The Importance of Athanasius and the Views of His Character

J. Steven Davis

Submitted to
Dr. Jerry Sutton
School of Divinity
Liberty University
September 19, 2017
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter I: Research Proposal

Abstract .............................................................................................................................11

Background ......................................................................................................................11

Limitations ........................................................................................................................18

Method of Research .........................................................................................................19

Thesis Statement ..............................................................................................................21

Outline...............................................................................................................................21

Bibliography .....................................................................................................................27

Chapter II: Background of Athanasius

An Influential Figure .......................................................................................................33

Early Life ..........................................................................................................................33

Arian Conflict ...................................................................................................................36

Beginnings of the Arian Conflict ...............................................................................36

Council of Nicaea ........................................................................................................38

Early Ministry ..................................................................................................................40

Aftermath of Nicaea ....................................................................................................40

2
 Athanasius as Bishop ..................................................................................................41

Attacks by the Arians .................................................................................................43

Charges Against Athanasius ......................................................................................46

The Council of Tyre and Results ...............................................................................48

Exiles .................................................................................................................................51

First Exile and Return ................................................................................................51

The Roman Exile .........................................................................................................53

The Quiet Between Exiles...........................................................................................57

Third Exile ...................................................................................................................62

An Abbreviated Stay in Alexandria ..........................................................................63

Fourth Exile and Return ............................................................................................65

Fifth Exile and Return ................................................................................................66

Last Years .........................................................................................................................67

Chapter III: Theological Contributions

A Cogent Theological Mind………………….. ..............................................................70

Theological Influence…………………………. ..............................................................70

Influences on Athanasius…………………................................................................70

3
 Theological Method……………………….. ..............................................................73

Early Years………………………………… ..............................................................73

Later Important Works…………………… ..............................................................77

Theological Ideas……………………………… ..............................................................85

Incarnation………………………………… ..............................................................85

Good News…………………………………. ..............................................................89

The Trinity…………………………………. ..............................................................90

Homoousios………………………………… ..............................................................93

Holy Spirit…………………………………. ..............................................................94

Doctrine of God……………………………. ..............................................................96

Human Body……………………………….. ..............................................................98

Christ’s Power……………………………... ..............................................................98

Asceticism………………………………….. ..............................................................99

Role as Pastor……………………………… ............................................................100

Role of Scripture…………………………... ............................................................102

The Theological Impact of Athanasius……… ............................................................102

Chapter IV: Fourth Century Influences

4
A Variety of Influences ..................................................................................................104

Arius…………………………………………… ............................................................105

Arius’ Background………………………... ............................................................105

Theological Views of Arius………………... ............................................................110

The Writings of Arius……………………... ............................................................113

Death of Arius……………………………... ............................................................116

Constantine and His Sons……………………..............................................................117

Constantine………………………………… ............................................................117

Constantine and Church Policies………… ............................................................120

Personal Life……………………………….. ............................................................124

Constantinus……………………………….. ............................................................126

Constans……………………………………. ............................................................127

Constantius………………………………… ............................................................129

Other Influences………………………………. ............................................................132

Eusebius……………………………………. ............................................................132

The Meletians……………………………… ............................................................136

Complex Epoch……………………………….. ............................................................142

5
 Chapter V: Allegations Against Athanasius

Early Allegations……………………………… ............................................................143

The Start of Trouble………………………….. ............................................................143

Actions Against the Orthodox……………. ............................................................143

Ordination…………………………………. ............................................................149

Allegations at Tyre……………………………. ............................................................151

The Murder of Arsenius…………………... ............................................................151

The Broken Chalice……………………….. ............................................................156

The Broken Chalice at the Council of Tyre ............................................................161

Imposed Taxes……………………………... ............................................................165

Treason…………………………………….. ............................................................166

Illicit Affair………………………………… ............................................................166

General and Later Charges…………………...............................................................167

Violence…………………………………….. ............................................................167

Diverting Corn Shipments………………... ............................................................170

Verbal Abuses……………………………... ............................................................171

Evaluation……………………………………... ............................................................173

6
 Chapter VI: Later Sources of Indictments

New Information……………………………… ............................................................175

Philostorgius…………………………………... ............................................................175

Understanding Philostorgius……………... ............................................................175

Historical Problems with Philostorgius….. ............................................................180

Philostorgius’ History……………………... ............................................................184

Evaluation of Philostorgius……………….. ........................................................187

London Papyrus……………………………….. ............................................................188

London Papyrus 1914 Comes to Light……. ............................................................188

Problems with Bell’s Summations………... ............................................................192

Implications of the Letter…………………. ............................................................194

Alternate View……………………………... ............................................................195

Evaluation of LP 1914…………………….. ............................................................196

Funeral Oration………………………………. ............................................................199

Gregory’s Eulogy………………………….. ............................................................199

Evaluation of Oration 21…………………...............................................................205

New Information Evaluated………………….. ............................................................206

7
 Chapter VII: Positive Views of Athanasius

Historical View………………………………... ............................................................208

Specific Groups……………………………….. ............................................................208

Use of Athanasius Among Reformed Theologians.................................................208

Athanasius in the Roman Catholic System ............................................................210

Athanasius Through the Centuries………….. ............................................................212

Eighteenth Century………………………... ............................................................212

Nineteenth Century………………………... ............................................................214

Early Twentieth Century…………………. ............................................................219

Recent Times………………………………. ............................................................223

Specific Authors………………………………. ............................................................227

Khaled Anatolios…………………………... ............................................................227

Duane W. H. Arnold………………………. ............................................................230

Positive Views Through Time………………... ............................................................237

Chapter VIII: Negative Perspectives

Critical Views of Athanasius…………………. ............................................................238

Background…………………………………… ............................................................238

8
 Tubingen School…………………………… ............................................................238

Otto Seeck………………………………….. ............................................................241

Eduard Schwartz and Followers…………. ............................................................243

Recent Authors………………………………... ............................................................246

David M. Gwynn…………………………... ............................................................246

R. P. C. Hanson……………………………. ............................................................248

Frances Young……………………………... ............................................................251

William Rusch……………………………... ............................................................252

The Perspective of Barnes………………… ............................................................253

Athanasius as a Gangster…………………….. ............................................................258

Inadequate Argument………………………… ............................................................262

Chapter IX: Evaluation

Multiple Outlooks…………………………….. ............................................................263

Reasoning for the Attacks……………………. ............................................................264

Accomplishments……………………………... ............................................................267

Character Traits……………………………….............................................................269

Lessons from Athanasius……………………...............................................................272

9
A Life Well-Lived……………………………... ............................................................275

Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………...276

10
 ABSTRACT

Athanasius is the one of the most important figures in church history. He is known for firmly

standing for the faith in a time when the Arian heresy threatened to forever impact the church.

However, during the fourth century Athanasius was able to effectively combat this trend and he

suffered greatly for it as he was exiled five times during his forty-five years as the bishop of

Alexandria. His first exile came in AD 335 and this is the most important one to understand as

many of the charges brought against him were reiterated later on. Most church historians and

Christian writers through the centuries viewed Athanasius as a hero and believed the charges

against him were fabricated. However, in the late nineteenth century a shift began towards a

negative view of the character of Athanasius and this has continued to the present day. Many

modern authors point to three items of evidence that have been discovered as the reason for the

evolving perspective on Athanasius. This paper will investigate the validity of the original

claims against Athanasius brought in 335 as well as the credibility of the items of this new line of

evidence.

BACKGROUND

Athanasius is a major theologian and church leader from the first centuries of Christian

history. One of the main elements of truth that he was adamant about was the deity of Christ.

Athanasius believed that Jesus was fully God, not a created being, had always existed and was of

the same substance as God the Father. “In the development of the doctrine of the Trinity,

Athanasius stands in a category of his own. Thomas R. Torrance holds that Athanasius’

11
contribution is of more importance than that of any other theologian.”1 This orthodox position

was decided upon by the Council of Nicaea in AD 325. At the time of Nicaea Athanasius was a

deacon in the church of Alexandria serving under the bishop, Alexander.2 However, Athanasius

had already proven himself to be an able theologian as he had written brilliant works years

before the Council of Nicaea convened. In addition, there is evidence that Athanasius, even from

the position of deacon, was a leader in the discussions at Nicaea.3 Thus, Athanasius was a

supporter and defender of the orthodox position of Christ being fully God from the early stages.

One of the chief reasons the Council of Nicaea was convened was because of the controversy

created by a man named Arius. He had been a priest at a local church in Alexandria and, thus,

came under the authority of Bishop Alexander. Arius proposed the idea that the Son was

somehow a created being and did not share the same essence as the Father.4 Of course, this

belief would change the aspect of salvation in that it was necessary that God would give Himself

as a sacrifice for sins. Thus, in the years prior to Nicaea a tremendous conflict had developed

between bishop Alexander and Arius which resulted in Arius being refused his position in the

Alexandrian church.5 However, Arius would not accept this and took the conflict to other areas

which increased the scope of the trouble and necessitated, at least in the mind of Emperor

Constantine, calling the Council of Nicaea. 6

With the decision of the Council of Nicaea the orthodox followers had a great victory and

were hoping that the conflict over Arianism would fade away. However, Arius and his followers

1
Kevin Giles, The Trinity and Subordinationism (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 33-34.
2
Theodoret, Book 1, Chapter 25. The Greek Ecclesiastical Historians (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1844).
3
Athanasius, Orations of S. Athanasius (London: Griffith, Farran, Okedon and Welsh, 1980), 5.
4
Michael R. Barnes and Daniel H. Williams, Arianism after Arius (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1993), 4.
5
Karl Baus, History of the Church: Volume II (New York: The Seabury Press, 1980), 17.
6
Sozomen, Book 2, Chapter 15. The Greek Ecclesiastical Historians (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1844).

12
were not willing to allow the controversy to end and began to garner support from others. The

churches and bishops in the east were much more likely to be sympathetic to Arius and this

became a stronghold for him. One man in particular, named Eusebius of Nicomedia, became a

powerful advocate of the Arian idea. Eusebius had great power in the Imperial Court and he

began to work that power in favor of the Arians and against the supporters of the Nicene Creed.

He was so close to Constantine that he was present to baptize him shortly before his death. The

Arians and Eusebians were able to use this power by bringing false accusations against several of

the Nicene bishops which resulted in many of them being exiled from their see.

While the Arians and Eusebians were expanding their power base the life of Athanasius was

changing greatly. Bishop Alexander died in 328 and Athanasius was chosen to succeed him as

bishop. Thus, at the age of, most likely, thirty years old, Athanasius became the bishop of one of

the most important and influential churches in the world. As well as being an important bishop,

his Nicene faith made him a primary target of the Arians. However, Athanasius was not the first

of the Nicene bishops to be exiled on false charges as there had been several before him.

Eusebius even warned Athanasius of the persecution that was coming if he did not relent and

allow the Arians to have communion in the church of Alexandria.7 However, Athanasius would

not, in good conscience, allow those he considered to be heretics to have a part of the church. It

is at this point that Athanasius became the recipient of a variety of charges and had to answer for

each one of them.

One of the first charges to be brought against Athanasius was that he had imposed an illegal

tax on the people of Alexandria but he had representatives at the Imperial Court that were able to

7
Lynn Harold Hough, Athanasius the Hero (New York: The Abingdon Press, 1906), 65.

13
successfully refute this accusation.8 The other indictments against him included that he ordered

an altar to be smashed and a sacred chalice to be broken, supplied funds to a man who wanted to

commit treason against Constantine and that he had a man murdered and was using his severed

hand to perform magic incantations.9 The charge of the murdered man, Arsenius by name, is an

interesting one. The Arians alleged that Athanasius had ordered the murder of Arsenius.

However, Athanasius knew this was not true and sent men to search for him before he was

brought to trial for the murder. They found Arsenius in hiding and Athanasius was able to

present him alive and with both hands at the trial.10 Thus, this should have effectively ended the

merit of any of the indictments. Any group that would falsely charge someone with murder

should lose all credibility and nothing they subsequently claimed should be believed. However,

this was not the case as the charges against the Nicene bishops were not about seeking truth but

rather had the goal of silencing an opponent. Moreover, the Arian followers were willing to do

anything to accomplish having the Nicene adherents exiled.

The willingness to traverse to any dishonest lengths is a primary difference between the

Nicene adherents and the Arians, or Eusebians as they were later called. Those who held to the

orthodox position approved at Nicaea desired to uphold what they considered to be the true faith.

However, the Arian forces wanted to gain political power by having their ideas become

dominant and they were willing to manipulate and falsely accuse for this to happen. The Nicene

bishops were in the majority but the Arian followers were more adept at political maneuvering

and were able to enforce their views from a numerically weaker position. The situation

8
Ibid., 67.
9
Ibid., 68-69.
10
Socrates, Chapter 32. Translated by A. C. Zenos, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 2 (Buffalo,
NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890).

14
continued until it reached a low point in the late 350s when Constantine’s son, Constantius, was

emperor. Constantius was fully committed to Arian beliefs and desired for all the churches in

the empire to be unified.11 Thus, many bishops, such as Athanasius, were exiled and other

bishops, such as Hosius of Cordoba and Liberius of Rome, were tortured until they would

subscribe to the Arian doctrine. However, Athanasius held strong to the faith and never accepted

the false Arian doctrine even though he suffered greatly for it.

Now that an overarching perspective of the situation has been presented, the critical point that

this paper will explore is the Council of Tyre that was held in 335. In this council the majority of

the charges against Athanasius were brought that would stay with him the rest of his life. This

paper will explore each of these indictments and make a judgment from this vantage point in

history of whether or not Athanasius should have been deposed. The current information will be

considered and argued in making this determination. This is important to explore because, as

mentioned previously, in recent years there has been a great movement to put Athanasius back

on trial and declare him guilty.

An interesting aspect of the Council of Tyre is that even after Athanasius had proven the

dishonesty of his accusers by presenting Arsenius alive, it still seemed likely that they would find

him guilty. At this point, Athanasius left Tyre by boat, which was apparently at night and a

daring escape, to present his case directly to Constantine. When he arrived at Constantinople he

confronted Constantine on a road outside of the city and he agreed to see Athanasius at the

court.12 Constantine also summoned some of Athanasius’ accusers to come from Tyre but

apparently they were already on their way as both Athanasius and his accusers appeared shortly

11
R. Wheeler Bush, St. Athanasius: His Life and Times (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1912),
151.
12
Socrates, Chapter 34.

15
thereafter in the Imperial Court. While in the Court the bishops representing the Council of Tyre

did not mention any of the charges brought at Tyre, but instead brought the new indictment that

Athanasius had altered the grain shipments coming from Alexandria to Constantinople.

Athanasius protested that he was not a powerful man that could do such an act and the exchange

between Constantine and Athanasius became enraged. The result was that Constantine banished

Athanasius to the area that is now northern Europe. After the death of Constantine, his son

Constantinus returned Athanasius to his see in Alexandria and stated that the real reason that

Constantine had banished him was to protect him from his enemies.13 However, this is also

disputed and Constantine’s true motive is lost to history.

After this initial exile that lasted from 335 to 337, Athanasius was allowed to return to

Alexandria but the harassment did not end there. Athanasius would continue to be accused

because of his Nicene beliefs which would result in his being banished four more times and

spending parts of his life in hiding. An example of one of these was the third banishment in 356

which was particularly harrowing as soldiers were sent to seize him at night in a church but he

was incredibly able to escape by walking through the midst of them. Thus, throughout his life

Athanasius clung to his orthodox beliefs against tremendous odds and through great suffering.

He is credited with keeping the church in line with correct biblical beliefs through a dark period

and was viewed by most in the subsequent centuries as a hero of the church.

This is the traditional view of Athanasius. However, in the last century and a half this outlook

has been challenged. “In the last one hundred years the character and, therefore, the reliability of

Athanasius as a witness and recorder of the theological disputes and ecclesiastical events of the

13
Duane W. H. Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria (London: University
of Notre Dame Press, 1991), 172.

16
fourth century have commanded considerable scrutiny and often, a high degree of criticism.”14

Thus, many authors in the last century have taken a dim view of Athanasius. They write that he

used treachery and violence to keep control of the people and against his opponents. The most

extreme, represented by Timothy Barnes, has even gone as far as to state that Athanasius was a

gangster. This paper will seek to explore the reasons for this change in perspectives on

Athanasius.

Modern authors tend to base their negative opinion of Athanasius on three pieces of evidence

that were either not available before or have been examined to determine a new outlook. One of

these new pieces of evidence is the writing of a fifth century church historian named

Philostorgius. He wrote quite a negative perspective of the character and actions of Athanasius.

However, upon closer review of his writing it is often understood to be a late Arian apology.

This source will be explored to determine if it is indeed a cause to reevaluate the traditional view

of Athanasius.

A second piece of evidence that the critics have made use of is the London Papyrus 1914.

This document was a fourth century Egyptian letter discovered by H. I. Bell in the twentieth

century and published in 1924. The letter will be examined to determine if it is useful in gaining

a perspective on Athanasius. A third source that is depended upon to change the perspective on

Athanasius is a festal oration given by Gregory Nazianzen some seven years after the death of

Athanasius. In this oration, the critics believe that Gregory both eulogized and defended

Athanasius. The charge then becomes that if Gregory was defending Athanasius then there must

14
Ibid., 11.

17
have been some reason for it. The validity of this argument and the contents of this oration will

be explored.

Most of the criticism and recent negative perspectives of Athanasius had their genesis with

the German critical schools and it is important to explore the allegations against Athanasius to

determine their validity. In fact, Eginhard Meijering traverses as far as to write that different

theological backgrounds result in varying judgments on Athanasius.15 It appears that if one is

able to cast a negative shadow on the character of Athanasius then it would be much easier to

also question the truth of his theological claims. When the character of a person cannot be

trusted then it is more difficult to trust in the validity of the constructs he espoused theologically.

Thus, a study in which the evidence is explored, and a determination is made, is important in

preserving or discrediting the traditional favorable sentiment on the character of Athanasius.

LIMITATIONS

This project will attempt to study the reasons for Athanasius’ banishment in 335 and how any

information that has been presented in recent decades might influence that determination.

Relatedly, the evidence that modern critics use to allow a negative evaluation of Athanasius will

also be explored. However, the scope of this study will only encompass the three sources that

have been previously discussed--the history by Philostorgius, the London Papyrus 1914 and the

festal oration of Gregory Nazianzen. As well, only the evidence that was presented at the

15
Eginhard Meijering, “The Judgment on Athanasius in the Historiorgraphies,” Church History and Religious Culture
90, no. 2-3 (2010): 278.

18
Council of Tyre will be considered. The reasoning for this is that much of what happened in

subsequent exiles was based on the original indictments brought in 335.

METHOD OF RESEARCH

The most critical resources for a historical study of this nature are those that are nearest to the

time of the events. There were several church histories that were written within a century of the

events and have been preserved. The first of these is by Athanasius and is titled the The History

of the Arians. Of course, this was written within the lifetime of Athanasius in the late 350s.

Although The History of the Arians is the most direct history, at times the events are also related

in such sources as his various Festal Letters and Orations Against the Arians. Another important

history of the events of the fourth century was written by Sozomen in the early 440s. Sozomen

was born in Gaza in about 400 and later was a lawyer in Constantinople when he wrote his

history. Another important history from the time was written by Socrates. Socrates was born in

Constantinople in about 380 and died in approximately 339 so that his history is slightly earlier

than that of Sozomen. Another fifth century historian was Theodoret. He was born in Antioch

in the early 390s and became the bishop of Cyrrhus. Theodoret wrote his history in about 350 so

that all three of these histories were written within a few years of each other. These four ancient

sources will be studied as well as any information that can be gleaned from the Arian sources.

In addition to studying the ancient sources several important and representative Christian

historical writers will be examined from later time periods with an emphasis on the epoch of the

late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. Representative of the positive views of

Athanasius prevalent in the nineteenth century was John Henry Cardinal Newman. Newman had

19
the most knowledge about Athanasius of anyone in the early 1800s and he had a favorable view

of him.16 In addition, two representative and important church histories of the early twentieth

century are by Lynn Harold Hough, written in 1906, and R. Wheeler Bush, written in 1912.

These will be studied in detail to determine the prevailing attitude about Athanasius in this time

period. As well, several church historians, who judge Athanasius favorably, from more recent

times will also be examined.

Finally, several representative authors from the last century, when the negative persuasion on

Athanasius began to form in force, will be represented in this study. It is important to note that a

majority of the twentieth century negative evaluations of Athanasius had their foundation in the

predominantly German critical school.17 The first modern author to approach the political career

of Athanasius from a critical standpoint was Eduard Schwartz who wrote several critical

histories on the life of Athanasius between 1904 and 1911. The work of Schwartz opened the

debate for a negative outlook on Athanasius which was carried through the twentieth century by

a variety of authors such as Hans-Georg Opitz and W. Schneemelcher. One of the modern

authors writing from a neutral perspective on Athanasius is Khaled Anatolios who has written

several books about different aspects of Athanasius in the past twenty years and he generally

serves as a beneficial source. However, perhaps the most prolific current writer on the topic of

Athanasius is Timothy Barnes. Barnes himself states that he has a negative view of Athanasius

as he writes early on in one of his books: “This study starts from the presumption that

Athanasius consistently misrepresented central facts about his episcopal career…”18 His works

will be studied in detail and the validity of his claims scrutinized.

16
Arnold, 15.
17
Ibid, 13.
18
Timothy D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius (London: Harvard University Press, 1993), 2.

20
 THESIS STATEMENT

Athanasius is an important figure in church history and there is a great variety of opinions

about him in recent times. The most important factor that influences the convictions about him

is the individual’s theological ideas. Thus, in recent years a new verdict on Athanasius has

developed in which documents produced by his opponents are given greater weight. This paper

will explore whether or not these new documents and opinions are valid in allowing a change in

the traditional view of Athanasius as a hero of church history.

OUTLINE

I. Research Proposal

II. Background

A. Early Life

B. Arian Conflict

i. Beginnings of the Arian Conflict

ii. Council of Nicaea

C. Early Ministry

i. Aftermath of Nicaea

ii. Athanasius as Bishop

iii. Attacks by the Arians

iv. Charges Against Athanasius

v. The Council of Tyre and Results

21
 D. Exiles

i. The Roman Exile

ii. The Quiet Between Exiles

iii. Third Exile

iv. An Abbreviated Stay in Alexandria

v. Fourth Exile and Return

vi. Fifth Exile and Final Return

E. Last Years

III. Theological Contributions

A. A Cogent Theological Mind

B. Theological Influence

i. Influence on Athanasius

ii. Theological Method

iii. Early Years

iv. Later Important Works

C. Theological Ideas

i. Incarnation

ii. Good News

iii. The Trinity

iv. Homoousios

v. Holy Spirit

vi. Doctrines of God

vii. Human Body

22
 viii. Christ’s Power

ix. Asceticism

x. Role as Pastor

xi. Role of Scripture

D. The Theological Impact of Athanasius

IV. Fourth Century Influences

A. Arius

i. Arius’ Background

ii. Theological Views of Arius

iii. The Writings of Arius

iv. Death of Arius

B. Constantine and His Sons

i. Constantine

ii. Constantine and Church Policies

iii. Personal Life

iv. Constantinus

v. Constans

vi. Constantius

C. Other Influences

i. Esusebius

ii. The Meletians

V. Allegations Against Athanasius

A. Early Allegations

23
 B. The Start of the Trouble

i. Actions Against the Orthodox

ii. Ordination

C. Allegations at Tyre

i. The Murder of Arsenius

ii. The Broken Chalice

iii. The Broken Chalice and the Council at Tyre

iv. Imposed Taxes

v. Treason

vi. Illicit Affair

D. General and Later Charges

i. Violence

ii. Diverting Corn Shipments

iii. Verbal Abuses

E. Evaluation

VI. Later Sources of Indictment

A. New Information

B. Philostorgius

i. Understanding Philostorgius

ii. Historical Problems with Philostorgius

iii. Philostorgius’ History

iv. Evaluation of Philostorgius

C. London Papyrus

24
 i. London Papyrus Comes to Light

ii. Problems with Bell’s Summations

iii. Implications of the Letter

iv. Alternate View

v. Evaluation of LP 1914

D. Funeral Oration

i. Gregory’s Eulogy

ii. Evaluation of Oration 21

E. New Information Evaluated

VII. Positive views of Athanasius

A. Historical View

B. Specific Groups

i. Use of Athanasius Among Reformed Theologians

ii. Athanasius in the Roman Catholic System

C. Athanasius Through the Centuries

i. Eighteenth Century

ii. Nineteenth Century

iii. Early Twentieth Century

iv. Recent Times

D. Specific Authors

i. Khaled Anatolios

ii. Duane W. H. Arnold

E. Positive Views Through Time

25
VIII. Negative Perspectives

A. Critical Views of Athanasius

B. Background

i. Tubingen School

ii. Otto Seeck

iii. Eduard Schwartz and Followers

C. Recent Authors

i. David M. Gwynn

ii. R. P. C. Hanson

iii. Frances Young

iv. William Rusch

v. The Perspective of Barnes

D. Athanasius as a Gangster

E. Inadequate Argument

IX. Evaluation

A. Multiple Outlooks

B. Reasoning for the Attacks

C. Accomplishments

D. Character Traits

E. Lessons from Athanasius

F. A Life Well-Lived

26
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aland, Kurt. A History of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.

Alfoldi, Andrew. The Conversion of Constantine and Pagan Rome. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1948.
Anatolios, Khaled. Athanasius. London: Routledge, 2004.
Anatolios, Khaled. Retrieving Nicaea. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011.
Arnold, Duane W. H. “Athanasian Historiography: A Century of Revison.” Coptic Church
Review 12, no. 1 (January 1991): 3-14.
Arnold, Duane W. H. “Athanasius and the Meletians at the Synod of Tyre, 335.” Coptic Church
Review 10, no. 3 (Fall 1989): 67-73.
Arnold, Duane W. H. “Sir Harold Idris Bell and Athanasius: A reconsideration of London
Papyrus 1914.” Studia Patristica Louvain: Peeters (1989): 377-383.
Arnold, Duane W. H. The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria. London:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1991.
Athanasius. The Orations of S. Athanasius. London: Griffith, Farran, Okeden and Welsh, 1890.
Athanasius. History of the Arians.
Athanasius. Festal Letter XIII:6.
Ayres, Lewis. Nicaea and its Legacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Baghos, Mario. “Apology for Athanasius: The Traditional Portrait of the Saint According to
Rufinus and the Byzantine Historians.” Phronema 28, no. 2 (2013): 55-88.
Baker, Robert A. and John M. Landers. A Summary of Christian History. Nashville: Broadman
and Holman, 2005.
Baldwin, Barry. “Saint Athanasius.” Catholic Insight 13, no.1 (01/2005): 24.
Barnes, Micheal R. and Daniel H. Williams. Arianism after Arius. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark,
1993.
Barnes, Timothy D. Athanasius and Constantius. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1993.
Barnes, Timothy D. Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1981.
Barnes, Timothy D. “Review of The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexnadria.” The
Catholic Historical Review 78, no. 1 (January 1992): 100-101.
Barnes, Timothy D. “The New Critical Edition of Athanasius’ Defense Before Constantius.”
Zeitschrift Fur antikes Christentum 11, no. 2 (January 1, 2007): 378-401.

27
Barnes, Timothy D. “The Career of Athanasius.” Studia Patristica 21, no. 1 (1989): 390-401.
Baus, Karl. History of the Church: Volume II. New York: The Seabury Press, 2004.
Baynes, Norman H. Byzantine Studies and Other Essays. London: Haskell House Publishers,
1955.
Baynes, Norman H. Constantine the Great and the Christian Church. New York: Haskell
House Publishers, 1975.
Beek, Abraham van de. “The Relevance of Athanasius in Dogmatics.” Church History and
Religious Culture 90, no. 2-3 (2010): 287-309.
Behr, John. Formation of Christian Theology: The Nicene Faith. Crestwood, NY: St.
Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004.
Behr, John. Formation of Christian Theology: The Way to Nicaea. Crestwood, NY: St.
Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001.
Behr, John. On the Incarnation. Yonkers, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011.
Bell, Harold I. “Athanasius: A Chapter in Church History.” The Congregational Quarterly 3,
no. 2 (April 1925): 164.
Bettensen, Henry. The Early Christian Fathers. London: Oxford University Press, 1956.
Bihlmayer, Karl. Church History. Westminster: The Newman Press, 1968.
Bindley, Herbert T. De Incarnatione Verbi Dei. London: Unwin Brothers, 1887.
Brakke, David. “Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth Century Egypt: Athanasius of
Alexandria Thirty-ninth Festal Letter.” The Harvard Theological Review 87, no. 4 (Oct.
1994): 395-419.
Brakke, David. “Jewish Flesh and Christian Spirit in Athanasius of Alexandria.” Journal of
Early Studies 9, no. 4 (Winter 2001): 453-481.
Bright, William. Historical Writings of Athanasius. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1881.
Brown, Harold O. J. Heresies. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1984.
Bush, Wheeler R. St. Athanasius: His Life and Times. London: Society for Promoting
Christian Knowledge, 1912.
Cairns, Earle E. Christianity Through the Centuries. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1954.
Case, Robert II. “Will the Real Athanasius Please Stand Up?” Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 19, no. 4 (1976): 283-295.
Coleman, Christopher Bush. Constantine the Great and Christianity. New York: AMS Press,
1914.
Crawford, M. R. “On the Diversity and Influence of the Eusebian Alliance: The Case of
Theodore of Heraclea.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 64, no. 2: 227-257.
Davies, Edwin. Gems from the Fathers. New York: James Pitt and Co., 1899.

28
De Margerie, Bertrand. The Christian Trinity in History. Still River, MA: St. Bede’s
Publications, 1982.
Del Cogliano, Mark. “Asterius in Athanasius’ Catalogues of Arian Views.” Journal of
Theological Studies 66, no. 2 (2015): 625-650.
Del Cogliano, Mark. “The Influence of Athanasius and the Homoousios on Basil of Caesarea’s
Decentralization of ‘Unbegotten.’” Journal of Early Christian Studies 19, no. 2 (Summer
2011): 197-223.
Dowley, Tim. Introduction to the History of Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002.
Drake, H. A. “Athanasius’s First Exile.” Romans and Byzantine Studies 27, no. 2 (Summer
1986): 193.
Dryer, George H. History of the Christian Church. Cincinnati: Jennings and Pye, 1896.
Dunzl, Franz. A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early Church. New York: T.
and T. Clark, 2007.
Ernst, J. D. The Bible in Athanasius of Alexandria. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Edward, David L. Christianity the First Two Thousand Years. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books,
1997.
Ellens, J. Harold. “Athanasius.” Journal of Psychology and Christianity 31, no. 2 (2012): 179.
Ferguson, Edmund J. Church History: Volume I. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.
Fisher, George Park. History of the Christian Church. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
1931.
Foakes-Jackson, F. J. The History of the Christian Church. Chicago: W. P. Blessing Co., 1891.
Fortman, Edmund J. The Triune God. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999.
Giles, Kevin. The Trinity and Subordinationism. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002.
Goudriaan, Aza. “Athanasius in Reformed Protestantism: Some Aspects of Reception History
(1527-1607).” Church History and Religious Culture 90, no. 2-3 (2010): 257-276.
Gregg, Robert C. Arianism: Historical and Theological Reassessments. Philadelphia: The
Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1985.
Gregg, Robert C. and Dennis E. Groh. Early Arianism-A View of Salvation. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1981.
Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 21.
Gwatkin, H. M. The Arian Controversy. Boston: IndyPublish.com, 2006.
Gwatkin, Henry Melville. Studies of Arianism. Cambridge: Deighton Bell and Co., 1900.
Gwynn, David M. The Eusebians: The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the
Construction of the `Arian Controversy'. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

29
Gwynn, David M. Athanasius of Alexandria. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Hanson, R. P. C. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2005.
Harrison, Everett F. Baker’s Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960.
Harvey, Susan Ashbrook and David G. Hunter. The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian
Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Hough, Lynn Harold. Athanasius the Hero. New York: The Abingdon Press, 1906.
Hultgren, Arland J. and Steven A. Haggmark. The Earliest Christian Heretics. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1996.
Hurst, John F. History of the Christian Church. Cincinnati: Curts and Jennings, 1897.
Jedin, Hubert. History of the Church: Volume I. New York: Seabury Press, 1980.
Jones, William. The History of the Christian Church. Philadelphia: R. W. Pomeroy, 1832.
King, Karen L. What is Ghosticism? London: Harvard University Press, 2003.
Kopecek, Thomas A. A History of Neo-Arianism. Philadelphia: The Philadelphia Patristic
Foundation Ltd., 1979.
Lane, Tony. A Concise History of Christian Thought. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics,
2006.
Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity. New York: Harper and Brothers
Publishers, 1953.
Leithart, Peter J. Defending Constantine. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2010.
Letham, Robert. The Holy Trinity. Phillipsburg, NJ: P and R Publishing, 2004.
Liehard, Joseph T. “Two Friends of Athanasius: Marcellus of Ancyra and Apollinarius of
Laodicea.” Zeitschrift fur antikes Christentum 10, no. 1 (2006): 56-66.
Lietzmann, Hans. From Constantine to Julian. London: Lutterworth Press, 1950.
Lonergan, Bernard. The Way to Nicaea. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976.
McGrath, Alister. A History of Defending the Truth. New York: HarperCollins Publishers,
2009.
Meijering, Eginhard. “Athanasius on God as Creator and Recreator.” Church History and
Religious Culture 90, no. 2/3 (June 2010): 175-197.
Meijering, Eginhard. “The Judgment on Athanasius in the Historiography of Christian Dogma.”
Church History and Religious Culture 90, no. 2/3 (2010): 277-287.
Meyer, John R. “Athanasius Use of Paul in His Doctrine of Salvation.” Vigiliae Christianae 52,
no. 2: 146-171.
Meyer, Robert T. The Life of Saint Antony. New York: Newman Press, 1950.

30
Mossay, Justin. Gregroire de Nazianze, Discours 20-23. Paris, 1980.
Mohler, J. A. Athanase le Grand et l’eglise de son temps en lute avec l’arianisme (trans. By
Zickwolff and Jean Cohen), Paris, 1849.
Newman, Alfred Henry. A Manual of Church History. Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1933.
Newman, John Henry. Apologia Pro Vita Sua: Being a History of His Religious Opinions.
London, 1890.
Newman, John Henry. Lyra Apostolica (14th edition). London, 1867.
Noll, Mark A. Turning Points. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997.
Ottley, Robert L. The Doctrine of the Incarnation. London: Metheun and Co., 1902.
Partridge, Christopher. New Religions: A Guide. Oxford: University Press, 2004.
Parvis, Sara. Marcellus of Ancyra and Lost Years of the Arian Controversy: 325-345. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2006.
Pearson, Birger A. Ancient Gnosticism. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007.
Pettersen, Alvyn. Athanasius. Ridgefield, CT: Morehouse Publishing, 1995.
Ridgeway, James. S. Athanasius on the Incarnation. London: James Parker Co., 1880.
Romeny, Bas ter Haar. “Athanasius in Syriac.” Church History and Religious Culture 90, no.
2/3 (June 2010): 223-256.
Reuther, Rosemary. Gregory of Nazianzus: Rhetor and Philosopher. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1969.
Rusch, William G. The Trinitarian Controversy. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.
Rusch, William G. “A la recherche de l’Athanase historique.” Politique et theologie Paris,
(1974): 161-174.
Saint Athanasius. The Incarnation. London: Centenary Press, 1944.
Salminius Hermias Sozomen. Church History: The Greek Ecclesiastical Historians. London:
Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1844.
Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006.
Seeck, Otto. “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des nicaanischen Konzils.” ZKG 17 (1896): 1-
71.
Socrates of Constaninople. Church History: The Greek Ecclesiastical Historians. London:
Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1844.
Sparks, Jack. The Resurrection Letters. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1979.
Straw, Carole Ellen. “Review of ‘Athanasius and Contantius: Theology and Politics in the
Constantian Empire.’” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 64, no. 4 (Winter
1996): 881-883.

31
Studer, Basil. Trinity and Incarnation. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1993.
Swindoll, Charles R. and Roy B. Zuck. Understanding Christian Theology. Nashville: Thomas
Nelson Publishers, 2003.
Theodoret of Cyrus. Ecclesiastical History: The Greek Ecclesiastical Historians. London:
Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1844.
Torrance, Thomas F. Incarnation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008.
Ward, J. W. C. The Greek Doctors. London: The Faith Press, Ltd., 1950.
Walker, Williston. A History of the Church. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1918.
Weinandy, Thomas G. Athanasius: A Theological Introduction. Burlington, VT: Ashgate,
2007.
Widdicombe, Peter. “Review of Athanasius of Alexandria.” The Journal of Theological Studies
63, no. 2 (2012): 718-721.
Wilgenburg, Arwin van. “The Redemption of Athanasius within Contemporary Roman Catholic
Theology.” Church History and Religious Culture 90, no. 2/3 (2010): 311-357.
Williams, Rowan. Arius: Heresy and Tradition. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1987.
Willis, John R. A History of Christian Thought. Hicksville, NY: Exposition Press, 1976.
Young, Frances M. From Nicaea to Chalcedon. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010.

32
 CHAPTER II: BACKGROUND OF ATHANASIUS
AN INFLUENTIAL FIGURE
The influence that Athanasius had on the church of the fourth century is difficult to fathom.

His impact on the church was great and all the more amazing when one considers that he most

likely came from humble origins. Ancient sources divulge that he was small in stature, inclined

to stoop, had aquiline features with auburn hair and beard.19 This is certainly not the image of

what one would think of as a hero but he is considered to be one both by people of his own time

and those living throughout the subsequent centuries. This chapter will seek to explore the major

points of Athanasius’ life and his impact on the church.

EARLY LIFE
The most likely date of Athanasius’ birth is AD 296.20 However, this date is widely disputed

with some proffering an earlier date due to the fact that Athanasius had penned brilliant and

lasting works by 319. However, other critics would desire to opt for a later date because they

want to agree with the opponents of the time that said that Athanasius had not reached the

minimum age requirement of thirty by the time he became bishop of Alexandria in 328. Despite

the wrangling for both an earlier and later date it seems most likely that Athanasius was born

somewhere close to 296.

19
R. Wheeler Bush, St. Athanasius: His Life and Times (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1912),
61-62.
20
Thomas Weinandy, Athanasius: A Theological Introduction (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007), 1. Many accept 296
as the most likely date for his birth. However, there are others that prefer a later date closer to 300. An
interesting point in this debate is that if he was not born until 300 then he was not of the proper age of thirty when
he became bishop. His being under the age of thirty is the stance that many of his opponents stood upon during
the early years of his ministry.

33
 Many believe that Athanasius was from a family of Greek origins.21 However, there is little

reliable information about his childhood.22 He seems to have grown up in relative obscurity at

the time but there are some later sources of information. One source about his childhood was

written in the tenth century and so, of course, the reliability is in question. Thus, much of the

information about his early years may be merely legend, but it is the best source that can be

obtained. The tenth century source discloses that Athanasius’ mother was a wealthy woman who

worshipped idols. However, Athanasius rebutted this by stating that he came from a poor family.

In spite of the controversy here it does seem clear that at some point in his childhood his mother

became a Christian convert and both she and Athanasius were baptized at the same time.23 Bush

believed that Athanasius’ parents were poor and pious Christians who wanted a good education

for their son.24

However, a facet of the formative years of Athanasius that can be known with more certainty

is his relationship with Bishop Alexander. He took the young boy into his home and trained him.

The narrative of how they met is of interest, even if it is fanciful. Tradition intimates that

Athanasius and some other children were playing a game close to the shore which was in a place

where Bishop Alexander could see them. The basis of the game was that the children were each

role playing a certain office in the church and the role of Athanasius was bishop. Alexander was

so impressed with the children that he called for them. Subsequently, he educated all of them,

21
Lynn Harold Hough, Athanasius the Hero (New York: The Abingdon Press, 1906), 36.
22
Weinandy, Athanasius: A Theological Introduction, 1. Little is known about Athanasius’ family although he is
believed to be from Alexandria originally. At one point later in life he speaks of an aunt. He also hid in the family
tomb during one of his exiles. Thus, it is surmised that he is from the Alexandria area although there is little
concrete information about him before his interaction with Alexander.
23
Ibid.
24
Bush, St. Athanasius: His Life and Times, 18.

34
but it is believed that he gave special attention to Athanasius.25 In this way Athanasius had a

tremendous boon in his young life as he came under the tutelage and influence of the bishop.

Athanasius grew up during a time when the church was travailing through great persecution.

A major persecution occurred in 303 under Maximian, but Athanasius does not remember this

persecution.26 This also lends credence to the notion that he was not born before 296 as he

would have certainly remembered the persecution if he had been older. However, Athanasius

does remember the persecution of 311 under Maximian II and he had even been taught by some

of the Christians that were martyred during that persecution.27 Thus, it seems that having

observed the suffering and martyrdom of Christian friends created a willingness in him to suffer

for the truth when the time inevitably came. As well, the fact that Athanasius did not remember

the persecution in 303 but did remember the persecution of 311 lends substance to the idea that

he was born in 296.

From an early age, it was obvious that Athanasius had a tremendous aptitude and was well

served by being under the special care of the bishop. In his early years, he exhibited being

morally and intellectually superior to others of his own age. Moreover, it is believed that he

wrote two great works that are still used today-Against the Heathen and On the Incarnation-by

the time he was in his early twenties. He was a leading deacon under Bishop Alexander by the

time he was in his mid-twenties. Hough writes of these early promotions: “So when we find

Athanasius ordained deacon and made chief of the deacons of Alexandria, we are to think of his

25
Ibid., 20-21. Little is known of Bishop Alexander’s early life but he was believed to have been born in about 250
in Alexandria. As a priest he suffered persecution under Galerius and Maximinus. He became bishop in 313 when
the previous bishop, Achillas, needed to be replaced. Alexander is believed to have had a quiet and calm nature
that desired to avoid conflict.
26
Ibid., 18.
27
Ibid., 19.

35
promotion, not as the result of clever machinations on the part of an ambitious young

ecclesiastic, but the deserved reward of faithful service, and the recognition of unusual ability.”28

ARIAN CONFLICT

Beginnings of the Arian Conflict

One of the factors that would come to dominate the young life of Athanasius was the

controversy that was brewing between Arius and Bishop Alexander. Arius had originally been

ordained as a priest by Bishop Peter but Peter later excommunicated him. Legend divulges that

Bishop Peter was warned in a vision from heaven not to readmit Arius.29 Thus, Bishop Peter

believed that Arius would eventually cause schism in the church and excommunicated him. Of

course, Peter was correct and one of the greatest schisms ever known in the church developed

around the teachings of Arius.

The basis of the Arian conflict was in the view of the nature of Christ. Bishop Alexander

espoused and supported the teaching that Jesus had always been the Son and that God had

always been the Father. Alexander also believed that Jesus was the exact representation of the

Father and that they were of the same essence. In contrast, Arius felt that there was somehow a

conflict with the monotheistic idea in this teaching. “Arius saw his bishop’s teaching as

implying two ultimate principles in the universe, and he taught that Alexander compromised the

28
Hough, Athanasius the Hero, 40. Hough also intimates his belief that Athanasius was subject to fleshly
temptations as a youth because he grew up in a modern and secular city like Alexandria. Also, because he was
raised under Bishop Alexander he believes that he may have been tempted to be prideful and to lose the true
sense of Christian humility. Hough indicates that because Athanasius wrote these great theological works at a
young age it is part of the proof that he was able to avoid these pitfalls.
29
Bush, St. Athanasius: His Life and Times, 43.

36
biblical insistence on the Father being alone God and alone immortal.”30 Thus, Arius presented

the alternate idea that Jesus was a created being and was not of the same essence as the Father.

These two ideas were different at their core and their proponents became dogmatic enough to

have open conflict.

The vision that Peter had been given did not change the fate of Arius for an extended period

of time. Despite being excommunicated by Bishop Peter, Arius was reinstated by the next

bishop, Achillas, after Peter was martyred.31 Thus, by 313 Arius had established himself as a

popular preacher at the Church of Baucalis which was situated near the harbor.32 It seems that

when Alexander first became bishop that he held Arius in high regard because he perceived him

to be a knowledgeable man.33 However, additional stress was added to the situation as Arius had

a possibility of being the next Bishop of Alexandria and he most likely was bitter towards

Alexander.34 Moreover, Arius began to seek opportunities to have conflict with Alexander.35

When Arius understood that Alexander was a man of great character and that he could not bring

charges in this way he then resolved to oppose the doctrines of Alexander.36 When the trouble

first began over Arius’ teaching, Bishop Alexander was actually reluctant to act quickly.37 It

does appear that Arius attempted to present inclinations of a fortified front with his bishop but

still refused to recant his teachings.38 In time, however, Alexander perceived that Arius and his

30
Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 15.
31
Sozomen, Book 2, Chapter 15.
32
Barnes, Athanasius and Constantine (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), 14.
33
Sozomen, Book 2, Chapter 15.
34
Bush, St. Athanasius: His Life and Times, 43. However, Philostorgius, a fifth century historian to be discussed in
some detail later, states that Arius revealed humility at this time and that he willingly gave his votes for bishop to
Alexander.
35
Theodoret, Book 1, Chapter 1.
36
Ibid.
37
Sozomen, Book 2, Chapter 15.
38
Franz Dunzl, A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early Church (New York: T. and T. Clark, 2007),
46.

37
instruction were a liability to the doctrine of the church and, thus, he decided to act on the

situation. After two councils of the local clergy had met Alexander sided against Arius.39 Arius

refused to accept the other position and Alexander rejected him from fellowship along with all

those who sided with him. Those who supported Arius varied in their reasoning with some of

them supporting him because they believed in his doctrine and some supporting him because

they perceived that he had been unjustly excommunicated.40 Whatever the case, Arius refused to

allow the conflict to dissolve and it became such a distraction that Emperor Constantine called

for a church council to be convened at Nicaea with the matter to be one of the important topics

decided upon.41 Athanasius was involved in the conflict from the beginning as he supported the

orthodox position of his bishop, but he was to become even more of a primary figure as the

conflict grew in scope and caught the attention of the entire Roman Empire.

Council of Nicaea

The Council of Nicaea was important both for the decision the church at large would declare

and for Athanasius personally as he became a prominent spokesman for the orthodox movement.

Emperor Constantine was heavily involved at Nicaea as he both called for the council and

attended. However, how much influence Constantine actually had on the outcomes has been

debated for centuries. Both the supporters of Alexander, or the orthodox, and the Arian faction

believed, or at least espoused to believe, that they were supporting the true teachings of

Christianity. The bishops that attended did not merely want to include Scripture in their

39
Sozomen, Book 2, Chapter 15.
40
Ibid.
41
Bernard Lonergan, The Way to Nicaea (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), 69.

38
decisions, but they desired to unfold explicitly that which was implicit. Thusly, when trying to

comprehend the importance of the Council of Nicaea it needs to be understood that is was the

first time in centuries that the church as a whole had undertaken the task of creating a statement

of faith and that Athanasius was an integral part of this.

The council convened on May 20, 325 with about the 230 bishops attending.42 The majority

of the bishops that were present came from the east, but there were some, possibly five or six,

that came from the west.43 However, these numbers are in dispute as Bush states that there were

318 bishops present with 310 being from the east and eight from the west.44 Those attending

probably had no foreshadowing that it would come to be looked at as a turning point in history

by future generations. “What made the council such an extraordinarily important turning point

was not just the doctrinal question at stake but the way in which political and social forces

combined with the critical theological issue.”45 Moreover, for three reasons the church would be

forever changed after this council—the novel status of the church that would spur an emperor to

call a church council, the theological issues in question and the new feature of theological

decisions being combined with political power.

The Council of Nicaea also was notable because the various participants had different

agendas. To begin with, the primary goal of Constantine was to find stability. He believed

embracing Christianity could produce unity in the empire and he wrote of his reasons for the

council: “My design then was, first to bring the diverse judgments found by all nations

respecting the Deity to a condition, as it were, of settled uniformity (that is, to clarify doctrine for

42
Mark A. Noll, Turning Points (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997), 48.
43
Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999), 65.
44
Bush, St. Athanasius: His Life and Times, 57.
45
Noll, Turning Points, 48.

39
the sake of the church); and second, to restore a healthy tone to the system of the world, then

suffering under the power of grievous disease (that is, to end religious strife for the sake of the

empire.)”46 Secondly, those who followed Bishop Alexander desired to settle the orthodox

beliefs concerning Christ in a definitive way. Thirdly, the Arians were pushing for their beliefs

about the deity of Christ to be legitimized as they believed it to be the correct view. Thus, the

outcomes of the council that each party would see as a success did not coincide with one another.

This, in turn, led to a situation that was ripe for conflict and that is exactly what occurred as the

council ended, after much heated arguing, with Arius, and his followers who would not recant,

being condemned. Constantine condemned any books that Arius had written to be destroyed and

declared that he and his followers were ungodly.47 Therefore, the idea that the Son was full deity

and eternally existent became the official position of the church. One thing that also became

clear during the council was that Athanasius emerged as a leader and one of the most important

proponents of the orthodox position.48

EARLY MINISTRY

Aftermath of Nicaea

Directly following the council, Bishop Alexander, Athanasius and the other orthodox

believers were hoping for a time of peace that would be free from religious wrangling. For a

short period this seemed like a possibility, but Arius and his constituents would not allow the

controversy to end. However, they were doing this at their own peril as Constantine declared

46
Ibid., 51.
47
Sozomen, Book 2, Chapter 21.
48
Ibid., Chapter 17.

40
that those who refused to burn Arius’ books should receive the death penalty and that those who

spoke well of him would be punished.49

One of the most important advocates of Arius was Eusebius. He was so prevalent because he

was politically connected and used political intrigue and relationships to promote Arian views.

Arius also had help from Constantia, who was Constantine’s sister.50 She had a presbyter

working in her home who was an Arian and she held him in high esteem. This man would speak

to Constantia about why he believed the condemnation of Arius was unjust. When Constantia

died she recommended the presbyter to Constantine and the presbyter was also able to influence

him.51 Therefore, the result of this interaction was that Constantine wrote Arius an amiable letter

and requested his presence. Subsequently, when he came to see him he asked Arius if he would

agree to the Nicene Creed.52 Arius assented that he would and he was allowed to return to

Alexandria. Thus, with Arius being back in Alexandria, and now having some measure of

political contact, it would lead to difficult times for those who supported the Nicene Creed.

Athanasius as Bishop

Bishop Alexander died in 328 and Athanasius was not present in Alexandria at the time.

However, Bishop Alexander had made it clear that he wanted Athanasius to succeed him as

bishop. This was a customary practice as each bishop was expected to recommend someone who

would replace them after their death. In addition to Alexander, the laity of Alexandria also

wanted Athanasius to be the next bishop as they referred to him as ‘the good,’ ‘the pious’ and

49
Ibid.
50
Socrates, Chapter 25.
51
Ibid.
52
Ibid.

41
‘one of the ascetics.’53 It appears that the most likely reason that Athanasius was not in

Alexandria was because he did not desire to be appointed the new bishop.54 In fact, Sozomen

actually states that Athanasius sought to decline being appointed bishop by flight.55 As well,

Apolinarius writes that Bishop Alexander was aware that Athanasius did not desire to enter the

theological conflict. Apolinarius quotes him as saying: “O Athanasius, you think to escape, but

you will not escape.”56 Thus, an interesting aspect of Athanasius’ character is revealed. It is

known that he enjoyed the ascetic life and that he, also, did not desire to be a part of the growing

theological conflict. However, once he did enter the fray he was a formidable opponent and was

willing to suffer for what he deemed to be the true doctrine of the church. In spite of his

probable desire to not become bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius accepted the new post.

However, those that did not agree with the Nicene Creed perceived, correctly as it turns out,

that Athanasius would be a strong advocate against Arianism and, thus, they attempted to hinder

him from becoming bishop. There were two ways that his opponents tried to blockade him from

becoming bishop. The first was to claim that Athanasius was not yet thirty years old and,

therefore, below the legal age to become bishop. However, it is credible that Athanasius was

born in 296 and, thusly, he would have been of sufficient age. A second charge that they tried to

bring against him is that he had not been properly elected by enough bishops. One of the stories

regarding his ordination is that seven bishops had secretly ordained him and another fanciful tale

was that he had lured two bishops into a church and then proceeded to force them to ordain

53
Hough, Athanasius the Hero, 60.
54
Bush, St Athanasius: His Life and Times, 80. There are two accounts of why Athanasius was not present when
Alexander died. The first is that he had been sent by Alexander to the Emperor’s Court in order that he might
complete the transaction of some type of special mission. The second is that Athanasius intentionally left the city
when Alexander became very ill because he wanted to avoid being the next bishop.
55
Sozomen, Book II, Chapter 17.
56
Ibid.

42
him.57 Of course, the question is then if he had to be that dishonest to force two other bishops to

ordain him against their will, then why not simply lie and say that he had been ordained when he

had not. One major weakness that can be ascertained in these charges is that they are in conflict

with one another. Furthermore, these charges can be discarded because the Egyptian bishops

formally gave testimony to the fact that a majority of them had ordained Athanasius as the next

bishop and that they had publicly done this in front of the laity of Alexandria.58

Therefore, despite his opponents’ efforts and his own unwillingness, the desires of Alexander

and the laity prevailed and Athanasius became the next bishop of Alexandria in 328. “For a brief

moment he was allowed, quietly and without molestation, to carry out the work which he had so

much at heart, namely, the evangelization of the heathen, and the edification of the Christian

Church.”59 However, this time of reprieve was not to last as the enemy forces were not content

to have their views taken out of contention.

Attacks by the Arians

The Arians, being led by Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia, began to work against those who

were especially strong in the Nicene position and within a couple of years ten of them were

exiled.60 It is at this point that the Arian movement becomes as much led by Eusebius as by

Arius. An example of one of the bishops that they besieged was Bishop Eustathius of Antioch.

Antioch was an important church and the Arians desired to infiltrate there, but Eustathius was a

57
Khaled Anatolios, Athanasius (London: Routledge, 2004), 5.
58
Bush, St. Athanasius: His Life and Times, 81. Gibbon states concerning this that it is unlikely that the bishops
would attest that the people desired, and even openly prayed, for Athanasius to be the next bishop if it were not a
matter that was known to be true by all those involved.
59
Ibid., 83.
60
Hough, Athanasius the Hero, 64.

43
strong proponent of the Nicene Creed. Theodoret states that Eusebius eliminated the problem by

bribing a woman to say that her baby was that of Bishop Eustathius.61 The result of these false

charges were that Eustathius was deposed and replaced in Antioch by an Anti-Nicene bishop.62

Consequently, the orthodox in Antioch then left the official church of Antioch and formed

alternate assemblies among themselves where they could worship how they saw fit. Moreover,

in a just a few short years the Arian party had labored behind the scenes through personal

relationships with Constantine and his family to remove some of the strongest advocates of the

Nicene faith.

The next target for the Arians was a popular, pious and powerful young bishop of an

important church named Athanasius. In addition, to his Nicene beliefs the Arians were also

strongly opposed to Athanasius because he would not allow Arius to be received back into the

Alexandrian church. For Athanasius, it would be a breach of his conscience to allow a bishop

into fellowship when he knew the man did not accept the orthodox faith and desired to teach

heretical ideas. Athanasius viewed himself as the one that was responsible for protecting the

congregation in Alexandria from false teachings. Eusebius had such an influence on the

situation that he persuaded Constantine to command Athanasius to receive Arius into

communion. However, in spite of these threats, Athanasius still refused.

Athanasius did not proceed into the situation blindly for he knew what had happened to other

Nicene bishops who refused to compromise. As well, he was personally warned. Eusebius, a

man of influence in the imperial court, wrote to Athanasius and said that he should receive Arius

61
Theodoret, Book 1, Chapter 20.
62
Ibid., Chapter 21.

44
into communion and that if he refused there would be tremendous consequences.63 However, his

opponents had a difficulty in that Athanasius’ theological opinions were impeccable and so they

had to devise another avenue. Hough wrote of this: “There could be no thought of attacking his

theological opinions. He must be involved in difficulty with the emperor. He must be accused

of personal misdoings, and so humiliated and overthrown.”64 The first step in this plan was to

find people in Alexandria who would be willing to falsely testify against him. They found this in

the Meletian party.

The Meletians were a rival group of bishops that had emerged in Egypt some twenty years

prior. The major contention stemmed from allowing bishops who had denied the faith during

persecution to return to fellowship. The Meletians believed they should not be forgiven and

received back and, therefore, they began to ordain their own clergy and form another church.

More about the Meletians will be discussed later, but it is pertinent now to understand that they

were rivals of the recognized church who were willing to sabotage it. Moreover, Eusebius and

his followers proffered bribes to Meletians to lie against Athanasius. Thus, Athanasius, whose

chief desire was to lead the people into truth, became the subject of an assault by rival factions.

63
Hough, Athanasius the Hero, 65. Hough intimates his idea that the threats were not so much found in the letter
but rather the carrier of the letter made threats. This, of course, would be more in line with the covert nature of
the enemy as they generally tried to not leave any traces of their true motivations. As well, Hough remarks that
when the threats were made it would have been easy for Athanasius to have relented and allowed Arius back into
communion by giving the reason that the peace of the Church was important. However, Athanasius would not
allow himself to be consoled with allowing heresy to grow unchecked simply because it would be easier for him
personally.
64
Ibid.

45
 Charges Against Athanasius

The Arian and Meletian factions began to bring allegations against Athanasius shortly after he

had been warned to allow Arius to take communion. As well, he made a difference between

those he considered to be schismatics and those he considered to be heretics.65 He thought of the

Meletians as schismatics and commanded they keep communion in a separate place while he

believed the Arians to be heretics and they were not allowed to practice communion with the

church.66 Thus, for his refusal to compromise Athanasius came under direct attack. The first of

the accusations was delivered by three Meletian bishops directly into Constantine’s court as they

alleged that Athanasius had levied a tax upon Egypt to pay for church expenses.67 However,

there were two Alexandrian bishops in the court at the time and they were able to disprove the

allegations.68 The two men from Alexandria who proved the charge to be a fabrication were

Alypius and Macarius, the latter of which would prove a principle figure in another scandal.69

Athanasius was summoned to come to court by Constantine but when he arrived there was a

different allegation that required a response.70 The current charge that needed an answer was

that Athanasius had sent a chest full of gold to a man named Philumenus who was plotting

treason against Constantine.71 Constantine investigated these claims and found them to be untrue

and subsequently exonerated Athanasius.72 However, his opponents did not halt after these

65
Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, 126.
66
Ibid.
67
Hough, Athanasius the Hero, 67.
68
Ibid.
69
Socrates, Chapter 27. Little is known about Alypius, but Macarius would figure quite prominently in a later
allegation. Ischyras alleged Macarius had come into his church and broke a sacred chalice. More about this
allegation will be discussed in the chapter that covers the charges against Athanasius.
70
Hough, Athanasius the Hero, 67.
71
Socrates, Chapter 27.
72
Ibid.

46
charges had been proven slanderous as they continued to bring novel allegations. The other

charges included that Athanasius had ordered Macarius to break the chalice of a priest named

Ischyras who was operating outside of the official church, that he had ordered a man named

Arsenius to be murdered and had severed his hand to use in magic incantations and that

Athanasius had taken a woman’s virginity.73 These charges will be discussed in more detail in a

later chapter. Suffice to say at this point that both Ischyras and Arsenius were promised favors

for their help and each of the charges were eventually proven false.

In light of this, Constantine called for a council to be held in Caesarea to discuss all of the

charges.74 However, Athanasius distrusted the ones who were slated to try his case and so he

refused to attend. As well, this was a very stressful time for Athanasius as numerous false

accusations were being brought and he suffered a long illness with the cause being the weight

from these adversarial barrages.75 Unfortunately, this extended illness would be merely one of

the many hardships that Athanasius would endure for his remaining true to the Nicene faith.

The adversaries continually petitioned Constantine over these matters and they would not be

refused so Constantine finally relented and called for another council to be held at Tyre.

Athanasius was commanded to be in attendance and was informed that if he attempted to refuse

he would be transported there involuntarily.76 The Council of Tyre convened in 335 with

between 110 and 150 bishops attending.77 In 335 there were approximately 90 to 100 bishops in

Egypt and Libya and Athanasius chose 47 of them to attend the council with him.78 Thus, at the

73
Theodoret, Book 1, Chapter 28.
74
Hough, Athanasius the Hero, 70.
75
Ibid., 69.
76
Bush, St. Athanasius: His Life and Times, 101.
77
Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, 153.
78
Ibid., 146.

47
Council of Tyre Athanasius and his supporters were heavily outnumbered.79 It is of interest that

only ten years after Nicaea that the church had been divided in this manner. Those who were

from the east were expected to vote that Athanasius was guilty of the charges and those from

Egypt and Libya were anticipated to vote that he was not guilty. Thus, the idea of allegations

being false or honest was more a construct of the individual’s theological leanings and

geographic position rather than any real evaluation about the verity of the charges.

The Council of Tyre and Results

As the meeting of the council progressed Athanasius was called upon to defend himself and

he adequately did so against each charge. However, as connoted before, the majority of the

constituents desired to see him deposed so at a certain point Athanasius began to understand that

the council would decide against him regardless of the truth of the evidence. At one point in the

meeting Athanasius even had to flee for his very life.80 The council decided that they would

send a delegation to the Mareotis, which was the very place of the supposed infraction, to

investigate the affair of the smashed chalice.81 However, Athanasius did not trust that this

delegation would truly explore the facts.82 As well, Athanasius requested that bishops who were

hostile to him not be sent but Dionysius sent the very ones that Athanasius desired to have

excluded.83 Therefore, he departed in secrecy, and most likely by night, with a group of five of

his bishops. As well, Athanasius chronicles this journey as a daring escape by boat under the

79
Ibid., 153.
80
Hough, Athanasius the Hero, 71.
81
Ibid., 72.
82
Socrates, Chapter 31.
83
Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, 158.

48
cover of darkness from the harbor of Tyre. This was the first of several brave and

adventuresome escapes that Athanasius would have as he absconded imperial and Arian forces.

After Athanasius made his daring escape he traveled to Constantinople to plead his case

before Constantine. There is an interesting tale as to how he first made contact with Constantine

when he arrived. It seems that Constantine was returning from a journey on his horse and that a

lone figure blocked the path of his entourage.84 Constantine did not recognize Athanasius as he

looked so disheveled and travel worn. However, when he finally perceived that it was, in fact,

Athanasius he refused to grant him a meeting but Athanasius revealed the resilience in his

personality and persisted until he was permitted a meeting.

The bishops that had been meeting at Tyre must have perceived that this was a possibility as

they also traveled to Constantinople. When they arrived they divulged that, just as Athanasius

had predicted, the Council of Tyre had decided to depose him. As well, the majority of the

delegates to the Council of Tyre declared the Arians and Meletians to be orthodox and then left

for a church council in Jerusalem.85 The fact that the same church council would both condemn

Athanasius and decide to declare the Arians orthodox in the same meeting reiterates the idea that

the council was more about doctrinal debates than whether Athanasius was actually guilty of the

allegations. It appears that the opponents would do anything to destroy the Nicene faith and that

they were not above using bogus accusations against the leading Nicene bishops.

It is also a very interesting story of what happened next as the two parties were before

Constantine. First of all, Constantine did not accept the findings of the Council of Tyre and he

set aside Athanasius’ condemnation on November 6, 335. However, the Eusebians would not

84
Socrates, Chapter 34.
85
Bush, St. Athanasius: His Life and Times, 106.

49
allow the situation to rest dormant and they both brought a new charge and would not allow

Athanasius to discuss the original charges from Tyre that had been proven fictitious.86 This new

charge involved Athanasius halting the grain shipments from Egypt to Constantinople and this

was considered treason.87 However, Athanasius denied that he had stopped the grain shipments

and said that, furthermore, he was a poor man who did not have the power to halt them. When

Athanasius and Constantine were discussing the grain shipments allegations they became angry

with one another and the argument escalated.88 The confrontation terminated with Athanasius

invoking the judgment of God and saying that God would judge between him and Constantine.89

Constantine responded by banishing Athanasius to Treves, which is in modern day Belgium.

The result of this deposition was that there were riots by the common people in the streets of

Alexandria.90 This incident reveals two aspects of Athanasius’ character. One is that he did

have a temper. The other is that Athanasius believed in divine judgment as he invoked the

judgment of God in the situation and, therefore, it is unlikely that he was an evil man as he

himself would fear divine retribution. As well, the reaction of the Alexandrians reveals that he

was a beloved leader.

86
Socrates, Chapter 35.
87
Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, 169. It is uncertain if Athanasius was able to give
an answer to this charge. When Athanasius wrote about this incident it was some twenty years later and he stated
that Constantine was quickly angered but not if he was allowed to present a defense to this charge.
88
Ibid.
89
Ibid.
90
Anatolios, Athanasius, 13.

50
 EXILES

First Exile and Return

Athanasius spent two years in Treves and it appears that these were relatively calm years. Of

course, Athanasius desired to be with his congregation in Alexandria but if one had to be

banished then Treves was an agreeable place. As well, it may have been beneficial for him to

have a reprieve from the constant assaults by his enemies. Treves itself was a tranquil city with

abundant beautiful scenery. Hough writes of these years: “Better to be an exile in Gaul than a

false bishop seated in full power in Alexandria.”91 Another important aspect of the city is that

Constantinus, Constantine’s oldest son, resided there and he believed in the Nicene faith. The

friendship that was forged with Constantinus would be beneficial for Athanasius. Athanasius’

exile in Treves was shortened when Constantine died in 337.

The three sons of Constantine now needed to decide the fate of those who remained in exile at

their father’s command. The three met in Viminacium in 338 and decided that Athanasius

should be returned to Alexandria.92 The day that Athanasius returned to Alexandria in 338 the

clergy declared it to be the most jubilant day of their lives and, afterwards, it was observed as an

annual festival.93 However, not everyone was pleased at his return and the Eusebians had two

immediate charges. One was that Athanasius had misappropriated cornmeal that was intended to

91
Hough, Athanasius the Hero, 74.
92
Bush, St. Athanasius: His Life and Times, 114. It is also known that Constantinus wrote to the Alexandrian
Church that his intention was to send Athanasius back. He also expressed that he had a high opinion of
Athanasius’ character as while he was in Treves he observed that Athanasius trusted in help to come from God and
endured suffering with little complaint.
93
Ibid., 115.

51
aid widows and the other was that he had instigated bloodshed on the day of this return.

Athanasius was able to disprove both of these allegations.94

Concerning the first exile to Treves there was also a question about the authentic reason for it.

Of course, the most obvious idea is that Constantine was angry with Athanasius in light of their

confrontation and so banished him for this reason. Another possibility is that Constantine

actually believed that Athanasius was guilty of the accusations brought against him and for that

reason he banished him. A third potential reason is that Athanasius was banished in order to

restore unity to the church as Constantine knew that Athanasius would never accept Arius into

communion. Sozomen and Socrates both give credence to this third perspective.95 However, a

fourth possibility also receives support in the ancient writings. This fourth prospective idea is

that Constantine sent Athanasius to Treves to guard him from his enemies. Theodoret wrote that

Constantinus stated that Athanasius was sent to Treves to protect him.96 It complicates the

matter further when it is recognized that Sozomen quotes a letter that stated that Constantine sent

him to Treves to protect him. Constantine’s motivations seem to be lost in history. However, it

is more certain that Constantine intended for the exile to be temporary.97 One reason for

believing this intention is because the see remained vacant for the duration of Athanasius’

exile.98 As well, when the Meletian leader, John Arcaph, assumed being the leading bishop in

Alexandria he was also banished by Constantine.

94
Ibid., 116.
95
Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, 171. Sozomen also states that Constantine may
not have truly believed that Athanasius had been guilty of wrongdoing.
96
Theodoret, Book 2, Chapter 1.
97
Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, 172.
98
Ibid., 172.

52
 The Roman Exile

Although Athanasius was well received by the laity of Alexandria and the clergy of Egypt, his

enemies were persistent and he was soon banished once again. Of the three sons of Constantine,

Constantius was entrusted with the care of the eastern part of the Empire and he was responsible

for his exile. One of the putative reasons for his exile was brought by Eusebius who charged that

Athanasius had been restored by a civil authority but had been expelled by the Church Council of

Tyre and, therefore, his restoration was invalid.99 When the opposition came to depose

Athanasius they brought a plentitude of soldiers and he voluntarily left for the safety of the

people.100 Before he left Athanasius assembled the people in a church at night and, with soldiers

waiting to come for him, he slipped out and left for Rome just as the congregation sung a final

hymn.101 Thus, on this occasion of his exile Athanasius spent his time in Rome and was

befriended by Julius, the Bishop of Rome.102

While Athanasius was in exile, returning to Alexandria for a brief time and subsequently

being banished again, there were other important occurrences with the characters in this drama.

First of all, Arius died during this time and the details of his death are legendary. It seems that,

with the aid of Constantine and Eusebius of Nicomedia, Arius was finally going to have an

opportunity to receive communion in the orthodox church and this was to transpire in

99
Bush, St Athanasius: His Life and Times, 117. Bush remarked: “The Eusebians urgently asserted that Athanasius
had violated the ecclesiastical law by being restored to his diocese by the civil power, when he had been expelled
by a decree of the Council of Tyre. It seems strange and almost unaccountable, that men who had depended so
greatly on the Imperial authority and on the support of the State, should bring forward such an accusation against
Athanasius.” It does seem strange indeed. This goes to further reveal the changing landscape of ecclesiastical
politics in the early fourth century. At some points bishops wanted to appeal to the secular authority but when
that did not benefit their cause they would alter their course and desire that the ecclesiastical councils should be
followed rather than the secular.
100
Sozomen, Book 3, Chapter 6.
101
Ibid.
102
Bush, St. Athanasius: His Life and Times, 122.

53
Constantinople. However, Alexander, who was the bishop of Constantinople, supported the

Nicene Creed and did not desire to admit Arius into fellowship.103 Eusebius of Nicomedia

threatened him with exile if he did not allow Arius into fellowship.104 Tradition intimates that

Alexander fasted for days and petitioned God that if Arius was not being truthful in accepting the

Nicene Creed that he should die. At the very time that he was walking to receive communion

Arius died in a sudden and violent method as it is said that his bowels spilled out of him.105

Constantine was so affected by the violent and sudden death of Arius that he came to believe

even more strongly in the Nicene faith.106 Another noteworthy event of this period was that

Eusebius became bishop of Constantinople after the death of Alexander, bishop of

Constantinople, in 337. Thus, an already powerful Eusebius now had an even more influential

position and he utilized this to influence both Constantine and his second son Constantius, who

reigned from Constantinople. Indeed, Eusebius was so intimate with Constantine that he

baptized him shortly before his death.

It is also of interest that during this second exile that Athanasius was officially replaced as

bishop. The first man to potentially attain the see was a man named Pistus, but he was soon

discredited based on his Arian views.107 The second potential replacement for Athanasius was a

man named Eusebius who would eventually become the Bishop of Emesa. However, he wisely

perceived how the laity of Alexandria admired Athanasius and so he declined to accept the

position.108 Finally, Gregory of Cappadocia became the next bishop in March of 339.

Moreover, Gregory proved to be an enemy to those of the Nicene faith. As well, the Eusebians

103
Socrates, Chapter 37.
104
Ibid.
105
Ibid., Chapter 38.
106
Ibid.
107
Anatolios, Athanasius, 14.
108
Ibid., 16.

54
urged Gregory to persecute those of the Nicene faith and to seize their property.109 Sadly, during

this time Bishop Potammon was beaten in such a severe fashion that he never recovered.110

Meanwhile, Athanasius was in Rome and he and Bishop Julius were laboring to get

Athanasius back to Alexandria and to defend the Nicene faith. Bishop Julius desired to have a

synod at Rome that would be recognized by the eastern churches. The synod was held in Rome

in 341 and it did decide to reinstate Athanasius.111 However, the eastern bishops both refused to

attend and to accept their declaration. With progress impeded between the eastern and western

portions of the church, Constans, Constantine’s third son and now ruler of the western empire

following the death of Constantinus in 340, proclaimed a church council at Sardica in 343.112 As

the date for this council approached it was evident that the church was divided with the west

being for Athanasius and the east being against him.113 As well, during the time when these

plans were taking place the Arian cause lost one of its most effective proponents as Eusebius

died.114

About 170 bishops met at the Council of Sardica near the end of 343 with the majority of

them being from the western church.115 The council was presided by Hosius, the bishop of

Cordova, who had also presided over Nicaea and was originally sent by Constantine to

investigate the conflict between Bishop Alexander and Arius. Hosius was a widely respected

figure in the church. It seems that at some point the Eusebian faction, probably understanding

109
Bush, St. Athanasius: His Life and Times, 123.
110
Ibid.
111
Weinandy, Athanasius, 4. However, this synod became complicated because it also supported Marcellus.
Those in the eastern churches considered Marcellus to be too far in the other direction and shading dangerously
close to Sabellianism. Moreover, the east then demanded that Athanasius’ condemnation at Tyre be upheld.
112
Ibid.
113
Hough, Athanasius the Hero, 95.
114
Ibid.
115
Bush, St. Athanasius: His Life and Times, 134.

55
that they were outnumbered, left the council. The results of the council were that they found in

favor of Athanasius and reversed the decision that had been made at the Council of Tyre.116

Thus, Athanasius and other Nicene bishops were found innocent at the Council of Sardica.117 Of

course, this did not mend the rift that existed between Nicene and Arian bishops, but a shocking

event was about to surface that would capture the attention of Constantius.118 In 344 it was

manifest that the bishop of Antioch, Stephen, was guilty of a diabolical plot against another aged

bishop, Euphrates of Cologne, who was visiting in his city with the intention being to slander his

name.119 This incident began to turn the mind of Constantius towards allowing Athanasius to

return as he began to understand the extremes of deceitful actions of which the Anti-Nicene

faction was capable.120 The two had a meeting and it went well so that Constantius dismissed the

orders to persecute those of the Nicene faith in Alexandria and removed the orders to behead

Athanasius if he was discovered near the city.121 As well, the bishop that had replaced

Athanasius, Gregory, died in 345.122 Thus, this juncture in time seemed to be ripe for Athanasius

to return to Alexandria and he did so in 346. On his way to return after this extended exile

Athanasius bid farewell to Bishop Julius and the church at Rome, traveled to present greetings to

Constans as emperor of the west and finally visited Constantius as prelate in the east. The

exchange between Constantius and Athanasius was memorable as Bright describes when

Athanasius asked to confront his accusers: “Constantius, probably much embarrassed, assured

116
Ibid.
117
Athanasius, History of the Arians, Book 3, Chapter 17.
118
Weinandy, Athanasius, 4.
119
William Bright, Introduction to the Historical Writings of St. Athanasius (London: Oxford University Press, 1881),
xxxiv. Euphrates bishop of Cologne had come to visit Antioch. One night bishop Stephen of Antioch hired a
prostitute to go into the room of the aged bishop. However, the prostitute had some scruples and when she saw
that the victim was an aged and innocent bishop she left and told others about the plot that Stephen had
instigated. The result was that Stephen was deposed from his see.
120
Bush, St. Athanasius: His Life and Times, 139.
121
Bright, Introduction to the Historical Writings of St. Athanasius, xxxiv.
122
Ibid.

56
him that those charges were buried in oblivion, and called God to witness that he would never

again give credit to them.”123 In spite of calling on God in his oath, Constantius would come to

break this promise. Also, it should be noted that both bishops from the east and west tended to

decide on Athanasius’ fate based on their theological leanings rather any true desire to determine

his guilt or innocence in the allegations.

The Quiet Between Exiles

Athanasius returned to Alexandria with great fanfare. The laity and clergy alike were again

pleased at his rejoinder. In this interval Athanasius was given ten years to share with his

congregants. Gregory, to be discussed later, intimates that when Athanasius returned to his

duties as bishop that he was kind towards all of his former opponents.124 As well, he even

allowed Arsenius, who had maliciously accused him of murder, to be a bishop.125 It is at points

in his life such as this, when Athanasius exhibits grace to others, that one can discern the genuine

heart of the man. Moreover, from 346 to 356 Athanasius and the congregants of Alexandria

enjoyed a time of relative tranquility.

However, as normally seemed to be the case for Athanasius, trouble was brewing that brought

renewed suffering. The difficulties began in earnest with the death of Constans, Constantine’s

youngest son. Constans had ruled the western part of the Roman Empire and had proved to be

an advocate of the Nicene faith. As well, Constans had provided a buffer for Athanasius and

other orthodox bishops in the east as his older brother, Constantius, who ruled the east, was

123
Ibid., xxxvi.
124
Bush, St. Athanasius: His Life and Times, 146.
125
Ibid., 148.

57
inclined towards Arian beliefs. Constans had been slain by rebels under the command of

Magnentius, who had usurped authority and seized the title of emperor in the spring of 350.126

For a period of time there was a viable anxiety on the part of Constantius and those in the east

that Magnentius could possibly apprehend the whole of the Roman Empire, as that certainly

appeared to be his intentions. This anxiety probably kept Constantius and the Eusebian faction

from moving too strongly to assert their Arian beliefs. Constantius even sent a letter to

Athanasius that promised his continued friendship.127 However, they were maneuvering in more

subtle manners. In 351 Constantius and the Arians called for the Council of Sirmium and they

adopted a creed that neglected to include the Nicene idea of homoousios.128 For his part,

Athanasius bravely responded to this by becoming even more vehement in his support of the

term and concept.129 One of the methods that Athanasius chose to retain the idea of homoousios

as an important notion was to send a copy of his book On the Council of Nicaea to the bishop of

Rome.130 The hope was that this would create a rallying-cry to defend the Nicene Creed.131

Situations were also occurring that would bring to a rapid closure the pretended armistice

between the Arians and the Nicene supporters. Magnentius suffered a sound defeat at the battle

of Mursa and then ultimate defeat at Mons Seleucus.132 He responded to these defeats by

committing suicide. Constantius was now the ruler of all Christendom as the Roman Empire was

126
Ibid., 147.
127
Hough, Athanasius the Hero, 105.
128
Anatolios, Athanasius, 25.
129
Ibid.
130
Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 112.
131
Ibid.
132
Hough, Athanasius the Hero, 105. Hough also intimates that the relationship between Constantius and the
Christians in Alexandria had become so amiable that they actually prayed for him to be victorious. Moreover,
these prayers for victory were made at the request of Athanasius. This would seem to dispel rumors that at this
time Athanasius was not loyal to Constantius.

58
once more united under one ruler.133 This would not bode well for the Nicene believers, and

most especially Athanasius.

Once the empire was firmly in his grasp, Constantius began to traverse towards the entire

Christian Church embracing the Arian belief system. To enhance this movement away from

Nicene beliefs Constantius summoned the Council of Arles in 353 and the Council of Milan in

355.134 The aspiration of these two councils was to: “…to place pressure on the western bishops

to reject Athanasius and to accept a doctrine that was contrary to that of Nicaea. Most of the

bishops succumbed to Constantius’ coercion.”135 Another event that portended trouble for the

Nicene believers during this time was the death of the Roman Bishop Julius who had been such a

strong advocate of Athanasius and Nicaea. Liberius succeeded Julius as the prelate over Rome

and he appeared just as staunch in his Nicene faith as he wrote to Hosius of Cordoba, another

bulwark of the orthodox faith, about his intentions: “I have resolved rather to die for God than

abandon the truth.”136 The resolve and faithfulness of Liberius, Hosius and Athanasius would

soon be tested.

Subsequent to Constantius corralling the power in all of the Empire and selecting the two

councils that commenced to officially turn the church away from the Nicene faith, he began to

persecute individual bishops who refused to relent their orthodox faith. Constantius commenced

a severe persecution against the orthodox, which Athanasius stated in Ad Mon, was greater than

the hardships faced under the persecution of Maximian.137 However, the numerous banishments

133
Ibid., 106.
134
Weinandy, Athanasius, 5.
135
Ibid.
136
Hough, Athanasius the Hero, 107.
137
Bush, St. Athanasius: His Life and Times, 153. Maximian was born in 250 and died in 310. He was Augustus
from 286 to 305. He was the military might of an alliance with Diocletian and, thus, many attributed the severe
persecution to him. He died by suicide in a rebellion against Constantine.

59
of those of the Nicene faith had a positive influence as they acted as missionaries to the countries

where were sent and, thus, the message of the gospel was spread to new locations.138 One of the

primary targets was Liberius, Bishop of Rome, as he held such a vital see. However, Liberius

not only refused to rejoinder the Arian faction but he also had the fortitude to rebuke Constantius

for his cruelty, dishonesty and persecution.139 In response to this courageous action, Liberius

was banished to Berea in Thrace and Felix was appointed as his successor to the bishopric of

Rome.140 However, after two years of banishment and threats of death the resolve of Liberius

was crushed and he accepted the Creed of the Council of Sirmium and, furthermore, renounced

Athanasius.141 Thus, for his subservience Liberius was allowed to return to his see.

Constantius contrived a similar course of action with the aged and venerable Bishop Hosius.

Hosius, similar to the case of Liberius, acted forcefully in favor of the Nicene faith in the

beginning of the persecution as he wrote a strong letter to Constantius that compared the Arian

forces and their tactics unfavorably to those of Athanasius. Hosius was detained for a year at

Sirmium and treated so severely that it actually amounted to torture.142 Hosius finally relented

under the pressure of the torture, deprivation and his age of one hundred years. He signed an

Arian confession but refused to adhere to a condemnation of Athanasius.143 Athanasius

responded to the faltering of his longtime friend and ally in the Nicene cause by stating that he

did not blame Hosius due to the torture he endured and his advanced age. Consistently, this

138
Ibid.
139
Theodoret, Book 2, Chapter 16 and 17.
140
Sozomen, Book 4, Chapter 11.
141
Bush, St. Athanasius: His Life and Times, 154.
142
Socrates, Book 2, Chapter 31.
143
Bush, St. Athanasius: His Life and Times, 154.

60
uncloaks the nature of Athanasius as he refuses to verbally assault an old confidant who

vacillated.

Similar to Liberius and Hosius, Constantius and the Eusebians besieged Athanasius in an

attempt to trigger him to recant the orthodox faith. However, Athanasius stood as the bulwark

for the Nicene faith and refused to shift allegiance. Constantius became so exasperated with

Athanasius that he sent his secretary, Diogenes, to forcefully apprehend him. However, due to

popular support from the laity of Alexandria the plot was foiled in the beginning. The

subsequent tactic Diogenes attempted was to secure the aid of the Roman commander of

Alexandria, Syrianus, and utilize military force in the venture.144 At midnight on February 8,

356, Syrianus and his military faction launched a surprise offensive on Athanasius while he was

celebrating with his congregants at the Church of Theonas.145 Athanasius’ escape from this

harrowing situation is both amazing and legendary. On that night, Syrianus had brought five

thousand men with him and they surrounded the Church of Theonas. When Athanasius knew

that they were outside he stated that his chief desire was for the safety of the people so he sat

down on his throne and requested that Psalm 136 be read, then have the people respond with ‘His

mercy endureth forever’ and then for everyone to depart. However, the soldiers broke into the

church and a wild scene ensued with the soldiers trying to gain entrance and the congregants

traversing in the other direction. Somehow in the melee Athanasius was whisked away by the

monks and some of the clergy. Athanasius states that it was the hand of God that was

responsible for the escape and he went right through the midst of his enemies.146 Athanasius,

thus, disappeared without a trace into the cold winter’s night.

144
Weinandy, Athanasius, 5.
145
Ibid.
146
Sozomen, Book 4, Chapter 10.

61
 Third Exile

As mentioned in the last section, the third exile began in 356 with a harrowing escape.

Athanasius would spend much of this exile in hiding among the monks as the forces of

Constantius continued to search for him.147 Hough wrote of how the Egyptian people cared for

Athanasius during this exile: “The whole country became his protector. The emperor pursued

him in vain. Egypt opened its sheltering arms and held him safe.”148 This is yet another

testimony of how the people cherished their spiritual leader. The new bishop appointed in

Alexandria, George, severely persecuted the Nicene Christians.149 As well, George was a very

base man with a violent temper and it was believed that the Arians had ordained him before he

even professed to be a Christian.150 One particularly cruel incident of persecution involved an

Imperial officer, Sebastian, who sympathized with Bishop George, with 3,000 soldiers locating

Nicene Christian worshipping in the countryside at night. When the believers would not accept

an Arian Creed they were beaten so severely that many of them died. As well, the Arians exiled

twenty-five Nicene bishops into the desert hoping they would die along the way and, also,

banished many of the orthodox laity and beat them with thorns so severely that some of the them

died.151 Such was the bleak situation for orthodox Christianity in the late 350s, with the Nicene

Christians being persecuted severely and the most noble and stalwart of bishops being forced to

recant the Nicene faith.

147
Weinandy, Athanasius, 5.
148
Hough, Athanasius the Hero, 112. Hough goes on to state that is was not just certain portions of Egypt that
wanted to protect Athanasius but that the all of Egypt became his protector.
149
Ibid., 6.
150
Sozomen, Book 3, Chapter 7.
151
Athanasius, History of the Arians, Book VIII, Chapter 72.

62
 At the time when the outlook seemed very dim for orthodox Christianity, Athanasius,

although he was hiding in the desert, did not remain silent and took his argument to the

manuscript and entered the most prolific period of writing in his career. His writings during this

time period included Defense before Constantius, Defense of His Flight, History of the Arians,

On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, Life of Antony and Letters to Serapion.152 However,

while Athanasius was busy writing among the ascetics, the Arian forces were attempting to

further their cause through councils. One particularly strong Arian leaning council was the

Council of Sirmium in 357 which denied Nicaea and emphasized the subordination of the Son

and became known to its opponents as the “Blasphemy of Sirmium.”153

An Abbreviated Stay in Alexandria

The theological landscape changed again in 361 as the result of death, just as it had changed

when Constans died in 350. Constantius, the last of the sons of Constantine, died in November

of 361.154 Julian would replace him as Emperor and one of his primary acts was to restore all of

the bishops that Constantine had exiled. As well, the people of Alexandria became so

exasperated with the cruelties of the current bishop, George, that they rebelled and assassinated

him through an angry mob.155 Thus, Athanasius was able to return once again to Alexandria in

362 after his six years in seclusion and desert asceticism. One of the first decisions of

Athanasius when he was returned to his rightful position was what he recommended should be

152
Ibid.
153
Anatoliois, Athanasius, 28.
154
Barnes, Athanasius and Constantine, 152.
155
Hough, Athanasius the Hero, 114. George was a former pork contractor and did not have a stellar reputation.
Hough also declares that a substitute creed was offered to the people of Alexandria and that it varied from the
Nicene formula. When Athanasius heard about the new creed that was being promoted he wrote a letter to the
Egyptian and Libyan clergy urging them to be steadfast and to reject the new creed.

63
done with the majority of Nicene bishops who had recanted their orthodox faith under

persecution. In characteristic grace, Athanasius urged that all of those who would once again

profess the Nicene Creed would be restored to their position.156

Julian, the new Roman Emperor, was an interesting character. He became known as Julian

the Apostate and his background reveals the reasoning for the moniker. He was raised as a

Christian and yet had seen his father and several brothers slaughtered by Constantius, who was

putatively a Christian.157 This event most likely began to taint his view of the reality of Christian

conversion. As well, he was spurred by the influence of Neoplatonist instructors so that by the

time he was appointed Caesar in 355 he had become a pagan, but somewhat discreetly as he still

existed under the power of his Christian cousin.158 Therefore, once Julian came into power, he

was actually marching against Constantius when he died, he used his imperial dominion to

discourage the practice and customs of Christianity. Christians could no longer teach in imperial

schools or command a high public office.159 In his mind, Julian believed that he could restore

the empire to pagan worship. Another fanciful idea of Julian was that he could restore both

Nicene and Arian bishops back to the ecclesiastical positions and that this would create

confusion and a weakened church. However, this did not operate in the way Julian had aspired

in relation to Athanasius as he was joyfully received upon his return to Alexandria.160 Thus,

when Julian understood that this stratagem would not be successful he banished Athanasius just a

few months after his return.

156
Bush, St. Athanasius: His Life and Times, 188.
157
Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1918), 141.
158
Ibid.
159
Ibid.
160
Ibid.

64
 Fourth Exile and Return

Athanasius had been returned to Alexandria for a brief eight months when the fourth exile

began. However, he was not discouraged at this new turn of events but further revealed his

fortitude as he told his followers upon his leaving that this dark cloud would also soon pass.161

An interesting narrative from this period of time is that Athanasius was escaping on a boat and

the soldiers were also pursuing him. Athanasius turned around and passed their boat going the

other way. The servicemen even asked Athanasius if he had seen the man they were looking for,

as it was dark and they could not see who was on the boat, and he told them to proceed on in the

direction they were travailing as he escaped in the opposite direction.162 Thus, at several

moments in his life Athanasius was miraculously spared. Sozomen even traverses to the length

of stating that Athanasius eluded capture in these circumstances because he had the ability to see

the future, or prophesy.163 However, his enemies viewed it in a different way as they accused

him of sorcery.164

Athanasius was again hidden by the people of Alexandria and by the ascetics. It is believed

that he spent his fourth exile wandering through upper Egypt.165 Part of his time was spent in

Memphis and this is where he wrote the Festal Letter of 363. However, this exile was to last less

than a year. It ended when Julian was killed by a stray arrow from one of his soldiers.166 Thus,

161
Hough, Athanasius the Hero, 134. One of the elements that Julius was particularly angry about was that
Athanasius had baptized Greek ladies while he was bishop in Alexandria. Of course, Julian was especially against
this because it meant that Christianity was making inroads into paganism. In addition to being exiled Julius related
a threat that would be more severe.
162
Theodoret, Book 3, Chapter 5.
163
Sozomen, Book 4, Chapter 10.
164
Ibid.
165
Bush, Athanasius: His Life and Times, 194.
166
Hough, Athanasius the Hero, 136.

65
the plot by Julian to return the Roman Empire to paganism came to a quick and inglorious

termination.

The next emperor was Jovian. He was a Christian by profession and he proved to be

favorable to the Nicene believers.167 In fact, Jovian not only restored Athanasius to his see in

Alexandria but he also entreated him to write his idea of the Nicene faith.168 Athanasius

responded by convening a Council and producing a Synodal Letter which included the Nicene

Creed, the biblical basis and agreement of the Creed and declared that a majority of churches

agreed with it.169 Athanasius then took his Synodal Letter to Antioch where both he and the

letter were received warmly by Emperor Jovian. Jovian would prove himself both favorable to

the Nicene faith and tolerant of the Arian faction.170 At this point, Athanasius’ hope for the

victory of the true faith probably seemed the highest it had been in well over thirty years.

Fifth Exile and Return

However, the time of hopefulness of 363 would traverse on another detour as Jovian died in

February of 364.171 His successor was Valentinian I and in a short amount of time he assigned

the east, and Alexandria, to his brother Valens.172 It would have been favorable for Athanasius if

Valentinian had ruled the entire empire as he held to the Nicene faith while Valens was an

Arian.173 In the spring of 365 Valens began measures that would involve Athanasius as he

167
Ibid.
168
Bush, Athanasius: His Life and Times, 198.
169
Theodoret, Book 3, Chapter 3.
170
Bush, Athanasius: His Life and Times, 199.
171
Hough, Athanasius the Hero, 136.
172
Bush, Athanasius: His Life and Times, 200.
173
Ibid.

66
declared that all bishops that had been expelled by Constantius should once again be exiled.174

The popular opinion of the people of Alexandria was robust against the exile of Athanasius so

that there were once again riots and protests. However, Athanasius was again led by one of his

beneficial premonitions and he disappeared on the very night that the officials broke into the

Church of Dionysius in search of him.175 Thus, Athanasius began his fifth exile in fall of 365.

This exile was spent in the concealment of his father’s tomb.176

LAST YEARS

The fifth exile would only last four months. On February 1, 366 an imperial notary ventured

to Athanasius’ place of concealment and intimated that he would be allowed to once again return

to Alexandria as bishop.177 This would be his final exile and it would usher in a time of relative

peace until the end of his life. However, although Athanasius was personally at peace there were

still Nicene believers being persecuted. For instance, eighty Nicene presbyters went to the

emperor to complain of their sufferings and all perished when the emperor placed them on a boat

and set it on fire.178

Two instances of how Athanasius administered in these final years have survived. The first is

that he accepted a bishop whose ordination was irregular because it seemed the practical avenue

to proceed. As well, he excommunicated the governor of Libya because of immorality and made

it a record of public knowledge.179 A further significant event of these years was in the Festal

174
Hough, Athanasius the Hero, 137.
175
Ibid., 138.
176
Socrates, Book 4, Chapter 13.
177
Bush, Athanasius: His Life and Times, 203.
178
Ibid., 203-204.
179
Hough, Athanasius the Hero, 139.

67
Letter of 367. In this letter Athanasius presents the first time the modern New Testament had

been attested to in full. This will be discussed later in more detail later. In 369, Athanasius

called for a council at Alexandria and the decision was to excommunicate two Arian bishops,

who had been outspoken in their opposition to the Nicene faith, named Ursacius and Valens.180

To the end of his life Athanasius retained an interest in theological matters. He would weigh

the currents of theological drift and attempt to intercede whenever he foresaw that the Nicene

faith might be compromised. For instance, he wrote two works in opposition to the theological

views of Apollinaris. However, characteristic of Athanasius’ grace, he did not mention the

erring theologian by name as he was a personal friend. He was not interested in maligning or

humiliating his friend but merely to combat the potential heresy.181 As well, Athanasius wrote

several letters in these closing years which indicated his continued opposition to anything that

might contradict the Nicene faith. These letters include the Letter to Adelphius which combats

an Arian heresy that worshipped Christ’s manhood, the Letter to Maximus which attacks those

who stated that Jesus was merely a saint and the Letter to Epictetus which combatted those who

said the body of Jesus was not truly human.182 In each of these Athanasius continued to deal

favorably with friends and associates in the Nicene faith while renouncing their particular

theological problem. Bush writes of this phenomenon: “His strong desire to think the best he

could of those who had been associated with him by the ties of friendship or of common work,

induced him to cast aside suspicions, which afterwards, perhaps, proved to be unhappily just.”183

180
Bush, Athanasius: His Life and Times, 205.
181
Hough, Athanasius the Hero, 140.
182
Bush, Athanasius: His Life and Times, 209.
183
Ibid., 211.

68
As well, in his final years Athanasius built a church which was called by his name and dedicated

in 370.184

Athanasius passed from the earth on May 2, 373. He had lived a long and full life. As well,

he had stood for the truth when few others would. Hough writes of his death: “Very full of

peace on that May morning must have seemed the chamber where lay the silent form of the great

bishop. How often he must have longed with a sad eagerness, in many hard and terrible years,

for quiet and repose. But he had not faltered. He had borne his burden, so very hard a burden.

He marched breast forward, he had not lost courage, but had fought with unflagging heroism and

unfailing devotion.”185

Thus, ended the life of Athanasius and his legacy seemed to have been cemented. Many of

those in subsequent centuries would count him as a hero of the church. However, in later years

critics would emerge that would challenge this heroic view of Athanasius. The rest of this paper

is dedicated to determining if the critics have rightly questioned the reputation of Athanasius and

determined it to be lacking in good character.

184
Hough, Athanasius the Hero, 140.
185
Ibid., 141.

69
 CHAPTER III: THEOLOGICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

A COGENT THEOLOGICAL MIND

In addition to having an exemplary life that was an encouragement to many, Athanasius also

had a tremendous impact through his theological writings and ideas. Most importantly, he was a

major figure in the defense of the trinity and the idea that Jesus was fully God and not a created

being. As well, later in his episcopate, he also was instrumental in promoting the full divinity of

the Holy Spirit. Athanasius also supported asceticism both through his writings and actions.

This is of keen interest because at various times he lived an ascetic life and he also advocated the

movement to become more prevalent. It is also noteworthy that Athanasius always desired the

ascetics to ultimately be under the banner of the orthodox church. In addition, Athanasius was

important because he was the first one to include in a document the New Testament books that

are recognized today. He is also utilized as a key historical writer of the fourth century. Thus,

Athanasius was influential in many respects. The first area in this chapter to be considered will

be the theological influences on Athanasius. Next, the major and most influential of his writings

will be reviewed. Finally, the chapter will conclude with an assessment of his most impactful

theological ideas. The hope is that Athanasius’ importance as a crucial theologian in a

tumultuous time will be expressed.

THEOLOGICAL INFLUENCES

Influences on Athanasius

The theological influences on Athanasius are complex. First of all, Athanasius was impacted

by the Scriptures and was the type of theologian that attempted to support his ideas with a clear

70
delineation of them. In his writing he referred often to the Bible and supported his premises with

Scripture. As well, in his writings he demonstrated a great knowledge of and dependence upon

Scriptures.

Beyond this, he was also significantly shaped by writers of the first and second century.

Several of these works were part of the apocryphal writings and were not truly inspired Scripture

but, nevertheless, the authors proffered influential theological ideas. In this vein, Athanasius was

influenced by such books as the Shepherd of Hermas, Clement’s letter to the Corinthians and the

Epistle of Barnabas.186 Justin was also influential on Athanasius. One idea that was particularly

significant was that Justin was an advocate for the full divinity of Christ, as he intimated that his

miracles proved this fact, and Athanasius followed in this idea.187 Another of the second century

theologians that Athanasius followed was Irenaeus. One of the stances that he shared with

Irenaeus was to battle against the idea of modalism.188 Basically, modalism espouses the

construct that God exists in different modes at different points in history, but this will be

investigated more fully later in the chapter. Another area that indicates their similarity is that

Irenaeus utilizes several prophetic Scriptures to prove the divinity and resurrection of Christ and

Athanasius uses these exact same biblical passages in his apologetic against the Jews. Finally,

some present the idea that Athanasius was heavily influenced by Origen from the third century.

In addition, Origen had spent a considerable amount of time in Alexandria and, therefore, it is

hypothesized that his influence in the city remained. Moreover, since Origen is known for

186
Robert Case II. “Will the Real Athanasius Please Stand Up?,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 19:4 (1976): 284.
187
Ibid., 287. Athanasius was a strong advocate for the full divinity of Christ and this was revealed both through
his early and later writings. For more information on his theological ideas in this respect see Athanasius: The
Coherence of His Thought by Khaled Anatolios.
188
Ibid., 289. Modalism was an idea that had been presented several times by different theologians in the early
centuries of church history. Modalism espoused the idea that God exists as God the Father at one point in history,
as God the Son at another time and as God the Holy Spirit at still different times. However, God never exists as
more than one at a time. There was always a fear among orthodox Christians of slipping into this heresy.

71
developing heretical ideas then it would follow, if he were in fact influenced by Origen, that

Athanasius was impacted, at least to some degree, by heresies. However, Case writes: “It seems

clear to me, in the final analysis, that when Athanasius stood against the world he was standing

not in a stream polluted with heresy but in the stream of solid orthodoxy of Irenaeus, Ignatius,

Polycarp, Paul and John.”189 Thus, it seems lucid, both from evidence of his writings and his

theological stances, that Athanasius was impacted by previous theologians but that these

influences were orthodox and followed in a truthful interpretation of Scripture.

Of course, when discussing the theological influences on Athanasius one must consider his

contemporaries. Bishop Alexander immediately preceded Athanasius as bishop and they shared

the same conviction about many monumental topics. However, it is uncertain if Alexander

influenced him beyond providing leadership and encouragement and this is because not as much

is known about the views that Alexander held. As well, it appears that Antony had on impact on

Athanasius. However, again it is unclear if he impacted his theology or if they simply held the

same stances. It does, although, seem apparent that Antony did, at least, have a spiritual impact

on Athanasius in that he was an encouragement to him, and to many other contemporaries and

individuals in subsequent centuries, to live a life completely devoted to serving God. In addition

to Alexander and Antony, evidence of influence can be perceived in the martyrs that Athanasius

knew as a child. However, once more it is not evident that they influenced his actual theological

ideas but most assuredly shaped his devotion to theological teachings and to dedicating his life to

the cause of Christ.

189
Ibid., 295.

72
 Theological Method

One of the important aspects in understanding Athanasius, and any theologian, is his

theological method. His theological writings cover a period that is more than four decades long.

Throughout these years he was in great tumult and yet he maintained a consistency in his

theological wording and was fairly consistent in his theological view.190 A division in his work

that becomes obvious as one studies is that in his later works he puts a strong emphasis on

combatting Arianism while Arius is not even mentioned in his early works. As well, the later

works tend to be more properly theological as they focus on how the Father, the Son and the

Holy Spirit relate to one another.191 In addition, the works that he completed towards the end of

his life had a propensity to utilize exegesis more readily and to refute the proof texts that the

Arians used.192 Thus, in later years Athanasius would grow to have an even stronger emphasis

on Scriptures and their proper interpretation.

Early Years

Now that the influences on his theology have been examined, his paramount writings will be

discussed. An interesting aspect of Athanasius’ life is that he was an able theologian from his

early years as he had already written two brilliant works before the Arian controversy even

190
Khaled Anatolios, Athanasius (London: Routledge, 2004), 39. It is an interesting point about Athanasius’
theology in that he does not seem to change his stance on major doctrines but does seem to emphasize new topics
as time progresses. Anatolios addresses this more pointedly in Athanasius: The Coherence of His Thought.
191
Ibid.
192
Ibid.

73
began.193 Before 318 he wrote Against the Heathen and On the Incarnation.194 Thus, he

demonstrated a keen theological mind from the earliest that is known about him and this level of

intelligence may have been something that Bishop Alexander was able to discern and part of the

reason Athanasius was brought under his care at a young age. Bush wrote of Athanasius on the

basis of these two early works: “We may remark that, even at this early stage of his literary

career, his style of writing was grave, logical, argumentative and clear, full of vigor and

energy.”195 As well, it is known that he was taught by some that became martyrs in the

persecution of 311 and this could have provided the basis for a deeper interest in and

development of theological thinking.196 Whatever the reason, it is clear that Athanasius had a

mind with the acumen for deep theological thought early in his life.

Against the Heathen(or Contra Gentes) was Athanasius’ very first work and it was penned

when he was no more than in his early twenties.197 In this work, Athanasius indicated his

penchant for seeing the Bible as an historical narrative. As well, the work reveals Athanasius’

soteriological ideas at an early age and these conceptions would remain constant throughout his

193
Lynn Harold Hough, Athanasius the Hero (New York: The Abingdon Press, 1906), 35. It is surprising that
Athanasius had written these works before he was in his middle twenties. As well, for those who desired to say
that he became a bishop before he was of the correct age of thirty, it makes it even more amazing as he would
have been perhaps not even age twenty. As well, there are those who date the two works later, some in the 330s
and some in the 360s. However, if these later dates are accurate then it must be adequately explained why
nothing is mentioned about Arius when he was so prevalent in Athanasius’ later writings. Additionally, these early
works indicate that Athanasius held his primary views about the trinity and the divinity of the Son before the Arian
controversy began and, thus, his theology was deeply held rather than being reactionary.
194
Ibid., 40.
195
R. Wheeler Bush, St. Athanasius: His Life and Times, (London: Society for Christian Knowledge, 1912), 38.
Moreover, that Athanasius wrote in a logical format stands out especially in this time period.
196
Ibid., 35.
197
However, these early dates are not without dispute. For example, in 1961 H. Nordberg argued for a date of
362-363 in his article ‘A Reconsideration of the Date of S. Athanasius’ Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione’, Studia
Patristica 3. Others opt for the date of 335-336 such as K. Anatolios in Athanasius: The Coherence of His Thought
(London, 1998).

74
life.198 He tended to see the Bible as a unified whole and that the story of salvation is revealed as

the Bible progresses.199 The piece was written as an introduction to the Christian faith and

appears to have been written at the request of a man named Macarius, most likely the same

Macarius that would later be a controversial follower of Athanasius in the alleged breaking of the

chalice incident.200 Some of the major themes of Against the Heathen were that God is good and

the creator of all, Christianity is a logical belief system and man was made with a free will.201

Moreover, Athanasius notes that this free will was the overarching cause of sin entering into the

world.

The second work, On the Incarnation or De Incarnatione, was written as a sequel and

companion piece to Against the Heathen. In the work Athanasius demonstrates his: “…deep

spiritual earnestness and loyal devotion to the Eternal Word of God which inspires the argument

of the treatise…”202 The major focus of the piece is on the work of redemption and the relation

of the Incarnation.203 Athanasius writes on the topic of redemption and death: “The Word,

perceiving that death could not be abolished except by the death of all; and since He Himself, the

Immortal Word, could not die, took a body capable of death, and in it made a sufficient death for

198
Thomas G. Weinandy, Athanasius: A Theological Introduction (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company,
2007), 11.
199
J. D. Ernst, The Bible in Athanasius of Alexandria (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 131.
200
Weinandy, Athanasius: A Theological Introduction, 12.
201
Ibid., 16.
202
T. Herbert Bindley, Athanasius on the Incarnation (London: Unwin Brothers, 1887), 6.
203
Weinandy, Athanasius: A Theological Introduction, 27. Weinandy writes more pointedly on this topic:
“Moreover, human beings were created in the Son’s image and so he makes present to them the Father, in that
they can come to know the Father immediately through his Word and mediately through creation, which bears
witness to Wisdom’s divine governance. Now in the light of sin and death, it will be the same Son of God as the
Word and Wisdom of the Father, who will restore humankind to immortality and so re-establish its communal
relationship to the Father through his Incarnation and the work of redemption. Thus, Athanasius tells Macarius
that we ‘will follow the faith of our religion, and set forth also what relates to the Word’s becoming man and to his
divine appearing amongst us.’” For more on this see Weinandy chapter 3

75
all: He by the resurrection abolished corruption, and by the self-sacrifice obliterated death.”204

In this work Athanasius also demonstrates an understanding of and use of prophecy as, for

example he writes: “The Cross, too, is conspicuously mentioned by Moses (Deut. xxviii. 66),

and the Prophets (Jer. Xi. 19; Psa. xxii. 16-18); and likewise is the turning of the nations to the

knowledge of God foretold (Isaiah xi. 10). The facts of Christ’s life alone-His virgin-birth, with

the witness of the star-satisfy the prophecies.”205

A further positive characteristic of On the Incarnation is the application to practical theology.

Mohler, a nineteenth century historian to be discussed later, was especially impressed with the

final part of the work because Athanasius is able to clearly reveal how Christianity changes daily

life. Wilgenburg writes: “According to Mohler, Athanasius shows the right perspective on

Christianity, though his focus is on Christ’s deeds and conduct instead of his doctrine as

such.”206 These characteristics that were developed early would serve him well in his life’s work

as Bishop of Alexandria and defender of the Nicene faith.

A further noteworthy characteristic of these early writings, as well as later writings, is that

Athanasius wrote in a scientific form for the readers to follow.207 This was a new mode of

presenting religious truth that previous theological authors had rarely employed. Bush writes of

this phenomenon: “We can trace in his treatise, “On the Incarnation of the Word,” an attempt

which was then novel-though it was the natural result of the tone of mind and the philosophic

theories that prevailed in Alexandria-an attempt to put forward the subject of Christianity in

204
Athanasius, De Incarnatione, Chapter IX. Translated by T. Herbert Bindley, Athanasius on the Incarnation
(London: Unwin Brothers, 1887), 24.
205
Ibid., 36.
206
Arwin van Wilgenburg. “The Redemption of Athanasius within Contemporary Roman Catholic Theology.”
Church History and Religious Culture 90.2-3 (2010): 316.
207
Bush, St. Athanasius: His Life and Times, 33.

76
general, and of the Incarnation of Christ in particular, in a scientific form before his readers.

This was, indeed, a new mode of handling religious truth. As yet theological writings had not

assumed that shape in the church.”208 This is all the more amazing because Athanasius was able

to write in a logical method that was previously untried at such a young age. Thus, his natural

acumen for leadership and fostering new paths was revealed. As well, these early writings

presented his soteriological vision in a cogent way and this idea, once he presented it in these

early writings, is then presented throughout the rest of his ecclesiastical career.209 It is obvious

that he had a powerful intellect for theological ideas and, thus, it can be seen that Athanasius,

even at this youthful stage, had a brilliant theological mind, had a high view of Scripture, had a

firm grasp on the meaning of salvation and was adept at defending his faith. .

Later Important Works

In addition to Against the Heathen and On the Incarnation Athanasius also had several other

important works. One of these was the three volumes of his widely known and used

compositions referred to as Orations Against the Arians. The first of these books was written in

339-340 while Athanasius was enduring his second exile. In this work it becomes clear that

Athanasius is trying to thwart a growing acceptance of Arian doctrine. As well, it seems

plausible that he wrote this in anticipation of a theological battle between pro-Nicene and anti-

208
Ibid.
209
Anatolios, Athanasius, 39. Anatolios also intimates his understanding that Athanasius believed that the
incarnation was consistent and certain. Indeed, he even believed that the incarnation, and subsequent meaning
for soteriology, was reasonable for God. Anatolios wrote: “The systematic task of demonstrating a rational
coherence between the doctrine of God and the doctrine of the incarnation is thus integral to the apologetic
design of this treatise, as is that of demonstrating the coherence of those two doctrines to that of creation. In
short, Athanasius wants to show that the fact of the incarnation is consistent with who God is, and with God’s
general way of relating to creation from the beginning.”

77
Nicene forces at a future church council that never took place.210 Athanasius attacks both of his

major Arian opponents in this treatise, namely Arius and Asterius.211 The overarching theme of

the writing is to denounce the idea that the Son is not eternal and of the same essence as the

Father and that the Son is somehow capable of morphing. This belief was at the core of the

conflict between the orthodox and the Arians and he attacks it forthrightly. Athanasius writes on

the theme of the Son being changeable: “For if the Word is changeable and alterable where will

he end up and what kind of end will there be to his progress? Or how can the changeable be like

(homoios) the unchangeable? And how can the one who has seen the changeable be considered

to have seen the Unchangeable (cf Jn 14:9)? Or what level should he come to in order that one

can see the Father in him? Clearly, one will not always see the Father in him, since the Son is

always changing, and is changeable by nature.”212 The major defense in these volumes is that

Athanasius analyzes various texts from Scripture that are disputed and demonstrates how they

teach that the Son is fully divine.213

Another important polemical work was the Letters to Serapion, to be discussed later in detail.

Suffice to say at this point, that in these Athanasius writes a compelling treatise on the full

divinity of the Holy Spirit. This idea of the Holy Spirit being fully divine, just as the Father and

Son are, is one that Athanasius tended to emphasize later in his oeuvres. As well, it is

noteworthy that this did not appear to be a development of doctrine, as there is no evidence of

210
Ibid., 87.
211
Weinandy, Athanasius, 4. The primary defensive strategy that Athanasius employed in these treatises was to
analyze texts that were questionable. Thus, Athanasius demonstrated that he was not reluctant to enter debate
on the veracity of his claims and to do it very specifically. Athanasius believed that he could prove the truthfulness
of his claims by a thorough analysis of Scripture as it related to the disputed areas. Moreover, the overarching
theme of the passages that were analyzed were proffered to uphold the doctrine of the full divinity of the Son. As
well, these works were utilized to provide the basis for defenses of the Nicene Creed that would be more fully and
specifically addressed in his later writing.
212
Athanasius, Orations Against the Arians. 1:35. Khaled Anatolios, Athanasius (London: Routledge, 2004), 92.
213
Weinandy, Athanasius, 4.

78
there being a time when he did not believe in the full divinity of the Holy Spirit, but simply a

change in emphasis.

In addition, Athanasius was an important historian of the early fourth century. Several of his

works are used to garner historical information about the period. Many favor his historical

renditions of the time period because he was actually there as a witness to the majority of them.

