Книга 2

About the return of Saint Athanasius So, having stayed in Trevira for two years and four months, the divine Athanasius returned to Alexandria 45 - and the eldest son of Constantine the Great, King Constantine, who ruled western Gaul, wrote the following message to the Alexandrian church on this occasion. Epistle of King Constantine, son of Constantine, to the Alexandrians Constantine Caesar - to the people of the Catholic Church of Alexandria. “I think it was not hidden from your pious insight that Athanasius, the interpreter of the venerable law, was sent to Gaul for a time - so that, due to the cruelty of bloodthirsty and irreconcilable enemies who threatened his sacred head with danger, he would not suffer incurable evil from the depravity of the evil ones. To save him from just such cruelty, he was plucked from the jaws of the people who attacked him and sent to live under my protection, so that in the city appointed for his residence he would have everything he needed in abundance, although his praiseworthy virtue, relying on the help of God, would have imputed the burden of the most difficult fate. Then, wanting to especially satisfy your most God-loving piety, our lord, Constantine of blessed memory, my most pious parent, already intended to return the mentioned bishop to his own place, but since, without yet fulfilling this desire, he was preceded by human lot and died, then, having become the heir to the intention of the king of blessed memory, I considered it my duty to fulfill it. Having seen Afanasy, you yourself will learn from him how much respect I had for him. And it is not surprising if I did something in his favor: my soul was disposed and encouraged to do this as much as by the expressions of your love, as much by the valor of this man. May Divine Providence protect you, beloved brothers.” With this message, the divine Athanasius arrived in Alexandria and was joyfully received by everyone - townspeople and villagers, noble and ignorant. Only the adherents of the Aryan delusion were curbed by his return. Therefore, Eusebius, Theognis and everyone who belonged to their company again turned to their usual intrigues and again began to blow incessantly into the ears of the then still young king. Here it must be said how this sovereign strayed from the straight path of apostolic dogmas. About how King Constantius deviated from the right faith Licinius's wife, Constantia, was Constantine's sister. One presbyter, who carried within himself the infection of Arianism, had access to her. He clearly did not reveal his illness, but, constantly entering into conversations with Constance, he told her that Arius had been slandered. The all-praiseworthy Constantine, after the death of his sister’s wicked husband, had extraordinary care for her and in no way allowed her, as a result of her widowhood, to experience any grief. He was even present at her very death and provided her with proper services. At this time, she ordered the mentioned presbyter to be called to her and asked the king to honor him with protection. Konstantin then promised her this and subsequently fulfilled his promise - he invested him with a special power of attorney. But no matter how great the respect for that presbyter, he, knowing the firmness of the king’s convictions in the faith, did not dare to reveal his illness to him. Finally, preparing to pass into the incorruptible kingdom, Constantine in his will divided the perishable state between his sons, and since none of them was present at his death, he entrusted the will to this presbyter alone, ordering it to be handed over to Constantius, because Constantius was closer than the other brothers and, according to all expectations, should have arrived before them. The presbyter handed over the will, as commanded, and, having thereby become known to Constantius, soon became a person close to him and received orders to visit him as often as possible. Then, noticing that Constantius’s thoughts were fickle and like reeds, tossed hither and thither by contrary winds, he dared to start a war against the gospel dogmas. As if lamenting the violent agitation of the churches, he said that those who were guilty of this were those who introduced into the teaching of faith the word “consubstantial”, alien to Scripture, and that this was precisely what was causing discord between both the clergy and the laity. At the same time, accusing Athanasius and those who agreed with him, he then began to plot intrigues against them. Taking advantage of the assistance of this man, Eusebius, Theognis and Theodore of Perinth (Theodore was a very learned man and wrote an interpretation of the divine gospels; he is usually called the Heraclian), as neighbors of the king, often saw him and assured him that the return of Athanasius from exile gave rise to many evils and that the storm again engulfed not only Egypt, but also Palestine, Phenicia, and other neighboring countries. areas. About the second expulsion of Blessed Athanasius, also about the installation of Gregory in his place and about the death of the latter With such and similar speeches, besieging the frivolous mind of Constantius, they convinced him to expel Athanasius from the Alexandrian church 46 . But Athanasius, having learned in advance about their intrigues, himself retired and moved to the west. The Eusebians invented slander against Athanasius and presented them in a letter to the Roman bishop; and the Roman Church at that time was ruled by Julius 47. Obeying church law, he ordered the slanderers themselves to come to Rome 48, and called the divine Athanasius to trial. The latter hastened to accept this invitation, but the drafters of the accusation did not go to Rome, knowing that their lies would easily be revealed, and since the sheep were found without a shepherd, instead of a shepherd they put a wolf over them, whose name was Gregory 49 . For six years, like a wild beast, tormenting the Alexandrian flock, he forced himself to be punished for evil and died a cruel death from his flock. Meanwhile, Athanasius turned to Constant, because the eldest of the king-brothers, Constantine, was killed in the war, and complained to him about the machinations of the Arian crowd, saying with tears that there was an open war against the apostolic faith. He reminded him of his father, of the great council convened on his orders, and of the fact that, having himself participated in the meetings, he approved the definitions of bishops by law. By beseeching the king in this way, Athanasius aroused in him the jealousy of his father 50 . Having heard everything, Constant immediately sent a letter to his brother, in which he admonished him to keep the legacy of his father's piety inviolable. Our Father, he wrote, having established the kingdom with piety, destroyed the Roman tyrants and conquered all the surrounding barbarian peoples. Touched by this letter, Constantius issued an order that both eastern and western bishops gather in Sardica, an Illyrian city, metropolis of the Dacian province, because, in addition, there were many other diseases in the church that required conciliar healing. About Bishop Paul of Constantinople Those infected with the ulcer of Arianism also accused the bishop of Constantinople, the most zealous champion of right dogmas, Paul, of inciting unrest, and to this they added several other slander, which were usually leveled against preachers of piety. The people, however, did not allow their bishop to be taken to Sardica, fearing Arian plans against him. But after a little time, the Arians won over the most frivolous king to their side and, expelling Paul from the royal city, moved him to Kukuz - a small town that formerly belonged to the Cappadocian region, and is now classified as second Armenia. The leaders of all the troubles were not even satisfied with the fact that the wondrous Paul was imprisoned in the desert. They also sent the executors of their bloody plan and put him to violent death. The divine Athanasius testifies to all this, adding the legend about Paul to the reasons for his flight, set out in his defensive speech. Pursuing and finding this bishop of Constantinople, the Arians openly strangled him in the aforementioned Cappadocian city of Cucusa and used the local prefect Philip, who was a representative of their heresy and a zealous servant in their evil plans, as an instrument of their villainy. These are the bloody atrocities that Ariev's blasphemy produced. However, fury against the Only Begotten is characterized by villainous actions against His servants. About Macedonia and the heresy that arose from it Having thus put Paul to death, or better yet, transferred him to the kingdom of heaven, the Arians installed Macedonius in his place, for they considered him to be their like-minded person, since he, like them, blasphemed the All-Holy Spirit. However, a little later they expelled him too - because he did not want to call the creature the One whom the Holy Scripture calls the Son. Rejected by them for this reason, he became the founder of his own heresy. Without calling the Son consubstantial with the Father, he taught, at least, that the Son is in everything like the One who gave birth, but he directly called the Holy Spirit a creature. All this really happened, as we said, after a little time. About the cathedral that was in Sardika According to ancient testimonies, two hundred and fifty bishops gathered in Sardika 51 . Athanasius the Great arrived here, as well as Asclepas of Gaza, whom I mentioned earlier, and Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, the metropolis of Galatia, who was already a bishop at the time of the great council. Their accusers, representatives of the heretical crowd, the former judges of the cases of Athanasius, also arrived here. Having learned that the council stood adamantly and soundly in the divine commands, they did not appear at the meeting, although they were invited, but both the accusers and the unrighteous judges all fled together 52. However, this is best evidenced by the message of the council itself, which, for greater certainty, I will include in my narrative. A conciliar letter written by the bishops gathered there, to bishops throughout the universe “The Holy Council, gathered by the grace of God from Rome, Spain, Gaul, Italy, Campania, Calabria, Africa, Sardinia, Pannonia, Moesia, Dacia, Dardania, other Dacia 53, Macedonia, Thessaly, Achaia, Epirus, Thrace, Rhodope, Asia, Caria, Bithynia, Hellespont, Phrygia, Pisidia, Cappadocia, Pontus, other Phrygia, Cilicia, Pamphylia, Lydia, the Cyclades islands, Egypt, Thebaid, Libya, Galatia, Palestine and Arabia - to the bishops throughout the universe and fellow ministers of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, beloved brethren, wishes health in the Lord. Blind adherents of Arianism dared many times and to raise a lot of evil against the servants of God, the guardians of the right faith. Spreading the distorted teaching, they tried in every possible way to persecute the Orthodox and finally rebelled against the faith so much that it could no longer fail to reach the ears of the most God-loving kings. Therefore, with the assistance of God's grace, the most God-loving kings themselves gathered us from different regions and cities and gave us the opportunity to form this holy council in the city of Sardics, in order to thus destroy all discord and, having driven out all kinds of ungodly beliefs, to maintain everywhere the one true faith in Christ. At the invitation of the most pious kings, bishops also arrived here from the east, mainly on the occasion of incessant talk about our beloved brothers and fellow servants, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, Marcellus, bishop of Ankyrogalatia, and Asclepus of Gaza. Perhaps the slander reached you yourself, perhaps it also struck your ears, so that you, believing the speeches directed against the innocent, lost sight of the pernicious heresy of the slanderers. But they were not allowed to do this for long, because the churches were ruled by the Lord, for their sake and for the sake of all of us, He endured death and through the churches showed us all the way to heaven. Like-minded people of Eusebius, Maris, Theodore, Theognis, Urzakia and Valens, Minofant and Stephen had long ago written to our co-servant, the bishop of the Roman Church, Julius, against our mentioned concelebrants, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyrogalatia, and Asclepius of Gaza, but bishops from other countries also wrote 54, testifying to the innocence of our co-servant Athanasius and assuring that everything brought against him by like-minded people of Eusebius is nothing more than a lie and slander. In fact, the falsity of their denunciation was now clearly revealed - especially from the fact that they were called by our beloved co-servant Julius, they did not appear at his invitation - as well as from the letters of the same Bishop Julius, because, without a doubt, they would have appeared if they could boldly prove everything that they wrote and did against our co-servants. However, by their very actions at this holy and great council they revealed their malice even more clearly. Upon arriving in the city of Sardica and learning that our brothers Athanasius, Markellus, Asklepas and others were here, it was dangerous for them to appear at trial. They were invited not once, not twice, but many times, but they did not heed the invitation. All the bishops who were at the council, especially Hosea 55, an elderly man, both in years, and in his confession, and even because he had endured great labors of travel, worthy of all honor and respect, they were all waiting, they all persuaded them to come to the trial and in the presence of our fellow ministers to prove what was divulged and written against them in absentia. But having been called, as said, they did not appear and thus revealed their slander. They refused to go and, therefore, did not just proclaim that all their accusations were intent and intrigue, for whoever trusts in the truth of his words will not be afraid to stand with them in the face of the enemy. And since they did not come to us, then everyone, we think, will understand that if they again want to plot deceit, they, not being able to prove anything against our fellow servants, will slander them in absentia and run from them when they meet. Yes, beloved brothers, they fled - not only because their denunciations turned out to be slander, but also because they had to see people here who accused them of various crimes, who brought here their bonds and iron shackles, who appeared here upon their return from exile, and these people were also our fellow servants. They came to us on behalf of those imprisoned there. Among them were relatives and friends of those killed. Among those who came to us, most importantly, were bishops, one of whom wore irons and chains, saying that he was suffering this through the Arians, others testified to the death they were preparing for themselves through their machinations, for they reached such a frenzy that they even attempted to kill one bishop and would have killed him if he had not escaped from their hands (it was then that our colleague, Theodulus of blessed memory, seemed to rise from the dead, avoided their slander when, according to their machinations, it was ordered to kill him), while others showed the wounds inflicted on themselves by their swords or complained that they were tormented by hunger from them. And this was confirmed with their testimony not by some people who met by chance, but by entire churches. The ambassadors who arrived from them proved to us that these enemies used the weapons of the troops, the daggers of the mob, the threats of the judges, and the forgery of letters. In confirmation of this, we read the letter of the adherents of Theognis against our fellow servants, Athanasius, Markellus and Asclepas, written to the kings in order to win them over to their side. The same is attested to by the then deacons of Theognis, who, in addition, reported on the nudity of virgins, on the burning of churches, on the imprisonment of our fellow ministers - and all this was done for no other reason, but only for the sake of the hated heresy of the Arians, for those who refused to communicate with them necessarily had to endure such persecution. Finally, looking back at such deeds, the persecutors saw that their enterprises had been carried to extremes, and, ashamed of their actions, when it was no longer possible to hide them, they arrived in Sardica in order to instill with their arrival the idea that they were innocent of anything. But when they saw that those who had been slandered by them and those who had suffered from them had come here, that their accusers and denunciations were also there, face to face, no matter how much they were called, they did not appear at the meeting, they did not appear, despite the fact that our co-servants, Athanasius, Marcellus and Asclepas, with great boldness complained about them, persistently called them to trial and declared that they had not They will only expose them for slander, but they will also show how much they sinned against the churches themselves. Their own conscience struck them with such great fear that they fled and by their flight exposed themselves in slander, and by their very flight they confessed to their crimes. However, although both the previous actions they committed and the present ones clearly show their malice and slander, however, so that even from their very flight they could not derive any reason for a new crime, we decided in all fairness to examine everything that was committed by them. Having assumed this to ourselves, we saw from the very nature of their deeds that they were slanderers and that in their deeds there was nothing but slander against our fellow servants. They said that Athanasius killed Arseny, but Arseny was alive and was interrogated alive. From this it is already clear that their other rumors are nothing more than fiction. As for the chalice, which was supposedly broken, as they said, by the presbyter Athanasius Macarius, those who arrived here from Alexandria, Mareotis and other local places testified that nothing of the kind had happened. And the Egyptian bishops, in their letter to our co-servant Julius, insistently demanded that there should be no suspicion in this regard. The Arians say that they have documents against Athanasius that they managed to collect on the spot: but in these documents only pagans and catechumens were called for questioning. One of them, a catechumen, testified during interrogation that he himself was in the church when Macarius came there, and the other, having also been interrogated, announced that their notorious Iskhiras, due to illness, then remained in his cell. From this it is clear that at that time no sacrament was performed in the church, for the catechumens were inside it, and Iskhiras was not in it, but due to illness he was lying at home. And the all-evil Ischiras himself, having lied that Athanasius had burned some divine books, and then confessing his lie, said that while Macarius was in church, he himself was in bed due to illness, therefore, in this matter he showed himself to be a slanderer. Probably, as a reward for this new slander, they gave Ischyras the name of bishop, although until that time he had not been a presbyter. Two presbyters arrived to us, who had once served with Meletius, then received by Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, of blessed memory, and are now under Athanasius. They testified that Ischyras was never a presbyter, that in Mareotis Meletius had neither a church nor a clergyman at all. And yet, the Arians have now elevated a man who was not even a presbyter to bishop, of course, in order to bestow such a name on a slanderer and encourage others who hear about it to slander. We also read the work of our colleague Marcellus, and the treachery of the Eusebians was revealed by itself; for what Marcellus expressed only in the form of research, they slanderously considered his confession. Yes, we read both the beginnings and the consequences in the research of Marcellus - and the right faith of this man turned out to be visible. He does not say at all, as they claimed, that the Word of God received its beginning from Saint Mary or that his kingdom will end: on the contrary, he writes that it is both beginningless and infinite. In the same way, our co-servant Asclepas presented to us the acts of the case that was carried out about him in Antioch, in the presence of accusers and the Caesarea bishop Eusebius, and by the very decisions of the bishops who tried him he proved his innocence. After this, it was natural for the Arians, beloved brothers, to disobey and flee, despite repeated calls. Having been persecuted by their own conscience, through this flight they themselves confirmed their slander and forced them to believe all the cases that the accusers present at the council told and testified about. In addition, they not only accepted people who had long been deposed and excommunicated for the Arian heresy into communion, but also elevated them to the highest degrees, namely deacons to presbyters, and presbyters to bishops, and they did this for no other reason than, on the one hand, to disperse and spread their wickedness, and on the other, to destroy the true faith. The leaders of Arianism now, after the Eusebians, are: Theodore of Heraclea 56, Narcissus of Neronian - in Cilicia, Stephen of Antioch, George of Laodicea, Acacius of Caesarea - in Palestine, Minophant of Ephesus - in Asia, Urzakis of Singidun - in Mysia, Valens of Mursia - in Pannonia, for they are precisely Those from the East who arrived with them were not allowed to go to the holy council and they were resolutely not allowed to appear in the Church of God. Even on the way, they made meetings at places and made a threatening agreement among themselves - upon arrival in Sardica, not to go to the trial and not to converge in the same place with the holy and great cathedral, but, having arrived, only to make it known that they had arrived, and to immediately flee. We learned about this from our fellow servants Macarius 57 of Palestine and Asterius of Arabia, who traveled with them, but retreated from their unbelief. Appearing at the holy council, these bishops complained about the violence they had suffered and said that nothing was done with truth, adding to this that among them there were many people who opposed in favor of the right faith, but that they prevented these people from coming here and whoever wanted to retreat from them was restrained either by threats or promises. That’s why, of course, they tried to fit everything into one house and did not allow any of their members to have privacy even for the shortest time 58 . So, considering it our duty not to keep silent and not to hide stories about slander, about bonds, about murders, about beatings, about forgery of letters, about corporal executions, about the nudity of virgins, about exiles, about the destruction of churches, about arson, about the transition from small towns to the most significant dioceses, especially about the hated Arian heresy, which they are restoring against the right faith, we, our beloved brothers and co-workers – We declare Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, Marcellus of Ankyro-Galatia, Asclepus of Gaza and all who serve the Lord with them pure and innocent and write to every diocese, so that the people of those churches know about the innocence of their own bishop and reverence him and hope to have him as their bishop, and those who invaded their churches like wolves, that is, Gregory of Alexandria, Basil of Ancyra, Quintianus of Gaza, let no one call them bishops or Christians and have no communication with them, let no one receive messages from them or write to them. Theodore, bishop of European Iraklea 59, Narcissus, bishop. Neronian of Cilicia, Acacius of Caesarea-Palestine, Stephen of Antioch, Urzakia, bishop. Singidon of Mysia, Valens, Bishop of Mursia in Pannonia, Minofant of Ephesus and George of Laodicea, who, although out of fear did not come from the east, but since they had already been deposed by Bishop Alexander of Alexandria of blessed memory - all of them because they, along with others, shared the Aryan madness, as well as for the denunciations made against them, the Holy Council unanimously deposes him from the episcopal throne. We have determined that not only should they not be bishops, but also that they should not have communion with the faithful, because those who separate the Son from the nature and Divinity of the Father and alienate the Word from the Father should naturally themselves be separated from the universal church and made alien to the Christian name. So, for distorting the word of truth, let them be anathema from you, as from us, for this is the apostolic command: if anyone preaches the gospel to you “more than he has eaten, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1.9). Declare that no one has any communication with them; because there is no communication between “light and darkness” (2 Cor 6.14). Drive them all far away from you, because there is no agreement between “Christ and Belial” (2 Cor 6.15). And be careful, beloved brothers, that you neither write to them nor receive messages from them. On the contrary, try, beloved brothers and concelebrants, to agree with our council, as if you yourself were present at it in spirit, and confirm its definitions with your signature, so that in this way unanimity will be maintained everywhere and among all our fellow ministers 60 . We excommunicate and expel from the universal church all who claim that Christ, of course, is God, but is not true God, that He is the Son, but not the true Son, that He is begotten and not begotten together, and they understand the word “begotten” as if they were saying: He received the beginning. Since Christ exists before the ages, they attribute to him a beginning and an end - not in time, but outside of all time. Here are two more vipers ready for you from the Arian asp: Valens and Urzaky. They boastfully and openly call themselves Christians, and yet they say that the Word, together with the Spirit, was crucified, killed, died and rose again, and - about which heretics especially love to argue - as if the hypostases 61 of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different and separate. On the contrary, we have accepted, studied and hold such an ecumenical and apostolic tradition, such a faith and confession that the hypostasis is one, or, as the heretics themselves call it, the essence of the Father, the Son and the Holy. Spirit is one. And who would ask: what is the hypostasis of the Son? We would confess that the very one who, by universal agreement, belongs to the Father, that the Father was not and could not be without the Son, just as the Son is without the Father and the Word without the Spirit, for it is absurd to say that the Father was ever without the Son. That one without the other could neither be called so nor be, the Son himself testifies to this, saying: “I am the Father, and the Father is in me” (John 14.10), and “I and the Father are one” (John 10.30). None of us denies that (the Son) was begotten: but He was begotten before all that is called visible - He is the Creator and Creator of the archangels and angels, of the whole world and the human race, as it is said: “Teach me wisdom of all” (Wis. 7:21) and “all this was” (John 1.3). The Word that always existed could not have a beginning, for, having received a beginning, it would be impossible for Him to exist forever, while God is infinite, or even that the Son is the Father, but we affirm that the Father is the Father, and the Son is the Son of the Father. The Word of God the Father is the Son, besides whom there is no other, and that the Word is true God, and Wisdom, and Power. We teach that He is the true Son, and do not call Him Son, as other sons are called, for they are sometimes called gods - by the grace of regeneration, sometimes - sons by honor, and not by the unity of the hypostasis belonging to the Father and the Son. We confess Him to be the only begotten and firstborn, but the Word is only begotten - since He always was and is in the Father, and the Son is firstborn according to human nature, especially because He is a new creation, as the firstborn from the dead. We confess that there is one God, we confess the one divinity of the Father and the Son. No one ever denies that the Father is greater than the Son, not because of the difference in hypostasis or any other difference, but because the very name of the Father is greater than the name of the Son. It is blasphemous and perverse to interpret it as if the Son said: “I am one and the Father,” meaning agreement and like-mindedness with the Father. All of us, members of the universal church, rejected this madness and their pitiful opinion. What can be assumed no less than the idea that, like mortal people, when they quarrel, out of mutual hostility they have different opinions about everything, and then reconcile again, so can God the Father Almighty and His Son quarrel and disagree? No, we believe, affirm and are convinced that the Divine saying: “I and the Father are one” indicates the unity of the hypostasis, which is one and the same to the Father, and one and the same to the Son. We also believe that the Son reigns with the Father always, without beginning and endlessly, that His kingdom is not determined by any time and will never end, for what always exists did not begin and cannot end. We also believe and accept the Comforter of the Holy Spirit, whom the Lord himself promised and sent to us. We believe that He was sent, but it was not He who suffered, but the man in whom He put on and received (Christ from the Holy Spirit and) the Virgin Mary, for man can suffer because he is a man, a mortal being, and God is immortal. We believe that on the third day it was not God in man who was resurrected, but man in God, and the Son brought this man as a gift to his Father, and freed this man from sin and corruption. We also believe that at the appointed indefinite time He will judge everyone and in everything. But the folly of the heretics is so important and their minds are blinded by such impenetrable darkness that they cannot see the light of truth. They do not understand in what sense it is said: “That these also may be one in us” (John 17.21). It is clear how one is united. The Apostles received the Holy Spirit of God, but because of this they themselves were not the Spirit and none of them were either the Word, or Wisdom, or Power, or the Only Begotten. Just as You and I are one, said the Lord, so may they also be one in us. But in the divine dictum there is a precise distinction. Let them be one in us, He says; did not say how we are one - I and the Father, but may these, that is, the disciples, through union and unity among themselves, be one in faith, confession, grace and piety of God the Father, may they be able to be one according to the good will and love of our Lord and Savior. From this message one can see the slander of the accusers, and the injustice of the former judges, and at the same time the common sense of the dogmas of the Sardica Council. The blessed fathers who were there expounded for us the teaching not only about the essence of God, but also about the economy of salvation. Having learned about everything, Constant was annoyed at his brother’s frivolity, and was especially indignant at those who were developing their plans here, abusing the king’s complaisance. So, having chosen two bishops from among those who were at the Sardica council, he sent them with a letter to his brother, and as a companion he gave them one military leader named Salian, distinguished by piety and justice. Constant's letter itself contained not only exhortations and advice, but also threats natural in the mouth of a pious king. He wrote to his brother, firstly, about a favorable hearing from the bishops being sent and that he should pay attention to the daring actions of Stephen and others; then, about the return of Athanasius to his flock, since both the slander against him and the hostility towards him of his former lawless judges - everything was revealed. To this he added that if Constantius did not listen and did not show justice, then he himself would go to Alexandria and return Athanasius to the sheep thirsting for his presence, and drive out the crowd of people he hated. Constantius was at that time in Antioch. Having received this letter here, he promised to fulfill everything according to the will of his half-brother. But those for whom such a promise was annoying, that is, the usual enemies of the truth, prepared one very bad and wicked deed for this occasion. A house at the foot of the mountain was allocated to accommodate the visiting bishops, and the military leader occupied another apartment. About the bishops Euphrates and Vincent and about the insidious plot against them in Antioch Stephen, who was then holding the helm of the Antiochian church, plunged his ship into the abyss. Among the other executors of his unbridled tyranny, with whose orders he surrounded the Orthodox with all kinds of disasters, the main one was one young man, unusually daring and indulged in a lawless life. He not only took people away from the square with curses and beatings, but even broke into houses and shamelessly removed husbands and respectable wives from there. However, without going into too much detail in describing his cunning, I will tell you about his insolent act with the most honorable men mentioned above: this will be enough to prove what lawless insults he committed to the inhabitants of Antioch. Having come to one obscene woman, he told her that some recently arrived strangers wanted to spend the night with her. Then, taking fifteen accomplices and hiding them along the mountainside behind fences, he led her away. At this time, he called to each other with the accomplices of his plan and, by means of an agreed-upon sign, making sure that they were in place, he continued to walk with her to the gate of those husbands’ apartment. The gates were opened because one of the servants was bribed to arrange this. Thus, he led the woman into the courtyard and, showing the door to the house in which both arriving bishops were supposed to sleep, ordered her to enter there, while he himself went to call his accomplices. Euphrates happened to be sleeping in the front room - that was the name of the eldest of the bishops, and Vincent - the name of the other - slept in inner peace. As soon as the obscene woman entered the room (and then it was already dark), Euphrates, hearing the noise of her steps, asked who was walking. And as soon as she responded, he fell into terrible confusion. He imagined that a demon was speaking to him, imitating a woman’s voice, and at that very moment began to call on Christ the Savior for help. Meanwhile, Onager - that was the name of the leader of the villainous gang, because he beat the pious with his hands and feet, as if with hooves - this Onager entered here with his crowd and called the very ones who want to be judges of lawlessness lawless. Then an extraordinary noise arose, the house servants came running, and Vikentia also stood up. The gates were immediately locked and they managed to capture the seven conspirators, but Onager and his other accomplices fled. Along with the others caught, the woman was also taken into custody. In the morning, the bishops woke up the military leader accompanying them and went with him to the palace. Complaining about Stefan’s impudent insolence, they said that neither investigation nor torture was needed to expose his atrocities. The military commander especially ardently accused him, begging the king to order the impudent lawlessness to be investigated by a court not by the synod, but by a civil court, and promised, first of all, to submit the episcopal clergy to torture, only it was necessary, he said, that Stephen’s servants should be subjected to the same. Since Stefan shamelessly opposed and said that clergy should not be beaten, the king and the government decided to carry out the interrogation on this matter in the palace. First of all, they asked the woman who had brought her to the bishops' apartment, and she announced that some young man had come to her and told her about the arrival and desire of strangers, and that then, as evening fell, he led her to their apartment and, on the way, finding the people he had placed in ambush, led her through the gate into the courtyard and ordered her to enter the hallway. She also told how the bishop called out to her, how he was afraid, how he began to pray and how the people came running. Having heard this, the judges ordered the youngest of those caught to go to the middle. He, without waiting for torture, directly revealed how the matter was and admitted that everything was arranged by Onager. Onager was also called and showed that Stefan had ordered him to do this. Having thus exposed Stephen's wickedness, the judges allowed the bishops who were at that time in Antioch to depose him, and then expelled him from the church. However, through this, the Antiochian church was not completely freed from Arian reproach: Leontius 62 received its primacy after Stephen, although he was originally from Phrygia, but a man with a cunning mind, dangerous as pitfalls. However, I will talk about Leontius a little lower 63. Having learned from experience the intrigues arranged for the bishops, Constantius immediately sent a letter to Athanasius the Great, and wrote to him three times, asking him to return from the west. I will place his second letter in this essay, as the shortest. Letter from Constantius to Athanasius Constantius the victor, Augustus - to Athanasius “Although in the previous letter we clearly stated that you should arrive in our capital without fear, because we strongly desire to send you to your place, yet now we write to your steadfastness about the same thing and convince you, without any suspicion or fear, to take the public cart and rush to us to get what you want.” About the second return of Saint Athanasius When, as a result of this, Athanasius returned, Constantius received him favorably and ordered him to again take control of the Alexandrian church 64. But the temporary workers at the court at that time, infected with the ulcer of Arianism, began to say that Athanasius should cede one church in Alexandria to those who did not want to have communication with him. They told this very thing to the king, the king conveyed it to Athanasius, and Athanasius replied that the royal order must be obeyed, but that he would also like to announce his desire and request. The king promised to willingly agree to whatever he asked, and Athanasius said that in Antioch, too, some kind of prayer church was needed for people who did not want to have communication with the owner of the churches, and that therefore it would also be fair to give them one of the houses designated for worship. The king agreed, finding that such a request was legal and fair. But representatives of the heretical crowd opposed this and said that it was better not to give the church to either one or the other. After this, Constantius was surprised at the wisdom of Athanasius and released him to Alexandria. Gregory had already died, and the Alexandrians themselves killed him 65. Having seen their shepherd, the Alexandrian Christians appointed public treats and celebrated the most solemn holidays in honor of Athanasius and the glory of God. But after a little time Constant ended his life 66. About the third exile of Athanasius and his flight Then the Arians, who had Constantius at their disposal with complete freedom, reminded him of his quarrel with his brother over Athanasius; so that the natural ties of kinship between them were almost dissolved and war did not break out. Carried away by such speeches, Constantius ordered not only to expel, but also to kill the divine Athanasius and sent one military leader, Sebastian, with an army as large as possible, ordering him to be killed as a villain. How this military leader acted and how Athanasius escaped can best be told by the sufferer himself, who miraculously escaped the disaster 67 . In an apology for his flight, he writes the following: “Let them investigate, however, about the manner of departure and learn about it from their own people. For the Arians also went along with the soldiers to encourage them to act more decisively and to point me out to them, since I personally was unknown to them. But, although not out of a feeling of compassion, but rather out of shame, the soldiers, listening to them, remained calm; It was already night, and some of the people remained for the all-night vigil in the church and awaited the service. Suddenly the governor appeared, bringing with him more than five thousand soldiers, armed, with drawn swords, with bows, arrows, clubs, as had been said before, and surrounded the church, placing the soldiers very close to each other, so that no one could escape from them when leaving the church. Considering it unreasonable to leave the people in such confusion and not prevent the danger threatening them, I sat down in my place and ordered the deacon to read a psalm, and the people to chant: “For His mercy endures forever” (Ps. 135.1), and at the same time, leaving the church, to go home. Finally, the governor had already approached, the soldiers surrounded the altar to seize us, the clergy and laity who were in the church shouted and asked us to leave immediately, but in spite of them I said that I would not leave until after everyone had been removed. Having stood up and ordered the prayer to be performed, I, for my part, asked everyone to leave, saying that I would agree to expose myself to danger rather than expose someone else to evil for my own sake. When most of the people left, and the rest followed those who had gone out, the monks who were with me in the altar and some clerics, rising to my throne, dragged me away. We, I testify to the truth, walked under the guidance of the Lord and His protection, we walked between the soldiers, some of whom surrounded the altar, and others the church. Then, hiding from them, we withdrew and loudly praised God himself for not betraying the people, but exiling them in advance, and meanwhile we ourselves managed to escape and escape “from the hands of those who seek us.” About George and the atrocities committed in Alexandria After the shepherd thus left their murderous hands, the leadership of that flock was entrusted (after Gregory) to another wolf, George. He treated his flock even more cruelly than any wolf, bear or leopard, for he forced the virgins who devoted themselves to virginity for the rest of their lives not only to renounce communication with Athanasius, but also anathematized the faith of their fathers. The instrument of his cruelty was one military leader, Sebastian, who, lighting a fire in the middle of the city and standing naked virgins near the fire, forced them to renounce their faith. However, they, representing a terrible and pitiful spectacle for the faithful and the unfaithful, considered such dishonor to themselves a great honor and willingly endured scourging for their faith. But let their shepherd Athanasius himself tell about this. “Then, during Pentecost, George arrived, sent by them from Cappadocia, and increased the evil that he learned from them, for after Easter Week, virgins began to be thrown into prison, bishops were led away by soldiers bound, the houses of orphans and widows were plundered, predation and robberies were committed in houses, Christians were carried out (to the cemetery) at night, houses were sealed and clergy brothers were in danger for their brothers. This was terrible, but the insolence that followed was even more terrible. On the week of Holy Pentecost, the fasting people went out to pray at the cemetery, because everyone avoided communication with George. Having learned about this, the evil one (George) began to incite the military leader Sebastian, a follower of the Manichaean heresy, against them - and he, on the very day of the resurrection, took many soldiers armed with naked swords, bows and arrows, rushed at the people and, capturing a few worshipers - because most of them had already dispersed - did what was naturally expected of people who obeyed the Arians. He lit a fire and, placing the virgins against the fire, forced them to recognize themselves as Arians. When he saw that they were above the threats, he exposed them and beat their faces so much that after a long time it was hardly possible to recognize them. Moreover, having captured forty men, he subjected them to a new kind of beating. He ordered the cutting of date twigs, still covered with needles, and tore their backs so much that some of them took a long time to be treated for the needles remaining in their backs, while others could not bear this torment and died. The rest, all of them and the maidens together, were sent to a large oasis. At first the bodies of the dead were not given to their relatives, but, covered as they had to, they remained unburied so that such great cruelty would not be revealed. Crazy - they did this in blindness of mind, for by the fact that the relatives of the dead rejoiced for their confession and cried over their bodies, the evidence of wickedness and cruelty (of the perpetrators of their death) spread even more. Soon after this, they expelled from Egypt and Libya the bishops: Ammonius, Muias (Tmuis), Gaius, Philo, Hermas, Alipius, Psenosiris, Nilammon, Agapius, Anagamphon, Mark, Dracontius, Adelphius, another Ammonius, another Mark, Athenodorus, also the presbyters: Hierax and Dioscorus - and so cruelly persecuted them, that some of those sent died on the way, and others at the place of imprisonment. More than thirty bishops were killed. Their jealousy was great, as if Ahab had to destroy the truth.” In his consoling letter to those virgins who endured such severe torment, Athanasius, among other things, writes the following: “Therefore, let none of you grieve if the wicked envy you in burial and prevent you from performing it. The tyranny of the Arians has extended to the point that, having locked the gates of the cemetery, they, like demons, sit near the tombs so that they do not bury any of the deceased there!” These and similar things were done by George in Alexandria. Meanwhile, the divine Athanasius did not find a single place completely safe for himself, because the king ordered him to be brought alive, and if he died, to deliver his head, and whoever fulfilled this promised a very large reward. About the cathedral that was in Mediolan Since after the death of Constantius Magnentius 68 took possession of the West, in order to destroy his tyranny Constantius had to undertake a campaign in Europe. But this difficult war did not stop the war against the churches. The Arians convinced Constantius, who was convinced in everything and infected with Arianism, to convene a council in Mediolan - this city in Italy - so that everyone who had to gather there, firstly, would be forced to confirm every deposition made by the unrighteous judges in Tire, and then, on this basis, excommunicate Athanasius from the church, and set forth a different doctrine of the faith. All who received the royal orders gathered in Mediolan 69, but did not dare to do anything mentioned; on the contrary, in the presence of the king himself they proved both the injustice and lawlessness of these commands and for this they were expelled from their churches and had to live in the remotest reaches of the universe. The wondrous Athanasius, in the above apology, wrote about this: “Who can count all that they have done, he says? The churches had just begun to enjoy peace, and the people began to pray in public meetings, when suddenly the Roman Bishop of Liberia 70, the Gallic Metropolitan Paulinus, the Italian Metropolitan Dionysius, Metropolitan Lucifer of Sardinia and the surrounding islands, the Italian Bishop Eusebius, all the good bishops, all the preachers of the truth, were captured and sent into exile, without giving any other reason for this, except that agreed to the Arian heresy and did not sign the slander that the Arians brought against us. I consider it unnecessary to talk about the great Hosea, an elderly and true confessor: probably everyone knows that they imprisoned him too. This old man is not unknown, he is far more famous than all the others. At what council did he not preside and at which, reasoning sensibly, did he not win everyone over to his side? What church does not have the most beautiful monuments of his intercession? Who ever came to him with tears and did not leave him with joy? Who turned to him with a request and turned away without getting what he wanted? However, the Arians dared to rebel against him because, knowing what slander they were weaving in their wickedness, he did not sign the slander they made against us.” From the above passage it is clear how they dealt with the mentioned holy men, and how many intentions were invented by the representatives of the Arian crowd against many others, the same divine man in the same work tells this: “Whom were they not persecuted, seized and dishonored then, as they wanted? Who was not sought for and, having been found, was not brought into such a state that he either suffered a disastrous death or was completely disfigured? For what the judges apparently did was the work of the Arians - the judges only carried out the evil intentions of the latter. What place does not have monuments to their malice? Who, who philosophized about faith contrary to them, did they not entangle, as Jezebel once did, with fictitious accusations? What church is not grieving today from their slander? Antioch weeps for the Orthodox confessor Eustathius, Valanea for Euphration, Paltus and Antarad for Cymatia and Carteria, Adrianople for the Christ-loving Eutropius and then for Lucius, who repeatedly wore the shackles they imposed and thus died, Ancyra for Marcellus, Beria for Cyrus, Gaza for Asclepus. Our insidious enemies caused many troubles to these men and imprisoned them even before. And they searched so diligently for the Thracian bishops Theodulus and Olympius, as well as for me and my presbyters, that if they had found us, we would have lost our heads. And perhaps we would have been killed long ago if, beyond their hopes, we had not managed to escape, for this was precisely the content of the decrees given to the proconsul Donatus about Olympia, and to Philagry about me.” This is the violence with which this wicked crowd persecuted the saints. The mentioned Hosea was the bishop of Cordoba; He was of high importance even at the great Council of Nicea and presided over those gathered at the Council of Sardiki. I also want to include in my essay a story about the daring defense of the truth expressed by the all-validated Liberius, and about the worthy words he spoke to Constantius. They were written down by God-loving men who lived at that time as an encouragement and example for imitation of those who were zealous for divine things. Liberia ruled the Roman Church after Julius, Silvestrov's successor. Conversation between Bishop Liberius of Rome and King Constantius King Constantius said: “Assuming you to be a Christian and the bishop of our city, we decided to call you and convince you to renounce communion in absurd madness with the wicked Athanasius. The whole universe recognized this as a good thing and, by conciliar decision, decided to consider Athanasius alien to church communion.” But Bishop Liberius answered: “King! Church judgments must be made with the strictest discrimination. Therefore, if your piety pleases, order the court to be set up - and when Athanasius turns out to be worthy of condemnation, then let a sentence be pronounced against him according to Church Order, otherwise how can we pronounce a sentence on a person whom we did not judge? King Constantius said: “The whole universe condemned his wickedness, only he has been gaining time for a long time.” But Bishop Liberius answered: “The persons who signed his condemnation were not eyewitnesses of his crimes, but signed this sentence, carried away either by honor from you, or by fear, or by fear of experiencing your wrath.” King: “How is this?” “So, not loving the glory of God and preferring your gifts to it, they without judgment condemned a man whom they had not even seen in person. This is not Christian." King: “But he was personally judged at the Council of Tire, where all the bishops of the universe condemned him.” Liberius: “He was never tried personally; several bishops who had gathered at that time dared to condemn him, and they condemned him at a time when he had already left the court - it was a lawless court.” Here the eunuch Eusebius said: “However, at the Council of Tire he was declared alien to the universal faith.” But Liberius continued: “Of the judges who were at that time, only five people traveled to Mareotis, having been sent there to collect evidence against the accused. Of these messengers, two later died, namely Theognis and Theodore, and the other three, that is, Maris, Valens and Urzaki, are alive to this day. For all these ambassadors, for this very matter, a sentence was pronounced in Sardik; but the condemned later submitted a petition to the council, asking forgiveness for the fact that they had taken testimony against Athanasius in Mareotis out of malice from only one side. We still have some of their reports at hand. With whom should we agree and come into fellowship, king? Is it with those who first condemned Athanasius, and then asked for forgiveness for this, or with those 71 who subsequently pronounced the sentence on themselves? Then Bishop Epictetus said: “King! Liberia is now arguing not to defend the faith or the rulings of the church court, but in order to boast to the Roman senators that he has out-argued the king.” Therefore, the king said to Liberius: “What kind of important person are you in the state, that you alone support the side of a wicked person and destroy the peace of the universe, even the whole world?” Liberia: “The word of faith is no more powerless because I defend it alone. And in ancient times only three people resisted the command (of Nebuchadnezzar).” Then the eunuch Eusebius said: “Have you made our king Nebuchadnezzar?” But Liberia answered: “Not at all. But it would be unlawful to condemn a person in this way, without considering his case. I consider it necessary, first of all, to collect an ecumenical signature, by which the faith set forth in Nicaea would be confirmed, so that, through this, we would return our brothers from captivity and restore them to the sees that belong to them, and then consider whether the people who are now causing so much turmoil in the churches would agree with the apostolic faith, then we would all gather in Alexandria, where the accused, the accusers, and the defenders of that one would be personally present. and the other side, and there, having considered the whole matter, pronounce a unanimous decision.” But Bishop Epictetus said: “There are not enough public carts for so many episcopal trips.” Liberia: “There is no need for public supplies to resolve church affairs. Each church has its own means to bring its bishop to the shores of the sea.” Tsar: “But the determination made cannot be changed. The verdict of the majority of bishops must be valid. You alone stand for the friendship of that wicked man.” But Liberia said: “Sire! We have never heard of a judge accusing a defendant of impiety without seeing him before him; through this he would express his personal enmity towards him.” Tsar: “He offended everyone in general, but he didn’t offend anyone as much as me. Not content with the unfortunate death of my elder brother, he did not cease to incite Constant of blessed memory to enmity against me, and would have succeeded in this if we had not, with special meekness, restrained both the one who incited enmity and the one who was aroused from hostile intentions. There cannot be such a great feat for me, even if I defeated Magnentius and Silvanus, what a feat it would be to separate this villain from church affairs.” Liberia: “Personal enmity, Sovereign, do not express through bishops. The hands of the spiritual must be prepared for sanctification. Therefore, if you wish, order the bishops to be summoned from captivity and returned to their places - and when it turns out that they are unanimous with those who now defend the Orthodox faith set forth in Nicaea, then let them, having gathered together, take care of the pacification of the world, so that through this the thought of punishing an innocent person will be eliminated.” King: “Here’s the thing: if you agree to have fellowship with the churches, I want to send you back to Rome. So, agree to peace, sign and return to Rome.” Liberia: “I have already said goodbye to the Roman brothers; Church laws are more valuable than staying in Rome.” King: “But you are given three days to think. If you want, sign up and return to Rome, and when you don’t want to, think about where else you would like to live.” Liberia: “A period of three days or three months will still not change my conviction. So send me wherever you want.” Two days later, the king again called on Liberius, but, seeing that his thoughts were the same, he announced exile to Thracian Beroe. When Liberia left, the king sent him fifty olokotins for expenses. But the latter said to the one who brought them: go and return this to the king; he needs to give salaries to his soldiers. The queen also sent him the same; but he said again: give it to the king; He needs this to support his troops. If the king himself has no need, then let him give them to Auxentius and Epictetus, who need it. Since Liberius did not accept money from them, the eunuch Eusebius brought it to him from himself; but the bishop said: “You have devastated the churches of the universe and now you give me alms as a condemned man! Go, make yourself a Christian first.” Having accepted nothing, he was exiled three days later. About the exile and return of Blessed Liberius So, the victorious champion of truth, in accordance with the command, lived in Thrace. Meanwhile, after two years, Constantius arrived in Rome - and the wives of noble people and officials began to pester their husbands so that they asked the king to return the shepherd to the flock. If you do not do this, they said, then we will leave you and move to that great shepherd. But the husbands replied that they were afraid of the royal wrath, that Constantius, as men, might not forgive them for this, and when you decide to ask, he will, of course, spare you and, one of two things, either accept your request, or, in case of refusal, send you away without punishment. Having accepted this advice, the praiseworthy women came to the king in luxurious clothes, according to custom, so that, having received them by their clothes as nobles, he would treat them respectfully and meekly. Appearing in this form, they began to beg the king to take pity on such a famous city - why was it deprived of a shepherd, who had become a prey to wolf cunning. But Constantius answered them that the city did not need another shepherd, that there was a shepherd among it who could take care of it. For after the great Liberius, one of his deacons, named Felix, was ordained, 72 who, although he observed the faith set forth in Nicaea inviolably, nevertheless freely entered into communication with apostates, and therefore no one from the inhabitants of Rome entered the house of prayer when Felix was in it. The mentioned women told the king about this, the king, bending to their request, ordered the return of that worthy in all respects a husband to govern the church with Felix. When the decree about this was read at the hippodrome, the people filled the air with exclamations, calling the tsar’s sentence fair. However, the inhabitants were divided into two parties, which bore nicknames based on the difference in color, and therefore at first it was decided that one bishop would rule one party, and another the other; but then everyone unanimously exclaimed: one God, one Christ, one bishop. I thought it fair to put their very words here. After these exclamations of the Christ-loving people, inspired by piety and justice, the divine Liberia returned 73, and Felix left and began to live in another city. I mentioned these events in connection with what befell the bishops who gathered in Milan, for I wanted to maintain harmony in the narrative. Now I turn again to the description of the incidents that followed in order. About the cathedral that was in Arimin When the champions of the faith were expelled, the people, who voluntarily had the thoughts of the king, thought that now they could suddenly overthrow the faith that was contrary to them and establish the teachings of Arius, and therefore convinced Constantius to convene 74 eastern and western bishops in Ariminum and order them to exclude from the creed the words “being” and “consubstantial” as weapons invented by the Fathers against the malice of Arius, for These words, they said, were the reason for the divisions of churches. The bishops gathered and, infected with the ulcer of Arianism, tried to seduce the great multitude of those gathered, especially the Western bishops, people with simple concepts, telling them that because of two words, moreover, not found in Scripture, the body of the church should not be torn apart and that the Son should be called like the One who begat in every way, and the word “creature”, as alien to Scripture, should be left. But they, having forbidden deception, excommunicated these preachers, and through a message they themselves expressed their own way of thinking to the king. “We are children,” they wrote, and heirs of the fathers who gathered in Nicaea, and therefore if we dared either to destroy anything of what they wrote, or to add to their wonderful provisions, we would declare ourselves illegitimate children and accusers of our parents.” However, the exact rule of their faith will be clearer from their letter to Constantius. Conciliar letter, written by the bishops gathered here, to King Constantius “We believe that the will of God and the decree of your piety organized a general meeting of the bishops of all western cities in Arimin with the aim that the faith of the Catholic Church would be explained to everyone, and those who think the opposite would be revealed. So, after lengthy discussions, we recognized as the best - the faith that has come down from antiquity, preached by the Prophets, Gospels, Apostles and our Lord Jesus Christ himself, faith, the guardian of your kingdom and the patroness of your power - this faith must be constantly maintained and, maintaining it, guard it to the end; for it seemed to us a matter of recklessness and illegality to change something that was correctly defined and accurately considered at the Council of Nicea in the presence of your glorious father and king Constantine, preached in the hearing of all and becoming a universal teaching and way of thinking. This faith is the only one set to combat and exterminate the Aryan heresy, and it refuted not only Arianism, but also every other heresy. It is truly unsafe to add anything to it, and it is disastrous to take it away; for if you allow one thing or another, the enemies will immediately have the opportunity to do whatever they want. That is why Urzaki and Valens, longtime accomplices and like-minded people of the Arian teaching, were excommunicated from communication with us until, in order to return him, they confessed their errors, repented and received forgiveness, as evidenced by the written evidence they presented. Out of respect for these signs of repentance, they are forgiven and freed from guilt. This was done at a time when the meetings of the Council of Copper of Yolan continued, in the presence, among others, of the elders of the Roman Church. Moreover, we know even after the death of Constantine, worthy of memory, who with all care and attention set out the written faith, was baptized in it 75 when he left the midst of people and moved to inherit the coveted world; and therefore they considered it foolish to introduce anything new after him and to despise so many holy confessors and martyrs who set out in writing and examined this very teaching, who discussed everything in accordance with the ancient statutes of the Catholic Church and whose faith God preserved until the time of your reign, through our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave you the kingdom to lead so that you also possess the empire inhabited by us. Despite this, unfortunate and pitiful people again began to preach wicked teachings with criminal boldness and destroy the entire edifice of truth. When, according to your decree, the meetings of the council began to take place - and they also discovered the intention of their error - they began to insidiously and outrageously introduce something new and, with the help of accomplices of their heresy, Germany, Auxentius and Gaius, began to stir up enmity and dissent. Their changeable teaching alone surpasses all other blasphemies. Seeing that their thoughts were not the same and that there was no agreement in their bad opinions, they joined our council with the intention of presenting the dogmas of faith differently. But to expose their intentions, a short time was enough, and so that church affairs were not constantly exposed to the same dangers and so that confusion and continuous anxiety did not lead everything into disorder, it was recognized as good to preserve the ancient decrees firm and unchangeable, and to excommunicate the above-mentioned people from communication with us. For this reason, we have sent ambassadors to your grace who will inform you about everything and, through a message, announce the opinion of the council. These ambassadors are first of all commanded to affirm the truth on the basis of ancient and correct definitions: they will explain to your piety that, contrary to the words of Ursacius Valens, peace cannot exist if anything right is perverted; for how can peace be preserved by people who disturb the peace? This will most likely cause strife and unrest in other cities and in the Roman church. So, we beg your grace to accept the presentation of our embassy with a favorable ear and a bright face and not allow any news (living) to be introduced to insult the dead, but allow us to remain with what was determined and legitimized by our ancestors, who, we can say, did everything insightfully, wisely and according to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; Meanwhile, the current innovations of those people inspire disbelief in believers, and stubbornness in non-believers. We also beseech you to command that bishops living in foreign countries and oppressed both by old age and the needs of poverty, be given the means to return home, so that the churches, in the absence of bishops, will not remain orphaned. But in addition to all this, we again beg you not to allow anything from the previous definitions to be subtracted or added to them, but to leave intact for the future everything that has been observed from the time of your pious father to the present. Finally, may we not suffer and remain outside our dioceses, may the bishops, together with their people, peacefully offer prayers and perform divine services, praying for your salvation, kingdom and peace, which may God grant you forever. Our ambassadors carry with them the signatures and names of bishops; they will convince your piety on the basis of Holy Scripture.” When the ambassadors with this letter arrived to the king, the courtiers, patronizing heresy, accepted the message from them and handed it over to the king, but they themselves were not allowed to see him, saying that the sovereign was now busy with state concerns. They did this in the thought that the bishops, tired of the long wait and impatiently wanting to return to the flocks entrusted to them, would be forced to excavate and destroy the fortress they had built against heresy. But such an intention failed, because the courageous champions of the faith sent another message to the king, begging him to accept the ambassadors and dissolve them themselves. I am adding this Message to my history. Another letter to Constantius “To the victor, King Constantius, the bishops gathered in Arimin. We have received a letter of your mercy, most glorious Sovereign Autocrat! It says that, being busy with state affairs, you could not immediately see our ambassadors, and you command us to wait for their return until your piety learns about our definitions and about our paternal dogmas. Without retreating in the least from our thoughts, which we have previously expressed, we again convince your grace with this letter and beg you to graciously accept both this message of our humility in response to your piety, and the one that is attributed to We have entrusted our ambassadors to your mercy. How regrettable and unnatural it is that during the prosperous time of your reign, so many churches seem to have no bishops at all, your grace understands this no less than us. Therefore, we again ask you, most glorious Autocrat, to command us, if it pleases your love for mankind, to return to our churches before the onset of bad winter weather, so that we, together with the people, can offer the most ardent prayers to the Almighty God and Christ His Son, our Lord and Savior, for the well-being of your power, as we have always done and are doing.” The council that was held in Nika of Thracia, and the statement of faith written by him Having aroused the king's anger against them for this message, the Arians transferred most of the bishops against their will to one Thracian city named Nike 76. And on some simple-hearted people, acting with affection, on others with fear, they are persuaded to accept a plan that has long been invented against piety, that is, to exclude the words “being” and “consubstantial” from the faith, and instead put “likeness” in their place. I bring this statement of faith into my history - not so that it is good, but in order to use it to expose the crowd of Arians; for the wicked of today no longer accept this symbol, but instead of likeness they preach dissimilarity. The wrong faith set forth in the Thracian Nike. “We believe in one and one true God, the Father Almighty, from whom are all things, and in the only begotten Son of God, who was born of God before all ages and before every beginning, and through whom all things came into being, visible and invisible - we believe that the only begotten was born one of one Father, God is from God, like the Father who begot Him, according to the scriptures, that no one knows His birth except the Father who begat Him. We know that this only begotten Son of God, having been sent by the Father, came down from heaven, as it is written, for the destruction of sin and death, and was born in the flesh from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, according to the scriptures - he dealt with the disciples and, after fulfilling all the dispensations in accordance with the will of the Father, was nailed to the cross, died, was buried, descended or into the underworld, where hell itself trembled at Him, rose from dead on the third day and spoke with the disciples for forty days, and then he was taken into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father, but on the last day of resurrection he will come with the glory of the Father to reward everyone according to his deeds. And in the Holy Spirit, whom the only begotten Son of God Jesus Christ, God and Lord, promised to send to the human race - to send, as it is written, the Comforter, the Spirit of truth, whom He also sent, ascending into heaven and sitting at the right hand of the Father, from where He will come to judge the living and the dead. The word “being,” introduced by the fathers out of simplicity, incomprehensible to the people and arousing temptation, the council decided to exclude, since it does not appear in the Holy Scriptures, and put forward not to use the word “being” at all, especially since the Holy Scriptures nowhere mention the essence of the Father and the Son. Speaking about the person of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we should not also name one hypostasis: we call the Son similar to the Father, as the Holy Scripture itself says and teaches. However, all heresies that were previously condemned and have appeared again, as soon as they are contrary to this faith set forth by us, let them be anathema.” Such and such a symbol was signed by the bishops, overcome - some by fear, others by deception; and those who did not agree to sign it were scattered along the borders of the empire. That all the champions of the truth, and especially the Western bishops, really condemned this statement of faith, their letter to the Illyrians testifies to this. Among his writers, Damasus 77 excelled, who received primacy in the Roman church after Liberius and was adorned with numerous types of virtue. Together with him, ninety bishops who had gathered in Rome from Italy and Galatia, now called Gaul, took part in writing this letter. I would list their names here if I did not find this unnecessary. They wrote the following: “The bishops who have gathered for the Holy Council of Rome, Damasus, Valerian and others, to our beloved brothers, the bishops of Illyria, we wish health in God. We hope that you hold our holy faith, established on the teachings of the Apostles, and, as priests of God, who must teach others, teach it to the people, without deviating in the least from the definitions of our fathers. Meanwhile, however, according to reports from our brothers from Gaul and Venice, we know that some are introducing heresy. Not only should bishops themselves beware of this evil, but they should also resist anyone’s dissenting teachings, so that anyone, out of inexperience or simplicity, does not accept these false interpretations, thinking about how not to stumble, but when different opinions reach the ears, stick closer to the fatherly way of thinking. It has already been written that Auxentius of Milan was especially condemned for this. Therefore, it is necessary that in the Roman world all the teachers of the Law should maintain unanimity and not defile their faith with discordant teachings, for as soon as the wickedness of the heretics began to intensify, just as Arian blasphemy is now especially creeping in, our fathers, among the three hundred and eighteen bishops, as well as those elected from the Roman Church, having made an investigation of a controversial subject in Nicaea, erected this stronghold in defense against the devil. teachings and with such an antidote they removed the deadly poison of heresy, that is, they believed that the Father and the Son should be believed as one power and one Divinity and that the Holy Spirit has the same hypostasis and being, and anyone who thinks differently was recognized as alien to our communion. But then some people decided to destroy and desecrate this saving definition and venerable research with other research. However, some of these same ones, at first forced to introduce news and revise that definition in Ariminum, corrected the matter in such a way that they admitted that they had been deceived by some outside reasoning, without at all thinking of opposing the opinion accepted by the Nicene fathers; for among the members of the Council of Ariminum at the time of its opening, no one could support any prejudice - neither the Bishop of Rome, whose opinion should have been accepted first of all, nor Vincent, who for so many years kept the episcopate impeccably, nor others who agreed with their definitions - especially when we imagine that those same ones who, as said, apparently were carried away by cunning, having come to a better idea, testified that that previous opinion was not true for them I like it. So, let your integrity see that it is necessary to hold with constant firmness one faith that was founded in Nicaea on the authority of the apostles. In this very faith, both the eastern and the western boast with us, if they recognize themselves as Christians of the Catholic Church. We believe that those who think otherwise for such determination will soon be excommunicated from communion with us and deprived of the name of bishops, so that their laity, freed from the deception they dissipate, can rest, for, being in error, they will not have any opportunity to correct it in others. So, with the thoughts of all the priests of God, may the thoughts of your honor come into agreement, in which you, as we believe, will remain firm and unshakable. And that you and I have the right to believe, prove this with a return letter of your love. Be healthy, most honest brothers." Message from Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria about the same council Likewise, Athanasius the Great, in his letter to Afram about the Council of Arimin, wrote the following: “If all this was so, then who will accept the words of people who oppose the Council of Arimin, or any other, to the Council of Nicaea? Or who would not hate those who reject the decrees of the fathers and prefer the newest decrees, approved by strife and violence in Ariminum? Who wants to get along with people who don’t accept their own definitions? At more than ten of their councils, as we said above, each time affirming something different and different, they themselves clearly condemn each of their councils and are subjected to the same thing that the traitors, the Jews, once suffered. Just as those, the prophet Jeremiah writes, having left the only source of living water, “dug up broken treasures for themselves that cannot contain water” (Jeremiah 2.13), so they, having rebelled against the ecumenical council, dug for themselves many vain councils, which turned out to be “handles that have no strength” (Hosea 8.7). So, we will not tolerate the Ariminian or other so-called Council being contrasted with the Nicene Council, for those who refer to the Ariminian Council do not seem to themselves know what happened at it. Otherwise they would remain silent. But you know, beloved, from the reports of those among you who, on your part, traveled to Ariminum, you know that Urzacius, Valens, Eudoxius, Auxentius, and with them Demophilus, were deposed there because they wanted to establish something contrary to the Nicene definitions, and when they were asked to anathematize the Arian heresy, they refused this and decided to be its defenders. On the contrary, the bishops, truly faithful servants of the Lord and true believers, of whom there were about two hundred, determined that they were content with the Nicene faith alone and neither more nor less, in comparison with it, did not want to seek or accept anything. They also declared the same thing to Constantius, by whose will the council was appointed. However, the heretics deposed in Ariminum, having come to Constantius, managed to incite him to insult the fathers of the council and threatened them that, having condemned them, they alone would not return to their dioceses, and in the same winter they forced them in Thrace to give consent to their innovations. So, whoever begins to refer to the Council of Ariminus, let him first be pointed to the deposition of the persons mentioned and to the message of the bishops, who said that after the confession set forth by the fathers in Nicaea, there is nothing more to explore and that no other council should be recognized except this one. This is what they hide, and only expose what happened in Thrace through their violence. From this it is clear that they are adherents of Arianism, alien to the true faith. Wanting to compare that great council with the Arian councils, everyone would find there reverence for God, but here madness, for those who gathered at Nicaea, without being deposed, confessed that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and these, having already been deposed twice, and for the third time at the Ariminian Council itself, dared to decree that it should not be said that God has a being, or “hypostasis.” So many tricks and such intrigues against the dogmas of truth were invented in the West by the followers of Arius. About the evil deceptions of the Antiochian bishop Leontius, and about the daring of Flavian and Diodorus In Antioch, after the successor of Flacillos, Stefan, who was expelled from the church, Leontius received the primacy, and received it against the rules of the Council of Nicea, for he was an eunuch who castrated himself. Blessed Athanasius also talks about the reason for this rash act of his. A rumor was spread about Leontius that he had a relationship with a young woman named Eustoli, and he was forbidden to keep her in his house. Therefore, in order to be able to deal with her without fear, he castrated himself, through which, however, he did not escape suspicion and, already in the rank of presbyter, was deposed. In connection with this, Athanasius the Great also wrote about the rest of his life, and I will briefly talk about his evil nature and deceit. Being infected with the Arian heresy, he tried to hide his illness. Seeing that the clergy and other people were divided into two, that some in the doxology before the word “Son” pronounce the conjunction, while others before the same word use the preposition “in”, he pronounced the doxology in a whisper, so that those standing and near him could only hear the words: to the ages of ages. However, if the cunning of his soul did not reveal anything else, one could also say that he came up with such a trick, taking care of maintaining unanimity among the people. But since he invented many cruelties against the confessors of the truth, and people involved in wickedness were awarded all kinds of his care, it was clear that he hid his infection, only fearing the people and Constantius, who strongly threatened those who dared to call the Son unbecoming. So, the way of his thoughts was revealed by his actions: whoever followed the apostolic dogmas did not benefit from his care at all and was not awarded ordination; and the followers of the Aryan madness had the greatest boldness before him and were elevated to the ranks of the priesthood. At that time, he included the teacher Aetius among the host of deacons of Eunomius, who increased the blasphemy of Arius with new inventions. On this occasion, Flavian and Diodorus, men who chose an ascetic way of life and were open champions of the apostolic teaching, directly convicted Leontius of his wicked plans, saying that a man brought up in the principles of wickedness and thinking of gaining glory for himself through his wickedness, he awarded the name of deacon to the detriment of the church, and they threatened to lag behind church communion with him, go to the West and declare his secret actions. Fearing this, Leontius forbade Aetius to perform sacred functions, but nevertheless patronized him in every possible way. Meanwhile, those two worthy men, Flavian 78 and Diodorus, having not received positions of priesthood and being among the laity, day and night aroused everyone to zeal for piety. They were the first to divide the singers into two choirs and taught them to sing David’s psalms alternately - first with one choir, then with the other. This custom was first adopted in Antioch, and then spread everywhere and became common throughout the entire universe. They gathered people who loved to do divine things to the tombs of the martyrs and spent the whole night vigil with them, praising God. Seeing this, Leonty found it dangerous to prohibit them from such activities, for he noticed that the people were very disposed towards those excellent men, but, speaking to them meekly, he only asked them to perform their worship in churches. Although they very well understood Leontius’s cunning, they nevertheless obeyed his orders and, with great zeal, calling their competitors into the church, still excited them to sing praises to the all-holy Lord. As for Leontius, nothing could incline him to correct himself from wickedness. Hiding behind the guise of affection, he concealed in himself the shamelessness of Stephen and Flakitus, people who followed the wrong teaching, elevated to the rank of presbyters and deacons, even if they led the most dissolute life, and did not honor those who adhered to the apostolic teaching, even if they were adorned with all kinds of virtues. Therefore, the clergy was composed for the most part from persons infected with Arianism, and the people especially stood for the right dogmas, so that those invested with the power of the teachers did not dare to reveal their blasphemous opinions. In general, Flakitus, Stephen and Leontius committed so many wicked and lawless deeds in Antioch that the description of them, due to the vastness of the subject, requires a special essay, and due to its greatness, it resembles one sad song of Avid, for about these people it must be said: “For behold, your enemies made a noise, and those who hated you raised their head. Your will is evil against your people, and you take counsel against your holy ones, deciding: Come, and I will consume the tongue, and the name of Israel will not be remembered for that” (Ps 82.3-5). But we will continue our story. On the innovation of Eudoxius of Germanicus and the opposition to it of Basil of Ancyra and Eustathius of Sebastia The city of Germanicia, lying on the border of Cappadocia with Cilicia and Syria, belongs to the so-called Euphrates diocese. The primate of the Germanic church, Eudoxius, having learned of the death of Leontius, immediately went to Antioch, seized the episcopal see and began, like a wild boar, to devastate this city of God. He no longer hid, like Leontius, his evil nature, but with open fury he rebelled against the apostolic teaching and struck those who dared to contradict himself with all sorts of disasters. At that time, in Ancyra, the metropolis of Galatia, the helm of the church was ruled by Marcellus' successor, Basil, and in Sebaste, the main city of Armenia, Eustathius ruled. Having learned about the illegal deeds and fury of Eudoxius, these bishops revealed his crimes in writing to King Constantius, who was still in the western parts of the empire and, having destroyed the tyrants, corrected the disorders they had caused there. They were loved by the king and, due to their praiseworthy life, had especially great boldness in his face. About the council proposed in Nicaea, but which later met in Isaurian Seleucia Having learned about this, Constantius informed the Antiochians in writing that it was not he who gave Eudoxius primacy in their church, as Eudoxius himself announced, and therefore orders that this bishop be expelled from the city and his affairs put on trial in Nicaea in Bithynia, where, according to his command, a council is to be held. Eudoxius himself convinced the royal court officials to appoint Nicaea as the site for the cathedral. But the Provider of all, knowing the future, as if already past, prevented this council from taking place with an extraordinary earthquake. The earthquake destroyed most of the city and killed most of the inhabitants. The bishops who were traveling here, having learned about this, were greatly frightened and returned to their own dioceses. In this event, I see the action of God's wisdom, since the holy fathers in Nicaea expounded the teaching of the apostolic faith, and those who were now gathering in the same city had the intention of establishing a contrary teaching, and this could present the adherents of Arius with an opportunity to deceive simple people with the birth of the name, that is, when they began to call this cathedral of theirs Nicene, exposing it for the simple-minded instead of the ancient Nicene, then the Lord, who cares for the church, and scattered their assembly. After a little time, the same accusers of Eudoxius again reminded Constantius about the council, and the king ordered him to be in Seleucia 79 . This city is located in Isauria, lies by the sea and is considered the main city in the entire province. All eastern bishops were ordered to gather here, including the bishops of the Pontic and Asian districts. At this time, Caesarea, the Palestinian metropolis, was ruled by the successor of Eusebius Acacius, the same one who was excommunicated by the council of Sardica, but who, having despised such a great host of bishops, did not submit to the verdict. In Jerusalem, after Macarius, whom I have mentioned many times, there was formerly the primate Maximus, a man famous for his exploits for piety, for his right eye was gouged out and the veins of his right knee were cut off. And when he moved into immortal life, the zealous champion of the apostolic teaching, Cyril, accepted the grace of the episcopacy. The dispute between these two bishops about primacy was the cause of the greatest evils for the church. Akaki, under some insignificant pretext, deposed Cyril and expelled him from Jerusalem. Cyril went to Antioch, but, finding this city without a shepherd, he moved to Tara and lived with the then wonderful bishop of the Tarsus church, Silvanus. Having learned about this, Akaki wrote to Silvanus and notified him of the deposition of Cyril, but Silvanus, having respect for Cyril and fearing the people, who listened to the teachings of Cyril with the greatest love, did not forbid him to serve in the church. Likewise, when the bishops gathered in Seleucia, Cyril also took his place in their assembly, having communication with Basil, Eustathius, Silvanus and others. But Akaki, having arrived at the council, which consisted of one hundred and fifty bishops, announced that he would only take part in the council meetings when Cyril was removed from the cathedral as deprived of the rank of bishop. Some, concerned about preserving peace, asked Cyril to leave, promising to consider his case after discussing dogmas, but he did not listen to this. Then Akakios, separating from the council, united with Eudoxius, calmed him from the fear in which he was, encouraged him, promised to be his protector and assistant, and, not allowing him to go to the council, went with him to Constantinople. About what happened to the Orthodox bishops in Constantinople Returning from the West, Constantius was in Constantinople. Accusing the Seleucia Council before the king in many ways, calling it a gathering of worthless people united for the destruction and desecration of the church, Akaki aroused anger in the king and no less irritated him with his slander against Cyril. He slandered that Cyril sold that sacred gold-woven robe, which the all-praised Tsar Constantine, wanting to honor the Jerusalem church, gave to the bishop of that city Macarius, so that he would put on it for the service on the day of the mysterious baptism, and that some theatrical dancer bought that robe and put it on, but, jumping in it at the theater, fell, hurt himself and died. Having communication with such and such people, they undertake (Acakios said about the Seleucan bishops) to dress up and judge others. In this case, the courtiers convinced the king to call not the whole council, because they were afraid of his common voice, but only the ten most important bishops. Among those called were Eustathius of Armenia, Basil of Galatia, Silvantara, Eleusius of Cyzicus. Arriving in Constantinople, they asked the king to expose the blasphemy and crimes of Eudoxius, but he, acting under the influence of their opponents, said that they must first judge matters regarding faith, and then examine the accusations against Eudoxius. Vasily, due to his previous closeness to the king, began to speak with boldness, reminding him that he was plotting against the apostolic teaching, but Constantius was very angry at this, and Vasily, supposedly the culprit of all the confusion in the church, ordered him to be silent. While Vasily was finishing his words, Eustathius said: if you want reasoning about faith, Sovereign, then look at what blasphemy Eudoxius dared to commit against the Only Begotten, and with these words he presented the king with a statement of faith, in which the following was added to many other expressions of wickedness: “What is dissimilar in appearance is dissimilar in essence; “There is one God the Father, from whom are all things... and one Lord Jesus Christ, from whom are all things” (1 Cor. 8:6): but from him is not like that or does not mean that they are the same; therefore, the Son is not like God the Father.” Constantius ordered this account to be read aloud and, greatly indignant at the wickedness it contained, asked Eudoxius if he wrote it? Eudoxius immediately denied and said that this was written by Aetius, meaning that same Aetius, whom Leontius, fearing accusations from Flacian and Diodorus, had once deprived of his diaconate and who then lived with the crafty enemy of the Alexandrian church, George, and was his collaborator in wicked teachings and in villainous enterprises, but now together with Eunomius was with Eudoxius. When Leontius died and Eudoxius seized the leadership of the Antiochian church, then he returned from Egypt and brought Eunomius with him. Noticing that Eudoxius shared the same way of thinking with him and that, in addition to wickedness, he also loved sybaritic bliss, he found that living in Antioch was better than anywhere else, and together with Eunomius, as if nailed to the soft beds of Eudoxius, he imitated the life of the idle lovers - wandering today to one, tomorrow to another, in order to fill his belly. Hearing the answer of Eudoxius, the king ordered Aetius to be called and, when he entered, showed him the aforementioned exposition and asked if he was the writer of this work? Aetius, not knowing at all what was happening now, and not understanding the tone in which the question was given, and meanwhile hoping to receive praise for his confession, said that he really did it. Having clearly seen what kind of wicked man this man was, the king immediately condemned him to exile and ordered him to be sent to some Phrygian village. Aetius was pushed out of the palace, and thus he acquired one dishonor for himself for blasphemy. Eustathius began to say that Eudoxius also shared the conviction of Aetius that Aetius lived with him, dined with him and, to please him, composed a blasphemous statement. And even then, it is a clear sign of Eudoxiev’s participation in this presentation of participation, Eustathius continued, that it was not anyone else, but Eudoxius who said that it was stated by Aetius. Judges are obliged to pronounce a verdict not on guesswork, the tsar noted, but on a strict examination of the case itself. So let Eudoxius pronounce an anathema on the writings of Aetius, said Eustathius, and thereby convince us all that he is not of the same thoughts as him. The king willingly agreed to this proposal and ordered it to be so, but Eudoxius evaded and used various tricks to get rid of the challenge. However, when the king became angry and began to threaten him with exile along with Aetius, as an accomplice in his wicked wisdom, he abandoned his own teaching, which at that time and after he was constantly a representative, however, he also demanded, for his part, that those who acted in concert with Eustathius should also anathematize the additional word “consubstantial”, which is not found in Scripture. But in this case, it is necessary, Silvanus objected, to cancel in the same way and exclude from the conciliar definitions the expressions: from non-existent, creation and non-existent, as not being in Scripture and not found in either the Prophets or the Apostles. The king confirmed this and ordered those expressions to be anathematized. At first the Eudoxians began to contradict, but then, noticing that the king was angry, although with displeasure, they nevertheless uttered the cancellation of what Silvanus had offered them, and after this they began to more insistently demand that the word “consubstantial” be anathematized. But Silvanus then told them and the king that as soon as God the Word is neither a non-existent, nor a created, nor an other-existent being, then he will consistently and truly confess Him as consubstantial with the Father who gave birth - God from God, Light from Light, having one nature with the Parent. No matter how strongly and rightly he said this, he did not convince any of those present: the accomplices of Akaki and Eudoxius made a great noise. The king also became angry and threatened to expel (the Orthodox) from the churches. Silvanus, Eleusius and others with them told the king that he had the right to punish, and they had the right to be pious or wicked, and would never betray the teachings of their fathers. But Constantius, instead of being surprised at their wisdom, courage and boldness in defending the apostolic dogmas, expelled them from the churches and ordered others to take their places. Then Eudoxius tyrannically seized the see of the Church of Constantinople, and Eunomius took the place of Eleusius, who was expelled from Cyzicus. Meanwhile, the king ordered the deposition of Aetius in writing, and the accomplices of his wickedness were to condemn their like-minded person. They even wrote about this to the Alexandrian primate George. To show their baseness, why they did not care to attack like-minded people and opponents, I will add this message to my history. Council message against Aetius A copy of the letter to George, written by the entire council, against the lawless blasphemy of his deacon Aetius. “The Holy Council, convened in Constantinople, wishes good health to the most honorable gentleman, Bishop George of Alexandria. Carrying out a conciliar trial of Aetius regarding his lawless and seductive writings, the bishops, in accordance with church rules, decided to deprive him of the diaconate and excommunicate him. This in our definition was also followed by an admonition that his lawless letters should not be read at all, but should be rejected as useless and worthless. Moreover, we added that if he persists in his opinions, he should be subjected to anathema along with all his like-minded people. After this, it was natural to expect that all the bishops gathered at the council would be disgusted by this culprit of temptations, turmoil, schisms, noise throughout the whole world, mutual disputes between churches and would unanimously accept the decision taken regarding him. But despite our requests and beyond all our aspirations, Serra, Stefan, Iliodorus, Theophilus and their accomplices did not agree with our opinion and did not want to sign the definitions we pronounced, although Serra himself accused the aforementioned Aetius of some other kind of boasting, characteristic only of an insane person. He reported that Aetius, with impudent and persistent insolence, asserted that God had revealed to him what he had hidden from the times of the apostles and hitherto. But even after such senseless and boastful speeches of Aetius, witnessed by Serra himself, it was impossible to either reason with or persuade the named judges to agree with the verdict we pronounced on Aetius. For a long time and with great patience we postponed the trial of them, wanting, either by indignation, or by requests, or by honor, or by admonition, to attract them and agree in opinion with the entire council. We stubbornly waited to see if they would listen or give in. But since with our long-term patience we could not persuade them to accept the definitions regarding the mentioned person, then, considering the Church rules much more valuable than their friendship, we decided to excommunicate them from communion and give them a whole six months period for correction, repentance, and the desire to come to unity and agreement with the Council. If during this period they correct themselves, choose unanimity with their brethren and agree to the verdict regarding Aetius, then, according to our definition, they will be accepted by the church and will again take advantage of the importance that belongs to them at the councils and our love, and when they begin to unrepentantly persist and prefer human friendship to church rules and agreement with us, then, we have determined, they will be considered alien to the episcopal rank. But while they await their deposition, it is necessary to put other bishops in their places, so that the legitimate church, subject to proper order, has agreement with itself and belongs to the union of love, which all bishops mutually preserve, always saying the same thing, affirming one common opinion and one common thought. We send this message to your prudence so that you know about our conciliar decisions, and we earnestly ask you to observe them and to govern the churches entrusted to you, with the assistance of the grace of Christ, peacefully and lawfully.” The reason for the separation of the Eunomians from the Arians Eunomius in his writings extolled Aetius, called him a man of God and showered him with various praises; but at the same time, he lived friendly with people who condemned him, since he accepted episcopal ordination from them. Eudoxius, Acacius and their accomplices, having approved the definition of faith drawn up in the Thracian Nike, which we mentioned above, ordained other bishops in their church in the place of Basil and Eleusius. I find it unnecessary to mention them; I will only talk about Eunomius. When Eunomius, during the life of Eleusius, took control of the Cyzicus church, Eudoxius, knowing the common sense in the faith of the Cyzicus flock and seeing how indignant the king was with those who call the only begotten Son of God created, convinced Eunomius to hide his way of thinking and not express it to people looking for an opportunity to accuse. The time will come, he said, we will preach publicly what we are now hiding, we will teach the ignorant, and whoever argues, we will either convince, or force, or punish. Having agreed with such advice, Eunomius taught his wickedness extremely secretly, but people, nourished by the Holy Scriptures, noticed the lies hidden in his speeches and, although they were indignant at this, they nevertheless considered it to be more daring than prudent to contradict openly. Therefore, donning the guise of heretical malice, they came to Eunomius’s house and begged him to clearly present to them the truth of the dogma, and not to look at them as people wavering back and forth between different teachings. Eunomius boldly revealed his secret thoughts to them. Yes, this would be a wrong and godless thing, they told him then, if you had not communicated such a truth to all your subordinates! Having been deceived by these and similar speeches, Eunomius began to clearly reveal his blasphemy in church conversations. After this, those people, stirring up their souls with jealousy, went to Constantinople and first filed a denunciation against Eunomius to Eudoxius. When the latter did not accept their accusations, they turned to the king and complained to him about a new plague, saying that the teaching of Eunomius was much more wicked than the blasphemy of Ariev. Enraged by this, the king ordered Eudoxius to call Eunomius to himself, expose him and deprive him of his holy rank. But Eudoxius, despite the incessant coercions from the accusers, continued to evade this case. Then they again came to the king with complaints and cries that Eudoxius was not fulfilling his commands and was neglecting such a great city, which was publicized by the blasphemies of Eunomius. After this, Constantius threatened Eudoxius himself with exile if he did not summon Eunomius to his trial, convict him of the crimes charged against him and punish him. Fearing this threat, Eudoxius sent a message to Eunomius to flee from Cyzicus and complain about himself, not listening to his advice. Fearing trouble, Eunomius left Cyzicus, but, annoyed at his dishonor, accused Eudoxius of betrayal, saying that Eudoxius had cruelly offended both Aetius and him. From that time on, he founded his own special brotherhood, because those who knew about the agreement of his teachings with the teachings of Eudoxius retreated from the latter as a traitor, and, having joined the former, are called by his name even to this day. Having thus become the leader of the heresy, Eunomius increased the blasphemy of Arius with new additions of impiety. That he founded his separate sect only out of passion for curiosity is clear from the case itself: because when Aetius was condemned and excommunicated from the church, Eunomius did not agree with him, although he called him his teacher and a man of God, but remained united with Eudoxius, and when he himself was punished for impiety, then, not submitting to the decision of the council, he began to ordain bishops and presbyters, although he had already been deprived of his episcopal sana. This is what happened in Constantinople. About the siege of the city of Niziba and about the apostolic life of Bishop Jacob When the Persian king Sapor began a war with the Romans, Constantius went to gather troops in Antioch, however, it was not the Roman army that drove out the enemies, but the God revered by the Romans who defeated them. I will tell you how this victory happened. Niziba, which others call Antioch of Mingidon, lies on the border of the Roman possessions with the Persians. The bishop, overseer and commander of this city was Jacob, whom I mentioned before, a man who shone with the rays of apostolic grace. Having described his worthy and all-praised miracles in “The Lover of God, or the History of a Pious Life,” I consider it unnecessary and not necessary to list them again, but in connection with the present story I will tell you only about one. The Persian army besieged the city ruled by Jacob and subject to the Roman state, but, having stood under it for seventy days, moving many siege engines to the wall, furnishing it with many other weapons, building ramparts and ditches, the Persians could not take the city. Finally, having dammed the flow of the Mingidon River flowing through it at some distance above it, raising its banks on both sides and making them unusually high in order to keep it from overflowing, they suddenly, when a lot of water had already accumulated and it even began to overflow over the embankment of the bank, they launched it, like a car, against the wall. The wall could not withstand the extreme pressure of water, swayed and fell. The other part of the fortress, where Mingidon left the city, suffered the same fate - and it also could not resist the swiftness of the river. Seeing this, Sapor hoped to take the fortress without a battle and calmed down for one day, so that in the meantime the mud would dry up and the river would become passable. But, the next day, approaching the city with his entire army and hoping to invade it through the destroyed parts of the wall, he sees that the wall on both sides has been restored and his work remains useless. This divine man, having strengthened both the soldiers and other residents of the city with his prayer, restored the fence and, placing cars on it, drove out the besiegers, and did all this not by climbing the wall, but by beseeching God inside the holy church. However, Sapor was amazed not only by the quick restoration of the wall; he was also horrified by another vision: he saw on the wall someone dressed in royal clothes, shining with the brilliance of purple and a diadem. Assuming that it was a Roman sovereign, he threatened with death his subjects who reported to him that the king was not in Nisib. When they firmly stood for the truth of their words and assured him that Constantius was still in Antioch, then he understood the meaning of the vision and said that God would overcome the Romans, and before the siege the poor man shot an arrow to the sky. He knew, of course, that it was impossible to hit the Incorporeal One with it, but he could not bear the outburst of his furious indignation. At that time, the most famous Syrian writer, the wondrous Ephraim, begged Saint James to climb the wall to look at the barbarians and shoot arrows of prayer at them. Yielding to this request, the divine man ascended one tower and, seeing countless enemies, begged nothing against them except scnips and mosquitoes, so that through these small insects they would know the power of the Lord of their existence. At the prayer of Jacob, scnips and mosquitoes appeared in clouds and crowded into the tube-shaped trunks of elephants, into the ears and nostrils of horses and other beasts of burden, which, not having the strength to endure the attack of these insects, freed themselves from the reins, threw off the riders, mixed up the ranks and, leaving the camp, rushed to run with all their might. Thus, this threefold pitiful king, having learned from such a small and humane punishment the power of the guardian of the pious, God, went back and through a long siege earned himself not victory, but shame 80 . About the Council of Antioch and what happened there regarding Saint Meletius Constantius was still living in Antioch at this time. Upon the advent of peace with the end of the Persian War, he again gathered the bishops in order to force them all to renounce the consubstantiality and non-essence. Meanwhile, the Antiochian church, when Eudoxius, having seized its see on the occasion of the death of Leontius, was expelled from Antioch and, after many councils had passed, unlawfully took possession of Constantinople 81, was left without a shepherd. There were many bishops who came to Antioch from everywhere at that time, and they said that first it was necessary to elect a shepherd for this flock, and then discuss dogmas with him. At that time, Saint Meletius, who ruled one Armenian city, dissatisfied with the unbridledness of his subordinates, retired and lived in another place. The Arians assumed that he was of one mind with them and shared their teaching, and therefore they begged Constantius to entrust him with the reins of government of the Antiochian church, for they fearlessly violated every law 82, trying to strengthen their wickedness, and violation of regulations served them as the basis of blasphemy. They did many things of this kind everywhere on earth. But the defenders of the apostolic dogmas, being convinced of the sanity of the great Meletius regarding the teaching of the faith, fully knowing the purity of his life and the wealth of Virtues, also agreed to his election and with special care carried out the matter so that the determination of his Election was set out in writing and signed by everyone. Then both parties entrusted the Osata bishop Eusebius, a noble champion of the truth, with keeping it, as if a general agreement. When Meletius, at the royal call, arrived in Antioch, the clergy and other church officials came out to meet him - all the inhabitants of the city, even Jews and pagans - everyone was eager to see the famous Meletius. Then the king ordered both him and other, more eloquent bishops to reveal to the people the words: “The Lord has made me the beginning of his ways for his works” (Proverbs 8.22), and he ordered the cursive writers to write down their speeches, suggesting that through this the teaching of everyone would be revealed more accurately. So, the first began to speak, George of Laodicea and exposed the heretical stench, followed by Acacius of Caesarea and expressed some kind of middle teaching, which, although very different from Arian blasphemy, however, did not have the properties of pure, intact apostolic teaching. Finally, the third stood up the great Meletius and expressed the direct meaning of the dogmatic teaching about God: guided by the truth, as plumb, he avoided both exaggeration and deficiency. The people accompanied his speech for a long time with exclamations of approval and asked him to briefly repeat his teaching. Then Meletius, showing three fingers and then folding two of them and leaving one, uttered the following praiseworthy saying: “We understand three, but we talk as if about one.” People who carried the disease of Arianism in their souls raised rumors and wove slander that Saint Meletius followed the teachings of Sabellius. This is precisely what they convinced their Euripus, who was leaning in every direction, and arranged things in such a way that Meletius was expelled to his fatherland, and in his place was immediately elected the obvious defender of the Arian teaching, Euzous, 83 who had once been awarded the diaconate together with Arius, and was then excommunicated by the great Alexander. Following this, the sensible people, separating themselves from those infected with the disease, began to gather in the Apostolic Church, located in the so-called old city 84. For thirty whole years 85 from the time the all-praised Eustathius suffered from slander, the Orthodox Antiochians patiently endured the Arian wickedness of their bishops and finally hoped for some change for the better. But when they saw that in their city wickedness was constantly intensifying, and the guardians of the apostolic teaching were both openly and secretly subjected to persecution and slander, that Saint Meletios had been expelled and instead the patron of the heresy Euzous had received primacy, they remembered what was said to Lot: “Saving save your soul” (Gen. 19.17), and the Gospel commandment, clearly commanding: “If your eye your gum offends you, take it away, and take it away from you,” and a similar law of the Lord about the hand and foot: “unless you have one, let one of you perish by your blows, and not your whole body be cast into fiery hell” (Matthew 5.29). This is how the division of the Antiochian church took place. About Samosata Bishop Eusebius Meanwhile, the wondrous Eusebius, to whom, as I previously mentioned, a common determination was given to both sides, seeing that it had been violated, returned to the city entrusted to himself. Fearing their own reproof, the Arians convinced Constantius to send someone to take back that definition. Convinced by them, the king sent for this purpose one of those people who usually ride variable horses and quickly deliver answers. When the messenger arrived to Eusebius and conveyed to him the will of the king, this wondrous man answered: “I do not dare to give the deposit entrusted to me together except in the presence of all those who entrusted it.” The messenger conveyed this to the sender. Burning with anger, the king sent him again with the same command and added in his letter that he commanded that Eusebius’s right hand be cut off if he did not give a ruling; however, he added this only to frighten Eusebius, but in fact forbade the person sent to carry out his threat. Having unfolded the message and learned from what was written what punishment the king threatened him with, this holy man, along with his right, extended his left hand and offered to cut off both of them. “I will not give away,” he said, “this definition: it is obvious evidence of the baseness of the Arians.” Having learned about his courage, Constantius was amazed at him then, and afterward he never ceased to be amazed at him. This is how even their enemies involuntarily revere the great deeds of people. Around this time, Constantius learned that Julian, whom he declared Caesar of Europe, was undertaking very important affairs and gathering an army against the one who had honored him with high rank, and immediately left Syria, but died in Cilicia. Not having preserved intact the parental piety left to himself as a legacy, he did not have an assistant left for himself, and therefore bitterly repented of his change of faith 86 . Athanasius returned from exile in 337. The image of Constantius, drawn by all Christian writers of the 4th-5th centuries without exception, is far from reality. In fact, Constantius was an extraordinary politician and military leader. As M.E. Posnov put it, “he was a simple reflection of Konstantin in the last years of his life.” He was a zealous Christian, actively fought against paganism and passionately strived for unity in the church, which he understood in the Arian spirit. This is explained by the fact that his friend and educator was Eusebius of Omidia, and the overwhelming majority of the clergy in the east of the empire adhered to the theory of Arius. Constantius's strong opposition to Athanasius and the Alexandrian clergy is explained not only by his desire to tame the hegemonic claims of the Alexandrian church, but also by his understanding of the political danger that the full support of this group by the Roman bishop, who sought to expand his sphere of influence in the East, brought with it. Julius, bishop Roman (337–352) The Roman Council in defense of Athanasius and the Nicene Symbol took place in the fall of 340. Gregory managed to become the bishop of Alexandria only after the imperial troops defeated the inhabitants of the city who opposed this appointment. There is no consensus on the question of who initiated the convocation of the Council of Serdica in 343, which was initially conceived as ecumenical, even in sources, such as, for example, the works of Athanasius. According to some reports, Constant himself decided to take this step, according to others, a delegation of Western bishops persuaded him to take this step. The Council of Serdica took place in 343 in Serdica (now Sofia). Theodoret is inaccurate: the anti-Nicene bishops from the very beginning decided not to participate in the council in Serdica and retired to Philippopolis (now Plovdiv), where they held their meeting and issued an encyclical to the bishops of the universal church, refuting the arguments of their opponents. At this time, the Roman Empire had two provinces - Dacia Mediterranean and Dacia Coastal. This refers to the conciliar letter of the Egyptian bishops to all the bishops of the Catholic Church and to Julius, bishop. Roman. Hosea, bishop Cordoba, from 312 he was an adviser to Constantine the Great on religious policy. Bishop of Heraclea of ​​Thracia, head of all Thracian churches. Throughout the Arian disputes, the Thracian church almost entirely supported the anti-Nicene party, seeing in it a strong counterweight to the claims of the Alexandrian patriarch. Theodoret is mistaken: the name Aria, bishop, should appear here. Palestinian, traveling with Asterius. His name appears in the council acts and in the writings of Athanasius of Alexandria. This statement is not entirely true. Other anti-Arian sources say that the majority of bishops did not want to take part in the council, in particular because the question of the right of the Bishop of Rome to become the highest court of appeal for the bishops of the universal church was supposed to be positively resolved there (which in fact happened). The eastern bishops, among whom there were many opponents of Arianism, rightly considered it impossible to agree with such a political decision, and therefore they did not come to the council. Heraclea Thracia was located in the province of Europa. At this point, the actual message of the Council of Serdica ends. The further continuation was declared fraudulent, since it was signed by some of the bishops without the general consent of the council and was forbidden to be read. Here and below is a vivid example of the confusion by the theologians of the Nicene party of the concepts of “essence” (Usia) and “person”, “hypostasis” (Hypostasis), which did not separate them in meaning, unlike the Arians. Athanasius classifies this Leontius as a representative of Arianism. Athanasius returned from exile in 346. Theodoret mixes up the bishop. Alexandrian Gregory with George, who soon managed to seize the Alexandrian see for a short time, but he was killed by the people. See II.14. Constans died in 350, and Constantius became the sole ruler of the empire. The third exile of Athanasius lasted from 356 to 362. Athanasius went there after the Council of Milan in 355, about which Theodoret writes in ch. 15. The usurper Magnentius was defeated by Constantius at the Battle of Mursa. At the Council of Milan in 355, the western bishops were subject to the will of the emperor. Only 7 people who were convicted and exiled dared to object to him. Liberius, bishop Roman (352–366) This refers to the fathers of the Council of Serdica. Felix II, antipope (355) In fact, when Felix became pope, Liberius succumbed to persuasion, condemned Athanasius, signed a compromise creed close to the Arian version, and only after that was returned to Rome. The Council of Arimin took place in September 359. The authors of the message are deliberately lying, since Constantine was baptized by Eusebius of Caesarea, who was not a supporter of the Nicene party. The Council of Nika of Thracia took place at the end of December 359. The following creed was adopted on January 1, 360. This formula was supposed to replace the Nicene Creed. It is based on the so-called 4th formula of the Council of Sirmium. Damasius I, bishop Roman (366–384). The election of this pope, “decorated with numerous types of virtue,” was accompanied by a bloody massacre in which about 160 people died. During his pontificate, many chapels were built in Rome in memory of the martyrs, and the catacombs were renovated. From that time on, the pilgrimage to Rome to the graves of the saints began. On behalf of this pope, Bl. Jerome translated the Bible into Latin (Vulgate). Flavian later became bishop of Antioch. See IV. 25. The Seleucia Council took place in parallel with the Arimin Council. It opened on September 26, 359. Akakios, bishop, who was present at it. Caesarea, with 33 like-minded people, wanted, having rejected the Nicene Creed, to write a new one. But other bishops, led by George of Laodicea, approved the Nicene symbol, omitting the word “consubstantial.” Theodoret admits a number of anachronisms. He confuses the first, second and third sieges of Niziba (337, 350 and 359), describing the events of the second siege, which occurred 9 years earlier than the Councils of Arimin and Seleucia, discussed in previous chapters. In addition, Bishop John could only be present on the walls of the city during the first siege, since by the second he had already died, and Vologeses was the bishop there. This happened after the Council of Constantinople in 360. Thus, they violated the law, according to which it was impossible to transfer a bishop from one city to another in this order, much less occupy two posts at once. Euzoius (Eusonius), an old follower of Arius, became bishop of Antioch almost simultaneously with Eudoxius's move to the capital. The church of the old city, or the “old” church, in Antioch was the name given to the first church built there, founded, according to legend, by the apostles. This statement once again emphasizes the tendentiousness of Theodoret: Constantius received baptism before the start of the campaign against Julian from the hands of the disciple Aetius Eunomius, who by that time had become the bishop of Cyzicus. Constantius died in November 361. You might be interested in: