let us any longer conflict, though the Councils have differently taken the phrase ‘Coessential,’ for we have already assigned a sufficient defence of them; and to it the following may be added:—We have not derived the word ‘Unoriginate’ from Scripture, (for no where does Scripture call God Unoriginate,) yet since it has many authorities in its favour, I was curious about the term, and found that it too has different senses 5. Some, for instance, call what is, but is neither generated, nor has any personal cause at all, unoriginate; and others, the uncreate. As then a person, having in view the former of these senses, viz. ‘that which has no personal cause,’ might say that the Son was not unoriginate, yet would not blame any one whom he perceived to have in view the other meaning, “not a work or creature but an eternal offspring,’ and to affirm accordingly that the Son was unoriginate, (for both speak suitably with a view to their own object); so, even granting that the Fathers have spoken variously concerning the Coessential, let us not dispute about it, but take what they deliver to us in a religious way, when especially their anxiety was directed in behalf of religion.
47. Ignatius, for instance, who was appointed Bishop in Antioch after the Apostles, and became a martyr of Christ, writes concerning the Lord thus: ‘ There is one physician, fleshly and spiritual, originate and unoriginate °®, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God;’ whereas some teachers who followed Ignatius, write in their turn, ‘One is the Unoriginate, the Father, and one the genuine Son from Him, true offspring, Word and Wisdom of the Father?.’ If therefore we 5 [In this passage the difficulties and confusion which surround the terms ayevyjros and ayévyntos (supr. p. 149, &c.) come to a head. The question is (assuming, as proved by Lightfoot, the validity of the distinction of the two in Athan.) which word is to be read here. The MSS. are divided throughout between the two readings, but it is clear (so Lightf. and Zahn on Ign. EAA. 7) that one word alone is in view throughout the present passage. That word, then, is pronounced by Lightf., partly on the strength of the quotation from the unnamed teachers (zz/r. note 7), partly on the ground of a reference to § 26 (See note 10 there), to be ayévyyros.
With all deference to so great an authority, I cannot hesitate to pronounce for ayévytos. (1.) The parallelism of, the two senses with the third and fourth senses of ayév. Ovat. i. 30. is almost decisive by itself. (2.) Ath.’s explanation of Ignatius, viz. that Christ is yévytos on account of the flesh (he would have referred yévuntos to His Essence, Ovat. i. 56, certainly not to the flesh), while as Son and Word He is distinct from yévyn7a and rojpara, is even more decisive. (3.) His explanation § 46, sub fin. that the Son is ayévyntos because He is advo yevyg.a. would lose all sense if &yévvntos were read. As a matter of act, ayevvyros is the specific, ayévyros the generic term: the former was not applicable to the Eternal Son; the latter was, except in the first of the two senses distinguished in the text; a sense, however, more properly coming under the specific idea of ayévvyros. This was the ambiguity which made. the similarity of the two words so dangerous a weapon in Arian hands. The above note does not of course affect the true reading of Ign. Eph. 7, as to which Lightfoot and Zahn speak with authority: but it seems clear that Athan., however mistakenly, gwotes Ign. with the reading ayévyros.] i 6 Ign. ad #¢h. (Lightf. Zen. p. 90, Zahn Patr. Afpost. ii.
