Defence against the Arians 1–12

I had supposed that after so many proofs given on our behalf our enemies would at last hide themselves away, and would rather condemn themselves on account of these for the false charges they had brought against others as well. But since, even when condemned, they do not blush, but in their insensibility creep about with their slanders, thinking that everything can be tried over again—not in order to be judged (for they run from that), but to trouble us and the souls of the simple—I thought it necessary to make my defense to you, so that you may no longer put up with their murmuring, but may condemn their wickedness and false accusation. To you, who are sincere, I make my defense; but toward the contentious I speak boldly, with the proofs against them. For our case no longer needs a trial: it has been judged not once, nor twice, but many times. First, in our own country, at a synod of nearly a hundred bishops; second, at Rome, when Eusebius wrote and both they and we were summoned, and bishops assembled, there too more than fifty; and third, at the great synod assembled at Sardica by order of the most God-loving emperors Constantius and Constans, at which those who had acted against us were deposed as false accusers, while more than three hundred bishops voted for the judgment given in our favor, from the provinces of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, Palestine, Arabia, Isauria, Cyprus, Pamphylia, Lycia, Galatia, Dacia, Moesia, Thrace, Dardania, Macedonia, Epirus, Thessaly, Achaia, Crete, Dalmatia, Siscia, Pannonia, Noricum, Italy, Picenum, Tuscia, Campania, Calabria, Apulia, Bruttium, Sicily, the whole of Africa, Sardinia, the Spains, the Gauls, and the Britains. To these were added the testimony of Ursacius and Valens, who formerly slandered us but afterwards changed their minds: for they not only accepted the judgment given in our favor, but confessed that both they themselves and the others who had acted against us were false accusers. Men who changed their minds and wrote in this way plainly convict Eusebius and his party as well, for it was together with them that they contrived the plot against us. Anyone at all, then, would admit that what has been examined and judged by so many and such great bishops, and clearly proved, it is superfluous to examine again; otherwise, if it were examined now, it would be reopened again and examined yet again, and so the meddling of busybodies would go on without end.

The vote of so many bishops was indeed enough to shame those who would still pretend to act against us. But when even enemies bear witness for us and against themselves, saying that the proceedings against us were a plot, who that still doubts is not ashamed? For the law commands that judgments stand on the mouth of two or three witnesses; and see, here is so great a multitude of witnesses for us, with the proof supplied by our enemies besides, so that those who are left no longer rely on the judgments they gave as they pleased, but now resort to force, and instead of reasonable arguments wrong those who convict them. For this grieves them most: what they did and hid, and arranged among themselves in a corner, Valens and Ursacius have brought out and disclosed; and they know well that the repentance of these men condemns them and justifies those whom they wronged. It was for this reason, indeed, that they were deposed at the synod of Sardica, as I said before, and rightly. For in the same way the Pharisees of that day, by speaking in Paul’s defense, exposed the conspiracy that they and the Jews had formed against him; in the same way the blessed David was shown to have been persecuted without cause when his persecutor confessed, saying, “I have sinned, my son David.” So these men too, overcome by the truth, made their request, put it in writing, and presented it to Julius, bishop of Rome. They also wrote to us, asking to be at peace with us—they who had spread so many tales!—and perhaps even now they blush, seeing alive by the grace of the Lord those whom they sought to destroy. They also anathematized Arius and his heresy, and in this they were consistent: knowing that Eusebius and his party had plotted against us for no other reason than their own impiety, once they had decided to confess the false accusation against us, they at once renounced also the Christ-fighting heresy for whose sake they had feigned the charges against us. Now the letters written in our favor by the bishops at various synods—first that of the Egyptians—are as follows. “The holy synod assembled at Alexandria from Egypt, the Thebaid, Libya, and Pentapolis, to the bishops of the catholic Church everywhere, beloved and most longed-for brothers in the Lord, greeting.

We could, beloved brothers, have made a defense at the very beginning, as soon as the plot was laid against our fellow minister Athanasius, or at least after his entry into Alexandria, against what Eusebius and his party contrived against him; we could have complained of what he suffered at their hands and exposed all the false charges made against him. But at that time circumstances did not permit it, as you also know; and afterwards we thought that, once Bishop Athanasius had returned, they would be put to shame and blush at wrongs of theirs so manifest, and for this reason we persuaded ourselves to keep silent. But since, after the man has suffered so much—after his journey to the Gauls, after his sojourn in a foreign land, and that very far away, instead of his own, after he came near to death through their slanders, had he not found a humane emperor, things with which even the cruelest enemy would have glutted his anger—they do not blush, but again behave insolently against the Church and the man, and, vexed at his release, venture on a second and worse attempt; since they accuse lightly and do not fear what is written in the holy Scriptures, “A false witness shall not go unpunished,” and, “The mouth that lies slays the soul”: for this reason we can keep silent no longer, but we marvel at their wickedness and their insatiable zeal for plots. For see, they do not cease again to stir the emperors’ ears against us; they do not cease writing letters of destruction for the ruin of a bishop who is the enemy of their impiety. Again they have written to the emperors against him; again they wish to plot against him, charging slaughters that did not take place; again they wish to murder him, charging murders that did not take place. For they would have murdered him then by their slanders, had we not found a humane emperor. Again—to put it at the least—they press for him to be sent into exile, while pretending to lament the misfortunes of exiles as though he had caused them. They lament before us things that did not happen, and are not content with what was done against him, but wish to fasten upon him second and worse things: so gentle and humane are they, so reasonable in character! Or rather (for the truth shall be told), wicked and bitter, and honored for the fear and threats they inspire rather than for the piety and reasonableness that befit bishops. For words such as not even a busybody among those outside would utter they have dared to pour out in what they wrote to the emperors. And they have charged so many murders and slaughters, not before a governor, nor before any other higher official, but before the three Augusti, not shrinking even from the length of the journeys, if only all the greater courts might be filled with their accusation. For what they have done is truly an accusation, beloved, and the highest accusation of all, since the courts before which it is brought are the highest of all human courts. For what other end can an inquiry into such matters have than death inflicted at the emperor’s instigation?

So it is not what Athanasius has done, but what they are doing, that deserves lament and wailing; it is they whom one might more justly lament. For over such things one ought to mourn, as it is also written: “Weep not for the dead, nor lament him; weep bitterly for him who goes away, for he shall return no more.” For their whole letter looks to nothing but death; they attempt to murder, if they are permitted, and to make men exiles. They were permitted before, when the most God-loving father of the emperors satisfied their anger by a change of place instead of death. That these are not the deeds even of ordinary Christians, and seldom even of pagans, let alone of bishops, who are supposed to teach others what is just, your conscience in Christ perceives, we believe. For how can those who forbid others to accuse become accusers themselves, even before emperors? How can those who teach compassion for misfortunes not keep quiet even after our exile? For the exile was, admittedly, shared by us bishops: we all counted ourselves exiles, and now, as though we had been restored with Athanasius to our homelands, we have received again, instead of our former lamentations and wailing over him, the greatest gladness and grace—which may the Lord preserve, and not permit Eusebius and his party to overturn. Even if the charges they made against him were true, these would be charges against them: that contrary to the precept of Christianity, after the exile that came with that trial, they attack again, accusing him of murders and slaughters and other crimes, and din these into the emperors’ ears against the bishops. But when they lie in everything and make false accusations in everything, and there is no truth in their mouths or in their letters, how manifold is the evil in them! Or what kind of men do you take them to be? Let us now therefore come to the facts themselves and to their accusations, so that what they bandied about formerly at the synod and the trial as well done—or rather, as not even truly said—may be refuted, and they may again be known for what they are.

We are ashamed to make a defense on such matters; but since these rash accusers bring themselves to anything, and allege that murders and slaughters took place after Athanasius’s entry, we beg you to bear with a defense at some length, for the facts compel it. No murder was committed by Athanasius or on his account—since, as we said, the accusers force us even into this inglorious defense. Slaughters and imprisonments are foreign to our Church. Athanasius has handed no one over to the executioner, and the prison, so far as he is concerned, has never been troubled by him. Our sanctuaries are pure, now as always, honored only by the blood of Christ and by piety toward him. No presbyter, no deacon was put to death by Athanasius; the man committed no murder and caused no exile. Would that they had not done this to him in fact, inflicting it on him! For no one here has been made an exile on his account, except Athanasius himself, the bishop of Alexandria, exiled by them; and now that he has been released, they seek to involve him again in the same or worse things, whetting their tongue for every false and deadly word. For see, they now transfer to him even the acts of the magistrates; and while in their letter they openly admit that the prefect of Egypt gave sentence against certain persons, they are not ashamed to fasten these sentences too on Athanasius—and that when he had not yet set foot in Alexandria, but was still on the road from exile, in Syria. As though one even had to plead a long journey in one’s defense, so that one might not be held answerable for whatever a governor or prefect of Egypt does! For even if he had been in Alexandria, what had the prefect’s acts to do with Athanasius? But he was not even present in the place; and what was done was done by the prefect of Egypt not on ecclesiastical grounds but for certain reasons which you will learn from the minutes, which, after learning what these men had written, we took the trouble to obtain and have sent to you. Since, then, they now cry out as having happened things that did not happen, either by him or on his account, and testify to such great evils as if fully assured of them, let them say from what synod they learned these things? From what proofs? From what trial? But if, having nothing of the kind, they simply affirm them, we leave it to you to consider how the earlier charges came about, or how they speak of them. For it is nothing but false accusation, a plot of enemies, anger with no restraint in its designs, and the impiety of the Ariomaniacs raging against piety, so that the orthodox may be put out of the way and the champions of impiety may thereafter preach freely whatever they wish. For so it is. [6] When the impious Arius, after whom the heresy of the Ariomaniacs is named, had been expelled from the Church by Bishop Alexander of blessed memory, Eusebius and his party, being disciples and partners of his impiety and considering themselves expelled too, wrote many letters urging Bishop Alexander not to leave the heretic Arius outside the Church. When Alexander, because of his piety toward Christ, would not receive the impious man, they were vexed with Athanasius, then a deacon; for, busying themselves with inquiries, they heard that he was much in the company of Bishop Alexander and was honored by him. And when they had had experience of his piety toward Christ at the synod held at Nicaea, where he spoke boldly against the impiety of the Ariomaniacs, their hatred grew all the more. And when God brought him to the episcopate, they rekindled the malice long nursed among them, and fearing his orthodoxy and his resistance to impiety—Eusebius above all, stung by his conscience over what he knows—they plotted and conspired against the man in every way. They stirred up the emperor against him, they often threatened synods, and at last they met at Tyre; and to this day they do not cease writing against him, and are so implacable that they even find fault with his appointment as bishop, everywhere showing themselves enemies and haters of the man and telling lies, if only they may disparage him by their falsehoods. But by the very lies they now tell they prove the earlier charges false and full of plotting. For they say that after the death of Bishop Alexander, when a few were mentioning Athanasius, … or seven bishops ordained him secretly in a hidden place. This they wrote even to the emperors, they who do not shrink from writing any falsehood. But the whole multitude and all the people of the catholic Church, gathered together as though with one soul and body, cried out and shouted, “Athanasius as bishop for the Church!” This they prayed for publicly to Christ, and they adjured us to do it, for very many days and nights, neither leaving the church themselves nor allowing us to leave it. Of this we are witnesses, and the whole city, and the province. They said nothing against him, as those men wrote, but called him every excellent thing: earnest, devout, a Christian, one of the ascetics, a true bishop. And that the greater part of us ordained him in the sight of all and amid the acclamations of all, we again, who ordained him, are witnesses more trustworthy than those who were absent and lie. Yet Eusebius finds fault with Athanasius’s appointment—a man who perhaps never had an appointment at all, or if he had one, annulled it himself. He was at Berytus at first; leaving Berytus, he came to Nicomedia, leaving the one against the law and entering the other against the law, deserting his own church without affection and holding another’s without reason, disregarding his love for the first out of desire for another’s, and not keeping even the second, which he had obtained through desire. For see, he has departed from there too and again holds another’s, everywhere eyeing other men’s cities, thinking that piety consists in wealth and in the size of cities, and counting as nothing the portion of God to which one has been appointed; not knowing that “where two or three are gathered together in the name of the Lord, there is the Lord in the midst of them”; not considering what the Apostle said, “I will not boast in other men’s labors”; not perceiving his precept, “Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed.” And if the saying holds of a wife, how much more of a church and of one’s own see, to which whoever has been bound ought not to seek another, lest he be found an adulterer as well according to the divine Scriptures.

Yet, though conscious of such things in himself, he has dared to slander the appointment of Athanasius, which all attest as honorable; and he dares to reproach him with deposition, though he has been deposed himself and has as witness to his deposition the appointment made in his place. How then could either he or Theognis depose another, when they had been deposed themselves and were convicted by the appointments made in their place? For you know well that Amphion was appointed at Nicomedia and Chrestus at Nicaea in their place, because of their own impiety and their communion with the Ariomaniacs, who were rejected by the ecumenical synod. And wishing to annul that synod, which was a synod in truth, they attempt to call their own unjust faction a synod; not wishing the decisions of that synod to prevail, they wish their own to prevail; and they speak of a synod, though they do not obey so great a synod. Thus they do not care about a synod, but pretend to care, so that, having removed the orthodox, they may undo what the true and great synod decided against the Arians, whose leaders they have been always and are now; and they dare to lie against Bishop Athanasius. For those earlier lies are like the present ones: that at his entry there were riots, lamentations, and wailing, the people being displeased at receiving him. Nothing of the kind happened, but quite the opposite: joy and gladness, and the people running, hastening to the sight they had prayed for; the churches full of rejoicing, and thanksgivings offered up to the Lord everywhere. All the ministers and clergy so beheld him that their souls were gladdened and they believed that day the happiest of all. And what need is there to write of the inexpressible joy of us bishops? For we have already said that we counted ourselves to be suffering with him.

Since, then, these facts are admitted, while they put about the contrary, what credit has the synod or trial they bandy about? For men who dare to intrude in this way on matters they did not see, did not judge, and did not assemble for, and to write as though fully informed—how can they be believed about the matters for which they say they did assemble? Will it not be believed that they did both those things and these out of enmity? For what kind of synod of bishops was that? What council that held to the truth? Which of the majority of them was not our enemy? Was it not because of the madness of Arius that Eusebius and his party rushed upon us? Did they not bring in the others who thought as they did? Have we not always written against them as men who hold the views of Arius? Was not Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine accused of sacrificing by the confessors who were with us? Was not George proved to have been deposed by the blessed Alexander? Were not others charged with other and various offenses? How then could such men want to sit in judgment on us? And how do they dare to call it a synod, at which a count presided, an executioner was present, and a jailer brought us in instead of the deacons of the church? He spoke, and those present kept silent, or rather obeyed the count; and any move by those who passed for bishops was blocked at his will. He gave orders, and we were led about by soldiers—or rather, Eusebius and his party gave the orders, and he served their designs. In short, beloved, what kind of synod is it whose end is exile and murder at the emperor’s pleasure? And what were the charges? For in these the wonder against them is greater still. There was a certain Arsenius, whom they complained had been murdered; and they slanderously alleged that a mystical cup had been broken. But Arsenius is alive and prays to be admitted to communion with us; and he does not wait for other testimonies to show that he is alive, but himself confesses that he lives, writing in his own letters to our fellow bishop Athanasius, whom they asserted to be his murderer. And the impious men were not ashamed to accuse him of having murdered a man who lived so far away, separated by a very long distance by sea and land, whose country at that time no one had even seen. They even dared to hide him and make him vanish, though he had suffered nothing; and had it been possible they would have removed him to another world, or rather would have taken him out of life in truth, so that, whether by proving the murder or by inventing it, they might truly kill Athanasius. But thanks be to divine providence in this too, which permits nothing unjust to prevail, but brought Arsenius alive before the eyes of all, openly refuting the plot and false accusation of that time. For he does not turn away from us as murderers nor hate us as having wronged him—he has suffered nothing at all—but asks to be in communion with us and wishes to be numbered with us, as his letter shows.

And yet Athanasius was plotted against by them as having murdered the living man, and was exiled by the same men. For it was not the father of the emperors who exiled him, but their slanders. Consider whether it is not so. When nothing was found against our fellow minister Athanasius, while the count used force and was very zealous against him, Bishop Athanasius, fleeing the violence that was done, went up to the most pious emperor, protesting against the count and against their plots, and asking that a lawful synod of bishops be convened, or that the emperor himself receive his defense against what they had brought against him. And the emperor wrote in indignation, summoning them, promising to hear the case himself and ordering the synod to be held. But Eusebius and his party went up and slandered Athanasius, no longer with what they had bandied about at Tyre, but about grain and the holding back of ships, alleging that Athanasius had boasted that he could stop the shipment of grain from Alexandria to Constantinople. Some of our number who were inside with Athanasius heard the emperor threatening. Then, when Athanasius lamented the slander and affirmed that it was not true—for how could a private and poor man do such things?—Eusebius, without even withdrawing the slander publicly, swore that Athanasius was rich and powerful and able to do anything, so that on this ground Athanasius might be thought to have said the other thing too. These were the charges of those venerable bishops; but the grace of God proved stronger than their wickedness. For it moved the piety of the emperor to clemency, and gave exile instead of death. So it was the slanders, and nothing else, that caused these things. For the emperor, writing before this, had censured the plot, blamed the conspiracy, and condemned the Meletians, calling them in writing lawless and deserving of curses, and saying the harshest things about them. For he had been moved on hearing that a man was dead who was among the living; he had been moved on hearing of a murder of a living man who had not been deprived of life. And we have sent you the letter.

But the admirable Eusebius and his party, in order to appear to undo both the truth and what had been written, put on the name of a synod and obtain from the emperor the means of carrying it out. Hence a count, and soldiers as bodyguards of the bishops, and imperial letters compelling those they wished to assemble. Here consider the strangeness of their plot and the inconsistency of what they dared, so that by any means and in every way they might snatch the man from us. For if they were entrusting the judgment to themselves alone, as bishops, what need was there of a count and soldiers? Or how was it that they assembled under imperial letters? But if they needed the emperor and wished to have their authority from him, why did they set aside his judgment? Or how, when he had judged in what he wrote that the Meletians were false accusers and lawless and Athanasius entirely innocent, and had spoken with indignation of the murder invented about a living man, did these men decide that the Meletians were telling the truth and that he was guilty? And without shame they made the living man dead—living after the emperor’s judgment, living when they assembled, and to this day with us. So much for Arsenius.

And the mystical cup—what cup, or where was it broken by Macarius? For this is what they go about bandying up and down. Yet not even the accusers dared to charge Athanasius, except as prompted by them; and still they bring the end of the complaint round to him—though it ought not to have touched even Macarius, since it was not proved. And they are not ashamed to make a tragedy of the mysteries before catechumens and, what is worst, before pagans; whereas, as it is written, “It is good to hide the secret of a king,” and as the Lord commanded, “Do not give what is holy to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine.” For the mysteries ought not to be paraded before the uninitiated, lest pagans laugh in their ignorance, and catechumens grow curious and be offended. But still, what cup was broken, or where, or in whose presence? For it is Meletians who accuse, who ought not to be believed at all; for they have been schismatics and enemies of the Church, not just now, but since the time of the blessed Peter, who was bishop and martyr. They plotted against Peter himself, slandered Achillas, his successor, and accused Alexander even before the emperor himself. Having practiced in this way, they then passed on to Athanasius too, doing nothing foreign to their wickedness: as they falsely accused those before him, so they falsely accused him. But their false accusation and slanders have prevailed now, and not before, because they had Eusebius and his party as fellow workers and patrons, on account of their own Ariomaniac impiety, for whose sake they plotted against Athanasius as against many bishops. For the place in which they say the cup was broken was not a church; there was no presbyter living in the place; and the day on which they say Macarius did this was not the Lord’s day. Since, then, there was no church there, nor anyone to celebrate, nor did the day call for it, what mystical cup was broken, or when, or where? That there are many cups, both in houses and in the middle of the marketplace, is plain, and whoever breaks any of them commits no impiety; but the mystical cup, which makes impious whoever lays hands on it if he breaks it deliberately, is found only with those who preside lawfully. This is the only kind of this cup, and there is no other. This you lawfully give the people to drink; this you received by the canon of the Church; this belongs only to those who preside over the catholic Church. For it is yours alone to give the blood of Christ to drink, and no one else’s. But as he who breaks the mystical cup is impious, so much more impious is he who insults the blood of Christ; and he insults it who does this contrary to the ordinance of the Church. And we say this not because even a cup of the schismatics was broken by Macarius, but because there was nothing there at all. How could there be, where there was neither a church building, nor anyone of the Church there, nor was it the time for the mysteries? This is the notorious Ischyras, who was never ordained by the Church, and who, when Alexander received the presbyters appointed by Meletius, was not even numbered among them; so he was not appointed from that side either.

Where, then, did Ischyras become a presbyter? Who appointed him? Colluthus? For that is all that is left. But it is plain and doubtful to no one that Colluthus died a presbyter, that his every laying-on of hands was invalid, and that all those appointed by him in the schism became laymen and attend services as such. How then could a private man, living in a private cottage, be believed to have a mystical cup? But at that time they called the private man a presbyter and bestowed this title on him for the sake of their injustice against us; and now, as the wage of his accusation, they procure for him the building of a church. So the man had no church, but now receives, as the wage of his malice and his obedience in making the accusation, the church he did not have; and perhaps they have given him a bishopric in return as well, for he goes about saying so and swaggers against us accordingly. So such prizes are now bestowed by bishops on accusers and false accusers—naturally, for having had him as an accomplice in what they wanted, they deemed him worthy of a share in their episcopate as a partner in their deeds. But enough of this; lend your ears still to what they did at that time.