Message to the African Bishops

Epistle of the Bishops of Egypt and Libya (ninety in number) and Blessed Athanasius to the most honorable Bishops of Africa, against the Arians 1) It is sufficient that what was written by our beloved concelebrant Damasus, bishop of great Rome, and the great number of bishops who gathered with him, and no less sufficient that by other Councils that were held in Gaul and Italy, it was written about the sound faith that Christ gave, the apostles preached, the Fathers betrayed, from the whole known universe who gathered in Nicaea. For, due to the Arian heresy, much effort was then used to snatch away those who fell into this heresy from it, and to make its inventors known. The whole universe agreed in this faith in ancient times, and now at many Councils the bishops of Dalmatia, Dardania, Macedonia, Epirus, Hellas, Crete and other islands, Sicily, Cyprus, Pamphylia, Lycia, Isauria, all of Egypt, Libya recognized and confirmed it by everyone, and in Arabia very many, and those who signed it were amazed that if it remained among them to some extent from the root of Arianism there is a vegetating bitterness, we mean Auxentius, Ursatius, Valens and those who think the same way with them, then they cut it off and rejected it with their messages. So, what was confessed at Nicaea is sufficient and sufficient, as we said before, for the overthrow of all ungodly heresies and for the protection and benefit of church teaching. But since we have heard that some, intending to challenge this faith, are beginning to expose some kind of Council, which supposedly took place in Ariminum, and are trying to give it more power than the Nicene one, we considered it necessary to write and remind you not to tolerate such people. For this is nothing other than the offspring of the Arian heresy. Those who reject the Council, which was against this heresy (and such is the Council of Nicea), what else do they want than for the Aryan teaching to prevail? And what do such people deserve, is it not to be called Arians and to suffer the same punishment as them? They did not fear God, who said: “Do not change the eternal limit that your fathers set” (Prov. 22:28), and: “Whoever curses his father or his mother, let him die” (Ex. 21:16), they did not respect the Fathers, who proclaimed anathema to those who philosophize contrary to their confession. 2) For this purpose there was an Ecumenical Council in Nicaea of ​​three hundred and eighteen bishops who came together, so that, due to Arian wickedness, they would judge about faith and so that under the pretext of faith there would no longer be private Councils, and if they did, they would not have power. For what is missing in the Nicene confession of faith for anyone to seek something new? It is full of godliness, beloved, it has filled the entire universe. He was recognized by the Indians and all Christians among other barbarian peoples. Therefore, the work of those who have repeatedly attempted to challenge it is in vain. For these have already constituted ten or more Councils, each time changing their thoughts, subtracting some things from what was decreed by previous Councils, changing and adding others at later Councils, and until now they have not succeeded in anything, no matter how much they wrote, scribbled, or used force, not knowing that “every garden that the Father does not plant... in heaven will be uprooted” (Matthew 15:13 “The word of the Lord,” proclaimed by the Ecumenical Council in Nicaea, “endures forever” (1 Peter 1:25). If anyone compares one number with another, then those who were in Nicaea are as numerous as those who were at the private Councils, as the whole is greater than the part. reason, and the others were convened by force, out of hatred and stubbornness. The first one was convened by the Arian heresy and the celebration of Easter, because the Christians in Syria, Cilicia, Mesopotamia disagreed with us and celebrated Easter at the same time as the Jews. But thanks be to the Lord! Agreement was established both about faith and about the holy holiday. And this was the reason for the Council of Nicaea. After him, countless former Councils were invented against the Ecumenical Council. 3) And when this is proven, who will approve of those who, in addition to the Council of Nicaea, put forward the Ariminian or another Council? Or who will not hate those who reject the definitions of the Fathers and prefer to them the newest definitions, compiled in Ariminum with stubbornness and violence? Who would want to agree with people who do not even approve of their own definitions? For at ten or more of their Councils, as we said above, writing first one thing and then another, they themselves became obvious accusers of each Council. Something similar to what once happened to the traitor Jews is happening to them. For just as those, “leaving ... the only ... source of living water, dug up broken treasures for themselves that were not able to contain water,” as it is written in the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 2:13), so these, challenging the one and Ecumenical Council, dug for themselves many Councils. And all their Councils turned out to be empty, like “a hilt without power” (Hos. 8:7). Therefore, we will not tolerate those who, in addition to the Council that was in Nicaea, put forward the Council of Arimin or some other. And those who put the Cathedral of Arimin on display, apparently, do not know what was done on it, otherwise they would have remained silent. For you, beloved, having inquired from those who came from you to Arimin, know how Ursacius, Valens, Eudoxius and Auxentius (and Demophilus was there with them), wishing to write something different from what was decreed in Nicaea, were deposed. When they demanded that they anathematize the Arian heresy, they refused and wished better to be its defenders, the bishops, truly sincere and faithful servants of the Lord (there were about two hundred of them), then decided to be content with the Nicene confession of faith alone and, apart from it, not to seek or speculate about anything more or less. This was announced by them and Constantius, who ordered the Council to take place. But those deposed in Ariminum, having come to Constantius, made those who pronounced the sentence against them subjected to insults, they were threatened that they would not return to their own dioceses, but in the same winter in Thrace they would suffer coercion and be forced to accept innovations. 4) Therefore, if some put on display the Council of Arimin, then let them first show how those mentioned above were deposed, and what the bishops determined, commanding not to seek anything beyond what was confessed by the Fathers in Nicea and not to put on show another Council other than the Nicene Council. But they hide this, and what was done forcibly in Thrace is pointed out, and this reveals that they secretly adhere to the Arian heresy and are alien to sound faith. And if anyone wants to mutually compare the great Council of Nicea and their Councils, he will find piety in some, and foolishness in others. Those who were not deposed gathered in Nicaea, and they confessed that the Son is the Father's essence. And these, having been deposed once and twice and already for the third time in Ariminus itself, dared to write: “there is no need to say that God has an essence or hypostasis.” From this you can see, brethren, that the Nicene Fathers express themselves according to Scripture, because God Himself says in Exodus: “I am He” (Ex. 3:14), and through Jeremiah: “who was in the council (ἐν ἱποστήματι) of the Lord, and saw... His word” (Jer. 23:18 )? And a little lower: “and if they stood in My council (ἐν τῆ ὑποστάσει), and heard... My words” (Jer. 23:22). Hypostasis is essence, and means nothing other than the essence itself. Jeremiah calls this being (ῦπαρξις), saying: “not hearing the voice of being” 1 (Jer. 9:10). For hypostasis and essence is being. God is and has being. Understanding this, Paul wrote to the Jews: “Who is the radiance of glory and the image of His hypostasis” (Heb. 1:3). But these, who think of themselves that they know the Scriptures, and call themselves wise, because they do not want to use the word “hypostasis” about God (and this they wrote at the Council of Arimin and at their other Councils), are they not justly deposed when they themselves, like a madman, say in their hearts: “there is no God” (Psalm 13:1)? The Fathers in Nicaea also taught that the Son the Word was not a creature or a work, because they read: “All things were made” (John 1:3), and: “By this... all things were created, and in Him they will be” (Colossians 1:16, 17). But these, more Arians than Christians, at their other Councils dared to call the Son a creature, one of those creatures whom the Creator and The Creator is the Word itself, for if “all things were”, and the Son himself is a creature, then He created Himself. But how can what is created create? 5) So, they are not ashamed to assert such things, for which they are hated by everyone, they simply expose the Ariminian Council, when it is proven that at this Council they were deposed. And if we take this expression, written in Nicaea, that “the Son is consubstantial with the Father,” for which they, as they show, argue with the Council and about which they buzz everywhere like mosquitoes, then either out of ignorance they stumble over it, like those who stumble over the stumbling block laid in Zion (Rom. 9:33), or although they know, they argue and constantly cry out because it serves truly as the most a severe verdict on their heresy. And it is not the expression that offends them, but the condemnation contained in the expression. And again they themselves are to blame for this. If they want to hide this, although they know it, then we should say so that from this the complete accuracy of the great Council will be clear. Since the assembled bishops wanted to remove the evil expressions invented by the Arians, such as: “from those who do not exist,” “naming the Son a creature and a work,” “it was when the Son was not,” “the Son is changeable by nature,” and write the expressions used by everyone, taken from the Scriptures, namely: the Word is “the only begotten” of God by nature (John 1, 14, 18), the Father. “power”, the only “wisdom” of the Father (1 Cor. 1:24), “true God”, as John said (1 John 5:20), “the radiance of the glory and image of the Father’s hypostasis,” as Paul wrote (Heb. 1:3), and the Eusebius adherents, carried away by their own evil faith, said to each other: “let us agree in this, because we are also from God,” “one God,... all things are of no good" (1 Cor. 8:6), "the ancient past, behold, all things were new, but all things are from God" (2 Cor. 5, 17, 18), they also had in mind what was written in the book “The Shepherd”: first of all, believe that “there is one God, who created and ordered everything and brought everything into being from nothingness,” then the bishops, seeing their cunning and maliciousness of wickedness, more clearly expressed the existence from God and wrote that the Son is from God’s essence, showing that creatures are attributed existence from God, because they do not exist from themselves and not without a reason, but they have the beginning of being, but the one Son is actually God’s essence, which is the peculiarity of the only begotten and true Word in relation to the Father. This was the reason to write: “from the essence.” But again, since the bishops asked these few: did they not call the Son not a creature, but by power, the only wisdom of the Father, the eternal image, in everything like the Father, the true God, then the followers of Eusebius, as it became noticeable, showed each other with signs that these expressions also extend to us, because we are also called the image of God and the glory of God, and about us it is said: “for ever we alive" (2 Cor. 4:11), and there is a lot of strength: "all the power of the Lord came out from the land of Egypt" (Exodus 12:41), even caterpillars and springs are called great power (Joel 2:25), and: "The Lord of hosts is with us, our intercessor God is Jacob" (Psalm 45:8), and we have evidence that we are our own to God, not simply, but so much so that he even called us “brothers” (Heb. 2:11). It does not sadden us that the Son is called true God, for having become God, He is true God. 6) Such is the corrupt understanding of the Arians! But here, too, the bishops, seeing their cunning, collected the sayings of the Scriptures: “radiance, source, river, image of the Hypostasis,” and: “in Your light we will see light” (Psalm 35:10), and: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), and finally, more clearly and briefly wrote: “The Son is consubstantial with the Father,” because everything said above has this same meaning meaning. Their murmur is in vain that these expressions are not taken from Scripture; for this they accuse themselves. Borrowing their wicked expressions not from Scripture, because they are not in Scripture: “from things that do not exist,” “it was when it was not,” they complain that they are condemned on the basis of sayings not taken from Scripture, although piously understood. But they, as if emerging from pus, actually spoke from the earth, and the bishops wrote so, not having invented this expression themselves, but having evidence of this from the fathers. For the ancient bishops, who lived for almost 130 years, the bishop of great Rome and the bishop of our city, condemned in writing those who assert that the Son is a creature and is not consubstantial with the Father. Eusebius, who was the bishop of Caesarea, previously agreed with the Arian heresy, and subsequently subscribed to the Nicene Council, also knew this. Writing to his own, he confirmed that from the ancients there were some learned and famous bishops and writers who used the phrase “consubstantial” about the Divinity of the Father and the Son. 7) Therefore, why do they still put on display the Council of Arimin, at which they were deposed? Why will they cancel the Council of Nicaea, at which their fathers signed and confessed that the Son is from the essence of the Father and consubstantial with the Father? Why don't they stand in one? They oppose not only the bishops who met in Nicaea, but also the bishops they consider great, and finally, even their own. Therefore, whose heirs and successors are they? How can they call those from whom their confession, written beautifully and apostolically, is not accepted as fathers? If they think that they are able to object, then let them say so that those who contradict themselves are exposed, but rather let them answer: do they believe in the Son, who says: “I am one and the Father” (John 10:30), and: “He who has seen Me in the form of the Father” (John 14:9)? “Yes,” they will say, “since it is written, we believe.” But how is “one” the essence, and how is “he who sees the Son and the Father”? If they are asked about this, then, of course, they will say: “in likeness,” unless they are in perfect agreement with those who hold a similar way of thinking and are known under the name Anomeans. And if they also ask them: How is the Son like? - they will boldly say: “with perfect virtue and consent - in that he wants the same thing with the Father and does not want what the Father does not want.” But let them know that he who becomes like God through virtue and will has the will to change. It is impossible to say this about the Word, unless the Word is similar in part, as we are, and not similar in essence: this is characteristic of us, created and having a created nature, because, although we cannot become like God in essence, however, by improving ourselves through the exercise of virtue, we become like God, since the Lord gave us this too, and said: “Be ye merciful, as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6, 36). “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). But that what has been created is changeable, no one will deny this, because the angels transgressed the law, and Adam disobeyed, and everyone needs the grace of the Word. And what is changeable cannot be like the unchangeable God, just as what is created cannot be like the Creator. Therefore, referring to us, the Saint said: “God, who can be like You” (Psalm 82:2)? And: who is “like You in God, Lord” (Psalm 85:8)? He calls gods, although they were created, but became partakers of the Word, as the Son himself said: “If they speak of gods, the Word of God came to them” (John 10:35). But what is involved is not the same as that of which it participates, nor is it similar to it. And the Son said about Himself: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), because the created cannot say this. For let those who refer to the Council of Arimin answer, can a created being say: what I see the Father doing, I also do (John 5:19)? The created is the created, and not the creating, otherwise it would create itself. And indeed, if the Son, as they say, is a creature, and the Father creates him, then, of course, the Son also created Himself, who, as He himself said, can do everything that the Father does. But such a thought is absurd and extremely untenable, for no one can create himself. 8) Let them also say whether the created can say: “All that the Father has is Mine” (John 16:15)? The Father has the power to create, create, be almighty, and also has eternity, immutability. But what is created cannot have either creativity, because it is a creature, or eternity, because it has a beginning of being, or omnipotence and immutability, because, as the Scriptures say, it is possessed and changeable by nature. Consequently, if all this is characteristic of the Son, then it is characteristic, as we said, not because of virtue, but, as the Council said, by the very essence of the Son. And the Son is not from another essence, but from the Father, to whom this is characteristic. What is characteristic of the Father's essence and its birth, if not consubstantial? or what else is it called? For what one sees in the Father, he sees also in the Son, and, moreover, he sees as existing in the Son not by participation, but by essence. And this means what was said: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), and: “he who has seen Me in the form of the Father” (John 14:9). On the other hand, it will be good to discover their recklessness from the following. If, according to your words, the Son is like the Father in virtue, followed by volition and unwillingness and improvement of morals, yet this is characteristic of quality, then clearly you call God composed of quality and essence. Who will allow you to say this? For God, who combined everything into being, is not complex; He is not like the creatures called by Him into being by the Word; let this not be so! He is a simple essence in which there is no quality, as James said, “there is no change or change” (James 1:17). So, if it is revealed that it is not according to virtue, because there is no quality in God, and also in the Son, then it is clear that the Son is of his own essence. And you will certainly admit this, unless you have completely lost the power of understanding. And what actually belongs to God’s essence, is identical with it and by nature is its Birth, then in this again, what else will be, if not consubstantial with the One who gave birth? For this is the distinctive property of the Son in relation to the Father. Whoever does not affirm this does not recognize that the Word is the Son by nature and in the true sense. 9) Having understood this, the fathers wrote that “the Son is consubstantial with the Father,” and anathematized those who claim that the Son is from another Hypostasis. They did not make up these sayings on their own, but as we said, they themselves learned from their fathers. And as a result of what has been proven in this way, in the matter of faith their Ariminian Council is superfluous, and any other Council that they put on display is superfluous. For the Council of Nicaea, which agreed with the ancient bishops, was sufficient, to which their fathers also signed, and they had to respect these fathers, otherwise they would most likely be recognized by everyone, just not Christians. If, after all this, after the testimony of the ancient bishops, after the signature of their own fathers, as if out of ignorance they pretend to be afraid of the saying: “consubstantial,” then let them express themselves and think, more simply and truly, that the Son is by nature a Son, and let them, as the Council commanded, pronounce anathema to those who assert that the Son of God is a creature, or a work, or from non-existent, or was when He was not, and that He is perverted and changeable, and from another Hypostasis, and let them thus avoid the Arian heresy. And we are firmly convinced that having sincerely anathematized this, they will soon confess that the Son is from the Father’s essence and is consubstantial with the Father. That is why the fathers, having said that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, immediately added: “and those who claim that He is a creature or a work, or from non-existent, or was when He was not, the universal Church anathematizes,” letting them know that this is the meaning of the word: “consubstantial.” The power of the word “consubstantial” is understood from the fact that the Son is not a creature or work. And whoever calls Him consubstantial does not recognize the Word as a creature; whoever anathematizes what was said above recognizes at the same time that the Son is consubstantial with the Father. Whoever calls the Son of God consubstantial, calls Him sincere and true Son. And whoever calls it sincere understands what is said: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), and: “he who has seen Me in the form of the Father” (John 14:9). 10) I should have written more about this. But since we are writing to you, people who know, we have presented it briefly. And desiring that the union of peace be observed among everyone and that everyone in the universal Church speaks and philosophizes the same thing, we offer this not as teaching, but as reminding. We are not the only ones who are writing this, but also all the bishops of Egypt and Libya, almost ninety in number, because we all think the same thing, and if it happens that someone is not there in person, we always sign for each other. With this disposition, since we had the opportunity to gather together, we also wrote to our beloved Damasus, bishop of great Rome, about Auxentius, who invaded the Mediolan Church, providing information about him that not only was he an accomplice of the Arian heresy, but also guilty of many evil deeds committed by him together with Gregory, an accomplice of his wickedness, and expressing surprise why until now he had not been deposed and expelled from the Church, and we also expressed gratitude to the piety of Damasus and those who gathered in great Rome for the fact that, having expelled Ursatius, Valens and those who shared wisdom with them, they maintained the unanimity of the universal Church. Desiring that it be observed among you too, we beg you, as we said above, not to tolerate the numerous councils proposed under the pretext of faith, such as those that took place in Ariminum, in Sirmium, in Isauria, in Thrace, in Constantinople, and in Antioch, which were repeated and disorderly. But may the only faith prevail among you, confessed by the Fathers at Nicaea, where, as stated above, everyone was present and signed the confession, even the fathers of those now rebelling against it. May the Apostle also say about us: “I praise you, because you remember everything I have given you, and keep the traditions that I gave you” (1 Cor. 11:2). 11) This Council of Nicaea truly serves as a denunciation against all heresy. He casts down those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit and call Him a creature. For the fathers, having spoken about faith in the Son, followed this by adding: “we believe... and in the Holy Spirit,” so that, having confessed perfect and complete faith in the Holy Trinity, through this they would make known the distinctive sign of faith in Christ and the teaching of the universal Church. For it has become clear to you and to everyone, and none of the Christians will hesitate, that we believe not in creation, but in the One God the Father, the Almighty, Creator of everything visible and invisible, and in the One Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and in the One Holy Spirit, the One God, known in the Holy and Perfect Trinity. Having been baptized in Her name and united with the Divine in Her, we believe that we will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven in Christ Jesus our Lord, through whom to the Father be glory and dominion forever. Amen. According to the Slavs. translation: "habitat" You might be interested in: