Library › St Photius the Great › Homilies

Homilies

St Photius the Great, tr. Mango, 1958

18. The Arian Heresy

XV

Of the Same Photius, Archbishop of Constantinople, Homily from the Ambo of the Great Church¹

The end of the foregoing sermon, if you recall, related how Arius was deposed and expelled from the Church, how he acted shamelessly, invented fictions, simulated piety, and afterwards ended his life by a most disgraceful death, and Christ’s people breathed again after those many evils and snares. Seest thou the power of prayer? Seest thou the prelate’s outspokenness? “Lord, if Arius is admitted into the Church, then remove me from life; but if Thou sufferest me yet to remain in this tabernacle, then keep the gates of the Church inaccessible to Arius.” Thus prayed Alexander,² and the spear against Arius was being forged by heavenly decree. Christ’s servant was stretching out his arms to the One blasphemed, while the enemy was paying the penalty for his licentious tongue, by suffering the emptying out of his miserable entrails and bowels through his belly. He, therefore, having imitated the manner of Judas, underwent also a death similar to the latter’s, as told in the Acts, for, falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out;³ while the state of the Church remained untroubled for some time.

Perchance it will occur to some of you to ask why Arius was deposed by the holy martyr Peter,⁴ but was received by his successor, the admirable Achillas,⁵ and resumed the rank of deacon, and was not only absolved from his deposition by the wondrous Alexander,⁶ but even promoted to the position of presbyter. Why is it, that having been previously deposed, he was accepted, but later, although he offered a tome of repentance,⁷ he remained unaccepted, neither Alexander of Constantinople, nor Alexander of Alexandria (for both, just as their zeal for piety was the same, so had they one and the same name) by any means allowing, as I have said previously, his reception into the Church? It is clear that both measures were wise, just and holy: for to have rejected a person who had erred once and repented would have been altogether inhuman, would have appeared harsh to excess, and would have been equivalent to annulling and excluding the conversion and repentance of sinners, which is the only way to salvation left to those who have erred; whilst to accept a person, who, not once, nor twice had abjured piety, but many times had thus easily gambled it away like a player, and was again simulating piety, would have been to disdain piety, and to establish no distinction between being impious and being pious. For those who account changing positions for so little prove that they consider neither belief to be right. For this reason, therefore, the law of pardon⁸ gladly received Arius when he abandoned his former error, but when he had drifted many times into the same folly, even though he simulated a recantation by a tract of repentance, the Church, foreseeing his deceitful and sly character, and providing in advance that piety should not be held in contempt, did not consent in any wise to open him the gates of mercy, which he had wretchedly shut in his own face. This attitude also our contemporary, the fitly-named Nicephorus,⁹ has imitated with divine wisdom: for, as the blessed Alexander received Arius, so the great Nicephorus received John¹⁰ (who was awarded this throne as a prize for his impiety), a pious person at first (for he too had been a worshipper of the venerable images, and actually exercised the art of the painter as his life’s profession), but who later, because of times and change of circumstances, had stepped over to impiety, and fallen sick, and had offered a tract of repentance. But when he went astray again and aspired to be proclaimed the leader of a heresy, just as neither the blessed Alexander nor God’s Church shed a single drop of mercy on Arius, feigning repentance, so also the wondrous Nicephorus with a prophetic eye barred the entrance into the Church to John and the fellow-leaders of his heresy who had done similar violence to the faith, asserting that, even if they should assume the mask of repentance, their conversion would be unacceptable both to God and to the Church.

But to what extent the heresies of image-breakers and Arian madmen resemble one another, will be expounded, with God’s help, in proper time.¹¹ As for me, having related to you the First Council, and being about to unfold the Second, I shall try to introduce in between what befell the churches in this interval by the effort and contriving of Arius’ companions, since these events yield much edification of their own, no less so than the story of the Councils, and besides the continuity will thus make clearer the comprehension of what I am going to say.

So Eusebius of Nicomedia,¹² as we have said previously, and his companions, having concealed their heresy because of their desire for their own sees and their love of a bishopric, and having at first signed their names to the Council, but, on being again detected in their impiety, and having perverted the pious statements they had signed into impious notions, and spread among their fellows in impiety the monstrous tale that they had not followed the Council, but that they had pulled the Council over to themselves, offered again tomes of repentance in order to be granted pardon for having peddled away their orthodoxy, and wrongly resumed possession of the churches whereof they had been rightly deprived.¹³ Thereafter, as they were eager to stir up again the heresy of Arius, but the time was not propitious (for Constantine the Great was still living, and, as he held the sceptre of royalty, made great provision for the peace of the Churches), these evil men found another course, whereby they hoped to hide the fact that they were reviving their war against piety, and to make their purpose progress according to their wishes. And what course was that? They determined to shift their plot against the faith on to the defenders of the faith, and when the latter would be out of the way, they hoped to bring about easily thereafter the destruction of piety as well. Wherefore they assailed with libel the successor of Alexander, who had survived the Council by six months,¹⁴ Athanasius (for they knew him from his outspokenness at Nicaea to be a warm champion of truth),¹⁵ on the pretext, amongst other things, that he had occupied his see by violence and blows, and not by vote and decision of the bishops. He, however, having by his lofty carriage utterly overturned their calumnies on to his slanderers’ heads, continued to tend well his own flock.¹⁶

Having for the present failed in this purpose, and unable to contain themselves and hold their peace, they spit out the poison of their tongues and direct their rage against the great Eustathius of Antioch;¹⁷ for he too had manfully and courageously championed the dogmas of piety at the holy Council of Nicaea. Pretending to be desirous of going to Jerusalem (for already the splendid church which Constantine the Great built on the life-giving tomb of Christ,¹⁸ our God, after dislodging from that spot the pagan shrines, was nearing completion), Eusebius of Nicomedia, taking this pretext and bringing along his fellow-heretics, hastened to the murder of Eustathius. Having bribed a certain prostitute who made traffic of her youth, they instructed her to hold a baby in her arms and cry out that the baby was Eustathius’, and demand the punishment of his misdeed. On these grounds they summoned the blessed Eustathius under the pretext that he give an explanation. He, relying on his own conscience (for when a man sees something he has not even entertained in his mind being woven into an accusation, he hastens without hesitation to disprove it), both appeared willingly and declared himself ready for the inquiry. They, on their side, brought forward the woman alone as both accuser and witness and demanded penalties from the saint. God’s servant, while smiling at their unlikely fiction, insisted on the necessity that witnesses for the accusation should appear. But as nobody appeared (nor was it possible to find witnesses of what had not happened), the “unbiased” judges put the prostitute to the oath, having long beforehand trained her to be ready for every transgression. And although divine law ordains that every word should be established before two or three witnesses,¹⁹ and the wondrous Paul cries out, “Receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses,”²⁰ these men, having set at nought the divine words, after the harlot had sworn the false oath in the way they had taught her, drove the champion away from his flock, charging him in addition with Sabellianism. Having thus bereaved²¹ the Church of her own bridegroom, they condemned him to exile at Philippi in Thrace,²² although, even in distress, he slackened in no way in his fight for the true faith, and in edifying the body of the faithful by his actions and teaching.

When their fraud had thus progressed according to their wishes, and as, with time, these evil men gathered boldness as well as experience in accusations, shortly they revert again to the great Athanasius, and having contrived a multitude of calumnies against him, request the Emperor to put him to trial.²³ The latter, judging others by his own character, and unable to disbelieve them since they were bishops (for, as I have said several times, they still concealed their heresy), and being besides somewhat incensed at Athanasius (for passions sometimes affect the best of men) because he absolutely refused to receive Arius, although the latter promised to repent²⁴—for these reasons, at the insistence of the accusers, he ordered Athanasius to be tried on the charges at Antioch, entrusting the examination to his nephew Delmatius, who held the office of Censor.²⁵ But, after a short time, Caesarea in Palestine was set as the second place of this trial, for it was decreed that the council should convene there. Knowing, however, that the Bishop of that city was an Arian (it was Eusebius, whom the Iconoclasts recognize as their father),²⁶ Athanasius declined to appear.²⁷ The council having dissolved with nothing accomplished, the same men forgathered again at Tyre, where they were joined by Eusebius of Nicomedia.²⁸ For there was not one intrigue against the pious²⁹ of which he was not the acknowledged leader, attracting to his side his namesake and fellow-thinker, and the latter’s entourage. So, when the council had assembled at Tyre, the followers of Eusebius heaped up a great mass of charges which they used as accusations against Athanasius. They also took into their pay a harlot from the stage and prevailed upon her to accuse him. As she was carrying on shamelessly and screaming aloud according to her promise, Timothy the presbyter, who was present along with the champion of piety, exposed the plot most deftly. For while the harlot was crying out that she had been robbed of her virginity by Athanasius, Timothy, simulating the role of Athanasius, inquired where and when he had known her. She on her side was fretting and calling it a terrible thing that, whereas her seducer ought to pay damages and take cover in silence, he, in his shamelessness, was both in charge of the trial and pretended ignorance; wherefore, pointing at him with her finger, the wretched woman asserted with oaths that verily he was her seducer, thinking Timothy to be Athanasius; for the invention of the plot having been elaborated only as far as the names went, the woman made it apparent that she knew the names but not the facts.³⁰

So when this accusation was shattered to the disgrace of its joint inventors, they turn to another calumny; for wickedness is a shameless thing, and does not refrain from levelling at others³¹ even such charges as no one believes. For, having brought forward an embalmed hand in a wooden chest, they asserted it belonged to Arsenius, whom Athanasius had allegedly slain for purposes of sorcery. This Arsenius was a Meletian,³² and derived thence the rank of deacon. Arsenius having, however, by God’s providence, put in at Tyre (for he was being hidden by the Arians lest the plot be detected), it was reported to Athanasius that the “dead man” had arrived. Having chanced upon him, when the day appointed for the trial had come, he brought him in along with himself, all covered up, and enquired from those present if any had known Arsenius beforehand. When many said they knew the man, he uncovered him and proceeded to ask if that were he. Upon their agreeing (nor was it possible to deny what was there in front of everyone’s eyes), he showed the right hand, then the other, and said, “Here is the right hand, here too is the left, which we men, sprung from Adam, have received from the Creator of all, so let no one demand from me Arsenius’ third hand.”³³

Thus the slanderers who had contrived abomination upon abomination for Athanasius were awarded shame upon shame by the incorruptible Tribunal itself, and by truth. But Oh, their impious and most shameless mind! What mean epithet is it not worthy to bear? For whereas they ought to have covered themselves up and bowed down to the ground and expiated their outrageous deeds with repentance alone, they attempted to call the disprover of their accusation and deception a sorcerer and a deceiver, and did not even refrain from condemning that irreproachable man, wherein³⁴ lay also their most shameless deed, that they made Arsenius, who, they asserted, had been killed and had had a hand cut off by Athanasius, to sign the condemnation of Athanasius as Bishop of Hypselis;³⁵ thus, ridiculous to say, the dead man was exacting a penalty from his murderer! Now Christ’s servant, after the disproof of their calumny, departed for Constantinople, fearing assassination; while they, even in his absence, condemned him by default. At Mareotis too (the village derives its name from the adjacent lake Maria) they gave judgment in default against him, charging him with breaking holy vessels, destroying an altar, burning books, and so on.³⁶ When, however, the Emperor summoned them back, as a result of Athanasius’ arrival at the court and his petition that, upon the convocation of many bishops for this purpose, he should be able to receive justice from his slanderers in his own presence, and to prove himself innocent of their charges—when, therefore, the Emperor decided to recall them, the greater part, fearing the refutation of their plots, did not even choose to present themselves. But Eusebius and Theogonius³⁷ and the rest of the Arian troop who relied more than the others on the insolence and extreme wickedness of their mind—these indeed presented themselves, and whereas they did not even mention the charges on which they had based their unjust verdict, they alleged that Athanasius had threatened to hinder the usual supply of corn that is conveyed from Alexandria to Constantinople. The followers of Eusebius, having divided themselves up into spokesmen of this accusation, judges and witnesses, contrived the banishment of Athanasius to Treveri in Gaul.³⁸

When Constantine the Great had been perfected with holy baptism by the Orthodox in Bithynia (let heretics who are anxious to ennoble their impiety with lies be allowed to weave their heretical stories),³⁹ and had departed to the better life, the Arians, rose to great intimacy with his son Constantius (for he was an unstable man and followed the leaders of their party), and having held up Paul the Confessor⁴⁰ as an instigator of seditions and internecine murders, they banished him from his see, and transferred Eusebius of Nicomedia (who had been previously bishop of Berytus, and was now unlawfully changing his see for the third time) to Constantinople. So easy was everything for the Arians, and there was no offspring of their desire or anger that was not hatched and raised by their hands and increased to great evil.

I now intend to link up with the foregoing story an event that is closely related to it, though it took place in later times. Great disorder, as I have often said, having swept over all the churches of the East in the reign of Constantius, Constans, the emperor of the West, in partnership with his brother, assembled a council at Sardica, at which, in addition to other matters which will be expounded below,⁴¹ was carried out the acquittal of Athanasius. Constans conveyed the verdict of this council to his brother through the Bishops Euphratas and Vicentius, attaching to them the general Salianus, who, besides being an upright man, was also adorned with piety.⁴² Constantius was then residing at Antioch, and Antioch was held by Stephen, also an Arian, and appointed by the Arians to be head of that church, for which reason the council had passed condemnation on him.⁴³ Salianus the general having taken up separate quarters, and the prelates being lodged together, the followers of Stephen, having taken into their company a woman who sold the disgrace of her body for a price, and told her that one of the guests just arrived had need of her to share in the nocturnal and furtive deed, persuaded her (she being quite ready) to visit his chamber; already one of the priests’ servants, having been bribed to help with their scheme, opened secretly the courtyard door and gave free access to the woman. So she entered and was about to approach Euphratas, for the other Bishop was resting in the inner room. The priest, however, having become aware of her entrance, asked the woman who she was and for what reason she was coming in. As she answered in her familiar female voice, Euphratas was seized by fear and astonishment, and was thinking that it was a demon tempting him in the semblance of a woman, at which point an ambush composed of fifteen men, following the leader of the plot, broke into the house, and were about to arrest both the woman and Euphratas, as having been apprehended in fornication. At the noise and uproar which naturally spread about, the other Bishop arose along with the servants who did not take part in the plot, and having closed the courtyard gate, they caught seven of the soldiers who were in the conspiracy, the leader of the deed having escaped. The latter was Onager, an associate of Stephen’s, who received his name from his occupation (for he was wont to inflict with his hands and feet unbearable wounds and blows on the pious).⁴⁴ The apprehended persons having been kept under guard, as already the sun’s rays were giving faint traces of dawn, the Bishops brought the prisoners to the Emperor Constantius—Salianus⁴⁵ joined them also—and they deplored the outrage, which they used as evidence of the rumours bruited about everywhere against the champions of piety, and asked for a just verdict to be passed. The Emperor, in deference to the men, and paying heed to the foulness of the deed, allowed an exact examination to be made and entrusted the inquiry to men skilled in such trials. They, having brought forward the woman, and cross-examined the prisoners, immediately disclosed the whole plot, and through Onager discovered Stephen to be the instigator of the entire misdeed. Wherefore Stephen was handed over to the bishops that were present, and for his unlawful attempts on others was deprived of his hieratic office and driven out of his see, having drawn upon himself by divine judgment condemnation for his plots against others.⁴⁶ In Stephen’s place the Arians installed on the throne of Antioch a man no less, yea, even more diseased with Arianism, a certain eunuch Leontius.⁴⁷

In this way is Euphratas entrapped by Stephen; in this way the divine Paul is driven out of Constantinople; in this way the wondrous Eustathius is expelled from Antioch, and is condemned to come from the East to the setting sun, and dwell in the city of the Illyrians. In this way the much-suffering Athanasius is banished from Alexandria. When these men were out of the way, which the heretics made their goal, impiety rose up to great license and power.

Why have slanders and calumnies against priests been the subject of my narrative? Why? That you may learn, beloved ones, and keep it in mind that to devise calumnies and weave deceits against Christ’s bishops is an invention of heretics, who have risen against the Son of God, our God, in drunken fury; that it is the outgrowth of men who have received in their souls so great a seed of impiety; that it is the foul deed of men who have hawked away our Christian faith; so that, when you see some of them making a show of their abuse of bishops and priests, you may remember their begetters and teachers, and recognize them for what they are, and of what stock they happen to be (for, “by their fruits,” the Lord’s saying proclaims, “ye shall know them”);⁴⁸ that you may avoid the imitation of them whose impiety you have abominated, and lest, having severed intercourse with them but partially, you become accustomed to suck in little by little the rest of their irreverence. Is the shepherd a heretic? Then he is a wolf, and it will be needful to flee and leap away from him, and not be deceived into approaching him,⁴⁹ even if he appears to be fawning gently. Avoid communion and intercourse with him as snake’s poison: for fish are caught with hook and bait, while an evil intercourse, which contains the poison of heresy concealed therein, has captured many of the more simple-minded who came close and expected to suffer no harm. Wherefore it is fitting to avoid such men with all our might. Is the shepherd orthodox, does he bear the seal of piety, does he have none of the heretical crew trailing after him? Then submit to him, since he presides in the likeness of Christ. Thou doest honour not to him, if thou doest it with all thy soul: Christ receives it. Do not meddle in other matters. God is their examiner; leave the judgment to Him. Do thou, however, show him obedience and a pure disposition in accordance with thy love of Christ. To others it is said, “Son of man, I have set thee as a watchman to the house of Israel”;⁵⁰ to you it is said, “What the priests bid you observe, that observe, but do not ye do their works.”⁵¹ Oh, how sweet and pleasant is this saying to me, and so desirable, yet quite impossible for me now to observe! ’Tis not thy toil, He says, nor thy labour to meddle in and scrutinize the priest’s works; and do not thou do his works if they do not correspond to his words; but obey his teaching, and do not meddle in his conduct. Observe thyself, watch thyself. Leave the others to the Judge, and commit the care of them to their appointed shepherd.

Would that I were still in your position, would that I were enrolled, as formerly, in your ranks, that I should have no need to take account of the affairs of others, that no punishment should attend me, were I to overlook the shortcomings of my flock, that I should be allowed to look only after my own matters, and that cares of other men should not weigh down on me! That was malice indeed, and for me the worst and bitterest of malice, which snatched me away from that most pleasant, gentle and carefree life, in which I did not grieve any of my neighbours, was not required to be meddlesome towards anyone else, did not show myself severe to anyone. All was friendship and kindness, and my life was free of cares. Now, alas, the law of shepherds constrains me to grieve others, to show myself severe, to appear harsh, to judge on occasion, and to condemn—me who from the beginning have avoided this rank, and have consistently shown my aversion to it, although it did not prove possible to escape it, to have escaped which could be accounted as happiness.⁵²

But if, O God’s people and beloved children in the Lord, you believe that you observe in me any such harshness, then, remembering the foregoing as well as my attitude, ascribe that to the necessity of tending my flock and to the rules of authority; or rather, if it ever occurs to any of you to accuse and disparage one of the shepherds, let him leave the others and keep his tongue from them, but let him be meddlesome at my expense and seek into my affairs. I shall not be vexed, you know well, nor will I be angered at the ridicule, nor imitate the irritation of God’s servant Elisha at the children.⁵³ Only do you practise virtue in other respects, and cleave to piety, and be reverent towards the other bishops, and observe the customary honour for them. A father, too, gladly receives the children that abuse him, and he soothes his rightful anger with his paternal affection, and is appeased. For he knows that no matter how unruly the children are towards their father, they are gathered and joined to him again, and love him, and cling fondly to him, even if they are rebellious for a while.

I have, however, no charge against you who are present here,⁵⁴ be it of sedition, or of insult, or abuse, or contriving a trap,⁵⁵ or calumnies based on lies, or plots which disgust the senses even of my enemies, or any other monstrous and distressing thing, except that some perhaps, and those few in number, mutter under their breath, lest, perchance, through absolute tranquillity and lack of disturbance, I may slip into the fault of negligence and carelessness or of pride, whereof I pray to be delivered rather than of the unjust rebelliousness of those that disparage me. May our true God, the most holy deity of three persons and one nature, for your kindliness and love for me, adorn you with virtues, grant you a life without sorrows, prepare you a sorrowless existence in the other world, and bestow on you as well as on me His kingdom, through the intercessions of our Most-holy Lady, the Mother of God, and of all the saints. Amen.

Previous · Contents · Next