35- But if Scripture often calls even the body by the name of Christ, as in the blessed Peter’s words to Cornelius, when he teaches him of ‘Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Ghost,’ and again to the Jews, ‘Jesus of Nazareth, a Man approved of God for you’,’ and again the blessed Paul to the Athenians, ‘By that Man, whom He a a ee ee» ED sta PD Ts 7 Vid. 2 Bsdr. vii. 28, 29; Acts iii. 20, 2 Heb. iii. 6. 3 John ii. 19.
5 Vid. Matt. vii. 25; xvi. 18. 7 De Decr.13 Or. i. 4, iii. 27; de Syn. 50.
= Prov. ix, re 4 Vid. Ps. cxxvii. 1. 6 éxeivwv, John x. 33.
ene eR ee ordained, giving assurance to all men, in that He raised Him from the dead?’ (for we find the appointment and the mission often synonymous with the anointing; from which any one who will may learn, that there is no discordance in the words of the sacred writers, but that they but give various names to the union of God the Word with the Man from Mary, sometimes as anointing, sometimes as mission, sometimes as appointment), it follows that what the blessed Peter says is right3, and he proclaims in purity the Godhead of the Only-begotten, without separating the subsist ence of God the Word from the Man from Mary (perish the thought! for how should he, who had heard in so many ways, ‘I and the Father are one,’ and ‘He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father+?)’ In which Man, after the resurrection also, when the doors were shut, we know of His coming to the whole band + of the Apostles, and dispersing all that was hard to believe in it by His words, ‘ Handle Me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me haves.’ - And He did not say, ‘ This,’ or ‘this Man which I have taken to Me,’ but ‘Me.’ Wherefore the Samosatene will gain no allowance, being refuted by so many arguments for the union of God the Word, nay by God the Word Himself, who now brings the news to all, and assures them by eating, and permitting to them that handling of Him which then took place. For certainly he who gives food to others, and they who give him, touch hands. For ‘ they gave Him,’ Scripture says, ‘a piece of a broiled fish and of an honey-comb, and’ when He had ‘ eaten before them, He took the remains and gave to them °.’ See now, though not as Thomas was allowed, yet by another way, He afforded to them full assurance, in being touched by them; but if you would now see the scars, learn from Thomas. ‘Reach hither thy hand and thrust it into My side, and reach hither thy finger and behold My hands7;’ so says God the Word, speaking of His own ® side and hands, and of Himself as whole man and God together, first affording to the Saints even perception of the Word through the body 9, as we may consider, by entering when the doors were shut; and next standing near them in the body and affording full assurance. So much may be conveniently said for confirmation of the faithful, and correction of the unbelieving.
36. And so let Paul of Samosata also stand corrected on hearing the divine voice of Him who said ‘ My body,’ not ‘ Christ besides Me who am the Word,’ but ‘ Him! with Me, and Me with Him.’ For I the Word am the chrism, and that which has the chrism from Me is the Man?; not then without Me could He be ealled Christ, but being with MeandIin Him. Therefore the mention of the mission of the Word shews the uniting which took place with Jesus, born of Mary, Whose Name means Saviour, not by reason of anything else, but from the Man’s being made one with God the Word. This passage has the same meaning as ‘the Father that sent Me,’ and ‘I came not of Myself, but the Father sent Me3.’ For he has given the name of mission ¢ to the uniting with the Man, with Whom the Invisible nature might be known to men, through the visible. For God changes not place, like us who are hidden in places, when in the fashion of our littleness He displays Himself in His existence in the flesh; for how should He, who fills the heaven and the earth? but on account of the presence in the flesh the just have spoken of His mission. Therefore God the Word Himself is Christ from Mary, God and Man; not some other Christ but One and the Same; He before ages from the Father, He too in the last times from the Virgin; invisible 5 before even to the holy powers of heaven, visible now because of His being one with the Man who is visible; seen, I say, not in His invisible Godhead but in the operation ° of the Godhead through the human body and whole Man, which He has renewed by its appropriation to Himself. ‘To Him be the adoration and the worship, who was before, and now is, and ever shall be, even to all ages. Amen.
5 Luke xxiv. 39. 7 John xx, 27.
2 Acts xvii, 31. 48 ~ypwpis. 43, vid. Wetstein zz loc.
Bees \aN Oldies: (WRITTEN 359, ADDED TO AFTER 361.)
Tue de Synodis is the last of the great and important group of writings of the third exile. With the exception of §§ 30, 31, which were inserted at a later recension after the death of Constantius (cf. Hist. Av. 32 end), the work was all written in 359, the year of the dated creed (§ 4 dr ris viv bwareias) and of the fateful assemblies of Rimini and Seleucia. It was written moreover after the latter council had broken up (Oct. 1), but before the news had reached Athanasius of the Emperor’s chilling reception of the Ariminian deputies, and of the protest of the bishops against their long detention at that place. The documents connected with the last named episode reached him only in time for his postscript (§ 55): Still less had he heard of the melancholy surrender of the deputies of Ariminum at Niké on Oct. ro, or of the final catastrophe (cf. the allusion in the inserted § 30, also Prodegg. ch. it. § 8 (2) fim.).
The first part only (see Table zzfra) of the letter is devoted to the history* of the twin councils. Athanasius is probably mistaken in ascribing the movement for a great council to the Acacian or Homcean anxiety to eclipse and finally set aside the Council of Nica. The Semi-Arians, who were ill at ease and anxious to dissociate themselves from the growing danger of Anomceanism, and who at this time had the ear of Constantius, were the persons who desired a doctrinal settlement. It was the last effort of Eastern ‘Conservatism’ (yet see Gwatkin, Studies, p. 163) to formulate a position which without admitting the obnoxious époovo.ov should yet condemn Arianism, conciliate the West, and restore peace to the Christian world. The failure of the attempt, gloomy and ignominious as it was, was yet the beginning of the end, the necessary precursor of the downfall of Arianism as a power within the Church.
The cause of this failure is to be found in the intrigues of the Homoeans, Valens in the West, Eudoxius and Acacius in the East. Nicsea was chosen by Constantius for the venue of the great Synod. But Basil, then in high favour, suggested Nicomedia, and thither the bishops were summoned. Before they could meet, the city was destroyed by an earthquake, and the venue was changed to Niczea again. Now the Homeoeans saw their opportunity. Their one chance of escaping disaster was in the principle ‘divide et impera.’ The Council was divided into two: the Westerns were to meet at Ariminum, the Easterns at Seleucia in Cilicia, a place with nothing to recommend it excepting the presence of a strong military force. Hence also the conference of Homcean and Semi-Arian bishops at Sirmium, who drew up in the presence of Constantius, on Whitsun-Eve, the famous ‘dated’ or ‘third Sirmian’ Creed. Its wording (Spoor kara mavra) shews the predominant influence of the Semi-Arians, in spite of the efforts of Valens to get rid of the test words, upon which the Emperor insisted. Basil moreover issued a separate memorandum to explain the sense in which he signed the creed, emphasising the absolute likeness of the Son to the Father (Bright, Zwtrod., \xxxiii., Gwatkin, pp. 168 sg.), and accepting the Nicene doctrine in everything but the name. But for all Basil might say, the Dated Creed by the use of the word éuouv had opened the door to any evasion that an Arian could desire: for dyouoy is a relative term admitting of degrees: what is only ‘like’ is ps0 facto to some extent wmlike (see below, § 53). The party of Basil, then, entered upon the decisive contest already outmanceuvred, and doomed to failure. The events which followed are described by Athanasius (§§ 8—12). At Ariminum the Nicene, at Seleucia the Semi-Arian cause carried all before it. The Dated Creed, rejected with scorn at Ariminum, was unsuccessfully propounded in an altered form by Acacius at Seleucia. ‘The rupture between Homceans and Semi-Arians was complete. So far only does Athanasius carry his account of the Synods: at this point he steps in with a fresh bléw at the link which united Eastern Conservatism with the mixed multitude of original Arians like Euzoius and Valens, ultra Arians like Aetius and t He undertakes to tell drep éSpaka kat éyvwr axpiBas, words which have given rise to the romantic but ill-founded tradition that, ubiquitous and untiring in his exile, he was a secret spectator of the proceedings of his enemies at these distant gatherings. (So Gibbon and, as far as Seleucia is concerned, Tillemont. Montfaucon, as usual, takes the more sober and likely view.)
eee re ee a ee ee Eunomius, and Arianising opportunists like Acacius, Eudoxius, and their tribe. In the latter he recognises deadly foes who are to be confuted and exposed without any thought of compromise; in the former, brethren who misunderstand their own position, and whom explanation will surely bring round to their natural allies. In this twofold aim the de Synodis stands in the lines of the great anti-Arian discourses (supra, p. 304). But with the eye of a general Athanasius suits his attack to the new position. With the Arians, he has done with theological argument; he points indignantly to their intrigues and their brow-beating, to their lack of consistent principle, their endless synods and formularies (§§ 21—32); concisely he exposes the hollowness of their objection to the Nicene formula, the real logical basis upon which their position rests (§§ 33— 40, see Bright, xc.—xcii.). But to the Semi-Arians he turns with a serious and carefully stated vindication of the énootvcwrv. The time has come to press it earnestly upon them as the only adequate expression of what they really mean, as the only rampart which can withstand the Arian invasion. This, the last portion (§§ 41—s4) of the letter, is the razson @étre of the whole: the account of the Synods is merely a means to this end, not his main purpose; the exposure of Arian principles and of Arian variations subserves the ultimate aim of detaching from them those of whom Athanasius was now hoping better things. It may be said that he over-rated the hopefulness of affairs as far as the immediate future was concerned. The weak acceptance by the Seleucian majority (or rather by their delegates) of the Arian creed of Niké, the triumph of Acacius, Eudoxius and their party as Constantius drifted in the last two years of his life nearer and nearer to ultra-Arianism (de Sy. 30, 31, his rupture with Basil, Zheod¢. ii. 27), the ascendancy of Arianism under Valens, and the eventual consolidation of a Semi-Arian sect under the name of Macedonius, all this at the first glance is a sad commentary upon the hopefulness of the de Synodis.
But (1) even if this were all the truth, Athanasius was right: he was acting a noble part. In the de Synodis ‘even Athanasius rises above himself. Driven to bay by the pertinacity of his enemies, exasperated as we see him in the de Fuga and Arian History, ‘yet no sooner is he cheered with the news of hope than the importunate jealousies of forty years are hushed (contrast Zp. g. 7) in a moment, as though the Lord had spoken peace to the tumult of the grey old exile’s troubled soul’ (Gwatkin, Studies, p. 176, Arian Controv., p. 98). The charity that hopeth all things is always justified of her works. (2) Athanasius, however, was right in his estimate of the position. Not only did many of the Semi-Arians (e.g. the fifty-nine in 365) accept the duootc.ov, but it was from the ranks of the Semi-Arians that the men arose who led the cause of Niczea to its ultimate victory in the East. ‘There accompanied Basil of Ancyra from the Seleucian Synod to Constantinople a young deacon and ascetic, who read and welcomed the appeal of Athanasius, Writing a few months later, this young theologian, Basil of Cezsarea, adopts the words of the de Synodis: ‘one God we confess, one in nature not in number, for number belongs to the category of quantity,...neither Like nor Unlike, for these terms belong to the category of quality (cf. below, § 53)...He that is essentially God is Coessential with Him that is essentially God...If I am to state my own opinion, I accept ‘“‘ Like in essence” with the addition of “exactly” as identical in sense with ‘‘Coessential”...but “exactly like” [without “essence”] I suspect...Accordingly since “ Coessential” is the term less open to abuse, on this ground I too adopt it’ (Af. 8, 9, the Greek in Gwatkin, Studies, p. 242)”. Basil the Great is, not indeed the only, but the conspicuous and abundant justification of the insight of Athanasius in the de Synodis.
Turning to subordinate parts of the Letter, we may note the somewhat unfair use made of the unlucky blunder of the Dated Creed, as though its compilers thereby admitted that their faith had no earlier origin. The dating of the creed was doubtless ‘ an offence against good taste as well as ecclesiastical propriety’ (as sad a blunder in its way as Macaulay’s celebrated letter to his constituents from ‘ Windsor Castle’), and it was only in human nature to make the most of it. More serious is the objection taken to the revolting title Adyovorov 700 aiwviov (which set a bad precedent for later times, Bright, Ixxxiv, note 4) in contrast to the denial of the eternity of the Son. At any rate, lending itself as it did to such obvious criticisms, we are not surprised to read (§ 29) that the copies of the creed were hastily called in and a fresh recension substituted for it.; Lastly it must be remembered that Athanasius does not aim at giving a complete catalogue of Arian or Arianising creeds, any more than at giving a full history of the double council. Accordingly we miss (1) the confession of Arius and Euzoius, presented to Constantine in 330; (2) The confession ‘ colourless in wording, but heterodox in aim,’ drawn up at Sirmium 3 against Photinus in 347 (Hil. Prag. 2. 21 sq. Hefele, vol. i. p. 192); The formulary propounded by the Emperor at Milan in 355 (Hil. Syw. 78); (4) The confession of the council age A ney iiiaded to § 41, see n. 9); (5) The Anomcean Ecthesis of Eudoxius and Aetius, Constantinople 359 (Thdt. /% Z. ii. 27).
2 Observe also that the Semi-Arian document of reconciliation in 363 Socr. ili. 25) adopts the point pressed in de Syx. 41.
3 This is, strictly speaking, the ‘first’ Sirmian creed, but in the Table below that of 351 is counted as such.:.
4 The ‘Semi-Arian digest of three confessions,’ number 5 in Newman’s list of Sirmian creeds, is left out of the reckoning here, as the confused statement of Soz. iv. 15, is the sole evidence for its existence. It cannot be the confession referred to in Hil. Aragy. vi. 6,7. But see Newman, A/Zans, Appendix iii. note 5; Gwatkin, S/wdies, pp. 162, 189, sub fin, VOL, IV. Gg 450 DE SYNODIS. o In the de Synodis we have a worthy Con He ne see which are the legacy and the irring and eventful period of the noble hie of our gr ‘:: oe ce ane ot this tract by Newnee has been more closely revised than those of the ‘de Decretis’ and the first three ‘ Discourses,’ as it appeared somewhat less exact in places. In §§ 10, II, ea ee has been followed, as, inaccurate as the version certainly is in places, this seemed more a e to ane a of Athanasius; moreover, it appears to preserve some more. original readings than the Hilarian text. e notes have been curtailed to some extent, especially those containing purely historical matter.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
.PART I. HiIstoRY OF THE DouBLE COUNCIL.
§1. The reason of any new council having been called.
§ 2. The superfluity of such assemblies.
$5. Necessity of the Nicene Council.
§ 6. Its decisions make any fresh council unnecessary. _ § 7. The true motives of the promoters of the new councils. gg 8—11. Proceedings of the 400 at Ariminum.
§ 8. The ‘ Dated’ Creed propounded.; § 9. Rejection of the Dated Creed and deposition of Valens, &c, § 10. The Council’s Letter to the Emperor. § 11. Decree of the Council. § 12. Proceedings of the 160 at Seleucia Trachea. : Deposition of Acacius, &c., and report to the Emperor.; § 13, 14. Reflections on the two councils, especially as to the divergence of the Arians from the Fathers and from each other.
PART II. Huisrory OF ARIAN CREEDS, § 15. The belief of Arius as expressed in his Thalia. § 16. Letter of Arius to Alexander. § 17. Statements of early partizans of Arius. §§ 18, 19. Extracts from Asterius the sophist. § 20. The true character of this doctrine. Arian Councils and their formularies. § 21. Ferusalem (335). Letter announcing reception of Arius to Communion, § 22. Antioch (* Dedication’ 341). First creed. § 23. Second (Lucianic) Creed. § 24. Third creed (of Theophronius). § 25. Fourth creed (342; revision of the Nicene). § 26. (344) Fifth creed: the ‘ Macrostich’ (the fourth with additions and explanations). iS.27 Sirmium (against Photinus, 351, fourth of Antioch with 27 anathemas), the ‘ First’ Sirmian. § 28. * Second Sirmian’ (357, the ‘ blasphemy ’). § 29. Creed propounded by the Acacians at Seleucia (359, the ‘Dated’ Creed revised in Homeean sense). [§ 30. Creed of Niké and Constantinople (359, 360, a new recension of the ‘ Dated’ Creed, rejecting * Hypostasis ’ as well as ‘ Essence.’) § 31. A further Anomcean creed published under the patronage of Constantius at Antioch (361)]. § 32. Reflections on the significance of these many changes.
PART III. APPEAL TO THE SEMI-ARIANS. a. 8§ 33—40. Homeans confuted.
§ 33. The terms objected to give offence only because misunderstood. § 34. ‘The true Divinity of Christ implies ‘ Coessential.’ § 35. To reject the term implies that Christ is a creature. § 30. The objection to ‘unscriptural’ language condemns the Arians. §§ 37, 38. Ifthe Son is truly ‘ Like’ the Father, he is ‘ Coessential.’ § 39. The sense, not the occurrence of the terms in Scripture, must be attended to. § 4o. Alleged obscurity of the Nicene formula. b. §§ 41—54. Semi-Arians conciliated. § 41. The party of Basil of Ancyra are with us on the main question. § 42. “ Coessential’ conveys a meaning which they would adopt.
§$ 43, 44. Alleged rejection of the term by the 70 bishops at Antioch, subsequent to its recognition by Dionysius of Alexandria. 3 § 45. We must not hastily assume contradictions between the Fathers.
§ 48. ‘Coessential” guards the acknowledged attributes of the Son.
§ 49. The Son is all that the Father is, except Father.
§ 50. If the Son is not Coessential, the Unity of the Godhead is lost.
§ 51. The Son cannot impart to man what is not His own; The oneness of Essence does not imply a common or prior essence. J § 52. The Son not an independent God.
§ 53. * Coessential’ why preferable to ‘ Like in Essence.
§ 54. Appeal for union among those who are really agreed.
Postscript (supplementing Part I.) § 55. Reply of Constantius to the Council of Ariminum, and remonstrance of the bishops upon receipt of it.
COUNCILS OF ARIMINUM AND SELEUCIA. — PART i: History OF THE COUNCILS.
Reason why two Councils were called. Inconsistency and folly of calling any; and of the style of the| Arian formularies; occasion of the Nicene Council;| proceedings at Ariminum; Letter of the Council to Constantius; its decree. Proceedings at Seleucia; reflections on the conduct of the Arians.
1. PERHAPS news has reached even yourselves concerning the Council, which is at this time the subject of general conversation; for letters both from the Emperor and the Prefects’ were circulated far and wide for its convocation. However, you take that interest in the events which have occurred, that I have determined upon giving you an account of what I have seen myself, and accurately ascertained, which may save you from the suspense attendant on the reports of others; and this the more, because there are parties who are in the habit of misrepresenting what has happened. At Niczea then, which had been fixed upon, the Council has not met, but a second edict was issued, convening the Western Bishops at Ariminum in Italy, and the Eastern at Seleucia the Rugged, as it is called, in Isauria. The professed reason of such a meeting was to treat of the faith touching our Lord Jesus Christ; and those who alleged it, were Ursacius, Valens, and one Germinius? from Pannonia; and from Syria, Acacius, Eudoxius, and Patrophilus 3 of Scythopolis. These men who had always been of the Arian party, and ‘understood neither how they believe or whereof they affirm,’ and were silently deceiving first one and then another, and scattering the second sowing+ of their heresy, influenced some who seemed to be somewhat, and the Emperor Constantius among them, being a heretic 5, on some pretence about the Faith, to call a Council; under the idea that ee ee ee 1 [On the Prefects, see Gibbon, ch. xvii., and Gwatkin, pp.
obs (Cf. Hist. Ar. 74, D.C.B. ii. 661.] At a later date he approached very nearly to Catholicism.
3 [See Prolegg. ch. ii. § 3 (1), and, on the Arian leaders at this | they should be able to put into the shade the Nicene Council, and prevail upon all to turn round, and to establish irreligion everywhere instead of the Truth.
2. Now here I marvel first, and think that I shall carry every sensible man whatever with me, that, whereas a General Council had been fixed, and all were looking forward to it, it was all of a sudden divided into two, so that one part met here, and the other there. However, this was surely the doing of Providence, in order in the respective Councils to exhibit the faith without guile or corruption of the one party, and to expose the dishonesty and duplicity of the other. Next, this too was on the mind of myself and my true brethren here, and made us anxious, the impropriety of this great gathering which we saw in progress; for what pressed so much, that the whole world was to be put in confusion, and those who at the time bore the profession of clergy, should run about far and near, seeking how best to learn to believe in our Lord Jesus Christ? Certainly if they were believers already, they would not have been seeking, as though they were not. And to the catechumens, this was no small scandal; but to the heathen, it was something more than common, and even furnished broad merriment ', that Christians, as if waking out of sleep at this time of day, should be enquiring how they were to believe concerning Christ; while their professed clergy, though claiming deference from their flocks, as teachers, were unbelievers on their own shewing, in that they were seeking what they had not. And the party of Ursacius, who were at the bottom of all this, did not understand what wrath they were storing up (Rom. ii. 5) against themselves, as our Lord says by His saints, ‘ Woe unto them, through whom My Name is blasphemed among the Gentiles’ (Is. lil. 5; Rom. i. 24); and by His own mouth in the Gospels (Matt. xviii. 6), ‘Whoso shall offend one of these little ones, it were better for him t Cf, Ammianus, Hist. xxi. 16. Eusebius, Vit. Const. it. 61.
Gg2 DE SYNODIS: pos 2 Se ee ee eee that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea, than,’ as Luke adds, ‘that he should offend one of these little ones’ (Luke xvii. 2). 3. What defect of teaching was there for religious truth in the Catholic Church ’, that they should enquire concerning faith now, and should prefix this year’s Consulate to their profession of faith? For’Ursacius and Valens and Germinius and their friends have done what never took place, never was heard of among Christians. After putting into writing what it pleased them to believe, they prefix to it the Consulate, and the month and the day of the current year3; thereby to shew all sensible men, that their faith dates, not from of old, but now, from the reign of Constantius+; for whatever they write has a view to their own heresy. Moreover, though pretending to write about the Lord, they nominate another master for themselves, Constantius, who has bestowed on them this reign of irreligion5; and they who deny that the Son is everlasting, have called him Eternal Emperor; such foes of Christ are they in addition to irreligion. But perhaps the dates in the holy Prophets form their excuse for the Consulate; so bold a pretence, however, will serve but to publish more fully their ignorance of the subject. For the prophecies of the saints do indeed specify their times (for instance, Isaiah and Hosea lived in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah; Jeremiah in the days of Josiah; Ezekiel and Daniel prophesied under Cyrus and Darius; and others in other times); yet _ they were not laying the foundations of divine religion; it was before them, and was always, for before the foundation of the world God prepared it for us in Christ. Nor were they signifying the respective dates of their own faith; for they had been believers before these dates. But the dates did but belong to their own preaching. And this preaching spoke beforehand of the Saviour’s coming, but directly of what was to happen to Israel and the nations; and the dates denoted not the commencement of faith, as I said before, but of the prophets themselves, that is, when it was they thus prophesied. But our modern sages, not in historical narration, nor in prediction of the future, but, after writing, ‘‘Phe Catholic Faith was published,’ immediately add the Consulate and the month and the 2 Cf. Orat. ii. § 34. And Hilary de Syn. or: ii Ad Coniieuss. ke ae a Cf. Tertull. de Prescr. 373 Hil. de Trin. vi. 21; Vincent.
Lir. Commonit. 24; Jerom. in Lucif, 27; August. de Bapt. contr.
Don. iii. 3.: 5 [Cf. Hist. Ar. §§ 52 66, 76, 44, and Prolecs. ch. ij day, that, as the saints specified the dates of their histories, and of their own ministries, so these may mark the date of their own faith. And would that they had written, touching ‘their own®’ (for it does date from today); and had not made their essay as touching ‘the Catholic, for they did not write, ‘Thus we believe,’ but ‘the Catholic Faith was published.’
4. The boldness then of their design shews how little they understand the subject; while the novelty of their phrase matches the Arian heresy. For thus they shew, when it was they began their own faith, and that from that same time present they would have it proclaimed. And as according to the Evangelist Luke, there ‘was made a decree’ (Luke ii. 1) concerning the taxing, and this decree before was not, but began from those days in which it was made by its framer, they also in like manner, by writing, ‘The Faith is now published,’ shewed that the sentiments of their heresy are novel, and were not before. But if they add ‘of the Catholic Faith,’ they fall before they know it into the extravagance of the Phrygians, and say with them, ‘To us first was revealed,’ and ‘from us dates the Faith of Christians.’ And as those inscribe it with the names of Maximilla and Montanus?7, so do these with ‘Constantius, Master,’ instead of Christ. If, however, as they would have it, the faith dates from the present Consulate, what will the Fathers do, and the blessed Martyrs? nay, what will they themselves do with their own catechumens, who departed to rest before this Consulate? how will they wake them up, that so they may obliterate their former lessons, and may sow in turn the seeming discoveries which they have now put into writing®? So ignorant they are on the subject; with no knowledge but that of making excuses, and those unbecoming and unplausible, and carrying with them their own refutation.