Deposition of Acacius, &c., and report to the Emperor.
§13, 14. Reflections on the two councils, especially as to the divergence of the Arians from the Fathers and from each other.
Part II. History of Arian Creeds.
§15. The belief of Arius as expressed in his Thalia.
§16. Letter of Arius to Alexander.
§17. Statements of early partizans of Arius.
§§18, 19. Extracts from Asterius the sophist.
§20. The true character of this doctrine.
Arian Councils and their formularies.
§21. Jerusalem (335). Letter announcing reception of Arius to Communion.
§22. Antioch (Dedication' 341). First creed.
§23. Second (Lucianic) Creed.
§24. Third creed (of Theophronius).
§25. Fourth creed (342; revision of the Nicene).
§26. (344) Fifth creed: the Macrostich' (the fourth with additions and explanations).
§27. Sirmium (against Photinus, 351, fourth of Antioch with 27 anathemas), the First' Sirmian.
§28. Second Sirmian' (357, the blasphemy').
§29. Creed propounded by the Acacians at Seleucia (359, the Dated' Creed revised in the Homoean sense).
[§30. Creed of Niké and Constantinople (359, 360, a new recension of the Dated' Creed, rejecting Hypostasis' as well as Essence.')
§31. A further Anomoean creed published under the patronage of Constantius at Antioch (361)].
§32. Reflections on the significance of these many changes.
Part III. Appeal to the Semi-Arians.
a. §§33-40. Homoeans confuted.
§33. The terms objected to give offence only because misunderstood.
§34. The true Divinity of Christ implies Coessential.'
§35. To reject the term implies that Christ is a creature.
§36. The objection to unscriptural' language condemns the Arians.
§37, 38. If the Son is truly Like' the Father, he is Coessential.'
§39. The sense, not the occurrence of the terms in Scripture, must be attended to.
§40. Alleged obscurity of the Nicene formula.
b. §§41-54. Semi-Arians conciliated.
§41. The party of Basil of Ancyra are with us on the main question.
§42. Coessential' conveys a meaning which they would adopt.
§43, 44. Alleged rejection of the term by the 70 bishops at Antioch, subsequent to its recognition by Dionysius of Alexandria.
§45. We must not hastily assume contradictions between the Fathers.
§46, 47. Parallel of the word Unoriginate.'
§48. Coessential' guards the acknowledged attributes of the Son.
§49. The Son is all that the Father is, except Father.
§50. If the Son is not Coessential, the Unity of the Godhead is lost.
§51. The Son cannot impart to man what is not His own; The oneness of Essence does not imply a common or prior essence.
§52. The Son not an independent God.
§53. Coessential' why preferable to Like in Essence.'
§54. Appeal for union among those who are really agreed.
Postscript (supplementing Part I.)
§55. Reply of Constantius to the Council of Ariminum, and remonstrance of the bishops upon receipt of it.
[3446] He undertakes to tell haper he& 240;raka kai egnon akribos, words which have given rise to the romantic but ill-founded tradition that, ubiquitious and untiring in his exile, he was a secret spectator of the proceedings of his enemies at these distant gatherings. (So Gibbon and, as far as Seleucia is concerned, Tillemont. Montfaucon, as usual, takes the more sober and likely view.)
[3447] Observe also that the Semi-Arian document of reconciliation in 363 (Socr. iii. 25) adopts the point pressed in de Syn. 41.
[3448] This is, strictly speaking, the first' Sirmian creed, but in the Table below that of 351 is counted as such.
[3449] The Semi-Arian digest of three confessions,' number 5 in Newman's list of Sirmian creeds, is left out of the reckoning here, as the confused statement of Soz. iv. 15, is the sole evidence for its existence. It cannot be the confession referred to in Hil. Fragm. vi. 6, 7. But see Newman, Arians, Appendix iii. note 5; Gwatkin, Studies, pp. 162, 189, sub fin.
Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia.
------------------------
Part I. History of the Councils.
Reason why two Councils were called. Inconsistency and folly of calling any; and of the style of the Arian formularies; occasion of the Nicene Council; proceedings at Ariminum; Letter of the Council to Constantius; its decree. Proceedings at Seleucia; reflections on the conduct of the Arians.
1. Perhaps news has reached even yourselves concerning the Council, which is at this time the subject of general conversation; for letters both from the Emperor and the Prefects [3450] were circulated far and wide for its convocation. However, you take that interest in the events which have occurred, that I have determined upon giving you an account of what I have seen myself, and accurately ascertained, which may save you from the suspense attendant on the reports of others; and this the more, because there are parties who are in the habit of misrepresenting what has happened. At Nicæa then, which had been fixed upon, the Council has not met, but a second edict was issued, convening the Western Bishops at Ariminum in Italy, and the Eastern at Seleucia the Rugged, as it is called, in Isauria. The professed reason of such a meeting was to treat of the faith touching our Lord Jesus Christ; and those who alleged it, were Ursacius, Valens, and one Germinius [3451] from Pannonia; and from Syria, Acacius, Eudoxius, and Patrophilus [3452] of Scythopolis. These men who had always been of the Arian party, and understood neither how they believe or whereof they affirm,' and were silently deceiving first one and then another, and scattering the second sowing [3453] of their heresy, influenced some who seemed to be somewhat, and the Emperor Constantius among them, being a heretic [3454] , on some pretence about the Faith, to call a Council; under the idea that they should be able to put into the shade the Nicene Council, and prevail upon all to turn round, and to establish irreligion everywhere instead of the Truth.
