To the Bishops of Africa.

Letter of Ninety Bishops of Egypt and Libya, including Athanasius.

1. Pre-Eminence of the Council of Nicæa. Efforts to exalt that of Ariminum at its expense.

The letters are sufficient which were written by our beloved fellow-minister Damasus, bishop of the Great Rome, and the large number of bishops who assembled along with him; and equally so are those of the other synods which were held, both in Gaul and in Italy, concerning the sound Faith which Christ gave us, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers, who met at Nicæa from all this world of ours, have handed down. For so great a stir was made at that time about the Arian heresy, in order that they who had fallen into it might be reclaimed, while its inventors might be made manifest. To that council, accordingly, the whole world has long ago agreed, and now, many synods having been held, all men have been put in mind, both in Dalmatia and Dardania, Macedonia, Epirus and Greece, Crete, and the other islands, Sicily, Cyprus, Pamphylia, Lycia, and Isauria, all Egypt and the Libyas, and most of the Arabians have come to know it, and marvelled at those who signed it, inasmuch as even if there were left among them any bitterness springing up from the root of the Arians; we mean Auxentius, Ursacius, Valens and their fellows, by these letters they have been cut off and isolated. The confession arrived at at Nicæa was, we say once more, sufficient and enough by itself, for the subversion of all irreligious heresy, and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the Church. But since we have heard that certain wishing to oppose it are attempting to cite a synod supposed to have been held at Ariminum, and are eagerly striving that it should prevail rather than the other, we think it right to write and put you in mind, not to endure anything of the sort: for this is nothing else but a second growth of the Arian heresy. For what else do they wish for who reject the synod held against it, namely the Nicene, if not that the cause of Arius should prevail? What then do such men deserve, but to be called Arians, and to share the punishment of the Arians? For they were not afraid of God, who says, ‘Remove not the eternal boundaries which thy fathers placed1    Prov. xxii. 28.,’ and ‘He that speaketh against father or mother, let him die the death2    Ex. xxi. 17.:’ they were not in awe of their fathers, who enjoined that they who hold the opposite of their confession should be anathema.

2. The Synod of Nicæa contrasted with the local Synods held since.

For this was why an ecumenical synod has been held at Nicæa, 318 bishops assembling to discuss the faith on account of the Arian heresy, namely, in order that local synods should no more be held on the subject of the Faith, but that, even if held, they should not hold good. For what does that Council lack, that any one should seek to innovate? It is full of piety, beloved; and has filled the whole world with it. Indians have acknowledged it, and all Christians of other barbarous nations. Vain then is the labour of those who have often made attempts against it. For already the men we refer to have held ten or more synods, changing their ground at each, and while taking away some things from earlier decisions, in later ones make changes and additions. And so far they have gained nothing by writing, erasing, and using force, not knowing that ‘every plant that the Heavenly Father hath not planted shall be plucked up3    Matt. xv. 13..’ But the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicæa, abides for ever4    1 Pet. i. 25.. For if one compare number with number, these who met at Nicæa are more than those at local synods, inasmuch as the whole is greater than the part. But if a man wishes to discern the reason of the Synod at Nicæa, and that of the large number subsequently held by these men, he will find that while there was a reasonable cause for the former, the others were got together by force, by reason of hatred and contention. For the former council was summoned because of the Arian heresy, and because of Easter, in that they of Syria, Cilicia and Mesopotamia differed from us, and kept the feast at the same season as the Jews. But thanks to the Lord, harmony has resulted not only as to the Faith, but also as to the Sacred Feast. And that was the reason of the synod at Nicæa. But the subsequent ones were without number, all however planned in opposition to the ecumenical.

3. The true nature of the proceedings at Ariminum.

This being pointed out, who will accept those who cite the synod of Ariminum, or any other, against the Nicene? or who could help hating men who set at nought their fathers’ decisions, and put above them the newer ones, drawn up at Ariminum with contention and violence? or who would wish to agree with these men, who do not accept even their own? For in their own ten or more synods, as I said above, they wrote now one thing, now another, and so came out clearly as themselves the accusers of each one. Their case is not unlike that of the Jewish traitors in old times. For just as they left the one well of the living water, and hewed for themselves broken cisterns, which cannot hold water, as the prophet Jeremiah has it5    ii. 13., so these men, fighting against the one ecumenical synod, ‘hewed for themselves’ many synods, and all appeared empty, like ‘a sheaf without strength6    Hos. viii. 7, LXX..’ Let us not then tolerate those who cite the Ariminian or any other synod against that of Nicæa. For even they who cite that of Ariminum appear not to know what was done there, for else they would have said nothing about it. For ye know, beloved, from those who went from you to Ariminum, how Ursacius and Valens, Eudoxius7    Eudoxius was at Seleucia, not at Ariminum. and Auxentius8    See note on §10 infr. (and there Demophilus9    Bishop of Berœa in Macedonia Tertia, and from 370–380 successor of Eudoxius as Arian bishop of CP. 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 20010    There were some 400 in all, so that the orthodox majority must have been far more than 200 (see de Syn. 8, 33). But Gwatkin (Stud. 170, note 3), inclines to accept the statement in the text.), wrote that they were satisfied with the Nicene alone, and desired and held nothing more or less than that. This they also reported to Constantius, who had ordered the assembling of the synod. But the men who had been deposed at Ariminum went off to Constantius, and caused those who had reported against them to be insulted, and threatened with not being allowed to return to their dioceses, and to be treated with violence in Thrace that very winter, to compel them to tolerate their innovations.

4. The Nicene formula in accordance with Scripture.

If then any cite the synod of Ariminum, firstly let them point out the deposition of the above persons, and what the bishops wrote, namely that none should seek anything beyond what had been agreed upon by the fathers at Nicæa, nor cite any synod save that one. But this they suppress, but make much of what was done by violence in Thrace11    i.e. at Niké, 359.; thus shewing that they are dissemblers of the Arian heresy, and aliens from the sound Faith. And again, if a man were to examine and compare the great synod itself, and those held by these people, he would discover the piety of the one and the folly of the others. They who assembled at Nicæa did so not after being deposed: and secondly, they confessed that the Son was of the Essence of the Father. But the others, after being deposed again and again, and once more at Ariminum itself, ventured to write that it ought not to be said that the Son had Essence or Subsistence. This enables us to see, brethren, that they of Nicæa breathe the spirit of Scripture, in that God says in Exodus12    Ex. iii. 14., ‘I am that I am,’ and through Jeremiah, ‘Who is in His substance13    ὑποστήματι, Jer. xxiii. 18, LXX. and hath seen His word;’ and just below, ‘if they had stood in My subsistence14    ὑποστάσει, v. 22. 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 existence15    ὕπαρξις, Jer. ix. 10, LXX..’ 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 subsistence16    Heb. i. 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 synods of theirs), were surely with justice deposed, saying as they did, like the fool did in his heart17    Ps. xiv. 1., ‘God is not.’ And again the fathers taught at Nicæa that the Son and Word is not a creature, nor made, having read ‘all things were made through Him18    John i. 3.,’ and ‘in Him were all things created, and consist19    Col. i. 16.;’ while these men, Arians rather than Christians, in their other synods have ventured to call Him a creature, and one of the things that are made, things of which He Himself is the Artificer and Maker. For if ‘through Him all things were made’ and He too is a creature, He would be the creator of Himself. And how can what is being created create? or He that is creating be created?

