OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Letters/Introduction

The Letters cannot be arranged in strict sequence of time without breaking into the homogeneity of the corpus of Easter Letters. Accordingly we divide them into two parts: (1) all that remain of the Easter or Festal Epistles: (2) Personal Letters. From the latter class we exclude synodical or encyclical documents, or treatises merely inscribed to a friend, such as those printed above pp. 91, 149, 173, 222, &c., &c., the ad Serapionem, ad Marcellinum, &c. There remain a number of highly interesting letters, the survivals of what must have been a large correspondence, all of which, excepting six (Nos. 52, 54, 56, 59, 60, 61), now appear in English for the first time. They are arranged as nearly as possible in strict chronological order, though this is in some cases open to doubt (e.g. 60, 64, &c.). They mostly belong to the later half of the episcopate of Athanasius, and are therefore placed after the Festal Collection, which however itself extends to the end of the Bishop’s life. The immemorial numbering of the latter collection is of course retained, although many of the forty-five are no longer to be found.
Prefixed to the Letters are two almost contemporary chronicles, the one preserved in the same ms. as Letters 46, 47, the other prefixed to the Syriac ms., which is our sole channel for the bulk of the Easter Letters. A memorandum appended to Letter 64 specifies certain fragments not included in this volume. The striking fragment Filiis suis has been conjecturally placed among the remains of Letter 29.
For the arrangement of the Letters, the reader is referred to the general Table of Contents to this volume. We now give
a. The Historia Acephala or Maffeian fragment, with short introduction.
b. The Chronicon Prævium or Festal Index, with introduction to it and to the Festal Letters.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Letters/Letters/Festal Letters
## Contents

* Chapter 1
* Chapter 2
* Chapter 3
* Chapter 4
* Chapter 5
* Chapter 6
* Chapter 7
* Chapter 8
* Chapter 9
* Chapter 10
* Chapter 11
* Chapter 12
* Chapter 13
* Chapter 14
* Chapter 15
* Chapter 16
* Chapter 17
* Chapter 18
* Chapter 19
* Chapter 20
* Chapter 21
* Chapter 22
* Chapter 23
* Chapter 24
* Chapter 25
* Chapter 26
* Chapter 27
* Chapter 28
* Chapter 29
* Chapter 30
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Letter of Eusebius/Introduction

Epistola Eusebii.
Introduction.
The letter which follows, addressed by Eusebius of Cæsarea to his flock, upon the conclusion of the great Synod, is appended by Athanasius to his defense of the Definition of Nicæa (de Decretis), written about a.d. 350. It is, however, inserted here in the present edition, partly in accordance with the chronological principle of arrangement, but principally because it forms the fittest introduction to the series of treatises which follow. Along with the account of Eustathius in Theodoret H. E. i. 8, and that given by Eusebius, in his life of Constantine (vol. I. pp. 521–526 of this series), it forms one of our most important authorities for the proceedings at Nicæa, and the only account we have dating from the actual year of the Council. It is especially important as containing the draft Creed submitted to the Council by Eusebius, and the revised form of it eventually adopted. The former, which contained (in the first paragraph of §3, from ‘We believe’ down to ‘One Holy Ghost’) the traditional Creed of the Church of Cæsarea, which Eusebius had professed at his baptism, was laid by him before the Council, and approved: but at the Emperor’s suggestion the single word ὁμοούσιον was inserted (not by ‘the majority’ as distinct from the Emperor, as stated by Swainson, Creeds, p. 65). This modification opened the door for others, which eventually resulted in the Creed given in §4. It is not altogether easy to reconcile this account with that given by Athanasius himself (below de Decr. 19, 20, Ad Afr. 5), according to which the Council were led to insist on the insertion of the ὁμοούσιον by the evasions with which the Arian bishops met every other test that was propounded, signalling to each other by nods winks and gestures, as each Scriptural attribute of the Son was enumerated, that this also could be accepted in an Arian sense. Probably (see Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (1) note 5) the discussions thus described came first (cp. Sozom. i. 17): then Eusebius of Nicomedia presented the document which was indignantly torn up: then came the Confession of Eusebius of Cæsarea, which was adopted as the basis of the Creed finally issued. In any case the Emperor’s suggestion of the insertion of ὁμοούσιον must have been prompted by others, most likely by Hosius (Hist. Ar. 42, Cf. Hort, Two Dissertations, p. 58. Gwatkin, Studies, pp. 44, 45, puts the scene described by Athanasius during the debate upon the final adoption of the Creed).
The translation which follows, with the notes and Excursus A, is the unaltered work of Newman (Library of the Fathers, vol. 8, pp. 59–72), except that the word ‘essence’ (for οὐσία), as throughout this volume, has been substituted for ‘substance,’ and the translation of γενητός by ‘generate’ altered wherever it occurs, as explained in the preface. Additions by the editor of this volume are here as elsewhere included in square brackets.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Defence of His Flight/Apologia de Fuga/Chapter 25

25. Athanasius’s wonderful escape.
Now when Providence had delivered us in such an extraordinary manner, who can justly lay any blame upon me, because we did not give ourselves up into the hands of them that sought after us, nor return and present ourselves before them? This would have been plainly to shew ingratitude to the Lord, and to act against His commandment, and in contradiction to the practice of the Saints. He who censures me in this matter must presume also to blame the great Apostle Peter, because though he was shut up and guarded by soldiers, he followed the angel that summoned him, and when he had gone forth from the prison and escaped in safety, he did not return and surrender himself, although he heard what Herod had done. Let the Arian in his madness censure the Apostle Paul, because when he was let down from the wall and had escaped in safety, he did not change his mind, and return and give himself up; or Moses, because he returned not out of Midian into Egypt, that he might be taken of them that sought after him; or David, because when he was concealed in the cave, he did not discover himself to Saul. As also the sons of the prophets remained in their caves, and did not surrender themselves to Ahab. This would have been to act contrary to the commandment, since the Scripture says, ‘Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.’

## Footnotes

* ↑ Deut. vi. 16; Matt. iv. 7.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Defence of His Flight/Apologia de Fuga/Chapter 26

26. He acted according to the example of the Saints. Character of his accusers.
Being careful to avoid such an offence, and instructed by these examples, I so ordered my conduct; and I do not undervalue the favour and the help which have been shewn me of the Lord, howsoever these in their madness may gnash their teeth against us. For since the manner of our retreat was such as we have described, I do not think that any blame whatever can attach to it in the minds of those who are possessed of a sound judgment: seeing that according to holy Scripture, this pattern has been left us by the Saints for our instruction. But there is no atrocity, it would seem, which these men neglect to practise, nor will they leave anything undone which may shew their own wickedness and cruelty. And indeed their lives are only in accordance with their spirit and the follies of their doctrines; for there are no sins that one could charge them with, how heinous soever, that they do not commit without shame. Leontius for instance being censured for his intimacy with a certain young woman, named Eustolium, and prohibited from living with her, mutilated himself for her sake, in order that he might be able to associate with her freely. He did not however clear himself from suspicion, but rather on this account he was degraded from his rank as Presbyter. [Although the heretic Constantius by violence caused him to be named a Bishop.] Narcissus, besides being charged with many other transgressions, was degraded three times by different Councils; and now he is among them, most wicked man. And George, who was a Presbyter, was deposed for his wickedness, and although he had nominated himself a Bishop, he was nevertheless a second time deposed in the great Council of Sardica. And besides all this, his dissolute life was notorious, for he is condemned even by his own friends, as making the end of existence, and its happiness, to consist in the commission of the most disgraceful crimes.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Sent. Dion. 16. Hist. Ar. §§68. 72.
* ↑ Hist. Arian. §28 [but see D.C.B. iii. 688].
* ↑ [The bracketed passage is omitted by some good witnesses to the text. The respectful tone of the ‘Apology to Const.’ is exchanged for cold reserve in this ‘Apology,’ and for unmeasured invective in Hist. Ar.]
* ↑ De Syn. 17, &c.
* ↑ Apol. Ar. 8, note 3.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Defence of His Flight/Apologia de Fuga/Chapter 3

3. Outrages of the Arians against the Bishops.
For whom have they ever persecuted and taken, that they have not insulted and injured as they pleased? Whom have they ever sought after and found, that they have not handled in such a manner, that either he has died a miserable death, or has been ill-treated in every way? Whatever the magistrates appear to do, it is their work; and the others are merely the tools of their will and wickedness. In consequence, where is there a place that has not some memorial of their malice? Who has ever opposed them, without their conspiring against him, inventing pretexts for his ruin after the manner of Jezebel? Where is there a Church that is not at this moment lamenting the success of their plots against her Bishops? Antioch is mourning for the orthodox Confessor Eustathius; Balaneæ for the most admirable Euphration; Paltus and Antaradus for Kymatius and Carterius; Adrianople for that lover of Christ, Eutropius, and his successor Lucius, who was often loaded with chains by their means, and so perished; Ancyra mourns for Marcellus, Berrhœa for Cyrus, Gaza for Asclepas. Of all these, after inflicting many outrages, they by their intrigues procured the banishment; but for Theodulus and Olympius, Bishops of Thrace, and for us and our Presbyters, they caused diligent search to be made, to the intent that if we were discovered we should suffer capital punishment: and probably we should have so perished, had we not fled at that very time contrary to their intentions. For letters to that effect were delivered to the Proconsul Donatus against Olympius and his fellows, and to Philagrius against me. And having raised a persecution against Paul, Bishop of Constantinople, as soon as they found him, they caused him to be openly strangled at a place called Cucusus in Cappadocia, employing as their executioner for the purpose Philip, who was Prefect. He was a patron of their heresy, and the tool of their wicked designs.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Vid. Hist. Arian. §4. also Theodoret Hist. i. 20. [Prolegg. ch. ii. §4.] The name of Euphration occurs de Syn. 17 as the Bishop to whom Eusebius of Cæsarea wrote an heretical letter. Balaneæ is on the Syrian coast. Paltus also and Antaradus are in Syria, and these persecutions took place about a.d. 338; that of Eutropius, and of Lucius his successor, about 331, shortly after the proceedings against Eustathius. Cyrus too was banished under pretence of Sabellianism about 338. For Asclepas, Theodulus, and Olympius vid. Hist. Arian. §19. and supr. Apol. Ar. 44, 45.
* ↑ Hist. Arian. 5.
* ↑ Tom. ad Ant.
* ↑ Berœa, Hist. Ar. 5.
* ↑ Tom. ad Ant.
* ↑ a.d. 350, infr. Hist. Arian. §4; for Cucusus, see D.C.B. i. 529, 530.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Defence of His Flight/Apologia de Fuga/Chapter 5

