khazarzar-athanasius-the-great-of-alexandria-de-synodis-arimini-in-italia-et-seleuciae-in-

Of the same author, a letter concerning the synods that took place at Ariminum in Italy and at Seleucia in Isauria. The report of the synod now so much talked about has perhaps reached even you; for letters from the emperor and the prefects have been sent everywhere, summoning those who were to assemble for it. But since you are fond of learning and wish to know what was done, I have thought it proper to inform you also of what I have seen and accurately learned, so that you may not have an uncertain opinion from hearing others, especially since some are accustomed to report what is done otherwise than as it happened. Now the council did not take place at Nicaea, as had been ordered, but a second decree was issued, that the bishops of the Western parts should assemble at Ariminum in Italy, and those of the Eastern parts should convene at the place called Seleucia of the Rough Country in Isauria. The pretext for such an assembly was said to be concerning the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Those who provided this pretext were, from Pannonia, Ursacius and Valens and one Germinius; from Syria, Acacius, Eudoxius, and Patrophilus, who is from the city named after the Scythians.

These men, always belonging to the party of Arius and “neither understanding how they believe nor concerning what they are confident,” but quietly deceiving each one and sowing seeds of their own heresy, had stealthily won over some “of those who seem to be something” and even the emperor Constantius himself, who was a heretic, having contrived a pretense concerning the faith, so as to cause a synod to take place, thinking they could obscure the synod at Nicaea and persuade everyone, so that impiety might prevail everywhere instead of the truth. First of all, then, I myself am amazed (and I think any sensible person would see this too) that, although a general synod was decreed and everyone expected it, it was suddenly divided; and some assembled there, while others gathered themselves here. This, then, was the work of providence, so that in each group the guileless and pure mind of the faith might be shown in some, and the suspicious and ambiguous character of others might be exposed. Then I also considered this with the genuine brothers here, and we were distressed among ourselves, seeing the impropriety of such a great gathering. For what was so urgent that the whole world should be disturbed and those called clerics at this time should run up and down and seek how they might learn to believe in our Lord Jesus Christ? For if they believed, they would not seek as if they did not have it. This caused no small scandal to the catechumens, and to the Greeks it provided not just ordinary but broad laughter, that Christians, as if now awakened from sleep, are seeking how they ought to believe concerning Christ.

Those called clerics, although they claim the primacy from the laity as teachers, have now proved themselves faithless, seeking what they do not possess. And those around Ursacius, who became responsible for these things, did not realize how much wrath they stored up for themselves, the Lord saying through the saints: "Woe to those through whom my name is blasphemed among the nations," and through himself in the Gospels: "Whoever then scandalizes one of these little ones, it is better for him that a millstone be hung around his neck and he be drowned in the depth of the sea," or, as Luke added, "scandalizes one of these little ones." For what was lacking in teaching for piety in the catholic church, that now they inquire about faith and set the consulship of the present time before the statements supposedly about faith issued by them? For Ursacius and Valens and Germinius and those with them have done what has never happened nor been heard of before among Christians. For writing as they themselves wished to believe, they set before the consulship and the month and the day of the present time, to show to all sensible people that their faith has its beginning not earlier, but now under Constantius. For they wrote everything looking to their own heresy. Moreover, pretending to write about the Lord, they name another "master" for themselves, Constantius; for he was the one providing them the power of impiety; and they have called him "eternal king," who deny the Son as eternal; thus they are Christ-fighters in impiety.

But perhaps they have as a pretext for the consulship the chronology of the holy prophets. But even if they dare to say this, they greatly betray their own ignorance. For the prophecies of the holy ones have a mention of times. And Isaiah and Hosea lived in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah; Jeremiah in the days of Josiah; Ezekiel and Daniel under Cyrus and Darius; and others prophesied in other times, not laying the foundation of piety. For piety existed before them and always existed, and before the foundation of the world God prepared it for us in Christ. Nor did they indicate the times of their own faith; for they themselves were faithful before these times; but the times were of the announcement through them. And the announcement was primarily concerning the coming of the Savior, and secondarily concerning what would happen to Israel and the nations. And the times were indicated not as the beginning of faith, as I said before, but of the prophets themselves, in which these men, being born, prophesied such things. But these wise men of today, not expounding history nor foretelling the future, but having written, "The catholic faith was set forth," immediately added the consulship, the month, and the day, so that, just as the holy ones wrote the times of the histories and of their own ministry, so these might indicate the time of their own faith. And would that they had written concerning their own faith, "Now it began," and not attempted it as concerning the catholic faith; for they did not write, "Thus we believe," but that "the catholic faith was set forth.

The audacity of their intention, then, exposes their ignorance, and the novelty of their writing is equal to that of the Arian heresy. For by writing in this way they have shown when they themselves began to believe, and from now on they wish their faith to be proclaimed. And just as, according to the evangelist Luke, "a decree was issued" concerning the census, and this decree did not exist before but began from those days in which it was issued by the one who wrote it, so also these men, by writing "the faith has now been set forth," have shown that the opinion of their heresy is recent and did not exist before. But if they add "of the catholic," they have unwittingly fallen into the madness of those from Phrygia, so that they too, like them, say: "It was first revealed to us, and from us the faith of Christians begins." And just as those men claim Maximilla and Montanus, so these men, instead of Christ, claim Constantius as "master." But if, according to them, the faith has its beginning from the present consulship, what will the fathers and the blessed martyrs do, and what will they themselves do with those whom they have catechized and who fell asleep before this consulship? How will they raise them up, so that they may erase what they seemed to have taught them and sow into them what they have now written as if they had discovered it? So they are

ignorant only of how to fabricate pretexts, and these improper and implausible, having the refutation close at hand. For the council at Nicaea did not come about simply, but had an urgent need and a reasonable cause. For those from Syria, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia were limping concerning the feast and were celebrating Pascha with the Jews, and the Arian heresy had risen up against the catholic church and had as patrons, both for its own zeal and for the plot against the pious, those around Eusebius. And this became the cause for an ecumenical council to be convened, so that everywhere one day of the feast might be celebrated and the offshoot heresy be anathematized. So it happened, and those from Syria were persuaded, and they declared the Arian heresy a forerunner of the Antichrist and, writing against it, published it well. And yet, having written and being so many, they have dared nothing like what these three or four have. For they did not prefix a consulship and month and day, but concerning Pascha, "it seemed good to the following." For then it seemed good that all should obey; concerning the faith, they wrote not "it seemed good," but "thus believes the catholic church," and immediately they confessed how they believe, so as to show that their thought is not novel but apostolic, and that what they wrote was not found from themselves, but these are the things that the apostles taught. But the councils now being stirred up by them, what reasonable cause do they have?

If, on the one hand, some other more recent heresy has arisen after the Arian, let them state the words of its invention and who are its discoverers, and let them write and anathematize the heresies before this council, among which is also the Arian, just as those at Nicaea did, so that they too may seem to have some plausible pretext for saying newer things. But if nothing of the sort has happened, and they cannot show it (rather they themselves, holding the impiety of Arius, utter these things and, being refuted daily, change their minds), what is the need of councils, when the one at Nicaea is sufficient against the Arian and the other heresies, which it condemned all through its sound faith? For indeed the notorious Aetius, surnamed the Atheist, does not grow bold from having invented his own madness, but, storm-tossed in the Arian heterodoxy, he too was shipwrecked along with those deceived by him. In vain, therefore, do they run about, alleging that they have deemed the councils to have been held for the sake of faith. For divine scripture is more than sufficient for all, and if there is need of a council concerning this, there is that of the fathers. For those assembled at Nicaea did not neglect this either, but wrote so well that those who genuinely engage with their writings are able to be reminded by them of the piety towards Christ proclaimed in the divine scriptures.

Therefore, since there is nothing reasonable on their side, and they are at a loss from every direction, even while inventing pretexts, this alone remains for them to say: we, contradicting those before us and transgressing the traditions of the fathers, deemed it worthy that a council be held. But again, fearing that if we came together in one place our effort might be in vain, we deemed it worthy that the council be divided into two, so that, meeting in parts, we might, by displaying what we wrote, be able to seize the greater part, threatening with the supporter of impiety, Constantius, and thus cause the acts at Nicaea to become idle, having fabricated the simplicity of what was written by us. And even if they have not said these things in so many words, yet they have done and disturbed everything with this intention. Indeed, having often said and written many things in various councils, they have never once mentioned the Arian heresy as base, but if ever some were present and denounced the heresies, they themselves defended the Arian heresy, which the council at Nicaea anathematized, and rather they received those who spoke the words of Arius as genuine. This is a great proof that the design of the present councils was not for the sake of truth, but for the abolition of the acts at Nicaea. And what has been done by them and their like in the councils themselves shows no less that these things are true. For it is now necessary to set forth how each thing happened.

All were expecting that those whom the emperor’s letters summoned would come together in one place and that there would be a single council, but they were divided, and some went down to Seleucia called Rough, while others assembled at Ariminum. Those in the latter were 150 bishops or more. To this council came also Germinius, Auxentius, Valens, Ursacius, Demophilus, and Gaius. But while all the bishops were debating from the divine scriptures, these men produced a document and, reading out the consular date, demanded that this be preferred to every council and that nothing more be sought from the heretics beyond these things, nor their intention be examined, but that they be content with these alone. And what was written by them is as follows: The catholic faith was set forth in the presence of our master, the most pious and victorious emperor Constantius Augustus, the eternal Augustus, in the consulship of the most illustrious Flavius Eusebius and Flavius Hypatius, at Sirmium, on the eleventh day before the Kalends of June. We believe in one only and true God, Father almighty, creator and maker of all things, and in one only-begotten Son of God, born impassibly from God before all ages and before every beginning and before every conceivable time and before every comprehensible substance, through whom the ages were ordered and all things came to be, born only-begotten, only from the only Father, God from God, like to his Father who begot him according to the scriptures, whose generation no one knows except only the Father who begot him.

We know this one to be the only-begotten Son of God, who came from the heavens by the Father's will for the abolition of sin, and was born of Mary the Virgin, and lived with the disciples, and fulfilled the whole economy according to the Father's purpose, was crucified and died and descended into the underworld and ordered things there, at whom "the gatekeepers of Hades, seeing him," shuddered, and rose from the dead on the third day, and lived with the disciples, and fulfilled the whole economy, and after fifty days were completed was taken up into the heavens, and sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come on the last day of the resurrection, rendering to each according to his works with the Father's glory. And in the Holy Spirit, whom the only-begotten himself promised to send to the human race, the Paraclete, according to what is written: "I go to my Father and I will entreat the Father, and he will send you another Paraclete, the Spirit of truth; that one will receive from me and will teach and remind you of everything." And as for the name of substance, because it was set forth by the fathers for the simpler folk, but being unknown to the people it causes scandal, and because the scriptures do not contain it, it was resolved that this be removed and that henceforth there be absolutely no mention of substance with regard to God, since the divine scriptures nowhere make mention of the substance of Father and Son. But we say that the Son is like the Father in all respects, as the holy scriptures also say and teach.

After these things were read, the craftiness of the writers was not far from being recognized. For when the bishops proposed that the Arian heresy be anathematized along with the other heresies, and all agreed to this, Ursacius and Valens and those with them demurred. And so they were condemned as having written these things not sincerely, but for the purpose of overturning what was done at Nicaea, in order to introduce the ill-named heresy. Marvelling, then, at their deceitful words and crafty intention, they said: "We have not assembled because we are in need of a creed (for we have within ourselves a sound faith), but in order to confute those who contradict the truth and attempt to innovate. If, then, you wrote these things as persons now beginning to believe, you are not yet clerics but are at the start of being catechized; but if you have met with the same opinion with which we assembled, let there be unanimity among all, and let us anathematize the heresies with an anathema, and let us preserve the decisions of the fathers, so that there may no longer be pretexts for councils, since those who assembled at Nicaea have once for all taken the lead and done everything for the catholic church.

But even so, when all the bishops again agreed, the aforementioned men dissented, and finally, condemning them as ignorant, deceitful, and even more heretical, they all voted in favor of the synod that had taken place at Nicaea, and all judged that this was sufficient, and they declared the aforementioned Ursacius, Valens, Germinius, Auxentius, Gaius, and Demophilus to be heretics, and deposing them as not truly Christians but Arians, they wrote against them in Latin, and translated into Greek to the best of ability, these things: 10. Copy of a letter from the synod to the Augustus Constantius: We believe that what was long ago dogmatized has been accomplished by the command of God and the decree of your piety. For from all the cities of the West we, all the bishops, assembled at Ariminum, so that the faith of the catholic church might be made known and those who think contrary might be revealed. For after extensive examination, we found it pleasing to hold and guard the faith that has endured from ancient times, which the prophets, the gospels, and the apostles proclaimed through our Lord Jesus Christ, the guardian of your kingdom and the protector of your strength, and to preserve it, guarding it, until the end.

