Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Letter of Julius to the Eusebians at Antioch.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter
II.—Letter of Julius to the Eusebians at
Antioch.
Eusebius and his fellows wrote also to Julius,
and thinking to frighten me, requested him to call a council, and to be
himself the judge, if he so pleased534
| 534 a.d. 339. vid. Hist. Arian. §11.
[Socrates (iii. 5) and Sozomenus (ii. 8, &c.), confuse the
Antiochene Synod, which sent the letter referred to, with the Synod of
the ‘Dedication’ held in 341 a.d.,
after the receipt of the letter of Julius.] | . When therefore
I went up to Rome, Julius wrote to Eusebius and his fellows as was
suitable, and sent moreover two of his own Presbyters535
| 535 Vito
and Vincentius, Presbyters, had represented Silvester at Nicæa.
Liberius sent Vincentius, Bishop, and Marcellus, Bishop, to
Constantius; and again Lucifer, Bishop, and Eusebius, Bishop. [The
practice was common to all bishops, not peculiar to that of Rome.] S.
Basil suggests that Damasus should send legates into the East, Ep. 69.
The Council of Sardica, Can. 5, recognised the Pope’s power of
sending legates into foreign Provinces to hear certain appeals;
“ut de Latere suo Presbyterum mittat.” [It
conferred the power (1) upon Julius (2) without any right of
initiative, in Can. 3; Can. 5 simply regulates the exercise of the
power thus conferred. The genuineness of these Canons has been
disputed: at Rome they were quoted in the fifth century as
‘Nicene.’] vid. Thomassin. de Eccl. Disc. Part I.
ii. 117. [D.C.B. iii. 530, D.C.A. 197, 1658.] | ,
Elpidius and Philoxenus536
| 536 [Date
uncertain; see Prolegg. ch. ii. §6 (1) sub fin., and note
there.] | . But they, when they
heard of me, were thrown into confusion, as not expecting my going up
thither; and they declined the proposed Council, alleging
unsatisfactory reasons for so doing, but in truth they were afraid lest
the things should be proved against them which Valens and Ursacius
afterwards confessed537
. However, more than
fifty Bishops assembled, in the place where the Presbyter Vito held his
congregation; and they acknowledged my defence, and gave me the
confirmation538
both of their communion and their love.
On the other hand, they expressed
great indignation against Eusebius and his fellows, and requested that
Julius would write to the following effect to those of their number who
had written to him. Which accordingly he did, and sent it by the hand
of Count Gabianus.
The Letter of Julius.
Julius to his dearly beloved brethren539
| 539 By
Danius, which had been considered the same name as Dianius, Bishop of
Cæsarea in Cappadocia, Montfaucon in loc. understands the
notorious Arian Bishop of Nicæa, called variously Diognius (supr.
§13.), Theognius (infr §28.), Theognis (Philost. Hist.
ii. 7.), Theogonius, (Theod. Hist. i. 19.), and assigns some
ingenious and probable reasons for his supposition.
[‘Danius’ was the Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappad., he
also signs at Philippopolis. See D.C.B. under Dianius and Basil.] Flacillus,
Arian Bishop of Antioch, as Athan. names him, is called Placillus (in
S. Jerome’s Chronicon, p. 785.), Placitus (Soz. iii. 5.),
Flacitus (Theod. Hist. i. 21.). Theodorus was Arian Bishop of
Heraclea, whose Comments on the Psalms are supposed to be those which
bear his name in Corderius’s Catena. [He was not a thorough
Arian.] | , Danius, Flacillus, Narcissus, Eusebius,
Maris, Macedonius, Theodorus, and their friends, who have written to me
from Antioch, sends health in the Lord.
21. I have read your letter540
| 540 Some of
the topics contained in the Eusebian Letter are specified in
Julius’s answer. It acknowledged, besides, the high dignity of
the [church] of Rome, as being a “School (φροντιστήριον) of Apostles and a Metropolis of orthodoxy from the
beginning,” but added that “doctors came to it from the
east; and they ought not themselves to hold the second place, for they
were superior in virtue, though not in their Church.” And they
said that they would hold communion with Julius if he would agree to
their depositions and substitutions in the Eastern Sees. Soz. iii.
8. |
which was brought to me by my Presbyters Elpidius and Philoxenus, and I
am surprised to find that, whereas I wrote to you in charity and with
conscious sincerity, you have replied to me in an unbecoming and
contentious temper; for the pride and arrogance of the writers is
plainly exhibited in that letter. Yet such feelings are inconsistent
with the Christian faith; for what was written in a charitable spirit
ought likewise to be answered in a spirit of charity and not of
contention. And was it not a token of charity to send Presbyters to
sympathize with them that are in suffering, and to desire those who had
written to me to come thither, that the questions at issue might obtain
a speedy settlement, and all things be duly ordered, so that our
brethren might no longer be exposed to suffering, and that you might
escape further calumny? But something seems to shew that your temper is
such, as to force us to conclude that even in the terms in which you
appeared to pay honour to us, you have expressed yourselves under the
disguise of irony. The Presbyters also whom we sent to you, and who
ought to have returned rejoicing, did on the contrary return sorrowful
on account of the proceedings they had witnessed among you. And I, when
I had read your letter, after much consideration, kept it to myself,
thinking that after all some of you would come, and there would be no
need to bring it forward, lest if it should be openly exhibited, it
should grieve many of our brethren here. But when no one arrived, and
it became necessary that the letter should be produced, I declare to
you, they were all astonished, and were hardly able to believe that
such a letter had been written by you at all; for it is expressed in
terms of contention rather than of charity.
Now if the author of it wrote with an ambition of
exhibiting his power of language, such a practice surely is more
suitable for other subjects: in ecclesiastical matters, it is not a
display of eloquence that is needed, but the observance of Apostolic
Canons, and an earnest care not to offend one of the little ones of the
Church. For it were better for a man, according to the word of the
Church, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were
drowned in the sea, than that he should offend even one of the little
ones541
. But if such a letter was written, because
certain persons have been aggrieved on account of their meanness of
spirit towards one another (for I will not impute it to all); it were
better not to entertain any such feeling of offence at all, at least
not to let the sun go down upon their vexation; and certainly not to
give it room to exhibit itself in writing.
22. Yet what has been done that is a just cause
of vexation? or in what respect was my letter to you such? Was it, that
I invited you to be present at a council? You ought rather to have
received the proposal with joy. Those who have confidence in their
proceedings, or as they choose to term them, in their decisions, are
not wont to be angry, if such decision is inquired into by others; they
rather shew all boldness, seeing that if they have given a just
decision, it can never prove to be the reverse. The Bishops who
assembled in the great Council of Nicæa agreed, not without the
will of God, that the decisions of one council should be examined in
another542
| 542 As this
determination does not find a place among the now received Canons of
the Council, the passage in the text becomes of great moment in the
argument in favour of the twenty Canons extant in Greek being but a
portion of those passed at Nicæa. vid. Alber. Dissert. in Hist.
Eccles. vii. Abraham Ecchellensis has argued on the same side (apud
Colet. Concil. t. ii. p. 399. Ed. Ven. 1728), also Baronius,
though not so strongly, Ann. 325. nn. 157 &c. and Montfaucon in
loc. Natalis Alexander, Sæc. 4. Dissert. 28
argues against the larger number, and Tillemont, Mem. vi. 674.
[But it is far more likely that Julius is making a free use of Can.
Nic. 5; the Arabic canons are apparently referred to in the above note:
no one now defends them.] | , to the end that the judges, having before
their eyes that other trial which was to follow, might be led to
investigate matters with the utmost caution, and that the parties
concerned in their sentence might have assurance that the judgment they
received was just, and not dictated by the enmity of their former judges. Now if you are unwilling that
such a practice should be adopted in your own case, though it is of
ancient standing, and has been noticed and recommended by the great
Council, your refusal is not becoming; for it is unreasonable that a
custom which had once obtained in the Church, and been established by
councils, should be set aside by a few individuals.
For a further reason they cannot justly take
offence in this point. When the persons whom you, Eusebius and his
fellows, dispatched with your letters, I mean Macarius the Presbyter,
and Martyrius and Hesychius the Deacons, arrived here, and found that
they were unable to withstand the arguments of the Presbyters who came
from Athanasius, but were confuted and exposed on all sides, they then
requested me to call a Council together, and to write to Alexandria to
the Bishop Athanasius, and also to Eusebius and his fellows, in order
that a just judgment might be given in presence of all parties. And
they undertook in that case to prove all the charges which had been
brought against Athanasius. For Martyrius and Hesychius had been
publicly refuted by us, and the Presbyters of the Bishop Athanasius had
withstood them with great confidence: indeed, if one must tell the
truth, Martyrius and his fellows had been utterly overthrown; and this
it was that led them to desire that a Council might be held. Now
supposing that they had not desired a Council, but that I had been the
person to propose it, in discouragement of those who had written to me,
and for the sake of our brethren who complain that they have suffered
injustice; even in that case the proposal would have been reasonable
and just, for it is agreeable to ecclesiastical practice, and well
pleasing to God. But when those persons, whom you, Eusebius and his
fellows, considered to be trustworthy, when even they wished me to call
the brethren together, it was inconsistent in the parties invited to
take offence, when they ought rather to have shewn all readiness to be
present. These considerations shew that the display of anger in the
offended persons is petulant, and the refusal of those who decline to
meet the Council is unbecoming, and has a suspicious appearance. Does
any one find fault, if he sees that done by another, which he would
allow if done by himself? If, as you write, each council has an
irreversible force, and he who has given judgment on a matter is
dishonoured, if his sentence is examined by others; consider, dearly
beloved, who are they that dishonour councils? who are setting aside
the decisions of former judges? Not to inquire at present into every
individual case, lest I should appear to press too heavily on certain
parties, the last instance that has occurred, and which every one who
hears it must shudder at, will be sufficient in proof of the others
which I omit.
23. The Arians who were excommunicated for their
impiety by Alexander, the late Bishop of Alexandria, of blessed memory,
were not only proscribed by the brethren in the several cities, but
were also anathematised by the whole body assembled together in the
great Council of Nicæa. For theirs was no ordinary offence,
neither had they sinned against man, but against our Lord Jesus Christ
Himself, the Son of the living God. And yet these persons who were
proscribed by the whole world, and branded in every Church, are said
now to have been admitted to communion again; which I think even you
ought to hear with indignation. Who then are the parties who dishonour
a council? Are not they who have set at nought the votes of the Three
hundred543
| 543 The
number of the Fathers at the Nicene Council is generally considered to
have been 318, the number of Abraham’s servants, Gen. xiv.
14.
Anastasius (Hodeg. 3. fin.) referring to the first three
Ecumenical Councils, speaks of the faith of the 318, the 150, and the
200. [Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (1).] | , and have preferred impiety to godliness? The
heresy of the Arian madmen was condemned and proscribed by the whole
body of Bishops everywhere; but the Bishops Athanasius and Marcellus
have many supporters who speak and write in their behalf. We have
received testimony in favour of Marcellus544
, that
he resisted the advocates of the Arian doctrines in the Council of
Nicæa; and in favour of Athanasius545
, that
at Tyre nothing was brought home to him, and that in the Mareotis,
where the Reports against him are said to have been drawn up, he was
not present. Now you know, dearly beloved, that ex parte
proceedings are of no weight, but bear a suspicious appearance.
Nevertheless, these things being so, we, in order to be accurate, and
neither shewing any prepossession in favour of yourselves, nor of those
who wrote in behalf of the other party, invited those who had written
to us to come hither; that, since there were many who wrote in their
behalf, all things might be enquired into in a council, and neither the
guiltless might be condemned, nor the person on his trial be accounted
innocent. We then are not the parties who dishonour a council, but they
who at once and recklessly have received the Arians whom all had
condemned, and contrary to the decision of the judges. The greater part
of those judges have now departed, and are with Christ; but some of
them are still in this life of trial, and are indignant at learning that certain persons
have set aside their judgment.
24. We have also been informed of the following
circumstance by those who were at Alexandria. A certain Carpones, who
had been excommunicated by Alexander for Arianism, was sent hither by
one Gregory with certain others, also excommunicated for the same
heresy. However, I had learnt the matter also from the Presbyter
Macarius, and the Deacons Martyrius and Hesychius. For before the
Presbyters of Athanasius arrived they urged me to send letters to one
Pistus at Alexandria, though at the same time the Bishop Athanasius was
there. And when the Presbyters of the Bishop Athanasius came, they
informed me that this Pistus was an Arian, and that he had been
excommunicated546
by the Bishop Alexander and the Council
of Nicæa, and then ordained547
| 547 Cf.
Ep. Æg. 7, 19, Hist. Ar. 63. | by one Secundus,
whom also the great Council excommunicated as an Arian. This statement
Martyrius and his fellows did not gainsay, nor did they deny that
Pistus had received his ordination from Secundus. Now consider, after
this who are most justly liable to blame? I, who could not be prevailed
upon to write to the Arian Pistus; or those, who advised me to do
dishonour to the great Council, and to address the irreligious as if
they were religious persons? Moreover, when the Presbyter Macarius, who
had been sent hither by Eusebius with Martyrius and the rest, heard of
the opposition which had been made by the Presbyters of Athanasius,
while we were expecting his appearance with Martyrius and Hesychius, he
departed in the night, in spite of a bodily ailment; which leads us to
conjecture that his departure arose from shame on account of the
exposure which had been made concerning Pistus. For it is impossible
that the ordination of the Arian Secundus should be considered valid in
the Catholic Church. This would indeed be dishonour to the Council, and
to the Bishops who composed it, if the decrees they framed, as in the
presence of God, with such extreme earnestness and care, should be set
aside as worthless.
25. If, as you write548
| 548 Vid.
also Hilar. Fragm. iii. 20. | , the
decrees of all Councils ought to be of force, according to the
precedent in the case of Novatus549
| 549 The
instance of Novatian makes against the Eusebians, because for some time
after Novatian was condemned in the West, his cause was abandoned in
the East. Tillemont, Mem. t. 7. p. 277. | and Paul of
Samosata, all the more ought not the sentence of the Three hundred to
be reversed, certainly a general Council ought not to be set at nought
by a few individuals. For the Arians are heretics as they, and the like
sentence has been passed both against one and the other. And, after
such bold proceedings as these, who are they that have lighted up the
flame of discord? for in your letter you blame us for having done this.
Is it we, who have sympathised with the sufferings of the brethren, and
have acted in all respects according to the Canon; or they who
contentiously and contrary to the Canon have set aside the sentence of
the Three hundred, and dishonoured the Council in every way? For not
only have the Arians been received into communion, but Bishops also
have made a practice of removing from one place to another550
. Now if you really believe that all Bishops
have the same and equal authority551
| 551 Cyprian. de Unit. Eccl. 4. | , and you do not,
as you assert, account of them according to the magnitude of their
cities; he that is entrusted with a small city ought to abide in the
place committed to him, and not from disdain of his trust to remove to
one that has never been put under him; despising that which God has
given him, and making much of the vain applause of men. You ought then,
dearly beloved, to have come and not declined, that the matter may be
brought to a conclusion; for this is what reason demands.
But perhaps you were prevented by the time fixed
upon for the Council, for you complain in your letter that the interval
before the day we appointed552
was too short. But
this, beloved, is a mere excuse. Had the day forestalled any when on
the journey, the interval allowed would then have been proved to be too
short. But when persons do not wish to come, and detain even my
Presbyters up to the month of January553
, it is the mere
excuse of those who have no confidence in their cause; otherwise, as I
said before, they would have come, not regarding the length of the
journey, not considering the shortness of the time, but trusting to the
justice and reasonableness of their cause. But perhaps they did not
come on account of the aspect of the times554
| 554 The
Persian war. Hist. Arian. §11. | , for
again you declare in your letter, that we ought to have considered the
present circumstances of the East, and not to have urged you to come.
Now if as you say you did not come because the times were such, you
ought to have considered such times beforehand, and not to have become
the authors of schism, and of mourning and lamentation in the Churches.
But as the matter stands, men, who have been the cause of these things, shew that it is not
the times that are to blame, but the determination of those who will
not meet a Council.
26. But I wonder also how you could ever have
written that part of your letter, in which you say, that I alone wrote,
and not to all of you, but to Eusebius and his fellows only. In this
complaint one may discover more of readiness to find fault than of
regard for truth. I received the letters against Athanasius from none
other than Martyrius, Hesychius and their fellows, and I necessarily
wrote to them who had written against him. Either then Eusebius and his
fellows ought not alone to have written, apart from you all, or else
you, to whom I did not write, ought not to be offended that I wrote to
them who had written to me. If it was right that I should address my
letter to you all, you also ought to have written with them: but now
considering what was reasonable, I wrote to them, who had addressed
themselves to me, and had given me information. But if you were
displeased because I alone wrote to them, it is but consistent that you
should also be angry, because they wrote to me alone. But for this
also, beloved, there was a fair and not unreasonable cause.
Nevertheless it is necessary that I should acquaint you that, although
I wrote, yet the sentiments I expressed were not those of myself alone,
but of all the Bishops throughout Italy and in these parts. I indeed
was unwilling to cause them all to write, lest the others should be
overpowered by their number. The Bishops however assembled on the
appointed day, and agreed in these opinions, which I again write to
signify to you; so that, dearly beloved, although I alone address you,
yet you may be assured that these are the sentiments of all. Thus much
for the excuses, not reasonable, but unjust and suspicious, which some
of you have alleged for your conduct.
27. Now although what has already been said were
sufficient to shew that we have not admitted to our communion our
brothers Athanasius and Marcellus either too readily, or unjustly, yet
it is but fair briefly to set the matter before you. Eusebius and his
fellows wrote formerly against Athanasius and his fellows, as you also
have written now; but a great number of Bishops out of Egypt and other
provinces wrote in his favour. Now in the first place, your letters
against him are inconsistent with one another, and the second have no
sort of agreement with the first, but in many instances the former are
answered by the latter, and the latter are impeached by the former. Now
where there is this contradiction in letters, no credit whatever is due
to the statements they contain. In the next place if you require us to
believe what you have written, it is but consistent that we should not
refuse credit to those who have written in his favour; especially,
considering that you write from a distance, while they are on the spot,
are acquainted with the man, and the events which are occurring there,
and testify in writing to his manner of life, and positively affirm
that he has been the victim of a conspiracy throughout.
Again, a certain Bishop Arsenius was said at one
time to have been made away with by Athanasius, but we have learned
that he is alive, nay, that he is on terms of friendship with him. He
has positively asserted that the Reports drawn up in the Mareotis were
ex parte ones; for that neither the Presbyter Macarius, the
accused party, was present, nor yet his Bishop, Athanasius himself.
This we have learnt, not only from his own mouth, but also from the
Reports which Martyrius, Hesychius and their fellows, brought to us555
; for we found on reading them, that the
accuser Ischyras was present there, but neither Macarius, nor the
Bishop Athanasius; and that the Presbyters of Athanasius desired to
attend, but were not permitted. Now, beloved, if the trial was to be
conducted honestly, not only the accuser, but the accused also ought to
have been present. As the accused party Macarius attended at Tyre, as
well as the accuser Ischyras, when nothing was proved, so not only
ought the accuser to have gone to the Mareotis, but also the accused,
so that in person he might either be convicted, or by not being
convicted might shew the falseness of the accusation. But now, as this
was not the case, but the accuser only went out thither, with those to
whom Athanasius objected, the proceedings wear a suspicious
appearance.
28. And he complained also that the persons who
went to the Mareotis went against his wish, for that Theognius, Maris,
Theodorus, Ursacius, Valens, and Macedonius, who were the persons they
sent out, were of suspected character. This he shewed not by his own
assertions merely, but from the letter of Alexander who was Bishop of
Thessalonica; for he produced a letter written by him to Dionysius556
, the Count who presided in the Council, in
which he shews most clearly that there was a conspiracy on foot against
Athanasius. He has also brought forward a genuine document, all in the
handwriting of the accuser Ischyras himself557
, in
which he calls God Almighty to witness that no cup was broken, nor table
overthrown, but that he had been suborned by certain persons to invent
these accusations. Moreover, when the Presbyters of the Mareotis
arrived558
, they positively affirmed that Ischyras was
not a Presbyter of the Catholic Church and that Macarius had not
committed any such offence as the other had laid to his charge. The
Presbyters and Deacons also who came to us testified in the fullest
manner in favour of the Bishop Athanasius, strenuously asserting that
none of those things which were alleged against him were true, but that
he was the victim of a conspiracy.
And all the Bishops of Egypt and Libya wrote and
protested559
that his ordination was lawful and
strictly ecclesiastical, and that all that you had advanced against him
was false, for that no murder had been committed, nor any persons
despatched on his account, nor any cup broken, but that all was false.
Nay, the Bishop Athanasius also shewed from the ex parte reports
drawn up in the Mareotis, that a catechumen was examined and said560
, that he was within with Ischyras, at the
time when they say Macarius the Presbyter of Athanasius burst into the
place; and that others who were examined said,—one, that Ischyras
was in a small cell,—and another, that he was lying down behind
the door, being sick at that very time, when they say Macarius came
thither. Now from these representations of his, we are naturally led to
ask the question, How was it possible that a man who was lying behind
the door sick could get up, conduct the service, and offer? and how
could it be that Oblations were offered when catechumens were within561
? for if there were catechumens present, it
was not yet the time for presenting the Oblations. These
representations, as I said, were made by the Bishop Athanasius, and he
showed from the reports, what was also positively affirmed by those who
were with him, that Ischyras has never been a presbyter at all in the
Catholic Church, nor has ever appeared as a presbyter in the assemblies
of the Church; for not even when Alexander admitted those of the
Meletian schism, by the indulgence of the great Council, was he named
by Meletius among his presbyters, as they deposed562
;
which is the strongest argument possible that he was not even a
presbyter of Meletius; for otherwise, he would certainly have been
numbered with the rest. Besides, it was shewn also by Athanasius from
the reports, that Ischyras had spoken falsely in other instances: for
he set up a charge respecting the burning of certain books, when, as
they pretend, Macarius 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 represented
to us, and so many witnesses appeared in his favour, and so much was
advanced 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
months563
| 563 Spring
of 339 a.d. to autumn of 340. | , 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 you564
. 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 posts565
| 565 Or
rather, halts, μοναὶ. 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 μοναὶ were
day’s journeys, Coustant in Hilar. Psalm 118, Lit. 5. 2. or half
a day’s journey, Herman. ibid; and were at unequal intervals,
Ambros. in Psalm 118, Serm. 5. §5. Gibbon says that by the
government conveyances, “it was easy to travel an 100 miles in a
day along the Roman roads.” ch. ii. Μονὴ 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. 1. p. 47, t. 2. p. 507. Du Cange Gloss. t. 4.
p. 426. Col. 2. | , 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 summon a council,
that any persons should anticipate 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 Alexandria,
Gregory should be sent thither, a stranger to the city, not having been
baptized 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 Clergy566
| 566 Vid.
Bingh. Ant. II. xi. | ;
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 declare, 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 Mysteries567
| 567 Athan.
only suggests this, supr. Encyc. 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. 11. | , about which they
accused the Presbyter Macarius, 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 entirely 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 Athanasius positively asserted that
Macarius was kept at Tyre under a guard of soldiers, while only his
accuser accompanied those who went to the Mareotis; and that the
Presbyters who desired to attend the inquiry were not permitted 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 astonishment 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 Catechumens, nay, worse
than that, before Heathens and Jews, who are in ill repute in regard to
Christianity. Even supposing that an offense had been committed, it
should have been investigated 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 Marcellus568
| 568 Julius
here acquits Marcellus; but he is considered heretical by S.
Epiphanius, loc. cit. S. Basil. Epp. 69, 125, 263, 265.
S. Chrysostom in Hebr. Hom. ii. 2. Theodoret, Hær.
ii. 10. vid. Petav. de Trin. i. 13. who condemns him, and Bull
far more strongly, Def. F. N. ii. 1. §9. Montfaucon defends
him (in a special Dissertation, Collect. Nov. tom. 2.) and
Tillemont. Mem. tom. 7. p. 513, and Natalis Alex. Sæc. iv.
Dissert. 30. [Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) c.] | ,
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 person with the utmost boldness, so that we
recognised that he maintains nothing outside the truth. He made a
confession569
| 569 Vid.
Epiph. Hær. 72. 2, 3. and §47. infr. | of the same godly doctrines 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 Presbyters570
, who were at a former date present at the
Council of Nicæa, 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 doctrine571
).
Seeing then that he professed orthodox opinions, 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 communion? These things I have written, not so much for the purpose
of defending their cause, 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 endeavours and to labour by
every means to correct the irregularities which have been committed
contrary to the Canon, and to secure the peace of the Churches; so that
the peace of our Lord which has been given to us572
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
Marcellus and their fellows came hither and complained of the injustice
that had been done them, but many other Bishops also573
| 573 The
names of few are known; perhaps Marcellus, Asclepas, Paul of
Constantinople, Lucius of Adrianople. vid. Montf. in loc.
Tillem. Mem. tom. 7. p. 272. | ,
from Thrace, from Cœle-Syria, from Phœnicia and Palestine,
and Presbyters, not a few, and others from Alexandria 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 similar
outrages to those which had been committed 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 Athanasius574
| 574 These
outrages took place immediately on the dismission of Elpidius and
Philoxenus, the Pope’s legates, from Antioch. Athan. Hist.
Ar. 12. | even up to this time, Bishops who are
confessors575
| 575 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. Hist. Ar.
12. | 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 committed at Alexandria, have occurred also at
Ancyra in Galatia576
| 576 The
Pseudo-Sardican Council, i.e. that of Philippopolis, retort this
accusation on the party of Marcellus; Hilar. Fragm. iii. 9. but
the character of the outrages fixes them on the Arians, vid. infr.
§45, note [There were doubtless outrages on both
sides]. | . And in addition to
all this, those who came to the Council reported 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 positively affirmed, who are they that have lighted up a
flame of discord577
? 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
not a God of confusion, but of peace578
. 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 few579
| 579 Ad
Ep. Æg. 5. de Syn. 5. | who
are the authors of all these things.
Now, as having bowels of mercy, take ye care to
correct, as I said before, the irregularities which have been committed
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 communion 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 you had come hither, and they had been
condemned, and had appeared unable 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 Spirit580
. 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 prevail 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 behoves 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 death581
. Supposing, 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 written of it to us
all582
| 582 Coustant in loc. fairly insists on the word
“all,” as shewing that S. Julius does not here claim the
prerogative of judging by himself all Bishops whatever, and that
what follows relates merely to the Church of Alexandria. | , that so a just sentence might proceed from
all. For the sufferers were Bishops, and Churches of no ordinary note,
but those which the Apostles themselves had governed in their own
persons583
| 583 St.
Peter (Greg. M. Epist. vii. Ind. 15. 40.) or St. Mark (Leo Ep. 9.) at
Alexandria. St. Paul at Ancyra in Galatia (Tertull. contr.
Marcion. iv. 5.) vid. Coustant. in loc. | .
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 place584
| 584 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. 10. 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; and we actually find in the
third century a complaint lodged against its Bishop Dionysius with the
Pope. [Prolegg. ch. iv. §4.] | ? 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 constitutions585
| 585 διατάξεις. St. Paul says οὕτως ἐν
ταῖς
ἐκκλησίαις
διατάσσομαι 1 Cor. vii. 17. τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ
διατάξομαι. Ibid. xi. 34. vid. Pearson, Vind. Ignat. p. 298. Hence
Coustant in col. Athan. would suppose Julius to refer to 1 Cor. v.
4.
which Athan. actually quotes, Ep. Encycl. §2. supr. p. 93.
Pearson, loc. cit. considers the διατάξεις
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 rule, or St. Peter’s
rule, &c. Cotelier considers the διατάξεις
as the same as the διδαχαὶ, the “doctrine” or “teaching” of the
Apostles. Præfat. in Const. Apost. So does Beveridge, Cod. Can.
Illustr. ii. 9. §5. |
of Paul, not so have the traditions of the Fathers directed; this is
another form of procedure, a novel practice. I beseech you, readily
bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have
received from the blessed Apostle Peter586
| 586 [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.” | , 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 proceedings so
disturbed us. Bishops are forced away from their sees and driven into
banishment, while others from different quarters are appointed in their
place; others are treacherously 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 compelled 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 against us.
For every one of us shall give account in the Day of judgment587
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 Julius,
Bishop of Rome. E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