2. Now here I marvel first, and think that I shall carry every sensible man whatever with me, that, whereas a General Council had been fixed, and all were looking forward to it, it was all of a sudden divided into two, so that one part met here, and the other there. However, this was surely the doing of Providence, in order in the respective Councils to exhibit the faith without guile or corruption of the one party, and to expose the dishonesty and duplicity of the other. Next, this too was on the mind of myself and my true brethren here, and made us anxious, the impropriety of this great gathering which we saw in progress; for what pressed so much, that the whole world was to be put in confusion, and those who at the time bore the profession of clergy, should run about far and near, seeking how best to learn to believe in our Lord Jesus Christ? Certainly if they were believers already, they would not have been seeking, as though they were not. And to the catechumens, this was no small scandal; but to the heathen, it was something more than common, and even furnished broad merriment [3455] , that Christians, as if waking out of sleep at this time of day, should be enquiring how they were to believe concerning Christ; while their professed clergy, though claiming deference from their flocks, as teachers, were unbelievers on their own shewing, in that they were seeking what they had not. And the party of Ursacius, who were at the bottom of all this, did not understand what wrath they were storing up (Rom. ii. 5) against themselves, as our Lord says by His saints, Woe unto them, through whom My Name is blasphemed among the Gentiles' (Is. lii. 5; Rom. ii. 24); and by His own mouth in the Gospels (Matt. xviii. 6), Whoso shall offend one of these little ones, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea, than,' as Luke adds, that he should offend one of these little ones' (Luke xvii. 2).
3. What defect of teaching was there for religious truth in the Catholic Church [3456] , that they should enquire concerning faith now, and should prefix this year's Consulate to their profession of faith? For Ursacius and Valens and Germinius and their friends have done what never took place, never was heard of among Christians. After putting into writing what it pleased them to believe, they prefix to it the Consulate, and the month and the day of the current year [3457] ; thereby to shew all sensible men, that their faith dates, not from of old, but now, from the reign of Constantius [3458] ; for whatever they write has a view to their own heresy. Moreover, though pretending to write about the Lord, they nominate another master for themselves, Constantius, who has bestowed on them this reign of irreligion [3459] ; and they who deny that the Son is everlasting, have called him Eternal Emperor; such foes of Christ are they in addition to irreligion. But perhaps the dates in the holy Prophets form their excuse for the Consulate; so bold a pretence, however, will serve but to publish more fully their ignorance of the subject. For the prophecies of the saints do indeed specify their times (for instance, Isaiah and Hosea lived in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah; Jeremiah in the days of Josiah; Ezekiel and Daniel prophesied under Cyrus and Darius; and others in other times); yet they were not laying the foundations of divine religion; it was before them, and was always, for before the foundation of the world God prepared it for us in Christ. Nor were they signifying the respective dates of their own faith; for they had been believers before these dates. But the dates did but belong to their own preaching. And this preaching spoke beforehand of the Saviour's coming, but directly of what was to happen to Israel and the nations; and the dates denoted not the commencement of faith, as I said before, but of the prophets themselves, that is, when it was they thus prophesied. But our modern sages, not in historical narration, nor in prediction of the future, but, after writing, The Catholic Faith was published,' immediately add the Consulate and the month and the day, that, as the saints specified the dates of their histories, and of their own ministries, so these may mark the date of their own faith. And would that they had written, touching their own [3460] ' (for it does date from today); and had not made their essay as touching the Catholic,' for they did not write, Thus we believe,' but the Catholic Faith was published.'
4. The boldness then of their design shews how little they understand the subject; while the novelty of their phrase matches the Arian heresy. For thus they shew, when it was they began their own faith, and that from that same time present they would have it proclaimed. And as according to the Evangelist Luke, there was made a decree' (Luke ii. 1) concerning the taxing, and this decree before was not, but began from those days in which it was made by its framer, they also in like manner, by writing, The Faith is now published,' shewed that the sentiments of their heresy are novel, and were not before. But if they add of the Catholic Faith,' they fall before they know it into the extravagance of the Phrygians, and say with them, To us first was revealed,' and from us dates the Faith of Christians.' And as those inscribe it with the names of Maximilla and Montanus [3461] , so do these with Constantius, Master,' instead of Christ. If, however, as they would have it, the faith dates from the present Consulate, what will the Fathers do, and the blessed Martyrs? nay, what will they themselves do with their own catechumens, who departed to rest before this Consulate? how will they wake them up, that so they may obliterate their former lessons, and may sow in turn the seeming discoveries which they have now put into writing [3462] ? So ignorant they are on the subject; with no knowledge but that of making excuses, and those unbecoming and unplausible, and carrying with them their own refutation.
5. As to the Nicene Council, it was not a common meeting, but convened upon a pressing necessity, and for a reasonable object. The Syrians, Cilicians, and Mesopotamians, were out of order in celebrating the Feast, and kept Easter with the Jews [3463] ; on the other hand, the Arian heresy had risen up against the Catholic Church, and found supporters in Eusebius and his fellows, who were both zealous for the heresy, and conducted the attack upon religious people. This gave occasion for an Ecumenical Council, that the feast might be everywhere celebrated on one day, and that the heresy which was springing up might be anathematized. It took place then; and the Syrians submitted, and the Fathers pronounced the Arian heresy to be the forerunner of Antichrist [3464] , and drew up a suitable formula against it. And yet in this, many as they are, they ventured on nothing like the proceedings [3465] of these three or four men [3466] . Without pre-fixing Consulate, month, and day, they wrote concerning Easter, It seemed good as follows,' for it did then seem good that there should be a general compliance; but about the faith they wrote not, It seemed good,' but, Thus believes the Catholic Church;' and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to shew that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolical; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles.