the most capable of all men to instruct them in heavenly things;” though Athanasius, in his usual style, calls him “an idolater and hangman, and one capable of all violences, rapines, and murders;” and whom he actually charges with committing the most impious actions and outrageous cruelties. Thus, as Socrates observes,[141] was the church torn in pieces by a civil war for the sake of Athanasius and the word “consubstantial.” ----- Footnote 132: Soc. l. 3. c. 4. Footnote 133: Athanas. de Sanct. Trin. V. 2. p. 210. Footnote 134: Soc. l. 2. c. 18. Footnote 135: Soc. l. 2. c. 15. Footnote 136: c. 17. Footnote 137: Ad Sol. Vit. Ag. p. 813. Footnote 138: Soc. l. 2. c. 27. Footnote 139: Ad Const. Apol. p. 695. Footnote 140: Cont. Ar. Orat. 1. p. 290. Footnote 141: l. 2. c. 25. ----- The truth is, that the Christian clergy were now become the chief incendiaries and disturbers of the empire, and the pride of the bishops, and the fury of the people on each side were grown to such an height, as that there scarce ever was an election or restoration of a bishop in the larger cities, but it was attended with slaughter and blood. Athanasius was several times banished and restored, at the expense of blood; the orthodox were deposed, and the Arians substituted in their room, with the murder of thousands; and as the controversy was now no longer about the plain doctrines of uncorrupted Christianity, but about power and dominion, high preferments, large revenues, and secular honours; agreeably hereto, the bishops were introduced into their churches,[142] and placed on their thrones, by armed soldiers, and paid no regard to the ecclesiastical rules, or the lives of their flocks, so they could get possession, and keep out their adversaries: and when once they were in, they treated those who differed from them without moderation or mercy, turning them out of their churches, denying them the liberty of worship, putting them under an anathema, and persecuting them with innumerable methods of cruelty; as is evident from the accounts given by the ecclesiastical historians, of Athanasius, Macedonius, George, and others, which may be read at large, in the forementioned places. In a word, they seemed to treat one another with the same implacable bitterness and severity, as ever their common enemies, the heathens, treated them; as though they thought that persecution for conscience sake had been the distinguishing precept of the Christian religion; and that they could not more effectually recommend and distinguish themselves as the disciples of Christ, than by tearing and devouring one another. This made Julian,[143] the emperor, say of them, “that he found by experience, that even beasts are not so cruel to men, as the generality of Christians were to one another.” ----- Footnote 142: Soc. l. 2. c. 15, 16. Footnote 143: Am. Mar. l. 22. c. 5. -----