Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Synodal Letter to the Bishops of Africa. (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica.)
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
To the Bishops
of Africa.
Letter of Ninety Bishops of
Egypt and Libya, including Athanasius.
————————————
1. Pre-Eminence of the Council of Nicæa.
Efforts to exalt that of Ariminum at its expense.
The letters are sufficient which were written by
our beloved fellow-minister Damasus, bishop of the Great Rome, and the
large number of bishops who assembled along with him; and equally so
are those of the other synods which were held, both in Gaul and in
Italy, concerning the sound Faith which Christ gave us, the Apostles
preached, and the Fathers, who met at Nicæa from all this world of
ours, have handed down. For so great a stir was made at that time about
the Arian heresy, in order that they who had fallen into it might be
reclaimed, while its inventors might be made manifest. To that council,
accordingly, the whole world has long ago agreed, and now, many synods
having been held, all men have been put in mind, both in Dalmatia and
Dardania, Macedonia, Epirus and Greece, Crete, and the other islands,
Sicily, Cyprus, Pamphylia, Lycia, and Isauria, all Egypt and the
Libyas, and most of the Arabians have come to know it, and marvelled at
those who signed it, inasmuch as even if there were left among them any
bitterness springing up from the root of the Arians; we mean Auxentius,
Ursacius, Valens and their fellows, by these letters they have been cut
off and isolated. The confession arrived at at Nicæa was, we say
once more, sufficient and enough by itself, for the subversion of all
irreligious heresy, and for the security and furtherance of the
doctrine of the Church. But since we have heard that certain wishing to
oppose it are attempting to cite a synod supposed to have been held at
Ariminum, and are eagerly striving that it should prevail rather than
the other, we think it right to write and put you in mind, not to
endure anything of the sort: for this is nothing else but a second
growth of the Arian heresy. For what else do they wish for who reject
the synod held against it, namely the Nicene, if not that the cause of
Arius should prevail? What then do such men deserve, but to be called
Arians, and to share the punishment of the Arians? For they were not
afraid of God, who says, ‘Remove not the eternal boundaries which
thy fathers placed3714
,’ and
‘He that speaketh against father or mother, let him die the
death3715
:’ they were not in awe of their
fathers, who enjoined that they who hold the opposite of their
confession should be anathema.
2. The Synod of Nicæa contrasted with the
local Synods held since.
For this was why an ecumenical synod has been
held at Nicæa, 318 bishops assembling to discuss the faith on
account of the Arian heresy, namely, in order that local synods should
no more be held on the subject of the Faith, but that, even if held,
they should not hold good. For what does that Council lack, that any
one should seek to innovate? It is full of piety, beloved; and has
filled the whole world with it. Indians have acknowledged it, and all
Christians of other barbarous nations. Vain then is the labour of those
who have often made attempts against it. For already the men we refer
to have held ten or more synods, changing their ground at each, and
while taking away some things from earlier decisions, in later ones
make changes and additions. And so far they have gained nothing by
writing, erasing, and using force, not knowing that ‘every plant
that the Heavenly Father hath not planted shall be plucked up3716
.’ But the word of the Lord which came
through the ecumenical Synod at Nicæa, abides for ever3717
. For if one compare number with number,
these who met at Nicæa are more than those at local synods,
inasmuch as the whole is greater than the part. But if a man wishes to
discern the reason of the Synod at Nicæa, and that of the large
number subsequently held by these
men, he will find that while there was a reasonable cause for the
former, the others were got together by force, by reason of hatred and
contention. For the former council was summoned because of the Arian
heresy, and because of Easter, in that they of Syria, Cilicia and
Mesopotamia differed from us, and kept the feast at the same season as
the Jews. But thanks to the Lord, harmony has resulted not only as to
the Faith, but also as to the Sacred Feast. And that was the reason of
the synod at Nicæa. But the subsequent ones were without number,
all however planned in opposition to the ecumenical.
3. The true nature of the proceedings at
Ariminum.
