ON ST. ALEXANDER, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA IN EGYPT
Year 326.
HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.
Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt (St.)
Author G. H.
Section I. The deeds of St. Alexander when created Priest. The beginning of the schism of Meletius and Arius.
[1] The most holy Patriarch of the Church of Alexandria, Alexander, is believed on this day to have departed this mortal life and flown to the heavenly reward of his labors, which he endured in great number for the Church of God—not so much in the most cruel persecution of Diocletian, Maximian, Maximinus, and others, when he lived as a Priest, as in defending the orthodox faith against Meletius and Arius and their followers. This he accomplished with outstanding erudition and divine zeal, particularly after being appointed Bishop of Alexandria, with equal energy and prudence. He died in the year of Christ, as will be established below, 326, and, as his successor St. Athanasius attests, was an old man in decrepit old age, and therefore over seventy years of age—perhaps born around the year of Christ 250 or not much later. What he did in the early years of his life, we find written nowhere. He appears to have embraced St. Theonas, Bishop of Alexandria, with singular affection, in whose invocation and honor he himself later built a church. That St. Theonas presided over the Church of Alexandria for nineteen years, and had died before the persecution was raised by Diocletian and Maximian, Theophanes asserts. We believe that St. Alexander was admitted to the Clergy by Theonas and ordained a Priest. St. Theonas is venerated on the 23rd of August. After Theonas, says Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History book 7, chapter 26, when he had governed the Church for nineteen years, Peter succeeded to the episcopate of Alexandria. He was the first to flourish in the continuous exercise of that office for twelve years with the highest dignity. Having spent nearly three years before the time of persecution in governing that church, for the rest he passed his life in harder discipline and more severe practice, and, as was known to all, he looked after the welfare of the churches with every care and zeal. And therefore, in the ninth year of the persecution, he was beheaded and granted by God the distinguished crown of martyrdom. So far Eusebius. St. Peter is venerated on the 26th of November; under him, as will soon be evident, St. Alexander discharged sacred functions among the senior Priests.
[2] While tyrannical fury raged with sword and flame against the Church of Alexandria as well, a new schism was stirred up in Egypt by Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis, who, having been deposed by St. Peter of Alexandria for his crimes, broke away from him. St. Athanasius narrates the affair briefly in his second Apology against the Arians: Peter, he says, who was Bishop among us before the persecution and was declared a Martyr in the persecution, deposed Meletius, a designated Bishop of Egypt, convicted of many crimes—and especially of having sacrificed to idols—in a common synod of bishops. Meletius, however, did not appeal to another synod, nor did he endeavor to clear himself before their successors, but made a schism, so that even now his followers are called Meletians rather than Christians. And he began then to hurl insults against the bishops, and first calumniated Peter, then his successor Achillas, and after Achillas, Alexander—and this with great cunning, borrowing his example from Absalom, to avenge the shame of his deposition by calumniating the innocent. So far St. Athanasius. From this Meletian faction came Arius, who poured forth his impious heresy against the Son of God. Concerning his origin, Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History book 1, chapter 14, relates the following: Although the Christian religion flourished in all other respects, certain contentious disputes—which, under pretense of piety and of eliciting the true knowledge of God, brought back into controversy matters not previously examined—violently disturbed the churches. The author of these disputes was Arius, a Priest of the Alexandrian Church in Egypt, who, although at first he seemed most zealous for Christian doctrine, nevertheless assisted Meletius in his revolutionary designs. When he deserted his party, he was ordained Deacon by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, and again was expelled from the Church by the same, since, after Peter had rejected the partisans of Meletius and disapproved his baptism, Arius inveighed severely against Peter's decisions and could in no way be at rest. So far Sozomen.
[3] Then St. Peter the Bishop was seized by the ministers of the Emperors and thrown into prison, at which time various persons interceded on behalf of Arius, that he might be received back into sacred favor, restored to the churches. In the Acts of the martyrdom of St. Peter, the events that then transpired are narrated, where Saints Achillas and Alexander are also presented as intercessors for this peace and friendship. We present a few excerpts pertinent to this matter, first as they are printed in Surius in these words: When the unhappy Arius learned of the sentence, he came with all speed, rejoicing and exulting, to the Church of Christ, and began deceitfully to beseech certain of the Priests and laity to petition St. Peter for his pardon and indulgence... When therefore, on another day, great and religious men came to him—whom that wicked one had sent together with the Priests—entering the prison, they threw themselves at the knees of Blessed Peter, beseeching him with tears to absolve Arius from the bond of condemnation and restore him to the ministry of the priesthood in the holy Church. And the most blessed Peter, giving them his hand, raised them up, saying: What do you wish, my most beloved brothers, and what do you seek? They answered and said: We beseech your blessedness, venerable Father, to deign to grant pardon to the most unhappy Arius and absolve him from the bond by which you have bound him... Then the venerable Peter, with deep groaning and weeping, said: You have besought me on behalf of Arius, most beloved brothers, who seeks to violate the bride of Christ? This Arius, for whom you plead, is dead to God alone, and cast from his presence both in this world and in the world to come... When the most blessed Peter said these things, the men who had come to petition for his indulgence threw themselves at his feet, and became as if mute, and spoke nothing more to him about the matter. When the most blessed Peter saw them so terrified with fear, he took hold of two of the elders among them, Achillas and Alexander. From here I continue from the Acts published by Baronius at the year 310, number 5: He withdrew them a little from the rest, and closing their conversation, said to them: Do not take me, brothers, as inhuman and rigid. For truly I too am a man, living under the law of sin; but believe my words. The treachery of Arius is hidden and surpasses all impiety. And I do not assert this of my own authority when I sanction his separation. For this very night, while I solemnly poured forth prayers to the Lord, there stood before me a certain boy, apparently twelve years old, whose face's radiance I could not endure. For this entire cell in which we stand was shining with an immense light. He himself was clothed in a linen garment, torn in two parts from the neck to the feet; and holding the tears of the garment with both hands, he pressed them to his breast, so as to cover his own nakedness. At this vision I was struck with amazement. Then, when confidence to speak was given me, I cried out and said: Lord, who has torn your garment? And he answered: Arius has torn it for me. But take care by all means not to receive him into communion. Behold, for tomorrow they will come to petition you on his behalf. See that you do not yield, consenting to them; but rather command Achillas and likewise Alexander, the Priests who after your departure will govern my Church, that they by no means receive him. And he said to the two Priests: You will be a Martyr, about to fulfil your death with greater speed. So far that passage, to which the earlier Acts add an exhortation of St. Peter to those two Priests. When it was finished, Achillas and Alexander, embracing and kissing his hands, wept with tears because he had said to them: You will see my face no more. And so they came where the people were standing, both clergy and laity; and he spoke of the doctrine of the faith, which is in the confession of our Lord Jesus Christ, and praying again he bade them farewell in peace. They, withdrawing, secretly announced to the people everything that the Lord had revealed to Blessed Peter about the blasphemies of Arius, and whatever they had been admonished to do—namely, to anathematize him before all and never to allow him to enter the church.
[4] Thus far the Acts of Blessed Peter, whom, in the ninth year of the persecution, the year of Christ 310, we said above from Eusebius was granted the crown of martyrdom. Achillas was soon substituted in the See of Alexandria; in him an excessive softness of character seems deserving of blame, for, forgetful of the protestations of his predecessor St. Peter, he admitted Arius—who was feigning repentance and cunningly insinuating himself into his friendship—and elevated him to the honor of the priesthood. Concerning this, Sozomen, book 1, chapter 14, relates: After Peter had died as a martyr, Arius, having begged pardon from Achillas, was not only permitted to exercise the diaconate but was also raised to the rank of the priesthood. Baronius suspects that Achillas admitted Arius—who professed that he was defecting from the Meletian schismatics—in order to retain him in hatred of the latter. For, as St. Athanasius says in his second Apology, the Meletians were men utterly unworthy of trust, schismatics, enemies of the Church, from the times of Blessed Peter, against whom they laid plots, and of Achillas his successor, whom they calumniated, and of Alexander, whom they pursued with calumnies even to the tribunals of Caesar. In his first oration against the Arians, he calls them similar to Jezebel, who won over the treacherous Meletians to themselves, mindful of how they had first opposed themselves as adversaries to the blessed Martyr Peter, then to the Great Achillas, and finally also to Blessed Alexander. The Great Achillas is venerated on the 7th of November; he died in the year 311. For, as Theodoret asserts, book 1, chapter 3, Achillas administered the episcopate for a short time and held the helm of the Church of Alexandria; his successor was Alexander, a most vigorous champion of Evangelical doctrine. Gelasius of Cyzicus, in his History of the Council of Nicaea, volume 2 of the Royal edition, page 341, assigns only five months to the episcopate of Achillas; but six months are assigned in the History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria published together with the Oriental Chronicle by Abraham Ecchellensis.