a aE ot known, but cf. Clement. Strom. vi. 7. p. 769. &v pev 70 have hostile feelings towards these writers, then have we right to quarrel with the Councils; but if, knowing their faith in Christ, we are persuaded that the blessed Ignatius was right in writing that Christ was originate on account of the flesh (for He became flesh), yet unoriginate, because He is not in the number of things made and originated, but Son from Father; and if we are aware too that those who have said that the Unoriginate is One, meaning the Father, did not mean to lay down that the Word was originated and made, but that the Father has no personal cause, but rather is Himself Father of Wisdom, and in Wisdom has made all things that are originated; why do we not combine all our Fathers in religious belief, those who deposed the Samosatene as well as those who proscribed the Arian heresy, instead of making disttnctions between them and refusing to entertain a right opinion of them? I repeat, that those, in view of the sophistical explanation of the Samosatene, wrote, ‘He is not coessential®;’. and these, with an apposite meaning, said that He was. For myself, I have written these brief remarks, from my feeling towards persons who were religious to Christ-ward; but were it possible to come by the Epistle which we are told that the former wrote, I consider we should find further grounds for the aforesaid proceeding of those blessed men. For it is right and meet thus to feel, and to maintain a good conscience toward the Fathers, if we be not spurious children, but have received the traditions from them, and the lessons of religion at their hands.
48. Such then, as we confess and believe, being the sense of the Fathers, proceed we even in their company to examine once more the matter, calmly and with a kindly sympathy, with reference to what has been said before, viz. whether the Bishops collected at Nicaea do not really prove to have thought aright. For if the Word be a work and foreign to the Father’s essence, so that He is separated from the Father by the difference of nature, He cannot be one in essence with Him, but rather He is homogeneous by nature with the works, though He surpass them in grace% On the other hand, if we confess that He is not a work but the genuine offspring of the Father’s essence, it would follow that He is inseparable from the Father, being connatural, because He is begotten from Him. And being such, good reason He should be called Coessential.
ayevyntor, 6 ravToKpdrwp Beds, Ev Sé kat To mpoyevnPey bi’ ob Ta MayTA EYEVETO, KAL XWpis AVTOD eyeveTo OVdE ev.; 8 {On the subject of the’ rejection of the onoovcvoy at this Council of Antioch, see Prolegg. ch. ii. § 3 (2) b.] 9 De Decr.§ 1.
Next, if the Son be not such from participation, but is in His essence the Father’s Word and Wisdom, and this essence is the offspring of the Father’s essence, and its likeness as the radiance is of the light, and the Son says, ‘I and the Father are One,’ and, ‘he that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father’ (John x. 30; xiv. 9), how must we understand these words? or how shall we so explain them as to preserve the oneness of the Father and the Son? Now as to its consisting in agreement? of doctrines, and in the Son’s not disagreeing with the Father, as the Arians say, such an interpretation is a sorry one; for both the Saints, and still more Angels and Archangels, have such an agreement with God, and there is no disagreement among them. For he who disagreed, the devil, was beheld to fall from the heavens, as the Lord said. Therefore if by reason of agreement the Father and the Son are one, there would be things originated which had this agreement with God, and each of these might say, ‘I and the Father are One.’ But if this be absurd, and so it truly is, it follows of necessity that we must conceive of Son’s and Father’s oneness in the way of essence. For things originate, though they have an agreement with their Maker, yet possess it only by influence?, and by participation, and through the mind; the transgtession of which forfeits heaven. But the Son, being an offspring from the essence, is one by essence, Himself and the Father that begat Him, 49. This is why He has equality with the Father by titles expressive of unity 3, and what is said of the Father, is said in Scripture of the Son also, all but His being called Father 4. For the Son Himself said, ‘ All things that the Father hath are Mine’ (John xvi. 15); and He says to the Father, ‘ All Mine are Thine, and Thine are Mine’ (John xvii. 10),-as for instance 4*, the name God; for ‘the Word was God;’—Almighty, ‘ Thus saith He that is, and that was, and that is to come, the Almighty’ (John i. 1; Apoc. i. 8):—the being Light, ‘I am,’ He says, ‘the Light’ (John viii. 12):— the Operative Cause, ‘ All things were made by Him,’ and, ‘ whatsoever I see the Father do, I do also’ (John i, 3; v. 19):—the being 2 kuwyoet vid. Cyril. contr. Jul. viii. p. 274. Greg. Nyss. de 4 By ‘the Son being egwal to the Father,’ is but meant that He is His ‘exact image;’ it does not imply any distinction of essence. Cf. Hil. de Syn. 73. But this implies some exception, for else He would not be like or equal, but the same. zdid. 72. Hence He is the Father's image in all things except in being the Father, mAnv rs ayevvycias Kai THs marpétnTos. Damasc, de Imag. iil. 18. p. 354. vid. also Basil. contr. Eun. ii. 28; Theod. Inconfus. p. 91; Basil. £Z. 38. 7 fin. [Through missing this point the] Arians asked why the Son was not the beginning of a @coyovia. Supr. p. 319 a, note 1. vid. 27/7. note 8.
4 Vid. Orat. iii. § 4.
Everlasting, ‘ His eternal power and godhead,’ and, ‘In the beginning was the Word,’ and, ‘He was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world;’—the being Lord, for, ‘The Lord rained fire and brimstone from the Lord,’ and the Father says, ‘I am the Lord,’ and, ‘‘Thus saith the Lord, the Almighty God;’ and of the Son Paul speaks thus, ‘One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things’ (Rom. i. 20; Johni.1; ib. 9; Gen. xix. 24; Isa. xlv. 5; Am.v.16; 1 Cor. viii. 6). And on the Father Angels wait, and again the Son too is worshipped by them, ‘ And let all the Angels of God worship Him;’ and He is said to be Lord of Angels, for ‘the Angels ministered unto Him,’ and ‘the Son of Man shall send His Angels.’ The being honoured as the Father, for ‘that they may honour the Son,’ He says, ‘as they honour the Father;’ —being equal to God, ‘He counted it not a prize to be equal with God’ (Heb. i. 6; Matt. Wet > xxivegis sjohnevs 235) bial. 6)c—— the being Truth from the True, and Life from the Living, as being truly from the Fountain, even the Father;—the quickening and raising the dead as the Father, for so it is written in the Gospel. And of the Father it is written, ‘The Lord thy God is One Lord,’ and, ‘ The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken, and hath called the earth;’ and of the Son, ‘The Lord God hath shined upon us,’ and, ‘ The God of gods shall be seen in Sion.’ And again of God, Isaiah says, ‘Who is a God like unto Thee, taking away iniquities and passing over unrighteousness 5. (Deut. vie4ee ebs.tes CxviN, 24; lxxxiv. y, LXX.5 Micivu.18)) But the Son said to whom He would, ‘ Thy sins are forgiven thee;’ for instance, when, on the Jews murmuring, He manifested the remission by His act, saying to the paralytic, ‘ Rise, take up thy bed, and go unto thy house.’ And of God Paul says, ‘To the King eternal;’ and again of the Son, David in the Psalm, ‘ Lift up your gates, O ye rulers, and be ye lift up ye everlasting doors, and the King of glory shall come in.’ And Daniel heard it said, ‘ His Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom, and His Kingdom shall not be destroyed’ (Matt. ix. 5; Mark Tree lin ten7ee hs. ccxV.07 28 Dan iv. 33 vil. 14). And in a word, all that you find said of the Father, so much will you find said of the Son, all but His being Father, as has been said.
50. Ifthen any think of other beginning, and other Father, considering the equality of these attributes, it is a mad thought. But if, since the Son is from the Father, all that is the Father’s is the Son’s as in an Image and Expression, let it be considered dispassionately, whether an essence foreign from the Father’s essence admit of such attributes; and whether such a one be other in nature and alien in essence, and not coessential with the Father. For we must take reverent heed, lest transferring what is proper to the Father to what is unlike Him in essence, and expressing the Father’s godhead by what is unlike in kind and alien in essence, we introduce another essence foreign to Him, yet capable of the properties of the first essence 5, and lest we be silenced by God Himself, saying, ‘My glory I will not give to another,’ and be discovered worshipping this alien God, and be accounted such as were the Jews of that day, who said, ‘Wherefore dost Thou, being a man, make Thyself God?’ referring, the while, to another source the things of the Spirit, and blasphemously saying, ‘He casteth out devils through Beelzebub’ (Isa. xlii. 8; John x. 33; Luke xi. 15). But if this is shocking, plainly the Son is not unlike in essence, but coessential with the Father; for if what the Father has is by nature the Son’s, and the Son Himself is from the Father, and because of this oneness of godhead and of nature He and the Father are one, and He that hath seen the Son hath-seen the Father, reasonably is He called by the Fathers ‘ Coessential;’ for to what is other in essence, it belongs not to possess such prerogatives.
