Letter 66
To Theophilus
As I am about to make a certain inquiry of you, I wish first to
give you some explanation in regard to it. A man from Cyrene, Alexander my name, of
senatorial rank, while still quite young entered the monastic life. As his plan of life
developed with his years, he was deemed worthy of ecclesiastical orders. He first became a
deacon and then a priest. Then certain matters called him to court, and he became
associated with Joannes of blessed memory; I use the phrase advisedly, for we cannot speak
without respect of that man, now that he is no more; all enmity ought to end with this
life.
Associated with this prelate before the churches were thrown into
confusion, he was ordained at his hands Bishop of Basinupolis in Bithynia, and when
differences arose he remained the friend of his ordainer, and was of those who took his
part. But when the Synod's judgement prevailed against him, for a time the quarrel
continued. By why should I tell you all that you know better than anyone? Was it not owing
to you, after all, that measures were taken to bring about union? I read a memoir full of
good sense, which you addressed, if I am not mistaken, to the blessed Atticus, and in
which you advised him to receive certain men again. Up to this moment there was common
cause between Alexander and his fellow-apostates. But his was a peculiar line of conduct,
at least one shared by few, inasmuch as the third year he has now come round since the
amnesty and the reconciliation, but he has not taken the straight road to Bithynia nor has
he taken over the see assigned to him. He remains in our midst, as if he cared not at all
whether any one treats him as a layman or not. Now, for my part, I have not been in the
past brought up in knowledge of the holy laws, nor has it befallen me to learn much even
now, for as recently as last year I was not on the list of bishops. So, when I perceive
aged men not pretending to understand the situation clearly, but terrified lest they
should unwittingly offend against some cannon of the Church; when I see them treating him
quite harshly on this account, and because of their vague distrust slighting the stranger
everywhere in public, nor suffering him in their houses; I do not censure these men, but I
do not imitate them. I did not receive Alexander at the church, nor did I permit him to
communicate at the sacred table, but in my own house I paid him the same civilities as I
extend to the blameless, and my manner to him is such as it to my fellow countrymen.
When any one of these comes to pay me a visit, in every act and word
conveying honour, we defer to him, esteeming as nonsense any disgust that people may feel,
at our subversion of the metropolitan rights of the city. And yet on account of this I
bear the cares of all, taking them on my shoulders, and, for the sake of the leisure of
all, I alone have no leisure; but it will be put down to my honour in the sight of God,
that though poor in honours I am right in labours. Whenever I set out for church, I do not
like to see this Alexander anywhere in the forum, and if by chance I see him, I turn my
eyes elsewhere, and a blush at once spreads over my cheek. But the moment he has crossed
the threshold of my house, that he is under my roof, I receive him with all the usual
courtesies. Why, then, am I at variance with myself in public and private, and in neither
of the situations do what seems fitting? At one moment I obey the law, at another I am
yielding to my own nature, which inclines me to benevolence: and yet I should have been
willing even to do violence to my nature, if I had been clearly informed about the law.
This very thing, then, is the question to which the authority of the evangelical
association ought to give an answer simply and clearly, and as I understand it-- Is
Alexander to be considered a bishop or not?