Defence Against the Arians 1 part 1/7

By the same author, Second Apology. I for my part supposed that, after so many proofs given on our behalf, our enemies would at last sink in shame and rather condemn themselves for the very things in which they had also slandered others;

but since, though thus condemned, they do not blush, but out of insensibility creep along with their slanders, supposing that everything can be reopened for trial—not that they may be judged (for they flee that), but that they may harass us and the souls of the guileless—I have thought it necessary to make my defence to you, that you may no longer put up with their murmuring, but may condemn their wickedness and their calumny.

For to you, the genuine brethren, I make my defence; but against those who love contention, I speak boldly with the proofs that refute them.

For our case no longer needs judgment; for it has been judged, not once, not twice, but many times.

First in the synod assembled in our own country by bishops numbering nearly a hundred; secondly at Rome, when Eusebius wrote and both they and we were summoned, and there too more than fifty bishops were assembled; and thirdly in the great synod assembled at Sardica by the command of the most God-beloved emperors Constantius and Constans;

and to these Ursacius and Valens likewise bore witness, who had formerly been our accusers but afterward repented.

For they not only accepted what had been judged on our behalf, but also confessed that both they themselves and the others who had acted against us were calumniators.

For those who thus repented and thus wrote clearly convict the party of Eusebius as well;

for it was together with them that they contrived the plot against us.

Everyone, then, would agree that what has been examined and judged and clearly demonstrated by so many and such great bishops is superfluous to inquire into again, lest, even if it be examined now, it be examined again and yet again, and thus the business of these meddlers become endless.

For indeed the vote of so many bishops would have sufficed to shame those who still wish even to pretend to a case against us;

but when even enemies bear witness on our behalf and against themselves, declaring that what was done against us was a plot, who, still doubting, is not ashamed? For since the law commands that judgments stand by the mouth of two or three witnesses, behold, so great a multitude of witnesses is on our side, having in addition even the proof from our enemies, so that even those who remain obstinate no longer heed what they judged as they wished, but henceforth resort to force and, instead of reasonable arguments, wrong those who convict them.

For this is what grieves them most, that the very things which they themselves did in secret and contrived among themselves in a corner, Valens and Ursacius have brought out into the open and revealed.

And they know precisely that the repentance of these men condemns them, but justifies those who were wronged by them.

For this reason, then, they were also deposed at the synod of Sardica, as I said before, and rightly so;

just as Pharisees, defending Paul, exposed the conspiracy which they themselves and the Jews had formed against him;

so also these men, overcome by the truth, thought it right, and having written, delivered their letter to Julius, bishop of Rome.

And they also wrote to us, asking to have peace with us—they who had spread so much slander, and now perhaps even blush, because those whom they sought to destroy they see living by the grace of the Lord.

And they also anathematized Arius and his heresy, acting consistently in doing this.

For knowing that the party of Eusebius plotted against us for no other reason than their own impiety, once they had decided to confess the calumny against us, they immediately also renounced the Christ-fighting heresy, on account of which they had also feigned their charges against us.

The things, then, written by the bishops on our behalf at various synods—and first those of the Egyptians—are as follows:

The holy synod assembled at Alexandria from Egypt and the Thebaid and Libya and the Pentapolis, to the bishops everywhere of the catholic Church, beloved and most longed-for brethren, greeting in the Lord.

We were able, beloved brethren, even from the beginning—as soon as our fellow-minister Athanasius was plotted against, or even after he entered Alexandria—to make our defence concerning the things which the party of Eusebius contrived against him, and to bring accusation concerning what he suffered at their hands, and to show all the calumnies raised against him;

but since at that time circumstances did not permit it, as you also know, and now we supposed that after the return of Athanasius the bishop they would be put to shame and blush at such manifest wrongs of theirs, for this reason we persuaded ourselves to keep silent.

But since, after the man suffered so much—after his journey into the Gauls, after his sojourn abroad, far away, instead of at home, after he came near to dying from their slanders, had he not met with a humane emperor—things by which even every enemy would have been satisfied, even one most savage in temper, they do not blush, but again act with youthful insolence against the Church and the man, and, indignant at his release, venture upon a second, worse assault.

And they accuse readily, but do not fear what is written in the holy Scriptures: "A false witness shall not be unpunished," and "a mouth that lies destroys the soul."

For this reason we can no longer keep silent, but we marvel at their wickedness and their insatiable contentiousness in devising plots.

For behold, they do not cease again stirring up the imperial ears against us; they do not cease writing letters of destruction for the killing of a bishop who is the enemy of their impiety.

