Church History 1.1–1.7

Eusebius, son of Pamphilus, set out the history of the church in ten books in all and brought it to a close at the times of the emperor Constantine, when the persecution raised against the Christians by Diocletian also ceased. Writing on the life of Constantine, the same author made only partial mention of the affair of Arius, since he cared more for the emperor’s praises and for the festal grandeur of his words, as in an encomium, than for an exact account of what happened. We, having set ourselves to write what has happened in the churches from that time to our own, shall make the beginning of our subject where he left off. We do not care for an inflated style, but set down whatever we have found in writing or have heard from those who told of it. And since it helps our purpose to recall how the emperor Constantine came to be a Christian, let us say a little about this, as far as we can, and begin from there.

When Diocletian and Maximian, surnamed Herculius, by agreement laid down the imperial power and took up a private life, Maximian surnamed Galerius, who had reigned with them, came into Italy and appointed two Caesars, Maximin in the regions of the East and Severus in those of Italy. In Britain Constantine was proclaimed emperor in the place of his father Constantius, who died in the first year of the two hundred and seventy-first Olympiad, on the twenty-fifth of July. At Rome Maxentius, the son of Maximian Herculius, was raised up by the praetorian soldiers, a tyrant rather than an emperor. Herculius, carried away by a desire for power again, tried to destroy his son Maxentius, but was prevented from doing this by the soldiers; afterwards he ended his life at Tarsus in Cilicia. Severus the Caesar, sent by Galerius Maximian to Rome to seize Maxentius, was killed, his soldiers having betrayed him. And Galerius Maximian, who at the last held charge of everything, died, having first made emperor … , who had been his fellow soldier in former times and came from Dacia. Maxentius oppressed the Romans badly, treating them in a tyrannical rather than an imperial manner: he shamelessly committed adultery with the wives of free men, killed many, and did what goes with such things. Learning this, the emperor Constantine was eager to free the Romans from slavery under him, and at once began to consider how he might overthrow the tyrant. In so great an anxiety he considered what god he should call on as his helper in the battle. He reflected that Diocletian and his colleagues had gained nothing by their devotion to the pagan gods, and he found that his own father Constantius, who had turned away from the pagan religions, had passed a more prosperous life. While he was in this uncertainty, and marching somewhere with his soldiers, it happened that he saw a wonderful sight, beyond words. About the midday hours of the sun, when the day was already declining, he saw in the sky a pillar of light in the form of a cross, on which were letters saying, “By this conquer.” The sign, when it appeared, astonished the emperor. Hardly trusting his own eyes, he asked those present whether they too saw the same sight; and when they agreed, the emperor was encouraged by the divine and wonderful vision. When night came on, he saw Christ in his sleep, telling him to make a likeness of the sign he had seen and to use it against his enemies as a ready trophy. Persuaded by this oracle, he made the cross-shaped trophy, which is kept in the palace to this day, and went on to action with greater eagerness. Engaging Maxentius before Rome near the so-called Mulvian Bridge, he won, and Maxentius was drowned in the river. It was the seventh year of his reign when he won the victory over Maxentius. After this, while Licinius, who reigned with him and was also his brother-in-law through his sister Constantia, was living in the East, Constantine, having enjoyed such great benefits from God, offered thank-offerings to his benefactor. These were to release the Christians from persecution, to recall those in exile, to free those in prison, and to restore their property to those whose goods had been confiscated. He rebuilt the churches and did everything with great eagerness. At this time Diocletian, who had laid down the imperial power, died at Salona in Dalmatia.

The emperor Constantine, then, holding to Christ, did everything as a Christian: he raised up churches and honoured them with costly offerings, and he also closed and pulled down the temples of the pagans and exposed the statues in them to public view. But Licinius, who reigned with him, held pagan beliefs and hated the Christians. For fear of the emperor Constantine he shrank from stirring up an open persecution, but he secretly plotted against many, and as time went on he tried to harm them openly. This persecution was local: it took place only where Licinius was. Since in doing these and other tyrannical acts he did not escape Constantine’s notice, and he knew that Constantine was angry about them, he turned to excuses. Courting him, he made a pretended friendship, swearing many oaths that he would never plan anything tyrannical, and swearing and perjuring himself at the same time. For he did not give up his tyrannical intentions or his stirring up of persecution against the Christians. He ordered by law that bishops should not visit the pagans, so that the Christian cause might have no means of growing. The persecution was at once notorious and unspoken: it was concealed in word and plain in deed, for those persecuted suffered irreparable harm both in body and in property.

