The story itself is given at second-hand, from Ammon’s recollection of a statement by Athanasius some 12 to 15 years (at least) before he wrote. The prophetic details about Jovian may therefore be put down to natural accretion (Zetfer 56, note 2). But (apart from the fact that Julian’s death must have been rumoured long before the tardy official announcement of it, Tillem. Em. iv. 449 syg., Prolegg. ubi supr.) that Athanasius told of the @nun of Julian’s death among the monks of the Thebaid need not be doubted.
The story is one of a very large class, many of which are fairly authenticated. To say nothing of the onun at the battle of Mycale; we have in recent times the authority of Mr. R. Stuart Poole, of the British Museum, for the fact that on the night of the death of the Duke of Cambridge (July 9, 1850), Mr. Poole’s brother ‘suddenly took out his watch and said, ‘‘ Note the time, the Duke of Cambridge is dead,” and that the time proved to be correct;’ also the case of a Mr. Edmonds who saw at Leicester, early in the morning of Noy. 4, 1837, an irruption of water into the works of the Thames tunnel, by which a workman was drowned; (other curious cases in ‘Phantasms of the Living’ vol. 2., pp. 367 sgg.). The letter or memoir from which this ‘ Narratio’ is taken, was published by the Bollandists from a Medicean MS., and it bears every internal mark of genuineness. In what way it is integrally connected with the Vita Antonii (Gwatkin, Studies, p. £01), except by the fact that it happens to mention Antony, I fail to see. On the subject of Theodore of Tabenne, the main subject of the memoir, see Amélineau’s S. Pakhime (ut supra, p. 188), also infr. Letter 58, note 3.
‘“As I think your holiness was present and heard, when his blessedness Pope Athanasius, in the presence of other clergy of Alexandria and of my insignificance, formerly related in the Great Church something about Theodorus”, to Ammonius of blessed memory, bishop of Elearchia3, and to Hermon, bishop of the city of Bumastica*; I write only what is necessary to put your reverence in mind of what he said. When the famous bishops were wondering at the blessed Antony, Pope Athanasius—for Antony was often with him—said to them: -—I saw also at that season great men of God, who are lately dead, Theodorus chief of the Tabennesian monks, and the father of the monks around 5 Antinoopolis, called Abbas Pammon. For when I was pursued by Julian, and was expecting to be slain by him—for this news was shewn me by good friends—these two came to me on the same day at Antinoopolis. And having planned to hide with Theodorus, I embarked on his vessel, which was completely covered in, while Abbas Pammon accompanied us. And when the wind was unfavourable, I was very anxious and prayed; and the monks with Theodore got out and towed the boat. And as Abbas -Pammon was encouraging me in my anxiety, I said, ‘ Believe me when I say that my heart is never so trustful in time of peace as in time of persecution. For I have good confidence that suffering for Christ, and strengthened by His mercy, even though I am slain, I shall find mercy with Him.’ And while I was still saying this, ‘Theodorus fixed his eyes on Abbas Pammon and smiled, while the other nearly laughed. So I said to them, ‘ Why have you laughed at my words, do you convict me of cowardice?’? and Theodorus said to Abbas Pammon, ‘ Tell him why we smiled.’ At which the latter said, ‘You ought to tell him.’ So Theodorus said, ‘in this very hour Julian has been slain in Persia,’ for so God had declared beforehand concerning him: ‘the haughty man, the despiser and the boaster, shall finish nothing®. But a Christian Emperor shall arise who shall be illustrious, but shall live only a short time7. Wherefore you ought not to harass yourselves by departing into the Thebaid, but secretly to go to the Court, for you will meet him by the way, and having been kindly received by him, will return to your Church. And he soon shall be taken by God.’ And so it happened. From which cause I believe, that many who are well pleasing to God live unnoticed, especially among the monks. For those men were unnoticed also, such as the blessed Amun and the holy Theodorus® in the mountain of Nitria, and the servant of God, the happy old man, Pammon.”
