De Synodis or On the Fiath of the Easterns.

 On the Councils, or, The Faith of the Easterns.

 I had determined, beloved brethren, to send no letter to you concerning the affairs of the Church in consequence of your prolonged silence. For when I

 2. But when I received the letters that your blessed faith inspired, and understood that their slow arrival and their paucity were due to the remotene

 3. You awaited the noble triumph of a holy and steadfast perseverance without yielding to the threats, the powers and the assaults of Saturninus: and

 4. But your invincible faith keeps the honourable distinction of conscious worth, and content with repudiating crafty, vague, or hesitating action, sa

 5. And although in all your actions, past and present, you bear witness to the uninterrupted independence and security of your faith yet in particula

 6. Now I beseech you by the mercy of the Lord, that as I will in this letter according to your desire write to you of divine things and of the witness

 7. Therefore I comply with your affectionate and urgent wish, and I have set down all the creeds which have been promulgated at different times and pl

 8. For although it was necessary to reply to your letters, in which you offered me Christian communion with your faith, (and, moreover, certain of you

 9. Now it seems to me right and appropriate, before I begin my argument about suspicions and dissensions as to words, to give as complete an account a

 10. You remember that in the Blasphemia , lately written at Sirmium, the object of the authors was to proclaim the Father to be the one and only God o

 11. Since there appeared to be some misunderstanding respecting the faith, all points have been carefully investigated and discussed at Sirmium in the

 12. After these many and most impious statements had been made, the Eastern bishops on their side again met together and composed definitions of their

 13. Hereby is excluded the assertion of those who wish to represent the relationship of Father and Son as a matter of names, inasmuch as every image i

 14. The person of the recipient and of the giver are distinguished so that the same should not be made one and sole. For since he is under anathema wh

 15. It is here insisted that the nature is indistinguishable and entirely similar. For since He is the Only-begotten Son of God and the image of the i

 16. With the Son’s origin as thus stated is connected the perfect birth of the undivided nature. For what in each is life, that in each is signified b

 17. Those who say that the Son of God is only a creature or formation are opposed on the fact that they say they have read The Lord formed or created

 18. Moreover, to shew that she possesses a nature that was born and not created, Wisdom has added that she was begotten, that by declaring that she wa

 19. The heretics when beset by authoritative passages in Scripture are wont only to grant that the Son is like the Father in might while they deprive

 20. By confused and involved expressions the heretics very frequently elude the truth and secure the ears of the unwary by the mere sound of common wo

 21. We have always to beware of the vices of particular perversions, and countenance no opportunity for delusion. For many heretics say that the Son i

 22. But birth does not countenance this vain imagination for such identity without differentiation excludes birth. For what is born has a father who

 23. It was said unto the apostles of the Lord, Be ye wise as serpents, and harmless as doves . Christ therefore wished there to be in us the nature of

 24. It is a pious saying that the Father is not limited by times: for the true meaning of the name of Father which He bore before time began surpasses

 25. The essential likeness conformed to the Father’s essence in kind is also taught to be identical in time: lest He who is the image of God, who is t

 26. The above definition when it denied that the idea of time could be applied to the birth of the Son seemed to have given an occasion for heresy (we

 27. We have reviewed, beloved brethren, all the definitions of faith made by the Eastern bishops which they formulated in their assembly against the r

 28. Here, beloved brethren, is the entire creed which was published by some Easterns, few in proportion to the whole number of bishops, and which firs

 29. “We believe in accordance with evangelical and apostolic tradition in one God the Father Almighty, the Creator, Maker and Disposer of all things t

 30. “Having therefore held this faith from the beginning, and being resolved to hold it to the end in the sight of God and Christ, we say anathema to

 31. Perhaps this creed has not spoken expressly enough of the identical similarity of the Father and the Son, especially in concluding that the names

 32. But in the first place we must remember that the bishops did not assemble at Antioch to oppose the heresy which has dared to declare that the subs

 33. Further the whole of the above statement has drawn no distinction whatever between the essence and nature of the Father and the Son. For when it i

 34. “We, the holy synod met in Sardica from different provinces of the East, namely, Thebais, Egypt, Palestine, Arabia, Phœnicia, Cœle Syria, Mesopota

 35. In the exposition of this creed, concise but complete definitions have been employed. For in condemning those who said that the Son sprang from th

 36. On every side, where anxiety might be felt, approach is barred to the arguments of heretics lest it should be declared that there is any differenc

 37. Yet to prevent the declaration of one God seeming to affirm that God is a solitary monad without offspring of His own, it immediately condemns the

 38. “We believe in one God the Father Almighty, the Creator and Maker, from whom every fatherhood in heaven and in earth is named.

