doctrine that our Lord’s divine nature suffered. [But see Gwatkin, p. 147.] Athanasius brings this accusation against them distinctly in his work against Apollinaris. contr. Apoll. 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.

(13.) Whosoever hearing the Only-begotten Son of God to have been crucified, shall say that His Godhead has undergone corruption, or passion. or alteration, or diminution, or destruction, be he anathema.

(14.) Whosoever shall say that ‘Let Us make man’ (Gen. i. 26), was not said by the Father to the Son, but by God to Himself, be he anathema³⁵⁸⁰

3580 This Anathema is directed against Marcellus, who held the very opinion which it denounces, that the Almighty 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 text in the sense here given. See Petav.

(15.) Whosoever shall say that Abraham saw, not the Son, but the Ingenerate God or part of Him, be he anathema³⁵⁸¹

3581 This again, in spite of the wording. which is directed against the Catholic doctrine [or Marcellus?] 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, &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.

(16.) Whosoever shall say that with Jacob, not the Son as man, but the Ingenerate God or part of Him, has wrestled, be he anathema³⁵⁸²

3582 This and the following Canon are Catholic in their main doctrine, and might be illustrated, if necessary, as the foregoing.

(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 from Himself, be he anathema. For the Son, being Lord, rained from the Father Who is 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, 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 mean the Ingenerate God, be he anathema³⁵⁸³

3583 It was an expedient of the later Macedonians to deny that the Holy Spirit was God because it was not usual to call Him Ingenerate. 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. shews that generate is a third idea really distinct from one and the other, so S. Greg. Naz. adds. processive, ἐκπορευτὸν, 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.

(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 Son³⁵⁸⁴

3584 Supra (16).

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

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

(25.) Whosoever shall say that the Son has been generated, the Father not wishing it³⁵⁸⁵

3585 §26 (7).

(26.) Whosoever shall say that the Son is without beginning and ingenerate, as if speaking of two unbegun and two ingenerate, and making two Gods, be he anathema. For the Son is the Head, namely the beginning of all: and God is the Head, namely the beginning of Christ; for thus to one unbegun beginning 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, as being before ages, and having subserved the Father in 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. 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 Greek³⁵⁸⁶

3586 [The ‘blasphemia’ of Potamius, bishop of Lisbon; see Prolegg. ch. ii. §8 (2), Hil. de Syn. 11; Socr. ii. 30].

Whereas³⁵⁸⁷

3587 7th Confession, or 2nd Sirmian, a.d. 357.

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). On this account He is God of all, as also the Apostle 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 ‘Coessential,’ or what is called, ‘Like-in-Essence,’ 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. 8)? 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 Father, the Son Himself testifying, ‘The Father that sent Me is greater than I’ (John x. 29; xiv. 28). And no one is ignorant, that it is Catholic doctrine, that there are two Persons of Father and Son, and that the Father is greater, and the Son subordinated to the Father together with all things which the Father has subordinated to Him, and that the Father has no beginning, 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 origin, 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 preached 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 has suffered. And the whole faith is summed up³⁵⁸⁸

3588 κεφάλαιον. vid. de Decr. §31. p. 56; Orat. i. §34; Epiph. Hær. 73. 11.

3589 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. 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 supposititious Sardican Confession (vid. above, §9, note 3), 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: ὅτι ὁ λόγος καὶ ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἐσταυρώθη καὶ ἐσφάγη καὶ ἀπέθανεν καὶ ἀνέστη. Theod. H. E. ii. 6. p. 844.

29. 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 it³⁵⁹⁰

3590 Socrates [wrongly] connects this with the ‘blasphemia.’ Hist. ii. 30.

We decline³⁵⁹¹

3591 9th Confession, at Seleucia a.d. 359.

3592 The Semi-Arian majority in the Council had just before been confirming the Creed of the Dedication; hence this beginning. vid. supr. §11. The present creed, as if to propitiate the Semi-Arian majority, adds an anathema upon the Anomœan as well as on the Homoüsion and Homœusion.

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 those in the Church who believe, and are baptized in the Name of Father and Son and Holy Ghost.

But those who preach aught beside 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. Having written thus in Isauria, they went up to Constantinople³⁵⁹³

3593 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 supr. §11. vid. note 7 in loc. It should be added that at this Council Ulfilas 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.

We believe³⁵⁹⁴

3594 10th Confession at Niké and Constantinople, a.d. 359, 360.

And in the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten from God before all ages and before every beginning, by whom all things were made, visible and invisible, and begotten as only-begotten, only from the Father only³⁵⁹⁵

3595 μόνος ἐκ μόνου. This phrase may be considered a symptom of Anomœan influence; μόνος παρά, or ὑπό, μόνον being one special formula adopted by Eunomius, explanatory of μονογενὴς, in accordance with the original Arian theory, mentioned de Decr. §7. supr. p. 154, 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. Basil contr. Eunom. ii. 21. Acacius ap. Epiph. Hær. 72. 7. p. 839.

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’ (Joh. xvi. 13), which He sent unto them when He had ascended into the heavens.

But the name of ‘Essence,’ 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 abolish, and for the future to make no mention of it at all; since the divine Scriptures have made no mention of the Essence 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 anathema³⁵⁹⁶

3596 Here as before, instead of speaking of Arianism, the Confession anathematizes all heresies, vid. supr. §23, n. 4.

31. 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 paper³⁵⁹⁷

3597 11th Confession at Antioch, a.d. 361. [Socr. ii. 45. The occasion was the installation of Euzoius in place of Meletius.]

3598 Acacius, Eudoxius, and the rest, after ratifying at Constantinople the Creed framed at Niké 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 S. Athanasius says, ‘to their first doctrines,’ i.e. those with which Arius started.

3599 From ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, ‘out of nothing,’ one of the original Arian positions concerning the Son. Theodoret says that they were also called Hexakionitæ, from the nature of their place of meeting, Hær. iv. 3. and Du Cange confirms it so far as to show that there was a place or quarter of Constantinople Hexakionium. [Cf. Soph. Lex. s.v.]

3600 This passage shews that Athanasius did not insert these sections till two years after the composition of the work itself; for Constantine died a.d. 361.

3601 Euzoius, now Arian Bishop of Antioch, was excommunicated with Arius in Egypt and at Nicæa, and was restored with him to the Church at the Council of Jerusalem.

32. 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 now dissembled,³⁶⁰²

3602 ὑπεκρίναντο. Hypocrites is almost a title of the Arians (with an apparent allusion to 1 Tim. iv. 2. vid. Socr. i. p. 5, Orat. i. §8).

E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH