ON ST. ALEXANDER OF CONSTANTINOPLE, BISHOP AND CONFESSOR
AT CONSTANTINOPLE
IN THE YEAR CCCXL.
HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.
ON ST. ALEXANDER OF CONSTANTINOPLE, BISHOP AND CONFESSOR
BY J. S.
§ I. The Saint's cult among the Greeks and Latins; his deeds in the Council of Nicæa, and against the heathen philosophers, and against the Arian heresy.
Among the prelates who in the fourth century contended against Arius and his followers, The Saint's name in the Greek and Latin Fasti. St. Alexander of Byzantium, or bishop of Constantinople, is held illustrious. His memory has been inscribed in the sacred Fasti among the Greeks as well as among the Latins, but on different days. The Greeks announce his festivity on the XXX of August, as may be seen in the Menology of Sirleto and in the Menæa. But the Latins, as Ado, Usuard, and others later, inserted him in their Martyrologies at the XXVIII of the same month; and on the same day his name is found in the most ancient Martyrology marked with the name of St. Jerome. I would not here heap up the words of many, since one may suffice for all, the Roman Martyrology, in which these things are read: At Constantinople, of St. Alexander, bishop, a glorious old man, by the power of whose prayer Arius, condemned by the divine judgment, burst asunder in the midst, and his bowels were poured out. Usuard and Ado have nearly the same, but the latter adds: And that same blessed Pontiff fell asleep in the ninety-eighth year of his life, the thirty-third of his episcopate. But that period of the episcopate is certainly erroneous, as will be plain from what is to be said. His memory is more briefly had in the ancient or little Roman Martyrology.
[2] There exist no Acts of St. Alexander which indeed deserve the name of Acts. No Acts concerning him are extant. For the Oration of I know not whom concerning the transactions in the Council of Nicæa is not worthy of the name of Acts of St. Alexander, even though the title of that Oration in Photius promises a Life of St. Alexander as well as of Metrophanes and of Constantine the Great, since it contains almost nothing concerning Alexander beyond certain things reported on occasion of the council. But concerning this historical Oration, and its credit wavering in many things, our Janning has discoursed abundantly in the article on St. Metrophanes, volume 1 of June, page 385. Wherefore it is not even pleasing to commemorate what is there read concerning the episcopate of Alexander foretold by Metrophanes, as being little worthy of credit. And so the ancient Fathers and historians who have made mention of St. Alexander and celebrated his praises must in some fashion supply the place of Acts. From these I shall gather those things by which it may be plain how great Alexander was; and I shall discuss in order the deeds which have become known.
[3] Many things disputed here and there concerning St. Alexander, That we may separate the certain from the uncertain, receive a brief compendium of his deeds. It is agreed that Alexander sat in the see of Constantinople after St. Metrophanes; but writers disagree, not only the more recent but the ancient also, whether he succeeded him before the Nicene synod or afterwards. Alexander was present at the said synod, but again it is uncertain whether he was present as a bishop or only as a priest. Hence there is likewise dispute concerning the duration of his episcopate, since some attribute 23 years, others 13 or 14, some fewer, or many more: but those latter have already been sufficiently convicted of error, so that a doubt seems to remain only concerning 13 or a little more, and 23. Finally, as it is agreed that the Saint bravely withstood Arius, that he should not enter the church, and obtained his death from God by prayers, so it has been sharply disputed concerning the year of the Saint's own death: for some assigned the year 331 to his death, whose opinion has been abundantly refuted; others preferred the year 336 or 338; others finally judged that 340 must altogether be determined upon. This latter opinion our Janning especially endeavored to establish in volume VI of June from page 71, with whose reasons, as the more probable, I would rather here agree, than call the time of the Saint's death to a new examination. The reader will be able to consult the dissertation of Janning assigned.
[4] As I judge the opinion of Janning and others concerning the year of death not altogether certain, which cannot be certainly determined. so I do not see those things to be certain which he disputed in the article on Metrophanes, §2, that is, volume 1 of June from page 386, where he endeavors to prove that Alexander at the time of the Nicene council was only a priest, and was present at the council as the legate of Metrophanes. But since there are also many difficulties in the contrary opinion, and neither can be demonstrated by certain reasons, although many things have been disputed on both sides, I would rather leave the matter undecided than institute a long discussion and afterwards determine nothing certain. For the chronology therefore of the Life of St. Alexander it is pleasing to send the reader to the Chronological History of the patriarchs of Alexandria, before volume 1 of August, pages 13 and 14. Further, in Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, book 1, chapter 4, there stands a letter of St. Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, to our Alexander, concerning the Arian heresy, the machinations of Arius, and
his followers. This letter was written before the Nicene synod, and from it the chief argument is drawn for Alexander's episcopate before the said synod, because it seems to have been written to him as already a bishop; but what Janning answers at pages 387 and 388 may be seen.
[5] The Nicene synod was held in the year 325. Alexander was present as a priest on behalf of his bishop, [He bears himself excellently in the Nicene synod against the Arians, and promulgates the synod's decrees;] if we believe the History of the council, in which Gelasius of Cyzicus has this in various places, in Labbe, volume 2 of the Councils. That he there contended excellently against the Arians the same Gelasius reports at column 166 in these words: With these (the standard-bearers of the Arians, whom he had enumerated) our holy fathers nobly contended, Alexander, then a priest of Constantinople, and Athanasius, archdeacon of the church of the Alexandrians. And when the council was concluded, and bishops were being sent to promulgate the decrees of the council throughout the whole world, Alexander was chosen among them, to announce them in the Cycladic islands: for in the catalogue of bishops whom Gelasius narrates to have been chosen for that office, he records Alexander in this manner at column 267: Alexander of Constantinople, then only a priest, but afterwards obtaining the episcopate of that church, with Paul, then a lector and his own notary, to the churches of all the Cycladic islands. Thus far concerning the deeds of Alexander pertaining to the Nicene council.
[6] Now indeed, if Alexander was truly not a bishop at the time of the council, he makes a heathen philosopher dumb by a single command: we can scarcely doubt that a little after he was set over the church of Constantinople. Nor does it seem to have happened many years afterwards, that excellent deed of the holy Man against certain heathen philosophers, which some have wrongly referred to the Nicene council, since it took place at Byzantium, which in the year 330 began to be called Constantinople. Sozomen in book 1 of his History, chapter 18, narrates the matter in this manner: At the time when Constantine came to Byzantium, certain philosophers, approaching him, complained that he did not rightly worship God, and was innovating in the rites of religion, introducing a new worship into the commonwealth, contrary to the custom and institution of his ancestors and of all former princes who are recorded ever to have been either among the Greeks or among the Romans; and they asked to dispute concerning this doctrine with Alexander the bishop. And he, although otherwise little practiced in contests of this kind, yet relying upon the integrity of his life (for he was a good and honorable man), undertook the contest, the emperor so commanding. And so when the philosophers had assembled, and all wished to dispute together, Alexander demanded that they should choose one whom they would, but that the rest, sitting, should keep silence. And when one of them had undertaken the part of disputing, "In the name of Jesus Christ," Alexander said to him, "I command thee not to speak." Which having been said, immediately that man, his tongue being bridled, became dumb. From this fact you will not rightly conclude that Alexander was unlearned. For from it it only follows that the Saint, being less accustomed to dialectical tangles, preferred to capture by divine power those who could scarcely, or not even scarcely, have been captured by subtle reasoning.
[7] he strenuously defends the Catholic faith against the Arians. Further, that the Catholic faith was excellently defended by St. Alexander against the Arian impiety, the illustrious eulogies of the holy Fathers concerning him prove. Hear St. Gregory Nazianzen speaking of him to the citizens of Constantinople, Oration 27, near the beginning: Nor indeed was I the first to preach to you the doctrine of the right faith which you hold in a most close embrace, but I have only followed the footsteps of another, and indeed your own (for I shall say what the matter is); since you are the disciples of that excellent Alexander, the great champion and herald of the Trinity, who both by word and by deeds themselves drove out impiety and removed it from the midst. For that apostolic prayer has not fallen from your memory, which crushed the leader of impiety (Arius) in places worthy of his most impure tongue. Theodoret more briefly records Alexander's endowments in book 1 of the History, chapter 3, writing thus: At Constantinople at that same time Alexander held the pontifical see, a man adorned with apostolic gifts. Photius, in Labbe, volume 2 of the Councils, column 101, commends Alexander with this eulogy: Alexander, who held the see of Constantinople, a man weighty both in old age and in prudence, and distinguished by the splendor of his life, by the highest zeal for piety and faith, and by great freedom of speech in divine matters. But Photius the schismatic tries too shamelessly to deceive, when he writes that Alexander presided over the Nicene council.
