I beseech you, overlook not such proceed- ings, nor suffer the famous Church of the Alex- andrians to be trodden down by heretics. In consequence of these things the people and their ministers are separated from one another, as one might expect, silenced by the violence of the Prefect, yet abhorring the impiety of the Arian madmen. If therefore Gregory shall write unto you, or any other in his behalf, receive not his letters, brethren, but tear them in pieces and put the bearers of them to shame, as the ministers of impiety and wickedness. And even if he presume to write to you after a friendly fashion, nevertheless receive them not. Those who bring his letters convey them only from fear of the Governor, and on account of his frequent acts of violence. And since it is probable that Eusebius and his fellows will write to you concerning him, I was anxious to ad- monish you beforehand, so that you may herein imitate God, Who is no respecter of persons, and may drive out from before you those that come from them; because for the sake of the Arian madmen they caused persecutions, rape of virgins, murders, plunder of the Church’s property, burnings, and blasphemies in the Churches, to be committed by the heathens and Jews at such a season. The impious and mad Gregory cannot deny that he is an Arian, being proved to be so by the person who writes his letters. This is his secretary Ammon, who was cast out of the Church long ago by my predecessor the blessed Alexander for many misdeeds and for impiety.
For all these reasons, therefore, vouchsafe to send me a reply, and condemn these im- pious men; so that even now the ministers and people of this place, seeing your orthodoxy and hatred of wickedness, may rejoice in your concord in the Christian faith, and that those who have been guilty of these lawless deeds against the Church may be reformed by your letters, and brought at last, though late, to repentance. Salute the brotherhood that is among you. All the brethren that are with me salute you. Fare ye well, and remember me, and the Lord preserve you continually, most truly beloved lords, APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
“Tuts Apology,” says Montfaucon, “is the most authentic source of the history of the Church in the first half of the fourth century. Athanasius is far superior to any other histo- rians of the period, both from his bearing for the most part a personal testimony to the facts he relates, and from his great accuracy and use of actual documents. On the other hand, Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, must not be used without extreme caution, unless they adduce documents, which is seldom the case.” The ‘ Apology’ is a personal defence by Athanasius against the charges laid against him by the Eusebian party, and does not directly concern matters of doctrine. After the Council of Nicza, the Eusebian policy had been to oust the principal opponents from their sees on personal grounds, so as to pave the way for the abrogation of the Nicene formula. The attack upon Athanasius began in 331, but without success. It was renewed at Czsarea and Tyre in 334—335, and resulted in the exile of Athanasius to Treveri, 336. His return in 337 was followed by a Synod at Antioch which ‘ deposed’ him (close of 338), and by his expulsion in favour of Gregory (339). Then follow the intervention of Julius (339—340), and the Council of Sardica (343), which resulted in the eventual return of Athanasius in the autumn of 346. (The details are given more fully in the Prolegomena, ch. ii. §§ 4—6). After this latter date, and before the relapse of Valens and Ursacius which followed upon the death of Constans, Athanasius drew up a collection of documents in proof of his innocence, connecting them together by an ex- planatory narrative. (1) The charges against him related to events alleged to have occurred before the year 332 (extortion of money, subvention of the rebel Philumenus, the chalice of Ischyras, murder and mutilation of the bishop Arsenius): the principal evidence as to their falsehood was comprised in the proceedings of the Councils of Tyre and Jerusalem, and of the commission of enquiry sent by the assembled bishops to the Mareotis. (2) The judicial in- vestigations which proved the innocence of Athanasius took place first at Rome under Julius, secondly at Sardica under Hosius; and were followed by the recognition of his innocence on the part of the Emperor Constantius, of bishops in various parts of the world, and lastly of some of his chief accusers.
The method of defence now adopted by Athanasius was jirstly to show how complete that recognition had been: this he does by a series of documents from the eve of his departure to Rome down to the recantation of Ursacius and Valens soon after his return to Alexandria: these documents cover eight years (339—347) previous to the composition of the Apology _ (§§ 158). Having shewn the completeness of his acquittal, he next gives the evidence upon which it was based. Accordingly the second part (§§ 59—90) of the Apology deals with facts and documents earlier than those comprised in the first. Hence the inversion of chronological sequence (pracposterus ordo, Montf.) as between the two parts.
Referring the reader to the Prolegomena for a connected view of the history of which this Apology is the primary source, it will suffice for our present purpose to enumerate the documents quoted, with the briefest possible statement of their contents and bearing upon the general purpose of the work. It should be noted that while in the first part the documents follow one another in strict chronological order, those of the second part fall into groups VOL, IV. H 98 APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
within which the matters are arranged as best suits the argument, and not in order of time. In the following list the probable or approximate date of each document is given.
A. DOCUMENTS IN THE FIRST PART (general subject, the vindication of Athanasius before the bishops of the Christian world). (i.) DocUMENTS PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL OF SARDICA (§§ I—35).
I. §§ 3—19 (end of 338 or beginning of 339). Circular of Egyptian bishops reciting the election of Athanasius, the plots and charges against him, the history of the Mareotic Commission, the testimony available in his defence, and requesting all bishops to join in vindicating him, 2. §§ 20-35 (340 A.D.). Letter of Fulius to the Eusebian bishops (at the request of a Roman Council) remonstrating with their discourteous reply to a former letter, reciting the history of the intrigues against Athanasius, pressing them with their disrespect to the Synod of Niczea, with their evasion of the invitation to the Council at Rome, vindicating Athanasius (on the ground of documentary proof of his innocence, and on that of the irregularity of the proceedings against him) and Marcellus (upon his own statement of belief), lastly, insisting on the propriety of a reference of the questions at issue to the whole Church, and upon the precedent giving the Roman Church a decisive voice in questions affecting that of Alexandria.
(ii.) CouNcIL oF SARDICA (§§ 36—50).
3. §§ 36—40 (A.D. 343) Letter of the Council to the Church of Alexandria, reciting the intrigues against Athanasius, and the confirmation by the council of his acquittal by Julius, encouraging the Alex- andrine Church to patience, and announcing that they have requested the Emperors to give effect to their decisions.
4. §§ 41—43 (same date). Letter of the Council to the bishops of Egypt and Libya; identical with No. 3, except that it omits the reference to certain presbyters of Alexandria, and mentions several Arian leaders by name.
5. §§ 44—50 (same date). Circular letter of the Council, reciting the occasion of its assembling, the behaviour of the Eastern bishops, the violence inflicted by them upon orthodox bishops, the break- down of the charges brought by them against Athanasius, and the purgation of Marcellus and Asclepas, who are pronounced innocent, while the Arian leaders are deposed and anathematised. The signatures follow of over 280 bishops, most of whom signed afterwards while the letter was in circulation.
(iii.) DOCUMENTS FORMING A SEQUEL TO THE COUNCIL OF SARDICA (§§ 51—5§8).
6—8. § 51. Letters of Constantius to Athanasius before and after death of Gregory.
6 (A.D. 345). Expressing sympathy with his sufferings, and inviting him to court; he has written to Constans to ask him to allow Athanasius to return.
7 (same year, later). Urging the same invitation, 8 (346, winter, or early spring). A similar summons, but more pressing.
g. §52(same year). Letter of Fulius to the Church of Alexandria, eulogising Athanasius, complimenting them for their constancy, and congratulating them upon his return.
10. § 54 (same year). Circular letter of Constantius to the Church at large, announcing the restoration of Athanasius and the cassation of all decrees against him, with indemnity to all in his communion.
11. § 55 (same date). Letter of Constantius to the Church of Alexandria. Announcement of the restoration of Athanasius, with exhortation to peace, and warning against disturbances.
12. § 56 (same date). Zo the Prefect of Egypt and other officials. Wevocation of decrees against those in communion with Athanasius, and restoration of their immunities.
13. §57 (same year, autumn). Le¢ter of the bishops of Palestine to the Egyptian Church congratulating them on the restoration of Athanasius.
14. §58 (A.D. 347). Letter of Valens and Ursacius to Fulius unreservedly withdrawing their allegations against Athanasius, anathematizing Arius and his heresy, and at the same time promising to take the consequences of their offence if required by Julius to do so.
15. ib. (same year). Letter of the same to Athanasius, with a greeting and assurance that they are in communion with him and with the Church.
B. DOCUMENTS IN THE SECOND PART. (i.) Lrrrers oF CONSTANTINE PREVIOUS TO THE COUNCIL OF TYRE ($$ 59—63). 16. §59 (A.D. 331). A fragment, urging Athanasius with threats to admit to communion all (Arians) who wish it.
17. § 61 (same year). Letter to the people of Alexandria, remonstrating with them for their dissensions and stigmatising the calumnies against Athanasius (about the affair of Philumenus) DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS. 99 (ii.) 18. § 64 (332). Confession of Ischyras, that he had been compelled by the violence of certain Meletians to fabricate false charges against Athanasius. (iii.) THE AFFAIR OF ARSENIUS (§§ 65—70).
19. § 67 (probably 332). Lntercepted letter of the presbyter Pinnes to Fohn Arcaph, warning him of the discovery of the plot, and begging him to drop the matter.
20. § 68 (same year). Letter of Constantine to Athanasius, expressing indignation at the charges con- cerning Arsenius and Ischyras, and bidding him publish this letter in vindication of himself.
21. §66 (same year). Letter of Alexander, Bishop of Thessalonica, praising Serapion, the son of an old friend, and congratulating Athanasius on the exposure of the plot about Arsenius.
22. § 69 (same year). Letter of Arsenius to Athanasius, offering submission and requesting communion with the Church.
23. §70(same year). Letter of Constantine to Fohn Arcaph accepting his reconciliation to Athanasius, and summoning him to court.
(iv) PRocEEDINGS AT TYRE IN 335 ($$ 71—83).
24. § 77. Address to the Council by the Egyptian Bishops, complaining of the presence of partizan judges, of the rejection of their evidence, and of the proposed constitution of the Mareotic Commission.
25- §71. (Written A.D. 327, but put in as evidence at Tyre by Athanasius in the matter of Ischyras, after the exposure of the plot concerning Arsenius). Zzst of Meletian Bishops and Clergy presented to Alexander of Alexandria shortly before his death, and zot containing the name of Ischyras.
26. § 78. Protest addressed by the Egptian Bishops to Count Dionysius, repeating the above complaints (in No. 24), and requesting him to stop the irregularities.
27. §80. Alexander of Thessalonica to Dionysius, warning him of the conspiracy against Athanasius, and of the character of the Mission to the Mareotis.
28. § 81. Letter of Dionysius to the Council, strongly remonstrating against their proceedings.
29. §79. Letter of the Egyptian Bishops to Dionysius appealing to the Emperor.
30—32. Protests made by Egyptian Clergy against the proceedings of the MAREOTIC COMMISSION, 30. § 73. Clergy of Alexandria to the Commissioners, protesting against the exclusion of all independent persons from the proceedings. 31. §$ 74, 75. Clergy of the Mareotis to the Council, giving an account of the facts concerning Ischyras, and of the ex-farte character of the proceedings of the Commission. 32. § 76. The same to the Prefect and other officials of Egypt (dated Sep. 8, 335), denying upon oath the tale of Ischyras, and requesting them to forward their statement to the Emperor. (v.) DOCUMENTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE COUNCIL OF TYRE (§§ 84—88).
33. § 86 (335). Constantine to the Bishops assembled at Tyre, summoning them to give an account of their proceedings.
34. §84. The Council of Ferusalem to the Church of Alexandria, announcing that Arius has been received to communion.
35. § 87 (June 17, 337). Constantine II. to the Church of Alexandria (upon the death of Constantine, whose purpose he claims to be carrying out), announcing the restoration of Athanasius, 36. § 85 (perhaps in 337, but possibly as early as 335). Order by Flavius Hemerius for the erection of a church for Ischyras.
The two concluding sections (89, 90) of the Apology are a postscript added during the troubles under Constantius (about 358, see Introd. to Hist. Av). He points to the sufferings which many bishops, including Hosius and Liberius, had endured rather than surrender his cause, as fresh evidence of their belief in his innocence. He refuses to see any detraction from the force of this argument in the fall of the two bishops mentioned.
The importance to the historian of this collection of documents need not be dwelt upon. If the charges in dispute seem trivial and even grotesque, they none the less illustrate the temper of the parties concerned, and the character of the controversy during the very im- portant twenty years which end with the death of Constans and the reign of Constantius over — the undivided Empire.
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS INTRODUCTION.
1. I supposed that, after so many proofs of my innocence had been given, my enemies would have shrunk from further enquiry, and would now have condemned themselves for their false accusations of others. But as they are not yet abashed, though they have been so clearly convicted, but, as insensible to shame, persist in their slanderous reports against me, professing to think that the whole matter ought to be tried over again (not that they may have judgment passed on them, for that they avoid, but in order to harass me, and to disturb the minds of the simple); I therefore thought it necessary to make my defence unto you, that you may listen to their murmurings no longer, but may denounce their wickedness and base calumnies, And it is only to you, who are men of sincere minds, that I offer a defence: as for the contentious, I appeal confidently to the de- cisive proofs which I have against them. For my cause needs no further judgment; for judg- ment has already been given, and not once or twice only, but many times. First of all, it was tried in my own country in an assembly of nearly one hundred of its Bishops *°; a second time at Rome, when, in consequence of letters from Eusebius, both they and we were sum- moned, and more than fifty Bishops met *; and a third time in the great Council assem- bled at Sardica by order of the most religious Emperors Constantius and Constans, when my enemies were degraded as false accusers, and the sentence that was passed in my favour received the suffrages of more than three hundred Bishops, out of the provinces of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, Palestine, Arabia, Isauria, Cyprus, Pamphylia, Lycia, Galatia, Dacia, Moesia, Thrace, Dardania, Macedonia, Epirus, Thessaly, Achaia, Crete; 10 The Council of Sardica says eighty; which is a usual number in Egyptian Councils. (vid. Tillemont, vol. 8. p. 74.) ‘There were about ninety Bishops in Egypt, the Thebais, and Libya. The present Council was held [at the end of 338 or possibly at the beginning of 339]. Its synodal Epistle is contained below, § 3, and is particularly addressed to Pope Julius, § 20.
%« This was held in 340. Julius’s Letter is found below, § or.
Dalmatia, Siscia, Pannonia, Noricum, Italy, Picenum, Tuscany, Campania, Calabria, Apu- lia, Bruttia, Sicily, the whole of Africa, Sar- dinia, Spain, Gaul, and Britain.
Added to these was the testimony? of Ursacius and Valens, who had formerly calum- niated me, but afterwards changed their minds, and not only gave their assent to the sentence that was passed in my favour, but also con- fessed that they themselves and the rest of my enemies were false accusers; for men who make such a change and such a recantation of course reflect upon Eusebius and _ his fellows, for with them they had contrived the plot against me. Now after a matter has been examined and decided on such clear evidence by so many eminent Bishops, every one will confess that further discussion is unnecessary; else, if an investigation be instituted at this time, it may be again discussed and again investigated, and there will be no end to such trifling.
2. Now the decision of so many Bishops was sufficient to confound those who would still fain pretend some charge against me. But when my enemies also bear testimony in my favour and against themselves, declaring that the proceedings against me were a con- spiracy, who is there that would not be ashamed to doubt any longer? The law requires that in the mouth of two or three witnesses? judgments shall be settled, and we have here this great multitude of witnesses in my favour, with the addition of the proofs afforded by my enemies; so much so that those who still continue opposed to me no longer attach any importance to their own arbitrary 3 judgment, but now have recourse to violence, and in the place of fair reasoning seek to injure+ those by whom they were X Vid. infr. § 58.
2 Deut. xvii. 6.
3 Hs 7O€dAnoay. vid. infr. §14. de Decr. $3. de Syn. § 13. EA.
4 This implies that Valens and Ursacius were subjected to some kind of persecution, which is natural [most improbable]. They relapsed in 351, when Constantius on the death of Constans came into possession of his brother’s dominions; and professed to have been forced to their former recantation by the latter Emperor.
This was A.D. 347.
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
exposed. For this is the chief cause of vexa- tion to them, that the measures they carried on in secret, contrived by themselves in a corner, have been brought to light and dis- closed by Valens and Ursacius; for they are well aware that their recantation while it clears those whom they have injured, con- demns themselves.
Indeed this led to their degradation in the Council of Sardica, as mentioned before; and with good reason; for, as the Pharisees of old, when they undertook the defence of Pauls, fully exposed the conspiracy which they and the Jews had formed against him and as the blessed David was proved to be persecuted unjustly when the persecutor confessed, ‘I have sinned, my son David °;’ so it was with these men; being over- come by the truth they made a request, and delivered it in writing to Julius, Bi- shop of Rome. They wrote also to me re- questing to be on terms of peace with me, though they have spread such reports con- cerning me; and probably even now they are covered with shame, on seeing that those whom they sought to destroy by the grace of the Lord are still alive. Consistently also with this conduct they anathematized Arius and his heresy; for knowing that Eusebius and his fellows had conspired against me in behalf of their own misbelief, and of nothing else, as soon as they had determined to confess their calumnies against me, they immediately renounced also that antichristian heresy for the sake of which they had falsely asserted them.
The following are the letters written in my favour by the Bishops in the several Councils; and first the letter of the Egyptian Bishops.
Encyclical Letter of the Council of Egypt.
The holy Council assembled at Alexandria, out of Egypt, the Thebais, Libya, and Penta- polis, to the Bishops of the Catholic Church everywhere, brethren beloved and greatly longed for in the Lord, greeting.
3. Dearly beloved brethren, we might have put forth a defence of our brother Athanasius, as respects the conspiracy of Eusebius and his fellows against him, and complained of his sufferings at their hands, and have exposed ail their false charges, either at the beginning of their conspiracy or upon his arrival at Alex- andria. But circumstances did not permit it then, as you also know; and lately, after the return of the Bishop Athanasius, we thought that they would be confounded and covered with shame at their manifest injustice: in IOI © consequence we prevailed with ourselves to remain silent. Since, however, after all his severe sufferings, after his retirement into Gaul, after his sojourn in a foreign and far distant country in the place of his own, after his narrow escape from death through their calumnies, but thanks to the clemency of the Emperor,— distress which would have satisfied even the most cruel enemy,—-they are still insensible to shame, are again acting insolently against the Church and Athanasius; and from indignation at his deliverance venture on still more atrocious schemes against him, and are ready with an accusation, fearless of the words in holy Scripture’, ‘A false witness shall not be unpunished;’ and, ‘The mouth that belieth slayeth the soul;’ we therefore are unable longer to hold our peace, being amazed at their wickedness and at the insatiable love of contention displayed in their intrigues.
For see, they cease not to disturb the ear of royalty with fresh reports against us; they cease not to write letters of deadly import, for the destruction of the Bishop who is the enemy of their impiety. For again have they written to the Emperors against him; again they wish to conspire against him, charging him with a butchery which has never taken place; again they wish to shed his blood, accusing him of a murder that never was committed (for at that ' former time would they have murdered him by their calumnies, had we not had a kind Emperor); again they are urgent, to say the least, that he should be sent into banishment, while they pretend to lament the miseries of those alleged to have been exiled by him. They lament before us things that have never been done, and, not satisfied with what has been done to him, desire to add thereto other and more cruel treatment.
So mild are they and merciful, and of so just a disposition; or rather (for the truth shall be spoken) so wicked are they and malicious; obtaining respect through fear and by threats, rather than by their piety and justice, as becomes Bishops. ‘They have dared in their letters to the Emperors to pour forth language such as no contentious person would employ even among those that are without; they have charged him with a number of murders and butcheries, and that not before a Governor, or any other superior officer, but before the three Augusti; nor shrink they from any journey however long, provided only all greater courts may be filled with their ac- cusations. For indeed, dearly beloved, their business consists in accusations, and that of the most solemn character, forasmuch as the tribunals to which they make their appeal are the: most solemn of any upon earth. And what other end do they propose by these investigations, except to move the Emperor to capital punishment?
4. Their own conduct therefore, and not that of Athanasius, is the fittest subject for lamentation and mourning, and one would more properly lament them, for such actions ought to be bewailed, ‘since it is written, ‘Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan him: but weep sore for him that goeth away, for he shall return no more®,’ For their whole letter contemplates nothing but death; and their endeavour is to kill, whenever they may be permitted, or if not, to drive into exile. And this they were permitted to do by the most religious father of the Emperors, who gratified their fury by the banishment of Athanasius 9, instead of his death. Now that this is not the conduct even of ordinary Christians, scarcely even of heathens, much less of Bishops, who profess to teach others right- eousness, we suppose that your Christian consciences must at once perceive. How can they forbid others to accuse their brethren, who themselves become their accusers, and that to the Emperors? How can they teach compassion for the~-.misfortunes of others, who cannot rest satisfied even with our banishment? For there was confessedly a general sentence of banishment against us Bishops, and we all looked upon ourselves as banished men: and now again we consider ourselves as restored with Athanasius to our native places, and instead of our former lamentations and mourning over him, as hav- ing the greatest encouragement and grace,— which may the Lord continue to us, nor suffer Eusebius and his fellows to destroy?
