To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
MOreover, a 1.1 Eusebius and Theognis, b 1.2 having sent a Libell of Repentance to the most emi∣nent Bishops, were by an Imperial order recalled from exile, and restored to their own Churches:
those who had been Ordained in their places being removed by them; Eusebius [put out] Amphion, and Theognis [removed] Chrestus. This is a Copy of their Libell.
We having been sometime since c 1.3 condemned by your Piety, d 1.4 without having our cause de∣clared or defended, ought quietly to bear what has been determined by your holy discretion. But because 'tis absurd, by silence to give an oc∣casion of calumny against our selves, for this reason we declare to you, that we have both unanimously agreed to the [determination about the] Faith, and also (after we had made researches into the notion of Homöousios,) with our utmost earnestness laboured for Peace, having never been followers of any Heresie. And when we had suggested whatever came into our minds upon account of the Churches security, and had fully satisfied those that ought to be perswaded by us, we subscribed the Faith, but have not subscribed the Anathematism; not that we had any thing to object against the Faith, but because we did not believe the person accused to be such a one [as he was represented to be;] having been fully satisfied that he was no such person, partly from the private Letters written to us by him, and partly from the discourses he made in our presence. e 1.5 But if your holy Council was [then] satisfied, we [now] make no resistance, but agree to what you have determined, and by this Libell do fully declare and confirm our consent; [which we are induced to do] not because we took upon our exile▪ to be tedious and burdensom, but that we might avoid the suspicion of Heresie. For if you shall now vouchsafe to let us return to your presence, you shall find us to be of the same Opinion with you in all points, and quietly to adhere to what you have de∣termined: since it hath seemed good to your piety, gently to treat even * 1.6 him, who is ac∣cused for these things, and to f 1.7 recall him from banishment. But it would be absurd (since he that seemed to be guilty is recalled, and has made his defence in reference to those things laid to his charge,) that we should be silent, and muster up an argument against our selves. Do you therefore vouchsafe (as it befits your piety that loves Christ) to remind our Emperour most dear to God, to offer up our supplications to him, and speedily to determine concerning us as shall be most agreeable to your [prudence.]
This is the Libell of Eusebius and Theognius's recantation. From the words whereof I con∣jecture, that they subscribed the Faith which had been publisht [in the Council;] but would not give their consent to the deposing of Arius: and it appears hence, that Arius was recalled [from banishment] before them: but although this seems to be so, yet he was forbid to enter Alexandria. Which is evident from this, [to wit] that he afterwards invented a way for his own return into the Church and the City Alexan∣dria, by having made use of a counterfeited repen∣tance, as we shall relate in its due place.
Socrates has obser∣ved no or∣der here. For he says, that Eusebius and Theognis were recalled from banishment almost be∣fore he had told us they were exiled. Sozomen therefore did better, who in this particular corrected Socrates's relation. For, in the first book of his History, chap. 21▪ he relates that Eusebius and Theognis were banisht by the Emperour Constantine a little after the Synod, and that other Bishops were put into their Sees. Then, in his second book chap. 16. he declares how they were recalled from their banishment. From which passage (that I may make this remark by the by) it may be concluded, that Sozomen wrote his History after Socrates, in as much as he corrects and amends Socrates's narration in many places. Further, Eusebius and Theognis were banisht three months after the Nicene Synod, as Philostorgius attests: and returned from their exil•• (as the said Philostorgius relates) in the third year after that Synod▪ that is, in the year of Christ 328. which account agrees exactly with the History of affaires transacted in that time. For all Historians agree that Eusebius, upon his return from banishment, entertained thoughts of confirming Arius's Opinion, and of thrusting out those that asser∣ted the Nicene Faith. And, that his first attack was made against Eustathius Bishop of Antioch, whom he caused to be expell'd [from his See] by seigned calumnies, in the year of Christ 329, or 330. Baronius therefore did ill, to place Eusebius Nicomediensis's return from exile on the year of Christ 330. Vales.
Baronius (at the year of Christ 325.) reproves Socrates and Sozomen, for saying, that Eusebius and Theognis were banisht a little after the Nicene Synod▪•• and that some few years after (having sent a Libell of satisfaction to the most eminent Bishops) they were re∣called from their exile. Baronius endeavours to prove, that this Libell was presented by Eusebius to the Bishops in the Nicene Synod. For he asserts, that the rule of Faith was first written; which Eusebius Nicomediensis (with four other Bishops) refused to subscribe: but, that the said Eusebius, having afterwards presented a Libell of satis∣faction, did subscribe what had been determined [in the Synod.] But, after this, when the Synod had Anathematized Arius, Eusebius and Theo∣gnius (says he) would not subscribe this Anathematism; and for that reason they were condemned and deposed, by the Synod, and Amphion and Chrestus were put into their Sees. But the Emperour Constantine (continues he) interceded that the sentence might not be put in execu∣tion, and perswaded the Synod that they should admit of Eusebius and Theognius upon their presenting a Libell of Repentane. This is Baro∣nius's opinion. But he is out, first, in saying that there were two Libells presented by Eusebius: for of the former Libell no body has ever made mention. Secondly, he cites no authour for what he says concerning Eusebius's and Theognius's deprivation and condemnation done in the Nicene Council. Constantine (in his Epistle to the Nicomedians, the latter part of which Epistle in Greek the reader may meet in Theo∣doret. Eccles. Hist. book 1. chap. 20; it occurs entire at the close of Gelasius Cyzicenus's 3d book pag. 217.) says not that it was then done, but only says, that Eusebius was afraid it would be done. Lastly, his saying that a Libell of Repentance was presented by Eusebius in the Nicene Synod, is manifestly refuted from the Libell it self. For this Libell was presented by Eusebius, when he was in banishment, as is attested by these words of it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. i. e. and by this Libell do fully declare and con∣firm our consent; [which we are induced to do] not because we look upon our exile to be tedious, &c. Besides, this Libell was sent, when Arius was recalled from banishment; which is apparent from these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. i. e. But it would be absurd (since he that seemed to be guilty is recalled and has made his defence in reference to, &c. Moreover, Arius was recalled from banishment by Constantine long enough after the Nicene Synod. &c. Vales.
In as much as Eusebius and Theog∣nius do say in the beginning of this Epistle, that they were condemned by the Bishops; it is worth our making an inquiry, when and where they were condemned. Baronius says they were condemned and deposed in the Nicene Synod. But this is contradicted by St Jerom's autority; who, in his Dialogue against the Luciferiani, does in express words attest, that Eusebius and Theognius (with other Bishops of the Arian faction) were admitted of by the Nicene Synod. And this he proves both from the testimony of those that were present at the Synod, and also from the very Acts of the Nicene Synod; in which, amongst the names of those Bishops who subscribed the Synod, Eusebius and the others I have mentioned are reckoned. The same is attested by Philostorgius, who says that Eusebius was banisht about three months after the Nicene Synod. Since therefore Eusebius and Theognius do confess themselves to have been condemned by the Bishops, and since 'tis manifest that was not done in the Nicene Synod; it must necessarily have been done in some other meeting of the Bishops. The reason of their being exiled, Constantine does declare in his Epistle to the Nicomedians, (the latter part whereof see in Therodoret. Eccles. Hist. book 1. chap. 20.) For he says, that he banished them, because they entertained certain Hereticks, (whom he had com∣manded to be sent to his Court from the City Alexandria,) and held communion with them. (Baronius, at the year of Christ 329, thinks these Hereticks were Melitians. But I do rather believe they were Arians: and this is expresly affirmed by the Egyptian Bishops, in their Synodick Epistle, which Athanasius has recorded in his second Apology against the Arians.) For this reason therefore Constantine ordered a Synod of some Bishops to be convened, by whom Eusebius and Theognius were condemned and deposed, after which the Em∣perour banished them. This is expresly affirmed by Athanasius (in his book De Synodis,) and by Theodoret (book 1. chap. 19. Eccles. Hist.) Vales.
Christophorson and Musculus omitted these words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without having our cause declared or defended] in their Version. They occur in Sozomen (book 2. chap. 16.) and Epiphan. Scholasticus has rendred them thus: Du••um quidem ante judicium condemnati à Reverenti•• vestrâ, patienter ferr•• quae decreta sunt a sancto vestro con∣cilio debuimus; i. e. Having been sometime since condemned by your Reverence before judgment, we ought patiently to bear what is decreed by your holy Council. By these words Eusebius seems to intimate, that he was condemned without being heard, and by a rash judgment, or prejudice: to wit, because the Emperour had condemned him before, who was angry with Eusebius for several reasons, which you may meet with in Constantine's Epistle to the Nicomedians; see Theo∣doret. Eccles. Hist. book 1. chap. 20. Vales.
The meaning of these words is this. If we then sa∣tisfied your holy Coun∣cil (to wit, the Ni∣cene) and perswaded it to think, that we had just cause for our be∣ing unwil∣ling to sub∣scribe the Anathe∣matism, now we fully com∣pleat our consent, and are ready to subscribe as well the A∣nathema∣tism as the form of the Creed. You see how much the adding of these two words [then and now] would enlighten this place. Vales.
Arius.
That is attributed here to the Bishops, which had been done by the Emperour. For the Emperour, not the Bishops, had recalled Arius from his exile. But writers do usually speak thus; assigning that to the Bishops, which was the Emperours deed; and on the contrary, that to the Emperour which the Bishops did. So Socrates said above, that the Nicene Synod forbad Arius to enter Alexandria; whenas this was the Emperours doing, as appears from his Epistle. Vales.