Church History 1

The following is contained in the first volume of Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History, Book I:

Whence the heresy of the Arians took its beginning

A list of the leading bishops

Letter of Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, to Alexander, bishop of Constantinople

Letter of Arius to Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia

Letter of Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, to Paulinus, bishop of Tyre

The events concerning the great council held at Nicaea

A refutation of those who Arianize, drawn from the writings of the great Eustathius and of Athanasius

The events concerning Meletius the Egyptian, from whom the Meletian schismatics have persisted to the present, and a synodal letter concerning this

Letter of the emperor Constantine to the bishops who had been absent, concerning the decrees enacted at the council

Concerning the provisions of grain granted to the churches, and the emperor's other acts of virtue

Letter of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, concerning the faith set forth at Nicaea

A refutation of the Arians who now blaspheme, drawn from the writings of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea

Concerning the death of Arius, from the letter of Athanasius

Letter of the emperor Constantine concerning the building of the churches

Another letter of the same, concerning the preparation of the divine Scriptures

Another letter of the same to Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, concerning the building of the divine temple

Concerning Helena, mother of the emperor Constantine, and the finding of the precious wood of the cross, and her zeal for the building of the divine temple

Concerning the unlawful transfer of Eusebius from Nicomedia to Constantinople

Letter of the emperor Constantine against Eusebius and Theognis, written to the people of Nicomedia

Concerning the conspiracy formed by Eusebius and those with him against the holy Eustathius, bishop of Antioch

Concerning the heretical bishops appointed at Antioch after the departure of the holy Eustathius

Concerning the guidance of the Iberians toward piety

Letter of the emperor Constantine to Shapur, king of the Persians

Concerning the plot contrived against the holy Athanasius

Letter of the emperor Constantine to the Alexandrians

Another plot against Athanasius

Letter of the emperor Constantine to the council

Concerning the council held at Tyre, and the plot contrived there against the blessed Athanasius through the notorious affair of Arsenius's hand

Concerning the dedication ceremonies held at Jerusalem, and the exile of the great Athanasius

Concerning the testament of the blessed emperor Constantine

A defense on behalf of the emperor

Concerning the death of the emperor

But writers of history, using books instead of panels and the flowers of words instead of colors, make the memory of deeds more enduring and more lasting;

for time mars the art of painters

For this reason, then, I too shall attempt to write down what remains of ecclesiastical history;

for I did not think it holy to overlook the glory of most splendid deeds and profitable narratives being carried off by oblivion

Indeed, for this very reason some of my acquaintances have often urged me on to this labor;

but I, weighing this task against my own ability, shrink from the undertaking; yet, trusting in the generous Giver of good things, I attempt matters greater than my own capacity

Eusebius of Palestine, then, beginning his history from the holy apostles down to the God-beloved reign of Constantine, wrote down the events that had befallen the churches;

and I shall make the end of that work the beginning of my own history

When those unholy and impious tyrants were overthrown - I mean Maxentius and Maximinus and Licinius - the storm of the Church was calmed, which those accursed men had stirred up like so many tempests, and thereafter she enjoyed a steady calm, the perverse winds having ceased

And Constantine, the all-glorious emperor, who, not from men nor through man but from heaven, according to the divine apostle, obtained this calling, provided this calm for her

for he enacted laws, forbidding sacrifice to idols, and enjoining that churches be built;

and he set over the nations rulers adorned with the faith, commanding that the priests be honored, and threatening destruction to those who ventured to insult them

Then indeed some raised up again the churches that had been destroyed, while others built other churches yet more spacious and splendid

While these things were thus being done, our affairs were full of dancing and gladness, but the affairs of our adversaries were full of dejection and despondency

for the precincts of the idols were shut up, while in the churches feasts and festal assemblies were frequently celebrated

But the all-wicked and envious demon, the destroyer of mankind, could not bear to see the Church borne along by favorable winds, but set in motion his evil-devising counsels, striving to sink the vessel that was piloted by the Maker and Lord of all

He saw that the Greek error had become manifest and the various devices of the demons exposed, and that creation was no longer worshiped by most people, but that the Maker was hymned in its stead

For this reason he no longer openly kindled war against God our Savior, but finding men who had been deemed worthy of the Christian name, yet were enslaved to ambition and vainglory, he made these men instruments of his own devices;

and through them he led many back into the former error, not by causing creation to be worshiped again, but by contriving that the Maker and Creator be ranked together with creation

Where he began, and how he sowed the tares, I shall now relate

Alexandria is a very great and populous city, entrusted with governance not only over the Egyptians but also over the Thebans and the Libyans bordering Egypt

After that victorious contender Peter, who under the impious tyrants bound upon himself the crown of martyrdom, Achillas held the helm of this church for a short time, and after him Alexander, who became a noble champion of the doctrines of the gospel

At this time Arius, enrolled among the presbyters and entrusted with the exposition of the divine Scriptures, seeing Alexander entrusted with the helm of the high priesthood, could not bear the assault of envy, but, goaded by it, sought occasions for strife and conflict

and though beholding the man's praiseworthy manner of life, he was unable even to weave a false accusation, yet envy nonetheless prevented him from keeping quiet

Through him the Adversary stirred up and set in motion the storm of the Church;

for he persuaded him to openly oppose the apostolic teachings of Alexander

And he (Alexander), following the divine oracles, said that the Son was of equal honor with the Father and possessed the same substance as the God who had begotten him;

but Arius, contending directly against the truth, called him a creature and a thing made, and added the phrase 'there was once when he was not', and the other things which we shall learn more clearly from his own writings

And he continued to say these things not only in church, but also in outside gatherings and assemblies, and going about the houses he enslaved as many as he was able

Alexander, the advocate of the apostolic doctrines, at first tried to change his mind through exhortations and counsels;

but when he saw him raving like a Corybant and openly proclaiming his impiety, he expelled him from the ranks of the priesthood

for he had heard the divine law crying out:

If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and cast it from you

At this time Sylvester held the reins of the church of the Romans, having succeeded Miltiades, who had received ordination to the high priesthood after Marcellinus, who had distinguished himself in the persecution;

and in Antioch, after Tyrannus, when the peace of the churches had begun, Vitalis took up the leadership, and he rebuilt the church in the Old Quarter that had been destroyed by the tyrants;

and after him Philogonius, taking up the presidency, both added what remained to the building and displayed his zeal for piety in the times of Licinius

and the church at Jerusalem, after Hermon, was entrusted to Macarius, a man whose name suited him well (that is, blessed), adorned with virtues of every kind

At this same time, Alexander was deemed worthy of the high-priestly ministry of Constantinople, being resplendent with apostolic gifts.

Then Alexander, bishop of the Alexandrians, seeing that Arius was possessed by the frenzy of ambition for power, gathering together those whom he had taken captive by his blasphemy and forming assemblies of his own, made known this man's blasphemy by letters to the leaders of the churches.

I shall insert into this history the letter written to his namesake, which clearly sets forth all that concerns that man, so that no one may suppose that I am inventing these things in writing them;

and after this one, that of Arius himself, and after that the others which the narrative of the history requires, so that they may bear witness to the truth of this account and teach more clearly what took place.

Now Alexander, bishop of the Alexandrians, writes the following to his namesake:

To the most honored brother and like-minded Alexander, Alexander sends greetings in the Lord.

The power-loving and money-loving purpose of wicked men is ever wont to plot against those parishes that seem greater, such men attacking the piety of the Church under various pretexts.

For being goaded on by the devil working in them, and leaping away from all reverence toward the pleasure set before them, they trample underfoot the fear of God's judgment.

Concerning these matters it was necessary for me, who have suffered, to make this known to your reverence, so that you may be on your guard against such men, lest any of them dare to invade your parishes as well — either in person (for these deceivers are skilled at feigning deception), or through letters deceitfully embellished, which are able to snatch away one who has given heed with simple and unmixed faith.

Arius and Achillas, then, having recently formed a conspiracy, have emulated the ambition for power of Colluthus, far worse than he did.

For the one, by bringing charges against these very men, found in that a pretext for his own wicked policy;

while the others, beholding his trafficking in Christ, no longer had patience to remain subject to the Church, but building for themselves dens of robbers, hold unceasing assemblies in them, training themselves night and day in slanders against Christ and against us.

They have organized a Christ-fighting workshop, denying the deity of our Savior and proclaiming him to be equal to all, and, culling out every saying that speaks of his saving dispensation and of the humiliation he underwent for our sake, they endeavor from these to gather together the preaching of their own impiety, while turning away from the words that speak of his deity from the beginning and of his unutterable glory with the Father.

Thus, by confirming the impious opinion of the Greeks and Jews concerning Christ, they hunt after praise from them as much as possible, contriving everything at which they mock us, and daily stirring up against us seditions and persecutions;

on the one hand convening courts of law through the petitions of disorderly little women whom they have deceived, and on the other hand bringing Christianity into disrepute by having their young women run indecently through every street.

Nay, they have even dared to rend the seamless tunic of Christ, which even the executioners did not resolve to divide.

We, then, having only slowly come to perceive what befits both their manner of life and their unholy undertaking, since it lay hidden, have with unanimous vote expelled them from the Church that worships the deity of Christ.

They have attempted, by making the rounds against us, to make approaches to our fellow-ministers who share their opinion, under the pretense of a claim to peace and unity, but in truth striving through fair speech to seize some of them for their own sickness, and asking from them more eloquent letters, so that by reading these aloud to those whom they have deceived, they might render them impenitent in the errors into which they have fallen, grinding them down further into impiety, as though they had bishops who agreed with and shared their opinion.

Now they do not confess to them the things which they wickedly taught and did among us, on account of which they were also expelled;

but they either pass these matters over in silence, or, obscuring them with fabricated words and documents, they practice deception.

Thus, concealing their corrupting doctrine with plausible and buffoonish talk, they ensnare whoever is inclined toward deception, and they do not refrain from slandering our piety before everyone;

hence it also happens that some, by subscribing to their letters, are received into the church — an act which, I think, brings the gravest reproach upon those fellow-ministers who dare to do this, since the apostolic canon does not permit it, but rather kindles further the devil's activity against Christ that is at work in them.

'For God,' they say, 'made all things out of what did not exist,' thereby classing the Son of God together with the creation of all rational and irrational beings.

Consistently with this they also say that he is of a mutable nature, capable of virtue and of vice, and by their supposition of 'from what did not exist' they at the same time destroy the divine Scriptures which signify that he always is, and which indicate the immutability of the Word and the deity of the Wisdom of the Word, which is Christ.

'For we too,' say these accursed men, 'are able to become sons of God, just as he did.'

But when the saying that follows next is brought against them, 'yet they rejected me,' which does not properly apply to the Savior, who is of an immutable nature, they, having stripped themselves of all reverence, say that God, knowing this of him beforehand by foreknowledge and foresight — that he would not reject him — chose him out from all.

For not because he possessed by nature something distinctive beyond the other sons (for, they say, no one is a son of God by nature, nor does anyone possess any peculiar relation to him), but because, though he too was of a mutable nature, by diligence of character and by discipline he did not turn to the worse — for this God chose him;

so that, even if Paul or Peter should strive to attain this, that one's sonship would differ in nothing from theirs.

And, doing outrage to the Scriptures, they cite the saying in the Psalms concerning Christ, which runs thus:

You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity;

therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions.

Now concerning the fact that the Son of God neither came into being out of what did not exist, nor was there ever a time when he was not, John the Evangelist is sufficient to instruct us, writing thus concerning him:

the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.

For the divine teacher, taking care to show that the two, the Father and the Son, are inseparable from one another, named him as being in the bosom of the Father.

Moreover, that the Word of God is not numbered together with the things that came into being out of what did not exist, this same John declares, saying that all things came into being through him.

For he made clear his unique and distinctive existence, saying:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.

For if all things came into being through him, how could he who granted being to the things that came to be himself ever not have been? For the Word, that which makes, is by no means defined as being of the same nature as the things that are made;

since he himself was in the beginning, while all things came into being through him, and he made them out of what did not exist.

For that which is seems to stand in opposition, and to be exceedingly removed from, the things that came into being out of what did not exist.

For on the one hand, it is shown that there is no interval whatsoever between the Father and the Son, nor is the soul able even to imagine such a thing to any degree by any conception;

while on the other hand the world's being created out of what did not exist has a more recent and newly-originated existence, all things having received such coming-into-being from the Father through the Son.

Perceiving, then, that the 'was' of the Word of God stretches far beyond and transcends the comprehension of created beings, the most reverent John deemed it unworthy to speak of his generation and making, not even daring to name, by kindred syllables, the maker in the same terms as the things made — not because he was unbegotten (for the Father alone is unbegotten), but because the ineffable existence of the only-begotten God lies beyond even the refined comprehension of the evangelists, and perhaps even of the angels.

I do not consider those who dare to inquire even into such matters as belonging among the pious, because of their disregard of the saying, 'Seek not what is too hard for you, nor examine what is too high for you.'

For if the knowledge of many other things, incomparably lesser than this, is hidden from human comprehension (such as is found in Paul, who says:

'things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, and which have not entered into the heart of man, which God has prepared for those who love him'; while God also tells Abraham that not even the stars can be numbered, and again, 'who,' it says, 'shall number the sand of the seas and the drops of rain?') — how then could anyone pry curiously into the existence of the Word of God, unless he happened to be seized by a melancholic disposition? Concerning this the prophetic spirit says:

'Who shall declare his generation?' And this very knowledge our Savior himself, in doing good to those who are the pillars of all in the world, was careful to unburden them of, saying that it is unnatural for all of them to attain comprehension of it, but that the knowledge of this most divine mystery belongs to the Father alone;

saying, 'For no one knows who the Son is except the Father;'

'and no one has known the Father except the Son.'

concerning which, I think, the Father also says, 'My mystery is for me.'

That it is madness to hold the view that the Son came into being out of what did not exist is shown directly by the fact that the phrase 'out of what did not exist' has a temporal implication, even though these senseless men are ignorant of the madness of their own expression.

For the phrase 'he was not' must belong either within the sphere of times, or within some interval of an age.

If, then, it is true that all things came into being through him, it is clear that every age also, and time, and intervals, and the 'once' in which 'he was not' is found, came into being through him.

And how is it not absurd to say that he who made the very times and ages and seasons in which 'he was not' is embedded, himself once did not exist? For it is inconceivable, and full of every kind of ignorance, to say that the cause of a thing's coming into being is himself later than the coming-into-being of that thing.

They are compelled to set that interval, in which they claim the Son had not yet been begotten by the Father, prior even to the Wisdom of God that creates all things — with the result that, on their view, the Scripture which proclaims him to be 'firstborn of all creation' is shown to be false.

In harmony with these things, the most eloquent Paul also cries out, saying concerning him:

'whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the ages'; and further, 'in him all things were created, things in the heavens and things on the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether principalities, or authorities, or dominions, or thrones;'

'all things were created through him and for him;'

'and he is before all things.'

Since, then, the supposition of 'out of what did not exist' has proven to be most impious, it is necessary that the Father always be Father;

and he is Father with the Son always present, on account of whom he is called Father;

and since the Son is always present with him, the Father is always perfect, lacking nothing in what is good, having begotten the only-begotten Son neither temporally, nor from an interval, nor out of what did not exist.

What then? Is it not unholy to say that the Wisdom of God did not once exist — that Wisdom which says:

'I was beside him, fitting together; I was the one in whom he delighted'? Or that the Power of God once did not exist, or that his Word was ever mutilated, or any of the other things by which the Son is known and the Father is characterized? For to say that the radiance of glory did not exist likewise abolishes the original light of which it is the radiance.

And if the image of God did not always exist, it is clear that neither does he whose image it is exist always either.

Moreover, by the non-existence of the express image of God's substance, that one also who is altogether characterized by it is likewise abolished.

From this it is possible to see that the sonship of our Savior has no communion whatsoever with the sonship of others.

For just as his ineffable existence has been shown to be, by incomparable pre-eminence, exalted above all those to whom he himself granted being, so also his sonship, being by nature of the Father's deity, differs by an unspeakable pre-eminence from those who have been adopted as sons through him by position.

For he is of an immutable nature, being perfect and lacking in nothing whatsoever;

But those who are subject to change in either direction have need of his help.

For what advance could the Wisdom of God make, or what could the Truth itself gain by acquisition? Or how could God the Word, or Life, or the true Light be improved? But if this is so, how much more unnatural would it be for Wisdom ever to become receptive of folly, or for the Power of God to be entangled with weakness, or for the Word to be darkened by unreason, or for darkness to be mingled with the true Light — since the Apostle plainly says, "What fellowship has light with darkness, or what agreement has Christ with Belial?", and Solomon says that it would be impossible even in thought to discover "the ways of a serpent upon a rock", which according to Paul is Christ. But those who are his creatures, both men and angels, have received the blessing of being able to advance by exercising themselves in the virtues and by keeping the lawful commandments, so as not to sin.

Therefore our Lord, being by nature Son of the Father, is worshipped by all;

while those who have put off the spirit of bondage, having received through valorous deeds and advancement the spirit of adoption, become themselves sons by adoption, being benefited through him who is Son by nature.

Now Paul thus declared his genuine, distinctive, natural, and preeminent sonship, speaking concerning God:

"He who did not spare his own Son, but delivered him up for us" — that is, for us who are not sons by nature.

For in contrast to those who are not his own, he declared him to be his own Son.

"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

And in the Psalms the Savior says:

revealing his genuineness, signifying that there are no other genuine sons of his besides himself.

And what of "From the womb, before the morning star, I begot you"? Does this not directly indicate a natural sonship arising from the Father's begetting — a sonship obtained not by diligence of conduct nor by exercise in advancement, but as the property of nature? Wherefore the only-begotten Son of the Father possesses a sonship that cannot fall away.

But Scripture knows the adoption of rational beings — not existing in them by nature, but by fitness of character and by the gift of God — to be also subject to change;

for "the sons of God, seeing the daughters of men, took wives for themselves", and so on;

and we have been taught, through Isaiah, that God said: "I begot sons and exalted them, but they set me at naught."

Though I have much to say, beloved, I pass it over, deeming it burdensome to remind teachers of like mind at greater length.

For you yourselves are taught by God, and are not ignorant that the teaching which has lately risen up against the piety of the Church is that of Ebion and Artemas, and a rivalry of Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, who was excommunicated from the Church by the synod and judgment of the bishops everywhere;

whom Lucian succeeded, remaining excommunicated for the lengthy years of three bishops' terms.

Having drunk deep of the dregs of their impiety, there have now sprung up among us those who are "out of things that are not" — the hidden offshoots of that stock — namely Arius and Achillas, and the assembly of those who along with them do wickedness.

and I know not how it is that three bishops ordained in Syria, by giving their assent to them, stir things further toward the worse; concerning whom let the judgment be left to your own examination;

who, keeping in memory only those sayings concerning the Savior's saving passion, humiliation, and self-emptying, and his so-called poverty, and the acquired expressions which the Savior assumed for our sake, cite them so as to deny his supreme and primordial Godhead, but have become forgetful of the words that signify his natural glory and nobility and his abiding with the Father;

such as, "I and the Father are one."

This the Lord says, not proclaiming himself to be the Father, nor clarifying that the two natures distinct in hypostasis are one, but because the Son of the Father by nature precisely preserves the likeness of the Father, having impressed from nature a likeness to him in all things, being the unvarying image of the Father and the exact impress of the archetype.

Wherefore also the Lord unstintingly reveals himself to Philip, who at that time desired to see him; to him, when he said, "Show us the Father", he says:

"He who has seen me has seen the Father" — the Father being beheld, as it were, through a spotless and living divine image of himself.

Something like this the most holy men also say in the Psalms:

"In your light we shall see light."

Wherefore also he who honors the Son honors the Father, and rightly so;

for every impious word dared against the Son has its reference back to the Father.

And what wonder is it any longer, beloved, if I am about to set forth what I shall write — the false slanders leveled against me and against our most devout people? For those who have arrayed themselves against the Godhead of the Son of God do not refrain even from uttering thankless insults against us;

they who do not even deign to compare themselves with any of the ancients, nor endure to be reckoned equal to the teachers with whom we associated from childhood; nay, they do not even consider any of the fellow-ministers now serving everywhere to attain the measure of wisdom, calling themselves alone wise, and possessionless, and discoverers of doctrines, and saying that to them alone has been revealed what has never come to the understanding of any other under the sun.

O unholy arrogance, and immoderate madness, and vain melancholic delusion of glory, and satanic disposition, that has hardened into their unholy souls!

Neither has the God-loving clarity of the ancient Scriptures shamed them, nor has the harmonious reverence of our fellow-ministers concerning Christ dimmed their audacity against him.

an impiety which not even the demons would endure, taking care not to utter a blasphemous word against the Son of God.

Let these things, then, according to our present ability, be set forth by us in reply to those who, with untutored matter, have raised a dust-cloud against Christ, and have set themselves to slander our piety toward him.

untutored men, either thinking that he is out of things that are not, or altogether speaking of two unbegottens;

these unpracticed men not knowing how great a distance there would be between the unbegotten Father and the things created by him out of things that are not, both rational and irrational —

between which the only-begotten nature mediates, through whom the Father made all things out of things that are not; and this nature of the Word of God has been begotten out of the Father who truly is;

as the Lord himself also testified somewhere, saying:

"He who loves the Father loves also the Son who was begotten of him."

Concerning these matters we believe thus, as seems good to the apostolic Church:

in one only unbegotten Father, who has no cause of his being, unchangeable and unalterable, ever in the same state and in the same manner, admitting neither advance nor diminution, the Giver of the Law and the Prophets and the Gospels, Lord of the patriarchs and apostles and all the saints;

and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten not out of that which is not but out of the Father who is, not after the manner of bodies, by cuttings or by effluxes from divisions, as Sabellius and Valentinus suppose, but ineffably and inexplicably, according to him who said, as we have cited above:

"Who shall declare his generation?" His hypostasis is incomprehensible to all created nature, just as the Father himself is incomprehensible, because the nature of rational beings cannot contain knowledge of the Father's divine generation.

These things men moved by the Spirit of truth need not learn from me, since the very word of Christ concerning this, already spoken, resounds in our ears and teaches:

"No one knows who the Father is, except the Son";

"and no one knows who the Son is, except the Father."

We have learned that he is unchangeable and unalterable, like the Father, a Son without need and perfect, resembling the Father, falling short of him only in this alone — that he is not unbegotten.

for he is the precise and unvarying image of the Father.

For it is clear that the image is full of all those things by which the greater likeness consists, as the Lord himself taught, saying, "My Father is greater than I."

And accordingly we also believe that the Son always exists from the Father;

for he is the radiance of glory and the express image of the Father's hypostasis.

But let no one take the word "always" as implying "unbegotten", as those suppose whose spiritual senses have grown dull;

for neither "was", nor "always", nor "before the ages" is the same as "unbegotten".

Nor indeed does whatever term human thought may endeavor to coin signify the unbegotten (as I believe you too so understand it, and I have confidence in the upright disposition of you all), since none of these terms signify the unbegotten in any way.

For these words seem, as it were, to be but an extension of periods of time, unable to signify in a manner worthy of him the Godhead, and as it were the antiquity, of the Only-begotten; while the holy men, straining as each was able to make the mystery manifest, sought pardon from their hearers through a reasonable apology, by saying:

"But if the men expect something greater than what can be uttered through human lips, saying that what they have known in part shall be done away" — it is clear that "was" and "always" and "before the ages" fall far short of what is hoped for;

but whatever it may be, it is not the same as "unbegotten".

Therefore the dignity proper to the unbegotten Father must be preserved, saying that no one is the cause of his being;

and to the Son must be assigned the honor that is fitting, attributing to him the beginningless generation from the Father;

and just as we have already offered him reverence, only piously and reverently saying of him "was" and "always" and "before the ages", yet not thereby renouncing his Godhead, but attributing to him in every respect an exact likeness to the image and impress of the Father, and glorifying the "unbegotten" as belonging to the Father alone as his sole property — inasmuch as the Savior himself also declared:

"My Father is greater than I."

so the divine Scriptures teach us. We confess one Holy Spirit, who renewed both the holy men of the Old Testament and the divine instructors of that which is called the New;

one and only catholic apostolic Church, ever indestructible even should the whole world resolve to war against her, and victorious over every most impious uprising of the heterodox, its Master rendering us of good courage by crying out:

"Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world."

After this we know the resurrection from the dead, of which our Lord Jesus Christ became the firstfruits, having truly borne a body — and not in mere appearance — from Mary the Theotokos, having sojourned among the human race at the consummation of the ages for the abolition of sin, crucified and having died, yet not thereby having become inferior to his own Godhead; having risen from the dead, having been taken up into the heavens, sitting at the right hand of the Majesty.

These things I have set down in part in this letter, considering it burdensome, as I have said, to write out each point with precision, since these matters have not escaped your sacred diligence.

These things we teach, these we proclaim, these are the apostolic doctrines of the Church, for which we also die, giving little heed to those who would compel us to abjure them, even should they force us through torments, not turning away from the hope that is in them.

Having set themselves in opposition to these, those around Arius and Achillas, and the enemies of the truth along with them, have been thrust out from the Church, having become alien to our pious teaching, according to the blessed Paul who says:

"If anyone preaches to you a gospel other than that which you received, let him be accursed", even should he pretend to be an angel from heaven; "but if anyone teaches otherwise, and does not consent to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and to the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up, knowing nothing", and so forth.

Therefore let none of you receive these men who have been anathematized by the brotherhood, nor tolerate what is said or written by them.

For imposters lie in all things; they will never speak the truth.

For they go about the cities, intent on nothing else than, under the pretext of friendship and the name of peace, through hypocrisy and flattery, to give and receive letters, so as thereby to deceive the few silly women laden with sins whom they have beguiled — and so forth.

These men, then, who have dared such things against Christ — who have publicly held Christianity up to scorn, and who are ambitious to make a show of themselves in the courts, who have stirred up persecution against us in time of peace so far as lies in them, who have emasculated the ineffable mystery of the birth of Christ — turning away from these men, beloved and like-minded brothers, join in condemning their frenzied audacity, after the manner of our fellow-ministers who were indignant and wrote to me against them and subscribed together to the document.

These I have also sent to you by my son Apis the deacon — to all Egypt and the Thebaid, and also to Libya and Pentapolis and Syria, and further to Lycia and Pamphylia, Asia, Cappadocia, and the other neighboring regions.

I trust that I shall receive a similar response from you also.

For since many remedies have been provided by me for those who have been harmed, this too has been found to be a healing medicine for the people deceived by them, since they yield to the agreement of our fellow-ministers and are eager thereby to come to repentance.

Greet one another, together with the brotherhood that is with you.

I pray that you fare well in the Lord, beloved.

May I have joy of your Christ-loving souls.

and to others, as many as were advocates of the apostolic doctrines.

But Arius too did not endure to keep quiet.

He too wrote to those whom he considered to be of like mind with him.

And that the divine Alexander wrote nothing false against him, Arius himself has testified in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia.

I shall insert this letter also into my history, that I may make manifest to those who do not know them the partners of his impiety.

To my most longed-for lord, man of God, faithful, orthodox Eusebius, Arius, unjustly persecuted by Alexander the Pope for the sake of that all-conquering truth which you also champion, greeting in the Lord.

Since my father Ammonius is coming to Nicomedia, it seemed fitting and owed to greet you through him, and at the same time to remind you of your innate love and disposition, which you hold toward the brothers for the sake of God and his Christ — because the bishop greatly ravages and persecutes us and moves every rope against us, so as even to drive us out of the city as godless men, since we do not agree with him when he publicly says:

'The Son co-exists with God without having a beginning; he is ever-begotten; he is begotten in an unbegotten manner.'

'Neither in conception nor by the smallest interval of time does God precede the Son.'

'The Son is from God himself.'

And because your brother Eusebius who is at Caesarea, and Theodotus, and Paulinus, and Athanasius, and Gregory, and Aetius, and all those throughout the East, say that God pre-exists the Son without beginning, they have been anathematized — except only Philogonius and Hellanicus and Macarius, heretical, uncatechized men, who say of the Son, some that he is an 'eructation,' others a 'projection,' others 'co-unbegotten.'

And these impieties we cannot even bear to hear, even if the heretics threaten us with ten thousand deaths.

But what do we say and think, and have taught and do teach? That the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way a part of the Unbegotten, nor derived from any substrate, but that by will and counsel he subsisted before times and before ages, perfect God, only-begotten, unchangeable.

And before he was begotten, or created, or determined, or established, he was not.

The Son has a beginning, but God is without beginning.

For this reason we are persecuted, and because we said that he is from things that are not.

And we said this because he is neither a part of God nor derived from any substrate.

I pray that you fare well in the Lord, mindful of our afflictions, truly fellow-Lucianist Eusebius. Of those enumerated by him, Eusebius was bishop of Caesarea, Theodotus of Laodicea, Paulinus of Tyre, Athanasius of Anazarbus, Gregory of Berytus, and Aetius of Lydda.

Arius, then, boasted of having these men in agreement with him.

But he called his opponents Philogonius, the president of the church of Antioch, and Hellanicus of Tripolis, and Macarius of Jerusalem, weaving slanders against them, because they declared the Son to be eternal and pre-existent before the ages, and of equal honor and consubstantial with the Father.

Having received this letter, Eusebius too vomited forth his own impiety.

He writes thus to Paulinus, the leader of the church of the Tyrians:

To my lord Paulinus, Eusebius, greeting in the Lord.

Neither has the zeal of my lord Eusebius on behalf of the true word been passed over in silence, but has reached even to us; nor has your silence on this matter, my lord.

And, as was fitting, we rejoiced over my lord Eusebius, but we grieve over you, reckoning that the silence of such a man is a defeat for us.

Wherefore I entreat you, knowing that it is unbecoming for a prudent man to think one thing and keep silent about the truth, to stir up your mind in spirit and begin to write concerning this matter — a thing profitable both for yourself and for those who hear you, especially when you are willing to write in accordance with Scripture and following the traces of its words and its intentions.

Nor have we learned or believed, my lord, that he has undergone any bodily experience, but that there is one who is Unbegotten, and one who has truly come into being by him and not from his essence, in no way partaking of the unbegotten nature, or being of his essence, but having come into being wholly other in nature and in power, brought into perfect likeness of disposition and power to him who made him.

We believe that his origin is not only indescribable in word, but incomprehensible in thought — not only to men, but to all beings that are above men.

And we say these things, not putting forward our own reasonings, but having learned them from Holy Scripture.

We have learned that he is created, and founded, and begotten in essence, in his unchangeable and ineffable nature, and in his likeness to him who made him — as the Lord himself says:

'The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways, and before the age he founded me;'

'and before all the hills he begets me.'

But if he were 'of him,' that is, from him, as though a part of him or by an emanation of his essence, he could no longer be said to be created or founded.

Nor are you yourself, my lord, truly ignorant of this.

For that which exists from the Unbegotten could no longer be said to be created — either by another or by himself — or founded, since it exists as unbegotten from the beginning.

But if the fact of his being called 'begotten' furnishes any suggestion that he has come into being from the essence of the Father, and thereby possesses identity of nature, we know that Scripture speaks of 'begotten' not of him alone, but also of those who are in every way unlike him in nature.

For indeed it says also of men:

'I have begotten and reared sons, but they have rejected me,' and 'You have forsaken the God who begot you' — and in other places:

'Who,' it says, 'has begotten the drops of dew?' — not describing nature as coming from nature, but the coming-into-being of each created thing according to his will.

For nothing is from his essence, but all things came into being each by his will, and each thing is as it came to be.

For he is God; but the other things are to become like him in a reasoned likeness, having come into being by his own free will;

and all things came into being through him, by God, and all things are from God.

Taking these things and working them out according to the grace granted to you from God, be eager to write to my lord Alexander.

For I am convinced that, if you were to write to him, you would put him to shame.

Greet all who are in the Lord.

May divine grace keep you in health and praying for us, my lord. Such were the letters that these men also wrote to one another, arming themselves for the war against the truth.

Thus, as the blasphemy was scattered abroad among the churches of Egypt and the East, strife and battles over the divine doctrines arose in every city and village.

And the rest of the multitude was a spectator of what was happening and a judge of what was said, and some praised the words of these, others the words of those.

And what was taking place was worthy of tragedy and of lamentation.

For it was not foreigners and enemies, as of old, who besieged the churches, but men of the same nation, dwelling under the same roof, and sharing the same table, who moved their tongues against one another in place of spears.

Or rather, being members of one another and belonging to one body, they armed themselves against one another.

The Events Concerning the Great Council at Nicaea

Learning these things, the all-wise emperor first attempted to stop up the very source of the evils, and sent to Alexandria, with letters, a certain man renowned for his sagacity, attempting to quench the strife and hoping to bring the disputing parties together into concord.

But when he was disappointed of his hope, he convened that much-celebrated council at Nicaea, giving instructions that the bishops and those coming with them should make use of the public donkeys, mules, pack-mules, and horses.

And when all who had been able to bear the labor of the journey had been gathered together, he himself also arrived at Nicaea, desiring to see the multitude of bishops and longing to preside over their concord.

And he immediately ordered that everything be supplied to them ungrudgingly.

But the bishop of Rome was left behind because of his deep old age;

he did, however, send two presbyters, instructing them to assent to what was done.

At that time there were many who were distinguished by apostolic gifts of grace, and many who, according to the divine apostle, bore in their body the marks of the Lord Jesus.

For James, of Antioch in Mygdonia (which the Syrians and Assyrians call Nisibis), both raised the dead and legislated for the living, and worked countless other miracles;

which I consider it superfluous to insert again here in this history, having already related them in the Religious History (Philotheus Historia).

Paul of Neocaesarea (this is a fortress situated on the banks of the Euphrates) had also had a taste of the madness of Licinius.

For he had both hands crippled, since red-hot iron had been applied to them and had contracted and deadened the sinews that move the joints.

Others had had their right eyes gouged out, and others had had the sinews of the right ham cut through.

One of these was Paphnutius the Egyptian.

And in a word, one could see a whole people of martyrs gathered together in one place.

Yet this divine and celebrated assembly was not entirely without its opposite element.

But there were some, few in number, treacherous, and resembling hidden reefs, concealing their wickedness and not openly advocating the blasphemies of Arius.

When all had assembled, the emperor prepared a very great hall in the palace, ordering that as many benches and thrones as possible be placed in it, sufficient for the assembly of the bishops.

Having thus prepared for them the honor that was fitting, he permitted them to enter and to deliberate on the matters at hand.

He himself entered last, with a few attendants, having a stature worthy of praise, a comeliness worthy of admiration, and — more wonderful still — a reverence seated upon his brow.

A small throne having been placed in the midst, he sat down, having asked the bishops' permission to do so.

And with him that whole divine company also sat down.

Immediately the great Eustathius, who held the presidency of the church of the Antiochenes (for Philogonius, whom I mentioned before, had passed to the better life, and this man, against his will, had been compelled by the common vote of bishops, priests, and all the Christ-loving people to shepherd that church in his place), was the first to crown the emperor's head with the flowers of his eulogies, and to repay his zeal for divine things with blessings.

When he had finished, the all-glorious emperor delivered a speech concerning concord and harmony, recalling the cruelty of those tyrants and the most honorable peace that had been bestowed by God during his own reign, and saying how terrible, indeed how utterly terrible, it would be — now that their enemies had been overthrown and no one dared to resist — for them to attack one another and afford pleasure and laughter to those ill-disposed toward them, especially since they were discoursing about divine matters and possessed the teaching of the all-holy Spirit set down in writing.

"For," he said, "the books of the Gospels and the Apostles, and the oracles of the ancient prophets, clearly instruct us as to what we must think concerning the Divine."

"Let us, then, drive away war-making strife, and take from the God-inspired words the solution to the questions being sought."

These things, and things similar to these, he offered to the priests as fathers, like a son devoted to his father, laboring to bring about harmony in the apostolic doctrines.

The greater part of the council was persuaded by what was said, and embraced both mutual concord and soundness of doctrine.

But a few, whom I mentioned before, and besides them Menophantus of Ephesus, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Theogonius, bishop of Nicaea itself, and Narcissus of Neronias (Neronias is a city of Cilicia Secunda, which we now call Irenopolis), and with these Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais in Egypt, spoke against the apostolic doctrines, advocating for Arius.

But having dictated it, they also presented a statement of faith to the assembly.

...all, calling it spurious and counterfeit...