2 CE. de Syn. 17. 3 Cf. Socr, i. 8. 4 Cf. Nicomedia.
5 The Eusebians alleged that, fifty-four Bishops of the two parties of S. Alexander and Meletius being assembled for the elec- tion, and having sworn to elect by the common voice, six or seven of these broke their oaths in favour of S. Athanasius, whom no one had thought of, and consecrated him in secret to the great surprise and scandal of both ecclesiastical and lay persons. vid. Socr. ii. 17. Philostorgius (a.D. 425) adds particulars, explanatory or corrective of this statement, of which the Bishops in the text do not seem to have heard; viz., that Athanasius with his party one night seized on the Church of St. Dionysius, and compelled two Bishops whom he found there to consecrate him against their will; that he was in consequence anathematized by all the other Bishops, means of shewing their enmity and hatred towards him, and spreading false reports for the sole purpose of thereby vilifying his character.
However, the very misrepresentations which they now are making do but convict their former statements of being falsehoods, and a mere conspiracy against him. For they say, that ‘after the death of Bishop Alexander, a certain few having mentioned the name of Athanasius, six or seven Bishops elected him clandestinely in a secret place:’ and this is what they wrote to the Emperors, having no scruple about asserting the greatest falsehoods. Now that the whole multitude and all the people of the Catholic Church assembled together as with one mind and body, and cried, shouted, that Athanasius should be Bishop of their Church, made this the subject of their public prayers to Christ, and conjured us to grant it for many days and_ nights, neither departing themselves from the Church, nor suffering us to do so; of all this we.are witnesses, and so is the whole city, and the province too. Not a word did they speak against him, as these persons represented, but gave him the most excellent titles they could devise, calling him good, pious, Christian, an ascetic 5, a genuine Bishop. And that he was elected by a majority of our body in the sight and with the acclamations of all the people, we who elected him also testify, who are surely more credible witnesses than those who were not present, and now spread these false accounts.
But yet Eusebius finds fault with the ap- pointment of Athanasius,—he who perhaps never received any appointment to his office at all; or if he did, has himself rendered it invalid®. For he had first the See of Berytus, but leaving that he came to Nicomedia. He left the one contrary to the law, and contrary to the law invaded the other; having de- serted his own without affection, and holding possession of another’s without reason; he but that, fortifying himself in his position, he sent in his election to the Emperor, and by this means obtained its confirmation. A. &. ii. 16. It appears, in matter of fact, that S. Athan. was absent at the time of his election; as Socrates says, in order to avoid it, or as Epiphanius, on business at the Court; these reasons are compatible. (Cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. § 4, and Gwatkin’s note, quoted there.]
5 It is contested whether S. Athan. was ever one of S. Antony’s monks, the reading of a passage in the commencement of his Vit. Ant., which would decide the question, varying in different MSS. The word “‘ ascetic” is used of those who lived a life, as afterwards followed in Monasteries, in the Ante-Nicene times. [See D.C.B. 1. 181%, and Prolegg. ch. il. § 1 ad fin, and Introd. to Vzt. Ant.)
6 The Canons of Nicea and Sardica were absolute against translation, but, as Bingham observes, Antiqu. vi. 4. § 6. only as a general rule. The so-called Apostolical Canons except ‘‘a reasonable cause” and the sanction of a Council; one of the Coun- cils of Carthage prohibits them when subserving ambitious views, and except for the advantage of the Church. Vid. list of trans- lations in Socr. Hist. vii. 36. Cassiodor. Hist. xii. 8. Niceph, Hist. xiv. 39. Coteler. adds others ad Can Afost.14. (cf Hest lost his love for the first in his lust for an- other, without even keeping to that which he obtained at the prompting of his lust. For, behold, withdrawing himself from the second, again he takes possession of another’s ™, casting an evil eye all around him upon the cities of other men, and thinking that godliness? con- sists in wealth and in the greatness of cities, and making light of the heritage of God to which he had been appointed; not knowing that ‘where’ even ‘two or three are gathered in the name of the’ Lord, ‘there’ is the Lord ‘in the midst of them;’ not considering the words of the Apostle, ‘I will not boast in another man’s labours;’ not perceiving the charge which he has given, ‘Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed.’ For if this expression applies to a wife, how much more does it apply to a Church, and to the same Episcopate; to which whosoever is bound ought not to seek another, lest he prove an adulterer according to holy Scripture.
7. But though conscious of these his own misdoings, he has boldly undertaken to arraign the appointment of Athanasius, to which honourable testimony has been borne by all, and he ventures to reproach him with his deposition, though he has been deposed him- self, and has a standing proof of his deposition in the appointment of another in his room. How could either he or Theognius ® depose an- other, after they had been deposed themselves, which is sufficiently proved by the appoint- ment of others in their room? For you know very well that there were appointed instead of them Amphion to Nicomedia and Chrestus to Niczea, in consequence of their own impiety and connection with the Arian madmen, who were rejected by the Ecumenic Council. But while they desire to set aside that true Council, they endeavour to give that name to their own unlawful combination?; while they are unwilling that the decrees of the Council should be enforced, they desire to enforce their own decisions; and they use the name of a Council, while they refuse to submit themselves to one so great as this. Thus they care not for Councils, but only pretend to do so in order that they may root out the orthodox, and annul the decrees of the true and great Council against the Arians, in support of whom, both now and heretofore, they have ventured to assert these falsehoods against 6a j.e. Constantinople, on the expulsion of Paul.
8 Or Theognis; he was, as well as Eusebius, a pupil of Lucian’s, and was deposed together with him aftér the Nicene Council for communicating with Arians. [They were not ecclesiastically de- posed, but exiled by the Emperor, see Prolegg. ch ii. §§ 3 (x) and (2) c, 6 (r).] Constantine banished them to Gaul; they were recalled in the course of two or three years. He was dead by the date of the Council of Sardica.
9 Eusebian Council of Tyre, a.p. 335.
APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
the Bishop Athanasius. For their former statements resembled those they now falsely make, viz., that disorderly meetings were held at his entrance *°, with lamentation and mourn- ing, the people indignantly refusing to receive him. Now such was not the case, but, quite the contrary, joy and cheerfulness prevailed, and the people ran together, hastening to obtain the desired sight of him. The churches were full of rejoicings, and thanksgivings were offered up to the Lord everywhere; and all the Ministers and Clergy beheld him with such feelings, that their souls were possessed with delight, and they esteemed that the happiest _ day of their lives. Why need we mention the inexpressible joy that prevailed among us Bishops, for we have already said that we counted ourselves to have been partakers in his sufferings?
8. Now this being confessedly the truth of the matter, although it is very differently repre- sented by them, what weight can be attached to that Council or trial of which they make their boast? Since they presume thus to interfere in a case which they did not witness, which they have not examined, and for which they did not meet, and to write as though they were assured of the truth of their state- ments, how can they claim credit respecting these matters for the consideration of which they say that they did meet together? Will it not rather be believed that they have acted both in the one case and in the other out of enmity to us? For what kind of a Council of Bishops was then held? Was it an assembly which aimed at the truth? Was not almost every one among them our enemy*? Did not the attack of Eusebius and his fellows upon us proceed from their zeal for the Arian madness? Did they not urge on the others of their party? Have we not always written against them as professing the doctrines of Arius? Was not Eusebius of Czsarea in Palestine accused by our confessors of sacri- ficing to idols??. Was not George proved to have been deposed by the blessed Alexander3?. Were not they charged with various offences, some with this, some with that?
How then could such men entertain the purpose of holding a meeting against us?
10 On his return from Gaul, Nov. 23, a.p. 337. [Prolegg. ch. ii.
ROR pe OF eden ee t the Council of Tyre, Potamo, an Egyptia: i Confessor asked Eusebius what had happened. re hin ieee during the persecution, Epiph. Her. 68, 7, as if hinting at his cowardice. It appears that Eusebius was prisoner at Czsarea with S. Pamphilus; yet he never mentions the. fact himself, which is unlike him, if it was producible. [The insinuation of Potammon was groundless: see Dic. C. Biog. ii. 311.]
3 George, Bishop of Laodicea, had been degraded when a priest by S. Alexander, for his profligate habits as well as his Arianism. Athan. speaks of him elsewhere as reprobated even by his party. de Fug. 26. [Cf. § 49, de Syn. 17. Prolegg. ch. ii, § 3 (2) c, 2.]
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
ee ee How can they have the boldness to call that a Council, at which a Count presided, which an executioner attended, and where an usher 4 instead of the Deacons of the Church intro- duced us into Court; and where the Count only spoke, and all present held their peace, or rather obeyed his directions 5? The removal of those Bishops who seemed to deserve it, was prevented at his desire; and when he gave the order we were dragged about by soldiers;— or rather Eusebius and his fellows gave the order, and he was subservient to their will. In short, dearly beloved, what kind of Council was that, the object of which was banishment and murder at the pleasure of the Emperor? And of what nature were their charges?—for here is matter of still greater astonishment. There was one Arsenius whom they declared to have been murdered; and they also com- plained that a chalice belonging to the sacred mysteries had been broken.
Now Arsenius is alive, and prays to be admitted to our communion. He waits for no other testimony to prove that he is still living, but himself confesses it, writing in his own person to our brother Athanasius, whom they positively asserted to be his murderer. The impious wretches were not ashamed to accuse him of having murdered a man who was at a great distance from him, being separated by so great a distance, whether by sea or land, and whose abode at that time no one knew. Nay, they even had the boldness to remove him out of sight, and place him in concealment, though he had suffered no injury; and, if it had been possible, they would have transported him to another world, nay, or have taken him from life in earnest, so that either by a true or false statement of his murder they might in good earnest destroy Athanasius. But thanks to divine Providence for this also, which permitted them not to succeed in their injustice, but presented Arsenius © alive to the eyes of all men, who has clearly proved their conspiracy and calumnies. He does not with- draw from us as murderers, nor hate us as having injured him (for indeed he has suffered no evil at ali); but he desires to hold com- munion with us; he wishes to be numbered among us, and has written to this effect.
9. Nevertheless they laid their plot against Athanasius, accusing him of having murdered a person who was still alive; and those same men are the authors of his banishment?7. For it was not the father of the Emperors, but their calumnies, that sent him into exile. Consider whether this is not the truth, When nothing was discovered to the prejudice of 4 Conventarius. vi. 1 7 By Constantine into Gaul, A.D. 336.
our fellow-minister Athanasius, but stili the Count threatened him with violence, and was very zealous against him, the Bishop® fled from this violence and went up to tke most religious Emperor, where he protested against the Count and their conspiracy againsi him, and requested either that a lawful Council otf Bishops might be assembled, or that the Emperor would himself receive his defence concerning the charges they brought against him. Upon this the Emperor wrote in anger, summoning them before him, and declaring that he would hear the cause himself, and for that purpose he also ordered a Council to be held. Whereupon Eusebius and his fellows went up and falsely charged Athanasius, not with the same offences which they had published against him at Tyre, but with an intention of detaining the vessels laden with corn, as though Atha- nasius had been the man to pretend that he could stop the exports of corn from Alexandria to Constantinople °°.
Certain of our friends were present at the palace with Athanasius, and heard the threats of the Emperor upon receiving this report. And when Athanasius cried out upon the calumny, and positively declared that it was not true, (for how, he argued, should he a poor man, and in a private station, be able to do such a thing?) Eusebius did not hesitate publicly to repeat the charge, and swore that Athanasius was a rich man, and powerful, and able to do anything; in order that it might thence be supposed that he had used this lan- guage. Such was the accusation these venerable Bishops proffered against him. But the grace of God proved superior to their wickedness, for it moved the pious Emperor to mercy, who instead of death passed upon him the sentence of banishment. Thus their calumnies, and nothing else, were the cause of this. For the Emperor, in the letter which he previously wrote, complained of their conspiracy, cen- sured their machinations, and condemned the Meletians as unscrupulous and deserving of execration; in short, expressed himself in the severest terms concerning them. For he was greatly moved when he heard the story of the dead alive; he was moved at hearing of 8 The circumstances of this appeal, which are related by Athan. below, § 86, are thus summed up by Gibbon; “‘ Before the final sentence could be pronounced at Tyre, the intrepid primate threw himself into a bark which was ready to hoist sail for the imperial city. The request of a formal audience might have been opposed or eluded; but Athanasius concealed his arrival, watched the moment of Constantine’s return from an adjacent villa, and'boldly encountered his angry sovereign as he passed on horseback througk the principal street of Constantinople. So strange an apparition excited his surprise and indignation; and the guards were ordered to remove the importunate suitor; but his resentment was subdued by involuntary respect; and the haughty spirit of the Emperor was awed by the courage and eloquence of a Bishop, who implored his justice and awakened his conscience.” Decl. and Fadl, xxi, Athan. was a small man in person. 9 i.e. to Constantinople. to § 87.
APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
murder in the case of one alive, and not de- prived of life. We have sent you the letter. 1o. But these marvellous men, Eusebius and his fellows, to make a show of refuting the truth of the case, and the statements contained in this letter, put forward the name of a Council, and ground its proceedings upon the authority of the Emperor. Hence the attendance of a Count at their meeting, and the soldiers as guards of the Bishops, ahd royal letters com- pelling the attendance of any persons whom they required. But observe here the ‘strange character of their machinations, and the incon- sistency of their bold measures, so that by some means or other they may take Athanasius away from us. For if as Bishops they claimed for themselves alone the judgment of the case, what need was there for the attendance of a Count and soldiers? or how was it that they assembled under the sanction of royal letters? Or if they required the Emperor’s countenance and wished to derive their authority from him, why were they then annulling his judgment? and when he declared in the letter which he wrote, that the Meletians were calum- niators, unscrupulous, and that Athanasius was most innocent, and made much stir about the pretended murder of the living, how was it that they determined that the Meletians had, spoken the truth, and that Athanasius was guilty of the offence; and were not ashamed to make the living dead, living both after the Emperor’s judgment, and at the time when they met together, and who even until this day is amongst us? So much concerning the case of Arsenius.
iz. And as for the cup belonging to the mysteries, what was it, or where was it broken by Macarius? for this is the report which they spread up and down. But as for Athanasius, even his accusers would not have ventured to blame him, had they not been suborned by them. However, they attribute the origin of the offence to him; although it ought not to be imputed even to Macarius who is clear of it. And they are not ashamed to parade the sacred mysteries before Catechumens, and worse than that, even before heathens’: whereas, they ought to attend to what is written, ‘It is good to keep close the secret of a king?;’ and as the Lord has charged us, ‘Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine3.’ We ought not then to parade the holy mys- 1 This period, when Christianity was acknowledged by the state but not embraced by the population, is just the time when we hear most of this Reserve as a principle. While Christians were but a sect, persecution enforced a discipline, and when they were com- mensurate with the nation, faith made it unnecessary. We are now returned to the state of the fourth century.
2 Tob. xii. 7. 3 Matt. vii. 6.
teries before the uninitiated, lest the heathen in their ignorance deride them, and the Cate- chumens being over-curious be offended. However, what was the cup, and where and before whom was it broken? It is the Meletians who make the accusation, who are not worthy of the least credit, for they have been schismatics and enemies of the Church, not of a recent date, but from the times of the blessed Peter, Bishop and Martyr+. They formed a conspiracy against Peter himself; they calumniated his successor Achillas; they accused Alexander even before the Emperor; and being thus well versed in these arts, they have now transferred their enmity to Athana- sius, acting altogether in accordance with their former wickedness. For as they slan- dered those that have been before him, so now they have slandered him. But their calumnies and false accusations have never prevailed against him until now, that they have got Eusebius and his fellows for their assistants and patrons, on account of the impiety which these have adopted from the Arian madmen, which has led them to conspire against many Bishops, and among the rest Athanasius.
Now the place where they say the cup was broken, was not a Church; there was no Presbyter in occupation of the place; and the day on which they say that Macarius did the deed, was not the Lord’s day. Since then there was no church there; since there was no one to perform the sacred office; and since the day did not require the use of it5; what was this cup belonging to the mysteries, and when, or where was_ it broken? There are many cups, it is plain, both in private houses, and in the public market; and if a person breaks one of them, he is not guilty of impiety. But the cup which belongs to the mysteries, and which if it be broken intentionally, makes the perpetrator of the deed an impious person, is found only among those who lawfully preside. This is the only description that can be given of this kind of cup; there is none other; this you legally give to the people to drink; this you have received according to the canon of the Church®; this belongs only to those who preside over the Catholic Church, for to you only it appertains to admi- nister the Blood of Christ, and to none besides. But as he who breaks the cup be- longing to the mysteries is an impious person, much more impious is he who treats the 4 (Cf. § 59, and Zp. Ag. 22, Prolegg. ch. ii. § 2 zuzt.]
5 This seems to imply that the Holy Communion was only celebrated on Sundays in the Egyptian Churches. [Cf. §§ 63,74, DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
Blood of Christ with contumely: and he does so who ‘does this?’ contrary to the rule of the Church. (We say this, not as if a cup even of the schismatics was broken by Macarius, for there was no cup there at all; how should there be? where there was neither Lord’s house nor any one belonging to the Church, nay, it was not the time of the celebration of the mysteries). Now such a person is the notorious Ischyras, who was never appointed to his office by the Church, and when Alexander admitted the Presbyters that had been ordained by Meletius, he was not even numbered amongst them; and there- fore did not receive ordination even from that quarter.
12. By what means then did Ischyras become a Presbyter? who was it that ordained him? was it Colluthus? for this is the only supposition that remains. But it is well known, and no one has any doubt about the matter, that Colluthus died a Presbyter, and that every ordination of his was invalid, and that all that were ordained by him during the schism were reduced to the condition of laymen, and in that rank appear in the con- gregation. How then can it be believed that a private person, occupying a private house, had in his possession a sacred chalice? But the truth is, they gave the name of Presbyter at the time to a private person, and gratified him with this title to support him in his iniquitous conduct towards us; and now as the reward of his accusations they procure for him the erection of a Church®. So that this man had then no Church; but as the reward of his malice and subserviency to them in accusing us, he receives now what he had not before; nay, perhaps they have even remu- nerated his services with the Episcopate, for so he goes about reporting, and accordingly behaves towards us with great insolence. Thus are such rewards as these now bestowed by Bishops upon accusers and calumniators; though indeed it is reasonable, in the case of an accomplice, that as they have made him a partner in their proceedings, so they should also make him their associate in their own Episcopate. But this is not all; give ear yet further to their proceedings at that time.
13. Being unable to prevail against the truth, though they had thus set themselves in array against it, and Ischyras having proved nothing at Tyre, but being shewn to be a calum- niator, and the calumny ruining their plot, they defer proceedings for fresh evidence, and profess that they are going to send to the Ma- reotis certain of their party to enquire diligently into the matter. Accordingly they dispatched secretly, with the assistance of the civil power, persons to whom we openly objected on many accounts, as being of the party of Arius, and therefore our enemies; namely, Diognius 9, Maris, Theodorus, Macedonius, and _ two others, young both in years and mind, Ursacius and Valens from Pannonia; who, after they had undertaken this long journey for the purpose of sitting in judgment upon their enemy, set out again from Tyre for Alexandria. They did not shrink from be- coming witnesses themselves, although they were the judges, but openly adopted every means of furthering their design, and under- took any labour or journey whatsoever in order to bring to a successful issue the conspiracy which was in progress. ‘They left the Bishop Athanasius detained in a foreign country while they themselves entered their enemy’s city, as if to have their revel both against his Church and against his people. And what was more outrageous still, they took with them the accuser Ischyras, but would not permit Maca- rius, the accused person, to accompany them, but left him in custody at Tyre. For ‘ Maca- rius the Presbyter of Alexandria’ was made answerable for the charge far and near.
14. They therefore entered Alexandria alone with the accuser, their partner in lodging, board, and cup; and taking with them Phi- lagrius the Prefect of Egypt they proceeded to the Mareotis, and there carried on the so- called investigation by themselves, all their own way, with the forementioned person Although the Presbyters frequently begged that they might be present, they would not permit them. The Presbyters both of the city and of the whole country desired to attend, that they might detect who and whence the persons were who were suborned by Ischyras. But they forbade the Ministers to be present, while they carried on the examination con- cerning church, cup, table, and the holy things, before the heathen; nay, worse than that, they summoned heathen witnesses during the enquiry concerning a cup belonging to the mysteries; and those persons who they affirmed were taken out of the way by Atha- nasius by summons of the Receiver-general, and they knew not where in the world they were, these same individuals they brought forward before themselves and the Prefect only, and avowedly used their testimony, whom they affirmed without shame to have been secreted by the Bishop Athanasius, 9 Vid. also Zp. 42g. 7. Euseb. Vit. C. iv. 43. Hilav. ad Const i. 5. Fragm. ii. 12 [' Diognius’ is another form of ‘ Theognius or Theognis. See Prolegg. ch. ii. § 5.1 But here too their only object is to effect his death, and so they again pretend that per- sons are dead who are still alive, following the same method they adopted in the case of Arsenius. For the men are living, and are to be seen in their own country; but to you who are at a great distance from the spot they make a great stir about the matter as though they had disappeared, in order that, as the evidence is so far removed from you, they may falsely accuse our brother-minister, as though he used violence and the civil power; whereas they themselves have in all respects acted by means of that power and the coun- tenance of others. For their proceedings in the Mareotis were parallel to those at Tyre; and as there a Count attended with military assistance, and would permit nothing either to be said or done contrary to their pleasure, so here also the Prefect of Egypt was present with a band of men, frightening all the mem- bers of the Church, and permitting no one to give true testimony. And what was the strangest thing of all, the persons who came, whether as judges or witnesses, or, what was more likely, in order to serve their own pur- poses and those of Eusebius, lived in the same place with the accuser, even in his house, and there seemed to carry on the investigation as they pleased.
15. We suppose you are not ignorant what outrages they committed at Alexandria; for they are reported everywhere. Naked swords'° were at work against the holy virgins and brethren; scourges were at work against their persons, es- teemed honourable in the sight of God, so that their feet were lamed by the stripes, whose souls are whole and sound in purity and all good works'. The trades were excited against them; and the heathen multitude was set to strip them naked, to beat them, wantonly to insult them, and to threaten them with their altars and sacrifices. And one coarse fellow, as though license had now been given them by the Prefect in order to gratify the Bishops, took hold of a virgin by the hand, and dragged her towards an altar that happened to be near, imitating the practice of compelling to offer sacrifice in time of persecution. When this was done, the virgins took to flight, and a shout of laughter was raised by the heathen against the Church; the Bishops being in the place, and occupying the very house where this was going on; and from which, in order to obtain favour with them, the virgins were assaulted with naked swords, and were exposed to all kinds of danger, and insult, and wanton violence. And this treatment they received 10 Cf. Encycl. 3, Apol. Const. 33. ® Hist. Arian. 12.
APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
on a fast-day?, and at the hands of persons who themselves were feasting with the Bishops indoors.
16. Foreseeing these things, and reflecting that the entrance of enemies into a place 1s no ordinary calamity, we protested against this commission. And Alexander3, Bishop of Thes- salonica, considering the same, wrote to the people residing there, discovering the con- spiracy, and testifying of the plot. They in- deed reckon him to be one of themselves, and account him a partner in their designs; but they only prove thereby the violence they have exercised towards him. For even the profligate Ischyras himself was only induced by fear and violence to proceed in the matter, and was obliged by force to undertake the accusation. As a proof of this, he wrote himself to our brother Athanasius4, confessing that nothing of the kind that was alleged had taken place there, but that he was suborned to make a false statement. This declaration he made, though he was never admitted by Athanasius as a Presbyter, nor received such a title of grace from him, nor was entrusted by way of recom- pense with the erection of a Church, nor expected the bribe of a Bishopric; all of which he obtained from them in return for under- taking the accusation. Moreover, his whole family held communion with us5, which they would not have done had they been injured in the slightest degree.
17. Now to prove that these things are facts and not mere assertions, we have the testi- mony ° of all the Presbyters of the Mareotis7, who always accompany the Bishop in_his visitations, and who also wrote at the time against Ischyras. But neither those of them who came to Tyre were allowed to declare the truth §, nor could those who remained in the Mareotis obtain permission to refute the calumnies of Ischyras 9. The copies also of the letters of Alexander, and of the Presbyters, and of Ischyras will prove the same thing. We have sent also the letter of the father of the Emperors, in which he expresses his indigna- tion that the murder of Arsenius was charged upon any one while the man was still alive; as also his astonishment at the variable and in- 2 [Not in Lent, for the commission were at Alexandria in September, see the date of the protest, z/ra, § 76.]
3 This Alexander had been one of the Nicene Fathers, in 32s, and had the office of publishing their decrees in Macedonia, Greece, &c. He was at the Council of Jerusalem ten years after, at which the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was consecrated, and afterwards Arius admitted to communion. His influence with the Court party seems to have been great, judging from Count Dionysius’s tone in speaking of him. _Infr. §§ 66, 80, 8z. 4 Infr. § 64.
_ 7 The district, called Mareotis from a neighbouring lake, lay in the territory and diocese of Alexandria, to the south-west. It consisted of various large villages, with handsome Churches, and resident Priests, and of hamlets which had none; of the latter was *‘ Irene of Secontarurus,” (infr. § 85.) where Ischyras lived.
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS. eee eee ee ee consistent character of their accusations with respect to the cup; since at one time they accused the Presbyter Macarius, at another the Bishop Athanasius, of having broken it with his hands. He declares also on the one hand that the Meletians are calumniators, and on the other that Athanasius is perfectly in- nocent..
And are not the Meletians calumniators, and above all John*°, who after coming into the Church, and communicating with us, after condemning himself, and no longer taking any part in the proceedings respecting the cup, when he saw Eusebius and his fellows zealously supporting the Arian madmen, though they had not the daring to co-operate with them openly, but were attempting to employ others as their masks, undertook a character, as an actor in the heathen theatrest? The subject of the drama was a contest of Arians; the real de- sign of the piece being their success, but John and his partizans being put on the stage and playing the parts, in order that under colour of these, the supporters of the Arians in the garb of judges might drive away the enemies of their impiety, firmly establish their impious doctrines, and bring the Arians into the Church. And those who wish to drive out true religion strive all they can to prevail by irreligion; they who have chosen the part of that impiety which wars against Christ, endeavour to destroy the enemies thereof, as though they were impious persons; and they impute to us the breaking of the cup, for the purpose of making it appear that Athana- sius, equally with themselves, is guilty of impiety towards Christ.
For what means this mention of a cup be- longing to the mysteries by them? Whence comes this religious regard for the cup among those who support impiety towards Christ? Whence comes it that Christ’s cup is known to them who know not Christ? How can they who profess to honour that cup, dishonour the God of the cup? or how can they who lament over the cup, seek to murder the Bishop who celebrates the mysteries therewith? for they would have murdered him, had it been in their power. And how can they who lament the loss of the throne that was Episcopally covered?, seek to destroy the Bishop that sat upon it, to the end that both the throne may be without its Bishop, and that the people may be deprived of godly doctrine? It was not then the cup, nor the murder, nor any of those portentous deeds they talk about, that induced them to act thus; but the foremenro Arcaph. infr. 65 fin., head of the Meletians. 1 Vid. infr. § 37, 46. and de Syx. 32, note. 2 Cathedrz velatz, see Bingh. viii. 6. § 10.
tioned heresy of the Arians, for the sake of which they conspired against Athanasius and other Bishops, and still continue to wage war against the Church.
Who are they that have really been the cause of murders and banishments? Is it not these? Who are they that, availing them- selves of external support, conspire against the Bishops? Are not Eusebius and his fellows the men, and not Athanasius, as they say in their letters? Both he and others have suffered at their hands. Even at the time of which we speak, four Presbyters3 of Alexandria, though they had not even proceeded to Tyre, were banished by their means. Who then are they whose conduct calls for tears and lamenta- tions? Is it not they, who after they have been guilty of one course of persecution, do not scruple to add to it a second, but have recourse to all manner of falsehood, in order that they may destroy a Bishop who will not give way to their impious heresy? Hence arises the enmity of Eusebius and his fellows; hence their proceedings at Tyre; hence their pretended trials; hence also now the letters which they have written even without any trial, expressing the utmost confidence in their statements; hence their calumnies before the father of the Emperors, and before the most religious Emperors themselves.