Section II. St. Alexander's judgment concerning the baptism administered by the boy Athanasius to his peers. The church of St. Theonas built. The heresy of Arius detected. Letters to various persons. Councils held at Alexandria.
[5] What Metaphrastes writes in the Life of St. Athanasius as having occurred when St. Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria, had been consecrated Bishop, we here report from Rufinus, who was closer to those times. He himself asserts that he received the following account from those who had lived with St. Athanasius, which he narrates in book 10, chapter 14 as follows: At the time when the Bishop Alexander was observing the anniversary day of Peter the Martyr at Alexandria, while after the completion of the solemnities he was waiting for the clergy to come together for a banquet at his house, he sees in the distance, at a place near the sea, a multitude of boys on the seashore at play, imitating, as is customary, a Bishop and the things usually done in churches. But when he observed the boys more intently for a longer time, he sees certain things being done by them that were even more secret and mystical. Disturbed at once, he orders the clergy to be summoned to him and points out to them what he himself saw from afar. Then he orders them to go and bring all the boys, seized, to him. When they were present, he inquires what their game was, what they had done, and how. They, as is natural at such an age, at first fearfully denied it, then revealed the matter in order as it had occurred, and confessed that some catechumens had been baptized by them through Athanasius, who had been the pretend Bishop of that children's game. Then he, diligently inquiring of those who were said to have been baptized what questions they had been asked and what they had answered, and likewise of the one who had questioned them—when he saw that everything was consistent with the rite of our religion—after deliberation with a council of clergy, is reported to have decreed that those upon whom water had been poured after proper questions and responses should not have their baptism repeated, but that those things should be completed which are customarily administered by priests. Athanasius, however, and those whom the game had treated as Priests or ministers, he handed over to the Church to be nourished, having summoned their parents and adjured them in the name of God. After a short time had elapsed, when Athanasius had been sufficiently instructed by a Notary and a Grammarian, he was immediately, as a faithful trust of the Lord, returned by his parents to the Priest, and like a kind of Samuel was nourished in the temple of the Lord, and by him who, advancing to the Fathers in a good old age, was chosen to bear the priestly Ephod after him. So far Rufinus, on whose authority Socrates, book 1, chapter 11, reports the same in an abridged epitome. Sozomen copies the same Rufinus word for word, and adds that this occurred when St. Athanasius had not yet reached puberty. For although these things occurred in the year of Christ 311, in which year Baronius placed them in his Annals, it is difficult to see how Athanasius could appear to have been impubescent, since a full fifteen years later, after the death of St. Alexander, he was appointed Bishop of Alexandria. But these matters can be examined more carefully on the 2nd of May, the day on which St. Athanasius is venerated. Meanwhile, Alexander had him as both his companion and his secretary, or, as Sozomen says, his table companion and scribe.
[6] St. Athanasius, in his first Apology to the Emperor Constantius, refuting the charge laid against him that a synaxis had been held in the great church before it was dedicated, shows that this could have been done following the example of the Fathers. For Alexander, he says, of blessed memory, when other places were narrow, wished synaxes to be celebrated in the greater church of Theonas, which he was building; for the great number of people required this, and he did not consider, in assembling the people, that it was not yet fully built. St. Epiphanius, Heresy 69, and Baronius in his Notes on the 23rd of August, mention this church. Indeed, adds St. Epiphanius, all the churches of Catholic communion that are in Alexandria are subject to the one Archbishop, and each has its own appointed Priest, who administers the ecclesiastical offices to those living around those churches, and their assemblies are commonly called by the Alexandrians Vici, or Laurae.
