{219}

VIII.
The History of the Arians,
[Down to the Year 357, the beginning being lost.]

———————

[The earlier portion of this History, which seems to have commenced with the Author's elevation to his see, has not been preserved, because, as Montfaucon conjectures, it was considered but a repetition of the second part of the Apology against the Arians, §. 59–84. pp. 88–116. supr. He notices a correspondence even in the words employed in the two works, at the place in the Apology where the line of narrative may be considered to be taken up by the opening but broken sentence of the following History. In the beginning of §. 84. of the Apology, supr. p. 116, towards the end of its second part, Athanasius says, "As such is the nature of their machinations, so they very soon shewed plainly the reasons of their conduct. For, when they went away, they took the Arians with them to Jerusalem, and there admitted them to communion;" and in the beginning, as extant, of the History. "And not long after, they proceeded to 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 the Arians to communion." vid. also infr. p. 220, r. 2. Papebroke, whom Tillemont in the main follows, considers that the whole Apology formed a sort of third part of the Work addressed to the Monks, (the dogmatic treatise being the first of the three.) And in maintenance of this opinion he proposes an ingenious though untenable emendation of some words in the text of Athanasius, or rather in the notes added to the text by his copyists. (in Maii 2. p. 187.) A question has been raised about the genuineness of the work before us, under the idea that it probably was the writing of a companion of Athanasius, not of the Saint himself. It cannot be denied that in parts it is written in a livelier and terser, not to say freer, style than his other works, and he speaks of himself in the third person. And there is a passage, where, if the text be not corrupt, the writer distinguishes himself from Athanasius, §. 52. But on the other hand, there is a passage in which he speaks in the first person where none but Athanasius can be meant. vid. §. 21. p. 236. And he speaks of himself in other works in the third person, e.g. Orat. i. §. 3. Moreover, it is plain that the very circumstance that he was not writing in his own person would make a considerable alteration in his mode of writing, not to dwell on the difference between an apology and what is a history and invective. Some instances of agreement in words, phrases, texts, &c. are pointed out in the margin and notes.]

———————

Chapter 1. Arian Persecution under Constantine

§. 1.

1. … AND not long after they proceeded to put in execution the designs for the sake of which they had had {220} recourse to these artifices; for they no sooner had formed their plans, but they immediately admitted the Arians to communion. They set aside the repeated condemnations which had been passed upon them, and again pretended the imperial authority [Note 1] in their behalf. And they were not ashamed to say in their letters, "since Athanasius has suffered, all opposition [Note 2] has ceased, and let us henceforward receive the Arians;" 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 call bitter sweet, that put darkness for light [Is. v. 20.] [Note 3]; for they are ready to undertake any thing 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 sentence [Note 4], 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 the Bishops, fabricating charges against them also; some of whom are fallen asleep in the place of their exile, having attained the glory of Christian confession; and others are at this day banished from their country, and contend still more and more manfully against their heresy, saying, Nothing shall separate us from the love of Christ [Rom. viii. 35.] [Note 5].

§. 2.

2. 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 time friend of the Emperor, obtaining favour by his impiety; and making large gains, 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 {221} guilty of the crimes which they wish to charge upon him, or as if, like Naboth, he had blasphemed 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 thing of all [Note 6], the man whom the people desire, and know to be blameless [1 Tim. iii. 2.] [Note 7], the Emperor takes away and banishes; but him whom they neither desire, nor know, he sends to them from a distant place [Note 8] with soldiers and letters [Note 9] 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.

3. In this manner the impious are now proceeding, as heretofore, against the orthodox; giving proof of their malice and impiety amongst all men every where. For granting [Note 10] that they have justly 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 chalice 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 wild monster, which not only injures the innocent with its words, as with teeth [Note 11]; but it has also hired external power to assist it in its designs.

4. 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 criminal put to shame. Thus the whole party of them is full of vileness [Note 12] and their spies [Note 13], for {222} Bishops [Note 14] they are not, are the vilest of them all. And if any one among them desires to become a Bishop, he is not told, a Bishop must be blameless [1 Tim. iii. 2.] [Note 15]; 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 criminals, 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.

5. There was one Eustathius [Note 16], 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 mother [Note A]. 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 eunuch [Note 17], now of Antioch, and before him Stephanus, George of Laodicea, and Theodosius who was of Tripolis, Eudoxius of Germanicia, and Eustathius [Note 18] now of Sebastia.

§. 5.

6. Did they then stop here? No. For Eutropius [Note 16] who was Bishop of Adrianople, a good man, and excellent in all respects, because he had often convicted Eusebius, and had {223} 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. Basilina [Note 19] was the most active in the proceedings against him. And Euphration of Balanea, Cymatius of Paltus, another Cymatius of Taradus, Asclepas of Gaza, Cyrus of Berea [Note 20] in Syria, Diodorus of Asia, Domnion of Sirmium, and Ellanicus of Tripolis, were merely known to hate [Note 21] the heresy; and some of them on one pretence or another, some without any, they removed under the authority of royal letters [Note 22], drove them out of their cities, and appointed others whom they knew to be impious men, to occupy the Churches in their stead.

§. 6.

7. Of Marcellus [Note 23] the Bishop of Galatia it is perhaps superfluous for me to speak; for all men have heard how the Eusebians, who had been first accused by him of impiety, brought a counter-accusation against him, and caused him to be banished in his old age. He went up [Note 24] 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 the Eusebians 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 interest with the Emperor through the women [Note 25], and were formidable to all men.

§. 7.

8. And I suppose no one is ignorant of the case of Paul [Note 26], 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 [Note 27] 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 {224} 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 [Note 28] 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 disease; although all who live in that place know the circumstances. And even Philagrius [Note B] who was then Deputy-Governor [Note C] 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 him, and strangled him.

9. 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 had past, 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, a fugitive and a vagabond [Gen. iv. 12.], like Cain [Note 29], 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 {225} 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.

10. Perceiving this to be the case, the three brothers, Constantine, Constantius, and Constans, caused us all after the death of their father to return to our 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 the Eusebian party.

11. A copy of the Letter of Constantine Cæsar 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 minds [Note 30], &c.

12. This is his letter; and what more credible witness of their conspiracy could there be than this, who knowing these circumstances has thus written of them?

Top | Contents | Works | Home


Notes

A. If the common slander of the day concerning St. Helena was imputed to St. Eustathius, Constantine was likely to feel it keenly. "Stabulariam," says St. Ambrose, "hanc primò fuisse asserunt, sic cognitam Constantio." de Ob. Theod. 42. Stabularia, i.e. an innkeeper; so Rahab is sometimes considered to be "cauponaria sive tabernaria et meretrix,"Cornel. à Lap. in Jos. ii. 1. [ex homilias gunaikos ou semnes oude kata nomon sunelthou ses]. Zosim. Hist. ii. p. 78.Constantinus ex concubinâ Helenâ 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, "Entropius (x. 2.) expresses in a few words the real truth, and the occasion of the error, ex obscuriori matrimonio ejus filius."
Return to text

B. It is remarkable that this Philagrius, who has been so often mentioned with dishonour in these Tracts of St. Athanasius, as an apostate and a persecutor, vid. supr. pp. 5, 3l, &c. is represented by St. Greg. Naz. as very popular in Alexandria, and as on that account appointed to the prefecture there a second time. He compares his entry into the city on this occasion to that of St. Athan.'s after banishment. vid. Greg. Orat. 21. 28. St. Athan. however wrote on the spot and at the time, and there is nothing inconsistent in his being a popular magistrate and an enemy of the Church.
Return to text

C. Vicarius, i.e. "vicarius Præfecti, agens vicem Præfecti;" Gothofred in Cod. Theod. i. tit. 6. vid. their office, &c. drawn out at length, ibid. t. 6. p. 334.
Return to text

Top | Contents | Works | Home


Margin Notes

1. p. 246.
Return to text

2. [ph?ones]. vid. twice p. 116 fin.
Return to text

3. vol. 8. p. 9. supr. p. 205, r. 2.
Return to text

4. infr. §. 76.
Return to text

5. pp. 149, 203.
Return to text

6. [to paradoxotaton], vid. p. 32. §. 14 fin.
Return to text

7. p. 179, infr. p. 222.
Return to text

8. vid. p. 133, r. 10.
Return to text

9. p. 8, r. 3.
Return to text

10. [esto], vid. Apol. contr. Ar. 35. supr. p. 56.
Return to text

11. vid. Dan. vii. 5. 7.
Return to text

12. [rhupou].
Return to text

13. [kataskopoi].
Return to text

14. [episkopoi].
Return to text

15. p. 221.
Return to text

16. p. 190, note A.
Return to text

17. [ho apokopos]. pp. 208, 241, note A.
Return to text

18. p. 133.
Return to text

19. Julian's mother.
Return to text

20. qu. Berrhœa?
Return to text

21. p. 217, r. 7.
Return to text

22. p. 221, r. 3.
Return to text

23. p. 52, note L.
Return to text

24. [anelthon], vid. Acts xxi. 15. infr. pp. 239, r. 3. 242, r. 4.
Return to text

25. i.e. Constantia, Const.'s sister.
Return to text

26. p. 191, r. 1.
Return to text

27. [ep' ophthalmiai], supr. p. 23.
Return to text

28. p. 191, r. 1.
Return to text

29. supr. p. 161.
Return to text

30. vid. Apol. contr. Arian. §. 87. supr. p. 121.
Return to text

Top | Contents | Works | Home


Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman
Copyright © 2007 by The National Institute for Newman Studies. All rights reserved.