I Cf. Orat. i. §§ 2—5; de Sent. D. 6; Socr.i.9. The Arian Philostorgius tells us that ‘Arius wrote songs for the sea and for the mill and for the road, and then set them to suitable music,’ Hist. ii. 2. It is remarkable that Athanasius should say the Egyptian Sotades, and again in Sent. D. 6. There were two Poets of the name; one a writer of the Middle Comedy, A then, Deipn, vii. 113 but the other, who is here spoken of, was a native of Maronea in Crete, according to Suidas (zz voc.), under the successors of Alexander, 4 then. xiv. 4. He wrote in lonic metre, which was of infamous name from the subjects to which he and others applied it. vid. Széd. ibid. Horace’s Ode, ‘ Miserarum est neque amori, &c.’ is a specimen of this metre, and some have called it Sotadic; but Bentley shews zz doc. that Sotades wrote in the Ionic a majore. Athenzeus implies that all Ionic metres were called Sotadic, or that Sotades wrote in various Tonic metres. The Church adopted the Doric music, and forbade the Ionic and Lydian. The name ‘Thalia’ commonly belonged to convivial songs; Martial contrasts the ‘lasciva Thalia’ with ‘ carmina sanctiora,’ Lf7gr. vii. 17. vid. ‘Thaliarchus, ‘the master of the feast, Horat. Od. i.9. [The metre of the fragments of the ‘Thalia’ is obscure, there are no traces of the Ionic foot, but very distinct anapzestic cadences. In fact the lines resemble ill-constructed or very corrupt anapzestic tetrameters catalectic, as in acomic Parvabasis, For Sotades, the Greek text here reads corruptly Sosates. ] 2 This passage ought to have been added sur. p. 163, note 8, as containing a more direct denial of the oooverov.
3 That is, Wisdom, or the Son, is but the disciple of Him who is Wise, and not the az’vibute by which He is Wise, which is what the Sabellians said, vid. Orat. iv. § 2, and what Arius imputed to the Church., 4 dverupsktot, that is, he denied the mepexdpyors, vid. spr. Orat. iii. 3, &c.
4* {John i. 18, best MSS., and cf. Hort, Two Diss. p. 26.
Hence He is conceived in numberless conceptions5: Spirit, Power, Wisdom, God’s glory, Truth, Image, and Word. Understand that He is conceived to be Radiance and Light. One equal to the Son, the Superior is able to beget; but one more excellent, or superior, or greater, He is not able. At God’s will the Son is what and whatsoever He is. And when and since He was, from that time He has subsisted from God. He, being a strong God, praises in His degree the Superior. To speak in brief, God is ineffable to His Son. For He is to Himself what He is, that is, unspeakable. So that nothing which is called comprehensible® does the Son know to speak about; for it is impossible for Him to investigate the Father, who is by Himself. For the Son does not know His own essence, For, being Son, He really existed, at the will of the Father. What argument then allows, that He who is from the Father should know His own parent by comprehension? For it is plain that for that which hath a beginning to conceive how the Unbegun is, or to grasp the idea, is not possible.
16. And what they wrote by letter to the blessed Alexander, the Bishop, runs as follows:— To Our Blessed Pope? and Bishop, Alexander, the Presbyters and Deacons send health in the Lora, Our faith from our forefathers, which also we have learned from thee, Blessed Pope, is this:—We acknowledge One God, alone Ingenerate, alone Everlasting, alone Unbegun, alone True, alone having Immortality, alone Wise, alone Good, alone Sovereign; Judge, Governor, and Providence of all, unalterable and unchangeable, just and good, God of Law and Prophets and New Testament; who begat an Only-begotten Son before eternal times, through whom He has made both the ages and the universe; and begat Him, not in semblance, but in truth; and that He made Him subsist at His own will, unalterable and unchangeable; perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures; offspring, but not as one of things begotten; nor as Valentinus pronounced that the offspring of the Father was an issue®; nor as Manicheeus taught that the offspring was a portion of the Father, one in essence?; or as Sabellius, dividing the Monad, speaks of a Son-and-Father’; nor as Hieracas, of one torch from another, 5 émuvotats, that is, our Lord’s titles are but xames, or figures, not properly belonging to Him, but [cf. Bigg. B.Z. p. 168 sg.]