By this he roused the emperor Constantine to the greatest hostility. Their pretended friendship broken off, they became enemies, and before long they turned to war against each other. After many engagements by land and sea, Licinius was finally defeated at Chrysopolis in Bithynia (it is the port of Chalcedon) and surrendered himself. Constantine took him alive and treated him humanely: he did not kill him, but ordered him to live quietly at Thessalonica. He kept quiet for a short time, but afterwards gathered some barbarians and tried to retrieve his defeat. When the emperor learned this, he ordered him to be put to death, and at his command he was killed. Constantine, then, having become master of all and proclaimed sole emperor, again set himself to advance the Christian cause. He did this in various ways, and through him Christianity was in deep peace. But a civil war among the Christians followed upon so great a peace. What it was, and how it began, I will relate as well as I can.

After Peter, who had been bishop of Alexandria and was martyred under Diocletian, Achillas succeeded to the bishopric, and after Achillas, Alexander, in the time of the peace we have mentioned. Living with less fear, he built up the church. Once, in the presence of the presbyters under him and the rest of the clergy, he spoke about the Holy Trinity with some ambition, philosophizing that there is a unity in the Trinity. One Arius, a presbyter among those placed under him, a man not without skill in the talk of dialectic, thought that the bishop was introducing the doctrine of Sabellius the Libyan. Out of love of contention he swung to the diametrically opposite of the Libyan’s opinion and, as he thought, met the bishop’s words sharply. He said: “If the Father begot the Son, he who was begotten has a beginning of existence; and from this it is clear that there was when the Son was not. It follows necessarily that he has his subsistence from things that are not.”

Having reasoned this out by a novel argument, he fanned many into dispute over the question, and from a small spark a great fire was kindled. The evil began in the church of Alexandria and ran through all Egypt and Libya and the Upper Thebaid, and was already spreading over the other provinces and cities. Many others took up Arius’s opinion, but above all Eusebius held to it: not the bishop of Caesarea, but the one who had formerly been bishop of the church of Berytus and had then taken over the bishopric of Nicomedia in Bithynia. Hearing and seeing these things happen, Alexander was kindled to anger. He convened a council of many bishops and deposed Arius and those who accepted his opinion, and he wrote to those in each city as follows.

Letter of Alexander of Alexandria. To the beloved and most honoured fellow ministers everywhere in the catholic church, Alexander sends greeting in the Lord. Since the catholic church is one body, and there is a command in the divine Scriptures to keep the bond of concord and peace, it follows that we should write and inform one another of what happens among each of us, so that if one member suffers or rejoices, we may suffer or rejoice with one another. In our diocese, then, lawless men, enemies of Christ, have now gone out, teaching an apostasy which one might rightly consider and call a forerunner of Antichrist. I wished to bury such a thing in silence, so that perhaps the evil might be spent among the apostates alone and not pass to other places and defile the ears of some of the simple. But Eusebius, now in Nicomedia, thinks that the affairs of the church depend on him, because he left Berytus and set his eye on the church of the Nicomedians without being punished for it. He has put himself at the head of these apostates and undertaken to write everywhere commending them, in the hope of drawing some who are ignorant into this last and Christ-fighting heresy. So, knowing what is written in the law, I was compelled no longer to keep silent but to announce it to you all, so that you may know those who have become apostates and the wretched phrases of their heresy, and that if Eusebius writes, you may pay no attention. For he wishes to renew through these men his old ill will, which had been silenced by time; he pretends to write on their behalf, but in fact shows that he does this out of zeal for himself.

Those who have become apostates, then, are Arius, Achillas, Aeithales, Carpones, another Arius, Sarmates, Euzoius, Lucius, Julian, Menas, Helladius, and Gaius, and with them Secundus and Theonas, who were once called bishops. What they have invented and say, contrary to the Scriptures, is this: “God was not always Father, but there was when God was not Father. The Word of God was not always, but has come into being from things that are not. For the God who is has made him who was not out of what was not; therefore there was once when he was not. For the Son is a creature and a thing made. He is neither like the Father in essence, nor the true and natural Word of the Father, nor his true Wisdom, but one of the things made and created. He is called Word and Wisdom by a misuse of terms, since he himself came into being by God’s own Word and by the Wisdom that is in God, by which God made all things and him too. Therefore he is changeable and alterable in nature, as are all rational beings. The Word is foreign and alien to the essence of God and cut off from it. And the Father is inexpressible to the Son: for the Son neither knows the Father perfectly and exactly, nor can he see him perfectly. Indeed the Son does not know his own essence as it is. For he was made for our sake, so that God might create us through him as through an instrument; and he would not have come to exist if God had not wished to make us.” Someone asked them whether the Word of God can change as the devil changed, and they were not afraid to say, “Yes, he can; for he is of a changeable nature, being begotten and changeable.”

Since Arius and his party say these things and are shameless about them, we met with the bishops of Egypt and Libya, nearly a hundred in number, and anathematized both them and those who followed them. But Eusebius and his party received them, eager to mix falsehood with truth and impiety with piety. But they will not prevail: for the truth conquers, and there is no fellowship of light with darkness, nor agreement of Christ with Beliar. Who ever heard such things? Or who, hearing them now, is not astonished and does not stop his ears, so that the filth of these words may not touch his hearing? Who, hearing John say, “In the beginning was the Word,” does not condemn these men who say, “There was once when he was not”? Or who, hearing in the Gospel “only-begotten Son” and “Through him all things were made,” will not hate those who declare that the Son is one of the things made? How can he be equal to the things made through him? Or how is he only-begotten, if on their view he is counted among all the rest? How could he be from things that are not, when the Father says, “My heart has poured forth a good word,” and, “From the womb before the morning star I begot you”? Or how is he unlike in essence to the Father, who is the perfect image and radiance of the Father, and who says, “He who has seen me has seen the Father”? And if the Son is the Word and Wisdom of God, how was there once when he was not? That is the same as their saying that God was once without word and without wisdom. How is he changeable or alterable who says of himself, “I am in the Father and the Father in me,” and “I and the Father are one,” and through the prophet, “See me, that I am, and I have not changed”? Even if one can refer this saying to the Father himself, it would now be said more fittingly of the Word, that even when he became man he was not changed, but, as the apostle says, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever.” And what persuaded them to say that he came into being for our sake, though Paul writes, “for whom are all things, and through whom are all things”? As for their blasphemy that the Son does not know the Father perfectly, one need not be surprised. For having once set themselves to fight against Christ, they thrust aside even the words of the Lord himself, who says, “As the Father knows me, I also know the Father.” If, then, the Father knows the Son in part, clearly the Son also knows the Father in part. But if it is not right to say this, and the Father knows the Son perfectly, clearly as the Father knows his own Word, so also the Word knows his own Father, whose Word he is.

By saying these things and unfolding the divine Scriptures we have often refuted them. But again, like chameleons, they changed, striving to bring upon themselves what is written: “When the ungodly comes into the depth of evils, he despises.” Many heresies indeed have arisen before them, which by daring more than was right have fallen into folly. But these men, by attempting with all their phrases to do away with the divinity of the Word, have made those others look righteous by comparison, since they have come nearer to Antichrist. Therefore they have been publicly expelled from the church and anathematized. We grieve over their ruin, especially because they too once learned the church’s teaching and have now leapt away from it. But we are not surprised. Hymenaeus and Philetus suffered this too, and before them Judas, who followed the Saviour and afterwards became traitor and apostate. Nor have we been left untaught about these very men. The Lord foretold: “Take heed that no one leads you astray; for many will come in my name saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near,’ and they will lead many astray. Do not go after them.” And Paul, having learned these things from the Saviour, wrote that “in later times some will depart from the sound faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons, that turn away from the truth.” Since, then, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has both commanded this himself and signified it through the apostle concerning such men, we, having heard their impiety with our own ears, have accordingly anathematized such men, as we said before, declaring them aliens from the catholic church and faith. We have made this known also to your piety, beloved and most honoured fellow ministers, so that you may not receive any of them, should they rashly come to you, nor trust Eusebius or anyone else who writes about them. For it befits us as Christians to turn away from all who speak and think against Christ, as fighters against God and corrupters of souls, and not even to bid such men greeting, lest we become partakers of their sins, as the blessed John commanded. Greet the brothers with you. Those with me greet you.

When Alexander had written such things to those in each city everywhere, the evil became worse, since those to whom the letter was made known were kindled to contention. Some agreed with what was written and also signed it; others did the opposite. Eusebius of Nicomedia above all was moved to opposition, because Alexander had made unfavourable mention of him in the letter. Eusebius was very powerful at that time, because the emperor was then residing at Nicomedia; for Diocletian and his colleagues had built the palace there a little before. For this reason many of the bishops obeyed Eusebius. He wrote continually: to Alexander, that he should drop the question that had been stirred up and receive Arius and his party; and to those in each city, that they should not side with Alexander. So everything was full of confusion. One could see not only the presidents of the churches skirmishing with words, but the people split, some inclining to one side and some to the other. The matter went so far into absurdity that Christianity was publicly ridiculed, even in the very theatres. Those in Alexandria itself quarrelled hotly about the highest doctrines and sent envoys to the bishops of each province; and these, dividing into one party or the other, fell into the same kind of strife.

The Melitians, who a little before had been separated from the church, mingled with those who held with Arius. Who these are must be told. Melitius, bishop of one of the cities of Egypt, was deposed by Peter, bishop of Alexandria, who was martyred under Diocletian, for many other reasons and especially because in the persecution he had denied the faith and sacrificed. Deposed, and having many followers, he became the founder of the heresy of those who to this day are called Melitians after him in Egypt. He had no reasonable defence at all for his separation from the church, but said simply that he had been wronged, and he slandered and reviled Peter. Peter died a martyr in the persecution, and Melitius transferred his abuse to Achillas, who … bishop after Peter, and again to Alexander, who came after Achillas. While matters stood so, the question about Arius arose, and Melitius with his followers took Arius’s side, joining in faction with him against the bishop. All who found Arius’s opinion absurd approved Alexander’s judgment on Arius, holding that the sentence against those who thought this way was just. But Eusebius of Nicomedia and his party, and all who favoured Arius’s opinion, wrote asking that the sentence of expulsion already passed be lifted and the expelled be brought back into the church, since they did not hold wrong opinions. As letters of opposite kinds were thus being sent to the bishop of Alexandria, collections were made of these letters: … of those in his favour, Alexander of those against him. This became a means of defence for the heresies that now prevail, of the Arians, the Eunomians, and those named after Macedonius; for each party used the letters as witnesses for its own heresy.

When the emperor learned these things, he was deeply grieved in soul and considered the matter a misfortune of his own. Eager to put out at once the evil that had been kindled, he sent a letter to Alexander and Arius by a trustworthy man named Hosius, who was bishop of one of the cities of Spain called Corduba; the emperor loved him greatly and held him in honour. It is not out of place to set down part of this letter here; the whole letter is in Eusebius’s books on the life of Constantine.

“Victor Constantine, Maximus, Augustus, to Alexander and Arius. I learn that the present question had its origin in this. When you, Alexander, asked the presbyters what each of them thought about a certain passage of what is written in the law, or rather about some part of a futile question, and you, Arius, rashly put forward what it was not fitting even to think of in the first place, or, having thought of it, to commit to silence, disagreement arose among you; fellowship was refused, and the most holy people, split between you both, was separated from the harmony of the common body. Let each of you, then, show equal good will and accept what your fellow servant justly advises. And what is that? It was not fitting either to ask about such things in the first place, or to answer when asked. For such questions, which no necessity of any law requires but the wrangling of unprofitable idleness puts forward, even if they arise for the sake of some exercise of nature, we ought nevertheless to shut up within our minds, and not carelessly bring them out into public assemblies nor thoughtlessly entrust them to everyone’s ears. For how great is each of us, that he can either discern exactly the force of matters so great and so very difficult, or explain them worthily? And even if one were thought able to do this easily, how great a part of the people will he persuade? Or who can withstand the subtleties of such questions without a dangerous slip? We must therefore check much talk in such matters, so that neither the weakness of our nature, when we cannot explain what has been proposed, nor the slower understanding of those taught, when they cannot reach an exact grasp of what was said, should drive the people by either of these into the necessity of blasphemy or schism. Therefore let both the unguarded question and the thoughtless answer grant each other equal pardon. For no occasion of quarrel has been kindled among you about the chief of the commandments in the law, nor has any new heresy about the worship of God been brought in against you; you have one and the same mind, as it were the watchword of fellowship. Since you quarrel with one another about small and very trifling things, it is believed to be neither fitting nor at all lawful that so great a people of God should be guided by your minds, because of your disagreement. That I may remind your understanding by a small example, I will speak. You know that even the philosophers all agree in one doctrine, and often, when they disagree in some part of their statements, although they are divided by the excellence of their learning, they nevertheless breathe together again in the unity of the body. If this is so, is it not far more just that you, who have been appointed servants of the great God, should be of one mind with one another in such a choice of religion? Let us consider with greater reasoning and reflect with more understanding on what has been said: is it right that, because of a few empty quarrels over words among you, brothers should be set against brothers, and the honour of the assembly be torn apart by impious disagreement through us, who quarrel with one another about things so small and in no way necessary? These things are vulgar, and better suited to childish folly than fitting for the understanding of priests and prudent men. Let us willingly withdraw from the temptations of the devil. Our great God, the Saviour of all, has spread out his light to all in common. Under his providence, permit me, the servant of the Almighty, to bring this endeavour to its end, so that I may lead you, his peoples, back to the fellowship of the assembly by my address, my service, and the earnestness of my admonition. For since, as I said, there is one faith among you and one understanding of your doctrine, and the precept of the law through its parts encloses the whole in one purpose of soul, let this matter which has raised a quarrel among you, since it does not concern the force of the whole law, in no way cause any division or strife among you. I say this not to compel you to agree entirely on that very silly question, whatever it may be. For the honour of the assembly can be kept unimpaired among you, and the same fellowship can be kept with all, even if some disagreement arises between you in part about a very small matter; for we do not all want the same thing in everything, nor does one nature or opinion govern us all. Concerning the divine providence, then, let there be among you one faith, one understanding, one covenant of the Supreme. But what you argue about with one another so minutely in these very small questions, even if you do not come to one opinion, ought to remain within your reasonings, kept in the secret of the mind. But let the precious and choice bond of common friendship, the faith of the truth, and the honour paid to God and to the worship of the law remain unshaken among you. Return to friendship and kindness with one another. Give back to the whole people their own embraces; and you yourselves, as if you had cleansed your souls, recognize one another again. For friendship often becomes sweeter when, after a cause of enmity, it returns again to reconciliation. Give me back, then, calm days and nights without anxiety, so that some pleasure of pure light and the gladness of a quiet life may be kept for me henceforth. Otherwise I must groan and be wholly given over to tears, and not even bear the rest of my life calmly. For while the peoples of God, I mean my fellow servants, are separated from one another by so unjust and harmful a quarrel, how can I keep my composure any longer? That you may feel how great my grief over this is, listen. Lately, when I came to the city of Nicomedia, I was at once eager in mind to go to the East. But as I was already hastening towards you, and was with you in the greater part of myself, the news of this matter turned my thoughts back, so that I might not be compelled to see with my eyes what I thought I could not bear even to hear. Open to me, then, by your concord the road to the East, which you have closed by your quarrels with one another, and allow me soon to see both you and all the other peoples rejoicing, and to confess to the Supreme, in words of praise and thanksgiving, the gratitude owed for the common concord and freedom of all.”