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. XVII. That Athanasius, being afraid of the Emperours menaces, returned to Rome again.

AT the same time, there was another false accusation patcht together against Atha∣nasius by the Arians, who invented this occasion for it. The * 1.1 Father of the Augusti had here∣tofore given a yearly allowance of Bread-corn to the Church of Alexandria for the relief of those that were indigent. It was reported by the Arians, that Athanasius had usually sold this Bread-corn for money, and had converted the money to his own gain. The Emperour there∣fore, having given credit to this report, threatned Athanasius with death. He, being made sensi∣ble of the Emperours menaces, made his escape, and absconded. But when Julius Bishop of Rome understood what the Arians had done against Athanasius, having also received Eusebius's Letter who was now dead, he a 1.2 invites Athanasius, to come to him; being informed of the place where he lay concealed. At the same time arrived the b 1.3 Letter, which those [Bishops] that before that had been convened at Antioch, wrote to him. Another c 1.4 Letter also was sent to him by the Bishops in Egypt, informing him, that those things objected against Athanasius were false. These Letters so directly contra∣dicting one another having been sent to Julius, he re∣turned an answer to those [Bishops] convened at Antioch, wherein he d 1.5 bla∣med them, first for the bit∣terness of their Letter; then [he told them] they had done contrary to the Canons, because they had not called him to the Synod; it being commanded by the Ecclesiastick Rule, that the Churches ought not to make Sanctions contrary to the Bishop of Rome's Senti∣ment. [He complained] also, that they had clan∣destinely adulterated the faith. And moreover, that what was heretofore done at Tyre, had been fraudu∣lently and corruptly trans∣acted, in regard the me∣morials of the Acts done at Mareotes had been made up of one side only. Fur∣ther, that what had been objected concerning Arse∣nius's murther, was ap∣parently demonstrated to have been a false accusation. These, and such like pas∣sages as these, Julius wrote at large to the [Bishops] convened at Antioch. More∣over, we had inserted here the Letters to Julius, and his answer also; had not the prolixity thereof hindred that design of ours. But Sabinus, a follower of the Macedonian Heresie, whom we have mentioned before, has not put Julius's Letters into His collection [of the Acts] of Synods. Although, he has not left out that [Epistle] written from those [convened] at Antioch to Julius. But this is usually done by Sabinus. For, such Letters as either make no mention at all of, or reject the term Homoöusios, those [E∣pistles, I say,] he carefully inserts. But the contrary hereto he voluntarily and on set purpose omits. Thus much concerning these things. Not long after this, Paulus preten∣ding a journey to Corinth, arrived in Ita∣ly. Both the [* 1.6 Bishops] therefore make their condition known to the Emperour of those parts.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Constan∣tine the Great.
• a 1.2

  Socrates does here confound all things, and repeats the same things twice, as if they had been done again. For he says that Athanasius fled to Rome twice. The same is asserted by Baronius (in his Annalls.) by Petavius (in his Rationarium Temporum,) and by Blondellus (in his book de primatu.) But we have sufficiently refuted this mistake, in our first book of Ecclesiastick Observations, chap. 6. Socrates makes the same mistake, in his asserting that Paulus Bishop of Constantinople came twice to Rome. Moreover, Julius received Eusebius of Nicomedia's Letter, before that Council of Antioch, which was held at the con∣secration of the New Jerusalem, as we remarked before. And at the same time he invited Athanasius and his adversaries to Rome, in order to the discussion of their cause, as 'tis manifest from Athanasius's relation. Vales.
• b 1.3

  The Bishops who had been convened at Antioch at the consecra∣tion, having received Julius's Letter written to Eusebius of Nicomedia, (in which he invited him and the rest of the Eusebians to Rome, in order to the having their cause discussed there on a set day, where∣on a Council was there to be held:) deteined Julius's messengers (Elpidius and Philoxenus,) beyond the day appointed. Then, after they had held their Synod, they dismissed the messengers, and gave them a Letter to Julius. Upon receipt whereof he wrote back that famous Letter, which Athanasius hath inserted, in his second Apology against the Arians; pag. 739, &c. Edit. Paris. 1627. Vales.
• c 1.4

  He means the Synodical Epistle, which the Bishops of Egypt wrote to all the Bishops every where: which is inserted in the first place by Athanasius in his forecited Apology, pag. 722. Edit. ut prius. Julius speaks concer∣ning this Synodical Epistle, in that letter he wrote to the Ea∣stern Bishops convened at An∣tioch: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Moreover, many Bi∣shops (says he) wrote from E∣gypt and from other Provin∣ces, in defence of Athanasius. Vales.
• d 1.5

  I read [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he bla∣med] not [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he sent:] S^r Henry Savil hath mended this place, in the margin of his Copy, and made it agreeable to our reading. In the Allat. M. S. this place is written thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; i. e. in the first place he found fault with the bitterness of their Epistle. This Letter of Julius's is still extant, preserved for us by Athanasius, in his second A∣pology against the Arians: pag. 739, &c. Edit. ut Prius. In that Letter Julius reprehends the insolency and pride, which the Eastern Bishops had used in their Letters to him. But, that which Socrates here adds (to wit, that Julius complained, because they had not invited him to the Synod: and that it was the Ecclesiastick rule, that nothing should be determined in the Church without the Bi∣shop of Rome's consent:) is not to be found in that Let∣ter. Indeed, Julius complains in that Epistle, because the Ea∣stern Bishops (upon their receipt of his Letter, wherein he invi∣ted them to the Synod at Rome,) disregarding this his invitation, had ordained Gre∣gorius Bishop in Athanasius's See. But he says not one word con∣cerning this Ecclesiastick Rule or Canon. And yet Sozomen (chap. 3. book 10. Eccles. Hi∣story) says the same that So∣crates does here. Vales.
• * 1.6

  That is, Athanasius & Paulus.