This History takes up the narrative from the admission of Arius to communion at the ‘dedication’ synod of Jerusalem (adjourned Council of Tyre) in 335, as described in Apol. c. Ar. 84. It has been commonly assumed from its abrupt beginning (the tauta, referring to an antecedent narrative) that the History has lost its earlier chapters, which contained the story of Arianism ab ovo. Montfaucon suggests in fact that the copyists omitted the first chapters on account of their identity in substance with the great Apology. But this seems to require reconsideration. If the alleged missing chapters were different123 in form from the second part of the Apology, they would not have been omitted: for such repetitions of the same matter in other words are very frequent in the works of Athanasius: but if they were identical in form, they are not lost, and the conclusion is that the History was written with the express intention of continuing the Apology. The customary inference from the abrupt commencement of the History may be dismissed with a non sequitur. Such a commencement was natural under the circumstances: we may compare the case of Xenophon, whose ‘Hellenica’ begin with the words Meta de tauta, ou pollai" hmerai" usteron …, the reference being to the end of the history of Thucydides. The view here maintained is clinched by the fact that Athanasius at this very time reissued his Apology against the Arians with an appendix (§§89, 90) on the lapse of Hosius and Liberius124 .
The History of the Arians, then, is a complete work, and written to continue the narrative of the second part of the Apology. Bring in fact a manifesto against Constantius, it naturally takes up the tale just before his entry upon the scene as the patron of Arianism. The substantially Athanasian authorship of the History cannot be questioned. The writer occasionally, like many others ancient and modern, speaks of himself in the third person (references §21, note 5, see also Orat. 1,3); but in other places he clearly identifies himself with Athanasius. The only passage which appears to distinguish the writer from Athanasius (§52, see note), may be due to the bishop’s habitual (Apol. Canst. II) employment of an amanuensis, but more probably the text is corrupt; in any case the passage cannot weigh against the clear sense of §21. The immediate Athanasian authorship of the piece has been questioned partly on the ground of its alleged incompleteness, partly on that of several slight discrepancies with other writings. On this twofold ground it is inferred that the Arian History has passed through some obscure process of re-editing (Gwatkin, Studies, p. 99, §14 ‘dependent on the Vita [Antonii] 86,’ p. 127, ‘not an uncorrupted work’) by a later hand. I am quite unconvinced of this. The incompleteness of the work is, as I think I have shewn above, an unnecessary hypothesis, while the mistakes or inconsistencies may well be due to circumstances of composition. It was written in hiding, perhaps while moving from place to place, certainly under more pressure of highly wrought agitation and bitterness of spirit than any other work of Athanasius. The most accurate of men when working at leisure make strange slips at times (e.g. §13, note 4); the mistakes in the History are not more than one might expect in such a work. The principal are, §21 (see (note 3), §14 (reference in note 8), §II, prin genesqai tauta (cf. Encycl. 5), §47 (inverting order of events in §39).
The date of the History is at first sight a difficulty. The fall of Liberius is dealt with in Part V., which must therefore have been written not earlier than 358 (the exact chronology of the lapse of Liberius is not certain), while yet in §4 Leontius, who died in the summer or autumn of 357, is still bishop of Antioch. We must therefore suppose that the History was begun at about the time when the Apologia de Fuga was finished (cf. the bitter conclusion of that tract) and completed when the lapse of Liberius was known in Egypt. A more accurate determination of date is not permitted by our materials.