 39. The necessity of the moment urged the Council to set forth a wider and broader exposition of the creed including many intricate questions, because

 40. What ambiguity is there here? What is omitted that the consciousness of a sincere faith could suggest? He does not spring from things non-existent

 41. The very statement of the name as our religion states it gives us a clear insight into the fact. For since it is condemned to say that the Father

 42. The fact of the essence declared to be one in the Father and the Son having one name on account of their similarity of nature seemed to offer an o

 43. While denying that the God of us all, the Son of God, existed before He was born in bodily form, some assert that He existed according to foreknow

 44. To contract and expand are bodily affections: but God who is a Spirit and breathes where He listeth, does not expand or contract Himself through a

 45. The above opinion, although meant to teach the immutability of God, yet prepared the way for the following heresy. Some have ventured to say that

 46. Heretics, destroying as far as in them lies the Son of God, confess Him to be only the word, going forth as an utterance from the speaker’s lips a

 47. Thus is preserved both the name and power of the divine substance. For since he is anathema who says that the Son of God by Mary is man and not Go

 48. This preserves the dignity of the Godhead: so that in the fact that the Word was made Flesh, the Word, in becoming Flesh, has not lost through bei

 49. It is clearly shewn why the Word, though He was made Flesh, was nevertheless not transformed into Flesh. Though these kinds of suffering affect th

 50. These points had to be inserted into the creed because Photinus, against whom the synod was held, denied them. They were inserted lest any one sho

 51. The foregoing and the following statements utterly remove any ground for suspecting that this definition asserts a diversity of different deities

 52. Sheer perversity calls for no contradiction: and yet the mad frenzy of certain men has been so violent as to dare to predicate one Person with two

 53. The further clause makes liable to anathema the predicating Unborn God of the Paraclete. For it is most impious to say that He who was sent by the

 54. We remember that the Paraclete was sent by the Son, and at the beginning the creed explained this. But since through the virtue of His nature, whi

 55. The insane frenzy of the heretics, and not any genuine difficulty, rendered it necessary that this should be written. For since the name of Holy S

 56. Since it is contrary to religion to say that there are two Gods, because we remember and declare that nowhere has it been affirmed that there is m

 57. Though we condemn a plurality of gods and declare that God is only one, we cannot deny that the Son of God is God. Nay, the true character of His

 58. To all creatures the will of God has given substance: but a perfect birth gave to the Son a nature from a substance that is impossible and itself

 59. Since it was taught that the Son did not, like all other things, owe His existence to God’s will, lest He should be thought to derive His essence

 60. To declare the Son to be incapable of birth is the height of impiety. God would no longer be One: for the nature of the one Unborn God demands tha

 61. A condemnation of that heresy on account of which the Synod was held necessarily concluded with an explanation of the whole faith that was being o

 62. You perceive that the truth has been sought by many paths through the advice and opinions of different bishops, and the ground of their views has

 63. You must not be surprised, dear brethren, that so many creeds have recently been written. The frenzy of heretics makes it necessary. The danger of

 64. Kept always from guile by the gift of the Holy Spirit, we confess and write of our own will that there are not two Gods but one God nor do we the

 65. I have expounded, beloved brethren, my belief in our common faith so far as our wonted human speech permitted and the Lord, whom I have ever besou

 66. Since your faith and mine, so far as I am conscious, is in no danger before God, and I have shewn you, as you wished, the creeds that have been se

 67. Many of us, beloved brethren, declare the substance of the Father and the Son to be one in such a spirit that I consider the statement to be quite

 68. But if we attribute one substance to the Father and the Son to teach that there is a solitary personal existence although denoted by two titles: t

