51. The Emperor has no right to rule the Church.
Wherefore when Diogenes came, and Syrianus laid in wait for us, both he and we 1 and the people demanded to see the Emperor’s letters, supposing that, as it is written, ‘Let not a falsehood be spoken before the king 2;’ so when a king has made a promise, he will not lie, nor change. If then ‘for his brother’s sake he complied,’ why did he also write those letters upon his death? And if he wrote them for ‘his memory’s sake,’ why did he afterwards behave so very unkindly towards him, and persecute the man, and write what he did, alleging a judgment of Bishops, while in truth he acted only to please himself? Nevertheless his craft has not escaped detection, but we have the proof of it ready at hand. For if a judgment had been passed by Bishops, what concern had the Emperor with it? Or if it was only a threat of the Emperor, what need in that case was there of the so-named Bishops? When was such a thing heard of before from the beginning of the world? When did a judgment of the Church receive its validity from the Emperor? or rather when was his decree ever recognised by the Church? There have been many Councils held heretofore; and many judgments passed by the Church; but the Fathers never sought the consent of the Emperor thereto, nor did the Emperor busy himself with the affairs of the Church 3. The Apostle Paul had friends among them of Cæsar’s household, and in his Epistle to the Philippians he sent salutations from them; but he never took them as his associates in Ecclesiastical judgments. Now however we have witnessed a novel spectacle, which is a discovery of the Arian heresy. Heretics have assembled together with the Emperor Constantius, in order that he, alleging the authority of the Bishops, may exercise his power against whomsoever he pleases, and while he persecutes may avoid the name of persecutor; and that they, supported by the Emperor’s government, may conspire the ruin of whomsoever they will 4 and these are all such as are not as impious as themselves. One might look upon their proceedings as a comedy which they are performing on the stage, in which the pretended Bishops are actors, and Constantius the performer of their behests, who makes promises to them, as Herod did to the daughter of Herodias, and they dancing before him accomplish through false accusations the banishment and death of the true believers in the Lord.
The amanuensis here appears to speak for himself: but the Benedictines, with great probability, conjecture τότε καὶ for αὐτός τε καί . ↩
Ecclus. vii. 5 [Apol. Const.2]. ↩
[This may well be taken as a statement of whatoughtto be; but in view of the history of the fourth century it can only be called a rhetorical exaggeration. See supr. §15,Apol. Ar.36, ἐκέλευσαν , Prolegg. ch. ii. §6 (1)init., and D.C.A. p. 475, with reff. there given.] ↩
οἷς ἂν ἐθέλωσι , and just before ὧν ἂν ἐθέλοι . [And more strikingly just below, §53 fin. ἃ θέλουσι πράττει, ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτὸς ἅπερ ἤθελεν ἤκουσε παρ᾽ αὐτῶν .] This is a very familiar phrase with Athan. i.e. ὡς ἐθέλησεν, ἅπερ ἐθέλησαν, ὅταν θέλωσιν, οὒς ἐθέλησαν , &c. &c. Some instances are given supr.Apol. Ar.2, note 3, andde Syn.13, note 6. ↩