The tract before us is in effect a fierce anonymous pamphlet against Constantius. Even apart from the references in the letters to the Monks and to Serapion (see (below), the work bears clear marks of having been intended for secret circulation (for the practice, see Fialon, pp. 193—199). ‘Instead of the “pious” Emperor who was so well versed in Scripture, whose presence would gladden a dedication festival, whose well-known humanity forbade the supposition that he could have perpetrated a deliberate injustice, we find a Costyllius (or “Connikin”) whose misdeeds could only be palliated by the imbecility which rendered him the slave of his own servant—inhuman towards his nearest of kin,—false and crafty, a Pharaoh, a Saul, an Ahab, a Belshazzar, more cruel than Pilate or Maximian, ignorant of the Gospels, a patron of heresy, a precursor of Antichrist, an enemy of Christ, as if himself, Antichrist, and—the words must be written—self-abandoned to the future doom of fire’ (Bright, Introd. p. lxxviii., and see §§9, 30, 32, 34, 40, 45, 46, 51, 53, 67—70, 74, 80). There are certainly many passages which one could wish that Athanasius had not written,—one, not necessary to specify, in which he fully condescends to the coarse brutality of the age, mingling it unpardonably with holy things But Athanasius was human, and exasperated by inhuman vindictiveness and perfidy. If in the passages referred to he falls below himself, and speaks in the spirit of his generation, there are not wanting passages equal in nobility to anything he ever wrote. Once more to quote Dr. Bright: ‘The beautiful description of the Archbishop’s return from his second exile, and of its moral and religious effect upon Alexandrian Church society (25), the repeated protests against the principle of persecution as alien to the mind of the Church of Christ (29, 33, 67), the tender allusion to sympathy for the poor as instinctive in human nature (63), the vivid picture—doubtless somewhat coloured by imagination—of the stand made by Western bishops, and notably for a time by Liberius, against the tyrannous dictation of Constantius in matters ecclesiastical (34 sqq. 76), the generous estimate of Hosius and Liberius in the hour of their infirmity (41, 45), the three golden passages which describe the union maintained by a common faith and a sincere affection between friends who are separated from each other (40), the all-sufficient presence of God with His servants in their extremest solitude (47), and the future joy when heaven would be to sufferers for the truth as a calm haven to sailors after a storm (79). It is in such contexts that we see the true Athanasius, and touch the source of his magnificent insuperable constancy’ (p. lxxix).. Nothing could be more just, or more happily put. It ought to be noted before leaving this part of the subject, that the language put into the mouth of Constantius and the Arians (33 fin. 1, 3, 9, 12, 15, 30, 42, 45, 60), is not so much a report of their words as ‘a representation ad invidiam of what is assumed to have been in their minds.’ Other instances of this are to be found in Athanasius (Ep. Aeg. 18, Orat. 3,17), and he uses the device advisedly (de Syn. 7, middle).
The letter to Serapion on the death of Arius, and the letter to Monks, which in mss. and printed editions are prefixed to this treatise, will be found in the collection of letters below (No. 54 and 52). They have been removed from their time-honoured place in accordance with the general arrangement of this volume, though not without hesitation, and apart from any intention to dogmatise on the relation they bear to the present tract.
The ‘Arian History’ has commonly been called the ‘Hist Arianorum ad Monachos,’ or even the ‘Epistola ad Monachos;’ even at the present day it is sometimes cited simply as ‘ad Monachos.’ The History has derived this title from the fact, that in the Codices and editions, the Letter and History are frequently joined together without any sign of division. At the same time the correctness of this collocation is not entirely free from doubt.
Serapion (Letter 54 §1) had written to Athanasius asking for three things,—a history of recent events relating to himself, an expose of the Arian heresy, and an exact account of the death of Arius. The latter Athanasius furnishes in the letter just referred to. For the two former, he refers Serapion to a document he had written for the monks (aper egraya toi" monacoi"), and which he now sends to Serapion. He begs Serapion at the end of his letter not on any account to part with the letters he has received, nor to copy them (he gave, he adds, the same directions to the monks, cf). Letter 52. 3), but to send them back with such corrections and additions as he might think desirable. He refers him to his letter to the monks for an explanation of the circumstances which render this precaution necessary. The monks (ib 1) had apparently made the same request as Serapion afterwards made. It has been conjectured that the four ‘Orations’ against Arianism, or the first three, are the treatise on the heresy addressed to the monks and subsequently sent to Serapion. But the description of that treatise egraya di oligwn (Letter 52. 1) is quite inapplicable to the longest treatise extant among the works of Athanasius. Still less, even if the Arian History were a fragment (see (above), could we suppose that the accompanying treatise formed the missing first part. We must therefore acquiesce in the conclusion that the treatise in question has perished. Accordingly we cannot be sure (although it is generally regarded as highly probable125 ) that the historical portion is preserved to us in the ‘Arian History.’ In any case the Letter to Monks is quite unconnected with it in its subject matter, and ends with the blessing, as the History does with the doxology, in the form of an independent document.
While admitting, therefore, the naturalness of the traditional arrangement, we may fairly treat the two as distinct, and permit the Arian History to launch the reader without preamble in medias res.
As the tract is long, and various in its subject-matter, the following scheme of contents may be found useful. It will be noted that chronological order is observed in Parts I.—IV. i.e. till 355, when the existing persecution of Constantius, the main theme of the History (Letter 52, §1), is reached. The history of this persecution is dealt with (Parts V.—VII). with much more fulness, and is grouped round subjects each of which covers more or less the same period. Part VIII deals with the more recent events in Egypt.
Part I). Proceedings of the Arians from the Council of Tyre Till the Return of the Exiles (335–337).
§§1–3 General character of their proceedings.
§§4–7 Persecution of the orthodox bishops.
§8 Restoration of the exiles after Constantine’s death.
Part II). Second Exile of Athanasius, Till the Council of Sardica (337–343).
§9 Renewed intrigues against Athanasius.
§10 Gregory intruded by Constantius as bishop.
§11 Athanasius at Rome. Negotiations for a Council there.
§§12–14 Violent proceedings of Gregory. Case of Duke Balacius.
Part III). From Sardica Till the Death of Constans (343–350).
§15 The meeting of the Synod. Dismay of the Arianising bishops.
§16 Their flight from the Synod.
§17 Proceedings of the Synod.
§§18, 19 Continued persecution after it.
§20 The infamous plot of Stephen against the Sardican legates at Antioch.
§§21, 22 Constantius changes his mind and recalls Athanasius with a solemn oath to defend him for the future.
§§23, 24 Letters of Constantius at this time.
§25 Return of Athanasius (346).
§26 Recantation of Valens and Ursacius.
§27 Peace and joy of the Church.
Part IV). From the Death of Constans to the Council of Milan (351–355).
§28 Renewed intrigues of the Arianising party.
§§29, 30 Valens, Ursacius, and the Emperor return to Arianism.
§§31, 32 Constantius again persecutes the Church.
§33 Wickedness of persecution. Western bishops banished by Constantius [at Milan].
§34 How they diffused the truth whenever they went.
Part V). Liberius (355–358).
§35–37 Firmness of Liberius and rage of Constantius.
§38 Concerning the eunuchs at the Court.
§39–40 Liberius rebukes the Emperor and is cruelly exiled.
§41 After two years of exile, Liberius gives way under force.
Part VI). Hosius (355–358).
§42 Intrigues against Hosius.
§43 Vain attempts of Constantius to gain him over.
§44 Letter of Hosius remonstrating with the Emperor.
§§45, 46 Lapse of Hosius, his fidelity to Athanasius, recantation, and death.
§47 Monstrosity of the above proceedings).
Part VII). The Attacks Upon Athanasius (351–356).
§47 Athanasius isolated by the exile of other bishops.
§48 Attacks upon Athansius himself (353–356).
§§44, (50), 51 Hyprocrisy of the Emperor’s pretended regard for his Father and Brother.
§§52, 53 Impropriety of Imperial intervention in Church affairs.
§54 The Churches at Alexandria given to the Arians.
§55 Violence of Cataphronius, Prefect of Egypt.
§§56, 57 Sack of the great chruch: divine judgments.
§58 Scenes of persecution.
§§59, 60 Savagery of Duke Sebastian. Martyrdom of Eutychius (356).
§§61–63 Cruel treatment of the poor, and of the clergy.
Part VIII). Further Details of the Persecution in Egypt (357).
§64 The Arian persecution more cruel than that of Maximian.
§65 Martyrdom of Secundus of Barka.
§§66, 67 Persecution the disgrace of the new heresy.
§68, 69 Constantius worse than Ahab, &c., and inhuman toward his own family
§70 His fickleness, lack of character, and tyranny.
§71 Novelty of this persecution on the part of pretended Christians.
§72 Cruel exile of bishops and torture of monks and lay people.
§73 Venal appointments to fill the vacancies thus created.
§74 The predicted signs of Antichrist applied to Constantius.
§75 Arrival of George at Alexandria.
§76, 77 Further marks of Antichrist in the tyranny of Constantius over the Church.
§78, 79 The Melantians the allies of Arianism in Egypt.
§80 Duty of separating from heretics.
§81 Appendix to §48. Second protest of the Church of Alexandria against the proceedings of Syrianus (356)).
1 Leontius died in the summer of 357, probably before Ath. wrote.
2 De Syn. 17.
3 Apol. Ar. 48.
4 (Jn 8,44 1Co 6,10,
5 (Mt 15,4,
6 (Lc 6,1). sqq.
7 (Is 1,10-11,
8 peribombein, Nic. Def. 14, note 1; Greg. Naz. Orat. 27. n. 2).
9 Vid). Hist. Arian. §4. also Theodoret Hist. 1,20). [Prolegg. ch. 2,§4.] The name of Euphration occurs de Syn. 17 as the Bishop to whom Eusebius of Caesarea wrote an heretical letter. Balaneae is on the Syrian coast. Paltus also and Antaradus are in Syria, and these persecutions took place about a.d. 338; that of Eutropius, and of Lucius his successor, about 331, shortly after the proceedings against Eustathius. Cyrus too was banished under pretence of Sabellianism about 338. For Asclepas, Theodulus, and Olympius vid). Hist. Arian. §19. and supr). Apol. Ar. 44, 45.
10 Hist. Arian. 5.
11 Tom. ad Ant.
12 Beroea, Hist. Ar. 5.
13 Tom. ad Ant.
14 a.d. 350, infr). Hist. Arian. §4; for Cucusus, see D.C.B. 1,529, 530.
15 Hist. Arian. §15; Pr 30,15.
16 Of Treveri.
17 Of Milan.
18 Of Cagliari.
19 Of Vercellae.
20 [Council of Milan, 355.]
21 Hist. Ar. 42.
22 [Nicae and Sardica are specially referred to, but see Prolegg. ch. 2,§3 (1) note 5, sub. fin.]
23 [Apol. Ar. 89, Hist. Ar. 45, 357 a.d.]
24 (Ga 2,5).
25 Apol. Coast. 30, note 5, and reff.
26 [Comp). Encyc. §4. The present passage certainly appears to put the arrival of George in the Lent immediately following the irruption of Syrianus: but see Prolegg. ch. 2,§8 (1), note 5, below, Fest. Index,xxix., and the explanation in Chron. Aceph. that the party of George took possession of the Churches (in June 356), eight months before George arrived in person. Cf. Introd. to Apol. Const.]
27 [Sunday, May 18, 357. The Roman martyrology celebrates these victims on May 21, which suits the reference of the present passage to 357.]
28 Hist. Arian. §72.
29 Ibid. §72 fin). Apol). Const. 27.
30 Ibid. and see Hist. Ar. §72.
31 Hieron. V. Hilar. §30). [Rather see Letter 49. 7, notes 3 (a and b), and Vit. Pachom. 72, where the same names occur together.]
32 Hieron. V. Hilar. §30). [Rather see Letter 49. 7, notes 3 (a and b), and Vit. Pachom. 72, where the same names occur together.]
33 Letter 49.
34 Letter 60.
35 Letter 49. 10.
36 Cited by Socrates 3,8.
37 Apol. Ar. §4).
38 (1S 22,2,
39 Hist. Arian. §§34, 35.
40 (Mt 10,29,
41 Encyc. 5.
42 (Is 47,6 Ps 69,26,
43 (Jn 8,44,
44 Achish, 1 Sam, 21,13 [but cf. title of Ps 34.]
45 (1R 18,15 Hist. Ar. §53).
46 (Ex 21,13,
47 (Mt 10,23 Mt 24,15,
48 (Mt 2,13,
49 (Mt 12,15,
50 (Jn 11,53-54,
51 (Jn 8,58-59,
52 (Lc 4,30,
53 (Is 9,5,
54 (Mt 14,13,
55 Cf). Orat. 1,43.
56 (Jn 7,30,
57 (Jn 2,4,
58 (Jn 7,6,
59 (Mt 26,45).
60 De Decr. 18, note 5.
61 (Qo 3,2,
62 (Ex 23,26 Gn 25,8,
63 (Ps 102,24,
64 (Jb 5,26, LXX.
65 Vid. Pr 10,27.
66 (Qo 7,17,
67 (Ps 102,23, LXX.
68 (Lc 12,20,
69 (Qo 9,12
70 (Gn 27,2,
71 (Lc 4,30,
72 (Jn 17,1,
73 (Jn 18,4-5,
74 (Mt 5,36 Mt 10,29,
75 (Ps 31,15,
76 (1S 2,6,
77 (He 11,37-38).
78 (1S 26,10-11,
79 (1R 21,18,
80 i.e, Jeroboam 1R 13,2.
81 (Mt 19,6,
82 (Pr 13,3, LXX.
83 Vid. Ex 3,10.
84 (Dt 32,49,
85 Vid. Ac 23,11). [The reference to the Roman martyrdom of the two great Apostles should be noted. The tradition is as old as Clem. Rom.; much older than that of the Roman Episcopate of one of them.]
86 Vid. Euseb). Hist. 2,25.
87 (2Tm 4,6).
88 (Mt 5,10,
89 (Sg 3,57,
90 (Ps 45,1,
91 (Ps 50,3, LXX.
92 (Ps 54,7,
93 (Ps 56,11,
94 (Ps 57,3,
95 (2R 1,10 2R 1,
96 (2Tm 3,11,
97 (Rm 8,35, Rm 8,37
98 (2Co 12,4,
99 (Rm 15,19,
100 (2Tm 3,12,
101 (He 12,1,
102 (Rm 5,4,
103 (Is 26,20).
104 (Qo 5,8-9,
105 (Ps 31,24,
106 (Ps 37,40 Ps 40,1,
107 Vid. instances and passages collected in Pearson’s Vind. Ignat. part 2,0. 9; also Gibbon, ch. xvi. p. 428. Mosheim de Reb. Ante Const. p, 941). [See D.C.A. p. 1119 (3).]
108 Hist. Arian. §§33, 67.
109 (Ex 15,9,
110 (Is 5,20,
111 (Jn 6,68,
112 Apol. Const. 25.
113 (Ps 136,1 [on psalmody at Alexandria, cf. Aug). Conf. 10,33.]
114 (Dt 6,16 Mt 4,7,
115 Sent. Dion. 16). Hist. Ar. §§68. 72.
116 Hist. Arian. §28 [but see D.C.B. 3,688].
117 [The bracketed passage is omitted by some good witnesses to the text. The respectful tone of the ‘Apology to Const.’ is exchanged for cold reserve in this ‘Apology,’ and for unmeasured invective in Hist. Ar.]
118 De Syn. 17, &c.
119 Apol. Ar. 8, note 3).
120 Vid. supr). Ep. Aeg. 20 infr. Hist. Arian. §§17. 34 fin. 41 init. 59 fin. 64 init). De. Decr. 16, note 5.
121 (Ps 27,1.
122 Ps 31,7-8).
123 The corrections were made before he could obtain the essay carefully and gratefully used, but his text is defective, especially and text of Sievers (Zeitsch. Hist. Theol. 1868), where he now from the accidental omission of one of the key-clauses of the finds them nearly all anticipated. Sievers’ discussion has been whole (§17)).