5. How the test ‘Coessential’ came to be adopted at Nicæa.

But not even thus are they ashamed, although they say such things as cause them to be hated by all; citing the Synod of Ariminum, only to shew that there also they were deposed. And as to the actual definition of Nicæa, that the Son is coessential with the Father, on account of which they ostensibly oppose the synod, and buzz around everywhere like gnats about the phrase, either they stumble at it from ignorance, like those who stumble at the stone of stumbling that was laid in Sion20    Rom. ix. 33.; 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. For21    This passage repeats in substance the account in de Decr. 19. the assembled bishops wished to put away the impious phrases devised by the Arians, namely ‘made of nothing,’ and that the Son was ‘a thing made,’ and a ‘creature,’ and that ‘there was a time when He was not,’ and that ‘He is of mutable nature.’ And they wished to set down in writing the acknowledged language of Scripture, namely that the Word is of God by nature Only-begotten, Power, Wisdom of the Father, Very God, as John says, and as Paul wrote, brightness of the Father’s glory and express image of His person22    ὑπόστασις. 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 things23    1 Cor. viii. 6.,” and “old things are passed away, behold all things are made new, but all things are of God24    2 Cor. v. 17, 18..”’ And they considered what is written in the Shepherd25    Herm. Mand. 1., ‘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. Again26    Cf. de Decr. §20, ubi supr., upon the bishops asking the dissembling minority if they agreed that the Son was not a Creature, but the Power and only Wisdom of the Father, and the Eternal Image, in all respects exact, of the Father, and true God, Eusebius and his fellows were observed exchanging nods with one another, as much as to say ‘this applies to us men also, for we too are called “the image and glory of God27    1 Cor. xi. 7.,” and of us it is said, “For we which live are alway28    Ps. cxv. 18 (v. 26, LXX.); cf. 2 Cor. iv. 11.,” and there are many Powers, and “all the power29    δύναμις, Ex. xii. 41 of the Lord went out of the land of Egypt,” while the caterpillar and the locust are called His “great power30    Joel ii. 25..” And “the Lord of powers31    δυνάμεων, Ps. xlvi. 7. is with us, the God of Jacob is our help.” For we hold that we are proper32    ἰδίους. 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 light33    Ps. xxxvi. 9.,’ and ‘I and the Father are one34    John x. 30..’ 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 earth35    John iii. 31.,’ 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, wrote36    See de Syn. §43, and de Sent. Dionys. 18, 19, also supr. p. 76. and censured those who said that the Son was a creature and not coessential with the Father. And Eusebius knew this, who was bishop of Cæsarea, and at first an accomplice37    But see Socrates, ii. 21, and D.C.B. ii. p. 347. of the Arian heresy; but afterwards, having signed at the Council of Nicæa, wrote to his own people affirming as follows: ‘we know that certain eloquent and distinguished bishops and writers even of ancient date used the word “coessential” with reference to the Godhead of the Father and the Son.’

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

Why then do they go on citing the Synod of Ariminum, at which they were deposed? Why do they reject that of Nicæa, at which their Fathers signed the confession that the Son is of the Father’s Essence and coessential with Him? Why do they run about? For now they are at war not only with the bishops who met at Nicæa, but with their own great bishops and their own friends. Whose heirs or successors then are they? How can they call men fathers, whose confession, well and apostolically drawn up, they will not accept? For if they think they can object to it, let them speak, or rather answer, that they may be convicted of falling foul of themselves, whether they believe the Son when He says, ‘I and my Father are one,’ and ‘he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father38    John x. 30, and xiv. 9..’ ‘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 called39    Cf. de Syn. §31 (a chapter added after the death of Constantius). The Anomœan sect, headed by Eunomius, and deriving its intellectual impetus from Aetias, belongs to the second generation of the Arian movement (their watchword is characterised as recent in the creed of Niké, 359 a.d.), and was comparatively unfamiliar to Athanasius. Cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. §8. Anomœans. But if once more they are asked, ‘how is He like?’ they brasen it out and say, ‘by perfect virtue and harmony, by having the same will with the Father, by not willing what the Father wills not.’ But let them understand that one assimilated to God by virtue and will is liable also to the purpose of changing; but the Word is not thus, unless He is ‘like’ in part, and as we are, because He is not like [God] in essence also. But these characteristics belong to us, who are originate, and of a created nature. For we too, albeit we cannot become like God in essence, yet by progress in virtue imitate God, the Lord granting us this grace, in the words, ‘Be ye merciful as your Father is merciful:’ ‘be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect40    Luke vi. 36; Matt. v. 48..’ 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 thee41    Ps. lxxxiii. 1, LXX.,’ and ‘who among the gods is like unto thee, Lord42    Ps. lxxxvi. 8.;’ 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 came43    John x. 35..’ 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 one44    Ib. x. 30.,’ 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 also45    Ib. v. 19: the word ποίεω is taken in the sense of making..’ For things originate are made and do not make; or else they made even themselves. Why, if, as they say, the Son is a Creature and the Father is His Maker, surely the Son would be His own maker, as He is able to make what the Father makes, as He said. But such a supposition is absurd and utterly untenable, for none can make himself.

8. The Son’s relation to the Father essential, not merely ethical.

Once more, let them say whether things originate could say46    John xvi. 15., ‘all things whatsoever the Father hath are Mine.’ Now, He has the prerogative of creating and making, of Eternity, of omnipotence, of immutability. But things originate cannot have the power of making, for they are creatures; nor eternity, for their existence has a beginning; nor of omnipotence and immutability, for they are under sway, and of changeable nature, as the Scriptures say. Well then, if these prerogatives belong to the Son, they clearly do so, not on account of His virtue, as said above, but essentially, even as the synod said, ‘He is of no other essence’ but of the Father’s, to whom these prerogatives are proper. But what can that be which is proper to the Father’s essence, and an offspring from it, or what name can we give it, save ‘coessential?’ For that which a man sees in the Father, that sees he also in the Son; and that not by participation, but essentially. And this is [the meaning of] ‘I and the Father are one,’ and ‘he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.’ Here especially once more it is easy to shew their folly. If it is from virtue, the antecedent of willing and not willing, and of moral progress, that you hold the Son to be like the Father; while these things fall under the category of quality; clearly you call God compound of quality and essence. But who will tolerate you when you say this? For God, who compounded all things to give them being, is not compound, nor of similar nature to the things made by Him through the Word. Far be the thought. For He is simple essence, in which quality is not, nor, as James says, ‘any variableness or shadow of turning47    James i. 17..’ Accordingly, if it is shewn that it is not from virtue (for in God there is no quality, neither is there in the Son), then He must be proper to God’s essence. And this you will certainly admit if mental apprehension is not utterly destroyed in you. But what is that which is proper to and identical with the essence of God, and an Offspring from it by nature, if not by this very fact coessential with Him that begat it? For this is the distinctive relation of a Son to a Father, and he who denies this, does not hold that the Word is Son in nature and in truth.