© kara Karan, that is, there is nothing comprehensible in the Father for the Son to know and declare. On the other hand the doctrine of the Anomceans was, that all men could know Almighty God perfectly.
7 [The ordinary title of eminent bishops, especially of the bishop of Alexandria.]
8 What the Valentinian mpofoAy was is described in Epiph. Her. 31, 13 [but see D.C.B. iv. 1086 sgg.] Origen protests against the notion of mpoBody; Periarch. iv. p. 190, and Athanasius E xpos. §x. The Arian Asterius too considers mpoBodA} to introduce the notion of texvoyovia, Euseb. contr. Marc. i. 4. p. 20. vid. also Epiph. Her. 72. 7. Yet Eusebius uses the word mpoBadrcc Oar. £ecl, Theol. i. 8. On the other hand Tertullian uses it with a protest against the Valentinian sense. Justin has mpoBdAndev yevinue, Lryph. 62. And Nazianzen calls the Almighty Father mpoBodrevs of the Holy Spirit. Ovat. 29.2. Arius introduces the word here as an argusmentum ad invidiam. Hil. de Trin. vi. 9- 9 The Manichees adopting a material notion of the divine substance, considered that it was divisible, and that a portion of it was absorbed by the power of darkhess.
£0 ylomarépa. The term is ascribed to Sabellius, Ammon. zz Caten. Joan.i.t.p. 14: to Sabellius and [invidiously to] Marcellus, Euseb. Zec?. Theol. ii. 5: Cf.,as to Marcellus, Cyr. Hier. Catech. xv. 9. also iv. 8. xi. 16; Epiph. Her. 73. 11 fin.: to Sabellians, Athan. £xos, Fid. 2, and 7, and Greg. Nyssen. contr. Eun. xii. p. 733:_to certain heretics, Cyril. Alex. 7 Joann. p. 243: to Praxeas and Montanus, W7av, Merc. p. 128: to Sabellius, Caesar, Diad. i. p. 550; to Noetus, Damasc, Her. 57.
or as a lamp divided into two™; nor that He who was before, was afterwards generated or new-created into a Son”, as thou too thyself, Blessed Pope, in the midst of the Church and in session hast often condemned; but, as we say, at the will of God, created before times and before ages, and gaining life and being from the Father, who gave subsistence to His glories together with Him. For the Father did not, in giving to Him the inheritance of all things, deprive Himself of what He has ingenerately in Himself; for He is the Fountain of allthings, Thus there are Three Subsistences. And God, being the cause of all things, is Unbegun and altogether Sole, but the Son being begotten apart from time by the Father, and being created and founded before ages, was not before His generation, but being begotten apart from time before all things, alone was made to subsist by the Father. For He is not eternal or co-eternal or co-unoriginate with the Father, nor has He His being together with the Father, as some speak of relations‘, introducing two ingenerate beginnings, but God is before all things as being Monad and Beginning of all. Wherefore also He is before the Son; as we have learned also from thy preaching in the midst of the Church. So far then as from God He has being, and glories, and life, and all things are delivered unto Him, in such sense is God His origin. For He is above Him, as being His God and before Him. But if the terms ‘from Him,’ and ‘ from the womb,’ and ‘I came forth from the Father, and I am come?’ (Rom. xi. 36; Ps. cx. 3; John xvi. 28), be understood by some to mean as if a part of Him, one in essence or as an issue, then the Father is according to them compounded and divisible and alterable and material,.and, as far as their belief goes, has the circumstances of a body, Who is the Incorporeal God.
This is a part of what Arius and his fellows vomited from their heretical hearts.
17. And before the Nicene Council took place, similar statements were made by Eusebius and his fellows, Narcissus, Patrophilus, Maris, Paulinus, Theodotus, and Athanasius of [A]nazarba 3. And Eusebius of Nicomedia tr [On Hieracas, see D.C.B. iii. 24; also Epiph. Her 67; Hil. Trin. vi. 12.]
x2 Bull considers that the doctrine of such Fathers is here spoken of as held that our Lord’s cvyxaréBacrs to create the world was a yévynous, and certainly such language as that of Hippol. contr. Noet. § 15. favours the supposition. But one class of [Monarchians] may more probably be intended, who held that the Word became the Son upon His incarnation, such as Marcellus, vid. Euseb. £ccles. Theol. i. 1. contr. Mare. ii. 3. vid. also Eccles. Theol. ii. 9. p. 114 b. mys’ aAAoTE GAAnV K.7T-A. Also the Macrostich says, ‘We anathematize those who call Him the mere Word of God, not allowing Him to be Christ and Son of God before all ages, but from the time He took on Him our flesh: such are the followers of Marcellus and Photinus, &c.’ 72/7. § 26. Again, Athanasius, Oraz. iv. 15, says that, of those who divide the Word from the Son, some called our Lord’s manhood the Son, some the two Natures together, and some said ‘that the Word Himself became the Son when He was made man.’ It makes it more likely that Marcellus is meant, that Asterius seems to have written against him before the Nicene Council, and that Arius in other of his writings borrowed from Asterius. vid. de Decret. § 8.
x Eusebius’s letter to Euphration, which is mentioned just after, expresses this more distinctly—‘lf they coexist, how shall the Father be Father and the Son Son? or how the One first, the Other second? and the One ingenerate and the other generate?’ Acta Conc, 7. p. 301. The phrase ta mpds te Bull well explains to refer to the Catholic truth that the Father or Son being named; the Other is therein implied without naming. De/ens. F. N. iii. 9. § 4. Hence Arius, in his Letter to Eusebius, complains that fh cuabaer SAayS, del 0 Beds, Get 6 vids Ana TaTHp, duauids. Theod.
6 BSG is qkw, and so Chrys. Hom. 3. Hedr. init. Epiph. Her. 73. 31, and 36. E 3 Most of these original Arians were attacked in a work of Marcellus’s which Eusebius answers. ‘Now he replies to Asterius,’ says Eusebius, ‘now to the great Eusebius’ [of Nicomedia], ‘and then he turns upon that man of God, that indeed wrote over and above to Arius, to this effect, ‘Since your sentiments are good, pray that all may adopt them; for it is plain to any one, that what has been made was not before its origination; but what came to be has a beginning of being.’ - And Eusebius of Cesarea in Palestine, in a letter to Euphration the Bishop %*, did not scruple to say plainly that Christ was not true God4. And Athanasius of [A]nazarba uncloked the heresy still further, saying that the Son of God was one of the hundred sheep. For writing to Alexander the Bishop, he had the extreme audacity to say: “Why complain of Arius and his feliows, for saying, The Son of God is made as a creature out of nothing, and one among others? For all that are made being represented in parable by the hundred sheep, the Son is one of them. If then the hundred are not created and originate, or if there be beings beside that hundred, then may the Son be not a creature nor one among others; but if those hundred are all originate, and there is nothing besides the hundred save God alone, what absurdity do Arius and his fellows utter, when, as comprehending and reckoning Christ in the hundred, they say that He is one among others?’ And George who now is in Laodicea, and then was presbyter of Alexandria, and was staying at Antioch, wrote to Alexander the Bishop; ‘Do. not complain of Arius and his fellows, tor saying, ‘‘Once the Son of God was not,” for Isaiah came to be son of Amos, and, whereas Amos was before Isaiah came to be, Isaiah was not before, but came to be afterwards.’ And he wrote to the Arians, ‘ Why complain of Alexander the Pope, saying, that the Son is from the Father? for you too need not fear to say that the Son was from God. For if the Apostle wrote (1 Cor. xi. 12), ‘All things are from God,’ and it is plain that all things are made of nothing, though the Son too is a creature and one of things made, still He may be said to be from God in that sense in which all things are said to be ‘from God.’ From him then those who hold with Arius learned to simulate the phrase ‘from God,’ and to use it indeed, but not in a good meaning. And George himself was deposed by Alexander for certain reasons, and among them for manifest irreligion; for he was himself a presbyter, as has been said before.
