1,1 By God’s power we have torn Arius’ abominable doctrines up, which he originally belched out like a man overtaken with drunkenness, and the doctrines of his successors—I mean Photinus, and Marcellus too during the short time in which he seemed to be shaken. May Arius’ pupils be set straight, if indeed they can be!
But now that, with the word of God “which is sharper than any two- edged sword,”2 we have cut down the tares which sprouted from Arius himself, let us survey the tangled woodland which has grown up from Arius, to see how some are halfway Arians, (2) who repudiate his name but adopt the man and his heresy. By some pretense they falsely put on a different mask, as the acting of stage performers is a sham, and they conceal their faces with different masks, and inside the masks recite the shameful, boozy lines of the comedy—a new comedy, or the myths of the ancients, since their poets used to do the same. (3) Thus, though these people would like to mislead the simple, they are the same as Arius and the Arian Nuts—on the surface, in their behavior, and in their heresy. (4) But in the desire to pretty up their perverse doctrine, as a deceitful piece of flattery they call the Son of God a creature but cheaply add, “We do not mean a creature like any other creature or an offspring like any other offspring”—as a piece of deception and to do the Son of God a favor, as well as to soothe those who are frightened by this expression. And yet they altogether reject the homoousion supposedly because it is untrue to the sacred scripture! (5) I have discussed this with extreme thoroughness in the Sect about Arius.
But to suggest a word similar to “homoousion” they say—I mean the followers of Basil and George, the leaders of this Semi-Arian sect—“We do not say, ‘homoousion,’ but ‘homoeousion.’ ” (6) These were the members of the Council < at Ancyra > who separated from the sect of the Arian Nuts itself—their leader, Basil of Ancyra, and George of the Laodicea by Antioch in Daphne, or Coele-Syria.
1,7 Their view of the Holy Spirit too is the same as that of the Pneuma- tomachi. [In the case of the Spirit] they no longer begin as they do with the Son, with a sort of shame or with a word expressive of hesitancy. They are ashamed to say that the Son is altogether a creature, though this is what they think, but from fear of men they add the homoeousion, and the doctrine that the Son is a creature < but not > like any other. But with the Holy Spirit, as I said, they do not begin hesitantly, but like ravening dogs pitilessly declare him a creature in every respect, and thus also maintain that he is different from the Father and the Son.
1,8 And lest it be said that I accuse anyone falsely, I shall cite a letter here as each of them wrote it—Basil, one, but George of Laodicea together with Basil and his companions, another. And here are the letters.
2,1 Greetings in the Lord from the holy council, assembled from various provinces at Ancyra at the approach of Easter, to the most honored Masters, our colleagues in Phoenicia and elsewhere, who are of one mind with us.
2,2 After the trial of the church’s faith, as though by fire, by the ordeals for the faith which took place in our midst; and < after > the proceedings at Constantinople because of Marcellus; and the issuance of the creed at the council gathered for the dedication of the church in Antioch and afterwards at Sardica, and the faith that bloomed again there—and further, after the proceedings at Sirmium with regard to Photinus (3) and still further, after the explanations we issued of each article of the creed when questioned by those who differed with the easterners at Sardica, it is our prayer that we may rest at last and, with all stumbling blocks removed and the church from east to west united under the pious rule of our master Constantius, be at peace and attend to the divine services.
2,4 But the devil, it seems, does not abandon his utmost endeavors to foment apostasy in every way through his peculiar vessels, < as > was fore- told by the Lord and, correspondingly, declared by the holy apostle for the protection of the faithful. (5) For by devising rebellions against the faith of the church he is even now < attempting* > to claim certain individuals for his own “with a form of godliness,” and through them has invented < novelties > and “profane new babblings” against the legitimacy of the only-begotten Son of God.
When we heard formerly that some were running about in Antioch, but also in Alexandria, and further, in Lydia or Asia, and planting sparks of impiety in the souls of the simple, (6) we hoped that, due to the audacity of the impiety and < the > extent of their shamelessness, the heresy they have invented had been quenched, and the evil suppressed, by the championship of the Masters, our colleagues, in each locality.
2,7 But since persons from the places aforesaid next arrived, and persons from Illyria, and informed us that the inventors of this evil are zealous in the venture of doing harm to a larger number and infecting them with a leaven of wickedness, we could brook no further delay. (8) Since, moreover, we have read the letter, copies of which we subjoin, of our like-minded colleague, George of the church of Laodicea, and since we respect the testimonies of those who have witnessed to us before God, (9) as many of us have gathered as could do so given the season, the approach of the holy day of Easter— the winter was a hindrance to many, as they have indicated by letter—and hastened to set forth the norm of the faith in the following form. (10) As far as the remaining points are concerned, < we are in agreement> with the council at Antioch, as we have said, and the creed the Council at Sirmium accepted which was issued at the dedication as well as at Sardica, and with the arguments that were presented at Sirmium. < It is our purpose > to give an accurate description of the catholic church’s faith in the holy Trinity, as we said, and of the form of the innovation besides, replying to it only as the Spirit has permitted us.
2,11 And because you, most honored Sirs and colleagues, have stood firm in the faith which has been handed down to us from our fathers, and because our faith, as we believe, is in accord with yours, we urge you, on reading this, to append your signatures. Thus those who dare to introduce this impiety will be assured that we have accepted, and guard as our inheritance, the faith < of the > fathers, < transmitted > from the time of the apostles, through the intervening generations, even to us. (12) Hence they will either be ashamed and submit to correction, or persist in error and be expelled from the church, < for > preparing, by their own efforts, the falling away for the son of iniquity who threatens to venture “to sit even in the temple of God.”
3,1 Our faith is in a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit. For so our Lord Jesus Christ taught his disciples, “Go make disciples of all nations, baptiz- ing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” (2) Therefore we who are born again into this faith should have a godly understanding of the meanings of the names. For he did not say, “Baptize them in the name of the Incorporeal and the Incarnate,” or, “of the Immortal and of Him who knew death,” or, “of the Ingenerate and the Generate,” but “In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” (3) And thus, since we also hear < the > names in nature, and < a father > there < always begets a son like himself>, we may understand the “Father” to be the cause of an essence like his. And when we hear the name, “Son,” we may understand that the Son is like the Father whose Son he is.
3,4 We have therefore believed in a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit, not in a creator and a creature. For “creator and creature” are one thing but “father and son “ are another, since these two concepts differ in meaning. (5) If I say, “creature,” I must first say, “creator;” < and if I say* >, “son,” I must first say, “father.” But even the term, “Son,” is not quite right* >, since it is taken from physical things, and [used] because of the passions and effluents of flesh and blood fathers and sons. < If we exclude these, however* >, it does plainly mean the existence of the incorporeal Son of an incorporeal Father. (6) Thus < our Lord refrained from putting the term* >, “creature,” [into the baptismal formula], because it entailed a notion of something corporeal. And since the creature the Father makes < is a “son” >, < God called > him “Son” by borrow- ing from the notions of “creator” and “creature” only the creator’s impassibility with respect to the creature, and the creature’s stability—the result of the impassibility—and its being as the > creator intended, (7) and has plainly taught us the whole notion of the Father and the Son from [the parallels of ] a physical father and son, < and > a physical creator and creature.
For with its externality eliminated from “creature,” its materiality, and all else that the name, physical “creature,” implies, all that remains of “creature” is the notion of impassibility—I mean the impassibility of its creator—and the notion of the creature, and of its being as its creator intended, is complete. (8) If, again, we then eliminate the rest from the notion of “creator” and “creature,” and take only the notion that a creature is made by an impassible creator and is perfect, stable and as its creator intended, it follows—since we have been taught above all to believe in a Father and a Son—that as orthodox Christians believe, we form one particular idea of the terms, “Father” and “Son.”
4,1 Thus if, in addition to these things, we eliminate anything that has to do with passion or effluent, < and so > understand that the Father is the Father of a Son, and that the Son was not physically engendered and brought to maturity by natural physical things which, as is characteristic of physical things, are constantly made to grow and decay, only the notion of likeness will be left. (2) For as we shall say once more of a creature that >, when < all physical features > were eliminated, its creator’s impassibility was left, and a < notion > of the creature’s perfection, of its being as its creator intended, and of its stability, so we shall say of the Father and the Son that, with all physical features eliminated, only the generation of a living being of like essence will be left—for every “father” is understood to be the father of an essence like his. (3) If, however, along with the elimination of all other physical notions from the terms, “Father, “ and “Son,” the one which enables us to think of the Father as the cause > of a living being of like essence is also eliminated, our faith will no longer be in a Father and a Son but in a creator and a creature. And the terms, < “Father,” and “Son,” > will be unnecessary, since they contribute nothing of themselves. And thus, as God, he will be a creator < but > in no way at all a Father.
4,4 For it is plain from natural considerations that the “Father” does not mean the Father of an activity but of an essence like himself, whose subsistence corresponds with a particular activity. God has many activities, and is understood to be a creator from another activity whereby he is the creator of heaven, earth and everything in them, and of things invisible as well. But as the Father of the Only-begotten he is seen to be, not a creator but a Father who has begotten [a Son].
4,5 But if, from motives of reverence, < someone > removes the legitimate notion of the relationship of the Father and the Son because of his idea of the sufferings of physical paternity and sonship, and his fear that the Incorporeal may suffer some effect in begetting unless his Offspring and the effects of physical paternity and sonship are incomplete, whatever he says, he will be saying that the Son is another creature, and never that the Son is a son. (6) Even if he says he surpasses [other creatures] in greatness as heaven surpasses a mountain or hill, he will regard him as < being one >—even though he is thought to excel in greatness, in utility as the first creature to be made, or as serving for the creation of the rest; even so he will not remove him from the category of creatures. (7) For just as taking a coal from the altar with tongs rather than with the hand itself is the same thing, even < though > the bronze work, the overlaying of the iron, is done with the hand—for both the tongs and the iron that is overlaid by the hand are creatures—even so, the One through whom all creatures were made will not be different from the creatures unless he is a Son, as the natural concept [of “son”] suggests. If he is made, he will be the first of created things and will become the maker’s instrument by which the creator makes all things.
5,1 And let no one ingeniously derive the notion of “Father” in the proper sense, and “Son” in the proper sense, from the things more commonly called “sons,” since in this sense there will be many sons of God—< as > when scripture says, “I have begotten sons and brought them up, and they have rebelled against me;” “Have we not all one Father?” “As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, which were bom, not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God”—and also of inanimate objects, “Who hath begotten drops of dew?” (2) These texts will prove instead, from the < meaning > common [to all of them], that the Son is not a son just as these things are not, but that, being a creature like them, he shares the mere title of “son.”
5,3 But the church has believed that God is not only a creator of creatures—Jews and Greeks understand this—but is also the Father of an Only-begotten. He possesses not only his creative activity whereby he is understood to be a creator, but a generative activity peculiar and unique to himself, whereby we understand him to be the Father of a unique Offspring. (4) It is to teach us this that the blessed Paul writes, “For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.” < For as fathers on earth are termed “fathers” > because they have sons in the likeness of their own essences, so we name the One for whom the fathers on earth were named “fathers” in accordance with their essences, “Father in the heavens”—for he surely has the Son begotten of him in the likeness of his own essence.
5,5 And the notion of “sons” which applies to things that are loosely and equivocally so called cannot fit the Only-begotten. For as a “box tablet” prop- erly speaking means a tablet made of boxwood, but more commonly and in the colloquial sense of the word, a tablet made of lead, bronze or any other material < is called* > a “box tablet” after the boxwood tablet, < so only the Son begotten of the Father is properly termed “Son of God,” while the others are so named in the loose sense of the word. * > (6) Nor < is he named “son” in the sense of, “Who hath begotten drops of dew?” Properly speaking, God did not “beget” dew* >, that is, not in actuality; here the word for begetting an offspring is colloquially applied to a created object. And he is not called “Son” in the sense of, “I have begotten sons and brought them up”; here too the term is loosely applied, because of [God’s] good will and respect towards them. (7) Nor is he called “Son” < in the sense of >, “He gave them power to become sons of God”; this too is derived < from > the idea of virtuous cre- ation in his own image. The Only-begotten is < not > to be understood as Son in these senses but in the proper one, as an only Son begotten of an only Father, in the essential likeness of the Father whose Son he is called, and is understood to be.
6,1 But suppose that, from the incapacity of his reasoning powers, some- one refuses to accept this line of reasoning on the grounds that the Father must be subject to some passion, division or effluence if he is to be conceived as this sort of father—and has [thus] mutilated the godly conception of the Father and the Son, and requires reasons for it. (2) He must be required to provide reasons why God is crucified, and why “the foolishness” of the proclamation of the Gospel—[called “foolishness”] because of its unreasonableness in the eyes of those whom the world counts as wise—is wiser than men. The blessed Paul did not consider these persons worthy of notice, since by the unreasonableness of power God has “made the wisdom” of persons with the ability to reason “foolish.” (3) For Paul said, “I came declaring unto you the mystery of God, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.” The blessed Paul did not consider these persons worthy of notice, since by the unreasonableness of power God has “made the wisdom” of persons with the ability to reason “foolish.” (3) For Paul said, “I came declaring unto you the mystery of God, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.” Anyone who, with wisdom of words, demands < reasons > for the mystery, should disbelieve the mystery, since his portion is with the wisdom which has been made foolish. For even though such a person disbelieves from wisdom of words, Paul < chooses to preach “only in demonstration of the Spirit and of power”* > “lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.”
6,4 But if he replies in this way he does not do so with wisdom of words, but by the unreasonableness of power confounds all wisdom which is based on reasoning and accepts faith alone for the salvation of those who receive the Gospel. (5) He does not answer [by explaining] how the Father begets the Son without passion, or the mystery of the Only-begotten’s sonship to the Father might be robbed of its significance. He confounds the wisdom of the wise, which is “made foolish”—as scripture says, “Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world?”—but not with verbal wisdom, so that the < mystery > will not be rendered meaningless by suspicions occasioned by arguments. I mean that < the > godly conception of the Father and the Son—but a Father and a Son with no passions—declares, without deriving the idea from reason, that the Father had begotten the Son of himself without emission or passion, and that a Son like his Father in essence has been begotten of the Father, Perfect of Perfect, an only-begotten entity. [These are doctrines] which are either < believed > by the faithful, or suspected < by the unbelieving >.
6,7 For only a fool would hear of Wisdom originating from a wise God, as the Father of the Wisdom begotten of him wisely knows, and attribute passion to the Father < because > Wisdom originated from him—if, [that is], the Wisdom essentially like the wise God is to originate from him. (8) For, if we are not to conceive of the wise God as compoundedly wise by participation in wisdom, he is himself wise, himself an essence, without compounding, and the wisdom by which he is known is not the Son. The Wisdom which is the Son is an essence begotten of the essence of the Wise, which is Wisdom. The Son will subsist as an essence like the essence of the wise Father, from whom the Son originated as Wisdom.
7,1 And so the blessed Paul, with his excellent training in Hebrew lore, was accustomed, by the inspiration of the same Spirit who spoke in the Old and the New Testaments, to derive the same notions as the ones in the two Psalms, “Thy judgments are a great deep,” and “Thy paths are in deep waters, and thy footsteps shall not be known.” But he altered the language about God’s judgments < by replacing > “great deep” with “O the depth of the riches;” “Thy paths are in deep waters and thy footsteps shall not be known” with “unsearchable;” and “Thy judgments are a great deep” with “Thy judgments are past finding out.”
7,2 And because Wisdom itself had taught him its notion of the Father and itself, and of its relation to created things, Paul in his own writings presents us with the idea of the Father and the Son, and the things which have been created by the Father through the Son, in the following manner. (3) For Wisdom had said, “I, Wisdom, give counsel a home” and so forth, and gone on to explain “by whom?”—for it said, “By me are kings,” and “If I shall tell you the things that are by me, I shall remember to recount the things of old.” It said, “The Lord created me the beginning of his ways, for his works. Before the age he established me, and before all things he begets me;” (4) but for “beginning” Paul understood “first,” and for “begets me,” “-born.” And for the entire sentence, “He created me the beginning of his ways and begets me,” the apostle understood “firstborn of every creature.” For “he established” Paul understood “In him are all things created”; for “By me are the things of old,” “Whether thrones or principalities or powers or authorities, all things were created by him and for him.”
7,5 Thus all < the > apostle’s phrases are word for word equivalents of the things that were said by Wisdom. That is, “beginning” is equivalent to “first,” “begets” to “-born,” and “He created me the beginning of his ways, for his works,” to “firstborn of every creature.” “In him were created” is a substitute for “He established me,” and “All things are by him” for “By me are the things of old.” (6) It is thus evident < that > neither did the “image” originate from passion, but that it must be understood in the sense of “I, Wisdom”; and that, as Wisdom is the Son of the Wise, an essence which is the Son of an essence, so the image is like the essence. The “image” too was understood as “of God the invisible.” (7) And we have the equivalents for all the words: “God” for “wise,” “image” for “wisdom,” “first” for “beginning,” and “-born” for “first.”
But we can also give the equivalents of whole phrases. “Firstborn of every creature” is the equivalent of “He created me the beginning of his way, for his works, and begets me.” “In him were created” is the equivalent of “He established me.” “All things are by him and for him” is the equivalent of “by me.” (8) It is thus plain that not only Paul exposes the entire wrongness of those who hear that the Son “is the image of the invisible God,” and try to quibble shamelessly about the Son’s likeness of essence to the Father. John before him, truly the son of thunder, similarly sounded the godly conception of the Son forth to us with his own loud peal—from the clouds, as it were, of the riddles of Wisdom.
8,1 For see how he too transmitted the truths he had learned from Wisdom in the Gospel he proclaimed to us. (2) Because Wisdom had said, “He created me the beginning of his ways,” John used the phrase, “in the beginning” in his “In the beginning was the Word.” And for “He created me” John substituted “And the Word was God,” so that we would not take this to mean the spoken word, but the divine Word < begotten > of the Father with- out passion, as a stable entity. And for “I was by him,” John substituted “And < the Word > was God.” (3) For “Through me are the things from of old” John substituted “All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made.” For “She hath founded” John substituted “That which was made, in him was life,” which means the same as “In him were all things created.” (4) He said, “The Word was made flesh,” to correspond with “Wisdom hath builded her house.” He substituted “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise” for “I was by him in accord with him.” John thus has < the confirmatory testimony * > of two or three witnesses to prove the Son’s likeness of essence to the Father. (5) For one witness says that the Wisdom of the wise God is his Son; one, that the Word of God is the only-begotten God; one, that the Son is the image of God. Thus it is proclaimed by all that the Word, Wisdom and Image of God is in all respects like him, as we have said, and that he is the essential Son of his God and Father. (6) Still more, when God’s Word says, “As the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself,” he is educating us, like Thomas, by contact with the actuality of the likeness of essence. (7) For if “as the Father hath” does not mean what it would in something else—(the Father is not one thing and the life in him something else, so that the one thing means the possessor and the other the thing possessed. The Father himself is uncompoundedly life, and has granted the Son < to have life > as he does—plainly, to have it uncompoundedly, like the Father.) [Thus] it is plain that in having life in this way, since he has it neither without generation nor compoundedly, the Son too, like the Father, has all things essentially and without compounding.
