The Time Between the First Oecumenical Council and the Synod of Sardica.

SECTION 45. THE FIRST PERIOD AFTER THE SYNOD OF NICOEA.

In consequence of the decrees of Nicaea, the Emperor Constantine, as we have seen, exiled Arius and the two Egyptian bishops, Theonas and Secundas, with the priests who adhered to them, to Illyria, and adopted other means for the immediate extermination of Arianism. He ordered the books of Arius and his friends to be burnt, threatened those who concealed them with death, and forbade even the name of Arians. But still the heretical fire was not thereby extinguished; nay, it went on smoldering in secret all the more, when several bishops, above all the highly-esteemed Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis of Nicaea, who, without being thorough-going Arians, still held Subordinationist views, from fear of the Emperor, and as a matter of form only, subscribed the Nicene Creed. This, especially the doctrine of the oJmoou>siov had always been regarded by them with suspicion, as injurious to the first of the two ideas, which must be comprehended in the notion of the Person of Christ, i .e . Personality and Divinity, by not strictly enough maintaining the personal distinction between the Father and the Son, while the second idea is exaggerated to the Sabellianist identity of the Son with the Father.

If a document found in Socrates, of which we shall speak later, may be trusted, these bishops, so-called Eusebians, had not joined in the anathema pronounced against the person of Arius, but accepted the Creed, without admitting that Arius had taught the errors of which he was accused, thus availing themselves of the well-known distinction between question du fait and du droit .

It would have been wonderful if, in Egypt as well as in Alexandria, where before the Council of Nice Arianism had already taken such deep root, it had not tried to break out afresh. When this happened, and the Emperor, therefore, again banished from Egypt several Alexandrians who had fallen from the Nicene faith, and “relighted the torch of disunion,” then (as he himself relates ), “Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis not only sided with them, and took measures for their safety, but took part in their wickedness, and received them into the communion of the Church,” so that Constantine banished them also to a distant country (Gaul). At the same time he accused the Nicomedians of having also joined in Licinius’ earlier persecution of the Christians, and intrigued against himself, and ordered the communities of Nicomedia and Nicaea to elect new bishops.

Thus Amphion was appointed to Nicomedia, Ehretas to Nicaea. f9 According to some accounts, Eusebius and Theognis bribed an imperial notary to efface their signatures from the Acts of the Council of Nicaea. Philostorgius says, however, that both they and Bishop Maris of Chalcedon had openly confessed to the Emperor their regret at having subscribed to the Nicene Creed, and thus brought the sentence of banishment upon themselves. This took place three months after the conclusion of the Council of Nicaea, in December 325, or in January of the year following. About the same time, Constantine, in a letter to Theodotus of Laodicea, set before him as a warning the fate of his deposed colleagues, since they had made endeavors to win him also to their side. Some time later, as hitherto believed on the 23rd of the Egyptian month of Pharmuth (i .e . April 18, 326 ), Alexander, Archbishop of Alexandria, died; but a newly-found document states that his death did not take place until the 22nd of Pharmuth (i .e . April of the year 328). Sozomen relates, on the authority of Apollinaris, that on Alexander’s death drawing near, Athanasius fled, in order to avoid being made bishop; but a divine revelation pointed him out to Alexander as his successor, and on his deathbed he uttered his name. Another Athanasius appeared in answer to his call; but Alexander took no heed of him, and again calling Athanasius, said, “Thou hast thought to flee from me, Athanasius, but thou hast not escaped me,” — thus marking him, though absent, as his successor. This story is related in substance by Rufinus f15 and Epiphanius also; but the latter adds that Athanasius was absent at that time on business of his bishop’s, and therefore had not fled, and that the whole body of the clergy and the faithful subsequently affirmed that Alexander had destined him for his successor. But the Meletians had made use of his absence to place in the vacant see one of their party named Theonas, who, however, died in three months before the return of Athanasius; and a synod of the orthodox at Alexandria now declared Athanasius to be the rightful bishop.

The Arians, on the contrary, maintained that, after the death of Alexander, the orthodox and Meletian bishops of Egypt had on both sides taken a solemn oath to elect the new archbishop, each only with the consent of the other party; but that seven orthodox bishops had broken this pledge, and secretly elected Athanasius. Philostorgius has another improbable story, “That during the vacancy of the see, and the quarrel concerning its occupancy, Athanasius repaired to the church of S.

Dionysius, and there, with the doors carefully secured, had himself secretly consecrated by two bishops of his own side. For this reason the remaining bishops had pronounced an anathema against him; but he addressed a letter to the Emperor as if in the name of the whole diocese, and thus craftily obtained the confirmation of his election.” This account, which stands at direct variance with all the others, is as little worthy of credit as the other statement of Philostorgius (2. 1), that Alexander of Alexandria had before his death abandoned the oJmoou>siov . All these slanders against Athanasius were, however, authoritatively declared to be false, at a great Egyptian synod. Whereupon, the very bishops who had taken part in his election solemnly attested that the desire for Athanasius as bishop was unanimous throughout the whole Catholic community, and that they had not moved from the church until his election had been fully completed, and that Athanasius was at once publicly and solemnly consecrated by a large number of the bishops present. The preface of the newly-discovered Festal Letters of S. Athanasius, already cited, adds, that this consecration took place on the 14th of Payni (June 8) 328. Thus the greatest opponent of Arianism became bishop of the city in which that heresy had sprung up.

About the same time, however, a very important and eventful change took place in Constantine’s views. The Emperor’s former severity towards the Arian heresy, tending to its complete extermination, had so far diminished, that now, though not directly favoring it, he yet showed great favor towards its friends and supporters. According to Sozomen, f19 Constantia, the sister of Constantine, and widow of Licinius, interceded with her brother in behalf of the Arians, on the strength of a professed divine revelation, in which the innocence and orthodoxy of these men had been revealed to her. The accounts of Rufinus (1. 11) and Socrates (1. 25) agree in part with this: “Constantia had an Arian court chaplain who disposed her favorably towards Arius, and assured her of his teacher’s innocence.” We shall return to this subject presently.

If the letter addressed by Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis, to the other bishops, which Socrates (1. 24) and Sozomen (2. 16) quote, is genuine, Arius was recalled from exile soon after the Council of Nicaea, and was only forbidden for the present to return to Alexandria. Upon this, Eusebius and Theognis, affirming their orthodoxy in the letter already mentioned, begged the like permission, upon the pretext of the pardon already granted to Arius. The genuineness of this letter is, however, very doubtful, and is, in fact, denied by Tillemont; and this only is certain, that Eusebius and Theognis were recalled in 328, after a five years’ banishment, and reinstated in their bishoprics, those who had in the meantime occupied their sees being driven away. f21 If, however, we give up the genuineness of this letter, and with it the report that Arius was first recalled, it is more probable that Eusebius and Theognis, who were only suspected of Arianism, were allowed to return earlier, and that it was through their friendly influence that the pardon of Arius was obtained. As soon, however, as Eusebius had regained a firm footing, a time of severe trial commenced for the truest upholders of the oJmoou>siov . The crafty Nicomedian, inwardly leaning to the Arian doctrine of the Logos, was aware that he could not betray his views openly, for the Emperor desired above all things the unity of the Church, and for this very cause had convoked the Council of Nicaea, and therefore no open attack on this Synod would have been tolerated by him. Eusebius and his friends therefore made their submission to the Council very publicly (hence their recall from banishment), trying at the same time, by all kinds of crafty and secret means, to set aside the oJmoou>siov which was so entirely opposed to their theological views, and to obtain the victory for their Arian and Subordinationist theology.

