<1r>

But the formula of Faith which he sent out by dispatching Envoys in all directions, was that which follows. This is the one, as you will soon hear, that Eusebius Pamphili[Editorial Note 1] cites as the formal declaration of faith that Arius and his allies had sent to him.

[1] To our Blessed Papa[Editorial Note 3] and Bishop Alexander, the Presbyters and Deacons send greetings in the Lord.

The Faith which we received from our ancestors and have learned from you, most blessed Papa, is this. We believe in one God, alone unbegotten, alone eternal, alone without a beginning, alone true, alone immortal, alone wise, alone good, alone supremely powerful, sole judge, governor and director of all things, unmoved and immutable, just, good, the God alike of the law and of the Prophets and of the new Testament; who begat the only-begotten son ✝ [2] before eternal times; through whom he generated the ages and all things else. Further, we say that he begat him in reality not in appearance merely, and by his own will he made him to be such that he cannot be altered or changed; God’s perfect creature, but not like any of the created things; ✝[3] an offspring, but not like any of the other offspring. Nor a kind of emanation[Editorial Note 5], as Valentinus insisted the offspring of the Father was, nor a part consubstantial with the Father, as Manichaeus said the offspring was. Nor like Sabellius, who dividing the unity, spoke of ✝[4] the son-father. Nor again like Hieracas: a lamp from a lamp or a Torch divided into two parts. Nor again was he such as to have existed before and then be begotten and created anew as a son. Just <2r> as you yourself, blessed Papa, have many a time in the Church and in the council publicly refuted those who asserted these things. But, as we have said, he was created by the will of God before all times and before all ages, and he received life and existence from the father, as well as the glory of the Father who exists together with him. For it is not to be thought that when the father gave possession of all things to him, he emptied himself of what he held in some manner within himself. For he is the source of all things.

Thus there are three ✝[5] Substances, Father, Son and holy spirit. And since God is the cause of all things, he alone of all things is without a beginning. And the son, begotten of the father, but not in time, and created and established before the ages, was not, before he was begotten; he, begotten not in time and before all things, was alone ✝[6] brought forth from the father alone. For he is not ✝[7] eternal or coeternal or co-unbegotten with the father. Nor did he have an existence contemporaneous with the Father, as some speak of things that are related[Editorial Note 6], thus introducing two unbegotten principles. But God, as the unity and first principle of all things, is before all things. Therefore he is also prior to Christ himself, as we learned from you when you proclaimed it before us all in Church. Therefore inasmuch as he has obtained his being from god, as well as his life and splendour and all that has been bestowed upon him, on this ground God is his first principle. For he is prior to him, and is lord over him, as being his God, who existed before him, from whom also he came forth. But if, with some men, we understand such expressions as ‘from the womb’[Editorial Note 7] and ‘I came from the Father and I come’, as implying a part of that which is consubstantial[Editorial Note 8] or as an emanation[Editorial Note 9], the Father will be composite and divisible and mutable. In fact, in their opinion, God who is without a body, will experience a body and, for all they care, <3r> all that is implied by a body. We wish you good health in the Lord, most Blessed Papa. Arius, Ethales, Achilles,[Editorial Note 10] Carpones, Sarmatas, Arius Presbyters. Deacons Euzoius, Lucius, Iulius, Menas, Helladius, Caius. Bishops Secundus, Theonas, Pistus.

Thus they tendered their formula of faith to Alexander openly, so that it might be clear to all that they were not acting secretly and fraudulently and pretending to the orthodox faith though they were actually heretics, but that this was the very creed that Alexander had rejected and for which they were held excommunicated. Then when Envoys had been sent to the Bishops, as has been said, to explain their actions, together with their faith, a rumour of the disturbances in Alexandria began to come to the ears of all. Now that Licinius had been defeated, the emperor was residing in ✝[8] Nicomedia, and by means of Edicts and official documents sent throughout the provinces, says Eusebius, was attempting to recall his subjects from the error of the demons and to encourage them to embrace the true worship of God. As he was engaged in this with great joy and enthusiasm, news was brought to him about these serious disturbances in the churches – He was stricken with great grief by this, and immediately sent to Alexandria one of the worshippers of God whom he had with him and whom he believed to be well-regarded for the moderation of his faith and renowned above others for his confession of religion in earlier times (✝[9] Hosius by name, the bishop of Cordova, which is a city in Spain, a man whom the Emperor loved and very much respected), so that he might make peace among those who were at odds there; and he gave him a letter for the authors of the contention. Euseb. de vit. Const. bk. 2, chs. 61, 63.[Editorial Note 12] The part of it that relates to the argument we insert here.

Constantine Maximus Augustus Conqueror to Alexander and Arius.

[Editorial Note 13]

— When a kind of intolerable madness had swept through the whole of Africa, because of certain people who with reckless levity … religion[Editorial Note 14] <4r>

< insertion from f 3v >

that[Editorial Note 15] it was divided into parties, and all the regions of Egypt and Libya were endangered by the impending schism, so that the Church seemed likely to receive an irremediable wound if some timely remedy was not administered for this evil. These men therefore, knowing of the cause and approving of the faith of Arius which they had received through his Legates, receive the man and his allies into communion and write to all the bishops everywhere urging them to be in communion with the supporters of Arius as right thinking persons, and that they should make an effort to persuade Alexander to be in communion with them. Sozom. bk. 1, ch. 15 [Editorial Note 16] . Whether some of the Bishops, like the Emperor, wrote to Alexander before this Synod, I do not know. But from this time all of them began to write, and to encourage others by letters in all directions to do the same. And among others Eusebius of Nicomedia thus exhorted Paulinus of Tyre.

[10] Eusebius sends greetings in the Lord to my Lord Paulinus.

< text from f 4r resumes >

The zeal of my Lord Eusebius[Editorial Note 18] in protecting the truth has not gone unnoticed, but has come even to our ears; nor has your silence in the same matter, my Lord. And as was fitting, we rejoiced because of my lord Eusebius, but we are greatly grieved because of you, as we believe that the silence of so great a man is a condemnation of us. You know how unfitting it is for a prudent man to hold unorthodox views and to be silent about the truth. I urge you therefore to stimulate your mind with the spirit, and set yourself to write something about this issue which will be useful to yourself and to your audience, especially if you follow in the footsteps of scripture and are pleased to write in accordance with its words and sentiments. For we have never heard of two unbegotten beings, nor <5r> have we learned or believed, my lord, one divided into two or suffering anything corporeal. But one unbegotten certainly, and the other truly from him and not made of his ✝[11] substance nor in any way sharing in his nature nor existing from his substance, but altogether different in nature and power,[Editorial Note 19] fashioned however after the perfect likeness of the nature and power of his maker. His origin cannot be explained in words, nor even in the thought, I will not say of men, but of all whom we believe can be understood to be superior to men. These things we have learned not by piecing them together with our own reasoning; we have been instructed by the Scriptures. That he was created and established and begotten with a substance and a nature that are immutable and ineffable and in a likeness that he has with his maker, we have learned from the words of the Lord himself when he says: God created me the beginning of his ways, and established me before the ages, and begat me before all the hills.[Editorial Note 20] But if he was from him, that is, of him, like a part of him, or from an outflowing of his substance, he would not be said to be created or established again. Nor of course are you unaware of this, my Lord. For what is from the unbegotten, cannot be created and established again, since it is unbegotten from the beginning. But if in the expression that he was begotten, it seems to be tacitly implied that he sprang from the substance of the father and also has the same nature as the father, we know that scripture does not say of him alone that he is begotten but says it also of other things that are totally different from him in nature. For it also <6r> says of men: I have begotten and brought them up; and they have spurned me[Editorial Note 21]. And elsewhere: You have abandoned the god who begat you.[Editorial Note 22] It says it also of other things: Who is it that begat the drops of dew?[Editorial Note 23] Not to make the point that their nature is of his nature but to signify that everything that has been made was made by his wish and will. For nothing is from his substance; but all things made by his decree are each one as they were made. For it is he that is God. And these that in his image are to be similar to the word, were made by his will. Indeed all things were made through him, but they were made by God. For all things are from God. When you have received these things, and have refined them in accordance with the grace granted to you by God, be sure to write as soon as possible to my lord Alexander. For if you write to him, I am confident that you will convince him. Salute all the brethren in the Lord. May the divine grace preserve you unharmed and pray for us, my Lord.

< insertion from f 5v > ✝ Meanwhile when Alexander heard of these things, he convened the Presbyters and deacons of the region of Alexandria and the Mareotis as quickly as possible, and wrote the following Letter to all the Churches, sending it to each and every city, in order confirm his own acts by swiftly buttressing them with the authority of the Bishops. But just as the Emperor and the Asiatics blamed only Alexander openly, though many Egyptians were acting with him, so Alexander in this letter blames Eusebius alone, the author and leading man of the Asiatic synod.

To his dearest and most beloved –

< text from f 6r resumes >

[12] To his dearest and most beloved fellow-ministers of the catholic Church, Alexander sends greetings in the Lord.

Inasmuch as there is one body of the Catholic Church, and we are enjoined by the sacred writings to preserve the bond of peace and concord, it is fitting that we should share with each other by letter whatever is happening to each individual; when one member suffers or rejoices, we would naturally suffer or rejoice with each other together. Wicked men and enemies of Christ have recently arisen in our diocese, who teach the sort of apostasy that one would be justified in calling the forerunner and herald of Antichrist. For my part I would have wished to wrap such a thing in silence, <7r> so that the evil might be confined to the Apostates themselves and wither away, and not be passed on to other parts and contaminate the ears of simple men. But Eusebius, he who is now at Nicomedia, supposing that the affairs of the Church depend upon his whim, because he was able to abandon the Church at Beirut and transfer with impunity to the Episcopate of Nicomedia and no one punished him, has taken up the patronage of these Apostates, and has dared to send letters in all directions, commending them, in order to seduce unlettered men into a very wicked heresy which is hostile to Christ. I therefore thought it incumbent upon me to break my silence, since I know what is written in the law, and to inform you all, so that you may recognise the Apostates themselves and the most unfortunate language in which they express their error, and not pay any attention to Eusebius, if he happens to write to you. For he is now seeking, through these men, to resurrect his earlier malevolence, which seemed to have been consigned to oblivion and silence by the long passage of time; he pretends that he is writing letters on their behalf, whereas in truth he makes it quite clear that he is acting in his own interest in doing this. Here are the names of those who have defected from the Church: Arius, Achillas, Aithales, Carpones, another Arius, Sarmates, Euzoius, Lucius, Iulianus, Menas, Helladius, Gaius; and with these Secundus and Theonas who were once called Bishops. The falsehoods which they boldly and irresponsibly assert, without any authority of scripture, are these. God, they say, was not always a Father, but there was a time when God was not a father. The Word of God was not always, but arose out of nothing. For the God who is, made him who was not from non-being. Accordingly, there was once a time when he was not, since the son is a creature and one of his works. Nor is he like to the Father in substance, nor is he the true and natural word of God nor his true wisdom. Rather he is one of his works and creatures, and it is only by misuse of words that he is called his Word and Wisdom [13] ; for he too came into being through the genuine Word of God and through the wisdom which is in God, whereby <8r> God made all other things and him also. For this reason he is in his own nature susceptible to change and alteration, exactly like all other rational creatures. The Word is also extraneous and other and remote from the substance of God. The father is invisible to the son and inexpressible by him; for neither does the son perfectly and exactly know the father, nor can he see him perfectly. Neither does the son know of what sort his own substance is. For he was made for our sakes, so that God might create us through him as a kind of instrument. Nor would he ever have come into being if God had not wished to create us. And when someone asked them whether the word of God could be changed as the devil was changed, they were not afraid to reply: certainly he can. For he is of a mutable nature, since he can be begotten and created. Since Arius Says and asserts these things with a complete lack of shame, we together with the Bishops of Egypt and Libya, almost a hundred of us gathered as one, have struck both him and those who have joined him with an anathema. But Eusebius has welcomed them, endeavouring to muddle piety with impiety, falsehood with truth. He will not however prevail. For the truth is victorious[Editorial Note 26]; and there is no association of light with darkness, no accord of Christ with the devil[Editorial Note 27]. Whoever heard of such things? And now that we hear them, who is not astonished, and does not block his ears to stop the filth of such words entering them? Who hearing John say, In the beginning was the Word[Editorial Note 28], would not condemn those who assert that there was [a time] when he was not? Or who hearing these words from the Gospel, Only-begotten son[Editorial Note 29], and, By him all things were made[Editorial Note 30], would not spurn those who say that the son <9r> is one of the creatures? For how can he be ✝[14] equal to those who were made through him. How can he be only-begotten who, in their view, is reckoned, together with all other things, in the order of creatures? How can he have sprung from nothing, since the father says, My heart has discharged a good word[Editorial Note 31]; and elsewhere, From my womb, before Lucifer, I begat thee.[Editorial Note 32] Or how is he dissimilar in substance to the Father, when he is the perfect image and splendour of the Father, and when he himself says, he who has seen me has seen the Father.[Editorial Note 33] But if the son is the ✝[15] reason and wisdom of the Father, how was there a time when he was not? For it is just as if they said that God was once without reason and wisdom. How is he susceptible to change and alteration when he says of himself: I in the Father, and the Father in me[Editorial Note 34]; and elsewhere: I and the father are one.[Editorial Note 35] And much earlier he had declared through a Prophet: see me that I am and do not change[Editorial Note 36]. And though one can apply this expression to the Father himself, it would be more appropriate now to take the saying as of the son because, when he became man, he was not changed at all, but as the Apostle says, Jesus Christ, the same yesterday and today and forever. [Editorial Note 37] But whatever could prompt them to say that he was made for our sakes, when Paul says without qualification: For him are all things, and through him are all things.[Editorial Note 38] Now with regard to their blasphemy in saying that the Father is not perfectly known by the son, this should not surprise anyone. Once they have declared war on Christ, they reject also the words of the lord himself when he says: As the Father knows me, so also I know the father[Editorial Note 39]. Accordingly, if the Father knows the son only partially, it is obvious that the son also knows the Father partially. But if it is impious to say this, and if the Father knows the son perfectly, it is crystal clear that just as the father knows his own Word, <10r> so also the son knows his own Father, whose Word he is. And we ourselves have often converted them by saying these things and unrolling the volumes of the holy scriptures, but they changed back again like Chameleons, ✝[16] , in their zeal to apply to themselves that which is written: When the ungodly reaches the depths of his wickedness, he becomes contemptuous.[Editorial Note 40] Before them there were many heresies that showed more audacity than was proper and collapsed into extreme madness, but in striving to subvert the divinity of the Word in all their pronouncements, these men have succeeded in making those former heresies seem almost justifiable, as they approach so close to Antichrist themselves. For this reason they have been publicly disowned by the Church and struck with anathema. And we are stricken with grief because of their perdition, particularly since, though they once were instructed in the teaching of the Church, they have now fallen away from it.

Because of such a letter, Socrates continues[Editorial Note 41], sent from Alexandria to all the Bishops installed in each and every city, the evil grew worse, because those who received the letter were stirred into conflict. Some agreed with the letter and appended their signatures. But others did the opposite. Above all, Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, was provoked to dissent, because Alexander had criticised him by name in his letter. ✝[17] Moreover, Socrates continues[Editorial Note 42], at that point in time Eusebius had very great influence because the Emperor was residing at Nicomedia. For Diocletian had built a palace there not long before. ✝. This was the reason then why many Bishops submitted to Eusebius. And he was sending letters one after the other, now to Alexander, admonishing him to bury the question which had been raised between them and receive Arius into communion, now to the Bishops of individual cities, urging them not to give their assent to Alexander. Socr. bk. 1, ch. 6[Editorial Note 43].

But since in the letter, which had already been read out at Alexandria, some things are attributed to Arius contrary to the faith that Arius <11r> and his allies had solemnly declared was theirs in the document that they had sent to Alexander and subsequently distributed to everyone, Eusebius Pamphili, as soon as he was able to get hold of a copy of this letter of Alexander’s, rebuked him for lack of integrity. The Epistle of Eusebius begins like this: With what great labour and diligence I got hold of this letter, etc., and continues thus. [18] This letter accuses Arius and his followers of having said that the son is from non-being like anyone else. ✝[19] But they delivered a formal Letter, addressed to you, in which they expound their faith and confess their beliefs in these words: that the God of the Law, the Prophets and the New testament begat his only-begotten son before all ages, by whom he made the ages and all things. He does not ✝[20] seem to have begotten but in reality to have substituted for his own will an immutable and unchangeable creature of God perfect but not as one of the creatures. Your Epistle accuses them of saying that the son was made as one among others, when they did not say this at all, but plainly state, not as one of the creatures. Consider whether you have not just given them an opportunity to criticise this point also and to add whatever they want. Again, you accuse them of saying that he who is, begat one who did not exist. Actually, I am surprised that anyone could say otherwise. For if he who is, is one, it is evident that everything that is was begotten from him and is subsequent to him. But if he who is is not one, but there is also a son who is, how ‡[21] did he who is beget ✝[22] him who is? For thus he who is will actually be two.

It is not clear what Eusebius replied to the accusation about the mutability of the son and similar charges, for only the fragment of his Epistle which is given here survives.

<12r> But Alexander did not give an inch to the Asiatic decrees and the letter of the Bishops. So Arius despatched Envoys to Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre, to Eusebius Pamphili who headed the Church at Caesarea in Palestine, and to Patrophilus the Bishop of Scythopolis, and petitioned for permission for him and his followers to gather the people who belong to them in a Church, since they had previously held the same rank of Presbyters. For this (he said) is the custom at Alexandria that, under one Bishop who is at the head of all of them, the Priests hold their Churches separately and gather the people who are accustomed to come to them. And those {Bishops}, together with the other Bishops meeting in Palestine, granted the petition of Arius. They encourage them to gather their people just as they had been wont to do before, but exhort them nevertheless to be subject to Alexander, and to beg him without intermission that they should enjoy his peace and communion. Sozom. bk. 1, ch. 15[Editorial Note 46]. But after Arius had been restored to his office by this Synod, and began to gather congregations, Alexander indignantly convened an Antisynod of his Bishops and smote with an anathema the leaders of the Bishops who had attended the Synod of Palestine. In fact he smote the whole synod with a general sentence, as is clear from the next letter of Arius. He also reduced to the ranks of the Priesthood a Priest of Alexandria named Colluthus, who gave out that he was a Bishop. Meanwhile he directed letters in all directions and sent a very lengthy one to the Bishop of Byzantium, which survives in Theodoret.

[23]

The parts of it that relate to our story[Editorial Note 47] are as follows. Arius, he says, and Achilles, who in emulation of the ambition of Colluthus, recently formed a conspiracy, have turned out far worse than he was. For Colluthus, who actually rebuked them, had a pretext for his own wicked policy. These men, however, when they saw his unholy trafficking in Christ, refused any longer to be subject to the Church at all. They built robbers’ caves[Editorial Note 48] for themselves and held meetings in them day and night, issuing slanderous abuse against Christ and against us. From this we infer that this Epistle was written after the Synod of Palestine. For Arius demanded from that Synod the right to gather Congregations, and therefore he began to gather the Congregations mentioned here by Alexander only by authority of that synod. After this complains <12v> After this Alexander complains that seditions and persecutions are stirred up every day against him, and now he is actually dragged before the tribunals of the Judges by accusations brought by women.[Editorial Note 49] Evidently, as Alexander was attempting to suppress the Arian congregations, disturbances were organised, as the Arians who relied upon the authority of the Synod resisted, as it seems to me, and brought Alexander to court on a charge of fomenting violence. Then Alexander continues[Editorial Note 50]: But they [i.e. Arius and Achillas and his allies] running hither and yon against us, set themselves to approach our colleagues who have the same views as we do, pretending in appearance to seek peace and concord, but in reality attempting to convert some of them to their own error with their plausible words. They also demand wordy epistles from them, so that they may read them to the men whom they have led astray and make them persist pertinaciously in error without any sense of remorse and persevere obstinately in impiety, because they believe they have Bishops who hold the same opinions as themselves and support them. Moreover they by no means admit to their people the wrong things that they have taught and done among us, for which we expelled them. They either pass them over in silence or make a smoke-screen, covering them up with false assertions and forged documents. They conceal their pernicious doctrine in plausible dialogues designed to win people over, and thus deceive all the simpler people and those who are easily taken in, and they never stop vilifying our piety in front of everyone. This is how it comes about that some men approve of their letters and receive them into the Church. With these last words Alexander seems to criticise the aforesaid Synod in which the Bishops of the East granted the petition of Arius. After this [Editorial Note 51] Alexander reviews the opinions of Arius and his allies. He contends that they hold that the Son of God is equal to other men and therefore equally mutable, and <13r> capable of both virtue and vice, and that we are sons of God exactly like him; and that he was chosen by God out of all, not because he had something extraordinary above others by nature and by a kind of prerogative, but because of his zeal and moral scrupulousness. They also assert, contrary to the sacred scriptures, that there was a certain stretch of time created by God before the son, that he is the first-born of all creation and that the ages were made through him. Having written these things out at great length and solemnly refuted them (so that it might seem all the more credible that they really are the views of Arius and his adherents), Alexander adds this [Editorial Note 52]. You will be aware that this doctrine which has recently raised its head against the piety of the Church, is that of Ebion and Artemas; and it is no more than an imitation of Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, who was expelled from the Church by the counsel and judgment of all Bishops everywhere. Lucian succeeded him, and absented himself for several years from communion with three Bishops. Having imbibed the dregs of these men’s impiety, the Exucontii[Editorial Note 53] have lately risen upon us; their seeds were hidden, namely Arius and Achillas, and the rest of the crowd of their ungodly adherents. And the three Bishops who were somehow or other ordained in Syria, by agreeing, incite them to even worse things. ✝[24] [Editorial Note 54] Let their decision be reserved for your judgement. By the three bishops here Alexander seems to mean Paulinus of Tyre, Eusebius of Caesarea and Patrophilus of Scythopolis, by whose efforts the Synod had been convened in Palestine recently, and whom therefore he had struck with an anathema. Finally Alexander concludes this Epistle as follows[Editorial Note 55]. Beloved brothers who are of the same mind as me, support us against their furious audacity, as do our colleagues who in their indignation wrote epistles to us against them, and signed our Tome[Editorial Note 56]. These things I also send to you by my son, the Deacon Apion, some of them from the whole of Egypt and <13v> the Thebaid, some from Libya and the Pentapolis, also from Syria, Lycia, Pamphylia, Asia, Cappadocia, and other neighbouring Provinces. Following their example I am confident that I will also receive letters from you. For though I have devised many measures to save those who have been injured, the remedy that has been found most effective for saving the many people they have deceived is that they should accept the consensus of our colleagues and hurry to return to repentance. Greet one another together with the brothers who are with you. This is another clear piece of evidence that this epistle was written late. Among the many measures – and Alexander lays particular stress upon the consensus of the subscribing bishops – it seems we must include the support of the Emperor, since he was now openly inclining to this side, as well as the patronage of the magnates. By the Tome which the bishops subscribed, he means the former Epistle which was addressed to the Churches. For the Tome was the Epistle which Alexander sent to all the Churches, and which he composed in order that it be sent to all at the very beginning of his letter campaign when he began to solicit subscriptions. The former epistle was of this kind. For it is addressed not to any one Bishop but to all of them, and it was composed at the very beginning of his writing campaign, since Alexander expressly affirms in it that he was then breaking the silence which had been imposed on him. But the rest of the Epistles were private, not addressed and sent to everyone but to different individuals. This is clear from Theodoret, who, after rehearsing the aforesaid Epistle to the Bishop of Byzantium, continues [Editorial Note 57]: Alexander wrote letters to the same effect to Philogonius, Bishop of the Church at Antioch, and to Eustathius, who at that time was governing the Church at Beroea and to all others who were defenders of the Apostolic doctrine. Such similar epistles therefore and not a common epistle, were sent to Bishops, and were retained by the individuals, whereas no individual kept the epistle which all subscribed. There were very many of the former; Epiphanius writes that in his time Seventy of them were extant. But there was only one Epistle which all subscribed. Finally Socrates writes that the Bishops <14r> subscribed the Universal epistle which we have described. This therefore was the Tome. In the other epistles which were sent with it, Alexander sent familiar greetings to each individual and encouraged them to subscribe his Tome.

