deaths. But we say, and believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the Unbegotten; and that He does not derive His subsistence from any matter; but that by His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time, and before ages as perfect God, only-begotten and unchangeable.

[§ 4] And that He existed not, before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established. For He was not unbegotten. We are persecuted because we say that the Son had a beginning, but that God was without beginning. This is really the cause of our persecution; and, likewise, because we say that He is from nothing. And this we say, because He is neither part of God, nor of any subjacent matter. For this are we persecuted; the rest you know. Farewell. As a fellow-disciple of Lucian, and as a truly pious man, according to the import of your name, remember our afflictions.-The Greek Ecclesiastical Historians, v. 23-5 (with slight alterations) (Bagster, 1844).

No. 7.-Arius [c. 321] to Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, c. 312-†28

From Athanasius, De synodis [359], § 16 (Op. ii. 583: P.G. xxvi. 707-12).

[§ 16] To our blessed Pope and Bishop Alexander, the Presbyters and Deacons send health in the Lord.

Our faith from our forefathers, which also we have learned from thee, Blessed Pope, is this:-We acknowledge One God, alone Ingenerate, alone Everlasting, alone Unbegun, alone True, alone having Immortality, alone Wise, alone Good, alone Sovereign; Judge, Governor, and Providence of all, unalterable and unchangeable, just and good, God of Law and Prophet and New Testament; who begat an Onlybegotten Son before eternal times, through whom He has made both the ages and the universe; and begat Him not in semblance, but in truth: and that He made Him subsist at His own will, unalterable and unchangeable; perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures; offspring, but not as one of things begotten; nor as Valentinus pronounced that the offspring of the Father was an issue; nor as Manichæus taught that the offspring was a portion of the

Father, one in essence; or as Sabellius, dividing the Monad, speaks of a Son-and-Father; nor as Hieracas, of one torch from another, or as a lamp divided into two; nor that He who was before, was afterwards generated or new-created into a Son, as thou too thyself, Blessed Pope, in the midst of the Church and in session hast often condemned; but, as we say, at the will of God, created before times and before ages, and gaining life and being from the Father, who gave subsistence to His glories together with Him. For the Father did not, in giving to Him the inheritance of all things, deprive Himself of what He has ingenerately in Himself; for He is the Fountain of all things. Thus there are Three Subsistences. And God, being the cause of all things, is Unbegun and altogether Sole, but the Son being begotten apart from time by the Father, and being created and founded before ages, was not before His generation; but, being begotten apart from time before all things, alone was made to subsist by the Father. For He is not eternal or co-eternal or co-unoriginate with the Father, nor has He His being together with the Father, as some speak of relations, introducing two ingenerate beginnings, but God is before all things as being Monad and Beginning of all. Wherefore also He is before the Son; as we have learned also from thy preaching in the midst of the Church. So far then as from God He has being, and glories and life, and all things are delivered unto him, in such sense is God His Origin. For He is above Him, as being His God and before Him. But if the terms "from Him" and "from the womb" and "I came forth from the Father and I am come" (Rom. xi. 36; Ps. cx. 3; John xvi. 28), be understood by some to mean as if a part of Him, one in essence or as an issue, then the Father is according to them compounded and divisible and alterable and material, and, as far as their belief goes, has the circumstances of a body, who is the Incorporeal God —N. & P.-N.F. iv. 458.

No. 8. The Novelties of Arius and his

Excommunication

From the Encyclical [c. 321] of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, c. 312-†26, ap. Socrates, H.E. I. vi. §§ 8-13.

