The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret
Advanced Information
Translated with Notes by the Rev. Blomfield Jackson, M.A.
Vicar of St. Bartholomew's, Moor Lane, and Fellow of King's College,
London.
Under the editorial supervision of Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D.,
Professor of Church History in the Union Theological Semimary, New York,
and Henry Wace, D.D., Principal of King's College, London
Published in 1892 by Philip Schaff,
New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co.
Book II.
Chapter I.--Return of St. Athanasius.
The divine Athanasius returned to Alexandria, after having remained
two years and four months at Treves [449] . Constantine, the eldest
son of Constantine the Great, whose imperial sway extended over
Western Gaul, wrote the following letter to the church of Alexandria.
Epistle of the Emperor Constantine, the son of Constantine the Great,
to the Alexandrians.
"Constantinus Cæsar to the people of the Catholic Church of
Alexandria.
"I think that it cannot have escaped your pious intelligence that
Athanasius, the interpreter of the venerated law, was opportunely sent
into Gaul, in order that, so long as the savagery of these
bloodthirsty opponents was threatening peril to his sacred head, he
might be saved from suffering irremediable wrongs. To avoid this
imminent peril, he was snatched from the jaws of his foes, to remain
in a city under my jurisdiction, where he might be abundantly supplied
with every necessary. Yet the greatness of his virtue, relying on the
grace of God, led him to despise all the calamities of adverse
fortune. Constantine, my lord and my father, of blessed memory,
intended to have reinstated him in his former bishopric, and to have
restored him to your piety; but as the emperor was arrested by the
hand of death before his desires were accomplished, I, being his heir,
have deemed it fitting to carry into execution the purpose of this
sovereign of divine memory. You will learn from your bishop himself,
when you see him, with how much respect I have treated him. Nor indeed
is it surprising that he should have been thus treated by me. I was
moved to this line of conduct by his own great virtue, and the thought
of your affectionate longing for his return. May Divine Providence
watch over you, beloved brethren!"
Furnished with this letter, St. Athanasius returned [450] from exile,
and was most gladly welcomed both by the rich and by the poor, by the
inhabitants of cities, and by those of the provinces. The followers of
the madness of Arius were the only persons who felt any vexation at
his return. Eusebius, Theognis, and those of their faction resorted to
their former machinations, and endeavoured to prejudice the ears of
the young emperor against him.
I shall now proceed to relate in what manner Constantius swerved from
the doctrines of the Apostles.
Footnotes
[449] From Feb. 336 to June 338. The "Porta Nigra" and the ruins of
the Baths still shew relics of the splendour of the imperial city. The
exile was generously treated. Maximinus, the bishop of Treves, was
orthodox and friendly. (Ath. ad Episc. Ægypt. §8.) On the conclusion
of the term of his relegation to Treves Constantine II. took him in
the imperial suite to Viminacium, a town on the Danube, not far from
the modern Passarovitz. Here the three emperors met. Athanasius
continued his journey to Alexandria via Constantinople and the
Cappadocian Cæsarea. (Ath. Hist. Ar. §8 and Apol. ad Const. §5.)
[450] In Nov. 338. His clergy thought it the happiest day of their
lives. Ath. Ap. Cont. Ar. §7.
Chapter II.--Declension of the Emperor Constantius from the true
Faith.
Constantia, the widow of Licinius, was the half-sister of Constantine
[451] . She was intimately acquainted with a certain priest who had
imbibed the doctrines of Arius. He did not openly acknowledge his
unsoundness; but, in the frequent conversations which he had with her,
he did not refrain from declaring that Arius had been unjustly
calumniated. After the death of her impious husband, the renowned
Constantine did everything in his power to solace her, and strove to
prevent her from experiencing the saddest trials of widowhood. He
attended her also in her last illness [452] , and rendered her every
proper attention. She then presented the priest whom I mentioned to
the emperor, and entreated him to receive him under his protection.
Constantine acceded to her request, and soon after fulfilled his
promise. But though the priest was permitted the utmost freedom of
speech, and was most honourably treated, he did not venture to reveal
his corrupt principles, for he observed the firmness with which the
emperor adhered to the truth. When Constantine was on the point of
being translated to an eternal kingdom, he drew up a will, in which he
directed that his temporal dominions should be divided among his sons.
None of them was with him when he was dying, so he entrusted the will
to this priest alone, and desired him to give it to Constantius, who,
being at a shorter distance from the spot than his brothers, was
expected to arrive the first. These directions the priest executed,
and thus by putting the will into his hands, became known to
Constantius, who accepted him as an intimate friend, and commanded him
to visit him frequently. Perceiving the weakness of Constantius, whose
mind was like reeds driven to and fro by the wind, he became
emboldened to declare war against the doctrines of the gospel. He
loudly deplored the stormy state of the churches, and asserted it to
be due to those who had introduced the unscriptural word
"consubstantial" into the confession of faith, and that all the
disputes among the clergy and the laity had been occasioned by it. He
calumniated Athanasius and all who coincided in his opinions, and
formed designs for their destruction, being used as their
fellow-worker by Eusebius [453] , Theognis, and Theodorus, bishop of
Perinthus.
The last-named, whose see is generally known by the name of Heraclea,
was a man of great erudition, and had written an exposition of the
Holy Scriptures [454] .
These bishops resided near the emperor, and frequently visited him;
they assured him that the return of Athanasius from banishment had
occasioned many evils, and had excited a tempest which had shaken not
only Egypt, but also Palestine, Phoenicia, and the adjacent countries
[455] .
Footnotes
[451] Vide Pedigree. Philostorgius (ii. 16) said the will was given to
Eusebius of Nicomedia. Valesius (on Soc. i. 25) thinks that if the
story had been true Athanasius would have recorded it, with the name
of the Presbyter.
[452] a.d. 327-328.
[453] Of Nicomedia, now transferred to the see of Constantinople.
[454] Vide note on p. 61.
[455] The ground of objection to the return was (i) that Athanasius
had been condemned by a Council--that of Tyre, and (ii) that he was
restored by the authority of the state alone. The first intention was
to get the Arian Pistus advanced to the patriarchate.
Chapter III.--Second Exile of St. Athanasius.--Ordination and Death of
Gregorius.
With these and similar arguments, the bishops assailed the weak-minded
emperor, and persuaded him to expel Athanasius from his church. But
Athanasius obtained timely intimation of their design, and departed to
the west. [456] The friends of Eusebius had sent false accusations
against him to Julius, who was then bishop of Rome [457] . In
obedience to the laws of the church, Julius summoned the accusers and
the accused to Rome, that the cause might be tried [458] . Athanasius,
accordingly, set out for Rome, but the calumniators refused to go
because they saw that their falsehood would easily be detected [459] .
But perceiving that the flock of Athanasius was left without a pastor,
they appointed over it a wolf instead of a shepherd. Gregorius, for
this was his name, surpassed the wild beasts in his deeds of cruelty
towards the flock: but at the expiration of six years he was destroyed
by the sheep themselves. Athanasius went to Constans (Constantine, the
eldest brother, having fallen in battle), and complained of the plots
laid against him by the Arians, and of their opposition to the
apostolical faith [460] . He reminded him of his father, and how he
attended in person the great and famous council which he had summoned;
how he was present at its debates, took part in framing its decrees,
and confirmed them by law. The emperor was moved to emulation by his
father's zeal, and promptly wrote to his brother, exhorting him to
preserve inviolate the religion of their father, which they had
inherited; "for," he urged, "by piety he made his empire great,
destroyed the tyrants of Rome, and subjugated the foreign nations on
every side." Constantius was led by this letter to summon the bishops
from the east and from the west to Sardica [461] , a city of
Illyricum, and the metropolis of Dacia, that they might deliberate on
the means of removing the other troubles of the church, which were
many and pressing.
Footnotes
[456] Easter, a.d. 340. The condemnation was confirmed at the Council
of Antioch, a.d. 341.
[457] They were met by a deputation of Athanasians, bringing the
encyclical of the Egyptian Bishops in favour of the accused. Apol.
Cont. Ar. §3.
[458] On the bearing of these communications with Rome on the question
of Papal jurisdiction, vide Salmon, Infallibility of the Church, p.
405. Cf. Wladimir Guettée, Histoire de l'Eglise, III. p. 112.
[459] The innocence of Athanasius was vindicated at the Council held
at Rome in Nov. a.d. 341.
[460] For the violent resentment of the Alexandrian Church at the
obtrusion of Gregorius, an Ultra-Arian, and apparently an illustration
of the old proverb of the three bad Kappas, "Kappadokes, Kretes,
Kilikes, tria kappa kakista," for he was a Cappadocian--vide Ath.
Encyc. 3, 4, Hist. Ar. 10. The sequence of events is not without
difficulty, and our author gives here little help. Athanasius was in
Alexandria in the spring of 340, when Gregorius made his entry, and
started for Rome at or about Easter. Constantine II. was defeated and
slain by the troops of his brother Constans, in the neighbourhood of
Aquileia, and his corpse found in the river Alsa, in April, 340.
Athanasius remained at Rome till the summer of 343, when he was
summoned to Milan by Constans (Ap. ad Const. 3, 4). Results of his
visit to Rome were the adherence of Latin Christianity to the orthodox
opinion (Cf. Milman, Hist. of Lat. Christianity, vol. i. p. 78), and
the introduction of Monachism into the West. Vide Robertson's Ch.
Hist. ii. 6.
[461] Now Sophia, in Bulgaria. The centre of Moesia was called Dacia
Cis-Danubiana, when the tract conquered by Trajan was abandoned.
Chapter IV.--Paulus, Bishop of Constantinople.
Paulus [462] , bishop of Constantinople, who faithfully maintained
orthodox doctrines, was accused by the unsound Arians of exciting
seditions, and of such other crimes as they usually laid to the charge
of all those who preached true piety. The people, who feared the
machinations of his enemies, would not permit him to go to Sardica.
The Arians, taking advantage of the weakness of the emperor, procured
from him an edict of banishment against Paulus, who was, accordingly,
sent to Cucusus, a little town formerly included in Cappadocia, but
now in Lesser Armenia. But these disturbers of the public peace were
not satisfied with having driven the admirable Paulus into a desert.
They sent the agents of their cruelty to despatch him by a violent
death. St. Athanasius testifies to this fact in the defence which he
wrote of his own flight. He uses the following words [463] : "They
pursued Paulus, bishop of Constantinople, and having seized him at
Cucusus, a city of Cappadocia, they had him strangled, using as their
executioner Philippus the prefect, who was the protector of their
heresy, and the active agent of their most atrocious projects [464] ."
Such were the murders to which the blasphemy of Arius gave rise. Their
mad rage against the Only-begotten was matched by cruel deeds against
His servants.
Footnotes
[462] A native of Thessalonica; he had been secretary to his
predecessor Alexander.
[463] Ath. de fug. §3. Cf. Hist. Ar. ad Mon. 7.
[464] Flavius Philippus, prætorian præfect of the East, is described
by Socrates (II. 16), as deuteros meta basilea. Paulus was removed
from Constantinople in 342, and not slain till 350. Philippus died in
disappointment and misery. Dict. Christ. Biog. iv. 356.
Chapter V.--The Heresy of Macedonius.
The Arians, having effected the death of Paulus, or rather having
despatched him to the kingdom of heaven, promoted Macedonius [465] in
his place, who, they imagined, held the same sentiments, and belonged
to the same faction as themselves, because he, like them, blasphemed
the Holy Ghost. But, shortly after, they deposed him also, because he
refused to call Him a creature Whom the Holy Scriptures affirm to be
the Son of God. After his separation from them, he became the leader
of a sect of his own. He taught that the Son of God is not of the same
substance as the Father, but that He is like Him in every particular.
He also openly affirmed that the Holy Ghost is a creature. These
circumstances occurred not long afterwards as we have narrated them.
Footnotes
[465] On the vicissitudes of the see of Constantinople, after the
death of Alexander, in a.d. 336, vide Soc. ii. 6 and Soz. iii. 3.
Paulus was murdered in 350 or 351, and the "shortly after" of the text
means nine years, Macedonius being replaced by Eudoxius of Antioch, in
360. On how far the heresy of the "Pneumatomachi," called
Macedonianism, was really due to the teaching of Macedonius, vide
Robertson's Church Hist. II. iv. for reff.
Chapter VI.--Council held at Sardica.
Two hundred and fifty bishops assembled at Sardica [466] , as is
proved by ancient records. The great Athanasius, Asclepas, bishop of
Gaza, already mentioned [467] , and Marcellus [468] , bishop of
Ancyra, the metropolis of Galatia, who also held this bishopric at the
time of the council of Nicæa, all repaired thither. The calumniators,
and the chiefs of the Arian faction, who had previously judged the
cause of Athanasius, also attended. But when they found that the
members of the synod were staunch in their adherence to sound
doctrine, they would not even enter the council, although they had
been summoned to it, but fled away, both accusers and judges. All
these circumstances are far more clearly explained in a letter drawn
up by the council; and I shall therefore now insert it.
Synodical Letter from the Bishops assembled at Sardica, addressed to
the other Bishops.
"The holy council assembled at Sardica, from Rome, Spain, Gaul, Italy,
Campania, Calabria, Africa, Sardinia, Pannonia, Moesia, Dacia,
Dardania, Lesser Dacia, Macedonia, Thessaly, Achaia, Epirus, Thrace,
Rhodope, Asia, Caria, Bithynia, the Hellespont, Phrygia, Pisidia,
Cappadocia, Pontus, the lesser Phrygia, Cilicia, Pamphylia, Lydia, the
Cyclades, Egypt, the Thebaid, Libya, Galatia, Palestine and Arabia, to
the bishops throughout the world, our fellow-ministers in the catholic
and apostolic Church, and our beloved brethren in the Lord. Peace be
unto you.
"The madness of the Arians has often led them to the perpetration of
violent atrocities against the servants of God who keep the true
faith; they introduce false doctrines themselves, and persecute those
who uphold orthodox principles. So violent were their attacks on the
faith, that they reached the ears of our most pious emperors. Through
the co-operation of the grace of God, the emperors have summoned us
from different provinces and cities to the holy council which they
have appointed to be held in the city of Sardica, in order that all
dissensions may be terminated, all evil doctrines expelled, and the
religion of Christ alone maintained amongst all people. Some bishops
from the east have attended the council at the solicitation of our
most religious emperors, principally on account of the reports
circulated against our beloved brethren and fellow-ministers,
Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra in
Galatia, and Asclepas, bishop of Gaza. Perhaps the calumnies of the
Arians have already reached you, and they have endeavoured thus to
forestall the council, and make you believe their groundless
accusations of the innocent, and prevent any suspicion being raised of
the depraved heresy which they uphold. But they have not long been
permitted so to act. The Lord is the Protector of the churches; for
them and for us all He suffered death, and opened for us the way to
heaven.
"The adherents of Eusebius, Maris, Theodorus, Theognis, Ursacius,
Valens, Menophantus, and Stephanus, had already written to Julius, the
bishop of Rome, and our fellow-minister, against our aforesaid
fellow-ministers, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, Marcellus, bishop
of Ancyra in Galatia, and Asclepas, bishop of Gaza. Some bishops of
the opposite party wrote also to Julius, testifying to the innocence
of Athanasius, and proving that all that had been asserted by the
followers of Eusebius was nothing more than lies and slander. The
refusal of the Arians to obey the summons of our beloved brother and
fellow-ruler, Julius, and also the letter written by that bishop,
clearly prove the falseness of their accusation. For, had they
believed that what they had done and represented against our
fellow-minister admitted of justification, they would have gone to
Rome. But their mode of procedure in this great and holy council is a
manifest proof of their fraud. Upon their arrival at Sardica, they
perceived that our brethren, Athanasius, Marcellus, Asclepas, and
others, were there also; they were therefore afraid to come to the
test, although they had been summoned, not once or twice only, but
repeatedly. There were they waited for by the assembled bishops,
particularly by the venerable Hosius, one worthy of all honour and
respect, on account of his advanced age, his adherence to the faith,
and his labours for the church. All urged them to join the assembly
and avail themselves of the opportunity of proving, in the presence of
their fellow-ministers, the truth of the charges they had brought
against them in their absence, both by word and by letter. But they
refused to obey the summons, as we have already stated, and so by
their excesses proved the falsity of their statements, and all but
proclaimed aloud the plot and schemes they had formed. Men confident
of the truth of their assertions are always ready to stand to them
openly. But as these accusers would not appear to substantiate what
they had advanced, any future allegations which they may by their
usual artifices bring against our fellow-ministers, will only be
regarded as proceeding from a desire of slandering them in their
absence, without the courage to confront them openly.
"They fled, beloved brethren, not only because their charges were
slander, but also because they saw men arrive with serious and
manifold accusations against themselves. Chains and fetters were
produced. Some were present whom they had exiled: others came forward
as representatives of those still kept in exile. There stood relations
and friends of men whom they had put to death. Most serious of all,
bishops also appeared, one of whom [469] exhibited the irons and the
chains with which they had laden him. Others testified that death
followed their false charges. For their infatuation had led them so
far as even to attempt the life of a bishop; and he would have been
killed had he not escaped from their hands. Theodulus [470] , our
fellow-minister, of blessed memory, passed hence with their calumny on
his name; for, through it, he had been condemned to death. Some showed
the wounds which had been inflicted on them by the sword; others
deposed that they had been exposed to the miseries of famine.
"All these depositions were made, not by a few obscure individuals,
but by whole churches; the presbyters of these churches giving
evidence that the persecutors had armed the military against them with
swords, and the common people with clubs; had employed judicial
threats, and produced spurious documents. The letters written by
Theognis, for the purpose of prejudicing the emperor against our
fellow-ministers, Athanasius, Marcellus, and Asclepas, were read and
attested by those who had formerly been the deacons of Theognis. It
was also proved that they had stripped virgins naked, had burnt
churches, and imprisoned our fellow-ministers, and all because of the
infamous heresy of the Ariomaniacs. For thus all who refused to make
common cause with them were treated.
"The consciousness of having committed all these crimes placed them in
great straits. Ashamed of their deeds, which could no longer be
concealed, they repaired to Sardica, thinking that their boldness in
venturing thither would remove all suspicion of their guilt. But when
they perceived the presence of those whom they had falsely accused,
and of those who had suffered from their cruelty; and that likewise
several had come with irrefragable accusations against them, they
would not enter the council. Our fellow-ministers, on the other hand,
Athanasius, Marcellus, and Asclepas, took every means to induce them
to attend, by tears, by urgency, by challenge, promising not only to
prove the falsity of their accusations, but also to show how deeply
they had injured their own churches. But they were so overwhelmed by
the consciousness of their own evil deeds, that they took to flight,
and by this flight clearly proved the falsity of their accusations as
well as their own guilt.
"But though their calumny and perfidy, which had indeed been apparent
from the beginning, were now clearly perceived, yet we determined to
examine the circumstances of the case according to the laws of truth,
lest they should, from their very flight, derive pretexts for renewed
acts of deceitfulness.
"Upon carrying this resolution into effect, we proved by their actions
that they were false accusers, and that they had formed plots against
our fellow-ministers. Arsenius, whom they declared had been put to
death by Athanasius, is still alive, and takes his place among the
living. This fact alone is sufficient to show that their other
allegations are false.
"Although they spread a report everywhere that a chalice had been
broken by Macarius, one of the presbyters of Athanasius, yet those who
came from Alexandria, from Mareotis, and from other places, testified
that this was not the fact; and the bishops in Egypt wrote to Julius,
our fellow-minister, declaring that there was not the least suspicion
that such a deed had been done. The judicial facts which the Arians
assert they possess against Macarius have been all drawn up by one
party; and in these documents the depositions of pagans and of
catechumens were included. One of these catechumens, when
interrogated, replied that he was in the church on the entry of
Macarius. Another deposed that Ischyras, whom they had talked about so
much, was then lying ill in his cell. Hence it appears that the
mysteries could not have been celebrated at that time, as the
catechumens were present, and as Ischyras was absent; for he was at
that very time confined by illness. Ischyras, that wicked man who had
falsely affirmed that Athanasius had burnt some of the sacred books,
and had been convicted of the crime, now confessed that he was ill in
bed when Macarius arrived; hence the falsehood of his accusation was
clearly demonstrated. His calumny was, however, rewarded by his party;
they gave him the title of a bishop, although he was not yet even a
presbyter. For two presbyters came to the synod, who some time back
had been attached to Meletius, and were afterwards received back by
the blessed Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, and are now with
Athanasius, protesting that he had never been ordained a presbyter,
and that Meletius had never had any church, or employed any minister
in Mareotis. Yet, although he had never been ordained a presbyter,
they promote him to a bishopric, in order that his title may impose
upon those who hear his false accusations [471] .
"The writings of our fellow-minister, Marcellus, were also read, and
plainly evinced the duplicity of the adherents of Eusebius; for what
Marcellus had simply suggested as a point of inquiry, they accused him
of professing as a point of faith. The statements which he had made,
both before and after the inquiry, were read, and his faith was proved
to be orthodox. He did not affirm, as they represented, that the
beginning of the Word of God was dated from His conception by the holy
Mary, or that His kingdom would have an end. On the contrary, he wrote
that His kingdom had had no beginning, and would have no end.
Asclepas, our fellow-minister, produced the reports drawn up at
Antioch in the presence of the accusers, and of Eusebius, bishop of
Cæsarea, and proved his innocence by the sentence of the bishops who
had presided as judges.
"It was not then without cause, beloved brethren, that, although so
frequently summoned, they would not attend the council; it was not
without cause that they took to flight. The reproaches of conscience
constrained them to make their escape, and thus, at the same time, to
demonstrate the groundlessness of their calumnies, and the truth of
those accusations which were advanced and proved against them. Besides
all the other grounds of complaint, it may be added that all those who
had been accused of holding the Arian heresy, and had been ejected in
consequence, were not only received, but advanced to the highest
dignities by them. They raised deacons to the presbyterate, and thence
to the episcopate; and in all this they were actuated by no other
motive than the desire of propagating and diffusing their heresy, and
of corrupting the true faith.
"Next to Eusebius, the following are their principal leaders;
Theodorus, bishop of Heraclea, Narcissus, bishop of Neronias in
Cilicia, Stephanus, bishop of Antioch, Georgius [472] , bishop of
Laodicea, Acacius [473] , bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, Menophantus,
bishop of Ephesus in Asia, Ursacius, bishop of Singidunum [474] in
Moesia, and Valens, bishop of Mursa [475] in Pannonia. These bishops
forbade those who came with them from the east to attend the holy
council, or to unite with the Church of God. On their road to Sardica
they held private assemblies at different places, and formed a compact
cemented by threats, that, when they arrived in Sardica, they would
not join the holy council, nor assist at its deliberations; arranging
that, as soon as they had arrived they should present themselves for
form's sake, and forthwith betake themselves to flight. These facts
were made known to us by our fellow-ministers, Macarius of Palestine
[476] , and Asterius of Arabia [477] , who came with them to Sardica,
but refused to share their unorthodoxy. These bishops complained
before the holy council of the violent treatment they had received
from them, and of the want of right principles evinced in all their
transactions. They added that there were many amongst them who still
held orthodox opinions, but that these were prevented from going to
the council; and that sometimes threats, sometimes promises, were
resorted to, in order to retain them in that party. For this reason
they were compelled to reside together in one house; and never
allowed, even for the shortest space of time, to be alone.
"It is not right to pass over in silence and without rebuke the
calumnies, the imprisonments, the murders, the stripes, the forged
letters, the indignities, the stripping naked of virgins, the
banishments, the destruction of churches, the acts of incendiarism,
the translation of bishops from small towns to large dioceses, and
above all, the ill-starred Arian heresy, raised by their means against
the true faith. For these causes, therefore, we declare the innocence
and purity of our beloved brethren and fellow-ministers, Athanasius,
bishop of Alexandria, Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, and
Asclepas, bishop of Gaza, and of all the other servants of God who are
with them; and we have written to each of their dioceses, in order
that the people of each church may be made acquainted with the
innocence of their respective bishops, and that they may recognise
them alone and wait for their return. Men who have come down on their
churches like wolves [478] , such as Gregorius in Alexandria, Basilius
in Ancyra, and Quintianus [479] in Gaza, we charge them not even to
call bishops, nor yet Christians, nor to have any communion with them,
nor to receive any letters from them, nor to write to them.
"Theodorus, bishop of Heraclea in Europe, Narcissus, bishop of
Neronias in Cilicia, Acacius, bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine,
Stephanus, bishop of Antioch, Ursacius, bishop of Singidunum in
Moesia, Valens, bishop of Mursa in Pannonia, Menophantus, bishop of
Ephesus, and Georgius, bishop of Laodicea (for though fear kept him
from leaving the East, he has been deposed by the blessed Alexander,
bishop of Alexandria, and has imbibed the infatuation of the Arians),
have on account of their various crimes been cast forth from their
bishoprics by the unanimous decision of the holy council. We have
decreed that they are not only not to be regarded as bishops, but to
be refused communion with us. For those who separate the Son from the
substance and divinity of the Father, and alienate the Word from the
Father, ought to be separated from the Catholic Church, and alienated
from all who bear the name of Christians. Let them then be anathema to
you, and to all the faithful, because they have corrupted the word of
truth. For the apostle's precept enjoins, if any one should bring to
you another gospel than that which ye have received, let him be
accursed [480] . Command that no one hold communion with them; for
light can have no fellowship with darkness. Keep far off from them;
for what concord has Christ with Belial? Be careful, beloved brethren,
that you neither write to them nor receive their letters. Endeavour,
beloved brethren and fellow-ministers, as though present with us in
spirit at the council, to give your hearty consent to what is enacted,
and affix to it your written signature, for the sake of preserving
unanimity of opinion among all our fellow-ministers throughout the
world [481] .
"We declare those men excommunicate from the Catholic Church who say
that Christ is God, but not the true God; that He is the Son, but not
the true Son; and that He is both begotten and made; for such persons
acknowledge that they understand by the term `begotten,' that which
has been made; and because, although the Son of God existed before all
ages, they attribute to Him, who exists not in time but before all
time, a beginning and an end [482] .
"Valens and Ursacius have, like two vipers brought forth by an asp,
proceeded from the Arian heresy. For they boastingly declare
themselves to be undoubted Christians, and yet affirm that the Word
and the Holy Ghost were both crucified and slain, and that they died
and rose again; and they pertinaciously maintain, like the heretics,
that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are of diverse and
distinct essences [483] . We have been taught, and we hold the
catholic and apostolic tradition and faith and confession which teach,
that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost have one essence, which
is termed substance [484] by the heretics. If it is asked, `What is
the essence of the Son?' we confess, that it is that which is
acknowledged to be that of the Father alone; for the Father has never
been, nor could ever be, without the Son, nor the Son without the
Father. It is most absurd to affirm that the Father ever existed
without the Son, for that this could never be so has been testified by
the Son Himself, who said, `I am in the Father, and the Father in Me
[485] ;' and `I and My Father are one [486] .' None of us denies that
He was begotten; but we say that He was begotten before all things,
whether visible or invisible; and that He is the Creator of archangels
and angels, and of the world, and of the human race. It is written,
`Wisdom which is the worker of all things taught me [487] ,' and
again, `All things were made by Him [488] .'
