Protective word against Arians

“The Defensive Word against the Arians” (90 chapters) was compiled after the return of St. Athanasius the Great from his second exile (about 350). The saint gives arguments in his defense against the accusations of Eusebius of Nicomedia and his supporters. This treatise is of great importance for church history. It contains the history of the discussion of the case of St. Athanasius by various councils, as well as a narrative about his attitude towards the Melitians, Arsenius, etc. It also contains all the documents related to the first two exiles of St. Athanasius, in particular the documents of the Council of Alexandria in 338, the letter of Pope Julius, the 3 letters of the Council of Sardica in 343, the documents of the Council of Tyre in 335 and a number of other sources. *The title of the work in Greek is Ἀπολογητικὸς κατὰ ̓Αρειανῶν. *The title of the work in Latin is Apologia contra Arianos, or Apologia secunda. EPISTLE OF JULIUS EPISTLES OF THE COUNCIL CONVENTED IN SARDICA EPISTLE 1st EPISTLE 2nd EPISTLE 3rd EPISTLE 1st EPISTLE 2nd LETTER KATHOLICOS 1) I thought that after much evidence presented in our favor, the enemies would finally hide in shame and even blame themselves for what they slandered others for. Since, even having been subjected to such condemnation, they do not show shame, but, out of their insensibility, grovel in slander, recognizing everything as requiring a new trial, not in order for them to answer in court (they avoid this), but in order to disturb us and the souls of simple-hearted people, then I recognized the need to justify myself before you, so that you no longer pay attention to their grumbling, but judge their wickedness and slander. And I justify myself before you, sincere people, and before lovers of disputes I dare to expose them. Our case does not require trial. It has already been judged not once, not twice, but many times; and firstly - in the assembly of almost a hundred bishops of our region; secondly, in Rome, where, according to Eusebius’s writings, both they and us were called, and where more than fifty bishops were gathered; thirdly - at the great Council in Sardica, convened by order of the most God-loving Kings Constantius and Constant. At this Council, our opponents were deposed as slanderers, and the ruling in our favor was confirmed by the votes of more than three hundred bishops from the dioceses of Egypt, Libya, Pentapolis, Palestine, Arabia, Isauria, Cyprus, Pamphylia, Lycia, Galatia, Dacia, Mysia, Thrace, Dardania, Macedonia, Epirus, Thessaly, Achaia, Crete, Dalmatia, Siskia, Pannonium, Norica, Italy, Picenum, Tuscia, Campania, Calabria, Apulia, Bruttia, Sicily, all of Africa, Sardinia, Spain, Gaul, Britain. Ursacius and Valens, who had previously slandered us and subsequently repented, signed with them as witnesses; They not only approved the determination made in our favor, but also recognized themselves and our other opponents as slanderers. For those who brought such repentance and confirmed it in writing clearly expose Eusebius’s accomplices, because in general they conspired with them against us. So, what has been analyzed and decided and clearly proven by so many worthy bishops, then, as everyone admits, it is in vain to put it on trial again, so that, even if it is now examined, it will not be re-judgmented, and again persecuted, and thus not labored ad infinitum. 2) And the voice of so many bishops is enough to shame those who intend to take revenge on us in some way. When our enemies testify in our favor and against themselves, saying that this was a conspiracy against us: who would not be ashamed to still hesitate with doubt? The law commands that trials take place “with the hearing of two... and three witnesses” (Deut. 19:15); and there are so many witnesses for us, and in addition to them the testimony of our enemies. Why do those who remain our enemies do not pay attention to those who were judged as they wanted, but are forced, contrary to plausibility, to attack their accusers. And for them this is most regrettable, because they did it secretly and put it together in secret, but Valens and Ursatius brought it out and revealed it. And they know for sure that the repentance of these people, as much as it condemns them, justifies those who suffered offense from them. That is why at the Council of Sardicia they were deposed, as I said above, and they were deposed justly. So also the Pharisees of that time, interceding for Paul (Acts. 23:9), exposed the conspiracy drawn up against him by themselves and the Jews, so it turned out that blessed David was persecuted in vain, when the persecutor confessed, saying: “the children of David have sinned” (1 Samuel 26:21), and these too, being defeated by the truth, recognized it and, having written this, handed it over to Julius, Bishop of Rome. They also wrote to me, wanting to have peace with me, the same ones who said so many bad things about me and who, perhaps, are ashamed now, because the one they tried to destroy, as they see, is alive by the Lord’s grace. They anathematized Aryan and heresy, as they should have done. For having learned that Eusebius’ adherents were plotting against me for no other reason than their own malice, and once deciding to admit to slandering us, they immediately renounced the anti-Christ heresy, for the sake of which they acted against me. And what was written at various Councils in our defense by bishops, and especially by Egyptian bishops, we offer here: 3) At the very beginning of the conspiracy against our colleague Athanasius and upon his entry into Alexandria, we, beloved brethren, could justify him in the fact that Eusebius’ followers were plotting against him, and hold them accountable for everything that he suffered from them, and discover all the slander brought against him. But since then, as you yourself know, the circumstances themselves did not allow this; Now, after the return of Bishop Athanasius, we thought that they would be disgraced and ashamed of their such obvious untruths - and therefore we decided to remain silent. Meanwhile, after Athanasius suffered so much, after his resettlement to Gaul, after his stay instead of his side in a foreign and very distant country, after he, if he had not met the philanthropic Tsar, almost had to die from their slander, although any, the most irritated and fierce enemy would have been satisfied with all this - they do not feel shame, on the contrary, they again rebel against the Church and Athanasius, and are indignant to return him, they dare to commit new, greater atrocities than before, frivolously bring accusations against him and are not afraid of what is written in the Holy Scriptures: “a lying witness will not be without torment” (Prov. 19:9), and: “the lips... of liars kill the soul” (Wisdom 1:11). For this reason, we are no longer able to remain silent, but we marvel at their cunning and insatiable competition in drawing up conspiracies. Here, again, they do not cease to disturb the royal ears with denunciations against us, they do not cease to write destructive letters to destroy the bishop, the enemy of their wickedness. Again they wrote to the kings against him, again they want to form a conspiracy against him, accusing him of unprecedented bloodshed; again they intend to inflict death on him, accusing him of imaginary murders. For even then they would have brought him to death with their slander, if we had not had a humane King. Let's put it briefly: they are again trying to drive him into captivity, feigning mourning the misfortunes of those imprisoned, as if they were exiled to captivity. They mourn what we did not do at all, but they are not satisfied with what they themselves did against him; they want to add again the worst of the past. They are so meek, philanthropic and well-behaved, or better yet (and this will be said correctly), crafty and cruel, and they inspire respect for themselves through fear and threats, and not through the piety and modesty befitting bishops! What expressions would not be used by any of the secular businessmen, they dared to lavish such when they wrote to the Tsars and accused Athanasius of so many murders and bloodshed not before the mayor and not before anyone higher, but before the three Augusti. The remoteness of their paths did not delay them, only to fill all the highest judicial places with their denunciation, for indeed, beloved, what they wrote is a denunciation, and the most serious denunciation, because it was presented to the highest court of people. And what else will be the end of these studies if not death at the behest of the royal will? 4) So, not the Afanasyevs, but their deeds are worthy of tears and lamentation; it would be more fair for someone else to mourn them, because it is for them that one must grieve, as it is written: “Do not weep for the dead, but rather weep for him: weep for what is going away, for no one will return” (Jer. 22:10). Their entire message has no other purpose than death; if allowed, they are ready to kill, send to prison. For they already had the permission of the most God-loving parent of our Kings, who satisfied their irritability by ordering exile instead of death. And that such deeds are not characteristic of ordinary Christians, are rarely seen even among pagans, and, nevertheless, are befitting of bishops who are obliged to teach others justice - this, we think, is what your conscience sees about Christ. For how did those who prohibit others from making denunciations themselves become informers, and, moreover, to kings? How come those who teach to have mercy on the unfortunate do not calm down even after our imprisonment? According to everyone, this was the general imprisonment of us bishops, and we all recognized ourselves as exiles, as we now recognize that, together with Athanasius, we were returned to our fatherland and, instead of the previous lamentations and tears about it, we receive great joy and mercy, which may the Lord preserve and may not allow Eusebius’ followers to steal from us! Even if a fair denunciation were made against him, it would be reprehensible, because, contrary to the rules of Christianity, after a tempting exile, they rebelled again, accused of murder, bloodshed and other crimes, and such things about the bishops were brought to the attention of the royal ear. When they lie in all this, slander in everything, and neither in their mouths nor in their messages do they have the truth, how much evil do they cause, or what kind of people do you recognize them as? So, let’s get down to business and consider the denunciations they have made today. For through this it will be revealed that they did not act well, or better yet, they spoke untruths when they disclosed the previous things at the Council and in court, and now they will again be condemned for the same thing. 5) We are ashamed to justify ourselves in such things, but since impudent informers are ready to do anything and make it clear that upon Afanasyev’s return there were murders and bloodshed, we ask you to patiently listen to our justification, even if it is long, because the case itself requires it. Neither Afanasy, nor for the sake of Afanasy, no murder was committed (when the informers bring us, as we said above, to such a shameful justification); bloodshed and imprisonment are alien to our Church. Athanasius did not deliver anyone into the hands of the executioner, and the prison, as much as it depended on him, was never disturbed by him. Our sanctuaries, as always and now, are clean, adorned with the one blood of Christ and pious service to Christ. Neither the presbyter nor the deacon was killed by Athanasius; he was not the culprit of either the murder or the imprisonment. And oh, if only they didn’t do this to him, forcing him to experience it through actual experience! Because of him, no one was sent from here to prison, except Athanasius himself, Bishop of Alexandria, who was expelled by them and whom, after being released from prison, they again try to slander in the same way or even worse, encouraging their tongue to all sorts of false and deadly speeches. For finally, the action of the judges is attributed to him, and although the message clearly admits that some were sentenced by the Egyptian eparch, they are not ashamed to again blame these sentences on Athanasius, who was not yet in Alexandria at that time, but was on his way back from captivity and was in Syria. But should his stay in a distant country be justified, when no one else is liable for what the mayor or eparch of Egypt did? For if Athanasius were also in Alexandria, then what would the actions of the eparch have to do with him? However, Athanasius was not there, and what was done by the Egyptian eparch was not done for church reasons, but for other reasons, as you will see from the record, which, having learned what they wrote, we were curious to see and sent to you. Therefore, when even now they announce what was done, what was not done by him and not for his sake, and testify to this, as if they were convinced of so many bad deeds, then let them say - from what Council they learned this? From what evidence made public? From which court decision? If, having nothing of the kind, they simply assert this, then we leave it to you to delve into it, as was done before, or on what basis do they assert this? For all this is nothing more than slander, an enemy slander, irritability not disposed to tolerance, wickedness for the Arians rushing with rage towards piety, so that the Orthodox are exterminated, and the defenders of wickedness can fearlessly preach what they please. And this is true. 6) When the exalted Arius, from whom the Arian heresy received its name, was expelled from the Church of blessed memory by Bishop Alexander, then like-minded Eusebius, disciples and accomplices of his wickedness, and considering themselves expelled, wrote to Bishop Alexander, urging him not to expel the heretic Arius from the Church. Since Alexander, out of pious faith in Christ, did not accept the wicked, they were indignant at Athanasius, who was then a deacon, because, as they scouted and heard about him, Athanasius very often visited Bishop Alexander and was respected by him. When they saw the experience of his pious faith in Christ at the Council that met in Nicaea, where he boldly rebelled against the wickedness of the Arians, then their hatred increased even more, and as soon as God elevated him to the episcopacy, renewing the anger that had long been nourished in himself, fearing his Orthodoxy and firmness in the fight against wickedness (Eusebius was even more tormented by the consciousness of what was known to him), they began to plot and abuse with all their might. plot against Athanasius. They incited the king against him; they repeatedly threatened with cathedrals; Finally, they converged in Tire and to this day they have not stopped writing against him. They are so inexorable that they condemn his installation as a bishop, in any case making it known that they are enemies and hate him; ready to tell lies, just to humiliate him with their false disclosures. But by the very thing they are lying about now, they prove that the former was also false and full of malice. They say that after the death of Bishop Alexander, when some, and then only a few, recalled Athanasius, he was ordained by six or seven bishops secretly, in a secret place. These people also wrote this to the kings, who do not refuse to write any lies. But that the whole multitude of inhabitants, all belonging to the Universal Church, having gathered together and unanimously, as if in one body, cried out, cried out, demanding Athanasius to be the bishop of the Church, and publicly prayed for this to Christ for many days and nights, conjured us to do this, and without leaving the church, and not allowing us to leave, we, and the whole city, and the whole diocese are witnesses to this. Nothing was said against Athanasius, as they wrote; They said everything wonderful about him, calling him a zealous, reverent Christian, one of the ascetics and truly a bishop. And that many of us ordained him, in the eyes of everyone and with a general exclamation of all - to this again, we who ordained him serve as more reliable witnesses than those who were not there and who tell lies. However, the installation of Athanasius is condemned by Eusebius - a person who, perhaps, did not have a legal installation at all, and if he ever had one, he himself destroyed it. At first he was in Virita 1; but, leaving Virit, he moved to Nicomedia. He left one flock contrary to the law, and came to another also against the law, and left his own flock due to lack of love, and ruled over someone else’s without foundation, despised the love of the first flock in his desire to have another, but the next time he did not honor the one he received at will, for behold, having left from here, he again seizes someone else’s; everywhere he turns greedy glances at foreign cities and thinks that piety consists in wealth and the greatness of cities; God’s lot, according to which everyone is assigned, is considered nothing - not knowing that where two or three are gathered in the name of the Lord, the Lord is in the midst of them (Matthew 18:20), - not thinking about what was said by the Apostle: I will not boast in the labors of others (2 Cor. 10:15), - not paying attention to his commandment: “Have you become attached to a woman? Do not seek permission” (1 Cor. 7:27). If this is said about a wife, then even more so about the Church and the bishopric in it, it must be understood that he who has married one church should not seek another, otherwise, according to the Divine Scriptures, he will turn out to be an adulterer. 7) But even realizing all this, when everyone testifies favorably about Athanasius, Eusebius dared to slander his appointment, dares to call him deposed when he himself was deposed, and as evidence of his deposition has the fact that another was put in his place. How could he or Theognius depose another when they themselves are deposed and are convicted of this by putting others in their place? For you know exactly that in their place, after they were condemned at the Ecumenical Council for their own wickedness and for communicating with the Arians, Amphion was placed in Nicomedia, and Christ in Nicaea. Wanting to reject this true Council, they are planning to call their unrighteous gathering a council, not wanting the definitions of that Council to have power, they want to give power to their definitions. Those who have not submitted to the great Council call their gathering a council. They are not concerned about the Council, but they pretend to be concerned in order to exterminate the Orthodox and turn into nothing at the true and great Council what was decreed against the Arians, whom they always and now defend, which is why they dare to lie against Bishop Athanasius. And this is similar to what they now say falsely, as if at the accession of Athanasius there was confusion, crying and lamentation among the people, who were indignant at his acceptance. There was nothing like that, but everything was the opposite: joy, and gladness, and a crowd of people hastening to the longed-for sight of him; the churches were filled with joy; Everywhere thanksgiving was offered to the Lord. Everything is sacred - and the clergy, looking at him, rejoiced in their souls, and recognized this day as the most joyful of all. Is it necessary to describe the unspeakable joy that we, the bishops, had? We have already said before that we considered ourselves to have suffered with him. 8) Since the matter, by general admission, happened in this way, and they divulge the contrary, what reliability do they proclaim the council or its condemnation? Who dare to attack and write about something that they have not seen, about which they have not carried out a trial and did not even gather for this, as if they were convinced of the matter, can they also be believed in such a matter for which, as they say, they gathered together? Isn’t it more likely, on the contrary, that they did both this and that out of enmity? What was the Council of Bishops like then? At what meeting were the truths held? Which of the large number of them was not our enemy? Was it not for the sake of Arius's madness that Eusebius' followers rebelled against us? Didn't they convene their like-minded people? Have we not always written against them as against those who held Arian thoughts? Did not the confessors who were with us accuse Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, of making a sacrifice? Wasn’t George convicted of being deposed by blessed Alexander? Weren't others also subject to various other charges? How did they intend to gather against us? How dare they call such a gathering a Council, where the committee presided, the executioner was present, and where a clerk led us in instead of the church deacons? Comite spoke, and those present were silent, or better yet, obeyed him; the bishops who were thinking of making any movement were stopped by his will. He gave orders, and we were led by soldiers, or better to say, Eusebius’ followers ordered, and he carried out their thoughts. In a word, beloved, what kind of Council is this, when the end of everything would be exile and murder if the Tsar had approved it? And what were the charges? In this they are especially worthy of surprise. There was a certain Arseny, and they complained that he was killed, and they also slandered that the mysterious cup was broken. But Arseny is alive, he wants to participate with us in church meetings, he does not expect other evidence that he is alive, but he himself proclaims this in his letters, writing about this to our co-bishop Athanasius, who was called his murderer. These wicked people were not ashamed to accuse Athanasius of killing a man who was so far from him, separated by a very large expanse of sea and land, about which Athanasius at that time did not even know which side he was on and whom they dared to hide and present as dead when nothing bad had happened to him. If it were possible, they would have moved him to another universe, or rather, they would have really taken his life, only to inflict certain death on Athanasius by either real or fictitious murder. But this is also thanks to God’s Providence, which did not allow untruth to prevail, but brings Arseny alive before the eyes of everyone and clearly exposes their evil intent and slander at that time, because Arseny does not turn away from us as murderers, and does not hate us as those who have offended him, but on the contrary, having suffered nothing at all from us, he wants to be in communication with us and wants to be with us co-ranked, which is what I wrote about. 9) But just as, according to their intent, Athanasius was accused of murdering a man who was alive, so they also drove him into captivity. For it was not the father of kings who condemned him to imprisonment, but their slander did it. Look, wasn't that really the case? When nothing was found to accuse our co-servant Athanasius, the committee was in difficulty and used a lot of efforts against him, and Bishop Athanasius, avoiding violence, appeared before the most pious Tsar, there he sought salvation from the committee and from their plans, asking that a lawful Council of Bishops be convened or that the Tsar himself accept justification for blaming Athanasius. The Tsar writes indignantly, calls them to him, promises to listen to the matter himself and orders the Council to be held. Meanwhile, Eusebius’s followers come and slander Athanasius, accusing him not of what they divulged in Tire, but of the detention of ships and grain, as if Athanasius announced that he could prevent the supply of grain from Alexandria to Constantinople. Some of our people who were with Athanasius at the Court heard about this from the angry Tsar. Athanasius complained about this slander and argued that this was not true, for is such a thing possible for a simple and poor person? But Eusebius did not refuse to publicly confirm the slander, he assured with an oath that Athanasius was rich and strong and was able to do everything, and by this he wanted to confirm in the thought that the words attributed to him were actually spoken by Athanasius. These venerable bishops accused Athanasius of this, but the grace of God overcame their wickedness, and the king’s piety moved him to love for mankind, and instead of death he allowed only imprisonment. So, the reason for this is nothing other than slander. For the Tsar, in a letter previously written, condemned the conspiracy, blamed malice, condemning the Meletians, called them wrong, worthy of damnation, and gave them the most terrible names. He was touched that a man who was alive was being passed off as dead; he was touched that he was accused of murdering a living person who had never taken his life. We sent this letter to you. 10) But these wonderful people, Eusebius’s adherents, in order to at least apparently refute the truth and what was written, hide behind the name of the Council and receive permission from the Tsar to begin work, the committee sits with them, and the bishops are accompanied by soldiers, they have the royal writings, forcing everyone they demanded to gather. Pay attention to how extraordinary their malice is, how exorbitant the audacity of their enterprise is to kidnap Athanasius from us in any way. If they, as bishops, only allowed themselves to be judged, then what was the need for the committee and the soldiers? Or why did they gather according to the royal scriptures? And if they needed a king and wanted to receive authority from him, then why did they violate his decision? Or why, when the Tsar in his letter recognized the Meletians as slanderers, wrong, and Athanasius in everything pure, and when he spoke strongly about the fictitious murder of a person who remains alive, they decided that the Meletians were right, Athanasius was guilty, and without shame they passed off the living as the dead? He was alive when the King pronounced judgment, and he was alive when they gathered, and he is with us to this day. Enough of this about Arseny. 11) What is the mysterious cup, and where was it broken by Macarius? They publicize it everywhere. Although the accusers themselves would not have dared to blame Athanasius for this if they had not been taught by them, however, they place on him the entire burden of guilt, which should not fall on Macarius, since he was not convicted. And they are not ashamed to expose secrets to such shame before the catechumens and, what is even worse, before the pagans, when, according to what is written, “Keep the king’s secret well” (Tov. 12:7), and the Lord commanded: “You shall not give the holy thing to a dog, nor cast pearls before swine” (Matthew 7:6). Secrets should not be exposed to shame before the uninitiated, so that the pagans do not laugh out of ignorance, and the catechumens are not tempted, becoming inquisitive. However, which cup is broken, where and from whom? The accusers of this are the Meletians, who should not be believed at all, because they are schismatics and enemies of the Church, both now and since the time of blessed Peter, bishop and martyr; they plotted against Peter himself, slandered his successor Achilles, accused Alexander even before the king himself; Having gotten used to this, they then began to attack Athanasius, doing so not contrary to their usual cunning. For just as they slandered his predecessors, so they began to slander him. But slander and false denunciations gained force now, and not before, because they found their accomplices and patrons in the adherents of Eusebius, due to the Arians’ own wickedness, for which conspiracies were being drawn up both against many bishops and against Athanasius. The place where the cup is said to have been broken was not a church; the inhabitant of the place was not an elder; the day on which, according to them, Macarius did this was not Sunday. So, if there was no church there, there was no celebrant, and the day did not require sacred rites, then what and where was the mysterious cup broken? Of course there are many cups in houses and in the marketplace, and whoever breaks them is not in the least dishonest; the mysterious cup, for which, if it is arbitrarily broken, the one who attempts it becomes guilty of wickedness, should only be in the possession of the legitimate primates of the Church. There is only one use of this cup, and no other. You legally offer it to the people; it has been entrusted to you according to church rule, and it is the property only of the primates of the Universal Church. For it is only permissible for you to offer the blood of Christ to drink, and not to anyone else. But no matter how wicked he is who breaks the mystical cup, so much more wicked is he who desecrates the blood of Christ; the one who does this not according to the church charter will scold her. We say this not because Macarius actually broke the cup, even if it was used by schismatics, but because there was no cup there at all. For could it have happened when the place was not in the church of the Lord, and there was no minister of the church there, and it was not even the time for the sacrament? Such is this Iskhir, who made a lot of noise about himself, who was not ordained by the Church, and when Alexander received the elders appointed by Meletius, he was not numbered among them, and therefore was not installed there. 12) So, why is Ischir a presbyter? Who supplied it? Isn't it Koluf? For this alone remains to be assumed. But it is known and no one doubts that Koluf died as a presbyter, that any ordination of his is invalid, that all those brought by him during the schism are laymen, and come to worship as laymen. How can one believe that a private person living in a private house had a mysterious cup in his possession? But then this private man was called a presbyter and given this title in order to offend us, and now, as a reward for the accusation, they entrust him with the building of the church. Thus, he did not have a church, but as a reward for his malice and obedience when accused, Athanasius now accepts a church that he did not have, and perhaps they gave him a bishopric for this, because Iskhir publicizes this everywhere and is so proud before us. Finally, such rewards are offered by bishops to accusers and false informers! This is what those who had him as an accomplice should have done in whatever they wanted - to be honored with such a bishopric as an accomplice in their affairs! But that’s not all, deign to listen to what, besides this, they did. 13) Since they did not overcome the truth, although they were malicious against it, and Ischyrus did not prove anything in Tire, but turned out to be a slanderer, and the slander frustrated their plan, they postpone the matter until new evidence is obtained and promise to send from themselves to investigate the matter in Mareot such people whom we clearly wanted not to allow to do this for many reasons and because in their way of thinking they agree with Arius and are hostile to us. And taking advantage of their power, they secretly sent Diognius, Marinus, Theodore, Macedonius, two young men of both age and disposition, Ursatius and Valens, from Pannonia. And they, after the long journey they had endured to carry out judgment over the enemy, again hastened to go from Tire to Alexandria. And the judges did not refuse to become witnesses, but clearly took upon themselves the labor of making slander of all kinds, subjected themselves to all sorts of labor and inconveniences on the way, in order to fulfill the formed intention, they left Bishop Athanasius detained on the wrong side, and they themselves entered the city of their enemy, as if swearing at the church and the people. And what is most illegal - taking with them the accuser Ischira, they did not allow the accused Macarius to follow them, but left him in custody in Tire, because they brought all kinds of complaints against the Alexandrian presbyter Macarius. 14) So, having arrived in Alexandria alone with the accuser, with whom they lived, ate and drank together, and taking with them the Egyptian eparch Philagrius, they went to Mareot, and there alone, with the above-mentioned accuser, they carried out the investigation as they wanted, not allowing the presbyters to be present, who asked a lot about this, but the presbyters of the city of Alexandria and the entire district wanted to be at the investigation, so that those taught by Ischira expose who they are and where they come from. But having forbidden the clergy to be involved in this, in front of the pagans they carried out research about the Church, about the Chalice, about the meal and about the Holy Mysteries, and what’s even worse, they called the pagans as witnesses, asking about the mysterious Chalice; and about whom they claimed that they were kidnapped by Athanasius and could not come to the call of the royal official, it was not even known where they were, they were brought in with them and under one eparch, they were not ashamed to say that these people were hidden by Bishop Athanasius, while they themselves believed to take advantage of their testimonies. But even in this case, having in mind how to kill Athanasius, again, imitating what was invented about Arseny, the living are represented as dead. For about people who are alive and visible to everyone on their side, they tell you, living far away, that they are no longer there, in order to denigrate our fellow servant at such a distance, as if he were acting violently and autocratically, while they themselves act lordly in everything through the intercession of others. For in Mareota things were going on again similar to what had happened in Tire. Just as there was a committee with soldiers and did not allow anyone to speak or do anything against their will, so here was an Egyptian diocesan with a military detachment, instilled fear in all the ministers of the Church and did not allow anyone to testify to the whole truth, and what is strangest of all, in the same place, in the house of the accuser, these judges and witnesses lived and carried out research about what they wanted, or rather, the servants of their own and Eusebius’s intentions. 15) And what they dared to do in Alexandria, we think, is not unknown to you, because it is retold everywhere. Naked swords were brought against holy virgins and brethren, and whips were brought against bodies precious before God; from the blows they limped with their feet, having completely preserved their souls in purity and in all perfection. Disgraceful acts were committed against them - crowds of pagans were sent to expose them, beat them, riot before them, threaten them with altars and sacrifices; and another rioter, as if by authority already given by the eparch, to please the bishops, took the virgin by the hand and dragged her to the first altar he encountered, imitating those times when it was necessary to make a sacrifice or endure persecution. This is what happened: the virgins fled, the pagans laughed at the Church, meanwhile the bishops did not show themselves, they lived in the house in which this was done and where, to please them, the virgins saw naked swords, all danger, insults, reproach. And they endured all this during Lent from those who feasted in their houses with the bishops. 16) Foreseeing this and considering it to be an important harm, but an enemy invasion, we made a presentation on our own. Having the same thought, Alexander, the Bishop of Thessalonica, writes to those who remained there, denouncing the conspiracy and testifying to the malice. And if they count Alexander among their own and recognize him as a participant in their malicious intent, then this proves nothing more than the violence used against him. For the all-evil Iskhir himself, not without fear and coercion, decided on this matter, but out of necessity took upon himself the position of prosecutor. And here is proof of this: Iskhir himself wrote to co-bishop Athanasius that nothing of the kind had been done there, and he was encouraged to invent it. And he wrote this when Athanasius did not recognize him as a presbyter, while he did not accept this blessed title from Athanasius, while he did not receive control of the church as a reward and did not expect a bishopric as a reward, yet he received this from Athanasius’s enemies for accusation. And the entire clan of Iskhir was in unity with us, while they would not have maintained this unity if they had suffered even the slightest insult from us. 17) All this is not just words, but the fact itself; this is witnessed by all the Mareotian presbyters, who were constantly with the bishop during his travels and then wrote against Ischir, and who, just as those who came to Tire were not allowed to speak the truth, and those who remained in Mareot were not given the freedom to expose the slanderer Ischir. This is also evidenced by the lists from the letters of Alexander and the presbyters and the letters of Iskhirov. But we also sent a letter from the father of the kings, in which he not only expresses indignation in the case of Arsenius, namely that Athanasius is accused of murdering a man who is alive, but also in the case of the cup he expresses surprise due to the cunning and inconsistency of the accusation, because they accused either the presbyter Macarius or the bishop of breaking the cup Afanasia. The king also recognizes the Meletians as slanderers, and Athanasius as completely pure. And indeed, aren’t the Meletians slanderers, and above all John? He entered the Church, entered into communion with us, pronounced condemnation on himself and did not yet begin the matter of the cup; when he learned that Eusebius’ followers were zealous for the Arians, but did not dare to assist them openly, but were trying to use other people as tools, then he offered himself, as if to be a disgraceful actor. The content of what was presented in the spectacle was the struggle of the Arians, the main goal was to bring them success, and John and his comrades served for the course and setting of the action, so that those who were zealous for the Arians, taking advantage of this pretext and taking on the image of judges, could repel the enemies of wickedness, establish wickedness and introduce the Arians into the Church. Thus, those who want to drive out piety make an effort to overcome it with wickedness, and those who decide to wickedly against Christ undertake to destroy the enemies of wickedness as ungodly! And they show us the broken cup, so that Athanasius, along with them, would be recognized as wicked against Christ. And what kind of remembrance do they have about the mysterious cup? Where did the defenders of wickedness get this pious idea about the cup? How do those who do not recognize Christ know the cup of Christ? Why do those who pretend to honor the cup dishonor the God of the cup? Or why do those who lament about the cup seek the death of the bishop who secretly administers this cup? Yes, they had already put him to death, as much as it depended on them. Why do those who mourn the adorned episcopal throne seek the death of the bishop sitting on it, so that the throne would not have a bishop, and the people would be deprived of pious teaching? So, it was not the cup, not the murder, or any of their strange disclosures that led them to this, but the above-mentioned wickedness of the Arians, according to which, plotting against Athanasius and other bishops, they are still waging war against the Church to this day. For who really carried out the murders and imprisonments? Aren't they? Who plots intrigues for the bishops, taking advantage of the patronage of worldly people? Are not Eusebius more adherents than Athanasius, as they write? Both he and others suffered from them, for at that time four Alexandrian presbyters, although they did not come to Tyre, were sent into prison by them. Who is worthy of tears and sobs? Is it not those who did the former and do not refuse to add the latter, slandering everything in order to destroy the bishop, who is not inferior to their evil heresy? This is why the enmity of Eusebius’s followers, this is why what happened in Tire, this is why the hypocritical courts, this is why now, even without trial, messages from them as from those certified in the case, therefore, false denunciations to the parent of the kings and the most pious kings themselves. 18) For what our co-servant Afanasy is now accused of, you need to know in order to judge their wickedness and see that they are seeking nothing other than Afanasy’s death. From the father of the kings we gave out bread to feed widows, both Libyan and some Egyptian. Everyone receives this bread to this day, but Athanasius has no gain from this, except for some labor. But now those who receive do not complain, on the contrary, they admit that they receive, but they slander Athanasius, as if he sells all the grain and turns it into his own property. And the king wrote about this, reprimanding Athanasius as a result of the denunciations made. Who were the informers? Are they not those who have done this before and who do not refuse to do the same next time? Who are the authors of these messages sent on behalf of the king? Didn’t the Arians try, weren’t they ready to say and write everything against Athanasius? No one, having bypassed those who have already done so much, will suspect others, for clearly the clearest proof of their slander. Under the pretext of denunciation, they are trying to take away bread from the Church and deliver it to the Arians. This most of all falls on the perpetrators of this conspiracy and on their leaders, who did not refuse to both accuse Athanasius of the murders that were falsely reported to the king, and to take away food from the servants of the Church in order to benefit the heretics by their very deed. 19) We have also sent to you the testimony of our fellow servants in Libya, Pentapolis and Egypt, so that from this you may learn the slander leveled against Athanasius. They do all this so that when fear has forced those who think piously into silence, the heresy of the evil Arians will be introduced. But thanks be to your reverence, beloved, because you have repeatedly written, anathematizing the Arians, and not giving them a place in the Church. It is not far to look for denunciations of Eusebius’s adherents. For behold, after their first messages about the Arians, from which we sent the lists, they clearly set up the anathematized Arians against the Church by the whole Ecumenical Church, appointed them a bishop, and with threats and fear they are causing divisions in the churches, so as to have accomplices of their wickedness everywhere. They send deacons to the Arians, who are clearly present in their meetings, write to them and bring lists from them and, tearing apart the unity of the Church, being in communion with them, send letters everywhere in which heresy is praised, and reject church teaching, as you can see from what they wrote to the Bishop of Rome, and perhaps to you. That this should not go unpunished, you also note, beloved, for this is terrible and alien to the teachings of Christ. Therefore, having come together, we wrote to you, asking for your prudence in Christ to accept this confession and grieve for our co-bishop Athanasius, and to be indignant at the Eusebius adherents who decided to do such things, not to allow such their malice towards the Church and such wickedness to have any longer power. We appeal to you: be the judges of such unrighteousness, remembering the apostolic word: “remove the evil from you, samekh” (1 Cor. 5:13). For what they have done is truly evil and unworthy of fellowship. Therefore, do not pay attention if they again write to you against Bishop Athanasius; everything that comes from them is false, although their letters will contain the names of Egyptian bishops. For it is clear that it is not we who will sign, but the Meletians, always schismatics, who to this day are disturbing the Church and causing rebellions in it. They allow illegal appointments of almost even pagans and do things that are embarrassing to even write about, as you can learn about from the bearers of this letter we sent. 20) So the Egyptian bishops wrote to everyone and to Bishop Julius of Rome. But Eusebius’ followers also wrote to Julius and, thinking to frighten us, asked permission to convene a Council, and at it Julius himself, if he wished, could be a judge. Therefore, when I arrived in Rome, Julius, not without reason, wrote to the Eusebius adherents, sending two of his presbyters, Elpidius and Philoxenus. When they heard about me, they were embarrassed, because they did not expect my arrival in Rome, and began to refuse, presenting unsatisfactory pretexts, or better yet, fearing that they would not be convicted of what Valens and Ursatius admitted. Finally, more than fifty bishops gathered where Presbyter Viton had meetings: they listened to my justification, decided to accept me into fellowship and love, expressed indignation towards them, and asked Julius to write about this to the Eusebius adherents, who themselves wrote to him. He wrote and sent his message through Comita Gabian. You might be interested in: