Athanasius on Nicaea
On the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia (de Synodis)
| Reference | CPG 2128 |
| Date | 359-362 |
| Greek Text | Athanasius Werke, vol. 2.6-7, ed. H.-G. Opitz (Berlin, 1940). |
| English Translation | J. H. Newman and A. Robertson (NPNF2 4:48-480), updated by FCC (AGC). |
On the Nicene Definition (de Decretis)
| Reference | CPG 2120 |
| Date | 350-356 |
| Greek Text | Athanasius Werke, vol. 2.1-2:1-45, ed. H.-G. Opitz (Berlin, 1935). |
| English Translation | J. H. Newman and A. Robertson (NPNF2 4:149-172), updated by FCC (AGC). |
Athanasius, Letter to the Bishops of Africa
| Reference | CPG 2133 |
| Date | 369 |
| Greek Text | Athanasius Werke, vol. 2.8, ed. H.C. Brennecke et al. (Berlin, 2000). |
| English Translation | A. Robertson (NPNF2 4:488-494), updated by FCC (AGC). |
Athanasuis of Alexandria’s three accounts of the 325 Council of Nicaea all focus on the Arian controversy. The first section, from de Synodis, a detailed description of several councils and their controversies, explains the reasons for convening this ecumenical council. It also contrasts the importance and firmness of the council’s strong anti-Arian confession with that of its resolutions about the celebration of Easter. The excerpt from de Decretis, a larger work defending against Arianism, narrows in on the events of the council and its difficulty in formulating the right vocabulary to condemn the Arian heresy. Ad Afros was a letter written to counteract the effects of the council of Ariminum, a smaller council which was convened to refute the anti-Arian views of Nicaea. Ad Afros emphasizes the importance and authority of Nicaea as an ecumenical council and contrasts its position and authority with the lesser status and non-biblical position of Ariminum.
| On the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia (De Synodis) | |
| 5a. Ἡ μέν γὰρ ἐν Νικαίᾳ σύνοδος ούχ ἁπλῶς γέγονεν, αλλ’ εἴχε τὴν χρείαν κατεπείγουσαν καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν εὔλογον. οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἀπό τῆς Συρίας καὶ Κιλικίας καὶ Μεσοποταμίας έχώλευον περὶ τὴν ἑορτὴν καὶ μετὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐποίουν τὸ πάσχα, ἥ τε ἀρειανὴ αἵρεσις ἐπαναστᾶσα ἦν κατὰ τῆς καθολικῆς έκκλησίας καὶ προστάτας εἴχεν εἴς τε τὴν ὑπέρ ἐαυτῆς σπουδὴν καὶ εἰς τὴν κατὰ τῶν εὐσεβούντων ἐπιβουλὴν τοὺς περὶ Εὐσέβιον. καὶ αὔτη αίτία γέγονεν οὶκουμενικὴν συναχθῆναι σύνοδον, ἵνα πανταχοῦ μία τῆς ἑορτῆς ἡμέρα έπιτελῆται καὶ ἡ παραφυεῖσα αἵρεσις αναθεματισθῇ. Γέγονε γοῦν, καὶ οί μὲν από τῆς Συρίας έπείσθησαν, τὴν δὲ αρειανὴν αίρεσιν απεφὴναντο πρόδρομον τοῦ αντιχρίστου καὶ κατ’ αύτῆς γραψαντες έκδεδὥκασι καλῶς. καὶ όμως γράψαντες καὶ τοσοῦτοι όντες ούδὲν τοιοῦτον τετολμὴκασιν οίον οί τρεῖς ὴ τέσσαρες οῦτοι. ού γαρ προέταξαν ύπατείαν καὶ μῆνα καὶ ὴμέραν, ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τοῦ πάσχα ῾ἔδοξε τα ύποτεταγμένα.᾽ τότε γαρ έδοξε πάντας πείθεσθαι· περὶ δὲ τῆς πίστεως ἔγραψαν ούκ ‘ἔδοξεν,’ αλλ’ ‘οῦτως πιστεύει ὴ καθολικὴ έκκλησία’ καὶ εύθύς ὥμολόγησαν πῶς πιοτεύουσιν, ῖνα δείξωσιν ὅτι μὴ νεώτερον, αλλ’ αποστολικόν ἐστιν αὐτῶν τό φρόνημα καὶ ἅ ἔγραψαν ούκ έξ αὐτῶν εὐρέθη, ἀλλὰ ταῦτ’ ἐστιν ἅπερ έδίδαξαν οἱ ἀπόστολοι. | 5a As to the Nicene Council, it was not a common meeting, but convened upon a pressing necessity, and for a reasonable object. The Syrians, Cilicians, and Mesopotamians were out of order in celebrating the feast and kept Easter with the Jews. On the other hand, the Arian heresy had risen up against the catholic church, and found supporters in Eusebius and his fellows, who were both zealous for the heresy and conducted the attack upon religious people. This gave occasion for an ecumenical council, that the feast might be everywhere celebrated on one day and that the heresy which was springing up might be anathematized. [The council] took place then, and the Syrians submitted, and the Fathers pronounced the Arian heresy to be the forerunner of Antichrist and drew up a suitable formula against it. And yet in this, many as they are, they ventured on nothing like the proceedings of these three or four men. Without prefixing consulate, month, and day, they wrote concerning Easter, “It seemed good as follows,” for it did then seem good that there should be a general compliance. But about the faith they wrote not, “It seemed good,” but “Thus believes the catholic church;” and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to show that their own sentiments were not novel, but apostolic; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but it is the same as was taught by the Apostles. |
| On the Nicene Definition (de Decretis) | |
| 3 Ὡς ἐφιλονείκουν ἀσεβοῦντες καὶ θεομαχεῖν ἐπεχείρουν, τὰ μὲν λεγόμενα παρ’ αὐτῶν ἀσεβείας ἦν μεστά, οἱ δὲ συνελθόντες ἐπίσκοποι, ἦσαν δὲ πλέον ἢ ἔλαττον τριακόσιοι, πρᾴως καὶ φιλανθρώπως ἀπῄτουν αὐτούς, περὶ ὧν ἔλεγον διδόναι λόγον καὶ ἀποδείξεις εὐσεβεῖς. ὡς δὲ καὶ μόνον φθεγγόμενοι κατεγινώσκοντο καὶ πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς διεμάχοντο πολλὴν ὁρῶντες τῆς ἑαυτῶν αἱρέσεως τὴν ἀπορίαν, ἀχανεῖς μὲν ἔμενον οὗτοι καὶ διὰ τῆς σιωπῆς ὡμολόγουν τὴν ἐπὶ τῇ κενοδοξίᾳ αὐτῶν αἰσχύνην. οἱ τοίνυν ἐπίσκοποι λοιπὸν ἀνελόντες τὰ παρ’ αὐτῶν ἐπινοηθέντα ῥήματα οὕτως ἐξέθεντο κατ’ αὐτῶν τὴν ὑγιαίνουσαν καὶ ἐκκλησιαστικὴν πίστιν· Πάντων τε ὑπογραψάντων ὑπέγραψαν καὶ οἱ περὶ Εὐσέβιον τούτοις τοῖς ῥήμασιν, οἷς αἰτιῶνται νῦν οὗτοι· λέγω δὴ τῷ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας καὶ τῷ ὁμοουσίῳ, καὶ ὅτι μήτε κτίσμα ἢ ποίημα μήτε τῶν γενητῶν ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ υἱός, ἀλλὰ γέννημα ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός ἐστιν ὁ λόγος. καὶ τό γε παράδοξον, Εὐσέβιος ὁ ἀπὸ Καισαρείας τῆς Παλαιστίνης, καίτοι πρὸ μιᾶς ἀρνούμενος, ὅμως ὕστερον ὑπογράψας ἐπέστειλε τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἑαυτοῦ, λέγων ταύτην εἶναι τῆς ἐκκλησίας τὴν πίστιν καὶ τῶν πατέρων τὴν παράδοσιν, πᾶσί τε φανερῶς ἔδειξεν, ὅτι πρότερον ἐσφάλλοντο καὶ μάτην ἐφιλονείκουν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν. εἰ γὰρ καὶ ᾐσχύνθη τότε ταύταις ταῖς λέξεσι γράψαι καὶ ὡς ἠθέλησεν αὐτὸς ἀπελογήσατο τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἀλλά γε διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς τὸ ὁμοούσιον καὶ τὸ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας μὴ ἀρνησάμενος φανερῶς τοῦτο σημᾶναι βούλεται. καὶ πέπονθέ τι δεινόν· ὡς γὰρ ἀπολογούμενος κατηγόρησε λοιπὸν τῶν Ἀρειανῶν, ὅτι γράψαντες ‘οὐκ ἦν ὁ υἱὸς πρὶν γεννηθῆναι’ οὐκ ἤθελον αὐτὸν εἶναι οὐδὲ πρὸ τῆς κατὰ σάρκα γεννήσεως. καὶ τοῦτο οἶδε καὶ Ἀκάκιος, ἂν μὴ καὶ αὐτὸς φοβηθεὶς νῦν διὰ τὸν καιρὸν ὑποκρίνηται καὶ ἀρνήσηται τὴν ἀλήθειαν. ὑπέταξα γοῦν ἐν τῷ τέλει τὴν ἐπιστολὴν Εὐσεβίου, ἵνα ἐκ ταύτης γνῷς τῶν τε χριστομάχων καὶ κατὰ περιττὸν τὴν Ἀκακίου πρὸς τοὺς ἑαυτῶν διδασκάλους ἀγνωμοσύνην. | 3 Now this is what happened to Eusebius and his associates at the Council of Nicaea: while they stood out in their irreligion and attempted their fight against God, the terms they used were replete with irreligion. But the assembled bishops, who numbered about three hundred, mildly and charitably required them to explain and defend themselves on religious grounds. Scarcely, however, did they begin to speak, when they were condemned, and one differed from another. Then, embarrassed on account of their heresy, they remained silent and by their silence confessed the disgrace which came upon their heterodoxy. On this the bishops, having rejected their invented terms, published against them the sound and ecclesiastical faith. Since all subscribed to it, Eusebius and his fellows subscribed to it also in those very words of which they are now complaining: “of the essence” and “one in essence” and that “the Son of God is neither creature nor work, nor one of the originated things, but that the Word is an offspring from the substance of the Father.” And what is strange indeed, Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, who had denied the day before but later subscribed, sent a letter to his church saying that this was the church’s faith and the tradition of the Fathers, and made a public profession that they were before in error and were rashly contending against the truth. For though he was ashamed at that time to adopt these phrases and excused himself to the church in his own way, nevertheless he certainly means to imply all these things in his letter by his not denying the homoousios and “of the essence.” By doing so he got himself in trouble, for while he was making excuses, he went on to attack the Arians as stating that “the Son was not before his generation,” and therefore rejecting his existence before his birth in the flesh. And this Acacius is aware of also, though he too, through fear, may pretend otherwise because of the times and deny that fact. Accordingly I have included the letter of Eusebius at the end, that you may understand the disrespect which the enemies of Christ, particularly Acacius, showed to their teachers. |
| 18a Οἱ μὲν οὖν περὶ Εὐσέβιον οὕτως ἐξεταζόμενοι τότε διὰ πολλῶν καὶ καταγνόντες ἑαυτῶν, καθὰ προεῖπον, ὑπέγραψαν καὶ μεταγνόντες ἠρέμησαν καὶ ἀνεχώρησαν. | 18a Now Eusebius and his companions were previously examined at great length and convicted themselves, as I said before. On this they subscribed, and after this change of mind they kept quiet and retired. |
| 19 Τῆς συνόδου βουλομένης τὰς μὲν τῶν Ἀρειανῶν τῆς ἀσεβείας λέξεις ἀνελεῖν, τὰς δὲ τῶν γραφῶν ὁμολογουμένας φωνὰς γράψαι, ὅτι τε υἱός ἐστιν οὐκ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ λόγος ἐστὶ καὶ σοφία, ἀλλ’ οὐ κτίσμα οὐδὲ ποίημα, ἴδιον δὲ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γέννημα, οἱ περὶ Εὐσέβιον ὑπὸ τῆς πολυχρονίου κακοδοξίας ἑαυτῶν ἑλκόμενοι ἐβούλοντο τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ κοινὸν εἶναι πρὸς ἡμᾶς καὶ τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον μηδέν τε ἐν τούτῳ διαφέρειν ἡμῶν αὐτὸν διὰ τὸ γεγράφθαι· “εἷς θεὸς ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα,” καὶ πάλιν· “τὰ ἀρχαῖα παρῆλθεν, ἰδοὺ γέγονε τὰ πάντα καινά, τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ.” ἀλλ’ οἱ πατέρες θεωρήσαντες ἐκείνων τὴν πανουργίαν καὶ τὴν τῆς ἀσεβείας κακοτεχνίαν ἠναγκάσθησαν λοιπὸν λευκότερον εἰπεῖν τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ γράψαι ‘ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ θεοῦ εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν’ ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ κοινὸν καὶ ἴσον τοῦ τε υἱοῦ καὶ τῶν γενητῶν νομίζεσθαι, ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα πάντα κτίσμα, τὸν δὲ λόγον μόνον ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς πιστεύεσθαι. κἂν γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τὰ πάντα λέγηται, ἀλλὰ ἄλλως ἢ ὡς ἔστιν ὁ υἱὸς εἴρηται. τὰ μὲν γὰρ κτίσματα διὰ τὸ μὴ εἶναι εἰκῆ καὶ ἐκ ταὐτομάτου μηδὲ κατὰ τύχην ἔχειν τὴν γένεσιν κατὰ τοὺς λέγοντας ἐξ ἀτόμων συμπλοκῆς καὶ ὁμοιομερῶν, ἢ ὥς τινες τῶν αἱρετικῶν ἄλλον δημιουργὸν λέγουσιν, ἢ ὡς πάλιν ἄλλοι ὑπό τινων ἀγγέλων λέγουσιν εἶναι τὴν τῶν πάντων σύστασιν, ἀλλ’ ὅτι τοῦ θεοῦ ὄντος τὰ πάντα παρ’ αὐτοῦ διὰ τοῦ λόγου οὐκ ὄντα πρότερον εἰς τὸ εἶναι γέγονε, διὰ τοῦτο εἴρηται τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ. ὁ δὲ λόγος, ἐπεὶ μὴ κτίσμα ἐστίν, εἴρηται καὶ ἔστι μόνος ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, τῆς δὲ τοιαύτης διανοίας γνώρισμα τὸ εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός· οὐδενὶ γὰρ τῶν γενητῶν ὑπάρχει τοῦτο. ἀμέλει τὰ πάντα λέγων ὁ Παῦλος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ εὐθὺς ἐπήγαγε· “καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα,” ἵνα δείξῃ πᾶσιν, ὅτι ἄλλος μέν ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τῶν πάντων τῶν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γενομένων· τὰ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γενόμενα διὰ υἱοῦ γέγονε· τῆς δὲ δημιουργίας χάριν τῆς παρὰ θεοῦ γενομένης ταῦτ’ εἴρηκε καὶ οὐ διὰ τὸ εἶναι καὶ τὰ πάντα ὡς ἔστιν ὁ υἱὸς ἐκ τοῦ πατρός. οὔτε γὰρ τὰ πάντα ὡς ὁ υἱὸς οὔτε ὁ λόγος εἷς τῶν πάντων ἐστί· τῶν γὰρ πάντων κύριος καὶ δημιουργός ἐστι. διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ ἡ ἁγία σύνοδος λευκότερον εἴρηκεν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτὸν εἶναι τοῦ πατρός, ἵνα καὶ ἄλλος παρὰ τὴν τῶν γενητῶν φύσιν ὁ λόγος εἶναι πιστευθῇ μόνος ὢν ἀληθῶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ μηκέτι πρόφασις πρὸς ἀπάτην ὑπολείπηται τοῖς ἀσεβοῦσι. περὶ μὲν οὖν τοῦ γεγράφθαι ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας ἡ πρόφασις αὕτη. | 19 The council wished to do away with the irreligious phrases of the Arians and to use instead the acknowledged words of the Scriptures, that the Son is not from nothing but “from God,” and is “Word” and “Wisdom,” and not creature or work, but a proper offspring from the Father. But Eusebius and his fellows, led by their inveterate heterodoxy, understood the phrase “from God” as belonging to us, as if in respect to it the Word of God did not differ from us in any way, and that because it is written, “There is one God, from whom, all things” [1 Cor. 8:6] and again, “Old things are passed away, behold, all things are become new, and all things are from God” [2 Cor. 5:17]. But the Fathers, perceiving their craft and the cunning of their irreligion, were forced to express more distinctly the sense of the words “from God.” Accordingly, they wrote “from the essence of God,” in order that “from God” might not be considered common and equal in the Son and in things originate, but that all others might be acknowledged as creatures, and the Word alone as from the Father. For though all things be said to be from God, yet this is not in the sense in which the Son is from him. As to the creatures, “of God” is said of them on this account, in that they exist not at random or spontaneously, nor come to be by chance, according to those philosophers who refer them to the combination of atoms and to elements of similar structure —nor as certain heretics speak of a distinct Framer—nor as others again say that the constitution of all things is from certain angels—but in that (whereas God is) it was by him that all things were brought into being through his Word, not existing before. But as to the Word, since he is not a creature, he alone is both called and is “from the Father.” It is significant in this sense to say that the Son is “from the essence of the Father,” for to nothing originate does this attach. In truth, when Paul says that “all things are from God,” he immediately adds, “and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things,” in order to show all men that the Son is other than all these things which came to be from God (for the things which came to be from God, came to be through his Son); and that he had used his foregoing words with reference to the world as framed by God, and not as if all things were from the Father as the Son is. For other things are not like the Son, nor is the Word one among others. He is Lord and framer of all. On account of this did the holy council declare expressly that he was of the essence of the Father, that we might believe the Word to be other than the nature of things originate, being alone truly from God; and that no subterfuge should be left open to the irreligious. This then was the reason why the council wrote “of the essence.” |
| 20 Τῶν δὲ ἐπισκόπων πάλιν λεγόντων δεῖν γραφῆναι δύναμιν ἀληθινὴν καὶ εἰκόνα τοῦ πατρὸς τὸν λόγον ὅμοιόν τε καὶ ἀπαράλλακτον αὐτὸν κατὰ πάντα τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ εἶναι ἀδιαιρέτως—οὐδέποτε γὰρ οὐκ ἦν, ἀλλὰ ἦν ὁ λόγος ἀεὶ ὑπάρχων ἀιδίως παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ ὡς ἀπαύγασμα φωτός—οἱ περὶ Εὐσέβιον ἠνείχοντο μὲν μὴ τολμῶντες ἀντιλέγειν διὰ τὴν αἰσχύνην, ἣν εἶχον ἐφ’ οἷς ἠλέγχθησαν, κατελήφθησαν δὲ πάλιν πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς τονθορύζοντες καὶ διανεύοντες τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς, ὅτι καὶ τὸ ὅμοιον καὶ τὸ ἀεὶ καὶ τὸ τῆς δυνάμεως ὄνομα καὶ τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ κοινὰ πάλιν ἐστὶ πρὸς ἡμᾶς καὶ τὸν υἱόν, καὶ οὐδὲν λυπεῖ τούτοις ἡμᾶς συνθέσθαι. τὸ μὲν ὅμοιον, ὅτι καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν ἐγράφη· “εἰκών ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος καὶ δόξα θεοῦ ὑπάρχει,” τὸ δὲ ἀεί, ὅτι γέγραπται· “ἀεὶ γὰρ ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες,” τὸ δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ, ὅτι “ἐν αὐτῷ ζῶμεν καὶ κινούμεθα καὶ ἐσμέν,”καὶ τὸ ἄτρεπτον δέ, ὅτι γέγραπται· “οὐδὲν ἡμᾶς χωρίσει ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ Χριστοῦ,” περὶ δὲ τῆς δυνάμεως, ὅτι καὶ ἡ κάμπη καὶ ὁ βροῦχος μὲν λέγονται δύναμις καὶ δύναμις μεγάλη, πολλάκις δὲ καὶ περὶ τοῦ λαοῦ γέγραπται, ὥσπερ· “ἐξῆλθε πᾶσα ἡ δύναμις κυρίου ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου,” καὶ ἄλλαι δὲ οὐρανίαι δυνάμεις εἰσί· “κύριος γάρ,” φησί, “τῶν δυνάμεων μεθ’ ἡμῶν· ἀντιλήπτωρ ἡμῶν ὁ θεὸς Ἰακώβ,” τοιαῦτα γὰρ καὶ Ἀστέριος ὁ λεγόμενος σοφιστὴς παρ’ αὐτῶν μαθὼν ἔγραψε καὶ παρ’ αὐτοῦ δὲ Ἄρειος μαθών, ὥσπερ εἴρηται. ἀλλ’ οἱ ἐπίσκοποι καὶ ἐν τούτῳ θεωρήσαντες τὴν ὑπόκρισιν ἐκείνων καὶ ὅτι κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον “ἐν καρδίαις τῶν ἀσεβῶν δόλος ἐστὶ τεκταινομένων κακά,” ἠναγκάσθησαν καὶ αὐτοὶ αὖθις συναγαγεῖν ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν τὴν διάνοιαν καί, ἅπερ πρότερον ἔλεγον, ταῦτα πάλιν λευκότερον εἰπεῖν καὶ γράψαι, ὁμοούσιον εἶναι τῷ πατρὶ τὸν υἱόν, ἵνα μὴ μόνον ὅμοιον τὸν υἱόν, ἀλλὰ ταὐτὸν τῇ ὁμοιώσει ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς εἶναι σημαίνωσι καὶ ἄλλην οὖσαν τὴν τοῦ υἱοῦ ὁμοίωσιν καὶ ἀτρεψίαν δείξωσι παρὰ τὴν ἐν ἡμῖν λεγομένην μίμησιν, ἣν ἐξ ἀρετῆς διὰ τὴν τῶν ἐντολῶν τήρησιν ἡμεῖς προσλαμβάνομεν. τὰ μὲν γὰρ τῶν σωμάτων ὅμοια πρὸς ἑαυτὰ τυγχάνοντα δυνατόν πως διίστασθαι καὶ μακρὰν ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων γίνεσθαι, οἷοί εἰσιν οἱ τῶν ἀνθρώπων υἱοὶ πρὸς τοὺς γεννήσαντας, ὡς γέγραπται περὶ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ καὶ τοῦ ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεννηθέντος Σήθ, ὃς ἦν ὅμοιος αὐτῷ “κατὰ τὴν ἰδέαν αὐτοῦ.” ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἡ ἐκ πατρὸς τοῦ υἱοῦ γέννησις ἄλλη παρὰ τὴν ἀνθρώπων φύσιν ἐστὶ καὶ οὐ μόνον ὅμοιος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀδιαίρετός ἐστι τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας καὶ ἓν μέν εἰσιν αὐτὸς καὶ ὁ πατήρ, ὡς αὐτὸς εἴρηκεν, ἀεὶ δὲ ἐν τῷ πατρί ἐστιν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ λόγῳ, ὡς ἔστι τὸ ἀπαύγασμα πρὸς τὸ φῶς—τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ ἡ λέξις σημαίνει—διὰ τοῦτο ἡ σύνοδος τοῦτο νοοῦσα καλῶς ὁμοούσιον ἔγραψεν, ἵνα τήν τε τῶν αἱρετικῶν κακοήθειαν ἀνατρέψωσι καὶ δείξωσιν ἄλλον εἶναι τῶν γενητῶν τὸν λόγον. καὶ γὰρ τοῦτο γράψαντες εὐθὺς ἐπήγαγον· “τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ἢ κτιστὸν ἢ τρεπτὸν ἢ ποίημα ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας οὐσίας τούτους ἀναθεματίζει ἡ ἁγία καὶ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία,” ταῦτα δὲ εἰρηκότες ἐδήλωσαν φανερῶς, ὅτι τὸ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας καὶ τὸ ὁμοούσιον ἀναιρετικὰ τῶν τῆς ἀσεβείας λογαρίων εἰσίν, ἅπερ ἐστὶ κτίσμα καὶ ποίημα καὶ γενητὸν καὶ τρεπτὸν καὶ οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῇ. ὁ γὰρ ταῦτα φρονῶν ἀντιλέγει τῇ συνόδῳ, ὁ δὲ τὰ Ἀρείου μὴ φρονῶν ἐξ ἀνάγκης τὰ τῆς συνόδου φρονεῖ καὶ διανοεῖται καλῶς αὐτὰ βλέπων, ὅπως ἐστὶ τὸ ἀπαύγασμα πρὸς τὸ φῶς, καὶ ἐξ αὐτοῦ τὴν εἰκόνα τῆς ἀληθείας λαμβάνων. | 20 Eusebius and his companions were put to shame by the arguments against them and did not dare to contradict when the bishops said that the Word must be described as the true power and image of the Father, in all things exact and like the Father, and as unalterable, and as always, and as in him without division (for never was the Word not, but he was always, existing everlastingly with the Father, as the radiance of light). Nevertheless, they were caught whispering to each other and winking with their eyes, that “like,” and “always,” and “power,” and “in him,” were, as before, common to us and the Son, and that it was no difficulty to agree to these. As to “like,” they said that it is written of us, “Man is the image and glory of God” [1 Cor. 11:7]; “always,” that it was written, “For we who live are always” [2 Cor. 4:11]; “in him,” “In him we live and move and have our being” [Acts 17:28]; “unalterable,” that it is written, “Nothing shall separate us from the love of Christ” [Rom. 8:35]; as to “power,” that the caterpillar and the locust are called “power” and “great power,” and that it is often said of the people, for instance, “All the power of the Lord came out of the land of Egypt” [Exod. 12:41]; and there are others also, heavenly ones, for Scripture says, “The Lord of powers is with us, the God of Jacob is our refuge” [Ps. 46:7]. Indeed Asterius, by title the sophist, had said the like in writing, having learned it from them, and before him Arius having learned it also, as has been said. But the bishops discerning in this too their dissimulation, and whereas it is written, “Deceit is in the heart of the irreligious who imagine evil” [Prov. 12:20], were again compelled on their part to collect the sense of the Scriptures, and to re-say and re-write what they had said before, more distinctly still, namely, that the Son is homoousios with the Father. This was to signify that the Son was from the Father, and not merely like, but the same in likeness, and to show that the Son’s likeness and unalterableness was different from that which is ascribed to us, which we acquire from virtue on the ground of observance of the commandments. For bodies which are like each other may be separated and become at distances from each other, as are human sons relatively to their parents (as it is written concerning Adam and Seth, who was begotten of him “like him after his own pattern” [Gen. 5:3]). But the generation of the Son from the Father is not according to the nature of men, and not only like, but also inseparable from the essence of the Father. He and the Father are one, as he himself has said, and the Word is ever in the Father and the Father in the Word, as the radiance stands towards the light (as this the phrase itself indicates). Therefore the council, understanding this, suitably wrote “homoousios” that they might both defeat the perverseness of the heretics and show that the Word was other than created things. For, after thus writing, they at once added, “But they who say that the Son of God is from nothing, or created, or alterable, or a work, or from other essence—these the holy catholic church anathematizes.” And by saying this, they showed clearly that “of the essence,” and homoousios are destructive of those catchwords of irreligion, such as “created,” and “work,” and “originated,” and “alterable,” and “he was not before his generation.” And he who holds these contradicts the council; but he who does not hold with Arius must hold and intend the decisions of the council, suitably regarding them to signify the relation of the radiance to the light, and from there gaining the illustration of the truth. |
| 37 Οἱ ἐν Νικαίᾳ συνελθόντες ἐπίσκοποι ἦσαν δὲ ἐγγὺς τριακόσιοι κατακρίναντες τὴν ἀρειανὴν αἵρεσιν καὶ καθαιρήσαντες τοὺς περὶ Ἄρειον. λοιπὸν ἐξέθεντο ἐγγράφως τὴν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν πίστιν πρὸς ἔλεγχον κατὰ πάσης αἱρέσεως. Τὰ ἐν τῇ Νικαίᾳ ἐκτεθέντα, ἔδοξε τὰ ὑποτεταγμένα. Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεόν, πατέρα, παντοκράτορα, πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν· καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς μονογενῆ, τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός, θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο τά τε ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸν δι’ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα καὶ σαρκωθέντα, ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, παθόντα καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, ἀνελθόντα εἰς οὐρανούς, ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς· καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα. τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας ‘ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν’ ἢ ‘οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῇ’ ἢ ‘ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο’ ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι ἢ κτιστὸν ἢ τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ τοὺς τοιούτους ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία. | 37 The bishops who gathered at Nicaea were about three hundred in number. They passed judgment against the Arian heresy, and they defeated those around Arius. Therefore they drew up in writing the faith of the church for the refutation against every heresy: “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father as only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, homoousios with the Father. Through him all things were made, in heaven and on earth. For us men and for our salvation he came down, was incarnate, and became human. He suffered and rose on the third day. He ascended into heaven. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. We believe in the Holy Spirit. The catholic apostolic church anathematizes those who say, ‘He did not always exist,’ or ‘Before he was begotten he did not exist,’ or ‘He was made from things which did not exist,’ or who claim that the Son of God is of a different substance or essence, or is created, changeable, or mutable.” |