[§ 8] These then are those that have become apostates Arius, Achillas, Aïthales and Carpones, another Arius, Sarmates, Euzoïus, Lucius, Julian, Menas, Helladius and Gaïus; with these also must be reckoned Secundus and Theonas, who once were called bishops. [§ 9] The dogmas they assert in utter contrariety to the Scriptures, and wholly of their own devising, are these :-that God was not always a father, but that there was [a period] when he was not a father; that the Word of God was not from eternity, but was made out of nothing; for that the ever-existing God made Him who did not previously exist, out of nothing. Thus they conclude there was [a time] when He did not exist, inasmuch as, according to their philosophy, the Son is a creature and a work; [§ 10] that He is neither like the Father as it regards His essence, nor is by nature either the Father's true Word or true Wisdom, but indeed one of His works and creatures, being erroneously called Word and Wisdom since he was Himself made by God's own Word and the Wisdom which is in God, whereby God both made all things and Him also. "Wherefore," say they, "he is as to his nature mutable and susceptible of change, as all other rational things are: [§ 11] hence the Word is alien to and other than the essence of God; and the Father is inexplicable by the Son, and invisible to him: for neither does the Son perfectly and accurately know the Father, neither can he distinctly see him. The Son knows not the nature of his own essence; for he was made on our account, in order that God might create us by him, as by an instrument ; nor would he ever have existed, unless God had wished to create us. [§ 12] Some one accordingly asked them. whether the Word of God could be changed, as the devil has been? and they feared not to say "Yes: he could; for being begotten and created, he is susceptible of change.” [§ 13] We then, with the bishops of Egypt and Libya, being

assembled together to the number of nearly a hundred, have anathematized Arius for his shameless avowal of these heresies, together with all such as have countenanced them.— The Greek Ecclesiastical Historians, iii. 9-11 (Bagster, 1844).

No. 9. The Synodal Letter of the Council
of Nicæa, 325

From Socrates, H.E. I. ix. §§ 1-14.

[§] To the holy, by the grace of God, and great Church of the Alexandrians, and to our beloved brethren throughout Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, the bishops assembled at Nicæa, constituting the great and holy Synod, send greeting in the Lord.

[§ 2] Since, by the grace of God, a great and holy Synod has been convened at Nicæa, our most pious sovereign Constantine having summoned us out of various cities and provinces for that purpose, it appeared to us indispensably necessary that a letter should be written to you on the part of the sacred Synod; in order that ye may know what subjects were brought under consideration, what rigidly investigated, and also what was eventually determined on and decreed.

[§ 3] In the first place, then, the impiety and guilt of Arius and his adherents were examined into, in the presence of our most religious Emperor Constantine; and it was unanimously decided that his impious opinion should be anathematized with all the blasphemous expressions he has uttered in affirming that "the Son of God sprang from nothing," and that "there was [a time] when he was not"; saying, moreover, that "the Son of God was possessed of free-will, so as to be capable either of vice or virtue"; and calling Him a creature and a work. All these sentiments the holy Synod has anathematized, having scarcely patience to endure the hearing of such an impious, or rather bewildered, an opinion and such abominable blasphemies. [S4] But the conclusion of our proceedings against him. you must either have been informed of already, or will soon be apprised of; for we would not seem to trample on a man who has received the chastisement which his

crime deserved. Yet so contagious has his pestilential error proved, as to involve in the same perdition Theonas, Bishop of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemaïs; for they have suffered the same condemnation as himself.

[§ 5] But when, by the grace of God, we were delivered from these execrable dogmas, with all their impiety and blasphemy, and from those persons who had dared to cause discord and division among a people previously at peace, there still remained the contumacy of Melitius to be dealt with, and those who had been ordained by him; and we shall now state to you, beloved brethren, what resolution the Synod came to on this point.

[§ 6] Acting with more clemency towards Melitius, although strictly speaking he was wholly undeserving of favour, the Council permitted him to remain in his own city, but decreed that he should exercise no authority either to ordain or nominate for ordination; and that he should appear in no other district or city on this pretence, but simply retain a nominal dignity.

[S7] That those who had received appointments from him, after having been confirmed by a more legitimate ordination, should be admitted to communion on these conditions that they should continue to hold their rank and ministry, but regard themselves as inferior in every respect to all those who had been previously ordained and established in each place and church by our most honoured fellow-minister Alexander. In addition to these things they shall have no authority to propose or nominate whom they please, or to do anything at all without the concurrence of some bishop of the Catholic Church who is one of Alexander's suffragans.

[§ 8] Let such as, by the grace of God and your prayers, have been found in no schisms, but have continued in the Catholic Church blameless, have authority to nominate and ordain those who are worthy of the sacred office, and to act in all things according to ecclesiastical law and usage.

[§ 9] When it may happen that any of those holding preferments in the Church die, then let such as have been recently admitted into Orders be preferred to the dignity of the deceased, provided that they should appear worthy,