The Persecution and Fall of Hosius

But although they had done all this, these impious men thought they had accomplished nothing as long as the great Hosius escaped their wicked schemes. So now they set out to stretch their fury to that great old man as well. They felt no shame at the thought that he is the father of the bishops. They gave no regard to his having been a confessor. They had no reverence for the length of his time as bishop, which had lasted more than sixty years. They set everything aside and looked only to the interests of their heresy, being truly men who neither fear God nor regard man. So they went to Constantius and again used arguments like these: “We have done everything. We have banished the bishop of the Romans, and before him a great many other bishops, and we have filled every place with alarm. But these strong measures of yours mean nothing to us, and our success is no more secure, as long as Hosius remains. While he is in his place, the rest also stay in their churches, for by his arguments and his faith he can persuade everyone against us. He is the president of councils, and his letters are heeded everywhere. He is the one who put forth the Nicene confession of faith and proclaimed everywhere that the Arians were heretics. So if he is allowed to remain, the banishment of the rest does no good, for our heresy will be destroyed. Begin, then, to persecute him too, and do not spare him, old as he is. Our heresy does not know how to honor even the gray hairs of the aged.” [a]

When he heard this, the emperor delayed no longer. Knowing the man and the dignity of his years, he wrote to summon him. This was when he first began his attempt on Liberius. When Hosius arrived, the emperor asked him, and pressed him with the usual arguments with which he expected to deceive the others too, to sign against us and be in communion with the Arians. But the old man could hardly bear to hear the words. Grieved that the emperor had even dared to make such a proposal, he rebuked him severely, and, having obtained his consent, went back to his own country and his own church. But the heretics kept complaining and urging him on, and he had the eunuchs too to remind him and press him further, so the emperor wrote again in threatening terms. Still Hosius, while he endured their insults, was not moved by any fear of their designs against him. He held firm to his purpose, as one who had built the house of his faith on the rock, and spoke boldly against the heresy, treating the threats in the letters as no more than drops of rain and gusts of wind. Constantius wrote often, sometimes flattering him with the title of Father, and sometimes threatening him and listing the names of those who had been banished, and saying, ‘Will you be the only one to oppose the heresy? Be persuaded and sign against Athanasius, for whoever signs against him thereby takes up the Arian cause with us.’ Still Hosius remained fearless, and while suffering these insults he wrote an answer in terms like these. We have read the letter, and it is placed at the end. [d]

“Hosius to the emperor Constantius, greetings in the Lord. I was a confessor at the first, when persecution arose in the time of your grandfather Maximian. And if you persecute me, I am ready now too to endure anything rather than shed innocent blood and betray the truth. But I cannot approve of your writing in this threatening way. Stop writing like this. Do not take up the cause of Arius, do not listen to those in the East, and do not believe Ursacius, Valens and their companions. For whatever they claim, it is not on account of Athanasius but for the sake of their own heresy. [f]

“Believe what I say, Constantius, for I am old enough to be your grandfather. I was present at the Council of Sardica, when you and your brother Constans, of blessed memory, called us all together. On my own account I challenged the enemies of Athanasius, when they came to the church where I was staying, to declare it if they had anything against him. I told them to be confident and to expect nothing but a right judgment in every point. I did this once and again, asking them, if they were unwilling to appear before the whole council, at least to appear before me alone. I promised them too that if he were proved guilty, we would certainly reject him; but if he were found blameless and proved them to be slanderers, and they still refused to be in communion with him, I would persuade him to go with me into the Spains. Athanasius was willing to accept these terms and made no objection to my proposal. But they, having no confidence at all in their case, would not agree.

“On another occasion Athanasius came to your court, when you wrote for him. His enemies were at Antioch at the time, and he asked that they be summoned, either all together or separately, so that they might either convict him or be convicted, and either prove him in his presence to be what they said he was, or stop accusing him in his absence. You would not listen to this proposal either, and they rejected it just the same. Why then do you still listen to those who speak evil of him? How can you put up with Valens and Ursacius, even though they retracted and made a written confession of their slanders? For it is not true, as they pretend, that they were forced to confess. There were no soldiers at hand to pressure them, and your brother knew nothing of the matter. No, such things were not done under his rule as are done now; God forbid! They went up to Rome of their own free will and wrote their recantation in the presence of the bishop and presbyters, after first writing Athanasius a friendly and peaceable letter.

“And if they pretend that force was used on them, and admit that this is an evil thing, which you also disapprove of, then stop using force yourself. Write no letters, send no counts, but release those who have been banished, so that it may not happen that while you complain of violence, they commit still greater violence. When did Constans ever do such a thing? What bishop suffered banishment? When did he set himself up as judge in a church trial? When did any palace official of his force men to sign against anyone, so that Valens and his companions could say such a thing?