Eusebius, by his apparent return to the orthodox faith, had not only pacified the Emperor, but pleased him in the highest degree; and, being related to him, contrived, by his pretended support of Constantine’s grand project of entire unity in the Church, to ingratiate himself considerably with him. Thus it was not hard to convince him that Arius and others were at heart orthodox, and would certainly make a satisfactory confession of faith, if only they were recalled from banishment. Should this plan prove successful, and Constantine be satisfied with the acceptance of another Creed instead of the Nicene, the latter would at once be overthrown, and the way paved for introducing Subordinationism into the Church; while this was taking place, the chief supporters of the strict oJmoou>siov were, by some other ruse, to be driven out of the Church. It is plain from their actions, and from previous circumstances of which we shall now treat, that such were in reality the plans of the Eusebians, and thus only can Constantine’s conduct at the time be in some measure accounted for.

SECTION 46. SYNOD OF ANTIOCH ( 330 ) .

It was especially Eusebius of Nicomedia who, as Socrates reports, raised objections to the lawfulness of the election and consecration of Athanasius, though he should have been the last to do so, after having, contrary to the canons of the Church, left his bishopric, and obtained that of Nicomedia. When this first attack had been repelled by the abovementioned testimony of the other Egyptian bishops, Eusebius and his friends postponed further measures to a more convenient time, and instead, next directed their weapons against Archbishop Eustathius of Antioch, who had not only occupied one of the first places at the Council of Nicaea, but had also afterwards broken off all communion with the Arians, and had energetically, both in act and in controversial works directed against Eusebius Pamphili, combated Arianizing views, as well as every deviation from the strict Nicene definition of oJmoou>siov . The latter, the historian and Archbishop of Caesarea, stood, as to his theological views, between Athanasius and Arius; by some, therefore, he has been declared orthodox; by others, an Arian; so that the dispute concerning his orthodoxy has been carried on to our times. It is certain that Eusebius did not wish to be an Arian, and indeed, according to many of his expressions, he was not one; but in his opinion Athanasius bordered on Sabellianism, and he sought for a middle way between Arianism and Orthodoxy, believing this via media to be orthodoxy; and hence it may easily be understood that he might often take the side of his Nicomedian colleague, and join in the persecution of Athanasius, while yet he was undoubtedly further removed from Arianism than the Bishop of Nicomedia. From his standpoint he thought also he had discovered Sabellianism in Eustathius of Antioch; and here the real Eusebians agreed with him, as it was their general policy to charge those who held a less degree of difference than they did between the Father and the Son, with denying, like Sabellius, any distinction whatever between them.

Theodoret relates that Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea traveled together to Jerusalem to pay their homage to the holy places. On their way they had also paid a visit to Bishop Eustathius, and had been received by him with the greatest cordiality. In Palestine, however, they are said to have imparted their plans against Eustathius to Eusebius of Caesarea (called Pamphili) and other friends, and to have returned in their company to Antioch, where they then made arrangements for holding a synod against Eustathius. Theodoret, however, places this journey to Jerusalem after the elevation of the Bishop of Nicomedia to the see of Constantinople, which only took place about the year 337; and the truth of this relation is thus rendered somewhat doubtful, and we must be satisfied with the accounts given by Sozomen (2. 18, 19) and by Socrates (1. 24). According to Sozomen especially, who here seems to have right on his side, the disputes already mentioned between Eustathius and Eusebius Pamphili occasioned the convocation of the Synod at Antioch.

This took place in the year 330. At this synod, as Socrates says, the Bishop Cyrus of Beraea in particular came forward as the accuser of Eustathius, and charged him with Sabellianism. Theodoret, who is silent on the subject of the first accusation, says concerning a second: “The Eusebians had persuaded and bribed a girl to represent Eustathius as the father of her child, although she could not bring forward any witness, and afterwards herself confessed her deceit.” Athanasius mentions a third point of accusation, namely, that Eustathius had been accused of great want of respect towards the Empress’s mother; on the other hand, neither he nor Chrysostom, though they frequently speak of Eustathius, ever so much as mention the accusation of incontinence, and the Benedictine editors of the works of S. Athanasius have therefore rejected this story of Theodoret’s, the more as it looks like a copy of similar accusations against other bishops of that period. However that may be, it is certain that Eustathius was deposed by the Synod, and was sent by the Emperor into exile through Thrace into Illyria, whither many of his faithful clergy followed him. The see of Antioch, from which he had been unlawfully deposed, was first given to Eulalius. After his death, which occurred soon afterwards, it was offered to Eusebius Pamphili; he refused it, however, especially because great disputes had arisen in Antioch among the Eusebian and Nicene parties on account of the deposition of Eustathius. For this the Emperor praised him; but the see of Antioch, after having remained vacant for some time, fell into the hands of the Eusebians, and even of some Arians, till the election of Meletius in 360 or 361 called forth more dissensions even among the orthodox. f40 Tillemont, according to his calculation, thinks it probable that Bishop Asclepas of Gaza was also deposed at this Synod of Antioch, on account of his opposition to the Arians; and this is clearly proved by the two synodal letters of both parties at the Council at Sardica. Theodoret, Socrates, and Sozomen are therefore wrong in stating this event to have taken place at a later time, especially Theodoret, who ascribes it to the Synod of Tyre in 335. f42 Besides this, the Benedictine editors thought themselves justified in fixing the banishment of the Bishop Eutropius of Hadrianopolis also at the same time. His only crime was, that he had zealously resisted the friends of Arianism, especially Eusebius of Nicomedia, who, with the help of the Princess Basilina, the mother of Julian the Apostate, effected his deposition. f43 SECTION 47. ARIUS IS TO BE AGAIN RECEIVED INTO THE CHURCH, AND ATHANASIUS TO BE DEPOSED.

At this time, or shortly before, Eusebius, in order to gain a wider field for his plans, joined the Meletians in Egypt, though the latter, as recently as at the time of the Council of Nicaea, had stood in direct opposition to the Arians, and their Bishop Acesius had expressly declared the Nicene faith to be that of the apostolic age. After the death of Archbishop Alexander of Alexandria, however, they had again broken the compact agreed upon with them at Nicaea, renewed the schism, and after the death of their master Meletius, placed his friend John Archaph at their head. All this made Eusebius hope to win them over to serve his ends; and they did, in fact, unite in their hatred against Athanasius and the orthodox party of Alexandria; but this closer union at the same time caused the Meletians to fall more and more into the errors of the Arians, and to become at last almost completely identified with them.