It seemed improper and unlawful to alter anything that had been rightly and justly defined, or to change what had been examined in common at Nicaea together with the most glorious Constantine, your father and emperor, whose teaching and thought had spread and been proclaimed to all men’s ears and minds, which alone was the opponent and destroyer of the Arian heresy, through which not only this but also the other heresies were overthrown, in which indeed both to add anything is dangerous and to remove anything is perilous, so that, if either should happen, it would give the enemies license to do whatever they wished. Hence Ursacius and Valens, since they had long been partakers and adherents of the Arian doctrine and had been declared separated from our communion, in order to partake of it, having acknowledged the offenses they had committed, sought to obtain repentance and forgiveness, as the written documents produced by them testify, through all of which leniency was shown and pardon for the charges was granted (this occurred at the time when the council was being held in Milan, with the presbyters of the Roman church also present), and they also recognized the late and memorable Constantine with all accuracy and

who set forth the faith composed after examination. But since he, being baptized as a man, departed to the peace that was due, we considered it improper after him to innovate anything and to overlook so many holy confessors and martyrs, who were both authors and discoverers of this doctrine, and who have remained in accordance with the ancient custom of the church, whose faith God transmitted even to the times of your reign through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom it was granted to you to rule in such a way as to hold sway over our inhabited world. Yet again those wretched and pitiable in mind, with an unlawful daring of their impious thinking, proclaimed themselves heralds and attempt to overturn every structure of truth. For when the council of the synod was convened according to your decree, they laid bare the plan of their own deceit. They tried by some cunning and disturbance to innovate something, finding as their accomplices in such a faction Germinius, Auxentius, and Gaius, who cause strife and dissension, whose single teaching has surpassed every multitude of blasphemies. But when they perceived that they were not of such a disposition nor in agreement with what they wickedly thought, they brought themselves over to our council as if to write something else; but the time was short, which also exposed their opinions.

Lest the same disturbances and tumults always befall the church and, rolling about, confound everything, it seemed secure to preserve the ancient determinations as lawful and immovable, and to separate the aforementioned from our communion. For this reason we have sent the envoys who instructed us to your clemency, to declare the opinion of the council through the letter. And we charged the envoys, above all, to confirm the truth, proceeding from the ancient and just principles. They will also instruct your holiness that, as Ursacius and Valens said, there will be no peace if any of the just things are overturned. For how can those who destroy peace maintain peace? Rather, strife and disturbance will arise from these things, along with the other cities and the church of the Romans. Therefore we entreat your clemency to look upon our envoys with kind ears and a calm gaze, and not to permit any innovation to the dishonor of the departed, but to allow us to abide by the definitions and laws established by our ancestors, whom we would affirm to have done everything with sagacity, prudence, and the Holy Spirit. For the innovations now introduced by those men produce disbelief in the faithful and harshness in the unbelievers.

We further entreat that you order the bishops residing in foreign lands, whom both the hardship of age and the lack of poverty wear down, to make an easy return to their own homes, so that the churches may not remain bereft of their appointed bishops. Moreover, in addition to all this, we also request that nothing be either lacking from what previously existed or be increased, but that all things remain unbroken, preserved from the piety of your father until the present time, and that you no longer permit us to toil and be estranged from our own parishes, but that the bishops together with their own people may, in peace, have leisure for prayers and services, beseeching on behalf of your reign and salvation and peace, which divinity will grant you perpetually. Our delegates bring both the subscriptions and the names of the bishops, who will also instruct your holiness from the divine scriptures themselves.

11. Decree of the Synod. It was fitting and possible, most honorable brothers, that the Catholic Synod and the holy Church, by its own patience and forbearance, bore not ignobly Ursacius, Valens, Gaius, Germinius, and Auxentius, who, thinking differently at different times, disturbed all the churches, and who have now dared to attempt to join heretical reasoning with the faith of the orthodox and to dissolve the Synod of Nicaea, which is opposed to the heresy of the Arians, bringing from outside some faith composed by themselves and utterly alien to the most holy Church, which we considered it unlawful to accept. For these men, being heretics from of old and thinking the opposite, have now been exposed, and we do not permit them to come into our communion, having condemned and deposed them in their own presence by our own voice. Now therefore declare what seems good, so that the judgment of each may be confirmed by subscription. The bishops said with one accord: "Let the aforementioned enemies be deposed, so that the Catholic faith may remain in peace." And the proceedings at Ariminum had such a swift conclusion. For no one there dissented, but all wrote in agreement what was decided and deposed the Arians.

The events at Seleucia in Rough Cilicia were these. The month was what the Romans call September, according to the Egyptians Thoth, and according to the Macedonians Gorpiaeus, and the tenth day of the month by Egyptian reckoning, on which all those summoned to assemble gathered. There were also there about one hundred and sixty. Many among them were accused, and the accusers cried out against them: Acacius, Patrophilus, Uranius of Tyre, Eudoxius who had intruded into the church of Antioch, Leontius, Theodosius, Evagrius, Theodulus, and George who had been expelled from the whole world, were committing some crime. For, fearing the refutations against them from the accusers, they took with them the others of the Arian party, who were hired for this very purpose to impiety and had been appointed by Secundus, who had been deposed by the great Synod, from Libya: Stephen, Seras, and Polydeuces, who were accused of various charges, and further Pancratius and Ptolemy, a Melitian. And, pretending to seek concerning the faith, they did not escape the notice of the accusers, who feared them. And they defended the heresy, and then they were divided. And those with Acacius were suspect and altogether few, while the others were the majority. Now those around Acacius, using the boldness of their folly, completely denied what was written at Nicaea and slandered the Synod, while the others (these were the majority) accepted all the other things of the Synod, but only the term homoousios they alleged as suspect because of its obscurity.

While they were lingering in that place, and while the accusers were pressing charges and the accused were fleeing and for this reason were being led further into impieties and blaspheming against the Lord, the majority of the bishops became indignant. They deposed Acacius, Patrophilus, Uranius, Eudoxius, and George, who had been a collector of taxes, and others from Asia: Leontius, Theodosius, Evagrius, and Theodulus. They declared Asterius, Eusebius, Augarus, Basiliscus, Phoebus, Phidelius, Eustathius, Eutychius, and Magnus excommunicate. They did this because, when summoned to defend themselves against the charges that many brought against them, they did not appear. And they decreed that they should remain in this state until, having defended themselves, they should show themselves clear of the accusations brought against them. And having written to each of their dioceses the judgment that had been passed against them, they went up to the most impious Augustus Constantius to report to him what had been done, for this was the order they had received. And this was the end also of the synod at Seleucia.

Who then would not approve the piety of the bishops who assembled at the synod of Ariminum? They endured such a labor of travel and dangers of the sea in order to depose those who held the views of Arius and to preserve the definitions of the fathers inviolate, having deliberated this piously and canonically. For each of them considered that if they dissolved the decrees of those before them, they would give pretext to those after them to dissolve what is now being established by themselves. And who would not condemn the levity of those around Eudoxius and Acacius, who pawn the honor of their own fathers for the zeal and favor shown to the Ariomaniacs? For what trust can be placed in what is done by them, if the decrees of their predecessors are overthrown? Or how can they call "fathers" those whom they have succeeded, when they themselves become accusers of their opinion? And especially, what could Acacius say to Eusebius, his own teacher, who not only subscribed at the synod of Nicaea but also declared by letter to the peoples under him that this faith confessed at the synod of Nicaea is the true faith? For even if he made a defense in his letter as he wished, he did not deny the expressions, but even accused the Arians because they said, "The Son was not before he was begotten, nor did they wish him to exist before Mary." What then will they teach the peoples who were taught by those men? That the fathers were mistaken? And how will they themselves be trusted by those whom they teach to disobey their teachers? And with what eyes will they look upon the tombs of the fathers whom they now call heretics?

Why then do they denounce the followers of Valentinus, Phrygia, and the Manichaeans, yet call those who have uttered similar things, as they themselves suspect, "saints"? Or how can they themselves still be bishops, if they were appointed by heretics, as they themselves allege? And if they both thought wrongly and, by their writings, led the whole world astray, let even the memory of them be completely abolished. And if their writings are cast out, then go and cast out their remains from the cemeteries, so that all may know that those were deceivers, but you are parricides. Now the blessed apostle commends the Corinthians, saying, "You remember everything I said, and you keep the traditions as I delivered them to you"; but these men, thinking such things about those before them, will surely dare to say the opposite to the people: "We do not praise you for remembering the fathers, but we rather approve you when you do not keep their traditions." And let them henceforth slander their own ignoble origin and say, "We have come not from the pious, but from heretics." For such words are fitting for those who, as I said before, toast the honor of the fathers and their own salvation to the Arian heresy, and who do not fear to hear what is written in the divine proverb, "A wicked offspring curses his father," and the threat laid down in the law against such persons. Those men, then, because of their zeal for the heresy, have shown such contentiousness and such a disposition; but do not be disturbed by this, nor consider their audacity to be the truth.

For they are at odds even with themselves, and having abandoned the fathers, they hold no single opinion, but are tossed about by various and diverse changes. And while contending against the council at Nicaea, they have themselves held many councils, and in each one they have set forth a creed, but have abided by none; and they will never cease doing this, because they seek wickedly and will not find the wisdom they have hated. I have therefore necessarily subjoined in part both the writings of Arius and all that I was able to gather of what these men have set forth in their various councils, so that you may know and marvel why, though they quarrel with an ecumenical council and with their own fathers, they do not sink. Arius and those who thought with him, saying, "God made the Son from non-existence and called him Son to himself, and the Word of God is one of the creatures, and there was a time when he was not, and he is mutable, able to be changed when he wishes," were expelled from the Church by the blessed Alexander. But after being expelled and crushed, Arius, through those around Eusebius, compiled his heresy in a document, and as in the "Thalia," emulating not any prudent man but the Egyptian Sotades in style and looseness of meter, he writes many things; but in part these are his: Blasphemies of Arius: God himself, as he is, is ineffable to all. He alone has no equal, no like, no one of the same opinion. And we call him unbegotten because of the one who is begotten in nature; we hymn him as without beginning because of the one who has a beginning; and we worship him as eternal because of the one who has come into being in time.

The beginningless one placed the Son as a beginning of generated things and brought him forth as a Son to himself, having made him a child, having nothing of God in respect of hypostatic property, for he is not equal, nor even consubstantial with him. God is wise, because he himself is the teacher of wisdom. A sufficient proof is that God is invisible to all, both to those through the Son and to the Son himself the same is invisible. I will state explicitly how the invisible is seen by the Son: by the power by which God is able to see; the Son endures to see the Father by his own measures, as is fitting. That is, the Trinity is in doxai not alike, their hypostases are unmixed with each other, one more glorious than the other in doxai to infinity. The Father is foreign to the Son in essence, because he exists without beginning. Understand that the monad existed, but the dyad did not exist before it came to be. Immediately, then, when the Son was not, the Father is God. Therefore the Son, not being (but he came to be by the Father's will), is a monogenes God and is alien to both. Wisdom existed as wisdom of a wise God by will. He is conceived, then, in countless conceptions as spirit, power, wisdom, glory of God, and truth and image and word. Understand that he is conceived also as radiance and light. The superior one is able to beget a Son equal, but not one more different or superior or greater. By God's will the Son is as great and as much as he is, from when and from where and from then he subsisted from God, being a strong God, he praises the superior one in part. In summary, God is ineffable to the Son; for he is to himself what he is, that is, unspeakable, so that the Son understands none of the things said according to comprehension to express.

