駁亞流派辯護辭 第 1 章 第 2/7 段

Being unable to prevail against the truth, though they had prepared themselves against it, and Ischyras having proved nothing at Tyre, but being shown to be a calumniator, and their own contrivance being dissolved by the very calumny into open proof of their guilt, they postpone the matter and promise to send, from among themselves, men to investigate the affairs concerning the Mareotis.

They left Bishop Athanasius detained abroad, while they themselves entered the city of the enemy as though holding a triumphal revel against the church and the people; and, more unreasonable still, though they brought with them Ischyras the accuser, they did not permit Macarius the accused to accompany them, but left him under guard in Tyre.

For everywhere, up and down, Macarius the presbyter of Alexandria was made by them subject to the charge.

Entering Alexandria, therefore, alone with the accuser, keeping him as their housemate, messmate, and fellow-drinker, and taking with them Philagrius the prefect of Egypt, they departed for the Mareotis.

And there, forsooth, they conducted the inquiry by themselves, as they pleased, together with the aforesaid man, not permitting the presbyters, though they earnestly begged to be present, to attend.

The presbyters, both of the city and of the whole district, requested to be present, so that they might examine those brought forward by Ischyras, and establish who they were and whence they came.

And, more dreadful still, in inquiring about the mystical cup they summoned pagans as witnesses.

And those whom they alleged to have been seized by Athanasius through a summons of the Catholicus, and to have vanished so that no one knew in what part of the world they were — these very men they brought in before themselves and the prefect alone, feeling no shame in saying that they had been made to disappear by Bishop Athanasius, though they themselves plainly made use of their testimony.

But here again, wishing only to bring about his murder, they fabricate their case anew, imitating the method they used in the affair of Arsenius, treating the living as though they were dead.

For though these men exist and are visible in their own district, they make a tragic spectacle of them to you who are far away, as though they had vanished, so that, since the means of refutation are far off, they may slander our fellow-minister as one who uses violence and tyrannical power — though it is they themselves who do everything by tyranny and patronage.

For indeed what happened at the Mareotis was again like what happened at Tyre.

For just as at Tyre a count was present with a military escort, permitting nothing to be said or done except what those men wished, so also here the prefect of Egypt was present with his staff, terrifying all the people of the church and permitting no one to testify truthfully;

and, most extraordinary of all, it was in that very place, in the house of the accuser himself, that they lodged and pretended to investigate whatever they wished — men who came as judges, or as witnesses, or (which is nearer the truth) as agents serving their own zeal and that of Eusebius.

And as for what deeds were dared by them in Alexandria, we suppose you are not unaware, for the report of it has spread everywhere.

Drawn swords were turned against the holy virgins and the brethren, and scourges against bodies held in honor before God; and their feet were made lame by the blows — women whose souls were sound in purity and complete in every excellence.

Acts of violence were brandished against them, and heathen mobs were incited to strip, beat, and outrage them, and to threaten them with altars and sacrifices.

And a certain licentious man, as though authority had now been granted by the prefect to gratify the bishops, seized a virgin by the hand and dragged her to a nearby altar, re-enacting the compulsion to sacrifice practiced in time of persecution.

And while these things were being done — the virgins fleeing, and the heathen laughing in scorn against the church — the bishops themselves were inside, dwelling in that very house in which these things were done; and it was on account of the favor shown to them that the virgins experienced naked swords, every danger, outrages, and drunken violence.

And they suffered these things during a season of fasting, at the hands of men who were feasting inside together with the bishops.

Foreseeing these things — that the entry of enemies would bring no common harm — we made our refusal.

Taking note of these things, Alexander, bishop of Thessalonica, also wrote to those who remained there, exposing the conspiracy and bearing witness to the plot — a man whom, even should they reckon him among their own number and count him one party to the plot, they would thereby show nothing but the violence used against him.