51. And again, if, as we have said before, the Son is not such by participation, but, while all things originated have by participation the grace of God, He is the Father’s Wisdom and Word of which ali things partake, it follows that He, being the deifying and enlightening power of the Father, in which all things are deified and quickened, is not alien in essence from the Father, but coessential. For by partaking of Him, we partake of the Father; because that the Word is the Father’s own. Whence, if He was Himself too from participation, and not from the Father His essential Godhead and Image, He would not deify7, being deified Himself. For it is not possible that He, who merely possesses ' from participation, should impart of that partaking to others, since what He has is not His own, but the Giver’s; and what He has received, is barely the grace sufficient for Himself. However, let us fairly examine the reason. why some, as is said, decline the ‘Coessential,’ whether it does not rather shew that 5 Arianism was in the dilemma of denying Christ's divinity, or introducing a second God. The Arians proper went off on the former side of the alternative, the Semi-Arians on the latter; and Athan., as here addressing the Semi-Arians, insists on the greatness of the latter error. This of course was ¢he objection which attached to the words émovoverev, amapdddaxtos elkwy, &c., when disjoined from the é“0ov¥cv0v; and Eusebius’s language, supr. Pp. 75, note 7, shews us that it is not an imaginary one, * the Son is coessential with the Father. They say then, as you have written, that it is not right to say that the Son is coessential with the Father, because he who speaks of ‘coessential’ speaks of three, one essence pre-existing, and that those who are generated from it are coessential: and they add, ‘If then the Son be coessential with the Father, then an essence must be previously supposed, from which they have been generated; and that the One is not Father and the Other Son, but they are brothers together®.’
As to all this, though it be a Greek interpretation, and what comes from them does not bind us9, still let us see whether those things which are called coessential and are collateral, as derived from one essence presupposed, are coessential with each other, or with the essence from which they are generated. For if only with each other, then are they other in essence and unlike, when referred to that essence which generated them; for other in essence is opposed to coessential; but if each be coessential with the essence which generated them, it is thereby confessed that what is generated from any thing, is coessential with that which generated it; and there is no need of seeking for three, essences, but merely to seek whether it be true that this is from that**. For should it happen that there were not two brothers, but that only one had come of that essence, he that was generated would not be called alien in essence, merely because there was no other from the essence than he; but though alone, he must be coessential with him that begat him. For what shall we say about Jephtha’s daughter; because she was only-begotten, and ‘he had not,’ says Scripture, ‘other child’ (Jud. xi. 34); and again, concerning the widow’s son, whom the Lord raised from the dead, because he too had no brother, but was only-begotten, was on that account neither of these coessential with him that begat? Surely they were, for they were children, and this is a property of children with reference to their parents. And 8 Cf. supr. p. 314, note 1, Cyr. Thesaur. pp. 22, 23. 9 Cf. p. 169, note'4* [and on oveta as a philosophical and theological term, Prolegg. ch. ii. § 3 (2) b. On the divergence of its theological use from its philosophical sense, see] Anastasius, Hodeg. 6. and Theorian, Legat. ad Arm. pp. 441, 2. Socr. iii. 25. Damascene, speaking of the Jacobite use of vos and vmdcracts says, ‘Who of holy men ever thus spoke? unless ye introduce to us your S. Aristotle, as a thirteenth Apostle, and prefer the idolater to the divinely inspired.’ cont. Jacob. 10. p. 399. and so again Leontius, speaking of Philoponus, who from the Monophysite confusion of nature and hypostasis was led into Tritheism. * He thus argued, taking his start from Aristotelic principles; for Aristotle says that there are of individuals particular substances as well as one common.’ De Sect. v. fin.
10 The argument, when drawn out, is virtually this: if, because two subjects are coessential, a third is pre-supposed of which they partake, then, since either of these two is coessential with that of which both partake, a new third must be supposed in which it and the pre-existing substance partake, and thus an infinite series of things coessential must be supposed. Vid. Basil. Ep. 52.n.2. [Cf. Aristot. #rag, 183, p. 1509 b 23.]
in like manner also, when the Fathers said that the Son of God was from His essence, reasonably have they spoken of Him as coessential. For the like property has the radiance compared with the light. Else it follows that not even the creation came out of nothing. For whereas men beget with passion?, so again they work upon an existing subject matter, and otherwise cannot make. But if we do not understand creation in a human way, when we attribute it to God, much less seemly is it to understand generation in a human way, or to give a corporeal sense to Coessential; instead of receding from things originate, casting away human images, nay, all things sensible, and ascending3 to the Father4, lest we rob the Father of the Son in ignorance, and rank Him among His own creatures.
52. Further, if, in confessing Father and Son, we spoke of two beginnings or two Gods, as Marcion and Valentinus$, or said that the Son had any other mode of godhead, and was not the Image and Expression of the Father, as being by nature born from Him, then He might be considered unlike; for such essences are altogether unlike each other. But if we acknowledge that the Father’s godhead is one and sole, and that of Him the Son is the Word and Wisdom; and, as thus believing, are far from speaking of two Gods, but understand the oneness of the Son with the Father to be, not in likeness of their teaching, but according to essence and in truth, and hence speak not of two Gods but of one God; there being but one Form® of Godhead, as the Light is one and the Radiance; (for this was seen by the Patriarch Jacob, as Scripture says, ‘The sun} rose upon him when the Form of God passed by,’ Gen. xxxii. 31, LXX.); and be holding this, and understanding of whom He was Son and Image, the holy Prophets say, ‘The Word of the Lord came to me;’ and recognising the Father, who was beheld and revealed in Him, they made bold to say, ‘The God of our fathers 2 Vid. de Decry, $11, note 6: also Cyril, Thesaur. iv. p. 29: Basil. contr. Eun. ii. 23: Hil. de Syn. 17. 3 Naz. Orat. 28. 2. 4 §. Basil says in like manner that, though God is Father kupiws properly, spr. p. 156, note 1, 157, note 6, 171, note 5, 310, note 3), yet it comes to the same thing if we were to say that He is TpomiKOs and ¢k eTaopas, figuratively, such, contr. Lun, ii. 243 yévvyovs implies two things,—passion, and relationship, oice(wots PUcews; accordingly we must take the latter as an indication o: the divine sense of the term. Cf. also sugv. p. 158, note 7, p. 322, Orat. ii. 32, iii. 18, 67, and Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 17 3 Hil. de Trin. iv. 2. Vid. also Athan, ad Seraf.i. 20. and Basil. EZ. 38. n. 5. and what is said of the office of faith in each of these. © Evos by70s Etdous OedrnTos: for the word eidos, cf. Orat. iii. 16 is generally applied to the Son, as in what follows, and is synonymous [?] with hypostasis; but it is remarkable that here it is almost synonymous with ovoia or dvous. Indeed in one sense nature, substance, and hypostasis, are all synonymous, i.e. as one and all denoting the Una Res, which is Almighty God. The apparent confusion is useful as reminding us of this great truth; vid. note 8, zaf~ hath appeared unto me, the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and, Jacob’ (Exod. iil. 16); this being so, wherefore scruple we to call Him coessential who is one with the Father, and appears as doth the Father, according to likeness and oneness of godhead? For if, as has been many times said, He has it not to be proper to the Father’s essence, nor to resemble, as a Son, we may well scruple: but if this be the illuminating and creative Power, specially proper to the Father, without Whom He neither frames nor is known (for all things consist through Him and in Him); wherefore, perceiving the fact, do we decline to use the phrase conveying it? For what is 1t to be thus connatural with the Father, but to be one in essence with Him? for God attached not to Him the Son from without, as needing a servant; nor are the works on a level with the Creator, and honoured as He is, or to be thought one with the Father. Or let a man venture to make the distinction, that the sun and the radiance are two lights, or different essences; or to say that the radiance accrued to it over and above, and is not a simple and pure offspring from the sun; such, that sun and radiance are two, but the light one, because the radiance is an offspring from the Sun. But, whereas not more divisible, nay less divisible is the nature® of the Son towards the Father, and the godhead not accruing to the Son, but the Father’s godhead being in the Son, so that he that hath seen the Son hath seen the Father in Him; wherefore should not such a one be called Coessential?
