of the Meletian schism, by the indulgence of the great Council, was he named by Meletius among his presbyters, as they deposed7; which is the strongest argument possible that he was not even a presbyter of Meletius; for otherwise, he would certainly have been num- bered with the rest. Besides, it was shewn also by Athanasius from the reports, that Ischyras had spoken falsely in other instances: 3 5 Bingh. Ant.
for he set up a charge respecting the burning of certain books, when, as they pretend, Ma- carlus burst in upon them, but was convicted of falsehood by the witnesses he himself brought to prove it.
29. Now when these things were thus re- presented to us, and so many witnesses ap- peared in his favour, and so much was ad- vanced by him in his own justification, what did it become us to do? what did the rule of the Church require of us, but that we should not condemn him, but rather receive him and treat him like a Bishop, as we have done? Moreover, besides all this he continued here a year and six months §&, expecting the arrival. of yourselves and of whoever chose to come, and by his presence he put everyone to shame, for he would not have been here, had he not felt confident in his cause; and he came not of his own accord, but on an invitation by letter from us, in the manner in which we wrote to you%. But still you complain after all of our transgressing the Canons. Now consider; who are they that have so acted? we who received this man with such ample proof of his innocence, or they who, being at Antioch at the distance of six and thirty posts, nominated a stranger to be Bishop, and sent him to Alexandria with a military force; a thing which was not done even when Athanasius was banished into Gaul, though it would have been done then, had he been really proved guilty of the offence. But when he returned, of course he found his Church unoccupied and waiting for him.
30. But now I am ignorant under what colour these proceedings have been carried on. In the first place, if the truth must be spoken, it was not right, when we had written to sum- mon a council, that any persons should anti- cipate its decisions: and in the next place, it was not fitting that such novel proceedings should be adopted against the Church. For what canon of the Church, or what Apostolical tradition warrants this, that when a Church was at peace, and so many Bishops were in unanimity with Athanasius the Bishop of Alex- andria, Gregory should be sent thither, a stranger to the city, not having been baptized 8 Spring of 339 A.D. to autumn of 340.
x Or rather, halts, poval. They are enumerated in the Itinerary of Antoninus, and are set down on Montfaucon’s plate. The route passes over the Delta to Pelusium, and then coasts all the way to Antioch. These povat were day's journeys, Coustant in Hilar. Psalm 118, Lit. 5. 2. or half a day’s journey, Herman. ibid; and vere at unequal intervals, Ambros. in Psalm 118, Serm. 5: § 5. Gibbon says that by the government conveyances, “‘it was easy to travel an too miles in a day along the Roman roads.” ch. il. Movy or mansio properly means the building, where soldiers or other public officers rested at night (hence its application to monastic houses). Such buildings included granaries, stabling, &c. vid. Con Theod. ed. Gothofr. 1665. t. r. p. 47, t. 2, p. 507. Du Cange Gloss 2 APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
there, nor known to the general body, and desired neither by Presbyters, nor Bishops, nor Laity—that he should be appointed at Antioch, and sent to Alexandria, accompanied not by presbyters, nor by deacons of the city, nor by bishops of Egypt, but by soldiers? for they who came hither complained that this was the case.
Even supposing that Athanasius was in the position of a criminal after the Council, this appointment ought not to have been made thus illegally and contrary to the rule of the Church, but the Bishops of the province ought to have ordained one in that very Church, of that very Priesthood, of that very Clergy?; and the Canons received from the Apostles ought not thus to be set aside. Had this offence been committed against any one of you, would you not have exclaimed against it, and demanded justice as for the transgression of the Canons? Dearly beloved, we speak honestly, as in the presence of God, and de- clare, that this proceeding was neither pious, nor lawful, nor ecclesiastical. Moreover, the account which is given of the conduct of Gregory on his entry into the city, plainly shews the character of his appointment. In such peaceful times, as those who came from Alexandria declared them to have been, and as the Bishops also represented in their letters, the Church was set on fire; Virgins were stripped; Monks were trodden under foot; Presbyters and many of the people were scourged and suffered violence; Bishops were cast into prison; multitudes were dragged about from place to place; the holy Mysteries 3, about which they accused the Presbyter Maca- rius, were seized upon by heathens and cast upon the ground; and all to constrain certain persons to admit the appointment of Gregory. Such conduct plainly shews who they are that transgress the Canons. Had the appointment been lawful, he would not have had recourse to illegal proceedings to compel the obedience of those who in a legal way resisted him. And notwithstanding all this, you write that perfect peace prevailed in Alexandria and Egypt. Surely not, unless the work of peace is en- tirely changed, and you call such doings as these peace.
31. I have also thought it necessary to point out to you this circumstance, viz. that Athana- slus positively asserted that Macarius was kept at Tyre under a guard of soldiers, while only his accuser accompanied those who went to 2 Vid. Bingh. Azz. II. xi.
3 Athan. only suggests this, supr. Zxzcyc. 3. S. Hilary says the same of the conduct of the Arians at Toulouse; ‘Clerks were beaten with clubs; Deacons bruised with lead; nay, even on Christ Himself (the Saints understand my meaning) hands were laid.” Contr. Constant, x1.
the Mareotis; and that the Presbyters who desired to attend the inquiry were not per- mitted to do so, while the said inquiry respecting the cup and the Table was carried on before the Prefect and his band, and in the presence of Heathens and Jews. This at first seemed incredible, but it was proved to have been so from the Reports; which caused great astonish- ment to us, as I suppose, dearly beloved, it does to you also. Presbyters, who are the ministers of the Mysteries, are not permitted to attend, but an enquiry concerning Christ’s Blood and Christ’s Body is carried on before an external judge, in the presence of Cate- chumens, nay, worse than that, before Hea- thens and Jews, who are in ill repute in regard to Christianity. Even supposing that an offence had been committed, it should have been in- vestigated legally in the Church and by the Clergy, not by heathens who abhor the Word and know not the Truth. I am_ persuaded that both you and all men must perceive the nature and magnitude of this sin. Thus much concerning Athanasius.
32. With respect to Marcellus 5, forasmuch as you have charged him also of impiety towards Christ, I am anxious to inform you, that when he was here, he positively declared that what you had written concerning him was not true; but being nevertheless requested by us to give an account of his faith, he answered in his own per- son with the utmost boldness, so that we recog- nised that he maintains nothing outsidethetruth., He made a confession © of the same godly doc- trines concerning our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as the Catholic Church confesses; and he affirmed that he had held these opinions for a very long time, and had not recently adopted them: as indeed our Presbyters 7, who were at a former date present at the Council of Niczea, testified to his orthodoxy; for he maintained then, as he has done now, his opposition to Arianism (on which points it is right to admonish you, lest any of you admit such heresy, instead of abominating it as alien from sound doctrine®). Seeing then that he professed orthodox opi- nions, and had testimony to his orthodoxy, what, I ask again in his case, ought we to have done, except to receive him as a Bishop, as we did, and not reject him from our com- munion? These things I have written, not so much for the purpose of defending their cause, 5 Julius here acquits Marcellus; but he is considered heretical by S. Epiphanius, Joc. czt. S. Basil, EAs. 69, 125, 263, 265. S. Chyrsostom in Heby. Hom. ii. 2. Theodoret, Her. ii. to. vid. Petav. de Trin. i. 13. who condemns him, and Bull far more strongly, Def #. ZN. il. 1. § 9. Montfaucon defends him (in a special Dissertation, Collect. Nov. tom. 2.) and Tillemont. Mem. tom, 7. p. 513, and Natalis Alex, Sec. iv. Dissert. 30. [Proi i: infr. 7 Vincentius and Vito, i DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
as in order to convince you, that we acted justly and canonically in receiving these persons, and that you are contentious without a cause. But it is your duty to use your anxious en- deavours and to labour by every means to correct the irregularities which have been com- mitted contrary to the Canon, and to secure the peace of the Churches; so that the peace of our Lord which has been given to us 9 may remain, and the Churches may not be divided, nor you incur the charge of being authors of schism. For I confess, your past conduct is an occasion of schism rather than of peace.
33. For not only the Bishops Athanasius and Marcellusand their fellowscame hither and com- plained of theinjustice that had been donethem, but many other Bishops also, from Thrace, from Coele-Syria, from Phoenicia and Palestine, and Presbyters, not a few, and others from Alex- andria and from other parts, were present at the Council here, and in addition to their other statements, lamented before all the assembled Bishops the violence and injustice which the Churches had suffered, and affirmed that simi- lar outrages to those which had been com- mitted in Alexandria had occurred in their own Churches, and in others also. Again there lately came Presbyters with letters from Egypt and Alexandria, who complained that many Bishops and Presbyters who wished to come to the Council were prevented; for they said that, since the departure of Athanasius? even up to this time, Bishops who are confessors 3 have been beaten with stripes, that others have been cast into prison, and that but lately aged men, who have been an exceedingly long period in the Episcopate, have been given up to be employed in the public works, and nearly all the Clergy of the Catholic Church with the people are the objects of plots and persecutions. Moreover they said that certain Bishops and other brethren had been banished for no other reason than to compel them against their will to communicate with Gregory and his Arian associates. We have heard also from others, what is confirmed by the testimony of the Bishop Marcellus, that a number of outrages, similar to those which were com- mitted at Alexandria, have occurred also at Ancyra in Galatia+. And in addition to all this, those who came to the Council reported 9 Joh. xiv. 27.
x The names of few are known; perhaps Marcellus, Asclepas, Paul of Constantinople, Lucius of Adrianople. vid. Montf. 2 éoc. Tillem. Mem. tom. 7. p. 272. F ye 2 These outrages took place immediately on the dismission of Elpidius and Philoxenus, the Pope’s legates, from Antioch, Athan. Hist. Ar. 12.
3 e.g. Sarapammon and Potamo, both Confessors, who were of the number of the Nicene Fathers, and had defended Athan. at Tyre, were, the former banished, the latter beaten to death. vid. infr. Hzst. Ar. 12. ee.
4 The Pseudo-Sardican Council, i.e. that of Philippopolis, retort against some of you (for I will not mention names) certain charges of so dreadful a nature that I have declined setting them down in writing; perhaps you also have heard them from others, It was for this cause especially that I wrote to desire you to come, that you might be present to hear them, and that all irregularities might be corrected and differences healed. And those who were called for these purposes ought not to have refused, but to have come the more readily, lest by failing to do so they should be suspected of what was alleged against them, and be thought unable to prove what they had written.
34. Now according to these representations, since the Churches are thus afflicted and treacherously assaulted, as our informants posi- tively affirmed, who are they that have lighted up a flame of discord5? We, who grieve for such a state of things and sympathize with the sufferings of the brethren, or they who have brought these things about? While then such extreme confusion existed in every Church, which was the cause why those who visited us came hither, I wonder how you could write that unanimity prevailed in the Churches. These things tend not to the edification of the Church, but to her destruction; and those who rejoice in them are not sons of peace, but of confusion: but our God is nota God of con- fusion, but of peace ®, Wherefore, as the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ knows, it was from a regard for your good name, and with prayers that the Churches might not fall into confusion, but might continue as they were regulated by the Apostles, that I thought it necessary to write thus unto you, to the end that you might at length put to shame those who through the effects of their mutual enmity have brought the Churches to this condition. For I have heard, that it is only a certain few? who are the authors of all these things.
Now, as having bowels of mercy, take ye care to correct, as I said before, the irregu- larities which have been conimitted contrary to the Canon, so that if any mischief has already befallen, it may be healed through your zeal. And write not that I have preferred the com- munion of Marcellus and Athanasius to yours, for such like complaints are no indications of peace, but of contentiousness and hatred of the brethren. For this cause I have written the foregoing, that you may understand that we acted not unjustly in admitting them to our communion, and so may cease this strife. If this accusation on the party of Marcellus; Hilar. /ragm. iii. 9. but the character of the outrages fixes them on the Arians, vid. infr. 2 45, note [There were doubtless outrages on both sides].
7 Ad Ep. Aeg. 5. de Syn. 5.
- APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
you had come hither, and they had been con- demned, and had appeared unabie to produce reasonable evidence in support of their cause, you would have done well in writing thus. But seeing that, as I said before, we acted agreeably to the Canon, and not unjustly, in holding communion with them, I beseech you for the sake of Christ, suffer not the members of Christ to be torn asunder, neither trust to prejudices, but seek rather the peace of the Lord. It is neither holy nor just, in order to gratify the petty feeling of a few persons, to reject those who have never been condemned, and thereby to grieve the Spirit®. But if you think that you are able to prove anything against them, and to confute them face to face, let those of you who please come hither: for they also promised that they would be ready to establish completely the truth of those things which they have reported to us.
35. Give us notice therefore of this, dearly beloved, that we may write both to them, and to the Bishops who will have again to assemble, so that the accused may be condemned in the presence of all, and confusion no longer pre- vail in the Churches. What has already taken place is enough: it is enough surely that Bishops have been sentenced to banishment in the presence of Bishops; of which it be- hoves me not to speak at length, lest I appear to press too heavily on those who were present on those occasions. But if one must speak the truth, matters ought not to have proceeded so far; their petty feeling ought not to have been suffered to reach the present pitch. Let us grant the “removal,” as you write, of Athanasius and Marcellus, from their own places, yet what must one say of the case of the other Bishops and Presbyters who, as I said before, came hither from various parts, and who complained that they also had been forced away, and had suffered the like injuries? O beloved, the decisions of the Church are no longer according to the Gospel, but tend only to banishment and death» Suppos- ing, as you assert, that some offence rested upon those persons, the case ought to have been conducted against them, not after this manner, but according to the Canon of the Church. Word should have been wriiten of it to us allt, that so a just sentence might pro- ceed from all. For the sufferers were Bishops, and Churches of no ordinary note, but those which the Apostles themselves had governed ‘in their own persons 2, * Coustant zx Joc. fairly insists on the word “all,” as shewing that S. Julius does not here claim the prerogative of judging dy himself all Bishops whatever, and that what follows relates merely to the Church of Alexandria.
2 St. Peter (Greg. M. Epist. vii. Ind. 15. 40.) or St. Mark (Leo And why was nothing said to us concerning the Church of the Alexandrians in particular? Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place 3? If then any such suspicion rested upon the Bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the Church of this place; whereas, after neglecting to inform us, and proceeding on their own authority as they pleased, now they desire to obtain our concurrence in their decisions, though we never condemned him. Not so have the constitutions+ of Paul, not so have the traditions of the Fathers directed; this is another form of procedure, a novel prac- tice. I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter 5, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these pro- ceedings so disturbed us. Bishops are forced away from their sees and driven into banish- ment, while others from different quarters are appointed in their place; others are trea- cherously assailed, so that the people have to grieve for those who are forcibly taken from them, while, as to those who are sent in their room, they are obliged to give over seeking the man whom they desire, and to receive those they do not.
I ask of you, that such things may no longer be, but that you will denounce in writing those ‘persons who attempt them; so that the Churches may no longer be afflicted thus, nor any Bishop or Presbyter be treated with insult, nor any one be com- pelled to act contrary to his judgment, as they have represented to us, lest we become a laughing-stock among the heathen, and above all, lest we excite the wrath of God Ep. 9.) at Alexandria. St.Paul at Ancyra in Galatia (Tertull. contr. Marcion. iv. 5.) vid. Coustant. zx Joc.
3 Socrates says somewhat differently, “ Julius wrote back...that they acted against the Canons, because they had not called him to a Council, the Ecclesiastical Canon commanding that the Churches ought not to make Canons beside the will of the Bishop of Rome.” Hist. ii. 17. Sozomen in like manner, ‘‘for it was a sacerdotal law, to declare invalid whatever was transacted beside the will of the Bishop of the Romans.” Hist. iii, ro. vid. Pope Damasus ap. Theod. Hist. v. 10. Leon. Epist. 14. &c. In the passage in the text the prerogative of the Roman see is limited, as Coustant observes, to the instance of Alexandria 3 and we actually fnd in the third century a complaint lodged against its Bishop Dionysius with the Pope. [Prolegg. ch. iv. § 4.]
4 dvardfers. St. Paul says ovrws év rats exkdnotas Svardooomat. 1 Cor. vii. 17, Ta S& Aouad Stardouar. Ibid. xi, 34. vid. Pearson, Vind. Ignat. p. 298. Hence Coustant in col. Athan. would suppose Julius to refer to 1 Cor. y. 4. which Athan. actually quotes, Ef. Encycl. § 2. supr. p. 93. Pearson, Joc. cit. considers the Siataéers of the Apostles, as a collection of regulation and usages, which more or less represented, or claimed to represent, what may be called St. Paul’s ruiz, or St. Peter’s vude, &c. Cotelier considers the dvardéées as the same as the diSaxai, the “doctrine” or “teaching” of the Apostles. Przefat. in Const. Apost. So does Beveridge, Cod. Can. Illustr, ii. 9g. § 5.
5 [Petri] in Sede sua vivit potestas et excellit auctoritas Leon. Serm. iii. 3. vid. contra Barrow on the Supremacy, p. 116. ed. 1836. “not one Bishop, but all Bishops together through the whole Church, do succeed St. Peter, or any other Apostle.
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
against us. For every one of us shall give account in the Day of judgment © of the things which he has done in this life. May we all be possessed with the mind of God! so that the Churches may recover their own Bishops, and rejoice evermore in Jesus Christ our Lord; through Whom to the Father be glory, for ever and ever. Amen.
I pray for your health in the Lord, brethren dearly beloved and greatly longed for.
36. Thus wrote the Council of Rome by Ju- lius, Bishop of Rome.
CHAPTER III.
Letters of the Council of Sardica to the Churches of Egypt and of Alexandria, and to all Churches.
But when, notwithstanding, Eusebius and his fellows proceeded without shame, disturb- ing the Churches, and plotting the ruin of many, the most religious Emperors Constan- tius and Constans being informed of this, com- manded the Bishops from both the West and East to meet together in the city of Sardica. In the meantime Eusebius died: but a great number assembled from all parts, and we challenged the associates of Eusebius and his fellows to submit to a trial. But they, having before their eyes the things that they had done, and perceiving that their accusers had come up to the Council, were afraid to do this; but, while all besides met with honest intentions, they again brought with them the Counts? Musonianus® and Hesy- chius the Castrensian9, that, as their cus- tom was, they might effect their own aims by their authority. But when the Council met without Counts, and no soldiers were permitted to be present, they were con- founded, and conscience-stricken, because they could no longer obtain the judgment they wished, but such only as reason and truth required. We, however, frequently repeated our challenge, and the Council of Bishops called upon them to come forward, saying, “Vou have ceme for the purpose of under- going a trial; why then do you now withdraw yourselves? Either you ought not to have come, or having come, not to conceal yourselves. Such conduct will prove your greatest condemnation. Behold, Athanasius and his fellows are here, whom you accused while 8 Musonian was originally of Antioch, and his name Strategius; he had been promoted and honoured with a new name by Con- stantine, for whom he had collected information about the Mani- chees. Amm. Marc. xv. 13, § 1. In 354, he was Pretorian Prefect of the East. (vid. de Sy. z, note 1.) Libanius praises him.
9 The Castrensians were the officers of the palace; castra, as atparémedov, infr. § 86. being at this time used for the Imperial Court. vid. Gothofred in Cod. Theod. vi. 30. p. 218. Du Cange 1% voc.
Tig absent; if therefore you think that you have any thing against them, you may convict them face to face. But if you pretend to be mn- willing to do so, while in truth you are unable, you plainly shew yourselves to be calumniators, and this is the decision the Council will give you.” When they heard this they were selfcondemned (for they were conscious of their machinations and fabrications against us), and were ashamed to appear, thereby proving themselves to have been guilty of many base calumnies.
_ The holy Council therefore denounced their indecent and suspicious flight *, and admitted us to make our defence; and when we had related their conduct towards us, and proved the truth of our statements by witnesses and other evidence, they were filled with astonish- ment, and all acknowledged that our opponents had good reason to be afraid to meet the Council, lest their guilt should be proved before their faces. They said also, that pro- bably they had come from the East, supposing that Athanasius and his fellows would ‘not appear, but that, when they saw them con- fident in their cause, and challenging a trial, they fled. ‘They accordingly received us as injured persons who had been falsely accused, and confirmed yet more towards us their fel- lowship and love. But they deposed Euse- bius’s associates in wickedness, who~ had become even more shameless than himself, viz., Theodorus? of Heraclea, Narcissus of Neronias, Acacius3 of Czesarea, Stephanus ¢ of Antioch, Ursacius and Valens of Pannonia, Menophantus of Ephesus, and Georges of Laodiczea; and they wrote to the Bishops in all parts of the world, and to the diocese of each of the injured persons, in the following terms.
Letter of the Council of Sardica to the Church of Alexandria.
The Holy Council, by the grace of God assembled at Sardica, from® Rome, Spain, Gaul, Italy, Campania, Calabria, Apulia, Africa, Sardinia, Pannonia, Moesia, Dacia, Noricum, Siscia, Dardania, the other Dacia, Macedonia, Thessaly, Achaia, Epirus, ‘Thrace, Rhodope, Palestine, Arabia, Crete, and Egypt, to their beloved brothers, the Presbyters and Deacons, and to all the Holy Church of God abiding at Alexandria, sends health in the Lord.
37. We were not ignorant, but the fact was 6 Vid. supr. p. 100, where Isauria, Thessaly, Sicily, Britain, &c., added. Also Theod. H. £, ii. 6. vid. p. 120 note 9 a.
APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
well known to us, even before we received the letters of your piety, that the supporters of the abominated heresy of the Arians were prac- tising many dangerous machinations, rather to the destruction of their own souls, than to the injury of the Church. For this has ever been the object of their unprincipled craft; this is the deadly design in which they have been continually engaged; viz. how they may best expel from their places and persecute all who are to be found anywhere of orthodox sentiments, and maintaining the doctrine of the Catholic Church, which was delivered to them from the Fathers. Against some they have laid false accusations; others they have driven into banishment; others they have destroyed by the punishments inflicted on them. At any rate they endeavoured by violence and tyranny to surprise the innocence of our brother and fellow-Bishop Athanasius, and therefore conducted their enquiry into his case without any care, without any faith, with- out any sort of justice. Accordingly having no confidence in the part they had played on that occasion, nor yet in the reports they had circulated against him, but perceiving that they were unable to produce any certain evidence respecting the case, when they came to the city of Sardica, they were unwilling to meet the Council of all the holy Bishops. From this it became evident that the decision of our brother and fellow-Bishop Julius was a just one7; for after cautious deliberation and care he had determined, that we ought not to hesitate at all about communion with our brother Athanasius. For he had the cred- ible testimony of eighty Bishops, and was also able to advance this fair argument in his support that by the mere means of our dearly beloved brethren his own Presbyters, and by correspondence, he had defeated the design of Eusebius and his fellows, who relied more upon violence than upon a judicial enquiry. Wherefore all the Bishops from all parts determined upon holding communion with Athanasius on the ground that he was inno- cent. And let your charity also observe, that when he came to the holy Council assembled at Sardica, the Bishops of the East were in- formed of the circumstance, as we said before, both by letter, and by injunctions conveyed by word of mouth, and were invited by us to be present. But, being condemned by their Own conscience, they had recourse to unbe- coming excuses, and set themselves to avoid the enquiry. They demanded that an inno- cent man should be rejected from our com- munion, asa culprit, not considering how un-