{"collection":"chr","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/chr/ecf/204/2040199.htm","path":"chr/ecf/204/2040199.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/204/2040199.htm","text":"p. 150 De Decretis or Defence of the Nicene Definition\nChapter I.\u2014Introduction. The complaint of the Arians against the Nicene Council; their fickleness; they are like Jews; their employment of force instead of reason.\n1. Thou hast done well, in signifying to me the discussion thou hast had with the advocates of Arianism, among whom were certain of the friends of Eusebius, as well as very many of the brethren who hold the doctrine of the Church. I hailed thy vigilance for the love of Christ, which excellently exposed the irreligion 746 of their heresy; while I marvelled at the effrontery which led the Arians, after all the past detection of unsoundness and futility in their arguments, nay, after the general conviction of their extreme perverseness, still to complain like the Jews, \u201cWhy did the Fathers at Nic\u00e6a use terms not in Scripture 747 , \u2018Of the essence\u2019 and \u2018One in essence?\u2019\u201d Thou then, as a man of learning, in spite of their subterfuges, didst convict them of talking to no purpose; and they in devising them were but acting suitably to their own evil disposition. For they are as variable and fickle in their sentiments, as chameleons in their colours 748 ; and when exposed they look confused, and when questioned they hesitate, and then they lose shame, and betake themselves to evasions. And then, when detected in these, they do not rest till they invent fresh matters which are not, and, according to the Scripture, \u2018imagine a vain thing 749 \u2019; and all that they may be constant to their irreligion.\nNow such endeavours 750 are nothing else than an obvious token of their defect of reason 751 , and a copying, as I have said, of Jewish malignity. For the Jews too, when convicted by the Truth, and unable to confront it, used evasions, such as, \u2018What sign doest Thou, that we may see and believe Thee? What dost Thou work 752 ? though so many signs were given, that they said themselves, \u2018What do we? for this man doeth many miracles 753 .\u2019 In truth, dead men were raised, lame walked, blind saw afresh, lepers were cleansed, and the water became wine, and five loaves satisfied five thousand, and all wondered and worshipped the Lord, confessing that in Him were fulfilled the prophecies, and that He was God the Son of God; all but the Pharisees, who, though the signs shone brighter than the sun, yet complained still, as ignorant men, \u2018Why dost Thou, being a man, make p. 151 Thyself God 754 ?\u2019 Insensate, and verily blind in understanding! they ought contrariwise to have said, \u201cWhy hast Thou, being God, become man?\u201d for His works proved Him God, that they might both worship the goodness of the Father, and admire the Son\u2019s Economy for our sakes. However, this they did not say; no, nor liked to witness what He was doing; or they witnessed indeed, for this they could not help, but they changed their ground of complaint again, \u201cWhy healest Thou the paralytic, why makest Thou the born-blind to see, on the sabbath day?\u201d But this too was an excuse, and mere murmuring; for on other days as well did the Lord heal \u2018all manner of sickness, and all manner of disease 755 ,\u2019 but they complained still according to their wont, and by calling Him Beelzebub, preferred the suspicion of Atheism 756 , to a recantation of their own wickedness. And though in such sundry times and divers manners the Saviour shewed His Godhead and preached the Father to all men, nevertheless, as kicking against the pricks, they contradicted in the language of folly, and this they did, according to the divine proverb, that by finding occasions, they might separate themselves from the truth 757 .\n2. As then the Jews of that day, for acting thus wickedly and denying the Lord, were with justice deprived of their laws and of the promise made to their fathers, so the Arians, Judaizing now, are, in my judgment, in circumstances like those of Caiaphas and the contemporary Pharisees. For, perceiving that their heresy is utterly unreasonable, they invent excuses, \u201cWhy was this defined, and not that?