HISTORICAL TRACTS OF S. ATHANASIUS, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, TRANSLATED, WITH NOTES AND INDICES. OXFORD, JOHN HENRY PARKER; J. G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON. MDCCCXLII. PREFACE. THE Works of which this Volume is composed, being of an historical character, naturally require a Chronological Table of the principal events recorded in them; but the difficulties of forming any satisfactory statement, during the period to which they belong, are so great, that any arrangement can be but hypothetical, and must be accompanied with some notice of the difficulties themselves, and the various expedients which have been adopted with the view of overcoming them. Though such notice will be necessarily very imperfect, it shall here be attempted. 1. Interposition of Pope Julius in the affairs of the East. It is certain, that both the Eusebians and the Egyptian Bishops had recourse to Rome; that Athanasius went thither; that a synodal judgment was passed there; and that Legates went from S. Julius to Antioch; but the order and dates of these events are variously determined, For the sake of perspicuity, it will be necessary in the first place to take a view of the transactions to which dates are to be assigned; though it is impossible to do so, without prejudging some of the questions in dispute. It appears then, that shortly after the return of S. Athanasius to Alexandria from his exile in Gaul, the Eusebian party brought charges against him before the three Emperors, (infr. pp. 18, 226,) and the Pope, (p. 37.) Their embassy or legation to the latter consisted of Macarius, Martyrius, and Hesychius, (pp. 42, 47.) and they were met by a counter deputation from S. Athanasius, (pp. 44, 226,) supported, (p. 48,) or preceded, (p. 43,) by letters from many Catholic Bishops, (pp. 47, 70,) and by a letter to the Pope, (p. 38,) which an Alexandrian Council of from eighty, (p. 61,) to one hundred Bishops, (p. 14,) had written in his favour, (pp. 14, 17, and 48.) The discussions which ensued at Rome perhaps were held before a Council of Bishops then present, (p. 46,) and ended in the defeat of the Eusebian legates, (p. 43,) one of whom abruptly left the city in consequence, (p. 44.) Julius, however, did not decide the matter at once, but at their suggestion, (pp. 39, 42, 226,) proposed a Council, (p. 11,) at which both Eusebians, (p. 54,) and Athanasius should attend, (p. 40,) and the Alexandrians have the choice of place, (p. 226.) Athanasius, who was otherwise disposed to betake himself to Rome, in consequence of the outrages of Gregory whom the Arian Council of the Dedication had sent to Alexandria in his place, (p. 227,) promptly obeyed the call (p. 49); and on his arrival at Rome, the Pope sent Elpidius and Philoxenus as legates to Antioch, (p. 39,) with a letter to the Eusebians, (p. 46,) repeating the invitation to a Council, (p. 41,) and fixing the day, (pp. 45, 227.) There they were detained over the time, ibid. and at length came back with a refusal on the part of the Orientals to attend (pp. 40, 46, 47); though the Eusebian legates had not only been the originators of the measure, but had gone so far as to offer to submit the question to the arbitration of the Pope, (p. 39.) to hold a Council of fifty Bishops, (pp. 14, 39, 230,) at which Athanasius and others were pronounced innocent and admitted to communion, ibid. and in the name of which, (pp. 39, 46,) the Pope, eighteen months from the date of Athanasius's arrival, (p. 49,) proceeded to address a letter of remonstrance to the Orientals, who had written to him from Antioch. Upon this Julius proceeded This is a sketch of the history, and now to proceed to its chronology. The only date which is known for certain is that of the Eusebian Council of Antioch held A. D. 341. |