This being pointed out, who will accept those who
cite the synod of Ariminum, or any other, against the Nicene? or who
could help hating men who set at nought their fathers’ decisions,
and put above them the newer ones, drawn up at Ariminum with contention
and violence? or who would wish to agree with these men, who do not
accept even their own? For in their own ten or more synods, as I said
above, they wrote now one thing, now another, and so came out clearly
as themselves the accusers of each one. Their case is not unlike that
of the Jewish traitors in old times. For just as they left the one well
of the living water, and hewed for themselves broken cisterns, which
cannot hold water, as the prophet Jeremiah has it3718
, so these men, fighting against the one
ecumenical synod, ‘hewed for themselves’ many synods, and
all appeared empty, like ‘a sheaf without strength3719
.’ Let us not then tolerate those who
cite the Ariminian or any other synod against that of Nicæa. For
even they who cite that of Ariminum appear not to know what was done
there, for else they would have said nothing about it. For ye know,
beloved, from those who went from you to Ariminum, how Ursacius and
Valens, Eudoxius3720
| 3720 Eudoxius was at Seleucia, not at Ariminum. | and Auxentius3721
| 3721 See
note on §10 infr. | (and there Demophilus3722
also was with them), were deposed, after
wishing to write something to supersede the Nicene decisions. For on
being requested to anathematise the Arian heresy, they refused, and
preferred to be its ringleaders. So the bishops, like genuine servants
of the Lord and orthodox believers (and there were nearly 2003723
| 3723 There
were some 400 in all, so that the orthodox majority must have been far
more than 200 (see de Syn. 8, 33). But Gwatkin (Stud.
170, note 3), inclines to accept the statement in the text. | ), wrote that they were satisfied with the
Nicene alone, and desired and held nothing more or less than that. This
they also reported to Constantius, who had ordered the assembling of
the synod. But the men who had been deposed at Ariminum went off to
Constantius, and caused those who had reported against them to be
insulted, and threatened with not being allowed to return to their
dioceses, and to be treated with violence in Thrace that very winter,
to compel them to tolerate their innovations.
4. The Nicene formula in accordance with
Scripture.
If then any cite the synod of Ariminum, firstly
let them point out the deposition of the above persons, and what the
bishops wrote, namely that none should seek anything beyond what had
been agreed upon by the fathers at Nicæa, nor cite any synod save
that one. But this they suppress, but make much of what was done by
violence in Thrace3724
; thus shewing that
they are dissemblers of the Arian heresy, and aliens from the sound
Faith. And again, if a man were to examine and compare the great synod
itself, and those held by these people, he would discover the piety of
the one and the folly of the others. They who assembled at Nicæa
did so not after being deposed: and secondly, they confessed that the
Son was of the Essence of the Father. But the others, after being
deposed again and again, and once more at Ariminum itself, ventured to
write that it ought not to be said that the Son had Essence or
Subsistence. This enables us to see, brethren, that they of Nicæa
breathe the spirit of Scripture, in that God says in Exodus3725
, ‘I am that I am,’ and through
Jeremiah, ‘Who is in His substance3726
and hath seen His word;’ and just below, ‘if they had stood
in My subsistence3727
and heard My
words:’ now subsistence is essence, and means nothing else but
very being, which Jeremiah calls existence, in the words, ‘and
they heard not the voice of existence3728
.’ For subsistence, and essence, is
existence: for it is, or in other words exists. This Paul also
perceiving wrote to the Hebrews, ‘who being the brightness of his
glory, and the express Image of his subsistence3729
.’ But the others, who think they know
the Scriptures and call themselves wise, and do not choose to speak of
subsistence in God (for thus they wrote at Ariminum and at other synods
of theirs), were surely with justice deposed, saying as they did, like the fool did in his heart3730
, ‘God is not.’ And again the
fathers taught at Nicæa that the Son and Word is not a creature,
nor made, having read ‘all things were made through Him3731
,’ and ‘in Him were all things
created, and consist3732
;’ while these
men, Arians rather than Christians, in their other synods have ventured
to call Him a creature, and one of the things that are made, things of
which He Himself is the Artificer and Maker. For if ‘through Him
all things were made’ and He too is a creature, He would be the
creator of Himself. And how can what is being created create? or He
that is creating be created?