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

This then the Fathers perceived when they wrote that the Son was coessential with the Father, and anathematised those who say that the Son is of a different Subsistence48    ὑπόστασις: 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 any49    Omit ἡ with most mss. other synod cited by them as touching the Faith. For that of Nicæa is sufficient, agreeing as it does with the ancient bishops also, in which too their fathers signed, whom they ought to respect, on pain of being thought anything but Christians. But if even after such proofs, and after the testimony of the ancient bishops, and the signature of their own Fathers, they pretend as if in ignorance to be alarmed at the phrase ‘coessential,’ then let them say and hold, in simpler terms and truly, that the Son is Son by nature, and anathematise as the synod enjoined those who say that the Son of God is a Creature or a thing made, or of nothing, or that there was once a time when He was not, and that He is mutable and liable to change, and of another Subsistence. And so let them escape the Arian heresy. And we are confident that in sincerely anathematising these views, they ipso facto confess that the Son is of the Father’s Essence, and coessential with Him. For this is why the Fathers, having said that the Son was coessential, straightway added, ‘but those who say that He is a creature, or made, or of nothing, or that there was once a time when He was not,’ the Catholic Church anathematises: namely in order that by this means they might make it known that these things are meant by the word ‘coessential.’ And the meaning ‘Coessential’ is known from the Son not being a Creature or thing made: and because he that says ‘coessential’ does not hold that the Word is a Creature: and he that anathematises the above views, at the same time holds that the Son is coessential with the Father; and he that calls Him ‘coessential,’ calls the Son of God genuinely and truly so; and he that calls Him genuinely Son understands the texts, ‘I and the Father are one,’ and ‘he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father50    John x. 30, and xiv. 9..’

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 Auxentius51    Auxentius (not in D.C.B.) was a native of Cappadocia (Hist. Ar. 75), and had been ordained presbyter at Alexandria by Gregory (next note). Upon the expulsion of the somewhat weak-kneed Dionysius after the council at Milan (355) he was appointed to that see by Constantius, although according to Athanasius (ubi supr.) he knew no Latin, nor any thing else except irreligion (‘a busybody rather than a Christian’). He took a leading part along with Valens and others at the Council of Ariminum (de Syn. 8, 10) and was included in the deposition of Arian leaders by that synod. Under the orthodox Valentinian he maintained his see in spite of the efforts of Philaster, Evagrius, and Eusebius of Vercellæ, and in spite of the condemnations passed upon him by various Western synods (362–371, see ad Epict. 1). In 364, Hilary travelled to Milan on purpose to expose him before Valentinian. In a discussion ordered by the latter, Hilary extorted from Auxentius a confession which satisfied the Emperor, but not Hilary himself, whose persistent denunciation of its insincerity caused his dismissal from the town. Auxentius seems after this to have intrigued to obtain Illyrian signatures to the creed of ( Niké or) Ariminum (Hard. Conc. 1. pp. 771, 773). Upon his death (374) Ambrose was elected bishop of Milan, but was confronted by the Arian party with a rival bishop in the person of a second Auxentius, said to have been a pupil of Ulfilas. who has intruded upon the church at Milan; namely that he not only shares the Arian heresy, but is also accused of many offences, which he committed with Gregory52    The intrusive bishop of Alexandria, 339–346. He had ordained his fellow-countryman Auxentius (Hilar. in Aux. 8)., the sharer of his impiety; and while expressing our surprise that so far he has not been deposed and expelled from the Church, we thanked [Damasus] for his piety and that of those who assembled at the Great Rome, in that by expelling Ursacius and Valens, and those who hold with them, they preserved the harmony of the Catholic Church. Which we pray may be preserved also among you, and therefore entreat you not to tolerate, as we said above, those who put forward a host of synods held concerning the Faith, at Ariminum, at Sirmium, in Isauria, in Thrace, those in Constantinople, and the many irregular ones in Antioch. But let the Faith confessed by the Fathers at Nicæa alone hold good among you, at which all the fathers, including those of the men who now are fighting against it, were present, as we said above, and signed: in order that of us too the Apostle may say, ‘Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and as I handed the traditions to you, so ye hold them fast53    1 Cor. xi. 2..’

11. Godhead of the Spirit also involved in the Nicene Creed.

For this Synod of Nicæa is in truth a proscription of every heresy. It also upsets those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit, and call Him a Creature. For the Fathers, after speaking of the faith in the Son, straightway added, ‘And we believe in the Holy Ghost,’ in order that by confessing perfectly and fully the faith in the Holy Trinity they might make known the exact form of the Faith of Christ, and the teaching of the Catholic Church. For it is made clear both among you and among all, and no Christian can have a doubtful mind on the point, that our faith is not in the Creature, but in one God, Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible: and in one Lord Jesus Christ His Only-begotten Son, and in one Holy Ghost; one God, known in the holy and perfect Trinity, baptized into which, and in it united to the Deity, we believe that we have also inherited the kingdom of the heavens, in Christ Jesus our Lord, through whom to the Father be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.

ΤΩΝ ΚΑΤ' ΑΙΓΥΠΤΟΝ ΚΑΙ ΛΙΒΥΗΝ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΩΝ ΕΝΕΝΗΚΟΝΤΑ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΥ ΜΑΚΑΡΙΟΥ ΑΘΑΝΑΣΙΟΥ ΚΑΤΑ ΑΡΙΑΝΩΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΥΣ ΕΝ ΤΗ ΑΦΡΙΚΗ ΤΙΜΙΩΤΑΤΟΥΣ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΟΥΣ

Ἱκανὰ μὲν τὰ γραφέντα παρά τε τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ καὶ συλλειτουργοῦ ἡμῶν ∆αμάσου, τοῦ ἐπισκόπου τῆς μεγάλης Ῥώμης, καὶ τῶν σὺν αὐτῷ τοσούτων συνελθόντων ἐπισκόπων· οὐδὲν δὲ ἧττον καὶ τὰ τῶν ἄλλων γενομένων συνόδων ἔν τε τῇ Γαλλίᾳ καὶ τῇ Ἰταλίᾳ περὶ τῆς ὑγιαινούσης πίστεως, ἣν ὁ μὲν Χριστὸς ἐχαρίσατο, οἱ δὲ ἀπόστολοι ἐκήρυξαν, καὶ οἱ Πατέρες παραδεδώκασιν οἱ ἐν τῇ Νικαίᾳ συν ελθόντες 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, ὑπομνησθέν τες πάντες οἵ τε κατὰ τὴν ∆αλματίαν, καὶ ∆αρδανίαν, καὶ Μακεδονίαν, Ἠπείρους τε καὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα, καὶ Κρήτην, καὶ τὰς ἄλλας νήσους, Σικελίαν τε καὶ Κύπρον, καὶ Παμφυλίαν, Λυκίαν τε καὶ Ἰσαυρίαν, καὶ πᾶσάν τε τὴν Αἴγυπτον καὶ τὰς Λιβύας, καὶ πλεῖστοι τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ ταύτην ἐπέγνωσαν· καὶ ἐθαύμασάν τε τοὺς ὑπογράψαντας, ὅτι, εἰ καί τι περιελέλειπτο παρ' αὐτοῖς ἐκτῆς ῥίζης τῶν Ἀρειανῶν ἄνω φύουσα πικρία, Αὐξέντιόν φαμεν καὶ Οὐρσάκιον, καὶ Οὐάλεντα καὶ τοὺς τὰ αὐτὰ φρονοῦντας αὐτοῖς, διὰ τῶν γραμμάτων τούτων ἐξεκόπησαν καὶ ἀπελεί φθησαν. 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 26.1032 πρὸς αὐτὴν, ὀνομάζειν ἐπιχειροῦσι σύνοδόν τινα ὡς ἐν Ἀριμήνῳ 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' αὐ τῆς σύνοδον γενομένην παραιτούμενοι (ἔστι δὲ ἡ ἐν Νικαίᾳ γενομένη), τί ἕτερον βούλονται, ἢ τὰ Ἀρείου κρατεῖν; Τίνος οὖν ἄξιοι οἱ τοιοῦτοι ἢ Ἀρειανοὶ μὲν καλεῖσθαι, τῆς αὐτῆς δὲ ἐπιτιμίας ἐκείνοις μετασχεῖν; οἳ μήτε τὸν Θεὸν ἐφοβήθησαν λέγοντα· Μὴ μέταιρε ὅρια αἰώνια, ἃ ἔθεντο οἱ πατέρες σου· καὶ, Ὁ κακολογῶν πατέρα ἢ μητέρα θανάτῳ τελευτάτω· οἳ μήτε τοὺς Πατέρας ᾐδέσθη σαν, παραγγείλαντας ἀνάθεμα εἶναι τοὺς τὰ ἐναντία φρονοῦντας τῆς ὁμολογίας αὐτῶν. ∆ιὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ οἰκουμενικὴ γέγονεν ἡ ἐν Νι καίᾳ 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 Ἰνδοὶ, καὶ ὅσοι παρὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις βαρβάροις εἰσὶ Χριστιανοί. Οὐκοῦν μάταιος ὁ κάματος τοῖς κατ' αὐτῆς πολλά κις ἐπιχειρήσασιν. Ἤδη γὰρ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δέκα καὶ πλέον που συνόδους πεποιήκασι, καθ' ἑκάστην μεταβαλλόμενοι, καὶ τὰ μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν πρώτων 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 μέ νει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. Ἄν τε γὰρ ἀριθμὸν ἀριθμῷ τις συμβάλῃ, πλείους οἱ ἐν Νικαίᾳ τῶν κατὰ μέρος εἰσὶν, ὅσον καὶ τὸ ὅλον πλεῖόν ἐστι τοῦ μέρους ἄν τε τὸ αἴτιον τῆς ἐν Νικαίᾳ καὶ τῶν μετ' αὐτὴν τοσούτων γενομένων συνόδων παρὰ τούτων διαγνῶναι 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 διὸ τὴν Ἀρειανὴν αἵρεσιν καὶ διὰ τὸ Πάσχα συνήχθη· ἐπειδὴ οἱ κατὰ Συρίαν, καὶ Κιλικίαν, καὶ Μεσοποτα μίαν διεφώνουν πρὸς ἡμᾶς, καὶ τῷ καιρῷ, ἐν ᾧ ποιοῦσιν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, 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 ἀριθμὸν μὲν, κατὰ δὲ τῆς οἰκουμενικῆς συνόδου ἐπενοήθησαν. 26.1033 Τούτων δὲ οὕτω δεικνυμένων, τίς ἀποδέξεται τοὺς τὴν Ἀρίμηνον ἢ ἄλλην σύνοδον παρὰ τὴν ἐν Νικαίᾳ ὀνομάζοντας; ἢ τίς οὐκ ἂν μισήσειε τοὺς ἀθετοῦντας μὲν τὰ τῶν Πατέρων, τὰ δὲ νεώτερα ἐν τῇ Ἀριμήνῳ κατὰ φιλονεικίαν καὶ βίαν συντιθέντα προκρίνοντας; Τίς δὲ τούτοις συνελθεῖν ἐθελήσοι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, μηδὲ τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἀποδεχομένοις; Οἱ γὰρ ἐν ταῖς ἑαυτῶν δέκα που καὶ πλέον, καθὰ προείπαμεν, συνόδοις, ἄλλοτε ἄλλα γράφοντες, δῆλοί εἰσιν ἑκάστης αὐτοὶ κατήγοροι γινόμενοι. Πάσχουσι δέ τι τοιοῦτον, οἷον καὶ οἱ τότε τῶν Ἰουδαίων προδόται πεπόνθασιν· ὡς γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι, καταλείψαντες τὴν μόνην πηγὴν τοῦ ζῶντος ὕδατος, ὤρυξαν ἑαυτοῖς λάκκους συντετριμμένους, οἳ οὐ δυνήσονται ὕδωρ συνέχειν, γέγραπται δὲ τοῦτο παρὰ τῷ προφήτῃ Ἱερεμίᾳ· οὕ τως οὗτοι, μαχόμενοι πρὸς τὴν μίαν καὶ οἰκουμενικὴν σύνοδον, ὤρυξαν ἑαυτοῖς συνόδους πολλάς· καὶ πᾶσαι κεναὶ, αἳ παρ' αὐτοῖς ὡς δράγμα μὴ ἔχων ἰσχὺν ἐφάνησαν. Μὴ τοίνυν ἀνεχώμεθα τῶν τὴν Ἀρί μηνον ἢ ἄλλην ὀνομαζόντων σύνοδον παρὰ τὴν ἐν Νι καίᾳ γενομένην. Καὶ γὰρ καὶ αὐτοὶ οἱ τὴν Ἀρίμηνον ὀνομάζοντες ἐοίκασι μὴ εἰδέναι τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ πραχθέντα· ἢ γὰρ ἂν ἐσιώπησαν. Οἴδατε γὰρ, ἀγαπητοὶ, μαθόντες καὶ ὑμεῖς παρὰ τῶν ἐλθόντων ἐξ ὑμῶν εἰς τὴν Ἀρίμηνον, ὡς Οὐρσάκιος καὶ Οὐάλης, Εὐδόξιος καὶ Αὐξέντιος, ἐκεῖ δὲ ἦν σὺν αὐτοῖς καὶ ∆ημόφιλος, καθῃρέθησαν, θελήσαντες ἕτερα παρὰ τὰ ἐν Νικαίᾳ γράφειν· ὅτε καὶ ἀπαιτηθέντες ἀναθεματίσαι τὴν Ἀρειανὴν αἵρεσιν, παρῃτήσαντο, καὶ μᾶλλον αὐτῆς ἤθελον εἶναι προστάται. Οἱ δέ γε ἐπίσκοποι, οἱ ἀληθῶς γνήσιοι δοῦλοι τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ ὀρθῶς πιστεύοντες, ἦσαν δὲ ἐγγὺς διακόσιοι, ἔγραψαν ἀρκεῖσθαι τῇ ἐν Νικαίᾳ μόνῃ, καὶ μηδὲν πλέον ἢ ἔλαττον παρ' ἐκεί νην ζητεῖν ἢ φρονεῖν. Ταῦτα καὶ Κωνσταντίῳ δεδηλώκασι, τῷ καὶ τὴν σύνοδον κελεύσαντι γενέσθαι. Ἀλλ' οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἀριμήνῳ καθαιρεθέντες, ἀπελθόντες πρὸς Κωνστάντιον, πεποιήκασιν ὑβρισθῆναι μὲν, ἀπειλὰς δὲ γενέσθαι, μὴ ἀνακάμψειν εἰς τὰς ἰδίας παροικίας τοὺς κατ' αὐτῶν ἀποφηναμένους, βίαν τε παθεῖν ἐν τῇ Θρᾴκῃ ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ χειμῶνι· ὥστε τῶν παρ' αὐτῶν καινοτομουμένων ἀνέχεσθαι. Εἴπερ οὖν τινες τὴν Ἀρίμηνον ὀνομάζουσι, δεικνύτωσαν πρῶτον τὴν καθαίρεσιν τῶν προειρημένων, καὶ ἅπερ ἔγραψαν οἱ ἐπίσκοποι, λέγοντες μηδὲν πλέον ζητεῖν τῶν ἐν Νικαίᾳ παρὰ τῶν Πατέρων ὁμολογη 26.1036 θέντων, 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 ὑποκριταὶ, ἀλλότριοι δὲ τῆς ὑγιαινούσης πίστεως. Καὶ αὐτὴν δὲ τὴν με γάλην σύνοδον, καὶ τὰς παρ' ἐκείνων ἄν τις ἐξετάζειν ἐκ παραλλήλου θέλοι, εὕροι ἂν τῶν μὲν τὴν θεο σέβειαν, τῶν δὲ τὴν ἀλογίαν. Οἱ ἐν Νικαίᾳ συνελθόν τες οὐ καθαιρεθέντες συνῆλθον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὡμολόγη σαν τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρὸς εἶναι τὸν Υἱόν· οὗτοι δὲ καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ δεύτερον καθαιρεθέντες, καὶ τρίτον ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ Ἀριμήνῳ, γράφειν ἐτόλμησαν, μὴ χρῆναι λέγειν οὐσίαν ἢ ὑπόστασιν ἔχειν τὸν Θεόν. Ἐκ δὴ τούτων σκοπεῖν ἔξεστιν, ἀδελφοὶ, ὡς οἱ μὲν ἐν Νικαίᾳ τῶν Γραφῶν πνέουσι, λέγοντος αὐτοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν μὲν τῇ Ἐξόδῳ· Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν· διὰ δὲ τοῦ Ἱερεμίου· Τίς ἐστιν ἐν ὑποστήματι αὐτοῦ, καὶ εἶδε τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ; καὶ μετ' ὀλίγον· Καὶ εἰ 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 Ἱερεμίας 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 Ἑβραίοις· Ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης, καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ. Οὗ τοι δὲ οἱ δοκοῦντες εἰδέναι τὰς Γραφὰς, καὶ ὀνομάζοντες ἑαυτοὺς εἶναι σοφοὺς, μὴ θέλοντες ὑπόστασιν λέγειν ἐπὶ Θεοῦ (τοῦτο γὰρ ἔγραψαν ἐν τῇ Ἀριμήνῳ 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 Υἱὸν Λόγον, ἀναγνόντες· Πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο· καὶ, Ἐν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα ἐκτίσθη καὶ συνέστηκεν. Οὗτοι δὲ οἱ μᾶλλον Ἀρειανοὶ 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; Ἀλλ' οὐδὲ οὕτως αἰσχύνονται, τοιαῦτα λέγοντες, ἐφ' οἷς μισητοὶ καὶ παρὰ πᾶσίν εἰσιν, ὀνομάζοντες μὲν ἁπλῶς Ἀρίμηνον, δεικνύμενοι δὲ καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ καθαιρεθέντες. Καὶ αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ ἐν Νικαίᾳ γε γραμμένον, ὁμοούσιον εἶναι τὸν Υἱὸν τῷ Πατρὶ, οὗ χάριν προσποιοῦνται μάχεσθαι πρὸς τὴν σύνοδον, καὶ 26.1037 περιβομβοῦσιν, ὡς κώνωπες, πανταχοῦ περὶ τῆς λέ ξεως, ἢ ὡς ἀγνοοῦντες προσκόπτουσιν εἰς αὐτὸ, ὡς οἱ προσκόπτοντες εἰς τὸν τεθέντα λίθον ἐν Σιὼν προσκόμματος· ἢ γινώσκουσι μὲν, διὰ τοῦτο δὲ μάχονται καὶ συνεχῶς γογγύζουσιν, ὅτι κατὰ τῆς αἱρέσεώς ἐστιν αὐτῶν ἀληθῶς αὕτη καὶ ἀκριβὴς ἀπόφασις. Οὐ γὰρ αἱ λέξεις αὐτοὺς λυποῦσιν, ἀλλ' ἡ ἐν αὐτῇ γενομένη κατάκρισις αὐτῶν. Καὶ τούτων δὲ πάλιν αἴτιοι γεγόνασιν αὐτοὶ, καὶ εἰ τοῦτο κρύπτειν αὐτοὶ θέλουσι, καίτοι γινώσκοντες, ἀλλ' ἡμᾶς ἀκόλουθον εἰπεῖν· ἵνα καὶ ἐκ τούτων ἡ μετὰ ἀληθείας ἀκρίβεια τῆς μεγάλης συνόδου δειχθῇ. Τῶν γὰρ συνελθόντων ἐπισκόπων βουλομένων τὰς μὲν