__________________________________________________________________
Title: NPNF2-04. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters
Creator(s): Athanasius
Schaff, Philip (1819-1893) (Editor)
Print Basis: New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892
Rights: Public Domain
CCEL Subjects: All; Proofed; Early Church;
LC Call no: BR60
LC Subjects:
Christianity
Early Christian Literature. Fathers of the Church, etc.
__________________________________________________________________
A SELECT LIBRARY
OF THE
NICENE AND
POST-NICENE FATHERS
OF
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
SECOND SERIES
TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WITH PROLEGOMENA AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.
VOLUMES I-VII.
UNDER THE EDITORIAL SUPERVISION OF
PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D.,
PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW
YORK.
AND
HENRY WACE, D.D.,
PRINCIPAL OF KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON.
VOLUME IV
ATHANASIUS:
SELECT WORKS AND LETTERS
T&T CLARK
EDINBURGH
__________________________________________________
WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
__________________________________________________________________
Editorial Preface.
------------------------
It is with a sense of deep obligation to Mr. Robertson, the special
editor, that this volume of the Post-Nicene series of the Fathers is
presented to the subscribers and the public. It will furnish, as is
believed, a more comprehensive and thorough introduction to the study
of Athanasius than is elsewhere accessible, and the labour and devotion
bestowed upon it are beyond all acknowledgment. Thanks must also be
expressed to the publishers, by whose liberality the ordinary limits of
the volumes of this series have been extended, in order that so
important a Father as Athanasius might be represented with as much
fulness as possible.
Mr. Robertson's Preface explains the care and respect with which the
translation and notes of Cardinal Newman have been treated, in
reprinting them for the purpose of this edition. But there appeared in
some parts of the translation inaccuracies which could not be
reproduced consistently with a faithful representation of the original;
and so far, therefore, and so far only, it has been corrected. Where
any correction has been made in the Cardinal's notes, it is of course
distinctly specified.
I must add an expression of particular gratitude to my friend, the Rev.
J. H. Lupton, Surmaster of St. Paul's School, for his generous help in
reading the translations throughout, and for various valuable
suggestions. The assistance of his scholarly learning gives me
additional confidence in presenting this volume to the public.
I must take the opportunity of expressing my great regret that there
has been so considerable an interruption in the issue of the series.
But by the sudden failure, partly from illness, and partly from other
unforeseen causes, of two important contributions at the very moment
when they were needed, the editor and the publishers were exposed to
difficulties which were for the time insuperable. But other volumes of
the series are now steadily progressing, and it is believed there will
be no further interruptions in the publication.
Henry Wace.
King's College, London,
21 Nov. 1891.
__________________________________________________________________
Select Writings and Letters
OF
Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria.
Edited, with Prolegomena, Indices, and Tables,
by
ARchibald Robertson
Principal of Bishop Hatfield's Hall, Durham, Late Fellow of Trinity
College, Oxford
__________________________________________________________________
Preface.
------------------------
In preparing the present volume the Editor has aimed at providing the
English reader with the most complete apparatus for the study of
Athanasius, his life, and his theological influence, which could be
brought within the compass of a single volume of the `Nicene and
Post-Nicene Library.' The volume contains all the most important
treatises of Athanasius (in as nearly as possible their exact
chronological order), with the exception of the ad Serapionem, the
contra Apollinarium, the ad Marcellinum, and the exegetical remains. On
these and other treatises omitted from the present collection the
reader is referred to the Prolegomena, ch. iii.
A great part of the volume, including the bulk of the historical and
anti-Arian works, and the Festal Letters, consists of a revision of
translations and notes comprised in the Oxford Library of the Fathers.
The notes to all, and the translation of most, of the works in
question, excepting the Festal Letters, were prepared for that series
by Mr. (since Cardinal) Newman. It was at first intended to incorporate
his work without any change; but as the volume began to take shape this
intention was inevitably to some extent modified; moreover, the limits
of space demanded the sacrifice of some of the less important matter.
The principles upon which the necessary changes have been made will be
found stated on pp. 304, 305, 450. What is there said applies also to
the de Decretis and Letter of Eusebius, as well as to the notes to the
historical pieces; it may be added that the translation of the `Fourth
Discourse' has been very carefully revised, in order to secure the
utmost closeness to the somewhat difficult original. In all the new
translations, as well as in the revision of earlier work, the aim has
been to secure the strictest fidelity compatible with clearness. The
easy assumption that distinctions of tenses, constructions, &c., count
for little or nothing in patristic Greek has been steadily resisted.
Doubtless there are passages where the distinction, for example, of
aorist and perfect, seems to fade away; but generally speaking,
Athanasius is fully sensitive to this and other points of grammar.
The incorporation in this volume of so much of the ample patristic
learning of Cardinal Newman has inevitably involved some sacrifice of
uniformity. To provide the new matter with illustrative notes on
anything like the same scale, even had it been within the present
editor's power, would have involved the crowding out of many works
which the reader will certainly prefer to have before him. Again, many
opinions are expressed by Cardinal Newman which the present editor is
unable to accept. It may not be invidious to specify as an example the
many cases in which the notes enforce views of Church authority,
especially of papal authority, or again of the justifiableness of
religious persecution, which appear to be at any rate foreign to the
mind of Athanasius; or the tacit assumption that the men of the fourth
century can be divided by a broad and fast line into orthodox and
heretical, and that while everything may be believed to the discredit
of the latter, the former were at once uniform in their convictions and
consistently right in practice. Such an assumption operates with
special injustice against men like Eusebius, whose position does not
fall in with so summary a classification. But it has been thought
better to leave the notes in nearly all such cases as they stand, only
very rarely inserting a reference or observation to call attention to
another aspect of the case. And in no instance has the editor forgotten
the respect due to the theological learning and personal greatness of
Cardinal Newman, or to his peculiar eminence as a religious thinker.
But this has made it inevitable that many matters are regarded in one
way in the notes of Newman, and in quite another where the present
editor speaks for himself. What the great Cardinal says of his
`Historical Sketches' (Preface to vol. ii.) holds good to a large
extent of his expositions of Athanasius. `Though mainly historical,
they are in their form and character polemical, as being directed
against certain Protestant ideas and opinions.' The aim of the present
editor has been throughout exclusively historical. He has regarded any
polemical purpose as foreign to the spirit in which this series was
undertaken, and moreover as fated in the long run to defeat its own
aim. Whatever results may ultimately be reaped from the field of
patristic studies, whether practical, dogmatic, or controversial, they
must be resolutely postponed or rather ignored, pending the application
of strict method to the criticism and interpretation of the texts, and
to the reconstruction of the history whether of the life or of the
doctrine of the Church. For the latter purpose, `lucifera experimenta,
non fructifera quaerenda.' To follow this method, without concealing,
but without obtruding, his personal convictions, has been the endeavour
of the present editor. That he has succeeded, it is not for him to
claim: but his work has been in this respect disinterested, and he
ventures to hope that readers of all opinions will at least recognise
in it `un livre de bonne foy.'
The Prolegomena are not intended to be anything approaching to a
complete treatise upon the history, writings, or theology of S.
Athanasius. They are simply what their title implies, an attempt to
furnish in a connected form a preliminary account of the matters
comprised in the text of the volume, such as on the one hand to reduce
the necessity for a running historical commentary, on the other hand to
prepare the reader for the study of the text itself.
Full indices have been added for the same purpose. The general index
comprises the leading theological and historical topics, and a complete
register of all personal names. This latter seemed requisite in order
to escape the arbitrariness of any line which might have been drawn
between important and insignificant characters. The nobodies of history
may occasionally be important witnesses. The index of Scripture texts
has been made with painful attention to detail, and contains no
unverified reference. To draw the line in each case between formal
citation and mere reminiscence would have involved too great an
expenditure of time and space; moreover there are many probable
reminiscences of Scripture language which it would have been endless to
include. But on the whole the index in question claims to be a complete
synopsis of the use made of the Bible in the text of this volume. As
such it is hoped that, with whatever occasional errors, it may be of
use to the patristic and the biblical student alike.
For the original matter comprised in this volume the editor disclaims
any credit of his own. He has aimed simply at consulting and comparing
the best authorities, at sifting their conclusions, and at following
those which seem best founded. That in doing so the original sources
are ready to hand throughout is the peculiar good fortune of those who
work at Athanasius. It remains, then, for the editor to express his
principal obligations to modern writers. To mention those of earlier
date, such as Montfaucon and Tillemont, is merely to say that he has
not neglected the indispensable foundations of his task. But Athanasius
has also attracted to the study of his works much of the best patristic
scholarship of recent times. Among the names mentioned in the first
chapter of the Prolegomena, that of Cardinal Newman speaks for itself.
No English student will neglect his Arians, however much some of its
views may require modification. Pre-eminent for accurate knowledge of
the texts and for vivid presentment of the history is Dr. Bright, whose
works have been constantly open before the present editor, and have
secured him from many an oversight. His occasional divergence from Dr.
Bright's views, especially on points of chronology, has gone along with
grateful appreciation of this scholar's genuine historical interest,
large theological grasp, and perhaps unequalled personal sympathy with
Athanasius as a man and as a writer. (On the use made in this volume of
his Later Treatises of S. Athanasius, the reader is referred to what is
said, infr. p. 482.)
Last, but not least, the editor must acknowledge his obligations to Mr.
Gwatkin. To say that that writer's Studies of Arianism have done more
than any one work with which he is acquainted to place the intricate
story of the period on a secure historical footing is saying a great
deal, but by no means too much. To say that whatever historical
accuracy has been attained in this volume has been rendered possible by
Mr. Gwatkin's previous labours is to the present writer a matter of
mere honest acknowledgment. Especially this is the case in
chronological questions. Here Mr. Gwatkin has in no single instance
been blindly followed, or without the attempt to interrogate the
sources independently. But in nearly all cases Mr. Gwatkin's results,
which, it should be added, are those accepted by the best continental
students also, have held their own. It has been the editor's misfortune
to differ from Mr. Gwatkin now and then, for example with regard to the
Life of Antony: but even where he has differed as to conclusions, he
has received help and instruction from Mr. Gwatkin's ample command of
material, and genuinely scientific method.
In addition to the above writers, the manifold obligations of the
editor are recorded in the introductions and notes: if any have been
passed over, it has been due to inadvertence or to the necessity of
condensation. For the suggestions and help of personal friends the
editor's gratitude may be here expressed without the mention of names.
But he may specially mention the Rev. H. Ellershaw and Miss Payne
Smith, to the former of whom he owes the translation of the Life of
Antony, while the latter has kindly revised the Oxford translation of
the bulk of the Festal Letters. Lastly, the many kindnesses, and
uniform consideration, shewn to him by the English editor of this
series call for his warmest recognition: that they may prove not wholly
thrown away is the utmost that their recipient can venture to hope.
A.R.
The University, Durham,
1891.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Prolegomena.
------------------------
Chapter I.
Literature
S:1. Editions, &c. (A) Before 1601 only Latin translations. The first,
at Vicenza, 1482, completed by Barnabas Celsanus after the death of the
translator Omnibonus of Lonigo; dedicated to Paul II. Contained a few
works only, viz. the `two books c. Gentes,' the letter to Serapion de
Morte Arii, the De Incarn. adv. Arian. and adv. Apollin., `the Dispute
with Arius at the Council of Nicaea.' (2) Paris, 1520, pub. by Jean
Petit: two books c. Gent. fragment of the ad Marcellin. and some
`spuria.' (3) Second edition at Strassburg, 1522. (4) Basel, 1527, by
Eramus: Serap. ill. and iv., de Decr., Apol. Fug., Apol. c. Ar. (part
of), `ad Monach.,' and some `spuria' (he rejected Serap. i. as unworthy
of Athan.!). (5) Lyons, 1532, same contents as numbers (2) and (4), but
with renderings by Politian, Reuchlin, Erasmus, &c. (6) Cologne, 1632,
similar contents. (7) 1556, Basel (`apud Frobenium'), by P. Nannius, in
4 volumes; great advance on previous editions. 3 vols. contain the
version by Nannius of the `genuina,' the fourth `spuria,' rendered by
others. The Nannian version was ably tested, and found wanting, under
the direction of the congregation of the Index (Migne xxv. pp. xviii.
sqq.). (8) 1564 (or 1584?) Basel (substantially the same). (9) 1570,
Paris, Vita Antonii and `five dialogues de Trin.,' version of Beza.
(10) 1572, Paris, five volumes, combining Nos. 7 and 9. (II) 1574,
Paris, Letter ad Amun, Letter 39 (fragment), Letter ad Rufinianum. (12)
1581, Paris, incorporating the latter with No. 10. (13) Rome, 1623, the
spurious de variis quaestionibus.
(B) The first Greek Edition (14) 1601 at Heidelberg by Commelinus, with
the Nannian Latin version (2 vols. fo. with a supplement of fragments,
letters, &c., communicated by P. Felckmann). This edition was founded
upon Felckmann's collation of numerous mss., of which the chief were
(a) that in the Public Library at Basel (saec. xiv., not ix.-x. as
Felck. states; formerly belonged to the Dominican Friary there). (b)
The `Codex Christophorsoni,' now at Trin. Coll., Camb., saec. xvi.
ineunt. (g) A `Codex Goblerianus' dated 1319, formerly tes mones tou
kurizou, and principally used by Nannius. Neither this nor the
remaining mss. of Felckmann are as yet, I believe, identified.
(Particulars, Migne, P.G. xxv. p. xliii.) (15) 1608, Paris, pub. by C.
Chappelet, edited by Fronton le Duc, S.J., Latin only. (17) 1612,
Paris, No. 15, with Vit. Ant. in Greek and Latin, from an edition (16)
of 1611, Augsburg, by Hoeschel, 4-o. (18) 1627, Paris, Greek text of
1601 with version of Nannius from edition No. 17, both injudiciously
revised by Jean le Pescheur, from the critical notes of Felckmann
himself, which however are omitted in this edition. (19) `Cologne,' or
rather Leipzig, 1686, poor reprint of No. 18 with the Syntagma
Doctrinae which Arnold had published in the previous year (see below,
ch. ii. S:9). (Montf. wrongly dates this 1681.)
(C) All the above were entirely superseded by the great (20) 1698 Paris
Benedictine Edition by Bernard de Montfaucon, aided, for part of vol.
1, by Jacques Loppin, 3 volumes fol. (i.e. vol. 1, parts 1 and 2,
`genuina,' vol. 2 `dubia et spuria'), with a new Latin Version and
ample prolegomena, &c. Montfaucon took over, apparently without
revision, the critical data of Felckmann (including his mistake as to
the age of the Basel ms. but collated very many fresh mss. (principally
Parisian, full particulars in Migne xxvi. pp. 1449, sqq.), and for the
first time put the text on a fairly satisfactory footing. The Works of
Athanasius were freshly arranged with an attempt at chronological
order, and a `Monitum' or short introduction prefixed to each.
Critical, and a few explanatory, notes throughout; also an
`onomasticon' or glossary. This splendid edition was far more complete
than its predecessors, and beautifully printed. After its completion,
Montfaucon discovered fresh material, most of which he published in
vol. 2 of his `Collectio Nova Patrum,' Paris, 1706, with some further
supplementary matter to his Prolegomena, partly in reply to Tillemont
upon various critical questions; small additions in his Biblioth.
Coisliniana, 1715. (The letters to Lucifer, included in Montfaucon's
edition, had already seen the light in vol. iv. of the Bibliotheca
Maxima Patrum (Lyons, 1677, Greek fathers in Latin only), and the two
notes to Orsisius were taken from the life of Pachomius in the Acta SS.
for May.)
(21) 1746, Rome, the de Titulis Psalmorum, edited from Barberini and
Vatican mss. by Cardinal Niccolo Antonelli. (22) 1769, Venice, vol. v.
of the `Bibliotheca Patrum' of the Oratorian Andrea Gallandi. Contains
the works omitted in No. 20, chiefly from Montf. Coll. Nov., but with a
few minor additions, and with the fragments and letters found by Maffei
at Verona (see below, pp. 495, 554). (23) 1777, Padua, by Giustiniani,
in four volumes, containing firstly Montfaucon's `genuina' in two
volumes, the `dubia' and `spuria' in the third, and the supplementary
matter from (21) and (22) in the fourth. The printing of this standard
edition is not equal to that of No. 20. (24) `1884' (1857), Paris,
vols. xxv.-xxviii. of Migne's Patrologia Graeca, a reprint of No. 23,
but in a new order (see vol. xxviii. p. 1650), and with the addition of
the Festal Letters from Mai (see below, p. 501). The merits and
demerits of this series are well known. Of the latter, the most serious
are the misprints, with which every page literally teems.
(D) With Migne's edition the publication of a complete Athanasius (so
far as his works are known to be extant) is attained, although there is
still everything to be done towards the revision of the text on a
critical basis. Among modern editions of large portions of Athanasius
from the Benedictine text may be mentioned (25) Thilo, Athan. Opp.
dogm. Selecta, Leipz. 1853. (26) Bright, Orations against the Arians
(1873 2nd ed. 1883), and Historical Writings of Athanasius, 1881 (Oxf.
Univ. Press), with introductions; both most convenient; his Lessons
from the lives of three great Fathers (Longmans, 1890) gives an
interesting popular study of Athan. Editions of separate books will be
noticed in the short Introductions prefixed in this volume.
__________________________________________________________________
S:2. Translations. The principal Latin versions have been referred to
in S:1. Of those in foreign languages it is not easy to procure
adequate information. Fialon, in the work mentioned below, translates
Apol. Const. and Apol. Fug.; in German the `Bibliothek der
Kirchenvaeter,' vols. 13-18, Ausgew. Schriften des h. Ath., contains
translations of several works by Fisch, Kempten from 1872. The
principal English Translations are those in the `Library of the
Fathers.' Of these, those edited or translated by Newman are
incorporated in this volume. Some letters included in this volume, as
well as the work against Apollinarianism, are also comprised in the
volume (Lib. Fath. 46, 1881) by Bright, with excellent notes, &c., and
with a preface by Dr. Pusey (see below, p. 482). Translations of single
books will be noticed in the respective Introductions.
__________________________________________________________________
S:3. Biographies. (a.) Ancient. The writings of Athanasius himself,
while seldom furnishing precise chronological data, furnish almost all
the primary information as to the facts of his eventful life. The
earliest `Life' is the panegyric of Gregory of Nazianzus (Or. 21),
delivered at CP. 379 or 380, rich in praises, but less so in historical
material. More important in the latter respect is the Historia Acephala
(probably earlier than 390) printed in this volume, pp. 496, sqq. (The
Edition by Sievers in Ztschr. fuer Hist. Theol. for 1868 is referred to
in this volume as `Sievers' simply.) It is a priceless source of
chronological information, especially where it coincides with and
confirms the data of the Festal Index (pp. 503, sqq.), a document
probably earlier than 400. A secondary place is occupied by the Church
historians, especially Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, who draw
largely from Athanasius himself, and from Rufinus, also in part from
the Hist. Aceph. (especially Sozomen), and from Arian sources, which
are mainly used by Philostorgius. More scattered notices in later
ecclesiastical writers of the fourth century, especially Epiphanius;
also Synesius, Jerome, Basil, &c., in the documents of the Councils,
&c., and in the Life of Pachomius and other early documents relating to
Egyptian Monasticism (see below, Introd. to Vit. Anton. and Appendix,
pp. 188, 487).
(b) Medieval. Under this head we may notice the Lives printed by
Montfaucon among his Prolegomena. The first, `Incerto Auctore,' is
dependent on the fifth-century historians and of no value. A second,
preserved by Photius (c. 840) is in the judgment of that scholar, which
Montfaucon endorses `unparalleled rubbish.' That by the Metaphrast
/-967) is a patchwork from earlier writers made with little skill, and
not of use to the historian. An Arabic Life current in the Coptic
Church, communicated to Montf. by Renandot, is given by Montf., as he
says, that his readers may appreciate the `stupendous ignorance and
triviality' of that nation. Montf. mentions Latin `Lives' compiled from
Rufinus and from the Hist. Tripartita, `of no value whatever.' Of the
Life of Athanasius `by Pachomius,' mentioned by Archd. Farrar (infra),
I can obtain no particulars.
(c) Modern. The first was that by Tortelius prefixed to the edition of
1520 (S:1 (2)), but compiled in the previous century and dedicated to
Pope Eugenius IV. (`good for its time,' M.). Montf. mentions a
valueless life by Lipomanus and a worse one of unknown origin prefixed
to other early editions. In 1671 Hermant made the first attempt at a
critical biography (Paris); in 1664 an English work, "History of the
Life and Actions of St. Athanasius by N.B. P.C. Catholick," with the
imprimatur of Abp. Sheldon, had been published at London, in 1677 the
biography in Cave, Lives of the Fathers, and in 1686-1704 du Pin,
Nouvelle Bibliotheque. About the same date appeared the first volume of
the Acta SS. for May, which contains a careful life by Paperbroch
(1685; ded. to Innocent XI.). But all previous (to say nothing of
subsequent) labours were cast into the shade by the appearance of the
`Vita' of Montfaucon (Prolegg. to Tom. 1) in 1698, in which the
chronology was reduced to order, and every particle of information
lucidly digested; and by the `Memoires' of `M. Lenain de Tillemont'
(vol. viii. in 1702), which go over the ground with quite equal
thoroughness, and on many points traverse the conclusions of
Montfaucon, whose work came into Tillemont's hands only when the latter
was on his death-bed (1698). The ground was once more traversed with
some fulness and with special attention to the literary and doctrinal
work of Athan. by Remy Ceillier, (Aut. Sacres, vol. v. 1735). After
this nothing remained to be done until the revival of interest in
patristic studies during the present century. In 1827 appeared the
monograph of Moehler `Ath. der Groesse' (Mainz), a dogmatic (R.C.)
rather than a historical study: in 1862 Stanley (`Eastern Church,'
Lect. vii.). Boehringer's life (in vol. 6 of Kirchengesch. in
Biographien, 1860-1879) is praised as `thoroughly good and nearly
exhaustive.' Fialon St. Athanase, Paris, 1877, is a most interesting
and suggestive, though rather sketchy, treatment from an unusual point
of view. P. Barbier Vie de St. A. (Tours, 1888) I have not seen. The
best English life is that of Dr. Bright, first in the Introd. to the
`Orations' (supra, d. 26), but rewritten for the Dictionary of Christ.
Biography. The same writer's Introd. to the Hist. Writings (supra ib.)
is equally good and should also be consulted. A lucid and able sketch
by Dr. Reynolds has been published by the Religious Tract Society,
1889, and Archd. Farrar, Lives of the Fathers, 1, pp. 445-571, is
eloquent and sympathetic.
__________________________________________________________________
S:4. History of the Period, and of the Arian Controversy. (a) Conflict
of the Church with Heathenism. On the later persecutions Aube, Les
Chretiens dans l'Emp. romain, Paris, 1881, id. `L'eglise et l'etat,'
ib. 1886, Uhlhorn Der Kampf des Christentums, &c. (4th ed.), 1886,
Bernhardt Gesch. Roms von Valerian bis Dioklet., 1876, Goerres,
Licinianische Christenverfolgung, 1875. On Diocletian, Mason, Persec.
of Diocl., 1876, Monographs by Vogel, 1857, Preuss, 1869. On the
general subject of the decline of paganism, Lasaulx Untergang des
Hellenismus, 1854, Merivale's Boyle Lectures, 1864-5, Chastel,
Destruction du Paganisme, 1850, Schultze Gesch. des Untergangs des
G.-R. Heidentums, 1887 (not praised), Doellinger, Gentile and Jew (E.
Tr.), 1862. On the revival of paganism under Julian, Rendall, Julian
1879, Bp. J. Wordsworth in D.C.B., vol. iii., lives of Julian by
Neander, 1813, Rode, 1877, Muecke, 1879, Naville, 1877, Strauss, der
Romantiker, u.s.w., 1847, Julian's works, ed. Hertlein, 1875, and
Neumann, 1880. Monographs by Auer, 1855, Mangold, 1862, Semisch, 1862,
Luebker, 1864; Capes, University Life in Ancient Athens, 1877, Sievers,
Leben des Libanius, 1868.
(b) The Christian Empire. Keim, Uebertritt Konstantins, 1862, Brieger,
Konst. der G., 1880, Gibbon's chapters on the subject should be
carefully read. Chawner's Legisl. of Constantine, De Broglie, L'eglise
et L'emp. romain, iii., Ranke, Weltgesch. iv. pp. 1-100 (important),
1884, Schiller, Gesch. der roem. Kaiserzeit (ii), 1887. See also the
full bibliography in vol. 1 of this series, p. 445-465.
(c) General History of the Church. It is unnecessary to enumerate the
well-known general histories, all of which devote special pains to
Athanasius and the Arian controversy. This is especially the case with
Schaff, Nicene Christ. ii. 616-678, 884-893, with full bibliography.
See also supra S:3. Bright's Notes on the Canons (Oxf. 1882), and
Hefele, vol. 2 (E. Tra.), are most useful: also Kaye, Council of Nicaea
(Works, vol. v. ed. 1888). Card. Hergenroether's Kirchengeschichte
(allowing for the natural bias of the writer) is fair and able, with
good bibliographical references in the notes (ed. 1884). By far the
best modern historical monograph on the Arian period is that of
Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, 1882, constantly referred to in this
volume, and indispensable. His Arian Controversy, 1889, is an
abridgement, but with supplementary discussions of importance on one or
two points; very useful bibliography prefixed to both. (Cf. also below,
Chap. v. S:1) Koelling's Geschichte der Arianischen Haeresie (1st vol.,
1874, 2nd, 1883) is pretentious and uncritical.
__________________________________________________________________
S:5. History of Doctrine. For ancient sources see articles Heresiology
and Person of Christ in D.C.B., vols. iii., iv. The modern classics are
the works of Petavius, de Trinitate (in vols. ii. and iii. of his De
dogmat. Theol.) of Thomassinus, Dogmata Theologica, and of Bull,
Defensio fidei Nicaenae (maintaining against Petav. the fixity of
pre-Nicene doctrine). Under this head we include Newman's Arians of the
Fourth Century, an English classic, unrivalled as a dogmatic and
religious study of Arianism, although unsatisfactory on its purely
historical side. (Obsolete chronology retained in all editions.) The
general histories of Doctrine are of course full on the subject of
Arianism; for an enumeration of them, see Harnack, S:2 of his
Prolegomena. In English we have Shedd (N.Y., 1863, Edinb., 1884),
Hagenbach (Clark's Foreign Theol. Lib.), and the great work of Dorner
(id.). The most important recent works are those of Harnack,
Dogmengeschichte (1886, third vol., 1890), a most able work and
(allowing for the prepossessions of the Ritschl school) impartial and
philosophical; and Loofs, Leitfaden zur Dogmengeschichte (2 ed., 1890),
on similar lines, but studiously temperate and fair. Both works are
much used in this volume (quoted commonly as `Harnack,' `Loofs,'
simply. Harnack, vol. i., is quoted from the first edition, but the
later editions give comparative tables of the pages). For Councils and
Creeds, in addition to the works of Hefele and Bright mentioned S:4 c.,
see Heurtley Harmonia Symbolica; Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole; Hort,
Two Dissertations (1876), indispensable for history of the Nicene
Creed; Swainson, Nicene and Apostles' Creed, 1875; Caspari, Ungedruckte
u.s.w. Quellen zum Taufsymbol u.s.w. (3 vols. in 2, Christiania,
1866-1875), and Alte und Neue Quellen, ib. 1879; one of the most
important of modern patristic works.
__________________________________________________________________
S:6. Patristic Monographs. (a) Among the very numerous works of this
kind, the most useful for our purpose are Zahn, Marcellus von Ancyra,
1867, very important for doctrinal history; Reinkens, Hilarius von
Poitiers, 1864; Fialon, St. Basile, 1868; Ullmann, Gregorius von
Nazianz (2 ed., 1867, part of earlier ed. trans. by Cox, 1855);
Krueger, Lucifer von Calaris (excellent, especially for the Council of
362). Under this head may be mentioned the numerous excellent articles
in Dict. Chr. Biog. referred to in their respective connexions.
(b) On the doctrine of Athanasius. In addition to the works of Ceillier
and Moehler referred to above, Atzberger, Die Logoslehre des h. Ath.
(Munich, 1880); Voigt, Die Lehre des Athan. (Bremen, 1861); Pell, Lehre
des h. Ath. von der Suende und Erloesung (Passau, 1888, a careful and
meritorious analysis, candidly in the interest of Roman Catholicism.
Difficulties not always faced).
The above list of authorities, &c., does not pretend to completeness,
nor to enumerate the sources for general secular or Church history. But
in what relates specially to Athanasius it is hoped that an
approximation to either requirement has been attained. Works bearing on
more special points are referred to in their proper places. In
particular, a special Brief Bibliography is prefixed to the Vita
Antonii.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter II.
Life of St. Athanasius and Account of Arianism
A. S:S:1-3. To the Council of Nicaea, 298-325.
S:1. Early years, 298-319.
S:2. The Arian controversy before Nicaea (319-325).
S:3. (1.) The Council of Nicaea (325).
S:3. (2.) Situation at the close of the Council (325-328).
a. Novelty of Arianism. Its Antecedents in the history of doctrine.
b. The `Omoousion.'
c. Materials for reaction. 1. Persecuted Arians. 2. Eusebius and the
Court. 3. Ecclesiastical conservatism. Marcellus and Photinus.
B. S:S:4-8. The Conflict with Arianism (328-361).
S:4. Early years of his Episcopate (328-335), and first troubles.
S:5. The Council of Tyre and First Exile (335-337).
S:6. Renewed troubles and Second Exile (337-346).
(1) At Alexandria (337-339).
(2) At Rome. Council of Antioch, &c. (339-342).
(3) Constans; Council of Sardica, and its sequel (342-346).
S:7. The golden Decade (346-356).
(1) Athanasius as bishop.
(2) Sequel of the death of Constans.
S:8. The Third Exile (356-361).
(1) Expulsion of Athanasius.
(2) State of the Arian controversy:--(a) `Anomoeans'; (b) `Homoeans';
(c) `Semi-Arians.'
(3) Athanasius in his retirement.
C. S:S:9, 10. Athanasius in Victory (362-373).
S:9. Under Julian and his successors; Fourth and Fifth Exiles
(362-366).
S:10. Last years. Basil, Marcellus, Apollinarius (366-373).
Id primum scitu opus est in proposito nobis minime fuisse ut omnia ad
Arium Arianos aliosque haereticos illius aetatis itidemque Alexandrum
Alexandrinum Hosium Marcellum Serapionem aliosque Athanasii familiares
aut synodos spectantia recensere sed solummodo ea quae uel ad Athanasii
Vitam pertinent uel ad eam proxime accedunt.--Montfaucon.
Athanasius was born between 296 and 298 [1] . His parents, according to
later writers, were of high rank and wealthy. At any rate, their son
received a liberal education. In his most youthful work we find him
repeatedly quoting Plato, and ready with a definition from the Organon
of Aristotle. He is also familiar with the theories of various
philosophical schools, and in particular with the developments of
Neo-Platonism. In later works, he quotes Homer more than once (Hist.
Ar. 68, Orat. iv. 29), he addresses to Constantius a defence bearing
unmistakeable traces of a study of Demosthenes de Corona (Fialon, pp.
286 sq. 293). His education was that of a Greek: Egyptian antiquities
and religion, the monuments and their history, have no special interest
for him: he nowhere betrays any trace of Egyptian national feeling. But
from early years another element had taken a first place in his
training and in his interest. It was in the Holy Scriptures that his
martyr teachers had instructed him, and in the Scriptures his mind and
writings are saturated. Ignorant of Hebrew, and only rarely appealing
to other Greek versions (to Aquila once in the Ecthesis, to other
versions once or twice upon the Psalms), his knowledge of the Old
Testament is limited to the Septuagint. But of it, as well as of the
New Testament, he has an astonishing command, 'Alexandreus to genei,
aner logios, dunatos on en tais graphais. The combination of Scriptural
study and of Greek learning was what one expects in a pupil of the
famous Alexandrian School; and it was in this School, the School of
Clement and Origen, of Dionysius and Theognostus, that young Athanasius
learned, possibly at first from the lips of Peter the bishop and martyr
of 311 [2] . The influence of Origen still coloured the traditions of
the theological school of Alexandria. It was from Alexander, Bishop of
Alexandria 312-328, himself an Origenist `of the right wing,' that
Athanasius received his moulding at the critical period of his later
teens.
Of his first introduction to Alexander a famous story is told by
Rufinus (Hist. Eccl. I. xiv.). The Bishop, on the anniversary of the
martyrdom of his predecessor, Peter, was expecting some clergy to
dinner after service in a house by the sea. Out of the window, he saw
some boys at play on the shore: as he watched, he saw that they were
imitating the sacred rites of the Church. Thinking at last that they
were going too far, he sent some of his clergy to bring them in. At
first his enquiries of the little fellows produced an alarmed denial.
But at length he elicited that one of them had acted the Bishop and had
baptized some of the others in the character of catechumens. On
ascertaining that all details had been duly observed, he consulted his
clergy, and decided that the baptisms should be treated as valid, and
that the boy-bishop and his clergy had given such plain proof of their
vocation that their parents must be instructed to hand them over to be
educated for the sacred profession. Young Athanasius accordingly, after
a further course of elementary studies, was handed over to the bishop
to be brought up, like Samuel, in the Temple of God. This, adds Sozomen
(ii. 17), was the origin of his subsequent attachment to Alexander as
deacon and secretary. The story is credited by some writers of weight
(most recently, by Archdeacon Farrar), but seems highly improbable. It
depends on the single authority of a writer not famed for historical
judgment, and on the very first anniversary of Peter's martyrdom, when
Alexander had hardly ascended the episcopal throne, Athanasius was at
least fourteen years old. The probability that the anniversary would
have been other than the first, and the possibility that Athanasius was
even older, coupled with the certainty that his theological study began
before Peter's martyrdom, compel us to mark the story with at least a
strong note of interrogation. But it may be allowed to confirm us in
the belief that Alexander early singled out the promise of ability and
devotion which marked Athanasius for his right-hand man long before the
crisis which first proved his unique value.
His years of study and work in the bishop's household bore rich fruit
in the two youthful works already alluded to. These works more than any
later writings of Athanasius bear traces of the Alexandrian theology
and of the influence of Origenism: but in them already we trace the
independent grasp of Christian principles which mark Athanasius as the
representative of something more than a school, however noble and
many-sided. It was not as a theologian, but as a believing soul in need
of a Saviour, that Athanasius approached the mystery of Christ.
Throughout the mazes of the Arian controversy his tenacious hold upon
this fundamental principle steered his course and balanced his
theology. And it is this that above all else characterises the golden
treatise on the Incarnation of the Word. There is, however, one element
in the influence of Origen and his successors which already comes out,
and which never lost its hold upon Athanasius,--the principle of
asceticism. Although the ascetic tendency was present in Christianity
from the first, and had already burst forth into extravagance in such
men as Tertullian, it was reserved for the school of Origen, influenced
by Platonist ideas of the world and life, to give to it the rank of an
acknowledged principle of Christian morals--to give the stimulus to
monasticism (see below, p. 193). Among the acclamations which
accompanied the election of Athanasius to the episcopate that of heis
ton askeon was conspicuous (Apol. Ar. 6). In de Incarn. 51. 1, 48. 2,
we seem to recognise the future biographer of Antony [3] .
__________________________________________________________________
[1] He was unable to speak from memory of the events of the persecution
of 303 (Hist. Ar. 64), but (de Incarn. 56. 2) had been instructed in
religion by persons who had suffered as martyrs. This must have been
before 311, the date of the last persecution in Egypt under Maximin.
Before 319 he had written his first books `against the Gentiles,' the
latter of which, on the Incarnation, implies a full maturity of power
in the writer, while the former is full of philosophical and
mythological knowledge such as argues advanced education. But from
several sources we learn that his election to the episcopate in 328 was
impugned, at any rate in after years, on the ground of his not having
attained the canonical age of thirty. There is no ground for supposing
that this was true: but such a charge would not be made without some
ground at least of plausibility. We must therefore suppose that on June
8, 328, he was not much beyond his thirtieth year. His parents,
moreover, were living after the year 358 (see below, p. 562, note 6);
allowing them over fourscore years at that date, we find in 298 a
reasonable date for the birth of their son. We must remember that in
southern climates mind and body mature somewhat more rapidly than with
ourselves, and `contra Gentes' and `de Incarnatione' will scarcely
appear precocious.
[2] The statements of Greg. Naz. that he frequented classes of grammar
and rhetoric is probable enough; that of Sulpitius Severus that he was
`juris consultus' lacks corroboration.
[3] The actual connection of Athanasius with Antony at this period is
implied in the received text of `Vit. Anton.' Prolog., for it could
scarcely fall at any later date. At the same time the youthful life of
Athanasius seems fully accounted for in such a way as to leave little
room for it (so Tillemont). But our ignorance of details leaves it just
possible that he may for a time have visited the great hermit and
ministered to him as Elisha did of old to Elijah. (Cf. p. 195, note 2.)
__________________________________________________________________
S:2. The Arian Controversy before Nicaea, 319-325.
At the time when Athanasius first appeared as an author, the condition
of Christian Egypt was not peaceful. Meletius, bishop of Lycopolis, was
accused of having sacrificed during the persecution in 301 (pp. 131,
234); condemned by a synod under bishop Peter, he had carried on
schismatical intrigues under Peter, Achillas, and Alexander, and by
this time had a large following, especially in Upper Egypt. Many cities
had Meletian bishops: many of the hermits, and even communities of
monks (p. 135), were on his side.
The Meletian account of the matter (preserved by Epiphan. Haer. 58) was
different from this. Meletius had been in prison along with Peter, and
had differed from him on the question of the lapsed, taking the sterner
view, in which most of the imprisoned clergy supported him. It would
not be without a parallel (D.C.B. art. Donatists, Novatian) in the
history of the burning question of the lapsi to suppose that Meletius
recoiled from a compromised position to the advocacy of impossible
strictness. At any rate (de Incarn. 24. 4) the Egyptian Church was rent
by a formidable schism. No doctrinal question, however, was involved.
The alliance of Meletians and Arians belongs to a later date.
It is doubtful whether the outbreak of the Arian controversy at
Alexandria was directly connected with the previous Christological
controversies in the same Church. The great Dionysius some half-century
before had been involved in controversy with members of his Church both
in Alexandria and in the suffragan dioceses of Libya (infr. p. 173). Of
the sequel of that controversy we have no direct knowledge: but we find
several bishops and numerous clergy and laity in Alexandria and Libya
[4] ready to side with Arius against his bishop.
The origin of the controversy is obscure. It certainly must be placed
as early as 318 or 319, to leave sufficient time before the final
deposition of Arius in the council of 321 (infr. p. 234). We are told
that Arius, a native of Libya, had settled in Alexandria soon after the
origin of the Meletian schism, and had from motives of ambition sided
at first with Meletius, then with Peter, who ordained him deacon, but
afterwards was compelled to depose him (Epiph. Haer. 69, Sozom. i. 15).
He became reconciled to Achillas, who raised him to the presbyterate.
Disappointed of the bishopric at the election of Alexander, he nurtured
a private grudge (Thdt. H. E. i. 2), which eventually culminated in
opposition to his teaching. These tales deserve little credit: they are
unsupported by Athanasius, and bear every trace of invention ex post
facto. That Arius was a vain person we see from his Thalia (infr. p.
308): but he certainly possessed claims to personal respect, and we
find him not only in charge of the urban parish of Baucalis, but
entrusted with the duties of a professor of scriptural exegesis. There
is in fact no necessity to seek for personal motives to explain the
dispute. The Arian problem was one which the Church was unable to
avoid. Not until every alternative had been tried and rejected was the
final theological expression of her faith possible. Two great streams
of theological influence had run their course in the third century: the
subordinationist theology of Origen at Alexandria, the Monarchian
theology of the West and of Asia which had found a logical expression
in Paul of Samosata. Both streams had met in Lucian the martyr, at
Antioch, and in Arius, the pupil of Lucian, produced a result which
combined elements of both (see below, S:3 (2) a). According to some
authorities Arius was the aggressor. He challenged some theological
statements of Alexander as Sabellian, urging in opposition to them that
if the Son were truly a Son He must have had a beginning, and that
there had been therefore a time when He did not exist. According to
others (Constantine in Eus. Vit. ii. 69) Alexander had demanded of his
presbyters an explanation of some passage of Scripture which had led
Arius to broach his heresy. At any rate the attitude of Alexander was
at first conciliatory. Himself an Origenist, he was willing to give
Arius a fair hearing (Sozom. ubi supra). But the latter was
impracticable. He began to canvass for support, and his doctrine was
widely accepted. Among his first partisans were a number of lay people
and virgins, five presbyters of Alexandria, six deacons, including
Euzoius, afterwards Arian bishop at Antioch (a.d. 361), and the Libyan
bishops Secundus of Ptolemais in Pentapolis (see p. 226) and Theonas of
Marmarica (see p. 70). A letter was addressed to Arius and his friends
by Alexander, and signed by the clergy of Alexandria, but without
result. A synod was now called (infr. p. 70, Socr. i. 6) of the bishops
of Egypt and Libya, and Arius and his allies deposed. Even this did not
check the movement. In Egypt two presbyters and four deacons of the
Mareotis, one of the former being Pistus, a later Arian bishop of
Alexandria, declared for Arius; while abroad he was in correspondence
with influential bishops who cordially promised their support.
Conspicuous among the latter was a man of whom we shall hear much in
the earlier treatises of this volume, Eusebius, bishop of Berytus, who
had recently, against the older custom of the Church (p. 103, note 6),
but in accordance with what has ever since been general in the case of
important sees, been translated to the imperial city of Nicomedia. High
in the favour, perhaps related to the family, of Constantine, possessed
of theological training and practical ability, this remarkable man was
for nearly a quarter of a century the head and centre of the Arian
cause. (For his character and history, see the excellent article in
D.C.B. ii. 360-367.) He had been a fellow-pupil of Arius in the school
of Lucian, and fully shared his opinions (his letter to Paulinus of
Tyre, Thdt. H. E. i. 6). The letter addressed to him by Arius (ib. 5)
is one of our most important Arian monuments. Arius claims the sympathy
of Eusebius of Caesarea and other leading bishops, in fact of all the
East excepting Macarius of Jerusalem and two others, `heretical and
untutored persons.' Eusebius responded with zeal to the appeal of his
`fellow-Lucianist.' While Alexander was indefatigable in writing to
warn the bishops everywhere against Arius (who had now left Alexandria
to seek foreign support, first in Palestine, then at Nicomedia), and in
particular addressed a long letter to Alexander, bishop of Byzantium
(Thdt. H. E. i. 4), Eusebius called a council at Nicomedia, which
issued letters in favour of Arius to many bishops, and urged Alexander
himself to receive him to communion. Meanwhile a fresh complication had
appeared in Egypt. Colluthus, whose name stands first among the
signatures to the memorandum (to be mentioned presently) of the
deposition of Arius, impatient it would seem at the moderation of
Alexander, founded a schism of his own, and although merely a
presbyter, took upon himself to ordain. In Egypt and abroad confusion
reigned: parties formed in every city, bishops, to adopt the simile of
Eusebius (Vit. Const.), collided like the fabled Symplegades, the most
sacred of subjects were bandied about in the mouths of the populace,
Christian and heathen.
In all this confusion Athanasius was ready with his convictions. His
sure instinct and powerful grasp of the centre of the question made him
the mainstay of his Bishop in the painful conflict. At a stage [5] of
it difficult to determine with precision, Alexander sent out to the
bishops of the Church at large a concise and carefully-worded
memorandum of the decision of the Egyptian Synod of 321, fortified by
the signatures of the clergy of Alexandria and the Mareotis (see infra,
pp. 68-71).
This weighty document, so different in thought and style from the
letter of Alexander preserved by Theodoret, bears the clear stamp of
the mind and character of Athanasius: it contains the germ of which his
whole series of anti-Arian writings are the expansion (see introd. and
notes, pp. 68-71), and is a significant comment on the hint of the
Egyptian. bishops (Apol. c. Ar. 6 ad init.).
Early in 324 a new actor came upon the scene. Hosius, bishop of Cordova
and confessor (he is referred to, not by name, Vit. Const. ii. 63, 73,
cf. iii. 7, ho panu boomenos; by name, Socr. i. 7), arrived with a
letter from the Emperor himself, intreating both parties to make peace,
and treating the matter as one of trivial moment. The letter may have
been written upon information furnished by Eusebius (D.C.B. s.v.); but
the anxiety of the Emperor for the peace of his new dominions is its
keynote. On the arrival of Hosius a council (p. 140) was held, which
produced little effect as far as the main question was concerned: but
the claims of Colluthus were absolutely disallowed, and his ordination
of one Ischyras (infr. S:5) to the presbyterate pronounced null and
void. Hosius apparently carried back with him a strong report in favour
of Alexander; at any rate the Emperor is credited (Gelas. Cyz. ii.,
Hard. Conc. i. 451-458) with a vehement letter of rebuke to Arius,
possibly at this juncture. Such was the state of affairs which led to
the imperial resolve, probably at the suggestion of Hosius, to summon a
council of bishops from the whole world to decide the doctrinal
question, as well as the relatively lesser matters in controversy.
__________________________________________________________________
[4] It is of interest to note the changed conditions. In 260 bishop
Dionysius had to check the Monarchian tendency in Libya, and was
accused by members of his own flock of separating the Son from the
Being (ousia) of the Father. In 319 a Libyan, Arius, cries out upon the
Sabellianism of his bishop, and formulates the very doctrine which
Dionysius had been accused of maintaining.
[5] The chronology cannot be determined with precision. The Memorandum
is signed by Colluthus and therefore precedes his schism. The letter to
Alex. Byzant. was written after the Colluthian schism had begun. But
the proceedings of Eusebius described above had at least begun when the
Memorandum was circulated, which must, therefore, have been some time
after the Synod of 321. The letter of Alexander to his clergy prefixed
to the depositio was drawn up after it, and includes the names of the
Mareotic seceders. We may, therefore, tentatively adopt the following
series:--321 a.d.: Egyptian Synod deposes Arius. Arius in
correspondence with Eusebius, &c. Leaves Alexandria for Palestine and
Nicomedia. Letters sent abroad by Alexander. Eusebius holds council and
writes to Alexander. 322: Memorandum drawn up; Alexandrian clergy
assemble to sign it; prefatory address to them by Alexander with
reference to the Mareotic defection which has just occurred;
circulation of Memorandum; schism of Colluthus. 323: Letter of
Alexander to Alexander of Byzantium; (Sept.) Constantine, master of the
East, and ready to intervene in the controversy.
__________________________________________________________________
S:3 (1) The Council of Nicaea.
An ecumenical council was a new experiment. Local councils had long
since grown to be a recognised organ of the Church both for legislation
and for judicial proceedings. But no precedent as yet prescribed, no
ecclesiastical law or theological principle had as yet enthroned, the
`General Council' as the supreme expression of the Church's mind.
Constantine had already referred the case of the Donatists first to a
select council at Rome under bishop Miltiades, then to what Augustine
(Ep. 43) has been understood to call a `plenarium ecclesiae universae
concilium' at Arles in 314. This remedy for schism was now to be tried
on a grander scale. That the heads of all the Churches of Christendom
should meet in free and brotherly deliberation, and should testify to
all the world their agreement in the Faith handed down independently
but harmoniously from the earliest times in Churches widely remote in
situation, and separated by differences of language, race, and
civilisation, is a grand and impressive idea, an idea approximately
realised at Nicaea as in no other assembly that has ever met. The
testimony of such an assembly carries the strongest evidential weight;
and the almost unanimous horror of the Nicene Bishops at the novelty
and profaneness of Arianism condemns it irrevocably as alien to the
immemorial belief of the Churches. But it was one thing to perceive
this, another to formulate the positive belief of the Church in such a
way as to exclude the heresy; one thing to agree in condemning Arian
formulae, another to agree upon an adequate test of orthodoxy. This was
the problem which lay before the council, and with which only its more
clearsighted members tenaciously grappled: this is the explanation of
the reaction which followed, and which for more than a generation, for
well nigh half a century after, placed its results in jeopardy. The
number of bishops who met at Nicaea was over 250 [6] . They represented
many nationalities (Euseb. ubi supra.), but only a handful came from
the West, the chief being Hosius, Caecilian of Carthage, and the
presbyters sent by Silvester of Rome, whose age prevented his presence
in person. The council lasted from the end of May till Aug. 25 (see
D.C.A., 1389). With the many picturesque stories told of its incidents
we have nothing to do (Stanley's Eastern Church, Socr. i. 10-12, Soz.
i. 17, 18, Rufin. H. E. i. 3-5); but it may be well to note the
division of parties. (1) Of thoroughgoing partisans of Arius, Secundus
[7] and Theonas alone scorned all compromise. But Eusebius of
Nicomedia, Theognis, Bishop of Nicaea itself, and Maris of Chalcedon,
also belonged to the inner circle of Arians by conviction (Socr. i. 8;
Soz. i. 21 makes up the same number, but wrongly). The three last-named
were pupils of Lucian (Philost. ii. 15). Some twelve others (the chief
names are Athanasius of Anazarbus and Narcissus of Neronias, in
Cilicia; Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Aetius of Lydda, Paulinus of Tyre,
Theodotus of Laodicea, Gregory of Berytus, in Syria and Palestine;
Menophantus of Ephesus; for a fuller discussion see Gwatk. p. 31, n. 3)
completed the strength of the Arian party proper. (2) On the other hand
a clearly formulated doctrinal position in contrast to Arianism was
taken up by a minority only, although this minority carried the day.
Alexander of Alexandria of course was the rallying point of this wing,
but the choice of the formula proceeded from other minds. `gpostasis
and housia are one in the Nicene formula: Alexander in 323 writes of
treis upostaseis.
The test formula of Nicaea was the work of two concurrent influences,
that of the anti-Origenists of the East, especially Marcellus of
Ancyra, Eustathius of Antioch, supported by Macarius of `AElia,'
Hellanicus of Tripolis, and Asclepas of Gaza, and that of the Western
bishops, especially Hosius of Cordova. The latter fact explains the
energetic intervention of Constantine at the critical moment on behalf
of the test (see below, and Ep. Eus. p. 75); the word was commended to
the Fathers by Constantine, but Constantine was `prompted' by Hosius
(Harnack, Dogmg. ii. 226); houtos ten en Nikai& 139; piotin exetheto
(infr. p. 285, S:42). Alexander (the Origenist) had been prepared for
this by Hosius beforehand (Soc. iii. 7; Philost. i. 7; cf. Zahn
Marcell. p. 23, and Harnack's important note, p. 229). Least of all was
Athanasius the author of the homoousion; his whole attitude toward the
famous test (infr. p. 303) is that of loyal acceptance and assimilation
rather than of native inward affinity. `He was moulded by the Nicene
Creed, did not mould it himself' (Loofs, p. 134). The theological
keynote of the council was struck by a small minority; Eustathius,
Marcellus, perhaps Macarius, and the Westerns, above all Hosius; the
numbers were doubtless contributed by the Egyptian bishops who had
condemned Arius in 321. The signatures, which seem partly incorrect,
preserve a list of about 20. The party then which rallied round
Alexander in formal opposition to the Arians may be put down at over
thirty. `The men who best understood Arianism were most decided on the
necessity of its formal condemnation.' (Gwatkin.) To this compact and
determined group the result of the council was due, and in their
struggle they owed much--how much it is hard to determine--to the
energy and eloquence of the deacon Athanasius, who had accompanied his
bishop to the council as an indispensable companion (infr. p. 103; Soz.
i. 17 fin.). (3) Between the convinced Arians and their reasoned
opponents lay the great mass of the bishops, 200 and more, nearly all
from Syria and Asia Minor, who wished for nothing more than that they
might hand on to those who came after them the faith they had received
at baptism, and had learned from their predecessors. These were the
`conservatives [8] ,' or middle party, composed of all those who, for
whatever reason, while untainted with Arianism, yet either failed to
feel its urgent danger to the Church, or else to hold steadily in view
the necessity of an adequate test if it was to be banished. Simple
shepherds like Spyridion of Cyprus; men of the world who were more
interested in their libelli than in the magnitude of the doctrinal
issue; theologians, a numerous class, `who on the basis of
half-understood Origenist ideas were prepared to recognise in Christ
only the Mediator appointed (no doubt before all ages) between God and
the World' (Zahn Marc. p. 30); men who in the best of faith yet failed
from lack of intellectual clearsightedness to grasp the question for
themselves; a few, possibly, who were inclined to think that Arius was
hardly used and might be right after all; such were the main elements
which made up the mass of the council, and upon whose indefiniteness,
sympathy, or unwillingness to impose any effective test, the Arian
party based their hopes at any rate of toleration. Spokesman and leader
of the middle party was the most learned Churchman of the age, Eusebius
of Caesarea. A devoted admirer of Origen, but independent of the school
of Lucian, he had, during the early stages of the controversy, thrown
his weight on the side of toleration for Arius. He had himself used
compromising language, and in his letter to the Caesarean Church
(infra, p. 76 sq.) does so again. But equally strong language can be
cited from him on the other side, and belonging as he does properly to
the pre-Nicene age, it is highly invidious to make the most of his
Arianising passages, and, ignoring or explaining away those on the
other side, and depreciating his splendid and lasting services to
Christian learning, to class him summarily with his namesake of
Nicomedia [9] . (See Prolegg. to vol. 1 of this series, and above all
the article in D.C.B.) The fact however remains, that Eusebius gave
something more than moral support to the Arians. He was `neither a
great man nor a clear thinker' (Gwatkin); his own theology was hazy and
involved; as an Origenist, his main dread was of Monarchianism, and his
policy in the council was to stave off at least such a condemnation of
Arianism as should open the door to `confounding the Persons.' Eusebius
apparently represents, therefore, the `left wing,' or the last
mentioned, of the `conservative' elements in the council (supra, and
Gwatkin, p. 38); but his learning, age, position, and the ascendency of
Origenist Theology in the East, marked him out as the leader of the
whole.
But the `conservatism' of the great mass of bishops rejected Arianism
more promptly than had been expected by its adherents or patrons.
The real work of the council did not begin at once. The way was blocked
by innumerable applications to the Christian Emperor from bishops and
clergy, mainly for the redress of personal grievances. Commonplace men
often fail to see the proportion of things, and to rise to the
magnitude of the events in which they play their part. At last
Constantine appointed a day for the formal and final reception of all
personal complaints, and burnt the `libelli' in the presence of the
assembled fathers. He then named a day by which the bishops were to be
ready for a formal decision of the matters in dispute. The way was now
open for the leaders to set to work. Quasi-formal meetings were held,
Arius and his supporters met the bishops, and the situation began to
clear (Soz. i. 17). To their dismay (de Decr. 3) the Arian leaders
realised that they could only count on some seventeen supporters out of
the entire body of bishops. They would seem to have seriously and
honestly underrated the novelty of their own teaching (cf. the letter
of Arius in Thdt. i. 5), and to have come to the council with the
expectation of victory over the party of Alexander. But they discovered
their mistake:--
`Sectamur ultro, quos opimus
Fallere et effugere est triumphus."
`Fallere et effugere' was in fact the problem which now confronted
them. It seems to have been agreed at an early stage, perhaps it was
understood from the first, that some formula of the unanimous belief of
the Church must be fixed upon to make an end of controversy. The
Alexandrians and `Conservatives' confronted the Arians with the
traditional Scriptural phrases (pp. 163, 491) which appeared to leave
no doubt as to the eternal Godhead of the Son. But to their surprise
they were met with perfect acquiescence. Only as each test was
propounded, it was observed that the suspected party whispered and
gesticulated to one another, evidently hinting that each could be
safely accepted, since it admitted of evasion. If their assent was
asked to the formula `like to the Father in all things,' it was given
with the reservation that man as such is `the image and glory of God.'
The `power of God' elicited the whispered explanation that the host of
Israel was spoken of as dunamis kuriou, and that even the locust and
caterpillar are called the `power of God.' The `eternity' of the Son
was countered by the text, `We that live are alway (2 Cor. iv. 11)!'
The fathers were baffled, and the test of homoousion, with which the
minority had been ready from the first, was being forced (p. 172) upon
the majority by the evasions of the Arians. When the day for the
decisive meeting arrived it was felt that the choice lay between the
adoption of the word, cost what it might, and the admission of Arianism
to a position of toleration and influence in the Church. But then, was
Arianism all that Alexander and Eustathius made it out to be? was
Arianism so very intolerable, that this novel test must be imposed on
the Church? The answer came (Newman Ar. 4 p. 252) from Eusebius of
Nicomedia. Upon the assembling of the bishops for their momentous
debate (hos de ezeteito tes pisteos ho tropos, Eustath.) he presented
them with a statement of his belief. The previous course of events may
have convinced him that half-measures would defeat their own purpose,
and that a challenge to the enemy, a forlorn hope, was the only resort
left to him [10] . At any rate the statement was an unambiguous
assertion of the Arian formulae, and it cleared the situation at once.
An angry clamour silenced the innovator, and his document was publicly
torn to shreds (hup' opsei panton, says an eye-witness in Thdt. i. 8).
Even the majority of the Arians were cowed, and the party were reduced
to the inner circle of five (supra). It was now agreed on all hands
that a stringent formula was needed. But Eusebius of Caesarea came
forward with a last effort to stave off the inevitable. He produced a
formula, not of his own devising (Koelling, pp. 208 sqq.), but
consisting of the creed of his own Church with an addition intended to
guard against Sabellianism (Hort, Two Diss. pp. 56, sq. 138). The
formula was unassailable on the basis of Scripture and of tradition. No
one had a word to say against it, and the Emperor expressed his
personal anxiety that it should be adopted, with the single improvement
of the homoousion. The suggestion thus quietly made was momentous in
its result. We cannot but recognise the `prompter' Hosius behind the
Imperial recommendation: the friends of Alexander had patiently waited
their time, and now their time was come: the two Eusebii had placed the
result in their hands. But how and where was the necessary word to be
inserted? and if some change must be made in the Caesarean formula,
would it not be as well to set one or two other details right? At any
rate, the creed of Eusebius was carefully overhauled clause by clause,
and eventually took a form materially different from that in which it
was first presented [11] , and with affinities to the creeds of Antioch
and Jerusalem as well as Caesarea.
All was now ready; the creed, the result of minute and careful
deliberations (we do not know their history, nor even how long they
occupied [12] ), lay before the council. We are told `the council
paused.' The evidence fails us; but it may well have been so. All the
bishops who were genuinely horrified at the naked Arianism of Eusebius
of Nicomedia were yet far from sharing the clearsighted definiteness of
the few: they knew that the test proposed was not in Scripture, that it
had a suspicious history in the Church. The history of the subsequent
generation shews that the mind of Eastern Christendom was not wholly
ripe for its adoption. But the fathers were reminded of the previous
discussions, of the futility of the Scriptural tests, of the locust and
the caterpillar, of the whisperings, the nods, winks, and evasions.
With a great revulsion of feeling the council closed its ranks and
marched triumphantly to its conclusion. All signed,--all but two,
Secundus and Theonas. Maris signed and Theognis, Menophantus and
Patrophilus, and all the rest. Eusebius of Nicomedia signed; signed
everything, even the condemnation of his own convictions and of his
`genuine fellow-Lucianist' Arius; not the last time that an Arian
leader was found to turn against a friend in the hour of trial.
Eusebius justified his signature by a `mental reservation;' but we can
sympathise with the bitter scorn of Secundus, who as he departed to his
exile warned Eusebius that he would not long escape the same fate
(Philost. i. 9).
The council broke up after being entertained by the Emperor at a
sumptuous banquet in honour of his Vicennalia. The recalcitrant bishops
with Arius and some others were sent into exile (an unhappy and fateful
precedent), a fate which soon after overtook Eusebius of Nicomedia and
Theognis (see the discussion in D.C.B. ii. 364 sq.). But in 329 `we
find Eusebius once more in high favour with Constantine, discharging
his episcopal functions, persuading Constantine that he and Arius held
substantially the Creed of Nicaea.'
The council also dealt with the Paschal question (see Vit. Const. iii.
18; so far as the question bears on Athanasius see below, p. 500), and
with the Meletian schism in Egypt. The latter was the main subject of a
letter (Soc. i. 9; Thdt. i. 9) to the Alexandrian Church. Meletius
himself was to retain the honorary title of bishop, to remain strictly
at home, and to be in lay communion for the rest of his life. The
bishops and clergy of his party were to receive a mustikotera
cheirotonia (see Bright, Notes on Canons, pp. 25 sqq.; Gore, The Church
and the Ministry, ed. 1, p. 192 note), and to be allowed to discharge
their office, but in the strictest subordination to the Catholic Clergy
of Alexander. But on vacancies occurring, the Meletian incumbents were
to succeed subject to (1) their fitness, (2) the wishes of the people,
(3) the approval of the Bishop of Alexandria. The terms were mild, and
even the gentle nature of Alexander seems to have feared that immediate
peace might have been purchased at the expense of future trouble (his
successor openly blames the compromise, p. 131, and more strongly p.
137); accordingly, before carrying out the settlement he required
Meletius to draw up an exact list of his clergy at the time of the
council, so as to bar an indefinite multiplication of claims. Meletius,
who must have been even less pleased with the settlement than his
metropolitan, seems to have taken his time. At last nothing would
satisfy both parties but the personal presentation of the Meletian
bishops from all Egypt, and of their clergy from Alexandria itself, to
Alexander (p. 137, toutous kai parontas paredoken to 'Alexandro), who
was thus enabled to check the Brevium or schedule handed in by their
chief [13] . All this must have taken a long time after Alexander's
return, and the peace was soon broken by his death.
Five months after the conclusion of the negotiations, Alexander having
now died, the flame of schism broke out afresh (infr. p. 131.
Montfaucon, in Migne xxv. p. lvii., shews conclusively that the above
is the meaning of the menas pente.) On his death-bed, Alexander called
for Athanasius. He was away from Alexandria, but the other deacon of
that name (see signatures p. 71), stepped forward in answer to the
call. But without noticing him, the Bishop repeated the name, adding,
`You think to escape, but it cannot be.' (Sozom. ii. 17.) Alexander had
already written his Easter Letter for the year 328 (it was apparently
still extant at the end of the century, p. 503). He died on April 17 of
that year (Pharmuthi 22), and on the eighth of June Athanasius was
chosen bishop in his stead.
__________________________________________________________________
[6] So Eus. Vit. Const. iii. 8--over 270, Eustath. in Thdt. i. 8--in
fact more than 300 (de Decr. 3), according to Athanasius, who again,
toward the end of his life (ad Afr. 2) acquiesces in the precise figure
318 (Gen. xiv. 14; the Greek numeral tie combines the Cross with the
initial letters of the Sacred Name) which a later generation adopted
(it first occurs in the alleged Coptic acts of the Council of
Alexandria, 362, then in the Letter of Liberius to the bishops of Asia
in 365, infr. S:9), on grounds perhaps symbolical rather than
historical.
[7] The name of Secundus appears among the subscriptions (cf. Soz. i.
21) but this is contradicted by the primary evidence (Letter of the
Council in Soc. i. 9, Thdt. i. 9); cf. Philost. i. 9, 10. But there is
evidence that there were two Secundi.
[8] A term first brought into currency in this connection by Mr.
Gwatkin (p. 38, note), and since adopted by many writers including
Harnack; in spite of the obvious objection to the importations of
political terms into the grave questions of this period, the term is
too useful to be surrendered, and the `conservatives' of the
Post-Nicene reaction were in fact too often political in their methods
and spirit. The truly conservative men, here as in other instances,
failed to enlist the sympathy of the conservative rank and file.
[9] The identity of name has certainly done Eusebius no good with
posterity. But no one with a spark of generosity can fail to be moved
by the appeal of Socrates (ii. 21) for common fairness toward the dead.
[10] Or possibly Theodoret, &c., drew a wrong inference from the words
of Eustathius (in Thdt. i. 8), and the gramma was not submitted by
Eusebius, but produced as evidence against him; in this case it must
have been, as Fleury observes, his letter to Paulinus of Tyre.
[11] , vol. 2, p. 227. The main alterations were (1) The elimination of
the word logos and substitution of hui& 231;s in the principal place.
This struck at the theology of Eusebius even more directly than at that
of Arius. (2) The addition not only of homoousion to patri, but also of
toutestin ek tes ousias tou patros between monogene and theon as a
further qualification of gennethenta (specially against Euseb. Nicom.:
see his letter in Thdt. i. 6). (3) Further explanation of gennethenta
by g. ou poiethenta, a glance at a favourite argument of Arius, as well
as at Asterius. (4) enanthropesanta added to explain sarkothenta, and
so to exclude the Christology which characterised Arianism from the
first. (5) Addition of anathematisms directed against all the leading
Arian doctrines.
[12] The events have been related in what seems to be their most likely
order, but there is no real certainty in the matter. It is clear that
there were at least two public sittings (Soz. i. 17, the language of
Eus. V. C. iii. 10, is reconcileable with this) in the emperor's
presence, at the first of which the libelli were burned and the bishops
requested to examine the question of faith. This was probably on June
19. The tearing up of the creed of Eus. Nic. seems from the account of
Eustathius to have come immediately before the final adoption of a
creed. The creed of Eusebius of Caesarea, which was the basis of that
finally adopted, must therefore have been propounded after the failure
of his namesake. (Montfaucon and others are clearly wrong in supposing
that this was the `blasphemy' which was torn to pieces!) The difficulty
is, where to put the dramatic scene of whisperings, nods, winks, and
evasions which compelled the bishops to apply a drastic test. I think
(with Koelling, &c.) that it must have preceded the proposal of
Eusebius, upon which the homoousion was quietly insisted on by
Constantine; for the latter was the only occasion (prophasis) of any
modification in the Caesarean Creed, which in itself does not
correspond to the tests described infr. p. 163. But Montfaucon and
others, followed by Gwatkin, place the scene in question after the
proposal of Eus. Caes. and the resolution to modify his creed by the
insertion of a stringent test,--in fact at the `pause' of the council
before its final resolution. This conflicts with the clear statement of
Eusebius that the homoousion was the `thin end of the wedge' which led
to the entire recasting of his creed (see infr. p. 73. The idea of
Koelling, p. 208, that the creed of Eusebius was drawn up by him for
the occasion, and that the mathema of the council was ready beforehand
as an alternative document, is refuted by the relation of the two
documents; see Hort, pp. 138, 139). It follows, therefore, from the
combined accounts of Ath., Euseb. and Eustathius (our only
eye-witnesses) that (1) the fathers were practically resolved upon the
homoousion before the final sitting. (2) That this resolve was clinched
by the creed of Eusebius of Nicomedia. (3) That Eusebius of Caesarea
made his proposal when it was too late to think of half-measures. (4)
That the creed of Eusebius was modified at the Emperor's direction
(which presupposes the willingness of the Council). (5) That this
revision was immediately followed by the signatures and the close of
the council. The work of revision, however, shews such signs of
attention to detail that we are almost compelled to assume at least one
adjournment of the final sitting. When the other business of the
council was transacted, including the settlement of the Easter
question, the Meletian schism, and the Canons, it is impossible to say.
Koelling suo jure puts them at the first public session. The question
must be left open, as must that of the presidency of the council. The
conduct of the proceedings was evidently in the hands of Constantine,
so that the question of presidency reduces itself to that of
identifying the bishop on Constantine's right who delivered the opening
address to the Emperor: this was certainly not Hosius (see Vit. C. iii.
11, and vol. 1 of this series, p. 19), but may have been Eusebius of
Caesarea, who probably after a few words from Eustathius (Thdt.) or
Alexander (Theod. Mops. and Philost.) was entrusted with so congenial a
task. The name of Hosius stands first on the extant list of signatures,
and he may have signed first, although the lists are bad witnesses. The
words of Athanasius sometimes quoted in this connection (p. 256), `over
what synod did he not preside?' must be read in connection with the
distinction made by Theodoret in quoting the passage in question (H. E.
ii. 15) that Hosius 'was very prominent at the great synod of Nicaea,
and presided over those who assembled at Sardica. This is the only
evidence we possess to which any weight can be attached.
[13] It is worth noting that the Nicene arrangement was successful in
some few cases. See Index to this vol. s.v. Theon (of Nilopolis), &c.
__________________________________________________________________
S:3 (2). The situation after the Council of Nicaea.
The council (a) had testified, by its horrified and spontaneous
rejection of it, that Arianism was a novelty subversive of the
Christian faith as they had received it from their fathers. They had
(b) banished it from the Church by an inexorable test, which even the
leading supporters of Arius had been induced to subscribe. In the years
immediately following, we find (c) a large majority of the Eastern
bishops, especially of Syria and Asia Minor, the very regions whence
the numerical strength of the council was drawn, in full reaction
against the council; first against the leaders of the victorious party,
eventually and for nearly a whole generation against the symbol itself;
the final victory of the latter in the East being the result of the
slow growth of conviction, a growth independent of the authority of the
council which it eventually was led to recognise. To understand this
paradox of history, which determines the whole story of the life of
Athanasius as bishop, it is necessary to estimate at some length the
theological and ecclesiastical situation at the close of the council:
this will best be done by examining each point in turn (a) the novelty
of Arianism, (b) the homoousion as a theological formula, (c) the
materials for reaction.
(a) `Arianism was a new doctrine in the Church' (Harnack, p. 218); but
it claimed to be no novelty. And it was successful for a long time in
gaining `conservative' patronage. Its novelty, as observed above, is
sufficiently shewn by its reception at the Council of Nicaea. But no
novelty springs into existence without antecedents. What were the
antecedents of Arianism? How does it stand related to the history
within the Church of the momentous question, `What think ye of Christ?'
In examining such a question, two methods are possible. We may take as
our point of departure the formulated dogma say of Nicaea, and examine
in the light of it variations in theological statements in preceding
periods, to shew that they do not warrant us in regarding the dogma as
an innovation. That is the dogmatic method. Or we may take our start
from the beginning, and trace the history of doctrine in the order of
cause and effect, so as to detect the divergence and convergence of
streams of influence, and arrive at an answer to the question, How came
men to think and speak as they did? That is the historical method. Both
methods have their recommendations, and either has been ably applied to
the problem before us. In electing the latter I choose the more
difficult road; but I do so with the conviction, firstly, that the
former has tended (and especially in the ablest hands) to obscure our
perception of the actual facts, secondly, that the saving faith of
Christ has everything to gain from a method which appeals directly to
our sense of historical truth, and satisfies, not merely overawes, the
mind.
Let us then go back to `the beginning of the Gospel.' Taking the
synoptic gospels as our primary evidence, we ask, what did Christ our
Lord teach about Himself? We do not find formal definitions of doctrine
concerning His Person. Doubtless it may seem that such a definition on
His part would have saved infinite dispute and searchings of heart in
the history of the Church. But recognising in Him the unique and
supreme Revealer of the Father, it is not for us to say what He should
have taught; we must accept His method of teaching as that which Divine
Wisdom chose as the best, and its sequel in history as the way in which
God willed man to learn. We find then in the materials which we possess
for the history of His Life and Teaching fully enough to explain the
belief of His disciples (see below) in His Divinity. Firstly, there is
no serious doubt as to His claim to be the Messiah. (The confession of
Peter in all four Gospels, Matt. xvi. 16; Mark viii. 29; Luke ix. 27;
John vi. 69; `Son of Man,' Dan. vii. 13; ix. 24, &c.). In this
character He is King in the kingdom of Heaven (Matt. xxv. 31-36, cf.
Mk. viii. 38), and revises the Law with full authority (Matt. v. 21-44,
cf. Luke v. 24; Matt. xii. 8). It may be added that whatever this claim
conveyed to the Jews of His own time (see Stanton's Jewish and
Christian Messiah) it is impossible to combine in one idea the Old
Testament traits of the Coming One if we stop short of the
identification of the Messiah with the God of Israel (see Delitzsch,
Psalms, vol. i. pp. 94, 95, last English ed.). Secondly, Christ enjoys
and confers the full authority of God (Matt. x. 40; Luke x. 16; cf.
also Matt. xxiv. 35; Mk. xiii. 31; Luke xxi. 33), gives and promises
the Holy Spirit (`the Spirit of the Father,' see Matt. x. 17, &c.; Luke
xii. 12, and especially Luke xxi. 15, ego gar doso, &c.), and
apparently sends the prophets and holy men of old (cf. Matt. xxiii. 34,
ego apostello with Luke xi. 49). Thirdly, the foundation of all this is
laid in a passage preserved by the first and third gospels, in which He
claims the unqualified possession of the mind of the Father (Luke x.
22; Matt. xi. 27), `No man knoweth [who] the Son [is], save the Father,
neither knoweth any man [who] the Father [is] save the Son, and he to
whomsoever the Son will (bouletai) reveal Him.' Observe the reciprocity
of knowledge between the Son and the Father. This claim is a decisive
instantia foederis between the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel, e.g.
John xvi. 15; xiv. 9, &c. Fourthly, we observe the claim made by Him
throughout the synoptic record to absolute confidence, absolute faith,
obedience, self-surrender, such as no frail man is justified in
claiming from another; the absence of any trace in the mind of the
`meek and lowly' one of that consciousness of sin, that need of
reconciliation with God, which is to us an indispensable condition of
the religious temper, and the starting-point of Christian faith
(contrast Isa. vi. 5).
We now turn to the Apostles. Here a few brief remarks must suffice. (A
suggestive summary in Sanday, `What the first Christians thought about
Christ,' Oxford House Papers, First Series.) That S. Paul's summary of
the Gospel (1 Cor. xv. 3 sqq.) is given by him as common ground between
himself and the older Apostles follows strictly from the fact that the
verb used (parelabon) links the facts of Redemption (v. 3, 4) with the
personal experiences of the original disciples (5 sqq.). In fact it is
not in dispute that the original Jewish nucleus of the Apostolic Church
preached Jesus as the Messiah, and His death as the ground of
forgiveness of sins (Pfleiderer, Urchrist. p. 20; Acts ii. 36, 38; iii.
26; iv. 12, &c.; the `Hebraic colouring' of these early chapters is
very characteristic and important). The question is, however, how much
this implied as to the Divine Personality of the Saviour; how far the
belief of the Apostles and their contemporaries was uniform and
explicit on this point. Important light is thrown on this question by
the controversy which divided S. Paul from the mass of Jewish
Christians with respect to the observance of the Law. Our primary
source of knowledge here is Galatians, ch. ii. We there learn that
while S. Paul regarded this question as involving the whole essence of
the Gospel, and resisted every attempt to impose circumcision on
Gentile Christians, the older Apostles conceded the one point regarded
as central, and, while reserving the obligation of the Law on those
born under it (which S. Paul never directly assailed, 1 Cor. vii. 18)
recognised the Gospel of the uncircumcision as legitimate. This
concession, as the event proved, conceded everything; if the `gospel of
the uncircumcision' was sufficient for salvation, circumcision became a
national, not a religious principle. Now this whole question was
fundamentally a question about Christ. Men who believed, or were
willing to grant, that the Law uttered from Sinai by the awful voice of
the Most High Himself was no longer the supreme revelation of God, the
one divinely ordained covenant of righteousness, certainly believed
that some revelation of God different in kind (for no revelation of God
to man could surpass the degree of Ex. xxxiii. 11) had taken place, an
unique revelation of God in man. The revelation of God in Christ, not
the revelation of God to Moses, was the one fact in the world's
history; Sinai was dwarfed in comparison of Calvary. But it must be
observed that while the older Apostles, by the very recognition of the
gospel of the uncircumcision, went thus far with S. Paul, S. Paul
realised as a central principle what to others lay at the
circumference. What to the one was a result of their belief in Christ
was to him the starting-point, from which logical conclusions were seen
to follow, practical applications made in every direction. At the same
time S. Paul taught nothing about Christ that was not implied in the
belief of the older Apostles, or that they would not have felt impelled
by their own religious position to accept. In fact it was their
fundamental union in the implicit belief of the divinity of the Lord
that made possible any agreement between S. Paul and the Jewish
Apostles as to the gospel of the uncircumcision.
The apostles of the circumcision, however, stood between S. Paul and
the zealot mass of Jewish Christians (Acts xxi. 20), many of whom were
far from acquiescing in the recognition of S. Paul's Gospel. On the
same principle that we have used to determine the belief of the Stuloi
with regard to Christ, we must needs recognise that where the gospel of
the uncircumcision was still assailed or disparaged, the Divinity of
Christ was apprehended faintly, or not at all.
The name of the `Ebionite' sect testifies to its continuity with a
section of the Jerusalem Church (see Lightfoot's Galatians, S. Paul and
the Three). It should be observed, however, firstly that between the
clear-sighted Apostle of the Gentiles and the straitest of the zealots,
there lay every conceivable gradation of intermediate positions (Loofs,
Leitf. S:11. 2, 3); secondly, that while emancipation from legalism in
the Apostolic Church implied what has been said above, a belief in the
divinity of Jesus was in itself compatible with strict Jewish
observance.
The divinity of Christ then was firmly held by S. Paul (the most
remarkable passage is Rom. x. 9, 11, 13, where Kurion 'Iesoun = auton =
Kurion = H+W+H+J+ Joel ii. 32), and his belief was held by him in
common with the Jewish Apostles, although with a clearer illumination
as to its consequences. That this belief was absolutely universal in
the Church is not to be maintained, the elimination of Ebionism was
only gradual (Justin, Dial. xlviii. ad fin.); but that it, and not
Ebionism, represented the common belief of the Apostles and New
Testament writers is not to be doubted.
But taking this as proved, we do not find an equally clear answer to
the question In what sense is Christ God? The synoptic record makes no
explicit reference to the pre-existence of Christ: but the witness of
John and descent of the Spirit (Mark i. 7-11) at His baptism, coupled
with the Virginal Birth (Mt., Lk.), and with the traits of the synoptic
portrait of Christ as collected above, if they do not compel us to
assert, yet forbid us to deny the presence of this doctrine to the
minds of the Evangelists. In the Pauline (including Hebrews) and
Johannine writings the doctrine is strongly marked, and in the latter
(Joh. i. 1, 14, 18, monogenes Theos) Jesus Christ is expressly
identified with the creative Word (Palestinian Memra, rather than
Alexandrian or from Philo; see also Rev. xix. 13), and the Word with
God. Moreover such passages as Philipp. ii. 6 sqq., 2 Cor. xiii. 14
(the Apostolic benediction), &c., &c., are significant of the
impression left upon the mind of the infant Churches as they started
upon their history no longer under the personal guidance of the
Apostles of the Lord.
Jesus Christ was God, was one with the Father and with the Spirit: that
was enough for the faith, the love, the conduct of the primitive
Church. The Church was nothing so little as a society of theologians;
monotheists and worshippers of Christ by the same instinct, to analyse
their faith as an intellectual problem was far from their thoughts: God
Himself (and there is but one God) had suffered for them (Ign. Rom.
vi.; Tat. Gr. 13; Melito Fr. 7), God's sufferings were before their
eyes (Clem. R. I. ii. 1), they desired the drink of God, even His blood
(Ign. Rom. vii., cf. Acts xx. 28); if enthusiastic devotion gave way
for a moment to reflexion `we must think of Jesus Christ as of God'
(`Clem. R.' II. 1).
The `Apostolic fathers' are not theological in their aim or method. The
earliest seat of theological reflexion in the primitive Church appears
to have been Asia Minor, or rather Western Asia from Antioch to the
AEgean. From this region proceed the Ignatian letters, which stand
alone among the literature of their day in theological depth and
reflexion. Their theology `is wonderfully mature in spite of its
immaturity, full of reflexions, and yet at the same time full of
intuitive originality' (Loofs, p. 61). The central idea is that of the
renovation of man (Eph. 20), now under the power of Satan and Death
(ib. 3, 19), which are undone (katalusis) in Christ, the risen Saviour
(Smyrn. 3), who is `our true Life,' and endows us with immortality
(Smyrn. 4, Magn. 6, Eph. 17). This is by virtue of His Divinity (Eph.
19, Smyrn. 4) in union with His perfect Manhood. He is the only
utterance of God (logos apo siges proelthon, Magn. 8), the `unlying
mouth by which the Father spake' (Rom. 8.) `God come (genomenos) in the
flesh,' `our God' (Eph. 7, 18). His flesh partaken mystically in the
Eucharist unites our nature to His, is the `medicine of incorruption'
(Eph. 20, Smyrn. 7, cf. Trall. 1). Ignatius does not distinguish the
relation of the divine to the human in Christ: he is content to insist
on both: `one Physician, of flesh and of spirit, begotten and
unbegotten' (Eph. 7). Nor does he clearly conceive the relation of the
Eternal Son to the Father. He is unbegotten (as God) and begotten (as
man): from eternity with the Father (Magn. 6): through Him the One God
manifested himself. The theological depth of Ignatius was perhaps in
part called forth by the danger to the churches from the Docetic
heretics, representative of a Judaic (Philad. 5, Magn. 8-10) syncretism
which had long had a hold in Asia Minor (1 John and Lightfoot Coloss.,
p. 73, 81 sqq.). To this he opposes what is evidently a creed (Trall.
9), with emphasis on the reality (alethos) of all the facts of
Redemption comprised in it.
It was in fact the controversies of the second century that produced a
theology in the Catholic Church,--that in a sense produced the Catholic
Church itself. The idea of the Church as distinct from and embracing
the Churches is a New Testament idea (Eph. v. 25, cf. 1 Cor. xv. 9,
&c.), and the name `Catholic' occurs at the beginning of the second
century (Lightfoot's note on Ign. Smyrn. 8); but the Gnostic and
Montanist controversies compelled the Churches which held fast to the
paradosis of the Apostles to close their ranks (episcopal federation)
and to reflect upon their creed. The Baptismal Creed (Rom. x. 9, Acts
viii. 37, Text. Rec., cf. 1 Cor. xv. 3-4) began to serve as a tessera
or passport of right belief, and as a regulative standard, a `rule of
faith.' The `limits of the Christian Church' began to be more clearly
defined (Stanton, ubi supr. p. 167).
Another influence which during the same period led to a gradual
formation of theology was the necessity of defending the Church against
heathenism. If the Gnostics were `the first Christian theologians'
(Harnack), the Apologists (120-200) are more directly important for our
present enquiry. The usual title of Justin `Philosopher and Martyr' is
significant of his position and typical of the class of writers to
which he belongs. On the one hand the Apologists are philosophers
rather than theologians. Christianity is `the only true philosophy'
(Justin); its doctrines are found piecemeal among the philosophers
(logos spermatikos), who are so far Christians, just as the Christians
are the true philosophers (Justin and Minuc. Felix). But the Logos, who
is imparted fragmentarily to the philosophers, is revealed in His
entire divine Personality in Christ (so Justin beyond the others, Apol.
ii. 8, 10). In the doctrine of God, their thought is coloured by the
eclectic Platonism of the age before Plotinus. God, the Father of all
things, is Creator, Lord, Master, and as such known to man, but in
Himself Unoriginate (agenetos), ineffable, mysterious (arretos),
without a name, One and alone, incapable of Incarnation (for references
to Justin and to Plato, D.C.B. iii. 572). His `goodness' is
metaphysical perfection, or beneficence to man, His `righteousness'
that of Moral Governor of the Universe (contrast the deeper sense of
St. Paul, Rom. iii. 21, &c.). But the abstractness of the conception of
God gives way to personal vividness in the doctrine of the `visible
God' (Tert. Prax. 15 sq.), the Logos (the subject of the O.T.
`theophanies' according to the Apologists) who was `with' the Father
before all things (Just. Dial. 62), but was `begotten' or projected
(probletheis) by the will of the Father (ib. 128) as God from God, as a
flame from fire. He is, like the Father, ineffable (Christos, Just.
Apol. ii. 6), yet is the angelos, huperetes of the Father. In
particular He is the Father's minister in Creation: to create He
proceeded from the Father, a doctrine expressly deduced from Prov.
viii. 22 (Dial. 61, 129). Before this He was the logos endiathetos,
after it the logos prophorikos, the Word uttered (Ps. xlv. 1 LXX; this
distinction is not in Justin, but is found Theophil. ad Autol. ii. 10,
22: it is the most marked trace of philosophic [Stoic] influence on the
Apologists). The Apologists, then, conceive of Christian theology as
philosophers. Especially the Person of the Saviour is regarded by them
from the cosmological, not the soteriological view-point. From the
latter, as we have seen, St. Paul starts; and his view gradually
embraces the distant horizon of the former (1 Cor. viii. 6, Coloss. i.
15); from the soteriological side also (directly) he reaches the
divinity of Christ (Rom. v. 1-8; 1 Cor. i. 30; Rom. x. 13, as above).
Here, as we shall see, Athanasius meets the Arians substantially by St.
Paul's method. But the Apologists, under the influence of their
philosophy rather than of their religion, start from the cosmological
aspect of the problem. They engraft upon an Apostolic (Johannine) title
of the Saviour an Alexandrine group of associations: they go far
towards transmuting the Word of St. John to the Logos of Philo and the
Eclectics. Hence their view of His Divinity and of his relation to the
Father is embarrassed. His eternity and His generation are felt to be
hardly compatible: His distinct Personality is maintained at the
expense of His true Divinity. He is God, and not the One God; He can
manifest Himself (Theophanies) in a way the One God cannot; He is an
intermediary between God and the world. The question has become
philosophical rather than directly religious, and philosophy cannot
solve it. But on the other hand, Justin was no Arian. If he was
Philosopher, he was also Martyr. The Apologists are deeply saturated
with Christian piety and personal enthusiastic devotion to Christ.
Justin in particular introduces us, as no other so early writer, into
the life, the worship, the simple faith of the Primitive Church, and we
can trace in him influences of the deeper theology of Asia Minor
(Loofs, p. 72 sq. but see more fully the noble article on Justin in
D.C.B. vol. iii.). But our concern is with their influence on the
analysis of the object of faith; and here we see that unconsciously
they have severed the Incarnate Son from the Eternal Father: not God
(ho ontos theos) but a subordinate divine being is revealed in Christ:
the Logos, to adopt the words of Ignatius, is no longer a true breach
of the Divine Silence.
We must now glance at the important period of developed Catholicism
marked especially by the names of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement,
the period of a consolidated organisation, a (relatively) fixed Canon
of the New Testament, and a catholic rule of faith (see above, and
Lumby, Creeds, ch. i.; Heurtley, Harmonia Symbolica, i.-viii.). The
problem of the period which now begins (180-250) was that of
Monarchianism; the Divinity of Christ must be reconciled with the Unity
of God. Monarchianism is in itself the expression of the truth common
to all monotheism, that the arche or Originative Principle is strictly
and Personally One and one only (in contrast to the plurality of
archikai hupostaseis, see Newman, Arians^4, p. 112 note). No Christian
deliberately maintains the contrary. The Apologists, as we have seen,
tended to emphasise the distinction of Father and Son; but this
tendency makes of necessity in the direction of `subordination;' and
any distinction of `Persons' or Hypostases in the Godhead involves to a
Monotheist some subordination, in order to save the principle of the
Divine Monarchia.' The Monarchian denied any subordination or
distinction of hypostases within the Godhead. This tendency we have now
to follow up. We do not meet with it as a problem in Irenaeus. (He `is
said to have written against it,' Newman, Ar.^4, p. 117, citing Dodw.
in Iren.) This scholar of pupils of Apostles stands in the lines of the
Asiatic theology. He is the successor of Ignatius and Polycarp. We find
him, in sharp contrast to the Apologists, giving full expression to the
revelation of God in Jesus (the `Son is the Measure of the Father, for
He contains Him'), and the union of man with God in the Saviour, as the
carrying out of the original destiny of man, by the destruction of sin,
which had for the time frustrated it (III. xviii. p. 211, Deus antiquam
hominis plasmationem in se recapitulans). Hence the `deification' of
man's nature by union with Christ (a remarkable point of contact with
Athanasius, see note on de Incar. 54. 3); incorruption is attained to
by the knowledge of God (cf. John xvii. 3) through faith (IV. xx.); we
cannot comprehend God, but we learn to know Him by His Love (ib.). At
the same time we trace the influence of the Apologists here and there
in his Christology (III. 6, 19, and the explanation of the
`Theophanies,' iv. 20). But in his younger contemporary Tertullian, the
reaction of Monarchianism makes itself felt. He is himself one of the
Apologists, and at the same time under Asiatic influences. The two
trains of influence converge in the name Trinitas, which he is the
first to use (trias first in the Asiatic Apologist Theophilus). In
combating the Monarchian Praxeas (see below) he carries
subordinationism very far (cf. Hermog. 3. `fuit tempus cum Ei filius
non fuit'), he distinguishes the Word as `rationalis deus' from
eternity, and `sermonalis' not from eternity (cf. again, Theophilus,
supra). The Generation of the Son is a probole (also `eructare' from
Ps. xlv. 1), but the divine `Substance' remains the same (river and
fountain, sun and ray, Prax. 8, 9). He aims at reconciling
`subordination' with the `Monarchia,' (ib. 4). In the Incarnate Christ
he distinguishes the divine and human as accurately as Leo the Great
(ib. 27, 29). In spite of inconsistencies such as were inevitable in
his strange individuality (Stoic, philosopher, lawyer, Apologist,
`Asiatic' theologian, Catholic, Montanist) we see in Tertullian the
starting-point of Latin Theology (but see also Harnack ii. 287 note).
We must now examine more closely the history of Monarchian tendencies,
and firstly in Rome. The sub-Apostolic Church, simply holding the
Divinity of Christ and the Unity of God, used language (see above)
which may be called `naively Monarchian.' This holds good even of
Asiatic theology, as we find it in its earlier stage. The baptismal
creed (as we find it in the primitive basis of the Apostles' Creed)
does not solve the problem thus presented to Christian reflexion.
Monarchianism attempted the solution in two ways. Either the One God
was simply identified with the Christ of the Gospels and the Creeds,
the Incarnation being a mode of the Divine manifestation (Father as
Creator, Son as Redeemer, Spirit as Sanctifier, or the like):
`Modalism' or Modalistic Monarchianism (including Patripassianism,
Sabellianism, and later on the theology of Marcellus); or (this being
felt incompatible with the constant personal distinction of Christ from
the Father) a special effluence, influence, or power of the one God was
conceived of as residing in the man Jesus Christ, who was accordingly
Son of God by adoption, God by assimilation: `dynamic' Monarchianism or
Adoptionism (`Son' and `Spirit' not so much modes of the Divine
self-realisation as of the Divine Action). This letter, the echo but
not the direct survival of Ebionism, was later on the doctrine of
Photinus; we shall find it exemplified in Paul of Samosata; but our
present concern is with its introduction at Rome by the two Theodoti,
the elder of whom (a tanner from Byzantium) was excommunicated by
Bishop Victor, while the younger, a student of the Peripatetic
philosophy and grammatical interpreter of Scripture, taught there in
the time of Zephyrinus. A later representative of this school, Artemon,
claimed that its opinions were those of the Roman bishops down to
Victor (Eus. H. E. v. 28). This statement cannot be accepted seriously;
but it appears to be founded on a real reminiscence of an epoch in the
action and teachings of the Roman bishops at the time. It must be
remembered that the two forms of Monarchianism--modalism and
adoptionism--are, while very subtly distinguished in their essential
principle, violently opposed in their appearance to the popular
apprehension. Their doctrine of God is one, at least in its strict
unitarianism; but while to the Modalist Christ is the one God, to the
Adoptionist He is essentially and exclusively man. [14] In the one case
His Personality is divine, in the other human. Now there is clear proof
of a strong Modalist tendency [15] in the Roman Church at this time;
this would manifest itself in especial zeal against the doctrine of
such men as Theodotus the younger, and give some colour to the tale of
Artemon. Both Tertullian and Hippolytus complain bitterly of the
ignorance of those responsible for the ascendancy which this teaching
acquired in Rome (Zephurinon andra idioten kai apeiron ton
ekklesiastikon horon, Hipp. `idiotes quisque aut perversus,'
`simplices, ne dicam imprudentes et idiotae.' Tert.). The utterances of
Zephyrinus support this: `I believe in one God, Jesus Christ' (Hipp.,
see above on the language of the sub-Apost. Church). The Monarchian
influences were strengthened by the arrival of fresh teachers from Asia
(Cleomenes and Epigonus, see note 2) and began to arouse lively
opposition. This was headed by Hippolytus, the most learned of the
Roman presbytery, and eventually bishop [16] in opposition to
Callistus, the successor of Zephyrinus. The theology of Hippolytus was
not unlike that of Tertullian, and was hotly charged by Callistus with
`Ditheism.' The position of Callistus himself, like that of his
predecessor, was one of compromise between the two forms of
Monarchianism, but somewhat more developed. A distinction was made
between `Christ' (the divine) and Jesus (the human); the latter
suffered actually, the former indirectly (`filius patitur, pater vero
compatitur.' (Tert.) ton Patera sumpeponthenai to hui& 254;, Hipp.; it
is clear that under `Praxeas' Tertullian is combating also the modified
Praxeanism of Callistus. See adv. Prax. 27, 29; Hipp. ix. 7); not
without reason does Hippolytus charge Callistus with combining the
errors of Sabellius with those of Theodotus. The compromise of
Callistus was only partially successful. On the one hand the strictly
modalist Sabellius, who from about 215 takes the place of Cleomenes at
the head of Roman Monarchianism (his doctrine of the huiopator, of the
Trinity as successive prosopa, `aspects,' of the One God, pure modalism
as defined above) scorned compromise (he constantly reproached
Callistus with having changed his front, Hipp.) was excommunicated, and
became the head of a sect. And the fierce opposition of Hippolytus
failed to command the support of more than a limited circle of
enthusiastic admirers, or to maintain itself after his death. On the
other hand (the process is quite in obscurity: see Harnack^1, p. 620)
the theology of Hippolytus and Tertullian eventually gained the day.
Novatian, whose `grande volumen' (Jer.) on the Trinity represents the
theology of Rome about 250 a.d., simply `epitomises Tertullian,' and
that in explanation of the Rule of Faith. As to the Generation of the
Son, he drops the `quando Ipse [Pater] voluit' of Tertullian, but like
him combines a (modified) `subordination' with the `communio
substantiae'--in other words the homoousion. Monarchianism was
condemned in the West; its further history belongs to the East (under
the name of Sabellianism first in Libya: see pp. 173, sqq.). But the
hold which it maintained upon the Roman Church for about a generation
(190-220) left its mark. Rome condemned Origen, the ally of Hippolytus;
Rome was invoked against Dionysius of Alexandria; (Rome and) the West
formulated the homoousion at Nicaea; Rome received Marcellus; Rome
rejected the treis hupostaseis and supported the Eustathians at
Antioch; it was with Rome rather than with the prevalent theology of
the East that Athanasius felt himself one. (Cf. also Harnack, Dg. 1^1,
p. 622 sqq.) Monarchianism was too little in harmony with the New
Testament, or with the traditional convictions of the Churches, to live
as a formulated theology. The `naive modalism' of the `simplices quae
major semper pars credentium est' (Tert.) was corrected as soon as the
attempt was made to give it formal expression [17] . But the attempt to
do so was a valuable challenge to the conception of God involved in the
system of the Apologists. To their abstract, transcendent,
philosophical first Principle, Monarchianism opposed a living,
self-revealing, redeeming God, made known in Christ. This was a great
gain. But it was obtained at the expense of the divine immutability. A
God who passed through phases or modes, now Father, now Son, now
Spirit, a God who could suffer, was not the God of the Christians.
There is some justice in Tertullian's scoff at their `Deum
versipellem.'
The third great name associated with the end of the second century,
that of Clement, is important to us chiefly as that of the teacher of
Origen, whose influence we must now attempt to estimate. Origen
(185-254) was the first theologian in the full sense of the term; the
first, that is, to erect upon the basis of the rule of faith (Preface
to de Princ.) a complete theological system, synthesising revealed
religion with a theory of the Universe, of God, of man, which should
take into account the entire range of truth and knowledge, of faith and
philosophy. And in this sense for the Eastern Church he was the last
theologian as well. In the case of Origen the Vincentian epigram,
absolvuntur magistri condemnantur discipuli (too often applicable in
the history of doctrine) is reversed. In a modified form his theology
from the first took possession of the Eastern Church; in the
Cappadocian fathers it took out a new lease of power, in spite of many
vicissitudes it conquered opposing forces (the sixth general council
crushed the party who had prevailed at the fifth); John of Damascus, in
whom the Eastern Church says its last word, depends upon the Origenist
theology of Basil and the Gregories. But this theology was Origenism
with a difference. What was the Origenism of Origen? To condense into
the compass of our present purpose the many-sidedness of Origen is a
hopeless task. The reader will turn to the fifth and sixth of Bigg's
Bampton Lectures for the best recent presentation; to Newman's Arians
(I. S:3), especially the `apology' at the end); to Harnack (ed. 1, pp.
510-556) and Loofs (S:28); Shedd (vol. i. 288-305, should be read
before Bigg and corrected by him) and Dorner; to the sections in Bull
(Defens. ii. 9, iii. 3) and Petavius (who in Trin. I. iv. pursues with
fluent malignity `omnigenis errorum portentis infamem scriptorem'); to
the Origeniana of Huet and the dissertations of the standard editors;
to the article Origenist Controversies, and to the comprehensive,
exact, and sympathetic article Origen in the Dictionary of Christian
Biography. The fundamental works of Origen for our purpose are the de
Principiis, the contra Celsum, and the de Oratione; but the exegetical
works are necessary to fill out and correct first impressions.
The general position of Origen with regard to the Person of Christ is
akin to that of Hippolytus and Tertullian. It is to some extent
determined by opposition to Gnosticism and to Monarchianism. His visit
to Rome (Eus. H. E., vi. 14) coincided with the battle of Hippolytus
against Zephyrinus and his destined successor: on practical as well as
on doctrinal points he was at one with Hippolytus. His doctrine of God
is reached by the soteriological rather than the cosmological method.
God is known to us in the Incarnate Word; `his point of view is moral,
not...pseudo-metaphysical.' The impassibility of the abstract
philosophical idea of God is broken into by `the passion of Love'
(Bigg, p. 158). In opposition to the perfection of God lies the
material world, conditioned by evil, the result of the exercise of
will. This cause of evil is antecedent to the genesis of the material
universe, the katabole kosmou; materiality is the penalty and measure
of evil. (This part of Origen's doctrine is markedly Platonic.
Plotinus, we read, refused to observe his own birthday; in like manner
Origen quaintly notes that only wicked men are recorded in Scripture to
have kept their birthdays; Bigg, 203, note; cf. Harnack, p. 523, note.)
The soul (psuche as if from psuchesthai) has in a previous state `waxed
cold,' i.e. lost its original integrity, and in this condition enters
the body, i.e. `is subjected to vanity' in common with the rest of the
creature, and needs redemption (qualify this by Bigg, pp. 202 sqq., on
Origen's belief in Original Sin). To meet this need the Word takes a
Soul (but one that has never swerved from Him in its pre-existent
state: on this antinomy Bigg, 190, note, 199) and mediante Anima, or
rather mediante hac substantia animae (Prin. II. vi.) unites the nature
of God and of Man in One. (On the union of the two natures in the
theanthropos, in Ezek. iii. 3, he is as precise as Tertullian: we find
the Hypostatic Union and Communicatio Idiomatum formally explicit;
Bigg, 190.) The Word `deifies' Human Nature, first His Own, then in
others as well (Cels. iii. 28, hina genetui theia: he does not use
theopoieisthai; the thought is subtly but really different from that
which we found in Irenaeus: see Harnack, p. 551), by that perfect
apprehension of Him hoper en prin genetai sarx, of which faith in the
Incarnate is the earliest but not the final stage (applying 2 Cor. v.
16; cf. the Commentary on the Song of Songs).
What account then does Origen give of the beginning and the end of the
great Drama of existence? He starts from the end, which is the more
clearly revealed; `God shall be all in all.' But `the end must be like
the beginning;' One is the end of all, One is the beginning. From 1
Cor. xv. he works back to Romans viii.: the one is his key to the
eternity after, the other, to the eternity before (Bigg pp. 193 sq.).
Into this scheme he brings creation, evil, the history of Revelation,
the Church and its life, the final consummation of all things. The
Universe is eternal: God is prior to it in conception, yet He was never
other than Creator. But in the history of the Universe the material
world which we know is but a small episode. It began, and will end. It
began with the estrangement of Will from God, will end with its
reconciliation: God, from Whom is the beginning of all, `will be all in
all.' (For Origen's eschatology see Bigg, 228-234.) From this point of
view we must approach the two-sided Christology of Origen. To him the
two sides were aspects of the same thing: but if the subtle
presupposition as to God and the Universe is withdrawn, they become
alternative and inconsistent Christologies, as we shall see to have
actually happened. As God is eternally Creator, so He is eternally
Father (Bigg, 160, note). The Son proceeds from Him not as a part of
His Essence, but as the Ray from the Light; it cannot be rightly or
piously said that He had a beginning, en hote ouk en (cf. De Princ. i.
2, iv. 28, and infr. p. 168); He is begotten from the Essence of the
Father, He is of the same essence (homoousios) (Fragm. 3 in Heb., but
see Bigg, p. 179), there is no unlikeness whatever between the Son and
the Father (Princ. i. 2, 12). He was begotten ek tou thelematos tou
Patros (but to Origen the thelema was inherent in the Divine Nature,
cf. Bigg. 161, Harnack, p. 534 against Shedd, p. 301, note) not by
probole or emanation (Princ. iv. 28, i. 2. 4), as though the Son's
generation were something that took place once for all, instead of
existing continuously. The Father is in the Son, the Son in the Father:
there is `coinherence.' On the other hand, the Word is God derivatively
not absolutely, ;;O logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en ho Logos. The
Son is Theos, the Father alone ho Theos. He is of one ousia with the
Father as compared with the creatures; but as contrasted with the
Father, Who may be regarded as ep(TM)keina ousias [18] , and Who alone
is autotheos, autoagathos, alethinos theos, the Son is ho deuteros
theos (Cels. v. 39, cf. Philo's deutereuon theos). As the Son of God,
He is contrasted with all geneta; as contrasted with the Ingenerate
Father, He stands at the head of the series of genneta; He is metaxu
tes tou agen[n]etou kai tes ton geneton phuseos [19] . He even explains
the Unity of the Father and the Son as moral (duo te hupostasei
pragmata hen de te homonoi& 139; kai te tautoteti tou boulematos, Cels.
viii. 12). The Son takes His place even in the cosmic process from
Unity to Unity through Plurality, `God is in every respect One and
Simple, but the Saviour by reason of the Many becomes Many' (on John i.
22, cf. Index to this vol., s.v. Christ). The Spirit is subordinated to
the Son, the Son to the Father (elatton para ton patera ho hui&
232;s...eti de hetton to pneuma to hagion, Princ. I. 3, 5 Gk.), while
to the Spirit are subordinated created spirits, whose goodness is
relative in comparison with God, and the fall of some of whom led to
the creation of matter (see above). Unlike the Son and the Spirit they
are mutable in will, subject to prokope, capable of embodiment even if
in themselves immaterial.
The above slender sketch of the leading thoughts of Origen will suffice
to show how intimately his doctrine of the Person of Christ hangs
together with his philosophy of Religion and Nature. That philosophy is
the philosophy of his age, and must be judged relatively. His deeply
religious, candid, piercing spirit embodies the highest effort of the
Christian intellect conditioned by the categories of the best thought
of his age. Everywhere, while evading no difficulty, his strenuous
speculative search is steadied by ethical and religious instinct. As
against Valentinian and the Platonists, with both of whom he is in
close affinity, he inexorably insists on the self-consciousness and
moral nature of God, on human freewill. As against all contemporary
non-Christian thought his system is pure monism. Yet the problem of
evil, in which he merges the antithesis of matter and spirit, brings
with it a necessary dualism, a dualism, however, which belongs but to a
moment in the limitless eternity of God's all-in-allness before and
after. Is he then a pantheist? No, for to him God is Love (in Ezek. vi.
6), and the rational creature is to be made divine and united to God by
the reconciliation of Will and by conscious apprehension of Him. The
idea of Will is the pivot of Origen's system, the centripetal force
which forbids it to follow the pantheistic line which it yet
undoubtedly touches. The `moral' unity of the Father and the Son (see
above, tautotes boulematos and ek tou thelematos) is Unity in that very
respect in which the Creator stands over against the self-determining
rational creature. Yet the immutability, the Oneness of God, must be
reconciled with the plurality, the mutability of the creature; here the
Logos mediates; dia ta polla ginetai polla: but this must be from
eternity:--accordingly creation is eternal too. Here we see that the
cosmological idea has prevailed over the religious, the Logos of Origen
is still in important particulars the Logos of the Apologists, of Philo
and the philosophers. The difference lies in His co-eternity, upon
which Origen insists without wavering. The resemblance lies in the
intermediate [20] position ascribed to Him between the agennetos, (ho
Theos), and the geneta; He is, as Hypostasis, subordinate to the
Father.
Now it is evident that the mere intellectual apprehension of a system
which combines so many opposite tendencies, which touches every variety
of the theological thought of the age (even modalism, for to Origen the
Father is the Monas, the autotheos, while yet He is no abstraction but
a God who exists in moral activity, supra) and subtly harmonises them
all, must have involved no ordinary philosophical power. When we add to
this fact the further consideration that precisely the fundamental
ideas of Origen were those which called forth the liveliest opposition
and were gradually dropped by his followers, we can easily understand
that in the next generation Origenism was no longer either the system
of Origen, or a single system at all.
In one direction it could lend itself to no compromise; in spite of the
justice done by Origen to the fundamental ideas both of modalism and of
emanative adoptionism (cf. Harnack, pp. 548, note, and 586), to
Monarchianism in either form he is diametrically opposed. The
hypostatic distinctness of Son and Spirit is once for all made good for
the theology of Eastern Christendom. We see his disciples exterminate
Monarchianism in the East. On the left wing Dionysius refutes the
Sabellians of Libya, on the right Gregory Thaumaturgus, Firmilian, and
their brethren, after a long struggle, oust the adoptionist Paul from
the See of Antioch. But its influence on the existing Catholic
theology, however great (and in the East it was very great), inevitably
made its way in the face of opposition, and at the cost of its original
subtle consistency. The principal opposition came from Asia Minor,
where the traditions of theological thought (see above, on Ignatius and
Irenaeus, below on Marcellus) were not in sympathy [21] with Origen. We
cannot demonstrate the existence of a continuous theological school in
Asia; but Methodius (270-300) certainly speaks with the voice of
Ignatius and Irenaeus. He deals with Origen much as Irenaeus dealt with
the Gnostics, defending against him the current sense of the regula
fidei, and especially the literal meaning of Scripture, the origination
of the soul along with the body, the resurrection of the body in the
material sense, and generally opposing realism to the spiritualism of
Origen. But in thus opposing Origen, Methodius is not uninfluenced by
him (see Socr. vi. 13). He, too, is a student of Plato (with `little of
his style or spirit'); his `realism' is `speculative.' He no longer
defends the Asiatic Chiliasm, his doctrine of the Logos is coloured by
Origen as that of Irenaeus was by the Apologists. The legacy of
Methodius and of his Origenist contemporaries to the Eastern Church was
a modified Origenism, that is a theology systematised on the
intellectual basis of the Platonic philosophy, but expurgated by the
standard of the regula fidei. This result was a compromise, and was at
first attended with great confusion. Origen's immediate following
seized some one side, some another of his system; some were more, some
less influenced by the `orthodox' reaction against his teaching. We may
distinguish an Origenist `right' and an Origenist `left.' If the
Origenist view of the Universe was given up, the coeternity of the Son
and Spirit with the Father was less firmly grasped. Origen had, if we
may use the expression, `levelled up.' The Son was mediator between the
Ingenerate God and the created, but eternal Universe. If the latter was
not eternal, and if at the same time the Word stood in some essential
correlation to the creative energy of God, Origen's system no longer
implied the strict coeternity of the Word. Accordingly we find
Dionysius (see below, p. 173 sqq.) uncertain on this point, and on the
essential relation of the Son to the Father. More cautious in this
respect, but tenacious of other startling features of Origen, were
Pierius and Theognostus, who presided over the Catechetical School at
the end of the century [22] .
On the other hand, very many of Origen's pupils, especially among the
bishops, started from the other side of Origen's teaching, and held
tenaciously to the coeternity of the Son, while they abandoned the
Origenist `paradoxes' with regard to the Universe, matter,
pre-existence, and restitution. Typical of this class is Gregory
Thaumaturgus, also Peter the martyr bishop of Alexandria, who expressly
opposed many of Origen's positions (though hardly with the violence
ascribed to him in certain supposed fragments in Routh, Rell. iv. 81)
and Alexander himself. It was this `wing' of the Origenist following
that, in combination with the opposition represented by Methodius,
bequeathed to the generation contemporary with Nicaea its average
theological tone. The coeternity of the Son with the Father was not (as
a rule) questioned, but the essential relation of the Logos to the
Creation involved a strong subordination of the Son to the Father, and
by consequence of the Spirit to the Son. Monarchianism was the heresy
most dreaded, the theology of the Church was based on the philosophical
categories of Plato applied to the explanation and systematisation of
the rule of faith. This was very far from Arianism. It lacked the
logical definiteness of that system on the one hand, it rested on the
other hand on a different conception of God; the hypostatic
subordination of the Son was insisted upon, but His true Sonship as of
one Nature with the Father, was held fast. In the slow process of time
this neo-Asiatic theology found its way partly to the Nicene formula,
partly to the illogical acceptance of it with regard to the Son, with
refusal to apply it to the Spirit (Macedonius). To the men who thought
thus, the blunt assertion that the Son was a creature, not coeternal,
alien to the Essence of the Father, was a novelty, and wholly
abhorrent. Arius drew a sharper line than they had been accustomed to
draw between God and the creature; so did Athanasius. But Arius drew
his line without flinching between the Father and the Son. This to the
instinct of any Origenist was as revolting as it would have been to the
clear mind and Biblical sympathy of Origen himself. In theological and
philosophical principles alike Arius was opposed even to the tempered
Origenism of the Nicene age. The latter was at the furthest remove from
Monarchianism, Arianism was in its essential core Monarchian; the
common theology borrowed its philosophical principles and method from
the Platonists, Arius from Aristotle. To anticipate, Arianism and
(so-called) semi-Arianism have in reality very little in common except
the historical fact of common action for a time. Arianism guarded the
transcendence of the divine nature (at the expense of revelation and
redemption) in a way that `semi-Arianism,' admitting as it did inherent
inequality in the Godhead, did not. They therefore tended in opposite
directions; Arianism to Anomoeanism, `semi-Arianism' to the Nicene
faith; their source was different. `Aristotle made men Arians,' says
Newman with truth, `Plato, semi-Arians' (Arians^4, p. 335, note): but
to say this is to allow that if Arianism goes back to Lucian and so to
Paul of Samosata, semi-Arianism is a fragment from the wreck of Origen.
The Origenist bishops of Syria and Asia Minor had in the years 269-272,
after several efforts, succeeded in deposing Paul of Samosata from the
See of Antioch. This remarkable man was the ablest pre-Nicene
representative of Adoptionist Monarchianism. The Man Jesus was
inhabited by the `Word,' i.e. by an impersonal power of God, distinct
from the Logos or reason (wisdom) inherent in God as an attribute,
which descended upon him at His Baptism. His union with God, a union of
Will, was unswerving, and by virtue of it He overcame the sin of
mankind, worked miracles, and entered on a condition of Deification. He
is God ek prokopes (cf. Luke ii. 52) by virtue of progress in
perfection. That is in brief the system of Paul, and we cannot wonder
at his deposition. For the striking points of contact with Arianism
(two `Wisdoms,' two `Words,' prokope: cf. Orat. c. Ar. i. 5, &c.) we
have to account [23] . The theology of Arius is a compromise between
the Origenist doctrine of the Person of Christ and the pure Monarchian
Adoptionism of Paul of Samosata; or rather it engrafts the former upon
the latter as the foundation principle, seriously modifying each to
suit the necessity of combining the two. This compromise was not due to
Arius himself but to his teacher, Lucian the Martyr. A native himself
of Samosata, he stood in some relation of attachment (not clearly
defineable) to Paul. Under him, he was at the head of a critical,
exegetical, and theological school at Antioch. Upon the deposition of
Paul he appears not so much to have been formally excommunicated as to
have refused to acquiesce in the new order of things. Under Domnus and
his two successors, he was in a state of suspended communion [24] ; but
eventually was reconciled with the bishop (Cyril?) and died as a martyr
at Nicomedia, Jan. 7, 312. The latter fact, his ascetic life, and his
learning secured him widespread honour in the Church; his pupils formed
a compact and enthusiastic brotherhood, and filled many of the most
influential Sees after the persecution. That such a man should be
involved in the reproach of having given birth to Arianism is an
unwelcome result of history, but one not to be evaded [25] . The
history of the Lucianic compromise and its result in the Lucianic type
of theology, are both matters of inference rather than of direct
knowledge. As to the first, whatever evidence there is connects
Lucian's original position with Paul. His reconciliation with Bishop
Cyril must have involved a reapproachment to the formula of the bishops
who deposed Paul,--a thoroughly Origenist document. We may therefore
suppose that the identification of Christ with the Logos, or cosmic
divine principle, was adopted by him from Origenist sources. But he
could not bring himself to admit that He was thus essentially
identified with God the eternal; he held fast to the idea of prokope as
the path by which the Lord attained to Divinity; he distinguished the
Word or Son who was Christ from the immanent impersonal Reason or
Wisdom of God, as an offspring of the Father's Will, an idea which he
may have derived straight from Origen, with whom of course it had a
different sense. For to Origen Will was the very essence of God; Lucian
fell back upon an arid philosophical Monotheism, upon an abstract God
fenced about with negations (Harnack 2^2, 195, note) and remote from
the Universe. It was counted a departure from Lucian's principles if a
pupil held that the Son was the `perfect Image of the Father's Essence'
(Philost. ii. 15); Origen's formula, `distinct in hypostasis, but one
in will,' was apparently exploited in a Samosatene sense to express the
relation of the Son to the Father. The only two points in fact in which
Lucian appears to have modified the system of Paul were, firstly in
hypostatising the Logos, which to Paul was an impersonal divine power,
secondly in abandoning Paul's purely human doctrine of the historical
Christ. To Lucian, the Logos assumed a body (or rather `Deus sapientiam
suam misit in hunc mundum carne vestitam, ubi infra, p. 6), but itself
took the place of a soul [26] ; hence all the tapeinai lexeis of the
Gospels applied to the Logos as such, and the inferiority and essential
difference of the Son from the Father rigidly followed.
The above account of Lucian is based on that of Harnack, Dogmg. ii.
184, sqq. It is at once in harmony with all our somewhat scanty data
(Alexander, Epiphanius, Philostorgius, and the fragment of his last
confession of faith preserved by Rufin. in Eus. H. E. ix. 9, Routh,
Rell. iv. pp. 5-7, from which Harnack rightly starts) and is the only
one which accounts for the phenomena of the rise of Arianism. We find a
number of leading Churchmen in agreement with Arius, but in no way
dependent on him. They are Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris, Theognis,
Athanasius of Anazarba, Menophantus; all Lucianists. The first Arian
writer, Asterius (see below), is a Lucianist. (The Egyptian bishops
Secundus and Theonas cannot be put down to any school; we do not know
their history; but they are distinguished from the Lucianists by
Philost. ii. 3.) It has been urged that, although Arius brought away
heresy from the school of Lucian, yet he was not the only one that did
so. True; but then the heresy was all of the same kind (list of pupils
of Lucian in Philost. ii. 14, iii. 15). Aetius, the founder of logical
ultra-Arianism and teacher of Eunomius, was taught the exegesis of the
New Testament by the Lucianists Athanasius of Anazarba and Antony of
Tarsus, of the Old by the Lucianist Leontius. This fairly covers the
area of Arianism proper. But it may be noted that some Origenists of
the `left wing,' whose theology emphasized the subordination, and
vacillated as to the eternity of the Son, would find little to shock
them in Arianism (Eusebius of Caesarea, Paulinus of Tyre), while on the
other hand there are traces of a Lucianist `right wing,' men like
Asterius, who while essentially Arian, made concessions to the
`conservative' position chiefly by emphasising the cosmic mediation of
the Word and His `exact likeness' to the Father [27] . The Theology of
the Eastern Church was suffering from the effort to assimilate the
Origenist theology: it could not do so without eliminating the
underlying and unifying idea of Origenism; this done, the overwhelming
influence of the great teacher remained, while dissonant fragments of
his system, vaguely comprehended in many cases, permeated some here,
some there [28] . Meanwhile the school of Lucian had a method and a
system; they knew their own minds, and relied on reason and exegesis.
This was the secret of their power. Had Arius never existed, Arianism
must have tried its strength under such conditions. But the age was
ready for Arius; and Arius was ready. The system of Arius was in effect
that of Lucian: its formulation appears to have been as much the work
of Asterius as of Arius himself. (Cf. p. 155, S:8, ho de 'Ar.
metagrapsas dedoke tois idiois. The extant writings of Arius are his
letters to Eus. Nic. and to Alexander, preserved by Theodoret and
Epiph. Haer. 69, and the extracts from the `Thalia' in Ath., pp.
308-311, 457, 458; also the `confession' in Socr. i. 26, Soz. ii. 27.
Cf. also references to his dicta in Ath. pp. 185, 229, &c.) Arius
started from the idea of God and the predicate `Son.' God is above all
things uncreated, or unoriginate, agen[n]etos, (the ambiguity of the
derivatives of gennasthai and genesthai are a very important element in
the controversy. See p. 475, note 5, and Lightfoot, Ignat. ii. p. 90
sqq.) Everything else is created, geneton. The name `Son' implies an
act of procreation. Therefore, before such act, there was no Son, nor
was God properly speaking a Father. The Son is not coeternal with Him.
He was originated by the Father's will, as indeed were all things. He
is, then, ton geneton, He came into being from non-existence (ex ouk
onton), and before that did not exist (ouk en prin genetai). But His
relation to God differs from that of the Universe generally. Created
nature cannot bear the awful touch of bare Deity. God therefore created
the Son that He in turn might be the agent in the Creation of the
Universe--`created Him as the beginning of His ways,' (Prov. viii. 22,
LXX.). This being so, the nature of the Son was in the essential point
of agennesia unlike that of the Father; (xenos tou huiou kat' ousian ho
Pater hoti anarchos): their substances (hupostaseis) are
anepimiktoi,--have nothing in common. The Son therefore does not
possess the fundamental property of sonship, identity of nature with
the Father. He is a Son by Adoption, not by Nature; He has advanced by
moral probation to be Son, even to be monogenes theos (Joh. i. 14). He
is not the eternal Logos, reason, of God, but a Word (and God has
spoken many): but yet He is the Word by grace; is no longer, what He is
by nature, subject to change. He cannot know the Father, much less make
Him known to others. Lastly, He dwells in flesh, not in full human
nature (see above, p. xxviii. and note 2). The doctrine of Arius as to
the Holy Spirit is not recorded, but probably He was placed between the
Son and the other ktismata (yet see Harnack ii. 199, note 2).
Arian Literature. Beside the above-mentioned letters and fragments of
Arius, our early Arian documents are scanty. Very important is the
letter of Eus. Nic. to Paulinus, referred to above, S:3 (1), pp. xvi.,
xviii., other fragments of letters, p. 458 sq. The writings [29] of
Asterius, if preserved, would have been an invaluable source of
information [30] . Asterius seems to have written before the Nicene
Council; he may have modified his language in later treatises. He was
replied to by Marcellus in a work which brought him into controversy
(336) with Eusebius of Caesarea. With the creeds and Arian literature
after the death of Constantine we are not at present concerned.
Arianism was a novelty. Yet it combines in an inconsistent whole
elements of almost every previous attempt to formulate the doctrine of
the Person of Christ. Its sharpest antithesis was Modalism: yet with
the modalist Arius maintained the strict personal unity of the Godhead.
With dynamic monarchianism it held the adoptionist principle in
addition; but it personified the Word and sacrificed the entire
humanity of Christ. In this latter respect it sided with the Docetae,
most Gnostics, and Manichaeans, to all of whom it yet opposes a
sharply-cut doctrine of creation and of the transcendence of God. With
Origen and the Apologists before him it made much of the cosmic
mediation of the Word in contrast to the redemptive work of Jesus; with
the Apologists, though not with Origen, it enthroned in the highest
place the God of the Philosophers: but against both alike it drew a
sharp broad line between the Creator and the Universe, and drew it
between the Father and the Son. Least of all is Arianism in sympathy
with the theology of Asia,--that of Ignatius, Irenaeus, Methodius,
founded upon the Joannine tradition. The profound Ignatian idea of
Christ as the Logos apo siges proelthon is in impressive contrast with
the shallow challenge of the Thalia, `Many words hath God spoken, which
of these was manifested in the flesh?'
Throughout the controversies of the pre-Nicene age the question felt
rather than seen in the background is that of the Idea of God. The
question of Monotheism and Polytheism which separated Christians from
heathen was not so much a question of abstract theology as of religion,
not one of speculative belief, but of worship. The Gentile was prepared
to recognise in the background of his pantheon the shadowy form of one
supreme God, Father of gods and men, from whom all the rest derived
their being. But his religion required the pantheon as well; he could
not worship a philosophic supreme abstraction. The Christian on the
other hand was prepared in many cases to recognise the existence of
beings corresponding to the gods of the heathen (whether 1 Cor. viii. 5
can be quoted here is open to question). But such beings he would not
worship. To him, as an object of religion, there was one God. The one
God of the heathen was no object of practical personal religion; the
One God of the Christian was. He was the God of the Old Testament, the
God who was known to His people not under philosophical categories, but
in His dealings with them as a Father, Deliverer, He who would
accomplish all things for them that waited on Him, the God of the
Covenant. He was the God of the New Testament, God in Christ
reconciling the world to Himself, manifesting His Righteousness in the
Gospel of Christ to whosoever believed. In Christ the Christian learned
that God is Love. Now this knowledge of God is essentially religious;
it lies in a different plane from the speculative aporiai as to God's
transcendence or immanence, while yet it steadies the religious mind in
the face of speculations tending either way. A God who is Love, if
immanent, must yet be personal, if transcendent, must yet manifest His
Love in such a way that we can know it and not merely guess it. Now as
Christian instinct began to be forced to reflexion, in other words, as
faith began to strive for expression in a theology [31] , it could not
but be that men, however personally religious, seized hold of religious
problems by their speculative side. We have seen this exemplified in
the influence of Platonic philosophy on the Apologists and Alexandrine
Fathers. But to Origen, with all his Platonism, belongs the honour of
enthroning the God of Love at the head and centre of a systematic
theology. Yet the theology of the end of the third century assimilated
secondary results of Origen's system rather than his underlying idea.
On the one hand was the rule of faith with the whole round of Christian
life and worship, determining the religious instinct of the Church; on
the other, the inability to formulate this instinct in a coherent
system so long as the central problem was overlooked or inadequately
dealt with. God is One, not more; yet how is the One God to be
conceived of, what is His relation to the Universe of genesis and
phthora? and the Son is God, and the Spirit; how are they One, and if
One how distinct? How do we avoid the relapse into a polytheism of
secondary gods? What is--not the essential nature of Godhead, for all
agreed that that is beyond our ken--but the proton hemin, the essential
idea for us to begin from if we are to synthesise belief and theology,
pistis and gnosis?
Arianism stepped in with a summary answer. God is one, numerically and
absolutely. He is beyond the ken of any created intelligence. Even
creation is too close a relation for Him to enter into with the world.
In order to create, he must create an instrument (pp. 360 sqq.),
intermediate between Himself and all else. This instrument is called
Son of God, i.e. He is not coeternal (for what son was ever as old as
his parent?), but the result of an act of creative will. How then is He
different from other creatures? This is the weak point of the system;
He is not really different, but a difference is created by investing
Him with every possible attribute of glory and divinity except the
possession of the incommunicable nature of deity. He is merely
`anointed above His fellows.' His `divinity' is acquired, not original;
relative, not absolute; in His character, not in His Person.
Accordingly He is, as a creature, immeasurably far from the Creator; He
does not know God, cannot declare God to us. The One God remains in His
inaccessible remoteness from the creature. But yet Arians worshipped
Christ; although not very God, He is God to us. Here we have the exact
difficulty with which the Church started in her conflict with
heathenism presented again unsolved. The desperate struggle, the hardly
earned triumph of the Christians, had been for the sake of the
essential principle of heathenism! The One God was, after all, the God
of the philosophers; the idea of pagan polytheism was realised and
justified in Christ [32] ! To this Athanasius returns again and again
(see esp. p. 360); it is the doom of Arianism as a Christian theology.
If Arianism failed to assist the thought of the Church to a solution of
the great problem of God, its failure was not less conspicuous with
regard to revelation and redemption. The revelation of the Gospel
stopped short in the person of Christ, did not go back to the Father.
God was not in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, we have access
in Christ to a created intelligence, not to the love of God to usward,
not to the everlasting Arms, but to a being neither divine nor human.
Sinners against heaven and before God, we must accept an assurance of
reconciliation from one who does not know Him whom we have offended;
the kiss of the Father has never been given to the prodigal. Men have
asked how we are justified in ascribing to the infinite God the
attributes which we men call good: mercy, justice, love. If Christ is
God, the answer lies near; if He is the Christ of Arius, we are left in
moral agnosticism. Apart from Christ, the philosophical arguments for a
God have their force; they proffer to us an ennobling belief, a grand
`perhaps'; but the historical inability of Monotheism to retain a
lasting hold among men apart from revelation is an impressive
commentary on their compelling power. In Christ alone does God lay hold
upon the soul with the assurance of His love (Rom. v. 5-8; Matt. xi.
28; John xvii. 3). The God of Arius has held out no hand toward us; he
is a far-off abstraction, not a living nor a redeeming God.
The illogicality of Arianism has often been pointed out (Gwatkin, pp.
21 sqq. esp. p. 28); how, starting from the Sonship of Christ, it came
round to a denial of His Sonship; how it started with an interest for
Monotheism and landed in a vindication of polytheism; how it began from
the incomprehensibility of God even to His Son, and ended (in its most
pronounced form) with the assertion that the divine Nature is no
mystery at all, even to us. It is an insult to the memory of Aristotle
to call such shallow hasty syllogising from ill-selected and unsifted
first principles by his name. Aristotle himself teaches a higher logic
than this. But at this date Aristotelianism proper was extinct. It only
survived in the form of `pure' logic, adopted by the Platonists, but
also studied for its own sake in connection with rhetoric and the art
of arguing (cf. Socr. ii. 35). Such an instrument might well be a cause
of confusion in the hands of men who used it without regard to the
conditions of the subject-matter. An illogical compromise between the
theology of Paul of Samosata and of Origen, the marvel is that Arianism
satisfied any one even in the age of its birth. What has been said
above with regard to the conception of God in the early Church may help
to explain it; the germ of ethical insight which is latent in
adoptionism, and which when neglected by the Church has always made
itself felt by reaction, must also receive justice; once again, its
inherent intellectualism was in harmony with the dominant theology of
the Eastern Church, that is with one side of Origenism. Where analogous
conditions have prevailed, as for example in the England of the early
eighteenth century, Arianism has tended to reappear with no one of its
attendant incongruities missing.
But for all that, the doom of Arianism was uttered at Nicaea and
verified in the six decades which followed. Every possible alternative
formula of belief as to the Person of Christ was forced upon the mind
of the early Church, was fully tried, and was found wanting. Arianism
above all was fully tried and above all found lacking. The Nicene
formula alone has been found to render possible the life, to satisfy
the instincts of the Church of Christ. The choice lies--nothing is
clearer--between that and the doctrine of Paul of Samosata. The latter,
it has been said, was misunderstood, was never fairly tried. As a
claimant to represent the true sense of Christianity it was I think
once for all rejected when the first Apostles gave the right hand of
fellowship to S. Paul (see above, p. xxii.); its future trial must be
in the form of naturalism, as a rival to Christianity, on the basis of
a denial of the claim of Christ to be the One Saviour of the World, and
of His Gospel to be the Absolute Religion. But Arianism, adding to all
the difficulties of a supernatural Christology the spirit of the
shallowest rationalism and the fundamental postulate of agnosticism,
can surely count for nothing in the Armageddon of the latter days,
Spiacente a Dio ed a' nemici suoi.
(b) The homoousion as a theological formula [33] .
The distinction, which in the foregoing discussion we have frequently
had under our notice, between the pistis and gnosis of the early
Church, the pistis common to all, and formulated in the tessera or rule
of faith, the gnosis the property of apologists and theologians aiming
at the expression of faith in terms of the thought of their age, and at
times, though for long only slightly, reacting upon the rule of faith
itself (Aquileia, Caesarea, Gregory Thaumaturgus), makes itself felt in
the account of the Nicene Council. That the legacy of the first
world-wide gathering of the Church's rulers is a Rule of Faith moulded
by theological reflexion, one in which the gnosis of the Church
supplements her pistis, is a momentous fact; a fact for which we have
to thank not Athanasius but Arius. The pistis of the Fathers repudiated
Arianism as a novelty; but to exclude it from the Church some test was
indispensable; and to find a test was the task of theology, of gnosis.
The Nicene Confession is the Rule of Faith explained as against
Arianism. Arianism started with the Christian profession of belief in
our Lord's Sonship. If the result was incompatible with such belief, it
was inevitable that an explanation should be given, not indeed of the
full meaning of divine Sonship, but of that element in the idea which
was ignored or assailed by the misconception of Arius. Such an
explanation is attempted in the words ek tes ousias tou patros,
homoousian to Patri, and again in the condemnation of the formula ex
heteras hupostaseos e ousias. This explanation was not adopted without
hesitation, nor would it have been adopted had any other barrier
against the heresy, which all but very few wished to exclude, appeared
effective. We now have to examine firstly the grounds of this
hesitation, secondly the justification of the formula itself.
The objections felt to the word homoousion at the council were (1)
philosophical, based on the identification of ousia with either eidos
(i.e. as implying a `formal essence' prior to Father and Son alike) or
hule; (2) dogmatic, based on the identification of ousia with tode ti,
and on the consequent Sabellian sense of the homoousion; (3)
Scriptural, based on the non-occurrence of the word in the Bible; (4)
Ecclesiastical, based on the condemnation of the word by the Synod
which deposed Paul at Antioch in 269.
All these objections were made and felt bona fide, although Arians
would of course make the most of them. The subsequent history will show
that their force was outweighed only for the moment with many of the
fathers, and that to reconcile the `conservatism' of the Asiatic
bishops to the new formula must be a matter of time. The third or
Scriptural objection need not now be discussed at length. Precedent
could be pleaded for the introduction into creeds of words not
expressly found in Scripture (e.g. the word `catholic' applied to the
Church in many ancient creeds, the creed of Gregory Thaumaturgus with
trias teleia, &c. &c.); the only question was, were the non-scriptural
words expressive of a Scriptural idea? This was the pith of the
question debated between Athanasius and his opponents for a generation
after the council; the `conservative' majority eventually came round to
the conviction that Athanasius was right. But the question depends upon
the meaning of the word itself.
The word means sharing in a joint or common essence, ousia (cf.
homonumos, sharing the same name, &c. &c.). What then is ousia? The
word was introduced into philosophical use, so far as we know, by
Plato, and its technical value was fixed for future ages by his pupil
Aristotle. Setting aside its use to express `existence' in the
abstract, we take the more general use of the word as indicating that
which exists in the concrete. In this sense it takes its place at the
centre of his system of `categories,' as the something to which all
determinations of quality, quantity, relation and the rest attach, and
which itself attaches to nothing; in Aristotle's words it alone is
self-existent, choriston, whereas all that comes under any of the other
categories is achoriston, non-existent except as a property of some
ousia. But here the difficulty begins. We may look at a concrete term
as denoting either this or that individual simply (tode ti), or as
expressing its nature, and so as common to more individuals than one.
Now properly (protos) ousia is only appropriate to the former purpose.
But it may be employed in a secondary sense to designate the latter; in
this sense species and genera are deuterai ousiai, the wider class
being less truly ousiai than the narrower. In fact we here detect the
transition of the idea of ousia from the category of ousia proper to
that of poion (cf. Athan. p. 478 sq.; he uses ousia freely in the
secondary sense for non-theological purposes in contra Gentes, where it
is often best rendered `nature'). Aristotle accordingly uses ousia
freely to designate what we call substances, whether simple or
compound, such as iron, gold, earth, the heavens, to akineton, &c., &c.
Corresponding again, to the logical distinction of genos and eidos is
the metaphysical distinction (not exactly of matter and form, but) of
matter simply, regarded as to hupokeimenon, and matter regarded as
existing in this or that form, to poion to en te ousi& 139;, to ti en
einai, the meeting-point of logic and metaphysics in Aristotle's
system. Agreeably to this distinction, ousia is used sometimes of the
latter--the concrete thing regarded in its essential nature, sometimes
of the former he hupokeimene ousia hos hule, hule being in fact the
summum genus of the material world.
Now the use of the word in Christian theology had exemplified nearly
every one of the above senses. In the quasi-material sense homoousion
had been used in the school of Valentinian to express the homogeneity
of the two factors in the fundamental dualism of the Universe of
intelligent beings. In a somewhat similar sense it is used in the
Clementine Homilies xx. 7. The Platonic phrase for the Divine Nature,
epekeina pases ousias, adopted by Origen and by Athanasius contra
Gentes, appears to retain something of the idea of ousia as implying
material existence; and this train of associations had to be expressly
disclaimed in defending the Nicene formula. In the sense of homogeneity
the word omoousion is expressly applied by Origen, as we have seen, to
the Father and the Son: on the other hand, taking ousia in the
`primary' Aristotelian sense, he has heteros kat' ousian kai
hupokeimenon In the West (see above on Tertullian and Novatian) the
Latin substantia (Cicero had in vain attempted to give currency to the
less euphonious but more suitable essentia) had taken its place in the
phrase unius substantiae orcommunio substantiae, intended to denote not
only the homogeneity but the Unity of Father and Son. Accordingly we
find Dionysius of Rome pressing the test upon his namesake of
Alexandria and the latter not declining it (below, p. 183). But a few
years later we find the Origenist bishops, who with the concurrence of
Dionysius of Rome deposed Paul of Samosata, expressly repudiating the
term. This fact, which is as certain as any fact in Church history (see
Routh Rell. iii. 364 &c., Caspari Alte u. Neue. Q., pp. 161 sqq.), was
a powerful support to the Arians in their subsequent endeavours to
unite the conservative East in reaction against the council. Scholars
are fairly equally divided as to the explanation of the fact. Some
hold, following Athanasius and Basil, that Paul imputed the omoousion
(in a materialising sense) to his opponents, as a consequence of the
doctrine they opposed to his own, and that `the 80' in repudiating the
word, repudiated the idea that the divine nature could be divided by
the emanation of a portion of it in the Logos. Hilary, on the other
hand, tells us that the word was used by Paul himself (`male omoousion
Paulus confessus est, sed numquid melius Arii negaverunt?') If so, it
must have been meant to deny the existence of the Logos as an ousia
(i.e. Hypostasis) distinct from the Father. Unfortunately we have not
the original documents to refer to. But in either case the word was
repudiated at Antioch in one sense, enacted at Nicaea in another. The
fact however remains that the term does not exclude ambiguity.
Athanasius is therefore going beyond strict accuracy when he claims (p.
164) that no one who is not an Arian can fail to be in agreement with
the Synod. Marcellus and Photinus alone prove the contrary. But he is
right in regarding the word as rigidly excluding the heresy of Arius.
This brings us to the question in what sense ousia is used in the
Nicene definition. We must remember the strong Western and
anti-Origenist influence which prevailed in the council (above, p.
xvii.), and the use of hupostasis and ousia as convertible terms in the
anathematism (see Excursus A, pp. 77, sqq. below). Now going back for a
moment to the correspondence of the two Dionysii, we see that Dionysius
of Rome had contended not so much against the subordination of the Son
to the Father as against their undue separation (memerismenai
hupostaseis). In other words he had pressed the homoousion upon his
namesake in the interest rather of the unity than of the equality of
the Persons in the Holy Trinity. At Nicaea, the problem was (as shewn
above) to explain (at least negatively) how the Church understood the
Generation of the Son. Accordingly we find Athanasius in later years
explaining that the Council meant to place beyond doubt the Essential
Relation of the Divine Persons to one another (to idion tes ousias,
tautotes, see de Decr. pp. 161, 163 sq., 165, 168, 319; of course
including identity of Nature, pp. 396, 413, 232), and maintaining to
the end (where he expresses his own view, p. 490, &c.) the
convertibility of ousia and hupostasis for this purpose. By the word ho
theos or theos he understands ouden heteron e ten ousian tou ontos (de
Decr. 22). The conclusion is that in their original sense the
definitions of Nicaea assert not merely the specific identity of the
Son with the Father (as Peter qua man is of one ousia with Paul, or the
Emperor's statue of one form with the Emperor himself, p. 396), but the
full unbroken continuation of the Being of the Father in the Son, the
inseparable unity of the Son with the Father in the Oneness of the
Godhead. Here the phrase is `balanced' by the ek tes [hupostaseos e]
ousias tou Patros, not as though merely one ousia had given existence
to another, but in the sense that with such origination the ousia
remained the same. This is a `first approximation to the mysterious
doctrine of the perichoresis' coinherence, or `circuminsessio,' which
is necessary to guard the doctrine of the Trinity against tritheism,
but which, it must be observed, lifts it out of the reach of the
categories of any system of thought in which the workings of human
intelligence have ever been able to organise themselves. The doctrine
of the Holy Trinity vindicated by the Nicene formula on the one hand
remains, after the exclusion of others, as the one direction in which
the Christian intellect can travel without frustrating and limiting the
movement of faith, without bringing to a halt the instinct of faith in
Christ as Saviour, implanted in the Church by the teaching of S. Paul
and of S. John, of the Lord Himself: on the other hand it is not a full
solution of the intellectual difficulties with which the analysis of
that faith and those instincts brings us face to face. That God is One,
and that the Son is God, are truths of revelation which the category of
`substance' fails to synthesise. The Nicene Definition furnishes a
basis of agreement for the purpose of Christian devotion, worship, and
life, but leaves two theologies face to face, with mutual recognition
as the condition of the healthy life of either. The theology of
Athanasius and of the West is that of the Nicene formula in its
original sense. The inseparable Unity of the God of Revelation is its
pivot. The conception of personality in the Godhead is its difficulty.
The distinctness of the Father, Son, and Spirit is felt (allos ho Pater
allos ho hui& 231;s), but cannot be formulated so as to satisfy our
full idea of personality. For this Athanasius had no word; prosopon
meant too little (implying as it did no more than an aspect possibly
worn but for a special period or purpose), hupostasis (implying such
personality as separates Peter from Paul) too much. But he recognised
the admissibility of the sense in which the Nicene formula eventually,
in the theology of the Cappadocian fathers, won its way to supremacy in
the East. To them hupostasis was an appropriate term to express the
distinction of Persons in the Godhead, while ousia expressed the divine
Nature which they possessed in common (see Excursus A. p. 77 sqq.).
This sense of ousia approximated to that of species, or eidos
(Aristotle's `secondary' ousia), while that of hupostasis gravitated
toward that of personality in the empirical sense. But in neither case
did the approximation amount to complete identity. The idea of trine
personality was limited by the consideration of the Unity; the
perichoresis was recognised, although in a somewhat different form, the
prominent idea in Athanasius being that of coinherence or immanence,
whereas the Cappadocians, while using, of course, the language of John
xiv. 11, yet prefer the metaphor of successive dependence hosper ex
haluseo. (Bas. Ep. 38, p. 118 D). To Athanasius, the Godhead is
complete not in the Father alone, still less in the Three Persons as
parts of the one ousia, but in each Person as much as in all. The
Cappadocian Fathers go back to the Origenist view that the Godhead is
complete primarily in the Father alone, but mediately in the Son or
Spirit, by virtue of their origination from the Father as pege or aitia
tes theotetos. To Athanasius the distinct Personality of Son and Spirit
was the difficulty; his difference from Origen was wide, from Marcellus
subtle. To the Cappadocians the difficulty was the Unity of the
Persons; to Marcellus they were toto caelo opposed, they are the pupils
of Origen [34] . Accordingly when Basil makes a distinction between
ousia and hupostasis in the Nicene anathematism, he is giving not
historical exegesis but his own opinion.
The Nicene definition in this sense emphasized the Unity of the Godhead
in Three Persons, against the Arian division of the Son from the
Father. How then did it escape the danger of lending countenance to
Monarchianism? Athanasius feels the difficulty without solving it, for
the distinction given by him, p. 84, between homoousios and monoousios
is without real meaning (we say with Tertullian `of one substance'). On
the whole in mature years he held that the title `Son' was sufficient
to secure the Trinity of Persons. `By the name Father we confute Arius,
by the name of Son we overthrow Sabellius' (p. 434; cf. p. 413); and we
find that the council in its revision of the Caesarean creed shifted
hui& 231;s to the principal position where it took the place of logos.
Beyond this the Creed imposed no additional test in that direction (the
ek tes ousias is important but not decisive in this respect). This was
felt as an objection to the Creed, and the objection was pointed by the
influence of Marcellus at the council. The historical position of
Marcellus is in fact, as we shall see, the principal key to the
`conservative' reaction which followed. The insertion into the
conservative creeds of a clause asserting the endlessness of Christ's
Kingdom, which eventually received ecumenical authority, was an
expression of this feeling. But a final explanation between the Nicene
doctrine and Monarchianism could not come about until the idea of
Personality had been tested in the light of the appearance of the Son
in the Flesh. The solution, or rather definition, of the problem is to
be sought in the history of the Christological questions which began
with Apollinarius of Laodicea.
The above account of the anti-Arian test formulated at Nicaea will
suffice to explain the motives for its adoption, the difficulties which
made that adoption reluctant, and the fact of the reaction which
followed. One thing is clear, namely that given the actual conditions,
nothing short of the test adopted would have availed to exclude the
Arian doctrine. It is also I think clear, that not only was the current
theology of the Eastern Church unable to cope with Arianism, but that
it was itself a danger to the Church and in need of the corrective
check of the Nicene definition. Hellenic as was the system of Origen,
it was in its spirit Christian, and saturated with the influence of
Scripture. It could never have taken its place as the expression of the
whole mind of the Church; but it remains as the noblest monument of a
Christian intellect resolutely in love with truth for its own sake, and
bent upon claiming for Christ the whole range of the legitimate
activity of the human spirit. But the age had inherited only the wreck
of Origenism, and its partial victory in the Church had brought
confusion in its train, the leaders of the Church were characterised by
secular knowledge rather than grasp of first principles, by dogmatic
intellectualism rather than central apprehension of God in Christ.
