AD AFROS EPISTOLA SYNODICA

(WRITTEN ABOUT 369.)

TO THE BISHOPS OF AFRICA

LETTER OF NINETY BISHOPS OF EGYPT AND LIBYA

INCLUDING ATHANASIUS

1. Pre-eminence of the Council of Nicaea. Efforts to exalt that of Ariminum at

its expense.

The letters are sufficient which were written by our beloved

fellow-minister Damasus, bishop of the Great Rome, and the large number of

bishops who assembled along with him; and equally so are those of the other

synods which were held, both in Gaul and in Italy, concerning the sound Faith

which Christ gave us, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers, who met at

Nicaea from all this world of ours, have handed down. For so great a stir was

made at that time about the Arian heresy, in order that they who had fallen

into it might be reclaimed, while its inventors might be made manifest. To

that council, accordingly, the whole world has long ago agreed, and now, many

synods having been held, all men have been put in mind, both in Dalmatia and

Dardania, Macedonia, Epirus and Greece, Crete, and the other islands, Sicily,

Cyprus, Pamphylia, Lycia, and Isauria, all Egypt and the Libyas, and most of

the Arabians have come to know it, and marvelled at those who signed it,

inasmuch as even if there were left among them any bitterness springing up

from the root of the Arians; we mean Auxentius, Ursacius, Valens and their

fellows, by these letters they have been cut off and isolated. The confession

arrived at 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 wishing to

oppose it are attempting to cite a synod supposed to have been held at

Ariminum, and are eagerly striving that it should prevail rather than the

other, we think it right to write and put you in mind, not to endure anything

of the sort: for this is nothing else but a second growth of the Arian heresy.

For what else do they wish for who reject the synod held against it, namely

the Nicene, if not that the cause of Arius should prevail? What then do such

men deserve, but to be called Arians, and to share the punishment of the

Arians? For they were not afraid of God, who says, 'Remove not the eternal

boundaries which thy fathers placed(1),' and 'He that speaketh against father

or mother, let him die the death(2):' they were not in awe of their fathers,

who enjoined that they who hold the opposite of their confession should be

anathema.

2. The Synod of Nicaea contrasted with the

local Synods held since.

For this was why an ecumenical synod has been held at Nicaaea, 318 bishops

assembling to discuss the faith on account of the Arian heresy, namely, in

order that local synods should no more be held on the subject of the Faith,

but that, even if held, they should not hold good. For what does that Council

lack, that any one should seek to innovate? It is full of piety, beloved; and

has filled the whole world with it. Indians have acknowledged it, and all

Christians of other barbarous nations. Vain then is the labour of those who

have often made attempts against it. For already the men we refer to have held

ten or more synods, changing their ground at each, and while taking away some

things from earlier decisions, in later ones make changes and additions. And

so far they have gained nothing by writing, erasing, and using force, not

knowing that 'every plant that the Heavenly Father hath not planted shall be

plucked up(3).' But the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical

Synod at Nicaea, abides for ever(3a). For if one compare number with number,

these who met at Nicaea are more than those at local synods, inasmuch as the

whole is greater than the part. But if a man wishes to discern the reason of

the Synod at Nicaea, and that of the large number subsequently held by

490

these men, he will find that while there was a reasonable cause for the

former, the others were got together by force, by reason of hatred and

contention. For the former council was summoned because of the Arian heresy,

and because of Easter, in that they of Syria, Cilicia and Mesopotamia differed

from us, and kept the feast at the same season as the Jews. But thanks to the

Lord, harmony has resulted not only as to the Faith, but also as to the Sacred

Feast. And that was the reason of the synod at Nicaea. But the subsequent ones

were without number, all however planned in opposition to the ecumenical.

3. The true nature of the proceedings at

Ariminium.