| To the Bishops of Africa (Ad Afros) | |
| 1 ῾Ικανὰ μὲν τὰ γραφέντα παρά τε τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ καὶ συλλειτουργοῦ ἡμῶν Δαμάσου τοῦ ἐπισκόπου τῆς μεγάλης ῾Ρώμης καὶ τῶν σὺν αὐτῷ τοσούτων συνελθόντων ἐπισκόπων, οὐδὲν δὲ ἧττον καὶ τὰ τῶν ἄλλων γενομένων συνόδων ἔν τε τῇ Γαλλίᾳ καὶ τῇ ᾿Ιταλίᾳ περὶ τῆς ὑγιαινούσης πίστεως, ἣν ὁ μὲν κύριος ἐχαρίσατο, οἱ δὲ ἀπόστολοι ἐκήρυξαν καὶ οἱ πατέρες παραδεδώκασιν οἱ ἐν τῇ Νικαίᾳ συνελθόντες ἀπὸ πάσης τῆς καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς οἰκουμένης. τοσαύτη γὰρ γέγονε τότε σπουδὴ διὰ τὴν ἀρειανὴν αἵρεσιν, ἵνα οἱ μὲν πεπτωκότες εἰς αὐτὴν ἀνασπασθῶσιν, οἱ δὲ ἐφευρόντες ἔκδηλοι γένωνται. ταύτῃ γοῦν καὶ πάλαι πᾶσα ἡ οἰκουμένη συμπεφώνηκε καὶ νῦν δὲ πολλῶν συνόδων γενομένων ὑπομνησθέντες πάντες οἵ τε κατὰ τὴν Δαλματίαν καὶ Δαρδανίαν καὶ Μακεδονίαν ᾿Ηπείρους τε καὶ τὴν ῾Ελλάδα καὶ Κρήτην καὶ τὰς ἄλλας νήσους Σικελίαν τε καὶ Κύπρον καὶ Παμφυλίαν Λυκίαν τε καὶ ᾿Ισαυρίαν καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν Αἴγυπτον καὶ τὰς Λιβύας καὶ πλεῖστοι τῶν ἐν τῇ ᾿Αραβίᾳ ταύτην ἐπέγνωσαν καὶ ἐθαύμασάν τε τοὺς ὑπογράψαντας, ὅτι εἰ καί τι περιελέλειπτο παρ᾿ αὐτοῖς ἐκ τῆς ῥίζης <τῆς> τῶν ἀρειανῶν ἄνω φύουσα πικρία, Αὐξέντιόν φαμεν καὶ Οὐρσάκιον καὶ Οὐάλεντα καὶ τοὺς τὰ αὐτὰ φρονοῦντας αὐτοῖς, οὗτοι διὰ τῶν γραμμάτων τούτων ἐξεκόπησαν καὶ ἀπηλείφθησαν. ἱκανὰ μὲν οὖν τὰ ἐν τῇ Νικαίᾳ ὁμολογηθέντα καὶ αὐτάρκη, καθὰ προείπομεν, πρός τε ἀνατροπὴν πάσης ἀσεβοῦς αἱρέσεως καὶ πρὸς ἀσφάλειαν καὶ ὠφέλειαν τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς διδασκαλίας. ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἠκούσαμεν, ὅτι τινὲς βουλόμενοι μάχεσθαι πρὸς αὐτὴν ὀνομάζειν ἐπιχειροῦσι σύνοδόν τινα ὡς ἐν ᾿Αριμήνῳ γενομένην καὶ φιλονεικοῦσι ταύτην μᾶλλον ἢ ἐκείνην κρατεῖν, ἀναγκαῖον ἡγησάμεθα γράψαι καὶ ὑπομνῆσαι ὑμᾶς, ἵνα μὴ ἀνέχησθε τῶν τοιούτων· τοῦτο γὰρ οὐδὲν ἕτερόν ἐστιν ἢ πάλιν τῆς ἀρειανῆς αἱρέσεως παραφυάς. οἱ γὰρ τὴν κατ᾿ αὐτῆς σύνοδον γενομένην παραιτούμενοι – ἔστι δὲ ἡ ἐν Νικαίᾳ γενομένη – τί ἕτερον βούλονται ἢ τὰ ᾿Αρείου κρατεῖν; τίνος οὖν ἄξιοι οἱ τοιοῦτοι ἢ ᾿Αρειανοὶ μὲν καλεῖσθαι, τῆς δὲ αὐτῆς ἐπιτιμίας ἐκείνοις μετασχεῖν; οἳ μήτε τὸν θεὸν ἐφοβήθησαν λέγοντα· “μὴ μέταιρε ὅρια αἰώνια, ἃ ἔθεντο οἱ πατέρες σου” καί “ὁ κακολογῶν πατέρα ἢ μητέρα θανάτῳ τελευτάτω” μήτε τοὺς πατέρας ᾐδέσθησαν παραγγείλαντας ἀνάθεμα εἶναι τοὺς τὰ ἐναντία φρονοῦντας τῆς ὁμολογίας αὐτῶν. | 1 The letters are sufficient which were written by our beloved fellow minister Damasus, bishop of great Rome, and the large number of bishops who assembled along with him. Equally so are those of the other councils which were held, both in Gaul and in Italy, concerning the sound faith which Christ gave us, the apostles preached, and the fathers, who met at Nicaea from all this world of ours, have handed down. For a great stir was made at that time about the Arian heresy, in order that they who had fallen into it might be reclaimed, while its inventors might be made manifest. To that council, accordingly, the whole world has long ago agreed, and now, many councils having been held, all men have been put in mind, both in Dalmatia and Dardania, Macedonia, Epirus and Greece, Crete and the other islands, Sicily, Cyprus, Pamphylia, Lycia, and Isauria, all Egypt and the Libyas, and most of the Arabians have come to know it, and marveled at those who signed it, inasmuch as even if there were left among them any bitterness springing up from the root of the Arians (we mean Auxentius, Ursacius, Valens and their fellows), by these letters they have been cut off and isolated. The confession agreed upon at Nicaea was, we say once more, sufficient and enough by itself for the subversion of all irreligious heresy and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the church. But since we have heard that certain people wishing to oppose it are attempting to cite a council supposedly held at Ariminum and are eagerly striving that it should prevail rather than the other, we think it worthwhile to write and remind you not to endure anything of the sort, for this is nothing else but a second growth of the Arian heresy. For what else do they wish for, those who reject the council held against it (namely the Nicene), if not that the cause of Arius should prevail? What then do such men deserve but to be called Arians and to share the punishment of the Arians? For they were not afraid of God, who says, “Do not remove the eternal boundaries which your fathers placed” [Prov. 22:28], and “He that speaks against father or mother, let him be put to death” [Exod. 21:17]. They were not in awe of their fathers, who declared that they who hold the opposite of their confession should be anathema. |
| 2 Διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ οἰκουμενικὴ γέγονεν ἡ ἐν Νικαίᾳ σύνοδος τριακοσίων δέκα καὶ ὀκτὼ συνελθόντων ἐπισκόπων περὶ τῆς πίστεως διὰ τὴν ἀρειανὴν ἀσέβειαν, ἵνα μηκέτι κατὰ μέρος προφάσει πίστεως γίνωνται, ἀλλὰ κἂν γένωνται μὴ κρατῶσι. τί γὰρ ἐκείνῃ λείπει, ἵνα καινότερα ζητήσῃ τις; πλήρης ἐστὶν εὐσεβείας, ἀγαπητοί· αὕτη πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην πεπλήρωκε. ταύτην ἔγνωσαν καὶ ᾿Ινδοὶ καὶ ὅσοι παρὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις βαρβάροις εἰσὶ Χριστιανοί. οὐκοῦν μάταιος ὁ κάματος τοῖς κατ᾿ αὐτῆς πολλάκις ἐπιχειρήσασιν. ἤδη γὰρ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δέκα καὶ πλέον που συνόδους πεποιήκασι καθ᾿ ἑκάστην μεταβαλλόμενοι καὶ τὰ μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν πρωτῶν ἀφαιροῦντες, τὰ δὲ ταῖς μετὰ ταῦτα ἐναλλάσσοντες καὶ προστιθέντες. καὶ ὤνησαν οὐδὲν μέχρι νῦν γράφοντες ἐξαλείφοντες βιαζόμενοι οὐκ εἰδότες, ὅτι “πᾶσα μὲν φυτεία ἣν οὐκ ἐφύτευσεν ὁ πατὴρ ὁ οὐράνιος ἐκριζωθήσεται,” “τὸ δὲ ῥῆμα τοῦ κυρίου” τὸ διὰ τῆς οἰκουμενικῆς συνόδου ἐν τῇ Νικαίᾳ γενόμενον “μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.” ἄν τε γὰρ ἀριθμὸν ἀριθμῷ τις συμβάλοι, πλείους οἱ ἐν Νικαίᾳ τῶν κατὰ μέρος εἰσίν, ὅσον καὶ τὸ ὅλον πλεῖόν ἐστι τοῦ μέρους. ἄν τε τὸ αἴτιον τῆς ἐν Νικαίᾳ καὶ τῶν μετὰ ταύτην τοσούτων γενομένων συνόδων παρὰ τούτων διαγνῶναί τις ἐθέλοι, εὕροι ἂν τὴν μὲν ἐν Νικαίᾳ ἔχουσαν τὸ αἴτιον εὔλογον, τὰς δὲ ἄλλας διὰ μῖσος καὶ φιλονεικίαν ἐκ βίας συγκροτηθείσας. ἡ μὲν γὰρ διὰ τὴν ἀρειανὴν αἵρεσιν καὶ διὰ τὸ πάσχα συνήχθη, ἐπειδὴ οἱ κατὰ Συρίαν καὶ Κιλικίαν καὶ Μεσοποταμίαν διεφώνουν πρὸς ἡμᾶς καὶ τῷ καιρῷ, ἐν ᾧ ποιοῦσιν οἱ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι, ἐποίουν καὶ αὐτοί. ἀλλὰ χάρις τῷ κυρίῳ, ὥσπερ περὶ τῆς πίστεως οὕτω καὶ περὶ τῆς ἁγίας ἑορτῆς γέγονε συμφωνία. καὶ τοῦτο ἦν τὸ αἴτιον τῆς ἐν Νικαίᾳ συνόδου· αἱ δὲ μετὰ ταύτην ὑπὲρ ᾿Αρείου μέν, κατὰ δὲ τῆς οἰκουμενικῆς συνόδου ἐπενοήθησαν… | 2 For this was why an ecumenical council has been held at Nicaea, 318 bishops assembling to discuss the faith on account of the Arian heresy, namely, in order that local councils should no more be held on the subject of the faith, but that, even if held, they should not remain in force. For what does that council lack, that anyone should seek to innovate? Dear friends, it is full of piety and has filled the whole world with it. Indians have acknowledged it, and all Christians of other barbarous nations. Vain then is the labor of those who have often made attempts against it. For already the men we refer to have held ten or more councils, changing their ground at each, and while taking away some things from earlier decisions, in later ones make changes and additions. And so far they have gained nothing by writing, erasing, and using force, not knowing that “every plant that the Heavenly Father has not planted shall be plucked up” [Matt. 15:13]. But “the word of the Lord,” which came through the ecumenical council at Nicaea, “abides forever” [1 Pet. 1:25]. For if one compares number with number, those who met at Nicaea are more than those at local councils, inasmuch as the whole is greater than the part. But if a man wishes to discern the reason for the council at Nicaea, and that of the large number subsequently held by these men, he will find that while there was a reasonable cause for the former, the others were convened by force, by reason of hatred and contention. For the former council was summoned because of the Arian heresy, and because of Easter, because those in Syria, Cilicia and Mesopotamia differed from us and kept the feast at the same season as the Jews. But thanks to the Lord, harmony has resulted not only in regard to the faith, but also in regard to the sacred feast. And that was the reason for the council at Nicaea. But the subsequent ones were without number and were all planned in opposition to the ecumenical council… |
| 4 … Εἴπερ οὖν τινες τὴν ᾿Αρίμηνον ὀνομάζουσι, δεικνύτωσαν πρῶτον τὴν καθαίρεσιν τῶν προειρημένων καὶ ἅπερ ἔγραψαν οἱ ἐπίσκοποι λέγοντες μηδὲν πλέον ζητεῖν τῶν ἐν Νικαίᾳ παρὰ τῶν πατέρων ὁμολογηιθέντων μηδὲ ὀνομάζειν ἄλλην σύνοδον παρ᾿ ἐκείνην. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν κρύπτουσι, τὰ δὲ ἐν τῇ Θρᾴκῃ κατὰ βίαν πραχθέντα προβάλλονται· ἐξ ὧν δείκνυνται τῆς μὲν ἀρειανῆς αἱρέσεως ὄντες, ἀλλότριοι δὲ τῆς ὑγιαινούσης πίστεως. καὶ αὐτὴν δὲ τὴν μεγάλην σύνοδον καὶ τὰς παρ᾿ ἐκείνων ἄν τις ἐξετάζειν ἐκ παραλλήλου θέλοι, εὕροι ἂν τῶν μὲν τὴν θεοσέβειαν, τῶν δὲ τὴν ἀλογίαν. οἱ ἐν Νικαίᾳ συνελθόντες οὐ καθαιρεθέντες συνῆλθον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὡμολόγησαν <ἐκ> τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρὸς εἶναι τὸν υἱόν· οὗτοι δὲ καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ δεύτερον καθαιρεθέντες καὶ τρίτον ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ᾿Αριμήνῳ γράφειν ἐτόλμησαν, μὴ χρῆναι λέγειν οὐσίαν ἢ ὑπόστασιν ἔχειν τὸν θεόν. ἐκ δὴ τούτων σκοπεῖν ἔξεστιν, ἀδελφοί, ὡς οἱ μὲν ἐν Νικαίᾳ τῶν γραφῶν πνέουσι λέγοντος αὐτοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν μὲν τῇ ἐξόδῳ· “ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν,” διὰ δὲ τοῦ ῾Ιερεμίου· “τίς ἔστη ἐν ὑποστήματι αὐτοῦ καὶ εἶδε τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ;” καὶ μετ᾿ ὀλίγον· “καὶ ἔστησαν ἐν τῇ ὑποστάσει μου καὶ ἤκουσαν τῶν λόγων μου.” ἡ δὲ ὑπόστασις οὐσία ἐστὶ καὶ οὐδὲν ἄλλο σημαινόμενον ἔχει ἢ αὐτὸ τὸ ὄν, ὅπερ ῾Ιερεμίας ὕπαρξιν ὀνομάζει λέγων· καὶ “οὐκ ἤκουσαν φωνὴν ὑπάρξεως.” ἡ γὰρ ὑπόστασις καὶ ἡ οὐσία ὕπαρξίς ἐστιν· ἔστι γὰρ καὶ ὑπάρχει. τοῦτο νοῶν καὶ ὁ Παῦλος ἔγραψεν ῾Εβραίοις· “ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ.” οὗτοι δὲ οἱ δοκοῦντες εἰδέναι τὰς γραφὰς καὶ ὀνομάζοντες ἑαυτοὺς εἶναι σοφοὺς μὴ θέλοντες ὑπόστασιν λέγειν ἐπὶ θεοῦ – τοῦτο γὰρ ἔγραψαν ἐν τῇ ᾿Αριμήνῳ καὶ ἐν ἄλλαις ἑαυτῶν συνόδοις – πῶς οὐ δικαίως καθῃρέθησαν λέγοντες καὶ αὐτοὶ ὡς “ἄφρων ἐν καρδίᾳ· οὐκ ἔστι θεός;” πάλιν τε οἱ πατέρες ἐδίδαξαν ἐν τῇ Νικαίᾳ μὴ εἶναι κτίσμα ἢ ποίημα τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον ἀναγνόντες· “πάντα δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο” καὶ “ἐν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα ἐκτίσθη” καὶ “συνέστηκεν.” οὗτοι δὲ οἱ μᾶλλον ᾿Αρειανοὶ ἢ Χριστιανοὶ ὄντες ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις ἑαυτῶν συνόδοις κτίσμα τετολμήκασιν εἰπεῖν αὐτὸν καὶ ἕνα τῶν ποιημάτων, ὧν αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ λόγος δημιουργὸς καὶ ποιητής. εἰ γὰρ “δι᾿ αὐτοῦ τὰ πάντα γέγονε,” κτίσμα δέ ἐστι καὶ αὐτός, εἴη ἂν καὶ ἑαυτὸν κτίζων. καὶ πῶς δύναται τὸ κτιζόμενον κτίζειν ἢ πῶς ὁ κτίζων κτίζεται; | 4 … If then any cite the council of Ariminum, firstly let them point out the deposition of the above persons and what the bishops wrote, namely that none should seek anything beyond what had been agreed upon by the fathers at Nicaea, nor cite any council save that one. This they suppress, but they make much of what was done by violence in Thrace, thus showing that they are dissemblers of the Arian heresy and aliens from the sound faith. And again, if a man were to examine and compare the great council itself and those held by these people, he would discover the piety of the one and the folly of the others. They who assembled at Nicaea did so not after being deposed, and they confessed that the Son was of the essence of the Father. But the others, after being deposed again and again, and once more at Ariminum itself, ventured to write that it ought not be said that the Son had essence or subsistence. This enables us to see, brothers, that they of Nicaea breathe the spirit of Scripture, in that God says in Exodus, “I am that I am” [Exod. 3:14], and through Jeremiah, “Who is in his substance and has seen his word” [Jer. 23:18], and just below, “if they had stood in my subsistence and heard my words” [Jer. 23:22]. Now subsistence is essence, and means nothing else but very being, which Jeremiah calls existence, in the words, “and they heard not the voice of existence” [Jer. 9:10]. For subsistence, and essence, is existence; for