Eusebius of Caesarea is their typical representative. The Nicene
definition and the work of Athanasius which followed were a summons
back to the simple first principles of the Gospel and the Rule of
Faith. What then is their value to ourselves? Above all, this, that
they have preserved to us what Arianism would have destroyed, that
assurance of Knowledge of, and Reconciliation to, God in Christ of
which the divinity of the Saviour is the indispensable condition; if we
are now Christians in the sense of S. Paul we owe it under God to the
work of the great synod. Not that the synod explained all; or did more
than effectually `block off false forms of thought or avenues of
unbalanced inference' which `challenged the acceptance of Christian
people.' The decisions of councils are `primarily not the Church saying
"yes" to fresh truths or developments or forms of consciousness; but
rather saying "no" to untrue and misleading modes of shaping and
stating her truth,' (Lux Mundi, ed. i. p. 240, cf. p. 334). It is
objected that the Nicene Formula, especially as understood by
Athanasius, is itself a `false form of thought,' a flat contradiction
in terms. That the latter is true we do not dispute (see Newman's notes
infra, p. 336, note 1, &c.). But before pronouncing the form of thought
for that reason a false one, we must consider what the `terms' are, and
to what they are applied. To myself it appears that a religion which
brought the divine existence into the compass of the categories of any
philosophy would by that very fact forfeit its claim to the character
of revelation. The categories of human thought are the outcome of
organised experience of a sensible world, and beyond the limits of that
world they fail us. This is true quite apart from revelation. The ideas
of essence and substance, personality and will, separateness and
continuity, cause and effect, unity and plurality, are all in different
degrees helps which the mind uses in order to arrange its knowledge,
and valid within the range of experience, but which become a danger
when invested with absolute validity as things in themselves. Even the
mathematician reaches real results by operating with terms which
contain a perfect contradiction (e.g. ., and to some extent the
`calculus of operations'). The idea of Will in man, of Personality in
God, present difficulties which reason cannot reconcile.
The revelation of Christ is addressed primarily to the will not to the
intellect, its appeal is to Faith not to Theology. Theology is the
endeavour of the Christian intellect to frame for itself conceptions of
matters belonging to the immediate consequences of our faith, matters
about which we must believe something, but as to which the Lord and His
Apostles have delivered nothing formally explicit. Theology has no
doubt its certainties beyond the express teaching of our Lord and the
New Testament writers; but its work is subject to more than the usual
limitations of human thought: we deal with things outside the range of
experience, with celestial things; but `we have no celestial language.'
To abandon all theology would be to acquiesce in a dumb faith: we are
to teach, to explain, to defend; the logos sophias and logos gnoseos
have from the first been gifts of the Spirit for the building up of the
Body. But we know in part and prophesy in part, and our terms begin to
fail us just in the region where the problem of guarding the faith of
the simple ends and the inevitable metaphysic, into which all pure
reflexion merges, begins. Eite oun philosopheteon eite me
philosopheteon, philosopheteon, `man is metaphysical nolens volens:'
only let us recollect that when we find ourselves in the region of
antinomies we are crossing the frontier line between revelation and
speculation, between the domain of theology and that of ontology. That
this line is approached in the definition of the great council no one
will deny. But it was reached by the council and by the subsequent
consent of the Church reluctantly and under compulsion. The bold
assumption that we can argue from the revelation of God in Christ to
mysteries beyond our experience was made by the Gnostics, by Arius: the
Church met them by a denial of what struck at the root of her belief,
not by the claim to erect formulae applied merely for the lack of
better into a revealed ontology. In the terms Person, Hypostasis, Will,
Essence, Nature, Generation, Procession, we have the embodiment of
ideas extracted from experience, and, as applied to God, representing
merely the best attempt we can make to explain what we mean when we
speak of God as Father and of Christ as His Son. Even these last sacred
names convey their full meaning to us only in view of the historical
person of Christ and of our relation to God through Him. That this
meaning is based upon an absolute relation of Christ to the Father is
the rock of our faith. That relation is mirrored in the name Son of
God: but what it is in itself, when the empirical connotations of
Sonship are stripped away, we cannot possibly know. `Omoousios to
Patri, ek tes ousias tou Patros' these words assert at once our faith
that such relation exists and our ignorance of its nature. To the
simplicity of faith it is enough to know (and this knowledge is what
our formula secures) that in Christ we have not only the perfect
Example of Human Love to God, but the direct expression and assurance
of the Father's Love to us.
(c) Materials for Reaction.
`The victory of Nicaea was rather a surprise than a solid conquest. As
it was not the spontaneous and deliberate purpose of the bishops
present, but a revolution which a minority had forced through by sheer
strength of clearer Christian thought, a reaction was inevitable as
soon as the half-convinced conservatives returned home' (Gwatkin). The
reaction, however, was not for a long time overtly doctrinal. The
defeat, the moral humiliation of Arianism at the council was too
signal, the prestige of the council itself too overpowering, the
Emperor too resolute in supporting its definition, to permit of this.
Not till after the death of Constantine in 337 does the policy become
manifest of raising alternative symbols to a coordinate rank with that
of Nicaea; not till six years after the establishment of Constantius as
sole Emperor,--i.e. not till 357,--did Arianism once again set its
mouth to the trumpet. During the reign of Constantine the reaction,
though doctrinal in its motive, was personal in its ostensible grounds.
The leaders of the victorious minority at Nicaea are one by one
attacked on this or that pretence and removed from their Sees, till at
the time of Constantine's death the East is in the hands of their
opponents. What were the forces at work which made this possible?
(1) Persecuted Arians. Foremost of all, the harsh measures adopted by
Constantine with at least the tacit approval of the Nicene leaders
furnished material for reaction. Arius and his principal friends were
sent into exile, and as we have seen they went in bitterness of spirit.
Arius himself was banished to Illyricum, and would seem to have
remained there five or six years. (The chronology of his recall is
obscure, but see D.C.B. ii. 364, and Gwatkin, p. 86, note 2). It would
be antecedently very unlikely that a religious exile would spare
exertions to gain sympathy for himself and converts to his opinions. As
a matter of fact, Arianism had no more active supporters during the
next half-century than two bishops of the neighbouring province of
Pannonia, Valens of Mursa (Mitrowitz), and Ursacius [35] of Singidunum
(Belgrade). Valens and Ursacius are described as pupils of Arius, and
there is every reason to trace their personal relations with the
heresiarch to his Illyrian exile. The seeds sown in Illyria at this
time were still bearing fruit nearly 50 years later (pp. 489, 494,
note). Secundus nursed his bitterness fully thirty years (p. 294; cf.
456). Theognis grasped at revenge at Tyre in 335 (pp. 104, 114).
Eusebius of Nicomedia, recalled from exile with his friend and
neighbour Theognis, not long after the election of Athanasius in 328,
was ready to move heaven and earth to efface the results of the
council. The harsh measures against the Arians then, if insufficient to
account for the reaction, at any rate furnished it with the energy of
personal bitterness and sense of wrong.
(2) The Eusebians and the Court. Until the council of Sardica (i.e. a
short time after the death of Eusebius of Nicomedia), the motive power
of the reaction proceeded from the environment of Eusebius, hoi peri
Eusebion. It should be observed once for all that the term `Eusebians'
is the later and inexact equivalent of the last named Greek phrase,
which (excepting perhaps p. 436) has reference to Eusebius of Nicomedia
only, and not to his namesake of Caesarea. The latter, no doubt, lent
his support to the action of the party, but ought not to suffer in our
estimation from the misfortune of his name. Again, the `Eusebians' are
not a heresy, nor a theological party or school; they are the `ring,'
or personal entourage, of one man, a master of intrigue, who succeeded
in combining a very large number of men of very different opinions in
more or less close association for common ecclesiastical action. The
`Eusebians' sensu latiori are the majority of Asiatic bishops who were
in reaction against the council and its leaders; in the stricter sense
the term denotes the pure Arians like Eusebius, Theognis, and the rest,
and those `political Arians' who without settled adherence to Arian
principles, were, for all practical purposes, hand in glove with
Eusebius and his fellows. To the former class emphatically belong
Valens and Ursacius, whose recantation in 347 is the solitary and
insufficient foundation for the sweeping generalisation of Socrates
(ii. 37), that they `always inclined to the party in power,' and
George, the presbyter of Alexandria, afterwards bishop of the Syrian
Laodicea, who, although he went through a phase of `conservatism,'
357-359, began and ended (Gwatkin, pp. 181-183) as an Arian, pure and
simple. Among `political Arians' of this period Eusebius of Caesarea is
the chief. He was not, as we have said above, an Arian theologically,
yet whatever allowances may be made for his conduct during this period
(D.C.B., ii. 315, 316) it tended all in one direction. But on the
whole, political Arianism is more abundantly exemplified in the
Homoeans of the next generation, whose activity begins about the time
of the death of Constans. The Eusebians proper were political indeed ei
tines kai alloi, but their essential Arianism is the one element of
principle about them [36] . Above all, the employment of the term
`Semi-Arians' as a synonym for Eusebians, or indeed as a designation of
any party at this period, is to be strongly deprecated. It is the
(possibly somewhat misleading, but reasonable and accepted) term for
the younger generation of convinced `conservatives,' whom we find in
the sixth decade of the century becoming conscious of their essential
difference in principle from the Arians, whether political or pure, and
feeling their way toward fusion with the Nicenes. These are a definite
party, with a definite theological position, to which nothing in the
earlier period exactly corresponds. The Eusebians proper were not
semi-, but real Arians. Eusebius of Caesarea and the Asiatic
conservatives are the predecessors of the semi-Arians, but their
position is not quite the same. Reserving them for a moment, we must
complete our account of the Eusebians proper. Their nucleus consisted
of the able and influential circle of `Lucianists;' it has been
remarked by an unprejudiced observer that, so far as we know, not one
of them was eminent as a religious character (Harnack, ii. 185); their
strength was in fixity of policy and in ecclesiastical intrigue; and
their battery was the imperial court. Within three years of the
Council, Constantine had begun to waver, not in his resolution to
maintain the Nicene Creed, that he never relaxed, but in his sternness
toward its known opponents. His policy was dictated by the desire for
unity: he was made to feel the lurking dissatisfaction of the bishops
of Asia, perhaps as his anger was softened by time he missed the
ability and ready counsel of the extruded bishop of his residential
city. An Arian presbyter (`Eustathius' or `Eutokius'?), who was a kind
of chaplain to Constantia, sister of Constantine and widow of Licinius,
is said to have kept the subject before the Emperor's mind after her
death (in 328, see Socr. i. 25). At last, as we have seen, first
Eusebius and Theognis were recalled, then Arius himself was pardoned
upon his general assurance of agreement with the faith of the Synod.
The atmosphere of a court is seldom favourable to a high standard of
moral or religious principle; and the place-hunters and hangers-on of
the imperial courts of these days were an exceptionally worthless crew
(see Gwatkin, p. 60, 100, 234). It is a tribute to the Nicene cause
that their influence was steadily on the other side, and to the
character of Constantine that he was able throughout the greater part
of the period to resist it, at any rate as far as Athanasius was
concerned. But on the whole the court was the centre whence the webs of
Eusebian intrigue extended to Egypt, Antioch, and many other obscurer
centres of attack.
The influences outside the Church were less directly operative in the
campaign, but such as they were they served the Eusebian plans. The
expulsion of a powerful bishop from the midst of a loyal flock was
greatly assisted by the co-operation of a friendly mob; and Jews (pp.
94, 296), and heathen alike were willing to aid the Arian cause. The
army, the civil service, education, the life of society were still
largely heathen; the inevitable influx of heathen into the Church, now
that the empire had become Christian, brought with it multitudes to
whom Arianism was a more intelligible creed than that of Nicaea; the
influence of the philosophers was a serious factor, they might well
welcome Arianism as a `Selbstersetzung des Christentums.' This is not
inconsistent with the instances of persecution of heathenism by Arian
bishops, and of savage heathen reprisals, associated with the names of
George of Alexandria, Patrophilus, Mark of Arethusa, and others. (For a
fuller discussion, with references, see Gwatkin, pp. 53-59.)
(3.) The Ecclesiastical Conservatives. Something has already been said
in more than one connection to explain how it came to pass that the
very provinces whose bishops made up the large numerical majority at
Nicaea, also furnished the numbers which swelled the ranks of the
Eusebians at Tyre, Antioch, and Philippopolis. The actual men were, of
course, in many cases [37] changed in the course of years, but the sees
were the same, and there is ample evidence that the staunch Nicene
party were in a hopeless minority in Asia Minor [38] and but little
stronger in Syria. The indefiniteness of this mass of episcopal opinion
justifies the title `Conservative.' In adopting it freely, we must not
forget, what the whole foregoing account has gone to shew, that their
conservatism was of the empirical or short-sighted kind, prone to
acquiesce in things as they are, hard to arouse to a sense of a great
crisis, reluctant to step out of its groove. If by conservatism we mean
action which really tends to preserve the vital strength of an
institution, then Athanasius and the leaders of Nicaea were the only
conservatives. But it is not an unknown thing for vulgar conservatism
to take alarm at the clear grasp of principles and facts which alone
can carry the State over a great crisis, and by wrapping itself up in
its prejudices to play into the hands of anarchy. Common men do not
easily rise to the level of mighty issues. Where Demosthenes saw the
crisis of his nation's destiny, AEschines saw materials for a personal
impeachment of his rival. In the anti-Nicene reaction the want of
clearness of thought coincided with the fatal readiness to magnify
personal issues. Here was the opportunity of the Arian leaders: a
confused succession of personal skirmishes, in which the mass of men
saw no religious principle, nor any combined purpose (Soc. i. 13,
nuktomachias te ouden apeiche ta ginomena) was conducted from
headquarters with a fixed steady aim. But their machinations would have
been fruitless had the mass of the bishops been really in sympathy with
the council to which they were still by their own action committed.
`Arian hatred of the council would have been powerless if it had not
rested on a formidable mass of conservative discontent: while the
conservative discontent might have died away if the court had not
supplied it with the means of action' (Gwatkin, p. 61. He explains the
policy of the court by the religious sympathies of Asia Minor [39] and
its political importance, pp. 90-91.) But the authority of the council
remained unchallenged during the lifetime of Constantine, and no Arian
raised his voice against it. One doctrinal controversy there was, of
subordinate importance, but of a kind to rivet the conservatives to
their attitude of sullen reaction.
It follows from what has been said of the influence of Origen in
moulding the current theology of the Eastern Church, that the one
theological principle which was most vividly and generally grasped was
the horror of Monarchian and especially of `Sabellian' teaching. Now in
replying to Asterius the spokesman of early Arianism, no less a person
than Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra (Angora) in Galatia, and one of the
principal leaders of Nicaea, had laid himself open to this charge. It
was brought with zeal and learning (in 336) in two successive works by
Eusebius of Caesarea, which, with Ath., Orat. iv. are our principal
source of information as to the tenets of Marcellus (see D.C.B. ii.
341, sq., Zahn Marcellus 99 sqq., fragments collected by Rettberg
Marcelliana). On the other hand he was uniformly supported by the
Nicene party, and especially by Athanasius and the Roman Church. His
book was examined at Sardica, and on somewhat ex parte grounds (p. 125)
pronounced innocent: a personal estrangement from Athanasius shortly
after (Hilar. Fragm. ii. 21, 23) on account of certain `ambiguae
praedicationes eius, in quam Photinus erupit, doctrinae,' did not
amount to a formal breach of communion (he is mentioned 14 years later
as an exiled Nicene bishop, pp. 256, 271), nor did the anxious
questioning of Epiphanius (see Haer. 72. 4.) succeed in extracting from
the then aged Athanasius more than a significant smile. He refuses to
condemn him, and in arguing against opinions which appear to be his, he
refrains from mentioning the name even of Photinus [40] . It may be
well therefore to sketch in a few touches what we know of the system of
Marcellus, in order that we may appreciate the relative right of
Eusebius in attacking, and of Athanasius and the Romans in supporting
him. Marcellus is a representative of the traditional theology of Asia
Minor, as we find it in Ignatius and Irenaeus (see above, pp.
xxii.-xxiv., xxvi. fin.), and is independent of any influence of, or
rather in conscious reaction against, Origenism. We cannot prove that
he had studied either Ignatius or Irenaeus, but we find the doctrine of
anakephalaiosis with reference to Creation and the Incarnation, and the
Ignatian thought of the Divine Silence, and a general unmistakeable
affinity (cf. Zahn 236-244). Marcellus `appeals from Origen to S.
John.' He begins with the idea of Sonship, as Arius and the Nicene
Council had done. Perceiving that on the one hand Arians and Origenists
alike were led by the idea of Sonship as dependent on paternal will to
infer the inferiority of the Son to the Father, and in the more extreme
case to deny His coeternity, feeling on the other hand (with Irenaeus
II. xxviii. 6) our inability to find an idea to correspond with the
relation implied in the eternal Sonship, he turns to the first chapter
of S. John as the classic passage for the pre-existent nature of
Christ. He finds that before the Incarnation the Saviour is spoken of
as Logos only: accordingly all other designations, even that of Son,
must be reserved for the Incarnate. Moreover (Joh. i. 1) the Word is
strictly coeternal, and no name implying an act (such as gennesis) can
express the relation of the Word to God. But in view of the Divine
Purpose of Creation and Redemption (for the latter is involved in the
former by the doctrine of anakephalaiosis) there is a process, a
stirring within the divine Monad. The Word which is potentially
(dunamei) eternally latent in God proceeds forth in Actuality (energei&
139;), yet without ceasing to be potentially in God as well. In this
energeia drastike, to which the word gennesis may be applied, begins
the great drama of the Universe which rises to the height of the
Incarnation, and which, after the Economy is completed, and fallen man
restored (and more than restored) to the Sonship of God which he had
lost, ends in the return of the Logos to the Father, the handing over
of His Kingdom by the Son, that God may be all in all.
What strikes one throughout the scheme is the intense difficulty caused
to Marcellus by the unsolved problem which underlies the whole theology
of the Nicene leaders, the problem of personality. The Manhood of
Christ was to Marcellus per se non-personal. The seat of its
personality was the indwelling Logos. But in what sense was the Logos
itself personal? Here Marcellus loses his footing: in what sense can
any idea of personality attach to a merely potential existence? Again,
if it was only in the energeia drastike that the personality of the
Word was realised, and this only reached its fulness in the Incarnation
of Christ, was the transition difficult to the plain assertion that the
personality of the Son, or of the Word, originated with the
Incarnation? But if this were not so, and if the Person of the Word was
to recede at the consummation of all things into the Unity of the
Godhead, what was to become of the Nature He had assumed? That it too
could merge into a potential existence within the Godhead was of course
impossible; what then was its destiny? The answer of Marcellus was
simple: he did not know (Zahn, 179); for Scripture taught nothing
beyond 1 Cor. xv. 28.
We now perceive the subtle difference between Marcellus and Athanasius.
Neither of them could formulate the idea of Personality in the Holy
Trinity. But Athanasius, apparently on the basis of a more thorough
intelligence of Scripture (for Marcellus, though a devout, was a
partial and somewhat ignorant biblical theologian), felt what Marcellus
did not, the steady inherent personal distinctness of the Father and
the Son. Accordingly, while Athanasius laid down and adhered to the
doctrine of eternal gennesis, Marcellus involved himself in the
mystical and confused idea of a divine platusmos and sustole. Moreover,
while Athanasius was clearsighted in his apprehension of the problem of
the day, Marcellus was after all merely conservative: he went behind
the conservatism of the Origenists,--behind even that of the West,
where Tertullian had left a sharper sense of personal distinction in
the Godhead,--to an archaic conservatism akin to the `naive modalism'
of the early Church; upon this he engrafted reflexion, in part that of
the old Asiatic theology, in part his own. As the result, his faith was
such as Athanasius could not but recognise as sincere; but in his
attempt to give it theological expression he split upon the rocks of
Personality, of Eschatology, of the divine immutability. His theology
was an honest and interesting but mistaken attempt to grapple with a
problem before he understood another which lay at its base. In doing so
he exposed himself justly to attack; but we may with Athanasius, while
acknowledging this, retain a kindly sympathy for this veteran ally of
many confessors and sturdy opponent of the alliance between science and
theology.
The feeling against Marcellus might have been less strong, at any rate
it would have had less show of reason, but for the fact that he was the
teacher of Photinus. This person became bishop of Sirmium between 330
and 340, gave great offence by his teaching, and was deposed by the
Arian party ineffectually in 347, finally in 351. After his expulsion
he occupied himself with writing books in Greek and in Latin, including
a work `against all heresies,' in which he expounded his own (Socr. ii.
30). None of his works have survived, and our information is very
scanty (Zahn, Marc. 189-196 is the best account), but he seems to have
solved the central difficulty of Marcellus by placing the seat of the
Personality of Christ in His Human Soul. How much of the system of his
master he retained is uncertain, but the result was in substance pure
Unitarianism. It is instructive to observe that even Photinus was
passively supported for a time by the Nicenes. He was apparently (Hil.
Fr. ii. 19, sqq.) condemned at a council at Milan in 345, but not at
Rome till 380. Athanasius (pp. 444-447) abstains from mentioning his
name although he refutes his opinions; once only he mentions him as a
heretic, and with apparent reluctance (c. Apoll. ii. 19, tou legomenou
photeinou). The first [41] condemnation of him on the Nicene side in
the East is by Paulinus of Antioch in 362 (p. 486). On the other hand
the Eusebians eagerly caught at so irresistible a weapon. Again and
again they hurled anathemas at Photinus, at first simply identifying
him with Marcellus, but afterwards with full appreciation of his
position. And even to the last the new Nicene party in Asia were
aggrieved at the refusal of the old Nicenes at Alexandria and Rome to
anathematise the master of such a heretic. Photinus was the scandal of
Marcellus, Marcellus of the Council of Nicaea.
__________________________________________________________________
[14] . p. 123) is very delicate: both ideas are covered by `Dasein'.
The two forms of Monarchianism are related exactly as the Catholic
doctrine of the Trinity is to the Nestorian.
[15] . p. 608), and Cleomenes. Praxeas arrived in Rome under Victor (or
earlier, Harnack, p. 610), and combined strong opposition to Montanism,
with equally strong modalism in his theology. In both respects his
influence told upon the heads of the Church. Montanism was expelled,
Modalism tolerated, Theodotus excommunicated; `Duo negotia diaboli
Praxeas Romae procuravit: prophetiam expulit et haeresin intulit:
Paracletum fugavit et Patrem crucifixit'. (Tert.) `Praxeas haeresin
introduxit quam Victor[inus] (perhaps a confusion with Zephyrinus)
corroborare curavit' (`Tertullian' adv. Haer.)
[16] This point is still in debate. Against it, see Lightfoot, S.
Clement of Rome (ed. 1890), for it, Doellinger Hipp. and Call., and
Neumann, Der Roem. Staat u. d. Allg. Kirche (Leipz. 1890).
[17] But only at Aquileia was the rule of faith adapted by the
insertion of impassibilis.
[18] See Newman's note Ar. p. 186, where the additions in brackets
seriously modify his statement in the text. Also cf. infr. ch. iv. S:3,
and Bigg, p. 179, note 2.
[19] Cels. iii. 34, cf. Alexander's mesiteuousa phusis monogenes. But
observe that the passage insisted on by Shedd, 294, heteros kat' ousian
kai hupokeimenon ho hui& 232;s tou patros, does not bear the sense he
extracts from it. ousia here is not `essence' but `hypostasis'.
[20] The formula ktisma ho hui& 231;s is ascribed to Origen by the
anti-Chalcedonists of the sixth century, but is probably a
`consequenz-macherei' from the above; see Caspari Alte u. N. Quellen,
p. 60, note. But ktisma was sometimes applied to the Son in a vague
sense, on the ground of Prov. viii. 22, a text not used in this way by
Origen.
[21] Compare the strong Origenist rejection of Chiliasm, the
spiritualism of Origen as contrasted with the realism of Asia Minor,
the Asiatic origin of Roman Monarchianism, of Montanism.
[22] The position of Eusebius of Caesarea is at the `extreme left' of
the Origenist body. (`A reflex of the unsolved problems of the Church
of that time,' Dorner.) It is as though Dionysius instead of
withdrawing and modifying his incriminated statements, had involved
them in a haze of explanations and biblical phrases which left them
where they were. But this is not so much Arianism as confusion. `All is
hollow and empty, precarious and ambiguous. With a vast apparatus of
biblical expressions and the use of every possible formula, Monotheism
is indeed maintained, but practically a created subordinate God is
inserted between God and mankind' (Harnack, p. 648). See also Dorner,
Lehre der Pers. Chr. Pt. 1, pp. 793-798. The language quoted by Ath.
below, p. 459, was doubtless meant by Eusebius in an Origenist sense.
[23] The theological genesis of Paul's system is obscure. The theory of
Newman that he was under strong Jewish influences is largely based upon
the late and apparently quite erroneous tradition that his patroness
Zenobia was a Jewess; see p. 296, note 9^a, and Gwatkin, p. 57, and
note 3. Harnack regards him as the representative of `archaic'
East-Syrian adoptionism such as pervades the `Discussion of Archelaus
with Manes;' see Routh, Rell. v. especially pp. 178-184. But Paul would
not have spoken of Mary as `Dei Genetrix,' p. 128; I cannot see more in
these `Acta' than a naive adoptionism homologous to the `naive
modalism' of much early Christian language, but like it not
representative of the entire view of those who use it; we must also
note that the statements of `Archelaus' are coloured by reaction
against the docetism of `Manes;' but Paul may well have taken up this
naive adoptionism, and, by strict Aristotelian logic, developed it as
the exclusive basis of his system. Whether Paul's use of the idea of
the Logos betrays the faintest influence of Origen is to me, at least,
extremely uncertain.
[24] aposunagogos emeinen, Alex. Alexand. in Thdt.; the objections of
Gwatkin, p. 18, note, are generously meant rather than convincing: the
`creed of Lucian' is not usable without discrimination for Lucian's
position: see discussion by Caspari A.u.N.Q. p. 42, note.
[25] . 598, ii. 183 sqq. must, I think, convince any open mind of the
fact. Consult his article on Lucian in Herzog^2. viii. 767 (the best
investigation), also Neander H. E. ii. 198, iv. 108; Moeller K.G. i.
226, D.C.B. iii. 748; Koelling, vol. 1, pp. 27-31, who makes the
mistake of taking the `Lucianic creed' as his point of departure.
[26] This is ascribed to Lucian by Epiph. Ancor. 33, and there is no
reason whatever to doubt it. The tenet was part of the Arian system
from the first, and was attacked already by Eustathius, Fragm. apud
Thdt. Dial. iii., but often overlooked, e.g. even by Athanasius in his
writings before 362, but see p. 352, note 5. It came to the front in
the system of Eunomius, and was much discussed in the last decade of
the life of S. Athan. The system of Apollinaris was different. (See pp.
570, note 1, 575, note 1.)
[27] aparallakton eikona, which an Arian would be prepared to admit as
the result of the prokope. (See below, S:6, on the Creeds of 341). I
cannot regard Asterius as a `semi-Arian;' the only grounds for it are
the above phrase and the statement (Lib. Syn.) that he attended the
Council of 341 with the Conservative Dianius. But Asterius was as ready
to compromise with conservatism as he had formerly been with
heathenism, and his anxiety for a bishopric would carry him to even
greater lengths in order to attend a council under influential
patronage.
[28] The letter of Alexander to his namesake of Byzantium in Thdt. i.
4, cannot be exempted from this generalisation.
[29] They appear to have comprised the Arian appeal to Scripture of
which (considering the Biblical learning of Lucian and what we hear of
the training of Aetius, to say nothing of the exegetical chair held by
Arius at Alxa.) their use must be pronounced meagre and superficial. In
the O.T. they harped upon three texts, Deut. vi. 4 (Monotheism), Ps.
xlv. 8 (Adoptionism), and Prov. viii. 22, LXX. (the Word a Creature).
In the N.T. they appeal for Monotheism (in their sense) to Luke xviii.
19, John xvii. 3; The Son a Creature, Acts ii. 36, 1 Cor. i. 24, Col.
i. 15, Heb. iii. 2; Adoptionism, Matt. xii. 28; prokope, Luke ii. 52;
also Matt. xxvi. 41, Phil. ii. 6, sq., Heb. i. 4; The Son treptos, &c.,
Mark xiii. 32, John xiii. 31, xi. 34; inferior to the Father, John xiv.
48, Matt. xxvii. 46, also xi. 27 a, xxvi. 39, xxviii. 18, John xii. 27,
and 1 Cor. xv. 28 (cf. pp. 407, sq.). In this respect Origen is
immeasurably superior.
[30] They are regarded by Athan., a generation after they were written,
as the representative statement of `the case' for Arianism (pp. 459
sq.; 324 sqq., 361, 363, 368, &c., from which passages and Eus. c.
Marcell. a fragmentary restoration might be attempted). For what is
known of his history (not in D.C.B.) see Gwatkin, p. 72, note; for his
doctrinal position see above, p. xxviii.
[31] A theology which aims at consistency must borrow a method, a
philosophy, from outside the sphere of religion. The most developed
system of Catholic theology, that of S. Thomas Aquinas, borrows its
method from the same source as did Arius,--Aristotle.
[32] This illustrates the famous paradox of Cardinal Newman
(Development, ed. 1878, pp. 142-4), that the condemnation of Arian
Christology left vacant a throne in heaven which the medieval Church
legitimately filled with the Blessed Virgin; that the Nicene
condemnation of the Arian theology is the vindication of the medieval;
that `the votaries of Mary do not exceed the true faith, unless the
blasphemers of her Son come up to it.' But the question here was one of
worship, not of theology. The Arians worshipped Christ, whom they
regarded as a created being: therefore, the Nicene fathers urge with
one consent, they were idolaters. The idea of a created being capable
of being worshipped was an Arian legacy to the Church, no doubt. But
this very idea, to Athanasius and Hilary, marked them out as idolaters.
It was reserved for later times `to find a subject for an Arian
predicate' (Mozley). The argument is an astonishing admission.
[33] , pp. 185 to 193, and his notes and excursus embodied in this
volume, especially that appended to Epist. Euseb. p. 77; Zahn's
Marcellus, pp. 11-27 (also p. 87), perhaps the best modern discussion;
Harnack ii. pp. 228-230, and note 3; Loofs S:S:32-34; Shedd i. 362-372;
and the Introduction to the Tomus and ad Afros in this volume pp. 482,
488. The use of ousia in Aristotle is tabulated by Bonitz in the fifth
volume (index) to the Berlin edition: its use in Plato is less frequent
and less technical, but see the brief account in Liddell and Scott.
[34] Gregory Thaumaturgus was the great Origenist influence in northern
Asia Minor: the Cappadocian fathers were also influenced in the
direction of the homoousion by Apollinarius: see the correspondence
between Basil and the latter, Bas. Epp. 8, 9, edited by Draeseke in
Ztschr. fuer K.G. viii. 85 sqq. Apollinarius was of course equally
opposed to Arianism and to Origen: see also p. 449 sq.
[35] They were probably not yet bishops at this time, as they were
young bishops at Tyre in 335; evidently they are `the fairest of God's
youthful flock' (!) alluded to in Eus. V. C. iv. 43.
[36] At the same time Arius himself and all his fellow Lucianists
(unlike the obscure Secundus and Theonas, and the later generation of
Eunomians) are open to the charge of subserviency at a pinch.
[37] Alexander of Thessalonica had been at Nicaea, Dianius of Caes.
Capp. had not. The two are typical of the better sort of conservatives.
[38] For Asia besides Marcellus we have only Diodorus of Tenedos, not
at Nicaea, but expelled soon after 330, p. 271; signs at Sardica, p.
147, banished again p. 276, not in D.C.B.; for Syria the names p. 271,
cf. p. 256.
[39] Always an important factor in the stability of the Byzantine
throne, see, on Justinian, D.C.B. iii. 545a, sub fin. Newman, Arians,
Appendix v., brings no conclusive proof of strong Nicene feeling among
the masses of the laity in this region. But `the people' in Galatia,
according to Basil, remained devoted to Marcellus.
[40] At the same time he adopts a certain reserve in speaking of
Marcellus, and his name is absent from the roll of the orthodox, p.
227.
[41] But he is condemned by name in the alleged Coptic Acts of the
Council of 362; moreover Eustathius appears to have written against
him, see Cowper, Syr. Misc. 60.
__________________________________________________________________
S:4. Early years of his Episcopate. The Anti-Nicene reaction, 328-335.
Athanasius was elected bishop by general consent. Alexander, as we have
seen, had practically nominated him, and a large body of popular
opinion clamoured for his election, as "the good, the pious, a
Christian, one of the ascetics, a genuine bishop." The actual election
appears (p. 103) to have rested with the bishops of Egypt and Libya,
who testify ten years later (ib.) that the majority [42] of their body
elected him.
The see to which he succeeded was the second in Christendom; it had
long enjoyed direct jurisdiction over the bishops of all Egypt and
Libya (p. 178, Socr. i. 9), the bishops of Alexandria enjoyed the
position and power of secular potentates, although in a less degree
than those of Rome, or of Alexandria itself in later times (Socr. vii.
11, cf. 7). The bishop had command of large funds, which, however, were
fully claimed for church purposes and alms (see p. 105). In particular,
the `pope' of Alexandria had practically in his hands the appointment
to the sees in his province: accordingly, as years go on, we find
Arianism disappear entirely from the Egyptian episcopate. The bishop of
Alexandria, like many other influential bishops in antiquity, was
commonly spoken of as Papa or Pope; he also was known as the
'Archiepiskopos, as we learn from a contemporary inscription (see p.
564, note 2).
The earliest biographer of Athanasius (see Introduction to Hist. Aceph.
p. 495, 496, below) divides the episcopate of Athanasius into periods
of `quiet' and of exile, marking the periods of each according to what
appears to be the reckoning officially preserved in the episcopal
archives. His first period of `quiet' lasts from June 8, 328, to July
11, 335 (departure for Tyre), a period of seven years, one month and
three days; it is thus the third longest period of undisturbed
occupancy of his see, the next being the last from his final
restoration under Valens till his death (seven years and three months),
and the longest of all being the golden decade (346-356, really nine
years and a quarter) preceding the Third Exile.
Of the internal events of this first septennium of quiet we know little
that is definite. At the end of it, however, we find him supported by
the solid body of the Egyptian episcopate: and at the beginning one of
his first steps (autumn of 329) was to make a visitation of the
province `to strengthen the churches of God' (Vit. Pach., cf. also
Epiph. Haer. 68. 6). We learn from the life of Pachomius (on which see
below, p. 189), that he penetrated as far as Syene on the Ethiopian
frontier, and, as he passed Tabenne, was welcomed by Pachomius and his
monks with great rejoicings. At the request of Saprion, bishop of
Tentyra, in whose diocese the island was, he appears to have ordained
Pachomius to the presbyterate, thus constituting his community a
self-contained body (Acta SS. Mai. iii. 30, Appx.). The supposed
consecration of Frumentius at this time must be reserved, in accordance
with preponderating evidence, for S:7.
Meanwhile, the anti-Nicene reaction was being skilfully fostered by the
strategy of Eusebius of Nicomedia. Within a year of the election of
Athanasius we find him restored to imperial favour, and at once the
assault upon the Nicene strongholds begins. The controversy between
Marcellus and Eusebius of Caesarea (supra, p. xxxv.), appears to have
begun later, but the latter was already, in conjunction with his friend
Paulinus of Tyre and with Patrophilus, at theological war with
Eustathius of Antioch. A synod of Arian and reactionary bishops
assembled at Antioch, and deposed the latter on the two charges
(equally de rigueur in such cases) of Sabellianism and immorality.
Backed by a complaint (possibly founded on fact) that he had
indiscreetly repeated a current tale (p. 271, n. 2) concerning Helena,
the Emperor's mother, the sentence of the council had the full support
of the civil arm, and Eustathius lost his see for ever. Although he
lived till about 358, no council ventured to `restore' him (discussed
by Gwatkin, pp. 73, 74, note), but the Christian public of Antioch
violently resented his extrusion, and a compact body of the
Church-people steadily refused to recognise any other bishop during,
and even after, his lifetime (infr. p. 481). Asclepas of Gaza was next
disposed of, then Eutropius of Hadrianople, and many others (names, p.
271). Meanwhile everything was done to foment disturbance in Egypt. The
Meletians had been stirring ever since the death of Alexander, and
Eusebius was not slow to use such an opportune lever. The object in
view was two-fold, the restoration of Arius to communion in Alexandria,
without which the moral triumph of the reaction would be unachieved,
and the extrusion of Athanasius. Accordingly a fusion took place [43]
between the Arians of Egypt and the Meletians, now under the leadership
of John `Arcaph,' whom Meletius on his death-bed had consecrated as his
successor against the terms of the Nicene settlement. At any rate, the
Meletians were attached to the cause by Eusebius by means of large
promises. At the same time (330?) Eusebius, having obtained the recall
of Arius from exile, wrote to Athanasius requesting him to admit Arius
and his friends (Euzoius, Pistus, &c.) to communion; the bearer of the
letter conveyed the assurance of dire consequences in the event of his
non-compliance (p. 131). Athanasius refused to admit persons convicted
of heresy at the Ecumenical Council. This brought a letter from the
Emperor himself, threatening deposition by an imperial mandate unless
he would freely admit `all who should desire it;'--a somewhat sweeping
demand. Athanasius replied firmly and, it would seem, with effect, that
`the Christ-opposing heresy had no fellowship with the Catholic
Church.' Thereupon Eusebius played what proved to be the first card of
a long suit. A deputation of three Meletian bishops arrived at the
Palace with a complaint. Athanasius had, they said, levied a precept
(kanon) upon Egypt for Church expenses: they had been among the first
victims of the exaction. Luckily, two Presbyters of Alexandria were at
court, and were able to disprove the charge, which accordingly drew a
stern rebuke upon its authors. Constantine wrote to Athanasius
summoning him to an audience, probably with the intention of satisfying
himself as to other miscellaneous accusations which were busily
ventilated at this date, e.g., that he was too young (cf. p. 133) when
elected bishop, that he had governed with arrogance and violence, that
he used magic (this charge was again made 30 years later, Ammian. xv.
7), and subsidised treasonable persons. Athanasius accordingly started
for court, as it would seem, late in 330 (see Letter 3, p. 512 sq.).
His visit was successful, but matters went slowly; Athanasius himself
had an illness, which lasted a long time, and upon his recovery the
winter storms made communication impossible. Accordingly, his Easter
letter for 332 (Letter 4) was sent unusually late--apparently in the
first navigable weather of that year--and Athanasius reached home,
after more than a year's absence [44] , when Lent was already half
over.
The principal matters investigated by Constantine during the visit of
Athanasius were certain charges made by the three Meletian bishops,
whom Eusebius had detained for the purpose; one of these, the story of
Macarius and the broken chalice, will be given at length presently. All
alike were treated as frivolous, and Athanasius carried home with him a
commendatory letter from Augustus himself. Defeated for the moment, the
puppets of Eusebius matured their accusations, and in a year's time two
highly damaging stories were ripe for an ecclesiastical investigation.
(a) The case of Ischyras. This person had been ordained presbyter by
Colluthus, and his ordination had been, as we have seen (S:2),
pronounced null and void by the Alexandrian Council of 324. In spite of
this he had persisted in carrying on his ministrations at the village
where he lived (Irene Secontaruri, possibly the hamlet `Irene' belonged
to the township of S., there was a presbyter for the township, pp. 133,
145, but none at Irene, p. 106). His place of worship was a cottage
inhabited only by an orphan child; of the few inhabitants of the place,
only seven, and those his own relations, would attend his services.
During a visitation of his diocese, Athanasius, had heard of this from
the presbyter of the township, and had sent Macarius, one of the clergy
who were attending him on his tour (cf. pp. 109, 139), to summon
Ischyras for explanations. Macarius found the poor man ill in bed and
unable to come, but urged his father to dissuade him from his irregular
proceedings. But instead of desisting, Ischyras joined the Meletians.
His first version of the matter appears to have been that Macarius had
used violence, and broken his chalice. The Meletians communicate this
to Eusebius, who eggs them on to get up the case. The story gradually
improves. Ischyras, it now appeared, had been actually celebrating the
Eucharist; Macarius had burst in upon him, and not only broken the
chalice but upset the Holy Table. In this form the tale had been
carried to Constantine when Athanasius was at Nicomedia. The relations
of Ischyras, however, prevailed upon him to recall his statements, and
he presented the Bishop with a written statement that the whole story
was false, and had been extorted from him by violence. Ischyras was
forgiven, but placed under censure, which probably led to his
eventually renewing the charge with increased bitterness. Athanasius
now was accused of personally breaking the chalice, &c. In the letter
of the council of Philippopolis the cottage of Ischyras becomes a
`basilica' which Athanasius had caused to be thrown down.
(b) The case of Arsenius. Arsenius was Meletian bishop of Hypsele (not
in the Meletian catalogue of 327). By a large bribe, as it is stated,
he was induced by John Arcaph to go into hiding among the Meletian
monks of the Thebaid; rumours were quietly set in motion that
Athanasius had had him murdered, and had procured one of his hands for
magical purposes. A hand was circulated purporting to be the very hand
in question. A report of the case, including the last version of the
Ischyras scandal, was sent to Constantine, who, startled by the new
accusation, sent orders to his half-brother, Dalmatius, a high official
at Antioch, to enquire into the case. He appears to have suggested a
council at Caesarea under the presidency of Eusebius, which was to meet
at some time in the year 334 (perusin, p. 141, cf. note 2 there, also
Gwatkin, p. 84 note; the `30 months' of Soz. ii. 25 is an
exaggeration). Athanasius, however, obstinately declined a trial before
a judge whom he regarded as biassed; his refusal bitterly offended the
aged historian. Accordingly the venue was fixed for Tyre in the
succeeding year; a Count Dionysius was to represent the Emperor, and
see that all was conducted fairly, and Athanasius was stringently (p.
137) summoned to attend. Meanwhile a trusted deacon was on the tracks
of the missing man. Arsenius was traced to a `monastery' of Meletian
brethren in the nome of Antaeopolis in Upper Egypt. Pinnes, the
presbyter of the community, got wind of the discovery, and smuggled
Arsenius away down the Nile; presently he was spirited away to Tyre.
The deacon, however, very astutely made a sudden descent upon the
monastery in force, seized Pinnes, carried him to Alexandria, brought
him before the `Duke,' confronted him with the monk who had escorted
Arsenius away, and forced them to confess to the whole plot. As soon as
he was able to do so, Pinnes wrote to John Arcaph, warning him of the
exposure, and suggesting that the charge had better be dropped (p. 135;
the letter is an amusingly naive exhibition of human rascality).
Meanwhile (Socr. i. 29) Arsenius was heard of at an inn in Tyre by the
servant of a magistrate; the latter had him arrested, and informed
Athanasius [45] . Arsenius stoutly denied his identity, but was
recognised by the bishop of Tyre, and at last confessed. The Emperor
was informed and wrote to Athanasius (p. 135), expressing his
indignation at the plot, as also did Alexander, bishop of Thessalonica.
Arsenius made his peace with Athanasius, and in due time succeeded
(according to the Nicene rule) to the sole episcopate of Hypsele (p.
548). John Arcaph even admitted his guilt and renounced his schisms and
was invited to Court (p. 136); but his submission was not permanent.
According to the Apology of Athanasius, all this took place some time
before the council of Tyre; we cannot fix the date, except that it must
have come after the Easter of 332 (see above). It appears most natural,
from the language of Apol. Ar. 71, to fix the exposure of Arsenius not
very long before the summoning of the council of Tyre, but long enough
to allow for the renewed intrigues which led to its being convened. But
this pushes us back behind the intended council of Caesarea in 334; we
seem therefore compelled to keep Arsenius waiting at Tyre from about
333 to the summer of 335.
It must be remembered that the Council of Tyre was merely a parergon to
the great Dedication Meeting at Jerusalem, which was to celebrate the
Tricennalia of Constantine's reign by consecrating his grand church on
Mount Calvary. On their way to Jerusalem the bishops were to despatch
at Tyre their business of quieting the Egyptian troubles [46] (Eus. V.
C. iv. 41). To Tyre accordingly Athanasius repaired. He left Alexandria
on July 11, 335, and was absent, as it proved (according to the
reckoning of the Hist. Aceph., below, p. 496), two years, four months
and eleven days.
__________________________________________________________________
[42] Eager opposition, however, was not lacking. The accounts are
confused, but the statement of the bishops leaves room for a strong
minority of malcontents, who may have elected `Theonas' (was he the
exiled Arian bishop of Marmarica? the electors of `Theonas' in Epiph.
Haer. 68 are Meletians, but there is no Theonas in the Meletian
catalogue of 327; the Arians and Meletians very likely combined; the
latter properly had no votes, but they were not likely to regard this;
see Gwatkin, p. 66, note, Church Quarterly Review. xvi. p. 393). The
protests of the opposition were apparently disregarded and Athanasius
consecrated before the other side considered the question as closed,
(The statement of Epiph. Haer. 69, that the Arians chose one Achillas,
is unsupported.) Athanasius was probably only just thirty years old,
and his opponents did not fail to question whether he were not under
the canonical age.
[43] Soz. ii. 21, 22: the account is not very clear; probably there was
a gradual approximation, the first step being the Meletian support of
the Arian Theonas against Athanasius in 328, if the view suggested
above is correct.
[44] Fest. Ind. iii. The Index is of course right in giving 330-331 as
the year of his departure for Nicomedia, but makes a slip in assigning
his absence as the cause of delay in the despatch of the Letter for
that year instead of for the following one. See p. 512 note 1.
[45] Who perhaps visited Tyre himself at this time, according to an
allusion in Hist. Aceph. xii., see Sievers, Einl. p. 131.
[46] The conduct of Constantine will appear fairly consistent if we
suppose that after ordering the investigation at Antioch, supr. (332?)
he received proofs (333) of the falsehood of the Arsenius story, but
that, finding that the complaints were constantly renewed, and that
Ath. refused to meet his accusers at Caesarea, he yielded to the
suggestion (Eus. Nic.?) that the assembly of so many bishops at
Jerusalem might be a valuable opportunity for finally dealing with so
troublesome a matter. He desired peace, and had not lost his faith in
councils. Hefele follows Socrates i. 29, in his error as to the date of
the discovery of Arsenius (E. Tr. ii. 21).
__________________________________________________________________
S:5. The Council of Tyre and First Exile of Athanasius, 335-337.
Many of the bishops who were making their way to the great festival met
at Tyre. The Arian element was very strong. Eusebius of Nicomedia,
Narcissus, Maris, Theognis, Patrophilus, George, now bishop of
Laodicea, are all familiar names. Ursacius and Valens, `young [47] both
in years and in mind' make their first entrance on the stage of
ecclesiastical intrigue; Eusebius of Caesarea headed a large body of
`conservative' malcontents: in the total number of perhaps 150, the
friends of Athanasius were outnumbered by nearly two to one. (See
Gwatkin's note, p. 85, Hefele ii. 17, Eng Tra.) Eusebius of Caesarea
took the chair (yet see D.C.B. ii. 316^b). The proceedings of the
Council were heated and disorderly; promiscuous accusations were flung
from side to side; the president himself was charged by an excited
Egyptian Confessor with having sacrificed to idols (p. 104, n. 2),
while against Athanasius every possible charge was raked up. The
principal one was that of harshness and violence. Callinicus, bishop of
Pelusium, according to a later story [48] , had taken up the cause of
Ischyras, and been deposed by Athanasius in consequence. A certain Mark
had been appointed to supersede him, and he had been subjected to
military force. Certain Meletian bishops who had refused to communicate
with Athanasius on account of his irregular election, had been beaten
and imprisoned. A document from Alexandria testified that the Churches
were emptied on account of the strong popular feeling against these
proceedings. The number of witnesses, and the evident readiness of the
majority of bishops to believe the worst against him, inspired
Athanasius with profound misgivings as to his chance of obtaining
justice. He had in vain objected to certain bishops as biassed judges;
when it was decided to investigate the case of Ischyras on the spot,
the commission of six was chosen from among the very persons challenged
(p. 138). Equally unsuccessful was the protest of the Egyptian bishops
against the credit of the Meletian witnesses (p. 140). But on one point
the accusers walked into a trap. The `hand of Arsenius' was produced,
and naturally made a deep impression (Thdt. H. E. i. 30). But
Athanasius was ready. `Did you know Arsenius personally?' `Yes' is the
eager reply from many sides. Promptly Arsenius is ushered in alive,
wrapped up in a cloak. The Synod expected an explanation of the way he
had lost his hand. Athanasius turned up his cloak and shewed that one
hand at least was there. There was a moment of suspense, artfully
managed by Athanasius. Then the other hand was exposed, and the
accusers were requested to point out whence the third had been cut off
(Socr. i. 29). This was too much for John Arcaph, who precipitately
fled (so Socr., he seems to have gone to Egypt with the couriers
mentioned below, cf. p. 142). But the Eusebians were made of sterner
stuff: the whole affair was a piece of magic; or there had been an
attempt to murder Arsenius, who had hid himself from fear. At any rate
Athanasius must not be allowed to clear himself so easily. Accordingly,
in order partly to gain time and partly to get up a more satisfactory
case, they prevailed on Count Dionysius, in the face of strong
remonstrances from Athanasius (p. 138), to despatch a commission of
enquiry to the Mareotis in order to ascertain the real facts about
Ischyras. The nature of the commission may be inferred, firstly, from
its composition, four strong Arians and two (Theodore of Heraclea, and
Macedonius of Mopsuestia) reactionaries; secondly, from the fact that
they took Ischyras with them, but left Macarius behind in custody;
thirdly, from the fact that couriers were sent to Egypt with four days'
start, and with an urgent message to the Meletians to collect at once
in as large numbers as possible at Irene, so as to impress the
commissioners with the importance of the Meletian community at that
place. The Egyptian bishops present at Tyre handed in strongly-worded
protests to the Council, and to Count Dionysius, who received also a
weighty remonstrance from the respected Alexander, Bishop of
Thessalonica. This drew forth from him an energetic protest to the
Eusebians (p. 142 sq.) against the composition of the commission. His
protest was not, however, enforced in any practical way, and the
Egyptians thereupon appealed to the Emperor (ib.). Athanasius himself
escaped in an open boat with four of his bishops, and found his way to
Constantinople, where he arrived on October 30. The Emperor was out
riding when he was accosted by one of a group of pedestrians. He could
scarcely credit his eyes and the assurance of his attendants that the
stranger was none other than the culprit of Tyre. Much annoyed at his
appearance, he refused all communication; but the persistency of
Athanasius and the reasonableness of his demand prevailed. The Emperor
wrote to Jerusalem to summon to his presence all who had been at the
Council of Tyre (pp. 105, 145).
Meanwhile the Mareotic Commission had proceeded with its task. Their
report was kept secret, but eventually sent to Julius of Rome, who
handed it over to Athanasius in 339 (p. 143). Their enquiry was carried
on with the aid of Philagrius the prefect, a strong Arian sympathiser,
whose guard pricked the witnesses if they failed to respond to the
hints of the commissioners and the threats of the prefect himself. The
clergy of Alexandria and the Mareotis were excluded from the court, and
catechumens, Jews and heathen, none of whom could properly have been
present on the occasion, were examined as to the interruption of the
eucharistic service by Macarius (p. 119). Even with these precautions
the evidence was not all that could be wished. To begin with, it had
all taken place on an ordinary week-day, when there would be no
Communion (pp. 115, 125, 143); secondly, when Macarius came in Ischyras
was in bed; thirdly, certain witnesses whom Athanasius had been accused
of secreting came forward in evidence of the contrary (p. 107). The
prefect consoled himself by letting loose the violence of the heathen
mob (p. 108) against the `virgins' of the Church. The catholic party
were helpless; all they could do was to protest in writing to the
commission, the council, and the prefect (pp. 138-140. The latter
protest is dated 10th of Thoth, i.e. Sep. 8, 335, Diocletian
leap-year).
The commission returned to Tyre, where the council passed a resolution
(Soz. ii. 25) deposing Athanasius. They then proceeded to Jerusalem for
the Dedication [49] of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Here Arius
with certain others (probably including Euzoius) was received to
communion on the strength of the confession of faith he had presented
to Constantine a few years before, and the assembled bishops drew up a
synodal letter announcing the fact to Egypt and the Church at large
(pp. 144, 460). At this juncture the summons from Constantine arrived.
The terms of it shewed that the Emperor was not disposed to hear more
of the broken chalice or the murdered Arsenius: but the Eusebians were
not at a loss. They advised the bishops to go quietly to their homes,
while five of the inner circle, accompanied by Eusebius of Caesarea,
who had a panegyric to deliver in the imperial presence, responded to
the summons of royalty. They made short work of Athanasius. The whole
farrago of charges examined at Tyre was thrown aside. He had threatened
to starve the paneudaimon patris, the chosen capital of Constantine, by
stopping the grain ships which regularly left Alexandria every autumn.
It was in vain for Athanasius to protest that he had neither the means
nor the power to do anything of the kind. `You are a rich man,' replied
Eusebius of Nicomedia, `and can do whatever you like.' The Emperor was
touched in a sore place [50] . He promptly ordered the banishment of
Athanasius to Treveri, whither he started, as it would seem, on Feb. 5,
336 (pp. 105, 146, 503, note 11). The friends of Athanasius professed
to regard the banishment as an act of imperial clemency, in view of
what might have been treated as a capital matter, involving as it did
the charge of treason (p. 105); and Constantine II., immediately after
his father's death, stated (pp. 146, 272, 288) in a letter (written
before he became Augustus in Sept. 337) that he had been sent to
Treveri merely to keep him out of danger, and that Constantine had been
prevented only by death from carrying out his intention of restoring
him. These charitable constructions need not be rudely ignored; but in
all probability the anxiety to be rid of a cause of disturbance was at
least one motive with the peace-loving Emperor. At any rate the
Eusebians could not obtain the imperial sanction to their proposed
election of a successor (Pistus?) to Athanasius. On his return after
the death of Constantine he found his see waiting for him unoccupied
(Apol. c. Ar. 29, p. 115).
The close of the Tricennalia was made the occasion of a council at
Constantinople (winter 335-336). Marcellus was deposed for heresy and
Basil nominated to the see of Ancyra, Eusebius of Caesarea undertaking
to refute the `new Samosatene.' Other minor depositions were apparently
carried out at the same time, and several Western bishops, including
Protogenes of Sardica, had reason later on to repent of their
signatures to the proceedings (Hil. Fragm. iii.).
Death of Arius. From Jerusalem Arius had gone to Alexandria, but (Soz.
ii. 29) had not succeeded in obtaining admission to the Communion of
the Church there. Accordingly he repaired to the capital about the time
of the Council just mentioned. The Eusebians resolved that here at any
rate he should not be repelled. Arius appeared before the Emperor and
satisfied him by a sworn profession of orthodoxy, and a day was fixed
for his reception to communion. The story of the distress caused to the
aged bishop Alexander is well known. He was heard to pray in the church
that either Arius or himself might be taken away before such an outrage
to the faith should be permitted. As a matter of fact Arius died
suddenly the day before his intended reception. His friends ascribed
his death to magic, those of Alexander to the judgment of God, the
public generally to the effect of excitement on a diseased heart (Soz.
l. c.). Athanasius, while taking the second view, describes the
occurrence with becoming sobriety and reserve (pp. 233, 565). Alexander
himself died very soon after, and Paul was elected in his place (D.C.B.
art. Macedonius (2)), but was soon banished on some unknown charge,
whereupon Eusebius of Nicomedia was translated to the capital see
(between 336 and 340; date uncertain. Cf. D.C.B. ii. 367a).
Of the sojourn of Athanasius at Treveri, the noble home of the Emperors
on the banks of the Mosel, we know few details, but his presence there
appeals to the historic imagination. (See D.C.B. i. 186a.) He cannot
have been there much above a year. He kept the Easter festival,
probably of 336, certainly of 337, in the still unfinished Church (p.
244: the present Cathedral is said to occupy the site of what was then
an Imperial palace: but the main palace is apparently represented by
the `Roman baths).' He was not suffered to want (p. 146): he had
certain Egyptian brethren with him; and found a sympathetic friend in
the good Bishop Maximinus (cf. p. 239). The tenth festal letter, S:1,
preserves a short extract from a letter written from Trier to his
clergy.
Constantine died at Nicomedia, having previously received baptism from
the hands of Eusebius, on Whit-Sunday, May 22, 337. None of his sons
were present, and the will is said to have been entrusted to the Arian
chaplain mentioned above (p. xxxiv). Couriers carried the news to the
three Caesars, and at a very moderate [51] rate of reckoning, it may
have been known at Trier by about June 4. Constantine, as the eldest
son, probably expected more from his father's will than he actually
obtained. At any rate, on June 17 he wrote a letter to the people and
clergy of Alexandria, announcing the restoration of their bishop in
pursuance of an intention of his father's, which only death had cut
short. Constantius meanwhile hastened (from the East, probably Antioch)
to Constantinople (D.C.B. i. 651): he too had expectations, for he was
his father's favourite. The brothers met at Sirmium, and agreed upon a
division of the Empire, Constantius taking the East, Constans Italy and
Illyricum, and Constantine the Gauls and Africa. On Sep. 9 they
formally assumed the title Augustus [52] . Athanasius had apparently
accompanied Constantine to Sirmium, and on his way eastward met
Constantius at Viminacium (p. 240), his first interview with his future
persecutor. He presently reached Constantinople (p. 272), and on his
way southward, at Caesarea in Cappadocia, again met Constantius, who
was hurrying to the Persian frontier. On Nov. 23 he reached Alexandria
amid great rejoicings (pp. 104, 503, Fest. Ind. x.), the clergy
especially `esteeming that the happiest day of their lives.' But the
happiness was marred by tumults (Soz. ii. 2, 5, Hil. Fragm. iii. 8,
Fest. Ind. xi., next year `again'), which were, however, checked by the
civil power, the prefect Theodorus being, apparently, favourable to
Athanasius (pp. 102, 527, note 2). The festal letter for 338 would seem
to have been finished at Alexandria, but the point is not absolutely
clear. Here begins his second period of `quiet,' of one year, four
months and twenty-four days, i.e., from Athyr 27 (Nov. 23), 337, to
Pharmuthi 21 (April 16), 339.
__________________________________________________________________
[47] p. 107: Euseb. V. C. iv. 43, calls them `the fairest of God's
youthful flock.' The Council of Sardica in 343 describes them as
`ungodly and foolish youths,' Hil. Frag. ii., cf. pp. 120, 122.
[48] Soz. ii. 25. But Callinicus was a Meletian all along: pp. 132,
137, 517.
[49] The Greek Church still commemorates this Festival on Sep. 13; the
Chron. Pasch. gives Sep. 17 for the Dedication. But if the Mareotic
Commissioners returned to Tyre, as they certainly did (Soz. l.c.),
these dates are untrustworthy.
[50] The philosopher Sopater had been put to death on a similar charge
a few years before, D.C.B. i. 631.
[51] The courier Palladius, who was considered a marvel, could carry a
message from Nisibis to CP. on horseback in three days, about 250 miles
a day, Socr. vii. 19. At 100 miles a day, i.e. eight miles an hour for
12 1/2 hours out of the 24, the 1,300 miles from Nicomedia to Treveri
would be easily covered by a horseman in the time specified; see Gibbon
quoted p. 115, note 1, and for other examples, Gwatkin, p. 137.
[52] This date is certain (Gwatk., 108, note), but the meeting at
Sirmium may possibly fall in the following summer.
__________________________________________________________________
S:6. Renewal of Troubles. Second Exile. Pistus and Gregory, Culmination
of Eusebian Intrigue. Rome and Sardica. (337-346).
(1). The stay of Athanasius at Alexandria was brief and troubled. The
city was still disturbed by Arian malcontents, who had the sympathy of
Jews and Pagans, and it was reported that the monks, and especially the
famous hermit Antony, were on their side. This impression, however, was
dissipated by the appearance of the great Ascetic himself, who, at the
urgent request of the orthodox (pp. 214 sq., 503), consented to shew
himself for two days in the uncongenial atmosphere of the city. The
mystery and marvellous reputation, which even then surrounded this
much-talked-of character, attracted Christians and heathen alike, in
large numbers, to hear and see him, and, if possible, to derive some
physical benefit from his touch. He denounced Arianism as the worst of
heresies, and was solemnly escorted out of town by the bishop in
person. As an annalist toward the close of the century tells us,
`Antony, the great leader, came to Alexandria, and though he remained
there only two days, shewed himself wonderful in many things, and
healed many. He departed on the third of Messori' (i.e., July 27, 338).
Meanwhile the Eusebians were busy. In the new Emperor Constantius, the
Nicomedian found a willing patron: probably his translation to the See
of Constantinople falls at this time. It was represented to the Emperor
that the restoration of the exiled Bishops in 337, and especially that
of Athanasius, was against all ecclesiastical order. Men deposed by a
Synod of the Church had presumed to return to their sees under the
sanction of the secular authority. This was technically true, but the
proceedings at Tyre were regarded by Athan. as depriving that Synod of
any title to ecclesiastical authority (pp. 104, 271). It is impossible
to accept au pied de la lettre the protests on either side against
state interference with the Church: both parties were willing to use it
on their own side, and to protest against its use by their opponents.
Constantine had summoned [53] the Council of Nicaea, had (Soz. i. 17)
fixed the order of its proceedings, and had enforced its decisions by
civil penalties. The indignant rhetoric of Hist. Ar. 52 (p. 289) might
mutatis nominibus have been word for word the remonstrance of a
Secundus or Theonas against the great Ecumenical Synod of Christendom.
At Tyre, Jerusalem, and CP., the Eusebians had their turn, and again at
Antioch, 338-341. The Council of Sardica relied on the protection of
Constans, that of Philippopolis on Constantius. The reign of the latter
was the period of Arian triumph; that of Theodosius secured authority
to the Catholics. The only consistent opponents of civil intervention
in Church affairs were the Donatists in the West and the Eunomians or
later Arians in the East (with the obscure exception of Secundus and
Theonas, the original Arians cannot claim the compliment paid by
Fialon, p. 115, to their independence). To the Donatists is due the
classical protest against Erastianism, `Quid Imperatori cum
ecclesia'(D.C.B. i. 652). Believing, as the present writer does, that
the Donatist protest expresses a true principle, and that the
subjection of religion to the State is equally mischievous with that of
the State to the Church, it is impossible not to regret these
consequences of the conversion of Constantine. But allowance must be
made for the sanguine expectations with which the astonishing novelty
of a Christian Emperor filled men's minds. It was only as men came to
realise that the civil sword might be drawn in support of heresy that
they began to reflect on the impropriety of allowing to even a
Christian Emperor a voice in Church councils. Athanasius was the first
to grasp this clearly. The voice of protest [54] sounds in the letter
of the Egyptian Synod of 338-9; throughout his exiles he steadily
regarded himself, and was regarded by his flock, as the sole rightful
Bishop of Alexandria, and continued to issue his Easter Letters from
first to last. At the same time, it must be admitted that if he was
right in returning to Alexandria in 337 without restoration by a Synod,
he could not logically object to the return of Eusebius and Theognis
(p. 104), who had not been deposed at Nicaea, but banished by the
Emperor. The technical rights of Chrestus and Amphion (l. c.) were no
better than those of Gregory or George. The spiritual elevation of
Athanasius over the head and shoulders of his opponents is plain to
ourselves; we see clearly the moral contrast between the councils of
Rome and Antioch (340-41), of Sardica and Philippopolis (343), of
Alexandria (362) and Seleucia (359). But to men like the Eastern
`conservatives' the technical point of view necessarily presented
itself with great force, and in judging of their conduct we must not
assume that it was either `meaningless diabolism' or deliberate
sympathy with Arianism that led so many bishops of good character to
see in Athanasius and the other exiles contumacious offenders against
Church order. (I am quite unable to accept M. Fialon's sweeping verdict
upon the majority of Oriental bishops as `weak, vicious, more devoted
to their own interests than to the Church,' &c., p. 116. He takes as
literally exact the somewhat turgid rhetorical complaints of Greg.
Naz.)
But the Eusebians were not limited to technical complaints. They had
stirring accounts to give of the disorders which the return of
Athanasius had excited, of the ruthless severity with which they had
been put down by the prefect, who was, it was probably added, a mere
tool in the hands of the bishop. Accordingly in the course of 338 the
subservient Theodorus was recalled, and Philagrius the Cappadocian, who
had governed with immense [55] popularity in 335-337 (Fest. Ind. and p.
107 sq.), was sent to fill the office a second time. This was regarded
at Alexandria as an Arian triumph (see p. 527, note 2). His arrival did
not tend to allay the disorders. Old charges against Athanasius were
raked up, and a new one added, namely that of embezzlement of the corn
appropriated to the support of widows by the imperial bounty. The
Emperor appears to have sent a letter of complaint to Athanasius (p.
273), but to have paid little attention to his defence. The Eusebians
now ventured to send a bishop of their own to Alexandria in the person
of Pistus, one of the original Arian presbyters, who was consecrated by
the implacable Secundus. The date of this proceeding is obscure,
probably it was conducted in an irregular manner, so as to render it
possible to ignore it altogether if, as proved to be the case, a
stronger candidate should be necessary. First, however, it was
necessary to try the temper of the West. A deputation consisting of a
presbyter Macarius and two deacons, Martyrius and Hesychius, was sent
to Julius, bishop of Rome, to lay before him the enormities of
Athanasius, Marcellus, Paul, Asclepas and the rest, and to urge the
superior title of Pistus to the recognition of the Church. But upon
hearing of this Athanasius summoned the Egyptian Episcopate together
(winter 338-339), and composed a circular letter (pp. 101-110) dealing
fully with the charges against him, especially with regard to the
manner of his election and the irregularity of his return a year
before. Two presbyters carried the letter in haste to Rome, and
enlightened the Church there as to the antecedents of Pistus. Next day
it was announced that Macarius, `in spite of a bodily ailment,' had
decamped in the night. The deacons however remained, and requested
Julius to call a council, undertaking that if Athanasius and the
Eusebians were confronted all the charges brought by the latter should
be made good. This proposal seemed unobjectionable, and Julius wrote
inviting all parties to a council at Rome, or some other place to be
agreed upon (p. 272); his messengers to the Eusebians were the Roman
presbyters Elpidius and Philoxenus [56] , (p. 111). The council was
fixed for the following summer (so it would seem); but no reply was
received from the Eusebians, who kept the presbyters in the East until
the following January, when they at length started for Rome bearing a
querulous and somewhat shifty reply (answered by Julius, p. 111, sqq.).
But before the invitation had reached the Eusebians they had assembled
at Antioch, where Constantius was in residence for the winter (laws
dated Dec. 27; the court thereon January ? p. 92), repeated the
deposition of Athanasius, and appointed Gregory, a Cappadocian, to
succeed him. It had become clear that Pistus was a bad candidate;
perhaps no formal synod could be induced to commit themselves to a man
excommunicated at Nicaea and consecrated by Secundus. At any rate they
tried to find an unexceptionable nominee. But their first, Eusebius,
afterwards bishop of Emesa, refused the post, and so they came to
Gregory [57] , a former student of Alexandria, and under personal
obligations to its bishop (Greg. Naz. Or. xxi. 15).
All was now ready for the blow at Athanasius. It fell in Lent (pp. 94,
503). His position since the arrival of Philagrius had been one of
unrest. `In this year again,' says our annalist, `there were many
tumults. On the xxii Phamenoth (i.e. Sunday, Mar. 18, 339) he was
sought after by his persecutors in the night. On the next morning he
fled from the Church of Theonas after he had baptized many. Then on the
fourth day (Mar. 22) Gregory the Cappadocian entered the city as
bishop' (Fest. Ind. xi.). But Athanasius (p. 95), remained quietly in
the town for about four weeks more [58] . He drew up for circulation
`throughout the tribes' (cf. Judges xix. 29) a memorandum and appeal,
describing the intrusion of Gregory and the gross outrages which had
accompanied it. This letter was written on or just after Easter Day
(April 15), and immediately after this he escaped from Alexandria and
made his way to Rome. The data as to the duration of the periods of
`quiet' and exile fix the date of his departure for Easter Monday,
April 16. This absence from Alexandria was his longest, lasting `ninety
months and three days,' i.e. from Pharmuthi 21 (April 16) 339 to Paophi
24 (October 21), 346.
(2.) The Second Exile of Athanasius falls into two sections, the first
of four years (p. 239), to the council of Sardica (339-343), the second
of three years, to his return in Oct. 346. The odd six months cannot be
distributed with certainty unless we can arrive at a more exact result
than at present appears attainable for the month and duration of the
Sardican synod.
In May, 339, Athanasius, accompanied by a few of his clergy (story of
the `detachment' of his monk Ammonius in Socr. iv. 23, sub fin.),
arrived at Rome. He was within three months followed by Marcellus, Paul
of CP., Asclepas, and other exiles who had been restored at the end of
337 but had once more been ejected. Soon after, Carpones, an original
Arian of Alexandria, appeared as envoy of Gregory. He confirmed all
that had been alleged against Pistus, but failed to convince Julius
that his own bishop was anything but an Arian. Meanwhile time wore on,
and no reply came from the Eusebians. Athanasius gave himself up to
enforced leisure and to the services of the Church. Instead of his
usual Easter letter for the following spring, he sent a few lines to
the clergy of Alexandria and a letter to his right-hand man, bishop
Serapion of Thmuis, requesting him to make the necessary announcement
of the season. Gregory made his first attempt (apparently also his
last) to fix the Easter Festival, but in the middle of Lent, to the
amusement of the public, discovered that a mistake had been made, the
correction of which involved his adherents in an extra week of Lenten
austerities. We can well imagine that the spectacle of the abstracted
asceticism of Ammonius aroused the curiosity and veneration of the
Roman Christians, and thus gave an impulse to the ascetic life in the
West (see Jerome, cited below, p. 191). That is all we know of the life
of Athanasius during the first eighteen months of his stay at Rome.
In the early spring of 340 the presbyters returned (see above) with a
letter from a number of bishops, including the Eusebian leaders, who
had assembled at Antioch in January. This letter is carefully dissected
in the reply of the Roman Council, and appears to have been highly
acrimonious in its tone. Julius kept it secret for a time (p. 111),
hoping against hope that after all some of the Orientals would come for
the council; but at length he gave up all expectations of the kind, and
convoked the bishops of Italy, who examined the cases of the various
exiles (p. 114). All the old charges against Athanasius were gone into
with the aid of the Mareotic report (the ex parte character of which
Julius strongly emphasises) and of the account of the proceedings at
Tyre. The council had no difficulty in pronouncing Athanasius
completely innocent on all points. The charge of ignoring the
proceedings of a council was disposed of by pointing out the
uncanonical character of Gregory's appointment (p. 115), and the
infraction by the complainants of the decrees of Nicaea. With regard to
Marcellus, he responded to the request of the bishops by volunteering a
written confession of his faith (p. 116, Epiph. Haer. 72), which was in
fact the creed of the Roman Church itself (Caspari, Quellen iii. 28,
note, argues that the creed must have been tendered at an earlier
visit, 336-337, but without cogent reasons). Either Julius and his
bishops were (like the fathers of Sardica) very easily satisfied, or
Marcellus exercised extreme reserve as to his peculiar tenets (Zahn, p.
71, makes out the best case he can for his candour). The other exiles
were also pronounced innocent, and the synod `restored' them all. It
remained to communicate the result to the Oriental bishops. This was
done by Julius in a letter drawn up in the name of the council, and
preserved by Athanasius in his Apology. Its subject matter has been
sufficiently indicated, but its statesmanlike logic and grave severity
must be appreciated by reference to the document itself. It has been
truly called `one of the ablest documents in the entire controversy.'
It is worth observing that Julius makes no claim whatever to pass a
final judgment as successor of S. Peter, although the Orientals had
expressly asserted the equal authority of all bishops, however
important the cities in which they ruled (p. 113); on the contrary he
merely claims that without his own consent, proceedings against bishops
would lack the weight of universal consent (p. 118). At the same time
he claims to be in possession of the traditions of S. Paul and
especially of S. Peter, and is careful to found upon precedent (that of
Dionysius) a claim to be consulted in matters alleged against a bishop
of Alexandria. This claim, by its modesty, is in striking contrast with
that which Socrates (ii. 17) and Sozom. (iii. 8, 10) make for
him,--that owing to the greatness of his see, the care of all the
churches pertained to him: and this again, which represents what the
Greek Church of the early fifth century was accustomed to hear from
Rome, is very different from the claim to a jurisdiction of divine
right which we find formulated in Leo the Great.
The letter of Julius was considered at the famous Council of the
Dedication (of Constantine's `Golden' Church at Antioch, see Eus. V. C.
iii. 50), held in the summer of 341 (between May 22 and Sept. 1, see
Gwatkin, p. 114, note). Eusebius of Constantinople was there (he had
only a few months longer to live), and most of the Arian leaders.
Caesarea was represented by Acacius, who had succeeded Eusebius some
two years before; a man of Whom we shall hear more. But of the
ninety-odd bishops who attended, the majority must have been
conservative in feeling, such as Dianius of Caesarea, who possibly
presided. At any rate Hilary (de Syn. 32) calls it `a synod of saints,'
and its canons passed into the accepted body of Church Law. Their reply
to Julius is not extant, but we gather from the historians that it was
not conciliatory. (Socr. ii. 15, 17; Soz. iii. 8, 10; they are in such
hopeless confusion as to dates and the order of events that it is
difficult to use them here; Theodoret is more accurate but less full.)
But the council marks an epoch in a more important respect; with it
begins the formal Doctrinal Reaction against the Nicene Formula. We
have traces of previous confessions, such as that of Arius and Euzoius,
330-335, and an alleged creed drawn up at CP. in 336. But only now
begins the long series of attempts to raise some other formula to a
position of equality with the Nicene, so as to eventually depose the
homoousion from its position as an ecumenical test.
The first suggestion of a new creed came from the Arian bishops, who
propounded a formula (p. 146, S:22), with a disavowal of any intention
of disparaging that of Nicaea (Socr. ii. 10), but suspiciously akin to
the evasive confession of Arius, and prefaced with a suicidally worded
protest against being considered as followers of the latter. The fate
of this creed in the council is obscure; but it would seem to have
failed to commend itself to the majority, who put forward a creed
alleged to have been composed by Lucian the martyr. This (see above, p.
xxviii, and p. 461, notes 5-9), was hardly true of the creed as it
stood, but it may have been signed by Lucian as a test when he made his
peace with bishop Cyril. At any rate the creed is catholic in asserting
the exact Likeness of the Son to the Father's Essence (yet the Arians
could admit this as de facto true, though not originally so; only the
word Essence would, if honestly taken, fairly exclude their sense), but
anti-Nicene in omitting the homoousion, and in the phrase te men
hupostasei tria, te de sumphoni& 139; hen, an artfully chosen point of
contact between Origen on the one hand, and Asterius, Lucian, and Paul
of Samosata on the other. The anathemas, also, let in an Arian
interpretation. This creed is usually referred to as the `Creed of the
Dedication' or `Lucianic' Creed, and represents, on the one hand the
extreme limit of concession to which Arians were willing to go, on the
other the theological rallying point of the gradually forming body of
reasoned conservative opinion which under the nickname of
`semi-Arianism' (Epiph. Haer. 73; it was repudiated by Basil of Ancyra,
&c.) gradually worked toward the recognition of the Nicene formula.
A third formula was presented by Theophronius, bishop of Tyana, as a
personal statement of belief, and was widely signed by way of approval.
It insists like the Lucianic creed on the pretemporal gennesis, against
Marcellus, adding two other points (hypostatic pre-existence and
eternal kingdom of the Son) in the same direction, and closing with an
anathema against Marcellus, Sabellius, Paul, and all who communicate
with any of their supporters. This was of course a direct defiance of
Julius and the Westerns (Mr. Gwatkin, by a slip, assigns this anathema
to the `fourth' creed).
Lastly, a few months after the council (late autumn of 341) a few
bishops reassembled in order to send a deputation to Constans (since
340 sole Western Emperor). They decided to substitute for the genuine
creeds of the council a fourth formulary, which accordingly the Arians
Maris and Narcissus, and the neutrals Theodore of Heraclea and Mark of
Arethusa, conveyed to the West. The assertion of the eternal reign of
Christ was strengthened, and the name of Marcellus omitted, but the
Nicene anathemas were skilfully adapted so as to strike at the
Marcellian and admit the Arian doctrine of the divine Sonship. This
creed became the basis on which the subsequent Arianising confessions
of 343 (Philippopolis), 344 (Macrostich), and 351 (Sirmium) were
moulded by additions to and modifications of the anathemas. This series
of creeds mark `the stationary period of Arianism,' i.e. between the
close of the first generation (Arius, Asterius, Eusebius of Nicomedia)
and the beginnings of the divergence of parties under the sole reign of
Constantius. At present opposition to the school of Marcellus and to
the impregnable strength of the West under a Catholic Emperor kept the
reactionary party united.
It has been necessary to dwell upon the work of this famous Council in
view of its subsequent importance. It is easy to see how the Eastern
bishops were prevailed upon to take the bold step of putting forth a
Creed to rival the Nicene formula. The formal approval of Marcellus at
Rome shewed, so they felt, the inadequacy of that formula to exclude
Sabellianism, or rather the direct support which that heresy could find
in the word `homouesion.' This being so, provided they made it clear
that they were not favouring Arianism, they would be doing no more than
their duty in providing a more efficient test. But here the Arian group
saw their opportunity. Conservative willingness to go behind Nicaea
must be made to subserve the supreme end of revoking the condemnation
of Arianism. Hence the confusion of counsels reflected in the
multiplicity of creeds. The result pleased no one. The Lucianic Creed,
with its anti-Arian clauses, tempered by equivocal qualifications, was
a feeble and indirect weapon against Marcellus, who could admit in a
sense the pre-aeonian gennesis and the `true' sonship. On the other
hand, the three creeds which only succeeded in gaining secondary
ratification, while express against Marcellus, were worthless as
against Arianism. On the whole, the fourth creed, in spite of its
irregular sanction, was found the most useful for the time (341-351);
but as their doctrinal position took definite form, the Conservative
wing fell back on the `Lucianic' Creed, and found in it a bridge to the
Nicene (cf. pp. 470, 472, Hil. de Syn. 33, and Gwatkin, p. 119, note).
(3.) Athanasius remained in Rome more than three years after his
departure from Alexandria (April, 339-May? 342, see p. 239). During the
last of these years, the dispute connected with him had been referred
by Julius to Constans, who had requested his brother to send some
Oriental bishops with a statement of their case: this was the reason of
the deputation (see above) of the winter of 341. They found Constans at
Treveri, but owing to the warnings of good Bishop Maximinus [59] , he
refused to accept their assurances, and sent them ignominiously away.
This probably falls in the summer of 342, the deputation on arriving in
Italy having found that Constans had already left Milan for his
campaign against the Franks (Gwatkin, p. 122, note 3). If this be so,
Constans had already made up his mind that a General Council was the
only remedy, and had written to Constantius to arrange for one. Before
leaving Milan he had summoned Athanasius from Rome, and announced to
him what he had done. The young Prince was evidently an admirer of
Athanasius, who had received from him in reply to a letter of
self-defence, written from Alexandria, an order for certain puktia, or
bound volumes of the Scriptures (see Montfaucon, Animadv. xv., in Migne
xxv., p. clxxvi.). The volumes had been delivered before this date.
Constans hurried off to Gaul, while Athanasius remained at Milan, where
he afterwards received a summons to follow the Emperor to Treveri [60]
; here he met the venerable Hosius and others, and learned that the
Emperors had fixed upon Sardica (now Sophia in Bulgaria), on the
frontier line of the dominions of Constans [61] , as the venue for the
great Council, which was to assemble in the ensuing summer. Athanasius
must have kept the Easter of 343 at Treveri: he had written his usual
Easter letter (now lost) most probably from Rome or Milan, in the
previous spring. The date of assembly and duration of the Sardican
synod are, unfortunately, obscure. But the proceedings must have been
protracted by the negotiations which ended in the departure of the
Easterns, and (p. 124, note 2) by the care with which the evidence
against the incriminated bishops was afterwards gone into [62] .
We shall probably be safe in supposing that the Council occupied the
whole of August and September, and that Constans sent Bishops Euphrates
and Vincent to his brother at Antioch as soon as the worst weather of
winter was over.
The Western bishops assembled at Sardica to the number of about 95 (see
p. 147). Athanasius, Marcellus, and Asclepas arrived with Hosius from
Treveri. Paul of Constantinople, for some unknown reason, was absent,
but was represented by Asclepas [63] . The Orientals came in a body,
and with suspicion. They had the Counts Musonianus and Hesychius, and
(according to Fest. Ind., cf. p. 276) the ex-Prefect Philagrius, as
advisers and protectors: they were lodged in a body at the Palace of
Sophia. The proceedings were blocked by a question of privilege. The
Easterns demanded that the accused bishops should not be allowed to
take their seats in the Council; the majority replied that, pending the
present enquiry, all previous decisions against them must be in
fairness considered suspended. There was something to be said on both
sides (see Hefele, p. 99), but on the whole, the synod being convoked
expressly to re-hear both sides, the majority were perhaps justified in
refusing to exclude the accused. A long interchange (p. 119), of
communications followed, and at last, alleging that they were summoned
home by the news of the victory in the Persian war, the minority
disappeared by night, sending their excuse by the Sardican Presbyter
Eustathius (p. 275). At Philippopolis, within the dominions of
Constantius, they halted and drew up a long and extremely wild and
angry statement of what had occurred, deposing and condemning all
concerned, from Hosius, Julius and Athanasius downward. They added the
Antiochene Confession (`fourth' of 341), with the addition of some
anathemas directed at the system of Marcellus. Among the signatures,
which included most of the surviving Arian leaders, along with Basil of
Ancyra, and other moderate men, we recognise that of Ischyras, `bishop
from the Mareotis,' who had enjoyed the dignity without the burdens of
the Episcopate since the Council of Tyre (p. 144). The document was
sent far and wide, among the rest to the Donatists of Africa (Hef., p.
171).
This rupture doomed the purpose of the council to failure: instead of
leading to agreement it had made the difference a hopeless one. But the
Westerns were still a respectable number, and might do much to forward
the cause of justice and of the Nicene Faith. Two of the Easterns had
joined them, Asterius of Petra and Arius, bishop of an unknown see in
Palestine. The only other Oriental present, Diodorus of Tenedos,
appears to have come, like Asclepas, &c., independently of the rest.
The work of the council was partly judicial, partly legislative. The
question was raised of issuing a supplement to, or formula explanatory
of, the Nicene creed, and a draft (preserved Thdt. H. E. ii. 8) was
actually made, but the council declined to sanction anything which
should imply that the Nicene creed was insufficient (p. 484, correcting
Thdt. ubi supra, and Soz. iii. 12).
The charges against all the exiles were carefully examined and
dismissed. This was also the case with the complaints against the
orthodoxy of Marcellus, who was allowed to evade the very point which
gave most offence (p. 125). Probably the ocular evidence (p. 124) of
the violence which many present had suffered, indisposed the fathers to
believe any accusations from such a quarter. The synod next proceeded
to legislate. Their canons were twenty in number, the most important
being canons 3-5, which permit a deposed bishop to demand the reference
of his case to `Julius bishop of Rome,' `honouring the memory of Peter
the Apostle;' the deposition to be suspended pending such reference;
the Roman bishop, if the appeal seem reasonable, to request the
rehearing of the case in its own province, and if at the request of the
accused he sends a presbyter to represent him, such presbyter to rank
as though he were his principal in person. The whole scheme appears to
be novel and to have been suggested by the history of the case of the
exiles. The canons are very important in their subsequent history, but
need not be discussed here. (Elaborate discussions in Hefele, pp.
112-129; see also D.C.A. pp. 127 sq., 1658, 1671, Greenwood, Cath.
Petr. i. 204-208, D.C.B. iii. 662 a, and especially 529-531.) The only
legislation, however, to which Athanasius alludes is that establishing
a period of 50 years during which Rome and Alexandria should agree as
to the period for Easter (Fest. Ind. xv., infr. p. 544, also Hefele pp.
157 sqq.). The arrangement averted a dispute in 346, but differences
occurred in spite of it in 349, 350, 360, and 368.
The synod addressed an encyclical letter to all Christendom (p. 123),
embodying their decisions and announcing their deposition of eight or
nine Oriental bishops (including Theodore of Heraclea, Acacius, and
several Arian leaders) for complicity with Arianism. They also wrote to
the Church of Alexandria and to the bishops of Egypt with special
reference to Athanasius and to the Alexandrian Church, to Julius
announcing their decisions, and to the Mareotis (Migne xxvi. 1331 sqq.
printed with Letters 46, 47. Hefele ii. 165 questions the genuineness
of all three, but without reason; see p. 554, note 1).
The effect of the Council was not at first pacific. Constantius shared
the indignation of the Eastern bishops, and began severe measures
against all the Nicene-minded bishops in his dominions (pp. 275 sqq).
Theodulus, Bishop of Trajanople, died of his injuries before the
Sardican Bishops had completed their work. At Hadrianople savage
cruelties were perpetrated (ib.); and a close watch was instituted in
case Athanasius should attempt to return on the strength of his
synodical acquittal. Accordingly, he passed the winter and spring at
Naissus (now Nish, see Fest. Ind. xvi.), and during the summer, in
obedience to an invitation from Constans, repaired to Aquileia, where
he spent the Easter of 345.
Meanwhile, Constans had made the cause of the Sardican majority his
own. At the beginning of the year 344 he sent two of its most respected
members to urge upon Constantius the propriety of restoring the exiles.
Either now or later he hinted that refusal would be regarded by him as
a casus belli. His remonstrance gained unexpected moral support from an
episode, strange even in that age of unprincipled intrigue. In rage and
pain at the apparent success of the envoys, Stephen, Bishop of Antioch,
sought to discredit them by a truly diabolical trick (see p. 276). Its
discovery, just after Easter, 344, roused the moral sense of
Constantius. A Council was summoned, and met during the summer [64] (p.
462, S:26, `three years after' the Dedication at Midsummer, 341).
Stephen was ignominiously deposed (see Gwatkin 125, note 1), and
Leontius, an Arian, but a lover of quiet and a temporiser, appointed.
The Council also re-issued the `fourth' Antiochene Creed with a very
long explanatory addition, mildly condemning certain Arian phrases,
fiercely anathematising Marcellus and Photinus, and with a side-thrust
at supposed implications of the Nicene formula. A deputation was sent
to Italy, consisting of Eudoxius of Germanicia and three others. They
reached Milan at the Synod of 345, and were able to procure a
condemnation of Photinus (not Marcellus), but on being asked to
anathematise Arianism refused, and retired in anger. At the same Synod
of Milan, however, Valens and Ursacius, whose deposition at Sardica was
in imminent danger of being enforced by Constans, followed the former
example of Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris, Theognis, and Arius himself,
by making their submission, which was followed up two years later by a
letter in abject terms addressed to Julius, and another in a tone of
veiled insolence to Athanasius (p. 131). In return, they were able to
beat up a Synod at Sirmium against Photinus (Hil. Frag. ii. 19), but
without success in the attempt to dislodge him.
Meanwhile, Constantius had followed up the Council at Antioch by
cancelling his severe measures against the Nicene party. He restored to
Alexandria certain Presbyters whom he had expelled, and in the course
of the summer wrote a public letter to forbid any further persecution
of the Athanasians in that city. This must have been in August, 344,
and `about ten months later' (p. 277), i.e., on June 26, 345 (F. I.
xviii.), Gregory, who had been in bad health for fully four years, died
[65] . Constantius, according to his own statement (pp. 127, 277), had
already before the death of Gregory written twice to Athanasius (from
Edessa; he was at Nisibis on May 12, 345), and had sent a Presbyter to
request him urgently to come and see him with a view to his eventual
restoration. As Gregory was known to be in a dying state, this is quite
intelligible, but the language of Hist. Ar. 21, which seems to put all
three letters after Gregory's death, cannot stand if we are to accept
the assurance of Constantius. Athanasius, at any rate, hesitated to
obey, and stayed on at Aquileia (344 till early in 346), where he
received a third and still more pressing invitation, promising him
immediate restoration. He at once went to Rome to bid farewell to
Julius, who wrote (p. 128 sq.) a most cordial and nobly-worded letter
of congratulation for Athanasius to take home to his Church. Thence he
proceeded to Trier to take leave of Constans (p. 239), and rapidly
travelled by way of Hadrianople (p. 276) to Antioch (p. 240), where he
was cordially received [66] by Constantius. His visit was short but
remarkable. Constantius gave him the strongest assurances (pp. 277,
285) of goodwill for the future, but begged that Athanasius would allow
the Arians at Alexandria the use of a single Church. He replied that he
would do so if the Eustathians of Antioch (with whom alone he
communicated during this visit) might have the same privilege. But this
Leontius would not sanction, so the proposal came to nothing (Soc. ii.
23, Soz. iii. 20), and Athanasius hastened on his way. At Jerusalem he
was detained by the welcome of a Council, which Bishop Maximus had
summoned to greet him (p. 130), but on the twenty-first of October his
reception by his flock took place; `the people, and those in authority,
met him a hundred miles distant' (Fest. Ind. xviii.), and amid splendid
rejoicings (cf. p. xlii., note 3), he entered Alexandria, to remain
there in `quiet' `nine years, three months and nineteen days' (Hist.
Aceph. iv., cf. p. 496), viz., from Paophi 24 (Oct. 21), 346, to Mechir
13 (Feb. 8), 356. This period was his longest undisturbed residence in
his see; he entered upon it in the very prime of life (he was 48 years
old), and its internal happiness earns it the title of a golden decade.
__________________________________________________________________
[53] As he had previously referred the Donatist schism to the
commission of Rome and the Council of Arles.
[54] But they complain, p. 104, S:8, of coercion not of Erastianism.
[55] The ordinary time for the entry of the Prefect upon his duties
seems to have been about the end of the Egyptian Year (end of August).
Accordingly the prefectures and years in Fest. Ind. roughly correspond:
Philagrius was already Prefect when the Mareotic Commission arrived
(Aug. 335). According to the headings to the Festal Letters vi., vii.,
he had superseded Paternus in 334: either the Index or the headings are
mistaken. For the popularity of Philagrius, see Greg. Naz. Orat. xxi.
28, who mentions that his reappointment was due to the request of a
deputation from Alex. (this must have come from the Arians!) and that
the rejoicings which welcomed his return exceeded any that could have
greeted the Emperor, and nearly equalled those which had welcomed the
return of Athanasius himself. But Gregory is a rhetorician; see p. 138,
and Tillem. viii. 664.
[56] It is possible, however, that these carried a second letter, after
the arrival of Ath. See pp. 110, 273.
[57] Gregory shewed his Arianism by employing Ammon as his secretary,
see p. 96. The curious parallelism between Gregory and George (infr.
S:8),--the names differing (in Latin) by a single letter only, both
Arians, both Cappadocians, both intruded bishops of Alexandria, both
arriving from court, both arriving in Lent, both exercising violence,
both charged by Ath. with the storming of churches, with similar scenes
of desecration, maltreatment of virgins, &c., in either case,--is one
of the strangest examples of history repeating itself within a few
years. What wonder that the fifth-century historians confuse the two
still further together, and that they still find followers? The most
important point of confusion is the alleged murder of Gregory (due to
Theodoret), who really died a natural death. It is none too soon for
this time-honoured blunder to do the like. On the inveterate tendency
of Georges and Gregories to coalesce, and exchange names in
transcription (to say nothing of modern typography), see D.C.B. ii. pp.
640-650, 778 sq., 798 sq., passim.
[58] In some church other than `Theonas,' probably `Quirinus,' which
latter, however, was stormed on Easter Day, pp. 273, 95, note 3. The
statement, Hist. Ar. 10, that he sailed for Rome before Gregory's
arrival is in any case verbally inexact, but it may refer to his flight
from `Theonas.'
[59] Bitter complaint in Hil. Fragm. iii. 27; cf. infr. p. 462, Soz.
iii. 10, who wrongly gives `Italy' as the place.
[60] This may have been in the autumn, after the close of the campaign,
but see infr. ch. v. S:3, c, d.
[61] Hefele i. 91, is singular in placing it in the empire of
Constantius. The Ichtiman range between Sophia and Philippopolis was
the natural boundary between Thrace and Moesia, or `Dacia Media.'
[62] On the one hand the deputation after the council reached
Constantius at Antioch about Easter (April 15), 344. They were, however
sent not directly by the Council, but by Constans after its close
(Thdt. ii. 8). We may be certain that their arrival at Antioch was at
the very least two months after the close of the council; but in all
probability the interval was much longer. Again, the course of events
described above forbids us to put the council earlier than the early
summer of 343. But according to the Festal Index xv. the council at any
rate began before the end of August in that year. If the bishops left
their churches after Easter (a very natural and usual arrangement,
compare Nicaea, the Dedication, &c.), they could easily assemble by the
end of June. The Orientals came somewhat later. The beginning of July
is accordingly our terminus a quo, the end of January our terminus ad
quem. What exact part of the interval the council occupied we cannot
decide.
[63] The statement in the synodal letter of Philippolis that Asclepas
had been deposed `seventeen' years before is clearly corrupt. The true
reading may be `seven' (council of CP. in 336) or xiii, which might
easily be changed to xvii. (Cf. Hefele, pp. 89, 90).
[64] The `ten months' of Hist. Ar. 21, p. 277, are to be reckoned, not
from Easter 344, but from the letters of Const. to Alexandria some
months after.
[65] It must be observed that the Index is loose in its statement here:
see Gwatkin, p. 105, Sievers, p. 108. The statement of Thdt., &c., that
he was murdered is simply due to the usual confusion of Gregory with
George (cf. p. xliii. note 5).
[66] This visit cannot have been between May 7 and Aug. 27, when Const.
was at CP. Nor can it well have been before May 7. We must, therefore,
with Sievers, p. 110, put it in September. Yet see Gwatkin, p. 127,
note.
__________________________________________________________________
S:7. The Golden Decade, 346-356.
(1). This period is divided into two by the death of Constans in 350,
or perhaps more exactly by the final settlement of sole power in the
hands of Constantius on the day of Mursa, Sept. 28, 351 [67] . The
internal condition of the Church at Alexandria, however, was not
seriously disturbed even in the second period. From this point of view
the entire period may be treated as one. Its opening was auspicious.
Egypt fully participated in the `profound and wonderful peace' (p. 278)
of the Churches. The Bishops of province after province were sending in
their letters of adhesion to the Synod of Sardica (ib. and p. 127), and
those of Egypt signed to a man.
The public rejoicing of the Alexandrian Church had something of the
character of a `mission' in modern Church life. A wave of religious
enthusiasm passed over the whole community. `How many widows and how
many orphans, who were before hungry and naked, now through the great
zeal of the people were no longer hungry, and went forth clothed;' `in
a word, so great was their emulation in virtue, that you would have
thought every family and every house a Church, by reason of the
goodness of its inmates and the prayers which were offered to God' (p.
278). Increased strictness of life, the sanctification of home, renewed
application to prayer, and practical charity, these were a worthy
welcome to their long-lost pastor. But most conspicuous was the impulse
to asceticism. Marriages were renounced and even dissolved in favour of
the monastic life; the same instincts were at work (but in greater
intensity) as had asserted themselves at the close of the era of the
pagan persecutions (p. 200, S:4, fin.). Our knowledge of the history of
the Egyptian Church under the ten years' peaceful rule of Athanasius is
confined to a few details and to what we can infer from results.
Strong as was the position of Athanasius in Egypt upon his return from
exile, his hold upon the country grew with each year of the decade.
When circumstances set Constantius free to resume the Arian campaign,
it was against Athanasius that he worked; at first from the remote
West, then by attempts to remove or coax him from Alexandria. But
Athanasius was in an impregnable position, and when at last the city
was seized by the coup de main of 356, from his hidings places in Egypt
he was more inaccessible still, more secure in his defence, more free
to attack. Now the extraordinary development of Egyptian Monachism must
be placed in the first rank of the causes which strengthened Athanasius
in Egypt. The institution was already firmly rooted there (cf. p. 190),
and Pachomius, a slightly older contemporary of Athanasius himself, had
converted a sporadic manifestation of the ascetic impulse into an
organised form of Community Life. Pachomius himself had died on May 9,
346 (infr. p. lx., note 3, and p. 569, note 3: cf. Theolog.
Literaturztg. 1890, p. 622), but Athanasius was welcomed soon after his
arrival by a deputation from the Society of Tabenne, who also conveyed
a special message from the aged Antony. Athanasius placed himself at
the head of the monastic movement, and we cannot doubt that while he
won the enthusiastic devotion of these dogged and ardent Copts, his
influence on the movement tended to restrain extravagances and to
correct the morbid exaltation of the monastic ideal. It is remarkable
that the only letters which survive from this decade (pp. 556-560) are
to monks, and that they both support what has just been said. The army
of Egyptian monks was destined to become a too powerful weapon, a
scandal and a danger to the Church: but the monks were the main secret
of the power and ubiquitous activity of Athanasius in his third exile,
and that power was above all built up during the golden decade.
Coupled with the growth of monachism is the transformation of the
episcopate. The great power enjoyed by the Archbishop of Alexandria
made it a matter of course that in a prolonged episcopate discordant
elements would gradually vanish and unanimity increase. This was the
case under Athanasius: but the unanimity reflected in the letter ad
Afros had practically already come about in the year of the return of
Ath. from Aquileia, when nearly every bishop in Egypt signed the
Sardican letter (p. 127; the names include the new bishops of 346-7 in
Letter 19, with one or two exceptions). Athanasius not infrequently
(pp. 559 sq. and Vit. Pach. 72) filled up vacancies in the episcopate
from among the monks, and Serapion of Thmuis, his most trusted
suffragan, remained after his elevation in very close relation with the
monasteries.
Athanasius consecrated bishops not only for Egypt, but for the remote
Abyssinian kingdom of Auxume as well. The visit of Frumentius to
Alexandria, and his consecration as bishop for Auxume, are referred by
Rufinus i. 9 (Socr. i. 19, &c.) to the beginning of the episcopate of
Athanasius. But the chronology of the story (Gwatkin, pp. 93 sqq.,
D.C.B. ii. 236 where the argument is faulty) forbids this altogether,
while the letter of Constantius (p. 250) is most natural if the
consecration of Frumentius were then a comparatively recent matter,
scarcely intelligible if it had taken place before the `deposition' of
Athan. by the council of Tyre. Athanasius had found Egypt distracted by
religious dissensions; but by the time of the third exile we hear very
little of Arians excepting in Alexandria itself (see p. 564); the
`Arians' of the rest of Egypt were the remnant of the Meletians, whose
monks are still mentioned by Theodoret (cf. p. 299 sq.). An incident
which shews the growing numbers of the Alexandrian Church during this
period is the necessity which arose at Easter in one year of using the
unfinished Church of the Caesareum (for its history cf. p. 243, note 6,
and Hist. Aceph. vi., Fest. Ind. xxxvii., xxxviii., xl.) owing to the
vast crowds of worshippers. The Church was a gift of Constantius, and
had been begun by Gregory, and its use before completion and dedication
was treated by the Arians as an act of presumption and disrespect on
the part of Athanasius.
(2.) But while all was so happy in Egypt, the `profound peace' of the
rest of the Church was more apparent than real. The temporary revulsion
of feeling on the part of Constantius, the engrossing urgency of the
Persian war, the readiness of Constans to use his formidable power to
secure justice to the Nicene bishops in the East, all these were causes
which compelled peace, while leaving the deeper elements of strife to
smoulder untouched. The rival depositions and anathemas of the hostile
Councils remained without effect. Valens was in possession at Mursa,
Photinus at Sirmium. Marcellus was, probably, not at Ancyra (Zahn 82);
but the Arians deposed at Sardica were all undisturbed, while
Athanasius was more firmly established than ever at Alexandria. On the
whole, the Episcopate of the East was entirely in the hands of the
reaction--the Nicene element, often large, among the laity was in many
cases conciliated with difficulty. This is conspicuously the case at
Antioch, where the temporising policy of Leontius managed to retain in
communion a powerful body of orthodox Christians, headed by Diodorus
and Flavian, whose energy neutralised the effect of his own steadily
Arian policy (particulars, Gwatkin, pp. 133, sqq., Newman, Arians^4, p.
455--from Thdt. H. E. ii. 24). The Eustathian schism at Antioch was,
apparently, paralleled by a Marcellian schism at Ancyra, but such cases
were decidedly the exception.
Of the mass of instances where the bishops were not Arian but simply
conservative, the Church of Jerusalem is the type. We have the
instructions given to the Catechumens of this city between 348 and 350
by Cyril, who in the latter year (Hort, p. 92) became bishop, and whose
career is typical of the rise and development of so-called
semi-Arianism. Cyril, like the conservatives generally, is strongly
under the influence of Origen (see Caspari iv. 146-162, and of. the
Catechesis in Heurtley de Fid. et Symb. 62 with the Regula Fidei in
Orig. de Princ. i.). The instructions insist strongly on the necessity
of scriptural language, and while contradicting the doctrines of Arius
(without mentioning his name; cf. Athanasius on Marcellus and Photinus
in pp. 433-447) Cyril tacitly protests against the homoousion as of
human contrivance (Cat. v. 12), and uses in preference the words `like
to the Father according to the Scriptures' or `in all things.' This
language is that of Athanasius also, especially in his earlier works
(pp. 84 sqq.), but in the latter phase of the controversy, especially
in the Dated Creed of 359, which presents striking resemblances to
Cyril's Catecheses, it became the watchword of the party of reaction.
The Church of Jerusalem then was orthodox substantially, but rejected
the Nicene formula, and this was the case in the East generally, except
where the bishops were positively Arian. All were aggrieved at the way
in which the Eastern councils had been treated by the West, and smarted
under a sense of defeat (cf. Bright, Introd. to Hist. Tr., p. xviii.).
Accordingly the murder of Constans in 350 was the harbinger of renewed
religious discord. For a time the political future was doubtful.
Magnentius, knowing what Athanasius had to fear from Constantius, made
a bid for the support of Egypt. Clementius and Valens, two members of a
deputation to Constantius, came round by way of Egypt to ascertain the
disposition of the country, and especially of its Bishop. Athanasius
received them with bitter lamentations for Constans, and, fearing the
possibility of an invasion by Magnentius, he called upon his
congregation to pray for the Eastern Emperor. The response was
immediate and unanimous: `O Christ, send help to Constantius' (p. 242).
The Emperor had, in fact, sought to secure the fidelity of Athanasius
by a letter (pp. 247, 278), assuring him of his continued support. And
until the defeat of Magnentius at Mursa, he kept his word. That
victory, which was as decisive for Valens as it was for Constantius
(Gibbon, ii. 381, iii. 66, ed. Smith), was followed up by a Council at
Sirmium, which successfully ousted the too popular Photinus (cf. pp.
280, 298; on the appeal of Photinus, and the debate between him and
Basil of Ancyra, apparently in 355, see Gwatkin, pp. 145 sq., note 6).
This was made the occasion for a new onslaught upon Marcellus in the
anathemas appended to a reissue of the `fourth Antiochene' or
Philippopolitan Creed (p. 465; on the tentative character of these
anathemas as a polemical move, cf. Gwatkin, p. 147, note 1). The
Emperor was occupied for more than a year with the final suppression of
Magnentius (Aug. 10, 353), but `the first Winter after his victory,
which he spent at Arles, was employed against an enemy more odious to
him than the vanquished tyrant of Gaul' (Gibbon).
It is unnecessary to detail the tedious and unedifying story of the
councils of Arles and Milan. The former was a provincial council of
Gaul, attended by legates of the Roman see. All present submissively
registered the imperial condemnation of Athanasius. The latter, delayed
till 355 by the Rhenish campaign of Constantius, was due to the request
of Liberius, who desired to undo the evil work of his legates, and to
the desire of the Emperor to follow up the verdict of a provincial with
that of a more representative Synod. The number of bishops present was
probably very small (the numbers in Socrates ii. 36, Soz. iv. 9, may
refer to those who afterwards signed under compulsion, p. 280, cf. the
case of Sardica, p. 127, note 10). The proceedings were a drama in
three acts, first, submission, the legates protesting; secondly, stormy
protest, after the arrival of Eusebius of Vercellae; thirdly, open
coercion. The deposition of Athanasius was proffered to each bishop for
signature, and, if he refused, a sentence of banishment was at once
pronounced, the emperor sitting with the `velum' drawn, much as though
an English judge were to assume the black cap at the beginning of a
capital trial. He cut short argument by announcing that `he was for the
prosecution,' and remonstrance by the sentence of exile (p. 299); the
hoper ego boulomai touto kanon put into his mouth by Athanasius (p.
281) represents at any rate the spirit of his proceedings as justly as
does `la tradizione son' io' that of the autocrat of a more recent
council. At this council no creed was put forth: until the enemy was
dislodged from Alexandria the next step would be premature. But a band
of exiles were sent in strict custody to the East, of some of whom we
shall hear later on (pp. 561, 481, 281, cf. p. 256, and the excellent
monograph of Krueger, Lucifer von Calaris, pp. 9-23).
Meanwhile, Athanasius had been peacefully pursuing his diocesan duties,
but not without a careful outlook as the clouds gathered on the
horizon. The prospect of a revival of the charges against him moved him
to set in order an unanswerable array of documents, in proof, firstly
of the unanimity, secondly of the good reason, with which he had been
acquitted of them (see p. 97). He had also, in view of revived
assertions of Arianism, drawn up the two letters or memoranda on the
rationale of the Nicene formula and on the opinion ascribed to his
famous predecessor, Dionysius (the Apology was probably written about
351, the date of the de Decr., and de Sent. Dion. [68] falls a little
later). In 353 he began to apprehend danger, from the hopes with which
the establishment of Constantius in the sole possession of the Empire
was inspiring his enemies, headed by Valens in the West, and Acacius of
Caesarea in the East. Accordingly, he despatched a powerful deputation
to Constantius, who was then at Milan, headed by Serapion, his most
trusted suffragan (cf. p. 560, note 3a; p. 497, S:3, copied by Soz. iv.
9; Fest. Ind. xxv.). The legates sailed May 19, but on the 23rd
Montanus, an officer of the Palace, arrived with an Imperial letter,
declining to receive any legates, but granting an alleged request of
Athanasius to be allowed to come to Italy (p. 245 sq.). As he had made
no request of the kind, Athanasius naturally suspected a plot to entice
him away from his stronghold. The letter of Constantius did not convey
an absolute command, so Athanasius, protesting his willingness to come
when ordered to do so, resolved to remain where he was for the present.
`All the people were exceedingly troubled,' according to our
chroniclers. `In this year Montanus was sent against the bishop, but a
tumult having been excited, he retired without effect.' Two years and
two months later, i.e., in July-Aug. 355 (p. 497), force was attempted
instead of stratagem, which the proceedings of Arles had, of course,
made useless. `In this year Diogenes, the Secretary of the Emperor,
came with the intention of seizing the bishop,' and `Diogenes pressed
hard upon all, trying to dislodge the bishop from the city, and he
afflicted all pretty severely; but on Sept. 4 [69] he pressed sharply,
and stormed a Church, and this he did continually for four
months...until Dec. 23. But as the people and magistrates vehemently
withstood Diogenes, he returned back without effect on the 23rd of
December aforesaid' (Fest. Ind. xxvii., Hist. Aceph. iii.). The fatal
blow was clearly imminent. By this time the exiles had begun to arrive
in the East, and rumours came [70] that not even the powerful and
popular Liberius, not even `Father' Hosius himself, had been spared.
Athanasius might well point out to Dracontius (p. 558) that in
declining the bishopric of the `country district of Alexandria' he was
avoiding the post of danger. On the sixth of January the `Duke'
Syrianus arrived in Alexandria, concentrating in the city drafts from
all the legions stationed in Egypt and Libya. Rumour was active as to
the intentions of the commandant, and Athanasius felt justified in
asking him whether he came with any orders from the Court. Syrianus
replied that he did not, and Athanasius then produced the letter of
Constantius referred to above (written 350-351). The magistrates and
people joined in the remonstrance, and at last Syrianus protested `by
the life of Caesar' that he would remain quiet until the matter had
been referred to the Emperor. This restored confidence, and on Thursday
night, Feb. 8, Athanasius was presiding at a crowded service of
preparation for a Communion on the following morning (Friday after
Septuagesima) in the Church of Theonas, which with the exception of the
unfinished Caesareum was the largest in the city (p. 243). Suddenly the
church was surrounded and the doors broken in, and just after midnight
Syrianus and the `notary' Hilary `entered with an infinite force of
soldiers.' Athanasius (his fullest account is p. 263) calmly took his
seat upon the throne (in the recess of the apse), and ordered the
deacon to begin the 136th psalm, the people responding at each verse
`for His mercy endureth for ever.' Meanwhile the soldiers crowded up to
the chancel, and in spite of entreaties the bishop refused to escape
until the congregation were in safety. He ordered the prayers to
proceed, and only at the last moment a crowd of monks and clergy seized
the Archbishop and managed to convey him in the confusion out of the
church in a half-fainting state (protest of Alexandrians, p. 301), but
thankful that he had been able to secure the escape of his people
before his own (p. 264). From that moment Athanasius was lost to public
view for `six years and fourteen days' (Hist. Aceph., i.e., Mechir 13,
356-Mechir 27, 362), `for he remembered that which was written, Hide
thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be
overpast (pp. 288, 252, 262). Constantius and the Arians had planned
their blow with skill and delivered it with decisive effect. But they
had won a `Cadmean Victory.'
__________________________________________________________________
[67] See below.
[68] In de Sent. Dion. 23, 24, Arius is spoken of in a way consistent
with his being still alive. But the phase of the Arian controversy to
which the tract relates begins a decade after Arius' death, and we
therefore follow the indications which class the de Sent. with the de
Decr.
[69] All the following dates are affected by Leap-Year, 355-6, see
Table C, p. 501, and correct p. 246, note 3, to Jan. 6.
[70] Definite information came only after Feb. 8, see p. 248.
__________________________________________________________________
S:8. The Third Exile, 356-362.
The third exile of Athanasius marks the summit of his achievement. Its
commencement is the triumph, its conclusion the collapse of Arianism.
It is true that after the death of Constantius the battle went on with
variations of fortune for twenty years, mostly under the reign of an
ardently Arian Emperor (364-378). But by 362 the utter lack of inner
coherence in the Arian ranks was manifest to all; the issue of the
fight might be postponed by circumstances but could not be in doubt.
The break-up of the Arian power was due to its own lack of reality: as
soon as it had a free hand, it began to go to pieces. But the watchful
eye of Athanasius followed each step in the process from his
hiding-place, and the event was greatly due to his powerful personality
and ready pen, knowing whom to overwhelm and whom to conciliate, where
to strike and where to spare. This period then of forced abstention
from affairs was the most stirring in spiritual and literary activity
in the whole life of Athanasius. It produced more than half of the
treatises which fill this volume, and more than half of his entire
extant works. With this we shall have to deal presently; but let it be
noted once for all how completely the amazing power wielded by the
wandering fugitive was based upon the devoted fidelity of Egypt to its
pastor. Towns and villages, deserts and monasteries, the very tombs
were scoured by the Imperial inquisitors in the search for Athanasius;
but all in vain; not once do we hear of any suspicion of betrayal. The
work of the golden decade was bearing its fruit.
(1.) On leaving the church of Theonas, Athanasius appears to have made
his escape from the city. If for once we may hazard a conjecture, the
numerous cells of the Nitrian desert offered a not too distant but
fairly inpenetrable refuge. He must at any rate have selected a place
where he could gain time to reflect on the situation, and above all
ensure that he should be kept well informed of events from time to
time. For in Athanasius we never see the panic-stricken outlaw; he is
always the general meditating his next movement and full of the
prospects of his cause. He made up his mind to appeal to Constantius in
person. He could not believe that an Emperor would go back upon his
solemn pledges, especially such a voluntary assurance as he had
received after the death of Constans. Accordingly he drew up a
carefully elaborated defence (Ap. Const. 1-26) dealing with the four
principal charges against him, and set off through the Libyan [71]
desert with the intention of crossing to Italy and finding Constantius
at Milan. But while he was on his way, he encountered rumours
confirming the reports of the wholesale banishment not only of the
recalcitrants of Milan, but of Liberius of Rome and the great Hosius of
Spain. Next came the news of the severe measures against Egyptian
bishops, and of the banishment of sixteen of their number, coupled with
the violence practised by the troops at Alexandria on Easter Day (p.
248 sq.); however, his journey was continued, until he received copies
of letters from the Emperor, one denouncing him to the Alexandrians and
recommending a new bishop, one George, as their future guide, the other
summoning the princes of Auxumis to send Frumentius (supr. p. xlviii.)
to Egypt in order that he might unlearn what he had been taught by `the
most wicked Athanasius' and receive instruction from the `venerable
George.' These letters, which shew how completely the pursuers were off
the scent (p. 249), convinced Athanasius that a personal interview was
out of the question. He returned `into the desert,' and at leisure
completed his apology (pp. 249-253), with the view partly of possible
future delivery, partly no doubt of literary circulation. Before
turning back, however, he appears to have drawn up his letter to the
bishops of Egypt and Libya, warning them against the formula (see p.
222) which was being tendered for their subscription, and encouraging
them to endure persecution, which had already begun at least in Libya
(Ep. AEg.); the designation of George (S:7) was already known, but he
had not arrived, nor had Secundus (19) reappeared in Egypt, at any rate
not in Libya (he was there in Lent, 357, p. 294). The letter to the
bishops, then, must have been written about Easter, 356; not long
after, because it contains no details of the persecution in Egypt; not
before, for the persecution had already begun, and Athanasius was
already in Cyrenaica, whence he turned back not earlier than April (to
allow time for Constantius (1) to hear that Athanasius was thought to
have fled to Ethiopia, (2) to write to Egypt, (3) for copies of the
letter to overtake Athanasius on his way to Italy. Constantius was at
Milan Jan.-April).
Meanwhile in Alexandria disorders had continued. The `duke' appears to
have been either unable for a time, or to have thought it needless, to
take possession of the churches; but we hear of a violent dispersion of
worshippers from the neighbourhood of the cemetery on Easter Day (p.
249, cf. the Virgins after Syrianus but before Heraclius, p. 288);
while throughout Egypt subscription to an Arianising formula was being
enforced on the bishops under pain of expulsion. After Easter, a change
of governor took place, Maximus of Nicaea (pp. 301 sqq., 247) being
succeeded by Cataphronius, who reached Alexandria on the 10th of June
(Hist. Aceph. iv.). He was accompanied by a Count Heraclius, who
brought a letter from Constantius threatening the heathen with severe
measures (pp. 288, 290), unless active hostilities against the
Athanasian party were begun (this letter was not the one given p. 249;
Ath. rightly remarks `it reflected great discredit upon the writer').
Heraclius announced that by Imperial order the Churches were to be
given up to the Arians, and compelled all the magistrates, including
the functionaries of heathen temples, to sign an undertaking to execute
the Imperial incitements to persecution, and to agree to receive as
Bishop the Emperor's nominee. These incredible precautions shew the
general esteem for Athanasius even outside the Church, and the
misgivings felt at Court as to the reception of the new bishop. The
Gentiles reluctantly agreed, and the next acts of violence were carried
out with their aid, `or rather with that of the more abandoned among
them' (p. 291). On the fourth day from the arrival of Cataphronius,
that is in the early hours of Thursday, June 13, after a service (which
had began overnight, pp. 290, 256 fin., Hist. Aceph. v.), just as all
the congregation except a few women had left, the church of Theonas was
stormed and violences perpetrated which left far behind anything that
Syrianus had done. Women were murdered, the church wrecked and polluted
with the very worst orgies of heathenism, houses and even tombs were
ransacked throughout the city and suburbs on pretence of `seeking for
Athanasius.' Sebastian the Manichee, who about this time succeeded to
the military command of Syrianus, appears to have carried on these
outrages with the utmost zest (yet see Hist. Ar. 60). Many more bishops
were driven into exile (compare the twenty-six of p. 297 with the
`sixteen' p. 248, but some may belong to a still later period, see p.
257), and the Arian bishops and clergy installed, including the
bitterly vindictive Secundus in Libya (p. 257). The formal transfer of
churches at Alexandria took place on Saturday, June 15 (infr., p. 290,
note 9): the anniversary of Eutychius (p. 292) was kept at Alexandria
on July 11, (Martyrol. Vetust. Ed. 1668). After a further delay of
`eight months and eleven days' George, the new bishop, made his
appearance (Feb. 24, 357 [72] , third Friday in Lent). His previous
career [73] and character [74] were strange qualifications for the
second bishopric in Christendom. He had been a pork-contractor at
Constantinople, and according to his many enemies a fraudulent one; he
had amassed considerable wealth, and was a zealous Arian. His violent
temper perhaps recommended him as a man likely to crush the opposition
that was expected. The history of his episcopate may be briefly
disposed of here. He entered upon his See in Lent, 357, with an armed
force. At Easter he renewed the violent persecution of bishops, clergy,
virgins, and lay people. In the week after Pentecost he let loose the
cruel commandant Sebastian against a number of persons who were
worshipping at the cemetery instead of communicating with himself; many
were killed, and many more banished. The expulsion of bishops (`over
thirty,' p. 257, cf. other reff. above) was continued (the various data
of Ath. are not easy to reconcile, the first 16 of p. 257 may be the
`sixteen' of p. 248, before Easter, 356: we miss the name of Serapion
in all the lists!) Theodore, Bishop of Oxyrynchus, the largest town of
middle Egypt, upon submitting to George, was compelled by him to submit
to reordination. The people refused to have anything more to do with
him, and did without a bishop for a long time, until they obtained a
pastor in one Heraclides, who is said to have become a `Luciferian.'
(Cf. Lib. Prec., and Le Quien ii. p. 578.) George carried on his
tyranny eighteen months, till Aug. 29, 358. His fierce insults against
Pagan worship were accompanied by the meanest and most oppressive
rapacity. At last the populace, exasperated by his `adder's bites'
(Ammian.), attacked him, and he was rescued with difficulty. On Oct. 2
he left the town, and the party of Athanasius expelled his followers
from the churches on Oct. 11, but on Dec. 24, Sebastian came in from
the country and restored the churches to the people of George. On June
23, 359, `the notary Paul' (`in complicandis calumniarum nexibus
artifex dirus, unde ei Catenae inditum est cognomentum,' Ammian. Marc.
XIV. v., XV. iii.), the Jeffreys of the day, held a commission of
blood, and `vindictively punished many [75] .' George was at this time
busy with the councils of Seleucia and Constantinople (he was not
actually present at the latter, Thdt. H. E. ii. 28), and was in no
hurry to return. At last, just after the death of Constantius, he
ventured back, Nov. 26, 361, but on the proclamation of Julian on Nov.
30 was seized by the populace and thrown into chains; on Dec. 24,
`impatient of the tedious forms of judicial proceedings,' the people
dragged him from prison and lynched him with the utmost ignominy.
Athanasius meanwhile eluded all search. During part of the year 357-358
he was in concealment in Alexandria itself, and he was supposed to be
there two years later (Fest. Ind. xxx., xxxii.; the latter gives some
colour to the tale of Palladius--cf. Soz. v. 6--of his having during
part of this period remained concealed in the house of a Virgin of the
church), but the greater part of his time was undoubtedly spent in the
numberless cells of Upper and Lower Egypt, where he was secure of close
concealment, and of loyal and efficient messengers to warn him of
danger, keep him informed of events, and carry his letters and writings
far and wide. The tale of Rufinus (i. 18) that he lay hid all the six
years in a dry cistern is probably a confused version of this general
fact. The tombs of kings and private persons were at this time the
common abode of monks (cf. p. 564, note 1; also Socr. iv. 13, a similar
mistake). Probably we must place the composition of the Life of Antony,
the great classic of Monasticism, at some date during this exile,
although the question is surrounded with difficulties (see pp. 188
sqq.). The importance of the period, however, lies in the march of
events outside Egypt. (For a brilliant sketch of the desert life of
Athanasius see D.C.B. i. 194 sq.; also Bright, Hist. Treatises, p.
lxxiv. sq.)
(2.) With the accession of Constantius to sole power, the anti-Nicene
reaction at last had a free hand throughout the Empire. Of what
elements did it now consist? The original reaction was conservative in
its numerical strength, Arian in its motive power. The stream was
derived from the two fountain heads of Paul of Samosata, the ancestor
of Arius, and of Origen the founder of the theology of the Eastern
Church generally and especially of that of Eusebius of Caesarea.
Flowing from such heterogeneous sources, the two currents never
thoroughly mingled. Common action, dictated on the one hand by dread of
Sabellianism, manipulated on the other hand by wire-pullers in the
interest of Arianism, united the East till after the death of
Constantine in the campaign against the leaders of Nicaea. Then for the
last ten years of the life of Constans, Arianism, or rather the
Reaction, had its `stationary period' (Newman). The chaos of creeds at
the Council of Antioch (supr. p. xliv.) shewed the presence of
discordant aims; but opposition to Western interference, and the urgent
panic of Photinus and his master, kept them together: the lead was
still taken by the Arianisers, as is shewn by the continued prominence
of the fourth Antiochene Creed at Philippopolis (343), Antioch (344),
and Sirmium (351). But the second or Lucianic Creed was on record as
the protest of the conservative majority, and was not forgotten. Yet
until after 351, when Photinus was finally got rid of and Constantius
master of the world, the reaction was still embodied in a fairly
compact and united party. But now the latent heterogeneity of the
reaction began to make itself felt. Differing in source and motive, the
two main currents made in different directions. The influence of
Aristotle and Paul and Lucian set steadily toward a harder and more
consistent Arianism, that of Plato and the Origenists toward an
understanding with the Nicenes.
(a.) The original Arians, now gradually dying out, were all tainted
with compromise and political subserviency. Arius, Asterius, Eusebius
of Nicomedia, and the rest (Secundus and Theonas are the solitary
exception), were all at one time or another, and in different degrees,
willing to make concessions and veil their more objectionable tenets
under some evasive confession. But in many cases temporary humiliation
produced its natural result in subsequent uncompromising defiance. This
is exemplified in the history of Valens and Ursacius after 351. Valens,
especially, figures as the head of a new party of `Anomoeans' or
ultra-Arians. The rise of this party is associated with the name of
Aetius, its after-history with that of his pupil Eunomius, bishop of
Cyzicus from 361. It was marked by a genuine scorn for the compromises
of earlier Arianism, from which it differed in nothing except its more
resolute sincerity. The career of Aetius (D.C.B. i. 50, sqq.) was that
of a struggling, self-made, self-confident man. A pupil of the
Lucianists (supr., p. xxviii.), he shrunk from none of the irreverent
conclusions of Arianism. His loud voice and clear-cut logic lost none
of their effect by fear of offending the religious sensibilities of
others. In 350 Leontius ordained him deacon, with a licence to preach,
at Antioch; but Flavian and Diodorus (see above, S:7) raised such a
storm that the cautious bishop felt obliged to suspend him. On the
appointment of George he was invited to Alexandria, whither Eunomius
was attracted by his fame as a teacher. His influence gradually spread,
and he found many kindred spirits among the bishops. The survivors of
the original Arians were with him at heart, as also were men like
Eudoxius, bishop of Germanicia (of Antioch, 358, of CP. 360), who fell
as far behind Aetius in sincerity as he surpassed him in profanity; the
Anomoeans (anomoios) were numerically strong, and morally even more so;
they were the wedge which eventually broke up the reactionary mass,
rousing the sincere horror of the Conservatives, commanding the
sometimes dissembled but always real sympathy of the true Arians, and
seriously embarrassing the political Arians, whose one aim was to keep
their party together by disguising differences of principle under some
convenient phrase.
(b.) This latter party were headed by Acacius in the East and in the
West by Valens, who while in reality, as stated above, making play for
the Anomoean cause, was diplomatist enough to use the influential
`party of no principle' as his instrument for the purpose. Valens
during the whole period of the sole reign of Constantius (and in fact
until his own death about 375) was the heart and soul of the new and
last phase of Arianism, namely of the formal attempt to impose an Arian
creed upon the Church in lieu of that of Nicaea. But this could only be
done by skilful use of less extreme men, and in the trickery and
statecraft necessary for such a purpose Valens was facile princeps. His
main supporter in the East was Acacius, who had succeeded to the
bishoprick, the library, and the doctrinal position of his preceptor
Eusebius of Caesarea. The latter, as we saw (p. xxvii. note 5),
represented `the extreme left' of the conservative reaction, meeting
the right wing, or rather the extreme concessions, of pure Arianism as
represented by its official advocate Asterius, whom in fact Eusebius
had defended against the onslaught of Marcellus. In so far then as the
stream of pure Arianism could be mingled with the waters of
Conservatism, Acacius was the channel in which they joined. Eusebius
had not been an Arian, neither was Acacius; Eusebius had theological
convictions, but lacked clearness of perception, Acacius was a
clear-headed man but without convictions; Eusebius was substantially
conservative in his theology, but tainted with political Arianism;
Acacius was a political Arian first, and anything you please
afterwards. On the whole, his sympathies seem to have been
conservative, but he manifests a rooted dislike of principle of any
kind. He appoints orthodox bishops (Philost. v. 1), but quarrels with
them as soon as he encounters their true mettle, Cyril in 358, Meletius
in 361; he befriends Arians, but betrays the too honest Aetius in 360.
His ecclesiastical career begins with the council of four creeds in
341; in controversy with Marcellus he developed the concessions of
Asterius till he almost reached the Nicene standard; he hailed
effusively the Anomoean Creed of Valens in 358 (Soz. iv. 12), and in
359-60 forced that of Nike in its amended form upon the Eastern Church
far and wide. He is next heard of, signing the ;;Omoousion, in 363, and
lastly (Socr. iv. 2) under Valens is named again along with Eudoxius.
The real opinions of a man with such a record are naturally not easy to
determine, but we may be sure that he was in thorough sympathy with the
policy of Constantius, namely the union of all parties in the Church on
the basis of subserviency to the State.
The difficulty was to find a formula. The test of Nicaea could not be
superseded without putting something in its place, which should include
Arianism as effectually as the other had excluded it. Such a test was
eventually (after 357) found in the word homoios [76] . It was a word
with a good Catholic history. We find it used freely by Athanasius in
his earlier anti-Arian writings, and it was thoroughly current in
conservative theology, as for example in Cyril's Catecheses (he has
homoion kata tas graphas and homoion kata panta). It would therefore
permit even the full Nicene belief. On the other hand many of the more
earnest conservative theologians had begun to reflect on what was
involved in the `likeness' of the Son to the Father, and had formulated
the conviction that this likeness was essential, not, as the Arians
held, acquired. This was in fact a fair inference from the ousias
aparallakton eikona of the Dedication Creed. This question made an
agreement between men like Valens and Basil difficult, but it could be
evaded by keeping to the simple homoion, and deprecating non-scriptural
precision. Lastly, there were the Anomoeans to be considered. Now the
homoion had the specious appearance of flatly contradicting this
repellent avowal of the extremists; but to Valens and his friends it
had the substantial recommendation of admitting it in reality.
`Likeness' is a relative term. If two things are only `like' they are
ipso facto to some extent unlike; the two words are not contradictories
but correlatives, and if the likeness is not essential, the unlikeness
is. So far then as the `Homoean' party rested on any doctrinal
principle at all, that principle was the principle of Arius; and that
is how Valens forwarded the Anomoean cause by putting himself at the
head of the Homoeans. His plan of campaign had steadily matured. The
deposition of Photinus in 351 had sounded the note of war, Arles and
Milan (353-5) and the expulsion of Athanasius (356) had cleared the
field of opponents, George was now in possession at Alexandria, and in
the summer of 357 the triumph of Arianism was proclaimed. A small
council of bishops met at Sirmium and published a Latin Creed,
insisting strongly (1) on the unique Godhead of the Father, (2) on the
subjection of the Son `along with all things subjected to Him by the
Father,' and (3) strictly proscribing the terms homoousion,
homoiousion, and all discussion of ousia, as unscriptural and
inscrutable.
This manifesto was none the less Anomoean for not explicitly avowing
the obnoxious phrase. It forbids the definition of the `likeness' as
essential, and does not even condescend to use the homoion at all. The
Nicene definition is for the first time overtly and bluntly denounced,
and the `conservatives' are commanded to hold their peace. The `Sirmium
blasphemy' was indeed a trumpet-blast of defiance. The echo came back
from the Homoeans assembled at Antioch, whence Eudoxius the new bishop,
Acacius, and their friends addressed the Pannonians with a letter of
thanks. But the blast heralded the collapse of the Arian cause; the
Reaction `fell to pieces the moment Arianism ventured to have a policy
of its own' (Gwatkin, p. 158, the whole account should be consulted).
Not only did orthodox Gaul, under Phoebadius of Agen, the most stalwart
of the lesser men whom Milan had spared, meet in synod and condemn the
blasphemy, but the conservative East was up in arms against Arianism,
for the first time with thorough spontaneity. Times were changed
indeed; the East was at war with the West, but on the side of orthodoxy
against Arianism.
(c) We must now take account of the party headed by Basil of Ancyra and
usually (since Epiphanius), but with some injustice, designated as
Semi-Arians. Their theological ancestry and antecedents have been
already sketched (pp. xxvii., xxxv.); they are the representatives of
that conservatism, moulded by the neo-Asiatic, or modified Origenist
tradition, which warmly condemned Arianism at Nicaea, but acquiesced
with only half a heart in the test by which the Council resolved to
exclude it. They furnished the numerical strength, the material basis
so to call it, of the anti-Nicene reaction; but the reaction on their
part had not been Arian in principle, but in part anti-Sabellian, in
part the empirical conservatism of men whose own principles are vague
and ill-assorted, and who fail to follow the keener sight which
distinguishes the higher conservatism from the lower. They lent
themselves to the purposes of the Eusebians (a name which ought to be
dropped after 342) on purely negative grounds and in view of questions
of personal rights and accusations. A positive doctrinal formula they
did not possess. But in the course of years reflexion did its work. A
younger generation grew up who had not been taught to respect Nicaea,
nor yet had imbibed Arian principles. Cyril at Jerusalem, Meletius at
Antioch, are specimens of a large class. The Dedication Creed at
Antioch represents an early stage in the growth of this body of
conviction, conviction not absolutely uniform everywhere, as the result
shews, but still with a distinct tendency to settle down to a formal
position with regard to the great question of the age. There was
nothing in the Nicene doctrine that men like this did not hold: but the
word homoousion opened the door to the dreaded Sabellian error: was not
the history of Marcellus and Photinus a significant comment upon it?
But if ousia meant not individuality, but specific identity (supr., p.
xxxi. sq.) even this term might be innocently admitted. But to make
that meaning plain, what was more effective than the insertion of an
iota? ;;Omoiousios, then, was the satisfactory test which would banish
Arius and Marcellus alike. Who first used the word for the purpose, we
do not know, but its first occurrence is its prohibition in the
`blasphemy' of Valens in 357. The leader of the `semi-Arians' in 357
was Basil of Ancyra, a man of deep learning and high character. George
of Laodicea, an original Arian, was in active but short-lived [77]
alliance with the party, other prominent members of it were Eustathius,
Bishop of Sebaste (Sivas), Eleusius of Cyzicus, Macedonius of
Constantinople, Eusebius of Emesa, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Mark of
Arethusa, a high-minded but violent man, who represents the `left' wing
of the party as Cyril and Basil represent the `right.'
Now the `trumpet-blast' of Valens gave birth to the `Semi-Arians' as a
formal party. An attempt was made to reunite the reaction on a Homoean
basis in 359, but the events of that year made the breach more open
than ever. The tendency towards the Nicene position which received its
impulse in 357 continued unchecked until the Nicene cause triumphed in
Asia in the hands of the `conservatives' of the next generation.
Immediately after the Acacian Synod at Antioch early in 358, George of
Laodicea, who had reasons of his own for indignation against Eudoxius,
wrote off in hot haste to warn Basil of the fearful encouragement that
was being given to the doctrines of Aetius in that city. Basil, who was
in communication (through Hilary) with Phoebadius and his colleagues,
had invited twelve neighbouring bishops to the dedication of a church
in Ancyra at this time, and took the opportunity of drawing up a
synodical letter insisting on the Essential Likeness of the Son to the
Father (homoion kat' ousian), and eighteen anathemas directed against
Marcellus and the Anomoeans. (The censure of homoousion e tautoousion
is against the Marcellian sense of the homoousion). Basil, Eustathius,
and Eleusius then proceeded to the Court at Sirmium and were successful
in gaining the ear of the Emperor, who at this time had a high regard
for Basil, and apparently obtained the ratification by a council, at
which Valens, &c., were present, of a composite formula of their own
(Newman's `semi-Arian digest of three Confessions') which was also
signed by Liberius, who was thereupon sent back to Rome. (Soz. iv. 15
is our only authority here, and his account of the formula is not very
clear: he seems to mean that two, not three, confessions were combined.
(Cf. p. 449, note 4.) On the whole, it is most probable that the
`fourth' Antiochene formula in its Sirmian recension of 351 is
intended, perhaps with the addition of twelve of the Ancyrene
anathemas. (The question of the signatures of Liberius need not detain
us.) The party of Valens were involved in sudden and unlooked-for
discomfiture. Basil even succeeded in obtaining a decree of banishment
against Eudoxius, Aetius, and `seventy' others (Philost. iv. 8). But an
Arian deputation from Syria procured their recall, and all parties
stood at bay in mutual bitterness.
Now was the opportunity of Valens. He saw the capabilities of the
Homoean compromise, as yet embodied in no creed, and resolved to try
it: and his experiment was not unsuccessful. All parties alike seem to
have agreed upon the necessity for a council of the whole Church (on
the origin of the proposal, and for other details, see p. 448). But
Valens was determined what the result of the council must be.
Accordingly he prevailed on the Emperor to divide it, the Western Synod
to meet at Ariminum, the Eastern at `Rocky Seleucia,' a mountain
fortress in Cilicia where there happened to be plenty of troops. The
management of the latter was entrusted to Acacius; at Rimini Valens
would be present in person. In event of the two synods differing, a
delegation of ten bishops from each was to meet at Court and settle the
matter. The Creed to be adopted had also to be arranged beforehand, and
for this purpose, to his great discredit, Basil of Ancyra entered into
a conference (along with Mark of Arethusa and certain colleagues) with
Valens, George of Alexandria, and others of like mind. The result was
the `Dated Creed' (May 22, 359) drawn by Mark, prohibiting the word
ousia (in a gentler tone than that of the creed of Valens in 357), but
containing the definition homoion kata panta (`as also the Scriptures
teach,' see above, on Cyril, p. xlix.), words which Valens and Ursacius
sought to suppress. But Constantius insisted on their retention, and
Basil emphasised his subscription by a strongly-worded addition.
Moreover in conjunction with George of Laodicea he drew up a memorandum
(Epiph. 72, 12-22) vindicating the term ousia as implied in Scripture,
insisting on the absolute essential likeness of the Son to the Father,
except in respect of the Incarnation, and repudiating the idea that
agennesia is the essential notion of Godhead. Such a protest was highly
significant as an approach to the Nicene position, but Basil must have
felt its inefficiency for the purpose in hand. Had the creed been
anything but a surrender of principle on his part, no explanatory
memoranda would have been needed.
After the fiasco of the Dated Creed, the issue of the Councils was not
doubtful. The details may be reserved for another place (pp. 448, 453
sqq.), but the general result is noteworthy. At both Councils the court
party were in a minority, and in both alike they eventually had their
way. (See Bright, Hist. Tr. lxxxiv.-xc., and Gwatkin, 170-180.) On the
whole the Seleucian synod came out of the affair more honourably than
the other, as their eventual surrender was confined to their delegates.
Both Councils began bravely. The majorities deposed their opponents and
affirmed their own faith, the Westerns that of Nicaea, the Easterns
that of the Dedication. From both Councils deputations from each rival
section went to the Emperor, who was now at Constantinople. The
deputies from the majority at Ariminum, where the meeting had begun
fully two months before the other, were not received, but detained
first at Hadrianople, then at Nike in Thrace (chosen, says Socr. ii.
37, to impose on the world by the name), where they were induced to
sign a recension of the Dated Creed (the Creed itself had been revoked
and recast without the date and perhaps without the kata panta before
the preliminary meeting at Sirmium broke up, p. 466) of a more
distinctly Homoean character. Armed with this document Valens brought
them back to the Council, and `by threats and cajolery' obtained the
signatures of nearly all the bishops. Yet the stalwart Phoebadius,
Claudius of Picenum, the venerable African Muzonius, father of the
Council, and a few others, were undaunted. But Valens, by adroit
dissimulation and by guiding into a manageable shape the successive
anathematisms by which his orthodoxy was tested, managed to deceive
these simple-minded Westerns, and with applause and exultation, `plausu
quodam et tripudio' (Jer.), amidst which `Valens was lauded to the
skies' (!), the bishops were released from their wearisome detention
and suspense. But Valens `cum recessisset tunc gloriabatur' (Prov. xx.
14). The Western bishops realised too late what they had done,
`Ingemuit totus orbis, et se Arianum esse miratus est.' Valens hurried
with the creed and the anathemas of Phoebadius to Constantinople, where
he found the Seleucian deputies in hot discussion at court. The Eastern
bishops at Seleucia had held to the `Lucianic' creed, and
contemptuously set aside not only the Acacian alternative (p. 466), but
the whole compromise of Basil and Mark at the Sirmian conference of the
preceding May. The `Conservatives' and Acacians were at open war. But
the change of the seat of war to the court gave the latter the
advantage, and Valens and Acacius were determined to secure their
position at any cost. The first step was to compel the signature of the
`semi-Arian' deputies to the creed of Ariminum. This was facilitated by
the renewal on the part of Acacius and Valens of their repudiation,
already announced at Seleucia (p. 466), of the 'Anomoion, (of course
with the mental reservation that the repudiation referred only to
will). Even so, tedious discussions [78] , and the threats of
Constantius, with whom Basil had now lost all his influence (Thdt. ii.
27), were needed to bring about the required compliance late at night
on New Year's Eve, 359-360 (Soz. iv. 23). In January, at the dedication
of the Great Church of Constantine, the second step was taken. The
revised creed of Nike was reissued without the anathemas of Ariminum.
Aetius was offered by his friend Eudoxius as a sacrifice to the
Emperor's scruples (see the account of the previous debates in Thdt.
ubi supra), much as Arius had been sacrificed by his fellow-Lucianists
at Nicaea (S:2 supra: nine bishops protested, but were allowed six
months to reconsider their objection; the six months lasted two years,
and then a reconciliation with Aetius took place for a time, Philost.
vii. 6). Next a clean sweep was made of the leading semi-Arians on
miscellaneous charges (Soz. iv. 24, sq.), and Eudoxius was installed as
bishop of the New Rome in the place of Macedonius. The sacrifice of
Aetius gave the Homoeans a free hand against their opponents, and was
compensated by the appointment of numerous Anomoeans to vacant sees. In
particular Eunomius replaced Eleusius at Cyzicus. In the eastern half
of the Empire Homoeanism was supreme, and remained so politically for
nearly twenty years. But not in the West. Before the Council of
Constantinople met, the power of the West had passed away from
Constantius. Gaul had acknowledged Julian as Augustus, and from Gaul
came the voice of defiance for the Homoean leaders and sympathy for
their deposed opponents (Hil. Frag. xi.). And even in the East,
throughout their twenty years the Homoeans retained their hold upon the
Church by a dead hand. `The moral strength of Christendom lay
elsewhere;' on the one hand the followers of Eunomius were breaking
loose from Eudoxius and forming a definitely Arian sect, those of
Macedonius crystallising their cruder conservatism into the illogical
creed of the `Pneumatomachi;' on the other hand the second generation
of the `semi-Arians' were, under the influence of Athanasius, working
their way to the Greek Catholicism of the future, the Catholicism of
the neo-Nicene school, of Basil and the two Gregories.
The lack of inner cohesion in the Homoean ranks was exemplified at the
start in the election of a new bishop for Antioch. Eudoxius had vacated
the see for that of New Rome; Anianus, the nominee of the Homoeusian
majority of Seleucia, was out of the question; accordingly at a Council
in 361 the Acacians fixed upon Meletius, who had in the previous year
accepted from the Homoeans of CP. the See of Sebaste in the room of the
exiled Eustathius. The new Bishop was requested by the Emperor to
preach on the test passage Prov. viii. 22. This he did to a vast and
eagerly expectant congregation. To the delight of the majority (headed
by Diodorus and Flavian), although he avoided the homoousion, he spoke
with no uncertain sound on the essential likeness of the Son to the
Father. Formally `Nicene,' indeed, the sermon was not (text in Epiph.
Haer. lxxiii. 29-33, see Hort, p. 96, note 1), but the dismay of the
Homoean bishops equalled the joy of the Catholic laity. Meletius was
`deposed' in favour of the old Arian Euzoius (infr., p. 70), and after
his return under Jovian gave in his formal adhesion to the Nicene test.
(3.) The history of Athanasius during this period is the history of his
writings. Hidden from all but devotedly loyal eyes, whether in the
cells of Nitria and the Thebaid, or lost in the populous solitude of
his own city, he followed with a keen and comprehensive glance the
march of events outside. Two men in this age had skill to lay the
physician's finger upon the pulse of religious conviction; Hilary, the
Western who had learned to understand and sympathise with the East,
Athanasius, the Oriental representative of the theological instincts of
the West. First of all came the writings of which we have spoken, the
circular to the bishops and the Apology to Constantius; then the
dignified Apology for his flight, written not long before the expulsion
of George late in 358, when he had begun to realise the merciless
enmity and profound duplicity of the Emperor. We find him not long
after this in correspondence with the exiled confessor, Lucifer of
Calaris (pp. 561 sq., 481 sqq.), and warning the Egyptian monks against
compromising relations with Arian visitors (Letter 53, a document of
high interest), narrating to the trusted Serapion the facts as to the
death of Arius, and sending to the monks a concise refutation of Arian
doctrine (Letters 52, 54). With the latter is associated a reissue of
the Apology of 351, and, as a continuation of it, the solitary monument
of a less noble spirit which Athanasius has left us, the one work which
we would gladly believe to have come from any other pen [79] . But this
supposition is untenable, and in the ferocious pamphlet against
Constantius known as the Arian History we are reminded that noble as he
was, our saint yet lived in an age of fierce passions and reckless
personal violence. The Arian History has its noble features--no work of
Athanasius could lack them--but it reveals not the man himself but his
generation; his exasperation, and the meanness of his persecutors. (For
details on all these tracts see the Introductions and notes to them.)