"He could not have existed always if He had had a beginning, for the
everlasting Word has no beginning, and God will never have an end. We
do not say that the Father is Son, nor that the Son is Father; but
that the Father is Father, and the Son of the Father Son. We confess
that the Son is Power of the Father. We confess that the Word is Word
of God the Father, and that beside Him there is no other. We believe
the Word to be the true God, and Wisdom and Power. We affirm that He
is truly the Son, yet not in the way in which others are said to be
sons: for they are either gods by reason of their regeneration, or are
called sons of God on account of their merit, and not on account of
their being of one essence [489] , as is the case with the Father and
the Son. We confess an Only-begotten and a Firstborn; but that the
Word is only-begotten, who ever was and is in the Father. We use the
word firstborn with respect to His human nature. But He is superior
(to man) in the new creation [490] (of the Resurrection), inasmuch as
He is the Firstborn from the dead.
"We confess that God is; we confess the divinity of the Father and of
the Son to be one. No one denies that the Father is greater than the
Son: not on account of another essence [491] , nor yet on account of
their difference, but simply from the very name of the Father being
greater than that of the Son. The words uttered by our Lord, `I and My
Father are one [492] ,' are by those men explained as referring to the
concord and harmony which prevail between the Father and the Son; but
this is a blasphemous and perverse interpretation. We, as Catholics,
unanimously condemned this foolish and lamentable opinion: for just as
mortal men on a difference having arisen between them quarrel and
afterwards are reconciled, so do such interpreters say that disputes
and dissension are liable to arise between God the Father Almighty and
His Son; a supposition which is altogether absurd and untenable. But
we believe and maintain that those holy words, `I and My Father are
one,' point out the oneness of essence [493] which is one and the same
in the Father and in the Son.
"We also believe that the Son reigns with the Father, that His reign
has neither beginning nor end, and that it is not bounded by time, nor
can ever cease: for that which always exists never begins to be, and
can never cease.
"We believe in and we receive the Holy Ghost the Comforter, whom the
Lord both promised and sent. We believe in It as sent.
"It was not the Holy Ghost who suffered, but the manhood with which He
clothed Himself; which He took from the Virgin Mary, which being man
was capable of suffering; for man is mortal, whereas God is immortal.
We believe that on the third day He rose, the man in God, not God in
the man; and that He brought as a gift to His Father the manhood which
He had delivered from sin and corruption.
"We believe that, at a meet and fixed time, He Himself will judge all
men and all their deeds.
"So great is the ignorance and mental darkness of those whom we have
mentioned, that they are unable to see the light of truth. They cannot
comprehend the meaning of the words: `that they may be one in us [494]
.' It is obvious why the word `one' was used; it was because the
apostles received the Holy Spirit of God, and yet there were none
amongst them who were the Spirit, neither was there any one of them
who was Word, Wisdom, Power, or Only-begotten. `As Thou,' He said,
`and I are one, that they, may be one in us.' These holy words, `that
they may be one in us,' are strictly accurate: for the Lord did not
say, `one in the same way that I and the Father are one,' but He said,
`that the disciples, being knit together and united, may be one in
faith and in confession, and so in the grace and piety of God the
Father, and by the indulgence and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, may
be able to become one.'"
From this letter may be learnt the duplicity of the calumniators, and
the injustice of the former judges, as well as the soundness of the
decrees. These holy fathers have taught us not only truths respecting
the Divine nature, but also the doctrine of the Incarnation [495] .
Constans was much concerned on hearing of the easy temper of his
brother, and was highly incensed against those who had contrived this
plot and artfully taken advantage of it. He chose two of the bishops
who had attended the council of Sardica, and sent them with letters to
his brother; he also despatched Salianus, a military commander who was
celebrated for his piety and integrity, on the same embassy. The
letters which he forwarded by them, and which were worthy of himself,
contained not only entreaties and counsels, but also menaces. In the
first place, he charged his brother to attend to all that the bishops
might say, and to take cognizance of the crimes of Stephanus and of
his accomplices. He also required him to restore Athanasius to his
flock; the calumny of the accusers and the injustice and ill-will of
his former judges having become evident. He added, that if he would
not accede to his request, and perform this act of justice, he would
himself go to Alexandria, restore Athanasius to his flock which
earnestly longed for him, and expel all opponents.
Constantius was at Antioch when he received this letter; and he agreed
to carry out all that his brother commanded.
Footnotes
[466] The Council met in 343, according to Hefele; 344, according to
Mansi, on the authority of the Festal Letters of Athanasius. Summoned
by both Emperors, it was presided over by Hosius. The accounts of the
numbers present vary. Some authorities adhere to the traditional date,
347. Soc. ii. 20; Soz. iii. 11.
[467] Vide I. xxvii.
[468] Perhaps present at the Synod of Ancyra (Angora), in a.d. 315.
Died, a.d. 374. Marcellus played the man at Nicæa, and was accused by
the Arians of Sabellianism, and deposed. He was distrusted as a
trimmer, but could boast "se communione Julii et Athanasii, Romanæ et
Alexandrinæ urbis pontificum, esse munitum" (Jer. de vir. ill. c. 86).
Cardinal Newman thinks Athanasius attacked him in the IVth Oration
against the Arians. Vide Dict. Christ. Biog. iii. 808.
[469] Probably Lucius, Bishop of Hadrianople, who had been deposed by
the Arians, and appealed to Julius, who wished to right him. Still
kept out by the Arians, he appealed to the Council of Sardica, and, in
accordance with its decree, Constantius ordered his restoration (Soc.
ii. 26). Cf. Chap. XII.
[470] Bishop of Trajanopolis (Ath. Hist. Ar. 19).
[471] The strange story of Ischyras is gathered from notices in the
Apol. c. Arian. Without ordination, he started a small conventicle of
some half-dozen people, and the Alexandrian Synod of 324 condemned his
pretensions. The incident of the text may be assigned to 329. He
afterwards faced both ways, to Athanasius and the Eusebians, and was
recognised by them as a bishop. Dict. Christ. Biog. iii. 302.
[472] Georgius succeeded the Arian Theodotus, of whom mention has
already been made (p. 42), in the see of the Syrian Laodicea
(Latakia). Athanasius (de fug. §26), speaks of his "dissolute life,
condemned even by his own friends."
[473] Known as ho monophthalmos, "The one-eyed." He succeeded the
Historian Eusebius in the see of Cæsarea in 340, and the Nicomedian
Eusebius as a leader of the Arian Court party in 342.
[474] Now Belgrade.
[475] Now Esseg on the Drave. Here Constantius defeated Magnentius,
a.d. 351.
[476] Bishop of Petra in Palestine. (Tomus ad Antioch. 10.) There is
some confusion in the names of the sees, and a doubt whether there
were really two Petras. Cf. Reland, Palestine, p. 298, Le Quien, East.
Christ. iii. 665, 666.
[477] Bishop of Petra in Arabia, (Ath. Hist. Ar. 18, Apol. cont. Ar.
48).
[478] Cf. Acts xx. 29
[479] Thrust on the see of Gaza by the Arians on the deposition of
Asclepas (Soz. iii. 8, 12).
[480] Gal. i. 8
[481] Here, according to the Version of Athanasius (Ap. cont. Ar. 49),
the Synodical Epistle ends. An argument against the genuineness of the
addition is the introduction of a new formula of faith, while from the
letter of Athanasius "ex synodo Alexandrinâ ad legatos apostolicæ
sedis,"" it is plain that nothing was added to the Nicene Creed.
(Labbe iii. 84.)
[482] This passage is very corrupt: the translation follows the Greek
of Valesius, gennetos estin hama kai genetos. It is not certain that
the distinction between agennetos "unbegotten," and agenetos,
"uncreate," was in use quite so early as 344. If the passage is
spurious and of later date, the distinction might be more naturally
found.
[483] hupostaseis
[484] ousia
[485] John xiv. 10
[486] John x. 30
[487] Wisdom vii. 22
[488] John i. 3
[489] hupostasis
[490] This translation follows the reading of the Allatian Codex,
adopted by Valesius, te kaine ktisei. If we read koine for kaine, we
must render "excels or differs in relation to the common creation"
which He shares with man.
[491] hupostasis
[492] John x. 30
[493] hupostasis
[494] John xvii. 21
[495] oikonomia. In classical Greek oikonomia is simply the management
(a) of a household, (b) of the state. In the N.T. we have it in Luke
xvi. for "stewardship," and in five other places; (i) 1 Cor. ix. 17,
A.V. "dispensation," R.V. "stewardship;" (ii) Eph. i. 10 A.V. and R.V.
"dispensation;" (iii) Eph. iii. 2, A.V. and R.V. "dispensation;" (iv)
Col. i. 25, A.V. and R.V. "dispensation;" (v) 1 Tim. i. 4, where A.V.
adopts the inferior reading oikodomen, and R.V. renders the oikonomian
of #AFGKLP by "dispensation." Suicer gives as the meanings of the word
(i) ministerium evangelii, (ii) providentia et numen quo Dei sapientia
omnia moderatur, (iii) ipsa Christi naturæ humanæ assumptio, (iv)
totius redemptionis mysterium et passionis Christi Sacramentum.
Theodoret himself (Ed. Migne iv. 93) says ten enanthropesin de tou
Theou Logou kaloumen oikonomian, and quaintly distinguishes (Cant.
Cant. p. 83) he smurna kai ho libanos toutestin he theologia te kai
oikonomia. On a phrase of St. Ignatius (Eph. xviii.), "ho christos
ekuophorethe hupo Marias kat' oikonomian," Bp. Lightfoot (Apostolic
Fathers, II. p. 75 note) writes: "The word oikonomia came to be
applied more especially to the Incarnation because this was par
excellence the system or plan which God had ordained for the
government of His household and the dispensation of His stores. Hence
in the province of theology, oikonomia was distinguished by the
Fathers from theologia proper, the former being the teaching which was
concerned with the Incarnation and its consequences, and the latter
the teaching which related to the Eternal and Divine nature of Christ.
The first step towards this special appropriation of oikonomia to the
Incarnation is found in St. Paul; e.g. Ephes. i. 10, eis oikonomian
tou pleromatos ton kairon....In this passage of Ignatius it is
moreover connected with the `reserve' of God (xix. en hesuchi‹
theou eprachthe). Thus `economy' has already reached its first stage
on the way to the sense of `dissimulation,' which was afterwards
connected with it, and which led to disastrous consequences in the
theology and practice of a later age." Cf. Newman's Arians, chap. i.
sec. 3.
Chapter VII.--Account of the Bishops Euphratas and Vincentius, and of
the plot formed in Antioch against them.
The wonted opponents of the truth were so much displeased at these
proceedings, that they planned a notoriously execrable and impious
crime.
The two bishops resided near the foot of the mountain, while the
military commander had settled in a lodging in another quarter.
At this period Stephanus held the rudder of the church of Antioch, and
had well nigh sunk the ship, for he employed several tools in his
despotic doings, and by their aid involved all who maintained orthodox
doctrines in manifold calamities. The leader of these instruments was
a young man of a rash and reckless character, who led a very infamous
life. He not only dragged away men from the market-place, and treated
them with blows and insult, but had the audacity to enter private
houses, whence he carried off men and women of irreproachable
character. But, not to be too prolix in relating his crimes, I will
merely narrate his daring conduct towards the bishops; for this alone
is sufficient to give an idea of the unlawful deeds of violence which
he perpetrated against the citizens. He went to one of the lowest
women of the town, and told her that some strangers had just arrived,
who desired to pass the night with her. He took fifteen of his band,
placed them in hiding among the stone walls at the bottom of the hill,
and then went for the prostitute. After giving the preconcerted
signal, and learning that the folk privy to the plot were on the spot,
he went to the gate of the courtyard belonging to the inn where the
bishops were lodging. The doors were opened by one of the household
servants, who had been bribed by him. He then conducted the woman into
the house, pointed out to her the door of the room where one of the
bishops slept, and desired her to enter. Then he went out to call his
accomplices. The door which he had pointed out happened to be that of
Euphratas, the elder bishop, whose room was the outer of the two.
Vincentius, the other bishop, occupied the inner room. When the woman
entered the room of Euphratas, he heard the sound of her footsteps,
and, as it was then dark, asked who was there. She spoke, and
Euphratas was full of alarm, for he thought that it was a devil
imitating the voice of a woman, and he called upon Christ the Saviour
for aid. Onager, for this was the name of the leader of this wicked
band (a name [496] peculiarly appropriate to him, as he not only used
his hands but also his feet as weapons against the pious), had in the
meantime returned with his lawless crew, denouncing as criminals those
who were expecting to be judges of crime themselves. At the noise
which was made all the servants came running in, and up got
Vincentius. They closed the gate of the courtyards, and captured seven
of the gang; but Onager and the rest made off. The woman was committed
to custody with those who had been seized. At the break of day the
bishops awoke the officer who had come with them, and they all three
proceeded together to the palace, to complain of the audacious acts of
Stephanus, whose evil deeds, they said, were too evident to need
either trial or torture to prove them. The general loudly demanded of
the emperor that the audacious act should not be dealt with
synodically, but by ordinary legal process, and offered to give up the
clergy attached to the bishops to be first examined, and declared that
the agents of Stephanus must undergo the torture too. To this
Stephanus insolently objected, alleging that the clergy ought not to
be scourged. The emperor and the principal authorities then decided
that it would be better to judge the cause in the palace. The woman
was first of all questioned, and was asked by whom she was conducted
to the inn where the bishops were lodging. She replied, that a young
man came to her, and told her that some strangers had arrived who were
desirous of her company; that in the evening he conducted her to the
inn; that he went to look for his band, and when he had found it,
brought her in through the door of the court, and desired her to go
into the chamber adjoining the vestibule. She added, that the bishop
asked who was there; that he was alarmed; and that he began to pray;
and that then others ran to the spot.
Footnotes
[496] ,'Onagros = wild ass
Chapter VIII.--Stephanus Deposed.