It is impossible for him to fathom the Father, who is by himself. For the Son himself does not know his own essence, for being a Son he truly came into existence by the will of the Father. What reason, then, permits that he who is from the Father should know the one who begot him by comprehension? For it is clear that that which has a beginning cannot conceive of or grasp the beginningless one as he is. And what they wrote by letter to the blessed Alexander the bishop is this: To the blessed pope and bishop Alexander, the presbyters and deacons in the Lord send greetings. Our faith, which is from our ancestors and which we also learned from you, blessed pope, is this: We know one God, alone unbegotten, alone eternal, alone without beginning, alone true, alone possessing immortality, alone wise, alone good, alone powerful, judge of all, governor, steward, unchangeable and immutable, just and good, who is this God of the law and the prophets and the new covenant, who begot a Son only-begotten before eternal times, "through whom he also made the ages and all things," begetting him not in semblance but in truth; having brought him forth by his own will, an unchangeable and immutable creation of God, perfect, but not as one of the creatures; an offspring, but not as one of the

of those who have been begotten, nor as Valentinus dogmatized the offspring as a projection of the father, nor as Manichaeus introduced the offspring as a consubstantial part of the father, nor as Sabellius, dividing the monad, spoke of a son-father, nor as Hieracas, like a lamp from a lamp or as a torch into two, nor the one who previously existed later being born or being created additionally as a son, as you yourself, blessed pope, in the middle of the church and in council many times forbade those who introduced these things, but as we say, by the will of God before times and before ages having been created and having received life and existence from the father and the glories, the father having co-established with him. For the father, having given him the inheritance of all things, did not deprive himself of those things which he has unbegottenly in himself; for he is the source of all things. So there are three hypostases. And God, being the cause of all things, is without beginning, most alone, while the Son, having been born timelessly by the father and before ages created and founded, did not exist before being born, but having been born timelessly before all things alone by the father, he subsisted. For he is not eternal or coeternal or co-unbegotten with the father, nor does he have existence simultaneously with the father, as some say, introducing two unbegotten principles as relatives, but as a monad and beginning of all things, so God is before all things. Therefore he is also before the Son, as we have learned from you, having proclaimed in the middle of the church. So then, since he has existence from God and the glories and life and all things were delivered to him, according to this God is his beginning. For he rules over him as his God and being before him.

If the phrases "from him" and "from the womb" and "I came forth and have come from the father" are understood by some as a part of him that is consubstantial and as a projection, then the father will be composite and divisible and changeable and a body according to them, and as far as it depends on them, the incorporeal God will suffer the consequences proper to a body. These things, which those around Arius have vomited from their heretical heart, are from a part; and before the council at Nicaea took place, those around Eusebius, Narcissus, Patrophilus, Marinus, Paulinus, Theodotus, and Athanasius from Nazarba wrote things similar to theirs. And Eusebius of Nicomedia wrote superfluously to Arius that "thinking rightly, pray that all think thus; for it is evident to all that what has been made did not exist before coming to be. What has come to be has a beginning of 'being'." And Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, writing to Euphration the bishop, was not afraid to say openly that "Christ is not true God." And Athanasius from Nazarba revealed the heresy even more nakedly, saying that the Son of God is one of a hundred sheep. For writing to Alexander the bishop, he dared to speak thus: "Why do you blame those around Arius, if they say that the Son of God is a creature made from non-existent things and is one of all? For among a hundred sheep, with all created things being compared, the Son is one of them. If, then, the hundred are not creatures and generated things, or if there is something more than the hundred, evidently the Son is not a creature and one of all.

If all the hundred are created and nothing is outside the hundred except God alone, what absurdity do the followers of Arius speak, if they include and count Christ among the hundred, saying he is one of all? George, now in Laodicea, who was then a presbyter of Alexandria and residing in Antioch, wrote to Alexander the bishop: "Do not blame the followers of Arius," if they say: there was once when the Son of God was not. For Isaiah became the son of Amos, "and yet Amos was before Isaiah came to be, while Isaiah was not earlier," but came to be afterward. And to the Arians he wrote: "Why do you blame Alexander" the pope for saying the Son is from the Father? For you also should not fear to say the Son is from God. For if the apostle wrote: "All things are from God," and it is clear "that all things have been made from non-being, and the Son is also a creature and one of the created things," then the Son could be said to be from God in the same way as all things are said to be from God. From him, then, those who hold the views of Arius learned to feign the phrase "from God," and to say the phrase but not to think rightly. George himself was deposed by Alexander, both for other reasons and because he appeared impious; for he was a presbyter himself, as has been said before.

And they wrote such things altogether, each striving and vying to see who could increase the impiety of the heresy and display it more nakedly. I did not have their letters at hand, so as to send them; otherwise, I would have sent you copies of them as well. But, if the Lord wills, should I obtain them, I will do this. And a certain Asterius from Cappadocia, a many-headed sophist, one of those around Eusebius, since he had sacrificed in the earlier persecution under Constantius’s grandfather and could not be advanced by them into the clergy, composed, with the agreement of those around Eusebius, a little treatise, of the sort they themselves wished, equal in audacity to his sacrifice. For in this treatise, comparing the locust and the caterpillar to Christ, or rather preferring them to him, and saying that there is another wisdom in God besides Christ, the creative wisdom of Christ and the world, he went about the churches in Syria and the others, at the instigation of those around Eusebius, so that, having once practiced denial, he might now be bold against the truth. So this utterly reckless man entered places not permitted to him, and sitting in the place of the clergy, he publicly read his little treatise, although the others were indignant at him. And the little treatise is written at length, but these are parts of it:

For the blessed Paul did not say that Christ proclaims his own power or his own wisdom, that is, of God, but without the addition "power" of God and wisdom of God, proclaiming that there is one power of God, his own innate power coexisting with him ungenerately, which is generative, evidently, of Christ, and creative of the whole world. Concerning this, teaching in the Epistle to the Romans, he said: "For his invisible things, from the creation of the world, are perceived by their works, and his eternal power and divinity are beheld." For just as one would not say that the aforementioned divinity is Christ, but that it is the Father himself, so, I think, his eternal power is not the only-begotten God, but the Father who begot him. And he teaches another power and wisdom of God, that which is shown through Christ, evidently, and made known through the works themselves of his ministry. And again: yet his eternal power and wisdom, which the reasonings of truth declare to be without beginning and unbegotten, would be one and the same, while many are those created by him individually, of which Christ is the firstborn and only-begotten; all of them alike are attached to the one who possesses them, and all the powers of the creator and user are rightly called his.

For example, the prophet says that the locust, as a divine punishment for human sins, is called not only "power" of God but also "great" by God himself. And the blessed David, in many of the psalms, commands not only angels but also "powers" to praise God; and calling upon all to hymn, he presents the multitude and does not refuse to call them "ministers of God" and teaches them to do "his will." Having dared such things against the Savior, he was not satisfied, but extends his blasphemies further, saying that the Son is one of all things: "For he is first among the generated and one of the intelligible natures, and just as the sun among visible things is one of the phenomena but shines upon the whole world by the command of its maker, so the Son, being one of the intelligible natures, illuminates and shines himself upon all in the intelligible world." Again he says: "There was a time when he was not," writing thus: "And before the generation of the Son, the Father pre-existed having the knowledge of begetting, since also a physician before healing had the knowledge of healing." And again he says: "The Son was created by a beneficent ambition, and the Father made him by an abundance of power." And again: "If the will of God has passed through all things in succession among the creations, clearly the Son, being a creation, has come to be and has been made by will." These things Asterius wrote alone, but those around Eusebius held them in common with him.

These are the things for which they contend, for these reasons they fight against the ancient synod, because those who assembled in it did not write things similar to theirs, but rather anathematized the Arian heresy, which these men were eager to establish. For this reason they also put forward Asterius the sacrificer, a sophist, as an advocate of their impiety, so that he might spare neither speaking against the Lord nor deceiving the simple with plausible argument. And the ignorant failed to realize that they were working against themselves in this. For the foul stench of the advocate's sacrifice to idols showed the Christ-fighting heresy all the more. For this reason they now stir up everything and create turmoil, thinking that even if they kill more people and convene synods every month, the condemnation of the Arian heresy will someday cease. But they seem again either to be ignorant or, knowing, to pretend otherwise, that even before Nicaea the heresy was abominable, when Artemas was refuting it, and before him the council of Caiaphas and the Pharisees of that time. And the Christ-fighting workshop has always been abominable, and it will not cease to be hateful as long as the Lord's name is beloved and the whole creation bends its knees and confesses "that Lord Jesus Christ is for the glory of God the Father." Yet, though they hold continuous synods against the ecumenical one, they have not yet grown weary. For after the synod at Nicaea, those around Eusebius were deposed.

But after a time, having grown shameless, they began to plot against the bishops who opposed them in the churches, and in their place to install those of their own heresy into the churches, so that whenever they wished they could hold synods, having those who concurred with them, whom they had deliberately chosen for this very purpose. So they assembled in Jerusalem and wrote these things: "The holy synod gathered in Jerusalem by the grace of God to the church of God in Alexandria and to the bishops, presbyters, and deacons throughout all Egypt, the Thebaid, Libya, Pentapolis, and throughout the whole world, sends greetings in the Lord. To all of us who came together from various provinces for the great festival, which we celebrated for the dedication of the salvific martyrion built by the zeal of the most God-loving Emperor Constantine for the God of all and His Christ, the grace of Christ provided even greater joy, which the most God-loving Emperor himself brought about through his own letters, urging, as was necessary, that all envy be banished from the church of God and all malice be driven far away, through which the members of Christ had long before been divided, and that with a peaceful and open soul those around Arius be received, whom at a certain time malicious envy had caused to be outside the church. And the most God-loving Emperor testified through his letter to the orthodoxy of faith of these men, which, having learned from them and having himself heard from their living voice, he accepted.

He made it clear to us, subjoining to his own letters a written statement of the orthodoxy of the men, which we all recognized as sound and ecclesiastical. And naturally he urged that the men be received and united to the Church of God, as indeed you yourselves will learn from the identical copies of the same letter which we sent to your reverence. We believe that for you yourselves, as you receive back the proper members of your own body, great joy and gladness will arise, as you recognize and receive back your own flesh and blood, your own brothers and fathers, not only the elders around Arius who have been restored to you, but also the whole people and the entire multitude, which on account of the said men had long been divided from you. And it is truly fitting that you, knowing what has been done, and how the men have communicated and been received by so great a holy synod, should most eagerly embrace the union and peace with your own members, especially since the faith set forth by them preserves without dispute the apostolic tradition and teaching acknowledged by all. This was the beginning of those synods, in which they quickly declared their own intention and were unable to conceal it.

For having said that all envy had been expelled, and after the banishment of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, writing that Arius and those with him must be received, they showed that it was for this reason that they plotted against Athanasius himself and against all the other bishops who opposed them, in order to receive the party of Arius and introduce the heresy into the Church. And even if they praised all the wickedness of Arius in this and ordered that they be received into communion, they themselves having done this first, yet thinking that they still lacked what they wanted, they convened a synod in Antioch on the pretext of the so-called Dedication. And since they were always accused by all concerning the heresy, they write variously, some things in one way, others in another. And the things written by them in one letter are these: "We have not become followers of Arius; for how, being bishops, should we follow a presbyter? Nor have we received any other faith than that handed down from the beginning. But we ourselves, having become examiners and testers of his faith, rather accepted him than followed him. You will know from what is said.

We have learned from the beginning to believe in one God, the God of all, the creator and provider of all intelligible and sensible things, and in one only-begotten Son of God, existing before all ages and co-existing with the father who begot him, through whom all things came to be, both visible and invisible, who also in the last days, by the good will of the father, descended and took flesh from the virgin and fulfilled all his father's will, suffered and rose and ascended into the heavens and sits at the right hand of the father and will come again to judge the living and the dead, and remains king and God for the ages. We also believe in the Holy Spirit; and if it is necessary to add, we also believe concerning the resurrection of the flesh and eternal life. And what in another letter they set forth a second time at the same Dedication, repenting of the former things but devising some newer and more numerous things, are these: We believe, following the evangelical and apostolic tradition, in one God, father almighty, the creator and maker and provider of all, from whom are all things; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, his son, the only-begotten God, through whom are all things, who was born before the ages from the father, God from God, whole from whole, only from only, perfect from perfect.

king from king, lord from lord, living word, living wisdom, true light, way, truth, resurrection, shepherd, door, unchangeable and immutable, the exact image of the father’s divinity, essence, will, power, and glory, the firstborn of all creation, the one who was in the beginning with God, the word God according to what is said in the Gospel: “and the word was God,” through whom all things came to be, and in whom all things consist, the one who at the end of the days came down from above and was born of a virgin according to the scriptures and became man, mediator of God and men and apostle of our faith and leader of life, as he says: “I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of the one who sent me,” the one who suffered for us and rose on the third day and ascended into the heavens, and sat down at the right hand of the father and is coming again with glory and power to judge the living and the dead.

and in the Holy Spirit, which is given for comfort, sanctification, and perfection to those who believe, just as our Lord Jesus Christ commanded his disciples, saying, “Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” clearly the Father being truly Father, the Son being truly Son, and the Holy Spirit being truly Holy Spirit, the names not being placed simply or idly, but signifying precisely the proper hypostasis, order, and glory of each of those named, so that they are three in hypostasis but one in harmony. Therefore, holding this faith from the beginning and to the end, before God and Christ we anathematize every heretical false belief. And if anyone teaches contrary to the sound and correct faith of the Scriptures, saying that there was a time or a season or an age or that the Son existed or was begotten before he was born, let him be anathema. And if anyone says that the Son is a creature as one of the creatures, or a generation as one of the generations, or a product as one of the products, and not as the divine Scriptures have handed down each of the aforementioned from the other, or if he teaches or proclaims anything else beyond what we have received, let him be anathema. For we truly and reverently believe and follow all that has been handed down from the divine Scriptures by the prophets and apostles. And a certain Theophronius, bishop of Tyana, also composed and set forth this faith before all, to which all subscribed, accepting the man’s faith.

