|
{17} Chapter 1. Encyclical Letter of the Council of Egypt1. THE following are the letters written in my favour by the Bishops in the several Councils; and first the letter of the Egyptian Bishops. The holy Council assembled at Alexandria, out of Egypt, the Thebais, Libya, and Pentapolis, to the Bishops of the Catholic Church every where, brethren beloved and greatly longed for, sendeth health in the Lord. §. 3. Dearly beloved brethren, we might have put forth a defence of our brother Athanasius [Note 1], as respects the conspiracy of the Eusebians against him, and complained of his sufferings at their hands, and have exposed all their false charges, either at the beginning of their conspiracy or upon his arrival at Alexandria. But circumstances did not permit it then, as you also know; and lately, after the return of the Bishop Athanasius, we thought that they would be confounded and covered with shame at their manifest injustice: in consequence we prevailed with ourselves to remain silent. Since, however, after all his severe sufferings, after his retirement into Gaul, after his sojourn in a foreign and far distant country in the place of his own, after his narrow escape from death through their calumnies, but for the clemency of the Emperor,—distress which would have satisfied even the most cruel enemy,—still they are insensible to shame, and are again raging against the Church and Athanasius; and from indignation at his deliverance venture on still more atrocious schemes against him, and are ready with any accusation, fearless of the words in holy Scripture, A false witness shall not be unpunished [Prov. xix. 5.]; and, The mouth that {18} belieth slayeth the soul [Wisd. i. 11.]; we therefore are unable longer to hold our peace, being amazed at their wickedness and at the insatiable love of contention displayed in their treacherous proceedings. 2. For see, they cease not to disturb the ear of royalty with fresh reports against us; they cease not to write letters of deadly import, for the destruction of the Bishop who is the enemy of their impiety. For again have they written to the Emperors against him; again are they conspiring against him, charging him with a butchery which has never taken place; again they wish to shed his blood, accusing him of a murder that never was committed, (for at that former time would they have murdered him by their calumnies, had we not found favour with the Emperor;) again they are urgent, to say the least, that he should be sent into banishment, while they pretend to lament the miseries of the exiles, as though they had been exiled by him. They lament before us things that have never been done, and, not satisfied with what has been done to him, desire to add thereto other and more cruel treatment. 3. So mild are they and merciful, and of so just a disposition; or rather (for the truth shall be spoken) so wicked are they and malicious; obtaining respect through fear and by threats, rather than by their piety and justice, as becomes Bishops. They have dared in their letters to the Emperors to pour forth language such as no contentious person would employ even among those that are without; they have charged him with a number of murders and butcheries, and that not before a Governor, or any other superior officer, but before the three Augusti; nor shrink they from any journey however long, provided only all the greater courts may be filled with their accusations. For indeed, dearly beloved, their business consists in accusations, and that of the most solemn character, forasmuch as the tribunals to which they make their appeal are the most solemn of any upon earth. And what other end do they propose by these investigations, except to move the Emperor to capital punishment? §. 4. 4. Their own conduct therefore, and not that of Athanasius, is the fittest subject for lamentation and mourning, and one would more properly lament them, for such actions ought to {19} be bewailed, since it is written, Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan him: but weep sore for him that goeth away, for he shall return no more [Jer. xxii. 10.]. For their whole letter speaks of nothing but his death; and their endeavour is to kill, whenever they may be permitted, or if not, to drive into exile. And this they were permitted to do by the most religious father of the Emperors, who gratified their fury by the banishment of Athanasius, though not by his death. Now that this is not the conduct even of ordinary Christians, (nay, even of heathens,) much less of Bishops, who profess to teach others righteousness, we suppose that your Christian consciences must at once perceive. How can they forbid others to accuse their brethren, who themselves become their accusers, and that to the Emperors? How can they teach compassion for the misfortunes of others, who cannot rest satisfied even with our banishment? For there was confessedly a general sentence of banishment against us Bishops, and we all looked upon ourselves as banished men: and now again we consider ourselves as restored with Athanasius to our native country, and in the place of our former lamentations and mourning over him, as having the greatest encouragement and grace,—which may the Lord continue to us, nor suffer the Eusebians to destroy! 5. Even if their charges against him were true, here is a certain charge against them, that against the precept of Christianity, and after his banishment and trials, they have assaulted him again, and accuse him of murder, and butchery, and other crimes, which they sound in the royal ears against the Bishops. But how exceeding manifold is their wickedness, and what manner of men think you them, when every word they speak is false, every charge they bring a calumny, and there is no truth whatever either in their speeches or their writings! However, let us now enter upon these matters, and meet their last charges. This will prove, that in their former representations in the Council and at the trial their conduct was dishonourable, or rather their words untrue, besides exposing them for what they have now advanced. §. 5. 6. We are indeed ashamed to make any defence against such charges. But since our reckless accusers lay hold of any charge, and allege that murders and butcheries were {20} committed after the return of Athanasius, we beseech you to bear with our answer though it be somewhat long; for circumstances constrain us. No murder was committed either by Athanasius or on his account, since our accusers, as we said before, compel us to enter upon this strange apology. Slaughter and imprisonment are foreign to our Church. No one did Athanasius commit into the hands of the executioner; and the prison, so far as he was concerned, was never disturbed. Our sanctuaries are now, as they have always been, pure, and honoured only with the Blood of Christ and his pious worship. Neither Presbyter nor Deacon was destroyed by Athanasius; he perpetrated no murder, he caused the banishment of no one. Would that they had never caused the like to him, nor given him actual experience of it! No one here was banished on his account; no one at all except Athanasius himself the Bishop of Alexandria, whom they banished, and whom, now that he is restored, they again seek to entangle in the same or even a more cruel plot than before, setting their tongues to speak all manner of false and deadly words against him. 7. For, behold, they now attribute to him the acts of the magistrates; and although they plainly confess in their letter that the Prefect of Egypt passed sentence upon certain persons, they now are not ashamed to impute this sentence to Athanasius; and that, though he had not at the time entered Alexandria, but was yet on his return from his place of exile. Indeed he was then in Syria; since we must needs adduce in his defence his length of way from home, that a man may not be responsible for the actions of a Governor or Prefect of Egypt. But supposing Athanasius had been in Alexandria, what were the proceedings of the Prefect to Athanasius? However, he was not even in the country; and what the Prefect of Egypt did was not done on ecclesiastical grounds, but for reasons which you will learn from the records, which, after we understood what they had written, we made diligent enquiry for, and have transmitted to you. Since then they now raise a cry against certain things which were never done either by him or for him, as through they had certainly taken place, and testify against such evils as though they were assured of their existence; let them inform us from what {21} Council they obtained their knowledge of them, from what proofs, and in the course of what investigation? But if they have no such evidence to bring forward, and nothing but their own mere assertion, we leave it to you to consider as regards their former charges also, how the things took place, and why they so speak of them. In truth, it is nothing but calumny, and a plot of our enemies, and anger full of atrocious projects, and an impiety in behalf of the Arian fanatics [Note 2], which is frantic against true godliness, and desires to root out the orthodox, so that henceforth the advocates of impiety may preach without fear whatever doctrines they please. The history of the matter is as follows: — §. 6. 8. When Arius, from whom the heresy of the Arian fanatics has its name, was cast out of the Church for his impiety by Bishop Alexander, of blessed memory, the Eusebians, who are the disciples and partners of his impiety, considering themselves also to have been ejected, wrote frequently to the Bishop Alexander, beseeching him not to keep the heretic Arius out of the Church. But when Alexander in his piety towards Christ refused to admit that impious man, they directed their resentment against Athanasius, who was then a Deacon, because in their busy enquiries they had heard that he was much in the familiarity of Alexander the Bishop, and much honoured by him. And their hatred of him was greatly increased after they had experience of his piety [Note 3] towards Christ, in the Council assembled at Nicæa, wherein he spoke boldly against the impiety of the Arian fanatics. But when God raised him to the Episcopate, their long-cherished malice burst forth into a flame, and fearing his orthodoxy and resistance of their impiety, they (and especially Eusebius, who was smitten with a consciousness of his own evil doings,) engaged in all manner of treacherous designs against him. They prejudiced the Emperor against him; they frequently threatened him with Councils; and at last assembled at Tyre; and to this day they cease not to write against him, and are so implacable that they even find fault with his appointment to the Episcopate [Note A], taking every means {22} of shewing their enmity and hatred towards him, and spreading false reports for the sole purpose of thereby destroying his character. 9. However, the very misrepresentations which they now are making, do but convict their former statements of being falsehoods, and a mere conspiracy against him. For they say, that "after the death of the Bishop Alexander, a certain few having mentioned the name of Athanasius, six or seven Bishops elected him clandestinely in a secret place:" and this is what they wrote to the Emperors, having no scruple about asserting the greatest falsehoods. Now that the whole multitude and all the people of the Catholic Church assembled together as with one mind and body, and cried, shouted, that Athanasius should be Bishop of their Church, made this the subject of their public prayers to Christ, and conjured us to grant it for many days and nights, neither departing themselves from the Church, nor suffering us to do so; of all this we are witnesses, and so is the whole city, and the province too. Not a word did they speak against him, as these persons represented, but gave him the most excellent titles they could devise, calling him the good, the pious, Christian, an ascetic [Note B], a genuine Bishop. And that he was elected by a majority of our body in the sight and with the acclamations of all the people, we who elected him also testify, who are surely more credible witnesses than those who were not present, and now spread these false accounts. 10. But yet Eusebius [Note 4] finds fault with the appointment of Athanasius,—he who perhaps never received any appointment {23} to his office at all; or if he did, has himself rendered it invalid [Note C]. For he had first the See of Berytus, but leaving that he came to Nicomedia. He left the one contrary to the law, and contrary to the law invaded the other; he deserted his own See for he failed in affection, and took possession of another's though he failed in a plea; he lost his love for the first in his lust for another, nor retained that love for the second which his lust had occasioned. For, behold, withdrawing himself from the second, again he takes possession of another's, casting an evil eye all around him upon the cities of other men, and thinking that godliness [Note 5] consists in wealth and in the greatness of cities, and making light of the heritage of God to which he had been appointed; not knowing that where even two or three are gathered in the name of the Lord, there is the Lord in the midst of them; not considering the words of the Apostle, I will not boast in another man's labours; not perceiving the charge which he has given, Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed [Mat. xviii. 20. 2 Cor. x. 15. 1 Cor. vii. 27.]. For if this expression applies to a wife, how much more does it apply to a Church, and to the same Episcopate; to which whosoever is bound ought not to seek another, lest he prove an adulterer according to holy Scripture. §. 7. 11. But though conscious of these his own misdoings, he has boldly undertaken to arraign the appointment of Athanasius, to which honourable testimony has been borne by all; and he ventures to reproach him with his deposition, though he has been deposed himself, and has a standing proof of his deposition in the appointment of another. How could either he or Theognius [Note D] degrade another, after they had been degraded themselves, which is sufficiently proved by the appointment of others in their room? For you know very well that {24} there were appointed instead of them Amphion to Nicomedia and Chrestus to Nicæa, in consequence of their own impiety and connection with the Arian fanatics, who were rejected by the Ecumenic Council. But while they desire to set aside that true Council, they endeavour to give that name to their own unlawful combination [Note 6]; while they are unwilling that the decrees of the Council should be enforced, they desire to enforce their own decisions; and they use the name of a Council, while they refuse to submit themselves to one so great as this. Thus they care not for Councils, but only pretend to do so in order that they may root out the orthodox, and annul the decrees of the true and great Council against the Arians, in support of whom, both now and heretofore, they have ventured to assert these falsehoods against the Bishop Athanasius. For their former statements resembled those they have now made, viz. that disorderly meetings were held at his entrance [Note 7], with lamentation and mourning, the people indignantly refusing to receive him. Now such was not the case, but, on the other hand, joy and cheerfulness prevailed, and the people ran together, hastening to obtain the desired sight of him. The Churches were full of rejoicings, and thanksgivings were offered up to the Lord every where; and all the Ministers and Clergy beheld him with such feelings, that their souls were possessed with delight, and they esteemed that the happiest day of their lives. Why need we mention the inexpressible joy that prevailed among us Bishops, for we have already said that we counted ourselves to have been partakers in his sufferings? §. 8. 12. Now this being confessedly the truth of the matter, although it is very differently represented by them, what weight can be attached to that Council or trial of which they make their boast? Since they presume thus to controvert the circumstances of a case which they did not witness, which they have not examined, and for which they did not meet, and to write as though they were assured of the truth of their statements, how can they claim credit respecting those matters for the consideration of which they say that they did meet together? Will it not rather be believed that they have acted both in the one case and in the other {25} out of enmity to us? For what kind of a Council of Bishops was then held? Was it an assembly which aimed at the truth? Was not almost every one among them our enemy? Did not the attack of the Eusebians upon us proceed from their zeal for the Arian fanaticism? Did they not urge on the others of their party? Have we not always written against them as professing the doctrines of Arius? Was not Eusebius of Cæsarea in Palestine accused by our confessors of sacrificing to idols [Note E]? Was not George proved to have been degraded by the blessed Alexander [Note F]? Were not they charged with various offences, some with this, some with that? 13. How then could such men entertain the purpose of holding a meeting against us? How can they have the boldness to call that a Council, at which a single Count presided, which an executioner attended, and where a chief jailor instead of the Deacons of the Church introduced us into Court; and where the Count only spoke, and all present held their peace, or rather obeyed his directions? The removal of those Bishops who seemed to deserve it, was prevented at his desire; and when he gave the order we were dragged about by soldiers;—or rather the Eusebians gave the order, and he was subservient to their will. In short, dearly beloved, what kind of Council was that, the object of which was banishment and murder at the pleasure of the Emperor? And of what nature were their charges?—for here is matter of still greater astonishment. There was one Arsenius whom they declared to have been murdered; and they also complained that a chalice belonging to the sacred mysteries had been broken. 14. Now Arsenius is alive, and prays to be admitted to our communion. He waits for no other testimony to prove that he is still living, but himself confesses it, writing in his own person to our brother Athanasius, whom they {26} positively asserted to be his murderer. The impious wretches were not ashamed to accuse him of having murdered a man who was at a great distance from him, being separated by an immense tract both of land and water, and whose abode at that time no one knew. Nay, they even had the boldness to remove him out of sight, and place him in concealment, though he had suffered no injury; and, if it had been possible, they would have transported him to another world, nay, or have taken him from life in earnest, so that either by a true or false statement of his murder they might in as good earnest destroy Athanasius. But thanks to divine Providence for this also, which permitted them not to succeed in their injustice, but presented Arsenius alive to the eyes of all men, who has clearly proved their conspiracy and calumnies. He does not withdraw from us as murderers, nor hate us as having injured him, (for indeed he has suffered no evil at all;) but he desires to hold communion with us; he wishes to be admitted among us, and has written to this effect. §. 9. 15. Nevertheless they laid their plot against Athanasius, accusing him of having murdered a person who was still alive; and those same men are the authors of his banishment [Note 8]. For it was not the father of the Emperors, but their calumnies, that sent him into exile. Consider whether this is not the truth. When nothing was discovered to the prejudice of our brother Athanasius, but still the Count threatened him with violence, and was very zealous against him, the Bishop [Note G], in order to avoid this violence, went up [Note 9] to the most religious Emperor, where he protested against the Count and their conspiracy against him, and requested either that a lawful Council of Bishops might be assembled, {27} or that the Emperor would himself receive his defence concerning the charges they brought against him. Upon this the Emperor wrote in anger, summoning them before him, and declaring that he would hear the cause himself, and for that purpose he also ordered a Council to be held. Whereupon the Eusebians went up and charged Athanasius, not with the same offences which they had published against him at Tyre, but with an intention of detaining the vessels laden with corn, as though Athanasius had been the man to pretend that he could stop the exports of corn from Alexandria to Constantinople. 16. Certain of our friends were present at the palace with Athanasius, and heard the threats of the Emperor upon receiving this report. And when Athanasius exclaimed against the calumny, and positively declared that it was not true; (for how, he argued, should he a poor man, and in a private station, be able to do such a thing?) Eusebius did not hesitate publicly to repeat the charge, and swore that Athanasius was a rich man, and powerful, and able to do any thing; from which it might be supposed that he had used this language. Such was the accusation these venerable Bishops proffered against him. But the grace of God proved superior to their wickedness, for it moved the pious Emperor to mercy, who instead of death passed upon him the sentence of banishment. Thus their calumnies, and nothing else, were the cause of this. For the Emperor, in the letter which he previously wrote, complained of their conspiracy, censured their machinations, and condemned the Meletians as unrighteous and deserving of execration; in short, expressed himself in the severest terms concerning them. For he was greatly moved when he heard the story of the dead alive; he was moved at hearing of this murder of one who lived after it without loss of life. We have sent you the letter. §. 10. 17. But these marvellous Eusebians, to make a show of refuting the truth of the case, and the statements contained in this letter, put forward the name of a Council, and ground its proceedings upon the authority of the Emperor. Hence the attendance of a Count at their meeting, and the soldiers as guards of the Bishops, and royal letters compelling {28} the attendance of any persons whom they required. But observe here the strange character of their machinations, and the inconsistency of their bold measures, so that by some means or other they may take Athanasius away from us. For if as Bishops they claimed for themselves alone the judgment of the case, what need was there for the attendance of a Count and soldiers? or how was it that they assembled under the sanction of royal letters? Or if they required the Emperor's countenance and wished to derive their authority from him, why did they then entrench upon his judgment? and when he declared in the letter which he wrote, that the Meletians were profligate calumniators, and that Athanasius was most innocent, and enlarged upon the pretended murder of the living, how was it that they determined that the Meletians had spoken the truth, and that Athanasius was guilty of the offence; and were not ashamed to make the living dead, living both after the Emperor's judgment, and at the time when they met together, and who even until this day is amongst us? So much concerning the case of Arsenius. §. 11. 18. And as for the chalice belonging to the mysteries, what was it, or where was it broken by Macarius? for this is the report which they spread up and down. But for Athanasius, even his accusers would not have ventured to blame him, had they not been suborned by them. However, they attribute the origin of the offence to him; although it ought not to be imputed even to Macarius who is clear of it. And they are not ashamed to parade the sacred mysteries before Catechumens, and worse than that, even before heathens [Note H]: whereas, they ought to attend to what is written, It is good to keep close the secret of a king [Tob. xii. 7.]; and as the Lord has charged us, Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine [Matt. vii. 6.]. We ought not then to parade the holy mysteries before the uninitiated, lest the heathen in their ignorance deride them, and the Catechumens {29} being over-curious be offended. However, what was the chalice, and where and before whom was it broken? It is the Meletians who make the accusation, who are not worthy of the least credit, for they have been schismatics and enemies of the Church, not of a recent date, but from the times of the blessed Peter, Bishop and Martyr [Note I]. They formed a conspiracy against Peter himself; they calumniated his successor Achillas; they accused Alexander even before the Emperor; and being thus well versed in these arts, they have now transferred their enmity to Athanasius, acting altogether in accordance with their former wickedness. For as they slandered those that have been before him, so now they have slandered him. But their calumnies and false accusations have never prevailed against him until now, that they have got the Eusebians for their assistants and patrons, on account of the impiety [Note 10] which these have adopted from the Arian fanatics, which has led them to conspire against many Bishops, and among the rest Athanasius. 19. Now the place where the say the chalice was broken, was not a Church; there was no Presbyter in occupation of the place; and the day on which they say that Macarius did the deed, was not the Lord's day. Since then there was no Church there; since there was no one to perform the priest's office; and since the day did not require the use of it [Note K]; what was this sacred chalice, and when, or where was it broken? There are many cups, it is plain, both in private houses, and in the public market; and if a person breaks one of them, he is not guilty of impiety. But the chalice which belongs to the mysteries, and which if it be broken intentionally, makes the perpetrator of the deed an impious person, is found only among those who are lawfully appointed to preside over the Church. This is the only description that can be given of this kind of chalice; there is none other; of this you drink prior to the people; this you have received according to the canon of the Church [Note 11]; this belongs only to those who preside {30} over the Catholic Church, for to you only it appertains to have the first taste [Note 12] of the Blood of Christ, and to none besides. But as he who breaks a sacred cup is an impious person, much more impious is he who treats the Blood of Christ with contumely: and he does so who performs this mystical rite contrary to the rule of the Church;—(we say this, not as if a chalice even of the schismatics was broken by Macarius, for there was no chalice there at all; how should there be? where there was neither Lord's house nor any one belonging to the Church, nay, it was not the time of the celebration of the mysteries;)—now such a person is the notorious Ischyras, who was never appointed to his office by the Church, and when Alexander admitted the Presbyters that had been ordained by Meletius, he was not even numbered amongst them; and therefore did not receive ordination even from that quarter. §. 