5. How the test ‘Coessential’ came
to be adopted at Nicæa.
But not even thus are they ashamed, although they
say such things as cause them to be hated by all; citing the Synod of
Ariminum, only to shew that there also they were deposed. And as to the
actual definition of Nicæa, that the Son is coessential with the
Father, on account of which they ostensibly oppose the synod, and buzz
around everywhere like gnats about the phrase, either they stumble at
it from ignorance, like those who stumble at the stone of stumbling
that was laid in Sion3733
; or else they know,
but for that very reason are constantly opposing and murmuring, because
it is an accurate declaration and full in the face of their heresy. For
it is not the phrases that vex them, but the condemnation of themselves
which the definition contains. And of this, once again, they are
themselves the cause, even if they wish to conceal the fact of which
they are perfectly aware,—But we must now mention it, in order
that hence also the accuracy of the great synod may be shewn. For3734
| 3734 This
passage repeats in substance the account in de Decr.
19. | the assembled bishops wished to put away the
impious phrases devised by the Arians, namely ‘made of
nothing,’ and that the Son was ‘a thing made,’ and a
‘creature,’ and that ‘there was a time when He was
not,’ and that ‘He is of mutable nature.’ And they
wished to set down in writing the acknowledged language of Scripture,
namely that the Word is of God by nature Only-begotten, Power, Wisdom
of the Father, Very God, as John says, and as Paul wrote, brightness of
the Father’s glory and express image of His person3735
. But Eusebius and his fellows, drawn on by
their own error, kept conferring together as follows: ‘Let us
assent. For we also are of God: for “there is one God of whom are
all things3736
,” and “old things are
passed away, behold all things are made new, but all things are of
God3737
.”’ And they considered what is
written in the Shepherd3738
, ‘Before all
things believe that God is one, who created and set all things in
order, and made them to exist out of nothing.’ But the Bishops,
beholding their craftiness, and the cunning of their impiety, expressed
more plainly the sense of the words ‘of God,’ by writing
that the Son is of the Essence of God, so that whereas the Creatures,
since they do not exist of themselves without a cause, but have a
beginning of their existence, are said to be ‘of God,’ the
Son alone might be deemed proper to the Essence of the Father. For this
is peculiar to one who is Only-begotten and true Word in relation to a
Father, and this was the reason why the words ‘of the
essence’ were adopted. Again3739
| 3739 Cf.
de Decr. §20, ubi supr. | , upon the
bishops asking the dissembling minority if they agreed that the Son was
not a Creature, but the Power and only Wisdom of the Father, and the
Eternal Image, in all respects exact, of the Father, and true God,
Eusebius and his fellows were observed exchanging nods with one
another, as much as to say ‘this applies to us men also, for we
too are called “the image and glory of God3740
,” and of us it is said, “For we
which live are alway3741
,” and there
are many Powers, and “all the power3742
of
the Lord went out of the land of Egypt,” while the caterpillar
and the locust are called His “great power3743
.” And “the Lord of powers3744
is with us, the God of Jacob is our
help.” For we hold that we are proper3745
to
God, and not merely so, but insomuch that He has even called us
brethren. Nor does it vex us, even if they call the Son Very God. For
when made He exists in verity.’
6. The Nicene test not unscriptural in sense,
nor a novelty.
Such was the corrupt mind of the Arians. But here
too the Bishops, beholding their craftiness, collected from the
Scriptures the figures of brightness, of the river and the well, and of
the relation of the express Image to the Subsistence, and the texts,
‘in thy light shall we see light3746
,’ and ‘I and the Father are
one3747
.’ And lastly they wrote more plainly,
and concisely, that the Son was coessential with the Father; for all
the above passages signify this. And their murmuring, that the phrases
are unscriptural, is exposed as vain by themselves, for they have
uttered their impieties in unscriptural terms: (for such are ‘of
nothing’ and ‘there was
a time when He was not’), while yet they find fault because they
were condemned by unscriptural terms pious in meaning. While they, like
men sprung from a dunghill, verily ‘spoke of the earth3748
,’ the Bishops, not having invented
their phrases for themselves, but having testimony from their Fathers,
wrote as they did. For ancient bishops, of the Great Rome and of our
city, some 130 years ago, wrote3749
| 3749 See
de Syn. §43, and de Sent. Dionys. 18, 19, also
supr. p. 76. | and censured
those who said that the Son was a creature and not coessential with the
Father. And Eusebius knew this, who was bishop of Cæsarea, and at
first an accomplice3750
| 3750 But
see Socrates, ii. 21, and D.C.B. ii. p. 347. | of the Arian
heresy; but afterwards, having signed at the Council of Nicæa,
wrote to his own people affirming as follows: ‘we know that
certain eloquent and distinguished bishops and writers even of ancient
date used the word “coessential” with reference to the
Godhead of the Father and the Son.’
7. The position that the Son is a Creature
inconsistent and untenable.
Why then do they go on citing the Synod of
Ariminum, at which they were deposed? Why do they reject that of
Nicæa, at which their Fathers signed the confession that the Son
is of the Father’s Essence and coessential with Him? Why do they
run about? For now they are at war not only with the bishops who met at
Nicæa, but with their own great bishops and their own friends.
Whose heirs or successors then are they? How can they call men fathers,
whose confession, well and apostolically drawn up, they will not
accept? For if they think they can object to it, let them speak, or
rather answer, that they may be convicted of falling foul of
themselves, whether they believe the Son when He says, ‘I and my
Father are one,’ and ‘he that hath seen Me hath seen the
Father3751
.’ ‘Yes,’ they must
answer, ‘since it is written we believe it.’ But if they
are asked how they are one, and how he that hath seen the Son hath seen
the Father, of course, we suppose they will say, ‘by reason of
resemblance,’ unless they have quite come to agree with those who
hold the brother-opinion to theirs, and are called3752
| 3752 Cf.
de Syn. §31 (a chapter added after the death of
Constantius). The Anomœan sect, headed by Eunomius, and deriving
its intellectual impetus from Aetias, belongs to the second generation
of the Arian movement (their watchword is characterised as recent in
the creed of Niké, 359 a.d.), and was
comparatively unfamiliar to Athanasius. Cf. Prolegg. ch. ii.
§8. | Anomœans. But if once more they are
asked, ‘how is He like?’ they brasen it out and say,
‘by perfect virtue and harmony, by having the same will with the
Father, by not willing what the Father wills not.’ But let them
understand that one assimilated to God by virtue and will is liable
also to the purpose of changing; but the Word is not thus, unless He is
‘like’ in part, and as we are, because He is not like [God]
in essence also. But these characteristics belong to us, who are
originate, and of a created nature. For we too, albeit we cannot become
like God in essence, yet by progress in virtue imitate God, the Lord
granting us this grace, in the words, ‘Be ye merciful as your
Father is merciful:’ ‘be ye perfect as your heavenly Father
is perfect3753
.’ But that originate things are
changeable, no one can deny, seeing that angels transgressed, Adam
disobeyed, and all stand in need of the grace of the Word. But a
mutable thing cannot be like God who is truly unchangeable, any more
than what is created can be like its creator. This is why, with regard
to us, the holy man said, ‘Lord, who shall be likened unto thee3754
,’ and ‘who among the gods is
like unto thee, Lord3755
;’ meaning by
gods those who, while created, had yet become partakers of the Word, as
He Himself said, ‘If he called them gods to whom the word of God
came3756
.’ But things which partake cannot be
identical with or similar to that whereof they partake. For example, He
said of Himself, ‘I and the Father are one3757
,’ implying that things originate are
not so. For we would ask those who allege the Ariminian Synod, whether
a created essence can say, ‘what things I see my Father make,
those I make also3758
| 3758 Ib. v. 19: the word ποίεω is taken in the sense of making. | .’ For things
originate are made and do not make; or else they made even themselves.
Why, if, as they say, the Son is a Creature and the Father is His
Maker, surely the Son would be His own maker, as He is able to make
what the Father makes, as He said. But such a supposition is absurd and
utterly untenable, for none can make himself.
8. The Son’s relation to the Father
essential, not merely ethical.
Once more, let them say whether things originate
could say3759
, ‘all things whatsoever the
Father hath are Mine.’ Now, He has the prerogative of creating
and making, of Eternity, of omnipotence, of immutability. But things
originate cannot have the power of making, for they are creatures; nor
eternity, for their existence has a beginning; nor of omnipotence and
immutability, for they are under sway, and of changeable nature, as the
Scriptures say. Well then, if these prerogatives belong to the Son,
they clearly do so, not on account of His virtue, as said above, but
essentially, even as the synod
said, ‘He is of no other essence’ but of the
Father’s, to whom these prerogatives are proper. But what can
that be which is proper to the Father’s essence, and an offspring
from it, or what name can we give it, save ‘coessential?’
For that which a man sees in the Father, that sees he also in the Son;
and that not by participation, but essentially. And this is [the
meaning of] ‘I and the Father are one,’ and ‘he that
hath seen Me hath seen the Father.’ Here especially once more it
is easy to shew their folly. If it is from virtue, the antecedent of
willing and not willing, and of moral progress, that you hold the Son
to be like the Father; while these things fall under the category of
quality; clearly you call God compound of quality and essence. But who
will tolerate you when you say this? For God, who compounded all things
to give them being, is not compound, nor of similar nature to the
things made by Him through the Word. Far be the thought. For He is
simple essence, in which quality is not, nor, as James says, ‘any
variableness or shadow of turning3760
.’
Accordingly, if it is shewn that it is not from virtue (for in God
there is no quality, neither is there in the Son), then He must be
proper to God’s essence. And this you will certainly admit if
mental apprehension is not utterly destroyed in you. But what is that
which is proper to and identical with the essence of God, and an
Offspring from it by nature, if not by this very fact coessential with
Him that begat it? For this is the distinctive relation of a Son to a
Father, and he who denies this, does not hold that the Word is Son in
nature and in truth.
9. The honest repudiation of Arianism involves
the acceptance of the Nicene test.
This then the Fathers perceived when they wrote
that the Son was coessential with the Father, and anathematised those
who say that the Son is of a different Subsistence3761
: not inventing phrases for themselves, but
learning in their turn, as we said, from the Fathers who had been
before them. But after the above proof, their Ariminian Synod is
superfluous, as well as any3762
| 3762 Omit ἡ with most mss. | other synod cited
by them as touching the Faith. For that of Nicæa is sufficient,
agreeing as it does with the ancient bishops also, in which too their
fathers signed, whom they ought to respect, on pain of being thought
anything but Christians. But if even after such proofs, and after the
testimony of the ancient bishops, and the signature of their own
Fathers, they pretend as if in ignorance to be alarmed at the phrase
‘coessential,’ then let them say and hold, in simpler terms
and truly, that the Son is Son by nature, and anathematise as the synod
enjoined those who say that the Son of God is a Creature or a thing
made, or of nothing, or that there was once a time when He was not, and
that He is mutable and liable to change, and of another Subsistence.
And so let them escape the Arian heresy. And we are confident that in
sincerely anathematising these views, they ipso facto confess
that the Son is of the Father’s Essence, and coessential with
Him. For this is why the Fathers, having said that the Son was
coessential, straightway added, ‘but those who say that He is a
creature, or made, or of nothing, or that there was once a time when He
was not,’ the Catholic Church anathematises: namely in order that
by this means they might make it known that these things are meant by
the word ‘coessential.’ And the meaning
‘Coessential’ is known from the Son not being a Creature or
thing made: and because he that says ‘coessential’ does not
hold that the Word is a Creature: and he that anathematises the above
views, at the same time holds that the Son is coessential with the
Father; and he that calls Him ‘coessential,’ calls the Son
of God genuinely and truly so; and he that calls Him genuinely Son
understands the texts, ‘I and the Father are one,’ and
‘he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father3763
.’
10. Purpose of this Letter; warning against
Auxentius of Milan.