After these preparations, Eusebius tried to deal a last blow. Whether or not Arius had been recalled from exile before or only after Eusebius and Theognis, in any case, it is certain that hitherto he had not ventured to return to Alexandria. Eusebius, however, believed that the time had now come that they might venture upon this great step for the destruction of the doctrine of the oJmoou>siov , and again restore Arius to the communion of the Church. For this purpose he addressed a letter to Athanasius, begging him to receive Arius once more into the Church, and desired the bearers of the letter to add all sorts of threats by word of mouth. Had Athanasius given way, Eusebius would have most easily gained his end; but as the former declared that he could not receive those who had originated false doctrines and had been excommunicated by the Nicene Synod, Eusebius instantly adopted another plan to obtain from the Emperor that which Athanasius had refused. It was, above all, necessary to induce Constantine to grant Arius an audience in person.

This mission was entrusted to Constantia’s Arian chaplain, who, after the death of that princess (330), and at her urgent desire, had been received by the Emperor into his own retinue, and now represented to him that Arius, in fact, held no other doctrine than that promulgated at Nicaea; and that, if the Emperor would listen to him, it would then be seen that he held the orthodox faith, and that he had been falsely calumniated.

Constantine replied, “If Arius signs the Decrees of the Synod, and believes the same, I am ready to see him, and to send him back with honors to Alexandria.” But when Arius, possibly on account of illness, did not at once appear, the Emperor, in an autograph letter, dated November 27 (probably 330 or 331), which Socrates has given, f49 invited him to come to him, and Arius immediately appeared at Constantinople, accompanied by his friend Euzotius, formerly a deacon at Alexandria, who had been deposed on account of Arianism by the Archbishop Alexander. The Emperor allowed both to come before him, and demanded of them whether they agreed to the Nicene faith; and on their readily affirming this, he ordered them to send him a written confession of their faith, which they did without delay; and this confession, which was expressly framed to deceive the Emperor, has been preserved to us by Socrates (1. 26). The chief article is thus worded: “And we believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, God the Word, sprung from Him before all time, and by whom all things were created in heaven and in earth.” We see how here the very point at issue, concerning the equality of substance of the Son, has been entirely left out, and how, by the expression born or become, gegenme>non , Arianism is indicated; whilst, at the same time, the Arian gegenme>non may very easily be taken as identical with gegennhme>non , which means begotten, and bears an orthodox meaning. But, in order to make quite sure of deceiving the Emperor, they added at the end: “If we do not believe thus, and do not truly recognize the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as the whole Catholic Church and the Holy Scriptures teach, so let God be our Judge.” They meant that the Arian doctrine of the Logos was that of the Bible and the ancient Church; but the Emperor was to understand this as expressing their agreement with the Nicene doctrine, which he had expressly required of them. And, in fact, they succeeded in deceiving him, especially as his longing for union in the Church had made the recall of Arius appear to him a very desirable event, and Arius had begged for this reunion with the Church through the Emperor at the end of his confession of faith. f50 There is no doubt that Eusebius afterwards represented the matter to the Emperor, as if all further refusal on the part of Athanasius to receive Arius and his friends again into the communion of the Church could only be contentious obstinacy; and he prevailed upon Constantine to demand of Athanasius, with threats, the reception of all who asked it. The threat at the end of the Emperor’s letter has been preserved by Athanasius himself, and is also found in Sozomen. The introductory words are inexact, and seem to treat of the question as concerning the reception of the Meletians; later, however, after the quotation of the fragment of the Emperor’s letter, the Arians are distinctly mentioned, and S. Athanasius, who is the best authority in this matter, states that the reception of Arius himself had been the cause of this letter. He, however, succeeded in convincing the Emperor of the impossibility of receiving heretics into the communion of the Church, and therefore this plan of the reinstatement of Arius was given up for the present. The Emperor would not himself decide the question concerning the orthodoxy of Arius, but left this to a synod. As some years later the Synod of Jerusalem (335) did in fact give such a decision in favor of Arius, Rufinus and Sozomen represented the matter incorrectly, as if Constantine had from the commencement left the decision concerning Arius to the Synod of Jerusalem, so that his recall from exile, too, could only have been first arranged shortly before 335. The attempt, through misuse of the imperial influence, to bring back Arius into the communion of the Church, and thus to inflict a deep wound upon the doctrine of the oJmoou>siov was defeated by the firmness of S. Athanasius; the latter therefore was now to be crushed with the help of the Meletians. Athanasius in relating this adds, “Now has Eusebius shown why he joined the Meletians.” These last Eusebius desired by letter to hunt up causes of complaint against Athanasius; and after many, at first vain endeavors, Ision, Eudaemon, and Callinicus, three Meletian clergy, bethought themselves of the accusation that Athanasius had of his own will introduced an entirely new impost, the supply of linen robes, stica>ria , for the service of the Church. With this accusation they traveled to the Emperor in Nicomedia; but at that very place there were then two priests of S. Athanasius, Apis and Macarius, who informed the Emperor of the true state of the case, and showed the falsehood of the accusation. They succeeded in convincing him, as Athanasius states (Apolog . c . Arian . c. 60), and Constantine at once thought good to desire Athanasius himself to appear before him. As soon as Eusebius learned this, he advised the accusers not to leave the palace; and when Athanasius arrived, they brought forward two new accusations at once; one against Macarius, that he had broken a chalice of the Meletians (of which later), and another against Athanasius, that he supported Philomenus, who was guilty of high treason, with a chest of gold. In consequence of this, Athanasius seems for some time to have been held in a sort of custody, as he shows in his third newly-discovered Festal Letter , written before Easter 331. As he nevertheless shortly succeeded in showing the groundlessness of these accusations also (at Psammathia, a suburb of Nicomedia), he was honorably released by the Emperor; and before Easter 332, from the imperial residence, he addressed a new Paschal Letter to the bishops and priests of Egypt. Besides this, Constantine addressed a lengthy exhortation, preserved by Athanasius, to the Alexandrians, in which he desired them to live in unity, using strong expressions against the Meletians, but conferring upon Athanasius the honorable appellation of “a man of God.” f58 Now for some time Athanasius had peace; but then the Meletians were again bribed with presents to bring forward fresh accusations against him.

In Mareotis, belonging to the bishopric of Alexandria, where otherwise there was no community of Meletians, a layman named Isehyras had falsely pretended to be a priest, and had exercised priestly functions.

When Athanasius learnt this upon a visitation tour, he sent the priest Macarius to Ischyras to summon him to appear before him; but Ischyras being at this time ill, Macarius could only entreat his father to restrain his son from such an offense in future. As soon as Ischyras recovered, he fled to the Meletians, and they invented the accusation that Macarius, by order of Athanasius, had broken into the chapel of Ischyras, overthrown his altar, broken his chalice, and burnt the sacred volumes. This affair had already been brought forward when Athanasius was with the Emperor in Psammathia, but without result, probably because Athanasius produced a document written by Ischyras’ own hand, in which he confessed the whole deception, and begged to be again received into the Church. Notwithstanding this, the Meletians now again brought up this ground of complaint, and joined to it the further accusation that Athanasius had murdered the Bishop Arsenius of Hypsele, who held with the Meletians, and had cut a hand off his dead body in order to work magic therewith. The real author of this lie was the Meletian chief bishop, John Archaph; but Arsenius allowed himself to be bribed to conceal himself in order that the story of his death might be believed, whilst the enemies of Athanasius even displayed openly the hand which they pretended had been cut off, and insisted on carrying their complaint to the Emperor, who commissioned his nephew, the Censor Dalmatius of Antioch, to investigate the charge of murder, and Athanasius was called upon to defend himself. He had not at first thought it worth while to pay any attention to this accusation; but he now found it necessary to set on foot everywhere inquiries for Arsenius, partly through letters, partly through a deacon whom he had especially commissioned for the purpose. It was betrayed to the latter that Arsenius was hidden in the Egyptian monastery of Ptemencyrcis. Before his arrival, the monks had already sent Arsenius on in a small vessel; but the deacon had two of them — the monk Helias, who had accompanied Arsenius in his further flight, and the priest Pinnes, who knew of the whole affair — arrested, and brought before the Governor of Alexandria, where they both confessed that Arsenius was still living. How he was once more found we shall relate later.