thrice blessed person Paulinus [of Tyre]. Then he goes to war with Origen...Next he marches out against Narcissus, and pursues the other Eusebius,’ [himself]. ‘ Ina word, he counts for nothing all the Ecclesiastical Fathers, being satisfied with no one but himself.’ coxtr. Marc. i. 4. (On Maris (who was mot at Ariminum, and scarcely at Antioch in 363) see D.C.B, s.v. (2). On Theodotus see vol. i. of this series, p. 320, note 37. On Paulinus, i ior Balanez, see Ap. Fug. 3; Hist. Ar. 5.1. [ 4 Quoted, among other passages from Eusebius, in the 7th General Comncil, Act. 6. p. 409- [Mansi. xiii. zor D]. The Son Himself is God, but not Very God.’ [But see Prolegg. wd: supr.
note 5}.
note 5}.
18. On the whole then such were their statements, as if they all were in dispute and rivalry with each other, which should make the heresy more irreligious, and display it in a more naked form. And as for their letters I had them not at hand, to dispatch them to you; else I would have sent you copies; but, if the Lord will, this too I will do, when I get possession of them. And one Asterius 5 from Cappadocia, a many-headed Sophist, one of the fellows of Eusebius, whom they could not advance into the Clergy, as having done sacrifice in the former persecution in the time of Constantius’s grandfather, writes, with the countenance of Eusebius and his fellows, a small treatise, which was on a par with the crime of his sacrifice, yet answered their wishes; for in it, after comparing, or rather preferring, the locust and the caterpillar to Christ, and saying that Wisdom in God was other than Christ, and was the Framer as well of Christ as of the world, he went round the Churches in Syria and elsewhere, with introductions from Eusebius and _ his fellows, that as he once made trial of denying, so now he might boldly oppose the truth. The bold man intruded himself into forbidden places, and seating himself in the place of Clergy °, he used to read publicly this treatise of his, in spite of the general indignation. The treatise is written at great length, but portions of it are as follows:— For the Blessed Paul said not that he preached Christ, His, that is, God’s, ‘own Power’ or ‘ Wisdom,’ but without the article, ‘God’s Power and God’s Wisdom’ (1 Cor. i. 24), preaching that the own power of God Himself was distinct, which was connatural and co-existent with Him unoriginately, generative indeed of Christ, creative of the whole world; concerning which he teaches in his Epistle to the Romans, thus, ‘The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things which are made, even His eternal power and divinity’ (Kom. i. 20). For as no one would say that the Deity there mentioned was Christ, but the Father Himself, so, as I think, His eternal power is also not the Only-begotten God (Joh. i. 18), but the Father who begat Him. And he tells us of another Power and Wisdom of God, namely, that which is manifested through Christ, and made known through the works themselves of His Ministry.
And again:— Although His eternal Power and Wisdom, which 5 Asterius has been mentioned above, p. 155, note 2, &c. Philostorgius speaks of him as adopting Semi-Arian terms; and Acacius gives an extract from him containing them, ap. Epiph. flar. 72. 6. He seeins to be called many-headed with an allusion to the Hydra, and to his activity in the Arian cause and his fertility in writing. He wrote comments on Scripture. [See Prolegg. il. § 3 (2) a, sub. fin.); a hie; 6 None but the clergy might enter the Chancel, i.e. in Service time. Hence Theodosius was made to retire by S. Ambrose. Theod. v. «7. The Council of Laodicea, said to be held a.p. 372, forbids any but persons in orders, teparckot, to enter the Chancel and then communicate. Can, 19. vid. also 44. Conc. t. 1. pp. 788, 789. It is doubtful what orders the word teparcxor is intended to include. vid. Bingham, Aztigz. vili. 6. § 7.
truth argues to be Unbegun and Ingenerate, would appear ccrtainly to be one and the same, yet many are those powers which are one by one created by Him, of which Christ is the First-born and Only-begotten, All however equally depend upon their Possessor, and all His powers are rightly called His, who created and uses them; for instance, the Prophet says that the locust, which became a divine punishment of human sin, was called by God Himself, not only a power of God, but a great power (Joel ii. 25). And the blessed David too in several of the Psalms, invites, not Angels alone, but Powers also to praise God. And while he invites them all to the hymn, he presents before us their multitude, and is not unwilling to call them ministers of God, and teaches them to do His will.
19. These bold words against the Saviour did not content him, but he went further in his blasphemies, as follows: The Son is one among others; for He is first of things originate, and one among intellectual natures; and as in things visible the sun is one among phenomena, and it shines upon the whole world according to the command of its Maker, so the Son, being one of the intellectual natures, also enlightens and shines upon all that are in the intellectual world.
And again he says, Once He was not, writing thus:—‘ And before the Son’s origination, the Father had pre-existing knowledge how to generate; since a physician too, before he cured, had the science of curing?.’? And he says again: ‘The Son was created by God’s beneficent earnestness; and the Father made Him by the superabundance of His Power.’ And again: ‘If the will of God has pervaded all the works in succession, certainly the Son too, being a work, has at His will come to be and been made.’ Now though Asterius was the only person to write all this, Eusebius and his fellows felt the like in common with him.
20. These are the doctrines for which they are contending; for these they assail the ancient Council, because its members did not propound the like, but anathematized the Arian heresy instead, which they were so eager to recommend, This was why they put forward, as an advocate of their irreligion, Asterius who sacrificed, a sophist too, that he might not spare to speak against the Lord, or by a show of reason to mislead the simple. And they were ignorant, the shallow men, that they were doing harm to their own cause. For the ill savour of their advocate’s idolatrous sacrifice betrayed still more plainly that the heresy is Christ’s foe. And now again, the general agitations and troubles which they are exciting, are in consequence of their belief, that by their numerous murders and their monthly Councils, at length they will undo the sentence which has been passed against the Arian heresy ®, But here too they seem ignorant, or part of the letter will be found say, Ap to pretend ignorance, that even before Nicza that heresy was held in detestation, when Artemas 9 was laying its foundations, and before him Caiaphas’s assembly and that of the Pharisees his contemporaries. And at all times is this gang of Christ’s foes detestable, and will not cease to be hateful, the Lord’s Name being full of love, and the whole creation bending the knee, and confessing ‘that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father’ (Phil. ii. rr).
21. Yet so it is, they have convened successive Councils against that Ecumenical One, and are not yet tired. After the Nicene, Eusebius and his fellows had been deposed; however, in course of time they intruded themselves without shame upon the Churches, and began to plot against the Bishops who withstood them, and to substitute in the Church men of their own heresy. Thus they thought to hold Councils at their pleasure, as having those who concurred with them, whom they had ordained on purpose for this very object. Accordingly, they assemble at Jerusalem, and there they write thus:— The Haly Council assembled in Jerusalem’ by the grace of God, &c...their orthodox_teaching in writing, which we all confessed to be sound and ecclesiastical. And he reasonably recommended that they should be received and united to the Church of God, as you will know yourselves from the transcript of the same Epistle, which we have transmitted to your reverences. We believe that yourselves also, as if recovering the very members of your own body, will experience great joy and gladness, in acknowledging and recovering your own bowels, your own brethren and fathers; since not only the Presbyters, Arius and his fellows, are given back to you, but also the whole Christian people and the entire multitude, which on occasion of the aforesaid men have a long time been in dissension among you. Moreover it were fitting, now that you know for certain what has passed, and that the men have communicated with us and have been received by so great a Holy Council, that you should with all readiness hail this your coalition and peace with your own members, specially since the articles of the faith which they have published preserve indisputable the universally confessed apostolical tradition and teaching.
22. This was the beginning of their Councils, and in it they were speedy in divulging their views, and could not conceal them. For when they said that they had banished all jealousy, and, after the expulsion of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, recommended the reception of Arius and his friends, they shewed that their measures against Athanasius himself then, and before against all the other Bishops who withstood them, had for their object their receiving 9 [On Artemas or Artemon T [See Afol. Ar. 843 Hist. Ar. 9 and Theodotus, see Prolegg, ii.
Prolegg. ii. § 5.
t of the | ol. Ar. p. 144.)
2 This is supposed to be the same Confession which is preserved by Socr. i. 26. and Soz. ii. 27. and was presented to Constantine by Arius in 330.
The first Arius and his fellows, and introducing the heresy into the Chureh. But although they had approved in this Council all Arius’s maligmity, and had ordered to receive his party into communion, as they had set the example, yet feeling that even now they were short of their wishes, they assembled a Council at Antioch under colour of the so-called Dedication 3; and, since they were in general and lasting odium for their heresy, they publish different letters, some of this sort, and some of that; and what they wrote in one letter was as follows:— _We have not been followers of Arius,—how could Bishops, such as we, follow a Presbyter?—nor did we receive any other faith beside that which has been handed down from the beginning. But, after taking on ourselves to examine and to verify his faith, we admitted him rather than followed him; as you will anderstand from our present avowals.
For we have been taught from the first, to believe 4 in one God, the God of the Universe, the Framer and Preserver of all things both intellectual and sensible.
And in One Son of God, Only-begotten, who existed before all ages, and was with the Father who had begotten Him, by whom all things were made, both visible and invisible, who in the last days according to the good pleasure of the Father came down; and has taken flesh of the Virgin, and jointly fulfilled all His Father’s will, and suffered and risen again, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and cometh again to judge quick and dead, and remaineth King and God unto all ages.
And we believe also in the Holy Ghost; and if it be necessary to add, we believe concerning the resurrection of the flesh, and the life everlasting.
23. Here follows what they published next at the same Dedication in another Epistle, being dissatisfied with the first, and devising something newer and fuller: We believe 5, conformably to the evangelical and apostolical tradition, in One God, the Father Almighty, the Framer, and Maker, and Provider of the Universe, from whom are all things.
And in One Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, Only-begotten God (Joh. i. 18), by whom are all things, who was begotten before all ages from the Father, God from God, whole from whole, sole from sole®, perfect from perfect, King from King, Lord from Lord, Living Word, Living Wisdom, true Light, Way, Truth, Resurrection, Shepherd, Door, both unalterable and? unchangeable; exact Image? of the Godhead, Essence, Will, Power and 4 a Contession or 1st of Antioch, A.D. 341. [See Socr. ii. ro.]
5 and Confession or 2nd of Antioch, A.D. 341. This formulary is that known as fhe Formulary of the Dedication. It is quoted as such by Socr. ii. 39, 40. Soz. iv. 15. and i#/r. § 29. [On its attribution to Lucian, see Prolegg. ui supr., and Caspari Alte. 2. Neue Q. p. 42 note.] 6 Vid. roth Confession, 7277. § 30.
7 These strong words and those which follow, whether Lucian’s or not, mark the great difference between this confession and the foregoing. The words ‘unalterable and unchangeable’ are formal anti-Arian symbols, as the rpemroy or alterable was one of the most characteristic parts of Arius’s creed. vid. Orat. 1. § 35, &ec, ixkwv Kar ovaiav, which was synonymous t On amapdadaktos eka u with duovovatos, vid. 72/r. § 38. supr. p. 163, note 9. It was in t f érapad\axrov that the Council order to secure the true sense 0, 1 adopted the word éua0vc10v. ‘AmapdaAdaxroy is accordingly used as a familiar word by Athan. ge Decr. §§ 20, 24- Orat. iii. § 36. contr. Gent. 41. 46. fin, hilostorgius ascribing it to Asterius, and Acacius quotes a passage from his writings containing | sym Glory of the Father; the first born of every creature, who was in the beginning with God, God the Word, as it is written in the Gospel, ‘and the Word was God’ (John i. 1); by whom all things were made, and in whom all things consist; who in the last days descended from above, and was born of a Virgin according to the Scriptures, and was made Man, Mediator? between God and man, and Apostle of our faith, and Prince of life, as He says, ‘1 came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me’ (John vi. 38); who suffered for us and rose again on the third day, and ascended into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of the Father, and is coming again with glory and power, to judge quick and dead.