[7] Among these Priests, or parish clergy, or Pastors, was Arius at that time. The same Epiphanius says he held the charge of a certain Baucalis church under St. Alexander; Theodoret, book 1, chapter 2, relates that the interpretation of Sacred Scripture was also entrusted to him, and Sozomen, book 1, chapter 14, notes that he was held in honor and esteem by Alexander. But on the contrary, Arius, as Theodoret adds, when he saw Alexander designated for the governance of the episcopate, was unable to restrain the flame of envy by which he was consumed, but, inflamed even more vehemently, labored daily to find material for contention and discord. And although by directing his sharp gaze upon Alexander's outstanding and excellent manner of life, he could find absolutely nothing to fabricate a false accusation against him, yet the heat of envy did not allow him to be at rest. When therefore the enemy of truth, the devil, had found this man, he undertook to throw the Church into confusion by storms through his efforts. For he persuaded him to resist openly the Apostolic doctrine of Alexander. Which Epiphanius at the cited passage explains thus: The spirit of Satan therefore, invading this Arius, a Priest of Alexander, impelled him to raise dust against the Church (as it is written), and from it a considerable conflagration broke forth, which seized nearly the whole Roman Empire and especially the eastern parts of it... He was particularly bland, and held all souls captive with the allurements of flattery. Wherefore in a short time he drew away about seven hundred virgins consecrated to God from the Church and gathered them together. They add that seven Priests and twelve Deacons were also led away by him. Indeed, his pestilential poison even reached the Bishops. For he drew Secundus, Bishop of the Pentapolis, with some others, to his party. All these things were being done in the Church secretly from Bishop Alexander, until Meletius... reported the whole matter to the ears of Archbishop Alexander. For this Alexander, as Theodoret testifies, following the discipline of the sacred Scriptures, taught that the Son was equal in honor to the Father and had the same substance as the Begetter; but Arius, openly fighting against the truth, affirmed that he was created and made. He even added that there was once a time when he was not, and certain other things that can be much more clearly understood from his writings... Alexander therefore, a patron of Apostolic doctrine, first attempted to dissuade him from his opinion by exhortation and counsel. But, as Rufinus teaches, book 10, chapter 1, when Alexander the Bishop, mild and quiet by nature, wished by constant persuasions to recall Arius from his wicked undertaking and impious assertions, and yet the matter did not proceed as he wished—since the contagion of the pestilential assertion had already infected many, not only at Alexandria but also scattered through other cities and provinces—he deemed it dangerous to dissemble, and informed many of his fellow-bishops of the matter.
[8] This heresy of Arius became publicly known at the time when, as Orosius, book 7, chapter 28, testifies, Crispus and Constantine were created Caesars—which Idatius notes occurred under the Consuls Gallienus and Bassus, in the year 317, on the Kalends of March. At which time Alexander, as Socrates asserts, having convened a council of many bishops, deposed Arius and the supporters of his opinion from the rank of the priesthood; concerning this he wrote to the bishops of every city. In that letter, which Socrates also includes, he asserts that nearly a hundred bishops of Egypt and Libya had assembled together. Epiphanius, at the heresy 69 cited above, explains the matter thus: Alexander, having held a meeting of Priests and some bishops who were present, holds an inquiry and diligent examination concerning him (Arius). Then, when he refused to yield to the truth, he cast him out of the Church and banished him from the whole city; along with him, those virgins and clergy whom I mentioned before, together with a considerable crowd of the remaining multitude, were separated from the Church... Meanwhile Arius, making division and dissension everywhere and cunningly insinuating himself into the minds of individuals, ruined many. But when he was detected, and convicted in the city, and publicly denounced by the proclamation of all, he fled from Alexandria and went to Palestine. There he began to approach and solicit and flatter individual bishops, in order to attach more supporters to himself. Some of these received him; others rejected him. When these things reached the ears of Bishop Alexander, he sent encyclical letters to each bishop, which are still in the hands of scholars, about seventy in number. He wrote, among others, to Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, who was still living, and to Macarius of Jerusalem, Asclepius of Gaza, Longinus of Ascalon, Macrinus, Bishop of Jamnia, and others. Likewise to Phoenicia, to a certain Zeno, the ancient Bishop of Tyre, and others. He wrote also to Coele-Syria. After sending these letters, in which he accused those who had received Arius, individual bishops wrote back to Alexander—some in a dissembling and cunning manner, others sincerely and from the heart. Some denied having received the man; others said they had admitted him through ignorance. There were also those who confessed they had received him with the intention of winning him over. In sum, the arguments of the letters were various. But Arius, having written letters to all bishops and being excluded from all quarters, was received by none except his own supporters, the chief of whom was Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, a man of very advanced age. So far St. Epiphanius. But Socrates, after relating the Encyclical letter of St. Alexander, adds among other things that Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, was most of all stirred up to dissension, because Alexander had more severely censured his name in his letters... And although he did not cease writing letters to Alexander, asking him to drop the controversy that had arisen between them and to receive Arius and his followers into the Church, he nevertheless exhorted others who inhabited other cities to oppose Alexander's will absolutely; whence a great tumult was stirred up everywhere... The Meletians also were mingled with the Arians, who had not long before been separated from the Church... However, those who considered the opinion of Arius absurd approved Alexander's judgment on Arius, and considered the sentence pronounced against those who held such views to be right and just.
[9] St. Alexander continued in the labors undertaken for defending the divinity of the Son of God, and sent letters to Rome, to Pope St. Sylvester, and to Constantinople, to the Archbishop Alexander. The former letters have perished, though their memory survives in the letter of Pope St. Liberius to the Emperor Constantius, in which the following is read: There remain the letters of Bishop Alexander, addressed to Sylvester of holy memory, in which he signifies that before the ordination of Athanasius, he expelled from the Church eleven Priests and Deacons who followed the heresy of Arius. The letter to Alexander of Constantinople, exceedingly long, was published by Theodoret, book 1, chapter 4, in which the Priests and Deacons condemned by anathema are named. Having related this, Theodoret adds that the same Alexander wrote letters in the same vein to Philogonius, Bishop of the Church of Antioch, to Eustathius, who at that time governed the Church of Beroea, and to others who were patrons of Apostolic teaching. Indeed, Arius could not restrain himself, but also wrote to those whom he supposed to be in agreement with his opinion. And that the divine Alexander wrote nothing false against him, Arius himself is a reliable witness in the letters he sent to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia. These letters were appended by Theodoret in chapter 5; and then in chapter 6, those which Eusebius wrote to Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre. Epiphanius also adds a letter from Arius to Alexander, in which his cunning in concealing his heresy is apparent.
[10] Pope Sylvester, having received the letter of St. Alexander and learned of the disturbances raised by the Arians at Alexandria and elsewhere, chose Hosius, Bishop of Corduba, whom he knew to be in favor with the Emperor Constantine, so as to suppress the emerging heresy as quickly as possible. Sent to the East, Hosius was to convoke a Council with the aid of the Emperor and, by the authority of the Apostolic See, extinguish the growing conflagration. St. Athanasius, in his second Apology against the Arians, calls the Council assembled by Hosius and the other bishops a general one, on account, namely, of this authority of the Apostolic See communicated to it. But the Emperor Constantine (these are the words of Socrates, book 1, chapter 4), when he had been informed of these matters, was seized with incredible grief and considered that disturbance to be his own calamity. Therefore he immediately undertook in earnest to extinguish the fire of discord that blazed between them, and sent letters through a distinguished and faithful man named Hosius, Bishop of Corduba, a city of Spain (for the Emperor embraced this man with singular affection and treated him with the highest honor), to Alexander and Arius. Socrates cites part of these letters; Eusebius, in book 2 of the Life of Constantine, chapter 63, has them in full, but this Arian man either corrupted them himself or inserted them as violated or composed by the likewise Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia, with blame for the disturbances cast upon St. Alexander. Meanwhile Hosius, the Legate of the Apostolic See and furnished with the Emperor's letters, set out for St. Alexander in Egypt, and convoked to the Council (which Athanasius calls General) all the bishops of those provinces subject to the Bishop of Alexandria. What was transacted there has been lost, except for a few details found in St. Athanasius—namely, that Colluthus, a Priest who, as if a Bishop (though he was not), had ordained many Priests, was deposed and reduced to the rank of the laity, and remained in that state for the rest of his life. Socrates, book 3, chapter 5, asserts that the Sabellian heresy was exploded and rejected by Hosius at that time. But what was concluded about Arius there lies buried in deep oblivion.