After the judges had heard these replies, they ordered the youngest of
those who had been arrested to be brought before them. Before he was
subjected to the examination by scourging, he confessed the whole
plot, and stated that it was planned and carried into execution by
Onager. On this latter being brought in he affirmed that he had only
acted according to the commands of Stephanus. The guilt of Stephanus
being thus demonstrated, the bishops then present were charged to
depose him, and expel him from the Church. By his expulsion the Church
was not, however, wholly freed from the plague of Arianism. Leontius,
who succeeded him in his presidency, was a Phrygian of so subtle and
artful a disposition, that he might be said to resemble the sunken
rocks of the sea [497] . We shall presently narrate more concerning
him [498] .
Footnotes
[497] phasi de kai neessin haliplaneessi chereious tas huphalous
petras ton phaneron spiladon --Anth. Pal. xi. 390.
[498] Leontius, Bishop of Antioch from a.d. 348 to 357, was one of the
School of Lucianus. (Philost. iii. 15), cf. pp. 38 and 41, notes.
Athanasius says hard things of him (de fug. §26), but Dr. Salmon
(Dict. Christ. Biog. s.v.) is of opinion that "we may charitably think
that the gentleness and love of peace which all attest were not mere
hypocrisy, and may impute his toleration of heretics to no worse cause
than insufficient appreciation of the importance of the issues
involved." Vide infra. chap. xix.
Chapter IX.--The Second Return of Saint Athanasius.
The emperor Constantius, having become acquainted with the plots
formed against the bishops, wrote to the great Athanasius once, and
twice, aye and thrice, exhorting him to return from the West [499] . I
shall here insert the second letter, because it is the shortest of the
three.
Constantius Augustus the Conqueror to Athanasius.
"Although I have already apprised you by previous letters, that you
can, without fear of molestation, return to our court, in order that
you may, according to my ardent desire, be reinstated in your own
bishopric, yet I now again despatch another letter to your gravity to
exhort you to take immediately, without fear or suspicion, a public
vehicle and return to us, in order that you may receive all that you
desire."
When Athanasius returned, Constantius received him with kindness, and
bade him go back to the Church of Alexandria [500] . But there were
some attached to the court, infected with the errors of Arianism, who
maintained that Athanasius ought to cede one church to those who were
unwilling to hold communion with him. On this being mentioned to the
emperor, and by the emperor to Athanasius, he remarked, that the
imperial command appeared to be just; but that he also wished to make
a request. The emperor readily promising to grant him whatever he
might ask, he said that those in Antioch [501] who objected to hold
communion with the party now in possession of the churches wanted
temples to pray in, and that it was only fair that one House of God
also be assigned to them. This request was deemed just and reasonable
by the emperor; but the leaders of the Arian faction resisted its
being carried into execution, maintaining that neither party ought to
have the churches assigned to them. Constantius on this was struck
with high admiration for Athanasius, and sent him back to Alexandria
[502] . Gregorius was dead, having met his end at the hands of the
Alexandrians themselves [503] . The people kept high holiday in honour
of their pastor; feasting marked their joy at seeing him again, and
praise was given to God [504] . Not long after Constans departed this
life [505] .
Footnotes
[499] Athanasius had gone from Sardica to Naissus (in upper Dacia),
and thence to Aquileia, where he was received by Constans. Ap. ad
Const. §4, §3.
[500] Athanasius went from Aquileia to Rome, where he saw Julius
again, thence to Treves to the Court of Constans, and back to the East
to Antioch, where the conversation about the "one church" took place.
Soc. ii. 23; Soz. iii. 20.
[501] i.e. the friends of Eustathius.
[502] The more significant from the fact that Constantius affected a
more than human impassibility. Cf. the graphic account of his entry
into Rome "velut collo munito rectam aciem luminum tendens, nec dextra
vultum nec læva flectebat, tanquam figmentum hominis: non cum rota
concuteret nutans nec spuens aut os aut nasum tergens vel fricans
manumve agitans visus est unquam." Amm. Marc. xvi. 10.
[503] About Feb. a.d. 345.
[504] Oct. a.d. 346. Fest. Ind. The return is described by Gregory of
Nazianzus (Orat. 21). Authorities, however, differ as to which return
he paints.
[505] i.e. was murdered by the troops of the usurper Magnentius at
Illiberis (re-named Helena by Constantine, and now Elne, in
Roussillon), a.d. 350.
Chapter X.--Third exile and flight of Athanasius.
Those who had obtained entire ascendency over the mind of Constantius,
and influenced him as they pleased, reminded him that Athanasius had
been the cause of the differences between his brother and himself,
which had nearly led to the rupture of the bonds of nature, and the
kindling of a civil war. Constantius was induced by these
representations not only to banish, but also to condemn the holy
Athanasius to death; and he accordingly despatched Sebastianus [506] ,
a military commander, with a very large body of soldiery to slay him,
as if he had been a criminal. How the one led the attack and the other
escaped will be best told in the words of him who so suffered and was
so wonderfully saved.
Thus Athanasius writes in his Apology for his Flight:--"Let the
circumstances of my retreat be investigated, and the testimony of the
opposite faction be collected; for Arians accompanied the soldiers, as
well for the purpose of spurring them on, as of pointing me out to
those who did not know me. If they are not touched with sympathy at
the tale I tell, at least let them listen in the silence of shame. It
was night, and some of the people were keeping vigil, for a communion
[507] was expected. A body of soldiers suddenly advanced upon them,
consisting of a general [508] and five thousand armed men with naked
swords, bows and arrows, and clubs, as I have already stated. The
general surrounded the church, posting his men in close order, that
those within might be prevented from going out. I deemed that I ought
not in such a time of confusion to leave the people, but that I ought
rather to be the first to meet the danger; so I sat down on my throne
and desired the deacon to read a psalm, and the people to respond,
`For His mercy endureth for ever.' Then I bade them all return to
their own houses. But now the general with the soldiery forced his way
into the church, and surrounded the sanctuary in order to arrest me.
The clergy and the laity who had remained clamorously besought me to
withdraw. This I firmly refused to do until all the others had
retreated. I rose, had a prayer offered, and directed all the people
to retire. `It is better,' said I, `for me to meet the danger alone,
than for any of you to be hurt.' When the greater number of the people
had left the church, and just as the rest were following, the monks
and some of the clergy who had remained came up and drew me out. And
so, may the truth be my witness, the Lord leading and protecting me,
we passed through the midst of the soldiers, some of whom were
stationed around the sanctuary, and others marching about the church.
Thus I went out unperceived, and fervently thanked God that I had not
abandoned the people, but that after they had been sent away in
safety, I had been enabled to escape from the hands of those who
sought my life [509] ."
Footnotes
[506] Probably Syrianus, who is described by Athanasius himself as
sent to get him removed from Alexandria, but as denying that he had
the written authority of Constantius. This was in Jan. a.d. 356.
[507] sunaxis. Cf. p. 52 note.
[508] Syrianus. Ath. Ap. ad Const. §25.
[509] Ath. Ap. de fug. §24.
Chapter XI.--The evil and daring deeds done by Georgius [510] in
Alexandria.
Athanasius having thus escaped the bloodstained hands of his
adversaries, Georgius, who was truly another wolf, was entrusted with
authority over the flock. He treated the sheep with more cruelty than
wolf, or bear, or leopard could have shewn. He compelled young women
who had vowed perpetual virginity, not only to disown the communion of
Athanasius, but also to anathematize the faith of the fathers. The
agent in his cruelty was Sebastianus, an officer in command of troops.
He ordered a fire to be kindled in the centre of the city, and placed
the virgins, who were stripped naked, close to it, commanding them to
deny the faith. Although they formed a most sorrowful and pitiable
spectacle for believers as well as for unbelievers, they considered
that all these dishonours conferred the highest honour on them; and
they joyfully received the blows inflicted on them on account of their
faith. All these facts shall be more clearly narrated by their own
pastor.
"About Lent, Georgius returned from Cappadocia, and added to the evils
which he had been taught by our enemies. After the Easter week virgins
were cast into prison, bishops were bound and dragged away by the
soldiers, the homes of widows and of orphans were pillaged, robbery
and violence went on from house to house, and the Christians during
the darkness of night were seized and torn away from their dwellings.
Seals were fixed on many houses. The brothers of the clergy were in
peril for their brothers' sake. These cruelties were very atrocious,
but still more so were those which were subsequently perpetrated. In
the week following the holy festival of Pentecost, the people who were
keeping a fast came out to the cemetery [511] to pray, because they
all renounced any communion with Georgius. This vilest of men was
informed of this circumstance, and he incited Sebastianus the military
commander, a Manichean [512] , to attack the people; and, accordingly,
on the Lord's day itself he rushed upon them with a large body of
armed soldiers wielding naked swords, and bows, and arrows. He found
but few Christians in the act of praying, for most of them had retired
on account of the lateness of the hour. Then he did such deeds as
might be expected from one who had lent his ears to such teachers. He
ordered a large fire to be lighted, and the virgins to be brought
close to it, and then tried to compel them to declare themselves of
the Arian creed. When he perceived that they were conquering, and
giving no heed to the fire, he ordered them to be stripped naked, and
to be beaten until their faces for a long while were scarcely
recognisable. He then seized forty men, and inflicted on them a new
kind of torture. He ordered them to be scourged with branches of
palm-trees, retaining their thorns; and by these their flesh was so
lacerated that some because of the thorns fixed fast in them had again
and again to put themselves under the surgeon's hand; others were not
able to bear the agony and died. All who survived, and also the
virgins, were then banished to the Greater Oasis. They even refused to
give up the bodies of the dead to their kinsfolk for burial, but flung
them away unburied, and hid them just as they pleased, in order that
it might appear that they had nothing to do with these cruel
transactions, and were ignorant of them. But they were deceived in
this foolish expectation: for the friends of the slain, while they
rejoiced at the faithfulness of the deceased, deeply lamented the loss
of the corpses, and spread abroad a full account of the cruelty that
had been perpetrated.
"The following bishops were banished from Egypt and from
Libya:--Ammonius, Muïus, Caius, Philo, Hermes, Plenius, Psinosiris,
Nilammon, Agapius, Anagamphus, Marcus, Dracontius, Adelphius, another
Ammonius, another Marcus, and Athenodorus; and also the presbyters
Hierax and Dioscorus [513] . These were all driven into exile in so
cruel a manner that many died on the road, and others at the place of
their banishment. The persecutors caused the death [514] of more than
thirty bishops. For, like Ahab, their mind was set on rooting out the
truth, had it been possible [515] ."
Athanasius also, in a letter addressed to the virgins [516] who were
treated with so much barbarity, uses the following words: "Let none of
you be grieved although these impious heretics grudge you burial and
prevent your corpses being carried forth. The impiety of the Arians
has reached such a height, that they block up the gates, and sit like
so many demons around the tombs, in order to hinder the dead from
being interred."
These and many other similar atrocities were perpetrated by Georgius
in Alexandria.
The holy Athanasius was well aware that there was no spot which could
be considered a place of safety for him; for the emperor had promised
a very large reward to whoever should bring him alive, or his head as
a proof of his death.
Footnotes
[510] Georgius, a fraudulent contractor of Constantinople (Ath. Hist.
Ar. 75), made Arian Bishop of Alexandria on the expulsion of
Athanasius, in a.d. 356, was born in a fuller's shop at Epiphania in
Cilicia. (Amm. Marc. xxii. 11, 3.) He was known as "the Cappadocian,"
and further illustrates the old saying of "Kappadokes Kretes Kilikes,
tria kappa kakista," and the kindred epigram Kappadoken pot' echidna
kake daken; ‡lla kai aute katthane geusamene haimatos hiobolou
The crimes of the brutal "Antipope" (Prof. Bright in Dict. Christ.
Biog.) are many, but he was a book-collector. (Jul. Ep. ix. 36, cf.
Gibbon 1. Chap. 23.) Gibbon says "the infamous George of Cappadocia
has been transformed into the renowned St. George of England;" an
identity sufficiently disproved.
[511] koimeterion, or sleeping-place. Cf. Chrysost. ed. Migne. ii.
394.
[512] The earliest account of the system of Manes or Mani is to be
found in Euseb. H.E. vii. 31. From the end of the * century it made
rapid progress.
[513] One Ammonius had been consecrated by Alexander, and was bishop
of Pacnemunis (Ath. ad Drac. 210, and Hist. Ar. §72). Another was
apparently consecrated by Athanasius (Hist. Ar. §72). An Ammonius was
banished to the Upper Oasis (id.). Caius was the orthodox bishop of
Thmuis. Philo was banished to Babylon (Hist. Ar. §72, cf. Jer. Vita
Hilarionis 30). Muïus, Psinosiris, Nilammon, Plenius, Marcus (the sees
of these two Marci were Zygra and Philæ), and Athenodorus, were
relegated to the parts about the Libyan Ammon, nine days' journey from
Alexandria, only that they might perish on the road. One did die.
(Hist Ar. §72.) Adelphius was bishop of Onuphis in the Delta, and was
sent to the Thebaid. (Tom. ad Ant. 615.) Dracontius, to whom
Athanasius addressed a letter, went to the deserts about Clysma (25 m.
s.w. of Suez), and Hierax and Dioscorus to Syene (Assouan (Hist. Ar.
§72), whither Trajan had banished Juvenal.
[514] Some authorities read more mildly, "drove into exile."
[515] Ap. de fug. §7. Cf. Hist. Ar. §72.
[516] "Hæc Athanasii Epistola hodie quod sciam non extat." Valesius.
Chapter XII.--Council of Milan.
After the death of Constans, Magnentius assumed the chief authority
over the Western empire; and, to repress his usurpation, Constantius
repaired to Europe. But this war, severe as it was, did not put an end
to the war against the Church. Constantius, who had embraced Arian
tenets and readily yielded to the influence of others, was persuaded
to convoke a council at Milan [517] , a city of Italy, and first to
compel all the assembled bishops to sign the deposition enacted by the
iniquitous judges at Tyre; and then, since Athanasius had been
expelled from the Church, to draw up another confession of faith. The
bishops assembled in council on the receipt of the imperial letter,
but they were far from acting according to its directions. On the
contrary, they told the emperor to his face that what he had commanded
was unjust and impious. For this act of courage they were expelled
from the Church, and relegated to the furthest boundaries of the
empire.
The admirable Athanasius thus mentions this circumstance in his
Apology [518] :--"Who," he writes, "can narrate such atrocities as
they have perpetrated? A short time ago when the Churches were in the
enjoyment of peace, and when the people were assembled for prayer,
Liberius [519] , bishop of Rome, Paulinus, bishop of the metropolis of
Gaul [520] , Dionysius, bishop of the metropolis of Italy [521] ,
Luciferus, bishop of the metropolis of the Isles of Sardinia [522] ,
and Eusebius, bishop of one of the cities of Italy [523] , who were
all exemplary bishops and preachers of the truth, were seized and
driven into exile, for no other cause than because they could not
assent to the Arian heresy, nor sign the false accusation which had
been framed against us. It is unnecessary that I should speak of the
great Hosius, that aged [524] and faithful confessor of the faith, for
every one knows that he also was sent into banishment. Of all the
bishops he is the most illustrious. What council can be mentioned in
which he did not preside, and convince all present by the power of his
reasoning? What Church does not still retain the glorious memorials of
his protection? Did any one ever go to him sorrowing, and not leave
him rejoicing? Who ever asked his aid, and did not obtain all that he
desired? Yet they had the boldness to attack this great man, simply
because, from his knowledge of the impiety of their calumnies, he
refused to affix his signature to their artful accusations against
us."
From the above narrative will be seen the violence of the Arians
against these holy men. Athanasius also gives in the same book an
account of the numerous plots formed by the chiefs of the Arian
faction against many others:--"Did any one," said he, "whom they
persecuted and got into their power ever escape from them without
suffering what injuries they pleased to inflict? Was any one who was
an object of their search found by them whom they did not subject to
the most agonizing death, or else to the mutilation of all his limbs?
The sentences inflicted by the judges are all attributable to these
heretics; for the judges are but the agents of their will, and of
their malice. Where is there a place which contains no memorial of
their atrocities? If any one ever differed from them in opinion, did
they not, like Jezebel, falsely accuse and oppress him? Where is there
a church which has not been plunged in sorrow by their plots against
its bishop? Antioch has to mourn the loss of Eustathius, the faithful
and the orthodox [525] . Balaneæ weeps for Euphration [526] ; Paltus
[527] and Antaradus [528] for Cymatius and Carterius. Adrianople has
been called to deplore the loss of the well-beloved Eutropius [529] ,
and of Lucius his successor, who was repeatedly loaded with chains,
and expired beneath their weight [530] . Ancyra, Beroea, and Gaza had
to mourn the absence of Marcellus [531] , Cyrus [532] and Asclepas
[533] , who, after having suffered much ill-treatment from this
deceitful sect, were driven into exile. Messengers were sent in quest
of Theodulus [534] and Olympius [535] , bishops of Thrace, as well as
of me and of the presbyters of my diocese; and had they found us, we
should no doubt have been put to death. But at the very time that they
were planning our destruction we effected our escape, although they
had sent letters to Donatus, the proconsul, against Olympius, and to
Philagrius [536] , against me."
Such were the audacious acts of this impious faction against the most
holy Christians. Hosius was the bishop of Cordova, and was the most
highly distinguished of all those who assembled at the council of
Nicæa; he also obtained the first place among those convened at
Sardica.
I now desire to insert in my history an account of the admirable
arguments addressed by the far-famed Liberius, in defence of the
truth, to the emperor Constantius. They are recorded by some of the
pious men of that period in order to stimulate others to the exercise
of similar zeal in divine things. Liberius had succeeded Julius, the
successor of Silvester, in the government of the church of Rome.
Footnotes
[517] Athanasius was condemned at Arles (353) as well as at Milan in
355. At the latter place Constantius affected more than his father's
infallibility, and exclaimed, "What I will, be that a Canon." Ath.
Hist. Ar. §33.
[518] Apol. de fug. §4 and §5.
[519] For the persecution and vacillation of Liberius, "one of the few
Popes that can be charged with heresy" (Principal Barmby in Dict.
Christ. Biog. s.v.), see also Ath. Hist. Ar. §35 et seqq.
[520] Treves. Dionysius was the successor of St. Maximinus and a firm
champion of orthodoxy. Cf. Sulp. Sev. II. 52.
[521] Milan. Paulinus was banished to Cappadocia.
[522] Calaris (Cagliari). Luciferus, a vehement defender of
Athanasius, was banished to Eleutheropolis in Palestine. Mr. Ll.
Davies (Dict. Christ. Biog. s.v.), thinks the traditional story of the
imprisonment of Luciferus at Milan, to prevent his outspoken advocacy
of Athanasius, shews internal evidence of probability.
[523] Eusebius, bishop of Vercellæ (Vercelli), was a staunch
Athanasian. He was banished to Scythopolis, where the bishop
Patrophilus (cf. Book I. Chapter VI. and XX.), a leading Arian, was,
he says, his "jailer." (Vide his letters.)
[524] The epithet eugerotatos felicitously describes the honoured old
age of the bishop of Cordova--he was now a hundred years old (Hist.
Ar. §45)--before his pitiable lapse. He was sent to Sirmium
(Mitrovitz).
[525] Cf. Book I. Chap. 20.
[526] Euphration is mentioned also in Hist. Ar. §5. Balaneæ is now
Banias on the coast of Syria.
[527] Now Boldo, a little to the N. of Banias.
[528] In Phoenicia, now Tortosa.
[529] "A good and excellent man," Ath. Hist. Ar. §5.
[530] Vide p. 68, note.
[531] On the question of the orthodoxy of Marcellus of Ancyra
(Angora), vide the conflicting opinions of Bp Lightfoot (Dict. Christ.
Biog. ii. 342), and Mr. Ffoulkes (id. iii. 810). Ath. (Apol. contra
Ar. §47) says of the Council of Sardica, "The book of our brother
Marcellus was also read, by which the frauds of the Eusebians were
plainly discovered...his faith was found to be correct," cf. p. 67,
note.
[532] The successor of Eustathius at Beroea, cf. p. 41, note 65.
Socrates says the statement that Cyrus accused Eustathius of
Sabellianism is an Arian calumny (Soc. i. 24; ii. 9).
[533] Asclepas or Æsculapius was at Tyre (p. 62), and was deposed on
the charge of overturning an altar, hos thusiasterion anatrepsas (Soz.
iii. 8).
[534] Vide p. 68.
[535] Bishop of Ænos in Thrace, now Enos. (Hist. Ar. §19.) Here was
shown the tomb of Polydorus. Plin. 4, 11, 18. Virgil (Æn. iii. 18)
makes Æneas call it Æneadæ, but see Conington's note.
[536] Philagrius was præfect of Egypt a.d. 335-340. Ath. (Ep. Encyc.)
calls him "a persecutor of the Church and her virgins, an apostate of
bad character."
Chapter XIII.--Conference between Liberius, Pope of Rome, and the
Emperor Constantius [537] .
Constantius.--"We have judged it right, as you are a Christian and the
bishop of our city, to send for you in order to admonish you to abjure
all connexion with the folly of the impious Athanasius. For when he
was separated from the communion of the Church by the synod the whole
world approved of the decision."
Liberius.--"O Emperor, ecclesiastical sentences ought to be enacted
with strictest justice: therefore, if it be pleasing to your piety,
order the court to be assembled, and if it be seen that Athanasius
deserves condemnation, then let sentence be passed upon him according
to ecclesiastical forms. For it is not possible for us to condemn a
man unheard and untried."
Constantius.--"The whole world has condemned his impiety; but he, as
he has done from the first, laughs at the danger."
Liberius.--"Those who signed the condemnation were not eye-witnesses
of anything that occurred; but were actuated by the desire of glory,
and by the fear of disgrace at thy hands."
The Emperor.--"What do you mean by glory and fear and disgrace?"
Liberius.--"Those who love not the glory of God, but who attach
greater value to thy gifts, have condemned a man whom they have
neither seen nor judged; this is very contrary to the principles of
Christians."
The Emperor.--"Athanasius was tried in person at the council of Tyre,
and all the bishops of the world at that synod condemned him."
Liberius.--"No judgment has ever been passed on him in his presence.
Those who there assembled condemned him after he had retired."
Eusebius the Eunuch [538] foolishly interposed.--"It was demonstrated
at the council of Nicæa that he held opinions entirely at variance
with the catholic faith."
Liberius.--"Of all those who sailed to Mareotis, and who were sent for
the purpose of drawing up memorials against the accused, five only
delivered the sentence against him. Of the five who were thus sent,
two are now dead, namely, Theognis and Theodorus. The three others,
Maris, Valens, and Ursacius, are still living. Sentence was passed at
Sardica against all those who were sent for this purpose to Mareotis.
They presented a petition to the council soliciting pardon for having
drawn up at Mareotis memorials against Athanasius, consisting of false
accusations and depositions of only one party. Their petition is still
in our hands. Whose cause are we to espouse, O Emperor? With whom are
we to agree and hold communion? With those who first condemned
Athanasius, and then solicited pardon for having condemned him, or
with those who have condemned these latter?"
Epictetus [539] the Bishop.--"O Emperor, it is not on behalf of the
faith, nor in defence of ecclesiastical judgments that Liberius is
pleading; but merely in order that he may boast before the Roman
senators of having conquered the emperor in argument."
The Emperor (addressing Liberius).--"What portion do you constitute of
the universe, that you alone by yourself take part with an impious
man, and are destroying the peace of the empire and of the whole
world?"
Liberius.--"My standing alone does not make the truth a whit the
weaker. According to the ancient story, there are found but three men
resisting a decree."
Eusebius the Eunuch.--"You make our emperor a Nebuchadnezzar."
Liberius.--"By no means. But you rashly condemn a man without any
trial. What I desire is, in the first place, that a general confession
of faith be signed, confirming that drawn up at the council of Nicæa.
And secondly, that all our brethren be recalled from exile, and
reinstated in their own bishoprics. If, when all this has been carried
into execution, it can be shown that the doctrines of all those who
now fill the churches with trouble are conformable to the apostolic
faith, then we will all assemble at Alexandria to meet the accused,
the accusers, and their defender, and after having examined the cause,
we will pass judgment upon it."
Epictetus the Bishop.--"There will not be sufficient post-carriages to
convey so many bishops."
Liberius.--"Ecclesiastical affairs can be transacted without
post-carriages. The churches are able to provide means for the
conveyance of their respective bishops to the sea coast [540] ."
The Emperor.--"The sentence which has once been passed ought not to be
revoked. The decision of the greater number of bishops ought to
prevail. You alone retain friendship towards that impious man."
Liberius.--"O Emperor, it is a thing hitherto unheard of, that a judge
should accuse the absent of impiety, as if he were his personal
enemy."
The Emperor.--"All without exception have been injured by him, but
none so deeply as I have been. Not content with the death of my eldest
brother [541] , he never ceased to excite Constans, of blessed memory,
to enmity against me; but I, with much moderation, put up alike with
the vehemence of both the instigator and his victim. Not one of the
victories which I have gained, not even excepting those over
Magnentius and Silvanus, equals the ejection of this vile man from the
government of the Church."
Liberius.--"Do not vindicate your own hatred and revenge, O Emperor,
by the instrumentality of bishops; for their hands ought only to be
raised for purposes of blessing and of sanctification. If it be
consonant with your will, command the bishops to return to their own
residences; and if it appear that they are of one mind with him who
to-day maintains the true doctrines of the confession of faith signed
at Nicæa, then let them come together and see to the peace of the
world, in order that an innocent man may not serve as a mark for
reproach."
The Emperor.--"One question only requires to be made. I wish you to
enter into communion with the churches, and to send you back to Rome.
Consent therefore to peace, and sign your assent, and then you shall
return to Rome."
Liberius.--"I have already taken leave of the brethren who are in that
city. The decrees of the Church are of greater importance than a
residence in Rome."
The Emperor.--"You have three days to consider whether you will sign
the document and return to Rome; if not, you must choose the place of
your banishment."
Liberius.--"Neither three days nor three months can change my
sentiments. Send me wherever you please."
After the lapse of two days the emperor sent for Liberius, and finding
his opinions unchanged, he commanded him to be banished to Beroea, a
city of Thrace. Upon the departure of Liberius, the emperor sent him
five hundred pieces of gold to defray his expenses. Liberius said to
the messenger who brought them, "Go, and give them back to the
emperor; he has need of them to pay his troops." The empress [542]
also sent him a sum of the same amount; he said, "Take it to the
emperor, for he may want it to pay his troops; but if not, let it be
given to Auxentius and Epictetus, for they stand in need of it."
Eusebius the eunuch brought him other sums of money, and he thus
addressed him: "You have turned all the churches of the world into a
desert, and do you bring alms to me, as to a criminal? Begone, and
become first a Christian [543] ." He was sent into exile three days
afterwards, without having accepted anything that was offered him.
Footnotes
[537] The interview took place at Milan, after the Eunuch Eusebius,
Chamberlain of Constantius, had in vain tried to win over the bishop
at Rome, and had exasperated him by making an improper offering at the
shrine of St. Peter. (Hist. Ar. §86.)
[538] I adopt the suggestion of Valesius, that alogos refers not to
the condemnation, but to the foolish remark of the imperial
chamberlain. Another expedient for clearing Eusebius of the absurdity
of saying that Athanasius was condemned at Nicæa, where he triumphed,
has been to read Tyre for Nicæa.
[539] Bishop of Centumcellæ (Civita Vecchia); "a bold young fellow,
ready for any mischief." A protégé of the Cappadocian Georgius, he was
an Arian of the worst type, and had effected the substitution of Felix
for Liberius in the Roman see by irregular and scandalous means. (Ath.
Hist. Ar. §75.)
[540] A passage of Ammianus Marcellinus (xxi. 16) on the "cursus
publicus" has been made famous by Gibbon. "The Christian religion,
which in itself is plain and simple, Constantius confounded by the
dotage of superstition. Instead of reconciling the parties by the
weight of his authority, he cherished and propagated, by verbal
disputes, the differences which his vain curiosity had excited. The
highways were covered with troops of bishops galloping from every side
to the assemblies which they call synods; and while they laboured to
reduce the whole sect to their own particular opinions, the public
establishment of the posts was almost ruined by their hasty and
repeated journeys." Gibbon, chap. xx.
[541] Constantine II. had befriended Athanasius, but the patriarch was
neither directly nor indirectly responsible for his attack on Constans
and his death.
[542] Eusebia. Constantius II. was thrice married; (i) a.d. 336 (Eus.
Vit. Const. iv. 49), to his cousin Constantia, sister of Julian (vid.
Pedigree in proleg.); (ii) a.d. 352, to Aurelia Eusebia, an Arian "of
exceptional beauty of body and mind" (Amm. Marc. xxi. 6), and (iii)
a.d. 360 or 361, to Faustina.
[543] Liberius does not reckon the Arian eunuch as a Christian.
Chapter XIV.--Concerning the Banishment and Return of the Holy
Liberius.
This victorious champion of the truth was sent into Thrace, according
to the imperial order. Two years after this event Constantius went to
Rome. The ladies of rank urged their husbands to petition the emperor
for the restoration of the shepherd to his flock: they added, that if
this were not granted, they would desert them, and go themselves after
their great pastor. Their husbands replied, that they were afraid of
incurring the resentment of the emperor. "If we were to ask him," they
continued, "being men, he would deem it an unpardonable offence; but
if you were yourselves to present the petition, he would at any rate
spare you, and would either accede to your request, or else dismiss
you without injury." These noble ladies adopted this suggestion, and
presented themselves before the emperor in all their customary
splendour of array, that so the sovereign, judging their rank from
their dress, might count them worthy of being treated with courtesy
and kindness. Thus entering the presence, they besought him to take
pity on the condition of so large a city, deprived of its shepherd,
and made an easy prey to the attacks of wolves. The emperor replied,
that the flock possessed a shepherd capable of tending it, and that no
other was needed in the city. For after the banishment of the great
Liberius, one of his deacons, named Felix, had been appointed bishop.
He preserved inviolate the doctrines set forth in the Nicene
confession of faith, yet he held communion with those who had
corrupted that faith. For this reason none of the citizens of Rome
would enter the House of Prayer while he was in it. The ladies
mentioned these facts to the emperor. Their persuasions were
successful; and he commanded that the great Liberius should be
recalled from exile, and that the two bishops should conjointly rule
the Church. The edict of the emperor was read in the circus, and the
multitude shouted that the imperial ordinance was just; that the
spectators were divided into two factions, each deriving its name from
its own colours [544] , and that each faction would now have its own
bishop. After having thus ridiculed the edict of the emperor, they all
exclaimed with one voice, "One God, one Christ, one bishop." I have
deemed it right to set down their precise words. Some time after this
Christian people had uttered these pious and righteous acclamations,
the holy Liberius returned, and Felix retired to another city.
I have, for the sake of preserving order, appended this narrative to
what relates to the proceedings of the bishops at Milan. I shall now
return to the relation of events in their due course.
Footnotes
[544] There were originally four factions in the Circus; blue, green,
white, and red. Domitian added two more, golden and purple. But the
blue and the green absorbed the rest, and divided the multitude at the
games. Cf. Juv. XI. 197. "Totam hodie Romam circus capit, et fragor
aurem Percutit, eventum viridis quo colligo panni." Cf. Amm. Marc.
xiv. 6, and Plin. Ep. ix. 6.
Chapter XV.--Council of Ariminum [545] .
When all who defended the faith had been removed, those who moulded
the mind of the emperor according to their own will, flattering
themselves that the faith which they opposed might be easily
subverted, and Arianism established in its stead, persuaded
Constantius to convene the Bishops of both East and West at Ariminum
[546] , in order to remove from the Creed the terms which had been
devised by the Fathers to counteract the corrupt craft of
Arius,--"substance [547] ," and "of one substance [548] ." For they
would have it that these terms had caused dissension between church
and church. On their assembling in synod the partizans of the Arian
faction strove to trick the majority of the bishops, especially those
of cities of the Western Empire, who were men of simple and
unsophisticated ways. The body of the Church, they argued again and
again, must not be torn asunder for the sake of two terms which are
not to be found in the Bible; and, while they confessed the propriety
of describing the Son as in all things "like" the Father, pressed the
omission of the word "substance" as unscriptural. The motives,
however, of the propounders of these views were seen through by the
Council, and they were consequently repudiated. The orthodox bishops
declared their mind to the emperor in a letter; for, said they, we are
sons and heirs of the Fathers of the Council of Nicæa, and if we were
to have the hardihood to take away anything from what was by them
subscribed, or to add anything to what they so excellently settled, we
should declare ourselves no true sons, but accusers of them that begat
us. But the exact terms of their confession of faith will be more
accurately given in the words of their letter to Constantius.
Letter [549] written to the Emperor Constantius by the Synod assembled
at Ariminum.
"Summoned, we believe, at the bidding of God, and in obedience to your
piety, we bishops of the Western Church assembled in synod at Ariminum
in order that the faith of the Church Catholic might be set forth, and
its opponents exposed. After long consideration we have found it to be
plainly best for us to hold fast and guard, and by guarding keep safe
unto the end, the faith established from the first, preached by
Prophets, and Evangelists, and Apostles, through our Lord Jesus
Christ, warden of thy empire, and champion of thy salvation. For it is
plainly absurd and unlawful to make any change in the doctrines
rightly and justly defined, and in matters examined at Nicæa with the
cognisance of the right glorious Constantine, thy Father and Emperor,
whereof the teaching and spirit was published and preached that
mankind might hear and understand. This faith was destined to be the
one rival and destroyer of the Arian heresy, and by it not only the
Arian itself, but likewise all other heresies were undone. To this
faith to add aught is verily perilous; from it to subtract aught is to
run great risk. If it have either addition or loss, our foes will feel
free to act as they please. Accordingly Ursacius and Valens, declared
adherents and friends of the Arian dogma, were pronounced separate
from our communion. To keep their place in it, they asked to be
granted a locus penitentiæ and pardon for all the points wherein they
had owned themselves in error; as is testified by the documents
written by themselves, by means of which they obtained favour and
forgiveness. These events were going on at the very time when the
synod was meeting at Milan, the presbyters of the church of Rome being
also present. It was known that Constantine, who, though dead, is
worthy of remembrance, had, with all exactitude and care, set forth
the creed drawn up: and now that, after receiving Baptism, he was
dead, and had passed away to the peace which he deserved. We judged it
absurd for us after him to indulge in any innovation, and throw a slur
on all the holy confessors and martyrs who had devised and formulated
this doctrine, in that their minds have ever remained bound by the old
bond of the Church. Their faith God has handed down even to the times
of thy own reign, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by Whose grace such
empire is thine that thou rulest over all the world. Yet again those
pitiable and wretched men, with lawless daring, have proclaimed
themselves preachers of their unholy opinion, and are taking in hand
the overthrow of all the force of the truth. For when at thy command
the synod assembled, then they laid bare their own disingenuous
desires. For they set about trying through villany and confusion to
make innovation. They got hold of certain of their own following--one
Germanius [550] , and Auxentius [551] , and Caius [552] , promoters of
heresy and discord, whose doctrine, though but one, transcends a very
host of blasphemies. When, however, they became aware that we were not
of their way of thinking, nor in sympathy with their vicious projects,
they made their way into our meeting as though to make some other
proposal, but a very short time was enough to convict them of their
real intentions. Therefore in order to save the management of the
Church from falling from time to time into the same difficulties, and
to prevent them from being confounded in whirlpools of disturbance and
disorder, it has seemed the safe course to keep what has been defined
aforetime fixed and unchanged, and to separate the above-named from
our communion. Wherefore we have sent envoys to your clemency to
signify and explain the mind of the synod as expressed in this letter.
These envoys before all things we have charged to guard the truth in
accordance with the old and right definitions. They are to inform your
holiness, not as did Ursacius and Valens, that there will be peace if
the truth be upset; for how can the destroyers of peace be agents of
peace? but rather that these changes will bring strife and
disturbance, as well on the rest of the cities, as on the Roman
church. Wherefore we beseech your clemency to receive our envoys with
kindly ears and gentle mien, and not to suffer any new thing to flout
the dead. Suffer us to abide in the definition and settlement of our
Fathers, whom we would unhesitatingly declare to have done all they
did with intelligence and wisdom, and with the Holy Ghost. The
innovation now sought to be introduced is filling the faithful with
unbelief, and unbelievers with credulity [553] .
"We beg you to order bishops in distant parts, who are afflicted alike
by advanced age and poverty, to be provided with facilities for
travelling home, that the churches be not left long deprived of their
bishops.
"And yet again this one thing we supplicate, that nothing be taken
from or added to the established doctrines, but that all remain
unbroken, as they have been preserved by your father's piety, and to
our own day. Let us toil no longer nor be kept away from our own
dioceses, but let the bishops with their own people spend their days
in peace, in prayer, and in worship, offering supplication for thy
empire, and health, and peace, which God shall grant thee for ever and
ever. Our envoys, who will also instruct your holiness out of the
sacred Scriptures, convey the signatures and salutations of the
bishops."
The letter was written, and the envoys sent, but the high officers of
the Imperial Court, though they took the despatch and delivered it to
their master, refused to introduce the envoys, on the ground that the
sovereign was occupied with state affairs. They took this course in
the hope that the bishops, annoyed at delay, and eager to return to
the cities entrusted to their care, would at length be compelled
themselves to break up and disperse the bulwark erected against
heresy. But their ingenuity was frustrated, for the noble champions of
the Faith despatched a second letter to the emperor, exhorting him to
admit the envoys to audience and dissolve the synod. This letter I
subjoin.
The Second Letter of the Synod to Constantius.
"To Constantius the Victorious, the pious emperor, the bishops
assembled at Ariminum send greeting.
"Most illustrious lord and autocrat, we have received the letter of
your clemency, informing us that, in consequence of occupations of
state, you have hitherto been unable to see our envoys. You bid us
await their return, that your piety may come to a decision on the
object we have in view, and on the decrees of our predecessors. But we
venture in this letter to repeat to your clemency the point which we
urged before, for we have in no way withdrawn from our position. We
entreat you to receive with benign countenance the letter of our
humility, wherein now we make answer to your piety, and the points
which we have ordered to be submitted to your benignity by our envoys.
Your clemency is no less aware than we are ourselves how serious and
unfitting a state of things it is, that in the time of your most happy
reign so many churches should seem to be without bishops. Wherefore
once again, most glorious autocrat, we beseech you that, if it be
pleasing to your humanity, you will command us to return to our
churches before the rigour of winter, that we may be able, with our
people, as we have done and ever do, to offer most earnest prayers for
the health and wealth of your empire to Almighty God, and to Christ
His Son, our Lord and Saviour."
Footnotes
[545] a.d. 359.
[546] The eastern bishops were summoned to Seleucia, in Cilicia; the
western to Ariminum, (Rimini). "A previous Conference was held at
Sirmium, in order to determine on the creed to be presented to the
bipartite Council....The Eusebians struggled for the adoption of the
Acacian Homoeon, which the Emperor had already both received and
abandoned, and they actually effected the adoption of the `like in all
things according to the Scriptures,' a phrase in which the
semi-Arians, indeed, included their `like in substance' or Homoeüsion,
but which did not necessarily refer to substance or nature at all.
Under these circumstances the two Councils met in the autumn of a.d.
359, under the nominal superintendence of the semi-Arians; but, on the
Eusebian side, the sharp-witted Acacius undertaking to deal with the
disputatious Greeks, the overbearing and cruel Valens with the plainer
Latins." (Newman, Arians, iv. §4.) At Seleucia there were 150 bishops;
at Ariminum 400.
[547] ousia
[548] homoousion
[549] This letter exists in Ath. de Syn. Arim. et Seleu., Soc. ii. 39,
Soz. iv. 10, and the Latin of Hilarius (Fr. viii.), which frequently
differs considerably from the Greek.
[550] Germanus (Ath. and Soz.), Germinius (according to Hilarius),
bishop of Cyzicus, was translated to Sirmium, a.d. 356. The creed
composed by Marcus of Arethusa with the aid of Germinius, Valens and
others, is known as "the dated creed," from the minuteness, satirized
by Athanasius, with which it specifies the day (May 22, a.d. XI. Kal.
Jun.), in the consulate of Eusebius and Hypatius (Ath. de Syn. §8).
[551] Auxentius, the elder, bishop of Milan, succeeded Dionysius in
355, and occupied the see till his death in 374, when Ambrose was
chosen to fill his place. Auxentius, the younger, known also as
Mercurinus, was afterwards set up by the Arian Court party as a rival
bishop to Ambrose. A third Auxentius, a supporter of the heretic
Jovinianus, is mentioned in the Epistle of Siricius. Vide reff. in
Baronius and Tillemont. An Auxentius, Arian bishop of Mopsuestia, is
mentioned by Philostorgius, v. 1. 2.
[552] A Pannonian bishop. Ath. ad Epict.
[553] The word in the text is omoteta, which is supposed to have stood
for crudelitatem, a clerical error for credulitatem in the Latin
original.
Chapter XVI.--Concerning the Synod held at Nica [554] in Thrace, and
the Confession of Faith drawn up there.
After this letter they [555] irritated the emperor, and got the
majority of the bishops, against their will, to a certain town of
Thrace, of the name of Nica. Some simple men they deluded, and others
they terrified, into carrying out their old contrivance for injuring
the true religion, by erasing the words "Substance" and "of one
Substance" from the Creed, and inserting instead of them the word
"like." I insert their formula in this history, not as being couched
in proper terms, but because it convicts the faction of Arius, for it
is not even accepted by the disaffected of the present time. Now,
instead of "the like" they preach "the unlike [556] ."
Unsound Creed put forth at Nica in Thrace.
"We believe in one only true God, Father Almighty, of Whom are all
things. And in the only-begotten Son of God, Who before all ages and
before every beginning was begotten of God, through Whom all things
were made, both visible and invisible: alone begotten, only-begotten
of the Father alone, God of God: like the Father that begat Him,
according to the Scriptures, Whose generation no one knoweth except
only the Father that begat Him. This Only-begotten Son of God, sent by
His Father, we know to have come down from heaven, as it is written,
for the destruction of sin and death; begotten of the Holy Ghost and
the Virgin Mary, as it is written, according to the flesh. Who
companied with His disciples, and when the dispensation was fulfilled,
according to the Father's will, was crucified, dead, and buried, and
descended to the world below, at Whom Hell himself trembled. On the
third day He rose from the dead and companied with His disciples forty
days. He was taken up into Heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of
His Father, and is coming at the last day of the Resurrection, in His
Father's Glory, to render to every one according to his works. And we
believe in the Holy Ghost, which the Only-begotten Son of God, Jesus
Christ, both God and Lord, promised to send to man, the Comforter, as
it is written, the Spirit of Truth. This Spirit He Himself sent after
He had ascended into Heaven and sat at the right hand of the Father,
from thence to come to judge both quick and dead. But the word `the
Substance,' which was too simply inserted by the Fathers, and, not
being understood by the people, was a cause of scandal through its not
being found in the Scriptures, it hath seemed good to us to remove,
and that for the future no mention whatever be permitted of
`Substance,' on account of the sacred Scriptures nowhere making any
mention of the `Substance' of the Father and the Son. Nor must one
`essence [557] ' be named in relation to the person [558] of Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost. And we call the Son like the Father, as the Holy
Scriptures call Him and teach; but all the heresies, both those
already condemned, and any, if such there be, which have risen against
the document thus put forth, let them be Anathema."
This Creed was subscribed by the bishops, some being frightened and
some cajoled, but those who refused to give in their adhesion were
banished to the most remote regions of the world.
Footnotes
[554] At or near the modern Hafsa, not far to the S. of Adrianople.
[555] i.e. the Arians.
[556] "The Eusebians, little pleased with the growing dogmatism of
members of their own body, fell upon the expedient of confining their
confession to Scripture terms; which, when separated from their
context, were of course inadequate to concentrate and ascertain the
true doctrine. Hence the formula of the Homoeon, which was introduced
by Acacius with the express purpose of deceiving or baffling the
semi-Arian members of his party. This measure was the more necessary
for Eusebian interests, inasmuch as a new variety of the heresy arose
in the East at the same time, advocated by Aetius and Eunomius; who,
by professing boldly the pure Arian text, alarmed Constantius, and
threw him back upon Basil, and the other semi-Arians. This new
doctrine, called Anomoean, because it maintained that the usia or
substance of the Son was unlike (anomoios) the Divine usia, was
actually adopted by one portion of the Eusebians, Valens, and his rude
occidentals; whose language and temper, not admitting the refinements
of Grecian genius, led them to rush from orthodoxy into the most hard
and undisguised impiety. And thus the parties stand at the date now
before us (a.d. 356-361); Constantius being alternately swayed by
Basil, Acacius, and Valens, that is by the Homousian, the Homoean, and
the Anomoean, the semi-Arian, the Scripturalist, and the Arian pure"
(Newman, Arians, iv. §4).
[557] hupostasis
[558] prosopon
Chapter XVII.--Synodical Act of Damasus, Bishop of Rome, and of the
Western Bishops, about the Council at Ariminum.
The condemnation of this formula by all the champions of the truth,
and specially those of the West, is shewn by the letter which they
wrote to the Illyrians [559] . First of the signatories was Damasus,
who obtained the presidency of the church of Rome after Liberius, and
was adorned with many virtues [560] . With him signed ninety bishops
of Italy and Galatia [561] , now called Gaul, who met together at
Rome. I would have inserted their names but that I thought it
superfluous.
"The bishops assembled at Rome in sacred synod, Damasus and Valerianus
[562] and the rest, to their beloved brethren the bishops of Illyria,
send greeting in God.
"We believe that we, priests of God, by whom it is right for the rest
to be instructed, are holding and teaching our people the Holy Creed
which was founded on the teaching of the Apostles, and in no way
departs from the definitions of the Fathers. But through a report of
the brethren in Gaul and Venetia we have learnt that certain men are
fallen into heresy.
"It is the duty of the bishops not only to take precautions against
this mischief, but also to make a stand against whatever divergent
teaching has arisen, either from incomplete instruction, or the
simplicity of readers of unsound commentators. They should be minded
not to slide into slippery paths, but rather whensoever divergent
counsels are carried to their ears, to hold fast the doctrine of our
fathers. It has, therefore, been decided that Auxentius of Milan is in
this matter specially condemned. So it is right that all the teachers
of the law in the Roman Empire should be well instructed in the law,
and not befoul the faith with divergent doctrines.
"When first the wickedness of the heretics began to flourish, and
when, as now, the blasphemy of the Arians was crawling to the front,
our fathers, three hundred and eighteen bishops, the holiest prelates
in the Roman Empire, deliberated at Nicæa. The wall which they set up
against the weapons of the devil, and the antidote wherewith they
repelled his deadly poisons, was their confession that the Father and
the Son are of one substance, one godhead, one virtue, one power, one
likeness [563] , and that the Holy Ghost is of the same essence [564]
and substance. Whoever did not thus think was judged separate from our
communion. Their deliberation was worthy of all respect, and their
definition sound. But certain men have intended by other later
discussions to corrupt and befoul it. Yet, at the very outset, error
was so far set right by the bishops on whom the attempt was made at
Ariminum to compel them to manipulate or innovate on the faith, that
they confessed themselves seduced by opposite arguments, or owned that
they had not perceived any contradiction to the opinion of the Fathers
delivered at Nicæa. No prejudice could arise from the number of
bishops gathered at Ariminum, since it is well known that neither the
bishop of the Romans, whose opinion ought before all others to have
been waited for, nor Vincentius, whose stainless episcopate had lasted
so many years, nor the rest, gave in their adhesion to such doctrines.
And this is the more significant, since, as has been already said, the
very men who seemed to be tricked into surrender, themselves, in their
wiser moments, testified their disapproval.
"Your sincerity then perceives that this one faith, which was founded
at Nicæa on the authority of the Apostles, ought to be kept secure for
ever. You perceive that with us, the bishops of the East, who confess
themselves Catholic, and the western bishops, together glory in it. We
believe that before long those who think otherwise ought without delay
to be put out from our communion, and deprived of the name of bishop,
that their flocks may be freed from error and breathe freely. For they
cannot be expected to correct the errors of their people when they
themselves are the victims of error. May the opinion of your reverence
be in harmony with that of all the priests of God. We believe you to
be fixed and firm in it, and thus ought we rightly to believe with
you. May your charity make us glad by your reply.
"Beloved brethren, farewell."
Footnotes
[559] The letter is given in Soz. vi. 23. The Latin text (Coll. Rom.
ed. Holsten. p. 163) differs materially from the Greek.
[560] These were displayed after his establishment in his see. He was
the nominee of the Arian party, and bloody scenes marked the struggle
with his rival Ursinus. "Damasus et Ursinus, supra humanum modum ad
rapiendam episcopatus sedem ardentes, scissis studiis asperrime
conflictabantur, adusque mortis vulnerumque discrimina
progressis....Constat in basilica ubi ritus christiani conventiculum
uno die centum triginta septem reperta cadavera peremptorum." Amm.
Marc. xxvii. 3, 13. "But we can say that he used his success well, and
that the chair of St. Peter was never more respected nor more vigorous
than during his bishopric." Mr. Moberly in Dict. Christ. Biog. i. 782.
Jerome calls him (Ep. Hier. xlviii. 230) "an illustrious man, virgin
doctor of the virgin church." But not his least claim to our regard is
that in the Catacombs it was his "labour of love to rediscover the
tombs which had been blocked up for concealment under Diocletian, to
remove the earth, widen the passages, adorn the sepulchral chambers
with marble, and support the friable tufa walls with arches of brick
and stone." "Roma Sotterranea," Northcote and Brownlow, p. 97.
[561] Galatai = Keltoi, the older name, which exists in Herodotus II.
33 and IV. 49. Pausanias (I. iii. 5) says opse de pote autous
kaleisthai Galatas exenikese, Keltoi gar kata te sphas to archaion kai
para tois allois onomazonto. Galatia occurs on the Monumentum
Ancyranum. Bp. Lightfoot (Galat. p. 3) says the first instance of
Gallia (Galli) which he has found in any Greek writer is in Epictetus
II. 20, 17.
[562] In Sozomen, Valerius, Bishop of Aquileia. "But little is known
of his life, but under his rule there grew up at Aquileia the society
of remarkable persons of whom Hieronymus became the most famous."
Dict. Christ. Biog. iv. 1102.
[563] charakter; contrast the statement in Heb. i. 3, that the Son is
the charakter of the person of the Father. charakter in the letter of
Damasus approaches more nearly our use of "character" as meaning
distinctive qualities. cf. Plato Phæd. 26 B.
[564] hupostasis
Chapter XVIII.--The Letter of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria,
concerning the same Council.
The great Athanasius also, in his letter to the Africans, writes thus
about the council at Ariminum. "Under these circumstances who will
tolerate any mention of the council of Ariminum or any other beside
the Nicene? Who would not express detestation of the setting aside of
the words of the Fathers, and the preference for those introduced at
Ariminum by violence and party strife? Who would wish to be associated
with these men--fellows who do not, forsooth, accept their own words?
In their own ten or a dozen synods they have laid down, as has been
narrated already, now one thing now another; and at the present time
these synods, one after another, they are themselves openly
denouncing. They are now suffering the fate undergone of old by the
traitors of the Jews. For as is written in the Book of the Prophet
Jeremiah "they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters and
hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns that can hold no water,"
[565] so these men, in their opposition to the OEcumenical synod, have
hewed for themselves many synods which have all proved vain and like
"buds that yield no meal," [566] let us not therefore admit those who
cite the council of Ariminum or any other but that of Nicæa, for
indeed the very citers of Ariminum do not seem to know what was done
there; if they had they would have held their tongues. For you,
beloved, have learnt from your own representatives at that Council,
and are consequently very well aware, that Ursacius, Valens, Eudoxius,
and Auxentius, and with them Demophilus were asked to anathematize the
Arian heresy, and made excuse, choosing rather to be its champions,
and so were all deposed for making propositions contrary to the Nicene
decrees. The bishops, on the contrary, who were the true servants of
the Lord, and of the right faith,--about two hundred in
number,--declared their adherence to the Nicene Council alone, and
their refusal to entertain the thought of either subtraction from, or
addition to, its decrees. This conclusion they have communicated to
Constantius, by whose order the council assembled.
On the other hand the bishops who were deposed at Ariminum have been
received by Constantius, and have succeeded in getting the two hundred
who sentenced them grossly insulted, and threatened with not being
allowed to return to their dioceses, and with having to undergo
rigorous treatment in Thrace, and that in the winter, in order to
force them to accept the innovators' measures.
If, then, we hear any one appealing to Ariminum, show us, let us
rejoin, first the sentence of deposition, and then the document drawn
up by the bishops, in which they declare that they do not seek to go
beyond the terms drawn up by the Nicene Fathers, nor appeal to any
other council than that of Nicæa. In reality, these are just the facts
they conceal, while they put prominently forward the forced confession
of Thrace. They do but shew themselves friends of the Arian heresy,
and strangers to the sound faith. Only let any one be willing to put
side by side that great synod, and those others to which these men
appeal, and he will perceive, on the one side, true religion, on the
other, folly and disorder. The fathers of Nicæa met together not after
being deposed, but after confessing that the Son was of the Substance
of the Father. These men were deposed once, a second time, and again a
third time at Ariminum, and then dared to lay down that it is wrong to
attribute Substance or Essence to God. So strange and so many were the
tricks and machinations concocted by the mad gang of Arius in the West
against the dogmas of the Truth.
Footnotes
[565] Jer. ii. 13
[566] Hosea viii. 7. The text "dragmata me echonta hischun" recalls
the septuagint dragma ouk echon ischun
Chapter XIX.--Concerning the cunning of Leontius, Bishop of Antioch,
and the boldness of Flavianus and Diodorus.
At Antioch Placidus was succeeded by Stephanus, who was expelled from
the Church. Leontius then accepted the Primacy, but in violation of
the decrees of the Nicene Council, for he had mutilated himself, and
was an eunuch. The cause of his rash deed is thus narrated by the
blessed Athanasius. Leontius, it seems, was the victim of slanderous
statements on account of a certain young woman of the name of
Eustolia. [567] Finding himself prevented from dwelling with her he
mutilated himself for her sake, in order that he might feel free to
live with her. But he did not clear himself of suspicion, and all the
more for this reason was deposed from the presbyterate. So much
Athanasius has written about the rest of his earlier life. I shall now
give a summary exposure of his evil conduct. Now though he shared the
Arian error, he always endeavoured to conceal his unsoundness. He
observed that the clergy and the rest of the people were divided into
two parts, the one, in giving glory to the Son, using the conjunction
"and," the other using the preposition "through" of the Son, and
applying "in" to the Holy Ghost. He himself offered all the doxology
in silence, and all that those standing near him could hear was the
"For ever and ever." And had not the exceeding wickedness of his soul
been betrayed by other means, it might have been said that he adopted
this contrivance from a wish to promote concord among the people. But
when he had wrought much mischief to the champions of the truth, and
continued to give every support to the promoters of impiety, he was
convicted of concealing his own unsoundness. He was influenced both by
his fear of the people, and by the grievous threats which Constantius
had uttered against any who had dared to say that the Son was unlike
the Father. His real sentiments were however proved by his conduct.