it is, or in other words exists. Perceiving this, Paul also wrote to the Hebrews, “who being the brightness of his glory and the express image of his subsistence” [Heb. 1:3]. But the others, who think they know the Scriptures and call themselves wise, and do not choose to speak of subsistence in God (for thus they wrote at Ariminum and at other councils of theirs), were surely with justice deposed, saying as they did, like the fool did in his heart, “God is not” [Ps. 14:1]. And again the fathers taught at Nicaea that the Son and Word is not a creature, nor made, having read “all things were made through him” [John 1:3], and “in him were all things created” and “come together” [Col. 1:16-17]. Meanwhile these men, Arians rather than Christians, in their other councils have ventured to call him a creature, and one of the things that are made, things of which he himself is the creator and maker. For if “through him all things were made” and he too is a creature, he would be the creator of himself. And how can what is being created create, or he that is creating be created? |
| 5b … τῶν γὰρ συνελθόντων ἐπισκόπων βουλομένων τὰς μὲν παρὰ τῶν ᾿Αρειανῶν ἐφευρεθείσας τῆς ἀσεβείας λέξεις ἀνελεῖν, τὸ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων καὶ τὸ λέγειν κτίσμα καὶ ποίημα τὸν υἱόν καὶ ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν καὶ ὅτι τρεπτῆς ἐστι φύσεως, τὰς δὲ τῶν γραφῶν ὁμολογουμένας γράψαι, ὅτι τε ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ υἱὸς φύσει μονογενής ἐστιν, λόγος, δύναμις, σοφία μόνη τοῦ πατρός, “θεὸς ἀληθινὸς” ὡς εἶπεν ὁ ᾿Ιωάννης καὶ ὡς ἔγραψεν ὁ Παῦλος “ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς ὑποστάσεως,” οἱ περὶ Εὐσέβιον ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας κακοδοξίας ἑλκόμενοι διελάλουν ἀλλήλοις· συνθώμεθα. καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐσμεν· “εἷς γὰρ θεός, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα” καὶ “τὰ ἀρχαῖα παρῆλθεν, ἰδοὺ γέγονε καινά. τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ.” ἐλογίζοντο δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐν τῷ Ποιμένι γραφέν· “πρῶτον πάντων πίστευσον, ὅτι εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεὸς ὁ τὰ πάντα κτίσας καὶ καταρτίσας καὶ ποιήσας ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι.” ἀλλ᾿ οἱ ἐπίσκοποι θεωρήσαντες τὴν πανουργίαν ἐκείνων καὶ τὴν τῆς ἀσεβείας κακοτεχνίαν λευκότερον εἰρήκασι τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἔγραψαν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ θεοῦ εἶναι τὸν υἱόν, ἵνα τὰ μὲν κτίσματα διὰ τὸ μὴ ἀφ᾿ ἑαυτῶν χωρὶς αἰτίου εἶναι ἀλλὰ ἀρχὴν ἔχειν τοῦ γενέσθαι λέγηται ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ δὲ υἱὸς μόνος ἴδιος τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας· τοῦτο γὰρ ἴδιον μονογενοῦς καὶ ἀληθινοῦ λόγου πρὸς πατέρα. καὶ περὶ μὲν τοῦ γεγράφθαι ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας ἡ πρόφασις αὕτη, πάλιν δὲ τῶν ἐπισκόπων ἐρωτώντων τοὺς δοκοῦντας λογίους, εἴπερ λέγοιεν τὸν υἱὸν οὐ κτίσμα ἀλλὰ δύναμιν, σοφίαν μόνην τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ εἰκόνα ἀίδιον ἀπαράλλακτον κατὰ πάντα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ θεὸν ἀληθινόν, κατελήφθησαν οἱ περὶ Εὐσέβιον διανεύοντες ἀλλήλοις ὅτι· καὶ ταῦτα φθάνει καὶ εἰς ἡμᾶς· καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἡμεῖς καὶ “εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα θεοῦ” λεγόμεθα καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν εἴρηται· “ἀεὶ γὰρ ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες” καὶ δυνάμεις πολλαί εἰσι· “καὶ ἐξῆλθε μὲν πᾶσα ἡ δύναμις κυρίου ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου.” ἡ δὲ κάμπη καὶ ἡ ἀκρὶς λέγεται δύναμις μεγάλη· καὶ “κύριος τῶν δυνάμεων μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν, ἀντιλήπτωρ ἡμῶν ὁ θεὸς ᾿Ιακώβ.” ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ τὸ ἰδίους ἡμᾶς εἶναι τοῦ θεοῦ ἔχομεν οὐχ ἁπλῶς, ἀλλ᾿ ὅτι καὶ ἀδελφοὺς ἡμᾶς ἐκάλεσεν. εἰ δὲ καὶ θεὸν ἀληθινὸν λέγουσι τὸν υἱόν, οὐ λυπεῖ ἡμᾶς· γενόμενος γὰρ ἀληθινός ἐστιν. | 5b … The bishops convened in council to refute the impious assertions invented by the Arians, that the Son was created out of what was nonexistent, that he is a creature and created being, that there was a period in which he was not, and that he is changeable by nature. In accordance with the holy Scriptures, they agreed to write that the Son is by nature only-begotten of God, Word, power, and sole wisdom of the Father; that he is, as John said, “the true God” [John 17:3], and, as Paul has written, “the brightness of the glory, and the express image of the person of the Father” [Heb. 1:3]. The followers of Eusebius, drawn aside by their own vile doctrine, then began to say one to another, “Let us agree, because we are also of God. ‘There is but one God, by whom are all things,’ and ‘Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new, and all things are of God.’” They also gave particular attention to what is contained in The Shepherd: “Believe above all that there is one God, who created and fashioned all things, and made them to be out of that which is not.” 1 But the bishops saw through their evil design and impious fraud, gave a clearer explanation of the words “of God,” and wrote that the Son is of the substance of God. While the creatures, which do not in any way derive their existence of or from themselves, are said to be of God, only the Son is said to be of the substance of the Father. This is unique to the only-begotten Son, the true Word of the Father. This is the reason why the bishops wrote that he is of the substance of the Father. But when the Arians, who seemed few in number, were again interrogated by the bishops to see if they admitted “that the Son is not a creature, but power, and sole wisdom, and eternal unchangeable image of the Father, and that he is very God,” the Eusebians were noticed nodding to each other, saying, “These things apply to us as well. For it is said that we are ‘the image and glory of God,’ [1 Cor. 11:7] and ‘We are always alive’” [2 Cor. 4:11]. There are also, they said, many powers, “for it is written, ‘All the power of God went out of the land of Egypt’ [Exod. 12:41]. The worm and the locust are said to be ‘a great power’ [Joel 2:25]. And elsewhere it is written, ‘The God of powers is with us, our helper is the God of Jacob’ [Ps. 46:7]. To which may be added that we are God’s own not naturally, but because the Son called us ‘brothers.’ The declaration that Christ is ‘the true God’ does not distress us, for the one who came into being is true.” |
| 6Αὕτη τῶν ᾿Αρειανῶν ἡ ἐφθαρμένη διάνοια. ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐνταῦθα οἱ ἐπίσκοποι θεωρήσαντες ἐκείνων τὸ δόλιον συνήγαγον ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν τὸ ἀπαύγασμα τήν τε πηγὴν καὶ τὸν ποταμὸν καὶ τὸν χαρακτῆρα πρὸς τὴν ὑπόστασιν καὶ τὸ “ἐν τῷ φωτί σου ὀψόμεθα φῶς,” καὶ τὸ “ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν,” καὶ λευκότερον λοιπὸν καὶ συντόμως ἔγραψαν ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρὶ τὸν υἱόν· τὰ γὰρ προειρημένα πάντα ταύτην ἔχει τὴν σημασίαν. καὶ ὁ γογγυσμὸς δὲ αὐτῶν, ὅτι ἄγραφοί εἰσιν αἱ λέξεις, ἐλέγχεται παρ᾿ αὐτῶν μάταιος· ἐξ ἀγράφων ἀσεβήσαντες (ἄγραφα δὲ τὸ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων καὶ τὸ ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν) αἰτιῶνται, ὅτι ἐξ ἀγράφων μετ᾿ εὐσεβείας νοουμένων λέξεων κατεκρίθησαν. αὐτοὶ μὲν ὡς ἐκ κοπρίας ὄντες ἐλάλησαν ἀληθῶς ἀπὸ γῆς, οἱ δὲ ἐπίσκοποι οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς εὑρόντες τὰς λέξεις ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ πατέρων ἔχοντες τὴν μαρτυρίαν οὕτως ἔγραψαν. ἐπίσκοποι γὰρ ἀρχαῖοι πρὸ αὐτῶν ἐγγύς που ἑκατὸν τριάκοντα τῆς μεγάλης ῾Ρώμης καὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας πόλεως γράφοντες ᾐτιάσαντο τοὺς ποίημα λέγοντας τὸν υἱὸν καὶ μὴ ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί. καὶ τοῦτο ἐγίνωσκεν Εὐσέβιος ὁ γενόμενος ἐπίσκοπος τῆς Καισαρείας πρότερον μὲν συντρέχων τῇ ἀρειανῇ αἱρέσει, ὕστερον δὲ ὑπογράψας ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἐν Νικαίᾳ συνόδῳ ἔγραψε τοῖς ἰδίοις διαβεβαιούμενος, ὅτι καὶ τῶν παλαιῶν τινας λογίους καὶ ἐπιφανεῖς ἐπισκόπους καὶ συγγραφέας ἔγνωμεν ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ θεότητος τῷ τοῦ ὁμοουσίου χρησαμένους ὀνόματι. | 6 This was the corrupt opinion of the Arians. But at that time the bishops, when they discovered their deceitfulness, collected from Scripture those passages which say of Christ that he is the glory, the fountain, the stream, and the express image of the person, and they quoted the following words: “In your light we shall see light” [Ps. 36:9], and likewise, “I and the Father are one” [John 10:30]. Then, with still greater clearness, they briefly declared that the Son is homoousios with the Father; for this, indeed, is the meaning of the passages which have been quoted. The complaint of the Arians, that these precise words are not to be found in Scripture, is proved groundless by their own practice, for their own impious assertions are not taken from Scripture (for it is not written that the Son comes from what was not, and that there was a time when he was not), and yet they complain about being condemned by expressions which, though not actually in Scripture, are in accordance with true religion. They themselves, on the other hand, as though they had found their words on a dunghill, uttered things that truly came from worldly thinking. The bishops, on the other hand, did not find their expressions for themselves, but received their testimony from the fathers and wrote accordingly. Indeed, there were bishops of old, nearly one hundred and thirty years ago, both of the great city of Rome and of our own city, who condemned those who asserted that the Son is a creature and that he is not homoousios with the Father. Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea, was acquainted with these facts. He at one time favored the Arian heresy, but later signed the confession of faith of the council of Nicaea. He wrote to the people of his diocese, maintaining that the word homoousios was used by illustrious bishops and learned writers as a term for expressing the divinity of the Father and of the Son. |
| 11 …Αὕτη γὰρ ἡ ἐν Νικαίᾳ σύνοδος ἀληθῶς στηλογραφία κατὰ πάσης αἱρέσεώς ἐστιν. αὕτη καὶ τοὺς βλασφημοῦντας εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον καὶ λέγοντας αὐτὸ κτίσμα ἀνατρέπει. εἰρηκότες γὰρ οἱ πατέρες περὶ τῆς εἰς τὸν υἱὸν πίστεως ἐπήγαγον εὐθύς· πιστεύομεν καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ἵνα τελείαν καὶ πλήρη τὴν εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν τριάδα πίστιν ὁμολογήσαντες τὸν χαρακτῆρα τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ πίστεως καὶ τὴν διδασκαλίαν τῆς καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐν τούτῳ γνωρίσωσι. δῆλον γὰρ καὶ παρ᾿ ὑμῖν καὶ παρὰ πᾶσι καθέστηκε καὶ οὐδεὶς ἂν Χριστιανῶν ἀμφίβολον εἰς τοῦτο σχοίη τὴν διάνοιαν, ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν ἡμῶν ἡ πίστις εἰς τὴν κτίσιν, ἀλλ᾿ εἰς ἕνα θεὸν πατέρα παντοκράτορα, πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητὴν <καὶ> εἰς ἕνα κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ <καὶ> εἰς ἓν πνεῦμα ἅγιον· ἕνα θεὸν τὸν ἐν τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ τελείᾳ τριάδι γινωσκόμενον, εἰς ἣν καὶ βαπτιζόμενοι καὶ ἐν ταύτῃ συναπτόμενοι τῇ θεότητι πιστεύομεν καὶ κληρονομῆσαι βασιλείαν οὐρανῶν ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν, δι᾿ οὗ τῷ πατρὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. ἀμήν. | 11 … For this council of Nicaea is in truth a proscription of every heresy. It also upsets those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit and call him a creature. For the fathers, after speaking of faith in the Son, immediately added, “And we believe in the Holy Spirit,” in order that by confessing perfectly and fully the faith in the Holy Trinity they might make known the exact form of the faith of Christ and the teaching of the catholic church. For it is made clear both among you and among all, and no Christian can have a doubtful mind on the point, that our faith is not in the creature, but in one God, Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son, and in one Holy Spirit, one God, known in the holy and perfect Trinity. Because we are baptized into the Trinity and united in this Deity, we believe that we have also inherited the kingdom of the heavens in Christ Jesus our Lord, through whom be glory and power to the Father for ever and ever. Amen. |
This work is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Other works by Athanasius
Back to Ancient Descriptions of the Council of Nicaea
Last updated 8/30/24 by JSW
No Responses yet
