which say that the Father is neither seen nor known of the Son perfectly? If the Lord says, ‘As the Father knoweth Me, even so know I the Father?!,’ and if the Father knows not the Son partially, are they not mad to say idly that the Son knows the Father only partially, and not fully? Next, if the Son has a beginning of existence, and all things likewise have a begin- ning, let them say, which is prior to the other. But indeed they have nothing to say, neither can they with all their craft prove such a be- ginning of the Word. For He is the true and proper Offspring of the Father, and ‘in the be- ginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God'.’. For with regard to their assertion, that the Son knows not His own essence, it is superfluous to reply to it, except only so far as to condemn their mad- ness; for how does not the Word know Him- self, when He imparts to all men the know- ledge of His Father and of Himself, and blames those who know not themselves?
7 de Decr. 22 5 de Decr. 16, note 4. 6 Cf. Col. ii. 3, 9., i to John vi. 46.
ir John x. 15. x Jobni. tr.
17. Arguments from Scripture against Arian statements.
But it is written 2, say they, ‘The Lord created me in the beginning of His ways for His works.’ O untaught and insensate that ye are! He is called also in the Scriptures, ‘servant 3,’ and ‘son of a handmaid,’ and ‘lamb,’ and ‘ sheep,’ and it is said that He suffered toil, and thirst, and was beaten, and has suffered pain. But there is plainly a reasonable ground and cause 4, why such representations as these are given of Him in the Scriptures; and it is because He became man and the Son of man, and took upon Him the form of a servant, which is the human flesh: for ‘the Word,’ says John, ‘ was made flesh5.’ And since He became man, no one ought to be offended at such expressions; - for it is proper to man to be created, and born, and formed, to suffer toil and pain, to die and to rise again from the dead. And as, being Word and Wisdom of the Father, He has all the attributes of the Father, His eternity, and His unchangeableness, and the being like Him in all respects and in all things ®, and is neither be- fore nor after, but co-existent with the Father, and is the very form? of the Godhead, and is the Creator, and is not created: (for since He is in essence like® the Father, He can- not be a creature, but must be the Creator, as Himself hath said, ‘My Father worketh hitherto, and I work 9:’) so being made man, and bearing our flesh, He is necessarily said to be created and made, and that is proper to all flesh; however, these men, like Jewish vintners, who mix their wine with water, debase the Word, and subject His Godhead to their no- tions of created things. Wherefore the Fathers were with reason and justice indignant, and anathematized this most impious heresy; which these persons are now cautious of and keep back, as being easy to be disproved and un- sound in every part of it. These that I have set down are but a few of the arguments which go to condemn their doctrines; but if any one desires to enter more at large into the proof against them, he will find that this heresy is not far removed from heathenism, and that it is the lowest and the very dregs of all the other heresies. These last are in error either concerning the body or the incarnation of the Lord, falsifying the truth, some in one way and some in another, or else they deny that the Lord has sojourned here at all, as the Jews erroneously suppose. But this one alone more madly than the rest has dared to assail the 2 Orat. ii. 18—72; Prov. viii. 22, 3 Ps. exvi. 16, &c. 4 de Decr. 14. 5 John i. 14. 6 De Syn. 26, and note. 7 eidos, ibid. § 52, note. 8 Orat.i.20, note. 9 John v. 17. ¥ Isa i, 22, cf. Orat. iii. § 35, also de Decr. to end.
AD EPISCOPOS AtGYPTI.
very Godhead, and to assert that the Word is not at all, and that the Father was not always a father; so that one might reasonably say that that Psalm was written against them; ‘The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God?. Corrupt are they, and become abomin- able in their doings.’
18. Lf the Arians felt they were right, they would speak openly.
‘ But,’ say they, ‘ we are strong, and are able to defend our heresy by our many devices.’ They would have a better answer to give, if they were able to defend it, not by artifice nor by Gentile sophisms, but by the simplicity of their faith. If however they have confidence in it, and know it to be in accordance with the doctrines of the Church, let them openly express their sentiments; for no man when he hath lighted a candle putteth it under the bushel, but on the candlestick, and so it gives light to all that come in. If therefore they are able to defend it, let them record in writing the opi- nions above imputed to them, and expose their heresy bare to the view of all men, as they would a candle, and let them openly accuse the Bishop Alexander, of blessed memory, as hav- ing unjustly ejected + Arius for professing these opinions; and let them blame the Council of Niceea for putting forth a written confession of the true faith in place of their impiety. But they will not do this, I am sure, for they are not so ignorant of the evil nature of those notions which they have invented and are ambitious of sowing abroad; but they know well enough, that although they may at first lead astray the simple by vain deceit, yet their imaginations will soon be extinguished, ‘as the light of the ungodly 4*” and themselves branded everywhere as enemies of the Truth. Therefore although they do all things fool- ishly, and speak as fools, yet in this at least they have acted wisely, as ‘children of this world 5,’ hiding their candle under the bushel, that it may be supposed to give light, and lest, if it appear, it be condemned and extinguished. Thus when Arius himself, the author of the heresy, and the associate of Eusebius, was sum- moned through the interest of Eusebius and his fellows to appear before Constantine Augustus of blessed memory ®, and was required to present a written declaration of his faith, the wily man wrote one, but kept out of sight the peculiar ex- pressions of his impiety, and pretended, as the Devil did, to quote the simple words of Scrip- ture, just as they are written. And when the blessed Constantine said to him, ‘If thou 48 Job xviii. 5.
6 Vid. Letter 54, TO THE BISHOPS OF EGYPT.
er ee re holdest no other opinions in thy mind besides these, take the Truth to witness for thee; the Lord is thy avenger if thou swear falsely:’ the unfortunate man swore that he held no other, and that he had never either spoken or thought otherwise than as he had now written. But as soon as he went out he dropped down, as if paying the penalty of his crime, and ‘ falling headlong burst asunder in the midst 7,’ 19. Significance of the death of Arius.
Death, it is true, is the common end of all men, and we ought not to insult the dead, though he be an enemy, for it is uncertain’ whether the same event may not happen to ourselves before evening. But the end of Arius was not after an ordinary manner, and there- fore it deserves to be related. Eusebius and his fellows threatening to bring him into the Church, Alexander, the Bishop of Constanti- nople, resisted them; but Arius trusted to the violence and menace of Eusebius. It was the Sabbath, and he expected to join communion on the following day. There was therefore a great struggle between them; the others threat- ening, Alexander praying. But the Lord being judge of the case, decided against the unjust party: for the sun had not set, when the ne- cessities of nature compelled him to that place, where he fell down, and was forthwith deprived of communion with the Church and of his life together. The blessed Constantine hearing of this at once, was struck with wonder to find him thus convicted of perjury. And indeed it was then evident to all that the threats of Eu- sebius and his fellows had proved of no avail, and the hope of Arius had become vain. It was shewn too that the Arian madness was rejected from communion by our Saviour both here and in the Church of the first-born in heaven. Now who will not wonder to see the unright- eous ambition of these men, whom the Lord has condemned;—to see them vindicating the heresy which the Lord has pronounced excommunicate (since He did not suffer its author to enter into the Church), and not fearing that which is written, but attempting impossible things? ‘For the Lord of hosts hath pur- posed, and who shall disannul it??’ and whom God hath condemned, who shall justify? Let them however in defence of their own imagina- tions write what they please; but do you, brethren, as ‘ bearing the vessels of the Lords,’ and vindicating the doctrines of the Church, examine this matter, I beseech you; and if they write in other terms than those above recorded as the language of Arius, then con- demn them as hypocrites, who hide the poison 7 Acts i. 18. 8 Is. xiv. 27. 9 Is, lii, rz.
‘they claim credit for what they write?
of their opinions, and like the serpent flatter with the words of their lips. For, though they thus write, they have associated with them those who were formerly rejected with Arius, such as Secundus of Pentapolis, and the clergy who were convicted at Alexandria; and thay write to them in Alexandria. But what is most astonishing, they have caused us and our friends to be persecuted, although the most religious Emperor Constantine sent us back in peace to our country and Church, and shewed his concern for the harmony of the people. But now they have caused the Churches to be given up to these men, thus proving to all that for their sake the whole conspiracy against us and the rest has been carried on from the beginning.
20. While they are friends of Arius, in vain their moderate words.
Now while such is their conduct, how can Had the opinions they have put in writing been orthodox, they would have expunged from their list of books the Thalia of Arius, and have rejected the scions of the heresy, viz. those disciples of Arius, and the partners of his impiety and his punishment. But since they do not renounce these, it is manifest to all that their sentiments are not orthodox, though they write them over ten thousand times. Wherefore it becomes us to watch, lest some deception be conveyed under the clothing of their phrases, and they lead away certain from the true faith. And if they venture to advance the opinions of Arius, when they see themselves proceeding in a prosperous course, nothing remains for us but to use great boldness of speech, remembering the predictions of the Apostle, which he wrote to forewarn us of such like heresies, and which. it becomes us to repeat. For we know that, as it is written, ‘in the latter times some shall depart from the sound faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils, that turn from the truth?;’ and, ‘as many as will live godly in Christ shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse — and worse, deceiving and being deceived.’ But none of these things shall prevail over us, nor ‘separate us from the love of Christ 3,’ though the heretics threaten us with death. For we are Christians, not Arians+; would that they too, who have written these things, had not embraced the doctrines of Arius! Yea, brethren, there is need now of such bold- ness of speech; for we have not received ‘the I Cf. De Syn. 6, 9.
AD EPISCOPOS AGYPTI.
spirit of bondage again to fear 5,’ but God hath called us ‘to: liberty®’ And it were indeed disgraceful to us, most disgraceful, were we, on account of Arius or of those who embrace and advocate his sentiments, to destroy the faith which we have received from our Saviour through His Apostles. Already very many in these parts, perceiving the craftiness of these writers, are ready even unto blood to oppose their wiles, especially since they have heard of your firmness. And seeing that the refutation of the heresy has gone forth from you’, and it has been drawn forth from its concealment, like a serpent from his hole, the Child that Herod sought to destroy is preserved among you, and the Truth lives in you, and the Faith thrives among you.
21. Zo make a stand for the Faith equivalent to martyrdom.
Wherefore I exhort you, keeping in your hands the confession which was framed by the Fathers at Nicaea, and defending it with great zeal and confidence in the Lord, be en- samples to the brethren everywhere, and shew them that a struggle is now before us in sup- port of the Truth against heresy, and that the wiles of the enemy are various. For the proof of a martyr lies® not only in refusing to burn in- cense to idols; but to refuse to deny the Faith is also an illustrious testimony of a good con- science. And not only those who turned aside unto idols were condemned as aliens, but those _also who betrayed the Truth. Thus Judas was degraded from the Apostolical office, not because he sacrificed to idols, but because he proved a traitor; and Hymenzeus and Alexander fell away not by betaking themselves to the service of idols, but because they ‘made ship- wreck concerning the faith?’ On the other hand, the Patriarch Abraham received the crown, not because he suffered death, but be- cause he was faithful unto God; and the other Saints, of whom Paul speaks *°, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephtha, David and Samuel, and the rest, were not made perfect by the shedding of their blood, but by faith they were justified; and to this day they are the objects of our ad- miration, as being ready even to suffer death for piety towards the Lord. And if one may add an instance from our own country, ye know how the blessed Alexander contended even unto death against this heresy, and what great afflictions and labours, old man as he was, he sustained, until in extreme age he also was gathered to his fathers. And how many beside have undergone great toil, in their 5 Rom. viii. 15. 6 Gal. v. 13. 7 i.e. from Egypt. 8 Vid. Suicer Thes. i# voc. wapr. iti. [D.C,A. 1118 sqq.] we teachings against this impiety, and now enjoy in Christ the glorious reward of their confes- sion! Wherefore, let us also, considering that this struggle is for our all, and that the choice is now before us, either to deny or to preserve the faith, let us also make it our earnest care and aim to guard what we have received, taking as our instruction the Confession drawn up at Niczea, and let us turn away from novel- ties, and teach our people not to give heed to ‘seducing spirits +,’ but altogether to withdraw from the impiety of the Arian madmen, and from the coalition which the Meletians have made with them.
22. Coalition of sordid Meletians with wnsane Arians.
For you perceive how, though they were formerly at variance with one another, they have now, like Herod and Pontius, agreed together in order to blaspheme our Lord Jesus Christ. And for this they truly deserve the hatred of every man, because they were at enmity with one another on private grounds, but have now become friends and join hands, in their hostility to the Truth and their impiety towards God. Nay, they are content to do or suffer anything, however contrary to their principles, for the satisfaction of securing their several aims; the Meletians for the sake of pre-eminence and the mad love of money, and the Arian madmen for their own impiety. And thus by this coalition they are able to assist one another in their malicious designs, while the Meletians put on the impiety of the Arians, and the Arians from their own wicked- ness concur in their baseness, so that by thus mingling together their respective crimes, like the cup of Babylon ™, they may carry on their plots against the orthodox worshippers of our Lord Jesus Christ. The wickedness and false- hood of the Meletians were indeed even before this evident unto all men; so too the impiety and godless heresy of the Arians have long been known everywhere and to all; for the period of their existence has not been a short one. The former became schismatics five and fifty years ago, and it is thirty-six years since the latter were pronounced heretics ’, and they were rejected from the Church by the judgment of the whole Ecumenic Council. But by their present proceedings they have proved at length, even to those who seem openly to favour them, that they have carried on their i x Tim. iv. 1. ma Rev. xviii. 6.
2 This amodetéus or declaration is ascribed to S, Alexander (as Montfaucon would explain it, supr. introd. p. 222). Cf. Ap. Ar. 23, above, §§ 18, 19. It should be observed that an additional reason for assigning this Letter to the year 356, is its resemblance in parts to the Oratioss which were written not long after, [This is not a strong reason, there being no proof that the Orations were written early in the exile.]
TO THE BISHOPS OF EGYPT.
designs against me and the rest of the ortho- dox Bishops from the very first solely for the sake of advancing their own impious heresy. For observe, that which was long ago the great object of Eusebius and his fellows is now brought about. They have caused the Churches to be snatched out of our hands, they have banished, as they pleased, the Bishops and Presbyters who refused to communicate with them; and the people who withdrew from them they have excluded from the Churches, which they have given up into the hands of the Arians who were condemned so long ago, so that with the assistance of the hypocrisy of the Meletians they can without fear pour forth in them their impious language, and make ready, as they think, the way of deceit for Antichrist 3, who sowed among them the seeds of this heresy.
23. Conclusion.
23. Conclusion.
Let them however thus dream and imagine vain things. We know that when our gracious Emperor shall hear of it, he will put a stop to their wickedness, and they will not continue long, but according to the words of Scripture, ‘the hearts of the impious shall quickly fail them+.’? But let us, as it is written, ‘put on the words of holy Scripture 5,’ and resist them as apostates who would set up fanaticism in the house of the Lord. And let us not fear the death of the body, nor let us emulate their ways; but let the word of Truth be preferred before all things. We also, as you all know, were formerly required® by Eusebius and his fellows either to put on their impiety, or to ex- pect their hostility; but we would not engage 4 Prov. x. 20, LXX 2 De Syn. 5, note to.
5 2 Kings xvii. 9, LXX.
ourselves with them, but chose rather to be per- secuted by them, than to imitate the conduct of Judas. And assuredly they have done what they threatened; for after the manner of Jeze- bel, they engaged the treacherous Meletians to assist them, knowing how the latter resisted the blessed martyr Peter, and after him the great Achillas, and then Alexander, of blessed memory, in order that, as being practised in such matters, the Meletians might pretend against us also whatever might be suggested to them, while Eusebius and his fellows gave them an opening for persecuting and for seeking to kill me. For this is what they thirst after; and they continue to this day to desire to shed my blood. But of these things I have no care; for I know and am persuaded that they who endure shall receive a reward from our Saviour; and that ye also, if ye endure as the Fathers did, and shew yourselves examples to the people, and overthrow these strange and alien devices of impious men, shall be able to glory, and say, We have ‘kept the Faith7;’ and ye shall receive the ‘crown of life,’ which God ‘hath promised to them that love Him®”’ And God grant that I also together with you may in- herit the promises, which, were given, not to Paul only, but also to all them that ‘have loved the appearing 9’ of our Lord, and Saviour, and God, and universal King, Jesus Christ; through whom to the Father be glory and dominion in the Holy Spirit, both now and for ever, world without end**. Amen.
10 [Cf. the doxology at the end of Afol. pro Fuga, and (with a difference) that of //zst. Ary. 80, contrasting that in de Decr. 32. Dr. Bright observes that Athan. ‘felt himself free to use both forms, although at Antioch they became symbols respectively of the Arianisers and the Orthodox.’]
APOLOGIA AD CONSTANTIUM.
Tuis address to the Emperor in defence against certain serious charges (see below) was completed about the time of the intrusion of George, who arrived at Alexandria on Feb. 24, 357. The main, or apologetic, part of the letter was probably composed before George’s actual arrival, in fact at about the same date as the encyclical letter which immediately precedes; §§ 27 and following (see 27, note 2) forming an added expostu- lation upon hearing of the general expulsion of Catholic Bishops, and of the outrages* at Alexandria. It is quite uncertain whether it ever reached the emperor; whether it did so or not, his attitude toward Athanasius was in no way affected by it. It had probably been begun with the idea of its being actually delivered in the presence of Constantius (see §§ 3, 6, 8, 16 ‘I see you smile,’ 22), but, although by a rhetorical fiction the form of an oral defence is kept up to the end, the concluding sections (27, 32 zz.) shew that any such idea had been renounced before the Apology was completed. The first 26 séctions are directed to the refutation of four personal charges, quite different from those of the earlier period, rebutted in the Apology against the Arians. They were (1) that Athanasius had poisoned the mind of Constans against his brother (2—5). ‘To this Ath. replies that he had never spoken to the deceased Augustus except in the presence of witnesses, and that the history of his own movements when in the West entirely precluded any such possibility. The third and fourth sections thus incidentally supply important details for the life of Athanasius. (2) That he had written letters to the ‘tyrant’ Magnentius (6—13), a charge absurd in itself, and only to be borne out by forgery, but also amply disproved by his known affection toward Constans, the victim of the ‘tyrant.’ (3) That he had (14—18) used the new church in the ‘Czsareum,’ before it was completed or dedicated, for the Easter festival of 355 (Tillem. viii. 149). This Athanasius admits, but pleads necessity and precedent, adding that no disrespect was intended toward the donor, nor any anticipation of its formal consecration. (4) That he had dis- obeyed an imperial order to leave Alexandria and go to Italy (19—26, see esp. 19, n. 4, and Lest. Ind, xxvi. Constantius is at Milan July.21, 353—Gwatkin p. 292). This charge involves the whole history of the attempts to dislodge Athanasius from Alexandria, which culminated in the events of 356. He-replies to the charge, that the summons in question had come in the form of an invitation in reply to an alleged letter of his own asking leave to go to Italy, a letter which, as his amanuenses would testify, he had never written. Of the later visit (355, Fest. Znd. xxvil.) of Diogenes, he merely says that Diogenes brought neither letter nor orders. Syrianus, he seems to allow, had verbally ordered him to Italy (Constantius was again at Milan,—Gwat- kin wd¢ supra) but without written authority. As against these supposed orders, Ath. had a letter from the emperor (§ 23) exhorting him to remain at Alexandria, whatever reports he might hear. Syrianus had, at the urgent remonstrance of the clergy and people, consented to refer the matter back to Constantius (24), but without waiting to do this, he had suddenly made his famous night attack upon the bishop when holding a vigil service in the Church of Theonas. Thereupon Athanasius had set out for Italy to lay the matter before the emperor in person (27 zzz.). But on reaching, as it would seem, the Libyan portion of his Province, he was turned back by the news of the Council of Milan, and the wholesale banishment which followed. Here we pass to the second part of the Apology. He explains his return to the desert by the three reports which had reached him: first, that just mentioned; secondly, that of further military outrages, about Easter 356 (or possibly those of George in 357, see Apol. Fug. 6; the clear statements of Fest. Znd. and Hist. Aceph. compel us? to place these in the latter year, a EEE 1 See dfol. Fug. 6. note 5. 2 See also note 1, swf7., and the discussion Prolegg. ch. ii. 3 8 (x), APOLOGIA AD CONSTANTIUM. 237 although on 4 priori grounds we might have followed Tillem., Bright, &c., in placing them in 356), and of the nomination of George; thirdly, of the letters of Constantius to the Alex- andrians and to the Princes of Abyssinia. He had accordingly gone into hiding, in fear, not of the Emperor, but of the violence of his officers, and as of ‘bounden duty to all (32). He concludes with an outspoken denunciation of the treatment of the virgins, and by an urgent entreaty to Constantius ‘which supposes the imperial listener to be already more than half appeased’ (Bright). The Apology is the most carefully written work of Athanasius, and ‘has been justly praised for its artistic finish and its rhetorical skill’ as well as for the force and the sustained calmness and dignity of its diction. (So Montfaucon, Newman, Gwatkin, &c. Fialon, pp. 286, 292, gives some interesting examples of apparent imitation of Demosthenes in this and in the two following tracts.) But the violent contrast between its almost affectionate respectfulness and the chilly reserve of the Afol. pro Fuga, or still more the furious invective of the Arian History, is startling, and gives a prima facie justification to Gibbon, who (vol. 3, p. 87, Smith’s Ed.) charges the great bishop with simulating respect to the emperor’s face while denouncing him behind his back. But although the de /uga (see introd. there) was written very soon after our present Apology, there is no ground for making them simultaneous, while its tone (see 4p. Hug. 26, note 7) is very different from that of the later Ast. Arian. Doubtless much of the material for the invectives of the latter was already ancient history when the tract before us was composed. But Constantius was the Emperor, the first personage in the Christian world, and Athanasius with the feeling of his age, with the memory of the solemn assurances he had received from the Emperor (S$ 23, 25, 27, Apol. Ar. 5156, Hist. Ar. 21—24), would ‘hope all things,’ even ‘against hope,’ so long as there was any apparent chance of influencing Constantius for good; would hope in spite of all appearances that the outrages, banishments, and intrigues against the faith of Niczea were the work of the officers, the Arian bishops, the eunuchs of the Court, and not of ‘ Augustus’ himself (see Bright, Introd, to this Apology, pp. lxilii—lxv.).