8,8 And yet it is plain that “like” can never be the same as the thing it is like. For proof < of this we have* > the fact that when the Son of God “was made in the likeness of men” he became man indeed, but not the same as man in every respect. And when he was made “in the likeness of the flesh of sin” he was made with the passions which are the cause of sin in the flesh— I mean hunger, thirst and the rest—but was not made the same as the flesh of sin. Thus the Son’s likeness of essence to the Father is also proclaimed by the texts from the apostle.
9,1 For as he was made in the likeness of man he was both man, and yet not entirely so—was man in his assumption of human flesh, for “The Word was made flesh,” but not man in that he was not begotten of human seed and sexual commerce—(2) just so, in that he was the Son of God, he was the Son of God before all ages, just as, in that he was a son of man, he was man. But he is not the same thing as the God and Father who begot him, just as he is not the same thing as man, since [he was begotten] without emission of seed and passion, < just as > [he was made man] without human seed and sexual enjoyment.
9,3 And < as he was made > in the likeness of the flesh of sin through being subject to fleshly hunger, thirst and sleep, the passions by which bod- ies are moved to sin, and yet, though subject to these passions of the flesh, he was not moved to sin by them—(4) even so the Son, who was < Son > of God, “in the form of God,” and is “equal” to God, possessed the attributes of the Godhead in being by nature incorporeal, and like the Father in divinity, incorporeality and activities. As he was “like” the flesh in being flesh and subject to the passions of the flesh, (5) and yet was not the same, < so he is “like” God > in the sense that, as God, he is not “the form” of “the God” but the form of “God,” and “equal,” not to “the God” but to “God.” Nor does he < have the Godhead > with full sovereignty like the Father. For as he was not < moved > to sin < tike > a man, and yet behaved tike a man, < so, as God, he behaves “like” the Father* >, “For whatsoever the Father doeth, the Son also doeth.
9,6 Now he was not moved to sin here on earth, but was moved in ways similar to persons in the flesh. (It would be strange if, after passing from his natural state to a state unnatural to him, that is, after becoming a son of man when he had been God, he should become like those to whom this state was natural—that is, who were human by nature—in a trait that was unnatural to him, but [at the same time] not be like his Father by nature in the trait that was natural to him, since he was God begotten of God. And it is plain that those who deny the Son’s likeness of essence to the Father do not call him a son either, but only a creature—and do not call the Father a father, but a creator. For the notion of “like” does not entail the Son’s identity with the Father, but his likeness of essence to him, and his ineffable sonship to him without passion.) (7) For, I say again, as he was not brought to identity with men < by being made > in the likeness of men and of sinful flesh, but, for the reasons given, became like the essence of the flesh, so, by being made like in essence to the Father who begot him, the Son will not bring his essence to identity with the Father, but to likeness to [him].
10,1 And if, through heeding the wisdom of the world which God has made foolish, anyone fails to heed God’s wise declaration and confess with faith the Son’s likeness of essence to the Father, for example by giving false names to the Father and the Son and not truly terming them “Father” and “Son” but “creator” and “creature, “ equating the concepts of the Father and the Son with the [ fatherhood and sonship] of other creatures—and if, from a desire to rationalize, he says that the Son < is superior > [only] in utility as the first of < the > creatures < which have been made > through him, or in the excellence of his greatness, thus confessing none of the church’s faith in the Father and the Son, as though to preach by deliberate choice a Gospel different from the Gospel the apostles preached to us, let him be anathema.
10,2 And—to repeat the blessed Paul’s words, “As we said before, so say I now again”—we too must say < in our turn >, If, on hearing that the Father is the only wise God and that his only-begotten Son is his Wisdom, anyone says that the Wisdom is the same as the only wise God and thus denies his sonship, let him be anathema.
10,3 And if, on hearing that the Father is the wise God and the Son is his Wisdom, anyone says that the Wisdom is unlike the wise God in essence, and thus denies that the wise God is truly the Father of the Wisdom, let him be anathema.
10,4 And if anyone regards the Father as “the God” but< denies > that the Word and “God” in the beginning existed as “God” with “the God” and that, as Word and “God,” he was with “the” very “God” himself, with whom he existed as Word and God—and so denies his true sonship—let him be anathema.
10,5 And if anyone, on hearing that the only-begotten divine Word is the Son of “the God” with whom the Word and “God” is, says that the Father’s divine Word, the “God” who belongs to “the God” and Father, is essentially unlike Him with whom the Only-begotten was at the beginning as [his] divine Word—and so denies his true sonship—let him be anathema.
10,6 And if, in denial of his true sonship, anyone, on hearing that the Son is “the image of the invisible God,” says that the image is the same as the invisible God, let him be anathema.
10,7 And if, in true denial of the sonship, anyone, on hearing that the only- begotten Son is “the image of the invisible God,” says that, since he is the invisible God’s “image,” the Son is unlike the invisible God in essence even though the Son is held to be the invisible God’s “essential” image, let him be anathema.
10,8 And if anyone, on hearing the words of the Son, “For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself,” says that the Recipient of the life from the Father—he who confessed, “And I live by the Father”—is the same as the Giver of the life, let him be anathema.
10,9 And if anyone, on hearing “For as the Father hath life in himself, even so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself,” says that the Son is essentially unlike the Father even though he affirms that the truth is as the Son has stated it, let him be anathema. For plainly, as the life which is held to be in the Father means his essence, and as the life of the Only-begotten, who is begotten of the Father, is held to be his essence, thus the word, “so,” denotes the likeness of essence to essence.
11,1 And if anyone, on hearing the Son’s, “He created me,” and, “He begets me,” does not take “begets me” literally and as a reference to essence, but says that “He begets me” means the same as “He created me,” thus denying that the Son is < designated > by the two terms as the perfect < Son > [begot- ten] without passion, < but >, < on the basis of these two terms >, confessing that he is a mere creature and not a Son—for Wisdom has conveyed the godly meaning by the two terms—let him be anathema.
11,2 And since the Son reveals to us his likeness in essence to the Father through his words, “For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself,” but his likeness in activity through his teaching, “For what things soever the Father doeth, these also the Son doeth likewise—[therefore], if anyone grants him only the likeness of activity but denies the Son his likeness of essence, the cornerstone of our faith, and denies himself eternal life in the knowledge of the Father and the Son, let him be anathema.
11,3 And if anyone who professes to believe in a Father and a Son says that the Father is not the Father of an essence like his, but the Father of an activity, let him be anathema for daring to utter “profane babblings” against the essence of the Son of God, and denying the truth of his sonship.
11,4 And if anyone who holds that [Christ] is the Son of an essence like his of whom he is held to be the Son, should say that the Son is the same as the Father, or is part of the Father, or that the incorporeal Son originated from the incorporeal Father by emission or passion as corporeal sons do, let him be anathema.
11,5 And if anyone who, because the Father is one person and the Son is another, says that the Son differs from the Father since the Father is never conceived of as the Son and the Son is never conceived of as the Father— as the scripture says, “There is another that beareth witness of me,” for “The Father that hath sent me beareth witness” —[if anyone who says this] because of this godly distinction of the persons of the Father and the Son which is made in the church, fears that the Son may be supposed to be the same as the Father, and therefore says that the Son is unlike the Father in essence, let him be anathema.
11,6 And if anyone holds that the Father is the Father of the only-begotten Son in time, and does not believe that the only-begotten Son has originated impassibly from the Father beyond all times and differently from any human thought—thus abandoning the preaching of the apostles, which rejected time with reference to the Father and the Son, but faithfully taught us, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,”—let him be anathema.
11,7 And if anyone says that the Father is prior in time to his only-begotten Son, and that the Son is later in time than the Father, let him be anathema.
11,8 And if anyone ascribes the only-begotten Son’s timeless origin from the Father to the unbegotten essence of God, and thus speaks of a Son-Father, let him be anathema.
11,9 And if anyone says that the Father is < the Father > of the only-begotten Son by authority only, and not the Father of the only-begotten Son by authority and essence alike—thus accepting only the authority, equating the Son with any creature, and denying that he is actually the true Son of the Father—let him be anathema.
11,10 And if anyone, though saying that the Father is the Father of the Son by authority and essence, also says that the Son is co-essential, or of identical essence with the Father, let him be anathema.
11,11 The signers are Basil, Eustathius, Hyperechius, Letoeus, Heorticus, Gymnasius, Memnonius, Eutyches, Severinus, Eutychius, Alcimides and Alexander. I too believe as the above articles have stated, and confess them with my signature.
The end of the memorial of Basil, George and his companions
< The Letter of George >
12,1 It is plain that the term, “being” does not appear in the Old and the New Testaments, but the sense of it is to be found, everywhere. In the first place, He who owes his origin to none but is the cause of all things < is implied > by God’s words when he sent Moses, “Thus shall thou say unto the children of Israel, ‘He Who Is’ ”—< meaning > him who is regarded primarily as the Father “of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,’’ who has no cause and is the cause of the things that exist. (2) Now the Son also “is”; but Paul the Samosatian and Marcellus took advantage of the text in the Gospel according to John, “In the beginning was the Word.” No longer willing to call the Son of God truly a Son, they took advantage of the term, “Word,” I mean verbal expression and utterance, and refused to say “Son of God.” (3) And so the fathers who tried Paul the Samosatian for this heresy were forced to say that the Son too is a being to show that the Son has reality, subsists, and is, but is not a word, and to distinguish, by means of the term, “being,” between a thing which has no existence of its own, and a thing which does. (4) For a word has no existence of its own and cannot be a son of God, since if it could, there would be many sons of God.
For it is agreed that the Father said many things to the Son—When, for instance, he said, “Let there be a firmament,” “Let there be luminaries,” “Let the earth bring forth,” and, “Let us make man.” (5) The Father therefore speaks to the Son, and yet God’s words, which he says to the Son, are not sons. The Son to whom the Father speaks, however, may with piety be called, among other things, “bread,” “life,” and “resurrection”; and he is further termed, “Word,” since he is the interpreter of the counsels of God.
12,6 And therefore lest, to deceive the simple, the heretics should say that the Son is the same as the words which are spoken by God, the fathers, as I say, called the Son a “being” to show the difference between the Son of God and the words of God. They expressed the distinction in this way because God “is,” and the words which he speaks < “are” >, and yet they are not God’s “beings” but his verbal operations. But although the Son is a Word, he is not God’s verbal operation; he is a “being” since he is a Son. (7) For if the Father “is” the Son also < “is” >; but the Son “is” in such a way that, (8) since he has his being from God by true sonship, he will not be regarded as a Word like the words God speaks. They have their being in the Speaker; but he has his in virtue of his begetting by the Father, his hearing of the Father, and his service to the Father. The fathers, then, called this entity a “being.”
13,1 We regard the Son as like the Father in all respects, in opposition to the party that is now growing up as an excrescence on the church. (2) This current faction declares that the Son is like the Father in will and activity, but that the Son is unlike the Father in < being >. (3) Thus it is the contention of these new sectarians that the will of the Son and the activity of the Son are like the will of the Father and the activity of the Father, but that the Son himself is unlike the Father. And they agree that the Son’s will and activity are like the Father’s will and activity, but the reason they will not allow that the Son is like the Father is that they maintain that the Son is not begotten of God. He is merely a creature, and differs from the other creatures in that he surpasses them in greatness and came into being before them all, and that God availed himself of his assistance in the creation of the rest. (4) Because, say the sectarians, God made the rest through a Son, but made him by no one’s instrumentality but personally, and made him superior in greatness and might to all things, God called him an “only-begotten Son.”
14,1 We of the catholic church, however, have taken our confession of faith from the sacred scriptures, and hold as follows. The Father is the Father of a Son like himself, and the Son is like the Father of whom he is held to be the Son. (2) Defining this further, and thus narrowing the sense of it as against the Sabellians and the rest, we hold that the Son cannot be a Father, or the Father a Son. (3) (The accurate knowledge of the Persons consists of the following: The Father, who is everlastingly a Father, is incorporeal and immortal, while the Son, who is everlastingly a Son and never a Father, but is called everlasting because of his being’s independence of time and incom- prehensibility, has taken flesh by the will of the Father, and has undergone death for us.)
14,4 Despite the clarity of these distinctions, the strange people who sup- port this sect exert themselves in an effort to achieve two aims. One is never again to say “Father and Son,” but “Ingenerate and Generate”; for in this way they hope to foist the sophistry of their sect on the church. (5) For those who are wise in the things of God understand that “Ingenerate” < plainly > means less than the term, “Father.” Since “ingenerate” means [only] that a thing has not been generated, it does not yet say whether it is also a father— for the term, “father,” means more than the term, “ingenerate.” (6) As I say, “ingenerate” does not carry the connotation of fatherhood, but “father” connotes, both that the father is not a son—provided that he is understood as a “father” in the proper sense of the word—and that he is the cause of a son like himself.
14,7 This is one aim. Besides, they were the first to portray the Son as unlike the Father in essence, since they supposed, from something they had unearthed in a letter by the venerable bishop Hosius in which the essential unlikeness is mentioned, that the church had affirmed it. (8) However, since the easterners who came to Sirmium last year exposed this sect’s sharp practice, they tried their best, in order to escape punishment for their assaults on the church’s faith, to remove the term, “being” which was used by the fathers, from the church’s teaching for these reasons, as another way of lending apparent strength to their sect.
15,1 For they supposed that, if the word, “being,” were rejected, they could say that the Son is like the Father only in will and activity, and gain the right to say, finally, that since “being” was not mentioned, the Son is unlike the Father in being and existence. (2) But God, the vindicator of the truth who “taketh the wise in their own craftiness,” openly declared, through the mouth of the pious emperor, that his Only-begotten’s relation to himself is the Son’s likeness to him in all respects. (3) For this was the emperor’s own view, in his piety, of God’s only-begotten Son who fought for him. And since this was his belief he declared with pious lips that the Son is like the Father in all respects, as the catholics believe; and that it was not by his doing that this proceeding against the church’s faith had been launched, the aim of which was to eliminate the term, “being” so that, with “being” no longer on men’s lips, the heresy might make its lair in their hearts.
15,4 But let us anticipate them, since they describe [the Son] as like [the Father] in will but unlike him in essence. If, indeed, they candidly and plainly admit his likeness in all things to the Father, the worthlessness of their anxious effort to remove the word, “being,” will be exposed. (5) For they gained nothing since they were compelled to confess that the Son is like the Father in all respects. For if he is like in all respects, as they have confessed him to be—and it is in this way that the Son is like the Father—he is like, not just in will and operation—the distinction they draw—but in existence, subsistence and being as a son should be. And once for all, < the phrase >, “in all respects,” is all-inclusive and leaves no room for distinction. (6) This—if it be admitted that the Father himself is not “like” himself, and the Son himself is not “like” himself, but is instead a Son who is like his Father; and that, since he is in all respects like the Father, he is not a Father but a Son—[this] provides us with a worthy conception of the Father through our contemplation of him. (7) For the Son was begotten of this Father, Perfect begotten of Perfect, begotten in the Father’s likeness before anyone can conceive and, before all reckonings, times and ages—as only the Father knows, who begot the Son of himself without passion; and the Son, who has his being from him; and he to whom the Son will reveal him.
16,1 And the word, “hypostases,” need trouble no one. The easterners say “hypostases” as an acknowledgment of the subsistent, real individualities of the persons. (2) For if the Father is spirit, the Son is spirit, and the Holy Ghost is spirit, < but > “the Son” does not mean “Father”—and since there is also a “Spirit,” and this does not mean “Son,” and he is not the Son—and since the Holy Spirit cannot be the Father or the Son, but is a Holy Spirit given to the faithful by the Father through the Son—and since, in all probability, the Holy Spirit too subsists and is real—the easterners, as I said, call the individualities of the subsistent Persons “hypostases.” They do not mean that the three hypostases are three first principles, or three Gods, for they condemn anyone who speaks of three Gods. (3) Nor do they call the Father and the Son two Gods; they confess that the Godhead is one, and that it encompasses all things through the Son, in the Holy Spirit.
16,4 < But > though they confess one Godhead, dominion and first principle, they still acknowledge the Persons in an orthodox manner through the individualities of the hypostases. They perceive the Father as subsistent in his paternal authority and confess the Son, not as a part of the Father, but as a perfect Son plainly begotten without blemish of a perfect Father. And they acknowledge that the Holy Spirit, whom the sacred scripture calls the Paraclete, owes his being to the Father through the Son. (5) < For > as the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, teaches us the truth, which is the Son—No man can say, Jesus is Lord, but by the Holy Spirit”—so the Son, who is truth, teaches the godly knowledge of the true God, his Father, as he says, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” (6) In the Holy Spirit, then, we have a godly apprehension of the Son; but in the only-begotten Son we piously and worthily glorify the Father. And this is the seal of the faith, the seal with which our Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ, who said, “Go make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” commanded us to be baptized.
17,1 The Son’s likeness in all respects to the Father has been more exten- sively discussed elsewhere. Even now, however, I do not mind noting briefly in passing that the apostle, who called the Son “the image of the invisible God” and in this way taught us that the Son is like the Father, has told us in other passages how we are to conceive of the Son. (2) In the Epistle to the Philippians he says, “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men;” and in the Epistle to the Romans, (3) “For what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of flesh, and for sin, condemned sin the flesh.”
Thus, through the two passages from the two Epistles, we are also taught, through physical examples, the orthodox notion of likeness as it applies to the incorporeal Father and Son. (4) The words, “took upon him the form of a servant and was made in likeness of men,” show that the Son took flesh from the Virgin. Therefore the flesh which the Son of God took is the same as human flesh. But it is “in the likeness” of men, since it was not generated from seed, as men are, or by commerce with a man. (5) Similarly the Son, who is spirit and begotten of the Father as spirit, is the same as the Father in that he is spirit begotten of spirit, just as he is < the same as men > in that he is flesh born of Mary’s flesh. But in that he is begotten of the Father without emanation, passion and division, he is “like” the Father, and yet not < the Father > himself—< just as > the fleshly Son is in the “likeness” of men, and yet not himself man in all respects.
18,1 Through the Epistle to the Philippians, then, Paul has taught us how the hypostasis of the Son is like the hypostasis of the Father. For the Son is spirit, [begotten] of the Father, and, as far as the meaning of “spirit” goes, the same as he—just as he is the same [as man] as far as the meaning of “flesh” goes. And yet he is not the same but like, since “spirit,” which the Son is, is not the Father, and the flesh the Word assumed has not originated from human seed and through pleasure, but as the Gospel has taught us.
18,2 As I have said, the Son has taught us through Philippians how the Son is entirely like the Father in his being and subsistence. (3) But how he is like him in his will, activity and operations he has taught us through Romans, with the words, “In the likeness of the flesh of sin he condemned sin in the flesh.” The flesh which the Son of God assumed was the same as the flesh of sin, and was likewise moved to hunger, thirst and sleep like all flesh, but was not moved to sin by them. (4) This is why scripture says, “in the ‘likeness’ of the flesh of sin,” an expression similar to, “What things soever the Father doeth, the same doeth the Son in like manner.” For the Father, who is spirit, acts on his own authority; the Son, though spirit, does not act on his own authority like the Father, but acts “in like manner.”
18,5 Therefore, insofar as all flesh is the same, he is the same—just as, insofar as all spirit is the same, he is the same. But insofar as [his flesh was conceived] without seed, he is not the same [as flesh] but like it, just as, insofar as he was begotten, [though] without emission and passion, he is not the same [as the Father], but like him. And he is the same as flesh insofar as all flesh is the same, just as he is the same as spirit insofar as all spirit is the same. But insofar as he is in the likeness of sinful flesh, he is like in the impulses of the flesh and yet not the same, just as the Son [acts, but] in a subordinate role in the likeness of the [Father’s] action, and not in the same way that the Father acts, with full sovereignty. (6) From these considerations it is evident that the Son is like the Father in all respects, as a son is like his father if he is legitimately begotten of him.
For it would be absurd for Him who was God’s Son before all ages, and who was by nature God of God the Father, to become like those who were men by nature, in a way unnatural to him, when he was made man of Mary, contrary to nature—(since he was God, it was not natural for him to become man)—and yet for him not to be like the Father who begot him in a way that was natural to him. (7) If he, unnaturally, is like those who are men by nature, all the more is he by nature like the Father who begot him legitimately in accordance with his nature. It is thus in keeping with the scriptures that the doctrine of the Son’s likeness to the Father in all respects be added to the scriptures. < But > he is like him, < and > has been understood < by us > [to be like him] in the senses in which the apostle has taught us the notion of “like- ness” through the above passages. (8) For he is also like [the Father] in that he is life of life, light of light, very God of very God, and wisdom of the wise God. And in a word, according to the scriptures he is not like [the Father] merely in activity and will. In his very being, subsistence and actuality, he is in all respects like the Father who begot him—-as a son is like a father.
19,1 If the new sectarians go on to dispute with us and speak of “ingenerate” and “generate,” we shall tell them, “You have disingenuously refused to accept the word, ‘being,’ although it was used by the fathers, because it is unscriptural. Neither will we accept the word, ‘ingenerate,’ since it is unscriptural. The apostle says, ‘incorruptible,’ ‘invisible,’ ‘immortal,’ but scripture has never called God ‘ingenerate.’ ”
19,2 Then, as I have already said, “ingenerate” does not yet mean “Father.” And in itself, “generate” does not yet mean “Son,” but applies the meaning equally to all things that have origins. (For if one says “generate,” he has indicated that the thing had an origin, but has nowhere given indication of One who must forever be regarded as a Son. We, therefore, who forever regard him as the Son of God, shall not accept this term.)
19,3 < But > besides, the phrase, “Father and Son,” denotes a relation to something. Thus even if we name only a “father,” we have the notion of “son” included in the term, “father,” for “father” means the father of a son. < And > even though we name only a “son,” we have the notion of the “father,” for “son” means the son of a father. (4) Each is linked with the other, and the connection cannot be broken. Indeed, either of them mentioned alone implies the notion of the other—and not only the name, but with the name, the natu- ral relationship. (5) In understanding God to be a Father, we understand him to be the Father of God. And in understanding a Son of God to be God, we also understand the said Son of God to be of like nature with Him whose Son he is understood to be. But “ingenerate” does not mean “the ingenerate father of a generate son”, nor does “generate” mean “generate son of an ingenerate father.”
20,1 The terms “ingenerate” and “generate,” then, do not imply a relationship between the ingenerate and the generate, or, at the same time, give indication of their nature. Instead they put the individuality of the Son on a level with the rest of created things. Therefore, because of the impious trickery, we shall not accept the terms, but shall persist in our holy use of “Father and Son.”
20,2 In the first place, we who were called from the gentiles were not baptized in the name of an Ingenerate and a Generate, but of a Father and a Son. And then, the Son is nowhere found to have called his Father “Ingenerate,” but to have always called God, “Father,” and himself, “Son of God.” (3) To mention a few examples in passing we hear him say, “If ye loved me, ye would rejoice because I go unto my Father”; “Are ye angry with me, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, because I said, I am the Son of God?” “I proceeded forth from the Father and am come. I came forth from the Father and am come into the world. Again, I leave the world and go unto the Father.” And Peter’s confession, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of God. And the Father says from on high, “This is my beloved Son.”
20,4 And therefore, since the Father thus refers to the Son and the Son to the Father, and we—to say it once more—were baptized in these names, we shall always use them, and reject the “profane innovations” against the apostolic faith. (5) For the words of the Father, “By the splendors of the saints, from the belly, before the morning star begot I thee,” are spoken perforce, and will withdraw the Son from the category of creatures; for by the term which corresponds to the term, “belly,” (i.e., “beget”) the Father teaches us of the Son he has legitimately begotten as his own. (6) And when the Son likewise said “The Lord created me,” to < keep us from > supposing that his nature is in the same category as the other, created things,” he perforce added, “Before all hills he begets me,” providing us with the notion of his sonship to God the Father that is a godly one and implies no passion. (7) However, the Father has expounded “generate” to us once, and the Son once, because of the Son’s godly filiation. But the entire New Testament is full of the words, “Father,” and, “Son.”
21,1 But so that the coiners of this heresy may be known by their own words, I note in passing a few examples of the many things they have written on the subject—[no more than a few,] because of their length. From these, I presume, the catholics must surely understand the full purport of their heresy, and make the decision that those who have written these things must abjure them, and to expel both them and their doctrines from the apostolic faith, as well as condemning those who believe and teach the same as they. For they write as follows, in these very words:
21,2 “Most of all I am eager to convey to you, in brief compass, some of the finest, God-inspired words. Any who suppose that the Son has a likeness of essence to the Father have departed from the truth, for with the title, ‘gener- ate,’ they impeach the likeness of essence.”
21,3 And again, they say, “The Son both is and is admitted to be inferior < to the Ingenerate because of his > generation. He therefore cannot have likeness of essence to the Ingenerate, but does have the likeness by upholding the will of God, unaltered, in his own person. He has a likeness, then—not a likeness of essence but a likeness in respect of will, < for God > brought < him > into being as he willed.”
And again, “Why do you yourself not agree with me that the Son is not like the Father in essence?”
Further, (4) “When it is admitted that the Son is everlasting although he does not have life of his own nature but by the authority of the Ingener- ate; but it is also admitted that ingenerate nature endlessly transcends all authority; why is it < not > plain that the impious are exchanging the godly doctrine of the heteroousion for ‘likeness of essence?’ ”
21,5 And again, “Therefore the word, ‘Father,’ is not indicative of essence, but of the authority which brought the Son into being before all ages as the divine Word, everlastingly < in possession > of the essence and authority which have been given him, and which he continues to possess.”
22,1 We shall now say to the present day sectarians, “You have written, ‘Like in will, unlike in essence.’ We have therefore written in reply, ‘Like, not merely by imitation, but in essence as well.’ (2) You, then, were the first to
mention essence, when you said ‘unlikeness in essence’; and you are eager for the elimination of the word, ‘essence,’ so that you can say that the Son is like the Father only in will. (3) Therefore, if you really agree that the Son is in all respects like the Father, condemn those who speak of a distinction in likeness, and write as follows: ‘If anyone denies that the Son is like the Father just as [any] son is like his father, but says that he is like him only in will and unlike him in essence, let him be anathema.’ ” (4) And if they choose < not > to mention the word, “essence,” after that, and repudiate even their own signatures by making < no > mention at all of “essence,” they should still confess the faith of the fathers that the Son is like < the > Father not only in will, but in essence, subsistence and actuality—in a word, in everything as a son is like his father, as the sacred scriptures say.”
22,5 The signatories of the statement of faith in the Son’s likeness to the Father in all respects were the following:
Mark, bishop of Arethusia. I so believe and hold, and < I >, and all here present < am in agreement > with the foregoing.
But Valens subscribed as follows. All here present, and the godly emperor before whom I have testified both orally and in writing know how I have affixed the above signature on the night before Pentecost.
22,6 But after this Valens signed the document in his own way. To his signature he added a statement that the Son is like the Father, but without adding, “in all respects,” and making it clear in what sense he agreed with the above, or how he understood “co-essential.” The godly emperor pointed this out and compelled him to add, “in all respects,” which he did.
But Basil suspected that he had added even “in all respects” in a sense of his own102 to the copies < which > Valens was anxious to obtain, to take to the council at Ariminum. So he subscribed as follows:
22,7 Basil, bishop of Ancyra. I < so > believe. And I assent to the foregoing by confessing that the Son is like the Father in all respects. But in all! Not merely in will, but, as the sacred scriptures teach, in subsistence, actuality and essence, as a son is. [I believe that he is] spirit of spirit, life of life, light of light, God of God, very Son of very < Father >; the Son, who is Wisdom, of a wise God and Father. And in a word, [I confess] that the Son is like the Father in all respects, as a son is like a father. (8) And as has been stated above, if anyone says that the Son is like the Father [only] in a particular way, he is untrue to the catholic church, since he is not saying that the Son is like the Father in accordance with the sacred scriptures.
The postscript was read and given to Valens in the presence of the bishops Mark, George, Ursacius, Germanus and Hypatian, and a larger number of presbyters and deacons.
23,1 I have inserted these letters to show all studious persons who are in search of the truths of the faith that I do not accuse people without reason, but do my best to base what I say on reliable evidence.
23,2 In turn, the Semi-Arians fell out with their allies; and they quar- reled with each other and competed for leadership because of the grudges of some of them, and from common jealousy of each other and the desire to rule. And at that time the party of these Semi-Arians—I mean Basil, George, Silvanus and the rest of them—were in the ascen- dent. But < the others* >—Eudoxius, George of Alexandria, and Euzoeus of Antioch—< opposed them* >, and had on their side an arm of flesh, the emperor Constantius. (3) And in spite of their great influence the party of Basil and George of Laodicea were humiliated. Still others of them broke with this faction and confederacy, and the Arian movement was divided into three groups. (4) For because of his envy and hatred of Cyril of Jerusalem, this same Acacius of Caesarea in Palestine, along with Melitius, Uranius of Tyre, and Eutychius of Eleutheropolis opposed Basil, George of Laodicea, Silvanus of Tarsus, Eleusius of Cyzicus, Macedonius of Constantinople, Eustathius of Sebaste and the newly consecrated bishop of Antioch, Anianus. < And > by ranging himself against them, Acacius caused a great deal of confusion.
23,5 [All of] these people, in fact, were of the same opinion, but were divided; because they each confessed it differently they differed, and were separated into the three factions I have indicated. (6) For although they were the same as the others, Acacius and his allies would neither con- fess the homoousion, nor say that Christ is a creature < like > any other creature. While < they > kept quiet about the word, “creature,” because of the times, they were entirely like < the > Arians. But at that time they concealed the fact that they believed no differently than these, because of the admixture with them of people who were really orthodox, but were hypocrites and practiced hypocrisy for fear of the emperor’s right arm.
And what with their mutual hatred, < they could not > stand firm even though they wanted to. (7) For from enmity towards Cyril, Eutychius of Eleutheropolis became one of Acacius’ supporters, since he had learned the plain creed of orthodoxy from the blessed Maximon, the confessor bishop of Jerusalem. He was orthodox for a while, but dissembled to keep his see, as did many other Palestinian bishops. (8) For their sakes Acacius and his friends, though they were infected with the same madness and insane heresy, did not agitate these issues for the time being, and < did not dare > either to confess or to deny < the homoousion >. But at the Emperor Constantius’ command they met at the town in Isauria called Rugged Seleucia and issued another creed, if you please—a creed not in agreement with the one the fathers had drawn up in the city of Nicaea, which was orthodox and well drawn. Instead, they said with feigned simplicity, (24,1) We believe in one God the Father almighty, and next simply, And [we believe] in the Son of God, without saying anything of weight about him. But later, to give a glimpse of their device, they said, We reject the homoousion as untrue to sacred scripture, but condemn the doctrine of the Son’s unlikeness to the Father.
24,2 And this was the lure of crafty hunters. In fact, when they were by themselves they would assert and teach that the Son of God is a creature, but that he is “like” the Father in the common understanding of the term. (3) For even sculptors create images and produce likenesses, of gold, sil- ver and other materials or of paint on wood, and they have the likeness of their models, but nothing to equal them. And so their strategy was to confess that the Son is “like” the Father, but without one bit of the Father’s Godhead.
24,4 Some of their supporters accepted this < with hesitation* >, but still accepted it because of the misfortune of the time that had befallen them; and at the same time most knew what they were doing, though some were indeed in ignorance, as was shown later. For Patrophilus of Scythopolis was on their side, and after him Philip, who was consecrated there as his successor, and many others who really held this heresy. (5) Now, however, after their deaths, when their heresy has become widespread and they are free to speak because of the arm of flesh, they are stating their thesis plainly with no further hindrance, and are no longer restrained by any shame, or pretending because of an emperor’s order. (6) < But > lest it be thought that I am attacking them for no good reason, I shall here give the creed which was issued there by Acacius’ faction themselves, over the signature of the participants in the council. It is as follows:
(The Synodical Letter of Seleucia)
25,1 The bishops who have assembled at Seleucia in Isauria from various provinces at the command of his Reverence, our most God-fearing emperor Constantius. We, who have assembled at Seleucia in Isauria by the will of the emperor, have passed the following resolution:
25,2 Yesterday, the fifth before the Kalends of October, we made every effort, with all decorum, to preserve the peace of the church and, as our emperor Constantius, the most beloved of God, commanded us, produce a sound statement < of > the faith in the words of the prophets < and Gospels >, and add nothing contrary to the sacred scriptures to the creed of the church.
25,3 But certain persons abused some of us at the council, silenced oth- ers and did not permit them to speak, locked some out against their will, were accompanied by deposed clerics from various provinces, and brought with them persons who had been uncanonically ordained. The session thus became full of clamor on every side, as the most illustrious count Leonas, and Lauridus, the most illustrious governor of the province, saw with their own eyes. Therefore we assert that we do not abandon the genuine creed < which was put forth > at the Dedication at Antioch, but bring < it > forward. This is the main reason the fathers themselves came together at that time, the one which underlies the question.
25,4 < But > since the doctrines of the homoousion and homoeousion have troubled many in the past and do today, and it is further said that the novel doctrine of the Son’s unlikeness to the Father is even now taught by some, we reject the homoousion as untrue to the scriptures, but condemn the doctrine of the unlikeness, and regard all who hold it as strangers to the church. (5) However, like the apostle who said, “He is the image of the invisible God,” we plainly confess the likeness of the Son to the Father.
25,6 We confess and believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, things visible and invisible.
25,7 And we believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of him without passion before all ages, the divine Word, only-begotten God of God, light, life, truth, wisdom, power, by whom all things were made, things in heaven and things on earth, whether visible or invisible. (8) We believe that, to take away sin, he took flesh of the holy Virgin at the close of the ages and was made man. He suffered for our sins, rose again, was taken up into heaven, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and will come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead.
25,9 And we believe also in one Holy Spirit, whom our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ also termed the Paraclete, and whom he promised to send to the disciples after his ascension; and he sent him, and through him sanctifies the believers in the church, who are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
The catholic church knows that those who preach anything other than this creed are not her own.
25,10 The readers will recognize that the creed formerly issued at Sirmium in the presence of his Reverence, our emperor, is of a meaning equivalent to this.
Those who are here have signed this creed: Basil, Mark, George the bishop of Alexandria, Pancratius, Hypatian, and most of the bishops of the west.
I, George, bishop of Alexandria, have issued this creed. My profession is as it is set forth here.
I, Acacius, bishop of Caesarea, have issued this creed. My profession is as it is set forth here. Uranius, bishop of Tyre, Eutychius, bishop of Eleutheropolis, Zoilus, bishop of Larissa in Syria, Seras, bishop of Paraetonium in Libya, Paul, bishop of Emisa, Eustathius, bishop of Epiphania, Irenaeus, bishop of Tripoli in Phoenicia, Eusebius, bishop of Seleucia in Syria, Eutychianus, bishop of Patara in Lyda, Eustathius, bishop of Pinari and Sidymi, Basil, bishop of Kaunia in Lydia, Peter, bishop of Hyppus in Palestine, Stephen, bishop of Ptolemais in Libya, Eudoxius, bishop of . . . Apollonius, bishop of Oxyrynchus, Theoctistus, bishop of Ostradne, Leontius, bishop of < Tripoli in > Lydia, Theodosius, bishop of Philadelphia in Lydia, Phoebus, bishop of Polychalandus in Lydia, Magnus, bishop of Themisi in Phrygia, Evagrius, bishop of Mitylene of the islands, Cyrion, bishop of Doliche, Augustus, bishop of Euphrates, Polydeuces, bishop . . . of the second province of Libya, Pancras, bishop of Pelusium, (7) Phillocadus, bishop of Augustus in the province of Phrygia, Serapion, bishop of Antipyrgus in Libya, Eusebius, bishop of Sebaste in Palestine, Heliodorus, bishop of Sozusa in Pentapolis, Ptolemais, bishop of Thmuis in Augustamnica, (8) Abgar, bishop of Cyrus in Euphrasia, Exeresius, bishop of Gerasa, Arabio, bishop of Adrai, Charisius, bishop of Azotus, Elisha, bishop of Diocletianopolis, Germanus, bishop of Petra, Baruch, bishop of Arabia; forty-three bishops in all. So far the document issued by the above-mentioned Semi-Arians and Arians.
27,1 You men of sense who have gone through this and the other creeds, be aware that the effort of both parties is a fraud and nothing orthodox, with even a bit of the godly confession of faith. (2) For the Lord says, “What ye have heard in the ear, that proclaim ye upon the housetops.” And as the holy apostle says, “Speak every man truth with his neighbor”; but the prophet speaks out to expose their mischief, “He speaketh peace with his neighbor, but in his heart hath he war.” (3) In the same way, when these followers of Acacius wanted to cast off the restraint of the true confession after their separation from Basil and his adherents, they issued a spurious, easily refutable, and entirely misleading creed, so that, if they wanted to fool people, they could make a proper confession in the words we have given—(4) but if they chose to reveal the banefulness of their heresy they would have this declaration available, which is midway between the two positions and possible as a confession of each of their creations.
27,5 But since, in this Acacian faction which was separated from the other two—I have said that the Arian party was divided into three groups. Eudoxius, Germanus, George of Alexandria and Euzoeus of Antioch made one division, (6) and similarly Eleusius, Eustathius, George of Laodicea, Silvanus of Tarsus, Macedonius of Constantinople and many others made another. (7) But again Acacius, as I said, Melitius, Eutychius and certain others formed another group of their own. And the whole thing was pure trickery. (8) What each of them believed, the other believed. But they were divided into schisms among themselves, either from mutual hatred, since Cyril of Jerusalem was furious with Eutychius and Eutychius with Cyril, but Cyril was in with Basil of Galate, Anianus the newly consecrated bishop of Antioch, and George of Laodicea—(9) but why wear myself out distinguishing between the factions and describing them? I shall go on to the counter-arguments, and the refutation of the guile of each of them. First, though, I must speak of what happened later, for this contributed to the goodness of some, and the wickedness of others.
28,1 For when Melitius was consecrated at Antioch by Acacius’ faction—and for Acacius this has been the beginning of his retreat, if only slightly, from his heretical views. By his support of Melitius’ election he shows that, of all things, he is in the orthodox camp. As I was saying, when Melitius was consecrated by Acacius’ own friends they thought he shared their opinion. But as many report of him, he turned out not to. (2) For at present, since Melitius has been hounded and expelled from his see, those who favor him and his party are gradually and progressively becoming orthodox for God’s sake, due to the protracted length of the banishment. (3) For there were more [orthodox] laity than there were laity of the < other* > party. They profess their faith in the Son admira- bly through their episcopal elections, and do not reject the homoousion. Indeed they are prepared to confess and not deny it, they say, if there can just be a last council. (4) In fact the most honorable Melitius himself, who was consecrated at Antioch by the Arians around Melitius, gave a sort of first installment of this in church, in his first sermon at Antioch, and in orthodox terms, or so say the majority. I offer his sermon here, as follows:
A Copy of Melitius’ Sermon
29,1 The most wise Ecclesiastes says, “The end of any speaking is better than its beginning.” How much better and safer is it to cease from a struggle over words than to begin one, especially as the same Ecclesiastes says, “This wisdom of the poor is set at naught, and his words are not heard.” (2) < But > since “The body is not one member, but many,” “All the members care one for another that there be no schism in the body,” and “The head cannot say to the feet, I have no need of you,” but “God hath tempered the body together, giving the more abundant honor to the part which lacks,” it goes without saying that one cannot avoid being troubled by the troubling of the whole body.
29,3 But how should one begin to speak to you? Plainly, it is fitting that whoever embarks on speech or action should make peace its beginning and end, and that those who begin with it should also close with it. “For this shall turn to your salvation,” says the apostle, “through your prayer and the sup- ply of the Spirit” which Jesus gives to those who believe in him. (4) And whether one speaks words of edification, “consolation, comfort of love, or fellowship of the Spirit,” he comes in the peace of God—not, indeed, for all without discrimination, but peace “for those who love the Law,” as the prophet says. Not the written Law, the “image and shadow of things to come,” but the spiritual law which wisely reveals the outcome of the things that were foretold. (5) “For peace,” says the scripture, “is multiplied to them that love thee, and they have none occasion of stumbling.”
Plainly, for those who hate peace, the occasion of stumbling remains, and it behooves those who long to be free from them to hold the love of the Lord before them as a shield. “For he himself is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition, the enmity of the flesh, the Law of commandments contained in ordinances.” (6) Nor is it possible to keep the commandment of the Lord without a prior love of God— for “If ye love me,” says Christ, “keep my commandments.” Nor can the eyes or heart be enlightened unless the commandment enlightens them, for the scripture says, “The commandment of the Lord is clear, and giveth light unto the eyes.” Nor can one speak any truth unless he has Christ within him as the Speaker, in the words of him who says, “since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me”—or rather, not simply “speaking in me,” but,
“having mercy in me.” (7) “Let thy mercy and thy salvation come upon me,” says the scripture, “and I shall make answer unto them that rebuke me,” though this cannot be unless one “seek his statutes.” For those who are not so disposed, < or > apparently so, there is shame in his rebukes, and they cannot say, “Take from me shame and rebuke.” Instead the word of truth is taken out of his mouth, so that there is nothing more for him who prays < than >, “Take not the word of thy truth out of my mouth.”
30,1 And when is this? When < one > does not continually observe the Law—when one does not journey on open ground. For one’s “heart must be broadened” if one is to have room for the Christ who “walks within him,” whose glory, not men but the heavens declare, for “The heavens declare the glory of God”—or rather, the Father himself declares by saying, “This is my Son, the beloved, in whom I am well pleased.” (2) But one cannot confess this [Son] “if he haughtily speaketh iniquity” to his neighbor, if he joins the band of the antichrists and adopts their name, abandoning the band and name of the Christians, of whom it is said, “Touch not mine anointed ones.” (3) For “Who is a liar,” the scripture asks, “save he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This,” it says, “is the antichrist. For whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son acknowledged the Father also. That which ye have heard from the beginning,” it says, “let this abide in you. And if that abideth in you which ye have heard from the beginning ye also shall abide in the Son and in the Father.”
30,4 But we shall “abide” when we confess before God and his elect angels—indeed, confess before kings, and not be ashamed, for the scripture says, “I have spoken of thy testimonies before kings and was not ashamed.” [We shall abide when we confess] that the Son of God is God of God, One of One, Only-begotten of Ingenerate, the elect Offspring of his Begetter and a Son worthy of him who has no beginning; the ineffable Interpreter of the
Ineffable, the Word, and the Wisdom and Power of Him who transcends wisdom and power, beyond anything that the tongue can utter, beyond any thought the mind can initiate. (5) He is the perfect and abiding Offspring of Him who is perfect, and abides the same—not an overflow of the Father or a bit or piece of the Father, but come forth without passion and entire, from him who has lost none of what he had. (6) And because < the > Son is, and is called, the “Word,” he is by no means to be conceived of as the Father’s voice or verbal expression. For he subsists in himself and acts, and by him and in him are all things. Similarly, although he is Wisdom as well, he is not to be conceived of as the Father’s thought, or as a movement and activity of his reason, but as an Offspring who is like the Father and bears the exact impress of the Father. (7) For the Father, God, has sealed him; and he neither inheres in another nor subsists by himself, but < is > an Offspring at work, who has made this universe and preserves it. This is sufficient to free us from the error of the Greeks, the willful worship of the Jews, and the heresy of the sectarians.
31,1 But since some pervert the sense of the scriptural expressions, interpret them otherwise than is fitting and understand neither the meaning of the words nor the nature of the facts, they dare to deny the Son’s divinity because they stumble at the mention of creation in Proverbs, “The Lord cre- ated me the beginning of his ways, for his works.” (They should follow the Spirit who gives life, and not the letter which kills, for “The Spirit giveth life.”) (2) Let me also, then, venture on a short discussion of this, not because it has < not > been fully discussed by those who have spoken before me—to say this, one would be mad!—and not because you are in need of a teacher, for “Ye yourselves are taught of God,” but so that I may be “manifest in your consciences.” For I am one of those who desire to “impart unto you some spiritual gift.”
31,3 Believe me, neither elsewhere in the scripture nor here do the words of scripture contradict each other, even though, to those of unsound faith or weak wits, they may seem to be in conflict. Believe me also, it is not possible to find in this world an example adequate in itself to explain clearly the nature of the Only-begotten. (4) And for this reason the scripture employs many ideas and terms with reference to the Only-begotten, to help us grasp things that are above us with the aid of things familiar to us; to imagine things we do not know by means of things we do; and to advance, gently and by easy stages, from the seen to the unseen.
31,5 Believers in Christ, then, should < know > that the Son is like the Father, since he who is “through all,” and by whom all things in heaven and earth were made, is the “image’’ of him who is “above all.” But [they should know] that he is an image, not as an inanimate object is the image of a living thing or as a process is the image of an art, or a finished product the image of a process, but < as > an offspring is the image of its parent. (6) And [they should know] that the generation of the Only-begotten before the ages may not lawfully be portrayed < along the lines of > bodily human generation. And as < the Son is the* > Father’s < wisdom* > in the pattern of the wisdom which embraces human thoughts, and though he is certainly not a nonentity and non-existent, the scripture made use of both terms, that of creation and that of generation, of “He created me’’ and “He begot me.” This was not to give the appearance of saying contraries about the same things and at the same time, but to show the real and enduring existence of the Only-begotten through “created,” and his special and individual character through “begot.” (7) For he says, “I proceeded forth from the Father and am come.” The very word, “wisdom,” however, is enough to exclude any idea of passion.
32,1 But whither are we bound with our failure to remember him who said, “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” (2) We have the Spirit of truth for our teacher, whom the Lord gave us after his assumption into the heavens, that we might “know the things that are freely given to us of God.” In him “we likewise speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” In him we serve and worship, for his sake we are despised, in him the prophets prophesied, in him by whom we are brought to the Son, the righteous have been guided.
But why do we meddle with nature? Am I speaking as with carnal persons, not spiritual? (3) “We cannot speak unto you as unto spiritual but as unto carnal,” was said of others. It is to be feared that, from our contention over the incomprehensible and dispute about the unsearchable, we may fall into the depths of impiety. “And I said, I will get wisdom, and it was farther from me than that which was before, and its depth was unsearchable; who shall find it out?” Let us be mindful of him who said, (4) “We know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.” “If any man think that he knoweth, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.” It is therefore to be feared that, if we attempt to speak of what we cannot, we may no longer be permitted to speak of what we can. We must speak because of faith, not believe because of what is spoken, for scripture says, “I believed, and therefore did I speak.”
32,5 Thus when we inquire, and try to contend, about the generation of God although we cannot describe our own, how can we avoid the risk that he who has given us not only “the tongue of instruction,” but also the “knowledge of when to say a word,” may condemn us to silence for our rashness of speech. (6) This was accomplished in the case of the blessed Zacharias. As he disbelieved the angel who had announced the child’s conception, tested the grace and power of God by human reasonings, and despaired of his ability to father a child in his old age by an aged wife, what did he say? (7) “How shall I know that this will be? For I am old, and my wife well stricken in years.” And thus, since he was told, “Thou shalt be dumb and not able to speak,” he could not speak when he left [the temple].
33,1 We therefore cease to wrangle over the questions in dispute and the matters that are beyond us, and hold fast what we have received. Who dare be puffed up over knowledge, when even he who was vouchsafed “revelations,” who was caught up “to the third heaven” and “heard unspeakable words,” was recalled to his senses by his “thorn in the flesh,” so as not to be “puffed up above measure?” (2) The very prophet who said, “I believed, and therefore have I spoken,” also said, “I was afflicted “—and not simply “afflicted,” but “sore afflicted.” The nearer one’s apparent approach to knowledge, the more should he reckon with his humanity. Hear the prophet say of him, “I said in my astonishment, All men are liars.”
33,3 Since we have the Teacher of the truth, let us make no further use of the teachings of men. Let us realize < our limitation, believe* >, and waste no more effort on “modes,” or anything else. As we cannot say how the Son was generated or describe the mode of the Father’s generation, we < must > consider “All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made” as sufficient for teaching.
33,4 The Lord grant that with a spirit like Abraham’s, who said, “Now I have begun to speak with the Lord, though I am dust and ashes—and not “exalted as the cedars of Lebanon,” since equable, peaceable wisdom is not attained “by words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which faith teacheth—we inquire (5) only into what we must do to please our God and Father, and along with him, and together with him, < the Son > in the Holy Spirit, < to whom > be glory, might, honor and power, now, and forever, and to the ages of ages. Amen.
The end of Melitius’ sermon
34,1 To those < who had been eager > to bring Melitius from Pontus, it seemed that this < had > not < been said > to please or placate most of the Arians, but to annoy them. They then egged the emperor on, plotted against Melitius for not having confessed that the Son is a creature in the fullest sense of the word, and expelled him from his see. (2) He was driven into exile overnight, and is in exile to this day. Even now he resides in his own homeland, a man esteemed and beloved, especially because of the things I am now told that he has accomplished, and which are the cause of the confession his subjects in Antioch now make. They no longer make even a passing mention of the word, “creature,” but confess that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are co-essential—three entities, one essence, one Godhead. (3) This is the true faith which we have received from the ancients, the faith of the prophets, Gospels and apostles, which our fathers and bishops confessed when they met at the Council of Nicaea in the presence of the great and most blessed emperor, Constantine. And may the most honored Melitius himself make the same confession as his subjects at Antioch and < those > who make it in certain other places! (4) For there are also some, apparently in communion with him and his supporters, who blaspheme the Holy Spirit; and although they speak correctly of the Son, they regard the Spirit as a creature and altogether different from the Father. Later I shall give full information about them, as accurately as I can, in the refutation of the heresy they hold.
35,1 As I said, I hold Melitius in honor for the good things I have heard of him. And indeed his life is holy in the other respects, he is well con- ducted, and is beloved in every way by the laity for his way of life which all admire. (2) Some, however—I do not know whether they are inspired by enmity, or jealousy, or a desire to magnify themselves—[some] have said something about him to the effect that the rebellion against him was not over his orthodoxy, but because of canonical matters and the quar- rel between him and his priests, and because he received certain persons whom he had previously expelled and condemned. (3) But I have paid no attention to this because, as I indicated above, of the rectifications and the confessions of the faith which, at long last, are being made daily among his companions.
For I must tell the truth in this regard, as far as my weakness in every- thing allows. (4) Suppose that he overlooked < something > in the rush of the words of his exposition—I cannot say. Or suppose that, in all inno- cence, a word escaped him—God knows. In one way, two or three remarks in this exposition are questionable—his treating at all, even nominally, of the Son of God in his divine nature as a “creature,” and his saying, “above wisdom,” and perhaps something else.
36,1 But I shall say a little about their allegations and get finished with this discussion. Tell us, people, why would it disturb you to say that the homoousion is the homoousion? Confess your faith plainly, to let us know that you belong to us, and are not strangers. Brass can be of an essence like gold, tin of an essence like silver, lead of an essence like iron— but the story you have concocted and turned out will not fool us. (2) For if you want to fool people, you < make > the false excuses that we must not say, “homoousion,” or we will make the Son identical with the Father, or the Spirit identical with the Son and the Father. Here too the argument you have invented fails. (3) We say, not, “identically essential,” but, “coessential,” to confess, not that < the Son > is any different from the Father, but that he is God actually begotten of God—not originating from some other source or from nothing, but come forth < from > the Father. He was begotten at no time, without beginning, and inexpressibly, is forever with the Father and never ceases to be, but is begotten, is not the Father’s kins- man, not his progenitor.
36,4 For “homo” means that there are two entities, < but > not different in nature. Thus the true union [of the two essences] revealed by the Holy Spirit, through the expression in the mouths of those who use the expression. And you see that you will have no excuse, and cannot speak against orthodoxy and frighten your followers who accept your false argument, [by claiming] that whoever says, “homoousion,” has professed faith in an identity. (5) No way! [That there are] two will be shown by “homoousion”; that the Offspring is not different from the Father will also be indicated by “homoousion.”
36,6 But because of the word, “essence,” you will be convicted of fab- ricating the homoeousion; and because of your altered confession of faith you will be condemned for not meaning what you say, but falsifying the teaching of what you mean. For if you mean that the Son is not of the Father at all, but is like him instead, you are a long way from the truth. (7) If one chooses to decorate a relief with any materials, no matter which, he cannot make it the same as the relief; indeed, the work is one of fab- rication. But a thing begotten of some thing preserves the likeness of genus and the sameness of species which characterize legitimate sonship. (8) Now if you say that the Son is not begotten of the Father himself but must be outside of him, and call him “of like essence” to do him a favor, you have given him nothing, but have been deprived of his favor. (9) “He that honoreth not the Son as the Father honoreth him,” says the holy apostle, “the wrath of God abideth on him.” And again, he who said, “I proceeded forth from the Father and am come,” [said] “I am in the Father and the Father in me” in the same breath as, “Philip, he that hath seen me hath seen the Father.”
37,1 Since I have often discussed these things, I believe that will be enough of the same refutations here. The same ones I applied earlier to the root that put forth their heresy are capable of demolishing these Semi- Arians here—[them], and the ones who split off from them, (2) Acacius’ friends and the others who issued a creed at Seleucia in Isauria which is other than the true one. Because I wanted bring it to light, I have also inserted the whole of the creed they issued at the end, after the creed of Basil of Ancyra and George of Laodicea which was written as representing them all. (3) But lest it appear that when I put this in the second place I did it from forgetfulness—because it did its fearful damage secretly and accepted a gag as though to < restrain its own teachings > with a bridle in the time of hypocrisy—I shall also say a little about it and its authors, the allies of Acacius, Euzoeus, Eutychius and the rest. (4) And the document before us has plainly altered the confession of the truth. But lest it be said that I have slandered these people, let me point out what was discovered and what, as time went by, became evident in this group of theirs.
37,5 One of them is Euzoeus of Caesarea, who is their disciple and Acacius’ successor. [That was] after the consecration of Philumen, who was consecrated by Cyril of Jerusalem; and the consecration of the elderly Cyril who was consecrated by Eutychius and his friends; and the consecra- tion of Gelasius who, once more, was consecrated by Cyril of Jerusalem. He was the son of Cyril’s sister. After the consecration of these three and their suspension because of the quarrel between them, Euzoeus was con- secrated in his turn. (6) Gemellinus was also one of them, and Philip of Scythopolis, and Athanasius of Scythopolis. These not only teach Arian- ism publicly and not in secret, as though they had never heard of anything better; they do battle for their heresy, what is more, and persecute those who teach the truth. They are no longer willing merely to refute orthodox believers verbally, but subject them to feuds, violence and murder. For they have done harm, not in one city and country but in many. (38,1) < And* > this Lucius, who has done so much to those who confess the Son of God at Alexandria, is < one of them >.
Who, if he has God’s good sense, can fail to see < the dreadful things* > their fraternity < is doing* > every day? They preach in public that the Son of God is a creature, and that the Holy Spirit is a creature as well, and entirely different from the essence of God. (2) < There is no need for me even to speak of all that* > Eudoxius and his friends < are doing* > since George met his shameful end at Alexandria and Eudoxius received the headship, and the perquisites of high office. < He > was one of the group around Hypatius and Eunomius, and to flatter them pretended to be convinced; < but >, though he kept it a secret, he never ceased to believe in the doctrines of the Anomoeans. (3) And he himself promoted Demo- philus, Hypatius and Eunomius, men whom they had once exiled for this criminal exposition [of the creed]. They were disciples of Aetius, who was once exiled to the Taurus. He was made a deacon by George of Alexan- dria, and the root of the Anomoeans grew up from him. (4) As there is one thorny stem and the same root, but it < bears* > schisms of different kinds as though on each thorn, so it is with their malice. It has disgorged this filth into the world < by putting forth* >, differently at different times, the misinterpretations of this heretical sect, which keep getting worse. I shall say this again later about these Anomoeans.
38,5 But I think that for now, this much will do. Since we have scotched and maimed this sect like a horrid serpent let us stomp on it, leave it dead after trampling it, and turn away to hurry on to the rest, likewise calling on God to help us keep our promise.