And in the Holy Ghost, who is given to those who believe for comfort, and sanctification, and initiation, as also our Lord Jesus Christ enjoined His disciples, saying, ‘Go ye, teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost’ (Matt. xxviii. 19); namely of a Father who is truly Father, and a Son who is truly Son, and of the Holy Ghost who is truly Holy Ghost, the names not being given without meaning or effect, but denoting accurately the peculiar subsistence, rank, and glory of each that is named, so that they are three in subsistence, and in agreement ones.
Holding then this faith, and holding it in the presence of God and Christ, from begnining to end, we anathematize every heretical heterodoxy4. And if any teaches, beside the sound and right faith of the Scriptures, that time, or season, or age5, either is or has been before the generation of the Son, be he anathema. Or if any one says, that the Son is a creature as one of the creatures, or an offspring as one of the offsprings, or a work as one of the works, and not the aforesaid articles one after another, as the divine Scriptures have delivered, or if he teaches or preaches beside what we received, be he anathema. For all that has been delivered in the divine Scriptures, whether by Prophets or Apostles, do we truly and reverentially both believe and follow © 24. And one Theophronius?, Bishop. of Tyana, put forth before them all the following statement of his personal faith. And they subscribed it, accepting the faith of this man:— God ® knows, whom I call as a witness upon my soul, that so I believe:—in God the Father Almighty, the Creator and Maker of the Universe, from whom are all things: And in His Only-begotten Son, Word, Power, and Wisdom, our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things; who has been begotten from the Father before the ages, perfect God from perfect God 9, and was with it; cf. S. Alexander thy xara ravta opoorynra avTod cK picews amopakédwevos, in Theod. H.#. i. 4. XMapaxryp, Hebr. i. 3. contains the same idea. Basil. contr. Bunom. i. 18.
2 This statement perhaps is the most Catholic in the Creed; not that the former are not more explicit in themselves, or that in a certain true sense our Lord may not be called a Mediator before He became incarnate, but because the Arians, even Eusebius, like Philo and the Platonists, consider Him as made in the beginning the ‘ Eternal Priest of the Father,’ Demonst. v. 3. de Laud. C. 3, 11, ‘an intermediate divine power,’ 8§ 26, 27, and notes.
3 On this phrase, which is justified by S. Hilary, de Syn. 32, and is protested against in the Sardican Confession, Theod. H.Z. ii. 6 [see Prolegg. bi supr.]
4 The whole of these anathemas are [a compromise]. The Council anathematizes ‘every heretical {heterodoxy;’ zot, as Athanasius observes, suprv., § 7, the Arian.
5 Our Lord was, as they held, de/ore time, but still created.
6 This emphatic mention of Scripture is also virtually an Arian evasion, admitting of a silent reference to themselves as interpreters of Scripture. 7 On this Creed see Prolegg. 167 supr.
9 It need scarcely be said, that ‘perfect from perfect’ is a bol on which the Catholics laid stress, Athan, Ovaz. ii. 35.
Pim a ee ee God in subsistence, and in the last days descended, and was born of the Virgin according to the Scriptures, and was made man, and suffered, and rose again from the dead, and ascended into the heavens, and sat down on the right hand of His Father, and cometh again with glory and power to judge quick and dead, and remaineth for ever: aI And in the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth (Joh. xv. 26), which also God promised by His Prophet to pour out (Joel ii. 28) upon His servants, and the Lord promised to send to His disciples: which also He sent, as the Acts of the Apostles witness. — But if any one teaches, or holds in his mind, aught beside this faith, be he anathema; or with Marcellus of Ancyra®, or Sabellius, or Paul of Samosata, be he anathema, both himself and those who communicate with him,