Church History 1.14–1.24

About this time Amun the Egyptian also practised philosophy. It is said that his family compelled him to marry, but that he did not have relations with his wife in the way lawful for husbands. When their marriage began and, as a bridegroom, he had taken her, his bride, into the chamber and was alone with her, he said: “Wife, this marriage of ours has been carried thus far, and no further.” He explained to her from the sacred Scriptures what a great good it is to be able to remain a virgin, and tried to live on his own. Although his wife approved of what he said about virginity, she took it hard to be separated from him; so for eighteen years he lived with her, sleeping apart, not neglecting monastic discipline even so. In that time his wife came to emulate her husband's virtue and reasoned that it was not right for so great a man to be hidden at home because of her, but that each of them should live apart and practise philosophy; and she asked her husband to do this. He gave thanks to God for what his wife had resolved and said: “You keep this house; I shall make another for myself.” He took a deserted place south of Lake Mareotis, near Scetis and what is called the mountain of Nitria, and practised philosophy there for twenty-two years, seeing his wife twice each year. This godly man became the founder of the monasteries there, and he had many notable disciples, as the successions will show. Many wonders befell him, which have been most carefully recorded by the monks of Egypt, who take great pains to remember accurately, by an unwritten tradition handed down, the virtues of the older ascetics. I shall tell those that have come to us. He and his disciple Theodore once had to cross a canal which they call the Lycus, as they were going somewhere. So that they should not see each other naked, Amun told Theodore to withdraw. And as he was ashamed to see even himself naked, he was suddenly lifted up by divine power and carried across to the opposite bank. Theodore crossed the water, and seeing that Amun's clothes and feet were not wet, he begged the old man to tell him the reason. Amun refused to tell; but Theodore insisted that he would not leave off unless he learned, and when Theodore had agreed to tell no one while Amun lived, he confessed the [wonder]. This too is like it as a marvel. Some parents who were wrongdoers brought to him their own child, who had been bitten by a mad dog and was expected to die at any moment, and with laments begged him to heal their son. He said to them: “He has no need of healing from me; but if you are willing to give back the ox you have stolen to its owners, he will be healed at once.” And when the ox was returned, the affliction left the child. When this Amun died, Antony is said to have seen his soul being carried up to heaven, with divine Powers leading it with psalm-singing. When those about him asked the reason of his wonder, he did not hide it; for he was plainly gazing intently into the air, astonished at the sight of the wonderful marvel. When afterward some people came from Scetis and reported the hour of Amun's death, the truth of Antony's prediction was shown. And they called both blessed: the one for departing from life here with acknowledged goods, the other for being counted worthy of so great a sight, which God showed him from so far away; for the distance between the places where each of them lived is a journey of many days. These things are related by those who associated with Antony and Amun. In this reign I learned that Eutychian too practised philosophy with distinction; he lived in Bithynia near Olympus. Though he belonged to the sect of the Novatians, he shared in divine grace through healings of diseases and wonderful deeds, so that because of the virtue of his life he was an intimate and friend of Constantine himself. At that time, for instance, one of the bodyguards was in prison; he had fled because he was suspected of plotting to seize power, and had been sought out near Olympus and arrested. His friends begged Eutychian to plead for him with the emperor, and first to see that the man was released from his chains, lest, bound so harshly, he should die before anything could be done. It is said that Eutychian sent to the jailers and asked them to release him; when they did not comply, he went to the prison, and the doors, which were locked, opened of themselves, and the prisoner's chains fell away. After this he went to the emperor, who was then staying at Byzantium, and readily obtained the favour; for Constantine was not accustomed to be displeased at his requests, since he held the man in very great honour. Let this be our brief account of those who then practised philosophy brilliantly among the monks. Anyone who cares about exactness on these matters would find, if he searched, that the lives of most of them have been written down.

But although religion was thus thriving in all other respects, certain contentious disputes troubled the churches, which, on the pretext of piety and of a perfect discovery of God, brought into question things that had not been examined before. Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria in Egypt, began these debates. At first he was thought to be zealous for the doctrine, and he took part with Melitius in his innovations; but he left him and was ordained deacon by Peter, bishop of Alexandria. He was again expelled from the church by him, because when Peter excommunicated the followers of Melitius and would not accept their baptism, Arius censured what was done and would not keep quiet. After Peter was martyred, Arius asked pardon of Achillas, was allowed to serve as deacon, and was made a presbyter. Later Alexander too held him in honour. Being very skilled in dialectic, for he was said not to lack such learning, he rolled down into strange arguments, so that he dared to declare in the church what no one had said before: that the Son of God was made from nothing, that there was once when he was not, that by free will he is capable of vice and virtue, and that he is a creature and a thing made, and many other things that one who holds these views is likely to say when he goes on into debates and detailed inquiries. Some people took hold of what was said and blamed Alexander for not opposing innovations against the doctrine as he should. He, thinking it better to set out argument on both sides about the doubtful matters, so that he might seem to end their strife by persuasion and not by force, sat as judge with members of the clergy and brought both parties into debate. As usually happens in contests of words, each side tried to win. Arius maintained what he had said; the others maintained that the Son is of the same essence as the Father and co-eternal with him. When the council met again and they had raised so many arguments, they did not agree. While the question still seemed undecided, Alexander himself was at first in some way affected, praising now one side and now the other. In the end he sided with those who declared the Son to be of the same essence and co-eternal, and ordered Arius to think likewise and give up the contrary arguments. When he failed to persuade him, and many of the bishops and clergy about him already thought that Arius spoke rightly, he excommunicated him and the clergy who supported him in the doctrine. Those who supported him from the Alexandrian church were the presbyters Aithales, Achillas, Carpones, Sarmates and Arius, and the deacons Euzoius, Macarius, Julius, Menas and Helladius. From then on no small part of the people also went over to them, some thinking that they ought to believe the same about God, others, as commonly happens with most people, pitying them as wronged and as expelled from the church without trial. Since matters stood thus at Alexandria, Arius's party, reckoning it necessary to win over first the goodwill of the bishops in the various cities, sent envoys to them. Writing down what they believed, they asked that, if it was right to hold these views about God, the bishops should tell Alexander not to be harsh with them; and if not, that they should be taught how they ought to think. This effort helped them not a little. For when this doctrine had been spread among almost everyone, the same question became common to the bishops everywhere. Some wrote to Alexander not to receive Arius's party unless they renounced their belief; others asked him not to do this. Alexander, seeing that very many men, dignified by the appearance of a good life and formidable in persuasive speech, were supporting Arius's party, especially Eusebius, who then presided over the church of Nicomedia, a learned man honoured at the palace, wrote to the bishops everywhere not to hold communion with them. From this the zeal on both sides was kindled still more, and, as usually happens, a greater strife was stirred up. For when Eusebius's party had often begged Alexander and failed to persuade him, they were angry as if insulted, and became more eager to strengthen the doctrine of Arius. They held a synod in Bithynia and wrote to the bishops everywhere to hold communion with Arius's party as holding right opinions, and to induce Alexander also to hold communion with them. When their effort still went against their wishes, since Alexander would not yield, Arius sent envoys to Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, to Eusebius son of Pamphilus, who governed the church of Caesarea in Palestine, and to Patrophilus of Scythopolis, and asked that he and those with him be allowed to assemble the people who were with them, since they had formerly held the rank of presbyters. For it was the custom at Alexandria, as it still is now, that while there is one bishop over all, the presbyters hold the churches separately and gather the people in them. These bishops met with other bishops in Palestine and voted for Arius's request, directing that they should assemble the people as before, but should be subject to Alexander and continually entreat him to grant them peace and communion with him.

When many synods had been held on this matter in Egypt as well, and the strife was at its height, so that it reached the palace, the emperor Constantine was greatly vexed, because the disagreement over doctrines was turning many away from becoming Christians just when the religion had lately begun to grow. For this reason he plainly held Arius and Alexander to blame. He wrote to them and accused them of bringing into the open this question, which might have stayed hidden, and of stirring it up contentiously by too much zeal for opposing views, when they ought neither to have raised it in the first place nor to have pondered it, and, having pondered it, ought to have consigned it to silence. They could have kept from separating from one another, even if they differed on some part of the doctrine. For about divine providence it is necessary to have one and the same faith; but the hair-splitting of inquiries about such matters, even if it does not come to one opinion, ought to be kept secret in the mind. He ordered them to give up their talk about these things and to be of one mind. He was, he said, greatly grieved, and for this reason had put off his eager wish to see the cities of the East. Such was what he wrote to Alexander and Arius, partly blaming and partly advising them. He was also distressed to learn that some celebrated the feast of Easter differently from everyone else. At that time some in the cities of the East differed on this point; they did not break off communion with one another, but they kept the feast in a more Jewish way, and, as was natural, through their disagreement on this they spoiled the splendour of the festival. He was eager, then, that the church should be free of strife on both counts. Thinking that he could check the evil before it spread to more people, he sent a man of his circle distinguished for faith and life, who had won renown in earlier times by his confessions for the doctrine, to reconcile those in Egypt who were in strife over the doctrine and those in the East who differed over the feast. This was Hosius, bishop of Cordova.

When the matter went against his hopes, and the strife was too strong for reconciliation, and the man sent to arbitrate the peace came back without success, he summoned a synod to Nicaea in Bithynia and wrote to the leaders of the churches everywhere to be present on a set day. Of the apostolic sees there took part in this assembly Macarius of Jerusalem, Eustathius, who already had charge of the church of Antioch on the Orontes, and Alexander of Alexandria by Lake Mareotis. Julius, bishop of Rome, was absent because of old age; in his place Vito and Vincentius, presbyters of the same church, were present. Besides these, very many other good and upright men came together from various nations: some able in thought and speech, distinguished for knowledge of the sacred books and of other learning, and eminent in virtue of life; others renowned in both respects. There were about three hundred and twenty bishops; and since presbyters and deacons naturally accompanied them, the crowd was not small. With them were also men skilled in debate, eager to help them in argument. As usually happens, many of the priests, thinking they had come together to contend for their own affairs, considered this an opportunity to set right what grieved them; and each, about what he blamed in others, handed a petition to the emperor and reported the wrongs done to him. When this was being done readily every day, the emperor ordered each to make plain on a set day what he was accusing. When the appointed time came, he received the petitions that had been handed in and said: “These accusations have their proper time, the day of the great judgment, and their judge, the one who will then judge all. It is not lawful for me, a man, to take upon myself such a hearing, where priests accuse and are accused. Such men should least of all present themselves to be judged by another. Come then, let us imitate the divine love of humankind in forgiving one another; let the charges be blotted out, let us be persuaded, and let us give our zeal to the matters of faith for whose sake we have come here.” Having said this, the emperor ordered each man's charge to be set aside and the petitions to be burned, and he fixed a day on which the disputed questions should be resolved. Before the appointed time the bishops met by themselves, summoned Arius, and set before the assembly what he believed and debated it. As was natural, since the inquiry turned to various questions, some advised that there be no innovation against the faith handed down from the beginning, especially those whose simple manners led them to accept faith in God without curiosity; others maintained that older opinions should not be followed without examination. Many of the bishops who had then come together, and of the clergy who accompanied them, being able debaters and practised in such methods of argument, became prominent and known to the emperor and those about him. From that time Athanasius of Alexandria too, then still a deacon and in the company of Alexander the bishop, was thought to have the greatest share in the deliberations on these matters.

Moreover, some of the learned among the pagans deliberately took part in these debates: some eager to learn what the doctrine was; others, hating the Christians because the pagan religion had lately begun to perish, threw the inquiry about the doctrine into verbal contests, so that the Christians would quarrel among themselves and appear to contradict one another. It is said that when one of them, out of ambition for speaking, was boasting and mocking the priests, a simple old man, one of those renowned for their confessions, could not bear his arrogance. Though he had no part in such quibbling and jargon, he took up the argument against him. At this the thing roused laughter among the rash who knew the confessor, and fear among the reasonable, who foresaw that he would appear ridiculous before a man skilled in argument. Nevertheless, since they let him say what he wished, for out of respect they could not oppose such a man for long, he said: “In the name of Jesus Christ, philosopher, listen. There is one God, the maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible, who made all these by the power of the Word and established them by the holiness of his Holy Spirit. This Word,” he said, “whom we call the Son of God, took pity on men for their error and their beastlike way of life, and chose to be born of a woman, to live among men, and to die for them. And he will come again as judge of what each has done in life. That these things are so we believe without curiosity. Do not labour in vain, then, seeking proofs of what is accomplished by faith, and the way in which these things could or could not have happened. But if you believe, answer me as I ask.” Struck by this, the philosopher said, “I believe.” Acknowledging his defeat with thanks, he held the same views as the old man, and advised those who had been of his former opinion to agree with him, swearing that he had not changed without God, but had been moved to become a Christian by some unspeakable power. A wonder like the one described is said to have been worked through Alexander, who governed the church of Constantinople. When Constantine came to Byzantium, some philosophers approached him and complained that he did not worship as he should and was innovating in divine matters, bringing into the state a new worship contrary to what had been customary with his ancestors and with all the rulers of Greeks and Romans whom past ages had produced. They asked to debate with Alexander the bishop about the doctrine. Although he was unpractised in such exercises of argument, he relied perhaps on his life, for he was a good and upright man, and he accepted the contest at the emperor's command. When the philosophers came together, since all wished to debate, he asked them to choose one whom they wished, and the others present to keep quiet. When one had taken up the argument, Alexander said to him: “In the name of Jesus Christ I command you not to speak.” At the word the man's mouth was at once bound, and he fell silent. Is it fair, then, to consider which is the greater wonder, so easily to take speech from a man, and a philosopher at that, or to cleave a stone by force of a word with the hand, which I have heard was boasted of by some in the case of Julian, called the Chaldean? This is what I learned of these matters.

The bishops met continually, brought Arius forward, and examined his propositions closely; but they took care not to cast their vote rashly for either side. When the appointed day came on which the doubtful questions were to be settled, they gathered at the palace, since the ruler had decided to share in their deliberation. When he had come together with the priests, he passed to the head of the assembly and sat on a throne that had been prepared for him, and the synod was told to sit down. Many benches had been set out on either side along the walls of the palace hall, which was very large and surpassed the others. When they were seated, Eusebius son of Pamphilus rose and addressed a speech to the emperor, and on his account a hymn of thanksgiving to God. When he had finished and there was silence, the emperor said: “For all things I give thanks to God, my friends, and not least for seeing your assembly. It has turned out better than I prayed, to bring so many priests of Christ together. I should wish to see you of one mind and sharing a harmonious judgment, since I consider it worse than any evil for the church of God to be in strife. So when I was told what I ought never to have heard, I was greatly grieved in soul to learn that you were at variance, you to whom it least belongs, since you are ministers of God and arbiters of peace. For this reason I have convened your holy synod; and being emperor and your fellow servant, I ask to receive a favour pleasing to God, our common Master, fitting for me to receive and for you to give: that you bring into the open the causes of the dispute and put an end to them in concord and peace, so that with you I may set up this trophy against the envious demon, who, now that foreign enemies and tyrants have been removed, has stirred up this civil strife, resenting our good fortune.” When the emperor had said this in the Roman tongue, someone standing by translated it.

After this the debate about the doctrine was opened among the priests. The emperor listened to the arguments on both sides at leisure and with great patience. He agreed with those who spoke well and drew the contentious away from their strife, talking gently with each, as far as he knew how to listen, since he was not unacquainted with the Greek language either. In the end all the priests came to agreement with one another and voted that the Son is of the same essence as the Father. At first only seventeen are said to have praised Arius's opinion; but immediately most of these too went over to the common opinion. The emperor also voted for this view, concluding that the agreement of the assembly had been approved by God; and he proclaimed that anyone who opposed what had been decided would be punished with exile, as one who had corrupted the divine definitions. So that the creed of the faith then agreed upon might remain firm and plain to those who would come after, I thought it necessary to set down the document itself as proof of the truth. But godly friends who understood such matters advised that these things should be spoken and heard only by the initiated and their initiators, and I approved their counsel. For it is not unlikely that some of the uninitiated will read this book. So I have hidden, as far as possible, the secret things that must be kept in silence, while not leaving the reader altogether ignorant of what the synod decided.

It should be known that they declared the Son to be of the same essence as the Father; and those who say, “There was once when he was not,” and “Before he was begotten he was not,” and that he came into being from nothing, or from another subsistence or essence, or that he is mutable or alterable, they anathematized and voted to be strangers to the catholic church. This formula was approved by Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, and Secundus of Ptolemais in Libya. Eusebius son of Pamphilus held back a little, examined it, and approved it. The synod anathematized Arius and those who thought as he did, and voted that he should not set foot in Alexandria. They also condemned the expressions of his opinion, and the book which he composed about it and entitled Thalia. I have learned, for I have not read it, that the style of this composition is loose, so that in its slackness it resembles the songs of Sotades. It should be known, however, that Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea neither agreed to nor signed the deposition of Arius, although they assented to the written statement of the faith. The emperor punished Arius with exile beyond the frontiers, and wrote to the bishops and peoples everywhere, as a law, that they should regard him and those of his mind as impious, and should burn any writing of theirs that was found, so that no memorial either of him or of the doctrine he introduced should survive. If anyone were caught hiding one and did not at once report and burn it, the penalty was to be death and capital punishment. He also sent other letters to the cities against Arius and those who shared his opinions. He ordered Eusebius and Theognis to leave the cities of which they were bishops. To the church of Nicomedia he wrote that they should hold to the faith which the synod had handed down, should put forward orthodox bishops and obey them, and should consign the memory of the others to oblivion; and he threatened to punish those who tried to praise them or to hold their views. In these letters he also made plain that he was hostile to Eusebius on other grounds, as one who had earlier taken the tyrant's side and plotted against him. In accordance with these letters of the emperor, Eusebius and Theognis were deprived of the churches they held; Amphion received that of Nicomedia, and Chrestus that of Nicaea. When the inquiry about the doctrine had ended, the synod decided that all should also celebrate the feast of Easter at the same time.

It is said that the emperor, taking thought for the concord of all Christians, also summoned to the synod Acesius, who was bishop of the church of the Novatians, showed him the definition about the faith and the feast, already confirmed by the bishops' signatures, and asked whether he too agreed with it. He replied that nothing new had been defined, and praised what the synod had decided; for so he too had received from the beginning to believe and to keep the feast. “Why then,” said the emperor, “if you think the same, do you separate yourself from communion?” He brought up the dispute that arose under Decius between Novatus and Cornelius, and said that after baptism they do not admit to communion in the mysteries those guilty of the sin which the divine Scriptures call “unto death”; for forgiveness depends on the authority of God alone, not of priests. The emperor took him up and said: “Acesius, set up a ladder and climb into heaven alone.” I think the emperor said this to Acesius not in praise, but because, being men, they think themselves without sin.

The synod, eager to reform the life of those who serve in the churches, enacted laws which they call canons. While they were deliberating on this, some thought it right to introduce a law that bishops and presbyters, deacons and subdeacons should not sleep with the wives they had married before they entered the priesthood. But Paphnutius the confessor rose and spoke against it. Calling marriage honourable, and intercourse with one's own wife chastity, he advised the synod not to make such a law; for the thing would be hard to bear, and might perhaps become a cause of unchastity both for them and for their wives. According to the ancient tradition of the church, he said, those who were unmarried when they entered the priestly order should not afterwards marry; but those who were married should not separate from the wives they had. Paphnutius proposed this, although he himself had no experience of marriage. The synod approved his counsel and made no law on the matter, but left it to each person's judgment, not to compulsion. On other matters it wrote down laws as it thought right, by which the affairs of the church should be governed. These anyone who wishes may easily read, for many people have copies.

When the events concerning Melitius in Egypt had also been examined, the synod sentenced him to remain in Lycus, holding the bare name of bishop, and thereafter to ordain no one either in city or in village. Those already appointed by him were to be in communion and to minister, but to take second place in honour to the clergy in each church and parish. They might succeed to the ranks of those who died before them, if they were found worthy by the vote of the people, the bishop of the church of Alexandria confirming the ordination; but they were not permitted to choose whomever they wished by their own judgment. This seemed just to the synod, considering the rashness and readiness of Melitius and those of the same opinion in ordaining; for while Peter, who was martyred, was leading the church of Alexandria and had fled because of the persecution of that time, Melitius had usurped the ordinations that belonged to him.