Letter 66

To Theophilus. Since I am about to put a question to you, let me first explain the background. A man from Cyrene named Alexander, of senatorial rank, entered monastic life while still quite young. As his vocation matured, he received holy orders — first as deacon, then as priest. Then certain business called him to court, and he became associated with Johannes of blessed memory [possibly John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Theophilus's bitter enemy]. I use that respectful phrase deliberately, since we cannot speak without reverence of any man once he is dead — all enmity should end with this life. Associated with this prelate before the churches fell into turmoil, Alexander was ordained by him as Bishop of Basinopolis in Bithynia. When the disputes began, he stood by the man who had ordained him. But when the Synod's judgment went against Johannes, the quarrel continued for a time. Why should I tell you what you know better than anyone? Was it not largely thanks to you that measures were taken to restore unity? I read your sensible memorandum — addressed, if I am not mistaken, to the blessed Atticus — in which you advised him to receive certain men back into communion. Up to that point, Alexander's case was no different from his fellow dissidents. But his subsequent conduct has been peculiar, shared by very few: it has now been three years since the amnesty and reconciliation, yet he has not gone back to Bithynia or taken up the see assigned to him. He remains here among us, seemingly indifferent to whether anyone treats him as a layman or not. For my part, I was not raised with a knowledge of church law, nor have I learned much of it even now, having been appointed to the priesthood only last year. What exactly is his status? What should I do about him? I need your guidance.

Letter 66: Asking for Clarification [1] 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 by 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 Johannes note [Unidentified, but perhaps John Chrysostom, an enemy of Theophilus of Alexandria.] 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 judgment prevailed against him, for a time the quarrel continued. [2] But 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. [3] 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. [4] 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 canon 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. Do you know how I conducted myself, most venerable father? 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. [5] When anyone of these comes to pay me a visit, in every act and word conveying honor, 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 honor in the sight of God, that though poor in honors I am rich in labors. 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. [6] 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 succession ought to give an answer simply and clearly, and as I understand it - Is Alexander to be considered a bishop or not?