Church History 6.19–6.26

About this time Athanasius, bishop of the church of the Alexandrians, died, having completed about forty-six years in the high priesthood. Those who held the views of Arius quickly made his death known, and not long after Euzoius, who presided over the Arian heresy at Antioch, arrived, and with him Magnus, the keeper of the treasuries, sent by the emperor; they arrested and imprisoned Peter, to whom Athanasius had entrusted the episcopate, and handed over the church of the Alexandrians to Lucius. From that time the people in Egypt fared worse than those elsewhere, and calamities following calamities pressed upon those of the catholic church. For as soon as Lucius arrived in the city of the Alexandrians, he tried to take possession of the churches. When the people resisted, a charge of rioting was framed against the clergy and the holy virgins; and as if enemies had overrun the city, some fled, while others were pursued, caught, and kept in chains. Brought out from the prison, they were punished, some torn with ox-hide thongs, others burned with torches. It was a wonder to survive the punishments; and to be condemned to live in exile before experiencing them was thought enviable. So these things went on. Peter the bishop, escaping from the prison, found a ship and sailed to the bishop of the Romans, as to one of the same belief. And the followers of Arius, though not many, took control of the churches. At the same time an order of the emperor followed, to drive out of Alexandria and Egypt itself those of the same belief as those who met at Nicaea, whomever Lucius directed; for so it had been commanded to the governor of the province. Euzoius, having accomplished what he was eager for, returned to Antioch.

Lucius, taking the commander of the soldiers in Egypt, marched with a large force against the monks in the deserts. For he perhaps thought that if he harassed them, lovers of quiet as they were, he would have them obedient, and by this especially would bring over to himself the Christians in the cities. For many divine men then presided over the monasteries there, and all rejected the belief of Arius. The multitude, following their testimony, believed likewise, neither wishing nor knowing how to debate and chatter about doctrines, but persuaded that the truth was with those who showed virtue in their deeds. Such, we hear, were the leaders of the Egyptian ascetics at that time: the two Macarii, of whom we learned earlier, and Pambo and Heraclides and the other disciples of Antony. Lucius, therefore, reckoning that those of Arius’s party would never firmly prevail over those of the catholic church unless he made these monks share their views, tried to use force, since he could not persuade them. But even so he missed his aim. For they were prepared, if they must, to die, and offered their necks readily to the swords, rather than disregard the decisions of Nicaea. It is said that when the soldiers were expected to attack them, a man whose joints had long been withered and who could not stand on his feet was brought to them. When they had anointed him with oil, they bade him rise in the name of Christ, whom Lucius persecutes, and go home; and the man, suddenly made well, showed openly that one ought to believe as these did, for whom God himself had given his vote for the truth, Lucius being condemned, by hearing their call and healing the sick man. But not even for this did those plotting against these monks repent; until at last they seized them by night and took them across to an island of Egypt surrounded by marshes. It was inhabited by men uninitiated in the Christian doctrine and superstitious, since there was a very ancient temple among them which they greatly revered. When they put in there, they say that as soon as the men set foot on it, the daughter of the priest, possessed by a demon, came to meet them. As the girl ran and shouted, the people there, astounded at the suddenness and strangeness of the thing, followed. When she came to the boat that carried the holy old men, wailing and rolling on the ground, she begged and cried out loudly: “Why have you come to us too, servants of the great God? For this little island is our ancient dwelling. We trouble no one; unknown to all men, we lie hidden here, shut in on every side by these marshes. But if this is your pleasure, take our possession and make it your own; we withdraw.” Such were the cries she uttered; and when Macarius and his companions rebuked the demon, the girl came to her senses. Thereupon her father with his household, and the whole island with them, changed over to Christianity; and quickly destroying their temple, they converted it into a church. When these things were reported at Alexandria, they grieved Lucius not a little. For he was in danger of being hated by his own followers, as one who had declared open war not on men but on God himself. And at once he ordered Macarius and his companions to return to their own haunts and the desert. So Lucius troubled Egypt. About this time … was distinguished not only by Didymus the philosopher, who was then at his height, but also by other learned men; looking to whose virtue, and to that of the monks there, … held out against Lucius’s party. And the church in Egypt, though persecuted, far surpassed the followers of Arius in numbers …

… one bishop for the whole nation oversees the churches; and at the present time Bretannio governed them. And the emperor Valens came to Tomi. When he came to the church and, as was his custom, tried to persuade Bretannio to communicate with those of the opposite heresy, Bretannio spoke very boldly to the ruler about the doctrine of those who met at Nicaea, then left him and went to another church; and the people followed. Almost the whole city had gathered to see the emperor, expecting something unusual to happen. Valens, left behind with his retinue, took the insult hard; he had Bretannio arrested and ordered him to be taken into exile, but not long after allowed him to be brought back. For seeing, I think, that the Scythians were angry at their bishop’s exile, he feared lest they rise in revolt; for he knew them to be brave, and by the situation of their country necessary to the Roman empire, as a bulwark before the barbarians of that region. So Bretannio showed himself stronger than the ruler’s zeal — a man good in every respect and distinguished for the virtue of his life, as the Scythians themselves bear witness. In general the whole clergy experienced the emperor’s anger for these reasons, except in the churches of the western part of the empire. For Valentinian ruled the Romans there, a supporter of the doctrine of the synod of Nicaea and exceedingly reverent toward the divine, so that he neither gave any orders to the priests nor chose otherwise to innovate, for better or for worse as it might seem, in the laws of the church. For he considered these things beyond his own judgment, though he was a very good emperor and had shown himself able to rule by his deeds.

At this time the question, which had already begun earlier but now grew greater, was again raised whether the Holy Spirit should be held to be of the same essence with the Father and the Son. Many contentious debates took place about this, no fewer than earlier about God the Word. On this point those who said the Son was unlike and those who said he was of like essence agreed with one another; for both maintained that the Spirit is a minister, and third in order, in honour and in essence different. But those who held the Son to be of the same essence with the Father thought the same also about the Spirit. This doctrine was upheld not ignobly in Syria by Apolinarius of Laodicea, in Egypt by Athanasius the bishop, and among the Cappadocians and the churches of Pontus by Basil and Gregory. As this question was stirred up and, as is natural, grew greater every day through contentiousness, the bishop of Rome, learning of it, wrote to the churches of the East, together with the priests of the West, that they should uphold a Trinity of the same essence and equal in glory. When this had been done, each party kept quiet, as though the matter had been decided once for all by the church of the Romans, and the question seemed to have come to an end.

About this time, when Liberius died, Damasus was entrusted with the throne of the Romans. A certain Ursicinus, a deacon, who had been a candidate for the ordination, did not bear his failure; secretly ordained by some obscure bishops, he tried to divide the people and hold his own assemblies. The people being divided, some held him to be bishop and others Damasus; and much strife and rioting, as was natural, took hold of the populace, so that the evil went as far as wounds and murders. At last the prefect of Rome, subjecting many of the people and clergy to punishment, put an end to Ursicinus’s attempt. As for doctrines, as before, neither the Romans nor the others in the West disagreed, but all approved the decisions of those who met at Nicaea and held the Trinity equal in honour and in power — except Auxentius and his party. He then presided over the church at Milan and with some others tried to innovate, and, contrary to the common agreement of the western priests, to strengthen the doctrine of Arius and to think the same as those who hold the Son and the Spirit to be unlike, according to the question that arose later. When those from Gaul and Venetia reported that this was being pursued among them by certain persons, not long after bishops from many provinces met at Rome and decreed that Auxentius and those who believed as he did were strangers to their communion; that the faith handed down by the synod at Nicaea remained firm; and that the decisions of Ariminum contrary to it were invalid, since neither the bishop of the Romans nor the others had agreed to them, and many of those who had met there had been displeased with what was then decided by them. That these things were done and decided so is witnessed by the letter of Damasus, the bishop of the Romans, and of those who then met with him, written to the bishops of Illyricum. It runs as follows: “The bishops who met at Rome in the holy council, Damasus, Valerius and the rest, to the bishops appointed in Illyricum, beloved brothers, greeting in the Lord. We believe that our holy faith, founded on the teaching of the apostles, is held by you and that you set it forth to the people; and it differs in no respect from what the fathers defined. For it is not fitting for the priests of God, by whom it is right that the wise be instructed, to think otherwise. But through the report of our brothers in Gaul and Venetia we have learned that certain persons are pursuing heresy. This evil the bishops ought not only to guard against, but also to resist whatever, through the inexperience or simplicity of some, … by their own interpretations, so as not to slip away from those who think according to a different teaching, but rather to hold fast the mind of our fathers, however often they are carried about by differing counsels. Accordingly it has been written above that Auxentius of Milan in particular has been condemned in this matter. It is right, therefore, that all the teachers in the Roman world should be of one mind and not defile the faith with differing teachings. For when the wickedness of the heretics first began to flourish, as now especially — may it be far from us — the blasphemy of the Arians, our three hundred and eighteen chosen fathers, after deliberation at Nicaea, set up this wall against the weapons of the devil and with this antidote drove off the deadly poisons: that the Father and the Son are to be believed of one Godhead, one power and one substance; and we must believe the Holy Spirit also to be of the same hypostasis. Whoever thinks otherwise we have judged to be a stranger to our communion. Some have wished to defile this saving definition and the adorable consideration. But at the very beginning it was corrected by those very people who were compelled at Ariminum to renew or handle it, so far that they confessed that they had been deceived by a different form of words, because they had not understood it to be contrary to the mind of the fathers approved at Nicaea. For no prejudgment could arise from the number of those gathered at Ariminum, since it is established that neither the bishop of the Romans, whose judgment ought to have been awaited before all others, nor Vincent, who kept his episcopate unblemished for so many years, nor the others agreed to such things; especially since, as we have said before, those very men who seemed to have yielded through intrigue, using better judgment, have testified that these things displease them. Your purity therefore sees that this faith alone, which was founded at Nicaea on the authority of the apostles, must be held with perpetual firmness, and that the easterners who acknowledge themselves to be of the catholic church, and the westerners, glory in it together with us. We believe that before long those who think otherwise will, by this very attempt, be separated from our communion and their name of bishop be taken from them, so that their peoples, freed from error, may breathe again. For they will in no way be able to correct the error of the multitudes when they themselves are held by error. Let the judgment of your honour, then, agree with all the priests of God, in which we believe you to be holy and steadfast. That we ought so to believe together with you, show us by the replies of your love.”

So the priests in the West, having thus forestalled those among them who were innovating, carefully kept the faith handed down to them from the beginning, so that very few of other belief were found there, almost only Auxentius’s party. Not long after, he too was removed from the scene. At his death the people rioted, not agreeing on who should oversee the church of Milan; and the city was in danger. For each party, if it failed, threatened to do what tends to happen in such disturbances. Ambrose, who then governed the province, fearing the agitation of the people, came to the church and advised them to cease from strife, reminding them of the laws, of concord, and of the blessings of peace. Before he had finished speaking about these things, all of a sudden they laid aside their anger with one another and gave their vote for the episcopate to the very man who had counselled concord. They urged him to be baptized — for he was still uninitiated — and begged him to receive the priesthood. When he declined and put it off and fled the matter altogether, while the people pressed him and insisted that they would not otherwise give up their strife, this was reported to the authorities at the palace. At the news of it, the emperor Valentinian is said to have prayed and declared his thanks to God that those whom he himself put forward to govern were chosen to be priests. Learning of the people’s insistence and Ambrose’s refusal, he concluded that God was arbitrating these things for the concord of the church in Milan, and ordered him to be ordained as quickly as possible. As soon as he was initiated he received ordination, and he persuaded the church under him, which had long been divided under the leadership of Auxentius, to be of one mind concerning divine things. What kind of man this Ambrose became after his ordination, and how very bravely and divinely he fulfilled his priesthood, will be told in its place in what follows. About this time the Novatians in Phrygia, contrary to their former custom, began to celebrate the feast of Pascha with the Jews. For Novatus, who was the founder of the heresy, did not admit to communion those who repented of their sins, and innovated in this alone; but like the church of the Romans, he and those after him kept celebrating this feast after the spring equinox. Until in this reign some of the Novatian bishops in Phrygia met at the village of Pazus — a place in Phrygia from which the springs of the river Sangarius flow — and, as if not deigning to agree even in this with those who believed otherwise, they made a law of their own: to observe the feast of Unleavened Bread and to celebrate Pascha with the Jews. Neither Agelius, the bishop of the Novatians in Constantinople, took part in this synod, nor the bishops of Nicaea, Nicomedia or Cotyaeum — a city of Phrygia of some note — whom the Novatians regard, so to speak, as the decisive authorities in matters concerning their own heresy and churches. For what reason these also fell into disagreement, and, dividing themselves, held separate assemblies, I shall tell in due course.

At this time Apolinarius openly took the lead of the heresy named after him, and gathered many cut off from the church around himself. He was helped in establishing his doctrine by Vitalius, a presbyter of Antioch, one of those ordained by Meletius, distinguished as much as anyone for his life and conduct, zealous for those under his guidance, and for this revered by the people. Separating himself from communion with Meletius not long before, he joined Apolinarius and led those of the same belief in the city of the Antiochenes, having no small multitude obeying him out of respect for his conduct; they took their name from him and are still called Vitalians by the Antiochenes. He is said to have done this out of vexation at having been slighted by Flavian, who was later entrusted with the throne of the Antiochenes and was then his fellow presbyter, and at being prevented from seeing the bishop as he used to. Thinking himself outdone in esteem, he gave way to a human weakness, went over to Apolinarius, communicated with him, and held him as his friend. From this time in other cities too they held assemblies apart under their own bishops and used customs foreign to the catholic church, singing, instead of the accustomed sacred songs, certain metrical little songs composed by Apolinarius himself. For besides his other learning he was also a poet, skilled in metres of every kind, and by the charms of these he persuaded many to attend to him. Men at drinking parties and at their work, and women at their looms, sang his songs. For he had composed pieces suited to every occasion — for earnestness, for relaxation, for festivals and the rest — all tending to the praise of God. When Damasus, bishop of the Romans, and Peter of Alexandria first learned that this heresy was creeping into many, a synod was held at Rome and they declared it foreign to the catholic church. It is said that Apolinarius too innovated in doctrine from a similar pettiness of soul, for the following reason. When Athanasius, who governed the church of the Alexandrians, was ordered to return to Egypt after his exile under Constantius, and passed through Laodicea, Apolinarius became his acquaintance and close friend. Since communion with Athanasius was abjured by those of the opposite heresy, among whom was George, the bishop there, Apolinarius was insultingly cast out of the church, as having associated with Athanasius contrary to the canons and the laws of the priests. George accused him on this account and reproached him with old faults that had been absolved by repentance. For while Theodotus, George’s predecessor, still governed the church of Laodicea, Epiphanius the sophist, distinguished at that time, was reciting a hymn to Dionysus. Apolinarius, who had him as a teacher — for he was still young — was present at the recitation with his father, who had the same name and was a grammarian of some note. When Epiphanius, beginning his speech, bade the uninitiated and profane go out of doors, as is the custom of those who give such displays, neither the young Apolinarius nor the old, nor any other of the Christians present, left the recitation. When Theodotus the bishop learned this, he was angry; and rebuking moderately the others, who were ranked among the laity, he granted them pardon; but the two Apolinarii he publicly convicted of their sin and excommunicated from the church, for both were clerics, the father a presbyter, the son still a reader of the sacred Scriptures. After some time had passed, when they had repented in tears and fasting in a manner worthy of their sin, Theodotus received them back. But when George obtained the same see, and Apolinarius had his association with Athanasius, as has been said, George declared him excommunicate and a stranger to the church. Apolinarius is said to have begged him many times to receive back communion; and when he did not prevail, overcome by vexation he troubled the church and introduced by novelty of doctrines the heresy described — avenging himself on his enemy, I mean, by what he could, the art of words, and proving that in teaching sacred doctrines George was not his equal, he brought down the better man. So, somehow, the private enmities of the clergy of the various times have done the greatest harm to the church and cut religion into many heresies. And here is a proof: if George had received Apolinarius on his repentance as Theodotus did, there would not, I think, be the heresy called after him. For human nature, when despised, grows arrogant and turns to contentiousness and innovations; but when it enjoys equal treatment, it tends to be moderate and to remain where it is.

About this time Eunomius, who held the church in Cyzicus in place of Eleusius and was a leader of the Arian heresy, introduced another besides it, which some name after him and others call that of the Anomoeans. Some say that this Eunomius was the first who dared to propose that divine baptism should be performed with a single immersion, and to counterfeit the tradition from the apostles that is still kept everywhere; and in general to devise a different discipline for his own church, wrapping the novelty in greater solemnity and strictness. He was also an artist in words, contentious, and delighting in syllogisms; and one can see that most of those who share his views are like this. For they do not praise a good life or character, or mercy toward the needy — unless the man shares their belief — so much as if someone debates contentiously and seems to win by syllogism; such a one is thought pious beyond all. Others, more truly I think, say that Theophronius the Cappadocian and Eutychius, zealots of this heresy, who cut themselves off in the following reign over other points of Eunomius’s doctrine, also innovated concerning divine baptism, proposing that people be baptized not into the Trinity but into the death of Christ; and that Eunomius made no innovation about this, but held the views of Arius from the beginning and remained so. When he became bishop of Cyzicus, he was accused by the clergy under him of introducing newer doctrines. Then Eudoxius, the leader of the Arian heresy in Constantinople, summoned him and allowed him to address the people on the doctrine; and finding nothing to condemn, he urged him to return to Cyzicus. But Eunomius said that he would not choose to live any longer with those who held him under suspicion, and made this the pretext for his separation; the truth was that they had not received Aetius his teacher; and he remained by himself, changing nothing of his former belief. So some say; others tell it differently. But whether Eunomius or certain others innovated thus in the tradition of baptism, they alone, it seems to me, by their own argument run the risk of leaving this life without divine baptism. For if, having been baptized at first according to the established custom, they could not baptize themselves again, they introduced what had not happened in their own case at the beginning; and what they neither were themselves nor became through others, this they did to others; having built this doctrine on an unsubstantial beginning of their own notion, they handed on to others what they themselves had not received. This is foolish. For it is agreed by them that the uninitiated cannot baptize others; and one not baptized according to the manner of their tradition seems to them unbaptized, as not properly initiated. And they themselves bear witness to this by rebaptizing whomever they can persuade to share their views, if they had previously been initiated according to the tradition of the catholic church. These things too troubled religion not a little, and the variety of the doctrines that arose became a hindrance to those who wished to become Christians. For on every occasion fierce debates took place, and these heresies, as is the way with new ones, flourished, having leaders of no ordinary zeal and power of speech; and, as one may conjecture, they would have drawn most of the catholic church to their belief, had they not found Basil and Gregory the Cappadocians as adversaries, and had not the reign of Theodosius, coming soon after, checked the attempt and driven the very leaders of the heresies from the more populous parts of the empire into more deserted places. So that we may not be altogether ignorant of the doctrine of each heresy, it should be known that the first inventor of the belief of Eunomius was Aetius the Syrian, who after Arius declared that the Son is unlike the Father, created, and come into being from things that are not. Those who held these views were formerly called Aetians. But when, as was said in the reign of Constantius, some holding the Son to be of the same essence with the Father and others of like essence, it seemed good to those then in power, at the synod of Ariminum, to say “like,” Aetius was condemned to exile as a blasphemer against God; and the heresy he had established was in a way dissolved in the intervening time, since neither any other man of note nor Eunomius dared to speak openly for it. But when Eunomius received the church of the Cyzicenes in place of Eleusius, he could no longer keep altogether quiet, and debating before the multitude, he again brought the belief of Aetius into the open. And as often happens, people, forgetting who first invented this heresy, named those who held these views after Eunomius, because after Aetius he renewed this doctrine and worked it out more boldly than the one who first handed it down.