t The Articles in D.C.B. i, 102 (2) and (3), combine variously | the Council of 362. He is the ‘Ammonius of blessed memory’ data belonging to three distinct persons. (1) The old bishop or- | in the text. (3) Ammon, born 335, baptized 352, monk at Tabenne dained by Alexander (see unknown, see Hist. Ay. 72 init.). Signs | and Nitria 352—367 (?), then at Alexandria, and finally (about 3go) the synodal letter of the Sardican Council; is one of the infirm | bishop of an unknown see in Egypt: wrote a short account of prelates cruelly expelled by George, along with coffins to bury | S. Theodore for Pope Theophilus. them in case of the journey’ being fatal (see also Afol. Fug. 7). 2 Cf. Vit. Ant. 60, and see below, letters 57, 5£, and Acta (2) Another Ammonius, probably not a signatory of Sardica (cf. | SS. Maiz, vol. iii. pp. 334—357, and Appx.; also D.C.B. iv. 954 Apol, Ar. 50, with Ep. Fest, for 347), but a contemporary of | (53): 3 Tom. Ant. 4 i o i i i. to Constantius in 353. | Hermupolis Magna in Upper Egypt | Habak. il. 5. aetna Co caok oy ook 7 Cf Letter 56, note 2, 8 On this Theodore, see D.C.B. 5.7.
He had been a monk, but was then (Dracoxt. 7) bishop of Pachaemunis and part of Elearchia(Zowe. 10), in which capacity, along | no. (67). with other exiles of 356-7 (Hist. Ar. 72; Ap. Fug. 7), he attends ADMAPROS "PRISHOLAR ON NOP Le (WRITTEN ABOUT 369.)
Tue synodical letter which follows was written after the accession of Damasus to the Roman see (366). Whether it was written before any Western synod had formally condemned Auxentius of Milan (see Ze¢ter 59. 1) may be doubted: the complaint (§ 10) is rather that he still retains possession of his see, which in fact he did until 374, the year after the death of Athanasius. At any rate, Damasus had had time to hold a large synod, the letter of which had reached Athanasius. The history of the synods held by Damasus seems hopelessly obscure, and the date of our encyclical is correspondingly doubtful. Damasus certainly held at one time a synod of some go bishops from Italy and the Gauls, the letter of which was sent to Illyricum and to the East (Thdt. H £. ii. 22; Soz. vi. 23; Hard. Cone. i 771: the Latin of the copy sent to Illyricum is dated ‘Siricio et Ardabure wv. cl. coss.,’ an additional element of confusion). The name of Sabinus at the end of the Latin copy sent to the East seems to fix the date of this synod (D.C.B. i. 294) to 372. Thus the synod referred to § 1 below must have been an earlier one, the acts of which are lost. It cannot have been held before the end of 367 or beginning of 368 (Montf. Vt. Ath.), as the earlier period of the episcopate of Damasus was fully occupied by different matters. Accordingly our encyclical falls between 368 and 372, probably as soon as Damasus had been able to assemble so large a synod, and Athanasius to write in reply (§ 10). It may be added that the letter of the Damasine synod of 372 refers in ambiguous terms to the condemnation of Auxentius as having already taken place, (‘damnatum esse liquet:’ was this because they felt unable to dislodge him? see Tillem. viii. 400).
The occasion of the letter is two-fold: principally to counteract the efforts that were being made in the West, and especially in Africa (still later in the time of S. Augustine, see Collat. cum Maximin. 4; and for earlier Arian troubles in Africa, Vicene Zid. vol. i. p. 287), to represent the council of Ariminum as a final settlement of the Faith, and so to set aside the authority of the Nicene definition. ‘The second object is involved in the first. The head and centre of the dying efforts of Arianism in the Roman West was apparently Auxentius, ‘one of the last survivors of the victory of Ariminum.’ That he should be still undisturbed in his see, while working far and wide to the damage of the Catholic cause, was to Athanasius a distressing surprise, and he was urging the Western bishops to put an end to such an anomaly.