53. Even this is sufficient to dissuade you from blaming those who have said that the Son was coessential with the Father, and yet let us examine the very term ‘ Coessential,’ in itself, by way of seeing whether we ought to use it at all, and whether it be a proper term, and is suitable to apply to the Son. For you know yourselves, and no one can dispute it, that Like is not predicated of essence, but of habits, and qualities; for in the case of essences we speak, not of likeness, but of identity. Man, for instance, is said to be like man, not in essence, but according to habit and character; for in essence men are of one nature. And again, man is not said to be unlike dog, but to be of different nature.
8 [pJacs is here (as the apodosis of the clause shows) as well as in the next section, used as a somewhat more vague equivalent for ovata, not, as Newman contends in an omitted note, for ‘ person,’ a use which is scarcely borne out by the (no doubt somewhat fluctuating) senses of p¥ovs in the passages quoted by him from Alexander (in Theod. 47.Z. i. 4, cf. Origen’s use of ovata, Prolege. ch. ii. $3 (2) a) and Cyrile. West. iii. p. 91. vous and ovoia are nearly equivalent in the manifesto of Basil of Ancyra, whom Ath. has in view here, see Epiph. Her. 73. r2—22.] * ee ee a Ss ee ee a Ss Accordingly while the former are of one nature and coessential, the latter are different in both. Therefore, in speaking of Like accordmg to essence, we mean like by participation; (for Likeness is a quality, which may attach to essence), and this would be proper to creatures, for they, by partaking, are made like to God. For ‘when He shall appear,’ says Scripture, “we shall be like Him’ (1 John iii. 2), like, that is, not in essence but in sonship, which we shall partake from Him. If then ye speak of the Son as being by participation, then indeed call Him Like-in-essence; but thus spoken of, He is not Truth, nor Light at all, nor in nature God. For things which are from participation, are called like, not in reality, but from resemblance to reality; so that they may swerve, or be taken from those who share them. And this, again, is proper to creatures and works. Therefore, if this be out of place, He must be, not by participation, but in nature and truth Son, Light, Wisdom, God; and being by nature, and not by sharing, He would properly be called, not Like-inessence, but Coessential. But what would not be asserted, even in the case of others (for the Like has been shewn to be inapplicable to essences), is it not folly, not to say violence, to put forward in the case of the Son, instead of the ‘ Coessential?’
54. This is why the Nicene Council was correct in writing, what it was becoming to say, that the Son, begotten from the Father’s essence, is coessential with Him. And if we too have been taught the same thing, let us not fight with shadows, especially as knowing, that they who have so defined, have made this confession of faith, not to misrepresent the truth, but as vindicating the truth and religiousness towards Christ, and also as destroying the blasphemies against Him of the Ario-maniacs. For this must be considered and noted carefully, that, in using unlike-inessence, and other-in-essence, we signify not the true Son, but some one of the creatures, and an introduced and adopted Son, which pleases the heretics; but when we speak uncontroversially of the Coessential, we signify a genuine Son born of the Father; though at this Christ’s enemies often burst with rage. What then I have learned myself, and have heard men of judgment say, I have written in few words; but do you, remaining on the foundation of the Apostles, and holding fast the traditions of the Fathers, pray that now at length all strife and rivalry may cease, and the futile questions of the heretics may be ~ ~ condemned, and all logomachy'; and the guilty and murderous heresy of the Arians may disappear, and the truth may shine again in the hearts of all, so that all every where may ‘say the same thing’ (rt Cor. 1. 10), and think the same thing’, and that, no Arian contumelies remaining, it may be said and confessed in every Church, ‘One Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. iv. 5), in Christ Jesus our Lord, through whom to the Father be the glory and the strength, unto ages of ages. Amen.
Postscript.
55. After I had written my account of the Councils 3, I had information that the most irreligious+ Constantius had sent Letters to the Bishops remaining in Ariminum; and I have taken pains to get copies of them from true brethren and to send them to you, and also what the Bishops answered; that you may know the irreligious craft of the Emperor, and the firm and unswerving purpose of the Bishops towards the truth.
Interpretation of the Letters, Constantius, Victorious and Triumphant, Augustus, to all Bishops who are assembled at Ariminum.
That the divine and adorable Law is our chief care, your excellencies are not ignorant; but as yet we have been unable to receive the twenty Bishops sent by your wisdom, and charged with the legation from you, for we are pressed by a necessary expedition against the Barbarians; and as ye know, it beseems to have the soul clear from every care, when one handles the matters of the Divine Law. ‘Therefore we have ordered the Bishops to await our return at Adrianople; that, when all public affairs are well arranged, then at length we may hear and weigh their suggestions, Let it not then be grievous to your constancy to await their return, that, when they come back with our answer to you, ye may be able to bring matters to a close which so deeply affect the well-being of the Catholic Church.
This was what the Bishops received at the - hands of three emissaries.
Reply of the Bishops.
The letter of your humanity we have received, most God-beloved Lord Emperor, which reports that, on account of stress of public affairs, as yet you have been unable to-attend to our deputies; and in which you comt And so rats Aoyouaxlars, Basil de Sp. S. n. 16. It is used with an allusion to the fight against the Word, as xptoromaxety and @eopaxetvy. Thus Aoyowaxety wederyoavtes, Kal Aourov mvevparomaxourres, Exovrat meT OALyov veKpol TH adoyig. Serap. iv. 1.
2 Cf. Hil. de Syn. 77, and appendix, note 3, also szp7. p. 303, and note. The opoovc.oy was not imposed upon Ursacius and Valens, A.D. 347, by Pope Julius; nor in the Council of Aquileia in 381, was it offered by S. Ambrose to Palladius and Secundianus, S. Jerome's account of the apology made by the Fathers of Ariminum is of the same kind. ‘ We thought,’ they said, ‘the sense corresponded to the words, nor in the Church of God, where there is simplicity, and a pure confession, did we fear that one thing would be concealed in the heart, another uttered by the lips. We were deceived by our good opinion of the bad.’ ad Luctf. 19.
5 These two Letters are both in Socr, ii. 37. And the latter is in Theod. H. Z. ii. 15. p. 878. in a different version from the Latin original.
mand us to await their return, until your godliness shall be advised by them of what we have defined conformably to our ancestors. However, we now profess and aver at once by these presents, that we shall not recede from our purpose, as we also instructed our deputies. We ask then that you will with serene countenance command these letters of our mediocrity to be read; but also that you will graciously receive those, with which we charged our deputies. This however your gentleness comprehends as well as we, that great grief and sadness at present prevail, because that, in these