To the Bishops of Africa

Sufficient are the writings of our beloved fellow minister Damasus, bishop of great Rome, and of the many bishops who came together with him, and no less those of the other councils held in Gaul and in Italy, concerning the sound faith, which Christ gave, the apostles preached, and the Fathers handed down, namely those who met at Nicaea from all our inhabited world. For so great was the zeal at that time on account of the Arian heresy, that those who had fallen into it might be drawn back, and those who invented it might be exposed. To this faith the whole world agreed long ago; and now too, many councils having been held, all have been reminded of it: those in Dalmatia, Dardania, Macedonia, the Epiruses and Greece, Crete and the other islands, Sicily and Cyprus, Pamphylia, Lycia and Isauria, all Egypt and the Libyas, and most of those in Arabia have recognized it, and have admired those who signed, because, if any bitterness springing up from the root of the Arians had been left among them (we mean Auxentius and Ursacius and Valens and those who think as they do), these have been cut off and left out through these letters. Sufficient, then, and self-sufficient, as we said, is what was confessed at Nicaea, both for the overthrow of every impious heresy and for the security and profit of the Church's teaching. But since we have heard that some, wishing to fight against it, attempt to name a certain council as held at Ariminum, and strive that it rather than that one should prevail, we have thought it necessary to write and remind you not to tolerate such people; for this is nothing other than a fresh offshoot of the Arian heresy. For those who reject the council held against it (that is, the one held at Nicaea), what else do they want but that the views of Arius should prevail? What, then, do such men deserve, but to be called Arians and to share the same punishment as they? They did not fear God, who says, “Do not remove the eternal boundaries which your fathers set” …

For this is why the council at Nicaea was ecumenical, three hundred and eighteen bishops having come together about the faith on account of the Arian impiety: so that partial councils should no longer be held on the pretext of the faith, or, if they were held, should not prevail. For what does that council lack, that anyone should seek something newer? It is full of piety, beloved; it has filled the whole world. The Indians have come to know it, and all the Christians among the other barbarians. Vain, then, is the toil of those who have often made attempts against it. For such men have already held ten or more councils, changing at each one, taking away some things from the first, and altering and adding in the later ones. And they have gained nothing up to now by writing, erasing, and using force, not knowing that “every plant which the heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up,” but the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical council at Nicaea abides for ever. For if one compares number with number, those at Nicaea are more than those of the partial councils, as much as the whole is greater than the part; and if anyone wishes to discern the cause of the council at Nicaea and of the many councils held by these men after it, he would find that the council at Nicaea had a reasonable cause, but that the others were put together by force out of hatred and contentiousness. For that one was assembled on account of the Arian heresy and on account of Easter, since those in Syria, Cilicia and Mesopotamia differed from us, and kept the feast at the time when the Jews keep it. But thanks be to the Lord, as about the faith, so too about the holy feast there came to be agreement. And this was the cause of the council at Nicaea; but those after it …

Since this has been shown, who will accept those who name Ariminum or another council beside the one at Nicaea? Or who would not hate those who set aside the decisions of the Fathers and prefer the newer things put together at Ariminum through contentiousness and force? Who would wish to meet with these men, who do not accept even their own decisions? For in their own ten or more councils, as we said before, writing now one thing and now another, they plainly become the accusers of each one themselves. They suffer something like what the betrayers among the Jews of that time suffered; for as those, forsaking the one fountain of living water, dug for themselves broken cisterns that will not be able to hold water (this is written in the prophet Jeremiah), so these, fighting against the one ecumenical council, have dug for themselves many councils, and all of them have proved empty among them, like a sheaf without strength. Let us not tolerate, then, those who name Ariminum or another council beside the one held at Nicaea. Indeed even those who name Ariminum seem not to know what was done there; otherwise they would have kept silent. For you know, beloved, having learned it from those of you who went to Ariminum, how Ursacius and Valens, Eudoxius and Auxentius (and Demophilus was there with them) were deposed for wishing to write other things beside those of Nicaea; when, being required to anathematize the Arian heresy, they refused, and wished rather to be its champions. But the bishops, who were truly genuine servants of the Lord and believed rightly (they were nearly two hundred), wrote that they were content with the council of Nicaea alone, and that nothing more or less than it should be sought or held. They made this known also to Constantius, who had ordered the council to be held. But those who had been deposed at Ariminum went to Constantius and brought it about that those who had pronounced against them were insulted and threatened that they would not return to their own dioceses, and suffered violence in Thrace in the very depth of winter, so that they should tolerate the innovations made by these men.

If, then, some name Ariminum, let them first show the deposition of those mentioned above, and what the bishops wrote, saying that nothing more should be sought than what was confessed by the Fathers at Nicaea, and that no other council should be named beside it. But these things they hide, and put forward what was done by force in Thrace; from which they are shown to be dissemblers of the Arian heresy and aliens from the sound faith. And if one wished to examine side by side the great council itself and theirs, he would find the piety of the one and the unreason of the others. Those who met at Nicaea did not meet as deposed men, and they confessed that the Son is from the essence of the Father; but these men, deposed once and a second time, and a third time at Ariminum itself, dared to write that one must not say that the Son has essence or hypostasis. From this one may consider, brothers, how those at Nicaea breathe the spirit of the Scriptures, since God himself says in Exodus, “I am he who is,” and through Jeremiah, “Who has stood in his substance and seen his word?” and a little after, “And if they had stood in my hypostasis and heard my words.” And hypostasis is essence, and has no other meaning than being itself; which Jeremiah calls existence, saying, “And they did not hear the voice of existence.” For hypostasis and essence are existence; for it is and it exists. Paul too, understanding this, wrote to the Hebrews, “who, being the radiance of his glory and the exact imprint of his hypostasis.” But these men, who seem to know the Scriptures and call themselves wise, not wishing to speak of hypostasis in God (for this they wrote at Ariminum and in their other councils), how were they not justly deposed, saying as they do, like the fool in his heart, that God is not? And again, the Fathers taught at Nicaea that the Son, the Word, is not a creature or a thing made, having read, “All things came into being through him,” and, “In him all things were created and hold together.” But these men, being Arians rather than Christians, have dared in their other councils to call him a creature and one of the things made, of which the Word himself is the creator and maker. For if all things came into being through him, and he too is a creature, he would be creating himself as well. And how can what is created create? Or how is the creator created?

But not even so are they ashamed of saying such things, for which they are hated by all, naming Ariminum without qualification, though they are shown to have been deposed at it. And as for the very statement written at Nicaea, that the Son is of the same essence with the Father, on account of which they pretend to fight against the council and buzz about everywhere over the word like gnats: either in ignorance they stumble at it, like those who stumble at the stone of stumbling laid in Zion; or they know it, and fight and murmur continually for this reason, that it is truly the exact verdict against their heresy. For it is not the words that grieve them, but the condemnation of them pronounced in it. Of this, again, they themselves were the cause; and even if they wish to hide it, though they know it, it is fitting for us to tell it, so that from this too the exactness, joined with truth, of the great council may be shown. When the bishops who had come together wished to remove the expressions of impiety invented by the Arians (“from nothing,” and calling the Son a creature and a thing made, and “there was once when he was not,” and that he is of changeable nature), and to write the acknowledged words of the Scriptures, that the Word is by nature only-begotten from God, the power, the only wisdom of the Father, true God, as John said, and, as Paul wrote, radiance of the glory and exact imprint of the Father's hypostasis, Eusebius and his party, drawn by their own heterodoxy, said to one another, “Let us agree; for we too are from God; for ‘there is one God, from whom are all things,’ and ‘the old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new,’ and ‘all things are from God.’” They also took into account what is written in the Shepherd: “First of all believe that God is one, who created and set in order all things, and made them out of what was not into being.” But the bishops, seeing their craft and the evil art of their impiety, expressed “from God” more plainly, and wrote that the Son is from the essence of God; so that the creatures, because they are not from themselves without a cause but have a beginning of coming into being, might be said to be from God, but the Son alone proper to the Father's essence; for this is proper to an only-begotten and true Word in relation to the Father. This is the reason why “from the essence” was written. Again, when the bishops asked those few who seemed to dissent whether they would say that the Son is not a creature but the power, the only wisdom of the Father, and eternal image, in every respect unvarying from the Father, and true God, Eusebius and his party were caught signaling to one another that these things too apply to us: “For we too are called image and glory of God; and of us it is said, ‘For we who live are always …’; and there are many powers: ‘And all the power of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt’; and the caterpillar and the locust are called a great power; and, ‘The Lord of powers is with us; the God of Jacob is our helper.’ For we hold that we are God's own, and not simply so, but in that he has even called us brothers. And if they say that the Son is true God, it does not grieve us; for having come into being, he is true.” [6] Such was the corrupt mind of the Arians. But here too the bishops, seeing their deceit, gathered from the Scriptures the radiance, the fountain and the river, the imprint in relation to the hypostasis, and “In your light we shall see light,” and “I and the Father are one.” And then they wrote more plainly and briefly that the Son is of the same essence with the Father; for all that was said before has this meaning. And their murmuring, that the expressions are unscriptural, is shown by themselves to be vain, since they were impious with unscriptural expressions (for “from nothing” and “there was once when he was not” are unscriptural), and yet complain that they were condemned by unscriptural expressions piously understood. They indeed, as from a dunghill, truly spoke from the earth; but the bishops, not having invented the expressions for themselves, but having the testimony from the Fathers, wrote as they did. For ancient bishops, about a hundred and thirty years before, of great Rome and of our city, wrote blaming those who called the Son a thing made and not of the same essence with the Father. And Eusebius, who became bishop of Caesarea, knew this: having at first run with the Arian heresy, but afterwards signed at the very council of Nicaea, he wrote to his own people assuring them that “we know that some of the ancients too, learned and distinguished bishops and writers, used the term homoousios with regard to the Godhead of the Father and the Son.”

Why then do they still name Ariminum, at which they were deposed? Why do they reject the council at Nicaea, at which their own Fathers signed and confessed that the Son is from the essence and of the same essence with the Father? Why do they run about? For they are fighting not only against the bishops who met at Nicaea, but also against their own great bishops, and indeed against their own people. Whose heirs and successors, then, are they? How can they call these men Fathers, whose confession, written well and apostolically, they do not accept? For if they think they can contradict it, let them speak, or rather let them answer, so that, falling foul of themselves, they may be refuted: whether they believe the Son when he says, “I and the Father are one,” and, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” “Yes,” they would say, “since it is written, we believe.” But if they are asked to say how they are one, and how he who has seen the Son has seen the Father too, they will surely say, “By likeness,” unless they have fallen in completely with those who think like them, the so-called Anomoeans. But if they are asked again, “How is he like?”, they will boldly say, “By perfect virtue and agreement, in willing the same as the Father and not willing what the Father does not will.” But let them learn that one who is made like God by virtue and by will also has the choice to change; but the Word is not so, unless indeed he is like only in part and as we are, because he is not like in essence. These things are proper to us, who are originate and have a created nature. For we too, though we cannot become like God in essence, nevertheless, improving by virtue, imitate God, the Lord granting us this too and saying, “Be merciful, as your Father is merciful,” “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” That originate things are changeable no one would deny, since angels transgressed and Adam disobeyed, and all need the grace of the Word. But what is changeable would not be like God, who is unchangeable, just as what is created is not like the creator. This is why the holy one, considering us, said, “O God, who shall be likened to you?” and, “Who is like you among the gods, O Lord?”, calling gods those who were created but became partakers of the Word, as he himself said, “If he called them gods to whom the word of God came.” And things that partake would not be the same as, or like, what is partaken of. Of himself, then, he said, “I and the Father are one,” since originate things are not so. For let those who put forward Ariminum answer whether a created essence can say, “What I see the Father doing, these things I also do.” For originate things are made, not makers; otherwise they would have made themselves too. Indeed, if, as they say, the Son is a creature and the Father makes him, the Son would surely have made himself too, being able to do what the Father does, as he himself said; but such a thing is absurd and quite incoherent; for no one can make himself.