For again they have written to the emperors against him; again they wish to plot against him, alleging slaughters that never happened; again they wish to murder him, alleging murders that never happened.

For even then they would have murdered him by their slanders, had we not met with a humane emperor.

Again they press—to say the least—that he should go into exile, pretending to lament the calamities of exiles as though these were caused by him.

And they lament among us things that did not happen, and are not content with what has already happened to him, but wish to inflict a second, worse suffering.

So gentle are they, and humane, and mild in character—or rather (for the truth shall be told), wicked and bitter men, honored on account of fears and threats rather than on account of the piety and gentleness that befit bishops.

For such words as not even one of the meddlesome outsiders would utter, such they have dared to pour forth in what they wrote to the emperors.

...that the courts might be filled with accusation against them.

For truly, beloved, what has been done by them is an accusation, and an accusation the highest of all, since indeed the courts are the highest of all human things.

For what other end is there to an inquiry into these matters than death, brought on by imperial action? Therefore it is not the deeds of Athanasius, but the deeds done by them, that are worthy of lamentation and wailing;

therefore one might more justly lament them.

For it is over these that one ought to mourn, since it is also written: "Weep not for the dead, neither bewail him; weep sore for him that goes away, for he shall return no more."

For their entire letter looks to nothing else but death, and they attempt to murder, if they are permitted, and to make men exiles.

For they were indeed permitted this, since the most God-beloved father of the emperors satisfied their fury by a change of place instead of by death.

We believe, then, that your conscience in Christ perceives that these are not even the deeds of mere Christians, nor often even of pagans, much less of men reputed to be bishops who teach others what is right.

For how do those who forbid others to accuse become accusers themselves, even as far as the emperors? How do those who teach men to pity misfortunes not keep quiet even after our exile? For the exile has admittedly become common to us bishops, and we all held ourselves as exiles; and now, having been restored, together with Athanasius, to our homelands, we have received, in place of our former groanings and laments over him, the greatest cheerfulness and grace—which may the Lord preserve, and not permit the party of Eusebius to overturn.

These things, even if what they accused him of had been true, would have been some kind of accusations; but that, contrary to the precept of Christianity, and after the exile that came from the trial, pressing on again, they accuse him of murders and slaughters and other crimes, and din these things into the imperial ears against the bishops—

since they lie about everything and slander everything, and truth attends neither their mouths nor their writings, how manifold do you suppose the evil in them to be, or what sort of men do you suppose them to be? Let us, then, now proceed to the matters themselves and answer their accusations now being made.

For from these very things it will also be proved that their former charges, so much bruited about at the synod and trial, were not rightly done—or rather, were not even truly stated—and again on these grounds they will be condemned.

But since these rash accusers drag themselves into everything, and allege that after the entrance of Athanasius murders and slaughters took place, we beg you to bear with the defence, even though it be lengthy;

for the facts compel it.

No murder has occurred either at the hands of Athanasius or on his account, since indeed, as we said before, the accusers force us into this inglorious defence;

and slaughters and imprisonments are foreign to our Church;

Athanasius has handed over no one to the executioner;

and the prison, so far as he is concerned, has never once been troubled by him.

Our priesthood among us, as always, is pure even now, glorying in nothing but the blood of Christ and piety toward him.

No presbyter, no deacon has been killed by Athanasius;

the man has committed neither murder nor exile.

But would that they themselves had not truly done this to him, in fact inflicting the ordeal upon him.

For no one here has become an exile on his account, except Athanasius the bishop of Alexandria himself, made an exile by them—whom, though released, they seek again to entangle in the same or even worse troubles, spurring on their own tongue to every false and death-bringing word.

For behold, they now go so far as to transfer even the acts of the magistrates onto him.

...to one who had not yet set foot in Alexandria, but was still on the road from exile and was in Syria—if indeed one must adduce even so long a journey in his defence, to show that no one is answerable for whatever a governor or prefect of Egypt may do. For even if he had been at Alexandria, what have the acts of the prefect to do with Athanasius? But nevertheless he was not even residing in those places;

and what was done was done by the prefect of Egypt not on ecclesiastical pretexts, but for certain other reasons, which you will learn from the official records—which, after we learned what had been written by these men, we investigated carefully and sent to you.

Therefore, since even now they cry out, as though they had occurred, things that did not happen either by him or on his account, and testify to so many evils as though fully assured of them, let them say from what synod they learned even these things; from what proofs; from what judgment? But if, having nothing of the sort, they simply assert it outright, then how the former events happened, or how they report them, we have left it to you to consider.