God, whom I call as witness upon my soul, knows that I believe thus: in God the Father Almighty, the creator and maker of all things, from whom are all things; and in his only-begotten Son, God, Word, Power, and Wisdom, our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, who was born from the Father before the ages, perfect God from perfect God, and being with God in hypostasis; and in the last days he came down and was born from the Virgin according to the scriptures, became man, suffered, and rose from the dead, and ascended into the heavens, and sat down at the right hand of his Father, and is coming again with glory and power to judge the living and the dead, and remains for the ages. And in the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, "the Spirit of Truth," which God promised through the prophet to pour out upon his own servants, and which the Lord promised to send to his own disciples, and which he did send, as the Acts of the Apostles testify. And if anyone teaches or holds within himself a faith contrary to this, let him be anathema. And against Marcellus of Ancyra, or Sabellius, or Paul of Samosata: let him be anathema, both he himself and all who commune with him.

Those who gathered at the Dedication were ninety bishops, in the consulship of Marcellinus and Probinus, in the fourteenth indiction, with the most impious Constantius present there. Having done these things at the Dedication in Antioch, and thinking that they had not written completely, but having a wandering mind, they again after a few months compose another document supposedly concerning the faith, and send Narcissus, Marinus, Theodorus, and Marcus into Gaul. And they, as if sent from a synod, presented to the Augustus Constantius of blessed memory and to all there these things: We believe in one God, Father Almighty, creator and maker of all things, "from whom every family in the heavens and on earth is named." And in his only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who was born from the Father before all ages, God from God, light from light, through whom all things in the heavens and on earth, both visible and invisible, came to be, being Word and Wisdom and Power and Life and true Light, who in the last days for our sake became man and was born from the holy virgin, who was crucified and died and was buried and rose from the dead on the third day and was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of the Father and comes at the consummation of the age to judge the living and the dead and to give to each according to his works, whose kingdom, being indestructible, endures for infinite ages; for he will be seated at the right hand of the Father not only in this age, but also in the future.

and in the Holy Spirit, that is, the Paraclete, which, having promised to the apostles after his ascension into the heavens, he sent to teach them and remind them of everything, through whom also the souls of those who have sincerely believed in him will be sanctified. But those who say that the Son is from non-existence or from another hypostasis and not from God, and that "there was a time when he was not," the Catholic Church knows as alien. After these things, as if repenting, they gather their council again after three years, and send Eudoxius, Martyrius, and Macedonius from Cilicia, and with them certain others, to the regions of Italy, carrying a faith written with many additions and containing many supplements beyond the previous ones, for as if having devised something newer, they set out bearing these: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, creator and maker of all things, "from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named.

and in his only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who was born from the Father before all ages, God from God, light from light, through whom all things in the heavens and on the earth, the visible and the invisible, were made, being Word and Wisdom and Power and Life and true Light, who in the last days for our sake became man and was born from the holy virgin and was crucified and died and was buried and rose from the dead on the third day and was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of the Father and comes at the consummation of the age to judge the living and the dead and to render to each according to his works, whose kingdom, being unceasing, continues into the infinite ages; for he sits at the right hand of the Father not only in this age, but also in the future. We believe also in the Holy Spirit, that is, the Paraclete, which, having promised to the apostles after his ascension into the heavens, he sent to teach them and remind them of everything, through whom also the souls of those who have sincerely believed in him will be sanctified. But those who say that the Son is from non-existence or from another hypostasis and not from God, and that there was a time or age when he was not, the catholic and holy church knows as aliens. Likewise also those who say that there are three gods or that Christ is not God or that before the

ere, neither Christ nor Son is he to be God, or that the Father and Son are the same, or the Holy Spirit, or that the Son is unbegotten, or that the Father did not beget the Son by will or intention—the holy catholic church anathematizes. For it is not safe to say that the Son is from non-existence, since this is nowhere borne about him in the God-inspired scriptures, nor yet from some other hypostasis pre-existing apart from the Father, but we define that he was genuinely begotten from God alone. For the divine word teaches that the Father of Christ is one unbegotten and without beginning. But neither should we, by saying from unwritten sources "there was once when he was not," rashly conceive a temporal interval before him, but only that God begot him timelessly; for times and ages came into being through him. Nor should we think that the Son is co-beginningless and co-unbegotten with the Father; for of a co-beginningless and co-unbegotten one, no one would properly be called Father or Son. But we know that the Father, being alone without beginning and unbegotten, begot him in an ineffable and incomprehensible way for all, and that the Son was begotten before the ages and is not likewise unbegotten as the Father, but has the Father who begot him as his beginning; "for God is the head of Christ.

Neither, in confessing three things and three persons of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit according to the Scriptures, do we for this reason make three gods, since we know only one self-complete and unbegotten, unoriginate and invisible God, the God and Father of the Only-begotten, who alone has his being from himself and alone bestows this ungrudgingly upon all others. Neither, in saying that only one God exists, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only unbegotten, do we for this reason deny that Christ is God before the ages, as do those from Paul of Samosata, who later say that he was deified after the incarnation by advancement, having become a mere man in nature. For we know that he himself, even though he is subordinate to the Father and God, is nevertheless, being born before the ages from God, by nature a perfect and true God, and not a god from men afterwards, but from God incarnate for our sake, and never having lost his being. We abhor and anathematize in addition those who call him only a mere word of God and a non-existent figment, having his being in another, now as the so-called uttered word by some, now as the immanent word, and who wish that Christ himself and the Son of God and mediator and image of God should not exist before the ages, but that he became Christ and Son of God from the time when he took our flesh from the virgin less than four hundred years ago.

From that time they wish Christ to have had a beginning of his kingdom and that it will have an end after the consummation and the judgment. Such are the followers of Marcellus and Photinus of the Ancyrogalatians, who, like the Jews, deny the pre-eternal existence of Christ and his divinity and his unending kingdom, under the pretext of seeming to uphold the monarchy. For we know him not simply as the uttered or immanent word of God, but as the living God Word existing in himself, and Son of God, and Christ, and not as one who was present and associated with his own Father before the ages only in a prognostic manner, and who served him in the whole creation, both of the visible and the invisible. For this is he to whom the Father said, "Let us make man according to our image and likeness," he who appeared in person to the patriarchs, gave the law, spoke through the prophets, and finally became incarnate, revealing his own Father to all men, and reigning for unending ages. For Christ has assumed no recent dignity, but from the beginning he is perfect and in all things like the Father.

We have believed. And we also fittingly expel from the church those who say that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are the same, impiously taking the three names as referring to one and the same thing and person, because they suppose that the uncontainable and impassible Father is both containable and passible through the incarnation. For such are the Patropassians among the Romans, and those called Sabellians among us. For we know that the Father who sent has remained in the proper character of his unchangeable divinity, while the Son who was sent has fulfilled the economy of the incarnation. Nevertheless, we also recognize as most impious and alien to the church those who have said that the Son was not begotten by will or desire, but have evidently imposed on God an involuntary and unpremeditated necessity, so that he begot the Son unwillingly, because they have dared to define such things about him both contrary to the common conceptions about God and indeed contrary to the intention of the divinely inspired scripture. For we, knowing that God is self-governing and lord of himself, have piously understood that he voluntarily and willingly begot the Son. And believing reverently also in him who says about himself, "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works," we do not think that he was begotten in the same way as the creatures or works that came into being through him. For it is impious and alien to the ecclesiastical faith to compare the creator with the creations that have been created through him, and to think that he himself has the same manner of generation as the others.

For only and uniquely the only-begotten Son has been born genuinely and truly, the divine scriptures teach us. But neither do we, in saying that the Son exists, lives, and subsists in himself like the Father, thereby separate him from the Father by corporeally imagining places and intervals between their union. For we have believed that they are joined to each other without mediation and without separation, and that they exist inseparably from each other, the whole Father embracing the Son, and the whole Son being suspended from and attached to the Father, and resting only in the paternal bosom perpetually. Believing therefore in the most perfect and most holy Trinity, that is, in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, and calling the Father God and also the Son God, we do not confess two gods, but one dignity of divinity and one precise harmony of the kingdom, the Father alone universally ruling over all, even over the Son himself, and the Son being subordinate to the Father, but ruling over all things after him that came into being through him, and bestowing the grace of the Holy Spirit ungrudgingly upon the saints by the Father’s will. For thus the sacred words have handed down to us the account of the monarchy concerning Christ.

We were compelled to treat these matters more fully after the brief statement of faith previously set forth, not out of excessive ambition, but in order to clear away every suspicion foreign to our understanding from those who are ignorant of our affairs, and so that all in the West might together recognize both the shamelessness of the slander of the heterodox and the ecclesiastical mind of the Easterners in the Lord, which is attested without constraint by the inspired scriptures among the uncorrupted. But they did not abide even by these; for again, assembling at Sirmium against Photinus, they then composed yet another creed, no longer so lengthy nor with so many words, but removing most and adding others, as if having heard something from certain persons by suggestion, they wrote this: "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the creator and maker of all things, 'from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named'; and in his only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who before all things

of the ages, begotten from the Father, God from God, light from light, through whom all things came to be, both those in the heavens and those on the earth, the visible and the invisible, being Word and Wisdom and true Light and Life, who in the last days for our sake became man and was born from the holy virgin and was crucified and died and was buried and rose from the dead on the third day and was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of the Father and comes at the consummation of the age to judge the living and the dead and to render to each according to his works, whose kingdom, being unceasing, endures into the infinite ages; for he will be seated at the right hand of the Father, not only in this age, but also in the future. And in the Holy Spirit, that is, the Paraclete, whom, having promised to the apostles after his ascent into the heavens to send, to teach and remind them of everything, he sent, through whom also the souls of those who have sincerely believed in him are sanctified. But those who say that the Son is from non-existence or from another hypostasis and not from God, and that there was a time or age when he was not, the holy and catholic church regards as alien. Again, therefore, we will say: if anyone calls the Father and the Son two gods, let him be anathema. And if anyone, calling Christ God, does not confess that he was Son of God before the ages and served the Father in the creation of all things, let him be anathema. If anyone dares to say that the unbegotten, or a part of him, was born from Mary, let him be anathema.

If anyone says that the Son exists by foreknowledge before Mary and not that he was begotten from the Father before the ages to be with God and that all things came to be through him, let him be anathema. If anyone asserts that the substance of God is expanded or contracted, let him be anathema. If anyone says that the Son makes the substance of God expanded or names the expansion of his substance Son, let him be anathema. If anyone calls the Son of God immanent or uttered word, let him be anathema. If anyone says that the Son from Mary is only a man, let him be anathema. If anyone, saying that the one from Mary is God and man, understands God as the unbegotten in this way, let him be anathema. If anyone interprets the saying "I am the first God and I am after these things and besides me there is no God," spoken for the abolition of idols and non-existent gods, in a Judaic manner for the abolition of the only-begotten God before the ages, let him be anathema. If anyone, hearing "the Word became flesh," thinks that the Word was changed into flesh or says that he, having undergone change, assumed flesh, let him be anathema. If anyone, hearing that the only-begotten Son of God was crucified, says that his divinity underwent corruption or passion or change or diminution or destruction, let him be anathema. If anyone says that "let us make man" is not spoken by the Father to the Son, but that God said it to himself, let him be anathema. If anyone says that the unbegotten God or a part of him was seen by Abraham, and not the Son, let him be anathema. If anyone says that the unbegotten God or a part of him wrestled with Jacob, and not the Son as a man, let him be anathema.

If anyone does not interpret "The Lord rained fire from the Lord" as referring to the Father and the Son, but says that he rained from himself, let him be anathema; for the Lord the Son rained from the Lord the Father. If anyone, hearing the Father called Lord and the Son called Lord, and Lord the Father and Lord the Son, since the Lord is from the Lord, says there are two gods, let him be anathema. For we do not coordinate the Son with the Father, but subordinate him to the Father. For neither did he descend upon Sodom without the Father's will, nor did he rain from himself, but from the Lord who is the authority, that is, the Father; nor does he sit at the right hand from himself, but he hears the Father saying, "Sit at my right hand." If anyone says that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one person, let him be anathema. If anyone, calling the Holy Spirit the Paraclete, says that the Paraclete is the unbegotten God, let him be anathema. If anyone does not say, as the Lord taught us, that the Paraclete is other than the Son—for he said, "And the Father will send you another Paraclete, whom I will ask"—let him be anathema. If anyone says that the Holy Spirit is a part of the Father or of the Son, let him be anathema. If anyone says that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three gods, let him be anathema. If anyone says that the Son of God came to be by the will of God as one of the created things, let him be anathema. If anyone says that the Son was begotten without the Father's willing it, let him be anathema. For the Father was not compelled by natural necessity, as if he did not will it, to beget the Son; but as soon as he willed it, he begot him from himself and revealed him timelessly and impassibly.

If anyone should call the Son unbegotten and without beginning, as if speaking of two things without beginning and two unbegotten, and making two gods, let him be anathema. For the Son is the head, that is, the beginning of all things. "But the head," that is, the beginning, "of Christ is God," for thus we piously refer all things to one beginning without beginning of the whole through the Son. And again, refining the understanding of Christianity, we say: if anyone does not affirm that Christ is God the Son of God, being pre-eternal and having assisted the Father in the creation of all things, but says that from the time he was born of Mary he was then called Christ and Son and began to be God, let him be anathema. Having set aside all these things, and as if devising something better, they dogmatize another faith and write these things in Sirmium in Latin, but translated into Greek: "Since it seemed good that some examination concerning the faith should take place, everything was securely investigated and examined in Sirmium in the presence of Valens, Ursacius, Germinius, and the rest. It is established that there is one God, the Father Almighty, as is proclaimed throughout the whole world, and one only-begotten Son of his, our Lord Jesus Christ, born from him before the ages. That one should not speak of two gods, since the Lord himself said: 'I go to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.' Therefore he is God of all, as the Apostle also taught: 'Is he the God of Jews only, and not also of Gentiles? Yes, also of Gentiles, since there is one God, who will justify circumcision by faith and uncircumcision through faith.'

And all the rest are in agreement and have no ambiguity. But since many are disturbed about what is called in Latin "substantia" and in Greek "ousia," that is, so that the homoousion or the so-called homoiousion may be more precisely known, it is not necessary to make any mention at all of these things nor to explain them in the church for this reason and for this consideration, because these things are not written in the divine scriptures, and because they are beyond human knowledge and human understanding, and because no one can describe the generation of the Son, as it is written: "Who can describe his generation?" For it is evident only that the Father is known, how he begot the Son, and again the Son, how he himself was begotten by the Father. But it is not ambiguous to anyone that the Father is greater. For no one would doubt that the Father is greater in honor, dignity, divinity, and in the very name of Father, as the Son himself testifies: "The Father who sent me is greater than I.

And this too no one is ignorant of being catholic: that there are two persons, Father and Son, and that the Father is greater, and the Son is subordinate to the Father together with all things which the Father has subjected to him, and that the Father has no beginning and is invisible and immortal and impassible, and that the Son was born from the Father, God from God, light from light, and that his generation, as has been said before, no one knows except only the Father, and that the Son himself, our Lord and God, took on flesh or a body, that is, a man, from Mary the Virgin, just as the angel announced beforehand, and as all the scriptures teach, and especially the Apostle himself, the teacher of the Gentiles. Christ took on a man from Mary the Virgin, through whom he suffered. And the chief point of the whole faith and its firmness is that the Trinity be always preserved, as we read in the Gospel: "Go, baptize all the nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." And the number of the Trinity is whole and perfect. And the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, sent through the Son, came according to the promise, in order to teach and sanctify the apostles and all the faithful.

After writing these things and changing their minds, they composed that creed which they displayed with the consulship and then blushed. And as was their custom, as if condemning even this one, they had it snatched away from those who had copies through Martinianus the notary. And having caused the Emperor Constantius to issue an edict against it, they again dogmatize another creed and, adding some phrases as is their wont, they write these things in Isauria: We do not reject the authentic faith set forth at the Dedication in Antioch, producing it, even though our fathers at that time came together for the subject of the inquiry. But since the homoousion and the homoiousion have troubled many in past times and even now, and also it is said that the anomoion of the Son to the Father is being innovated by some, for this reason we reject the homoousion and the homoiousion as foreign to the Scriptures, and we anathematize the anomoion and consider all who are such to be alien to the Church. But we clearly confess the likeness of the Son to the Father according to the apostle who says concerning the Son: "who is the image of the invisible God." And we confess and believe in one God, Father, Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

We believe also in our Lord Jesus Christ, his Son, who was begotten from him impassibly before all ages, God Logos, God from God, only-begotten, light, life, truth, wisdom, power, through whom all things came to be, those in the heavens and those on the earth, whether visible or invisible. This one we believe at the consummation of the ages for the abolition of sin took flesh from the holy virgin and became man, suffered for our sins and rose and was taken up into the heavens and sits at the right hand of the Father, coming again in glory to judge the living and the dead. We believe also in the Holy Spirit, whom the Savior and our Lord named Paraclete, having promised after his departure to send this to the disciples, which he did send, through whom he also sanctifies those in the church who believe and are baptized in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Those who proclaim something other than this faith the catholic church knows to be alien. And that the faith formerly set forth in Sirmium under the piety of our emperor is equivalent to this faith, those who read it know. Having written these things in Isauria, they went up to Constantinople and, as if repenting, they changed them in their usual manner and added some small phrases, so as not even to say "hypostasis" concerning Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and they sent them to those in Ariminum and compelled even those in these regions to subscribe, and those who contradicted them they caused to be exiled by Constantius. So these are the things:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, from whom are all things, and in the only-begotten Son of God, who was begotten from God before all ages and before every beginning, through whom all things came to be, both visible and invisible, begotten as only-begotten, alone from the Father alone, God from God, like to the Father who begat him according to the Scriptures, whose generation no one knows except the Father who begat him alone. This one we know as the only-begotten Son of God, who, when the Father sent him, came down from the heavens, as it is written, for the dissolution of sin and death, and was born from the Holy Spirit, from Mary the Virgin as to the flesh, as it is written, and lived among the disciples, and when the whole economy was fulfilled according to the Father’s will, was crucified and died and was buried and descended into the underworld, whom even Hades himself feared, and who rose from the dead on the third day and spent time with the disciples, and after forty days were fulfilled was taken up into the heavens and sits at the right hand of the Father, to come on the last day of the resurrection in the Father’s glory, in order to render to each according to his works. And we believe in the Holy Spirit, which the only-begotten Son of God, our Lord and God Christ, promised to send to the human race as a Paraclete, as it is written: “the Spirit of truth,” which he sent to them when he ascended into the heavens.

The name of the substance, which was more simply set forth by the fathers, but being unknown to the peoples brought scandal, because the Scriptures do not contain it, it was resolved to be removed and that henceforth no mention at all be made, since the divine Scriptures never made mention of the substance of Father and Son. For neither ought hypostasis to be named concerning Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But we say the Son is like the Father, as the divine Scriptures say and teach. And all heresies, both those already condemned before, and any that may arise newer, being contrary to this set forth writing, let them be anathema. But not even in these did they abide. For having come down from Constantinople to Antioch, they repented that they had written at all "the Son is like the Father, as the Scriptures say." And composing what they had devised, they began again to run back to their first positions and to say that "the Son is utterly unlike the Father and in no way is the Son like the Father." So much did they change as to receive even those who speak the doctrines of Arius more nakedly and to hand over the churches to them, that they might with impunity offer the blasphemies.

Because of their great shamelessness in impiety, they were called Anomoeans by all, bearing also the name "Exoucontians" and having the heretic Constantius as the protector of their impiety. He, remaining in impiety until the end and being about to die, thought to be baptized, not by pious men, but by Euzoius, who was deposed not once but many times for the Arian heresy, both when he was a deacon and when he was installed in Antioch. So far, then, having reached this point, the aforementioned were stopped and deposed. But not even thus, I well know, will those who have now pretended stop; they will always form conspiracies against the truth, until they come to themselves and say, "Let us rise and go to our fathers and say to them: We anathematize the Arian heresy, and we recognize the Council of Nicaea." For it is against this that they have their contention. Who, then, having even a little sense, will tolerate them? Who, seeing that at each council some things are removed and others added, does not perceive that they have a suspicious and treacherous intention against Christ? Who, seeing them drawing out at length both their composition of the faith and their defense concerning the charges against them, does not see that they are condemning themselves and writing much on purpose, so that through their untimely ambition and such verbosity they might deceive the simple and conceal what sort of heretics they are? But just as the pagans, as he said,

the Lord, babbling in their prayers, accomplish nothing; so these men, having poured forth so much, were unable to extinguish the judgment against the Arian heresy, but rather were refuted and deposed, and justly so. For what composition of theirs will the hearer accept? Or with what confidence will they themselves catechize those who come to them? For if all the creeds have one and the same agreement, what need is there of many? But if so many have become necessary, it is clear that each is deficient and not complete. And this they themselves refute all the more by altering and changing all of them. The multitude of councils and the difference of the writings show that those who assembled in them are fighting against the council at Nicaea, but are weak against the truth. Since they have thus conducted themselves both toward themselves and toward those before them, come then, let us examine and learn from them what absurdity they saw or what expression in the written text they faulted, that they have become disobedient to their fathers and are contending against an ecumenical council. "The phrase 'from the essence,'" they say, "and the term 'homoousios' did not please us; for these have scandalized some and disturbed many." So they have written and spoken. But one might reasonably answer them thus: If these very words in themselves are the cause of scandal to them, then it should be that no one is scandalized nor many disturbed, but that we and all others should suffer the same from them as they do.

But if all men love the phrases, and those who wrote them are not ordinary men but those gathered from the whole world, and the bishops now assembled at Ariminum, two hundred and more, bear witness to them, how does this not plainly refute those who speak against the council, showing that it is not the phrases that are the cause, but the malice of those who misinterpret such things? How many, reading the divine scriptures badly and misunderstanding them, accuse the saints, as the Jews then did in not accepting the Lord, and the Manichaeans now do in blaspheming the law, and it is not the scriptures that are the cause for them, but their own evil-mindedness. If, then, you are able to show that the phrases are base, do so, and let reason guide the demonstration; and do not make an excuse of those who are scandalized, lest you suffer the same as the Pharisees of that time. For when they also made the excuse of being scandalized by the Lord's teachings, the Lord said to them: "Every plant which my heavenly Father did not plant will be uprooted." And in saying this, he showed that it was not the phrases planted by the Father through him that were a scandal to them, but they themselves, by receiving what was well said in a bad way, scandalized themselves. For also those who then accused the apostle's letters were accusing not Paul, but their own ignorance and twisted mind.

Since (for it is good to ask them this) tell me, who are those whom you claim are scandalized and disturbed by these things? For none of those who are pious toward Christ are so, for they themselves advocate for and defend these things. But if it is the Arians who suffer this, what wonder is it if they are vexed by things that destroy their heresy? For the words are not a scandal to them, but a grief, because it is a written condemnation of their impiety. Therefore, cease your murmuring against the fathers and making such pretexts, since it is time for you to blame even the Lord's cross, because "it is a scandal to Jews and folly to Gentiles," as the apostle said. But just as the cross is not base—for to us who believe it is "Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God," even if the Jews rave—so too the words of the fathers are not base, but beneficial to those who read them genuinely and destructive of all impiety, even if the Arians often burst with rage when condemned.

from them. Since, then, the pretext concerning those who are scandalized has been shown to be implausible, do you now tell us, why are you not pleased with the term "from the essence"? For this must first be examined, although you yourselves have written that the Son was begotten from the Father. If, then, when you name the Father or say the word "God," you do not signify essence nor conceive of Him who is what He is in essence, but signify something else about Him, or something worse (to avoid saying it from me), then you ought not to have written that the Son is "from the Father," but "from the things about Him" or "from the things in Him," so that, while avoiding truly calling God Father, you might conceive of the simple as composite and, thinking of Him in a bodily manner, become inventors of novel blasphemies. But if you think in this way, you necessarily consider that "Word" and "Son" are not essence but only a name, and then you have your fantasy only in names; and what you say you do not believe to exist, but you think it does not exist. This is rather the audacity of the Sadducees and of those among the Greeks called atheists. Therefore, you will not even affirm that creation is the work of God Himself who is, if indeed "Father" and "God" do not signify the very essence of Him who is, but something else which you fabricate. But this is impious and utterly improper even to conceive.

But when we hear "I am the one who is" and "In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth" and "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord" and "Thus says the Lord Almighty," we understand not something else but the simple, blessed, and incomprehensible essence of the one who is; for even if we are unable to comprehend what it is, yet when we hear "Father" and "God" and "Almighty," we understand that not something else but the essence of the one who is is signified. And you yourselves have said "from God the Son," clearly meaning "from the essence of the Father." Since, moreover, before you the Scriptures call the Lord Son of the Father, and before them the Father himself said "This is my beloved Son," and a son is nothing other than the offspring from the Father, how do the Fathers not appear to have spoken well, having reasoned that the Son is from the essence of the Father, and that to say "from God" correctly is the same as saying "from the essence"? For all creatures, even if they are said to have come into being from God, are not from God as the Son is; for they are not offspring but works by nature. "In the beginning, at least, God" is said not to have "begotten" but to have "made the heaven and the earth and all things in them." And it is not "the one who begets" but "the one who makes his angels spirits and his ministers a flame of fire." And if the Apostle said "One God, from whom are all things," he does not say this by counting the Son among all things.

But since among the Greeks some suppose that creation came about by chance and from the combination of atoms and spontaneously from homogeneous particles, and that it has no cause, while others hold that it came from a cause but not through the Word, and each of the heretics has fabricated and mythologized about creation as he wished, for this reason the apostle has necessarily included the phrase "from God," so that he might both make known the creator and demonstrate that the creation of all things is from his will. Immediately, then, he adds, "and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things," in order to exalt the Son over all things. For all things said to be "from God" have come into being through the Son, and it is not possible for the things created to be similar to the creator in respect of their generation; and so that he might teach that the phrase "from God" is signified differently in the case of the creatures than it is understood when said of the Son. For the Son is a begotten thing, while the creatures are made things. Hence the Son is a begotten thing proper to the essence, while the creatures are creations of the will. The synod, perceiving these things and knowing the difference arising from the homonymy, in order that some might not suspect that the Son is spoken of in the same way as creation,

They wrote "from God" more clearly than "from the substance" concerning the Son. For from the former the genuine relationship of Son to Father is truly recognized, while from the mere phrase "from God" the intention of the Creator's creation is signified. If, therefore, they themselves, holding such a meaning, wrote "from the Father" concerning the Word, let them not blame the Council; but if they think of "from God" in the case of the Son as it is written concerning creation, then, taking the terms of creation, they ought not to call Him Son, lest they seem to mix blasphemy with piety and either not number the Lord among creatures or write unworthy and inappropriate things about the Son. For if He is Son, He is not a creature; if He is a creature, He is not Son. And thinking such things, they will somewhere also deny the holy baptism, because it is given in the name of Father and Son, and not in the name of Creator and creature, as they suppose. "But these things are not written," they say, "and we reject unwritten phrases." But this again is a shameless pretext for them. For if they consider unwritten things to be rejected, why, when those around Arius invented from unwritten sources such a heap of little phrases—"from non-existence," and "the Son was not before he was begotten," and "there was a time when he was not," and "he is changeable," and "the Father is ineffable and invisible to the Son," and "the Son does not know even his own substance," and all that Arius, in his own mind, vomited forth in his ridiculous and impious Thalia—did they not speak against them, but rather contend for them and because of these things quarrel with their own fathers?

From what scripture did they themselves find the terms "unbegotten" and "substance" and "there are three hypostases" and "Christ is not true God" and "he is one of the hundred sheep" and "the wisdom of God is unbegotten and without beginning, but there are many created powers, of which Christ is one"? Or how, in the so-called Encaenia, using unwritten expressions, those around Acacius and Eusebius, who said "the firstborn of creation is an unvarying image of substance and power and will and glory," murmur against the fathers as if they had mentioned unwritten expressions and mentioned substance? For they ought either to murmur against themselves or not accuse the fathers at all. If, then, some others were making excuses about the expressions of the council, they might somehow have a suspicion of ignorance or reverence. And concerning George the Cappadocian, who was expelled from Alexandria, there is no account, a man who has testimony neither from a prior life nor is at all a Christian, but only pretended the name for the occasion and "considered piety a means of gain." Therefore no one would reasonably blame him for erring concerning the faith, a man "neither knowing what he says nor what he affirms," but following everyone like a fool according to what is written. But Acacius and Eudoxius and Patrophilus, saying these things, how are they not worthy of every condemnation?

Having written unwritten things themselves and often accepted the name of substance as good, especially on account of the letter of Eusebius, they now accuse those before them of using such expressions. And although they themselves said "God from God and living Word, the Son as an unvarying image of the substance of the Father," they accuse those at Nicaea who said "from the substance and consubstantial, the begotten with the begetter." What wonder is it if they fight against those before them and their own fathers, when they even contradict themselves and stumble against their own statements? For having set forth in the so-called Dedication Council at Antioch that "the Son is an unvarying image of the substance of the Father," and having sworn to think thus and anathematized those thinking otherwise, and also having written in Isauria: "We do not flee from the authoritative faith set forth at the Dedication Council in Antioch" (in which the name of substance was written), as if forgetting these things, shortly afterward in the same Isauria they wrote the opposite, saying: "We reject homoousion and homoiousion as foreign to the scriptures, and we remove the name of substance as not being found in the scriptures.

Who then will consider such men Christians? Or what faith exists among those with whom neither reason nor writing is stable, but everything is changed and altered according to the occasion? For, O Acacius and Eudoxius, if you do not flee from the faith set forth at the Dedication, and in it is written: "The Son is an unvarying image of the substance," how is it that in Isauria you write: "We reject the homoousion"? For if the Son is not like the Father in substance, how is he "an unvarying image of the substance"? But if you have repented of writing "unvarying image of the substance," how do you anathematize those who say the Son is "unlike"? For if he is not "like in substance," he is certainly "unlike." And the unlike could not be an "image." But if it is so according to you, then "he who has seen the Son has seen the Father" is not true, since there is very great difference, or rather the whole of this is unlike that. And the unlike cannot be called like. By what contrivance, then, do you call the unlike like, and think the like unlike, and pretend, saying "the Son is an image of the Father"? For if the Son is not like the Father in substance, something is lacking in the image, and it is not a complete image nor a perfect radiance. How then do you read: "In him dwells the whole fullness of the divinity bodily" and "From his fullness we all have received"? How do you expel the Arian Aetius as a heretic, although you say the same things as he?

and indeed, O Acacius, he is your companion, and he became a teacher to Eudoxius in such impiety, on account of which Leontius the bishop also appointed him deacon, so that, using the name of the diaconate as a sheep's clothing, he might be at liberty to spew forth the words of blasphemy. What then persuaded you to such a degree that you fell into contradiction with yourselves and incurred such shame? But you could offer nothing reasonable; only this remains to be understood, that now you feign everything and fabricate all pretense for the sake of Constantius's patronage and the profit from such a one. And you readily accuse the fathers, and you simply make pretext of the expressions as unwritten, and according to what is written, "you stretched out your legs to every passerby," so that you change as many times as those who hire and supply you wish. Yet even if one speaks unwritten expressions, it makes no difference, as long as he has a pious intention. But a heretical man, even if he uses expressions from the Scriptures, being no less suspect and corrupt in mind, will hear from the Spirit, "Why do you recount my ordinances and take up my covenant on your lips?" Thus the devil, although speaking from the Scriptures, was silenced by the Savior; while the blessed Paul, even if he speaks from external sources,

Cretans are always liars," and "for we are of that race," and "evil communications corrupt good manners," but nevertheless, being a saint, he has a pious mind and "having the mind of Christ, he is a teacher of nations in faith and truth," and what he speaks he utters with piety. What plausibility, then, is there in the Arian phrases, in which the caterpillar and the locust are preferred to the Savior, and he is reviled by them: "You were not always, and you were created, and you are alien in essence to God," and nothing of blasphemy has been omitted by them? And what have the fathers left out for praise? Is there not rather a lofty mind and a Christ-loving piety among them? And yet they wrote these things, that "we reject," while they tolerate those insults against the Lord and make themselves manifest to all, that they fight against that great synod for no other reason than that it condemned the Arian heresy. For this reason they also slander the term "homoousios," themselves thinking wrongly about it. For if they believed rightly and confessed the Father as truly Father, and believed the Son to be a genuine Son and by nature the true Word and Wisdom of the Father, and if they said "from God" concerning the Son, not as it is said about creatures, but understood him to be a proper offspring of the Father's essence, as the radiance is from light, then each of them would not accuse the fathers, but would be confident that the synod wrote well and that this is the correct faith concerning our Lord Jesus Christ.

But the meaning of such expressions is unclear to us," they say. For they also used this as a pretext, saying, "Since we cannot comprehend their interpretation, we reject these expressions." But if they were speaking truthfully, they ought not to say "we reject these," but rather to seek to learn from those who know, since they are obliged, and if they do not understand something in the divine scriptures, they would also reject and accuse those who wrote them. But this is rather the audacity of heretics, and not of us Christians. For what we do not understand in the scriptures, we do not reject, but we seek out those to whom the Lord has revealed it and we ask to learn from them. Since they thus use the obscurity of such expressions as a pretext, let them at least confess the things that immediately follow and anathematize those who hold that "the Son is from non-existence" and "he was not before he was begotten" and that "the Word of God is a creature and a creation" and "he is mutable by nature" and "from a different hypostasis," and let them altogether anathematize the Arian heresy which devised such impiety. And let them no longer say "we reject the expressions," but rather "we do not yet understand them," so that they may have some plausible pretext for declining them. But I know well and am convinced, and they themselves know this, that if they confess these things and anathematize the Arian heresy, they will not deny those expressions of the council either. For this reason the fathers, having said "the Son is begotten from the substance, consubstantial with the Father," immediately added:

those who say" the aforementioned things, which are of the Arian heresy, "we anathematize," in order to show that these expressions have been uttered by them as if in parallel, and those phrases signify the same things, and whoever confesses those will certainly also think these; but those who neither hold these nor slander those are from all sides refuted as Christomachians. And concerning those who wholly reject the synod, these few things suffice for refutation; but regarding those who accept all the other things written at Nicaea but doubt only the homoousion, one must not be disposed as toward enemies. For we too do not stand against them as against Ariomaniacs or as fighting against the fathers, but we converse as brothers with brothers who have the same meaning as we do but hesitate only about the term. For while confessing that the Son is from the substance of the Father and not from another hypostasis, and that he is neither a creature nor a production, but a genuine and natural offspring, and that he coexists eternally with the Father, being Word and Wisdom, they are not far from accepting also the term homoousion. Such a one is Basil of Ancyra, who wrote concerning the faith. For to say only "similar according to substance" does not at all signify also "from the substance," from which rather, as they themselves have said, the genuineness of the Son in relation to the Father is signified. For tin alone is similar to silver, and a wolf to a dog, and copper that shines like gold to true gold, but tin is not from

neither is silver considered a wolf as a son of a dog. But since they have also said "from the substance" and "like-substance" of him, what else do these signify but the same-substance? For just as the one who says only "like-substance" does not necessarily also recognize "from the substance," so the one who says "same-substance" signifies the meaning of both "like-substance" and "from the substance." And indeed they themselves, again opposing those who say the Word is a creature and do not want him to be a genuine son, have taken from human examples of son and father the proofs against them, with this exception, that God is not as a man nor is the generation of the son as human birth, but as is fitting for God and for us to understand. For they have also called the father a source of wisdom and of life, and the son an effulgence of eternal light, and he himself says he is the offspring from the source: "I am the life" and "I am the wisdom, I have dwelt in counsel." And how could one fittingly name the effulgence from light and the offspring from a source and the son from a father other than "same-substance"? Therefore, is it not because the offspring from humans are same-substance that one must beware lest the son, being called same-substance, be thought also as a human offspring? Let it not be; it is not so. But this has a quick resolution: the son is word and wisdom of the father, from which the impassibility and indivisibility of the generation from the father are recognized.

For the Word of man is neither a part of men nor does it proceed from them by passion, much less the Word of God, whom the Father declared to be his own Son, lest someone hearing only "Word" should think it to be such as the word of men, which is without subsistence, but hearing that he is Son, he may know that this is a living Word and essential wisdom. Then, just as when we say "offspring" we do not think in a human way, and knowing God as Father we do not conceive any corporeal notion about him, but we hear the examples and such expressions and think of God in a fitting manner—for God is not like man—so also when we hear "same-substance" we ought to transcend all sense perception and, according to the divine proverb, "to think intellectually of what is set before us," so as to know that he is not by will but truly a genuine Son from the Father, as life from a spring and radiance from light. Or why do we think of "offspring" and "Son" not corporeally, but of "same-substance" as in the case of bodies, especially since what is said is not about one and another, but about that of which "offspring" is said, concerning this also "same-substance" was spoken, and it is fitting to preserve the same meaning of both expressions regarding the Savior, and not to interpret "offspring" well but "same-substance" otherwise, since it follows that you, being so disposed and calling the Son Word and wisdom of the Father, have a different meaning also concerning these, and think of the Word in one way and of wisdom in another.

But just as this is absurd—for the Son is the Word and Wisdom of the Father, and the offspring from the Father is one and proper to his essence—so the mind of the offspring and of the consubstantial is one, and he who thinks the Son to be an offspring thinks this correctly and as consubstantial. These things are sufficient, then, to show that the understanding of the beloved is neither alien nor far from the consubstantial. Since, however, as they themselves say (for I did not have the letter), the bishops who condemned Paul of Samosata wrote that the Son of God is not consubstantial with the Father, and consequently they themselves, out of reverence and honor for those who said this, are thus disposed toward the expression, it is good to examine this also with reverence together with them. To set these at variance with those is improper, for all are fathers; but to distinguish again, that these spoke well while those spoke the contrary, is not pious, for all have fallen asleep in Christ. One ought not to be contentious, nor the number of those who assembled

to bring together, so that the majority may not seem to overshadow the minority, nor again to measure time, so that those who came before may not seem to obliterate those who came after. For all, as has been said before, are fathers; and yet the three hundred and eighteen neither thought anything newer nor, trusting in themselves, stood by unwritten expressions, but, starting from the fathers, they too used their words. For there were two Dionysii long before the seventy who deposed the Samosatene; one was bishop of Rome, the other of Alexandria. But when some accused the bishop of Alexandria before the bishop of Rome, as saying that the Son is a creature and not consubstantial with the Father, the synod in Rome was indignant, and the bishop of Rome wrote to his namesake, expressing the opinion of all. And the latter, in his defense, entitled his book "Refutation and Defense." And he writes to him as follows: "I also wrote in another letter, in which I refuted the accusation they bring against me," which is false, as if I do not say that Christ is consubstantial with God. For even if I say that I have not found this name nor read it anywhere in the holy Scriptures, yet my arguments, which follow and which they have suppressed, are not inconsistent with this meaning. For I adduced human generation, clearly as being of the same kind, stating that parents are only different from children, in that they are not the children themselves, or else it is necessary that neither parents nor children exist. And the letter, as I said before, I do not have at hand to produce because of the circumstances.

If then, I will send you those very words from that time, or rather the entire copy; if I can obtain it, I will do so. I know and remember that I added more kindred analogies; for I said that a plant arising from a seed or a root is different from that from which it sprouted, and yet is entirely of the same nature. And a river flowing from a spring is different and has taken on a different form and name; for neither is the spring called a river nor the river a spring, yet both exist, and the spring is like a father, while the river is what is born from the spring. Thus the bishop spoke. If, then, someone blames those who assembled at Nicaea for saying things contrary to the opinions of those before them, that same person would reasonably also blame the Seventy, because they did not preserve the teachings of those before them; for before them were the Dionysians and the bishops who assembled in Rome at that time. But it is not pious to accuse either these or those; for all were advocates of Christ's teachings, and all were zealous against the heretics, and some condemned Paul of Samosata, others the Arian heresy. And both these and those wrote correctly and well for the subject at hand. And just as the blessed apostle, writing to the Romans, said: "The law is spiritual" and "The law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good," and shortly after: "For the impossibility of the law, in which it was weak," but to the Hebrews he wrote: "The law has perfected no one," and to the Galatians:

In law no one is justified," and to Timothy that "the law is good, if one uses it lawfully," and no one would accuse the saint of writing contradictory and conflicting things, but rather would admire him for writing appropriately to each group, so that the Romans and others might learn from the letter to turn to the spirit, and the Hebrews and Galatians might be taught not to place their hopes in the law, but in the Lord who gave the law. Thus, if the fathers of both synods made different mentions concerning the homoousion, we must not by all means disagree with them, but investigate their intention, and we will certainly find the harmony of both synods. For those who deposed the man of Samosata, taking the homoousion in a material sense, since Paul wished to be clever and said, "If Christ did not become God from a man, then he is homoousios with the Father, and there must be three substances, one principal and the other two from it," for this reason they naturally, being cautious of such a sophism of the Samosatene, said that Christ is not homoousios; for the Son is not related to the Father in the way that he thought.

Those who anathematized the Arian heresy, having observed the craftiness of Paul, and having reasoned that the term homoousion is not signified in this way concerning incorporeal beings and especially concerning God, and knowing that the Word is not a creature but a generation from the essence, and that the essence of the Father is the beginning and root and source of the Son, and that the likeness of the Son to the Father was self-true, not as if he were of a different nature as we are, nor is he separated from the Father, but as a Son from him he exists indivisibly, as the radiance is to the light, and having also the examples of those around Dionysius, the source and the defense concerning the homoousion, and before these the unitary utterance of the Savior, "I and the Father are one" and "He who has seen me has seen the Father," for this reason they have fittingly said also themselves that the Son is homoousios. And just as, as I said before, no one would accuse the apostle if he wrote about the law to the Romans in one way and to the Hebrews in another, in the same manner neither would those now blame the earlier ones, seeing their interpretation, nor would the earlier ones blame those after them, seeing their interpretation and the need for which they wrote thus concerning the Lord. For each council also has a reasonable cause for which some spoke in one way and others in another.

For since Paul of Samosata held that the Son did not exist before Mary, but had his beginning of being from her, for this reason those who assembled at that time deposed him and declared him a heretic, but writing more simply concerning the Son's divinity, they did not engage in the precision of the term homoousion, but spoke concerning the homoousion as they understood it. For they had all their concern to refute what Paul of Samosata had devised and to show that the Son exists before all things and that he did not become God from men, but being God he put on the form of a servant, and being Word he became flesh, as John said; and thus it was done against the blasphemy of Paul.

But since those around Eusebius and Arius said that the Son existed before time, yet taught that he had been made and was one of the creatures, and did not believe that he was from God as a genuine son from a father, but affirmed that his being from God was like that of creatures, and they did not speak of the unity of likeness of the Son to the Father according to essence or according to nature, as a son is like a father, but rather because of the harmony of doctrines and teaching, and indeed they completely separated and alienated the essence of the Son from the Father, devising for him another beginning of existence apart from the Father and reducing him to the creatures, for this reason those assembled at Nicaea, having observed the craftiness of those who thought thus and having gathered from the scriptures the meaning, wrote more clearly and said "homoousios," so that the genuineness of the Son might truly be known from this and that the created things might have nothing in common with him. For the precision of this term refutes their pretense if they speak the phrase "from God," and casts out all their plausibilities by which they ensnare the simple. Indeed, though they are able to sophistically manipulate and alter everything as they wish, they fear this one term alone, which refutes their heresy, which the fathers wrote as a bulwark against all their impious contrivance.

Let all contentiousness now cease, and let us no longer take offense if the councils have understood the term "homoousios" in different ways. For we have reasonable grounds for their defense, both those already mentioned and this one as well. The term "ungenerated," even if we have not learned this from the Scriptures (for the Scriptures nowhere call God "ungenerated"), nevertheless, since many of those who are considered authorities have made mention of this term, upon inquiry we have learned that this term also has different meanings. Some call "ungenerated" that which exists but has neither been begotten nor has any cause at all; others call it that which is uncreated. Just as, then, with these meanings, if someone, looking to the former meaning of "not having a cause," were to say that the Son is not ungenerated, he would not be accusing another who, looking to the meaning of not being a product or a creation, but an eternal offspring, calls the Son ungenerated; for both, looking to their own intention, have spoken correctly. So also, if some of the fathers have spoken in one way and others in another way concerning the term "homoousios," let us not be contentious, but let us piously accept what they have said, especially since their zeal was directed toward piety.

Ignatius, therefore, who was appointed bishop in Antioch after the apostles and became a martyr of Christ, writing about the Lord said: "There is one physician, fleshly and spiritual, generated and ungenerated, God in man, true life in death, and from Mary and from God." And some of the teachers after Ignatius also write: "One is the ungenerated, the Father, and one is the genuine Son from him, a true offspring, Word and Wisdom of the Father." If, then, we are disposed in opposition even to these, let the battle be with us also against the councils; but if, knowing their faith in Christ, we are convinced that the blessed Ignatius wrote correctly, calling him generated because of the flesh (for Christ became flesh), and ungenerated because he is not among the creations and generated things, but is Son from Father, and we are not unaware that those who said "one is the ungenerated," speaking of the Father, did not write thus as though the Word were generated and a creature, but because he has no cause; and rather he himself is Father of Wisdom, and has made all generated things in Wisdom; why do we not also gather together the fathers who deposed the Samosatene and branded the Arian heresy for piety, but separate between them and not rather think correctly about them? Because those, as I said, with regard to the sophism of the Samosatene and his interpretation, having their mind on that, wrote: "He is not homoousios," and these, having understood correctly, have said that the Son is homoousios.

For I myself, thinking such things about those who are pious toward Christ, wrote briefly. But if it were possible to obtain also the letter which they say those men wrote, I think that more pretexts would be found, on account of which those blessed ones were compelled to write thus. For it is necessary and fitting for us to think such things and to preserve such a good conscience toward the fathers, if indeed we are not bastards, but have the traditions from them and from them the teaching of piety. Such, then, is the mind of the fathers, let it be said and believed. But come, let us examine the matter again with them gently and with a good conscience, remembering also what has been said before, whether the bishops who assembled at Nicaea are not in truth shown to have thought rightly. If the Word is a creature and foreign to the substance of the Father, so that it is separated from the Father by a separation of different nature, it would not be consubstantial with the Father, but rather would be of the same kind in nature as creatures, even if it surpasses in grace. But if we confess that it is not a creature, but a genuine offspring from the substance of the Father, it would follow that it is inseparable from the Father, being of the same nature because it has been generated from him. Being such, it would reasonably be called consubstantial. Then, if not from

The Son is by participation, but in substance He is Word and Wisdom of the Father, and this substance is a product and likeness of the Father's substance, just as the radiance of light; and the Son says, "I and the Father are one," and "He who has seen me has seen the Father." How must we understand these sayings? Or how, taking them, shall we preserve the oneness of the Father and the Son? If, then, it is by agreement of doctrines and by not disagreeing with the Father, as the Arians say, such an interpretation is worthless. For even the saints, and even more so angels and archangels, have such agreement with God and there is no disagreement among them. For the one who disagreed, the devil, was seen falling from the heavens, as the Lord said. Therefore, if the Father and the Son are one because of agreement, then even created things that agree with God in this way would each say, "I and the Father are one." But if this is absurd—and it is truly absurd—then it is necessary to understand the unity of Son and Father according to substance. For created things, even if they have agreement with their maker, have this in motion, participation, and mind, which the one who did not preserve it was cast out of the heavens; but the Son, being a product from the substance, is one in substance with the Father who begot Him. For this reason He also has equality with the Father in the uniform sayings, and the things said of the Father are also said of the Son by the Scriptures, except only that He is not called Father. For the Son Himself said, "All that the Father has is mine," and to the Father He said:

All that is mine is yours, and all that is yours is mine," such as the term "God": "for the Word was God," the term "Almighty": "Thus says the one who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty," the term "being light": "I am," he says, "the light," the term "creative cause": "for all things came to be through him" and "what I see the Father doing, these things I also do," the term "being eternal": "for his eternal power and divinity" and "in the beginning was the Word" and "was the true light, which illuminates every man coming into the world," the term "being Lord": "for the Lord rained down sulfur and fire from the Lord." And the Father says: "I am Lord" and "Thus says the Lord God the Almighty," but concerning the Son Paul says: "one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things." And angels serve the Father, but the Son is worshipped by them: "for let all the angels of God worship him." And he is said to be also Lord of angels: "for the angels served him" and "the Son of man will send his angels," the term "being honored as the Father": "for," he says, "they honor the Son, just as they honor the Father," the term "being equal to God": "he did not consider it a usurpation to be equal to God," the term "being truth from the true and life from the living, the Father being like a source," the term "the Son giving life and raising the dead just as the Father does": for thus it is written in the Gospel, and concerning the Father it is written: "the Lord your God is one Lord" and "the God of gods, the Lord, spoke and called the earth," but concerning the Son: "the Lord God appeared to us" and "the God of gods will be seen in Zion.

Again, concerning God, Isaiah says: "What god is like you, raising up lawlessness and surpassing injustices?" But the Son said to those he wished: "Your sins are forgiven," when also, as the Jews were murmuring, he showed the forgiveness in deed, saying to the paralytic: "Rise, take up your bed and go to your home." And concerning God, Paul said: "To the king of the ages," but concerning the Son, David sang: "Lift up the gates, your rulers, and be lifted up, eternal gates, and the king of glory will enter," and Daniel heard: "His kingdom is an eternal kingdom" and "His kingdom will not be destroyed." And in general, whatever you might find said about the Father, you would find just as much said about the Son, except for the fact that he is the Father, as has been said. If, then, someone conceives of another beginning and another father because of the equality of the things said, the thought is mad; but if, because the Son is from the Father, all the things of the Father are in the Son as in an image and character, let us consider kindly whether a substance foreign to the substance of the Father is receptive of such things, and whether such a one is of a different nature and of a different substance, and not of the same substance as the Father. For we must beware lest, transferring the Father's own attributes to that which is of a different substance from him and characterizing the Father's divinity in a different kind and a different substance, we introduce another, foreign substance receptive of the properties of the first substance, and be put to shame by God himself saying:

I will not give my glory to another," and we are found worshipping the alien and are considered to be such as were the Jews of that time, saying: "Why do you, being a man, make yourself a god?" when also, transferring the things of the Spirit, they blasphemed, saying: "He casts out demons by Beelzebul." But if this is improper, it is clear that the Son would not be of unlike substance, but of the same substance as the Father. For if the things of the Father are naturally the Son's, and the Son himself is from the Father, and because of such unity of divinity and nature, he and the Father are one, and "he who has seen the Son has seen the Father," it was fittingly said by the fathers that he is of the same substance, for it is not possible for one of different substance to have such things. Again, if, as we said before, the Son is not from participation, but all created things have their grace from God by participation, while he himself is the wisdom and word of the Father, of which all things partake, it is clear that he, being the deifying and illuminating power of the Father, in whom all things are deified and given life, is not of alien substance to the Father, but of the same substance. For partaking of him, we partake of the Father, because the Word is the Father's own. Hence, if he himself were from participation and not from himself essential divinity and image of the Father, he would not deify while being deified himself. For it is not possible for one who has by participation to impart the participation to others, because what he has is not his own, but belongs to the giver, and he received barely sufficient grace for himself.

Let us, however, truly examine the reason why some, as it is said, decline the term homoousios, lest it rather be from this that the Son is shown to be homoousios with the Father. They say, then, as you wrote, that one ought not to say that the Son is homoousios with the Father, because he who says homoousios posits three things: some pre-existing substance and those born from it being homoousios. And they add: "If, then, the Son is homoousios with the Father, it is necessary that a substance pre-exist them, from which they were both generated, and that one is not the Father and the other the Son, but both are brothers." These things, even if they are interpretations of Greeks and not necessary for us from them, let us see the said homoousia, the siblings from the pre-supposed substance, whether they are homoousia with themselves or with the substance from which they were generated. For if they are with themselves, they will be heteroousia and dissimilar to the substance that generated them; for heteroousion is opposed to homoousion. But if each is homoousion with the substance that generated it, it is clear that that which is generated from something is homoousion with the one who generated it. And it is no longer necessary to seek three substances, but only to seek whether this thing is truly from that. For even if it happens that there are not two brothers, but only one is generated from that substance, the generated one would not be called allotrioousios because there is no other, but even being alone, he would himself be homoousios with the one who generated him.

For what could we say about the daughter of Jephthah, that "she was only-begotten and there was not," it is said, "another child to him," and about the son of the widow, whom the Lord raised from the dead, that he too had no brother, but was only-begotten? Was not each of them homoousios with the one who begot him? Indeed they were, for they were children, and this is proper to children in relation to parents. Thus also the fathers, having said that the Son of God is from the ousia, fittingly also said that he is homoousios; for the radiance also has this relation to the light. It follows from these things that creation did not come to be from non-being. For men who beget by passion themselves also work the underlying matter, and otherwise they could not produce; but if we do not conceive of creating in a human way in the case of God, much less is it fitting to conceive of begetting in a human way in the case of God, nor to understand homoousios in a corporeal manner, but we must withdraw from generated things, and, setting aside human images and all sensations altogether, ascend to the Father, lest we unwittingly remove the Son from the Father and add him to his own creatures. And otherwise, if, while confessing Father and Son, we speak of two principles or two gods like Marcion and Valentinus, or that the Son has some other mode of divinity and is not the image and character of the Father because he is naturally from him, then let him be anomoios; for such ousiai are entirely foreign to one another.

But if we know and confess only one divinity, that the Son is the Word and Wisdom of this Father, and believing thus we do not say there are two gods, and we understand the unity of the Son with the Father not by similarity of teaching but according to essence and truth, so that for this reason we do not say there are two gods, but one God, there being one form of divinity, as is the case with light and its radiance. For this was seen by the patriarch Jacob, and the Scripture says: "The sun rose for him when the form of God passed by." And the holy prophets, beholding and understanding this, and knowing whose Son and image he is, said: "The word of the Lord came to me," and knowing the Father who is seen and revealed in him, they were confident to say: "The God of our fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, appeared to me." This being so, why, when he is one with the Father and appears as the Father is, according to similarity and one divinity, do we hesitate to say homoousios? For if, as has often been said, he does not have the property of the paternal essence nor the likeness as a Son, we rightly hesitate; but if this is the illuminating and creative power, which is most particular to the Father, without which he neither creates nor is known (for "all things have been constituted through him and in him"), why, understanding the reality, do we refuse to utter the word that signifies this? For what is so consubstantial with the Father as that which is homoousios with him? For God did not take the Son as something alien, needing him as a servant, nor are the creations equal to the creator, so that these are honored as he is, or that one might think that these and the Father are one.

or let someone dare to divide and say that the sun and its radiance are two lights, or that the radiance is some other substance, or that the radiance is an accident and not a simple and pure offspring from the sun, so that there are two, sun and radiance, but one light because this is an offspring from the sun. Such being the case, and the nature of the Son being even more indivisible from the Father, and the divinity not being accidental to the Son, but the Father's divinity being in the Son, so that he who has seen the Son sees the Father in him, why would such a one not be called homoousios? Now these things are sufficient to persuade you not to accuse those who have said that the Son is homoousios with the Father, but nevertheless let us examine the very term homoousios itself, in order to know whether we ought to say homoousios at all, and whether this term is proper and fitting when said of the Son. For you know, and no one would doubt, that "similar" is not said of substances, but of shapes and qualities; for of substances, not similarity but identity would be spoken. For instance, one man is said to be similar to another not according to substance, but according to shape and character; for in substance they are of the same nature. And

Again, a man is said to be not unlike a dog, but of a different nature; therefore, that which is of the same nature is consubstantial, and that which is of a different nature is of a different substance. Hence, he who says "similar in substance" says this "similar" by participation. For similarity is a quality, which would be added to the substance. This would be proper to creatures; for these are made similar to God by participation. "For when," he says, "he is manifested, we shall be like him"—similar, clearly, not in substance, but in the sonship of which we partake from him. If, then, you also say that the Son is by participation, let him be called by you "homoiousios." However, he is not so called in truth, nor is he at all light nor by nature God. For things that are by participation are said to be similar not in truth, but by a likeness of truth, so that they can also change and have the participation taken away from those who partake. This, again, is proper to creatures and products. Therefore, if this is absurd, he would not be by participation, but by nature and in truth Son, light, wisdom, God. And being by nature and not by participation, he could not properly be called "homoiousios," but "homoousios." And one would not say this even of other things; for it has been shown that "similar" is not said of substances. How, then, is it not foolish—or perhaps even dangerous—to utter this of the Son, rather than "homoousios"?

For this reason the Council of Nicaea also wrote well, saying what was proper: that the Son, being born from the substance of the Father, is consubstantial. Having learned these things, let us not fight shadows, especially knowing that those who wrote these things did not misinterpret the truth, but, while defending the truth and piety toward Christ, and refuting the blasphemies of the Ariomanites against him, confessed the faith in this way. For one must consider and accurately understand that when we say "of unlike substance" and "of different substance," we do not signify the true Son, but one of the creatures and the adopted and putative son, which seems right to the heretics; but when we say "consubstantial," not contentiously, we signify a genuine Son born from the Father, even if the Christ-fighters often burst with rage over this. These things I have written briefly, as I have learned them and heard them from the discussions of wise men; but you, remaining on "the foundation of the apostles" and holding fast to the traditions of the fathers, pray that all strife and rivalry may at last cease, that the foolish inquiries of the heretics and all logomachy may be condemned, and that the ill-named and man-slaying heresy of the Arians may be obliterated, and that the truth may shine forth in the hearts of all, so that everywhere all may "say the same thing" and think the same thing, and that no Arian blasphemy any longer remaining, it may be said and confessed in every church: "one Lord, one faith, one baptism," in Christ Jesus our Lord, through whom glory and power are to the Father for ever and ever. Amen.

After I had written the things concerning the synods, I learned that the most impious Constantius had written to the bishops who remained at Ariminum. And I took pains to obtain copies from genuine brothers and to send to you both these and the replies written by the bishops, so that you might know the impious craftiness of the emperor and the steadfast and unwavering opinion of the bishops toward the truth. 55. Interpretation of the letter. Constantius, Victor and Triumphator, Augustus, to all the bishops assembled at Ariminum. That we always have a primary concern for the divine and venerable law, your goodness is not unaware, but now the twenty bishops sent by your wisdom, having undertaken the embassy from you, we have not yet been able to see them. For an urgent necessity pressed us, the journey against the barbarians, and, as you know, it is fitting that the soul, being free from all care, should exercise itself concerning the divine law. Therefore we have ordered the bishops in the

at Hadrianopolis to await our return, so that, when all public affairs have been properly settled, we may then be able to hear and examine whatever they may propose. Let it not seem burdensome to your steadfastness to await their return, so that, when they come back bringing you our answers, you may be able to bring to completion those things which pertain to the benefit of the catholic church. The bishops received these letters, three being brought. Copy of the bishops' letter: We have received the letters of your humanity, most God-beloved lord emperor, which contain that on account of the necessity of public affairs you have not yet been able to see our envoys, and you command us to await their return, until your piety may learn from them what has been determined by us in accordance with our predecessors. But even now through these letters we confess and affirm that we in no way withdraw from our purpose; for this we also instructed our envoys. We therefore request that with serene countenance you order both the present letters of our mediocrity to be read, and also those things which we instructed through our envoys, to be graciously received. Your gentleness perceives with us this, how great is now the grief and dejection, that in your most blessed times so many churches are without bishops.

And therefore we again entreat your humanity, most pious Lord Emperor, that before the harshness of winter, if it should please your piety, you might order us to return to our own churches, so that we may be able to offer to the almighty God and to our Lord and Savior Christ, his only-begotten Son, the customary prayers for your reign together with the people, as we have always performed and as we now do in our prayers.