Having come together out of different Pro- vinces to a great meeting which we have held for the consecration of the Martyry 3* of the Saviour, which has been appointed to the service of God the King of all and of His Christ, by the zeal of our most God-beloved Emperor Constantine, the grace of God hath afforded us more abundant rejoicing of heart; which our most God-beloved Emperor himself hath occasioned us by his letters, wherein he hath stirred us up to do that which is right, putting away all envy from the Church of God, and driving far from us all malice, by which the members of God have been heretofore torn asunder, and that we should with simple and peaceable minds receive Arius and his fellows, whom envy, that enemy of all goodness, has caused for a season to be excluded from the Church. Our most religious Emperor has also in his letter testified to the correctness of their faith, which he has ascertained from themselves, himself receiving the profession of it from them by word of mouth, and has now made manifest to us by subjoining to his own letters the men’s orthodox opinion in writing.
85. Every one that hears of these things must see through their treachery. For they made no concealment of what they were doing; unless perhaps they confessed the truth without wishing it. For if I was the hindrance to the admittance of Arius and his fellows into the Church, and if they were received while I was suffering from their plots, what other conclusion can be ar- rived at, than that these things were done on their account, and that all their proceedings against me, and the story which they fabri- cated about the breaking of the cup and the murder of Arsenius, were for the sole purpose of introducing impiety into the Church, and of preventing their being condemned as heretics? For this was what the Emperor threatened formerly in his letters to me. And they were not ashamed to write in the manner they did, and to affirm that those persons whom the whole Ecumenical Council anathematized held orthodox sentiments. And as they undertook to say and do anything without scruple, so they were not afraid to meet together ‘in a 3 Vid. de Syn. § 21. Martyrium. ] APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
corner,’ in order to overthrow, as far as was in their power, the authority of so great a Council.
Moreover, the price which they paid for false testimony yet more fully manifests their wicked- ness and impious intentions. The Mareotis, as I have already said, is a country district of Alexandria, in which there has never been either a Bishop or a Chorepiscopus+; but the Churches of the whole district are subject to the Bishop of Alexandria, and each Pres- byter has under his charge one of the largest villages, which are about ten or more in number’. Now the village in which Ischyras lives is a very small one, and possesses so few inhabitants, that there has never been a church built there, but only in the adjoining village. Nevertheless, they determined, contrary to ancient usage®, to nominate a Bishop for this place, and not only so, but even to appoint one, who was not so much as a Presbyter. Knowing as they did the unusual nature of such a proceeding, yet being constrained by the promises they had given in return for his’ false impeachment of me, they submitted even to this, lest that abandoned person, if he were ungratefully treated by them, should disclose the truth, and thereby shew the wickedness of Eusebius and his fellows. Notwithstanding this he has no church, nor a people to obey him, but is scouted by them all, like a dog’, although they have even caused the Emperor to write to the Receiver-General (for every- thing is in their power), commanding that a church should be built for him, that being posessed of that, his statement may appear credible about the cup and the table. They caused him immediately to be nominated a Bishop also, because if he were without a church, and not even a Presbyter, he would appear to be a false accuser, and a fabricator of the whole matter. At any rate he has no people, and even his own relations are not obedient to him, and as the name which he retains is an empty one, so also the following letter is ineffectual, which he keeps, making a display of it as an exposure of the utter 4 That Chorepiscopi were real Bishops, vid. Bevereg. in Conc. Ancyr. Can. 13. Routh in Conc. Neoces. Can. 13. referring to Rhabanus Maurus. Yhomassin on the other hand denies that they were Bishops, Discipl. Eccl. i. 2. c. 1. [see D.C.A. s.v.]
5 Ten under each Presbyter. Vales ad Socr. Ais¢.i. 27. Ten altogether, Montfaucon in loc. with more probability; and so area vol. 8. p. 20. [Six villages are mentioned sufr. § 64, Ne 6 It was against the Canon of Sardica, and doubtless against ancient usage, to ordain a Bishop for so small a village, vid. Bingham, Antiqu. II. xii., who, however, maintains by instances, that at least small towns might be sees. Also it was against usage that a layman, as Ischyras, should be made a Bishop. ibid. x, 4, ee, St. Hilary, however, makes him a Deacon. Fragyz.
7 Dogs without owners, and almost in a wild state, abound, }as_ is well known, in Eastern cities; vid. Psalm lix. 6, 14, 15. 2 Kings ix. 35, 36. and for the view taken in Scripture of dogs, vid. Bochart, Hzevoz. ii. 56 [and Dict. Bib. s.v.].
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
wickedness of himself and of Eusebius and his fellows.
The Letter of the Receiver-General®, Flavius Hemerius sends health to the Tax- collector of the Mareotis.
Ischyras the Presbyter having petitioned the piety of our Lords, Augusti and Czesars, that a Church might be built in the district of Irene, belonging to Secontarurus9, their divinity has commanded that this should be done as soon as possible. Take care therefore, as soon as you receive the copy of the sacred Edict, which with all due veneration is placed above, and the Reports which have been formed be- fore my devotion, that you quickly make an abstract of them, and transfer them to the Order book, so that the sacred command may be put in execution.
86. While they were thus plotting and scheming, I went up’? and represented to the Emperor the unjust conduct of Eusebius and his fellows, for he it was who had commanded the Council to be held, and his Count presided at it. When he heard my report, he was greatly moved, and wrote to them as follows.
Constantine, Victor?, Maximus, Augustus, to the Bishops assembled at Tyre.
I know not what the decisions are which you have arrived at in your Council amidst noise and tumult: but somehow the truth seems to have been perverted in consequence of certain confusions and disorders, in that you, through your mutual contentiousness, which you are resolved should prevail, have failed to perceive what is pleasing to God. However, it will rest with Divine Providence to disperse the mischiefs which manifestly are found to arise from this contentious spirit, and to shew plainly to us, whether you, while assembled in that place, have had any regard for the truth, and whether you have made your decisions uninfluenced by either favour or enmity. Wherefore I wish you all to assemble with all speed before my piety, in order that you may render in person a true account of your proceedings.
The reason why I have thought good to write thus to you, and why I summon you before me by letter, you will learn from what I am going to say. As I was entering on a late occasion our all-happy home of Constantinople, which bears our name (I chanced at the time to be on horseback), on a sudden the Bishop Athanasius, with certain others whom he had 8 Catholicus, § 14, Afol. Const. § 10. [The mention, below, of ‘Augusti and Casars’ makes 337 the earliest likely date for this letter.] 9 Cf. § 17. note 7. [Prolegg. ch, ii. § 4.]
to Cf. § 9. t Euseb, uv. Const. ii. 48, VOL. IV.
of matters external to it.”
with him, approached me in the middle of the road, so unexpectedly, as to occasion me much amazement. God, who knoweth all things, is my witness, that I should have been unable at first sight even to recognise him, had not some of my attendants, on my naturally inquiring of them, informed me both who it was, and under what injustice he was suffering. I did not however enter into any conversation with him at that time, nor grant him an interview; but when he requested to be heard I was refusing, and all but gave orders for his removal; when with increasing boldness he claimed only this favour, that you should be summoned to appear, that he might have an opportunity of complaining before me in your presence, of the ill-treatment he has met with. As this appeared to me to be a reasonable request, and suitable to the times, I willingly ordered this letter to be written to you, in order that all of you, who constituted the Council which was held at Tyre, might hasten without delay to the Court? of my clemency, so as to prove by facts that you had passed an impartial and uncorrupt judgment. This, I say, you must do before me, whom not even you will deny to be a true servant of God.
