Eusebius and Theognis Plot Against Athanasius

Eusebius and Theognis and their party returned from exile, and the two men were restored to their churches, after driving out, as we noted, those who had been ordained in their place. What is more, they came into high favor with the emperor, who honored them greatly as men who had come back from error to the orthodox faith. But they abused the freedom this gave them, stirring up greater disturbances in the world than they had before. Two things drove them to it: on the one hand, the Arian heresy with which they had been infected before; on the other, bitter hatred of Athanasius, because he had resisted them so vigorously in the synod while the articles of faith were being discussed. [a]

First they objected to Athanasius’s ordination, partly as a man unworthy of the office of bishop, and partly because he had been elected by men who were not qualified to elect. But Athanasius proved himself above this slander, for once he had taken charge of the church of Alexandria, he fought ardently for the Nicene Creed. Then Eusebius exerted himself to the utmost, by underhand means, to have Athanasius removed and Arius brought back to Alexandria; for he thought that only in this way could he wipe out the doctrine that the Son is of one substance with the Father, and bring in Arianism. So Eusebius wrote to Athanasius, asking him to readmit Arius and his followers into the church. The tone of his letter was one of pleading, but openly he threatened him. And since Athanasius would not agree to this at all, he tried to persuade the emperor to give Arius a hearing and then allow him to return to Alexandria. By what means he got his way I will tell in its proper place.

Meanwhile, before this, another disturbance arose in the church. Indeed, her own children again disturbed her peace. Eusebius Pamphilus says that right after the synod Egypt was shaken by divisions within. But he does not give the reason for this, and so he has gained a reputation for being disingenuous, and for avoiding naming the causes of these disputes, because he was determined not to give his approval to what was done at Nicaea. Yet, as we ourselves have found from various letters that the bishops wrote to one another after the synod, the term homoousios troubled some of them. While they busied themselves with too minute an inquiry into its meaning, they stirred up strife against one another. It seemed not unlike a fight in the dark, for neither side appeared to understand clearly why they were slandering each other. Those who objected to the word homoousios thought that those who accepted it favored the opinion of Sabellius and Montanus. So they called them blasphemers, as men who overthrew the existence of the Son of God. The defenders of the term, in turn, charged their opponents with believing in many gods, and attacked them as men who were bringing in pagan superstitions.

Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, accuses Eusebius Pamphilus of twisting the Nicene Creed. Eusebius in turn denies that he violates that statement of the faith, and charges back that Eustathius was a defender of the opinion of Sabellius. Because of these misunderstandings, each of them wrote as if fighting against enemies. And although both sides admitted that the Son of God has a distinct person and existence, and all confessed that there is one God in three Persons, yet for some reason I cannot guess, they could not agree among themselves, and so could in no way bear to be at peace.