παρὰ τῶν Ἀρειανῶν ἐφευρεθείσας τῆς ἀσεβείας λέξεις ἀν ελεῖν· 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 τῇ φύσει μονογενής ἐστιν ὁ Λόγος, δύναμις, σοφία μόνη τοῦ Πατρὸς, Θεὸς ἀληθινὸς, ὡς εἶπεν ὁ Ἰωάννης· καὶ ὡς ἔγραψεν ὁ Παῦλος, ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης, καὶ χαρα κτὴρ 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 Θεὸς, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα· καὶ, Τὰ ἀρχαῖα παρῆλθεν, ἰδοὺ γέγονε τὰ πάντα καινά. Τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Ἐλογίζοντο δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐν τῷ Ποιμένι γραφέν· Πρῶτον πάντων πίστευ σον, 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 ὀλίγους, εἴπερ λέγοιεν, τὸν Υἱὸν οὐ κτίσμα, ἀλλὰ δύναμιν, σοφίαν μόνην τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ εἰκόνα ἀΐδιον, ἀπαράλλακτον κατὰ πάντα τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν, 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· 26.1040 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 Ἰακώβ. Ἀλλὰ γὰρ τὸ ἰδίους ἡμᾶς εἶναι τοῦ Θεοῦ ἔχομεν, οὐχ ἁπλῶς, ἀλλ' ὅτι καὶ ἀδελφοὺς ἡμᾶς ἐκάλεσεν. Εἰ δὲ καὶ Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν λέγουσι τὸν Υἱὸν, οὐ λυπεῖ ἡμᾶς· γενόμενος γὰρ, ἀληθινός ἐστιν. Αὕτη τῶν Ἀρειανῶν 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 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 ἔγρα ψαν. Ἐπίσκοποι γὰρ ἀρχαῖοι πρὸ ἐτῶν ἐγγύς που ἑκατὸν τριάκοντα τῆς μεγάλης Ῥώμης 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. Τί οὖν ἔτι τὴν Ἀρίμηνον ὀνομάζουσιν, ἐν ᾗ καθῃρέθησαν; Τί παραιτοῦνται τὴν ἐν Νικαίᾳ σύνοδον, ἐν ᾗ καὶ οἱ Πατέρες αὐτῶν ὑπέγραψαν, καὶ ὡμολόγησαν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας καὶ ὁμοούσιον εἶναι τὸν Υἱὸν τῷ Πατρί; τί περιτρέχουσιν; οὐ γὰρ πρὸς μό νους τοὺς ἐν Νικαίᾳ ἐπισκόπους συνελθόντας, ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἑαυτῶν μεγάλους ἐπισκόπους, καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἰδίους λοιπὸν μάχονται. Τίνων οὖν εἰσι κληρονόμοι καὶ διάδοχοι; πῶς δύνανται λέγειν Πα 26.1041 τέρας τούτους, ὧν οὐκ ἀποδέχονται τὴν ὁμολογίαν τὴν καλῶς καὶ ἀποστολικῶς γραφεῖσαν; Ἐπεὶ, εἰ νομίζουσιν ἀντιλέγειν δύνασθαι, εἰπάτωσαν, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀποκρινάσθωσαν, ἵνα καὶ ἑαυτοῖς περιπίπτοντες ἐλεγχθῶσιν, εἰ πιστεύουσι λέγοντι τῷ Υἱῷ· Ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν· καὶ, Ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακε τὸν Πατέρα; Ναὶ, εἴποιεν ἂν, ἐπειδὴ γέγραπται, πιστεύομεν. Ἀλλὰ καὶ Πῶς ἕν εἰσι, καὶ πῶς ὁ ἑωρακὼς τὸν Υἱὸν ἑώρακε καὶ τὸν Πατέρα, ἐὰν ἐρωτηθῶσιν εἰπεῖν, πάντως που φήσουσι, ∆ι' ὁμοιότητα· εἰ μὴ τέλεον συμπεπτώκασι τοῖς ἀδελφὰ φρονοῦσιν αὐτοῖς, καὶ λεγομένοις Ἀνομοίοις. Ἀλλ' ἐὰν πάλιν ἐρωτηθῶσι, Πῶς ὅμοιος; ἀποθρασυνόμενοι φήσουσιν· Ἀρετῇ τελείᾳ καὶ συμφωνίᾳ τὸ αὐτὸ θέλειν τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ μὴ θέλειν ὅπερ ὁ Πατὴρ οὐ θέλει. Ἀλλὰ μαθέτωσαν, ὅτι ἐξ ἀρετῆς καὶ τοῦ θέλειν ὁμοι ούμενος τῷ Θεῷ, ἔχει μὲν καὶ τοῦ τρέπεσθαι τὴν προαίρεσιν· οὐκ ἔστι δὲ οὕτως ὁ Λόγος, εἰ μὴ ἄρα ἐκ μέρους καὶ καθ' ἡμᾶς ὅμοιος, ὅτι μὴ καὶ κατ' οὐ σίαν ὅμοιός ἐστι. Ταῦτα δὲ ἴδια ἡμῶν τῶν γενητῶν καὶ κτιστὴν ἐχόντων τὴν φύσιν. Καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἡμεῖς, καίτοι μὴ δυνάμενοι ὅμοιοι κατ' οὐσίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ γενέ σθαι, ὅμως, ἐξ ἀρετῆς βελτιούμενοι, μιμούμεθα τὸν Θεὸν, χαρισαμένου καὶ τοῦτο τοῦ Κυρίου, καὶ λέ γοντος· Γίνεσθε οἰκτίρμονες, ὡς ὁ Πατὴρ ὑμῶν οἰκτίρμων ἐστί. Γίνεσθε τέλειοι, ὡς ὁ Πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τέλειός ἐστι. Τρεπτὰ δὲ τὰ γενητὰ, οὐκ ἄν τις ἀρνήσαιτο, ἀγγέλων μὲν παραβάντων, τοῦ δὲ Ἀδὰμ παρακούσαντος, καὶ πάντων δεομένων τῆς τοῦ Λόγου χάριτος. Τρεπτὸν δὲ ἀτρέπτου ὄντος τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐκ ἂν εἴη ὅμοιον· ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὸ κτισθὲν τοῦ κτίσαντος. ∆ιὰ τοῦτο περὶ μὲν ἡμῶν σκοπῶν ὁ ἅγιος ἔλε γεν· Ὁ Θεὸς, τίς ὁμοιωθήσεταί σοι; καὶ, Τίς ὅμοιός σοι ἐν θεοῖς, Κύριε; θεοὺς λέγων, τοὺς κτισθέντας μὲν, μετόχους