His most important works used to garner historical data of the period include the Encyclical

Letter of 339, Defense Against the Arians, On the Council of Nicaea, Defense Before

Constantius, Letter to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya of 356, Defense of His Flight, History of

the Arians and On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia.214 Some of these will be discussed in

more detail later.

Another type of writing that Athanasius employed were the Festal Letters. These were

annual letters that he would write to the churches of Egypt. It is noteworthy to mention that

Athanasius would normally send these letters each year that he was able to, but some years he

was prevented due to being in exile. The official purpose of these annual letters was to set the

proper date of Easter so that all the churches would celebrate on the same day. However,

Athanasius also used them to encourage the believers and explore other theological themes.

214
Timothy Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius (London: Harvard Univsersity Press, 1993), 6. As well as
Athanasius being an important author to piece together the history of the fourth century, he is also an important
enough figure that people attempt to understand his personal history. Two of the most important other historians
that were contemporary to him and useful to coordinate his personal history were Hilary, bishop of Poitiers
located in Gaul, and Lucifer, bishop of Caralis in Sardinia. Of these two Barnes believes that Hilary is by far the
most useful. Barnes writes of Hilary’s contributions: “The fragments of Hilary’s historical-apologetic work directed
against the bishops Ursacius of Singidunum and Valens of Mursa preserve many indispensable documents which
would otherwise be completely lost, above all the long and revealing letter of the eastern bishops who attended
the Council of Serdica in 343.”

79
They should best be viewed as a letter from a pastor to his congregation to encourage, admonish

and teach those who are under his care and in them he displayed his pastor’s heart.215

One of the letters that is important is Festal Letter 39 written in 367. This letter is noteworthy

because it is the earliest surviving list of the twenty-seven books that are used today in the New

Testament.216 The books of the Old Testament are also mentioned and they are identical to the

canon of the Hebrew Bible. As well, in this letter Athanasius mentions other popular Christian

writings such as the Didcache and Shepherd of Hermas, but he distinguishes them from the

books found in the New Testament canon.217 Athanasius connotes the idea that any books read

beyond the canon of the Old and New Testaments that he mentions should be considered to be

apocryphal. Ehrman and Jacobs write of Athanasius’ ideas of the canon found in Festal Letter

39: “For him, the concept of canon is driven by his understanding of the disparate scriptural

books as a single, coherent Bible, the Word of God that conveys Christian teaching in a perfect,

complete form.”218 Thus, Athanasius held the same view of Scripture that most evangelicals

have in current times.

Another Festal Letter of interest that reveals his themes intended to admonish and encourage

is the third one written in 331. It is also worth noting that Athanasius was a new bishop at the

time who had not yet been exiled but had been called before emperor Constantine to answer

215
Jack N. Sparks, The Resurrection Letters (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1979), 14. Sparks ties Athanasius
concern about the true doctrine with the idea of his having a pastor’s heart. Athanasius fought so vehemently for
Christ being fully God not because he wanted to win some theological battle but because he truly cared for the
Christian flock that had been placed under his care and he believed that in defending the doctrine he was
defending them and protecting their eternal souls. Sparks also intimates his idea that all of Athanasius’ efforts
were not in vain because the true orthodox idea triumphed in the final analysis and many were spared from
believing a horrible deception.
216
Bart D. Ehrman and Andrew S. Jacobs, Christianity in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004),
422.
217
Ibid.
218
Ibid.

80
some charges against him. It was while he was away that he was able to send the letter.219 The

theme of this third letter is thankfulness. Athanasius presents the distinction between a person

who chooses to be unthankful and one who chooses to be thankful. He attributes being

unthankful to wickedness. Moreover, Athanasius speaks of his own difficulties in the letter and

declares that he refuses to complain but rather says that the more he is persecuted the more he

will praise the Lord.220 Through this letter Athanasius reveals his true desire to please God.

Athanasius wrote: “All right then, brothers and sisters, if they interfere with our speaking of the

word of the Lord, we will proclaim it all the more. And if we are persecuted we will sing

Psalms, because God counts us worthy to be despised and to work eagerly for the truth. Yes, the

more we are harassed, the more we will give thanks!”221 Thus, this letter serves as a beneficial

example of the overarching attitude of the letters and also provides a glimpse into Athanasius’

encouragement displayed in the letters.

Athanasius is also known for writing on the topic of asceticism as he was a proponent both in

encouragement and his personal life. Assuredly, the most famous of these ascetic writings is Life

of Antony. Interestingly, Athanasius and Antony were also personal friends and the treatise

presents a positive image of the most famous of all ascetics. It is also, arguably, Athanasius’

most famous work. Life of Antony was a widely read book of the time and it aided in spreading

the ascetic idea. In the work Athanasius provides a detailed account of Antony’s life and some

of the critical points in his becoming fully dedicated to serving God. The piece tends to focus on

219
Sparks, The Resurrection Letters, 68.
220
Ibid. Sparks also states that Athanasius emphasizes the point that people who are faithful to God are also
thankful. Those who complain about their own circumstances are not being faithful to God because God
commands us to be thankful in all circumstances. As well, Athanasius reveals his proclivity for relating his points
back to Scripture as he provides a list of Old Testament characters who were thankful even though they were
suffering through difficult circumstances.
221
Athanasius, Festal Letter III, 331. Jack Sparks, The Resurrection Letters (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers,
1979), 74.

81
the spiritual aspects of his struggles and the many occasions when Antony was attacked by

unseen forces in his sacred quest. One element of particular interest that Athanasius presents is

that Antony still dealt with temptations even though he had renounced the world and had not

seen another human being for a long period of time. Thus, revealing that the true nature of sin is

internal rather than being caused by outside agents. Moreover, Life of Antony was not his only

work that focused on ascetic ideas as Athanasius also wrote several other tomes on the subject of

asceticism which include Discourse on Virginity, Love and Self-Control and On Sickness and

Health.

Athanasius also wrote several works on the topic of biblical exegesis. These were written

mostly on the books of the Old Testament. The most important is the Epistle to Marcellinus.

The topic of this writing is how to incorporate Psalms into the daily spiritual practices of an

individual. In addition, he wrote commentaries on Genesis and Song of Solomon, of which

fragments of the latter still remain. It is also obvious that Athanasius encouraged sound biblical

exegesis as he utilizes this in several of his writings and he is able to refute ideas that are not in

correspondence with orthodoxy.

As well Athanasius penned an important work in defense of his actions named Defense

Before Constantius. It was written while Athanasius was in exile, partly before and partly after

Easter, in 356.222 Athanasius was hopeful that it would lead Constantius to allow him to plead

his case in his presence. The work has been referred to as brilliant for its oratorical

222
Theodoret, Book 2, Chapter 24. Timothy Barnes believes that Athanasius began Defense before Constantius in
353 and had added to it later in the 350s. Barnes states Athanasius was utilizing it as an attempt to get
Constantius’ officials to halt the persecution and harshness towards the orthodox. Moreover, Athanasius refers to
Constantius as pious, patient and kind. He also declares that he knows that Constantius disapproves of the actions
of his representatives. In reality, Athanasius knew full well how Constantius really felt about him but he was
hoping to deter those who might arrest him. For more on this see Athanasius and Constantius chapter 14 by
Barnes.

82
elaboration.223 In the work Athanasius attempts to defend himself on four charges. The first was

that he had attempted to influence Constans against Constantius and Athanasius flatly denied

this. In fact, Athanasius declared in the treatise that he never spoke to Constans without others

being present.224 The second charge that Athanasius emphatically denied was that he had

consorted with Magnentius. The final two allegations that Athanasius denied in the work were

less treasonous as opponents alleged that he used a new church before Constantius had given him

permission and that he declined to present himself when Constantius had beckoned for him.

Moreover, Athanasius also provides responses to these criticisms. Thus, Defense Before

Constantius is an important personal polemic that serves to reveal the type of allegations that

Athanasius needed to answer and also to present a glimpse into his relations with the emperors.

Another important defensive work was Defense of his Flight. In this work Athanasius

declares that he was referred to as a coward for fleeing during persecution.225 This remark is

related to the lapse of Hosius in the summer of 357 and Liberius in spring of 358 and is believed

to have been written between these two events.226 An important historical point from the piece is

that Athanasius names five bishops that had been recently mistreated for the simple reason that

they would not subscribe to Arianism.227 Moreover, using the actual names of the five bishops

allows the reader to investigate for himself and discover the veracity of his statements. As well,

he intimates that Paul of Constantinople had actually been murdered by strangulation in

223
William Bright, Historical Writings of St. Athanasius (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1881), 63. Defense before
Constantius is also interesting because it was written as a hypothesis in which Athanasius imagines a possible
future in which Constantius might return to his policies of about 345. In the 340s Constantius had been much
more tolerant of Nicene beliefs and had promised that they could exist. As well, Athanasius reveals his versatility
in this work as he is able to write in this hypothetical way.
224
Ibid.
225
Athanasius, Defense of His Flight, Chapter 1.
226
Bright, Historical Writings of Athanasius, 66.
227
Athanasius, Defense of His Flight, Chapter 4.

83
approximately 350.228 Athanasius once again reveals his forgiving nature as he has an entire

chapter dedicated to speaking well of Hosius, and this is after he had lapsed and signed an Arian

creed in the face of persecution and banishment.229 Central to the work is that Athanasius

defends himself in his flight by bringing up biblical characters that also fled when it was

possible, such as when Paul left Damascus by being secretly lowered down in a basket.230 Thus,

Athanasius is able to both present cogent biblical examples and state abuses made by the Arians

against Nicene believers in the 350s.

One of the most important works of Athanasius for historical purposes is Defense Against the

Arians. For centuries historians have used this piece to garner information about the history of

the conflicts between the Orthodox and the Arians. In particular, Athanasius includes a great

deal of detail about the Council of Tyre. As well, Athanasius includes a large amount of

information about the allegations that were brought against him and how both he and his

opponents maneuvered in accordance with them. Most pointedly he intimates a lot of facts about

the allegations of the murder of Arsenius and the putative broken chalice. Defense Against the

Arians is the most widely used source for information about these two charges. One of the major

aids the work provides is in relaying the intricacies of the aforementioned allegations of the early

330s.231

228
Bright, Historical Writings of Athanasius, 66.
229
Athanasius, Defense of His Flight, Chapter 5.
230
Ibid., Chapter 11
231
Bright, Defense Against the Arians, 38.

84
 THEOLOGICAL IDEAS

Incarnation

After the review of his most important writings the focus now turns to a review of the aspects

that the works reveal about his theology. One of the central points of Athanasius’ theology, as

mentioned before, is the incarnation. There were two reasons that he put such an emphasis on

this. The first reason is that he firmly believed that the incarnation of God in the form of Jesus

Christ was an historical event. The second reason Athanasius stressed the incarnation is that it

was of supreme importance for the time in which he lived. During the early part of the fourth

century the concepts of the nature of God the Father and the Son were being explored and

interpreted by the Church and Church Councils. Thus, Athanasius lived at a key moment in

history when the stakes were very high and he felt this weight and, therefore, stressed the

incarnation so strongly. As well, it was very important that the opponents of Arianism have a

strong basis for believing that Jesus is God in the same way that the Father is God. Athanasius

was one of the primary theologians that provided this base.

One of the aspects of the incarnation that Athanasius embraced was the vulgarity of it.

Athanasius held to the belief that God becoming a man was a principal part of the salvation

ethos. However, there were many people of that time period that believed that God becoming a

man was somehow vulgar and, therefore, they desired to reject it. However, quite to the

contrary, Athanasius relished this idea and even emphasized it. As well, he used this as a basis

for salvation being offered to everyone regardless of their position in society. “Athanasius

rejoices in the vulgarity of the incarnation, in the vulgarity of the language of the Gospels,

85
virtually taunts his upper-class pagan interlocutors with it because it works.”232 In addition, the

fact that Athanasius embraced this facet enhances his image as the champion of the common

man. He was dearly loved by those in his congregation and see. One of the reasons that

Athanasius was so admired is that he was not a theologian that pandered to the desires of the

socially powerful, but, rather he believed that the salvation that was offered through Christ was

for common people everywhere.

In addition, in his theology Athanasius emphasized the relationship that the Son and Father

had and have. Even though the Son is eternal just as the Father is, He is still obedient to the

Father.233 As well, the Son is of the same essence as the Father but He is compliant. In his

works Athanasius embraced both of these ideas. Thus, in the theology of Athanasius, the Father

and Son have a relationship in which one is obedient to the other but this does influence their

value or essence. This emphasis by Athanasius aids in living out practical theology as the one

who is commanded to be submissive does not have a lesser value. Rather, they can follow the

example of Jesus and be meek as He was.

As well, in the theology that Athanasius espoused there is an emphasis on the incarnation as it

is related to atonement. Athanasius believed that the atonement and incarnation were closely

232
Sara Parvis, Marcellus of Ancyra and the Lost Years of the Arian Controversey: 325-345 (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2006), 65. Parvis also wrote about how Athanasius was in between two theological systems in
the fourth century. One was a system that she described as platonizing and contemplative. Parvis believed that
this old way of thinking in Alexandria was coming to an end. The other system followed more in line with the
teachings of Irenaeus and it was earthy and immanent. She says that Athanasius had a great ability to have these
systems in balance and to relate to individuals on both sides. It was his ability to move between the two that
allowed Athanasius to hold the church together in Alexandria as well as he did.
233
Thomas F. Torrance, Incarnation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 198. Torrance also believed that
Athanasius closely followed Irenaeus in this respect. Torrance wrote: “In the teaching of Irenaeus and Athanasius,
there was considerable stress upon the obedience of the incarnate Son, and consequently upon the saving
significance of the humanity of Christ, both in regard to revelation and in regard to reconciliation. Also, in their
writings notably in that of Athanasius there is found a full and satisfying account of the atonement in which
incarnation and atonement are closely associated and are mutually involved.”

86
associated to one another.234 Since Jesus was God come in the flesh, it is the sole way that there

can be atonement for sins. Thus, to atone for the sins of man it took the death of the fully

incarnate God. There could be no other sacrifice that could accomplish it. Therefore, for

Athanasius the concept of the incarnation is central to all theology. The atonement is the focal

doctrine of Christianity and, thus, when the Arians espoused the idea that Jesus was not God in

the same way that the Father is fully God, Athanasius thought that this would lead to the

undermining of all of Christianity. The atonement would not have been possible if Jesus had not

been fully God. Athanasius understood that if it was a created being that had been sacrificed

then the atonement would not be valid. It had to be God Himself that became the sacrifice. The

sins of the created could only be atoned for by the Creator.

Athanasius, likewise, argued the tenet of why the incarnation was necessary. In his writings

he gave two reasons for the incarnation. The first presented was in relation to the appearance of

sin. “…because sin appeared, and by depriving man of the Logos, deprived him of the principle

of life.”235 Thusly, Athanasius believed the relationship of man with the Logos was severed

when sin appeared in the world. Athanasius penned in De Incarnatione: “Our creation and

God’s Incarnation are closely allied, for man’s fall necessitated the Incarnation.”236 Therefore,

Athanasius connotes that the effects of sin were overcome by the incarnation of the Logos. A

second reason that the incarnation was important is that it was necessary for the revelation of

God.237 Athanasius espoused the idea that God could only truly be known by mankind if He was

234
Ibid.
235
Robert L. Ottley, The Doctrine of the Incarnation (London: Methuen and Co., 1902), 348.
236
Athanasius, De Incarnatione, Chapter IV. Bindley, 22.
237
Ottley, The Doctrine of the Incarnation, 348. Ottley goes on to state that Athanasius believed that man was
made to have a knowledge of God. As well, God created man with a share of the Logos but this was lost when man
chose to sin. Thus, in order for this to be restored it was necessary for the Logos to have a human body so that
mankind could again have the possibility of being renewed in relation to His image.

87
to become incarnate. In De Incarnatione, Athanasius intimates that the Logos is the main agent

for revealing God as well as being the creator.238

Another aspect of the incarnation that was important for Athanasius is that when the Word

became incarnate it was the only way for death to be abolished. He wrote in De Incarnatione:

“The Word, perceiving that death could not be abolished except by the death of all; and since He

Himself, the Immortal Word, could not die, took a body capable of death…”239 Therefore, the

incarnation is of primary importance for terminating death’s reign among people. For

Athanasius it was necessary for God to incarnate into a body that was capable of death.

As well, Athanasius had to face active critics of the incarnation that were prevalent during his

ministry and he was able to answer most of their arguments. One of the primary arguments that

was popular with the critics was that it was below the nature of the Logos to appear in the form

of a human body. Thus, they attempted to convey the idea that the body of Jesus was a not a real

human body but, alternately, a spiritual one or that God was never incarnate. Either argument

would destroy the idea of the incarnation. Athanasius was able to refute this idea when he wrote:

“If the Logos is in all things in the world…why could he not also dwell in a man whom he

moved, through whom he manifested Himself, even as he manifests Himself through the

world?”240 Another argument that the opponents employed is that they questioned why the

Logos did not assume a body that was different from other human beings, such as a shining

body. Likewise, Athanasius was able to answer this query by writing: “Because His coming had

not an epideitical, but a curative purpose.”241 Thus, Athanasius was saying that the real purpose

238
Ibid., 344.
239
Athanasius, De Incarnatione, Chapter IX. Bindley, 24.
240
James Ridgeway, S. Athanasius on the Incarnation (London: James Parker and Co., 1880), xxv.
241
Ibid., xxvi.

88
of the Logos becoming incarnate was to cure the sin problem of the world by His death and

resurrection, and this was in contrast to it simply being ceremonial. Jesus needed to have a real

body that could suffer rather than simply coming to earth to reveal what God was like.

Therefore, through these examples it is evident that Athanasius had a brilliant theological

mind and he was able to refute the arguments of critics and other theologians of his day that

desired to deny the incarnation. Moreover, Athanasius held firmly to the idea that the

incarnation was not just a peripheral doctrine of Scripture but a central one. As mentioned

before, he stressed the incarnation both because of its centrality to salvation and because his

opponents of the time were promoting divergent views so vehemently.

Good News

Another crucial area of Athanasius’ theology was his emphasis on and view of the gospel.

More pointedly, Athanasius tended to emphasize the idea of good news in his theological

writing. The good news was that God had spanned the gulf that had existed between man and

God.242 Man no longer had to exist in separation from his creator. Now, through the atoning

life, death and resurrection of Jesus man could have the gulf between themselves and God

removed and live in harmony with Him. Athanasius believed that this aspect of the salvation

narrative needed to be emphasized to everyone. Thus, for Athanasius, the salvation narrative did

not involve sadness or following rules but, instead, that through the incarnation the relationship

242
Parvis, Marcellus of Ancyra and the Last Years of the Arian Controversey: 324-345, 64. Parvis writes on this
theme: “For Athanasius, the Good News is that the Word really did become incarnate, really did come down to
our level, the immeasurable gulf that had to be crossed between God and creatures, what is and what belongs to
the world was coming to be and passing away, only serving to show God’s still more immeasurable generosity.
Yes, it is unfitting, yes, it is ridiculous, just as the Jews and the pagans say, to imagine God entering the material
world, and one part of it at that…”

89
between God and man could be restored. As well, this harkens back to the previously mentioned

idea that Athanasius had a place for the common man in his theology and, thus, the atonement

was for everyone.

In retrospect, for Athanasius to emphasize the idea that the gospel was the good news of the

atonement for everyone came at a critical point in church history. In the previous centuries

people asked the question of how the wealthy could be saved. However, during the time of

Athanasius the church became endorsed by the Emperor and this meant that many of the socially

powerful and elite began to flock towards the church as they viewed it as now more socially

acceptable and even for membership to be encouraged. Christianity was developing into the

religion of the elite. In subsequent epochs the view of Christianity would change in this aspect.

The wealthy would begin to look at the poor with disdain and wonder why they did not share in

the riches of others. However, at this time Athanasius kept the emphasis on the idea that the

gospel was for everyone and this negated the idea that the powerful would desire to make it an

exclusive social entity. Moreover, Athanasius and his theological system came at a beneficial

time to preserve the idea of the atonement being for all people. He lived at a time when the idea

of the gospel being only for the elite was beginning to germinate and yet he defended the idea

that the gospel was for everyone.

The Trinity

Another theological concept that Athanasius held as vitally important was the idea of the

trinity. He thought of the trinity as a major structural point in the Christian religion. In his

theological system, Athanasius presented the idea that each member of the Godhead is of the

90
same essence. In addition, each person in the Godhead is eternal. This would logically mean

that no person in the Godhead was created by another member but rather each of the three has an

existence that is without beginning. Moreover, Athanasius also held firmly to the position of

monotheism so that the Godhead has three persons but He is only one God. In his theological

writing it was important that these two ideas, three eternal persons in the Godhead and

monotheism, be held in tension. This statement by Athanasius was characteristic of his views on

this topic: “The Father did not reign from everlasting by Himself, and the Son by Himself, but

both in One make only One Creator and Monarch of the Universe.”243 This, of course, leads to

the modern orthodox position in Christianity of monotheism and three persons in the Godhead.

It was critical for Athanasius to propagate this belief during the pivotal years of his theological

writings.

As well, it is evidenced in his writings that Athanasius did not allow for any form of

modalism. Modalism was also a way of understanding the relationship of the Father, Son and

Holy Spirit that was prevalent at the time, and still appears in certain circles to this day. In

modalism it is believed that God exists as the Father at one point in history, as the Son at another

point and then as the Holy Spirit, but God is never more than one at a time. This doctrine is

contrary to the teaching found in Scripture and a construct that is dangerous to the understanding

of God. As well, it is interesting that modalism is one of the ideas that most likely drove the

Arians to their position as Arius originally accused Bishop Alexander of encouraging this

opinion. There was a fear during that period of history that modalism would come to dominate

Christianity and this led some to traverse to the opposite extreme instead of maintaining a

balance. However, Athanasius was able to brilliantly refute the teachings of both modalism and

243
Edwin Davies, Gems from the Fathers (New York: James Pitt and Co., 1899), 170.

91
Arianism by maintaining the balance and avoiding the extreme ideas that God either existed in

different forms at different times in history or that the Son was of a different essence than the

Father.

A theological idea that receives its basis from the construct of the trinity, and that Athanasius

emphasized, is the supremacy of Christ. It is evident that since Athanasius held that all three

persons in the Godhead are equal then he had a high view of Christ. Of course, having a high

view of Christ may seem automatic to most Christians living in modern times but one must also

remember that Athanasius lived in a different world where these ideas needed to have cogent

arguments as many of the ideas that orthodox Christianity affirms today were being heavily

questioned. Thus, it is important to understand that Athanasius was a leading theologian and

writer that espoused the idea that Christ was superior to any other being, biblical character or

human being. For instance, in affirming this idea Athanasius wrote: “Again, does Scripture tell

of anyone who was pierced in hands and feet or hung upon a tree at all, and by means of a cross

perfected his sacrifice for the salvation of all? It was not Abraham, for he died in his bed, as did

also Isaac and Jacob. Moses and Aaron died in the mountain and David ended his days in his

house, without anybody having plotted against him.”244 Again, it needs to be reiterated that this

high view of Christ may seem to logically follow for modern Christians but Athanasius held

firmly to the biblical position when this idea was very much in question.

244
Saint Athanasius, The Incarnation (London: The Centenary Press, 1944), 1969.

92
 Homoousios

Another central tenet of Athanasius’ theology was the idea of homoousios. It was an idea that

was bitterly contested throughout most of his life and, also, an idea that involved suffering for

Athanasius and most of the those who affirmed it. In short, homoousios is the idea that Jesus is

of the same essence as the Father. This was the doctrinal stance that was approved by the

Council of Nicaea. The importance of this stronghold of Christian faith is critical. “Athanasius

fought so hard for the deity of Christ because he saw that our salvation depends on it.”245

The opposing theological viewpoint that the Arians and other opponents favored was the idea

of homoiousios. The difference in the meaning of the two words is great even though the

variance between them seems small. To add the iota and make it homoiousios meant that Jesus

was of a different substance than the Father and, thus, it naturally follows that Jesus was not fully

God in the same sense that the Father is God. “Orthodoxy, however, was persuaded that

everything that is important depends on excluding the iota, on confessing Christ as of the same

substance as the Father, not as of like substance.”246 Thus, Athanasius argued against and

rejected the idea that the Father and Jesus were merely of a similar substance as he was able to

perceive that the acceptance of this construct would result in the termination of orthodox

Christianity. In addition, Christianity would also lose the potency as a change agent in the world

if Jesus were merely another created being. A typical quote from Athanasius is found in the

245
Troy Lane, A Concise History of Christian Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2006), 32. Lane also
points out a useful and rather unique characteristic about how Athanasius viewed theology. He knew when to
stand firm when everyone else was beginning to be weakened. At the same time in conjunction with this
Athanasius was wise enough to realize when flexibility was needed.
246
Harold O. J. Brown, Heresies (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1984), 108. Athanasius felt that this
was so critical because if the Son was of similar substance as the Father then it would possibly be presented that
he had been created by the Father and a created being would not be able to become incarnate and to suffer and
die for the sins of mankind.

93
Contra Arianos: “…we are forced to say that the Son is entirely that which is ‘of the substance

of the Father.’”247

An interesting aspect of the conflict between the advocates of homoousios and homoiousios is

those who adhered to and supported their doctrine. Those who affirmed the idea of homoousios

were almost exclusively Christian while the supporters of homoiousios, generally referred to as

Arians, had difficulty when it came to garnering support from Christians. However, they were

able to gather endorsement among Jews and pagans.248 Moreover, the Jews and pagans did not

believe in the basic tenets of Christianity and, thus, it is easily comprehended why they would be

willing to support a theological system that does not affirm that Jesus is fully God. Therefore, it

followed that the Arians were willing to seek support from groups that did not believe in the

truth of Christianity.

Holy Spirit

It is also important to understand that Athanasius not only embraced the idea of Jesus being

fully God, but that he also believed that the Holy Spirit is fully God as He is a part of the trinity.

In Athanasius’ theological system the idea of the trinity meant that all three members of the

Godhead were equally God. Another key point about the Holy Spirit is that all of the persons of

the trinity were of the same substance rather than merely the same essence. Therefore, it

247
Henry Bettensen, The Early Christian Fathers (London: Oxford University Press, 1956), 381.
248
Brown, Heresies, 118. Brown goes on to intimate that this questionable practice of Christians seeking support
from those who did not follow the Christian faith seems to have its genesis with the Arians. He wrote of a modern
example in how Hans Kung, a Roman Catholic in the Swiss Church, sought support from those who were not
Catholic or Christian in continuing his independent views that are at variance with the those that the pope
endorses.

94
coherently follows that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit have always existed, were not

created and are all equally God.

As well, Athanasius was a pioneer in the theology of the Holy Spirit as he became the first

theologian to devote serious attention to the place of the Holy Spirit in the trinity.249

Additionally, as was so common place for that period of time, he was struggling with another

heretical group over this doctrine. Tropici was the name the opposing group was known by and

they were an Egyptian group that espoused the belief that the Father and Son were indeed fully

God but that the Holy Spirit had been subsequently created out of nothing.250 Therefore, because

of this stance they denied the truth of the doctrine of the trinity. Their original battle had been

with a man named Bishop Serapion and he, in turn, asked Athanasius to get involved in the

conflict and attempt to quiet it. Athanasius does this by writing his Letters to Serapion. The

primary intention of these works is to present the case for the deity of the Holy Spirit. Weinandy

writes of these letters: “Athanasius, in his four letters to Serapion, wants not only to refute their

false interpretation of Scripture and their theology which issues from it, but also to present a

positive scriptural understanding, founded upon right faith, that testifies to the Holy Spirit’s true

divine status.”251 Therefore, Athanasius was an important figure in theology because he

defended the full deity of both the Son and the Holy Spirit.

249
Lane, A Concise History of Christian Thought, 34.
250
Ibid.
251
Weinandy, Athanasius: A Theological Introduction, 108. One of the arguments that the opponents used in
Athanasius’ time period is that if the Holy Spirit proceeded from God then He would have been a brother to the
Son. As well, if the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son then He would be a Grandson to the Father. They argued
that this leaves only one conclusion being that the Holy Spirit was a created being. Athanasius was able to refute
these arguments. For more information on this see Weinandy.

95
 Doctrine of God

Another principle aspect of Athanasius’ theology that may not be appreciated as much by

Christians today is his doctrine of God. In his theology Athanasius exhibited a high view of God

and this was contrary to other prevailing teachers of that time period. As well, it should be

understood that it is because of men like Athanasius and the stance they took that it is so

automatic for Christians today to have a high view of God. Individuals like Athanasius had to

fight the battles at that critical time in history. A major tenet of Athanasius in this regard is that

God is not part of the world, nor is He is the world.252 This was an important theological

construct because many Eastern belief systems, in addition to some modern Western ones,

espouse the idea that God is either somehow the world as a whole or part of the world.

However, Athanasius was crucial on this point because in his teachings he accentuated the notion

that God is a completely distinct entity from the world He created.

Athanasius also espoused the idea that God is not dependent on another. Thus, in his

theology, God is the creator of all and He is totally independent of all other entities. As well,

Athanasius made the cogent point that He would not be God if He were dependent on any other

creature.253 Athanasius followed the scriptural mandate in this as the Scriptures teach that God is

not subject to the control of any other and that He is sovereign.

As well, Athanasius importantly declares that God is a whole and, therefore, He does not exist

in parts.254 This concept is important because the idea of the trinity dictates that God is a unity

while being in three persons at the same time. In addition, Athanasius stresses the view that God

252
Ridgeway, S. Athanasius on the Incarnation, xiv.
253
Ibid.
254
Ibid., xv.

96
has a distinct personality.255 An important work that Athanasius argues for and presents this idea

in is the aforementioned Contra Gentes. This concept serves to reiterate the point that God is

completely separate from the world He created.

Athanasius was such a strong proponent of God’s divinity that he reacts strongly to opponents

who would assert deity to any other being. An example of this was his writing in De Synodis. In

the third Synod of Sirmium, held in 359, the Arian faction allowed an alarming statement. In the

superscription to the creed they asserted that Constantius, who was emperor at the time, was

eternal. Thus, in De Synodis Athanasius mocked the Arian party because they were not willing

to ascribe eternality to Christ but they were willing to ascribe it to a mortal man such as

Constantius.256 In this exchange Athanasius revealed both his penchant for defending the

doctrine of God and for being cleaver with words in dealing with his opponents.

In addition, Athanasius presents two basic truths about God in Contra Gentes. One of these

concepts is that God is both transcendent and self-sufficient. God is, as stated before, dependent

on no other creature and is the cause of everything that exists.257 A second point that Athanasius

denotes is that God is immanent. Athanasius presents the idea that order and rationality in the

universe is provided by God. Therefore, the immanence of God is the basis for all epistemology.

Thus, Athanasius combined in his theology the important concepts that God is separate from the

world and at the same time the sustainer of the world. Part of the reason he is able to hold these

255
Ottley, The Doctrine of the Incarnation, 344. Ottley goes on to declare that Athanasius’ primary concern and
purpose in writing On the Incarnation was not only to declare God’s distinct personality but also His
transcendence. From this stance Athanasius is then able to powerfully argue for the existence of the Son or the
Word. Thus, Athanasius was important in revealing relation between the Logos and the world.
256
Arwin van Wilgenburg. “The Redemption of Athanasius within Contemporary Roman Catholic Theology.”
Church History and Religious Culture 90.2-3 (2010): 319.
257
Ibid., 346.

97
concepts in balance is because he has a high view of God. Athanasius wrote in De Incarnatione:

“The true doctrine is that God brought the universe into being out of nothing.”258

Human Body

The idea that Jesus had a human body was a concept that Athanasius also incorporated into

his theology. This was a critical doctrine of the time as there were rival factions, both during the

fourth century and earlier, that espoused the idea that Jesus did not have a human body. An

important reason for these groups to believe this dualism was an idea which taught that all flesh

is evil. Thus, since all flesh is evil, Jesus being incarnate could not possibly take on the form of

a human body but only appeared to have one. As strange as this doctrine may seem to a modern

reader this construct was quite prevalent in the early fourth century. Athanasius was so crucial at

this juncture because he held firm to the position that Jesus had a human body and the times

necessitated an individual with some theological influence to espouse this. He wrote in De

Incarnatione: “The human actions attributed to Him are those of the body of God the Word;

they prove the hypostatic union, and the reality of His body.”259

Christ’s Power

Athanasius believed that real moral transformation in the life of an individual could only be

achieved by the power of Christ. Furthermore, he used this construct to argue against the pagans

by espousing that nothing in their teachings creates a true desire in an individual to live a pure

258
Athanasius, De Incarnatione, Chapter III. Bindley, 21.
259
Ibid., Chapter XVIII. Bindley, 29.

98
moral life.260 Athanasius firmly believed that the only thing that has true transformational power

is the impact of the resurrected Christ. “Only the power of the incarnate Christ can meet people

where they really are.”261 Thus, the idea of being transformed by Christ was important in the

teachings of Athanasius. In addition, this pervades and enhances the idea so prevalent in his

teachings that the gospel is accessible to all classes of people.

Asceticism

An interesting aspect of Athanasius’ life and theology were his teachings about asceticism.

Throughout his life Athanasius had contact with ascetics as well as living the life of an ascetic at

various times. In fact, it may even be perceived from his life that if Athanasius could have

chosen he would have preferred the life of an ascetic over the life of a famous but troubled

bishop. Thus, Athanasius viewed asceticism in a positive way and he encouraged others to both

embrace it for themselves and to have an encouraging view of the lifestyle. Moreover, this

beneficial framework that Athanasius held asceticism in served to lend credibility to the

movement as many Christians respected his views. At this time in history, as the church was

being made legal, and even favored, by Constantine, many Christians were choosing the ascetic

lifestyle as they viewed the new situation as a corruption of the true church.

Antony, as mentioned before, was one of the monks that Athanasius had a close relationship

with. In fact, Athanasius even believed him to be the first monk.262 Antony was also a man that

260
Parvis, Marcellus of Ancyra and the Lost Years of the Arian Controversey: 325-345, 62.
261
Ibid., 64.
262
Lane, A Concise History of Christian Thought, 32. Lane goes on to say of this phenomenon: “In the second and
third centuries there were those who lived an especially ascetic life-remaining single, embracing poverty and
devoting themselves to prayer and fasting. Such people remained within the normal congregations and are called
‘domestic ascetics’ because they practiced their asceticism at home, within society. But in the fourth century as

99
was greatly revered for his spiritual life and many Egyptian Christians would traverse into the

desert to see him and seek advice and prayer. At one point, Antony revealed his support for

Athanasius as he made a rare appearance in Alexandria to buttress him in his stance against the

Arians. In his few days in Alexandria Antony made it abundantly clear that he supported the

orthodox position and Athanasius as he upheld it.263 This was of particular interest to the people

of Alexandria as both Arius and Athanasius had previously claimed that Antony supported their

position. While he was in the city the people treated Antony as if he were a celebrity and

listened to his words of wisdom and encouragement to embrace the orthodox position.

Athanasius living the ascetic lifestyle at times and encouraging it in others is a surprising

finding in the life of a famous bishop. Through his encouragement of asceticism Athanasius was

able to have an impact on future generations. For example, some years later Life of Antony

would have an effect on the salvation experience of Augustine who would become a very

influential theologian in his own right.264 Thus, in his embracing of asceticism Athanasius was

able to have an influence through both his theology and his personal actions.

Role as Pastor

One important aspect of Athanasius as a theologian is intertwined with his role as a pastor.

Athanasius took his call to be a pastor seriously and one of his primary motivations was to

defend his flock, or his followers, from the ravenous wolves who would come and teach false

doctrine with the result of them being stolen away from the faith. Thus, Athanasius was able to

the moral standards of the church became diluted by the increasing number of superficial pagan converts, the
ascetics began to withdraw from society, especially into the deserts of Egypt and Syria.”
263
Robert T. Meyer, The Life of Saint Antony (New York: New Press, 1950), 6.
264
Lane, A Concise History of Christian Thought, 32.

100
put his great intellect to work in protecting his perception of the truth and, thus, his congregation.

Anatolios writes of Athanasius in this regard: “Here, as in many other places, Athanasius is at

pains to disqualify those who do not accept the full divinity of the Son from any claim to the

name of “Christians,” and he clearly considers it to be his pastoral duty to do so.”265 As well,

Athanasius reveals his true heart of a pastor in the way he reacts to how the Arian heresy has

deceived many Christians. Athanasius appears to be “manifestly shaken”266 by the very idea that

so many in his see have been deceived into even the possibility of accepting Arianism as a form

of true Christianity. Anatolios also aptly summarized Athanasius’ apparent feelings on this:

“However, from the point of view of Athanasius’ own self-understanding, he is a persecuted

shepherd of an embattled flock who is not only at pains to provide his people with cogent and

persuasive reasons for denying “Arian” doctrine, but who is also quite desperate to coach them in

the appropriate affective repugnance which they ought to feel toward such “blasphemy.””267

Such was how Athanasius viewed himself as the protector of true Christians both in Alexandria

and other parts of the empire. Thus, Athanasius is somewhat unique in his theological stances

that is coupled with his pastor’s heart. As well, it seems that this theological acumen combined

with sincere care and love for his people is part of what made him such an endeared figure for

his followers.

265
Anatolois, Athanasius, 36-37.
266
Anatolois, Athanasius, 36.
267
Ibid.

101
 Role of Scripture

A further distinctive of Athanasius’ theological background is that he heavily used Scripture,

as previously mentioned. Moreover, Athanasius utilizes Scripture in his writings and to help him

to persevere through difficult circumstances. In fact, it is this penchant for turning to Scripture

that allows him to have the inner fortitude and optimism through the harrowing events. An

example of this comes from his thirteenth festal letter: “What does this mean, my beloved, but

that we also should “glory in afflictions” (Romans 5:3) when enemies cause us suffering and that

we should not become downcast in spirit when we are persecuted but should rather press forward

toward the crown of the upward calling in Jesus Christ our Lord (Phil 3:14)? I entreat you,

therefore, that when we are afflicted and injured, we should not be troubled but rather give our

cheek to the one who strikes us (Mt 5:29)…”268 Thus, it is understood when reviewing his

writings that Athanasius had a tremendous admiration and respect for Scripture and that he used

it as a basis for gaining strength in his own life circumstances.

THE THEOLOGICAL IMPACT OF ATHANASIUS

Athanasius not only had an influence on the people of his time, and subsequent centuries as

well, through his exemplary life but also through his theological prowess. He was able to

combine his impeccable life, his brilliant theological mind and true love for the people in a

unique fashion and these characteristics made him a beloved bishop. Closely akin to this was

that Athanasius went against the prevailing tides of his epoch by espousing that salvation was for

the common man and not just the elite. As well, a critical idea that Athanasius embraced was the

268
Athanasius, Festal Letter XIII:6.

102
incarnation. He rightly believed that the incarnation was a crucial doctrine that was central to

Christianity and he aptly defended it through his personal and ecclesiastical struggles as well as

his astute theological treatises. Similarly, he defended the doctrine of the trinity both through

written word and action. In a similar vein, he stood against modalism while maintaining the

balance with the teaching that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were fully God. In fact, Athanasius was

monumental in promoting the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is fully God and of the same essence

as the Father and Son. All of this is coupled with a high view of both God the Father and Christ

and this came at a time when these doctrines were being challenged by various entities and

heresies. It is difficult to fathom the impact that Athanasius’ theological stances have had on the

history of Christianity, particularly since he existed in such a pivotal time period.

103
 CHAPTER IV: FOURTH CENTURY INFLUENCES

A VARIETY OF INFLUENCES

This chapter includes information on some of the major characters that are critical to

understanding the dynamics of the politics and church policies of the fourth century. The major

theological characters that had a great impact on the life of Athanasius, and on all of

Christendom, were Arius and Eusebius. Both of these men stood outside of the bounds of

orthodoxy and, thus, they became the major individual opponents that Athanasius would

confront in his battle to preserve the idea of Christ being fully God and of the same essence as

the Father. As well, another important diverse theological group were the Meletians. As stated

before, the Meletians had developed as a result of a schism over lapsed believers and more of

their background and impact will be delved into here. Finally, a study of fourth century

Christianity would not be complete without a reckoning of Constantine and his sons.

Constantine is considered the first Christian emperor and his impact on the church and politics of

the church in the fourth century is tremendous. Additionally, after his death each of his sons,

Constantinus, Constantius and Constans, would become pivotal figures in the life of the church.

The theological leanings of these three sons between orthodox and Arian beliefs impacted

ecclesiastical politics for over twenty years. The fourth century was a time of great change as it

is the first observed instance of the secular ruler having an impact on the interior of ecclesiastical

life.

104
 ARIUS

Arius’ Background

The first of the primary personalities to be discussed is Arius. Arius is one of the important

theological figures from the fourth century and it is paramount to understand him and his views

in order to have a clearer outlook on Athanasius. An important construct of Arius is that he was

one of the chief theological rivals of Athanasius. They each had differing views on the nature

and origin of Jesus. In fact, Arius was such a driving force in his life that it would be difficult to

theorize how Athanasius’ life would have been different if they had never known each other.

Arius was a native of Libya but had been in Alexandria for a number of years at the time the

conflict developed between him and Bishop Alexander.269 It is also of significance to note that

no Libyan was ever known to oppose Arianism.270 This lends even more credence to the notion

that many bishops living in the fourth century made their ecclesiastical decisions based on

politics rather than a consideration of the veracity of an idea. Had the Libyan bishops simply

been a majority favoring Arius it would be easier to explain. However, since it appears to be

unanimous it presents the impression that it is more likely that political expediency, rather than

truth, was the real motivation. Again, this is important to understand when considering the main

topic of the paper as bishops living in a certain geographic area tended to either believe

completely in Athanasius’ innocence or his guilt.

269
Frances M. Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 42.
270
Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987),
1.

105
 Arius was most likely born in 256 so that he was already a seasoned individual by the time

the conflict with Alexander, and by association orthodoxy, fully developed.271 At one point he

was taunted by Constantine for being worn in body and pale in complexion.272 His physical

appearance is described by Leithart: “A charismatic preacher, Arius was tall, stooped and

curved—as one ancient historian put it—like a snake, wore the garb of an ascetic and a

philosopher, and oversaw a large number of devoted virgins in the Alexandrian church.”273

Arius was also known to have procured support for his ideas with his winsome personality.274

As well, Arius seemed to appeal his teachings to the common laymen. Moreover, he made use

of pithy sayings put into the form of a rhyme that were easy to remember and, apparently, had an

impact on common people. An example of such a whimsical utterance was: “There was a time

when he was not.”275 This was in reference to Christ, and Arius utilized this saying, and other

similar ones, to help spread his beliefs and attach them in the minds of the people. Much about

his background and the beginning of the conflict have been previously discussed so there is no

need to reiterate them here.

There is some conflict as to how Arius received his education and who influenced him. Some

believe that Arius sat under the teachings of Lucian and received his education at the school of

271
R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 3. Arius is
believed to have been of Berber descent and his father’s name is listed as Ammonius. As a young man he most
likely studied in Antioch and was under the tutelage of Lucian. When he returned to Alexandria he became
involved in the conflict involving Bishop Peter and the lapsed bishops. He supported Meletius and his rival church
over Peter and the orthodox and was excommunicated, most likely in 311. However, he was reinstated by Achillas
who was the next bishop and given the church at Baucalis to pastor. Baucalis was an area of Alexandria close to
the coast. It was while he was at Baucalis that the conflict with Alexander began in earnest.
272
Ibid., 5. However, Warren H. Carroll presents a different impression of him as he states that women doted over
him and men were impressed with his look of being intellectually superior. Also, Carroll believes that instead of
having appearing worn in body that he was rather distinguished looking.
273
Peter J. Leithart, Defending Constantine (Downers Grover, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2010), 165.
274
Franz Dunzl, A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early Church (New York: T. and T. Clark, 2007),
41.
275
Karl Bihlmeyer, Church History (Westminster: The Newman Press, 1968), 247.

106
Antioch.276 Lucian had a private academy in Antioch and this academy was maintained largely

because he was a theological outsider.277 As well, Lucian seems to have been influenced by a

man named Paul of Samosata. Cairns remarks of Samosata: “This able but unscrupulous man

taught that Christ was not divine but merely a good man who, by righteousness and by the

penetration of his being by the divine Logos at baptism, achieved divinity and saviorhood.”278

Paul of Samosata and his teachings were condemned at the Synod of Antioch in 268.279

Moreover, Lucian became a martyr and this fact seemed to gain some measure of credibility for

his views without many people trying to comprehend the real import of his stances.280 Thus,

these facts about Paul of Samosata and Lucian aid in explaining two aspects. First, it appears

likely that, even though these views were condemned previously in 268, they were still having an

impact in the next century through Arius, albeit not in as extreme a form. Secondly, if it were

true that Arius’ views had their germination in Antioch then it would assist in understanding how

the eastern churches in the empire came to support his position over that of the Nicene believers.

However, others believe that it cannot be known with clarity that Arius even had a relationship

with Lucian. Rather, they think it most probable that Arius was influenced by Origen, a

speculative theologian of the previous century.281 Whatever the catalyst for his theology, it is

276
Ibid.
277
Harold O. J. Brown, Heresies (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1984), 107.
278
Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1954), 131. Paul of Samosata
lived from 200 to 275 and was bishop of Antioch from 260 to 268. One of the key points of his teaching was
adoptionism in which he believed that at some point God the Father adopted the Son. Paul of Samosata was also
alleged to have been involved in a tremendous amount of corruption as well as bringing young women in to live
with him and fulfill his pleasures. He was deposed by a council in 268. For more information on Paul of Samosata
see The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon.
279
Brown, Heresies, 111.
280
Ibid.
281
Dunzl, A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early Church, 42. Origen was born in 184 and died in
253. He was likely born in Alexandria. Origen’s father was martyred in 202 during the persecution of Septimius
Severus. Legend tells that he wanted to be martyred like his father had been but when he sought to leave the
house his mother had hidden his clothes so that he did not go out and sacrifice himself. Another interesting
incident in Origen’s life is that he had castrated himself in order to protect himself from temptation. As time

107
clear that Arius had developed a strong penchant for subordinationism as he viewed this as a

major component of theology. “Not only did he subordinate the Son to the Father in nature, but

he denied that the Son had a divine nature or any of the divine attributes, especially eternity.”282

Socrates suggests that Arius began to voice his unorthodox beliefs in response to a sermon by

Alexander in which the bishop tended too strongly, at least in Arius’ opinion, towards

Sabellianism.283 Sabellian ideas were feared in the church as they presented God as being in

different modes at different times in history. However, it seems unlikely that any of Alexander’s

actions or sermons actually influenced Arius in his beliefs. In fact, Rufinus states that Bishop

Alexander was known to be of a quiet and gentle nature and was reluctant to become involved in

the conflict with Arius.284 In contrast, Arius reveals the qualities of being zealous and

headstrong to the point of a fault. Cairns remarks on this aspect: “The era is also an excellent

illustration of how intense zeal for a doctrine may unwittingly lead an individual or church into

error unless there is a balanced study of the Bible.”285

As well, Arius appears to have been a diverse character with aspects that one might not expect

of someone who was branded a heretic. He was known to be a proficient and persuasive writer.

As well, those who study his writings believe that he was most likely influenced by

progressed he became known more and more for having heretical and speculative ideas and he was
anathematized by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553.
282
Bihlmeyer, Church History, 247.
283
Socrates, Book 1, Chapter 5. Sabellianism is similar to Modalism which was discussed earlier. In short, Sabellius
believed that God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit existed in different modes at various points in history.
Sabellius was most likely born around 215 and was surmised to have been educated in Rome. However, many
propose that he was actually Libyan as his ideas tended to be strongest there. One of the aspects that tended to
be negative for those in Athanasius’ time was that Sabellius had also made use of the term homoousios in the
previous century. Thus, many in Alexandria and the eastern church feared that modalism would become the
prevalent belief. Tertullian also used the term Patripassionism to describe modalism, and by association
Sabelliansim, as he stated that since modalism made no clear distinction between the Father and the Son then it
meant that the Father had in fact suffered.
284
Rufinus, Book 1, Chapter 1.
285
Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries, 131.

108
Neoplatanism and had a philosophical education.286 Some would even traverse as far as to say

that Arius was so influenced by philosophy that his belief system was as much a philosophy as a

religion.287 In addition, Arius revealed contrasting characteristics as he was understood to be a

popular preacher and was well liked by people, while at the same time thought to be deceptive.

Williams quotes Epiphanius: “He was…counterfeited like a guileful serpent, and well able to

deceive any unsuspecting heart…he spoke gently, and people found him persuasive and

flattering.”288 Finally, and somewhat oddly for how many think of him, Arius was an ascetic by

reputation. Thusly, Arius is painted as a man of diverse, and sometimes surprising, individual

constructs.

Sozomen believed that Arius had contact with the schismatic Meletians even before the

conflict with Bishop Alexander came into prominence.289 If this is true it would more easily

explain the ease at which an alliance formed between them. In fact, the Meletians would become

involved in many of the scandals that would develop in the late 320s and early 330s. Whatever

the case, Arius began in earnest to promote his views near the year 318 and, thereafter, there was

an undeniable connection between his movement and the Meletians.

A further idea that is critical to understanding Arius and Arianism is that there is often a

disconnect between the two. Many modern scholars reject a cohesive belief system referred to as

Arianism. Rather they surmise that Arians were a diverse group that were generally opposed to

286
Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 30.
287
Henry Melville Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism (Cambridge: Deighton Bell and Co., 1900), 16.
288
Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 30.
289
Sozomen, Book 1, Chapter 15. That Arius had contact with the Meletians before 318 is fairly certain from two
lines of thought. The first is that he is believed to have joined Meletius in rebellion against Bishop Peter of
Alexandria and to have been deposed for this. The second line of thought is that the Christian community was not
that large in Alexandria, especially before 320, and it seems difficult to fathom that Arius would not have had any
contact with the Meletians at least at some point in his career.

109
the decisions of the Council of Nicaea. J. Rebecca Lyman remarks: “Second, scholars have

begun to unravel the assumed theological ties between Arius and those later called ‘Arians.’

They now reject a coherent movement called ‘Ariansim,’ but rather study the variety of doctrines

and alliances of those opposed to Nicaea.”290 Thus, it can be ascertained that those in later

decades of the fourth century referred to as Arians may not have necessarily held Arius’ beliefs,

but rather may have been united by a more common core belief of opposing the Nicene Creed

and the idea of homoousios. Many adherents to Arianism believed in the full divinity of Christ

but were fearful that the homoousios construct would tip the delicate theological balance in the

direction of modalism.

Theological Views of Arius

It should be duly noted that Arius and those in his theological camp held Christ in high

esteem. They asserted that Jesus was the word of God, the power of God and the wisdom of

God.291 However, the Nicene believers held to the doctrine that Jesus was God come in the

flesh. In contrast, Arius continually affirmed the construct that Jesus was not God.292 In fact,

Gregg and Groh remarked that if those who opposed Arius could state their difficulty with the

290
Susan Ashbrook Harvey and David G. Hunter, The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2008), 238. The Arians encompassed a variety of adherents and their main thread was to oppose
orthodox views of Christ that were espoused in the Nicene Creed. Many of these individuals and groups feared
that the balance would be shifted too strongly towards modalism so that God would be viewed in different modes
at various points in history and this would destroy the Christian basis. Thus, many who may not have agreed with
Arius on a doctrine, such as Christ being changeable, may have found themselves battling on the same side as him
as they sought to protect the world from other heresies.
291
Robert C. Gregg and Dennis E. Groh, Early Ariansim-A View of Salvation (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), 1.
292
Charles R. Swindoll and Roy B. Zuck, Understanding Christian Theology (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers,
2003), 340. Although Arius and his followers did hold Christ in high esteem they would not affirm that He is God in
the same sense that the Father is God. They persisted in presenting their belief that Christ was not fully God but
merely a created being and, as well, they attempted to foster this idea in others. Thus, Nicene believers could not
allow them to have fellowship.

110
movement in one statement it could read something like this: “…no matter how the Arians huff

and puff, what they preach is a creature promoted to the status of a god.”293 Thus, this became

the central contention between Arius and his opponents. For all the wrangling Arius did about

having a high view of Christ, in the end he could simply not affirm that Jesus is God and in the

minds of the Nicene followers this made him of the utmost danger. Partridge sums it up neatly:

“…Arianism in that, while it affirms Christ’s status as Son of God and Savior, it denies his full

divinity, and therefore also denies the Trinitarian orthodoxy of Western Christianity.”294

It is noteworthy that Arius not only denied the divinity of Christ but also, somewhat strangely,

the humanity of Jesus. Arius believed that the humanity of the Logos was not a real humanity in

the same fashion that it is for other humans. Interestingly, Arius postulated that Jesus was

somehow only attached to a human body. According to Arius, the historical Christ did not have

a human soul.295 Of course, this is in direct contrast to the doctrine of the incarnation and it

follows that Jesus could not truly know the feelings of a human being because he remained aloof.

As well, this doctrine of Arius was vocalized in previous centuries as the theological and

philosophical ideas of Docetism and Gnosticism.296 The Gnostics believed that Jesus was not

human because there exists a separation between the spirit and the material body. Pearson notes:

“The human body and the lower emotive soul belong to this world, whereas the higher self (the

mind or spirit) is consubstantial with the transcendent God from which it originated.”297 Thus, it

293
Gregg and Groh, Early Arianism-A View of Salvation, 1.
294
Christopher Partridge, New Religions: A Guide (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 74. This idea of Jesus
not having a human soul or body finds much of its roots in Gnostic beliefs that the body is somehow evil and at
dualistic odds with the spirit.
295
Alfred Henry Newman, A Manual of Church History (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1933), 326.
296
Karen L King, What is Gnosticism? (London: Harvard University Press, 2003), 26.
297
Birger A. Pearson, Ancient Gnosticism (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 13.

111
is entirely possible that the Docetic heresy had influenced Arius and that his teachings about the

humanity of Christ were merely a rehashing of previous heretical ideas.

Another central tenet of Arius’ belief system was the idea of the eternality of Jesus. Arius

believed that there was a time when Jesus did not exist. It also seems incoherent that Arius

affirmed the truth of Scripture that Jesus created the world while at the same time he also

believed that Jesus was created by God and that God presented Him with the task of creating the

world. The denial of the eternality of Christ became one of the ideas that those of the Nicene

faith, with Athanasius as their spokesman, would oppose most vehemently.

Additionally, a teaching that was central to the Arian theology was the idea of the promotion

of Jesus. Arius instructed the doctrine that Jesus had been promoted to the status of God at some

time in history.298 Of course, Arius asserted that God the Father alone had the authority to

elevate Jesus to the status of God. Thus, Jesus has a different station in existence than the Father

because he was not God from the beginning of time. Therefore, Arius intimated that although

Jesus did have a status that was above all other creatures, in the final analysis it was the same

type of relationship of dependence. It is of interest that this idea had unintended consequences

for Arius in that Christianity must now have a similar type of worship to pagans. Harrison

explains: “In demanding worship for a created Christ, the Arians were in effect asserting the

central principle of heathenism and idolatry, the worship of a creature.”299

298
Greg and Groh, Early Arianism-A View of Salvation, 1.
299
Everett F. Harrison, Baker’s Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960), 63. This idea is of
keen interest as it would serve to relate Arius’ brand of Christianity very closely with pagan ideas of worshipping
something that is created rather than God alone. It would be enlightening to discover how Arians would justify
worshipping a created being. A possible effect of this can be seen when Julian the Apostate, who had been raised
in an Arian Christian environment, desired to return to paganism when he became emperor. Perhaps he did not
see such a great difference in worshipping a created Jesus and worshipping something else that had been created
by God.

112
 The Arians also had a variant view on the Holy Spirit. However, it is only by implication that

it is believed that Arius also held this view. Nevertheless, the majority of Arians supposed that

the Holy Spirit was the greatest and first of the creatures that were called into existence by the

Son.300 Thus, it follows that in Arian teaching the Holy Spirit was not eternal, but depended on

God the Father for His existence just as the Son depended on Him.

As stated previously, Arius depended heavily upon philosophy. Arianism rarely referred to

Scripture as its foundation but instead the movement tended to utilize philosophical ideas to

support the conclusions that it rendered about the nature of Jesus. Arianism appeared to be the

philosophy of the time period simply being applied to Christianity. Gwatkin observes:

“Nevertheless, this plausible Arian confession will not bear examination. It is only the

philosophy of the day put into Christian dress.”301

The Writings of Arius

Most of the teachings and writings of Arius are lost to history. All that remain are three

letters, a few fragments of other letters and some passages that were preserved from the Thalia,

which appears to be his most significant work.302 However, even at the time when the Thalia

was written it may have been difficult to obtain the true beliefs of Arius as Socrates stated of the

work: “…the character of the book is loose and dissolute…”303 Therefore, the ideas of Arius are

300
Robert C. Gregg, Arianism: Historical and Theological Reassessments (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Patristic
Foundation, 1985), 182. In this scenario then there would tend to be a line of creation in that God the Father
created the Son and then the Son created the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Holy Spirit is directly dependent on the Son
rather than the Father.
301
Henry Melville Gwatkin, The Arian Controversy (New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 2006), 4.
302
Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, 6.
303
Socrates, Book 1, Chapter 9.

113
mostly ascertained from what others wrote about him and one of the primary sources of

information about him is Athanasius. However, some of his stances can also be gleaned from his

surviving letters.

The earliest of Arius’ letters to survive is one written to Eusebius of Nicomedia shortly after

318. In this letter one of the primary ideas that created such a problem was the teaching that

Jesus was a created being. Arius wrote: “And before he was begotten, or created or determined

or established, he did not exist. For he was not unbegotten.”304 It is obvious from this letter that

Arius believed that the Son was a created being and that there was a time when he did not exist.

He had enjoyed a friendship with Eusebius long before the letter was written and he was to

become one of his staunchest supporters.

Another letter was written by Arius in about 320 to Bishop Alexander and seems to be a

confession of faith. The purpose of his writing the letter appears to be the hope that Alexander

will recognize the orthodoxy of Arius and remove the excommunication. Arius writes about the

Son: “…but, as we hold, created by the will of God before times and before aeons and having

received life and being from the Father and various kinds of glory, since he gave him existence,

alongside himself.”305 Of course, this was not the type of recantation that Alexander sought as

Arius still persisted in stating that Jesus was a created being, which was one of the major reasons

that Alexander defrocked him.

304
Ibid. It is of keen interest that Eusebius and Arius had a relationship before 318. It makes their collusion when
the crisis at the Council of Nicaea occurred easier to understand.
305
Ibid., 7. In this letter Arius seems unwilling to admit that the Son always existed and persisted in his idea that
the Father gave Him existence. One must wonder when he wrote the letter, which was putatively aimed at
reconciliation, if he understood that the central problem that the orthodox had with his doctrine was that he
thought that the Son was a created being. If he did in fact know that this was the problem the orthodox saw in his
doctrine then the question is why he would write the letter and clearly put his unorthodox view in writing.

114
 The third letter that is preserved is one that Arius wrote to Constantine while he was in exile,

most likely in 327. In the manuscript, he pleads to be able to return and for the

excommunication to be reversed. An interesting point here is that Arius writes to Constantine, a

secular leader, about a church matter, presumably thinking that he could have an effect. This

reveals how much the role of the emperor in church politics was changing.306 However, this

letter has little theological material as the major thrust is Arius pleading to be reinstated.307 Of

the remaining fragments of his letters there is scant information that can be garnered about Arius.

However, one interesting construct that Arius does connote is that he believes that the Son and

the Word are not the same. Rather, the Word is somehow more related to God than to the Son.308

Fortunately, more information can be gleaned from Arius’ major known theological work, the

Thalia. The catalyst for the work appears to have been desiring to present to the followers of

Eusebius something to unify the opposition to the Nicene faction.309 An interesting aspect of the

Thalia is that it was written in verse with a metrical pattern.310 Thus, critics tend to trust

quotations from the work that are given in verse and to question quotations that have been taken

out of the metrical pattern as not being original. As well, all that is preserved from the Thalia

has been obtained from Athanasius’ writing and, owing to Athanasius and Arius being bitter

306
Socrates, Book 1, Chapter 26. Writing to a secular leader about a church doctrinal matter would likely have not
occurred twenty years prior to this. This reveals how much the Roman world had truly changed in the short time
since Constantine had embraced Christianity.
307
Hanson, The Search for the Doctrine of God, 8.
308
Ibid., 10. A further curious point about Arius’ theology is that he disdains any statement that says that the Son
is from the Father. He thought that to say this would be akin to saying that God could somehow be broken into
pieces. For more information on this see Hanson.
309
Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 63. Williams also intimates that Athanasius divulges that a reason for
producing the Thalia was the result of Arius’ contact with a Lucianist group of theologians. However, in contrast to
the views of Athanasius, Philostorgius wrote that there had been a theological disagreement between Lucianist
advocates and Arius. Of course, when weighing these alternate views it must be remembered that Athanasius
wrote in the same time period and Philostorgius was writing a century later. For more information on this see
Williams.
310
Hanson, The Search for the Doctrine of God, 10.

115
rivals, critics question the validity of all that Athanasius quotes from the Thalia. Nevertheless,

Athanasius’ quotes of the Thalia are the best that can be obtained. Athanasius quotes Arius as

stating: “God was not eternally a father. There was [ a time ] when God was all alone, and was

not yet a father; only later did he become a father.”311 In this passage Arius again makes it clear

that he does not believe in the eternality of the Son. In addition, Arius is presented as believing

that the Son could change and choose to not be good. Athanasius quotes the Thalia as saying:

“…Like all others, the Word himself also is subject to change (treptos); he goes on being good as

long as he wants to, by his own free will. And then, when he wants to, he too, just like us, is able

to change his ways, because he is changeable by nature.”312 Thus, the theology of Arius is quite

different from orthodox theology as it intimates that the Word can change and decide to not be

good and the Son is created. It is understandable why Athanasius perceived the need to battle

against Arianism at all costs.

Death of Arius

Arius was over eighty years old at the time of his death.313 The details of his death are that he

was walking to receive communion and that he had stomach pain and the sudden urge to relieve

himself. Arius thus retired to a public place that was set aside for people to relieve such

emergencies. After a time when there was no response those people waiting outside for him

311
Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 100. Athanasius also states several other doctrinal stances that Arius
supposedly wrote in the Thalia. One of them is that everything that had been made by God the Father has been
made out of nothing. Thus, it logically follows that the Son was also created out of nothing. As well, Athanasius
states that Arius believed that the only reason God the Father made the Son and the Holy Spirit was because He
wanted to create mankind. As well, Athanasius presents Arius as stating that the Son is subject to change.
Furthermore, Arius seemed to proffer the idea that God made the Son the kind of being He is because He knew in
advance that the Son would be good. For information on this see Williams.
312
Ibid.
313
Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006), 633.

116
entered the privy and found him dead still being on the seat.314 There are several theories that

existed subsequently concerning the death of Arius. One theory regarded it as divine judgment

in payment for his fostering heretical ideas. A second theory attributed his death to being

poisoned by enemies as they could not bear to witness him receive communion in the Nicene

church. Still another reason is given for his death as the excessive jubilation that he felt in the

victory that he had waited so long to achieve.315 A further theory involved the idea that someone

had used black magic to put a spell on Arius.316 Of course, the true reason of his death will never

be known but it can certainly be said that it had an impact on the people, especially Constantine,

of the period as it encouraged many to be impeded in embracing Arian beliefs as they viewed his

death as a curse.

CONSTANTINE AND HIS SONS

Constantine

Constantine is a pivotal figure in church history and, relatedly, the history of the Roman

Empire. He was born in 272 to a Roman army officer. Thus, the military came natural for

Constantine and this would be his avenue for usurping power in the empire. He was the son of

Augustus and upon his death Constantine had himself declared emperor by his troops.317

314
Sozomen, Book 2, Chapter 29. There are also more fanciful tales that his bowels gushed out of him in a
grotesque and painful manner. However, it is not known how much of these accounts are embellished and how
much are reality. For instance, the Arians also have an account of an orthodox bishop who agreed to the Nicene
Creed and then his genitals rotted and fell off, presumably because he was guilty of sexual immorality.
315
Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 633.
316
Sozomen, Book 2, Chapter 29.
317
David L. Edwards, Christianity: The First Two Thousand Years (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1897), 70.

117
However, there were several foes who needed to be vanquished on his way to attaining the sole

rule of the Roman Empire.

When Constantine first came into political prominence it was during a time of great

persecution for Christians. This cruelty to Christians seemed to have an impact on Constantine

and to influence his views towards the belief system. This persecution was instigated by Emperor

Diocletian in an attempt to rid the Roman Empire of Christians in the early fourth century.318

Moreover, the persecutions seemed to germinate a desire to join the Christians rather than to

persecute them. Another factor in his turn towards Christianity came from his family.

Constantine intimated that his father had been a religious man and had always called upon Christ

for help in a difficult circumstance.319 In addition, one of his relatives, Anastasia, had been given

a Christian name.320

A pivotal instance in his journey towards embracing Christianity occurred at the battle of the

Milvian Bridge.321 In 312, Constantine, with a small army of forty thousand, entered Italy and

began to move on his rival Maxentius’ location in Rome.322 Maxentius was generally despised

by both Christians and pagans and the people had requested that Constantine intervene on their

behalf.323 When they reached the outskirts of Rome, Maxentius and his troops left the city walls

and came out to meet them near the Milvian bridge. The bridge itself had already been destroyed

318
John F. Hurst, History of the Christian Church (Cincinnati: Curts and Jennings, 1897), 175. Diocletian created a
particularly brutal persecution of Christians in 303. Many believe that this was the harshest of all of the
persecutions perpetrated upon the early church and refer to it as the Great Persecution. Interestingly, Diocletian’s
wife, Prisca, was a Christian and was killed as a martyr in this persecution. Of course, the persecution was
unsuccessful as Christianity continued to grow. It is noteworthy that Christianity would have a preferred spot just
twenty years after enduring such a severe persecution.
319
Andrew Alfoldi, The Conversion of Constantine and Pagan Rome (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1948), 7.
320
Ibid., 6.
321
Edwards, Christianity: The First Two Thousand Years, 70.
322
Leithard, Defending Constantine, 65.
323
Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 20.

118
but there was a pontoon bridge in its place. Constantine and his soldiers viewed a cross in the

sky along with the inscription ‘In this conquer.’324 The resulting battle was a great victory for

Constantine and Maxentius was killed. As well, it is of interest to note that Hosius of Cordoba,

who would figure prominently in the life of Athanasius, was probably with Constantine when he

entered Rome in 312 and, subsequently, became one of his favorite bishops.325 Many thought of

this as the moment when Constantine was converted and came to embrace Christianity.

Moreover, from his writings it can be ascertained that Constantine also thought of this as a

significant moment. In a surviving letter to an African governor written near the end of 312 he

states that the victory over Maxentius was because of the Christian God’s intervention. In

another letter to the Synod of Arles written the next year, he emphasizes the same point of God’s

intervention. As well, it appears that for a time Constantine struggled with banishing his former

belief system.326 Previously, he had worshipped the Sun-god and it seems apparent that he

dabbled in this some years after 312. In retrospect, the important idea here is that Constantine’s

dependence on his previous belief system steadily declined after the Milvian bridge experience

until he appeared to solely depend upon Christ.

324
Norman H. Baynes, Constantine the Great and the Christian Church (New York: Haskell House Publishers, 1975),
7.
325
Alfoldi, The Conversion of Constantine and Pagan Rome, 14. Hosius, or Osius, was the bishop from Cordoba,
Spain. He was most likely born in 257 and died in 357 at nearly one hundred. Hosius became bishop of Cordoba in
295 and due to his close relationship with Constantine became his ecclesiastical advisor from 312 to 326. As well,
Hosius barely escaped being a martyr in the persecution of the early 300s under Diocletian. Hosius remained
influential in the church throughout his life and was highly respected. One of his most questionable actions, to be
discussed elsewhere in this paper, was his signing an Arian creed, although he was under extreme duress when he
signed it.
326
Ibid., 6. Constantine seemed to carry over many of his pagan beliefs into his Christian life after his conversion
and, thus, many people question his conversion. However, the best that can be deduced from a study of his life is
that Constantine slowly came to embrace Christianity as his life progressed until he was willing to submit to
Christian baptism at the end of his life.

119
 However, his personal conversion may not have been Constantine’s only strategy in

encouraging Christianity. Constantine was a very astute politician and he came to conclude that

this seemingly fledgling Christian belief system would come to dominate the world.327

Furthermore, he thought that the Roman Empire could be preserved and prolonged by uniting

with Christianity. Thus, the vision that Constantine had for Christianity was that it would

become the cement of the Roman world.328 He would come to depend on it to create

cohesiveness in his empire. Therefore, it is noteworthy why Constantine viewed church unity

throughout the empire as so critical. For the east to have the Arian belief system and for the

Nicene followers to hold tenaciously to their views in the west would not create the cement that

Constantine desired. Thus, he called for the Council of Nicaea to decide the matter and when he

deduced that favoring the orthodox beliefs would probably not work he began to favor the Arians

in hopes that they could provide the cement. Therefore, for Constantine his Christianity had two

facets. One was his personal salvation, which he did seem to be concerned about, and the other

was the political aspect of desiring a unified Christianity.

Constantine and Church Policies

One of the most significant events in the history of the church and the Roman Empire

occurred in 313. In that year Constantine issued the Edict of Milan and created a situation in

which Christianity now was endued with all the rights and privileges that other religions in the

327
Robert A. Baker and John M. Landers, A Summary of Christian History (Nashville: Broadman and Holman
Publishers, 2005), 58.
328
Ibid.

120
empire enjoyed.329 Additionally, Constantine was to bestow an even more elevated status on the

church ten years later. In 323 Constantine gave forth an edict that resulted in Christianity

becoming not only legal, but the preferred religion in the empire.330 Thus, Constantine uplifted

Christianity from being a persecuted religion to being the preferred religion in little more than

ten years. After this edict in 323 Constantine bent even more in favor of Christianity as he began

to utilize the proceeds from the burgeoning economy to construct churches.331

One of the first conflicts that Constantine would experience was with the Donatists. The

Donatists were a schismatic group in North Africa. A central construct of this group is that they

tended to unite together other movements that had previously been ostracized, such as

Novatianism and Montanism.332 Of course, because of his unity mindset, Constantine viewed

the Donatists as a threat and could not allow the situation to remain dormant. He felt that he

should intervene in the circumstance and attempt to halt the schism. However, in the beginning

329
Hurst, History of the Christian Church, 177. For Christianity to have these rights was a monumental change.
However, there was a disparity in how Christians viewed this as some viewed it as a great blessing and others
viewed it as the beginning of the downfall of Christianity. Indeed, it did create a revolution in Christianity, most
especially after they were declared the preferred religion in 323, as now many of the elite desired to be a part of
the church. This change in the church produced an outflow from it and enhanced the ascetic movement. Ascetics
hoped to escape the worldliness in the church that they believed had become prevalent.
330
Baker and Landers, A Summary of Christian History, 58.
331
Edwards, Christianity: The First Two Thousand Years, 71.
332
Baker and Landers, A Summary of Christian History, 60. The Donatists schism began in Africa in 311 and was
impactful for the next one hundred years. The basis for the conflict was that the Donatists believed that moral
purity was necessary in order for the ministrations of bishops to be effective and this led to them desiring to
separate from the larger church as they perceived that many of the leaders and bishops were not pure both due to
lapsing during persecution and moral failings. Thus, they desired to form their own church with separate clergy.
However, even after their decline their impact was felt for centuries as even fifteenth century church reformers
such Hus and Wycliffe were branded as Donatists by the Catholic Church because they called for purity among the
clergy. The Novatianists had a similar basis as the Donatists and they had their zenith of influence in the middle of
the third century. With Novatian, who eventually became a martyr himself, as their leader they opposed receiving
back into fellowship those Christians that had lapsed in their faith during persecution. The Montanists were
somewhat different from both the Donatists and Novatianists as their schism was not based on receiving the
lapsed back into communion but was, rather, based on their founder and leader, Montanus, espousing new
revelations that were not approved by the official church. Montanism was most prevalent in the second century.
Thus, each of these movements had in common that they attempted to exist outside of the orthodox church and,
thus, it was natural for them to unite.

121
of the conflict he revealed a hesitancy because of his enhanced fear of God.333 He tried

successively harsher measures, such as argument, threat and finally physical persecution, but all

to no avail. Thus, even with a powerful emperor’s intervention the schism would not be

resolved. Baker and Landers remark: “The cry of the Donatists later on, ‘What has the emperor

to do with the church?’ was one that symbolized the greatest dilemma of the new alliance

between church and state.”334 Thus, this early incident reveals that Constantine would be willing

to intervene in church difficulties even to the point of persecution, but it also reveals that such

intervention was often futile in approaching the heart of the controversy.

Constantine also exhibited that he was willing to work in favor of Christianity by working

against paganism. He sent edicts out that the pagan temples should be defaced and that many of

the idols and statues should be brought out and made into public displays.335 As well, there was

an inherent threat that those worshippers who resisted might be subject to violence.336 Thus,

Constantine encouraged the people to embrace Christianity by destroying the base of pagan

worship.

The major theological conflict that both Constantine and Athanasius had to navigate was the

Arian conflict. When the conflict was at its zenith Constantine was creating the situation in

which Christianity was the preferred religion. Thus, in Constantine’s mind something had to be

attempted to establish peace and unity among all Christians. To begin with, Constantine called

for peace and tolerance between the two parties. When this did not have the desired effect, he

333
Alfoldi, The Conversion of Constantine and Pagan Rome, 38.
334
Baker and Landers, A Summary of Christian History, 60. This resistance to the intervention by the emperor is
also viewed in how the Nicene and Arian forces reacted later in the fourth century. It seems that when the
emperor was favoring them they tended to invite the intervention but when he was encouraging their opponents
they disdained his interference.
335
Sozomen, Book II, Chapter 5.
336
Ibid.

122
sent Hosius to mediate the conflict between Bishop Alexander and Arius. However, this did not

accomplish the desired end and so he called for the Council of Nicaea. The Council would

become a pivotal point in the history of the church. Noll remarks: “What made the council such

an extraordinarily important turning point was not just the doctrinal question at stake but the way

in which political and social forces combined with the critical theological issue.”337

The official records of the Council of Nicaea have been lost so there is no method of

ascertaining exactly what role Constantine played. However, Constantine’s reasoning for

requesting the Council does survive as he wrote: “My design then was, first, to bring the diverse

judgments found by all nations respecting the Deity to a condition, as it were, of settled

uniformity (that is, to clarify doctrine for the sake of the church); and second, to restore a healthy

tone to the system of the world, then suffering under the power of grievous disease (that is, to

end religious strife for the sake of the empire).”338 Although his exact impact is not known it is

obvious that his very presence at the Council was influential as he was in the background, but

present and listening, at the majority of the meetings. Additionally, it is known with certainty

that Constantine did speak at the Council and this is consequential in itself.339 Moreover, many

felt that the incidence of a secular authority speaking at a church council was both inappropriate

and unexpected. It is also believed that Constantine exerted pressure on the bishops to accept the

Nicene Creed and that he had a measure of control when the doctrinal issues were being

337
Mark A. Noll, Turning Points (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997), 48.
338
Ibid., 51. Constantine here reveals his true desire for Christianity to become the adhesive that would serve to
unite the empire. He not only wants the doctrine to be decided once and for all so that truth will be declared, but
he also blatantly states that he also desires for there to be unity in order to aid the empire. Thus, Constantine
reveals a tremendously significant idea in which the government would attempt to benefit from and influence
church decisions. Once this precedent was set in motion it only became more prevalent in the subsequent
centuries to the point that in the late middle ages when the church would often be synonymous with the political
entity or, if separate, then often times more powerful. This build up in church power, and ultimate corruption, for
over one thousand years eventually led to the need for the Reformation.
339
William G. Rusch, The Trinitarian Controversy (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 21.

123
discussed. Thus, it appears evident that at the first ecumenical council after Christianity had

become the preferred religion that Constantine was the controlling force.

Throughout the remaining years of his life Constantine had a leading role in church politics as

he tried to resolve the Arian controversy. He received accusations in his court against various

bishops and would attempt to ascertain the veracity of the charges. Of course, that he would be

involved in this way was quite a modification in policy compared with just a few decades earlier.

In 335 he commanded that Athanasius attend the Council of Tyre and then later banished him to

Treves. These actions alone are not a difficulty as the secular ruler often heard allegations

against his subjects, but the keen difference here is that Constantine had an increased interest in

any matters that related to bishops or church politics. Thus, it is obvious that Constantine

attempted to influence church politics as the first Christian emperor.

Personal Life

One of the central issues about the personal life of Constantine was if his conversion was real

or, in other words, did it create a true change in the man. Zosimus, writing some 170 years after

Constantine’s death, did not think so as he intimated that after his putative conversion

Constantine led a luxurious lifestyle, wasted his finances and was untrustworthy in his

alliances.340 As well, there were major scandals in his personal life as he supposedly had both

340
Leithart, Defending Constantine, 80. Although Zosimus is most likely speaking from the best evidence that
existed 170 years later, it is also true that some of the faults he points out might be found in many developing
Christian lives. Two of his charges involved living a luxurious life and it is difficult to imagine an emperor who
would not do this. Thus, this alone is not evidence that his conversion was not genuine as it often takes time for
the converted to become more like Christ. However, other allegations of dishonesty and execution are more
serious and will be considered later.

124
his son, Crispus, and wife, Fausta, assassinated in 326 and 327, respectively.341 Also,

Constantine had his brother-in-law Licinius executed after he had promised him security if he

surrendered. However, it is also believed that Licinius broke the covenant due to his continued

plotting against Constantine.342 There are varieties of embellishments about the reason for these

deaths and the truth cannot be ascertained with certainty. However, perhaps modern judgments

about the personal change in the life of a fourth century monarch are not valid. He was certainly

revered as a model Christian leader during his lifetime. As well, his personal writings attest to

his steadfast practice of Christianity.343

At the termination of his life Constantine received Christian baptism at a time when he was ill

and thought the end was impending. However, the record of this is found only in Eusebius’ Life

of Constantine.344 Eusebius’ work intimates that Constantine did not receive baptism until the

end of his life because he had hoped to be baptized in the Jordan river. As well, Eusebius wrote:

“At the conclusion of the ceremony he arrayed himself in shining imperial vestments, brilliant as

the light…refusing to clothe himself with the purple anymore.”345 It is also noteworthy to

mention that the beliefs of the fourth century were that sin would be dealt with severely after

baptism had been given and so the thought of some was to wait to be baptized until later in life.

As well, it is of interest to note, once again, that Eusebius of Nicomedia was close enough to

Constantine to baptize him. In retrospect, an overall view of Constantine reveals that he was the

341
Christopher Bush Coleman, Constantine the Great and Christianity (New York: AMS Press, 1914), 92.
342
Ibid.
343
Leithart, Defending Constantine, 82.
344
Coleman, Constantine the Great and Christianity, 87. It is also important to understand that this is not the same
Eusebius of Nicomedia that baptized Constantine. This writer was Eusebius of Caesarea and is known as the Father
of Church History. He was born in about 260 and died in about 340. He became bishop of Caesarea in 314 and
was greatly respected by Constantine. In fact, Constantine admired him so much that he was invited to bring his
church creed to Nicaea but it was ultimately not used in full. He died just before Constantinus in early 340.
345
Ibid., 88.

125
first Christian emperor and began the custom of the secular authority becoming involved in

ecclesiastical affairs.

Constantinus

After the death of Constantine in 337 the Roman Empire was divided among his three sons.

Constantinus was the eldest of Constantine’s remaining sons, being born in 316, and was raised

as a Christian. At a young age he was thrust into military command and had important victories,

with his father overseeing in the background, over the Alemanni and Goths.346 As well, he was

the ruler over Gaul and Treves at the time of Athanasius’ exile there. Constantinus and

Athanasius formed a bond of friendship and Constantinus was considered to be of the Nicene

faith.

At the time of Constantine’s death, Constantinus received the rule of Britannia, Gaul and

Hispania. However, Constantinus was not pleased with his assignment as he felt that with his

perceived rights of primogeniture he should receive more. As well, to complicate the situation,

he had been the protector of his younger brother Constans and, subsequent to the division of the

empire, attempted to continue in this role. Therefore, in 340 he attempted to invade Italy over a

land dispute and was killed in battle.347 After his death his younger brother Constans obtained

346
Hans Lietzmann, From Constantine to Julian (London: Lutterworth Press, 1950), 137. Constantinus, or
Constantine II, was made Caesar at the age of only one year. He was used to the rigors of battle as he
accompanied his father to war against the Sarmatians at the age of only seven. This continued as he was made the
commander of Gaul at the age of ten and at fifteen he led a successful campaign against the Goths. His being the
ruler of Gaul, and Treves, was beneficial for Athanasius when he was exiled there in 335 and he and Constantinus
became friends. Upon his father’s death when he was twenty-one, 337, he felt that he was given a smaller portion
of the kingdom than he should have received as the oldest son. This led to his invasion of Italy, which was ruled by
his younger brother Constans, and death in battle.
347
Baker and Landers, A Summary of Christian History, 65.

126
the territories that he had commanded. It is important to understand for this study that

Constantinus was a supporter of Athanasius and the Nicene faith. When he departed the scene,

Athanasius lost both a theological supporter and friend. This left him and the orthodox church in

a more precarious position after 340 as now there was one emperor, Constans, who supported the

Nicene faith and one emperor, Constantius, who supported the Arian faith.

Constans

Constans was the youngest son of Constantine as he was born in 323. When Constantine died

he received the central portion of the empire which included Italy and North Africa.348 An

important factor for the purposes of this study is that he was of the Nicene faith and supported

Athanasius as much as possible.349 Due to his youth he was not expected to be a strong leader.

However, as mentioned before, he successfully battled against his older brother and added his

deceased brother’s territory to his own. At this point he was now more powerful than his

remaining brother Constantius. However, Constans did not fulfill the promise of his youth. He

is reported to have been a homosexual that allowed himself to be degenerated into many vile

associations.350 Both the civilian population and his own soldiers soon became exasperated with

him.

348
Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1918), 137.
349
Baker and Landers, A Summary of Christian History, 65. Constans was not popular with his military leaders as
many of them despised him because he preferred his barbarian body guards and lived an immoral lifestyle. Thus,
almost from the time he became emperor in 337 there were those in his command who were seeking to create a
change in leadership. This was achieved by Magnentius in 350 when he assassinated Constans while he was still in
his twenties. When Dalmatius died Constans received the territories of Thrace and Macedonia. His older brother,
Constantinus, asked to be given the provinces he believed were his. When Constans refused to relent a war
developed and Constantinus was killed. Thus, Constans received an even greater allotment of land and this was
beneficial for Athanasius as Constans favored a Nicene view.
350
Lietzmann, From Constantine to Julian, 183.

127
 Although Constans may not have been exemplary in his personal life he did support

Athanasius. After he was banished a second time from Alexandria in 338, Constans allowed him

to come to Rome for respite from the eastern emperor Constantius.351 As well, Constans aided

Athanasius by helping to persuade Constantius to allow him to return from his second exile in

346.352 In fact, Constans felt so strongly about this topic that he threatened war on his older

brother, Constantius, if Athanasius was not permitted to return to Alexandria.353 Constans was

also a driving force, as his father had been, in desiring the eastern and western churches to come

together. Thus, he supported the Council of Serdica to bring the two factions of bishops together

but this never materialized as both sides refused to meet with the other side for putative valid

reasons.354

It may have been the disgust that the soldiers felt for Constans personally that led to his death

but this cannot be deduced with certainty. Whatever the case, Constans was murdered in a coup

attempt by Magnentius in 350.355 His murderer was one of his field officers and referred to as

both a barbarian and rival.356 Magnentius desired to rule the entire Roman Empire and he began

his quest with assassinating Constans and seizing control of the west. When Constans was killed

it exposed Athanasius more fully to the enmity that was fostered in Constantius.357

351
George Park Fisher, History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1931), 131.
352
Gwynn, Athanasius of Alexandria, 12.
353
Ibid., 166.
354
Ibid., 35.
355
Ibid., 12.
356
Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 38.
357
Fisher, History of the Christian Church, 131.

128
 Constantius

Constantius was the second of Constantine’s remaining sons being born in 317, a short time

after Constantinus. Upon the death of his father he was presented with control of the eastern part

of the empire. As well, he inherited the Persian war from his father and this kept him occupied

for much of the next thirteen years. Therefore, he could little more than be a spectator to the

events that happened in the western portion of the empire.358 However, even in these early

troubled years Constantius was proceeding to expand the Arian faith. Interestingly, one of the

methods he endorsed was sending a missionary. Constantius, with the strong encouragement of

Eusebius, sent a man named Ulfilas to spread the Arian faith in Gaul.359 The result was that the

Visigoths came to embrace an Arian brand of the faith and brought that with them when they

later successfully invaded the heart of the Roman Empire.

A glimpse of the heart of the young Constantius can be obtained by looking at the events that

occurred when Constantine died. All of the Constantine’s brothers and nephews, with the

exception of two young nephews of seven and ten, were assassinated. Constantius witnessed all

of these murders but was either unable or unwilling to prevent them.360 He did make use of this

advantage in building his empire, but it is believed that later he suffered greatly from remorse.361

358
Lietzmann, From Constantine to Julian, 182. Constantius was born in 317 and became emperor in the east in
337 at the age of twenty. His mother was Fausta, and his grandfather was Maximian who was known as a great
persecutor of Christians, and she would later be put to death by her husband and Constantius’ father, Constantine.
In 350 he became the ruler of the entire Roman Empire as both his older brother, Constantinus, and younger
brother, Constans, had either been killed in battle or assassinated. He was an able leader and politician. To aid
him in ruling the entire empire he promoted his cousin, Constantius Gallus, to the role of Caesar in 351 but would
have him executed three years later. In 355 he promoted his last remaining cousin, Julian, to Caesar and Julian
would succeed him to be ruler after his death in 361. Constantius followed in his father’s pattern and was baptized
just before his death by Bishop Euzoios of Antioch in November 361.
359
Aland, A History of Christianity, 221.
360
Lietzmann, From Constantine to Julius, 182.
361
Ibid.

129
 After the death of Constans in 350, Constantius once more began to travail stalwartly for the

Arian cause. However, he had to wait to fully pursue this goal until his new rival, Magnentius,

was defeated. In the three years after Constans’ death, Constantius needed Athanasius to help

hold the empire together as he knew that if Athanasius were to attempt to persuade the western

portion of the empire to accept Magnentius it could be disastrous for him. Thus, he did not

present a strong force against Athanasius in these first few years. However, Magnentius was

thoroughly defeated in 353 and committed suicide.362 This left Constantius in control of the

entire empire and he banished Athanasius when he was no longer useful politically. As well, he

was harsh with pagan and Jewish adherents as he commanded the death penalty for all those who

practiced pagan sacrifices or became a Jewish proselyte.363

Constantius worked through both church councils and persecution to influence the advance of

the Arian idea. For his part, it may be that Constantius understood that uniting the Roman

Empire under one belief system was needed, just as his father had felt, and since he subscribed to

Arian beliefs it would appear logical to him that the entire empire should embrace Arianism. At

synods held in Arles in 353 and Milan in 355 he forced bishops from the west to abandon

fellowship with Athanasius and to have full communion with the predominantly Arian churches

of the east.364 As well, he called for a synod at his imperial residence at Sirmium that declared

that Nicene terms such as substantia and homoousios could not be mentioned. Hence, it allowed

Arianism to obtain a more prominent position in the theology of the empire.365 A final ploy was

made when the synod convened in Constantinople in 360 about which Walker remarks: “This

362
Walker, A History of the Christian Church, 139.
363
Baker and Landers, A Summary of Christian History, 65.
364
Walker, A History of the Christian Church, 139.
365
Ibid.

130
formula—a vacuous compromise which in effect marked the official triumph of the Arian

cause—forbade the use of the term ousia and ‘hypostasis’ and contented itself with the statement

that ‘the Son is like the Father’”366 Thus, the victory for Arianism seemed complete and the

Nicene cause was the in the midst of the dark days aforementioned.

As well, as intimated before, Constantius also used persecution and intimidation to forward

his Arian views. Most of the bishops were disposed to do what the supreme and sole ruler of the

empire bid them to do and reluctantly, as least for most of those in the west, moved to an Arian

stance. However, there were three important bishops that would not accept the Arian ideology—

Athanasius, Hosius of Cordoba and Liberius of Rome. Hosius and Liberius were exiled and

tortured until they accepted the Arian creeds. However, as mentioned before, Athanasius

remained in hiding and did not have to face the fury of Constantius directly. It is noteworthy for

this study that Athanasius was singled out more than any other for persecution by Constantius

and the Arians. Baker and Landers remark: “Athanasius, not the Roman bishop, was singled out

as the target in the persecution of Nicene Christianity.”367

However, the theological and political tides would soon shift once more as Constantius died

in 361. He also followed his father in the timing of his baptism as he waited until shortly before

his death.368 He only lived to be forty-four and yet he lived the longest of Constantine’s sons.

Thus, ended an era in church history as Christianity had become both legal and preferred in the

366
Ibid., 139-140. With this Constantius was attempting to expel orthodox beliefs by strong arm measures. He
would no longer even allow them to mention the terms of orthodox belief but had to refer to the Son being of like
substance to the Father.
367
Baker and Landers, A Summary of Christian History, 116. It is of interest to note that Athanasius was spared
direct torture or persecution as he was able to remain in hiding. As well, it was during these troubled days that he
did some of the most prolific writing for the orthodox cause. It was frustrating for Constantius and the Arian forces
as Athanasius was writing treatises in favor of orthodoxy from a hidden position and they could not utilize their
force to squelch him.
368
Aland, A History of Christianity, 79.

131
Roman Empire at the behest of Constantine and his sons. Of the sons, Constantinus and

Constans favored the Nicene faith and Constantius the Arian version, but due to his longer life

the latter had a more profound effect on the church. As well, a notable difference between

Constantine and his sons was the attitude towards pagan worship. While Constantine employed

a neutral position with respect to paganism, his sons actively attempted to persecute pagan

believers and remove them from the empire.369

OTHER INFLUENCES

Eusebius

Another impactful personality on the life of Athanasius to be studied here was Eusebius.

Eusebius was the possessor of a very forceful personality.370 Moreover, he was an important

theologian and political figure during the early life of Athanasius, as he died some thirty years

before Athanasius. It is because of his influence that the Arian faction and belief system

prospered against their Nicene foes who were far superior in number. In fact, later in the

controversy Athanasius began to refer to the faction as the Eusebians rather than the Arians. One

factor that is of utmost importance in understanding him is that he was an excellent politician.

He was tremendously adept at making friendships with the correct people and, then, later using

those relationships to further his agenda.

369
Ibid. Constantius’ history with pagans is somewhat incongruent. He passed several edicts concerning them
such as the death penalty for anyone doing pagan sacrifice, the banning of sacrifices, the closing of pagan temples
and laws against soothsayers and magicians. However, he also did not enforce these with regularity and also did
some measures, such as not disbanding pagan priestly colleges and allowing pagan schools to continue, that
seemed quite tolerant of paganism. In fact, it was not until twenty years after his death that any Roman Senator
would complain about being treated negatively for his choice to continue in pagan worship.
370
Kurt Aland, A History of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 222.

132
 Eusebius was at first the bishop of Berytus.371 Moreover, even at this early stage of his career

Eusebius had political contacts as he was related to Julius Julianus, who was the prefect to the

eastern Emperor Licinius. Licinius was in power in the east from 315 to 324 and it may have

been this connection to him that led to Eusebius being given the opportunity to be the bishop of

Nicomedia. Nicomedia served as the capitol for Licinius after 314 and it is probable that

Licinius translated Eusebius to this position to have him close to him. As well, Eusebius was

thought to be favored by Constantia, who was the wife of Licinius and the half-sister of

Constantine. Licinius and Constantine were rivals, even though they were related, and Eusebius

developed personal ties to each of them. Thus, by the relationship with his half-sister the

connection to Constantine is also strengthened. It is also possible, based on a reference in a letter

by Constantine, that Eusebius attempted to intercede for Licinius when he was defeated by

Constantine. It appears that Eusebius was willing to proceed to great lengths to aid a friend, as

this was also exemplified in his support of Arius. This loyalty to friendships was something that

endeared Eusebius to individuals and allowed him to increase his political influence.

Eusebius began to figure more prominently in the Arian drama when Arius was banished

from Alexandria and went to him in hopes of a sympathetic ear. As well, it should be

remembered that they had a relationship even before the controversy between Alexander and

Arius began. Arius selected a beneficial ally when he pursued Eusebius as he promptly called

371
David M. Gwynn, The Eusebians: The Polemics of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the ‘Arian
Constroversy’ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 116. Little is known about the background of Eusebius or
his year of birth. However, he is believed to have been distantly related to Constantine. As well, at one point early
in his career he almost suffered persecution because of his close relations with Licinius. A further interesting point
is that he served as tutor for Julian the Apostate when he was young. Julian became emperor in the early 360s and
attempted to turn the empire back to pagan worship. However, his reign was very short and his influence did not
endure. See From Nicaea to Chalcedon by Frances Young.

133
for a council to be held in Bithynia.372 This council reversed the decision made at Alexandria

and declared Arius to be orthodox. In addition, Eusebius presumably summoned and led another

council at Caesarea which also found Arius innocent and recommended that he return to

Alexandria and attempt to reconcile with his bishop.373 Of course, this reconciliation never

happened. However, this is another instance that reveals Eusebius as an astute and involved

politician as well as possessing a dominating and action orientated personality.

Eusebius was also an important figure at the Council of Nicaea as it is probable that he gave

the opening address.374 That he was considered important enough to present the opening address

at such an important event as the Council of Nicaea reveals how he was viewed by the emperor

and other church leaders and was also a great boon for his prestige. However, he was not

powerful enough to control the outcome as he would have opted for a Creed more akin to Arius’

ideas. Eusebius did sign the Nicene Creed, although he secretly did not adhere to it, but refused

to sign the anathemas.375 In spite of signing the Nicene Creed he was banished later in 325 with

the most probable cause being that he received friends of Arius.

However, when the situation began to change Eusebius was received back into the church a

short two years later in 327 and this is when his political power increased significantly.

Somehow shortly after this, either because of the exile or by some other means, Eusebius became

372
Leithart, Defending Constantine, 166. That Eusebius was able to call this council and encourage the bishops to
attend further reveals his political prowess even at this early stage. It would be difficult to imagine how the
scenario in the early fourth century might have been different if Eusebius had not chosen to support Arius and his
views. In regards to this relationship there is always the question of how strongly Eusebius actually believed in
Arius’ ideas and how much he was desiring to support a friend.
373
Ibid.
374
Gwynn, The Eusebians: The Polemics of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the ‘Arian
Constroversy’, 117.
375
Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 629. At this point Eusebius displays his political cunning as he adhered to
only what he had to, the Nicene Creed, in order to avoid problems but refused to sign the anathemas as this
refusal, presumably, would not result in his being excommunicated or banished.

134
a prominent person in Constantine’s court. In fact, over the next ten years Eusebius managed to

create a tremendous reversal in his political fortunes as he traverses from being exiled to being

the bishop closest to Constantine. One of Eusebius’ strategies, that in retrospect proved

effective, was to ignore the term Homoousios, or accept it with certain interpretations, until the

term could be safely denounced.376 Eusebius knew that it could not be completely denied

without impunity as long as Constantine was aware of it but he bided his time. This successful

strategy reveals a notable difference between Eusebius and Athanasius. Athanasius was not

willing to compromise the truth, at least as he viewed it, and accept Arius back into fellowship

because his true aim was not political, but instead, to preserve correct doctrine. In contrast,

Eusebius was willing to make concessions on truth, at least as he viewed it, in order to further

advance his political career and to attempt to have an overall victory.

Another political strategy of Eusebius was to utilize the Meletians and their natural

adversarial relationship with whoever was the current bishop of Alexandria.377 Behind the

scenes Eusebius motivated the Meletians to bring false charges against Athanasius and, thus,

formed a politically expedient alliance with them. Eusebius also utilized his relationship with

the emperor as he and Constantine shared such a close bond that Constantine allowed Eusebius

to baptize him before his death in 337.378

376
Willaim Bright, Historical Writings of St. Athanasius (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1881), 10.
377
Ibid., 41.
378
Gwynn, The Eusebians: The Polemics of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the ‘Arian
Constroversy’, 118. The baptism of Constantine is quite controversial on a couple of fronts. One is that he allowed
a bishop of the Arian faith to preside over his baptism and this opens the question of what Constantine really held
as the true doctrine. As well, Constantine was baptized near the end of his life and many would question why it
did not happen earlier if he was, in fact, a true convert to Christianity. The reason for this will be discussed later in
this chapter.

135
 After the death of Constantine, Eusebius established himself as a significant influence on

Constantius. Moreover, Constantius promoted him to be the bishop of Constantinople. As well,

his appointment to Constantinople revealed overlaying signs of a political maneuver as he

replaced a Nicene bishop, Paul, after his second exile.379 Thus, Eusebius had now maneuvered

his way from being a banished outsider who supported Arius in the late 320s to the bishopric of

one of the most important churches in little more than ten years. It is surmised that Eusebius had

a tremendous influence on Constantius in the late 330s and helped to steer him even more

completely towards an Arian mindset. Eusebius died in late 341 or early 342 but the mantle of

the Arian, or Eusebian as it came to be called, cause would be carried on by others.

The Meletians

An important and influential group during Athanasius’ life were the Meletians. The history of

the Meletians began with the Diocletian persecutions when Bishop Peter was in place in

Alexandria. These persecutions began in 303 and continued intermittently for the next ten years.

As the persecutions persisted many of the bishops and lay people either denied the faith by

making pagan sacrifices, surrendered Scripture or vacated their churches rather than face death

or physical mutilation. The persecution was so vicious that even Bishop Peter was incarcerated

and later martyred. Bishop Peter wanted to receive those who had lapsed under persecution back

into the church while Meletius believed they were unworthy to be received back into fellowship.

Arnold surmises that the Meletian schism began in earnest in 305.380 At that time there were

379
Bright, Historical Writings of St. Athanasius, 10.
380
Duane Arnold, “Athanasius and the Meletians at the Synod of Tyre, 335,” Coptic Church Review 10, no. 3 (Fall
1989): 68.

136
four bishops who were imprisoned and they complained that Meletius was appointing bishops to

replace them in a manner that was against both the canons and custom.381

An interesting putative true event reveals the crux of the controversy. The anecdote states

that while Peter was in prison into his cell was placed Bishop Meletius of Lycopolis.382 The

conflict was so acute between the two men that Peter hung a curtain down the center of the cell

and urged those who agreed with him to remain on his side of the curtain.383 Peter argued that

the Christians and bishops who had lapsed by offering pagan sacrifices and surrendering

Scriptures should be forgiven. However, Meletius thought that these believers were now

disqualified from being a bishop as they had recanted the faith under pressure. As well, an

alternate rendering of the problem intimates that the conflict between Meletius and Peter began

when Peter brought Meletius before an episcopal synod on the allegations of various crimes

including sacrificing to idols.384 Socrates intimated that Meletius had both denied the faith and

sacrificed to idols.385 Of course, if this were true it would serve to better explain why Meletius

was so adamant in opposing Peter. Whatever the genesis of the conflict, it was severe enough

for Meletius to form a rival church system and appoint his own bishops. Thus, the idea of

accepting fallen bishops back into fellowship may have simply been a convenient ploy to further

oppose Peter and the orthodox.

381
Ibid.
382
Leithart, Defending Constantine, 165. Little is known about the birth or origin of Meletius. He was bishop of
Lycopolis but for how long is not known. The major problem that the orthodox church had with Meletius is that he
was ordaining bishops on his own without the permission of the leading orthodox bishop, Peter in the beginning
but later Achillas, Alexander and Athanasius, in Alexandria. When the conflict began Meletius held a high office
and may have even been second to Bishop Peter. He was jealous of Peter’s position and desired to override him
and become the leading bishop by intrigue and, thus, when the persecutions began he saw it as his opportunity to
supplant him.
383
Ibid.
384
Bright, Historical Writings of St. Athanasius, 39.
385
Socrates, Book 1, Chapter 6.

137
 Another potential aspect of the conflict is that Meletius desired to fill a void in the churches

that had been orphaned of their bishops. Moreover, Meletius appeared to maintain that Peter was

not fulfilling this obligation but leaving the churches vacant. Of course, if it were true that

Meletius merely wanted to fill a void that Peter had left in not appointing new bishops, then

Meletius takes on a more heroic character, at least in the beginning, while if it were true that the

rift began because of his own crimes, then he is viewed as a villain. In retrospect, the true reason

for the schism is lost to history and it can only be surmised

Whatever the case with Meletius, many Christians living at the time felt that the official

church under Peter had not attempted vigorously enough to resist the persecution. As well,

under Peter there was little done to heal the church at large as the positions of bishops that had

been murdered during the persecutions were left unattended.386 In light of these circumstances,

Meletius was spurred to action and he began to travel throughout the country comforting the

churches without bishops and appointing clergy to inhabit those positions.387 These new

appointments were done by Meletius while Peter was hiding for fear of his life.388 In fact, Peter

actually fled the persecution several times and left the church devoid of leadership.389 Of course,

Peter viewed these new appointments as an affront to his authority.390 Thus, a rival church

developed out of, at least to the Meletian way of thinking, necessity. At that point, then, there

were the bishops appointed by the official church under Bishops Peter, Achillas and Alexander

386
Aland, A History of Christianity, 164.
387
Ibid., 165.
388
Walker, A History of the Christian Church, 136. Peter became bishop of Alexandria in 300 and he was martyred
in November of 311. One of Peter’s most important theological contributions is that he most likely initiated the
reaction in disdain of the teachings of Origen and his subordinationist views, which are of particular interest since
Origen did much of his work from Alexandria. During the beginning of the persecution of 303 Peter went into
hiding to avoid being captured and tortured. Eusebius states that when his martyrdom occurred it was
unexpected and, thus, he was most likely not imprisoned shortly before it took place.
389
Leithart, Defending Constantine, 164.
390
Walker, A History of the Christian Church, 136.

138
in addition to bishops appointed by Meletius. In the course of time the rift between the two

factions continued to grow until at instances it could become verbally vicious and physically

violent. As the tension increased the Meletian factions formed their own church and they

presented themselves by the moniker the church of the martyrs. It is believed that Arius was

originally a member of this schismatic church.391 However, the difficulty with his teachings

began in earnest when he became a presbyter of the official church under the leadership of

Bishop Alexander.

Meletius was at the point of death in the late 320s and he appointed John Archaph to be the

new leader of the Meletian faction.392 This appointment in itself was contrary to what had been

mandated in the agreement at Nicaea and stirred up new dissension between the orthodox and

Meletians.393 As well, John moved to continue the schism, rather than to maneuver for

reconciliation, as he appointed new bishops.394 Additionally, he began to move by dishonest

means to encourage the downfall of Athanasius. Eusebius actually promised the Meletians that

he would work for their political favor if they would work to depose Athanasius.395 One of the

first schemes that the Meletians were a central part of was to accuse Athanasius of extracting a

tax on the Egyptians to pay for linen vestments for his church. In fact, two of the three Meletian

bishops that brought the accusation had been absolved by Bishop Alexander.396 Thus,

Athanasius began to question if they had been too lenient in allowing the Meletian bishops back

391
Aland, A History of Christianity, 165. The Meletian church had a great veneration of the martyrs and preferred
to be called The Church of the Martyrs. However, there is no evidence that Arius joined them in their veneration
of the martyrs.
392
Bright, Historical Writings of St. Athanasius, 41.
393
Sozomen, Book 2, Chapter 21.
394
Ibid., Chapter 21-22.
395
Ibid., Chapter 22.
396
Athanasius, Defense Against the Arians, 71.

139
into the church.397 At the Nicene Council they had not been treated severely for their treasonous

act of forming a rival church and their future actions did not indicate that they were grateful for

the leniency.

One of the key disturbances that had its genesis with Archaph was the aforementioned

putative death of Arsenius. In the early 330s he accused Athanasius of ordering a certain bishop

named Plusanos to lash Arsenius to a pillar in his house and then to set the house on fire.398

Thus, Athanasius was accused of a particularly cruel method of disposing of an opponent. As

intimated previously, this charge was proven false but the salient point here is that the Meletians

were just as much an enemy as the Arians and were capable of great trickery. Thus, for the

importance of this study it appears probable that Athanasius had a similar amount of difficulties

from the Meletians and Arians.

The result of finding Arsenius alive and the allegations of murder false was that Constantine

was now wroth with the Meletians, and especially Archaph. He stipulated that if false

accusations were brought again then it would not be handled by church law but they would be

treated as intriguers dangerous to the state.399 This seemed to calm the Meletians for a time as

John Archaph sent a formal letter of apology and Arsenius returned to being a subject of

Athanasius. However, this faux peace would not endure for long as the charges against

Athanasius were refreshed and the trial was set for Tyre in 335. Once again, the Meletians

brought charges against Athanasius as at the trial there were a myriad of Meletians who accused

him of violence against them. It appears that whenever the Meletians believed that they had an

opportunity to seize power in Alexandria that they would work in protest against Athanasius and

397
Bright, Historical Writings of St. Athanasius, 41.
398
Lietzmann, From Constantine to Julian, 131.
399
Ibid., 132.

140
whenever they felt it was more politically expedient to reveal a tenuous friendship with

Athanasius then they would do just that.

Moreover, Athanasius was shrewd enough to compile all of his opponents together under the

general moniker of Arians.400 Athanasius appeared to believe that battling only one common

opponent, or appearing to, was less complex than writing against them separately, especially

since they were working in unison. In fact, Sozomen states that the Meletians were generally

called Arians in Egypt and that, although they had a difference in beliefs, they worked together

in secret to overthrow the orthodox churches in Egypt.401 This tendency to work in unison also

revealed itself when Athanasius was exiled in 335. John Archaph attempted to install himself as

the new bishop of Alexandria. When Constantine began to understand what was occurring he

also exiled Archaph and the Meletians lost an excellent opportunity to seize the power which

they had been waiting so long to achieve. The Meletians continued to be a problem for

Athanasius as the years progressed both because of false accusations and attempting to a have a

rival church. John Archaph and several other Meletian bishops eventually apologized and

requested that Athanasius receive them back into the communion of the orthodox church. With

his characteristic grace for the repentant, Athanasius did receive Archaph and many other

Meletian bishops back into fellowship.

400
Leithart, Defending Constantine, 165. That Constantine would threaten this revealed just how much the state
authority had delved into church matters. Of course, it would be distasteful to bring false charges against anyone,
but when Constantine states that because charges are brought against a leading bishop then it threatens the state,
he divulges that the secular authority viewed church unity as a matter that the emperor felt it was his
responsibility to maintain.
401
Sozomen, Book II, Chapter 21.

141
 COMPLEX EPOCH

Athanasius lived in a very complex period in history with many influences on the church.

One of the most salient events of the early fourth century was that it was the first time in the

Roman Empire that Christianity had been made legal and later preferred. As well, Constantine

and his sons each had an impact on church policies as they attempted to manipulate church

politics in hopes that Christianity would become an entity that could provide stability and

cohesiveness for the entire empire. Thus, any schism in the church was of great concern to

Constantine and his sons. Alexandria was rife with schisms and some of the chief ones included

Arianism and the Meletian severance. It is also noteworthy that a key church official who was in

favor of Arianism, named Eusebius, had found a vehicle to promote his beliefs by garnering

political power from a close relationship with Constantine. Thus, the factors that influenced the

life of Athanasius were complicated, but he was proven capable of maneuvering these

treacherous circumstances and remaining true to the orthodox faith.

142
 CHAPTER V: ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ATHANASIUS

EARLY ALLEGATIONS

The trial at Tyre in 335 was a pivotal point in the career of Athanasius. It led to his

banishment and many of the accusations assembled there never left him. In fact, many of those

allegations are still discussed today. Thus, this chapter is dedicated to studying the veracity of

these charges with the view towards determining the overarching character of Athanasius. In

addition, allegations against other orthodox bishops of the era will be investigated. There were a

variety of accusations against Athanasius that were discussed at the Council of Tyre. The

allegations included murder, breaking a sacred chalice, treason, fornication, imposing taxes and

violence. Each of these allegations will be discussed individually. Moreover, each is critically

important because if any one of them could have been proven true it would have most likely led

to Athanasius being exiled. Thus, the Council, or trial, at Tyre was a momentous event in

Athanasius’ life and deserves to be scrutinized closely.

THE START OF TROUBLE

Actions Against the Orthodox

One of the key components to understanding the allegations against Athanasius, and how

ridiculous that some of them were, was that he had been forewarned that this would happen. As

mentioned before, by 330 Eusebius was a covert political leader of both the Arians and

Meletians. As previously stated, Sozomen states that Eusebius threatened Athanasius with ill

143
treatment.402 However, the threat was not put overtly into writing so that it could not be traced

back to him. Athanasius refused to relent and allow the Arians into communion and, thus,

Eusebius fulfilled his threats with a myriad of charges against Athanasius. Sozomen writes:

“Athanasius, however, wrote to the emperor and convinced him that the Arians ought not to be

received into communion by the Catholic Church; and Eusebius perceiving that his schemes

could never be carried into execution while Athanasius strove in opposition, determined to resort

to any means in order to get rid of him.”403 Several of these allegations were unquestionably

proven to be false but that did not cause Eusebius and his allies to stop proliferating more

charges. Moreover, Socrates intimates that Eusebius and the Arians were emboldened to attack

Athanasius in the early 330s because Constantine had sent him a letter that threatened his

removal if he did not receive Arius back into fellowship.404 Thus, the Eusebians perceived it to

be a favorable time to add accusations against Athanasius in order to widen the rift between him

and Constantine. Socrates states that the chief conspirators against Athanasius were Eusebius

bishop of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, Ursacius of Singidnum, and

Valens of Mursa in Upper Pannonia.405

402
Sozomen, Book 2, Chapter 18. Sozomen presents the idea that Eusebius was covert in this as he alluded to it in
a letter but would never actually state it. Apparently, this letter is lost to history but it would have been a great
benefit for studying the allegations against Athanasius and the political environment of the era. This is another
incidence in which Eusebius displays his penchant for political wisdom as he apparently is able to make a threat
without it being proven.
403
Ibid., Book 2, Chapter 22.
404
Socrates, Book 1, Chapter 27. Socrates states that when Arius returned to Alexandria he said he would relent
and simply live a quiet life. Instead, he went about the city and brought his teachings back into the forefront by
trying to convince others of their veracity. Thus, Arius revealed that he was not willing to repent and that he
would continue to propagate his ideas. Of course, because Athanasius viewed these ideas as heretical he could
not allow this to happen in good conscience.
405
Ibid. Of course, this is by no means a complete list of those who opposed and conspired against Athanasius but
Socrates only means to list some of the most prominent ones. Two that were also prominent that were left off of
this abbreviated list were Arius and John Archaph. As well, Arsenius and Ischyras could be added to the list but
they were most likely not a leading intellect in the attacks but became pawns who were useful for a time.

144
 Another factor to consider concerning the allegations against Athanasius is what occurred

with other Nicene bishops in and around the same time period. It appears unlikely that suddenly

there would be a multitude of orthodox bishops that would have committed offenses worthy of

dismissal. Rather it is much more probable that the Arian and Meletian factions, being led by

Eusebius, had gained a political advantage and were seeking to eliminate their theological

opponents by whatever means necessary, including false allegations. One of the grandest prizes

of all was the bishop of Alexandria as the bishop of that church was the most prominent bishop

in Egypt and responsible for appointing most of the clergy. “Alexandria was the undisputed

religious capital of Egypt. From the earliest times the Bishop of Alexandria had appointed

virtually all the other Egyptian bishops, and by tradition had exercised absolute authority over

them.”406 Thus, whatever religious faction held that see had a distinct advantage in Egyptian

church life and that is one of the reasons they pursued the removal of Athanasius with such

ardor. Thus, one can understand the background of the reasoning behind the opponents bringing

the plentitude of charges against Athanasius.

One of the men who was deposed prior to Athanasius was the aforementioned Eustathius,

who was bishop of Antioch and was most likely deposed in 330 or 331.407 It is ascertained that

Eustathius was deposed for two reasons.408 The most general was that he held to the Nicene

faith. Hanson writes on this topic: “The real motive was of course his championing of the

406
Alvyn Pettersen, Athanasius (Ridgefield, CT: Morehouse Publishing, 1995), 5.
407
R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1988), 210. Eustathius
was often referred to as The Great. He was born in Pamphylia but his year of birth is unknown. It is known that he
was bishop of Beroea in about 320 and became the bishop of Antioch, an important position in the early fourth
century, shortly before the Council of Nicaea in 325. Eustathius was also opposed to the teaching of Origen and
accused Eusebius of Nicomedia of following in his teachings. Eusebius then accused Eustathius of Sabellianism.
Charges were brought against Eustathius in about 330 for the putative reason of adultery and he was exiled to
Thrace. The common people rebelled against having Eustathius banished but to no avail. He died while in exile in
Thrace most likely in the year 337.
408
Sozomen, Book 2, Chapter 19.

145
Nicene formula and his opposition to those who disliked it and the theology it seemed to

represent, which is mentioned several times by the historians.”409 It is noteworthy that Hanson

would declare this as he is generally negative towards Athanasius. However, the more specific

logic in condemning Eustathius is that he had accused Eusebius and Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, of

favoring the teaching of Arius and, thus, personally incurred the influential wrath of Eusebius.

Of course, these were not the reasons that were officially presented, but rather they accused him

of defiling his position by committing unholy deeds.410 As well, Hanson believes that an

additional important allegation his opponents brought was that he was guilty of Sabellianism, or

the belief that God appears in different modes at different times in history.411 Whatever the

reasoning, the result was that a Nicene bishop had crossed the Arians, and specifically Eusebius,

and had been deposed for it. Sozomen intimates that Eustathius was a gracious man and

received his exile well.412

Paul of Constantinople was another bishop who is believed to have been mistreated because

of his Nicene faith.413 At first, he was expelled from the church at Constantinople. However, no

409
Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, 210-211.
410
Socrates, Book 1, Chapter 24. Believing in the ideas of Sabellius was a common charge that the Arians made
against the Nicene believers.
411
Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, 211.
412
Sozomen, Book 2, Chapter 19.
413
Ibid., Book 3, Chapter 3. Paul was originally from Thessalonica and he was a presbyter at Constantinople. As
well, he became secretary under the aged bishop of Constantinople, Alexander. When Bishop Alexander of
Constantinople died in 337 the Arian and Nicene forces came into open conflict. The Nicene forces were able to
prevail and they ordained Paul to be the next bishop later in 337. Bishop Paul suffered greatly for his Nicene faith
as he was exiled three times between 337 and 351. In about 339 Constantius returned to Constantinople and saw
that Paul was now the bishop. This angered him and he immediately had Paul exiled and replaced him with
Eusebius. Paul spent his first exile in Rome where he spent time with Athanasius who was also in exile. Eusebius
died in 341 and Paul was again placed as bishop. However, Constantius was in Antioch and when he heard of this
he ordered his general of cavalry, Hermogenes, to expel Paul. However, the people were so fond of Paul that they
killed Hermogenes and dragged his body through the streets. Historians intimate that the people burned the
house where Hermogenes was staying and then tied a rope around his feet. They proceeded to drag his body out
from under the burning house and drag it through the streets triumphantly. When Constantius returned he had
Paul expelled for a second time. Paul went to Triers for this second exile but returned in 344 with letters of
recommendation from Constans. In fact, Constans threatened war if Paul was not reinstated. Constantius

146
allegations were ever proven that should have resulted in his expulsion. Rather, it seems, that

much like Athanasius, he was a Nicene bishop in a powerful church and that is why his

opponents worked to have him removed. Paul had been considered for bishop of Constantinople

after the death of Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, but Eusebius was appointed to the see

instead after Paul had served for a short time. However, after the death of Eusebius in 341 Paul

was ordained as the new bishop. In contrast, the Arians chose to ordain Macedonius at the same

time.414 Thus, conditions in Constantinople were ripe for conflict. Constantius, who favored the

Arians, sent his general Hermogenes to expel Paul. However, the people favored Paul and, thus,

rebelled and killed Hermogenes.415 When this event was known to Constantius he entered

Constantinople and expelled Paul himself.416 After Paul was expelled from the church, his

opponents sought even more stringent penalties and he was then banished entirely from

Constantinople. After being expelled from his church Paul met Athanasius and other Nicene

bishops who had been deposed on various charges. These deposed bishops included Asclepas of

Gaza, Marcellus of Ancyra, a city of the Lesser Galatia, and Lucius of Adrianople.417

Ultimately, Paul was exiled and his persecution increased until he was strangled to death by his

opponents. It should be reiterated that it is unlikely that these bishops all committed deeds

relented but when Constans died in 350 Bishop Paul was once again exiled. Legend intimates that Paul was
ultimately taken to Cucusus in Cappadocia and placed in a small dark cell. They left him without food for several
days and when they returned they were dismayed to find him still alive so they strangled him. Thus, Paul was most
likely murdered in about 351.
414
Socrates, Book 2, Chapter 12.
415
Ibid., Book 2, Chapter 13.
416
Ibid.
417
Ibid., Book 2, Chapter 15. Lucius of Adrianople, which is located in modern day northwest Turkey near the
borders of Greece and Bulgaria, was deposed from his see in 340 or 341. He went to Rome to seek help in being
returned to his see. He returned to Adrianople with letters from Bishop Julius of Rome to reinstate him but the
Arian forces ignored them. Lucius was reinstated near the same time as Athanasius and Paul of Constantinople
when Constans, emperor in the West, threatened his brother and ruler in the East, Constantius, with war if he did
not allow the bishops to return to their churches. Like Paul of Constantinople, he was also banished once again
after the death of Constans and Lucius died in exile.

147
worthy of being deposed at the same time, but it is more likely that they were exiled based on

false charges because of their Nicene beliefs. Thus, Athanasius had these examples of Nicene

leaders being persecuted when they refused to recant their faith and yet he still bravely carried on

the struggle for his orthodox beliefs.418

Another incident that revealed the lengths to which Arian, or Eusebian, forces would traverse

to involved Bishop Stephen of Antioch. It concerned another Nicene bishop named Euphrates

and how the Eusebians attempted to falsely accuse him. Euphrates was the bishop of Cologne

and he, along with Bishop Vincent of Capua, came to Antioch in the spring of 344. The

supposed reason for their visit was to help mend the rift between the Eastern and Western

bishops, but the Eusebians proved that they were rejecting the idea of reconciliation. One night

while Euphrates and Vincent were in Antioch a prostitute was paid to go into the room of

Euphrates to lie with him.419 Euphrates had no knowledge this was going to happen and the

Eusebians hoped to create a scandal against the aged bishop. However, when the prostitute

entered the room she found an old man sleeping peacefully and she turned against the men who

had paid her to create the scandal. When the truth came to light it was the leading Eusebian

bishop, Stephen of Antioch, who had perpetrated the plot.420 Stephen was later deposed for his

involvement in this plot and this incident further reveals how that the Eusebians created false

allegations against those of the orthodox faith. Thus, it appears the Eusebians would stop at

nothing in having their way, even to the point of creating a false accusation against an aged

bishop. As well, this incident lends credence to the idea that the allegations brought against

Athanasius had also been created by the Eusebians to have him deposed. This episode serves as

418
Sozomen, Book 3, Chapter 3.
419
H. M. Gwatkin, The Arian Controversy (Boston: IndyPublish.com, 2006), 25.
420
Ibid.

148
another example of the atrocities that occurred in the early fourth century when forces opposed

to the Nicene creed would traverse to great lengths to have orthodox bishops removed. One

must remember that this is the type of environment in which the charges against Athanasius were

brought and, thus, the veracity of the allegations was questionable.

Ordination

One of primary charges against Athanasius began with the start of his career as bishop. Those

opposed to him asserted that his ordination had either been coerced or performed by unqualified

people. This is a complex issue but one aspect that is clearly delineated is that the different

stories about his supposed incorrect ordination vary greatly. Moreover, it seems prudent to

consider the document that is the closest in time to the actual event and, also, one that was

attested to by individuals that were actually present when the ordination took place. This

document is the The Synodal Letter of the Egyptian Bishops of AD 338. Since it is only ten years

after the event it is definitely close enough to the time to warrant acceptance. As well, although

Athanasius himself presents it, the letter claims to represent the testimony of the entire “holy

synod assembled at Alexandria, out of Egypt, the Thebias, Libya, and Pentapolis.”421 Therefore,

the letter is both early and should represent the statement of those who would have been present

at the ordination. A portion of this letter is very telling of how the majority of the clergy and

laity in Egypt felt: “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

421
Duane Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria (London: University of Notre Dame Press,
1991), 33.

149
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, a genuine Bishop. And that he

was elected by a majority of our body in the sight and with acclamations of all the people, we

who elect him also testify, who are surely more credible witnesses that those who were not

present, and now spread these false accounts.”422 One important point about this statement is

that they declare that they are eyewitnesses to what occurred. As well, not only are they

witnesses but the entire city and province are also. Moreover, that they would present such a

large variety of witnesses who were still alive and able to be contacted is strong evidence for the

veracity of their statement. It is similar to there being five hundred witnesses to Christ’s

resurrection in I Corinthians 15 who could be contacted to verify the truthfulness of their claims.

Thus, because the The Synodal Letter of the Egyptian Bishops of AD 338 was close to the time of

the actual event, written by people who were actually present and spoke of eyewitnesses who

could verify the account, it is the document that should be accepted as the true rendering of

Athanasius’ ordination.

Additionally, there is another factor that is of interest in judging the viability of Athanasius’

ordination. This second factor involved who the current bishop would have desired to replace

him. It can be ascertained, as mentioned previously, that Alexander had definitely chosen

Athanasius to succeed him as bishop. Thus, the previous bishop desired Athanasius to become

bishop in 328 along with the majority of the parishioners and the orthodox clergy.

422
Ibid., 34.

150
 As well, there were opponents who attempted to present the idea that Athanasius was not

ordained correctly and they tender several reasons, and varying stories, why the ordination was

not valid. One of these is the claim that Athanasius was not yet thirty years old and, therefore, he

was not the minimum age to become a bishop. However, the most probable date for Athanasius’

birth is 296 and so he would have been of sufficient age. Timothy Barnes is generally a severe

critic of Athanasius and even he wrote: “When Athanasius was elected bishop in 328, some

protested that he was below the canonical age (which was presumably thirty). Since the charge

was soon dropped, it may be deduced that Athanasius was born in 298 or very shortly before.”423

Thus, this point of opposition should be disregarded.

In addition, there are several other stories about the ordination that are discussed elsewhere in

this paper. Some of the versions declare that Athanasius used forced to constrain them to ordain

him. Still others state that he used trickery to become bishop. However, the important aspect to

note about these various renditions of the ordination is that they vary greatly and do not agree on

even the basic facts. As well, they are often given by individuals who were not present when the

ordination took place. Therefore, these stories should be summarily rejected in favor of the

orthodox version for reasons that were aforementioned.

ALLEGATIONS AT TYRE

The Murder of Arsenius

As mentioned previously, one of the most heinous allegations against Athanasius is that he

murdered Arsenius. However, the true horror of the charge does not end there as he was also

423
Timothy D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981), 206.

151
accused of severing the hand of Arsenius and using it for dark magic. The use of dark magic was

something that the people feared greatly in that period of history and an allegation of its practice

could be useful against an opponent. Moreover, certain of his opponents actually seemed to

believe that Athanasius’ success was due to his practicing this dark craft.424 Theodoret states his

accusers presented a severed hand at the Council of Tyre, although this hand was ultimately

proven not to be that of Arsenius.425

The details of what occurred directly after the accusation of the murder of Arsenius were

intricate. To begin with, when Constantine first heard of the putative murder he ordered a trial to

be held by his half-brother Dalmatius at Antioch.426 Athanasius was summoned to the trial but

instead he decided to initiate a search for Arsenius as he, of course, knew that he was not

responsible for the murder. One of Athanasius’ trusted deacons traversed to the Thebaid and

received a confession from four Meletians bishops that Arsenius was actually being hidden by

monks in a monastery at Ptemencyrcis.427 This portion of the search reveals how widespread the

political hatred for Athanasius was as these four bishops and the monks would be willing to have

424
Socrates, Book 1, Chapter 27. The fourth century was an interesting period in history as Christianity became the
official religion of the Roman Empire while at the same time paganism still had a hold on many of the people. In
paganism, black magic and casting spells were practiced and, thus, these elements were still very much in the
forefront of the mind of the common man. Therefore, one of the most serious charges against a person was that
they practiced black magic. Many people believed that church leaders simply entered the church because it was
politically expedient when in reality they still practiced paganism and black magic.
425
Theodoret, Book 1, Chapter 30.
426
Athanasius, Defense Against the Arians, 65. He was also known as Flavius Dalmatius or Dalmatius the Censor.
He was the son of Constantius Chlorus and Flavia Maximiana Theodora and, thus, was Constantine’s half-brother.
He spent his youth in Gallic Tolosa but in the mid-320s he returned to Constantinople and helped Constantine
reign by serving in his court. He was appointed censor in 333 and from Antioch he helped to secure the eastern
portion of the empire. In 335 he sent soldiers to Tyre to protect Athanasius from being murdered by the angry
mobs. Flavius Dalmatius had two sons, Hannibalianus and Dalmatius, who also procured positions as rulers in the
330s. However, Flavius Dalmatius and his two sons were killed in the purge of Constantine’s relations that
occurred upon his death in 337.
427
William Bright, Historical Writings of Saint Athanasius (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1881), 44.

152
knowledge of such a deception and yet not come immediately forward with the truth. Again, a

salient point here is that they desired to have Athanasius removed so the Meletians could come to

power and they were not truly interested in the veracity or falsehood of any particular allegation

but merely were interested in discovering if it would be successful in bringing them victory. To

continue the narrative, somehow the monks at the monastery on the east bank of the Nile heard

about the deacon coming and their leader, Pinnes, sent Arsenius away with a monk named

Helias. Helias took Arsenius by boat to Lower Egypt and then he hastily returned to the

monastery. Of course, when the deacon arrived he found that Arsenius was no longer at the

monastery. In a wise ploy, the deacon took Pinnes and Helias with him and forced them to

appear before a commanding general and there, under pressure, they admitted the plot in which

they took part. A curious letter was then intercepted from Pinnes to John Archaph. In the letter

Pinnes urged Archaph to terminate the charade and admit that the supposed death of Arsenius

was a sham.428 In retrospect, this admission, and the intercepted letter, should have ended the

matter but somehow the Eusebians and Meletians were able to bring the matter to continuing

debate and trial at Tyre.

However, Arsenius was not discovered until later hiding in Tyre. Once he was discovered he,

along with his priests and deacons, wrote a letter of apology to Athanasius. In it they promised

to cease all schism. In his grace that had come to characterize his dealing with opponents,

Athanasius received the very man, Arsenius, back into communion that had accused him of

murder.

428
Athanasius, Defense Against the Arians, 67.

153
 At the trial in Tyre, Athanasius asked if those present would know the real Arsenius if they

were to see him and they answered affirmatively.429 He then brought in a figure wrapped from

head to foot in a cloak with only his face visible and it most assuredly was Arsenius. Athanasius

moved the cloak to reveal one hand. He then paused for a moment before revealing the other

hand, for it seems that Athanasius had a sense of humor.430 When he finally removed the cloak

the second hand was revealed. Athanasius then triumphantly questions: ‘Here you see, is

Arsenius with his two hands, point out the place where a third has been cut off.’431 John

Archaph, the leading Meletian bishop, was one of the principal accusers concerning Arsenius

and when he understood the direction the trial was taking he made his escape in the tumult that

ensued when Arsenius was revealed alive and possessing both hands.432 Thus, Athanasius is able

to prove the accusations false of both his having Arsenius murdered and using his severed hand

to perform magic. Nevertheless, some of his fanatical accusers do not even stop there but further

accuse him of black magic, supposedly in making the hand appear again. However, in the eyes

and minds of most of the members of the Council the allegation of the murder of Arsenius had

been proven false. A further interesting aspect in the putative murder of Arsenius is that it, from

the best that can be ascertained from the writings, seems to have been proven to be a falsification

429
Socrates, Book 1, Chapter 29. This historian has the most detailed description of the scene.
430
Bright, Historical Writings of Saint Athanasius, 47. It is of keen interest that even when Athanasius presented
Arsenius alive and still possessing his two hands that it did not quiet the crowd. Of course, if they had been
thinking logically they should have understood that this meant that the opponents had lied about Athanasius.
However, exactly the opposite happened as the people were driven into a frenzy and tried to take Athanasius by
force. He had to be rescued from this situation by officials but it became obvious after this that Athanasius would
not be able to receive a fair trial.
431
Ibid.
432
Socrates, Book 1, Chapter 30. John Archaph was a leading Meletian of the same era as Athanasius. In about
325 Meletius made him the Meletian bishop of Memphis. As well, Meletius entrusted John Archaph with the
leading role in the Meletian church as a whole. However, he utilized his power in a negative fashion as he joined
forces with the Arians and renewed attacks against the orthodox. He was banished after the Council of Tyre, even
though he was not on trial there, to an unknown location. However, Athanasius later received John Archaph back
into fellowship with the orthodox church.

154
in 332 and the Council of Tyre did not occur until 335.433 Why such a charge found its way to

the proceedings at Tyre is difficult to understand. One can only surmise that by this point

Eusebius of Nicomedia had a great deal of influence on the thinking of Constantine. It is also

noteworthy about the entire Arsenius case that even after he was produced alive in 332 that the

opponents still contended it was not him. Thus, it became necessary for Athanasius to produce

him alive and whole at the Council of Tyre. As well, the whereabouts of Arsenius from 332 to

335 is not clear but, as mentioned before, it is known that he did apologize for his part in the

plot.

However, even though Arsenius had admitted that it was a plot, Athanasius’ accusers would

not allow it be dormant at the trial. After Arsenius was presented alive they attempted to give a

reason for their actions. They stated that Athanasius had ordered a bishop named Plusian to burn

Arsenius’ home and have him tortured and imprisoned. They maintained that subsequently

Arsenius had escaped from a window and had then went missing. Thus, they assumed that he

had been murdered. Of course, this story does nothing to explain why the monks were hiding

him in a monastery if they, in fact, presumed he was dead and how these putative facts coincide

with the allegation that Athanasius had severed Arsenius’ hand to use for black magic.434

Thus, it is quite apparent that this charge should not have been used against Athanasius in his

exile as it was soundly refuted. Obviously, a person could not be guilty of murdering an

individual when they present that person alive at the trial. However, two questions remain in

accordance with this allegation. The first is why it was ever an issue at the trial as it should have

been known that Arsenius had been found alive. The second is much more sinister. If an

433
Bright, Historical Writings of Saint Athanasius, 47.
434
Sozomen, Book 2, Chapter 25.

155
opponent would go to the depths of falsifying a murder, the question then becomes one of

whether or not they can be trusted to be truthful in any matter. One must wonder how any other

allegations at the Council of Tyre could be taken seriously if the Arian/Meletian/Eusebian

alliance would present such a horrible and forthright false charge. The answer to that question,

of course, is lost to history but one can only speculate that it was politically motivated, in that, if

they could not get one false allegation to be deemed truthful then they would try another one

until the task was completed. Thus, the Council of Tyre was not really interested in determining

the truth or verity of certain charges, or even the character of Athanasius, but certain individuals

had already determined that Athanasius needed to be removed and they would stop at nothing to

see this accomplished, even if it meant shaming the good name of the Church.

The Broken Chalice

The charge that Athanasius was responsible for the breaking of a sacred chalice inside a

place of worship was one of the most important allegations against him. As well, it proved to be

one of the charges that was the most difficult to refute. The alleged action itself was not carried

out by Athanasius, but it was contended that he was responsible for one of his associates,

Macarius by name, who had been ordered into the home and church of Ischyras and had smashed

an altar and broke a sacred chalice. Of course, the enemies of Athanasius tried to paint the

picture that Athanasius knew exactly what was going to happen and had ordered Macarius to

proceed with the action. However, on the side of Athanasius there are two contentions that

needed to be proven. Firstly, that the chalice had in fact been broken, as Athanasius and

Macarius contended that it did not happen. Secondly, that even if the chalice had been broken, it

156
needed to be proven that Athanasius had prior knowledge of it and condoned the action. Thus,

the burden of proof was twofold for those who wanted to convict Athanasius of this crime.

To begin with, Ischyras proclaimed himself to be a cleric, but that was disputable. In fact, the

very ordination of Ischyras was unclear. It is said that he was ordained by a man named

Colluthus and that Colluthus was merely a presbyter himself.435 Thus, if Ischyras had been

ordained by Colluthus, who did not have the proper authority, then his own ordination was in

question.436 Socrates intimates about the importance of Ischyras not being ordained through the

proper channel: “There was in this region a person named Ischyras, who had been guilty of an

act deserving of many deaths; for although he had never been admitted to holy orders, he had the

audacity to assume the title of presbyter, and to exercise sacred functions belonging to the

priesthood.”437 Thus, the actions of Ischyras were very serious for that period of history and

Athanasius was completely within his bounds as head of the church to send someone to

investigate the charges.

The details of the event in question went something like this. It appears that Ischyras was

holding weekly meetings in a private home and that the meetings were not licensed. The

services were held in a hamlet in the Mareotis referred to as the The Peace of Secontarurum.438

As well, no church had ever been built in this hamlet.439 Athanasius was touring through the

435
Athanasius, Defense Against the Arians, 74. Ordination by those who themselves were not a part of the
orthodox church became a more common occurrence in the early fourth century due to the schism that Meletius
had created. Little is known of Colluthus and if he ordained other people. However, the ordination was not valid
because Colluthus was reportedly not known to be a part of the orthodox church.
436
Bright, Historical Writings of Saint Athanasius, 42.
437
Socrates, Book 1, Chapter 27.
438
Athanasius, Defense Against the Arians, 76. The Mareotis was named so because of the lake that was in that
region and the villages that surrounded it. It was under the auspices of the church and bishop of Alexandria. At
some point in the fourth century the Mareotis had their own bishop. Pistos was mentioned as a bishop in that
area in 337.
439
Bright, Historical Writings of Saint Athanasius, 42.

157
Mareotis and visiting several churches. While on this tour he heard that Ischyras was utilizing

this meeting in a private home and, in response, he sent one of his most trusted priests in

Macarius. Athanasius sent Macarius to merely summon Ischyras to come and see him. At this

point the two stories of what happened diverge. One aspect that does seem to be the same in

both accounts is that Athanasius never actually came in contact with Ischyras and never went to

his home. This is important in establishing the aspect of Athanasius’ guilt in relation to his

having knowledge of and condoning the alleged actions of Macarius. Thus, since both accounts

have this fact in common it should be ascertained that Athanasius did not have contact with

Ischyras personally and did not enter his home or any place where the supposed worship was

taking place.

According to Macarius, he never actually saw Ischyras because he was sick that day and

confined to his cell. However, Macarius relayed that he did speak with his father and

admonished Ischyras through him. By order of Athanasius he was called upon to cease from

these unauthorized services. Thus, in Macarius’ version he never actually saw Ischyras, no

service was interrupted and no chalice was broken. Athanasius continues with his version of

what happened after Macarius’ visit. He intimates that Ischyras was upset about being told he

could no longer hold services and so he went to the Meletians. It is also of note that Athanasius

states that before this Ischyras was unknown to the Meletians.440 The Meletians then consulted

with Eusebius about what could be benefited from this situation.441 Upon consultation with him,

they decided to create the fiction of the chalice being broken during a service. This is the version

of events that Athanasius intimated as being what truly occurred on that day. Socrates intimates

440
Athanasius, Defense Against the Arians, 63.
441
Bright, Historical Writings of Saint Athanasius, 42.

158
a slightly different version as he states that Ischyras fled to Nicomedia and that Eusebius offered

him a bishopric if he would fabricate a story about Macarius and Athanasius.442 Afterwards,

according to Socrates, Eusebius asks aid from the Meletians in creating the false accusations.

Whatever the order of events, it is clear that the fifth century historians believed the allegations

to be falsified.

Of course, the version of the events that Ischyras reiterated were quite different. He intimates

that on the day in question he was conducting service in the church in The Peace of

Secontarurum. It is also of interest that in this version they referred to him as a priest and this in

itself is in question as was previously discussed. Nevertheless, Ischyras states that he was in the

very act of consecrating the Eucharist when Macarius stormed in and threw down the holy

table.443 As well, Macarius seized the chalice and broke it and with this the contents of the

chalice were spilt.444 In addition, it is mentioned in some versions that Macarius also confiscated

the church books and threw them into the fire. To further the misrepresentation, it was often told

as if Athanasius had done these acts himself as his enemies putatively held him accountable for

what his agent working in his behalf had done.445

The subsequent events to the supposed breaking of the chalice are mostly ascertained from

the pen of Athanasius. It appears that Constantine heard the charges against Macarius and

decided they were falsified. Thus, he sent Athanasius back to Alexandria with a letter that

rebuked those who were still jealous of Athanasius. On the part of Ischyras, Athanasius

intimated that his own relatives rebuked him for the falsehood and that he came to Athanasius

442
Socrates, Book 1, Chapter 27.
443
Athanasius, Defense Against the Arians, 31.
444
Ibid., 28.
445
Ibid., 63.

159
and sought to be brought into his communion. When Athanasius asked Ischyras why that he had

created such a heinous story, he replied that he had been threatened and beaten by three Meletian

bishops. Athanasius wrote that Ischyras stated with tears: “It was against my will; I was

constrained, even with blows, by three Meletian bishops.”446 Of course, one must believe in the

veracity of Athanasius’ version to accept this rendition of events. Furthermore, it appears

implausible that Ischyras was threatened in order to force him to make a fabrication, but it is

more likely that he created the falsification of his own free will.

At this juncture, the narrative takes a turn decidedly for the truthfulness of Athanasius’

rendition. It seems that Ischyras delivered an absolute retraction of his story. Two elements are

important about this retraction. One is that it was written completely in his own hand.

Moreover, the construction of the language seems to confirm the authenticity of the confession

as it was written in Greek with poor grammar.447 Thus, it would seem that if it had been a

forgery then the writer would have been more likely to have had an educated person pen a

perfectly constructed piece. When a piece of writing contains common grammatical faults, it is

more likely to be authentic. The other important factor is that it was delivered by Ischyras in the

presence of six deacons and seven priests. These other thirteen men were most likely still alive

when Athanasius was defending himself in later years and it would have been easy for one of

them to have denied a false story. Furthermore, if Athanasius were the shrewd individual that

some current authors encourage readers to believe that he was, then he would have never given

such a high number as it would be easy for one of them to turn their allegiance. Thus, because

Athanasius uses this high number, and these individuals were probably still alive, it is all the

446
Bright, Historical Writings of Saint Athanasius, 43.
447
Ibid.

160
more probable that the retraction actually occurred. Moreover, Athanasius included this paper in

his Defense Against the Arians.448 This inclusion is one of the most important elements in his

entire work as it makes it seem implausible that the events as Ischyras portrays them actually

occurred. However, alternatively Barnes believes that the retraction was forced under threat of

violence.449 He has no proof of this but it is simply conjecture as he desires to think of

Athanasius as guilty. Nevertheless, Barnes’ theory is discredited because the retraction had

thirteen witnesses and it is quite possible that one of them would eventually reveal the story as

falsified.

A further important aspect in evaluating the veracity of the broken chalice incident is how the

story changed over time. In order for a rendition of an event to be deemed valid it is important

for the story to stay consistent. However, the story had changed so much over time that in the

later editions it was Athanasius who personally broke the chalice and destroyed the altar.450

Therefore, the allegation loses credibility because it is not consistent through time.

The Broken Chalice and Trial at Tyre

When the charge of the broken chalice was investigated at Tyre the case for the prosecution

proved to be weak. When Ischyras was confronted with Macarius himself he could prove

nothing. As well, Ischyras was forced to admit that he had only seven people in his

congregation.451 In addition, Athanasius contended that there was not even a Meletian

448
Athanasius, Defense Against the Arians, 64.
449
Timothy D. Barnes, “The Career of Athanasius,” Studia Patristica Vol. 21 Issue 1 (1989): 396.
450
Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, 77.
451
Athanasius, Defense Against the Arians, 72.

161
congregation in the Mareotis.452 Athanasius was also able to present an important piece of

evidence from Meletius himself. It seems that back in the 320s when Bishop Alexander received

the Meletians back into fellowship that Meletius had to present a list of the all of the Meletian

priests or deacons that were a part of his congregations near Alexandria.453 The name of

Ischyras does not appear on this list.454 Of course, the Meletians could argue that he had been

ordained after this but their case had been weakened. Thus, with the case at a stalemate, the

accusers decided that perhaps more information could be garnered from a trip to the Mareotis to

examine the context of the event and parlay witnesses.455 Athanasius argued that this was not

necessary as the two who had witnessed the alleged event were already present. Of course, this

proved a fruitless argument. Athanasius further pleaded that at least the commission should be

manned by bishops that were neutral and not those hostile to him. Dionysius, who presided over

the proceedings at Tyre, deemed this request to have more merit. However, the Arians, or

Eusebians as they came to be called, still were able to have the men they desired put on the

commission which was composed of these six: Theognis, Maris, Macedonius, Theodore,

Ursacius and Valens.456 This group was decidedly biased against Athanasius. In addition, the

Meletians and Eusebians sent two emissaries ahead of the commission to entreat Meletians and

Arians to enter the Mareotis for the purpose of swaying the evidence.457

While the commission was making their inquiries, they had a companion with them which

was highly irregular. Philagrius, the prefect of Egypt, accompanied them and was believed to

452
Athanasius, Defense Against the Arians, 63.
453
Bright, Historical Writings of Saint Athanasius, 47. It is very telling that Ischyras’ name does not appear on the
list as he was not recognized as part of the Meletian clergy.
454
Athanasius, Defense Against the Arians, 63.
455
Bright, Historical Writings of Saint Athanasius, 48.
456
Ibid.
457
Athanasius, Defense Against the Arians, 77.

162
have even intimidated the witnesses.458 As well, those that the commission allowed as witnesses

and those they ignored were suspect. Bright writes of this: “…but the Commissioners not only

admitted Heathen soldiers into their court, while they excluded the Catholic clergy of Alexandria

and of the Mareotis, but ‘examined Jews, Heathens and catechumens.’ The result was highly

damaging: for whereas such persons could not have been present at the Eucharistic oblation,

they proved that Ischyras was at the time physically disabled from celebrating, even if he had

been ecclesiastically competent to do so, or if Macarius’ visit had taken place on a Sunday.”459

There were also certain witnesses to the actual occurrences concerning the broken chalice that

agreed with Athanasius. They stood bravely against threats by Philagrius, and his armed guards,

and were desiring to prove that the fanciful tale told by the Eusebians was indeed untruthful.460

Sixteen priests and five deacons of Alexandria and fifteen priests and fifteen deacons of the

Mareotis proffered testimony that the broken chalice incident never occurred but their testimony

was rejected. In contrast, the relatives of Ischyras were the only ones from the church who were

willing to give testimony that the version that Ischyras presented was truthful.461 Of course, the

testimony of his relatives is suspect in this situation. To set the situation as it existed then in

context, the only ones that gave testimony, who were from the church, to Ischyras’ version of

events were his own relatives and, of course, their bias might have been expected.462 On the

other side, testifying to the truthfulness of the version given by Athanasius and Macarius, were

sixteen priests and five deacons of Alexandria in addition to fifteen priests and five deacons of

458
Ibid., 74.
459
Bright, Historical Writings of Saint Athanasius, 49. Bright goes on to declare that a sense of fairness was lacking
in the minds of the men who could conduct such an investigation. As well, those who were not involved directly
but knew of the injustice were equally devoid of a sense of fairness.
460
Athanasius, Defense Against the Arians, 81.
461
Ibid., 74.
462
Ibid.

163
the Mareotis.463 However, all of the testimony in favor of Athanasius’ version was ignored by

the commission.

Moreover, regardless of the true findings, and of logic, the Commission found Athanasius

guilty of sacrilege. It is of note that they did not prove either of their allegations. First of all, the

idea that the chalice had been broken was definitely in question as they had a retraction by

Ischyras in front of witnesses. Additionally, there was also the question of whether the supposed

day for the infraction was even on a Sunday when worship would have been taking place. As

well, there were witnesses, who were ordained in the Mareotis, who corroborated Macarius’

version. For these reasons Macarius, and especially not Athanasius, should not have been

convicted of breaking the chalice as there was a greater probability that the allegation was

fabricated by the Meletians. Secondly, the other portion of what must be proven in order to

convict Athanasius remained without merit. Even if there had been a sufficient amount of

reasonable evidence to convict Macarius, it did not logically follow that Athanasius was guilty as

well. From what is known of the event, Athanasius merely told Macarius to bring Ischyras to

him and there is no evidence that he either asked Macarius to do violence to the worship place of

Ischyras or that he condoned it if he discovered it to be true later. Thus, the evidence for the

broken chalice has a great deal of questions and it was negligent that Athanasius should have

been found guilty of this putative event.

463
Ibid., 73-76.

164
 Imposed Taxes

One of the first allegations that was brought against Athanasius involved taxes. As a bishop

Athanasius did not have the power to impose taxes on the people. However, Eusebius and his

followers alleged that Athanasius had charged a tax of linen tunics and compelled the people of

Egypt to pay it to the church at Alexandria.464 This accusation had two sides. First of all, it

would not be within the realm of Athanasius’ power to impose a tax and, thus, they expected to

goad Constantine into reacting against him. Furthermore, a subtler part of this type of accusation

is that it would mean Athanasius wielded great power in Alexandria, and in fact could control

things against the emperor’s wishes. Of course, at that time in history, Constantine would not be

at liberty to visit Alexandria on a regular basis and so he had to depend on reports to discern

what was really occurring there. Thus, an accusation such as this would plant the idea in

Constantine’s mind that Athanasius had great power. This would mostly likely also influence a

part of the decision to ultimately exile Athanasius in 335.

The result of the accusation is that it was proven to be false. There were two presbyters from

Alexandria, Apis and Macarius, who were at court when the accusations were brought. These

two men were able to prove the accusation about the tax to be false.465 However, even though

the charge was proven false, the seed was planted with Constantine. As well, Athanasius was

still summoned to court to answer for these charges and it was at that time that the charge of

treason, to be subsequently discussed, was brought against him.

464
Sozomen, Book 2, Chapter 22.
465
Ibid.

165
 Treason

The allegation of treason was also something that was brought against Athanasius. The

charge centered on the idea that Athanasius had given some form of payment to a man named

Philemenus. The Arians alleged that Philemenus desired to assassinate Emperor Constantine and

that Athanasius was proffering payment if he would do it. The payment came in the form of a

chest full of gold.466 Athanasius first heard of this allegation near the end of 331. At that time,

Constantine was residing in a suburb of Nicomedia named Psammathia and the charge was

brought before him there.467 When Athanasius came before Constantine on the charge of

imposed taxes and treason, Sozomen relays this about his findings: “The emperor detected the

calumny of his accusers, sent Athanasius home, and wrote to the people of Alexandria to testify

that their bishop possessed great moderation and a correct faith; that he had gladly met him, and

recognized him to be a man of God; and that, as envy had been the sole cause of his indictment,

he had appeared to better advantage than his accusers…”468 The result of the treason allegation,

much like the taxation charge, is that although it was proven false it planted an idea in

Constantine’s thoughts that could later be exploited by Athanasius’ opponents.

Illicit Affair

A further charge that was brought against Athanasius was that he had pursued a woman for

sexual contact. The woman appeared before the Council of Tyre and accused Athanasius of

466
Ibid.
467
Bright, Historical Writings of Saint Athanasius, 42.
468
Sozomen, Book 2, Chapter 22. Moreover, it appears at times such as this that Constantine recognized
Athanasius to be a pious bishop. However, it seems that Constantine allowed the opponents to wear him down
with allegations until he began to believe that removing Athanasius, even for unjust reasons, would bring peace
and stability to the region.

166
having violated her chastity. In addition, as if this accusation were not enough, she also stated

that she had been violated against her will. However, when she appeared before the Council it

became apparent that she had never actually seen Athanasius.469 Thus, Athanasius and one of his

followers created a plan that would expose the deception. Standing next to Athanasius was one

of devotees named Timothy. At the appropriate time Timothy approached the woman and asked

if they had indeed had a sexual encounter.470 The woman believing that she was being addressed

by Athanasius affirmed that she had lost her chastity to the man who was speaking to her.

However, much to the chagrin of those who were plotting against Athanasius, they then revealed

that the man she affirmed was Timothy and not Athanasius.471 Thus, this accusation of

impropriety was proven false. Of course, as stated before, as these various allegations are proven

to be lies it becomes more and more apparent that those in command at the Council did not really

desire the truth either about specific actions or the character of Athanasius in general. Rather,

they were simply attempting to discover a charge for which they could depose him because he

was an influential Nicene bishop.

GENERAL AND LATER CHARGES

Violence

One of the general charges against Athanasius is that he was violent with his opponents, in

particular the Meletians and Arians. There is no doubt that there were violent outbreaks between

the Meletians and the supporters of Athanasius. However, the allegation that Athanasius called

469
Ibid., Chapter 25.
470
Ibid.
471
Ibid.

167
for the violence is tempered by several lines of thought. The first of these is that there was

violence perpetrated from both sides towards their opponents. Thus, no one living in subsequent

times can be certain if the Nicene faction began the violence or if they were merely responding

to violence that had been committed against them. Barnard, who is no supporter of Athanasius,

even states of this phenomenon: “…Athanasius had adopted such methods against the Meletians

‘who themselves had shown much violence and persecution towards the orthodox.’”472 A second

aspect to consider is that the fourth century was a much different time period from today and that

people generally tended to respond with violence to defend themselves and their beliefs.

Moreover, it was a time when absolute dogmatism was more acceptable and prevalent. A third,

and perhaps most important, facet of the charges concerning Athanasius calling for violence is

that there is no evidence that Athanasius called for these outbursts. The Nicene faction was large

and diverse, and while Athanasius was influential there was no way that he could have controlled

everyone in the movement. In a large movement, such as the Nicene was, there will be always

be rogue actions and it is unfair to hold a leader responsible for everyone else. One such rogue

act that seemed to occur was the one in 335 that is described in the London Papyri, found in

1914 and to be discussed in more detail later, but again there is no conclusive proof that

Athanasius either instigated or condoned it. However, it does seem to clearly present the idea

that Nicene adherents resorted to violence on the evening in question.

In addition to this, Athanasius advocated non-violence in his writing as he portrayed in the

History of the Arians: “This is how the devil acts, since there is no truth in him. With “axe and

472
Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, 78. Nordberg states that the orthodox may
have felt it necessary to take violent measures against the most extreme Meletians. A. H. M. Jones takes a darker
stance by calling the followers of Athanasius bullies. Of course, these negative appraisals are mostly based on LP
1914 and the usefulness of this document will be discussed later.

168
hammer” (Ps 74:6), he breaks the doors of those who do not receive him…For the truth is not

proclaimed with swords or darts or soldiers; but by persuasion and advice.”473 Thus, with

regards to the allegations of violence, it can never be proven that Athanasius called for it and in

his manuscripts, he actually presents a cogent case against resorting to violent means.

Moreover, since the charges cannot be proven they are not sufficient to condemn Athanasius.

That violent outbreaks between Athanasius’ supporters and the Meletian and anti-Nicene

adherents happened is of little doubt. Anatolios writes of this: “There can be no doubt, however,

that outbreaks of violence occurred throughout the conflicts between Athanasius’ supporters and

their Meletian and anti-Nicene opponents. For his own part, Athanasius’ public pronouncements

on the use of violence tend to repudiate it as a distinctly Arian mode of behavior.”474 Moreover,

in his writings, Athanasius generally seems to repudiate these actions as something that is most

often associated with and instigated by the Arians. In this evaluation of the violence among the

religious factions of Egypt in the fourth century, Hanson, who does not look upon Athanasius

with complete admiration, seems to concur. He intimated about the violence: “Even allowing

for exaggerations, we must accept that Constantius’ troops never had any hesitation in forcing

their way into churches and suppressing popular demonstrations ruthlessly.”475 Thus, Hanson

believes that the violence came from both sides but he seems to lay the blame more firmly upon

the anti-Nicene party. As well, it is noteworthy that there is no evidence that Athanasius

advocated physical violence against his opponents. This is important because it seems likely that

473
Athanasius, History of the Arians, Chapter 33. At this point Athanasius also compared being without violence to
being akin to Christ as he wrote: “But our Savior is so gentle that he teaches by saying: “If any one wishes to come
after…” and “whoever wishes to be my disciple” (Mt 16:24). When he comes to someone, he does not force them
but knocks at the door and says, “Open to me, my sister, my bride” (Song 5:2). If they open, he enters but if they
delay and do not wish him to enter, he leaves them.”
474
Khaled Anatolios, Athanasius (London: Routledge, 2004), 35.
475
Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, 319.

169
if Athanasius had advocated violence in his writing, then it most assuredly would have been

saved and produced as evidence by his enemies. Therefore, it can be said that violence did occur

on both sides but that there is no evidence that Athanasius led, called for or encouraged the

violence. Thus, as a general charge against Athanasius the use of violence is not proven and

should not have been a reason for banishment.

Diverting Corn Shipments

As previously stated, when Athanasius left Tyre he went to Constantinople to ask Constantine

if he could have an audience in his court along with his accusers. His accusers must have

somehow foreseen that Athanasius would travel to Constantinople because they arrived shortly

after he did and in too brief a time to come because they had received the summons from

Constantine. The bishops who traveled to Constantine were some of Athanasius’ oldest and

most bitter rivals. These men were Eusebius, Theognis, Maris, Patrophilus, Ursacius, and

Valens.476 However, when Athanasius and these opposing bishops had their time before

Constantine it must have been a shock to Athanasius that they did not desire to reiterate the

charges concerning the broken chalice or Arsenius. This factor alone would tend to lead to the

conclusion that the allegations had been fabricated. Rather, these bishops brought an entirely

novel charge against Athanasius in that they claimed that he had threatened to divert the grain

shipments that would go from Alexandria to Constantinople. This was important for two

reasons. First of all, Constantinople was a newly established city and it depended heavily upon

grain from Egypt. Thus, if Athanasius had been able to halt the grain shipments it would have

476
Socrates, Book 1, Chapter 35.

170
been a tremendous difficulty for Constantine and the people of the new city. Thus, Athanasius’

accusers were very cunning in that they utilized an element that would be of great importance to

Constantine. Secondly, in addition to the grain being an important commodity there was the

growing apprehension that Athanasius was, in fact, a forceful individual in Alexandria and had

the power to create difficulties for the emperor. Thus, in this light the commodity that was

threatened was not as important as the fact that Athanasius had the power to halt any shipments.

As well, this enhanced the fears that had been created earlier with the allegations of charging a

tax and collusion with a man who was plotting against Constantine. Thus, Athanasius’

opponents wisely chose an allegation that would strike apprehension in Constantine with both

the philosophical idea that another man was gaining immense power and the practical idea that

the grain shipments could be stopped. To add credibility to this allegation Eusebius and his

followers stated that four bishops, Adamantius, Anubion, Arbathion and Peter, had themselves

heard Athanasius make these threats.477 A difficulty with this approach was that these putative

eyewitnesses were not present at the trial but Eusebius was merely stating that they said they had

heard it. Of course, the result of this allegation was the ultimate putative reason for his exile

although there was absolutely no concrete proof of the veracity of the charge.

Verbal Abuses

A charge that is closely related to the allegations of physical violence is that of verbal

violence or verbal abuses of opponents. Of this charge, Athanasius is guilty. It is obvious from

the numerous extant works from his own pen that he was often verbally harsh with those who

477
Ibid., Chapter 30.

171
opposed him. However, this must be tempered by remembering that Athanasius lived in a time

where customs, and what was acceptable, were quite different from today.

One interesting facet of this is that he tended to use Scriptures to insult his opponents. For

instance, he refers to Constantius, when he was in the bowels of conflict with him, as a precursor

to the Antichrist.478 References such as this against his opponents were common in his writings.

However, when analyzing this from the vantage point of many subsequent centuries, it must be

recollected that Athanasius truly did believe himself to be in an epic battle with heretics and that,

at least for him, these monikers were quite fitting.

A further factor in considering the verbal abuses by Athanasius is what the opposing forces

had perpetrated against him, his followers and his colleagues. His combatants were responsible

for various lies about him, even to the point of falsely accusing him of the murder of Arsenius,

and for having him banished from his see. As well, they perpetrated lies and torture against his

friends, such as torturing Hosius and lying against Eustathius. Perhaps even more heinous was

the torturing, and at times murder, of the orthodox laity. After having seen these actions for

years Athanasius had every right to be righteously indignant. Thus, while Athanasius did use

abusive language towards his antagonists, it must be understood that this was both more

acceptable and common during the fourth century, that he truly did view it as a battle against evil

and that the Arians and Meletians had perpetrated many acts of violence and dishonesty against

both himself and various orthodox figures.

478
Anatolios, Athanasius, 37. Anatolios remarks that Athanasius considers those who do not agree with him to be
villains. He wrote: “His opponents on the other hand, are not only portrayed as ‘inept’ and ‘impious’ interpreters
of Scripture but are also assimilated to biblical personages who deny the lordship of Christ; they are like the Jews
and Pontius Pilate. They are generally assimilated to every scriptural image of villainy. Such a polemical strategy,
whatever its unattractive features, must be seen in its integral context as indicative of a central feature of
Athanasius’ own approach to Christian piety.”

172
 EVALUATION

It is important to evaluate the accusations against Athanasius based on the information that

was readily available in 335. Khaled Anatolios is able to cogently summarize the potential

judgment: “It is true, nevertheless, that Athanasius was accused even during his own time of

employing violent means to assert and maintain his authority. But it is very hard to evaluate

these accusations objectively, especially considering that some of the most egregious of them

(such as the “murder” of Arsenius) were proven, as we have seen, to be artificially contrived by

his enemies.”479 Thus, Anatolios beneficially summarizes the situation as one is not able to

make a valid decision that would condemn Athanasius because some of the allegations were

proven to be fabrications by his enemies. Moreover, if this were a trial in the truest sense

Athanasius would have been found innocent because his opponents were known to have created

false evidence. As well, the argument might be presented that Athanasius was such a threat to

his opponents that anything they did in order to have him removed was justifiable. However, if

these accusers were devoted Christian men they would have presented what evidence they had

obtained and trusted that the outcome would be correct instead of attempting to be dishonest.

In retrospect, at the Council of Tyre there was not sufficient evidence to condemn and depose

Athanasius. The most heinous allegation of murder was found to be a complete fabrication.

There is not enough evidence to securely state that the broken chalice incident actually occurred

479
Ibid., 35. It is of interest that although Anatolios is unwilling to accept much of the claims that Athanasius
inspired and condemned violence, nevertheless, he accepts LP 1914, more about which will be discussed in detail,
as providing proof that the followers of Athanasius did engage in violence. He wrote: “While certain corruptions
in the manuscript make the exact construal somewhat in doubt, the document seems to provide clear evidence of
violence perpetuated by Athanasius’ supporters.”

173
and even less evidence that Athanasius was involved in or instigated it. Indeed, if the event

transpired at all it appears to have been the actions of an individual, Macarius, making decisions

on his own. Similarly, the stories of his false ordination did not coincide with one another. As

well, the charges of imposed taxes, treason and fornication were all proven to be falsifications.

Finally, the allegations of violence and diverting corn shipments were never proven true or false

but were instead brought by individuals who were proven to have lied about other charges.

Thus, there is no solid evidence that Athanasius had done wrong. On the contrary, there is a

great amount of evidence that he had been falsely accused, and should not have been banished.

As well, for the overall focus of this paper, the allegations that were brought to the Council of

Tyre in 335 provide no basis for altering the idea that Athanasius was an honorable bishop and

worthy of being viewed as an example of a man who travailed for the truth and lived an

exemplary life. In the next chapter, new evidence that came to light in the twentieth century will

be examined.

174
 CHAPTER VI: LATER SOURCES OF INDICTMENTS

NEW INFORMATION

In the previous chapter the information that was available at the time of the Council of Tyre

was investigated and found to be lacking in both the weight to convict Athanasius in 335 and to

alter the traditionally positive portrait of him. In this chapter, the new information that has

become available since that time will be examined. The first document that critics have utilized

in the twentieth century to change the traditional view of Athanasius is the Church History of

Philostorgius written in the fifth century. However, the only surviving pieces come from the pen

of another author in the ninth century. As well, scholars who tend to be critical of Athanasius

rely heavily upon the London Papyrus. The London Papyrus is a series of letters from the fourth

century, which came to light in 1914, and one of the letters in particular could possibly contain

information about Athanasius. The third historical piece the critics base their alteration of the

understanding of Athanasius upon is the funeral oration given by Gregory in 380. Each of these

will be investigated in turn to determine their usefulness in providing information concerning the

character of Athanasius.

PHILOSTORGIUS

Understanding Philostorgius

An important historical work utilized by modern critics of Athanasius is Philostorgius’

Church History. It is a history written in the fifth century, with the most likely date being in the

early 430s, or some sixty years after the death of Athanasius. Philostorgius’ background is that

he is believed to have come from an Arian family and is remembered as a layman who was well

175
traveled.480 His lifespan, as can best be discerned, was from 366 to 433. To understand his

writing style one notes that his central focus is to pursue the miraculous and to shy away from

rationalistic explanations. As well, it is noteworthy that his historical work was suppressed

during the Theodosian period that ended with Theodosius’ death in 450.481 Much of what is

ascertained about the contents of his putative history is from Photius’ critique in the ninth

century and, thus, it is probable that some copies of Church History still existed until that time

period.482 Photius was a patriarch in Constantinople and it is likely that he included

Philostorgius’ work in his Epitome to be critical of it. In addition, Philostorgius’ historical work

being suppressed in the Theodosian period may be why there is only fragments included in

another man’s work some four hundred years later.

However, according to Young, who is generally critical of Athanasius, Philostorgius’ Church

History is not as much a history of the church as it is a narrow panegyric against all those who

were not a part of the Eunomian belief system.483 Moreover, it is important to understand that

480
Frances M. Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 31. Young declares
Philostorgius’ penchant for invoking the supernatural into a variety of circumstances as he writes: “Unlike
Socrates, Philostorgius consciously and deliberately set out to disclose the providential designs of God in the
course of history. Miracles and portents figure largely in his presentation. Those who are sympathetic to the ‘true
faith’ prosper; disaster attends those rulers who persecute the Eunomians. Illness is a sign of divine punishment;
earthquake a scourge of divine wrath. This pattern is truly in the tradition of Eusebius’ work, though it is worked
out somewhat more crudely, and with an apocalyptic and astrological flavor that Eusebius would certainly have
repudiated. The sack of Rome is no brief incident of the past for Philostorgius, but a sign of the approaching end of
the world, foreshadowed by the appearance of the comet in 389.”
481
Mario Baghos, “Apology for Athanasius: The Traditional Portrait of the Saint According to Rufinus and the
Byzantine Historians,” Phronema Vol 28(2) (2013): 59.
482
Ibid.
483
Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon, 32. Eunomius was born in Dacora in Cappadocia in the early 330s and died in
393. He was bishop of Cyzicus in 360 and he was influenced by Aetius and Eudoxius. However, his views were so
extreme towards the Arian side that Emperor Constantius had him removed after being bishop for only one year.
His basic teaching was that the Son is unlike the Father in all ways. He even changed the baptismal formula from
being in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit to being in the name of Christ. The Eunomian views
were condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 381. However, they continued to be espoused on into the
fifth century by men such as Philostorgius.

176
Philostorgius clearly states his doctrinal allegiance and his bitter hostility against Athanasius.484

He was critical of both the Arians and those of the Nicene faith and rarely mentioned any of the

influential leaders of the time period for either side. Therefore, Philostorgius has come to be

thought of as a writer who is biased towards a certain theological viewpoint, namely that

prescribed by Eunomius. As well, it appears that Philostorgius knew Eunomius in

Constantinople and he, obviously, had a great impact on him.485

Moreover, some researchers have an even harsher outlook on him as they have come to view

Philostorgius as an extreme Arian.486 Consequently, as an extreme Arian he was naturally

hostile to Athanasius. Thus, it seems quite natural and expected that his writings in the

subsequent century would portray Athanasius in a negative light. Hanson proffers a synopsis of

Philostorgius’ views of Athanasius by writing: “Philostorgius represents him as arrogant and

inflexible, very ready to resort to violence and even to murder, no respecter of law and

unscrupulous in pursuing his own ends, but does so in fairly moderate language.” In his overall

view point it seems more probable that Philostorgius followed his predecessors in condemning

Athanasius because of his opposing beliefs rather than his alleged malevolent actions. Mario

Baghos is another writer who has strong opinions about Philostorgius and any idea that he is

neutral. He presents a synopsis of what Philostorgius wrote concerning Athanasius:

“Philostorgius subjected Rufinus’ portrait of the saint to a scathing revision more than twenty

five years after the former’s work and did not stop short of denouncing Athanasius as having

illegitimately attained his bishopric, of setting a prostitute upon the Arian bishop Eusebius of

Nicomedia (d. 341) at the council of Tyre, of ignoring his ‘excommunication’ at the hands of

484
David M. Gwynn, Athanasius of Alexandria (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 165.
485
Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon, 31.
486
R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1988), 241.

177
Constantine by returning to his see after the emperor’s death, of turning the nominally orthodox

emperor Constans against his Arian brother Constantius (r. 337-361), and, having been reinstated

to his see by the former, of arrogantly spreading the “consubstantialist [or homoousian ]

doctrine” of Nicaea.”487 Of course, Philostorgius reveals his true alliance by emphasizing that

Athanasius spread the Nicene position. Philostorgius did not agree with the orthodox theology

and it seems likely that he would be engaging in efforts, similar to the 330s, to question the

character of the leaders of the Nicene idea. Therefore, it appears clear that many scholars discern

that Philostorgius was biased against Athanasius and was not willing to present a neutral view.

Now that the case for Philostorgius being biased has been stated it is important to investigate

the alternate view. One crucial aspect in the alternate view is the idea that it is difficult to

determine the origin of many of the fragments and whether they are from Philostorgius or

Photius. Thus, some scholars accredit several fragments to Philostorgius and they believe this

leads to understanding him as being more neutral. His neutrality is important because they

utilize this to declare that his history should be deemed more useful for historical purposes.

There are also scholars that even broach the idea that Philostorgius’ history should be accepted

over his contemporary historians such as Theodoret and Socrates. However, it must be

remembered that this judgment is based on unstable facts as no one can determine with certainty

which statements belong to Philostorgius.

An important individual who believes many of the questionable fragments came from

Philostorgius is William Rusch. As well, he was one of the lead scholars in encouraging the

notion that this historical record was more trustworthy than orthodox sources. However, as

487
Baghos, “Apology for Athanasius: The Traditional Portrait of the Saint According to Rufinus and the Byzantine
Historians,” 59.

178
should be expected, scholars are divided as to the usefulness of these supposed Philostorgian

declarations. Rusch is joined by L.W. Barnard in believing that certain statements made in the

Epitome were originally written by Philostorgius.488 In contrast, Arnold has a differing opinion

and directly attacks the declaration of Barnard by stating: “The three examples given by Barnard

to show that Philostorgius was not “an out and out Arian sympathizer” (Bk. 1,3; 1,9; 2,3) do

appear, in this author’s opinion, from a study of Bidez’s text to be interpolations by Photius. In

any case, one may, at the very least, assume along with F. Young that the chief purpose of

Philostorgius in the Ecclesiastical History was the defense of Eunomius…”489 In light of this

added difficulty of the words that can actually be attributed to Philostorgius and the words

Photius inserted, Philostorgius’ Church History should not be viewed as a neutral source. As

well, the case made by those scholars who declare that he was neutral seems deficient when

compared to the idea that he intended to present a diatribe against the Nicene followers, and

Athanasius in particular. Moreover, it is difficult to understand how an historical work can be

allowed to wield such great influence when there is such uncertainty about the statements the

author actually made.

A further important piece of information in deciding the historical value of Philostorgius can

be found in the declarations of Photius himself. Photius wrote of Philostorgius in these words:

“He extols all Arians, but abuses and insults all the orthodox, so that this work is not so much a

history as a panegyric of the heretics, and nothing but a barefaced attack upon the orthodox.”490

488
L. W. Barnard, “Two Notes on Athanasius,” OrChrP 41 (1975): 348-349.
489
Duane Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria (London: University of Notre Dame Press,
1991), 25. Arnold also intimates that the influence of Seeck and Schwartz, to be discussed later, have led to other
scholars tending to distrust the orthodox historians from this time period. He wrote: “This has resulted in
nonorthodox sources receiving a greater deal of credence that they might possibly deserve on the basis of both
internal and external evidence.”
490
Ibid., 26. Photius goes on to declare of Philostorgius: “His style is elegant, his diction often poetical, though not
to such an extent to be tedious or disagreeable. His figurative use of words is very expressive and makes the work

179
Since Photius is the one that had direct access to Philostorgius’ history, recalling that all originals

are lost, then his opinion should weigh heavily. In addition to the criticism, Photius also states

that Philostorgius has an agreeable writing style which indicates that he is willing to make a fair

assessment of him although he may not agree with his theological position. Thus, before the

historical problems are delved into it is significant to understand that Philostorgius was biased

against the Nicene adherents, it is difficult to determine the difference between Philostorgius’

and Photius’ words and, thus, one cannot declare him to be neutral and worthy of being utilized

as a primary historical source and Photius, being the only one that had direct access to his

writings, declared Philostorgius to have directly attacked the orthodox.

Historical Problems with Philostorgius

Before the discussion begins of the specific problems with Philostorgius’ history it is

beneficial to note how two different authors viewed the discrepancies with other histories from

the time period. Arnold appears to believe that these disparities are a problem to trusting in the

overall veracity of Philostorgius’ history.491 Moreover, Arnold intimates the cogent point that if

someone consistently presents incorrect chronological data then it stands to reason that all of

their facts are suspect. However, Gwynn holds them as less of a complication as he writes on the

topic: “Such chronological errors occur in many orthodox sources as well, such as Rufinus of

both pleasant and agreeable to read; sometimes however these figures are overbold and outrageous, and create
an impression of being frigid…In many instances the author introduces appropriate moral reflections of his own.
He starts with the devotion of Arius to the heresy and its first beginnings and ends with the recall of the impious
Aetius. This Aetius was removed from his office by his brother heretics, since he outdid them in wickedness, as
Philostorgius himself unwillingly confesses.”
491
Ibid.

180
Aquileia.”492 Thus, two modern authors display completely different evaluations as to the

trustworthiness of the history by Philostorgius.

Now that the background of Philostorgius and his history have been examined it is helpful to

delve into some specific historical problems. To begin with, Philostorgius asserts that

Athanasius ignored the excommunication by Constantine and this can be proven false. Baghos

points out that Athanasius was requested to return to Alexandria by Constantine’s son,

Constantinus, who had inherited the Western Roman empire after the death of his father.493

Furthermore, this fact is attested to in three different church histories. It is statements such as

these that can be proven to be patently false that create an atmosphere of disbelief when

considering other statements by made by Philostorgius.

A further example is that Philostorgius intimates that Liberius of Rome did not support the

Nicene faith. However, other historical sources state that Liberius was one of the staunchest

advocates of the Nicene faith.494 Moreover, it is true that Liberius did agree to an Arian creed,

as discussed earlier in this paper, but this action was only done under extreme duress from the

emperor’s forces. Thus, it appears that at some point Philostorgius either received mistaken

information or blatantly ignored the facts.

Additionally, Philostorgius offered the idea that when Constans was assassinated in 350 by

Magnentius that it was because of his Nicene faith.495 However, other historical records do not

present evidence that this was the reason but rather that Magnentius was trying to obtain power

492
Gwynn, Athanasius of Alexandria, 165-166. Gwynn goes on to state that in Philostorgius’ history that he
confuses the Council of Tyre in 335 with the Council of Antioch in 338/9. As well, Philostorgius reverses the
prostitute story by saying that it was Athanasius who paid a prostitute to falsely accuse Eusebius.
493
Ibid., 68.
494
Ibid., 59.
495
Ibid.

181
for selfish reasons. In addition, some historians intimate that certain of the soldiers under

Constans were exasperated at his deplorable moral standards. As well, it logically follows that if

Magnentius had been motivated to assassinate Constans because of his Nicene faith then he

would have been the natural ally of Constantius, but history divulges that this was definitely not

the case.

Another assertion by Philostorgius that is incongruent with other histories concerns the hand

of Arsenius. Apparently, he states in his history that one of the factors in Athanasius’ conviction

in 335 was that the prosecution presented the hand of Arsenius that Athanasius putatively used

for black magic.496 However, other histories, as covered earlier, state that Athanasius disproved

this conjecture by producing Arsenius alive and with two hands. It is also important to note that

Athanasius states these to be facts in his own history and if this were not the case there surely

would have been those still alive who would dispute this. Therefore, when Philostorgius

presents these ideas as truth when they are not found in other historical writings it brings into

question the negative evaluation of Athanasius that pervades his writings.

In his history, Philostorgius also states that Athanasius was returned from his second exile

because he used persuasion and bribery against Constans. Thus, according to Philostorgius,

Athanasius coerced Constans into threatening war against Constantius, who was his brother and

ruler in the East.497 Gwynn also indicates his idea that Philostorgius may have been influenced

in this by a contemporary, Cyril of Alexandria, of his who used bribery to secure help against

Nestorius.498 One would think that Gwynn admitting that Philostorgius had gotten other stories

496
Ibid., 165.
497
Ibid., 166.
498
Ibid.

182
confused with the facts about Athanasius would create a greater degree of mistrust in everything

that he wrote, but Gwynn still held him as a valid historical source.

A further error that Philostorgius made in his history was concerning the consecration of

Gregory the Cappadocian. As covered earlier, Gregory was placed in the position of bishop of

Alexandria only after Athanasius had returned from his first exile and then went into his second

exile. Thus, the other histories place the time of his ascension as the year 341. However,

Philostorgius states that Gregory was sent to replace Athanasius as soon as he was deposed after

Tyre, which would have been in the year 335. As well, Philostorgius confuses Athanasius’

return in 337 with his return in 346.499 Thus, it can be ascertained that there are errors involving

the historical accuracy of Philostorgius’ history concerning the exiles and returns.

Another questionable arena in accepting the veracity of Philostorgius’ writing was his

penchant for presenting wild tales as history when they were almost certainly fictional. One such

anecdote concerns Aetius, who was the bishop of Palestine, and Athanasius traveling to garner

support for his Nicene position. Philostorgius wrote: “None of them agreed except Aetius, the

bishop of Palestine, who had been denounced for fornication and, hoping to conceal his disgrace

by yielding to Athanasius, defected to his doctrine. But he paid a very heavy penalty when his

genitals putrefied and swarmed with worms, and thus he died.”500 It is of interest, as well, that

Athanasius did not regard Aetius as orthodox but rather referred to him as an Arian. It is from

situations such as this that one can understand exactly how Philostorgius viewed the fourth

century.501 He considered anyone who did not support his Eunomian position to be an adherent

to the Nicene orthodoxy. Thus, bizarre incidents such as this being recorded as history also

499
Ibid., 165.
500
Philostorgius, HE, III, 12.
501
Gwynn, Athanasius of Alexandria, 166.

183
brings into question his ability to discern between reality and fiction. Thus, it can be understood

that Philostorgius had numerous errors in his history and that brings into question his

trustworthiness in accordance with the important topic for this study, which is the specifics about

Athanasius.

Philostorgius’ History

Now that the historical difficulties have been reviewed, and one can understand that

Philostorgius had various other instances where his facts were mistaken, it is time to survey the

declarations Philostorgius made about Athanasius. In the Epitome Photius records two

noteworthy passages of Philostorgius’ history that made reference to Athanasius. One of these

regards his consecration in 328 and the other recounts the events that led to Athanasius returning,

after his first exile, to Alexandria.502 The account of Athanasius’ ordination is a portion of

Philostorgius’ history which modern critics tend to especially desire to believe and, thusly, this

one will be scrutinized closely. The following statement is made concerning the consecration of

Athanasius as bishop:

“The impious contriver of lies [i.e. Philostorgius] asserts, that after the death of Alexander,

bishop of Alexandria, the votes of the prelates were not unanimous, and that there was a diversity

of sentiment, and after a considerable amount of time had been spent in altercation, the divine

Athanasius suddenly appeared one evening in the church called after Dionysius, and finding

there two Egyptian bishops, firmly closed the doors with the assistance of some of his followers,

and so was ordained by them, though strongly against the will of the ordainers. For a power

502
Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, 26.

184
from above fell upon them, and so constrained their will and powers that what Athanasius

wished was done at once. Philostorgius adds, that the remainder of the bishops then present

anathematized Athanasius on account of this transaction; and that the latter, having first

thoroughly strengthened his cause addressed to the emperor certain letters relating to his

ordination, in the name of the entire state; and that the emperor, thinking that the letters in

question were written by the assembly of the Alexandrians, ratified the election with his

approval. Afterwards, however, upon being informed of the details of the transaction, he sent

Athanasuis to Tyre, a city of Phoenicia, to give an account of the matter before a synod which

was assembled there.”503

Gwynn presents his own interpretation of Philostorgius’ words concerning the matter:

“Athanasius broke into the Church of Dionysius in the late afternoon, found two Egyptian

bishops, shut the doors and barred them firmly with the help of his supporters, and in this way

received ordination. Those ordaining resisted vigorously, but when the violence offered them

proved too much for their will and their strength, Athanasius got what he wanted.”504 Thus, it is

evident that the legality Athanasius’ ordination was called into question. However, an important

point to consider, as was discussed in the previous chapter, is that the Arians had several

scenarios in which Athanasius was falsely ordained and none of them can be reconciled with one

another. Thus, it should be deemed likely that the various stories were contrived and not in

correspondence with reality. This is especially true of an Eunomian author like Philostorgius

503
Ibid., 27. One particular point of interest in this quote was when the author wrote that a power from above fell
on them. It is not clear if black magic was intended here or if the power was from God. However, since
Philostorgius is generally negative towards Athanasius it is probably best to assume that the idea of him using
black magic is being referred to here.
504
Gwynn, Athanasius of Alexandria, 165. In this summation, the two bishops that ordained Athanasius were not
compelled by a power from above, either black magic or God, but were rather threatened with violence if they did
not concur and agree to ordain Athanasius as the new bishop of Alexandria.

185
who wrote more than a century later, and, thus, Philostorgius’ rendition of Athanasius’

ordination is not historically useful. As well, when rendering this decision, the various errors

that Philostorgius made about other events are a factor.

After this description of his putative illegal ordination, Philostorgius continues on to chronicle

the allegations brought against Athanasius at the Synod of Tyre. These accusations include those

cited by other historians and are namely those of fraud, immorality and violence against Ischyras.

Philostorgius proceeds to state the reason that Athanasius had been deposed as he wrote:

“Athanasius, who had hoped to escape trial altogether, went away after having been convicted of

a double crime, not merely an illegal ordination but also a foul calumny; and so, by the common

consent of all, a sentence of deposition was passed against him.”505 Of course, this is a

completely different reason than what the other historians present. They attribute his final

banishment by Constantine in 335 to a conflict between Constantine and Athanasius over

restricted grain shipments traversing from Alexandria to Constantinople and the argument that

ensued over this topic. Thus, the rendition that Philostorgius presented is quite factually

different from other historians of the same time period and that which Athanasius furnished.

The second notable time Philostorgius mentions Athanasius draws much less interest from

critics. Basically, as covered previously, Philostorgius asserts that Athanasius returned from his

first exile unlawfully. However, other histories clearly state that the new emperor, Constantinus,

in place of his father after his death in 337, called for Athanasius to return to Alexandria. Thus,

Philostorgius is not accurate the second time he mentions Athanasius.

505
Philostorgius, HE, II, 11.

186
 Evaluation of Philostorgius

One interesting facet when considering how much influence Philostorgius should have on an

interpretation of Athanasius is what Gwynn wrote. Although Gwynn had a generally favorable

opinion of Philostorgius, he wrote: “Philostorgius is without question a biased and frequently

inaccurate historian, and we cannot take his arguments at face value…it is certainly not self-

evident that any of the assertions that Philostorgius makes against Athanasius are correct. It is

not always self-evident that they are wrong.”506 However, something being not self-evidently

wrong does not warrant amending the view of Athanasius that prevailed for some fifteen hundred

years. Similar to Gwynn, Rowan Williams also states that Philostorgius is not a reliable

source.507 Hanson evaluates Philostorgius as an extreme Arian and rancorous towards

Athanasius.508 Thus, even those authors who are willing to accept Philostorgius’ history as

helpful are readily willing to admit that he was inaccurate, unreliable and hostile towards

Athanasius and the Nicene position.

A further important aspect to consider in evaluating Philostorgius is that he proffers little new

information that was not previously presented by other hostile authors in the fourth century.

Thus, in the final analysis all that resulted is a history that is similar to what the adversaries were

alleging in Athanasius’ time, but in a later century. Furthermore, it is important to consider that

506
Gwynn, Athanasius of Alexandria, 167. Gwynn also declares that one should not feel compelled to accept
Philostorgius’ account simply because it stands in disagreement with the traditional view. He also states that
Philostorgius does utilize the same rhetorical techniques and much of the same basic information with his
contemporary historians such as Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret.
507
Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001),
31. In this particular incident Williams is speaking about information Philostorgius presented in relation to Arians
and Lucians. However, it can be presumed that if Williams did not think he was reliable in this aspect, that this
opinion generally carried over into other areas as well.
508
Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, 241. However, at the same time Hanson states that
Philostorgius is restrained in his criticism of Athanasius and, thus, in his judgment, it makes it more likely that what
he is declaring has some semblance to the truth.

187
there are four other historians, namely Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret, from the

same time period that adduce different events. This is substantial as one would have to override

four histories that had been trusted for centuries to accommodate Philostorgius’ history. As well,

it is important to consider the evaluation by Photius as he was the one that actually had access to

Philostorgius’ writings and, as stated previously, he believed the history to be fanciful, abusive

of the orthodox and false. Moreover, many of his erratic historical claims can be proven false.

Thus, in light of his inherently negative view of Athanasius, the judgment of modern and ancient

authors as inaccurate and his historical inexactness it would be capricious to allow Philostorgius’

history to alter the traditional view of Athanasius.

LONDON PAPYRUS

London Papyrus 1914 Comes to Light

A second historical document that twentieth century critics believed was useful in diverging

the traditional view of Athanasius was the London Papyrus. The London Papyrus 1914 is a

letter that was discovered among a broader collection of correspondence from the time period.

Sir Harold Idris Bell is the one who is responsible for bringing the finding to light. Bell believed

the letter should be dated to May or June of 335, which is just before the crucial Synod of

Tyre.509 Bell also thought that it would bring new understanding to the character of the epoch in

509
Duane Arnold, “Sir Harold Idris Bell and Athanasius: A reconsideration of London Papyrus 1914,” Studia
Patristica Louvain: Peeters (1989): 378.

188
which Athanasius lived, as he wrote: “These letters…are of exceptional interest for the light

they throw on the life of a Christian community in the reign of Constantine the Great.”510

However, it is of particular interest to note that at the time of the publishing of the London

Papyrus 1914, it seems that Bell intended to skew the viewpoints against Athanasius. Bell did

not simply publish the correspondence and allow the reader to draw their own conclusion but,

rather, sought to color how the new information was regarded. Bell wrote in his initial article

about the papyri: “…the other and more interesting [of the papyri], a long letter from an

Alexandrine Meletian gives a vivid picture of the sufferings to which the sectaries were exposed

at the hands of Athanasius and his adherents.”511 Thus, it is apparent that Bell had already made

a decision on the guilt of Athanasius based on this obscure papyri and that he, furthermore,

desired to influence the views of the readers. Bell goes on to state that this new letter sheds

additional insight on the proceedings at Tyre in 335. Furthermore, Bell declares in his opening

statement about the London Papyrus 1914 that they lend more justification for the attack on

Athanasius and that they are among the most important correspondence that is possessed from

the fourth century.512 Moreover, it seems that Bell overstated the importance of the

correspondence as he wrote: “It is, of course, like Athanasius’ own narrative, a partisan

statement, but it shows what was suspected before, that there was more justification for the

attack on Athanasius than the Catholic tradition allows to appear, and it may rank among the

510
Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, 71. Bell went on to say: “But it is by virtue of
two only of the papyri that the collection boasts its special importance. One of these, the only contract in the
series, fixes at last the disputed date of the Synod of Caesarea…the other and more interesting, a long letter from
an Alexandrian Meletian, gives a vivid picture of the sufferings to which the sectaries were exposed at the hands of
Athanasius and his adherents.” Thus, Bell reveals in this early stage that he already believes the letter is
condemning of Athanasius even though the meaning cannot be ascertained due to mutilation.
511
Arnold, “Sir Harold Idris Bell and Athanasius: A reconsideration of London Papyrus 1914,” 377.
512
Ibid.

189
most precious documents of fourth-century ecclesiastical history.”513 It is obvious that Bell was

not writing from an unbiased stance and this is the manner in which the London Papyrus were

entered into the discussion on the character of Athanasius.

Now that an overview of the conditions in which the London Papyrus 1914 were introduced

has been investigated it is important to review the facts of the letter. The author of the letter

which Bell published is a man named Callistus and Bell believes he is a part of the Meletian

faction, most likely a cleric or monk. Callistus wrote the letter to two men that seem to have

been priests in another community.514 The purpose of the letter seems to be to recount the

sufferings that the Meletians had endured by Athanasius and his followers, at least this is what

Bell believed, although the evidence for this is far from conclusive. Nevertheless, this is a

summary of the initial description of the event that Bell presented and that is accepted by

Athanasian scholars:

“On the evening of 24 Pachon (19 May) A.D. 335, almost two months before the Synod of Tyre,

a violent altercation took place at Nicopolis, a suburb of Alexandria. It seems that an attack had

taken place earlier at the house of one Heraclius the recorder. In the evening however, Isaac of

Letopolis (a Meletian bishop in the Breviarium Melitii who was to be active at Tyre and who

was also to be accused of violent conduct at a later date) had come to visit Heraclius in

Alexandria and was dining with another bishop of uncertain identity in the military camp which

adjoined the village. According to Bell’s translation, “the adherents of Athanasius” heard about

the visit and with the assistance of the soldiers in the camp attempted to kidnap Isaac. Callistus

informed his readers at this point in the narrative that the attackers were in an intoxicated state as

513
Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, 71.
514
Arnold, “Sir Harold Idris Bell and Athanasius: A reconsideration of London Papyrus 1914,” 378.

190
the assault began, but that they still managed to break into the military post in pursuit of Isaac.

By the time the would-be kidnappers had made their way to the meeting place of the two

bishops, however, Isaac and his companion had been warned and hidden away by yet other

soldiers who were sympathetic to their cause.

Their quarry having escaped, the attackers turned on four other “of the brethren” who were

coming into the camp and beat them. Finally, they made their way to a hostel near to the east

gate of Alexandria (some distance from the camp) and seized the keeper asking him, “Why do

you admit Meletian monks to the hostel?” Others who had entertained the visiting bishops

received similar rough treatment. The next day the praepositus of the soldiers came and

apologized (to whom we are uncertain) for the drunken behavior of his men and presented an

offering again as a sign of penance.”515

The former describes the first portion of the letter which is fairly straightforward. It is

important to note about this first, and most clear, part of the correspondence that Athanasius’

name is not mentioned. It is true that the letter states that some Meletians were being harassed

by the orthodox but there is no mention that the attack was organized or commanded from a

higher official. Rather, it appears to be a rogue attack perpetrated by a group of individuals.

It is the second part of the letter that is more controversial. According to Bell, the second half

of the letter describes the attitude displayed by Athanasius and his followers in the months

leading up to the Synod of Tyre. Bell describes Athanasius as being ‘very despondent’ overall

and especially in relation to the possibility of Macarius being arrested.516 It is at this point that

515
Ibid.
516
Ibid., 379. That Athanasius is desperately concerned about Macarius being arrested reveals his devotion to
others. Had Athanasius been a hard gangster it is likely he would have been willing to sacrifice Macarius for the
good of his own success. However, when he shows true concern for him it further reveals his kind nature.

191
the letter is severely mutilated so that it is difficult to ascertain what the letter is actually saying.

Bell believes that at some point Athanasius sent a failed rescue party for Macarius. As well, Bell

assumes that Athanasius is the generator of the actions in the remainder of the letter. However,

again it must be remembered that this is only speculation on Bell’s part as this portion of the

letter is not legible or discernible. The best possibility that Bell, or anyone else for that matter,

can offer is a guess.

Whoever was the instigator of the actions in the remainder of the letter was said to have taken

a bishop from the Lower Country and confined him in a meat market. As well, this man also

imprisons another priest and deacon.517 The letter also states that the perpetrator scourged

Heraclius for four days and exiled seven other bishops. The final portion of the letter is

inconsequential as it addresses the distribution of bread and various greetings given to

acquaintances who live near those who received the letter. Thus, the important idea from this

second portion of the letter is that it is mutilated and it cannot be known with any degree of

certainty that the individual that is being spoken about is Athanasius. However, Bell, and several

modern historians, pretend as if there is no question that the perpetrator was Athanasius.

Problems with Bell’s Summations

There are several reasons why the conjectures of Bell concerning the London Papyrus 1914,

and more pointedly Athanasius’ character, are not valid. First of all, Bell based his

517
Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, 75. Callistus went on to state that the bishop
who was taken from the Lower Country in the original attack was Heraiscus and he remained in the camp and was
scourged several times during a period of four days. The letter also declares that seven other bishops were exiled
and this included two by the names of Emes and Peter. Moreover, Bell believes that this is same Peter that is
mentioned in the listing of the Meletian bishops or the Breviarium Militii.

192
interpretations on a simplistic view of the religious situation in Egypt during the early part of the

fourth century.518 Bell seemed to support the idea that it was the Meletians in opposition to the

orthodox and these were the only two groups in action. However, the situation is much more

complex as at times Meletians opposed one another as well. Arnold wrote of these schisms:

“We may say, in the light of subsequent actions taken at the Synod of Tyre, that there was a high

degree of ill-will between these Meletian and former Meletian communities.”519 Thus, it is

entirely possible that the mutilated section presents the perpetrators of the violence as other

Meletians.

In addition, one needs to take into account the Eusebians, Colluthians and Arians as well as

other lesser known factions. It is also important to note that these groups were not stable but

rather there were fluctuating alliances and conflicts. Additionally, it is also possible that the

mutilated section of the letter refers to the trouble between other factions rather than between

Athanasius and Meletians as Arnold writes: “For, although Bell assumes Athanasius to be the

proponent of the attacks described in the second section of the letter, the mutilated state of the

papyrus and the almost incomprehensible grammar of the author makes such an identification

highly suspect.”520 Moreover, each of these groups was important to the ecclesiastical and

political situation in the 330s. As well, the lines of doctrine among these alliances were

alternately blurred and accentuated based on the prevailing needs and enemies at any given time.

Thus, for Bell to assume only two stable parties during this time, and to base his evaluations of

the London Papyrus 1914 on this putative situation, does a great disservice to a true

understanding of the letter.

518
Arnold, “Sir Harold Idris Bell and Athanasius: a reconsideration of London Papyrus 1914,” 380.
519
Ibid., 381.
520
Ibid.

193
 A second reason why the evaluations of Bell are not coherent for this situation is the apparent

knowledge of the Greek language used by the writer Callistus. Arnold intimates on this facet:

“Although there are a good many features of his grammar and style which are familiar within his

period and geographical setting, we must still note that his repetitious use of words and phrases

without connecting particles or conjunctions (II. 9, 10), his omission of connecting words (I. 38),

and his use of supplementary clauses without conjunctions (II. 24, 48) all show a basic difficulty

with handling the language. The exact meaning, therefore, of the phrase which Bell has

translated as ‘the adherents of Athanasius’ could very possibly carry another meaning.”521 Thus,

the instigators of the violence may not be followers of Athanasius but may rather be those who

opposed him in some way. Of course, it is important for a document that is utilized to effectively

change the reputation of a man to be abundantly clear in its meaning and yet LP 1914 possesses

questions in this arena.

Implications of the Letter

One of the implications of LP 1914 is that the actions of Athanasius before Tyre came to be

viewed with greater suspicion. In fact, many of the charges of Athanasius being a gangster made

by Barnes and Hanson are based on a single line of a papyrus leaf from the London Papyrus

1914.522 As well, the fragment of London Papyrus 1914 in question is capable of a number of

521
Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, 83. Arnold also remarked: “Given our present
understanding of the numerous groups who were competing for power in the Egyptian church during this period it
is possible to see things differently. The attackers may have indeed been the “adherents of Athanasius,” but more
in the literal sense of those who were “close kinfolk” -such as those Meletians who had given him their allegiance.
This seems very likely. Conversely, the attackers might have been those who were actually “in competition” with
Athanasius and the events recorded in LP 1914 could be the result of some internecine struggle of which we are
unaware.”
522
Duane Arnold, “Athanasius and the Meletians at the Synod of Tyre, 335,” Coptic Church Review 10 no 3 (Fall
1989): 68.

194
variant readings, as discussed before, and many of these different readings would serve to

exonerate, rather than condemn, Athanasius.523 Thus, to mutate the overarching opinion of

Athanasius to the negative is not coherent with the actual strength of LP 1914 given the problems

that exist in determining the meaning of the crucial and mutilated section.

A second implication is that LP 1914 has tended to enhance the idea of Athanasius being

responsible for the schism becoming greater between the Meletians and the Nicene. This is

related to the manner in which the Meletian schism seemed to escalate in late 328, just after

Athanasius is elected bishop of Alexandria, and LP 1914 would serve to encourage this belief.

The scenario for those who take a dim view of the character of Athanasius is that he began to

oppress the Meletians when he was elected and this led to the widening schism. However,

Arnold points out that the reason for the increasing schism was more likely that the Meletians

were frustrated because they could not participate as equals in the election of a new bishop in

328.524 As well, the idea that Athanasius was not oppressing the Meletians is reinforced by the

fact, as discussed earlier, that many Meletians had left their faction and joined Athanasius and

the orthodox. However, as noted before, if LP 1914 is fully utilized in the method that Bell

prescribes then the idea that Athanasius had submitted the Meletians to oppressive behavior

would be encouraged.

Alternate View

As mentioned earlier, there are many historians and critics who give a great deal of credence

to LP 1914 and believe that it is indicative of the true character of Athanasius. For example,

523
Ibid.
524
Ibid., 69.

195
Hanson believes that a salient point about the letter is that it was meant only to be seen by two

other Meletians and was not intended to be widely viewed. Hanson writes: “It is a factual

account written for people under persecution, a private missive not intended for publication nor

propaganda, and therefore all the more damning.”525 Moreover, Hanson believes that LP 1914

gives evidence not only of Athanasius being violent towards his opponents but also of denying

them bread. Of course, this also lends reliability to the charge that Athanasius had denied grain

shipments to Constantinople as his opponents would later allege.

As well as the notions presented by Hanson, Barnes adds a new idea about LP 1914. Barnes

believes that the letter indicates that Athanasius tried to forcefully prevent Meletian bishops from

attending the Council of Tyre.526 Thus, Barnes intimates, if Athanasius could prevent their

voices from being heard then it would proffer two positive elements. The first is that it would

prevent the allegations of violence from reaching the council. The second is that the less

dissidents that were present in Tyre, the more of a united front in Egypt he could present.

Obviously, Barnes viewed LP 1914 as truthfully relaying the common circumstances in the 330s

and he presumes that the subject of the line in question is Athanasius.

Evaluation of LP 1914

There are several points of view and important elements that need to be considered when

rendering a decision on the usefulness of LP 1914. One of those elements is how Bell himself

placed the importance of the document in an overall appraisal of Athanasius. First of all, Bell

525
Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, 252. Hanson further assumes that the entirety of LP 1914
refers to Athanasius as he goes on to write: “It can be dated with confidence to a point just before the Council of
Tyre, that is late May or early June 335. It describes Athanasius’ state of mind just before embarking in order to
attend the Council, and the barbarous treatment which he is meanwhile dealing out to those Meletians who have
opposed him.”
526
Timothy D. Barnes, “The Career of Athanasius,” Studia Patristica Vol. 21 Issue 1 (1989): 395.

196
assesses LP 1914 as confirming what the Meletians declared about him as he wrote that

Athanasius: “…was of a masterful temperament, with all the intolerance and all the impatience

of youth and even without the evidence of the document to be quoted presently, one need feel

little hesitation in accepting as at least partially true the accusation of his enemies that he

persecuted the Meletians.”527 However, although Bell does make these strong statements he is

also more reserved in allowing the contents of LP 1914 to revise the comprehensive opinion of

Athanasius. He writes: “Yet it must not be forgotten that the letter of Callistus also is an ex

parte statement. The facts he relates can hardly be doubted, but they may have had a

justification which he does not allow to appear. And in any case it would be unfair to found on

these and similar facts a general condemnation of Athanasius, though we admit faults in his

character and errors in his conduct.”528 Bell also stated that a fair evaluation between the

Meletians and Athanasius should be based on the total personality and the principal issue rather

than on small details such as these.529 Therefore, it can be ascertained that while Bell believed

LP 1914 was helpful in confirming the violence Athanasius instigated against his opponents, he

also does not think it should negatively cloud the overall evaluation of the character of

Athanasius.

527
H.I. Bell, “Athanasius: A Chapter in Church History,” The Congregational Quarterly 3 no. 2 (April 1925): 164.
Bell also declares his belief that Athanasius was a young man and was not temperate as many young men are not
and this led to the violence. As well, he noted in 1925 that LP 1914 only aided in providing proof for what was
already suspected about Athanasius’ violent tendencies. However, the only two pieces of evidence about his
violence before LP 1914 were from Sozomen, who found them in the now lost minutes of the Council of Tyre and
briefly refers to them in his history, and a letter from the Oriental Council of Sardica written in 343. Moreover, the
history found in the letter from the Council of Sardica is obviously embellished. However, both of these, the
Council of Tyre and Sardica, were actively hostile towards Athanasius and, at least in the case of Tyre for certain,
had made accusations against Athanasius that were proven to be false. Thus, neither of these sources should be
depended upon as being trustworthy.
528
Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, 76.
529
Ibid.

197
 Moreover, Hanson’s argument that the letter was only meant to be seen by two other

Meletians is flawed. As mentioned earlier, Hanson believes that this lends credibility to the

letter. However, this may not be valid and there is little knowledge of the character of Callistus

and his motivations. It is just as likely that he may have wanted to influence the two bishops he

was writing to in order to have them be hostile towards Athanasius. In other words, the audience

being private or public does not necessarily prove the veracity of the work. As well, the

evaluation by Barnes that the letter lends credence to the allegation that Athanasius attempted to

prevent Meletians from attending the council is based on the presumption that the subject of the

disputed portion of the letter is Athanasius and this has been shown to be unreliable evidence.

One final aspect of LP 1914 is perhaps the most important. Once again, Bell states it in his

own works: “…parts of our letter are by no means clear and admit of more than one

interpretation.”530 Thus, it is not clear that Athanasius or his followers are even the subject of the

letter as the important parts have been mutilated. In order to find the letter condemning of

Athanasius, Bell had to make assumptions. One of these assumptions is that the orthodox and

the Meletians were the only two parties of importance at the time. As well, if a single letter is

going to overturn centuries worth of the traditional view, and the significance of a variety of

other authors, it needs to, at the very least, be unquestionable in its meaning and LP 1914 is not.

Above all this, even if the letter were to conclusively condemn Athanasius or his followers, there

is still the question of the statements made by Callistus being true. Moreover, in light of the

many patently false allegations made by the Eusebians and Meletians, such as the murder of

Arsenius and the impropriety, it would be difficult to have complete faith in the idea that these

530
Arnold, “Sir Harold Idris Bell and Athanasius: A reconsideration of London Papyrus 1914,” 383.

198
charges were true. Therefore, in the final analysis, LP 1914 is not conclusive enough to warrant

a change in the view of the character of Athanasius.

FUNERAL ORATION

Gregory’s Eulogy

Interestingly, a third piece of writing that has been used to question the character of

Athanasius in recent times is a funeral oration. In May of 380, seven years after the death of

Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus delivered his Funeral Oration in honor of Athanasius in

Constantinople.531 It is also noteworthy that Athanasius and Gregory probably met, a feat that

happened with much less regularity in the ancient world, in person in 350 while Gregory was

studying in Alexandria and, therefore, he was not merely basing his accolades on the musings of

others.532 Moreover, Gregory orchestrated a very positive portrait of Athanasius and presented

him as a hero of the church that should be admired. However, critics believe that because

Gregory so glowingly spoke of Athanasius that he was trying to covertly provide an answer for

the allegations of his wrongdoings. Before traversing into the beliefs of the critics on the funeral

oration it is noteworthy to understand what Gregory himself believed about it. Gregory states in

the oration: “In praising Athanasius, I shall be praising virtue. To speak of him and to praise

virtue are one in the same, because he had, or to speak more correctly has embraced virtue in its

entirety in himself. For all who have lived according to God still live unto God, though they

have departed hence.”533 Thus, it appears apparent that Gregory meant this as a laudatory

statement about the life of Athanasius and not as some type of defense.

531
Gwynn, Athanasius of Alexandria, 3.
532
Rosemary Reuther, Gregory of Nazianzus: Rhetor and Philosopher (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), 19.
533
Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 21, section 1. Contained in J. Mossay, Gregroire de Nazianze, Discours 20-23,
Paris, 1980, 110-193.

199
 However, William Rusch began to use the funeral oration as evidence of later ecclesiastical

leaders trying to answer the charges against Athanasius. It seems that Rusch envisions the years

following Athanasius’ death as a period when there were rampant questions about his character.

Frances Young, in his own writings, began to follow the ideas of Rusch on this topic. Thus,

Young states that Gregory presented the oration, at least in part, because there were:

“…criticisms that Gregory Nazianzen felt he had to answer in his panegyric.”534 Therefore, both

the ideas of Rusch and Young need to be investigated.

Rusch, as mentioned before, believed that Oration 21 was in part meant to answer the critical

nonorthodox accounts of the life of Athanasius. One of the key passages that Rusch deploys in

his evaluation comes from section nine of the oration: “…he was sublime in action, lowly in

mind; inaccessible in virtue, most accessible in intercourse; gentle, free from anger, sympathetic,

sweet in words, sweeter in disposition; angelic in appearance, more angelic in mind; calm in

rebuke, persuasive in praise…”535 Of course, upon reading this section one realizes that Gregory

was exorbitant in his accolades but this was the common practice of the fourth century, and still

is today in many speeches at funerals. Moreover, Rusch discerned it as Gregory attempting to

preserve the orthodox memory and viewpoint on Athanasius’ life. One element of importance

when considering the renderings of Rusch is that he surmised that the history of Philostorgius

and LP 1914 need to be included for an accurate portrayal of the historic Athanasius.536 In a

1974 article Rusch wrote: “One finds no explicit mention of the kind of information provided by

534
Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon, 51. Young also states that there are critics (J. M. Leroux is mentioned) that
believe that Athanasius was actually out of touch with the real situation during his later career. Thus, Athanasius
was still combatting against the teachings of Arius when the larger threat came from the teachings of Aetius and
Eunomius. Thus, some believe that Athanasius only truly had respect in Egypt as opposed to the rest of the
empire.
535
Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 21, section 9.
536
Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, 90.

200
Philostorgius, but it is clear that these chapters tend to refute the Philostorgian presentation of

Athanasius. The election of the latter is presented as unanimous. He appeared sublime in action,

humble in spirit, amiable, sweet, reproving with the tenderness of a father, etc. (see section 9).

Cannot the listing of these traits be seen as a record set against the other recollections of

Athanasius which were still alive and more in accord with the nonorthodox tradition? In that

case, Gregory’s Oration 21 gives witness at the end of the fourth century to those elements of a

non-orthodox tradition which continue to slur the memory of a canonized patriarch.”537

For his part, Young tends to follow in the course which Rusch had begun. He reiterates and

agrees with the idea that the funeral oration is proof that there was a movement to discredit

Athanasius.538 Moreover, he accepts the musings of Rusch as valid when he states that the

history of Philostorgius, LP 1914 and the funeral oration form a trio of documents that legitimize

the claims that Athanasius resorted to violence. Young even traverses as far as stating that the

Council of Tyre was not in reality politically motivated but was rather based on the real threat

that Athanasius posed to the Meletians.539

However, Arnold disagrees with the assessment of Rusch and Young. He perceives that

Gregory is merely speaking in keeping with the literary genre of a funeral oration.540 Moreover,

537
William G. Rusch, “A la recherche de l’Athanase historique,” Politique et theologie Paris (1974): 176.
Translation by D. Arnold. I personally spoke to Rusch and Arnold about this article and copies are no longer
available and so the translation by Arnold must be depended upon. When I asked Rusch about his ideas
concerning Athanasius in light of this article he seemed affable but reluctant to delve into the topic as it had been
so many years since he had studied and written on these ideas.
538
Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon, 51.
539
Ibid. Young also wrote of his relationship with the Meletians: “There seems to have been a pitiless streak in his
character. That he resorted to violence to achieve his own ends is implied by a good deal of evidence. When he
succeeded Alexander, he inherited a volatile situation…Athanasius managed to antagonize this group rather than
facilitate their reconciliation according to the provision of Nicaea, and it was evidence supplied by the Meletians
that made Athanasius vulnerable to the attack at the Council of Tyre.” However, this view cannot be taken as true
since Athanasius was able to win a great deal of Meletians back into the othrodox church.
540
Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, 91. Arnold goes on to remark: “While it seems
certain, as has been stated earlier in this section, that there were a number of variant traditions concerning
Athanasius still extant in the late fourth and early fifth centuries, the argument of Rusch concerning Oration 21 is

201
Arnold argues that the listing of Athanasius’ laudatory traits should be viewed as a rhetorical

device rather than an answer to persisting dissenting opinions about the character of Athanasius.

For example, Gregory speaks of his rare combination of action and intellect: “…excelling in

action men of intellectual capacity, in intellect men of action; or, if you will, surpassing in

intellect men renowned for intellect, in action those of the greatest active power; outstripping

those who had moderate reputation in both respect, by his eminence in either, and those who

stood highest in one or the other, by his powers in both…”541 Moreover, it was common to

eulogize an individual in this way and this was in keeping with the genre of a funeral oration. As

well, this portion cannot be construed to argue against negative evaluations of Athanasius

because no one seriously proffered the idea that he lacked intelligence.

As well as Oration 21 being in line with the expectations of the genre of a funeral oration,

Arnold points out that Gregory utilizes a literary technique called paraleipsis and he describes it

as when the speaker “recounts some facts or events while declaring his intention to pass over

them in silence.”542 Gregory exemplifies this when he wrote: “Come then I pray, you who have

been his admirers and witnesses, divide among yourselves his excellences, contend bravely with

one another, men and women alike, young men and maidens, old men and children, priests and

people…let one praise him in fastings and prayers as if he had been disembodied and

immaterial…another his patronage of the needy, another his dauntlessness towards the powerful,

or his condescension to the lowly.”543 Rosemary Reuther wrote of this phenomenon in

less than satisfactory for a number of reasons. First, it does not seem to take into account the literary genre to
which Oration 21 belongs. The listing of Athanasius’ virtues by Gregory in section 9, which Rusch refers to above,
continues in section 10 with reference to the Pauline “model for future bishops.” These listings, however, need
not be seen as an answer to contrary opinions but merely as a rhetorical device.”
541
Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 21, section 4. Contained in J. Mossay, Gregroire de Nazianze, Discours 20-23,
Paris, 1980, 110-193.
542
Justin Mossay, Gregroire de Nazianze, Discours 20-23 (Paris: Les Editions Du Cerf, 1980), 92-95. As used by
Duane Arnold.
543
Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 21, section 9.

202
Gregory’s orations: “Thus in the passage following the one quoted above, Gregory declares that

he must pass over most of Athanasius’ virtues in silence, since they could fill myriad discourses

(having, of course, already enumerated all these virtues in considerable detail), and confine his

account only to the most important points.”544 Thus, it becomes clear that Gregory was not

employing the funeral oration to offer argument against critics who did not agree with the

orthodox tradition but, rather, was simply following the style that he felt was the most

appropriate to sufficiently eulogize Athanasius. In other words, it is unlikely that Gregory had

an ulterior motive in this oration. This judgment is enhanced by the fact that Gregory eulogized

others in the same manner upon their deaths. Thus, one would have to subscribe to the idea that

everyone that Gregory gave exorbitant praise to in a funeral oration had somehow struggled with

a detrimental reputation, which, of course, seems preposterous.

In addition to the genre of the funeral oration providing evidence against the hypotheses of

Rusch and Young, there is also the possibility that it may have a had a very different specific

purpose. Justin Mossay supposes that Gregory meant the oration to be an encouragement for

people in his own time to be redoubtable in the face of similar circumstances in the same way

Athanasius had been.545 In this vein, Gregory wrote: “What wonder that he, who had already

made actual ventures on behalf of the truth, should confess it in writing? Yet this point I will add

to what has been said, as it seems to me especially wonderful and cannot with impunity be

passed over in a time so fertile in disagreements as this. For his action, if we take note of him,

will afford instruction even to the men of this day.”546 Moreover, Mossay wrote the introduction

to the critical text of Oration 21 and he envisions Gregory’s overarching purposes in writing to

544
Reuther, Gregory of Nazianzus: Rhetor and Philosopher, 77. As quoted by Duane Arnold.
545
Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, 92.
546
Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 21, section 35.

203
be revealing Athanasius as a model bishop, providing information on Athanasius and his

relationship with monastic communities and presenting Athanasius as a champion and defender

of the trinitarian idea.547 Each of these purposes is different from the ideas set forth by Rusch

and Young. Thus, Gregory may have desired to utilize the funeral oration as an encouragement

to his followers and colleagues to be strong in the face of persecution.

One of the key areas that Gregory addresses in Oration 21concerns Athanasius’ ordination as

bishop in 328. He presents this rendition of events which states that Athanasius was:

“…deemed worthy of the holy office and rank, and after passing through the entire series of

orders he was entrusted with the chief rule over people…by the vote of the whole people, not in

the evil fashion which has since prevailed, nor by means of bloodshed and oppression but in an

apostolic and spiritual manner, he is led up to the throne of Saint Mark…”548 Thus, it is

noteworthy that just a brief time after his death that ecclesiastical authorities were declaring that

Athanasius had been elected as bishop in a legal manner. As well, since Athanasius was

deceased he was obviously not there to influence the words spoken about him and, also, the need

to be dishonest about his election would have been diminished. Therefore, rather than provide a

greater reason to doubt Athanasius’ rightful election as bishop, the funeral oration preferably

tends to strengthen the idea that it was conducted by the correct means.

Another interesting consideration about Oration 21 is that Gregory makes statements about

Arius. He writes in section thirteen: “The beginning of this madness was Arius (whose name is

derived from frenzy), who paid the penalty of his unbridled tongue by his death in a profane

spot, brought about by prayer not by disease, when he like Judas Iscariot burst asunder for his

547
Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, 92.
548
Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 21, section 8.

204
similar treachery to the Word.”549 Moreover, it is of keen interest that Gregory would provide

information that corroborates the orthodox claim of Arius’ mode of death. As well, it is worth

noting that Gregory was alive when Arius died and that he would have doubtless spoken to

witnesses of that event. In addition, Gregory authenticates other historical points and provides

another source for the rendition of the history of the fourth century that has been believed for

centuries.

Evaluation of Oration 21

In reconsideration, there are two persuasions on the true purpose of Oration 21. Rusch and

Young proffer the consideration that Gregory intends to utilize it as a device to defend

Athanasius’ character and actions. They also believe it is, therefore, useful in accepting the

validity of nonorthodox claims concerning Athanasius. However, in Mossay’s stated purposes

there is no mention of it being a defensive piece and Reuther writes of the adulatory statements

as merely being rhetorical devices. As well, it is important to consider that Gregory himself

states that the oration was meant to lionize Athanasius. Arnold presents a cogent statement for

the alternate viewpoint: “The contention of Rusch, and by inference Young, is essentially an

argument based upon silence. We have no certain way in which we can ascertain the true and

absolute intention of Gregory in Oration 21. Upon considered reflection, however, the purposes

outlined by Mossay and the rhetorical style elucidated by Reuther appear to be somewhat more

persuasive indicators of Gregory’s intention in the writing of the panegyric.”550 In this, one

needs to agree with Arnold. In summation, upon investigation, it is clear that Gregory’s funeral

oration for Athanasius provides no conclusive evidence that the allegations of violence and

549
Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 21, section 13.
550
Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, 94.

205
misconduct should be treated as reliable. Rather, it seems more plausible that Gregory truly did

admire Athanasius and intended to feature his overwhelmingly positive traits in Oration 21. As

well, it seems apparent that Gregory also intended to use the funeral oration as an encouragement

for those in his own time who faced battles similar to those Athanasius had experienced.

Perhaps most importantly for the purposes of this paper, Oration 21 certainly provides no basis

for overturning the traditional portrait of Athanasius as a bishop of exemplary character and

incredible fortitude.

NEW INFORMATION EVALUATED

There are several documents that twentieth century critics harnessed, and modern critics are

using today, to mutate the traditionally laudatory view of Athanasius. However, when

scrutinized closely none of them are conclusive enough to sanction such an alteration. To begin

with, Philostorgius is biased against those of the Nicene faith, and many Arians as well, and his

history is fraught with errors. In addition, Philostorgius presents very little new information that

Arian opponents were not already espousing in the fourth century. Thus, his Church History

should not be employed to modify the traditional portrait of Athanasius. Secondly, LP 1914

appears to be the strongest of the three and most likely to offer new information that would alter

the outlook on Athanasius. However, when examined more closely one can understand that LP

1914 never conclusively mentions the name of Athanasius and that critical portions of the letter

are mutilated beyond legibility. Also, in order to surmise that Athanasius is the subject of the

letter one must make assumptions that are not warranted. Therefore, LP 1914 does not proffer

conclusive evidence to alter the positive evaluations of Athanasius that have existed through the

centuries. The third document, Gregory’s funeral oration of 380, is perhaps the weakest of the

206
three. Moreover, there is no sufficient reason, in spite of the writings of recent critics, to believe

that Gregory meant his Oration 21 to be anything but praise for a man of exemplary character.

Throughout most of church history Athanasius has been held in high esteem and the documents

that are generally accepted as valid help to both create and enhance this view. Therefore, if a

document would warrant altering this sentiment then the meaning should be without question.

All three of the new documents the critics utilize to revise the traditional opinion of Athanasius

are not reliable. Thus, the traditional portrait of Athanasius as a good man, stalwart warrior for

truth and hero of the church should not be changed.

207
 CHAPTER VII: POSITIVE VIEWS OF ATHANASIUS

HISTORICAL VIEW

Now that Athanasius’ life, theological work and the allegations both in the fourth and

twentieth centuries have been investigated, this chapter will focus on those who had a positive

outlook on Athanasius in the Reformed and Catholic Churches with an emphasis on the major

ideas concerning him in the seventeenth through the twenty-first centuries. Throughout most of

church history people have had an overwhelmingly positive view of Athanasius. This began

with the orthodox church shortly following the death of Athanasius in 373 and continued until

the turn of the twentieth century. Of course, this is not to intimate that there were not detractors

throughout church history, but simply to state that the vast majority of both theologians and lay

people viewed Athanasius as a church leader who greatly benefited Christianity by providing

direction in a time when it was sorely needed. In his own epoch, Athanasius enjoyed tremendous

support in the western portion of the Roman Empire in addition to the majority of Egypt. This

favorable view was stalwartly continued on into the fifth century by historians and theologians

such as Socrates and Theodoret. There was little modification in the evaluation for the next

thousand or so years and the next period to be considered here is the perspective about

Athanasius by the Reformed Theologians of the sixteenth century.

SPECIFIC GROUPS

The Use of Athanasius Among Reformed Theologians

When considering the impact that Athanasius had on Reformed Theologians it is revealed that

those writing in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries had access to his works and

208
utilized them. The three that made the most significant use of Athanasius were Polanus, Abraham

Scultetus and Reiner Bachoff. Goudriaan writes: “Athanasius was an authority who could be

counted on to provide support on various issues in the theological discussions of the Reformed

period.”551 Of course, the most significant of the Reformed writers was Calvin but it is uncertain

whether Calvin ever read Athanasius and it is similarly unlikely that he was influenced by him.

Rather than the early Reformers, it was the later Reformed writers that made use of Athanasius.552

However, it should also be noted that there are a proportionately lower number of citations from

Athanasius when compared to other Patristic writers and it becomes clear that he was not a

significant author in their writings.553

The most significant finding in reviewing the Reformed authors is how they viewed Athanasius

in regards to the use of violence. “For Polanus-as for Bachoff-Athanasius was also a relevant

authority to cite in order to denounce the use of force and outward coercion in religious matters.”554

Thus, it becomes clear that the Reformed Theologians viewed Athanasius as a historic figure who

had not engaged in violence. As well, these theologians believed the Arians did participate in

violence and that because of this they were ‘not pious.’555 Therefore, it can be surmised from the

writings of the Reformed Theologians that they tended to discount the Arians for their perceived

use of violence, and thus the following idea of not being pious, while at the same time they

accepted the writings of Athanasius because they believed he had not engaged in violence. Thus,

551
Aza Goudriaan, “Athanasius in Reformed Protestantism: Some Aspects of Reception History (1527-1607),”
Church History and Religious Culture 90, no. 2-3 (2010): 275.
552
Ibid., 261.
553
Ibid., 274.
554
Ibid., 273.
555
Ibid., 274.

209
it is clear that Protestants in the early seventeenth century had a positive opinion of Athanasius

both for his theological ideas and his character.

Athanasius in the Roman Catholic System

In general, Roman Catholic theologians and historians have a high view of Athanasius. This

is true both throughout their history and in the more recent times of the nineteenth and twentieth

centuries. Moreover, the vast majority of the Roman Catholic Church perceives Athanasius as

one of the most important of the early Church Fathers. In addition, many recognize him as the

father of orthodoxy in light of the decisive role that he played in the Arian conflict.556 Therefore,

throughout the history of the Roman Catholic Church Athanasius was held in high regard.

However, an interesting phenomenon is that although he was highly esteemed he was rarely

mentioned in Catholic literature when in comparison to other prominent theologians of the early

centuries such as Augustine.

In the early 1800s a Catholic theologian, Johann Mohler, desired to alter this and bring

Athanasius into a more prominent position. Mohler sought to indicate that Athanasius was the

central figure of his era, rather than the Cappadocian Fathers, and that his works were truly

significant. As well, he sought to point out the deeply personal nature of the Arian conflict for

Athanasius and how that he was willing to suffer so greatly for the Nicene idea.557 On the topic

of the character of Athanasius, Mohler wrote: “…all those who had the occasion to know

Athanasius well loved him, and those to whom he was pastor had a touching attachment to him.

556
Arwin van Wilgenburg, “The Redemption of Athanasius within Contemporary Roman Catholic Theology,” Church
History and Religious Culture 90, no. 2-3 (2010): 312.
557
Ibid., 313.

210
He knew how to recognize the worth of others, and he highly proclaimed that worth.”558 As

well, it is particularly interesting that Mohler would exemplify this positive attitude as late as

1849 because he is a German historian and the Germans were so prevalent in casting Athanasius

in a negative light some fifty years later.

However, for all the positive evaluations of Athanasius given by Mohler, perhaps the best

example of the Roman Catholic attitude about him in the nineteenth century was illustrated by

John Henry Cardinal Newman. Newman heaps glowing praise on Athanasius in much of his

writing. He refers to Athanasius as the champion of truth when considering his contributions to

orthodox belief.559 As well, Newman had such a high opinion of Athanasius that he intimated in

the preface to Select Treatises of St. Athanasius in Controversy with the Arians that his personal

religious pilgrimage was so heavily influenced by Athanasius that he declared it began and ended

with him.560 Thus, it can be seen that the leading Roman Catholic historians held Athanasius in

high regard in the nineteenth century. More will be shared about Newman’s important opinions

later.

Roman Catholic theologians and historians also had a sustained favorable opinion of

Athanasius in the twentieth century. An important Catholic theologian of the twentieth century

was Walter Kasper and Wilgenburg wrote of his ideas about Athanasius: “He honors Athanasius

not only for being the protagonist of the Christological dogmas, but also for being-together with

Ambrose and Hilary-the protagonist of the freedom of the Church against the emperor…”561

Hans Kung was another influential Catholic theologian of the twentieth century and he continued

558
J. A. Mohler, Athanase le Grand et l’eglise de son temps en lute avec l’arianisme (trans. By Zickwolff and Jean
Cohen) (Paris, 1849), 108.
559
J. H. Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua: Being a History of His Religious Opinions (London: 1890), 26.
560
Ibid., 15.
561
Wilgenburg, “The Redemption of Athanasius within Contemporary Roman Catholic Theology,” 327.

211
in the tradition of having an affirmative outlook on Athanasius. However, it is also interesting

that Kung sought to downplay the role that Athanasius had at the Council of Nicaea as he wanted

to prove that Constantine utilized this council to create an imperial Church.562 Kung and Kasper

are representative of the predominantly supportive attitudes about Athanasius by Roman

Catholics in the twentieth century.

This positive Roman Catholic view of Athanasius has continued on into the twenty-first

century. On June 20, 2007 Athanasius was the main topic of a talk presented by Pope

Benedictus XVI: “Athanasius was undoubtedly one of the most important and revered early

Church Fathers. But this great Saint was above all the impassioned theologian of the Incarnation

of the Logos…”563 Thus, from their beginnings until currently Roman Catholics have overall

had an approving stance in regards to Athanasius.

ATHANASIUS THROUGH THE CENTURIES

Eighteenth Century

Now that the general opinions of Reformed and Catholic theologians have been reviewed, it is

pertinent to investigate the overall views on Athanasius in later centuries. The eighteenth

century, similar to previous centuries, had prominent theologians who generally viewed

Athanasius positively. This is important to note because in this century the liberal perspective of

Christianity was beginning to become a force. An early church historian from this epoch that

had a supportive outlook on Athanasius was Johann Lorenz von Mosheim. He did his major

562
Ibid.
563
Ibid., 322.

212
work in the early portion of the century as his death is recorded as 1755. Mosheim is widely

regarded as the father of historiography in the Christian Church and so his views have

significance.564 One critical element to understand about his theology is that the Trinity was of

primary importance for salvation to be possible. Mosheim had a generally favorable impression

of Athanasius and supported the importance he placed on battling the Arian controversy.

Moreover, Mosheim did not believe that the words such as homoousios must be accepted but he

did regard them as useful in explaining the orthodox position. As well as being in agreement

with much of orthodox doctrine he also had some criticism for the Nicene leaders of the fourth

century. For example, he believed that they were too ardent in their view of Son and Father

being one and that this tended to instigate the Arian bloc into their heresy.565 In addition,

Mosheim disdains the orthodox when Bishop Alexander declared that the Son was God the

Father’s reason. Thus, Mosheim believed that Bishop Alexander presented the impression that

he thought the Son was identical to the Father rather than simply of the same substance.

Mosheim proclaimed that this type of speculation is also one of the elements that helped to

propel the Arians into conflict.566 Despite these misgivings about the orthodox of the early

fourth century he had a generally commendatory attitude towards Athanasius’ theology,

although, interestingly, little is shared about the allegations of wrongdoing he faced during his

life. Moreover, since Mosheim is silent on the charges against Athanasius it is probable that he

was in agreement with the historical view that the claims were falsified.

564
Eginhard Meijering, “The Judgment on Athanasius in the Historiography of Christian Dogma,” Church
History and Religious Culture 90, no. 2-3 (2010): 278.
565
Ibid., 279.
566
Ibid.

213
 Throughout the eighteenth century other theologians had generally positive evaluations of the

life and work of Athanasius. One of these leaders was Edward Gibbon (1737-1794), who was an

Englishman and an important Christian historian from the epoch. He wrote one of the most

famous quotations concerning his view of Athanasius as he penned: “Amidst the storms of

persecution, the Archbishop of Alexandria was patient of labour, jealous of fame, careless of

safety; and although his mind was tainted by the contagion of fanaticism, Athanasius displayed a

superiority of character and abilities, which would have qualified him, far better than the

degenerate sons of Constantine, for the government of a great monarchy.”567 Gibbon making

this type of judgment is especially noteworthy because he is known to be generally hostile

towards conservative Christianity.568 As well, it is particularly interesting that Gibbon would

give this type of positive review of Athanasius’ character as he was not supportive of the

particular issues for which Athanasius struggled.569 Thus, it is ascertained that prominent

theologians throughout the eighteenth century had a generally favorable outlook on Athanasius

even if they did not particularly agree with the cause for which he was fighting.

Nineteenth Century

In addition to the superlative Roman Catholic views of Athanasius, many other historical

writers in the nineteenth century tended to follow the lead of the previous century and had

generally approbatory evaluations of Athanasius. One of those important church historians was

an Englishman named John Mason Neale who did his foremost writing mid-century. Neale is

567
Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol III, cap. 21 (ed. J. B. Bury), (London: 1897), 362.
568
Timothy D. Barnes, “The Career of Athanasius,” Studia Patristica 21, no. 1 (1989): 390.
569
R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1988), 239.

214
notable because he undertook to do a minute study of many patriarchates from the east. In his

research on Athanasius he had almost everything available that a modern historian would have

with the notable exception of Bell’s London Papyri. For his major work on the topic, A History

of the Holy Eastern Church: The Patriarchate of Alexandria, he had the major Coptic and

Syrian histories as well as the fourth and fifth century histories that are expected. In all of his

research Neale found no basis for the critiques and accusations that were prevalent in the fourth

century and have begun to surface in the last century.570 That such a knowledgeable individual

from this epoch would believe that the charges against Athanasius are baseless is significant.

Another important English historian and theologian, but from the late nineteenth century,

was Herman Melville Gwatkin. Gwatkin was an Ecclesiastical history professor and wrote two

works on the Arian controversy, Studies of Arianism in 1882 and The Arian Controversy in 1889,

just before the turn of the century. He intimated his view of Athanasius’ character by writing:

“Athanasius…was philosopher, statesman, and saint in one. Few great men have been so free

from littleness or weakness.”571 Of course, this reveals his overarching affirmative view of

Athanasius. One aspect of the life of the great bishop of Alexandria that he particularly

commented on was the accusations of persecution. On this front Gwatkin wrote of Athanasius:

“As for the charge of persecution, we must in fairness set aside the Meletians who speak through

Epiphanius the explicit denial of the Egyptian bishops. And if we take into account his own

pleas for toleration and the comprehensive charity of his de Synodis and of the council of

Alexandria, we must pronounce the charge unproved.”572 Thus, Gwatkin writing from the

570
Duane Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria (London: University of Notre Dame Press,
1991), 16.
571
H. M. Gwatkin, The Arian Controversey (New York: Anson D. F. Randolph and Company, 1889), 49.
572
Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, 17.

215
information that he had in the late nineteenth century finds the important charges of persecution

to be groundless. In his writing Gwatkin makes the point that although Athanasius did have

some who accused him of persecution and unkindness, the vast majority of his contemporaries

admired him.

A contemporary of Gwatkin who was perhaps less well known but nonetheless important was

Archibald Robertson. He was both a bishop and master of a college and so he was able to

present a noteworthy viewpoint. One aspect that he focused on was the idea that Athanasius was

able to separate friends from enemies based on the primary principles for which they stood. As

well, he commented on the fact that Athanasius was unwilling to mention friends by name when

he was writing to expose some error in doctrine into which they had fallen. Thus, Robertson also

points out how Athanasius was a gracious man to those who were truly seeking the truth. He

wrote in a prolegomena to an edition of Athanasius’ writings: “The Arian controversy was to

[Athanasius] no battle for ecclesiastical power, nor for theological triumph. It was a religious

crisis involving the reality of revelation and redemption.”573 Thus, Robertson presents salient

points in writing that Athanasius was not power hungry and was truly seeking that the real kernel

of Christianity would not be forfeited. Thus, it seems to be the opinion of Robertson that if

Athanasius ever did err in conduct, and this has never been satisfactorily proven, it was for the

reason of protecting the true doctrine of Christianity.

An additional prime theologian and church historian of the same time period as Gwatkin

and Robertson was Adolf von Harnack. In his work, History of Dogma, he revealed a similar

attitude towards Athanasius as he wrote: “If we measure him by the standard of his time, we can

573
Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, 18.

216
discover nothing ignoble or weak about him.”574 As well, Harnack is known to have believed

that Athanasius remained consistent throughout his writings and this is important because it

reveals that he was basing his theology on Scripture rather than on the theological developments

of the time period.575 Thus, it appears that Harnack displayed an approval of Athanasius in both

his personal life and his theological perspectives. It is also of keen interest in the case of

Harnack because he was known to be a liberal Christian historiographer and yet he still

perpetuated the favorable views of Athanasius. Harnack expressed different opinions than those

of Athanasius as he tended to find more importance in the Father than the Son, and he believed

that Jesus also perpetuated this idea. Meijering comments on the interesting fact that Harnack

viewed Athanasius favorably in penning: “However, the picture he draws of Athanasius is

surprisingly positive. In his introduction to the situation of the Church in the fourth century he

presents Athanasius as the reformer of origenistic Christianity, which was strongly influenced by

Greek philosophy. He compares him to Luther.”576 It is also of interest that Meijering notes that

the possible reason for Harnack comparing Athanasius to Luther was to appease his father who

was perplexed at some of Harnack’s liberal views about the resurrection of Jesus and the

trinitarian doctrine. Meijering traverses on to intimate that the kindred spirit that drew Harnack

to Athanasius, even though they had differing theological sentiments, was that they both were

primarily concerned with the redemption of men through Christ.577 Harnack is not only

favorable towards Athanasius but he is critical of his primary opponents, the Arians. Harnack

declared that the Arians tended to embrace moralism which espoused the view that Jesus was

574
Adolf von Harnack, History of Dogma III, (ET: 1897), 62.
575
Robert Case II, “Will the Real Athanasius Please Stand Up?,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 19, no. 4 (1976),
295.
576
Meijering, “The Judgment on Athanasius in the Historiography of Christian Dogma,” 283.
577
Ibid., 284.

217
beneficial only as a good moral example. As well, he proclaimed against Arianism in their

cosmological viewpoint of understanding Christ as a type of medial being between the creator

God and man, instead of being the incarnation of God. As well, Harnack agreed with Athanasius

by stating that the Arians would have morphed Christianity into something that was far from the

original and that would have destroyed the basis of the Christian faith.578

One of the most important historians of the nineteenth century, and, as mentioned previously,

one that had more knowledge about Athanasius than anyone else from the period was John

Henry Cardinal Newman. Newman is noted for his commendatory opinion of Athanasius and

that he had a tremendous impact on his personal life.579 Newman wrote in glowing terms about

the bishop of Alexandria as he penned such phrases about him as “the great theologian” and “the

champion of truth.”580 Newman also placed laudatory praise on Athanasius for his writing

abilities and he believed that he was theologically sound because of his penchant for utilizing

Scripture. In addition, Newman was persuaded that Athanasius should be praised as the

universal Christian in that when he was exiled he was adept enough to create a Christian home

and relationships wherever he traveled, from Treves to Ethiopia. A verse from Newman in the

Lyra Apostolica poses a synopsis of how he felt about Athanasius: “When shall our northern

Church her champion see, raised by divine decree, to shield the ancient Truth at his own

harm?...like him who stayed the arm, of tyrannous power, and learning’s sophist-tone, keen-

vision Seer alone. The many crouched before and idol-priest, Lord of the world’s rank feast. In

the dark night, mid the saints trial sore, He stood, then bowed before, the Holy Mysteries,-he

578
Ibid., 285.
579
Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, 15.
580
Ibid.

218
their meetest sign, weak vessel, yet divine!”581 Thus, the amount of respect and admiration

Newman had for Athanasius can be deduced when one considers that he would traverse to the

point of composing poetry about him. Newman is a representation of the ideas that many in the

nineteenth century had concerning Athanasius.

As well, Mohler, as discussed earlier as representing the Catholic view, is descriptive of the

persuasion most in the nineteenth century had concerning the allegations brought against

Athanasius in the proceedings at the Council of Tyre as he stated that he was the victim of false

accusations.582 Therefore, throughout much of nineteenth century the views of important

historians remained positive about Athanasius. After these appraisals prevailed during the epoch

it is difficult to envision the onslaught on Athanasius’ character that would take place in the

subsequent century.

Early Twentieth Century

However, although the tide of liberal opinion was beginning to turn against Athanasius at the

dawn of the twentieth century there were still several noteworthy historians who maintained a

positive verdict on Athanasius. Thusly, just after the turn of the twentieth century two men

wrote biographies of Athanasius that were both laudatory and influential. The first to be

published was Athanasius the Hero by Lynn Harold Hough. As the title signifies, Hough wrote

from an adulatory standpoint about the famous bishop of Alexandria. Hough believed that

581
John Henry Newman, Lyra Apostolica (14th edition) (London: 1867), 121. The Lyra Apostolica was a collection
of religious poems compiled by John Henry Newman, Richard Hurrell Froude and John Keble.
582
Duane Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, 15. Mohler is joined in having a positive
view of Athanasius in this epoch by John Henry Cardinal Newman. It is believed that Newman had more
knowledge about Athanasius that anyone during the early nineteenth century and it is noteworthy that he held a
positive attitude towards Athanasius.

219
Athanasius lived such a quintessential life that he was able to serve as an example to others who

lived in subsequent centuries.583 It is also of interest that one of the characteristics that Hough

finds most prominent in the life of Athanasius is that of earnestness.584 Hough intimates that a

person of sincere and intense conviction will always be more valued than one who uses trickery

to achieve his goals and Athanasius exemplifies that sincerity. Hough goes on to say that this

earnestness was the cradle of all other aspects of his life. The idea of sincerity of belief is one

that is rarely viewed as important in political arenas but this earnest belief is the element that

drove Athanasius to stand for truth in the theological sense and to gain footholds politically.

Hough further traverses on to point out that simplicity was a salient characteristic in Athanasius’

life. Of course, it is recorded that Athanasius lived an ascetic life at several junctures but Hough

believed his simplicity went beyond that. Hough wrote: “Down under the activity, and the hurry

of events, there was a quiet calm, and a clear-eyed single-mindedness which are the very essence

of simplicity.”585 In addition, Hough discusses one of his most prominent and important

characteristics being that Athanasius was a man of God.586 This inner life of devotion to God

and relationship with God is the component that provided the passion for Athanasius’ firm

stances in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. Thus, at the turn of twentieth century

583
Lynn Harold Hough, Athanasius the Hero (New York: The Abingdon Press, 1906), 157.
584
Ibid., 159.
585
Ibid., 160. Hough went on to write that he believed Athanasius was a great example of earnestness and
trueness. He wrote: “Do we understand that without this foundation any structure we build, however
pretentious, must ultimately fall? It is like breathing fresh life-giving air to get into the atmosphere of lives like
those of Athanasius. In the midst of daring and brilliant falseness he found his way safely because he chose to live
the life of a true man full of earnest seeking after the best. His loyalty to that decision helped to carve the gigantic
stature of his manhood.”
586
Ibid., 161. Hough also declared in glowing terms that Athanasius had a great religious message when his life
was observed. As well, Hough emphasized that Athanasius knew the wonder of a secret communion with God that
few people were able to experience.

220
Hough was able to take the available evidence and present a portrait of Athanasius as an

admirable Christian who was a hero and worthy to emulate.

A second church historian of the early twentieth that wrote about Athanasius in glowing terms

was R. Wheeler Bush. Bush was a Reverend as well as a church historian and so he had a

greater penchant to be focused on the spiritual aspects of a man. Relatedly, Bush believed that

the noteworthy characteristics of Athanasius were his piety and holiness.587 Furthermore, he

surmised that these traits were the guiding element for Athanasius in his interactions with others.

Bush wrote of his natural temperament by stating that he was inherently sensitive but also

focused on the goal that he felt God had set before him.588 Bush also comments on his

propensity to be tender with others: “…we can trace in him that deep tenderness of disposition

which rendered him so faithful and loving a friend, so ready to cast the aegis of his protection

over others, so desirous to secure peace and unity-a trait in his character which, in response,

caused him to be loved with so true a loyalty and such unalterable affection by those placed

under him…”589 Of course, this is exemplified in how both the lay people and the ascetics felt

about him. As mentioned before, the laity of Alexandria dearly loved Athanasius and were

willing to protect him. Moreover, Bush feels that one of the most salient features of Athanasius’

character was his ability to remain stalwart against a powerful Arian faction and the emperor in

587
R. Wheeler Bush, St. Athanasius: His Life and Times (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,
1912), 215. Bush went on to write about his piety and holiness: “This characteristic is conspicuous alike in all his
writings and in all his controversies, as well as in all the actions of his life. They were all conducted as a sincere
Christian would be likely to conduct them. He felt deeply and overpoweringly that he was Christ’s servant; and all
that he did bore the impress of his sincere convictions on this point.”
588
Ibid.
589
Ibid., 216. Bush also declared that he was loved by his clergy, his monks and his laity. Moreover, Bush seems to
believe that this ability to be loved by those whom he had authority over reveals that Athanasius was truly a kind
and considerate man.

221
his battle for truth.590 Athanasius was tenacious in combatting for the truth as he saw it and no

one, either in the fourth century or subsequently, would desire to have him as an opponent. Bush

wrote his biography of Athanasius in the early part of the twentieth century and it was influential

in continuing a complimentary understanding of him among conservative Christians.

After the turn of the century was when the viewpoints on Athanasius began to see substantial

revision. Thus, it is of interest for this study to discover if there were still church historians and

theologians after the early twentieth century, with Hough and Bush probably being the last

substantial authors to write without the novel information, who were willing to speak of

Athanasius with admiration after the new findings present in LP 1914 came to light and the

critical view of Athanasius became more prevalent. One of those that did was C. S. Lewis as he

maintained a favorable outlook on the life and work of Athanasius and did much of his writing in

the middle of the twentieth century. He is exemplary of the many conservative Christians in the

twentieth century who held Athanasius in high regard. He wrote: “Athanasius did the same. He

stood for the Trinitarian doctrine, “whole and undefiled,” when it looked as if all the civilized

world was slipping back from Christianity into the religion of Arius…it is his glory that he did

not move with the times; it is his reward that he now remains when those times, as all times do,

have moved away.”591 A salient feature of Lewis’ writing is that he opined that Athanasius

should be remembered for standing against the prevailing current, when it did not align with

God’s standards, and this is a characteristic that Christians in all times should strive to achieve.

590
Ibid. Bush declares of him in this regard: “Again, in all the later struggles in which he was engaged, he stood
almost alone and isolated in his conflict with the Arian party, and scarcely obtained any support from those who
occupied the highest places either in Church or State. The Arians had gained the ear of emperors; had acquired a
potent voice in all the councils of the Church; and numbered in their ranks many of those who were the most
distinguished men of the day, either by reason of the offices which they held, or from the talents and learning they
possessed. He here stood out with all boldness against any concession to the great or the powerful when the
cause of truth was at stake.”
591
John Behr, On the Incarnation (Yonkers, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011), 14.

222
Therefore, even though the tide of much of scholarship was turning against Athanasius as the

twentieth century progressed there were still those who maintained a positive evaluation of him.

Recent Times

It is also necessary to investigate more recent authors who maintained a view of admiration

regarding Athanasius. Although many began to follow the example of the German theological

sentiments, one of them that did not follow this wholeheartedly was David Gwynn. Gwynn, who

is an important critic of Athanasius in recent times, tends to be more balanced in his approach.

Thus, Gwynn demonstrates his desire to understand Athanasius as a real person who may have

had good intentions but might also be misguided in his ideas. One area that Gwynn is critical

towards Athanasius is in his views of Arianism and this will be discussed in more detail in the

next chapter. It is sufficient to mention now that despite the criticism about how Athanasius

viewed Arianism, Gwynn has an overall respectful persuasion about Athanasius. Widdicombe

writes of Gwynn’s favorable impression of Athanasius: “In contrast to the portrait of Athanasius

found in modern scholarship, the figure that emerges here is one of greatness, a figure who,

however much he was engaged in theological polemic and political maneuverings, was a man

whose sincerity in acting for the well-being of the faithful and whose ultimate effectiveness

cannot be gainsaid.”592 Thus, Gwynn finds the characteristic of sincerity to be important in

understanding Athanasius just as those who wrote before LP 1914 came to light. More will be

presented about Gwynn in a subsequent chapter.

592
Peter Widdicombe, “Review of Athanasius of Alexandria,” The Journal of Theological Studies 63, no. 2 (2012):
719.

223
 Another recent author that viewed Athanasius favorably was Mario Baghos. Baghos states

that he intends to represent the Eastern Orthodox traditional viewpoint on Athanasius. He

reiterates the point that Athanasius had the love and support of those who were under his pastoral

care.593 Baghos also concludes that the negative evaluations of Athanasius are a desire to

reiterate the allegations of his enemies brought in the 330s. Baghos makes the point that these

charges were soundly refuted in the fourth century. He writes of this topic: “Since the early

twentieth century however, St. Athanasius’ legacy has come under criticism by historians

manifesting a bias against the Alexandrian milieu, and Christian theology, in general.

Highlighting the magnitude of the opposition directed against him in his immediate context,

often evaluated on political rather than theological grounds, contemporary depictions of the saint

as both senselessly and stubbornly ‘opposed to the world’ have become commonplace, with

Timothy D. Barnes’ assertion reflecting this mentality…in fact, what we see with these

historians is an attempt to rehabilitate the enemies of Athanasius.”594

As well, Baghos believes that much of the reason that Athanasius’ legacy has come under

scrutiny is because of the critics having a bias against orthodox theology in general.595 At this

point, Baghos is able to traverse to the crux of the problem and declares it to be a general turning

away from orthodox beliefs that appears to pervade the majority of scholars who are presenting a

negative evaluation of Athanasius. In this way, it seems that it is a return to the conflict of the

320s and 330s as people would attack the character of someone based on their theological

beliefs. In a 2013 article he wrote: “This only elucidates why the Alexandrine was not

593
Baghos, “Apology for Athanasius: The Traditional Portrait of the Saint According to Rufinus and the
Byzantine Historians,” 56.
594
Ibid., 62.
595
Ibid., 61.

224
interested in the nuances inhering within Arianism and its branches, but it stands against

contemporary criticisms of his character, which, in dissociating him from his theological stance,

has permitted many contemporary historians to resurrect the accusations put forth by both

Philostorgius and ‘the Eusebians’ before him.”596 Thus, Baghos demonstrates his awareness that

recent criticisms of Athanasius are merely attempts to revitalize allegations brought in the 330s

and, perhaps even more importantly, he believes that these charges are being rehashed because,

at base, many modern critics do not agree with his theological ideas. Relatedly, Baghos presents

the idea that Athanasius combined all of his opponents into one group because his chief aim was

not to battle the individual heretical ideas but rather to defend the theology that he deemed to be

the only truth that can be attained by a clear examination and understanding of Scripture.

A further interesting idea related by Baghos is his understanding that the current bias against

Athanasius is based on a modern disdain for the allegorical approach that was prevalent in

Alexandria. The opposing view to this was the literal approach followed in Antioch. Thus,

Baghos surmises that the modern German critical approach had its roots in the literal Antiochene

suppositions and this is the reason for the recent devaluing of both the character and theology of

Athanasius.597 Baghos also has strong ideas, and words, against those who misinterpret the

phrase mundus contra Athanasium, or Athanasius against the world. Many modern scholars

color the phrase with the meaning that Athanasius was arrogant and opposed everyone.

However, Baghos penned these words in response: “I would argue that this approach,

manifested especially by scholars who are unable to appreciate the significance of a genuine

Christian theology-both generally and within St. Athanasius’ immediate epoch ( i.e. the faith of

596
Ibid., 63.
597
Ibid., 61.

225
Nicaea)-constitutes a re-emergence of a Philostorgian/Eusebian paradigm, albeit in a secular

guise…namely, the fierce opposition that he met because of his adherence to the Nicene

faith.”598 In summation, Baghos believes that current assaults against Athanasius are a desire to

rehabilitate the accusations of the 330s, that modern scholars generally have a bias against

Athanasius because of his theological opinions and that current critics have a disdain for his use

of the allegorical approach. In short, Baghos surmises that Athanasius is scrutinized today for

many of the same theological reasons that precipitated the siege in the fourth century.

John Behr is also a modern theologian who has a commendatory attitude towards Athanasius.

He has written several books on the topic of Athanasius in the twenty-first century which include

Formation of Christian Theology: The Nicene Faith in 2004 and Formation of Christian

Theology: The Way of Nicaea in 2001. Thus, Behr was familiar with the life of Athanasius and

the allegations against him and he composed this judgment: “He certainly displayed courage and

tenacity of purpose. In addition, he was also capable of being extremely congenial when

needed…the standards of his time may have tolerated more violence in the exercise of this

purpose that we might do, yet there is no indication of vindictiveness, but rather a desire to make

peace, so that by the time of his death he had become reconciled with most of his earlier

enemies.”599 It is interesting that Behr mentions the potential violence that occurred even when

proffering a positive judgment and this is perhaps a key to understanding Athanasius in that

people from recent times must remember to adjudicate based on the standards of the early fourth

century rather than the norms of today. As well, Behr has a beneficial analysis when he declares

that there seems to be no vindictiveness or desiring to harm theological opponents unduly.

598
Ibid., 64.
599
Behr, On the Incarnation, 18-19.

226
Instead, it appears that Athanasius most wanted peace to prevail, even with those to whom he

had been opposed. At this juncture, it is prudent to reiterate the point of how Athanasius viewed

his opponents differently. Those who possessed a destructive theology, such as the followers of

Arius, would not be admitted back into fellowship until they had clearly altered their heretical

beliefs. However, those who offered false accusations or political opposition, such as Arsenius

or the Meletians, were treated differently in that Athanasius would reconcile with them based on

their apology. Thus, Athanasius reveals that his chief concern was protecting theological truth.

Also, he demonstrates that he desired peace with those that had orthodox beliefs but became

political enemies.

SPECIFIC AUTHORS

Khaled Anatolios

Another recent scholar that wrote extensively about Athanasius is Khaled Anatolios. He

attempts to present a fair interpretation about Athanasius that is neither too harsh nor laudatory.

One topic that Anatolios surmises about is the idea of Athanasius being intransigent.600 People

of the twenty-first century tend to be less willing to hold stoutly to any certain position and have

a greater propensity to be open to altering their judgments. Anatolios points out that this tends to

color a modern critics judgment of someone living in the fourth century. In the time of

Athanasius, his intransigence would be viewed as a positive characteristic while a modern critic

would tend to view this as a negative. Anatolios writes: “It is striking, for example, that a

typical modern complaint about Athanasius lays special stress on his intransigence, his

600
Khaled Anatolios, Athanasius (London: Routledge, 2004), 34.

227
undeniable aura of being sure of himself and his position. But this complaint has its own

culturally bound history, having at least as much to do with the Western post-Kantian

construction of a virtue of epistemological humility as it does with Athanasius himself. For his

closer contemporaries, this “intransigence” was interpreted as a courageous steadfastness and an

inspired perception of what was radically at stake.”601

Related to his intransigence is the bombastic style in which Athanasius confronted his

opponents in his writing and Anatolios also approaches this issue. He intimates that this type of

rhetoric was common, and almost expected, in the fourth century. As well, a later example of

this bombastic style is Martin Luther in the sixteenth century and how he was known for

rancorous attacks on his opponents. Again, Anatolios decries the idea of using modern standards

of conduct to negatively evaluate a figure from the fourth century.602 An individual should be

judged based on the standards of their times rather than having modern critics superimpose their

values on him from the past.

Anatolios also delves into another agreeable construct of Athanasius’ personality. It is his

penchant for reading his particular situation into the world of Scripture.603 It is this idea that

seemed to procure in Athanasius a deep desire to conform to the moral code of Christ and other

momentous figures in the Bible. Therefore, Athanasius was able to have his behavior improved

because he sought to conform to these high standards. Anatolios writes of this aspect: “When he

is forced to give an explanation of his own actions, as in the Defense of His Flight, Athanasius’

consistent standard is the biblically recounted actions of Jesus Christ and “the saints”…”604 It

601
Ibid.
602
Ibid., 35.
603
Ibid., 37.
604
Ibid.

228
stands to reason that because Athanasius had these high standards set up for himself to follow

that it is unlikely that he would engage in violence, illicit affairs and murder, all of which his

opponents accused him. Additionally, this attitude towards biblical characters was able to help

Athanasius in times of suffering. He looked, and urged his congregation also, at the trials of

biblical characters like Job and Joseph.605 These men were able to suffer patiently and were

rewarded for it in the conclusion of the matter. Thus, Athanasius was able to traverse through

many dark days because he had located that inner strength in biblical characters and applied it to

his own life.

Moreover, Anatolios is a modern scholar who has done much research on Athanasius and is

able to envision both the positives and negatives in the man with a striking objectivity. He states

that Athanasius views himself as persecuted by enemies who are betrayers of Christ, a man

struggling to defend the Nicene faith, and encouraging himself and his congregation by

attempting to imitate Christ.606 Anatolios presents this summation of his views on Athanasius:

“What is of enduring significance for the Christian tradition, however, is not ultimately so much

the personality of Athanasius-which cannot be wholly reconstructed with any objective certainty-

as his central conviction that genuine Christianity stands or falls by the confession of the full

divinity of the Word. It is as a theologian who gave consistent and tireless expression to this

claim of faith, and not as a paragon of meekness, mildness, and politesse in debate (conceived

according to modern standards!), that Athanasius continues to be a towering figure among the

pioneering architects of the Christian tradition.”607 It is noteworthy that Anatolios, who had

completed much research and writing on Athanasius, declares that his personality cannot be

605
Ibid., 38.
606
Ibid.
607
Ibid., 39.

229
satisfactorily reconstructed after all these centuries. This is critical to remember when evaluating

Athanasius as the best possibility a modern researcher has is still a guess. However, most

importantly, a modern researcher can look at the accomplishments of Athanasius theologically

and know his value to historic Christianity with certainty.

Duane W. H. Arnold

Although Duane Arnold’s views have been presented by inference in other sections, he is an

important defender of Athanasius in recent years and it is beneficial for the overall understanding

of Athanasian scholarship today to make his views more explicit. Although Barnes, of course,

disagrees with Arnold’s conclusions he values his work as he stated: “…despite his persistent

determination to believe the best of Athanasius whatever the evidence may indicate, Arnold’s

honest discussion will encourage readers…to reconsider many issues, and may persuade them to

change their minds on some questions.”608

Arnold tends to understand the scholarship on Athanasius to be divided mainly into two

groups. The first group is the majority of the scholars that were prevalent before the early

twentieth century and a small number of historians from current times, in addition to several

scattered throughout the twentieth century. However, interestingly, Arnold notes that most of the

modern supporters of Athanasius have been, or are, a part of traditions that view Athanasius with

respect and reverence.609 The second group encompasses the great majority of scholars since the

dawn of the twentieth century. However, Arnold also declares that in recent years a third group

608
Timothy Barnes, “Review of The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexnadria,” The Catholic Historical
Review 78, no. 1 (January 1992): 101.
609
Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, 175.

230
has emerged. This group includes historians such as Leslie W. Barnard and Frances Young and

has traversed on more of a centrist path in which they are able to appreciate Athanasius for his

positive characteristics while admitting his faults as a bishop and historian.610 However, in spite

of recognizing this middle ground, Arnold tends to focus only on those who view Athanasius as

an admirable bishop and those who focus on his negative points. Thus, Arnold’s primary topics

tend to study the validity for the reasoning between the two alternative perspectives.

Arnold is willing to admit that members of the first group, who admire Athanasius, are able to

understand him as a proficient theologian who suffered greatly for the truth, but who also may

have had character flaws. These weaknesses might have included such aspects as not doing

enough to reconcile with the Meletians, sharing many of the aggressive qualities that were so

common in his epoch and his adherents possibly becoming involved in disputes that resulted in

violence.611 However, Arnold is always quick to also declare that these supposed problems were

based on conjecture more than on valid factual studies. Arnold composed this comment on this

topic: “I would argue, however, that much of the evidence provided by Athanasius himself has

often been discounted, and great weight has been given to material from sources which upon

thoughtful investigation do not always present the clear picture of misconduct on the part of

Athanasius in the early years of his episcopate that is often claimed.”612

An interesting perspective that Arnold demonstrates is that both sides, those modern scholars

who praise and those critics who malign, adorn him with too much credit for controlling the

events of the late 320s and early 330s. Moreover, Arnold intimates that it was a complex time

period with an intricate sequence of events. As well, the epoch had a variety of labyrinthian

610
Ibid., 20-21.
611
Ibid., 176.
612
Ibid.

231
personalities and influences. For instance, the entire idea that the church had newly become a

legal entity, and that the emperor now had both an interest in and influence on the church, was

something that had not been experienced before. Additionally, place the Meletians, Arians,

Colluthians, Orthodox and various individual personalities into the melee and one can

understand that it is difficult to determine the influence that any one individual had with a degree

of certainty. Arnold writes: “One too partisan, and the other too critical, both views share a

fundamental failing in crediting Athanasius during the early years of his episcopate with more

efficiency and power, more influence and ambition (for good or for ill), than he actually

possessed. Both views also attribute to the bishop less local pastoral concern than he obviously

exercised in maintaining his support with Egypt as clearly demonstrated in so many of his extant

writings.”613 Therefore, although Arnold is generally favorable towards Athanasius and his

theological views, he presents a varying perspective by declaring that both sides present him

with too much credit for the events in his early episcopacy. Moreover, Arnold appears to incline

towards the notion that Athanasius was an individual who had admirable motivations but was

also partially swept about by the prevailing tides of the epoch. Thus, Arnold prefers to

understand Athanasius not so much as a beacon to be looked upon in a troubled sea but rather as

a ship that was attempting to traverse in the correct direction but which was being swept about

by the waves.

As well, Arnold presents the idea that modern scholars have a penchant for imposing their

contemporary perspectives and standards of conduct onto the fourth century world. Arnold

writes: “Furthermore, the application of modern standards of conduct upon fourth century

613
Ibid., 177.

232
personalities is sometimes less than helpful in an enquiry of this sort.”614 This is a major theme

throughout his writing on the subject of Athanasius as Arnold believes, similar to Anatolios, that

the fourth century had different norms for behavior that were acceptable and that modern critics

should not impose standards of their epoch onto men from the fourth century. Arnold intimates

that this is especially true of violence and verbal assaults. However, Arnold is not completely

excusing physical violence but rather he presents the case that, in the fourth century, when a

group that has received physically violent episodes from another group then it is within the

realms of societal norms to respond in kind. Moreover, Arnold believes that much of the

violence that the orthodox are accused of perpetrating may have actually been instigated by

others and that the adherents of Athanasius were merely responding. Arnold also addresses

verbal assaults presented through writing by declaring that they are completely within the realm

of expected behavior in the fourth century and that characters from that epoch should not be

judged with modern ideas on the topic. Thus, although Arnold does not exonerate Athanasius on

all allegations of physical violence and verbal assaults he does intimate that leniency should be

extended because those living in this epoch have no information on how the violence began.

Another charge against the character of Athanasius that modern critics present is that

Athanasius was concerned only with self-promotion and that because of this he allowed the true

concerns of the Alexandrian Church, and the church at large, to lapse. However, this seems to be

far from the truth as Athanasius dedicated himself to the preservation of, at least as he viewed it,

the true church and the church doctrines. Arnold wrote on this subject: “This view, however,

ignores the serious manner with which Athanasius approached his responsibilities as he

perceived them. Very few can question the support which Athanasius enjoyed within the

614
Ibid., 176.

233
Egyptian church almost from the outset, or the large number of Meletian clergy who supported

him even against their former coreligionists. In synodal gatherings and in the presence of the

emperor, Athanasius time and time again frustrated the attempts of his enemies to remove him by

means of demonstrable evidence which proved the falsity of their accusations.”615 Thus, Arnold

presents the idea that the reason that Athanasius defended himself with such stalwartness was

because he truly believed that by doing this he was benefiting the church at Alexandria.

Arnold also addresses the charge of Athanasius having a gangster or mafia mentality in his

see. He attacks this on two fronts. First of all, Arnold perceives that throughout his life he

maintained his innocence with great confidence and this is not the actions of an individual who

had knowledge that they were in fact guilty. Arnold intimates: “…the consistency with which

he proclaimed his innocence and marshaled documents and witnesses to support his claims does

suggest some degree of confidence on his part which goes beyond mere bravado or a

gangsterlike mentality.”616 Thus, Arnold perceives that the manner in which Athanasius

defended himself throughout his life both reveals that he understood that he was battling for a

construct of extreme importance and that, in the aggregate, he believed in his own innocence. Of

course, these are not the actions of a gangster or mafia boss. Secondly, Athanasius is willing to

suffer for the beliefs he deems to be true. Athanasius was forced to leave his church and home

five times in his life, when he could have assented to the demands of the emperor, and these are

not the actions of someone who is driven by maintaining a mafia operation.

Additionally, Arnold attacks the ideas of the critics from a somewhat unique perspective.

Arnold declares that Athanasius had knowledge of the fact that Eustathius, as mentioned early,

615
Ibid.
616
Ibid.

234
and several other orthodox bishops had been removed on falsified charges of misconduct. Thus,

Athanasius would have known that his every movement was being closely scrutinized in order to

attempt to discover some legitimate reason to convict him. Therefore, a shrewd man like

Athanasius, as the critics readily admit that he was, would be careful to not engage in any actions

that could later be brought against him. Arnold writes on this: “He also knew, having seen the

deposition of Eustathius and having witnessed the other activities of Eusebius of Nicomedia,

how ruthless his enemies could be in achieving their ends. It seems reasonable to argue,

therefore, that he would not have lightly taken a position or undertaken an extremely provocative

action which could have been used later to remove him; it is arguable from the investigations

undertaken in this study that he never did so.”617 With this Arnold makes a valid point that

deserves consideration. As well, the idea that Athanasius would have most likely been careful to

be unshakeable only on ideas that he felt were critical is a new avenue in contemplating the

stands that he did engage in.

Arnold also has strong sentiments on the major sources of evidence that have been utilized by

recent critics. First of all, Arnold has the perception that the writings of Philostorgius are biased

in the extreme and should be discounted. In addition to his being biased, he contends that

Philostorgius is not reliable because he was inaccurate in his historical facts and, therefore, he

could not be trusted to securely relay the facts about Athanasius. Arnold penned this summation

concerning Philostorgius: “When compared with other contemporary sources, the account of the

consecration and election of Athanasius given by Philostorgius is undoubtedly defective both in

the details which are offered and its general reporting of events and personalities. It seems very

probable that Philostorgius only repeated a random assortment of fraudulent Arian and Meletian

617
Ibid., 177.

235
calumnies against Athanasius which have been compressed into a single narrative that has little

basis in fact.”618

Arnold also expresses the opinion that LP 1914 is not a trustworthy document for many of the

reasons mentioned in an earlier chapter. However, Arnold presents another cogent idea about the

document that is overlooked by most. He points to inconsistencies within the document itself

that create a difficulty in believing wholeheartedly in the veracity of it. One of these is the

location of the monastery that is mentioned. Arnold poses this question: “What sort of Egyptian

monastic community in AD 334 is placed by the eastern gate of the old city wall, well to the west

of the hippodrome, effectively within the city itself?”619 Relatedly, Arnold questions whether

Bell translated the word he utilized for ‘hostel,’ as in the context perhaps that word could be

more properly translated as ‘monastery.’ Arnold perceives an even more glaring problem with

LP 1914 when the logistics of the proposed events on the night in question are considered.

Arnold claims that it is unlikely that soldiers in a drunken state could have covered all of the

territory and perpetrated all of the events in a period of only three hours. He writes: “This

mystery is compounded when one considers the geography described as being near to the ‘Gate

of the Sun’ (LP 1914, 11. 15-16), the eastern gate of the old Roman wall of Alexandria, but the

reader is asked to believe that the attackers, already in a drunken state (LP 1914, 1.9), covered

10-14 kilometers, from the Nicopolis to the wall and back again, in about three hours. During

this time they are also alleged to have committed at least two beatings and to have carried away

five prisoners. Although such a scenario is not impossible, it does strain credulity.”620 Thus,

Arnold presents valid points about the document that need to be considered. As well, in the

618
Ibid., 61.
619
Ibid., 181.
620
Ibid., 181.

236
aggregate it is obvious that Arnold has spent considerable time weighing the factors that should

be mused upon concerning Athanasius and his perspectives are worthy of exploration.

POSITIVE VIEWS THROUGH TIME

The evaluations of those that viewed Athanasius with admiration began in his own lifetime

and continued for many centuries. In retrospect, it can be said that the majority of historians and

scholars viewed Athanasius positively until the dawn of the twentieth century. However, this all

began to be altered with the negative evaluations of the German critical school. As well, this

evolution in views was accompanied by the finding of new information. However, in spite of the

changing tides there were many who maintained a positive outlook on Athanasius into current

times. Moreover, one feature that appears to have changed with modern scholars is that even

those who are considered to be admirers of Athanasius often are able to consider his possible

flaws whereas in times past most viewed only his positives. Thus, the scholarship on Athanasius

remains positive from a variety of modern scholars while they also display a penchant for

considering his negative aspects. In addition, as can be ascertained by studying the allegations

presented at the Council of Tyre and the information that has appeared since then, as previous

chapters have done and demonstrated the information to be either biased or baseless, those

scholars that maintain a favorable perspective on Athanasius are much closer to understanding

the truth about him.

237
 CHAPTER VIII: NEGATIVE PERSPECTIVES

CRITICAL VIEWS ON ATHANASIUS

It is accurate to declare that the negative viewpoints on Athanasius began in his own lifetime

as he was brought to trial and exiled several times. However, these critical evaluations that

occurred in his own epoch were politically motivated in the aggregate. As well, there were those

who continued to harbor a less than stellar perspective of Athanasius into the next century as is

exemplified by Philostorgius. Nevertheless, in spite of these critics, the overall evaluation of

Athanasius was laudatory throughout most of church history. It was not until the dawn of the

twentieth century that the negative perspectives began in earnest to influence the opinion of

Athanasius in critical scholarship. The germination of the idea of criticizing admired church

figures began with the Tubingen School and was brought to the forefront by men such as Seeck

and Schwartz. These adversarial perspectives were continued throughout the twentieth century

by various scholars and are best represented by Gwynn, Hanson, Rusch, Young and Barnes.

Each of these will be evaluated in turn with a special emphasis on Barnes as probably the most

influential of the modern critics.

BACKGROUND

Tubingen School

The beginnings of the revision of Athanasian studies can be traced back over two hundred

years. It seems apparent that the Tubingen School of theological thinking has had an appreciable

influence on persuasions since the beginning of the twentieth century. However, the Tubingen

School of thought actually began in the form of German idealism in the late eighteenth century.

238
Moreover, German idealism was a dominate force in German cultural life from about 1770 to

1840 and it was later that it also had such a tumultuous impact in the reconstruction of

ecclesiastical figures.621 Harris states that the emergence and influence of the Tubingen School

was the single most crucial event in the history of theology since the Reformation.622

Furthermore, Harris declares that little is known of the School and the impact it had on future

generations and, therefore, many are not aware of the tremendous revolutions it fostered.

It is critical to contemplate the nature of this movement since it has been so influential on

historical studies. Dietrich and Himes state: “German idealism itself can be characterized as a

search for a new religious orientation as well as a reaction to the rationalism and natural theology

of the Enlightenment.”623 Thus, German idealism began to leave an impression on the landscape

of everything in German life and this included religious studies. Moreover, the Tubingen School

developed out of this German Idealism. The leader of the School was Ferdinand Christian Baur

and after his death in 1860 it slowly became an entity of the past.624 However, the School had an

impact long after the official end of the movement.

One area that members of the School focused on was speculative theology and, thus, many

constructs that had been believed before became open to question.625 Dietrich and Himes write

of an early leader in the School named Johann Sebastian Drey: “His ecclesiology emphasizing

tradition would not be complete without his unique viewpoint on reason and revelation as

historically developed in the ever deepening human consciousness.” Thus, leaders in the

621
Donald J. Dietrich and Michael J. Himes, The Legacy of the Tubingen School (New York: The Crossroads
Publishing Company, 1997), 11.
622
Horton Harris, The Tubingen School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975), v.
623
Dietrich and Himes, The Legacy of the Tubingen School, 11.
624
Harris, The Tubingen School, vi.
625
Dietrich and Himes, The Legacy of the Tubingen School, 12.

239
Tubingen School believed that theology should be evolving with time. Therefore, not only did

those who were intellectually influenced by the School, many probably unknowingly, believe

that theology was developing but also that the thoughts about historical church figures should be

mutating.

It is helpful at this point to explore the comments and ideas that Baur offered about

Athanasius. To begin with it is beneficial to understand that Baur was influential in the middle

nineteenth century as Meijering declares that he was the most impactful historian of Christian

thought from the epoch.626 Baur, following in the line of thinking of Hegel, believed that

Christian thought should always be evolving and, thus, he did not agree with the Protestant idea

that truth was fully revealed in the beginning and that true Christianity must follow the teachings

revealed through Christ and the New Testament.627 Meijering states of Baur’s ideas: “There

must be a meaningful connection between the beginning and the end, there must be a logic in the

process of the Divine Life. One of the means by which Baur manages to show this is that he

detects ‘seeds’ of Hegelian theology in early Christian writers. These writers themselves were,

of course, unaware of this, but the Divine Idea or Mind started to express itself in them.”628

Therefore, it is clear that Baur did not agree with Athanasius about the ultimate source of truth in

the aggregate. However, he did think that Athanasius had some of the ‘seeds’ of the progressing

626
Eginhard Meijering, “The Judgment on Athanasius in the Historiography of Christian Dogma,” Church
History and Religious Culture 90, no. 2-3 (2010): 280.
627
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) was a philosopher of German descent and an important figure in
the propagation of German idealism. He was widely renowned in his day and has continued to be a popular
philosophical figure into current times. He is widely known for absolute idealism in which dualisms are overcome,
such as in subject and object. He is such an influential figure that many credit his philosophy with being the
generator of a number of other philosophies such as German existentialism, psychoanalysis, Marxism and the
ideas of Nietzsche. Hegel also attended the Tubingen School from 1788 to 1793 and, thus, became another
extension of the influence of this institution. In regards to Jesus the Son, Hegel did believe in his divinity and that
He literally died and that God came back to life so that the only death actually died.
628
Meijering, “The Judgment on Athanasius in the Historiography of Christian Dogma,” 281.

240
theology in his writing. One of those seeds that Baur proposed is how Athanasius viewed God’s

nature and God’s will in that Athanasius did not want to separate them. A second seed that Baur

presented concerned Athanasius argued that the incarnation was eternally prefigured in God.

However, Baur understood this in the Hegelian way so that in the Son the Finite and the Infinite

come together. Overall, Baur viewed some signs of significance in Athanasius because he

thought that he was proficient at speculative theology. However, it should additionally be noted

that Baur also perceived there were seeds of the evolving theological truth in Arianism.

Subsequent to this brief study of the teaching of some of the leading scholars in the Tubingen

School, one can begin to understand why many in the twentieth century felt the need to speculate

on historical figures and they innately believed that historical recollections of them were

mutable. In fact, many traversed to the point of seeking this change in perspective even when

the evidence did not logically lead to that revision. Therefore, it is understood that Athanasian

studies were impacted to the point that many ecclesiastical historians were in a quest for an

alteration in perspectives.

Otto Seeck

Now that there is an understanding of the Tubingen School and the impact it had on

Athanasian studies, it is important to review some of the historians and ideas that were also

influential. One of the first critics that attacked the character, at least in regards to his writings,

of Athanasius was Otto Seeck. In 1896, he alleged that Athanasius had forged documents in

relation to the Council of Nicaea.629 The charges of forgery were in relation to documents that

629
Otto Seeck, “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des nicaanischen Konzils,” ZKG 17 (1896): 1-71.

241
were attributed to Constantine. However, if one could reasonably conjure doubt about

Athanasius’ veracity with these documents then the results would be two-fold. The first would

be that any or all of the documents in his other writings would also be subject to suspicion.

Secondly, if Athanasius was the type of individual that would forge documents then his entire

character is called into question and it creates an atmosphere in which it is much more likely to

believe the charges that were brought against him by the Eusebians and the Meletians. However,

in subsequent years the charges of forgery were soundly refuted by such scholars as S. Rogala

and N. H. Baynes.630 Arnold intimates why Seeck should be disregarded in this aspect: “It now

seems generally recognized that many of Seeck’s charges arose out of his own basic, and often

antagonistic, attitude toward what he perceived as the political expediency of the church.”631

Another allegation presented by Seeck was that Athanasius was not only guilty of forgery in

some documents but that the summation of his writing was biased. Seeck believed that

Athanasius was inclined to skew situations in his favor when he recollected them in his

writing.632 Of course, it is true that Athanasius naturally spoke from his own perspective.

However, this does not necessarily signify that he was deliberately untruthful nor does it

ineluctably mean that his rendition cannot be trusted. In any case, for many of the events in

question Athanasius is one of the few primary, and in several instances the only, sources

available. Thus, Seeck was one of the first ones to seriously question the character of Athanasius

630
Duane Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria (London: University of Notre Dame Press,
1991), 11. Specifically, Rogala wrote concerning this aspect in Die Anfange des arianischen Streits, Forschungen
zur christlichen Literatur und Dogmengeschichte, vol. 7, 1, Paderborn, 1907 and Baynes in “Athanasiana,” JEA 2
(1925): 61-65.
631
Ibid. Before he made the charges against Athanasius, Seeck had been involved with the research end on the
Dossier of Opatus with consideration of the Council of Arles, dated in 314. In this study he found a variety of
forged documents which he attributed to Constantine. Thus, he already had a proclivity to view many documents
as forged.
632
Seeck, “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des nicaanischen Konzils,” 1.

242
at the turn of the twentieth century, but it appears that his judgments were clouded by his own

prejudices. However, even though his work was later proven to be flawed, he was a catalyst for

many subsequent historians to voraciously question the previous interpretations of Athanasius.

Eduard Schwartz and Followers

Seeck was one of the first scholars to lead in the modern antagonistic approach to Athanasius.

Although his charges of forgery have been proven false, his critical attitude towards Athanasius

was continued by several scholars. One of the most important of these was Eduard Schwartz who

had a long and influential academic career. David Gwynn writes of his impact: “…the critical

reaction to the prevailing hagiography of Athanasius emerged at the beginning of the twentieth

century through the work of the great German historians Eduard Schwartz and Otto Seeck.”633

Between 1904 and 1911, Schwartz published several journal articles that seemed to hail the

beginning of a new era in Athanasian studies.634 However, Schwartz had an inherent dislike for

Athanasius and he did not even endeavor to conceal it as he described him as an obstinate

fanatic.635 In fact, he referred to the whole of Athanasius’ work as mere propaganda.636 As well,

Schwartz assessed the behavior of Athanasius by stating that his actions were not those of a

theologian but rather those of a power broker.637 Baynes, who was successful at combatting

Seeck’s proposal that Athanasius was guilty of forgery, declared the jaundiced outlook that

633
David M. Gwynn, The Eusebians: The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the Arian
Controversy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 2.
634
Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, 12.
635
Eduard Schwartz, “Zur KIrchengeschichte des vierten Jahrhunderts,” ZNW 34 (1935): 142-43.
636
Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, 12.
637
R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1988), 240. Hanson
also intimates that Schwartz referred to Athanasius as an obstinate fanatic. Hanson also states that Klein
referenced Athanasius as creating trouble wherever he ventured on the return from his first exile and that he
quickly continued in his dishonest tactics when he returned from the second exile.

243
Schwartz possessed about Athanasius: “To Schwartz Athanasius was always and in all

circumstances the unbending hierarch; ambition, a ruthless will, and a passion for power are his

constant characteristics.”638 Each of these charges against Athanasius will be considered. First

of all, Schwartz alleges that Athanasius is not amenable to making concessions. This is true in

regards to theological issues. However, Athanasius reveals a predisposition to bend when he

suffers men such as Arsenius, who accused him of a false murder, and John Archaph, who

wanted his position as bishop of Alexandria, to be received back into the Alexandrian Church

and to even have positions as bishops. Secondly, Schwartz accuses Athanasius of being

propelled by ambition. As well, this proves to be incongruent with the facts when it is

remembered that Athanasius attempted to avoid being bishop of Alexandria in the beginning. In

addition, the mode in which he embraced the ascetic lifestyle at various times in his life is

generally contrary to an individual being ambitious. Thirdly, Schwartz presented the idea that

Athanasius possessed a ruthless will. Quite to the contrary, Athanasius was known to be kind to

those opponents and friends that had lapsed as exemplified in his treatment of Hosius after he

subscribed to an Arian Creed. Finally, Schwartz proposed that Athanasius had a passion for

power but again this is not in accordance with the facts as someone who solely desired to have

dominion would have conceded to the desires of the emperor rather than expend years away

from his see in a powerless position.

It is also noteworthy that although Barnes agreed with much of Schwartz’s ideas, he was also

critical of him as he wrote: “…Schwartz pronounced rather than argued: his verdicts are too

often both peremptory and arbitrary, and his scholarship is not always impeccable. Schwartz

made no real effort to understand Athanasius either as a man or as a writer. Instead, he

638
N. H. Baynes, Byzantine Studies and Other Essays (London: Haskell House Publishers, 1955), 367.

244
denounced him as a power-hungry politician concerned with nothing more noble than his own

status, and dismissed him as an unscrupulous pamphleteer with no regard for the truth, as ‘a

politician through and through who could not narrate the facts, only polemicise,’ and ‘a prince of

the church who as a good politician knew the power of propaganda.’”639 It is especially

noteworthy that Barnes, a leading critic to be discussed later, held this unappreciative opinion of

Schwartz’s scholarship.

Therefore, it appears that the criticisms that Schwartz launched against Athanasius are not

concordant with a realistic appraisal of his life. Thus, one of the leading scholars that initiated

much of the modern interest in Athanasius was decidedly biased so that all of his findings are

suspect. As well, he led the scholars and critics of his time, and subsequent periods, into an open

hostility towards Athanasius.

Schwartz was also impactful on one of his students, Hans-Georg Opitz. Opitz carried on his

mentor’s critical evaluation of Athanasius as a man who was disposed to do anything to obtain

and secure supremacy. Opitz embarked to create a critical edition of the words of Athanasius in

the 1930s but, upon his death in 1941, it was left incomplete.640 In turn, Opitz was succeeded by

W. Schneemelcher who continued with the disdainful appraisals of Athanasius’ character.

Arnold writes of this trend: “The assumptions of Schwartz, Opitz, and Schneemelcher

concerning the ruthlessness of Athanasius’ character and his willingness to misrepresent persons

and events have largely echoed those of Seeck and have continued to exert a strong influence on

current Athanasian studies. This is despite the fact that the so-called forgeries of Seeck have

long since been recognized as genuine and that Schwartz himself has since been proved to have

639
Timothy Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), 2-3.
640
Ibid., 3.

245
been in error on ‘several important points’”641 Schneemelcher lived until 2003 so that the

influence of Seeck and Schwartz have transferred almost to the immediate time. These scholars

represent the prevailing view of the German critical school and their harsh judgments on

Athanasius.

RECENT AUTHORS

David M. Gwynn

David Gwynn, as alluded to in the previous chapter, is a critic of Athanasius that incorporates

a balanced opinion. One argument that Gwynn offers that is contrary to Athanasius concerns the

existence of Arianism. One of the points that Gwynn makes, in which he criticizes him, is that

he believes that the Arianism that Athanasius is allegedly combatting in the 330s and 340s did

not even exist until the 350s.642 This is an interesting idea but seems to be incongruent with the

facts of the time. Although it is true that Constantius, the emperor who was in complete

dominance in the late 350s, fully supported the Arian position and persecuted those of the Nicene

faith, the Arian position also existed in the previous decades. However, it is a valid construct

that Arianism may not have been as organized in the 330s and 340s as it was in the 350s.

Nevertheless, Gwynn perceives that although much of ‘Arianism’ was created by Athanasius, he

also believes that Athanasius did not intentionally misrepresent the topic, but rather, that it was a

logical outcropping from his theological assumptions.

641
Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, 13.
642
Mario Baghos, “Apology for Athanasius: The Traditional Portrait of the Saint According to Rufinus and the
Byzantine Historians,” Phronema 28, no.2 (2013): 62.

246
 Another central factor that Gwynn discussed is the idea that Athanasius did not assay to

refute, at the trial itself and presumably in his writings, the charges that he instigated violence

against the Meletians or the legality of his election as bishop. Moreover, Gwynn perceives that

there is a reason why Athanasius disputes the allegation of the murder of Arsenius and the

breaking of the chalice and not the other grievances. He writes: “These were charges that

Athanasius believed he could refute. There were other charges that he does not mention,

including the dispute over the legality of his election and accusations of violence against the

Meletians.”643 At this point, Gwynn invokes LP 1914 into his argument and this has already

been revealed to be too frail to be utilized as proof. In addition, there may be a variety of reasons

that Athanasius chose to refute those two allegations and one of them is that they were specific

and could be proven false or verified, while the other charges were more general in nature. Thus,

if Athanasius could prove the two most heinous allegations of violence to be fabrications then it

would be supposable that the other charges would likewise wilt under scrutiny.

Gwynn also states his belief that Athanasius has not been honest in his presentation of the

events of the early fourth century. He declares: “Athanasius has distorted our knowledge of the

fourth-century Christian controversies, of the men he condemns, and of himself.”644 Thus, in

643
David M. Gwynn, Athanasius of Alexandria (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 28. Thus, Gwynn believes
that Athanasius would only mention the allegations that he could refute and those that were probably truthful he
chose not to mention. Gwynn also seems to garner support for Athanasius being dishonest from his calling his
opponents Meletians or Arians as he remarked: “Should we accept Athanasius’ protestations of innocence and his
presentation of his accusers as ‘Arians’? This question has increasingly troubled modern scholars, although
Christian tradition from the late fourth century onwards strongly embraced the Athanasian line. There are certain
factors that might encourage doubts. Athanasius describes his foes as an ‘Arian party’, the ‘Eusebians’, throughout
the narrative of the Apologia contra Arianos, which he wrote after his first exile. In the documents that he quotes
within that work from before 335, and in his own Festal Letters from those years, the sole accusers identified are
the Meletians. The first attack upon a ‘Eusebian Conspiracy’ occurs in the letters written by Athanasius and his
followers at the Council of Tyre itself. This may indicate that at Tyre Athanasius finally recognized the true source
of his sufferings. Or it may indicate that Athanasius began to represent his opponents as ‘Arians’ only when he
realized his condemnation was imminent, and then reinterpreted his earlier career accordingly.”
644
David M. Gwynn, The Eusebians: The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the ‘Arian
Controversy’ Oxford Theological Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 10.

247
Gwynn’s understanding Athanasius is a prime source of misinformation about the era. However,

it appears, in this instance, that Gwynn’s evaluations are calculated on information that has been

proffered by his opponents. Therefore, although Gwynn presents a balanced review of

Athanasius his arguments that disfavor him are not convincing as they are predicated on

information that has been proven to be unreliable.

R. P. C. Hanson

Another leading critic of the late twentieth century was R.P.C. Hanson. He is acknowledged

for an epic work, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, that is chiefly about the period

of Athanasius’ life and events that dominated the ecclesiastical and political landscape. Hanson

intimates his judgment that Athanasius was unscrupulous in his interactions with his opponents.

Hanson penned a criticism of Athanasius in which he encouraged the idea that he was the central

cause for the trouble in the early fourth century: “The Greek-speaking eastern and the Latin-

speaking western areas of the Christian Church were now heading for a major rift…The cause of

this was not primarily the doctrine of Arius. Theoretically at this point the Arian Controversy

had been settled…The chief causes were the intrigue of Eusebius of Constantinople, the

opportunism of Julius of Rome, and the misconduct of Athanasius of Alexandria, and among the

three causes we must judge the last to be the most serious.”645 It is acutely interesting that

Hanson would state that the Arian doctrine was not the primary cause of the rift but rather the

conduct of Athanasius. However, this perspective is not coherent with the facts because Arius’

doctrine was the primary reason that Constantine called the Council of Nicaea and this was long

645
R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1988), 272-273.

248
before Athanasius was a bishop or had been accused of wrongdoing. As well, there is also the

evidence of the various allegations, and banishments, of other orthodox bishops. Thus, if

Athanasius’ misconduct was the greatest reason for the problems the church experienced in the

early fourth century, then it does not explain why there were false charges against a variety of

other orthodox bishops. When Hanson declares these hypotheses, he is simply not considering

the body of evidence that that can be constellated from the epoch and it is very shortsighted and

simplistic to state that Athanasius was the primary cause of the difficulties.

Furthermore, Hanson contemplates that Athanasius was not truly concerned about theological

issues but was rather more interested in controlling his rivals. He writes on this theme: “It

seems clear also that Athanasius’ first efforts at gangsterism in his diocese had nothing to do

with difference of opinion about the subject of the Arian Controversy, but were directed against

the Meletians…Once he was in the saddle, he determined to suppress them with a strong hand,

and was not at all scrupulous about the methods he used."646 However, this is not accurate as

Athanasius was tremendously concerned about preserving truth and suffered gallantly for it.

When one reviews the life of Athanasius it becomes obvious that, while he was not perfect, being

dogmatic about the truth, at least as he believed it to be, was of tectonic importance to him.

Another related allegation against the character of Athanasius that Hanson made is that the

trial at Tyre in 335 was not related to doctrine but only the unethical acts of Athanasius. He

wrote on this topic: “He had been justly convicted of disgraceful behavior in his see. His

conviction had nothing to do with doctrinal issues. No church could be expected to tolerate

646
Ibid., 254.

249
behavior like this on the part of one of its bishops.”647 However, if it were true that the trial at

Tyre was not about doctrinal issues then why, as mentioned previously, were several other

Nicene bishops removed from office for cognate reasons and why did almost all of the bishops in

the east declare him guilty while almost all of the those in the west pronounced he was innocent.

As well, if Athanasius was guilty of violence then why create the obviously erroneous charges of

murder and sexual immorality. When Hanson promulgates that the trial at Tyre was not

politically motivated it simply does not coincide with the facts.

As mentioned before, one of Hanson’s primary sources for his ideas on Athanasius is LP

1914. Hanson declared that Bell’s finding was of primary importance: “H. I. Bell has published

the papyrus which throws such a lurid light on the behavior of Athanasius in his see; though this

was published nearly sixty years ago the significance of it has not yet sunk in everywhere. It is

astonishing to read the article in TRE on the subject of ‘Athanasius’ by Martin Tetz written as

recently as 1977 and find no mention of this document, so important for our estimation of

Athanasius’ character.”648 However, LP 1914 was previously debunked as a reasonable source

of information and, thus, Hanson’s claims are invalid. In addition to LP 1914, Hanson also

relied upon Philostorgius’ history in his evaluations of Athanasius. He intimates his belief that

Philostorgius’ testimony is worth considering.649 However, Philostorgius has also been proven

to be an unreliable source of information. It is obvious that Hanson has robust jaundiced

647
Ibid., 255. Hanson also wrote: “It is not surprising that the Meletians, harried unmercifully by Athanasius and
unable at first to obtain help from the Emperor, turned to the only help available to them, that of the Eusebians.
They thereby gave Athanasius an opportunity of clouding the issue by ascribing all protest against his outrageous
conduct to bias towards Ariansim, an opportunity of which he strove earnestly to take advantage.” It must be
remembered that Hanson creates this scenario from only three documents in the entire epoch that state that
Athanasius, or his followers, may have been violent. As well, if the Meletians were innocent sufferers then why
were they the main conspirators in the plot of falsely accusing Athanasius of murdering Arsenius.
648
Ibid., xx.
649
Ibid., 241.

250
opinions against Athanasius, however, his summations are based on faulty sources and on his

strident desire to ignore certain facts.

Frances Young

Frances Young is another modern critic who advances a dim perspective on the character of

Athanasius. Writing in 2010 he declares that he accepts the validity of Philostorgius’ history, LP

1914 and the funeral oration of Gregory of Nazianzen in presenting a persuasion of Athanasius

as relatively cruel towards opponents and disposed to utilize violence to achieve his goals.650

Young proffers this retrospective view of Athanasius: “He may well have been a highly

politicized figure, could be tyrannical, and certainly if he was not personally responsible for

violence, acts of cruelty were committed in his name. Yet this troublemaker was to become a

saint within a generation.”651 As well, Young intimates his belief that the trial at Tyre was about

Athanasius’ misconduct rather than doctrinal issues as he writes: “…and it was evidence

supplied by the Meletians which made Athanasius vulnerable to attack at the Council of Tyre.

That he did not scruple to use force in his dealings with this group can hardly be doubted, and his

deposition at Tyre was, not on doctrinal considerations, but upon his misconduct in Egypt.”652

However, Young falters in his analysis for the same reason that Hanson does in that he utilizes

sources-Philostorgius, LP 1914 and the funeral oration-in his opinions that are not valid when

submitted to stringent tests of reliability. As well, Young poses that the Council of Tyre was not

related to doctrinal issues but this proves not to be true for reasons previously stated. However,

650
Frances M. Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 51.
651
Ibid., 71.
652
Ibid., 51.

251
to his credit, Young does admit that some of the positive evaluations of Athanasius are credible

and the modern attempt to debase him should be tempered as he states: “This ‘deflation’ of

Athanasius may go too far; some elements in the good tradition are certainly right. By the end of

his life, Athanasius had forged a remarkable alliance with the Coptic monks and had won

complete ascendency over Egypt…Furthermore, he did obstinately hold out for a particular

theological position, and with the backing of the West, upheld it whatever the cost.”653 Thus,

although he offers some ardent criticisms of Athanasius, Young has the ability to also perceive

his contributions to orthodox Christianity, his bravery against tremendous odds and his personal

sacrifice.

William Rusch
Another example of a modern critic whose ideas are of interest is William Rusch. Rusch is a

Lutheran pastor who has also taught at such schools as Yale Divinity School and New York

Theological Seminary. Rusch is notable because he perceives that Philostorgius, LP 1914 and

Gregory’s Oration 21, the funeral oration for Athanasius, are all permissible evidence when

attempting to construct a portrait of the historical Athanasius. In fact, Rusch appears to be one of

the first to suggest that all three are important documents when making a judgment on

Athanasius. However, for reasons previously stated, both Philostorgius’ history and LP 1914

have inherent difficulties which do not allow them to be utilized as dependable sources. As well,

Gregory’s funeral oration appears to be meant as laudatory of a great man that Gregory knew

personally and not intended as some subtle method of defending his character.

653
Ibid.

252
 A further strong opinion that Rusch offers is that the history of Philostorgius is actually

preferable to that of the orthodox sources such as Theodoret and Soctrates. Arnold writes of

Rusch in the regard: “It is claimed by Rusch in that the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius,

contained in the Epitome of Photius, ninth-century patriarch of Constantinople, has preserved a

genuine historical tradition concerning Athanasius, albeit of a nonorthodox kind.”654 For Rusch

to make such a declaration shifts the entire paradigm of Athanasian studies and is not warranted.

In order for this proposal to be valid Rusch would have to present cogent reasons why four

orthodox and generally accepted sources-Theodoret, Socrates, Sozomen and Athanasius-should

be rejected in favor of a lone critical history of a century later. Moreover, this is not a valid

proposal, as mentioned earlier, because Philostorgius is obviously biased against Athanasius and

possesses a variety of historical errors which bring into question the reliability of other historical

points that he penned.

The Perspective of Barnes

Timothy Barnes is one the primary modern critics of Athanasius and his ecclesiastical career.

Therefore, it is important to understand his perspective on the topic as he will be viewed as the

modern culmination of the inimical conviction about Athanasius that initiated in earnest a

century ago. One of his consequential works on this topic is Athanasius and Constantius. In this

piece, Barnes patently states that he begins from the perspective that Athanasius has been

dishonest. He wrote: “This study starts from the perspective that Athanasius consistently

misrepresents central facts about his ecclesiastical career, in particular about his relationship with

emperor Constantine and his three sons, who ruled the Roman Empire after their father’s death in

654
Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, 25.

253
337, and about his own standing within the Christian church in the eastern half of the empire,

which Constantius ruled from 337 to 361.”655 Thus, when an author candidly states that they

commence with the perspective that another writer has been dishonest, then the conclusions they

reach are suspect. The proper perspective in historical analysis should be to enter the study with

either an unbiased mind or the perception that the author is being veritable until circumstances

prove that to not be true.

Furthermore, Barnes forthrightly refers to Athanasius as a liar. He remarks: “Athanasius

may often disregard or prevent the truth, but he is a subtler and more skillful liar that Schwartz

realized.”656 Of course, every human being records events from their own perspective. People

tell the ‘facts’ as they remember them being. However, this does not make them a liar. An

example of this comes when Athanasius recorded that Dionysius presided at the Council of Tyre

and Barnes comments: “…the imperial comes Dionysius presided at the Council of Tyre in 335.

That is a barefaced lie: the documents which Athanasius quotes to illustrate the proceedings of

the council indicate that Dionysius, though indeed present in Tyre to keep order, not only did not

preside, but probably did not attend the majority of sessions.”657 However, it should be obvious

that an individual can be the reigning authority over a proceeding, or presiding, and yet decide to

not attend the majority of meetings. Since he was the prevailing authority over the council it was

his decision how involved he personally became. As well, one must remember that the secular

authorities being subsumed in ecclesiastical matters was a fairly new phenomenon and so

655
Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 2. Barnes traverses on to compare Athanasius to two individuals known to
be great deceivers in history which were Frederick Rolfe and Sir Edmund Backhouse. However, Barnes also admits
that Athanasius had a nobler motivation than these others in church history who were known to be deceivers. As
well, Barnes intimates that Athanasius also had much greater success for a longer period of time. Thus, it is
interesting that although Barnes seems to have a disdain for Athanasius, he willingly admitted that his overall
cause was worthy of admiration.
656
Ibid., 3.
657
Timothy D. Barnes, “The Career of Athanasius,” Studia Patristica 21, no. 1 (1989): 391.

254
Dionysius might have had the impression that his actions were appropriate. All of this transpires

into the cogitation of Athanasius recording a fact and not having any control over the actions of

the secular authority. Moreover, to anticipate someone to chronicle the events of their life from

another’s perspective is to hold so altitudinous a standard that it becomes ridiculous to expect an

author to attain it. As well, in statements such as these Barnes appears to be captious concerning

details. Thus, to refer to the individual being researched as a liar evinces that Barnes is skewed

antagonistically towards Athanasius and his writing.

One of the controversial perspectives that Barnes espouses is that the Nicene orthodoxy that

Athanasius was allegedly contending for did not even subsist until the 350s.658 However, this

seems to be incongruent with reality. The idea of Nicene orthodoxy existing before the 350s is

given substance by the way the opponents of the period have been proven to persecute those of

the Nicene faith. Thus, in this portrayal it seems that Barnes has not faithfully presented the

truth nature of the information.

As well, Barnes has placed tremendous effort into studying Athanasius and assaying to

reconstruct many of the major elements of his career. However, Barnes concedes that in a

variety of instances he is unsuccessful in determining the exact occurrences. Of course, this is

presupposed for events that transpired in the fourth century. Moreover, Barnes seems to

acknowledge a fatal excrescency in his brand of analysis in that he will not permit himself to

believe in Athanasius but appears to have a definite partisanship towards rendering him

unscrupulous in his dealings. He articulates of this in a lecture: “I have to admit that progress

has been far slower than I hoped, and that I have often been defeated in attempts to unravel

658
Mario Baghos, “Apology for Athanasius: The Traditional Portrait of the Saint According to Rufinus and the
Byzantine Historians,” 62.

255
particular episodes. When close to despair, however, I have consoled myself with the thought

that Athanasius is so forceful and convincing a pleader that he is certain to get the better of any

modern enquirer on some occasions. After all he deceived Schwartz and almost everyone

else…”659 Thus, Barnes displays two demerits in his methodology that engender suspicion

around his conclusions. First of all, he propagates the notion that Athanasius is a consummate

deceiver and, thus, he is prejudiced against accepting anything that Athanasius expresses as

completely truthful. The second defect uncloaked in his method is that he esteems anyone who

has examined the facts and reached a disparate conclusion from him to be somehow deceived by

Athanasius. Thus, Barnes will not permit himself to exercise faith in the veracity of Athanasius’

declarations nor will he be convinced when other noted and able scholars reach a varying

determination. One must wonder concerning the constructs that were the genesis of such an

inherent affinity against Athanasius. Whatever the case, it is clear that this disposition colors his

judgment of Athanasius.

A further interesting aspect of Barnes is that he does not purport to be a theologian as he

contended: “I am not a theologian or historian of dogma.”660 In this element could reside a

considerable amount of the difficulties with Barnes’ evaluations. Since Barnes is not a

theologian it is problematic for him to contemplate the underlying theme of theological issues

and their significance for bishops, such as Athanasius, who regarded his resolution to forfend the

truth, as he understood it, with extreme sobriety. It frequently appears that those who discover a

religious truth to be substantial for themselves possess the ability to understand others who

would be amenable to sacrificing tremendously for that truth, while those who do not esteem

659
Barnes, “The Career of Athanasius,” 391.
660
Ibid.

256
truth to be crucial often experience a paucity in that ability. This inability to extrapolate that

people engage in activities because of their religious beliefs, specifically Christian beliefs,

without desiderating to personally profit is exemplified when Barnes stated: “Whether true or

false, the accusation assumes that Athanasius in some way controlled the supply of grain for

widows throughout the Egyptian provinces. It is hard to believe that bishops failed to see the

opportunities for patronage inherent in such a situation.”661 One must ask why would bishops be

assumed to use food intended for widows for their personal benefit? A secular person would

suppose in this manner and, thus, Barnes exemplifies his incapability to anticipate pure

motivations. Thus, it appears arduous for Barnes to comprehend how Athanasius would be

inclined to sacrifice so much for a religious idea and it seems that he endeavors to find a secular

reason for him to pursue the path on which he embarked.

In his writing, Barnes pens several controversial statements concerning Athanasius. One of

them was when he stated that Arius was considered orthodox by two councils. However, he also

fails to mention that these two councils were never ratified by the Church.662 Thus, Barnes has a

penchant for skewing the facts in such a manner that creates an antipathetic aura around

Athanasius but encourages appreciative opinions concerning his opponents. Of course, when

this is engaged in with regularity, as is the case with Barnes, it creates a sense that they cannot be

trusted to have nonpartisan investigations.

Barnes also professes the notion that Athanasius only attached himself to the orthodox cause

in order to enhance his opportunity of retaining his position as the bishop in Alexandria. Straw

writes of Barnes’ words: “Concomitantly, he sought to garner support for his claim to the see of

661
Ibid., 394.
662
Baghos, “Apology for Athanasius: The Traditional Portrait of the Saint According to Rufinus and the Byzantine
Historians,” 64.

257
Alexandria by identifying his cause with orthodoxy.”663 However, this logic is incongruent with

historical records in two respects. First of all, most critics agree that Athanasius wrote two

theological works many years before he was bishop or before the conflict was recognized to have

become as momentous as it did. In these two treatises Athanasius clearly delineates his theology

as being orthodox. Thus, Barnes’ allegation does not provide a response as to why Athanasius

had written these documents long before the controversy even began. Secondly, if Athanasius

only attached his cause to orthodoxy for political reasons when why maintain a relationship with

orthodoxy so stalwartly when it became obvious that the tides were evolving contrary to that set

of beliefs. Moreover, had the motivations been truly only political then it is probable Athanasius

would have morphed to whatever beliefs would garner the most support.

In the final analysis, it seems that Barnes judged Athanasius inhospitably because he

engendered that choice. Barnes offers an antipodal evaluation in spite of an overwhelming

amount of evidence to the contrary. He both refuses to consider diametrical information and to

heed to other scholars who have read the facts differently. Thus, Barnes is not significantly

different from many eastern bishops in the fourth century as they chose to view Athanasius

critically in spite of the evidence.

ATHANASIUS AS A GANGSTER
One of the criticisms of Athanasius that is prevalent in recent years is that his actions did not

come from pure motivations and this allegation warrants coverage in a separate section.

Although the concept of Athanasius being the categorization of a fourth century ecclesiastical

663
Carole Ellen Straw, “Review of ‘Athanasius and Contantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantian Empire,’”
Journal of the American Academy of Religion 64, no. 4 (Winter 1996): 882.

258
gangster has been mentioned previously it is beneficial at this point to explore a fuller

understanding of this allegation. In brief, those critical of him believe that his primary goal was

to secure power for himself. Timothy Barnes, most pointedly, traverses so far down this line of

thinking that he actually refers to Athanasius as a gangster. However, this is not a valid notion

for several reasons.

The first of the reasons why viewing Athanasius as a gangster is not coherent with the facts is

because of the sincerity of his beliefs. Athanasius may receive criticism for some of his actions,

as he was a man and subject to character flaws like all men, but his sincerity and heart are above

critique. From all evidence that can be ascertained Athanasius unfeignedly believed in the truth

of the Nicene doctrine and was contending vehemently to secure it. Frances Young, who may be

considered a critic of Athanasius, writes of this phenomenon: “…the sincerity of his belief that

he was safeguarding the truth of scripture, the tradition of the Church and the faith for which the

martyrs had died during his early years…for which he would face all difficulties and every form

of persecution.”664 Therefore, it is observed in an evaluation of his life, that Athanasius believed

that he was battling for the truth and was disposed to suffer for it.

A second reason that Athanasius should not be understood to be a gangster is that his actions

do not coincide with someone who only has a passion for power. In general, an individual who

only desires to have power will compromise their beliefs to achieve it. In fact, for those who

desire power all beliefs become peripheral and subservient to the conquest for power. Someone

who truly had a gangster mentality would have worked with the rulers to secure his power and

664
Frances M. Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon, 51. Young goes on to admit that Athanasius inherited a shaky
local position but this only meant that he utilized tremendous political skills in order to gain complete ascendency
over Egypt by the end of his time. As well, he declares that he stubbornly held onto his theological position
regardless of how much it cost him.

259
would have allowed his beliefs to be dictated by whatever the prevailing winds of truth were at

the time. However, Athanasius does not display this. When Constantine was commanding him

to receive Arius back into communion the politically expedient path would have been to formally

accept his return but then to marginalize him in other ways. However, Athanasius refused to

accept Arius into fellowship because it was against his principles. As well, Athanasius

comprehended the risks he was taking by traversing in the manner. Socrates quoted a letter in

which Constantine told Athanasius: “For if it shall be intimated to me that you have prohibited

any of those claiming to be reunited to the church, or have hindered their admission, I will

immediately send someone who at my command shall depose you, and drive you into exile.”665

A person who truly wanted power would most likely succumb to the emperor’s wishes to protect

his position.

Correspondingly, when Constantius was requesting Athanasius to accept the Arian viewpoint

in the early 340s it would have been politically more beneficial to him to do this but he refused

on the basis of his beliefs. As well, Athanasius refused to repudiate his beliefs in the late 350s

even when seemingly other important and stalwart bishops had recanted, such as Liberius and

Hosius. As a result, Athanasius was marginalized in the empire and had to live in hiding until

Constanius died in 361. These are not the movements of someone whose chief desire is the

acquisition of power but rather the demarcations of an individual who had firm beliefs about the

truth and was willing to suffer for it, even if that also meant his being removed from power.

Thus, it is clear that the notion of Athanasius being a gangster who desired power, as Barnes

intimates, is not coherent with the known facts of his life.

665
Socrates, Book 1, Chapter 27.

260
 Another argument contradicting the construct of Athanasius being a gangster is garnered from

the Meletians themselves. Arnold writes: “Still more surprising, especially if one adheres to the

assessment of Hanson, is the large number of Meletian bishops, presbyters and deacons who

transferred their full support to Athanasius in the early years of his episcopate.”666 It seems

unlikely that if Athanasius were truly opposed to the Meletians and manipulated them with

disdain that so many of them would have become loyal to him. Rather, this piece of information

directs more to the conclusion that Athanasius addressed the Meletians with respect and

welcomed them into fellowship. In fact, a noteworthy case of Athanasius welcoming Meletians

is comprehended in that Macarius, one of the bishops more proximate to him and implicated in

the affair of the broken chalice, was once a Meletian.667 Thus, it seems to logically follow that if

a former Meletian could ascend to that level of trust, then Athanasius was congenial to the

Meletians rather than oppressing them. As well, the sheer numbers of former Meletians among

his supporters gives credence to the idea that Athanasius did not demoralize the Meletians. For

example, of the forty-seven bishops who journeyed with Athanasius to support him at Tyre,

seventeen of them were formerly Meletians. Moreover, all seventeen would volunteer a letter in

which they protested the allegations of oppression presented at Tyre.668 In all at least two thirds

of the bishops listed by Meletius in 328 became loyal to Athanasius and it is improbable this

would have transpired if he had truly been intemperate.

A further line of evidence that altercates against Athanasius being onerous is that he

eventually garnered the support of the majority of the monastic communities.669 These

666
Duane Arnold, “Athanasius and the Meletians at the Synod of Tyre, 335,” Coptic Church Review 10, no. 3 (Fall
1989): 70.
667
Ibid.
668
Ibid.
669
Ibid.

261
communities desired to be independent of the prevailing church structure and it is doubtful that

they would offer their support to an oppressive bishop. By their very nature they were seeking to

abandon fleshly appetites and to candidly support an evil bishop would traverse contrary to their

motive for existing. Thus, their support of Athanasius is another reason to believe that the

allegations of Athanasius being burdensome were erroneous. In conclusion, the assertion that

Athanasius was merely seeking power, or, in other words, that he was a gangster, can be refuted

from a multiplicity of lines of logic and fact.

INADQUATE ARGUMENTS

When the arguments for a negative appraisal of Athanasius are scrutinized they are

discovered to be inadequate. There has been a conglomeration of Athanasian critics in the fourth

and fifth centuries and again in the previous century. Their contentions for an inimical

understanding of Athanasius are based on similar reasoning. The fourth century critics, as well

as those in the fifth century, harkened to the allegations presented at the trial of Tyre to formulate

their antagonistic evaluations. These declarations are based on falsehoods and none of them are

worthy of being accepted as evidence. Twentieth and twenty-first century scholars-such as

Seeck, Schwartz, Hanson, Young, Rusch, Gwynn and Barnes-are dependent upon, in addition to

information from the Tyre, Philostorgius’ history, LP 1914 and Gregory’s funeral oration.

However, when each of these sources is examined, as has been presented previously, they are

found to be unreliable. Thus, although the critical scholars may rage there is no basis for a

modification in the traditionally laudatory sentiment concerning Athanasius.

262
 CHAPTER IX: EVALUATION

MULTIPLE OUTLOOKS

Athanasius is a complex character who had many nuances in his personal life. Add in the fact

that he lived seventeen centuries ago and it becomes all the more difficult to ascertain the verity

about him and his genuine attributes. However, there are a variety of sources that allow for a

reconstruction of the major events of his life and his personality. This paper has sought to

persevere through the volume of information and understand the factuality about Athanasius.

There are two extreme opinions concerning Athanasius-the one envisions him as a villain and

in the other he is a hero. Of course, the facticity, as with most human beings, is somewhere in

the intermediary. However, from this study it has been clarified that those who present

Athanasius with laudatory praise are much closer to the truth than those who malign him.

An important method of judging an individual is how his contemporaries related to him. Of

course, it must be admitted that Athanasius had many enemies and they exhibited a vehement

dislike for him. However, it is important to recognize of this phenomenon that these were mostly

opponents who differed from him theologically or politically. Moreover, when one investigates

how the majority of his own subordinates and colleagues deemed him it is revealed that he was

admired. In fact, it is noteworthy that even his most stalwart modern critics admit that he

eventually procured the overwhelming succor of the common Egyptian laity and clergy.670

As well, when investigating Athanasius, it is also consequential to consider his character in

light of the various allegations against him. When the accusations are closely scrutinized it is

ascertained that none of them are significant enough to alter the traditional portrait of

670
Khaled Anatolois, Athanasius (London: Routledge, 2004), 35.

263
Athanasius. The majority of the indictments, especially the most heinous of murder, were

proven to be falsified by his enemies. Furthermore, the allegations that cannot be demonstrated

to be erroneous are likewise questionable because it is difficult to believe indictments that are

presented by individuals that have proven to be untruthful in bringing the most serious

criminations. In addition, the sources that modern critics utilize-Philostorgius’ history, LP 1914

and Gregory’s funeral oration-are all discovered to be unreliable. Throughout most of church

history Athanasius has been recollected as a hero, both for his tenacity through hardships and

suffering and his theological views, and, when closely examined, none of the information-either

from the fourth, fifth or twentieth centuries-warrants a change in this understanding.

REASONING FOR THE ATTACKS

An important theme in this study has been the onslaughts on Athanasius and it is important to

attempt to extrapolate the reasoning behind them. The character of Athanasius was assaulted

both in the fourth century and in the last one hundred years. Obviously, as proven in previous

chapters, several of the indictments were proven to be blatant untruths and this ushers in the

salient point of understanding that if the opponents would forthrightly fabricate in certain

allegations then perhaps all of the indictments should be dismissed as being untruthful. This

author believes this is best approach to traverse onto. It becomes obvious that they are only

endeavoring, by any method possible, to falsely malign Athanasius and have him removed from

office. As well, when one also adds in the consideration that a variety of Nicene bishops were

also dishonestly accused it becomes increasingly clear that the allegations should all be ignored.

264
 That is a succinct answer for the fourth century indictment but the reasoning for the twentieth

century insinuations is more complex. Of course, it is of interest that the indictments against

Athanasius have returned to prominent scrutiny after these many centuries when they were

soundly refuted in the fourth century. As well, many critics appear to ignore that those who

proposed the indictments oppositional to Athanasius were proven to have falsely accused him.

As mentioned in a previous chapter, Mario Baghos ascertains that the reasoning for this is that

many modern scholars do not ascribe to orthodox beliefs and, thus, their aggressions are

somewhat political just as they were in the fourth century. Carole Straw is typical of the

reasoning of many modern critics and their outlook on theology. She writes: “But need we ask

if orthodoxy is anything more that politics.”671 Thus, many theologians of today have conformed

to the prevailing tendencies of the times, and the leadings of the Tubingen School, into espousing

the intellection that ultimate truth is not a valid construct. Therefore, in the opinion of many

modern theologians, any theological wrangling is politically based rather an attempt to discern

the truth and foster the propagation of that facticity. Perhaps this is a crucial piece of the

conundrum in attempting to understand the mutation in perspectives on Athanasius.

With investigation, it becomes apparent that Athanasius’ opponents in the fourth century

assailed him because they disagreed with his theological ideas. As well, it appears that critics in

recent years disparage him for both his theological beliefs and the very supposition of concrete

constructs. One factor to consider in this arena is that bringing Athanasius under this type of

scrutiny creates a question of the veracity of his writings. Arnold writes on this topic: “In the

last one hundred years the character and, therefore, the reliability of Athanasius as a witness and

671
Carole Ellen Straw, “Review of ‘Athanasius and Contantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantian Empire,’”
Journal of the American Academy of Religion 64, no. 4 (Winter 1996): 883.

265
recorder of the theological disputes and ecclesiastical events of the fourth century have come

under considerable scrutiny and, often, a high degree of criticism.”672 By inference one can also

understand that if Athanasius is not reliable in his recording of history and theological disputes

then, at least according to the method some select in understanding theology, perhaps he is not

reliable in his theological ideas. Baghos believes that the reason for the allegations against his

character in these two epochs is related as he writes: “The evaluation of Athanasius strongly

tends to depend on how the historian perceives the Nicene faith.”673 Thus, Baghos understands

that the underlying reason for the recent exploration of the accusations against Athanasius is that

critics desiderate to question the veracity of the Nicene ideas and unchanging constructs in

general. An interesting pattern begins to emerge when one studies the opinions concerning

Athanasius both in his own time and throughout much of church history. Namely, the way one is

convicted about the doctrine of the Trinity often dictates their opinion on Athanasius. Thus,

those who assent to the doctrine of the Trinity as a non-mutable idea are more probable to have a

favorable outlook on Athanasius and those who find the doctrine disdainful have a higher

possibility of being critical of Athanasius. This is of considerable interest because historians and

critics should be contemplating their evaluations of historical personalities solely on the basis of

facts revealed in the records that remain intact. Thus, for those critics who do not happen to

agree with a certain theology to allow that to influence their evaluations is of major concern and

presents questions about their other putative illuminations. Meijering writes of this construct:

“Since Athanasius played an important part in the controversies in the fourth century which

672
Duane Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria (London: University of Notre Dame Press,
1991), 11.
673
Mario Baghos, “Apology for Athanasius: The Traditional Portrait of the Saint According to Rufinus and the
Byzantine Historians,” Phronema 28, no. 2 (2013): 56.

266
finally led to the formulation of the Trinity, one is inclined to connect one’s views of him with

the evaluation of this Christian dogma.”674 Of course, this a tremendous leap and no one can be

sure, except the critics themselves, of the base reason for their attacks. However, the musings of

Baghos, Arnold and Meijering do cause one to ponder their motivations. Whatever the case, this

investigation has proven that the allegations against Athanasius do not have a firm base and that

the traditional portrait of Athanasius as a hero of the church, as stated before, should be left

intact.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Athanasius had tremendous accomplishments in his lifetime and one of his most prominent

ones was fostering the cohesiveness of the church through some of the bleakest days. In the late

350s the Arian heresy had the import of the sole emperor, Constantius, supporting their coalition

and it appeared that he would be able to completely annihilate the theological idea that Jesus was

of the same essence as the Father and fully God. However, Athanasius was a lone figure among

prominent theologians who had not relented and he continued to contend for the veracity of the

Nicene doctrines. He persisted in writing treatises altercating in favor of and confirming the

deity of the Son and the trinitarian idea. Eventually, the prevailing currents redirected at the

death of Constantius, but the true church should forever be grateful to Athanasius for his stalwart

stand during this treacherous time.

674
Eginhard Meijering, “The Judgment on Athanasius in the Historiography of Christian Dogma,” Church
History and Religious Culture 90, no. 2-3 (2010): 277.

267
 A second salient attainment that is grasped when reviewing Athanasius’ life is one that cannot

be viewed in a moment but rather was an accomplishment over a lifetime in that he remained

true to the correct doctrine, as he envisioned it, even though there was tremendous suffering.

Athanasius was exiled in five different episodes and spent a plentitude of years in hiding. As

well, he suffered greatly as his character was falsely maligned throughout the empire. Indeed, it

is difficult to imagine the personal hardship for Athanasius when he was accused of such a

variety of falsehoods including murder, immorality and plotting to murder the emperor.

Athanasius revealed himself to be a man of normal passion as he became ill in the early 330s

because of all of the false allegations that were being tendered in opposition of him. Perhaps the

suffering that Athanasius endured from these falsified allegations is the most overlooked. As

well, Athanasius sustained his suffering well as he related it to biblical characters that had

endured so much. When Athanasius was undergoing his first exile in Treves, Constaninus wrote

that he waited on God for help and that he did not complain about suffering. It is to the great

credit of Athanasius that in all of this anguish he did not waver from the truth and this is one of

the most prominent accomplishments of his life that few individuals could replicate.

A third salient achievement of Athanasius was his theological and historical writings.

Athanasius is still lauded by many as the foremost writer on the deity of the Son. As well, his

works on the deity of the Holy Spirit are noteworthy and serve as a pioneer in that theological

arena. One of the amazing aspects of Athanasius’ writing is that much of it was completed either

when he was in the early twenties or when he was in concealment and in fear for his life. In

addition to his theological treatises Athanasius is also one of the foremost authors from the

fourth century regarding historical works. Much of the historical details of the important events

of the epoch would be irretrievable if not for the resolve of Athanasius. Thus, one of the tectonic

268
accomplishments for Athanasius was that which he achieved as an author and this was done

while serving as a prominent bishop over a multitude of churches and traversing through much

personal turmoil.

CHARACTER TRAITS

A further important method of understanding an individual, in addition to their

accomplishments, is their prominent personality traits. A characteristic that is difficult to dismiss

in Athanasius was his tenacity and strength. It took an individual with a great amount of strength

to stand contrary to all of the powerful enemies that Athanasius encountered in his life and yet be

able to remain faithful to his beliefs. Tenacity, both physically and intellectually, is one of the

characteristics that is most prominent in Athanasius’ life

A further salient feature of Athanasius is somewhat related to his strength in that Athanasius

was recollected to have a temper. This was most prominently exemplified in the year 335, in

Constantinople, when he entered into an argument with Emperor Constantine when the most

prudent avenue would have been to remain subjective and silent. However, perhaps part of the

reason that Athanasius was able to tenaciously grasp the truth was because he possessed the

tandem trait of having a strong temper.

Another important trait in understanding Athanasius is his brilliant mind. Athanasius was

competent to complete two books which remain widely utilized today while he was still in his

early twenties. Powerful intellects such at that are very rare. As well, to aspire to compose such

treatises at such a young age also reveals Athanasius’ uniqueness. It is also noteworthy that

Athanasius chose to utilize his obvious intellectual abilities to strengthen Christianity instead of

269
employing it to devise some method for his own financial fortunes. The idea of Athanasius

traversing with the choice to exercise his intellect to benefit the church is likewise worthy of

consideration in contemplating his authentic nature.

Inherent leadership was also a prominent characteristic that Athanasius possessed. This is

surveyed most conspicuously when he was a bellwether at the Council of Nicaea when he only

entertained the responsibility of a deacon. As well, at the young age of his early thirties the

people of Alexandria recognized his leadership abilities and desiderated him to be their bishop

when this auspicious obligation was most often reserved for decisively more senescent men. In

addition, Athanasius was leading the struggle for the Nicene faith in the 330s before the age of

forty alongside bishops of more advanced age such as Hosius, who was in his seventies. Thus,

when endeavoring to understand Athanasius one must recollect his natural leadership abilities.

Athanasius was also known for loving and caring deeply for those under his care. This is

most brilliantly displayed when the military forces were aspiring to acquire him from the church

and his primary concern was that the congregants were permitted to escape unharmed. As well,

the care he had for those in his congregation was evident in his writing. It is noteworthy that the

common people loved Athanasius and supported him through arduous times. For example, in his

third exile the people of Egypt absconded and protected him. When desiring to understand the

true nature of a leader one can investigate the attitudes of those under his authority and for

Athanasius these were prestigious retrospections.

A final characteristic in contemplating the genre of individual that Athanasius was is

evidenced in his graciousness towards others. One important method to evaluate the character of

an individual is to understand how they addressed compatriots who disagreed with them.

Athanasius has an exemplary record in how he handled his erring comrades with respect.

270
Mohler is able to evaluate this characteristic of Athanasius well: “He showed much indulgence

for human weakness exercising an influence on faith; he preferred to highlight the truth which

had been mixed in with falsehood, and he knew very well how to discover true interior faith

contained within an exterior of error. When he had completely understood a person’s character

and recognized that the person was inwardly sound, he defended that person against all slander.

Each time that he was forced to write against men to whom he was loyal, he fought their false

principles, but refused to give their names.”675 This trait was particularly interesting regarding

his colleagues that had faltered in that he would not mention their names as he did not intend to

attack an individual but rather desired to combat that which he perceived to be a heresy. As well,

Athanasius exhibited graciousness to opponents such as the Meletians. Henric Nordberg was a

critic who wrote in the mid to late twentieth century and was not particularly disposed to view

Athanasius in a positive manner. Thus, his thoughts on this topic are particularly convincing.

Arnold writes of Nordberg’s opinion: “Henric Nordberg argues convincingly that Athanasius

brought several former Meletian bishops and presbyters with him to Tyre, stating that ‘out of 47

Egyptian clericals at Tyre’ accompanying Athanasius ‘probably at least 17 had been earlier

supporters of the Meletian church.’ From the evidence presented, it seems clear that Nordberg is

fully justified in claiming that in Athanasius’ first few years as bishop he ‘succeeded in winning

a number of schismatic leaders.’”676 An example of two of these former schismatic Meletians

were Macarius and Theon of Nilopolis. Theon was once listed as a Meletian but died as an

orthodox bishop and Macarius is the same one who was putatively involved in the Ischyras

scandal. It is especially notable that Athanasius shared a close relationship with Macarius who

675
J. A. Mohler, Athanase le Grand et l’eglise de son temps en lute avec l’arianisme (trans. By Zickwolff and Jean
Cohen) (Paris: 1849), 108.
676
Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, 62.

271
was a former Meletian. Therefore, Athanasius was winsome enough to garner support from

former opponents and this reveals a desire to connect those who held different ecclesiastical, but

not necessarily theological, ideas. As well, known for LP 1914 that thrust Athanasius in a

negative light, Bell shares a similar opinion as he writes: “Of Schwartz, Bell asserts that

regarding the popularity Athanasius achieved in later years, ‘the enthusiastic devotion of the

Alexandrians, pagans as well as Christians, would be incredible had he been the cold, selfish,

unscrupulous schemer portrayed by Schwartz.’”677 Thus, even several of those generally critical

of Athanasius admit that he was not a selfish schemer, but rather tended to treat others as well as

possible in the given situations. Throughout his life Athanasius displayed his penchant for being

gracious to those who falsely accused him, had stood against him politically and faltered in

following the true doctrines.

LESSONS FROM ATHANASIUS

Athanasius was a tremendous leader and there are several aspects of his life that serve as

beneficial examples for Christians in subsequent centuries. A key lesson to be learned from his

life is that he did not choose the alternative that was easiest or most beneficial to him personally.

In order to be faithful to the truth in his epoch it was necessary for him to embark on decisions

that would cause him a myriad of difficulties in his personal life, but he did not hesitate to

traverse in the most advantageous path for preserving the true Christian doctrines. Hough wrote

of this: “The carrier of the letter had suggestions of terrible consequences if the request was not

acceded to. Now we find Athanasius face to face with a difficult problem. Assailed by so wily

677
Ibid., 77.

272
and unscrupulous a foe, how easy it would have been to find safety in compromise. How many

men would have consoled themselves with comforting and seemingly pious thoughts about the

peace of the Church, and then have received Arius to communion. Athanasius firmly refused.”

Thus, it is understood that Athanasius had alternatives to decide upon and he resolved that

supporting truth, as he ardently believed in, was more consequential than his own comfort or

sense of peace. Indeed, Athanasius suffered momentously for not relenting but he also procured

a magnanimous victory for the genuine doctrines of Christianity.

A second lesson that can be gleaned from a review of the life of Athanasius is that loyalty to

friends and forgiveness of opponents is of critical importance. Athanasius refused to condemn

his friends even when they erred as he must have realized that he also might be in need of

understanding and forgiveness at some point. When Athanasius extends grace to those who have

faltered in the faith, and even signed statements denouncing him, it reveals his authentic heart as

a man of forgiveness. Christians from all centuries should regard Athanasius’ example in

forgiving others and being gracious to those who have harmed them. It is noteworthy that

Athanasius even forgave those who had falsely accused him of murder and this makes the

offenses perpetrated against the majority of modern Christians pale in comparison.

A third lesson from Athanasius’ life can be perceived from his faith that God will prevail in

the end. There were numerous times in his life when the odds contrary to him and the genuine

doctrines appeared insurmountable but his faith was ardent that God remained sovereign and was

capable of delivering a victory when all hope appeared to have vanished. This visionary faith

allowed Athanasius to not become discouraged at formidable circumstances. When he returned

following his fourth exile he was only home for a brief eight months when he was subsequently

exiled again. It would have been facile to be discouraged by this but he intimated to his

273
followers to remain hopeful and steadfast because this dark cloud would also soon pass. Another

incident that is especially prominent was in the late 350s, as alluded to earlier, when all of the

other known bishops had recanted the Nicene faith and a powerful emperor was attempting to

eradicate the idea that Jesus was fully God. It would have been indulgent for Athanasius to have

been in despair and to have relinquished the struggle. However, he travailed for the truth

because he comprehended that God was in authority. Aspects are never as somber as they

appear to be when one is contending for God. Those living in this time should remember this

and understand that the battle for truth must still be waged even when it appears as if the society

is traversing is a direction far from that which God intended. God is still able to deliver a victory

but He desires that Christians would remain in the foray and trust in Him to prevail in the

altercation.

A further lesson to be gleaned from a study of Athanasius is to be a theologian but possess a

pastor’s heart simultaneously. It is often a characteristic of theologians of great intellect to focus

solely on theological ideas. However, Athanasius served as an example because he obviously

had a brilliant intellect and yet he never disposed of his love and compassion for those in his

congregation. Athanasius truly cared for those placed in his stewardship and he believed that

every foray he was travailing in was to safeguard their spiritual well-being. He truly understood

the idea of Scripture that even if one achieves momentous accomplishments but they do not

possess love they will be ineffective. Modern theological scholars and pastors should follow

Athanasius’ example and never dismiss their passionate heart for the people.

274
 A LIFE WELL-LIVED

In the final analysis when one considers the true character of a man he must envision the

entire life’s work rather than isolated events. It is true that none of the charges against

Athanasius can be substantiated and there is, therefore, no reason to alter the traditionally

laudatory view of him. However, this is not to say that Athanasius was a perfect man. If one

examined him closely enough he would be sure to find isolated instances in which Athanasius

did not act in the manner of a sincere Christian, but this is true of virtually every Christian. No

person can claim perfection but with investigative scrutiny each one has flaws. Thus, it is

important when judging either a modern person or a historical figure that one discerns the overall

impact and contributions the individual made to the Christian cause. In this regard, Athanasius

should truly be regarded as an unsurpassed individual for his tenacity in defending Christian

orthodoxy, his bravery in confronting difficulties, his love for the common man and his devotion

to and exposition of theological truth.

Let us close with this by utilizing the memorable quote by Hough once again: “Very full of

peace on that May morning must have seemed the chamber where lay the silent form of the great

bishop. How often he must have longed with a sad eagerness, in many hard and terrible years,

for quiet and repose. But he had not faltered. He had borne his burden, so very hard a burden.

He marched breast forward, he had not lost courage, but had fought with unflagging heroism and

unfailing devotion.”678 Athanasius has found his rest with the Lord. We who are Christians

today have many spiritual battles to fight. Let us battle them with all of the fortitude and trust in

God that Athanasius displayed.

678
Lynn Harold Hough, Athanasius the Hero (New York: Abingdon Press, 1906), 141.

275
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aland, Kurt. A History of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.

Alfoldi, Andrew. The Conversion of Constantine and Pagan Rome. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1948.
Anatolios, Khaled. Athanasius. London: Routledge, 2004.
Anatolios, Khaled. Retrieving Nicaea. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011.
Arnold, Duane W. H. “Athanasian Historiography: A Century of Revison.” Coptic Church
Review 12, no. 1 (January 1991): 3-14.
Arnold, Duane W. H. “Athanasius and the Meletians at the Synod of Tyre, 335.” Coptic Church
Review 10, no. 3 (Fall 1989): 67-73.
Arnold, Duane W. H. “Sir Harold Idris Bell and Athanasius: A reconsideration of London
Papyrus 1914.” Studia Patristica Louvain: Peeters (1989): 377-383.
Arnold, Duane W. H. The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria. London:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1991.
Athanasius. The Orations of S. Athanasius. London: Griffith, Farran, Okeden and Welsh, 1890.
Athanasius. History of the Arians.
Athanasius. Festal Letter XIII:6.
Ayres, Lewis. Nicaea and its Legacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Baghos, Mario. “Apology for Athanasius: The Traditional Portrait of the Saint According to
Rufinus and the Byzantine Historians.” Phronema 28, no. 2 (2013): 55-88.
Baker, Robert A. and John M. Landers. A Summary of Christian History. Nashville: Broadman
and Holman, 2005.
Baldwin, Barry. “Saint Athanasius.” Catholic Insight 13, no.1 (01/2005): 24.
Barnes, Micheal R. and Daniel H. Williams. Arianism after Arius. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark,
1993.
Barnes, Timothy D. Athanasius and Constantius. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1993.
Barnes, Timothy D. Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1981.
Barnes, Timothy D. “Review of The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexnadria.” The
Catholic Historical Review 78, no. 1 (January 1992): 100-101.
Barnes, Timothy D. “The New Critical Edition of Athanasius’ Defense Before Constantius.”
Zeitschrift Fur antikes Christentum 11, no. 2 (January 1, 2007): 378-401.

276
Barnes, Timothy D. “The Career of Athanasius.” Studia Patristica 21, no. 1 (1989): 390-401.
Baus, Karl. History of the Church: Volume II. New York: The Seabury Press, 2004.
Baynes, Norman H. Byzantine Studies and Other Essays. London: Haskell House Publishers,
1955.
Baynes, Norman H. Constantine the Great and the Christian Church. New York: Haskell
House Publishers, 1975.
Beek, Abraham van de. “The Relevance of Athanasius in Dogmatics.” Church History and
Religious Culture 90, no. 2-3 (2010): 287-309.
Behr, John. Formation of Christian Theology: The Nicene Faith. Crestwood, NY: St.
Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004.
Behr, John. Formation of Christian Theology: The Way to Nicaea. Crestwood, NY: St.
Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001.
Behr, John. On the Incarnation. Yonkers, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011.
Bell, Harold I. “Athanasius: A Chapter in Church History.” The Congregational Quarterly 3,
no. 2 (April 1925): 164.
Bettensen, Henry. The Early Christian Fathers. London: Oxford University Press, 1956.
Bihlmayer, Karl. Church History. Westminster: The Newman Press, 1968.
Bindley, Herbert T. De Incarnatione Verbi Dei. London: Unwin Brothers, 1887.
Brakke, David. “Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth Century Egypt: Athanasius of
Alexandria Thirty-ninth Festal Letter.” The Harvard Theological Review 87, no. 4 (Oct.
1994): 395-419.
Brakke, David. “Jewish Flesh and Christian Spirit in Athanasius of Alexandria.” Journal of
Early Studies 9, no. 4 (Winter 2001): 453-481.
Bright, William. Historical Writings of Athanasius. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1881.
Brown, Harold O. J. Heresies. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1984.
Bush, Wheeler R. St. Athanasius: His Life and Times. London: Society for Promoting
Christian Knowledge, 1912.
Cairns, Earle E. Christianity Through the Centuries. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1954.
Case, Robert II. “Will the Real Athanasius Please Stand Up?” Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 19, no. 4 (1976): 283-295.
Coleman, Christopher Bush. Constantine the Great and Christianity. New York: AMS Press,
1914.
Crawford, M. R. “On the Diversity and Influence of the Eusebian Alliance: The Case of
Theodore of Heraclea.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 64, no. 2: 227-257.
Davies, Edwin. Gems from the Fathers. New York: James Pitt and Co., 1899.

277
De Margerie, Bertrand. The Christian Trinity in History. Still River, MA: St. Bede’s
Publications, 1982.
Del Cogliano, Mark. “Asterius in Athanasius’ Catalogues of Arian Views.” Journal of
Theological Studies 66, no. 2 (2015): 625-650.
Del Cogliano, Mark. “The Influence of Athanasius and the Homoousios on Basil of Caesarea’s
Decentralization of ‘Unbegotten.’” Journal of Early Christian Studies 19, no. 2 (Summer
2011): 197-223.
Dowley, Tim. Introduction to the History of Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002.
Drake, H. A. “Athanasius’s First Exile.” Romans and Byzantine Studies 27, no. 2 (Summer
1986): 193.
Dryer, George H. History of the Christian Church. Cincinnati: Jennings and Pye, 1896.
Dunzl, Franz. A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early Church. New York: T.
and T. Clark, 2007.
Ernst, J. D. The Bible in Athanasius of Alexandria. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Edward, David L. Christianity the First Two Thousand Years. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books,
1997.
Ellens, J. Harold. “Athanasius.” Journal of Psychology and Christianity 31, no. 2 (2012): 179.
Ferguson, Edmund J. Church History: Volume I. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.
Fisher, George Park. History of the Christian Church. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
1931.
Foakes-Jackson, F. J. The History of the Christian Church. Chicago: W. P. Blessing Co., 1891.
Fortman, Edmund J. The Triune God. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999.
Giles, Kevin. The Trinity and Subordinationism. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002.
Goudriaan, Aza. “Athanasius in Reformed Protestantism: Some Aspects of Reception History
(1527-1607).” Church History and Religious Culture 90, no. 2-3 (2010): 257-276.
Gregg, Robert C. Arianism: Historical and Theological Reassessments. Philadelphia: The
Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1985.
Gregg, Robert C. and Dennis E. Groh. Early Arianism-A View of Salvation. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1981.
Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 21.
Gwatkin, H. M. The Arian Controversy. Boston: IndyPublish.com, 2006.
Gwatkin, Henry Melville. Studies of Arianism. Cambridge: Deighton Bell and Co., 1900.
Gwynn, David M. The Eusebians: The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the
Construction of the `Arian Controversy'. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

278
Gwynn, David M. Athanasius of Alexandria. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Hanson, R. P. C. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2005.
Harrison, Everett F. Baker’s Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960.
Harvey, Susan Ashbrook and David G. Hunter. The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian
Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Hough, Lynn Harold. Athanasius the Hero. New York: The Abingdon Press, 1906.
Hultgren, Arland J. and Steven A. Haggmark. The Earliest Christian Heretics. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1996.
Hurst, John F. History of the Christian Church. Cincinnati: Curts and Jennings, 1897.
Jedin, Hubert. History of the Church: Volume I. New York: Seabury Press, 1980.
Jones, William. The History of the Christian Church. Philadelphia: R. W. Pomeroy, 1832.
King, Karen L. What is Ghosticism? London: Harvard University Press, 2003.
Kopecek, Thomas A. A History of Neo-Arianism. Philadelphia: The Philadelphia Patristic
Foundation Ltd., 1979.
Lane, Tony. A Concise History of Christian Thought. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics,
2006.
Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity. New York: Harper and Brothers
Publishers, 1953.
Leithart, Peter J. Defending Constantine. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2010.
Letham, Robert. The Holy Trinity. Phillipsburg, NJ: P and R Publishing, 2004.
Liehard, Joseph T. “Two Friends of Athanasius: Marcellus of Ancyra and Apollinarius of
Laodicea.” Zeitschrift fur antikes Christentum 10, no. 1 (2006): 56-66.
Lietzmann, Hans. From Constantine to Julian. London: Lutterworth Press, 1950.
Lonergan, Bernard. The Way to Nicaea. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976.
McGrath, Alister. A History of Defending the Truth. New York: HarperCollins Publishers,
2009.
Meijering, Eginhard. “Athanasius on God as Creator and Recreator.” Church History and
Religious Culture 90, no. 2/3 (June 2010): 175-197.
Meijering, Eginhard. “The Judgment on Athanasius in the Historiography of Christian Dogma.”
Church History and Religious Culture 90, no. 2/3 (2010): 277-287.
Meyer, John R. “Athanasius Use of Paul in His Doctrine of Salvation.” Vigiliae Christianae 52,
no. 2: 146-171.
Meyer, Robert T. The Life of Saint Antony. New York: Newman Press, 1950.

279
Mossay, Justin. Gregroire de Nazianze, Discours 20-23. Paris, 1980.
Mohler, J. A. Athanase le Grand et l’eglise de son temps en lute avec l’arianisme (trans. By
Zickwolff and Jean Cohen), Paris, 1849.
Newman, Alfred Henry. A Manual of Church History. Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1933.
Newman, John Henry. Apologia Pro Vita Sua: Being a History of His Religious Opinions.
London, 1890.
Newman, John Henry. Lyra Apostolica (14th edition). London, 1867.
Noll, Mark A. Turning Points. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997.
Ottley, Robert L. The Doctrine of the Incarnation. London: Metheun and Co., 1902.
Partridge, Christopher. New Religions: A Guide. Oxford: University Press, 2004.
Parvis, Sara. Marcellus of Ancyra and Lost Years of the Arian Controversy: 325-345. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2006.
Pearson, Birger A. Ancient Gnosticism. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007.
Pettersen, Alvyn. Athanasius. Ridgefield, CT: Morehouse Publishing, 1995.
Ridgeway, James. S. Athanasius on the Incarnation. London: James Parker Co., 1880.
Romeny, Bas ter Haar. “Athanasius in Syriac.” Church History and Religious Culture 90, no.
2/3 (June 2010): 223-256.
Reuther, Rosemary. Gregory of Nazianzus: Rhetor and Philosopher. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1969.
Rusch, William G. The Trinitarian Controversy. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.
Rusch, William G. “A la recherche de l’Athanase historique.” Politique et theologie Paris,
(1974): 161-174.
Saint Athanasius. The Incarnation. London: Centenary Press, 1944.
Salminius Hermias Sozomen. Church History: The Greek Ecclesiastical Historians. London:
Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1844.
Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006.
Seeck, Otto. “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des nicaanischen Konzils.” ZKG 17 (1896): 1-
71.
Socrates of Constaninople. Church History: The Greek Ecclesiastical Historians. London:
Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1844.
Sparks, Jack. The Resurrection Letters. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1979.
Straw, Carole Ellen. “Review of ‘Athanasius and Contantius: Theology and Politics in the
Constantian Empire.’” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 64, no. 4 (Winter
1996): 881-883.

280
Studer, Basil. Trinity and Incarnation. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1993.
Swindoll, Charles R. and Roy B. Zuck. Understanding Christian Theology. Nashville: Thomas
Nelson Publishers, 2003.
Theodoret of Cyrus. Ecclesiastical History: The Greek Ecclesiastical Historians. London:
Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1844.
Torrance, Thomas F. Incarnation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008.
Ward, J. W. C. The Greek Doctors. London: The Faith Press, Ltd., 1950.
Walker, Williston. A History of the Church. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1918.
Weinandy, Thomas G. Athanasius: A Theological Introduction. Burlington, VT: Ashgate,
2007.
Widdicombe, Peter. “Review of Athanasius of Alexandria.” The Journal of Theological Studies
63, no. 2 (2012): 718-721.
Wilgenburg, Arwin van. “The Redemption of Athanasius within Contemporary Roman Catholic
Theology.” Church History and Religious Culture 90, no. 2/3 (2010): 311-357.
Williams, Rowan. Arius: Heresy and Tradition. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1987.
Willis, John R. A History of Christian Thought. Hicksville, NY: Exposition Press, 1976.
Young, Frances M. From Nicaea to Chalcedon. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010.

281