think they are being treated unjustly when, as I said, they see those living whom they desire to be dead. Would that they were treated unjustly in such a way that they themselves might grow weak in their injustices, while those who are persecuted by them might give thanks to the Lord and say the words in the 26th Psalm: "The Lord is my light and my Savior, whom shall I fear? The Lord is the protector of my life, of whom shall I be afraid? When the wicked draw near against me to eat my flesh, my persecutors A and my enemies, they grew weak and fell." And again in the 30th Psalm: "You saved my life from necessities, and did not shut me up in the hands of my enemies; you have set my feet in a spacious place." In Christ Jesus our Lord, through whom to the Father in the Holy Spirit be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen. B
Admonition regarding the Epistle to Serapion concerning the death of Arius, and the Epistle to the Monks.
A I. The Epistle to Serapion concerning the death of Arius, although it was written after the Epistle to the Monks, occupies the prior place here, just as it does in older manuscripts; and it is likely that they reached us in the same order in which they were sent to Serapion. For Athanasius, having been asked by Serapion himself to transmit to him the history of the events of his time, the refutation of the Arian impiety, and the account of the death of Arius, fulfilled the first two requests by appending his own writings addressed to the monks; but he executed the third in his Epistle to that same Serapion, which he placed before the others. Therefore, the saintly Doctor pursues the death of Arius—which he had touched upon briefly in his Epistle to the bishops of Egypt and Libya—at greater length here, just as he had learned it from the presbyter Macarius, an eyewitness. With this narrative completed, he asks Serapion that, once his writings against the Arians have been read through, he see to it that they are sent back to him as soon as possible; and thus he closes this epistle.
II. The Epistle to the Monks is as it were a prologue to the history of the events that occurred from the beginning of Arianism up to the year 357, and to the refutation of the Arian dogmas, both of which works Athanasius wrote at the request of the monks. In this epistle, moreover, the saintly Doctor recounts how much he labored in writing those things that concern the divinity of the Word, on account of the sublimity of the subject matter; and he asks the monks not to communicate them to others, nor to transcribe them for themselves, saying that it is not safe for the writings of a stammering and unskilled man to reach posterity; so soberly and moderately did he think of himself—a temperance of spirit which shines forth likewise throughout the entire course of his works.
III. Furthermore, whether those things which were written to refute the Arian heresy and to defend the divinity of the Word still exist is uncertain. For what some say—that it is the very same as the four Orations against the Arians—is not without difficulty. For in that letter which was sent to the monks, the Arian heresy was assailed in a few words, as Athanasius himself testifies in number 1. But the Orations against the Arians are so prolix that it is hardly believable that Athanasius said them to have been written in a few words, he who never published any work of such prolixity, as far as we know. But what some very learned men think, that the Epistle to Serapion—which is held to be the first in previous editions, and which as now restored to its own order occupies the second place—is a sort of synopsis...
of what was sent to the monks, inasmuch as it was reduced to an epitome at their request. That this is true is clear from that very epistle and from the subsequent one to Serapion, where Athanasius says just this: that the brethren had requested that he condense for the more convenient use of the brothers those things which he had discussed more fully in his first epistle to Serapion concerning the Holy Spirit. Before the holy Doctor did this, he first treated very briefly of those things which pertain to the divinity of the Son; so that, having set those things forth, he might thereafter discourse more easily and more briefly concerning the Holy Spirit in his third epistle to Serapion. Nor does Athanasius mention anywhere therein the more prolix treatise on the divinity of the Word sent to the monks. Therefore, whether that refutation of Arianism given to the monks still survives or has perished entirely is very doubtful. Athanasius certainly seems to advise the latter, when he earnestly begs the monks and Serapion himself not to hand his rescript to anyone, nor to transcribe it for themselves, but after reading the work, to transmit it immediately back to him, lest the writings of an unskilled man (so he terms himself) on such profound matters reach posterity. By which it is perhaps hinted that the little work was suppressed by Athanasius himself.
A IV. As regards the history of Arianism, which likewise was written at the request of the monks and sent to them, the fact that it is mutilated at the beginning the thing itself proclaims; for it begins thus: *They, however, for whose sake they machinated these things*—where the adversative particle *de* (δὲ) implies that certain things had preceded it. Indeed, it is clear from what follows that the narrative had been carried back much further. But why the entire beginning was omitted is not difficult to guess. For when the copyists saw that the earlier part of that history was the same or almost similar to the latter part of the *Apology Against the Arians* (no. 59), where Athanasius reviews events from the dawn of Arianism and cites the published documents, they refrained from copying it, because it was written in the same or almost similar words. They always observed the rule not to transcribe again what was already held to be described in previous works. We acknowledge, however, that they are accustomed to place the beginning of repeated epistles and to give notice that those [that follow] are contained in the previously described works; but sometimes they give no warning, and without even a word added, they omit the entire work. This can be observed at the end of this history, where Athanasius testifies that he had written out the epistles of the Council of Sardica, of which, however, not a trace appears there, because, of course, they had been described previously in the *Apology Against the Arians*.
B V. We believe, therefore, that Athanasius began this history from the second part of the *Apology*, and that he had kept the series of the narrative strictly the same up to the Council of Jerusalem of the year 335, at which point he initiated a different way of narrating. In this history, indeed, it is written: *They, however, for whose sake they machinated these things, did not long delay; for as soon as they had plotted, they straightway received those around Arius into communion.* That is: They, however, did not long after fulfill that for the sake of which they had machinated these things: for immediately after preparing such intrigues, they received Arius and his followers into communion. In the *Apology*, however, it is thus (no. 81): *Having composed these and such like things, straightway they also made manifest the cause for which they practiced these things; for, departing, they brought the Arians with them to Jerusalem, and there received them into communion.* That is, having machinated such things, they soon made public the cause of acting thus: for leaving from there, they brought the Arians with them to Jerusalem and admitted them there to communion. These things harmonize with what is read in the book *De Synodis*, after the epistle of that same Council of Jerusalem, where it is said that Arius with his associates, *Arius and those with him*, had been admitted to communion. It should be noted, however, that although it is most evident that this history sent to the monks is truncated from the beginning, yet, since the beginning of those things which now survive is taken from a very famous event and the sense is entirely complete, it seems certain that the prior portions were omitted not by chance but by design. No cause for this omission presents itself other than that which we have adduced above.
C VI. One thing, however, is that which might cause some difficulty; namely, a little after the middle of this history, where Athanasius deals with the second Alexandrian persecution under Constantius, he says: *which a little before have been told in few words*, by which he hints that he had already spoken of that persecution earlier in this history: whence Felckmann infers that, since he did not narrate that persecution in those parts which are now extant, it had been narrated in those parts which were lost from the beginning. Hence one might perhaps conclude that, since not even a word about that persecution appears in the second part of the *Apology*, it had not been attached to this history by Athanasius, but that a different beginning had been attached. But even if Athanasius had added something about the second Alexandrian persecution to the second part of the *Apology*, that would not have prevented the copyists from omitting these things along with the rest; for you may see examples of such omissions in the *Apology Against the Arians*, nos. 44 and 78, where the copyists not only omit epistles previously described, but also, if the later [texts] disagree with the prior ones, they usually omit them with the others without giving any warning. And it should be observed that the notes of omissions which had been placed by earlier copyists had been omitted by later ones: which we have observed more than once in Athanasius. We believe, nevertheless, that that "a little before" (*μικρῷ πρόσθεν*) cannot be referred to that part of the history which was omitted at the beginning. For who, I ask, would call those things "a little before" which would be found more than forty pages earlier? Therefore, that "a little before" seems to refer to those things which Athanasius mentions a few pages earlier, *di' oligōn* (δι᾽ ὀλίγων), that is, in few words, concerning the Alexandrian persecution, and to those things which he touches upon lightly in no. 32 concerning the incursion of Syrianus.