 69. Therefore amid the numerous dangers which threaten the faith, brevity of words must be employed sparingly, lest what is piously meant be thought t

 70. Therefore let no one think that our words were meant to deny the one substance. We are giving the very reason why it should not be denied. Let no

 71. Beloved brethren, we must not deny that there is one substance of the Father and the Son, but we must not declare it without giving our reasons. T

 72. But perhaps the word similarity may not seem fully appropriate. If so, I ask how I can express the equality of one Person with the other except by

 73. Therefore, beloved brethren, in declaring that the Son is like in all things to the Father, we declare nothing else than that He is equal. Likenes

 74. I am aware, dear brethren, that there are some who confess the likeness, but deny the equality. Let them speak as they will, and insert the poison

 75. Although general conviction and divine authority sanction no difference between likeness and equality, since both Moses and John would lead us to

 76. Therefore, brethren, likeness of nature can be attacked by no cavil, and the Son cannot be said to lack the true qualities of the Father’s nature

 77. Beloved, after explaining in a faithful and godly manner the meaning of the phrases one substance , in Greek ὁμοούσιον, and similar substance

 78. Ye who have begun to be eager for apostolic and evangelical doctrine, kindled by the fire of faith amid the thick darkness of a night of heresy, w

 79. These are deceivers, I both fear and believe they are deceivers, beloved brethren for they have ever deceived. This very document is marked by hy

 80. Now I beseech you, holy brethren, to listen to my anxieties with indulgence. The Lord is my witness that in no matter do I wish to criticise the d

 81. Your letter on the meaning of ὁμοούσιον and ὁμοιούσιον, which Valens, Ursacius and Germinius demanded should be read at Sirmium, I understand to h

 82. But I am not needlessly critical on this point. For I had rather use an expression that is new than commit sin by rejecting it. So, then, we will

 83. But when I at last turn to speak on the third point, I pray you to let there be no conflict of suspicions where there is peace at heart. Do not th

 84. Let us see, therefore, what the Council of Nicæa intended by saying ὁμοούσιον, that is, of one substance: not certainly to hatch the heresy which

 85. But perhaps on the opposite side it will be said that it ought to meet with disapproval, because an erroneous interpretation is generally put upon

 86. Some misunderstand ὁμοούσιον does that prevent me from understanding it? The Samosatene was wrong in using the word ὁμοούσιον does that make the

 87. But perhaps you will reply, ‘Some of those who were then present at Nicæa have now decreed that we ought to keep silence about the word ὁμοούσιον.

 88. Holy brethren, I understand by ὁμοούσιον God of God, not of an essence that is unlike, not divided but born, and that the Son has a birth which is

 89. But you say: ‘The ambiguity of the word ὁμοούσιον troubles and offends me.’ I pray you hear me again and be not offended. I am troubled by the ina

 90. I am afraid, brethren, of the brood of heresies which are successively produced in the East: and I have already read what I tell you I fear. There

 91. I pray you, brethren, remove all suspicion and leave no occasion for it. To approve of ὁμοιούσιον, we need not disapprove of ὁμοούσιον. Let us thi

 92. Beloved brethren, I have passed beyond the bounds of courtesy, and forgetting my modesty I have been compelled by my affection for you to write th

79. These are deceivers, I both fear and believe they are deceivers, beloved brethren; for they have ever deceived. This very document is marked by hypocrisy. They excuse themselves for having desired silence as to ὁμοούσιον and ὁμοιούσιον on the ground that they taught that the meaning of the words was identical. Rustic bishops, I trow, and untutored in the significance of ὁμοοίσιον: as though there had never been any Council about the matter, or any dispute. But suppose they did not know what ὁμοούσιον was, or were really unaware that ὁμοιούσιον meant of a like essence. Granted that they were ignorant of this, why did they wish to be ignorant of the generation of the Son? If it cannot be expressed in words, is it therefore unknowable? But if we cannot know how He was born, can we refuse to know even this, that God the Son being born not of another substance but of God, has not an essence differing from the Father’s? Have they not read that the Son is to be honoured even as the Father, that they prefer the Father in honour? Were they ignorant that the Father is seen in the Son, that they make the Son differ in dignity, splendour and majesty? Is this due to ignorance that the Son, like all other things, is made subject to the Father, and while thus subjected is not distinguished from them? A distinction does exist, for the subjection of the Son is filial reverence, the subjection of all other things is the weakness of things created. They knew that He suffered, but when, may I ask, did they come to know that He jointly suffered? They avoid the words ὁμοούσιον and ὁμοιούσιον, because they are not in Scripture: I enquire whence they gathered that the Son jointly suffered? Can they mean that there were two Persons who suffered? This is what the word leads us to believe. What of those words, Jesus Christ the Son of God? Is Jesus Christ one, and the Son of God another? If the Son of God is not one and the same inwardly and outwardly, if ignorance on such a point is permissible, then believe that they were ignorant of the meaning of ὁμοούσιον. But if on these points ignorance leads to blasphemy and yet cannot find even a false excuse, I fear that they lied in professing ignorance of the word ὁμοιούσιον. I do not greatly complain of the pardon you extended them; it is reverent to reserve for God His own prerogatives, and mistakes of ignorance are but human. But the two bishops, Ursacius and Valens, must pardon me for not believing that at their age and with their experience they were really ignorant. It is very difficult not to think they are lying, seeing that it is only by a falsehood that they can clear themselves on another score. But God rather grant that I am mistaken than that they really knew. For I had rather be judged in the wrong than that your faith should be contaminated by communion with the guilt of heresy.

79. Sirmiensis formulae auctores semper fallaces. Lepide carpuntur ac refelluntur. Christus unus, non duo. Valentis et Ursacii suspecta subscriptio.---Fallunt enim, quantum et vereor et mihi videtur, Fratres 0532A charissimi, fallunt; quia semper fefellerunt: et ipsa illa praesens nunc subscriptio non caret falsitate. Excusant enim se idcirco homousion et homoeusion taceri voluisse, quia unum atque idem significari verbo utroque existimarent. Rudes credo episcopi et ignorantes homousii significationem: quasi numquam de hoc aut synodus fuisset, aut lites. Sed esto ignoraverunt homousion, aut nesciebant homoeusion id significari, quod similis esset essentiae. 507 Jam si hoc nesciebant, cur nesciri volebant generationem Filii? Numquid si inenarrabilis est, ideo et ignorabilis est? Sed si ignoratur quo modo natus est; numquid ignorari vel hoc potest, quod Filius Deus non ex alia substantia, sed ex Deo natus, non diversam habeat essentiam? Numquid non legerunt, 0532B sicut Patrem, ita et Filium honorificandum (Joan. V, 25): ut Patrem honore praeferrent? Numquid incognitum habebant Patrem in Filio videri (Joan. XIV, 9): ut Filius apud eos dignitate, claritate, majestate differret? An et hoc ex ignorantia venit, ut cum caeteris Patri subjectus sit Filius: ut dum cum caeteris subjicitur, non discernatur a caeteris? cum subjectio Filii naturae pietas sit, subjectio autem caeterorum creationis infirmitas sit. Passum quidem sciebant: sed dicant, oro, compassum quando cognoverunt? Evitant homousion et homoeusion, quia nusquam 0533A scriptum sit: quaero compassum esse unde praesumpserint? Aut numquid volunt duos esse qui passi sunt? id enim compassio testatur. Ubi illud est Jesus Christus Filius Dei? aut numquid alius est Jesus Christus, alius filius Dei? Si non idem atque unus intra extraque Dei filius est; credite in homousio ignorationem, si haec ignorari licet. Si autem in his ipsis ipsa illa ignoratio impia est, quae tamen non potest, nec falso, excusari; vereor ne et homoesuii ignorationem professio mentiatur. Non queror admodum de venia quam 508 dedistis: religiosum est Deo sua reservare, et ignorationis error humanus est. Sed ignoscant mihi jam duo episcopi Valens et Ursacius, quod eos pro aetate atque exercitatione sua ignorasse non credo. Et difficillimum est ne mentiri existimentur, qui se in alio 0533B negotio non possunt nisi mendacio purgare. Sed Dominus hoc magis tribuat, ut nos male opinemur, quam illi non ignoraverint. Malo enim ego male existimans judicari, quam fidem vestram haereticae conscientiae communione violari.