§ II. He resists the Arians, that Arius be not brought into the church, whose death he obtains by prayers: his deeds at the end of his life.
The death of Arius obtained by the prayers of Alexander on this occasion: The name of Alexander was rendered illustrious above the rest by the death of Arius, obtained by his prayers. That deed St. Epiphanius briefly reports in Heresy 69, chapter 10, or volume 1, page 734: After these things, he says, when Arius at Constantinople sought the communion of the Catholic Church, Eusebius (of Nicomedia) pressing vehemently, who had very great influence with the emperor, and urging the bishop of Constantinople rather troublesomely; and he, unwilling to give him communion and oppressed by force, groaned. And when Eusebius boasted: "Unless thou art willing to admit him of thine own accord, tomorrow at daybreak, which will be the Lord's Day, he will enter the church with me. And what wilt thou effect against us?" — then at last the most religious and God-fearing bishop Alexander, set over that church, … when he heard these things, persevered in prayer the whole day and night with groaning and sorrow, suppliantly asking of God that he would either receive his soul, lest he should pollute himself with the communion of Arius; or would do something stupendous and unusual. Which latter indeed he obtained. For Arius, being compelled to go out by night to relieve his belly, and going to the privy, falling apart in that very closet, burst asunder and was found dead. Thus he was found in a most foul place, having cast out all his entrails just as he had vomited forth a most impure dogma. Thus Epiphanius. But let us weigh this fact a little more exactly.
[9] In the year 336, as the learned everywhere admit, Arius had been summoned to Constantinople by Constantine the Great, [when Arius had been summoned to Constantinople by the emperor, circumvented by the Arians,] the Eusebians his favorers procuring it, and St. Alexander resisting in vain, as the words of St. Athanasius, to be recited hereafter, teach. The leaders of the Arian faction had assembled there in order to celebrate a synod, which also Alexander vainly endeavored to hinder. Concerning which matter Sozomen in book 2, chapter 29, has it thus: Arius, … when the church of Alexandria had refused to communicate with him, came again to Constantinople. And when those who held the same opinions with him, and as many as adhered to Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, had of set purpose assembled there separately, and were preparing to celebrate a synod, Alexander, who at that time governed the see of Constantinople, having learned their design, endeavored to dissolve the synod. But when he was by no means able to accomplish this, he openly contradicted the joining of fellowship and communion with Arius, saying that it was wicked, and altogether alien from the Church, to make void both their own opinion and that of those who had assembled at Nicæa from nearly the whole world. But those who were with Eusebius, when at first they were by no means able to bend Alexander with words, affronting him with insults, threatened with an oath that, unless he received Arius within a certain day, he himself should be expelled from the church and go into exile, but that his successor should communicate with Arius. The same threats of Eusebius Socrates reports in book 2, chapter 37, where he adds: But Alexander was not so anxious concerning his own deposition as concerning the doctrine of the faith, which they were endeavoring with all zeal to subvert. For, since he judged himself to be the guardian and patron of the decrees of the Nicene synod, he bent himself wholly to this, that the matters judged in that synod should in no wise be shaken.
[10] Alexander's chief fear was from the emperor, whom the Arians had rendered favorable to themselves partly by their arts, and he ordered him to be admitted to communion, partly by the perjury of Arius himself. The perjury of Arius St. Athanasius reports in his letter to Serapion in this manner: Arius had been summoned by the emperor Constantine through the working of the Eusebians. And when Arius had entered, the emperor asked him whether he kept the faith of the Catholic Church; and he affirmed with an oath that he believed rightly, and delivered a written statement of his faith, in which, concealing those things on account of which he had been driven from the Church by bishop Alexander, he brought forward the words of the Scriptures deceitfully. When therefore he had sworn that he had not held that opinion for which he had been expelled by Alexander, the emperor, dismissing him, said: "If thy faith is right, thou hast sworn well; but if it is impious, and yet thou hast sworn, let God judge thy cause from the oath." Deceived by this perjury and by the prayers of the Arians, Constantine ordered Arius to be admitted, according to Theodoret in book 4 of the Heretical Fables, chapter 1, where he has it thus: But the emperor, having received the petition, commanded the Bishop of the royal city to stretch forth his hand to him as he desired salvation. But the divine Alexander — for he held the helm of that city — first indeed endeavored to persuade the emperor that he should not be seduced by the feigned words of Arius. But after he saw that he took it ill, he went out in silence. That command of Constantine Marcellinus and Faustinus confirm in the Little Book of Prayers, page 18, in these words: At length Constantine himself had commanded that the holy bishop Alexander, of blessed memory, should communicate with him.
[11] and the Arians threatened that they would bring him into the church by force; Puffed up by this favor of the emperor, the Eusebians threatened that they would bring Arius by force into the church on the following Lord's Day. Hear St. Athanasius in the place just cited: Him therefore, departing thus from the emperor, the Eusebians, using their accustomed violence, wished to bring into the church. The bishop of Constantinople, a man of blessed memory, Alexander, resisted, saying that the author of a heresy ought not to be received into the church. But the Eusebians, employing threats, said: "As, though you resisted, we obtained that the emperor should summon him, so tomorrow, even though it be not according to thy mind, Arius will be present with us in this church at the assembly." And it was the Sabbath when they blurted out these things. Alexander could not but fear lest the Arians should bring to effect what they threatened. Wherefore, human helps being left aside, he took refuge in God's aid alone, Macarius being present, from whom St. Athanasius testifies that he learned what he writes concerning these matters.
[12] [Alexander prays God either that he may be allowed to die, or that he would take away Arius,] And he goes on in this manner: Which things being heard, bishop Alexander, filled with great sorrow, entered the church, and, stretching out his hands to God, weeping, fell upon his face in the sanctuary; and lying upon the ground he prayed. Macarius was present, who also himself prayed, and heard the voice of him praying. And the Bishop earnestly asked one of two things in these words: "If Arius shall come tomorrow to the assembly, dismiss me thy servant from this life, and destroy not the pious with the impious; but if thou wilt have mercy upon thy Church — and thou wilt have mercy, this I well know — look upon the words of the Eusebians, and give not thine inheritance to destruction and to reproach; and take away Arius, lest, if he enter into the church, the heresy seem to enter in with him, and lest thereafter impiety be accounted piety." These things
the Bishop having prayed, he withdrew greatly anxious; and a wonderful and incredible thing happened. For while the Eusebians threatened, the bishop prayed; but Arius, relying upon the Eusebians and having talked much nonsense, entering the privy as though for the sake of relieving his bowels, suddenly, as it is written, being made prone, burst asunder in the midst, and falling forward immediately expired, being deprived at once of both, namely of life and of communion. Theodoret, Sozomen, Marcellinus and Faustinus agree well enough with these things concerning Alexander's prayer; but Socrates both writes that he prayed alone for many days and nights, and has wrongly set forth the prayer itself.
[13] hence Arius, his bowels being poured out, As to what concerns the death of Arius, briefly reported by Athanasius, not all agree in certain circumstances. Marcellinus and Faustinus at page 18 have it thus: How constant, how faithful his prayer was, has been proved from this, that the same Arius, before he entered the church, paid new and most grievous penalties, even to a shameful destruction. For on the day before that on which the impious man thought he would enter the holy church by the emperor's help, when he was suffering no sickness, no pain in his body, but, what is graver, was incurably sick with a disease of the soul alone, by human custom he sought the privy; and while he was sitting there, being suddenly tortured with the gravest pain, he poured out all his entrails, and his very heart, which was the treasury of impiety, into the dung; and so — wonderful to say — all his inward parts being emptied out, he was made thin, and in a moment was so dissolved, as by the wasting of a livid body, that he himself slipped whole through the narrows of the hole and the seat. This last, as it is not found in others, so it is little likely; nay, contrary to the sayings of others, who asserted that Arius was found dead in the privy, and was buried by the Eusebians.
[14] Socrates in book 1, chapter 38, thus reports the death of Arius: dies in the privy, Arius' desperate attempts being made, divine vengeance was now at hand. For going out from the imperial palace, the Eusebians thronging him like a bodyguard, he was walking magnificently through the middle of the city, turning the eyes of all upon himself. And when he had come near the forum which is called Constantine's, in which place a porphyry statue is set up, a certain terror arising from the consciousness of his crimes came upon him, and with the trembling his bowels at once were loosened. And having asked whether there were privies nearby, when he had learned that they were behind Constantine's forum, he went thither. Presently he began to faint, and together with the excrements the fundament slips from him; and that which the physicians call ἀπέφθισμα straightway fell down through the fundament. There followed an abundance of blood; and finally the small intestines, together with the spleen and liver, were poured out. And he indeed immediately breathed out his soul. And those privies at Constantinople behind Constantine's forum, as I said before, and behind the meat-market which is in the portico, are still pointed out; and, as all who pass by point their finger at them, they render the manner of Arius' death perpetually memorable to posterity. That the matter happened in the evening, when the sun had not yet set, St. Athanasius testifies in his letter to the bishops of Egypt and Libya, in which also he narrated the whole fact.
[15] What was done after the death of Arius, Theodoret partly reports in book 4 of the Heretical Fables, chapter 1, in this manner: and is buried by his own people, the Catholics praising God. And when the blow divinely inflicted had been made known to the whole most populous city, all ran together into the church. And after they had learned both the emperor's promise and the Pontiff's prayers, they praised the President of the churches, and abominated the heresy of impiety. St. Athanasius in the letter to Serapion, praised before, adds certain things in these words: Such was the end of Arius; and the Eusebians, suffused with great shame, buried the companion of their conspiracy. But the man of blessed memory, Alexander, the Church rejoicing, celebrated the assembly with piety and sound faith, and poured forth prayers for all the brethren, and greatly glorified God: not that he rejoiced at that man's destruction — far be it; for it is appointed to all men once to die — but because that event seemed to surpass human judgments. For the Lord himself, constituting himself a judge between the threats of the Eusebians and the prayers of Alexander, condemned the Arian heresy, and declared it to be unworthy of the Church's communion.
[16] That St. Alexander afterwards survived until the year 340 we have already said to be more probable. But of his later deeds few things have become known. That he always resisted the Arians with great authority, Alexander bravely resists the Arians until his death: Sozomen testifies in book 3, chapter 4, writing thus: As long as Alexander survived, the Arians indeed had little confidence and freedom; but the people, with eyes fixed upon him, followed his nod, and gave praises to God, especially after the unlooked-for calamity of Arius, whom they believed to have been destroyed by divine vengeance, in the manner we have said, by the imprecations of Alexander. That Alexander lived ninety-eight years Socrates and Sozomen relate, who add that he held the episcopate for twenty-three years, which we have already said to be uncertain, since thus he must have been bishop before the Nicene council.
[17] being asked concerning a successor, he commends St. Paul; but Macedonius The same authors add that he was asked concerning a successor; and they seem to say that St. Paul was proposed by him, together with Macedonius, yet in such wise that he preferred Paul. Hear Sozomen in the place assigned: For Alexander, being now ninety-eight years old, of which he had passed twenty-three most bravely in the episcopate, when he was about to depart from this life, being asked by the clergy to whom the church should be committed after him, said: "If you seek a man endowed with piety, and at the same time fit for teaching, you have Paul; but if you prefer a man apt for secular affairs and for conversing with judges, Macedonius is preferable." From these Socrates does not much differ, in book 2, chapter 6, setting forth the matter thus: Alexander, bishop of the church of that city, who had strenuously fought against Arius, when he had spent twenty-three years in the episcopate and had lived ninety-eight, departed from this light, no one being substituted in his place. Nevertheless he charged those with whom the right of choosing lay, that they should choose one of two whom he would name. And if indeed they wished for one who was both fit for teaching and conspicuous for integrity of life and manners, they should take Paul, whom he had ordained priest, still a young man in years but an old man in prudence. But if they preferred for themselves one who was commended only by the outward appearance of gravity, they should choose Macedonius, who had long since been a deacon of that church and was now verging on an old man's age.
[18] [he did not compare with him, that he might be chosen, but rather that he might be rejected.] The most eminent Baronius, at the year 340, after he had reported these things, speaks thus at number 16: But when I consider the integrity of mind of bishop Alexander, I cannot be brought to believe that Macedonius also, together with Paul, was named by him for the making of the election of a bishop of Constantinople. His reason is that Macedonius, who at last turned out a heresiarch, had already at that time followed the party of the Arians. I altogether agree with that most learned man that it is not credible that Alexander spoke of Macedonius in order that he should be chosen. But perhaps Socrates and Sozomen may be conveniently expounded, if we judge that these things concerning Macedonius were said by Alexander because he had been consulted about him, and saw the inclinations of some leaning toward him — not that he himself should be chosen, but rather that he might deter them from his election, by recounting Macedonius' qualities as by no means suitable to a bishop. Certainly Socrates, having reported Paul's election, adds these words: In which indeed the vote of the dead Alexander seemed to have prevailed. And Sozomen says: But, as almost all the rest affirm, on account of the testimony of Alexander, in whose place he succeeded, … Paul was ordained.