Even if their charges against him were true, here is a certain charge against them, that against the precept of Christianity, and after his banishment and trials, they have assaulted him again, and accuse him of murder, and butchery, and other crimes, which they sound in the royal ears against the Bishops. But how manifold is their wickedness, and what ‘manner of men think you them, when every word they speak is false, every charge they bring a calumny, and there is no truth whatever either in their mouths or their writings! Let us then at length enter upon these matters, and meet their last charges. This will prove, that in their former repre- sentations in the Council? and at the trial 8 Jer. xxii. 10.
9 Hist. Ar. 50. 1 Of Tyre.
See below, § 71.
APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
their conduct was dishonourable, or rather their words untrue, besides exposing them for what they have now advanced.
5. We are indeed ashamed to make any defence against such charges. But since our reckless accusers lay hold of any charge, and allege that murders and butcheries were com- mitted after the return of Athanasius, we beseech you to bear with our answer though it be somewhat long; for circumstances con- strain us. No murder has been committed either by Athanasius or on his account, since our accusers, as we said before, compel: us to enter upon this humiliating defence. Slaughter and imprisonment are foreign to our Church. No one did Athanasius commit into the hands of the executioner; and the prison, so far as he was concerned, was never disturbed. Our sanctuaries are now, as they have always been, pure, and honoured only with the Blood of Christ and His pious worship. Neither Pres- byter nor Deacon was destroyed by Athana- sius; he perpetrated no murder, he caused the banishment of no one. Would that they had never caused the like to him, nor given him actual experience of it! No one here has been banished on his account; no one at all except Athanasius himself, the Bishop of Alexandria, whom they banished, and whom, now that he is restored, they again seek to entangle in the same or even a more cruel plot than before, setting their tongues to speak all manner of false and deadly words against him.
For, behold, they now attribute to him the acts of the magistrates; and although they plainly confess in their letter that the Prefect of Egypt passed sentence upon certain persons, they now are not ashamed to impute this sentence to Athanasius; and that, though he had not at the time entered Alexandria, but was yet on his return from his place of exile. Indeed he was then in Syria; since we must needs adduce in defence his length of way from home, that a man may not be responsible for the actions of a Governor or Prefect of Egypt. But supposing Athanasius had been in Alexandria, what were the proceedings of the Prefect to Athanasius? However, he was not even in the country; and what the Prefect of Egypt did was not done on ecclesiastical grounds, but for reasons which you will learn from the records, which, after we understood what they had written, we made diligent enquiry for, and have transmitted to you. Since then they now raise a cry against certain things which were never done either by him or for him, as though they had certainly taken place, and testify against such evils as though they were assured of their existence; let them DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
inform us from what Council they obtained their knowledge of them, from what proofs, and from what judicial investigation? But if they have no such evidence to bring forward, and nothing but their own mere assertion, we leave it to you to consider as regards their former charges also, how the things took place, and why they so speak of them. In truth, it 1s nothing but calumny, and a plot of our enemies, and a temper of ungovernable mood, and an impiety in behalf of the Arian madmen, which is frantic against true godliness, and desires to root out the orthodox, so that henceforth the advocates of impiety may preach without fear whatever doctrines they please. The history of the matter is as follows:— 6. When Arius, from whom the heresy of the Arian madmen has its name, was cast out of the Church for his impiety by Bishop Alex- ander, of blessed memory, Eusebius and his fellows, who are the disciples and partners of his impiety, considering themselves also to have been ejected, wrote frequently to Bishop Alexander, beseeching him not to leave the heretic Arius out of the Church?. But when Alexander in his piety towards Christ refused to admit that impious man, they directed their resentment against Athanasius, who was then a Deacon, because in their busy enquiries they had heard that he was much in the familiarity of Bishop Alexander, and much honoured by him. And their hatred of him was greatly increased after they had experience of his piety towards Christ, in the Council assembled at Nicza3, wherein he spoke boldly against the impiety of the Arian madmen. But when God raised him to the Episcopate, their long- cherished malice burst forth into a flame, and fearing his orthodoxy and resistance of their impiety, they (and especially Eusebius +, who was smitten with a consciousness of his own evil doings), engaged in all manner of trea- cherous designs against him. They prejudiced the Emperor against him; they frequently threatened him with Councils; and at last assembled at Tyre; and to this day they cease not to write against him, and are so implacable that they even find fault with his appointment to the Episcopate 5, taking every