Defence against the Arians 13–26

Being unable to prevail against the truth, though they had armed themselves against it, and since at Tyre Ischyras proved nothing but was shown to be a false accuser, and the truth was unraveling the plot of their false accusation, they postpone the proofs and promise to send some of their own number to make inquiries in the Mareotis. And those whom we openly objected to for many reasons, both as holding the views of Arius and for that reason our enemies, they sent themselves, secretly, using their power: Diognius, Maris, Theodore, Macedonius, and two who were young in age and in character, Ursacius and Valens from Pannonia. And these men, after so long a journey, which they endured in order to judge their enemy, hastened again from Tyre to Alexandria, not declining to become witnesses as well as judges, but openly undertaking every kind of plotting and submitting to every toil and every journey in order to complete the plot that was being prepared. They left Bishop Athanasius detained abroad, while they themselves entered their enemy’s city as if in a revel against both the Church and the people; and, what was more unreasonable, they took Ischyras the accuser along with them, but did not allow Macarius the accused to follow, leaving him under guard at Tyre. For Macarius, the presbyter of Alexandria, was being dragged up and down by them on the charge.

So, having entered Alexandria alone with the accuser, having him as their housemate, table companion, and drinking companion, and taking with them Philagrius the prefect of Egypt, they went off to the Mareotis; and there they conducted the inquiry, so-called, by themselves as they pleased, with the aforesaid man, not allowing the presbyters to be present, though they asked many times. Both the presbyters of the city and those of the whole countryside asked to be present, so that they might expose who the persons put forward by Ischyras were and where they came from. And they kept the ministers from being present, while before pagans they inquired about a church, about a cup, about a table, and about the holy things; and, what was worse, they called pagans as witnesses when inquiring about a mystical cup. And those whom they asserted had been carried off by Athanasius at the summons of the catholicus, and whose whereabouts on earth were unknown, these they brought in before themselves and the prefect alone. And they were not ashamed to say that these men had been made away with by Bishop Athanasius—men whose testimony they evidently use! But here too, wishing only to murder, they again invent the living as dead, imitating their method with Arsenius. For the men exist and are seen in their own country, yet to you who are far away they make a tragedy of them as having vanished, so that, while the proofs are far off, they may slander our fellow minister as using force and power, though they themselves do everything with power and patronage. For what happened at the Mareotis again resembled what happened at Tyre: as there a count was present with a military guard, permitting nothing to be said or done contrary to their wishes, so here too the prefect of Egypt was present with his staff, frightening all the members of the church and permitting no one to testify truthfully. And what was stranger, in the very place, in the accuser’s house, they both lodged and conducted what inquiry they pleased—as judges, or witnesses, or rather, which is truer, as servants of their own zeal and Eusebius’s.

What they dared to do in Alexandria we suppose you are not unaware of, for it has been reported everywhere. Naked swords were brought against the holy virgins and the brothers, and scourges against bodies honorable before God, and women whose souls were pure in chastity and complete in every good thing were lamed in their feet by the blows. The trades were stirred up against them, and pagan mobs, to strip them, beat them, and treat them wantonly, and to threaten them with altars and sacrifices. And a licentious man, as though license had now been given by the prefect as a favor to the bishops, seized a virgin by the hand and dragged her to an altar that happened to be there, imitating the compulsion to sacrifice in a persecution. These things were done, and the virgins fled, and the pagans laughed at the Church, while the bishops were in the city, lodging in the very house where these things were being done, and from which, out of favor to them, the virgins endured naked swords and every danger, insult, and drunken violence. And they suffered these things during a fast, at the hands of men who were feasting indoors with the bishops. [16] Foreseeing these things, knowing that the entry of enemies is no ordinary harm, we made our objection. Alexander too, the bishop of Thessalonica, bearing these things in mind, writes to those who remained there, exposing the plot and bearing witness to the conspiracy. Even if they number him with themselves and count him one of the plot, they show nothing else than the violence done to him. For even the utterly wicked Ischyras did not rush into it without fear and force, but took on the accusation under compulsion. As proof of this, Ischyras himself wrote to our fellow bishop Athanasius that nothing of the kind had been done there, but that he had been prompted to invent it. And he wrote this without having been received by him as a presbyter, without having been granted such a title as a favor, without having obtained the building of a church as a reward or expecting a bishopric as a wage—all of which he obtained from them for his accusation. Moreover, his whole family attended services with us; they would not have done so had they been wronged in the least.

That these things are not words but deeds, all the presbyters of the Mareotis are witnesses, who always accompany the bishop on his visitations; who also wrote against Ischyras at that time; and neither were those of them who came to Tyre allowed to speak the truth, nor were those who stayed in the Mareotis permitted to expose Ischyras as a false accuser. There are also the copies of Alexander’s letters, and of the presbyters’, and of Ischyras’s. We have sent also the letter of the father of the emperors, in which he is not only indignant over Arsenius, that the murder of a living man was charged, but also marvels at the inconsistency and confusion of the accusation about the cup, since they accused now Macarius the presbyter and now Athanasius the bishop of having broken the cup with his hands; and again he declares the Meletians false accusers, and again Athanasius entirely innocent. For how are the Meletians not false accusers, and John above all? He came into the church, communicated with us, condemned himself, and raised nothing further about the cup; but when he saw Eusebius and his party zealous for the Ariomaniacs yet not daring to work with them openly, and seeking to use other faces, he put himself forward like an actor of the theaters outside. The plot was a contest of the Arians, and the main aim was their success; John and those with him were their stooge and appendage, so that the partisans of the Arians, using these men as a pretext, in the guise of judges, might drive away the enemies of impiety, fix impiety firmly, and bring the Arians into the Church. And those who … piety try to conquer by impiety; and those who chose impiety against Christ attempted to destroy the enemies of impiety as impious. They bring up a broken cup against us, so that it might seem … that Athanasius too was impious against Christ along with them. For what concern for a mystical cup should they have? Whence do the champions of impiety toward Christ get a pious mind about a cup? How should the cup of Christ be familiar to those who do not know Christ? How do those who pretend to honor the cup dishonor the God of the cup? Or how do those who lament a cup seek to murder the bishop who celebrates the mysteries with it? And they would have murdered him, as far as lay in them. And how do those who lament the throne adorned for a bishop seek to destroy the bishop who sits on it, so that the throne may want its bishop and the people be deprived of pious teaching? So it was neither a cup, nor a murder, nor any of the marvels they told that led them to this, but the aforesaid impiety of the Arians, for whose sake they plotted against Athanasius and other bishops and still now make war on the Church. For who are they that have truly caused murders and exiles? Is it not these? Who are they that, using outside patronage, plot against bishops? Is it not Eusebius and his party rather, and not Athanasius, as they write? For he and others have suffered at their hands. For on account of impiety … and four presbyters of Alexandria at that time, though they had not even gone to Tyre, were sent beyond the frontier by them. Who, then, deserve lamentation and tears? Is it not those who did the first things and do not shrink from adding second ones, and make false accusations in everything, so that they may destroy a bishop who does not yield to their impious heresy? This is the reason for the enmity of Eusebius and his party; this is the reason for what was set in motion at Tyre; this is the reason for the feigned trials; this is the reason why they now write letters even without a trial, as though fully informed; this is the reason for the slanders to the father of the emperors and to the most pious emperors themselves.

For you must know what is now alleged against our fellow minister Athanasius, so that you may recognize that they seek nothing else than to murder the man. Grain was given by the father of the emperors for the support of the widows, one portion for Libya and another for certain persons from Egypt. All have received it up to now, Athanasius getting nothing from it but the labor of helping them. But now, although they receive it and make no complaint but acknowledge that they receive it, Athanasius has been slandered as selling all the grain and appropriating it to his own use; and the emperor has written to this effect, accusing him on the strength of the slanders that were made. Who, then, are the slanderers? Is it not those who did the first things and do not shrink from stirring up second ones? Who are the authors of these letters said to come from the emperor? Is it not the Arians, who are zealous against him and have not shrunk from saying or writing anything against the man? For no one would pass over those who have done so much and suspect others. Indeed the clearest proof of their slander appears: they are eager, on the pretext of the slander, to take the grain away from the Church and give it to the Arians. This above all points back to the authors of the scheme and their ringleaders, who did not shrink either from stirring up charges of murder against the man, by which they have falsely slandered him to the emperor, or from taking away the support of the clergy of the Church, in order in fact to provide gain for heretics.

We have sent also the testimony of our fellow ministers in Libya and Pentapolis and from Egypt, so that from this too you may know the false accusation made against Athanasius. They do these things so that, when those who hold to piety keep quiet from fear, the heresy of the impious Arians may be brought in instead. But thanks be to your piety, beloved, because you have often written anathematizing the Arians and have given them no place in the Church; and the refutation of Eusebius and his party is near at hand. For see, after their earlier letters concerning the Arians, of which we have also sent the copies, they now openly raise up against the Church the Ariomaniacs anathematized by the whole catholic Church; they have appointed a bishop for them, and they divide the churches with threats and fears, so that they may have fellow workers in their impiety everywhere. For they even send deacons to the Ariomaniacs, who openly attend their meetings, write to them, and receive replies from them, rending the Church and communicating with them; and they send letters everywhere commending their heresy and denouncing the Church, as you can learn from what they themselves have written to the bishop of the Romans, and perhaps to you as well. That these things ought not to go unpunished, beloved, you too perceive; for they are terrible and foreign to the teaching of Christ. For this reason we have met together and written to you, asking your understanding in Christ to accept this declaration, to share the grief of our fellow bishop Athanasius, and to be indignant against Eusebius and his party, who attempt such things, so that such malice and wickedness may no longer prevail against the Church. For we call on you as avengers of such injustice, reminding you of the apostolic word, “Drive out the wicked person from among you.” For what they have done is truly wicked and unworthy of communion. Therefore pay no further attention, even if they write to you again against Bishop Athanasius (for everything from them is false), not even if they inscribe the names of Egyptian bishops on their letters. For it is plain that it is not we who write, but the Meletians, who are schismatics always, and who to this day trouble the churches and stir up factions. For they make unreasonable appointments, almost like those of pagans, and do such things as we are ashamed to write, but which you can learn from those sent by us, who deliver this letter to you.”

This the bishops of Egypt wrote to all, and to Julius, bishop of Rome. Eusebius and his party also wrote to Julius and, thinking to frighten us, asked him to call a synod and, if he wished, to be the judge himself. When, therefore, we went up to Rome, Julius rightly wrote to Eusebius and his party too, sending two presbyters of his own, Elpidius and Philoxenus. But when they heard about us they were thrown into confusion, not having expected us to go up; and they declined, inventing implausible excuses, but in truth afraid that what Valens and Ursacius confessed would be proved against them. So more than fifty bishops met, in the place where the presbyter Vito held his congregation, and they accepted our defense and confirmed to us both communion and love. But they were indignant against those men, and asked Julius to write accordingly to Eusebius and his party, who had written to him; and he wrote, and sent the letter by Gabianus the count. Letter of Julius. “Julius to Danius, Flacillus, Narcissus, Eusebius, Maris, Macedonius, Theodore, and those with them who wrote to us from Antioch, beloved brothers, greeting in the Lord.

I have read the letter brought by my presbyters Elpidius and Philoxenus, and I was surprised that, while we wrote in love and with a conscience of truth, you replied contentiously and not as was fitting; for the pride and arrogance of the writers showed through the letter. Such things are foreign to faith in Christ. For what was written with love ought to have received an equal return with love, and not with contentiousness. Or is it not a mark of love to send presbyters to sympathize with those who suffer, and to invite those who wrote to come, so that everything might be settled quickly and set right, and neither our brothers suffer any longer nor anyone slander you? But I do not know what made you so disposed as to make us think that even the words with which you seemed to honor us you spoke in disguise, with a certain irony. For the presbyters who were sent, who ought to have returned with joy, returned on the contrary grieved at what they had seen happening there. And I, on reading the letter, after much thought kept it to myself, thinking that some would come after all and that there would be no need of the letter, lest, if it came into the open, it should grieve many here. But since no one came, and it became necessary to produce it, I confess to you that all were astonished, and almost refused to believe that such things had been written by you at all; for the letter was one of contentiousness rather than love. Now if its author wrote out of ambition for eloquence, such a pursuit belongs to others. For in church matters there is no display of eloquence, but apostolic canons and care not to offend one of the little ones in the Church. For, according to the word of the Church, it is better for a millstone to be hung around one’s neck and to be drowned than to offend even one of the little ones. But if the letter was written as by men grieved through petty-mindedness toward one another (for I would not say that this is the mind of all), you ought not to have been grieved at all, nor to let the sun go down on your grief; but in any case you ought not to have been carried so far as to set it out in writing.