For indeed through my devotion to God, peace is preserved everywhere, and the Name of God is truly worshipped even by the barbarians, who have hitherto been ignorant of the truth. And it is manifest, that he who is ignorant of the truth, does not know God either. Nevertheless, as I said before, even the barbarians have now come to the knowledge of God, by means of me, His true servant3, and have learned to fear Him Whom they perceive from actual facts to be my shield and protector everywhere. And from this chiefly they have come to know God, Whom they fear through the dread which they have of me. But we, who are supposed to set forth (for I will not say to guard) the holy mysteries of His Goodness, we, I say, engage in nothing but what tends to dissension and hatred, and, in short, whatever contributes to the destruction of mankind. But hasten, as I said before, and all of you with all speed come to us, being persuaded that I shall en- deavour with all my might to amend what is amiss, so that those things specially may be preserved and firmly established in the law of God, to which no blame nor dishonour may attach; while the enemies of the law, who under pretence of His holy Name bring in manifold and divers blasphemies, shall be 3 **Once in an entertainment, at which he (Constantine) received Bishops, he made the remark that he too was a Bishop; using pretty much these words in my hearing, ‘You are Bishops or matters within the Church, I am appointed by God to be Bishop Euseb. Vit. Const. iv. 24.
APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
scattered abroad, and entirely crushed, and utterly destroyed.; 87. When Eusebius and his fellows read this letter, being conscious of what they had done, they prevented the rest of the Bishops from going up, and only themselves went, viz. Euse- bius, Theognius, Patrophilus, the other Euse- bius, Ursacius, and Valens. And they no longer said anything about the cup and Arsenius (for they had not the boldness to do so), but inventing another accusation which con- cerned the Emperor himself, they declared before him, that Athanasius had threatened that he would cause the corn to be withheld which was sent from Alexandria to his own home*. The Bishops Adamantius, Anubion, Agathammon, Arbethion, and Peter, were present and heard this. It was proved also by the anger of the Emperor; for although he had written the preceding letter, and had condemned their injustice, as soon as he heard such a charge as this, he was imme- diately incensed, and instead of granting me a hearing, he sent me away into Gaul. And this again shews their wickedness further; for when the younger Constantine, of blessed memory, sent me back home, remembering what his father had written 5, he also wrote as follows.
Constantine Czesar, to the people of the Catholic Church of the city of Alexandria.
I suppose that it has not escaped the know- ledge of your pious minds, that Athanasius, the interpreter of the adorable Law, was sent away into Gaul for a time, with the intent that, as the savageness of his bloodthirsty and inveterate enemies persecuted him to the hazard of his sacred life, he might thus escape suffering some irremediable calamity, through the perverse dealing of those evil men. In order therefore to escape this, he was snatched out of the jaws of his assail- ants, and was ordered to pass some time under my government, and so was supplied abund- antly with all necessaries in this city, where he lived, although indeed his celebrated virtue, relying entirely on divine assistance, sets at nought the sufferings of adverse fortune. Now seeing that it was the fixed intention of our master Constantine Augustus, my Father, to restore the said Bishop to his own place, and to your most beloved piety, but he was taken away by that fate which is common to all men, and went to his rest before he could accom- plish his wish; I have thought proper to fulfil that intention of the Emperor of sacred 4 Constantinople. 5 [See Bright, Hist, Writ. p. xii. note 3, and on the date of this letter, Prolegg. ch. v. § 3 b, and note 6 below.]
memory which I have inherited’ from him. When he comes to present himself before you, you will learn with what reverence he has been treated. Indeed it is not wonderful, whatever I have done on his behalf; for the thoughts of your longing desire for him, and the appearance of so great a man, moved my soul, and urged me thereto. May Divine Providence continually preserve you, beloved brethren.
Dated from Treveri the 15th before the Cal- ends of July ® 88, This being the reason why I was sent away into Gaul, who, I ask again, does not plainly perceive the intention of. the Emperor, and the murderous spirit of Eusebius and his fellows, and that the Emperor had done this in order to prevent their forming some more des- perate scheme? for he listened to them in sim- plicity 7. Such were the practices of Eusebius and his fellows, and such their machinations against me. Who that has witnessed them will deny that nothing has been done in my favour out of partiality, but that that great number of Bishops both individually and collectively wrote as they did in my behalf and condemned the falsehood of my enemies justly, and in accordance with the truth? Who that has observed such proceedings as these will deny that Valens and Ursacius had good reason to condemn _ themselves, and to write® as they did, to accuse them- selves when they repented, choosing rather to suffer shame for a short time, than to undergo the punishment of false accusers for ever and ever9?
39. Wherefore also my blessed fellow- ministers, acting justly and according to the laws of the Church, while certain affirmed that my case was doubtful, and endeavoured to compel them to annul the sentence which was passed in my favour, have now endured all man- ner of sufferings, and have chosen rather to be banished than to see the judgment of so many Bishops reversed. Now if those genuine Bishops had withstood by words only those who plotted against me, and wished to undo all that had been done ih my behalf; or if they had been ordinary men, and not the 7 emjkovoe yap arA@s. Montfaucon in Onomast. (Athan. t. 2, ad calc.) points out some passages in his author, where émaxovewy, like vmaxovev, means “to answer.” vid. Adal. Const. § 16 init. Orat. ili. 27 fin. 8 Cf. § 58.
9 Here ends the second part of the Apology, as is evident by turning back to § 58. (supr. p. 130) to which this paragraph is an allusion. The express object of the second part was to prove, what has now been proved by documents, that Valens and Ur- sacius did but succumb to plain facts which they could not resist. It is observable too from this passage that the Apology was written before their relapse, i.e. before A.D. 351 or 352. ‘The remaining two sections are written after 357, as they mention the fall of Liberius and Hosius, and speak of Constantius in different lan- guage from any which has been found above. [Introdd. to Apoe Const. and Hist. Ar.]
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
Bishops of illustrious cities, and the heads, of great Churches, there would have been room to suspect that in this instance they too had acted contentiously and in order to gratify me. But when they not only endea- voured to convince by argument, but also endured banishment, and one of them is Liberius, Bishop of Rome, (for although he did not endure ® to the end the sufferings of banishment, yet he remained in his exile for two years, being aware of conspiracy formed against us), and since there is also the great Hosius, together with the Bishops of Italy, and of Gaul, and others from Spain, and from Egypt, and Libya, and all those from Pentapolis (for although for a little while, through fear of the threats of Constantius, he seemed not to resist them%, yet the great violence and tyrannical power exercised by Constantius, and the many insults and stripes inflicted upon him, proved that it was not because he gave up my cause, but through the weakness of old age, being unable to bear the stripes, that he yielded to them for a season), therefore I say, it is al- together right that all, as being fully convinced, should hate and abominate the injustice and the violence which they have used towards me; especially as it is well known that I have 10 See Hist. Ar. § 41. Cf. Afol. Fug., §5, and Hist. Ar. § 45.
ADDITIONAL NOTE ON suffered these things on account of nothing else but the Arian impiety.
go. Now if anyone wishes to become ac- quainted with my case, and the falsehood of Eusebius and his fellows, let him read what has been written in my behalf, and let him hear the witnesses, not one, or two, or three, but that great number of Bishops; and again let him attend to the witnesses of these proceedings, Liberius and Hosius, and their fellows, who when they saw the attempts made against us, chose rather to endure all manner of sufferings than to give up the truth, and the judgment Which had been pronounced in our favour.
And this they did with an honourable and righteous intention, for what they suffered proves to what straits the other Bishops were reduced. And they are memorials and records against the Arian heresy, and the wickedness of false accusers, and afford a pattern and model for those who come after, to contend for the truth unto death?, and to abominate the Arian heresy which fights against Christ, and is a forerunner of Antichrist, and not to believe those who attempt to speak against me. For the defence put forth, and the sentence given, by so many Bishops of high character, are a trustworthy and sufficient testimony in our behalf.
2 Ecclus. iv. 28.
APOL C.ARIAN OSS 550, List oF BISHOPS PRESENT AT SARDICA.
(Tue materials for an authentic list are (1) the names given by Athanasius, Afo/. c Ar. 50, previous to the lists of bishops from various provinces who signed the letter of the council when in circulation. These names, given with no specification of their sees, are 77 in number.
(2) The list of signatures to the letter of the council to Julius, given by Hilary, Aragm. ii., 59 in number. The signatures to the letters discovered by Maffei and. . printed in Migne, Patr. Gr. xxvi. 1331, sqq- Of these, 26 sign (3) the council’s letter to the Mareotic Churches, and 61, in part the same, sign (4) the letter of Athanasius to the same (Le¢ter 46 in this volume). These signatures comprise 30 wames not given by Hilary, while those in (t) add six which are absent from (2) and (3) alike. This raises the total to95. Weadd (5) Gratus of Carthage, present according to the Greek text of the Canons, although he afterward signed the letter in a local council of his own, like Maximin of Treveri, Verissimus of Lyons, and Arius of Palestine, who are therefore given by Athanasius in his second list (the former two being omitted from the first): also Euphrates of Cologne, who was sent by Constans to Antioch with the council’s decisions (Prolegg. ch. ii. § 6), and was therefore most likely present at the council itself. We thus get 97 in all.
This total is confirmed if we subtract from the ‘170 more or less’ of Hist. Arian. 15 the 76 seceders to Philippopolis (Sabinus in Socr. ii. 16), 73 of whom sign their letter, given by Hilary. This leaves 94 ‘more or less,’ so that the list now to be given, in elucidation of that of Athanasius, has strong claims to rank as approximately correct. The numbers after the names refer to the sounces (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) specified above. 1. ADOLIUS (1), See unknown; 2. AETIUS (1, 3), Zhessalonica in Macedonia; 3. ALEXANDER (I, 4), Cypara (i.e. Cyparissus?) 2 Achaia; 4. ALEXANDER (2), Montemnae (?) in Achaia; 5. ALEXANDER (1, 2, 3), Larissa in Thessaly; 6. ALYPIUS (I, 2, 3), Megurain Achaia; 7. AMANTIUS (1, 4), Viminacium, by deputy; 8, AMMONIUS (4), See unknown; 9. ANIANUS (I, 2, 4), Castulo in Spain; 10. ANTIGONUS (1, 4), Pella, or Laliene in Macedonia; 11. APPIANUS (4), See unknown; 12. APRIANUS (I, 4), Leiabio (Peiovio) ix: 148 ADDITIONAL NOTE ON APOL. C. ARIANOS, § 50.
Pannonia; 13. APRIANUS (4), See unknown; 14. ARIUS (1, 2, 3), of Palestine, See unknown (see note on Hist. Ar. 18); 15. ASCLEPAS (1, 2, 4), Gaza; 16. ASTERIUS (1, 2, 3), [Petra in] Arabia; 17. ATHANASIUS (1, 2, 3, 4), Alexandria; 18. ATHENODORUS (I, 2, 3, 4), Platea in Achaia; 19. BAssuS (1, 2, 3), Dizo- cletianapolis ‘“‘in Macedonia” (really in Thrace); 20. CALEPODIUS (1, 2, 3), of Campania (? Naples); 21. CaLvus (2, 4), Castrum Martis in Dacia Ripensis; 22. CALOES or ‘Chalbis’ (1, 4), See unknown; 23. Castus (1, 2, 4), Saragossa in Spain; 24. Cocras (2), Asapofebiae in Achaia (= Asopus), perhaps the ‘Socrates’ of (1); 25. Cypontus (4), Cydon in Crete; 26. DIoDoRUS (1, 2, 4), Zenedos; 27. DIONYSIUS (1, 2, 3), Zvida (Elis?) in Achaia; 28. Droscorus (1, 2, 3), Thrace, See unknown; 29. DOMETIUS (or Domitianus) (1, 4), Acavia Constantias (possibly Castra Constantia = Coutances); 30. DOMITIANUS (1, 2, 3), Asturica in Spain; 31. ELIOBORUS (I, 2, 3), Mécopolis; 32. EUCARPUS (1, 4), Opus in Achaia, 33. EUCARPUS (4), See unknown; 34. Eucissus (4), Czssamus in Crete; 35. EUGENIUS (4 = EvAGRIUS in 2?), Heraclea (in Lucania? texts very corrupt); 36. EuGENtus (1?, 4), See unknown; 37. EULOGIUS (1, 4), See unknown; EUPHRATES, see below (97); 38. Eurastus (2), Pannonia, See unknown; 39. EUTERIUS (I, 2), ‘ Procia de Cayndo’ (corrupt); 40. EuTYcutIus (1, 4), Methone in Achaia; 41. EUTYCHIUS (I, 2), Achaia, See unknown; 42. FLORENTIUS (1, 2, 4), Emerita in Spain; 43. FORTUNATIANUS (1, 2), Agucleia; GALBA (see above (22); 44. GAUDENTIUS (1, 2, 4), Waissus; 45. GERONTIUS (1, 2, 3,4), @ Macedonia in Brevi(?) in Hil.; GRATUS, see below (96); 46. HELIANUS (1, 4), Zyrvtana (?); HELIODORUS, see above (31); 47. HERMOGENES (I, 4), Stcyaz (?); 48. HYMENAEUS (1, 2, 4), Hypata in Thessaly; 49. JANUARIUS (1, 2, 4), Beneventum in Campania; 50. JOHN (3), See unknown; 51. JONAS (1, 2, 3), Particopolis in Macedonia; 52. IRENAEUS (1, 2, 4), Scyros in Achaia; 53. JULIANUS (1, 2, 4), of Thebes in Achaia (or Thera? see note to Letter 46); 54. JULIANUS(I, 4), See unknown; Junius, see below (95); LERENIUS (2), see above (52); 55. LUCIUS (1, 2, 3, 4), Hadrianople in Thrace; 56. Lucius (‘LuctLius’ Ath. twice) (1, 2, 4), Verona; 57. MACEDONIUS (1, 2, 4), Uldpiana in Dardania; 58. MARCELLUS (2, 4, Marcellinus in 1), Azcyra; 59. MARCUS (1, 2, 4), Stscia on the Save; 60. MARTYRIUS (2, 4), Maupactus in Achaia; 61. MARTYRIUS (1, 4), See unknown; 62. MAXIMUS (1, 2), Luca in Tuscany; 63. MAXIMUS (i.e. MAXIMINUS) (4), Zreviri; 64. MuSONIUS (I, 4), Heraclea in Crete; 65. MovysEs (or Musaeus, 1, 2), Thebes in Thessaly; 66. OLYMPIUS (4), Aent in Thrace; 67. Osius (Hostus), (1, 2, 3), Cordova; 68. PALLADIUS (1, 2, 4), Diwm in Macedonia; 69. PAREGORIUS (I, 2, 3, 4), Scupi in Dardania; 70, PATRICIUS (1), See unknown; 71. PETER (1), See unknown; 72, PHILOLOGIUS (1), See unknown; 73. PLUTARCHUS (1, 2, 3), Patrae in Achaia; 74. PORPHYRIUS (1, 2, 3, 4), Philippi in Macedonia; 75. PRAETEXTATUS (1, 2, 4), Barcelona; 76. PROTASIUS (I, 2, 4), Milan; 77. PROTOGENES (1, 2, 4), Sardica; 78. RESTITUTUS (1, 3), See unknown; 79. SAPRICIUS (1), See unknown; 80. SEVERUS (4), Chalcis in Thessaly (Euboea); 81. SEVERUS (I, 2, 3), Ravenna; SOCRATES (1), see above, no. 24; 82. SPUDASIUS (1), See unknown; 83. STERCORIUS (I, 2, 4), Canusium in Apulia; 84. SYMPHORUS (1, 4), Hierapythna in Crete; TITIUs (2), see above (40); 85. TRYPHO (1, 2, 4), Achaia (See uncertain from corruption of text); 86. VALENS (I, 2, 3), ‘Scio’ in Dacia Ripensis; 87. VERISSIMUS (2, 4, text of latter gives ‘Broseus’ cor- ruptly), Lyons; 88. VINCENTIUS (I, 2, 3), Capua; 89. VITALIS (1, 2), Aguae in Dacia Ripensis; 90. VITALIS (1, 3, 4), Vertara in Africa; 91. URSACIUS (1, 2, 4), Brixia in Italy; 92. Zosimus (1, 2, 4), Lychnidus or Lignidus in Dacia; 93. Zosimus (1, 4), Horrea Margi in Moesia; 94. Zostmus (1, 4), See unknown; 95- JULIUS (1, 4), Rome (by deputies); 96. GRratus (5), Carthage; 97. EUPHRATES (5), Cologne.
The names, both of bishops and of sees, have suffered much in transcription, and the above list is the result of comparing the divergent errors of the various lists. The details of the latter will be found in the originals, and in the discussion of the Ballerini, on whose work (in Leonis M. Opp. vol. iii. pp. xlii. sqq.) our list is founded. In some cases the names of the see are clearly corrupt beyond all recognition. The signatures appended to the canons in the collections of councils, are taken (with certain uncritical adaptations) from the Hilarian list, with the addition, in some copies, of Alexander (3 supra), whose name, therefore, has probably dropped out of the Hilarian text in course of transmission. ] DEBOECR Eis: OR DEFENCE OF THE NICENE DEFINITION.
Tuis letter must have been written in the interval between the return of Athanasius in 346 and his flight in 356. Acacius was already (§ 3) Bishop of Cesarea (3 39); Eusebius of Nicomedia is not referred to as though still living (he died 342). Moreover the language of § 2 (“for in no long time they will turn to. outrage,” &c.) implies a period of actual peace, but with a prospect of the repetition of the scenes of the year 339. This actually occurred in 356. Accordingly we must probably place the tract under the sole reign of Constantius, between 351 and the end of 355.
It is written in answer to a friend who in disputing with Arians had been posed by their objection to the use of non-scriptural terms in the Nicene Definition. He accordingly asks for some account of what the council had done.
Athanasius begins his answer by stigmatising the evasions and inconsistency of the Arianisers, and describing their conduct at the council, and how they eventually subscribed to the terms now complained of (1—s5). He then investigates the meaning of the divine Sonship (6—14), and how its true meaning is brought out by the other titles of the Son (z5—17). Coming to the non-scriptural expressions he shews how they were forced upon the council by the evasions of the Arians (18—20), and that they express no sense not to be found in Scripture (21—24). Moreover, they had already been in use in the Church, as is shewn by extracts from Theognostus, the two Dionysii, and Origen (25—27). Lastly (28—32) he discusses the term dyévnros, applied by the Arians (especially Asterius) to the Father, in contrast, not to the creation, but to the Son, who is thereby implied to be yéynros. He insists on ‘ Father’ not ‘dyévyros’ as the divine title authorised by Scripture. Lastly he appends, in proof of what he states in § 3, the letter of Eusebius to the people of Czesarea, containing the creed of the council, which, for reasons there stated, we have inserted above, - re eae of the letter is principally threefold; first on account of its notice of the proceedings at Nicza (cf. ad Afr. 5), one of the few primary sources of our knowledge of what took place there: secondly, on account of its fragments of early writers, especially the Dionysii, of whom more will be said in the introduction to the next tract. With regard to Theognostus, the quotations in this tract and in Sevag. iv. 9 are important in view of the somewhat damaging accounts of his teaching in the few other writers (Gregory of Nyssa, Photius) who mention him.
Thirdly, the term dyévyros demands attention. It is impossible to give its exact force in idiomatic English: the rendering ‘Ingenerate’ adopted by Newman is perhaps the most unfortunate one imaginable. ‘Uncreated,’ a possible substitute, is also open to objection, firstly, as not distinguishing the word from the derivatives of x«rigew, movctv, Snproupyeiv, secondly, as giving it a passive sense, which does not inherently attach to it, For lack of a better word, ‘ Unoriginate’ may perhaps be adopted. ‘That which has not (or cannot) come to be,’ ‘that which is of the result of a process,’—-is what the word strictly signifies’"—‘ das Ungewordene.’ It was therefore strictly applicable to the Son as well as to the Father. But throughout the earlier stages of the Arian controversy the question was embarrassed by the homophones yevyros and dyévynros, generate or begotten, and unbegotten. The confusion of thought due to the resemblance of sound is reflected in the confusion of readings in the MSS. Athanasius himself (Orat. i. 56) perceives the distinc- tive sense of dyéwnros. In the present tract and in Oraz. i. 30, he has dyéyros only in view, the idea of begetting being absent. Here (and cf. de Sy. 46, note 5) he is denying that the Father is alone dyévyros, uncreated or without a ‘becoming.’ Accordingly although the word yerrndevta Was consecrated and safeguarded in the Creed of Nicaea (Begotten not made), and although the distinctness of the derivatives of the two verbs was felt by Athanasius, and pointed out by others (Epiph. Her. 64, 8), the use of either group of words was avoided by Catholics as dangerous. A clear distinction of the words and of their respective ap- plicability is made by John Damascene /id. Orth. I. vill. (see Lightfoot, Zenat. vol. 2, excursus on Eph. § 7, Thilo, ubt supra, Introd. p. 14, and Harnack, Dg. 2, p. 193 note).
AVE GD DG RIEgleiS: OR ' DEFENCE OF THE NICENE DEFINITION.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION.
The complaint of the Arians against the Nicene Council; their fickleness; they are like Jews; their employment of force instead of reason.
1. THou hast done well, in signifying to me the discussion thou hast had with the advo- cates of Arianism, among whom were certain of the friends of Eusebius, as well as very many of the brethren who hold the doctrine of the Church. I hailed thy vigilance for the love of Christ, which excellently exposed the irreligion? of their heresy; while I marvelled at the efirontery which led the Arians, after all the past detection of unsoundness and futility in their arguments, nay, after the general conviction of their extreme per erseness, still to complain like the Jews, ‘‘Why did the Fathers at Niczea use terms not in Scripture?, eOtsthemessence and “One vin essence? 7” Thou then, as a man of learning, in spite of their subterfuges, didst convict them of talking to no purpose; and they in devising them were but acting suitably to their own evil I evodBeva, aoéBera, &c., here translated “religion, irreligion, religious, &c. &c.”’ are technical words throughout, being taken from S. Paul’s text, ‘‘ Great is the mystery of god/iness,” evoeBeias, i.e. orthodoxy. Such too seems to be the meaning of ‘‘ godly ad- monitions,” and ‘‘ godly judgments,” and ‘“‘this godly and well- learned man,” in our Ordination Services. The Latin translation is ‘‘pius,” “‘pietas.” It might be in some respects suitably ren- dered by ‘‘ devout” and its derivatives. On its familiar use in the controversy. depends the blasphemous jest of Eudoxius, Arian Bishop of Constantinople, which was received with loud laughter in the Cathedral, and remained in esteem down to Socrates’ day, “The Father is aveBys, as being without devotion, the Son evoeBys, devout, as paying devotion to the Father.” Socr. //7sé. ii. 43. Hence Arius ends his Letter to Eusebius with aAjOws evoéBre. Theod. “7st. i. 4.; 2 It appears that the Arians did not venture to speak dis- respectfully of the definition of the Council till the date (A.p. 352) of this work, when Acacius headed them. Yet the plea here used, the unscriptural character of its symbol, had been suggested to Constantius on his accession, A.D. 337, by the Arian priest, the favourite of Constantia, to whom Constantine had entrusted his will, Theod. A7zsz. ii. 3; and Eusebius of Czsarea glances at it, at the time of the Council, in the letter to his Church, which is subjoined to this Treatise.