“Stop these proceedings, I beg you, and remember that you are a mortal man. Fear the day of judgment, and keep yourself pure for it. Do not intrude into church matters, and do not give us commands about them; instead, learn them from us. God has put the kingdom into your hands; to us he has entrusted the affairs of his church. And just as anyone who tried to steal the empire from you would be resisting the ordinance of God, so you in turn should fear that by taking the government of the church on yourself you may become guilty of a great offense. It is written, ‘Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’ So neither is it permitted to us to hold earthly rule, nor do you, Your Majesty, have any authority to burn incense. I write these things to you out of concern for your salvation.

“As to the subject of your letters, this is my decision: I will not unite myself to the Arians; I anathematize their heresy. Nor will I sign against Athanasius, whom we, and the church of the Romans, and the whole council pronounced innocent. And you yourself, when you understood this, sent for the man and gave him permission to return with honor to his country and his church. What reason, then, can there be for so great a change in your conduct? The same people who were his enemies before are his enemies now. The things they now whisper against him (for they do not say them openly in his presence) are the same things they said against him before you sent for him, the same things they spread about him when they came to the council. And when I called on them to come forward, as I said before, they could not produce their proofs. If they had had any, they would not have fled so disgracefully.

“Who then persuaded you, so long afterward, to forget your own letters and declarations? Stop, and do not be swayed by evil men, or while you act for your mutual advantage, you will make yourself answerable. For here you do what they want; hereafter, at the judgment, you will have to answer for doing it alone. These men want to harm their enemy through you, and they wish to make you the servant of their wickedness, so that through your help they may sow the seeds of their accursed heresy in the church. Now it is not wise to throw oneself into plain danger for the pleasure of others. Stop, then, I beg you, Constantius, and be persuaded by me. It is fitting for me to write these things, and for you not to despise them.”

Such were the convictions, and such the letter, of that old man like Abraham, Hosius, truly so named. But the emperor did not give up his designs or stop looking for an occasion against him. He kept threatening him severely, meaning either to bring him over by force or to banish him if he refused to comply. The officials and satraps of Babylon, looking for an occasion against Daniel, found none except in the law of his God. In the same way these present satraps of impiety could invent no charge against the old man except the charge of hating their heresy, for this true Hosius and his blameless life were known to all. So they set about accusing him, though not in the way those others accused Daniel to Darius, for Darius was grieved to hear the charge. They accused him as Jezebel accused Naboth, and as the Jews went to work on Herod. They said: “Not only will he not sign against Athanasius, but on his account he condemns us. And his hatred of the heresy is so great that he even writes to others telling them to suffer death rather than become traitors to the truth. For, he says, our beloved Athanasius too is persecuted for the truth’s sake, and Liberius, bishop of Rome, and all the rest are treacherously attacked.” When this patron of impiety and emperor of heresy, Constantius, heard this, and especially that there were others in the Spains of the same mind as Hosius, he tried to get them too to sign. When he could not force them to, he sent for Hosius, and instead of banishing him, kept him a whole year at Sirmium. Godless, unholy, without natural affection, he did not fear God, he had no regard for his father’s affection for Hosius, and he showed no reverence for his great age, though Hosius was now a hundred years old. All these things this modern Ahab, this second Belshazzar of our times, disregarded for the sake of impiety. He used such violence on the old man and confined him so closely that at last, broken by suffering, Hosius was brought, though with difficulty, to be in communion with Valens, Ursacius and their companions. Yet he would not sign against Athanasius. Even so, he did not forget his duty. As death approached, as if in his last will and testament, he bore witness to the force that had been used on him, anathematized the Arian heresy, and gave strict instructions that no one should accept it. [n]

Who, having seen these things or only heard of them, will not be greatly amazed and cry aloud to the Lord, ‘Will you make a full end of Israel?’ Who, knowing of these proceedings, will not have good reason to cry out, ‘A wonderful and horrible thing has been done in the land,’ and, ‘The heavens are astonished at this, and the earth is still more horribly afraid’? Are the fathers of the people and the teachers of the faith taken away, and the impious brought into the churches? Who, having seen Liberius, bishop of Rome, banished, and the great Hosius, the father of the bishops, suffering these things, or having seen so many bishops banished from Spain and the other regions, could fail to see, however little sense he had, that the charges against Athanasius and the rest were also false and nothing but slander? That is why those others also endured every suffering: they saw plainly that the plots laid against these men were built on falsehood. For what charge was there against Liberius? What accusation against the aged Hosius? Who bore even false witness against Paulinus, and Lucifer, and Dionysius, and Eusebius? What sin could be laid to the account of the rest of the banished bishops, presbyters and deacons? None at all; God forbid! There were no charges against them on which a plot for their ruin could be built, and none of them was banished on the ground of any accusation. It was an uprising of impiety against godliness. It was zeal for the Arian heresy, and a prelude to the coming of Antichrist, for whom Constantius is thus preparing the way. [s]