For what has happened that deserves grief, or in what respect was it fitting for you to be grieved at what we wrote? Was it that we invited you to attend a synod? But you ought rather to have welcomed this with joy. For those who have confidence in what they have done and, as they say, judged, are not indignant if their judgment is examined by others; they are confident that what they judged justly could never turn out unjust. For this reason the bishops assembled at the great synod of Nicaea, not without the will of God, allowed the decisions of an earlier synod to be examined in another synod, so that those who judge, having before their eyes the second judgment to come, might examine with all care, and those who are judged might trust that they are judged not by the enmity of the former judges but by justice. But if you do not wish this custom to prevail among you, though it is ancient and was mentioned and written down at the great synod, such a refusal is unbecoming; for what has once become custom in the Church and been confirmed by synods should not reasonably be set aside by a few. Besides, not even on this point could you justly be shown to be grieved. For those sent with letters by you, Eusebius and your party—I mean Macarius the presbyter and Martyrius and Hesychius the deacons—when they arrived here and could not stand up against the presbyters of Athanasius who had come, but were put to confusion and refuted on every point, then asked us to convene a synod and to write both to Bishop Athanasius at Alexandria and to Eusebius and his party, so that a just judgment might be given in the presence of all. For then they promised to prove all the charges against Athanasius. For Martyrius and Hesychius were refuted publicly by us, and the presbyters of Bishop Athanasius withstood them with confidence; Martyrius and his companions, if the truth must be told, were put to confusion on every point, which is why they asked for a synod to be held. If, then, even without Martyrius and Hesychius asking for a synod, I had been the one to invite you, so as to trouble those who wrote, for the sake of our brothers who complain of having suffered injustice, even so the invitation would have been reasonable and just, for it is ecclesiastical and pleasing to God. But when those whom you yourselves, Eusebius and your party, considered trustworthy themselves asked us to convene it, it followed that those invited should not be grieved but rather attend readily. So the indignation of those who were grieved is shown to be rash, and the refusal of those unwilling to attend unbecoming and suspicious. Does anyone blame what he himself does, if he sees it done by another? For if, as you write, each synod has unshakable force, and the judge is dishonored if his judgment is examined by others, consider, beloved, who they are who dishonor a synod, and who they are who undo the judgments of those who judged earlier. And so that I may not seem to burden anyone by examining every case now, the last thing that happened, which would make anyone shudder to hear, is enough to prove everything I pass over.

The Arians, who were expelled for impiety by Alexander of blessed memory, formerly bishop of Alexandria, were not only denounced by the bishops in each city, but were anathematized by all who assembled together at the great synod of Nicaea. For their offense was no ordinary one, nor had they sinned against a man, but against our Lord Jesus Christ himself, the Son of the living God. And yet those who were denounced by the whole world and publicly branded in every church are now said to have been received, and I think it right that you too should be angry on hearing it. Who, then, are they who dishonor a synod? Is it not those who set at naught the votes of the three hundred and preferred impiety to piety? For the heresy of the Ariomaniacs was condemned and denounced by all the bishops everywhere; but Bishops Athanasius and Marcellus have more who speak and write in their favor. For it was attested to us that Marcellus opposed, even at the synod of Nicaea, those who held the views of Arius; and it was attested that Athanasius was not condemned even at Tyre, and was not present in the Mareotis, where the minutes against him are said to have been drawn up. And you know, beloved, that one-sided proceedings have no force but are suspect. And yet, though this is so, we, for the sake of accuracy, and without prejudging the case either for you or for those who wrote on their behalf, invited those who wrote to come, so that, since those who wrote on their behalf are more numerous, everything might be examined at a synod, and neither the innocent be condemned nor the guilty be reckoned clean. So it is not by us that a synod is dishonored, but by those who received, lightly and at random, the Arians condemned by all, against the judgment of those who condemned them. For most of those judges have already departed to be with Christ; but some are still living in this life, indignant that certain people have undone their judgment.

This we learned also from what happened in Alexandria. For a certain Carpones, who had been expelled by Alexander for the heresy of Arius, came here with some others who had also been expelled for the same heresy, sent by one Gregory. We learned it also from Macarius the presbyter and Martyrius and Hesychius the deacons. For before the presbyters of Athanasius arrived, they urged us to write to one Pistus at Alexandria, at a time when Bishop Athanasius was in Alexandria. But the presbyters of Bishop Athanasius, when they arrived, proved that this Pistus was an Arian, expelled by Bishop Alexander and by the synod of Nicaea, and appointed by one Secundus, whom the great synod expelled as an Arian. Not even Martyrius and his companions contradicted this, or denied that Pistus had his appointment from Secundus. Consider, then, from this too who would justly come under blame: we, who would not be persuaded to write to Pistus the Arian, or those who advise us to dishonor the great synod and write to the impious as to the pious? For Macarius the presbyter too, who had been sent by Eusebius with Martyrius and his companions, when he heard that the presbyters of Athanasius had arrived, while we were expecting his presence with Martyrius and Hesychius, departed by night, although he was ill in body; so that from this we naturally conclude that he withdrew because he was ashamed of the refutation concerning Pistus. For it is impossible for an appointment made by Secundus the Arian to have force in the catholic Church. For this would truly be a dishonor to the synod and to the bishops who assembled at it, if what was done with such zeal and reverence, as in the presence of God, were undone as nothing.

If, then, as you write, the decrees of synods must have force, on the precedent of Novatus and Paul of Samosata, still more ought the vote of the three hundred not to have been undone, still more ought the general synod not to have been dishonored by a few. For the Arians are heretics, as those were, and the votes against these are like the votes against those. Since such things have been dared, who are they who have kindled the flame of discord? For you blamed us in writing for having done this. Was it we, then, who caused discord, we who share the grief of our suffering brothers and have done everything according to the canon? Or those who contentiously and contrary to the canon undid the vote of the three hundred and dishonored the synod in every respect? For not only were the Arians received, but bishops have also made a practice of passing from place to place. If, then, you truly held the honor of bishops to be equal and the same, and did not judge bishops by the size of their cities, as you write, then he who was entrusted with a small city ought to remain in the one entrusted to him, and not despise what was entrusted to him and pass to one not committed to his charge, despising what was given by God and loving the vainglory of men. Therefore, beloved, you ought to have come and not declined, so that the matter might be brought to an end; for this is what reason requires. But perhaps the appointed date hindered you; for you complained in writing that we fixed too short a date for the synod. But this too, beloved, is a pretext. For if the day had shut out some who were on their way, the interval before the date would have been proved too short; but if those who did not wish to come detained even the presbyters until the very month of January, the pretext is that of men lacking confidence. For they would have come, as I said before, had they been confident, not looking at the length of the journey nor regarding the date, but speaking boldly on the strength of what was just and reasonable. But perhaps they did not come because of the times; for in writing you indicated this too, that we ought to have considered the situation in the East and not invited you to come. If, then, as you say, you did not come because the times were such, you ought first to have considered the times yourselves and not become the causes of schism and of wailing and lamentation in the churches. As it is, those who have done these things have shown that the cause was not the times but the will of those who did not wish to come.

I marvel also at that part of the letter—how it could have been written by you at all—that I wrote alone, and only to Eusebius and his party and not to all of you. For in this one would find the hastiness of the complainants rather than the truth. For I, having received letters against Athanasius from no other quarter than through Martyrius and Hesychius, necessarily wrote to those who had written against him. So either Eusebius and his party ought not to have written by themselves without all of you, or you to whom I did not write ought not to be grieved that a letter was written to those who had written. For if I ought to have written to all of you, you also ought to have written with them. As it is, considering what was fitting, we wrote to those who had both informed us and sent to us. And if the fact that I alone wrote to them has upset you, it is fitting for you to be indignant also that they wrote to me alone. But in this too, beloved, the pretext is plausible but not reasonable. Nevertheless I must let you know that, although I wrote alone, this view is not mine alone, but that of all the bishops throughout Italy and in these regions. And I did not want to make all of them write, so that you might not feel the weight of many. Indeed, even now the bishops have met on the appointed date and have agreed on this view, which I indicate to you in writing again; so, beloved, though I write alone, know that this is the view of all. So much, then, to show that certain of you have offered pretexts that are not reasonable, but unjust and suspect.