SECTION 48. SYNOD OF CAESAREA IN 334.

While this was going on, and Athanasius was arming himself for his defense, the Eusebians were making every exertion to destroy him, and this was indeed to be accomplished at a Synod at Caesarea in 334, to which place, as it appears, the Censor Dalmatius had summoned him.

Athanasius declined to appear; but instead, made known to the Emperor all that had taken place, namely, that information respecting Arsenius had been received, at the same time recalling to his memory what he had already heard at Psammathia regarding the story of the chalice. The Emperor, upon this, gave orders to the Censor to put a stop to the investigation; desired Eusebius and his friends, who were already hastening to Caesarea, to return, and addressed another very honorable letter to Athanasius, in which he openly recognized the deceit practiced by the Meletians, and openly exposed the inconsistency with which they had charged, at one time Athanasius, and at another Macarius, with the breaking of the chalice. As soon as it was discovered that Arsenius was still living, the monk Pinnes of the Ptemencyrcis monastery had advised John Archaph to put an end to the attack upon Athanasius. The chief bishop of the Meletians now therefore found it necessary, in order to appease the Emperor, to set forth, in a letter to the latter, his great inclination, professedly at least, for reconciliation with Athanasius, for which Constantine praised him. f68 After a year, however, or a year and a half, the Eusebians, again instigated by the Meletians, ventured on a fresh attack upon him. They had constantly set before the Emperor the necessity of convening a large council for the restoration of peace in the Church, and for the union of the divided parties; and as just now, at the time of Constantine’s thirtieth anniversary, the great Church of the Resurrection built by him at Jerusalem was to be consecrated in the presence of many bishops, the Eusebians represented to him how glorious it would be if, before the commencement of this solemn act, all the bishops could be united, and the ecclesiastical strife in Egypt be set at rest. This proposition was too closely allied to Constantine’s darling plan not to meet with his approval, and he therefore arranged that the bishops should first assemble in Tyre, and then, with united and reconciled hearts, proceed to the great festival at Jerusalem.

SECTION 49. SYNOD OF TYRE IN 335. F69 Eusebius states that Constantine himself summoned the Bishops of Egypt, Libya, Asia, and Europe to this Synod; appointed the Consul Dionysius protector; and hastened immediately after the opening of the Council, even before all the bishops had assembled, earnestly to exhort them to unity. Not counting the Egyptians, there appeared altogether about sixty bishops. The Eusebians, nevertheless, had the upper hand: namely, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Eusebius of Caesarea, Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, Macedonius of Mopsuestia, Ursacius of Singidunum, Valens of Murcia, Theodore of Heraclea, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, and others. By the side of these, the few men belonging to no party, such as Maximus of Jerusalem, Alexander of Thessalonica, and Marcellus of Ancyra, could gain no influence. Athanasius at first refused to confide his cause to the Eusebians, because they were his enemies, on account of their heresy; but the Emperor obliged him to appear at the Synod. We may wonder how Constantine, who a year before had judged Athanasius so favorably, should now show him so little kindness. This is, however, partly explained in the following manner: — Athanasius, after his victory over his opponents, was naturally all the more zealous in his endeavors to bring the whole of Egypt into Church unity, and, in virtue of the Nicene decrees, to recall the rest of the Meletians and Arians into communion. This seemed to be the more possible as the Meletians had formerly promised as much at Nicaea, and the Arians formed as yet no organized sect, with a worship of their own.

The hindrances, however, with which he met, especially the obstinacy and malice of individuals, compelled him to adopt severer measures, and to invoke the secular arm against the recusants. That this was the case, is shown by the complaints which many of his opponents, especially Meletians, brought before the Synod of Tyre as to how, through him, that is, by the secular arm at his demand, they were condemned to all sorts of severe punishments, especially imprisonment and corporal chastisement. How greatly, however, Athanasius was provoked to severity by the malice of others, may be shown by the example of the Bishop Callinicus of Pelusium, who, alleging the fable of the unfair election of Athanasius, intrigued so long against his metropolitan, that the latter deposed him, and he then raised a great outcry against the violence and injustice of Athanasius. Such reports, skillfully employed, might well bring S.

Athanasius under suspicion of the Emperor, who was, as even his admirer Eusebius allows, very credulous and easily led, as if by his excessive vehemence he was hindering the peace of the Church in Egypt; disturbing the peace being, in the eyes of the Emperor, the greatest offense, as Sozomen says. To this, doubtless, it must be added that the Eusebians also suspected the theology of Athanasius, as though, from their standpoint, he inclined too nearly to Sabellianism by overstepping the bounds of the Nicene faith, and thereby frightening back the converted Arians, and so proving himself a hindrance to the unity of the Church.

Baronius thinks that they had even declared the report that Arsenius still lived to be a falsehood, spread abroad by Athanasius himself. I can, however, find nothing of this. Be this as it may, Athanasius now found himself obliged to go, against his will, to Tyre; but he took with him forty-eight of his suffragan bishops, in order, if possible, to ensure his being able to maintain a numerical equality with the Eusebians. His priest Macarius being again accused of the pretended destruction of the chalice, was brought in chains to Tyre. Ischyras had, as we have seen, made a humble apology to Athanasius; but, notwithstanding, had not been again received into the communion of the Church, and now, in revenge, he once more returned to the attack. To this the Eusebians incited him by the promise of a see. f84 The parts were well assigned at Tyre; the Meletians were the accusers, the Eusebians were the judges; the presidency was held by the Church historian Eusebius, who had long been embittered against the Egyptians, and especially against Athanasius. As soon as the Egyptian Bishop Potamon, who had lost an eye in the persecution under Maximian, saw Eusebius in the seal of the president, he cried out: “Thou art seated there, Eusebius, and the innocent Athanasius is judged by thee! Who can endure this? Say, wast thou not with me in prison at the time of the persecution?

I have lost an eye for the truth’s sake, but thou hast not suffered in any part of thy body. How hast thou then thus escaped from prison, if not by wrongful promises or actual deeds?” Thus relates Epiphanius, while Athanasius and others are silent on the point. In any case, it was only a suspicion, and, indeed, a groundless one of Potamon’s; and it is very possible that Epiphanius’ whole account is only another and a false version of what Rufinus relates. He says that when the Egyptian Bishop Paphnutius saw Maximus of Jerusalem, who was not an Eusebian, at Tyre, sitting among that party, he cried out: “Thou, O Maximus, who with me in the persecution hast lost an eye, but hast thereby earned the right of heavenly light, I cannot see thee sitting in the assembly of the wicked.” This statement of Rufinus is plainly more probable than that of Epiphanius; but that there is a certain connection between the two, is not to be denied.

The Bishop Callinicus of the Meletian party, and the well-known Ischyras, at once came forward against Athanasius. Ischyras again charged him with having broken his chalice, and overthrown his altar, f88 as also with having often thrown him into prison, and slandered him before the Prefect of Egypt. Callinicus, formerly Catholic Bishop of Pelusium, complained that he had been irregularly deposed by Athanasius, because he had refused communion with him until he could clear himself of the affair of the chalice. Again, other Meletian bishops wished to prove themselves ill-used by Athanasius; but they all brought forward the well-known accusation of the irregularity of his election; and a document from Egypt was produced containing the following words: “It is solely the fault of Athanasius that every individual in Egypt has not joined the Church.” What Athanasius replied to all this is not known.

He himself scarcely touches upon these complaints. Sozomen only says that Athanasius cleared himself on some points at once, while on others he begged for time to enable him to bring forward his proofs.

Hereupon his enemies again raised the story of Arsenius, probably in the hope that Athanasius was not yet able to prove that Arsenius was indeed living.

The latter had even disappeared from their eyes, — they themselves knew not what had become of him, least of all did they guess that he was in the very hands of Athanasius. Without their consent he had gone, out of curiosity, secretly to Tyre, that he might see how matters went at the Synod. Some one, however, had recognized him, and had remarked in a tavern, “Arsenius, who is supposed to be dead, is here, hidden in a certain house.” A servant of the Consul Archelaus heard this by chance, and informed his master, who had the fugitive seized. Arsenius tried at first to deny his identity; but he was convicted by Bishop Paul of Tyre, who had long ago known him, and Archelaus now communicated the whole affair to S. Athanasius. Arsenius himself also wrote to Athanasius, and assured him most emphatically of his present renunciation of the Meletian party. Without knowing of this, the Meletians brought the charge of the murder of Arsenius before the Synod, and also did not fail to show the hand which had been cut off in a wooden box. Hereupon Athanasius inquired of several of those present whether they had known Arsenius; and when they replied in the affirmative, he led in the man supposed to be dead, and lifted his mantle, so that both his hands should be seen. The effect which this produced is variously reported. According to Socrates (1. 30), the author of this accusation, John Archaph, fled; according to Theodoret, they accused Athanasius of sorcery; and, lastly, according to Sozomen, they made the lying excuse that “Athanasius had set Arsenius’ house on fire and shut him up in it, in order to kill him, but he must nevertheless have escaped through a window; but, as he had not been seen for so long, they had with good reason concluded that he had really perished on that occasion.”

All the old historians before named, however, agree that a great tumult now arose, and that the enemies of Athanasius, instead of being ashamed of themselves, rushed in upon him so violently that he began to fear for his life.

If Rufinus and Theodoret relate the order of events rightly, a complaint on another point was brought forward before that concerning Arsenius. They brought before the Synod a woman who maintained that Athanasius had once, while on a visit to her, surprised her at night unexpectedly, and offered violence to her. He was brought in to answer for himself, and with him his friend, the priest Timothy, who, at Athanasius’ suggestion, thus addressed the girl: “Do you certainly maintain that I once lodged in your house, and offered violence to you?”

She affirmed it, and thus by this change of persons — for she did not even know Athanasius — were the accusers once more put to shame. It was, however, in vain that Athanasius demanded a further inquiry as to who had persuaded the girl to this deceit; the Eusebians were of opinion that there were far more important points to be investigated. The whole story concerning the girl is, however, by no means satisfactorily authenticated. Not only is Athanasius silent about it, although he could have made use of this circumstance for his own defense, and as a proof of the hatred of the Eusebians; but, moreover, all the synods, both for and against Athanasius, which were held later, when all the old accusations were discussed afresh, do not make the slightest mention of this story. So also is Socrates silent on the point; and the only authority for the story seems to be Rufinus, from whom Theodoret and Sozomen derived it, the latter adding: “In the acts of the Synod no word of the sort is found.”

The Arian Philostorgius relates something similar, but so far contradictory to Rufinus, that he represents the accusation as coming from Athanasius, and Eusebius of Caesarea as the accused: he says that Athanasius had induced a girl to accuse Eusebius before the Synod as her seducer; but it had been shown that she did not even know this man. f99 From these contradictory accounts of Philostorgius and Rufinus, we may well assume that both are only different versions of one and the same fable. Be this as it may, it is certain that the Eusebians, in order not to give up their point altogether, now insisted with all their might upon further search into the affair of Macarius and Ischyras, and that further inquiries concerning the real state of the case should be made in Ischyras’ own country, Mareotis, through a special deputation of the Synod. The Count Dionysius, the imperial protector of the Synod, went over to their side; their intention, however, being, as Athanasius affirms, to intrigue against him in his absence. He himself maintained the whole journey to Mareotis to be unnecessary, as everything was already cleared up on sufficient evidence; but in any case men should be chosen to act in this deputation who were removed from all suspicion of party spirit. The Count Dionysius allowed him to be right on this last point; and it was decided that the members of the synodal deputation should be chosen at a general session. The Eusebians and Meletians, however, did not bind themselves to this, but appointed in an arbitrary and one-sided way exactly the most bitter enemies of Athanasius as deputies, and sought to obtain the subsequent ratification of their step by going round to each one individually. Those chosen were: Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, Ursacius, Valens, Macedonius, and Theodorus, to whom they gave a military escort, and a letter of recommendation to the Governor of Egypt. They also took with them Ischyras, the accuser of Macarius, leaving the latter in chains at Tyre, plainly showing that they sought witnesses for Ischyras only, and not for the truth. Their chief confidant in Egypt was the Prefect Philagrius, formerly a Christian, who had relapsed into heathenism; and while they rejected the testimony of the Alexandrian and Mareotic priests, even of those who had been eyewitnesses of the affair of Ischyras, not even allowing these clergy to be present at the trial and verbal process, they listened to the testimony of Jews and heathens, and even of catechumens, who were to speak concerning proceedings in a sanctuary where they were yet never allowed to go. Thus, then, they pretended to have seen things in a place where they could never have been, and accordingly their statements turned out very contradictory. f103 The clergy of Alexandria and Mareotis protested against a proceeding so contrary to all right, in several letters to the deputation, to the Synod, to the Prefect of Egypt, and to another imperial officer. The priests of Mareotis particularly declared that Ischyras had never been a priest; he had indeed maintained that he had been formerly ordained by Colluthus; but the latter (a somewhat older schismatic of Alexandria) had never been made a bishop himself, and therefore could have ordained no priest.