5. In praise of Hosius.
Of the great Hosius, who answers to his name, that confessor of a happy old age, it is superfluous for me to speak, for I suppose it is known unto all men that they caused him also to be banished; for he is not an obscure person, but of all men the most illustrious, and more than this. When was there a Council held, in which he did not take the lead, and by right counsel convince every one? Where is there a Church that does not possess some glorious monuments of his patronage? Who has ever come to him in sorrow, and has not gone away rejoicing? What needy person ever asked his aid, and did not obtain what he desired? And yet even on this man they made their assault, because knowing the calumnies which they invent in behalf of their iniquity, he would not subscribe to their designs against us. And if afterwards, upon the repeated stripes above measure that were inflicted upon him, and the conspiracies that were formed against his kinsfolk, he yielded to them for a time, as being old and infirm in body, yet at least their wickedness is shewn even in this circumstance; so zealously did they endeavour by all means to prove that they were not truly Christians.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Hist. Ar. 42.
* ↑ [Nicæa and Sardica are specially referred to, but see Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (1) note 5, sub. fin.]
* ↑ [Apol. Ar. 89, Hist. Ar. 45, 357 a.d.]
* ↑ Gal. ii. 5.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Defence of His Flight/Apologia de Fuga/Chapter 23

23. Persecution is from the Devil.
Seeing therefore that such are the commands of our Saviour, and that such is the conduct of the Saints, let these persons, to whom one cannot give a name suitable to their character,—let them, I say, tell us, from whom they learnt to persecute? They cannot say, from the Saints. No, but from the Devil (that is the only answer which is left to them);—from him who says, ‘I will persue, I will overtake.’ Our Lord commanded to flee, and the saints fled: but persecution is a device of the Devil, and one which he desires to exercise against all. Let them say then, to which we ought to submit ourselves; to the words of the Lord, or to their fabrications? Whose conduct ought we to imitate, that of the Saints, or that of those whose example these men have adopted? But since it is likely they cannot determine this question (for, as Esaias said, their minds and their consciences are blinded, and they think ‘bitter to be sweet,’ and ‘light darkness’) let some one come forth from among us Christians, and put them to rebuke, and cry with a loud voice, ‘It is better to trust in the Lord, than to attend to the foolish sayings of these men; for the “words” of the Lord have “eternal life,” but the things which these utter are full of iniquity and blood.’

## Footnotes

* ↑ Hist. Arian. §§33, 67.
* ↑ Ex. xv. 9.
* ↑ Is. v. 20.
* ↑ John vi. 68.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Defence of His Flight/Apologia de Fuga/Chapter 24

24. Irruption of Syrianus.
This were sufficient to put a stop to the madness of these impious men, and to prove that their desire is for nothing else, but only through a love of contention to utter revilings and insults. But forasmuch as having once dared to fight against Christ, they have now become officious, let them enquire and learn into the manner of my withdrawal from their own friends. For the Arians were mixed with the soldiers in order to exasperate them against me, and, as they were unacquainted with my person, to point me out to them. And although they are destitute of all feelings of compassion, yet when they hear the circumstances they will surely be quiet for very shame. It was now night, and some of the people were keeping a vigil preparatory to a communion on the morrow, when the General Syrianus suddenly came upon us with more than five thousand soldiers, having arms and drawn swords, bows, spears, and clubs, as I have related above. With these he surrounded the Church, stationing his soldiers near at hand, in order that no one might be able to leave the Church and pass by them. Now I considered that it would be unreasonable in me to desert the people during such a disturbance, and not to endanger myself in their behalf; therefore I sat down upon my throne, and desired the Deacon to read a Psalm, and the people to answer, ‘For His mercy endureth for ever,’ and then all to withdraw and depart home. But the General having now made a forcible entry, and the soldiers having surrounded the sanctuary for the purpose of apprehending us, the Clergy and those of the laity, who were still there, cried out, and demanded that we too should withdraw. But I refused, declaring that I would not do so, until they had retired one and all. Accordingly I stood up, and having bidden prayer, I then made my request of them, that all should depart before me, saying that it was better that my safety should be endangered, than that any of them should receive hurt. So when the greater part had gone forth, and the rest were following, the monks who were there with us and certain of the Clergy came up and dragged us away. And thus (Truth is my witness), while some of the soldiers stood about the sanctuary, and others were going round the Church, we passed through, under the Lord’s guidance, and with His protection withdrew without observation, greatly glorifying God that we had not betrayed the people, but had first sent them away, and then had been able to save ourselves, and to escape the hands of them which sought after us.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Apol. Const. 25.
* ↑ Ps. cxxxvi. 1 [on psalmody at Alexandria, cf. Aug. Conf. x. 33.]
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Defence of His Flight/Apologia de Fuga/Chapter 27

27. Conclusion.
Thus each surpasses the other in his own peculiar vices. But there is a common blot that attaches to them all, in that through their heresy they are enemies of Christ, and are no longer called Christians, but Arians. They ought indeed to accuse each other of the sins they are guilty of, for they are contrary to the faith of Christ; but they rather conceal them for their own sakes. And it is no wonder, that being possessed of such a spirit, and implicated in such vices, they persecute and seek after those who follow not the same impious heresy as themselves; that they delight to destroy them, and are grieved if they fail of obtaining their desires, and think themselves injured, as I said before, when they see those alive whom they wish to perish. May they continue to be injured in such sort, that they may lose the power of inflicting injuries, and that those whom they persecute may give thanks unto the Lord, and say in the words of the twenty-sixth Psalm, ‘The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom then shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom then shall I be afraid? When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell;’ and again the thirtieth Psalm, ‘Thou hast saved my soul from adversities; thou hast not shut me up into the hands of mine enemies; thou hast set my foot in a large room’ in Christ Jesus our Lord, through whom to the Father in the Holy Spirit be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Vid. supr. Ep. Æg. 20 infr. Hist. Arian. §§17. 34 fin. 41 init. 59 fin. 64 init. De. Decr. 16, note 5.
* ↑ Ps. xxvii. 1.
* ↑ Ps. xxxi. 7, 8.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Defence of His Flight/Apologia de Fuga/Chapter 4

4. Proceedings after the Council of Milan.
Are they then satisfied with all this, and content to be quiet for the future? By no means; they have not given over yet, but like the horseleach in the Proverbs, they revel more and more in their wickedness, and fix themselves upon the larger dioceses. Who can adequately describe the enormities they have already perpetrated? who is able to recount all the deeds that they have done? Even very lately, while the Churches were at peace, and the people worshipping in their congregations, Liberius, Bishop of Rome, Paulinus, Metropolitan of Gaul, Dionysius, Metropolitan of Italy, Lucifer, Metropolitan of the Sardinian islands, and Eusebius of Italy, all of them good Bishops and preachers of the truth, were seized and banished, on no pretence whatever, except that they would not unite themselves to the Arian heresy, nor subscribe to the false accusations and calumnies which they had invented against me.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Hist. Arian. §65; Prov. xxx. 15.
* ↑ Of Treveri.
* ↑ Of Milan.
* ↑ Of Cagliari.
* ↑ Of Vercellæ.
* ↑ [Council of Milan, 355.]
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Defence of His Flight/Apologia de Fuga/Chapter 22

22. Same subject concluded.
Thus the Saints, as I said before, were abundantly preserved in their flight by the Providence of God, as physicians for the sake of them that had need. And to all men generally, even to us, is this law given, to flee when persecuted, and to hide when sought after, and not rashly tempt the Lord, but wait, as I said above, until the appointed time of death arrive, or the Judge determine something concerning them, according as it shall seem to Him to be good: that men should be ready, that, when the time calls, or when they are taken, they may contend for the truth even unto death. This rule the blessed Martyrs observed in their several persecutions. When persecuted they fled, while concealing themselves they shewed fortitude, and when discovered they submitted to martyrdom. And if some of them came and presented themselves to their persecutors, they did not do so without reason; for immediately in that case they were martyred, and thus made it evident to all that their zeal, and this offering up of themselves to their enemies, were from the Spirit.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Vid. instances and passages collected in Pearson’s Vind. Ignat. part ii. 0. 9; also Gibbon, ch. xvi. p. 428. Mosheim de Reb. Ante Const. p, 941. [See D.C.A. p. 1119 (3).]