Defence Of The Nicene Definition
12D mo dk A i lad Rp OR
DEFENCE OF THE NICENE DEFINITION.
Tuts letter must have been written in the interval between the return of Athanasius in 346 and his flight in 356.
Acacius was already (§ 3) Bishop of Czsarea (339); Eusebius of Nicomedia is not referred to as though still living (he died 342).
Moreover the language of § 2 ("for in no long time they will turn to outrage," &c.) implies a period of actual peace, but with a prospect of the repetition of the scenes of the year 339.
This actually occurred in 356.
Accordingly we must probably place the tract under the sole reign of Constantius, between 351 and the end of 355.
It is written in answer to a friend who in disputing with Arians had been posed by their objection to the use of non-scriptural terms in the Nicene Definition.
He accordingly asks for some account of what the council had done.
Athanasius begins his answer by stigmatising the evasions and inconsistency of the Arianisers, and describing their conduct at the council, and how they eventually subscribed to the terms now complained of (1—5).
He then investigates the meaning of the divine Sonship (6—14), and how its true meaning is brought out by the other titles of the Son
{15—17).
Coming to the non-scriptural expressions he shews how they were forced upon the council by the evasions of the Arians (18—20), and that they express no sense not to be found in Scripture (2t—24).
Moreover, they had already been in use in the Church, as is shewn by extracts from Theognostus, the two Dionysii, and Origen (25—z27).
Lastly (28—32) he discusses the term dyévyros, applied by the Arians (especially Asterius) to the Father, in contrast, not to the creation, but to the Son, who is thereby implied to be yévnros.
He insists on ' Father' not 'dyévnros' as the divine title authorised by Scripture.
Lastly he appends, in proof of what he states in § 3, the letter of Eusebius to the people of Czsarea, containing the creed of the council, which, for reasons there stated, we have inserted above, pp. 73—76.
E The interest of the letter is principally threefold; first on account of its notice of the proceedings at Nicza (cf. ad Afr. 5), one of the few primary sources of our knowledge of what took place there: secondly, on account of its fragments of early writers, especially the Dionysii, of whom more will be said in the introduction to the next tract.
With regard to Theognostus, the quotations in this tract and in Serap. iv. 9 are important in view of the somewhat damaging accounts of his teaching in, the few other writers (Gregory of Nyssa,
Photius) who mention him.
Thirdly, the term dyévnros demands attention.
It is impossible to give its exact force in idiomatic English: the rendering 'Ingenerate' adopted by Newman is perhaps the most unfortunate one imaginable.
'Uncreated,' a possible substitute, is also open to objection, firstly, as not distinguishing the word from the derivatives of «rifew. wotciv, dnmoupyeiv, secondly, as giving it a passive sense, which does not inherently attach to it For lack of a better word, ' Unoriginate' may perhaps be adopted.
'That which has not (or cannot) come to be,' 'that which is mot the result of a process,'—is what the word strictly signifies'—' das Ungewordene.'
It was therefore strictly applicable to the Son as well as to the Father.
But throughout the earlier stages of the Arian controversy the question was embarrassed by the homophones yévynros and dyéwyros, generate or begotten, and unbegotten.
The confusion of thought due to the resemblance of sound is reflected in the confusion of readings in the MSS.
Athanasius himself (Orat. i. 56) perceives the distinctive sense of dyévnros.
In the present tract and in Orat. i. 30, he has dyéqros only in view, the idea of begetting being absent.
Here (and cf. de Sym, 46, note 5) he is denying that the Father is alone dyévyros, uncreated or without a 'becoming.'
Accordingly although the word yevviOevra was consecrated and safeguarded in the Creed of Niczea (Begotten not made), and although the distinctness of the derivatives of the two verbs was felt by Athanasius, and pointed out by others (Epiph. Her. 64, 8), the use of either group of words was avoided by (Catholics as dangerous.
A clear distinction of the words and of their respective applicability is made by John Damascene Fid. Orth. I. viil. (see Lightfoot, /gnat. vol. 2, excursus on Eph. § 7, Thilo, «i supra, Introd. p. 14, and Harnack, Dg. 2, p. 193 note).
DE DECK E Gis; OR
DEFENCE OF THE NICENE DEFINITION.
disposition.
For they are as variable and fickle in their sentiments, as chameleons in their colours3; and when exposed they look confused, and when questioned they hesitate, and then they lose shame, and betake themselves to evasions.
And then, when detected in these, they do not rest till they invent fresh matters which are not, and, according to the Scripture, 'imagine a vain thing+'; and all that they may be constant to their irreligion.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION.
The complaint of the Arians against the Nicene Council ; their fickleness ; they are like Jews ; their employment of force instead of reason.
1. THou hast done well, in signifying to me the discussion thou hast had with the advocates of Arianism, among whom were certain of the friends of Eusebius, as well as very many of the brethren who hold the doctrine of the Church.
I hailed thy vigilance for the love of Christ, which excellently exposed the irreligion? of their heresy ; while I marvelled at the effrontery which led the Arians, after all the past detection of unsoundness and futility in their arguments, nay, after the general conviction of their extreme perverseness, still to complain like the Jews, "Why did the Fathers at Nicza use terms not in Scripture 2,
'Of the essence' and 'One in essence ??'"
Thou then, as a man of learning, in spite of their subterfuges, didst convict them of talking to no purpose; and they in devising them were but acting suitably to their own evil epee eee ee ee ee Now such endeavours5 are nothing else than an obvious token of their defect of reason ®, and a copying, as I have said, of Jewish malignity.
For the Jews too, when convicted by the Truth, and unable to confront it, used evasions, such as,
' What sign doest Thou, that we may see and believe Thee?
What dost Thou work7? though so many signs were given, that they said themselves, 'What do we? for this man doeth many miracles ®'
In truth, dead men were raised, lame walked, blind saw afresh, lepers. were cleansed, and the water became wine, and five loaves satisfied five thousand, and all wondered and worshipped the Lord, confessing that in Him were fulfilled the prophecies, and that He was God the Son of God; all but the Pharisees, who, though the signs shone brighter than the sun, yet complained still, as ignorant men, 'Why dost Thou, being a man, make J eboéBeva, avéBeva, &c., here translated religion, irreligion, religious, &c. &c."' are technical words throughout, being taken from S. Paul's text, '' Great is the mystery of. godliness," evocBetas, i.e. orthodoxy.
Such too seems to be the meaning of ' godly admonitions," and 'godly judgments," and "this godly and welllearned man," in our Ordination Services.
The Latin translation is ''pius," "'pietas."
It might be in some respects suitably rendered by ''devout" and its derivatives.
On its familiar use in the controversy depends the blasphemous jest of Eudoxius, Arian
Bishop of Constantinople, which was received with loud laughter in the Cathedral, and remained in esteem down to Socrates' day,
"The Father is aveBys, as being without devotion, the Son evoeBys devout, as paying devotion to the Father."
Socr. Hisé, ii. 43.
Hence Arius ends his Letter to Eusebius with GANOwWS evoréBre, Theod. AiZsz. i. 4.
3 Alexander also calls them chameleons, Socr. i. 6. p. 12, Athanasius so calls the Meletians, Hist.
Avian. § 79.
Cyril comares them to ''the leopard which cannot change his spots." Dial. li. init. t. v. i, Aub., Maz. Or. 28. 2.
On the fickleness of the Arians, vid. infra, § 4. &c. Orat. ii.
40.
He says, ad 2. 4ég. 6. that they considered Creeds as yearly covenants; and de Synod.
§ 3. 4. as State Edicts. vid. also § 14. and passim.
'* What wonder: that they fight against their fathers, when they fight against themselves?" § 37.
4 Ps. ii. x.
5 éemxetpyua, and so Orat, i. § 44. init. but infra. § 25. émyece pyjHara, means more definitely reasonings or argumentations.
2 It appears that the Arians did not venture to speak disrespectfully of the definition of the Council till the date (A.D. 352) of this work, when Acacius headed them.
Yet the plea here used, the unscriptural 'character of its symbol, had been suggested to Constantius on his accession, A.D. 337, by the Arian priest, the favourite of Constantia, to whom Constantine had entrusted his will, Theod. FYisé. ii. 3; and Eusebius of Czesarea glances at it,
§ dAoyias; an allusion frequent in Athanasius, to the judiciah consequence of their denying the Word of God.
Thus, just below, n. 3. 'Denying the Word" or Reason " of God, reason have they: none."
Also Orat. i. § 35. fin. § 40. init. § 62. Orat. ii. § 7. init.
Hence he so often calls the Arians ''mad" and 'deranged ;"" e.g. ''not aware how 'mad' their 'reason' is." Ovat. i. § 37, at the time of the Council, in the letter to his Church, which is subjoined to this Treatise, 7 John vi. 30.
8 Ib. xi. 47.
DE DECRETIS, Erc.
Ist 2. As then the Jews of that day, for acting thus wickedly and denying the Lord, were with justice deprived of their laws and of the promise made to their fathers, so the Arians,
Judaizing now, are, in my judgment, in circumstances like those of Caiaphas and the contemporary Pharisees.
For, perceiving that their heresy is utterly unreasonnble, they invent excuses, '' Why was this deiined, and not that?"
Yet wonder not if now they practise thus; for in no long time they will turn to outrage, and next will threaten 'the band and the captain '4.'
Forsooth in these their heterodoxy has its support, as we see; for denying the Thyself God9?
Insensate, and verily blind in understanding! they ought contrariwise to have said, " Why hast Thou, being God, become man?" for His works proved Him God, that they might both worship the goodness of the Father, and admire the Son's Economy for our sakes.
However, this they did not say; no, nor liked to witness what He was doing; or they witnessed indeed, for this they could not help, but they changed their ground of complaint again, '" Why healest
Thou the paralytic, why makest Thou the born-blind to see, on the sabbath day?"
But this too was an excuse, and mere murmuring ; for on other days as well did the Lord heal
'all manner of sickness, and all manner of disease *,' but they complained still according to their wont, and by calling Him Beelzebub, preferred the suspicion of Atheism ?, to a recantation of their own wickedness.
And though in such sundry times and divers manners the Saviour shewed His Godhead and preached the Father to all men, nevertheless, as kicking against the pricks, they contradicted in the language of folly, and this they did, according to the divine proverb, that by finding occasions, they might separate themselves from the truth 3, Word of God, reason have they none at all, as is equitable.
Aware then of this, I would have made no reply to their interrogations : but, since thy friendliness 5 has asked to know the transactions of the Council, I have without any delay related at once what then took place, shewing in few words, how destitute Arianism is of a religious spirit, and how their one business is to frame evasions.
CHAPTER IL
CONDUCT OF THE ARIANS TOWARDS THE
NICENE COUNCIL.
Ignorant as well as irreligious to attempt to reverse.an Ecumenical Council: proceedings at Nicaea: Eusebians then signed what they now complain of: on the unanimity of true teachers and the process of tradition: changes of the Arians.
Anp do thou, beloved, consider whether it be not so.
If, the devil having sowed their hearts with this perverseness®, they feel confidence in their bad inventions, let them defend themselves against the proofs of heresy which have been advanced, and then will be the time to find fault, if they can, with the definition framed against them?.
For no one, on 9 Ib. x. 33.
I Matt. iv. 23.
2 Or ungodliness, &0eérytos.
Thus Aetius was called 6 a@eos, the ungodly. de Synod. § 6; and Arius complains that Alexander had expelled him and his from Alexandria, as avOpdmous a8éovs.
Theodor. Hist. i. 4.
"'Atheism" and " Atheist" imply intention, system, and the Greek.
Since Christ was God, to deny Him was to deny God.
The force of the term, however, seems to be, that, whereas the Son had revealed the '' unknown God," and destroyed the rei of idols, the denial of the Son was bringing back idolatry and its attendant spiritual ignorance. Thuscontr. Gent. § 29. fin. he speaks of 'the Greek idolatry as full of all Atheism" or ungodliness, and contrasts with it the knowledge of "the Guide and Framer of the Universe, the Father's Word," "that through Him ' we may discern
His Father,' and the Greeks may know ' how far they have separated themselves from the truth."
And Orat. ii. 43. he classes Arians with the Greeks, who "' though they have the name of God in their mouths, incur the charge of 'Atheism,' because they know not the real and true God, 'the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.'"' (vid. also Basil in Zunom. ii. 22.) Shortly afterwards he gives a further reason for the title, observing that Arianism was worse than previous heresies, such as Manicheism. inasmuch as the latter denied the Incarnation, but Arianism tore from God's substance His connatural Word, and, as far as its words went, infringed upon the perfections and being of the first Cause. And so ad Ef. 42g. § 17. fin. he says, that it alone, beyond other heresies, "'has been bold against the Godhead Itself in a mad way (wavixwrepov, vid. foregoing note), den ing that there is a Word, and that the Father was always
Father."
Elsewhere he speaks more generally, as if Arianism introduced 'an Atheism or rather Judaism 'against the Scriprofession, and are so far too strong a rendering of 4 Apparently an allusion to Joh. xviii. 12. Elsewhere, he speaks of "the chief captain" and ''the governor," with an allusion to Acts xxiii. 22—24. Wc. Hist. Arian. § 66. fin. vid. also § 2. Apod, contr. Arian. §8. also § 10. and 45. Ovat. ii. § 43. Ep. Encycl. § 5.
Against the use of violence in religion, vid. '7st. Arian. § 33. 67.
(Hil. ad Const. i. 2.) On the other hand, he observes, that at Niczea, 'it was not necessity which drove the judges to" their decision, "but all vindicated the Truth from deliberate purpose." ad Lp. Ag. 13.
5 dudbeous, vid. also Hist. Arian. § 45. Orat. ii. § 4. where Parker maintains without reason that it should be translated,
" external condition." vid. also Theod. /7ést. i. 4. init. tures,' being next door to Heathenism, so that its disciple cannot be even named Christian; for all such tenets are 'contrary to the Scriptures ;'" and he makes this the reason why the Nicene Fathers stopped their ears and condemned it. ad £9. ig. § 13.
For the same reason he calls the heathen a@eo., atheistical or ungodly, ''who are arraigned of irreligion by Divine Scripture." contr. Gent. § 14. vid. cidéAwv abedrynra. § 46. init.
Moreover, he calls the Arian persecution worse than the pagan 'cruelties,' and therefore "'a Babylonian Atheism," 2%. Lmcyct. § 5. as 6 émomeipavros Tov SiaPdAov, the allusion is to Matt. xiii. 25, and is very frequent in Athan., chiefly with a reference to Arianism.
He draws it out at length, Oraz. ii. § 34.
Elsewhere, he uses the image for the evil influences introduced into the soul upon Adam's fall, contr. Apoll, i. § 15. as does S. Irenzus, Her. lv. 40. Tl. 3. using it of such as lead to back-sliding in Christians. ibid. v. ro, n. 1.
Gregory. Nyssen, of the natural passions and of false reason misleading them, de Ax. ef Resurr. p. 640. vid, also Leon. Ef. 156, not allowing the Catholics the use of prayer and baptism, with a reference to Dan. vi. 11, &c.
Thus too he calls Constantius atheist, for his treatment of Hosius; ov7e tov Oedv poBnOeis o adeos.
Hist. Arian. 45.
Another reason for the title seems to have lain in the idolatrous character of Arian worship 'on its own
Cc. 2. shewing,' viz. as worshipping One whom they yet maintained 7 The Council did two things, anathematise the Arian positions
(at the end of the Creed), and establish the true doctrine by the insertion of the phrases, ''of the substance" and "'one in substance." Athan. says that the Arians must not criticise the latter to be acreature.
[Prolegg. ch. ii. § 3 (2) a, sub. fin.) 3 A reference to Prov. xviii. x. which runs in the LXX. 'a man seeketh occasions, when desirous of separating himself from friends'
DE DECRETIS, OR
being convicted of murder or adultery, is at liberty after the trial to arraign the sentence of the judge, why he spoke in this way and not in that®.
For this does not exculpate the convict, but rather increases his crime on the score of petulance and audacity.
In like manner, let these either prove that their sentiments are religious (for they were then accused and convicted, and their complaints are subsequent, and it is just that those who are under a charge should confine themselves to their own defence), or if they have an unclean conscience, and are aware of their own irreligion, let them not complain of what they do not understand, or they will bring on themselves a double imputation, of irreligion and of ignorance.
Rather let them investigate the matter in a docile spirit, and learning what hitherto they have not known, cleanse their irreligious ears with the spring of truth and the doctrines of religion 9. row complaining, I mean, "of the essence" and "one in essence," and that "the Son of God is neither creature or work, nor in the number of things originated3, but that the Word is an offspring from the substance of the Father." And what is strange indeed, Eusebius of Czsarea in Palestine, who had denied the day before, but afterwards subscribed, sent to his Church a letter, saying that this was the Church's faith, and the tradition of the Fathers; and made a public profession that they were before in error, and were rashly contending against the truth. For though he was ashamed at that time to adopt these phrases, and excused himself to the Church in his own way, yet he certainly means to imply all this in his Epistle, by his not denying the "one in essence," and "of the essence."
And in this way he got into a difficulty ; for while he was excusing himself, he went on to attack the Arians, as stating that "the Son was not before His generation," and as thereby rejecting His existence before His birth in the flesh, And this Acacius is aware of also, though he too through fear may pretend otherwise because of the times and deny the fact.
Accordingly I have subjoined at the end the letter of Eusebius, that thou mayest know from it the disrespect towards their own doctors shewn by Christ's enemies, and singularly by Acacius himself¢,
3. Now it happened to Eusebius and his fellows in the Nicene Council as follows :— while they stood out in their irreligion, and attempted their fight against God!, the terms they used were replete with irreligion; but the assembled Bishops who were three hundred more or less, mildly and charitably required of them to explain and defend themselves on religious grounds.
Scarcely, however, did they begin to speak, when they were condemned?, and one differed from another ; then perceiving the straits in which their heresy lay, they remained dumb, and by their silence confessed the disgrace which came upon their heterodoxy.
On this the Bishops, having negatived the terms they had invented, published against them the sound and ecclesiastical faith ; and, as all subscribed it, Eusebius and his fellows subscribed it also in those very words, of which they are
4. Are they not then committing a crime, in their very thought to gainsay so great and ecumenical a Council? are they not in transgression, when they dare to confront that good definition against Arianism, acknowledged, as it is, by those who had in the first instance taught them irreligion?
And supposing, even after subscription, Eusebius and his fellows did change again, and return like dogs to their own vomit of irreligion, do not the present gainsayers deserve still greater detestation, because they thus sacrifices their souls' liberty to others : and are willing to take these persons as masters of their heresy, who are, as James® has said, double-minded men, and unstable in all their ways, not having one opinion, but changing to and fro, and now recommending certain statements, but soon dishonouring them, and in turn recommending what just now they were blaming?
But this, as the before they had cleared themselves of the former.
Thus he says presently, that they were at once irreligious in their faith and ignorant in their criticism; and speaks of the Council negativing their formulz, and substituting those which were ""sound and ecclesiastical." vid. also n. 4.
8 And so S. Leo passim concerning the Council of Chalcedon, "Concord will be easily established, if the hearts of all concur in that faith which, &c., no discussion being allowed whatever concerning any retractation," £Z.94. He calls such an acta " magnum sacrilegium," ZZ. 157, c. 3. 'To be seeking for what has been disclosed, to retract what has been perfected, to tear up what has been laid down (definita), what is this but to be unthankful for what we gained?" %. 162. vid. the whole of it. Hesays that the attempt is 'no mark of a peace-maker but a rebel,"
£%. 164. c. 1, & ne oie Pe: 455, fe 156, pa Says, none can assail what is once determined, but "aut antichristus i ie 9 Vid. Oradea § Se tus aut diabolus." c, 2, * Ocouaxetv, Ocoudxor. vid. Acts v. 39, xxiii. g. are of very frequent use in Athan. as is XpLorowaxou, in speaking of the Arians. vid. infra passim. also avrimaxdsuevor To cwrnpr, Ep. Encycl. § 5.
3 diel
The party he is writing against is the Acacian, of whom he does not seem to have had much distinct knowledge.
He contrasts them again and again in the passages which follow with the Eusebians of the Nicene Council, and says that he is sure that the ground they take when examined will be found substantially the same as the Eusebian. vid. § 6 cut. et alib. § 7. init. § 9. circ. yin.
§ 10. circ. jin. § 13. init. rére Kai viv. § 18. cere, Jin. § 28. jin [On Acacius see Prolegg. ch. ii. 3 8 (2) b.]
And in the beginning of the controversy, Alexander ap. Socr. i. 6.
P. to. b.c. p. 12. p. 13. Theod. Hist. i. 3. P. 729.
And so @sopdxos A@ooa, Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 27. fin.
LoTOMaXwY. b ie vid. also Cyril (Thesaurus, p. ie e.p. ae eG a of other heretics, e.g, the Manichees, by Greg. Naz. Orat, 45- § 8.
? Le. "convicted themselves," intr. § 18. init. cavtov det Karhyopo, ad. HA. Hg, § 6. i.e. by their variations, vid. Tit, iii, xz. avToKaTaxp.Tos.
5 mpomivortes vid. de Syn. § 145 6 Jamesi. 8.