This being pointed out, who will accept those who cite the synod of

Ariminum, or any other, against the Nicene? or who could help hating men who

set at nought their fathers' decisions, and put above them the newer ones,

drawn up at Ariminum with contention and violence? or who would wish to agree

with these men, who do not accept even their own? For in their own ten or more

synods, as I said above, they wrote now one thing, now another, and so came

out clearly as themselves the accusers of each one. Their case is not unlike

that of the Jewish traitors in old times. For just as they left the one well

of the living water, and hewed for themselves broken cisterns, which cannot

hold water, as the prophet Jeremiah has it(4), so these men, fighting against

the one ecumenical synod, 'hewed for themselves' many synods, and all appeared

empty, like 'a sheaf without strength(5).' Let us not then tolerate those who

cite the Ariminion or any other synod against that of Nicaea. For even they

who cite that of Ariminum appear not to know what was done there, for else

they would have said nothing about it. For ye know, beloved, from those who

went from you to Ariminum, how Ursacius and Valens, Eudoxius(5a) and

Auxentius(5b)(and there Demophilus(5c) also was with them), were deposed after

wishing to write something to supersede the Nicene decisions. For on being

requested to anathematise the Arian heresy, they refused, and preferred to be

its ringleaders. So the bishops, like genuine servants of the Lord and

orthodox believers (and there were nearly 200 (6) ), wrote that they were

satisfied with the Nicene alone, and desired and held nothing more or less

than that. This they also reported to Constantius, who had ordered the

assembling of the synod. But the men who had been deposed at Ariminum went off

to Constantius, and caused those who had reported against them to be insulted,

and threatened with not being allowed to return to their dioceses, and to be

treated with violence in Thrace that very winter, to compel them to tolerate

their innovations.

4. The Nicene formula in accordance with

Scripture.

If then any cite the synod of Ariminum, firstly let them point out the

deposition of the above persons, and what the bishops wrote, namely that none

should seek anything beyond what had been agreed upon by the fathers at

Nicaea, nor cite any synod save that one. But this they suppress, but make

much of what was done by violence in Thrace(6a); thus shewing that they are

dissemblers of the Arian heresy, and aliens from the sound Faith. And again,

if a man were to examine and compare the great synod itself, and those held by

these people, he would discover the piety of the one and the folly of the

others. They who assembled at Nicaaea did so not after being deposed: and

secondly, they confessed that the Son was of the Essence of the Father. But

the others, after being deposed again and again, and once more at Ariminum

itself, ventured to write that it ought not to be said that the Son had

Essence or Subsistence. This enables us to see, brethren, that they of Nicaaea

breathe the spirit of Scripture, in that God says in Exodus(6b), 'I am that I

am,' and through Jeremiah, 'Who is in His substance(7) and hath seen His

word;' and just below, 'if they had stood in My subsistence(8) and heard My

words:' now subsistence is essence, and means nothing else but very being,

which Jeremiah calls existence, in the words, 'and they heard not the voice of

existence(9).' For subsistence, and essence, is existence: for it is, or in

other words exists. This Paul also perceiving wrote to the Hebrews, 'who being

the brightness of his glory, and the express Image of his subsistence(10).'

But the others, who think they know the Scriptures and call themselves wise,

and do not choose to speak of subsistence in God (for thus they wrote at

Ariminum and at other synods of theirs), were surely with justice deposed,

saying as they did,

491

like the fool did in his heart(1), 'God is not.' 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(2),' and 'in Him were all things created, and

consist(3);' while these men, Arians rather than Christians, in their other

synods have ventured to call Him a creature, and one of the things that are

made, things of which He Himseif is the Artificer and Maker. For if 'through

Him all things were made' and He too is a creature, He would be the creator of

Himself. And how can what is being created create? or He that is creating be

created?

5. How the test 'Coessential' came to be adopted at Nicaea.

But not even thus are they ashamed, although they say such things as cause

them to be hated by all; citing the Synod of Ariminum, only to shew that there

also they were deposed. And as to the actual definition of Nicaea, that the

Son is coessential with the Father, on account of which they ostensibly oppose

the synod, and buzz around everywhere like gnats about the phrase, either they

stumble at it from ignorance, like those who stumble at the stone of stumbling

that was laid in Sion(4); or else they know, but for that very reason are

constantly opposing and murmuring, because it is an accurate declaration and

full in the face of their heresy. For it is not the phrases that vex them, but

the condemnation of themselves which the definition contains. And of this,

once again, they are themselves the cause, even if they wish to conceal the

fact of which they are perfectly aware, -- But we must now mention it, in

order that hence also the accuracy of the great synod may be shewn. For(5) the

assembled bishops wished to put away the impious phrases devised by the

Arians, namely 'made of nothing,' and that the Son was 'a thing made,' and a

'creature,' and that 'there was a time when He was not,' and that 'He is of

mutable nature.' And they wished to set down 'in writing the acknowledged

language of Scripture, namely that the Word is of God by nature Only-begotten,

Power, Wisdom of the Father, Very God, as John says, and as Paul wrote,

brightness of the Father's glory and express image of His person(1). But

Eusebius and his fellows, drawn on by their own error, kept conferring

together as follows: 'Let us assent. For we also are of God: for "there is one

God of whom are all things(2)," and "old things are passed away, behold all

things are made new but all things are of God(3)."' And they considered what

is written in the Shepherd(4), 'Before all things believe that God is one, who

created and set all things in order, and made them to exist out of nothing.'

But the Bishops, beholding their craftiness, and the cunning of their impiety,

expressed more plainly the sense of the words 'of God,' by writing that the

Son is of the Essence of God, so that whereas the Creatures, since they do not

exist of themselves without a cause, but have a beginning of their existence,

are said to be 'of God,' the Son alone might be deemed proper to the Essence

of the Father. For this is peculiar to one who is Only-begotten and true Word

in relation to a Father, and this was the reason why the words 'of the

essence' were adopted. Again(4a), upon the bishops asking the dissembling

minority if they agreed that the Son was not a Creature, but the Power and

only Wisdom of the Father, and the Eternal Image, in all respects exact, of

the Father, and true God, Eusebius and his fellows were observed exchanging

nods with one another, as much as to say 'this applies to us men also, for we

too are called "the image and glory of God(5)," and of us it is said, "For we

which live are alway(6)," and there are many Powers, and "all the power(7) of

the Lord went out of the land of Egypt," while the caterpillar and the locust

are called His "great power(8)." And "the Lord of powers(9) is with us, the

God of Jacob is our help." For we hold that we are proper(1) to God, and not

merely so, but insomuch that He has even called us brethren. Nor does it vex

us, even if they call the Son Very God. For when made He exists in verity.'

6. The Nicene test not unscriptural in sense,

nor a novelty.

Such was the corrupt mind of the Arians. But here too the Bishops,

beholding their craftiness, collected from the Scriptures the figures of

brightness, of the river and the well, and of the relation of the express

Image to the Subsistence, and the texts, 'in thy light shall we see light(2),'

and 'I and the Father are one(3).' And lastly they wrote more plainly, and

concisely, that the Son was coessential with the Father; for all the above

passages signify this. And their murmuring, that the phrases are unscriptural,

is exposed as vain by themselves, for they have uttered their impieties in

unscriptural terms: (for such are 'of

nothing' and 'there was a time when He was not'), while yet they find fault

because they were condemned by unscriptural terms pious in meaning. While

they, like men sprung from a dunghill, verily 'spoke of the earth(4),' the

Bishops, not having invented their phrases for themselves, but having

testimony from their Fathers, wrote as they did. For ancient bishops, of the

Great Rome and of our city, some 130 years ago, wrote(5) and censured those

who said that the Son was a creature and not coessential with the Father. And

Eusebius knew this, who was bishop of Caesarea, and at first an accomplice(6)

of the Arian heresy; but afterwards, having signed at the Council of Nicaea,

wrote to his own people affirming as follows: 'we know that certain eloquent

and distinguished bishops and writers even of ancient date used the word

"coessential" with reference to the Godhead of the Father and the Son.'

7. The position that the Son is a Creature inconsistent and untenable.

Why then do they go on citing the Synod of Ariminum, at which they were

deposed? Why do they reject that of Nicaea, at which their Fathers signed the

confession that the Son is of the Father's Essence and coessential with Him?