For indeed even the utterly wicked Ischyras himself did not embark on this without fear and violence being used upon him, but it was under compulsion that he took upon himself the accusation.

A proof of this is that Ischyras himself wrote to our fellow-bishop Athanasius that nothing of the sort had taken place there, but that he had been suborned to fabricate the charge.

And he wrote this though he had not been received by Athanasius as a presbyter, had received no such title of favor, had gained no church building as recompense, and expected no reward of a bishopric — all of which things he obtained from them on account of bringing the accusation.

Moreover, his whole family continued to assemble in communion with us — which they would not have done, had they been wronged in the least.

...Ischyras a false accuser — and the very copies of the letters of Alexander and of the presbyters, and those of Ischyras...

We have also sent the letter of the father of the emperors, in which he expresses displeasure not only about Arsenius, on the ground that a charge of murder was laid concerning a man who was alive, but also again marveled, concerning the cup, at the inconsistency and confusion of the accusation — that at one time they accused Macarius the presbyter, at another Athanasius the bishop, of having broken the cup with his own hands; and again he declares the Melitians to be slanderers, and again pronounces Athanasius wholly innocent.

For how are the Melitians not slanderers, and John above all? He it was who entered the church and held communion with us, condemning himself by no longer stirring up anything concerning the cup — until, seeing that Eusebius and his party were zealous on behalf of the Arian madmen, yet did not dare openly to cooperate with them but sought to make use of other persons, he put himself forward, like an actor of the secular theatres.

The real matter at issue was the contest of the Arians, and it was they, as the original instigators, who were carrying it out; John and his associates were but an insertion and appendage to it, so that the partisans of Arianism, under the pretext these men provided, might, in the guise of judges, drive out the enemies of impiety, plant impiety firmly, and introduce the Arians into the church.

Thus those who wish to expel piety strive to conquer by means of impiety, and those who have chosen impiety against Christ have attempted to destroy the enemies of impiety as though they were the impious ones; and they bring forward against us a broken cup, so that Athanasius too may seem to share with them in impiety against Christ.

For what regard is owed by them at all to the mystical cup? How should men who are champions of impiety against Christ possess a pious mind concerning a cup? How should the cup of Christ be known to those who do not even know Christ? How do those who pretend to honor the cup dishonor the God of the cup? Or how do those who lament over a cup seek to murder the bishop who ministers the mysteries in it? And indeed they would have murdered him, so far as it lay in their power.

And how do those who lament over a throne arrayed in episcopal splendor at the same time seek to destroy the bishop who sits upon it? — so that the throne itself might be left seeking its bishop, and the people be deprived of pious teaching.

Neither the cup, then, nor the murder, nor any of the fabulous tales told by them, has driven them to this; rather, it is the aforesaid impiety of the Arians, on account of which, having plotted against Athanasius and other bishops, they still even now wage war upon the church.

For who, then, are those who have committed murders and banishments? Is it not they? Who is it that, employing outside patronage, plots against the bishops? Is it not rather Eusebius and his party, and not Athanasius, as they themselves write? For it is at their hands that he and others have suffered.

For indeed four presbyters of Alexandria at that time, though they had not even gone to Tyre, were made exiles by them.

Who, then, are worthy of laments and tears? Is it not those who did the first wrongs and shrank not from adding a second round, slandering everything, in order to destroy a bishop who would not yield to their impious sect? For this reason is the enmity of Eusebius and his party; for this reason the events stirred up at Tyre; for this reason the pretended trials; for this reason now, even without a trial, their letters as though from men fully persuaded; for this reason the calumnies sent to the father of the emperors and to the most pious emperors themselves.

It is necessary for you to know what charges have now again been brought against our fellow-minister Athanasius, so that from this too you may condemn their wickedness and recognize that they seek nothing else than to murder the man.

Grain had been given by the father of the emperors for the sustenance of widows — separately for those of Libya, and separately for certain ones from Egypt.

This grain all the widows continue to receive up to the present time, Athanasius himself gaining nothing from it save only the toil of laboring together with them.

Though the widows receive it, though they have made no complaint, though they themselves acknowledge that they receive it, Athanasius has been slandered as one who sells the whole of the grain and diverts it to his own use.

And this the emperor wrote, bringing the charge on the basis of the slanders that had been made against him.

Who, then, are those who have slandered him? Is it not those who did the first wrongs and shrank not from stirring up a second round? Who are responsible for these letters, for these words spoken by the emperor? Is it not the Arians, who are so zealous and have shrunk from saying or writing nothing against the man? For no one, passing over those who have done so much, would suspect others.

For indeed the clearest evidence of their slander is manifest:

For they are eager to strip the church of its grain under the pretext of this slander, and to bestow it upon the Arians — a fact which points back above all to those responsible for this eagerness, and to their ringleaders, who have shrunk neither from raising charges of murder against the man, by which they have falsely slandered him to the emperor, nor from taking away the sustenance of the church's clergy, so that in reality they might provide gain to heretics.

We have also sent the testimony of our fellow-ministers throughout Libya and the Pentapolis, and of those from Egypt, so that from this too you may recognize the false accusation that has been made against Athanasius.

And they do these things so that, once those who hold to piety are reduced to silence through fear, the sect of the impious Arians may be brought in to replace them.

Yet thanks be to your piety, beloved, in that you have often written anathematizing the Arians and have given them no place in the church;

but the refutation of Eusebius and his party is close at hand.

For behold, after their earlier letters concerning the Arians — copies of which we have also sent — they now openly stir up against the church the Arian madmen who have been anathematized by the whole catholic church; they have appointed a bishop for them, and by threats and intimidation they are splitting the churches, so that they may have accomplices everywhere in their impiety.

For indeed they even send deacons to the Arian madmen, who openly assemble with them, write to them, and bring back replies from them — splitting the church and holding communion with them, and sending letters everywhere commending their heresy and disowning the church, as you will be able to learn from the letters which they themselves wrote to the bishop of the Romans, and perhaps also to you.

That these things, then, are not to go unpunished, you too, beloved, must recognize.

For they are terrible things, and alien to the teaching that is according to Christ.

For this reason, then, having assembled together in common, we have written to you, asking that your understanding in Christ accept this confession, share in the suffering of our fellow-bishop Athanasius, and be indignant against Eusebius and his party who attempt such things, so that such wickedness and iniquity may no longer prevail against the church.

For we call upon you as avengers against such injustice, reminding you of the apostolic word: 'Put away the wicked person from among yourselves.'

For truly wicked, and unworthy of communion, are the deeds done by them.

Therefore give heed to them no longer, even should they write to you again against Bishop Athanasius (for everything from them is false), nor even should they inscribe the names of Egyptian bishops upon their letters.

For it will be clear that it is not we who write such letters, but the Melitians, who are ever schismatic, and who even to this day disturb the churches and stir up factions.

For they create disturbances that are irrational and well-nigh worthy of pagans, and do such things as we are ashamed to put in writing, but which you may learn from those sent by us, who are also delivering this letter to you.

...should anyone wish, to become a judge...

When we, then, had gone up to Rome, Julius, as was reasonable, wrote and sent a letter to Eusebius and his party, dispatching also two of his own presbyters, Elpidius and Philoxenus.

But they, on hearing about us, were thrown into confusion, not having expected that we would go up to Rome, and they excused themselves, contriving implausible pretexts — or rather, fearing that the very things which Valens and Ursacius and their party had confessed might be proved against them.

So then, more than fifty bishops having assembled, at the gathering convened by Viton the presbyter, they received our defence and confirmed to us both communion and charity.

And they were indignant against those men, and requested Julius to write these things to Eusebius and his party, who had themselves written to him.

And he himself wrote, and sent the letter by the hand of Gabianus the count.

I read the letter brought back by my presbyters Elpidius and Philoxenus, and I marveled how it was that, whereas we wrote in love and with a conscience mindful of the truth, you wrote back in a spirit of contentiousness, and not as was fitting.

For the letter displayed the arrogance and boastfulness of those who wrote it.

But these things are foreign to the faith that is in Christ.

For that which was written with love ought to have met with an equal return of love, and not with contentiousness.

Or is it not a mark of love to send presbyters, to show sympathy for those who suffer, and to urge those who wrote to come in person, so that everything, having received a swifter resolution, might be set right, and that our brethren might no longer suffer, nor anyone slander you further? But I do not know what has so disposed you that you have even made us think that, in the very words by which you seemed to honor us, you were speaking, in a disguised manner, with a certain irony.

For indeed the presbyters who were sent, who ought to have returned rejoicing, returned instead grieving, on account of what they had seen taking place there.

And I, for my part, having perused the letter and reflected much upon it, kept it by me, thinking nevertheless that some would come and that there would be no need to make it public, lest, coming out into the open, it should grieve many people here.

But since no one came, it became necessary that it be produced; and I confess to you, all were astonished, and came near to disbelief, that such things should have been written by you at all.

For the letter was one of contentiousness rather than of love.

If indeed the one who dictated it wrote for the sake of a display of rhetoric, such a practice belongs to others.

For in matters ecclesiastical there is no place for a display of words, but for the apostolic canons, and for the zeal not to cause one of the little ones in the Church to stumble.

For according to the teaching of the Church, it is better that a millstone be hung about one's neck and that one be drowned in the sea, than that one should cause even one of the little ones to stumble.

But if the letter was written as though on behalf of some who were grieved because of pettiness of spirit toward one another (for I would not say that this is the mind of all), it was fitting that they should not have been grieved at all, nor should the sun have gone down upon their grief; yet even so, they ought not to have been carried so far as to display this in writing.

For what indeed happened that was worthy of grief, or in what respect was it right for you, to whom we also wrote, to be grieved? Was it that we urged you to attend a synod? But this rather you ought to have received with joy.

For those who are conscious that they have judged rightly say of themselves, when they have adjudicated, that they are not indignant if their judgment be examined by others, but are confident that what they justly judged could never prove unjust.

For this reason also the bishops who assembled at the great synod at Nicaea, not without the will of God, permitted that the acts of a former synod be examined by another synod, so that those who judge, having before their eyes the second judgment that would come, might examine the matter with all security, and those being judged might trust that they were being judged not out of hostility carried over from the former judges, but according to what is just.

But if, though this is an ancient custom, mentioned and recorded in writing at the great synod, you are unwilling that it should hold good among you, such a refusal is unseemly;

For what has once become an established custom in the Church, and has been confirmed by synods, it is not reasonable that it should be dissolved by a few.

Besides, not even on this point could they justly be shown to have had cause for grief.

For those whom you—Eusebius and his party—sent hither with letters, namely Macarius the presbyter, and Martyrius and Hesychius the deacons, when they arrived here and found themselves unable to withstand the presbyters of Athanasius who had come, but were on every point confounded and refuted, at that very time themselves requested us to convene a synod, and to write both to Athanasius the bishop at Alexandria and also to Eusebius and his party, so that in the presence of all a just judgment might be brought forth;

for at that time they also promised to prove all the charges against Athanasius.

For Martyrius and Hesychius were together examined by us in common, and the presbyters of Athanasius the bishop withstood them with full confidence; but Martyrius and his companions, if the truth must be told, were on every point confounded, wherefore they too requested that a synod be held.

If then, even had Martyrius and Hesychius not themselves requested that a synod be held, and it was I who urged those who had written [against Athanasius] to trouble themselves, for the sake of our brethren who complained that they had suffered injustice—even so the exhortation would have been reasonable and just, for it is ecclesiastical in character and pleasing to God;

but since it was those whom you, Eusebius and his party, yourselves considered trustworthy, who also themselves requested us to convene a synod, it followed that those who were summoned should not have been grieved, but rather should have come eagerly.

Therefore the seeming indignation of those who were grieved is shown by these facts to have been rash, and the refusal of those who were unwilling to come is shown by them to be unseemly and suspect.

Does anyone accuse another for doing what he himself does and approves, when he sees it done by another? For if, as you write, every synod possesses an unshaken authority, and the one who gave judgment is dishonored if that judgment is examined by others, consider, beloved, who they are that dishonor a synod, and who they are that dissolve the decisions of those who judged before them.

And that I may not seem, by examining each particular case at this point, to burden anyone, let the last thing that happened—at which one would even shudder to hear—suffice as proof of all that has been passed over.

The Arians, who were cast out on account of impiety by Alexander of blessed memory, who was bishop of Alexandria, were not only proclaimed excommunicate by the bishops of each several city, but were also anathematized by all who assembled together in the great synod at Nicaea.

For their offense was no ordinary transgression, nor had they sinned against a man, but against our very Lord Jesus Christ himself, the Son of the living God.

And yet those who were proclaimed excommunicate by the whole world, and publicly denounced in every church, are now said to have been received back; and on hearing this I consider it right that you too should be indignant.

Who then are they who dishonor a synod? Is it not those who have set at naught the votes of the three hundred, and have preferred impiety to piety? For the heresy of the Arian madmen was condemned and proclaimed excommunicate by all the bishops everywhere, whereas the bishops Athanasius and Marcellus have a great many who speak and write in their defence.

[He was one who] had spoken against those holding the views of Arius at the synod of Nicaea; and Athanasius was witnessed to as not having even been condemned at Tyre, and as not having been present at the Mareotis, where the records against him are said to have been drawn up.

But you know, beloved, that whatever is done ex parte has no force, but is indeed suspect.

And yet, this being so, we, for the sake of accuracy, without prejudging either you or those who had written on their behalf, urged those who had written [against Athanasius] to come, so that, since those who wrote in their favor were more numerous, everything might be examined at a synod, in order that neither should the innocent be condemned, nor the guilty be reckoned as pure.

Therefore it is not by us that a synod is dishonored, but by those who simply and haphazardly received the Arians who had been condemned by all, and this contrary to the judgment of those who had condemned them.

For the greater number of those judges have already departed to be with Christ, while others are still even now living in this life, indignant that some have dissolved their judgment.

This we learned also from what took place in Alexandria (for indeed a certain Carpones, who had been cast out by Alexander on account of the heresy of Arius, has come hither together with certain others likewise cast out for the same heresy, having been sent by a certain Gregory); but we learned it also from Macarius the presbyter and from Martyrius and Hesychius the deacons.

For before the presbyters of Athanasius arrived, they had been urging us to write to a certain Pistus in Alexandria, at a time when Athanasius the bishop was himself still in Alexandria.

But this Pistus, the presbyters of Athanasius the bishop, upon their arrival, proved to be an Arian, who had been cast out by Alexander the bishop and by the synod of Nicaea, but had been appointed by a certain Secundus, whom the great synod expelled as being an Arian.

And this, not even Martyrius and his companions contradicted, nor did they deny that Pistus had received his appointment from Secundus.

Consider then, from this also, who might justly be found blameworthy: we, who were not persuaded to write to Pistus the Arian, or those who advised us to dishonor the great synod and to write to the impious as though to the pious? For indeed Macarius the presbyter, who was sent by Eusebius together with Martyrius and his companions, upon hearing that the presbyters of Athanasius had arrived—while we were awaiting his presence along with Martyrius and Hesychius—departed by night, although he was ill in body; so that from this we may reasonably conjecture that he withdrew out of shame at the exposure concerning Pistus.

For it is impossible that the appointment made by Secundus the Arian should have any force within the catholic Church.

For this would truly be a dishonor against the synod and the bishops who assembled in it, if what was done with such great diligence and reverence, as in the presence of God, should be dissolved and counted as nothing.

If then, as you write, the decrees of synods must have force by the precedent of the case of Novatus and Paul of Samosata, it was all the more necessary that the vote of the three hundred should not be dissolved; it was necessary that the catholic synod should not be dishonored by the few.

For the Arians are heretics just as those men were, and the votes cast against these are like the votes cast against those.

Now these things having been dared—who are they who have kindled the flame of dissension? For it was we whom you accused in your letter of having done this.

Have we then wrought dissension—we, who have sympathized with our suffering brethren and have done everything according to the canon? Or those who contentiously and contrary to the canon dissolved the vote of the three hundred and in every way dishonored the synod? For not only were the Arians received back, but bishops have also made it their practice to pass from place to place.

[deserting the see] entrusted to him, and passing over to one not committed to him, so that he might despise the see given him by God, and cherish instead the vainglory of men.

Therefore, beloved, it was necessary to have come and not to have refused, so that the matter might also reach its conclusion;

for this is what reason demands.

But perhaps the appointed time was an obstacle;

for you wrote and complained that we had fixed too short a time for the synod; but this too, beloved, is a mere pretext.

For if the date had shut out any who were on their way, the shortness of the interval would indeed have been proved; but if those unwilling to come detained even the presbyters until the very month of January, then the pretext is that of men who lack confidence [in their case].

For they would have come, as I said before, had they had confidence—not reckoning the length of the journey, nor regarding the time-limit, but speaking boldly on the strength of what is just and reasonable.

But perhaps it was on account of the season that they did not come.

For this too you indicated again in your letter, that we ought to have taken into consideration the season in the East, and not have urged you to come.

If then, as you say, you did not come because the season was such, you ought yourselves first to have taken this season into account, and not become the cause of schism, nor of wailing and lamentation in the churches.

But as it now stands, those who have done these things have shown that it was not the season that was to blame, but the deliberate choice of those who were unwilling to come.

I marvel also at that part of the letter—how it was ever written by you at all—namely, that I wrote alone to Eusebius and his party only, and not to all of you.

For one would find in this rather the rashness of those who complained, than the truth of the matter.

For since I received no letters against Athanasius from any other source than through Martyrius and Hesychius, I of necessity wrote to those very ones who had also written against him.

It was necessary, then, either that Eusebius and his party should not have written alone, apart from all of you, or else that you, to whom I did not write, should not be grieved, seeing that the reply was written to those who had themselves also written.

For if it were necessary that I should also write to all of you, it was necessary that you too should have written together with them.

But as it is, having regard to what was consistent, we wrote to those who had both informed us and had sent messengers to us.

And if the fact that I alone wrote to them has troubled you, it would follow that you should also be indignant that they alone wrote to me.

But even here, though the pretext is plausible and not without reason, beloved, it is nevertheless necessary that you should know that, although I alone wrote, this opinion is not mine alone, but that of all the bishops throughout Italy and in these parts as well.

And indeed I myself was unwilling to have them all write, lest they [the recipients] should feel the weight of the matter coming from many.

Indeed, even now, at the appointed time, bishops assembled and were of this very same opinion, which I again signify to you in writing; so that, beloved, even though I alone am writing, know that this is the opinion of all.

These things, then, have been said concerning the fact that some among you have devised pretexts that are not reasonable, but unjust and suspect.

But concerning the fact that we did not readily nor unjustly receive into communion our fellow bishops Athanasius and Marcellus—although what has already been said is sufficient—yet it is right to demonstrate this to you briefly as well.

Eusebius and his party formerly wrote against Athanasius and his party; you too have now written; and very many bishops from Egypt and from other provinces have also written on behalf of Athanasius.