Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book I/Chapter 31

←

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book I
Philip Schaff et al.

Chapter 31

→

169976Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book I — Chapter 31Philip Schaff et al.

Chapter XXXI.—When the Bishops will not listen to Athanasius’ Defense on the Second Charge, he betakes himself to the Emperor.

But in refuting the false allegations against Macarius, he made use of legal forms; taking exception in the first place to Eusebius and his party, as his enemies, protesting against the injustice of any man’s being tried by his adversaries. He next insisted on its being proved that his accuser Ischyras had really obtained the dignity of presbyter; for so he had been designated in the indictment. But as the judges would not allow any of these objections, the case of Macarius was entered into, and the informers being found deficient of proofs, the hearing of the matter was postponed, until some persons should have gone into Mareotis, in order that all doubtful points might be examined on the spot. Athanasius seeing that those very individuals were to be sent to whom he had taken exception (for the persons sent were Theognis, Maris, Theodorus, Macedonius, Valens, and Ursacius), exclaimed that ‘their procedure was both treacherous and fraudulent; for that it was unjust that the presbyter Macarius should be detained in bonds, while the accuser together with the judges who were his adversaries, were permitted to go, in order that an ex parte collection of the facts in evidence might be made.’ Having made this protest before the whole Synod and Dionysius the governor of the province, and finding that no one paid any attention to his appeal, he privately withdrew. Those, therefore, who were sent to Mareotis, having made an ex parte^[1]

investigation, held that what the accuser said was true.

Footnotes

↑ ἐκ μονομεροῦς, Lat. ex parte; the term, however, is not restricted to this technical sense, but may be used of any form of partiality. Cf. Sophocles’ Greek Lex. of Rom. and Byz. As already noted in the Intro. p. ix, Harnack denies that there is any special juristic knowledge shown here; it must be conceded that the language used is such as might have been at the command of any intelligent and educated non-professional man.

[1] ἐκ μονομεροῦς, Lat. ex parte; the term, however, is not restricted to this technical sense, but may be used of any form of partiality. Cf. Sophocles’ Greek Lex. of Rom. and Byz. As already noted in the Intro. p. ix, Harnack denies that there is any special juristic knowledge shown here; it must be conceded that the language used is such as might have been at the command of any intelligent and educated non-professional man.

[1]