<15r>

But because of these and frequent similar letters of different people Alexander could not be restrained from making up those perverse accusations; he became even more angry and piled new accusations on top of the previous ones. For after he had sent the aforesaid circular Epistle which he calls his Tome ✝[25] throughout the whole of Egypt, the Thebaid, Libya, and Pentapolis, and also through Syria, Lycia, Pamphilia, Asia, Cappadocia and other neighbouring Provinces, he finally sent[Editorial Note 58] that Tome to Alexander, bishop of Byzantium, and also wrote another ✝[26] Epistle to him. In this he contends[Editorial Note 60] that Arius and his fellow-enthusiasts hold that the Son of God is equal to other men and therefore equally mutable, and capable of virtue and vice, and that we are sons of God exactly like him; and that he was chosen by God out of all, not because he had something extraordinary above the rest by nature and a kind of prerogative, but because of his zeal and careful moral scrupulousness. He also contends that there was a certain stretch of time created by God before the son contrary to the sacred scriptures which assert that he is the first-born of all creation and the ages were made through him. Having written these things out at great length and solemnly refuted them (so that it might seem all the more credible that they really are the views of Arius and his adherents), Alexander finally concludes thus. – Beloved brothers who are of the same mind as me, support us against their furious audacity, as do our colleagues, who in their indignation, wrote epistles to us against them, and signed our Tome[Editorial Note 61]. These things I also send to you by my son, the Deacon Apion, some of them from the whole of Egypt and the Thebaid, some from Libya and the Pentapolis, also from Syria, Lycia, Pamphylia, Asia, Cappadocia, and other neighbouring Provinces. Following their example I am confident that I will also receive letters from you. For though I have found many measures to save those who have been injured, the remedy that has been found most effective <16r> for saving the many people they have deceived is that they accept the consensus of our colleagues and hurry to return to repentance. Greet one another together with the brothers who are with you. The whole Epistle is too lengthy to quote here in full, but I have given you the final words, so that you may realise that the fathers who convened a little bit later at the Council in Nicaea had previously subscribed the Tome of Alexander, and had by that means bound themselves to his party, and made his cause their own, though they did not yet well understand Arius’s position but were deceived by fictitious accusations.

While all this was going on, Arius was driven out of Alexandria, and at that time for his part he wrote the following Epistle to Eusebius of Nicomedia.

[27]

To my very dear Lord, faithful and orthodox man of God, Eusebius – Arius, who unjustly suffers persecution from Papa Alexander because of the truth which conquers all, the truth which you too defend, gives greeting in the Lord.

As my Father Ammonius was leaving for Nicomedia, I felt it was fitting to greet you through him, and to advise you, in your inborn love and charity towards the brothers because of God and his Christ, how vigorously the Bishop oppresses and persecutes us and makes every possible move against us, so that he has even expelled us from the city as ungodly persons, because we do not give our assent to what he publicly preaches: ever God, ever son; at once Father and son; the son coexists in an unbegotten manner with God, ever begotten, begotten in an unbegotten manner; neither by thought nor by any instant of time does God precede the son; ever God ever son; from God himself the son has his being. And since ✝[28] your brother Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, and Theodotus [of Laodicea], and Paulinus [of Tyre], Athanasius [of Anazarbus], Gregory [of Beritus][Editorial Note 63] and Aetius [of Lydda], and in short all the Bishops throughout the east, affirm that God exists without any beginning before the son, they have been condemned with an anathema; excepting only Philogonius, <17r> [Bishop of Antioch], Hellanicus [of Tripolis] and Macarius [of Jerusalem], heretical men and uninstructed in the faith, one of whom says that the son is a discharge[Editorial Note 64], another an emanation[Editorial Note 65], another that he is co-unbegotten[Editorial Note 66]. We cannot even listen to these impieties, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But what we say and what we think and what we have professed and do still now profess is that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of an unbegotten, nor from any underlying material[Editorial Note 67]; but that by will and purpose he subsisted before all times and ages ✝[29] fully God, only-begotten, immutable; and that before he was begotten or created or purposed or established, he did not exist. For he was not unbegotten. We suffer persecution because we have said that he is from things that are not. This we have said because neither is he a part of God nor from any underlying material. For this we are driven from place to place; you know the rest. I hope that you are well in the Lord and mindful of our troubles, my a[30] true fellow-disciple of Lucian, b[31] Eusebius.

Apart from the Epistles quoted there were many to different Bishops, and especially some that were written to Alexander, which have perished. As answering letters were sent to Alexander, the letters on each side were made into a collection; Arius reduced into one volume those which favoured his side, and Alexander did the same for those on the other side. It was on the basis of them that those factions commonly called Arians, Eunomians and Macedonians, into which the Church disintegrated after the time of Constantine, took up the cause of their own defence. Socrates bk. 1, ch. 6.[Editorial Note 68] Alexander too wrote a large number of epistles, of which, according to Epiphanius,[Editorial Note 69] about 70 existed in his time.

<18r> < insertion from f 17v >

But while Arius was in exile, the city of the Alexandrians was seriously in uproar. Now[Editorial Note 70] that Licinius had been defeated, the emperor was residing in ‡[32] Nicomedia, and by his Edicts and official documents sent throughout the provinces, says Eusebius, he was attempting to recall his subjects from the error of the demons and to encourage them to embrace the true worship of God. As he was engaged in this with great joy and enthusiasm, news was brought to him about these serious disturbances in the Churches. — Stricken with the greatest grief because of this, he immediately sent to Alexandria one of the worshippers of God whom he had with him and whom he believed to be well-regarded for the moderation of his faith and renowned above others for his confession of religion in earlier times (‡[33] Hosius by name, the bishop of Cordova, which is a city in Spain, a man whom the Emperor loved and very much respected), so that he might make peace among those who were at odds there; and he gives him a letter for the authors of the contention. Euseb. de vit. Const. bk. 2, chs. 61, 63.[Editorial Note 72] The part of it that relates to the argument we insert here.

< text from f 18r resumes >

Victor Constantinus Maximus Augustus to Alexander and Arius.

< insertion from f 17v >

Victor Constantinus Maximus Augustus to Alexander and Arius.

— After[Editorial Note 73] I had truly triumphed winning a glorious victory against my enemies, I set myself first of all to explore that subject which I judged to be much the most important of all. But O most excellent and truly divine providence! what a wound, what a lethal wound, was inflicted on my ears or rather on my very heart, when I heard that a conflict which had been fomented among you was causing so much bitterness. And as I thought carefully about the origin and cause of these things, it seemed very insignificant and by no means worthy of so much thought —

I understand then that the foundation of the present controversy was laid when, you, Alexander, made an inquiry about a certain passage of the sacred scriptures, or rather you raised a minute inquiry about an inconsequential matter, and asked what opinion each of them had of it; and you, Arius, that which for a start … entertain in your mind etc.

< text from f 18r resumes >

The beginning of the present controversy I understand arose as follows. When you, Alexander, were asking of your Priests what each one of them thought about a certain passage of the law, or rather you were questioning them about a certain <19r> part of a pointless question, and you, Arius, imprudently came out with something that you ought ✝[34] never to have thought, or once thought, you should have kept it back and stayed silent. A split occurred among you, and fellowship was refused. Thus the most holy people, split into two parties, abandoned the unity of the whole body. Both of you therefore should grant each other pardon and adopt the course that your fellow-servant most justly urges upon you. And what is that? It would have been better neither to ask about such matters nor to respond once the question was asked. For questions of this kind which are not required or mandated by any laws but arise from a captious spirit of misspent idleness, even if they are proposed as an intellectual exercise, we should keep within the recesses of our own minds, and not readily disclose them in public gatherings nor unadvisedly entrust them to the ears of the common people. For how very few are there who have the capacity either to gain an understanding of the force and nature of such large and difficult questions or adequately explain them? And if anyone is considered to have the ability to do this easily, what fraction of the common people is he likely to convince in the end? Or who in the subtle and painstaking discussion of such questions could stand without danger of a most serious fall? Therefore in questions of this kind we must be very careful how much we say, for fear that the people may fall into the snare of blasphemy or schism, either because perhaps we ourselves fail in our attempt to explain the subject before us because of the weakness of our nature or because our auditors fail to follow what is said because of the slowness of their understanding. Accordingly, in both of your parties, let the incautious question and the ill-advised response mutually grant pardon to each other. For it is not a dispute about a primary and supreme commandment of our law that has sprung up among you, nor has any new doctrine been propounded about the worship of god. You both hold one and the same belief, so that you ought to be easily able to join in common association with each other. — Let[Editorial Note 74] us please ask ourselves whether it is reasonable, merely because of disputes between you about vain and empty words, that <20r> brothers should stand opposed to brothers as if ranged in battle, and the venerable synod should be rent by impious dissension because you wrangle about things that are so trivial and unnecessary. This is vulgar, and more appropriate to the foolishness of children. Let us retreat of our own accord from the temptations of the Devil. — For[Editorial Note 75] since as I have said, you all have one and the same faith and a common belief about our religion, and since the commandment of the law in both its parts binds us all to a single harmony of hearts, there is no reason why something that has raised a trivial dispute among you should cause dissension and discord among you; for it has no relevance to the essence of the religion as a whole. And I do not say this in order to compel you all to have the same opinion about the question which you have raised, however it is finally to be characterised. For the dignity of the synod may be retained unimpaired among you, even if you do disagree with each other about an issue of minimal significance. For we do not all want the same thing in all matters, nor does everyone have the same nature and sentiment. —— Attend[Editorial Note 76] a little while, so that you may understand the magnitude of my distress in this matter. Recently when I came to Nicomedia, I planned to set out for the East straightaway. As I was hastening my departure, and for the greater part was already with you, the news of this matter caused me to reverse my plan, so that I would not be compelled to see in person things which I felt myself scarcely able even to hear. Come to an agreement with each other then, and open up for me my way to the East, which you have obstructed by your mutual contentions with each other, etc. — < insertion from inline > In this manner, Eusebius continues[Editorial Note 77], by sending this Epistle the Emperor attempted to restore the peace of the Church of God. Furthermore the good man and outstanding worshipper of God[Editorial Note 78] made a most extraordinary effort not only in communicating the letter but also in carrying out the wishes of him by whom he had been sent. But the business was too big to be settled by the agency of a letter, so big in fact that the conflict of the contending parties grew day by day, and the force of the mischief swept through all the Provinces of the East. Euseb. Vit. Const. bk. 2, ch. 64 ff.