But in any case, Ischyras had been deposed from his assumed priesthood at a synod in presence of Hosius (therefore before the Council of Nicaea), and placed in lay communion. He had never had a church in Mareotis; neither had a chalice been broken, or an altar overthrown, by Athanasius, or by any of his attendants. They, the clergy of Mareotis, were there when Athanasius visited that country; but that which Ischyras brought forward was a lie throughout, as he himself had already confessed. When the synodal deputation came to Mareotis, they had clearly seen the groundlessness of Ischyras’ complaint; but Theognis and the other enemies of Athanasius had induced the adherents of Ischyras and other “Ariomanites” (violent admirers of Arius) to make statements of which they could make use. The Prefect Philagrius supported them in this, and by threats and violent treatment had suppressed the truth and encouraged the false testimonies. f106 At the same time, the Egyptian bishops, who were present at Tyre, openly impeached the Eusebians before the Synod of conspiring against Athanasius, of having chosen the deputation unjustly, etc., and begged the remaining bishops not to make common cause with them. They addressed a letter to the same effect to the Count Dionysius, and desired of him, in a letter written somewhat later, that he should, in consideration of the machinations of their enemies, reserve the decision of this affair for the Emperor. They explained this also to the Synod. f109 Alexander of Thessalonica, one of the most illustrious bishops of the Council, also thought fit to warn Dionysius of the unjust proceedings of the Eusebians, that he might not be led by them into any false step; f110 and Dionysius valued his judgment so highly, that he had urgent injunctions sent to the commissaries who had gone to Mareotis, to act justly. f111 Athanasius, however, had given up all hope from the Synod of Tyre, and quitted it now, in order by his absence to stop its further proceedings. It was, he said, an acknowledged rule, that whatever was determined by one party alone was invalid. Yet the Eusebians did not look upon themselves as a party, but as judges; and when their deputation returned front Mareotis with their protocols and false statements of the witnesses, f113 the Synod pronounced the deposition of Athanasius, and forbade him to return to Alexandria, that disturbances might not arise there. The Meletian John Archaph and his adherents, as being illegally persecuted by Athanasius, were, on the contrary, again received into the communion of the Church, and restored to their offices; nay, they even made Ischyras himself bishop of his own town in Mareotis (hitherto belonging to the see of Alexandria) as a reward for his help, and induced the Emperor to build a Church for him. They did not communicate their decisions to the Emperor alone, but addressed an encyclical letter to all the bishops to this effect: “They should break off all connection with Athanasius, as he was convicted of several crimes, and by evading any defence by his flight had convicted himself of others. The reasons demanding his condemnation were: firstly, because the year before he had not presented himself before the Synod of Caesarea, but had kept it waiting a long time in vain; secondly, because, having arrived at Tyre with such a large number of bishops, he had caused disturbances in the Council, either not answering the accusations at all, or slandering certain bishops; or when cited, paying no attention. Furthermore, the destruction of a sacred chalice had been deafly proved, as Theognis, Maris, and others, who had been sent on that account to Mareotis, testified.” f114 SECTION 50. SYNOD AT JERUSALEM IN 335.

Scarcely had this taken place when the Emperor desired the bishops to betake themselves immediately to Jerusalem to assist at the consecration of the church already mentioned, to which many other bishops had also been invited. The Church historian Eusebius relates the great solemnities which took place there very circumstantially and with evident pleasure, and takes great pains to place the Synod held on this occasion at Jerusalem on a par with that of Nicaea. It was indeed not an appendix to, but a contradiction of, the Nicene Council; for the Eusebians already ventured to answer affirmatively the question propounded to them by the Emperor, namely, whether the profession of faith by Arius and his friends, handed in some time before, was satisfactory, to decide solemnly to receive the Arians, and to acquaint there-with all bishops and clergy, and especially those of Egypt, that they might take note of it. f116 Athanasius was indeed crushed, and thereby the chief hindrance to that reception, and the Arianizing of the Church, appeared to be got rid of. In order to make the victory more complete, however, a process was also commenced at Jerusalem against Marcellus of Ancyra, who, like Athanasius, had ever been a great opponent of Arianism, and had angered the Eusebians by his protest against the condemnation of Athanasius, as well as by his refusal to take part in the Synod of Jerusalem. But a fresh command of the Emperor, that all the bishops who had been present at Tyre should at once come to Constantinople, obliged further proceedings against him to be postponed until later. f117 SECTION 51. SYNOD OF CONSTANTINOPLE IN THE YEAR 335.

FIRST EXILE OF ATHANASIUS. DEPOSITION OF MARCELLUS OF ANCYRA, AND DEATH OF ARIUS.

Athanasius having fled from Tyre, resorted to Constantinople, and presented himself before the Emperor, who was just then riding by.

Constantine at first did not recognize him, and when he discovered who he was, would not listen to him at all; so much was he set against the man who had been represented to him as the disturber of peace in Egypt. But Athanasius frankly explained that he wished nothing but that the Emperor should summon before him the bishops from Tyre, that in his presence he might make complaint of the injustice which had been shown him. f119 This appeared reasonable to the Emperor, and he summoned all the bishops who had been present at Tyre to appear at once at Constantinople. At the same time, he complained bitterly of the divisions in the Church, and boasted, on the other hand, of his own zeal. f120 The Eusebians were, however, astute enough not to allow all the bishops who had been present at Tyre to go to Constantinople, for many amongst them had not agreed to the proceedings against Athanasius. f122 They intimidated them by representing the Emperor’s letter as prophesying no good, and thus it came to pass that many, instead of going to Constantinople, returned to their sees. The Eusebians, therefore, only sent to Constantinople, as before to Mareotis, the leaders of their party: the two Eusebiuses, Theognis, Maris, Patrophilus, Ursacius, and Valens, who brought with them a wholly new accusation against Athanasius — that he had threatened to hinder the yearly importation of corn from Alexandria to Constantinople. Concerning the chalice and Arsenius, they were now entirely silent, as Athanasius himself, and after him Theodoret and Socrates maintain; while Sozomen maintains that they again brought up the subject of the chalice, and that the Emperor credited it. However that may be, it is certain that the Emperor exiled Athanasius, without hearing his further defense, to Treves in Gaul at the end of the year 335, as is generally supposed, or, as says the preface to the Syriac version of the Festal Letters of S.

Athanasius, on the 10th Athyr (November 6) 336; and this, in truth, as Athanasius himself states, because the point concerning the importation of corn had angered him exceedingly. The Egyptian bishops add that Athanasius sought to represent to the Emperor that it would have been impossible for him to hinder the importation of corn, but that Eusebius of Nicomedia contradicted him, pointing out his wealth and great influence. Sozomen remarks on this, not without a keen appreciation of the whole mental attitude of the Emperor towards Arianism, that Constantine also thought there could be no better means to restore the peace of the Church than the banishment of Athanasius.

That the Emperor only meant to withdraw Athanasius from his enemies, and that the punishment therefore was not really intended, was afterwards asserted by Constantine the younger, but probably only in order to shield his fathers memory. Yet Athanasius himself afterwards appears to have in some degree credited this assertion. For the rest, the Emperor rejected the demand of the Eusebians that another bishop should be chosen for Alexandria, and his son, Constantine the younger, residing at Treves, received the exile kindly, and provided him with all necessaries. f129 The Eusebian bishops, however, who had come to Constantinople held a synod in that place, at which they again brought forward the affair of Marcellus of Ancyra, accusing him of disrespect to the Emperor, in not having appeared at the consecration of the church in Jerusalem, as well as of heresy. Marcellus had attempted to defend the orthodox doctrine against the Arian sophist Asterius of Cappadocia, and, at the same time, against the Eusebians; but in this he was so unfortunate, that he afforded his adversaries an opportunity for an accusation of heterodoxy.

Although Marcellus, like Athanasius, now addressed himself to the Emperor, and gave him the work in question, with the request that he would read and examine it himself, the Synod deposed him, and desired all the bishops in his province (Galatia) to destroy the book. f131 It is difficult to pass a decided judgment upon Marcellus. As we shall see by and by, the Synod of Sardica declared him to have been unjustly deposed, and restored him to his see. Athanasius and Bishop Julius of Rome were also at that time on his side. But later on, the opinions of the greater number changed, especially after Marcellus’ pupil, Bishop Photinus of Sirmium, had been convicted of heresy; and then, even Athanasius, when questioned by Epiphanius as to the orthodoxy of Marcellus, would express no decided opinion. Indeed, if Hilary is correct, Athanasius had already, before the year 349, shut out Marcellus from the communion of the Church. Other Fathers of the Church judged him still more severely, especially Hilary himself, Basil the Great, and Chrysostom, as also the greater number of the later authorities, Petavius in particular. Tillemont is also more against than for Marcellus; and Baronius does not venture at least to decide in his favor. On the other hand, Natalis Alexander, and Bernard Montfaucon, and lately also Mohler, have sought to defend the orthodoxy of Marcellus, allowing him to be faulty in expression; while Dorner and Dollinger, on the other hand, felt themselves obliged to judge him more unfavorably. A right judgment concerning Marcellus of Ancyra is so difficult on this account, because his own treatise against Asterius has been lost, and we only possess fragments of it in the two refutations of Eusebius of Caesarea, who not seldom misrepresented the intention and sense of the writer. Also words used by Eusebius have often been taken for those of Marcellus. All these fragments, collected by Rettberg in 1794, under the title of Marcelliana , form the chief source for judging of the peculiar teaching of this extraordinary and much tried man; and, through careful use of these authorities, Theodore Zahn of Gottingen, in his work on Marcellus of Ancyra, a contribution to the history of theology (Gotha 1867), has lately arrived at very noteworthy results. f142 According to this, Marcellus was a great phenomenon, rather in the history of theology than in the development of dogma, and while holding fast the chief points of the Nicene faith, thought it unnecessary to consider its formula as binding. The whole theological controversy of his day appeared to him a consequence of the unhappy mixture of philosophical ideas with the teaching of the Scriptures, and that it was necessary to return to the latter to find out the truth. But, in most passages of the Bible, only the relation of the Incarnate Word to the Father had been intimated, whilst the introduction to the Gospel of S.

John was the chief foundation for the recognition of the eternal relation of the Logos to God, and His pre-existence. He considered the expression “begotten,” so frequently used by the theologians of both parties, as especially unhappy and confusing; and was of opinion that to admit this word made Subordinationism or Arianism unavoidable. The being begotten must always be a sort of becoming, of taking a beginning (as the Arians said); but the idea of becoming contradicted the eternity of the Logos, so distinctly proclaimed by S. John. An eternal generation, as stated by Athanasius and others, was to him unimaginable; and he therefore most distinctly affirmed the Logos in His pre-existence to be unbegotten (in contradiction to the statement of the Nicene Creed); therefore, again, the Logos in His pre-existence could not be called Son, but only the Logos invested with human nature was Son of God, and begotten. And so also the eternal Logos could not be called the Image of God, for an image must be something which assumes a visible form; therefore this could only be the Incarnate Son, born of the Virgin Mary.

So when Marcellus, in speaking of the Logos, uses the expressions duna>mei and eJnepgei>a , he designates by the latter (ejn ejnergei>a| ei~Jnai ) the being of the Logos as a working world-creating power, the ejve>rgeia draotikh> ; but whilst the Logos thus, as it were, comes forth from God, and works externally, yet is not God without the Logos, but the Logos through all this remains united with God, inasmuch as he is du>vamiv , that is to say, the power resting in God, the capacity whereby He operates as ejne>rgeia drastikh> . The Logos is at once a power resting in God, and, outwardly working, is in and with God (pron ). Thus Marcellus seemed to divide the Logos into a Logos remaining in God and one coming forth from God, who not until the end of the history of the world, in so far as He has remained in God, returns to Himself, — a separation of the divine nature which constitutes the personality of Christ into two subjects, of which the one is finite, while the other carries on the absolute life. One sees that this doctrine is different from Sabellianism, and Marcellus expressly declared himself against Sabellius; but his enemies, especially Eusebius of Caesarea, f144 chose to discover in it a resemblance to Sabellianism.

An accusation against Marcellus, in appearance quite contradictory to this, had been raised by the bishops at the Synod of Constantinople in 335, accusing him, as Socrates and Sozomen say, of Samosatenism, that is, of the erroneous doctrine of Paul of Samosata. Neither was this without a certain plausibility. Although fundamentally differing from Paul of Samosata, yet neither does Marcellus present the idea of a true God- Man, but sees in the miraculously born Jesus a man in whom the Logos, the ejne>rgeia drastikh< of God, dwells. This Logos unites Himself with man, is a continual working of God upon man. It is true that Marcellus would have his God-Man differ from all other creatures, for he says: “The divine ejne>rgeia dwells with other men, upon whom it works externally; with Christ, however, it dwells in Himself inwardly.” But neither in this way was the idea of the God-Man realized. Thus Marcellus, to a certain extent like Paul of Samosata, makes Christ a man in whom God dwells.

As soon as Athanasius had been put down, Arius was to be again formally and solemnly received into the Church, and he was already traveling for this purpose from the Synod of Jerusalem to Alexandria. f146 The present vacancy in the see of that city increased his hopes; but the people were so displeased at his arrival, as also at the banishment of Athanasius, that great disturbances arose. The Emperor on this account recalled Arius to Constantinople; either, as Socrates says, in order to call him to account for the scenes in Alexandria, or because the Eusebians had planned to effect the reception of the heretic in Constantinople. And as the bishop of that see, Alexander, did not in any way incline to their wishes, they so managed that Constantine again summoned Arius before him, examined him once more concerning his faith, and again made him sign an orthodox formula. Athanasius, whose letter, De Morte Arii ad Serapionem , is here our chief source of information, relates that Arius swore that the doctrine on account of which he had been excommunicated for more than ten years by Bishop Alexander of Alexandria was not his, but that the Emperor said at the dismissal of Arius: “If thy faith be the true one, thou hast sworn well; but if it be false, so let God judge thee on account of thine oath.” F149 Thereupon Constantine, pressed by the Eusebians, gave the Bishop of Constantinople the order to receive Arius into the communion of the Church; and the Eusebians threatened the bishop with deposition and exile if he made opposition, and declared that they would on the next day (it was then Saturday), whether he willed it or not, solemnize divine service with Arius. Bishop Alexander knew of no other help in this distress than prayer: he repaired to the church of S. Irene, and thus prayed to God: “O let me die before Arius comes into the Church; but if Thou wilt have pity on Thy Church, prevent this crime, that heresy may not enter the Church together with Arius.” A few hours later, on the evening of the same Saturday, Arius went with a great escort through the city; when he was come near to Constantine’s forum, he had to retire into a privy to relieve nature, and died there suddenly from the gushing out of his bowels, in the year 336. Very many looked upon his death as a punishment from heaven; and even in the mind of the Emperor a suspicion arose that Arius had really been a heretic, and had perjured himself, and had therefore come to such an end. Indeed, as Socrates says, he considered the shocking death of Arius as a direct confirmation of the Nicene faith. Athanasius further relates that after this incident very many Arians became converted, while others sought to spread the belief that Arius had been killed by the magical art of his enemies, or, as some said, that the excessive joy at his victory had occasioned his death. The place, however, where Arius died was long shown with horror in Constantinople, till eventually a rich Arian bought the building from the government, and raised another on the same spot. f157 While Athanasius was in exile at Treves, the faithful people in Alexandria offered up prayers for the return of their beloved bishop; and the renowned patriarch of monachism, Antony, wrote often on this subject to the Emperor, who held him personally in great esteem. Constantine, nevertheless, did not allow himself to be moved, but bitterly blamed the Alexandrians, and ordered the clergy and holy virgins henceforth to keep quiet, and declared that he would certainly not recall Athanasius, an unruly man, and under sentence of condemnation by the Church. But to S. Antony he wrote that it was incredible that so many excellent and wise bishops could have given a wrong sentence; Athanasius was violent and haughty, and was bearing the punishment of his quarrels and dissensions.

Sozomen, who relates this, adds, “that the enemies of S. Athanasius had reproached him with this especially, because they knew that disturbance of the peace was the greatest crime in the eyes of the Emperor.”

Because, however, one party in Alexandria held with Athanasius, and the other with the head of the Meletians, John Archaph, who seemed to be fostering this division and making capital out of it in order to get himself made Bishop of Alexandria, Constantine banished him also, in spite of all petitions and excuses, and would by no means suffer any one party to separate itself from the universal Church, and to form a separate sect with a distinct worship. Thus it came to pass, that even the Arians in Alexandria, as elsewhere, had not outwardly separated from the Church. f160 The same sentence of banishment fell also about this time upon the orthodox Bishop Paul of Constantinople, who had a short time before become the successor of the aged Alexander. The local Arian party had desired to have the priest Macedonius (afterwards head of the Pneumatomachi) in his place, and they succeeded in setting the Emperor against the new bishop, so that he exiled him to Pontus. From Sozomen we learn that a chief point of complaint against him had been that he had been appointed without the consent and cooperation of Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theodore of Heraclea in Thrace, who claimed the right of ordaining the Bishop of Byzantium. He had also been falsely accused of leading an immoral life. But Socrates and Sozomen are mistaken in ascribing the original banishment of Paul to the next Emperor, thus confounding his first and second exile. Athanasius, who is the best authority, relates the facts quite clearly. f163 SECTION 52 CONSTANTINE S BAPTISM AND DEATH, ETC.

RETURN OF ATHANASIUS FROM HIS FIRST EXILE.

Soon after this Constantine fell ill. He had felt unwell since Easter 337.

At first he tried the baths of Nicomedia, and then the warm springs of Drepanum, which he had named Helenopolis in honor of his mother, and where he now received the laying on of hands as a catechumen. From thence he was taken to the villa Ancyrona, in the suburbs of Nicomedia, whither he also summoned a number of bishops that he might receive holy baptism. He had hitherto put off this, according to the use or rather abuse of that age, especially, as he declares, because he desired to be baptized in the Jordan. The bishops now performed the sacred rite, and Constantine received the sacrament with great piety. From that time he no longer assumed the robes of state, but prepared himself earnestly for a happy end.

Jerome, in his Chronicle , says, and no doubt rightly, that of the several bishops present at the ceremony, it was Eusebius of Nicomedia who actually baptized him, for the Emperor certainly lived in the diocese of Nicomedia, and it was only in accordance with ecclesiastical order that the bishop of the diocese should perform the sacred rite; but what Jerome infers from this is manifestly wrong, namely, that Constantine had thereby become implicated in the Arian heresy. As we have already seen, since the recall of Bishop Eusebius from exile, the Emperor no longer suspected him of Arianism. The orthodox confession which the former had made had set him entirely at rest on this point. Nay, he even thought he might regard Eusebius as a zealous promoter of the restoration of Church unity. Neither can the exile of Athanasius nor the reception of Arius testify against the Emperor’s orthodoxy; for Constantine, as it is known, expressly demanded of Arius and his friends the orthodox confession, and their consent to the Nicene faith, as whose zealous champion he ever busied himself. For this reason Arius could only through falsehood and equivocation succeed in deceiving the Emperor as to his orthodoxy, and therefore Walch rightly says, “What had been done by the Emperor in favor of Arius had been done because he was deceived, not in the question as to what faith was true, but as to what faith Arius held.” f166 In all his measures against Athanasius, however, Constantine had never in any way called in question the orthodoxy of the man, which would surely have been the case had he himself inclined towards Arianism; but then Athanasius had been represented to him as a disturber of peace, and it was for this reason that he was so much out of favor with him. Lastly, it must not be overlooked that, excepting Jerome, all the Fathers, and especially Athanasius himself, always speak most honorably of the Emperor Constantine, and entertain no doubts of his orthodoxy. f167 Moreover, in course of time Constantine even took a more favorable view of Athanasius, and shortly before his own death he decided upon his recall. Theodoret adds that he gave this order in the presence of Eusebius of Nicomedia, and in spite of the latter’s dissuasion. But the Emperor’s own son, Constantine the younger, probably gives the most accurate account when he says, in the letter which he gave to Athanasius to take with him to Alexandria, that his father had already decided to reinstate Athanasius, but that death had prevented his doing so, and that he now therefore considered the execution of this design as a duty devolved upon him by his father. f170 The actual recall of Athanasius, however, did not take place till a year later, probably because political affairs caused so much delay.

Constantine had left a will which, as none of his sons were present, he had given to a trustworthy priest, commissioning him to deliver it to his second son, Constantius, who was to be summoned thither immediately.

This might have been because Constantius was just then nearer Nicomedia than the others, or because the Emperor placed especial confidence in him, and made him, so to speak, executor, as Julian the Apostate states. This will contained the confirmation of an arrangement already made in 335, by which the eldest son, Constantine, was to receive Gaul, Spain, and Britain; Constantius, the eastern countries; Constans, Italy and Africa; and of the Emperor’s two nephews, Dalmatius and Annibalianus (sons of his brother, Dalmatius Annibalianus), the former was to receive Thrace, Macedonia, Illyria, and Achaia; the latter, who was also Constantine’s son-in-law, Pontus and the neighboring countries.

Hardly had Constantine the Great’s death taken place, on Whitsunday, May 22, 337, and his interment in the Church of the Apostles, where his body had to be laid, when his two nephews, as well as his younger brother, Julius Constantius, father of the Apostate, with other relatives and illustrious men, were murdered. The suspicion of this bloodshed rests upon Constantius; and Philostorgius seeks to excuse the deed only by stating, what is indeed very incredible, that Constantine the Great had in his will ordered these executions, because those relations had given him poison, and thus brought about his death. f176 After such events Constantine’s three sons found it necessary to arrange a fresh division of the kingdom at a personal interview; and indeed, according to the later Greek authors, they are said to have come to such an agreement first in Constantinople, in September 337. It is certain that in the following year, 338, they assembled for this purpose also at Pannonia. That at one of these meetings they also decided upon the recall of all the exiled bishops, appears from a statement of S. Athanasius, who says: “The three Em