For it is nothing else than calumny, and the plotting of enemies, and a wrath that harbors unrestrained thoughts, and the impiety on behalf of the Arian madmen, raging against piety, in order that the orthodox may be put out of the way, and that the champions of impiety may henceforth proclaim with impunity whatever they wish.

When Arius, who committed impiety—from whom, on his account, the heresy of the Arian madmen is also named—had been cast out of the Church by the bishop of blessed memory, Alexander, the party of Eusebius, being disciples and partakers of his impiety and considering themselves also cast out, wrote many letters urging Alexander the bishop not to leave the heretic Arius outside the Church.

But since Alexander, on account of his piety toward Christ, would not receive the impious man, they vented their grief upon Athanasius, who was then a deacon, because, making inquiry, they heard that he spent most of his time with Alexander the bishop and was honored by him.

And having had experience of him and of his piety toward Christ from the synod convened at Nicaea, in which he spoke boldly against the impiety of the Arian madmen, they increased their hatred all the more.

But when God brought him to the episcopate, they rekindled the malice long nourished in them, and, fearing his orthodoxy and his firm stand against impiety (and Eusebius even more, being smitten by his own conscience over what he knew), they plotted against the man in every way and schemed against him; they stirred up the emperor against him; they threatened synods many times, and at last they convened at Tyre.

And even to this day they do not cease writing against him, and are so implacable that they even find fault with the very establishment of his episcopate, showing themselves everywhere to be enemies and haters of the man, and speaking falsehoods, only that they might disparage him with their lying words.

But even from these very falsehoods of theirs, they prove that their former charges were likewise false and full of contrivance.

For, they say, after the death of Alexander the bishop, when only a few made mention of Athanasius, six or seven bishops ordained him secretly and clandestinely.

These things they, who profess to write nothing false, wrote also to the emperors.

That the whole multitude and all the people of the catholic Church, having come together as with one soul and one mouth, cried aloud and clamoured, demanding Athanasius as bishop for the Church; this they prayed publicly to Christ, and this they adjured us to do for very many days and nights, neither themselves departing from the church nor permitting us to depart from this course; and we are witnesses of this, and the whole city and the province also, saying nothing against him contrary [to the truth], as those men wrote, but naming him with every excellent title — zealous, devout, a Christian, one of the ascetics, truly a bishop.

A man finds fault with Athanasius who perhaps has never held any appointment at all — or if indeed he ever held one, he himself annulled it.

He was originally at Berytus, but leaving Berytus he went to Nicomedia, forsaking the one see contrary to law, and entering upon the other likewise contrary to law; heartlessly abandoning the see that was his own, and unlawfully holding the one that belonged to another; disregarding, through desire for what was another's, the affection due to the first, and yet not even preserving toward the second the affection which that very desire had given him.

For behold, having departed even from that place, he again holds what belongs to another, everywhere casting covetous eyes upon the cities of others, and supposing piety to consist in the wealth and greatness of cities, and counting as nothing the portion of God's people to which he was assigned — not knowing that 'where two or three are gathered together in the name of the Lord, there is he in the midst of them,' nor considering what was said by the Apostle, 'I will not boast in another man's labours,' nor perceiving his precept, 'Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed.'

But if this saying holds for a wife, how much more for a church and for the very bishopric to which one is bound — he who is so bound ought not to seek another, lest he be found an adulterer according to the divine Scriptures.

But even conscious in himself of such things, he has dared to slander the appointment of Athanasius, which is attested by all to be good, and dares to reproach him with deposition — he himself having been deposed, and having as witness of his own deposition the very appointment made in his place.

How then could either he himself or Theognis depose another, seeing that they themselves had been deposed and stood convicted by the appointments made in their place? For you know precisely that Amphion was appointed at Nicomedia, and Chrestus at Nicaea, in their stead, on account of their own impiety and their communion with the Ariomaniacs who had been rejected by the ecumenical synod.

And wishing to overthrow that synod which was truly a synod, they attempt to name their own unjust assembly a synod, and, not wishing that the decisions of that synod should prevail, they wish their own to prevail, and they who will not submit to so great a synod call their gathering a synod.

Thus they have not been concerned for a synod, but they pretend to be concerned for one, in order that, by destroying the orthodox, they may dissolve what was decreed by the true and great synod against the Arians — of whom, being champions both then and now, they dare to lie against Athanasius the bishop.

For those earlier lies are like these present ones which they now falsely allege — that at his entrance there arose riots and lamentations and wailings among the peoples, who were indignant at receiving him.

For nothing of the sort occurred; but quite the contrary — there was joy and gladness, and the peoples ran hastening to the long-desired sight of him;

the churches were full of gladness, and thanksgivings were offered up to the Lord everywhere.

And all the ministers and clergy saw him in such wise that their souls rejoiced, and they believe that that day was the most joyful of all days.

For what need is there to describe our own inexpressible joy as bishops? For we have already said above that we considered ourselves as suffering together with him.

Was not George convicted as having been deposed by the blessed Alexander? Were not others called to account for other and various charges? How then did these men wish to combine against us? And how do they dare to call it a synod — over which a count presided, at which an executioner and a prison-registrar were present, ushering us in instead of the deacons of the church? He spoke, and those present kept silence, or rather obeyed the count, and the very impulse of those who were reputed bishops was hindered by his will.

He gave the orders, and we were led away by soldiers, or rather, at the bidding of the party of Eusebius, he was but carrying out their decisions.

But in short, beloved, what kind of synod is it whose outcome was exile and murder, all to the glory of the emperor? And what were the charges? For on this account the wonder against them is all the greater.

There was a certain Arsenius, whom they charged with having been murdered, and they alleged that a mystical cup had been broken.

But Arsenius is alive, and prays to be gathered together with us, and does not wait for other testimonies in order to appear as living — but he himself confesses that he is alive, by his own letters, writing to our fellow-bishop Athanasius, whom they had solemnly asserted to be his murderer.

And these impious men were not ashamed to accuse of murder, at a distance so vast — separated by so great a length whether by sea or by land — a man whom, at that very time, no one had even set eyes upon in that region.

But they have even dared to hide him and make him disappear, though he had suffered nothing.

And if it had been possible, they would have removed him to another world altogether — or rather, they would truly have taken him out of life — so that, whether confirming the truth or having fabricated the murder, they might in reality kill Athanasius.

But by divine providence — thanks be given also for this — which permits nothing unjust to prevail, Arsenius was brought under the eyes of all, alive, and openly convicting the contrivance and calumny of that time.

For he does not turn away from them as murderers, nor does he hate them as men who have wronged him;

for he has suffered nothing at all, but deems us worthy of communion and desires to be numbered among us — as is shown by what he wrote.

And yet Athanasius was being framed by them as having murdered the man who is alive, while he himself was being exiled by these very same men.

For it was not the father of the emperors who exiled him, but their calumnies.

Consider, then, whether it is not so.

As nothing was found against our fellow-minister Athanasius, but the count kept using violence and was exceedingly zealous against him, the bishop Athanasius, fleeing the violence that had occurred, went up to the most pious emperor, deprecating both the count and their contrivances, and requesting that a lawful synod of bishops be convened, or else that the emperor himself receive his defence against what they had brought against him.

And the emperor writes, being indignant, and having summoned them, promising that he himself would give them a hearing — he who had also ordered the synod to take place.

But the party of Eusebius, having gone up, slandered Athanasius — no longer with the matters that had been bruited about by them at Tyre, but concerning the grain and the delay of the ships, alleging that Athanasius had promised that he was able to prevent the transport of grain from Alexandria to Constantinople;

these things certain of our own number, who were present within with Athanasius, heard the emperor threaten.

Then, when Athanasius was lamenting over the slander and solemnly affirming that it was not true (for how could a private individual, and a poor man, be capable of so great a thing?), Eusebius, without even publicly disclaiming the slander, swore that Athanasius was rich and powerful and capable of all things, so that from this, Athanasius might also be thought to have said those other things too.

These were the charges the venerable bishops brought against him; but the grace of God proved stronger than their wickedness, for it moved the emperor's piety to clemency, and granted exile instead of death.

Therefore it is the calumnies, and nothing else, that are the cause of these things.

For before this the emperor, writing, had blamed the contrivance, accused the plot of the Meletians, condemned them, calling them in writing unholy men, deserving of curses, and the most terrible things;

he had been moved on hearing of a murder concerning one who was alive and had not been deprived of life — whose letter also we have sent.

But the admirable party of Eusebius, in order that they might seem to overturn both the truth and what had been written, assume the name of a synod, and receive its business — that is, authorization to act as one — from the emperor;

and for this purpose a count, and soldiers as bodyguards of the bishops, and imperial letters compelling those whom they had requested to assemble.

Here consider the strangeness of their plot, and the inconsistency of what was ventured by them, so that by whatever means, in every way, they might snatch the man away from us.

For if they entrusted the judgment to themselves alone, as bishops, what need was there of a count and soldiers? Or how were they assembled by imperial letters? But if they needed the emperor and wished to have authority from him, why did they set aside his judgment? Or how — when he, through what he had written, had judged the Meletians to be calumniators and unholy men, and Athanasius most pure, and had exclaimed tragically against the murder fabricated concerning a living man — did these men determine both that the Meletians spoke truly and that he was liable, and, without shame, make the living man dead — he who was alive even after the emperor's judgment, and when they were assembled, and even now, still with us? These things, then, concerning Arsenius.

But the mystical cup — what kind was it, or where was it broken by Macarius? For this they go about everywhere, high and low, noising abroad.

And yet not even the accusers themselves have dared to lay this charge upon Athanasius — save those who were suborned by them; nevertheless they themselves bring the final weight of the accusation to bear upon him — a charge which ought not even to have proceeded against Macarius, since he was never convicted.

And they are not ashamed to do this before catechumens — and, what is worse, to make a spectacle of the mysteries before the Greeks — though it is fitting, as it is written, 'It is good to keep close the secret of a king,' and as the Lord commanded, 'Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine.'

For the mysteries ought not to be made a spectacle before the uninitiated, lest the Greeks, in their ignorance, mock, and the catechumens, becoming overcurious, be led into scandal.

But nevertheless — of what kind, or where, or among whom, was the cup broken? For it is the Meletians who bring the accusation, men who ought not to be believed at all.

For they have been schismatics and enemies of the church, not from now, but from the time of the blessed Peter, bishop and martyr — they who plotted even against Peter himself, and slandered Achillas who succeeded him, and accused Alexander even before the emperor himself.

For having thus practised, they at length also went on against Athanasius, doing nothing foreign to their own wickedness; for just as they calumniated those before him, so also they calumniated this man.

But it is now, and not before, that their calumny and their slanders have prevailed, because they gained the party of Eusebius as helpers and champions on account of their own impiety — that of the Ariomaniacs — through which, just as they conspired against many bishops, so also they conspired against Athanasius.

For indeed that place, in which he says the cup was broken, was not a church;

there was no presbyter dwelling in that place;

the day on which they say Macarius did this was not the Lord's Day.

Since, then, there was no church there, nor was there one performing the sacred rite, nor did the day require it, of what kind, or when, or where was the mystical cup broken? For it is plain that there are many cups, both in private houses and in the middle of the market-place, and he who breaks any of these commits no impiety; but the mystical cup — which, even if broken by one acting deliberately, renders the one who has attempted it impious — is found only among those who preside lawfully.

This manner belongs to this cup alone, and to no other.

This is what you lawfully offer to the peoples; this is what you have received by the ecclesiastical canon; this alone belongs to those who preside over the catholic church.

For it belongs to you alone to offer the blood of Christ, and to none of the others.

insulting the blood of Christ —

for he who does this contrary to the ecclesiastical ordinance does indeed commit an insult.

(And we say these things not because — even supposing a cup belonging to schismatics had indeed been broken by Macarius — that would signify anything, but because there was nothing there at all;

for how could it be otherwise, seeing that there was neither a place set apart for the Lord's Day, nor any presence of the church there, nor was it even the season for the mysteries?) But this man is the much-talked-of Ischyras, who was neither ordained by the church, nor — when Alexander received the presbyters appointed by Meletius — was he even numbered among them;

thus he was not even appointed from that source.

Whence, then, is Ischyras a presbyter? Who appointed him? Was it Colluthus? For this alone remains as a possibility.

But because Colluthus, though a presbyter, died as a presbyter, every act of his hand became invalid, and all those appointed by him during the schism became laymen. And thus it is universally agreed, and to no one is it in doubt.

How then could a private individual, dwelling in a small private dwelling, be believed to possess a private mystical cup? But at that time they were calling this private individual a presbyter, and were bestowing this title upon him out of their injustice toward us, and now, as the wage of his accusation, they procure for him the building of a church.

Thus the man had no church at all, but now, as the wage of his malice and his compliance in bringing the accusation, he receives a church which he never had — and it may even be that they have granted him a bishopric in exchange;

for this is what he goes about proclaiming everywhere, and thus he swaggers against us.

Thus, then, such great prizes are bestowed by the bishops upon accusers and calumniators.

And rightly so; for having had him as a fellow-worker in what they desired, as a partner in the affair, they thus also deemed him worthy of a like bishopric.

But not yet these things — lend your ears still further to what was then done by them.