Now it would be proper to write this at greater
length. But since we write to you who know, we have dictated it
concisely, praying that among all the bond of peace might be preserved,
and that all in the Catholic Church should say and hold the same thing.
And we are not meaning to teach, but to put you in mind. Nor is it only
ourselves that write, but all the bishops of Egypt and the Libyas, some
ninety in number. For we all are of one mind in this, and we always
sign for one another if any chance not to be present. Such being our
state of mind, since we happened to be assembled, we wrote, both to our
beloved Damasus, bishop of the Great Rome, giving an account of
Auxentius3764
| 3764 Auxentius (not in D.C.B.) was a native of Cappadocia (Hist.
Ar. 75), and had been ordained presbyter at Alexandria by Gregory
(next note). Upon the expulsion of the somewhat weak-kneed Dionysius
after the council at Milan (355) he was appointed to that see by
Constantius, although according to Athanasius (ubi supr.) he
knew no Latin, nor any thing else except irreligion (‘a busybody
rather than a Christian’). He took a leading part along with
Valens and others at the Council of Ariminum (de Syn. 8, 10) and
was included in the deposition of Arian leaders by that synod. Under
the orthodox Valentinian he maintained his see in spite of the efforts
of Philaster, Evagrius, and Eusebius of Vercellæ, and in spite of
the condemnations passed upon him by various Western synods
(362–371, see ad Epict. 1). In 364, Hilary travelled to
Milan on purpose to expose him before Valentinian. In a discussion
ordered by the latter, Hilary extorted from Auxentius a confession
which satisfied the Emperor, but not Hilary himself, whose persistent
denunciation of its insincerity caused his dismissal from the town.
Auxentius seems after this to have intrigued to obtain Illyrian
signatures to the creed of ( Niké or) Ariminum (Hard. Conc.
1. pp. 771, 773). Upon his death (374) Ambrose was elected bishop of
Milan, but was confronted by the Arian party with a rival bishop in the
person of a second Auxentius, said to have been a pupil of
Ulfilas. | who has intruded upon the church at Milan; namely that he
not only shares the Arian heresy, but is also accused of many offences,
which he committed with Gregory3765
| 3765 The
intrusive bishop of Alexandria, 339–346. He had ordained his
fellow-countryman Auxentius (Hilar. in Aux. 8). | , the sharer of
his impiety; and while expressing our surprise that so far he has not
been deposed and expelled from the Church, we thanked [Damasus] for his
piety and that of those who assembled at the Great Rome, in that by
expelling Ursacius and Valens, and those who hold with them, they
preserved the harmony of the Catholic Church. Which we pray may be
preserved also among you, and therefore entreat you not to tolerate, as
we said above, those who put forward a host of synods held concerning
the Faith, at Ariminum, at Sirmium, in Isauria, in Thrace, those in
Constantinople, and the many irregular ones in Antioch. But let the
Faith confessed by the Fathers at Nicæa alone hold good among you,
at which all the fathers, including those of the men who now are
fighting against it, were present, as we said above, and signed: in
order that of us too the Apostle may say, ‘Now I praise you that
ye remember me in all things, and as I handed the traditions to you, so
ye hold them fast3766
.’
11. Godhead of the Spirit also involved in the
Nicene Creed.
For this Synod of Nicæa is in truth a
proscription of every heresy. It also upsets those who blaspheme the
Holy Spirit, and call Him a Creature. For the Fathers, after speaking
of the faith in the Son, straightway added, ‘And we believe in
the Holy Ghost,’ in order that by confessing perfectly and fully
the faith in the Holy Trinity they might make known the exact form of
the Faith of Christ, and the teaching of the Catholic Church. For it is
made clear both among you and among all, and no Christian can have a
doubtful mind on the point, that our faith is not in the Creature, but
in one God, Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible:
and in one Lord Jesus Christ His Only-begotten Son, and in one Holy
Ghost; one God, known in the holy and perfect Trinity, baptized into
which, and in it united to the Deity, we believe that we have also
inherited the kingdom of the heavens, in Christ Jesus our Lord, through
whom to the Father be the glory and the power for ever and ever.
Amen. E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
