[§ 7] But for greater exactness, I add this also writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these, not included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther and Judith and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there, in any place, a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.N. & P.-N.F. iv. 551 sq.

No. 54.-A Debate at the Council of Nicæa, 325 From Athanasius, Ep. ad Afros [369], § 5 (Op. ii. 715; P.G. xxvi. 1037–40).

2

[§ 5] . . . . When the assembled bishops were resolved to put down the impious phrases invented by the Arians, that the Son was from things which did not exist, and that the Son was a creature and a thing made, and that there was [a period] when he was not, and that He was of a changeable nature, and to write down the acknowledged sayings of Scripture, that the Word is from God, by nature Only-begotten, the only Power and Wisdom of the Father, true God, as John saith,1 and, as Paul wrote, effulgence of the Father's glory and impress of His hypostasis: the Eusebians, drawn away by their own vain opinions, began to say to each other, "Let us agree to this, for we also are from God for there is one God from Whom are all things,3 and, The old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new, and all things are from God."4 They also took account of that passage in "The Shepherd": "First of all things, believe that the God who created and organized all things, and brought them out of non-existence into existence, is one." But, the bishops, having observed their

craftiness and the artifice of impiety, gave a clearer explanation of the phrase "from God," and wrote that the Son was "from the essence of God"; that the creatures might be said to be "from God," because they are not from themselves without a cause, but have a beginning of their coming into existence, but the Son alone might be regarded as proper to the Father's essence, for this properly belongs to an only-begotten and veritable son in regard to a father. And this was the occasion of the adoption of the phrase "from the essence." Again, when the bishops asked those who seemed to be a small number whether they would say that the Son was not a creature, but the only Power and Wisdom of the Father, and in all points the eternal and unvarying image of the Father, and true God, they caught the Eusebians making signals to each other,1 to this effect: "These expressions belong to us also, for we are called God's image and glory; 2 and of us it is said, For we, the living, alway; and there are many 'powers,' and all the power of the Lord went forth from the land of Egypt, and the caterpillar and the locust are called a great power,5 and, The Lord of powers is with us, the God of Jacob is our helper. And we indeed are in the position of belonging properly to God, not in a commonplace way, but because He has called us brethren. And if also they even call the Son true 'God,' that does not trouble us; for since He has been made so He is true (God)."'

8

6

7

[§ 6] Such were the unsound thoughts of the Arians. But here also the bishops, perceiving their craftiness, collected from the Scriptures the phrase "effulgence," and the "fountain" and "stream," and "impress" in relation to "hypostasis," and the text, In Thy light shall we see light, and I and the Father are one. And then they inserted in their formulary a clearer and compendious phrase that the Son was "co-essential with the Father"; for all the expressions above quoted have this meaning.— W. Bright, Later Treatises of St. Athanasius; L.F. xlvi. 31–3. 1 Lit. "nodding"; so "whispering and winking" in the parallel account, De decretis, § 20. 4 Exod. xii. 41.

2 Cor. xi. 7.

5 Joel ii. 25.

3 2 Cor. iv. II.
6 Ps. xlvi. 7.

7 Note the affinity of Arianism to polytheism.

8 Ps. xxxvi. 9.

VOL. II.

John x. 30.

G

No. 55.—The Elements of an Episcopal
Appointment, 373

From Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, 373-†80; ap. Theodoret, H.E. IV. xxii. § 9.

[§ 9] Our successor [sc. the Arian intruder, Lucius], who had purchased the episcopal office with gold, as though it had been a secular dignity, was a wolf in disposition, and acted accordingly. He had not been elected by a synod of bishops, by the votes of the clergy, or by the request of the people, according to the regulations of the Church.--The Greek Eccl. Hist. v. 249 sq. (Bagster, 1844).

No. 56. The Personal Appearance of Arius From Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, 367-†403; Panarion: Haer. lxix. § 3 (Op. ii. 729; P.L. xlii. 205).

[§ 3] From elation of mind the old man swerved from the mark. He was in stature very tall, downcast in visage, with manners like a wily serpent, captivating to every guileless heart by that same crafty bearing. Always dressed in short cloak and scanty tunic, he was pleasant of address, ever persuading souls and cajoling them. So what was his first work but to withdraw from the Church in one body as many as seven hundred women who professed virginity. It is said also that seven presbyters and twelve deacons were detached by him. Indeed the mischief that he made soon spread to bishops: for he won over to his side Secundus, Bishop of Ptolemais, with others.-K.