In the encyclical before us he begins (1I—3) by contrasting the synod of Nicaea with that of Ariminum, and pointing out the real history of the latter, going over again to some extent the ground of the earlier sections of the de Synodis, He touches (3. end) on the disastrous termination of the Council. He then proceeds to vindicate the Nicene creed (4—8) as essentially Scriptural, ie. as the only possible bar to the unscriptural formule of the Arians. This he illustrates (5, 6) by an account, substantially identical with that in the de Decretis, of the evasions of every other test by the Arian bishops at Nicwa. He repeatedly urges that the formula was no invention of the Nicene Fathers (6, 9), appealing to the admission of Eusebius to this effect. He attacks the Homcean position, shewing that its characteristic watchword merely dissembles the alternative between Anomceanism and the true co-essentiality of the Son (7). The most novel argument in the Letter is that of § 4, where he refutes the repudiation of ovofa and snéctacis in the creed of Niké by an argument from Scripture, starting from Ex. iii. 14 (as de Decr. 22 and de Syn. 29), and turning upon the equivalence of the two terms in question, This would appeal to Westerns, and expresses the usual view of Ath. himself (Zom. ad Ant. Introd.) but would not have much force with those who were accustomed to the Eastern terminology.
The insistence (in § 11) that the Nicene formula involves the Godhead of the Spirit should be noted. It seems to imply that, as a rule, such an explicit assurance as is insisted upon in Yom ad Ant. 3, would be superfluous.
The completeness of the work of Athanasius, now very near his end, in winning over all Egypt to unanimity in faith and in personal attachment to himself, is quaintly reflected in the naive assurance (§ 10) that the bishops of Egypt and the Libyas ‘are all of one mind, and we always sign for one another if any chance not to be present.’
The translation has been carefully compared with that of Dr. Bright (sur. p. 482).
TO THE BISHOPS OF AFRICA, LETTER OF NINETY BISHOPS OF EGYPT AND LIBYA, INCLUDING ATHANASIUS.
1. Pre-eminence of the Council of Nicea. Efforts to exalt that of Ariminum at its expense.
The letters are sufficient which were written by our beloved fellow-minister Damasus, bishop of the Great Rome, and the large number of bishops who assembled along with him; and equally so are those of the other synods which were held, both in Gaul and in Italy, concerning the sound Faith which Christ gave us, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers, who met at Niczea from all this world of ours, have handed down. Fer so great a stir was made at that time about the Arian heresy, in order that they who had fallen into it might be reclaimed, while its inventors might be made manifest. To that council, accordingly, the whoie world has long ago agreed, and now, many synods having been heid, all men have been put in mind, both in Dalmatia and Dardania, Macedonia, Epirus and Greece, Crete, and the other islands, Sicily, Cyprus, Pamphylia, Lycia, and Isauria, all Egypt and the Libyas, and most of the Arabians have come to know it, and marvelled at those who signed it, inasmuch as even if there were left among them any bitterness springing up from the root of the Arians; we mean Auxentius, Ursacius, Valens and their fellows, by these letters they have been cut off and isolated. The confession arrived at at Nicza was, we say once more, sufficient and enough by itself, for the subversion of all irreligious heresy, and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the Church. But since we have heard that certain wishing to oppose it are attempting to cite a synod supposed to have been held at Ariminum, and are eagerly striving that it should prevail rather than the other, we think it right to write and put you in mind, not to endure anything of the sort: for this is nothing else but a second growth of the Arian heresy.
For what else do they wish for who reject the synod held against it, namely the Nicene, if not that the cause of Arius should prevail?
What then do such men deserve, but to be called Arians, and to share the punishment of the Arians? For they were not afraid of God, who says, ‘ Remove not the eternal boundaries which thy fathers placed',’ and ‘He that speaketh against father or mother, let him die the death?:’ they were not in awe of their fathers, who enjoined that they who hold the opposite of their confession should be anathema.
2. The Synod of Nicea contrasted with the local Synods held since.
For this was why an ecumenical synod has been held at Nicaea, 318 bishops assembling to discuss the faith on account of the Arian heresy, namely, in order that local synods should no more be held on the subject of the Faith, but that, even if held, they should not hold good. For what does that Council lack, that any one should seek to innovate? It is full of piety, beloved; and has filled the whole world with it. Indians have acknowledged it, and all Christians of other barbarous nations. Vain then is the labour of those who have often made attempts against it. For already the men we refer to have held ten or more synods, changing their ground at each, and while taking away some things from earlier decisions, in later ones make changes and additions. And so far they have gained nothing by writing, erasing, and using force, not knowing that ‘every plant that the Heavenly Father hath not planted shall be plucked up3,’ But the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical Synod at Niczea, abides for ever 3*. For if one compare number with number, these who met at Niczea are more than those at local synods, inasmuch as the whole is greater than the part. But if a man wishes to discern the reason of the Synod at Niczea, and that of the large number subsequently held by t Prov. xxii, 28.
AD AFROS.
these men, he will find that while there was a reasonable cause for the former, the others were got together by force, by reason of hatred and contention. For the former council was summoned because of the Arian heresy, and because of Easter, in that they of Syria, Cilicia and Mesopotamia differed from us, and kept the feast at the same season as the Jews. But thanks to the Lord, harmony has resulted not only as to the Faith, but also as to the Sacred Feast. And that was the reason of the synod at Nicszea. But the subsequent ones were without number, all however planned in opposition to the ecumenical.
3. The true nature of the proceedings at Ariminum.
This being pointed out, who will accept those who cite the synod of Ariminum, or any other, against the Nicene? or who could help hating men who set at nought their fathers’ decisions, and put above them the newer ones, drawn up at Ariminum with contention and violence? or who would wish to agree with these men, who do not accept even their own? For in their own ten or more synods, as I said above, they wrote now one thing, now another, and so came out clearly as themselves the accusers of each one. Their case is not unlike that of the Jewish traitors in old times. For just as they left the one well of the living water, and hewed for themselves broken cisterns, which cannot hold water, as the prophet Jeremiah has it 4, so these men, fighting against the one ecumenical synod, ‘hewed for themselves’ many synods, and all appeared empty, like ‘a sheaf without strengths.’ Let us not then tolerate those who cite the Ariminian or any other synod against that of Niczea. For even they who cite that of Ariminum appear not to know what was done there, for else they would have said nothing about it. For ye know, beloved, from those who went from you to Ariminum, how Ursacius and Valens, Eudoxius 5* and Auxentius 5? (and there Demophilus %* also was with them), were deposed, after wishing to write something to supersede the Nicene decisions. For on being requested to anathematise the Arian heresy, they refused, and preferred to be its ringleaders. So the bishops, like genuine servants of the Lord and orthodox believers (and there were nearly 200°), wrote that they were 4o3y3) 5 Hos. viii. 7, LXX.
5* Eudoxius was at Seleucia. not at Ariminum.
56 See note on § 10 ifr.
5¢ Bishop of Bercea in Macedonia Tertia. and from 370—380 successor of Eudoxius as Arian bishop of CP.
6 There were some 4oo in all, so that the orthodox majority must have been far more than 200 (see de Syzt. 8, 33). But Gwatkin (Stud. 170, note 3), inclines to accept the statement in the text, satisfied with the Nicene alone, and desired and held nothing more or less than that. This they also reported to Constantius, who had ordered the assembling of the synod. But the men who had been deposed at Ariminum went off to Constantius, and caused those who had reported against them to be insulted, and threatened with not being allowed to return to their dioceses, and to be treated with violence in Thrace that very winter, to compel them to tolerate their innovations, 4. The Nicene formula in accordance with Scripture.
If then any cite the synod of Ariminum, firstly let them point out the deposition of the above persons, and what the bishops wrote, namely that none should seek anything beyond what had been agreed upon by the fathers at Niceea, nor cite any synod save that one. But this they suppress, but make much of what was done by violence in Thrace®; thus shewing that they are dissemblers of the Arian heresy, and aliens from the sound Faith. And again, if a man were to examine and compare the great synod itself, and those held by these people, he would discover the piety of the one and the folly of the others. They who assembled at Nicaea did so not after being deposed: and secondly, they confessed that the Son was of the Essence of the Father. But the others, after being deposed again and again, and once more at Ariminum itself, ventured to write that it ought not to be said that the Son had Essence or Subsistence. This enables us to see, brethren, that they of Niceea breathe the spirit of Scripture, in that God says in Exodus®, ‘I am that I am,’ and through Jeremiah, ‘Who is in His substance? and hath seen His word;’ and just below, ‘if they had stood in My subsistence® and heard My words:’ now subsistence is essence, and means nothing else but very being, which Jeremiah calls existence, in the words, ‘and they heard not the voice of existence®.’ For subsistence, and essence, is existence: for it is, Or in other words exists. This Paul also perceiving wrote to the Hebrews, ‘who being the brightness of his glory, and the express Image of his subsistence’®.’ But the others, who think they know the Scriptures and call themselves wise, and do not choose to speak of subsistence in God (for thus they wrote at Ariminum and at other synods of theirs), were surely with justice deposed, saying as they did, 6a i.e, at Niké, 359. xxiii. 18, LXX. LXX, 7 vrootmpart, Jer. 9 Umapéts, Jer. ix. ro, TOeTHE BISHOPS OF AFRICA.
hke the fool did in his heart?, ‘God is not, And again the fathers taught at Niceea that the Son and Word is not a creature, nor made, having read ‘all things were made through Him 2,’ and ‘in Him were all things created, and consist3;’ while these men, Arians rather than Christians, in their other synods have ventured to call Him a creature, and one of the things that are made, things of which He Himself is the Artificer and Maker. For if ‘through Him all things were made’ and He too is a creature, He would be the creator of Himself. And how can what is being created create? or He that is creating be created?
5. How the test ‘ Coessential’ came to be adopted at Nicea.
But not even thus are they ashamed, although they say such things as cause them to be hated by all; citing the Synod of Ariminum, only to shew that there also they were deposed. And as to the actual definition of Niceea, that the Son is coessential with the Father, on account of which they ostensibly oppose the synod, and buzz around everywhere like gnats about the phrase, either they stumble at it from ignorance, like those whoj stumble at the stone of stumbling that was laid in Sion‘; or else they know, but for that very reason are constantly opposing and murmuring, because it is an accurate declaration and full in the face of their heresy. For it is not the phrases that vex them, but the condemnation of themselves which the definition contains. And of this, once again, they are themselves the cause, even if they wish to conceal the fact of which they are perfectly aware, —But we must now mention it, in order that hence also the accuracy of the great synod may be shewn. Fors the assembled bishops wished to put away the impious phrases devised by the Arians, namely ‘made of nothing,’ and that the Son was ‘a thing made,’ andj; 'craftiness, collected from the Scriptures the figures of brightness, of the river and the well, a ‘creature,’ and that ‘there was a time when He was not,’ and that ‘He is of mutable nature.’ And they wished to set down in writing the acknowledged language of Scripture, namely that the Word is of God by nature Only-begotten, Power, Wisdom of the Father, Very God, as Jobn says, and as Paul wrote, brightness of the Father's glory and express image of His person". But Eusebius and his fellows, drawn on by their own error, kept conferring together as follows: ‘Let us assent. For we also are of God: for “ there is one God of whom are all things?,” and “old 1 Ps. xiv. 1. 2 John i. 3. 3 Col. i. 16.; 3 5 This passage repeats in substance the account in de Decr. 19. t YréaTacts. 2 x Cor. viii. 6.
things are passed away, behold all things are made new, but all things are of God3.”’ And they considered what is written in the Shepherd+, ‘ Before all things believe that God is one, who created and set all things in order, and made them to exist out of nothing.’ But the Bishops, beholding their craftiness, and the cunning of their impiety, expressed more plainly the sense of the words ‘of God,’ by writing that the Son is of the Essence of God, so that whereas the Creatures, since they do not exist of themselves without a cause, but have a beginning of their existence, are said to be ‘ of God,’ the Son alone might be deemed proper to the Essence of the Father. For this is peculiar to one who is Only-begotten and true Word in relation to a Father, and this was the reason why the words ‘of the essence’ were adopted. Again’, upon the bishops asking the dissembling minority if they agreed that the Son was not a Creature, but the Power and only Wisdom of the Father, and the Eternal Image, in all respects exact, of the Father, and true God, Eusebius and his fellows were observed exchanging nods with one another, as /much as to say ‘this applies to us men also, for we too are called ‘the image and glory of God 5,” and of us it is said, ‘‘ For we which live are alway ®,” and there are many Powers, and “all the power” of the Lord went out of the land of Egypt,” while the caterpillar and the locust are called His ‘‘great power ®” And “the Lord of powers9 is with us, the God of Jacob is our help.” For we hold that we are proper? to God, and not merely so, but insomuch that He has even called us brethren. Nor does it vex us, even if they call the Son Very God. For when made He exists in verity.’
6. The Nicene test not unscriptural in sense, nor a novelty.
Such was the corrupt mind of the Arians. But here too the Bishops, beholding their and of the relation of the express Image to the Subsistence, and the texts, ‘in thy light shall we see light?,’ and ‘I and the Father are one 3.’ And lastly they wrote more plainly, and concisely, that the Son was coessential with the Father; for all the above passages signify this. And their murmuring, that the phrases are unscriptural, is exposed as vain by themselves, for they have uttered their impieties in unscriptural terms: (for such are ‘ of 3 John x, go.
nothing’ and ‘there was a time when He was not’), while yet they find fault because they were condemned by unscriptural terms pious in meaning. While they, like men sprung from a dunghill, verily ‘spoke of the earth +,’ the Bishops, not having invented their phrases for themselves, but having testimony from their Fathers, wrote as they did. For ancient bishops, of the Great Rome and of our city, some 130 years ago, wroteS and censured those who said that the Son was a creature and not coessential with the Father. And Eusebius knew this, who was bishop of Czesarea, and at first an accomplice® of the Arian heresy; but afterwards, having signed at the Council of Niczea, wrote to his own people affirming as follows: ‘we know that certain eloquent and distinguished bishops and writers even of ancient date used the word ‘“ coessential ” with reference to the Godhead of the Father and the Son.’
7. The position that the Son ts a Creature enconsistent and untenable.
Why then do they go on citing the Synod of Ariminum, at which they were deposed? Why do they reject that of Niczea, at which their Fathers signed the confession that the Son is of the Father’s Essence and coessential with Him? Why do they run about? For now they are at war not only with the bishops who met at Niczea, but with their own great bishops and their own friends. Whose heirs or successors then are they? How can they call men fathers, whose confession, well and apostolically drawn up, they will not accept? For if they think they can object to it, let them speak, or rather answer, that they may be convicted of falling foul of themselves, whether they believe the Son when He says, ‘1 and my Father are one,’ and ‘he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father %,’ ‘Yes,’ they must answer, ‘since it is written we believe it.’ But if they are asked how they are one, and how he that hath seen the Son hath seen the Father, of course, we suppose they will say, ‘ by reason of resemblance,’ unless they have quite come to agree with those who hold the brother-opinion to theirs, and are called? Anomoeans. But if once more they are asked, ‘how is He like?’ they brasen it out and say, ‘ by perfect virtue and harmony, by having the same will with the Father, by not willing what the Father wills not.’ But let them 4 John iii. 31.
But see Socrates, ii. 21, and D.C.B. ii. p. 347.
7 Cf. de Syn. ¢ 31 (a chapter added after the death of Constantius). The Anomcean sect, headed by Eunomius, and deriving its intellectual impetus from Aetius, belongs to the second generation of the Arian movement (their watchword is characterised as recent in the creed of Niké, 359 a.p.), and was comparatively unfamiliar to Athanasius. Cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. 38.
5 See de Syz. } 43, and de Sent. Dionys.
AD AFROS.