124 But our annalist gives May 3, while Fest Ind. gives May 2, the day solemnised in the Coptic Martyrologies (Mai, Script. Vett. vol. 4, part 2, pp. 29, 114), and doubtless the right one. Perhaps, if Athanasius died in the night of May 2–3, the former day might be chosen for his commemoration, while our annalist may still be literally exact.
125 See Tillera. 8,719 sqq.
1). Arian Persecution Under Constantine.
And not long after they put in execution the designs for the sake of which they had had recourse to these artifices; for they no sooner had formed their plans, but they immediately admitted Arius and his fellows to communion. They set aside the repeated condemnations which had been passed upon them, and again pretended the imperial authority1 in their behalf. And they were not ashamed to say in their letters, ‘since Athanasius suffered, all jealousy2 has ceased, and let us henceforward receive Arius and his fellows;’ adding, in order to frighten their hearers, ‘because the Emperor has commanded it.’ Moreover, they were not ashamed to add, ‘for these men profess orthodox opinions;’ not fearing that which is written, ‘Woe unto them that I call bitter sweet, that put darkness for light3 ;’ for they are ready to undertake anything in support of their heresy. Now is it not hereby plainly proved to all men, that we both suffered heretofore, and that you now persecute us, not under the authority of an Ecclesiastical sentence4 , but on the ground of the Emperor’s threats, and on account of our piety towards Christ? As also they conspired in like manner against other Bishops, fabricating charges against them also; some of whom fell asleep in the place of their exile, having attained the glory of Christian confession; and others are still banished from their country, and contend still more and more manfully against their heresy, saying, ‘Nothing shall separate us from the love of Christ5 ?’
2). Arians Sacrifice Morality and Integrity to Party.
And hence also you may discern its character, and be able to condemn it more confidently. The man who is their friend and their associate in impiety, although he is open to ten thousand charges for other enormities which he has committed; although the evidence and proof against him are most clear; he is approved of by them, and straightway becomes the friend of the Emperor, obtaining an introduction by his impiety; and making very many pretences, he acquires confidence before the magistrates to do whatever he desires. But he who exposes their impiety, and honestly advocates the cause of Christ, though he is pure in all things, though he is conscious of no delinquencies, though he meets with no accuser; yet on the false pretences which they have framed against him, is immediately seized and sent into banishment under a sentence of the Emperor, as if he were guilty of the crimes which they wish to charge upon him, or as if, like Naboth, he had insulted the King; while he who advocates the cause of their heresy is sought for and immediately sent to take possession of the other’s Church; and henceforth confiscations and insults, and all kinds of cruelty are exercised against those who do not receive him. And what is the strangest of all, the man whom the people desire, and know to be blameless6 , the Emperor takes away and banishes; but him whom they neither desire, nor know, he sends to them from a distant place with soldiers and letters from himself. And henceforward a strong necessity is laid upon them, either to hate him whom they love; who has been their teacher, and their father in godliness; and to love him whom they do not desire, and to trust their children to one of whose life and conversation and character they are ignorant; or else certainly to suffer punishment, if they disobey the Emperor).
3). Recklessness of Their Proceedings.
In this manner the impious are now proceeding, as heretofore, against the orthodox; giving proof of their malice and impiety amongst all men everywhere. For granting that they have accused Athanasius; yet what have the other Bishops done? On what grounds can they charge them? Has there been found in their case too the dead body of an Arsenius? Is there a Presbyter Macarius, or has a cup been broken amongst them? Is there a Meletian to play the hypocrite? No: but as their proceedings against the other Bishops shew the charges which they have brought against Athanasius, in all probability, to be false; so their attacks upon Athanasius make it plain, that their accusations of the other Bishops are unfounded likewise. This heresy has come forth upon the earth like some great monster, which not only injures the innocent with its words, as with teeth7 ; but it has also hired external power to assist it in its designs. And strange it is that, as I said before, no accusation is brought against any of them; or if any be accused, he is not brought to trial; or if a shew of enquiry be made, he is acquitted against evidence, while the convicting party is plotted against, rather than the culprit put to shame. Thus the whole party of them is full of idleness; and their spies, for Bishops8 they are not, are the vilest of them all. And if any one among them desire to become a Bishop, he is not told, ‘a Bishop must be blameless9 ;’ but only, ‘Take up opinions contrary to Christ, and care not for manners. This will be sufficient to obtain favour for you, and friendship with the Emperor.’ Such is the character of those who support the tenets of Arius. And they who are zealous for the truth, however holy and pure they shew themselves, are yet, as I said before, made culprits, whenever these men choose, and on whatever pretences it may seem good to them to invent. The truth of this, as I before remarked, you may clearly gather from their proceedings.
4). Arians Persecute Eustathius and Others.
There was one Eustathius10 , Bishop of Antioch, a Confessor, and sound in the Faith. This man, because he was very zealous for the truth, and hated the Arian heresy, and would not receive those who adopted its tenets, is falsely accused before the Emperor Constantine, and a charge invented against him, that he had insulted his mother11 . And immediately he is driven into banishment, and a great number of Presbyters and Deacons with him. And immediately after the banishment of the Bishop, those whom he would not admit into the clerical order on account of their impiety were not only received into the Church by them, but were even appointed the greater part of them to be Bishops, in order that they might have accomplices in their impiety. Among these was Leontius the eunuch12 , now of Antioch, and his predecessor Stephanus, George of Laodicea, and Theodosius who was of Tripolis, Eudoxius of Germanicia, and Eustathius13 , now of Sebastia.
5. Did they then stop here? No. For Eutropius14 , who was Bishop of Adrianople, a good man, and excellent in all respects, because he had often convicted Eusebius, and had advised them who came that way, not to comply with his impious dictates, suffered the same treatment as Eustathius, and was cast out of his city and his Church. Basilina15 was the most active in the proceedings against him. And Euphration of Balanea, Kymatius of Paltus, Carterius of Antaradus16 , Asclepas of Gaza, Cyrus of Bercoea in Syria, Diodorus of Asia, Domnion of Sirmium, and Ellanicus of Tripolis, were merely known to hate the heresy; and some of them on one pretence or another, some without any, they removed under the authority of royal letters, drove them out of their cities, and appointed others whom they knew to be impious men, to occupy the Churches in their stead.
6). Case of Marcellus.
Of Marcellus17 , the Bishop of Galatia, it is perhaps superfluous for me to speak; for all men have heard how Eusebius and his fellows, who had been first accused by him of impiety, brought a counter-accusation against him, and caused the old man to be banished. He went up to Rome, and there made his defence, and being required by them, he offered a written declaration of his faith, of which the Council of Sardica approved. But Eusebius and his fellows made no defence, nor, when they were convicted of impiety out of their writings, were they put to shame, but rather assumed greater boldness against all. For they had an introduction to the Emperor from the women18 , and were formidable to all men.
7). Martyrdom of Paul of Constantinople.
And I suppose no one is ignorant of the case of Paul19 , Bishop of Constantinople; for the more illustrious any city is, so much the more that which takes place in it is not concealed. A charge was fabricated against him also. For Macedonius his accuser, who has now become Bishop in his stead (I was present myself at the accusation), afterwards held communion with him, and was a Presbyter under Paul himself. And yet when Eusebius with an evil eye wished to seize upon the Bishopric of that city (he had been translated in the same manner from Berytus to Nicomedia), the charge was revived against Paul; and they did not give up their plot, but persisted in the calumny. And he was banished first into Pontus by Constantine, and a second time by Constantius he was sent bound with iron chains to Singara in Mesopotamia, and from thence transferred to Emesa, and a fourth time he was banished to Cucusus in Cappadocia, near the deserts of Mount Taurus; where, as those who were with him have declared, he died by strangulation at their hands. And yet these men who never speak the truth, though guilty of this, were not ashamed after his death to invent another story, representing that he had died from illness; although all who live in that place know the circumstances. And even Philagrius20 , who was then Deputy-Governor21 of those parts, and represented all their proceedings in such manner as they desired, was yet astonished at this; and being grieved perhaps that another, and not himself, had done the evil deed, he informed Serapion the Bishop, as well as many other of our friends, that Paul was shut up by them in a very confined and dark place, and left to perish of hunger; and when after six days they went in and found him still alive, they immediately set upon the man, and strangled him. This was the end of his life; and they said that Philip who was Prefect was their agent in the perpetration of this murder. Divine Justice, however, did not overlook this; for not a year passed, when Philip was deprived of his office in great disgrace, so that being reduced to a private station, he became the mockery of those whom he least desired to be the witnesses of his fall. For in extreme distress of mind, groaning and trembling like Cain22 , and expecting every day that some one would destroy him, far from his country and his friends, he died, like one astounded at his misfortunes, in a manner that he least desired. Moreover these men spare not even after death those against whom they have invented charges whilst living. They are so eager to shew themselves formidable to all, that they banish the living, and shew no mercy on the dead; but alone of all the world they manifest their hatred to them that are departed, and conspire against their friends, truly inhuman as they are, and haters of that which is good, savage in temper beyond mere enemies, in behalf of their impiety, who eagerly plot the ruin of me and of all the rest, with no regard to truth, but by false charges.
8). Restoration of the Catholics.
Perceiving this to be the case, the three brothers, Constantine, Constantius, and Constans, caused all after the death of their father to return to their own country and Church; and while they wrote letters concerning the rest to their respective Churches, concerning Athanasius they wrote the following; which likewise shews the violence of the whole proceedings, and proves the murderous disposition of Eusebius and his fellows.
A copy of the Letter of Constantine Coesar to the people of the Catholic Church in the city of the Alexandrians.
I suppose that it has not escaped the knowledge of your pious minds23 , &c.
This is his letter; and what more credible witness of their conspiracy could there be than he, who knowing these circumstances has thus written of them?
3 (Is 5,20,
4 Infr. §76.
5 (Rm 8,35,
6 (1Tm 3,2).
7 Vid. Da 7,5 Da 7,7.
8 Cf. §49). [The play on words cannot be rendered.]
9 (1Tm 3,2,
10 Apol. Fug. 3, note 9.
11 If the common slander of the day concerning S. Helena was imputed to S. Eustathius Constantine was likely to feel it keenly. ‘Stabulariam,’ says S. Ambrose, ‘hanc primo fuisse asserunt, sic cognitam Constantio.’ de Ob). Theod. 42, Stabularia, i.e. an innkeeper; so Rahab is sometimes considered to be ‘cauponaria siva tabernaria et meretrix,’ Cornel. a Lap. in Jos. 2,1). ex omilio" gunaiko" ou semnh" oude kata nomon sunelqoush". Zosim, Hist. 2,p. 78. Constantinus ex concubine Helena procreatus. Hieron). in Chron. Euseb. p. 773. (ed. Vallars). Tillemont however maintains (Empereurs, t. 4. p. 613), and Gibbon fully admits (Hist. ch. 14. p. 190), the legitimacy of Constantine. The latter adds, ‘Eutropius (x. 2). expresses in a few words the real truth, and the occasion of the error, “ex obscuriori matrimonio ejus filius.”’ [Cf. Soz. 2,19.]
12 Below, §28, note.
13 Ep. Aeg. 7.
14 Ap. Fug. 3.
15 Julian’s mother.
16 .[The text must be corrected thus; see Apol. Fug. 3.]
17 Apol. Ar. 32).
18 i.e. Constantia, Constantine’s sister
19 Ap. Fug. 3. For the presence of Ath. at CP. in 337, see Prolegg. 2,§5 fin.]
20 [Cf. Prolegg. ch. 2,§6(1) note 3.]
21 Vicarius, i.e. ‘vicarius Praefecti, agens vicem Praefecti;’ Gothofred in Cod. Theod. 1,tit. 6. vid. their office, &c., drawn out at length, ibid. t. 6, p. 334.
22 (Gn 4,12, LXX. supr. p. 241.
23 Given above, Apol. contr. Arian. §87.