Why do they run about? For now they are at war not only with the bishops who

met at Nicaea, but with their own great bishops and their own friends. Whose

heirs or successors then are they? How can they call men fathers, whose

confession, well and apostolically drawn up, they will not accept? For if they

think they can object to it, let them speak, or rather answer, that they may

be convicted of falling foul of themselves, whether they believe the Son when

He says, 'I and my Father are one,' and 'he that hath seen Me hath seen the

Father(6a)' 'Yes,' they must answer, 'since it is written we believe it.' But

if they are asked how they are one, and how he that hath seen the Son hath

seen the Father, of course, we suppose they will say, 'by reason of

resemblance,' unless they have quite come to agree with those who hold the

brother-opinion to theirs, and are called(7) Anomoeans. But if once more they

are asked, 'how is He like?' they brasen it out and say, 'by perfect virtue

and harmony, by having the Same will with the Father, by not willing what the

Father wills not.' But let them understand that one assimilated to God by

virtue and will is liable also to the purpose of changing; but the Word is not

thus, unless He is 'like' in part, and as we are, because He is not like [God]

in essence also. But these characteristics belong to us, who are originate,

and of a created nature. For we too, albeit we cannot become like God in

essence, yet by progress in virtue imitate God, the Lord granting us this

grace, in the words, 'Be ye merciful as your Father is merciful:' 'be ye

perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect(8).' But that originate things are

changeable, no one can deny, seeing that angels transgressed, Adam disobeyed,

and all stand in need of the grace of the Word. But a mutable thing cannot be

like God who is truly unchangeable, any more than what is created can be like

its creator. This is why, with regard to us, the holy man said, 'Lord, who

shall be likened unto thee(9),' and 'who among the gods is like unto thee,

Lord(1);' meaning by gods those who, while created, had yet become partakers

of the Word, as He Himself said, 'If he called them gods to whom the word of

God came(2)' But things which partake cannot be identical with or similar to

that whereof they partake. For example, He said of Himself, 'I and the Father

are one(3),' implying that things originate are not so. For we would ask those

who allege the Ariminian Synod, whether a created essence can say, 'what

things I see my Father make, those I make also(4).' For things originate are

made and do not make; or else they made even themselves. Why, if, as they say,

the Son is a Creature and the Father is His Maker, surely the Son would be His

own maker, as He is able to make what the Father makes, as He said. But such a

supposition is absurd and utterly untenable, for none can make himself.

8. The Son's relation to the Father essential,

not merely ethical.

Once more, let them say whether things originate could says, 'oil things

whatsoever the Father hath are Mine.' Now, He has the prerogative of creating

and making, of Eternity, of omnipotence, of immutability. But things originate

cannot have the power of making, for they are creatures; nor eternity, for

their existence has a beginning; nor of omnipotence and immutabitity, for they

are under sway, and of changeable nature, as the Scriptures say. Well then, if

these prerogatives belong to the Son, they clearly do so, not on account of

His virtue, as said above, but essentially, even as

493

the synod said, 'He is of no other essence' but of the Father's, to whom these

prerogatives are proper. But what can that be which is proper to the Father's

essence, and an offspring from it, or what name can we give it, save

'coessential?' For that which a man sees in the Father, that sees he also in

the Son; and that not by participation, but essentially. And this is [the

meaning of] 'I and the Father are one,' and 'he that hath seen Me hath seen

the Father.' Here especially once more it is easy to shew their folly. If it

is from virtue, the antecedent of willing and not willing, and of moral

progress, that you hold the Son to be like the Father; while these things fall

under the category of quality; clearly you call God compound of quality and

essence. But who will tolerate you when you say this? For God, who compounded

all things to give them being, is not compound, nor of similar nature to the

things made by Him through the Word. Far be the thought. For He is simple

essence, in which quality is not, nor, as James says, 'any variableness or

shadow of turning(6).' Accordingly, if it is shewn that it is not from virtue

(for in God there is no quality, neither is there in the Son), then He must be

proper to God's essence. And this you will certainly admit if mental

apprehension is not utterly destroyed in you. But what is that which is proper

to and identical with the essence of God, and an Offspring from it by nature,

if not by this very fact coessential with Him that begot it? For this is the

distinctive relation of a Son to a Father, and he who denies this, does not

hold that the Word is Son in nature and in truth.

9. The honest repudiation of Arianism involves the acceptance of the Nicene

test.

This then the Fathers perceived when they wrote that the Son was

coessential with the Father, and anathematised those who say that the Son is

of a different Subsistence(7): not inventing phrases for themselves, but

learning in their turn, as we said, from the Fathers who had been before them.

But after the above proof, their Ariminian Synod is superfluous, as well as

any(7a) other synod cited by them as touching the Faith. For that of Nicaea is

sufficient, agreeing as it does with the ancient bishops also, in which too

their fathers signed, whom they ought to respect, on pain of being thought

anything but Christians. But if even after such proofs, and after the

testimony of the ancient bishops, and the signature of their own Fathers, they

pretend as if in ignorance to be alarmed at the phrase 'coessential,' then let

them say and hold, in simpler terms and truly, that the Son is Son by nature,

and anathematise as the synod enjoined those who say that the Son of God is a

Creature or a thing made, or of nothing, or that there was once a time when He

was not, and that He is mutable and liable to change, and of another

Subsistence And so let them escape the Arian heresy. And we are confident that

in sincerely anathematising these views, they ipso facto confess that the Son

is of the Father's Essence, and coessential with Him. For this is why the

Fathers, having said that the Son was coessential, straightway added, 'but

those who say that He is a creature, or made, or of nothing, or that there was

once a time when He was not,' the Catholic Church anathematises: namely in

order that by this means they might make it known that these things are meant

by the word 'coessential.' And the meaning 'Co-essential' is known from the

Son not being a Creature or thing made: and because he that says

'coessential' does not hold that the Word is a Creature: and he that

anathematises the above views, at the same time holds that the Son is

coessential with the Father; and he that calls Him 'coessential,' calls the

Son of God genuinely and truly so; and he that calls Him genuinely Son

understands the texts, 'I and the Father are one,' and 'he that hath seen Me

hath seen the Father(8).'

10.Purpose of this Letter; warning against Auxentius of Milan.

Now it would be proper to write this at greater length. But since we

write to you who know, we have dictated it concisely, praying that among all

the bond of peace might be preserved, and that all in the Catholic Church

should say and hold the same thing. And we are not meaning to teach, but to

put you in mind. Nor is it only ourselves that write, but all the bishops of

Egypt and the Libyas, some ninety in number. For we all are of one mind in

this, and we always sign for one another if any chance not to be present. Such

being our state of mind, since we happened to be assembled, we wrote, both to

our beloved Damasus, bishop of the Great Rome, giving an account of

Auxentius(9) who has in-

494

truded upon the church at Milan; namely that he not only shares the Arian

heresy, but is also accused of many offences, which he committed with

Gregory(10), the sharer of his impiety; and while expressing our surprise that

so far he has not been deposed and expelled from the Church, we thanked

[Damasus] for his piety and that of those who assembled at the Great Rome, in

that by expelling Ursacius and Valens, and those who hold with them, they

preserved the harmony of the Catholic Church. Which we pray may be preserved

also among you, and therefore entreat you not to tolerate, as we said above,

those who put forward a host of synods held concerning the Faith, at Ariminum,

at Sirmium, in Isauria, in Thrace, those in Constantinople, and the many

irregular ones in Antioch. But let the Faith confessed by the Fathers at

Nicaea alone hold good among you, at which all the fathers, including those of

the men who now are fighting against it, were present, as we said above, and

signed: in order that of us too the Apostle may say, 'Now I praise you that ye

remember me in all things, and as I banded the traditions to you, so ye hold

them fast

11. Godhead of the Spirit also involved

in the Nicene Creed.

For this Synod 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 the faith in the Son, straightway added, 'And

we believe in the Holy Ghost,' in order that by confessing perfectly and fully

the faith in the Holy Trinity they might make known the exact form of the

Faith of Christ, and the teaching of the Catholic Church. For it is made clear

both among you and among all, and no Christian can have a doubtful mind on

the point, that our faith is not in the Creature, but in one God, Father

Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible: and in one Lord Jesus

Christ His Only-begotten Son, and in one Holy Ghost; one God. known in the

holy and perfect Trinity, baptized into which, and in it united to the Deity,

we believe that we have also inherited the kingdom of the heavens, in Christ

Jesus our Lord, through whom to the Father be the glory and the power for ever

and ever. Amen.