Section III. Acts accomplished at the Synod of Nicaea by the authority of St. Alexander. His fortitude of soul against the Arians. Death. Sacred veneration.
[11] But when matters did not succeed as expected, and the contention prevented the reconciliation of concord, and Hosius, sent to make peace, returned with his mission unaccomplished, Constantine proclaimed a council at Nicaea and wrote to all the heads of the churches to be present on the appointed day. So Sozomen, book 1, chapter 16. But Rufinus, book 10, chapter 1: Then Constantine, he says, on the recommendation of the bishops, convenes an episcopal council at the city of Nicaea, and there orders Arius to appear before three hundred and eighteen bishops sitting in judgment, and to have his propositions and questions judged. Those whose recommendation was primarily responsible for the convening of the Council were Pope St. Sylvester of Rome, St. Alexander, and the other Patriarchs of the East—of whom Epiphanius relates that Alexander wrote to the Emperor about this heresy of Arius; and in the sixth Ecumenical Council, act 18, Pope Sylvester and the Emperor Constantine are said to have assembled the great Synod at Nicaea. It was held under the Consuls Paulinus and Julian, in the year 325, begun on the 13th before the Kalends of July and concluded on the 8th before the Kalends of September. Concerning the seating of St. Alexander and the leading men, Bellarmine, book 1 On Councils, chapter 19, relates the following: And so, if conjecture is permitted, there were three rows in the Council: one on the right, another on the left, and a third at the head of the entire hall. In this third row, the Emperor sat in the middle between the bishops—namely, Hosius, the legate of the Pope, and Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, as well as Vitus and Vincentius, also Apostolic legates. Then the leader of the row on the right was Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch; of the other row on the left, the first was Macarius, Bishop of Jerusalem—and in this manner the order of dignity among the principal figures was maintained. So far Bellarmine. Baronius assigns a different order at the year 325, number 56. Among those subscribing to this Synod, on page 211 of the Royal edition, after Bishop Hosius, Victor, and Vincentius, the first is Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria the Great; who in the History of the Council by Gelasius of Cyzicus, pages 431 and 471, is recorded in these words: Alexander of Alexandria with Athanasius, then Archdeacon, for the churches throughout all Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, and the neighboring regions as far as the provinces of India. To the earlier subscriptions on page 240, the following is noted: Alexander, Patriarch of Alexandria, the most renowned glory and ornament of the whole Catholic Church, praised with almost innumerable eulogies of the Saints, is, as it were, the commander of the entire army, who first of all raised the lofty standard against the impiety and blasphemy of Arius.
[12] In Gelasius, book 2 of the Council of Nicaea, chapter 1, page 341, he is said to have received the primacy of the priesthood in the Alexandrian Church—a man held in the highest honor by the entire clergy and people of the Church: magnificent, generous, eloquent, just, a lover of God, a lover of humanity, devoted to the poor, good and gentle toward all, if any man ever was. The assembled Fathers everywhere call him their most holy colleague, and especially in the letter to the churches established throughout Alexandria, Egypt, Pentapolis, and Libya, where on page 445, among other things, the following is reported: If anything further has been established by canons or decrees, the most honored Lord, our brother and colleague Alexander, upon his return to you, will report it more certainly, since he has been both the author and the participant of all the acts. We also bring you the glad tidings of the agreement of all in celebrating the most holy feast of Easter, for that matter too has been rightly settled by your prayers... Joyful therefore over the prosperity of events and over the peace and concord established in common among all, and over the heresies completely eradicated, embrace our colleague and your Bishop with greater honor and more ardent charity, who has refreshed us with his presence and undertaken exceedingly great labor at his age, so that you and all others might enjoy a more tranquil peace. So far those bishops. The Council of Nicaea, therefore, as Sozomen, book 1, chapter 20, relates, deposed both Arius and the supporters of his opinion together, and decreed that he should not come to Alexandria. Indeed, it also forbade the reading of the words in which his opinion was explained, and the book he had published and entitled Thalia... But the Emperor not only punished Arius with exile; he also sent a written edict to all bishops and peoples, directing them to regard both him and the supporters of his opinion as impious, and to throw into the fire any book found written by them, so that no monument either of him or of the opinion of which he was the author might remain.
[13] Alexander, having returned to his Alexandrian See, promulgated what had been decreed by the Fathers in the Council concerning Arius. When therefore, says St. Athanasius in his second Apology, Arius had been cast out of the church by the blessed Bishop Alexander, the Eusebians, considering themselves equally cast out as disciples and partners of his impiety, wrote many exhortations to Alexander not to leave Arius outside the Church. But when Alexander, out of piety toward Christ, would not receive the impious man, they turned their wrath upon Athanasius his Deacon, and because they carefully observed that he was constant in his attendance upon Alexander and held in esteem, and because they had already experienced his piety for Christ at the Synod of Nicaea, where he had argued with great freedom against the Arian heresy, they burned with the most grievous hatred. But, as is read in the Life of St. Athanasius in Metaphrastes, when the impious Arius would not acquiesce, but even in exile could, through his accomplices, attract the most pious Emperor Constantine and procure for himself a return from exile, and set forth his faith in writings that were consonant in words with our faith but in reality very discrepant—the Emperor, seized with wonder, immediately sent him honorably to Alexandria. When therefore Arius had come to Alexandria, Bishop Alexander did not receive him, with St. Athanasius, then Archdeacon, urging and stirring him to this. So detestable a thing moved him—the attempt to stir up heresy again. From this, therefore, Egypt was again in turmoil. Then also those who were with Eusebius of Nicomedia both wrote and stirred up the Emperor to write. Athanasius therefore, together with Bishop Alexander, both refused to receive them everywhere and, writing to the Emperor, taught that those who had once been condemned after repudiating the faith ought not to be received. Constantine, bearing this with difficulty, incited by the Eusebians, wrote these threatening words to St. Athanasius: Since you know my will, grant entrance to all who wish to enter the Church. For if I learn that you have prohibited any of those who seek the Church from access, I will immediately send one who at my command will condemn you and remove you from your place. Likewise the Emperor wrote the same things to Bishop Alexander concerning Arius. But Constantine wrote these things with a view to utility, lest the Church be torn apart in schism, but that all might be brought back to concord. Alexander, having received the Emperor's letters, lived but a short time longer, but exchanged his life for a blessed end. So far that passage, to which St. Athanasius, alluding in his first oration against the Arians, has the following: And if the events of our own time must be contemplated, you know how Blessed Alexander fought to the death against this heresy, and how many tribulations and labors he endured, although already an old man in decrepit age, who was himself also gathered to his fathers.
[14] Certain events that befell St. Alexander during his final illness are narrated by Sozomen, book 2, chapter 16, in these words: At the same time, when the Bishop Alexander of Alexandria was about to depart from life, he left Athanasius as his successor in the episcopate—moved, in my opinion, by a certain divine impulse to support him. For they say that he was compelled, against his will and after having tried to flee, by Alexander to undertake that episcopate. Of this Apollinarius the Syrian is a witness, who writes thus: Nor did the impious thereafter cease from war, but as they had in the beginning taken up arms against the blessed master of this man, and this one had been present as a son to his father and as an advocate—so after this same man had succeeded to the episcopate, they attacked him. Though he had fled lest he be placed in that position, he was nevertheless found again by divine providence, since it had been foreshown by certain divine signs to that blessed man who had administered the episcopate that no one other than this man would be his successor. For when he was being called from this life and was already near death, he called Athanasius by name, though Athanasius was by no means present. And when another person of the same name, who happened to be present, responded upon hearing the name, Alexander fell silent, as if he had not summoned him. Again he called Athanasius, and when he had done this repeatedly, the other Athanasius who was present thereafter kept silent, since he who was absent was clearly the one meant. Which the blessed Alexander himself also clearly indicated in the manner of a Prophet when he said: Athanasius, you think you can escape; but you will not escape. By these words he showed that he was called to the contest. These things about Athanasius Apollinarius writes.