Again, let them say whether originate things can say, “All that the Father has is mine.” He has creating, fashioning, eternity, being almighty, unchangeableness. But originate things cannot have the power to fashion, for they are created; nor eternity, for they have a beginning of being; nor being almighty and unchangeable, for they are ruled and of changeable nature, as the Scriptures say. If, then, these things belong to the Son, they are plainly not his from virtue, as we said, but from his essence; as the council said, he is not from another essence but from the Father's, to which these things too are proper. And what is proper to the Father's essence and an offspring from it, what would it be, or how would one name it, but of the same essence? For what one sees in the Father, this one sees also in the Son, and in the Son not by participation but in essence. And this is the meaning of “I and the Father are one,” and “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Besides, it is good to show their folly from this too: if willing and not willing, and improvement of conduct, come from virtue, and according to you the Son is like the Father in this way, and these are properties of quality, then plainly you are saying that God is composite, of quality and essence. And who will bear with you when you say this? For God, who has composed all things into being, is not composite, nor is he such as the things made by him through the Word are; God forbid! For he is a simple essence, in which there is no quality, nor, as James said, “any variation or shadow of turning.” If, then, it is shown that the Son is not like from virtue (for there is no quality in God, nor in the Son), plainly he would be proper to the essence; and this you will certainly confess, unless your understanding has perished entirely. And what is proper to, and the same as, the essence of God, and is by nature an offspring from it, what would it be but, in this respect too, of the same essence with the one who begot it? For this is the distinguishing mark of a Son in relation to a Father. And he who does not say this does not hold that the Word is Son by nature and in truth.

So understanding, the Fathers wrote that the Son is of the same essence with the Father, and anathematized those who say that the Son is from another hypostasis; not fashioning expressions for themselves, but having themselves learned from the Fathers before them, as we said. Since this has been shown, their Ariminum is superfluous, and superfluous too is the other council about the faith that they name. For the council at Nicaea is sufficient, being in agreement also with the ancient bishops, and at it their own Fathers also signed, whom these men ought to respect, lest they be thought to be anything rather than Christians. But if, even after so much, after the testimony of the ancient bishops and after the signature of their own Fathers, they pretend, as if ignorant, to fear the term homoousios, let them say and hold more simply that the Son is truly Son by nature, and let them anathematize, as the council commanded, those who say that the Son of God is a creature, or a thing made, or from nothing, or that “there was once when he was not,” and that he is changeable and alterable, and from another hypostasis; and so let them flee from the Arian heresy. And we are confident that, if they genuinely anathematize these things, they at once confess that the Son is from the essence and of the same essence with the Father. For this is why the Fathers too, having said that the Son is of the same essence, added at once: “But those who say he is a creature, or a thing made, or from nothing, or ‘there was once when he was not,’ the catholic Church anathematizes,” so that through this they might make known that this is what “of the same essence” signifies. And the force of “of the same essence” is known from the fact that the Son is not a creature or a thing made; and he who says “of the same essence” does not think the Word a creature; and he who anathematizes what was said above at the same time thinks that the Son is of the same essence with the Father; and he who says “of the same essence” calls the Son of God genuine and true; and he who says “genuine” understands, “I and the Father are one,” and, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” [10] … praying that it may be preserved, we exhort you not to tolerate, as we said before, those who put forward a crowd of councils on the pretext of the faith: that at Ariminum, that at Sirmium, that in Isauria, that in Thrace, those at Constantinople, those at Antioch, many and disorderly. But let only the faith confessed by the Fathers at Nicaea prevail among you, at which all were present, even the Fathers of those who now fight against it, as we said before, and signed; so that the Apostle may say of us too, “I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold fast the traditions just as I delivered them to you.”

For this council at Nicaea is truly a monument inscribed against every heresy. It also overthrows those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit and call him a creature. For the Fathers, having spoken of faith in the Son, added at once, “We believe also in the Holy Spirit,” so that, having confessed the faith in the holy Trinity perfect and complete, they might make known in this the character of faith in Christ and the teaching of the catholic Church. For it is plain both to you and to all, and no Christian would be of doubtful mind on this, that our faith is not in the creation, but in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, his only-begotten Son; and in one Holy Spirit: one God known in the holy and perfect Trinity; into whom we are baptized, and, being joined in it to the Godhead, we believe that we shall also inherit the kingdom of heaven in Christ Jesus our Lord, … Amen. I pray for your health and that you remember us in the Lord, beloved and most longed-for.