No. 57.-Condemnation of Apollinarianism and Macedonianism at Rome. 377

From the Synodal Letter of a Roman Council, ?376-7, under Pope Damasus, 366-†84 Damasus, Ep. II. Fragm. ii. (P.L. xiii. 352 sq.).

Illud sane miramur.--This we are certainly surprised to find, that there are said to be some among our own people who, in spite of their having a pious understanding of the Trinity, nevertheless, in respect of the mystery of our

salvation, know neither the power [of God] nor the Scriptures, and so fail to be of a right mind. They venture to say that our God and Saviour Jesus Christ took from the Virgin Mary human nature incomplete, i. e. without mind. Alas, how nearly they approach the Arians with a mind like that! The latter speak of an incomplete divinity in the Son of God; the former falsely affirm an incomplete humanity in the Son of Man. Now if human nature were taken incomplete, then the gift of God is incomplete, and our salvation is incomplete, because human nature has not been saved in its entirety. And what then will become of that saying of the Lord, "The Son of Man came to save that which had been lost in its entirety" (Matt. xviii. 11), i. e. in soul and in body, in mind and in the whole substance of its nature? If, therefore, human nature had been lost in its entirety, it was necessary that that which had been lost should be saved. But if it was saved without mind, then the fact that that which had been lost was not saved in its entirety will be found contrary to the faith of the Gospel ; since, in another place, the Saviour Himself says: "Are ye angry at Me because I have made a man every whit whole?" (John vii. 23). Further, the essence of the first sin itself and of the entire perdition lies in man's mind; for if, at the first, man's mind to choose good and evil had not perished, he would not have died. How then are we to suppose that, at the last, that needed no salvation which is acknowledged to have been chief in sinning? We, who know that we have been saved whole and entire according to the profession of the Catholic Church, profess that complete God took complete man. Wherefore take heed that, by their understanding of sound doctrine, the very minds of those be saved who as yet do not believe that the mind has been saved.

Non nobis quidquam.-It is not our way to seek for an opportunity whereby our efforts may bring you some little refreshment; although, most blessed, you would be greatly relieved if you would acknowledge the soundness of our faith and with one mind make boast of your agreement; having, as is meet, enough and more than enough confidence in our solicitude for [our fellow-] members [in Christ]. As men who hold fast through everything to the inviolable

faith of the Council of Nicæa, we do not separate the Holy Spirit, but together with the Father and the Son we offer Him a joint worship as complete in everything, in power, honour, majesty and Godhead; and, moreover, we believe that God the Word in His fullness, not put forth but born, and not immanent in the Father so as to have no real existence, but subsisting from eternity to eternity, took and saved human nature complete, i. e. entire.-K.

No. 58.-A Petition to Gratian and Valentinian II. From the letter of a Synod at Rome [? 378-82] under Pope Damasus (P.L. xiii. 575 s.q., 581)-Et hoc Gloria vestræ.

[§] This also, most Clement Sovereign, is a signal proof of your Glory and Piety that, when we were assembled in considerable numbers from almost all the different parts of Italy, and were considering what request it would be desirable to make to you on behalf of the churches, we were not able to hit upon anything better than that which you, in your spontaneous forethought, have already bestowed. We see that neither ought there to be any shame in asking, nor ought there to be any need for us to obtain by petition, favours which you have already granted. For, as regards the equity of our petition, we succeeded long ago in obtaining the things which we are requesting; but, as regards the need of renewing our prayer, we have so entirely failed in obtaining the effect of the favours granted, that we desire to have them granted afresh.

[§ 9] Inasmuch then as, at the bar of your Serenity, the innocence of our brother Damasus aforesaid has been established and his uprightness declared, while Isaac in his turn, since he could not prove his charges, has had sentence passed upon him in accordance with his deserts: now, therefore, lest in repeated cases we be further burdensome unto you, we request of your Clemency that your Piety would vouchsafe to ordain. that if any [bishop] shall have been condemned by the judgment whether of Damasus or of ourselves, being Catholics, and shall unjustly wish to retain possession of his church, and, on being summoned by a synod of bishops shall contumaciously refuse to attend,