δὲ γενομένους τοῦ Λόγου, ὡς αὐτὸς εἶπεν· Εἰ ἐκείνους θεοὺς εἶπε, πρὸς οὓς ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐγένετο. Τὰ δὲ μετέχοντα οὐκ ἂν εἴη τὰ αὐτὰ οὐδὲ ὅμοια τοῦ μετεχομένου. Περὶ ἑαυτοῦ γοῦν ἔλεγεν· Ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν, ὡς τῶν γενητῶν μὴ ὄντων οὕτως. Ἐπεὶ ἀποκρινάσθωσαν οἱ τὴν Ἀρίμηνον προτείνοντες, εἰ κτιστὴ οὐσία δύναται εἰπεῖν· Ἃ βλέπω τὸν Πατέρα ποιοῦντα, ταῦτα κἀγὼ ποιῶ. Ποιούμενα γάρ ἐστι τὰ γενητὰ, καὶ οὐ ποιοῦντα· εἰ δὲ μή γε, καὶ ἑαυτὰ ἐποί ησαν. Ἀμέλει εἰ, ὡς λέγουσι, κτίσμα ἐστὶν ὁ Υἱὸς, καὶ ποιεῖ αὐτὸν ὁ Πατὴρ, πάντως ἂν ἐποίησε καὶ ἑαυ τὸν ὁ Υἱὸς, δυνάμενος ποιεῖν ἃ ποιεῖ ὁ Πατὴρ, ὡς εἶπεν αὐτός· ἀλλ' ἄτοπον καὶ λίαν ἀσύστατόν ἐστι τὸ τοιοῦτον· ποιεῖν γὰρ ἑαυτὸν οὐδεὶς δύναται. Πάλιν δὲ εἰπάτωσαν, εἰ δύναται τὰ γενητὰ εἰπεῖν· Πάντα, ὅσα ἔχει ὁ Πατὴρ, ἐμά ἐστιν; 26.1044 Ἔχει δὲ τὸ κτίζειν, τὸ δημιουργεῖν, τὸ ἀΐδιον, τὸ εἶναι παντοκράτωρ, τὸ ἄτρεπτον. Τὰ δὲ γενητὰ οὐ δύναται ἔχειν τὸ δημιουργεῖν· κτιστὰ γάρ ἐστιν· οὐδὲ τὸ ἀΐδιον· ἀρχὴν γὰρ ἔχει τοῦ εἶναι· οὐδὲ τὸ παντο κράτωρ καὶ ἄτρεπτον· κρατούμενα γὰρ καὶ τρεπτῆς φύσεώς ἐστιν, ὥσπερ αἱ Γραφαὶ λέγουσιν. Οὐκοῦν εἰ ταῦτα τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐστιν, οὐκ ἐξ ἀρετῆς, ὡς εἴπομεν, ἀλλὰ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ ἐστι δηλονότι, ὡς εἶπεν ἡ σύνοδος· οὐκ ἐξ ἄλλης οὐσίας ἐστὶν, ἀλλὰ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἧς ἐστι καὶ ταῦτα ἴδια· τὸ δὲ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίας ἴδιον, καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς γέννημα, τί ἂν εἴη, ἢ πῶς ἄν τις ὀνομάσειεν αὐτὸ, ἢ ὁμοούσιον; ἃ γὰρ βλέπει τις ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ, ταῦτα βλέπει καὶ ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ· Υἱῷ δὲ οὐκ ἐκ μετουσίας, ἀλλὰ κατ' οὐσίαν. Καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν· Ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν, καὶ, Ὁ ἐμὲ ἑωρακὼς ἑώρακε τὸν Πατέρα. Ἄλλως τε καὶ ἐκ τούτου πάλιν καλὸν δεικνύναι τὴν ἀφροσύνην αὐτῶν· εἰ ἐξ ἀρετῆς ἕπεται τὸ θέλειν καὶ τὸ μὴ θέλειν, καὶ τρόπων βελτίωσις, ὅμοιος καθ' ὑμᾶς ὁ Υἱός ἐστι τῷ Πατρί· ταῦτα δὲ ποιότητος ἴδια· δηλονότι σύνθετον τὸν Θεὸν ἐκ ποιότητος καὶ οὐσίας λέγετε. Καὶ τίς ὑμῶν ἀνέξεται ταῦτα λεγόντων· οὐ γὰρ σύνθετος ὁ Θεὸς ὁ τὰ πάντα εἰς τὸ εἶναι συντεθεικὼς, οὐδὲ τοιοῦτος, οἷά ἐστι τὰ παρ' αὐτοῦ διὰ τοῦ Λόγου γενόμενα, μὴ γένοιτο! Ἁπλῆ γάρ ἐστιν οὐσία, ἐν ᾗ οὐκ ἔνι ποιότης, οὐδὲ, ὡς εἶπεν ὁ Ἰάκωβος, Παραλλαγή τις ἢ τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα. Οὐκοῦν εἰ δείκνυται οὐκ ἐξ ἀρετῆς· οὐ γὰρ ποιότης ἐν τῷ Θεῷ, οὔτε ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ· δηλονότι τῆς οὐσίας ἴδιος ἂν εἴη· καὶ τοῦτο πάντως ὁμολογήσετε, εἰ μὴ τέλεον τὸ νοεῖν ἀπώλετο ἐν ὑμῖν. Τὸ δὲ ἴδιον καὶ ταὐτὸν τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐσίᾳ καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς γέννημα φύσει τυγχάνον τί ἂν εἴη, ἢ πάλιν καὶ κατὰ τοῦτο ὁμοούσιον τῷ γεννήσαντι; τοῦτο γὰρ Υἱοῦ πρὸς Πατέρα γνώρισμα. Καὶ ὁ μὴ τοῦτο λέγων, οὐ φρονεῖ, φύσει καὶ ἀληθῶς Υἱὸν εἶναι τὸν Λόγον. Οὕτω νοήσαντες οἱ Πατέρες, ἔγραψαν ὁμοούσιον εἶναι τὸν Υἱὸν τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ ἀνεθεμάτισαν τοὺς λέγοντας ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως εἶναι τὸν Υἱόν· οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς πλασάμενοι λέξεις, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτοὶ ἀπὸ τῶν πρὸ αὐτῶν Πατέρων μαθόντες, καθάπερ εἴπομεν. Τούτων δὲ οὕτω δεικνυμένων, περιττὴ αὐτῶν ἡ Ἀρίμηνος, περιττὴ καὶ ἡ ἄλλη παρ' αὐτῶν ὀνομαζομένη περὶ πίστεως σύνοδος. Ἀρκεῖ γὰρ ἡ ἐν Νικαίᾳ σύμφωνος οὖσα καὶ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ἐπισκόποις, ἐν ᾗ καὶ οἱ Πατέρες αὐτῶν ὑπέγραψαν, οὓς αἰδεῖσθαι τούτους ἔπρεπεν, ἵνα μὴ πάντα μᾶλλον ἢ Χριστιανοὶ νομισθῶσιν. Εἰ δὲ καὶ μετὰ τοσαῦτα, μετὰ καὶ τὴν 26.1045 μαρτυρίαν τῶν ἀρχαίων ἐπισκόπων, καὶ μετὰ τὴν ὑπογραφὴν τῶν ἰδίων Πατέρων, προσποιοῦνται, ὡς ἀγνοοῦντες, τὴν λέξιν φοβεῖσθαι τοῦ ὁμοουσίου, εἰπάτωσαν καὶ φρονείτωσαν ἁπλούστερον μὲν καὶ ἀληθῶς τὸν Υἱὸν φύσει Υἱὸν, ἀναθεματισάτωσαν δὲ, ὡς παρήγγειλεν ἡ σύνοδος, τοὺς λέγοντας κτίσμα, ἢ ποίημα, ἢ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, ἢ, Ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ· καὶ ὅτι τρεπτὸς καὶ ἀλλοίωτός ἐστι, καὶ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως· καὶ οὕτω φευγέτωσαν ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀρειανῆς αἱρέσεως· καὶ θαῤῥοῦμεν, ὅτι γνησίως ταῦτα ἀναθεματίζοντες ὁμολογοῦσιν εὐθὺς, ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας καὶ ὁμοούσιον εἶναι τὸν Υἱὸν τῷ Πατρί. ∆ιὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ οἱ Πατέρες, εἰρηκότες ὁμοούσιον εἶναι τὸν Υἱὸν, ἐπήγαγον εὐθύς· Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας κτίσμα, ἢ ποίημα, ἢ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, ἢ, Ἦν ποτε, ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, ἀναθεματίζει ἡ Καθολικὴ Ἐκκλησία· ἵνα διὰ τούτων γνωρίσωσιν, ὅτι ταῦτα σημαίνει τὸ ὁμοούσιον. Καὶ ἡ τοῦ ὁμοουσίου δύναμις γινώσκεται ἐκ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι κτίσμα ἢ ποίημα τὸν Υἱόν· καὶ ὅτι ὁ λέγων ὁμοούσιον οὐ φρονεῖ κτίσμα εἶναι τὸν Λόγον· καὶ ὁ ἀναθεματίζων τὰ προειρημένα ὁμοούσιον ἅμα φρονεῖ εἶναι τὸν Υἱὸν τῷ Πατρί· καὶ ὁ ὁμοούσιον λέγων γνήσιον καὶ ἀληθινὸν λέγει τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Καὶ ὁ Γνήσιον λέγων νοεῖ τό· Ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν· καὶ, Ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακε τὸν Πατέρα. Ἔπρεπε μὲν οὖν διὰ πλειόνων τὰ τοιαῦτα γράφειν· ἐπειδὴ δὲ πρὸς εἰδότας ὑμᾶς γράφομεν, διὰ τοῦτο συντόμως ὑπηγορεύσαμεν· εὐχόμενοι παρὰ πᾶσι σώζεσθαι τὸν σύνδεσμον τῆς εἰρήνης, καὶ πάντας τοὺς τῆς Καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας τὸ αὐτὸ λέγειν, τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν. Καὶ οὐχ ὡς διδάσκοντες, ἀλλὰ ὡς ὑπομιμνήσκοντές ἐσμεν. Ἐσμὲν δὲ οὐχ ἡμεῖς οἱ γράφοντες μόνοι, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντες οἱ ἐν τῇ Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ ταῖς Λιβύαις ἐνενήκοντά που ἐπίσκοποι. Πάντων γὰρ ἕν ἐστι τοῦτο φρόνημα, καὶ ὑπὲρ ἀλλήλων ἀεὶ ὑπογράφομεν, ἐὰν συμβῇ τινα μὴ παρεῖναι. Οὕτως οὖν διακείμενοι, ἐπειδὴ συνέβη συνελθεῖν ἡμᾶς, ἐγράψαμεν καὶ τῷ ἀγαπητῷ ἡμῶν ∆αμάσῳ τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ τῆς μεγάλης Ῥώμης περὶ τοῦ Αὐξεντίου τοῦ ἐπελθόντος τῇ ἐν Μεδιολάνῳ ἐκκλησίᾳ, διηγούμενοι τὰ κατ' αὐτόν· ὅτι τε οὐ μόνον τῆς Ἀρειανῆς αἱρέσεώς ἐστι κοινωνὸς, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπεύθυνός ἐστι πολλοῖς κακοῖς, πράξας ταῦτα μετὰ Γρηγορίου τοῦ κοινωνοῦ τῆς ἀσεβείας αὐτοῦ· καὶ θαυμάζοντες πῶς μέχρι νῦν οὐ καθῃρέθη καὶ ἐκβέβληται τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, καὶ χάριν ὡμολογήσαμεν τῇ θεοσεβείᾳ αὐτοῦ τε καὶ τῶν συνελθόντων ἐν τῇ μεγάλῃ Ῥώμῃ, ὅτι καὶ τοὺς περὶ Οὐρσάκιον καὶ Οὐάλεντα, καὶ τοὺς τὰ αὐτὰ αὐτοῖς φρονοῦντας ἐκβάλλοντες, ἔσωσαν τὴν ὁμοψυχίαν τῆς Καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας· ἣν καὶ παρ' ὑμῖν εὐχό 26.1048 μενοι σώζεσθαι, παρακαλοῦμεν μὴ ἀνέχεσθαι, καθὰ προείπομεν, τῶν προβαλλομένων ὄχλον συνόδων προφάσει πίστεως, τὴν ἐν Ἀριμήνῳ, τὴν ἐν Σιρμίῳ, τὴν ἐν τῇ Ἰσαυρίᾳ, τὴν ἐν τῇ Θρᾴκῃ, τὰς ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει, τὰς ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ πολλὰς καὶ ἀτάκτους. Ἀλλὰ μόνον κρατείτω ἐν ὑμῖν ἡ ἐν Νικαίᾳ παρὰ τῶν Πατέρων ὁμολογηθεῖσα πίστις· ἐν ᾗ καὶ πάντες καὶ τῶν νῦν μαχομένων πρὸς αὐτὴν παρῆσαν Πατέρες, καθὰ προείπομεν, καὶ ὑπέγραψαν· ἵνα καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν ὁ Ἀπόστολος εἴπῃ· Ἐπαινῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, ὅτι πάντα μου μέμνησθε, καὶ καθὼς παρέδωκα ὑμῖν τὰς παραδόσεις, οὕτω κατέχετε. 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. ∆ῆλον 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 ποιητήν· καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, 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 Ἰησοῦ τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν, δι' οὗ τῷ Πατρὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Ἀμήν.