D VII. Concerning the above-cited beginning of this history, as it exists at present, some very learned men have introduced huge controversies; for when they refer the death of Alexander of Constantinople to the year 331, they consequently conclude from this that the Arian heresiarch had not been admitted at the Council of Jerusalem, held in the year 335, but another of the same name who followed the heresiarch. In other places, however, Arius...
is said by Athanasius to be named in that place for the Arians. But neither of these opinions has even the least bit of probability. For as to the first, who would ever persuade himself that Athanasius, in his *Apologia contra Arianos* and in his book *De synodis*, after he has named the heresiarch Arius six hundred times in the course of his narrative, when he reaches the account of the Council of Jerusalem, suddenly substitutes another Arius? Such that he neither warns the reader nor indicates with the slightest sign that this person is someone other than the heresiarch, so that he leads all who read him into error. But what is more unlikely? What is more alien to a wise and accurate writer, such as no one denies Athanasius to have been? That opinion surely collapses at the first glance of any prudent reader. Nor does the claim that the Arians are indicated there by the name of Arius hold any more firmness: for Athanasius testifies in his book *De synodis* that the phrase "Arius and those with him" was received there, as if he were saying "Arius and the Arians." When he openly distinguishes Arius from his followers, it is manifest that Arius himself, then still surviving, was admitted to communion with the Arians.
VIII. What compelled learned men to embrace that opinion are the words of the Council of Philippopolis, celebrated by the Arians in the year 347, whose epistle is contained in the *Fragments of Hilary*. There the heretics say, in no. 13, that Paul of Constantinople was present at the deposition of Athanasius and that he condemned him. From this they argue that, already at the time of the Council of Tyre where Athanasius was condemned, Paul was the bishop of Constantinople: and consequently that at the time of the Council of Tyre, and hence the Council of Jerusalem which was celebrated after Tyre, Arius was already dead, since he had died before Alexander, the predecessor of Paul. But what faith should be placed in this epistle of the heretics, which is sprinkled with calumnies and lies? Especially since it says in the same place that Asclepas was condemned by Athanasius, which is entirely false, and the heretics impudently state at the very beginning of the epistle that they celebrated the Council of Sardica, which was universally known to be far from the truth. Of these things, more in the *Life of Athanasius*.
IX. They bring forward another argument, namely that the heresiarch Arius had been admitted to communion long before the Council of Jerusalem was celebrated; and consequently that he was not the same one received at the aforementioned council. But that is completely repugnant to Athanasius, who says in *Apologia contra Arianos*, no. 59, that Constantine ordered him at the instigation of Eusebius to receive Arius; and that when Athanasius refused, claiming it was not right for him to do so even if the emperor urged it, the Eusebians therefore constructed calumnies against Athanasius. But he says later, in no. 84, that in the Council of Jerusalem they made it public that they had plotted all these things for the sake of receiving Arius and his men, and that he was there truly admitted to communion, as he himself also testifies in his book *De synodis* after the epistle of that same Council of Jerusalem. From these passages of Athanasius it is clearer than the light itself that the heresiarch himself was admitted to communion at the Council of Jerusalem in the year 335. It is truly astonishing that learned men, relying on such a place, have established an opinion that is incredible and contrary to Athanasius. The other things they bring forward are of no moment and do not require refutation. Two points, however, remain worthy of notice: 1st, that there truly was another Arius, a follower of the heresiarch, who is reported to have been condemned together with him by Alexander of Alexandria in an epistle of the same Alexander to be edited later; but he was a man of no name, who is not mentioned even once in Athanasius; 2nd, that Hilary named two Ariuses in *Fragm.* 2, no. 26; but Hilary is accustomed to call the Arians "Ariuses," as our scholars have observed in the latest edition of Hilary: where they also say that Sulpicius Severus and Vigilius of Thapsus were deceived by this passage of Hilary and introduced two Ariuses. See ibid.
