A. D. 336.] MACARIUS SUCCEEDED BY MAXIMUS.

79

church of Antioch concerning oneness of faith, and told them that they ought not to desire the bishops of other regions, even as they ought not to covet the possessions of others. He despatched another epistle on the same subjects to the synod, and commended Eusebius for having refused the bishopric; and having been informed that Euphronius, a presbyter of Cappadocia, and George, of Arethusa, were men of orthodox faith, he commanded the bishops to consecrate one or other of them, or whoever they might judge worthy of the honour, and to ordain a bishop over the church of Antioch. On the receipt of these letters from the emperor, Euphronius was ordained. I have heard that Eustathius bore this unjust calumny and condemnation with great calmness. He was a man, who, besides his virtues and excellent qualities, was justly admired on account of his extraordinary eloquence, as is evidenced by his works, which are remarkable for classic purity of expression, weighty sentiments, and elegance and clearness of language.

CHAP. XX.-CONCERNING MAXIMUS, WHO SUCCEEDED MACA

RIUS IN THE BISHOPRIC OF JERUSALEM.

ABOUT this time Mark, who had succeeded Silvester, and who had held the episcopal sway during a short period, died, and Julius was raised to the see of Rome. Maximus suc

ceeded Macarius in the bishopric of Jerusalem. It is said that Macarius had ordained him bishop over the church of Diospolis, but that the members of the church of Jerusalem insisted on his remaining among them. His confession of faith and great virtue had so excited the approbation of the people, that they were desirous that he should, on the death of Macarius, succeed to the bishopric.1 The dread of offending the people and exciting an insurrection led to the election of another bishop over Diospolis, and Maximus remained in Jeru

1 After the deposition of Eustathius, Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, was translated to the see of Antioch. Dying six months afterwards, he was succeeded by Eulalius, after whom came Euphronius. See Valesius' notes on Socrates, Eccl. Hist. i. ch. 24.

2 The phrase in the text is ὑποψήφιος ἦν εἰς τὴν ἐπισκοπήν. The nearest translation of the word is perhaps "designate." The same term occurs in Socrat. Eccl. Hist. v. 5.

salem, and exercised the priestly functions conjointly with Macarius; and, after the death of this latter, he succeeded to the government of the church. It is, however, well known to those who are accurately acquainted with these circumstances, that Macarius concurred with the people in their desire to retain Maximus, for it is said that he regretted1 the ordination of Maximus, and thought that he should rather have appointed him his own successor, on account of the orthodoxy of his faith and the firmness of his confession, which had so endeared him to the people. He likewise feared that, at his death, the adherents of Eusebius and Patrophilus, who had embraced Arianism, would place one of their own sect in his bishopric, for even during his administration they had attempted to introduce some innovations, and tranquillity was not restored until he had excommunicated them.

CHAP. XXI.-THE MELETIANS AND ARIANS AGREE IN SENTIMENT; EUSEBIUS AND THEOGNIS RELAPSE INTO THE ERRORS OF ARIUS.

In the mean time the contention which had arisen among the Egyptians could not be quelled. The heresy of Arius had been positively condemned by the council of Nice, while the followers of Meletius had been admitted into communion under the stipulations above stated. When Alexander returned to Egypt, Meletius delivered up to him the churches whose government he had unlawfully usurped, and returned to Lycus. Not long after, finding his end approaching, he nominated John, one of his most intimate friends, as his successor, contrary to the decree of the Nicæan council, and thus plunged

66

1 μεταμεληθῆναι. This is the correct meaning of the term, it was restored by Valesius, instead of the old rendering, was anxious about." It should be observed that several matters here are done contrary to the ancient discipline and canons of the church, by a dispensation. For first, Maximus is translated from Diospolis; next, a coadjutor bishop is assigned to Macarius in his life-time, as Alexander had been appointed coadjutor to Narcissus. (Euseb. Eccl. Hist. b. vi. ch. 52.) And lastly, Maximus is said to have been consecrated by the bishop of Jerusalem against the will of the metropolitan, in defiance of the seventh canon of the Council of Nicæa, which reserves to the bishops of Jerusalem the rank which they had from early times, saving the authority of the metropolitan, the bishop of Cæsarea.

A. D. 324.]

ARIAN TROUBLES.

81

the churches into fresh troubles. When the Arians perceived that the Meletians were introducing innovations, they also attempted to involve the churches in trouble. For, as frequently occurs in similar contests, some applauded the dogmas of Arius, while others contended that those who had been ordained by Meletius ought to govern the churches. These two bodies of sectarians had hitherto been opposed to each other, but, on perceiving that the clergy of the Catholic church were followed by the multitude, they, from motives of jealousy, formed an alliance together, regarding the clergy of Alexandria as their common enemies. Their measures of attack and defence were so long carried on in concert, that, in process of time, the Meletians were generally called Arians in Egypt, although they only dissent on questions of supreme rule and church government,' while the Arians hold the same opinions concerning God as Arius. But although their sentiments were thus at variance,2 they had recourse to dissimulation, in order to carry on conjointly their schemes against the Catholics. From this period, however, it seems, the Meletians began to examine the contested topics, and were led to receive the Arian doctrines, and to hold the same opinions as Arius concerning God. This revived the original controversy concerning Arius, and some of the clergy and laity seceded from communion with the others. The dispute concerning the doctrines of Arius was renewed at Constantinople and other cities, and particularly in the provinces of Bithynia and the Hellespont. In short, it is said that Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis, bishop of Nicæa, bribed the notary to whom the emperor had intrusted the custody of the documents of the Nicæan council, effaced their signatures, and openly taught that the Son is not to be considered consubstantial with the Father. Eusebius was accused of these irregularities before the emperor, and he replied with great boldness. "If this robe," said he, "had been cut asunder in my presence, I could not affirm the fragments to be all of the same substance." The emperor was much grieved at these disputes, for he had believed that questions of this nature had been finally decided by the council of Nice. He 1 Christophorson is mistaken in rendering these words "de Ecclesiarum primatu."

2 ἰδὶᾳ τὰ παρ' ἀλλήλων ἀναινόμενοι, scil. δόγματα.

[SOZOMEN.]

G

more especially regretted that Eusebius and Theognis had received certain Alexandrians into communion,' although the synod had recommended them to repent on account of their heterodox opinions, and although he had himself condemned them to banishment from their native land, as being the exciters of sedition. It is asserted by some, that it was for the above reasons that the emperor exiled Eusebius and Theognis; but, as I have already stated,3 I have derived my information from those who are intimately acquainted with these matters.

CHAP. XXII.-MACHINATIONS OF THE ARIANS AND MELETIANS

AGAINST ST. ATHANASIUS.

THE various calamities which befell St. Athanasius were primarily occasioned by Eusebius and Theognis. As they possessed great influence over the emperor, they obtained the recall of Arius, with whom they were on terms of concord and friendship, to Alexandria, and at the same time the expulsion of Athanasius, who was opposed to them. They accused him before Constantine of being the author of all the seditions and troubles that agitated the church, and of excluding those who were desirous of joining the church; and alleged that unanimity would be restored were he alone to be removed. The calumnies were substantiated by many bishops and clergy who were with John, and who sedulously obtained access to the emperor; they pretended to great orthodoxy, and imputed to Athanasius and the bishops of his party all the bloodshed, imprisonments, conflagrations of churches, and deeds of violence and lawlessness which had been perpetrated. But when Athanasius wrote to the emperor and proved the illegality of the ordination of John's adherents, showing that they had altered the decrees of the Nicæan council, that their faith was not sound, and that they persecuted and calumniated the

1 Sozomen has taken this from the epistle of Constantine to the Nicomedians, as given by Theodoret, Eccl. Hist. b. i. ch. 9.

2 These exciters of sedition, according to Baronius, were the Meletian party; but Valesius is inclined to believe that they were Arians; and he confirms his opinion by referring to the synodical epistle of the bishops of Egypt, as given by Athanasius in his second Apolog. contr. Arianos. 3 See above, chap. 16 of this book.

MACHINATIONS AGAINST ATHANASIUS.

83

orthodox, Constantine was at a loss to know whom to believe. As he was much chagrined by the mutual and constant accusations of both parties, and desired most earnestly the restoration of unanimity of sentiment among the people, he wrote to Athanasius, desiring him to exclude no one from the church, and threatening to visit any act of disobedience to this command with instant expulsion from Alexandria. If any one should desire to see this letter of the emperor's, he will here find the portion of it relating to this affair. It is as follows: "As you are now acquainted with my will, which is that all who desire to enter the church should be permitted to do so, you must not forbid any from entering. For should I hear that any who are willing to join the church have been debarred or hindered therefrom by you, I shall send and depose you by my decree, and shall have you conveyed to some other place." Athanasius, however, wrote to the emperor and convinced him that the Arians ought not to be received into communion by the Catholic church; and Eusebius, perceiving that his schemes could never be carried into execution while exposed to the opposition of Athanasius, determined to resort to any means in order to get rid of him. But as he could not find any pretext for effecting this design, he promised the Meletians to interest the emperor and those in power in their favour, if they would bring an accusation against Athanasius. Accordingly, they first accused him of having obliged the Egyptians to pay a tax on linen tunics, and the accusers affirmed that the tax had been exacted from them. Apis and Macarius, presbyters of the church of Athanasius," who then happened to be at court, endeavoured to expose the calumny. On being summoned to answer for the offence, Athanasius was further accused of having conspired against the emperor, and of having sent, for this purpose, a casket of gold to one PhiluThe emperor detected the calumny, sent Athanasius back to his bishopric, and wrote to the people of Alexandria to testify that their bishop possessed great moderation and orthodoxy, that he had gladly received him, and recognised him to be a man of God, and that, as envy had been the sole cause of his accusation, he had triumphed over his accusers; and having heard that the Arian and Meletian sectarians had excited dissensions in Egypt, the emperor, in the same epistle, conjured the people to look to God, to take heed unto His

men.