At this time therefore the conflict began to be fiercer; what once had been a sedition within one city spread abroad through the whole of Egypt, and soon infected also regions beyond. And when those who were striving for the acceptance of Arius were not able to bend Alexander at all, much as they pleaded with him, they gathered a Synod in Bithynia and wrote to all the Bishops everywhere urging them to be in communion with the supporters of Arius because they were <20v> right-thinking people, and to attempt to bring Alexander into communion with them also. But when their initiative did not succeed as they wished, since Alexander would not concede an inch, Arius [Editorial Note 79] sends Legates to Paulinus Bishop of Tyre, to Eusebius Pamphili who headed the Church at Caesarea in Palestine and to Patrophilus, the Bishop of Scythopolis; and he petitions for permission for him and his followers to gather the people who belong to them in a Church, since they had previously held the same rank of Presbyters. For this {he said} is the custom at Alexandria that, under one Bishop who is at the head of all of them, the Priests hold their Churches separately and gather the people who were accustomed to come to them. And those Bishops, together with the other Bishops gathering in Palestine, granted the petition of Arius. They encourage them to gather their people just as they had been wont to do before, but exhort them nevertheless to be subject to Alexander, and beg him without intermission that they should enjoy his peace and communion. Sozom. bk. 1, ch. 15[Editorial Note 80].

The former of these Synods was convened at Nicomedia in Bithynia and consisted of two hundred and fifty bishops, according to Nicetas in Thesaurus Orthodoxae fidei[Editorial Note 81], bk. 5, ch. 4. However in the chapter heading the figure is only two hundred, but in the ninth chapter of the same book Nicetas repeats that the Synod consisted of two hundred and fifty Bishops gathered at Nicomedia against Alexander. He also makes this Synod distinct from the previous one as if it took place after the council of Nicaea. But in this he is certainly mistaken. Alexander died immediately after that council, and besides History does not record two Synods at Nicomedia. As Nicetas nevertheless posited two, it is certain that he derived them from different authors and thus he confirms the figure of 250 Bishops by double testimony. This synod seems to have met at Nicomedia in order to bring the Emperor over to its side, but the Emperor had left Nicomedia before the Bishops could get together. Perhaps on purpose; whether because he thought that he should not listen to one party in the absence of the other, or because he was hostile to their <21v> leader Eusebius. For when he overcame Licinius who was then living at Nicomedia, he had found in his entourage certain of the clergy of Eusebius, and for this reason he numbered Eusebius among his enemies, as is clear from ✝[35] the epistle which he wrote in anger to the people of Nicomedia a bit later when he banished Eusebius. For in the letter he brings this charge against Eusebius. Who, he says[Editorial Note 82], is it who has taught these things to the simple people? Obviously Eusebius, the collaborator[Editorial Note 83] of the cruel tyrant. For he has always been a dependent of the tyrant, as can be seen from many things. It is proved by the murders of Bishops, but only of true bishops. It is openly proclaimed by the cruel persecution of Christians. I will say nothing of the outrages he committed against me; when the onslaughts of the enemy side were in great trouble, he dispatched spies against me and all but offered armed service to the Tyrant. No one should imagine that I am unprepared with proof of these things. There is very clear evidence since it is a fact that I have caught the deacons and presbyters who followed Eusebius red-handed. So Constantine; although Eusebius was related to Licinius, and as long as he was subject to him, he was obliged to respect the Prince and placate the persecutor with such services as was permitted.

While these things were going on in the East, Alexander convenes an Antisynod of his Bishops in Alexandria. Hosius participated in this. The Bishops settle their own affairs with him. At last he returns, bringing with him, as I believe, the Epistles both of Arius and of the Synod. Arius had written that large numbers of the people, and particularly the whole of Libya, shared his beliefs, but that nevertheless he had laid aside those weapons and trusted in his faith, and came as a suppliant to be restored to the Church and to the sacerdotal office. The Emperor therefore takes everything in a bad sense and fires back a fierce Epistle at him – < text from f 20r resumes >

<21r> < insertion from f 20v > < insertion from lower down f 20v > < text from f 20v resumes > < text from f 21r resumes > fires back a fierce Epistle at him, composed in a vulgar and excessively sarcastic style: accusing him of presumptuousness for boasting of the large numbers of his people, of impiety for disseminating a false faith, and of a shameful policy for seeking the return of his ecclesiastical offices. Epiphanius haeres. 69 mentions this epistle, citing one or two things from it and calling it an epistle written against Arius to the whole of the Roman world.[Editorial Note 84] Socrates too, ✝[36] according to Baronius, speaks of it in the same words. The Emperor also wrote another letter against Arius and the advocates of his position in a more popular and discursive style. Someone took care to distribute this letter in every single city in every part, in order to mock his madness more wittily and to criticise it more sharply under a smart screen of irony. Arius’s Epistle has perished. But this epistle of the Emperor’s has been published from the Vatican Library by Baronius ✝[37] . He tells us that it was certainly written before the Council of Nicaea, because in the Catholic (as he puts it) affirmation of the divinity of the son of God there is no mention of the consubstantiality of the Word, an attribute assigned later at the Nicene Council, and there is no mention of the great Synod itself. We will insert a part of that letter here so that its aim may become apparent.

Constantinus Augustus to Arius and the Arians.

A bad interpreter is the work of the devil and his effigy and Image, etc. And after further such abusive remarks against Arius, he continues as follows, presenting Arius as engaging in a dialogue with him <22r> and responding to his assertions. I now want to examine the character of the man who is the patron of this great crime. What then does he say? Either let us keep, he says, what we already possessed; or let it be as we ourselves wish. He has fallen and fallen, he has been killed. By trickery, [he says] or by crafty cunning, makes no difference. The only thing that he regards as serious and acceptable is what has come to him in his own wicked thoughts. We have, [he says,] large numbers of people. As a small man therefore myself, I will come closer, so that I may examine these insane conflicts. I will come closer, I say, myself; for I have some experience of settling the conflicts of demented men. ✝ Look, [he says,] I return as a suppliant, and though I am superior in force of arms I do not want to fight, but fortified by the faith of Christ I wish to heal you and others. But why do you say you do those things which do not fit your moral stance? And with what sort of peace, tell me, pray, or relying on what forces, or rather on what refinement of audacity? What presumption! It deserves to be struck down by thunderbolts! Listen to the declaration he recently made to me, writing with a pen dripping with venom: This is, he says, what we believe: Then he carefully made some points ✝ [38] designed to show contempt, and proceeding further, he left no evil thing unsaid, but brought out of his closet the total resources so to speak of his insanity. We are expelled, he says, they deprive us of our right to be received. But this is irrelevant; listen to what follows. ✝[39] I will use his own words. We demand, he says (since the Bishop of Alexandria remains of the same opinion) to be granted from now on our right, on the basis of law, to perform the legitimate and indispensable offices of God. O serious impudence, which simply had to be refuted by zeal for the truth! for he has revealed in the brevity of his expression the thing that lay nearest his heart. — What then shall I do, you say, if no one condescends to receive me? This you often utter from your wicked mouth. But I will ask you in reply whether you have anywhere given a clear token and testimony of your belief? This it was your obligation to expound and declare by divine <23r> and human actions. — You say there is one God. I have the same belief; that is therefore what you should believe. You say that ✝[40] the Word is of his essence and without either beginning or end{.} I am content with that. So believe. But if you add anything further, I reject it. Anything you dishonestly devise that implies an impious separation, I confess that I neither see it nor understand it. If you add a ✝[41] sojourning in the body for the performance of the works of God, I do not disapprove of it. If you speak of a spirit of eternity begotten in the supereminent Word, I accept it. Who knows the father except him who comes from the father? Whom does the father know except him whom he begat from himself from eternity and without beginning? You feel obliged to suggest a strange, outlandish Hypostasis, which is certainly a mistaken belief. I judge that the plenitude of the super pre-excellent and everlasting power of the Father and of the Son are ✝[42] [Editorial Note 87] one essence. — But you will say that large numbers of men are with you, and lighten your cares. Attend and lend me your ears for a moment, wicked Arius, recognise your madness. And you, o God, who have a care for all things, look favourably on our discourse, if it preserves the faith. For I am your man, o merciful one, I am defended by your providence, and from the oldest of the Greek and Latin writings I will publicly demonstrate the insanity of Arius prefigured and predicted around three thousand years ago by Erythraea. For thus she spoke: Woe to you, Libya, set in the maritime places; for to you there is coming a time when, with your people and your daughters, you will be compelled to suffer a grave conflict, cruel and very hard to bear; and from it a judgement of faith and piety will spread abroad to all men. But you are verging on the edge of destruction; for you have dared to shatter the vase of celestial flowers and bite them to pieces, and thus you have desecrated them with iron teeth.      What then, o craftiest of men, where in the world do you admit that you are? Evidently there. For I have <24r> your letter which you wrote to me with an insane pen, in which you claim that the whole of the people of Libya agree with you (doubtless for their salvation). If you deny that this is so, I now call God as my witness that I am sending to Alexandria the most ancient writing-tablets of Erythraea, written in Greek, so that you may more swiftly perish. The Emperor then proceeds with more than poetic licence, adding the following and more like it. Behold, ye all, behold, how he utters cries of lamentation, wounded as he is by the bite of a viper. See how his veins and his flesh, invaded by the poison, cause bitter torment, how his body drips with putrefaction, how emaciated it is and covered in squalor and filth, overwhelmed by lamentation, pallor, horror, and endless suffering, and horribly shrivelled up; see how hideous is his hair with muck and filth. Behold him now half-dead, his eyes already glazed, his face bloodless, gloomy, ravening. See how rage, insanity and vanity have poured into him because the evil has lasted so long, and rendered him monstrous and savage.      Returning at the end once again to the point that Arius boasted of a massive following, he adds this. Moreover the charge of public burdens will fall upon your allies and supporters who have attached themselves to the court, unless they immediately abandon their relationship and association with you and follow the uncorrupted faith.

< insertion from f 23v > ✝ It seems from this that Arius acted with over-confidence because the people was on his side. And others write/acknowledge that the multitude was on the side of Arius, and ‡ < insertion from higher up f 23v > ‡ So Severus, bk. 2, ch. 50[Editorial Note 88] speaking of the peace of the churches under Constantine adds that a far worse danger was created for all the Churches by that peace. For then the heresy of Arius burst forth, and disturbed the whole world by the error it introduced. So also Nazianzenus: Arius, he says, when from- < text from f 23v resumes > in particular Gregory of Nazianzus says as follows: When beginning in the city of Alexandria Arius had devised his pestilential doctrine, and then like a rapid fire in the countryside, from a little spark it had run through * < insertion from higher up f 23v > < text from f 23v resumes > το πολὺ της ὀικουμένης, ‘the greater part of the earth’[Editorial Note 89], it was finally suppressed by our fathers and by that pious company who at that time convened at Nicaea and circumscribed Theology within definite bounds and words. Gr. Naz. Orat 23 in praise of Hero[Editorial Note 90] * < insertion from lower down f 23v > * How widely τὸ πολὺ is taken by Gregory here, is clear from the fact that when the same Christians had gained control of the whole world under Constantius he calls them τὸ πολὺ της ἐκκλησίας (Orat. 20 in laud. Basil)[Editorial Note 91]. And we may certainly understand how widely it should be taken from Orat. 21 in laud. Athanas.,[Editorial Note 92] where after Gregory narrated that Athanasius was appointed Bishop of Alexandria, he continues as follows. Nor would I say, he says, whether he received such a position as a reward of virtue or as the fountain and life of the Church ‡ < insertion from higher up f 23v > ‡ the city which by virtue of Athanasius was to be the fountain and life of the rising Church. < text from lower down f 23v resumes > For when it [i.e. the Church] was dying of thirst for the truth and was almost spent, it needed to be revived like Ishmael[Editorial Note 93] with a drink, or be refreshed from a torrent like Elijah[Editorial Note 94], when the earth was parched by a drought, and be restored to life when it was scarcely breathing, and be left as a seed for Israel, lest we be made like Sodom and Gomorrah[Editorial Note 95]. — Wherefore as we lay prone, a horn of salvation was raised for us, and a corner stone was laid down just in time, binding us both to himself and to each other. – Thus then Athanasius was raised to the throne of Mark[Editorial Note 96] < insertion from higher up f 23v > ✝ Gregory says that this was done with the support of the whole people. For so the Athanasians contended, but their adversaries declared his appointment void because it was done secretly by a few priests, the majority being opposed. And a suspicion of this is greatly increased by the fact that the multitude at this time were opposed to the homousian faith. < text from lower down f 23v resumes > Thus Gregory; and by this it is easily understood why Alexander complained that he was persecuted by Arius and his supporters, namely because the number of them was so massive as to be an insult to him in itself. < text from f 23v resumes > [And elsewhere Gregory says that the evil excited and inflamed by the heated rhetoric of Arius τὸ πλεῖον ἐπιλεληφέναι,[Editorial Note 97] ‘seized on the majority of men’ in these times. Orat. 21 in laud. Athanas. ~ ~ ~ – – The Emperor therefore distributed the aforesaid letter throughout the World and … fear] < text from f 24r resumes > The Emperor therefore distributed this letter to all parts and struck fear into the supporters of Arius, and in order to establish his own opinion, proclaimed a Council at Nicaea in Bithynia for the following year. And so about 318 Bishops convene. The Emperor also attended so that he might bring them all into harmony, that is, to his own opinion; for he himself wrote to the people of Nicomedia a little bit later as follows. [43] I too myself attended the Synod at Nicaea, he says, as respect for my conscience required. I had no other purpose than to bring concord to them all, and above all to refute and expel the evil, which certainly took its origin from the madness <25r> of Arius of Alexandria but was soon strengthened by the absurd and deadly zeal of Eusebius.

A day was therefore appointed on which the Emperor would be present at the Council. But before that day arrived, the Bishops gathered together privately and summoned Arius, and opinions were publicly vented, and they began a discussion (Sozom. bk. 1, ch. 17)[Editorial Note 98]. But hear how. ✝ < insertion from f 24v > ✝ Making mention of the remarks of Arius, he adds: Ἐν τῆ κατὰ τὴν Νίκαιαν συνόδῳ ὁι συνελθόντες πάντες πανταχόθεν Ἐπίσκοποι, τὰς μὲν ἀκοὰς ἐπὶ τούτοις ἐκράτουν.. Ath. Orat. 1. cont. Ar. pag 295[Editorial Note 99].

‡ Ὡς δὲ καὶ μόνον φθεγγόμενοι κατεγινώσκοντο καὶ — ἀχανεῖς μεν ἔμενον. οὗτοι καὶ διὰ τῆς σιωπῆς ὡμολόγουν τὴν ἐπὶ τῇ κενοδοξίᾳ ἀυτῶν αισχύνην. Ath. Cont. Haer. Ar. pag 251.[Editorial Note 100] < text from f 25r resumes > They shut their ears to the beliefs of Arius when they were read out (Athanas. Orat. 1 contr. Ar. before the middle)[Editorial Note 101]. And when the accused attempted to respond for themselves, they had scarcely opened their mouths when they were rebuked and forced to stay silent by the opposing clamour (Athanas. Epist. contr. haer. Ar. near the beginning)[Editorial Note 102]. In fact the Synod itself witnesses to this impetuous passion in its own epistle to the Egyptians. [44] In recalling the words of Arius they say: All these things the most holy Synod condemned with an anathema and did not even attempt to give a patient hearing to this ungodly and insane belief and these words full of blasphemy.

The beliefs of Arius were thus introduced into their deliberations, and then as they began a debate and the discussion deviated into a variety of questions, there were some, says Sozomen, who urged them not to make any innovation on the faith delivered in the beginning, especially those whose simplicity of manner had brought them to faith in God without painful analysis. Others contended that it was not appropriate to follow the opinions of the ancients without any examination (Sozom. bk. 1, ch. 17.)[Editorial Note 104] < insertion from f 24v > ‡ and they were undoubtedly impelled to take this liberty by their zeal to overcome and condemn Arius. So they did not ask what the Ancients thought, but what Arius would refuse to admit. For in the first place they write that the son is from God. This is admitted – < text from f 25r resumes > This is admitted. And so they add, from the substance of God. Then they write that the son is the true power and image of the Father, and immutable forever and eternal. These things too are admitted. Therefore until there could be further consultation, they write that the son is homousion with the Father; for they had finally noticed that in one of his Epistles Eusebius had said: If we say that it is true that the son of God is uncreat <26r> ed, we are on the verge of admitting that he is homousion with the Father. This is how the Nicene creed was composed, as is confirmed by the testimonies of Athanasius and Ambrose. Athanasius says: When the Synod was on the point of removing the impious words of the Arians, and was trying to use words which would indisputably be words of the holy scriptures: namely, that he was the son and was not from non-existing things but of God. — – The Eusebians wanted the phrase ‘is from God’ to apply to men also, meaning that Christ does not differ from us at all in that respect —— Then the Fathers, now that their fraud had been detected, were compelled to explain in clearer words what ‘to be from God’ means, and to write that the son is of the substance of God —— When the Bishops again affirmed that one should also write that he is the true power and image of the Father and like to the Father and immutable forever and unchangeable and eternal, and subsists undivided in the Father: — These things the Eusebians tolerated – as if ‘be like’ and ‘be in him’ and ‘be his power’ were common to the son with us. – And so the Bishops were compelled to repeat in more explicit words what they had previously said and to write that the son is Consubstantial with the Father, in order to signify by that expression in which he is said to be from the father that he is not only like in likeness but that he is the same. Thus Athan. Ep. cont. haer. Ar. decr.[Editorial Note 105] Ambrose reveals how they came upon this term. Their moving spirit, Eusebius of Nicomedia, had used it in a letter of his saying: If we say that it is true (he says) that the son of God is uncreated, we are on the verge of admitting that he is Homousion, Consubstantial, with the father. When this letter was read at the Council of Nicaea, the Fathers introduced this word into their treatment of faith, so that they might cut off the very head of the monstrous heresy with the sword which their adversaries had <27r> unsheathed. Ambros. de fide ad Grati. bk. 3, final chapter[Editorial Note 106]. ✝[45] It was Hosius who drafted the Statement of faith; it was by his influence that the Council accepted the formulation, Sulp. bk. 2, ch. 54, and he played the leading role in the council (Socrat. bk. 5, ch. 13). For he accompanied the Court ‡[46] and was privy to the inner counsels of the Emperor and was able to influence the Emperor, which was the main thing, and all the others who were trying to win the Emperor’s favour. But in influencing the Bishops, he had the assistance of the authority of Alexander and of Eustathius Bishop of Antioch, who was deposed later for Sabellianism (Socr. bk. 1, ch. 24)[Editorial Note 108], adultery (Theod. bk. 1, ch. 21)[Editorial Note 109] and insults to the mother of the Emperor (Athanas. ad Solit. vit. agent. near the beginning, p. 812B)[Editorial Note 110]. These three men then, with their followers, contended for the Homousion; the rest, as Sozomen says,[Editorial Note 111] urged # < insertion from the left margin of f 27v > # that no innovation be made contrary to the faith handed down from the beginning.

< text from f 27r resumes >

While these things are going on, the supporters of Arius compose a formula of faith and offer it to the council; but when it was read through, everyone criticised it severely calling it spurious and bastard. And a great tumult arose on all sides against them (Theod., bk. 1, ch. 7) [Editorial Note 112] . Eusebius’s document was also brought into consideration. When it had been read out publicly in the hearing of all, — in the sight of all it was torn to pieces. (Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch was an ἀυτοπτης [Editorial Note 113] , according to Theod bk. 1, ch. 8.) As it happens, this was the Epistle from which the word homousion was taken.

preceding page.

< insertion from f 25v >

following page. But when the discussion of these questions began, and Arius’s case could not be heard, let alone examined, because of the fervour and clamour of his adversaries, but the discussion was about his condemnation solely, the dispute rages, the Bishops attack each other. And when for different reasons (as Rufinus says) they hurled insults and abuse against each other, the Emperor was frequently interrupted by individuals; petitions were offered, reproaches thrown, <26v> and they devoted their passions more to these things than to the issue for which they had come. Seeing that by slanging-matches of this kind the cause of the central issue was being frustrated, he fixed a date on which each one of the Bishops could bring any complaint that he had (Rufin. bk. 1, ch. 2), and the principal question should receive a decision.

Therefore[Editorial Note 114] on the day appointed for the Council on which the points in question were to be settled, when the individuals were present of whom the Synod consisted – and[Editorial Note 115] the signal was given by which the entrance of the Emperor was announced, and all arose, and he himself entered surrounded by attendants. He held the eyes of all by the splendour of his purple robe, and appeared to glow with rays of fire; he was also adorned with a marvellous splendour of gold and precious stones. — And[Editorial Note 116] after one of the Bishops arose and addressed the Emperor in a modest oration, the Emperor[Editorial Note 117] greeted the Synod in reply with an oration about peace and concord, and thenceforth[Editorial Note 118] ceded the floor to the Presidents of the Council. At that point some of them began to accuse their neighbours, others responded to the accusations and made their own complaints in turn. When many points had been raised in this manner on either side, and a great argument had developed right from the start, the emperor listened to it all intently and with great patience, and took up the questions that had been raised, and by developing and mitigating what was said on each side in turn, he gradually conciliated those who were arguing so obstinately. He used affable language to all of them and spoke in Greek; he was very amiable and pleasant as he won some to his own opinion by arguments, pleaded with others to change their minds, lavished praise on those who spoke well, and exhorted all of them to concord. In the end he brought them all to concord and agreement about all the issues on which they were in conflict before. The result was[Editorial Note 119] that not only did agreement about one faith reign among all, but also a single date was fixed for the celebration of the festival of salvation. Euseb. bk. 3, on the life of Constantine, chs. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14; Socrates, bk. 1, ch. 8. <27v>

And at the very beginning the Emperor, when he had taken his seat, received from individuals petitions of accusation. Keeping them all together in his lap and not revealing what was contained in them, he says to the Bishops: God has made you priests and has given you power to judge even concerning us, and therefore we are rightly judged by you. But you cannot be judged by men, and for this reason you must await the judgement of God alone between yourselves, and whatever your differences may be, they must be reserved for the judgment of God. For you have been given to us by god as gods, and it is not fitting that man should judge Gods, but he alone of whom it is written: God has stood in the Assembly of the gods and in the midst he judges between gods. Therefore set these things aside and without intellectual strife discern those things that belong to the faith of God. When he had said this, he ordered all the petitions of complaint to be burned together, so that the dissension of the Priests would not become known to anyone at all. Rufinus, bk. 1, ch. 2[Editorial Note 120]. For he said that it was wrong that the wrongdoings of Priests should come to the notice of the people, in case the people should take an occasion for scandal[Editorial Note 121] from this and give freer rein to wicked actions. He is also said to have added this: If he saw a Bishop committing adultery with his own eyes, he would conceal the wicked deed with his own cloak, lest the spectacle of immorality should be harmful to the spectators themselves. Theod. bk. 1, ch. 11. By such manoeuvres the Emperor dismissed the accusations of his bishops and put an end to their quarrels, soothing the minds of all of them with wonderful affability. When a dispute subsequently arose about the faith, Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, as he himself reports[Editorial Note 122], proposed the following formulation of the faith: Just as we received from the Bishops our Predecessors, at the time when we were instructed in the first rudiments of the faith, and when we were dipped in the water of salvation, just as we have learned from the divine scriptures, and just as we ourselves have believed and taught, both as a Priest and in our Episcopal rank, so now also believing … faith[Editorial Note 123]