12. 20. By what means then did Ischyras become a Presbyter [Note L]? who was it that ordained him? was it Colluthus? for this is the only supposition that remains. But it is well known, and no one has any doubt about the matter, that Colluthus died a Presbyter, and that every ordination of his was invalid, and that all that were ordained by him during the schism were reduced to the condition of laymen, and in that rank appear in the congregation. How then can it be believed that a private person, occupying a private house, had in his possession a sacred chalice? But the truth is, they gave the name of Presbyter at the time to a private person, and gratified him with this title to support him in his iniquitous conduct towards us; and now as the reward of his accusations they procure for him the erection of a Church. So that this man had then no Church; but as the reward of his malice and subserviency to them in accusing us, he receives now what he had not before; nay, perhaps they have even remunerated his services with the Episcopate, for so he goes about reporting, and accordingly behaves towards us with great insolence. Thus are such rewards as these now bestowed by Bishops upon accusers and calumniators; though indeed it is reasonable, in the case of an accomplice, {31} that as they have made him a partner in their proceedings, so they should also make him their associate in their own Episcopate. But this is not all; give ear yet further to their proceedings at that time. §. 13. 21. Being unable to prevail against the truth, though they had thus set themselves in array against it, and Ischyras having proved nothing at Tyre, except that he was a calumniator, and the calumny ruining their plot, they defer proceedings until they obtain fresh evidence, and propose to send to the Mareotis certain of their party to enquire diligently into the matter. Accordingly they dispatched secretly, with the assistance of the civil power, persons to whom we openly objected on many accounts, as being of the party of Arius, and therefore our enemies; namely, Diognius, Maris, Theodorus, Macedonius, and two others, young both in years and mind [Note M], Ursacius and Valens from Pannonia; who, after they had undertaken this long journey for the purpose of obtaining justice against their enemy, set out again from Tyre for Alexandria. They did not shrink from becoming witnesses themselves, although they were the judges, but openly adopted every means of furthering their design, and undertook any labour or journey whatsoever in order to bring to a successful issue the conspiracy which was in progress. They left the Bishop Athanasius detained in a foreign country while they themselves entered their enemy's city, as if to have their revel both against his Church and against his people. And what was more outrageous still, they took with them the accuser Ischyras, but would not permit Macarius, the accused person, to accompany them, but left him in custody at Tyre. For "Macarius the Presbyter of Alexandria" was made answerable for the charge far and near. §. 14. 22. They therefore entered Alexandria alone with the accuser, their partner in lodging, board, and wine-cup; and taking with them Philagrius the Prefect of Egypt they proceeded to the Mareotis, and there carried on the investigation by themselves, all their own way, with the forementioned person. Although the Presbyters frequently begged that they might {32} be present, they would not permit them. The Presbyters both of the city and of the whole country desired to attend, that they might detect who and whence the persons were who were suborned by Ischyras. But they forbade the Ministers to be present, while they carried on the examination concerning the Church, the chalice, the table, and the holy things, before the heathen; nay, worse than that, they summoned heathen witnesses during the enquiry concerning the sacred chalice; and those persons who they affirmed were taken out of the way by Athanasius by means of the summons of the Receiver-general, and they knew not where in the world they were, these same individuals they brought forward before themselves and the Prefect only, and avowedly used their testimony, whom they affirmed without shame to have been secreted by the Bishop Athanasius. 23. But here too their only object is to effect his death, and so they again pretend that persons are dead who are still alive, following the same method they adopted in the case of Arsenius. For the men are living, and are to be seen in their own country; but to you who are at a great distance from the spot they give a tragical representation of the matter as though they had disappeared, in order that, as the evidence is so far removed from you, they may falsely accuse our brother-minister, as though he used violence and the civil power; whereas they themselves have in all respects acted by means of that power and the countenance of others. For their proceedings in the Mareotis were parallel to those at Tyre; and as there a Count attended with military assistance, and would permit nothing either to be said or done contrary to their pleasure, so here also the Prefect of Egypt was present with a band of men, frightening all the members of the Church, and permitting no one to give true testimony. And what was the strangest thing of all, the persons who came, whether as judges or witnesses, or, what was more likely, in order to serve their own purposes and those of Eusebius, lived in the same place with the accuser, even in his house, and there seemed to carry on the investigation as they pleased. §. 15. 24. We suppose you are not ignorant what outrages they committed at Alexandria; for they are reported every where. {33} They attacked the holy virgins and brethren with naked swords; they beat with scourges their persons, esteemed honourable in the sight of God, so that their feet were lamed by the stripes, whose souls are whole and sound in purity and all good works [Note 13]. The trades [Note 14] were excited against them; and the heathen multitude was set to strip them naked, to beat them, wantonly to insult them, and to threaten them with their altars and sacrifices. And one coarse fellow, as though license had now been given them by the Prefect in order to gratify the Bishops, took hold of a virgin by the hand, and dragged her towards an altar that happened to be near, imitating the practice of compelling to offer sacrifice in time of persecution. When this was done, the virgins took to flight, and a shout of laughter was raised by the heathen against the Church; the Bishops being in the place, and occupying the very house where this was going on; and from which, in order to obtain favour with them, the virgins were assaulted with naked swords, and were exposed to all kinds of danger, and insult, and wanton violence. And this treatment they received during a season of fasting [Note 15], and at the hands of persons who themselves were feasting with the Bishops in that house. §. 16. 25. Foreseeing these things, and reflecting that the entrance of enemies into a place is no ordinary calamity, we protested against this commission. And Alexander [Note N], Bishop of Thessalonica, considering the same, wrote to the people residing there, discovering the conspiracy, and testifying of the plot. They indeed reckon him to be one of themselves, and account him a partner in their designs; but they only prove thereby the violence they have exercised towards him. For even the profligate Ischyras himself was only induced by fear and violence to proceed in the matter, and was obliged by force to undertake the accusation. As a proof of this, he wrote himself to our brother Athanasius [Note 16], confessing that nothing of the kind that was alleged had taken place there, {34} but that he was suborned to make a false statement. This declaration he made, though he was never admitted by Athanasius as a Presbyter, nor received that title from him as a boon, nor was entrusted by way of recompense with the erection of a Church, nor expected the bribe of a Bishopric; all of which he obtained from them in return for undertaking the accusation. Moreover, his whole family held communion with us [Note 17], which they would not have done had they been injured in the slightest degree. §. 17. 26. Now to prove that these things are facts and not mere assertions, we have the testimony [Note 18] of all the Presbyters of the Mareotis [Note O], who always accompany the Bishop in his visitations, and who also wrote at the time against Ischyras. But neither those of them who came to Tyre were allowed to declare the truth [Note 19], nor could those who remained in the Mareotis obtain permission to refute the calumnies of Ischyras [Note 20]. Copies also of the letters of Alexander, and of the Presbyters, and of Ischyras, will prove the same thing. We have sent also the letter of the father of the Emperors, in which he expresses his indignation that the murder of Arsenius was charged upon any one while the man was still alive; as also his astonishment at the variable and inconsistent character of their accusations with respect to the chalice; since at one time they accused the Presbyter Macarius, at another the Bishop Athanasius, of having broken it with his hands. He declares also on the one hand that the Meletians are calumniators, and on the other that Athanasius is perfectly innocent. 27. And are not the Meletians calumuniators, and above all John [Note 21], who after coming into the Church, and communicating with us, after condemning himself, and no longer taking any part in the proceedings respecting the chalice, when he saw the Eusebians zealously supporting the Arian fanatics, though they had not the daring to cooperate with them openly, but were attempting to employ others as their masks, undertook a character, as an actor in the heathen theatres [Note 22]? The subject of the drama was the contest of the {35} Arians; the real design of the piece being their success, but John and his partizans being appended and playing the parts, in order that under colour of these, the supporters of the Arians, in the garb of judges, might drive away the enemies of their impiety, firmly establish their impious doctrines, and bring the Arians into the Church. And those who wish to drive out true godliness [Note 23] strive all they can to prevail by ungodliness [Note 23]; they who have chosen the part of that impiety [Note 23] which wars against Christ, endeavour to destroy the enemies thereof, as though they were impious [Note 23] persons; and they impute to us the breaking of the chalice, for the purpose of making it appear that Athanasius, equally with themselves, is guilty of impiety [Note 23] towards Christ. 28. For what means this mention of the sacred chalice by them? Whence comes this religious [Note 23] regard for the chalice among those who support impiety [Note 23] towards Christ? Whence comes it that Christ's chalice is known to them who know not Christ? How can they who profess to honour that chalice, dishonour the God of the chalice? or how can they who lament over the chalice, seek to murder the Bishop who celebrates the mysteries therewith? for they would have murdered him, had it been in their power. And how can they who lament the loss of the throne that was Episcopally covered [Note 24], seek to destroy the Bishop that sat upon it, to the end that both the throne may be without its Bishop, and that the people may be deprived of godly [Note 23] doctrine? It was not then the chalice, nor the murder, nor any of those portentous deeds they talk about, that induced them to act thus; but the forementioned heresy of the Arians, for the sake of which they conspired against Athanasius and other Bishops, and still continue to wage war against the Church. 29. Who are they that have really been the cause of murders and banishments? Are not these? Who are they that, availing themselves of external support, conspire against the Bishops? Are not the Eusebians they, and not Athanasius, as in their letters they pretend? Both he and others have suffered at their hands. Even at the time of which we speak, four Presbyters [Note 25] of Alexandria, though they had not even proceeded to Tyre, were banished by their means. Who then are they whose conduct calls for tears and lamentations? {36} Does not theirs, who after they have been guilty of one course of persecution, do not scruple to add to it a second, but have recourse to all manner of falsehood, in order that they may destroy a Bishop who will not give way to their impious heresy? hence arises the enmity of the Eusebians; hence their proceedings at Tyre; hence their pretended trials; hence also now the letters which they have written even without any trial, expressing the utmost confidence in their statements; hence their calumnies before the father of the Emperors, and before the most religious Emperors themselves. §. 18. 30. For it is necessary that you should know what is now reported to the prejudice of our brother Athanasius, in order that you may thereby be led to condemn their wickedness, and may perceive that they desire nothing else but to murder him. A quantity of corn was given by the father of the Emperors for the support of certain widows, some to be of Libya, and some out of Egypt. They have all received it up to this time, Athanasius getting nothing therefrom, but the trouble of assisting them. But now, although the recipients themselves make no complaint, but acknowledge that they have received it, Athanasius has been accused of selling all the corn, and appropriating the profits to his own use: and the Emperor wrote to this effect about it, charging him with the offence in consequence of the calumnies which had been raised against him. Now who are they that have raised these calumnies? Is it not those who after they have been guilty of one course of persecution, scruple not to set on foot another? Who are the authors of those letters which are said to have come from the Emperor? Are not the Arians who are so zealous against Athanasius, and scruple not to speak and write any thing? No one would pass over persons who have acted as they have done, in order to entertain suspicion of others. Nay, the proof of their calumny appears to be most evident, for they are anxious under cover of it, to take away the corn from the Church, and to give it to the Arians. And this circumstance more than any other, brings the matter home to the authors of this design and their principals, who scrupled neither to set on foot a charge of murder against Athanasius, and as a base means of prejudicing {37} the Emperor against him, nor yet to take away from the Clergy [Note 26] of the Church the subsistence of the poor, in order that in fact they might make gain for the heretics. §. 19. 31. We have sent also the testimony of our brother ministers in Libya, Pentapolis, and Egypt, from which likewise you may learn the false accusations which have been brought against Athanasius. And these things they do, in order that, the professors of true godliness being henceforth induced by fear to remain quiet, the heresy of the impious Arians may be introduced in place of the truth. But thanks be to your piety, dearly beloved, that you have frequently anathematized the Arians in your letters, and have never given them admittance into the Church. The exposure of the Eusebians is also easy, and ready at hand. For behold, after their former letters concerning the Arians, of which also we have sent you copies, they now openly stir up the Arian fanatics against the Church, though the whole Catholic Church has anathematized them; they have appointed a Bishop [Note 27] over them; they distract the Churches with threats and alarms, that they may gain assistants in their impiety in every part. Moreover, they send Deacons to the Arians, who openly join their assemblies; they write letters to them, and receive answers from them, thus making schisms in the Church, and holding communion with them; and they send to every part, commending their heresy, and repudiating the Church, as you will perceive from the letters they have addressed to the Bishop of Rome [Note 28], and perhaps to yourselves also. You perceive therefore, dearly beloved, that these things are not undeserving of vengeance: they are indeed dreadful and alien from the doctrine of Christ. 32. Wherefore we have assembled together, and have written to you, to request of your Christian wisdom to receive this our declaration and sympathize with our brother Athanasius, and to shew your indignation against the Eusebians who have essayed such things, in order that such malice and wickedness may no longer prevail against the Church. We call upon you to be the avengers of such injustice, reminding you of the injunction of the Apostle, Put away from among yourselves that wicked person [1 Cor. v. 13.]. Wicked indeed is their conduct, and unworthy {38} of your communion. Wherefore give no further heed to them, though they should again write to you against the Bishop Athanasius; (for all that proceeds from them is false;) not even though they subscribe their letter with names [Note P] of Egyptian Bishops. For it is evident that it will not be we who write, but the Meletians [Note 29], who have ever been schismatics, and who even unto this day make disturbances and raise factions in the Churches. For they ordain improper persons, and all but heathens; and they are guilty of such actions as we are ashamed to set down in writing, but which you may learn from those whom we have sent unto you, and who will deliver to you our letter. §. 20. 33. Thus wrote the Bishops of Egypt to all Bishops, and to Julius Bishop of Rome. NotesA. The Eusebians alleged that, fifty-four Bishops
of the two parties of S. Alexander and Meletius being assembled for
the election, and having sworn to elect by the common voice, six or
seven of these broke their oaths in favour of S. Athanasius, whom no
one had thought of, and consecrated him in secret to the great
surprise and scandal of both ecclesiastical and lay persons. vid. Socr.
ii. 17. Philostorgius (A.D. 423.) adds particulars, explanatory or
corrective of this statement, of which the Bishops in the text do not
seem to have heard; sic, that Athanasius with his party one night
seized on the Church of St. Dionysius, and compelled two Bishops whom
he found there to consecrate him against their will; that he was in
consequence anathematized by all the other Bishops, but that,
fortifying himself in his position, he sent in his election to the
Emperor, and by this means obtained its confirmation. Hist. ii. 16. It
appears, in matter of fact, that S. Athan. was absent at the time of
his election; as Socrates says, in order to avoid it, or as Epiphanius,
on business at the Court; these reasons are compatible. B.
It is contested whether S. Athan. was ever one of S. Antony's monks,
the reading of a passage in the commencement of his Vit. Ant., which
would decide the question, varying in different MSS. The word "ascetic"
is used of those who lived a life, as afterwards followed in
Monasteries, in the Ante-Nicene times. C.
The Canons of Nicæa and Sardica were absolute against translation,
but, as Bingham observes, Antiqu. vi. 4. §. 6. only as a general
rule. The so-called Apostolical Canons except "a reasonable cause" and
the sanction of a Council; one of the Councils of Carthage prohibit
them when subserving ambitious views, and except for the advantage of
the Church. Vid. list of translations in Socr. Hist. vii. 36.
Cassiodor. Hist. xii. 8. Niceph. Hist. xiv. 39. Cotelier adds others
ad Can. Apost. 14. D.
Or Theognis; he was, as well as Eusebius, a pupil of Lucian's, and was
deposed together with him after the Nicene Council for communicating
with Arians. Constantine banished them to Gaul; they were recalled in
the course of two or three years. He was dead by the date of the
Council of Sardica. E.
At the Council of Tyre, Potamo an Egyptian Bishop and Confessor asked
Eusebius what had happened to him in prison during the
persecution, Epiph. Hær. 68, 7. as if hinting at his cowardice. It
appears that Eusebius was prisoner at Cæsarea with S. Pamphilus; yet
he never mentions the fact himself, which is unlike him, if it was
producible. F.
George, Bishop of Laodicea, had been degraded when a Priest by S.
Alexander, for his profligate habits as well as his Arianism. Athan.
speaks of him elsewhere as reprobated even by his party. de Fug. 26. G.
The circumstances of this appeal, which are related by Athan. below,
§. 86. are thus summed up by Gibbon; "Before the final sentence could
he pronounced at Tyre, the intrepid primate threw himself into a bark
which was ready to hoist sail for the imperial city. The request of a
formal audience might have been opposed or eluded; but Athanasius
concealed his arrival, watched the moment of Constantine's return from
an adjacent villa, and boldly encountered his angry sovereign as he
passed on horseback through the principal street of Constantinople. So
strange an apparition excited his surprise and indignation; and the
guards were ordered to remove the importunate suitor; but his
resentment was subdued by involuntary respect; and the haughty spirit
of the Emperor was awed by the courage and eloquence of a Bishop, who
implored his justice and awakened his conscience." Hist. xxi. Athan.
was a small man in person. H.
This period, when Christianity was acknowledged by the state but not
embraced by the population, is just the time when we hear most of this
Reserve as a principle. While Christians were but a sect, persecution
enforced a discipline, and when they were commensurate with the
nation, faith made it unnecessary. We are now returned to the state of
the fourth century. I.
Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis in the Thebaid, being deposed for
lapsing in the Dioclesian Persecution, separated from the Catholic
Church and commenced a succession of his own in Egypt. In the same
persecution S. Peter suffered. K.
This seems to imply that the Holy Communion was only celebrated on
Sundays in the Egyptian Churches. L.
Vid. Bp. Taylor, Episcop. Assert. §. 32. Potter on Church Gov. ch. v. M.
Vid. also Athan. ad Ep. Æg. 7. Euseb. Vit. c. iv. 43. Hilar. ad
Const. i. 5. Fragm. ii. 12. N.
This Alexander had been one of the Nicene Fathers, in 325, and had the
office of publishing their decrees in Macedonia, Greece, &c. He
was at the Council of Jerusalem ten years after, at which the Church
of the Holy Sepulchre was consecrated, and afterwards Arius admitted
to communion. His influence with the Court party seems to have been
great, judging from Count Dionysius's tone in speaking of him, infr.
§. 81. O.
The district, called Mareotis from a neighbouring lake, lay in the
territory and diocese of Alexandria, to the west. It consisted of
various large villages, with handsome Churches, and resident Priests,
and of hamlets which had none; of the latter was "the Peace of
Secontaruri," (infr. §. 85.) where Ischyras lived. P.
The Eusebians availed themselves of the subscriptions of the Meletians,
as at Philippopolis, Hilar. Fragm. 3. Margin Notes1. [sulleitourgou]. 2.
or Ario-maniacs, passim. 3.
i.e. orthodoxy, passim. 4.
Of Nicomedia. 5.
[eusebeian], orthodoxy, (vid. 1 Tim. vi. 5.) 6.
Eusebian Council of Tyre, A.D. 335. 7.
On his return from Gaul, A.D. 338. 8.
by Constantine into Gaul, A.D. 335. 9.
i.e. to Constantinople. 10.
i.e. heresy, passim. 11.
vid. Can. Ap. 65. 12.
[propinein]. 13.
Hist. Arian. 12. 14.
[ergasiai] (?) 15.
supr. p. 7. 16.
infr. §. 64. 17.
vid. infr. §. 63 fin. §. 85 fin. 18.
infr. §. 74. 19.
infr. §. 79. 20.
§. 72 fin. 21.
Arcaph. infr. 65 fin. head of the Melitians. 22.
vid. infr. §. 37. 46. vol. 8. p. 127, note G. 23.
[eusebeia], &c. vid. supr. p. 3. ref. 1. 24.
cathedræ velatæ, Aust. ap. Bingh. viii. 6. §. 10. 25.
vid. their names infr. §. 40. 26.
[ton kleron], f. [cheron],
Montf. §. 19. 27.
Pistus. 28.
vid. infr. §. 21. 29.
infr. §. 73. Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman |