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. XXVII. How Arius returned to Alexandria by the Empe∣rours order, and upon Athanasius's refusal to admit him, Eusebius's faction framed divers ac∣cusations against Athanasius before the Empe∣rour.

ARius having thus perswaded the Emperour, returned to Alexandria. But this specious covert was not prevalent enough to suppress the silenced and hidden truth. For when Athanasius denied him reception upon his arival at Alexan∣dria: (in regard he detested the man as an abo∣mination:) he attempted to stir up new com∣motions in Alexandria, by disseminating his he∣resie. Moreover, at that time Eusebius did both himself write Letters, and also induced the Em∣perour to write, that Arius and his complices might be received [into the Church.] But A∣thanasius did wholly refuse to grant them re∣ception: And he acquainted the Emperour by his Letters that it was impossible for those, who had once rejected the faith, and were anathema∣tized, to be entirely readmitted again [to their degrees in the Church] at their return. But the Emperour, highly incensed [at this re∣turn] thus threatned Athanasius in a Letter a 1.1.

Part of the Emperours Letter.

Having therefore received the knowledge of our will, doe you afford a free ingress to all such as are desirous of entring into the Church. For if we shall receive information that you have prohibited any of those that are desirous [to be united] to the Church, or have hindred their admission, We will immediately send one who shall be impowred by Our order to depose you, and banish you your Countrey. Thus wrote the Emperour, having a regard to the good of the publick, and being unwilling that [the members of] the Church should be rent asun∣der. b 1.2 For he laboured to reduce them all to a perfect union. At that time there∣fore the Eusebians (who were deadly haters of Atha∣nasius,) supposing they had gotten a fair opportunity, made use of the Emperours indignation as instrumental for the execution of their own design. Upon which account they made great disturbances, labouring by that meanes to effect Athanasius's deposition from his Bishoprick: for they hoped that the Arian opinion would become absolutely pre∣valent by these means only, [to wit,] by a re∣moval of Athanasius. There was therefore by a joynt consent an attack made against him by Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nice, Maris of Chalcedon, Ursacius of Singidunum [a City] of the Upper Maesia, and Valens of Mursa in the Upper Pannonia. These persons hire some of the

Melitian Hereticks, who bring in several accusa∣tions against Athanasius. And first they frame a complaint [against him] by c 1.3 Ision, Eudaemon and Callinicus, who were Melitians, as if Athana∣sius had ordered the Aegyptians to pay a linnen garment [under the notion of tribute] to the Church of Alexandria. d 1.4 But Alypius, and Macarius, Pres∣byters of the Church of A∣lexandria, who were then accidentally at Nicomedia, extinguished this accusation, having informed the Empe∣rour, that what they re∣ported against Athanasius was false. Wherefore the Emperour by his Letters sharply reproved those that informed against him: but he advised Athanasius in a Letter to repair to him. But the Eusebian faction, be∣fore his arival, and in or∣der to their preventing of it, tack another accusation to the first, far worse than the former: as if Athana∣sius, * 1.5 entring into a con∣spiracy against the Empe∣rours affaires, had sent a little chest full of gold to one Philumenus. But the Em∣perour, having taken cogni∣zance hereof at Psamathia, which is the Suburbs of the City Nicomedia, and finding Athanasius innocent, dis∣missed him with honour; and wrote to the Church of A∣lexandria, that their Bishop Athanasius had been falsly accused. It would indeed have been comely and decent to have passed over in si∣lence those calumnies, which the Eusebians after∣wards framed against Athanasius, lest Christs Church should be condemned by those that do not embrace his doctrine. But in regard they have been committed to writing, and exposed to the view of all men, I therefore judged it necessary to treat of these matters as compendiously as may be, which [if particularized] would re∣quire a peculiar volume. Wherefore I will give a short account, whence both the subject of the calumny it self, and also the contrivers of the false accusation had their original. e 1.6 Mareotes is a region of Alexandria. There are in it a great many, and those very populous villages, and in them many and stately Churches. All these Churches are under [the jurisdiction of] the Bishop of Alexandria, and subject to his City like Parishes. In this Country of Mareotes there was a man, by name Ischyras, who had committed a fact worthy of a thousand deaths. For, whenas he had never been admitted into sacred Orders, he [ne∣vertheless] took upon himself the name of a Presby∣ter, and was so audacious as to perform the office of a Presbyter. This Ischyras therefore, detected in the commission of the foresaid crime, made his escape thence, and arriving at Nicomedia, for re∣fuge fled to the Eusebian faction. They, in regard of their hatred towards Athanasius, receive him as a Presbyter; and promise to prefer him to the dignity of a Bishoprick, if he would frame an ac∣cusation against Athanasius, they deriving a pre∣tence [for this calumny] from those stories which Ischyras had contrived. For he gave out, that he had suffered most miserably by an assault made upon him: and that Macarius running furiously [into the Oratory] as far as the Altar, overtur∣ned the Table, broke the mystical Cup, and burnt the sacred books. For this accusation (as I have said) the Eusebians promised him a Bishoprick as his reward, being sensible that this accusation against Macarius, would (together with him that was accused) overthrow Athanasius also who had sent Macarius. This accusation therefore they charged him with afterwards. But before this [calumny they framed] another stuffed with all manner of hatred and maliciousness, which we must now speak of. Having got a mans hand (whence they had it, I know not, whether they had murdered any man and cut off his hand; or whether they had cut it off from some dead body, God only knows, and they that were authours of this fact,) they produced it [pretending] it to be the hand of one f 1.7 Ar∣senius, a Melitian Bishop: the hand they exposed to all mens view, but kept Arse∣nius concealed. And they re∣ported that Athanasius had this hand in his custody, and made use of it in the per∣formance of some magical delusions. This therefore was the chiefest and most im∣portant point of the accusa∣tion which these Sycophants had forged [against Atha∣nasius.] But (as it usually happens in such cases) other persons accused him of other matters. For all those who had been his enemies before, did at this time most especially make use of their utmost force against him. The Emperour, having intelligence of these procee∣dings, writes to g 1.8 Dalmatius the Censor, his bro∣thers son, who then kept his residence at Antioch in Syria; that he should command the persons ac∣cused to be brought before him, and (after he had taken cognizance of the case) order them that were convicted to be punished. He also sent Eu∣sebius and Theognis, that Athanasius might be tried before them. When Athanasius knew that he was to be summoned to appear before the Censor, he sent into Aegypt to find out Arsenius. He had certain information that the man was con∣cealed: but he could not apprehend him because he frequently changed his lurking holes by re∣moving from one place to another. In the interim, the Emperour suppressed the tryal which should have been before the Censor, upon this account.

Notes

• a 1.1

  After these words, the Florentine M. S. adds these [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, part of the Emperours Letter.] Which are altogether necessary, that the Reader may understand, that not the Emperours whole Epistle, but part of it only, is here inserted. Athanasius, in his second Apology a∣gainst the Arians, (out of whom Socrates took these passages) pro∣ducing this Epistle of Constantines, sets these very words before it; and adds, that this Epistle was brought to Alexandria by Syncletius and Gaudentius, Officers belonging to the Imperial Palace. But, that which Socrates affirms (to wit, that Arius came to Alexandria) is not mentioned by Athanasius, nor doe I think it is true. Vales.
• b 1.2

  After these words from the Florentine, Sfortian, and Allati∣an M. SS. we have added this whole period [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, For he laboured to reduce them all to a perfect union.] which was wanting in the common Editions. Sozomen has almost the same words, in his second book at the close of chap. 22; but he has changed their order. Vales.
• c 1.3

  We find these mens names in that cata∣logue of the Meliti∣an Bishops which Alexander pro∣cured from Melitius, This Ision was Bishop in Athribis, Eudaemon in Tanis, and Callinicus in Pelu∣sium. See Athanasius's second A∣pologetick. Vales.
• d 1.4

  Athanasius (in his Apologe∣tick) calls this man Apis, not Alypius. But names not the place, wherein Constantine took cogni∣zance of this matter. Yet Socra∣tes affirms it was at Nicomedia. Further, Baronius relates that these affaires were transacted in the year of Christ 329. But I would rather choose to place them on the year following. For these things hapned after Eusta∣thius's deposition, when Eusebius and Theognius, (returned from their Exile) had procured a great authority and interest with Con∣stantine. But what the same Baronius says (to wit, that Con∣stantines Letter, concerning A∣rius's readmission into the Church, was written to Athanasius in the year of Christ 327,) is a palpa∣ble mistake; and he dissents from Athanasius, whom notwithstan∣ding he professes to follow in all things. For Athanasius relates, that soon after Constantines Let∣ter, and Arius's repulse, the Me∣litians accused him of these crimes before the Emperour. Vales.
• * 1.5

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which words, Valesius has thus rendred, conspirans ad∣versus Principem, conspiring a∣gainst the Emperour.
• e 1.6

  This pas∣sage of So∣crates is very much enlightned by Athana∣sius in his second Apo∣logetick against the Arians. Whose words, because they are misun∣derstood by his translatour, I will here set down. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That is, Mareotes is a region of Alexandria. In that region there never was a Bishop, or De∣puty Bishop. But the Churches of that whole region are subject to the Bishop of Alexandria. Each of the Presbyters hath peculiar Villages, (which are very great,) sometimes ten in number, or more. From these words it appears, that every Village of Mareotes had not its particu∣lar Presbyter; but that one Presbyter governed ten Villages and sometimes more. That Village, wherein Ischyras was, in regard it was the least of all, undoubtedly had neither its peculiar Church, nor Pres∣byter. To that Epistle which all the Presbyters and Deacons of Ma∣reotes wrote to the Synod of Tyre (which Letter is recorded by A∣thanasius in the book now cited) there subscribed fourteen Presbyters, and fifteen Deacons. Vales.
• f 1.7

  This Arsenius was a Bishop of the Melitians in the City Hyp∣selis which is in Thebaïs. In his Epistle, which he wrote to Atha∣nasius, he assumes to himself this title of honour, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. To Athana∣sius the blessed Pope, Arsenius Bi∣shop of the City Hypselis, one of those sometimes under Melitius. But in the catalogue of Bishops of the Melitian faction, which Me∣litius delivered to Alexander, no Arsenius can be found. Vales.
• g 1.8

  Socrates took this out of A∣thanasius, in his se∣cond Apolo∣getick a∣gainst the Arians, his words are these; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Constantine wrote to Antioch, to Dalmatius the Censor, [ordering him] to hear the cause concerning the murder. The Censor therefore sent to me, to prepare for my defence. Socrates thought that this Dal∣matius was the son of Constantines brother, he that some years after was made Caesar by Constantine. But that is a great mistake. For Dalmatius the Censor was Constantines brother, and the Father of Dal∣matius the Caesar. The Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle confirms this, who writes thus concerning Constantine, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; i. e. and he created Dalmatius (the son of his brother Dalmatius the Censor) Caesar. Certainly, Dalmatius the son of Dalmatius was (when these things were done which are related by Athanasius) very young, and could not sit as judge in so weighty an affair. Besides, he lived at that time at Narbona, and (together with Hannibalianus his brother) was an Hearer of Exuperius the Rhetorician. For from that City he was sent for by Constantine, and created Caesar when very young (as Ansonius affirms in his book de Professor. Burdigal.) in the year of Christ 335. But that tryal concerning the murder of Arsenius was before Dalmatius the Censor at Antioch, (as Athanasius attests,) in the year of Christ 332, according to Baronius's opinion. Vales.