X. After Athanasius has touched lightly on the acts of the Council of Jerusalem, he enumerates the bishops who were cruelly vexed and driven into exile by the Arians. Hence he narrates the events from the year 338 to the year 357, and, having for the most part interrupted the sequence of the narrative, inveighs sharply against Constantius and the Arians. The holy Doctor records that he joined to this history the Acts of the Council of Sardica and the supplications of the people of Alexandria regarding the incursion of Syrianus. But for the reason stated above, the epistle of the Council of Sardica does not appear there at all. Of the supplications, only the second is appended there: the first was never placed there by Athanasius, because when he wrote these things while dwelling in the desert, he perhaps could not obtain it: or perhaps, since it was entirely similar to the following one, and the same incursion of Syrianus was recounted there, as is clear from the second which now survives, it was omitted by the scribes as is their custom.
XI. It remains for us to establish the year in which these things were written. Valesius, in his notes on Socrates, following Baronius, thinks that Leontius of Antioch died in the year 356, and Socrates favors them, who says in book II, chapter 37, that Eudoxius, bishop of Germanicia, learned of the death of Leontius while he was staying at Rome with Constantius; namely at the beginning, or at least before the month of May of the year 357. For at the beginning of May, or later, Constantius left Rome to betake himself to Sirmium. Wherefore, since the history sent to the monks mentions Leontius as surviving, if we follow Socrates, it must have been written in the year 356, or at the latest at the beginning of the year 357. But Athanasius, who speaks in it of the death of Hosius, most evidently disagrees with this opinion. Hosius certainly died under the end of the year 357, nor does it seem possible that the report of his death could have reached from Spain to the deserts of Egypt in that same year. Wherefore these writings of Athanasius must be referred to the year 358, since it is otherwise certain that Socrates is very often mistaken, as we have indicated elsewhere. Concerning Marcellus of Ancyra, we shall treat this below in no. 4.
OF OUR HOLY FATHER ATHANASIUS, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, EPISTLE TO SERAPION HIS BROTHER
A Athanasius to Serapion, brother and fellow-minister, greeting in the Lord.
1. I have read the letters of your piety in which you exhort us to relate to you the things that concern us and what has happened at this time, and also to write concerning the most impious Arian heresy, on account of which we have suffered these evils, and what the end of Arius’s life was. Since there were therefore these three requests, I have gladly performed two of them, and have sent to your piety what I wrote to the monks; for from these you may learn both the things that concern us and those that pertain to the heresy. But concerning the third, I mean the death of Arius, I weighed many things with myself, fearing lest anyone should think I was gloating over the death of the man; yet since, in a discussion held among you concerning the heresy, the question ended at this point, whether Arius died in communion with the Church—for this reason, because the question is resolved by the account of his death, I deemed it necessary to relate the matter to you accurately, thinking it of equal importance to declare this as it is to silence the disputants. For I believe that, once the miracle regarding his death is known, not even those who previously raised B questions about the matter will dare to doubt any longer that the Arian heresy is hateful to God.
2. I was not present in Constantinople when he died; but Macarius the presbyter was present, and I heard it from his telling. Arius had been summoned by the Emperor Constantine at the instigation of the Eusebians; and when Arius entered, the emperor asked him if he held the faith of the Catholic Church. He, for his part, swore that he believed rightly, and
A gave in a written statement of his faith, having concealed those points for which he had been expelled from the Church by Bishop Alexander, and feigning the expressions from the Scriptures. Having therefore sworn that he did not hold the opinions for which Alexander had cast him out, he released him, saying: "If your faith is right, you have sworn well; but if your faith is impious, and you have sworn, may God judge your case by your oath."
Thus, having departed from the emperor, the Eusebians wished to introduce him into the church with their customary violence. But the bishop of Constantinople, of blessed memory, Alexander, resisted, declaring that the author of a heresy ought not to be received into communion. Thereupon the Eusebians, resorting to threats, said: "Just as, even against your will, we obtained from the emperor that he should be summoned, so tomorrow, even if it be not to your liking, Arius will assemble with us in this church." It was Saturday when they said these things.
B 3. Bishop Alexander, therefore, hearing these things, and being exceedingly sorrowful, entered the church; and stretching forth his hands to God, he lamented, and casting himself upon his face in the sanctuary, he lay upon the ground and prayed. Macarius was also present praying with him, and heard his voice. The bishop was earnestly beseeching two things, saying: "If Arius is to assemble tomorrow, dismiss me, your servant, from this life, and do not destroy the pious with the impious. But if You have mercy upon Your Church—and I know well that You do—look upon the words of the Eusebians, and do not deliver Your inheritance into destruction and reproach. And take away Arius, lest, when he enters the church, the heresy also should seem to enter with him, and hence forth impiety be esteemed as piety." Having prayed these things, the bishop departed, very anxious.
And a wonderful and strange thing happened. For while the Eusebians were uttering threats, the bishop was praying; but Arius, trusting in the Eusebians, and prating many things, entered the latrines as if to relieve his bowels, and suddenly, according to what is written, falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and falling, immediately expired, stripped of both—that is, of his communion and of his life—at once. C
4. Such was the end of Arius; and the Eusebians, suffused with great shame, buried their fellow-conspirator. But the blessed Alexander, with the Church rejoicing, celebrated the synaxis with piety and sound faith, praying for all the brethren and glorifying God greatly—not as one rejoicing at his death, God forbid! for it is appointed for all men to die once; but because this matter had been shown to be above human judgments. For the Lord Himself D judged the threats of the Eusebians and the prayer of the bishop, showing that the faith of the Church is not to be judged by human arguments.
A And he made it manifest to all that even if it possesses the patronage of the emperor and all men, it has nonetheless been condemned by the Church herself. It is thus clearly demonstrated that the Christ-fighting workshop of the Ariomaniacs is not dear to God, but is impious. And many of those previously led astray have repented. For it was not another, but the Lord Himself—who was being blasphemed by them—who condemned the heresy that had risen against Him; and He showed again that even if the Emperor Constantius now uses force against the bishops on its behalf, it is nonetheless excluded from the Church and a stranger to the heavens. Wherefore, let your questioning on this point henceforth cease; for such was the agreement that was made. Let no one add himself to the heresy, but let those who were deceived repent. For if the Lord has condemned it, who shall accept it? And if He Himself has declared it unworthy of communion, how is it that he who receives it is not guilty of the greatest impiety and is not clearly a Christ-fighter?
B 5. This is sufficient to confuse the contentious: read these things to those who were then questioning, as well as those things which were written briefly against the heresy for the monks, so that they may the more condemn the impiety and wickedness of the Ariomaniacs. Do not, however, wish to give a copy of these to anyone, nor transcribe them for yourself; for I have signified this to the monks as well. But, with your innate nobility, if anything is missing in what has been written, add it, and send it back to us immediately. For even from the epistle which I wrote to the brothers, you can learn what I suffered in the writing, and moreover you can know why it is not safe for the writings of an unlearned man to be published, especially concerning the highest and most exalted dogmas, lest something said imperfectly through weakness or a lack of clarity in speech should cause harm to the readers. C For the majority do not look to the faith nor to the intention of the writer, but either out of envy or out of the spirit of contention—by which they have been prepossessed according to their own opinion—they receive things as they themselves wish, and twist what has been written according to their own pleasure. And may the Lord grant that in all things, and especially among those to whom you read these things, the truth and the sound faith in our Lord Jesus Christ may prevail. Amen. D