Church History 1.4–1.8

“To my most beloved lord, the man of God, faithful and orthodox Eusebius, Arius, unjustly persecuted by Pope Alexander on account of the truth that conquers all, which you too defend: greeting in the Lord.

Since my father Ammonius is going to Nicomedia, it seemed reasonable and right to address you through him, and at the same time to remind your innate love and disposition, which you have toward the brothers for the sake of God and his Christ, that the bishop is ravaging and persecuting us greatly and moving every rope against us, so as to drive us out of the city as godless men, because we do not agree with him when he says publicly: ‘Always God, always Son; at the same time Father, at the same time Son; the Son coexists with God unbegottenly; he is ever-begotten, unbegotten-begotten; God does not precede the Son by a thought or by any instant; always God, always Son; the Son is from God himself.’ And since Eusebius your brother in Caesarea, and Theodotus, Paulinus, Athanasius, Gregory, Aetius, and all those in the East say that God exists before the Son without beginning, they have been made anathema, except only Philogonius, Hellanicus, and Macarius, heretical and uninstructed men, who say of the Son, some that he is an utterance, others that he is an emanation, others that he is co-unbegotten. These impieties we cannot even listen to, even if the heretics threaten us with ten thousand deaths. But what do we say and think, and what have we taught and do we teach? That the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of the unbegotten in any way, nor from any underlying matter; but that by will and counsel he subsisted before times and before ages, full God, only-begotten, unchangeable; and that before he was begotten, or created, or determined, or founded, he was not; for he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted because we said: ‘The Son has a beginning, but God is without beginning.’ For this we are persecuted, and because we said that he is out of nothing; and we said so inasmuch as he is neither a part of God nor from any underlying matter. For this we are persecuted; the rest you know. I pray that you are well in the Lord, remembering our afflictions, truly a fellow Lucianist, Eusebius.”

Of those named by him, Eusebius was bishop of Caesarea, Theodotus of Laodicea, Paulinus of Tyre, Athanasius of Anazarbus, Gregory of Berytus, and Aetius of Lydda (Lydda is the city now called Diospolis). These Arius boasted of having on his side; as opponents he named Philogonius, president of the Antiochenes, Hellanicus of Tripolis, and Macarius of Jerusalem, stitching together slanders against them because they said that the Son is eternal and before the ages, equal in honour with the Father and of the same essence. When Eusebius received this letter, he too vomited out his own impiety. He writes as follows to Paulinus, the leader of the Tyrians.

“To my lord Paulinus, Eusebius sends greeting in the Lord.

Neither has the zeal of my lord Eusebius on behalf of the true doctrine been passed over in silence, but it has reached even us; nor has your silence on the matter, my lord. And, as was natural, we rejoiced over my lord Eusebius, but we are grieved over you, judging that the silence of such a man is a defeat for us. Therefore I urge you, knowing as you do how unbecoming it is for a sensible man to think otherwise than the truth and to keep silent about it, to stir up your mind in the Spirit and begin to write on this matter, to the benefit both of yourself and of those who hear you, especially if you are willing to write following the sequence of Scripture and the tracks of its words and intentions. For we have neither heard of two unbegottens, my lord, nor learned or believed that one has been divided into two or has suffered anything bodily; but that the unbegotten is one, and one is that which came into being from him truly and not out of his essence, not sharing at all in the unbegotten nature or being out of his essence, but having come into being wholly other in nature and in power, made to the perfect likeness of the disposition and power of the one who made him. His beginning we have believed to be not only indescribable in word but incomprehensible in thought, not only to men but to all beings above men. We say this not putting forward our own reasonings, but having learned it from Holy Scripture. We have learned that he is created, founded, and begotten in essence and in his unchangeable and ineffable nature and in his likeness to the one who made him, as the Lord himself says: ‘God created me the beginning of his ways, and before the age he founded me; and before all the hills he begets me.’ If he were from him, that is, of him, as a part of him or from an outflow of his essence, he would no longer be said to be created or founded; you yourself, my lord, surely know this. For what exists from the unbegotten could not be created by another or by him, or founded, being unbegotten from the beginning. And if his being called begotten gives some ground for suspecting that he has come into being out of the Father's essence and has from this the identity of nature, we know that Scripture says ‘begotten’ not of him alone but also of beings wholly unlike him in nature. For of men it says: ‘I have begotten and exalted sons, but they rejected me,’ and ‘You have forsaken the God who begot you’; and elsewhere: ‘Who is he who has begotten the drops of dew?’, not describing a nature from a nature, but the coming into being of each of the things that came to be from his will. For nothing is out of his essence, but each of the things that have come into being by his will is as it came into being. For he is God; but the other things, made to his likeness and in accordance with his word, came into being freely; and all things came into being through him by God, and all things are from God. Taking these points and working them out according to the grace given you from God, be eager to write to my lord Alexander; for I am confident that if you write to him you will put him to shame. Greet all those in the Lord. May the divine grace keep you in health and praying for us, my lord.”

Such were the letters these men too sent to one another, arming themselves for the war against the truth. When the blasphemy had thus been sown in the churches of Egypt and the East, there were quarrels and fights about the divine doctrines in every city and village. The rest of the multitude were spectators of what was done and judges of what was said; some praised one side, others the other; and the events were matter for tragedy and lamentation. For it was not foreigners and enemies, as of old, who besieged the churches; but men of the same race, the same roof, and the same table moved their tongues against one another instead of spears; or rather, being members of one another and forming one body, they armed themselves against each other.

When the all-wise emperor learned of this, he first tried to stop up the very source of the evils, and sent to Alexandria, with letters, one of the men renowned for intelligence, trying to put out the strife and eager to bring the faction to concord. When he was disappointed of this hope, he convened that celebrated synod at Nicaea, directing that the bishops and those coming with them should use public donkeys, mules, and horses. When all who were able to bear the labour of the journey had assembled, he himself came to Nicaea, wishing to see the multitude of high priests and longing to preside over their concord; and he at once ordered that everything be supplied to them without stint. Three hundred and eighteen high priests came together. The bishop of Rome was absent because of extreme old age, but he sent two presbyters, directing them to agree to what was done.

At that time there were many who were distinguished by apostolic gifts, and many who, as the divine apostle says, bore in their body the marks of the Lord Jesus. James of Antioch in Mygdonia (which Syrians and Assyrians call Nisibis) raised the dead, restored them to the living, and worked countless other wonders; I think it superfluous to insert them again in this history, since I have related them in the Religious History. Paul of Neocaesarea (a fortress lying on the banks of the Euphrates) had felt the fury of Licinius: both his hands had been disabled, for a red-hot iron had been applied to them and had contracted and deadened the nerves that move the joints. Others had their right eyes dug out; others had been hamstrung in the right leg; one of these was Paphnutius the Egyptian. In short, one could see a whole people of martyrs gathered in one place. Yet this divine and celebrated assembly was not without opponents. There were some, few indeed, but treacherous, like hidden shoals, hiding their wickedness and not openly advocating the blasphemies of Arius.

When all had come together, the emperor had a very large hall in the palace made ready, ordering as many benches and seats as possible to be placed in it, enough for the assembly of the high priests. Having thus prepared for them the honour that was fitting, he allowed them to enter and to deliberate on the matters before them. He himself came in last with a few attendants, admirable for his stature, marvellous for his beauty, and still more wonderful for the modesty that sat upon his brow. A small seat was placed in the middle, and he sat down, after asking the bishops to permit this; and with him the whole of that divine choir sat down. At once the great Eustathius spoke first, he who had been allotted the presidency of the church of the Antiochenes (for Philogonius, whom I mentioned before, had departed to the better life, and the high priests, the priests, and the whole Christ-loving people by common vote had compelled him, against his will, to shepherd that church in his place). He crowned the emperor's head with the flowers of praise and repaid his zeal for divine things with blessings. When he had finished, the emperor, worthy of all praise, delivered an address on concord and agreement, recalling the cruelty of those tyrants and the most honourable peace granted by God in his own time, and how dreadful, exceedingly dreadful it would be, now that the enemies were overthrown and no one dared to resist, for them to attack one another and provide pleasure and laughter for their enemies, especially when they were discussing divine matters and had the teaching of the all-holy Spirit in writing. “For the books of the Gospels and the apostles,” he said, “and the oracles of the ancient prophets clearly teach us what we ought to think about the divine. Let us, then, drive away war-making strife and take the solution of the questions from the divinely inspired words.” These and similar things he set before the priests as before fathers, like a son who loves his father, working for agreement in the apostolic doctrines. Most of the synod were persuaded by what was said and embraced both concord with one another and soundness of doctrine. But a few, whom I mentioned before, and with them Menophantus of Ephesus, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Theognis, bishop of Nicaea itself, and Narcissus of Neronias (Neronias is a city of Second Cilicia, which we now call Irenopolis), and with them Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais in Egypt, spoke against the apostolic doctrines in support of Arius. They dictated a statement of faith and handed it to the assembly; when it was read out, all at once tore it up, calling it spurious and counterfeit. A great uproar arose against them, and all accused them of betraying true religion; in fear they stood up and were the first to renounce Arius, except Secundus and Theonas. When the impious man had thus been put out of the way, all with one voice dictated the faith that is in use in the churches to this day, confirmed it with their signatures, and dissolved the council.

Those mentioned before, however, agreed to this faith deceitfully and not sincerely. This is shown both by the plots they later hatched against the champions of true religion and by what those champions themselves wrote about them. For that Eustathius, bishop of the Antiochenes, whom I mentioned before, wrote the following about them, relating what had happened, refuting the blasphemy, and interpreting the saying in Proverbs, “The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works.”

[Refutation of the Arianizers from the writings of the great Eustathius and of Athanasius.]

“I shall now go on to what was done. What happened, then? When on this account a very great synod came to Nicaea, some two hundred and seventy being gathered in one place (for I cannot write the exact number because of the throng of the great assembly, since I did not search it out with any great care), and the form of the faith was being inquired into, the document of Eusebius's blasphemy was put forward as a plain proof. When it was read out before all, it at once caused immeasurable grief to the hearers because of its deviation, and brought incurable shame on its writer. When the workshop of Eusebius's party had been clearly caught, and the lawless document had been torn up in the sight of all together, some, by contrivance, putting forward the name of peace, silenced all those who were accustomed to speak best. The Ario-maniacs, afraid that they might be ostracized when so great a synod had been convened in one place, leaped forward and anathematized the forbidden doctrine, signing the agreed documents with their own hands. But having kept their presidencies by a great deal of running about, when they ought to have taken the place of penitents, they champion the condemned opinions, now secretly, now openly, plotting against the proofs by various means. Wishing to establish their tare-like plantings, they fear the experts, they avoid those who oversee, and so they make war on the heralds of true religion. But we do not believe that godless men can ever overcome the divine; for ‘though they become strong again, they will be defeated again,’ according to the solemn-voiced prophet Isaiah.”

This is what the great Eustathius wrote. His fellow combatant and the bulwark of the truth, Athanasius, the successor to the presidency of the all-praiseworthy Alexander, in writing to the Africans, added the following:

“When the bishops who had assembled wished to do away with the expressions of impiety invented by the Arians, ‘out of nothing,’ and calling the Son ‘a creature and a thing made,’ and ‘there was once when he was not,’ and that he is of a changeable nature, and to write the acknowledged words of the Scriptures, that the Son is by nature only-begotten from God, Word, Power, the only Wisdom of the Father, ‘true God,’ as John said, and, as Paul wrote, ‘the radiance of the glory and the exact imprint of the Father's hypostasis,’ the party of Eusebius, drawn by their own heterodoxy, whispered to one another: ‘Let us agree; for we too are from God. For “there is one God, from whom are all things,” and “the old has passed away; behold, all things have become new; and all things are from God.”’ They also reckoned on what is written in the Shepherd: ‘First of all believe that God is one, who created and established all things and made them from what is not into being.’ But the bishops, seeing their villainy and the craft of their impiety, expressed ‘from God’ more plainly and wrote that the Son is ‘from the essence of God,’ so that creatures, because they do not exist of themselves without a cause but have a beginning of their coming into being, may be said to be ‘from God,’ but the Son alone is proper to the Father's essence. For this is proper to the only-begotten and true Word of the Father. This, then, is the reason why ‘from the essence’ was written.

Again, when the bishops asked those who seemed to be few whether they said that the Son is not a creature but the Power and only Wisdom of the Father, the eternal image of the Father, unvarying in every respect, and true God, Eusebius's party were caught nodding to one another that these things too apply to us: ‘For we too are called “the image and glory of God,” and of us it has been said, “for we who live always”; and there are many powers: “all the power of the Lord went out of the land of Egypt,” and the caterpillar and the locust are called “a great power,” and “the Lord of powers is with us; the God of Jacob is our helper.” We also have being God's own, not simply, but because he called us brothers too. And if they say that the Son is true God, it does not trouble us; for having come into being, he is true.’ This is the corrupt mind of the Arians. But here too the bishops, seeing their deceit, gathered from the Scriptures ‘the radiance,’ ‘the fountain’ and ‘river,’ the ‘imprint’ in relation to the hypostasis, and ‘In your light we shall see light,’ and ‘I and the Father are one’; and then they wrote more plainly and concisely that the Son is of the same essence as the Father. For all that had been said before has this meaning.

Their grumbling that the words are unscriptural is proved by themselves to be vain. For having been impious with unscriptural words (for ‘out of nothing’ and ‘there was once when he was not’ are unscriptural), they complain that they were condemned by unscriptural words understood with piety. For they found their words as if on a dunghill and truly spoke from the earth; but the bishops did not find the words for themselves, but had the testimony from the fathers, and so wrote. For ancient bishops, about a hundred and thirty years ago, of great Rome and of our own city, blamed those who called the Son a thing made and not of the same essence as the Father. And Eusebius, who became bishop of Caesarea, knew this; at first he sided with the Arian heresy, but later he signed at the synod of Nicaea, and he wrote to his own people, affirming: ‘We have known that some of the ancients too, learned and distinguished bishops and writers, used the term “of the same essence” of the divinity of the Father and the Son.’”

These men, then, hiding their disease (for they feared the number of the bishops), agreed to what had been set out, drawing on themselves the prophetic accusation; for the God of the universe cries to them too: “This people honours me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.” Theonas and Secundus, being unwilling to do this, were unanimously excommunicated by all, as having preferred the blasphemy of Arius to the teaching of the gospel. Assembling again in the council, they wrote twenty laws concerning church order.

Melitius, who had been honoured with ordination as a bishop not long before the madness of Arius, was then convicted of certain lawless acts by the most divine Peter, bishop of the Alexandrians, who also bound on the crown of martyrdom, and was deposed. He did not accept the sentence of deposition, but filled the Thebaid and neighbouring Egypt with tumult and storm, acting as a usurper against the presidency of Alexander. So the bishops wrote to the church of the Alexandrians what they had decreed concerning his innovation. It is as follows.

Synodal letter.

“To the holy and great church of the Alexandrians, by the grace of God, and to the beloved brothers in Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis, the bishops gathered at Nicaea, who formed the great and holy synod: greeting in the Lord.

Since by the grace of God, and when the most God-beloved emperor Constantine had assembled us from various provinces and cities, the great and holy synod was convened at Nicaea, it seemed necessary to the whole holy synod that letters should be sent to you too, so that you may know what was raised and examined, and what was decided and confirmed.

First of all the matters concerning the impiety of Arius were examined in the presence of our most God-beloved emperor Constantine, and it was unanimously decided that his impious opinion should be anathematized, together with the blasphemous words and thoughts he used in blaspheming the Son of God, saying that he is out of nothing, that before he was begotten he was not, and that there was once when he was not, and that the Son of God by free will is capable of vice and virtue. All these things the holy synod anathematized, not enduring even to hear the impious opinion and the madness and the blasphemous words. What end the matters concerning him have reached you have either heard or will hear, so that we may not seem to trample on a man who has received the due reward of his own sin. His impiety had so much strength that Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais also shared in its consequences; for they too have met with the same.

But since the grace of God has freed Egypt from that heterodoxy and blasphemy, and from the persons who dared to make dissension and division among a people that had long been at peace, and there remained the matter of the rashness of Melitius and of those ordained by him, we also make known to you, beloved brothers, what the synod decided about it. The synod, being moved to greater kindness (for by strict reckoning he deserved no pardon), decided that Melitius should remain in his own city and have no authority to appoint or to ordain, nor to appear in any countryside or city for this purpose, but should keep the bare name of his rank; and that those appointed by him, after being confirmed by a more sacred ordination, should be admitted to communion on these terms: that they keep their rank and minister, but be in every respect second to all those enrolled in each diocese and church who had been ordained earlier under our most honoured fellow minister Alexander; so that they have no authority to appoint those they please, or to propose names, or to do anything at all without the consent of the bishop of the catholic and apostolic church who is under Alexander. But those who by the grace of God and your prayers have been found in no schism, but are spotless in the catholic and apostolic church, have authority to appoint and to propose the names of those worthy of the clergy, and in general to do everything according to the law and ordinance of the church. If it should happen that any of those in the church should go to rest, then those lately received should be promoted to the honour of the deceased, provided only that they appear worthy and the people choose them, the bishop of the catholic church of Alexandria voting with them and confirming the choice. This was granted to all the others; but in the case of Melitius himself it was decided otherwise, because of his disorderliness from the first and the hastiness and rashness of his mind, so that no authority of independent action should be given him, as a man able to commit the same disorders again.

These are the special matters that concern Egypt and the most holy church of Alexandria. If anything else was decreed by canon or by doctrine in the presence of our lord and most honoured fellow minister and brother Alexander, he himself, being present, will report it, since he was both a master and a sharer of what was done.

We also bring you good news about the agreement concerning our most holy Pascha: that through your prayers this part too has been set right, so that all the brothers in the East who formerly did not act in agreement with the Romans and with you and with all who have kept the Pascha from the beginning will from now on keep it with you. Rejoicing, then, in these successes and in the common peace and agreement, and in the cutting off of every heresy, receive with greater honour and fuller love our fellow minister and your bishop Alexander, who gladdened us by his presence and, at his age, underwent so much labour to bring peace to your affairs. Pray also for all of us, that what has been rightly decided may remain firm through our Lord Jesus Christ, having been done, as we believe, according to the good pleasure of God the Father in the Holy Spirit; to whom be glory to the ages of ages, amen. The Trinity is of the same essence and eternal.”

This was the treatment that divine assembly of high priests applied to the disease of Melitius. Yet the remnants of his derangement have remained to this day: in those places there are certain communities of monks who neither obey the sound doctrines and, in their way of life, practise certain empty observances, agreeing with the folly of the Samaritans and the Jews.