[15] So Sozomen, to whom we add the following from Theodoret about the time of his death. He writes thus in book 1, chapter 26: When that excellent Bishop Alexander, who had so strenuously fought against the blasphemy of Arius, had ended his life five months after the Council celebrated at Nicaea, Athanasius assumed the episcopate of the Alexandrian Church—a man trained from boyhood in divine and sacred literature and who had performed each of the duties of Ecclesiastical orders with the highest admiration of all. St. Athanasius also asserts in his second Apology that not yet five months had elapsed after the Arian heresy had been condemned at the Synod of Nicaea when Blessed Alexander died. The Synod was concluded on the 25th of August, but perhaps to that should be added the time that St. Alexander then spent before returning from Nicaea to Alexandria, having completed his business with the Emperor Constantine, the Legates of the Apostolic See, and the other bishops. If he arrived home near the end of September, scarcely five months of his life remained until the 26th of February, the day on which the Ecclesiastical Tables generally record him. That year was 326.
[16] In the History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria published by Ecchellensis, the following singular details about his acts and day of death are reported under Alexander, the 19th Patriarch: Athanasius, the disciple of this Father Patriarch, affirms, saying: My father Alexander, whenever he read the Gospel in his cell, did so standing, with a lamp lit, and never read the Gospel while seated; nor did he ever break his fast as long as the sun was in the world. He died on the twenty-second of Bermuda, on a Monday. Now the 22nd of Barmudah falls on the 17th of April, and it was indeed a Monday in the said year 326, Solar cycle 27, Dominical letter B. In the second Egyptian Calendar published by Selden, book 3 On the Synods of the Ancient Hebrews, chapter 15, written in the year 1286, the day 22nd of Barmudah is noted thus: Of Cercesius... Patriarch. What is missing, and whether it should be understood as referring to St. Alexander, we do not know. In the earlier Egyptian Calendar, authored by Abulaibsan Ahmed Calcasendius, in the same Selden, at the 9th day of the month Hathur, which falls on the 5th of November, is recorded the Commemoration of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers of the first Council of Nicaea. What if on that day St. Alexander, having returned to his episcopal see, made a solemn declaration of the said Council among the Alexandrians, and afterward the same Bishop lived until April—through five months and some days? In a manuscript Coptic Calendar transmitted to us from Rome by Athanasius Kircher, on the 7th day of the month Mechir, or Amshir, Alexander, Patriarch of Alexandria, is recorded. These words would seem to apply to St. Alexander, whose acts we have related here, were it not that a Life extant at Rome in a Coptic manuscript of the Maronite College of the Society of Jesus treats of another Alexander, Patriarch of the Jacobites, or Eutychians, as we said on the first day of February among those Passed Over, the date to which the 7th of Mechir corresponds. Whether, however, later schismatics substituted this man of their own faction in place of the earlier and saintly Alexander, we cannot determine for lack of other ancient records.
[17] The Latins, however, as we said above, inscribed St. Alexander in the Ecclesiastical Tables on this 26th of February, on which day the ancient Roman Martyrology published by Rosweyde has the following: At Alexandria, of Alexander, glorious old man, Bishop. Nearly the same is read in the manuscript of St. Lambert at Liege. The Trier manuscript: At Alexandria, of Alexander, glorious Bishop, who expelled Arius his Priest from the Church and condemned him at the Council of Nicaea. But the Martyrologies of Bede, Usuard, Ado, Notker, and Bellinus agree with the Roman one in nearly these words: At Alexandria, of St. Alexander, Bishop, glorious old man, who after Blessed Peter, Bishop of the same city, expelled Arius the Priest, corrupted by heretical impiety and convicted by divine truth, from the Church, and afterwards condemned the same among the three hundred and eighteen Fathers at the Council of Nicaea. Similar entries are read in the manuscript Florarium, the Violet of the Saints, and very many manuscripts. The same is reported by Maurolycus, Felicius, Galesinius, Canisius, Ghinius, and other more recent authors; of whom I add the words of Galesinius alone: At Alexandria, he says, of St. Alexander, Bishop, whose incredible virtue of religious soul in defending the Catholic faith and the splendor of his holiness in every action shone forth most greatly.
[18] Selden, cited above, book 3, chapter 15, pages 344 and following, relates from Eutychius, Patriarch of Alexandria, that a temple was built at Alexandria by Queen Cleopatra and dedicated to Saturn, and that a certain Michael was worshipped there by the Gentiles. St. Alexander, however, when he became Patriarch, broke the idol and made a Cross from it, and named the temple the Church of St. Michael. It suffices to have reported this. When the veneration of St. Michael is to be treated, the truth of the matter can be investigated.