None of the above books directly relate to the doctrinal developments
sketched above. But these developments called forth the three greatest
works of his exile, and indeed of his whole career. Firstly, the four
Logoi or Tracts against Arianism, his most famous dogmatic work. Of
these an account will be given in the proper place, but it may be
noticed here that they are evidently written with a conciliatory as
well as a controversial purpose, and in view of the position between
357 and 359. Next, the four dogmatic letters to Serapion, the second of
which reproduces the substance of his position against the Arians,
while the other three are devoted to a question overlooked in the
earlier stages of the controversy, the Coessentiality of the Holy
Spirit. This work may possibly have come after the third, and in some
ways the most striking, of the series, the de Synodis written about the
end of 359, and intended as a formal offer of peace to the Homoeusian
party. Following as it did closely upon the conciliatory work of
Hilary, who was present at Seleucia on the side of the majority, this
magnanimous Eirenicon produced an immediate effect, which we trace in
the letters of the younger Basil written in the same or following year;
but the full effect and justification of the book is found in the
influence exerted by Athanasius upon the new orthodoxy which eventually
restored the `ten provinces' to `the knowledge of God' (Hil. de Syn.
63. Further details in Introd. to de Syn., infra, p. 448. It may be
remarked that the romantic idea of his secret presence at Seleucia, and
even at Ariminum, must be dismissed as a too rigid inference from an
expression used by him in that work: see note 1 there).
This brings us to the close of the eventful period of the Third Exile,
and of the long series of creeds which registers the variations of
Arianism during thirty years. We may congratulate ourselves on `having
come at last to the end of the labyrinth of expositions' (Socr. ii.
41), and within sight of the emergence of conviction out of confusion,
of order out of chaos. The work of setting in order opens our next
period. Of the exile there is nothing more to tell except its close.
Hurrying from Antioch on his way from the Persian frontier to oppose
the eastward march of Julian, Constantius caught a fever, was baptised
by Euzoius, and died at Mopsucrenae under Mount Taurus, on Nov. 3, 361.
Julian at once avowed the heathenism he had long cherished in secret,
and by an edict, published in Alexandria on Feb. 9, recalled from exile
all bishops banished by Constantius. `And twelve days after the posting
of this edict Athanasius appeared at Alexandria and entered the Church
on the twenty-seventh day of the same month, Mechir (Feb. 21). He
remained in the Church until the twenty-sixth of Paophi (i.e., Oct.
23)...eight whole months' (Hist. Aceph. vii. The murder of George has
been referred to above, p. liii.).
__________________________________________________________________
[71] The envoys of Magnentius had come from Italy through Libya in
350-351. The `desert' (Apol. Const. 27, 32) must be the region between
Alxa. and Cyrenaica, not Palestine as Tillem. viii. 186, infers from
Ep. AEg. 5. There is no evidence that Ath. left his province during
this exile, and Palestine was a most dangerous territory to venture
into. The cautious vagueness of his language, Ep. AEg. 5, while it
baffles even our curiosity, yet favours the hypothesis that the events
referred to belong to the Egyptian persecution.
[72] This date, coming from the common source of the Historia Acephala
and Festal Index (i.e. from the accredited Alexandrian chronology of
the period), must be accepted unless there is cogent proof of its
incorrectness. No such proof is offered: we have no positive statement
to the contrary, but only (1) the fact that the intrusion of George is
related, Apol. Fug. 6, immediately after an attack on the great church,
possibly the coup de main of Syrianus, but more probably that of p.
290, note 9, without any hint of a long interval. This is true, and if
there were no evidence the other way might justify a guess that George
came in Lent, 356; but no one would claim that the passage is
conclusive by itself; (2) the `improbability' of George delaying his
arrival so long. Improbability is a relative term; we know too little
of George's consecration or movements to justify its use in the present
connection. All the evidence goes to shew that the court party were far
from sanguine as to the nature of his reception, and that their
misgivings were well-founded. The above considerations look very small
when we compare them with the mass of positive evidence the other way.
(1.) The civil Governor had changed: Maximus held the post on Feb. 8,
356 (Hist. Ar. 81, &c.), Cataphronius when the churches were
transferred to the party of George, see below, 6. (2.) The military
Commander had changed: Syrianus was replaced by Sebastian, who appears
just after the transfer of churches, Hist. Ar. 55-60 (Dr. Bright in
D.C.B. i. 194, note, seems to admit that Sebastian belongs to a later
date than the Lent of 356). (3.) The Wednesday (and Thursday) of Hist.
Ar. 55 were not `in Lent.' They suit the data of Hist. Aceph. perfectly
well. (4.) Had George arrived before Easter 356, Athan. would have
heard of it `in the Desert,' Apol. Const. 27; but he has only heard of
his nomination onomasthe 28, probably from the letters given in S:S:30,
31). (5.) The Letter to the Egyptian bishops was written from Libya or
Cyrenaica, when the coercion of the episcopate had begun: it postulates
some time since his expulsion, but George was then (S:7) only in
contemplation. (6.) There is no evidence that the coup de main of
Syrianus was other than unpopular in the city. This was reported to
Const., who after the (Easter) outrages on the Virgins (Ap. Const. 27;
Hist. Ar. 48), and after the expulsion of the sixteen bishops (Hist.
Ar. 54, this was probably about Easter, Ap. Const. 27) sent Heraclius
(with the `discreditable' letter), in whose company (Hist. Ar. 55) the
new Prefect Cataphronius first appears. This let loose the refuse of
the heathen population as described, ib. 55-60. (7.) Here the precise
statement of the Hist. Aceph. fits in exactly. The Presbyters and
people of Ath. remained in possession of the Churches until the arrival
of the new Prefect, with Count Heraclius, on June 10. (8.) Heraclius is
expressly called the precursor of George (p. 288) and is evidently sent
to disarm the reported hostility of the (even heathen) public to the
appointment. It may be added that if we are to take `probabilities'
into account, it is easier to imagine a reason for a court nominee like
George having been slow to take up a dangerous post, than for the
Alexandrian chronologists of the day having invented a year's interval
when none had existed. Montfaucon had already noticed that `a good deal
must have happened' between the irruption of Syrianus and the entry of
George. The data of Athanasius are for the first time clearly explained
by the light thrown on them by the chroniclers. I should also have
urged the fact that the commemoration of George's Pentecost Martyrs on
May 21 in the Roman Martyrology suits 357 and not 356, had I succeeded
in tracing the history of the entry, which has, however, so far eluded
my efforts.
[73] We are quite in the dark as to when, and by whom, George was
consecrated bishop. The statement of Sozomen iv. 8, that he was
ordained by a council of thirty bishops at Antioch, including Theodore
of Heraclea, who had died before the exile of Liberius in 355 (Thdt. H.
E. ii. 16, p. 93. 13), is involved in too hopeless a tangle of
anachronisms to be of any value for our enquiry. But that George was
ordained in Antioch is in itself likely enough, and if so, his
ordination would probably follow close upon the expulsion of
Athanasius. But the repeated assurances of Ath. that George came from
court would imply that after his ordination George went to Italy. That
at once puts his arrival in Alxa. in Lent 356 out of the question.
[74] The statements of Ath. as to George are made at secondhand, and
must be taken cum grano. He is `notoriously wealthy,' yet `hired' by
the Arians. (Cf. p. 249; but apparently he combined wealth and
avarice.) That he was `a heathen' is certainly untrue. His `ignorance'
is equally so: we know that he was a well-read man and possessed a
remarkably good library (D.C.B. ii. 638). That he had `the temper of a
hangman' (p. 227) is in keeping with all that we know of him, and as to
his general character, the statements of Athanasius and other churchmen
are not stronger than Amm. Marcell. XXII. xi. 4 (cf. Gibbon, iii. 171
sqq., ed. Smith, but correct his jeu d'esprit on `S. George and the
Dragon' by Bright, in D.C.B. ubi supra; yet see Stanley, Eastern
Church, Lect. vii. III..).
[75] p. 497. George was at Sirmium in the Spring of 359 (Soz. (v. 16).
Paul Catena came to Alxa. from a similar commission at Scythopolis. He
was apparently aided in both places by Modestus the Comes Orientis.
From Liban. Ep. 205, we gather, to the credit of George, that he was
the intermediary of requests for mitigation on some of the sentences.
He was at this time at Antioch, from whence also `Ex Comitatu
Principis,' Amm. XXII. xi., he returned to Alxa. in 361, evidently
before he had heard of the Emperor's death. (Sievers, pp. 138 sq.)
[76] We cannot fix the date when this word was first adopted as a
shibboleth. It occurs, but not conspicuously, in the `Macrostich' of
344, but not in any other creed till the `dated' symbol of 359. But if
(as Krueger, Lucif, p. 42, note, assumes) the homoiousion was adopted
as a protest against the bald homoion, the latter must have been
current long before 357, when the former was proscribed. I incline to
regard the homoion (as a test word) as a later rival to the homoiousion
[77] Apparently it began with the quarrel over the election to the
bishopric of Antioch, which Eudoxius managed to seize after the death
of Leontius. George was aggrieved at his rights as an elector being
ignored, and may have had hopes of the see for himself. See Soz. iv.
13; but Philost. iv. 5 with much less likelihood puts this down to
Basil.
[78] The discussions, reported with every appearance of substantial
accuracy by Thdt. ii. 27, may have taken place at this time, or at the
council of the succeeding month (Thdt. fails to distinguish the two
meetings). Gwatkin, p. 180, appears to be right in adopting the former
alternative, viz. that the party of Basil prudently abstained from
attending a council in which they would be overpowered: cf. Soz. iv.
24, who however contradicts himself in the next chapter, sub fin. But
the case is not quite clear.
[79] He always used amanuenses, but we have no evidence that he
entrusted them with actual composition, p. 242.
__________________________________________________________________
S:9. Athanasius under Julian and his successors; Fourth and Fifth
Exiles. Feb. 21, 362, to Feb. 1, 366.
(a) The Council of Alexandria in 362. The eight months of undisturbed
residence enjoyed by Athanasius under Julian were well employed. One of
his first acts was to convoke a Synod at Alexandria to deal with the
questions which stood in the way of the peace of the Church. The Synod
was one `of saints and confessors,' including as it did many of the
Egyptian bishops who had suffered under George (p. 483, note 3, again
we miss the name of the trusted Serapion), Asterius of Petra and
Eusebius of Vercellae, with legates from Lucifer of Calaris,
Apollinarius of Laodicea, and Paulinus the Presbyter who ruled the
Eustathian community of Antioch. Our knowledge of the proceedings of
the Synod (with an exception to be referred to later on) is derived
entirely from its `Tome' or Synodal letter addressed to the latter
community and to the exiles who were its guests. Rufinus, from whom or
from the Tome itself Socrates appears to derive his knowledge, follows
the Tome closely, with perhaps a faint trace of knowledge from some
other [80] source. Sozomen gives a short and inadequate report (v. 12).
But the importance of the Council is out of all proportion either to
the number of bishops who took part in it or to the scale of its
documentary records. Jerome goes so far as to say that by its judicious
conciliation it `snatched the whole world from the jaws of Satan' (Adv.
Lucif. 20). If this is in any measure true, if it undid both in East
and West the humiliating results of the twin Synods of 359, the honour
of the achievement is due to Athanasius alone. He saw that victory was
not to be won by smiting men who were ready for peace, that the cause
of Christ was not to be furthered by breaking the bruised reed and
quenching the smoking flax. (Best accounts of the Council, Newman,
Arians V. i., Krueger, Lucif. 41-52, Gwatkin, p. 205, sqq.) The details
may be reserved for the Introduction to the Tome, p. 481. But in the
strong calm moderation of that document we feel that Athanasius is no
longer a combatant arduously contending for victory, but a conqueror
surveying the field of his triumph and resolving upon the terms of
peace. The Council is the ripe first-fruits of the de Synodis, the
decisive step by which he placed himself at the head of the reuniting
forces of Eastern Christendom; forces which under the recognised
headship of the `Father of Orthodoxy' were able successfully to
withstand the revived political supremacy of Arianism under Valens, and
after his death to cast it out of the Church. The Council then is
justly recognised as the crown of the career of Athanasius, for its
resolutions and its Letter unmistakably proceed from him alone, and
none but he could have tempered the fiery zeal of the confessors and
taught them to distinguish friend from foe.
It would have been well had Lucifer been there in person and not by
deputy only. As it was he had gone to Antioch in fiery haste, with a
promise extorted by Eusebius to do nothing rashly. Fanatical in his
orthodoxy, quite unable to grasp the theological differences between
the various parties (his remonstrances with Hilary upon the
conciliatory efforts of the latter shew his total lack of theology: see
also Krueger, pp. 36, sq.), and concentrating all his indignation upon
persons rather than principles, Lucifer found Antioch without a bishop;
for Euzoius was an Arian, and Meletius, whose return to the church of
the Palaea was (so it seems) daily expected, was to Lucifer little
better. What to such a man could seem a quicker way to the extinction
of the schism than the immediate ordination of a bishop whom all would
respect, and whose record was one of the most uncompromising resistance
to heresy? Lucifer accordingly, with the aid we may suppose of Kymatius
and Anatolius, ordained Paulinus, the widely-esteemed head of the
irreconcileable or (to adopt Newman's word) protestant minority, who
had never owned any Bishop of Antioch save the deposed and banished
Eustathius. The act of Lucifer had momentous consequences (see D.C.B.
on Meletius and Flavian, &c.); it perpetuated the existing tendency to
schism between East and West; and but for the forbearance of Athanasius
it would perhaps have wrecked the alliance of Conservative Asia with
Nicene orthodoxy which his later years cemented. Even as it was, the
relations between Athanasius and Basil were sorely tried by the schism
of Antioch. The Tome however was signed by Paulinus [81] , who added a
short statement of his own faith, which, by recognising the legitimacy
of the theological language of the other catholic party at Antioch,
implicitly conceded the falseness of his own position.
Eusebius and Asterius of Petra carried the letter to Antioch, where
they found the mischief already done. In deep pain at the headstrong
action of his fellow-countryman, Eusebius gave practical assurance to
both parties of his full sympathy and recognition, and made his way
home through Asia and Illyria, doing his best in the cause of concord
wherever he came. Lucifer renounced communion with all the parties to
what he considered a guilty compromise, and journeyed home to Sardinia,
making mischief everywhere (terribly so at Naples, according to the
grotesque tale in the Lib. Prec.; see D.C.B. iv. 1221 under Zosimus
(2)), and ended his days in the twofold reputation of saint and
schismatic (Krueger, pp. 55, 116 sq.).
It may be well to add a few words upon the supposed Coptic acts of this
council, and upon their connection with the very ancient Syntagma
Doctrinae, wrongly so named, and wrongly ascribed to Athanasius. These
`acts' are in reality a series of documents consisting of (1) The
Nicene Creed, Canons, and Signatures; (2) A Coptic recension of the
Syntagma Doctrinae; (3) the letter of Paulinus from Tom. Ant., sub
fin., a letter of Epiphanius, and a fragmentary letter of `Rufinus,'
i.e. Rufinianus (see infr. p. 566, note 1). Revillout, who published
these texts from a Turin and a Roman (Borgia) manuscript in 1881 (Le
Concile de Nicee d'apres les textes Coptes) jumped (Archives des
missions scientifiques et litteraires, 1879) at the conclusion that the
whole series emanated from the council of 362, from whose labours all
our copies of the Nicene canons and signatures are supposed by him to
emanate. His theory cannot be discussed at length in this place. It is
worked out with ingenuity, but with insufficient knowledge of general
Church history. It appears to be adopted wholesale by Eichhorn in his
otherwise critical and excellent Athanasii de vita ascetica testimonia
(see below, p. 189); but even those whose scepticism has not been
awaked by the hypothesis itself must I think be satisfied by the
careful study of M. Batiffol (Studia Patristica, fasc. ii.) that
Revillout has erected a castle in the air. Of any `acts' of the Council
of 362 the documents contain no trace at all. It is therefore out of
place to do more than allude here to the great interest of the Syntagma
in its three or four extant recensions in connection at once with the
history of Egyptian Monasticism and with the literature of the Didache
ton ib' apostolon (see Harnack in Theol. Litzg. 1887, pp. 32, sqq.,
Eichhorn, ib. p. 569, Warfield in Andover Review, 1886, p. 81, sqq.,
and other American literature referred to by Harnack a.a.O).
All over the Empire the exiles were returning, and councils were held
(p. 489), repudiating the Homoean formula of union, and affirming that
of Nicaea. In dealing with the question of those who had formerly
compromised themselves with Arianism, these councils followed the lead
of that of Alexandria, which accordingly is justly said by Jerome (adv.
Lucif. 20) to have snatched the world from the jaws of Satan, by
obviating countless schisms and attaching to the Church many who might
otherwise have been driven back into Arianism.
Such were the more enduring results of the recall of the exiled bishops
by Julian; results very different from what he contemplated in
recalling them. Apparently before the date of the council he had
written to the Alexandrians (Ep. 26), explaining that he had recalled
the exiles to their countries, not to their sees, and directing that
Athanasius, who ought after so many sentences against him to have asked
special permission to return, should leave the City at once on pain of
severer punishment. An appeal seems to have been made against this
order by the people of Alexandria, but without effect. Pending the
appeal Athanasius apparently felt safe in remaining in the town, and
carrying out the measures described above. In October (it would seem)
Julian wrote an indignant letter to the Prefect Ecdikius Olympus
(Sievers, p. 124), threatening a heavy fine if Athanasius, `the enemy
of the gods,' did not leave not only Alexandria, but Egypt, at once. He
adds an angry comment on his having dared to baptize `in my reign'
Greek ladies of rank (Ep. 6). Another letter (Ep. 51) to the people of
Alexandria, along with arguments in favour of Serapis and the gods, and
against Christ, reiterates the order for Athanasius to leave Egypt by
Dec. 1. Julian's somewhat petulant reference to the bishop as a
`contemptible little fellow' ill conceals his evident feeling that
Athanasius, who had `coped with Constantius like a king battling with a
king' (Greg. Naz.), was in Egypt a power greater than himself. But no
man has ever wielded such political power as Athanasius with so little
disposition to use it. He bowed his head to the storm and prepared to
leave Alexandria once more (Oct. 23). His friends stood round lamenting
their loss. `Be of good heart,' he replied, `it is only a cloud, and
will soon pass away' (Soz. v. 14). He took a Nile boat, and set off
toward Upper Egypt, but finding that he was tracked by the government
officers he directed the boat's course to be reversed. Presently they
met that of the pursuers, who suspecting nothing asked for news of
Athanasius. `He is not far off' was the answer, given according to one
account by Athanasius himself (Thdt. iii. 9, Socr. iii. 14). He
returned to Chaereu, the first station on the road eastward from
Alexandria (as is inferred from the Thereu or Thereon of Hist. Aceph.
vii., viii.; but the identification is merely conjectural; for Chaereu
cf. Itin. and Vit. Ant. 86), and after danger of pursuit was over,
`ascended to the upper parts of Egypt as far as Upper Hermupolis in the
Thebaid and as far as Antinoupolis; and while he abode in these places
it was learned that Julian the Emperor was dead, and that Jovian, a
Christian, was Emperor' (Hist. Aceph.). Of his stay in the Thebaid (cf.
Fest. Ind. xxxv.) some picturesque details are preserved in the life of
Pachomius and the letter of Ammon (on which see below, p. 487). As he
approached Hermupolis, the bishops, clergy, and monks (`about 100 in
number') of the Thebaid lined both banks of the river to welcome him.
`Who are these,' he exclaimed, `that fly as a cloud and as doves with
their young ones' (Isa. lx. 8, LXX). Then he saluted the Abbat
Theodore, and asked after the brethren. `By thy holy prayers, Father,
we are well.' He was mounted on an ass and escorted to the monastery
with burning torches (they `almost set fire to him'), the abbat walking
before him on foot. He inspected the monasteries, and expressed his
high approval of all he heard and saw, and when Theodore, upon
departing for his Easter (363) visitation [82] of the brethren, asked
`the Pope' to remember him in his prayers, the answer was
characteristic: `If we forget thee, O Jerusalem' (Vit. Pachom. 92, see
p. 569). About midsummer he was near Antinoupolis, and trusted
messengers warned him that the pursuers were again upon his track.
Theodore brought his covered boat to escort him up to Tabenne, and in
company with an `abbat' called Pammon they made their way slowly
against wind and stream. Athanasius became much alarmed and prayed
earnestly to himself, while Theodore's monks towed the boat from the
shore. Athanasius, in reply to an encouraging remark of Pammon, spoke
of the peace of mind he felt when under persecution, and of the
consolation of suffering and even death for Christ's sake. Pammon
looked at Theodore, and they smiled, barely restraining a laugh. `You
think me a coward,' said Athanasius. `Tell him,' said Theodore to
Pammon. `No, you must tell him.' Theodore then announced to the
astonished archbishop that at that very hour Julian had been killed in
Persia, and that he should lose no time in making his way to the new
Christian Emperor, who would restore him to the Church. The story
(below, p. 487) implies rather than expressly states that the day and
hour tallied exactly with the death of Julian, June 26, 363. This story
is, on the whole, the best attested of the many legends of the kind
which surround the mysterious end of the unfortunate prince. (Cf. Thdt.
H. E. iii. 23, Soz. vi. 2. For the religious policy of Julian and his
relation to Church history, see Rendall's Julian and the full and
excellent article by Wordsworth in D.C.B. iii. 484-525.)
Athanasius entered Alexandria secretly and made his way by way of
Hierapolis (Sept. 6, Fest. Ind.) to Jovian at Edessa, and returned with
him (apparently) to Antioch. On Feb. 14 (or 20, Fest. Index) he
returned to Alexandria with imperial letters and took possession of the
churches, his fourth exile having lasted `fifteen months and twenty-two
days' (Hist. Aceph.). The visit to Antioch was important.
Firstly, it is clear from the combined and circumstantial testimony of
the Festal Index, the Hist. Aceph., and the narrative of Ammon, that
Athanasius hurried to meet Jovian on his march from Persia to Antioch,
and visited Alexandria only in passing and in private. He appears to
have taken the precaution (see below) of taking certain bishops and
others, representing the majority (plethos) of the Egyptian Church,
along with him. Accordingly the tale of Theodoret (iv. 2), that he
assembled a council (tous logimoterous ton episkopon egeiras), and
wrote a synodal letter to Jovian, in reply to a request from the latter
to furnish him with an accurate statement of doctrine (followed by
Montf., Hefele, &c.) must be set aside as a hasty conjecture from the
heading of the Letter to Jovian (see below, ch. v. S:3 (h), and cf.
Vales. on Thdt. iv. 3, who suspected the truth).
Athanasius, secondly, had good reason for hurrying. The Arians had also
sent a large deputation to petition against the restoration of
Athanasius, and to ask for a bishop. Lucius, their candidate for the
post, accompanied the deputation. But the energy of Athanasius was a
match for their schemes. He obtained a short but emphatic letter from
Jovian, bidding him return to his see, and placed in the Emperor's
hands a letter (below, Letter 56, p. 567), insisting on the integrity
of the Nicene creed, which it recites, and especially on the Godhead of
the Holy Spirit.
Meanwhile at Antioch, where the winter was spent (Jovian was mostly
there till Dec. 21), there was much to be attended to. Least important
of all were the efforts of the Arian deputation to secure a hearing for
their demands. Jovian's replies to them on the repeated occasions on
which they waylaid him are perhaps undignified (Gwatkin) but yet shew a
rough soldier-like common sense. `Any one you please except Athanasius'
they urged. `I told you, the case of Athanasius is settled already:'
then, to the body-guard `Feri, feri' (i.e. use your sticks!) Some of
the plethos of Antioch seized Lucius and brought him to Jovian, saying,
`Look, your Majesty, at the man they wanted to make a bishop!' (See p.
568 sq.)
Athanasius appears to have attempted to bring about some settlement of
the disputes which distracted the Church of Antioch. The Hist. Aceph.
makes him `arrange the affairs' of that Church, but Sozom. (vi. 5), who
copies the phrase, significantly adds hos hoi& 231;n te en--`as far as
it was feasible.' The vacillations (Philost. viii. 2, 7, ix. 3, &c.) of
Euzoius between Eudoxius on the one hand, and the consistent Anomoeans
on the other, and the formation of a definite Anomoean sect,
represented in Egypt by Heliodorus, Stephen, and other nominees of the
bitter Arian Secundus (who appears to be dead at last) probably
concerned Athanasius but little. But the breach among the Antiochene
Catholics was more hopeless than ever. The action of Paulinus in
ordaining a bishop for Tyre, Diodorus by name (p. 580 note), shews that
he had caught something of the spirit of Lucifer, while on the other
hand we can well imagine that it was with mixed feelings that
Athanasius saw a number of bishops assemble under Meletius to sign the
Nicene Creed. To begin with, they explained the homoousion to be
equivalent to ek tes ousias and homoion kat' ousian. Now this was no
more than taking Athanasius literally at his word (de Syn. 41 exactly;
the confession, Socr. iii. 25, appears to meet Ath. de Syn. half way:
cf. the reference to 'Ellenike chresis with de Syn. 51), and there is
no reason to doubt that the majority [83] of those who signed did so in
all sincerity, merely guarding the homoousion against its Sabellian
sense (which Hilary de Syn. 71, had admitted as possible), and in fact,
meaning by the term exactly what Basil the Great and his school meant
by it. This is confirmed by the express denunciation of Arianism and
Anomoeanism. But Athanasius may have suspected an intention on the part
of some signatories to evade the full sense of the creed, especially as
touching the Holy Spirit, and this suspicion would not be lessened by
the fact that Acacius signed with the rest. It must remain possible,
therefore, that a clause in the letter to Jovian referred to above,
expresses his displeasure [84] at the wording of the document. (On the
significance of the confession in question, see Gwatkin, pp. 226 sq.,
244, note 1.) We gather from language used by St. Basil at a later date
(Bas. Epp. 89, 258) that Athanasius endeavoured to conciliate Meletius,
and to bring about some understanding between the two parties in the
Church. Meletius appears to have considered such efforts premature:
Basil writes to him that he understands that Athanasius is much
disappointed that no renewal of friendly overtures has taken place, and
that if Meletius desires the good offices of the Bishop of Alexandria
the first word must come from him (probably seven or eight years later
than this date). In justice to Meletius it must be allowed that
Paulinus did his best to embitter the schism by ordaining bishops at
Tyre and elsewhere, ordinations which Meletius naturally resented, and
appears to have ignored (D.C.B. iv. Zeno (3),--where observe that the
breach of canons began with the appointment of Paulinus himself).
Athanasius returned to Alexandria on Feb. 14 (Hist. Aceph.) or 20
(Fest. Ind.), and Jovian died, by inhaling the fumes of a charcoal fire
in the bedroom of a wayside inn, on Feb. 17.
Valentinian, an officer of Pannonian birth, was elected Emperor by the
army, and shortly co-opted his brother Valens to a share in the Empire.
Valens was allotted the Eastern, Valentinian choosing the Western half
of the Empire. Valentinian was a convinced but tolerant Catholic, and
under his reign Arianism practically died away in the Latin West
(infra, p. 488). Valens, a weak, parsimonious, but respectable and
well-intentioned ruler, at first took no decided line, but eventually
(from the end of 364) fell more and more into the hands of Eudoxius
(from whom he received baptism in 367) and the Arian hangers-on of the
Court (a suggestive, if in some details disputable, sketch of the
general condition of the Eastern Church under Valens in Gwatkin, pp.
228-236, 247 sq.). The semi-Arians of Asia were continuing their
advance toward the Nicene position, but the question of the Holy Spirit
was already beginning to cleave them into two sections. At their
council of Lampsacus (autumn of 364) they reasserted their formula of
`essential likeness' against the Homoeans, but appear to have left the
other and more difficult question undecided. After Valens had declared
strongly on the side of the enemy, they were driven to seek Western
aid. They set out to seek Valentinian at Milan, but finding him
departed on his Gallic campaign (Gwatkin, 236, note) they contented
themselves with laying before Liberius, on behalf of the Synod of
Lampsacus and other Asiatic Councils, a letter accepting the Nicene
Creed. After some hesitation (Soc. iv. 12) they were cordially received
by Liberius, who gave them a letter to take home with them, in which
the controverted question of the Holy Spirit is passed over in silence.
(Letter of the Asiatics in Socr. iv. 12, that of Liberius in Hard.
Conc. i. 743-5, the names include Cyril of Jerusalem, Macedonius,
Silvanus of Tarsus, Athanasius of Ancyra, &c., and the Pope's letter is
addressed to them `et universis orientalibus orthodoxis'). On their
return, the disunion of the party manifested itself by the refusal of
several bishops to attend the synod convoked to receive the deputies at
Tyana, and by their assembling a rival meeting in Caria to reaffirm the
`Lucianic' Creed (Hefele, ii. 287 E. Tr.). Further efforts at reunion
were frustrated by the Imperial prohibition of an intended Synod at
Tarsus, possibly in 367.
Athanasius remained in peace in his see until the spring of 365, when
on May 5 a rescript was published at Alexandria, ordering that all
bishops expelled under Constantius who had returned to their sees under
Julian should be at once expelled by the civil authorities under pain
of a heavy fine. The announcement was received with great popular
displeasure. The officials were anxious to escape the fine, but the
Church-people argued that the order could not apply to Athanasius, who
had been restored by Constantius, expelled by Julian in the interest of
idolatry, and restored by order of Jovian. Their remonstrances were
backed up by popular riots: when these had lasted a month, the Prefect
quieted the people by the assurance that the matter was referred back
to Augustus (Hist. Aceph. x., followed by Soz. vi. 12). But on Oct. 5
an imperative answer seems to have come. The Prefect and the Commandant
broke into the Church of Dionysius at night and searched the apartments
of the clergy to seize the bishop. But Athanasius, warned in time, had
escaped from the town that very night and retired to a country house
which belonged to him near the `New River' [85] . This was the shortest
and mildest of the five exiles of Athanasius. In the autumn the
dangerous revolt of Procopius threw the Eastern Empire into a panic. It
was no time to allow popular discontent to smoulder at Alexandria, and
on Feb. 1, 366, the notary Brasidas publicly announced the recall of
Athanasius to Imperial order. The notary and `curiales' went out to the
suburb in person and escorted Athanasius in state to the Church of
Dionysius.
__________________________________________________________________
[80] He states (1) That a rigorist party in the council were at first
opposed to all conciliatory measures; this is highly probable, see
Hieron. adv. Lucif. 20; (2) that former active Arians were to be
admitted to lay communion only; this is not unlikely; (3) by
implication, that Eusebius and Lucifer went first to Antioch, and
agreed to take no step till after the Council which Eus. was to attend
in person, and Luc. by deputy, at Alxa., but that Luc. broke his
promise. This may contain a grain of truth, i.e. that Lucifer promised
to do nothing before he heard from Alxa., but Eusebius can scarcely
have gone to Antioch. I owe these notices to the excellent analysis of
our sources of information in Krueger, Lucif. p. 46 sq.; but he makes
an odd slip, p. 48, in saying that Soz. `schweigt von der Synode zu
Alex. uberhaupt.'
[81] This is placed later in 363 by Dr. Bright, D.C.B. i. 199, on the
ground of a statement of Epiphanius, Haer. 77. 20, which, however, is
not quite decisive on the point.
[82] Krueger, in Theol. Litzg. 1890, p. 620 sqq., fixes the death of
Theodore for Easter 363, on the ground, as I venture to think, of a
date (345) for the death of Pachomius too early by one year. The
question is too intricate to discuss here, but with all deference to so
competent a critic, I am confident that Theodore lived till at any rate
the following Easter. See infr. p. 569, note 3.
[83] This is certainly true of men like Athanasius of Ancyra, Eusebius
of Samosata, Pelagius of Laodicea, Titus of Bostra, &c.
[84] The tract de Hypocrisi Meletii et Eusebii printed among the
`dubious' works of Athanasius may well express the sentiments of some
of his friends of the party of Paulinus on this occasion. (Tillem.
viii. 708.)
[85] So Hist. Aceph., Fest. Ind. Socrates iv. 13 says he hid four
months `in his Father's tomb.' Soz. vi. 12, mentions the story, but
finding it contradicted by the Hist. Aceph., adopts the vague
compromise eis ti chorion ekrupteto. The `New River' divided Alexandria
from its Western suburbs.
__________________________________________________________________
S:10. Last Years, Feb. 1, 366-May 2, 373.
Athanasius now entered upon the last septennium of his life, a
well-earned Sabbath of honoured peace and influence for good. Little
occurred to disturb his peace at home, and if the confusion and
distress of the Eastern Church under Valens could not but cause him
anxiety, in Egypt at any rate, so long as he lived, the Catholic Faith
was secure from molestation.
In 367 Lucius, who had been ordained Bishop of Alexandria by the Arian
party at Antioch, made an attempt to enter the city. He arrived by
night on Sept. 24, but on the following day the public got wind of his
presence in Alexandria, and a dangerous riot was imminent. A strong
military force rescued him from the enraged mob, and on Sept. 26 he was
escorted out of Egypt. In the previous year a heathen riot had taken
place and the great Church in the Caesareum had been burned. But in
May, 368, the building was recommenced (the incendiaries having been
punished) under an Imperial order.
On Sept. 22, 368, Athanasius began to build a Church in the quarter
`Mendidium' (perhaps in commemoration of his completion of the 40th
year of his Episcopate, see Hist. Aceph. xii.), which was dedicated
Aug. 7, 370, and called after his own name.
In 368 or the following year we place the Synod at which Athanasius
drew up his letter to the bishops of Africa giving an account of the
proceedings at Nicaea, and mentioning his dissatisfaction at the
continued immunity enjoyed by Auxentius at Milan (see p. 488).
Our knowledge of the last years of the life of Athanasius is derived
partly from his own letters (59-64), partly from the scanty data of his
latest works, partly from the letters of Synesius and Basil. From
Synesius (Ep. 77) we hear of the case of Siderius, a young officer from
the army who was present in Libya on civil duty. The Bishop of
Erythrum, Orion by name, was in his dotage, and the inhabitants of two
large villages in the diocese, impatient of the lack of supervision,
clamoured for a bishop of their own, and for the appointment of
Siderius. Siderius was accordingly consecrated by a certain Bishop
Philo alone, without the canonical two assistants, and without the
cognisance of Athanasius. But in view of the immense utility of the
appointment Athanasius overlooked its irregularity, and even promoted
Siderius to the Metropolitan see of Ptolemais, merging the two villages
upon Orion's death once more into their proper diocese. (Fuller details
D.C.B. iv. 777, sq.) But if Athanasius was no slave to ecclesiastical
discipline when the good of the church was in question, he enforced it
unsparingly in the interest of morality. An immoral governor of Libya
was sternly excommunicated and the fact announced far and wide. We have
the reply of Basil the Great, who in 370 had become Bishop of Caesarea
in Cappadocia, to this notification, and from this time frequent
letters passed between the champions of the Old and of the New Nicene
orthodoxy. Unhappily we have none of the letters of Athanasius: those
of Basil shew us that the loss is one to be deplored. The
correspondence bore partly on the continuance of the unhappy schism at
Antioch. Basil asks for the mediation of Athanasius; if he could not
bring himself to write a letter to the bishops in communion with
Meletius, he might at least use his influence with Paulinus and prevail
upon him to withdraw. He also presses Meletius to take the initiative
in conciliation: possibly he did so, at least one of Basil's letters is
sent by the hand of one of Meletius' deacons (Bas. Epp. 60, 66, 69, 80,
82, 89). But `nothing came of the application:' Meletius probably felt
injured at the strong support Athanasius had given to Paulinus, even in
so questionable an affair as that of Diodorus of Tyre (supra, S:9, and
cf. Letter 64); while Athanasius was too deeply committed to surrender
Paulinus, who again was the last man to yield of his own accord (Thdt.
H. E. v. 23).
Basil obtained the good offices of Athanasius in his attempt to induce
the bishops of Rome and the West to give him some support in his
efforts against heresy in the East; but the failure here was due to the
selfishness and arrogance of the Westerns. (Epp. 61, 67).
Basil was also troubled with the continued refusal of Athanasius and
the Westerns to repudiate Marcellus, who was still living in extreme
old age, and to whom the mass of the people at Ancyra were attached
(Bas. Ep. 266, Legat. Eugen. 1, anarithmeton plethos). This state of
things, he urged, kept alive the prejudice of many against the Nicene
decrees (Ep. 69). But the Marcellians, perhaps aware of the efforts of
Basil, sent a deputation, headed by the deacon Eugenius, and fortified
by letters from `the bishops' of Macedonia and Achaia, to Alexandria. A
synod was apparently in readiness to receive them, and upon demand they
produced a statement of their faith, emphatically adopting the Nicene
creed, condemning Sabellius, but affirming an en hupostasei triada. The
distinction between Logos and the Son is rejected, and the idea that
the Monad existed before the Son anathematised. Photinus is classed as
a heretic with Paul of Samosata. Only the eternal duration of Christ's
kingdom is not mentioned. (It may be noted that while this letter gives
up many points of the theology of Marcellus, the process is quite
completed in a letter submitted by the Marcellian community in 375 to
some exiled Egyptian bishops at Diocaesarea [86] ; Epiph. Haer. 72,
11). Athanasius accepted the confession, and the assembled bishops
subscribed their names (only a few signatures are preserved). While we
understand Basil's regret at the refusal of Athanasius to condemn
Marcellus, we can scarcely share it. If Athanasius shewed partiality
toward his old ally, it was an error of generosity, or rather let us
say a recognition of the truth, too often forgotten in religious
controversy, that mistakes are not necessarily heresies, and that a man
may go very far wrong in his opinions and yet be entitled to sympathy
and respect.
Basil speaks of Athanasius in terms of unbounded veneration and praise,
and Athanasius in turn rebukes those who attempted to disparage Basil's
orthodoxy, calling him a bishop such as any church might desire to call
its own (p. 579 sq.).
During the last decade of his life the attention of Athanasius was
drawn to the questions raised by the Arian controversy as to the human
nature of our Lord. The Arian doctrine on this subject was apparently
as old as Lucian, but the whole subject received little or no attention
in the earlier stages of the controversy, and it was only with the rise
of the Anomoean school that the questions came into formal discussion.
In the later letters of Athanasius we see the traces of wide-spread
controversy on the matter (especially in that to Epictetus, No. 59),
and Apollinarius, bishop of the Syrian Laodicea, and a former close
friend of Athanasius, whose legates in 362 had joined in condemning the
Arian Christology, broached a peculiar theory on the subject, viz.,
that while Christ took a human soul along with His Body, the Word took
the place of the human spirit, pneuma (1 Thess. v. 23). The details of
the system do not belong to our subject (an excellent sketch in
Gwatkin's Arian Controversy, pp. 136-141); in fact it was two years
after the death of Athanasius when Apollinarius definitely founded a
sect by consecrating a schismatic bishop for the already distracted
Church of Antioch. But Athanasius marked with alarm the tendency of his
friend, and in the very last years of his life wrote a tract against
his tenet in two short books, in which, as in writing against Marcellus
and Photinus 15 years before, he refrains from mentioning Apollinarius
by name. It may be observed that at the close of the second book he
brings himself for the first time to censure by name `him they call
Photinus,' classing him along with Paul of Samosata.
Athanasius was active to the last; spiritually (we are not able to say
physically) `his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.' In his
seventy-fifth year he entered (Ruf. ii. 3) upon the forty-sixth year of
his episcopate. Feeling that his end was near, he followed the example
of his revered predecessor Alexander, and named Peter as the man whom
he judged fittest to succeed him; then `on the seventh of Pachon [87]
(May 2, 373) he departed this life in a wonderful manner.'
__________________________________________________________________
[86] For the best treatment of the document, see Zahn, p, 95. I am
quite unable to follow the theory advanced in D. C. B. iii. 812; least
of all the writer's suggestion that Athanasius was `egregiously duped'
(!) by Marcellus.
[87] Fest. Ind. xlv. The Hist. Aceph. give May 3; probably he died
after midnight; but May 2 is kept as his feast by the Copts and by the
Western Church.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter III.
Writings and Personal Characteristics of S. Athanasius
S:1. It will be attempted to give a complete list of his writings in
chronological order; those included in this volume will be marked with
an asterisk and enumerated in this place without remark. The figures
prefixed indicate the probable date.
(1) 318: *Two books `contra Gentes,' viz. c. Gent. and De Incarn. (2)
321-2: *Depositio Arii (on its authorship, see Introd.) (3) 328-373:
*Festal Letters. (4) 328-335? *Ecthesis or Expositio Fidei. (5) Id.?
*In Illud Omnia, etc. (6) 339: *Encyclica ad Episcopos ecclesiae
catholicae. (7) 343: *Sardican Letters (46, 47, in this vol.). (8) 351?
*Apologia Contra Arianos. (9) 352? *De Decretis Concilii Nicaeni, with
the *Epistola Eusebii (a.d. 325) as appendix. (10) Id.? *De Sententia
Dionysii. (11) 350-353? *Ad Amun, (Letter 48). (12) 354: *Ad Dracontium
(Letter 49 in this vol.). (13) 356-362? *Vita Antoni. (14) 356:
*Epistola ad Episc. AEgypti et Libyae. (15) 356-7: *Apol. ad
Constantium. (16) 357: *Apol. de Fuga. (17) 358: *Epist. ad Serapionem
de Morte Arii (Letter 54). (18) ID. *Two Letters to Monks (52, 53).
(19) 358? *Historia Arianorum `ad monachos.' (20) Id. *Orationes
adversus Arianos IV. (21) 359? *Ad Luciferum (Letters 50, 51). (22)
Id.? Ad Serapionem Orationes IV. (Migne xxvi. 529, sqq.). These logoi
or dogmatic letters are the most important work omitted in the present
volume. Serapion of Thmuis, who appears from the silence respecting him
in the lists of exiles to have escaped banishment in 356-7, reported to
Athanasius the growth of the doctrine that, while the Son was
co-essential with the Father, the Spirit was merely a creature superior
to Angels. Athanasius replied in a long dogmatic letter, upon receiving
which Serapion was begged to induce the author to abridge it for the
benefit of the simple. After some hesitation Athanasius sent two more
letters, the second drawing out the proofs of the Godhead of the Son,
the third restating more concisely the argument of the first. The
objections by which these letters were met were replied to in a fourth
letter which Athanasius declared to be his last word. The persons
combated are not the Macedonians, who only formed a party on this
question at a later date, and whose position was not quite that
combated in these letters. Athanasius calls them Tropikoi, or
`Figurists,' from the sense in which they understood passages of
Scripture which seemed to deify the Holy Spirit. It is not within our
compass to summarise the treatises, but it may be noted that Ath.
argues that where pneuma is absolute or anarthrous in Scripture it
never refers to the Holy Spirit unless the context already supplies
such reference (i. 4, sqq.). He meets the objection that the Spirit, if
God and of God, must needs be a Son, by falling back upon the language
of Scripture as our guide where human analogies fail us. He also
presses his opponents with the consequence that they substitute a Dyad
for a Trinity. In the fourth letter, at the request of Serapion, he
gives an explanation of the words of Christ about Sin Against the
Spirit. Rejecting the view (Origen, Theognostus) that post-baptismal
sin is meant (S:S:9, sqq.), as favouring Novatianist rigour, he
examines the circumstances under which our Lord uttered the warning.
The Pharisees refused to regard the Lord as divine when they saw His
miracles, but ascribed them to Beelzebub. They blasphemed `the Spirit,'
i.e. the Divine Personality of Christ (S:19, cf. Lam. iv. 20, LXX.). So
far as the words relate to the Holy Spirit, it is not because the
Spirit worked through Him (as through a prophet) but because He worked
through the Spirit (20). Blasphemy against the Spirit, then, is
blasphemy against Christ in its worst form (see also below, ch. iv.,
S:6). It may be noted lastly that he refers to Origen in the same terms
of somewhat measured praise (ho polumathes kai philoponos), as in the
De Decretis.
(23) 359-60. *De Synodis Arimini et Seleuciae celebratis. (24) 362:
*Tomus Ad Antiochenos. (25) Id. Syntagma Doctrinae (?) see chapter ii.
S:9, above. (26) 362: *Letter to Rufinianus (Letter 55). (27) 363-4:
*Letter to Jovian (Letter 56). (28) 364? *Two small Letters to Orsisius
(57, 58). (29) 369? *Synodal Letter Ad Afros. (30) Id.? *Letter to
Epictetus (59). (31) Id.? *Letters to Adelphius and Maximus (60, 61).
(32) 363-372 ? *Letter to Diodorus of Tyre (fragment, Letter 64). (33)
372: *Letters to John and Antiochus and to Palladius (62, 63). (34)
372? Two books against Apollinarianism (Migne xxvi. 1093, sqq.
Translated with notes, &c., in Bright, Later Treatises of St. Athan.).
The two books are also known under separate titles: Book I. as `De
Incarnatione D.N.J.C. contra Apollinarium,' Book II. as `De Salutari
Adventu D.N.J.C.' The Athanasian authorship has been doubted, chiefly
on the ground of certain peculiar expressions in the opening of Book
I.; a searching investigation of the question has not yet been made,
but on the whole the favourable verdict of Montfaucon holds the field.
He lays stress on the affinity of the work to letters 59-61. I would
add that the studious omission of any personal reference to
Apollinarius is highly characteristic.) In the first book Athanasius
insists on the reality of the human nature of Christ in the Gospels,
and that it cannot be co-essential with the Godhead. `We do not worship
a creature?' No; for we worship not the Flesh of Christ as such but the
Person who wears it, viz. the Son of God. Lastly, he urges that the
reality of redemption is destroyed if the Incarnation does not extend
to the spirit of man, the seat of that sin which Christ came to atone
for (S:19), and seeks to fasten upon his opponents a renewal (S:S:20,
21) of the system of Paul of Samosata.
The second book is addressed to the question of the compatibility of
the entire manhood with the entire sinlessness of Christ. This
difficulty he meets by insisting that the Word took in our nature all
that God had made, and nothing that is the work of the devil. This
excludes sin, and includes the totality of our nature.
This closes the list of the dated works which can be ascribed with fair
probability to Athanasius.
The remainder of the writings of Athanasius may be enumerated under
groups, to which the `dated' works will also be assigned by their
numbers as given above. Works falling into more than one class are
given under each.
a. Letters. (Numbers 3, 7, 11, 12, 17, 18, 21, 26-28, 30-33; spurious
letters, see infr. p. 581.)
b. Dogmatic. (2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 20, 22-24, 26, 27, 29-31, 34.)
(35.) De Trinitate et Spiritu Sancto (Migne xxvi. 1191). Preserved in
Latin only, but evidently from the Greek. Pronounced genuine by
Montfaucon, and dated (?) 365.
(36) De Incarnatione et Contra Arianos (ib. 984). The Athanasian
authorship of this short tract is very questionable. It is quoted as
genuine by Theodoret Dial. ii. and by Gelasius de duabus naturis. In
some councils it is referred to as `On the Trinity against
Apollinarius;' by Facundus as `On the Trinity.' The tract is in no
sense directed against Apollinarius. In reality it is an argument,
mainly from Scripture, for the divinity of Christ, with a digression
(13-19) on that of the Holy Spirit. On the whole the evidence is
against the favourable verdict of Montfaucon, Ceillier, &c. That
Athanasius should, at any date possible for this tract, have referred
to the Trinity as `the three Hypostases' is out of the question (S:10):
his explanation of Prov. viii. 22 in Orat. ii. 44 sqq. is in sharp
contrast with its reference to the Church in S:6; at a time when the
ideas of Apollinarius were in the air and were combated by Athanasius
(since 362) he would not have used language savouring of that system
(S:S:2, 3, 5, 7, &c.). It has been thought that we have here one of the
Apollinarian tracts which were so industriously and successfully
circulated under celebrated names (infra, on No. 40); the express
insistence on two wills in Christ (S:21), if not in favour of
Athanasian might seem decisive against Apollinarian authorship, but the
peculiar turn of the passage, which correlates the one will with sarx
the other with pneuma and theos is not incompatible with the latter,
which is, moreover, supported by the constant insistance on God having
come, en sarki and en homoiomati anthropou. The anthropos teleios of
S:8 and the homoiothe kata panta of S:11 lose their edge in the context
of those passages. The first part of S:7 could scarcely have been
written by an earnest opponent of Apollinarianism. This evidence is not
conclusive, but it is worth considering, and, at any rate, leaves it
very difficult to meet the strong negative case against the genuineness
of the Tract. (Best discussion of the latter in Bright, Later Treatises
of St. A., p. 143; he is supported by Card. Newman in a private
letter.)
(37) The Sermo Maior de Fide. (Migne xxvi. 1263 sqq., with an
additional fragment p. 1292 from Mai Bibl. nov.). This is a puzzling
document in many ways. It has points of contact with the earliest works
of Ath. (especially pieces nearly verbatim from the de Incarn., see
notes there), also with the Expos. Fid. Card. Newman calls it with some
truth `Hardly more than a set of small fragments from Ath.'s other
works.' However this may be, it is quoted by Theodoret as Athanasian
more than once. The peculiarity lies in the constant iteration of
,'Anthropos for the Lord's human nature (see note on Exp. Fid.), and in
some places as though it were merely the equivalent to soma or sarx,
while in others the ,'Anthropos might be taken as the seat of
Personality (26, 32). Accordingly the tract might be taken advantage of
either by Nestorians, or still more by Apollinarians. The `syllogistic
method,' praised in the work by Montfaucon, was not unknown to the
last-mentioned school. (Prov. viii. 22 is explained in the Athanasian
way. For a fuller discussion, result unfavourable, see Bright, ubi
supr. p. 145.)
(38) Fragments against Paul of Samosata, Macedonians, Novatians (Migne
xxvi. 1293, 1313-1317). The first of these may well be genuine. It
repeats the (mistaken) statement of Hist. Ar. 71, that Zenobia was a
Jewess. Of the second, all that can be said is that it attacks the
Macedonians in language borrowed from Ep. AEg. 11. The third,
consisting of a somewhat larger group of five fragments, comprise a
short sentence comparing the instrumentality of the priest in absolving
to his instrumentality in baptizing.
It may be observed that fragments of this brevity rarely furnish a
decisive criterion of genuineness.
(39) Interpretatio Symboli (ib. 1232, Hahn, S:66). Discussed fully by
Caspari, Ungedruckte u.s.w. Quellen i. pp. 1-72, and proved to be an
adaptation of a baptismal creed drawn up by Epiphanius (Ancor. ad fin.)
in 374. It may be Alexandrian, and, if so, by Bishop Peter or
Theophilus about 380. It is a ;;Ermeneia, or rather an expansion, of
the Nicene, not as Montf. says, of the Apostles'(!), Creed.
(40) De Incarnatione Verbi Dei (Migne xxviii. 25-29). Quoted as
Athanasian by Cyril of Alex., &c., and famous as containing the phrase
Mian phusin tou Logou sesarkomenen Apollinarian; one of the many
forgeries from this school circulated under the names of Athanasius,
Gregory Thaumaturgus, Julius, &c. See Caspari, ubi supra 151, Loofs,
Leontius, p. 82, sqq. Caspari's proof is full and conclusive. See also
Hahn, S:120.
(41) Verona Creed (Hahn, S:41, q.v.), a Latin fragment of a Western
creed; nothing Athanasian but the ms. title.
(42) `Damasine' Creed (Opp. ed. Ben. ii. 626, Migne P.L lxii. 237 in
Vig. Thaps.) forms the `eighth' of the Libri de Trinitate ascribed now
to Athan. now to Damasus, &c., &c.: see Hahn, S:128 and note.
(43) `de Incarnatione' (Migne xxviii. 89), Anti-Nestorian: fifth
century.
c. Historical, or historico-polemical (6, 8-10, 13-19, 23).
(44) Fragment concerning Stephen and the Envoys at Antioch (Migne xxvi.
1293). Closely related (relative priority not clear) to the account in
Thdt. H. E., ii. 9.
d. Apologetic. To this class belong only the works under No. (1).
e. Exegetical (5). The other exegetical works attributed to Athan. are
mainly in Migne, vol. xxvii.
(45) Ad Marcellinum de Interpretatione Psalmorum. Certainly genuine. A
thoughtful and devout tract on the devotional use of the Psalter. He
lays stress on its universality, as summing up the spirit of all the
other elements of Scripture, and as applying to the spiritual needs of
every soul in all conditions. He remarks that the Psalms are sung not
for musical effect, but that the worshippers may have longer time to
dwell upon their meaning. The whole is presented as the discourse tinos
philoponou gerontos, possibly an ideal character.
(46) Expositiones in Psalmos, with an Argumentum (hupothesis) prefixed.
The latter notices the arrangement of the Hebrew Psalter, the division
into books, &c., and accounts for the absence of logical order by the
supposition that during the Captivity some prophet collected as best he
could the Scriptures which the carelessness of the Israelites had
allowed to fall into disorder. The titles are to be followed as regards
authorship. Imprecatory passages relate to our ghostly enemies. In the
Expositions each Psalm is prefaced by a short statement of the general
subject. He occasionally refers to the rendering of Aquila, Theodotion,
and Symmachus.
(47) Fragmenta in Psalmos. Published by Felckmann from the Catena of
Nicetas Heracleota, who has used his materials somewhat freely, often
combining the comments of more than one Father into a single whole.
(48) De Titulis Psalmorum. First published by Antonelli in 1746. This
work, consisting of very brief notes on the Psalter verse by verse, is
spoken of disparagingly by Alzog, Patrol., p. 229, and regarded as
spurious, on good prima facie grounds, by Gwatkin, p. 69, note.
Eichhorn, de Vit. Ascet., p. 43, note, threatens the latter (1886) with
a refutation which, however, I have not seen.
(49) Fragmentum in Cantica. (Photius mentions a Commentary on Eccles.
and Cant.) From a Catena published by Meursius in 1617. Very brief (on
Cant. i. 6, 7, iii. 1, 2, vi. 1). A spurious homily is printed (pp.
1349-1361) as an appendix to it.
(50) Fragmenta in Evang. Matthaei. Also from ms. catenae. Contain a
remarkable reference to the Eucharist (p. 1380, on Matt. vii. 6) and a
somewhat disparaging reference to Origen (infr. p. 33) in reference to
Matt. xii. 32, which passage is explained as in Serap. iv. (vide supra
22). The extracts purport in some cases to be taken from a homiletical
or expository work of Athanasius divided into separate logoi. The
passage `on the nine incurable diseases of Herod' is grotesque (Migne
xxvi. 1252), but taken from Joseph., B. J. I. xxiii. 5. Cf. Euseb. H.
E. i. 8.
(51) Fragmenta in Lucam. Also from ms. catenae. At the end, a
remarkable passage on the extent to which prayers can help the
departed.
(52) Fragmenta in Job. From Nicetas and ms. catenae. Contains little
remarkable. `Behemoth' is Satan, as elsewhere in Athan.
(53) Fragmentum in I. Cor. A short paragraph on 1 Cor. vii. 1, or
rather on vi. 18, somewhat inadequately explained.
f. Moral and Ascetic, (11-13, [25], 28).
(54) Sermo de Patientia. (Migne xxvi. 1295.) Of doubtful genuineness
(Montf., Gwatkin).
(55) De Virginitate. (Migne xxviii. 251). Pronounced dubious by Montf.,
spurious by Gwatkin, genuine by Eichhorn (ubi supr., pp. 27, sqq.), who
rightly lays stress on the early stage of feminine asceticism which is
implied. But I incline to agree with Mr. Gwatkin as to its claims to
come from Athanasius. `Three hypostases' are laid down in a way
incompatible with Athanasius' way of speaking in later life.
(56) Miscellaneous Fragments. These are too slight and uncertain to be
either classed or discussed here. De Amuletis (xxvi. 1319); de Azymis,
(1327), very dubious; In Ramos palmarum (1319), also dubious; various
small homiletical and controversial pieces (pp. 1224-1258) of various
value and claims to genuineness. (See also Migne xxv. p. xiv. No. xx.)
(57) Of Lost Works (in addition to those of which fragments have been
mentioned above) a Refutation of Arianism is referred to in Letter 52.
We also hear of a treatise against heresies (a fragment above, No. 56).
A `Synodicon,' with the names of all Bishops present at Nicaea, is
quoted by Socr. i. 13, but is referred by Revillout to his alleged Acts
of the Synod of Alexandria in 362, which he supposes to have reissued
the Acts of Nicaea. See above, p. lix. A consolatory address to the
Virgins maltreated by George is mentioned by Theodoret, H. E. ii. 14;
he quotes a few words, referring to the fact that the Arians would not
even allow them peaceable burial, but `sit about the tombs like demons'
to prevent it. The Oratio de defunctis (infra, ch. iv. S:6, fragment
above, 56) is ascribed to him by John Damasc., but by others to Cyril
of Alexandria. Many of his letters must have been lost. The Festal
Letters are still very incomplete, and his letters to S. Basil would be
a welcome discovery if they exist anywhere. A doctrinal letter against
the Arians, not preserved to us, is mentioned de Decr. 5. (See also
Montfaucon's Praef. ii. (Migne xxv. p. xxv., sqq), and Jerome, de Vir.
illustr. 87, a somewhat careless and scanty list.)
The above enumeration includes all the writings attributed with any
probability to S. Athanasius. The fragmentary character of many of them
is no great presumption against their genuineness. The Abbat Cosmas in
the sixth century advised all who met with anything by Athanasius to
copy it, and if they had no paper, to use their clothes for the
purpose. This will readily explain (if explanation is needed) the
transmission of such numerous scraps of writing under the name of the
great bishop. It will also partly explain the large body of Spurious
Works which have sheltered themselves under his authority. To this
class we have already assigned several writings (25, 36, 37? 39-43, 44?
48? 53? 55, 56 in part). Others whose claims are even less strong may
be passed over, with only the mention of one or two of the more
important. They are all printed in Migne, vol. xxviii., and parallels
to some, especially the `dubious' In passionem et crucem Domini, are
marked in Williams' notes to the Festal Letters, partly incorporated in
this volume. The epistola catholica and Synopsis Scripturae sacrae are
among the better known, and are classed with a few others as `dubia' by
Montfaucon, the fictitious Disputatio habita in concilio Nicaeno contra
Arium, among the `spuria.' The silly tale de Imagine Berytensi seems to
have enjoyed a wide circulation in the middle ages. Of the other
undoubtedly `spurious' works the most famous is the `Athanasian Creed'
or Quicunque Vult. It is needless to say that it is unconnected with
Athanasius: its origin is still sub judice. The second part of it bears
traces of the period circa 430 a.d., and the question which still
awaits a last word is whether the Symbol is or is not a fusion of two
originally independent documents. Messrs. Lumby, Swainson and others
have ably maintained this, but the difficulties of their hypothesis
that the fusion took place as late as about 800 a.d. are very great,
and I incline to think will eventually prove fatal to it. But the
discussion does not belong to our present subject.
__________________________________________________________________
S:2. Athanasius as an Author. Style and Characteristics.
Athanasius was not an author by choice. With the exception of the early
apologetic tracts all the writings that he has left were drawn from him
by the stress of theological controversy or by the necessities of his
work as a Christian pastor. We have no systematic doctrinal treatise,
no historical monograph from his pen, although his writings are rich in
materials for history and dogmatics alike. The exception to this is in
the exegetical remains, especially those on the Psalms, which (supra,
No. 45, sqq.) imply something more than occasional work, some intention
of systematic composition. For this, a work congenial to one who was
engaged in preaching, his long intervals of quiet at Alexandria
(especially 328-335, 346-356, 365-373) may well have given him leisure.
But on the whole, his writings are those of a man of powerful mind
indeed and profound theological training, but still of a man of action.
The style of Athanasius is accordingly distinguished from that of many
older and younger contemporaries (Eusebius, Gregory Naz., &c.) by its
inartificiality. This was already observed by Erasmus, who did not know
many of his best works, but who notes his freedom from the harshness of
Tertullian, the exaggeration of Jerome, the laboured style of Hilary,
the overloaded manner of Augustine and Chrysostom, the imitation of the
Attic orators so conspicuous in Gregory; `sed totus est in explicanda
re.' That is true. Athanasius never writes for effect, but merely to
make his meaning plain and impress it on others. This leads to his
principal fault, namely his constant self-repetition (see p. 47, note
6); even in apologising for this he repeats the offence. The praise by
Photius (quoted below, Introd. to Orat.) of his aperitton seems to
apply to his freedom not from repetition but from extravagance, or
studied brilliancy. This simplicity led Philostorgius, reflecting the
false taste of his age, to pronounce Athanasius a child as compared
with Basil, Gregory, or Apollinarius. To a modern reader the manliness
of his character is reflected in the unaffected earnestness of his
style. Some will admire him most when, in addressing a carefully
calculated appeal to an emperor, he models his periods on Demosthenes
de Corona (see p. 237). To others the unrestrained utterance of the
real man, in such a gem of feeling and character as the Letter (p. 557)
to Dracontius, will be worth more than any studied apology. With all
his occasional repetition, with all the feebleness of the Greek
language of that day as an instrument of expression, if we compare it
with the Greek of Thucydides or Plato, Athanasius writes with nerve and
keenness, even with a silent but constant underflow of humour. His
style is not free from Latinisms; preda (= praeda) in the Encycl.,
beteranos (= veteranus), belon (= velum), magistros, &c., are
barbarisms belonging to the later decadence of Greek, but not without
analogy even in the earliest Christian Literature. xunoris is used in
an unusual sense, p. 447. 'Areiomanitai seems to be coined by himself;
akathekon, apoxenizein, epakouein (= answer), enkuklein, &c., are
Alexandrinisms (see Fialon, p. 289). On the whole, no man was ever less
of a stylist, while at the same time making the fullest use of the
resources furnished by the language at his command. When he wrote,
seven centuries of decay had passed over the language of Thucydides,
the tragedians, Plato and the Orators. The Latin Fathers of the day had
at their disposal a language only two centuries or so past its prime.
The heritage of Thucydides had passed through Tacitus to the Latin
prose writers of the silver age. The Latin of Tertullian, Cyprian,
Jerome, Augustin, Leo, with all its mannerisms and often false
antithesis and laboured epigram, was yet a terse incisive weapon
compared with the patristic Greek. But among the Greek Fathers
Athanasius is the most readable, simply because his style is natural
and direct, because it reflects the man rather than the age.
__________________________________________________________________
S:3. Personal characteristics (see Stanley's Eastern Church, Lect.
vii.).
To write an elaborate character of Athanasius is superfluous. The full
account of his life (chap. ii.), and the specimens of his writings in
this volume, may be trusted to convey the right impression without the
aid of analysis. But it may be well to emphasise one or two salient
points. [88]
In Athanasius we feel ourselves in contact with a commanding
personality. His early rise to decisive epoch-making influence,--he was
scarcely more than 27 at the council of Nicaea,--his election as bishop
when barely of canonical age, the speedy ascendancy which he gained
over all Egypt and Libya, the rapid consolidation of the distracted
province under his rule, the enthusiastic personal loyalty of his
clergy and monks, the extraordinary popularity enjoyed by him at
Alexandria even among the heathen (excepting, perhaps, `the more
abandoned among them,' Hist. Ar. 58), the evident feeling of the Arians
that as long as he was intact their cause could not prosper, the
jealously of his influence shewn by Constantius and Julian, all this is
a combined and impressive tribute to his personal greatness. In what
then did this consist?
Principally, no doubt, in his moral and mental vigour; resolute ability
characterises his writings and life throughout. He had the not too
common gift of seeing the proportions of things. A great crisis was
fully appreciated by him; he always saw at once where principles
separated or united men, where the bond or the divergence was merely
accidental. With Arius and Arianism no compromise was to be thought of;
but he did not fail to distinguish men really at one with him on
essentials, even where their conduct toward himself had been
indefensible (de Syn.). So long as the cause was advanced, personal
questions were insignificant. So far Athanasius was a partisan. It may
be admitted that he saw little good in his opponents; but unless the
evidence is singularly misleading there was little good to see. The
leaders of the Arian interest were unscrupulous men, either bitter and
unreasoning fanatics like Secundus and Maris, or more often political
theologians, like Eusebius of Nicomedia, Valens, Acacius, who lacked
religious earnestness. It may be admitted that he refused to admit
error in his friends. His long alliance with Marcellus, his unvarying
refusal to utter a syllable of condemnation of him by name; his refusal
to name even Photinus, while yet (Orat. iv.) exposing the error
associated with his name; his suppression of the name of Apollinarius,
even when writing directly against him; all this was inconsistent with
strict impartiality, and, no doubt, placed his adversaries partly in
the right. But it was the partiality of a generous and loyal spirit,
and he could be generous to personal enemies if he saw in them an
approximation to himself in principle. When men were dead, unlike too
many theologians of his own and later times, he restrained himself in
speaking of them, even if the dead man were Arius himself.
In the whole of our minute knowledge of his life there is a total lack
of self-interest. The glory of God and the welfare of the Church
absorbed him fully at all times. We see the immense power he exercised
in Egypt; the Emperors recognised him as a political force of the first
order; Magnentius bid for his support, Constantius first cajoled, then
made war upon him; but on no occasion does he yield to the temptation
of using the arm of flesh. Almost unconscious of his own power, he
treats Serapion and the monks as equals or superiors, begging them to
correct and alter anything amiss in his writings. His humility is the
more real for never being conspicuously paraded.
Like most men of great power, he had a real sense of humour (Stanley,
p. 231, sq., ed. 1883). Even in his youthful works we trace it (infr.
p. 2), and it is always present, though very rarely employed with
purpose. But the exposure of the Arsenius calumny at Tyre, the smile
with which he answered the importunate catechising of an Epiphanius
about `old' Marcellus, the oracular interpretation of the crow's `cras'
in answer to the heathen (Sozom. iv. 10), the grave irony with which he
often confronts his opponents with some surprising application of
Scripture, his reply to the pursuers from the Nile boat in 362, allow
us to see the twinkle of his keen, searching eye. Courage,
self-sacrifice, steadiness of purpose, versatility and resourcefulness,
width of ready sympathy, were all harmonised by deep reverence and the
discipline of a single-minded lover of Christ. The Arian controversy
was to him no battle for ecclesiastical power, nor for theological
triumph. It was a religious crisis involving the reality of revelation
and redemption. He felt about it as he wrote to the bishops of Egypt,
`we are contending for our all' (p. 234).
`A certain cloud of romance encircled him' (Reynolds). His escapes from
Philagrius, Syrianus, Julian, his secret presence in Alexandria, his
life among the monasteries of Egypt in his third exile, his reputed
visits to distant councils, all impress the imagination and lend
themselves to legend and fable. Later ages even claimed that he had
fled in disguise to Spain and served as cook in a monastery near
Calahorra (Act. SS. 2 Maii)! But he is also surrounded by an atmosphere
of truth. Not a single miracle of any kind is related of him. To invest
him with the halo of miracle the Bollandists have to come down to the
`translation' of his body, not to Constantinople (an event surrounded
with no little uncertainty), but to Venice, whither a thievish
sea-captain, who had stolen it from a church in Stamboul, brought a
body, which decisively proved its identity by prodigies which left no
room for doubt. But the Athanasius of history is not the subject of any
such tales. It has been said that no saint outside the New Testament
has ever claimed the gift of miracles for himself. At any rate (though
he displays credulity with regard to Antony), the saintly reputation of
Athanasius rested on his life and character alone, without the aid of
any reputation for miraculous power.
And resting upon this firm foundation, it has won the respect and
admiration even of those who do not feel that they owe to him the
vindication of all that is sacred and precious. Not only a Gregory or
an Epiphanius, an Augustine or a Cyril, a Luther or a Hooker, not only
Montfaucon and Tillemont, Newman and Stanley pay tribute to him as a
Christian hero. Secular as well as Church historians fall under the
spell of his personality, and even Gibbon lays aside his `solemn sneer'
to do homage to Athanasius the great.
__________________________________________________________________
[88] Of his personal appearance little is known. Gregory Naz. praises
his beauty of expression, Julian sneers at his small stature. Later
tradition adds a slight stoop, a hooked nose and small mouth, short
beard spreading into large whiskers, and light auburn hair, (See
Stanley ubi supr).
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter IV.
The Theology of S. Athanasius
S:1. General Considerations.
The theological training of Athanasius was in the school of Alexandria,
and under the still predominant although modified influence of Origen
(see above, pp. xiv., xxvii.). The resistance which the theology of
that famous man had everywhere encountered had not availed, in the
Greek-speaking churches of the East, to stem its influence; at the same
time it had made its way at the cost of much of its distinctive
character. Its principal opponent, Methodius, who represented the
ancient Asiatic tradition, was himself not uninfluenced by the theology
he opposed. The legacy of his generation to the Nicene age was an
Origenism tempered in various degrees by the Asiatic theology and by
accommodations to the traditional canon of ecclesiastical teaching. The
degrees of this modification were various, and the variety was
reflected in the indeterminate body of theological conviction which we
find at the time of the outbreak of Arianism, and which, as already
explained, lies at the basis of the reaction against the definition of
Nicaea. The theology of Alexandria remained Origenist, and the
Origenist character is purest and most marked in Pierius, Theognostus,
and in the non-episcopal heads of the Alexandrian School. The bishops
of Alexandria after Dionysius represent a more tempered Origenism.
Especially this holds good of the martyred Peter, whom we find
expressly correcting distinctive parts of the system of his spiritual
ancestor. In Alexander of Alexandria, the theological sponsor of the
young Athanasius, the combination of a fundamentally Origenist theology
with ideas traceable to the Asiatic tradition is conspicuous [89] .
Athanasius, then, received his first theological ideas from Origenist
sources, and in so far as he eventually diverged from Origen we must
seek the explanation partly in his own theological or religious
idiosyncrasy and in the influences which he encountered as time went
on, partly in the extent to which the Origenism of his masters was
already modified by different currents of theological influence.
To work out this problem satisfactorily would involve a separate
treatise and a searching study, not only of Athanasius [90] but on the
one hand of Origen and his school, on the other of Methodius and the
earlier pre-Nicene theologians. What is here attempted is the more
modest task of briefly drawing attention to some of the more
conspicuous evidences of the process and to some of its results in the
developed theology of the saintly bishop.
It has been said by Harnack that the theology of Athanasius underwent
no development, but was the same from first to last. The truth of this
verdict is I think limited by the fact that the Origenism of Athanasius
distinctly undergoes a change, or rather fades away, in his later
works. A non-Origenist element is present from the first, and after the
contest with Arianism begins, Origen's ideas recede more and more from
view. Athanasius was influenced negatively by the stress of the Arian
controversy: while the vague and loose Origenism of the current Greek
theology inclined the majority of bishops to dread Sabellianism rather
than Arianism, and to underrate the danger of the latter (pp. xviii.,
xxxv.), Athanasius, deeply impressed, from personal experience, with
the negation of the first principles of redemption which Arianism
involved, stood apart from the first from the theology of his Asiatic
contemporaries and went back to the authority of Scripture and the Rule
of Faith. He was influenced positively by the Nicene formula, which
represents the combination of Western with anti-Origenist Eastern
traditions in opposition to the dominant Eastern theology. The Nicene
formula found in Athanasius a mind predisposed to enter into its
spirit, to employ in its defence the richest resources of theological
and biblical training, of spiritual depth and vigour, of
self-sacrificing but sober and tactful enthusiasm; its victory in the
East is due under God to him alone.
Athanasius was not a systematic theologian: that is he produced no
many-sided theology like that of Origen or Augustine. He had no
interest in theological speculation, none of the instincts of a
schoolman or philosopher. His theological greatness lies in his firm
grasp of soteriological principles, in his resolute subordination of
everything else, even the formula homoousios, to the central fact of
Redemption, and to what that fact implied as to the Person of the
Redeemer. He goes back from the Logos of the philosophers to the Logos
of S. John, from the God of the philosophers to God in Christ
reconciling the world to Himself. His legacy to later ages has been
felicitously compared (Harnack, Dg. ii. 26, note) to that of the
Christian spirit of his age in the realm of architecture. `To the many
forms of architectural conception which lived in Rome and Alexandria in
the fourth century, the Christian spirit added nothing fresh. Its
achievement was of a different kind. Out of the many it selected and
consecrated one; the multiplicity of forms it carried back to a single
dominant idea, not so much by a change in the spirit of the art as by
the restoration of Religion to its place as the central motive. It
bequeathed to the art of the middle ages the Basilica, and rendered
possible the birth of Gothic, a style, like that of the old Greek
Temple, truly organic. What the Basilica was in the history of the
material, the central idea of Athanasius has been in that of the
spiritual fabric; an auspicious reduction, full of promise for the
future, of the exuberant speculation of Greek theology to the one idea
in which the power of religion then resided' (ib. and pp. 22 sqq.,
freely reproduced).
__________________________________________________________________
[89] To begin with, we have the interesting fact that Alexander studied
the writings of Melito of Sardis, and even worked up his tract peri
psuches kai somatos eis to pathos into a homiletical discourse of his
own, omitting such passages as seemed to savour of `modalism,' (see
Krueger in Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1888, p. 434, sqq.: his grounds
are convincing). Secondly, the expressions attributed to him by Arius
(in his letter to Euseb. Nic.), and his letter to his namesake of
Byzantium, bear out the above statement.
[90] The reader is requested to supplement the necessarily very slender
treatment of the Athanasian theology in this chapter by referring to
the General Index to this volume, as well as to the Index of Texts, for
guidance to the passages of Athanasius which are needed to check, fill
out, and qualify what is here presented only in broad outline.
__________________________________________________________________
S:2. Fundamental ideas of man and his redemption.
To Athanasius the Incarnation of the Son of God, and especially his
Death on the Cross, is the centre of faith and theology (Incar. 19,
kephalaion tes pisteos, cf. 9. 1 and 2, 20. 2, &c.). `For our
salvation' (Incar. 1) the Word became Man and died. But how did
Athanasius conceive of `salvation'? from what are we saved, to what
destiny does salvation bring us, and what idea does he form of the
efficacy of the Saviour's death? Now it is not too much to say that no
one age of the Church's existence has done full justice to the
profundity and manysidedness of the Christian idea of Redemption as
effected in Christ and as unfolded by S. Paul. The kingdom of God and
His Righteousness; the forgiveness of sins and the adoption of sons as
a present gift; the consummation of all at the great
judgment;--Christian men of different ages, countries, characters and
mental antecedents, while united in personal devotion to the Saviour
and in the sanctifying Power of His Grace, have interpreted these
central ideas of the Gospel in terms of their own respective
categories, and have succeeded in bringing out now one, now another
aspect of the mystery of Redemption rather than in preserving the
balance of the whole. Who will claim that the last word has yet been
said on S. Paul's deep conception of God's (not mercy but)
Righteousness as the new and peculiar element (Rom. i. 17, iii. 22, 26)
of the Gospel Revelation? to search out the unsearchable riches of
Christ is the prerogative of Christian faith, but is denied, save to
the most limited extent, to Christian knowledge (1 Cor. xiii. 9). The
onesidedness of any given age in apprehending the work of Christ is to
be recognised by us not in a censorious spirit of self-complacency, but
with reverent sympathy, and with the necessity in view of correcting
our own: panta dokimazete, to kalon katechete.
Different ages and classes have necessarily thought under different
categories. The categories of the post-apostolic age were mainly
ethical; the Gospel is the new law, and the promise of eternal life,
founded on true knowledge of God, and accepted by faith. Those of the
Asiatic fathers from Ignatius downwards were largely physical or
realistic. Mankind is brought in Christ (the physician) from death to
life, from phthora to aphtharsia (Ign. passim); to
euangelion...apartisma aphtharsias (Ign., Melit.); human nature is
changed by the Incarnation, man made God. Tertullian introduced into
Western theology forensic categories. He applied them to the Person,
not yet to the Work, of Christ: but the latter application, pushed to a
repellent length in the middle ages, and still more so since the
Reformation, may without fancifulness be traced back to the fact that
the first Latin Father was a lawyer. Again, Redemption was viewed by
Origen and others under cosmological categories, as the turning point
in the great conflict of good with evil, of demons with God, as the
inauguration of the deliverance of the creation and its reunion with
God. The many-sidedness of Origen combined, indeed, almost every
representation of Redemption then current, from the propitiatory and
mediatorial, which most nearly approached the thought of S. Paul, to
the grotesque but widely-spread view of a ransom due to the devil which
he was induced to accept by a stratagem. It may be said that with the
exception of the last-named every one of the above conceptions finds
some point of contact in the New Testament; even the forensic idea,
thoroughly unbiblical in its extremer forms, would not have influenced
Christian thought as it has done had it not corresponded to something
in the language of S. Paul.
Now Athanasius does not totally ignore any one of these conceptions,
unless it be that of a transaction with the devil, which he scarcely
touches even in Orat. ii. 52 (see note there). Of the forensic view he
is indeed almost clear. His reference to the `debt' (to opheilomenon,
Incar. 20, Orat. ii. 66) which had to be paid is connected not so much
with the Anselmic idea of a satisfaction due, as with the fact that
death was by the divine word (Gen. iii.), attached to sin as its
penalty.
The aspect of the death of Christ as a vicarious sacrifice (anti
panton, de Incar. 9; prosphora and thusia, 10) is not passed over. But
on the whole another aspect predominates. The categories under which
Athanasius again and again states the soteriological problem are those
of zoe and thanatos, and aphtharsia. So far as he works the problem out
in detail it is under physical categories, without doing full justice
to the ideas of guilt and reconciliation, of the reunion of will
between man and God. The numberless passages which bear this out cannot
be quoted in full, but the point is of sufficient importance to demand
the production of a few details.
(a) The original state of man was not one of `nature,' for man's nature
is phthora; (ten en thanato kata phusin phthoran, Incar. 3, cf. 8, 10,
44) the Word was imparted to them in that they were made kata ten tou
theou eikona (ib). Hence what later theology marks off as an
exclusively supernatural gift is according to Athanasius inalienable
from human nature, i.e. it can be impaired but not absolutely lost
(Incar. 14, and apparently Orat. iii. 10 fin.; the question of the
teaching of Athan. upon the natural endowments of man belongs specially
to the Introd. to de Incarnatione, where it will be briefly discussed).
Accordingly their infraction of the divine command (by turning their
minds, c. Gent. 3, to lower things instead of to the theoria ton
theion), logically involved them in non-existence (de Incar. 4), but
actually, inasmuch as the likeness of God was only gradually lost, in
phthora, regarded as a process toward non-existence. This again
involved men in increasing ignorance of God, by the gradual
obliteration of the eikon, the indwelling Logos, by virtue of which
alone men could read the open book (c. Gent. 34 fin.) of God's
manifestation of Himself in the Universe. It is evident that the
pathological point of view here prevails over the purely ethical: the
perversion of man's will merges in the general idea of phthora, the
first need of man is a change in his nature; or rather the renewed
infusion of that higher and divine nature which he has gradually lost.
(Cf. de Incar. 44, chrezonton tes autou theotetos dia tou homoiou).
(b) Accordingly the mere presence of the Word in a human body, the mere
fact of the Incarnation, is the essential factor in our restoration
(simile of the city and the king, ib. 9. 3, &c., cf. Orat. ii. 67, 70).
But if so, what was the special need of the Cross? Athanasius felt, as
we have already mentioned, the supremacy of the Cross as the purpose of
the Saviour's coming, but he does not in fact give to it the central
place in his system of thought which it occupies in his instincts. Man
had involved himself in the sentence of death; death must therefore
take place to satisfy this sentence (Orat. ii. 69; de Incar. 20. 2, 5);
the Saviour's death, then, put an end to death regarded as penal and as
symptomatic of man's phthora (cf. ib. 21. 1, &c.). It must be confessed
that Athanasius does not penetrate to the full meaning of S. Paul. The
latter also ascribed a central import to the mere fact of the
Incarnation (Rom. viii. 3, pempsas), but primarily in relation to sin
(yet see Athan. c. Apoll. ii. 6); and the destruction of the practical
power of sin stands indissolubly correlated (Rom. viii. 1) with the
removal of guilt and so with the Righteousness of God realising itself
in the propitiation of the blood of Christ (ib. iii. 21--26).
To Athanasius nature is the central, will a secondary or implied factor
in the problem. The aspect of the death of Christ most repeatedly dwelt
upon is that in it death spent its force (plerotheises tes exousias en
to kuriako souati, ib. 8) against human nature, that the `corruption'
of mankind might run its full course and be spent in the Lord's body,
and so cease for the future. Of this Victory over death and the demons
the Resurrection is the trophy. His death is therefore to us (ib. 10)
the arche zoes, we are henceforth aphthartoi dia tes anastaseos (27. 2,
32. 6, cf. 34. 1, &c.), and have a portion in the divine nature, are in
fact deified (cf. de Incarn. 54, and note there). This last thought,
which became (Harnack, vol. ii. p. 46) the common property of Eastern
theology, goes back through Origen and Hippolytus to Irenaeus. On the
whole, its presentation in Athanasius is more akin to the Asiatic than
to the Origenist form of the conception. To Origen, man's highest
destiny could only be the return to his original source and condition:
to Irenaeus and the Asiatics, man had been created for a destiny which
he had never realised; the interruption in the history of our race
introduced by sin was repaired by the Incarnation, which carried back
the race to a new head, and so carried it forward to a destiny of which
under its original head it was incapable. To Origen the Incarnation was
a restoration to, to Irenaeus and to Athanasius (Or. ii. 67), an
advance upon, the original state of man. (Pell, pp. 167-177, labours to
prove the contrary, but he does not convince.)
(c) This leads us to the important observation that momentous as are to
Athanasius the consequences of the introduction of sin into the world,
he yet makes no such vast difference between the condition of fallen
and unfallen men as has commonly been assumed to exist. The latter
state was inferior to that of the members of Christ (Orat. ii. 67, 68),
while the immense (c. Gent. 8, de Incar. 5) consequences of its
forfeiture came about only by a gradual course of deterioration (de
Incar. 6. 1, ephanizeto; observe the tense), and in different degrees
in different cases. The only difference of kind between the two
conditions is in the universal reign of Death since the (partial)
forfeiture of the tou kat' eikona charis: and even this difference is a
subtle one; for man's existence in Paradise was not one of aphtharsia
except prospectively (de Incar. 3. 4). He enjoyed present happiness,
alupos anodunos amerimnos zoe, with promise of aphtharsia in heaven.
That is, death would have taken place, but not death as unredeemed
mankind know it (cf. de Incar. 21. 1). In other words, man was created
not so much in a state of perfection (teleios ktistheis, p. 384) as
with a capacity for perfection (and for even more than perfection, p.
385 sq.) and with a destiny to correspond with such capacity. This
destination remains in force even after man has failed to correspond to
it, and is in fact assigned by Athanasius as the reason why the
Incarnation was a necessity on God's part (de Incar. 6. 4-7, 10. 3, 13.
2-4, Orat. ii. 66, &c., &c.). Accordingly, while man was created (Orat.
ii. 59) through the Word, the Word became Flesh that man might receive
the yet higher dignity of Sonship [91] ; and while even before the
Incarnation some men were de facto pure from sin (Orat. iii. 33) by
virtue of the charis tes kleseos involved in ;;to kat' eikona' (see ib.
10, fin.; Orat. i. 39 is even stronger, cf. iv. 22), they were yet
thnetoi and phthartoi; whereas those in Christ die, no longer kata ten
proteran genesin en to 'Adam, but to live again logotheises tes sarkos
(Orat. iii. 33, fin., cf. de Incar. 21. 1).
(d) The above slight sketch of the Athanasian doctrine of man's need of
redemption and of the satisfaction of that need brings to light a
system free from much that causes many modern thinkers to stumble at
the current doctrine of the original state and the religious history of
mankind. That mankind did not start upon their development with a
perfect nature, but have fought their way up from an undeveloped stage
through many lower phases of development; that this development has
been infinitely varied and complex, and that sin and its attendant
consequences have a pathological aspect which practically is as
important as the forensic aspect, are commonplaces of modern thought,
resting upon the wider knowledge of our age, and hard to reconcile with
the (to us) traditional theological account of these things. The
Athanasian account of them leaves room for the results of modern
knowledge, or at least does not rudely clash with the instincts of the
modern anthropologist. The recovery of the Athanasian point of view is
prima facie again. At what cost is it obtained? Does its recognition
involve us in mere naturalism veiled under religious forms of speech?
That was certainly not the mind of Athanasius, nor does his system
really lend itself to such a result. To begin with, the divine destiny
of man from the first is an essential principle with our writer. Man
was made and is still exclusively destined for knowledge of and
fellowship with his Creator. Secondly the means, and the only means, to
this end is Christ the Incarnate Son of God. In Him the religious
history of mankind has its centre, and from Him it proceeds upon its
new course, or rather is enabled once more to run the course designed
for it from the first. How far Athanasius exhausted the significance of
this fact may be a question; that he placed the fact itself in the
centre is his lasting service to Christian thought.
(e) The categories of Athanasius in dealing with the question before us
are primarily physical, i.e., on the one hand cosmological, on the
other pathological. But it is well before leaving the subject to insist
that this was not exclusively the case. The purpose of the Incarnation
was at once to renew us, and to make known the Father (de Incarn. 16);
or as he elsewhere puts it (ib. 7 fin.), anaktisai ta hola, huper
panton, pathein, and peri panton presbeusui pros ton Patera. The idea
of aphtharsia which so often stands with him for the summum bonum [92]
imparted to us in Christ, involves a moral and spiritual restoration of
our nature, not merely the physical supersession of phthora by
athanasia (de Incarn. 47, 51, 52, &c., &c.).
__________________________________________________________________
[91] The above is strikingly illustrated by the discussion (pp.
381-383) of prototokos pases ktiseos (Col. i. 15). At first sight Ath.
appears to contradict himself, explaining prototokos as he does first
solely of the Saviour as Incarnate, and then of the cosmic and creative
function of the Word. But closer examination brings out his view of
creation itself (p. 383) as an act of Grace, demanding not (as the
current Eastern theology held, in common with Arius) the mediation of a
subordinate Creator, but an act of absolutely Divine condescension
analogous to, and anticipatory of, the Incarnation. The apparently
disturbing persistence in the argument of the cosmological explanation
of prototokos is really therefore due to a subtle change in it, by
virtue of which it comes into relation with the Soteriological
idea,--which is the pivot of the entire anti-Arian position of
Athanasius on this question,--and with the ultimate scheme in which
(cf. Rom. viii.) the effects of the Incarnation are to embrace the
whole creation. Because creation as such involves the promise of
adoption, and tends to deification as its goal, the Son is prototokos
in the region of Grace and of Creation alike.
[92] On the subject of S:2, see also Pell. Lehre des h. Athan. and
Shedd ii. pp. 37, sqq., 237, sqq. The former demonstrates his full
accord with modern Roman Catholic teaching, the latter, his exact
harmony with the modern Protestant view of the doctrine. It is at least
a tribute to the greatness of Athan. that advocates of all sides are so
eager to claim him.
__________________________________________________________________
S:3. Fundamental Ideas of God, the World, and Creation.
The Athanasian idea of God has been singled out for special recognition
in recent times; he has been claimed, and on the whole with justice, as
a witness for the immanence of God in the universe in contrast to the
insistence in many Christian systems on God's transcendence or
remoteness from all created things. (Fiske, Idea of God, discussed by
Moore in Lux Mundi (ed. 1) pp. 95-102.) The problem was one which
Christian thought was decisively compelled to face by the Arian
controversy (supra, p. xxix. sq.). The Apologists and Alexandrians had
partially succeeded in the problem expressed in the dying words of
Plotinus, `to bring the God which is within into harmony with the God
which is in the universe,' or rather to reconcile the transcendence
with the immanence of God. But their success was only partial: the
immanence of the Word had been emphasised, but in contrast with the
transcendence of the Father. This could not be more than a temporary
resting-place for the Christian mind, and Arius forced a solution. That
solution was found by Athanasius. The mediatorial work of the Logos is
not necessary as though nature could not bear the untempered hand of
the Father. The Divine Will is the direct and sole source of all
things, and the idea of a mediatorial nature is inconsistent with the
true idea of God (pp. 87, 155, 362, comparing carefully p. 383). `All
things created are capable of sustaining God's absolute hand. The hand
which fashioned Adam now also and ever is fashioning and giving entire
consistence to those who come after him.' The immanence, or intimate
presence and unceasing agency of God in nature, does not belong to the
Word as distinct from the Father, but to the Father in and through the
Word, in a word to God as God (cf. de Decr. 11, where the language of
de Incarn. 17 about the Word is applied to God as such). This is a
point which marks an advance upon anything that we find in the earliest
writings of Athanasius, and upon the theology of his preceptor
Alexander, to whom, amongst other not very clear formulae, the Word is
a mesiteuousa phusis monogenes (Thdt. H. E. ii. 4; Alexander cannot
distinguish phusis from hupostasis or ousia; Father and Son are duo
achorista pragmata, but yet te hupostasei duo phuseis). This is indeed
the principal particular in which Athanasius left the modified
Origenism of his age, and of his own school, behind. If on the other
hand he resembled Arius in drawing a sharper line than had been drawn
previously between the one God and the World, it must also be
remembered that his God was not the far off purely transcendent God of
Arius, but a God not far from every one of us (Orat. ii. p. 361 sq.).
That God is beyond all essence huperekeina pases ousias (c. Gent. 2. 2,
40. 2, 35. I genetes ousias) is a thought common to Origen and the
Platonists, but adopted by Athanasius with a difference, marked by the
addition of genetes. That God created all things out of pure bounty of
being (c. Gent. S:2. 2, S:41. 2, de Incarn. S:3. 3, and note there) is
common to Origen and Philo, being taken by the latter from Plato's
Timaeus. The Universe, and especially the human soul, reflects the
being of its Author (c. Gent. passim). Hence there are two main paths
by which man can arrive at the knowledge of God, the book of the
Universe (c. Gent. 34 fin.), and the contemplation or self-knowledge of
the soul itself (ib. 33, 34). So far Athanasius is on common ground
with the Platonists (cf. Fialon, pp. 270, sqq.); but he takes up
distinctively Christian ground, firstly, in emphasising the
insufficiency of these proofs after sin has clouded the soul's vision,
and, above all, in insisting on the divine Incarnation as the sole
remedy for this inability, as the sole means by which man as he is can
reach a true knowledge of God. Religion not philosophy is the sphere in
which the God of Athanasius is manifest to man. Here, again, Athanasius
is `Christo-centric.' With Origen, Athanasius refuses to allow evil any
substantive existence (c. Gent. S:S:2, 6, de Incarn. S:4. 5); evil
resides in the will only, and is the result of the abuse of its power
of free choice (c. Gent. 5 and 7). The evil in the Universe is mainly
the work of demons, who have aggravated the consequences of human sin
also (de Incarn. 52. 4). On the other hand, the evil does not extend
beyond the sphere of personal agency, and the Providence of God (upon
which Athanasius insists with remarkable frequency, especially in the
de Fuga and c. Gent. and de Incarn., also in Vit. Anton.) exercises
untiring care over the whole. The problem of suffering and death in the
animal creation is not discussed by him; he touches very incidentally,
Orat. ii. 63, on the deliverance of creation in connection with Rom.
viii. 19-21.
__________________________________________________________________
S:4. Vehicles of Revelation; Scripture, the Church, Tradition.
(a) The supreme and unique revelation of God to man is in the Person of
the Incarnate Son. But though unique the Incarnation is not solitary.
Before it there was the divine institution of the Law and the Prophets,
the former a typical anticipation (de Incarn. 40. 2) of the destined
reality, and along with the latter (ib. 12. 2 and 5) `for all the world
a holy school of the knowledge of God and the conduct of the soul.'
After it there is the history of the life and teaching of Christ and
the writings of His first Disciples, left on record for the instruction
of all ages. Athanasius again and again applies to the Scriptures the
terms theia and theopneusta (e.g. de Decr. 15, de Incarn. 33. 3, &c.;
the latter word, which he also applies to his own martyr teachers, is,
of course, from 2 Tim. iii. 16). The implications of this as bearing on
the literal exactness of Scripture he nowhere draws out. His strongest
language (de Decr. ubi supra) is incidental to a controversial point:
on Ps. lii. (liii.) 2, he maintains that `there is no hyperbola in
Scripture; all is strictly true,' but he proceeds on the strength of
that principle to allegorise the verse he is discussing. In c. Gent. 2,
3, he treats the account of Eden and the Fall as figurative. But in his
later writings there is, so far as I know, nothing to match this. In
fact, although he always employs the allegorical method, sometimes
rather strangely (e.g. Deut. xxviii. 66, in de Incarn. 35, Orat. ii.
19, after Irenaeus, Origen, &c.), we discern, especially in his later
writings, a tendency toward a more literal exegesis than was usual in
the Alexandrian school. His discussion, e.g., of the sinlessness of
Christ (c. Apol. i. 7, 17, ii. 9, 10) contrasts in this respect with
that of his master Alexander, who appeals, following Origen's somewhat
startling allegorical application, to Prov. xxx. 19, a text nowhere
used by Ath. in this way (Thdt. H. E. i. 4). This is doubtless largely
due to the pressure of the controversy with the Arians, who certainly
had more to gain than their opponents from the prevalent unhistorical
methods of exegesis, as we see from the use made by them of 2 Cor. iv.
11 at Nicaea, and of Prov. viii. 22 throughout [93] . Accordingly
Athanasius complains loudly of their exegesis (Ep. AEg. 3-4, cf. Orat.
i. 8, 52), and insists (id. i. 54, cf. already de Decr. 14) on the
primary necessity of always conscientiously studying the circumstances
of time and place, the person addressed, the subject matter, and
purpose of the writer, in order not to miss the true sense. This rule
is the same as applies (de Sent. Dion. 4) to the interpretation of any
writings whatever, and carries with it the strict subordination of the
allegorical to the historical sense, contended for by the later school
of Antioch, and now accepted by all reasonable Christians (see Kihn in
Wetzer-Hergenroether's Kirchen-Lex. vol. i. pp. 955-959, who calls the
Antiochene exegesis `certainly a providential phenomenon;' also supra,
p. xxviii., note 1).
(b) The Canon of Scripture accepted by Athanasius has long been known
from the fragments of the thirty-ninth Festal Letter (Easter, 367). The
New Testament Canon comprises all the books received at the present
day, but in the older order, viz., Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epistles,
Pauline Epistles (Hebrews expressly included as S. Paul's between
Thess. and Tim.), Apocalypse. The Old Testament canon is remarkable in
several ways. The number of books is 22, corresponding to the
Alexandrian Jewish reckoning, not to the (probably) older Jewish or
Talmudic reckoning of 24 (the rolls of Ruth and Lam. counted
separately, and with the Hagiographa). This at once excludes from the
Canon proper the so-called `Apocrypha,' with the exception of the
additions to Daniel, and of Baruch and `the Epistle,' which are counted
as one book with Jeremiah. The latter is also the case with
Lamentations, while on the other hand the number of 22 is preserved by
the reckoning of Ruth as a separate book from Judges to make up for the
exclusion of Esther. This last point is archaic, and brings Athanasius
into connection with Melito (171 a.d.), who gives (Eus. H. E. iv. 26.
14, see also vol. 1, p. 144, note 1, in this series) a Canon which he
has obtained by careful enquiry in Palestine. This Canon agrees with
that of Athanasius except with regard to the order assigned to `Esdras'
(i.e. Ezra and Nehemiah, placed by M. at the end), to `the twelve in
one book' (placed by M. after Jer.), and Daniel (placed by M. before
Ezekiel). Now, Esther is nowhere mentioned in the N.T., and the
Rabbinical discussions as to whether Esther `defiled the hands' (i.e.
was `canonical') went on to the time of R. Akiba (/-135), an older, and
even of R. Juda `the holy' (150-210), a younger, contemporary of Melito
(see Wildeboer, Ontstaan van den Kanon, pp. 58, sq., 65, &c.). The
latter, therefore, may represent the penultimate stage in the history
of the Hebrew canon before its close in the second century, (doubted by
Bleek, Einl.^5, S:242, but not unlikely). Here, then, Ath. represents
an earlier stage of opinion than Origen (Eus. H. E. vi. 25), who gives
the finally fixed Hebrew Canon of his own time, but puts Esther at the
end. As to the number of books, Athan. agrees with Josephus, Melito,
Origen, and with Jerome, who, however, knows of the other reckoning of
24 (`nonnulli' in Prol. Gal.). Athanasius enumerates, as `outside the
Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join
us,' Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, and Tobit, as well as what
is called the Teaching of the Apostles and the Shepherd. In practice,
however, he quotes several of the latter as `Scripture' (Wisdom
repeatedly so, see index to this vol.); `The Shepherd' is `most
profitable,' and quoted for the Unity of the Creator (and cf. de Decr.
4), but not as `Scripture;' the `Didache' is not used by him unless the
Syntagma (vide supra, p. lix.) be his genuine work. He also quotes 1
Esdras for the praise of Truth, and 2 Esdras once, as a `prophet.'
`Daniel' includes Susanna and Bel and the Dragon.
(c) On the sufficiency of Scripture for the establishment of all
necessary doctrine Athanasius insists repeatedly and emphatically (c.
Gent. 1, de Incarn. 5, de Decr. 32, Vit. Ant. 16, &c., &c.); and he
follows up precept by example. `His works are a continuous appeal to
Scripture.' There is no passage in his writings which recognises
tradition as supplementing Scripture, i.e., as sanctioning articles of
faith not contained in Scripture. Tradition is recognised as
authoritative in two ways: (1) Negatively, in the sense that doctrines
which are novel are prima facie condemned by the very fact (de Decr. 7,
note 2, ib. 18, Orat. i. 8, 10, ii. 34, 40, de Syn. 3, 6, 7, and Letter
59, S:3); and (2) positively, as furnishing a guide to the sense of
Scripture (see references in note on Orat. iii. 58, end of ch. xxix.).
In other words, tradition with Athanasius is a formal, not a material,
source of doctrine. His language exemplifies the necessity of
distinguishing, in the case of strong patristic utterances on the
authority of tradition, between different senses of the word. Often it
means simply truth conveyed in Scripture, and in that sense `handed
down' from the first, as for example c. Apol. i. 22, `the Gospel
tradition,' and Letter 60. 6 (cf. Cypr. Ep. 74. 10, where Scripture is
`divinae traditionis caput et origo.'). Moreover, tradition as distinct
from Scripture is with Athanasius not a secret unwritten body of
teaching handed down orally [94] , but is to be found in the documents
of antiquity and the writings of the Fathers, such as those to whom he
appeals in de Decr., &c. That `the appeal of Athanasius was to
Scripture, that of the Arians to tradition' (Gwatkin) is an
overstatement, in part supported by the pre-Nicene history of the word
homoousion (supra, p. xxxi. sq.). The rejection of this word by the
Antiochene Council (in 268-9) is met by Athanasius, de Synod. 43, sqq.,
partly by an appeal to still older witnesses in its favour, partly by
the observation (S:45) that `writing in simplicity [the Fathers]
arrived not at accuracy concerning the homoousion, but spoke of the
word as they understood it,' an argument strangely like that of the
Homoeans (Creed of Nike, ib. S:30) that the Fathers [of Nicaea] adopted
the word `in simplicity.'
(d) Connected with the function and authority of tradition is that of
the Church. On the essential idea of the Church there is little or
nothing of definite statement. The term `Catholic Church' is of course
commonly used, both of the Church as a whole, and of the orthodox body
in this or that place. The unity of the Church is emphatically dwelt on
in the opening of the encyclical written in the name of Alexander
(infr., p. 69 and supr., p. xvi.) as the reason for communicating the
deposition of Arius at Alexandria to the Church at large. `The joyful
mother of children' (Exp. in Ps. cxiii. 9) is interpreted of the
Gentile Church, `made to keep house,' hate ton Kurion enoikon echousa,
joyful `because her children are saved through faith in Christ,'
whereas those of the `synagogue' are apolei& 139; paradedomena: the
`strong city' polis perioches and `Edom' of Ps. lx. 11 are likewise
interpreted of the Church as gathered from all nations; similarly the
Ethiopians of Ps. lxxxvii. 4 (where the de Tit. pss. gives a quite
different and more allegorical sense, referring the verse to baptism).
The full perfection of the Church is referred by Athanasius not to the
(even ideal) Church on earth but to the Church in heaven. The kingdom
of God' (Matt. vi. 33) is explained as `the enjoyment of the good
things of the future, namely the contemplation and knowledge of God so
far as man's soul is capable of it,' while the city of Ps. lxxxvii. 1-3
is he ano ;;Ierousalem in the de Titulis, but in the Expositio the
Church glorified by `the indwelling of the Only-begotten.' In all this
we miss any decisive utterance as to the doctrinal authority of the
Church except in so far as the recognition of such authority is
involved in what has been cited above in favour of tradition. It may be
said that the conditions which lead the mind to throw upon the Church
the weight of responsibility for what is believed were absent in the
case of Athanasius as indeed in the earlier Greek Church generally.
But Athanasius was far from undervaluing the evidence of the Church's
tradition. The organ by which the tradition of the Church does its work
is the teaching function of her officers, especially of the Episcopate
(de Syn. 3, &c.). But to provide against erroneous teaching on the part
of bishops, as well as to provide for the due administration of matters
affecting the Church generally, and for ecclesiastical legislation,
some authority beyond that of the individual bishop is necessary. This
necessity is met, in the Church as conceived by Athanasius, in two
ways, firstly by Councils, secondly in the pre-eminent authority of
certain sees which exercise some sort of jurisdiction over their
neighbours. Neither of these resources of Church organisation meets us,
in Athanasius, in a completely organised shape. A word must be said
about each separately, then about their correlation.
(a) Synods. Synods as a part of the machinery of the Church grew up
spontaneously. The meeting of the `Apostles and Elders' at Jerusalem
(Acts xv.) exemplifies the only way in which a practical resolution on
a matter affecting a number of persons with independent rights can
possibly be arrived at, viz., by mutual discussion and agreement. Long
before the age of Athanasius it had been recognised in the Church that
the bishops were the persons exclusively entitled to represent their
flocks for such a purpose; in other words, Councils of bishops had come
to constitute the legislative and judicial body in the Church (Eus. V.
C. i. 51). Both of these functions, and especially the latter, involved
the further prerogative of judging of doctrine, as in the case of Paul
of Samosata. But the whole system had grown up out of occasional
emergencies, and no recognised laws existed to define the extent of
conciliar authority, or the relations between one Council and another
should their decisions conflict. Not even the area covered by the
jurisdiction of a given Council was defined (Can. Nic. 5). We see a
Synod at Arles deciding a case affecting Africa, and reviewing the
decision of a previous Synod at Rome; a Council at Tyre trying the case
of a bishop of Alexandria; a Council at Sardica in the West deposing
bishops in the East, and restoring those whom Eastern Synods had
deposed; we find Acacius and his fellows deposed at Seleucia, then in a
few weeks deposing their deposers at Constantinople; Meletius appointed
and deposed by the same Synod at Antioch in 361, and in the following
year resuming his see without question. All is chaos. The extent to
which a Synod succeeds in enforcing its decisions depends on the extent
to which it obtains de facto recognition. The canons of the Council of
Antioch (341) are accepted as Church law, while its creeds are
condemned as Arian (de Syn. 22-25).
We look in vain for any statement of principle on the part of
Athanasius to reduce this confusion to order. The classical passage in
his writings is the letter he has preserved from Julius of Rome to the
Eastern bishops (Apol. c. Ar. 20-35). The Easterns insist strongly on
the authority of Councils, in the interests of their deposition of
Athanasius, &c., at Tyre. Julius can only reply by invoking an
old-established custom of the Church, ratified, he says, at Nicaea
(Can. 5?), that the decisions of one Council may be revised by another;
a process which leads to no finality. The Sardican canons of three
years later drew up, for judicial purposes only, a system of procedure,
devolving on Julius (or possibly on the Roman bishop for the time
being) the duty of deciding, upon the initiative of the parties
concerned, whether in the case of a deposed bishop a new trial of the
case was desirable, and permitting him to take part in such new trial
by his deputies. But Athanasius never alludes to any such procedure,
nor to the canons in question. (Compare above, pp. xlii., xlvi.).
The absence of any a priori law relating to the authority of Synods
applies to general as well as to local Councils. The conception of a
general Council did not give rise to Nicaea, but vice versa (see above,
p. xvii.). The precedent for great Councils had already been set at
Antioch (268-9) and Arles (314); the latter in fact seems to be
indirectly called by S. Augustine plenarium universae ecclesiae
concilium; but the widely representative character of the Nicene
Council, and the impressive circumstances under which it met, stamped
upon it from the first a recognised character of its own. Again and
again (de Decr. 4, 27, Orat. i. 7, Ep. AEg. 5, &c., &c.) Athanasius
presses the Arians with their rejection of the decision of a
`world-wide' Council, contrasting it (e.g. de Syn. 21) with the
numerous and indecisive Councils held by them. He protests (Ep. AEg. 5,
Tom. ad Ant., &c.) against the idea that any new creed is necessary or
to be desired in addition to the Nicene. But in doing so, he does not
suggest by a syllable that the Council was formally and a priori
infallible, independently of the character of its decision as
faithfully corresponding to the tradition of the Apostles. Its
authority is secondary to that of Scripture (de Syn. 6, sub. fin.), and
its scriptural character is its justification (ib.). In short, Mr.
Gwatkin speaks within the mark when he disclaims for Athan. any
mechanical theory [95] of conciliar infallibility. To admit this
candidly is not to depreciate, but to acknowledge, the value of the
great Synod of Nicaea; and to acknowledge it, not on the technical
grounds of later ecclesiastical law, but on grounds which are those of
Athanasius himself. (On the general subject see D.C.A. 475-484, and
Hatch, B.L. vii.)
(b) Jurisdiction of bishops over bishops. The fully-developed and
organised `patriarchal' system does not meet us in the Nicene age. The
bishops of important towns, however, exercise a very real, though not
definable authority over their neighbours. This is especially true of
Imperial residences. The migration of Eusebius to Nicomedia and
afterwards to Constantinople broke through the time-honoured rule of
the Church, but set the precedent commonly followed ever afterwards. In
Egypt, although the name `patriarch' was as yet unheard, the authority
of the Bishop of Alexandria was almost absolute. The name `archbishop'
is here used for the first time. It is first applied apparently to
Meletius (Apol. Ar. 71) in his list of clergy, but at a later date
(about 358) to Athanasius in a contemporary inscription (see p. 564^a,
note 1). At the beginning of his episcopate (supra, p. xxxvii.) we find
him requested to ordain in a diocese of Upper Egypt by its bishop. He
sends bishops on deputations (Fest. Ind. xxv., &c.), and exercises
ordinary jurisdiction over bishops and people of Libya and Pentapolis
(cf. reference to Synesius, supr., p. lxii.). This was a condition of
things dating at least from the time of Dionysius (p. 178, note 2). In
particular he had practically the appointment of bishops for all Egypt,
so that in the course of his long episcopate all the Egyptian sees were
manned by his faithful adherents (cf. p. 493). The mention of Dionysius
suggests the question of the relation of the see of Alexandria to that
of Rome, and of the latter to the Church generally. On the former
point, what is necessary will be said in the Introd. to the de Sent.
Dion. With regard to the wider question, Athanasius expresses reverence
for that bishopric `because it is an Apostolic throne,' and `for Rome,
because it is the metropolis of Romania' (p. 282). That is his only
utterance on the subject. Such reverence ought, he says, to have
secured Liberius from the treatment to which he had been subjected. The
language cited excludes the idea of any divinely-given headship of the
Church vested in the Roman bishop, for his object is to magnify the
outrageous conduct of Constantius and the Arians. Still less can
anything be elicited from the account given by Ath. of the case of the
Dionysii, or of his own relations to successive Roman bishops. He
speaks of them as his beloved brothers and fellow-ministers (e.g., p.
489) and cordially. welcomes their sympathy and powerful support,
without any thought of jurisdiction. But he furnishes us with
materials, in the letter of Julius, for estimating not his own view of
the Roman see, but that held by its occupant. The origin of the
proceedings was the endeavour of the Easterns to procure recognition at
Rome and in the West for their own nominee to the bishopric of
Alexandria. They had requested Julius to hold a Council, `and to be
himself the judge if he so pleased' (Apol. c. Ar. 20). This was
intended to frighten Athanasius, but not in the least, as the sequel
shews, to submit the decisions of a Council to revision by a single
bishop. Julius summoned a Council as described above (p. xliii.), and
at the end of a long period of delay and controversy sent a letter
expressing his view of the case to the Orientals. This document has
been already discussed (p. xliv.). It forms an important landmark in
the history of papal claims, standing at least as significantly in
contrast with those of the successors of Julius, as with those of his
predecessors.
(g) Bishops and Councils. The superiority of councils to single bishops
(including those of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch) was questioned by no
one in this age. Julius claims the support, not of authority inherent
in his see, but of canons, and on the basis of them claims a voice in
matters affecting the Church at large, not in his own name, but in that
of `us all, that so a just sentence might proceed from all' (Apol. c.
Ar. 35). Again, just as the judgment of his predecessor Melchiades and
his council was revised at Arles in 314 (Augustin. Ep. 105. 8), so the
case of Athanasius and Marcellus was reheard at the Council of Sardica
three years after the decision of Julius and his council. The council
was the supreme organ of the Church for legislative, judicial, and
doctrinal purposes; had any other of superior or even equal rank been
recognised, or had the authority of councils themselves been defined a
priori by a system of Church law, the confusion of the fourth century
would not have arisen. Whether or no the age would have gained, we at
least should have been the losers.
__________________________________________________________________
[93] Athanasius is not always innocent of the method of which he
complains; e.g. when he uses Isa. i. 11, pleres eimi, as a proof of the
Divine Perfection.
[94] The idea of a mysterious unwritten tradition is a legacy of
Gnosticism to the Church. Irenaeus, in order to meet the Gnostic appeal
to a supposed unwritten Apostolic tradition, confronts it with the
consistency of the public and normal teaching of the Churches
everywhere, of which the Roman Church is a convenient microcosm or
compendium. The idea of a paradosis agraphos is adopted by Clement and
Origen, and passes from the latter to Eusebius, and to the Cappadocian
Fathers (Basil de Sp. S. 27, applies it only to practical details),
Epiphanius, and later writers. Details in Harnack ii. 90, note, cf.
Salmon, Infallibility, Lect. ix. On the somewhat different subject of
the `Disciplina Arcani,' see Herzog-Plitt. s.v. `Arkan-Disciplia'
[95] What is conspicuously true of the Second General Council is in
reality not less true of the First. Its high authority to later ages is
due not to its formal character as a council, but to the character of
its work; the consent of the Church, and that not readily given, but as
the result of a long process of searching and sifting, has given to it
its `irreformable' authority. Its authority is expressly put on a par
with that of the Antiochene Synod of c. 269, by Ath. de Syn. 43
(consult the whole discussion, pp. 473, 475, &c.). Short of a council
which should include every bishop of the entire Church, in unanimous
agreement,--an impossible contingency,--the claims of any given council
to be truly ecumenical are relative, not absolute; and no consistent
theory is possible of the conditions under which a council could by
virtue of its constitution claim infallibility for its decisions. The
supposed infallibility of general councils lies in reality outside
them, in the authority which sanctions and consecrates their decisions.
According to the precedent of Nicaea this is the Church `diffusive'
(cf. p. 489, and Pusey, Councils, p. 225, sq.), and such consent,
again, must necessarily be partial and relative. If a more tangible and
expeditious theory is wanted, we have it in the Roman system, according
to which a council is infallible if ratified by the Pope. This at once
puts all such councils, whether local or general, on one level, and
affords a ready criterion. In other words, the only consistent
(mechanical) theory of the infallibility of councils is one which makes
councils superfluous. If such a theory had been known to the Church in
the age of councils, the councils would not have been held.
__________________________________________________________________
S:5. Content of Revelation. God Three in One and the Incarnation.
To dwell at length on the theology of Athanasius under this head is
unnecessary here, not because there is little to say, but partly
because what there is to say has been to some extent anticipated above,
S:S:2, 3, and ch. ii. pp. xxxii., xxxvi., partly because the history of
his life and work is the best exposition of what he believed and
taught. That his theology on these central subjects was profoundly
moulded by the Nicene formula is (to the present writer at least) the
primary fact (see ch. ii. S:3 (1), and (2) b). This of course
presupposes that the Nicene faith found in him a character and mind
prepared to become its interpreter and embodiment; and that this was so
his pre-Nicene writings sufficiently shew.
For instance, his progressive stress on the Unity of the Godhead in
Father, Son, and Spirit is but the following up of the thought
expressed de Incarn. 17. 1 en mono to heautou Patri holos on kata
panta. It may be noted that he argues also from the idea of the Trinity
to the coessential Godhead of the Spirit, ad Serap. i. 28, sq., Trias
de estin ouch heos onomatos monon...alla alethei& 139; kai huparxei
trias...eipatosan palin...trias estin e duas; and that he meets the
difficulty (see infra, p. 438, ten lines from end, also Petav. Trin.
VII. xiv.) of differentiating the relation of the Spirit to the Father
from the gennesis of the Son by a confession of ignorance and a censure
upon those who assume that they can search out the deep things of God
(ib. 17-19). The principle might be applied to this point which is laid
down de Decr. 11, that `an act' belonging to the essence of God,
cannot, by virtue of the simplicity of the Divine Nature, be more than
one: the `act' therefore of divine gennesis (the nature of which we do
not know) cannot apply to the Spirit but only to the Son. But I do not
recollect any passage in which Athanasius draws this conclusion from
his own premises. The language of Athanasius on the procession of the
Spirit is unstudied. In Exp. Fid. 4, he appears to adopt the
`procession' of the Spirit from the Father through the Son (after
Dionysius, see Sent. Dion. 17). In Serap. i. 2, 20, 32, iii. 1, he
speaks of the Spirit as idion tou Logou, just as the Word is idios tou
Patros. His language on the subject, expressing the idea common to East
and West (under the cloud of logomachies which envelop the subject)
might possibly furnish the basis of an `eirenicon' between the two
separated portions of Christendom. In explaining the `theophanies' of
the Old Testament, Athanasius takes a position intermediate between
that of the Apologists, &c. (supr., p. xxiii.) who referred them to the
Word, and that of Augustine who referred them to Angels only. According
to Athanasius the `Angel' was and was not the Word: regarded as visible
he was an Angel simply, but the Voice was the Divine utterance through
the Word (see Orat. iii. 12, 14; de Syn. 27, Anath 15, note; also
Serap. i. 14).
Lastly, it must again be insisted that in his polemic against Arianism
Athanasius is centrally soteriological. It is unnecessary to collect
passages in support of what will be fully appreciated only after a
thorough study of the controversial treatises. The essence of his
position is comprised in his paraphrase of St. Peter's address to the
Jews, Orat. ii. 16, sq., or in the argument, ib. 67, sqq., i. 43, and
iii. 13. With regard to the Incarnation, it may be admitted that
Athanasius uses language which might have been modified had he had
later controversies in view. His common use of anthropos for the
Manhood of Christ (see below, p. 83) might be alleged by the Nestorian,
his comparison of it to the vesture of the High Priest (Orat. i. 47,
ii. 8, see note there) by the Apollinarian or Monophysite partisan. But
at least his use of either class of expressions shews that he did not
hold the doctrine associated in later times with the other. Moreover,
while from first to last he is explicitly clear as to the seat of
personality in Christ, which is uniformly assigned to the Divine Logos
(p. 40, note 2 and reff.), the integrity of the manhood of Christ is no
less distinctly asserted (cf. de Incarn. 18. 1, 21. 7). He uses soma
and anthropos indifferently during the earlier stages of the conflict,
ignoring or failing to notice the peculiarity of the Luciano-Arian
Christology. But from 362 onward the full integrity of the Saviour's
humanity, sarx and psuche logike or pneuma, is energetically asserted
against the theory of Apollinarius and those akin to it [96] (cf.
Letters 59 and 60, and c. Apoll.). Some corollaries of this doctrine
must now be mentioned.
The question of the sinlessness of Christ is not discussed by
Athanasius ex professo until the controversy with Apollinarianism. In
the earlier Arian controversy the question was in reality involved,
partly by the Arian theory of the preptotes of the Word, partly by the
correlated theory of prokope (cf. Orat. ii. 6, sqq.), and Athanasius
instinctively falls back on the consideration that the Personality of
the Son, if Divine, is necessarily sinless. In c. Apoll. i. 7, 17, ii.
10 the question is more thoroughly analysed. The complete psychological
identity of Christ's human nature with our own is maintained along with
the absolute moral identity of His will (thelesis, the determination of
will, not the thelema ousiodes or volitional faculty) with the Divine
will.
With regard to the human knowledge of Christ, the texts Mark xiii. 32,
Luke ii. 52, lie at the foundation of his discussion Orat. iii. 42-53.
The Arians appealed to these passages to support the contention that
the Word, or Son of God in His Divine nature, was ignorant of `the
Day,' and advanced in knowledge. The whole argument of Athan. in reply
is directed to shewing that these passages apply not to the Word or Son
in Himself, but to the Son Incarnate. He knows as God, is ignorant as
man. Omniscience is the attribute of Godhead, ignorance is proper to
man. The Incarnation was not the sphere of advancement to the Word, but
of humiliation and condescension; but the Manhood advanced in wisdom as
it did in stature also, for advance belongs to man. That is the
decisive and clear-cut position of Athanasius on this subject (which
the notes there vainly seek to accommodate to the rash dogmatism of the
schools). Athanasius appeals to the utterances of Christ which imply
knowledge transcending human limitations in order to shew that such
knowledge, or rather all knowledge, was possessed by the Word; in other
words such utterances belong to the class of `divine' not to that of
`human' phenomena in the life of Christ. So far as His human nature was
concerned, He assumed its limitations of knowledge equally with all
else that belongs to the physical and mental endowments of man. Why
then was not Divine Omniscience exerted by Him at all times? This
question is answered as all questions must be which arise out of any
limitation of the Omnipotence of God in the Manhood of Christ. It was
`for our profit, as I at least think' (ib. 48). The very idea of the
Incarnation is that of a limiting of the Divine under human conditions,
the Divine being manifested in Christ only so far as the Wisdom of God
has judged it necessary in order to carry out the purpose of His
coming. In other words, Athanasius regarded the ignorance of Christ as
`economical' only in so far as the Incarnation is itself an oikonomia,
a measured revelation, at once a veiling and a manifestation, of all
that is in God. That the divine Omniscience wielded in the man Christ
Jesus an adequate instrument for its own manifestation Athanasius
firmly holds: the exact extent to which such manifestation was carried,
the reserve of miraculous power or knowledge with which that Instrument
was used, must be explained not by reference to the human mind, will,
or character of Christ, but to the Divine Will and Wisdom which alone
has both effected our redemption and knows the secrets of its bringing
about. With Athanasius, we may quote St. Paul, tis egno noun Kuriou.
It may be observed before leaving this point that Athanasius takes
occasion (S:43, fin., cf. 45) to distinguish two senses of the words
`the Son,' as referring on the one hand to the eternal, on the other to
the human existence of Christ. To the latter he limits Mark xiii. 32:
the point is of importance in view of his relation to Marcellus (supra,
p. xxxvi.).
As a further corollary of the Incarnation we may notice his frequent
use (Orat. iii. 14, 29, 33, iv. 32, c. Apoll. i. 4, 12, 21) of the word
theotokos as an epithet or as a name for the Virgin Mary. The
translation `Mother of God' is of course erroneous. `God-bearer'
(Gottes-baererin), the literal equivalent, is scarcely idiomatic
English. The perpetual virginity of Mary is maintained incidentally (c.
Apoll. i. 4), but there is an entire absence in his writings not only
of worship of the Virgin, but of `Mariology,' i.e., of the tendency to
assign to her a personal agency, or any peculiar place, in the work of
Redemption (Gen. iii. 15, Vulg.). Further, the argument of Orat. i. 51
fin., that the sending of Christ in the flesh for the first time
(loipon) liberated human nature from sin, and enabled the requirement
of God's law to be fulfilled in man (an argument strictly within the
lines of Rom. viii. 3), would be absolutely wrecked by the doctrine of
the freedom of Mary from original sin (`immaculate conception'). If
that doctrine be held, sin was `condemned in the flesh' (i.e., first
deposed from its place in human nature, see Gifford or Meyer-Weiss in
loc.), not by the sending of Christ, but by the congenital sinlessness
of Mary. If the Arians had only known of the latter doctrine, they
would have had an easy reply to that powerful passage.
__________________________________________________________________
[96] The doctrine of Athanasius is, not formally but none the less
really, the doctrine of Chalcedon, which again stands or falls together
with that of Nicaea. Like the latter, it transcends the power of human
thought to do more than state it in terms which exclude the (Nestorian
and Monophysite) alternatives. The Man Jesus Christ is held to have
lacked nothing that constitutes personality in man; the human
personality which therefore belongs to it ideally, being in fact merged
in the Divine personality of the Son. The `impersonality,' as it is
sometimes called, of Christ qua man is therefore better spoken of as
His Divine Personality. Personality and will are correlated but not
identical ideas.
__________________________________________________________________
S:6. Derivative Doctrines. Grace and the Means of Grace; The Christian
Life; The Last Things.
The idea of Grace is important to the theological system of Athanasius,
in view of the central place occupied in that system by the idea of
restoration and new creation as the specific work of Christ upon His
fellow-men (supra, S:2, cf. Orat. ii. 56, Exp. in Pss. xxxiii. 2,
cxviii. 5, LXX.). But, in common with the Greek Fathers generally, he
does not analyse its operation, nor endeavour to fix its relation to
free will (cf. Orat. i. 37 fin., iii. 25 sub fin.). The divine
predestination relates (for anything that Ath. says) not to individuals
so much as to the Purpose of God, before all ages, to repair the
foreseen evil of man's fall by the Incarnation (Orat. ii. 75, sq.). On
the general subject of Sacraments and their efficacy, he says little or
nothing. The initiatory rite of Baptism makes us sons of God (de Decr.
31, cf. Orat. i. 37 ut supra), and is the only complete renewal to be
looked for in this life, Serap. iv. 13). It is accompanied (de Trin. et
Sp. S. 7) by confession of faith in the Trinity, and the baptism
administered by Arians who do not really hold this faith is therefore
in peril of losing its value (Orat. ii. 42, fin.). The grace of the
Spirit conferred at baptism will be finally withdrawn from the wicked
at the last judgment (Exp. in Ps. lxxv. 13, LXX.). In the de Trin. et
Sp. S. 21 baptism is coupled with the imposition of hands as one rite.
On the Eucharist there is an important passage (ad Serap. iv. 19),
which must be given in full. He has been speaking of sin against the
Holy Spirit, which latter name he applies [see above, ch. iii. S:1
(22)] to the Saviour's Divine Personality. He proceeds to illustrate
this by John vi. 62-64.
`For here also He has used both terms of Himself, flesh and spirit; and
He distinguished the spirit from what is of the flesh in order that
they might believe not only in what was visible in Him, but in what was
invisible, and so understand that what He says is not fleshly, but
spiritual. For for how many would the body suffice as food, for it to
become meat even for the whole world? But this is why He mentioned the
ascending of the Son of Man into heaven; namely, to draw them off from
their corporeal idea, and that from thenceforth they might understand
that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly from above, and spiritual meat,
to be given at His hands. For `what I have said unto you,' says He, `is
spirit and life;' as much as to say, `what is manifested, and to be
given for the salvation of the world, is the flesh which I wear. But
this, and the blood from it, shall be given to you spiritually at My
hands as meat, so as to be imparted spiritually in each one, and to
become for all a preservative to resurrection of life eternal.'
Beyond this he does not define the relation of the outward and visible
in the Eucharist to the spiritual and inward. The reality of the
Eucharistic gift is insisted on as strongly as its spirituality in such
passages as ad Max. (Letter 61) 2 sub fin., and the comment on Matt.
vii. 6 (Migne xxvii. 1380), `See to it, therefore, Deacon, that thou do
not administer to the unworthy the purple of the sinless body,' and the
protest of the Egyptian bishops (Apol. c. Ar. 5) that their churches
`are adorned only by the blood of Christ and by the pious worship of
Him.' The Holy Table is expressly stated to have been made of wood
(Hist. Ar. 56), and was situated (Apol. Fug.) in a space called the
hierateion. The Eucharist was celebrated in most places every Sunday,
but not on week-days (Apol. c. Ar. 11). But in Alexandria we hear of it
being celebrated on a Friday on one occasion, and this was apparently a
normal one (Apol. Fug. 24, Apol. Const. 25). To celebrate the Eucharist
was the office of the bishop or presbyter (Apol. c. Ar. 11). Ischyras
(supr. p. xxxviii.) was held by Athanasius to be a layman only, and
therefore incapable of offering the Eucharist. The sacrificial aspect
of the Eucharist is not touched upon, except in the somewhat strange
fragment (Migne xxvi. 1259) from an Oratio de defunctis, which contains
the words he de ge anaimaktos thusia exilasmos. He insists on the
finality of the sacrifice of the Cross, Orat. ii. 9, hai men gar kata
nomon...ouk eichon to piston, kath' hemeran parerchomenai; & 211; de
tou Soteros thusia hapax genomene teteleioke to pan. On repentance and
the confession of sins there is little to quote. He strongly asserts
the efficacy of repentance, and explains Heb. vi. 4, of the unique
cleansing and restoring power of baptism (Serap. iv. 13, as cited
above.) A catena on Jeremiah preserves a fragment [supra, ch. iii. S:1
(38)], which compares the ministry of the priest in baptism to that in
confession: houtos kai ho exomologoumenos en metanoia dia tou hi&
153;reos lambanei ten aphesin chariti Christou. Of compulsory
confession, or even of this ordinance as an ordinary element of the
Christian life, we read nothing.
On the Christian ministry again there is little direct teaching. The
ordinations by the presbyter Colluthus (Apol. Ar. 11, 12) are treated
as null. The letter (49) to Dracontius contains vigorous and beautiful
passages on the responsibility of the Ministry. On the principles of
Christian conduct there is much to be gathered from obiter dicta in the
writings of Athanasius. His description (cf. supra, p. xlviii.) of the
revival of religious life at Alexandria in 346, and the exhortations in
the Easter letters, are the most conspicuous passages for this purpose.
In particular, he insists (e.g., p. 67) on the necessity of a holy life
and pure mind for the apprehension of divine things, and especially for
the study of the Scriptures. He strongly recommends the discipline of
fasting, in which, as compared with other churches (Rome especially),
the Alexandrian Christians were lax (Letter 12), but he warns them in
his first Easter letter to fast `not only with the body, but also with
the soul.' He also dwells (Letter 6) on the essential difference of
spirit between Christian festivals and Jewish observance of days.
Christ is the true Festival, embracing the whole of the Christian life
(Letters 5, 14). He lays stress on love to our neighbour, and
especially on kindness to the poor (Letter i. 11, Hist. Ar. 61, Vit.
Ant. 17, 30). On one important practical point he is very emphatic:
`Persecution is a device of the devil' (Hist. Ar. 33). This summary
judgment was unfortunately less in accordance with the spirit of the
times than with the Spirit of Christ.
The ascetic teaching of Athanasius must be reserved for the
introduction to the Vita Antoni (cf. Letters 48, 49, also above, p.
xlviii.). His eschatology calls for discussion in connection with the
language of the de Incarnatione, and will be briefly noticed in the
introduction to that tract. With regard to prayers for the departed, he
distinguishes (on Luke xiii. 21, &c., Migne xxvii. 1404) the careless,
whose friends God will move to assist them with their prayers, from the
utterly wicked who are beyond the help of prayer.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter V.
Chronology and Tables
S:1. Sources.
(1) The Festal Letters of Athanasius with their Index and the Historia
Acephala constitute our primary source for chronological details (see
below, S:2). (2) Along with these come the chronological notices
scattered up and down the other writings of Athanasius. These are of
course of the utmost importance, but too often lack definiteness. (3)
The chronological data in the fifth-century historians, headed by
Socrates, are a mass of confusion, and have been a source of confusion
ever since, until the discovery of the primary sources, No. (1)
mentioned above. They must, therefore, be used only in strict
subordination to the latter. (4) More valuable but less abundant
secondary notices are to be derived from the Life of Pachomius, from
the letter of Ammon (infra, p. 487), and from other writers of the day.
(5) For the movements of the Emperors the laws in the Codex
Theodosianus (ed. Haenel in Corpus Juris Ante-Justiniani) give many
dates, but the text is not in a satisfactory condition.
(6) Modern discussions. The conflicting attempts at an Athanasian
chronology prior to the discovery of the Festal Letters are tabulated
in the Appendix to Newman's Arians, and discussed by him in his
introduction to the Historical Tracts (Oxf. Lib. Fathers). The notes to
Dr. Bright's article Athanasius in D.C.B., and his introduction to the
Hist. Writings of S. Ath., may be profitably consulted, as also may
Larsow's Fest-briefe (Leipz., 1852), with useful calendar information
by Dr. J. G. Galle, the veteran professor of Astronomy at Breslau, and
Sievers on the Hist. Aceph. (Supr. ch. i. S:3.)
But by far the most valuable chronological discussions are those of
Prof. Gwatkin in his Studies of Arianism. He has been the first to make
full use of the best data, and moreover gives very useful lists of the
great officials of the Empire and of the movements of the Eastern
Emperors. Mr. Gwatkin's results were criticised in the Church Quarterly
Review, vol. xvi. pp. 392-398, 1883, by an evidently highly-qualified
hand [97] . The criticisms of the Reviewer have been most carefully
weighed by the present writer, although they quite fail to shake him in
his general agreement with Mr. Gwatkin's results.
For the general chronology of the period we may mention Weingarten's
Zeit-tafeln (ed. 3, 1888) as useful, though not especially so for our
purpose, and above all Clinton's Fasti Romani, which, however, were
drawn up in the dark ages before the discovery of the Festal Letters,
and are therefore antiquated so far as the life of Athanasius is
concerned.
__________________________________________________________________
[97] The candid, but friendly, and often just, criticisms on Mr.
Gwatkin's book do not concern us here. But the Reviewer's chronological
strictures are his weakest point: he uses his texts without criticism,
and falls far short of Mr. Gwatkin's standard of searching historical
method.
__________________________________________________________________
S:2. Principles and Method.
The determination of the leading Athanasian dates depends mainly on the
value to be assigned to the primary sources, S:1 (1). Reserving the
fuller discussion of these texts for the Introduction to the Letters
(pp. 495 sq., 500 sq.), it will suffice to state here what seem to be
the results of an investigation of their value. (1) The Historia
Acephala and Festal Index are independent of each other (cf. Sievers,
p. 95, misunderstood, I think, by Mr. Gwatkin, p. 221). (2) They both
belong to the generation after the death of Athanasius, the H. A. being
apparently the earlier. (3) The data as to which they agree must,
therefore, come from a source prior to either, i.e., contemporary with
Athanasius. (4) In several important particulars they are confirmed by
our secondary Egyptian sources, such as the Letter of Ammon and Life of
Pachomius. (5) They verify most of the best results arrived at
independently of them (of this below), and (6) In no case do they agree
in fixing a date which can be proved to be wrong, or which there are
sound reasons for distrusting. On these grounds I have classed the
Historia and Index as primary sources, and maintain that the dates as
to which the two documents agree must be accepted as certain. This
principle at once brings the doubtful points in the chronology within
very moderate limits. The general chronological table, in which the
dates fixed by the agreement of these sources are printed in black
type, will make this plain enough. It remains to shew that the
principle adopted works out well in detail, or in other words, that the
old Alexandrian chronology, transmitted to us through the twofold
channel of the Historia and the Index, harmonises the apparent
discrepancies, and solves the difficulties, of the chronological
statements of Athanasius, and tallies with the most trustworthy
information derived from other sources. In some cases it has been found
desirable to discuss points of chronology where they occur in the Life
of Athanasius; what will be attempted here is to complete what is there
passed over without thorough discussion, in justification of the scheme
adopted in our general chronological table.
__________________________________________________________________
S:3. Applications.
(a) Death of Alexander and Election of Athanasius. That the latter took
place on June 8, 328, is established by the agreement of our sources,
together with the numbering of the Festal Letters. Theodoret (H. E. i.
26) and others, misled by some words of Athanasius (Apol. c. Ar. 59),
handed down to later ages the statement that Alexander died five months
after the Council of Nicaea. It had long been seen that this must be a
mistake (Tillemont, vi. 736, Montfaucon, Monit. in Vit. S. Athan.) and
various suggestions [98] were made as to the terminus a quo for the
`five months' mentioned by Athanasius; that of Montfaucon remains the
most probable (see ch. ii. S:3 (1), p. xxi.). But the field was left
absolutely clear for the precise and concordant statement of our
chroniclers, which, therefore, takes undisputed possession. (Further
details, supr. p. xx. sq.; Introd. to Letters, pp. 495, 303).
(b) The first exile of Athanasius. The duration is fixed by the Hist.
Aceph. (see Introd. p. 495, sq.) as two years, four months, and eleven
days, and this exactly coincides with the dates given by the Index for
his departure for Tyre, July 11, 335, and his return from exile Nov.
23, 337 (not 338; for the Diocletian year began at the end of August).
Although, therefore, the Hist. Aceph. is not available for the date,
the constructive agreement between it and the Index is complete. But it
has been contended that the year of the return from this exile must
still be placed in 338, in spite of the new evidence to the contrary.
The reasons alleged are very weak. (1) The letter of Constantine II.,
dated Treveri, June 17, so far from making against the year 337,
clinches the argument in its favour. Constantine is still only `Caesar'
when he writes it (pp. 146, 272); he was proclaimed Augustus on Sep. 9,
337 (Montf. in ann. 338 tries in vain to parry this decisive objection
to the later date. He appeals to Maximin in Eus. H. E. ix. 10, but
overlooks the word sebastos there. Is it conceivable that a
disappointed eldest son, as sensitive about his claims as Constantine
was, would within so short a time of becoming `Augustus' be content to
call himself merely `Caesar'?) The objection as to the distance of
Treveri from Nicomedia has no weight, as we show elsewhere (p. xli.,
note 4); Constantine might have heard of his father's death a fortnight
before the date of this letter. (2) The law (Cod. Th. X. x. 4) dated
Viminacium, June 12, 338, if correctly ascribed to Constantius, would
certainly lend plausibility to the view that it was at that time that
Athanasius met Constantius at Viminacium (p. 240). But the names are so
often confused in mss., and the text of the Theodosian Code requires
such frequent correction, that there is no solid objection to set
against the extremely cogent proofs (Gwatkin, p. 138) that the law
belongs to Constantine, who in that case cannot have been at Trier on
June 17, 338. As to Constantius, there is no reason against his having
been in Pannonia at some time in the summer of 337. (3) The statement
of Theodoret (H. E. ii. 1) that Ath. `stayed at Treveri two years and
four months' seems to reproduce that of the Hist. Aceph. as to the
length of the exile, and is only verbally inexact in applying it to the
period actually spent in Trier. (4) The language of Letter 10, the
Festal letter for 338, is not absolutely decisive, but S:S:3, 11
certainly imply that when it was written, whether at Alexandria or
elsewhere, the durance of Athanasius was at an end. There can, we
submit, be no reasonable doubt that the first exile of Athanasius began
with his departure from Alexandria on July 11, 335, and ended with his
return thither on Nov. 23, 337.
(c) Commencement of the second exile. Here again the agreement of our
chronicles is constructive only, owing to the loss of the earlier part
of the Hist. Aceph.; but it is none the less certain. The exile ended,
as everyone now admits and as both chronicles tell us, on Paoph. 24
(Oct. 21), 346: it lasted, according to the H. A., seven years, six
months, and three days. This carries us back to Phar. 21 (April 16),
339. Now we learn from the Index that he left the Church of Theonas on
the night of Mar. 18-19, and from the Encyclical, 4, 5, that he took
refuge first in another church, then in some secret place till over
Easter Sunday (Apr. 15). This fits exactly with Apr. 16 as the date of
his flight to Rome. To this there is only one serious objection, viz.,
that Ath. was summoned (p. 239) to Milan by Constantius after the end
of three years from his leaving Alexandria. It has been assumed
(without any proof) that this took place `just before' the council of
Sardica. As a matter of fact, Constans left Athan. in Milan, and
(apparently after his summer campaign) ordered him to follow him to
Trier, in order to travel thence to the Council. Athanasius does not
state either how long he remained at Milan, or when he was ordered to
Trier; for a chronological inference, in opposition to explicit
evidence, he furnishes no basis whatever. I agree with Mr. Gwatkin
(whom his Reviewer quite misunderstands) in placing the Milan interview
about May, 342, and the journey from Trier to Sardica after Easter
(probably later still) in 343 (Constans was in Britain in the spring of
343, and had returned to Trier before June 30, Cod. Th. XII. i. 36, see
also supr. p. xlv.). A more reasonable objection to the statement of
the Index is that of Dr. Bright (p. xv. note 5), who sets against its
information that Athan. fled from `Theonas' four days before Gregory's
arrival, the statement of the Encyclical that he left a certain church
after Gregory's outrages at Eastertide. But clearly Athan. first
escaped from the church of Theonas, afterwards (between Good Friday and
Easter) from some other church (alle ekklesia), not named by him
(`Quirinus,' cf. p. 95, note 1), and finally from the City itself. (Dr.
Bright's arguments in favour of 340 are vitiated in part by his placing
Easter on April 9, i.e. on a Wednesday, instead of the proper day,
Sunday, Mar. 30). The date, April 16, 339, is, therefore, well
established as the beginning of the second exile, and there is no
tangible evidence against it. It is, moreover, supported by the
subscription to the letter to Serapion, which stands in the stead of
the Easter letter for 340, and which states that the letter was written
from Rome.
(d) Council of Sardica and death of Gregory. The confusion into which
the whole chronology of the surrounding events was thrown by the
supposition (which was naturally taken without question upon the
authority of Socrates and Sozomen) that the Sardican council met in
347, is reflected in the careful digest of opinions made by Newman
(Arians, Appendix, or better, Introduction to Hist. Treatises of S.
Ath. p. xxvi.; cf. also Hefele, Eng. Tra., vol. 2, p. 188, sq., notes),
and especially in the difficulties caused by the necessity of placing
the Council of Milan in 345 before Sardica, and the mission of
Euphrates of Cologne to Antioch as late as 348. Now the Hist. Aceph.,
by giving October, 346, as the date of the return of Athanasius from
his second exile, at once challenged the received date for Sardica, and
J. D. Mansi, the learned editor of the `Collectio Amplissima' of the
Councils, used this fact as the key to unlock the chronological tangle
of the period. He argued that the Council of Sardica must be put back
at least as early as 344; but the natural conservatism of learning
resisted his conclusions until the year 1852, when the Festal Letters,
discovered ten years earlier, were made available for the theological
public of Europe. The date 347 was then finally condemned. Not only did
Letter 18, written at Easter, 345, refer to the Council's decision
about Easter, and Letter 19 refer to his restoration as an accomplished
fact; the Index most positively dated the synod in the year 343, which
year has now taken its place as the accepted date, although the month
and duration of the assembly are still open to doubt (Supr. p. xlv.,
note 6). In any case it is certain that the Easter at which the
deputies from Constans and the Council reached Antioch was Easter, 344.
This brings us to the question of the date of Gregory's death. Mr.
Gwatkin rightly connects the Council which deposed Stephen for his
behaviour to the Western deputies, and elected Leontius, with the issue
of the `Macrostich' creed `three years' (de Syn. 26) after the Council
of the Dedication, i.e., in the summer of 344. This is our only notice
of time for the Council in question, and it is not very precise; but
the Council may fairly be placed in the early summer, which would allow
time for the necessary preliminaries after Easter, and for the meeting
of the fathers at reasonable notice. (Perhaps Stephen was promptly and
informally deposed (Thdt.) after Easter, but a regular council would be
required to ratify this act and to elect his successor.) After the
Council (we are again not told how long after) Constantius writes a
public letter to Alexandria forbidding further persecution of the
orthodox (277, note 3). This may well have been in the later summer of
344. Then `about ten months later' (ib.) Gregory dies. This would bring
us `about' to the early summer of 345; and this rough calculation [99]
is curiously confirmed by the precise statement of the Index xviii.,
that Gregory died on June 26 (345, although the Index, in accordance
with its principle of arrangement, which will be explained in the
proper place, puts the notice under the following year). Of course the
date of the letter of Constantius, which Athanasius gives as the
terminus a quo of the `ten months,' cannot be fixed except by
conjecture, and the date given by the Index is (1) the only precise
statement we have, (2) is likely enough in itself, and (3) agrees
perfectly with the datum of de Synod 26. That is to say, as far as our
evidence goes it appears to be correct.
(e) Return of Athanasius in 346. Here the precise statements of the
Index and Hist. Aceph. agree, and are confirmed by Letter 19, which was
written after his return. The date therefore requires no discussion.
But it is important as a signal example of the high value to be
assigned to the united witness of our two chronicles. For this is the
pivot date which, in the face of all previously accepted calculations,
has taken its place as unassailably correct, and has been the centre
from which the recovery of the true chronology of the period has
proceeded. The difficulty in dating the interview with Constantius at
Antioch is briefly discussed p. xlvii. note 10.
(f) Irruption of Syrianus and Intrusion of George. The former event is
dated without any room for doubt on the night of Thursday, Feb. 8
(Mechir 13), 356 (see p. 301, also Index and Hist. Aceph.). Here again
the accuracy of our chronicles on points where they agree comes out
strongly. It should be noted that an ill-informed writer could hardly
have avoided a blunder here; for 356 was a leap-year: and in
consequence of this (1) all the months from Thoth to Phamenoth,
inclusive, began a day later, owing to the additional Epagomenon before
the first day of Thoth: the 13th Mechir would, therefore, in these
years correspond to Feb. 8, not as usual to Feb. 7. (2) Owing to the
Roman calendar inserting its intercalary day at the end of February,
Feb. 8 would fall on the Thursday, not on the Friday (reckoning back
from Easter on Apr. 7: see Tables C, D., pp. 501 sq.). This date, then,
may rank as one of the absolutely fixed points of our chronology. After
the above examples of the value of the concordant testimony of the two
chronicles, we must demand positive and circumstantial proof to the
contrary before rejecting their united testimony that George made his
entry into Alexandria in the Lent of 357, not 356. As a matter of fact
all the positive evidence (supr., p. lii., note 11) is the other way,
and when weighed against it, the feather-weight of an inference from a
priori probability, and from the assumed silence of Athanasius (Ap.
Fug. 6), kicks the beam.
(g) Athanasius in 362. The difficulty here is that Athanasius clearly
returned after the murder of George, which, according to Amm. Marc.
XXII. xi., took place upon the receipt at Alexandria of the news of the
execution of Artemius at Antioch, which latter event must be placed in
July. Therefore Athanasius would not have returned till August, 362. On
the other hand the Hist. Aceph. makes George arrested four days after
his return to Alexandria, and immediately upon the proclamation of the
new Emperor, Nov. 30, 361. On Dec. 24 George is murdered, on Feb. 9 the
edict for the return of the exiles is promulged, and on Feb. 21
Athanasius returns, to take flight again `eight months' later, on Oct.
24. The difficulty is so admirably sifted by Mr. Gwatkin (pp. 220, 221)
that I refer to his discussion instead of giving one here. His
conclusion is clearly right, viz., that Ammianus here, as occasionally
elsewhere, has missed the right order of events, and that George was
really murdered at the time stated in Hist. Aceph. The only addition to
be made to Mr. Gwatkin's decisive argument is that Ammianus is
inconsistent with himself, and in agreement with the Hist. Aceph., in
dating the arrest of George shortly after his return from court. As
George would not have been at Julian's court, this notice implies that
the arrest took place only shortly after the death of Constantius.
Moreover, George, who even under Constantius was not over-ready to
visit his see, and who knew well enough the state of heathen feeling
against him, would not be likely to return to Alexandria after Julian
had been six months on the throne. We have then not so much to balance
Ammianus against the Hist. Aceph., as to balance one of his statements,
not otherwise confirmed, against another which is supported by the
Hist. Aceph., and by other authorities as well, especially Epiph. Haer.
76. 1. (The Festal Index gives no precise date here, except Oct. 24,
for the flight of Athanasius, which so far as it goes confirms the
Hist. Aceph.) Moreover, "on the side of Ammianus there is at worst an
oversight; whereas the Hist. Aceph. would need to be re-written." The
murder of George, Dec. 24, 361, return of Athanasius, Feb. and his
flight, Oct. 24, 362, may therefore be taken as firmly-established
dates.
(h) Supposed Council at Alexandria in 363. This Synod assumed by
Baronius, Montfaucon (Vit. in Ann. 363. 3) and others, after Theodoret
(H. E. iv. 2) must be pronounced fictitious (so already Vales. in Thdt.
l.c.). (1) The letter of Ammon (extract printed in this volume, p. 487)
tells us on the authority of Athanasius that when Pammon and Theodore
miraculously announced the death of Julian, they informed Athan. that
the new Emperor was to be a Christian, but that his reign would be
short; that Athanasius must go at once and secretly to the Emperor,
whom he would meet on his journey before the army reached Antioch, that
he would be favourably received by him, and that he would obtain an
order for his restoration. Now (apart from the possibility of a grain
of truth in the pheme of the death of Julian) all these details bear
the unmistakeable character of a vaticinium post eventum, in other
words, we have the story as it was current when Ammon drew up the
document in question at the request of Archbishop Theophilus (see also
p. 567, note 1). At that time, then, the received account was that
Athan. hastened secretly to meet Jovian as soon as he knew of his
accession, and that he met him between Antioch and Nisibis. Now this
native Egyptian account is transmitted independently by two other
channels. (2) The Hist. Aceph. viii. tells us that the bishop entered
Alexandria secretly `adventu eius non pluribus cognito,' went by ship
to Jovian, and returned with letters from him. (3) The Festal Index
tells us that eight months (i.e., Oct. 24-June 26) after the flight of
Ath. Julian died. On his death being published, Athan. returned
secretly by night to Alexandria. Then on Sept. 6 he crossed the
Euphrates (this seems to be the meaning of `embarked at the Eastern
Hierapolis,' the celebrated city, perhaps the ancient Karkhemish, which
commanded the passage of the river, though some miles from its W. bank)
and met the Emperor Jovian, by whom he was eventually dismissed with
honour, returning to Alexandria Feb. 20, 364. Jovian was at Edessa
Sept. 27, at Antioch Oct. 23.
The agreement of the three documents is most striking, and the more so
since the chronicles are clearly independent both of one another and
especially of the letter of Ammon, as is clear from the fact that
neither mentions the pheme, while the Festal Index implicitly
contradicts it. This appears to be a crucial case in many ways.
Firstly, the three narratives are all consistent in excluding the
possibility of any such council as is supposed to have been summoned
(see above, p. lx.). Against this there is nothing but the hasty
inference of Thdt. (corrected by Valois, see above, ib.); the valueless
testimony of the Libellus Synodicus (9th cent.); the marvellous tale of
Sozom. v. 7 (referred to this time by Tillem. viii. 219, but by Soz. to
the death of George: probably an amplification of Hist. Aceph. `visus
est') that Athanasius suddenly to the delight of his people was found
enthroned in his Church; and the more vague statement of Socr. (iii.
24) that he regained his church `at once after Julian's death.' As the
three fifth-century writers are implicitly contradicted by three
writers of Alexandria at the end of the previous century, the latter
must be believed against the former. Secondly, the Index, the later as
it appears, of the two chronicles, would seem to represent a form of
the story less marvellous and therefore earlier than that of the
Narratio. Now the latter certainly belongs to the Episcopate of
Theophilus. The Index therefore can scarcely be placed later, and the
Hist. Aceph. would fall, as Sievers, Einl. 2, had independently placed
it at the beginning of the Episcopate of Theophilus. Thirdly, we have
here an excellent example not only of the value of the combined
evidence of the two chronicles, but also of their character as
representing in many important respects the Alexandrian tradition of
the last third of the fourth century. Before leaving this question it
will be well to consider the dates a little more closely. Hierapolis
was counted eight days' journey from Antioch. From Alexandria to
Antioch by sea was about 500 miles, i.e. with a fair wind scarcely more
than four days' sail (it might be less, cf. Conybeare and Howson, St.
Paul, vol. 2, p. 376, sq. ed. 1877). This allows about twelve days for
Athan. to reach the Euphrates from Alexandria, remembering that
southerly winds prevail in the Eastern Mediterranean at this season
(Sievers, Einl. 28). Now Athan. reached Hierapolis on Sept. 6 (Thoth 8,
Egyptian leap-year). But according to the Index, he reached Alex. after
Julian's death was published, and this according to Hist. Aceph. was on
Mesori 26, i.e. Aug. 19. From that day to Sept. 6 are eighteen days,
leaving about a week's margin for Ath. to hear the news, reach
Alexandria, and perhaps for delay in finding a vessel, &c. But a far
wider margin is really available, for the official announcement must
have been preceded by many rumours, and was probably not despatched
till more than a fortnight after Julian's death (as is observed by Mr.
Gwatkin, p. 221). If we remember that Athanasius, according to the
Letter of Ammon, was making all possible haste (supra, S:9) we shall
again realise the subtle cohesion of these three sources, and the
impossibility of the `large Synod' imagined by some historians for the
year 363.
(k) Exile under Valens. The date of this is discussed by Tillem. (note
96) and Montf. Vit. who, on the unstable basis of a computation of
Theophanes (about 800 a.d.) and of the vague and loose sequences of
events in Socr. and Sozom., tentatively refer the exile to the year
367. The only show of solid support for this date was that Tatianus (of
later and unfortunate celebrity), whom the Photian Life and that by the
Metaphrast connected with the expulsion, was known from Cod. Theod. to
have been Prefect of Egypt in 367. But this airy fabric now gives place
to the precise and accurate data of the Theophilan chronicles. Both
Index and Hist. Aceph. place the occurrence not under Tatian but under
Flavian, governor of Egypt 364-366. Both fix the year 365. The Hist.
Aceph. (used by Soz. vi. 12, who however makes no use of the dates)
gives May 5, 365, for the Imperial order against bishops restored by
Julian, June 8 for the reference to the Emperor (supra, ch. ii. S:9),
Oct. 5 for the retreat of Athan. and search for him by Flavian and Duke
Victorinus, Feb. 1 for the return of Athanasius. This detailed
chronology is corroborated in two ways; first by a letter of Libanius
(Ep. 569) to Flavian, thanking him for a present of [Egyptian] doves,
and congratulating him on his `victory' (a play on the name Victorinus
is added), but with a satirical hint that if only Victorinus had any
prisoners to shew for his pains (a clear allusion to the escape of
Ath.) he (Libanius) would think him a finer fellow even than Cleon
(Siev. Einl. 31). Secondly, the restoration of Ath. by Valens becomes
historically intelligible, in view of the danger from Procopius, as
pointed out supr. p. lxi., fin. We cannot then doubt that the
chronicles are here once more the channels of the genuine chronological
tradition.
(1) Death of Athanasius. It is superfluous to discuss this date at the
present day, but it may be worth while to point out for the last time
how admirably the combined testimony of our chronicles confirms the
judgment of the best critics (Montfaucon, Tillemont, &c.) antecedent to
their discovery, and how clearly the secondary value to be assigned to
the chronological statements of Socrates and Sozomen once more comes
out (Socr. iv. 21 puts the date at 371, and was followed by Papebroke,
Petavius and others (fuller details and discussion of the question on
its ancient footing in Newman's preface to Hist. Tracts of St. Athan.,
pp. xx., sqq.). But no one any longer questions the date of May 2-3,
373. The fact that the Hist. Aceph. gives May 3 and the Index May 2
(the date observed in the later calendars) vouches for the independence
of the two documents and for the very early date of the former:
probably, as Sievers and others suggest, the true date is the night
between May 2 and May 3.
__________________________________________________________________
[98] E.g. that he died five months after his return home from the
council (Tillem.), or after the reconciliation of Meletius (Montf.). As
neither event is dated, both hypotheses render the `five months'
useless for chronology.
[99] The above resume of the details of the evidence makes it clear
that Mr. Gwatkin's alleged oversights are in reality those of his
critic. The proposal of the latter to correct `Epiph.' in Fest. Ind. to
`Pharmuthi' is especially gratuitous.
__________________________________________________________________
I. General Chronological Table of the Life of S. Athanasius.
N.B.--Dates upon which the Historia Acephala and Festal Index coincide
are printed in Thick Type. Where the agreement, though certain, is
constructive and not explicit, an asterisk is added. Where the month,
or day, is in ordinary type, the agreement does not extend to the
details in question. The more doubtful points of chronology are marked
by italics.
284.
Aug. 29.
Beginning of `Diocletian era.'
298.
Birth of s. athanasius about this year.
301.
Death of Bishop Theonas. Peter, bishop of Alexandria.
303.
Feb. 23.
First edict of persecution by Diocletian and Galerius.
December.
Vicennalia of Diocletian at Rome.
304.
`Fourth Edict' of Persecution.
305.
Retirement of Diocletian (Constantine and Maximin `Caesars').
306.
Constantine proclaimed `Augustus' at York.
307.
Maximin assumes title of `Augustus' (holds Syria and Egypt).
311.
First edict of Toleration, and death of Galerius.
311.
Renewed persecution by Maximin in Syria and Egypt. Martyrdom of Peter,
&c., at Alexandria.
312.
Edict of Toleration by Constantine at Milan.
Oct. 26.
Constantine defeats Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge.
Achillas, bishop of Alexandria.
313.
Edict of Milan (third Edict of Toleration), by Constantine and
Licinius.
Alexander, bishop of Alexandria.
Maximin defeated by Licinius. His Edict of Toleration, and death.
Earliest possible date for the `boy-baptism' of Athanasius.
318.
Probable date of the contra Gentes, his first book.
319.
Commencement of Arian controversy.
321.
Deposition of Arius by an Egyptian Synod.
322.
Mareotic defection to Arius.
Memorandum of deposition signed by Clergy of Alexandria.
Schism of Colluthus.
323.
Letter of Alexander of Alexandria to his namesake of Byzantium.
Sept. 18.
Final defeat of Licinius. Constantine sole Emperor.
324.
First intervention of Constantine in Arian question.
Hosius at Alexandria. Council there.
325.
Summer.
Council of NicAEA.
327.
November
Entire Meletian Episcopate collected at Alexandria, and reconciled to
the Church (p. 137).
328.
April 17.
Death of Alexander.
June 8.
Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria.
329, 330.
Visitation of the Thebaid: ordains Pachomius presbyter.
330.
Council at Antioch deposes Eustathius.
331.
Athanasius defends himself before Constantine.
334.
Council at Caesarea. Athan. refuses to attend.
335.
July 11*.
Athanasius leaves Alex. for Council of Tyre (beginning of first exile,
Epiphi 17).
Aug.-Sept.
Mareotic commission in Egypt.
End of Sept.?
Council at Jerusalem. Arius received to communion.
Oct. 30.
Athanasius at CP.
336.
Feb. 8.
Athanasius starts for `Treveri in Gaul.'
Council at CP., Marcellus (Asclepas), &c., deposed.
Basil, bishop of Ancyra.
Death of Arius at CP.
337.
May 22.
Death of Constantine at Nicomedia.
June 17.
Letter of `Constantius Caesar' ordering return of Athanasius (p.
lxxxii.).
Nov. 23*.
*Return of Athanasius to Alexandria.
338.
July 25-27.
Visit of Antony to Alexandria.
Pistus intrusive bishop of Alexandria.
Winter.
Council of Egyptian bishops at Alexandria.
Envoys of both parties in Rome.
339.
January.
Synod at Antioch appoint Gregory bishop of Alexandria.
339.
Mar. 19.
Flight of Athanasius from `Theonas.'
Mar. 22.
Arrival of Gregory at Alexandria.
April 16.
*Departure of Athanasius for Rome (p. lxxxii., the authorities agree as
to the year, and their data combine readily as to the exact days).
340.
January.
Eusebian bishops meet at Antioch and reply to Julius. Their letter
reaches Rome in spring.
Autumn.
Roman council and reply of Julius to Eusebians (eighteen months from
arrival of Ath. in Rome).
341.
Midsummer.
Council of the Dedication at Antioch. Four creeds.
342.
May.
Athanasius leaves Rome (after three years' stay) for Milan.
Constans leaves him there (Frankish Campaign).
Summer.
Constans repels Eusebian deputies at Treveri (p. xlv.).
Late autumn.
Death of Eusebius of Nicomedia or CP.
343.
Easter.
Athanasius at Treveri.
July.
Assembly of Council of Sardica.
344.
Easter.
Athanasius at Naissus.
After Easter.
Deposition of Stephen: Council at Antioch appoint Leontius and issue
`Macrostich.'
August.
Constantius writes forbidding persecution of orthodox at Alexandria.
345.
Easter, April 7.
Athanasius at Aquileia.
Council at Milan. Photinus condemned.
June 26.
Death of Gregory at Alexandria (about ten months after letter of
Constantius).
346.
September.
Interview of Ath. with Constantius at Antioch.
Oct. 21.
Return to Alexandria.
End of year.
Earliest possible date for consecration of Frumentius by Athanasius.
347.
First council at Sirmium against Photinus.
349.
Controversy with Rome concerning Easter.
350.
Jan. 18.
Murder of Constans.
351.
Mar. 15.
Gallus proclaimed as `Constantius Caesar.'
Sep. 28.
Battle of Mursa.
Second council of Sirmium. Photinus deposed.
353.
May 19.
Legation of Serapion, &c., to Constantius. Montanus at Alexandria.
353.
Autumn.
Council at Arles against Athanasius.
354.
Execution of Gallus.
355.
Council at Milan against Athanasius.
July-Dec.
Diogenes at Alexandria.
November.
Julian `Caesar. '
356.
Jan. 6.
Syrianus at Alexandria.
Feb. 8.
Church of Theonas stormed by Syrianus.
Beginning of third exile.
June 10.
Cataphronius becomes Prefect of Egypt.
357.
Feb. 24.
George enters Alexandria as Bishop.
Summer.
Third council, and second creed (`blasphemy') of Sirmium.
358.
Lent.
Council of Ancyra.
Oct. 2.
Expulsion of George from Alexandria.
359.
May 22.
Conference of Sirmium. The dated Creed.
May-Dec.
Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia.
Dec. 31.
Creed of Nike accepted by delegates at CP.
360.
Jan.
Julian proclaimed `Augustus' at Paris.
Dedication council at CP. (Homoean; deposition of `Semi-Arian' leaders
and excommunication of Aetius).
361.
Meletius elected bishop of Antioch and deposed. Euzoius, Arian bishop.
Nov. 3.
Death of Constantius.
362.
Feb. 9.
Julian's edict (for recall of bishops) posted at Alexandria.
Feb. 21.
Return of Athanasius.
Summer.
Council of the confessors at Alexandria.
Lucifer founds the schism at Antioch.
October 4.
Renewed order of Julian against Athanasius.
Retirement of Athanasius.
363.
June 26.
Death of Julian. Athan. in Upper Egypt.
August?
Athanasius secretly in Alexandria.
Sep. 6.
Athan. crosses the Euphrates.
Sep.
Meets Jovian at Edessa.
Winter.
At Antioch.
364.
Feb. 14 (or 20).
Returns to Alexandria.
Feb. 17.
Death of Jovian.
Mar. 29.
Valens appointed `Augustus' by Valentinian.
Autumn.
Council of Lampsacus.
365.
Spring.
Valens at Antioch. Renewal of Arian persecutions.
May 5.
Rescript arrives at Alexandria for expulsion of Athanasius.
Oct. 5.
Athanasius retires to his country house.
Sep. 28.
Revolt of Procopius at CP.
366.
Feb. 1.
Athanasius officially restored.
May 21.
Defeat of Procopius.
July 21.
Caesareum burnt at Alexandria.
367.
Sep. 24.
Attempt of Lucius to enter Alexandria.
368.
Sep. 22.
Athanasius begins his Memorial Church.
370.
Aug. 7.
Memorial Church dedicated.
Correspondence between Athan. and Basil begins.
371.
Deputation of the Marcellians of Ancyra to Athanasius.
372.
Two books against Apollinarianism.
373.
May 2-3.
Death of Athanasius.
A table of the Egyptian months, and a table of the date of Easter, &c.,
in each year of the episcopate of Athanasius, will be given at the end
of the introduction to the collection of Letters at the close of this
volume (p. 501 sq.). A list of the consuls of each year is given in the
Festal Index.
__________________________________________________________________
II. Synoptical Table of the Bishops of the Chief Sees.
And of the principal Councils held, during the lifetime of Athanasius.
N.B.--The names of bishops in italics are open to doubt regarding their
date.
An asterisk prefixed to a bishop's name means that he was elected when
the see was not de facto vacant (the case of Ursinus of Rome in 366 is
not free from doubt).
/- after the name of a synod indicates that although not formally Arian
it was held under the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia.
* denotes a synod more or less implicated in Arianism by its creeds
(N.B. no creed at Arles or Milan, 353-355).
** denote a formally Arian synod.
`Semi-Arian' synods are printed in italics.
Emperor
Rome
Alexandria
Antioch
Constantinople
Synods
W.
E.
301. Peter
305. Galerius
305. Illiberis
306. Constantine
307. Licinius
309. Eusebius
308-313. Maximin
310. Melchiades
312. Achillas
313. Alexander
313. Rome
314. Silvester
(d. 335)
314. Arles
314? Ancyra
315? Neo-Caesarea
319. Philogonius.
Paulinus
320? Alexander
321. Alexandria
323. Constantine, sole Augustus
c. 324. Eustathius
324. Alexandria
325. Nicaea
328. Athanasius
330. `Paulinus?'
[330. `Constantinople' made the new Rome]
330. Antioch/-
Eulalius
332. Euphronius
333. Flacillus (or Placitus)
334. Caesarea/-
335. Tyre/- and Jerusalem/-
336. Mark
336. Paul (d. 350?)
336. CP./-
337. Constantine II. (d. 340).
Constans (d. 350)
Constantius
337. Julius
338. *Pistus
337? *Eusebius
(d. 341-2)
339. *Gregory
339&40. Antioch/-
340. Rome
340. Gangra/-
341. Antioch/-*
342. Stephen
342. *Macedonius
Sardica
343. Philippopolis*
344. Leontius
344. Antioch*
345. Milan
347. Sirmium I*
350. Constantius, sole Augustus
351. Sirmium II*
352. Liberius
353. Arles*
355. Milan*
357. *Felix
357. *George
357. Eudoxius
357. Sirmium III**
358. Ancyra
359. *Anianus
359. Sirmium IV*
Ariminum* Seleucia*
360. *Eudoxius
360. CP**
361. Julian
361. Meletius
*Euzoius
362. *Paulinus (schism).
362. Alexandria
362. Laodicea??
363. Jovian
363. Antioch
364. Valentinian Valens
364. Lampsacus
366. Damasus (d. 384)
366-7. *Ursinus
367. *Lucius
367. Tyana
370. Demophilus
[Evagrius]
373. Peter
375. Gratian (d. 383)
Valentinian II. (d. 392)
379. Theodosius
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Appendix.
------------------------
The Civil and Military Government of Egypt in the Lifetime of
Athanasius.
The name Egypt in the fourth century was applied firstly to the
`diocese' or group of provinces governed by the Praefectus AEgypti or
`Praefectus Augustalis,' secondly to the Delta or AEgyptus Propria, one
of the provinces of which the diocese was made up. These provinces
(Ammian. Marc. XXII. xvi.) were originally three in number: Egypt
proper, Libya, and the Thebais. During our period they became five,
firstly by the separation of the Eastern Delta from Egypt proper under
the name of Augustamnica in 341 (infr. pp. 130, 504, note 17a);
secondly by the subdivision of Libya (at an uncertain date) into Hither
Libya (Libya `Inferior,' or `Siccior'), and the Pentapolis or Libya
Superior of which Ptolemais was the capital. At a later date still the
Heptanomis was separated from `AEgyptus' under the name of Arcadia,
given in honour of the Emperor Arcadius. These then are the six
provinces which make up `Egypt' in the Notilia (shortly after a.d.
400). Each province, with the exception of Augustamnica, whose governor
enjoyed the title of `corrector,' was under a praeses (hegoumenos): not
one of the six was of consular rank. This regulation was due to the
peculiar constitution of the diocese or province of Egypt in the wider
sense. At the head of this latter, and subordinate in rank, though
scarcely second in dignity, to the Comes Orientis, was the Prefect of
Egypt, who enjoyed an exceptional position among the greater provincial
officers. He appears to have been, at least in practice, directly under
the Praefectus Praetorio per Orientem, the supreme civil representative
of `Augustus' throughout the Eastern Empire. The title Praefectus had
in fact a different history as applied to the Prefect of the East and
the Prefect of Egypt respectively. As applied to the latter, it was as
old as Augustus. The importance of Egypt, mainly but not solely as a
granary of Rome, had led the politic heir of Julius Caesar to ensure
its complete and peculiar dependence on the emperor. For this object,
its government was committed to a nominee of the emperor, who must be
not a Senator but an Eques only; i.e. he must never have held one of
the great offices of state from Consul to quaestor. No one of
senatorial rank was to be permitted to set foot in Egypt. (For the
prerogatives of the praefectus AEgypti under Augustus see Tacitus Ann.
xii. 60. also Ulp. Digest. I. xvii.). This arrangement survived the
various vicissitudes of Egypt in the third century, and even the
reorganisation of the Empire by Diocletian. Egypt was severed off
between 365 and 386 from the Eastern `Diocese' (Sievers, p. 117,
appealing to Mommsen in Abhandl. der Berliner Akad. 1862). Upon the
above facts was founded the (perhaps merely popular) title `Augustalis'
which we find already applied to the Prefect of Egypt about a.d. 350
(infr. p. 143, cf. p. 93 note). But Sievers (ubi supr.), following
Mommsen, contends that there is reason to think that the dignity of
`Augustal' Prefect was officially created about a.d. 367. This view
cannot be adequately discussed here, but it rests only in part upon the
series of governors furnished by the Festal Index.
From that document we learn that the prefect of `Egypt' in the wider
sense in almost every case held also the office of `governor' of Egypt
in the narrower sense. The exceptions noted by Sievers (S:14) are in
most cases based on the errors of Larsow. But in 365 Flavianus is
`governor' only, next year `Prefect' also: his successors Proclianus
and Tatianus are each `governor' only (366-7), but the latter is
Prefect in 368, and `governor' only in 369-70, as also is Palladius,
370-371, who is yet succeeded by Olympius as `Prefect.' These
variations may be due merely to careless use of language, or possibly
to some change about the time referred to.
The list of prefects of Egypt is fuller than any that exists for a
Roman province over so long a period, and on the whole it is in the
highest degree trustworthy. But there are one or two drawbacks to take
account of. Firstly, there are the discrepancies between the Index
iii., vi., vii., and the headings to the corresponding letters (see
notes). Also, the heading to Letter x. presupposes a change of governor
in the previous year of which the Index tells us nothing. Again, a
letter of Julian's (No. 23) is addressed to a `Hermogenes, governor of
Egypt' for whom it is difficult to find room in the following list at
the date required (end of 361, when Gerontius was prefect). Julianus,
uncle of the Emperor, if not disguised under the name Italicianus (see
below), possibly ruled Egypt (Jul. Ep. 11), as Comes Orientis, which
office he held in 362. On the other hand the Olympus of Index xxxiv.,
and the Ecdikius of Julian, Epp. 6, 50, and Cod. Theod. xv. i. 8, are
probably one and the same (Sievers, p. 124).
The Military command of Egypt was now in the hand of the `dux,' who had
the disposal of the troops in Egypt proper; those of Libya and of the
Thebais were, at any rate later on, entrusted to separate `duces.' In
the Notitia, while the two latter `duces' remain, the Dux AEgypti is
replaced by a higher official, entitled the `Comes Rei Militaris per
AEgyptum.' But this belongs to a later date. In the time of Athanasius
`Counts' appear in Egypt only as extraordinary or special commissioners
whose authority is exercised concurrently with that of the Dux, as,
e.g., Count Heraclianus or Heraclius (infr. pp. 290, 292), whose
commission runs parallel with the command of the new `dux' Sebastianus;
and Count Asterius (p. 289), who was in Egypt when Felicissimus was
`Duke.'
We now give a list of the governors and dukes of Egypt, with references
to the Festal Index: these must also be supplemented by the general
index to this volume:--
(1) Prefect and Governor.
328, 329. Septimius Zenius (Index i., Heading i.).
330. Magninianus (Index ii., Heading ii.).
331. Hyginus (or `Eugenius,' Index iii.), but Florentius (Heading
iii.).
332. Hyginus (Heading iv. and Index iv.).
333. Paternus (Heading v. and Index v.).
334, 335. Paternus (Index), but Philagrius (Heading iv., v.).
336-7. Philagrius (Index viii., ix.).
338. Theodorus (Index x.), superseded by Philagrius (Heading x.).
339, 340. Philagrius (Index xi., xii., Heading xi.).
341-343. Longinus (Index xiii.-xv., Headings xiii., xiv., and cf. Cod.
Th. XVI. ii. 10, 11, correcting date by Sievers, p. 114).
344. Palladius of Italy (Index xvi.).
345-352. Nestorius of Gaza (Index xvii.-xxiv., Headings xvii.-xx., also
infr. pp. 218, 219, notes, &c.).
353, 354. Sebastianus of Thrace (Index xxv., xxvi.).
355, 356. Maximus `the elder' of Nicaea (Index xxvii., xxviii., and see
pp. 246, 301).
356, 7. Cataphronius (Index xxviii., xxix.; he arrived on June 10, 356,
see p. 290, note 9; also cf. Liban. Epp. 434, 435).
357-359. Parnassius (Index xxix., xxxi., cf. for the latter year Amm.
Marc. XIX., xii.).
359. (For 3 months only) `Italicianus of Italy,' perhaps for Julianus
(so Siev., p. 121, cf. Index xxxi.).
359-361. Faustinus (Index xxxi.-xxxiii., cf. p. 291?).
361, 362. Gerontius (Index xxxiii., xxxiv., Liban. Epp. 294, 295, 547,
548).
362, 363. Ecdikius Olympus (Index xxxiv., xxxv., cf. remarks above).
364. Hierius or Aerius (Index xxxvi., Sievers, Leben des Libanius,
Appendix A).
364. Maximus (Index ib., Liban. Ep. 1050, written in July or Aug.), for
a short time only.
364-366. Flavianus (Index xxxvi., xxxviii., Liban. Ep. 569, supr. ch.
v. S:3, k).
366, 367. Proclianus (Index xxxviii., xxxix.).
367-370. Tatianus (Index xxxix., xlii., see Gibbon ch. xxix. and notes
6-8, for references).
370, 371. Olympius Palladius (Index xlii., xliii.).
371-373. Aelius Palladius (Index xliii.-xlv., Socr. iv. 21, &c.).
(2) Dux AEgypti.
Our materials for this list are very scanty, but we can verify the
following:--
340 and 345. Balacius or Valacius (pp. 219, 273, &c.).
350. Felicissimus (p. 289).
356. (Jan. and Feb.) Syrianus (Index xxviii., &c.).
356. (Apparently after Midsummer, cf. p. 292 with 290.) Sebastianus
(`successor of Syrianus,' Ep. Ammon. 21); he remains till after 358
(cf. Siev. p. 125 for references to letters of Libanius).
360. Artemius (`succ. of Sebastianus,' ib., Index xxxii., Letter 53.
note 1).
365, 366. Victorinus (ch. v. S:3, k).
367, 368. Traianus (Index xxxix., Sievers, pp. 146, sq.).
On the matters dealt with in this appendix, consult Mommsen, Provinces
(Eng. Tra.), ii., pp. 233, 246; the Notitia (ed. Panciroli, Genev.,
1623, Boecking, Bonn, 1839-1853, Seeck, Berlin, 1876); Gibbon, ch.
xvii.; Marquardt, Roem. Staats-verwaltung, vol. i.; and Kuhn, Die
staedtische, &c., Verfassung des R. Reiches, vol. ii.; also Sievers on
the Hist. Aceph. (supr. ch. i., S:3).
On the Egyptian bishoprics, see, in addition to Le Quien, a Coptic list
of sees in De Rouge, Geographie de la Basse-Egypte, Paris, 1891, which
came out too late to be used for this volume.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Introduction to the Treatise
Contra Gentes
------------------------
This treatise and that which follows it form in reality two parts of a
single work. Jerome (De Script. Eccl.) refers to them as `Adversus
Gentes Libri Duo.' They are, however, more commonly distinguished by
the titles given them in the present volume. Both books, indeed, are
mainly directed against the Gentiles, but in the present treatise the
refutation is carried out with more special reference to the beliefs
and worship of the heathen. The two books belong to the earlier years
of Athanasius. The Arian controversy which broke out (319 a.d.)
probably before his twenty-second year has left no trace upon them (not
even c. Gent. 46. 8, see note there). How long before the limit thus
fixed the work was composed it is impossible to say with certainty. The
hint (c. Gent. 9. 5) that the time for the deification of emperors by
decree of the Senate might have come to an end points to the conversion
of Constantine as a terminus a quo. And the full maturity of power
which marks out the de Incarnatione as a masterpiece of Christian
theology inclines us to put the composition as late as we can. Hence
the date usually adopted, viz. in or shortly before 318 b.c., the
twenty-first year (probably) of Athanasius' age.
The position of the book in relation to the general history of the
theology of Athanasius and of the Church has been pointed out in the
Prolegomena. It remains to sketch its argument, and tabulate its
arrangement: a somewhat more extended summary is prefixed to each
section.
His aim is to vindicate (S:1) the Dignity and reasonableness of the
Christian Faith. The main vindication of the Faith is seen in its
practical results. But, that these may produce their proper effect, a
removal of error from the mind is needed. Hence the necessity of
refuting idolatry, which is deduced from the same cause as evil in
general, namely, the departure of man from his original exemplar, the
Logos (S:S:2-5). By the misuse of his power of conscious choice, man
fell (6-8) into the degradation and illusions (9-15) of idolatry. He
then examines the popular and learned pleas on behalf of idolatry
(16-26), and thus arrives at the central problem of the conception of
God. That God is not Nature is shewn (27-29) by the mutual dependence
of the various constituents of the Universe: no one of these,
therefore, can be God: nor can their totality; for God is not
compounded of parts on which He depends, but is Himself the cause of
existence to all. Such a God as this, the soul of man (30-33) can and,
if purified from sin, will (34) recognise; if her imperfections hinder
this, the spectacle of Reason and Order in the Universe (35-46) will
assist her to recognise the handiwork of God, and the presence of the
Logos, and through him the Father. The reclamation and restoration of
sinful and degraded man can only be effected (47) by a return to the
Logos. This opens the question dealt with in the second book, de
Incarnatione.
Such is the general drift of the c. Gentes, and its high interest is
beyond question. At the same time it may be admitted that to modern
readers much of it fails to commend itself. In the two-fold work before
us Athanasius `looks before and after.' The second portion, on the
Incarnation, waxes rather than wanes in its significance for modern
theology. It is more modern to us than the theology of any generation
since then. But the c. Gentes, with its retrospect upon a past utterly
dead [100] to the human spirit, its arguments addressed to a range of
ideas widely remote from our own, its inadequate view of the genesis
and history of heathen religions, its antiquated physics (36, 44, and
the phusikos logos of 39), its occasional glaring fallacies of argument
(16 sub fin., 33. 1), is apt to disappoint the modern student who reads
it for the first time. This may explain its not having been translated
before now. But while the defects of the book are evident at a glance,
it grows upon the reader with repeated study. The moral elevation of
its tone,--the firm grasp of central Christian truths,--the sure
insight in dealing with such problems as evil and sin,--the relation of
God to Nature,--the ethical contrast of Christian theism and heathen
polytheism,--the grave humour of such passages as 16. 5; 10. 4 fin.;
II. 2 fin., &c.,--and beyond all this a certain largeness of mind and
simple unostentatious fervour of conviction, stamp the book as a great
one, and as the worthy complement of its more renowned companion.
The two together `are, next to Origen's de Principiis, the first
attempt to construct a scientific system of the Christian religion upon
certain fundamental ideas of God and world, sin and redemption; and
they form the ripe fruit of the positive apology in the Greek Church.'
(Schaff, Nicene Christianity, p. 82.) The polemic against idolatry and
heathen mythology is common to the general class of Christian
apologists, and is to be found in heathen writers like Lucian and even
Porphyry (letter to Anebo). But what distinguishes Athanasius from
previous apologists (excepting Origen) is the novel nature of his
problem. The alliance between philosophy and gross popular idolatry had
given Christian apology a new task. From Porphyry downwards (Porphyry
himself was not consistent in this respect) the Neo-platonist school,
in alarm at the progress of Christianity, had taken up the defence of
popular paganism, endeavouring to subsume its grosser manifestations,
its images, sacrifices, &c., under philosophico-religious principles
(infra S:19, &c.). The idea of `theurgy' as the necessary initiation
into the higher life colours the teaching of Porphyry, but more
strongly that of his pupil Iamblichus, who died early in the fourth
century, and whose pupils (AEdesius, &c.) were contemporaries of
Athanasius. This degeneration of Platonism, however, went along with
the continued study of Plato, whose dialogues are to some extent common
ground between Athanasius and his opponents (Phaedrus, S:5, 33, Laws,
33, Timaeus, 41, &c., &c.; but it is not in every case easy to say
whether Athan. quotes Plato merely at second hand, or directly, as he
certainly does 10. 4).
It may be remarked finally that in these early treatises the influence
of Origen and his school is more distinct than in the later works of
Athanasius. Not to lay too much stress on his proof of God's existence
and unity from the Cosmos (cf. Orig. c. Cels. I. 23), the prominence of
the philosophic doctrine of the Logos as a cosmic mediatorial Principle
(compare Alexander's mesiteuousa phusis monogenes) stands in contrast
with his later insistence (cf. Orat. ii. 24, sq.) on the directness of
the personal agency of God (see also below, note on `In Illud' 2). The
Platonist idea of the Logos is utilised (de Incarn. 41) without
sufficient explanation of its fundamental difference from the Christian
doctrine. The influence of Origenism is traceable in his theory of the
nature of evil as purely negative (cf. S:5 with Orig. c. Cels. iv. 66),
in the explanation (to which I recall nothing parallel in his later
works) of the garden of Eden as figurative (2. 4, cf. 3. 3), the stress
laid on the restoration of knowledge of God through the Logos, and
perhaps in the deification of man through Christ (Orig. c. Cels. iii.
28 sub. fin.), a thought which Athanasius brings forward in his later
at least as often as in his earlier writings (see note on de Incarn.
54. 3). On the whole, however, the tendency of Athanasius in the course
of the Arian controversy is to move away from Origen and toward the
Western habit of thought: this is especially exemplified in the history
of the term Hypostasis (see above, Prolegg. chap. II. S:3 (2) b, and
below Introd. to Tom. ad Ant.; cf. also Introductions to de Sent.
Dionys. and ad Afros). Some of the more characteristic speculations of
Origen have left no trace even on the earliest works of Athanasius (see
Introd. to the next Treatise). The translation (here as elsewhere,
except where it is otherwise stated) is from the Benedictine text.
The contents of the contra Gentes fall into the following scheme:--
Page
S:1.
Introduction. Statement of the purpose of the treatise.
S:S:2-29.
First Part. Refutation of Heathenism.
S:S:2-5.
a. The nature of evil.
S:2.
(1) Not substantially, nor originally existent
S:S:3, 4.
(2) Its history
S:5.
(3) Its essential nature, viz. a determination of will
S:6.
False views of evil refuted.
(1) Heathen: Evil natural
(2) Heretical: Dualism
S:7.
This latter refuted, and the doctrine of the Church stated
b. Idolatry.
S:S:8-10.
(1) Its history and varieties
S:11, 12.
(2) Immorality of its mythologies
10
S:S:13, 14.
(3) Folly of image worship
11
S:15.
(4) Heathen deities, as popularly represented, are not gods
12
S:S:16-22.
c. Arguments in favour of heathenism considered.
S:S:16, 17.
(1) `Immoral features due to the poets.' But (a) they come to use with
the same credential as the names and existence of the gods; (b) The
poets more likely to have invented the divine than the human features
of these beings.
12
S:18.
(2) `The gods worshipped for beneficent inventions,' &c. But this is no
title to deification.
13
S:19.
(3) `Images (a) necessary to represent invisible beings, (b) a means of
intercourse with the gods'
14
S:20-22.
This refuted
14
S:S:23-26.
d. Supplementary proofs against idolatry. (1) Variety of cults
16
(2) Human sacrifice. (3) The gods the cause of moral corruption
17
e. Theism established against philosophic pantheism.
S:27.
(1) No part of the universe identical with God.
18
S:28.
(2) The whole universe not identical with God
18
S:29.
(3) Nature and God distinct
19
S:S:30-34.
Second Part. Knowledge of God Possible. The Soul
S:30.
(a) The soul of man akin to God
20
(b) Proofs of its existence:--
S:31.
(1) Man and animals
20
(2) Objectivity of thought
20
S:32.
(3) Soul and body
21
S:33.
(c) Proofs of its immortality
21
S:34.
(d) The soul, the mirror of the Logos, can know God, at least through
creation.
22
S:S:35-44.
Third Part. Nature a Revelation of God.
1. Nature a revelation:--
S:35-37.
(a) Of God
22
S:38, 39.
(b) Of His Unity
24
S:40.
(c) Of the Reason or `Word' of God
25
S:S:41, 42.
2. The cosmic function of the Word, original and permanent
26
S:S:43, 44.
Three similes to illustrate this
27
S:S:45-47.
Conclusion:--
a. The teaching of Scripture on the subjects of Parts I. and III
28
b. Transition to the theme of the next treatise
29
__________________________________________________________________
[100] In heathen countries the case is different. An English
translation was made a few years since for dissemination in India by
the members of the Oxford Mission at Calcutta.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Against the Heathen.
------------------------
S:1. Introduction:--The purpose of the book a vindication of Christian
doctrine, and especially of the Cross, against the scoffing objection
of Gentiles. The effects of this doctrine its main vindication.
The knowledge of our religion and of the truth of things is
independently manifest rather than in need of human teachers, for
almost day by day it asserts itself by facts, and manifests itself
brighter than the sun by the doctrine of Christ. 2. Still, as you
nevertheless desire to hear about it, Macarius [101] , come let us as
we may be able set forth a few points of the faith of Christ: able
though you are to find it out from the divine oracles, but yet
generously desiring to hear from others as well. 3. For although the
sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient [102] to declare the
truth,--while there are other works of our blessed teachers [103]
compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some
knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and be able to learn
what he wishes to know,--still, as we have not at present in our hands
the compositions of our teachers, we must communicate in writing to you
what we learned from them,--the faith, namely, of Christ the Saviour;
lest any should hold cheap the doctrine taught among us, or think
faith. in Christ unreasonable. For this is what the Gentiles traduce
and scoff at, and laugh loudly at us, insisting on the one fact of the
Cross of Christ; and it is just here that one must pity their want of
sense, because when they traduce the Cross of Christ they do not see
that its power has filled all the world, and that by it the effects of
the knowledge of God are made manifest to all. 4. For they would not
have scoffed at such a fact, had they, too, been men who genuinely gave
heed to His divine Nature. On the contrary, they in their turn would
have recognised this man as Saviour of the world, and that the Cross
has been not a disaster, but a healing of Creation. 5. For if after the
Cross all idolatry was overthrown, while every manifestation of demons
is driven away by this Sign [104] , and Christ alone is worshipped and
the Father known through Him, and, while gainsayers are put to shame,
He daily invisibly wins over the souls of these gainsayers [105]
,--how, one might fairly ask them, is it still open to us to regard the
matter as human, instead of confessing that He Who ascended the Cross
is Word of God and Saviour of the World? But these men seem to me quite
as bad as one who should traduce the sun when covered by clouds, while
yet wondering at his light, seeing how the whole of creation is
illumined by him. 6. For as the light is noble, and the sun, the chief
cause of light, is nobler still, so, as it is a divine thing for the
whole world to be filled with his knowledge, it follows that the
orderer and chief cause of such an achievement is God and the Word of
God. 7. We speak then as lies within our power, first refuting the
ignorance of the unbelieving; so that what is false being refuted, the
truth may then shine forth of itself, and that you yourself, friend,
may be reassured that you have believed what is true, and in coming to
know Christ have not been deceived. Moreover, I think it becoming to
discourse to you, as a lover of Christ, about Christ, since I am sure
that you rate faith in and knowledge of Him above anything else
whatsoever.
__________________________________________________________________
[101] See de Incarn. 1 and note there.
[102] Constantly insisted on by Athan. Cf. de Incarn. 5, and note on de
Decr. 32.
[103] De Incarn. 56. 2; he may also be referring to works from the
Alex. school, such as Orig. de Princ.
[104] Cf. de Incarn. 47. 2, 48. 3, Vit. Ant. passim.
[105] Cf. de Incarn. 50. 3, 51. 3, &c.
__________________________________________________________________
S:2. Evil no part of the essential nature of things. The original
creation and constitution of man in grace and in the knowledge of God.
In the beginning wickedness did not exist. Nor indeed does it exist
even now in those who are holy, nor does it in any way belong to their
nature. But men later on began to contrive it and to elaborate it to
their own hurt. Whence also they devised the invention of idols,
treating what was not as though it were. 2. For God Maker of all and
King of all, that has His Being beyond [106] all substance and human
discovery, inasmuch as He is good and exceeding noble, made, through
His own Word our Saviour Jesus Christ, the human race after His own
image, and constituted man able to see and know realities by means of
this assimilation to Himself, giving him also a conception [107] and
knowledge even of His own eternity, in order that, preserving his
nature intact, he might not ever either depart from his idea of God,
nor recoil from the communion of the holy ones; but having the grace of
Him that gave it, having also God's own power from the Word of the
Father, he might rejoice and have fellowship with the Deity, living the
life of immortality unharmed and truly blessed. For having nothing to
hinder his knowledge of the Deity, he ever beholds, by his purity, the
Image of the Father, God the Word, after Whose image he himself is
made. He is awe-struck as he contemplates that Providence [108] which
through the Word extends to the universe, being raised above the things
of sense and every bodily appearance, but cleaving to the divine and
thought-perceived things in the heavens by the power of his mind. 3.
For when the mind of men does not hold converse with bodies, nor has
mingled with it from without aught of their lust, but is wholly above
them, dwelling with itself as it was made to begin with, then,
transcending the things of sense and all things human, it is raised up
on high; and seeing the Word, it sees in Him also the Father of the
Word, taking pleasure in contemplating Him, and gaining renewal by its
desire toward Him; 4. exactly as the first of men created, the one who
was named Adam in Hebrew, is described in the Holy Scriptures as having
at the beginning had his mind to God-ward in a freedom unembarrassed by
shame, and as associating with the holy ones in that contemplation of
things perceived by the mind which he enjoyed in the place where he
was--the place which the holy Moses called in figure a Garden. So
purity of soul is sufficient of itself to reflect God, as the Lord also
says, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."
__________________________________________________________________
[106] See Orig. c. Cels. vii. 42 sqq. de Princ. I. 1.
[107] Restored in Christ, see S:34.
[108] Cf. Ep. AEg. 15, Apol. Fug. passim, Orat. iii. 37.
__________________________________________________________________
S:3. The decline of man from the above condition, owing to his
absorption in material things.
Thus then, as we have said, the Creator fashioned the race of men, and
thus meant it to remain. But men, making light of better things, and
holding back from apprehending them, began to seek in preference things
nearer to themselves. 2. But nearer to themselves were the body and its
senses; so that while removing their mind from the things perceived by
thought, they began to regard themselves; and so doing, and holding to
the body and the other things of sense, and deceived as it were in
their own surroundings, they fell into lust of themselves, preferring
what was their own to the contemplation of what belonged to God. Having
then made themselves at home in these things, and not being willing to
leave what was so near to them, they entangled their soul with bodily
pleasures, vexed and turbid with all kind of lusts, while they wholly
forgot the power they originally had from God. 3. But the truth of this
one may see from the man who was first made, according to what the holy
Scriptures tell us of him. For he also, as long as he kept his mind to
God, and the contemplation of God, turned away from the contemplation
of the body. But when, by counsel of the serpent, he departed from the
consideration of God, and began to regard himself, then they not only
fell to bodily lust, but knew that they were naked, and knowing, were
ashamed. But they knew that they were naked, not so much of clothing as
that they were become stripped of the contemplation of divine things,
and had transferred their understanding to the contraries. For having
departed from the consideration of the one and the true, namely, God,
and from desire of Him, they had thenceforward embarked in divers lusts
and in those of the several bodily senses. 4. Next, as is apt to
happen, having formed a desire for each and sundry, they began to be
habituated to these desires, so that they were even afraid to leave
them: whence the soul became subject to cowardice and alarms, and
pleasures and thoughts of mortality. For not being willing to leave her
lusts, she fears death and her separation from the body. But again,
from lusting, and not meeting with gratification, she learned to commit
murder and wrong. We are then led naturally to shew, as best we can,
how she does this.
__________________________________________________________________
S:4. The gradual abasement of the Soul from Truth to Falsehood by the
abuse of her freedom of Choice.
Having departed from the contemplation of the things of thought, and
using to the full the several activities of the body, and being pleased
with the contemplation of the body, and seeing that pleasure is good
for her, she was misled and abused the name of good, and thought that
pleasure was the very essence of good: just as though a man out of his
mind and asking for a sword to use against all he met, were to think
that soundness of mind. 2. But having fallen in love with pleasure, she
began to work it out in various ways. For being by nature mobile, even
though she have turned away from what is good, yet she does not lose
her mobility. She moves then, no longer according to virtue or so as to
see God, but imagining false things, she makes a novel use of her
power, abusing it as a means to the pleasures she has devised, since
she is after all made with power over herself. 3. For she is able, as
on the one hand to incline to what is good, so on the other to reject
it; but in rejecting the good she of course entertains the thought of
what is opposed to it, for she cannot at all cease from movement,
being, as I said before, mobile by nature. And knowing her own power
over herself, she sees that she is able to use the members of her body
in either direction, both toward what is, or toward what is not. 4. But
good is, while evil is not; by what is, then, I mean what is good,
inasmuch as it has its pattern in God Who is. But by what is not I mean
what is evil, in so far as it consists in a false imagination in the
thoughts of men. For though the body has eyes so as to see Creation,
and by its entirely harmonious construction to recognise the Creator;
and ears to listen to the divine oracles and the laws of God; and hands
both to perform works of necessity and to raise to God in prayer; yet
the soul, departing from the contemplation of what is good and from
moving in its sphere, wanders away and moves toward its contraries. 5.
Then seeing, as I said before, and abusing her power, she has perceived
that she can move the members of the body also in an opposite way: and
so, instead of beholding the Creation, she turns the eye to lusts,
shewing that she has this power too; and thinking that by the mere fact
of moving she is maintaining her own dignity, and is doing no sin in
doing as she pleases; not knowing that she is made not merely to move,
but to move in the right direction. For this is why an apostolic
utterance assures us "All things are lawful, but not all things are
expedient [109] ."
__________________________________________________________________
[109] 1 Cor. x. 23.
__________________________________________________________________
S:5. Evil, then consists essentially in the choice of what is lower in
preference to what is higher.
But the audacity of men, having regard not to what is expedient and
becoming, but to what is possible for it, began to do the contrary;
whence, moving their hands to the contrary, it made them commit murder,
and led away their hearing to disobedience, and their other members to
adultery instead of to lawful procreation; and the tongue, instead of
right speaking, to slander and insult and perjury; the hands again, to
stealing and striking fellow-men; and the sense of smell to many sorts
of lascivious odours; the feet, to be swift to shed blood, and the
belly to drunkenness and insatiable gluttony [110] . 2. All of which
things are a vice and sin of the soul: neither is there any cause of
them at all, but only the rejection of better things. For just as if a
charioteer [111] , having mounted his chariot on the race-course, were
to pay no attention to the goal, toward which he should be driving,
but, ignoring this, simply were to drive the horse as he could, or in
other words as he would, and often drive against those he met, and
often down steep places, rushing wherever he impelled himself by the
speed of the team, thinking that thus running he has not missed the
goal,--for he regards the running only, and does not see that he has
passed wide of the goal;--so the soul too, turning from the way toward
God, and driving the members of the body beyond what is proper, or
rather, driven herself along with them by her own doing, sins and makes
mischief for herself, not seeing that she has strayed from the way, and
has swerved from the goal of truth, to which the Christ-bearing man,
the blessed Paul, was looking when he said, "I press on toward the goal
unto the prize of the high calling of Christ Jesus [112] :" so that the
holy man, making the good his mark, never did what was evil.
__________________________________________________________________
[110] Rom. iii. 10 foll.
[111] Cf. Plato Phaedrus 246 C, 248 A, 253 E, 254.
[112] Phil. iii. 14.
__________________________________________________________________
S:6. False views of the nature of evil: viz., that evil is something in
the nature of things, and has substantive existence. (a) Heathen
thinkers: (evil resides in matter). Their refutation. (b) Heretical
teachers: (Dualism). Refutation from Scripture.
Now certain of the Greeks, having erred from the right way, and not
having known Christ, have ascribed to evil a substantive and
independent existence. In this they make a double mistake: either in
denying the Creator to be maker of all things, if evil had an
independent subsistence and being of its own; or again, if they mean
that He is maker of all things, they will of necessity admit Him to be
maker of evil also. For evil, according to them, is included among
existing things. 2. But this must appear paradoxical and impossible.
For evil does not come from good, nor is it in, or the result of, good,
since in that case it would not be good, being mixed in its nature or a
cause of evil. 3. But the sectaries, who have fallen away from the
teaching of the Church, and made shipwreck concerning the Faith [113] ,
they also wrongly think that evil has a substantive existence. But they
arbitrarily imagine another god besides the true One, the Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and that he is the unmade producer of evil and the
head of wickedness, who is also artificer of Creation. But these men
one can easily refute, not only from the divine Scriptures, but also
from the human understanding itself, the very source of these their
insane imaginations. 4. To begin with, our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ says in His own gospels confirming the words of Moses: "The Lord
God is one;" and "I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth [114]
." But if God is one, and at the same time Lord of heaven and earth,
how could there be another God beside Him? or what room will there be
for the God whom they suppose, if the one true God fills all things in
the compass of heaven and earth? or how could there be another creator
of that, whereof, according to the Saviour's utterance, the God and
Father of Christ is Himself Lord. 5. Unless indeed they would say that
it were, so to speak, in an equipoise, and the evil god capable of
getting the better of the good God. But if they say this, see to what a
pitch of impiety they descend. For when powers are equal, the superior
and better cannot be discovered. For if the one exist even if the other
will it not, both are equally strong and equally weak equally, because
the very existence of either is a defeat of the other's will: weak,
because what happens is counter to their wills: for while the good God
exists in spite of the evil one, the evil god exists equally in spite
of the good.
__________________________________________________________________
[113] 1 Tim. i. 19.
[114] Mark xii. 29; Matt. xi. 25.
__________________________________________________________________
S:7. Refutation of dualism from reason. Impossibility of two Gods. The
truth as to evil is that which the Church teaches: that it originates,
and resides, in the perverted choice of the darkened soul.
More especially, they are exposed to the following reply. If visible
things are the work of the evil god, what is the work of the good God?
for nothing is to be seen except the work of the Artificer. Or what
evidence is there that the good God exists at all, if there are no
works of His by which He may be known? for by his works the artificer
is known. 2. Or how could two principles exist, contrary one to
another: or what is it that divides them, for them to exist apart? For
it is impossible for them to exist together, because they are mutually
destructive. But neither can the one be included in the other, their
nature being unmixed and unlike. Accordingly that which divides them
will evidently be of a third nature, and itself God. But of what nature
could this third something be? good or evil? It will be impossible to
determine, for it cannot be of the nature of both. 3. This conceit of
theirs, then, being evidently rotten, the truth of the Church's
theology must be manifest: that evil has not from the beginning been
with God or in God, nor has any substantive existence; but that men, in
default of the vision of good, began to devise and imagine for
themselves what was not, after their own pleasure. 4. For as if a man,
when the sun is shining, and the whole earth illumined by his light,
were to shut fast his eyes and imagine darkness where no darkness
exists, and then walk wandering as if in darkness, often falling and
going down steep places, thinking it was dark and not light,--for,
imagining that he sees, he does not see at all;--so, too, the soul of
man, shutting fast her eyes, by which she is able to see God, has
imagined evil for herself, and moving therein, knows not that, thinking
she is doing something, she is doing nothing. For she is imagining what
is not, nor is she abiding in her original nature; but what she is is
evidently the product of her own disorder. 5. For she is made to see
God, and to be enlightened by Him; but of her own accord in God's stead
she has sought corruptible things and darkness, as the Spirit says
somewhere in writing, "God made man upright, but they have sought out
many inventions [115] ." Thus it has been then that men from the first
discovered and contrived and imagined evil for themselves. But it is
now time to say how they came down to the madness of idolatry, that you
may know that the invention of idols is wholly due, not to good but to
evil. But what has its origin in evil can never be pronounced good in
any point,--being evil altogether.
__________________________________________________________________
[115] Eccl. vii. 29.
__________________________________________________________________
S:8. The origin of idolatry is similar. The soul, materialised by
forgetting God, and engrossed in earthly things, makes them into gods.
The race of men descends into a hopeless depth of delusion and
superstition.
Now the soul of mankind, not satisfied with the devising of evil, began
by degrees to venture upon what is worse still. For having experience
of diversities of pleasures, and girt about with oblivion of things
divine; being pleased moreover and having in view the passions of the
body, and nothing but things present and opinions about them, ceased to
think that anything existed beyond what is seen, or that anything was
good save things temporal and bodily; so turning away and forgetting
that she was in the image of the good God, she no longer, by the power
which is in her, sees God the Word after whose likeness she is made;
but having departed from herself, imagines and feigns what is not. 2.
For hiding, by the complications of bodily lusts, the mirror which, as
it were, is in her, by which alone she had the power of seeing the
Image of the Father, she no longer sees what a soul ought to behold,
but is carried about by everything, and only sees the things which come
under the senses. Hence, weighted with all fleshly desire, and
distracted among the impressions of these things, she imagines that the
God Whom her understanding has forgotten is to be found in bodily and
sensible things, giving to things seen the name of God, and glorifying
only those things which she desires and which are pleasant to her eyes.
3. Accordingly, evil is the cause which brings idolatry in its train;
for men, having learned to contrive evil, which is no reality in
itself, in like manner feigned for themselves as gods beings that had
no real existence. Just, then, as though a man had plunged into the
deep, and no longer saw the light, nor what appears by light, because
his eyes are turned downwards, and the water is all above him; and,
perceiving only the things in the deep, thinks that nothing exists
beside them, but that the things he sees are the only true realities;
so the men of former time, having lost their reason, and plunged into
the lusts and imaginations of carnal things, and forgotten the
knowledge and glory of God, their reasoning being dull, or rather
following unreason, made gods for themselves of things seen, glorifying
the creature rather than the Creator [116] , and deifying the works
rather than the Master, God, their Cause and Artificer. 4. But just as,
according to the above simile, men who plunge into the deep, the deeper
they go down, advance into darker and deeper places, so it is with
mankind. For they did not keep to idolatry in a simple form, nor did
they abide in that with which they began; but the longer they went on
in their first condition, the more new superstitions they invented:
and, not satiated with the first evils, they again filled themselves.
with others, advancing further in utter shamefulness, and surpassing
themselves in impiety. But to this the divine Scripture testifies when
it says, "When the wicked cometh unto the depth of evils, he despiseth
[117] ."
__________________________________________________________________
[116] Rom. i. 25.
[117] Prov. xviii. 3.
__________________________________________________________________
S:9. The various developments of idolatry: worship of the heavenly
bodies, the elements, natural objects, fabulous creatures, personified
lusts, men living and dead. The case of Antinous, and of the deified
Emperors.
For now the understanding of mankind leaped asunder from God; and going
lower in their ideas and imaginations, they gave the honour due to God
first to the heaven and the sun and moon and the stars, thinking them
to be not only gods, but also the causes of the other gods lower than
themselves [118] . Then, going yet lower in their dark imaginations,
they gave the name of gods to the upper aether and the air and the
things in the air. Next, advancing further in evil, they came to
celebrate as gods the elements and the principles of which bodies are
composed, heat and cold and dryness and wetness. 2. But just as they
who have fallen flat creep in the slime like land-snails, so the most
impious of mankind, having fallen lower and lower from the idea of God,
then set up as gods men, and the forms of men, some still living,
others even after their death. Moreover, counselling and imagining
worse things still, they transferred the divine and supernatural name
of God at last even to stones and stocks, and creeping things both of
land and water, and irrational wild beasts, awarding to them every
divine honour, and turning from the true and only real God, the Father
of Christ. 3. But would that even there the audacity of these foolish
men had stopped short, and that they had not gone further yet in
impious self-confusion. For to such a depth have some fallen in their
understanding, to such darkness of mind, that they have even devised
for themselves, and made gods of things that have no existence at all,
nor any place among things created. For mixing up the rational with the
irrational, and combining things unlike in nature, they worship the
result as gods, such as the dog-headed and snake-headed and ass-headed
gods among the Egyptians, and the ram-headed Ammon among the Libyans.
While others, dividing apart the portions of men's bodies, head,
shoulder, hand, and foot, have set up each as gods and deified them, as
though their religion were not satisfied with the whole body in its
integrity. 4. But others, straining impiety to the utmost, have deified
the motive of the invention of these things and of their own
wickedness, namely, pleasure and lust, and worship them, such as their
Eros, and the Aphrodite at Paphos. While some of them, as if vying with
them in depravation, have ventured to erect into gods their rulers or
even their sons, either out of honour for their princes, or from fear
of their tyranny, such as the Cretan Zeus, of such renown among them,
and the Arcadian Hermes; and among the Indians Dionysus, among the
Egyptians Isis and Osiris and Horus, and in our own time Antinous,
favourite of Hadrian, Emperor of the Romans, whom, although men know he
was a mere man, and not a respectable man, but on the contrary, full of
licentiousness, yet they worship for fear of him that enjoined it. For
Hadrian having come to sojourn in the land of Egypt, when Antinous the
minister of his pleasure died, ordered him to be worshipped; being
indeed himself in love with the youth even after his death, but for all
that offering a convincing exposure of himself, and a proof against all
idolatry, that it was discovered among men for no other reason than by
reason of the lust of them that imagined it. According as the wisdom of
God testifies beforehand when it says, "The devising of idols was the
beginning of fornication [119] ." 5. And do not wonder, nor think what
we are saying hard to believe, inasmuch as it is not long since, even
if it be not still the case that the Roman Senate vote to those
emperors who have ever ruled them from the beginning, either all of
them, or such as they wish and decide, a place among the gods, and
decree them to be worshipped [120] . For those to whom they are
hostile, they treat as enemies and call men, admitting their real
nature, while those who are popular with them they order to be
worshipped on account of their virtue, as though they had it in their
own power to make gods, though they are themselves men, and do not
profess to be other than mortal. 6. Whereas if they are to make gods,
they ought to be themselves gods; for that which makes must needs be
better than that which it makes, and he that judges is of necessity in
authority over him that is judged, while he that gives, at any rate
that which he has, confers a layout, just as, of course, every king, in
giving as a favour what he has to give, is greater and in a higher
position than those who receive. If then they decree whomsoever they
please to be gods, they ought first to be gods themselves. But the
strange thing is this, that they themselves by dying as men, expose the
falsehood of their own vote concerning those deified by them.
__________________________________________________________________
[118] For the following chapters Doellinger, `The Gentile and the
Jew,', is a rich mine of illustration. The recently published `Manual
of the History of Religions,' by Prof. Chantepie de la Saussaye (Eng.
Tra. pub. by Longmans), summarises the best results of recent research.
[119] Wisd. xiv. 12.
[120] Constantine was the last Emperor officially deified (D.C.B., I.
649), but even Theodosius is raised to heaven by the courtly Claudian
Carm. de 111 Cons. Honor. 163 sqq.; cf. Gwatkin, p. 54, note.
__________________________________________________________________
S:10. Similar human origin of the Greek gods, by decree of Theseus. The
process by which mortals became deified.
But this custom is not a new one, nor did it begin from the Roman
Senate: on the contrary, it had existed previously from of old, and was
formerly practised for the devising of idols. For the gods renowned
from of old among the Greeks, Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, Hephaestus,
Hermes, and, among females, Hera and Demeter and Athena and Artemis,
were decreed the title of gods by the order of Theseus, of whom Greek
history tells us [121] ; and so the men who pass such decrees die like
men and are mourned for, while those in whose favour they are passed
are worshipped as gods. What a height of inconsistency and madness!
knowing who passed the decree, they pay greater honour to those who are
the subjects of it. 2. And would that their idolatrous madness had
stopped short at males, and that they had not brought down the title of
deity to females. For even women, whom it is not safe to admit to
deliberation about public affairs, they worship and serve with the
honour due to God, such as those enjoined by Theseus as above stated,
and among the Egyptians [122] Isis and the Maid and the Younger one
[123] , and among others Aphrodite. For the names of the others I do
not consider it modest even to mention, full as they are of all kind of
grotesqueness. 3. For many, not only in ancient times but in our own
also, having lost their beloved ones, brothers and kinsfolk and wives;
and many women who had lost their husbands, all of whom nature proved
to be mortal men, made representations of them and devised sacrifices,
and consecrated them; while later ages, moved by the figure and the
brilliancy of the artist, worshipped them as gods, thus falling into
inconsistency with nature [124] . For whereas their parents had mourned
for them, not regarding them as gods (for had they known them to be
gods they would not have lamented them as if they had perished; for
this was why they represented them in an image, namely, because they
not only did not think them gods, but did not believe them to exist at
all, and in order that the sight of their form in the image might
console them for their being no more), yet the foolish people pray to
them as gods and invest them with the honour of the true God. 4. For
example, in Egypt, even to this day, the death-dirge is celebrated for
Osiris and Horus and Typho and the others. And the caldrons [125] at
Dodona, and the Corybantes in Crete, prove that Zeus is no god but a
man, and a man born of a cannibal father. And, strange to say, even
Plato, the sage admired among the Greeks, with all his vaunted
understanding about God, goes down with Socrates to Peiraeus [126] to
worship Artemis, a figment of man's art.
__________________________________________________________________
[121] This is probably a reference to the hiera anagraphe of Euhemerus,
which Christian apologists commonly took as genuine history: see S:12,
note 1.
[122] Cf. de la Saussaye, S:51. Isis, as goddess of the earth,
corresponded to Demeter; as goddess of the dead, to the Kore
(Persephone).
[123] The Neotera is a puzzle. The most likely suggestion is that of
Montfaucon, who refers it to Cleopatra, who nea ,'Isis echrematize
(Plut. Vit. Anton.). He cites also a coin of M. Antony, on which
Cleopatra is figured as thea neotera. Several such are given by
Vaillant, de Numism. Cleopatr. 189. She was not the first of her name
to adopt this style, see Head Hist. Num. pp. 716, 717. The text might
be rendered `Isis, both the Maid and the Younger.'
[124] Cf. Wisd. xiv. 12 sqq. quoted below.
[125] Cf. Greg. Naz. Or. v. 32, p. 168 c, and Dict. G. and R. Geog. I.
p. 783a.
[126] Plat. Rep. I. ad init.
__________________________________________________________________
S:11. The deeds of heathen deities, and particularly of Zeus.
But of these and such like inventions of idolatrous madness, Scripture
taught us beforehand long ago, when it said [127] , "The devising of
idols was the beginning of fornication, and the invention of them, the
corruption of life. For neither were they from the beginning, neither
shall they be for ever. For the vainglory of men they entered into the
world, and therefore shall they come shortly to an end. For a father
afflicted with untimely mourning when he hath made an image of his
child soon taken away, now honoured him as a god which was then a dead
man, and delivered to those that were under him ceremonies and
sacrifices. Thus in process of time an ungodly custom grown strong was
kept as a law. And graven images were worshipped by the commands of
kings. Whom men could not honour in presence because they dwelt afar
off, they took the counterfeit of his visage from afar, and made an
express image of the king whom they honoured, to the end that by this
their forwardness they might flatter him that was absent as if he were
present. Also the singular diligence of the artificer did help to set
forward the ignorant to more superstition: for he, peradventure,
willing to please one in authority, forced all his skill to make the
resemblance of the best fashion: and so the multitude, allured by the
grace of the work, took him now for a god, which a little before was
but honoured as a man: and this was an occasion to deceive the world,
for men serving either calamity or tyranny, did ascribe unto stones and
stocks the incommunicable Name." 2. The beginning and devising of the
invention of idols having been, as Scripture witnesses, of such sort,
it is now time to shew thee the refutation of it by proofs derived not
so much from without as from these men's own opinions about the idols.
For to begin at the lowest point, if one were to take the actions of
them they call gods, one would find that they were not only no gods,
but had been even of men the most contemptible. For what a thing it is
to see the loves and licentious actions of Zeus in the poets! What a
thing to hear of him, on the one hand carrying off Ganymede and
committing stealthy adulteries, on the other in panic and alarm lest
the walls of the Trojans should be destroyed against his intentions!
What a thing to see him in grief at the death of his son Sarpedon, and
wishing to succour him without being able to do so, and, when plotted
against by the other so-called gods, namely, Athena and Hera and
Poseidon, succoured by Thetis, a woman, and by AEgaeon of the hundred
hands, and overcome by pleasures, a slave to women, and for their sakes
running adventures in disguises consisting of brute beasts and creeping
things and birds; and again, in hiding on account of his father's
designs upon him, or Cronos bound by him, or him again mutilating his
father! Why, is it fitting to regard as a god one who has perpetrated
such deeds, and who stands accused of things which not even the public
laws of the Romans allow those to do who are merely men?
__________________________________________________________________
[127] Wisd. xiv. 12 sqq.
__________________________________________________________________
S:12. Other shameful actions ascribed to heathen deities. All prove
that they are but men of former times, and not even good men.
For, to mention a few instances out of many to avoid prolixity, who
that saw his lawless and corrupt conduct toward Semele, Leda, Alcmene,
Artemis, Leto, Maia, Europe, Danae, and Antiope, or that saw what he
ventured to take in hand with regard to his own sister, in having the
same woman as wife and sister, would not scorn him and pronounce him
worthy of death? For not only did he commit adultery, but he deified
and raised to heaven those born of his adulteries, contriving the
deification as a veil for his lawlessness: such as Dionysus, Heracles,
the Dioscuri, Hermes, Perseus, and Soteira. 2. Who, that sees the
so-called gods at irreconcileable strife among themselves at Troy on
account of the Greeks and Trojans, will fail to recognise their
feebleness, in that because of their mutual jealousies they egged on
even mortals to strife? Who, that sees Ares and Aphrodite wounded by
Diomed, or Hera and Aidoneus from below the earth, whom they call a
god, wounded by Heracles, Dionysus by Perseus, Athena by Arcas, and
Hephaestus hurled down and going lame, will not recognise their real
nature, and, while refusing to call them gods, be assured (when he
hears that they are corruptible and passible) that they are nothing but
men [128] , and feeble men too, and admire those that inflicted the
wounds rather than the wounded? 3. Or who that sees the adultery of
Ares with Aphrodite, and Hephaestus contriving a snare for the two, and
the other so-called gods called by Hephaestus to view the adultery, and
coming and seeing their licentiousness, would not laugh and recognise
their worthless character? Or who would not laugh at beholding the
drunken folly and misconduct of Heracles toward Omphale? For their
deeds of pleasure, and their unconscionable loves, and their divine
images in gold, silver, bronze, iron, stone, and wood, we need not
seriously expose by argument, since the facts are abominable in
themselves, and are enough taken alone to furnish proof of the
deception; so that one's principal feeling is pity for those deceived
about them. 4. For, hating the adulterer who tampers with a wife of
their own, they are not ashamed to deify the teachers of adultery; and
refraining from incest themselves they worship those who practise it;
and admitting that the corrupting of children is an evil, they serve
those who stand accused of it and do not blush to ascribe to those they
call gods things which the laws forbid to exist even among men.
__________________________________________________________________
[128] This explanation of gods as deified men is known as Euhemerism,
from Euhemerus, who broached the theory in the third century, b.c.
(supra, 10, note 1); but `there were Euhemerists in Greece before
Euhemerus' (Jowett's Plato, 2. 101). The Fathers very commonly adopt
the theory, for which, however, there are very slight grounds. Such
cases as those of Antinous and the Emperors, as well as the legends of
heroes and demigods, gave it some plausibility (see Doellinger; Gentile
and Jew, vol. i. p. 344, Eng. Tr.).
__________________________________________________________________
S:13. The folly of image worship and its dishonour to art.
Again, in worshipping things of wood and stone, they do not see that,
while they tread under foot and burn what is in no way different, they
call portions of these materials gods. And what they made use of a
little while ago, they carve and worship in their folly, not seeing,
nor at all considering that they are worshipping, not gods, but the
carver's art. 2. For so long as the stone is uncut and the wood
unworked, they walk upon the one and make frequent use of the other for
their own purposes, even for those which are less honourable. But when
the artist has invested them with the proportions of his own skill, and
impressed upon the material the form of man or woman, then, thanking
the artist, they proceed to worship them as gods, having bought them
from the carver at a price. Often, moreover, the image-maker, as though
forgetting the work he has done himself, prays to his own productions,
and calls gods what just before he was paring and chipping. 3. But it
were better, if need to admire these things, to ascribe it to the art
of the skilled workman, and not to honour productions in preference to
their producer. For it is not the material that has adorned the art,
but the art that has adorned and deified the material. Much juster were
it, then, for them to worship the artist than his productions, both
because his existence was prior to that of the gods produced by art,
and because they have come into being in the form he pleased to give
them. But as it is, setting justice aside, and dishonouring skill and
art, they worship the products of skill and art, and when the man is
dead that made them, they honour his works as immortal, whereas if they
did not receive daily attention they would certainly in time come to a
natural end. 4. Or how could one fail to pity them in this also, in
that seeing, they worship them that cannot see, and hearing, pray to
them that cannot hear, and born with life and reason, men as they are,
call gods things which do not move at all, but have not even life, and,
strangest of all, in that they serve as their masters beings whom they
themselves keep under their own power? Nor imagine that this is a mere
statement of mine, nor that I am maligning them; for the verification
of all this meets the eyes, and whoever wishes to do so may see the
like.
__________________________________________________________________
S:14. Image worship condemned by Scripture.
But better testimony about all this is furnished by Holy Scripture,
which tells us beforehand when it says [129] , "Their idols are silver
and gold, the work of men's hands. Eyes have they and will not see; a
mouth have they and will not speak; ears have they and will not hear;
noses have they and will not smell; hands have they and will not
handle; feet have they and will not walk; they will not speak through
their throat. Like unto them be they that make them." Nor have they
escaped prophetic censure; for there also is their refutation, where
the Spirit says [130] , "they shall be ashamed that have formed a god,
and carved all of them that which is vain: and all by whom they were
made are dried up: and let the deaf ones among men all assemble and
stand up together, and let them be confounded and put to shame
together; for the carpenter sharpened iron, and worked it with an adze,
and fashioned it with an auger, and set it up with the arm of his
strength: and he shall hunger and be faint, and drink no water. For the
carpenter chose out wood, and set it by a rule, and fashioned it with
glue, and made it as the form of a man and as the beauty of man, and
set it up in his house, wood which he had cut from the grove and which
the Lord planted, and the rain gave it growth that it might be for men
to burn, and that he might take thereof and warm himself, and kindle,
and bake bread upon it, but the residue they made into gods, and
worshipped them, the half whereof they had burned in the fire. And upon
the half thereof he roasted flesh and ate and was filled, and was
warmed and said: `It is pleasant to me, because I am warmed and have
seen the fire.' But the residue thereof he worshipped, saying, `Deliver
me for thou art my god.' They knew not nor understood, because their
eyes were dimmed that they could not see, nor perceive with their
heart; nor did he consider in his heart nor know in his understanding
that he had burned half thereof in the fire, and baked bread upon the
coals thereof, and roasted flesh and eaten it, and made the residue
thereof an abomination, and they worship it. Know that their heart is
dust and they are deceived, and none can deliver his soul. Behold and
will ye not say, `There is a lie in my right hand?'" 2. How then can
they fail to be judged godless by all, who even by the divine Scripture
are accused of impiety? or how can they be anything but miserable, who
are thus openly convicted of worshipping dead things instead of the
truth? or what kind of hope have they? or what kind of excuse could be
made for them, trusting in things without sense or movement, which they
reverence in place of the true God?
__________________________________________________________________
[129] Ps. cxv. 5 sqq.
[130] Isa. xliv. 9 sqq. (LXX.).
__________________________________________________________________
S:15. The details about the gods conveyed in the representations of
them by poets and artists shew that they are without life, and that
they are not gods, nor even decent men and women.
For would that the artist would fashion the gods even without shape, so
that they might not be open to so manifest an exposure of their lack of
sense. For they might have cajoled the perception of simple folk to
think the idols had senses, were it not that they possess the symbols
of the senses, eyes for example and noses and ears and hands and mouth,
without any gesture of actual perception and grasp of the objects of
sense. But as a matter of fact they have these things and have them
not, stand and stand not, sit and sit not. For they have not the real
action of these things, but as their fashioner pleased, so they remain
stationary, giving no sign of a god, but evidently mere inanimate
objects, set there by man's art. 2. Or would that the heralds and
prophets of these false gods, poets I mean and writers, had simply
written that they were gods, and not also recounted their actions as an
exposure of their godlessness and scandalous life. For by the mere name
of godhead they might have filched away the truth, or rather have
caused the mass of men to err from the truth. But as it is, by
narrating the loves and immoralities of Zeus, and the corruptions of
youths by the other gods, and the voluptuous jealousies of the females,
and the fears and acts of cowardice and other wickednesses, they merely
convict themselves of narrating not merely about no gods, but not even
about respectable men, but on the contrary, of telling tales about
shameful persons far removed from what is honourable.
__________________________________________________________________
S:16. Heathen arguments in palliation of the above: and (1) `the poets
are responsible for these unedifying tales.' But are the names and
existence of the gods any better authenticated? Both stand or fall
together. Either the actions must be defended or the deity of the gods
given up. And the heroes are not credited with acts inconsistent with
their nature, as, on this plea, the gods are.
But perhaps, as to all this, the impious will appeal to the peculiar
style of poets, saying that it is the peculiarity of poets to feign
what is not, and, for the pleasure of their hearers, to tell fictitious
tales; and that for this reason they have composed the stories about
gods. But this pretext of theirs, even more than any other, will appear
to be superficial from what they themselves think and profess about
these matters. 2. For if what is said in the poets is fictitious and
false, even the nomenclature of Zeus, Cronos, Hera, Ares and the rest
must be false. For perhaps, as they say, even the names are fictitious,
and, while no such being exists as Zeus, Cronos, or Ares, the poets
feign their existence to deceive their hearers. But if the poets feign
the existence of unreal beings, how is it that they worship them as
though they existed? 3. Or perhaps, once again, they will say that
while the names are not fictitious, they ascribe to them fictitious
actions. But even this is equally precarious as a defence. For if they
made up the actions, doubtless also they made up the names, to which
they attributed the actions. Or if they tell the truth about the names,
it follows that they tell the truth about the actions too. In
particular, they who have said in their tales that these are gods
certainly know how gods ought to act, and would never ascribe to gods
the ideas of men, any more than one would ascribe to water the
properties of fire; for fire burns, whereas the nature of water on the
contrary is cold. 4. If then the actions are worthy of gods, they that
do them must be gods; but if they are actions of men, and of
disreputable men, such as adultery and the acts mentioned above, they
that act in such ways must be men and not gods. For their deeds must
correspond to their natures, so that at once the actor may be made
known by his act, and the action may be ascertainable from his nature.
So that just as a man discussing about water and fire, and declaring
their action, would not say that water burned and fire cooled, nor, if
a man were discoursing about the sun and the earth, would he say the
earth gave light, while the sun was sown with herbs and fruits, but if
he were to say so would exceed the utmost height of madness, so neither
would their writers, and especially the most eminent poet of all, if
they really knew that Zeus and the others were gods, invest them with
such actions as shew them to be not gods, but rather men, and not sober
men. 5. Or if, as poets, they told falsehoods, and you are maligning
them, why did they not also tell falsehoods about the courage of the
heroes, and feign feebleness in the place of courage, and courage in
that of feebleness? For they ought in that case, as with Zeus and Hera,
so also to slanderously accuse Achilles of want of courage, and to
celebrate the might of Thersites, and, while charging Odysseus with
dulness, to make out Nestor a reckless person, and to narrate
effeminate actions of Diomed and Hector, and manly deeds of Hecuba. For
the fiction and falsehood they ascribe to the poets ought to extend to
all cases. But in fact, they kept the truth for their men, while not
ashamed to tell falsehoods about their so-called gods. 6. And as some
of them might argue, that they are telling falsehoods about their
licentious actions, but that in their praises, when they speak of Zeus
as father of gods, and as the highest, and the Olympian, and as
reigning in heaven, they are not inventing but speaking truthfully;
this is a plea which not only myself, but anybody can refute. For the
truth will be clear, in opposition to them, if we recall our previous
proofs. For while their actions prove them to be men, the panegyrics
upon them go beyond the nature of men. The two things then are mutually
inconsistent; for neither is it the nature of heavenly beings to act in
such ways, nor can any one suppose that persons so acting are gods.
__________________________________________________________________
S:17. The truth probably is, that the scandalous tales are true, while
the divine attributes ascribed to them are due to the flattery of the
poets.
What inference then is left to us, save that while the panegyrics are
false and flattering, the actions told of them are true? And the truth
of this one can ascertain by common practice. For nobody who pronounces
a panegyric upon anyone accuses his conduct at the same time, but
rather, if men's actions are disgraceful, they praise them up with
panegyrics, on account of the scandal they cause, so that by
extravagant praise they may impose upon their hearers, and hide the
misconduct of the others. 2. Just as if a man who has to pronounce a
panegyric upon someone cannot find material for it in their conduct or
in any personal qualities, on account of the scandal attaching to
these, he praises them up in another manner, flattering them with what
does not belong to them, so have their marvellous poets, put out of
countenance by the scandalous actions of their so-called gods, attached
to them the superhuman title, not knowing that they cannot by their
superhuman fancies veil their human actions, but that they will rather
succeed in shewing, by their human shortcomings, that the attributes of
God do not fit them. 3. And I am disposed to think that they have
recounted the passions and the actions of the gods even in spite of
themselves. For since they were endeavouring to invest with what
Scripture calls the incommunicable name and honour of [131] God them
that are no gods but mortal men, and since this venture of theirs was
great and impious, for this reason even against their will they were
forced by truth to set forth the passions of these persons, so that
their passions recorded in the writings concerning them might be in
evidence for all posterity as a proof that they were no gods.
__________________________________________________________________
[131] Wisd. xiv. 21. Cf. Isa. xlii. 8, and xlviii. 11
__________________________________________________________________
S:18. Heathen defence continued. (2) `The gods are worshipped for
having invented the Arts of Life.' But this is a human and natural, not
a divine, achievement. And why, on this principle, are not all
inventors deified?
What defence, then, what proof that these are real gods, can they offer
who hold this superstition? For, by what has been said just above, our
argument has demonstrated them to be men, and not respectable men. But
perhaps they will turn to another argument, and proudly appeal to the
things useful to life discovered by them, saying that the reason why
they regard them as gods is their having been of use to mankind. For
Zeus is said to have possessed the plastic art, Poseidon that of the
pilot, Hephaestus the smith's, Athena that of weaving, Apollo that of
music, Artemis that of hunting, Hera dressmaking, Demeter agriculture,
and others other arts, as those who inform us about them have related.
2. But men ought to ascribe them and such like arts not to the gods
alone but to the common nature of mankind, for by observing nature
[132] men discover the arts. For even common parlance calls art an
imitation of nature. If then they have been skilled in the arts they
pursued, that is no reason for thinking them gods, but rather for
thinking them men; for the arts were not their creation, but in them
they, like others, imitated nature. 3. For men having a natural
capacity for knowledge according to the definition laid down [133]
concerning them, there is nothing to surprise us if by human
intelligence, and by looking of themselves at their own nature and
coming to know it, they have hit upon the arts. Or if they say that the
discovery of the arts entitles them to be proclaimed as gods, it is
high time to proclaim as gods the discoverers of the other arts on the
same grounds as the former were thought worthy of such a title. For the
Phoenicians invented letters, Homer epic poetry, Zeno of Elea
dialectic, Corax of Syracuse rhetoric, Aristaeus bee-keeping,
Triptolemus the sowing of corn, Lycurgus of Sparta and Solon of Athens
laws; while Palamedes discovered the arrangement of letters, and
numbers, and measures and weights. And others imparted various other
things useful for the life of mankind, according to the testimony of
our historians. 4. If then the arts make gods, and because of them
carved gods exist, it follows, on their shewing, that those who at a
later date discovered the other arts must be gods. Or if they do not
deem these worthy of divine honour, but recognise that they are men, it
were but consistent not to give even the name of gods to Zeus, Hera,
and the others, but to believe that they too have been human beings,
and all the more so, inasmuch as they were not even respectable in
their day; just as by the very fact of sculpturing their form in
statues they shew that they are nothing else but men.
__________________________________________________________________
[132] phusis is here used in a double sense.
[133] By Aristotle, Top. V. ii.-iv. where man is defined as zoon
epistemes dektikon: compare Metaph. I. i. `All men by nature desire to
know.'
__________________________________________________________________
S:19. The inconsistency of image worship. Arguments in palliation. (1)
The divine nature must be expressed in a visible sign. (2) The image a
means of supernatural communications to men through angels.
For what other form do they give them by sculpture but that of men and
women and of creatures lower yet and of irrational nature, all manner
of birds, beasts both tame and wild, and creeping things, whatsoever
land and sea and the whole realm of the waters produce? For men having
fallen into the unreasonableness of their passions and pleasures, and
unable to see anything beyond pleasures and lusts of the flesh,
inasmuch as they keep their mind in the midst of these irrational
things, they imagined the divine principle to be in irrational things,
and carved a number of gods to match the variety of their passions. 2.
For there are with them images of beasts and creeping things and birds,
as the interpreter of the divine and true religion says, "They became
vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the
glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of
corruptible man, and of birds and four-footed beasts and creeping
things, wherefore God gave them up unto vile passions." For having
previously infected their soul, as I said above, with the
irrationalities of pleasures, they then came down to this making of
gods; and, once fallen, thenceforward as though abandoned in their
rejection of God, thus they wallow [134] in them, and portray God, the
Father of the Word, in irrational shapes. 3. As to which those who pass
for philosophers and men of knowledge [135] among the Greeks, while
driven to admit that their visible gods are the forms and figures of
men and of irrational objects, say in defence that they have such
things to the end that by their means the deity may answer them and be
made manifest; because otherwise they could not know the invisible God,
save by such statues and rites. 4. While those [136] who profess to
give still deeper and more philosophical reasons than these say, that
the reason of idols being prepared and fashioned is for the invocation
and manifestation of divine angels and powers, that appearing by these
means they may teach men concerning the knowledge of God; and that they
serve as letters for men, by referring to which they may learn to
apprehend God, from the manifestation of the divine angels effected by
their means. Such then is their mythology,--for far be it from us to
call it a theology. But if one examine the argument with care, he will
find that the opinion of these persons also, not less than that of
those previously spoken of, is false.
__________________________________________________________________
[134] Cf. Orat. iii. 16.
[135] This may refer to Maximus of Tyre (Saussaye, S:11), or to the
lost treatise of `the divine Iamblichus' Peri agalmaton, which was
considered worth answering by Christian writers as late as the seventh
century (Philoponus in Phot. Bibl. Cod. 215).
[136] This is in effect the defence of the `Scriptor de Mysteriis'
(possibly Iamblichus, see Bernays `2 Abhandlungen' 1880, p. 37):
material means of worship are a means of access directly to the lower
(or quasi-material) gods, and so indirectly to the higher. Few men can
reach the latter without the aid of their manifestation in the lower;
parestin a& 204;los tois enulois ta a& 203;la (v. 23, cf. 14).
__________________________________________________________________
S:20. But where does this supposed virtue of the image reside? in the
material, or in the form, or in the maker's skill? Untenability of all
these views.
For one might reply to them, bringing the case before the tribunal of
truth, How does God make answer or become known by such objects? Is it
due to the matter of which they consist, or to the form which they
possess? For if it be due to the matter, what need is there of the
form, instead of God manifesting Himself through all matter without
exception before these things were fashioned? And in vain have they
built their temples to shut in a single stone, or stock, or piece of
gold, when all the world is full of these substances. 2. But if the
superadded form be the cause of the divine manifestation, what is the
need of the material, gold and the rest, instead of God manifesting
Himself by the actual natural animals of which the images are the
figures? For the opinion held about God would on the same principle
have been a nobler one, were He to manifest Himself by means of living
animals, whether rational or irrational, instead of being looked for in
things without life or motion. 3. Wherein they commit the most signal
impiety against themselves. For while they abominate and turn from the
real animals, beasts, birds, and creeping things, either because of
their ferocity or because of their dirtiness, yet they carve their
forms in stone, wood, or gold, and make them gods. But it would be
better for them to worship the living things themselves, rather than to
worship their figures in stone. 4. But perhaps neither is the case, nor
is either the material or the form the cause of the divine presence,
but it is only skilful art that summons the deity, inasmuch as it is an
imitation of nature. But if the deity communicates with the inmates on
account of the art, what need, once more, of the material, since the
art resides in the men? For if God manifests Himself solely because of
the art, and if for this reason the images are worshipped as gods, it
would be right to worship and serve the men who are masters of the art,
inasmuch as they are rational also, and have the skill in themselves.
__________________________________________________________________
S:21. The idea of communications through angels involves yet wilder
inconsistency, nor does it, even if true, justify the worship of the
image.
But as to their second and as they say profounder defence, one might
reasonably add as follows. If these things are made by you, ye Greeks,
not for the sake of a self-manifestation of God Himself, but for the
sake of a presence there of angels, why do you rank the images by which
ye invoke the powers as superior and above the powers invoked? For ye
carve the figures for the sake of the apprehension of God, as ye say,
but invest the actual images with the honour and title of God, thus
placing yourselves in a profane position. 2. For while confessing that
the power of God transcends the littleness of the images, and for that
reason not venturing to invoke God through them, but only the lesser
powers, ye yourselves leap over these latter, and have bestowed on
stocks and stones the title of Him, whose presence ye feared, and call
them gods instead of stones and men's workmanship, and worship them.
For even supposing them to serve you, as ye falsely say, as letters for
the contemplation of God, it is not right to give the signs greater
honour than that which they signify. For neither if a man were to write
the emperor's name would it be without risk to give to the writing more
honour than to the emperor; on the contrary, such a man incurs the
penalty of death; while the writing is fashioned by the skill of the
writer. 3. So also yourselves, had ye your reasoning power in full
strength, would not reduce to matter so great a revelation of the
Godhead: but neither would ye have given to the image greater honour
than to the man that carved it. For if there be any truth in the plea
that, as letters, they indicate the manifestation of God, and are
therefore, as indications of God, worthy to be deified, yet far more
would it be right to deify the artist who carved and engraved them, as
being far more powerful and divine than they, inasmuch as they were cut
and fashioned according to his will. If then the letters are worthy of
admiration, much more does the writer exceed them in wonder, by reason
of his art and the skill of his mind. If then it be not fitting to
think that they are gods for this reason, one must again interrogate
them about the madness concerning the idols, demanding from them the
justification for their being in such a form.
__________________________________________________________________
S:22. The image cannot represent the true form of God, else God would
be corruptible.
For if the reason of their being thus fashioned is, that the Deity is
of human form, why do they invest it also with the forms of irrational
creatures? Or if the form of it is that of the latter, why do they
embody it also in the images of rational creatures? Or if it be both at
once, and they conceive God to be of the two combined, namely, that He
has the forms both of rational and of irrational, why do they separate
what is joined together, and separate the images of brutes and of men,
instead of always carving it of both kinds, such as are the fictions in
the myths, Scylla, Charybdis, the Hippocentaur, and the dog-headed
Anubis of the Egyptians? For they ought either to represent them solely
of two natures in this way, or, if they have a single form, not to
falsely represent them in the other as well. 2. And again, if their
forms are male, why do they also invest them with female shapes? Or if
they are of the latter, why do they also falsify their forms as though
they were males? Or if again they are a mixture of both, they ought not
to be divided, but both ought to be combined, and follow the type of
the so-called hermaphrodites, so that their superstition should furnish
beholders with a spectacle not only of impiety and calumny, but of
ridicule as well. 2. And generally, if they conceive the Deity to be
corporeal, so that they contrive for it and represent belly and hands
and feet, and neck also, and breasts and the other organs that go to
make man, see to what impiety and godlessness their mind has come down,
to have such ideas of the Deity. For it follows that it must be capable
of all other bodily casualties as well, of being cut and divided, and
even of perishing altogether. But these and like things are not
properties of God, but rather of earthly bodies. 3. For while God is
incorporeal and incorruptible, and immortal, needing nothing for any
purpose, these are both corruptible, and are shapes of bodies, and need
bodily ministrations, as we said before [137] . For often we see images
which have grown old renewed, and those which time, or rain, or some or
other of the animals of the earth have spoiled, restored. In which
connexion one must condemn their folly, in that they proclaim as gods
things of which they themselves are the makers, and themselves ask
salvation of objects which they themselves adorn with their arts to
preserve them from corruption, and beg that their own wants may be
supplied by beings which they well know need attention from themselves,
and are not ashamed to call lords of heaven and all the earth creatures
whom they shut up in small chambers.
__________________________________________________________________
[137] Supra xiii. 3.
__________________________________________________________________
S:23. The variety of idolatrous cults proves that they are false.
But not only from these considerations may one appreciate their
godlessness, but also from their discordant opinions about the idols
themselves. For if they be gods according to their assertion and their
speculations, to which of them is one to give allegiance, and which of
them is one to judge to be the higher, so as either to worship God with
confidence, or as they say to recognise the Deity by them without
ambiguity? For not the same beings are called gods among all; on the
contrary, for every nation almost there is a separate god imagined. And
there are cases of a single district and a single town being at
internal discord about the superstition of their idols. 2. The
Phoenicians, for example, do not know those who are called gods among
the Egyptians, nor do the Egyptians worship the same idols as the
Phoenicians have. And while the Scythians reject the gods of the
Persians, the Persians reject those of the Syrians. But the Pelasgians
also repudiate the gods in Thrace, while the Thracians know not those
of Thebes. The Indians moreover differ from the Arabs, the Arabs from
the Ethiopians, and the Ethiopians from the Arabs in their idols. And
the Syrians worship not the idols of the Cilicians, while the
Cappadocian nation call gods beings different from these. And while the
Bithynians have adopted others, the Armenians have imagined others
again. And what need is there for me to multiply examples? The men on
the continent worship other gods than the islanders, while these latter
serve other gods than those of the main lands. 3. And, in general,
every city and village, not knowing the gods of its neighbours, prefers
its own, and deems that these alone are gods. For concerning the
abominations in Egypt there is no need even to speak, as they are
before the eyes of all: how the cities have religions which are
opposite and incompatible, and neighbours always make a point of
worshipping the opposite of those next to them [138] : so much so that
the crocodile, prayed to by some, is held in abomination by their
neighbours, while the lion, worshipped as a god by others, their
neighbours, so far from worshipping, slay, if they find it, as a wild
beast; and the fish, consecrated by some people, is used as food in
another place. And thus arise fights and riots and frequent occasions
of bloodshed, and every indulgence of the passions among them. 4. And
strange to say, according to the statement of historians, the very
Pelasgians, who learned from the Egyptians the names of the gods, do
not know the gods of Egypt, but worship others instead. And, speaking
generally, all the nations that are infatuated with idols have
different opinions and religions, and consistency is not to be met with
in any one case. Nor is this surprising. 5. For having fallen from the
contemplation of the one God, they have come down to many and diverse
objects; and having turned from the Word of the Father, Christ the
Saviour of all, they naturally have their understanding wandering in
many directions. And just as men who have turned from the sun and are
come into dark places go round by many pathless ways, and see not those
who are present, while they imagine those to be there who are not, and
seeing see not; so they that have turned from God and whose soul is
darkened, have their mind in a roving state, and like men who are drunk
and cannot see, imagine what is not true.
__________________________________________________________________
[138] Hdt. ii. 69; cf. Juv. Sat. xv. 36, `numina vicinorum Odit uterque
locus.' This is one of the few places where Athanasius has any Egyptian
`local colour' (cf. supra 9 and 10). M. Fialon is certainly too
imaginative (p. 86 contradicted p. 283), when he sees in the contra
Gentes an appreciation of the higher religious principles which the
modern science (`toute Francaise') of Egyptology has enabled us to read
behind the grotesque features of popular Egyptian polytheism.
__________________________________________________________________
S:24. The so-called gods of one place are used as victims in another.
This, then, is no slight proof of their real godlessness. For, the gods
for every city and country being many and various, and the one
destroying the god of the other, the whole of them are destroyed by
all. For those who are considered gods by some are offered as
sacrifices and drink-offerings to the so-called gods of others, and the
victims of some are conversely the gods of others. So the Egyptians
serve the ox, and Apis, a calf, and others sacrifice these animals to
Zeus. For even if they do not sacrifice the very animals the others
have consecrated, yet by sacrificing their fellows they seem to offer
the same. The Libyans have for god a sheep which they call Ammon, and
in other nations this animal is slain as a victim to many gods. 2. The
Indians worship Dionysus, using the name as a symbol for wine, and
others pour out wine as an offering to the other gods. Others honour
rivers and springs, and above all the Egyptians pay especial honour to
water, calling them gods. And yet others, and even the Egyptians who
worship the waters, use them to wash off the dirt from others and from
themselves, and ignominiously throw away what is used. While nearly the
whole of the Egyptian system of idols consists of what are victims to
the gods of other nations, so that they are scorned even by those
others for deifying what are not gods, but, both with others and even
among themselves, propitiatory offerings and victims.
__________________________________________________________________
S:25. Human sacrifice. Its absurdity. Its prevalence. Its calamitous
results.
But some have been led by this time to such a pitch of irreligion and
folly as to slay and to offer in sacrifice to their false gods even
actual men, whose figures and forms the gods are. Nor do they see,
wretched men, that the victims they are slaying are the patterns of the
gods they make and worship, and to whom they are offering the men. For
they are offering, one may say, equals to equals, or rather, the higher
to the lower; for they are offering living creatures to dead, and
rational beings to things without motion. 2. For the Scythians who are
called Taurians offer in sacrifice to their Virgin, as they call her,
survivors from wrecks, and such Greeks as they catch, going thus far in
impiety against men of their own race, and thus exposing the savagery
of their gods, in that those whom Providence has rescued from danger
and from the sea, they slay, almost fighting against Providence;
because they frustrate the kindness of Providence by their own brutal
character. But others, when they are returned victorious from war,
thereupon dividing their prisoners into hundreds, and taking a man from
each, sacrifice to Ares the man they have picked out from each hundred.
3. Nor is it only Scythians who commit these abominations on account of
the ferocity natural to them as barbarians: on the contrary, this deed
is a special result of the wickedness connected with idols and false
gods. For the Egyptians used formerly to offer victims of this kind to
Hera, and the Phoenicians and Cretans used to propitiate Cronos in
their sacrifices of children. And even the ancient Romans used to
worship Jupiter Latiarius, as he was called, with human sacrifices, and
some in one way, some in another, but all [139] without exception
committed and incurred the pollution: they incurred it by the mere
perpetration of the murderous deeds, while they polluted their own
temples by filling them with the smoke of such sacrifices. 4. This then
was the ready source of numerous evils to mankind. For seeing that
their false gods were pleased with these things, they forthwith
imitated their gods with like misdoings, thinking that the imitation of
superior beings, as they considered them, was a credit to themselves.
Hence mankind was thinned by murders of grown men and children, and by
licence of all kinds. For nearly every city is full of licentiousness
of all kinds, the result of the savage character of its gods; nor is
there one of sober life in the idols' temples [140] save only he whose
licentiousness is witnessed to by them all [141] .
__________________________________________________________________
[139] On human sacrifice see Saussaye, S:17, and Robertson Smith,
Religion of the Semites, pp. 343 sqq., especially p. 347, note 1, for
references to examples near the time of this treatise.
[140] Reading eidoleiois conj. Marr.
[141] i.e. among the licentious worshippers the lifeless image is the
only one free from vice, although the worshippers credit him with
divine attributes, and therefore, according to their superstition, with
a licentious life.
__________________________________________________________________
S:26. The moral corruptions of Paganism all admittedly originated with
the gods.
Women, for example, used to sit out in old days in the temples of
Phoenicia, consecrating to the gods there the hire of their bodies,
thinking they propitiated their goddess by fornication, and that they
would procure her favour by this. While men, denying their nature, and
no longer wishing to be males, put on the guise of women, under the
idea that they are thus gratifying and honouring the Mother of their
so-called gods. But all live along with the basest, and vie with the
worst among themselves, and as Paul said, the holy minister of Christ
[142] : "For their women changed the natural use into that which is
against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of
the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men
working unseemliness." 2. But acting in this and in like ways, they
admit and prove that the life of their so-called gods was of the same
kind. For from Zeus they have learned corruption of youth and adultery,
from Aphrodite fornication, from Rhea licentiousness, from Ares
murders, and from other gods other like things, which the laws punish
and from which every sober man turns away. Does it then remain fit to
consider them gods who do such things, instead of reckoning them, for
the licentiousness of their ways, more irrational than the brutes? Is
it fit to consider their worshippers human beings, instead of pitying
them as more irrational than the brutes, and more soul-less than
inanimate things? For had they considered the intellectual part of
their soul they would not have plunged headlong into these things, nor
have denied the true God, the Father of Christ.
__________________________________________________________________
[142] Rom. i. 26.
__________________________________________________________________
S:27. The refutation of popular Paganism being taken as conclusive, we
come to the higher form of nature-worship. How Nature witnesses to God
by the mutual dependence of all her parts, which forbid us to think of
any one of them as the supreme God. This shewn at length.
But perhaps those who have advanced beyond these things, and who stand
in awe of Creation, being put to shame by these exposures of
abominations, will join in repudiating what is readily condemned and
refuted on all hands, but will think that they have a well-grounded and
unanswerable opinion, namely, the worship of the universe and of the
parts of the universe. 2. For they will boast that they worship and
serve, not mere stocks and stones and forms of men and irrational birds
and creeping things and beasts, but the sun and moon and all the
heavenly universe, and the earth again, and the entire realm of water:
and they will say that none can shew that these at any rate are not of
divine nature, since it is evident to all, that they lack neither life
nor reason, but transcend even the nature of mankind, inasmuch as the
one inhabit the heavens, the other the earth. 3. It is worth while then
to look into and examine these points also; for here, too, our argument
will find that its proof against them holds true. But before we look,
or begin our demonstration, it suffices that Creation almost raises its
voice against them, and points to God as its Maker and Artificer, Who
reigns over Creation and over all things, even the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ; Whom the would-be philosophers turn from to worship and
deify the Creation which proceeded from Him, which yet itself worships
and confesses the Lord Whom they deny on its account. 4. For if men are
thus awestruck at the parts of Creation and think that they are gods,
they might well be rebuked by the mutual dependence of those parts;
which moreover makes known, and witnesses to, the Father of the Word,
Who is the Lord and Maker of these parts also, by the unbroken law of
their obedience to Him, as the divine law also says: "The heavens
declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth His handiwork [143]
." 5. But the proof of all this is not obscure, but is clear enough in
all conscience to those the eyes of whose understanding are not wholly
disabled. For if a man take the parts of Creation separately, and
consider each by itself,--as for example the sun by itself alone, and
the moon apart, and again earth and air, and heat and cold, and the
essence of wet and of dry, separating them from their mutual
conjunction,--he will certainly find that not one is sufficient for
itself but all are in need of one another's assistance, and subsist by
their mutual help. For the Sun is carried round along with, and is
contained in, the whole heaven, and can never go beyond his own orbit,
while the moon and other stars testify to the assistance given them by
the Sun: while the earth again evidently does not yield her crops
without rains, which in their turn would not descend to earth without
the assistance of the clouds; but not even would the clouds ever appear
of themselves and subsist, without the air. And the air is warmed by
the upper air, but illuminated and made bright by the sun, not by
itself. 6. And wells, again, and rivers will never exist without the
earth; but the earth is not supported upon itself, but is set upon the
realm of the waters, while this again is kept in its place, being bound
fast at the centre of the universe. And the sea, and the great ocean
that flows outside round the whole earth, is moved and borne by winds
wherever the force of the winds dashes it. And the winds in their turn
originate, not in themselves, but according to those who have written
on the subject, in the air, from the burning heat and high temperature
of the upper as compared with the lower air, and blow everywhere
through the latter. 7. For as to the four elements of which the nature
of bodies is composed, heat, that is, and cold, wet and dry, who is so
perverted in his understanding as not to know that these things exist
indeed in combination, but if separated and taken alone they tend to
destroy even one another according to the prevailing power of the more
abundant element? For heat is destroyed by cold if it be present in
greater quantity, and cold again is put away by the power of heat, and
what is dry, again, is moistened by wet, and the latter dried by the
former.
__________________________________________________________________
[143] Ps. xix. 1.
__________________________________________________________________
S:28. But neither can the cosmic organism be God. For that would make
God consist of dissimilar parts, and subject Him to possible
dissolution.
How then can these things be gods, seeing that they need one another's
assistance? Or how is it proper to ask anything of them when they too
ask help for themselves one from another? For if it is an admitted
truth about God that He stands in need of nothing, but is
self-sufficient and self-contained, and that in Him all things have
their being, and that He ministers to all rather than they to Him, how
is it right to proclaim as gods the sun and moon and other parts of
creation, which are of no such kind, but which even stand in need of
one another's help? 2. But, perhaps, if divided and taken by
themselves, our opponents themselves will admit that they are
dependent, the demonstration being an ocular one. But they will combine
all together, as constituting a single body, and will say that the
whole is God. For the whole once put together, they will no longer need
external help, but the whole will be sufficient for itself and
independent in all respects; so at least the would-be philosophers will
tell us, only to be refuted here once more. 3. Now this argument, not
one whit less than those previously dealt with, will demonstrate their
impiety coupled with great ignorance. For if the combination of the
parts makes up the whole, and the whole is combined out of the parts,
then the whole consists of the parts, and each of them is a portion of
the whole. But this is very far removed from the conception of God. For
God is a whole and not a number of parts, and does not consist of
diverse elements, but is Himself the Maker of the system of the
universe. For see what impiety they utter against the Deity when they
say this. For if He consists of parts, certainly it will follow that He
is unlike Himself, and made up of unlike parts. For if He is sun, He is
not moon, and if He is moon, He is not earth, and if He is earth, He
cannot be sea: and so on, taking the parts one by one, one may discover
the absurdity of this theory of theirs. 4. But the following point,
drawn from the observation of our human body, is enough to refute them.
For just as the eye is not the sense of hearing, nor is the latter a
hand: nor is the belly the breast, nor again is the neck a foot, but
each of these has its own function, and a single body is composed of
these distinct parts,--having its parts combined for use, but destined
to be divided in course of time when nature, that brought them
together, shall divide them at the will of God, Who so ordered
it;--thus (but may He that is above pardon the argument [144] ), if
they combine the parts of creation into one body and proclaim it God,
it follows, firstly, that He is unlike Himself, as shewn above;
secondly, that He is destined to be divided again, in accordance with
the natural tendency of the parts to separation.
__________________________________________________________________
[144] Cf. Orat. i. 25, note 2.
__________________________________________________________________
S:29. The balance of powers in Nature shews that it is not God, either
collectively, or in parts.
And in yet another way one may refute their godlessness by the light of
truth. For if God is incorporeal and invisible and intangible by
nature, how do they imagine God to be a body, and worship with divine
honour things which we both see with our eyes and touch with our hands?
2. And again, if what is said of God hold true, namely, that He is
almighty, and that while nothing has power over Him, He has power and
rule over all, how can they who deify creation fail to see that it does
not satisfy this definition of God? For when the sun is under the
earth, the earth's shadow makes his light invisible, while by day the
sun hides the moon by the brilliancy of his light. And hail ofttimes
injures the fruits of the earth, while fire is put out if an overflow
of water take place. And spring makes winter give place, while summer
will not suffer spring to outstay its proper limits, and it in its turn
is forbidden by autumn to outstep its own season. 3. If then they were
gods, they ought not to be defeated and obscured by one another, but
always to co-exist, and to discharge their respective functions
simultaneously. Both by night and by day the sun and the moon and the
rest of the band of stars ought to shine equally together, and give
their light to all, so that all things might be illumined by them.
Spring and summer and autumn and winter ought to go on without
alteration, and together. The sea ought to mingle with the springs, and
furnish their drink to man in common. Calms and windy blasts ought to
take place at the same time. Fire and water together ought to furnish
the same service to man. For no one would take any hurt from them, if
they are gods, as our opponents say, and do nothing for hurt, but
rather all things for good. 4. But if none of these things are
possible, because of their mutual incompatibility, how does it remain
possible to give to these things, mutually incompatible and at strife,
and unable to combine, the name of gods, or to worship them with the
honours due to God? How could things naturally discordant give peace to
others for their prayers, and become to them authors of concord? It is
not then likely that the sun or the moon, or any other part of
creation, still less statues in stone, gold, or other material, or the
Zeus, Apollo, and the rest, who are the subject of the poet's fables,
are true gods: this our argument has shewn. But some of these are parts
of creation, others have no life, others have been mere mortal men.
Therefore their worship and deification is no part of religion, but the
bringing in of godlessness and of all impiety, and a sign of a wide
departure from the knowledge of the one true God, namely the Father of
Christ. 5. Since then this is thus proved, and the idolatry of the
Greeks is shewn to be full of all ungodliness, and that its
introduction has been not for the good, but for the ruin, of human
life;--come now, as our argument promised at the outset, let us, after
having confuted error, travel the way of truth, and behold the Leader
and Artificer of the Universe, the Word of the Father, in order that
through Him we may apprehend the Father, and that the Greeks may know
how far they have separated themselves from the truth.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Part II.
S:30. The soul of man, being intellectual, can know God of itself, if
it be true to its own nature.
The tenets we have been speaking of have been proved to be nothing more
than a false guide for life; but the way of truth will aim at reaching
the real and true God. But for its knowledge and accurate
comprehension, there is need of none other save of ourselves. Neither
as God Himself is above all, is the road to Him afar off or outside
ourselves, but it is in us and it is possible to find it from
ourselves, in the first instance, as Moses also taught, when he said
[145] : "The word" of faith "is within thy heart." Which very thing the
Saviour declared and confirmed, when He said: "The kingdom of God is
within you [146] ." 2. For having in ourselves faith, and the kingdom
of God, we shall be able quickly to see and perceive the King of the
Universe, the saving Word of the Father. And let not the Greeks, who
worship idols, make excuses, nor let any one else simply deceive
himself, professing to have no such road and therefore finding a
pretext for his godlessness. 3. For we all have set foot upon it, and
have it, even if not all are willing to travel by it, but rather to
swerve from it and go wrong, because of the pleasures of life which
attract them from without. And if one were to ask, what road is this? I
say that it is the soul of each one of us, and the intelligence which
resides there. For by it alone can God be contemplated and perceived.
4. Unless, as they have denied God, the impious men will repudiate
having a soul; which indeed is more plausible than the rest of what
they say, for it is unlike men possessed of an intellect to deny God,
its Maker and Artificer. It is necessary then, for the sake of the
simple, to shew briefly that each one of mankind has a soul, and that
soul rational; especially as certain of the sectaries deny this also,
thinking that man is nothing more than the visible form of the body.
This point once proved, they will be furnished in their own persons
with a clearer proof against the idols.
__________________________________________________________________
[145] Deut. xxx. 14.
[146] Luc. xvii. 12.
__________________________________________________________________
S:31. Proof of the existence of the rational soul. (1) Difference of
man from the brutes. (2) Man's power of objective thought. Thought is
to sense as the musician to his instrument. The phenomena of dreams
bear this out.
Firstly, then, the rational nature of the soul is strongly confirmed by
its difference from irrational creatures. For this is why common use
gives them that name, because, namely, the race of mankind is rational.
2. Secondly, it is no ordinary proof, that man alone thinks of things
external to himself, and reasons about things not actually present, and
exercises reflection, and chooses by judgment the better of alternative
reasonings. For the irrational animals see only what is present, and
are impelled solely by what meets their eye, even if the consequences
to them are injurious, while man is not impelled toward what he sees
merely, but judges by thought what he sees with his eyes. Often for
example his impulses are mastered by reasoning; and his reasoning is
subject to after-reflection. And every one, if he be a friend of truth,
perceives that the intelligence of mankind is distinct from the bodily
senses. 3. Hence, because it is distinct, it acts as judge of the
senses, and while they apprehend their objects, the intelligence
distinguishes, recollects, and shews them what is best. For the sole
function of the eye is to see, of the ears to hear, of the mouth to
taste, of the nostrils to apprehend smells, and of the hands to touch.
But what one ought to see and hear, what one ought to touch, taste and
smell, is a question beyond the senses, and belonging to the soul and
to the intelligence which resides in it. Why, the hand is able to take
hold of a sword-blade, and the mouth to taste poison, but neither knows
that these are injurious, unless the intellect decide. 4. And the case,
to look at it by aid of a simile, is like that of a well-fashioned lyre
in the hands of a skilled musician. For as the strings of the lyre have
each its proper note, high, low, or intermediate, sharp or otherwise,
yet their scale is indistinguishable and their time not to be
recognized, without the artist. For then only is the scale manifest and
the time right, when he that is holding the lyre strikes the strings
and touches each in tune. In like manner, the senses being disposed in
the body like a lyre, when the skilled intelligence presides over them,
then too the soul distinguishes and knows what it is doing and how it
is acting. 5. But this alone is peculiar to mankind, and this is what
is rational in the soul of mankind, by means of which it differs from
the brutes, and shews that it is truly distinct from what is to be seen
in the body. Often, for example, when the body is lying on the earth,
man imagines and contemplates what is in the heavens. Often when the
body is quiet [147] , and at rest and asleep, man moves inwardly, and
beholds what is outside himself, travelling to other countries, walking
about, meeting his acquaintances, and often by these means divining and
forecasting the actions of the day. But to what can this be due save to
the rational soul, in which man thinks of and perceives things beyond
himself?
__________________________________________________________________
[147] Cf. Vit. Ant. 34.
__________________________________________________________________
S:32. (3) The body cannot originate such phenomena; and in fact the
action of the rational soul is seen in its over-ruling the instincts of
the bodily organs.
We add a further point to complete our demonstration for the benefit of
those [148] who shamelessly take refuge in denial of reason. How is it,
that whereas the body is mortal by nature, man reasons on the things of
immortality, and often, where virtue demands it, courts death? Or how,
since the body lasts but for a time, does man imagine of things
eternal, so as to despise what lies before him, and desire what is
beyond? The body could not have spontaneously such thoughts about
itself, nor could it think upon what is external to itself. For it is
mortal and lasts but for a time. And it follows that that which thinks
what is opposed to the body and against its nature must be distinct in
kind. What then can this be, save a rational and immortal soul? For it
introduces the echo of higher things, not outside, but within the body,
as the musician does in his lyre. 2. Or how again, the eye being
naturally constituted to see and the ear to hear, do they turn from
some objects and choose others? For who is it that turns away the eye
from seeing? Or who shuts off the ear from hearing, its natural
function? Or who often hinders the palate, to which it is natural to
taste things, from its natural impulse? Or who withholds the hand from
its natural activity of touching something, or turns aside the sense of
smell from its normal exercise [149] ? Who is it that thus acts against
the natural instincts of the body? Or how does the body, turned from
its natural course, turn to the counsels of another and suffer itself
to be guided at the beck of that other? Why, these things prove simply
this, that the rational soul presides over the body. 3. For the body is
not even constituted to drive itself, but it is carried at the will of
another, just as a horse does not yoke himself, but is driven by his
master. Hence laws for human beings to practise what is good and to
abstain from evil-doing, while to the brutes evil remains unthought of
and undiscerned, because they lie outside rationality and the process
of understanding. I think then that the existence of a rational soul in
man is proved by what we have said.
__________________________________________________________________
[148] Supra xxx.
[149] Compare the somewhat analogous argument in Butler, Serm. ii.
__________________________________________________________________
S:33. The soul immortal. Proved by (1) its being distinct from the
body, (2) its being the source of motion, (3) its power to go beyond
the body in imagination and thought.
But that the soul is made immortal is a further point in the Church's
teaching which you must know, to show how the idols are to be
overthrown. But we shall more directly arrive at a knowledge of this
from what we know of the body, and from the difference between the body
and the soul. For if our argument has proved it to be distinct from the
body, while the body is by nature mortal, it follows that the soul is
immortal, because it is not like the body. 2. And again, if as we have
shewn, the soul moves the body and is not moved by other things, it
follows that the movement of the soul is spontaneous, and that this
spontaneous movement goes on after the body is laid aside in the earth.
If then the soul were moved by the body, it would follow that the
severance of its motor would involve its death. But if the soul moves
the body also, it follows all the more that it moves itself. But if
moved by itself [150] , it follows that it outlives the body. 3. For
the movement of the soul is the same thing as its life, just as, of
course, we call the body alive when it moves, and say that its death
takes place when it ceases moving. But this can be made clearer once
for all from the action of the soul in the body. For if even when
united and coupled with the body it is not shut in or commensurate with
the small dimensions of the body, but often [151] , when the body lies
in bed, not moving, but in death-like sleep, the soul keeps awake by
virtue of its own power, and transcends the natural power of the body,
and as though travelling away from the body while remaining in it,
imagines and beholds things above the earth, and often even holds
converse with the saints and angels who are above earthly and bodily
existence, and approaches them in the confidence of the purity of its
intelligence; shall it not all the more, when separated from the body
at the time appointed by God Who coupled them together, have its
knowledge of immortality more clear? For if even when coupled with the
body it lived a life outside the body, much more shall its life
continue after the death of the body, and live without ceasing by
reason of God Who made it thus by His own Word, our Lord Jesus Christ.
4. For this is the reason why the soul thinks of and bears in mind
things immortal and eternal, namely, because it is itself immortal. And
just as, the body being mortal, its senses also have mortal things as
their objects, so, since the soul contemplates and beholds immortal
things, it follows that it is immortal and lives for ever. For ideas
and thoughts about immortality never desert the soul, but abide in it,
and are as it were the fuel in it which ensures its immortality. This
then is why the soul has the capacity for beholding God, and is its own
way thereto, receiving not from without but from herself the knowledge
and apprehension of the Word of God.
__________________________________________________________________
[150] Cf. Plato Phaedr. 245 C-E., Legg. 896, A, B. The former passage
is more likely to be referred to here as it is, like the text, an
argument for immortality. Athan. has also referred to Phaedrus above,
S:5. (Against Gwatkin, Studies, p. 101.)
[151] Cp. xxxi. 5, and ref.
__________________________________________________________________
S:34. The soul, then, if only it get rid of the stains of sin is able
to know God directly, its own rational nature imaging back the Word of
God, after whose image it was created. But even if it cannot pierce the
cloud which sin draws over its vision, it is confronted by the witness
of creation to God.
We repeat then what we said before, that just as men denied God, and
worship things without soul, so also in thinking they have not a
rational soul, they receive at once the punishment of their folly,
namely, to be reckoned among irrational creatures: and so, since as
though from lack of a soul of their own they superstitiously worship
soulless gods, they are worthy of pity and guidance. 2. But if they
claim to have a soul, and pride themselves on the rational principle,
and that rightly, why do they, as though they had no soul, venture to
go against reason, and think not as they ought, but make themselves out
higher even than the Deity? For having a soul that is immortal and
invisible to them, they make a likeness of God in things visible and
mortal. Or why, in like manner as they have departed from God, do they
not betake themselves to Him again? For they are able, as they turned
away their understanding from God, and feigned as gods things that were
not, in like manner to ascend with the intelligence of their soul, and
turn back to God again. 3. But turn back they can, if they lay aside
the filth of all lust which they have put on, and wash it away
persistently, until they have got rid of all the foreign matter that
has affected their soul, and can shew it in its simplicity as it was
made, that so they may be able by it to behold the Word of the Father
after Whose likeness they were originally made. For the soul is made
after the image and likeness of God, as divine Scripture also shews,
when it says in the person of God [152] : "Let us make man after our
Image and likeness." Whence also when it gets rid of all the filth of
sin which covers it and retains only the likeness of the Image in its
purity, then surely this latter being thoroughly brightened, the soul
beholds as in a mirror the Image of the Father, even the Word, and by
His means reaches the idea of the Father, Whose Image the Saviour is.
4. Or, if the soul's own teaching is insufficient, by reason of the
external things which cloud its intelligence, and prevent its seeing
what is higher, yet it is further possible to attain to the knowledge
of God from the things which are seen, since Creation, as though in
written characters, declares in a loud voice, by its order and harmony,
its own Lord and Creator.
__________________________________________________________________
[152] Gen. i. 26.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Part III.
S:35. Creation a revelation of God; especially in the order and harmony
pervading the whole.
For God, being good and loving to mankind, and caring for the souls
made by Him,--since He is by nature invisible and incomprehensible,
having His being beyond all created existence [153] , for which reason
the race of mankind was likely to miss the way to the knowledge of Him,
since they are made out of nothing while He is unmade,--for this cause
God by His own Word gave the Universe the Order it has, in order that
since He is by nature invisible, men might be enabled to know Him at
any rate by His works [154] . For often the artist even when not seen
is known by his works. 2. And as they tell of Phidias the Sculptor that
his works of art by their symmetry and by the proportion of their parts
betray Phidias to those who see them although he is not there, so by
the order of the Universe one ought to perceive God its maker and
artificer, even though He be not seen with the bodily eyes. For God did
not take His stand upon His invisible nature (let none plead that as an
excuse) and leave Himself utterly unknown to men; but as I said above,
He so ordered Creation that although He is by nature invisible He may
yet be known by His works. 3. And I say this not on my own authority,
but on the strength of what I learned from men who have spoken of God,
among them Paul, who thus writes to the Romans [155] : "for the
invisible things of Him since the creation of the world are clearly
seen, being understood by the things that are made;" while to the
Lycaonians he speaks out and says [156] : "We also are men of like
passions with you, and bring you good tidings, to turn from these vain
things unto a Living God, Who made the heaven and the earth and the
sea, and all that in them is, Who in the generations gone by suffered
all nations to walk in their own ways. And yet He left not Himself
without witness, in that He did good, and gave you [157] from heaven
rains and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and
gladness." 4. For who that sees the circle of heaven and the course of
the sun and the moon, and the positions and movements of the other
stars, as they take place in opposite and different directions, while
yet in their difference all with one accord observe a consistent order,
can resist the conclusion that these are not ordered by themselves, but
have a maker distinct from themselves who orders them? or who that sees
the sun rising by day and the moon shining by night, and waning and
waxing without variation exactly according to the same number of days,
and some of the stars running their courses and with orbits various and
manifold, while others move [158] without wandering, can fail to
perceive that they certainly have a creator to guide them?
__________________________________________________________________
[153] Cf. below, 40. 2.
[154] Cf. Orat. ii. 32.
[155] Rom. i. 20.
[156] Acts xiv. 15.
[157] humin and humon below are read by several mss., and are probably
correct as in the original passage.
[158] The `fixed' stars as distinct from the planets. For the argument,
cf. Plato, Legg. 966 E.
__________________________________________________________________
S:36. This the more striking, if we consider the opposing forces out of
which this order is produced.
Who that sees things of opposite nature combined, and in concordant
harmony, as for example fire mingled with cold, and dry with wet, and
that not in mutual conflict, but making up a single body, as it were
homogeneous, can resist the inference that there is One external to
these things that has united them? Who that sees winter giving place to
spring and spring to summer and summer to autumn, and that these things
contrary by nature (for the one chills, the other burns, the one
nourishes, the other destroys), yet all make up a balanced result
beneficial to mankind,--can fail to perceive that there is One higher
than they, Who balances and guides them all, even if he see Him not? 2.
Who that sees the clouds supported in air, and the weight of the waters
bound up in the clouds, can but perceive Him that binds them up and has
ordered these things so? Or who that sees the earth, heaviest of all
things by nature, fixed upon the waters, and remaining unmoved upon
what is by nature mobile, will fail to understand that there is One
that has made and ordered it, even God? Who that sees the earth
bringing forth fruits in due season, and the rains from heaven, and the
flow of rivers, and springing up of wells, and the birth of animals
from unlike parents, and that these things take place not at all times
but at determinate seasons,--and in general, among things mutually
unlike and contrary, the balanced and uniform order to which they
conform,--can resist the inference that there is one Power which orders
and administers them, ordaining things well as it thinks fit? 4. For
left to themselves they could not subsist or ever be able to appear, on
account of their mutual contrariety of nature. For water is by nature
heavy, and tends to flow downwards, while the clouds are light and
belong to the class of things which tend to soar and mount upwards. And
yet we see water, heavy as it is, borne aloft in the clouds. And again,
earth is very heavy, while water on the other hand is relatively light;
and yet the heavier is supported upon the lighter, and the earth does
not sink, but remains immoveable. And male and female are not the same,
while yet they unite in one, and the result is the generation from both
of an animal like them. And to cut the matter short, cold is opposite
to heat, and wet fights with dry, and yet they come together and are
not at variance, but they agree, and produce as their result a single
body, and the birth of everything.
__________________________________________________________________
S:37. The same subject continued.
Things then of conflicting and opposite nature would not have
reconciled themselves, were there not One higher and Lord over them to
unite them, to Whom the elements themselves yield obedience as slaves
that obey a master. And instead of each having regard to its own nature
and fighting with its neighbour, they recognise the Lord Who has united
them, and are at concord one with another, being by nature opposed, but
at amity by the will of Him that guides them. 2. For if their mingling
into one were not due to a higher authority, how could the heavy mingle
and combine with the light, the wet with the dry, the round with the
straight, fire with cold, or sea with earth, or the sun with the moon,
or the stars with the heaven, and the air with the clouds, the nature
of each being dissimilar to that of the other? For there would be great
strife among them, the one burning, the other giving cold; the heavy
dragging downwards, the light in the contrary direction and upwards;
the sun giving light while the air diffused darkness: yes, even the
stars would have been at discord with one another, since some have
their position above, others beneath, and night would have refused to
make way for day, but would have persisted in remaining to fight and
strive against it. 3. But if this were so, we should consequently see
not an ordered universe, but disorder, not arrangement but anarchy, not
a system, but everything out of system, not proportion but
disproportion. For in the general strife and conflict either all things
would be destroyed, or the prevailing principle alone would appear. And
even the latter would shew the disorder of the whole, for left alone,
and deprived of the help of the others, it would throw the whole out of
gear, just as, if a single hand and foot were left alone, that would
not preserve the body in its integrity. 4. For what sort of an universe
would it be, if only the sun appeared, or only the moon went her
course, or there were only night, or always day? Or what sort of
harmony would it be, again, if the heaven existed alone without the
stars, or the stars without the heaven? Or what benefit would there be
if there were only sea, or if the earth were there alone without waters
and without the other parts of creation? Or how could man, or any
animal, have appeared upon earth, if the elements were mutually at
strife, or if there were one that prevailed, and that one insufficient
for the composition of bodies. For nothing in the world could have been
composed of heat, or cold, or wet, or dry, alone, but all would have
been without arrangement or combination. But not even the one element
which appeared to prevail would have been able to subsist without the
assistance of the rest: for that is how each subsists now.
__________________________________________________________________
S:38. The Unity of God shewn by the Harmony of the order of Nature.
Since then, there is everywhere not disorder but order, proportion and
not disproportion, not disarray but arrangement, and that in an order
perfectly harmonious, we needs must infer and be led to perceive the
Master that put together and compacted all things, and produced harmony
in them. For though He be not seen with the eyes, yet from the order
and harmony of things contrary it is possible to perceive their Ruler,
Arranger, and King. 2. For in like manner as if we saw a city,
consisting of many and diverse people, great and small, rich and poor,
old and young, male and female, in an orderly condition, and its
inhabitants, while different from one another, yet at unity among
themselves, and not the rich set against the poor, the great against
the small, nor the young against the old, but all at peace in the
enjoyment of equal rights,--if we saw this, the inference surely
follows that the presence of a ruler enforces concord, even if we do
not see him; (for disorder is a sign of absence of rule, while order
shews the governing authority: for when we see the mutual harmony of
the members in the body, that the eye does not strive with the hearing,
nor is the hand at variance with the foot, but that each accomplishes
its service without variance, we perceive from this that certainly
there is a soul in the body that governs these members, though we see
it not); so in the order and harmony of the Universe, we needs must
perceive God the governor of it all, and that He is one and not many.
3. So then this order of its arrangement, and the concordant harmony of
all things, shews that the Word, its Ruler and Governor, is not many,
but One. For if there were more than one Ruler of Creation, such an
universal order would not be maintained, but all things would fall into
confusion because of their plurality, each one biasing the whole to his
own will, and striving with the other. For just as we said that
polytheism was atheism, so it follows that the rule of more than one is
the rule of none. For each one would cancel the rule of the other, and
none would appear ruler, but there would be anarchy everywhere. But
where no ruler is, there disorder follows of course. 4. And conversely,
the single order and concord of the many and diverse shews that the
ruler too is one. For just as though one were to hear from a distance a
lyre, composed of many diverse strings, and marvel at the concord of
its symphony, in that its sound is composed neither of low notes
exclusively, nor high nor intermediate only, but all combine their
sounds in equal balance,--and would not fail to perceive from this that
the lyre was not playing itself, nor even being struck by more persons
than one, but that there was one musician, even if he did not see him,
who by his skill combined the sound of each string into the tuneful
symphony; so, the order of the whole universe being perfectly
harmonious, and there being no strife of the higher against the lower
or the lower against the higher, and all things making up one order, it
is consistent to think that the Ruler and King of all Creation is one
and not many, Who by His own light illumines and gives movement to all.
__________________________________________________________________
S:39. Impossibility of a plurality of Gods.
For we must not think there is more than one ruler and maker of
Creation: but it belongs to correct and true religion to believe that
its Artificer is one, while Creation herself clearly points to this.
For the fact that there is one Universe only and not more is a
conclusive proof that its Maker is one. For if there were a plurality
of gods, there would necessarily be also more universes than one. For
neither were it reasonable for more than one God to make a single
universe, nor for the one universe to be made by more than one, because
of the absurdities which would result from this. 2. Firstly, if the one
universe were made by a plurality of gods, that would mean weakness on
the part of those who made it, because many contributed to a single
result; which would be a strong proof of the imperfect creative skill
of each. For if one were sufficient, the many would not supplement each
other's deficiency. But to say that there is any deficiency in God is
not only impious, but even beyond all sacrilege. For even among men one
would not call a workman perfect if he were unable to finish his work,
a single piece, by himself and without the aid of several others. 3.
But if, although each one was able to accomplish the whole, yet all
worked at it in order to claim a share in the result, we have the
laughable conclusion that each worked for reputation, lest he should be
suspected of inability. But, once more, it is most grotesque to ascribe
vainglory to gods. 4. Again, if each one were sufficient for the
creation of the whole, what need of more than one, one being
self-sufficient for the universe? Moreover it would be evidently
impious and grotesque, to make the thing created one, while the
creators were many and different, it being a maxim of science [159]
that what is one and complete is higher than things that are diverse.
5. And this you must know, that if the universe had been made by a
plurality of gods, its movements would be diverse and inconsistent. For
having regard to each one of its makers, its movements would be
correspondingly different. But such difference again, as was said
before, would involve disarray and general disorder; for not even a
ship will sail aright if she be steered by many, unless one pilot hold
the tiller [160] , nor will a lyre struck by many produce a tuneful
sound, unless there be one artist who strikes it. 6. Creation, then,
being one, and the Universe one, and its order one, we must perceive
that its King and Artificer also is one. For this is why the Artificer
Himself made the whole universe one, lest by the coexistence of more
than one a plurality of makers should be supposed; but that as the work
is one, its Maker also may be believed to be One. Nor does it follow
from the unity of the Maker that the Universe must be one, for God
might have made others as well. But because the Universe that has been
made is one, it is necessary to believe that its Maker also is one.
__________________________________________________________________
[159] Or, perhaps, "innate, self-evident maxim" (logos phusikos).
[160] lit. "the steering-paddles."
__________________________________________________________________
S:40. The rationality and order of the Universe proves that it is the
work of the Reason or Word of God.
Who then might this Maker be? for this is a point most necessary to
make plain, lest, from ignorance with regard to him, a man should
suppose the wrong maker, and fall once more into the same old godless
error, but I think no one is really in doubt about it. For if our
argument has proved that the gods of the poets are no gods, and has
convicted of error those that deify creation, and in general has shewn
that the idolatry of the heathen is godlessness and impiety, it
strictly follows from the elimination of these that the true religion
is with us, and that the God we worship and preach is the only true
One, Who is Lord of Creation and Maker of all existence. 2. Who then is
this, save the Father of Christ, most holy and above all created
existence [161] , Who like an excellent pilot, by His own Wisdom and
His own Word, our Lord and Saviour Christ, steers and preserves and
orders all things, and does as seems to Him best? But that is best
which has been done, and which we see taking place, since that is what
He wills; and this a man can hardly refuse to believe. 3. For if the
movement of creation were irrational, and the universe were borne along
without plan, a man might fairly disbelieve what we say. But if it
subsist in reason and wisdom and skill, and is perfectly ordered
throughout, it follows that He that is over it and has ordered it is
none other than the [reason or] Word of God. 4. But by Word I mean, not
that which is involved and inherent in all things created, which some
are wont to call the seminal [162] principle, which is without soul and
has no power of reason or thought, but only works by external art,
according to the skill of him that applies it,--nor such a word as
belongs to rational beings and which consists of syllables, and has the
air as its vehicle of expression,--but I mean the living and powerful
Word of the good God, the God of the Universe, the very Word which is
God [163] , Who while different from things that are made, and from all
Creation, is the One own Word of the good Father, Who by His own
providence ordered and illumines this Universe. 5. For being the good
Word of the Good Father He produced the order of all things, combining
one with another things contrary, and reducing them to one harmonious
order. He being the Power of God and Wisdom of God causes the heaven to
revolve, and has suspended the earth, and made it fast, though resting
upon nothing, by His own nod [164] . Illumined by Him, the sun gives
light to the world, and the moon has her measured period of shining. By
reason of Him the water is suspended in the clouds; the rains shower
upon the earth, and the sea is kept within bounds, while the earth
bears grasses and is clothed with all manner of plants. 6. And if a man
were incredulously to ask, as regards what we are saying, if there be a
Word of God at all [165] , such an one would indeed be mad to doubt
concerning the Word of God, but yet demonstration is possible from what
is seen, because all things subsist by the Word and Wisdom of God, nor
would any created thing have had a fixed existence had it not been made
by reason, and that reason the Word of God, as we have said.
__________________________________________________________________
[161] Cf. above 2. 2 and note, also 35. 1.
[162] spermatikos
[163] Joh. i. 1.
[164] neuma, i.e. act of will, or fiat.
[165] De Incarn. 41. 3.
__________________________________________________________________
S:41. The Presence of the Word in nature necessary, not only for its
original Creation, but also for its permanence.
But though He is Word, He is not, as we said, after the likeness of
human words, composed of syllables; but He is the unchanging Image of
His own Father. For men, composed of parts and made out of nothing,
have their discourse composite and divisible. But God possesses true
existence and is not composite, wherefore His Word also has true
Existence and is not composite, but is the one and only-begotten God
[166] , Who proceeds in His goodness from the Father as from a good
Fountain, and orders all things and holds them together. 2. But the
reason why the Word, the Word of God, has united Himself [167] with
created things is truly wonderful, and teaches us that the present
order of things is none otherwise than is fitting. For the nature of
created things, inasmuch as it is brought into being out of nothing, is
of a fleeting sort, and weak and mortal, if composed of itself only.
But the God of all is good and exceeding noble by nature,--and
therefore is kind. For one that is good can grudge nothing [168] : for
which reason he does not grudge even existence, but desires all to
exist, as objects for His loving-kindness. 3. Seeing then all created
nature, as far as its own laws were concerned, to be fleeting and
subject to dissolution, lest it should come to this and lest the
Universe should be broken up again into nothingness, for this cause He
made all things by His own eternal Word, and gave substantive existence
to Creation, and moreover did not leave it to be tossed in a tempest in
the course of its own nature, lest it should run the risk of once more
dropping out of existence [169] ; but, because He is good He guides and
settles the whole Creation by His own Word, Who is Himself also God,
that by the governance and providence and ordering action of the Word,
Creation may have light, and be enabled to abide alway securely. For it
partakes of the Word Who derives true existence from the Father, and is
helped by Him so as to exist, lest that should come to it which would
have come but for the maintenance of it by the Word,--namely,
dissolution,--"for He is the Image of the invisible God, the first-born
of all Creation, for through Him and in Him all things consist, things
visible and things invisible, and He is the Head of the Church," as the
ministers of truth teach in their holy writings [170] .
__________________________________________________________________
[166] Joh. i. 18, R.V. Marg.
[167] epibebeken, see for the sense Incarn. 43. 4, &c.
[168] Plato Timaeus 29 E, quoted also de Incarn. 3. 3. This explanation
of Divine Creation is also adopted by Philo de Migratione Abrah. 32
(and see Drummond's Philo, vol. 2, pp. 56, sqq.).
[169] Plato Politic. (see de Incarn. 43. 7, note).
[170] Col. i. 15-18
__________________________________________________________________
S:42. This function of the Word described at length.
The holy Word of the Father, then, almighty and all-perfect, uniting
with the universe and having everywhere unfolded His own powers, and
having illumined all, both things seen and things invisible, holds them
together and binds them to Himself, having left nothing void of His own
power, but on the contrary quickening and sustaining all things
everywhere, each severally and all collectively; while He mingles in
one the principles of all sensible existence, heat namely and cold and
wet and dry, and causes them not to conflict, but to make up one
concordant harmony. 2. By reason of Him and His power, fire does not
fight with cold nor wet with dry, but principles mutually opposed, as
if friendly and brotherly combine together, and give life to the things
we see, and form the principles by which bodies exist. Obeying Him,
even God the Word, things on earth have life and things in the heaven
have their order. By reason of Him all the sea, and the great ocean,
move within their proper bounds, while, as we said above, the dry land
grows grasses and is clothed with all manner of diverse plants. And,
not to spend time in the enumeration of particulars, where the truth is
obvious, there is nothing that is and takes place but has been made and
stands by Him and through Him, as also the Divine [171] says, "In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God; all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything
made." 3. For just as though some musician, having tuned a lyre, and by
his art adjusted the high notes to the low, and the intermediate notes
to the rest, were to produce a single tune as the result, so also the
Wisdom of God, handling the Universe as a lyre, and adjusting things in
the air to things on the earth, and things in the heaven to things in
the air, and combining parts into wholes and moving them all by His
beck and will, produces well and fittingly, as the result, the unity of
the universe and of its order, Himself remaining unmoved with the
Father while He moves all things by His organising action, as seems
good for each to His own Father. 4. For what is surprising in His
godhead is this, that by one and the same act of will He moves all
things simultaneously, and not at intervals, but all collectively, both
straight and curved, things above and beneath and intermediate, wet,
cold, warm, seen and invisible, and orders them according to their
several nature. For simultaneously at His single nod what is straight
moves as straight, what is curved also, and what is intermediate,
follows its own movement; what is warm receives warmth, what is dry
dryness, and all things according to their several nature are quickened
and organised by Him, and He produces as the result a marvellous and
truly divine harmony.
__________________________________________________________________
[171] Joh. i. 1.
__________________________________________________________________
S:43. Three similes to illustrate the Word's relation to the Universe.
And for so great a matter to be understood by an example, let what we
are describing be compared to a great chorus. As then the chorus is
composed of different people, children, women again, and old men, and
those who are still young, and, when one, namely the conductor, gives
the sign, each utters sound according to his nature and power, the man
as a man, the child as a child, the old man as an old man, and the
young man as a young man, while all make up a single harmony; 2. or as
our soul at one time moves our several senses according to the proper
function of each, so that when some one object is present all alike are
put in motion, and the eye sees, the ear hears, the hand touches, the
smell takes in odour, and the palate tastes,--and often the other parts
of the body act too, as for instance if the feet walk; 3. or, to make
our meaning plain by yet a third example, it is as though a very great
city were built, and administered under the presence of the ruler and
king who has built it; for when he is present and gives orders, and has
his eye upon everything, all obey; some busy themselves with
agriculture, others hasten for water to the aqueducts, another goes
forth to procure provisions,--one goes to senate, another enters the
assembly, the judge goes to the bench, and the magistrate to his court.
The workman likewise settles to his craft, the sailor goes down to the
sea, the carpenter to his workshop, the physician to his treatment, the
architect to his building; and while one is going to the country,
another is returning from the country, and while some walk about the
town others are going out of the town and returning to it again: but
all this is going on and is organised by the presence of the one Ruler,
and by his management: 4. in like manner then we must conceive of the
whole of Creation, even though the example be inadequate, yet with an
enlarged idea. For with the single impulse of a nod as it were of the
Word of God, all things simultaneously fall into order, and each
discharge their proper functions, and a single order is made up by them
all together.
__________________________________________________________________
S:44. The similes applied to the whole Universe, seen and unseen.
For by a nod and by the power of the Divine Word of the Father that
governs and presides over all, the heaven revolves, the stars move, the
sun shines, the moon goes her circuit, and the air receives the sun's
light and the aether his heat, and the winds blow: the mountains are
reared on high, the sea is rough with waves, and the living things in
it grow, the earth abides fixed, and bears fruit, and man is formed and
lives and dies again, and all things whatever have their life and
movement; fire burns, water cools, fountains spring forth, rivers flow,
seasons and hours come round, rains descend, clouds are filled, hail is
formed, snow and ice congeal, birds fly, creeping things go along,
water-animals swim, the sea is navigated, the earth is sown and grows
crops in due season, plants grow, and some are young, some ripening,
others in their growth become old and decay, and while some things are
vanishing others are being engendered and are coming to light. 2. But
all these things, and more, which for their number we cannot mention,
the worker of wonders and marvels, the Word of God, giving light and
life, moves and orders by His own nod, making the universe one. Nor
does He leave out of Himself even the invisible powers; for including
these also in the universe inasmuch as he is their maker also, He holds
them together and quickens them by His nod and by His providence. And
there can be no excuse for disbelieving this. 3. For as by His own
providence bodies grow and the rational soul moves, and possesses life
and thought, and this requires little proof, for we see what takes
place,--so again the same Word of God with one simple nod by His own
power moves and holds together both the visible universe and the
invisible powers, allotting to each its proper function, so that the
divine powers move in a diviner way, while visible things move as they
are seen to do. But Himself being over all, both Governor and King and
organising power, He does all for the glory and knowledge of His own
Father, so that almost by the very works that He brings to pass He
teaches us and says, "By the greatness and beauty of the creatures
proportionably the maker of them is seen [172] ."
__________________________________________________________________
[172] Wisd. xiii. 5.
__________________________________________________________________
S:45. Conclusion. Doctrine of Scripture on the subject of Part I.
For just as by looking up to the heaven and seeing its order and the
light of the stars, it is possible to infer the Word Who ordered these
things, so by beholding the Word of God, one needs must behold also God
His Father, proceeding from Whom He is rightly called His Father's
Interpreter and Messenger. 2. And this one may see from our own
experience; for if when a word proceeds from men [173] we infer that
the mind is its source, and, by thinking about the word, see with our
reason the mind which it reveals, by far greater evidence and
incomparably more, seeing the power of the Word, we receive a knowledge
also of His good Father, as the Saviour Himself says, "He that hath
seen Me hath seen the Father [174] ." But this all inspired Scripture
also teaches more plainly and with more authority, so that we in our
turn write boldly to you as we do, and you, if you refer to them, will
be able to verify what we say. 3. For an argument when confirmed by
higher authority is irresistibly proved. From the first then the divine
Word firmly taught the Jewish people about the abolition of idols when
it said [175] : "Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven image, nor the
likeness of anything that is in the heaven above or in the earth
beneath." But the cause of their abolition another writer declares
[176] , saying: "The idols of the heathen are silver and gold, the
works of men's hands: a mouth have they and will not speak, eyes have
they and will not see, ears have they and will not hear, noses have
they and will not smell, hands have they and will not handle, feet have
they and will not walk." Nor has it passed over in silence the doctrine
of creation; but, knowing well its beauty, lest any attending solely to
this beauty should worship things as if they were gods, instead of
God's works, it teaches men firmly beforehand when it says [177] : "And
do not when thou lookest up with thine eyes and seest the sun and moon
and all the host of heaven, go astray and worship them, which the Lord
thy God hath given to all nations under heaven." But He gave them, not
to be their gods, but that by their agency the Gentiles should know, as
we have said, God the Maker of them all. 4. For the people of the Jews
of old had abundant teaching, in that they had the knowledge of God not
only from the works of Creation, but also from the divine Scriptures.
And in general to draw men away from the error and irrational
imagination of idols, He saith [178] : "Thou shalt have none other gods
but Me." Not as if there were other gods does He forbid them to have
them, but lest any, turning from the true God, should begin to make
himself gods of what were not, such as those who in the poets and
writers are called gods, though they are none. And the language itself
shews that they are no Gods, when it says, "Thou shalt have none other
gods," which refers only to the future. But what is referred to the
future does not exist at the time of speaking.
__________________________________________________________________
[173] Cf. de Sent. Dionys. 23.
[174] Joh. xiv. 9.
[175] Ex. xx. 4.
[176] Ps. cxv. 4-7.
[177] Deut. iv. 19.
[178] Ex. xx. 3.
__________________________________________________________________
S:46. Doctrine of Scripture on the subject of Part 3.
Has then the divine teaching, which abolished the godlessness of the
heathen or the idols, passed over in silence, and left the race of
mankind to go entirely unprovided with the knowledge of God? Not so:
rather it anticipates their understanding when it says [179] : "Hear, O
Israel, the Lord thy God is one God;" and again, "Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy strength;" and again,
"Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve,
and shalt cleave to Him." 2. But that the providence and ordering power
of the Word also, over all and toward all, is attested by all inspired
Scripture, this passage suffices to confirm our argument, where men who
speak of God say [180] : "Thou hast laid the foundation of the earth
and it abideth. The day continueth according to Thine ordinance." And
again [181] : "Sing to our God upon the harp, that covereth the heaven
with clouds, that prepareth rain for the earth, that bringeth forth
grass upon the mountains, and green herb for the service of man, and
giveth food to the cattle." 3. But by whom does He give it, save by Him
through Whom all things were made? For the providence over all things
belongs naturally to Him by Whom they were made; and who is this save
the Word of God, concerning Whom in another psalm [182] he says: "By
the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by
the Breath of His mouth." For He tells us that all things were made in
Him and through Him. 4. Wherefore He also persuades us and says [183] ,
"He spake and they were made, He commanded and they were created;" as
the illustrious Moses also at the beginning of his account of Creation
confirms what we say by his narrative [184] , saying: and God said,
"let us make man in our image and after our likeness:" for also when He
was carrying out the creation of the heaven and earth and all things,
the Father said to Him [185] , "Let the heaven be made," and "let the
waters be gathered together and let the dry land appear," and "let the
earth bring forth herb" and "every green thing:" so that one must
convict Jews also of not genuinely attending to the Scriptures. 5. For
one might ask them to whom was God speaking, to use the imperative
mood? If He were commanding and addressing the things He was creating,
the utterance would be redundant, for they were not yet in being, but
were about to be made; but no one speaks to what does not exist, nor
addresses to what is not yet made a command to be made. For if God were
giving a command to the things that were to be, He must have said, "Be
made, heaven, and be made, earth, and come forth, green herb, and be
created, O man." But in fact He did not do so; but He gives the command
thus: "Let us make man," and "let the green herb come forth." By which
God is proved to be speaking about them to some one at hand: it follows
then that some one was with Him to Whom He spoke when He made all
things. 6. Who then could it be, save His Word? For to whom could God
be said to speak, except His Word? Or who was with Him when He made all
created Existence, except His Wisdom, which says [186] : "When He was
making the heaven and the earth I was present with Him?" But in the
mention of heaven and earth, all created things in heaven and earth are
included as well. 7. But being present with Him as His Wisdom and His
Word, looking at the Father He fashioned the Universe, and organised it
and gave it order; and, as He is the power of the Father, He gave all
things strength to be, as the Saviour says [187] : "What things soever
I see the Father doing, I also do in like manner." And His holy
disciples teach that all things were made "through Him and unto Him;"
8. and, being the good Offspring of Him that is good, and true Son, He
is the Father's Power and Wisdom and Word, not being so by
participation [188] , nor as if these qualifies were imparted to Him
from without, as they are to those who partake of Him and are made wise
by Him, and receive power and reason in Him; but He is the very Wisdom,
very Word, and very own Power of the Father, very Light, very Truth,
very Righteousness, very Virtue, and in truth His express Image, and
Brightness, and Resemblance. And to sum all up, He is the wholly
perfect Fruit of the Father, and is alone the Son, and unchanging Image
of the Father.
__________________________________________________________________
[179] Deut. vi. 4, 5, 13.
[180] Ps. cxix. 90.
[181] Ps. cxlvii. 7-9.
[182] Ps. xxxiii. 6.
[183] Ps. cxlviii. 5.
[184] Gen. i. 20.
[185] Gen. i. 6-11.
[186] Prov. viii. 27.
[187] Joh. v. 19; Col. i. 16.
[188] metoche, cf. de Syn. 48, 51, 53. This was held by Arians, but in
common with Paul Samos. and many of the Monarchian heretics. The same
principle in Orig. on Ps. 135 (Lomm. xiii. 134) ou kata metousian alla
kat' ousian theos.
__________________________________________________________________
S:47. Necessity of a return to the Word if our corrupt nature is to be
restored.
Who then, who can declare the Father by number, so as to discover the
powers of His Word? For like as He is the Father's Word and Wisdom, so
too condescending to created things, He becomes, to impart the
knowledge and apprehension of Him that begot Him, His very Brightness
and very Life, and the Door, and the Shepherd, and the Way, and King
and Governor, and Saviour over all, and Light, and Giver of Life, and
Providence over all. Having then such a Son begotten of Himself, good,
and Creator, the Father did not hide Him out of the sight of His
creatures, but even day by day reveals Him to all by means of the
organisation and life of all things, which is His work. 2. But in and
through Him He reveals Himself also, as the Saviour says [189] : "I in
the Father and the Father in Me:" so that it follows that the Word is
in Him that begat Him, and that He that is begotten lives eternally
with the Father. But this being so, and nothing being outside Him, but
both heaven and earth and all that in them is being dependent on Him,
yet men in their folly have set aside the knowledge and service of Him,
and honoured things that are not instead of things that are: and
instead of the real and true God deified things that were not, "serving
the creature rather than the Creator [190] ," thus involving themselves
in foolishness and impiety. 3. For it is just as if one were to admire
the works more than the workman, and being awestruck at the public
works in the city, were to make light of their builder, or as if one
were to praise a musical instrument but to despise the man who made and
tuned it. Foolish and sadly disabled in eyesight! For how else had they
known the building, or ship, or lyre, had not the ship-builder made it,
the architect built it, or the musician fashioned it? 4. As then he
that reasons in such a way is mad, and beyond all madness, even so
affected in mind, I think, are those who do not recognise God or
worship His Word, our Lord Jesus Christ the Saviour of all, through
Whom the Father orders, and holds together all things, and exercises
providence over the Universe; having faith and piety towards Whom, my
Christ-loving friend, be of good cheer and of good hope, because
immortality and the kingdom of heaven is the fruit of faith and
devotion towards Him, if only the soul be adorned according to His
laws. For just as for them who walk after His example, the prize is
life everlasting, so for those who walk the opposite way, and not that
of virtue, there is great shame, and peril without pardon in the day of
judgment, because although they knew the way of truth their acts were
contrary to their knowledge.
__________________________________________________________________
[189] Joh. xiv. 10.
[190] Rom. i. 25.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Introduction to the Treatise
on the
Incarnation of the Word.
------------------------
The tract `against the Gentiles' leaves the reader face to face with
the necessity of restoration by the Divine Word as the remedy for
corrupt human nature. How this necessity is met in the Incarnation is
shewn in the pages which follow. The general design of the second tract
is to illustrate and confirm the doctrine of the Incarnation by shewing
(1) its necessity and end, (2) the congruity of its details, (3) its
truth, as against the objections of Jews and Gentiles, (4) its result.
He begins by a review (recapitulating c. Gent. 2-7) of the doctrine of
creation and of man's place therein. The abuse by man of his special
Privilege had resulted in its loss. By foregoing the Divine Life, man
had entered upon a course of endless undoing, of progressive decay,
from which none could rescue him but the original bestower of his life
(2-7). Then follows a description in glowing words of the Incarnation
of the Divine Word and of its efficacy against the plague of corruption
(8-10). With the Divine Life, man had also received, in the knowledge
of God, the conscious reflex of the Divine Likeness, the faculty of
reason in its highest exercise. This knowledge their moral fall dimmed
and perverted. Heeding not even the means by which God sought to remind
them of Himself, they fell deeper and deeper into materialism and
superstition. To restore the effaced likeness the presence of the
Original was requisite. Accordingly, condescending to man's sense-bound
intelligence--lest men should have been created in vain in the Image of
God--the Word took Flesh and became an object of Sense, that through
the Seen He might reveal the Invisible (11-16).
Having dwelt (17-19) upon the meaning and purpose of the Incarnation,
he proceeds to speak of the Death and Resurrection of the Incarnate
Word. He, Who alone could renew the handiwork and restore the likeness
and give afresh the knowledge of God, must needs, in order to pay the
debt which all had incurred (to para panton opheilomenon), die in our
stead, offering the sacrifice on behalf of all, so as to rise again, as
our first-fruits, from the grave (20-32, note especially S:20). After
speaking of the especial fitness of the Cross, once the instrument of
shame, now the trophy of victory, and after meeting some difficulties
connected with the manner of the Lord's Death, he passes to the
Resurrection. He shews how Christ by His triumph over the grave changed
(27) the relative ascendancy of Death and Life: and how the
Resurrection with its momentous train of consequences, follows of
necessity (31) from the Incarnation of Him in Whom was Life.
The two main divisions of contemporary unbelief are next combated. In
either case the root of the difficulty is moral; with the Greeks it is
a frivolous cynicism, with the Jews, inveterate obstinacy. The latter
(33-40) are confuted, firstly, by their own Scriptures, which predict
both in general and in detail the coming of Jesus Christ. Also, the old
Jewish polity, both civil and religious, has passed away, giving place
to the Church of Christ.
Turning to the Greeks (41-45), and assuming that they allow the
existence of a pervading Spirit, whose presence is the sustaining
principle of all things, he challenges them to reject, without
inconsistency, the Union of that Spirit, the Logos (compare St.
Augustine Conf. VII. ix.), with one in particular of the many
constituents of that Universe wherein he already dwells. And since man
alone (43. 3) of the creatures had departed from the order of his
creation, it was man's nature that the Word united to Himself, thus
repairing the breach between the creature and the Creator at the very
point where it had occurred.
God did not restore man by a mere fiat (44) because, just as repentance
on man's part (7) could not eradicate his disease, so such a fiat on
God's part would have amounted to the annihilation of human nature as
it was, and the creation of a fresh race. Man's definite disorder God
met with a specific remedy, overcoming death with life. Thus man has
been enabled once more to shew forth, in common with the rest of
Creation, the handiwork and glory of his Maker.
Athanasius then confronts the Greeks, as he had the Jews, with facts.
Since the coming of Christ, paganism, popular and philosophic, had been
falling into discredit and decay. The impotence and rivalries of the
philosophic teachers, the local and heterogeneous character, the low
moral ideals of the old worships, are contrasted with the oneness and
inspiring power of the religion of the Crucified. Such are the two, the
dying and the living systems; it remains for him who will to taste and
see what that life is which is the gift of Christ to them that follow
Him (46-end).
The purpose of the tract, in common with the contra Gentes, being to
commend the religion of Christ to acceptance, the argument is concerned
more with the Incarnation as a living fact, and with its place in the
scheme of God's dealing with man, than with its analysis as a
theological doctrine. He does not enter upon the question, fruitful of
controversy in the previous century at Alexandria, but soon to burst
forth into furious debate, of the Sonship of the Word and of His
relation to God the Father. Still less does he touch the Christological
questions which arose with the decline of the Arian tempest, questions
associated with the names of Apollinarius, Theodore, Cyril, Nestorius,
Eutyches, Theodoret, and Dioscorus. But we feel already that firm grasp
of soteriological principles which mark him out as the destined
conqueror of Arianism, and which enabled him by a sure instinct to
anticipate unconsciously the theological difficulties which troubled
the Church for the century after his death. It is the broad
comprehensive treatment of the subject in its relation to God, human
nature, and sin, that gives the work its interest to readers of the
present day. In strong reaction from modern or medieval theories of
Redemption, which to the thoughtful Christian of to-day seem arbitrary,
or worse, it is with relief that men find that from the beginning it
was not so; that the theology of the early Church interpreted the great
Mystery of godliness in terms which, if short of the fulness of the
Pauline conception, are yet so free from arbitrary assumptions, so true
to human nature as the wisest of men know it, so true to the worthiest
and grandest ideas of God (see below, p. 33 ad fin.). The de
Incarnatione, then, is perhaps more appreciated in our day than at any
date since the days of its writer.
It may therefore be worth while to devote a word or two to some
peculiarities incidental to its aim and method. We observe first of all
how completely the power of the writer is absorbed in the subject under
discussion. It is therefore highly precarious to infer anything from
his silence even on points which might seem to require explanation in
the course of his argument. Not a word is said of the doctrine of the
Trinity, nor of the Holy Spirit; this directly follows from the purpose
of the work, in accordance with the general truth that while the Church
preaches Christ to the World, the Office and Personality of the Spirit
belongs to her inner life. The teaching of the tract with regard to the
constitution of man is another case in point. It might appear (S:3, cf.
11. 2, 13. 2) that Athanasius ascribed the reasonable soul of man, and
his immortality after death, not to the constitution of human nature as
such, but to the grace superadded to it by the Creator (he tou kat'
eikona charis), a grace which constituted men logikoi (3. 4) by virtue
of the power of the Logos, and which, if not forfeited by sin, involved
the privilege of immortality. We have, then, to carefully consider
whether Athanasius held, or meant to suggest, that man is by nature,
and apart from union with God, (1) rational, or (2) immortal. If we
confine our view to the treatise before us, there would be some show of
reason in answering both questions in the negative; and with regard to
immortality this has been recently done by an able correspondent of The
Times (April 9, 1890).
But that Athanasius held the essential rationality and immortality of
the soul is absolutely clear, if only from c. Gent. 32 and 33. We have,
then, to find an explanation of his language in the present treatise.
With regard to immortality, it should be observed (1) that the language
employed (in 4. 5, where kenothenai tou einai aei is explained by to
dialuthentas menein en to thanato kai te phthora) suggests a continued
condition, and therefore something short of annihilation, although not
worthy of the name of existence or life,--(2) that even in the worst of
men the image of God is defaced, but not effaced (14. 1, &c.), and that
even when grace is lost (7. 4), man cannot be as though the contact
with the divine had never taken place;--(3) that in this work, as by
St. Paul in 1 Cor. xv., the final destiny of the wicked is passed over
(but for the general reference 56. 3) in silence. It may be added (4)
that Athanasius puts together all that separates man from irrational
creatures without clearly drawing the line between what belongs to the
natural man and what to the kat' eikona charis. The subject of
eschatology is nowhere dealt with in full by Athanasius; while it is
quite certain (c. Gent. 33) that he did not share the inclination of
some earlier writers (see D.C.B. ii. p. 192) toward the idea of
conditional immortality, there is also no reason to think that he held
with the Universalism of Origen, Gregory of Nyssa and others (see
Migne, Patr. Gr. xxvii. p. 1404 A, also 1384 C, where `the unfortunate
Origen's' opinions seem to be rejected, but with an implied deprecation
of harsh judgment). As to his view of the essential rationality of man
(see c. Gent. 32) the consideration (4) urged above once more applies
(compare the discussion in Harnack, Dg. ii. 146 sqq.). Yet he says that
man left to himself can have no idea of God at all (11. 1), and that
this would deprive him of any claim to be considered a rational being
(ib. 2). The apparent inconsistency is removed if we understand that
man may be rational potentially (as all men are) and yet not rational
in the sense of exercising reason (which is the case with very many).
In other words, grace gives not the faculty itself, but its integrity,
the latter being the result not of the mere psychological existence of
the faculty, but of the reaction upon it of its highest and adequate
object. (The same is true to a great extent of the doctrine of pneuma
in the New Testament.)
A somewhat similar caution is necessary with regard to the analogy
drawn out (41, &c.) between the Incarnation and the Union of the Word
with the Universe. The treatise itself (17. 1, ektos kat' ousian, and
see notes on 41) supplies the necessary corrective in this case. It may
be pointed out here that the real difference between Athanasius and the
neo-Platonists was not so much upon the Union of the Word with any
created Substance, which they were prepared to allow, as upon the
exclusive Union of the Word with Man, in Contrast to His essential
distinctness from the Universe. This difference goes back to the
doctrine of Creation, which was fixed as a great gulf between the
Christian and the Platonist view of the Universe. The relation of the
latter to the Word is fully discussed in the third part of the contra
Gentes, the teaching of which must be borne in mind while reading the
forty-first and following chapters of the present treatise.
Lastly, the close relation between the doctrine of Creation and that of
Redemption marks off the Soteriology of this treatise from that of the
middle ages and of the Reformation. Athanasius does not leave out of
sight the idea of satisfaction for a debt. To him also the Cross was
the central purpose (20. 2, cf. 9. 1, 2, &c.) of His Coming. But the
idea of Restoration is most prominent in his determination of the
necessity of the Incarnation. God could have wiped out our guilt, had
He so pleased, by a word (44): but human nature required to be healed,
restored, recreated. This (anaktisai) is the foremost of the three
ideas (7. 5) which sum up his account of the `dignus tanto Vindice
nodus [191] .
The translation which follows is that printed in 1885 (D. Nutt, second
edition, 1891) by the editor of this volume, with a very few changes
(chiefly 2. 2, 8. 4, 34. 2, 44. 7, 8): it was originally made for the
purpose of lectures at Oxford (1879-1882), and the analytical headings
now prefixed to each chapter are extracted verbatim from notes made for
the same course of lectures. The notes have mostly appeared either in
the former edition of the translation, or appended to the Greek text
published (D. Null, 1882) by the translator. A few, however, have now
been added, including some references to the Sermo Major, which borrows
wholesale from the present treatise (Prolegg. ch. III. S:1. 37). Two
other English translations have appeared, the one (Parker, 1880)
previous, the other (Religious Tract Society, n.d.) subsequent to that
of the present translator. The text followed is that of the Benedictine
editors, with a few exceptions. Of those that at all affect the sense,
43.6 (kai to soma) and 51. 2 (kata tes eid;) are due to Mr. Marriott
(Analecta Christiana, Oxf. 1844). For the others (13. 2, omission of
me, 28. 3, kata tou puros rejecting conjectures of Montf. and Marriott,
42. 6, omission of pepoiekenai 57. 3, kai ta for ta kai) the present
editor is alone responsible.
Synopsis of the Treatise.
------------------------
Page
S:1.
Introduction. The Redemptive work of the Word based on His initial
relation to the Creature.
36
FIRST PART.--The Incarnation of the Word.
S:S:2, 3.
Doctrine of Creation:
(1) Three erroneous views (2) rejected:
The Epicurean (materialistic) as failing to recognize a differentiating
Principle.
36
The Platonic (matter pre-existent) as not satisfying the idea of God
37
The Gnostic (dualistic) as contradictory to Scripture
37
(2) The true doctrine (3) and its application to the Creation of Man
37
This directly brings us to a
S:S:4-10.
First Reason for the Incarnation:
By departing from the Word, men lost the Principle of Life, and were
wasting away (4, 5)
38
God could neither avert nor suffer this (6)
39
The latter would argue weakness, the former changeableness (7) on God's
part
39
The Word alone could solve this dilemma (7. 4). This done by His
becoming man (8) and dying for us all (9). Reasonableness, and results
of this (10)
40
S:S:11-16.
Second Reason for the Incarnation:
In departing from the Word, men had also lost the Principle of Reason,
by which they knew God. In spite of God's witness to Himself, they were
sunk into superstition and mental degradation (11, 12)
42
How none but the Word could remedy this (13, 14)
43
How He actually did so (15, 16). The Incarnation, a revelation of the
Invisible Godhead
44
(S:S:17, 18 explain this in further detail)
45
S:19.
Transition to Second Part:
The Incarnation an irresistible revelation of God. This is especially
true of the Death of Christ.
46
SECOND PART.--The Death and Resurrection of Christ.
His Death:
S:20.
1.--Why necessary
47
S:S:21-25.
2.--Why death by Crucifixion--
a.--Why public, and not natural, but at the hands of others (21-23)
47
b.--Why not of His own choosing (24)
49
c.--Why the Cross, of all deaths (25)
49
His rising again:
S:26.
1.--Why on the third day
50
S:27.
2.--Changed relation of Death to mankind
50
S:S:28-32.
3.--Reality of His Resurrection--This:
a.--To be tested by Experience (28)
51
b.--Implied by its visible effects (29-31. 3)
51
c.--Involved in the Nature of the Incarnate Word (31. 4)
53
d.--Confirmed by what we see; as is the case with all truth about the
unseen God (32. 1-5)
53
Summary of what is thus proved to be true (32. 6)
53
THIRD PART.--Refutation of Contemporary Unbelief.
S:S:33-40.
A.--Refutation of Jews:
S:S:33-39.
1.--From principles admitted by them--i.e., from prophecies relating to
the Messiah
54
(S:39 forms the step to the next section)
57
S:40.
2.--From facts: cessation of the Jewish dispensation, as foretold by
Daniel
57
S:S:41-55.
B.--Refutation of Gentiles:
S:S:41-45.
1.--From principles admitted by them-
S:S:41, 42.
a.--The Word, whose existence contemporary philosophy allowed, might
reasonably be supposed to unite Himself to some particular nature:
consequently, to human nature
58
S:43.
b.--Reasons for His Union with Man in particular
59
S:44.
c.--Reasons why man should not be restored by a mere fiat
60
S:45.
d.--Results of the Scheme actually adopted
61
S:S:46-55.
2.--Refutation of Gentiles from facts--
S:S:46-50.
a.--Discredit and decay, since the coming of Christ, of philosophic and
popular paganism
61
S:S:51, 52.
b.--Influence of Christian morals on Society
64
S:53.
c.--Influence of Christ on the individual
65
S:S:54, 55.
d.--Nature and glory of Christ's Work: summary of His victory over
paganism
65
S:S:56, 57.
CONCLUSION: the enquirer referred to the Scriptures. Indispensable
moral conditions of the investigation of Spiritual Truth
66
__________________________________________________________________
[191] The corrections were made before he could obtain the essay
carefully and gratefully used, but his text is defective, especially
and text of Sievers (Zeitsch. Hist. Theol. 1868), where he now from the
accidental omission of one of the key-clauses of the finds them nearly
all anticipated. Sievers' discussion has been whole (S:17).
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
On the Incarnation of the Word.
------------------------
S:1. Introductory.--The subject of this treatise: the humiliation and
incarnation of the Word. Presupposes the doctrine of Creation, and that
by the Word. The Father has saved the world by Him through Whom he
first made it.
Whereas in what precedes we have drawn out--choosing a few points from
among many--a sufficient account of the error of the heathen concerning
idols, and of the worship of idols, and how they originally came to be
invented; how, namely, out of wickedness men devised for themselves the
worshipping of idols: and whereas we have by God's grace noted somewhat
also of the divinity of the Word of the Father, and of His universal
Providence and power, and that the Good Father through Him orders all
things, and all things are moved by Him, and in Him are quickened: come
now, Macarius [192] (worthy of that name), and true lover of Christ,
let us follow up the faith of our religion [193] , and set forth also
what relates to the Word's becoming Man, and to His divine Appearing
amongst us, which Jews traduce and Greeks laugh to scorn, but we
worship; in order that, all the more for the seeming low estate of the
Word, your piety toward Him may be increased and multiplied. 2. For the
more He is mocked among the unbelieving, the more witness does He give
of His own Godhead; inasmuch as He not only Himself demonstrates as
possible what men mistake, thinking impossible, but what men deride as
unseemly, this by His own goodness He clothes with seemliness, and what
men, in their conceit of wisdom, laugh at as merely human, He by His
own power demonstrates to be divine, subduing the pretensions of idols
by His supposed humiliation--by the Cross--and those who mock and
disbelieve invisibly winning over to recognise His divinity and power.
3. But to treat this subject it is necessary to recall what has been
previously said; in order that you may neither fail to know the cause
of the bodily appearing of the Word of the Father, so high and so
great, nor think it a consequence of His own nature that the Saviour
has worn a body; but that being incorporeal by nature, and Word from
the beginning, He has yet of the loving-kindness and goodness of His
own Father been manifested to us in a human body for our salvation. 4.
It is, then, proper for us to begin the treatment of this subject by
speaking of the creation of the universe, and of God its Artificer,
that so it may be duly perceived that the renewal of creation has been
the work of the self-same Word that made it at the beginning. For it
will appear not inconsonant for the Father to have wrought its
salvation in Him by Whose means He made it.
__________________________________________________________________
[192] See Contra Gentes, i. The word (Makarie) may be an adjective
only, but its occurrence in both places seems decisive. The name was
very common (Apol. c. Ar. passim). `Macarius' was a Christian, as the
present passage shews: he is presumed (c. Gent. i. 7) to have access to
Scripture.
[193] tes eusebeias. See 1 Tim. iii. 16, and note 1 on De Decr. 1.
__________________________________________________________________
S:2. Erroneous views of Creation rejected. (1) Epicurean (fortuitous
generation). But diversity of bodies and parts argues a creating
intellect. (2.) Platonists (pre-existent matter.) But this subjects God
to human limitations, making Him not a creator but a mechanic. (3)
Gnostics (an alien Demiurge). Rejected from Scripture.
Of the making of the universe and the creation of all things many have
taken different views, and each man has laid down the law just as he
pleased. For some say that all things have come into being of
themselves, and in a chance fashion; as, for example, the Epicureans,
who tell us in their self-contempt, that universal providence does not
exist, speaking right in the face of obvious fact and experience. 2.
For if, as they say, everything has had its beginning of itself, and
independently of purpose, it would follow that everything had come into
[194] mere being, so as to be alike and not distinct. For it would
follow in virtue of the unity of body that everything must be sun or
moon, and in the case of men it would follow that the whole must be
hand, or eye, or foot. But as it is this is not so. On the contrary, we
see a distinction of sun, moon, and earth; and again, in the case of
human bodies, of foot, hand, and head. Now, such separate arrangement
as this tells us not of their having come into being of themselves, but
shews that a cause preceded them; from which cause it is possible to
apprehend God also as the Maker and Orderer of all.
3. But others, including Plato, who is in such repute among the Greeks,
argue that God has made the world out of matter previously existing and
without beginning. For God could have made nothing had not the material
existed already; just as the wood must exist ready at hand for the
carpenter, to enable him to work at all. 4. But in so saying they know
not that they are investing God with weakness. For if He is not Himself
the cause of the material, but makes things only of previously existing
material, He proves to be weak, because unable to produce anything He
makes without the material; just as it is without doubt a weakness of
the carpenter not to be able to make anything required without his
timber. For, ex hypothesi, had not the material existed, God would not
have made anything. And how could He in that case be called Maker and
Artificer, if He owes His ability to make to some other source--namely,
to the material? So that if this be so, God will be on their theory a
Mechanic only, and not a Creator out of nothing [195] ; if, that is, He
works at existing material, but is not Himself the cause of the
material. For He could not in any sense be called Creator unless He is
Creator of the material of which the things created have in their turn
been made. 5. But the sectaries imagine to themselves a different
artificer of all things, other than the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, in deep blindness even as to the words they use. 6. For whereas
the Lord says to the Jews [196] : "Have ye not read that from the
beginning He which created them made them male and female, and said,
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall
cleave to his wife, and they twain shall become one flesh?" and then,
referring to the Creator, says, "What, therefore, God hath joined
together let not man put asunder:" how come these men to assert that
the creation is independent of the Father? Or if, in the words of John,
who says, making no exception, "All things [197] were made by Him," and
"without Him was not anything made," how could the artificer be
another, distinct from the Father of Christ?
__________________________________________________________________
[194] Or, "been made in one way only." In the next clause I formerly
translated the difficult words hos epi somatos henos `as in the case of
the universe;' but although the rendering has commended itself to
others I now reluctantly admit that it puts too much into the Greek (in
spite of S:41. 5).
[195] eis to einai.
[196] Matt. xix. 4, &c.
[197] John i. 3.
__________________________________________________________________
S:3. The true doctrine. Creation out of nothing, of God's lavish bounty
of being. Man created above the rest, but incapable of independent
perseverance. Hence the exceptional and supra-natural gift of being in
God's Image, with the promise of bliss conditionally upon his
perseverance in grace.
Thus do they vainly speculate. But the godly teaching and the faith
according to Christ brands their foolish language as godlessness. For
it knows that it was not spontaneously, because forethought is not
absent; nor of existing matter, because God is not weak; but that out
of nothing, and without its having any previous existence, God made the
universe to exist through His word, as He says firstly through Moses:
"In [198] the beginning God created the heaven and the earth;"
secondly, in the most edifying book of the Shepherd, "First [199] of
all believe that God is one, which created and framed all things, and
made them to exist out of nothing." 2. To which also Paul refers when
he says, "By [200] faith we understand that the worlds have been framed
by the Word of God, so that what is seen hath not been made out of
things which do appear." 3. For God is good, or rather is essentially
the source of goodness: nor [201] could one that is good be niggardly
of anything: whence, grudging existence to none, He has made all things
out of nothing by His own Word, Jesus Christ our Lord. And among these,
having taken especial pity, above all things on earth, upon the race of
men, and having perceived its inability, by virtue of the condition of
its origin, to continue in one stay, He gave them a further gift, and
He did not barely create man, as He did all the irrational creatures on
the earth, but made them after His own image, giving them a portion
even of the power of His own Word; so that having as it were a kind of
reflexion of the Word, and being made rational, they might be able to
abide ever in blessedness, living the true life which belongs to the
saints in paradise. 4. But knowing once more how the will of man could
sway to either side, in anticipation He secured the grace given them by
a law and by the spot where He placed them. For He brought them into
His own garden, and gave them a law: so that, if they kept the grace
and remained good, they might still keep the life in paradise without
sorrow or pain or care besides having the promise of incorruption in
heaven; but that if they transgressed and turned back, and became evil,
they might know that they were incurring that corruption in death which
was theirs by nature: no longer to live in paradise, but cast out of it
from that time forth to die and to abide in death and in corruption. 5.
Now this is that of which Holy Writ also gives warning, saying in the
Person of God: "Of every tree [202] that is in the garden, eating thou
shalt eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, ye shall
not eat of it, but on the day that ye eat, dying ye shall die." But by
"dying ye shall die," what else could be meant than not dying merely,
but also abiding ever in the corruption of death?
__________________________________________________________________
[198] Gen. i. 1.
[199] Herm. Mand. 1.
[200] Heb. xi. 3.
[201] c. Gent. xli. and Plato, Timaeus 29 E.
[202] Gen. ii. 16, sq.
__________________________________________________________________
S:4. Our creation and God's Incarnation most intimately connected. As
by the Word man was called from non-existence into being, and further
received the grace of a divine life, so by the one fault which
forfeited that life they again incurred corruption and untold sin and
misery filled the world.
You are wondering, perhaps, for what possible reason, having proposed
to speak of the Incarnation of the Word, we are at present treating of
the origin of mankind. But this, too, properly belongs to the aim of
our treatise. 2. For in speaking of the appearance of the Saviour
amongst us, we must needs speak also of the origin of men, that you may
know that the reason of His coming down was because of us, and that our
transgression [203] called forth the loving-kindness of the Word, that
the Lord should both make haste to help us and appear among men. 3. For
of His becoming Incarnate we were the object, and for our salvation He
dealt so lovingly as to appear and be born even in a human body. 4.
Thus, then, God has made man, and willed that he should abide in
incorruption; but men, having despised and rejected the contemplation
of God, and devised and contrived evil for themselves (as was said
[204] in the former treatise), received the condemnation of death with
which they had been threatened; and from thenceforth no longer remained
as they were made, but [205] were being corrupted according to their
devices; and death had the mastery over them as king [206] . For
transgression of the commandment was turning them back to their natural
state, so that just as they have had their being out of nothing, so
also, as might be expected, they might look for corruption into nothing
in the course of time. 5. For if, out of a former normal state of
non-existence, they were called into being by the Presence and
loving-kindness of the Word, it followed naturally that when men were
bereft of the knowledge of God and were turned back to what was not
(for what is evil is not, but what is good is), they should, since they
derive their being from God who IS, be everlastingly bereft even of
being; in other words, that they should be disintegrated and abide in
death and corruption. 6. For man is by nature mortal, inasmuch as he is
made out of what is not; but by reason of his likeness to Him that is
(and if he still preserved this likeness by keeping Him in his
knowledge) he would stay his natural corruption, and remain incorrupt;
as Wisdom [207] says: "The taking heed to His laws is the assurance of
immortality;" but being incorrupt, he would live henceforth as God, to
which I suppose the divine Scripture refers, when it says: "I have
[208] said ye are gods, and ye are all sons of the most Highest; but ye
die like men, and fall as one of the princes."
__________________________________________________________________
[203] Cf. Orat. ii. 54, note 4.
[204] c. Gent. 3-5.
[205] Eccles. vii. 29; Rom. i. 21, 22.
[206] Rom. v. 14.
[207] Wisd. vi. 18.
[208] Ps. lxxxii. 6, sq.
__________________________________________________________________
S:5. For God has not only made us out of nothing; but He gave us
freely, by the Grace of the Word, a life in correspondence with God.
But men, having rejected things eternal, and, by counsel of the devil,
turned to the things of corruption, became the cause [209] of their own
corruption in death, being, as I said before, by nature corruptible,
but destined, by the grace following from partaking of the Word, to
have escaped their natural state, had they remained good. 2. For
because of the Word dwelling with them, even their natural corruption
did not come near them, as Wisdom also says [210] : "God made man for
incorruption, and as an image of His own eternity; but by envy of the
devil death came into the world." But when this was come to pass, men
began to die, while corruption thence-forward prevailed against them,
gaining even more than its natural power over the whole race, inasmuch
as it had, owing to the transgression of the commandment, the threat of
the Deity as a further advantage against them.
3. For even in their misdeeds men had not stopped short at any set
limits; but gradually pressing forward, have passed on beyond all
measure: having to begin with been inventors of wickedness and called
down upon themselves death and corruption; while later on, having
turned aside to wrong and exceeding all lawlessness, and stopping at no
one evil but devising all manner of new evils in succession, they have
become insatiable in sinning. 4. For there were adulteries everywhere
and thefts, and the whole earth was full of murders and plunderings.
And as to corruption and wrong, no heed was paid to law, but all crimes
were being practised everywhere, both individually and jointly. Cities
were at war with cities, and nations were rising up against nations;
and the whole earth was rent with civil commotions and battles; each
man vying with his fellows in lawless deeds. 8. Nor were even crimes
against nature far from them, but, as the Apostle and witness of Christ
says: "For their [211] women changed the natural use into that which is
against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of
the women, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men
working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of
their error which was meet."
__________________________________________________________________
[209] Cf. Concil. Araus. II. Can. 23. `Suam voluntatem homines faciunt,
non Dei, quando id agunt quod Deo displicet.'
[210] Wisd. ii. 23, sq.
[211] Rom. i. 26, sq.
__________________________________________________________________
S:6. The human race then was wasting, God's image was being effaced,
and His work ruined. Either, then, God must forego His spoken word by
which man had incurred ruin; or that which had shared in the being of
the Word must sink back again into destruction, in which case God's
design would be defeated. What then? was God's goodness to suffer this?
But if so, why had man been made? It could have been weakness, not
goodness on God's part.
For this cause, then, death having gained upon men, and corruption
abiding upon them, the race of man was perishing; the rational man made
in God's image was disappearing, and the handiwork of God was in
process of dissolution. 2. For death, as I said above, gained from that
time forth a legal [212] hold over us, and it was impossible to evade
the law, since it had been laid down by God because [213] of the
transgression, and the result was in truth at once monstrous and
unseemly. 3. For it were monstrous, firstly, that God, having spoken,
should prove false--that, when once He had ordained that man, if he
transgressed the commandment, should die the death, after the
transgression man should not die, but God's word should be broken. For
God would not be true, if, when He had said we should die, man died
not. 4. Again, it were unseemly that creatures once made rational, and
having partaken of the Word, should go to ruin, and turn again toward
non-existence by the way of corruption [214] . 5. For it were not
worthy of God's goodness that the things He had made should waste away,
because of the deceit practised on men by the devil. 6. Especially it
was unseemly to the last degree that God's handicraft among men should
be done away, either because of their own carelessness, or because of
the deceitfulness of evil spirits.
7. So, as the rational creatures were wasting and such works in course
of ruin, what was God in His goodness to do? Suffer corruption to
prevail against them and death to hold them fast? And where were the
profit of their having been made, to begin with? For better were they
not made, than once made, left to neglect and ruin. 8. For neglect
reveals weakness, and not goodness on God's part--if, that is, He
allows His own work to be ruined when once He had made it--more so than
if He had never made man at all. 9. For if He had not made them, none
could impute weakness; but once He had made them, and created them out
of nothing, it were most monstrous for the work to be ruined, and that
before the eyes of the Maker. 10. It was, then, out of the question to
leave men to the current of corruption; because this would be unseemly,
and unworthy of God's goodness.
__________________________________________________________________
[212] Gen. ii. 15.
[213] Gal. iii. 19 (verbally only).
[214] Cf. Anselm cur Deus Homo, II. 4, `Valde alienum est ab eo, ut
ullam rationalem naturam penitus perire sinat.'
__________________________________________________________________
S:7. On the other hand there was the consistency of God's nature, not
to be sacrificed for our profit. Were men, then, to be called upon to
repent? But repentance cannot avert the execution of a law; still less
can it remedy a fallen nature. We have incurred corruption and need to
be restored to the Grace of God's Image. None could renew but He Who
had created. He alone could (1) recreate all, (2) suffer for all, (3)
represent all to the Father.
But just as this consequence must needs hold, so, too, on the other
side the just claims [215] of God lie against it: that God should
appear true to the law He had laid down concerning death. For it were
monstrous for God, the Father of truth, to appear a liar for our profit
and preservation. 2. So here, once more, what possible course was God
to take? To demand repentance of men for their transgression? For this
one might pronounce worthy of God; as though, just as from
transgression men have become set towards corruption, so from
repentance they may once more be set in the way of incorruption. 3. But
repentance would, firstly, fail to guard the just claim [216] of God.
For He would still be none the more true, if men did not remain in the
grasp of death; nor, secondly, does repentance call men back from what
is their nature--it merely stays them from acts of sin. 4. Now, if
there were merely a misdemeanour in question, and not a consequent
corruption, repentance were well enough. But if, when transgression had
once gained a start, men became involved in that corruption which was
their nature, and were deprived of the grace which they had, being in
the image of God, what further step was needed? or what was required
for such grace and such recall, but the Word of God, which had also at
the beginning made everything out of nought? 5. For His it was once
more both to bring the corruptible to incorruption, and to maintain
intact the just claim [217] of the Father upon all. For being Word of
the Father, and above all, He alone of natural fitness was both able to
recreate everything, and worthy to suffer on behalf of all and to be
ambassador for all with the Father.
__________________________________________________________________
[215] Literally "what is reasonable with respect to God," i.e. what is
involved in His attributes and in His relation to us, cf. Rom. iii. 26,
cf. Anselm, ib. I. 12, who slightly narrows down the idea of Athan. `Si
peccatum sic dimittitur impunitum, similiter erit apud Deum peccanti et
non peccanti, quod Deo non convenit....Inconvenientia autem iniustitia
est.'
[216] See previous note.
[217] See previous note.
__________________________________________________________________
S:8. The Word, then, visited that earth in which He was yet always
present ; and saw all these evils. He takes a body of our Nature, and
that of a spotless Virgin, in whose womb He makes it His own, wherein
to reveal Himself, conquer death, and restore life.
For this purpose, then, the incorporeal and incorruptible and
immaterial Word of God comes to our realm, howbeit he was not far from
us [218] before. For no part of Creation is left void of Him: He has
filled all things everywhere, remaining present with His own Father.
But He comes in condescension to shew loving-kindness upon us, and to
visit us. 2. And seeing the race of rational creatures in the way to
perish, and death reigning over them by corruption; seeing, too, that
the threat against transgression gave a firm hold to the corruption
which was upon us, and that it was monstrous that [219] before the law
was fulfilled it should fall through: seeing, once more, the
unseemliness of what was come to pass: that the things whereof He
Himself was Artificer were passing away: seeing, further, the exceeding
wickedness of men, and how by little and little they had increased it
to an intolerable pitch against themselves: and seeing, lastly, how all
men were under penalty of death: He took pity on our race, and had
mercy on our infirmity, and condescended to our corruption, and, unable
to bear that death should have the mastery--lest the creature should
perish, and His Father's handiwork in men be spent for nought--He takes
unto Himself a body, and that of no different sort from ours. 3. For He
did not simply will to become embodied, or will merely to appear [220]
. For if He willed merely to appear, He was able to effect His divine
appearance by some other and higher means as well. But He takes a body
of our kind, and not merely so, but from a spotless and stainless
virgin, knowing not a man, a body clean and in very truth pure from
intercourse of men. For being Himself mighty, and Artificer of
everything, He prepares the body in the Virgin as a temple unto
Himself, and makes it His very own [221] as an instrument, in it
manifested, and in it dwelling. 4. And thus taking from our bodies one
of like nature, because all were under penalty of the corruption of
death He gave it over to death in the stead of all, and offered it to
the Father--doing this, moreover, of His loving-kindness, to the end
that, firstly, all being held to have died in Him, the law involving
the ruin of men might be undone (inasmuch as its power was fully spent
in the Lord's body, and had no longer holding-ground against men, his
peers), and that, secondly, whereas men had turned toward corruption,
He might turn them again toward incorruption, and quicken them from
death by the appropriation [222] of His body and by the grace of the
Resurrection, banishing death from them like straw from the fire [223]
.
__________________________________________________________________
[218] Acts xvii. 27.
[219] Cf. vi. 3.
[220] Cf. 43. 2.
[221] Cf. Orat. iii. 33, note 5, also ib. 31, note 10.
[222] Cf. Orat. iii. 33, note 5, also ib. 31, note 10.
[223] The simile is inverted. Men are the `straw,' death the `fire.'
cf. xliv. 7.
__________________________________________________________________
S:9. The Word, since death alone could stay the plague, took a mortal
body which, united with Him, should avail for all, and by partaking of
His immortality stay the corruption of the Race. By being above all, He
made His Flesh an offering for our souls; by being one with us all, he
clothed us with immortality. Simile to illustrate this.
For the Word, perceiving that no otherwise could the corruption of men
be undone save by death as a necessary condition, while it was
impossible for the Word to suffer death, being immortal, and Son of the
Father; to this end He takes to Himself a body capable of death, that
it, by partaking of the Word Who is above all, might be worthy to die
in the stead of all, and might, because of the Word which was come to
dwell in it, remain incorruptible, and that thenceforth corruption
might be stayed from all by the Grace of the Resurrection. Whence, by
offering unto death the body He Himself had taken, as an offering and
sacrifice free from any stain, straightway He put away death from all
His peers by the offering of an equivalent. 2. For being over all, the
Word of God naturally by offering His own temple and corporeal
instrument for the life [224] of all satisfied the debt by His death.
And thus He, the incorruptible Son of God, being conjoined with all by
a like nature, naturally clothed all with incorruption, by the promise
of the resurrection. For the actual corruption in death has no longer
holding-ground against men, by reason of the Word, which by His one
body has come to dwell among them. 3. And like as [225] when a great
king has entered into some large city and taken up his abode in one of
the houses there, such city is at all events held worthy of high
honour, nor does any enemy or bandit any longer descend upon it and
subject it; but, on the contrary, it is thought entitled to all care,
because of the king's having taken up his residence in a single house
there: so, too, has it been with the Monarch of all. 4. For now that He
has come to our realm, and taken up his abode in one body among His
peers, henceforth the whole conspiracy of the enemy against mankind is
checked, and the corruption of death which before was prevailing
against them is done away. For the race of men had gone to ruin, had
not the Lord and Saviour of all, the Son of God, come among us to meet
the end of death [226] .
__________________________________________________________________
[224] antipsuchon.
[225] Possibly suggested by the practice of the emperors.
Constantinople was thus dignified a few years later (326). For this
simile compare Sermo Major de Fide, c. 6.
[226] Or, "to put an end to death."
__________________________________________________________________
S:10. By a like simile, the reasonableness of the work of redemption is
shewn. How Christ wiped away our ruin, and provided its antidote by His
own teaching. Scripture proofs of the Incarnation of the Word, and of
the Sacrifice He wrought.
Now in truth this great work was peculiarly suited to God's goodness.
1. For if a king, having founded a house or city, if it be beset by
bandits from the carelessness of its inmates, does not by any means
neglect it, but avenges and reclaims it as his own work, having regard
not to the carelessness of the inhabitants, but to what beseems
himself; much more did God the Word of the all-good Father not neglect
the race of men, His work, going to corruption: but, while He blotted
out the death which had ensued by the offering of His own body, He
corrected their neglect by His own teaching, restoring all that was
man's by His own power. 2. And of this one may be assured at the hands
of the Saviour's own inspired writers, if one happen upon their
writings, where they say: "For the love of Christ [227] constraineth
us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then all died, and
He died for all that we should no longer live unto ourselves, but unto
Him Who for our sakes died and rose again," our Lord Jesus Christ. And,
again: "But [228] we behold Him, Who hath been made a little lower than
the angels, even Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with
glory and honour, that by the grace of God He should taste of death for
every man." 3. Then He also points out the reason why it was necessary
for none other than God the Word Himself to become incarnate; as
follows: "For it became Him, for Whom are all things, and through Whom
are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain
of their salvation perfect through suffering;" by which words He means,
that it belonged to none other to bring man back from the corruption
which had begun, than the Word of God, Who had also made them from the
beginning. 4. And that it was in order to the sacrifice for bodies such
as His own that the Word Himself also assumed a body, to this, also,
they refer in these words [229] : "Forasmuch then as the children are
the sharers in blood and flesh, He also Himself in like manner partook
of the same, that through death He might bring to naught Him that had
the power of death, that is, the devil; and might deliver them who,
through fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage." 5.
For by the sacrifice of His own body, He both put an end to the law
which was against us, and made a new beginning of life for us, by the
hope of resurrection which He has given us. For since from man it was
that death prevailed over men, for this cause conversely, by the Word
of God being made man has come about the destruction of death and the
resurrection of life; as the man which bore Christ [230] saith: "For
[231] since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the
dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made
alive:" and so forth. For no longer now do we die as subject to
condemnation; but as men who rise from the dead we await the general
resurrection of all, "which [232] in its own times He shall show," even
God, Who has also wrought it, and bestowed it upon us. 6. This then is
the first cause of the Saviour's being made man. But one might see from
the following reasons also, that His gracious coming amongst us was
fitting to have taken place.
__________________________________________________________________
[227] 2 Cor. v. 14.
[228] Heb. ii. 9, sq.
[229] Heb. ii. 14, sq.
[230] Cf. Gal. vi. 17
[231] 1 Cor. xv. 21, sq.
[232] 1 Tim. vi. 15.
__________________________________________________________________
S:11. Second reason for the Incarnation. God, knowing that man was not
by nature sufficient to know Him, gave him, in order that he might have
some profit in being, a knowledge of Himself. He made them in the Image
of the Word, that thus they might know the Word, and through Him the
Father. Yet man, despising this, fell into idolatry, leaving the unseen
God for magic and astrology; and all this in spite of God's manifold
revelation of Himself.
God, Who has the power over all things, when He was making the race of
men through His own Word, seeing the weakness of their nature, that it
was not sufficient of itself to know its Maker, nor to get any idea at
all of God; because while He was uncreate, the creatures had been made
of nought, and while He was incorporeal, men had been fashioned in a
lower way in the body, and because in every way the things made fell
far short of being able to comprehend and know their Maker--taking
pity, I say, on the race of men, inasmuch as He is good, He did not
leave them destitute of the knowledge of Himself, lest they should find
no profit in existing at all [233] . 2. For what profit to the
creatures if they knew not their Maker? or how could they be rational
without knowing the Word (and Reason) of the Father, in Whom they
received their very being? For there would be nothing to distinguish
them even from brute creatures if they had knowledge of nothing but
earthly things. Nay, why did God make them at all, as He did not wish
to be known by them? 3. Whence, lest this should be so, being good, He
gives them a share in His own Image, our Lord Jesus Christ, and makes
them after His own Image and after His likeness: so that by such grace
perceiving the Image, that is, the Word of the Father, they may be able
through Him to get an idea of the Father, and knowing their Maker, live
the happy and truly blessed life. 4. But men once more in their
perversity having set at nought, in spite of all this, the grace given
them, so wholly rejected God, and so darkened their soul, as not merely
to forget their idea of God, but also to fashion for themselves one
invention after another. For not only did they grave idols for
themselves, instead of the truth, and honour things that were not
before the living God, "and [234] serve the creature rather than the
Creator," but, worst of all, they transferred the honour of God even to
stocks and stones and to every material object and to men, and went
even further than this, as we have said in the former treatise. 5. So
far indeed did their impiety go, that they proceeded to worship devils,
and proclaimed them as gods, fulfilling their own [235] lusts. For they
performed, as was said above, offerings of brute animals, and
sacrifices of men, as was meet for them [236] , binding themselves down
all the faster under their maddening inspirations. 6. For this reason
it was also that magic arts were taught among them, and oracles in
divers places led men astray, and all men ascribed the influences of
their birth and existence to the stars and to all the heavenly bodies,
having no thought of anything beyond what was visible. 7. And, in a
word, everything was full of irreligion and lawlessness, and God alone,
and His Word, was unknown, albeit He had not hidden Himself out of
men's sight, nor given the knowledge of Himself in one way only; but
had, on the contrary, unfolded it to them in many forms and by many
ways.
__________________________________________________________________
[233] Cf. 13. 2.
[234] Cf. Rom. i. 25
[235] auton may refer to the daimones, in which case compare c. Gent.
25. sub fin.
[236] See c. Gent. 25. 1, ta homoia tois homoiois. Or the text may mean
simply "as their due."
__________________________________________________________________
S:12. For though man was created in grace, God, foreseeing his
forgetfulness, provided also the works of creation to remind man of
him. Yet further, He ordained a Law and Prophets, whose ministry was
meant for all the world. Yet men heeded only their own lusts.
For whereas the grace of the Divine Image was in itself sufficient to
make known God the Word, and through Him the Father; still God, knowing
the weakness of men, made provision even for their carelessness: so
that if they cared not to know God of themselves, they might be enabled
through the works of creation to avoid ignorance of the Maker. 2. But
since men's carelessness, by little and little, descends to lower
things, God made provision, once more, even for this weakness of
theirs, by sending a law, and prophets, men such as they knew, so that
even if they were not ready to look up to heaven and know their
Creator, they might have their instruction from those near at hand. For
men are able to learn from men more directly about higher things. 3. So
it was open to them, by looking into the height of heaven, and
perceiving the harmony of creation, to know its Ruler, the Word of the
Father, Who, by His own providence over all things makes known the
Father to all, and to this end moves all things, that through Him all
may know God. 4. Or, if this were too much for them, it was possible
for them to meet at least the holy men, and through them to learn of
God, the Maker of all things, the Father of Christ; and that the
worship of idols is godlessness, and full of all impiety. 5. Or it was
open to them, by knowing the law even, to cease from all lawlessness
and live a virtuous life. For neither was the law for the Jews alone,
nor were the Prophets sent for them only, but, though sent to the Jews
and persecuted by the Jews, they were for all the world a holy school
of the knowledge of God and the conduct of the soul. 6. God's goodness
then and loving-kindness being so great--men nevertheless, overcome by
the pleasures of the moment and by the illusions and deceits sent by
demons, did not raise their heads toward the truth, but loaded
themselves the more with evils and sins, so as no longer to seem
rational, but from their ways to be reckoned void of reason.
__________________________________________________________________
S:13. Here again, was God to keep silence? to allow to false gods the
worship He made us to render to Himself? A king whose subjects had
revolted would, after sending letters and messages, go to them in
person. How much more shall God restore in us the grace of His image.
This men, themselves but copies, could not do. Hence the Word Himself
must come (1) to recreate, (2) to destroy death in the Body.
So then, men having thus become brutalized, and demoniacal deceit thus
clouding every place, and hiding the knowledge of the true God, what
was God to do? To keep still silence at so great a thing, and suffer
men to be led astray by demons and not to know God? 2. And what was the
use of man having been originally made in God's image? For it had been
better for him to have been made simply like a brute animal, than, once
made rational, for him to live [237] the life of the brutes. 3. Or
where was any necessity at all for his receiving the idea of God to
begin with? For if he be not fit to receive it even now, it were better
it had not been given him at first. 4. Or what profit to God Who has
made them, or what glory to Him could it be, if men, made by Him, do
not worship Him, but think that others are their makers? For God thus
proves to have made these for others instead of for Himself. 5. Once
again, a merely human king does not let the lands he has colonized pass
to others to serve them, nor go over to other men; but he warns them by
letters, and often sends to them by friends, or, if need be, he comes
in person, to put them to rebuke in the last resort by his presence,
only that they may not serve others and his own work be spent for
naught. 6. Shall not God much more spare His own creatures, that they
be not led astray from Him and serve things of nought? especially since
such going astray proves the cause of their ruin and undoing, and since
it was unfitting that they should perish which had once been partakers
of God's image. 7. What then was God to do? or what was to be done save
the renewing of that which was in God's image, so that by it men might
once more be able to know Him? But how could this have come to pass
save by the presence of the very Image of God, our Lord Jesus Christ?
For by men's means it was impossible, since they are but made after an
image; nor by angels either, for not even they are (God's) images.
Whence the Word of God came in His own person, that, as He was the
Image of the Father, He might be able to create afresh the man after
the image. 8. But, again, it could not else have taken place had not
death and corruption been done away. 9. Whence He took, in natural
fitness, a mortal body, that while death might in it be once for all
done away, men made after His Image might once more be renewed. None
other then was sufficient for this need, save the Image of the Father.
__________________________________________________________________
[237] The Bened. text is corrected here on the ground (1) of ms.
evidence, (2) of construction (for which see 6, 7, and c. Gent. 20. 3).
__________________________________________________________________
S:14. A portrait once effaced must be restored from the original. Thus
the Son of the Father came to seek, save, and regenerate. No other way
was possible. Blinded himself, man could not see to heal. The witness
of creation had failed to preserve him, and could not bring him back.
The Word alone could do so. But how? Only by revealing Himself as Man.
For as, when the likeness painted on a panel has been effaced by stains
from without, he whose likeness it is must needs come once more to
enable the portrait to be renewed on the same wood: for, for the sake
of his picture, even the mere wood on which it is painted is not thrown
away, but the outline is renewed upon it; 2. in the same way also the
most holy Son of the Father, being the Image of the Father, came to our
region to renew man once made in His likeness, and find him, as one
lost, by the remission of sins; as He says Himself in the Gospels: "I
came [238] to find and to save the lost." Whence He said to the Jews
also: "Except [239] a man be born again," not meaning, as they thought,
birth from woman, but speaking of the soul born and created anew in the
likeness of God's image. 3. But since wild idolatry and godlessness
occupied the world, and the knowledge of God was hid, whose part was it
to teach the world concerning the Father? Man's, might one say? But it
was not in man's power to penetrate everywhere beneath the sun; for
neither had they the physical strength to run so far, nor would they be
able to claim credence in this matter, nor were they sufficient by
themselves to withstand the deceit and impositions of evil spirits. 4.
For where all were smitten and confused in soul from demoniacal deceit,
and the vanity of idols, how was it possible for them to win over man's
soul and man's mind--whereas they cannot even see them? Or how can a
man convert what he does not see? 5. But perhaps one might say creation
was enough; but if creation were enough, these great evils would never
have come to pass. For creation was there already, and all the same,
men were grovelling in the same error concerning God. 6. Who, then, was
needed, save the Word of God, that sees both soul and mind, and that
gives movement to all things in creation, and by them makes known the
Father? For He who by His own Providence and ordering of all things was
teaching men concerning the Father, He it was that could renew this
same teaching as well. 7. How, then, could this have been done? Perhaps
one might say, that the same means were open as before, for Him to shew
forth the truth about the Father once more by means of the work of
creation. But this was no longer a sure means. Quite the contrary; for
men missed seeing this before, and have turned their eyes no longer
upward but downward. 8. Whence, naturally, willing to profit men, He
sojourns here as man, taking to Himself a body like the others, and
from things of earth, that is by the works of His body [He teaches
them], so that they who would not know Him from His Providence and rule
over all things, may even from the works done by His actual body know
the Word of God which is in the body, and through Him the Father.
__________________________________________________________________
[238] Cf. Luc. xix. 10.
[239] See John iii. 3, 5.
__________________________________________________________________
S:15. Thus the Word condescended to man's engrossment in corporeal
things, by even taking a body. All man's superstitions He met halfway;
whether men were inclined to worship Nature, Man, Demons, or the dead,
He shewed Himself Lord of all these.
For as a kind teacher who cares for His disciples, if some of them
cannot profit by higher subjects, comes down to their level, and
teaches them at any rate by simpler courses; so also did the Word of
God. As Paul also says: "For seeing [240] that in the wisdom of God the
world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God's good pleasure
through the foolishness of the word preached to save them that
believe." 2. For seeing that men, having rejected the contemplation of
God, and with their eyes downward, as though sunk in the deep, were
seeking about for God in nature and in the world of sense, feigning
gods for themselves of mortal men and demons; to this end the loving
and general Saviour of all, the Word of God, takes to Himself a body,
and as Man walks among men and meets the senses of all men half-way
[241] , to the end, I say, that they who think that God is corporeal
may from what the Lord effects by His body perceive the truth, and
through Him recognize [242] the Father. 3. So, men as they were, and
human in all their thoughts, on whatever objects they fixed their
senses, there they saw themselves met half-way [243] , and taught the
truth from every side. 4. For if they looked with awe upon the
Creation, yet they saw how she confessed Christ as Lord; or if their
mind was swayed toward men, so as to think them gods, yet from the
Saviour's works, supposing they compared them, the Saviour alone among
men appeared Son of God; for there were no such works done among the
rest as have been done by the Word of God. 5. Or if they were biassed
toward evil spirits, even, yet seeing them cast out by the Word, they
were to know that He alone, the Word of God, was God, and that the
spirits were none. 6. Or if their mind had already sunk even to the
dead, so as to worship heroes, and the gods spoken of in the poets,
yet, seeing the Saviour's resurrection, they were to confess them to be
false gods, and that the Lord alone is true, the Word of the Father,
that was Lord even of death. 7. For this cause He was both born and
appeared as Man, and died, and rose again, dulling and casting into the
shade the works of all former men by His own, that in whatever
direction the bias of men might be, from thence He might recall them,
and teach them of His own true Father, as He Himself says: "I came to
save and to find that which was lost [244] ."
__________________________________________________________________
[240] 1 Cor. i. 21.
[241] Lit. "draws toward Himself."
[242] Lit. "infer."
[243] Lit. "draws toward Himself."
[244] Cf. 14. 2.
__________________________________________________________________
S:16. He came then to attract man's sense-bound attention to Himself as
man, and so to lead him on to know Him as God.
For men's mind having finally fallen to things of sense, the Word
disguised Himself by appearing in a body, that He might, as Man,
transfer men to Himself, and centre their senses on Himself, and, men
seeing Him thenceforth as Man, persuade them by the works He did that
He is not Man only, but also God, and the Word and Wisdom of the true
God. 2. This, too, is what Paul means to point out when he says: "That
ye [245] being rooted and grounded in love, may be strong to apprehend
with all the saints what is the breadth and length, and height and
depth, and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, that ye
may be filled unto all the fulness of God." 3. For by the Word
revealing Himself everywhere, both above and beneath, and in the depth
and in the breadth--above, in the creation; beneath, in becoming man;
in the depth, in Hades; and in the breadth, in the world--all things
have been filled with the knowledge of God. 4. Now for this cause,
also, He did not immediately upon His coming accomplish His sacrifice
on behalf of all, by offering His body to death and raising it again,
for by this [246] means He would have made Himself invisible. But He
made Himself visible enough by what [247] He did, abiding in it, and
doing such works, and shewing such signs, as made Him known no longer
as Man, but as God the Word. 5. For by His becoming Man, the Saviour
was to accomplish both works of love; first, in putting away death from
us and renewing us again; secondly, being unseen and invisible, in
manifesting and making Himself known by His works to be the Word of the
Father, and the Ruler and King of the universe.
__________________________________________________________________
[245] Eph. iii. 18, sq.
[246] dia toutou, perhaps, in both places--"by it," viz. His body.
[247] dia toutou, perhaps, in both places--"by it," viz. His body.
__________________________________________________________________
S:17. How the Incarnation did not limit the ubiquity of the Word, nor
diminish His Purity. (Simile of the Sun.)
For He was not, as might be imagined, circumscribed in the body, nor,
while present in the body, was He absent elsewhere; nor, while He moved
the body, was the universe left void of His working and Providence;
but, thing most marvellous, Word as He was, so far from being contained
by anything, He rather contained all things Himself; and just as while
present in the whole of Creation, He is at once distinct in being from
the universe, and present in all things by His own power,--giving order
to all things, and over all and in all revealing His own providence,
and giving life to each thing and all things, including the whole
without being included, but being in His own Father alone wholly and in
every respect,--2. thus, even while present in a human body and Himself
quickening it, He was, without inconsistency, quickening the universe
as well, and was in every process of nature, and was outside the whole,
and while known from the body by His works, He was none the less
manifest from the working of the universe as well. 3. Now, it is the
function of soul to behold even what is outside its own body, by acts
of thought, without, however, working outside its own body, or moving
by its presence things remote from the body. Never, that is, does a
man, by thinking of things at a distance, by that fact either move or
displace them; nor if a man were to sit in his own house and reason
about the heavenly bodies, would he by that fact either move the sun or
make the heavens revolve. But he sees that they move and have their
being, without being actually able to influence them. 4. Now, the Word
of God in His man's nature was not like that; for He was not bound to
His body, but rather was Himself wielding it, so that He was not only
in it, but was actually in everything, and while external to the
universe, abode in His Father only. 5. And this was the wonderful thing
that He was at once walking as man, and as the Word was quickening all
things, and as the Son was dwelling with His Father. So that not even
when the Virgin bore Him did He suffer any change, nor by being in the
body was [His glory] dulled: but, on the contrary, He sanctified the
body also. 6. For not even by being in the universe does He share in
its nature, but all things, on the contrary, are quickened and
sustained by Him. 7. For if the sun too, which was made by Him, and
which we see, as it revolves in the heaven, is not defiled [248] by
touching the bodies upon earth, nor is it put out by darkness, but on
the contrary itself illuminates and cleanses them also, much less was
the all-holy Word of God, Maker and Lord also of the sun, defiled by
being made known in the body; on the contrary, being incorruptible, He
quickened and cleansed the body also, which was in itself mortal: "who
[249] did," for so it says, "no sin, neither was guile found in His
mouth."
__________________________________________________________________
[248] Cf. St. Aug. de Fid. et Symb. 10, Rufin. in Symb. Apost. 12. So
also Tertull. adv. Marc. `Quodcunque induerit ipse dignum fecit.'
[249] 1 Pet. ii. 22.
__________________________________________________________________
S:18. How the Word and Power of God works in His human actions: by
casting out devils, by Miracles, by His Birth of the Virgin.
Accordingly, when inspired writers on this matter speak of Him as
eating and being born, understand [250] that the body, as body, was
born, and sustained with food corresponding to its nature, while God,
the Word Himself, Who was united with the body, while ordering all
things, also by the works He did in the body shewed Himself to be not
man, but God the Word. But these things are said of Him, because the
actual body which ate, was born, and suffered, belonged to none other
but to the Lord: and because, having become man, it was proper for
these things to be predicated of Him as man, to shew Him to have a body
in truth, and not in seeming. 2. But just as from these things He was
known to be bodily present, so from the works He did in the body He
made Himself known to be Son of God. Whence also He cried to the
unbelieving Jews; "If [251] I do not the works of My Father, believe Me
not. But if I do them, though ye believe not Me, believe My works; that
ye may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the
Father." 3. For just as, though invisible, He is known through the
works of creation; so, having become man, and being in the body unseen,
it may be known from His works that He Who can do these is not man, but
the Power and Word of God. 4. For His charging evil spirits, and their
being driven forth, this deed is not of man, but of God. Or who that
saw Him healing the diseases to which the human race is subject, can
still think Him man and not God? For He cleansed lepers, made lame men
to walk, opened the hearing of deaf men, made blind men to see again,
and in a word drove away from men all diseases and infirmities: from
which acts it was possible even for the most ordinary observer to see
His Godhead. For who that saw Him give back [252] what was deficient to
men born lacking, and open the eyes of the man blind from his birth,
would have failed to perceive that the nature of men was subject to
Him, and that He was its Artificer and Maker? For He that gave back
that which the man from his birth had not, must be, it is surely
evident, the Lord also of men's natural birth. 5. Therefore, even to
begin with, when He was descending to us, He fashioned His body for
Himself from a Virgin, thus to afford to all no small proof of His
Godhead, in that He Who formed this is also Maker of everything else as
well. For who, seeing a body proceeding forth from a Virgin alone
without man, can fail to infer that He Who appears in it is Maker and
Lord of other bodies also? 6. Or who, seeing the substance of water
changed and transformed into wine, fails to perceive that He Who did
this is Lord and Creator of the substance of all waters? For to this
end He went upon the sea also as its Master, and walked as on dry land,
to afford evidence to them that saw it of His lordship over all things.
And in feeding so vast a multitude on little, and of His own self
yielding abundance where none was, so that from five loaves five
thousand had enough, and left so much again over, did He shew Himself
to be any other than the very Lord Whose Providence is over all things?
__________________________________________________________________
[250] Compare Orat. iii. 31, note 11.
[251] John x. 37, sq.
[252] Cf. 49. 2.
__________________________________________________________________
S:19. Man, unmoved by nature, was to be taught to know God by that
sacred Manhood, Whose deity all nature confessed, especially in His
Death.
But all this it seemed well for the Saviour to do; that since men had
failed to know His Providence, revealed in the Universe, and had failed
to perceive His Godhead shewn in creation, they might at any rate from
the works of His body recover their sight, and through Him receive an
idea of the knowledge of the Father, inferring, as I said before, from
particular cases His Providence over the whole. 2. For who that saw His
power over evil spirits, or who that saw the evil spirits confess that
He was their Lord, will hold his mind any longer in doubt whether this
be the Son and Wisdom and Power of God? 3. For He made even the
creation break silence: in that even at His death, marvellous to
relate, or rather at His actual trophy over death--the Cross I
mean--all creation was confessing that He that was made manifest and
suffered in the body was not man merely, but the Son of God and Saviour
of all. For the sun hid His face, and the earth quaked and the
mountains were rent: all men were awed. Now these things shewed that
Christ on the Cross was God, while all creation was His slave, and was
witnessing by its fear to its Master's presence. Thus, then, God the
Word shewed Himself to men by His works. But our next step must be to
recount and speak of the end of His bodily life and course, and of the
nature of the death of His body; especially as this is the sum of our
faith, and all men without exception are full of it: so that you may
know that no whit the less from this also Christ is known to be God and
the Son of God.
__________________________________________________________________
S:20. None, then, could bestow incorruption, but He Who had made, none
restore the likeness of God, save His Own Image, none quicken, but the
Life, none teach, but the Word. And He, to pay our debt of death, must
also die for us, and rise again as our first-fruits from the grave.
Mortal therefore His Body must be; corruptible, His Body could not be.
We have, then, now stated in part, as far as it was possible, and as
ourselves had been able to understand, the reason of His bodily
appearing; that it was in the power of none other to turn the
corruptible to incorruption, except the Saviour Himself, that had at
the beginning also made all things out of nought and that none other
could create anew the likeness of God's image for men, save the Image
of the Father; and that none other could render the mortal immortal,
save our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the Very Life [253] ; and that none
other could teach men of the Father, and destroy the worship of idols,
save the Word, that orders all things and is alone the true
Only-begotten Son of the Father. 2. But since it was necessary also
that the debt owing from all should be paid again: for, as I have
already said [254] , it was owing that all should die, for which
especial cause, indeed, He came among us: to this intent, after the
proofs of His Godhead from His works, He next offered up His sacrifice
also on behalf of all, yielding His Temple to death in the stead of
all, in order firstly to make men quit and free of their old trespass,
and further to shew Himself more powerful even than death, displaying
His own body incorruptible, as first-fruits of the resurrection of all.
3. And do not be surprised if we frequently [255] repeat the same words
on the same subject. For since we are speaking of the counsel of God,
therefore we expound the same sense in more than one form, lest we
should seem to be leaving anything out, and incur the charge of
inadequate treatment: for it is better to submit to the blame of
repetition than to leave out anything that ought to be set down. 4. The
body, then, as sharing the same nature with all, for it was a human
body, though by an unparalleled miracle it was formed of a virgin only,
yet being mortal, was to die also, conformably to its peers. But by
virtue of the union of the Word with it, it was no longer subject to
corruption according to its own nature, but by reason of the Word that
was come to dwell [256] in it it was placed out of the reach of
corruption. 5. And so it was that two marvels came to pass at once,
that the death of all was accomplished in the Lord's body, and that
death and corruption were wholly done away by reason of the Word that
was united with it. For there was need of death, and death must needs
be suffered on behalf of all, that the debt owing from all might be
paid. 6. Whence, as I said before, the Word, since it was not possible
for Him to die, as He was immortal, took to Himself a body such as
could die, that He might offer it as His own in the stead of all, and
as suffering, through His union [257] with it, on behalf of all, "Bring
[258] to nought Him that had the power of death, that is the devil; and
might deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime
subject to bondage."
__________________________________________________________________
[253] autozoe, see c. Gent. 40, 46, and Orat. iv. 2, note 4.
[254] See especially S:7.
[255] e.g. viii. 4; x. 5, &c. `It is quite a peculiarity of Ath. to
repeat, and to apologise for doing so,' (Newman in Orat. ii. 80, note
1).
[256] epibasis, compare epibainein, 43. 4, &c.
[257] epibasis, compare epibainein, 43. 4, &c.
[258] Cf. 10. 4, above.
__________________________________________________________________
S:21. Death brought to nought by the death of Christ. Why then did not
Christ die privately, or in a more honourable way? He was not subject
to natural death, but had to die at the hands of others. Why then did
He die? Nay but for that purpose He came, and but for that, He could
not have risen.
Why, now that the common Saviour of all has died on our behalf, we, the
faithful in Christ, no longer die the death as before, agreeably to the
warning of the law; for this condemnation has ceased; but, corruption
ceasing and being put away by the grace of the Resurrection, henceforth
we are only dissolved, agreeably to our bodies' mortal nature, at the
time God has fixed for each, that we may be able to gain a better
resurrection. 2. For like the seeds which are cast into the earth, we
do not perish by dissolution, but sown in the earth, shall rise again,
death having been brought to nought by the grace of the Saviour. Hence
it is that blessed Paul, who was made a surety of the Resurrection to
all, says: "This corruptible [259] must put on incorruption, and this
mortal must put on immortality; but when this corruptible shall have
put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality,
then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is
swallowed up in victory. O death where is thy sting? O grave where is
thy victory?" 3. Why, then, one might say, if it were necessary for Him
to yield up His body to death in the stead of all, did He not lay it
aside as man privately, instead of going as far as even to be
crucified? For it were more fitting for Him to have laid His body aside
honourably, than ignominiously to endure a death like this. 4. Now, see
to it, I reply, whether such an objection be not merely human, whereas
what the Saviour did is truly divine and for many reasons worthy of His
Godhead. Firstly, because the death which befalls men comes to them
agreeably to the weakness of their nature; for, unable to continue in
one stay, they are dissolved with time. Hence, too, diseases befall
them, and they fall sick and die. But the Lord is not weak, but is the
Power of God and Word of God and Very Life. 5. If, then, He had laid
aside His body somewhere in private, and upon a bed, after the manner
of men, it would have been thought that He also did this agreeably to
the weakness of His nature, and because there was nothing in him more
than in other men. But since He was, firstly, the Life and the Word of
God, and it was necessary, secondly, for the death on behalf of all to
be accomplished, for this cause, on the one hand, because He was life
and power, the body gained strength in Him; 6. while on the other, as
death must needs come to pass, He did not Himself take, but received at
others' hands; the occasion of perfecting His sacrifice. Since it was
not fit, either, that the Lord should fall sick, who healed the
diseases of others; nor again was it right for that body to lose its
strength, in which He gives strength to the weaknesses of others also.
7. Why, then, did He not prevent death, as He did sickness? Because it
was for this that He had the body, and it was unfitting to prevent it,
lest the Resurrection also should be hindered, while yet it was equally
unfitting for sickness to precede His death, lest it should be thought
weakness on the part of Him that was in the body. Did He not then
hunger? Yes; He hungered, agreeably to the properties of His body. But
He did not perish of hunger, because of the Lord that wore it. Hence,
even if He died to ransom all, yet He saw not corruption. For [His
body] rose again in perfect soundness, since the body belonged to none
other, but to the very Life.
__________________________________________________________________
[259] 1 Cor. xv. 53, sqq.
__________________________________________________________________
S:22. But why did He not withdraw His body from the Jews, and so guard
its immortality? (1) It became Him not to inflict death on Himself, and
yet not to shun it. (2) He came to receive death as the due of others,
therefore it should come to Him from without. (3) His death must be
certain, to guarantee the truth of His Resurrection. Also, He could not
die from infirmity, lest He should be mocked in His healing of others.
But it were better, one might say, to have hidden from the designs of
the Jews, that He might guard His body altogether from death. Now let
such an one be told that this too was unbefitting the Lord. For as it
was not fitting for the Word of God, being the Life, to inflict death
Himself on His own body, so neither was it suitable to fly from death
offered by others, but rather to follow it up unto destruction, for
which reason He naturally neither laid aside His body of His own
accord, nor, again, fled from the Jews when they took counsel against
Him. 2. But this did not shew weakness on the Word's part, but, on the
contrary, shewed Him to be Saviour and Life; in that He both awaited
death to destroy it, and hasted to accomplish the death offered Him for
the salvation of all. 3. And besides, the Saviour came to accomplish
not His own death, but the death of men; whence He did not lay aside
His body by a death of His own [260] --for He was Life and had
none--but received that death which came from men, in order perfectly
to do away with this when it met Him in His own body. 4. Again, from
the following also one might see the reasonableness of the Lord's body
meeting this end. The Lord was especially concerned for the
resurrection of the body which He was set to accomplish. For what He
was to do was to manifest it as a monument of victory over death, and
to assure all of His having effected the blotting out of corruption,
and of the incorruption of their bodies from thenceforward; as a gage
of which and a proof of the resurrection in store for all, He has
preserved His own body incorrupt. 5. If, then, once more, His body had
fallen sick, and the word had been sundered from it in the sight of
all, it would have been unbecoming that He who healed the diseases of
others should suffer His own instrument to waste in sickness. For how
could His driving out the diseases of others have been believed [261]
in if His own temple fell sick in Him [262] ? For either He had been
mocked as unable to drive away diseases, or if He could, but did not,
He would be thought insensible toward others also.
__________________________________________________________________
[260] Cf. Joh. x. 17, 18.
[261] Cf. Matt. xxvii. 42.
[262] i.e. when sustained by its union with Him.
__________________________________________________________________
S:23. Necessity of a public death for the doctrine of the Resurrection.
But even if, without any disease and without any pain, He had hidden
His body away privily and by Himself "in [263] a corner," or in a
desert place, or in a house, or anywhere, and afterwards suddenly
appeared and said that He had been raised from the dead, He would have
seemed on all hands to be telling idle tales [264] , and what He said
about the Resurrection would have been all the more discredited, as
there was no one at all to witness to His death. Now, death must
precede resurrection, as it would be no resurrection did not death
precede; so that if the death of His body had taken place anywhere in
secret, the death not being apparent nor taking place before witnesses,
His Resurrection too had been hidden and without evidence. 2. Or why,
while when He had risen He proclaimed the Resurrection, should He cause
His death to take place in secret? or why, while He drove out evil
spirits in the presence of all, and made the man blind from his birth
recover his sight, and changed the water into wine, that by these means
He might be believed to be the Word of God, should He not manifest His
mortal nature as incorruptible in the presence of all, that He might be
believed Himself to be the Life? 3. Or how were His disciples to have
boldness in speaking of the Resurrection, were they not able to say
that He first died? Or how could they be believed, saying that death
had first taken place and then the Resurrection, had they not had as
witnesses of His death the men before whom they spoke with boldness?
For if, even as it was, when His death and Resurrection had taken place
in the sight of all, the Pharisees of that day would not believe, but
compelled even those who had seen the Resurrection to deny it, why,
surely, if these things had happened in secret, how many pretexts for
disbelief would they have devised? 4. Or how could the end of death,
and the victory over it be proved, unless challenging it before the
eyes of all He had shewn it to be dead, annulled for the future by the
incorruption of His body?
__________________________________________________________________
[263] Acts xxvi. 26.
[264] Luke xxiv. 11.
__________________________________________________________________
S:24. Further objections anticipated. He did not choose His manner of
death; for He was to prove Conqueror of death in all or any of its
forms: (simile of a good wrestler). The death chosen to disgrace Him
proved the Trophy against death: moreover it preserved His body
undivided.
But what others also might have said, we must anticipate in reply. For
perhaps a man might say even as follows: If it was necessary for His
death to take place before all, and with witnesses, that the story of
His Resurrection also might be believed, it would have been better at
any rate for Him to have devised for Himself a glorious death, if only
to escape the ignominy of the Cross. 2. But had He done even this, He
would give ground for suspicion against Himself, that He was not
powerful against every death, but only against the death devised for
[265] Him; and so again there would have been a pretext for disbelief
about the Resurrection all the same. So death came to His body, not
from Himself, but from hostile counsels, in order that whatever death
they offered to the Saviour, this He might utterly do away. 3. And just
as a noble wrestler, great in skill and courage, does not pick out his
antagonists for himself, lest he should raise a suspicion of his being
afraid of some of them, but puts it in the choice of the onlookers, and
especially so if they happen to be his enemies, so that against
whomsoever they match him, him he may throw, and be believed superior
to them all; so also the Life of all, our Lord and Saviour, even
Christ, did not devise a death for His own body, so as not to appear to
be fearing some other death; but He accepted on the Cross, and endured,
a death inflicted by others, and above all by His enemies, which they
thought dreadful and ignominious and not to be faced; so that this also
being destroyed, both He Himself might be believed to be the Life, and
the power of death be brought utterly to nought. 4. So something
surprising and startling has happened; for the death, which they
thought to inflict as a disgrace, was actually a monument of victory
against death itself. Whence neither did He suffer the death of John,
his head being severed, nor, as Esaias, was He sawn in sunder; in order
that even in death He might still keep His body undivided and in
perfect soundness, and no pretext be afforded to those that would
divide the Church.
__________________________________________________________________
[265] i.e. suggested as endoxon (supra, 1); a reading par' eautou has
been suggested: (devised) "by Himself."
__________________________________________________________________
S:25. Why the Cross, of all deaths? (1) He had to bear the curse for
us. (2) On it He held out His hands to unite all, Jews and Gentiles, in
Himself. (3) He defeated the "Prince of the powers of the air" in His
own region, clearing the way to heaven and opening for us the
everlasting doors.
And thus much in reply to those without who pile up arguments for
themselves. But if any of our own people also inquire, not from love of
debate, but from love of learning, why He suffered death in none other
way save on the Cross, let him also be told that no other way than this
was good for us, and that it was well that the Lord suffered this for
our sakes. 2. For if He came Himself to bear the curse laid upon us,
how else could He have "become [266] a curse," unless He received the
death set for a curse? and that is the Cross. For this is exactly what
is written: "Cursed [267] is he that hangeth on a tree." 3. Again, if
the Lord's death is the ransom of all, and by His death "the middle
[268] wall of partition" is broken down, and the calling of the nations
is brought about, how would He have called us to Him, had He not been
crucified? For it is only on the cross that a man dies with his hands
spread out. Whence it was fitting for the Lord to bear this also and to
spread out His hands, that with the one He might draw the ancient
people, and with the other those from the Gentiles, and unite both in
Himself. 4. For this is what He Himself has said, signifying by what
manner of death He was to ransom all: "I, when [269] I am lifted up,"
He saith, "shall draw all men unto Me." 5. And once more, if the devil,
the enemy of our race, having fallen from heaven, wanders about our
lower atmosphere, and there bearing rule over his fellow-spirits, as
his peers in disobedience, not only works illusions by their means in
them that are deceived, but tries to hinder them that are going up (and
about this [270] the Apostle says: "According to the prince of the
power of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of
disobedience"); while the Lord came to cast down the devil, and clear
the air and prepare the way for us up into heaven, as said the Apostle:
"Through [271] the veil, that is to say, His flesh"--and this must
needs be by death--well, by what other kind of death could this have
come to pass, than by one which took place in the air, I mean the
cross? for only he that is perfected on the cross dies in the air.
Whence it was quite fitting that the Lord suffered this death. 6. For
thus being lifted up He cleared the air [272] of the malignity both of
the devil and of demons of all kinds, as He says: "I beheld [273] Satan
as lightning fall from heaven;" and made a new opening of the way up
into heaven as He says once more: "Lift [274] up your gates, O ye
princes, and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors." For it was not the
Word Himself that needed an opening of the gates, being Lord of all;
nor were any of His works closed to their Maker; but we it was that
needed it whom He carried up by His own body. For as He offered it to
death on behalf of all, so by it He once more made ready the way up
into the heavens.
__________________________________________________________________
[266] Gal. iii. 13.
[267] Deut. xxi. 23.
[268] Eph. ii. 14.
[269] John xii. 32.
[270] Eph. ii. 2, and see the curious visions of Antony, Vit. Ant., 65,
66.
[271] Heb. x. 20.
[272] Cf. Lightfoot on Coloss. ii. 15, also the fragment of Letter 22,
and Letter 60. 7.
[273] Luc. x. 18.
[274] Ps. xxiv. 7, [LXX.]
__________________________________________________________________
S:26. Reasons for His rising on the Third Day. (1) Not sooner for else
His real death would be denied, nor (2) later; to (a) guard the
identity of His body, (b) not to keep His disciples too long in
suspense, nor (c) to wait till the witnesses of His death were
dispersed, or its memory faded.
The death on the Cross, then, for us has proved seemly and fitting, and
its cause has been shewn to be reasonable in every respect; and it may
justly be argued that in no other way than by the Cross was it right
for the salvation of all to take place. For not even thus--not even on
the Cross--did He leave Himself concealed; but far otherwise, while He
made creation witness to the presence of its Maker, He suffered not the
temple of His body to remain long, but having merely shewn it to be
dead, by the contact of death with it, He straightway raised it up on
the third day, bearing away, as the mark of victory and the triumph
over death, the incorruptibility and impassibility which resulted to
His body. 2. For He could, even immediately on death, have raised His
body and shewn it alive; but this also the Saviour, in wise foresight,
did not do. For one might have said that He had not died at all, or
that death had not come into perfect contact with Him, if He had
manifested the Resurrection at once. 3. Perhaps, again, had the
interval of His dying and rising again been one of two days [275] only,
the glory of His incorruption would have been obscure. So in order that
the body might be proved to be dead, the Word tarried yet one
intermediate day, and on the third shewed it incorruptible to all. 4.
So then, that the death on the Cross might be proved, He raised His
body on the third day. 5. But lest, by raising it up when it had
remained a long time and been completely corrupted, He should be
disbelieved, as though He had exchanged it for some other body--for a
man might also from lapse of time distrust what he saw, and forget what
had taken place--for this cause He waited not more than three days; nor
did He keep long in suspense those whom He had told about the
Resurrection: 6. but while the word was still echoing in their ears and
their eyes were still expectant and their mind in suspense, and while
those who had slain Him were still living on earth, and were on the
spot and could witness to the death of the Lord's body, the Son of God
Himself, after an interval of three days, shewed His body, once dead,
immortal and incorruptible; and it was made manifest to all that it was
not from any natural weakness of the Word that dwelt in it that the
body had died, but in order that in it death might be done away by the
power of the Saviour.
__________________________________________________________________
[275] Literally `at an even' [distance], as contrasted with (a) the
same day (2, above), (b) the third day (en tritai& 251; diastemati (6,
below). en iso must therefore be equivalent in sense to deuteraiou.
Possibly the literal sense is `[had the Resurrection taken place] at an
equal interval between the Death and the [actual day of] the
Resurrection.'
__________________________________________________________________
S:27. The change wrought by the Cross in the relation of Death to Man.
For that death is destroyed, and that the Cross is become the victory
over it, and that it has no more power but is verily dead, this is no
small proof, or rather an evident warrant, that it is despised by all
Christ's disciples, and that they all take the aggressive against it
and no longer fear it; but by the sign of the Cross and by faith in
Christ tread it down as dead. 2. For of old, before the divine sojourn
of the Saviour took place, even to the saints death was terrible [276]
, and all wept for the dead as though they perished. But now that the
Saviour has raised His body, death is no longer terrible; for all who
believe in Christ tread him under as nought, and choose rather to die
than to deny their faith in Christ. For they verily know that when they
die they are not destroyed, but actually [begin to] live, and become
incorruptible through the Resurrection. 3. And that devil that once
maliciously exulted in death, now that its [277] pains were loosed,
remained the only one truly dead. And a proof of this is, that before
men believe Christ, they see in death an object of terror, and play the
coward before him. But when they are gone over to Christ's faith and
teaching, their contempt for death is so great that they even eagerly
rush upon it, and become witnesses for the Resurrection the Saviour has
accomplished against it. For while still tender in years they make
haste to die, and not men only, but women also, exercise themselves by
bodily discipline against it. So weak has he become, that even women
who were formerly deceived by him, now mock at him as dead and
paralyzed. 4. For as when a tyrant has been defeated by a real king,
and bound hand and foot, then all that pass by laugh him to scorn,
buffeting and reviling him, no longer fearing his fury and barbarity,
because of the king who has conquered him; so also, death having been
conquered and exposed by the Saviour on the Cross, and bound hand and
foot, all they who are in Christ, as they pass by, trample on him, and
witnessing to Christ scoff at death, jesting at him, and saying what
has been written against him of old: "O death [278] , where is thy
victory? O grave, where is thy sting."
__________________________________________________________________
[276] Cf. Ps. lv. 4, lxxxix. 47; Job. xviii. 14.
[277] Cf. Acts ii. 24
[278] Cf. above, 21. 2.
__________________________________________________________________
S:28. This exceptional fact must be tested by experience. Let those who
doubt it become Christians.
Is this, then, a slight proof of the weakness of death? or is it a
slight demonstration of the victory won over him by the Saviour, when
the youths and young maidens that are in Christ despise this life and
practise to die? 2. For man is by nature afraid of death and of the
dissolution of the body; but there is this most startling fact, that he
who has put on the faith of the Cross despises even what is naturally
fearful, and for Christ's sake is not afraid of death. 3. And just as,
whereas fire has the natural property of burning, if some one said
there was a substance which did not fear its burning, but on the
contrary proved it weak--as the asbestos among the Indians is said to
do--then one who did not believe the story, if he wished to put it to
the test, is at any rate, after putting on the fireproof material and
touching the fire, thereupon assured of the weakness attributed [279]
to the fire: 4. or if any one wished to see the tyrant bound, at any
rate by going into the country and domain of his conqueror he may see
the man, a terror to others, reduced to weakness; so if a man is
incredulous even still after so many proofs and after so many who have
become martyrs in Christ, and after the scorn shewn for death every day
by those who are illustrious in Christ, still, if his mind be even yet
doubtful as to whether death has been brought to nought and had an end,
he does well to wonder at so great a thing, only let him not prove
obstinate in incredulity, nor case-hardened in the face of what is so
plain. 5. But just as he who has got the asbestos knows that fire has
no burning power over it, and as he who would see the tyrant bound goes
over to the empire of his conqueror, so too let him who is incredulous
about the victory over death receive the faith of Christ, and pass over
to His teaching, and he shall see the weakness of death, and the
triumph over it. For many who were formerly incredulous and scoffers
have afterwards believed and so despised death as even to become
martyrs for Christ Himself.
__________________________________________________________________
[279] kata tou puros kata appears to have the predicative force so
common in Aristotle. The Bened. translation `the weakness of fire
against the asbestos' is based on a needless conjecture.
__________________________________________________________________
S:29. Here then are wonderful effects, and a sufficient cause, the
Cross, to account for them, as sunrise accounts for daylight.
Now if by the sign of the Cross, and by faith in Christ, death is
trampled down, it must be evident before the tribunal of truth that it
is none other than Christ Himself that has displayed trophies and
triumphs over death, and made him lose all his strength. 2. And if,
while previously death was strong, and for that reason terrible, now
after the sojourn of the Saviour and the death and Resurrection of His
body it is despised, it must be evident that death has been brought to
nought and conquered by the very Christ that ascended the Cross. 3. For
as, if after night-time the sun rises, and the whole region of earth is
illumined by him, it is at any rate not open to doubt that it is the
sun who has revealed his light everywhere, that has also driven away
the dark and given light to all things; so, now that death has come
into contempt, and been trodden under foot, from the time when the
Saviour's saving manifestation in the flesh and His death on the Cross
took place, it must be quite plain that it is the very Saviour that
also appeared in the body, Who has brought death to nought, and Who
displays the signs of victory over him day by day in His own disciples.
4. For when one sees men, weak by nature, leaping forward to death, and
not fearing its corruption nor frightened of the descent into Hades,
but with eager soul challenging it; and not flinching from torture, but
on the contrary, for Christ's sake electing to rush upon death in
preference to life upon earth, or even if one be an eye-witness of men
and females and young children rushing and leaping upon death for the
sake of Christ's religion; who is so silly, or who is so incredulous,
or who so maimed in his mind, as not to see and infer that Christ, to
Whom the people witness, Himself supplies and gives to each the victory
over death, depriving him of all his power in each one of them that
hold His faith and bear the sign of the Cross. 5. For he that sees the
serpent trodden under foot, especially knowing his former fierceness no
longer doubts that he is dead and has quite lost his strength, unless
he is perverted in mind and has not even his bodily senses sound. For
who that sees a lion, either, made sport of by children, fails to see
that he is either dead or has lost all his power? 6. Just as, then, it
is possible to see with the eyes the truth of all this, so, now that
death is made sport of and despised by believers in Christ let none any
longer doubt, nor any prove incredulous, of death having been brought
to nought by Christ, and the corruption of death destroyed and stayed.
__________________________________________________________________
S:30. The reality of the resurrection proved by facts: (1) the victory
over death described above: (2) the Wonders of Grace are the work of
One Living, of One who is God: (3) if the gods be (as alleged) real and
living, a fortiori He Who shatters their power is alive.
What we have so far said, then, is no small proof that death has been
brought to naught, and that the Cross of the Lord is a sign of victory
over him. But of the Resurrection of the body to immortality thereupon
accomplished by Christ, the common Saviour and true Life of all, the
demonstration by facts is clearer than arguments to those whose mental
vision is sound. 2. For if, as our argument shewed, death has been
brought to nought, and because of Christ all tread him under foot, much
more did He Himself first tread him down with His own body, and bring
him to nought. But supposing death slain by Him, what could have
happened save the rising again of His body, and its being displayed as
a monument of victory against death? or how could death have been shewn
to be brought to nought unless the Lord's body had risen? But if this
demonstration of the Resurrection seem to any one insufficient, let him
be assured of what is said even from what takes place before his eyes.
3. For whereas on a man's decease he can put forth no power, but his
influence lasts to the grave and thenceforth ceases; and actions, and
power over men, belong to the living only; let him who will, see and be
judge, confessing the truth from what appears to sight. 4. For now that
the Saviour works so great things among men, and day by day is
invisibly persuading so great a multitude from every side, both from
them that dwell in Greece and in foreign lands, to come over to His
faith, and all to obey His teaching, will any one still hold his mind
in doubt whether a Resurrection has been accomplished by the Saviour,
and whether Christ is alive, or rather is Himself the Life? 5. Or is it
like a dead man to be pricking the consciences of men, so that they
deny their hereditary laws and bow before the teaching of Christ? Or
how, if he is no longer active (for this is proper to one dead), does
he stay from their activity those who are active and alive, so that the
adulterer no longer commits adultery, and the murderer murders no more,
nor is the inflicter of wrong any longer grasping, and the profane is
henceforth religious? Or how, if He be not risen but is dead, does He
drive away, and pursue, and cast down those false gods said by the
unbelievers to be alive, and the demons they worship? 6. For where
Christ is named, and His faith, there all idolatry is deposed and all
imposture of evil spirits is exposed, and any spirit is unable to
endure even the name, nay even on barely hearing it flies and
disappears. But this work is not that of one dead, but of one that
lives--and especially of God. 7. In particular, it would be ridiculous
to say that while the spirits cast out by Him and the idols brought to
nought are alive, He who chases them away, and by His power prevents
their even appearing, yea, and is being confessed by them all to be Son
of God, is dead.
__________________________________________________________________
S:31. If Power is the sign of life, what do we learn from the impotence
of idols, for good or evil, and the constraining power of Christ and of
the Sign of the Cross? Death and the demons are by this proved to have
lost their sovereignty. Coincidence of the above argument from facts
with that from the Personality of Christ.
But they who disbelieve in the Resurrection afford a strong proof
against themselves, if instead of all the spirits and the gods
worshipped by them casting out Christ, Who, they say, is dead, Christ
on the contrary proves them all to be dead. 2. For if it be true that
one dead can exert no power, while the Saviour does daily so many
works, drawing men to religion, persuading to virtue, teaching of
immortality, leading on to a desire for heavenly things, revealing the
knowledge of the Father, inspiring strength to meet death, shewing
Himself to each one, and displacing the godlessness of idolatry, and
the gods and spirits of the unbelievers can do none of these things,
but rather shew themselves dead at the presence of Christ, their pomp
being reduced to impotence and vanity; whereas by the sign of the Cross
all magic is stopped, and all witchcraft brought to nought, and all the
idols are being deserted and left, and every unruly pleasure is
checked, and every one is looking up from earth to heaven: Whom is one
to pronounce dead? Christ, that is doing so many works? But to work is
not proper to one dead. Or him that exerts no power at all, but lies as
it were without life? which is essentially proper to the idols and
spirits, dead as they are. 3. For the Son of God is [280] "living and
active," and works day by day, and brings about the salvation of all.
But death is daily proved to have lost all his power, and idols and
spirits are proved to be dead rather than Christ, so that henceforth no
man can any longer doubt of the Resurrection of His body. 4. But he who
is incredulous of the Resurrection of the Lord's body would seem to be
ignorant of the power of the Word and Wisdom of God. For if He took a
body to Himself at all, and--in reasonable consistency, as our argument
shewed-- appropriated it as His own, what was the Lord to do with it?
or what should be the end of the body when the Word had once descended
upon it? For it could not but die, inasmuch as it was mortal, and to be
offered unto death on behalf of all: for which purpose it was that the
Saviour fashioned it for Himself. But it was impossible for it to
remain dead, because it had been made the temple of life. Whence, while
it died as mortal, it came to life again by reason of the Life in it;
and of its Resurrection the works are a sign.
__________________________________________________________________
[280] Heb. iv. 12.
__________________________________________________________________
S:32. But who is to see Him risen, so as to believe? Nay, God is ever
invisible and known by His works only: and here the works cry out in
proof. If you do not believe, look at those who do, and perceive the
Godhead of Christ. The demons see this, though men be blind. Summary of
the argument so far.
But if, because He is not seen, His having risen at all is disbelieved,
it is high time for those who refuse belief to deny the very course of
Nature. For it is God's peculiar property at once to be invisible and
yet to be known from His works, as has been already stated above. 2.
If, then, the works are not there, they do well to disbelieve what does
not appear. But if the works cry aloud and shew it clearly, why do they
choose to deny the life so manifestly due to the Resurrection? For even
if they be maimed in their intelligence, yet even with the external
senses men may see the unimpeachable power and Godhead of Christ. 3.
For even a blind man, if he see not the sun, yet if he but take hold of
the warmth the sun gives out, knows that there is a sun above the
earth. Thus let our opponents also, even if they believe not as yet,
being still blind to the truth, yet at least knowing His power by
others who believe, not deny the Godhead of Christ and the Resurrection
accomplished by Him. 4. For it is plain that if Christ be dead, He
could not be expelling demons and spoiling idols; for a dead man the
spirits would not have obeyed. But if they be manifestly expelled by
the naming of His name, it must be evident that He is not dead;
especially as spirits, seeing even what is unseen by men, could tell if
Christ were dead and refuse Him any obedience at all. 5. But as it is,
what irreligious men believe not, the spirits see--that He is God,--and
hence they fly and fall at His feet, saying just what they uttered when
He was in the body: "We [281] know Thee Who Thou art, the Holy One of
God;" and, "Ah, what have we to do with Thee, Thou Son of God? I pray
Thee, torment me not." 6. As then demons confess Him, and His works
bear Him witness day by day, it must be evident, and let none brazen it
out against the truth, both that the Saviour raised His own body, and
that He is the true Son of God, being from Him, as from His Father, His
own Word, and Wisdom, and Power, Who in ages later took a body for the
salvation of all, and taught the world concerning the Father, and
brought death to nought, and bestowed incorruption upon all by the
promise of the Resurrection, having raised His own body as a
first-fruits of this, and having displayed it by the sign of the Cross
as a monument of victory over death and its corruption.
__________________________________________________________________
[281] Cf. Luc. iv. 34, and Marc. v. 7.
__________________________________________________________________
S:33. Unbelief of Jews and scoffing of Greeks. The former confounded by
their own Scriptures. Prophecies of His coming as God and as Man.
These things being so, and the Resurrection of His body and the victory
gained over death by the Saviour being clearly proved, come now let us
put to rebuke both the disbelief of the Jews and the scoffing of the
Gentiles. 2. For these, perhaps, are the points where Jews express
incredulity, while Gentiles laugh, finding fault with the unseemliness
of the Cross, and of the Word of God becoming man. But our argument
shall not delay to grapple with both especially as the proofs at our
command against them are clear as day. 3. For Jews in their incredulity
may be refuted from the Scriptures, which even themselves read; for
this text and that, and, in a word, the whole inspired Scripture, cries
aloud concerning these things, as even its express words abundantly
shew. For prophets proclaimed beforehand concerning the wonder of the
Virgin and the birth from her, saying: "Lo, the [282] Virgin shall be
with child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call his name
Emmanuel, which is, being interpreted, God with us." 4. But Moses, the
truly great, and whom they believe to speak truth, with reference to
the Saviour's becoming man, having estimated what was said as
important, and assured of its truth, set it down in these words: "There
[283] shall rise a star out of Jacob, and a man out of Israel, and he
shall break in pieces the captains of Moab." And again: "How lovely are
thy habitations O Jacob, thy tabernacles O Israel, as shadowing
gardens, and as parks by the rivers, and as tabernacles which the Lord
hath fixed, as cedars by the waters. A man shall come forth out of his
seed, and shall be Lord over many peoples." And again, Esaias: "Before
[284] the Child know how to call father or mother, he shall take the
power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria before the king of
Assyria." 5. That a man, then, shall appear is foretold in those words.
But that He that is to come is Lord of all, they predict once more as
follows: "Behold [285] the Lord sitteth upon a light cloud, and shall
come into Egypt, and the graven images of Egypt shall be shaken." For
from thence also it is that the Father calls Him back, saying: "I
called [286] My Son out of Egypt."
__________________________________________________________________
[282] Matt. i. 23; Isa. vii. 14.
[283] Num. xxiv. 5-17.
[284] Isa. viii. 4.
[285] Isa. xix. 1.
[286] Hos. xi. 1.
__________________________________________________________________
S:34. Prophecies of His passion and death in all its circumstances.
Nor is even His death passed over in silence: on the contrary, it is
referred to in the divine Scriptures, even exceeding clearly. For to
the end that none should err for want of instruction in the actual
events, they feared not to mention even the cause of His death,--that
He suffers it not for His own sake, but for the immortality and
salvation of all, and the counsels of the Jews against Him and the
indignities offered Him at their hands. 2. They say then: "A man [287]
in stripes, and knowing how to bear weakness, for his face is turned
away: he was dishonoured and held in no account. He beareth our sins,
and is in pain on our account; and we reckoned him to be in labour, and
in stripes, and in ill-usage; but he was wounded for our sins, and made
weak for our wickedness. The chastisement of our peace was upon him,
and by his stripes we were healed." O marvel at the loving-kindness of
the Word, that for our sakes He is dishonoured, that we may be brought
to honour. "For all we," it says, "like sheep were gone astray; man had
erred in his way; and the Lord delivered him for our sins; and he
openeth not his mouth, because he hath been evilly entreated. As a
sheep was he brought to the slaughter, and as a lamb dumb before his
shearer, so openeth he not his mouth: in his abasement his judgment was
taken away [288] ." 3. Then lest any should from His suffering conceive
Him to be a common man, Holy Writ anticipates the surmises of man, and
declares the power (which worked) for Him [289] , and the difference of
His nature compared with ourselves, saying: "But who shall declare his
generation? For his life is taken away [290] from the earth. From the
wickedness of the people was he brought to death. And I will give the
wicked instead of his burial, and the rich instead of his death; for he
did no wickedness, neither was guile found in his mouth. And the Lord
will cleanse him from his stripes."
__________________________________________________________________
[287] Isa. liii. 3, sqq.
[288] Or, "exalted."
[289] ten huper autou dunamin. The Ben. version simplifies this
difficult expression by ignoring the huper. Mr. E. N. Bennett has
suggested to me that the true reading may be hupera& 203;lon for huper
autou (aulos supra 8. 1, huperaulos in Philo). I would add the
suggestion that autou stood after huperaulon, and that the similarity
of the five letters in ms. caused the second word to be dropped out.
`His exceeding immaterial power' would be the resulting sense. (See
Class. Review, 1890, No. iv. p. 182.)
[290] Or, "exalted."
__________________________________________________________________
S:35. Prophecies of the Cross. How these prophecies are satisfied in
Christ alone.
But, perhaps, having heard the prophecy of His death, you ask to learn
also what is set forth concerning the Cross. For not even this is
passed over: it is displayed by the holy men with great plainness. 2.
For first Moses predicts it, and that with a loud voice, when he says:
"Ye shall see [291] your Life hanging before your eyes, and shall not
believe." 3. And next, the prophets after him witness of this, saying:
"But [292] I as an innocent lamb brought to be slain, knew it not; they
counselled an evil counsel against me, saying, Hither and let us cast a
tree upon his [293] bread, and efface him from the land of the living."
4. And again: "They pierced [294] my hands and my feet, they numbered
all my bones, they parted my garments among them, and for my vesture
they cast lots." 5. Now a death raised aloft and that takes place on a
tree, could be none other than the Cross: and again, in no other death
are the hands and feet pierced, save on the Cross only. 6. But since by
the sojourn of the Saviour among men all nations also on every side
began to know God; they did not leave this point, either, without a
reference: but mention is made of this matter as well in the Holy
Scriptures. For "there [295] shall be," he saith, "the root of Jesse,
and he that riseth to rule the nations, on him shall the nations hope."
This then is a little in proof of what has happened. 7. But all
Scripture teems with refutations of the disbelief of the Jews. For
which of the righteous men and holy prophets, and patriarchs, recorded
in the divine Scriptures, ever had his corporal birth of a virgin only?
Or what woman has sufficed without man for the conception of human
kind? Was not Abel born of Adam, Enoch of Jared, Noe of Lamech, and
Abraham of Tharra, Isaac of Abraham, Jacob of Isaac? Was not Judas born
of Jacob, and Moses and Aaron of Ameram? Was not Samuel born of Elkana,
was not David of Jesse, was not Solomon of David, was not Ezechias of
Achaz, was not Josias of Amos, was not Esaias of Amos, was not Jeremy
of Chelchias, was not Ezechiel of Buzi? Had not each a father as author
of his existence? Who then is he that is born of a virgin only? For the
prophet made exceeding much of this sign. 8. Or whose birth did a star
in the skies forerun, to announce to the world him that was born? For
when Moses was born, he was hid by his parents: David was not heard of,
even by those of his neighbourhood, inasmuch as even the great Samuel
knew him not, but asked, had Jesse yet another son? Abraham again
became known to his neighbours as [296] a great man only subsequently
to his birth. But of Christ's birth the witness was not man, but a star
in that heaven whence He was descending.
__________________________________________________________________
[291] Deut. xxviii. 66, see Orat ii. 16, note 1.
[292] Jer. xi. 19.
[293] Properly "let us destroy the tree with its bread" (i.e. fruit).
The LXX, translate b^elahmo `upon his bread,' which is possible in
itself; but they either mistook the verb, or followed some wrong
reading. Their rendering is followed by all the Latin versions. For a
comment on the latter see Tertull. adv. Marc. iii. 19, iv. 40.
[294] Ps. xxii. 16, sqq.
[295] Isa. xi. 10.
[296] Or `only after he had grown great,' i.e. to man's estate.
__________________________________________________________________
S:36. Prophecies of Christ's sovereignty, flight into Egypt, &c.
But what king that ever was, before he had strength to call father or
mother, reigned and gained triumphs over his enemies [297] ? Did not
David come to the throne at thirty years of age, and Solomon, when he
had grown to be a young man? Did not Joas enter on the kingdom when
seven years old, and Josias, a still later king, receive the government
about the seventh year of his age? And yet they at that age had
strength to call father or mother. 2. Who, then, is there that was
reigning and spoiling his enemies almost before his birth? Or what king
of this sort has ever been in Israel and in Juda--let the Jews, who
have searched out the matter, tell us--in whom all the nations have
placed their hopes and had peace, instead of being at enmity with them
on every side? 3. For as long as Jerusalem stood there was war without
respite betwixt them, and they all fought with Israel; the Assyrians
oppressed them, the Egyptians persecuted them, the Babylonians fell
upon them; and, strange to say, they had even the Syrians their
neighbours at war against them. Or did not David war against them of
Moab, and smite the Syrians, Josias guard against his neighbours, and
Ezechias quail at the boasting of Senacherim, and Amalek make war
against Moses, and the Amorites oppose him, and the inhabitants of
Jericho array themselves against Jesus son of Naue? And, in a word,
treaties of friendship had no place between the nations and Israel.
Who, then, it is on whom the nations are to set their hope, it is worth
while to see. For there must be such an one, as it is impossible for
the prophet to have spoken falsely. 4. But which of the holy prophets
or of the early patriarchs has died on the Cross for the salvation of
all? Or who was wounded and destroyed for the healing of all? Or which
of the righteous men, or kings, went down to Egypt, so that at his
coming the idols of Egypt fell [298] ? For Abraham went thither, but
idolatry prevailed universally all the same. Moses was born there, and
the deluded worship of the people was there none the less.
__________________________________________________________________
[297] Isa. viii. 4, where note LXX.
[298] Cf. Letter 61. 4.
__________________________________________________________________
S:37. Psalm xxii. 16, &c. Majesty of His birth and death. Confusion of
oracles and demons in Egypt.
Or who among those recorded in Scripture was pierced in the hands and
feet, or hung at all upon a tree, and was sacrificed on a cross for the
salvation of all? For Abraham died, ending his life on a bed; Isaac and
Jacob also died with their feet raised on a bed; Moses and Aaron died
on the mountain; David in his house, without being the object of any
conspiracy at the hands of the people; true, he was pursued by Saul,
but he was preserved unhurt. Esaias was sawn asunder, but not hung on a
tree. Jeremy was shamefully treated, but did not die under
condemnation; Ezechie suffered, not however for the people, but to
indicate what was to come upon the people. 2. Again, these, even where
they suffered, were men resembling all in their common nature; but he
that is declared in Scripture to suffer on behalf of all is called not
merely man, but the Life of all, albeit He was in fact like men in
nature. For "ye shall [299] see," it says, "your Life hanging before
your eyes;" and "who shall declare his generation?" For one can
ascertain the genealogy of all the saints, and declare it from the
beginning, and of whom each was born; but the generation of Him that is
the Life the Scriptures refer to as not to be declared. 3. Who then is
he of whom the Divine Scriptures say this? Or who is so great that even
the prophets predict of him such great things? None else, now, is found
in the Scriptures but the common Saviour of all, the Word of God, our
Lord Jesus Christ. For He it is that proceeded from a virgin and
appeared as man on the earth, and whose generation after the flesh
cannot be declared. For there is none that can tell His father after
the flesh, His body not being of a man, but of a virgin alone; 4. so
that no one can declare the corporal generation of the Saviour from a
man, in the same way as one can draw up a genealogy of David and of
Moses and of all the patriarchs. For He it is that caused the star also
to mark the birth of His body; since it was fit that the Word, coming
down from heaven, should have His constellation also from heaven, and
it was fitting that the King of Creation when He came forth should be
openly recognized by all creation. 5. Why, He was born in Judaea, and
men from Persia came to worship Him. He it is that even before His
appearing in the body won the victory over His demon adversaries and a
triumph over idolatry. All heathen at any rate from every region,
abjuring their hereditary tradition and the impiety of idols, are now
placing their hope in Christ, and enrolling themselves under Him, the
like of which you may see with your own eyes. 6. For at no other time
has the impiety of the Egyptians ceased, save when the Lord of all,
riding as it were upon a cloud, came down there in the body and brought
to nought the delusion of idols, and brought over all to Himself, and
through Himself to the Father. 7. He it is that was crucified before
the sun and all creation as witnesses, and before those who put Him to
death: and by His death has salvation come to all, and all creation
been ransomed. He is the Life of all, and He it is that as a sheep
yielded His body to death as a substitute, for the salvation of all,
even though the Jews believe it not.
__________________________________________________________________
[299] Cf. 35. 2, and 34. 3.
__________________________________________________________________
S:38. Other clear prophecies of the coming of God in the flesh.
Christ's miracles unprecedented.
For if they do not think these proofs sufficient, let them be persuaded
at any rate by other reasons, drawn from the oracles they themselves
possess. For of whom do the prophets say: "I was [300] made manifest to
them that sought me not, I was found of them that asked not for me: I
said Behold, here am I, to the nation that had not called upon my name;
I stretched out my hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people." 2.
Who, then, one might say to the Jews, is he that was made manifest? For
if it is the prophet, let them say when he was hid, afterward to appear
again. And what manner of prophet is this, that was not only made
manifest from obscurity, but also stretched out his hands on the Cross?
None surely of the righteous, save the Word of God only, Who,
incorporeal by nature, appeared for our sakes in the body and suffered
for all. 3. Or if not even this is sufficient for them, let them at
least be silenced by another proof, seeing how clear its demonstrative
force is. For the Scripture says: "Be strong [301] ye hands that hang
down, and feeble knees; comfort ye, ye of faint mind; be strong, fear
not. Behold, our God recompenseth judgment; He shall come and save us.
Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened, and the ears of the deaf
shall hear; then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of
the stammerers shall be plain." 4. Now what can they say to this, or
how can they dare to face this at all? For the prophecy not only
indicates that God is to sojourn here, but it announces the signs and
the time of His coming. For they connect the blind recovering their
sight, and the lame walking, and the deaf hearing, and the tongue of
the stammerers being made plain, with the Divine Coming which is to
take place. Let them say, then, when such signs have come to pass in
Israel, or where in Jewry anything of the sort has occurred. 5. Naaman,
a leper, was cleansed, but no deaf man heard nor lame walked. Elias
raised a dead man; so did Eliseus; but none blind from birth regained
his sight. For in good truth, to raise a dead man is a great thing, but
it is not like the wonder wrought by the Saviour. Only, if Scripture
has not passed over the case of the leper, and of the dead son of the
widow, certainly, had it come to pass that a lame man also had walked
and a blind man recovered his sight, the narrative would not have
omitted to mention this also. Since then nothing is said in the
Scriptures, it is evident that these things had never taken place
before. 6. When, then, have they taken place, save when the Word of God
Himself came in the body? Or when did He come, if not when lame men
walked, and stammerers were made to speak plain, and deaf men heard,
and men blind from birth regained their sight? For this was the very
thing the Jews said who then witnessed it, because they had not heard
of these things having taken place at any other time: "Since [302] the
world began it was never heard that any one opened the eyes of a man
born blind. If this man were not from God, He could do nothing."
__________________________________________________________________
[300] Isa. lxv. 1, 2; cf. Rom. x. 20, sq.
[301] Isa. xxxv. 3, sqq.
[302] John ix. 32, sq.
__________________________________________________________________
S:39. Do you look for another? But Daniel foretells the exact time.
Objections to this removed.
But perhaps, being unable, even they, to fight continually against
plain facts, they will, without denying what is written, maintain that
they are looking for these things, and that the Word of God is not yet
come. For this it is on which they are for ever harping, not blushing
to brazen it out in the face of plain facts. 2. But on this one point,
above all, they shall be all the more refuted, not at our hands, but at
those of the most wise Daniel, who marks both the actual date, and the
divine sojourn of the Saviour, saying: "Seventy [303] weeks are cut
short upon thy people, and upon the holy city, for a full end to be
made of sin, and for sins to be sealed up, and to blot out iniquities,
and to make atonement for iniquities, and to bring everlasting
righteousness, and to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint a Holy of
Holies; and thou shalt know and understand from the going forth of the
word to restore [304] and to build Jerusalem unto Christ the Prince" 3.
Perhaps with regard to the other (prophecies) they may be able even to
find excuses and to put off what is written to a future time. But what
can they say to this, or can they face it at all? Where not only is the
Christ referred to, but He that is to be anointed is declared to be not
man simply, but Holy of Holies; and Jerusalem is to stand till His
coming, and thenceforth, prophet and vision cease in Israel. 4. David
was anointed of old, and Solomon and Ezechias; but then, nevertheless,
Jerusalem and the place stood, and prophets were prophesying: God and
Asaph and Nathan; and, later, Esaias and Osee and Amos and others. And
again, the actual men that were anointed were called holy, and not Holy
of Holies. 5. But if they shield themselves with the captivity, and say
that because of it Jerusalem was not, what can they say about the
prophets too? For in fact when first the people went down to Babylon,
Daniel and Jeremy were there, and Ezechiel and Aggaeus and Zachary were
prophesying.
__________________________________________________________________
[303] Dan. ix. 24, sq.
[304] Lit. "answer," a misrendering of the Hebrew.
__________________________________________________________________
S:40. Argument (1) from the withdrawal of prophecy and destruction of
Jerusalem, (2) from the conversion of the Gentiles, and that to the God
of Moses. What more remains for the Messiah to do, that Christ has not
done?
So the Jews are trifling, and the time in question, which they refer to
the future, is actually come. For when did prophet and vision cease
from Israel, save when Christ came, the Holy of Holies? For it is a
sign, and an important proof, of the coming of the Word of God, that
Jerusalem no longer stands, nor is any prophet raised up nor vision
revealed to them,--and that very naturally. 2. For when He that was
signified was come, what need was there any longer of any to signify
Him? When the truth was there, what need any more of the shadow? For
this was the reason of their prophesying at all,--namely, till the true
Righteousness should come, and He that was to ransom the sins of all.
And this was why Jerusalem stood till then--namely, that there they
might be exercised in the types as a preparation for the reality. 3. So
when the Holy of Holies was come, naturally vision and prophecy were
sealed and the kingdom of Jerusalem ceased. For kings were to be
anointed among them only until the Holy of Holies should have been
anointed; and Jacob prophesies that the kingdom of the Jews should be
established until Him, as follows:--"The ruler [305] shall not fail
from Juda, nor the Prince from his loins, until that which is laid up
for him shall come; and he is the expectation of the nations." 4.
Whence the Saviour also Himself cried aloud and said: "The [306] law
and the prophets prophesied until John." If then there is now among the
Jews king or prophet or vision, they do well to deny the Christ that is
come. But if there is neither king nor vision, but from that time forth
all prophecy is sealed and the city and temple taken, why are they so
irreligious and so perverse as to see what has happened, and yet to
deny Christ, Who has brought it all to pass? Or why, when they see even
heathens deserting their idols, and placing their hope, through Christ,
on the God of Israel, do they deny Christ, Who was born of the root of
Jesse after the flesh and henceforth is King? For if the nations were
worshipping some other God, and not confessing the God of Abraham and
Isaac and Jacob and Moses, then, once more, they would be doing well in
alleging that God had not come. 5. But if the Gentiles are honouring
the same God that gave the law to Moses and made the promise to
Abraham, and Whose word the Jews dishonoured,--why are they ignorant,
or rather why do they choose to ignore, that the Lord foretold by the
Scriptures has shone forth upon the world, and appeared to it in bodily
form, as the Scripture said: "The [307] Lord God hath shined upon us;"
and again: "He [308] sent His Word and healed them;" and again: "Not
[309] a messenger, not an angel, but the Lord Himself saved them?" 6.
Their state may be compared to that of one out of his right mind, who
sees the earth illumined by the sun, but denies the sun that illumines
it. For what more is there for him whom they expect to do, when he is
come? To call the heathen? But they are called already. To make
prophecy, and king, and vision to cease? This too has already come to
pass. To expose the godlessness of idolatry? It is already exposed and
condemned. Or to destroy death? He is already destroyed. 7. What then
has not come to pass, that the Christ must do? What is left
unfulfilled, that the Jews should now disbelieve with impunity? For if,
I say,--which is just what we actually see,--there is no longer king
nor prophet nor Jerusalem nor sacrifice nor vision among them, but even
the whole earth is filled with the knowledge of God, and Gentiles,
leaving their godlessness, are now taking refuge with the God of
Abraham, through the Word, even our Lord Jesus Christ, then it must be
plain, even to those who are exceedingly obstinate, that the Christ is
come, and that He has illumined absolutely all with His light, and
given them the true and divine teaching concerning His Father. 8. So
one can fairly refute the Jews by these and by other arguments from the
Divine Scriptures.
__________________________________________________________________
[305] Gen. xlix. 10.
[306] Matt. xi. 13. cf. Luc. xvi. 16.
[307] Cf. Ps. cxviii. 27, and for the literal sense, Num. vi. 25
[308] Ps. cvii. 20.
[309] Isa. lxiii. 9 (LXX.), and the note in the (Queen's Printers')
`Variorum' Bible.
__________________________________________________________________
S:41. Answer to the Greeks. Do they recognise the Logos? If He
manifests Himself in the organism of the Universe, why not in one Body?
for a human body is a part of the same whole.
But one cannot but be utterly astonished at the Gentiles, who, while
they laugh at what is no matter for jesting, are themselves insensible
to their own disgrace, which they do not see that they have set up in
the shape of stocks and stones. 2. Only, as our argument is not lacking
in demonstrative proof, come let us put them also to shame on
reasonable grounds,--mainly from what we ourselves also see. For what
is there on our side that is absurd, or worthy of derision? Is it
merely our saying that the Word has been made manifest in the body? But
this even they will join in owning to have happened without any
absurdity, if they show themselves friends of truth. 3. If then they
deny that there is a Word of God at all, they do so gratuitously [310]
, jesting at what they know not. 4. But if they confess that there is a
Word of God, and He ruler of the universe, and that in Him the Father
has produced the creation, and that by His Providence the whole
receives light and life and being, and that He reigns over all, so that
from the works of His providence He is known, and through Him the
Father,--consider, I pray you, whether they be not unwittingly raising
the jest against themselves. 5. The philosophers of the Greeks say that
the universe is a great body [311] ; and rightly so. For we see it and
its parts as objects of our senses. If, then, the Word of God is in the
Universe, which is a body, and has united Himself with the whole and
with all its parts, what is there surprising or absurd if we say that
He has united Himself [312] with man also. 6. For if it were absurd for
Him to have been in a body at all, it would be absurd for Him to be
united with the whole either, and to be giving light and movement to
all things by His providence. For the whole also is a body. 7. But if
it beseems Him to unite Himself with the universe, and to be made known
in the whole, it must beseem Him also to appear in a human body, and
that by Him it should be illumined and work. For mankind is part of the
whole as well as the rest. And if it be unseemly for a part to have
been adopted as His instrument to teach men of His Godhead, it must be
most absurd that He should be made known even by the whole universe.
__________________________________________________________________
[310] Athan. here assumes, for the purpose of his argument, the
principles of the Neo-platonist schools. They were influenced, in
regard to the Logos, by Philo, but even on this subject the germ of
their teaching may be traced in Plato, especially in the Timaeus, (See
Drummond's Philo, i. 65-88, Bigg's Bamp. Lect. 14, 18, 248-253, and St.
Aug. Confess. in `Nicene Fathers,' Series 1, vol. 1, p. 107 and notes.)
[311] Especially Plato, Tim. 30, &c.
[312] epibebekenai, cf. above, 20. 4, 6. The Union of God and Man in
Christ is of course `hypostatic' or personal, and thus (supra 17. 1),
different in kind from the union of the Word with Creation. His
argument is ad homines. It was not for thinkers who identified the
Universe with God to take exception to the idea of Incarnation.
__________________________________________________________________
S:42. His union with the body is based upon His relation to Creation as
a whole. He used a human body, since to man it was that He wished to
reveal Himself.
For just as, while the whole body is quickened and illumined by man,
supposing one said it were absurd that man's power should also be in
the toe, he would be thought foolish; because, while granting that he
pervades and works in the whole, he demurs to his being in the part
also; thus he who grants and believes that the Word of God is in the
whole Universe, and that the whole is illumined and moved by Him,
should not think it absurd that a single human body also should receive
movement and light from Him. 2. But if it is because the human race is
a thing created and has been made out of nothing, that they regard that
manifestation of the Saviour in man, which we speak of, as not seemly,
it is high time for them to eject Him from creation also; for it too
has been brought into existence by the Word out of nothing. 3. But if,
even though creation be a thing made, it is not absurd that the Word
should be in it, then neither is it absurd that He should be in man.
For whatever idea they form of the whole, they must necessarily apply
the like idea to the part. For man also, as I said before, is a part of
the whole. 4. Thus it is not at all unseemly that the Word should be in
man, while all things are deriving from Him their light and movement
and light, as also their authors say, "In [313] him we live and move
and have our being." 5. So, then, what is there to scoff at in what we
say, if the Word has used that, wherein He is, as an instrument to
manifest Himself? For were He not in it, neither could He have used it;
but if we have previously allowed that He is in the whole and in its
parts, what is there incredible in His manifesting Himself in that
wherein He is? 6. For by His own power He is united [314] wholly with
each and all, and orders all things without stint, so that no one could
have called it out of place for Him to speak, and make known Himself
and His Father, by means of sun, if He so willed, or moon, or heaven,
or earth, or waters, or fire [315] ; inasmuch as He holds in one all
things at once, and is in fact not only in all but also in the part in
question, and there invisibly manifests Himself. In like manner it
cannot be absurd if, ordering as He does the whole, and giving life to
all things, and having willed to make Himself known through men, He has
used as His instrument a human body to manifest the truth and knowledge
of the Father. For humanity, too, is an actual part of the whole. 7.
And as Mind, pervading man all through, is interpreted by a part of the
body, I mean the tongue, without any one saying, I suppose, that the
essence of the mind is on that account lowered, so if the Word,
pervading all things, has used a human instrument, this cannot appear
unseemly. For, as I have said previously, if it be unseemly to have
used a body as an instrument, it is unseemly also for Him to be in the
Whole.
__________________________________________________________________
[313] See Acts xvii. 28.
[314] epibainon, see supra, note 3.
[315] The superfluous pepoiekenai is ignored, being untranslateable as
the text stands. For a less simple conjecture, see the Bened. note.
__________________________________________________________________
S:43. He came in human rather than in any nobler form, because (I) He
came to save, not to impress ; (2) man alone of creatures had sinned.
As men would not recognise His works in the Universe, He came and
worked among them as Man; in the sphere to which they had limited
themselves.
Now, if they ask, Why then did He not appear by means of other and
nobler parts of creation, and use some nobler instrument, as the sun,
or moon, or stars, or fire, or air, instead of man merely? let them
know that the Lord came not to make a display, but to heal and teach
those who were suffering. 2. For the way for one aiming at display
would be, just to appear, and to dazzle the beholders; but for one
seeking to heal and teach the way is, not simply to sojourn here, but
to give himself to the aid of those in want, and to appear as they who
need him can bear it; that he may not, by exceeding the requirements of
the sufferers, trouble the very persons that need him, rendering God's
appearance useless to them. 3. Now, nothing in creation had gone astray
with regard to their notions of God, save man only. Why, neither sun,
nor moon, nor heaven, nor the stars, nor water, nor air had swerved
from their order; but knowing their Artificer and Sovereign, the Word,
they remain as they were made [316] . But men alone, having rejected
what was good, then devised things of nought instead of the truth, and
have ascribed the honour due to God, and their knowledge of Him, to
demons and men in the shape of stones. 4. With reason, then, since it
were unworthy of the Divine Goodness to overlook so grave a matter,
while yet men were not able to recognise Him as ordering and guiding
the whole, He takes to Himself as an instrument a part of the whole,
His human body, and unites [317] Himself with that, in order that since
men could not recognise Him in the whole, they should not fail to know
Him in the part; and since they could not look up to His invisible
power, might be able, at any rate, from what resembled themselves to
reason to Him and to contemplate Him. 5. For, men as they are, they
will be able to know His Father more quickly and directly by a body of
like nature and by the divine works wrought through it, judging by
comparison that they are not human, but the works of God, which are
done by Him. 6. And if it were absurd, as they say, for the Word to be
known through the works of the body, it would likewise be absurd for
Him to be known through the works of the universe. For just as He is in
creation, and yet does not partake of its nature in the least degree,
but rather all things partake [318] of His power; so while He used the
body as His instrument He partook of no corporeal property, but, on the
contrary, Himself sanctified even the body. 7. For if even Plato, who
is in such repute among the Greeks, says [319] that its author,
beholding the universe tempest-tossed, and in peril of going down to
the place of chaos, takes his seat at the helm of the soul and comes to
the rescue and corrects all its calamities; what is there incredible in
what we say, that, mankind being in error, the Word lighted down [320]
upon it and appeared as man, that He might save it in its tempest by
His guidance and goodness?
__________________________________________________________________
[316] This thought is beautifully expressed by Keble :-- `All true, all
faultless, all in tune, Creation's wondrous choir Opened in mystic
unison, to last till time expire. And still it lasts: by day and night
with one consenting voice All hymn Thy glory Lord, aright, all worship
and rejoice: Man only mars the sweet accord".... (`Christian Year,'
Fourth Sunday after Trinity.)
[317] Cf. 41. 5, note 3.
[318] Cf. Orig. c. Cels. vi. 64, where there is the same contrast
between metechein and metechesthai
[319] Ath. paraphrases loosely Plat. Politic. 273 D. See Jowett's Plato
(ed. 2) vol. iv. pp. 515, 553.
[320] Lit. "sate down," as four lines above.
__________________________________________________________________
S:44. As God made man by a word, why not restore him by a word? But (1)
creation out of nothing is different from reparation of what already
exists. (2) Man was there with a definite need, calling for a definite
remedy. Death was ingrained in man's nature: He then must wind life
closely to human nature. Therefore the Word became Incarnate that He
might meet and conquer death in His usurped territory. (Simile of straw
and asbestos.)
But perhaps, shamed into agreeing with this, they will choose to say
that God, if He wished to reform and to save mankind, ought to have
done so by a mere fiat [321] , without His word taking a body, in just
the same way as He did formerly, when He produced them out of nothing.
2. To this objection of theirs a reasonable answer would be: that
formerly, nothing being in existence at all, what was needed to make
everything was a fiat and the bare will to do so. But when man had once
been made, and necessity demanded a cure, not for things that were not,
but for things that had come to be, it was naturally consequent that
the Physician and Saviour should appear in what had come to be, in
order also to cure the things that were. For this cause, then, He has
become man, and used His body as a human instrument. 3. For if this
were not the right way, how was the Word, choosing to use an
instrument, to appear? or whence was He to take it, save from those
already in being, and in need of His Godhead by means of one like
themselves? For it was not things without being that needed salvation,
so that a bare command should suffice, but man, already in existence,
was going to corruption and ruin [322] . It was then natural and right
that the Word should use a human instrument and reveal Himself
everywhither. 4. Secondly, you must know this also, that the corruption
which had set in was not external to the body, but had become attached
to it; and it was required that, instead of corruption, life should
cleave to it; so that, just as death has been engendered in the body,
so life may be engendered in it also. 5. Now if death were external to
the body, it would be proper for life also to have been engendered
externally to it. But if death was wound closely to the body and was
ruling over it as though united to it, it was required that life also
should be wound closely to the body, that so the body, by putting on
life in its stead, should cast off corruption. Besides, even supposing
that the Word had come outside the body, and not in it, death would
indeed have been defeated by Him, in perfect accordance with nature,
inasmuch as death has no power against the Life; but the corruption
attached to the body would have remained in it none the less [323] . 6.
For this cause the Saviour reasonably put on Him a body, in order that
the body, becoming wound closely to the Life, should no longer, as
mortal, abide in death, but, as having put on immortality, should
thenceforth rise again and remain immortal. For, once it had put on
corruption, it could not have risen again unless it had put on life.
And death likewise could not, from its very nature, appear, save in the
body. Therefore He put on a body, that He might find death in the body,
and blot it out. For how could the Lord have been proved at all to be
the Life, had He not quickened what was mortal? 7. And just as, whereas
stubble is naturally destructible by fire, supposing (firstly) a man
keeps fire away from the stubble, though it is not burned, yet the
stubble remains, for all that, merely stubble, fearing the threat of
the fire--for fire has the natural property of consuming it; while if a
man (secondly) encloses it with a quantity of asbestos, the substance
said [324] to be an antidote to fire, the stubble no longer dreads the
fire, being secured by its enclosure in incombustible matter; 8. in
this very way one may say, with regard to the body and death, that if
death had been kept from the body by a mere command on His part, it
would none the less have been mortal and corruptible, according to the
nature of bodies; but, that this should not be, it put on the
incorporeal Word of God, and thus no longer fears either death or
corruption, for it has life as a garment, and corruption is done away
in it.
__________________________________________________________________
[321] With this discussion compare that upon `repentance' above 7.
(esp. 7. 4).
[322] Restoration by a mere fiat would have shewn God's power, the
Incarnation shews His Love. See Orat. i. 52, note 1, ii. 68, note 1.
[323] Cf. Orat. i. 56, note 5, 65, note 3.
[324] See above 28. 3. He appears not to have seen the substance.
__________________________________________________________________
S:45. Thus once again every part of creation manifests the glory of
God. Nature, the witness to her Creator, yields (by miracles) a second
testimony to God Incarnate. The witness of Nature, perverted by man's
sin, was thus forced back to truth. If these reasons suffice not, let
the Greeks look at facts.
Consistently, therefore, the Word of God took a body and has made use
of a human instrument, in order to quicken the body also, and as He is
known in creation by His works so to work in man as well, and to shew
Himself everywhere, leaving nothing void of His own divinity, and of
the knowledge of Him. 2. For I resume, and repeat what I said before,
that the Saviour did this in order that, as He fills all things on all
sides by His presence, so also He might fill all things with the
knowledge of Him, as the divine Scripture also says [325] : "The whole
earth was filled with the knowledge of the Lord." 3. For if a man will
but look up to heaven, he sees its Order, or if he cannot raise his
face to heaven, but only to man, he sees His power, beyond comparison
with that of men, shewn by His works, and learns that He alone among
men is God the Word. Or if a man is gone astray among demons, and is in
fear of them, he may see this man drive them out, and make up his mind
that He is their Master. Or if a man has sunk to the waters [326] , and
thinks that they are God,--as the Egyptians, for instance, reverence
the water,--he may see its nature changed by Him, and learn that the
Lord is Creator of the waters. 4. But if a man is gone down even to
Hades, and stands in awe of the heroes who have descended thither,
regarding them as gods, yet he may see the fact of Christ's
Resurrection and victory over death, and infer that among them also
Christ alone is true God and Lord. 5. For the Lord touched all parts of
creation, and freed and undeceived all of them from every illusion; as
Paul says: "Having [327] put off from Himself the principalities and
the powers, He triumphed on the Cross:" that no one might by any
possibility be any longer deceived, but everywhere might find the true
Word of God. 6. For thus man, shut in on every side [328] , and
beholding the divinity of the Word unfolded everywhere, that is, in
heaven, in Hades, in man, upon earth, is no longer exposed to deceit
concerning God, but is to worship Christ alone, and through Him come
rightly to know the Father. 7. By these arguments, then, on grounds of
reason, the Gentiles in their turn will fairly be put to shame by us.
But if they deem the arguments insufficient to shame them, let them be
assured of what we are saying at any rate by facts obvious to the sight
of all.
__________________________________________________________________
[325] Isa. xi. 9. For the arguments, compare S:S:11-14.
[326] See Doellinger, Gentile and Jew, i. 449.
[327] Col. ii. 15.
[328] The Incarnation completes the circle of God's self-witness and of
man's responsibility.
__________________________________________________________________
S:46. Discredit, from the date of the Incarnation, of idol-cultus,
oracles, mythologies, demoniacal energy, magic, and Gentile philosophy.
And whereas the old cults were strictly local and independent, the
worship of Christ is catholic and uniform.
When did men begin to desert the worshipping of idols, save since God,
the true Word of God, has come among men? Or when have the oracles
among the Greeks, and everywhere, ceased and become empty, save when
the Saviour has manifested Himself upon earth? 2. Or when did those who
are called gods and heroes in the poets begin to be convicted of being
merely mortal men [329] , save since the Lord erected His conquest of
death, and preserved incorruptible the body he had taken, raising it
from the dead? 3. Or when did the deceitfulness and madness of demons
fall into contempt, save when the power of God, the Word, the Master of
all these as well, condescending because of man's weakness, appeared on
earth? Or when [330] did the art and the schools of magic begin to be
trodden down, save when the divine manifestation of the Word took place
among men? 4. And, in a word, at what time has the wisdom of the Greeks
become foolish, save when the true Wisdom of God manifested itself on
earth? For formerly the whole world and every place was led astray by
the worshipping of idols, and men regarded nothing else but the idols
as gods. But now, all the world over, men are deserting the
superstition of the idols, and taking refuge with Christ; and,
worshipping Him as God, are by His means coming to know that Father
also Whom they knew not. 5. And, marvellous fact, whereas the objects
of worship were various and of vast number, and each place had its own
idol, and he who was accounted a god among them had no power to pass
over to the neighbouring place, so as to persuade those of neighbouring
peoples to worship him, but was barely served even among his own
people; for no one else worshipped his neighbour's god--on the
contrary, each man kept to his own idol [331] , thinking it to be lord
of all;--Christ alone is worshipped as one and the same among all
peoples; and what the weakness of the idols could not do--to persuade,
namely, even those dwelling close at hand,--this Christ has done,
persuading not only those close at hand, but simply the entire world,
to worship one and the same Lord, and through Him God, even His Father.
__________________________________________________________________
[329] Cf. notes on c. Gent. 10, and 12. 2.
[330] On the following argument see Doellinger ii. 210 sqq., and Bigg,
Bampt. Lect. 248, note 1.
[331] On the local character of ancient religions, see Doellinger i.
109, &c., and Coulanges, La Cite Antique, Book III. ch. vi., and V.
iii. (the substance in Barker's Aryan Civilisation).
__________________________________________________________________
S:47. The numerous oracles,--fancied apparitions in sacred places, &c.,
dispelled by the sign of the Cross. The old gods prove to have been
mere men. Magic is exposed. And whereas Philosophy could only persuade
select and local cliques of Immortality, and goodness,--men of little
intellect have infused into the multitudes of the churches the
principle of a supernatural life.
And whereas formerly every place was full of the deceit of the oracles
[332] , and the oracles at Delphi and Dodona, and in Boeotia [333] and
Lycia [334] and Libya [335] and Egypt and those of the Cabiri [336] ,
and the Pythoness, were held in repute by men's imagination, now, since
Christ has begun to be preached everywhere, their madness also has
ceased and there is none among them to divine any more. 2. And whereas
formerly demons used to deceive [337] men's fancy, occupying springs or
rivers, trees or stones, and thus imposed upon the simple by their
juggleries; now, after the divine visitation of the Word, their
deception has ceased. For by the Sign of the Cross, though a man but
use it, he drives out their deceits. 3. And while formerly men held to
be gods the Zeus and Cronos and Apollo and the heroes mentioned in the
poets, and went astray in honouring them; now that the Saviour has
appeared among men, those others have been exposed as mortal men [338]
, and Christ alone has been recognised among men as the true God, the
Word of God. 4. And what is one to say of the magic [339] esteemed
among them? that before the Word sojourned among us this was strong and
active among Egyptians, and Chaldees, and Indians, and inspired awe in
those who saw it; but that by the presence of the Truth, and the
Appearing of the Word, it also has been thoroughly confuted, and
brought wholly to nought. 5. But as to Gentile wisdom, and the sounding
pretensions of the philosophers, I think none can need our argument,
since the wonder is before the eyes of all, that while the wise among
the Greeks had written so much, and were unable to persuade even a few
[340] from their own neighbourhood, concerning immortality and a
virtuous life, Christ alone, by ordinary language, and by men not
clever with the tongue, has throughout all the world persuaded whole
churches full of men to despise death, and to mind the things of
immortality; to overlook what is temporal and to turn their eyes to
what is eternal; to think nothing of earthly glory and to strive only
for the heavenly.
__________________________________________________________________
[332] On these, see Doellinger, i. 216, &c., and Milton's Ode on the
Nativity, stanza xix.
[333] i.e. that of Trophonius.
[334] Patara.
[335] Ammon.
[336] See Doellinger, i. 73, 164-70: the Cabiri were pre-Hellenic
deities, worshipped in many ancient sanctuaries, but principally in
Samothrace and Lemnos.
[337] Cf. Vit. Ant. xvi.-xliii., also Doellinger, ii. 212, and a
curious catena of extracts from early Fathers, collected by Hurter in
`Opuscula SS. Patrum Selecta,' vol. 1, appendix.
[338] For this opinion, see note 1 on c. Gent. 12.
[339] See Doellinger, ii. 210, and (on Julian) 215.
[340] In Plato's ideal Republic, the notion of any direct influence of
the highest ideals upon the masses is quite absent. Their happiness is
to be in passive obedience to the few whom those ideals inspire.
(Contrast Isa. liv. 13, Jer. xxxi. 34.)
__________________________________________________________________
S:48. Further facts. Christian continence of virgins and ascetics.
Martyrs. The power of the Cross against demons and magic. Christ by His
Power shews Himself more than a man, more than a magician, more than a
spirit. For all these are totally subject to Him. Therefore He is the
Word of God.
Now these arguments of ours do not amount merely to words, but have in
actual experience a witness to their truth. 2. For let him that will,
go up and behold the proof of virtue in the virgins of Christ and in
the young men that practise holy chastity [341] , and the assurance of
immortality in so great a band of His martyrs. 3. And let him come who
would test by experience what we have now said, and in the very
presence of the deceit of demons and the imposture of oracles and the
marvels of magic, let him use the Sign of that Cross which is laughed
at among them, and he shall see how by its means demons fly, oracles
cease, all magic and witchcraft is brought to nought. 4. Who, then, and
how great is this Christ, Who by His own Name and Presence casts into
the shade and brings to nought all things on every side, and is alone
strong against all, and has filled the whole world with His teaching?
Let the Greeks tell us, who are pleased to laugh, and blush not. 5. For
if He is a man, how then has one man exceeded the power of all whom
even themselves bold to be gods, and convicted them by His own power of
being nothing? But if they call Him a magician, how can it be that by a
magician all magic is destroyed, instead of being confirmed? For if He
conquered particular magicians, or prevailed over one only, it would be
proper for them to hold that He excelled the rest by superior skill; 6.
but if His Cross has won the victory over absolutely all magic, and
over the very name of it, it must be plain that the Saviour is not a
magician, seeing that even those demons who are invoked by the other
magicians fly from Him as their Master. 7. Who He is, then, let the
Greeks tell us, whose only serious pursuit is jesting. Perhaps they
might say that He, too, was a demon, and hence His strength. But say
this as they will, they will have the laugh against them, for they can
once more be put to shame by our former proofs. For how is it possible
that He should be a demon who drives the demons out? 8. For if He
simply drove out particular demons, it might properly be held that by
the chief of demons He prevailed against the lesser, just as the Jews
said to Him when they wished to insult Him. But if, by His Name being
named, all madness of the demons is uprooted and chased away, it must
be evident that here, too, they are wrong, and that our Lord and
Saviour Christ is not, as they think, some demoniacal power. 9. Then,
if the Saviour is neither a man simply, nor a magician, nor some demon,
but has by His own Godhead brought to nought and cast into the shade
both the doctrine found in the poets and the delusion of the demons and
the wisdom of the Gentiles, it must be plain and will be owned by all,
that this is the true Son of God, even the Word and Wisdom and Power of
the Father from the beginning. For this is why His works also are no
works of man, but are recognised to be above man, and truly God's
works, both from the facts in themselves, and from comparison with [the
rest of] mankind.
__________________________________________________________________
[341] Cf. Hist. Arian. 25, Apol. Const. 33.
__________________________________________________________________
S:49. His Birth and Miracles. You call Asclepius, Heracles, and
Dionysus gods for their works. Contrast their works with His, and the
wonders at His death, &c.
For what man, that ever was born, formed a body for himself from a
virgin alone? Or what man ever healed such diseases as the common Lord
of all? Or who has restored what was wanting to man's nature, and made
one blind from his birth to see? 2. Asclepius was deified among them,
because he practised medicine and found out herbs for bodies that were
sick; not forming them himself out of the earth, but discovering them
by science drawn from nature. But what is this to what was done by the
Saviour, in that, instead of healing a wound, He modified a man's
original nature, and restored the body whole. 3. Heracles is worshipped
as a god among the Greeks because he fought against men, his peers, and
destroyed wild beasts by guile. What is this to what was done by the
Word, in driving away from man diseases and demons and death itself?
Dionysus is worshipped among them because he has taught man
drunkenness; but the true Saviour and Lord of all, for teaching
temperance, is mocked by these people. 4. But let these matters pass.
What will they say to the other miracles of His Godhead? At what man's
death was the sun darkened and the earth shaken? Lo even to this day
men are dying, and they died also of old. When did any such-like wonder
happen in their case? 5. Or, to pass over the deeds done through His
body, and mention those after its rising again: what man's doctrine
that ever was has prevailed everywhere, one and the same, from one end
of the earth to the other, so that his worship has winged its way
through every land? 6. Or why, if Christ is, as they say, a man, and
not God the Word, is not His worship prevented by the gods they have
from passing into the same land where they are? Or why on the contrary
does the Word Himself, sojourning here, by His teaching stop their
worship and put their deception to shame?
__________________________________________________________________
S:50. Impotence and rivalries of the Sophists put to shame by the Death
of Christ. His Resurrection unparalleled even in Greek legend.
Many before this Man have been kings and tyrants of the world, many are
on record who have been wise men and magicians, among the Chaldaeans
and Egyptians and Indians; which of these, I say, not after death, but
while still alive, was ever able so far to prevail as to fill the whole
earth with his teaching and reform so great a multitude from the
superstition of idols, as our Saviour has brought over from idols to
Himself? 2. The philosophers of the Greeks have composed many works
with plausibility and verbal skill; what result, then, have they
exhibited so great as has the Cross of Christ? For the refinements they
taught were plausible enough till they died; but even the influence
they seemed to have while alive was subject to their mutual rivalries;
and they were emulous, and declaimed against one another. 3. But the
Word of God, most strange fact, teaching in meaner language, has cast
into the shade the choice sophists; and while He has, by drawing all to
Himself, brought their schools to nought, He has filled His own
churches; and the marvellous thing is, that by going down as man to
death, He has brought to nought the sounding utterances of the wise
[342] concerning idols. 4. For whose death ever drove out demons? or
whose death did demons ever fear, as they did that of Christ? For where
the Saviour's name is named, there every demon is driven out. Or who
has so rid men of the passions of the natural man, that whoremongers
are chaste, and murderers no longer hold the sword, and those who were
formerly mastered by cowardice play the man? 5. And, in short, who
persuaded men of barbarous countries and heathen men in divers places
to lay aside their madness, and to mind peace, if it be not the Faith
of Christ and the Sign of the Cross? Or who else has given men such
assurance of immortality, as has the Cross of Christ, and the
Resurrection of His Body? 6. For although the Greeks have told all
manner of false tales, yet they were not able to feign a Resurrection
of their idols,--for it never crossed their mind, whether it be at all
possible for the body again to exist after death. And here one would
most especially accept their testimony, inasmuch as by this opinion
they have exposed the weakness of their own idolatry, while leaving the
possibility open to Christ, so that hence also He might be made known
among all as Son of God.
__________________________________________________________________
[342] e.g. Iamblichus, &c., cf. Introd. to c. Gent.
__________________________________________________________________
S:51. The new virtue of continence. Revolution of Society, purified and
pacified by Christianity.
Which of mankind, again, after his death, or else while living, taught
concerning virginity, and that this virtue was not impossible among
men? But Christ, our Saviour and King of all, had such power in His
teaching concerning it, that even children not yet arrived at the
lawful age vow that virginity which lies beyond the law. 2. What man
has ever yet been able to pass so far as to come among Scythians and
Ethiopians, or Persians or Armenians or Goths, or those we hear of
beyond the ocean or those beyond Hyrcania, or even the Egyptians and
Chaldees, men that mind magic and are superstitious beyond nature and
savage in their ways, and to preach at all about virtue and
self-control, and against the worshipping of idols, as has the Lord of
all, the Power of God, our Lord Jesus Christ? 3. Who not only preached
by means of His own disciples, but also carried persuasion to men's
mind, to lay aside the fierceness of their manners, and no longer to
serve their ancestral gods, but to learn to know Him, and through Him
to worship the Father. 4. For formerly, while in idolatry, Greeks and
Barbarians used to war against each other, and were actually cruel to
their own kin. For it was impossible for any one to cross sea or land
at all, without arming the hand with swords [343] , because of their
implacable fighting among themselves. 5. For the whole course of their
life was carried on by arms, and the sword with them took the place of
a staff, and was their support in every emergency; and still, as I said
before, they were serving idols, and offering sacrifices to demons,
while for all their idolatrous superstition they could not be reclaimed
from this spirit. 6. But when they have come over to the school of
Christ, then, strangely enough, as men truly pricked in conscience,
they have laid aside the savagery of their murders and no longer mind
the things of war: but all is at peace with them, and from henceforth
what makes for friendship is to their liking.
__________________________________________________________________
[343] Cf. Thucy. i. 5 6: `pasa gar he ;'Ellas esiderophorei,' &c.
__________________________________________________________________
S:52. Wars, &c., roused by demons, lulled by Christianity.
Who then is He that has done this, or who is He that has united in
peace men that hated one another, save the beloved Son of the Father,
the common Saviour of all, even Jesus Christ, Who by His own love
underwent all things for our salvation? For even from of old it was
prophesied of the peace He was to usher in, where the Scripture says:
"They [344] shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their pikes
into sickles, and nation shall not take the sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more." 2. And this is at least not
incredible, inasmuch as even now those barbarians who have an innate
savagery of manners, while they still sacrifice to the idols of their
country, are mad against one another, and cannot endure to be a single
hour without weapons: 3. but when they hear the teaching of Christ,
straightway instead of fighting they turn to husbandry, and instead of
arming their hands with weapons they raise them in prayer, and in a
word, in place of fighting among themselves, henceforth they arm
against the devil and against evil spirits, subduing these by
self-restraint and virtue of soul. 4. Now this is at once a proof of
the divinity of the Saviour, since what men could not learn among idols
[345] they have learned from Him; and no small exposure of the weakness
and nothingness of demons and idols. For demons, knowing their own
weakness, for this reason formerly set men to make war against one
another, lest, if they ceased from mutual strife, they should turn to
battle against demons. 5. Why, they who become disciples of Christ,
instead of warring with each other, stand arrayed against demons by
their habits and their virtuous actions: and they rout them, and mock
at their captain the devil; so that in youth they are self-restrained,
in temptations endure, in labours persevere, when insulted are patient,
when robbed make light of it: and, wonderful as it is, they despise
even death and become martyrs of Christ.
__________________________________________________________________
[344] Isa. ii. 4.
[345] St. Augustine, Civ. D. IV. xvi. commenting on the fact that the
temple of `Repose' (Quies) at Rome was not within the city walls,
suggests `qui illam turbam colere perseveraret...doemoniorum, eum
Quietem habere non posse.'
__________________________________________________________________
S:53. The whole fabric of Gentilism levelled at a blow by Christ
secretly addressing the conscience of Man.
And to mention one proof of the divinity of the Saviour, which is
indeed utterly surprising,--what mere man or magician or tyrant or king
was ever able by himself to engage with so many, and to fight the
battle against all idolatry and the whole demoniacal host and all
magic, and all the wisdom of the Greeks, while they were so strong and
still flourishing and imposing upon all, and at one onset to check them
all, as was our Lord, the true Word of God, Who, invisibly exposing
each man's error, is by Himself bearing off all men from them all, so
that while they who were worshipping idols now trample upon them, those
in repute for magic burn their books, and the wise prefer to all
studies the interpretation of the Gospels? 2. For whom they used to
worship, them they are deserting, and Whom they used to mock as one
crucified, Him they worship as Christ, confessing Him to be God. And
they that are called gods among them are routed by the Sign of the
Cross, while the Crucified Saviour is proclaimed in all the world as
God and the Son of God. And the gods worshipped among the Greeks are
falling into ill repute at their hands, as scandalous beings; while
those who receive the teaching of Christ live a chaster life than they.
3. If, then, these and the like are human works, let him who will point
out similar works on the part of men of former time, and so convince
us. But if they prove to be, and are, not men's works, but God's, why
are the unbelievers so irreligious as not to recognise the Master that
wrought them? 4. For their case is as though a man, from the works of
creation, failed to know God their Artificer. For if they knew His
Godhead from His power over the universe, they would have known that
the bodily works of Christ also are not human, but are the works of the
Saviour of all, the Word of God. And did they thus know, "they would
not," as Paul said [346] , "have crucified the Lord of glory."
__________________________________________________________________
[346] 1 Cor. ii. 8.
__________________________________________________________________
S:54. The Word Incarnate, as is the case with the Invisible God, is
known to us by His works. By them we recognise His deifying mission.
Let us be content to enumerate a few of them, leaving their dazzling
plentitude to him who will behold.
As, then, if a man should wish to see God, Who is invisible by nature
and not seen at all, he may know and apprehend Him from His works: so
let him who fails to see Christ with his understanding, at least
apprehend Him by the works of His body, and test whether they be human
works or God's works. 2. And if they be human, let him scoff; but if
they are not human, but of God, let him recognise it, and not laugh at
what is no matter for scoffing; but rather let him marvel that by so
ordinary a means things divine have been manifested to us, and that by
death immortality has reached to all, and that by the Word becoming
man, the universal Providence has been known, and its Giver and
Artificer the very Word of God. 3. For He was made man that we might be
made God [347] ; and He manifested Himself by a body that we might
receive the idea of the unseen Father; and He endured the insolence of
men that we might inherit immortality. For while He Himself was in no
way injured, being impossible and incorruptible and very Word and God,
men who were suffering, and for whose sakes He endured all this, He
maintained and preserved in His own impassibility. 4. And, in a word,
the achievements of the Saviour, resulting from His becoming man, are
of such kind and number, that if one should wish to enumerate them, he
may be compared to men who gaze at the expanse of the sea and wish to
count its waves. For as one cannot take in the whole of the waves with
his eyes, for those which are coming on baffle the sense of him that
attempts it; so for him that would take in all the achievements of
Christ in the body, it is impossible to take in the whole, even by
reckoning them up, as those which go beyond his thought are more than
those he thinks he has taken in. 5. Better is it, then, not to aim at
speaking of the whole, where one cannot do justice even to a part, but,
after mentioning one more, to leave the whole for you to marvel at. For
all alike are marvellous, and wherever a man turns his glance, he may
behold on that side the divinity of the Word, and be struck with
exceeding great awe.
__________________________________________________________________
[347] theopoiethomen. See Orat. ii. 70, note 1, and many other passages
in those Discourses, as well as Letters 60. 4, 61. 2. (Eucharistic
reference), de Synodis 51, note 7. (Compare also Iren. IV. xxxviii. 4,
`non ab initio dii facti sumus, sed primo quidem homines, tunc demum
dii,' cf. ib. praef. 4. fin. also V. ix. 2, `sublevat in vitam Dei.'
Origen Cels. iii. 28 fin. touches the same thought, but Ath. is here in
closer affinity to the idea of Irenaeus than to that of Origen.) The
New Test. reference is 2 Pet. i. 4, rather than Heb. ii. 9 sqq; the Old
Test., Ps. lxxxii. 6, which seems to underlie Orat. iii. 25 (note 5).
In spite of the last mentioned passage, `God' is far preferable as a
rendering, in most places, to `gods,' which has heathenish
associations. To us (1 Cor. viii. 6) there are no such things as
`gods.' (The best summary of patristic teaching on this subject is
given by Harnack Dg. ii. p. 46 note.)
__________________________________________________________________
S:55. Summary of foregoing. Cessation of pagan oracles, &c.:
propagation of the faith. The true King has come forth and silenced all
usurpers.
This, then, after what we have so far said, it is right for you to
realize, and to take as the sum of what we have already stated, and to
marvel at exceedingly; namely, that since the Saviour has come among
us, idolatry not only has no longer increased, but what there was is
diminishing and gradually coming to an end: and not only does the
wisdom of the Greeks no longer advance, but what there is is now fading
away: and demons, so far from cheating any more by illusions and
prophecies and magic arts, if they so much as dare to make the attempt,
are put to shame by the sign of the Cross. 2. And to sum the matter up:
behold how the Saviour's doctrine is everywhere increasing, while all
idolatry and everything opposed to the faith of Christ is daily
dwindling, and losing power, and falling. And thus beholding, worship
the Saviour, "Who is above all" and mighty, even God the Word; and
condemn those who are being worsted and done away by Him. 3. For as,
when the sun is come, darkness no longer prevails, but if any be still
left anywhere it is driven away; so, now that the divine Appearing of
the Word of God is come, the darkness of the idols prevails no more,
and all parts of the world in every direction are illumined by His
teaching. 4. And as, when a king is reigning in some country without
appearing but keeps at home in his own house, often some disorderly
persons, abusing his retirement, proclaim themselves; and each of them,
by assuming the character, imposes on the simple as king, and so men
are led astray by the name, hearing that there is a king, but not
seeing him, if for no other reason, because they cannot enter the
house; but when the real king comes forth and appears, then the
disorderly impostors are exposed by his presence, while men, seeing the
real king, desert those who previously led them astray: 5. in like
manner, the evil spirits formerly used to deceive men, investing
themselves with God's honour; but when the Word of God appeared in a
body, and made known to us His own Father, then at length the deceit of
the evil spirits is done away and stopped, while men, turning their
eyes to the true God, Word of the Father, are deserting the idols, and
now coming to know the true God. 6. Now this is a proof that Christ is
God the Word, and the Power of God. For whereas human things cease, and
the Word of Christ abides, it is clear to all eyes that what ceases is
temporary, but that He Who abides is God, and the true Son of God, His
only-begotten Word.
__________________________________________________________________
S:56. Search then, the Scriptures, if you can, and so fill up this
sketch. Learn to look for the Second Advent and Judgment.
Let this, then, Christ-loving man, be our offering to you, just for a
rudimentary sketch and outline, in a short compass, of the faith of
Christ and of His Divine appearing to usward. But you, taking occasion
by this, if you light upon the text of the Scriptures, by genuinely
applying your mind to them, will learn from them more completely and
clearly the exact detail of what we have said. 2. For they were spoken
and written by God, through men who spoke of God. But we impart of what
we have learned from inspired teachers who have been conversant with
them, who have also become martyrs for the deity of Christ, to your
zeal for learning, in turn. 3. And you will also learn about His second
glorious and truly divine appearing to us, when no longer in lowliness,
but in His own glory,--no longer in humble guise, but in His own
magnificence,--He is to come, no more to suffer, but thenceforth to
render to all the fruit of His own Cross, that is, the resurrection and
incorruption; and no longer to be judged, but to judge all, by what
each has done in the body, whether good or evil; where there is laid up
for the good the kingdom of heaven, but for them that have done evil
everlasting fire and outer darkness. 4. For thus the Lord Himself also
says: "Henceforth [348] ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the
right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven in the glory of
the Father." 5. And for this very reason there is also a word of the
Saviour to prepare us for that day, in these words: "Be [349] ye ready
and watch, for He cometh at an hour ye know not." For, according to the
blessed Paul: "We [350] must all stand before the judgment-seat of
Christ, that each one may receive according as he hath done in the
body, whether it be good or bad."
__________________________________________________________________
[348] Matt. xxvi. 64.
[349] Cf. Matt. xxiv. 42; Marc. xiii. 35.
[350] 2 Cor. v. 10; cf. Rom. xiv. 10.
__________________________________________________________________
S:57. Above all, so live that you may have the right to eat of this
tree of knowledge and life, and so come to eternal joys. Doxology.
But for the searching of the Scriptures and true knowledge of them, an
honourable life is needed, and a pure soul, and that virtue which is
according to Christ; so that the intellect guiding its path by it, may
be able to attain what it desires, and to comprehend it, in so far as
it is accessible to human nature to learn concerning the Word of God.
2. For without a pure mind and a modelling of the life after the
saints, a man could not possibly comprehend the words of the saints. 3.
For just as, if a man wished to see the light of the sun, he would at
any rate wipe and brighten his eye, purifying himself in some sort like
what he desires, so that the eye, thus becoming light, may see the
light of the sun; or as, if a man would see a city or country, he at
any rate comes to the place to see it;--thus he that would comprehend
the mind of those who speak of God must needs begin by washing and
cleansing his soul, by his manner of living, and approach the saints
themselves by imitating their works; so that, associated with them in
the conduct of a common life, he may understand also what has been
revealed to them by God, and thenceforth, as closely knit to them, may
escape the peril of the sinners and their fire at the day of judgment,
and receive what is laid up for the saints in the kingdom of heaven,
which "Eye hath not seen [351] , nor ear heard, neither have entered
into the heart of man," whatsoever things are prepared for them that
live a virtuous life, and love the God and Father, in Christ Jesus our
Lord: through Whom and with Whom be to the Father Himself, with the Son
Himself, in the Holy Spirit, honour and might and glory for ever and
ever. Amen.
__________________________________________________________________
[351] 1 Cor. ii. 9.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Depositio Arii.
------------------------
Introduction to the `Deposition of Arius' and Encyclical Letter of
Alexander.
The following documents form the fittest opening to the series of
Anti-Arian writings of Athanasius. They are included in the Benedictine
edition of his works, and in the Oxford Collection of Historical
Tracts, of which the present translation is a revision. The possibility
that the Encyclical Letter was drawn up by Athanasius himself, now
deacon and Secretary to Bishop Alexander (Prolegg. ch. ii. S:2), is a
further reason for its inclusion. The Athanasian authorship is
maintained by Newman on the following grounds, which his notes will be
found to bear out. (1) Total dissimilarity of style as compared with
Alexander's letter to his namesake of Byzantium (given by Theodoret, H.
E. i. 4). That piece is in an elaborate and involved style, full of
compound words, with nothing of the Athanasian simplicity and vigour.
(2) Remarkable identity of style with that of Athanasius, extending to
his most characteristic expressions. (3) Distinctness of the
`theological view' and terminology of Alexander as compared with
Athanasius; the Encyclical coinciding with the latter against the
former. (4) Athanasian use of certain texts. These arguments are of
great weight, and make out at least a prima facie case for Newman's
view. The latter has the weight of Boehringer's opinion on its side,
while the counter-arguments of Koelling (vol. 1. p. 105) are trivial.
Gwatkin, Studies, 29, note 4, misses the points (Nos. 1 and 3) of
Newman's argument, which may fairly be said to hold the field. The
deposition of Arius at Alexandria took place (Prolegg, ubi supra) in
320 or 321; more likely the latter. Whether the Encyclical was drawn up
at the Synod which deposed Arius, as is generally supposed, or some two
years later, as has been inferred from the references to Eusebius of
Nicomedia (D. C. B. i. 80, cf. Prolegg. ubi supra, note 1), is a
question that may for our present purpose be left open. In any case it
is one of the earliest documents of the Arian controversy. It should be
noted that the homoousion does not occur in this document, a fact of
importance in the history of the adoption of the word as a test at
Nicaea, cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. S:3 (1) and (2) b. At this stage the
Alexandrians were content with the formulae homoios kat' ousian
(Athan.), aparallaktos eikon, apekribomene emphereia (Alex. in Thdt.),
which were afterwards found inadequate.
The letter, after stating the circumstances which call it forth, and
recording the doctrine propounded by Arius, and his deposition, points
out some of the leading texts which condemn the doctrine (S:S:3, 4).
The Arians are then (S:5) compared to other heretics, and the bishops
of the Church generally warned (S:6) against the intrigues of Eusebius
of Nicomedia. The letter is signed by the sixteen presbyters of
Alexandria, and the twenty-four deacons (Athanasius signs fourth), as
well as by eighteen presbyters and twenty deacons of the Mareotis. The
scriptural argument of the Epistle is the germ of the polemic developed
in the successive Anti-Arian treatises which form the bulk of the
present volume.
__________________________________________________________________
Deposition of Arius.
------------------------
Alexander's Deposition of Arius and his companions, and Encyclical
Letter on the subject.
Alexander, being assembled with his beloved brethren, the Presbyters
and Deacons of Alexandria, and the Mareotis, greets them in the Lord.
Although you have already subscribed to the letter I addressed to Arius
and his fellows, exhorting them to renounce his impiety, and to submit
themselves to the sound Catholic Faith, and have shewn your
right-mindedness and agreement in the doctrines of the Catholic Church:
yet forasmuch as I have written also to our fellow-ministers in every
place concerning Arius and his fellows, and especially since some of
you, as the Presbyters Chares and Pistus [352] , and the Deacons
Serapion, Parammon, Zosimus, and Irenaeus, have joined Arius and his
fellows, and been content to suffer deposition with them, I thought it
needful to assemble together you, the Clergy of the city, and to send
for you the Clergy of the Mareotis, in order that you may learn what I
am now writing, and may testify your agreement thereto, and give your
concurrence in the deposition of Arius, Pistus, and their fellows. For
it is desirable that you should be made acquainted with what I write,
and that each of you should heartily embrace it, as though he had
written it himself.
A Copy.
To his dearly beloved and most honoured fellow-ministers of the
Catholic Church in every place, Alexander sends health in the Lord.
1. As there is one body [353] of the Catholic Church, and a command is
given us in the sacred Scriptures to preserve the bond of unity and
peace, it is agreeable thereto that we should write and signify to one
another whatever is done by each of us individually; so that whether
one member suffer or rejoice, we may either suffer or rejoice with one
another. Now there are gone forth in this diocese, at this time,
certain lawless [354] men, enemies of Christ, teaching an apostasy,
which one may justly suspect and designate as a forerunner [355] of
Antichrist. I was desirous [356] to pass such a matter by without
notice, in the hope that perhaps the evil would spend itself among its
supporters, and not extend to other places to defile [357] the ears
[358] of the simple [359] . But seeing that Eusebius, now of Nicomedia,
who thinks that the government of the Church rests with him, because
retribution has not come upon him for his desertion of Berytus, when he
had cast an eye [360] of desire on the Church of the Nicomedians,
begins to support these apostates, and has taken upon him to write
letters every where in their behalf, if by any means he may draw in
certain ignorant persons to this most base and antichristian heresy; I
am therefore constrained, knowing what is written in the law, no longer
to hold my peace, but to make it known to you all; that you may
understand who the apostates are, and the cavils [361] which their
heresy has adopted, and that, should Eusebius write to you, you may pay
no attention to him, for he now desires by means of these men to
exhibit anew his old malevolence [362] , which has so long been
concealed, pretending to write in their favour, while in truth it
clearly appears, that he does it to forward his own interests.
2. Now those who became apostates are these, Arius, Achilles,
Aeithales, Carpones, another Arius, and Sarmates, sometime Presbyters:
Euzoius, Lucius, Julius, Menas, Helladius, and Gaius, sometime Deacons:
and with them Secundus and Theonas, sometime called Bishops. And the
novelties they have invented and put forth contrary to the Scriptures
are these following:--God was not always a Father [363] , but there was
a time when God was not a Father. The Word of God was not always, but
originated from things that were not; for God that is, has made him
that was not, of that which was not; wherefore there was a time when He
was not; for the Son is a creature and a work. Neither is He like in
essence to the Father; neither is He the true and natural Word of the
Father; neither is He His true Wisdom; but He is one of the things made
and created, and is called the Word and Wisdom by an abuse of terms,
since He Himself originated by the proper Word of God, and by the
Wisdom that is in God, by which God has made not only all other things
but Him also. Wherefore He is by nature subject to change and variation
as are all rational creatures. And the Word is foreign from the essence
[364] of the Father, and is alien and separated therefrom. And the
Father cannot be described by the Son, for the Word does not know the
Father perfectly and accurately, neither can He see Him perfectly.
Moreover, the Son knows not His own essence as it really is; for He is
made for us, that God might create us by Him, as by an instrument; and
He would not have existed, had not God wished to create us.
Accordingly, when some one asked them, whether the Word of God can
possibly change as the devil changed, they were not afraid to say that
He can; for being something made and created, His nature is subject to
change.
3. Now when Arius and his fellows made these assertions, and
shamelessly avowed them, we being assembled with the Bishops of Egypt
and Libya, nearly a hundred in number, anathematized both them and
their followers. But Eusebius and his fellows admitted them to
communion, being desirous to mingle falsehood with the truth, and
impiety with piety. But they will not be able to do so, for the truth
must prevail; neither is there any "communion of light with darkness,"
nor any "concord of Christ with Belial [365] ." For who ever heard such
assertions before [366] ? or who that hears them now is not astonished
and does not stop his ears lest they should be defiled with such
language? Who that has heard the words of John, "In the beginning was
the Word [367] ," will not denounce the saying of these men, that
"there was a time when He was not?" Or who that has heard in the
Gospel, "the Only-begotten Son," and "by Him were all things made [368]
," will not detest their declaration that He is "one of the things that
were made." For how can He be one of those things which were made by
Himself? or how can He be the Only-begotten, when, according to them,
He is counted as one among the rest, since He is Himself a creature and
a work? And how can He be "made of things that were not," when the
Father saith, "My heart hath uttered a good Word," and "Out of the womb
I have begotten Thee before the morning star [369] ?" Or again, how is
He "unlike in substance to the Father," seeing He is the perfect
"image" and "brightness [370] " of the Father, and that He saith, "He
that hath seen Me hath seen the Father [371] ?" And if the Son is the
"Word" and "Wisdom" of God, how was there "a time when He was not?" It
is the same as if they should say that God was once without Word and
without Wisdom [372] . And how is He "subject to change and variation,"
Who says, by Himself, "I am in the Father, and the Father in Me [373]
," and "I and the Father are One [374] ;" and by the Prophet, "Behold
Me, for I am, and I change not [375] ?" For although one may refer this
expression to the Father, yet it may now be more aptly spoken of the
Word, viz., that though He has been made man, He has not changed; but
as the Apostle has said, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day,
and for ever." And who can have persuaded them to say, that He was made
for us, whereas Paul writes, "for Whom are all things, and by Whom are
all things [376] ?"
4. As to their blasphemous position that "the Son knows not the Father
perfectly," we ought not to wonder at it; for having once set
themselves to fight against Christ, they contradict even His express
words, since He says, "As the Father knoweth Me, even so know I the
Father [377] ." Now if the Father knows the Son but in part, then it is
evident that the Son does not know the Father perfectly; but if it is
not lawful to say this, but the Father does know the Son perfectly,
then it is evident that as the Father knows His own Word, so also the
Word knows His own Father Whose Word He is.
5. By these arguments and references to the sacred Scriptures we
frequently overthrew them; but they changed like chameleons [378] , and
again shifted their ground, striving to bring upon themselves that
sentence, "when the wicked falleth into the depth of evils, he
despiseth [379] ." There have been many heresies before them, which,
venturing further than they ought, have fallen into folly; but these
men by endeavouring in all their cavils to overthrow the Divinity of
the Word, have justified the other in comparison of themselves, as
approaching nearer to Antichrist. Wherefore they have been
excommunicated and anathematized by the Church. We grieve for their
destruction, and especially because, having once been instructed in the
doctrines of the Church, they have now sprung away. Yet we are not
greatly surprised, for Hymenaeus and Philetus [380] did the same, and
before them Judas, who followed the Saviour, but afterwards became a
traitor and an apostate. And concerning these same persons, we have not
been left without instruction; for our Lord has forewarned us; "Take
heed lest any man deceive you: for many shall come in My name, saying,
I am Christ, and the time draweth near, and they shall deceive many: go
ye not after them [381] ;" while Paul, who was taught these things by
our Saviour, wrote that "in the latter times some shall depart from the
sound faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils,
which reject the truth [382] ."
6. Since then our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has instructed us by
His own mouth, and also hath signified to us by the Apostle concerning
such men, we accordingly being personal witnesses of their impiety,
have anathematized, as we said, all such, and declared them to be alien
from the Catholic Faith and Church. And we have made this known to your
piety, dearly beloved and most honoured fellow-ministers, in order that
should any of them have the boldness [383] to come unto you, you may
not receive them, nor comply with the desire of Eusebius, or any other
person writing in their behalf. For it becomes us who are Christians to
turn away from all who speak or think any thing against Christ, as
being enemies of God, and destroyers [384] of souls; and not even to
"bid such God speed [385] ," lest we become partakers of their sins, as
the blessed John hath charged us. Salute the brethren that are with
you. They that are with me salute you.
Presbyters of Alexandria.
7. I, Colluthus, Presbyter, agree with what is here written, and give
my assent to the deposition of Arius and his associates in impiety.
Alexander [386] , Presbyter, likewise
Dioscorus [387] , Presbyter, likewise
Dionysius [388] , Presbyter, likewise
Eusebius, Presbyter, likewise
Alexander, Presbyter, likewise
Nilaras [389] , Presbyter, likewise
Arpocration, Presbyter, likewise
Agathus, Presbyter
Nemesius, Presbyter
Longus [390] , Presbyter
Silvanus, Presbyter
Peroys, Presbyter
Apis, Presbyter
Proterius, Presbyter
Paulus, Presbyter
Cyrus, Presbyter, likewise
Deacons
Ammonius [391] , Deacon, likewise
Macarius, Deacon
Pistus [392] , Deacon, likewise
Athanasius, Deacon
Eumenes, Deacon
Apollonius [393] , Deacon
Olympius, Deacon
Aphthonius [394] , Deacon
Athanasius [395] , Deacon
Macarius, Deacon, likewise
Paulus, Deacon
Petrus, Deacon
Ambytianus, Deacon
Gaius [396] , Deacon, likewise
Alexander, Deacon
Dionysius, Deacon
Agathon, Deacon
Polybius, Deacon, likewise
Theonas, Deacon
Marcus, Deacon
Comodus, Deacon
Serapion [397] , Deacon
Nilon, Deacon
Romanus, Deacon, likewise
Presbyters of the Mareotis.
I, Apollonius, Presbyter, agree with what is here written, and give my
assent to the deposition of Arius and his associates in impiety.
Ingenius [398] , Presbyter, likewise
Ammonius, Presbyter
Dioscorus [399] , Presbyter
Sostras, Presbyter
Theon [400] , Presbyter
Tyrannus, Presbyter
Copres, Presbyter
Ammonas [401] , Presbyter
Orion, Presbyter
Serenus, Presbyter
Didymus, Presbyter
Heracles [402] , Presbyter
Boccon [403] , Presbyter
Agathus, Presbyter
Achillas, Presbyter
Paulus, Presbyter
Thalelaeus, Presbyter
Dionysius, Presbyter, likewise
Deacons
Sarapion [404] , Deacon, likewise
Justus, Deacon, likewise
Didymus, Deacon
Demetrius [405] , Deacon
Maurus [406] , Deacon
Alexander, Deacon
Marcus [407] , Deacon
Comon, Deacon
Tryphon [408] , Deacon
Ammonius [409] , Deacon
Didymus, Deacon
Ptollarion [410] , Deacon
Seras, Deacon
Gaius [411] , Deacon
Hierax [412] , Deacon
Marcus, Deacon
Theonas, Deacon
Sarmaton, Deacon
Carpon, Deacon
Zoilus, Deacon, likewise
__________________________________________________________________
[352] Cf. Apol. Ar. S:24.
[353] (Eph. iv. 4.) St. Alexander in Theod. begins his Epistle to his
namesake of Constantinople with some moral reflections, concerning
ambition and avarice. Athan. indeed uses a similar introduction to his
Ep. AEg., but it is not addressed to an individual.
[354] paranomoi. vid. Hist. Ar. S:71 init. 75 fin. 79.
[355] prodromon 'Antichristou. vid Orat. i. 7. Vit. Ant. 69. note on de
Syn. 5.
[356] kai eboulomen men siope....epeide de....ananken eschon. vid.
Apol. contra. Ar. S:1 init, de Decr. S: 2. Orat. i. 23 init. Orat. ii.
init. Orat. iii. 1. ad Serap. i. 1. 16. ii. 1 init. iii. init. iv. 8
init. Letters 52. 2, 59. 3 fin. 61. 1. contra Apollin. i. 1 init.
[357] rhupose, and infr. rhupon. vid Hist. Ar. S:3. S:80, de Decr. S:2.
Ep. AEg. 11 fin. Orat. i. 10.
[358] akoas, and infr. akoas buei. vid. Ep. AEg. S:13. Orat. i. S:7.
Hist. Ar. S:56.
[359] akeraion. Apol. contr. Ar. S:1. Ep. AEg. S:18. Letters 59. 1, 60.
2 fin. Orat. i. 8.
[360] epophthalmisas also used of Eusebius Apol. contr. Ar. S:6. Hist.
Ar. S:7.
[361] rhematia. vid. de Decr. S:8, 18. Orat. i. 10. de Sent. S:23 init
S. Dionysius also uses it. Ibid. S:18.
[362] kakonoian. vid Hist. Ar. S:75. de Decr. S:1. et al.
[363] ouk aei pater. This enumeration of Arius's tenets, and
particularly the mention of the first, corresponds to de Decr. S:6. Ep.
AEg. S:12. as being taken from the Thalia. Orat. i. S:5. and far less
with Alex. ap. Theod. p. 731, 2. vid. also Sent. D. S:16.
katachrestikos, which is found here, occurs de Decr. S:6.
[364] ousian; ousia tou logou or tou huiou is a familiar expression
with Athan. e.g. Orat. i. 45, ii. 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 18 init. 22, 47
init. 56 init. &c., for which Alex. in Theod. uses the word hupostasis
e.g. ten idiotropon autou hupostasin; tes hupostaseos autou
aperiergastou; neoteran tes hupostaseos genesin; he tou uonogenous
anekdiegetos hupostasis; ten tou logou upostasin
[365] (2 Cor. vi. 14.) koinonia photi. This is quoted Alex. ap. Theod.
H. E. i. 3. p. 738; by S. Athan. in Letter 47. It seems to have been a
received text in the controversy, as the Sardican Council uses it, Apol
Ar. 49, and S. Athan. seems to put it into the mouth of St. Anthony,
Vit. Ant. 69.
[366] tis gar ekouse. Ep. AEg. S:7 init. Letter 59. S:2 init. Orat. i.
8. Apol. contr. Ar. 85 init. Hist. Ar. S:46 init. S:73 init. S:74 init.
ad Serap. iv. 2 init.
[367] John i. 1.
[368] John i. 3, 14.
[369] Ps. xlv. 1. and cx. 3.
[370] Heb. i. 3.
[371] (Joh. xiv. 9, 10; x. 29.) On the concurrence of these three texts
in Athan. (though other writers use them too, and Alex. ap. Theod. has
two of them), vid. note on Orat. i. 34.
[372] alogon kai asophon ton theon. de Decr. S:15. Orat. i. S:19. Ap.
Fug. 27. note, notes on Or. i. 19, de. Decr. 15, note 6.
[373] (Joh. xiv. 9, 10; x. 29.) On the concurrence of these three texts
in Athan. (though other writers use them too, and Alex. ap. Theod. has
two of them), vid. note on Orat. i. 34.
[374] (Joh. xiv. 9, 10; x. 29.) On the concurrence of these three texts
in Athan. (though other writers use them too, and Alex. ap. Theod. has
two of them), vid. note on Orat. i. 34.
[375] (Mal. iii. 6.) This text is thus applied by Athan. Orat. i. 30.
ii. 10. In the first of these passages he uses the same apology, nearly
in the same words, which is contained in the text.
[376] Heb. xiii. 8; ii. 10.
[377] John x. 15.
[378] chamaileontes. vid. de Decr. S:1. Hist. Ar. S:79.
[379] Prov. xviii. 3 [cf. Orat. iii. 1, c. Gent. 8. 4, &c.]
[380] 2 Tim. ii. 17.
[381] Luke xxi. 8.
[382] (1 Tim. iv. 1.) Into this text which Athan. also applies to the
Arians (cf. note on Or. i. 9.), Athan. also introduces, like Alexander
here, the word hugianouses, e.g. Ep. AEg. S:20, Orat. i. 8 fin. de
Decr. 3, Hist. Arian. S:78 init. &c. It is quoted without the word by
Origen contr. Cels. v. 64, but with hugious in Matth. t. xiv. 16.
Epiphan, has hugiainouses didaskalias, Haer. 78. 2. hugious did. ibid.
23. p. 1055.
[383] propeteusainto. vid. de Decr. S:2.
[384] phthoreas ton psuchon. but S. Alex. in Theod. uses the compound
word phthoropoios. p. 731. Other compound or recondite words (to say
nothing of the construction of sentences) found in S. Alexander's
Letter in Theod., and unlike the style of the Circular under review,
are such as he philarchos kai philarguros prothesis; christemporian;
phrenoblabous; idiotropon; homostoichois sullabais; theegorous
apostolous; & 135;ntidiastolen tes patrikes maieuseos; melancholiken;
philotheos sapheneia anosiourgias; phlenaphon muthon. Instances of
theological language in S. Alex. to which the Letter in the text
contains no resemblance are achorista pragmata duo; ho hui& 232;s ten
kata panta homoioteta autou ek phuseos apomaxamenos; di' esoptrou
akelidotou kai empsuchou theias eikonos; mesiteuousa phusis monogenes;
tas te hupostasei duo phuseis
[385] 2 John 10.
[386] Vid. Presbyters, Apol. Ar. 73.
[387] Vid. Presbyters, Apol. Ar. 73.
[388] Vid. Presbyters, Apol. Ar. 73.
[389] Vid. Presbyters, Apol. Ar. 73.
[390] Vid. Presbyters, Apol. Ar. 73.
[391] Vid. Presbyters, ib.
[392] Vid. Presbyters, ib.
[393] Vid. Presbyters, ib.
[394] Vid. Presbyters, ib.
[395] Vid. Presbyters, ib.
[396] Vid. Presbyters, ib.
[397] Vid. Presbyters, ib.
[398] Apol. Ar. 75.
[399] Apol. Ar. 75.
[400] Apol. Ar. 75.
[401] Apol. Ar. 75.
[402] Heraclius? ib.
[403] Apol. Ar. 75.
[404] Ib.
[405] Ib.
[406] Ib.
[407] Ib.
[408] Ib.
[409] Ib.
[410] Ib.
[411] Ib.
[412] Ib.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Epistola Eusebii.
------------------------
Introduction.
The letter which follows, addressed by Eusebius of Caesarea to his
flock, upon the conclusion of the great Synod, is appended by
Athanasius to his defense of the Definition of Nicaea (de Decretis),
written about a.d. 350. It is, however, inserted here in the present
edition, partly in accordance with the chronological principle of
arrangement, but principally because it forms the fittest introduction
to the series of treatises which follow. Along with the account of
Eustathius in Theodoret H. E. i. 8, and that given by Eusebius, in his
life of Constantine (vol. I. pp. 521-526 of this series), it forms one
of our most important authorities for the proceedings at Nicaea, and
the only account we have dating from the actual year of the Council. It
is especially important as containing the draft Creed submitted to the
Council by Eusebius, and the revised form of it eventually adopted. The
former, which contained (in the first paragraph of S:3, from `We
believe' down to `One Holy Ghost') the traditional Creed of the Church
of Caesarea, which Eusebius had professed at his baptism, was laid by
him before the Council, and approved: but at the Emperor's suggestion
the single word homoousion was inserted (not by `the majority' as
distinct from the Emperor, as stated by Swainson, Creeds, p. 65). This
modification opened the door for others, which eventually resulted in
the Creed given in S:4. It is not altogether easy to reconcile this
account with that given by Athanasius himself (below de Decr. 19, 20,
Ad Afr. 5), according to which the Council were led to insist on the
insertion of the homoousion by the evasions with which the Arian
bishops met every other test that was propounded, signalling to each
other by nods winks and gestures, as each Scriptural attribute of the
Son was enumerated, that this also could be accepted in an Arian sense.
Probably (see Prolegg. ch. ii. S:3 (1) note 5) the discussions thus
described came first (cp. Sozom. i. 17): then Eusebius of Nicomedia
presented the document which was indignantly torn up: then came the
Confession of Eusebius of Caesarea, which was adopted as the basis of
the Creed finally issued. In any case the Emperor's suggestion of the
insertion of homoousion must have been prompted by others, most likely
by Hosius (Hist. Ar. 42, Cf. Hort, Two Dissertations, p. 58. Gwatkin,
Studies, pp. 44, 45, puts the scene described by Athanasius during the
debate upon the final adoption of the Creed).
The translation which follows, with the notes and Excursus A, is the
unaltered work of Newman (Library of the Fathers, vol. 8, pp. 59-72),
except that the word `essence' (for ousia), as throughout this volume,
has been substituted for `substance,' and the translation of genetos by
`generate' altered wherever it occurs, as explained in the preface.
Additions by the editor of this volume are here as elsewhere included
in square brackets.
__________________________________________________________________
Council of Nicaea.
------------------------
Letter of Eusebius of Caesarea to the people of his Diocese [413] .
1. What was transacted concerning ecclesiastical faith at the Great
Council assembled at Nicaea, you have probably learned, Beloved, from
other sources, rumour being wont to precede the accurate account of
what is doing. But lest in such reports the circumstances of the case
have been misrepresented, we have been obliged to transmit to you,
first, the formula of faith presented by ourselves, and next, the
second, which [the Fathers] put forth with some additions to our words.
Our own paper, then, which was read in the presence of our most pious
[414] Emperor, and declared to be good and unexceptionable, ran thus:--
2. "As we have received from the Bishops who preceded us, and in our
first catechisings, and when we received the Holy Laver, and as we have
learned from the divine Scriptures, and as we believed and taught in
the presbytery, and in the Episcopate itself, so believing also at the
time present, we report to you our faith, and it is this [415] :"--
3. "We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things
visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God,
God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten,
first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the
Father, by Whom also all things were made; Who for our salvation was
made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third
day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge
the quick and dead. And we believe also in One Holy Ghost:"
"believing each of these to be and to exist, the Father truly Father,
and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our
Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, "Go teach
all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost [416] ." Concerning Whom we confidently affirm
that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held aforetime, and we
maintain this faith unto the death, anathematizing every godless
heresy. That this we have ever thought from our heart and soul, from
the time we recollect ourselves, and now think and say in truth, before
God Almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ do we witness, being able by
proofs to shew and to convince you, that, even in times past, such has
been our belief and preaching."
4. On this faith being publicly put forth by us, no room for
contradiction appeared; but our most pious Emperor, before any one
else, testified that it comprised most orthodox statements. He
confessed moreover that such were his own sentiments, and he advised
all present to agree to it, and to subscribe its articles and to assent
to them, with the insertion of the single word, One-in-essence, which
moreover he interpreted as not in the sense of the affections of
bodies, nor as if the Son subsisted from the Father in the way of
division, or any severance; for that the immaterial, and intellectual,
and incorporeal nature could not be the subject of any corporeal
affection, but that it became us to conceive of such things in a divine
and ineffable manner. And such were the theological remarks of our most
wise and most religious Emperor; but they, with a view [417] to the
addition of One in essence, drew up the following formula:--
The Faith dictated in the Council.
"We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things
visible and invisible:"--
"And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father,
Only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father; God from God,
Light from Light, Very God from Very God, begotten not made, One in
essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made, both things in
heaven and things in earth; Who for us men and for our salvation came
down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the
third day, ascended into heaven, and cometh to judge quick and dead."
"And in the Holy Ghost."
"And those who say, `Once He was not,' and `Before His generation He
was not,' and `He came to be from nothing,' or those who pretend that
the Son of God is `Of other subsistence or essence [418] ,' or
`created' or `alterable,' or `mutable,' the Catholic Church
anathematizes."
5. On their dictating this formula, we did not let it pass without
inquiry in what sense they introduced "of the essence of the Father,"
and "one in essence with the Father." Accordingly questions and
explanations took place, and the meaning of the words underwent the
scrutiny of reason. And they professed, that the phrase "of the
essence" was indicative of the Son's being indeed from the Father, yet
without being as if a part of Him. And with this understanding we
thought good to assent to the sense of such religious doctrine,
teaching, as it did, that the Son was from the Father, not however a
part of His essence [419] . On this account we assented to the sense
ourselves, without declining even the term "One in essence," peace
being the object which we set before us, and stedfastness in the
orthodox view.
6. In the same way we also admitted "begotten, not made;" since the
Council alleged that "made" was an appellative common to the other
creatures which came to be through the Son, to whom the Son had no
likeness. Wherefore, say they, He was not a work resembling the things
which through Him came to be [420] , but was of an essence which is too
high for the level of any work; and which the Divine oracles teach to
have been generated from the Father [421] , the mode of generation
being inscrutable and incalculable to every originated nature.
7. And so too on examination there are grounds for saying that the Son
is "one in essence" with the Father; not in the way of bodies, nor like
mortal beings, for He is not such by division of essence, or by
severance, no, nor by any affection, or alteration, or changing of the
Father's essence and power [422] (since from all such the unoriginate
nature of the Father is alien), but because "one in essence with the
Father" suggests that the Son of God bears no resemblance to the
originated creatures, but that to His Father alone Who begat Him is He
in every way assimilated, and that He is not of any other subsistence
and essence, but from the Father [423] . To which term also, thus
interpreted, it appeared well to assent; since we were aware that even
among the ancients, some learned and illustrious Bishops and writers
[424] have used the term "one in essence," in their theological
teaching concerning the Father and Son.
8. So much then be said concerning the faith which was published; to
which all of us assented, not without inquiry, but according to the
specified senses, mentioned before the most religious Emperor himself,
and justified by the forementioned considerations. And as to the
anathematism published by them at the end of the Faith, it did not pain
us, because it forbade to use words not in Scripture, from which almost
all the confusion and disorder of the Church have come. Since then no
divinely inspired Scripture has used the phrases, "out of nothing," and
"once He was not," and the rest which follow, there appeared no ground
for using or teaching them; to which also we assented as a good
decision, since it had not been our custom hitherto to use these terms.
9. Moreover to anathematize "Before His generation He was not," did not
seem preposterous, in that it is confessed by all, that the Son of God
was before the generation according to the flesh [425] .
10. Nay, our most religious Emperor did at the time prove, in a speech,
that He was in being even according to His divine generation which is
before all ages, since even before He was generated in energy, He was
in virtue [426] with the Father ingenerately, the Father being always
Father, as King always, and Saviour always, being all things in virtue,
and being always in the same respects and in the same way.
11. This we have been forced to transmit to you, Beloved, as making
clear to you the deliberation of our inquiry and assent, and how
reasonably we resisted even to the last minute as long as we were
offended at statements which differed from our own, but received
without contention what no longer pained us, as soon as, on a candid
examination of the sense of the words, they appeared to us to coincide
with what we ourselves have professed in the faith which we have
already published.
__________________________________________________________________
[413] This Letter is also found in Socr. H. E. i. 8. Theod. H. E. i.
Gelas. Hist. Nic. ii. 34. p. 442. Niceph. Hist. viii. 22.
[414] And so infr. "most pious," S:4. "most wise and most religious,"
ibid. "most religious," S:8. S:10. Eusebius observes in his Vit. Const.
the same tone concerning Constantine, and assigns to him the same
office in determining the faith (being as yet unbaptized). E.g. "When
there were differences between persons of different countries, as if
some common bishop appointed by God, he convened Councils of God's
ministers; and not disdaining to be present and to sit amid their
conferences," &c. i. 44. When he came into the Nicene Council, "it
was," says Eusebius, "as some heavenly Angel of God," iii. 10. alluding
to the brilliancy of the imperial purple. He confesses, however, he did
not sit down until the Bishops bade him. Again at the same Council,
"with pleasant eyes looking serenity itself into them all, collecting
himself, and in a quiet and gentle voice" he made an oration to the
Fathers upon peace. Constantine had been an instrument in conferring
such vast benefits, humanly speaking, on the Christian Body, that it is
not wonderful that other writers of the day besides Eusebius should
praise him. Hilary speaks of him as "of sacred memory," Fragm. v. init.
Athanasius calls him "most pious," Apol. contr. Arian. 9; "of blessed
memory," ad Ep. AEg. 18. 19. Epiphanius "most religious and of
ever-blessed memory," Haer. 70. 9. Posterity, as was natural, was still
more grateful.
[415] "The children of the Church have received from their holy
Fathers, that is, the holy Apostles, to guard the faith; and withal to
deliver and preach it to their own children....Cease not, faithful and
orthodox men, thus to speak, and to teach the like from the divine
Scriptures, and to walk, and to catechise, to the confirmation of
yourselves and those who hear you; namely, that holy faith of the
Catholic Church, as the holy and only Virgin of God received its
custody from the holy Apostles of the Lord; and thus, in the case of
each of those who are under catechising, who are to approach the Holy
Laver, ye ought not only to preach faith to your children in the Lord,
but also to teach them expressly, as your common mother teaches, to
say: `We believe in One God,'" &c. Epiph. Ancor. 119 fin., who
thereupon proceeds to give at length the [so-called] Constantinopolitan
Creed. And so Athan. speaks of the orthodox faith, as "issuing from
Apostolical teaching and the Fathers' traditions, and confirmed by New
and Old Testament." Letter 60. 6. init. Cyril Hier. too as "declared by
the Church and established from all Scripture." Cat. v. 12. "Let us
guard with vigilance what we have received...What then have we received
from the Scriptures but altogether this? that God made the world by the
Word," &c., &c. Procl. ad Armen. p. 612. "That God, the Word, after the
union remained such as He was, &c., so clearly hath divine Scripture,
and moreover the doctors of the Churches, and the lights of the world
taught us." Theodor. Dial. 3 init. "That it is the tradition of the
Fathers is not the whole of our case; for they too followed the meaning
of Scripture, starting from the testimonies, which just now we laid
before you from Scripture." Basil de Sp. S:16. vid. also a remarkable
passage in de Synod. S:6 fin. infra.
[416] Matt. xxviii. 19.
[417] [Or, `taking the addition as their pretext.']
[418] The only clauses of the Creed which admit of any question in
their explanation, are the "He was not before His generation," and "of
other subsistence or essence." Of these the former shall be reserved
for a later part of the volume; the latter is treated of in a note at
the end of this Treatise [see Excursus A.].
[419] Eusebius does not commit himself to any positive sense in which
the formula "of the essence" is to be interpreted, but only says what
it does not mean. His comment on it is "of the Father, but not as a
part;" where, what is not negative, instead of being an explanation, is
but a recurrence to the original words of Scripture, of which ex ousias
itself is the explanation; a curious inversion. Indeed it is very
doubtful whether he admitted the ex ousias at all. He says, that the
Son is not like the radiance of light so far as this, that the radiance
is an inseparable accident of substance, whereas the Son is by the
Father's will, kata gnomen kai proairesin, Demonstr. Ev. iv. 3. And
though he insists on our Lord being alone, ek theou, yet he means in
the sense which Athan. refutes, supr. S:6, viz. that He alone was
created immediately from God, vid. next note 6. It is true that he
plainly condemns with the Nicene Creed the ex ouk onton of the Arians,
"out of nothing," but an evasion was at hand here also; for he not only
adds, according to Arian custom, "as others" (vid. note following) but
he has a theory that no being whatever is out of nothing, for
non-existence cannot be the cause of existence. God, he says, "proposed
His own will and power as `a sort of matter and substance' of the
production and constitution of the universe, so that it is not
reasonably said, that any thing is out of nothing. For what is from
nothing cannot be at all. How indeed can nothing be to any thing a
cause of being? but all that is, takes its being from One who only is,
and was, who also said `I am that I am.'" Demonstr. Ev. iv. 1. Again,
speaking of our Lord, "He who was from nothing would not truly be Son
of God, `as neither is any other of things generate.'" Eccl. Theol. i.
9 fin. [see, however, D.C.B. ii. p. 347].
[420] Eusebius distinctly asserts, Dem. Ev. iv. 2, that our Lord is a
creature. "This offspring," he says, "did He first produce Himself from
Himself as a foundation of those things which should succeed, the
perfect handy-work, demiourgema, of the Perfect, and the wise
structure, architektonema, of the Wise," &c. Accordingly his avowal in
the text is but the ordinary Arian evasion of "an offspring, not as the
offsprings." E.g. "It is not without peril to say recklessly that the
Son is originate out of nothing `similarly to the other things
originate.'" Dem. Ev. v. 1. vid. also Eccl. Theol. i. 9. iii. 2. And he
considers our Lord the only Son by a divine provision similar to that
by which there is only one sun in the firmament, as a centre of light
and heat. "Such an Only-begotten Son, the excellent artificer of His
will and operator, did the supreme God and Father of that operator
Himself first of all beget, through Him and in Him giving subsistence
to the operative words (ideas or causes) of things which were to be,
and casting in Him the seeds of the constitution and governance of the
universe;...Therefore the Father being One, it behoved the Son to be
one also; but should any one object that He constituted not more, it is
fitting for such a one to complain that He constituted not more suns,
and moons, and worlds, and ten thousand other things." Dem. Ev. iv. 5
fin. vid. also iv. 6.
[421] Eusebius does not say that our Lord is "from the essence of" the
Father, but has "an essence from" the Father. This is the Semi-arian
doctrine, which, whether confessing the Son from the essence of the
Father or not, implied that His essence was not the Father's essence,
but a second essence. The same doctrine is found in the Semi-arians of
Ancyra, though they seem to have confessed "of the essence." And this
is one object of the homoousion, to hinder the confession "of the
essence" from implying a second essence, which was not obviated or was
even encouraged by the homoiousion. The Council of Ancyra, quoting the
text "As the Father hath life in Himself so," &c., says, "since the
life which is in the Father means essence, and the life of the
Only-begotten which is begotten from the Father means essence, the word
`so' implies a likeness of essence to essence." Haer. 73. 10 fin. Hence
Eusebius does not scruple to speak of "two essences," and other writers
of three essences, contr. Marc. i. 4. p. 25. He calls our Lord "a
second essence." Dem. Ev. vi. Praef. Praep. Ev. vii. 12. p. 320, and
the Holy Spirit a third essence, ibid. 15. p. 325. This it was that
made the Latins so suspicions of three hypostases, because the
Semi-arians, as well as they, understood hupostasis to mean essence
[but this is dubious]. Eusebius in like manner [after Origen] calls our
Lord "another God," "a second God." Dem. Ev. v. 4. p. 226. v. fin.
"second Lord." ibid. 3 init. 6. fin. "second cause." Dem. Ev. v. Praef.
vid. also heteron echousa to kat' ousian hupokeimenon, Dem. Ev. v. 1.
p. 215. kath' heauton ousiomenos. ibid. iv. 3. And so heteros para ton
patera. Eccl. Theol. i. 60. p. 90. and zoen idian echon. ibid. and zon
kai huphestos kai tou patros huparchon ektos. ibid. Hence Athan.
insists so much, as in de Decr., on our Lord not being external to the
Father. Once admit that He is in the Father, and we may call the
Father, the only God, for He is included. And so again as to the
Ingenerate, the term does not exclude the Son, for He is generate in
the Ingenerate.
[422] This was the point on which the Semi-arians made their principal
stand against the "one in essence," though they also objected to it as
being of a Sabellian character. E.g. Euseb. Demonstr. iv. 3. p. 148.
d.p. 149. a, b. v. 1. pp. 213-215. contr. Marcell. i. 4. p. 20. Eccl.
Theol. i. 12. p. 73. in laud. Const. p. 525. de Fide i. ap. Sirmond.
tom. i. p. 7. de Fide ii. p. 16, and apparently his de Incorporali. And
so the Semi-arians at Ancyra Epiph. Haer. 73. 11. p. 858. a, b. And so
Meletius ibid. p. 878 fin. and Cyril Hier. Catech. vii. 5. xi. 18.
though of course Catholics would speak as strongly on this point as
their opponents.
[423] Here again Eusebius does not say "from the Father's essence," but
"not from other essence, but from the Father." According to note 5,
supr. he considered the will of God a certain matter or substance.
Montfaucon in loc. and Collect. Nov. Praef. p. xxvi. translates without
warrant "ex Patris hypostasi et substantia." As to the Son's perfect
likeness to the Father which he seems here to grant, it has been
already shewn, de Decr. 20, note 9, how the admission was evaded. The
likeness was but a likeness after its own kind, as a picture is of the
original. "Though our Saviour Himself teaches," he says, "that the
Father is the `only true God,' still let me not be backward to confess
Him also the true God, `as in an image,' and that possessed; so that
the addition of `only' may belong to the Father alone as archetype of
the image....As, supposing one king held sway, and his image was
carried about into every quarter, no one in his right mind would say
that those who held sway were two, but one who was honoured through his
image; in like manner," &c. de Eccles. Theol. ii. 23, vid. ibid. 7.
[424] Athanasius in like manner, ad Afros. 6. speaks of "testimony of
ancient Bishops about 130 years since;" and in de Syn. S:43. of "long
before" the Council of Antioch, a.d. 269. viz. the Dionysii, &c. vid.
note on de Decr. 20.
[425] Socrates, who advocates the orthodoxy of Eusebius, leaves out
this heterodox paragraph [S:S:9, 10] altogether. Bull, however, Defens.
F. N. iii. 9. n. 3. thinks it an interpolation. Athanasius alludes to
the early part of the clause, supr. S:4. and de Syn. S:13. where he
says, that Eusebius implied that the Arians denied even our Lord's
existence before His incarnation. As to Constantine, he seems to have
been used on these occasions by the court Bishops who were his
instructors, and who made him the organ of their own heresy. Upon the
first rise of the Arian controversy he addressed a sort of pastoral
letter to Alexander and Arius, telling them that they were disputing
about a question of words, and recommending them to drop it and live
together peaceably. Euseb. vit. C. ii. 69. 72.
[426] [Rather `potentially' both here and three lines below.] Theognis,
[one] of the Nicene Arians, says the same, according to Philostorgius;
viz. "that God even before He begat the Son was a Father, as having the
power, dunamis, of begetting." Hist. ii. 15. Though Bull pronounces
such doctrine to be heretical, as of course it is, still he considers
that it expresses what otherwise stated may be orthodox, viz. the
doctrine that our Lord was called the Word from eternity, and the Son
upon His descent to create the worlds. And he acutely and ingeniously
interprets the Arian formula, "Before His generation He was not," to
support this view. Another opportunity will occur of giving an opinion
upon this question; meanwhile, the parallel on which the heretical
doctrine is supported in the text is answered by many writers, on the
ground that Father and Son are words of nature, but Creator, King,
Saviour, are external, or what may be called accidental to Him. Thus
Athanasius observes, that Father actually implies Son, but Creator only
the power to create, as expressing a dunamis; "a maker is before his
works, but he who says Father, forthwith in Father implies the
existence of the Son." Orat. iii. S:6. vid. Cyril too, Dial. ii. p.
459. Pseudo-Basil, contr. Eun. iv. 1. fin. On the other hand Origen
argues the reverse way, that since God is eternally a Father, therefore
eternally Creator also: "As one cannot be father without a son, nor
lord without possession, so neither can God be called All-powerful,
without subjects of His power;" de Princ. i. 2. n. 10. hence he argued
for the eternity of matter.
__________________________________________________________________
Excursus [427] A.
------------------------
On the meaning of the phrase ex heteras hupostaseos e ousias in the
Nicene Anathema.
Bishop Bull has made it a question, whether these words in the Nicene
Creed mean the same thing, or are to be considered distinct from each
other, advocating himself the latter opinion against Petavius. The
history of the word hupostasis is of too intricate a character to enter
upon here; but a few words may be in place in illustration of its sense
as it occurs in the Creed, and with reference to the view taken of it
by the great divine, who has commented on it.
Bishop Bull, as I understood him (Defens. F. N. ii. 9. S:11.),
considers that two distinct ideas are intended by the words ousia and
hupostasis, in the clause ex heteras hupostaseos e ousias; as if the
Creed condemned those who said that the Son was not from the Father's
essence, and those also who said that He was not from the Father's
hypostasis or subsistence; as if a man might hold at least one of the
two without holding the other. And in matter of fact, he does profess
to assign two parties of heretics, who denied this or that proposition
respectively.
Petavius, on the other hand (de Trin. iv. I.), considers that the word
hupostasis is but another term for ousia, and that not two but one
proposition is contained in the clause in question; the word hupostasis
not being publicly recognised in its present meaning till the Council
of Alexandria, in the year 362. Coustant. (Epist. Pont. Rom. pp. 274.
290. 462.) Tillemont (Memoires S. Denys. d'Alex. S:15.), Huet
(Origenian. ii. 2. n. 3.), Thomassin (de Incarn. iii. 1.), and Morinus
(de Sacr. Ordin. ii. 6.), take substantially the same view; while
Maranus (Praef. ad S. Basil. S:1. tom. 3. ed. Bened.), Natalis
Alexander, Hist. (Saec. 1. Diss. 22. circ. fin.), Burton (Testimonies
to the Trinity, No. 71), and [Routh] (Reliqu. Sacr. vol. iii. p. 189.),
differ from Petavius, if they do not agree with Bull.
Bull's principal argument lies in the strong fact, that S. Basil
expressly asserts, that the Council did mean the two terms to be
distinct, and this when he is answering the Sabellians, who grounded
their assertion that there was but one hupostasis, on the alleged fact
that the Council had used ousia and hupostasis indifferently.
Bull refers also to Anastasius Hodeg. 21. (22. p. 343.?) who says, that
the Nicene Fathers defined that there are three hypostases or Persons
in the Holy Trinity. Petavius considers that he derived this from
Gelasius of Cyzicus, a writer of no great authority; but, as the
passage occurs in Anastasius, they are the words of Andrew of Samosata.
But what is more important, elsewhere Anastasius quotes a passage from
Amphilochius to something of the same effect. c. 10. p. 164. He states
it besides himself, c. 9. p. 150. and c. 24. p. 364. In addition, Bull
quotes passages from S. Dionysius of Alexandria, S. Dionysius of Rome
(vid. below, de Decr. 25-27 and notes), Eusebius of Caesarea, and
afterwards Origen; in all of which three hypostases being spoken of,
whereas antiquity, early or late, never speaks in the same way of three
ousiai, it is plain that hupostasis then conveyed an idea which ousia
did not. To these may be added a passage in Athanasius, in Illud,
Omnia, S:6.
Bishop Bull adds the following explanation of the two words as they
occur in the Creed: he conceives that the one is intended to reach the
Arians, and the other the Semi-arians; that the Semi-arians did
actually make a distinction between ousia and hupostasis, admitting in
a certain sense that the Son was from the hupostasis of the Father,
while they denied that He was from His ousia. They then are
anathematized in the words ex heteras ousias; and, as he would seem to
mean, the Arians in the ex heteras hupostaseos.
Now I hope it will not be considered any disrespect to so great an
authority, if I differ from this view, and express my reasons for doing
so.
1. First then, supposing his account of the Semi-arian doctrine ever so
free from objection, granting that they denied the ex ousias, and
admitted the ex hupostaseos, yet who are they who, according to his
view, denied the ex hupostaseos, or said that the Son was ex heteras
hupostaseos? he does not assign any parties, though he implies the
Arians. Yet though, as is notorious, they denied the ex ousias, there
is nothing to shew that they or any other party of Arians maintained
specifically that the Son was not [from] the hupostasis, or subsistence
of the Father. That is, the hypothesis supported by this eminent divine
does not answer the very question which it raises. It professes that
those who denied the ex hupostaseos, were not the same as those who
denied the ex ousias; yet it fails to tell us who did deny the ex
hupostaseos, in a sense distinct from ex ousias.
2. Next, his only proof that the Semi-arians did hold the ex
hupostaseos as distinct from the ex ousias, lies in the circumstance,
that the three (commonly called) Semi-arian confessions of a.d. 341,
344, 351, known as Mark's of Arethusa [i.e. the `fourth Antiochene'],
the Macrostich, and the first Sirmian, anathematize those who say that
the Son is ex heteras hupostaseos, not anathematizing the kai me ek tou
theou, which he thence infers was their own belief. Another explanation
of this passage will be offered presently; meanwhile, it is well to
observe, that Hilary, in speaking of the confession of Philippopolis
which was taken from Mark's, far from suspecting that the clause
involved an omission, defends it on the ground of its retaining the
Anathema (de Synod. 35.), thus implying that ex heteras hupostaseos kai
me ek tou theou was equivalent to ex heteras hupostaseos e ousias. And
it may be added, that Athanasius in like manner, in his account of the
Nicene Council (de Decret. S:20. fin.), when repeating its anathema,
drops the ex hupostaseos altogether, and reads tous de legontas ex ouk
onton,....e poiema, e ex heteras ousias, toutous anathematizei k. t. l.
3. Further, Bull gives us no proof whatever that the Semi-arians did
deny the ex ousias; while it is very clear, if it is right to
contradict so great a writer, that most of them did not deny it. He
says that it is "certissimum" that the heretics who wrote the three
confessions above noticed, that is, the Semi-arians, "nunquam fassos,
nunquam fassuros fuisse filium ex ousias, e substantia, Patris
progenitum." His reason for not offering any proof for this naturally
is, that Petavius, with whom he is in controversy, maintains it also,
and he makes use of Petavius's admission against himself. Now it may
seem bold in a writer of this day to differ not only with Bull, but
with Petavius; but the reason for doing so is simple; it is because
Athanasius asserts the very thing which Petavius and Bull deny, and
Petavius admits that he does; that is, he allows it by implication when
he complains that Athanasius had not got to the bottom of the doctrine
of the Semi-arians, and thought too favourably of them. "Horum
Semi-arianorum, quorum antesignanus fuit Basilius Ancyrae episcopus,
prorsus obscura fuit haeresis.....ut ne ipse quidem Athanasius satis
illam exploratam habuerit." de Trin. i. x. S:7.
Now S. Athanasius's words are most distinct and express; "As to those
who receive all else that was defined at Nicaea, but dispute about the
`One in essence' only, we must not feel as towards enemies....for, as
confessing that the Son is from the essence of the Father and not of
other subsistence, ek tes ousias tou patros einai, kai me ex heteras
hupostaseos ton huion,...they are not far from receiving the phrase
`One in essence' also. Such is Basil of Ancyra, in what he has written
about the faith" de Syn. S:41;--a passage, not only express for the
matter in hand, but remarkable too, as apparently using hupostasis and
ousia as synonymous, which is the main point which Bull denies. What
follows in Athanasius is equally to the purpose: he urges the
Semi-arians to accept the homoousion, in consistency, because they
maintain the ex ousias and the homoiousion would not sufficiently
secure it.
Moreover Hilary, while defending the Semi-arian decrees of Ancyra or
Sirmium, says expressly, that according to them, among other truths,
"non creatura est Filius genitus, sed a natura Patris indiscreta
substantia est." de Syn. 27.
Petavius, however, in the passage to which Bull appeals, refers in
proof of this view of Semi-arianism, to those Ancyrene documents, which
Epiphanius has preserved, Haer. 73. and which he considers to shew,
that according to the Semi-arians the Son was not ex ousias tou patros.
He says, that it is plain from their own explanations that they
considered our Lord to be, not ek tes ousias, but ek tes homoiotetos
(he does not say hupostaseos, as Bull wishes) tou patros and that,
energei& 139; gennetike, which was one of the divine energeiai, as
creation, he ktistike, was another. Yet surely Epiphanius does not bear
out this representation better than Athanasius; since the Semi-arians,
whose words he reports, speak of "hui& 232;n homoion kai kat' ousian ek
tou patros, p. 825 b, hos he sophia tou sophou hui& 232;s, ousia
ousias, p. 853 c, kat' ousian hui& 232;n tou Theou kai patros, p. 854
c, exousi& 139; homou kai ousi& 139; patros monogenous huiou. p. 858 d,
besides the strong word gnesios, ibid. and Athan. de Syn. S:41. not to
insist on other of their statements.
The same fact is brought before us even in a more striking way in the
conference at Constantinople, a.d. 360, before Constantius, between the
Anomoeans and Semi-arians, where the latter, according to Theodoret,
shew no unwillingness to acknowledge even the homoousion, because they
acknowledge the ex ousias. When the Anomoeans wished the former
condemned, Silvanus of Tarsus said, "If God the Word be not out of
nothing, nor a creature, nor of other essence, ousias, therefore is He
one in essence, homoousios, with God who begot Him, as God from God,
and Light from Light, and He has the same nature with His Father." H.
E. ii. 23. Here again it is observable, as in the passage from
Athanasius above, that, while apparently reciting the Nicene Anathema,
he omits ex heteras hupostaseos, as if it were superfluous to mention a
synonym.
At the same time there certainly is reason to suspect that the
Semi-arians approximated towards orthodoxy as time went on; and perhaps
it is hardly fair to determine what they held at Nicaea by their
statements at Ancyra, though to the latter Petavius appeals. Several of
the most eminent among them, as Meletius, Cyril, and Eusebius of
Samosata conformed soon after; on the other hand in Eusebius, who is
their representative at Nicaea, it will perhaps be difficult to find a
clear admission of the ex ousias. But at any rate he does not maintain
the ex hupostaseos, which Bull's theory requires.
On various grounds then, because the Semi-arians as a body did not deny
the ex ousias, nor confess the ex hupostaseos, nor the Arians deny it,
there is reason for declining Bishop Bull's explanation of these words
as they occur in the Creed; and now let us turn to the consideration of
the authorities on which that explanation rests.
As to Gelasius, Bull himself does not insist upon his testimony, and
Anastasius [about 700 a.d.] is too late to be of authority. The passage
indeed which he quotes from Amphilochius is important, but as he was a
friend of S. Basil, perhaps it does not very much increase the weight
of S. Basil's more distinct and detailed testimony to the same point,
and no one can say that that weight is inconsiderable.
Yet there is evidence the other way which overbalances it. Bull, who
complains of Petavius's rejection of S. Basil's testimony concerning a
Council which was held before his birth, cannot maintain his own
explanation of its Creed without rejecting Athanasius's testimony
respecting the doctrine of his contemporaries, the Semi-arians; and
moreover the more direct evidence, as we shall see, of the Council of
Alexandria, a.d. 362, S. Jerome, Basil of Ancyra, and Socrates.
First, however, no better comment upon the sense of the Council can be
required than the incidental language of Athanasius and others, who in
a foregoing extract exchanges ousia for hupostasis in a way which is
natural only on the supposition that he used them as synonyms.
Elsewhere, as we have seen, he omits the word e hupostaseos in the
Nicene Anathema, while Hilary considers the Anathema sufficient with
that omission.
In like manner Hilary expressly translates the clause in the Creed by
ex altera substantia vel essentia. Fragm. ii. 27. And somewhat in the
same way Eusebius says in his letter, ex heteras tinos hupostaseos te
kai ousias.
But further, Athanasius says expressly, ad Afros,--"Hypostasis is
essence, ousia, and means nothing else than simply being, which
Jeremiah calls existence when he says," &c. S:4. It is true, he
elsewhere speaks of three Hypostases, but this only shews that he
attached no fixed sense to the word. [Rather, he abandons the latter
usage in his middle and later writings.] This is just what I would
maintain; its sense must be determined by the context; and, whereas it
always stands in all Catholic writers for the Una Res (as the 4th
Lateran speaks), which ousia denotes, when Athanasius says, "three
hypostases," he takes the word to mean ousia in that particular sense
in which it is three, and when he makes it synonymous with ousia, he
uses it to signify Almighty God in that sense in which He is one.
Leaving Athanasius, we have the following evidence concerning the
history of the word hupostasis. S. Jerome says, "The whole school of
secular learning understanding nothing else by hypostasis than usia,
essence," Ep. xv. 4, where, speaking of the Three Hypostases he uses
the strong language, "If you desire it, then be a new faith framed
after the Nicene, and let the orthodox confess in terms like the
Arian."
In like manner, Basil of Ancyra, George, and the other Semi-arians, say
distinctly, "This hypostasis our Fathers called essence," ousia. Epiph.
Haer. 74. 12. fin.; in accordance with which is the unauthorized
addition to the Sardican Epistle, "hupostasin, hen autoi hoi hairetikoi
ousian prosagoreuousi." Theod. H. E. ii. 6.
If it be said that Jerome from his Roman connection, and Basil and
George as Semi-arians, would be led by their respective theologies for
distinct reasons thus to speak, it is true, and may have led them to
too broad a statement of the fact; but then on the other hand it was in
accordance also with the theology of S. Basil, so strenuous a defender
of the formula of the Three Hypostases, to suppose that the Nicene
Fathers meant to distinguish hupostasis from ousia in their anathema.
Again, Socrates informs us that, though there was some dispute about
hypostasis at Alexandria shortly before the Nicene Council, yet the
Council itself "devoted not a word to the question," H. E. iii. 7.;
which hardly consists with its having intended to rule that ex heteras
hupostaseos was distinct from ex heteras ousias.
And in like manner the Council of Alexandria, a.d. 362, in deciding
that the sense of Hypostasis was an open question, not only from the
very nature of the case goes on the supposition that the Nicene Council
had not closed it, but says so in words again and again in its Synodal
Letter. If the Nicene Council had already used "hypostasis" in its
present sense, what remained to Athanasius at Alexandria but to submit
to it?
Indeed the history of this Council is perhaps the strongest argument
against the supposed discrimination of the two terms by the Council of
Nicaea. Bull can only meet it by considering that an innovation upon
the "veterem vocabuli usum" began at the date of the Council of
Sardica, though Socrates mentions the dispute as existing at Alexandria
before the Nicene Council, H. E. iii. 4. 5. while the supposititious
confession of Sardica professes to have received the doctrine of the
one hypostasis by tradition as Catholic.
Nor is the use of the word in earlier times inconsistent with these
testimonies; though it occurs so seldom, in spite of its being a word
of S. Paul [i.e. Heb. i. 3], that testimony is our principal evidence.
Socrates' remarks deserve to be quoted; "Those among the Greeks who
have treated of the Greek philosophy, have defined essence, ousia, in
many ways, but they had made no mention at all of hypostasis. Irenaeus
the Grammarian, in his alphabetical Atticist, even calls the term
barbarous; because it is not used by any of the ancients, and if
anywhere found, it does not mean what it is now taken for. Thus in the
Phoenix of Sophocles it means an `ambush;' but in Menander,
`preserves,' as if one were to call the wine-lees in a cask
`hypostasis.' However it must be observed, that, in spite of the old
philosophers being silent about the term, the more modern continually
use it for essence, ousias, H. E. iii. 7. The word principally occurs
in Origen among Ante-Nicene writers, and he, it must be confessed uses
it, as far as the context decides its sense, to mean subsistence or
person. In other words, it was the word of a certain school in the
Church, which afterwards was accepted by the Church; but this proves
nothing about the sense in which it was used at Nicaea. The three
Hypostases are spoken of by Origen, his pupil Dionysius, as afterwards
by Eusebius of Caesarea (though he may notwithstanding have considered
hypostasis synonymous with essence), and Athanasius (Origen in Joan.
ii. 6. Dionys. ap. Basil de Sp. S. n. 72. Euseb. ap. Socr. i. 23.
Athan. in Illud Omnia, &c. 6); and the Two Hypostases of the Father and
the Son, by Origen, Ammonius, and Alexander (Origen c. Cels. viii. 2.
Ammon. ap. Caten. in Joan. x. 30. Alex. ap. Theod. i. 3. p. 740). As to
the passage in which two hypostases are spoken of in Dionysius' letter
to Paul of Samosata, that letter certainly is not genuine, as might be
shewn on a fitting occasion, though it is acknowledged by very great
authorities.
I confess that to my mind there is an antecedent probability that the
view which has here been followed is correct. Judging by the general
history of doctrine, one should not expect that the formal
ecclesiastical meaning of the word should have obtained everywhere so
early. Nothing is more certain than that the doctrines themselves of
the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation were developed, or, to speak more
definitely, that the propositions containing them were acknowledged,
from the earliest times; but the particular terms which now belong to
them are most uniformly of a later date. Ideas were brought out, but
technical phrases did not obtain. Not that these phrases did not exist,
but either not as technical, or in use in a particular School or
Church, or with a particular writer, or as hapax legomena, as words
discussed, nay resisted, perhaps used by some local Council, and then
at length accepted generally from their obvious propriety. Thus the
words of the Schools pass into the service of the Catholic Church.
Instead then of the word hupostasis being, as Maran says, received in
the East "summo consensu," from the date of Noetus or at least
Sabellius, or of Bull's opinion "apud Catholicos Dionysii aetate ratum
et fixum illud fuisse, tres esse in divinis hypostases," I would
consider that the present use of the word was in the first instance
Alexandrian, and that it was little more than Alexandrian till the
middle of the fourth century.
Lastly, it comes to be considered how the two words are to be accounted
for in the Creed, if they have not distinct senses. Coustant supposes
that ex ousias was added to explain ex hupostaseos, lest the latter
should be taken in a Sabellian sense. On which we may perhaps remark
besides, that the reason why hupostasis was selected as the principal
term was, that it was agreeable to the Westerns as well as admitted by
the Orientals. Thus, by way of contrast, we find the Second General
Council, at which there were no Latins, speaking of Three Hypostases,
and Pope Damasus and the Roman Council speaking a few years sooner of
the Holy Ghost as of the same hypostasis and usia with the Father and
the Son. Theod. H. E. ii. 17. Many things go to make this probable. For
instance, Coustant acutely points out, though Maran and the President
of Magdalen [Routh, Rel. Sac. iii. 383] dissent, that this probably was
a point of dispute between the two Dionysii; the Bishop of Alexandria
asserting, as we know he did assert, Three Hypostases, the Bishop of
Rome protesting in reply against "Three partitive Hypostases," as
involving tritheism, and his namesake rejoining, "If because there are
Three Hypostases, any say that they are partitive, three there are,
though they like it not." Again, the influence of the West shews itself
in the language of Athanasius, who, contrary to the custom of his
Church, of Origen, Dionysius, and his own immediate patron and master
Alexander, so varies his own use of the word, as to make his writings
almost an example of that freedom which he vindicated in the Council of
Alexandria. Again, when Hosius went to Alexandria before the Nicene
Council, and a dispute arose with reference to Sabellianism about the
words hupostasis and ousia, what is this too, but the collision of East
and West? It should be remembered moreover that Hosius presided at
Nicaea, a Latin in an Eastern city; and again at Sardica, where, though
the decree in favour of the One Hypostasis was not passed, it seems
clear from the history that he was resisting persons with whom in great
measure he agreed. Further, the same consideration accounts for the
omission of the ex ousias from the Confession of Mark and the two which
follow, on which Bull relies in proof that the Semi-arians rejected
this formula. These three Semi-arian Creeds, and these only, were
addressed to the Latins, and therefore their compilers naturally select
that synonym which was most pleasing to them, as the means of securing
a hearing; just as Athanasius on the other hand in his de Decretis,
writing to the Greeks, omits hupostaseos and writes ousias.
__________________________________________________________________
[427] [This excursus supports the view taken above, Prolegg. ch. ii.
S:3 (2) b; the student should supplement Newman's discussion by Zahn
Marcellus and Harnack Dogmengesch. as quoted at the head of that
section of the Prolegg. The word `Semi-arian' is used in a somewhat
inexact sense in this excursus, see Prolegg. ch. ii. S:3 (2) c, and S:8
(2) c.]
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Introduction to Expositio Fidei.
------------------------
The date of this highly interesting document is quite uncertain, but
there is every ground for placing it earlier than the explicitly
anti-Arian treatises. Firstly, the absence of any express reference to
the controversy against Arians, while yet it is clearly in view in
S:S:3 and 4, which lay down the rule afterwards consistently adopted by
Athanasius with regard to texts which speak of the Saviour as created.
Secondly, the untroubled use of homoios (S:1, note 4) to express the
Son's relation to the Father. Thirdly, the close affinity of this
Statement to the Sermo Major de Fide which in its turn has very close
points of contact with the pre-Arian treatises. But see Prolegg. ch.
iii. S:1 (37).
If we are to hazard a conjecture, we may see in this "ekthesis" a
statement of faith published by Athanasius upon his accession to the
Episcopate, a.d. 328. The statement proper (Hahn S:119) consists of
S:1. S:S:2-4 are an explanatory comment insisting on the distinct
Existence of the Son, and on His essential uncreatedness.
The translation which follows has been carefully compared with one made
by the late Prof. Swainson in his work on the Creeds, pp. 73-76. Dr.
Swainson there refers to a former `imperfect and misleading'
translation (in Irons' Athanasius contra Mundum) which the present
editor has not seen. Dr. Swainson expresses doubts as to the Athanasian
authorship of the Ecthesis, but without any cogent reason. The only
point of importance is one which acquaintance with the usual language
of Athanasius shews to make distinctly in favour of, and not against,
the genuineness of this little tract. Three times in the course of it
the Human Body, or Humanity of the Lord is spoken of as ho Kuriakos
anthropus. Dr. Swainson exaggerates the strangeness of the expression
by the barbarous rendering `Lordly man' (How would he translate
kuriakon deipnon?). But the phrase certainly requires explanation,
although the explanation is not difficult. (1) It is quoted by Facundus
of Hermiane from the present work (Def. Tr. Cap. xi. 5), and by Rufinus
from an unnamed work of Athanasius (`libellus'), probably the present
one. Moreover, Athanasius himself uses the phrase, frequently in the
Sermo Major de Fide, and in his exposition of Psalm xl. (xli.).
Epiphanius uses it at least twice (Ancor. 78 and 95); and from these
Greek Fathers the phrase (`Dominicus Homo') passed on to Latin writers
such as Cassian and Augustine (below, note 5), who, however,
subsequently cancelled his adoption of the expression (Retr. I. xix.
8). The phrase, therefore, is not to be objected to as un-Athanasian.
In fact (2) it is founded upon the profuse and characteristic use by
Ath. of the word anthropos to designate the manhood of our Lord (see
Orat. c. Ar. i. 41, 45, ii. 45, note 2. Dr. Swainson appears unaware of
this in his unsatisfactory paragraph p. 77, lines 14 and foll.). If the
human nature of Christ may be called anthropos (1 Tim. ii. 5) at all,
there is no difficulty in its being called ho anthr. tou soteros (Serm.
M. de F. 24 and 30), or kuriakos anthropos, a phrase equated with to
[kuriakon] soma in Serm. M. de F. 19 and 28-31 (see also a discussion
in Thilo Athan. Opp. Dogm. select. p. 2). This use of the word
anthropos, if carelessly employed, might lend itself to a Nestorian
sense. But Athanasius does not employ it carelessly, nor in an
ambiguous context; although of course he might have used different
language had he foreseen the controversies of the fifth century. At any
rate, enough has been said to shew that its use in the present treatise
does not expose its genuineness to cavil.
__________________________________________________________________
Statement of Faith.
------------------------
1. We believe in one Unbegotten [428] God, Father Almighty, maker of
all things both visible and invisible, that hath His being from
Himself. And in one Only-begotten Word, Wisdom, Son, begotten of the
Father without beginning and eternally; word not pronounced [429] nor
mental, nor an effluence [430] of the Perfect, nor a dividing of the
impassible Essence, nor an issue [431] ; but absolutely perfect Son,
living and powerful (Heb. iv. 12), the true Image of the Father, equal
in honour and glory. For this, he says, `is the will of the Father,
that as they honour the Father, so they may honour the Son also' (Joh.
v. 23): very God of very God, as John says in his general Epistles,
`And we are in Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ: this is
the true God and everlasting life' (1 Joh. v. 20): Almighty of
Almighty. For all things which the Father rules and sways, the Son
rules and sways likewise: wholly from the Whole, being like [432] the
Father as the Lord says, `he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father'
(Joh. xiv. 9). But He was begotten ineffably and incomprehensibly, for
`who shall declare his generation?' (Isa. liii. 8), in other words, no
one can. Who, when at the consummation of the ages (Heb. ix. 26), He
had descended from the bosom of the Father, took from the undefiled
Virgin Mary our humanity (anthropon), Christ Jesus, whom He delivered
of His own will to suffer for us, as the Lord saith: `No man taketh My
life from Me. I have power to lay it down, and have power to take it
again' (Joh. x. 18). In which humanity He was crucified and died for
us, and rose from the dead, and was taken up into the heavens, having
been created as the beginning of ways for us (Prov. viii. 22), when on
earth He shewed us light from out of darkness, salvation from error,
life from the dead, an entrance to paradise, from which Adam was cast
out, and into which he again entered by means of the thief, as the Lord
said, `This day shalt thou be with Me in paradise' (Luke xxiii. 43),
into which Paul also once entered. [He shewed us] also a way up to the
heavens, whither the humanity of the Lord [433] , in which He will
judge the quick and the dead, entered as precursor for us. We believe,
likewise, also in the Holy Spirit that searcheth all things, even the
deep things of God (1 Cor. ii. 10), and we anathematise doctrines
contrary to this.
2. For neither do we hold a Son-Father, as do the Sabellians, calling
Him of one but not of the same [434] essence, and thus destroying the
existence of the Son. Neither do we ascribe the passible body which He
bore for the salvation of the whole world to the Father. Neither can we
imagine three Subsistences separated from each other, as results from
their bodily nature in the case of men, lest we hold a plurality of
gods like the heathen. But just as a river, produced from a well, is
not separate, and yet there are in fact two visible objects and two
names. For neither is the Father the Son, nor the Son the Father. For
the Father is Father of the Son, and the Son, Son of the Father. For
like as the well is not a river, nor the river a well, but both are one
and the same water which is conveyed in a channel from the well to the
river, so the Father's deity passes into the Son without flow and
without division. For the Lord says, `I came out from the Father and am
come' (Joh. xvi. 28). But He is ever with the Father, for He is in the
bosom of the Father, nor was ever the bosom of the Father void of the
deity of the Son. For He says, `I was by Him as one setting in order'
(Prov. viii. 30). But we do not regard God the Creator of all, the Son
of God, as a creature, or thing made, or as made out of nothing, for He
is truly existent from Him who exists, alone existing from Him who
alone exists, in as much as the like glory and power was eternally and
conjointly begotten of the Father. For `He that hath seen' the Son
`hath seen the Father (Joh. xiv. 9). All things to wit were made
through the Son; but He Himself is not a creature, as Paul says of the
Lord: `In Him were all things created, and He is before all' (Col. i.
16). Now He says not, `was created' before all things, but `is' before
all things. To be created, namely, is applicable to all things, but `is
before all' applies to the Son only.
3. He is then by nature an Offspring, perfect from the Perfect,
begotten before all the hills (Prov. viii. 25), that is before every
rational and intelligent essence, as Paul also in another place calls
Him `first-born of all creation' (Col. i. 15). But by calling Him
First-born, He shews that He is not a Creature, but Offspring of the
Father. For it would be inconsistent with His deity for Him to be
called a creature. For all things were created by the Father through
the Son, but the Son alone was eternally begotten from the Father,
whence God the Word is `first-born of all creation,' unchangeable from
unchangeable. However, the body which He wore for our sakes is a
creature: concerning which Jeremiah says, according to the edition of
the seventy translators [435] (Jer. xxxi. 22): `The Lord created for us
for a planting a new salvation, in which salvation men shall go about:'
but according to Aquila the same text runs: `The Lord created a new
thing in woman.' Now the salvation created for us for a planting, which
is new, not old, and for us, not before us, is Jesus, Who in respect of
the Saviour [436] was made man, and whose name is translated in one
place Salvation, in another Saviour. But salvation proceeds from the
Saviour, just as illumination does from the light. The salvation, then,
which was from the Saviour, being created new, did, as Jeremiah says,
`create for us a new salvation,' and as Aquila renders: `The Lord
created a new thing in woman,' that is in Mary. For nothing new was
created in woman, save the Lord's body, born of the Virgin Mary without
intercourse, as also it says in the Proverbs in the person of Jesus:
`The Lord created me, a beginning of His ways for His works' (Prov.
viii. 22). Now He does not say, `created me before His works,' lest any
should take the text of the deity of the Word.
4. Each text then which refers to the creature is written with
reference to Jesus in a bodily sense. For the Lord's Humanity [437] was
created as `a beginning of ways,' and He manifested it to us for our
salvation. For by it we have our access to the Father. For He is the
way (Joh. xiv. 6) which leads us back to the Father. And a way is a
corporeal visible thing, such as is the Lord's humanity. Well, then,
the Word of God created all things, not being a creature, but an
offspring. For He created none of the created things equal or like unto
Himself. But it is the part of a Father to beget, while it is a
workman's part to create. Accordingly, that body is a thing made and
created, which the Lord bore for us, which was begotten for us [438] ,
as Paul says, `wisdom from God, and sanctification and righteousness,
and redemption;' while yet the Word was before us and before all
Creation, and is, the Wisdom of the Father. But the Holy Spirit, being
that which proceeds from the Father, is ever in the hands [439] of the
Father Who sends and of the Son Who conveys Him, by Whose means He
filled all things. The Father, possessing His existence from Himself,
begat the Son, as we said, and did not create Him, as a river from a
well and as a branch from a root, and as brightness from a light,
things which nature knows to be indivisible; through whom to the Father
be glory and power and greatness before all ages, and unto all the ages
of the ages. Amen.
__________________________________________________________________
[428] See de Syn. S:S:3, 46, 47, and the Excursus in Lightfoot's
Ignatius, vol. ii. pp. 90 and foll (first ed.).
[429] Cf. note by Newman on de Synodis, S:26 (5).
[430] Cf. Newman's note (8) on de Decr. S:11.
[431] Or `development' (Gr. probole) a word with Gnostic and Sabellian
antecedents, cf. Newman's note 8 on de Synodis, S:16.
[432] This word, which became the watchword of the Acacian party, the
successors of the Eusebians, marks the relatively early date of this
treatise. At a later period Athanasius would not use it without
qualification (see Orat. ii. S:22, note 4), and later still, rejected
the Word entirely as misleading (de Synodis, S:53. note 9). Yet see ad
Afros. 7, and Orat. ii. 34.
[433] ho kuriakos anthropos (see above, introductory remarks). The
expression is quoted as used by Ath., apparently from this passage, by
Rufinus (Hieron. Opp. ix. p. 131, ed. 1643), Theodoret, Dial. 3, and
others. The expression `Dominicus Homo' used by St. Augustine is
rendered `Divine Man' in Nicene and P. N. Fathers, Series i. vol. vi.
p. 40 b.
[434] monoousion kai ouch homoousion (see Prolegg. ch. ii. S:3 (2) b
sub fin.). The distinction cannot (to those accustomed to use the
`Nicene' Creed in English) be rendered so as to imply a real
difference. The real distinction lies, not in the prefixes mono- and
homo-, but in the sense to be attached to the ambiguous term ousia
[435] Heb. For the Lord hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman
shall encompass a man.' Cf.Orat. ii. 46, note 5.
[436] The same phrase also in Serm. M. de Fid. 18.
[437] kuriakos anthropos, see above.
[438] egennethe (1 Cor. i. 30, egenethe). The two words are constantly
confused in mss., and I suspect that egenethe, which (pace Swainson p.
78, note) the context really requires, was what Ath. wrote.
[439] See also de Sent. Dionys. 17.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Introduction to In Illud `Omnia,' Etc.
------------------------
This memorandum or short article was written, as its first sentence
shews, during the lifetime of Eusebius of Nicomedia, and therefore not
later than the summer of a.d. 342. The somewhat abrupt beginning, and
the absence of any exposition of the latter portion of the text, have
led to the inference that the work is a fragment: but its conclusion is
evidently perfect, and the opening words probably refer to the text
itself. The tract is a reply to the Arian argument founded upon Luke x.
22 (Matt. xi. 27). If `all things' had been delivered to the Son by the
Father, it would follow that once He was without them. Now `all things'
include His Divine Sonship. Therefore there was a time when the Son was
not. Athanasius meets this argument by totally denying the minor
premise. By `all things,' he argues, Christ referred to His mediatorial
work and its glories, not to His essential nature as Word of God. He
then adduces Joh. xvi. 15, to shew at once the Son's distinctness from
the Father, and that the Father's attributes must also be those of the
Son.
The interpretation of the main text given in this tract was not
subsequently maintained by Athanasius: in Orat. iii. 35, he explains it
of the Son, as safeguarding His separate personality against the
Sabellians. It should, however, be noted that this change of ground
does not involve any concession to the Arian use of the passage: it
merely transfers the denial of Athanasius from their minor to their
major premise.
Beyond the fact that the tract was written before 342 there is no
conclusive evidence as to its date. But it is generally placed
(Montfaucon, Ceillier, Alzog) before the `Encyclical,' which was
written in 339, and in several particulars it differs from the later
anti-Arian treatises: perhaps then we may conjecturally place it about
335, i.e. before the first exile of the `Pope.'
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
On Luke X. 22 (Matt. XI. 27).
------------------------
S:1. This text refers not to the eternal Word but to the Incarnate.
"All things were delivered to Me by My Father. And none knoweth Who the
Son is, save the Father; and Who the Father is, save the Son, and he to
whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal Him."
And from not perceiving this they of the sect of Arius, Eusebius and
his fellows, indulge impiety against the Lord. For they say, if all
things were delivered (meaning by `all' the Lordship of Creation),
there was once a time when He had them not. But if He had them not, He
is not of the Father, for if He were, He would on that account have had
them always, and would not have required to receive them. But this
point will furnish all the clearer an exposure of their folly. For the
expression in question does not refer to the Lordship over Creation,
nor to presiding over the works of God, but is meant to reveal in part
the intention of the Incarnation (tes oikonomias). For if when He was
speaking they `were delivered' to Him, clearly before He received them,
creation was void of the Word. What then becomes of the text "in Him
all things consist" (Col. i. 17)? But if simultaneously with the origin
of the Creation it was all `delivered' to Him, such delivery were
superfluous, for `all things were made by Him' (Joh. i. 3), and it
would be unnecessary for those things of which the Lord Himself was the
artificer to be delivered over to Him. For in making them He was Lord
of the things which were being originated. But even supposing they were
`delivered' to Him after they were originated, see the monstrosity. For
if they `were delivered,' and upon His receiving them the Father
retired, then we are in peril of falling into the fabulous tales which
some tell, that He gave over [His works] to the Son, and Himself
departed. Or if, while the Son has them, the Father has them also, we
ought to say, not `were delivered,' but that He took Him as partner, as
Paul did Silvanus. But this is even more monstrous; for God is not
imperfect [440] , nor did He summon the Son to help Him in His need;
but, being Father of the Word, He makes all things by His means, and
without delivering creation over to Him, by His means and in Him
exercises Providence over it, so that not even a sparrow falls to the
ground without the Father (Matt. x. 29), nor is the grass clothed
without God (ib. vi. 30), but at once the Father worketh, and the Son
worketh hitherto (cf. Joh. v. 17). Vain, therefore, is the opinion of
the impious. For the expression is not what they think, but designates
the Incarnation.
__________________________________________________________________
[440] See Orat. ii. S:24, 25, De Decr. S:8, and Harnack, Dogmgesch.
(ed. 2) vol. 2. p. 208, note.
__________________________________________________________________
S:2. Sense in which, and end for which all things were delivered to the
Incarnate Son.
For whereas man sinned, and is fallen, and by his fall all things are
in confusion: death prevailed from Adam to Moses (cf. Rom. v. 14), the
earth was cursed, Hades was opened, Paradise shut, Heaven offended,
man, lastly, corrupted and brutalised (cf. Ps. xlix. 12), while the
devil was exulting against us;--then God, in His loving-kindness, not
willing man made in His own image to perish, said, `Whom shall I send,
and who will go?' (Isa. vi. 8). But while all held their peace, the Son
[441] said, `Here am I, send Me.' And then it was that, saying `Go
Thou,' He `delivered' to Him man, that the Word Himself might be made
Flesh, and by taking the Flesh, restore it wholly. For to Him, as to a
physician, man `was delivered' to heal the bite of the serpent; as to
life, to raise what was dead; as to light, to illumine the darkness;
and, because He was Word, to renew the rational nature (to logikon).
Since then all things `were delivered' to Him, and He is made Man,
straightway all things were set right and perfected. Earth receives
blessing instead of a curse, Paradise was opened to the robber, Hades
cowered, the tombs were opened and the dead raised, the gates of Heaven
were lifted up to await Him that `cometh from Edom' (Ps. xxiv. 7, Isa.
lxiii. 1). Why, the Saviour Himself expressly signifies in what sense
`all things were delivered' to Him, when He continues, as Matthew tells
us: `Come unto Me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will
give you rest' (Matt. xi. 28). Yes, ye `were delivered' to Me to give
rest to those who had laboured, and life to the dead. And what is
written in John's Gospel harmonises with this: `The Father loveth the
Son, and hath given all things into His hand' (Joh. iii. 35). Given, in
order that, just as all things were made by Him, so in Him all things
might be renewed. For they were not `delivered' unto Him, that being
poor, He might be made rich, nor did He receive all things that He
might receive power which before He lacked: far be the thought: but in
order that as Saviour He might rather set all things right. For it was
fitting that while `through Him' all things came into being at the
beginning, `in Him' (note the change of phrase) all things should be
set right (cf. Joh. i. 3, Eph. i. 10). For at the beginning they came
into being `through' Him; but afterwards, all having fallen, the Word
has been made Flesh, and put it on, in order that `in Him' all should
be set right. Suffering Himself, He gave us rest, hungering Himself, He
nourished us, and going down into Hades He brought us back thence. For
example, at the time of the creation of all things, their creation
consisted in a fiat, such as `let [the earth] bring forth,' `let there
be' (Gen. i. 3, 11), but at the restoration it was fitting that all
things should be `delivered' to Him, in order that He might be made
man, and all things be renewed in Him. For man, being in Him, was
quickened: for this was why the Word was united to man, namely, that
against man the curse might no longer prevail. This is the reason why
they record the request made on behalf of mankind in the seventy-first
Psalm: `Give the King Thy judgment, O God' (Ps. lxxii. 1): asking that
both the judgment of death which hung over us may be delivered to the
Son, and that He may then, by dying for us, abolish it for us in
Himself. This was what He signified, saying Himself, in the
eighty-seventh Psalm: `Thine indignation lieth hard upon me' (Ps.
lxxxviii. 7). For He bore the indignation which lay upon us, as also He
says in the hundred and thirty-seventh: `Lord, Thou shalt do vengeance
for me' (Ps. cxxxviii. 8, LXX.).
__________________________________________________________________
[441] This dramatic representation of the Mission of the Son stands
alone in the writings of Athanasius, and, if pressed, lends itself to a
conception of the relation of the Son to the Father which, if not
Arian, is at least contrary to the more explicit and mature conception
of Athanasius as formulated for example in Orat. ii. 31 (and see note 7
there). The same idea appears in Milton's Paradise Lost (e.g. Book X.).
See Newman, Arians 4, p. 93, note.
__________________________________________________________________
S:3. By `all things' is meant the redemptive attributes and power of
Christ.
Thus, then, we may understand all things to have been delivered to the
Saviour, and, if it be necessary to follow up understanding by
explanation, that hath been delivered unto Him which He did not
previously possess. For He was not man previously, but became man for
the sake of saving man. And the Word was not in the beginning flesh,
but has been made flesh subsequently (cf. Joh. i. 1 sqq.), in which
Flesh, as the Apostle says, He reconciled the enmity which was against
us (Col. i. 20, ii. 14, Eph. ii. 15, 16) and destroyed the law of the
commandments in ordinances, that He might make the two into one new
man, making peace, and reconcile both in one body to the Father. That,
however, which the Father has, belongs also to the Son, as also He says
in John, `All things whatsoever the Father hath are Mine' (Joh. xvi.
15), expressions which could not be improved. For when He became that
which He was not, `all things were delivered' to Him. But when He
desires to declare His unity with the Father, He teaches it without any
reserve, saying: `All things whatsoever the Father hath are Mine.' And
one cannot but admire the exactness of the language. For He has not
said `all things whatsoever the Father hath, He hath given to Me,' lest
He should appear at one time not to have possessed these things; but
`are Mine.' For these things, being in the Father's power, are equally
in that of the Son. But we must in turn examine what things `the Father
hath.' For if Creation is meant, the Father had nothing before
creation, and proves to have received something additional from
Creation; but far be it to think this. For just as He exists before
creation, so before creation also He has what He has, which we also
believe to belong to the Son (Joh. xvi. 15). For if the Son is in the
Father, then all things that the Father has belong to the Son. So this
expression is subversive of the perversity of the heterodox in saying
that `if all things have been delivered to the Son, then the Father has
ceased to have power over what is delivered, having appointed the Son
in His place. For, in fact, the Father judgeth none, but hath given all
judgment to the Son' (Joh. v. 22). But `let the mouth of them that
speak wickedness be stopped' (Ps. lxiii. 11), (for although He has
given all judgment to the Son, He is not, therefore, stripped of
lordship: nor, because it is said that all things are delivered by the
Father to the Son, is He any the less over all), separating as they
clearly do the Only-begotten from God, Who is by nature inseparable
from Him, even though in their madness they separate Him by their
words, not perceiving, the impious men, that the Light can never be
separated from the sun, in which it resides by nature. For one must use
a poor simile drawn from tangible and familiar objects to put our idea
into words, since it is over bold to intrude upon the incomprehensible
nature [of God].
__________________________________________________________________
S:4. The text John xvi. 15, shews clearly the essential relation of the
Son to the Father.
As then the light from the Sun which illumines the world could never be
supposed, by men of sound mind, to do so without the Sun, since the
Sun's light is united to the Sun by nature; and as, if the Light [442]
were to say: I have received from the Sun the power of illumining all
things, and of giving growth and strength to them by the heat that is
in me, no one will be mad enough to think that the mention of the Sun
is meant to separate him from what is his nature, namely the light; so
piety would have us perceive that the Divine Essence of the Word is
united by nature to His own Father. For the text before us will put our
problem in the clearest possible light, seeing that the Saviour said,
`All things whatsoever the Father hath are Mine;' which shews that He
is ever with the Father. For `whatsoever He hath' shews that the Father
wields the Lordship, while `are Mine' shews the inseparable union. It
is necessary, then, that we should perceive that in the Father reside
Everlastingness, Eternity, Immortality. Now these reside in Him not as
adventitious attributes, but, as it were, in a well-spring they reside
in Him, and in the Son. When then you wish to perceive what relates to
the Son, learn what is in the Father, for this is what you must believe
to be in the Son. If then the Father is a thing created or made, these
qualities belong also to the Son. And if it is permissible to say of
the Father `there was once a time when He was not,' or `made of
nothing,' let these words be applied also to the Son. But if it is
impious to ascribe these attributes to the Father, grant that it is
impious also to ascribe them to the Son. For what belongs to the
Father, belongs to the Son. For he that honoureth the Son, honoureth
the Father that sent Him, and he that receiveth the Son, receiveth the
Father with Him, because he that hath seen the Son hath seen the Father
(Matt. x. 40; John xiv. 9). As then the Father is not a creature, so
neither is the Son; and as it is not possible to say of Him `there was
a time when He was not,' nor `made of nothing,' so it is not proper to
say the like of the Son either. But rather, as the Father's attributes
are Everlastingness, Immortality, Eternity, and the being no creature,
it follows that thus also we must think of the Son. For as it is
written (Joh. v. 26), `As the Father hath life in Himself, so gave He
to the Son also to have life in Himself.' But He uses the word `gave'
in order to point to the Father who gives. As, again, life is in the
Father, so also is it in the Son, so as to shew Him to be inseparable
and everlasting. For this is why He speaks with exactness, `whatsoever
the Father hath,' in order namely that by thus mentioning the Father He
may avoid being thought to be the Father Himself. For He does not say
`I am the Father,' but `whatsoever the Father hath.'
__________________________________________________________________
[442] Cf. Orat. iii. 36.
__________________________________________________________________
S:5. The same text further explained.
For His Only-begotten Son might, ye Arians, be called `Father' by His
Father, yet not in the sense in which you in your error might perhaps
understand it, but (while Son of the Father that begat Him) `Father of
the coming age' (Isa. ix. 6, LXX). For it is necessary not to leave any
of your surmises open to you. Well then, He says by the prophet, `A Son
is born and given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder, and his
name shall be called Angel of Great Counsel, mighty God, Ruler, Father
of the coming age' (Isa. ix. 6). The Only-begotten Son of God, then, is
at once Father of the coming age, and mighty God, and Ruler. And it is
shewn clearly that all things whatsoever the Father hath are His, and
that as the Father gives life, the Son likewise is able to quicken whom
He will. For `the dead,' He says, `shall hear the voice of the Son, and
shall live' (cf. John v. 25), and the will and desire of Father and Son
is one, since their nature also is one and indivisible. And the Arians
torture themselves to no purpose, from not understanding the saying of
our Saviour, `All things whatsoever the Father hath are Mine.' For from
this passage at once the delusion of Sabellius can be upset, and it
will expose the folly of our modern Jews. For this is why the Only
begotten, having life in Himself as the Father has, also knows alone
Who the Father is, namely, because He is in the Father and the Father
in Him. For He is His Image, and consequently, because He is His Image,
all that belongs to the Father is in Him. He is an exact seal, shewing
in Himself the Father; living Word and true, Power, Wisdom, our
Sanctification and Redemption (1 Cor. i. 30). For `in Him we both live
and move and have our being' (Acts xvii. 28), and `no man knoweth Who
is the Father, save the Son, and Who is the Son, save the Father' (Luke
x. 22).
__________________________________________________________________
S:6. The Trisagion wrongly explained by Arians. Its true significance.
And how do the impious men venture to speak folly, as they ought not,
being men and unable to find out how to describe even what is on the
earth? But why do I say `what is on the earth?' Let them tell us their
own nature, if they can discover how to investigate their own nature?
Rash they are indeed, and self-willed, not trembling to form opinions
of things which angels desire to look into (1 Pet. i. 12), who are so
far above them, both in nature and in rank. For what is nearer [God]
than the Cherubim or the Seraphim? And yet they, not even seeing Him,
nor standing on their feet, nor even with bare, but as it were with
veiled faces, offer their praises, with untiring lips doing nought else
but glorify the divine and ineffable nature with the Trisagion. And
nowhere has any one of the divinely speaking prophets, men specially
selected for such vision, reported to us that in the first utterance of
the word Holy the voice is raised aloud, while in the second it is
lower, but in the third, quite low,--and that consequently the first
utterance denotes lordship, the second subordination, and the third
marks a yet lower degree. But away with the folly of these haters of
God and senseless men. For the Triad, praised, reverenced, and adored,
is one and indivisible and without degrees (aschematistos). It is
united without confusion, just as the Monad also is distinguished
without separation. For the fact of those venerable living creatures
(Isa. vi.; Rev. iv. 8) offering their praises three times, saying
`Holy, Holy, Holy,' proves that the Three Subsistences [443] are
perfect, just as in saying `Lord,' they declare the One Essence. They
then that depreciate the Only-begotten Son of God blaspheme God,
defaming His perfection and accusing Him of imperfection, and render
themselves liable to the severest chastisement. For he that blasphemes
any one of the Subsistences shall have remission neither in this world
nor in that which is to come. But God is able to open the eyes of their
heart to contemplate the Sun of Righteousness, in order that coming to
know Him whom they formerly set at nought, they may with unswerving
piety of mind together with us glorify Him, because to Him belongs the
kingdom, even to the Father Son and Holy Spirit, now and for ever.
Amen.
__________________________________________________________________
[443] treis hupostaseis. This expression is a link between this tract
and the Expositio (S:2), and is one of the indications it bears of an
early date. At this time we see that Athanasius speaks of Three
`Hypostases,' but qualifies his language by the caveat (Expos. 2) that
they are not memerismenai. In this he follows his Origenist predecessor
Dionysius, and the language of the present passage is that of Basil or
the Gregories. But it is not the language of Athan. himself in his
later years. See above, Prolegg. ch. ii. S:3 (2) b, and Introd. to Tom.
ad Ant. and to Ad Afr.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Introduction to the Encyclical Epistle to the Bishops Throughout the
World.
------------------------
Athanasius wrote the following Epistle in the year 339. In the winter
at the beginning of that year the Eusebians held a Council at Antioch.
Here they appointed Gregory to the see of Alexandria in the place of
Athanasius (see Prolegg. ch. ii. 6). `Gregory was by birth a
Cappadocian, and (if Nazianzen speaks of the same Gregory, which some
critics doubt) studied at Alexandria, where S. Athanasius had treated
him with great kindness and familiarity, though Gregory afterwards took
part in propagating the calumny against him of having murdered
Arsenius. Gregory was on his appointment dispatched to Alexandria'
(Newman). The proceedings on his arrival, Lent, 339, are related in the
following Encyclical Epistle, which Athanasius forwarded immediately
before his departure for Rome to all the Bishops of the Catholic
Church. `It is less correct in style, as Tillemont observes, than other
of his works, as if composed in haste. In the Editions previous to the
Benedictine, it was called an "Epistle to the Orthodox everywhere;" but
Montfaucon has been able to restore the true title. He has been also
able from his mss. to make a far more important correction, which has
cleared up some very perplexing difficulties in the history. All the
Editions previous to the Benedictine read "George" throughout for
"Gregory," and "Gregory" in the place where "Pistus" occurs. Baronius,
Tillemont, &c., had already made the alterations from the necessity of
the case' (Newman). After comparing the violence done to the Church
with the outrage upon the Levite's wife in Judges, ch. xix., he appeals
to the bishops of the universal Church to regard his cause as their own
(S:1). He then recounts the details of what has happened; the
announcement by the Prefect Philagrius of the supersession of Ath. by
Gregory, the popular indignation, and its grounds (S:2); the
instigation of the heathen mob by Philagrius to commit outrages upon
the sacred persons and buildings (S:3); the violent intrusion of
Gregory (S:4); the proceedings against himself (S:5). He warns them
against Gregory as an Arian, and asks their sympathy for himself (S:6),
and that they will refuse to receive any of Gregory's letters (S:7).
The `Encyclical' was written just before his departure from Alexandria,
where he must have been in retirement for three weeks (Index to Festal
Letter, 339) previously, as he appears (S:5) to have remained in the
town till after Easter-day. Dr. Bright (p. xv. note) sees here a proof
of the inaccuracy of the `Index:' but there are other grounds for
regarding it as correct (see Prolegg. ch. v. S:3, c, and Introd. to
Letters): its chronology is therefore adopted by the present editor.
The events which led up to the scenes described in the letter are more
fully dealt with in Prolegg. ch. ii. S:6 (I), sub fin. and (2). It may
be added that Sozomen, iii. 6 in describing this escape of Athan.,
inserts the scene in the Church which really took place in Feb. 356,
while Socrates ii. 11 confuses the two occasions even more completely.
Internal evidence shews that Soz. partially corrected Socr. by the aid
of the Hist. Aceph. The confusion of Gregory with George (especially
easy in Latin), to which almost every historian from Socrates and
Theodoret to Neander and Newman has fallen an occasional victim,
appears to have vitiated the transcription of this encyclical from very
early times. But Sievers (p. 104) goes too far in ascribing to that
cause the insertion of a great part of S:S:3-5.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Circular Letter.
------------------------
To his fellow-ministers in every place, beloved lords, Athanasius sends
health in the Lord.
S:1. The whole Church affected by what has occurred.
Our sufferings have been dreadful beyond endurance, and it is
impossible to describe them in suitable terms; but in order that the
dreadful nature of the events which have taken place may be more
readily apprehended, I have thought it good to remind you of a history
out of the Scriptures. It happened that a certain Levite [444] was
injured in the person of his wife; and, when he considered the
exceeding greatness of the pollution (for the woman was a Hebrew, and
of the tribe of Judah), being astounded at the outrage which had been
committed against him, he divided his wife's body, as the Holy
Scripture relates in the Book of Judges, and sent a part of it to every
tribe in Israel, in order that it might be understood that an injury
like this pertained not to himself only, but extended to all alike; and
that, if the people sympathised with him in his sufferings, they might
avenge him; or if they neglected to do so, might bear the disgrace of
being considered thenceforth as themselves guilty of the wrong. The
messengers whom he sent related what had happened; and they that heard
and saw it, declared that such things had never been done from the day
that the children of Israel came up out of Egypt. So every tribe of
Israel was moved, and all came together against the offenders, as
though they had themselves been the sufferers; and at last the
perpetrators of this iniquity were destroyed in war, and became a curse
in the mouths of all: for the assembled people considered not their
kindred blood, but regarded only the crime they had committed. You know
the history, brethren, and the particular account of the circumstances
given in Scripture. I will not therefore describe them more in detail,
since I write to persons acquainted with them, and as I am anxious to
represent to your piety our present circumstances, which are even worse
than those to which I have referred. For my object in reminding you of
this history is this, that you may compare those ancient transactions
with what has happened to us now, and perceiving how much these last
exceed the other in cruelty, may be filled with greater indignation on
account of them, than were the people of old against those offenders.
For the treatment we have undergone surpasses the bitterness of any
persecution; and the calamity of the Levite was but small, when
compared with the enormities which have now been committed against the
Church; or rather such deeds as these were never before heard of in the
whole world, or the like experienced by any one. For in that case it
was but a single woman that was injured, and one Levite who suffered
wrong; now the whole Church is injured, the priesthood insulted, and
worst of all, piety [445] is persecuted by impiety. On that occasion
the tribes were astounded, each at the sight of part of the body of one
woman; but now the members of the whole Church are seen divided from
one another, and are sent abroad some to you, and some to others,
bringing word of the insults and injustice which they have suffered. Be
ye therefore also moved, I beseech you, considering that these wrongs
are done unto you no less than unto us; and let every one lend his aid,
as feeling that he is himself a sufferer, lest shortly ecclesiastical
Canons, and the faith of the Church be corrupted. For both are in
danger, unless God shall speedily by your hands amend what has been
done amiss, and the Church be avenged on her enemies. For our Canons
[446] and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day,
but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers.
Neither had our faith its beginning at this time, but it came down to
us from the Lord through His disciples [447] . That therefore the
ordinances which have been preserved in the Churches from old time
until now, may not be lost in our days, and the trust which has been
committed to us required at our hands; rouse yourselves, brethren, as
being stewards of the mysteries of God [448] , and seeing them now
seized upon by others. Further particulars of our condition you will
learn from the bearers of our letters; but I was anxious myself to
write you a brief account thereof, that you may know for certain, that
such things have never before been committed against the Church, from
the day that our Saviour when He was taken up, gave command to His
disciples, saying, `Go ye and make disciples of all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost
[449] .'
__________________________________________________________________
[444] Judg. xix. 29.
[445] eusebeia, orthodoxy, see de Decr. 1, note.
[446] Vid. Beveridg. Cod. Can. Illustr. i. 3. S:2, who comments on this
passage at length. Allusion is also made to the Canons in Apol. contr.
Arian. S:69.
[447] Vid. de Syn. S:4. Orat. i. S:8. Tertull. Praescr. Haer. S:29.
[448] 1 Cor. iv. 1.
[449] Matt. xxviii. 19.
__________________________________________________________________
S:2. Violent and Uncanonical Intrusion of Gregory.
Now the outrages which have been committed against us and against the
Church are these. While we were holding our assemblies in peace, as
usual, and while the people were rejoicing in them, and advancing in
godly conversation, and while our fellow-ministers in Egypt, and the
Thebais, and Libya, were in love and peace both with one another and
with us; on a sudden the Prefect of Egypt puts forth a public letter,
bearing the form of an edict, and declaring that one Gregory from
Cappadocia was coming to be my successor from the court. This
announcement confounded every one, for such a proceeding was entirely
novel, and now heard of for the first time. The people however
assembled still more constantly in the churches [450] , for they very
well knew that neither they themselves, nor any Bishop or Presbyter,
nor in short any one had ever complained against me; and they saw that
Arians only were on his side, and were aware also that he was himself
an Arian, and was sent by Eusebius and his fellows to the Arian party.
For you know, brethren, that Eusebius and his fellows have always been
the supporters and associates of the impious heresy of the Arian madmen
[451] , by whose means they have ever carried on their designs against
me, and were the authors of my banishment into Gaul.
The people, therefore, were justly indignant and exclaimed against the
proceeding, calling the rest of the magistrates and the whole city to
witness, that this novel and iniquitous attempt was now made against
the Church, not on the ground of any charge brought against me by
ecclesiastical persons, but through the wanton assault of the Arian
heretics. For even if there had been any complaint generally prevailing
against me, it was not an Arian, or one professing Arian doctrines,
that ought to have been chosen to supersede me; but according to the
ecclesiastical Canons, and the direction of Paul, when the people were
`gathered together, and the spirit' of them that ordain, `with the
power of our Lord Jesus Christ [452] ' all things ought to have been
enquired into and transacted canonically, in the presence of those
among the laity and clergy who demanded the change; and not that a
person brought from a distance by Arians, as if making a traffic of the
title of Bishop, should with the patronage and strong arm of heathen
magistrates, thrust himself upon those who neither asked for nor
desired his presence, nor indeed knew anything of what had been done.
Such proceedings tend to the dissolution of all the ecclesiastical
Canons, and compel the heathen to blaspheme, and to suspect that our
appointments are not made according to a divine rule, but as a result
of traffic and patronage [453] .
__________________________________________________________________
[450] Assembling in the Churches seems to have been a sort of protest
or demonstration, sometimes peaceably, but sometimes in a more
exceptionable manner;--peaceably, during Justina's persecution at
Milan, Ambros. Ep. i. 20. August. Confess. ix. 15, but at Ephesus after
the third Ecumenical Council the Metropolitan shut up the Churches,
took possession of the Cathedral, and succeeded in repelling the
imperial troops. Churches were asylums, vid. Cod. Theodos. ix. 45. S:4.
&c.; at the same time arms were prohibited.
[451] areiomaniton, vid. note on de Syn. 13.
[452] 1 Cor. v. 4.
[453] Orat. i. 8, note.
__________________________________________________________________
S:3. Outrages which took place at the time of Gregory's arrival.
Thus was this notable appointment of Gregory brought about by the
Arians, and such was the beginning of it. And what outrages he
committed on his entry into Alexandria, and of what great evils that
event has been the cause, you may learn both from our letters, and by
enquiry of those who are sojourning among you. While the people were
offended at such an unusual proceeding, and in consequence assembled in
the churches, in order to prevent the impiety of the Arians from
mingling itself with the faith of the Church, Philagrius, who has long
been a persecutor of the Church and her virgins, and is now Prefect
[454] of Egypt, an apostate already, and a fellow-countryman of
Gregory, a man too of no respectable character, and moreover supported
by Eusebius and his fellows, and therefore full of zeal against the
Church; this person, by means of promises which he afterwards
fulfilled, succeeded in gaining over the heathen multitude, with the
Jews and disorderly persons, and having excited their passions, sent
them in a body with swords and clubs into the churches to attack the
people.
What followed upon this [455] it is by no means easy to describe:
indeed it is not possible to set before you a just representation of
the circumstances, nor even could one recount a small part of them
without tears and lamentations. Have such deeds as these ever been made
the subjects of tragedy among the ancients? or has the like ever
happened before in time of persecution or of war? The church and the
holy Baptistery were set on fire, and straightway groans, shrieks, and
lamentations, were heard through the city; while the citizens in their
indignation at these enormities, cried shame upon the governor, and
protested against the violence used to them. For holy and undefiled
virgins [456] were being stripped naked, and suffering treatment which
is not to be named and if they resisted, they were in danger of their
lives. Monks were being trampled under foot and perishing; some were
being hurled headlong; others were being destroyed with swords and
clubs; others were being wounded and beaten. And oh! what deeds of
impiety and iniquity have been committed upon the Holy Table! They were
offering birds and pine cones [457] in sacrifice, singing the praises
of their idols, and blaspheming even in the very churches our Lord and
Saviour Jesus-Christ, the Son of the living God. They were burning the
books of Holy Scripture which they found in the church; and the Jews,
the murderers of our Lord, and the godless heathen entering
irreverently (O strange boldness!) the holy Baptistery, were stripping
themselves naked, and acting such a disgraceful part, both by word and
deed, as one is ashamed even to relate. Certain impious men also,
following the examples set them in the bitterest persecutions, were
seizing upon the virgins and ascetics by the hands and dragging them
along, and as they were haling them, endeavoured to make them blaspheme
and deny the Lord; and when they refused to do so, were beating them
violently and trampling them under foot.
__________________________________________________________________
[454] The Prefect of Egypt was called [after 367, see Sievers, p. 119,
and Prolegg. ch. v. Appendix, yet see Apol. Ar. S:83] Augustalis as
having been first appointed by Augustus, after his victories over
Antony. He was of the Equestrian, not, as other Prefects, of the
Senatorian order. He was the imperial officer, as answering to
Propraetors in the Imperial Provinces. vid. Hofman. in voc. [on
Philagrius, see Apol. c. Ari. S:72, Prolegg. ch. ii. S:5 (1) note].
[455] Cf. Hist. Ar. S:9 and 10. Apparently the great Church of
`Theonas' is meant, see Fest. Index xi.
[456] The sister of S. Antony was one of the earliest known inmates of
a nunnery, vit. Ant. S:2. 3. They were called by the Catholic Church by
the title, "Spouse of Christ." Apol. ad Const. S:33.
[457] The thuos or suffitus of Grecian sacrifices generally consisted
of portions of odoriferous trees. vid. Potter. Antiqu. ii. 4. Some
translate the word here used (strobilous), "shell-fish."
__________________________________________________________________
S:4. Outrages on Good Friday and Easter Day, 339.
In addition to all this, after such a notable and illustrious entry
into the city, the Arian Gregory, taking pleasure in these calamities,
and as if desirous to secure to the heathens and Jews, and those who
had wrought these evils upon us, a prize and price of their iniquitous
success, gave up the church to be plundered by them. Upon this license
of iniquity and disorder, their deeds were worse than in time of war,
and more cruel than those of robbers. Some of them were plundering
whatever fell in their way; others dividing among themselves the sums
which some had laid up there [458] ; the wine, of which there was a
large quantity, they either drank or emptied out or carried away; they
plundered the store of oil, and every one took as his spoil the doors
and chancel rails; the candlesticks they forthwith laid aside in the
wall [459] , and lighted the candles of the Church before their idols:
in a word, rapine and death pervaded the Church. And the impious
Arians, so far from feeling shame that such things should be done,
added yet further outrages and cruelty. Presbyters and laymen had their
flesh torn, virgins were stript of their veils [460] , and led away to
the tribunal of the governor, and then cast into prison; others had
their goods confiscated, and were scourged; the bread of the ministers
and virgins was intercepted. And these things were done even during the
holy season of Lent [461] , about the time of Easter; a time when the
brethren were keeping fast, while this notable Gregory exhibited the
disposition of a Caiaphas, and, together with Pilate the Governor,
furiously raged against the pious worshippers of Christ. Going into one
of the churches on the Preparation [462] , in company with the Governor
and the heathen multitude, when he saw that the people regarded with
abhorrence his forcible entry among them, he caused that most cruel
person, the Governor, publicly to scourge in one hour, four and thirty
virgins and married women, and men of rank, and to cast them into
prison. Among them there was one virgin, who, being fond of study, had
the Psalter in her hands, at the time when he caused her to be publicly
scourged: the book was torn in pieces by the officers, and the virgin
herself shut up in prison.
__________________________________________________________________
[458] Churches, as heathen temples before them, were used for deposits.
At the sack of Rome, Alaric spared the Churches and their possessions;
nay, he himself transported the costly vessels of St. Peter into his
Church.
[459] en to toichi& 251;. [Reference uncertain.]
[460] apomaphorizomenai; see Sophocles' Lexicon under maphorion
[461] Lent and Passion Week was the season during which Justina's
persecution of St. Ambrose took place, and the proceedings against St.
Chrysostom at Constantinople. On the Paschal Vigils, vid. Tertull. ad
Uxor. ii. 4. [Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. iv. p. 46] p. 426, note n. Oxf.
Tr.
[462] paraskeue, i.e., Good Friday. [Apr. 13, 339,] The word was used
for Friday generally as early as S. Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. p. 877. ed.
Pott. vid. Constit. Apostol. v. 13. Pseudo-Ign. ad Philipp. 13.
__________________________________________________________________
S:5. Retirement of Athanasius, and tyranny of Gregory and Philagrius.
When all this was done, they did not stop even here; but consulted how
they might act the same part in the other church [463] , where I was
mostly living during those days; and they were eager to extend their
fury to this church also, in order that they might hunt out and
dispatch me. And this would have been my fate, had not the grace of
Christ assisted me, if it were only that I might escape to relate these
few particulars concerning their conduct. For seeing that they were
exceedingly mad against me, and being anxious that the church should
not be injured, nor the virgins that were in it suffer, nor additional
murders be committed, nor the people again outraged, I withdrew myself
from among them, remembering the words of our Saviour, `If they
persecute you in this city, flee ye into another [464] .' For I knew,
from the evil they had done against the first-named church, that they
would forbear no outrage against the other also. And there in fact they
reverenced not even the Lord's day [465] of the holy Feast, but in that
church also they imprisoned the persons who belonged to it, at a time
when the Lord delivered all from the bonds of death, whereas Gregory
and his associates, as if fighting against our Saviour, and depending
upon the patronage of the Governor, have turned into mourning this day
of liberty to the servants of Christ. The heathens were rejoicing to do
this, for they abhor that day; and Gregory perhaps did but fulfil the
commands of Eusebius and his fellows in forcing the Christians to mourn
under the infliction of bonds.
With these acts of violence has the Governor seized upon the churches,
and has given them up to Gregory and the Arian madmen. Thus, those
persons who were excommunicated by us for their impiety, now glory in
the plunder of our churches; while the people of God, and the Clergy of
the Catholic Church are compelled either to have communion with the
impiety of the Arian heretics, or else to forbear entering into them.
Moreover, by means of the Governor, Gregory has exercised no small
violence towards the captains of ships and others who pass over sea,
torturing and scourging some, putting others in bonds, and casting them
into prison, in order to oblige them not to resist his iniquities, and
to take letters [466] from him. And not satisfied with all this, that
he may glut himself with our blood, he has caused his savage associate,
the Governor, to prefer an indictment against me, as in the name of the
people, before the most religious Emperor Constantius, which contains
odious charges, from which one may expect not only to be banished, but
even ten thousand deaths. The person who drew it up is an apostate from
Christianity, and a shameless worshipper of idols, and they who
subscribed it are heathens, and keepers of idol temples, and others of
them Arians. In short, not to make my letter tedious to you, a
persecution rages here, and such a persecution as was never before
raised against the Church. For in former instances a man at least might
pray while he fled from his persecutors, and be baptized while he lay
in concealment. But now their extreme cruelty has imitated the godless
conduct of the Babylonians. For as they falsely accused Daniel [467] ,
so does the notable Gregory now accuse before the Governor those who
pray in their houses, and watches every opportunity to insult their
ministers, so that through his violent conduct, many are endangered
from missing baptism, and many who are in sickness and sorrow have no
one to visit them, a calamity which they bitterly lament, accounting it
worse than their sickness. For while the ministers of the Church are
under persecution, the people who condemn the impiety of the Arian
heretics choose rather thus to be sick and to run the risk, than that a
hand of the Arians should come upon their heads.
__________________________________________________________________
[463] [On the difficulties of this part of the history, see Prolegg.
ch. ii. S:6 (1) ad fin., and ch. v. S:3, c. It must be noted that
according to the following passage Ath. had left the `other church'
before Easter Day. It was probably that of `Quirinus,' Hist. Ar. 10.]
[464] Cf. Ap. Fug. 11, and Matt. x. 23.
[465] Easter Day [Apr. 15].
[466] i.e. letters of communion.
[467] Dan. vi. 13.
__________________________________________________________________
S:6. All the above illegalities were carried on in the interest of
Arianism.
Gregory then is an Arian, and has been sent to the Arian party; for
none demanded him, but they only; and accordingly as a hireling and a
stranger, he makes use of the Governor to inflict these dreadful and
cruel deeds upon the people of the Catholic Churches, as not being his
own. For since Pistus, whom Eusebius and his fellows formerly appointed
over the Arians, was justly anathematized [468] and excommunicated for
his impiety by you the Bishops of the Catholic Church, as you all know,
on our writing to you concerning him, they have now, therefore, in like
manner sent this Gregory to them; and lest they should a second time be
put to shame, by our again writing against them, they have employed
extraneous force against me, in order that, having obtained possession
of the Churches, they may seem to have escaped all suspicion of being
Arians. But in this too they have been mistaken, for none of the people
of the Church are with them, except the heretics only, and those who
have been excommunicated on divers charges, and such as have been
compelled by the Governor to dissemble. This then is the drama of
Eusebius and his fellows, which they have long been rehearsing and
composing; and now have succeeded in performing through the false
charges which they have made against me before the Emperor [469] .
Notwithstanding, they are not yet content to be quiet, but even now
seek to kill me; and they make themselves so formidable to our friends,
that they are all driven into banishment, and expect death at their
hands. But you must not for this stand in awe of their iniquity, but on
the contrary avenge: and shew your indignation at this their
unprecedented conduct against us. For if when one member suffers all
the members suffer with it, and, according to the blessed Apostle, we
ought to weep with them that weep [470] , let every one, now that so
great a Church as this is suffering, avenge its wrongs, as though he
were himself a sufferer. For we have a common Saviour, who is
blasphemed by them, and Canons belonging to us all, which they are
transgressing. If while any of you had been sitting in your Church, and
while the people were assembled with you, without any blame, some one
had suddenly come under plea of an edict as successor of one of you,
and had acted the same part towards you, would you not have been
indignant? would you not have demanded to be righted? If so, then it is
right that you should be indignant now, lest if these things be passed
over unnoticed, the same mischief shall by degrees extend itself to
every Church, and so our schools of religion be turned into a
market-house and an exchange.
__________________________________________________________________
[468] Apol. c. Ar. S:S:19, 24.
[469] Apol. c. Ar. 3.
[470] 1 Cor. xii. 26; Rom. xii. 15.
__________________________________________________________________
S:7. Appeal to the bishops of the whole Church to unite against
Gregory.
You are acquainted with the history of the Arian madmen, beloved, for
you have often, both individually and in a body, condemned their
impiety; and you know also that Eusebius and his fellows, as I said
before, are engaged in the same heresy; for the sake of which they have
long been carrying on a conspiracy against me. And I have represented
to you, what has now been done, both for them and by them, with greater
cruelty than is usual even in time of war, in order that after the
example set before you in the history which I related at the beginning,
you may entertain a zealous hatred of their wickedness, and reject
those who have committed such enormities against the Church. If the
brethren at Rome [471] [last year], before these things had happened,
and on account of their former misdeeds, wrote letters to call a
Council, that these evils might be set right (fearing which, Eusebius
and his fellows took care previously to throw the Church into
confusion, and desired to destroy me, in order that they might
thenceforth be able to act as they pleased without fear, and might have
no one to call them to account), how much more ought you now to be
indignant at these outrages, and to condemn them, seeing they have
added this to their former misconduct.
I beseech you, overlook not such proceedings, nor suffer the famous
Church of the Alexandrians 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 admonish 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 impious 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.
__________________________________________________________________
[471] Apol. Ar. 22, 30, Hist. Ar. 9. [The word perusin, `last year, is
absent from the best ms. used by Montfaucon.']
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Introduction to Apologia Contra Arianos.
------------------------
"This 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 historians 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 Nicaea, 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 Caesarea 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.
S:S: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 explanatory 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
investigations 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 firstly 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 (S:S:1-58). Having shewn the completeness of his acquittal,
he next gives the evidence upon which it was based. Accordingly the
second part (S:S:59-90) of the Apology deals with facts and documents
earlier than those comprised in the first. Hence the inversion of
chronological sequence (praeposterus 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 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 (S:S:1-35).
1. S:S: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. S:S:20-35 (340 a.d.). Letter of Julius 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 Nicaea,
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 (S:S:36-50).
3. S:S: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
Alexandrine Church to patience, and announcing that they have requested
the Emperors to give effect to their decisions.
4. S:S: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. S:S: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 breakdown 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 (S:S:51-58).
6-8. S: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.
9. S:52 (same year). Letter of Julius to the Church of Alexandria,
eulogising Athanasius, complimenting them for their constancy, and
congratulating them upon his return.
10. S:54 (same year). Circular letter of Constantius to the Church at
large, announcing the restoration of Athanasius and the cessation of
all decrees against him, with indemnity to all in his communion.
11. S: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. S:56 (same date). To the Prefect of Egypt and other officials.
Revocation of decrees against those in communion with Athanasius, and
restoration of their immunities.
13. S:57 (same year, autumn). Letter of the bishops of Palestine to the
Egyptian Church congratulating them on the restoration of Athanasius.
14. S:58 (a.d. 347). Letter of Valens and Ursacius to Julius
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. Letters of Constantine Previous to the Council of Tyre (S:S:59-63).
16. S:59 (a.d. 331). A fragment, urging Athanasius with threats to
admit to communion all (Arians) who wish it.
17. S: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).
ii. 18. S: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 (S:S:65-70).
19. S:67 (probably 332). Intercepted letter of the presbyter Pinnes to
John Arcaph, warning him of the discovery of the plot, and begging him
to drop the matter.
20. S:68 (same year). Letter of Constantine to Athanasius, expressing
indignation at the charges concerning Arsenius and Ischyras, and
bidding him publish this letter in vindication of himself.
21. S: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. S:69 (same year). Letter of Arsenius to Athanasius, offering
submission and requesting communion with the Church.
23. S:70 (same year). Letter of Constantine to John Arcaph accepting
his reconciliation to Athanasius, and summoning him to court.
iv. Proceedings at Tyre in 335 (S:S:71-83).
24. S:77. Address to the Council by the Egyptian Bishop, complaining of
the presence of partizan judges, of the rejection of their evidence,
and of the proposed constitution of the Mareotic Commission.
25. S: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). List of Meletian Bishops and Clergy presented to
Alexander of Alexandria shortly before his death, and not containing
the name of Ischyras.
26. S:78. Protest addressed by the Egyptian Bishops to Count Dionysius,
repeating the above complaints (in No. 24), and requesting him to stop
the irregularities.
27. S:80. Alexander of Thessalonica to Dionysius, warning him of the
conspiracy against Athanasius, and of the character of the Mission to
the Mareotis.
28. S:81. Letter of Dionysius to the Council, strongly remonstrating
against their proceedings.
29. S: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. S:73. Clergy of Alexandria to the Commissioners, protesting against
the exclusion of all independent persons from the proceedings.
31. S:S:74, 75. Clergy of the Mareotis to the Council, giving an
account of the facts concerning Ischyras, and of the ex-parte character
of the proceedings of the Commission.
32. S: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 (S:S:84-88).
33. S:86 (335). Constantine to the Bishops assembled at Tyre, summoning
them to give an account of their proceedings.
34. S:84. The Council of Jerusalem to the Church of Alexandria,
announcing that Arius has been received to communion.
35. S: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. S: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. Ar.). 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
important 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 decisive proofs which I have against them.
For my cause needs no further judgment; for judgment 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 [472] ; a second time at Rome, when, in consequence of letters
from Eusebius, both they and we were summoned, and more than fifty
Bishops met [473] ; and a third time in the great Council assembled 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, Dalmatia, Siscia, Pannonia, Noricum, Italy, Picenum,
Tuscany, Campania, Calabria, Apulia, Bruttia, Sicily, the whole of
Africa, Sardinia, Spain, Gaul, and Britain.
Added to these was the testimony [474] of Ursacius and Valens, who had
formerly calumniated me, but afterwards changed their minds, and not
only gave their assent to the sentence that was passed in my favour,
but also confessed 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 conspiracy, who is
there that would not be ashamed to doubt any longer? The law requires
that in the mouth of two or three witnesses [475] 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 [476] judgment, but now have recourse
to violence, and in the place of fair reasoning seek to injure [477]
those by whom they were exposed. For this is the chief cause of
vexation to them, that the measures they carried on in secret,
contrived by themselves in a corner, have been brought to light and
disclosed by Valens and Ursacius; for they are well aware that their
recantation while it clears those whom they have injured, condemns
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 Paul [478] , 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 [479] ;' so it was with these
men; being overcome by the truth they made a request, and delivered it
in writing to Julius, Bishop of Rome. They wrote also to me requesting
to be on terms of peace with me, though they have spread such reports
concerning 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 Pentapolis, 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 all their false charges, either at the beginning of
their conspiracy or upon his arrival at Alexandria. 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 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 [480] , `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 accusations. 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 [481] .' 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 [482] , 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 righteousness, 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 having 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 representations in the Council [483] and at the trial
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 committed after the return of Athanasius,
we beseech you to bear with our answer though it be somewhat long; for
circumstances constrain 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 Presbyter nor Deacon was destroyed by
Athanasius; 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 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 is 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 Alexander, 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 [484] . 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 Nicaea [485] ,
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 [486] , who was smitten
with a consciousness of his own evil doings), engaged in all manner of
treacherous 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 [487] , taking every means of shewing their enmity and
hatred towards him, and spreading false reports for the sole purpose of
thereby vilifying his character.
However, the very misrepresentations which they now are making do but
convict their former statements of being falsehoods, and a mere
conspiracy against him. For they say, that `after the death of Bishop
Alexander, a certain few having mentioned the name of Athanasius, six
or seven Bishops elected him clandestinely in a secret place:' and this
is what they wrote to the Emperors, having no scruple about asserting
the greatest falsehoods. Now that the whole multitude and all the
people of the Catholic Church assembled together as with one mind and
body, and cried, shouted, that Athanasius should be Bishop of their
Church, made this the subject of their public prayers to Christ, and
conjured us to grant it for many days and nights, neither departing
themselves from the Church, nor suffering us to do so; of all this we
are witnesses, and so is the whole city, and the province too. Not a
word did they speak against him, as these persons represented, but gave
him the most excellent titles they could devise, calling him good,
pious, Christian, an ascetic [488] , a genuine Bishop. And that he was
elected by a majority of our body in the sight and with the
acclamations of all the people, we who elected him also testify, who
are surely more credible witnesses than those who were not present, and
now spread these false accounts.
But yet Eusebius finds fault with the appointment of Athanasius,--he
who perhaps never received any appointment to his office at all; or if
he did, has himself rendered it invalid [489] . For he had first the
See of Berytus, but leaving that he came to Nicomedia. He left the one
contrary to the law, and contrary to the law invaded the other; having
deserted his own without affection, and holding possession of another's
without reason; he lost his love for the first in his lust for another,
without even keeping to that which he obtained at the prompting of his
lust. For, behold, withdrawing himself from the second, again he takes
possession of another's [490] , casting an evil eye all around him upon
the cities of other men, and thinking that godliness [491] consists in
wealth and in the greatness of cities, and making light of the heritage
of God to which he had been appointed; not knowing that `where' even
`two or three are gathered in the name of the' Lord, `there' is the
Lord `in the midst of them;' not considering the words of the Apostle,
`I will not boast in another man's labours;' not perceiving the charge
which he has given, `Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be
loosed.' For if this expression applies to a wife, how much more does
it apply to a Church, and to the same Episcopate; to which whosoever is
bound ought not to seek another, lest he prove an adulterer according
to holy Scripture.
7. But though conscious of these his own misdoings, he has boldly
undertaken to arraign the appointment of Athanasius, to which
honourable testimony has been borne by all, and he ventures to reproach
him with his deposition, though he has been deposed himself, and has a
standing proof of his deposition in the appointment of another in his
room. How could either he or Theognius [492] depose another, after they
had been deposed themselves, which is sufficiently proved by the
appointment of others in their room? For you know very well that there
were appointed instead of them Amphion to Nicomedia and Chrestus to
Nicaea, in consequence of their own impiety and connection with the
Arian madmen, who were rejected by the Ecumenic Council. But while they
desire to set aside that true Council, they endeavour to give that name
to their own unlawful combination [493] ; while they are unwilling that
the decrees of the Council should be enforced, they desire to enforce
their own decisions; and they use the name of a Council, while they
refuse to submit themselves to one so great as this. Thus they care not
for Councils, but only pretend to do so in order that they may root out
the orthodox, and annul the decrees of the true and great Council
against the Arians, in support of whom, both now and heretofore, they
have ventured to assert these falsehoods against the Bishop Athanasius.
For their former statements resembled those they now falsely make,
viz., that disorderly meetings were held at his entrance [494] , with
lamentation and mourning, the people indignantly refusing to receive
him. Now such was not the case, but, quite the contrary, joy and
cheerfulness prevailed, and the people ran together, hastening to
obtain the desired sight of him. The churches were full of rejoicings,
and thanksgivings were offered up to the Lord everywhere; and all the
Ministers and Clergy beheld him with such feelings, that their souls
were possessed with delight, and they esteemed that the happiest day of
their lives. Why need we mention the inexpressible joy that prevailed
among us Bishops, for we have already said that we counted ourselves to
have been partakers in his sufferings?
8. Now this being confessedly the truth of the matter, although it is
very differently represented by them, what weight can be attached to
that Council or trial of which they make their boast? Since they
presume thus to interfere in a case which they did not witness, which
they have not examined, and for which they did not meet, and to write
as though they were assured of the truth of their statements, how can
they claim credit respecting these matters for the consideration of
which they say that they did meet together? Will it not rather be
believed that they have acted both in the one case and in the other out
of enmity to us? For what kind of a Council of Bishops was then held?
Was it an assembly which aimed at the truth? Was not almost every one
among them our enemy [495] ? Did not the attack of Eusebius and his
fellows upon us proceed from their zeal for the Arian madness? Did they
not urge on the others of their party? Have we not always written
against them as professing the doctrines of Arius? Was not Eusebius of
Caesarea in Palestine accused by our confessors of sacrificing to idols
[496] ? Was not George proved to have been deposed by the blessed
Alexander [497] ? Were not they charged with various offences, some
with this, some with that?
How then could such men entertain the purpose of holding a meeting
against us? How can they have the boldness to call that a Council, at
which a Count presided, which an executioner attended, and where an
usher [498] instead of the Deacons of the Church introduced us into
Court; and where the Count only spoke, and all present held their
peace, or rather obeyed his directions [499] ? The removal of those
Bishops who seemed to deserve it was prevented at his desire; and when
he gave the order we were dragged about by soldiers;--or rather
Eusebius and his fellows gave the order, and he was subservient to
their will. In short, dearly beloved, what kind of Council was that,
the object of which was banishment and murder at the pleasure of the
Emperor? And of what nature were their charges?--for here is matter of
still greater astonishment. There was one Arsenius whom they declared
to have been murdered; and they also complained that a chalice
belonging to the sacred mysteries had been broken.
Now Arsenius is alive, and prays to be admitted to our communion. He
waits for no other testimony to prove that he is still living, but
himself confesses it, writing in his own person to our brother
Athanasius, whom they positively asserted to be his murderer. The
impious wretches were not ashamed to accuse him of having murdered a
man who was at a great distance from him, being separated by so great a
distance, whether by sea or land, and whose abode at that time no one
knew. Nay, they even had the boldness to remove him out of sight, and
place him in concealment, though he had suffered no injury; and, if it
had been possible, they would have transported him to another world,
nay, or have taken him from life in earnest, so that either by a true
or false statement of his murder they might in good earnest destroy
Athanasius. But thanks to divine Providence for this also which
permitted them not to succeed in their injustice, but presented
Arsenius [500] alive to the eyes of all men, who has clearly proved
their conspiracy and calumnies. He does not withdraw from us as
murderers, nor hate us as having injured him (for indeed he has
suffered no evil at all); but he desires to hold communion with us; he
wishes to be numbered among us, and has written to this effect.
9. Nevertheless they laid their plot against Athanasius, accusing him
of having murdered a person who was still alive; and those same men are
the authors of his banishment [501] . For it was not the father of the
Emperors, but their calumnies, that sent him into exile. Consider
whether this is not the truth. When nothing was discovered to the
prejudice of our fellow-minister Athanasius, but still the Count
threatened him with violence, and was very zealous against him, the
Bishop [502] fled from this violence and went up [503] to the most
religious Emperor, where he protested against the Count and their
conspiracy against him, and requested either that a lawful Council of
Bishops might be assembled, or that the Emperor would himself receive
his defence concerning the charges they brought against him. Upon this
the Emperor wrote in anger, summoning them before him, and declaring
that he would hear the cause himself, and for that purpose he also
ordered a Council to be held. Whereupon Eusebius and his fellows went
up and falsely charged Athanasius, not with the same offences which
they had published against him at Tyre, but with an intention of
detaining the vessels laden with corn, as though Athanasius had been
the man to pretend that he could stop the exports of corn from
Alexandria to Constantinople [504] .
Certain of our friends were present at the palace with Athanasius, and
heard the threats of the Emperor upon receiving this report. And when
Athanasius cried out upon the calumny, and positively declared that it
was not true, (for how, he argued, should he a poor man, and in a
private station, be able to do such a thing?) Eusebius did not hesitate
publicly to repeat the charge, and swore that Athanasius was a rich
man, and powerful, and able to do anything; in order that it might
thence be supposed that he had used this language. Such was the
accusation these venerable Bishops proffered against him. But the grace
of God proved superior to their wickedness, for it moved the pious
Emperor to mercy, who instead of death passed upon him the sentence of
banishment. Thus their calumnies, and nothing else, were the cause of
this. For the Emperor, in the letter which he previously wrote,
complained of their conspiracy, censured their machinations, and
condemned the Meletians as unscrupulous and deserving of execration; in
short, expressed himself in the severest terms concerning them. For he
was greatly moved when he heard the story of the dead alive; he was
moved at hearing of murder in the case of one alive, and not deprived
of life. We have sent you the letter.
10. But these marvellous men, Eusebius and his fellows, to make a show
of refuting the truth of the case, and the statements contained in this
letter, put forward the name of a Council, and ground its proceedings
upon the authority of the Emperor. Hence the attendance of a Count at
their meeting, and the soldiers as guards of the Bishops, and royal
letters compelling the attendance of any persons whom they required.
But observe here the strange character of their machinations, and the
inconsistency of their bold measures, so that by some means or other
they may take Athanasius away from us. For if as Bishops they claimed
for themselves alone the judgment of the case, what need was there for
the attendance of a Count and soldiers? or how was it that they
assembled under the sanction of royal letters? Or if they required the
Emperor's countenance and wished to derive their authority from him,
why were they then annulling his judgment? and when he declared in the
letter which he wrote, that the Meletians were calumniators,
unscrupulous, and that Athanasius was most innocent, and made much stir
about the pretended murder of the living, how was it that they
determined that the Meletians had spoken the truth, and that Athanasius
was guilty of the offence; and were not ashamed to make the living
dead, living both after the Emperor's judgment, and at the time when
they met together, and who even until this day is amongst us? So much
concerning the case of Arsenius.
11. And as for the cup belonging to the mysteries, what was it, or
where was it broken by Macarius? for this is the report which they
spread up and down. But as for Athanasius, even his accusers would not
have ventured to blame him, had they not been suborned by them.
However, they attribute the origin of the offence to him; although it
ought not to be imputed even to Macarius who is clear of it. And they
are not ashamed to parade the sacred mysteries before Catechumens, and
worse than that, even before heathens [505] : whereas, they ought to
attend to what is written, `It is good to keep close the secret of a
king [506] ;' and as the Lord has charged us, `Give not that which is
holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine [507] .'
We ought not then to parade the holy mysteries before the uninitiated,
lest the heathen in their ignorance deride them, and the Catechumens
being over-curious be offended. However, what was the cup, and where
and before whom was it broken? It is the Meletians who make the
accusation, who are not worthy of the least credit, for they have been
schismatics and enemies of the Church, not of a recent date, but from
the times of the blessed Peter, Bishop and Martyr [508] . They formed a
conspiracy against Peter himself; they calumniated his successor
Achillas; they accused Alexander even before the Emperor; and being
thus well versed in these arts, they have now transferred their enmity
to Athanasius, acting altogether in accordance with their former
wickedness. For as they slandered those that have been before him, so
now they have slandered him. But their calumnies and false accusations
have never prevailed against him until now, that they have got Eusebius
and his fellows for their assistants and patrons, on account of the
impiety which these have adopted from the Arian madmen, which has led
them to conspire against many Bishops, and among the rest Athanasius.
Now the place where they say the cup was broken, was not a Church;
there was no Presbyter in occupation of the place; and the day on which
they say that Macarius did the deed, was not the Lord's day. Since then
there was no church there; since there was no one to perform the sacred
office; and since the day did not require the use of it [509] ; what
was this cup belonging to the mysteries, and when, or where was it
broken? There are many cups, it is plain, both in private houses, and
in the public market; and if a person breaks one of them, he is not
guilty of impiety. But the cup which belongs to the mysteries, and
which if it be broken intentionally, makes the perpetrator of the deed
an impious person, is found only among those who lawfully preside. This
is the only description that can be given of this kind of cup; there is
none other; this you legally give to the people to drink; this you have
received according to the canon of the Church [510] ; this belongs only
to those who preside over the Catholic Church, for to you only it
appertains to administer the Blood of Christ, and to none besides. But
as he who breaks the cup belonging to the mysteries is an impious
person, much more impious is he who treats the Blood of Christ with
contumely: and he does so who `does this [511] ' contrary to the rule
of the Church. (We say this, not as if a cup even of the schismatics
was broken by Macarius, for there was no cup there at all; how should
there be? where there was neither Lord's house nor any the belonging to
the Church, nay, it was not the time of the celebration of the
mysteries). Now such a person is the notorious Ischyras, who was never
appointed to his office by the Church, and when Alexander admitted the
Presbyters that had been ordained by Meletius, he was not even numbered
amongst them; and therefore did not receive ordination even from that
quarter.
12. By what means then did Ischyras become a Presbyter? who was it that
ordained him? was it Colluthus? for this is the only supposition that
remains. But it is well known and no one has any doubt about the matter
that Colluthus died a Presbyter, and that every ordination of his was
invalid, and that all that were ordained by him during the schism were
reduced to the condition of laymen, and in that rank appear in the
congregation. How then can it be believed that a private person,
occupying a private house had in his possession a sacred chalice? But
the truth is, they gave the name of Presbyter at the time to a private
person, and gratified him with this title to support him in his
iniquitous conduct towards us; and now as the reward of his accusations
they procure for him the erection of a Church [512] . So that this man
had then no Church; but as the reward of his malice and subserviency to
them in accusing us, he receives now what he had not before; nay,
perhaps they have even remunerated his services with the Episcopate,
for so he goes about reporting, and accordingly behaves towards us with
great insolence. Thus are such rewards as these now bestowed by Bishops
upon accusers and calumniators though indeed it is reasonable, in the
case of an accomplice, that as they have made him a partner in their
proceedings, so they should also make him their associate in their own
Episcopate. But this is not all; give ear yet further to their
proceedings at that time.
13. Being unable to prevail against the truth, though they had thus set
themselves in array against it, and Ischyras having proved nothing at
Tyre, but being shewn to be a calumniator, and the calumny ruining
their plot, they defer proceedings for fresh evidence, and profess that
they are going to send to the Mareotis certain of their party to
enquire diligently into the matter. Accordingly they dispatched
secretly, with the assistance of the civil power, persons to whom we
openly objected on many accounts, as being of the party of Arius, and
therefore our enemies; namely, Diognius [513] , Maris, Theodorus,
Macedonius, and two others, young both in years and mind [514] ,
Ursacius and Valens from Pannonia; who, after they had undertaken this
long journey for the purpose of sitting in judgment upon their enemy,
set out again from Tyre for Alexandria. They did not shrink from
becoming witnesses themselves, although they were the judges, but
openly adopted every means of furthering their design, and undertook
any labour or journey whatsoever in order to bring to a successful
issue the conspiracy which was in progress. They left the Bishop
Athanasius detained in a foreign country while they themselves entered
their enemy's city, as if to have their revel both against his Church
and against his people. And what was more outrageous still, they took
with them the accuser Ischyras, but would not permit Macarius, the
accused person, to accompany them, but left him in custody at Tyre. For
`Macarius the Presbyter of Alexandria' was made answerable for the
charge far and near.
14. They therefore entered Alexandria alone with the accuser, their
partner in lodging, board, and cup; and taking with them Philagrius the
Prefect of Egypt they proceeded to the Mareotis, and there carried on
the so-called investigation by themselves, all their own way, with the
forementioned person. Although the Presbyters frequently begged that
they might be present, they would not permit them. The Presbyters both
of the city and of the whole country desired to attend, that they might
detect who and whence the persons were who were suborned by Ischyras.
But they forbade the Ministers to be present, while they carried on the
examination concerning church, cup, table, and the holy things, before
the heathen; nay, worse than that, they summoned heathen witnesses
during the enquiry concerning a cup belonging to the mysteries; and
those persons who they affirmed were taken out of the way by Athanasius
by summons of the Receiver-general, and they knew not where in the
world they were, these same individuals they brought forward before
themselves and the Prefect only, and avowedly used their testimony,
whom they affirmed without shame to have been secreted by the Bishop
Athanasius.
But here too their only object is to effect his death, and so they
again pretend that persons are dead who are still alive, following the
same method they adopted in the case of Arsenius. For the men are
living, and are to be seen in their own country; but to you who are at
a great distance from the spot they make a great stir about the matter
as though they had disappeared, in order that, as the evidence is so
far removed from you, they may falsely accuse our brother-minister, as
though he used violence and the civil power; whereas they themselves
have in all respects acted by means of that power and the countenance
of others. For their proceedings in the Mareotis were parallel to those
at Tyre; and as there a Count attended with military assistance, and
would permit nothing either to be said or done contrary to their
pleasure, so here also the Prefect of Egypt was present with a band of
men, frightening all the members of the Church, and permitting no one
to give true testimony. And what was the strangest thing of all, the
persons who came, whether as judges or witnesses, or, what was more
likely, in order to serve their own purposes and those of Eusebius,
lived in the same place with the accuser, even in his house, and there
seemed to carry on the investigation as they pleased.
15. We suppose you are not ignorant what outrages they committed at
Alexandria; for they are reported everywhere. Naked swords [515] were
at work against the holy virgins and brethren; scourges were at work
against their persons, esteemed honourable in the sight of God, so that
their feet were lamed by the stripes, whose souls are whole and sound
in purity and all good works [516] . The trades were excited against
them; and the heathen multitude was set to strip them naked, to beat
them, wantonly to insult them, and to threaten them with their altars
and sacrifices. And one coarse fellow, as though license had now been
given them by the Prefect in order to gratify the Bishops, took hold of
a virgin by the hand, and dragged her towards an altar that happened to
be near, imitating the practice of compelling to offer sacrifice in
time of persecution. When this was done, the virgins took to flight,
and a shout of laughter was raised by the heathen against the Church;
the Bishops being in the place, and occupying the very house where this
was going on; and from which, in order to obtain favour with them, the
virgins were assaulted with naked swords, and were exposed to all kinds
of danger, and insult, and wanton violence. And this treatment they
received on a fast-day [517] , and at the hands of persons who
themselves were feasting with the Bishops indoors.
16. Foreseeing these things, and reflecting that the entrance of
enemies into a place is no ordinary calamity, we protested against this
commission. And Alexander [518] , Bishop of Thessalonica, considering
the same, wrote to the people residing there, discovering the
conspiracy, and testifying of the plot. They indeed reckon him to be
one of themselves, and account him a partner in their designs; but they
only prove thereby the violence they have exercised towards him. For
even the profligate Ischyras himself was only induced by fear and
violence to proceed in the matter, and was obliged by force to
undertake the accusation. As a proof of this, he wrote himself to our
brother Athanasius [519] , confessing that nothing of the kind that was
alleged had taken place there, but that he was suborned to make a false
statement. This declaration he made, though he was never admitted by
Athanasius as a Presbyter, nor received such a title of grace from him,
nor was entrusted by way of recompense with the erection of a Church,
nor expected the bribe of a Bishopric; all of which he obtained from
them in return for undertaking the accusation. Moreover, his whole
family held communion with us [520] , which they would not have done
had they been injured in the slightest degree.
17. Now to prove that these things are facts and not mere assertions,
we have the testimony [521] of all the Presbyters of the Mareotis [522]
, who always accompany the Bishop in his visitations, and who also
wrote at the time against Ischyras. But neither those of them who came
to Tyre were allowed to declare the truth [523] , nor could those who
remained in the Mareotis obtain permission to refute the calumnies of
Ischyras [524] . The copies also of the letters of Alexander, and of
the Presbyters, and of Ischyras will prove the same thing. We have sent
also the letter of the father of the Emperors, in which he expresses
his indignation that the murder of Arsenius was charged upon any one
while the man was still alive; as also his astonishment at the variable
and inconsistent character of their accusations with respect to the
cup; since at one time they accused the Presbyter Macarius, at another
the Bishop Athanasius, of having broken it with his hands. He declares
also on the one hand that the Meletians are calumniators, and on the
other that Athanasius is perfectly innocent.
And are not the Meletians calumniators, and above all John [525] , who
after coming into the Church, and communicating with us, after
condemning himself, and no longer taking any part in the proceedings
respecting the cup, when he saw Eusebius and his fellows zealously
supporting the Arian madmen, though they had not the daring to
co-operate with them openly, but were attempting to employ others as
their masks, undertook a character, as an actor in the heathen theatres
[526] ? The subject of the drama was a contest of Arians; the real
design of the piece being their success, but John and his partizans
being put on the stage and playing the parts, in order that under
colour of these, the supporters of the Arians in the garb of judges
might drive away the enemies of their impiety, firmly establish their
impious doctrines, and bring the Arians into the Church. And those who
wish to drive out true religion strive all they can to prevail by
irreligion; they who have chosen the part of that impiety which wars
against Christ, endeavour to destroy the enemies thereof, as though
they were impious persons; and they impute to us the breaking of the
cup, for the purpose of making it appear that Athanasius, equally with
themselves, is guilty of impiety towards Christ.
For what means this mention of a cup belonging to the mysteries by
them? Whence comes this religious regard for the cup among those who
support impiety towards Christ? Whence comes it that Christ's cup is
known to them who know not Christ? How can they who profess to honour
that cup, dishonour the God of the cup? or how can they who lament over
the cup, seek to murder the Bishop who celebrates the mysteries
therewith? for they would have murdered him, had it been in their
power. And how can they who lament the loss of the throne that was
Episcopally covered [527] , seek to destroy the Bishop that sat upon
it, to the end that both the throne may be without its Bishop, and that
the people may be deprived of godly doctrine? It was not then the cup,
nor the murder, nor any of those portentous deeds they talk about, that
induced them to act thus; but the forementioned heresy of the Arians,
for the sake of which they conspired against Athanasius and other
Bishops, and still continue to wage war against the Church.
Who are they that have really been the cause of murders and
banishments? Is it not these? Who are they that, availing themselves of
external support, conspire against the Bishops? Are not Eusebius and
his fellows the men, and not Athanasius, as they say in their letters?
Both he and others have suffered at their hands. Even at the time of
which we speak, four Presbyters [528] of Alexandria, though they had
not even proceeded to Tyre, were banished by their means. Who then are
they whose conduct calls for tears and lamentations? Is it not they,
who after they have been guilty of one course of persecution, do not
scruple to add to it a second, but have recourse to all manner of
falsehood, in order that they may destroy a Bishop who will not give
way to their impious heresy? Hence arises the enmity of Eusebius and
his fellows; hence their proceedings at Tyre; hence their pretended
trials; hence also now the letters which they have written even without
any trial, expressing the utmost confidence in their statements; hence
their calumnies before the father of the Emperors, and before the most
religious Emperors themselves.
18. For it is necessary that you should know what is now reported to
the prejudice of our fellow-minister Athanasius, in order that you may
thereby be led to condemn their wickedness, and may perceive that they
desire nothing else but to murder him. A quantity of corn was given by
the father of the Emperors for the support of certain widows, partly of
Libya, and partly certain out of Egypt. They have all received it up to
this time, Athanasius getting nothing therefrom, but the trouble of
assisting them. But now, although the recipients themselves make no
complaint, but acknowledge that they have received it, Athanasius has
been accused of selling all the corn, and appropriating the profits to
his own use: and the Emperor wrote to this effect about it, charging
him with the offence in consequence of the calumnies which had been
raised against him. Now who are they which have raised these calumnies?
Is it not those who after they have been guilty of one course of
persecution, scruple not to set on foot another? Who are the authors of
those letters which are said to have come from the Emperor? Are not the
Arians, who are so zealous against Athanasius, and scruple not to speak
and write anything against him? No one would pass over persons who have
acted as they have done, in order to entertain suspicion of others.
Nay, the proof of their calumny appears to be most evident for they are
anxious under cover of it, to take away the corn from the Church, and
to give it to the Arians. And this circumstance more than any other,
brings the matter home to the authors of this design and their
principals, who scrupled neither to set on foot a charge of murder
against Athanasius, as a base means of prejudicing the Emperor against
him, nor yet to take away from the Clergy of the Church the subsistence
of the poor, in order that in fact they might make gain for the
heretics.
19. We have sent also the testimony of our fellow-ministers in Libya,
Pentapolis, and Egypt, from which likewise you may learn the false
accusations which have been brought against Athanasius. And these
things they do, in order that, the professors of true godliness being
henceforth induced by fear to remain quiet, the heresy of the impious
Arians may be brought in in its stead. But thanks be to your piety,
dearly beloved, that you have frequently anathematized the Arians in
your letters, and have never given them admittance into the Church. The
exposure of Eusebius and his fellows is also easy and ready at hand.
For behold, after their former letters concerning the Arians, of which
also we have sent you copies, they now openly stir up the Arian madmen
against the Church, though the whole Catholic Church has anathematized
them; they have appointed a Bishop [529] over them; they distract the
Churches with threats and alarms, that they may gain assistants in
their impiety in every part. Moreover, they send Deacons to the Arian
madmen, who openly join their assemblies; they write letters to them,
and receive answers from them, thus making schisms in the Church, and
holding communion with them; and they send to every part, commending
their heresy, and repudiating the Church, as you will perceive from the
letters they have addressed to the Bishop of Rome [530] and perhaps to
yourselves also. You perceive therefore, dearly beloved, that these
things are not undeserving of vengeance: they are indeed dreadful and
alien from the doctrine of Christ.
Wherefore we have assembled together, and have written to you, to
request of your Christian wisdom to receive this our declaration and
sympathize with our brother Athanasius, and to shew your indignation
against Eusebius and his fellows who have essayed such things, in order
that such malice and wickedness may no longer prevail against the
Church. We call upon you to be the avengers of such injustice,
reminding you of the injunction of the Apostle, `Put away from among
yourselves that wicked person [531] .' Wicked indeed is their conduct,
and unworthy of your communion. Wherefore give no further heed to them,
though they should again write to you against the Bishop Athanasius
(for all that proceeds from them is false); not even though they
subscribe their letter with names [532] of Egyptian Bishops. For it is
evident that it will not be we who write, but the Meletians [533] , who
have ever been schismatics, and who even unto this day make
disturbances and raise factions in the Churches. For they ordain
improper persons, and all but heathens; and they are guilty of such
actions as we are ashamed to set down in writing, but which you may
learn from those whom we have sent unto you, who will also deliver to
you our letter.
20. Thus wrote the Bishops of Egypt to all Bishops, and to Julius,
Bishop of Rome.
__________________________________________________________________
[472] 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, S:3, and is particularly addressed
to Pope Julius, S:20.
[473] This was held in 340. Julius's Letter is found below, S:21.
[474] Vid. infr. S:58. This was a.d. 347.
[475] Deut. xvii. 6.
[476] hos ethelesan. vid. infr. S:14. de Decr. S:3. de Syn. S:13. Ep.
AEg. S:5.
[477] 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.
[478] Acts xxiii. 9.
[479] 1 Sam. xxvi. 21.
[480] Prov. xix. 5; Wisd. i. 11.
[481] Jer. xxii. 10.
[482] Hist. Ar. 50.
[483] Of Tyre. See below, S:71.
[484] Cf. de Syn. 17.
[485] Cf. Socr. i. 8.
[486] Cf. Nicomedia.
[487] The Eusebians alleged that, fifty-four Bishops of the two parties
of S. Alexander and Meletius being assembled for the election, and
having sworn to elect by the common voice, six or seven of these broke
their oaths in favour of S. Athanasius, whom no one had thought of, and
consecrated him in secret to the great surprise and scandal of both
ecclesiastical and lay persons. vid. Socr. ii. 17. Philostorgius (a.d.
425) adds particulars, explanatory or corrective of this statement, of
which the Bishops in the text do not seem to have heard; viz., that
Athanasius with his party one night seized on the Church of St.
Dionysius, and compelled two Bishops whom he found there to consecrate
him against their will; that he was in consequence anathematized by all
the other Bishops, but that, fortifying himself in his position, he
sent in his election to the Emperor, and by this means obtained its
confirmation. H. E. ii. 16. It appears, in matter of fact, that S.
Athan. was absent at time of his election; as Socrates says, in order
to avoid it, or as Epiphanius, on business at the Court; these reasons
are compatible. [Cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. S:4, and Gwatkin's note, quoted
there.]
[488] It is contested whether S. Athan. was ever one of S. Antony's
monks, the reading of a passage in the commencement of his Vit. Ant.,
which would decide the question, varying in different mss. The word
"ascetic" is used of those who lived a life, as afterwards followed in
Monasteries, in the Ante-Nicene times. [See D.C.B. 1. 181^a, and
Prolegg. ch. ii. S:1 ad fin, and Introd. to Vit. Ant.]
[489] The Canons of Nicaea and Sardica were absolute against
translation, but, as Bingham observes, Antiqu. vi. 4. S:6, only as a
general rule. The so-called Apostolical Canons except "a reasonable
cause" and the sanction of a Council; one of the Councils of Carthage
prohibits them when subserving ambitious views, and except for the
advantage of the Church. Vid. list of translations in Socr. Hist. vii.
36. Cassiodor. Hist. xii. 8. Niceph. Hist. xiv. 39. Coteler. adds
others ad Can. Apost. 14. [cf. Hist Ari. 7.]
[490] i.e. Constantinople on the expulsion of Paul.
[491] 1 Tim. vi. 5; Matt. xviii. 20; 2 Cor. x. 15; 1 Cor. vii. 27.
[492] Or Theognis; he was, as well as Eusebius, a pupil of Lucian's,
and was deposed together with him after the Nicene Council for
communicating with Arians. [They were not ecclesiastically deposed, but
exiled by the Emperor, see Prolegg. ch. ii. S:S:3 (1) and (2) c, 6
(1).] Constantine banished them to Gaul; they were recalled in the
course of two or three years. He was dead by the date of the Council of
Sardica.
[493] Eusebian Council of Tyre, a.d. 335.
[494] On his return from Gaul, Nov. 23, a.d. 337. [Prolegg. ch. ii. S:6
(1).]
[495] Cf. S:77.
[496] At the Council of Tyre, Potamo, an Egyptian Bishop and Confessor
asked Eusebius what had happened to him in prison during the
persecution, Epiph. Haer. 68, 7, as if hinting at his cowardice. It
appears that Eusebius was prisoner at Caesarea with S. Pamphilus; yet
he never mentions the fact himself, which is unlike him, if it was
producible. [The insinuation of Potammon was groundless: see Dic. C.
Biog. ii. 311.]
[497] George, Bishop of Laodicea, had been degraded when a priest by S.
Alexander, for his profligate habits as well as his Arianism. Athan.
speaks of him elsewhere as reprobated even by his party. de Fug. 26.
[Cf. S:49, de Syn. 17. Prolegg. ch. ii. S:3 (2) c, 2.]
[498] Conventarius.
[499] Hist. Ari. 11, and below S:S:36, 71.
[500] S:65.
[501] By Constantine into Gaul, a.d. 336.
[502] The circumstances of this appeal, which are related by Athan.
below, S:86, are thus summed up by Gibbon; "Before the final sentence
could be pronounced at Tyre, the intrepid primate threw himself into a
bark which was ready to hoist sail for the imperial city. The request
of a formal audience might have been opposed or eluded; but Athanasius
concealed his arrival, watched the moment of Constantine's return from
an adjacent villa, and boldly encountered his angry sovereign as he
passed on horseback through the principal street of Constantinople. So
strange an apparition excited his surprise and indignation; and the
guards were ordered to remove the importunate suitor; but his
resentment was subdued by involuntary respect; and the haughty spirit
of the Emperor was awed by the courage and eloquence of a Bishop, who
implored his justice and awakened his conscience." Decl. and Fall, xxi.
Athan. was a small man in person.
[503] i.e. to Constantinople.
[504] S:87.
[505] This period, when Christianity was acknowledged by the state but
not embraced by the population, is just the time when we hear most of
this Reserve as a principle. While Christians were but a sect,
persecution enforced a discipline, and when they were commensurate with
the nation, faith made it unnecessary. We are now returned to the state
of the fourth century.
[506] Tob. xii. 7.
[507] Matt. vii. 6.
[508] [Cf. S:59, and Ep. AEg. 22, Prolegg. ch. ii. S:2 init.]
[509] This seems to imply that the Holy Communion was only celebrated
on Sundays in the Egyptian Churches. [Cf. S:S:63, 74, 76.]
[510] Vid. Can. Ap. 65.
[511] 1 Cor. xi. 25.
[512] Cf. S:85.
[513] Vid. also Ep. AEg. 7. Euseb. Vit. C. iv. 43. Hilar. ad Const. i.
5. Fragm. ii. 12. [`Diognius' is another form of `Theognius' or
Theognis. See Prolegg. ch. ii. S:5.]
[514] Vid. also Ep. AEg. 7. Euseb. Vit. C. iv. 43. Hilar. ad Const. i.
5. Fragm. ii. 12. [`Diognius' is another form of `Theognius' or
Theognis. See Prolegg. ch. ii. S:5.]
[515] Cf. Encycl. 3, Apol. Const. 33.
[516] Hist. Arian. 12.
[517] [Not in Lent, for the commission were at Alexandria in September,
see the date of the protest, infra, S:76.]
[518] This Alexander had been one of the Nicene Fathers, in 325, and
had the office of publishing their decrees in Macedonia, Greece, &c. He
was at the Council of Jerusalem ten years after, at which the Church of
the Holy Sepulchre was consecrated, and afterwards Arius admitted to
communion. His influence with the Court party seems to have been great,
judging from Count Dionysius's tone in speaking of him. Infr. S:S:66,
80, 81.
[519] Infr. S:64.
[520] Vid infr. S:63 fin. S:85 fin.
[521] Infr. S:74.
[522] The district, called Mareotis from a neighbouring lake, lay in
the territory and diocese of Alexandria, to the south-west. It
consisted of various large villages, with handsome Churches, and
resident Priests, and of hamlets which had none; of the latter was
"Irene of Secontarurus)" (infr. S:85.) where Ischyras lived.
[523] Infr. S:79.
[524] S:72 fin.
[525] Arcaph. infr. 65 fin., head of the Meletians.
[526] Vid. infr. S:37, 46. and de Syn. 32, note.
[527] Cathedrae velatae, see Bingh. viii. 6. S:10.
[528] Vid. their names infr. S:40.
[529] Pistus.
[530] Vid. infr. S:21.
[531] 1 Cor. v. 13.
[532] The Eusebians availed themselves of the subscriptions of the
Meletians, as at Philippopolis, Hilar. Fragm. 3.
[533] Infr. S:73.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter II.--Letter of Julius to the Eusebians at Antioch.
Eusebius and his fellows wrote also to Julius, and thinking to frighten
me, requested him to call a council, and to be himself the judge, if he
so pleased [534] . When therefore I went up to Rome, Julius wrote to
Eusebius and his fellows as was suitable, and sent moreover two of his
own Presbyters [535] , Elpidius and Philoxenus [536] . But they, when
they heard of me, were thrown into confusion, as not expecting my going
up thither; and they declined the proposed Council, alleging
unsatisfactory reasons for so doing, but in truth they were afraid lest
the things should be proved against them which Valens and Ursacius
afterwards confessed [537] . However, more than fifty Bishops
assembled, in the place where the Presbyter Vito held his congregation;
and they acknowledged my defence, and gave me the confirmation [538]
both of their communion and their love. On the other hand, they
expressed great indignation against Eusebius and his fellows, and
requested that Julius would write to the following effect to those of
their number who had written to him. Which accordingly he did, and sent
it by the hand of Count Gabianus.
The Letter of Julius.
Julius to his dearly beloved brethren [539] , Danius, Flacillus,
Narcissus, Eusebius, Maris, Macedonius, Theodorus, and their friends,
who have written to me from Antioch, sends health in the Lord.
21. I have read your letter [540] which was brought to me by my
Presbyters Elpidius and Philoxenus, and I am surprised to find that,
whereas I wrote to you in charity and with conscious sincerity, you
have replied to me in an unbecoming and contentious temper; for the
pride and arrogance of the writers is plainly exhibited in that letter.
Yet such feelings are inconsistent with the Christian faith; for what
was written in a charitable spirit ought likewise to be answered in a
spirit of charity and not of contention. And was it not a token of
charity to send Presbyters to sympathize with them that are in
suffering, and to desire those who had written to me to come thither,
that the questions at issue might obtain a speedy settlement, and all
things be duly ordered, so that our brethren might no longer be exposed
to suffering, and that you might escape further calumny? But something
seems to shew that your temper is such, as to force us to conclude that
even in the terms in which you appeared to pay honour to us, you have
expressed yourselves under the disguise of irony. The Presbyters also
whom we sent to you, and who ought to have returned rejoicing, did on
the contrary return sorrowful on account of the proceedings they had
witnessed among you. And I, when I had read your letter, after much
consideration, kept it to myself, thinking that after all some of you
would come, and there would be no need to bring it forward, lest if it
should be openly exhibited, it should grieve many of our brethren here.
But when no one arrived, and it became necessary that the letter should
be produced, I declare to you, they were all astonished, and were
hardly able to believe that such a letter had been written by you at
all; for it is expressed in terms of contention rather than of charity.
Now if the author of it wrote with an ambition of exhibiting his power
of language, such a practice surely is more suitable for other
subjects: in ecclesiastical matters, it is not a display of eloquence
that is needed, but the observance of Apostolic Canons, and an earnest
care not to offend one of the little ones of the Church. For it were
better for a man, according to the word of the Church, that a millstone
were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the sea, than
that he should offend even one of the little ones [541] . But if such a
letter was written, because certain persons have been aggrieved on
account of their meanness of spirit towards one another (for I will not
impute it to all); it were better not to entertain any such feeling of
offence at all, at least not to let the sun go down upon their
vexation; and certainly not to give it room to exhibit itself in
writing.
22. Yet what has been done that is a just cause of vexation? or in what
respect was my letter to you such? Was it, that I invited you to be
present at a council? You ought rather to have received the proposal
with joy. Those who have confidence in their proceedings, or as they
choose to term them, in their decisions, are not wont to be angry, if
such decision is inquired into by others; they rather shew all
boldness, seeing that if they have given a just decision, it can never
prove to be the reverse. The Bishops who assembled in the great Council
of Nicaea agreed, not without the will of God, that the decisions of
one council should be examined in another [542] , to the end that the
judges, having before their eyes that other trial which was to follow,
might be led to investigate matters with the utmost caution, and that
the parties concerned in their sentence might have assurance that the
judgment they received was just, and not dictated by the enmity of
their former judges. Now if you are unwilling that such a practice
should be adopted in your own case, though it is of ancient standing,
and has been noticed and recommended by the great Council, your refusal
is not becoming; for it is unreasonable that a custom which had once
obtained in the Church, and been established by councils, should be set
aside by a few individuals.
For a further reason they cannot justly take offence in this point.
When the persons whom you, Eusebius and his fellows, dispatched with
your letters, I mean Macarius the Presbyter, and Martyrius and
Hesychius the Deacons, arrived here, and found that they were unable to
withstand the arguments of the Presbyters who came from Athanasius, but
were confuted and exposed on all sides, they then requested me to call
a Council together, and to write to Alexandria to the Bishop
Athanasius, and also to Eusebius and his fellows, in order that a just
judgment might be given in presence of all parties. And they undertook
in that case to prove all the charges which had been brought against
Athanasius. For Martyrius and Hesychius had been publicly refuted by
us, and the Presbyters of the Bishop Athanasius had withstood them with
great confidence: indeed, if one must tell the truth, Martyrius and his
fellows had been utterly overthrown; and this it was that led them to
desire that a Council might be held. Now supposing that they had not
desired a Council, but that I had been the person to propose it, in
discouragement of those who had written to me, and for the sake of our
brethren who complain that they have suffered injustice; even in that
case the proposal would have been reasonable and just, for it is
agreeable to ecclesiastical practice, and well pleasing to God. But
when those persons, whom you, Eusebius and his fellows, considered to
be trustworthy, when even they wished me to call the brethren together,
it was inconsistent in the parties invited to take offence, when they
ought rather to have shewn all readiness to be present. These
considerations shew that the display of anger in the offended persons
is petulant, and the refusal of those who decline to meet the Council
is unbecoming, and has a suspicious appearance. Does any one find
fault, if he sees that done by another, which he would allow if done by
himself? If, as you write, each council has an irreversible force, and
he who has given judgment on a matter is dishonoured, if his sentence
is examined by others; consider, dearly beloved, who are they that
dishonour councils? who are setting aside the decisions of former
judges? Not to inquire at present into every individual case, lest I
should appear to press too heavily on certain parties, the last
instance that has occurred, and which every one who hears it must
shudder at, will be sufficient in proof of the others which I omit.
23. The Arians who were excommunicated for their impiety by Alexander,
the late Bishop of Alexandria, of blessed memory, were not only
proscribed by the brethren in the several cities, but were also
anathematised by the whole body assembled together in the great Council
of Nicaea. For theirs was no ordinary offence, neither had they sinned
against man, but against our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, the Son of the
living God. And yet these persons who were proscribed by the whole
world, and branded in every Church, are said now to have been admitted
to communion again; which I think even you ought to hear with
indignation. Who then are the parties who dishonour a council? Are not
they who have set at nought the votes of the Three hundred [543] , and
have preferred impiety to godliness? The heresy of the Arian madmen was
condemned and proscribed by the whole body of Bishops everywhere; but
the Bishops Athanasius and Marcellus have many supporters who speak and
write in their behalf. We have received testimony in favour of
Marcellus [544] , that he resisted the advocates of the Arian doctrines
in the Council of Nicaea; and in favour of Athanasius [545] , that at
Tyre nothing was brought home to him, and that in the Mareotis, where
the Reports against him are said to have been drawn up, he was not
present. Now you know, dearly beloved, that ex parte proceedings are of
no weight, but bear a suspicious appearance. Nevertheless, these things
being so, we, in order to be accurate, and neither shewing any
prepossession in favour of yourselves, nor of those who wrote in behalf
of the other party, invited those who had written to us to come hither;
that, since there were many who wrote in their behalf, all things might
be enquired into in a council, and neither the guiltless might be
condemned, nor the person on his trial be accounted innocent. We then
are not the parties who dishonour a council, but they who at once and
recklessly have received the Arians whom all had condemned, and
contrary to the decision of the judges. The greater part of those
judges have now departed, and are with Christ; but some of them are
still in this life of trial, and are indignant at learning that certain
persons have set aside their judgment.
24. We have also been informed of the following circumstance by those
who were at Alexandria. A certain Carpones, who had been excommunicated
by Alexander for Arianism, was sent hither by one Gregory with certain
others, also excommunicated for the same heresy. However, I had learnt
the matter also from the Presbyter Macarius, and the Deacons Martyrius
and Hesychius. For before the Presbyters of Athanasius arrived they
urged me to send letters to one Pistus at Alexandria, though at the
same time the Bishop Athanasius was there. And when the Presbyters of
the Bishop Athanasius came, they informed me that this Pistus was an
Arian, and that he had been excommunicated [546] by the Bishop
Alexander and the Council of Nicaea, and then ordained [547] by one
Secundus, whom also the great Council excommunicated as an Arian. This
statement Martyrius and his fellows did not gainsay, nor did they deny
that Pistus had received his ordination from Secundus. Now consider,
after this who are most justly liable to blame? I, who could not be
prevailed upon to write to the Arian Pistus; or those, who advised me
to do dishonour to the great Council, and to address the irreligious as
if they were religious persons? Moreover, when the Presbyter Macarius,
who had been sent hither by Eusebius with Martyrius and the rest, heard
of the opposition which had been made by the Presbyters of Athanasius,
while we were expecting his appearance with Martyrius and Hesychius, he
departed in the night, in spite of a bodily ailment; which leads us to
conjecture that his departure arose from shame on account of the
exposure which had been made concerning Pistus. For it is impossible
that the ordination of the Arian Secundus should be considered valid in
the Catholic Church. This would indeed be dishonour to the Council, and
to the Bishops who composed it, if the decrees they framed, as in the
presence of God, with such extreme earnestness and care, should be set
aside as worthless.
25. If, as you write [548] , the decrees of all Councils ought to be of
force, according to the precedent in the case of Novatus [549] and Paul
of Samosata, all the more ought not the sentence of the Three hundred
to be reversed, certainly a general Council ought not to be set at
nought by a few individuals. For the Arians are heretics as they, and
the like sentence has been passed both against one and the other. And,
after such bold proceedings as these, who are they that have lighted up
the flame of discord? for in your letter you blame us for having done
this. Is it we, who have sympathised with the sufferings of the
brethren, and have acted in all respects according to the Canon; or
they who contentiously and contrary to the Canon have set aside the
sentence of the Three hundred, and dishonoured the Council in every
way? For not only have the Arians been received into communion, but
Bishops also have made a practice of removing from one place to another
[550] . Now if you really believe that all Bishops have the same and
equal authority [551] , and you do not, as you assert, account of them
according to the magnitude of their cities; he that is entrusted with a
small city ought to abide in the place committed to him, and not from
disdain of his trust to remove to one that has never been put under
him; despising that which God has given him, and making much of the
vain applause of men. You ought then, dearly beloved, to have come and
not declined, that the matter may be brought to a conclusion; for this
is what reason demands.
But perhaps you were prevented by the time fixed upon for the Council,
for you complain in your letter that the interval before the day we
appointed [552] was too short. But this, beloved, is a mere excuse. Had
the day forestalled any when on the journey, the interval allowed would
then have been proved to be too short. But when persons do not wish to
come, and detain even my Presbyters up to the month of January [553] ,
it is the mere excuse of those who have no confidence in their cause;
otherwise, as I said before, they would have come, not regarding the
length of the journey, not considering the shortness of the time, but
trusting to the justice and reasonableness of their cause. But perhaps
they did not come on account of the aspect of the times [554] , for
again you declare in your letter, that we ought to have considered the
present circumstances of the East, and not to have urged you to come.
Now if as you say you did not come because the times were such, you
ought to have considered such times beforehand, and not to have become
the authors of schism, and of mourning and lamentation in the Churches.
But as the matter stands, men, who have been the cause of these things,
shew that it is not the times that are to blame, but the determination
of those who will not meet a Council.
26. But I wonder also how you could ever have written that part of your
letter, in which you say, that I alone wrote, and not to all of you,
but to Eusebius and his fellows only. In this complaint one may
discover more of readiness to find fault than of regard for truth. I
received the letters against Athanasius from none other than Martyrius,
Hesychius and their fellows, and I necessarily wrote to them who had
written against him. Either then Eusebius and his fellows ought not
alone to have written, apart from you all, or else you, to whom I did
not write, ought not to be offended that I wrote to them who had
written to me. If it was right that I should address my letter to you
all, you also ought to have written with them: but now considering what
was reasonable, I wrote to them, who had addressed themselves to me,
and had given me information. But if you were displeased because I
alone wrote to them, it is but consistent that you should also be
angry, because they wrote to me alone. But for this also, beloved,
there was a fair and not unreasonable cause. Nevertheless it is
necessary that I should acquaint you that, although I wrote, yet the
sentiments I expressed were not those of myself alone, but of all the
Bishops throughout Italy and in these parts. I indeed was unwilling to
cause them all to write, lest the others should be overpowered by their
number. The Bishops however assembled on the appointed day, and agreed
in these opinions, which I again write to signify to you; so that,
dearly beloved, although I alone address you, yet you may be assured
that these are the sentiments of all. Thus much for the excuses, not
reasonable, but unjust and suspicious, which some of you have alleged
for your conduct.
27. Now although what has already been said were sufficient to shew
that we have not admitted to our communion our brothers Athanasius and
Marcellus either too readily, or unjustly, yet it is but fair briefly
to set the matter before you. Eusebius and his fellows wrote formerly
against Athanasius and his fellows, as you also have written now; but a
great number of Bishops out of Egypt and other provinces wrote in his
favour. Now in the first place, your letters against him are
inconsistent with one another, and the second have no sort of agreement
with the first, but in many instances the former are answered by the
latter, and the latter are impeached by the former. Now where there is
this contradiction in letters, no credit whatever is due to the
statements they contain. In the next place if you require us to believe
what you have written, it is but consistent that we should not refuse
credit to those who have written in his favour; especially, considering
that you write from a distance, while they are on the spot, are
acquainted with the man, and the events which are occurring there, and
testify in writing to his manner of life, and positively affirm that he
has been the victim of a conspiracy throughout.
Again, a certain Bishop Arsenius was said at one time to have been made
away with by Athanasius, but we have learned that he is alive, nay,
that he is on terms of friendship with him. He has positively asserted
that the Reports drawn up in the Mareotis were ex parte ones; for that
neither the Presbyter Macarius, the accused party, was present, nor yet
his Bishop, Athanasius himself. This we have learnt, not only from his
own mouth, but also from the Reports which Martyrius, Hesychius and
their fellows, brought to us [555] ; for we found on reading them, that
the accuser Ischyras was present there, but neither Macarius, nor the
Bishop Athanasius; and that the Presbyters of Athanasius desired to
attend, but were not permitted. Now, beloved, if the trial was to be
conducted honestly, not only the accuser, but the accused also ought to
have been present. As the accused party Macarius attended at Tyre, as
well as the accuser Ischyras, when nothing was proved, so not only
ought the accuser to have gone to the Mareotis, but also the accused,
so that in person he might either be convicted, or by not being
convicted might shew the falseness of the accusation. But now, as this
was not the case, but the accuser only went out thither, with those to
whom Athanasius objected, the proceedings wear a suspicious appearance.
28. And he complained also that the persons who went to the Mareotis
went against his wish, for that Theognius, Maris, Theodorus, Ursacius,
Valens, and Macedonius, who were the persons they sent out, were of
suspected character. This he shewed not by his own assertions merely,
but from the letter of Alexander who was Bishop of Thessalonica; for he
produced a letter written by him to Dionysius [556] , the Count who
presided in the Council, in which he shews most clearly that there was
a conspiracy on foot against Athanasius. He has also brought forward a
genuine document, all in the handwriting of the accuser Ischyras
himself [557] , in which he calls God Almighty to witness that no cup
was broken, nor table overthrown, but that he had been suborned by
certain persons to invent these accusations. Moreover, when the
Presbyters of the Mareotis arrived [558] , they positively affirmed
that Ischyras was not a Presbyter of the Catholic Church and that
Macarius had not committed any such offence as the other had laid to
his charge. The Presbyters and Deacons also who came to us testified in
the fullest manner in favour of the Bishop Athanasius, strenuously
asserting that none of those things which were alleged against him were
true, but that he was the victim of a conspiracy.
And all the Bishops of Egypt and Libya wrote and protested [559] that
his ordination was lawful and strictly ecclesiastical, and that all
that you had advanced against him was false, for that no murder had
been committed, nor any persons despatched on his account, nor any cup
broken, but that all was false. Nay, the Bishop Athanasius also shewed
from the ex parte reports drawn up in the Mareotis, that a catechumen
was examined and said [560] , that he was within with Ischyras, at the
time when they say Macarius the Presbyter of Athanasius burst into the
place; and that others who were examined said,--one, that Ischyras was
in a small cell,--and another, that he was lying down behind the door,
being sick at that very time, when they say Macarius came thither. Now
from these representations of his, we are naturally led to ask the
question, How was it possible that a man who was lying behind the door
sick could get up, conduct the service, and offer? and how could it be
that Oblations were offered when catechumens were within [561] ? for if
there were catechumens present, it was not yet the time for presenting
the Oblations. These representations, as I said, were made by the
Bishop Athanasius, and he showed from the reports, what was also
positively affirmed by those who were with him, that Ischyras has never
been a presbyter at all in the Catholic Church, nor has ever appeared
as a presbyter in the assemblies of the Church; for not even when
Alexander admitted those of the Meletian schism, by the indulgence of
the great Council, was he named by Meletius among his presbyters, as
they deposed [562] ; which is the strongest argument possible that he
was not even a presbyter of Meletius; for otherwise, he would certainly
have been numbered with the rest. Besides, it was shewn also by
Athanasius from the reports, that Ischyras had spoken falsely in other
instances: for he set up a charge respecting the burning of certain
books, when, as they pretend, Macarius burst in upon them, but was
convicted of falsehood by the witnesses he himself brought to prove it.
29. Now when these things were thus represented to us, and so many
witnesses appeared in his favour, and so much was advanced by him in
his own justification, what did it become us to do? what did the rule
of the Church require of us, but that we should not condemn him, but
rather receive him and treat him like a Bishop, as we have done?
Moreover, besides all this he continued here a year and six months
[563] , expecting the arrival of yourselves and of whoever chose to
come, and by his presence he put everyone to shame, for he would not
have been here, had he not felt confident in his cause; and he came not
of his own accord, but on an invitation by letter from us, in the
manner in which we wrote to you [564] . But still you complain after
all of our transgressing the Canons. Now consider; who are they that
have so acted? we who received this man with such ample proof of his
innocence, or they who, being at Antioch at the distance of six and
thirty posts [565] , nominated a stranger to be Bishop, and sent him to
Alexandria with a military force; a thing which was not done even when
Athanasius was banished into Gaul, though it would have been done then,
had he been really proved guilty of the offence. But when he returned,
of course he found his Church unoccupied and waiting for him.
30. But now I am ignorant under what colour these proceedings have been
carried on. In the first place, if the truth must be spoken, it was not
right, when we had written to summon a council, that any persons should
anticipate its decisions: and in the next place, it was not fitting
that such novel proceedings should be adopted against the Church. For
what canon of the Church, or what Apostolical tradition warrants this,
that when a Church was at peace, and so many Bishops were in unanimity
with Athanasius the Bishop of Alexandria, Gregory should be sent
thither, a stranger to the city, not having been baptized there, nor
known to the general body, and desired neither by Presbyters, nor
Bishops, nor Laity--that he should be appointed at Antioch, and sent to
Alexandria, accompanied not by presbyters, nor by deacons of the city,
nor by bishops of Egypt, but by soldiers? for they who came hither
complained that this was the case.
Even supposing that Athanasius was in the position of a criminal after
the Council, this appointment ought not to have been made thus
illegally and contrary to the rule of the Church, but the Bishops of
the province ought to have ordained one in that very Church, of that
very Priesthood, of that very Clergy [566] ; and the Canons received
from the Apostles ought not thus to be set aside. Had this offence been
committed against any one of you, would you not have exclaimed against
it, and demanded justice as for the transgression of the Canons? Dearly
beloved, we speak honestly, as in the presence of God, and declare,
that this proceeding was neither pious, nor lawful, nor ecclesiastical.
Moreover, the account which is given of the conduct of Gregory on his
entry into the city, plainly shews the character of his appointment. In
such peaceful times, as those who came from Alexandria declared them to
have been, and as the Bishops also represented in their letters, the
Church was set on fire; Virgins were stripped; Monks were trodden under
foot; Presbyters and many of the people were scourged and suffered
violence; Bishops were cast into prison; multitudes were dragged about
from place to place; the holy Mysteries [567] , about which they
accused the Presbyter Macarius, were seized upon by heathens and cast
upon the ground; and all to constrain certain persons to admit the
appointment of Gregory. Such conduct plainly shews who they are that
transgress the Canons. Had the appointment been lawful, he would not
have had recourse to illegal proceedings to compel the obedience of
those who in a legal way resisted him. And notwithstanding all this,
you write that perfect peace prevailed in Alexandria and Egypt. Surely
not, unless the work of peace is entirely changed, and you call such
doings as these peace.
31. I have also thought it necessary to point out to you this
circumstance, viz. that Athanasius positively asserted that Macarius
was kept at Tyre under a guard of soldiers, while only his accuser
accompanied those who went to the Mareotis; and that the Presbyters who
desired to attend the inquiry were not permitted to do so, while the
said inquiry respecting the cup and the Table was carried on before the
Prefect and his band, and in the presence of Heathens and Jews. This at
first seemed incredible, but it was proved to have been so from the
Reports; which caused great astonishment to us, as I suppose, dearly
beloved, it does to you also. Presbyters, who are the ministers of the
Mysteries, are not permitted to attend, but an enquiry concerning
Christ's Blood and Christ's Body is carried on before an external
judge, in the presence of Catechumens, nay, worse than that, before
Heathens and Jews, who are in ill repute in regard to Christianity.
Even supposing that an offense had been committed, it should have been
investigated legally in the Church and by the Clergy, not by heathens
who abhor the Word and know not the Truth. I am persuaded that both you
and all men must perceive the nature and magnitude of this sin. Thus
much concerning Athanasius.
32. With respect to Marcellus [568] , forasmuch as you have charged him
also of impiety towards Christ, I am anxious to inform you, that when
he was here, he positively declared that what you had written
concerning him was not true; but being nevertheless requested by us to
give an account of his faith, he answered in his own person with the
utmost boldness, so that we recognised that he maintains nothing
outside the truth. He made a confession [569] of the same godly
doctrines concerning our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as the Catholic
Church confesses; and he affirmed that he had held these opinions for a
very long time, and had not recently adopted them: as indeed our
Presbyters [570] , who were at a former date present at the Council of
Nicaea, testified to his orthodoxy; for he maintained then, as he has
done now, his opposition to Arianism (on which points it is right to
admonish you, lest any of you admit such heresy, instead of abominating
it as alien from sound doctrine [571] ). Seeing then that he professed
orthodox opinions, and had testimony to his orthodoxy, what, I ask
again in his case, ought we to have done, except to receive him as a
Bishop, as we did, and not reject him from our communion? These things
I have written, not so much for the purpose of defending their cause,
as in order to convince you, that we acted justly and canonically in
receiving these persons, and that you are contentious without a cause.
But it is your duty to use your anxious endeavours and to labour by
every means to correct the irregularities which have been committed
contrary to the Canon, and to secure the peace of the Churches; so that
the peace of our Lord which has been given to us [572] may remain, and
the Churches may not be divided, nor you incur the charge of being
authors of schism. For I confess, your past conduct is an occasion of
schism rather than of peace.
33. For not only the Bishops Athanasius and Marcellus and their fellows
came hither and complained of the injustice that had been done them,
but many other Bishops also [573] , from Thrace, from Coele-Syria, from
Phoenicia and Palestine, and Presbyters, not a few, and others from
Alexandria and from other parts, were present at the Council here, and
in addition to their other statements, lamented before all the
assembled Bishops the violence and injustice which the Churches had
suffered, and affirmed that similar outrages to those which had been
committed in Alexandria had occurred in their own Churches, and in
others also. Again there lately came Presbyters with letters from Egypt
and Alexandria, who complained that many Bishops and Presbyters who
wished to come to the Council were prevented; for they said that, since
the departure of Athanasius [574] even up to this time, Bishops who are
confessors [575] have been beaten with stripes, that others have been
cast into prison, and that but lately aged men, who have been an
exceedingly long period in the Episcopate, have been given up to be
employed in the public works, and nearly all the Clergy of the Catholic
Church with the people are the objects of plots and persecutions.
Moreover they said that certain Bishops and other brethren had been
banished for no other reason than to compel them against their will to
communicate with Gregory and his Arian associates. We have heard also
from others, what is confirmed by the testimony of the Bishop
Marcellus, that a number of outrages, similar to those which were
committed at Alexandria, have occurred also at Ancyra in Galatia [576]
. And in addition to all this, those who came to the Council reported
against some of you (for I will not mention names) certain charges of
so dreadful a nature that I have declined setting them down in writing:
perhaps you also have heard them from others. It was for this cause
especially that I wrote to desire you to come, that you might be
present to hear them, and that all irregularities might be corrected
and differences healed. And those who were called for these purposes
ought not to have refused, but to have come the more readily, lest by
failing to do so they should be suspected of what was alleged against
them, and be thought unable to prove what they had written.
34. Now according to these representations, since the Churches are thus
afflicted and treacherously assaulted, as our informants positively
affirmed, who are they that have lighted up a flame of discord [577] ?
We, who grieve for such a state of things and sympathize with the
sufferings of the brethren, or they who have brought these things
about? While then such extreme confusion existed in every Church, which
was the cause why those who visited us came hither, I wonder how you
could write that unanimity prevailed in the Churches. These things tend
not to the edification of the Church, but to her destruction; and those
who rejoice in them are not sons of peace, but of confusion: but our
God is not a God of confusion, but of peace [578] . Wherefore, as the
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ knows, it was from a regard for
your good name, and with prayers that the Churches might not fall into
confusion, but might continue as they were regulated by the Apostles,
that I thought it necessary to write thus unto you, to the end that you
might at length put to shame those who through the effects of their
mutual enmity have brought the Churches to this condition. For I have
heard, that it is only a certain few [579] who are the authors of all
these things.
Now, as having bowels of mercy, take ye care to correct, as I said
before, the irregularities which have been committed contrary to the
Canon, so that if any mischief has already befallen, it may be healed
through your zeal. And write not that I have preferred the communion of
Marcellus and Athanasius to yours, for such like complaints are no
indications of peace, but of contentiousness and hatred of the
brethren. For this cause I have written the foregoing, that you may
understand that we acted not unjustly in admitting them to our
communion, and so may cease this strife. If you had come hither, and
they had been condemned, and had appeared unable to produce reasonable
evidence in support of their cause, you would have done well in writing
thus. But seeing that, as I said before, we acted agreeably to the
Canon, and not unjustly, in holding communion with them, I beseech you
for the sake of Christ, suffer not the members of Christ to be torn
asunder, neither trust to prejudices, but seek rather the peace of the
Lord. It is neither holy nor just, in order to gratify the petty
feeling of a few persons, to reject those who have never been condemned
and thereby to grieve the Spirit [580] . But if you think that you are
able to prove anything against them, and to confute them face to face
let those of you who please come hither: for they also promised that
they would be ready to establish completely the truth of those things
which they have reported to us.
35. Give us notice therefore of this, dearly beloved, that we may write
both to them, and to the Bishops who will have again to assemble, so
that the accused may be condemned in the presence of all, and confusion
no longer prevail in the Churches. What has already taken place is
enough: it is enough surely that Bishops have been sentenced to
banishment in the presence of Bishops; of which it behoves me not to
speak at length, lest I appear to press too heavily on those who were
present on those occasions. But if one must speak the truth, matters
ought not to have proceeded so far; their petty feeling ought not to
have been suffered to reach the present pitch. Let us grant the
"removal," as you write, of Athanasius and Marcellus, from their own
places, yet what must one say of the case of the other Bishops and
Presbyters who, as I said before, came hither from various parts, and
who complained that they also had been forced away, and had suffered
the like injuries? O beloved, the decisions of the Church are no longer
according to the Gospel, but tend only to banishment and death [581] .
Supposing, as you assert, that some offence rested upon those persons,
the case ought to have been conducted against them, not after this
manner, but according to the Canon of the Church. Word should have been
written of it to us all [582] , that so a just sentence might proceed
from all. For the sufferers were Bishops, and Churches of no ordinary
note, but those which the Apostles themselves had governed in their own
persons [583] .
And why was nothing said to us concerning the Church of the
Alexandrians in particular? Are you ignorant that the custom has been
for word to be written first to us, and then for a just decision to be
passed from this place [584] ? If then any such suspicion rested upon
the Bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the Church
of this place; whereas, after neglecting to inform us, and proceeding
on their own authority as they pleased, now they desire to obtain our
concurrence in their decisions, though we never condemned him. Not so
have the constitutions [585] of Paul, not so have the traditions of the
Fathers directed; this is another form of procedure, a novel practice.
I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common
good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter [586] ,
that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming
that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings
so disturbed us. Bishops are forced away from their sees and driven
into banishment, while others from different quarters are appointed in
their place; others are treacherously assailed, so that the people have
to grieve for those who are forcibly taken from them, while, as to
those who are sent in their room, they are obliged to give over seeking
the man whom they desire, and to receive those they do not.
I ask of you, that such things may no longer be, but that you will
denounce in writing those persons who attempt them; so that the
Churches may no longer be afflicted thus, nor any Bishop or Presbyter
be treated with insult, nor any one be compelled to act contrary to his
judgment, as they have represented to us, lest we become a
laughing-stock among the heathen, and above all, lest we excite the
wrath of God against us. For every one of us shall give account in the
Day of judgment [587] of the things which he has done in this life. May
we all be possessed with the mind of God! so that the Churches may
recover their own Bishops, and rejoice evermore in Jesus Christ our
Lord; through Whom to the Father be glory, for ever and ever. Amen.
I pray for your health in the Lord, brethren dearly beloved and greatly
longed for.
36. Thus wrote the Council of Rome by Julius, Bishop of Rome.
__________________________________________________________________
[534] a.d. 339. vid. Hist. Arian. S:11. [Socrates (iii. 5) and
Sozomenus (ii. 8, &c.), confuse the Antiochene Synod, which sent the
letter referred to, with the Synod of the `Dedication' held in 341
a.d., after the receipt of the letter of Julius.]
[535] Vito and Vincentius, Presbyters, had represented Silvester at
Nicaea. Liberius sent Vincentius, Bishop, and Marcellus, Bishop, to
Constantius; and again Lucifer, Bishop, and Eusebius, Bishop. [The
practice was common to all bishops, not peculiar to that of Rome.] S.
Basil suggests that Damasus should send legates into the East, Ep. 69.
The Council of Sardica, Can. 5, recognised the Pope's power of sending
legates into foreign Provinces to hear certain appeals; "ut de Latere
suo Presbyterum mittat." [It conferred the power (1) upon Julius (2)
without any right of initiative, in Can. 3; Can. 5 simply regulates the
exercise of the power thus conferred. The genuineness of these Canons
has been disputed: at Rome they were quoted in the fifth century as
`Nicene.'] vid. Thomassin. de Eccl. Disc. Part I. ii. 117. [D.C.B. iii.
530, D.C.A. 197, 1658.]
[536] [Date uncertain; see Prolegg. ch. ii. S:6 (1) sub fin., and note
there.]
[537] Infr. S:58.
[538] Vid. infr. S:36.
[539] By Danius, which had been considered the same name as Dianius,
Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Montfaucon in loc. understands the
notorious Arian Bishop of Nicaea, called variously Diognius (supr.
S:13.), Theognius (infr S:28.), Theognis (Philost. Hist. ii. 7.),
Theogonius, (Theod. Hist. i. 19.), and assigns some ingenious and
probable reasons for his supposition. [`Danius' was the Bishop of
Caesarea in Cappad., he also signs at Philippopolis. See D.C.B. under
Dianius and Basil.] Flacillus, Arian Bishop of Antioch, as Athan. names
him, is called Placillus (in S. Jerome's Chronicon, p. 785.), Placitus
(Soz. iii. 5.), Flacitus (Theod. Hist. i. 21.). Theodorus was Arian
Bishop of Heraclea, whose Comments on the Psalms are supposed to be
those which bear his name in Corderius's Catena. [He was not a thorough
Arian.]
[540] Some of the topics contained in the Eusebian Letter are specified
in Julius's answer. It acknowledged, besides, the high dignity of the
[church] of Rome, as being a "School (phrontisterion) of Apostles and a
Metropolis of orthodoxy from the beginning," but added that "doctors
came to it from the east; and they ought not themselves to hold the
second place, for they were superior in virtue, though not in their
Church." And they said that they would hold communion with Julius if he
would agree to their depositions and substitutions in the Eastern Sees.
Soz. iii. 8.
[541] Matt. xviii. 6.
[542] As this determination does not find a place among the now
received Canons of the Council, the passage in the text becomes of
great moment in the argument in favour of the twenty Canons extant in
Greek being but a portion of those passed at Nicaea. vid. Alber.
Dissert. in Hist. Eccles. vii. Abraham Ecchellensis has argued on the
same side (apud Colet. Concil. t. ii. p. 399. Ed. Ven. 1728), also
Baronius, though not so strongly, Ann. 325. nn. 157 &c. and Montfaucon
in loc. Natalis Alexander, Saec. 4. Dissert. 28 argues against the
larger number, and Tillemont, Mem. vi. 674. [But it is far more likely
that Julius is making a free use of Can. Nic. 5; the Arabic canons are
apparently referred to in the above note: no one now defends them.]
[543] The number of the Fathers at the Nicene Council is generally
considered to have been 318, the number of Abraham's servants, Gen.
xiv. 14. Anastasius (Hodeg. 3. fin.) referring to the first three
Ecumenical Councils, speaks of the faith of the 318, the 150, and the
200. [Prolegg. ch. ii. S:3 (1).]
[544] Cf. S:32.
[545] Cf. S:73.
[546] Cf. supr. Depos. Ar.
[547] Cf. Ep. AEg. 7, 19, Hist. Ar. 63.
[548] Vid. also Hilar. Fragm. iii. 20.
[549] The instance of Novatian makes against the Eusebians, because for
some time after Novatian was condemned in the West, his cause was
abandoned in the East. Tillemont, Mem. t. 7. p. 277.
[550] Vid. supr. S:6.
[551] Cyprian. de Unit. Eccl. 4.
[552] prothesmia
[553] a.d. 340.
[554] The Persian war. Hist. Arian. S:11.
[555] Infr. S:83 fin.
[556] Infr. S:80.
[557] S:64.
[558] S:74.
[559] Supr. S:6.
[560] Infr. S:83.
[561] Bingh. Ant. X. v. 8.
[562] Infr. S:71.
[563] Spring of 339 a.d. to autumn of 340.
[564] Hist. Ar. 9.
[565] Or rather, halts, monai. They are enumerated in the Itinerary of
Antoninus, and are set down on Montfaucon's plate. The route passes
over the Delta to Pelusium, and then coasts all the way to Antioch.
These monai were day's journeys, Coustant in Hilar. Psalm 118, Lit. 5.
2. or half a day's journey, Herman. ibid; and were at unequal
intervals, Ambros. in Psalm 118, Serm. 5. S:5. Gibbon says that by the
government conveyances, "it was easy to travel an 100 miles in a day
along the Roman roads." ch. ii. Mone or mansio properly means the
building, where soldiers or other public officers rested at night
(hence its application to monastic houses). Such buildings included
granaries, stabling, &c. vid. Con. Theod. ed. Gothofr. 1665. t. 1. p.
47, t. 2. p. 507. Du Cange Gloss. t. 4. p. 426. Col. 2.
[566] Vid. Bingh. Ant. II. xi.
[567] Athan. only suggests this, supr. Encyc. 3. S. Hilary says the
same of the conduct of the Arians at Toulouse; "Clerks were beaten with
clubs; Deacons bruised with lead; nay, even on Christ Himself (the
Saints understand my meaning) hands were laid." Contr. Constant. 11.
[568] Julius here acquits Marcellus; but he is considered heretical by
S. Epiphanius, loc. cit. S. Basil. Epp. 69, 125, 263, 265. S.
Chrysostom in Hebr. Hom. ii. 2. Theodoret, Haer. ii. 10. vid. Petav. de
Trin. i. 13. who condemns him, and Bull far more strongly, Def. F. N.
ii. 1. S:9. Montfaucon defends him (in a special Dissertation, Collect.
Nov. tom. 2.) and Tillemont. Mem. tom. 7. p. 513, and Natalis Alex.
Saec. iv. Dissert. 30. [Prolegg. ch. ii. S:3 (2) c.]
[569] Vid. Epiph. Haer. 72. 2, 3. and S:47. infr.
[570] Vincentius and Vito.
[571] 1 Tim. i. 10.
[572] Joh. xiv. 27.
[573] The names of few are known; perhaps Marcellus, Asclepas, Paul of
Constantinople, Lucius of Adrianople. vid. Montf. in loc. Tillem. Mem.
tom. 7. p. 272.
[574] These outrages took place immediately on the dismission of
Elpidius and Philoxenus, the Pope's legates, from Antioch. Athan. Hist.
Ar. 12.
[575] e.g. Sarapammon and Potamo, both Confessors, who were of the
number of the Nicene Fathers, and had defended Athan. at Tyre, were,
the former banished, the latter beaten to death. vid. infr. Hist. Ar.
12.
[576] The Pseudo-Sardican Council, i.e. that of Philippopolis, retort
this accusation on the party of Marcellus; Hilar. Fragm. iii. 9. but
the character of the outrages fixes them on the Arians, vid. infr.
S:45, note [There were doubtless outrages on both sides].
[577] Vid. supr. S:25.
[578] 1 Cor. xiv. 33.
[579] Ad Ep. AEg. 5. de Syn. 5.
[580] Eph. iv. 30.
[581] Hist. Arian. S:67.
[582] Coustant in loc. fairly insists on the word "all," as shewing
that S. Julius does not here claim the prerogative of judging by
himself all Bishops whatever, and that what follows relates merely to
the Church of Alexandria.
[583] St. Peter (Greg. M. Epist. vii. Ind. 15. 40.) or St. Mark (Leo
Ep. 9.) at Alexandria. St. Paul at Ancyra in Galatia (Tertull. contr.
Marcion. iv. 5.) vid. Coustant. in loc.
[584] Socrates says somewhat differently, "Julius wrote back....that
they acted against the Canons, because they had not called him to a
Council, the Ecclesiastical Canon commanding that the Churches ought
not to make Canons beside the will of the Bishop of Rome." Hist. ii.
17. Sozomen in like manner, "for it was a sacerdotal law, to declare
invalid whatever was transacted beside the will of the Bishop of the
Romans." Hist. iii. 10. vid. Pope Damasus ap. Theod. Hist. v. 10. Leon.
Epist. 14. &c. In the passage in the text the prerogative of the Roman
see is limited, as Coustant observes, to the instance of Alexandria;
and we actually find in the third century a complaint lodged against
its Bishop Dionysius with the Pope. [Prolegg. ch. iv. S:4.]
[585] diataxeis. St. Paul says houtos en tais ekklesiais diatassomai 1
Cor. vii. 17. ta de loipa diataxomai. Ibid. xi. 34. vid. Pearson, Vind.
Ignat. p. 298. Hence Coustant in col. Athan. would suppose Julius to
refer to 1 Cor. v. 4. which Athan. actually quotes, Ep. Encycl. S:2.
supr. p. 93. Pearson, loc. cit. considers the diataxeis of the
Apostles, as a collection of regulation and usages, which more or less
represented, or claimed to represent, what may be called St. Paul's
rule, or St. Peter's rule, &c. Cotelier considers the diataxeis as the
same as the didachai, the "doctrine" or "teaching" of the Apostles.
Praefat. in Const. Apost. So does Beveridge, Cod. Can. Illustr. ii. 9.
S:5.
[586] [Petri] in Sede sua vivit potestas et excellit auctoritas. Leon.
Serm. iii. 3. vid. contra Barrow on the Supremacy, p. 116. ed. 1836.
"not one Bishop, but all Bishops together through the whole Church, do
succeed St. Peter, or any other Apostle."
[587] Matt. xii. 36.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter III.--Letters of the Council of Sardica to the Churches of
Egypt and of Alexandria, and to all Churches.
But when, notwithstanding, Eusebius and his fellows proceeded without
shame, disturbing the Churches, and plotting the ruin of many, the most
religious Emperors Constantius and Constans being informed of this,
commanded the Bishops from both the West and East to meet together in
the city of Sardica. In the meantime Eusebius [588] died: but a great
number assembled from all parts, and we challenged the associates of
Eusebius and his fellows to submit to a trial. But they, having before
their eyes the things that they had done, and perceiving that their
accusers had come up to the Council, were afraid to do this; but, while
all besides met with honest intentions, they again brought with them
the Counts [589] Musonianus [590] and Hesychius the Castrensian [591] ,
that, as their custom was, they might effect their own aims by their
authority. But when the Council met without Counts, and no soldiers
were permitted to be present, they were confounded, and
conscience-stricken, because they could no longer obtain the judgment
they wished, but such only as reason and truth required. We, however,
frequently repeated our challenge, and the Council of Bishops called
upon them to come forward, saying, "You have come for the purpose of
undergoing a trial; why then do you now withdraw yourselves? Either you
ought not to have come, or having come, not to conceal yourselves. Such
conduct will prove your greatest condemnation. Behold, Athanasius and
his fellows are here, whom you accused while absent; if therefore you
think that you have any thing against them, you may convict them face
to face. But if you pretend to be unwilling to do so, while in truth
you are unable, you plainly shew yourselves to be calumniators, and
this is the decision the Council will give you." When they heard this
they were self-condemned (for they were conscious of their machinations
and fabrications against us), and were ashamed to appear, thereby
proving themselves to have been guilty of many base calumnies.
The holy Council therefore denounced their indecent and suspicious
flight [592] , and admitted us to make our defence; and when we had
related their conduct towards us, and proved the truth of our
statements by witnesses and other evidence, they were filled with
astonishment, and all acknowledged that our opponents had good reason
to be afraid to meet the Council, lest their guilt should be proved
before their faces. They said also, that probably they had come from
the East, supposing that Athanasius and his fellows would not appear,
but that, when they saw them confident in their cause, and challenging
a trial, they fled. They accordingly received us as injured persons who
had been falsely accused, and confirmed yet more towards us their
fellowship and love. But they deposed Eusebius's associates in
wickedness, who had become even more shameless than himself, viz.,
Theodorus [593] of Heraclea, Narcissus of Neronias, Acacius [594] of
Caesarea, Stephanus [595] of Antioch, Ursacius and Valens of Pannonia,
Menophantus of Ephesus, and George [596] of Laodicaea; and they wrote
to the Bishops in all parts of the world, and to the diocese of each of
the injured persons, in the following terms.
Letter of the Council of Sardica to the Church of Alexandria.
The Holy Council, by the grace of God assembled at Sardica, from [597]
Rome, Spain, Gaul, Italy, Campania, Calabria, Apulia, Africa, Sardinia,
Pannonia, Moesia, Dacia, Noricum, Siscia, Dardania, the other Dacia,
Macedonia, Thessaly, Achaia, Epirus, Thrace, Rhodope, Palestine,
Arabia, Crete, and Egypt, to their beloved brothers, the Presbyters and
Deacons, and to all the Holy Church of God abiding at Alexandria, sends
health in the Lord.
37. We were not ignorant, but the fact was well known to us, even
before we received the letters of your piety, that the supporters of
the abominated heresy of the Arians were practising many dangerous
machinations, rather to the destruction of their own souls, than to the
injury of the Church. For this has ever been the object of their
unprincipled craft; this is the deadly design in which they have been
continually engaged; viz. how they may best expel from their places and
persecute all who are to be found anywhere of orthodox sentiments, and
maintaining the doctrine of the Catholic Church, which was delivered to
them from the Fathers. Against some they have laid false accusations;
others they have driven into banishment; others they have destroyed by
the punishments inflicted on them. At any rate they endeavoured by
violence and tyranny to surprise the innocence of our brother and
fellow-Bishop Athanasius, and therefore conducted their enquiry into
his case without any care, without any faith, without any sort of
justice. Accordingly having no confidence in the part they had played
on that occasion, nor yet in the reports they had circulated against
him, but perceiving that they were unable to produce any certain
evidence respecting the case, when they came to the city of Sardica,
they were unwilling to meet the Council of all the holy Bishops. From
this it became evident that the decision of our brother and
fellow-Bishop Julius was a just one [598] ; for after cautious
deliberation and care he had determined, that we ought not to hesitate
at all about communion with our brother Athanasius. For he had the
credible testimony of eighty Bishops, and was also able to advance this
fair argument in his support that by the mere means of our dearly
beloved brethren his own Presbyters, and by correspondence, he had
defeated the design of Eusebius and his fellows, who relied more upon
violence than upon a judicial enquiry.
Wherefore all the Bishops from all parts determined upon holding
communion with Athanasius on the ground that he was innocent. And let
your charity also observe, that when he came to the holy Council
assembled at Sardica, the Bishops of the East were informed of the
circumstance, as we said before, both by letter, and by injunctions
conveyed by word of mouth, and were invited by us to be present. But,
being condemned by their own conscience, they had recourse to
unbecoming excuses, and set themselves to avoid the enquiry. They
demanded that an innocent man should be rejected from our communion, as
a culprit, not considering how unbecoming, or rather how impossible,
such a proceeding was. And as for the Reports which were framed in the
Mareotis by certain most wicked and most abandoned youths [599] , to
whose hands one would not commit the very lowest office of the
ministry, it is certain that they were ex parte statements. For neither
was our brother the Bishop Athanasius present on the occasion, nor the
Presbyter Macarius who was accused by them. And besides, their enquiry,
or rather their falsification of facts, was attended by the most
disgraceful circumstances. Sometimes heathens, sometimes Catechumens,
were examined, not that they might declare what they knew, but that
they might assert those falsehoods which they had been taught by
others. And when you Presbyters, who were in charge in the absence of
your Bishop, desired to be present at the enquiry, in order that you
might shew the truth, and disprove the falsehoods, no regard was paid
to you; they would not permit you to be present, but drove you away
with insult.
Now although their calumnies have been most plainly exposed before all
men by these circumstances; yet we found also, on reading the Reports,
that the most iniquitous Ischyras, who has obtained from them the empty
title of Bishop as his reward for the false accusation, had convicted
himself of calumny. He declares in the Reports that at the very time
when, according to his positive assertions, Macarius entered his cell,
he lay there sick; whereas Eusebius and his fellows had the boldness to
write that Ischyras was standing up and offering when Macarius came in.
38. The base and slanderous charge which they next alleged against him,
has become well-known to all men. They raised a great outcry, affirming
that Athanasius had committed murder, and had made away with one
Arsenius a Meletian Bishop, whose loss they pretended to deplore with
feigned lamentations and fictitious tears, and demanded that the body
of a living man, as if a dead one, should be given up to them. But
their fraud was not undetected; one and all knew that the person was
alive, and was numbered among the living. And when these men, who are
ready upon any opportunity, perceived their falsehoods detected (for
Arsenius shewed himself alive, and so proved that he had not been made
away with, and was not dead), yet they would not rest, but proceeded to
add other to their former calumnies [600] , and to slander the man by a
fresh expedient. Well; our brother Athanasius, dearly beloved, was not
confounded, but again in the present case also with great boldness
challenged them to the proof, and we too prayed and exhorted them to
come to the trial, and if they were able, to establish their charge
against him. O great arrogance! O dreadful pride! or rather, if one
must say the truth, O evil and accusing conscience! for this is the
view which all men take of it.
Wherefore, beloved brethren, we admonish and exhort you, above all
things to maintain the right faith of the Catholic Church. You have
undergone many severe and grievous trials; many are the insults and
injuries which the Catholic Church has suffered, but `he that endureth
to the end, the same shall be saved [601] .' Wherefore even though they
still recklessly assail you, let your tribulation be unto you for joy.
For such afflictions are a sort of martyrdom, and such confessions and
tortures as yours will not be without their reward, but ye shall
receive the prize from God. Therefore strive above all things in
support of the sound faith, and of the innocence of your Bishop and our
fellow-minister Athanasius. We also have not held our peace, nor been
negligent of what concerns your comfort, but have deliberated and done
whatsoever the claims of charity demand. We sympathize with our
suffering brethren, and their affliction we consider as our own.
39. Accordingly we have written to beseech our most religious and godly
Emperors, that their kindness would give orders for the release of
those who are still suffering from affliction and oppression, and would
command that none of the magistrates, whose duty it is to attend only
to civil causes, give judgment upon Clergy [602] , nor henceforward in
any way, on pretence of providing for the Churches, attempt anything
against the brethren; but that every one may live, as he prays and
desires to do, free from persecution, from violence and fraud, and in
quietness and peace may follow the Catholic and Apostolic Faith. As for
Gregory, who has the reputation of being illegally appointed by the
heretics, and has been sent by them to your city, we wish your
unanimity to understand, that he has been deposed by a judgment of the
whole sacred Council, although indeed he has never at any time been
considered to be a Bishop at all. Wherefore receive gladly your Bishop
Athanasius, for to this end we have dismissed him in peace. And we
exhort all those who either through fear, or through the intrigues of
certain persons, have held communion with Gregory, that now being
admonished, exhorted, and persuaded by us, they withdraw from that his
detestable communion, and straightway unite themselves to the Catholic
Church.
40. But forasmuch as we have learnt that Aphthonius, Athanasius the son
of Capito, Paul, and Plutio, our fellow Presbyters [603] , have also
suffered from the machinations of Eusebius and his fellows, so that
some of them have had trial of exile, and others have fled on peril of
their lives, we have in consequence thought it necessary to make this
known unto you, that you may understand that we have received and
acquitted them also, being aware that whatever has been done by
Eusebius and his fellows against the orthodox has tended to the glory
and commendation of those who have been attacked by them. It were
fitting that your Bishop and our brother Athanasius should make this
known to you respecting them, to his own respecting his own; but as for
more abundant testimony he wished the holy Council also to write to
you, we deferred not to do so, but hastened to signify this unto you,
that you may receive them as we have done, for they also are deserving
of praise, because through their piety towards Christ they have been
thought worthy to endure violence at the hands of the heretics.
What decrees have been passed by the holy Council against those who are
at the head of the Arian heresy, and have offended against you, and the
rest of the Churches, you will learn from the subjoined documents [604]
. We have sent them to you, that you may understand from them that the
Catholic Church will not overlook those who offend against her.
Letter of the Council of Sardica to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya.
The holy Council, by the grace of God assembled at Sardica, to the
Bishops of Egypt and Libya, their fellow-ministers and dearly beloved
brethren, sends health in the Lord.
41. We were not ignorant [605] , but the fact was well known to us,
even before we received the letters of your piety, that the supporters
of the abominated heresy of the Arians were practising many dangerous
machinations, rather to the destruction of their own souls, than to the
injury of the Church. For this has ever been the object of their craft
and villainy: this is the deadly design in which they have been
continually engaged, viz. how they may best expel from their places and
persecute all who are to be found anywhere of orthodox sentiments, and
maintaining the doctrine of the Catholic Church, which was delivered to
them from the Fathers. Against some they have laid false accusations;
others they have driven into banishment; others they have destroyed by
the punishments inflicted on them. At any rate they endeavoured by
violence and tyranny to surprise the innocence of our brother and
fellow-Bishop Athanasius, and therefore conducted their enquiry into
his case without any faith, without any sort of justice. Accordingly
having no confidence in the part they had played on that occasion, nor
yet in the reports they had circulated against him, but perceiving that
they were unable to produce any certain evidence respecting the case,
when they came to the city of Sardica, they were unwilling to meet the
Council of all the holy Bishops. From this it became evident that the
decision of our brother and fellow-Bishop Julius was a just one; for
after cautious deliberation and care he had decided, that we ought not
to hesitate at all about communion with our brother Athanasius. For he
had the credible testimony of eighty Bishops, and was also able to
advance this fair argument in his support, that by the mere means of
our dearly beloved brethren his own Presbyters, and by correspondence,
he had defeated the designs of Eusebius and his fellows, who relied
more upon violence than upon a judicial inquiry.
Wherefore all the Bishops from all parts determined upon holding
communion with Athanasius on the ground that he was innocent. And let
your charity also observe, that when he came to the holy Council
assembled at Sardica, the Bishops of the East were informed of the
circumstance, as we said before, both by letter, and by injunctions
conveyed by word of mouth, and were invited by us to be present. But,
being condemned by their own conscience, they had recourse to
unbecoming excuses, and began to avoid the enquiry. They demanded that
an innocent man should be rejected from our communion, as a culprit,
not considering how unbecoming, or rather how impossible, such a
proceeding was. And as for the reports which were framed in the
Mareotis by certain most wicked and abandoned youths, to whose hands
one would not commit the very lowest office of the ministry, it is
certain that they were ex parte statements. For neither was our brother
the Bishop Athanasius present on the occasion, nor the Presbyter
Macarius, who was accused by them. And besides, their enquiry, or
rather their falsification of facts, was attended by the most
disgraceful circumstances. Sometimes Heathens, sometimes Catechumens,
were examined, not that they might declare what they knew, but that
they might assert those falsehoods which they had been taught by
others. And when you Presbyters, who were in charge in the absence of
your Bishop, desired to be present at the enquiry, in order that you
might shew the truth, and disprove falsehood, no regard was paid to
you; they would not permit you to be present, but drove you away with
insult.
Now although their calumnies have been most plainly exposed before all
men by these circumstances; yet we found also, on reading the Reports,
that the most iniquitous Ischyras, who has obtained from them the empty
title of Bishop as his reward for the false accusation, had convicted
himself of calumny. He declares in the Reports, that at the very time
when, according to his positive assertions, Macarius entered his cell,
he lay there sick; whereas Eusebius and his fellows had the boldness to
write that Ischyras was standing offering when Macarius came in.
42. The base and slanderous charge which they next alleged against him
has become well known unto all men. They raised a great outcry,
affirming that Athanasius had committed murder, and made away with one
Arsenius a Meletian Bishop, whose loss they pretended to deplore with
feigned lamentations, and fictitious tears, and demanded that the body
of a living man, as if a dead one, should be given up to them. But
their fraud was not undetected; one and all knew that the person was
alive, and was numbered among the living. And when these men, who are
ready upon any opportunity, perceived their falsehood detected (for
Arsenius shewed himself alive, and so proved that he had not been made
away with, and was not dead), yet they would not rest, but proceeded to
add other to their former calumnies, and to slander the man by a fresh
expedient. Well: our brother Athanasius, dearly beloved, was not
confounded, but again in the present case also with great boldness
challenged them to the proof, and we too prayed and exhorted them to
come to the trial, and if they were able, to establish their charge
against him. O great arrogance! O dreadful pride! or rather, if one
must say the truth, O evil and accusing conscience! for this is the
view which all men take of it.
Wherefore, beloved brethren, we admonish and exhort you, above all
things, to maintain the right faith of the Catholic Church. You have
undergone many severe and grievous trials; many are the insults and
injuries which the Catholic Church has suffered, but `he that endureth
to the end, the same shall be saved [606] .' Wherefore, even though
they shall still recklessly assail you, let your tribulation be unto
you for joy. For such afflictions are a sort of martyrdom, and such
confessions and tortures as yours will not be without their reward, but
ye shall receive the prize from God. Therefore strive above all things
in support of the sound Faith, and of the innocence of your Bishop and
our brother Athanasius. We also have not held our peace, nor been
negligent of what concerns your comfort, but have deliberated and done
whatsoever the claims of charity demand. We sympathize with our
suffering brethren, and their afflictions we consider as our own, and
have mingled our tears with yours. And you, brethren, are not the only
persons who have suffered: many others also of our brethren in ministry
have come hither, bitterly lamenting these things.
43. Accordingly, we have written to beseech our most religious and
godly Emperors, that their kindness would give orders for the release
of those who are still suffering from affliction and oppression, and
would command that none of the magistrates, whose duty it is to attend
only to civil causes, give judgment upon Clergy, nor henceforward in
any way, on pretence of providing for the Churches, attempt anything
against the brethren, but that every one may live, as he prays and
desires to do, free from persecution, from violence and fraud, and in
quietness and peace may follow the Catholic and Apostolic Faith. As for
Gregory, who has the reputation of being illegally appointed by the
heretics, and who has been sent by them to your city, we wish your
unanimity to understand, that he has been deposed by the judgment of
the whole sacred Council, although indeed he has never at any time been
considered to be a Bishop at all. Wherefore receive gladly your Bishop
Athanasius; for to this end we have dismissed him in peace. And we
exhort all those, who either through fear, or through intrigues of
certain persons, have held communion with Gregory, that being now
admonished, exhorted, and persuaded by us, they withdraw from his
detestable communion, and straightway unite themselves to the Catholic
Church.
What decrees have been passed by the holy Council against Theodorus,
Narcissus, Stephanus, Acacius, Menophantus, Ursacius, Valens, and
George [607] , who are the heads of the Arian heresy, and have offended
against you and the rest of the Churches, you will learn from the
subjoined documents. We have sent them to you, that your piety may
assent to our decisions, and that you may understand from them, that
the Catholic Church will not overlook those who offend against her.
Encyclical Letter of the Council of Sardica.
The holy Council [608] , by the grace of God, assembled at Sardica, to
their dearly beloved brethren, the Bishops and fellow-Ministers of the
Catholic Church every where, sends health in the Lord.
44. The Arian madmen have dared repeatedly to attack the servants of
God, who maintain the right faith; they attempted to substitute a
spurious doctrine, and to drive out the orthodox; and at last they made
so violent an assault against the Faith, that it became known even to
the piety of our most religious Emperors. Accordingly, the grace of God
assisting them, our most religious Emperors have themselves assembled
us together out of different provinces and cities, and have permitted
this holy Council to be held in the city of Sardica; to the end that
all dissension may be done away, and all false doctrine being driven
from us, Christian godliness may alone be maintained by all men. The
Bishops of the East also attended, being exhorted to do so by the most
religious Emperors, chiefly on account of the reports they have so
often circulated concerning our dearly beloved brethren and
fellow-ministers Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, and Marcellus,
Bishop of Ancyro-Galatia. Their calumnies have probably already reached
you, and perhaps they have attempted to disturb your ears, that you may
be induced to believe their charges against the innocent, and that they
may obliterate from your minds any suspicions respecting their own
wicked heresy. But they have not been permitted to effect this to any
great extent; for the Lord is the Defender of His Churches, Who endured
death for their sakes and for us all, and provided access to heaven for
us all through Himself. When therefore Eusebius and his fellows wrote
long ago to Julius our brother and Bishop of the Church of the Romans,
against our forementioned brethren, that is to say, Athanasius,
Marcellus, and Asclepas [609] , the Bishops from the other parts wrote
also, testifying to the innocence of our fellow-minister Athanasius,
and declaring that the representations of Eusebius and his fellows were
nothing else but mere falsehood and calumny.
And indeed their calumnies were clearly proved by the fact that, when
they were invited to a Council by our dearly beloved fellow-minister
Julius, they would not come, and also by what was written to them by
Julius himself. For had they had confidence in the measures and the
acts in which they were engaged against our brethren, they would have
come. And besides, they gave a still more evident proof of their
conspiracy by their conduct in this great and holy Council. For when
they arrived at the city of Sardica, and saw our brethren Athanasius,
Marcellus, Asclepas, and the rest, they were afraid to come to a trial
and though they were repeatedly invited to attend, they would not obey
the summons. Although all we Bishops met together, and above all that
man of most happy old age, Hosius, one who on account of his age, his
confession, and the many labours he has undergone, is worthy of all
reverence; and although we waited and urged them to come to the trial,
that in the presence of our fellow-ministers they might establish the
truth of those charges which they had circulated and written against
them in their absence; yet they would not come, when they were thus
invited, as we said before, thus giving proof of their calumnies, and
almost proclaiming to the world by this their refusal, the plot and
conspiracy in which they have been engaged. They who are confident of
the truth of their assertions are able to make them good against their
opponents face to face. But as they would not meet us, we think that no
one can now doubt, however they may again have recourse to their bad
practices, that they possess no proof against our fellow-ministers, but
calumniate them in their absence, while they avoid their presence.
45. They fled, beloved brethren, not only on account of the calumnies
they had uttered, but because they saw that those had come who had
various charges to advance against them. For chains and irons were
brought forward which they had used; persons appeared who had returned
from banishment; there came also our brethren, kinsmen of those who
were still detained in exile, and friends of such as had perished
through their means. And what was the most weighty ground of
accusation, Bishops were present, one [610] of whom brought forward the
irons and chains which they had caused him to wear, and others appealed
to the death which had been brought about by their calumnies. For they
had proceeded to such a pitch of madness, as even to attempt to destroy
Bishops; and would have destroyed them, had they not escaped their
hands. Our fellow-ministers, Theodulus of blessed memory [611] , died
during his flight from their false accusations, orders having been
given in consequence of these to put him to death. Others also
exhibited sword-wounds; and others complained that they had been
exposed to the pains of hunger through their means. Nor were they
ordinary persons who testified to these things, but whole Churches, in
whose behalf legates appeared [612] , and told us of soldiers sword in
hand, of multitudes armed with clubs, of the threats of judges, of the
forgery of false letters. For there were read certain false letters of
Theognius and his fellows against our fellow-ministers Athanasius,
Marcellus, and Asclepas, written with the design of exasperating the
Emperors against them; and those who had then been Deacons of Theognius
proved the fact. From these men, we heard of virgins stripped naked,
churches burnt, ministers in custody, and all for no other end, but
only for the sake of the accursed heresy of the Arian madmen, whose
communion whoso refused was forced to suffer these things.
When they perceived then how matters lay, they were in a strait what
course to choose. They were ashamed to confess what they had done, but
were unable to conceal it any longer. They therefore came to the city
of Sardica, that by their arrival they might seem to remove suspicion
from themselves of such offences. But when they saw those whom they had
calumniated, and those who had suffered at their hands; when they had
before their eyes their accusers and the proofs of their guilt, they
were unwilling to come forward, though invited by our fellow-ministers
Athanasius, Marcellus, and Asclepas, who with great freedom complained
of their conduct, and urged and challenged them to the trial, promising
not only to refute their calumnies, but also to bring proof of the
offences which they had committed against their Churches. But they were
seized with such terrors of conscience, that they fled; and in doing so
they exposed their own calumnies and confessed by running away the
offences of which they had been guilty.
46. But although their malice and their calumnies have been plainly
manifested on this as well as on former occasions, yet that they may
not devise means of practising a further mischief in consequence of
their flight, we have considered it advisable to examine the part they
have played according to the principles of truth; this has been our
purpose, and we have found them calumniators by their acts, and authors
of nothing else than a plot against our brethren in ministry. For
Arsenius, who they said had been murdered by Athanasius, is still
alive, and is numbered among the living; from which we may infer that
the reports they have spread abroad on other subjects are fabrications
also. And whereas they spread abroad a rumour concerning a cup, which
they said had been broken by Macarius the Presbyter of Athanasius,
those who came from Alexandria, the Mareotis, and the other parts,
testified that nothing of the kind had taken place. And the Egyptian
Bishops [613] who wrote to Julius our fellow-minister, positively
affirmed that there had not arisen among them even any suspicion
whatever of such a thing.
Moreover, the Reports, which they say they have to produce against him,
are, as is notorious, ex parte statements; and even in the formation of
these very Reports, Heathens and Catechumens were examined; one of
whom, a Catechumen, said [614] in his examination that he was present
in the room when Macarius broke in upon them; and another declared,
that Ischyras of whom they speak so much, lay sick in his cell at the
time; from which it appears that the Mysteries were never celebrated at
all, because Catechumens were present, and also that Ischyras was not
present, but was lying sick on his bed. Besides, this most worthless
Ischyras, who has falsely asserted, as he was convicted of doing, that
Athanasius had burnt some of the sacred books, has himself confessed
that he was sick, and was lying in his bed when Macarius came; from
which it is plain that he is a slanderer. Nevertheless, as a reward for
these his calumnies, they have given to this very Ischyras the title of
Bishop, although he is not even a Presbyter. For two Presbyters, who
were once associated with Meletius, but were afterwards received by the
blessed Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, and are now with Athanasius,
appeared before the Council, and testified that he was not even a
Presbyter of Meletius, and that Meletius never had either Church or
Minister in the Mareotis. And yet this man, who has never been even a
Presbyter, they have now brought forward as a Bishop, that by this name
they may have the means of overpowering those who are within hearing of
his calumnies.
47. The book of our fellow-minister Marcellus was also read, by which
the fraud of Eusebius and his fellows was plainly discovered. For what
Marcellus had advanced by way of enquiry [615] , they falsely
represented as his professed opinion; but when the subsequent parts of
the book were read, and the parts preceding the queries themselves, his
faith was found to be correct. He had never pretended, as they
positively affirmed [616] , that the Word of God had His beginning from
holy Mary, nor that His kingdom had an end; on the contrary he had
written that His kingdom was both without beginning and without end.
Our fellow-minister Asclepas also produced Reports which had been drawn
up at Antioch in the presence of his accusers and Eusebius of Caesarea,
and proved that he was innocent by the declarations of the Bishops who
judged his cause [617] . They had good reason therefore, dearly beloved
brethren, for not hearkening to our frequent summons, and for deserting
the Council. They were driven to this by their own consciences; but
their flight only confirmed the proof of their own calumnies, and
caused those things to be believed against them, which their accusers,
who were present, were asserting and arguing. But besides all these
things, they had not only received those who were formerly degraded and
ejected on account of the heresy of Arius, but had even promoted them
to a higher station, advancing Deacons to the Presbytery, and of
Presbyters making Bishops, for no other end, but that they might
disseminate and spread abroad impiety, and corrupt the orthodox faith.
48. Their leaders are now, after Eusebius and his fellows, Theodorus of
Heraclea, Narcissus of Neronias in Cilicia, Stephanus of Antioch,
George of Laodicea, Acacius of Caesarea in Palestine, Menophantus of
Ephesus in Asia, Ursacius of Singidunum in Moesia, and Valens of Mursa
in Pannonia [618] . These men would not permit those who came with them
from the East to meet the holy Council, nor even to approach the Church
of God; but as they were coming to Sardica, they held Councils in
various places by themselves, and made an engagement under threats,
that when they came to Sardica, they would not so much as appear at the
trial, nor attend the assembling of the holy Council, but simply coming
and making known their arrival as a matter of form, would speedily take
to flight. This we have been able to ascertain from our
fellow-ministers, Macarius of Palestine and Asterius of Arabia [619] ,
who after coming in their company, separated themselves from their
unbelief. These came to the holy Council, and complained of the
violence they had suffered, and said that no right act was being done
by them; adding that there were many among them who adhered to
orthodoxy, but were prevented by those men from coming hither, by means
of the threats and promises which they held out to those who wished to
separate from them. On this account it was that they were so anxious
that all should abide in one dwelling, and would not suffer them to be
by themselves even for the shortest space of time.
49. Since then it became us not to hold our peace, nor to pass over
unnoticed their calumnies, imprisonments, murders, wounds, conspiracies
by means of false letters, outrages, stripping of the virgins,
banishments, destruction of the Churches, burnings, translations from
small cities to larger dioceses, and above all, the rising of the
ill-named Arian heresy by their means against the orthodox faith; we
have therefore pronounced our dearly beloved brethren and
fellow-ministers Athanasius, Marcellus, and Asclepas, and those who
minister to the Lord with them, to be innocent and clear of offence,
and have written to the diocese of each, that the people of each Church
may know the innocence of their own Bishop, and may esteem him as their
Bishop and expect his coming.
And as for those who like wolves [620] have invaded their Churches,
Gregory at Alexandria, Basil at Ancyra, and Quintianus at Gaza, let
them neither give them the title of Bishop, nor hold any communion at
all with them, nor receive letters [621] from them, nor write to them.
And for Theodorus, Narcissus, Acacius, Stephanus, Ursacius, Valens,
Menophantus, and George, although the last from fear did not come from
the East, yet because he was deposed by the blessed Alexander, and
because both he and the others were connected with the Arian madness,
as well as on account of the charges which lie against them, the holy
Council has unanimously deposed them from the Episcopate, and we have
decided that they not only are not Bishops, but that they are unworthy
of holding communion with the faithful.
For they who separate the Son and alienate the Word from the Father,
ought themselves to be separated from the Catholic Church and to be
alien from the Christian name. Let them therefore be anathema to you,
because they have `corrupted the word of truth [622] .' It is an
Apostolic injunction [623] , `If any man preach any other Gospel unto
you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.' Charge your
people that no one hold communion with them, for there is no communion
of light with darkness; put away from you all these, for there is no
concord of Christ in Belial [624] . And take heed, dearly beloved, that
ye neither write to them, nor receive letters from them; but desire
rather, brethren and fellow-ministers, as being present in spirit [625]
with our Council, to assent to our judgments by your subscriptions
[626] , to the end that concord may be preserved by all our
fellow-ministers everywhere. May Divine Providence protect and keep
you, dearly beloved brethren, in sanctification and joy.
I, Hosius, Bishop, have subscribed this, and all the rest likewise.
This is the letter which the Council of Sardica sent to those who were
unable to attend, and they on the other hand gave their judgment in
accordance; and the following are the names both of those Bishops who
subscribed in the Council, and of the others also.
50. Hosius of Spain [627] , Julius of Rome by his Presbyters Archidamus
and Philoxenus, Protogenes of Sardica, Gaudentius, Macedonius, Severus,
Praetextatus, Ursicius, Lucillus, Eugenius, Vitalius, Calepodius,
Florentius, Bassus, Vincentius, Stercorius, Palladius, Domitianus,
Chalbis, Gerontius, Protasius, Eulogus, Porphyrius, Dioscorus, Zosimus,
Januarius, Zosimus, Alexander, Eutychius, Socrates, Diodorus,
Martyrius, Eutherius, Eucarpus, Athenodorus, Irenaeus, Julianus,
Alypius, Jonas, Aetius, Restitutus, Marcellinus, Aprianus, Vitalius,
Valens, Hermogenes, Castus, Domitianus, Fortunatius, Marcus, Annianus,
Heliodorus, Musaeus, Asterius, Paregorius, Plutarchus, Hymenaeus,
Athanasius, Lucius, Amantius, Arius, Asclepius, Dionysius, Maximus,
Tryphon, Alexander, Antigonus, AElianus, Petrus, Symphorus, Musonius,
Eutychus, Philologius, Spudasius, Zosimus, Patricius, Adolius,
Sapricius [628] .
From Gaul the following; Maximianus [629] , Verissimus [630] ,
Victurus, Valentinus [631] , Desiderius, Eulogius, Sarbatius, Dyscolius
[632] , Superior, Mercurius, Declopetus, Eusebius, Severinus [633] ,
Satyrus, Martinus, Paulus, Optatianus, Nicasius, Victor [634] ,
Sempronius, Valerinus, Pacatus, Jesses, Ariston, Simplicius, Metianus,
Amantus [635] , Amillianus, Justinianus, Victorinus [636] , Satornilus,
Abundantius, Donatianus, Maximus.
From Africa; Nessus, Gratus [637] , Megasius, Coldaeus, Rogatianus,
Consortius, Rufinus, Manninus, Cessilianus, Herennianus, Marianus,
Valerius, Dynamius, Mizonius, Justus, Celestinus, Cyprianus, Victor,
Honoratus, Marinus, Pantagathus, Felix, Baudius, Liber, Capito,
Minervalis, Cosmus, Victor, Hesperio, Felix, Severianus, Optantius,
Hesperus, Fidentius, Salustius, Paschasius.
From Egypt; Liburnius, Amantius, Felix, Ischyrammon, Romulus,
Tiberinus, Consortius, Heraclides, Fortunatius, Dioscorus,
Fortunatianus, Bastamon, Datyllus, Andreas, Serenus, Arius, Theodorus,
Evagoras, Helias, Timotheus, Orion, Andronicus, Paphnutius, Hermias,
Arabion, Psenosiris, Apollonius, Muis, Sarapampon [638] , Philo,
Philippus, Apollonius, Paphnutius, Paulus, Dioscorus, Nilammon,
Serenus, Aquila, Aotas, Harpocration, Isac, Theodorus, Apollos,
Ammonianus, Nilus, Heraclius, Arion, Athas, Arsenius, Agathammon,
Theon, Apollonius, Helias, Paninuthius, Andragathius, Nemesion,
Sarapion, Ammonius, Ammonius, Xenon, Gerontius, Quintus, Leonides,
Sempronianus, Philo, Heraclides, Hieracys, Rufus, Pasophius,
Macedonius, Apollodorus, Flavianus, Psaes, Syrus, Apphus, Sarapion,
Esaias, Paphnutius, Timotheus, Elurion, Gaius, Musaeus, Pistus,
Heraclammon, Heron, Helias, Anagamphus, Apollonius, Gaius, Philotas,
Paulus, Tithoes, Eudaemon, Julius.
Those on the road [639] of Italy are Probatius, Viator, Facundinus,
Joseph, Numedius, Sperantius, Severus, Heraclianus, Faustinus,
Antoninus, Heraclius, Vitalius, Felix, Crispinus, Paulianus.
From Cyprus; Auxibius, Photius, Gerasius, Aphrodisius, Irenicus,
Nunechius, Athanasius, Macedonius, Triphyllius, Spyridon, Norbanus,
Sosicrates.
From Palestine; Maximus, Aetius, Arius, Theodosius, Germanus, Silvanus,
Paulus, Claudius, Patricius, Elpidius, Germanus, Eusebius, Zenobius,
Paulus, Petrus.
These are the names of those who subscribed to the acts of the Council;
but there are very many beside, out of Asia, Phrygia, and Isauria [640]
, who wrote in my behalf before this Council was held, and whose names,
nearly sixty-three in number, may be found in their own letters. They
amount altogether to three hundred and forty-four [641] .
__________________________________________________________________
[588] Of Nicodemia.
[589] Hist. Ar. 15.
[590] Musonian was originally of Antioch, and his name Strategius; he
had been promoted and honoured with a new name by Constantine, for whom
he had collected information about the Manichees. Amm. Marc. xv. 13,
S:1. In 354, he was Praetorian Prefect of the East. (vid. de Syn. 1,
note 1.) Libanius praises him.
[591] The Castrensians were the officers of the palace; castra, as
stratopedon, infr. S:86. being at this time used for the Imperial
Court. vid. Gothofred in Cod. Theod. vi. 30. p. 218. Du Cange in voc.
[592] To Philippopolis.
[593] p. 111, note 2.
[594] [Prolegg. ch. ii. S:8 (2) b.]
[595] Hist. Arian. S:20.
[596] [Prolegg. ch. ii. S:3 (2) c. 1. and S:8 (2) c.]
[597] Vid. supr. p. 100, where Isauria, Thessaly, Sicily, Britain, &c.,
added. Also Theod. H. E. ii. 6. vid. p. 120 note 9 a.
[598] Vid. infr. S:51, note.
[599] Supr. p. 107, note 9.
[600] Vid. supr. S:36. infr. S:87.
[601] Matt. x. 22.
[602] Vid. Bingham. Antiqu. V. ii. 5. &c. Gieseler Eccl. Hist. vol. I.
p. 242. Bassi. Biblioth. Jur. t. l. p. 276. Bellarm. de C eric. 28.
[603] Supr. p. 109.
[604] Vid. Encycl. Letter, infr. S:46.
[605] It will be observed that this Letter is nearly a transcript of
the foregoing. It was first printed in the Benedictine Edition.
[606] Matt. x. 22.
[607] S:36.
[608] Vid. Theod. Hist. ii. 6. Hil. Fragm. ii.
[609] Asclepas, or Asclepius of Gaza, Epiph. Haer. 69. 4. was one of
the Nicene Fathers, and according to Theod. Hist. i. 27. was at the
Council of Tyre, which Athan. also attended, but only by compulsion.
According to the Eusebians at Philippopolis, they had deposed him [17
years previously, but the number must be corrupt, or the statement
incorrect]. They state, however, at the same time, that he had been
condemned by Athanasius and Marcellus, vid. Hilar. Fragm. iii. 13.
Sozomen, Hist. iii. 8. says that they deposed him on the charge of
having overturned an altar; and, after Athan. infr. S:47, that he was
acquitted at Sardica on the ground that Eusebius of Caesarea and others
had reinstated him in his see (before 339). There is mention of a
Church built by him in Gaza ap. Bolland. Febr. 26. Vit. L. Porphyr. n.
20. p. 648.
[610] Perhaps Lucius of Hadrianople, says Montfaucon, referring to
Apol. de Fug. S:3. vid. also Hist. Arian. 19.
[611] Theodulus, Bishop of Trajanopolis in Thrace, who is here spoken
of as deceased, seems to have suffered this persecution from the
Eusebians upon their retreat from Sardica, vid. Athan. Hist. Arian.
S:19. We must suppose then with Montfaucon, that the Council, from whom
this letter proceeds, sat some considerable time after that retreat,
and that the proceedings spoken of took place in the interval.
Socrates, however, makes Theodulus survive Constans, who died 350. H.
E. ii. 26.
[612] The usual proceeding of the Arians was to retort upon the
Catholics the charges which they brought against them, supr. S:33, note
4. Accordingly, in their Encyclical from Philippopolis, they say that
"a vast multitude had congregated at Sardica, of wicked and abandoned
persons, from Constantinople and Alexandria; who lay under charges of
murder, blood, slaughter, robbery, plunder, spoiling, and all nameless
sacrileges and crimes; who had broken altars, burnt Churches, ransacked
private houses," &c. &c. Hil. Fragm. iii. 19.
[613] p. 101.
[614] Cf. S:28.
[615] Cf. de Decr. S:25, note
[616] De Syn. S:25, note.
[617] S:44, note 9.
[618] Vid. supr. S:S:13, note, and 36. About Stephanus, vid. infr.
Hist. Arian. S:20.
[619] [For Macarius, read Arius.] These two Bishops were soon after the
Council banished by Eusebian influence into upper Libya, where they
suffered extreme ill usage. vid. Hist. Arian. S:18.
[620] Vid. Acts xx. 29
[621] p. 95, note 4.
[622] 2 Cor. ii. 17.
[623] Gal. i. 9.
[624] 2 Cor. vi. 14, 15.
[625] 1 Cor. v. 3.
[626] In like manner the Council of Chalcedon was confirmed by as many
as 470 subscriptions, according to Ephrem (Phot. Bibl. p. 801) by 1600
according to Eulogius (ibid. p. 877), i.e. of Bishops, Archimandrites.
&c.
[627] Hosius is called by Athan, the father and the president of the
Council. Hist. Arian. 15, 16. Roman controversialists here explain why
Hosius does not sign himself as the Pope's legate, De Marc. Concord. v.
4. Alber. Dissert. ix. and Protestants why his legates rank before all
the other Bishops, even before Protogenes, Bishop of the place.
Basnage, Ann. 347. 5. Febronius considers that Hosius signed here and
at Nicaea, as a sort of representative of the civil, and the Legates of
ecclesiastical supremacy. de Stat. Eccl. vi. 4. And so Thomassin,
"Imperator velut exterior Episcopus: praefuit autem summus Pontifex, ut
Episcopus interior." Dissert. in Conc. x. 14. The popes never attended
in person the Eastern Councils. St. Leo excuses himself on the plea of
its being against usage. Epp. 37. and 93. [Silvester's absence from
Nicaea was due solely to extreme old age. But Sardica was a Western
council.]
[628] [The above names, with a few exceptions, comprise those present
at the Council. See additional Note at the end of this Apology, where a
list is given in alphabetical order of all bishops present, with their
Sees.]
[629] Of Treveri.
[630] Of Lyons.
[631] Of Arles.
[632] Of Rheims.
[633] Of Sens.
[634] Of Worms.
[635] Of Strassburg.
[636] Of Paris.
[637] Of Carthage.
[638] S:S:33, note 3a, and 78.
[639] hoi en to kanali& 251; tes 'Italias. "Canalis est, non via regia
aut militaris, verum via tranversa, quae in regiam seu basilicam
influit, quasi aquae canalis in alveum." Gothofred. in Cod. Theod. vi.
de Curiosis, p. 196. who illustrates the word at length. Du Cange on
the contrary, in voc. explains it of "the high road." Tillemont
professes himself unable to give a satisfactory sense to it. vol. viii.
p. 685. [The word occurs in the XIth. Sardican canon, where the Greek
version (Can. XX. in Bruns) glosses it kanali& 251; etoi parodo.]
[640] Cf. S:36.
[641] Athan. says, supr. S:1. that the Letter of the Council was signed
in all by more than 300. It will be observed, that Athan.'s numbers in
the text do not accurately agree with each other. The subscriptions
enumerated are 284, to which 63 being added, made a total of 347, not
344. [The enumeration of Ath. includes many who signed long afterwards.
Those `from Palestine' are simply the signatories of the synodal letter
of 346, below S:57. The number, 170 mentioned by Ath. Hist. Ar. 15
gives an orthodox majority of 20. See additional Note at end of this
Apology, and Gwatkin, Studies, p. 121, note.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter IV.--Imperial and Ecclesiastical Acts in Consequence of the
Decision of the Council of Sardica.
51. When the most religious Emperor Constantius heard of these things,
he sent for me, having written privately to his brother Constans of
blessed memory, and to me three several times in the following terms.
Constantius Victor Augustus to Athanasius [642] . Our benignant
clemency will not suffer you to be any longer tempest-tossed by the
wild waves of the sea; for our unwearied piety has not lost sight of
you, while you have been bereft of your native home, deprived of your
goods, and have been wandering in savage wildernesses. And although I
have for a long time deferred expressing by letter the purpose of my
mind concerning you, principally because I expected that you would
appear before us of your own accord, and would seek a relief of your
sufferings; yet forasmuch as fear, it may be, has prevented you from
fulfilling your intentions, we have therefore addressed to your
fortitude letters full of our bounty, to the end that you may use all
speed and without fear present yourself in our presence, thereby to
obtain the enjoyment of your wishes, and that, having experience of our
kindness, you may be restored again to your own. For this purpose I
have besought my lord and brother Constans Victor Augustus, in your
behalf, that he would give you permission to come, in order that you
may be restored to your country with the consent of us both, receiving
this as a pledge of our favour.
The Second Letter.
Although we made it very plain to you in a former letter that you may
without hesitation come to our Court, because we greatly wished to send
you home, yet, we have further sent this present letter to your
fortitude to exhort you without any distrust or apprehension, to place
yourself in the public conveyances [643] , and to hasten to us, that
you may enjoy the fulfilment of your wishes.
The Third Letter.
Our pleasure was, while we abode at Edessa, and your Presbyters were
there, that, on one of them being sent to you, you should make haste to
come to our Court, in order that you might see our face, and
straightway proceed to Alexandria. But as a very long period has
elapsed since you received letters from us, and you have not yet come,
we therefore hasten to remind you again, that you may endeavour even
now to present yourself before us with speed, and so may be restored to
your country, and obtain the accomplishment of your prayers. And for
your fuller information we have sent Achitas the Deacon, from whom you
will be able to learn the purpose of our soul, that you may now secure
the objects of your prayers.
Such was the tenor of the Emperor's letters; on receiving which I went
up to Rome to bid farewell to the Church and the Bishop: for I was at
Aquileia [644] when the above was written. The Church was filled with
all joy, and the Bishop Julius rejoiced with me in my return and wrote
to the Church [645] ; and as we passed along, the Bishops of every
place sent us on our way in peace. The letter of Julius was as follows.
52. Julius to the Presbyters, Deacons, and people residing at
Alexandria [646] .
I congratulate you, beloved brethren, that you now behold the fruit of
your faith before your eyes; for any one may see that such indeed is
the case with respect to my brother and fellow-Bishop Athanasius, whom
for the innocency of his life, and by reason of your prayers, God is
restoring to you again. Wherefore it is easy to perceive, that you have
continually offered up to God pure prayers and full of love. Being
mindful of the heavenly promises, and of the conversation that leads to
them, which you have learnt from the teaching of my brother aforesaid,
you knew certainly and understood by the right faith that is in you,
that he, whom you always had as present in your most pious minds, would
not be separated from you for ever. Wherefore there is no need that I
should use many words in writing to you; for your faith has already
anticipated whatever I could say to you, and has by the grace of God
procured the accomplishment of the common prayers of you all.
Therefore, I repeat again, I congratulate you, because you have
preserved your souls unconquered in the faith; and I also congratulate
no less my brother Athanasius, in that, though he is enduring many
afflictions, he has at no time been forgetful of your love and earnest
desires towards him. For although for a season he seemed to be
withdrawn from you in body, yet he has continued to live as always
present with you in spirit [647] .
53. Wherefore he returns to you now more illustrious than when he went
away from you. Fire tries and purifies the precious materials, gold and
silver: but how can one describe the worth of such a man, who, having
passed victorious through the perils of so many tribulations, is now
restored to you, being pronounced innocent not by our voice only, but
by the voice of the whole Council [648] ? Receive therefore, beloved
brethren, with all godly honour and rejoicing, your Bishop Athanasius,
together with those who have been partners with him in so many labours.
And rejoice that you now obtain the fulfilment of your prayers, after
that in your salutary letter you have given meat and drink to your
Pastor, who, so to speak, longed and thirsted after your godliness. For
while he sojourned in a foreign land, you were his consolation; and you
refreshed him during his persecutions by your most faithful minds and
spirits. And it delights me now to conceive and figure to my mind the
joy of every one of you at his return, and the pious greetings of the
concourse, and the glorious festivity of those that run to meet him.
What a day will that be to you, when my brother comes back again, and
your former sufferings terminate, and his much-prized and desired
return inspires you all with an exhilaration of perfect joy! The like
joy it is ours to feel in a very great degree, since it has been
granted us by God, to be able to make the acquaintance of so eminent a
man. It is fitting therefore that I should conclude my letter with a
prayer. May Almighty God, and His Son our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ, afford you continual grace, giving you a reward for the
admirable faith which you displayed in your noble confession in behalf
of your Bishop, that He may impart unto you and unto them that are with
you, both here and hereafter, those better things, which `the eye hath
not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath entered into the heart of man,
the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him [649] ,'
through our Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom to Almighty God be glory
for ever and ever. Amen. I pray, dearly beloved brethren, for your
health and strength in the Lord.
54. The Emperor, when I came to him [650] with these letters, received
me kindly, and sent me forth to my country and Church addressing the
following to the Bishops, Presbyters, and People.
Constantius, Victor, Maximus, Augustus, to the Bishops and Presbyters
of the Catholic Church.
The most reverend Athanasius has not been deserted by the grace of God,
but although for a brief season he was subjected to trial to which
human nature is liable, he has obtained from the all-surveying
Providence such an answer to his prayers as was meet, and is restored
by the will of the Most High, and by our sentence, at once to his
country and to the Church, over which by divine permission he presided.
Wherefore, in accordance with this, it is fitting that it should be
provided by our clemency, that all the decrees which have heretofore
been passed against those who held communion with him, be now consigned
to oblivion, and that all suspicions respecting them be henceforward
set at rest, and that immunity, such as the Clergy who are associated
with him formerly enjoyed, be duly confirmed to them. Moreover to our
other acts of favour towards him we have thought good to add the
following, that all persons of the sacred catalogue [651] should
understand, that an assurance of safety is given to all who adhere to
him, whether Bishops, or other Clergy. And union with him will be a
sufficient guarantee, in the case of any person, of an upright
intention. For whoever, acting according to a better judgment and part,
shall choose to hold communion with him, we order, in imitation of that
Providence which has already gone before, that all such should have the
advantage of the grace which by the will of the Most High is now
offered to them from us. May God preserve you.
The Second Letter.
Constantius, Victor, Maximus, Augustus, to the people of the Catholic
Church at Alexandria.
55. Having in view your welfare in all respects, and knowing that you
have for a long time been deprived of episcopal superintendence, we
have thought good to send back to you your Bishop Athanasius, a man
known to all men for the uprightness that is in him, and for the good
disposition of his personal character. Receive him, as you are wont to
receive every one, in a suitable manner, and, using his advocacy as
your succour in your prayers to God, endeavour to preserve continually
that unanimity and peace according to the order of the Church which is
at the same time becoming in you, and most advantageous for us. For it
is not becoming that any dissension or faction should be raised among
you, contrary to the prosperity of our times. We desire that this
offence may be altogether removed from you, and we exhort you to
continue stedfastly in your accustomed prayers, and to make him, as we
said before, your advocate and helper towards God. So that, when this
your determination, beloved, has influenced the prayers of all men,
even those heathen who are still addicted to the false worship of idols
may eagerly desire to come to the knowledge of our sacred religion.
Again therefore we exhort you to continue in these things, and gladly
to receive your Bishop, who is sent back to you by the decree of the
Most High, and by our decision, and determine to greet him cordially
with all your soul and with all your mind. For this is what is both
becoming in you, and agreeable to our clemency. In order that all
occasions of disturbance and sedition may be taken away from those who
are maliciously disposed, we have by letter commanded the magistrates
who are among you to subject to the vengeance of the law all whom they
find to be factious. Wherefore taking into consideration both these
things, our decision in accordance with the will of the Most High, and
our regard for you and for concord among you, and the punishment that
awaits the disorderly, observe such things as are proper and suitable
to the order of our sacred religion, and receiving the afore-mentioned
Bishop with all reverence and honour, take care to offer up with him
your prayers to God, the Father of all, in behalf of yourselves, and
for the well-being of your whole lives.
56. Having written these letters, he also commanded that the decrees,
which he had formerly sent out against me in consequence of the
calumnies of Eusebius and his fellows, should be cancelled and struck
out from the Orders of the Duke and the Prefect of Egypt; and Eusebius
the Decurion [652] was sent to withdraw them from the Order-books. His
letter on this occasion was as follows.
Constantius, Victor, Augustus, to Nestorius [653] . (And in the same
terms, to the Governors of Augustamnica, the Thebais, and Libya.)
Whatever Orders are found to have been passed heretofore, tending to
the injury and dishonour of those who hold communion with the Bishop
Athanasius, we wish them to be now erased. For we desire that whatever
immunities his Clergy possessed before, they should again possess the
same. And we wish this our Order to be observed, that when the Bishop
Athanasius is restored to his Church, those who hold communion with him
may enjoy the immunities which they have always enjoyed, and which the
rest of the Clergy enjoy; so that they may have the satisfaction of
being on an equal footing with others.
57. Being thus set forward on my journey, as I passed through Syria, I
met with the Bishops of Palestine, who when they had called a Council
[654] at Jerusalem, received me cordially, and themselves also sent me
on my way in peace, and addressed the following letter to the Church
and the Bishops.
The Holy Council, assembled at Jerusalem, to the fellow-ministers in
Egypt and Libya, and to the Presbyters, Deacons, and People at
Alexandria, brethren beloved and greatly longed for, sends health in
the Lord.
We cannot give worthy thanks to the God of all, dearly beloved, for the
wonderful things which He has done at all times, and especially at this
time for your Church, in restoring to you your pastor and lord, and our
fellow-minister Athanasius. For who ever hoped that his eyes would see
what you are now actually obtaining? Of a truth, your prayers have been
heard by the God of all, Who cares for His Church, and has looked upon
your tears and groans, and has therefore heard your petitions. For ye
were as sheep scattered and fainting, not having a shepherd [655] .
Wherefore the true Shepherd, Who careth for His own sheep, has visited
you from heaven, and has restored to you him whom you desire. Behold,
we also, being ready to do all things for the peace of the Church, and
being prompted by the same affection as yourselves, have saluted him
before you; and communicating with you through him, we send you these
greetings, and our offering of thanksgiving, that you may know that we
also are united in the bond of love that joins you to him. You are
bound to pray also for the piety of our most God-beloved Emperors, who,
when they knew your earnest longings after him, and his innocency,
determined to restore him to you with all honour. Wherefore receive him
with uplifted hands, and take good heed that you offer up due
thanksgiving on his behalf to God Who has bestowed these blessings upon
you; so that you may continually rejoice with God and glorify our Lord,
in Christ Jesus our Lord, through Whom to the Father be glory for ever.
Amen.
I have set down here the names of those who subscribed this letter,
although I have mentioned them before [656] . They are these; Maximus,
Aetius, Arius, Theodorus [657] , Germanus, Silvanus, Paulus, Patricius,
Elpidius, Germanus, Eusebius, Zenobius, Paulus, Macrinus [658] ,
Petrus, Claudius.
58. When Ursacius and Valens saw all this, they forthwith condemned
themselves for what they had done, and going up to Rome, confessed
their crime, declared themselves penitent, and sought forgiveness [659]
, addressing the following letters to Julius, Bishop of ancient Rome,
and to ourselves. Copies of them were sent to me from Paulinus, Bishop
of Treveri [660] .
A Translation from the Latin of a Letter [661] to Julius, concerning
the recantation of Ursacius and Valens [662] .
Ursacius and Valens to the most blessed lord, pope Julius.
Whereas it is well known that we have heretofore in letters laid many
grievous charges against the Bishop Athanasius, and whereas when we
were corrected by the letters of your Goodness, we were unable to
render an account of the statement we had made; we do now confess
before your Goodness, and in the presence of all the Presbyters our
brethren, that all the reports which have heretofore come to your
hearing respecting the case of the aforesaid Athanasius, are falsehoods
and fabrications, and are utterly inconsistent with his character.
Wherefore we earnestly desire communion with the aforesaid Athanasius,
especially since your Piety, with your characteristic generosity, has
vouchsafed to pardon our error. But we also declare, that if at any
time the Eastern Bishops, or even Athanasius himself, ungenerously
should wish to bring us to judgment for this matter, we will not depart
contrary to your judgment. And as for the heretic Arius and his
supporters, who say that once the Son was not, and that the Son was
made of that which was not, and who deny that Christ is God and the Son
of God before the worlds, we anathematize them both now and for
evermore, as also we have set forth in our former declaration at Milan
[663] . We have written this with our own hands, and we profess again,
that we have renounced for ever, as we said before, the Arian heresy
and its authors.
I Ursacius subscribed this my confession in person; and likewise I
Valens.
Ursacius and Valens, Bishops, to their lord and brother, the Bishop
Athanasius.
Having an opportunity of sending by our brother and fellow Presbyter
Musaeus, who is coming to your Charity, we salute you affectionately,
beloved brother, through him, from Aquileia, and pray you, being as we
trust in health, to read our letter. You will also give us confidence,
if you will return to us an answer in writing. For know that we are at
peace with you, and in communion with the Church, of which the
salutation prefixed to this letter is a proof. May Divine Providence
preserve you, my Lord, our beloved brother!
Such were their letters, and such the sentence and the judgment of the
Bishops in my behalf. But in order to prove that they did not act thus
to ingratiate themselves, or under compulsion in any quarter, I desire,
with your permission, to recount the whole matter from the beginning,
so that you may perceive that the bishops wrote as they did with
upright and just intentions, and that Ursacius and Valens, though they
were slow to do so, at last confessed the truth.
__________________________________________________________________
[642] Written a.d. 345.
[643] Gothof. in Cod. Theod. viii. 5. p. 507.
[644] Apol. Const. 3, 15.
[645] "They acquainted Julius the Bishop of Rome with their case; and
he, according to the prerogative (pronomia) of the Church in Rome,
fortified them with letters in which he spoke his mind, and sent them
back to the East, restoring each to his own place, and remarking on
those who had violently deposed them. They then set out from Rome, and
on the strength (thar& 191;ountes) of the letters of Bishop Julius,
take possession of their Churches." Socr. ii. 15. It must be observed,
that in the foregoing sentences Socrates has spoken of "(imperial)
Rome." Sozomen says, "Whereas the care of all (kedemonias) pertained to
him on account of the dignity of his see, he restored each to his own
Church." iii. 8. "I answer," says Barrow, "the Pope did not restore
them judicially but declaratively, that is, declaring his approbation
of their right and innocence, did admit them to communion....Besides,
the Pope's proceeding was taxed, and protested against, as
irregular;....and, lastly, the restitution of Athanasius and the other
Bishops had no complete effect, till it was confirmed by the synod of
Sardica, backed by the imperial authority." Suprem. p. 360. ed. 1836.
[646] Written early in 346 a.d.
[647] Athan. here omits a paragraph in his own praise. vid. Socr. ii.
23.
[648] S:35, note 3.
[649] 1 Cor. ii. 9.
[650] [At Antioch September (?) 346. See Prolegg. ch. ii. S:6 (3).]
[651] Vid. Bingh. Antiqu. I. v. 10.
[652] Member of the Curia or Council.
[653] Prefect of Egypt, vid. Vita Ant. 86, Fest. Ind. xvii.-xxiv.
[654] Hist. Arian. 25.
[655] Matt. ix. 36.
[656] S:50.
[657] Theodosius, supr.
[658] Not supr.
[659] Cf. S:20, note 4.
[660] Triberon, Paul infr. Hist. Ar. 26.
[661] Hist. Arian. 25. 26.
[662] [Gibbon, ch. xxi. note 108, doubts the fact of this recantation
on the ground of the dissimilar tone of the two letters that follow.
Newman explains that they treat Julius as `a superior,' Athanasius as
`an equal;' but surely he was something more than an equal. Fear of
Constans, and the desire to secure themselves from attack, would make
it important for them at any price to obtain the favour of the first
bishop of the West. In order to do this they had to make their peace
with Athanasius; but in doing so, they went no further than they could
help.]
[663] a.d. 347.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Part II.
Chapter V.--Documents connected with the charges of the Meletians
against S. Athanasius.
59. Peter was Bishop among us before the persecution, and during the
course of it he suffered martyrdom. When Meletius, who held the title
of bishop in Egypt, was convicted of many crimes, and among the rest of
offering sacrifice to idols, Peter deposed him in a general council of
the bishops. Whereupon Meletius did not appeal to another council, or
attempt to justify himself before those who should come after, but made
a schism, so that they who espoused his cause are even yet called
Meletians instead of Christians [664] . He began immediately to revile
the bishops, and made false accusations, first against Peter himself,
and against his successor Achillas, and after Achillas, against
Alexander [665] . And he thus practised craftily, following the example
of Absalom, to the end that, as he was disgraced by his deposition, he
might by his calumnies mislead the simple. While Meletius was thus
employed, the Arian heresy also had arisen. But in the Council of
Nicaea, while the heresy was anathematized, and the Arians were cast
out, the Meletians on whatever grounds [666] (for it is not necessary
now to mention the reason) were received. Five months however had not
yet passed [667] when, the blessed Alexander having died, the
Meletians, who ought to have remained quiet, and to have been grateful
that they were received on any terms, like dogs unable to forget their
vomit, were again troubling the Churches.
Upon learning this, Eusebius, who had the lead in the Arian heresy,
sends and buys the Meletians with large promises, becomes their secret
friend, and arranges with them for their assistance on any occasion
when he might wish for it. At first he sent to me, urging me to admit
Arius and his fellows to communion [668] , and threatened me in his
verbal communications, while in his letters he [merely] made a request.
And when I refused, declaring that it was not right that those who had
invented heresy contrary to the truth, and had been anathematized by
the Ecumenical [669] Council, should be admitted to communion, he
caused the Emperor also, Constantine, of blessed memory, to write to
me, threatening me, in case I should not receive Arius and his fellows,
with those afflictions, which I have before undergone, and which I am
still suffering. The following is a part of his letter. Syncletius and
Gaudentius, officers of the palace [670] , were the bearers of it.
Part of a Letter from the Emperor Constantine.
Having therefore knowledge of my will, grant free admission to all who
wish to enter into the Church. For if I learn that you have hindered or
excluded any who claim to be admitted into communion with the Church, I
will immediately send some one who shall depose you by my command, and
shall remove you from your place.
60. When upon this I wrote and endeavoured to convince the Emperor,
that that anti-Christian heresy had no communion with the Catholic
Church, Eusebius forthwith, availing himself of the occasion which he
had agreed upon with the Meletians, writes and persuades them to invent
some pretext, so that, as they had practised against Peter and Achillas
and Alexander, they might devise and spread reports against us also.
Accordingly, after seeking for a long time, and finding nothing, they
at last agree together, with the advice of Eusebius and his fellows,
and fabricate their first accusation by means of Ision, Eudaemon, and
Callinicus [671] , respecting the linen vestments [672] , to the effect
that I had imposed a law upon the Egyptians, and had required its
observance of them first. But when certain Presbyters of mine were
found to be present, and the Emperor took cognizance of the matter,
they were condemned (the Presbyters were Apis and Macarius), and the
Emperor wrote, condemning Ision, and ordering me to appear before him.
His letters were as follows [673] .
Eusebius, having intelligence of this, persuades them to wait; and when
I arrive, they next accuse Macarius of breaking the cup, and bring
against me the most heinous accusation possible, viz. that, being an
enemy of the Emperor, I had sent a purse of gold to one Philumenus. The
Emperor therefore heard us on this charge also in Psammathia [674] ,
when they, as usual, were condemned, and driven from the presence; and,
as I returned, he wrote the following letter to the people.
Constantine, Maximus, Augustus, to the people of the Catholic Church at
Alexandria.
61. Beloved brethren, I greet you well, calling upon God, Who is the
chief witness of my intention, and on the Only-begotten, the Author of
our Law, Who is Sovereign over the lives of all men, and Who hates
dissensions. But what shall I say to you? That I am in good health?
Nay, but I should be able to enjoy better health and strength, if you
were possessed with mutual love one towards another, and had rid
yourselves of your enmities, through which, in consequence of the
storms excited by contentious men, we have left the haven of brotherly
love. Alas! what perverseness is this! What evil consequences are
produced every day by the tumult of envy which has been stirred up
among you! Hence it is that evil reports have settled upon the people
of God. Whither has the faith of righteousness departed? For we are so
involved in the mists of darkness, not only through manifold errors,
but through the faults of ungrateful men, that we bear with those who
favour folly, and though we are aware of them, take no heed of those
who set aside goodness and truth. What strange inconsistency is this!
We do not convict our enemies, but we follow the example of robbery
which they set us, whereby the most pernicious errors, finding no one
to oppose them, easily, if I may so speak, make a way for themselves.
Is there no understanding among us, for the credit of our common
nature, since we are thus neglectful of the injunctions of the law?
But some one will say, that love is a thing brought out by nature. But,
I ask, how is it that we who have got the law of God for our guide in
addition to our natural advantages, thus tolerate the disturbances and
disorders raised by our enemies, who seem inflamed, as it were, with
firebrands? How is it, that having eyes, we see not, neither
understand, though we are surrounded by the intelligence of the law?
What a stupor has seized upon our life, that we are thus neglectful of
ourselves, and that although God admonishes us! Is it not an
intolerable evil? and ought we not to esteem such men as our enemies,
and not the household and people of God? For they are infuriated
against us, abandoned as they are: they lay grievous crimes to our
charge, and make attacks upon us as enemies.
62. And I would have you yourselves to consider with what exceeding
madness they do this. The foolish men carry their maliciousness at
their tongues' end. They carry about with them a sort of leaden anger,
so that they reciprocally smite one another, and involve us by way of
increasing their own punishment. The good teacher is accounted an
enemy, while he who clothes himself with the vice of envy, contrary to
all justice makes his gain of the gentle temper of the people; he
ravages, and consumes, he decks himself out, and recommends himself
with false praises; he subverts the truth, and corrupts the faith,
until he finds out a hole and hiding-place for his conscience. Thus
their very perverseness makes them wretched, while they impudently
prefer themselves to places of honour, however unworthy they may be.
Ah! what a mischief is this! they say "Such an one is too old; such an
one is a mere boy; the office belongs to me; it is due to me, since it
is taken away from him. I will gain over all men to my side, and then I
will endeavour with my power to ruin him." Plain indeed is this
proclamation of their madness to all the world; the sight of companies,
and gatherings, and rowers under command [675] in their offensive
cabals. Alas! what preposterous conduct is ours, if I may say it! Do
they make an exhibition of their folly in the Church of God? And are
they not yet ashamed of themselves? Do they not yet blame themselves?
Are they not smitten in their consciences, so that they now at length
shew that they entertain a proper sense of their deceit and
contentiousness? Theirs is the mere force of envy, supported by those
baneful influences which naturally belong to it. But those wretches
have no power against your Bishop. Believe me, brethren, their
endeavours will have no other effect than this, after they have worn
down our days, to leave to themselves no place of repentance in this
life. Wherefore I beseech you, lend help to yourselves; receive kindly
our love, and with all your strength drive away those who desire to
obliterate from among us the grace of unanimity; and looking unto God,
love one another. I received gladly your Bishop Athanasius, and
addressed him in such a manner, as being persuaded that he was a man of
God. It is for you to understand these things, not for me to judge of
them. I thought it becoming that the most reverend Athanasius himself
should convey my salutation to you, knowing his kind care of you,
which, in a manner worthy of that peaceable faith which I myself
profess, is continually engaged in the good work of declaring saving
knowledge, and will be able to exhort you as is suitable, May God
preserve you, beloved brethren.
Such was the letter of Constantine.
63. After these occurrences the Meletians remained quiet for a little
time, but afterwards shewed their hostility again, and contrived the
following plot, with the aim of pleasing those who had hired their
services. The Mareotis is a country district of Alexandria, in which
Meletius was not able to make a schism. Now while the Churches still
existed within their appointed limits, and all the Presbyters had
congregations in them, and while the people were living in peace, a
certain person named Ischyras [676] , who was not a clergyman, but of a
worthless disposition, endeavoured to lead astray the people of his own
village, declaring himself to be a clergyman. Upon learning this, the
Presbyter of the place informed me of it when I was going through my
visitation of the Churches, and I sent Macarius the Presbyter with him
to summon Ischyras. They found him sick and lying in a cell, and
charged his father to admonish his son not to continue any such
practices as had been reported against him. But when he recovered from
his sickness, being prevented by his friends and his father from
pursuing the same course, he fled over to the Meletians; and they
communicate with Eusebius and his fellows, and at last that calumny is
invented by them, that Macarius had broken a cup, and that a certain
Bishop named Arsenius had been murdered by me. Arsenius they placed in
concealment, in order that he might seem made away with, when he did
not make his appearance; and they carried about a hand, pretending that
he had been cut to pieces. As for Ischyras, whom they did not even
know, they began to spread a report that he was a Presbyter, in order
that what he said about the cup might mislead the people. Ischyras,
however, being censured by his friends, came to me weeping, and said
that no such thing as they had reported had been done by Macarius, and
that himself had been suborned by the Meletians to invent this calumny.
And he wrote the following letter.
To the Blessed pope [677] Athanasius, Ischyras sends health in the
Lord.
64. As when I came to you, my Lord Bishop, desiring to be received into
the Church, you reproved me for what I formerly said, as though I had
proceeded to such lengths of my own free choice, I therefore submit to
you this my apology in writing, in order that you may understand, that
violence was used towards me, and blows inflicted on me by Isaac and
Heraclides, and Isaac of Letopolis, and those of their party. And I
declare, and take God as my witness in this matter, that of none of the
things which they have stated, do I know you to be guilty. For no
breaking of a cup or overturning of the Holy Table ever took place, but
they compelled me by violent usage to assert all this. And this defence
I make and submit to you in writing, desiring and claiming for myself
to be admitted among the members of your congregation. I pray that you
may have health in the Lord.
I submit this my handwriting to you the Bishop Athanasius in the
presence of the Presbyters, Ammonas of Dicella, Heraclius of Phascos,
Boccon of Chenebri, Achillas of Myrsine, Didymus of Taphosiris, and
Justus from Bomotheus [678] ; and of the Deacons, Paul, Peter, and
Olympius, of Alexandria, and Ammonius, Pistus, Demetrius, and Gaius, of
the Mareotis.
65. Notwithstanding this statement of Ischyras, they again spread
abroad the same charges against me everywhere, and also reported them
to the Emperor Constantine. He too had heard before of the affair of
the cup in Psammathia [679] , when I was there, and had detected the
falsehood of my enemies. But now he wrote to Antioch to Dalmatius [680]
the Censor requiring him to institute a judicial enquiry respecting the
murder. Accordingly the Censor sent me notice to prepare for my defence
against the charge. Upon receiving his letters, although at first I
paid no regard to the thing because I knew that nothing of what they
said was true, yet seeing that the Emperor was moved, I wrote to my
fellow-ministers into Egypt, and sent a deacon, desiring to learn
something of Arsenius, for I had not seen the man for five or six
years. Well, not to relate the matter at length, Arsenius was found in
concealment, in the first instance in Egypt, and afterwards my friends
discovered him again in concealment in Tyre also. And what was most
remarkable, even when he was discovered he would not confess that he
was Arsenius, until he was convicted in court before Paul, who was then
Bishop of Tyre, and at last out of very shame could not deny it.
This he did in order to fulfil his contract with Eusebius and his
fellows, lest, if he were discovered, the game they were playing should
at length be broken up; which in fact came to pass. For when I wrote
the Emperor word, that Arsenius was discovered, and reminded him of
what he had heard in Psammathia concerning Macarius the Presbyter, he
stopped the proceedings of the Censor's court, and wrote condemning the
proceedings against me as calumnious, and commanded Eusebius and his
fellows, who were coming into the East to appear against me, to return.
Now in order to shew that they accused me of having murdered Arsenius
(not to bring forward the letters of many persons on the subject), it
shall be sufficient only to produce one from Alexander the Bishop of
Thessalonica, from which the tenor of the rest may be inferred. He then
being acquainted with the reports which Archaph, who is also called
John, circulated against me on the subject of the murder, and having
heard that Arsenius was alive, wrote as follows.
Letter of Alexander.
To his dearly beloved son and fellow-minister like-minded, the lord
Athanasius, Alexander the Bishop sends health in the Lord.
66. I congratulate the most excellent Sarapion, that he is striving so
earnestly to adorn himself with holy habits, and is thus advancing to
higher praise the memory of his father. For, as the Holy Scripture
somewhere says, `though his father die, yet he is as though he were not
dead [681] :' for he has left behind him a memorial of his life. What
my feelings were towards the ever memorable Sozon, you yourself, my
lord [682] , are not ignorant, for you know the sacredness of his
memory, as well as the goodness of the young man. I have received only
one letter from your reverence, which I had by the hands of this youth.
I mention this to you, my lord, in order that you may know. Our dearly
beloved brother and deacon Macarius, afforded me great pleasure by
writing to me from Constantinople, that the false accuser Archaph had
met with disgrace, for having given out before all men that a live man
had been murdered. That he will receive from the righteous Judge,
together with all the tribe of his associates, that punishment, which
his crimes deserve, the unerring Scriptures assure us. May the Lord of
all preserve you for very many years, my lord, in every way most kind.
67. And they who lived with Arsenius bear witness, that he was kept in
concealment for this purpose, that they might pretend his death; for in
searching after him we found the person [who had done so], and he in
consequence wrote the following letter to John, who played the chief
part in this false accusation.
To his dearly beloved brother John, Pinnes, Presbyter of the Monastery
[683] of Ptemencyrcis, in the home of Anteopolis, sends greeting.
I wish you to know, that Athanasius sent his deacon into the Thebais,
to search everywhere for Arsenius; and Pecysius the Presbyter, and
Silvanus the brother of Helias, and Tapenacerameus, and Paul monk of
Hypsele, whom he first fell in with, confessed that Arsenius was with
us. Upon learning this we caused him to be put on board a vessel, and
to sail to the lower countries with Helias the monk. Afterwards the
deacon returned again suddenly with certain others, and entered our
monastery, in search of the same Arsenius, and him they found not,
because, as I said before, we had sent him away to the lower countries;
but they conveyed me together with Helias the monk, who took him out of
the way, to Alexandria, and brought us before the Duke [684] ; when I
was unable to deny, but confessed that he was alive, and had not been
murdered: the monk also who took him out of the way confessed the same.
Wherefore I acquaint you with these things, Father, lest you should
determine to accuse Athanasius; for I said that he was alive, and had
been concealed with us, and all this is become known in Egypt, and it
cannot any longer be kept secret.
I, Paphnutius, monk of the same monastery, who wrote this letter,
heartily salute you. I pray for your health.
The following also is the letter which the Emperor wrote when he learnt
that Arsenius was found to be alive.
Constantine, Victor, Maximus, Augustus, to the pope Athanasius.
68. Having read the letters of your wisdom, I felt the inclination to
write in return to your fortitude, and to exhort you that you would
endeavour to restore the people of God to tranquillity, and to merciful
feelings. For in my own mind I hold these things to be of the greatest
importance, that we should cultivate truth, and ever keep righteousness
in our thoughts, and have pleasure especially in those who walk in the
right way of life. But as concerning those who are deserving of all
execration, I mean the most perverse and ungodly Meletians, who have at
last stultified themselves by their folly, and are now raising
unreasonable commotions by envy, uproar, and tumult, thus making
manifest their own ungodly dispositions, I will say thus much. You see
that those who they pretended had been slain with the sword, are still
amongst us, and in the enjoyment of life. Now what could be a stronger
presumption against them, and one so manifestly and clearly tending to
their condemnation, as that those whom they declared to have been
murdered, are yet in the enjoyment of life, and accordingly will be
able to speak for themselves?
But this further accusation was advanced by these same Meletians. They
positively affirmed that you, rushing in with lawless violence, had
seized upon and broken a cup, which was deposited in the most Holy
Place; than which there certainly could not be a more serious charge,
nor a more grievous offence, had such a crime actually been
perpetrated. But what manner of accusation is this? What is the meaning
of this change and variation and difference in the circumstances of it,
insomuch that they now transfer this same accusation to another person
[685] , a fact which makes it clearer, so to speak, than the light
itself, that they designed to lay a plot for your wisdom? After this,
who can be willing to follow them, men that have fabricated such
charges to the injury of another, seeing too that they are hurrying
themselves on to ruin, and are conscious that they are accusing you of
false and feigned crimes? Who then, as I said, will follow after them,
and thus go headlong in the way of destruction; in that way in which it
seems they alone suppose that they have hope of safety and of help? But
if they were willing to walk according to a pure conscience, and to be
directed by the best wisdom, and to go in the way of a sound mind, they
would easily perceive that no help can come to them from Divine
Providence, while they are given up to such doings, and tempt their own
destruction. I should not call this a harsh judgment of them, but the
simple truth.
And finally, I will add, that I wish this letter to be read frequently
by your wisdom in public, that it may thereby come to the knowledge of
all men, and especially reach the ears of those who thus act, and thus
raise disturbances; for the judgment which is expressed by me according
to the dictates of equity is confirmed also by real facts. Wherefore,
seeing that in such conduct there is so great an offence, let them
understand that I have thus judged; and that I have come to this
determination, that if they excite any further commotion of this kind,
I will myself in person take cognizance of the matter, and that not
according to the ecclesiastical, but according to the civil laws, and
so I will in future find them out, because they clearly are robbers, so
to speak, not only against human kind, but against the divine doctrine
itself. May God ever preserve you, beloved brother!
69. But that the wickedness of the calumniators might be more fully
displayed, behold Arsenius also wrote to me after he was discovered in
his place of concealment; and as the letter which Ischyras had written
confessed the falsehood of their accusation, so that of Arsenius proved
their maliciousness still more completely.
To the blessed Pope Athanasius, Arsenius, Bishop of those who were
heretofore under Meletius in the city of the Hypselites, together with
the Presbyters and Deacons, wishes much health in the Lord.
Being earnestly desirous of peace and union with the Catholic Church,
over which by the grace of God you preside, and wishing to submit
ourselves to the Canon of the Church, according to the ancient rule
[686] , we write unto you, dearly beloved Pope, and declare in the name
of the Lord, that we will not for the future hold communion with those
who continue in schism, and are not yet at peace with the Catholic
Church, whether Bishops, Presbyters, or Deacons. Neither will we take
part with them if they wish to establish anything in a Council; neither
will we send letters of peace [687] unto them nor receive such from
them; neither yet without the consent of you, the bishop of the
metropolis, will we publish any determination concerning Bishops, or on
any other general ecclesiastical question; but we will yield obedience
to all the canons that have heretofore been ordained, after the example
of the Bishops [688] Ammonian, Tyrannus, Plusian, and the rest.
Wherefore we beseech your goodness to write to us speedily in answer,
and likewise to our fellow-ministers concerning us, informing them that
we will henceforth abide by the fore-mentioned resolution and will be
at peace with the Catholic Church, and at unity with our
fellow-ministers in the [various] districts. And we are persuaded that
your prayers, being acceptable unto God, will so prevail with Him, that
this peace shall be firm and indissoluble unto the end, according to
the will of God the Lord of all, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
The sacred Ministry that is under you, we and those that are with us
salute. Very shortly, if God permit, we will come to visit your
goodness. I, Arsenius, pray for your health in the Lord for many years,
most blessed Pope.
70. But a stronger and clearer proof of the calumny against us is the
recantation of John, of which the most God-beloved Emperor Constantine
of blessed memory is a witness, for knowing how John had accused
himself, and having received letters from him expressing his
repentance, he wrote to him as follows.
Constantine, Maximus, Augustus to John.
The letters which I have received from your prudence were extremely
pleasing to me, because I learned from them what I very much longed to
hear, that you had laid aside every petty feeling, had joined the
Communion of the Church as became you, and were now in perfect concord
with the most reverend Bishop Athanasius. Be assured therefore that so
far I entirely approve of your conduct; because, giving up all
skirmishing, you have done that which is pleasing to God, and have
embraced the unity of His Church. In order therefore that you may
obtain the accomplishment of your wishes, I have thought it right to
grant you permission to enter the public conveyance [689] , and to come
to the court [690] of my clemency. Let it then be your care to make no
delay; but as this letter gives you authority to use the public
conveyance, come to me immediately, that you may have your desires
fulfilled, and by appearing in my presence may enjoy that pleasure
which it is fit for you to receive. May God preserve you continually,
dearly beloved brother.
__________________________________________________________________
[664] Cf. Orat. i. 2 and notes.
[665] Ad. Ep. AEg. S:22. supr. S:11.
[666] [Prolegg. ch. ii. S:3 (1) ad fin.] Athan. speaks more openly
against this arrangement. infr. S:71.
[667] [According to the tenses in the original the five months mark the
date not of Alexander's death (April 17, 328), but of the renewed
Meletian troubles. The settlement did not keep them quiet for five
months. The terminus a quo of the five months is somewhat doubtful; but
it certainly is not the Council of Nicaea, see S:71, &c. Montf. Monit.
in Vit. S. Athanasii, also Prolegg. ch. ii. S:3 (1) and ch. v. S:3 a.]
[668] Ad. Ep AEg. 23.
[669] Supr. S:7, and de Decr. 27.
[670] palatinoi, vid. Apol. ad Const. S:19.
[671] Infr. S:71 fin. Sozom. ii. 25.
[672] sticharia, ecclesiastical. [See D.C.A. p. 1933.]
[673] They are lost.
[674] Suburb of Nicomedia, infr. S:65.
[675] archieresian
[676] Cf. S:S:46, 72, 77.
[677] Cf. de Syn. 16, [and Fest Ind. passim].
[678] [Cf. the list of Mareotic clergy supr., p. 72. The three deacons
of Alexandria are in the list, p. 71].
[679] Vid. S:60.
[680] Dalmatius was the name of father and son, the brother and nephew
of Constantine. Socrates, Hist. i. 27. gives the title of Censor to the
son; but the Chron. Pasch. p. 531 (Dind.) gives it to the father.
Valesius, and apparently Tillemont (Empereurs, vol. 4. p. 657) think
Socrates mistaken. The younger Dalmatius was created Caesar by
Constantine a few years before his death; and as well as his brother
Hannibalian, and a number of other relatives, was put to death by the
soldiery, on the death of Constantine. vid. Hist. Ar. 69. [Gwatkin, p.
108 note].
[681] Ecclus. 30. 4.
[682] despota. Theod. H. E. i. 5. init.
[683] [The mone here is not a monastery in the later sense, but a
village or cluster of cells. This intercepted letter demonstrates the
existence of Meletian monks, of which there is other evidence also:
(see below, Introd. to Vit. Ant. The objection of Weingarten to the
genuineness of this letter is purely arbitrary)].
[684] According to the system of government introduced by Diocletian
and Constantine, there were thirty-five military commanders of the
troops, under the Magistri militum, and all of these bore the name of
duces or dukes; the comites, or counts, were ten out of the number, who
were distinguished as companions of the Emperor. vid. Gibbon, ch. 17.
Three of these dukes were stationed in Egypt [i.e. in the whole
prefecture; one only in the province of Egypt in the narrower sense].
[685] Cf. S:28.
[686] Vid. supr. p. 92, note 3; the (so-called) Apostolical Canon
apparently referred to here, is Can. 27. according to Beveridge.
[687] Cf. p. 95, note 4.
[688] i.e. Meletian Bishops who had conformed; or, since they are not
in the list, S:71. Catholic Bishops with whom the conforming party were
familiar; or Meletians after the return of Meletius. vid. Tillemont,
Mem. vol. 8. p. 658.
[689] On the "cursus publicus," vid. Gothofred. in Cod. Theod. viii.
tit. 5. It was provided for the journeys of the Emperor, for persons
whom he summoned, for magistrates, ambassadors, and for such private
persons as the Emperor indulged in the use of it, which was gratis. The
use was granted by Constantine to the Bishops who were summoned to
Nicaea, as far as it went, in addition (though aliter Valesius in loc.)
to other means of travelling. Euseb. v. Const. iii. 6. The cursus
publicus brought the Bishops to the Council of Tyre. ibid. iv. 43. In
the conference between Liberius and Constantius, Theod. Hist. ii. 13.
it is objected that the cursus publicus is not sufficient to convey
Bishops to the Council which Liberius proposes; he answers that the
Churches are rich enough to convey their Bishops as far as the sea.
Thus S. Hilary was compelled (data evectionis copia, Sulp. Sev. Hist.
ii. 57.) to attend at Seleucia, as Athan. at Tyre. Julian complains of
the abuse of the cursus publicus, perhaps with an allusion to these
Councils of Constantius. vid. Cod. Theod. viii. tit. 5. l. 12. where
Gothofred quotes Liban. Epitaph. in Julian. vol. i. p. 569. ed.
Reiske.) Vid. the well-known passage of Ammianus, who speaks of the
Councils being the ruin of the res vehicularia Hist. xxi. 16. The
Eusebians at Philippopolis say the same thing. Hilar. Frag. iii. 25.
The Emperor provided board and perhaps lodging for the Bishops at
Ariminum; which the Bishops of Aquitaine, Gaul, and Britain, declined,
except three British from poverty. Sulp. Hist. ii. 56. Hunneric in
Africa, after assembling 466 Bishops at Carthage, dismissed them
without modes of conveyance, provision, or baggage. Victor Utic. Hist.
iii. init. In the Emperor's letter previous to the assembling of the
sixth Ecumenical Council, a.d. 678, (Harduin, Conc. t. 3. p. 1048 fin.)
he says he has given orders for the conveyance and maintenance of its
members. Pope John VIII. reminds Ursus, Duke of Venice (a.d. 876.), of
the same duty of providing for the members of a Council, "secundum pios
principes, qui in talibus munifice semper erant intenti." Colet.
Concil. (Ven. 1730,) t. xi. p. 14.
[690] stratopedon; vid. Chrys. on the Statues, p. 382, note 6. Gothofr.
in Cod. Theod. vi. 32, 1. 1. Castra sunt ubi Princeps est. ibid. 35, l.
15. also Kiesling. de Discipl. Cler. i. 5. p. 16. Beveridge in Can.
Apost. 83. interprets strateia of any civil engagement as opposed to
clerical.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter VI.--Documents connected with the Council of Tyre.
71. Thus ended the conspiracy. The Meletians were repulsed and covered
with shame; but notwithstanding this Eusebius and his fellows still did
not remain quiet, for it was not for the Meletians but for Arius and
his fellows, that they cared, and they were afraid lest, if the
proceedings of the former should be stopped, they should no longer find
persons to play the parts [691] , by whose assistance they might bring
in that heresy. They therefore again stirred up the Meletians, and
persuaded the Emperor to give orders that a Council should be held
afresh at Tyre, and Count Dionysius was despatched thither, and a
military guard was given to Eusebius and his fellows. Macarius also was
sent as a prisoner to Tyre under a guard of soldiers; and the Emperor
wrote to me, and laid a peremptory command upon me, so that, however
unwilling, I set out. The whole conspiracy may be understood from the
letters which the Bishops of Egypt wrote; but it will be necessary to
relate how it was contrived by them in the outset, that so may be
perceived the malice and wickedness that was exercised against me.
There are in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, nearly one hundred Bishops;
none of whom laid anything to my charge; none of the Presbyters found
any fault with me; none of the people spoke aught against me; but it
was the Meletians who were ejected by Peter, and the Arians, that
divided the plot between them, while the one party claimed to
themselves the right of accusing me, the other of sitting in judgment
on the case. I objected to Eusebius and his fellows as being my enemies
on account of the heresy; next, I shewed in the following manner that
the person who was called my accuser was not a Presbyter at all. When
Meletius was admitted into communion (would that he had never been so
admitted [692] !) the blessed Alexander who knew his craftiness
required of him a schedule of the Bishops whom he said he had in Egypt,
and of the presbyters and deacons that were in Alexandria itself, and
if he had any in the country district. This the Pope Alexander has
done, lest Meletius, having received the freedom of the Church, should
tender [693] many, and thus continually, by a fraudulent procedure,
foist upon us whomsoever he pleased. Accordingly he has made out the
following schedule of those in Egypt.
A schedule presented by Meletius to the Bishop Alexander.
I, Meletius of Lycopolis, Lucius of Antinopolis, Phasileus of
Hermopolis, Achilles of Cusae, Ammonius of Diospolis.
In Ptolemais, Pachymes of Tentyrae.
In Maximianopolis, Theodorus of Coptus.
In Thebais, Cales of Hermethes, Colluthus of Upper Cynopolis, Pelagius
of Oxyrynchus, Peter of Heracleopolis, Theon of Nilopolis, Isaac [694]
of Letopolis, Heraclides of Niciopolis [695] , Isaac of Cleopatris,
Melas of Arsenoitis.
In Heliopolis, Amos of Leontopolis, Ision of Athribis.
In Pharbethus, Harpocration of Bubastus, Moses of Phacusae, Callinicus
[696] of Pelusium, Eudaemon of Tanis [697] , Ephraim of Thmuis.
In Sais, Hermaeon of Cynopolis and Busiris, Soterichus of Sebennytus,
Pininuthes of Phthenegys, Cronius of Metelis, Agathammon of the
district of Alexandria.
In Memphis, John who was ordered by the Emperor to be with the
Archbishop [698] . These are those of Egypt.
And the Clergy that he had in Alexandria were Apollonius Presbyter,
Irenaeus Presbyter, Dioscorus Presbyter, Tyrannus Presbyter. And
Deacons; Timotheus Deacon, Antinous Deacon, Hephaestion Deacon. And
Macarius Presbyter of Parembole [699] .
72. These Meletius presented actually in person [700] to the Bishop
Alexander, but he made no mention of the person called Ischyras, nor
ever professed at all that he had any Clergy in the Mareotis.
Notwithstanding our enemies did not desist from their attempts, but
still he that was no Presbyter was feigned to be one, for there was the
Count ready to use compulsion towards us, and soldiers were hurrying us
about. But even then the grace of God prevailed: for they could not
convict Macarius in the matter of the cup; and Arsenius, whom they
reported to have been murdered by me, stood before them alive and
shewed the falseness of their accusation. When therefore they were
unable to convict Macarius, Eusebius and his fellows, who became
enraged that they had lost the prey of which they had been in pursuit,
persuaded the Count Dionysius, who is one of them, to send to the
Mareotis, in order to see whether they could not find out something
there against the Presbyter, or rather that they might at a distance
patch up their plot as they pleased in our absence: for this was their
aim. However,--when we represented that the journey to the Mareotis was
a superfluous undertaking (for that they ought not to pretend that
statements were defective which they had been employed upon so long,
and ought not now to defer the matter; for they had said whatever they
thought they could say, and now being at a loss what to do, they were
making pretences); or if they must needs go to the Mareotis, that at
least the suspected parties should not be sent,--the Count was
convinced by my reasoning, with respect to the suspected persons; but
they did anything rather than what I proposed, for the very persons
whom I objected against on account of the Arian heresy, these were they
who promptly went off, viz. Diognius, Maris, Theodorus, Macedonius,
Ursacius, and Valens. Again, letters were written to the Prefect of
Egypt and a military guard was provided; and, what was remarkable and
altogether most suspicious, they caused Macarius the accused party to
remain behind under a guard of soldiers, while they took with them the
accuser [701] . Now who after this does not see through this
conspiracy? Who does not clearly perceive the wickedness of Eusebius
and his fellows? For if a judicial enquiry must needs take place in the
Mareotis, the accused also ought to have been sent thither. But if they
did not go for the purpose of such an enquiry, why did they take the
accuser? It was enough that he had not been able to prove the fact. But
this they did in order that they might carry on their designs against
the absent Presbyter, whom they could not convict when present, and
might concoct a plan as they pleased. For when the Presbyters of
Alexandria and of the whole district found fault with them because they
were there by themselves, and required that they too might be present
at their proceedings (for they said that they knew both the
circumstances of the case, and the history of the person named
Ischyras), they would not allow them; and although they had with them
Philagrius the Prefect of Egypt [702] , who was an apostate, and
heathen soldiers, during an enquiry which it was not becoming even for
Catechumens to witness, they would not admit the Clergy, lest there as
well as at Tyre there might be those who would expose them.
73. But in spite of these precautions they were not able to escape
detection: for the Presbyters of the City and of the Mareotis,
perceiving their evil designs, addressed to them the following protest.
To Theognius, Maris, Macedonius, Theodorus, Ursacius, and Valens, the
Bishops who have come from Tyre, these from the Presbyters and Deacons
of the Catholic Church of Alexandria under the most reverend Bishop
Athanasius.
It was incumbent upon you when you came hither and brought with you the
accuser, to bring also the Presbyter Macarius; for trials are appointed
by Holy Scripture to be so constituted, that the accuser and accused
may stand up together. But since neither you brought Macarius, nor our
most reverend Bishop Athanasius came hither with you, we claimed for
ourselves the right of being present at the investigation, that we
might see that the enquiry was conducted impartially, and might
ourselves be convinced of the truth. But when you refused to allow
this, and wished, in company only with the Prefect of Egypt and the
accuser, to do whatever you pleased, we confess that we saw a suspicion
of evil in the affair, and perceived that your coming was only the act
of a cabal and a conspiracy. Wherefore we address to you this letter,
to be a testimony before a genuine Council, that it may be known to all
men, that you have carried on an ex parte proceeding and for your own
ends, and have desired nothing else but to form a conspiracy against
us. A copy of this, lest it should be kept secret by you, we have
handed in to Palladius also the Controller [703] of Augustus. For what
you have already done causes us to suspect you, and to reckon on the
like conduct from you hereafter.
I Dionysius Presbyter have handed in this letter. Alexander Presbyter,
Nilaras Presbyter, Longus Presbyter, Aphthonius Presbyter, Athanasius
Presbyter, Amyntius Presbyter, Pistus Presbyter, Plution Presbyter,
Dioscorus Presbyter, Apollonius Presbyter, Sarapion Presbyter, Ammonius
Presbyter, Gaius Presbyter, Rhinus Presbyter, AEthales Presbyter.
Deacons; Marcellinus Deacon, Appianus Deacon, Theon Deacon, Timotheus
Deacon, a second Timotheus Deacon.
74. This is the letter, and these the names of the Clergy of the city;
and the following was written by the Clergy of the Mareotis, who know
the character of the accuser, and who were with me in my visitation.
To the holy Council of blessed Bishops of the Catholic Church, all the
Presbyters and Deacons of the Mareotis send health in the Lord.
Knowing that which is written, `Speak that thine eyes have seen,' and,
`A false witness shall not be unpunished [704] ', we testify what we
have seen, especially since the conspiracy which has been formed
against our Bishop Athanasius has made our testimony necessary. We
wonder how Ischyras ever came to be reckoned among the number of the
Ministers of the Church, which is the first point we think it necessary
to mention. Ischyras never was a Minister of the Church; but when
formerly he represented himself to be a Presbyter of Colluthus, he
found no one to believe him, except only his own relations [705] . For
he never had a Church, nor was ever considered a Clergyman by those who
lived but a short distance from his village, except only, as we said
before, by his own relations. But, notwithstanding he assumed this
designation, he was deposed in the presence of our Father Hosius at the
Council which assembled at Alexandria [706] , and was admitted to
communion as a layman, and so he continued subsequently, having fallen
from his falsely reputed rank of presbyter. Of his character we think
it unnecessary to speak, as all men have it in their power to become
acquainted therewith. But since he has falsely accused our Bishop
Athanasius of breaking a cup and overturning a table, we are
necessarily obliged to address you on this point. We have said already
that he never had a Church in the Mareotis; and we declare before God
as our witness, that no cup was broken, nor table overturned by our
Bishop, nor by any one of those who accompanied him; but all that is
alleged respecting this affair is mere calumny. And this we say, not as
having been absent from the Bishop, for we are all with him when he
makes his visitation of the Mareotis, and he never goes about alone,
but is accompanied by all of us Presbyters and Deacons, and by a
considerable number of the people. Wherefore we make these assertions
as having been present with him in every visitation which he has made
amongst us, and testify that neither was a cup ever broken, nor table
overturned, but the whole story is false, as the accuser himself also
witnesses under his own hand [707] . For when, after he had gone off
with Meletians, and had reported these things against our Bishop
Athanasius, he wished to be admitted to communion, he was not received,
although he wrote and confessed under his own hand that none of these
things were true, but that he had been suborned by certain persons to
say so.
75. Wherefore also Theognius, Theodorus, Maris, Macedonius, Ursacius,
Valens, and their fellows came into the Mareotis, and when they found
that none of these things were true, but it was likely to be discovered
that they had framed a false accusation against our Bishop Athanasius,
Theognius and his fellows being themselves his enemies, caused the
relations of Ischyras and certain Arian madmen to say whatever they
wished. For none of the people spoke against the Bishop; but these
persons, through fear of Philagrius the Prefect of Egypt, and by
threats and with the support of the Arian madmen, accomplished whatever
they desired. For when we came to disprove the calumny, they would not
permit us, but cast us out, while they admitted whom they pleased to a
participation in their schemes, and concerted matters with them,
influencing them by fear of the Prefect Philagrius. Through his means
they prevented us from being present, that we might discover whether
those who were suborned by them were members of the Church or Arian
madmen. And you also, dearly beloved Fathers, know, as you teach us,
that the testimony of enemies avails nothing. That what we say is the
truth the handwriting [708] of Ischyras testifies, as do also the facts
themselves, because when we were conscious that no such thing as was
pretended had taken place, they took with them Philagrius, that through
fear of the sword and by threats they might frame whatever plots they
wished. These things we testify as in the presence of God; we make
these assertions as knowing that there will be a judgment held by God;
desiring indeed all of us to come to you, but being content with
certain of our number, so that the letters may be instead of the
presence of those who have not come.
I, Ingenius Presbyter, pray you health in the Lord, beloved fathers.
Theon Presbyter, Ammonas P., Heraclius P., Boccon P., Tryphon P., Peter
P., Hierax P., Sarapion P., Marcus P., Ptollarion P., Gaius P.,
Dioscorus P., Demetrius P., Thyrsus P.
Deacons; Pistus Deacon, Apollos D., Serras D., Pistus D., Polynicus D.,
Ammonius D., Maurus D., Hephaestus D., Apollos D., Metopas D., Apollos
D., Serapas D., Meliphthongus D., Lucius D., Gregoras D.
76. The same to the Controller, and to Philagrius, at that time Prefect
of Egypt.
To Flavius Philagrius, and to Flavius Palladius, Ducenary [709] ,
Officer of the Palace, and Controller, and to Flavius Antoninus,
Commissary of Provisions, and Centenary of my lords the most
illustrious Prefects of the sacred Praetorium, these from the
Presbyters and Deacons of the Mareotis, a nome of the Catholic Church
which is under the most Reverend Bishop Athanasius, we address this
testimony by those whose names are underwritten:--
Whereas Theognius, Maris, Macedonius, Theodorus, Ursacius, and Valens,
as if sent by all the Bishops who assembled at Tyre, came into our
Diocese alleging that they had received orders to investigate certain
ecclesiastical affairs, among which they spoke of the breaking of a cup
of the Lord, of which information was given them by Ischyras, whom they
brought with them, and who says that he is a Presbyter, although he is
not,--for he was ordained by the Presbyter Colluthus who pretended to
the Episcopate, and was afterwards ordered by a whole Council, by
Hosius and the Bishops that were with him, to take the place of a
Presbyter, as he was before; and accordingly all that were ordained by
Colluthus resumed the same rank which they held before, and so Ischyras
himself proved to be a layman,--and the church which he says he has,
never was a church at all, but a quite small private house belonging to
an orphan boy of the name of Ision;--for this reason we have offered
this testimony, adjuring you by Almighty God, and by our Lords
Constantine Augustus, and the most illustrious Caesars his sons, to
bring these things to the knowledge of their piety. For neither is he a
Presbyter of the Catholic Church nor does he possess a church, nor has
a cup ever been broken, but the whole story is false and an invention.
Dated in the Consulship of Julius Constantius the most illustrious
Patrician [710] , brother of the most religious Emperor Constantine
Augustus, and of Rufinus Albinus, most illustrious men, on the tenth
day of the month Thoth [711] .
These were the letters of the Presbyters.
77. The following also are the letters and protests of the Bishops who
came with us to Tyre, when they became aware of the conspiracy and
plot.
To the Bishops assembled at Tyre, most honoured Lords, those of the
Catholic Church who have come from Egypt with Athanasius send greeting
in the Lord.
We suppose that the conspiracy which has been formed against us by
Eusebius, Theognius, Maris, Narcissus, Theodorus, Patrophilus, and
their fellows is no longer uncertain. From the very beginning we all
demurred, through our fellow-minister Athanasius, to the holding of the
enquiry in their presence, knowing that the presence of even one enemy
only, much more of many, is able to disturb and injure the hearing of a
cause. And you also yourselves know the enmity which they entertain,
not only towards us, but towards all the orthodox, how that for the
sake of the madness of Arius, and his impious doctrine, they direct
their assaults, they form conspiracies against all. And when, being
confident in the truth, we desired to shew the falsehood, which the
Meletians had employed against the Church, Eusebius and his fellows
endeavoured by some means or other to interrupt our representations,
and strove eagerly to set aside our testimony, threatening those who
gave an honest judgment, and insulting others, for the sole purpose of
carrying out the design they had against us. Your godly piety, most
honoured Lords, was probably ignorant of their conspiracy, but we
suppose that it has now been made manifest. For indeed they have
themselves plainly disclosed it; for they desired to send to the
Mareotis those of their party who are suspected by us, so that, while
we were absent and remained here, they might disturb the people and
accomplish what they wished. They knew that the Arian madmen, and
Colluthians [712] and Meletians, were enemies of the Catholic Church
and therefore they were anxious to send them, that in the presence of
our enemies they might devise against us whatever schemes they pleased.
And those of the Meletians who are here, even four days previously (as
they knew that this enquiry was about to take place), despatched at
evening certain of their party, as couriers, for the purpose of
collecting Meletians out of Egypt into the Mareotis, because there were
none at all there, and Colluthians and Arian madmen, from other parts,
and to prepare them to speak against us. For you also know that
Ischyras himself confessed before you, that he had not more than seven
persons in his congregation. When therefore we heard that, after they
had made what preparations they pleased against us, and had sent these
suspected persons, they were going about to each of you, and requiring
your subscriptions, in order that it might appear as if this had been
done with the consent of you all; for this reason we hastened to write
to you, and to present this our testimony; declaring that we are the
objects of a conspiracy under which we are suffering by and through
them, and demanding that having the fear of God in your minds, and
condemning their conduct in sending whom they pleased without our
consent, you would refuse your subscriptions, lest they pretend that
those things are done by you, which they are contriving only among
themselves. Surely it becomes those who are in Christ, not to regard
human motives, but to prefer the truth before all things. And be not
afraid of their threatenings, which they employ against all, nor of
their plots, but rather fear God. If it was at all necessary that
persons should be sent to the Mareotis, we also ought to have been
there with them, in order that we might convict the enemies of the
Church, and point out those who were aliens, and that the investigation
of the matter might be impartial. For you know that Eusebius and his
fellows contrived that a letter should be presented, as coming from the
Collutians, the Meletians, and Arians, and directed against us: but it
is evident that these enemies of the Catholic Church speak nothing that
is true concerning us, but say everything against us. And the law of
God forbids an enemy to be either a witness or a judge. Wherefore as
you will have to give an account in the day of judgment, receive this
testimony, and recognising the conspiracy which has been framed against
us, beware, if you are requested by them, of doing anything against us,
and of taking part in the designs of Eusebius and his fellows. For you
know, as we said before, that they are our enemies, and you are aware
why Eusebius of Caesarea became such last year [713] . We pray that you
may be in health, greatly beloved Lords.
78. To the most illustrious Count Flavius Dionysius, from the Bishops
of the Catholic Church in Egypt who have come to Tyre.
We suppose that the conspiracy which has been formed against us by
Eusebius, Theognius, Maris, Narcissus, Theodorus, Patrophilus and their
fellows, is no longer uncertain. From the very beginning we all
demurred, through our fellow-minister Athanasius, to the holding of the
enquiry in their presence, knowing that the presence of even one enemy
only, much more of many, is able to disturb and injure the hearing of a
cause. For their enmity is manifest which they entertain, not only
towards us, but also towards all the orthodox, because they direct
their assaults, they form conspiracies against all. And when, being
confident in the truth, we desired to shew the falsehood which the
Meletians had employed against the Church, Eusebius and his fellows
endeavoured by some means or other to interrupt our representations,
and strove eagerly to set aside our testimony, threatening those who
gave an honest judgment and insulting others, for the sole purpose of
carrying out the design they had against us. Your goodness was probably
ignorant of the conspiracy which they have formed against us, but we
suppose that it has now been made manifest. For indeed they have
themselves plainly disclosed it; for they desired to send to the
Mareotis those of their party who are suspected by us, so that, while
we were absent and remained here, they might disturb the people and
accomplish what they wished. They knew that Arian madmen, Colluthians,
and Meletians were enemies of the Church, and therefore they were
anxious to send them, that in the presence of our enemies, they might
devise against us whatever schemes they pleased. And those of the
Meletians who are here, even four days previously (as they knew that
this enquiry was about to take place), despatched at evening two
individuals of their own party, as couriers, for the purpose of
collecting Meletians out of Egypt into the Mareotis, because there were
none at all there, and Colluthians, and Arian madmen, from other parts,
and to prepare them to speak against us. And your goodness knows that
he himself confessed before you, that he had not more than seven
persons in his congregation. When therefore we heard that, after they
had made what preparations they pleased against us, and had sent these
suspected persons, they were going about to each of the Bishops and
requiring their subscriptions, in order that it might appear that this
was done with the consent of them all; for this reason we hastened to
refer the matter to your honour, and to present this our testimony,
declaring that we are the objects of a conspiracy, under which we are
suffering by and through them, and demanding of you that having in your
mind the fear of God, and the pious commands of our most religious
Emperor, you would no longer tolerate these persons, but condemn their
conduct in sending whom they pleased without our consent.
I Adamantius Bishop have subscribed this letter, Ischyras, Ammon,
Peter, Ammonianus, Tyrannus, Taurinus, Sarapammon, AElurion,
Harpocration, Moses, Optatus, Anubion, Saprion, Apollonius, Ischyrion,
Arbaethion, Potamon, Paphnutius, Heraclides, Theodorus, Agathammon,
Gaius, Pistus, Athas, Nicon, Pelagius, Theon, Paninuthius, Nonnus,
Ariston, Theodorus, Irenaeus, Blastammon, Philippus, Apollos,
Dioscorus, Timotheus of Diospolis, Macarius, Heraclammon, Cronius,
Myis, Jacobus, Ariston, Artemidorus, Phinees, Psais, Heraclides.
Another from the same.
79. The Bishops of the Catholic Church who have come from Egypt to
Tyre, to the most illustrious Count Flavius Dionysius.
Perceiving that many conspiracies and plots are being formed against us
through the machinations of Eusebius, Narcissus, Flacillus, Theognius,
Maris, Theodorus, Patrophilus, and their fellows (against whom we
wished at first to enter an objection, but were not permitted), we are
constrained to have recourse to the present appeal. We observe also
that great zeal is exerted in behalf of the Meletians, and that a plot
is laid against the Catholic Church in Egypt in our persons. Wherefore
we present this letter to you, beseeching you to bear in mind the
Almighty Power of God, who defends the kingdom of our most religious
and godly Emperor Constantine, and to reserve the hearing of the
affairs which concern us for the most religious Emperor himself. For it
is but reasonable, since you were commissioned by his Majesty, that you
should reserve the matter for him upon our appealing to his piety. We
can no longer endure to be the objects of the treacherous designs of
the fore-mentioned Eusebius and his fellows, and therefore we demand
that the case be reserved for the most religious and God-beloved
Emperor, before whom we shall be able to set forth our own and the
Church's just claims. And we are convinced that when his piety shall
have heard our cause, he will not condemn us. Wherefore we again adjure
you by Almighty God, and by our most religious Emperor, who, together
with the children of his piety, has thus ever been victorious [714] and
prosperous these many years, that you proceed no further, nor suffer
yourselves to move at all in the Council in relation to our affairs,
but reserve the hearing of them for his piety. We have likewise made
the same representations to my Lords the orthodox Bishops.
80. Alexander [715] , Bishop of Thessalonica, on receiving these
letters, wrote to the Count Dionysius as follows.
The Bishop Alexander to my master Dionysius.
I see that a conspiracy has evidently been formed against Athanasius;
for they have determined, I know not on what grounds, to send all those
to whom he has objected, without giving any information to us, although
it was agreed that we should consider together who ought to be sent.
Take care therefore that nothing be done rashly (for they have come to
me in great alarm, saying that the wild beasts have already roused
themselves, and are going to rush upon them; for they had heard it
reported, that John had sent certain [716] ), lest they be beforehand
with us, and concoct what schemes they please. For you know that the
Colluthians who are enemies of the Church, and the Arians, and
Meletians, are all of them leagued together, and are able to work much
evil. Consider therefore what is best to be done, lest some mischief
arise, and we be subject to censure, as not having judged the matter
fairly. Great suspicions are also entertained of these persons, lest,
as being devoted to the Meletians, they should go through those
Churches whose Bishops are here [717] , and raise an alarm amongst
them, and so disorder the whole of Egypt. For they see that this is
already taking place to a great extent.
Accordingly the Count Dionysius wrote to Eusebius and his fellows as
follows.
81. This is what I have already mentioned to my lords, Flacillus [718]
and his fellows, that Athanasius has come forward and complained that
those very persons have been sent whom he objected to; and crying out
that he has been wronged and deceived. Alexander the lord of my soul
[719] has also written to me on the subject; and that you may perceive
that what his Goodness has said is reasonable, I have subjoined his
letter to be read by you. Remember also what I wrote to you before: I
impressed upon your Goodness, my lords, that the persons who were sent
ought to be commissioned by the general vote and decision of all. Take
care therefore lest our proceedings fall under censure, and we give
just grounds of blame to those who are disposed to find fault with us.
For as the accuser's side ought not to suffer any oppression, so
neither ought the defendant's. And I think that there is no slight
ground of blame against us, when my lord Alexander evidently
disapproves of what we have done.
82. While matters were proceeding thus we withdrew from them, as from
an assembly of treacherous men [720] , for whatsoever they pleased they
did, whereas there is no man in the world but knows that ex parte
proceedings cannot stand good. This the divine law determines; for when
the blessed Apostle was suffering under a similar conspiracy and was
brought to trial, he demanded, saying, `The Jews from Asia ought to
have been here before thee, and object, if they had aught against me
[721] .' On which occasion Festus also, when the Jews wished to lay
such a plot against him, as these men have now laid against me, said,
`It is not the manner of Romans to deliver any man to die, before that
he which is accused have the accuser face to face, and have licence to
answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him [722] .' But
Eusebius and his fellows both had the boldness to pervert the law, and
have proved more unjust even than those wrong-doers. For they did not
proceed privately at the first, but when in consequence of our being
present they found themselves weak, then they straightway went out,
like the Jews, and took counsel together alone, how they might destroy
us and bring in their heresy, as those others demanded Barabbas. For
this purpose it was, as they have themselves confessed, that they did
all these things.
83. Although these circumstances were amply sufficient for our
vindication, yet in order that the wickedness of these men and the
freedom of the truth might be more fully exhibited, I have not felt
averse to repeat them again, in order to shew that they have acted in a
manner inconsistently with themselves, and as men scheming in the dark
have fallen foul of their own friends, and while they desired to
destroy us have like insane persons wounded themselves. For in their
investigation of the subject of the Mysteries, they questioned Jews,
they examined Catechumens [723] ; `Where were you,' they said, `when
Macarius came and overturned the Table?' They answered, `We were
within;' whereas there could be no oblation if Catechumens were
present. Again, although they had written word everywhere, that
Macarius came and overthrew everything, while the Presbyter was
standing and celebrating the Mysteries, yet when they questioned
whomsoever they pleased, and asked them, `Where was Ischyras when
Macarius rushed in?' those persons answered that he was lying sick in a
cell. Well, then, he that was lying was not standing, nor was he that
lay sick in his cell offering the oblation. Besides whereas Ischyras
said that certain books had been burnt by Macarius, they who were
suborned to give evidence, declared that nothing of the kind had been
done, but that Ischyras spoke falsely. And what is most remarkable,
although they had again written word everywhere, that those who were
able to give evidence had been concealed by us, yet these persons made
their appearance, and they questioned them, and were not ashamed when
they saw it proved on all sides that they were slanderers, and were
acting in this matter clandestinely, and according to their pleasure.
For they prompted the witnesses by signs, while the Prefect threatened
them, and the soldiers pricked them with their swords; but the Lord
revealed the truth, and shewed them to be slanderers. Therefore also
they concealed the minutes of their proceedings, which they retained
themselves, and charged those who wrote them to put out of sight, and
to commit to no one whomsoever. But in this also they were
disappointed; for the person who wrote them was Rufus, who is now
public executioner in the Augustalian [724] prefecture, and is able to
testify to the truth of this; and Eusebius and his fellows sent them to
Rome by the hands of their own friends, and Julius the Bishop
transmitted them to me. And now they are mad, because we obtained and
read what they wished to conceal.
84. As such was the character of their machinations, so they very soon
shewed plainly the reasons of their conduct. For when they went away,
they took the Arians with them to Jerusalem, and there admitted them to
communion, having sent out a letter concerning them, part [725] of
which, and the beginning, is as follows.
The holy Council by the grace of God assembled at Jerusalem, to the
Church of God which is in Alexandria, and to the Bishops, Presbyters,
and Deacons, in all Egypt, the Thebais, Libya, Pentapolis, and
throughout the world, sends health in the Lord.
Having come together out of different Provinces to a great meeting
which we have held for the consecration of the Martyry [726] 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 arrived at, than that these things were done on
their account, and that all their proceedings against me, and the story
which they fabricated 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
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 wickedness 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 [727] ; but the
Churches of the whole district are subject to the Bishop of Alexandria,
and each Presbyter has under his charge one of the largest villages,
which are about ten or more in number [728] . 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 [729] , 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 [730] , although they have even caused the Emperor to write
to the Receiver-General (for everything is in their power), commanding
that a church should be built for him, that being possessed 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 wickedness of himself and of Eusebius and his
fellows.
The Letter of the Receiver-General. [731]
Flavius Hemerius sends health to the Tax-collector of the Mareotis.
Ischyras the Presbyter having petitioned the piety of our Lords,
Augusti and Caesars, that a Church might be built in the district of
Irene, belonging to Secontarurus [732] , 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
before 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 [733] 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 [734] , 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 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 [735] 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 servant [736] , 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 endeavour 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
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. Eusebius, Theognius, Patrophilus,
the other Eusebius, 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 concerned 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 [737] . 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 immediately 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
[738] , he also wrote as follows.
Constantine Caesar, to the people of the Catholic Church of the city of
Alexandria.
I suppose that it has not escaped the knowledge 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 assailants, and was
ordered to pass some time under my government, and so was supplied
abundantly 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 accomplish his wish; I have
thought proper to fulfil that intention of the Emperor of sacred 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 Calends of July [739] .
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 desperate scheme?
for he listened to them in simplicity [740] . 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 [741] as they did, to accuse themselves when they repented,
choosing rather to suffer shame for a short time, than to undergo the
punishment of false accusers for ever and ever [742] ?
89. 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 manner 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 in my behalf; or if they had been ordinary
men, and not the 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 endeavoured to convince by argument, but also endured
banishment, and one of them is Liberius, Bishop of Rome, (for although
he did not endure [743] 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 [744] 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 altogether
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 suffered these things on account of
nothing else but the Arian impiety.
90. Now if anyone wishes to become acquainted 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 [745] , 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.
__________________________________________________________________
[691] Cf. S:17, note 1.
[692] Cf. S:59.
[693] [poles: i.e. palm them off on the church. Cf. Lat. venditare.]
[694] Cf. S:64.
[695] Cf. S:64.
[696] Cf. S:60.
[697] Cf. S:60.
[698] [The `archbishop' is Meletius; this is the first occurrence of
the word; it evidently has not its later fixed sense. The historical
allusion is obscure.]
[699] A village on the Mareotic lake. vid. Socr. iv. 23. Athan Opp. ed.
Pat. t. 3. p. 86-89.
[700] [Prolegg. ch. ii. S:3 (1) sub. fin. and ch. v. S:3a.]
[701] Supr. S:13.
[702] Cf. Encycl. S:3.
[703] Curiosus; the Curiosi (in curis agendis) were properly the
overseers of the public roads, Du Cange in voc., but they became in
consequence a sort of imperial spy and were called the Emperor's eyes.
Gothofr. in Cod. Theod. t. 2. p. 194. ed. 1665. Constantius confined
them to the school of the Agentes in rebus (infr. Apol. ad Const.
S:10.), under the Master of the Offices. Gothoft. ibid. p. 192.
[704] Prov. xxv. 7, LXX, xix. 5.
[705] Cf. S:12.
[706] a.d. 324.
[707] Supr. S:64.
[708] cheir, infr. Apol. ad Const. S:11.
[709] On the different kinds of Ducenaries, vid. Gothofr. in Cod.
Theod. XI. vii. 1. Here, as in Euseb. Hist. vii. 30. the word stands
for a Procurator, whose annual pay amounted to 200 sestertia, vid.
Salmas. Hist. Aug. t. l. p. 533. In like manner a Centenary is one who
receives 100.
[710] The title Patrician was revived by Constantine as a personal
distinction. It was for life, and gave precedence over all the great
officers of state except the Consul. It was usually bestowed on
favourites, or on ministers as a reward of services. Gibbon, Hist. ch.
17. This Julius Constantius, who was the father of Julian, was the
first who bore the title, with L. Optatus, who had been consul the
foregoing year. Illustrissimus was the highest of the three ranks of
honour. ibid.
[711] [Sep. 8. 335 a.d. See note on leap-year at the end of the table
of Egyptian months, below, Introd. to Letters.]
[712] Colluthus formed a schism on the doctrine that God was not the
cause of any sort of evil, e.g. did not inflict pain and suffering.
Though a Priest, he took on himself to ordain, even to the Priesthood
[S:12]. St. Alexander even seems to imply that he did so for money.
Theod. H. E. i. 3. [Prolegg. ch. ii. S:2.]
[713] [Ath. had refused to attend a synod at Caesarea, a.d. 334. See
Thdt. H. E. i. 28, Prolegg. ch. ii. S:4. and D.C.B. ii. 315 b.]
[714] Cf. Euseb. v. Const. ii. 48.
[715] Cf. S:16.
[716] Cf. S:S:17, 65, 70.
[717] At Tyre.
[718] Perhaps president of the Council, cf. S:20. [But see Prolegg. ch.
ii. S:5.]
[719] i.e. my beloved lord.
[720] Jer. ix. 2.
[721] Acts xxiv. 18, 19.
[722] Acts xxv. 16.
[723] Vid. S:46.
[724] Vid. Encyc. S:3, p. 43, note 2.
[725] Vid. de Syn. S:21.
[726] [i.e. Church, see D.C.A. s.v. Martyrium.]
[727] That Chorepiscopi were real Bishops, vid. Bevereg. in Conc.
Ancyr. Can. 13. Routh in Conc. Neocaes. Can. 13. referring to Rhabanus
Maurus. Thomassin on the other hand denies that they were Bishops,
Discipl. Eccl. i. 2. c. 1. [see D.C.A. s.v.]
[728] Ten under each Presbyter. Vales ad Socr. Hist. i. 27. Ten
altogether, Montfaucon in loc. with more probability; and so Tillemont,
vol. 8. p. 20. [Six villages are mentioned supr. S:64, fin.]
[729] 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, &c. St. Hilary, however,
makes him a Deacon. Fragm. ii. 16.
[730] 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,
Hieroz. ii. 56 [and Dict. Bib. s.v.].
[731] Catholicus, S:14, Apol. Const. S:10. [The mention, below, of
`Augusti and Caesars' makes 337 the earliest likely date for this
letter.]
[732] Cf. S:17. note 7. [Prolegg. ch. ii. S:4.]
[733] Cf. S:9.
[734] Euseb. v. Const. ii. 48.
[735] stratopedon, S:70. note 6.
[736] "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 of matters within the
Church, I am appointed by God to be Bishop of matters external to it."
Euseb. Vit. Const. iv. 24.
[737] Constantinople.
[738] [See Bright, Hist. Writ. p. xii. note 3, and on the date of this
letter, Prolegg. ch. v. S:3 b, and note 6 below.]
[739] June 17. a.d. 337 [see Gwatk. Stud., 136].
[740] epekouse gar haplos. Montfaucon in Onomast. (Athan. t. 2. ad
calc.) points out some passages in his author, where epakouein, like
hupakouein, means "to answer." vid. Apol. Const. S:16 init. Orat. iii.
27 fin.
[741] Cf. S:58.
[742] Here ends the second part of the Apology, as is evident by
turning back to S: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 Ursacius 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 often after 357,
as they mention the fall of Liberius and Hosius, and speak of
Constantius in different language from any which has been found above.
[Introd. to Apol. Const. and Hist. Ar.]
[743] See Hist. Ar. S:41.
[744] Cf. Apol. Fug.; S:5, and Hist. Ar. S:45.
[745] Ecclus. iv. 28.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Additional Note on Apol. C. Arianos, S:50.
List of Bishops Present at Sardica.
The materials for an authentic list are (1) the names given by
Athanasius, Apol. 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, Fragm. 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 (Letter 46 in this volume). These signatures
comprise 30 names not given by Hilary, while those in (1) add six which
are absent from (2) and (3) alike. This raises the total to 95. We add
(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. S: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 sources (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
specified above. 1. Adolius (1), See unknown; 2. Aetius (1, 3),
Thessalonica in Macedonia; 3. Alexander (1, 4), Cypara (i.e.
Cyparissus?) in Achaia; 4. Alexander (2), Montemnae (?) in Achaia; 5.
Alexander (1, 2, 3), Larissa in Thessaly; 6. Alypius (1, 2, 3), Megara
in Achaia; 7. Amantius (1, 4), Viminacium, by deputy; 8. Ammonius (4),
See unknown; 9. Anianus (1, 2, 4), Casiulo in Spain; 10. Antigonus (1,
4), Pella, or Pallene in Macedonia; 11. Appianus (4), See unknown; 12.
Aprianus (1, 4), Peiabio (Petovio) in 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), Gasa; 16. Asterius (1, 2, 3),
[Petra in] Arabia; 17. Athanasius (1, 2, 3, 4), Alexandria; 18.
Athenodorus (1, 2, 3, 4), Plataea in Achaia; 19. Bassus (1, 2, 3),
Diocletianapolis "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. Cydonius (4), Cydon in
Crete; 26. Diodorus (1, 2, 4), Tenedos; 27. Dionysius (1, 2, 3), Elida
(Elis?) in Achaia; 28. Dioscorus (1, 2, 3), Thrace, See unknown; 29.
Dometius (or Domitianus) (1, 4), Acaria Constantias (possibly Castra
Constantia = Coutances); 30. Domitianus (1, 2, 3), Asturica in Spain;
31. Eliodorus (1, 2, 3), Nicopolis; 32. Eucarpus (1, 4), Opus in
Achaia; 33. Eucarpus (4), See unknown; 34. Eucissus (4), Cissamus in
Crete; 35. Eugenius (4 = Euagrius in 2?), Heraclea (in Lucania? texts
very corrupt); 36. Eugenius (1?, 4), See unknown; 37. Eulogius (1, 4),
See unknown; Euphrates, see below (97); 38. Eutasius (2), Pannonia, See
unknown; 39. Euterius (1, 2), `Procia de Cayndo' (corrupt); 40.
Eutychius (1, 4), Methone in Achaia; 41. Eutychius (1, 2), Achia, See
unknown; 42. Florentius (1, 2, 4), Emerita in Spain; 43. Fortunatianus
(1, 2), Aquileia; Galba (see above (22); 44. Gaudentius (1, 2, 4),
Naissus; 45. Gerontius (1, 2, 3, 4), a Macedonia in Brevi(?) in Hil.;
Gratus, see below (96); 46. Helianus (1, 4), Tyrtana (?); Heliodorus,
see above (31); 47. Hermogenes (1, 4), Sicyai (?); 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 (1, 4), See unknown; Julius, see below (95); Lerenius (2), see
above (52); 55. Lucius (1, 2, 3, 4), Hadrianople in Thrace; 56. Lucius
(`Lucillus' Ath. twice) (1, 2, 4), Verona; 57. Macedonius (1, 2, 4),
Ulpiana in Dardania; 58. Marcellus (2, 4, Marcellinus in 1), Ancyra;
59. Marcus (1, 2, 4), Siscia on the Save; 60. Martyrius (2, 4),
Naupactus in Achaia; 61. Martyrius (1, 4), See unknown; 62. Maximus (1,
2), Luca in Tuscany; 63. Maximus (i.e. Maximinus) (4), Treviri; 64.
Musonius (1, 4), Heraclea in Crete; 65. Moyses (or Musaeus, 1, 2),
Thebes in Thessaly; 66. Olympius (4), Aeni in Thrace; 67. Osius
(Hosius), (1, 2, 3), Cordova; 68. Palladius (1, 2, 4), Dium in
Macedonia; 69. Paregorius (1, 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 (1, 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 (1,
2, 3), Ravenna; Socrates (1), see above, no. 24; 82. Spudasius (1), See
unknown; 83. Stercorius (1, 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
(1, 2, 3), `Scio' in Dacia Ripensis; 87. Verissimus (2, 4, text of
latter gives `Broseus' corruptly), Lyons; 88. Vincentius (1, 2, 3),
Capua; 89. Vitalis (1, 2), Aquae 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. Zosimus (1, 4), See unknown; 95. Julius (1,
4), Rome (by deputies); 96. Gratus (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.]
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Introduction to de Decretis or Defence of the Nicene Definition.
------------------------
This letter must have been written in the interval between the return
of Athanasius in 346 and his flight in 356. Acacius was already (S:3)
Bishop of Caesarea 339; Eusebius of Nicomedia is not referred to as
though still living (he died 342). Moreover the language of S: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 (1-5). 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 (15-17). 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 agenetos, 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 genetos. He
insists on `Father' not `agenetos' as the divine title authorised by
Scripture. Lastly he appends, in proof of what he states in S:3, the
letter of Eusebius to the people of Caesarea, containing the creed of
the council, which, for reasons there stated, we have inserted above,
pp. 73-76.
The interest of the letter is principally threefold; first on account
of its notice of the proceedings at Nicaea (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
Serap. 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 agenetos 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 ktizein, poiein,
demiourgein, 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 not 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
gennetos and agennetos, 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 distinctive sense of agennetos. In the present tract and
in Orat. i. 30, he has agenetos only in view, the idea of begetting
being absent. Here (and cf. de Syn. 46, note 5) he is denying that the
Father is alone agenetos, uncreated or without a `becoming.'
Accordingly although the word gennethenta 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. Haer. 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 applicability is made
by John Damascene Fid. Orth. I. viii. (see Lightfoot, Ignat. vol. 2,
excursus on Eph. S:7, Thilo, ubi supra, Introd. p. 14, and Harnack, Dg.
2, p. 193 note).
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
De Decretis 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 advocates 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 [746] of their heresy; while I
marvelled at the effrontery which led the Arians, after all the past
detection of unsoundness and futility in their arguments, nay, after
the general conviction of their extreme perverseness, still to complain
like the Jews, "Why did the Fathers at Nicaea use terms not in
Scripture [747] , `Of the essence' and `One in essence?'" 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 disposition. For they are as variable and
fickle in their sentiments, as chameleons in their colours [748] ; and
when exposed they look confused, and when questioned they hesitate, and
then they lose shame, and betake themselves to evasions. And then, when
detected in these, they do not rest till they invent fresh matters
which are not, and, according to the Scripture, `imagine a vain thing
[749] '; and all that they may be constant to their irreligion.
Now such endeavours [750] are nothing else than an obvious token of
their defect of reason [751] , and a copying, as I have said, of Jewish
malignity. For the Jews too, when convicted by the Truth, and unable to
confront it, used evasions, such as, `What sign doest Thou, that we may
see and believe Thee? What dost Thou work [752] ? though so many signs
were given, that they said themselves, `What do we? for this man doeth
many miracles [753] .' In truth, dead men were raised, lame walked,
blind saw afresh, lepers were cleansed, and the water became wine, and
five loaves satisfied five thousand, and all wondered and worshipped
the Lord, confessing that in Him were fulfilled the prophecies, and
that He was God the Son of God; all but the Pharisees, who, though the
signs shone brighter than the sun, yet complained still, as ignorant
men, `Why dost Thou, being a man, make Thyself God [754] ?' Insensate,
and verily blind in understanding! they ought contrariwise to have
said, "Why hast Thou, being God, become man?" for His works proved Him
God, that they might both worship the goodness of the Father, and
admire the Son's Economy for our sakes. However, this they did not say;
no, nor liked to witness what He was doing; or they witnessed indeed,
for this they could not help, but they changed their ground of
complaint again, "Why healest Thou the paralytic, why makest Thou the
born-blind to see, on the sabbath day?" But this too was an excuse, and
mere murmuring; for on other days as well did the Lord heal `all manner
of sickness, and all manner of disease [755] ,' but they complained
still according to their wont, and by calling Him Beelzebub, preferred
the suspicion of Atheism [756] , to a recantation of their own
wickedness. And though in such sundry times and divers manners the
Saviour shewed His Godhead and preached the Father to all men,
nevertheless, as kicking against the pricks, they contradicted in the
language of folly, and this they did, according to the divine proverb,
that by finding occasions, they might separate themselves from the
truth [757] .
2. As then the Jews of that day, for acting thus wickedly and denying
the Lord, were with justice deprived of their laws and of the promise
made to their fathers, so the Arians, Judaizing now, are, in my
judgment, in circumstances like those of Caiaphas and the contemporary
Pharisees. For, perceiving that their heresy is utterly unreasonable,
they invent excuses, "Why was this defined, and not that?" Yet wonder
not if now they practise thus; for in no long time they will turn to
outrage, and next will threaten `the band and the captain [758] .'
Forsooth in these their heterodoxy has its support, as we see; for
denying the Word of God, reason have they none at all, as is equitable.
Aware then of this, I would have made no reply to their interrogations:
but, since thy friendliness [759] has asked to know the transactions of
the Council, I have without any delay related at once what then took
place, shewing in few words, how destitute Arianism is of a religious
spirit, and how their one business is to frame evasions.
__________________________________________________________________
[746] eusebeia, asebeia, &c., here translated "religion, irreligion,
religious, &c. &c." are technical words throughout, being taken from S.
Paul's text, "Great is the mystery of godliness," eusebeias, i.e.
orthodoxy. Such too seems to be the meaning of "godly admonitions," 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 rendered 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 asebes, as being without
devotion, the Son eusebes, devout, as paying devotion to the Father."
Socr. Hist. ii. 43. Hence Arius ends his Letter to Eusebius with
alethos eusebie. Theod. Hist. i. 4.
[747] It appears that the Arians did not venture to speak
disrespectfully of the definition of the Council till the date (a.d.
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. Hist. ii. 3; and Eusebius of Caesarea glances at it, at the time
of the Council, in the letter to his Church, which is subjoined to this
Treatise.
[748] Alexander also calls them chameleons, Socr. i. 6. p. 12.
Athanasius so calls the Meletians, Hist. Arian. S:79. Cyril compares
them to "the leopard which cannot change his spots." Dial. ii. init. t.
v. i. Aub., Naz. Or. 28. 2. On the fickleness of the Arians, vid.
infra, S:4. &c. Orat. ii. 40. He says, ad Ep. AEg. 6. that they
considered Creeds as yearly covenants; and de Synod. S:3. 4. as State
Edicts. vid. also S:14. and passim. "What wonder that they fight
against their fathers, when they fight against themselves?" S:37.
[749] Ps. ii. 1.
[750] epicheirema. and so Orat. i. S:44. init. but infra. S:25.
epicheiremata means more definitely reasonings or argumentations.
[751] alogias; an allusion frequent in Athanasius, to the judicial
consequence of their denying the Word of God. Thus, just below, n. 3.
"Denying the Word" or Reason "of God, reason have they none." Also
Orat. i. S:35. fin. S:40. init. S:62. Orat. ii. S:7. init. Hence he so
often calls the Arians "mad" and "deranged;" e.g. "not aware how `mad'
their `reason' is." Orat. i. S:37.
[752] John vi. 30.
[753] Ib. xi. 47.
[754] Ib. x. 33.
[755] Matt. iv. 23.
[756] Or ungodliness, atheotetos. Thus Aetius was called ho atheos, the
ungodly. de Synod. S:6; and Arius complains that Alexander had expelled
him and his from Alexandria, hos anthropous atheous. Theodor. Hist. i.
4. "Atheism" and "Atheist" imply intention, system, and profession, and
are so far too strong a rendering of the Greek. Since Christ was God,
to deny Him was to deny God. The force of the term, however, seems to
be, that, whereas the Son had revealed the "unknown God," and destroyed
the reign of idols, the denial of the Son was bringing back idolatry
and its attendant spiritual ignorance. Thus contr. Gent. S:29. fin. he
speaks of "the Greek idolatry as full of all Atheism" or ungodliness,
and contrasts with it the knowledge of "the Guide and Framer of the
Universe, the Father's Word," "that through Him `we may discern His
Father,' and the Greeks may know `how far they have separated
themselves from the truth.'" And Orat. ii. 43. he classes Arians with
the Greeks, who "though they have the name of God in their mouths,
incur the charge of `Atheism,' because they know not the real and true
God, `the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.'" (vid. also Basil in Eunom.
ii. 22.) Shortly afterwards he gives a further reason for the title,
observing that Arianism was worse than previous heresies, such as
Manicheism, inasmuch as the latter denied the Incarnation, but Arianism
tore from God's substance His connatural Word, and, as far as its words
went, infringed upon the perfections and being of the first Cause. And
so ad Ep. AEg. S:17. fin. he says, that it alone, beyond other
heresies, "has been bold against the Godhead Itself in a mad way
(manikoteron, vid. foregoing note), denying that there is a Word, and
that the Father was always Father." Elsewhere he speaks more generally,
as if Arianism introduced "an Atheism or rather Judaism `against the
Scriptures,' being next door to Heathenism, so that its disciple cannot
be even named Christian; for all such tenets are `contrary to the
Scriptures;'" and he makes this the reason why the Nicene Fathers
stopped their ears and condemned it. ad Ep. AEg. S:13. For the same
reason he calls the heathen atheoi, atheistical or ungodly, "who are
arraigned of irreligion by Divine Scripture." contr. Gent. S:14. vid.
eidolon atheoteta. S:46. init. Moreover, he calls the Arian persecution
worse than the pagan `cruelties,' and therefore "a Babylonian Atheism,"
Ep. Encycl. S:5. as not allowing the Catholics the use of prayer and
baptism, with a reference to Dan. vi. 11, &c. Thus too he calls
Constantius atheist, for his treatment of Hosius; oute ton theon
phobetheis ho atheos. Hist. Arian. 45. Another reason for the title
seems to have lain in the idolatrous character of Arian worship `on its
own shewing,' viz. as worshipping One whom they yet maintained to be a
creature. [Prolegg. ch. ii. S:3 (2)a, sub. fin.]
[757] A reference to Prov. xviii. 1. which runs in the LXX. "a man
seeketh occasions, when desirous of separating himself from friends."
[758] Apparently an allusion to Joh. xviii. 12. Elsewhere, he speaks of
"the chief captain" and "the governor," with an allusion to Acts xxiii.
22-24. &c. Hist. Arian. S:66. fin. vid. also S:2. Apol. contr. Arian.
S:8. also S:10. and 45. Orat. ii. S:43. Ep. Encycl. S:5. Against the
use of violence in religion, vid. Hist. Arian. S:33. 67. (Hil. ad
Const. 1. 2.) On the other hand, he observes, that at Nicaea, "it was
not necessity which drove the judges to" their decision, "but all
vindicated the Truth from deliberate purpose." ad Ep. AEg. 13.
[759] diathesis. vid. also Hist. Arian. S:45. Orat. ii. S:4. where
Parker maintains without reason that it should be translated, "external
condition." vid. also Theod. Hist. i. 4. init.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter II.--Conduct of the Arians towards the Nicene Council. Ignorant
as well as irreligious to attempt to reverse an Ecumenical Council:
proceedings at Nicaea: Eusebians then signed what they now complain of:
on the unanimity of true teachers and the process of tradition: changes
of the Arians.
And do thou, beloved, consider whether it be not so. If, the devil
having sowed their hearts with this perverseness [760] , they feel
confidence in their bad inventions, let them defend themselves against
the proofs of heresy which have been advanced, and then will be the
time to find fault, if they can, with the definition framed against
them [761] . For no one, on being convicted of murder or adultery, is
at liberty after the trial to arraign the sentence of the judge, why he
spoke in this way and not in that [762] . For this does not exculpate
the convict, but rather increases his crime on the score of petulance
and audacity. In like manner, let these either prove that their
sentiments are religious (for they were then accused and convicted, and
their complaints are subsequent, and it is just that those who are
under a charge should confine themselves to their own defence), or if
they have an unclean conscience, and are aware of their own irreligion,
let them not complain of what they do not understand, or they will
bring on themselves a double imputation, of irreligion and of
ignorance. Rather let them investigate the matter in a docile spirit,
and learning what hitherto they have not known, cleanse their
irreligious ears with the spring of truth and the doctrines of religion
[763] .
3. Now it happened to Eusebius and his fellows in the Nicene Council as
follows:--while they stood out in their irreligion, and attempted their
fight against God [764] , the terms they used were replete with
irreligion; but the assembled Bishops who were three hundred more or
less, mildly and charitably required of them to explain and defend
themselves on religious grounds. Scarcely, however, did they begin to
speak, when they were condemned [765] , and one differed from another;
then perceiving the straits in which their heresy lay, they remained
dumb, and by their silence confessed the disgrace which came upon their
heterodoxy. On this the Bishops, having negatived the terms they had
invented, published against them the sound and ecclesiastical faith;
and, as all subscribed it, Eusebius and his fellows subscribed it also
in those very words, of which they are now complaining, I mean, "of the
essence" and "one in essence," and that "the Son of God is neither
creature or work, nor in the number of things originated [766] , but
that the Word is an offspring from the substance of the Father." And
what is strange indeed, Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, who had
denied the day before, but afterwards subscribed, sent to his Church a
letter, saying that this was the Church's faith, and the tradition of
the Fathers; and made a public profession that they were before in
error, and were rashly contending against the truth. For though he was
ashamed at that time to adopt these phrases, and excused himself to the
Church in his own way, yet he certainly means to imply all this in his
Epistle, by his not denying the "one in essence," and "of the essence."
And in this way he got into a difficulty; for while he was excusing
himself, he went on to attack the Arians, as stating that "the Son was
not before His generation," and as thereby rejecting His existence
before His birth in the flesh. And this Acacius is aware of also,
though he too through fear may pretend otherwise because of the times
and deny the fact. Accordingly I have subjoined at the end the letter
of Eusebius, that thou mayest know from it the disrespect towards their
own doctors shewn by Christ's enemies, and singularly by Acacius
himself [767] .
4. Are they not then committing a crime, in their very thought to
gainsay so great and ecumenical a Council? are they not in
transgression, when they dare to confront that good definition against
Arianism, acknowledged, as it is, by those who had in the first
instance taught them irreligion? And supposing, even after
subscription, Eusebius and his fellows did change again, and return
like dogs to their own vomit of irreligion, do not the present
gain-sayers deserve still greater detestation, because they thus
sacrifice [768] their souls' liberty to others; and are willing to take
these persons as masters of their heresy, who are, as James [769] has
said, double-minded men, and unstable in all their ways, not having one
opinion, but changing to and fro, and now recommending certain
statements, but soon dishonouring them, and in turn recommending what
just now they were blaming? But this, as the Shepherd has said, is "the
child of the devil [770] ," and the note of hucksters rather than of
doctors. For, what our Fathers have delivered, this is truly doctrine;
and this is truly the token of doctors, to confess the same thing with
each other, and to vary neither from themselves nor from their fathers;
whereas they who have not this character are to be called not true
doctors but evil. Thus the Greeks, as not witnessing to the same
doctrines, but quarrelling one with another, have no truth of teaching;
but the holy and veritable heralds of the truth agree together, and do
not differ. For though they lived in different times, yet they one and
all tend the same way, being prophets of the one God, and preaching the
same Word harmoniously [771] .
5. And thus what Moses taught, that Abraham observed; and what Abraham
observed, that Noah and Enoch acknowledged, discriminating pure from
impure, and becoming acceptable to God. For Abel too in this way
witnessed, knowing what he had learned from Adam, who himself had
learned from that Lord, who said, when He came at the end of the ages
for the abolishment of sin, "I give no new commandment unto you, but an
old commandment, which ye have heard from the beginning [772] ."
Wherefore also the blessed Apostle Paul, who had learned it from Him,
when describing ecclesiastical functions, forbade that deacons, not to
say bishops, should be double-tongued [773] ; and in his rebuke of the
Galatians, he made a broad declaration, "If anyone preach any other
Gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be anathema, as I
have said, so say I again. If even we, or an Angel from heaven should
preach unto you any other Gospel than that ye have received, let him be
anathema [774] ." Since then the Apostle thus speaks, let these men
either anathematise Eusebius and his fellows, at least as changing
round and professing what is contrary to their subscriptions; or, if
they acknowledge that their subscriptions were good, let them not utter
complaints against so great a Council. But if they do neither the one
nor the other, they are themselves too plainly the sport of every wind
and surge, and are influenced by opinions, not their own, but of
others, and being such, are as little worthy of deference now as
before, in what they allege. Rather let them cease to carp at what they
understand not; lest so be that not knowing to discriminate, they
simply call evil good and good evil, and think that bitter is sweet and
sweet is bitter. Doubtless, they desire that doctrines which have been
judged wrong and have been reprobated should gain the ascendancy, and
they make violent efforts to prejudice what was rightly defined. Nor
should there be any reason on our part for any further explanation, or
answer to their excuses, neither on theirs for further resistance, but
for an acquiescence in what the leaders of their heresy subscribed; for
though the subsequent change of Eusebius and his fellows was suspicious
and immoral, their subscription, when they had the opportunity of at
least some little defence of themselves, is a certain proof of the
irreligion of their doctrine. For they would not have subscribed
previously had they not condemned the heresy, nor would they have
condemned it, had they not been encompassed with difficulty and shame;
so that to change back again is a proof of their contentious zeal for
irreligion. These men also ought therefore, as I have said, to keep
quiet; but since from an extraordinary want of modesty, they hope
perhaps to be able to advocate this diabolical [775] irreligion better
than the others, therefore, though in my former letter written to thee,
I have already argued at length against them, notwithstanding, come let
us now also examine them, in each of their separate statements, as
their predecessors; for now not less than then their heresy shall be
shewn to have no soundness in it, but to be from evil spirits.
__________________________________________________________________
[760] epispeirantos tou diabolou, the allusion is to Matt. xiii. 25,
and is very frequent in Athan., chiefly with a reference to Arianism.
He draws it out at length, Orat. ii. S:34. Elsewhere, he uses the image
for the evil influences introduced into the soul upon Adam's fall,
contr. Apoll. i. S:15. as does S. Irenaeus, Haer. iv. 40. n. 3. using
it of such as lead to back-sliding in Christians. ibid. v. 10. n. 1.
Gregory Nyssen, of the natural passions and of false reason misleading
them, de An. et Resurr. p. 640. vid. also Leon. Ep. 156. c. 2.
[761] The Council did two things, anathematise the Arian positions (at
the end of the Creed), and establish the true doctrine by the insertion
of the phrases, "of the substance" and "one in substance." Athan. says
that the Arians must not criticise the latter before they had cleared
themselves of the former. Thus he says presently, that they were at
once irreligious in their faith and ignorant in their criticism; and
speaks of the Council negativing their formulae, and substituting those
which were "sound and ecclesiastical." vid. also n. 4.
[762] And so S. Leo "passim" concerning the Council of Chalcedon,
"Concord will be easily established, if the hearts of all concur in
that faith which, &c., no discussion being allowed whatever concerning
any retractation," Ep. 94. He calls such an act a "magnum sacrilegium,"
Ep. 157. c. 3. "To be seeking for what has been disclosed, to retract
what has been perfected, to tear up what has been laid down (definita),
what is this but to be unthankful for what we gained?" Ep. 162. vid.
the whole of it. He says that the attempt is "no mark of a peace-maker
but a rebel." Ep. 164. c. l. fin. vid. also Epp. 145, and 156, where he
says, none can assail what is once determined, but "aut antichristus
aut diabolus." c. 2.
[763] Vid. Orat. iii. S:28.
[764] theomachein, theomachoi. vid. Acts v. 39; xxiii. 9. are of very
frequent use in Athan. as is christomachoi, in speaking of the Arians,
vid. infra passim. also antimachomenoi to soteri, Ep. Encycl. S:5. And
in the beginning of the controversy, Alexander ap. Socr. i. 6. p. 10.
b.c.p. 12. p. 13. Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 729. And so theomachos glossa,
Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 27. fin. christomachon. Ep. 236. init. vid.
also Cyril (Thesaurus, p. 19 e. p. 24 e.). theomachoi is used of other
heretics, e.g. the Manichees, by Greg. Naz. Orat. 45. S:8.
[765] i.e. "convicted themselves," infr. S:18. init. heauton aei
kategoroi, ad. Ep. AEg. S:6. i.e. by their variations, vid. Tit. iii.
11 autokatakritos
[766] geneton.
[767] The party he is writing against is the Acacian, of whom he does
not seem to have had much distinct knowledge. He contrasts them again
and again in the passages which follow with the Eusebians of the Nicene
Council, and says that he is sure that the ground they take when
examined will be found substantially the same as the Eusebian. vid. S:6
init. et alib. S:7. init. S:9. circ. fin. S:10. circ. fin. S:13. init.
tote kai nun. S:18. circ. fin. S:28. fin [On Acacius see Prolegg. ch.
ii. S:8 (2) b.]
[768] propinontes vid. de Syn. S:14.
[769] James i. 8.
[770] Hermas, Mand. ix., who is speaking immediately, as S. James, of
wavering in prayer.
[771] Thus S. Basil says the same of the Grecian Sects, "We have not
the task of refuting their tenets, for they suffice for the overthrow
of each other." Hexaem. i. 2. vid. also Theod. Graec. Affect. i. p.
707. &c. August. Civ. Dei, xviii. 41. and Vincentius's celebrated
Commonitorium passim.
[772] 1 John ii. 7.
[773] 1 Tim. iii. 8.
[774] Gal. i. 8, 9.
[775] This is Athan.'s deliberate judgment. vid. de Sent. Dion. fin.,
ib. S:24. he speaks of Arius's "hatred of the truth." Again, "though
the diabolical men rave" Orat. iii. S:8. "friends of the devil, and his
spirits," Ad Ep. AEg. 5. Another reason of his so accounting them, was
their atrocious cruelty towards Catholics; this leads him elsewhere to
break out: "O new heresy, that has put on the whole devil in
irreligious doctrine and conduct!" Hist. Arian. S:66, also Alexander,
`diabolical,' ap Theod. Hist. i. 3, p. 731. `satanical,' ibid. p. 741.
vid. also Socr. i. 9. p. 30 fin. Hilar. contr. Const. 17.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter III.--Two senses of the word Son, 1. adoptive; 2. essential;
attempts of Arians to find a third meaning between these; e.g. that our
Lord only was created immediately by God (Asterius's view), or that our
Lord alone partakes the Father. The second and true sense; God begets
as He makes, really; though His creation and generation are not like
man's; His generation independent of time; generation implies an
internal, and therefore an eternal, act in God; explanation of Prov.
viii. 22.
6. They say then what the others held and dared to maintain before
them; "Not always Father, not always Son; for the Son was not before
His generation, but, as others, came to be from nothing; and in
consequence God was not always Father of the Son; but, when the Son
came to be and was created, then was God called His Father. For the
Word is a creature and a work, and foreign and unlike the Father in
essence; and the Son is neither by nature the Father's true Word, nor
His only and true Wisdom; but being a creature and one of the works, He
is improperly [776] called Word and Wisdom; for by the Word which is in
God was He made, as were all things. Wherefore the Son is not true God
[777] ."
Now it may serve to make them understand what they are saying, to ask
them first this, what in fact a son is, and of what is that name
significant [778] . In truth, Divine Scripture acquaints us with a
double sense of this word:--one which Moses sets before us in the Law,
`When ye shall hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep all
His commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is
right in the eyes of the Lord thy God, ye are children of the Lord your
God [779] ;' as also in the Gospel, John says, `But as many as received
Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God [780] :'--and the
other sense, that in which Isaac is son of Abraham, and Jacob of Isaac,
and the Patriarchs of Jacob. Now in which of these two senses do they
understand the Son of God that they relate such fables as the
foregoing? for I feel sure they will issue in the same irreligion with
Eusebius and his fellows.
If in the first, which belongs to those who gain the name by grace from
moral improvement, and receive power to become sons of God (for this is
what their predecessors said), then He would seem to differ from us in
nothing; no, nor would He be Only-begotten, as having obtained the
title of Son as others from His virtue. For granting what they say,
that, whereas His qualifications were fore-known [781] , He therefore
received grace from the first, the name, and the glory of the name,
from His very first beginning, still there will be no difference
between Him and those who receive the name after their actions, so long
as this is the ground on which He as others has the character of son.
For Adam too, though he received grace from the first, and upon his
creation was at once placed in paradise, differed in no respect either
from Enoch, who was translated thither after some time from his birth
on his pleasing God, or from the Apostle, who likewise was caught up to
Paradise after his actions; nay, not from him who once was a thief, who
on the ground of his confession, received a promise that he should be
forthwith in paradise.
7. When thus pressed, they will perhaps make an answer which has
brought them into trouble many times already; "We consider that the Son
has this prerogative over others, and therefore is called
Only-begotten, because He alone was brought to be by God alone, and all
other things were created by God through the Son [782] ." Now I wonder
who it was [783] that suggested to you so futile and novel an idea as
that the Father alone wrought with His own hand the Son alone, and that
all other things were brought to be by the Son as by an under-worker.
If for the toil's sake God was content with making the Son only,
instead of making all things at once, this is an irreligious thought,
especially in those who know the words of Esaias, `The everlasting God,
the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, hungereth not, neither
is weary; there is no searching of His understanding [784] .' Rather it
is He who gives strength to the hungry, and through His Word refreshes
the labouring [785] . Again, it is irreligious to suppose that He
disdained, as if a humble task, to form the creatures Himself which
came after the Son; for there is no pride in that God, who goes down
with Jacob into Egypt, and for Abraham's sake corrects Abimelek because
of Sara, and speaks face to face with Moses, himself a man, and
descends upon Mount Sinai, and by His secret grace fights for the
people against Amalek. However, you are false even in this assertion,
for `He made us, and not we ourselves [786] .' He it is who through His
Word made all things small and great, and we may not divide the
creation, and says this is the Father's, and this the Son's, but they
are of one God, who uses His proper Word as a Hand [787] , and in Him
does all things. This God Himself shews us, when He says, `All these
things hath My Hand made [788] ;' while Paul taught us as he had
learned [789] , that `There is one God, from whom all things; and one
Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things [790] .' Thus He, always as
now, speaks to the sun and it rises, and commands the clouds and it
rains upon one place; and where it does not rain, it is dried up. And
He bids the earth yield her fruits, and fashions Jeremias [791] in the
womb. But if He now does all this, assuredly at the beginning also He
did not disdain to make all things Himself through the Word; for these
are but parts of the whole.
8. But let us suppose that the other creatures could not endure to be
wrought by the absolute Hand of the Unoriginate [792] and therefore the
Son alone was brought into being by the Father alone, and other things
by the Son as an underworker and assistant, for this is what Asterius
the sacrificer [793] has written, and Arius has transcribed [794] and
bequeathed to his own friends, and from that time they use this form of
words, broken reed as it is, being ignorant, the bewildered men, how
brittle it is. For if it was impossible for things originate to bear
the hand of God, and you hold the Son to be one of their number, how
was He too equal to this formation by God alone? and if a Mediator
became necessary that things originate might come to be, and you hold
the Son to be originated, then must there have been some medium before
Him, for His creation; and that Mediator himself again being a
creature, it follows that he too needed another Mediator for his own
constitution. And though we were to devise another, we must first
devise his Mediator, so that we shall never come to an end. And thus a
Mediator being ever in request, never will the creation be constituted,
because nothing originate, as you say, can bear the absolute hand of
the Unoriginate [795] . And if, on your perceiving the extravagance of
this, you begin to say that the Son, though a creature, was made
capable of being made by the Unoriginate, then it follows that other
things also, though originated, are capable of being wrought
immediately by the Unoriginate; for the Son too is but a creature in
your judgment, as all of them. And accordingly the origination of the
Word is superfluous, according to your irreligious and futile
imagination, God being sufficient for the immediate formation of all
things, and all things originate being capable of sustaining His
absolute hand.
These irreligious men then having so little mind amid their madness,
let us see whether this particular sophism be not even more irrational
than the others. Adam was created alone by God alone through the Word;
yet no one would say that Adam had any prerogative over other men, or
was different from those who came after him, granting that he alone was
made and fashioned by God alone, and we all spring from Adam, and
consist according to succession of the race, so long as he was
fashioned from the earth as others, and at first not being, afterwards
came to be.
9. But though we were to allow some prerogative to the Protoplast as
having been deemed worthy of the hand of God, still it must be one of
honour not of nature. For he came of the earth, as other men; and the
hand which then fashioned Adam, is also both now and ever fashioning
and giving entire consistence to those who come after him. And God
Himself declares this to Jeremiah, as I said before; `Before I formed
thee in the womb, I knew thee [796] ;' and so He says of all, `All
those things hath My hand made [797] ;' and again by Isaiah, `Thus
saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and He that formed thee from the womb, I
am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens
alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by Myself [798] .' And David,
knowing this, says in the Psalm, `Thy hands have made me and fashioned
me [799] ;' and he who says in Isaiah, `Thus saith the Lord who formed
me from the womb to be His servant [800] ,' signifies the same.
Therefore, in respect of nature, he differs nothing from us though he
precede us in time, so long as we all consist and are created by the
same hand. If then these be your thoughts, O Arians, about the Son of
God too, that thus He subsists and came to be, then in your judgment He
will differ nothing on the score of nature from others, so long as He
too was not, and came to be, and the name was by grace united to Him in
His creation for His virtue's sake. For He Himself is one of those,
from what you say, of whom the Spirit says in the Psalms, `He spake the
word, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created [801] .'
If so, who was it by whom God gave command [802] for the Son's
creation? for a Word there must be by whom God gave command, and in
whom the works are created; but you have no other to shew than the Word
you deny, unless indeed you should devise again some new notion.
"Yes," they will say, "we have another;" (which indeed I formerly heard
Eusebius and his fellows use), "on this score do we consider that the
Son of God has a prerogative over others, and is called Only-begotten,
because He alone partakes the Father, and all other things partake the
Son." Thus they weary themselves in changing and in varying their
phrases like colours [803] ; however, this shall not save them from an
exposure, as men that are of the earth, speaking vainly, and wallowing
in their own conceits as in mire.
10. For if He were called God's Son, and we the Son's sons, their
fiction were plausible; but if we too are said to be sons of that God,
of whom He is Son, then we too partake the Father [804] , who says, `I
have begotten and exalted children [805] .' For if we did not partake
Him, He had not said, `I have begotten;' but if He Himself begat us, no
other than He is our Father [806] . And, as before, it matters not,
whether the Son has something more and was made first, but we something
less, and were made afterwards, as long as we all partake, and are
called sons, of the same Father [807] . For the more or less does not
indicate a different nature; but attaches to each according to the
practice of virtue; and one is placed over ten cities, another over
five; and some sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of
Israel; and others hear the words, `Come, ye blessed of My Father,'
and, `Well done, good and faithful servant [808] .' With such ideas,
however, no wonder they imagine that of such a Son God was not always
Father, and such a Son was not always in being, but was generated from
nothing as a creature, and was not before His generation; for such an
one is other than the True Son of God.
But to persist in such teaching does not consist with piety [809] , for
it is rather the tone of thought of Sadducees and the Samosatene [810]
; it remains then to say that the Son of God is so called according to
the other sense, in which Isaac was son of Abraham; for what is
naturally begotten from any one and does not accrue to him from
without, that in the nature of things is a son, and that is what the
name implies [811] . Is then the Son's generation one of human
affection? (for this perhaps, as their predecessors [812] , they too
will be ready to object in their ignorance;)--in no wise; for God is
not as man, nor men as God. Men were created of matter, and that
passible; but God is immaterial and incorporeal. And if so be the same
terms are used of God and man in divine Scripture, yet the
clear-sighted, as Paul enjoins, will study it, and thereby
discriminate, and dispose of what is written according to the nature of
each subject, and avoid any confusion of sense, so as neither to
conceive of the things of God in a human way, nor to ascribe the things
of man to God [813] . For this were to mix wine with water [814] , and
to place upon the altar strange fire with that which is divine.
11. For God creates, and to create is also ascribed to men; and God has
being, and men are said to be, having received from God this gift also.
Yet does God create as men do? or is His being as man's being? Perish
the thought; we understand the terms in one sense of God, and in
another of men. For God creates, in that He calls what is not into
being, needing nothing thereunto; but men work some existing material,
first praying, and so gaining the wit to make, from that God who has
framed all things by His proper Word. And again men, being incapable of
self-existence, are enclosed in place, and consist in the Word of God;
but God is self-existent, enclosing all things, and enclosed by none;
within all according to His own goodness and power, yet without all in
His proper nature [815] . As then men create not as God creates, as
their being is not such as God's being, so men's generation is in one
way, and the Son is from the Father in another [816] . For the
offspring of men are portions of their fathers, since the very nature
of bodies is not uncompounded, but in a state of flux [817] , and
composed of parts; and men lose their substance in begetting, and again
they gain substance from the accession of food. And on this account men
in their time become fathers of many children; but God, being without
parts, is Father of the Son without partition or passion; for there is
neither effluence [818] of the Immaterial, nor influx from without, as
among men; and being uncompounded in nature, He is Father of One Only
Son. This is why He is Only-begotten, and alone in the Father's bosom,
and alone is acknowledged by the Father to be from Him, saying, `This
is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased [819] .' And He too is the
Father's Word, from which may be understood the impassible and
impartitive nature of the Father, in that not even a human word is
begotten with passion or partition, much less the Word of God [820] .
Wherefore also He sits, as Word, at the Father's right hand; for where
the Father is, there also is His Word; but we, as His works, stand in
judgment before Him; and, while He is adored, because He is Son of the
adorable Father, we adore, confessing Him Lord and God, because we are
creatures and other than He.
12. The case being thus, let who will among them consider the matter,
so that one may abash them by the following question; Is it right to
say that what is God's offspring and proper to Him is out of nothing?
or is it reasonable in the very idea, that what is from God has accrued
to Him, that a man should dare to say that the Son is not always? For
in this again the generation of the Son exceeds and transcends the
thoughts of man, that we become fathers of our own children in time,
since we ourselves first were not and then came into being; but God, in
that He ever is, is ever Father of the Son [821] . And the origination
of mankind is brought home to us from things that are parallel; but,
since `no one knoweth the Son but the Father, and no one knoweth the
Father but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him [822]
,' therefore the sacred writers to whom the Son has revealed Him, have
given us a certain image from things visible, saying, `Who is the
brightness of His glory, and the Expression of His Person [823] ;' and
again, `For with Thee is the well of life, and in Thy light shall we
see light [824] ;' and when the Word chides Israel, He says, `Thou hast
forsaken the Fountain of wisdom [825] ;' and this Fountain it is which
says, `They have forsaken Me the Fountain of living waters [826] .' And
mean indeed and very dim is the illustration [827] compared with what
we desiderate; but yet it is possible from it to understand something
above man's nature, instead of thinking the Son's generation to be on a
level with ours. For who can even imagine that the radiance of light
ever was not, so that he should dare to say that the Son was not
always, or that the Son was not before His generation? or who is
capable of separating the radiance from the sun, or to conceive of the
fountain as ever void of life, that he should madly say, `The Son is
from nothing,' who says, `I am the life [828] ,' or `alien to the
Father's essence,' who, says, `He that hath seen Me, hath seen the
Father [829] ?' for the sacred writers wishing us thus to understand,
have given these illustrations; and it is unseemly and most
irreligious, when Scripture contains such images, to form ideas
concerning our Lord from others which are neither in Scripture, nor
have any religious bearing.
13. Therefore let them tell us, from what teacher or by what tradition
they derived these notions concerning the Saviour? "We have read," they
will say, "in the Proverbs, `The Lord created me a beginning of His
ways unto His works [830] ;'" this Eusebius and his fellows used to
insist on [831] , and you write me word, that the present men also,
though overthrown and confuted by an abundance of arguments, still were
putting about in every quarter this passage, and saying that the Son
was one of the creatures, and reckoning Him with things originated. But
they seem to me to have a wrong understanding of this passage also; for
it has a religious and very orthodox sense, which had they understood,
they would not have blasphemed the Lord of glory. For on comparing what
has been above stated with this passage, they will find a great
difference between them [832] . For what man of right understanding
does not perceive, that what are created and made are external to the
maker; but the Son, as the foregoing argument has shewn, exists not
externally, but from the Father who begat Him? for man too both builds
a house and begets a son, and no one would reverse things, and say that
the house or the ship were begotten by the builder [833] , but the son
was created and made by him; nor again that the house was an image of
the maker, but the son unlike him who begat him; but rather he will
confess that the son is an image of the father, but the house a work of
art, unless his mind be disordered, and he beside himself. Plainly,
divine Scripture, which knows better than any the nature of everything,
says through Moses, of the creatures, `In the beginning God created the
heaven and the earth [834] ;' but of the Son it introduces not another,
but the Father Himself saying, `I have begotten Thee from the womb
before the morning star [835] ;' and again, `Thou art My Son, this day
have I begotten Thee [836] .' And the Lord says of Himself in the
Proverbs, `Before all the hills He begets me [837] ;' and concerning
things originated and created John speaks, `All things were made by Him
[838] ;' but preaching of the Lord, he says, `The Only-begotten Son,
who is in the bosom of the Father, He declared Him [839] .' If then
son, therefore not creature; if creature, not son; for great is the
difference between them, and son and creature cannot be the same,
unless His essence be considered to be at once from God, and external
to God.
14. `Has then the passage no meaning?' for this, like a swarm of gnats,
they are droning about us [840] . No surely, it is not without meaning,
but has a very apposite one; for it is true to say that the Son was
created too, but this took place when He became man; for creation
belongs to man. And any one may find this sense duly given in the
divine oracles, who, instead of accounting their study a secondary
matter, investigates the time and characters [841] , and the object,
and thus studies and ponders what he reads. Now as to the season spoken
of, he will find for certain that, whereas the Lord always is, at
length in fulness of the ages He became man; and whereas He is Son of
God, He became Son of man also. And as to the object he will
understand, that, wishing to annul our death, He took on Himself a body
from the Virgin Mary; that by offering this unto the Father a sacrifice
for all, He might deliver us all, who by fear of death were all our
life through subject to bondage [842] . And as to the character, it is
indeed the Saviour's, but is said of Him when He took a body and said,
`The Lord created me a beginning of His ways unto His works [843] .'
For as it properly belongs to God's Son to be everlasting. and in the
Father's bosom, so on His becoming man, the words befitted Him, `The
Lord created me.' For then it is said of Him, as also that He hungered,
and thirsted, and asked where Lazarus lay, and suffered, and rose again
[844] . And as, when we hear of Him as Lord and God and true Light, we
understand Him as being from the Father, so on hearing, `The Lord
created,' and `Servant,' and `He suffered,' we shall justly ascribe
this, not to the Godhead, for it is irrelevant, but we must interpret
it by that flesh which He bore for our sakes: for to it these things
are proper, and this flesh was none other's than the Word's. And if we
wish to know the object attained by this, we shall find it to be as
follows: that the Word was made flesh in order to offer up this body
for all, and that we partaking of His Spirit, might be deified [845] ,
a gift which we could not otherwise have gained than by His clothing
Himself in our created body [846] , for hence we derive our name of
"men of God" and "men in Christ." But as we, by receiving the Spirit,
do not lose our own proper substance, so the Lord, when made man for
us, and bearing a body, was no less God; for He was not lessened by the
envelopment of the body, but rather deified it and rendered it immortal
[847] .
__________________________________________________________________
[776] katachrestikos. This word is noticed and protested against by
Alexander, Socr. Hist. i. 6. p. 11 a. by the Semiarians at Ancyra,
Epiph. Haer. 73. n. 5. by Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 23. and by Cyril,
Dial. ii. t. v. i. pp. 432, 3.
[777] Vid. Ep. AEg. 12. Orat. i. S:5. 6. de Synod. 15, 16. Athanas.
seems to have had in mind Socr. i. 6. p. 10, 11, or the like.
[778] Vid. Orat. i. S:38. The controversy turned on the question what
was meant by the word `Son.' Though the Arians would not allow with the
Catholics that our Lord was Son by nature, and maintained that the word
implied a beginning of existence, they did not dare to say that He was
Son merely in the sense in which we are sons, though, as Athan.
contends, they necessarily tended to this conclusion, directly they
receded from the Catholic view. Thus Arius said that He was a creature,
`but not as one of the creatures.' Orat. ii. S:19. Valens at Ariminum
said the same, Jerom. adv. Lucifer. 18. Hilary says, that not daring
directly to deny that He was God, the Arians merely asked `whether He
was a Son.' de Trin. viii. 3. Athanasius remarks upon this reluctance
to speak out, challenging them to present `the heresy naked,' de Sent.
Dionys. 2. init. `No one,' he says elsewhere, `puts a light under a
bushel; let them shew the world their heresy naked.' Ep. AEg. 18. vid.
ibid. 10. In like manner, Basil says that (though Arius was really like
Eunomius, in faith, contr. Eunom. i. 4) Aetius his master was the first
to teach openly (phaneros), that the Father's substance was unlike,
anomoios, the Son's. ibid. i. 1. Epiphanius Haer. 76 p. 949. seems to
say that the elder Arians held the divine generation in a sense in
which Aetius did not, that is, they were not so consistent and definite
as he. Athan. goes on to mention some of the attempts of the Arians to
find some theory short of orthodoxy, yet short of that extreme heresy,
on the other hand, which they felt ashamed to avow.
[779] Deut. xiii. 18; xiv. 1.
[780] John. i. 12.
[781] Theod. Hist. i. 3.
[782] This is celebrated as an explanation of the Anomoeans. vid.
Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 20, 21. though Athan. speaks of it as
belonging to the elder Arians. vid. Socr. Hist. i. 6.
[783] i.e. what is your authority? is it not a novel, and therefore a
wrong doctrine? vid. infr. S:13. ad Serap. i. 3. Also Orat. i. S:8.
`Who ever heard such doctrine? or whence or from whom did they hear it?
who, when they were under catechising, spoke thus to them? If they
themselves confess that they now hear it for the first time, they must
grant that their heresy is alien, and not from the Fathers.' vid. ii.
S:34. and Socr. i. 6. p. 11 c.
[784] Is. xl. 28.
[785] Ib. 29
[786] Ps. c. 3.
[787] Vid. infr. S:17 Orat. ii. S:31. 71. Irenaeus calls the Son and
Holy Spirit the Hands of God. Haer. iv. praef. vid. also Hilar. de
Trin. vii. 22. This image is in contrast to that of instrument,
organon, which the Arians would use of the Son. vid. Socr. i. 6. p. 11,
as implying He was external to God, whereas the word Hand implies His
consubstantiality with the Father.
[788] Is. lxvi. 2.
[789] mathon edidasken, implying the traditional nature of the
teaching. And so S. Paul himself, 1 Cor. xv. 3, vid. for an
illustration, supr. S:5. init. also note 2.
[790] 1 Cor. viii. 6.
[791] Jer. i. 5.
[792] Orat. ii. S:24. fin.
[793] Vid. infr. 20. Orat. i. S:31. ii. S:S:24, 28. 37. 40. iii. S:S:2.
60. de Synod S:S:18. 19. [Prolegg. ch. ii. S:3 (2) a.]
[794] Vid. also infr. S:20. de Synod. S:17.
[795] Vid. infr. S:24. Orat. i. S:15. fin. ii. S:29. Epiph. Haer. 76.
p. 951.
[796] Jer. i. 5.
[797] Is. lxvi. 2.
[798] Ib. xliv. 24.
[799] Ps. cxix. 73.
[800] Is. xlix. 5.
[801] Ps. cxlviii. 5 (LXX).
[802] In like manner, `Men were made through the Word, when the Father
Himself willed.' Orat. i. 63. `The Word forms matter as injoined by,
and ministering to, God.' prostattomenos kai hupourgon. ibid. ii. S:22.
contr. Gent. 46. vid. note on Orat. ii. 22.
[803] ad Serap. i. 3.
[804] His argument is, that if the Son but partook the Father in the
sense in which we partake the Son, then the Son would not impart to us
the Father, but Himself, and would be a separating as well as uniting
medium between the Father and us; whereas He brings us so near to the
Father, that we are the Father's children, not His, and therefore He
must be Himself one with the Father, or the Father must be in Him with
an incomprehensible completeness. vid. de Synod. S:51. contr. Gent. 46.
fin. Hence S. Augustin says, `As the Father has life in Himself, so
hath He given also to the Son to have life in Himself, not by
participating, but in Himself. For we have not life in ourselves, but
in our God. But that Father, who has life in Himself, begat a Son such,
as to have life in Himself, not to become partaker of life, but to be
Himself life; and of that life to make us partakers.' Serm. 127. de
Verb. Evang. 9.
[805] Is. i. 2.
[806] `To say God is wholly partaken, is the same as saying that God
begets.' Orat. i. S:16. And in like manner, our inferior participation
involves such sonship as is vouchsafed to us.
[807] And so in Orat. ii. S:19-22. `Though the Son surpassed other
things on a comparison, yet He were equally a creature with them; for
even in those things which are of a created nature, we may find some
things surpassing others. Star, for instance, differs from star in
glory, yet it does not follow that some are sovereign, and others
serve, &c.' ii. S:20. And so Gregory Nyssen contr. Eunom. iii. p. 132
D. Epiph. Haer. 76. p. 970.
[808] Matt. xxv. 21, 23, 34.
[809] i.e. since it is impossible they can persist in evasions so
manifest as these, nothing is left but to take the other sense of the
word.
[810] Paul of Samosata [see Prolegg. ch. ii. S:3 (2)a.]
[811] The force lies in the word phusei, `naturally,' which the Council
expressed still more definitely by `essence.' Thus Cyril says, `the
term "Son" denotes the essential origin from the Father.' Dial. 5. p.
573. And Gregory Nyssen, `the title "Son" does not simply express the
being from another' vid. infra. S:19.), but relationship according to
nature. contr. Eunom. ii. p. 91. Again S. Basil says, that Father is `a
term of relationship,' oikeioseos. contr. Eunom. ii. 24. init. And
hence he remarks, that we too are properly, kurios, sons of God, as
becoming related to Him through works of the Spirit. ii. 23. So also
Cyril, loc. cit. Elsewhere S. Basil defines father `one who gives to
another the origin of being according to a nature like his own;' and a
son `one who possesses the origin of being from another by generation,'
contr. Eun. ii. 22. On the other hand, the Arians at the first denied
that `by nature there was any Son of God.' Theod. H. E. i. 3. p. 732.
[812] vid. Eusebius, in his Letter, supr. p. 73 sq.: also Socr. Hist.
i. 8. Epiphan. Haer. 69. n. 8 and 15.
[813] One of the characteristic points in Athanasius is his constant
attention to the sense of doctrine, or the meaning of writers, in
preference to the words used. Thus he scarcely uses the symbol
homoousion, one in substance, throughout his Orations, and in the de
Synod. acknowledges the Semiarians as brethren. Hence infr. S:18. he
says, that orthodox doctrine `is revered by all though expressed in
strange language, provided the speaker means religiously, and wishes to
convey by it a religious sense.' vid. also S:21. He says, that
Catholics are able to `speak freely,' or to expatiate, parresiazometha,
`out of Divine Scripture.' Orat. i. S:9. vid. de Sent. Dionys. S:20.
init. Again: `The devil spoke from Scripture, but was silenced by the
Saviour; Paul spoke from profane writers, yet, being a saint, he has a
religious meaning.' de Syn. S:39, also ad Ep. AEg. 8. Again, speaking
of the apparent contrariety between two Councils, `It were unseemly to
make the one conflict with the other, for all their members are
fathers; and it were profane to decide that these spoke well and those
ill, for all of them have slept in Christ.' S:43. also S:47. Again:
`Not the phrase, but the meaning and the religious life, is the
recommendation of the faithful.' ad Ep. AEg. S:9.
[814] vid. Orat. iii. S:35, and Isa. i. 22.
[815] Vid. also Incarn. S:17. This contrast is not commonly found in
ecclesiastical writers, who are used to say that God is present
everywhere, in substance as well as by energy or power. S. Clement,
however, expresses himself still more strongly in the same way, `In
substance far off (for how can the originate come close to the
Unoriginate?), but most close in power, in which the universe is
embosomed.' Strom. 2. circ. init. but the parenthesis explains his
meaning. Vid. Cyril. Thesaur. 6. p. 44. The common doctrine of the
Fathers is, that God is present everywhere in substance. Vid. Petav. de
Deo, iii. 8. and 9. It may be remarked, that S. Clement continues
`neither enclosing nor enclosed.'
[816] In Almighty God is the perfection and first pattern of what is
seen in shadow in human nature, according to the imperfection of the
subject matter; and this remark applies, as to creation, so to
generation. Athanasius is led to state this more distinctly in another
connection in Orat. i. S:21. fin. `It belongs to the Godhead alone,
that the Father is properly (kurios) Father, and the Son properly
(kurios) Son; and in Them and Them only does it hold that the Father is
ever Father, and the Son ever Son.' Accordingly he proceeds, shortly
afterwards, as in the text, to argue, `For God does not make men His
pattern, but rather we men, for that God is properly and alone truly
Father of His own Son, are also called fathers of our own children, for
"of Him is every father-hood in heaven and on earth named,"' S:23. The
Semiarians at Ancyra quote the same text for the same doctrine.
Epiphan. Haer. 73. 5. As do Cyril in Joan. i. p. 24. Thesaur. 32. p.
281. and Damascene de Fid. Orth. i. 8. The same parallel, as existing
between creation and generation is insisted on by Isidor. Pel. Ep. iii.
355. Basil contr. Eun. iv. p. 280 A., Cyril Thesaur. 6. p. 43. Epiph.
Haer. 69. 36. and Gregor. Naz. Orat. 20. 9. who observes that God
creates with a word, Ps. cxlviii. 5, which evidently transcends human
creations. Theodorus Abucara, with the same object, draws out the
parallel of life, zoe, as Athan. that of being, einai. Opusc. iii. p.
420-422.
[817] Vid. de Synod. S:51. Orat. i. S:15, 16. rheuste. vid. Orat. i.
S:28. Bas. in Eun. ii. 23. rhusin. Bas. in Eun. ii. 6. Greg. Naz. Orat.
28, 22. Vid. contr. Gentes, S:S:41, 42; where Athan. without reference
to the Arian controversy, draws out the contrast between the Godhead
and human nature.
[818] S. Cyril, Dial. iv. init. p. 505 E. speaks of the thrulloumene
apor& 191;oe, and disclaims it, Thesaur. 6. p. 43. Athan. disclaims it,
Expos. S:1. Orat. i. S:21. So does Alexander, ap. Theod. Hist. i. 3. p.
743. On the other hand, Athanasius quotes it in a passage which he
adduces from Theognostus, infr. S:25. and from Dionysius, de Sent. D.
S:23. and Origen uses it, Periarchon, i. 2. It is derived from Wisd.
vii. 25.
[819] Matt. iii. 17.
[820] The title `Word' implies the ineffable mode of the Son's
generation, as distinct from material parallels, vid. Gregory Nyssen,
contr. Eunom. iii. p. 107. Chrysostom in Joan. Hom. 2. S:4. Cyril Alex.
Thesaur. 5. p. 37. Also it implies that there is but One Son. vid.
infr. S:16. `As the Origin is one essence, so its Word and Wisdom is
one, essential and subsisting.' Orat. iv. 1. fin.
[821] `Man,' says S. Cyril, `inasmuch as he had a beginning of being,
also has of necessity a beginning of begetting, as what is from him is
a thing generate, but....if God's essence transcend time, or origin, or
interval, His generation too will transcend these; nor does it deprive
the Divine Nature of the power of generating, that it doth not this in
time. For other than human is the manner of divine generation; and
together with God's existing is His generating implied, and the Son was
in Him by generation, nor did His generation precede His existence, but
He was always, and that by generation.' Thesaur. v. p. 35.
[822] Matt. xi. 27.
[823] Heb. i. 3.
[824] Ps. xxxvi. 9.
[825] Bar. iii. 12.
[826] Jer. ii. 13. Vid. infr. passim. All these titles, `Word, Wisdom,
Light' &c., serve to guard the title `Son' from any notions of parts or
dimensions, e.g. `He is not composed of parts, but being impassible and
single, He is impassibly and indivisibly Father of the Son...for...the
Word and Wisdom is neither creature, nor part of Him Whose Word He is,
nor an offspring passibly begotten.' Orat. i. S:28.
[827] Ad Serap. 20.
[828] John xiv. 6.
[829] Ib. 9
[830] Prov. viii. 22, and cf. Orat. ii. throughout.
[831] Eusebius of Nicomedia quotes it in his Letter to Paulinus, ap.
Theodor. Hist. i. 5. And Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstr. Evang. v. 1.
[832] i.e. `Granting that the prima facie impression of this text is in
favour of our Lord's being a creature, yet so many arguments have been
already brought, and may be added, against His creation, that we must
interpret this text by them. It cannot mean that our Lord was simply
created, because we have already shewn that He is not external to His
Father.'
[833] Serap. 2, 6. Sent. Dion. S:4.
[834] Gen. i. 1.
[835] Ps. cx. 3.
[836] Ps. ii. 7.
[837] Prov. viii. 25.
[838] John i. 3.
[839] Ib. 18
[840] peribombousin. So in ad Afros. 5. init. And Sent. D. S:19.
perierchontai peribombountes. And Gregory Nyssen. contr. Eun. viii. p.
234 C. hos an tous apeirous tais platonikais kalliphoniai
peribombeseien. vid. also perierchontai hos hoi kantharoi. Orat. iii.
fin.
[841] prosopa. vid. Orat. i. S:54. ii. S:8. Sent. D. 4. not persons,
but characters; which must also be considered the meaning of the word,
contr. Apoll. ii. 2. and 10; though it there approximates (even in
phrase, ouk en diairesei prosopon) to its ecclesiastical use, which
seems to have been later. Yet persona occurs in Tertull. in Prax. 27;
it may be questioned, however, whether in any genuine Greek treatise
till the Apollinarians.
[842] Heb. ii. 15.
[843] Prov. viii. 22.
[844] Sent. D. 9. Orat. 3, S:S:26-41.
[845] [See de Incar. S:54. 3, and note.]
[846] Orat. 2, S:70.
[847] Cf. Orat. ii. 6. [See also de Incar. S:17.]
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter IV.--Proof of the Catholic Sense of the Word Son. Power, Word
or Reason, and Wisdom, the names of the Son, imply eternity; as well as
the Father's title of Fountain. The Arians reply, that these do not
formally belong to the essence of the Son, but are names given Him;
that God has many words, powers, &c. Why there is but one Son and Word,
&c. All the titles of the Son coincide in Him.
15. This then is quite enough to expose the infamy of the Arian heresy;
for, as the Lord has granted, out of their own words is irreligion
brought home to them [848] . But come now and let us on our part act on
the offensive, and call on them for an answer; for now is fair time,
when their own ground has failed them, to question them on ours;
perhaps it may abash the perverse, and disclose to them whence they
have fallen. We have learned from divine Scripture, that the Son of
God, as was said above, is the very Word and Wisdom of the Father. For
the Apostle says, `Christ the power of God and the Wisdom of God [849]
;' and John after saying, `And the Word was made flesh,' at once adds,
`And we saw His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father,
full of grace and truth [850] ,' so that, the Word being the
Only-begotten Son, in this Word and in Wisdom heaven and earth and all
that is therein were made. And of this Wisdom that God is Fountain we
have learned from [851] Baruch, by Israel's being charged with having
forsaken the Fountain of Wisdom. If then they deny Scripture, they are
at once aliens to their name, and may fitly be called of all men
atheists [852] , and Christ's enemies, for they have brought upon
themselves these names. But if they agree with us that the sayings of
Scripture are divinely inspired, let them dare to say openly what they
think in secret that God was once wordless and wisdomless [853] ; and
let them in their madness [854] say, `There was once when He was not,'
and, `before His generation, Christ was not [855] ;' and again let them
declare that the Fountain begat not Wisdom from itself, but acquired it
from without, till they have the daring to say, `The Son came of
nothing;' whence it will follow that there is no longer a Fountain, but
a sort of pool, as if receiving water from without, and usurping the
name of Fountain [856] .
16. How full of irreligion this is, I consider none can doubt who has
ever so little understanding. But since they mutter something about
Word and Wisdom being only names of the Son [857] , we must ask then,
If these are only names of the Son, He must be something else beside
them. And if He is higher than the names, it is not lawful from the
lesser to denote the higher; but if He be less than the names, yet He
surely must have in Him the principle of this more honourable
appellation; and this implies his advance, which is an irreligion equal
to anything that has gone before. For He who is in the Father, and in
whom also the Father is, who says, `I and the Father are one [858] ,'
whom he that hath seen, hath seen the Father, to say that He has been
exalted [859] by anything external, is the extreme of madness. However,
when they are beaten hence, and like Eusebius and his fellows, are in
these great straits, then they have this remaining plea, which Arius
too in ballads, and in his own Thalia [860] , fabled, as a new
difficulty: `Many words speaketh God; which then of these are we to
call Son and Word, Only-begotten of the Father [861] ?' Insensate, and
anything but Christians [862] ! for first, on using such language about
God, they conceive of Him almost as a man, speaking and reversing His
first words by His second, just as if one Word from God were not
sufficient for the framing of all things at the Father's will, and for
His providential care of all. For His speaking many words would argue a
feebleness in them all, each needing the service of the other. But that
God should have one Word, which is the true doctrine, both shews the
power of God, and the perfection of the Word that is from Him, and the
religious understanding of them who thus believe.
17. O that they would consent to confess the truth from this their own
statement! for if they once grant that God produces words, they plainly
know Him to be a Father; and acknowledging this, let them consider
that, while they are loth to ascribe one Word to God, they are
imagining that He is Father of many; and while they are loth to say
that there is no Word of God at all, yet they do not confess that He is
the Son of God,--which is ignorance of the truth, and inexperience in
divine Scripture. For if God is Father of a word at all, wherefore is
not He that is begotten a Son? And again, who should be Son of God, but
His Word? For there are not many words, or each would be imperfect, but
one is the Word, that He only may be perfect, and because, God being
one, His Image too must be one, which is the Son. For the Son of God,
as may be learnt from the divine oracles themselves, is Himself the
Word of God, and the Wisdom, and the Image, and the Hand, and the
Power; for God's offspring is one, and of the generation from the
Father these titles are tokens [863] . For if you say the Son, you have
declared what is from the Father by nature; and if you think of the
Word, you are thinking again of what is from Him, and what is
inseparable; and, speaking of Wisdom, again you mean just as much, what
is not from without, but from Him and in Him; and if you name the Power
and the Hand, again you speak of what is proper to essence; and,
speaking of the Image, you signify the Son; for what else is like God
but the offspring from Him? Doubtless the things, which came to be
through the Word, these are `founded in Wisdom' and what are `founded
in Wisdom,' these are all made by the Hand, and came to be through the
Son. And we have proof of this, not from external sources, but from the
Scriptures; for God Himself says by Isaiah the Prophet; `My hand also
hath laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand hath spanned
the heavens [864] .' And again, `And I will cover thee in the shadow of
My Hand, by which I planted the heavens, and laid the foundations of
the earth [865] .' And David being taught this, and knowing that the
Lord's Hand was nothing else than Wisdom, says in the Psalm, `In wisdom
hast Thou made them all; the earth is full of Thy creation [866] .'
Solomon also received the same from God, and said, `The Lord by wisdom
founded the earth [867] ,' and John, knowing that the Word was the Hand
and the Wisdom, thus preached, `In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God; the same was in the beginning
with God: all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything
made [868] .' And the Apostle, seeing that the Hand and the Wisdom and
the Word was nothing else than the Son, says, `God, who at sundry times
and in divers manners spake in time past unto the Fathers by the
Prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, whom He
hath appointed Heir of all things, by whom also He made the ages [869]
.' And again, `There is one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all
things, and we through Him [870] .' And knowing also that the Word, the
Wisdom, the Son Himself was the Image of the Father, he says in the
Epistle to the Colossians, `Giving thanks to God and the Father, which
hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in
light, who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath
translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son; in whom we have
redemption, even the remission of sins; who is the Image of the
Invisible God, the First-born of every creature; for by Him were all
things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and
invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions or principalities or
powers; all things were created by Him and for Him; and He is before
all things, and in Him all things consist [871] .' For as all things
are created by the Word, so, because He is the Image, are they also
created in Him [872] . And thus anyone who directs his thoughts to the
Lord, will avoid stumbling upon the stone of offence, but rather will
go forward to the brightness in the light of truth; for this is really
the doctrine of truth, though these contentious men burst with spite
[873] , neither religious toward God, nor abashed at their confutation.
__________________________________________________________________
[848] The main argument of the Arians was that our lord was a Son, and
therefore was not eternal, but of a substance which had a beginning.
[Prolegg. ch. ii. S:3 (2) a.] Accordingly Athanasius says, `Having
argued with them as to the meaning of their own selected term "Son,"
let us go on to others, which on the very face make for us, such as
Word, Wisdom, &c.'
[849] 1 Cor. i. 24.
[850] John i. 14.
[851] Vid. supr. S:12.
[852] Vid. supr. S:1. note 2, bis.
[853] alogos, asophos. Vid. infr., S:26. This is a frequent argument in
the controversy, viz. that to deprive the Father of His Son or
substantial Word (logos), is as great a sacrilege as to deny His
Reason, logos, from which the Son receives His name. Thus Orat. i.
S:14. fin. Athan. says, `imputing to God's nature an absence of His
Word (alogian or irrationality), they are most irreligious.' Vid. S:19.
fin. 24. Elsewhere, he says, `Is a man not mad himself, who even
entertains the thought that God is word-less and wisdom-less? for such
illustrations and such images Scripture hath proposed, that,
considering the inability of human nature to comprehend concerning God,
we might even from these, however poorly and dimly, discern as far as
is attainable.' Orat. ii. 32. vid. also iii. 63. iv. 12. Serap. ii. 2.
[854] Vid. above, S:1, note 6.
[855] These were among the original positions of the Arians; for the
former, see above, note 1; the latter is one of those specified in the
Nicene Anathema.
[856] And so pege xera. Serap. ii. 2. Orat. i. S:14 fin. also ii. S:2,
where Athanasius speaks as if those who deny that Almighty God is
Father, cannot really believe in Him as a Creator. If the divine
substance be not fruitful (karpogonos), but barren, as they say, as a
light which enlightens not, and a dry fountain, are they not ashamed to
maintain that He possesses the creative energy?' Vid. also pege
theotetos, Pseudo-Dion. Div. Nom. c. 2. pege ek peges, of the Son,
Epiphan. Ancor. 19. And Cyril, `If thou take from God His being Father,
thou wilt deny the generative power (karpogonon) of the divine nature
so that It no longer is perfect. This then is a token of its
perfection, and the Son who went forth from Him apart from time, is a
pledge (sphragis) to the Father that He is perfect.' Thesaur. p. 37.
[857] Arius said, as the Eunomians after him, that the Son was not
really, but only called, Word and Wisdom, which were simply attributes
of God, and the prototypes of the Son. Vid. Socr. i. 6. Theod. H. E. i.
3, and infr. Orat. ii. 37, 38.
[858] John x. 30.
[859] beltiousthai
[860] Vid. de Syn. S:15.
[861] As the Arians took the title Son in that part of its earthly
sense in which it did not apply to our Lord, so they misinterpreted the
title Word also; which denoted the Son's immateriality and indivisible
presence in the Father, but did not express His perfection. Vid. Orat.
ii. S:34-36. contr. Gent. 41. ad Ep. AEg. 16. Epiph. Haer. 65. 3. Nyss.
in Eun. xii. p. 349. Origen (in a passage, however, of questionable
doctrine), says, `As there are gods many, but to us one God the Father,
and many lords, but to us one Lord Jesus Christ, so there are many
words, but we pray that in us may exist the Word that was in the
beginning, with God, and was God.' In Joan. tom. ii. 3. `Many things,
it is acknowledged, does the Father speak to the Son,' say the
Semiarians at Ancyra, `but the words which God speaks to the Son, are
not sons. They are not substances of God, but vocal energies; but the
Son, though a Word, is not such, but, being a Son, is a substance.'
Epiph. Haer. 73. 12. The Semiarians are speaking against Sabellianism,
which took the same ground here as Arianism; so did the heresy of the
Samosatene, who according to Epiphanius, considered our Lord as the
internal Word, or thought. Haer. 65. The term word in this inferior
sense is often in Greek rhema. Epiph. supr. and Cyril, de Incarn. Unig.
init. t. v. i. p. 679.
[862] `If they understood and acknowledged the characteristic idea
(charaktera) of Christianity, they would not have said that the Lord of
glory was a creature.' Ad Serap. ii. 7. In Orat. i. S:2, he says,
Arians are not Christians because they are Arians, for Christians are
called, not from Arius, but from Christ, who is their only Master. Vid.
also de Syn. S:38. init. Sent. D. fin. Ad Afros. 4. Their cruelty and
cooperation with the heathen populace was another reason. Greg. Naz.
Orat. 25. 12.
[863] All the titles of the Son of God are consistent with each other,
and variously represent one and the same Person. `Son' and `Word,'
denote His derivation; `Word' and `Image,' His Similitude; `Word' and
`Wisdom,' His immateriality; `Wisdom' and `Hand,' His coexistence. `If
He is not Son, neither is He Image' Orat. ii. S:2. `How is there Word
and Wisdom, unless He be a proper offspring of His substance? ii. S:22.
Vid. also Orat. i. S:20. 21. and at great length Orat. iv. S:20, &c.
vid. also Naz. Orat. 30. n. 20. Basil. contr. Eunom. i. 18. Hilar. de
Trin. vii. 11. August. in Joan. xlviii. 6. and in Psalm. xliv. (xlv.)
5.
[864] Is. xlviii. 13.
[865] Is. li. 16.
[866] Ps. civ. 24.
[867] Prov. iii. 19.
[868] John i. 1-3.
[869] Heb. i. 1, 2.
[870] 1 Cor. viii. 6.
[871] Col. i. 12-17
[872] Vid. a beautiful passage, contr. Gent. 42, &c. Again, of men, de
Incarn. 3. 3; also Orat. ii. 78. where he speaks of Wisdom as being
infused into the world on its creation, that it might possess `a type
and semblance of its Image.'
[873] diar& 191;agosin, and so Serap. ii. fin. diar& 191;egnuontai. de
Syn. 34. diar& 191;eguosin heautous. Orat. ii. S:23. sparattetosan
heautous. Orat. ii. S:64. trizeto tous odontas. Sent. D. 16.
__________________________________________________________________
Chapter V.--Defence of the Council's Phrases, "from the essence," And
"one in essence." Objection that the phrases are not scriptural; we
ought to look at the sense more than the wording; evasion of the Arians
as to the phrase "of God" which is in Scripture; their evasion of all
explanations but those which the Council selected, which were intended
to negative the Arian formulae; protest against their conveying any
material sense.
18. Now Eusebius and his fellows were at the former period examined at
great length, and convicted themselves, as I said before; on this they
subscribed; and after this change of mind they kept in quiet and
retirement [874] ; but since the present party, in the fresh arrogance
of irreligion, and in dizziness about the truth, are full set upon
accusing the Council, let them tell us what are the sort of Scriptures
from which they have learned, or who is the Saint [875] by whom they
have been taught, that they have heaped together the phrases, `out of
nothing [876] ,' and `He was not before His generation,' and `once He
was not,' and `alterable,' and `pre-existence,' and `at the will;'
which are their fables in mockery of the Lord. For the blessed Paul in
his Epistle to the Hebrews says, `By faith we understand that the ages
were framed by the Word of God, so that that which is seen was not made
of things which do appear [877] .' But nothing is common to the Word
with the ages [878] ; for He it is who is in existence before the ages,
by whom also the ages came to be. And in the Shepherd [879] it is
written (since they allege this book also, though it is not of the
Canon [880] ), `First of all believe, that God is one, who created all
things, and arranged them, and brought all things from nothing into
being;' but this again does not relate to the Son, for it speaks
concerning all things which came to be through Him, from whom He is
distinct; for it is not possible to reckon the Framer of all with the
things made by Him, unless a man is so beside himself as to say that
the architect also is the same as the buildings which he rears.
Why then, when they have invented on their part unscriptural phrases,
for the purposes of irreligion, do they accuse those who are religious
in their use of them [881] ? For irreligiousness is utterly forbidden,
though it be attempted to disguise it with artful expressions and
plausible sophisms; but religiousness is confessed by all to be lawful,
even though presented in strange phrases [882] , provided only they are
used with a religious view, and a wish to make them the expression of
religious thoughts. Now the aforesaid grovelling phrases of Christ's
enemies have been shewn in these remarks to be both formerly and now
replete with irreligion; whereas the definition of the Council against
them, if accurately examined, will be found to be altogether a
representation of the truth, and especially if diligent attention be
paid to the occasion which gave rise to these expressions, which was
reasonable, and was as follows:--
19. The Council [883] wishing to do away with the irreligious phrases
of the Arians, and to use instead the acknowledged words of the
Scriptures, that the Son is not from nothing but `from God,' and is
`Word' and `Wisdom,' and not creature or work, but a proper offspring
from the Father, Eusebius and his fellows, led by their inveterate
heterodoxy, understood the phrase `from God' as belonging to us, as if
in respect to it the Word of God differed nothing from us, and that
because it is written, `There is one God, from whom, all things [884]
;' and again, `Old things are passed away, behold, all things are
become new, and all things are from God [885] .' But the Fathers,
perceiving their craft and the cunning of their irreligion, were forced
to express more distinctly the sense of the words `from God.'
Accordingly, they wrote `from the essence of God [886] ,' in order that
`from God' might not be considered common and equal in the Son and in
things originate, but that all others might be acknowledged as
creatures, and the Word alone as from the Father. For though all things
be said to be from God, yet this is not in the sense in which the Son
is from Him; for as to the creatures, `of God' is said of them on this
account, in that they exist not at random or spontaneously, nor come to
be by chance [887] , according to those philosophers who refer them to
the combination of atoms, and to elements of similar structure,--nor as
certain heretics speak of a distinct Framer,--nor as others again say
that the constitution of all things is from certain Angels;--but in
that (whereas God is), it was by Him that all things were brought into
being, not being before, through His Word; but as to the Word, since He
is not a creature, He alone is both called and is `from the Father;'
and it is significant of this sense to say that the Son is `from the
essence of the Father,' for to nothing originate does this attach. In
truth, when Paul says that `all things are from God,' he immediately
adds, `and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things [888] ,' in
order to shew all men, that the Son is other than all these things
which came to be from God (for the things which came to be from God,
came to be through His Son); and that he had used his foregoing words
with reference to the world as framed by God [889] , and not as if all
things were from the Father as the Son is. For neither are other things
as the Son, nor is the Word one among others, for He is Lord and Framer
of all; and on this account did the Holy Council declare expressly that
He was of the essence [890] of the Father, that we might believe the
Word to be other than the nature of things originate, being alone truly
from God; and that no subterfuge should be left open to the
irreligious. This then was the reason why the Council wrote `of the
essence.'
20. Again, when the Bishops said that the Word must be described as the
True Power and Image of the Father, in all things exact [891] and like
the Father, and as unalterable, and as always, and as in Him without
division (for never was the Word not, but He was always, existing
everlastingly with the Father, as the radiance of light), Eusebius and
his fellows endured indeed, as not daring to contradict, being put to
shame by the arguments which were urged against them; but withal they
were caught whispering to each other and winking with their eyes, that
`like,' and `always,' and `power,' and `in Him,' were, as before,
common to us and the Son, and that it was no difficulty to agree to
these. As to `like,' they said that it is written of us, `Man is the
image and glory of God [892] :' `always,' that it was written, `For we
which live are alway [893] :' `in Him,' `In Him we live and move and
have our being [894] :' `unalterable,' that it is written, `Nothing
shall separate us from the love of Christ [895] :' as to `power,' that
the caterpillar and the locust are called `power' and `great power
[896] ,' and that it is often said of the people, for instance, `All
the power of the Lord came out of the land of Egypt [897] :' and there
are others also, heavenly ones, for Scripture says, `The Lord of powers
is with us, the God of Jacob is our refuge [898] .' Indeed Asterius, by
title the sophist, had said the like in writing, having learned it from
them, and before him Arius [899] having learned it also, as has been
said. But the Bishops discerning in this too their dissimulation, and
whereas it is written, `Deceit is in the heart of the irreligious that
imagine evil [900] ,' were again compelled on their part to collect the
sense of the Scriptures, and to re-say and re-write what they had said
before, more distinctly still, namely, that the Son is `one in essence
[901] ' with the Father: by way of signifying, that the Son was from
the Father, and not merely like, but the same in likeness [902] , and
of shewing that the Son's likeness and unalterableness was different
from such copy of the same as is ascribed to us, which we acquire from
virtue on the ground of observance of the commandments. For bodies
which are like each other may be separated and become at distances from
each other, as are human sons relatively to their parents (as it is
written concerning Adam and Seth, who was begotten of him that he was
like him after his own pattern [903] ); but since the generation of the
Son from the Father is not according to the nature of men, and not only
like, but also inseparable from the essence of the Father, and He and
the Father are one, as He has said Himself, and the Word is ever in the
Father and the Father in the Word, as the radiance stands towards the
light (for this the phrase itself indicates), therefore the Council, as
understanding this, suitably wrote `one in essence,' that they might
both defeat the perverseness of the heretics, and shew that the Word
was other than originated things. For, after thus writing, they at once
added, `But they who say that the Son of God is from nothing, or
created, or alterable, or a work, or from other essence, these the Holy
Catholic Church anathematizes [904] .' And by saying this, they shewed
clearly that `of the essence,' and `one in essence,' are destructive of
those catchwords of irreligion, such as `created,' and `work,' and
`originated,' and `alterable,' and `He was not before His generation.'
And he who holds these, contradicts the Council; but he who does not
hold with Arius, must needs hold and intend the decisions of the
Council, suitably regarding them to signify the relation of the
radiance to the light, and from thence gaining the illustration of the
truth.
21. Therefore if they, as the others, make an excuse that the terms are
strange, let them consider the sense in which the Council so wrote, and
anathematize what the Council anathematized; and then if they can, let
them find fault with the expressions. But I well know that, if they
hold the sense of the Council, they will fully accept the terms in
which it is conveyed; whereas if it be the sense which they wish to
complain of, all must see that it is idle in them to discuss the
wording, when they are but seeking handles for irreligion. This then
was the reason of these expressions; but if they still complain that
such are not scriptural, that very complaint is a reason why they
should be cast out, as talking idly and disordered in mind. And let
them blame themselves in this matter, for they set the example,
beginning their war against God with words not in Scripture. However,
if a person is interested in the question, let him know, that, even if
the expressions are not in so many words in the Scriptures, yet, as was
said before, they contain the sense of the Scriptures, and expressing
it, they convey it to those who have their hearing unimpaired for
religious doctrine. Now this circumstance it is for thee to consider,
and for those ill-instructed men to give ear to. It has been shewn
above, and must be believed as true, that the Word is from the Father,
and the only Offspring [905] proper to Him and natural. For whence may
one conceive the Son to be, who is the Wisdom and the Word, in whom all
things came to be, but from God Himself? However, the Scriptures also
teach us this, since the Father says by David, `My heart uttered a good
Word [906] ,' and, `From the womb before the morning star I begat Thee
[907] ;' and the Son signifies to the Jews about Himself, `If God were
your Father, ye would love Me; for I proceeded forth from the Father
[908] .' And again; `Not that anyone has seen the Father, save He which
is from God, He hath seen the Father [909] .' And moreover, `I and My
Father are one,' and, `I in the Father and the Father in Me [910] ,' is
equivalent to saying, `I am from the Father, and inseparable from Him.'
And John in saying, `The Only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the
Father, He hath declared Him, [911] ' spoke of what He had learned from
the Saviour. Besides, what else does `in the bosom' intimate, but the
Son's genuine generation from the Father?
22. If then any man conceives God to be compound, as accident [912] is
in essence, or to have any external envelopement [913] , and to be
encompassed, or as if there is aught about Him which completes the
essence, so that when we say `God,' or name `Father,' we do not signify
the invisible and incomprehensible essence, but something about it,
then let them complain of the Council's stating that the Son was from
the essence of God; but let them reflect, that in thus considering they
utter two blasphemies; for they make God corporeal, and they falsely
say that the Lord is not Son of the very Father, but of what is about
Him. But if God be simple, as He is, it follows that in saying `God'
and naming `Father,' we name nothing as if about Him, but signify his
essence itself. For though to comprehend what the essence of God is be
impossible, yet if we only understand that God is, and if Scripture
indicates Him by means of these titles, we, with the intention of
indicating Him and none else, call Him God and Father and Lord. When
then He says, `I am that I am,' and `I am the Lord God [914] ,' or when
Scripture says, `God,' we understand nothing else by it but the
intimation of His incomprehensible essence Itself, and that He Is, who
is spoken of [915] . Therefore let no one be startled on hearing that
the Son of God is from the Essence of the Father; but rather let him
accept the explanation of the Fathers, who in more explicit but
equivalent language have for `from God' written `of the essence.' For
they considered it the same thing to say that the Word was `of God' and
`of the essence of God,' since the word `God,' as I have already said,
signifies nothing but the essence of Him Who Is. If then the Word is
not in such sense from God, as a son, genuine and natural, from a
father, but only as creatures because they are framed, and as `all
things are from God,' then neither is He from the essence of the
Father, nor is the Son again Son according to essence, but in
consequence of virtue, as we who are called sons by grace. But if He
only is from God, as a genuine Son, as He is, then the Son may
reasonably be called from the essence of God.
23. Again, the illustration of the Light and the Radiance has this
meaning. For the Saints have not said that the Word was related to God
as fire kindled from the heat of the sun, which is commonly put out
again, for this is an external work and a creature of its author, but
they all preach of Him as Radiance [916] , thereby to signify His being
from the essence, proper and indivisible, and His oneness with the
Father. This also will secure His true unchangableness and
immutability; for how can these be His, unless He be proper Offspring
of the Father's essence? for this too must be taken to confirm His
identity with His own Father. Our explanation then having so religious
an aspect, Christ's enemies should not be startled at the `One in
essence,' either, since this term also has a sound sense and good
reasons. Indeed, if we say that the Word is from the essence of God
(for after what has been said this must be a phrase admitted by them),
what does this mean but the truth and eternity of the essence from
which He is begotten? for it is not different in kind, lest it be
combined with the essence of God as something foreign and unlike it.
Nor is He like only outwardly, lest He seem in some respect or wholly
to be other in essence, as brass shines like gold and silver like tin.
For these are foreign and of other nature, are separated off from each
other in nature and virtues, nor is brass proper to gold, nor is the
pigeon born from the dove [917] ; but though they are considered like,
yet they differ in essence. If then it be thus with the Son, let Him be
a creature as we are, and not One in essence; but if the Son is Word,
Wisdom, Image of the Father, Radiance, He must in all reason be One in
essence. For unless it be proved that He is not from God, but an
instrument different in nature and different in essence, surely the
Council was sound in its doctrine and correct in its decree [918] .
24. Further, let every corporeal reference be banished on this subject;
and transcending every imagination of sense, let us, with pure
understanding and with mind alone, apprehend the genuine relation of
son to father, and the Word's proper relation towards God, and the
unvarying likeness of the radiance towards the light: for as the words
`Offspring' and `Son' bear, and are meant to bear, no human sense, but
one suitable to God, in like manner when we hear the phrase `one in
essence,' let us not fall upon human senses, and imagine partitions and
divisions of the Godhead, but as having our thoughts directed to things
immaterial, let us preserve undivided the oneness of nature and the
identity of light; for this is proper to a son as regards a father, and
in this is shewn that God is truly Father of the Word. Here again, the
illustration of light and its radiance is in point [919] . Who will
presume to say that the radiance is unlike and foreign to the sun?
rather who, thus considering the radiance relatively to the sun, and
the identity of the light, would not say with confidence, `Truly the
light and the radiance are one, and the one is manifested in the other,
and the radiance is in the sun, so that whoso sees this, sees that
also?' but such a oneness and natural property, what should it be named
by those who believe and see aright, but Offspring one in essence? and
God's Offspring what should we fittingly and suitably consider, but
Word, and Wisdom, and Power? which it were a sin to say was foreign to
the Father, or a crime even to imagine as other than with Him
everlastingly. For by this Offspring the Father made all things, and
extended His Providence unto all things; by Him He exercises His love
to man, and thus He and the Father are one, as has been said; unless
indeed these perverse men make a fresh attempt, and say that the
essence of the Word is not the same as the Light which is in Him from
the Father, as if the Light in the Son were one with the Father, but He
Himself foreign in essence as being a creature. Yet this is simply the
belief of Caiaphas and the Samosatene, which the Church cast out, but
these now are disguising; and by this they fell from the truth, and
were declared to be heretics. For if He partakes in fulness the light
from the Father, why is He not rather that which others partake [920] ,
that there be no medium introduced between Him and the Father?
Otherwise, it is no longer clear that all things were generated by the
Son, but by Him, of whom He too partakes [921] . And if this is the
Word, the Wisdom of the Father, in whom the Father is revealed and
known, and frames the world, and without whom the Father doth nothing,
evidently He it is who is from the Father: for all things originated
partake of Him, as partaking of the Holy Ghost. And being such, He
cannot be from nothing, nor a creature at all, but rather a proper
Offspring from the Father, as the radiance from light.
__________________________________________________________________
[874] [Prolegg. ch. ii. S:6 (2).]
[875] supr. S:7, note 2.
[876] ex ouk onton.
[877] Heb. xi. 3.
[878] By aion, age, seems to be meant duration, or the measure of
duration, before or independent of the existence of motion, which is in
measure of time. As motion, and therefore time, are creatures, so are
the ages. Considered as the measure of duration, an age has a sort of
positive existence, though not an ousia or substance, and means the
same as `world,' or an existing system of things viewed apart from time
and motion. Vid. Theodt. in Hebr. i. 2. Our Lord then is the Maker of
the ages thus considered, as the Apostle also tells us, Hebr. xi. 3.
and God is the King of the ages, 1 Tim. i. 17. or is before all ages,
as being eternal, or proaionios. However, sometimes the word is
synonymous with eternity; `as time is to things which are under time,
so ages to things which are everlasting.' Damasc. Fid. Orth. ii. 1, and
`ages of ages' stands for eternity; and then the `ages' or measures of
duration may be supposed to stand for the ideai or ideas in the Divine
Mind, which seems to have been a Platonic or Gnostic notion. Hence
Synesius, Hymn iii. addresses the Almighty as aionotoke, parent of the
ages. Hence sometimes God Himself is called the Age, Clem. Alex. Hymn.
Paed. iii. fin. or, the Age of ages, Pseudo-Dion. de Div. Nom. 5. p.
580. or again, ai& 240;nios. Theodoret sums up what has been said thus:
`Age is not any subsisting substance, but is an interval indicative of
time, now infinite, when God is spoken of, now commensurate with
creation, now with human life.' Haer. v. 6. If then, as Athan. says in
the text, the Word is Maker of the ages, He is independent of duration
altogether; He does not come to be in time, but is above and beyond it,
or eternal. Elsewhere he says, `The words addressed to the Son in the
144th Psalm, `Thy kingdom is a kingdom of all ages,' forbid any one to
imagine any interval at all in which the Word did not exist. For if
every interval is measured by ages, and of all the ages the Word is
King and Maker, therefore, whereas no interval at all exists prior to
Him, it were madness to say, "There was once when the Everlasting (ai&
240;nios) was not." Orat. i. 12. And so Alexander; `Is it not
unreasonable that He who made times, and ages, and seasons, to all of
which belongs `was not,' should be said not to be? for, if so, that
interval in which they say the Son was not yet begotten by the Father,
precedes that Wisdom of God which framed all things.' Theod. Hist. i.
4. vid. also Basil de Sp. S. n. 14. Hilar. de Trin. xii. 34.
[879] Herm. Mand. 1. vid. ad Afr. 5.
[880] [Letter 39, and Prolegg. ch. iv. S:4.] He calls it elsewhere a
most profitable book. Incarn. 3.
[881] Athan. here retorts, as it was obvious to do, the charge brought
against the Council which gave occasion for this Treatise. If the
Council went beyond Scripture in the use of the word `essence' (which
however can hardly be granted), who made this necessary, but they who
had already introduced the phrases, `the Son was out of nothing,' &c.,
&c.? `Of the essence,' and `one in essence,' were directly intended to
contradict and supplant the Arian unscriptural innovations, as he says
below, S:20. fin. 21. init. vid. also ad Afros. 6. de Synod. S:36, 37.
He observes in like manner that the Arian agenetos, though allowable as
used by religious men, de Syn. S:40. was unscriptural, Orat. i. S:30,
34. Also Epiph. Haer. 76. p. 941. Basil. contr. Eunom. i. 5. Hilar.
contr. Const. 16. Ambros. Incarn. 80.
[882] Vid. S:10, note 3.
[883] vid. ad. Afr. 5.
[884] 1 Cor. viii. 6.
[885] 2 Cor. v. 17.
[886] Hence it stands in the Creed, `from the Father, that is, from the
essence of the Father.' vid. Eusebius's Letter, infr. According to the
received doctrine of the Church all rational beings, and in one sense
all beings whatever, are `from God,' over and above the fact of their
creation; and of this truth the Arians made use to deny our Lord's
proper divinity. Athan. lays down elsewhere that nothing remains in
consistence and life, except from a participation of the Word, which is
to be considered a gift from Him, additional to that of creation, and
separable in idea from it; vid. above, S:17, note 5. contr. Gent. 42.
de Incarn. 5. Man thus considered is, in his first estate, a son of God
and born of God, or, to use the term which occurs so frequently in the
Arian controversy, in the number, not only of the creatures, but of
things generate, genneta. This was the sense in which the Arians said
that our Lord was Son of God; whereas, as Athan. says, `things
originate, being works, cannot be called generate, except so far as,
after their making, they partake of the begotten Son, and are therefore
said to have been generated also; not at all in their own nature, but
because of their participation of the Son in the Spirit.' Orat. i. 56.
The question then was, as to the distinction of the Son's divine
generation over that of holy men; and the Catholics answered that He
was ex ousias, from the essence of God; not by participation of grace,
not by resemblance, not in a limited sense, but really and simply, and
therefore by an internal divine act. vid. below, S:22. and infr. S:31.
[The above note has been modified so as to eliminate the erroneous
identification of gennetos and genetos.]
[887] Cf. de Syn. S:35.
[888] 1 Cor. viii. 6.
[889] When characteristic attributes and prerogatives are ascribed to
God, or to the Father, this is done only to the exclusion of creatures,
or of false gods, not to the exclusion of His Son who is implied in the
mention of Himself. Thus when God is called only wise, or the Father
the only God, or God is said to be unoriginate, agenetos, this is not
in contrast to the Son, but to all things which are distinct from God.
vid. Orat. iii. 8. Naz. Orat. 30, 13. Cyril. Thesaur. p 142. `The words
"one" and "only" ascribed to God in Scripture,' says S. Basil, `are not
used in contrast to the Son or the Holy Spirit, but with reference to
those who are not God, and falsely called so.' Ep. 8. n. 3. On the
other hand, when the Father is mentioned, the other Divine Persons are
implied in Him, `The Blessed and Holy Trinity,' says S. Athan. `is
indivisible and one in itself; and when the Father is mentioned, His
Word is added, and the Spirit in the Son; and if the Son is named, in
the Son is the Father, and the Spirit is not external to the Word.' ad
Serap. i. 14.
[890] Vid. also ad Afros. 4. Again, `"I am," to on, is really proper to
God and is a whole, bounded or mutilated neither by aught before Him,
nor after Him, for He neither was, nor shall be.' Naz. Orat. 30. 18
fin. Also Cyril Dial. i. p. 392. Damasc. Fid. Orth. i. 9. and the
Semiarians at Ancyra, Epiph. Haer. 73. 12 init. By the `essence,'
however, or, `substance' of God, the Council did not mean any thing
distinct from God, vid. note 3 infr. but God Himself viewed in His
self-existing nature (vid. Tert. in Hermog, 3.), nay, it expressly
meant to negative the contrary notion of the Arians, that our Lord was
from something distinct from God, and in consequence of created
substance. Moreover the term expresses the idea of God positively, in
contradistinction to negative epithets, such as infinite, immense,
eternal, &c. Damasc. Fid. Orthod. i. 4. and as little implies any thing
distinct from God as those epithets do.
[891] aparallakton
[892] 1 Cor. xi. 7.
[893] 2 Cor. iv. 11.
[894] Acts xvii. 28.
[895] Rom. viii. 35, who shall separate.
[896] Joel ii. 25.
[897] Ex. xii. 41.
[898] Ps. xlvi. 7.
[899] vid. supr. S:8, note 3.
[900] Prov. xii. 20.
[901] vid. ad Afros. 5, 6. ad Serap. ii. 5. S. Ambrose tells us, that a
Letter written by Eusebius of Nicomedia, in which he said, `If we call
Him true Son of the Father and uncreate, then are we granting that He
is one in essence, homoousion,' determined the Council on the adoption
of the term. de Fid. iii. n. 125. He had disclaimed `of the essence,'
in his Letter to Paulinus. Theod. Hist. i. 4. Arius, however, had
disclaimed homoousion already, Epiph. Haer. 69. 7. It was a word of old
usage in the Church, as Eusebius of Caesarea confesses in his Letter,
infr. Tertullian in Prax. 13 fin. has the translation `unius
substantiae:' (vid. Lucifer de non Parc. p. 218.) as he has `de
substantia Patris,' in Prax. 4. and Origen perhaps used the word, vid.
Pamph. Apol. 5. and Theognostus and the two Dionysii, infr. S:25, 26.
And before them Clement had spoken of the henosis tes monadikes ousias,
`the union of the single essence,' vid. Le Quien in Damasc. Fid. Orth.
i. 8. Novatian too has `per substantiae communionem,' de Trinit. 31.
[902] The Arians allowed that our Lord was like and the image of the
Father, but in the sense in which a picture is like the original,
differing from it in substance and in fact. In this sense they even
allowed the strong word aparallaktos unvarying [or rather exact] image,
vid. beginning of S:20. which had been used by the Catholics (vid.
Alexander, ap. Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 740.) as by the Semiarians
afterwards, who even added the words kat' ousian, or `according to
substance.' Even this strong phrase, however, kat' ousian aparallaktos
eikon, or aparallaktos homoios, did not appear to the Council an
adequate safeguard of the doctrine. Athan. notices de Syn. that `like'
applies to qualities rather than to essence, S:53. Also Basil. Ep. 8.
n. 3. `while in itself,' says the same Father, `it is frequently used
of faint similitudes and falling very far short of the original.' Ep.
9. n. 3. Accordingly, the Council determined on the word homoousion as
implying, as the text expresses it, `the same in likeness,' tauton te
homoiosei, that the likeness might not be analogical. vid. the passage
about gold and brass, S:23 below, Cyril in Joan. 1. iii. c. v. p. 302.
[See below de Syn. 15, note 2.]
[903] Gen. v. 3.
[904] vid. Euseb.'s Letter, supr.
[905] gennema, offspring; this word is of very frequent occurrence in
Athan. He speaks of it, Orat. iv. 3. as virtually Scriptural. Yet
Basil, contr. Eunom. ii. 6-8. explicitly disavows the word, as an
unscriptural invention of Eunomius. `That the Father begat we are
taught in many places: that the Son is an offspring we never heard up
to this day, for Scripture says, "unto us a child is born, unto us a
son is given."' c. 7. He goes on to say that `it is fearful to give Him
names of our own to whom God has given a name which is above every
name;' and observes that offspring is not the word which even a human
father would apply to his son, as for instance we read, `Child,
(teknon,) go into the vineyard,' and `Who art thou, my son?' moreover
that fruits of the earth are called offspring (`I will not drink of the
offspring of this vine'), rarely animated things, except indeed in such
instances as, `O generation (offspring) of vipers.' Nyssen defends his
brother, contr. Eunom. Orat. iii. p 105. In the Arian formula `an
offspring, but not as one of the offsprings,' it is synonymous with
`work' or `creature.' On the other hand Epiphanius uses it, e.g. Haer.
76. n. 8. and Naz. Orat. 29. n. 2. Eusebius, Demonstr. Ev. iv. 2.
Pseudo-Basil. adv. Eunom. iv. p. 280. fin.
[906] Ps. xlv. 1.
[907] Ib. cx. 3.
[908] John viii. 42.
[909] Ib. vi. 46.
[910] Ib. x. 30, and xiv. 10.
[911] Ib. i. 18.
[912] sumbebekos. Cf. Orat. iv. 2. also Orat. i. 36. The text embodies
the common doctrine of the Fathers. Athenagoras, however, speaks of
God's goodness as an accident, `as colour to the body,' `as flame is
ruddy and the sky blue,' Legat. 24. This, however is but a verbal
difference, for shortly before he speaks of His being, to ontos on, and
His unity of nature, to monophues, as in the number of episumbebekota
auto. Eusebius uses the word sumbebekos in the same way [but see Orat.
iv. 2, note 8], Demonstr. Evang. iv. 3. And hence S. Cyril, in
controversy with the Arians, is led by the course of their objections
to observe, `There are cogent reasons for considering these things as
accidents sumbebekota in God, though they be not.' Thesaur. p. 263.
vid. the following note.
[913] peribole, and so de Syn. S:34. which is very much the same
passage. Some Fathers, however, seem to say the reverse. E.g. Nazianzen
says that `neither the immateriality of God nor ingenerateness, present
to us His essence.' Orat. 28. 9. And S. Augustine, arguing on the word
ingenitus, says, that `not every thing which is said to be in God is
said according to essence.' de Trin. v. 6. And hence, while Athan. in
the text denies that there are qualities or the like belonging to Him,
peri auton, it is still common in the Fathers to speak of qualities, as
in the passage of S. Gregory just cited, in which the words peri theon
occur. There is no difficulty in reconciling these statements, though
it would require more words than could be given to it here. Petavius
has treated the subject fully in his work de Deo. i. 7-11. and
especially ii. 3. When the Fathers say that there is no difference
between the divine `proprietates' and essence, they speak of the fact,
considering the Almighty as He is; when they affirm a difference, they
speak of Him as contemplated by us, who are unable to grasp the idea of
Him as one and simple, but view His Divine Nature as if in projection
(if such a word may be used)