The history of the church from our Lords incarnation, to the twelth year of the Emperour Maricius Tiberius, or the Year of Christ 594 / as it was written in Greek, by Eusebius Pamphilius ..., Socrates Scholasticus, and Evagrius Scholasticus ... ; made English from that edition of these historians, which Valesius published at Paris in the years 1659, 1668, and 1673 ; also, The life of Constantine in four books, written by Eusibius Pamphilus, with Constantine's Oration to the convention of the saints, and Eusebius's Speech in praise of Constantine, spoken at his tricennalia ; Valesius's annotations on these authors, are done into English, and set at their proper places in the margin, as likewise a translation of his account of their lives and writings ; with two index's, the one, of the principal matters that occur in the text, the other, of those contained in the notes.

CHAP. XXIII. How Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis Bishop of Nice, taking courage again, endea∣voured to subvert the Nicene Creed, by plot∣ting against Athanasius.

EUsebius and Theognis, being returned from exile, recovered their own Churches, having (as we said before) extruded those that had been ordained [Bishops] in their places: Moreover, they acquired great interest and fa∣vour with the Emperour, who had an high esteem

for them, looking upon them as converts from an Heretical to the orthodox Doctrine. But they abused this favour and liberty granted them, and made more disturbance in the world then for∣merly they had done; incited thereto by two motives; the one [proceeded] from the Arian Heresie, with which they had been formerly in∣fected; the other from their inveterate hatred against Athanasius; because he had so vigorously opposed them in the Synod, when the Articles of faith were discussed. First of all therefore they began to find fault with Athanasius's ordi∣nation, as if he were unworthy of a Bishoprick, and a 1.1 as if his ordination had been performed by unfitting persons. But it was afterwards demon∣strated that he was superiour to all manner of ca∣lumny: for being seated in the Bishoprick of Alex∣andria, he stifly and vigorously contended for the Nicene Creed: then Euse∣bius set all his wits at work to lay a plot for Athanasius, and to bring Arius again into Alexandria. For he suppo∣sed this to be the only way to eradicate the * 1.2 Doctrine of Consubstantiality, and in∣troduce Arianism. Eusebius therefore wrote to Athana∣sius that he would readmit Arius and his companions [into the Church.] b 1.3 And in his Letter he intreated him, but openly and in pub∣lick he threatned him. But when Athanasius could by no means be prevailed with, he attempts to perswade the Emperour to grant Arius leave to come into his pre∣sence, and that he would give him a liberty of re∣turning to Alexandria. And by what means he prevailed so far, as to ef∣fect this, I will relate in its due place. But before these things were done, there was ano∣ther commotion raised in the Churches. For her own sons did again disturb the peace of the Church. Eusebius Pamphilus relates, that immedi∣ately after the Synod, Aegypt raised mutual facti∣ons within it self, but he annexes not the occasion of this division. Whence he is thought by many to have been double-tongued, because, declining to set forth the reasons [of the discords] he had resolved with himself not to assent to what had been determined at Nice. But as we our selves have found from several Letters which the Bishops wrote to one another after the Synod, the term Homoousios disturbed some mens minds. Whilst they were busying themselves about this word, and made too curious inquiries into its import and meaning, they raised an intestine war amongst themselves. And what was done herein was not unlike a fight in the night. For neither side seemed to understand perfectly, why they reviled one another. For they that had an aversion for the term Homoöusios, look'd upon them that approved of it as introducers of c 1.4 Sabellius's and Montanus's opinion. And therefore they called them blas∣phemers, as being persons that destroyed the existence of the Son of God. On the other hand, they that were maintainers of the term Homoöusios, supposing the other [their adversaries] to be introducers of [the worship of] many Gods, abominated them, as the bringers in of Gen∣tilism. Eustathius Bishop of Antioch reviles Eusebius Pamphilus as one that adulterates the Nicene Faith. Eusebius answers, that he does in no wise infringe or Violate the Creed [pub∣lished] at Nice: but accuses Eustathius, for being an Assertour of Sabellius's opinion. For these reasons every one [of the Bishops] wrote Volumes, as if it had been against most bitter enemies: And although both sides asserted, that the Son of God had a * 1.5 proper, real and pecu∣liar Person and existence, and confessed that there was one God in three Persons, yet (how it came to pass, I know not) they could in no wise agree amongst themselves; and therefore would by no means endure to be at quiet.

Notes

• a 1.1

  I follow this rea∣ding [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as if his or∣dination, &c. For Eusebius's party found fault with the ordination of Atha∣nasius upon two accounts; both because Athanasius was unwor∣thy of that honour, and also because his ordination had been performed by persons unfitting. See Philostorgius. Vales.
• * 1.2

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the ••aith of Homoou••ios; i. e. those words in the Cree••, wherein it ••s asserted that Christ is of the same essence or substance with the father.
• b 1.3

  Socrates borrowed these words out of Athanasius's second Apology against the Arians; where Athana∣sius gives an account how Eusebius secretly joyned with the Melitians in a conspiracie against him, these are his very words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Which words of Athanasius, Sozomen makes use of in his second book, chap. 18. Vales.
• c 1.4

  It is hard to assign a reason, why Socrates should joyn Montanus with Sabellius. For Montanus himself made no innovations in the doctrine of the Trinity, but followed the faith of the Catholick Church; as Epiph••niu•• attests (in Hares•• Monta∣••ist.) and Theodoret (book. 3. H••ret▪ Fabul▪) Yet some of his disciples took away the difference of the persons, as Sabellius did; which Theo∣doret attests (at the place now cited) in these words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. But some of them have denyed the three persons of the Godhead, in like manner as Sabellius did, saying that the father, Son, and holy Ghost are one and the same person. And hence it is, that in the Synodi∣call Epistle of the Arian Bishops at Scrdica, Montanus is joyned to Sabellius. Vales.
• * 1.5

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Learned Reader will find these terms incomparably well explained by Dionysius Petavius, in his Dogm. Theolog. Tom. 2. De Trinit. book 4. chap. 8. Sect. 10, &c. pag. 380. Edit. Paris. 1644.