< text from f 27r resumes >

<28r> {As}[Editorial Note 124] they had said ‘of the substance of the father’ and ‘consubstantial’, we did not pass this over without examination. Various questions and responses arose from this; and careful thought was given to what the sense of those words was precisely. And they said that the words ‘of the substance’ signify this: that the son is from the father, but not as a part of the Father himself. It seemed altogether reasonable that we ourselves should embrace this sense, since pious doctrine declares that the Son is from the Father but is not a part of his substance. And a bit later.[Editorial Note 125] For this cannot be either by division of substance or by severance, or by any passion or mutation of the nature and power of the father. For the unbegotten nature of the Father is alien to all of these things. For this ‘being consubstantial with the Father’ signifies nothing else than that the son of God has no similitude with the creatures made by him but with the Father alone by whom he was begotten, that he is in all things alike, nor is he from any other hypostasis or substance but from the father. When this had been explained in this way, we thought that it was very right to approve it, since we knew that some outstanding bishops and skilful writers among the ancients had made use of this word consubstantial in explaining the Divinity of the Father and the son. These were the things that were said about the faith promulgated at Nicaea. And to this we all agreed, not lightly and without thought, but in accordance with the specified senses, which were thrashed out in the presence of the most religious emperor himself and approved by all for the reasons given above. –— Moreover we thought it not unfitting to damn with anathema the expression ‘before he was begotten he was not’, <29r> because everyone admits that he was the son of God even before his nativity in the body. And now our emperor most beloved of God, proved in a careful argument that even in the light of this divine generation he existed before all ages, since before he was begotten in act, he was in the Father in potentiality, in some unbegotten manner, since the Father is always Father. Thus Eusebius. and I have reproduced it here so that you may recognise that the emperor, in front of the Council, did demand that the son be recognised as begotten from eternity; but at first he was potentially existing in the father, then he was begotten in actuality; and this was not from any matter but from the substance of the Father, being substance from substance, though without any division or alteration of the father’s substance but in a kind of mystical manner; and that this is signified by the word homousion. Whether the Emperor did this of his own belief or only in order to get Eusebius and the others to subscribe in some way or other for the sake of peace, each man being left to make his own sense of it for himself, I would not say. But I do not at all doubt that Eusebius has faithfully reported what occurred, since he would not dare to make groundless accusations against the Emperor in a public letter. And neither Athanasius, who saw and quoted this letter, nor any other writer of the time that I know of, ever denied that this is how these things unfolded, but later writers who were perhaps displeased with that sense, merely complained that the Eusebians had subscribed in an insincere fashion.

This issue being thus swiftly dealt with, the Council turned to other Ecclesiastical matters, and after formulating twenty canons was finally dissolved. a[47] It began in the twentieth year of Constantine, AD 325. b[48] 18 days before the Kalends of July |  11 days before the Kalends of June. It ended 8 days before the Kalends of September of the same year. Among other resolutions, this Synod would have forbidden the Clergy to have intercourse with their wives if Paphnutius had not strongly resisted. Socrates, bk. 1, ch. 11.[Editorial Note 126]

Arius therefore and those who had refused to sign were sent into exile (Ruffin, bk. 1, ch. 5, Philostorg. bk. 1, ch. 9, Sozom bk. 1, ch. 20 in <30r> the title and ch. 21, Socr bk. 1, ch. 8{)}[Editorial Note 127].          And Ruffinus bk. 1, ch. 5 and the acts of the Synod        say that only eleven signed, and the other six were punished with exile; and the letter of the Council of Nicaea to the Egyptians in Theod, bk. 1, ch. 6[Editorial Note 128] testify that two of them were from the Egyptian Diocese, namely Theonas and Secundus.

A similar danger also threatened others: for if anyone refused to accept the decrees of the Synod, the Emperor proclaimed that he was to be condemned to exile on the ground that he was trying to undermine a judgement of God. Sozom. bk. 1, ch. 20.[Editorial Note 129] Hence too some Alexandrians went into exile a bit later, and then also Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theogonius of Nicaea because they were in communion with those exiles, as is clear from the Epistle of Constantine to the people of Nicomedia, which reads: [49] I had commanded that certain Alexandrians who had defected from our faith should be deported from there because the torch of discord was being raised by their effort and agency. But those worthy Bishops whom the clemency of the Synod had reserved to do penance, not only received them and ordered them to be kept safe in their residences, but also made themselves active allies and abettors of their wickedness. For this reason I determined to act in this way against those ungrateful men: I ordered them to be seized and deported as far away as possible. – If anyone should presume to make mention of those accursed persons or be rashly tempted to praise them, his audacity will immediately be punished directly by me as the servant of God. Now the exile of these two men occurred three months after the Council of Nicaea according to the Acts (Philostorg. bk. 1, ch. 9)[Editorial Note 131]. Furthermore the supporters of Arius ✝[50] were proscribed and expelled by individual cities, and not only this, but Caesar’s assault upon them did not stop short of executions, as is clear from this edict of his.

< insertion from f 29v >

See Sozom, bk. 2, ch. 32[Editorial Note 132].

< text from f 30r resumes >

[51] Victor Constantinus Maximus Augustus to the Bishops and their peoples

Since Arius has imitated wicked and ungodly men, he deserves to suffer the same penalty of infamy as they did. Therefore, since ✝[52] Porphyrius, the enemy of true piety, for having written criminal books against the Christian religion, received the fitting punishment that he should be held in <31r> famous to posterity and assailed with abundant abuse, and that his impious books should be completely destroyed, so now it has been deemed appropriate that Arius and his devotees should be labelled Porphyrians, so that they may be called by the name of the man whose ways they imitated. Moreover we command that any book of Arius’s that may happen to be found be committed to the flames, so that his wicked doctrine may be destroyed to its very foundations and no memory of it be left to posterity. This too I make known that if anyone is caught concealing a book composed by Arius and does not immediately give it up to be burnt by fire, he shall suffer the penalty of death. For as soon as he is apprehended in this crime, he shall suffer capital punishment. May God preserve you.

[53] The Emperor sent many other epistles, says Sozomen, to every city against Arius and those who shared his beliefs. And it is certainly not surprising that the Emperor behaved so severely and tyrannically in these matters. For before a full year had elapsed, he removed by poison ✝[54] Crispus Caesar, his first-born son, a Youth of outstanding promise, on a false suspicion, and, soon after, he also killed his own wife Fausta in a hot bath [Editorial Note 135] , and a[55] ordered the deaths of some other close family members and b[56] innumerable friends; on all this consult Baronius, under the year 324, § 5 ff.; Baronius is overpowered by the large number and clear evidence of the testimonies (which he names there) and is compelled to acknowledge these events. However he assigns the deed to the year 324, following the Chronicon of Eusebius, but that is certainly wrong and was perhaps interpolated here by Jerome. For Sozomen bk. 1, ch. 5 [Editorial Note 138], on the basis of the laws published by Constantine and Crispus together and bearing indications of the dates and names of the Legislators, expressly testifies that Crispus passed away in Constantine’s twentieth year, and this year began 8 days before the Kalends of August A.D. 425 [Editorial Note 139], while the Council of Nicaea was sitting, which also coincided with the festival of the Vicennalia [Editorial Note 140]. Zosimus too relates that Constantine committed these crimes at the time when he had set out for Rome, and Gotho <32r> fredus [Editorial Note 141] on the basis of the laws of Constantine which bear the places and dates at which they were given is compelled to recognise that Constantine did not reach Rome before          of the year      , and accordingly he is forced to assign these crimes to the period immediately following the Council of Nicaea and to repudiate the notorious fiction about the baptism of Constantine, which they falsely claim was celebrated at Rome in the year 324 as a result of these crimes, in order to wash away the guilt before the session of the Synod. This date is also favoured by the report of Baronius under the year 324 § 27, in which he tells us, from Zosimus, that Osius had already returned to Rome from Egypt; which is … [Editorial Note 142] to have happened only after the Council of Nicaea, since Osius followed the Entourage of the Emperor after he returned from Egypt to Nicomedia, and proceeded from there to Nicaea with the rest of the entourage.

So monstrous were these crimes that the Consul Ablavius, an exceedingly important man with Constantine, affixed a distich to the doors of the Palatine in which he called these times Neronian. Sidonius Apollinaris, a very grave author, reports this, saying in passing: [Editorial Note 143] So that the Consul Ablavius seems to me, he says [57] to have given a pretty direct nip or sting of rebuke to the house and life of Constantine in his couplet or distich which was secretly affixed to the palatine doors:

who would expect to see the golden centuries of Saturn?

These times are jewelled, but Neronian.

because evidently the aforesaid Augustus had at about one and the same time ended the lives of his wife Fausta by the heat of a bath and of his son Crispus by the cold of poison. In his discussion of the reason for the flight of the Roman Pontiff, Baronius alludes to this distich, and [58] calls these times most unhappy, times which clearly deserved to be called Neronian in the mouths of the members of his household. They were times in which it was easy, he says, for the impressionable mind of Constantine – to be turned by the slightest suspicion against any good person; so much so that if in these most deplorable times the firs-born and most beloved son of the Caesars, his most beloved wife, the Augusta, and several other persons were compelled to meet death at the hands of the irate prince, <33r> what wonder if the Roman Pontiff was forced to take flight or to continue in the exile in which he had taken refuge previously because of the fury of the Pagans? The times were very clearly Neronian (to use yet once again the word that Ablavius invokes). So Baronius. a[59] Baronius also writes (on the basis of b[60] Glycas, c[61] Zosimus, and d[62] the Story told by the Pagans in Sozomen) that the Emperor had almost returned to Paganism, but now at last, following these crimes, he converted fully to the Christian religion, when he consulted the Flamines [Editorial Note 149] and a pagan philosopher, Sopatrus, about the expiation of his sins and received the response that there was no method of lustration in traditional lore which could purge such hideous offences; he had however heard it confirmed by Osius that the religion ~ of the Christians had the power to obliterate any sin whatsoever. And certainly this does not seem completely remote from the truth. For a man who had wanted the Auruspices [Editorial Note 150] to be consulted when his house was struck by lightning and to apply their verdicts to himself, what wonder if he sometimes participated in other Pagan rites, especially at this time when he was at his very worst, even if perhaps he did it not so much for the sake of religion as in order to remove the infamy, being a Man who was certainly very jealous of his name and reputation. And although he was more inclined towards the Christian religion, yet up to now he had comported himself towards the pagan religion in such a way that he seemed to deserve well of both as the arbiter of both. But now while he was residing in Rome, he conceived that implacable hatred against the pagan religion that prompted him in a short while to strip their wealth from the Gods, and to found the new city of Constantinople which would be Christian, and to do other things in order to depress the condition of the Gentiles, as far as was in his power, and improve that of the Christians. Hence it is no wonder if the pagans said that it was at this time that he crossed over from their religion to the Christian religion. No one could suggest a more probable cause of so great a change than that a Prince who could not tolerate infamy saw that he <34r> would always be regarded as a wicked and abandoned Tyrant by the Pagans, and only among Christians could he be well spoken of because of the doctrine of repentance.

But I cannot refrain from attributing the monstrous crimes of Constantine, which have given rise to these stories, to a great judgement of God, since they followed soon after the Council of Nicaea. For under the pretext of defending religion and for the sake of restoring peace in any way possible, the Emperor subverted the truth, oppressed innocent and pious people throughout the whole world, and showed himself arrogant and recklessly blasphemous against God himself, by promoting the Council’s decree a[63] as the verdict of God himself, infused into the Fathers by the inspiration of the holy spirit, even though he knew that he had fashioned it and given it effect on his own authority. For in the preceding year he had vehemently threatened an attack on Arius in an open letter, and had convened this Council precisely in order to conceal his compulsion in this smoke-screen. For he knew that the friends of Arius, stricken with fear, would not readily come to the Council and that Arius would certainly be condemned by the others.

[Editorial Note 1] This is Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, also called ‘Eusebius Pamphili’ because he was ‘the intimate friend and devoted admirer of Pamphilus, a presbyter of Caesarea and a martyr’ (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 1, Eusebius (repr. Grand Rapids: Eeerdmans 1997), p. 3.

[1] In Epiphanius, Heresy 69; he thinks this letter was sent from Nicomedia, the author is very uncertain[Editorial Note 2]

[Editorial Note 2] Epiphanius, Panarion, Heresy 69.7. Cf. Epiphanius, Panaria, ed. F. Oehler, 3 vols. (Berlin 1859); also The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide), tr. Frank Williams (Leiden: Brill 1994), p. 329 ff.

[Editorial Note 3] Here ‘Papa’ refers to ‘a Bishop’ rather than ‘the Pope’. Cf. Souter, Glossary of Later Latin, sv papa.I have left it untranslated throughout.

[2] ✝ πρὸ χρόνων ἀιωνιων

[3] ✝ γένημα[Editorial Note 4]

[Editorial Note 4] γέννημα in Oehler’s text, the usual spelling.

[Editorial Note 5] ‘emissionem’

[4] ✝ υἱοπάτορα

[5] ✝ ὑποστάσεις

[6] ✝ ὑπέστη

[7] ✝ ἀίδιος

[Editorial Note 6] I am not sure of the meaning of ‘his secundum quid’ in this context, nor of the corresponding Greek phrase τὰ πρός τι. Williams, p. 330 translates the Greek phrase, ‘as some speak of things [which are naturally] related to something else’.

[Editorial Note 7] Cf. Psalm 110.3.

[Editorial Note 8] ‘quasi consubstantialis partem’ is a translation of μέρος τοῦ ὁμούσιου (meros tou homousiou).

[Editorial Note 9] ‘emissio’ is a translation of προβολή (probole), which Williams, p. 330 translates as ‘emanation’.

[Editorial Note 10] Newton spells this name ‘Achilles’ here, but elsewhere ‘Achillas’, perhaps reflecting different spellings in his sources of the name of what appears to be the same person.

[8] ✝ This is clear from the following Epistle.

[9] ✝ Socrates, bk. 1, ch. 7[Editorial Note 11]

[Editorial Note 11] Cf. Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, 1.7.1.

[Editorial Note 12] Eusebius, On the Life of Constantine, 2.61, 63. Cf. Eusebius, Werke, bd. 1, Uber das Leben Constantins, etc. ed. I.A. Heikel, Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller (Leipzig 1902), p. 65-7; Eusebius, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 1 (repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1997), p. 515; Eusebius, Life of Constantine, ed. and tr. A. Cameron and S.G. Hall (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1999), p. 115-6.

[Editorial Note 13] a deleted line follows; it is from Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 2.66.

[Editorial Note 14] Newton’s quotation of Constantine’s letter from Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 2.66 breaks off here. I have added the dots between ‘levitate’ and ‘religionem’ to indicate that ‘religionem’ has no grammatical relation to the rest of this truncated quotation.

[Editorial Note 15] this insertion begins in the middle of a sentence

[Editorial Note 16] Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, 1.15. Cf. Sozomène, Histoire ecclésiastique, ed. J. Bidez, tr. A-J. Festugière, 3 vols. (Paris: Editions du Cerf 1983-2005), vol. 1, pp. 183-91.

[10] In Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, bk. 1, ch. 6.[Editorial Note 17]

[Editorial Note 17] Cf. Théodoret de Cyr, Histoire ecclésiastique, ed. and tr. L. Parmentier et al., vol. 1 (Paris: Editions du Cerf 2006), 1.6.1-8 (pp. 195-99). Newton possessed Theodoretus, Opera omnia (Paris 1642-84). Harrison 1609.

[Editorial Note 18] This is Eusebius of Caesarea, according to Parmentier ad loc. (p. 195, n. 4.).

[11] ✝ οὐσίας

[Editorial Note 19] ‘virtute’ translates Greek δυνάμει (dunamei).

[Editorial Note 20] Cf. Proverbs 8.22-6.

[Editorial Note 21] Cf. Isaiah 1.2: ‘I have nourished and brought up children’ (AV).

[Editorial Note 22] Cf. Deuteronomy 32.18.

[Editorial Note 23] Cf. Job 38.28.

[12] In Socrates, bk. 1, ch. 6.[Editorial Note 24]

[Editorial Note 24] Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, 1.6.1-24. Cf. Socrate de Constantinople, Histoire ecclésiastique, ed. G.C. Hansen, tr. P. Périchon and P. Maraval , 3 vols. (Paris: Les editions du Cerf, 2004-6), vol. 1, pp. 62-73.

[13] ✝ καταχρηστικῶς[Editorial Note 25]

[Editorial Note 25] translated in Latin ‘abusive’.

[Editorial Note 26] Cf. 1 Esdras 3.12.

[Editorial Note 27] Cf. 2 Corinthians 6.14-15.

[Editorial Note 28] Cf. John 1.1.

[Editorial Note 29] Cf. John 1.18.

[Editorial Note 30] Cf. John 1.3.

[14] ἴσος

[Editorial Note 31] Cf. Psalm 44.2 (Vulgate, traditional version): ‘eructavit cor meum verbum bonum’.

[Editorial Note 32] Cf. Psalm 109.3 (Vulgate, traditional version): ‘Ex utero ante luciferum genui te’.

[Editorial Note 33] Cf. John 14.9.

[15] ✝ λόγος

[Editorial Note 34] Cf. John 14.10.

[Editorial Note 35] Cf. John 10.30.

[Editorial Note 36] Cf. Malachi 3.6.

[Editorial Note 37] Cf. Hebrews 13.8.

[Editorial Note 38] Cf. Hebrews 2.10.

[Editorial Note 39] Cf. John 10.15.

[16] ✝ i.e. returning to the heresy.

[Editorial Note 40] Cf. Proverbs 18.3 (Vulgate).

[Editorial Note 41] Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, 1.6.31-2.

[17] ✝ The Homousians were wont to attribute all opposition to motives of this kind. The Emperor was hostile to Eusebius (as you will soon hear), and scarcely spent more than four months at Nicomedia throughout this dispute.

[Editorial Note 42] Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, 1.6.33-4.

[Editorial Note 43] Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, bk. 1, ch. 6.

[18] In Acta 6 of the Second Nicene Council and Baronius under the year 318. 54.[Editorial Note 44]

[Editorial Note 44] Baronius, Annales Ecclesiastici (Lucca 1738-46), vol. 3, pp. 649-50..

[19] ✝ i.e. Envoys sent from their own number.

[20] ✝ A bad translation. Read in appearance[Editorial Note 45]

[Editorial Note 45] With ‘apparenter’ and the appropriate grammatical change, the sentence would begin: ‘He did not beget in appearance but in reality substituted …’

[21] ‡ ὁ ὤν γέγονε

[22] ✝ πως Τὸν ὄντα,

[Editorial Note 46] Sozomène, Histoire ecclésiastique, 1.15.11-12.

[23] Insert here the following Epistle of Arius.

[Editorial Note 47] Cf. Théodoret, Histoire ecclésiastique, 1.4.3.

[Editorial Note 48] Cf. Matthew 21.13.

[Editorial Note 49] Théodoret, Histoire ecclésiastique, 1.4.5.

[Editorial Note 50] Théodoret, Histoire ecclésiastique, 1.4.7-9.

[Editorial Note 51] Théodoret, Histoire ecclésiastique, 1.4.10 ff. (very much abbreviated).

[Editorial Note 52] Théodoret, Histoire ecclésiastique, 1.4.35-7.

[Editorial Note 53] Latin transliteration of Εξούκοντιοι, a ‘designation of Arians who held that the Son was created out of nothing’ (G.W.H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon [Oxford: Clarendon Press 1961]). Their name as given in Theodoret’s text is οἱ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων.

[24] περι ὧν ἡ κρίσις

[Editorial Note 54] ‘The judgement of whom…’

[Editorial Note 55] Théodoret, Histoire ecclésiastique, 1.4.59-60.

[Editorial Note 56] Newton explains this use of ‘Tome’ in f 13v.

[Editorial Note 57] Théodoret, Histoire ecclésiastique, 1.4.62.

[25] ✝ The following letter.

[Editorial Note 58] There seems to be a verb missing.

[26] ✝ This is found in Theodoret, bk. 1, ch. 4.[Editorial Note 59]

[Editorial Note 59] Cf. Théodoret, Histoire ecclésiastique, 1.4.10 ff.

[Editorial Note 60] With the following lines cf. f 12v-13r above.

[Editorial Note 61] Newton explains this use of ‘Tome’ in f 13v.

[27] In Epiphanius, Heresy 69 and Theodoritus, bk. 1, ch. 5.[Editorial Note 62]

[Editorial Note 62] Epiphanius, Panarion, Heresy 69.6 and Théodoret, Histoire ecclésiastique, 1.5.1-4. N. commonly spells the name ‘Theodoritus’.

[28] ✝ He seems to enumerate the Fathers who were gathered in the previous Synod, and says that they were condemned with an anathema, evidently in the council at Alexandria. But since he speaks of these things as not yet known to Eusebius, it is evident that Arius was driven from Alexandria not long after this sentence, and wrote this Epistle …

[Editorial Note 63] Usually now spelled ‘Berytus’, Beirut.

[Editorial Note 64] Cf. the quotation from Psalm 44.2 at f 9r. The Greek is erugē.

[Editorial Note 65] probolē in Greek; cf. ff. 1r and 2r.

[Editorial Note 66] Gk. sunagennētos.

[Editorial Note 67] Gk. ex hupokeimenou tinos.

[29] ✝ πλήρης θεὸς

[30] a He alludes to the martyr Lucian, Teacher of Eusebius and of some others who favoured Arius.

[31] b i.e. pious

[Editorial Note 68] Socrate, Histoire ecclésiastique, 1.6.41.

[Editorial Note 69] Cf. Epiphanius, Panarion, Heresy 69.4.3.

[Editorial Note 70] Cf. f 3r above.

[32] ‡ This is clear from the following letter

[33] ‡ Socrates, bk. 1, ch. 7[Editorial Note 71]

[Editorial Note 71] Socrate, Histoire ecclésiastique, 1.7.1.

[Editorial Note 72] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 2.61, 63.

[Editorial Note 73] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 2.67 ff. Eusebius, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 1, p. 516 ff. Newton excerpts.

[34] ✝ It is clear from this that this letter was not composed by Eusebius, as some think. And the Emperor seems to allude to Alexander’s accusations that Arius had said that the son was a mere man and mutable like the devil, etc.

[Editorial Note 74] Life of Constantine, 2.71.3.

[Editorial Note 75] Life of Constantine, 2.71.5.

[Editorial Note 76] Life of Constantine, 2.72.2.

[Editorial Note 77] Life of Constantine, 2.73.

[Editorial Note 78] This is Hosius, bishop of Cordova, according to Eusebius¸Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 1, p. 518, n. 1.

[Editorial Note 79] Cf. a similar passage above at f 12r.

[Editorial Note 80] Sozomen, Histoire ecclésiastique, 1.15.11-12.

[Editorial Note 81] Nicetas Choniates, Treasury of the Orthodox Faith, 5.4, 9. Cf. J.-P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 139, cols. 1365, 1369.

[35] ✝ In Theodoret, bk. 1, ch. 20

[Editorial Note 82] Théodoret, Histoire ecclésiastique, 1.20.1-2.

[Editorial Note 83] ‘consecraneus’, literally ‘co-religionist’.

[Editorial Note 84] Epiphanius, Panarion, Heresy 69.9.3.

[36] ✝ Baronius year 319, § 6[Editorial Note 85]

[Editorial Note 85] Baronius gives a marginal reference to Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, 1.6 in fin.

[37] Baronius , year 319 § 7. The same letter exists in Greek in Gelasius of Cyzicus[Editorial Note 86]

[Editorial Note 86] Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, year 319, § 15 in op. cit., vol. 4, p. 6.

[38] ✝ namely a statement of faith

[39] ✝ Up to this point the Emperor had simulated Arius speaking as if from the hidden meaning of his epistle; now he cites his actual words

[40] ✝ He is speaking of the internal intelligence of the father which Arius also called the λογὸν of the Father.

[41] ✝ The assumption of the whole man was not yet believed

[42] ✝ ὐσίαν

[Editorial Note 87] ‘[45] ὐσίαν.

[Editorial Note 88] Cf. Sulpice Sévère, Chroniques, ed. G. de Senneville-Grave, Sources chrétiennes (Paris : du Cerf 1999), 2.35.1 (pp. 306-7). This edition reads ‘iniecto errore’ for N`s ‘invecto errore’, with little or no change of meaning.

[Editorial Note 89] ‘the greater part of the inhabited world’.

[Editorial Note 90] Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 23, In Praise of Hero. This appears to be Oration 25.8 in Grégoire de Nazianze, Discours 20-23, ed. J. Mossay et G. Lafontaine, Sources chrétiennes (Paris: du Cerf 1980).

[Editorial Note 91] ‘the greater part of the church’; Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 20, In Praise of Basil. This appears to be Oration 43.30 in the edition of Mossay and Lafontaine.

[Editorial Note 92] In the following passage N. reproduces Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 21, In Praise of Athanasius, 7-8 (in the edition of Mossay and Lafontaine), with omissions.

[Editorial Note 93] Cf. Genesis 21.19.

[Editorial Note 94] Perhaps 1 Kings 17.1-7.

[Editorial Note 95] Cf. Genesis, chs. 18-19.

[Editorial Note 96] I take the four words ‘ad Marci Thronum evehitur’ here rather than after the insertion, in order to complete the sentence beginning ‘Sic igitur Athanasius’. This is also how the sentence runs in Gregory’s Greek.

[Editorial Note 97] ‘seized on the majority’.

[43] In Theodoret, bk. 1, ch. 20

[Editorial Note 98] Sozomène, Histoire ecclésiastique, 1.17.6.

[Editorial Note 99] Athanasius, Oration 1, Against the Arians is translated in Athanasius, Select Writings, Letters, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 4, pp. 306-43. Newton possessed two editions of the works of Athanasius (Harrison, 95, 96), but I have not seen either.

[Editorial Note 100] Athanasius, Against the Arian Heresy, page 251.

[Editorial Note 101] Athanasius, Oration 1, Against the Arians is translated in Athanasius, Select Writings, Letters, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 4, pp. 306-43.

[Editorial Note 102] Athanasius, Epistle Against the Arian Heresy.

[44] In Socrates, bk. 1, ch. 9[Editorial Note 103]

[Editorial Note 103] Socrate, Histoire ecclésiastique, 1.9.3.

[Editorial Note 104] Sozomène, Histoire ecclésiastique, 1.17.6.

[Editorial Note 105] Athanasius, Epistle against the Arian Heresy decr.

[Editorial Note 106] Ambrose, On the Faith, to Gratian, 3.15 in St. Ambrose, Select Works, Letters, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second series, vol. 10, p. 260.

[45] ✝ Athanasius, Epistle to those living a Solitary life, about the middle, page 387D. ‡ Hence Sulpicius, History, bk. 2, ch. 54 says that this Synod was convened on the initiative of Hosius.[Editorial Note 107]

[Editorial Note 107] The reference to Athanasius appears to be from Historia Arianorum ad monachos; cf. Athanasius, Selected Writings, Letters, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 4, p. 327. For the reference to Severus, cf. Sulpice Sévère, Chroniques, 2.40.2 (pp. 318-9).

[46] previous page. ‡ The Emperor was fond of Hosius and very much respected him, Socrates, bk. 1, ch. 7

[Editorial Note 108] Socrate, Histoire ecclésiastique, 1.24.1.

[Editorial Note 109] Théodoret, Histoire ecclésiastique, 1.21.

[Editorial Note 110] Athanasius, To those living a solitary life. Cf. Historia Arianorum ad monachos, 1.4 in J.-P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 25b, cols. 697-700.

[Editorial Note 111] Sozomène, Histoire ecclésiastique, 1.17.6.

[Editorial Note 112] Théodoret, Histoire ecclésiastique, 1.7.15.

[Editorial Note 113] ‘eye-witness’.

[Editorial Note 114] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 3.10.1.

[Editorial Note 115] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 3.10.3.

[Editorial Note 116] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 3.11.

[Editorial Note 117] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 3.12.

[Editorial Note 118] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 3.13.

[Editorial Note 119] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 3.14.

[Editorial Note 120] Rufinus, Church History, Books 10 and 11, tr. Amidon, 10.2 (pp. 9-10).

[Editorial Note 121] ‘stumbling-block’; cf. 1 Corinthians 1.23, etc.

[Editorial Note 122] Newton indicates in f 29r that he is taking this letter of Eusebius from Athanasius. This appears to be De decretis Nicaenae synodi. The letter is translated from this source in Athanasius, Selected Writings, Letters, (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series), vol. 4, pp. 74-6. There are other version of the letter in Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, 1.8.37 ff. and elsewhere.

[Editorial Note 123] this sentence is incomplete; The translation in N&P-NF reads: ‘so believing also at the time present, we report to you our faith, and it is this:’ A page or so of the letter is then missing.

[Editorial Note 124] Newton resumes at § 5 of the Letter of Eusebius (N&P-NF, p. 75), but the sentence lacks a beginning, and I have supplied the word ‘As’ from p. 75 of the translation

[Editorial Note 125] Letter, § 7.

[47] a. See Baronius under the year 325, §8.

[48] b. Socrates puts the beginning at 11 days before the Kalends of June.

[Editorial Note 126] Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, 1.11.3-7.

[Editorial Note 127] Philostorgius, A Church History, trans. Philip R. Amidon (Atlanta, GA: Society for Biblical Literature, 2007), 1.9a (p. 13); Rufinus, Church History, trans. Philip R. Amidon, 10.5 (p. 13); Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, 1.20.2; Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, 1.8.33.

[Editorial Note 128] This appears to be Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, 1.9.6.

[Editorial Note 129] Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, 1.20.2.

[49] In Theodoret[Editorial Note 130]

[Editorial Note 130] Cf. Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, 1.20.8-9, 10.

[Editorial Note 131] Philostorgius, Ecclesiastical History, 1.10; cf. Philostorgius, Church History, trans. Amidon, p. 13.

[50] ✝ ὑπὸ τῶν καθ᾽ ἑκάστην πόλιν ἀπεκηρύχθησαν Papa Julius in Athanasius, Apol. 2 page 742.

[Editorial Note 132] Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, 2.32.

[51] In Socrates bk. 1, ch. 9.[Editorial Note 133]

[Editorial Note 133] Socrate, Histoire ecclésiastique, 1.9.30-1.

[52] ✝ This Porphyry had been exiled by Constantine, and was still alive; and not much later at the time when he sent an elegantly written book to Constantine, {seeking to be} reca{lled} from exile …’.

[53] Sozomen, bk. 1, ch. 21[Editorial Note 134]

[Editorial Note 134] Sozomène, Histoire ecclésiastique, 1.21.4.

[54] ✝ Eusebius Artemius martyr under Julian. Jerome, Ammianus, Orosius, Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, and others in Baronius under the year 324

[Editorial Note 135] Cf. Jones, Constantine and the Conversion of Europe, (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1948), pp. 243-47.

[55] a Pagans in Sozomen, bk. 1, ch. 5[Editorial Note 136]

[Editorial Note 136] Sozomène, Histoire ecclésiastique, 1.5.

[56] b Eutropius, bk. 10[Editorial Note 137]

[Editorial Note 137] Eutropius, Breviarium, 10.6.

[Editorial Note 138] Sozomène, Histoire ecclésiastique, 1.5.2.

[Editorial Note 139] the MS says 425, but this must be an error; N. presumably meant 325.

[Editorial Note 140] Celebrating the twentieth year of Constantine’s reign.

[Editorial Note 141] Newton possessed Antiquae historiae ex XXVII authoribus contextae libri VI … D. Gothofredi opera (Lugduni 1590-91). Harrison 52.

[Editorial Note 142] Newton crossed through both ‘probabile and verisimile’ (‘probable’, ‘likely’), but some such adjective is grammatically necessary here to complete the sentence.

[Editorial Note 143] Cf. Yahuda 2.3, f 35r.

[57] Sidonius, bk. 5, Epistle 8.[Editorial Note 144]

[Editorial Note 144] Sidonius Apollinaris, Epistles, bk. 5, ep. 8, sect. 2.

[58] Baronius under the year 324, § 35.[Editorial Note 145]

[Editorial Note 145] Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, year 324, § 35 in op. cit., vol. 4, p. 41.

[59] a Baronius, under the year 324, § 17, 19, 27, 35.

[60] b Michael Glycas, History, bk. 4[Editorial Note 146]

[Editorial Note 146] Cf. J.-P. Migne, Patrologia Gaeca, vol. 158, col. 248.

[61] c Zosimus, bk. 2.[Editorial Note 147]

[Editorial Note 147] Cf. Zosime, Histoire nouvelle, ed. F. Paschoud, 4 vols. (Paris: Les belles lettres 1971-89), 2.29.

[62] d Sozomen, bk. 1, ch. 5.[Editorial Note 148]

[Editorial Note 148] Sozomène, Histoire ecclésiastique, 1.5.1.

[Editorial Note 149] Roman priests; see Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd edn. by S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth (Oxford 2003), p. 599, sv flamines.

[Editorial Note 150] Or ‘Haruspices’. Diviners of Etruscan origin; see Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd. edn., p. 667-8, sv haruspices.

[63] See the epistle of Constantine in Socrates, bk. 1, ch. 9[Editorial Note 151]

[Editorial Note 151] Cf. Socrate, Histoire ecclésiastique 1.9.23, 25.

© 2017 The Newton Project

Professor Rob Iliffe
Director, AHRC Newton Papers Project

Scott Mandelbrote,
Fellow & Perne librarian, Peterhouse, Cambridge

Faculty of History, George Street, Oxford, OX1 2RL - newtonproject@history.ox.ac.uk

Privacy Statement

  • University of Oxford
  • Arts and Humanities Research Council
  • JISC