had not embraced the doctrines of Arius! Yea, brethren, there is need now of such boldness 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 ensamples to the brethren everywhere, and shew them that a struggle is now before us in support 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 incense to idols; but to refuse to deny the Faith is also an illustrious testimony of a good conscience. 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 shipwreck concerning the faith?’ On the other hand, the Patriarch Abraham received the crown, not because he suffered death, but because 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 admiration, 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 confession! 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 novelties, 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 wickedness 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 falsehood 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.]
designs against me and the rest of the orthodox 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 expect 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 persecuted by them, than to imitate the conduct of Judas. And assuredly they have done what they threatened; for after the manner of Jezebel, 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 inherit 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.’]
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 expostulation 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 disobeyed 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,—Gwatkin 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), 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 Alexandrians 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.).
1. Knowing that you have been a Christian for many years', most religious Augustus, and that you are godly by descent, I cheerfully undertake to answer for myself at this time;— for I will use the language of the blessed Paul, and make him my advecate before you, considering that he was a preacher of the truth, and that you are an attentive hearer of his words.
With respect to those ecclesiastical matters, which have been made the ground of a conspiracy against me, it is sufficient to refer your Piety to the testimony of the many Bishops who have written in my behalf?; enough too is the recantation of Ursacius and Valens 3, to prove to all men, that none of the charges which they set up against me had any truth in them. For what evidence can others produce so strong, as what they declared in writing? ‘We lied, we invented these things; all the accusations against Athanasius are full of falsehood.’ To this clear proof may be added, if you will vouchsafe to hear it, this circumstance, that the accusers brought no evidence against Macarius the presbyter while we were present; but in our absence 4, when they were by themselves, they managed the matter as they pleased. Now, the Divine Law first of all, and next our own Laws 5, have expressly declared, that such proceedings are of no force whatsoever. From these things your piety, as a lover of God and of the truth, will, I am sure, perceive that we are free from all suspicion, and will pronounce our opponents to be false accusers.
2. The first charge, of setting Constans against Constantius.
But as to the slanderous charge which has been preferred against me before your Grace, 1 [cf. Acts xxvi. 2.] Constantius, though here calleda Christian, was not baptized till his last illness, a.p. 361, and then by the Arian Bishop of Antioch, Euzoius. At this time he was 39 years of age. Theodoret represents him making a speech to his whole army on one occasion, exhorting them to Baptism previous to going to war; and recommending all to go thence who could not make up their mind to the Sacrament. 77. &. iii. 1. Constantius, his grandfather, had rejected idolatry and acknowledged the One God, according to Eusebius, V. Covst. i. 14, though it does not appear that he had embraced Christianity.
2 Supr. Apol. Ar. 1.
5 Cf. Afol. Ar. ii. 51.
respecting correspondence with the most pious Augustus, your brother Constans®, of blessed and everlasting memory (for my enemies report this of me, and have ventured to assert it in writing), the former events? are sufficient to prove this also to be untrue. Had it been alleged by another set of persons, the matter would indeed have been a fit subject of enquiry, but it would have required strong evidence, and open proof in presence of both parties: but when the same persons who invented the former charge, are the authors also of this, is it not reasonable to conclude from the issue of the one, the falsehood of the other? For this cause they again conferred together in private, thinking to be able to deceive your Piety before I was aware. But in this they failed: you would not listen to them as they desired, but patiently gave me an opportunity to make my defence. And, in that you were not immediately moved to demand vengeance, you acted only as was righteous in a Prince, whose duty it is to wait for the defence of the injured party. Which if you will vouchsafe to hear, I am confident that in this matter also you will condemn those reckless men, who have no fear of that God, who has commanded us not to speak falsely before the king 8, 3. He never satv Constans alone.
But in truth I am ashamed even to have to defend myself against charges such as these, which I do not suppose that even the accuser himself would venture to make mention of in my presence. For he knows full well that he speaks untruly, and that I was never so mad, so reft of my senses, as even to be open to the suspicion of having conceived any such thing. So that had I been questioned by any other on this subject, I would not even have answered, lest, while I was making my defence, my hearers should for a time have suspended their judgment concerning me. But to your Piety I answer with a loud and clear voice, and © Prolegg. ch. ii. § 6 (3); cf. Lucifer. Of. p. gr. (ed. Ven. 1778.) Theod. 1. /. ii. 13; infr. Hist. Arian. § so. 7 Vid. Apol. contr. Arian. passim. 8 Vid. Ecclus. vii. 5.
oy stretching forth my hand, as I have learned from the Apostle, ‘I call God for a record upon my soul9,’ and as it is written in the histories of the Kings (let me be allowed to say the same), ‘The Lord is witness, and His Anointed is witness *,’ I have never spoken evil of your Piety before your brother Constans, the most religious Augustus of blessed memory. I did not exasperate him against you, as these have falsely accused me. But whenever in my interviews with him he has mentioned your Grace (and he did mention you at the time that Thalassust came to Pitybion, and I was staying at Aquileia), the Lord.
is witness, how I spoke of your Piety in terms which I would that God would reveal unto your soul, that you might condenin the falsehood of these my calumniators. Bear with me, most gracious Augustus, and freely grant me your indulgence while I speak of this matter. Your most Christian brother was not a man of so light a temper, nor was I a person of such a character, that we should communicate together on a subject like this, or that I should slander a brother to a brother, or speak evil of an emperor before an emperor. I am not so mad, Sire, nor have I forgotten that divine utterance which says, ‘Curse not the king, no, not in thy thought; and curse not the rich in thy bedchamber: for a bird of the air shall carry the voice, and that which hath wings shall tell the matter*.’ If then those things, which are spoken in secret against you that are kings, are not hidden, it is not incredible that I should have spoken against you in the presence of a king, and of so many bystanders? For I never saw your brother by myself, nor did he ever converse with me in private, but I was always introduced in company with the Bishop of the city where I happened to be, and with others that chanced to be there. We entered the presence together, and together we retired. Fortunatian 3, Bishop of Aquileia, can testify this, the father Hosius is able to say the same, as also are Crispinus, Bishop of Padua, Lucillus of Verona, Dionysius of Léis, and Vincentius of Campania. And although Maximinus of 'Treveri, and Protasius of Milan, are dead, yet Eugenius, who was Master of the Palace 4, can bear witness for me; for he stood before I Hist. Arian. 22. vid. Apfol. Ar. 51. [‘ Pitybion’ is Patavia, now Padua.) 2 Eccles. x. 20 ee 3 All these names of Bishops occur among the subscriptions at Sardica. supr. df. Av. 50. [See also D.C B. s. vv.] Leis is Lauda, or Laus Pompeia, odie Lodi Vecchio; Ughelli, /¢ad.
oo Org paier of the offices; one of the seven Ministers of the Court under the Empire; ‘ He inspected the discipline of the civil and military schools, and received appeals from all parts of the Empire.’ Gibbon, ch. r7. [cf. Gwatkin, p. 285.]
the veil5, and heard what we requested of the Emperor, and what he vouchsafed to reply to us..
4. The movements of Athanastus refute this charge.
This certainly is sufficient for proof, yet suffer me nevertheless to lay before you an account of my travels, which will further lead you to condemn the unfounded calumnies of my opponents. When I left Alexandria®, I did not go to your brother’s head-quarters, or to any other persons, but only to Rome; and having laid my case before the Church (for this was my only concern), I spent my time in the public worship. I did not write to your brother, except when Eusebius and his fellows had written to him to accuse me, and I was compelled while yet at Alexandria to defend myself; and again when I sent to him volumes 7 containing the holy Scriptures, which he had ordered me to prepare for him. It behoves me, while I defend my conduct, to tell the truth to your Piety. When however three years had passed away, he wrote to me in the fourth year, commanding me to meet him (he was then at Milan); and upon enquiring the cause (for I was ignorant of it, the Lord is my witness), I learnt that certain Bishops ® had gone up and requested him to write to your Piety, desiring that a Council might be called. Believe me, Sire, this is the truth of the matter; I lie not. Accordingly I went down to Milan, and met with great kindness from him; for he condescended to see me, and to say that he had despatched letters to you, requesting that a Council might be called. And while I remained in that city, he sent for me again into Gaul (for the father Hosius was going thither), that we might travel from thence to Sardica, And after the Council, he wrote to me while I continued at Naissus9, and I went up, and abode afterwards at Aquileia; where the