Followers of the Apostolic doctrines never received from him either
ordination or indeed the least encouragement. Men, on the other hand,
who sided with the Arian superstition, were both allowed perfect
liberty in expressing their opinions, and were from time to time
admitted to priestly office. At this juncture Aetius, the master of
Eunomius, who promoted the Arian error by his speculations, was
admitted to the diaconate. Flavianus and Diodorus, however, who had
embraced an ascetic career, and were open champions of the Apostolic
decrees, publicly protested against the attacks of Leontius against
true religion. That a man nurtured in iniquity and scheming to win
notoriety by ungodliness should be counted worthy of the diaconate,
was, they urged, a disgrace to the Church. They further threatened
that they would withdraw from his communion, travel to the western
empire, and publish his plots to the world. Leontius was now alarmed,
and suspended Aetius from his sacred office, but continued to show him
marked favour.
That excellent pair Flavianus and Diodorus, [568] though not yet
admitted to the priesthood and still ranked with the laity, worked
night and day to stimulate men's zeal for truth. They were the first
to divide choirs into two parts, and to teach them to sing the psalms
of David antiphonally. Introduced first at Antioch, the practice
spread in all directions, and penetrated to the ends of the earth. Its
originators now collected the lovers of the Divine word and work into
the Churches of the Martyrs, and with them spent the night in singing
psalms to God.
When Leontius perceived this, he did not think it safe to try to
prevent them, for he saw that the people were exceedingly
well-disposed towards these excellent men. However, putting a colour
of courtesy on his speech, he requested that they would perform this
act of worship in the churches. They were perfectly well aware of his
evil intent. Nevertheless they set about obeying his behest and
readily summoned their choir [569] to the Church, exhorting them to
sing praises to the good Lord. Nothing, however, could induce Leontius
to correct his wickedness, but he put on the mask of equity, [570] and
concealed the iniquity of Stephanus and Placidus. Men who had accepted
the corruption of the faith of priests and deacons, although they had
embraced a life of vile irregularity, he added to the roll; while
others adorned with every kind of virtue and firm adherents of
apostolic doctrines, he left unrecognised. Thus it came to pass that
among the clergy were numbered a majority of men tainted with heresy,
while the mass of the laity were champions of the Faith, and even
professional teachers lacked courage to lay bare their blasphemy. In
truth the deeds of impiety and iniquity done by Placidus, Stephanus,
and Leontius, in Antioch are so many as to want a special history of
their own, and so terrible as to be worthy of the lament of David; for
of them too it must be said "For lo thy enemies make a murmuring and
they that hate thee lift up their head. They have imagined craftily
against the people and taken counsel against thy secret ones. They
have said come and let us root them out that they be no more a people:
and that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance." [571]
Let us now continue the course of our narrative.
Footnotes
[567] Ath. Ap. de fug. §26 and Hist. Ar. §28. The question of
suneisaktai was one of the great scandals and difficulties of the
early Church. Some suppose that the case of Leontius was the cause of
the first Canon of the Nicene Council peri ton tolmonton heautous
ektemnein Theodoretus (iv. 12) relates an instance of what was
considered conjugal chastity, and the mischiefs referred to in the
text arose from the rash attempt to imitate such continence. Vide
Suicer in voc.
[568] Flavianus was a noble native of Antioch, and was afterwards
(381-404) bishop of that see. Diodorus in later times (c. 379) became
bishop of Tarsus, "one of the most deservedly venerated names in the
Eastern church for learning, sanctity, courage in withstanding heresy,
and zeal in the defence of the truth. Diodorus has a still greater
claim on the grateful remembrances of the whole church, as, if not the
founder, the chief promoter of the rational school of scriptural
interpretation, of which his disciples, Chrysostom and Theodorus of
Mopsuestia, and Theodoret, were such distinguished representatives."
Dict. Christ. Biog. i. 836. On the renewed championship of the
Antiochene church by Flavianus and Diodorus under the persecution of
Valens vide iv. 22. Socrates (vi. 8), describing the rivalry of the
Homoousians and Arians in singing partizan hymns antiphonally in the
streets of Antioch in the days of Arcadius, traces the mode of
chanting to the great Ignatius, who once in a Vision heard angels so
praising God. But, remarks Bp. Lightfoot (Apostolic Fathers Pt. 2. I.
p. 31.) "Antiphonal singing did not need to be suggested by a heavenly
Vision. It existed already among the heathen in the arrangements of
the Greek Chorus. It was practised with much elaboration of detail in
the Psalmody of the Jews, as appears from the account which is given
of the Egyptian Therapeutes. Its introduction into the Christian
Church therefore was a matter of course almost from the beginning: and
when we read in Pliny (Ep. x. 97) that the Christians of Bithynia sang
hymns to Christ as to a god, `alternately' (secum invicem) we may
reasonably infer that the practice of antiphonal singing prevailed far
beyond the limits of the church of Antioch, even in the time of
Ignatius himself." Augustine (Conf. ix. 7) states that the fashion of
singing "secundum morem orientalium partium" was introduced into the
Church of Milan at the time of the persecution of Ambrose by Justina,
"ne populus moeroris toedio contabesceret," and thence spread all over
the globe. Platina attributes the introduction of antiphons at Rome to
Pope Damasus. Hooker (ii. 166) quotes the older authority of "the
Prophet Esay," in the vision where the seraphim cried to one another
in what Bp. Mant calls "the alternate hymn."
[569] I prefer the reading of Basil Gr. and Steph. I. ergatas to the
erastas of Steph. 2 and Pin.
[570] epieikeias. "The mere existence of such a word as epieikeia is
itself a signal evidence of the high development of ethics among the
Greeks. It expresses exactly that moderation which recognizes the
impossibility, cleaving to formal law, of anticipating or providing
for all cases that will emerge, and present themselves to it for
decision...It is thus more truly just than strict justice will have
been; being dikaion kai beltion tinos dikaiou, as Aristotle expresses
it. Eth. Nic. V. 10. 6." Archbp. Trench's synonyms of the N.T. p. 151.
The "clemency" on which Tertullus reckons in Felix is epieikeia; and
in 2 Cor. x. St. Paul beseeches by the "gentleness" or epieikeia of
Christ.
[571] Ps. 83.--2-3-4
Chapter XX.--Concerning the innovations of Eudoxius, [572] of
Germanicia, and the zeal of Basilius [573] of Ancyra, and of
Eustathius [574] of Sebasteia against him.
Germanicia is a city on the coasts of Cilicia, Syria, and Cappadocia,
and belongs to the province called Euphratisia. Eudoxius, the head of
its church, directly he heard of the death of Leontius, betook himself
to Antioch and clutched the see, where he ravaged the vineyard of the
Lord like a wild boar. He did not even attempt to hide his evil ways,
like Leontius, but raged in direct attack upon the apostolic decrees,
and involved in various troubles all who had the hardihood to gainsay
him. Now at this time Basilius had succeeded Marcellus, and held the
helm of the church of Ancyra, the capital of Galatia, and Sebastia,
the chief city of Armenia, was under the guidance of Eustathius. No
sooner had these bishops heard of the iniquity and madness of
Eudoxius, than they wrote to inform the Emperor Constantius of his
audacity. Constantius was now still tarrying in the west, and, after
the death of the tyrants, was endeavouring to heal the harm they had
caused. Both bishops were well known to the Emperor and had great
influence with him on account of the high character they bore.
Footnotes
[572] Eudoxius, eighth bishop of Constantinople, and formerly of
Germanicia (Germanikeia, now Marash, or Banicia), was one of the most
violent of the Arians. He was originally refused ordination by St.
Eustathius, but on the deposition of that bishop in 331 the Eusebians
pushed him forward. After ruling at Germanicia for some seventeen
years he intruded himself on the see of Antioch. Under the patronage
of the Acacians he became patriarch of Constantinople in 360, and died
in 370.
[573] Basilius, a learned physician, a Semiarian of Ancyra, was made
bishop of that see on the deposition of Marcellus, in 336, and
excommunicated at Sardica in 347. In 350 he was reinstated at the
command of Constantius. He was again exiled under Acacian influence,
failed to get restitution from Jovian, and probably died in exile.
(Soc. ii, 20, 26, iv, 24.) Vide also Theod. ii, 23. His works are
lost. Athanasius praises him as among those who were (de Synod. 603
ed. Migne) "not far from accepting the Homousion."
[574] Eustathius was bishop of Sebasteia or Sebaste (Siwas) on the
Halys, from 357 to 380. Basil, Ep. 244, §9, says that he was a heretic
"black who could not turn white"; but he exhibited many shades of
theological colour, preserving through all vicissitudes a high
personal character, and a something "more than human." Basil Ep. 212,
§2. Ordained by Eulalius, he was degraded because he insisted on
wearing very unclerical costume. (Soc. ii, 43.) The question of the
identity of this Eustathius with the Eustathius condemned at the
Council of Ancyra is discussed in the Dict. Christ. Ant. i, 709.
Chapter XXI.--Of the Second Council of Nicæa.
On receipt of these despatches Constantius wrote to the Antiochenes
denying that he had committed the see of Antioch to Eudoxius, as
Eudoxius had publicly announced. He ordered that Eudoxius be banished,
and be punished for the course he had taken at the Bithynian Nicæa,
where he had ordered the synod to assemble. Eudoxius himself had
persuaded the officers entrusted with authority in the imperial
household to fix Nicæa for the Council. But the Supreme Ruler and
Governor, who knows the future like the past, stopped the assembly by
a mighty earthquake, whereby the greater part of the city was
overthrown, and most of the inhabitants destroyed. On learning this
the assembled bishops were seized with panic, and returned to their
own churches. But I regard this as a contrivance of the divine wisdom,
for in that city the doctrine of the faith of the apostles had been
defined by the holy Fathers. In that same city the bishops who were
assembling on this later occasion were intending to lay down the
contrary. The sameness of name would have been sure to furnish a means
of deception to the Arian crew, and trick unsophisticated souls. They
meant to call the council "the Nicene," and identify it with the
famous council of old. But He who has care for the churches disbanded
the synod.
Chapter XXII.--Of the Council held at Seleucia in Isauria.
After a time, at the suggestion of the accusers of Eudoxius,
Constantius ordered the synod to be held at Seleucia. This town of
Isauria lies on the seashore and is the chief town of the district.
Hither the bishops of the East, and with them those of Pontus in Asia,
were ordered to assemble. [575]
The see of Cæsarea, the capital of Palestine, was now held by Acacius,
who had succeeded Eusebius. He had been condemned by the council of
Sardica, but had expressed contempt for so large an assembly of
bishops, and had refused to accept their adverse decision. At
Jerusalem Macarius, whom I have often mentioned, was succeeded by
Maximus, a man conspicuous in his struggles on behalf of religion, for
he had been deprived of his right eye and maimed in his right arm.
[576]
On his translation to the life which knows no old age, Cyrillus, an
earnest champion of the apostolic decrees, [577] was dignified with
the Episcopal office. These men in their contentions with one another
for the first place brought great calamities on the state. Acacius
seized some small occasion, deposed Cyrillus, and drove him from
Jerusalem. But Cyrillus passed by Antioch, which he had found without
a pastor, and came to Tarsus, where he dwelt with the excellent
Silvanus, then bishop of that see. No sooner did Acacius become aware
of this than he wrote to Silvanus and informed him of the deposition
of Cyrillus. Silvanus however, both out of regard for Cyrillus, and
not without suspicion of his people, who greatly enjoyed the
stranger's teaching, refused to prohibit him from taking a part in the
ministrations of the church. When however they had arrived at
Seleucia, Cyrillus joined with the party of Basilius and Eustathius
and Silvanus and the rest in the council. But when Acacius joined the
assembled bishops, who numbered one hundred and fifty, he refused to
be associated in their counsels before Cyrillus, as one stripped of
his bishopric, had been put out from among them. There were some who,
eager for peace, besought Cyrillus to withdraw, with a pledge that
after the decision of the decrees they would enquire into his case. He
would not give way, and Acacius left them and went out. Then meeting
Eudoxius he removed his alarm, and encouraged him with a promise that
he would stand his friend and supporter. Thus he hindered him from
taking part in the council, and set out with him for Constantinople.
Footnotes
[575] "Now that the Semiarians were forced to treat with their late
victims on equal terms, they agreed to hold a general Council. Both
parties might hope for success. If the Homoean influence was strong at
Court, the Semiarians were strong in the East, and could count on some
help from the Western Nicenes. But the Court was resolved to secure a
decision to its own mind. As a Council of the whole Empire might have
been too independent, it was divided. The Westerns were to meet at
Ariminum in Italy, the Easterns at Seleucia in Isauria." "It was a
fairly central spot, and easy of access from Egypt and Syria by sea,
but otherwise most unsuitable. It was a mere fortress, lying in a
rugged country, where the spurs of Mount Taurus reach the sea. Around
it were the ever-restless marauders of Isauria." "The choice of such a
place is as significant as if a Pan-Anglican synod were called to meet
at the central and convenient port of Souakim." Gwatkin "The Arian
Controversy." pp. 93-96. The Council met here a.d. 359.
[576] He appears to have been less conspicuous for consistency in the
Arian Controversy. At Tyre he is described by Sozomen and Socrates as
assenting to the deposition of Athanasius but Rufinus (H. E. i. 17)
tells the dramatic story of the successful interposition of the aged
and mutilated Paphnutius of the Thebaid, who took his vacillating
brother by the hand, and led him to the little knot of Athanasians.
Sozomen (iv. 203) represents him as deposed by Acacius for too zealous
orthodoxy, and replaced by Cyril, then a Semiarian. Jerome agrees with
Theodoret, and makes Cyril succeed on the death of Maximus in 350 or
351. (Chron. ann. 349.)
[577] Sozomen and Socrates are less favourable to his orthodoxy. In
his favour see the synodical letter written by the bishops assembled
at Constantinopl