Alexander's Letter to Alexander of Constantinople* (Hē philarchos)

Alexander sends greetings in the Lord to his most revered and likeminded brother Alexander.

(1.) Motivated by greed and ambition, evil-minded people have always plotted against the well-being of the most important dioceses. Under various pretexts, they attack the religion of the Church. Being maddened by the devil, who works in them, they lay aside all piety according to their own pleasure, and trample under foot the fear of the judgment of God. (2.) Suffering as I do from these things, it was necessary to inform your piety, so that you could be on your guard against them, in case they or any of their party would presume to enter your diocese (for these cheats are skilful in deception), or they circulate false and specious letters, calculated to delude one who has devoted himself to the simple and undefiled faith. (3.) Arius and Achillas have lately formed a conspiracy, and, emulating the ambition of Colluthus, have gone far beyond him. The latter at least sought to find a pretext for his own pernicious line of action in the charges he brought against them. But when they saw him making a trade of Christ for sinful profit, they refused to remain any longer in subjection to the Church; but built for themselves robbers’ dens [cf. Matt 21:23], and now constantly assemble in them, and day and night speak slanderously there against Christ and against us. (4.) They revile every godly apostolic doctrine, and in Jewish fashion have organized a gang to fight against Christ, denying his divinity, and declaring him to be on a level with other men. They pick out every passage which refers to the plan (oikonomia) of salvation, and to his humbling himself for our sake [cf. Phil 2:8], and then they try to deduce from those passages their own impious assertion. At the same time they avoid all the other passages which clearly declare his eternal divinity and the unceasing glory which he possesses with the Father.

(5.) They use all possible means to maintain the ungodly doctrine held by the Greeks and the Jews concerning Jesus Christ, seeking approval from them. Everything which outsiders ridicule about us they practice diligently. They daily excite persecutions and seditions against us. They accuse us before the courts, finding for their false witnesses certain unprincipled women whom they have seduced into error [cf. 1 Tim 5:11-13]. They dishonor Christianity by permitting their young women to ramble about the streets. Nay, they have had the audacity to rend the seamless garment of Christ, which the soldiers dared not divide [cf. John 19:23-24]. (6.) When these actions, in keeping with their course of life, and the impious attacks which had been long concealed, finally became known to us, we unanimously ejected them from the Church which worships the divine Christ.

(7.) They then ran everywhere to form plots against us, even addressing themselves to our fellow-ministers who were of one mind with us, under the pretence of seeking peace and unity with them, but in truth endeavoring by means of pleasant words, to sweep some among them away into their own disease. They ask them to write a wordy letter, and then read the contents to those whom they have deceived. In this way they avoid retraction, and are confirmed in their impiety, by finding that bishops agree with and support their views. (8.) They make no acknowledgment of the evil doctrines and practices for which they have been expelled by us, but they either impart them without comment, or carry on the deception with fallacies and forgeries. (9.) Thus concealing their destructive doctrine by persuasive and lowly, submissive language, they catch the unwary, and lose no opportunity of maligning our religion. Hence it arises that several have been led to sign their letter, and to receive them into communion, a proceeding on the part of our fellow-ministers which I consider highly reprehensible; for thus they not only disobey the apostolic rule, but even help to kindle a diabolical action against Christ among them.

(10.) It is on this account, beloved brethren, that without delay I have stirred myself up to inform you of the unbelief of certain persons who say that “There was a time when the Son of God was not;” and “He who previously had no existence subsequently came into being; and when at some time he came into being he became like every other man is.”

(11.) They say God created all things out nothing, and they have the audacity to count the Son of God among rational and irrational creatures. As a necessary consequence of this teaching, they affirm that he is by nature able to change, and capable of either good or evil. Thus, by their hypothesis that he was created out of nothing, they overthrow the testimony of the Divine Scriptures, which declares the unchangeable nature of the Word and the Divinity of the Wisdom of the Word, which Word and Wisdom is Christ [cf. 1 Cor 1:24]. “We are also able,” say these accursed wretches, “to become like Him, the sons of God; for it is written, ‘I have nourished and brought up children’ [Isa 1:2 (LXX)].” (12.) When someone brings up the second half of this text, which is “and they have rebelled against Me,” and it is objected that these words are inconsistent with the Savior’s nature, which is unchangeable, they throw aside all reverence, and affirm that God foreknew and foresaw that his Son would not rebel against him, and that is why he therefore chose him rather than all others. (13.) They likewise assert that he was not chosen because he was in any way superior to the other sons of God; for no man, say they, is son of God by nature, nor has any peculiar relation to Him. He was chosen, they allege, because, though liable to change by nature, his excellent character suffered no deterioration. (14.) As though, indeed, if Paul and Peter had done the same, their sonship would in no respect differ from his. To establish this insane doctrine they insult the Scriptures, and assert what is said in the Psalms concerning Christ, “You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness, therefore your God has anointed you with the oil of gladness above you companions” [Ps 45:7, (44:8 LXX), Heb 1:9].

(15.) John the Evangelist specifically teaches that the Son of God was not created out of nothing, and that there never was a time in which he was not, when he says “the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father.” This divine teacher desired to show that the Father and the Son are inseparable, and therefore, he said, “that the Son is in the bosom of the Father” [John 1:18]. (16.) Moreover, the same John affirms that the Word of God is not classified among things created out of nothing, for he says that “all things were made by him.” He also declares his individual personality in the following words: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… All things were made by him, and without him was nothing made that was made” [John 1:1-3]. (17.) If, then, all things were made by him, how is it that he who bestowed existence on all, could at any period have had no existence himself? The Word, the creating power, can in no way be defined as being of the same nature as the things created, if indeed he was in the beginning, and all things were made by him, and were called into being by him out of nothing.

(18.) “That which is” must be of an opposite nature to, and essentially different from, things created out of nothing. This passage also shows that there is no separation between the Father and the Son; this thought of separation does not even occur to the mind of the hearer. The fact that the world was created out of nothing means that its essential nature has a later and fresh beginning, and that all things have been endowed with such a beginning of existence by the Father through the Son. (19.) John, the most pious apostle, perceived that the created beings can not understand the word “was” when it is applied to the Word of God, since this meaning is beyond and above our experience. So he did not presume to speak of the Word’s generation or creation, nor yet dared to name the Maker and the creature in equivalent syllables. Not that the Son of God is unbegotten, for the Father alone is unbegotten; but the indescribable personality of the only-begotten God is beyond the sharpest conception of the Evangelists and perhaps even of angels. Therefore, I do not think men ought to be considered pious who presume to investigate this subject, for they disobey the injunction, “Seek not what is too difficult for you, neither enquire into what is too high for you” [Sir 3:21]. (20.) The knowledge of many other things incomparably inferior is beyond the capacity of the human mind, and cannot therefore be attained, as has been Paul said, “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither have they entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for those who love him” [1 Co 2:9]. God also said to Abraham that the stars could not be numbered by him; and it is likewise said, “Who shall number the grains of sand by the sea-shore, or the drops of rain?” [Sir 1:2] So how then can any one but a madman presume to enquire into the nature of the Word of God? (21.) It is said by the Spirit of prophecy, “Who shall declare his generation?” [Isa 53:8] And so our Savior, in his kindness to those men who were the pillars of the whole world, desiring to relieve them of the burden of striving after this knowledge, told them that it was beyond their natural comprehension, and that the Father alone could discern this most divine mystery. “No man,” said he, “knows the Son but the Father, and no man knows the Father except the Son” [Matt 11:27]. It was, I think, concerning this same subject that the Father said, “My mystery is for me” [Isa 24:16 (Vulgate)].

(22.) But the insane folly of imagining that the Son of God came into being out of that which had no being, and that his sending forth took place in time, is plain from the words “which had no being.” But the foolish are incapable of perceiving the folly of their own utterances. The phrase “He was not” must either have reference to time, or to some interval in the ages. (23.) If then it be true that all things were made by him, it is evident that every age, time, all intervals of time, and that time “when” he “was not”, were all made by him. So is it not absurd to say that there was a time when he who created all time, and ages, and seasons, with which the “was not” is confused, was not? For it would be the height of ignorance, and contrary indeed to all reason, to affirm that the cause of any created thing can be posterior to that caused by it.

(24.) The interval during which they say the Son was still unbegotten of the Father was, according to their opinion, prior to the wisdom of God, by whom all things were created. They thus contradict the Scripture which declares him to be “the firstborn of every creature” [Col 1:15] (25.) In harmony with this doctrine, Paul with his usual mighty voice cries concerning him; “whom he has appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds” [Heb 1:2], and, “For by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and for him: and he is before all things” [Col 1:16-17]. (26.) The hypothesis that the Son came into being “out of nothing” is clearly impious: the Father must always be a father. He is always Father of a Son who is present, on account of whom he is called Father. Only if the Son is always present with him is he always a completed Father, lacking in nothing good. He could not, therefore beget his only Son in time, or in any interval of time, nor out of that which had no previous existence. (27.) Is it not then impious to say, “There was a time when the wisdom of God was not?” The very Wisdom who says, “I was by him as one brought up with him: I was daily his delight?” [Prov 8:30] Is it not also impious to say that at one time the power of God was not, or his Word, or anything else by which the Son is known, or the Father designated? To assert that the brightness of the Father’s glory [Heb 1:3] “once did not exist,” destroys also the original light of which it is the brightness. If there ever was a time in which the image of God [2 Cor 4:4] was not, it is plain that God, whose image he is, is not always. (28.) No, if the express image of God’s Person did not exist, then he was separated from the one of whom he is ever the express image. Hence it may be seen, that the sonship of our Savior has not even anything in common with the sonship of men. (29.) It has been shown that the nature of his existence cannot be expressed by language, and infinitely surpasses in excellence all things to which he has given being. So also his sonship, naturally partaking in his Father’s Divinity, is unspeakably different from the sonship of those who, by his appointment, have been adopted as sons. He is by nature unchangeable, perfect, and all-sufficient, whereas men are liable to change, and need his help. (30.) What further advance can be made by the wisdom of God [1 Cor 1:24]? What can the very Truth, or God the Word, add to itself? How can the Life or the True Light [John 14:6; 1:4, 9] be bettered in any way? And is it not still more contrary to nature to suppose that wisdom can be susceptible to folly? That the power of God can be united with weakness? That reason itself can be dimmed by unreasonableness, or that darkness can be mixed with the true light? Does not the Apostle say, “What communion has light with darkness? And what harmony has Christ with Belial?” [2 Cor 6:14-15] and Solomon, that “the way of a serpent upon a rock” [Prov 30:19] was “too wonderful” for the human mind to comprehend, which “rock,” according to St. Paul, is Christ [1 Cor 10:4]. Men and angels, however, who are his creatures, have received his blessing, enabling them to exercise themselves in virtue and in obedience to his commands, that thus they may avoid sin.

(31.) And it is on this account that our Lord, being by nature the Son of the Father, is worshipped by all. They who have put off the spirit of slavery [Phil 2:11], and by brave deeds and progress in virtue have received the spirit of adoption [Rom 8:15] through the kindness of him who is the Son of God by nature, by adoption also become sons. (32.) Paul declared his true, unique, natural, and special sonship when he said by inspiration that “he spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us” [Rom 8:32], who are not by nature his sons. (33.) It was to distinguish him from those who are not “his own,” that he called him “his own son.” It is also written in the Gospel, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased” [Matt 3:17], and in the Psalms the Savior says, “The Lord said unto me, you are my Son” [Ps 2:7]. By proclaiming natural sonship he shows that there are no other natural sons besides himself. (34.) These words, “I begot you from the womb before the dawn” [Ps 109:3 (LXX), 110:3 English] plainly show that his natural sonship and paternal birth is his by individuality of nature, not by diligence of conduct, or exercise in moral progress. Hence it follows that the sonship of the only-begotten Son of the Father is incapable of falling; while the reasonable beings who are adopted by God, and not his sons by nature, but merely on account of their fitness of character and by the bounty of God, may fall away. This is written in the word, “The sons of God saw the daughters of men, and took them as wives” [Gen 6:2-3] and so forth. And God, speaking by Isaiah, said, “I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me” [Isa 1:2].

(35.) I have many things to say, beloved, but because I fear that I shall cause weariness by further admonishing teachers who are of one mind with myself, I pass them by. You, “having been taught of God” [1 Thess 4:9], are not ignorant that the teaching at variance with the religion of the Church which has just arisen is the same as that propagated by Ebion and Artemas, and rivals that of Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, who was excommunicated by a council of all the bishops. (36.) Lucian, his successor, withdrew himself from communion with these bishops for many years. And now, “out of nothing,” men have arisen among us who have greedily sucked down the dregs of this impiety, offspring of the same stock: I mean Arius and Achillas, and all their gang of rogues. (37.) Three bishops of Syria, appointed no one knows how, fan them to a more fatal heat by agreeing with them. I leave their sentence in your hands. They fill their memory with all that they can find concerning Christ’s suffering, humiliation, emptying of himself, and so-called poverty [Phil 2:7-8], and all the names which the Savior accepted for our sake. They bring forward those passages to disprove his eternal existence and divinity, while they forget all those passages which declare his glory and nobility and abiding with the Father; as for instance, “I and my Father are one” [John 10:30].

(38.) In these words the Lord does not proclaim himself to be the Father; nor does he represent two natures as one. He declares that the essence of the Son of the Father preserves accurately the likeness of the Father, that his nature took the exact likeness of his Father in all things, being the exact image of the Father and the express stamp of the prototype. (39.) When, therefore, Philip, desirous of seeing the Father, said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father,” the Lord with abundant plainness said to him, “He who has seen me has seen the Father” [John 14:8-9] as though the Father were seen in the spotless and living mirror of his image. (40.) The same idea is conveyed in the Psalms, where the saints say, “In your light we shall see light” [Ps 36:9]. It is on this account that “he who honors the Son, honors the Father” [John 5:23]. And rightly so, for every impious word which men dare to utter against the Son is spoken also against the Father.

(41.) After this no one can wonder at the false reports which I am about to detail, my beloved brothers, propagated by them against me, and against our most pious people. They not only set up for battle against the divinity of Christ, but ungratefully insult us. They think it beneath them to be compared with any of those older; they will not endure to be put on a par with the teachers we have been conversant with from childhood. They will not admit that any of our fellow-ministers anywhere possess even mediocre intelligence. They say that they themselves alone are the wise and the understanding, and discoverers of doctrines, and to them alone have been revealed those truths which, they say, have never entered the mind of any other individuals under the sun.

(42.) O what wicked arrogance! O what excessive folly! What false boasting, joined with madness and Satanic pride, has hardened their impious hearts! (43.) They are not ashamed to oppose the divine clarity of the ancient scriptures, nor yet does the unanimous piety of all our fellow-ministers concerning Christ blunt their audacity. Even devils will not suffer impiety like this; for even they refrain from speaking blasphemy against the Son of God. (44.) These then are the questions I, according to the abilities I possess, have to raise with those who from their rude resources throw dust on the Christ, and try to slander our reverence for him. These inventors of silly tales assert that we, who reject their impious and unscriptural blasphemy concerning the creation of Christ from nothing, teach that there are two unbegotten Beings. For these ill-instructed men contend that one of these alternatives must hold; either he must be believed to have come out of nothing, or that there are two unbegotten Beings. They are ignorant rookies when it comes to theology, and do not realize how vast must be the distance between the Father who is uncreated, and the created beings, whether rational or irrational, which he created out of nothing;

(45.) and that the only-begotten nature of him who is the Word of God, by whom the Father created the universe out of nothing, standing, as it were, in the middle between the two, was begotten of the self-existent Father, as the Lord himself testified when he said, “Every one that loves the Father, loves also the Son that is begotten of him” [1 John 5:1].

(46.) We believe, as is taught by the apostolic Church, in a single unbegotten Father, who of his being has no cause, unchanging and invariable, and who subsists always in one state of being, admitting neither of progression nor of lessening; who gave the Law, and the Prophets, and the Gospel; Lord of patriarchs and apostles, and of all saints: We also believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten not out of nothing, but of the Father, who is; yet not after the manner of material bodies, as a piece cut off of something or an emanation, as Sabellius and Valentinus taught; but in an inexpressible and inexplicable manner, according to the saying which we quoted above, “Who shall declare his generation?” [Isa 53:8] No mortal intellect can comprehend the nature of his Person, as the Father himself cannot be comprehended, because the nature of reasonable beings is unable to grasp the manner in which he was begotten of the Father. (47.) But those who are led by the Spirit of truth have no need to learn these things of me, for the words long since spoken by the Savior yet sound in our ears, “No one knows who the Father is but the Son, and no one knows who the Son is but the Father” [Matt 11:27]. We have learned that the Son is unchanging and unchangeable, all-sufficient and perfect, like the Father, except that he is not unbegotten. He is the exact and precisely similar image of his Father. (48.) For it is clear that the image fully contains everything by which the greater likeness exists, as the Lord taught us when he said, “My Father is greater than I” [John 14:8]. And in accordance with this we believe that the Son always existed of the Father; for he is the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his Father’s person” [Heb 1:3]. But let no one be led by the word “always” to imagine that the Son is unbegotten, as is thought by some who have had their intellects blinded. For, to say that he was, that “he has always been,” and “before all ages,” is not to say that he is unbegotten. (49.) The mind of man could not possibly invent a term to express what it means to be unbegotten, and none of these terms in any way signifies the unbegotten (I believe that you are of this opinion; and, indeed, I feel confident in your orthodox view). (50.) For all the terms signify merely the extension of time, and are not adequate to express the divinity and, as it were, the primeval being of the only-begotten Son. They were used by the holy men who earnestly endeavored to clear up the mystery, and who asked pardon from those who listened to them, with a reasonable caveat to excuse their failure, saying “as far as our comprehension has reached.”

(51.) If those who now allege that what was “known in part” has been “done away” for them [cf. 1 Cor 13:8-12], expect from human lips anything beyond human powers, it is plain that the terms “was,” and “ever,” and “before all ages,” fall far short of this expectation. Whatever these words may mean, it is not the same as “unbegotten.” (52.) The Father’s unique status must be preserved as the Unbegotten One, since no one is called the cause of his existence. The Son must also be given his own honor, since his generation (gennēsis) from the Father has no beginning. We must worship him, as we have already said, only piously and religiously ascribing to him the “was” and the “ever,” and the “before all ages;” not however rejecting his divinity, but ascribing to him a perfect likeness in all things to his Father, while at the same time we ascribe to the Father alone his own proper glory as “the Unbegotten,” even as the Savior himself says, “My Father is greater than I” [John 14:28].

(53.) In addition to this pious belief respecting the Father and the Son, we confess as the Sacred Scriptures teach us, one Holy Ghost, who inspired the saints of the Old Testament, and the divine teachers of that which is called the New. We believe in one sole, apostolic Catholic Church, which cannot be destroyed even though all the world were to plot and fight against it, and which gains the victory over all the impious attacks of the heterodox. We of the church are emboldened by the words of our Master, “Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world” [John16:33]. (54.) Besides this, we accept the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the first-fruits; who had a true body, not merely the appearance of a body, derived from Mary the mother of God (theotokos); in the fullness of time dwelling among humanity, for the forgiveness of sins. He was crucified and died, yet for all this suffered no lessening of his Godhead. He rose from the dead, was taken into heaven, and sat down at the “right hand of the Majesty on high” [Heb 9:26].

(55.) In this letter I have only mentioned these things in part, thinking it, as I have said, tiresome to dwell minutely on each point, since they are well known to your pious Diligence. These things we teach, these things we preach; these are the doctrines of the apostolic Church, for which we are ready to die, caring little for those who would force us to forsake them; for we will never relinquish our hope in them, though they should try to compel us by torture.

(56.) Arius and Achillas, together with their fellow foes, have been expelled from the Church, because they have become alienated from our pious doctrine: as the blessed Paul said, “If any of you preach any other gospel than that which you have received, let him be accursed (anathema), even though he should pretend to be an angel from heaven” [Gal 1:9], and “But if any man teach otherwise, and does not consent to sound words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to godly teaching, he is proud, knowing nothing” [1 Tim 6:3-4] and so forth.

(57.) Since, then, they have been condemned (anathematized) by the brotherhood, let none of you receive them, nor pay attention to what they say or write. They are deceivers, who propagate lies and never adhere to the truth. (58.) They go about to different cities under the pretext of friendship and in the name of peace with the intent to deliver false letters declaring their good standing in the church. They then obtain other letters in return by hypocrisy and flattery, in order to deceive a few “weak women who are loaded down with sins” [2 Tim 3:6]. (59.) I beseech you, beloved brethren, to avoid those who have in this way dared to act against Christ, who have publicly held up the Christian religion to ridicule, and have eagerly sought to make a display before judicial tribunals. They have endeavored to excite a persecution against us during this time of peace, and have weakened the unspeakable mystery of Christ’s being begotten. Unite unanimously in opposition to them, as some of our fellow-ministers have already done, who, being filled with indignation, wrote to me against them, and signed our condemnatory letter. I have sent my son Apion, the deacon, to you with these letters which list the clergy in all Egypt and the Thebaid, also of those of Libya, and the Pentapolis, of Syria, Lycia, Pamphylia, Asia, Cappadocia, and in the other adjoining countries, whose example you likewise, I trust, will follow. (60.) Many kindly attempts have been made by me to gain back those who have been led astray, but no remedy has proved more effective in restoring the laity who have been deceived by them and leading them to repentance, than a show of union by our fellow-ministers. Therefore, salute one another in the brotherhood. I pray that you may be strong in the Lord, my beloved, and that I may receive the fruit of your love to Christ.

The following are the name of those who have been anathematized as heretics: among the presbyters, Arius; among the deacons, Achillas, Euzoius, Aethales, Lucius, Sarmatas, Julius, Menas, another Arius, and Helladius. [Compare this list to the list in Urkunde 6]

Translation from NPNF2 vol. 3, p. 35-41, adapted by AJW.

The translation in Christianity in Late Antiquity, no. 21 was consulted in this adaptation.

Sections 9-11 are translated in Ayres, pp. 50-51.

Discussed in Hanson, p. 141-2 and New Eusebius, no. 28

Back to the Early Arian Documents Chart

Last updated: 6/22/07 AJW
Copyright 2006 Wisconsin Lutheran College
Fourth-Century Christianity Home