\u201d Yet wonder not if now they practise thus; for in no long time they will turn to outrage, and next will threaten \u2018the band and the captain 758 .\u2019 Forsooth in these their heterodoxy has its support, as we see; for denying the Word of God, reason have they none at all, as is equitable. Aware then of this, I would have made no reply to their interrogations: but, since thy friendliness 759 has asked to know the transactions of the Council, I have without any delay related at once what then took place, shewing in few words, how destitute Arianism is of a religious spirit, and how their one business is to frame evasions.\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, \u1f00\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, &c., here translated \u201creligion, irreligion, religious, &c. &c.\u201d are technical words throughout, being taken from S. Paul\u2019s text, \u201cGreat is the mystery of godliness,\u201d \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, i.e. orthodoxy. Such too seems to be the meaning of \u201cgodly admonitions,\u201d and \u201cgodly judgments,\u201d and \u201cthis godly and well-learned man,\u201d in our Ordination Services. The Latin translation is \u201cpius,\u201d \u201cpietas.\u201d It might be in some respects suitably rendered by \u201cdevout\u201d and its derivatives. On its familiar use in the controversy depends the blasphemous jest of Eudoxius, Arian Bishop of Constantinople, which was received with loud laughter in the Cathedral, and remained in esteem down to Socrates\u2019 day, \u201cThe Father is \u1f00\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u1f74\u03c2, as being without devotion, the Son \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u1f74\u03c2, devout, as paying devotion to the Father.\u201d Socr. Hist. ii. 43. Hence Arius ends his Letter to Eusebius with \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b9\u03b5. Theod. Hist. i. 4.\n150:747\nIt appears that the Arians did not venture to speak disrespectfully of the definition of the Council till the date (a.d. 352) of this work, when Acacius headed them. Yet the plea here used, the unscriptural character of its symbol, had been suggested to Constantius on his accession, a.d. 337, by the Arian priest, the favourite of Constantia, to whom Constantine had entrusted his will, Theod. Hist. ii. 3; and Eusebius of C\u00e6sarea glances at it, at the time of the Council, in the letter to his Church, which is subjoined to this Treatise.\n150:748\nAlexander also calls them chameleons, Socr. i. 6. p. 12. Athanasius so calls the Meletians, Hist. Arian. \u00a779. Cyril compares them to \u201cthe leopard which cannot change his spots.\u201d Dial. ii. init. t. v. i. Aub., Naz. Or. 28. 2. On the fickleness of the Arians, vid. infra, \u00a74. &c. Orat. ii. 40. He says, ad Ep. \u00c6g. 6. that they considered Creeds as yearly covenants; and de Synod. \u00a73. 4. as State Edicts. vid. also \u00a714. and passim. \u201cWhat wonder that they fight against their fathers, when they fight against themselves?\u201d \u00a737.\n150:749 150:750\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1. and so Orat. i. \u00a744. init. but infra. \u00a725. \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 means more definitely reasonings or argumentations.\n150:751\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2; an allusion frequent in Athanasius, to the judicial consequence of their denying the Word of God. Thus, just below, n. 3. \u201cDenying the Word\u201d or Reason \u201cof God, reason have they none.\u201d Also Orat. i. \u00a735. fin. \u00a740. init. \u00a762. Orat. ii. \u00a77. init. Hence he so often calls the Arians \u201cmad\u201d and \u201cderanged;\u201d e.g. \u201cnot aware how \u2018mad\u2019 their \u2018reason\u2019 is.\u201d Orat. i. \u00a737.\n150:752 150:753 151:754 151:755 151:756\nOr ungodliness, \u1f00\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. Thus Aetius was called \u1f41 \u1f04\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, the ungodly. de Synod. \u00a76; and Arius complains that Alexander had expelled him and his from Alexandria, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b8\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. Theodor. Hist. i. 4. \u201cAtheism\u201d and \u201cAtheist\u201d imply intention, system, and profession, and are so far too strong a rendering of the Greek. Since Christ was God, to deny Him was to deny God. The force of the term, however, seems to be, that, whereas the Son had revealed the \u201cunknown God,\u201d and destroyed the reign of idols, the denial of the Son was bringing back idolatry and its attendant spiritual ignorance. Thus contr. Gent. \u00a729. fin. he speaks of \u201cthe Greek idolatry as full of all Atheism\u201d or ungodliness, and contrasts with it the knowledge of \u201cthe Guide and Framer of the Universe, the Father\u2019s Word,\u201d \u201cthat through Him \u2018we may discern His Father,\u2019 and the Greeks may know \u2018how far they have separated themselves from the truth.\u2019\u201d And Orat. ii. 43. he classes Arians with the Greeks, who \u201cthough they have the name of God in their mouths, incur the charge of \u2018Atheism,\u2019 because they know not the real and true God, \u2018the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.\u2019\u201d (vid. also Basil in Eunom. ii. 22.) Shortly afterwards he gives a further reason for the title, observing that Arianism was worse than previous heresies, such as Manicheism, inasmuch as the latter denied the Incarnation, but Arianism tore from God\u2019s substance His connatural Word, and, as far as its words went, infringed upon the perfections and being of the first Cause. And so ad Ep. \u00c6g. \u00a717. fin. he says, that it alone, beyond other heresies, \u201chas been bold against the Godhead Itself in a mad way (\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, vid. foregoing note), denying that there is a Word, and that the Father was always Father.\u201d Elsewhere he speaks more generally, as if Arianism introduced \u201can Atheism or rather Judaism \u2018against the Scriptures,\u2019 being next door to Heathenism, so that its disciple cannot be even named Christian; for all such tenets are \u2018contrary to the Scriptures;\u2019\u201d and he makes this the reason why the Nicene Fathers stopped their ears and condemned it. ad Ep. \u00c6g. \u00a713. For the same reason he calls the heathen \u1f04\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03b9, atheistical or ungodly, \u201cwho are arraigned of irreligion by Divine Scripture.\u201d contr. Gent. \u00a714. vid. \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03ce\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1. \u00a746. init. Moreover, he calls the Arian persecution worse than the pagan \u2018cruelties,\u2019 and therefore \u201ca Babylonian Atheism,\u201d Ep. Encycl. \u00a75. as not allowing the Catholics the use of prayer and baptism, with a reference to Dan. vi. 11, &c. Thus too he calls Constantius atheist, for his treatment of Hosius; \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f04\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2. Hist. Arian. 45. Another reason for the title seems to have lain in the idolatrous character of Arian worship \u2018on its own shewing,\u2019 viz. as worshipping One whom they yet maintained to be a creature. [Prolegg. ch. ii. \u00a73 (2)a, sub. fin.]\n151:757\nA reference to Prov. xviii. 1. which runs in the LXX. \u201ca man seeketh occasions, when desirous of separating himself from friends.\u201d\n151:758\nApparently an allusion to Joh. xviii. 12. Elsewhere, he speaks of \u201cthe chief captain\u201d and \u201cthe governor,\u201d with an allusion to Acts xxiii. 22-24. &c. Hist. Arian. \u00a766. fin. vid. also \u00a72. Apol. contr. Arian. \u00a78. also \u00a710. and 45. Orat. ii. \u00a743. Ep. Encycl. \u00a75. Against the use of violence in religion, vid. Hist. Arian. \u00a733. 67. (Hil. ad Const. 1. 2.) On the other hand, he observes, that at Nic\u00e6a, \u201cit was not necessity which drove the judges to\u201d their decision, \u201cbut all vindicated the Truth from deliberate purpose.\u201d ad Ep. \u00c6g. 13.\n151:759\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. vid. also Hist. Arian. \u00a745. Orat. ii. \u00a74. where Parker maintains without reason that it should be translated, \u201cexternal condition.\u201d vid. also Theod. Hist. i. 4. init.","title":"Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Ser. II, Vol. IV: Defence of the Nicene Definition. (De Decretis.): Chapter I","type":"page"}