The Ecclesistical History of Sozomen
Advanced Information
comprising a history of the church, from a.d. 323 to a.d. 425.
translated from the Greek.
Revised by Chester d. Hartranft,
Hartford Theological Seminary.
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 1886 by Philip Schaff,
New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co.
Book IV.
Chapter I.--Death of Constans Cæsar. Occurrences which took place in
Rome.
Four years after the council of Sardica, [1282] Constans was killed in
Western Gaul. [1283] Magnentius, who had plotted his murder, reduced
the entire government of Constans under his own sway. In the meantime
Vetranio was proclaimed emperor at Sirmium, by the Illyrian troops.
Nepotian, the son of the late emperor's sister, gathered about him a
body of gladiators, and wrangled for the imperial power, and ancient
Rome had the greatest share of these evils. Nepotian, however, was put
to death by the soldiers of Magnentius. [1284] Constantius, finding
himself the sole master of the empire, was proclaimed sole ruler, and
hastened to depose the tyrants. In the meantime, Athanasius, having
arrived in Alexandria, prepared to convene a Synod of the Egyptian
bishops, and had the enactments confirmed which had been passed at
Sardica, and in Palestine, in his favor.
Footnotes
[1282] According to Soz. a.d. 351, really a.d. 350.
[1283] Ruf. H. E. i. 19; Soc. ii. 25, 26. Soz. here condenses Soc. Cf.
Athan. Apol. ad. Imp. Constantium.
[1284] Zos. ii. 41-53; Am. Marcel. xv. 1, 2; Petrus Patricius,
Historia, 14; Eutrop. Brev. Hist. Rom. x. 9-11.
Chapter II.--Constantius again ejects Athanasius, and banishes those
who represented the Homoousian Doctrine. Death of Paul, Bishop of
Constantinople. Macedonius: his Second Usurpation of the See, and his
Evil Deeds.
The emperor, [1285] deceived by the calumnies of the heterodox,
changed his mind, and, in opposition to the decrees of the council of
Sardica, exiled the bishops whom he had previously restored. Marcellus
was again deposed, and Basil re-acquired possession of the bishopric
of Ancyra. Lucius was thrown into prison, and died there. Paul was
condemned to perpetual banishment, and was conveyed to Cucusum, in
Armenia, where he died. I have never, however, been able to ascertain
whether or not he died a natural death. It is still reported, that he
was strangled by the adherents of Macedonius. [1286] As soon as he was
sent into exile, Macedonius seized the government of his church; and,
being aided by several orders of monks whom he had incorporated at
Constantinople, and by alliances with many of the neighboring bishops,
he commenced, it is said, a persecution against those who held the
sentiments of Paul. He ejected them, in the first place, from the
church, and then compelled them to enter into communion with himself.
Many perished from wounds received in the struggle; some were deprived
of their possessions; some, of the rights of citizenship; and others
were branded on the forehead with an iron instrument, in order that
they might be stamped as infamous. The emperor was displeased when he
heard of these transactions, and imputed the blame of them to
Macedonius and his adherents.
Footnotes
[1285] Soc. ii. 26, 27; Athan. Hist. Arian. 7; Apol de fuga sua, 3;
cf. Theodoret, H. E. ii. 5.
[1286] See preceding references; Athan. is decided.
Chapter III.--Martyrdom of the Holy Notaries.
The persecution increased in violence, [1287] and led to deeds of
blood. Martyrius and Marcian were among those who were slain. They had
lived in Paul's house, [1288] and were delivered up by Macedonius to
the governor, as having been guilty of the murder of Hermogenes, and
of exciting the former sedition against him. Martyrius was a
sub-deacon, and Marcian a singer and a reader of Holy Scripture. Their
tomb is famous, and is situated before the walls of Constantinople, as
a memorial of the martyrs; it is placed in a house of prayer, which
was commenced by John and completed by Sisinnius; these both
afterwards presided over the church of Constantinople. For they who
had been unworthily adjudged to have no part in the honors of
martyrdom, were honored by God, because the very place where those
conducted to death had been decapitated, and which previously was not
approached on account of ghosts, was now purified, and those who were
under the influence of demons were released from the disease, and many
other notable miracles were wrought at the tomb. These are the
particulars which should be stated concerning Martyrius and Marcian.
If what I have related appears to be scarcely credible, it is easy to
apply for further information to those who are more accurately
acquainted with the circumstances; and perhaps far more wonderful
things are related concerning them than those which I have detailed.
Footnotes
[1287] An independent Chapter.
[1288] Niceph. Coll. H. E. ix. 30 adds that they were the notaries of
Paul; hence the caption. The memory of these martyrs is celebrated in
the Greek Church under the name of the Notaries, on the 25th of
October.
Chapter IV.--Campaign of Constantius in Sirmium, and Details
concerning Vetranio and Magnentius. Gallus receives the Title of
Cæsar, and is sent to the East.
On the expulsion of Athanasius, which took place about this period,
George persecuted [1289] all those throughout Egypt who refused to
conform to his sentiments. The emperor marched into Illyria, and
entered Sirmium, whither Vetranio had repaired by appointment. The
soldiers who had proclaimed him emperor suddenly changed their mind,
and saluted Constantius as sole sovereign, and as Augustus, for both
the emperor and his supporters, strove for this very action. Vetranio
perceived that he was betrayed, and threw himself as a suppliant at
the feet of Constantius. Constantius pitied him indeed, but stripped
him of the imperial ornaments and purple, obliged him to return to
private life, liberally provided for his wants out of the public
treasury, and told him that it was more seemly to an old man to
abstain from the cares of empire and to live in quietude. After
terminating these arrangements in favor of Vetranio, Constantius sent
a large army into Italy against Magnentius. He then conferred the
title of Cæsar on his cousin Gallus, and sent him into Syria to defend
the provinces of the East.
Footnotes
[1289] Eutrop. Brev. Hist. Rom. x. 11, 12; Zos. ii. 44, 45; Athan.
Apol. de fuga sua, 6, 7; Ep. ad Episc. Æg. et Lib. 7; Soc. ii. 25-29;
Ruf. H. E. i. 19; Philost. iii. 22, 25.
Chapter V.--Cyril directs the Sacerdotal Office after Maximus, and the
Largest Form of the Cross, surpassing the Sun in Splendor, again
appears in the Heavens, and is visible during several Days.
At the time that Cyril administered the church of Jerusalem after
Maximus, the sign of the cross appeared in the heavens. It shone
brilliantly, not with divergent rays like a comet, but with the
concentration of a great deal of light, apparently dense and yet
transparent. Its length was about fifteen stadia from Calvary to the
Mount of Olives, and its breadth was in proportion to its length. So
extraordinary a phenomenon excited universal terror. Men, women, and
children left their houses, the market-place, or their respective
employments, and ran to the church, where they sang hymns to Christ
together, and voluntarily confessed their belief in God. The
intelligence disturbed in no little measure our entire dominions, and
this happened rapidly; for, as the custom was, there were travelers
from every part of the world, so to speak, who were dwelling at
Jerusalem for prayer, or to visit its places of interest, these were
spectators of the sign, and divulged the facts to their friends at
home. The emperor was made acquainted with the occurrence, partly by
numerous reports concerning it which were then current, and partly by
a letter from Cyril [1290] the bishop. It was said that this prodigy
was a fulfillment of an ancient prophecy contained in the Holy
Scriptures. It was the means of the conversion of many pagans and Jews
to Christianity.
Footnotes
[1290] The letter here alluded to by Sozomen was addressed by Cyril of
Jerusalem to Constantius, and is extant among his works. c. 1165, M.
P. G. 33; cf. Soc. ii. 28; Philost. iii. 26; Hieron. Chron. Eus. s.
a.d. 357.
Chapter VI.--Photinus, Bishop of Sirmium. His Heresy, and the Council
convened at Sirmium in Opposition thereto. The Three Formularies of
Faith. This Agitator of Empty Ideas was refuted by Basil of Ancyra.
After his Deposition Photinus, although solicited, declined
Reconciliation.
About this time, [1291] Photinus, who administered the church of
Sirmium, laid before the emperor, who was then staying at that city, a
heresy which he had originated some time previously. His natural ease
of utterance and powers of persuasion enabled him to lead many into
his own way of thinking. He acknowledged that there was one God
Almighty, by whose own word all things were created, but would not
admit that the generation and existence of the Son was before all
ages; on the contrary, he alleged that Christ derived His existence
from Mary. As soon as this opinion was divulged, it excited the
indignation of the Western and of the Eastern bishops, and they
considered it in common as an innovation of each one's particular
belief, for it was equally opposed by those who maintained the
doctrines of the Nicæan council, and by those who favored the tenets
of Arius. The emperor also regarded the heresy with aversion, and
convened a council at Sirmium, where he was then residing. Of the
Eastern bishops, George, who governed the church of Alexandria, Basil,
bishop of Ancyra, and Mark, bishop of Arethusa, were present at this
council; and among the Western bishops were Valens, bishop of Mursa,
and Hosius the Confessor. This latter, who had attended the council of
Nicæa, was unwillingly a participant of this; he had not long
previously been condemned to banishment through the machinations of
the Arians; he was summoned to the council of Sirmium by the command
of the emperor extorted by the Arians, who believed that their party
would be strengthened, if they could gain over, either by persuasion
or force, a man held in universal admiration and esteem, as was
Hosius. The period at which the council was convened at Sirmium, was
the year after the expiration of the consulate of Sergius and
Nigrinian; and during this year there were no consuls either in the
East or the West, owing to the insurrections excited by the tyrants.
Photinus was deposed by this council, because he was accused of
countenancing the errors of Sabellius and Paul of Samosata. The
council then proceeded to draw up three formularies of faith in
addition to the previous confessions, of which one was written in
Greek, and the others in Latin. But they did not agree with one
another, nor with any other of the former expositions of doctrine,
either in word or import. It is not said in the Greek formulary,
[1292] that the Son is consubstantial, or of like substance, with the
Father, but it is there declared, that those who maintain that the Son
had no commencement, or that He proceeded from an expansion of the
substance of the Father, or that He is united to the Father without
being subject to Him, are excommunicated. In one of the Roman
formularies, [1293] it is forbidden to say, of the essence of the
Godhead which the Romans call substance, that the Son is either
consubstantial, or of like substance with the Father, as such
statements do not occur in the Holy Scriptures, and are beyond the
reach of the understanding and knowledge of men. It is said, that the
Father must be recognized as superior to the Son in honor, in dignity,
in divinity, and in the relationship suggested by His name of Father;
and that it must be confessed that the Son, like all created beings,
is subject to the Father, that the Father had no commencement, and
that the generation of the Son is unknown to all save the Father. It
is related, that when this formulary was completed, the bishops became
aware of the errors it contained, and endeavored to withdraw it from
the public, and to correct it; and that the emperor threatened to
punish those who should retain or conceal any of the copies that had
been made of it. But having been once published, no efforts were
adequate to suppress it altogether.
The third formulary [1294] is of the same import as the others. It
prohibits the use of the term "substance" on account of the terms used
in Latin, while the Greek term having been used with too much
simplicity by the Fathers, and having been a cause of offense to many
of the unlearned multitude, because it was not to be found in the
Scriptures, "we have deemed it right totally to reject the use of it:
and we would enjoin the omission of all mention of the term in
allusion to the Godhead, for it is nowhere said in the Holy
Scriptures, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are of the same
substance, where the word person is written. But we say, in conformity
with the Holy Scriptures, that the Son is like unto the Father."
Such was the decision arrived at in the presence of the emperor
concerning the faith. Hosius at first refused to assent to it.
Compulsion, however, was resorted to; and being extremely old, he
sunk, as it is reported, beneath the blows that were inflicted on him,
and yielded his consent and signature.
After the deposition of Photinus, the Synod thought it expedient to
try whether it were not somehow possible to persuade him to change his
views. But when the bishop urged him, and promised to restore his
bishopric if he would renounce his own dogma, and vote for their
formulary, he would not acquiesce, but challenged them to a
discussion. On the day appointed for this purpose, the bishops,
therefore, assembled with the judges who had been appointed by the
emperor to preside at their meetings, and who, in point of eloquence
and dignity, held the first rank in the palace. Basil, bishop of
Ancyra, was selected to commence the disputation against Photinus. The
conflict lasted a long time, on account of the numerous questions
started and the answers given by each party, and which were
immediately taken down in short-hand; but finally the victory declared
itself in favor of Basil. Photinus was condemned and banished, but did
not cease on that account from enlarging his own dogma. He wrote and
published many works in Greek and Latin, in which he endeavored to
show that all opinions, except his own, were erroneous. I have now
concluded all that I had to say concerning Photinus and the heresy to
which his name was affixed.
Footnotes
[1291] Athan. de Synodis, 8, 9; Soc. ii. 29-31, 37; Sulp. Sev. H. S.
ii. 36, 37.
[1292] Soc. ii. 30, text.
[1293] Soc. ii. 30, Latin text translated into Greek.
[1294] Athan. de Synodis, 8; Soc. ii. 37, text translated into Greek.
Chapter VII.--Death of the Tyrants Magnentius and Silvanus the
Apostate. Sedition of the Jews in Palestine. Gallus Cæsar is slain, on
Suspicion of Revolution.
In the meantime, [1295] Magnentius made himself master of ancient
Rome, and put numbers of the senators, and of the people, to death.
Hearing that the troops of Constantius were approaching, he retired
into Gaul; and here the two parties had frequent encounters, in which
sometimes the one and sometimes the other was victorious. At length,
however, Magnentius was defeated, and fled to Mursa, which is the
fortress of this Gaul, and when he saw that his soldiers were
dispirited because they had been defeated, he stood on an elevated
spot and endeavored to revive their courage. But, although they
addressed Magnentius with the acclamations usually paid to emperors,
and were ready to shout at his public appearance, they secretly and
without premeditation shouted for Constantius as emperor in place of
Magnentius. Magnentius, concluding from this circumstance, that he was
not destined by God to hold the reins of empire, endeavored to retreat
from the fortress to some distant place. But he was pursued by the
troops of Constantius, and being overtaken at a spot called Mount
Seleucus, he escaped alone from the encounter, and fled to Lugduna. On
his arrival there, he slew his own mother and his brother, whom he had
named Cæsar; and lastly, he killed himself. [1296] Not long after,
Decentius, another of his brothers, put an end to his own existence.
Still the public tumults were not quelled; for not long after,
Silvanus assumed the supreme authority in Gaul; but he was put to
death immediately by the generals of Constantius.
The Jews of Diocæsarea also overran Palestine and the neighboring
territories; they took up arms with the design of shaking off the
Roman yoke. [1297] On hearing of their insurrection, Gallus Cæsar, who
was then at Antioch, sent troops against them, defeated them, and
destroyed Diocæsarea. Gallus, intoxicated with success, could not bear
his prosperity, but aspired to the supreme power, and he slew Magnus,
the quæstor, and Domitian, the prefect of the East, because they
apprised the emperor of his innovations. The anger of Constantius was
excited; and he summoned him to his presence. Gallus did not dare to
refuse obedience, and set out on his journey. When, however, he
reached the island Elavona he was killed by the emperor's order; this
event occurred in the third year of his consulate, and the seventh of
Constantius. [1298]
Footnotes
[1295] Soc. ii. 32-34; cf. Philost. iii. 26-28; iv. 1; Orosius, vii.
29; language and order like Soz.; Sulp. Sev. H. S. ii. 38; Am. Marcel.
xiv. 1, 7-9, 11; Zos. ii. 45-55; Eutrop. Brev. hist. Rom. x. 12, 13.
[1296] a.d. 353.
[1297] Soc. ii. 33, 34.
[1298] a.d. 353.
Chapter VIII.--Arrival of Constantius at Rome. A Council held in
Italy. Account of what happened to Athanasius the Great through the
Machinations of the Arians.
On the death of the tyrants, [1299] Constantius anticipated the
restoration of peace and cessation of tumults, and quitted Sirmium in
order to return to ancient Rome, and to enjoy the honor of a triumph
after his victory over the tyrants. He likewise intended to bring the
Eastern and the Western bishops, if possible, to one mind concerning
doctrine, by convening a council in Italy. Julius died about this
period, after having governed the church of Rome during twenty-five
years; [1300] and Liberius succeeded him. Those who were opposed to
the doctrines of the Nicæan council thought this a favorable
opportunity to calumniate the bishops whom they had deposed, and to
procure their ejection from the church as abettors of false doctrine,
and as disturbers of the public peace; and to accuse them of having
sought, during the life of Constans, to excite a misunderstanding
between the emperors; and it was true, as we related above, [1301]
that Constans menaced his brother with war unless he would consent to
receive the orthodox bishops. Their efforts were principally directed
against Athanasius, towards whom they entertained so great an aversion
that, even when he was protected by Constans, and enjoyed the
friendship of Constantius, they could not conceal their enmity.
Narcissus, bishop of Cilicia, Theodore, bishop of Thrace, Eugenius,
bishop of Nicæa, Patrophilus, bishop of Scythopolis, Menophantes,
bishop of Ephesus, and other bishops, to the number of thirty,
assembled themselves in Antioch, [1302] and wrote a letter to all the
bishops of every region, in which they stated that Athanasius had
returned to his bishopric in violation of the rules of the Church,
that he had not justified himself in any council, and that he was only
supported by some of his own faction; and they exhorted them not to
hold communion with him, nor to write to him, but to enter into
communion with George, who had been ordained to succeed him.
Athanasius only contemned these proceedings; but he was about to
undergo greater trials than any he had yet experienced. Immediately on
the death of Magnentius, and as soon as Constantius found himself sole
master of the Roman Empire, he directed all his efforts to induce the
bishops of the West to admit that the Son is of like substance with
the Father. In carrying out this scheme, however, he did not, in the
first place, resort to compulsion, but endeavored by persuasion to
obtain the concurrence of the other bishops in the decrees of the
Eastern bishops against Athanasius; for he thought that if he could
bring them to be of one mind on this point, it would be easy for him
to regulate aright the affairs connected with religion.
Footnotes
[1299] Independent Chapter.
[1300] Sozomen is mistaken in saying twenty-five years; he was bishop
from a.d. 337-352, fifteen years; this error is due to his earlier
confusion of Julius and Silvester.
[1301] See above, iii. 20.
[1302] Sozomen is the only historian who makes mention of this Synod
at Antioch in Syria; probably from Sabinus.
Chapter IX.--Council of Milan. Flight of Athanasius.
The emperor [1303] was extremely urgent to convene a council in Milan,
yet few of the Eastern bishops repaired thither; some, it appears,
excused themselves from attendance under the plea of illness; others,
on account of the length and difficulties of the journey. There were,
however, upwards of three hundred of the Western bishops at the
council. The Eastern bishops insisted that Athanasius should be
condemned to banishment, and expelled from Alexandria; and the others,
either from fear, fraud, or ignorance, assented to the measure.
Dionysius, bishop of Alba, the metropolis of Italy, Eusebius, bishop
of Vercella in Liguria, Paulinus, bishop of Treves, Rhodanus, [1304]
and Lucifer, were the only bishops who protested against this
decision; and they declared that Athanasius ought not to be condemned
on such slight pretexts; and that the evil would not cease with his
condemnation; but that those who supported the orthodox doctrines
concerning the Godhead would be forthwith subjected to a plot. They
represented that the whole measure was a scheme concerted by the
emperor and the Arians with the view of suppressing the Nicene faith.
Their boldness was punished by an edict of immediate banishment, and
Hilary was exiled with them. The result too plainly showed for what
purpose the council of Milan had been convened. For the councils which
were held shortly after at Ariminum and Seleucia were evidently
designed to change the doctrines established by the Nicæan council, as
I shall directly show.
Athanasius, being apprised that plots had been formed against him at
court, deemed it prudent not to repair to the emperor himself, as he
knew that his life would be thereby endangered, nor did he think that
it would be of any avail. He, however, selected five of the Egyptian
bishops, among whom was Serapion, bishop of Thumis, a prelate
distinguished by the wonderful sanctity of his life and the power of
his eloquence, and sent them with three presbyters of the Church to
the emperor, who was then in the West. They were directed to attempt,
if possible, to conciliate the emperor; to reply, if requisite, to the
calumnies of the hostile party; and to take such measures as they
deemed most advisable for the welfare of the Church and himself.
Shortly after they had embarked on their voyage, Athanasius received
some letters from the emperor, summoning him to the palace. Athanasius
and all the people of the Church were greatly troubled at this
command; for they considered that no safety could be enjoyed when
acting either in obedience or in disobedience to an emperor of
heterodox sentiments. It was, however, determined that he should
remain at Alexandria, and the bearer of the letters quitted the city
without having effected anything. The following summer, another
messenger from the emperor arrived with the governors of the
provinces, and he was charged to urge the departure of Athanasius from
the city, and to act with hostility against the clergy. When he
perceived, however, that the people of the Church were full of
courage, and ready to take up arms, he also departed from the city
without accomplishing his mission. Not long after, troops, called the
Roman legions, which were quartered in Egypt and Libya, marched into
Alexandria. As it was reported that Athanasius was concealed in the
church known by the name "Theonas," the commander of the troops, and
Hilary, [1305] whom the emperor had again intrusted with the
transaction of this affair, caused the doors of the church to be burst
open, and thus effected their entrance; but they did not find
Athanasius within the walls, although they sought for him everywhere.
It is said that he escaped this and many other perils by the Divine
interposition; and that God had disclosed this previously; directly as
he went out, the soldiers took the doors of the church, and were
within a little of seizing him.
Footnotes
[1303] Ruf. H. E. i. 19, 20; Athan. Hist. Arian. 31-46, and probably
the lost letter of consecration addressed to the nuns; Theodoret, H.
E. ii. 14, 15; Soc. ii. 36; Sulp. Sev. H. S. ii. 39.
[1304] Or, as Rufinus and Sulpicius Severus call him, Rhodanius.
Socrates omits Rhodanius and Lucifer, and does not mention Hilary.
Sozomen evidently used Rufinus. Rhodanius was bishop of Toulouse.
Sulp. Sev. H. S. ii. 39.
[1305] The general was Syrianus; Hilary was notary to the Emperor
Constantius, and was sent by him to expel Athanasius from Alexandria.
On the whole passage, see Athan. Apol. ad Const. imp. 19-25; Apol. de
fuga sua, 24.
Chapter X.--Divers Machinations of the Arians against Athanasius, and
his Escape from Various Dangers through Divine Interposition. Evil
Deeds perpetrated by George in Egypt after the Expulsion of
Athanasius.
There is no doubt but that Athanasius was beloved of God, and endowed
with the gift of foreseeing the future. [1306] More wonderful facts
than those which we have related might be adduced to prove his
intimate acquaintance with futurity. It happened that during the life
of Constans, the Emperor Constantius was once determined upon
ill-treating this holy man; but Athanasius fled, and concealed himself
with some one of his acquaintances. He lived for a long time in a
subterraneous and sunless dwelling, which had been used as a reservoir
for water. No one knew where he was concealed except a serving-woman,
who seemed faithful, and who waited upon him. As the heterodox,
however, were anxiously intent upon taking Athanasius alive, it
appears that, by means of gifts or promises, they at length succeeded
in corrupting the attendant. But Athanasius was forewarned by God of
her treachery, and effected his escape from the place. The servant was
punished for having made a false deposition against her masters, while
they, on their part, fled the country; for it was accounted no venial
crime by the heterodox to receive or to conceal Athanasius, but was,
on the contrary, regarded as an act of disobedience against the
express commands of the emperor, and as a crime against the empire,
and was visited as such by the civil tribunals. It has come to my
hearing that Athanasius was saved on another occasion in a similar
manner. He was again obliged for the same reason to flee for his life;
and he set sail up the Nile [1307] with the design of retreating to
the further districts of Egypt, but his enemies received intelligence
of his intention, and pursued him. Being forewarned of God that he
would be pursued, he announced it to his fellow-passengers, and
commanded them to return to Alexandria. While he sailed down the
river, his plotters rowed by. He reached Alexandria in safety, and
effectually concealed himself in the midst of its similar and numerous
houses. His success in avoiding these and many other perils led to his
being accused of sorcery by the pagan and the heterodox. It is
reported, that once, as he was passing through the city, a crow was
heard to caw, and that a number of pagans who happened to be on the
spot, asked him in derision what the crow was saying. He replied,
smiling, "It utters the sound cras, the meaning of which in the Latin
language is, `tomorrow' and it has hereby announced to you that the
morrow will not be propitious to you; for it indicates that you will
be forbidden by the Roman emperor to celebrate your festival
tomorrow." Although this prediction of Athanasius appeared to be
absurd, it was fulfilled; for the following day edicts were
transmitted to the governors from the emperor, by which it was
commanded that the pagans were not to be permitted to assemble in the
temples to perform their usual ceremonies, nor to celebrate their
festival; and thus was abolished the most solemn and magnificent feast
which the pagans had retained. What I have said is sufficient to show
that this holy man was endowed with the gift of prophecy.
After Athanasius had escaped, in the manner we have described, from
those who sought to arrest him, his clergy and people remained for
some time in possession of the churches; but eventually, the governor
of Egypt and the commander of the army forcibly ejected all those who
maintained the sentiments of Athanasius, in order to deliver up the
government of the churches to those who favored George, whose arrival
was then expected. Not long after he reached the city, and the
churches were placed under his authority. He ruled by force rather
than by priestly moderation; and as he strove to strike terror into
the minds of the people, and carried on a cruel persecution against
the followers of Athanasius, and, moreover, imprisoned and maimed many
men and women, he was accounted a tyrant. For these reasons he fell
into a universal hate; the people were so deeply incensed at his
conduct, that they rushed into the church, and would have torn him to
pieces; in such an extremity of danger, he escaped with difficulty,
and fled to the emperor. Those who held the sentiments of Athanasius
then took possession of the churches. But they did not long retain the
mastery of them; for the commander of the troops in Egypt came and
restored the churches to the partisans of George. An imperial
shorthand writer of the notary class was afterwards sent to punish the
leaders of the sedition, and he tortured and scourged many of the
citizens. When George returned a little while after, he was more
formidable, it appears, than ever, and was regarded with greater
aversion than before, for he instigated the emperor to the
perpetration of many evil deeds; and besides, the monks of Egypt
openly declared him to be perfidious and inflated with arrogance. The
opinions of these monks were always adopted by the people, and their
testimony was universally received, because they were noted for their
virtue and the philosophical tenor of their lives.
Footnotes
[1306] Ruf. H. E. i. 18, 33, 34; Soc. ii. 45; iii. 14; Sozomen groups
these stories without regard to time; see next Chapter; he has some
independent material.
[1307] Soc. iii. 14.
Chapter XI.--Liberius, Bishop of Rome, and the cause of his being
exiled by Constantius. Felix his Successor.
Although what I have recorded did not occur to Athanasius and the
church of Alexandria, at the same period of time after the death of
Constans, yet I deemed it right, for the sake of greater clearness, to
relate all these events collectively. The council of Milan [1308] was
dissolved without any business having been transacted, and the emperor
condemned to banishment all those who had opposed the designs of the
enemies of Athanasius. As Constantius wished to establish uniformity
of doctrine throughout the Church, and to unite the priesthood in the
maintenance of the same sentiments, he formed a plan to convene the
bishops of every religion to a council, to be held in the West. He was
aware of the difficulty of carrying this scheme into execution,
arising from the vast extent of land and seas which some of the
bishops would have to traverse, yet he did not altogether despair of
success. While this project was occupying his mind, and before he
prepared to make his triumphal entrance into Rome, he sent for
Liberius, the bishop of Rome, and strove to persuade him to conformity
of sentiment with the priests by whom he was attended, amongst whom
was Eudoxius. As Liberius, however, refused compliance, and protested
that he would never yield on this point, the emperor banished him to
Beroea, in Thrace. It is alleged, that another pretext for the
banishment of Liberius was, that he would not withdraw from communion
with Athanasius, but manfully opposed the emperor, who insisted that
Athanasius had injured the Church, had occasioned the death of the
elder of his two brothers, [1309] and had sown the seeds of enmity
between Constans and himself. As the emperor revived all the decrees
which had been enacted against Athanasius by various councils, and
particularly by that of Tyre, Liberius told him that no regard ought
to be paid to edicts which were issued from motives of hatred, of
favor, or of fear. He desired that the bishops of every region should
be made to sign the formulary of faith compiled at Nicæa, and that
those bishops who had been exiled on account of their adherence to it
should be recalled. He suggested that after these matters were righted
all the bishops should, at their own expense, and without being
furnished either with public conveyances or money, so as not to seem
burdensome and destructive, proceed to Alexandria, and make an
accurate test of the truth, which could be more easily instituted at
that city than elsewhere, as the injured and those who had inflicted
injury as well as the confuters of the charges dwelt there. He then
exhibited the letter written by Valens and Ursacius to Julius, his
predecessor in the Roman see, in which they solicited his forgiveness,
and acknowledged that the depositions brought against Athanasius, at
the Mareotis, were false; and he besought the emperor not to condemn
Athanasius during his absence, nor to give credit to enactments which
were evidently obtained by the machinations of his enemies. With
respect to the alleged injuries which had been inflicted on his two
brothers, he entreated the emperor not to revenge himself by the hands
of priests who had been set apart by God, not for the execution of
vengeance, but for sanctification, and the performance of just and
benevolent actions.
The emperor perceiving that Liberius was not disposed to comply with
his mandate, commanded that he should be conveyed to Thrace, unless he
would change his mind within two days. "To me, O emperor," replied
Liberius, "there is no need of deliberation; my resolution has long
been formed and decided, and I am ready to go forth to exile." It is
said, that when he was being conducted to banishment, the emperor sent
him five hundred pieces of gold; he, however, refused to receive them,
and said to the messenger who brought them, "Go, and tell him who sent
this gold to give it to the flatterers and hypocrites [1310] who
surround him, for their insatiable cupidity plunges them into a state
of perpetual want which can never be relieved. Christ, who is in all
respects, [1311] like unto his Father, supplies us with food and with
all good things."
Liberius having for the above reasons been deposed from the Roman
church, his government was transferred to Felix, a deacon of the
clergy there. It is said that Felix always continued in adherence to
the Nicene faith; and that, with respect to his conduct in religious
matters he was blameless. The only thing alleged against him was,
that, prior to his ordination, he held communion with the heterodox.
When the emperor entered Rome, the people loudly demanded Liberius,
and besought his return; after consulting with the bishops who were
with him, he replied that he would recall Liberius and restore him to
the people, if he would consent to embrace the same sentiments as
those held by the priests of the court.
Footnotes
[1308] Athan. Hist. Arian. 31-46; Ruf. H. E. i. 21; Soc. ii. 36; Sulp.
Sev. H. S. ii. 39: cf. Theodoret, H. E. ii. 16, dialogue between the
emperor and Liberius; Am. Marcel. xv. 7.
[1309] The dialogue is preserved in Theodoret, H. E. ii. 16. Cf. Hil.
Fragm. v., vi.
[1310] He means the Arian bishops. It is like the terms Athanasius
employs.
[1311] One would have expected from Liberius "the same," i.e. homos
instead of homoios.
Chapter XII.--Aëtius, the Syrian, and Eudoxius, the Successor of
Leontius in Antioch. Concerning the Term "Consubstantial."
About this time, [1312] Aëtius broached his peculiar opinions
concerning the Godhead. He was then deacon of the church of Antioch,
and had been ordained by Leontius. [1313] He maintained, like Arius,
that the Son is a created being, that He was created out of nothing,
and that He is dissimilar from the Father. As he was extremely
addicted to contention, very bold in his assertions on theological
subjects, and prone to have recourse to a very subtle mode of
argumentation, he was accounted a heretic, even by those who held the
same sentiments as himself. When he had been, for this reason,
excommunicated by the heterodox, he feigned a refusal to hold
communion with them, because, they had unjustly admitted Arius into
communion after he had perjured himself by declaring to the Emperor
Constantine that he maintained the doctrines of the council of Nicæa.
Such is the account given of Aëtius.
While the emperor was in the West, tidings arrived of the death of
Leontius, bishop of Antioch. Eudoxius requested permission of the
emperor to return to Syria, that he might superintend the affairs of
that church. On permission being granted, he repaired with all speed
to Antioch, and installed himself as bishop of that city without the
sanction of George, bishop of Laodicea; of Mark, bishop of Arethusa;
of the other Syrian bishops; or of any other bishop to whom the right
of ordination pertained. It was reported that he acted with the
concurrence of the emperor, and of the eunuchs belonging to the
palace, who, like Eudoxius, favored the doctrines of Aëtius, and
believed that the Son is dissimilar from the Father. When Eudoxius
found himself in possession of the church of Antioch, he ventured to
uphold this heresy openly. He assembled in Antioch all those who held
the same opinions as himself, among whom was Acacius, bishop of Tyre,
and rejected the terms, "of like substance," and "consubstantial,"
under the pretext that they had been denounced by the Western bishops.
For Hosius, with some of the priests there, had certainly, with the
view of arresting the contention excited by Valens, Ursacius, and
Germanius, [1314] consented, though by compulsion, [1315] at Sirmium,
as it is reported, to refrain from the use of the terms
"consubstantial" and "of like substance," because such terms do not
occur in the Holy Scriptures, and are beyond the understanding of men.
[1316] They [1317] sent an epistle to the bishops as though these
sustained the writings of Hosius on this point, and conveyed their
thanks to Valens, Ursacius, and Germanius, because they had given the
impulse of right views to the Western bishops.
Footnotes
[1312] iii. 15, and references there; Athan. de Synodis, 8, 38; Soc.
ii. 35, 36; cf. Theodoret, H. E. ii. 24.
[1313] So also says Socrates. But Epiphanius asserts that he was
ordained by George of Alexandria in Taurus. Adv. hæres. iii. 1, 38
(hæres. lxxiii.).
[1314] Otherwise called Germinius. He was afterwards promoted to the
bishopric of Sirmium, according to Athan. Hist. Arian. 74; cf. de
Synodis, 1, 8.
[1315] See, above, chap. vi. near the end.
[1316] Athanasius also excuses the lapse of Hosius on the ground that
he acted under compulsion.
[1317] Not the individual letter of Eudoxius, according to some
readings, but of the Synod of Antioch.
Chapter XIII.--Innovations of Eudoxius censured in a Letter written by
George, Bishop of Laodicea. Deputation from the Council of Ancyra to
Constantius.
After Eudoxius had introduced these new doctrines, many members of the
church of Antioch, who were opposed to them, were excommunicated.
[1318] George, bishop of Laodicea, gave them a letter to take to the
bishops who had been invited from the neighboring towns of Ancyra in
Galatia by Basil, for the purpose of consecrating a church which he
had erected. This letter was as follows:--
"George, to his most honored lords Macedonius, Basil, Cecropius, and
Eugenius, sends greeting in the Lord.
"Nearly the whole city has suffered from the shipwreck of Aëtius. The
disciples of this wicked man, whom you contemned, have been encouraged
by Eudoxius, and promoted by him to clerical appointments, and Aëtius
himself has been raised to the highest honor. Go, then, to the
assistance of this great city, lest by its shipwreck the whole world
should be submerged. Assemble yourselves together, and solicit the
signatures of other bishops, that Aëtius may be ejected from the
church of Antioch, and that his disciples who have been manipulated
beforehand into the lists of the clergy by Eudoxius, may be cut off.
If Eudoxius persist in affirming with Aëtius, that the Son is
dissimilar from the Father, and in preferring those who uphold this
dogma to those who reject it, the city of Antioch is lost to you."
Such was the strain of George's letter.
The bishops who were assembled at Ancyra clearly perceived by the
enactments of Eudoxius at Antioch, that he contemplated the
introduction of innovations in doctrine; they apprised the emperor of
this fact, and besought him that the doctrine established at Sardica,
at Sirmium, and at other councils, might be confirmed, and especially
the dogma that the Son is of like substance with the Father. In order
to proffer this request to the emperor, they sent to him a deputation
composed of the following bishops: Basil, bishop of Ancyra;
Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste; Eleusius, bishop of Cyzicus; and
Leontius, the presbyter of the imperial bed-chamber. On their arrival
at the palace, they found that Asphalius, a presbyter of Antioch, and
a zealot of the Aëtian heresy, was on the point of taking his
departure, after having terminated the business for which he undertook
the journey and having obtained a letter from the emperor. On
receiving, however, the intelligence concerning the heresy conveyed by
the deputation from Ancyra, Constantius condemned Eudoxius and his
followers, withdrew the letter he had confided to Asphalius, and wrote
the following one:--
Footnotes
[1318] Philost. iv. 4-6, 8; x. 12; and fragment in Suidas s. Eudoxius;
Athan. Hist. Arian. 4, 5; Hil. de Synod. 8, 9, 90; Soc. ii. 37, 40;
Theodoret, H. E. ii. 25, 26.
Chapter XIV.--Letter of the Emperor Constantius against Eudoxius and
his Partisans.
"Constantius Augustus the Conqueror, to the holy church in Antioch.
[1319]
"Eudoxius came without our authority; let no one suppose that he had
it, for we are far from regarding such persons with favor. If they
have recourse to deceit with others in transactions like this, they
give evidence that they will refine away the truth in still higher
things. For from what will they voluntarily refrain, who, for the sake
of power, follow the round of the cities, leaping from one to another,
as a kind of wanderer, prying into every nook, led by the desire for
more? It is reported that there are among these people certain quacks
and sophists, whose very names are scarcely to be tolerated, and whose
deeds are evil and most impious. You all know to what set of people I
allude; for you are all thoroughly acquainted with the doctrines of
Aëtius and the heresy which he has cultivated. He and his followers
have devoted themselves exclusively to the task of corrupting the
people; and these clever fellows have had the audacity to publish that
we approved of their ordination. Such is the report they circulate,
after the manner of those who talk overmuch; but it is not true, and,
indeed, far removed from the truth. Recall to your recollection the
words of which we made use, when we first made a declaration of our
belief; for we confessed that our Saviour is the Son of God, and of
like substance with the Father. But these people, who have the
audacity to set forth whatever enters their imagination, concerning
the Godhead, are not far removed from atheism; and they strive,
moreover, to propagate their opinions among others. We are convinced
that their iniquitous proceedings will fall back upon their own heads.
In the meantime, it is sufficient to eject them from synods and from
ordinary conference; for I will not now allude to the chastisements
which must hereafter overtake them, unless they will desist from their
madness. How great is the evil they perpetrate, when they collect
together the most wicked persons, as if by an edict, and they select
the leaders of heresy for the clergy, thus debasing the reverend order
as though they were allowed to do what they please! Who can bear with
people who fill the cities with impiety, who secrete impurity in the
most distant regions, and who delight in nothing but in injuring the
righteous? What an evil-working unity it is, which limps forward to
enthrone itself in the diviner seats! Now is the time for those who
have imbibed the truth to come forward into the light, and whoever
were previously restrained through fear, and now would escape from
conventionalism, let them step into the middle; for the artifices of
these evil men have been thoroughly confuted, and no sort of device
can be invented which will deliver them from acting impiously. It is
the duty of good men to retain the faith of the Fathers, and, so to
speak, to augment it, without busying themselves with other matters. I
earnestly exhort those who have escaped, though but recently, from the
precipice of this heresy, to assent to the decrees which the bishops
who are wise in divine learning, have rightly determined for the
better."
Thus we see that the heresy usually denominated Anomian was within a
little of becoming predominant at this period.
Footnotes
[1319] Independent document. Cf. Theodoret, ii. 26, who alludes to the
first part of this letter, then apparently mixes another one by
Constantius with it.
Chapter XV.--The Emperor Constantius repairs to Sirmium, recalls
Liberius, and restores him to the Church of Rome; he also commands
Felix to assist Liberius in the Sacerdotal Office.
Not long after these events, the emperor returned to Sirmium from
Rome; on receiving a deputation from the Western bishops, he recalled
Liberius from Beroea. [1320] Constantius urged him, in the presence of
the deputies of the Eastern bishops, and of the other priests who were
at the camp, to confess that the Son is not of the same substance as
the Father. He was instigated to this measure by Basil, Eustathius,
and Eusebius, who possessed great influence over him. They had formed
a compilation, in one document, of the decrees against Paul of
Samosata, and Photinus, bishop of Sirmium; to which they subjoined a
formulary of faith drawn up at Antioch at the consecration of the
church, as if certain persons had, under the pretext of the term
"consubstantial," attempted to establish a heresy of their own.
Liberius, Athanasius, Alexander, Severianus, and Crescens, a priest of
Africa, were induced to assent to this document, as were likewise
Ursacius, Germanius, bishop of Sirmium, Valens, bishop of Mursa, and
as many of the Eastern bishops as were present. They partially
approved of a confession of faith drawn up by Liberius, in which he
declared that those who affirm that the Son is not like unto the
Father in substance and in all other respects, are excommunicated. For
when Eudoxius and his partisans at Antioch, who favored the heresy of
Aëtius, received the letter of Hosius, they circulated the report that
Liberius had renounced the term "consubstantial," and had admitted
that the Son is dissimilar from the Father. After these enactments had
been made by the Western bishops, the emperor permitted Liberius to
return to Rome. The bishops who were then convened at Sirmium [1321]
wrote to Felix, who governed the Roman church, and to the other
bishops, desiring them to receive Liberius. They directed that both
should share the apostolical throne and discharge the priestly duties
in common, with harmony of mind; and that whatever illegalities might
have occurred in the ordination of Felix, or the banishment of
Liberius, might be buried in oblivion. The people of Rome regarded
Liberius as a very excellent man, and esteemed him highly on account
of the courage he had evinced in opposing the emperor, so that they
had even excited seditions on his account, and had gone so far as to
shed blood. Felix survived but a short time; and Liberius found
himself in sole possession of the church. This event was, no doubt,
ordained by God, that the seat of Peter might not be dishonored by the
occupancy of two bishops; for such an arrangement is a sign of
discord, and is foreign to ecclesiastical law.
Footnotes
[1320] Athan. Hist. Arian. 35-41; Epistles of Liberius, M. P. L. 8;
Hil. Fragm. iv.-vi.; Theodoret, H. E. ii. 17; Ruf. i. 22; Philost. iv.
3; Soc. ii. 37; Sulp. Sev. H. S. ii. 39. Many independent details.
[1321] The fourth Sirmium council, a.d. 358.
Chapter XVI.--The Emperor purposed, on account of the Heresy of Aëtius
and the Innovations in Antioch, to convene a Council at Nicomedia; but
as an Earthquake took place in that City, and many other Affairs
intervened, the Council was first convened at Nicæa, and afterwards at
Ariminum and Seleucia. Account of Arsacius, the Confessor.
Such were the events which transpired at Sirmium. It seemed at this
period as if, from the fear of displeasing the emperor, the Eastern
and Western Churches had united in the profession of the same
doctrine. The emperor had determined upon convening a council at Nicæa
to take into consideration the innovations introduced at Antioch, and
the heresy of Aëtius. [1322] As Basil, however, and his party were
averse to the council being held in this city, because doctrinal
questions had previously been agitated there, it was determined to
hold the council at Nicomedia in Bithynia; and edicts were issued,
summoning the most intelligent and eloquent bishops of every nation to
repair thither punctually on an appointed day, so that it might be the
privilege of all the priests of the state to share in the Synod and to
be present at its decisions. The great number of these bishops had
commenced their journey when the calamity that had come upon Nicomedia
was reported, and that God had shaken the entire city to its
foundations. Since the story of the destruction of the city everywhere
prevailed and grew, the bishops arrested their journey; for as is
usual in such cases, far more was rumored to those at a distance, than
had actually occurred. It was reported that Nicæa, Perinthus, and the
neighboring cities, even Constantinople, had been involved in the same
catastrophe. The orthodox bishops were grieved immoderately at this
occurrence; for the enemies of religion took occasion, on the
overthrow of a magnificent church, to represent to the emperor that a
multitude of bishops, men, women, and children fled to the church in
the hope of their finding safety, and that they all perished. This
report was not true. The earthquake occurred at the second hour of the
day, at which time there was no assembly in the church. The only
bishops who were killed were Cecropius, bishop of Nicomedia, and a
bishop from the Bosphorus, and they were outside of the church when
the fatal accident happened. The city was shaken in an instant of
time, so that the people had not the power, even if they had the wish,
to seek safety by flight; at the first experience of danger, they were
either preserved, or they perished on the spot where they were
standing. [1323]
It is said that this calamity was predicted by Arsacius. [1324] He was
a Persian, and a soldier who was employed in tending the emperor's
lions; but during the reign of Licinius he became a noted confessor,
and left the army. He then went to the citadel of Nicomedia, and led
the life of a monastic philosopher within its walls. Here a vision
from heaven appeared to him, and he was commanded to quit the city
immediately, that he might be saved from the calamity about to happen.
He ran with the utmost earnestness to the church, and besought the
clergy to offer supplications to God that His anger might be turned
away. But, finding that far from being believed by them, he was
regarded with ridicule, and as disclosing unlooked-for sufferings, he
returned to his tower, and prostrated himself on the ground in prayer.
Just at this moment the earthquake occurred, and many perished. Those
who were spared fled into the country and the desert. And as happens
in a prosperous and large city, there were fires in the brasiers and
extinguishers of every house, and in the ovens of the baths, and in
the furnaces of all who use fire in the arts; and when the framework
fell in ruin, the flame was hemmed in by the stuff, and of course
there was dry wood commingled, much of which was oily,--this served as
a contribution to the rapid conflagration, and nourished the fire
without stint; the flame creeping everywhere, and attaching to itself
all circumjacent material, made the entire city, so to speak, one mass
of fire. It being impossible to obtain access to the houses, those who
had been saved from the earthquake rushed to the citadel. Arsacius was
found dead in the unshaken tower, and prostrated on the ground, in the
same posture in which he had begun to pray. It was said that he had
supplicated God to permit him to die, because he preferred death to
beholding the destruction of a city in which he had first known
Christ, and practiced monastical philosophy. As I have been led to
speak of this good man, it is well to mention that he was endowed by
God with the power of exorcising demons and of purifying those
troubled by them. A man possessed with a demon once ran through the
market-place with a naked sword in his hand. The people fled from him,
and the whole city was in confusion. Arsacius went out to meet him,
and called upon the name of Christ, and at that name the demon was
expelled, and the man restored to sanity. Besides the above, Arsacius
performed many other actions beyond the power and skill of man. There
was a dragon, or some other species of reptile, which had entrenched
itself in a cavity of the roadside, and which destroyed those who
passed by, with its breath. Arsacius went to the spot and engaged in
prayer, and the serpent voluntarily crept forth from its hole, dashed
its head against the ground, and killed itself. All these details I
have obtained from persons who heard them stated by those who had seen
Arsacius.
As the bishops were deterred from continuing their journey by the
intelligence of the calamity which had occurred at Nicomedia, some
awaited the further commands of the emperor, and others declared their
opinions concerning the faith in letters which they wrote on the
subject. The emperor hesitates as to what measures ought to be
adopted, and writes to consult Basil as to whether a council ought to
be convened. In his reply, it appears, Basil commended his piety, and
tried to console him for the destruction of Nicomedia by examples
drawn from the Holy Scriptures; he exhorted him, for the sake of
religion, to hasten the Synod; and not to drop such a proof of his
zeal for religion, and not to dismiss the priests who had been
gathered together for this purpose, and had already set forth and were
on their way, until some business had been transacted. He also
suggested that the council might be held at Nicæa instead of
Nicomedia, so that the disputed points might be finally decided on the
very spot where they had been first called in question. Basil, in
writing to this effect, believed that the emperor would be pleased
with this proposition, as he had himself originally suggested the
propriety of holding the council at Nicæa. On receiving this epistle
from Basil, the emperor commanded that, at the commencement of summer,
the bishops should assemble together at Nicæa, with the exception of
those who were laboring under bodily infirmity; and these latter were
to depute presbyters and deacons to make known their sentiments and to
consult together on contested points of doctrine, and arrive at the
same decision concerning all points at issue. He ordained that ten
delegates should be selected from the Western churches, and as many
from the Eastern, to take cognizance of the enactments that might be
issued, and to decide whether they were in accordance with the Holy
Scriptures, and also to exercise a general superintendence over the
transactions of the council. After further consultation the emperor
enacted that the bishops should remain where they might be residing,
or in their own churches, until it had been decided where the council
was to be held, and until they received notice to repair thither. He
then writes to Basil, and directs him to inquire by letter of the
Eastern bishops, where they would advise the council to be held, so
that a public announcement might be made at the commencement of
spring; for the emperor was of opinion that it was not advisable to
convene the council at Nicæa, on account of the earthquake which had
recently occurred in the province. Basil wrote to the bishops of every
province, urging them to deliberate together, and to decide quickly
upon the locality in which it would be most expedient to hold the
council, and he prefixed a copy of the emperor's letter to his
epistle. As is frequently the case in similar circumstances, the
bishops were divided in opinion on the subject, and Basil repaired to
the emperor, who was then at Sirmium. He found several bishops at that
city who had gone thither on their own private affairs, and among them
were Mark, bishop of Arethusa, and George, who had been appointed to
preside over the church of Alexandria. When at length it was decided
that the council should be held in Seleucia, a city of Isauria, by
Valens and his adherents, for Valens was then sojourning in Sirmium;
since they favored the heresy of the Anomians, they urged the bishops
who were present at the military court, to subscribe to a formulary of
the faith which had been prepared, and in which there was no mention
of the term "substance." But while preparations were being zealously
made for convening the council, Eudoxius and Acacius, Ursacius and
Valens, with their followers, reflected that, while many of the
bishops were attached to the Nicene faith, and others favored the
formulary drawn up at the consecration of the church of Antioch, yet
that both parties retained the use of the term "substance," and
maintained that the Son was, in every respect, like unto the Father;
and being aware that if both parties assembled together in one place
they would readily condemn the doctrines of Aëtius, as being contrary
to their respective creeds, they so contrived matters that the bishops
of the West were convened at Ariminum, and those of the East at
Seleucia, a city of Isauria. As it is easier to convince a few than a
great many individuals, they conceived that they might possibly lead
both parties to favor their sentiments by dealing with them
separately, or that they might, at any rate, succeed with one, so that
their heresy might not incur universal condemnation. They accomplished
this through Eusebius, a eunuch who was superintendent of the imperial
house: he was on terms of friendship with Eudoxius, and upheld the
same doctrines, and many of those in power were seeking to conciliate
this very Eusebius.
Footnotes
[1322] Philost. iv. 10, 11; Athan. de Synodis, 2-7; Soc. ii. 37, 39;
cf. Theodoret, H. E. ii. 18, 26. Soz.'s facts are more voluminous, and
the grouping independent.
[1323] Cf. Am. Marcell. xvii. 7; Idatius under 358 in Descriptio
Consulum.
[1324] A story from tradition by Soz.
Chapter XVII.--Proceedings of the Council of Ariminum.
The emperor [1325] was persuaded that it would not be desirable for
the public, on account of the expense, nor advantageous to the
bishops, on account of the length of the journey, to convene them all
to the same place for the purpose of holding a council. He therefore
writes to the bishops who were then at Ariminum, as well as to those
who were then at Seleucia, and directed them to enter upon an
investigation of contested points concerning the faith, and then to
turn their attention to the complaints of Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem,
and of other bishops who had remonstrated against the injustice of the
decrees of deposition and banishment which had been issued against
them, and to examine the legality of various sentences which had been
enacted against other bishops. There were, in fact, several
accusations pending against different bishops. George was accused by
the Egyptians of rapine and violence. Finally, the emperor commanded
that ten deputies should be sent to him from each council, to inform
him of their respective proceedings.
In accordance with this edict, the bishops assembled at the appointed
cities. The Synod at Ariminum first commenced proceedings; [1326] it
consisted of about four hundred members. Those who regarded Athanasius
with the greatest enmity, were of opinion that there was nothing
further to be decreed against him. When they had entered upon the
investigation of doctrinal questions, Valens and Ursacius, supported
by Germenius, Auxentius, Caius, and Demophilus, advanced into the
middle of the assembly, and demanded that all the formularies of the
faith which had been previously compiled should be suppressed, and
that the formulary which they had but a short time previously set
forth in the Latin language at Sirmium should be alone retained. In
this formulary it was taught, according to Scripture, that the Son is
like unto the Father; but no mention was made of the substance of God.
They declared that this formulary had been approved by the emperor,
and that it was incumbent upon the council to adopt it, instead of
consulting too scrupulously the individual opinions of every member of
the council, so that disputes and divisions might not spring up, were
the terms to be delivered up to debate and accurate proof. They added
that it would better enable those who were more ignorant of the art of
discourse to have a right conception of God, than were they to
introduce novelties in terms, so akin to disputatious jugglery. By
these representations, they designed to denounce the use of the term
"consubstantial," because they said it was not found in the Holy
Scriptures, and was obscure to the multitude; and, instead of this
term, they wished to substitute the expression that "the Son is like
unto the Father in all things," which is borne out by the Holy
Scriptures. After they had read their formulary containing the above
representations, many of the bishops told them that no new formulary
of the faith ought to be set forth, that those which had been
previously compiled were quite sufficient for all purposes, and that
they were met together for the express purpose of preventing all
innovations. These bishops then urged those who had compiled and read
the formulary to declare publicly their condemnation of the Arian
doctrine, as the cause of all the troubles which had agitated the
churches of every region. Ursacius and Valens, Germenius and
Auxentius, Demophilus and Caius, having protested against this
protestation, the council commanded that the expositions of the other
heresies should be read, and likewise that set forth at Nicæa; so that
those formularies which favored divers heresies might be condemned,
and those which were in accordance with the Nicene doctrines might be
approved; in order that there might be no further ground for dispute,
and no future necessity for councils, but that an efficient decision
might be formed. [1327] They remarked that it was absurd to compose so
many formularies, as if they had but just commenced to become
acquainted with the faith, and as if they wished to slight the ancient
traditions of the Church, by which the churches had been governed by
themselves, and by their predecessors, many of whom had witnessed a
good confession, and had received the crown of martyrdom. Such were
the arguments adduced by these bishops, to prove that no innovations
ought to be attempted. As Valens and Ursacius and their partisans
refused to be convinced by these arguments, but persisted in
advocating the adoption of their own formulary, they were deposed, and
it was decided that their formulary should be rejected. It was
remarked that the declaration at the commencement of this formulary,
of its having been compiled at Sirmium, in the presence of
Constantius, "the eternal Augustus," and during the consulate of
Eusebius and Hypatius, was an absurdity. Athanasius made the same
remark, in a letter addressed to one of his friends, [1328] and said
that it was ridiculous to term Constantius the eternal emperor, and
yet to shrink from acknowledging the Son of God to be eternal; he also
ridiculed the date affixed to the formulary, as though condemnation
were meant to be thrown on the faith of former ages, as well as on
those who had, before that period, been initiated into the faith.
After these events had transpired at Ariminum, Valens and Ursacius,
together with their adherents, irritated at their deposition, repaired
with all haste to the emperor.
Footnotes
[1325] Athan. de Synodis, 8-11; Soc. ii. 37; Ruf. i. 21; Philost. H.
E. iv. 10; Theodoret, H. E. ii. 18.
[1326] a.d. 359.
[1327] This speech is quoted directly in Soc. ii. 37.
[1328] Athan. de Synodis, 3; quoted by Soc. ii. 37.
Chapter XVIII.--Letter from the Council at Ariminum to the Emperor
Constantius.
The Synod selected twenty bishops, [1329] and sent them on an embassy
to the emperor, with the following letter, which has been translated
from Latin into Greek:-- [1330]
"We believe that it is by the command of God, as well as by the
arrangement of your piety, that we have been led from all the cities
of the West, to assemble at Ariminum, for the purpose of declaring the
faith of the Catholic Church, and of detecting those who have set
forth heresies in opposition to it. After a protracted investigation,
we have come to the conclusion that it is best to preserve that faith
which has been continuous from antiquity, and which was preached by
the prophets, the evangelists, the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ,
the Guardian of your empire, and Protector of your strength, by
holding on thereto and guarding it to the end. It would have been
absurd, as well as illegal, to have introduced any change in the
doctrines which were so rightly and so justly propounded by the
bishops at Nicæa, with the concurrence of the most illustrious
Constantine, the emperor and your father, whose teaching and thought
has gone forth and been preached in the universal hearing and
reflection of men; and it is the antagonist and destroyer of the Arian
heresy; through whose agency not only that deflection from the faith,
but all others have been destroyed. There is great danger in adding
to, or in taking away from, these doctrines; nor can the slightest
alteration be made in any one of them, without giving an opportunity
to the adversaries to do what they list. Ursacius and Valens, after
having been suspected of participating in and advising about the Arian
doctrine, were cut off from communion with us. In the hope of being
restored to communion, they confessed their error, and obtained
forgiveness, as their own writings testify, through which they were
spared and received a pardon from the charges. The occasion on which
the edict of forgiveness was conceded, was at the council of Milan,
when the presbyters of the Roman church were also present.
"Since we know that the formulary of the faith set forth at Nicæa was
compiled with the greatest care and accuracy, in the presence of
Constantine, of worthy memory, who maintained it throughout his life,
and at his baptism, and when he departed to enjoy the merited peace of
heaven, we judge that it would be absurd to attempt any alteration in
it, and to overlook so many holy confessors and martyrs, and the
writers and authors of this dogma, who have bestowed much thought upon
it, and have perpetuated the ancient decree of the Catholic Church.
God has transmitted the knowledge of their faith to the time in which
you live, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom you reign and rule
the world. Again have these wretched men, who are lamentable, to our
way of thinking, announced themselves as heralds of an impious view
with unlawful rashness, and have attempted to overturn the entire
system of truth. For according to your injunction, the Synod was
convened, and these men laid bare the view of their own deceit; for
they attempted an innovation which they introduced with knavery and
disturbance, and they found some companions whom they captured for
this nefarious transaction; viz. Germanius, Auxentius, and Caius, who
caused contention and discord. The teaching of these men, although it
was uniform, exceeded the entire range of blasphemies. As they
perceived that they were after all not of the same heresy, and that
they did not think alike in any of the points of their evil
suggestions, they went over to our symbol, so that it might appear as
some other document. The time was indeed brief, but it was sufficient
to refute their opinions. In order that the affairs of the Church
might not be wrecked by them and that the disturbance and tumult which
tossed everything to and fro might be restrained, it appeared the safe
thing to preserve the ancient and immovable definitions, and to eject
the aforesaid persons from communion with us. We have, for this
reason, sent our reinstructed deputies to your Clemency, and have
furnished them with letters, declaratory of the sentiments of the
council. These deputies have been especially charged by us to maintain
the truths which were defined rightly by the founders, and to instruct
your Holiness as to the falsity of the assertion of Valens and
Ursacius, that a few changes in righteous truths would produce peace
in the Church. For how can peace be reproduced by those who destroy
peace? They would be more likely to introduce contention and
disturbance into the other cities and into the Church of Rome. We
therefore entreat your Clemency to consider our deputies with gentle
audience and mild look, and not to allow the dead to be dishonored by
any novel changes. We pray you to permit us to remain in the
definitions and decrees which we received from our ancestors, who, we
would affirm, did their work with ready minds, with prudence, and with
the Holy Spirit. For these innovations not only lead believers to
infidelity, but also delude unbelievers to immaturity. We likewise
entreat you to command that the bishops who are now absent from their
churches, and of whom some are laboring under the infirmities of old
age, and others under the privations of poverty, may be furnished with
the means of returning to their own homes, in order that the churches
may not be longer deprived of their ministry.
"Again, we beseech you that nothing be taken away from the former
decisions, or added to them; let all remain unchanged, even as it has
been preserved from the piety of your father to the present time; so
that we may not in future be fatigued, and be compelled to become
strangers to our own parishes, but that bishops and people may dwell
together in peace, and be able to devote themselves to prayer and
supplication for your own personal salvation and empire and peace,
which may the Deity graciously vouchsafe to you uninterruptedly.
"Our deputies will show you the signatures and the names of the
bishops, and some of them will offer instruction to your Holiness out
of the Sacred Scriptures."
Footnotes
[1329] The emperor had requested ten; cf. also ii. 23.
[1330] Athan. de Synodis, c. 10; Hil. Fragm. viii., Latin form; Soc.
ii. 37; Theod. ii. 19.
Chapter XIX.--Concerning the Deputies of the Council and the Emperor's
Letter; Agreement of the Adherents of Ursacius and Valens afterwards
with the Letter put forth; Exile of the Archbishops. Concerning the
Synod at Nicæa, and the Reason why the Synod was held in Ariminum.
We have now transcribed the letter of the council of Ariminum.
Ursacius and Valens, with their adherents, anticipating the arrival of
the deputies of the council, showed to the emperor the document which
they had read, and calumniated the council. [1331] The emperor was
displeased at the rejection of this formulary, as it had been composed
in his presence at Sirmium, and he therefore treated Ursacius and
Valens with honor; while, on the other hand, he manifested great
contempt towards the deputies, and even delayed granting them an
audience. At length, however, he wrote to the Synod, and informed them
that an expedition which he was compelled to undertake against the
barbarians prevented him from conferring with the deputies; and that
he had, therefore, commanded them to remain at Adrianople until his
return, in order that, when public business had been dismissed, his
mind might be at liberty to hear and test the representations of the
deputies; "for it is right," he said, "to bring to the investigation
of Divine subjects, a mind unfettered by other cares." Such was the
strain of his letter. [1332]
The bishops replied that they could never depart from the decision
they had formed, as they had before declared in writing, and had
charged their deputies to declare; and they besought him to regard
them with favor, and to give audience to their deputies, and to read
their letter. They told him that it must appear grievous to him that
so many churches should be deprived of their bishops; and that, if
agreeable to him, they would return to their churches before the
winter. After writing this letter, which was full of supplications and
entreaties, the bishops waited for a time for a reply; but as no
answer was granted them, they afterwards returned to their own cities.
What I have above stated clearly proves that the bishops who were
convened at Ariminum confirmed the decrees which had of old been set
forth at Nicæa. Let us now consider how it was that they eventually
assented to the formulary of faith compiled by Valens and Ursacius and
their followers. Various accounts have been given me of this
transaction. Some say that the emperor was offended at the bishops
having departed from Ariminum without his permission, and allowed
Valens and his partisans to govern the churches of the West according
to their own will, to set forth their own formulary, to eject those
who refused to sign it from the churches, and to ordain others in
their place. They say that, taking advantage of this power, Valens
compelled some of the bishops to sign the formulary, and that he drove
many who refused compliance, from their churches, and first of all
Liberius, bishop of Rome. It is further asserted that when Valens and
his adherents had acted in this manner in Italy, they resolved to
handle the Eastern churches in the same way. As these persecutors were
passing through Thrace, they stopped, it is said, at Nicæa, a city of
that province. They there convened a council, and read the formulary
of Ariminum, which they had translated into the Greek language, and by
representing that it had been approved by a general council, they
obtained its adoption at Nicæa; they then cunningly denominated it the
Nicæan formulary of faith, in order, by the resemblance of names, to
deceive the simple, and cause it to be mistaken for the ancient
formulary set forth by the Nicæan council. Such is the account given
by some parties. Others say that the bishops who were convened at the
council of Ariminum were wearied by their detention in that city, as
the emperor neither honored them with a reply to their letter, nor
granted them permission to return to their own churches; and that, at
this juncture, those who had espoused the opposite heresy represented
to them that it was not right that divisions should exist between the
priests of the whole world for the sake of one word, and that it was
only requisite to admit that the Son is like unto the Father in order
to put an end to all disputes; for that the bishops of the East would
never rest until the term "substance" was rejected. By these
representations, it is said, the members of the council were at length
persuaded to assent to the formulary which Ursacius had so sedulously
pressed upon them. Ursacius and his partisans, being apprehensive lest
the deputies sent by the council to the emperor should declare what
firmness was in the first place evinced by the Western bishops, and
should expose the true cause of the rejection of the term
"consubstantial," detained these deputies at Nicæa in Thrace
throughout the winter, under the pretext that no public conveyance
could be then obtained, and that the roads were in a bad state for
traveling; and they then induced them, it is said, to translate the
formulary they had accepted from Latin into Greek, and to send it to
the Eastern bishops. By this means, they anticipated that the
formulary would produce the impression they intended without the fraud
being detected; for there was no one to testify that the members of
the council of Ariminum had not voluntarily rejected the term
"substance" from deference to the Eastern bishops, who were averse to
the use of that word. But this was evidently a false account; for all
the members of the council, with the exception of a few, maintained
strenuously that the Son is like unto the Father in substance, and the
only differences of opinion existing between them were that some said
that the Son is of the same substance as the Father, while others
asserted that he is of like substance with the Father. Some state this
matter in one form, others in a different one.
Footnotes
[1331] In addition to the references in 18, Athan. Synodis, 55; Ep.
ad. Afros episcopos, 3, 4. Documents reproduced in Soc. ii. 37.
[1332] The reply of the bishops to Constantius, also reproduced in
Theodoret, H. E. ii. 20, from Athan. de Synodis, 55. Soz. presents the
best general grouping of the facts.
Chapter XX.--Events which took place in the Eastern Churches:
Marathonius, Eleusius of Cyzicus, and Macedonius expel those who
maintain the Term "Consubstantial." Concerning the Churches of the
Novatians; how one Church was Transported; the Novatians enter into
Communion with the Orthodox.
While the events I have above related were taking place in Italy, the
East, even before the council of Seleucia had been constituted, was
the theatre of great disturbances. [1333] The adherents of Acacius and
Patrophilus, having ejected Maximus, turned over the church of
Jerusalem to Cyril. Macedonius harassed Constantinople and the
neighboring cities; he was abetted by Eleusius and Marathonius. This
latter was originally a deacon in his own church, and was a zealous
superintendent of the poor of the monastical dwellings inhabited by
men and women, and Macedonius raised him to the bishopric of
Nicomedia. Eleusius, who, not without distinction, was formerly
attached to the military service of the palace, had been ordained
bishop of Cyzicus. It is said that Eleusius and Marathonius were both
good men in their conduct, but that they were zealous in persecuting
those who maintained that the Son is of the same substance as the
Father, although they were not so distinctly cruel as Macedonius, who
not only expelled those who refused to hold communion with him, but
imprisoned some, and dragged others before the tribunals. In many
cases he compelled the unwilling to communion. He seized children and
women who had not been initiated and initiated them, and destroyed
many churches in different places, under the pretext that the emperor
had commanded the demolition of all houses of prayer in which the Son
was recognized to be of the same substance as the Father.
Under this pretext the church of the Novatians at Constantinople,
situated in that part of the city called Pelargus, was destroyed. It
is related that these heretics performed a courageous action with the
aid of the members of the Catholic Church, with whom they made common
cause. When those who were employed to destroy this church were about
to commence the work of demolition, the Novatians assembled themselves
together; some tore down the materials, and others conveyed them to a
suburb of the city called Sycæ. They quickly achieved this task; for
men, women, and children participated in it, and by offering their
labor to God they were extraordinarily inspirited. By the exercise of
this zeal the church was soon renewed, and, from this circumstance,
received the name of Anastasia. After the death of Constantius,
Julian, his successor, granted to the Novatians the ground which they
had previously possessed, and permitted them to rebuild their church.
The people spiritedly took advantage of this permission, and
transported the identical materials of the former edifice from Sycæ.
But this happened at a later period of time than that which we are now
reviewing. At this period a union was nearly effected between the
Novatian and Catholic churches; for as they held the same opinions
concerning the Godhead, and were subjected to a common persecution,
the members of both churches assembled and prayed together. The
Catholics then possessed no houses of prayer, for the Arians had
wrested them from them. It appears, too, that from the frequent
intercourse between the members of each church, they reasoned that the
differences between them were vain, and they resolved to commune with
one another. A reconciliation would certainly have been effected, I
think, had not the desire of the multitude been frustrated by the
slander of a few individuals, who asserted that there was an ancient
law prohibiting the union of the churches.
Footnotes
[1333] Soc. ii. 38, from which the most of this Chapter is derived; a
few details in addition are given by Soz. Cf. Theodoret, H. E. ii. 26.
Chapter XXI.--Proceedings of Macedonius in Mantinium. His Removal from
his See when he attempted to remove the Coffin of Constantine the
Great. Julian was pronounced Cæsar.
About the same time Eleusius wholly demolished the church of the
Novatians in Cyzicus. [1334] The inhabitants of other parts of
Paphlagonia, and particularly of Mantinium, were subjected to similar
persecutions. Macedonius, having been apprised that the majority of
these people were followers of Novatus, and that the ecclesiastical
power was not of itself sufficiently strong to expel them, persuaded
the emperor to send four cohorts against them. For he imagined that
men who are unaccustomed to arms would, on the first appearance of
soldiers, be seized with terror, and conform to his sentiments. But it
happened otherwise, for the people of Mantinium armed themselves with
sickles and axes and whatever other weapons chanced to be at hand, and
marched against the military. A severe conflict ensued, and many of
the Paphlagonians fell, but nearly all the soldiers were slain. Many
of the friends of Macedonius blamed him for having occasioned so great
a disaster, and the emperor was displeased, and regarded him with less
favor than before. Inimical feelings were engendered still more
strongly by another occurrence. Macedonius contemplated the removal of
the coffin of the Emperor Constantine, as the structure in which it
had been concealed was falling into ruin. The people were divided in
opinion on this subject: some concurred in the design, and others
opposed it, deeming it impious and similar to digging up a grave.
Those who maintained the Nicene doctrines were of the latter
sentiment, and insisted that no indignity should be offered to the
body of Constantine, as that emperor had held the same doctrines as
themselves. They were besides, I can readily imagine, eager to oppose
the projects of Macedonius. However, without further delay, Macedonius
caused the coffin to be conveyed to the same church in which the tomb
of Acacius the martyr is placed. The people, divided into two
factions, the one approving, the other condemning the deed, rushed
upon each other in the same church, and so much carnage ensued that
the house of prayer and the adjoining place were filled with blood and
slaughtered bodies. The emperor, who was then in the West, was deeply
incensed on hearing of this occurrence; and he blamed Macedonius as
the cause of the indignity offered to his father, and of the slaughter
of the people.
The emperor had determined to visit the East, and held on his way; he
conferred the title of Cæsar on his cousin Julian, and sent him to
Western Gaul.
Footnotes
[1334] Soc. ii. 38; order and detail from Socrates.
Chapter XXII.--Council of Seleucia.
About the same period the Eastern bishops assembled, [1335] to the
number of about one hundred and sixty, in Seleucia, a city of Isauria.
This was during the consulate of Eusebius and Hypatius. Leonas, who
held a brilliant military office at the palace, repaired to this
council at the command of Constantius, so that the doctrinal
confession might be conducted in his presence. Lauricius, the military
governor of the province, was present to prepare whatever might be
necessary; for the letter of the emperor had commanded him to render
this service. At the first session of this council, several of the
bishops were absent, and among others, Patrophilus, bishop of
Scythopolis; Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople; and Basil, bishop
of Ancyra. They resorted to divers pretexts in justification of their
non-attendance. Patrophilus alleged in excuse a complaint in the eyes,
and Macedonius pleaded indisposition; but it was suspected they had
absented themselves from the fear that various accusations would be
brought against them. As the other bishops refused to enter upon the
investigation of disputed points during their absence, Leonas
commanded them to proceed at once to the examination of the questions
that had been agitated. Thus some were of the opinion that it was
necessary to commence with the discussion of doctrinal topics, while
others maintained that inquiries ought first to be instituted into the
conduct of those among them against whom accusations had been laid, as
had been the case with Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, Eustathius, bishop
of Sebaste, and others. The ambiguity of the emperor's letters, which
sometimes prescribed one course and sometimes another, gave rise to
this dispute. The contention arising from this source became so
fierce, that all union was destroyed between them, and they became
divided into two parties. However, the advice of those who wished to
commence with the examination of doctrine, prevailed. When they
proceeded to the investigation of terms, some desired to reject the
use of the term "substance," and appealed to the authority of the
formulary of faith which had not long previously been compiled by Mark
[1336] at Sirmium, and had been received by the bishops who were at
the court, among whom was Basil, [1337] bishop of Ancyra. Many others
were anxious for the adoption of the formulary of faith drawn up at
the dedication of the church of Antioch. To the first of these parties
belonged Eudoxius, Acacius, Patrophilus, George, bishop of Alexandria,
Uranius, bishop of Tyre, and thirty-two other bishops. The latter
party was supported by George, bishop of Laodicea, in Syria; by
Eleusius, bishop of Cyzicus; by Sophronius, bishop of Pompeiopolis, in
Paphlagonia; with these the majority agreed. It was suspected, and
with reason, that Acacius and his partisans absented themselves on
account of the difference between their sentiments and those of the
aforesaid bishops, and also because they desired to evade the
investigation of certain accusations which had been brought against
them; for, although they had previously acknowledged in writing to
Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, that the Son is in all respects
like unto the Father, and of the same substance, now they fought
entirely shy of their former professions. After prolonged disputations
and contention, Silvanus, bishop of Tarsus, declared, in a loud and
peremptory tone, that no new formulary of faith ought to be introduced
but that which had been approved at Antioch, and this alone ought to
prevail. As this proposition was repugnant to the followers of
Acacius, they withdrew, and the other bishops read the formulary of
Antioch. The following day these bishops assembled in the church,
closed the doors, and privately confirmed this formulary. Acacius
condemned this proceeding, and laid the formulary which he advocated
before Leonas and Lauricius privately. Three days afterwards the same
bishops reassembled, and were joined by Macedonius and Basil, who had
been previously absent. Acacius and his partisans declared that they
would take no part in the proceedings of the council until those who
had been deposed and accused had quitted the assembly. His demand was
complied with; for the bishops of the opposite party were determined
that he should have no pretext for dissolving the council, which was
evidently his object, in order to prevent the impending examination of
the heresy of Aëtius, and of the accusations which had been brought
against himself and his partisans. When all the members were
assembled, Leonas stated that he held a document which had been handed
to him by the partisans of Acacius; it was their formulary of faith,
with introductory remarks. None of the other bishops knew anything
about it; for Leonas, who was of the same sentiment as Acacius, had
willingly kept the whole matter a secret. When this document [1338]
was read, the whole assembly was filled with tumult; for some of the
statements it contained were to the effect that, though the emperor
had prohibited the introduction of any term into the formularies of
faith which was not found in the Sacred Scriptures, yet that bishops
who had been deposed, having been brought from various provinces to
the assembly, with others who had been illegally ordained, the council
had been thrown into confusion, and that some of the members had been
insulted, and others prevented from speaking. It was added that
Acacius and his partisans did not reject the formulary which had been
compiled at Antioch, although those who had assembled in that city had
drawn it up for the express purpose of meeting the difficulty which
had just then arisen; but that, as the terms "consubstantial" and "of
similar substance" had grieved some individuals, and that, as it had
been recently asserted that the Son is dissimilar from the Father, it
was necessary, on this account, to reject the terms "consubstantial"
and a "similar substance," which do not occur in Scripture, to condemn
the term "dissimilar," and to confess clearly that the Son is like
unto the Father; for He is, as the Apostle Paul somewhere says, "the
image of the invisible God." These prefatory observations were
followed by a formulary, which was neither conformable with that of
Nicæa, nor with that of Antioch, and which was so artfully worded that
the followers of Arius and of Aëtius would not appear to be in error
if they should thus state their faith. In this formulary, the words
used by those who had convened at Nicæa, in condemnation of the Arian
doctrine, were omitted, and the declarations of the council of
Antioch, concerning the immutability of the Deity of the Son, and
concerning His being the unchangeable image of the substance, the
counsel, and the power, and the glory of the Father, were passed over
in silence, and belief was simply expressed in the Father, in the Son,
and in the Holy Ghost; and after bestowing some vulgar epithets on a
few individuals who had never entered into any doctrinal contention on
one side or the other, all those who entertained any other opinions
than those set forth in this formulary were declared to be aliens to
the Catholic Church. Such were the contents of the document presented
by Leonas, and which had been signed by Acacius, and by those who had
adopted his sentiments. After it had been read, Sophronius, a bishop
of Paphlagonia, exclaimed, "If we daily receive the opinions of
individuals as a statement of the faith, we shall fail in attaining
precision of the truth." Acacius having retorted that it was not
forbidden to compile new formularies, as that of Nicæa had been once
and frequently altered, Eleusius replied as follows: "But the council
has not now met for the purpose of learning what is already known, or
of accepting any other formulary than that which has been already
approved by those who assembled at Antioch; and, moreover, living and
dying, we will adhere to this formulary." The dispute having taken
this turn, they entered upon another inquiry, and asked the partisans
of Acacius, in what they considered the Son to be like unto the
Father. They replied that the Son is similar in will only, but not in
substance, and the others thereupon insisted that He is similar in
substance, and convicted Acacius, by a work which he had formerly
written, that he had once been of their opinion. Acacius replied that
he ought not to be judged from his own writings; and the dispute had
continued with heat for some time, when Eleusius, bishop of Cyzicus,
spoke as follows: "It matters little to the council whether Mark or
Basil has transgressed in any way, whether they or the adherents of
Acacius have any accusation to bring against each other; neither does
the trouble devolve upon the council of examining whether their
formulary be commendable or otherwise; it is enough to maintain the
formulary which has been already confirmed at Antioch by ninety-seven
priests; and if any one desire to introduce any doctrine which is not
contained therein, he ought to be held as an alien to religion and the
Church." Those who were of his sentiments applauded his speech; and
the assembly then arose and separated. The following day, the
partisans of Acacius and of George refused to attend the council; and
Leonas, who had now openly declared himself to be of their sentiments,
likewise refused, in spite of all entreaties, to repair thither. Those
who were deputed to request his attendance found the partisans of
Acacius in his house; and he declined their invitation, under the plea
that too much discord prevailed in the council, and that he had only
been commanded by the emperor to attend the council in case of
unanimity among the members. Much time was consumed in this way; and
the partisans of Acacius were frequently solicited by the other
bishops to attend the assemblies; but they sometimes demanded a
special conference in the house of Leonas, and sometimes alleged that
they had been commissioned by the emperor to judge those who had been
accused; for they would not receive the creed adopted by the other
bishops, nor clear themselves of the crimes of which they had been
accused; neither would they examine the case of Cyril, whom they had
deposed; and there was no one to compel them to do so. The council,
however, eventually deposed George, bishop of Alexandria; Acacius,
bishop of Cæsarea; Uranius, bishop of Tyre; Patrophilus, bishop of
Scythopolis; and Eudoxius, bishop of Antioch; and several other
prelates. Many persons were likewise put out of communion until they
could purge themselves of the crimes imputed to them. The transactions
were conveyed in writing to the parish of each of the clergy. Adrian,
[1339] a presbyter of Antioch, was ordained bishop over that church,
in room of Eudoxius; but the partisans of Acacius arrested him and
delivered him over to Leonas and Lauricius. They committed him into
the custody of the soldiers, but afterwards sent him into exile.
We have now given a brief account of the termination of the council of
Seleucia. Those who desire more detailed information must seek it in
the acts of the council, [1340] which have been transcribed by
attendant shorthand writers.
Footnotes
[1335] Soz. alludes to the original acts of the Synod at the end, and
Soc. ii. 39, to Sabinus' collection. Sabinus probably reported the
exact originals. Athan. de Synodis, 12, 13; Hil. contra Constantium,
12; Philost. iv. 11; Sulp. Sev. H. S. ii. 42. Cf. Theodoret, H. E. ii.
26; Athan. de Synodis, 29.
[1336] The author of the first formulary of Sirmium is here given by
Soz. Soc. stated it, ii. 30.
[1337] See above, 16.
[1338] Given by Soc. ii. 40.
[1339] Mistake for Annianus, as given in 24.
[1340] Soc. refers anxious readers to the collection by Sabinus, ii.
39.
Chapter XXIII.--Acacius and Aëtius; and how the Deputies of the Two
Councils of Ariminum and of Seleucia were led by the Emperor to accept
the Same Doctrines.
Immediately after the above transactions, the adherents of Acacius
repaired to the emperor; [1341] but the other bishops returned to
their respective homes. The ten bishops who had been unanimously
chosen as deputies to the emperor, met, on their arrival at the court,
the ten deputies [1342] of the council of Ariminum, and likewise the
partisans of Acacius. These latter had gained over to their cause the
chief men attached to the palace, and, through their influence, had
secured the favor of the emperor. It was reported that some of these
proselytes had espoused the sentiments of Acacius at some previous
period; that some were bribed by means of the wealth belonging to the
churches; and that others were seduced by the subtilty of the
arguments presented to them, and by the dignity of the persuader.
Acacius was, in fact, no common character; by nature he was gifted
with great powers of intellect and eloquence, and he exhibited no want
of skill or of address in the accomplishment of his schemes. He was
the president of an illustrious church, and could boast of Eusebius
Pamphilus as his teacher, whom he succeeded in the episcopate, and was
more honorably known than any other man by the reputation and
succession of his books. Endowed with all these advantages, he
succeeded with ease in whatever he undertook.
As there were at this period at Constantinople all together twenty
deputies, ten from each council, besides many other bishops, who, from
various motives, had repaired to the city, Honoratus, [1343] whom the
emperor, before his departure to the West, had constituted chief
governor of Constantinople, received directions to examine, in the
presence of the exarchs of the great council, the reports circulated
concerning Aëtius and his heresy. Constantius, with some of the
rulers, eventually undertook the investigation of this case; and as it
was proved that Aëtius had introduced dogmas essentially opposed to
the faith, the emperor and the other judges were offended at his
blasphemous statements. It is said that the partisans of Acacius at
first feigned ignorance of this heresy, for the purpose of inducing
the emperor and those around him to take cognizance of it; for they
imagined that the eloquence of Aëtius would be irresistible; that he
would infallibly succeed in convincing his auditory; and that his
heresy would conquer the unwilling. When, however, the result proved
the futility of their expectations, they demanded that the formulary
of faith accepted by the council of Ariminum should receive the
sanction of the deputies from the council of Seleucia. As these latter
protested that they would never renounce the use of the term
"substance," the Acacians declared to them upon oath that they did not
hold the Son to be, in substance, dissimilar from the Father; but
that, on the contrary, they were ready to denounce this opinion as
heresy. They added that they esteemed the formulary compiled by the
Western bishops at Ariminum the more highly, because the word
"substance" had been unexpectedly expunged from it; because, they
said, if this formulary were to be received, there would be no further
mention, either of the word "substance" or of the term
"consubstantial," to which many of the Western priests were, from
their reverence for the Nicæan council, peculiarly attached.
It was for these reasons that the emperor approved of the formulary;
and when he recalled to mind the great number of bishops who had been
convened at Ariminum, and reflected that there is no error in saying
either that "the Son is like unto the Father" or "of the same
substance as the Father"; and when he further considered that no
difference in signification would ensue, if, for terms which do not
occur in Scripture, other equivalent and uncontrovertible expressions
were to be substituted (such, for instance, as the word "similar"), he
determined upon giving his sanction to the formulary. Such being his
own sentiments, he commanded the bishops to accept the formulary. The
next day preparations were made for the pompous ceremony of
proclaiming him consul, which, according to the Roman custom, took
place in the beginning of the month of January, and the whole of that
day and part of the ensuing night the emperor spent with the bishops,
and at length succeeded in persuading the deputies of the council of
Seleucia to receive the formulary transmitted from Ariminum.
Footnotes
[1341] A few hints in Philost. iv. 12; Soc. ii. 41. Cf. Sulp. Sev. H.
S. ii. 43-45; Theodoret, H. E. ii. 27. But the main part is
independent.
[1342] Cf. iv. 18; twenty. Philost. tells us that Acacius prepared the
minutes of this Synod.
[1343] Concerning this Honoratus see the Descriptio Consulum of
Idatius.
Chapter XXIV.--Formulary of the Council of Ariminum approved by the
Acacians. List of the Deposed Chief-Priests, and the Causes of their
Condemnation.
The partisans of Acacius [1344] remained some time at Constantinople,
and invited thither several bishops of Bithynia, among whom were
Maris, bishop of Chalcedon, and Ulfilas, bishop of the Goths. These
prelates having assembled together, in number about fifty, they
confirmed the formulary read at the council of Ariminum, adding this
provision, that the terms "substance " and "hypostasis" should never
again be used in reference to God. They also declared that all other
formularies set forth in times past, as likewise those that might be
compiled at any future period, should be condemned. They then deposed
Aëtius from his office of deacon, because he had written works full of
contention and of a species of vain knowledge opposed to the
ecclesiastical vocation; because he had used in writing and in
disputation several impious expressions; and because he had been the
occasion of troubles and seditions in the Church. It was alleged by
many that they did not depose him willingly, but merely because they
wished to remove all suspicion from the mind of the emperor which he
had with regard to them, for they had been accused of holding Aëtian
views. Those who held these sentiments took advantage of the
resentment with which, for reasons above mentioned, the emperor
regarded Macedonius, and they accordingly deposed him, and likewise
Eleusius, bishop of Cyzicus; Basil, bishop of Ancyra; Heortasius,
bishop of Sardis; and Dracontius, bishop of Pergamus. Although they
differed about doctrine from those bishops, yet in deposing them, no
blame was thrown upon their faith, but charges were alleged against
them in common with all, that they had disturbed the peace and
violated the laws of the Church. They specified, in particular, that
when the presbyter Diogenes was traveling from Alexandria to Ancyra,
Basil seized his papers, and struck him; they also deposed that Basil
had, without trial, delivered over many of the clergy from Antioch,
from the banks of the Euphrates, and from Cilicia, Galatia, and Asia,
to the rulers of the provinces, to be exiled and subjected to cruel
punishments, so that many had been loaded with chains, and had been
compelled to bribe the soldiers, who were conducting them away, not to
ill-use them. They added that, on one occasion, when the emperor had
commanded Aëtius and some of his followers to be led before Cecropius,
that they might answer to him for various accusations laid to their
charge, Basil recommended the person who was intrusted with the
execution of this edict, to act according to the dictates of his own
judgment. They said that he wrote directions to Hermogenes, [1345] the
prefect and governor of Syria, stating who were to be banished, and
whither they were to be sent; and that, when the exiles were recalled
by the emperor, he would not consent to their return, but opposed
himself to the wishes of the rulers and of the priests. They further
deposed that Basil had excited the clergy of Sirimium against
Germanius; and that, although he stated in writing that he had
admitted Germanius, Valens, and Ursacius into communion, he had placed
them as criminals before the tribunal of the African bishops; and
that, when taxed with this deed, he had denied it, and perjured
himself; and that, when he was afterwards convicted, he strove to
justify his perjury by sophistical reasoning. They added, that he had
been the cause of contention and of sedition in Illyria, Italy,
Africa, and in the Roman church; that he had thrown a servant into
prison to compel her to bear false witness against her mistress; that
he had baptized a man of loose life, who lived in illicit intercourse
with a woman, and had promoted him to be a deacon; that he had
neglected to excommunicate a quack-doctor who had occasioned the death
of several persons; and that he and some of the clergy had bound
themselves by oath before the holy table, not to bring accusations
against each other. This, they said, was an artifice adopted by the
president of the clergy to shield himself from the accusations of his
plaintiffs. In short, such were the reasons they specified for the
deposition of Basil. Eustathius, they said, was deposed because, when
a presbyter, he had been condemned, and put away from the communion of
prayers by Eulalius, his own father, who was bishop of the church of
Cæsarea, in Cappadocia; and also because he had been excommunicated by
a council held at Neocæsarea, a city of Pontus, and deposed by
Eusebius, bishop of Constantinople, for unfaithfulness in the
discharge of certain duties that had devolved upon him. He had also
been deprived of his bishopric by those who were convened in Gangroe,
on account of his having taught, acted, and thought contrary to sound
doctrine. He had been convicted of perjury by the council of Antioch.
He had likewise endeavored to reverse the decrees of those convened at
Melitina; and, although he was guilty of many crimes, he had the
assurance to aspire to be judge over the others, and to stigmatize
them as heretics. They deposed Eleusius because he had raised
inconsiderately one Heraclius, a native of Tyre, to be a deacon; this
man had been a priest of Hercules at Tyre, had been accused of and
tried for sorcery, and, therefore, had retired to Cyzicus and feigned
conversion to Christianity; and moreover, Eleusius, after having been
apprised of these circumstances, had not driven him from the Church.
He had also, without inquiry, ordained certain individuals, who had
come to Cyzicus, after they had been condemned by Maris, bishop of
Chalcedonia, who participated in this council. Heortasius was deposed
because he had been ordained bishop of Sardis without the sanction of
the bishops of Lydia. They deposed Dracontius, bishop of Pergamus,
because he had previously held another bishopric in Galatia, and
because, they stated, he had on both occasions been unlawfully
ordained. After these transactions, a second assembly of the council
was held, and Silvanus, bishop of Tarsus, Sophronius, bishop of
Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, Elpidius, bishop of Satala, and Neonas,
bishop of Seleucia in Isauria, were deposed. The reason they assigned
for the deposition of Silvanus was, that he had constituted himself
the leader of a foolish party in Seleucia and Constantinople; he had,
besides, constituted Theophilus as president of the church of
Castabala, who had been previously ordained bishop of Eleutheropolis
by the bishops of Palestine, and who had promised upon oath that he
would never accept any other bishopric without their permission.
Sophronius was deposed on account of his avarice, and on account of
his having sold some of the offerings presented to the church, for his
own profit; besides, after he had received a first and second summons
to appear before the council, he could, at last, be scarcely induced
to make his appearance, and then, instead of replying to the
accusations brought against him, he appealed to other judges. Neonas
was deposed for having resorted to violence in his endeavors to
procure the ordination in his own church, of Annianus, who had been
appointed bishop of Antioch, [1346] and for having ordained as bishops
certain individuals who had previously been engaged in politics, and
who were utterly ignorant of the Holy Scriptures and of ecclesiastical
canons, and who, after their ordination, preferred the enjoyment of
their property to that of the priestly dignity, and declared in
writing that they would rather take charge of their own possessions
than to discharge the episcopal functions without them. Elpidius was
deposed because he had participated in the malpractices of Basil, and
had occasioned great disorders; and because he had, contrary to the
decrees of the council of Melitina, restored to his former rank in the
presbytery a man named Eusebius, who had been deposed for having
created Nectaria a deaconess, after she had been excommunicated on
account of violating agreements and oaths; and to confer this honor
upon her was clearly contrary to the laws of the Church.
Footnotes
[1344] The acts of this Synod of Constantinople were written by
Acacius. Cf. Philost. iv. 12. Further, cf. Philost. iv. 12, v. 1;
Athan. de Synodis, 30, the formulary; Soc. ii. 41 (with the revised
formulary), 42, 43; Theodoret, H. E. ii. 27, 28. Soz. enlarges on the
depositions, giving us much new material; Theodoret gives a letter
against Aetius (from Sabinus?).
[1345] Further mention is made of this Hermogenes by Am. Marcell. xix.
12, 6; xxi. 6, 9.
[1346] Cf. iv. 22.
Chapter XXV.--Causes of the Deposition of Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem.
Mutual Dissensions among the Bishops. Melitius is ordained by the
Arians, and supplants Eustathius in the Bishopric of Sebaste.
Besides the prelates above mentioned, Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, was
deposed [1347] because he had admitted Eustathius and Elpidius into
communion, after they had opposed the decrees enacted by those
convened at Melitina, among whom was Cyril himself; and because he had
also received Basil and George, bishop of Laodicea, into communion
after their deposition in Palestine. When Cyril was first installed in
the bishopric of Jerusalem, he had a dispute with Acacius, bishop of
Cæsarea, concerning his rights as a Metropolitan, which he claimed on
the ground of his bishopric being an apostolic see. This dispute
excited feelings of enmity between the two bishops, and they mutually
accused each other of unsoundness of doctrine concerning the Godhead.
In fact, they had both been suspected previously; the one, that is,
Acacius, of favoring the heresy of Arius; and the other, of siding
with those who maintain that the Son is in substance like unto the
Father. Acacius being thus inimically disposed towards Cyril, and
finding himself supported by the bishops of the province, who were of
the same sentiments as himself, contrived to depose Cyril under the
following pretext. Jerusalem and the neighboring country was at one
time visited with a famine, and the poor appealed in great multitudes
to Cyril, as their bishop, for necessary food. As he had no money to
purchase the requisite provisions, he sold for this purpose the veil
and sacred ornaments of the church. It is said that a man, having
recognized an offering which he had presented at the altar as forming
part of the costume of an actress, made it his business to inquire
whence it was procured; and ascertained that a merchant had sold it to
the actress, and that the bishop had sold it to the merchant. It was
under this pretext that Acacius deposed Cyril.
And on inquiry I find these to be the facts. It is said that the
Acacians then expelled from Constantinople all the bishops above
mentioned who had been deposed. Ten bishops of their own party who had
refused to subscribe to these edicts of deposition, were separated
from the others, and were interdicted from performing the functions of
the ministry or ruling their churches until they consented to give
their signatures. It was enacted that unless they complied within six
months, [1348] and yielded their assent to all the decrees of the
council, they should be deposed, and that the bishops of every
province should be summoned to elect other bishops in their stead.
After these determinations and deeds, letters were then sent to all
the bishops and clergy, to observe and fulfill its decrees.
As a consequence, not long after, some of the Eudoxian party were
substituted here and there. Eudoxius himself took possession of the
bishopric of Macedonius; Athanasius was placed over the church of
Basil; and Eunomius, who was subsequently the leader of a heresy
bearing his name, took the see of Eleusius; and Meletius was appointed
to the church of Sebaste, instead of Eustathius.
Footnotes
[1347] See references to previous Chapter.
[1348] See the abrogation of the time-limit through a Synod convened
by Eudoxius. Philost. vii. 6.
Chapter XXVI.--Death of Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople. What
Eudoxius said in his Teaching. Eudoxius and Acacius strenuously sought
the Abolition of the Formularies of Faith set forth at Nicæa and at
Ariminum; Troubles which thence arose in the Churches.
Macedonius, [1349] on his expulsion from the church of Constantinople,
retired to one of the suburbs of the city, where he died. Eudoxius
took possession of his church in the tenth year of the consulate of
Constantius, and the third of Julian, surnamed Cæsar. It is related
that, at the dedication of the great church called "Sophia," when he
rose to teach the people, he commenced his discourse with the
following proposition: "The Father is impious, the Son is pious"; and
that, as these words excited a great commotion among the people, he
added, "Be calm; the Father is impious, because he worships no one;
the Son is pious, because he worships the Father." On this
explanation, he threw his audience into laughter. Eudoxius and Acacius
jointly exerted themselves to the utmost in endeavoring to cause the
edicts of the Nicene Council to fall into oblivion. They sent the
formulary read at Ariminum with various explanatory additions of their
own, to every province of the empire, and procured from the emperor an
edict for the banishment of all who should refuse to subscribe to it.
But this undertaking, which appeared to them so easy of execution, was
the beginning of the greatest calamities, for it excited commotions
throughout the empire, and entailed upon the Church in every region a
persecution more grievous than those which it had suffered under the
pagan emperors. [1350] For if this persecution did not occasion such
tortures to the body as the preceding ones, it appeared more grievous
to all who reflected aright, on account of its disgraceful nature; for
both the persecutors and the persecuted belonged to the Church; and
the one was all the more disgraceful in that men of the same religion
treated their fellows with a degree of cruelty which the
ecclesiastical laws prohibit to be manifested towards enemies and
strangers.
Footnotes
[1349] Soc. ii. 43; Ruf. H. E. i. 21. Soz. has independent details.
[1350] Cf. with Ruf. H. E. i. 21.
Chapter XXVII.--Macedonius, after his Rejection from his See,
blasphemes against the Holy Spirit; Propagation of his Heresy through
the Instrumentality of Marathonius and Others.
The spirit of innovation is self-laudatory, [1351] and hence it
advanced further and further, and crept along to greater novelties
with increasing self-conceit, and in scorn of the fathers it enacted
laws of its own, nor does it honor the doctrines of the ancients
concerning God, but is always thinking out strange dogmas and
restlessly adds novelty to novelty as the events now show. For after
Macedonius had been deposed from the church of Constantinople, he
renounced the tenets of Acacius and Eudoxius. [1352] He began to teach
that the Son is God, and that He is in all respects and in substance
like unto the Father. But he affirmed that the Holy Ghost is not a
participant of the same dignities, and designated Him a minister and a
servant, and applied to Him whatever could, without error, be said of
the holy angels. This doctrine was embraced by Eleusius, Eustathius,
and by all the other bishops who had been deposed at Constantinople,
by the partisans of the opposite heresy. Their example was quickly
followed by no small part of the people of Constantinople, Bithynia,
Thrace, the Hellespont, and of the neighboring provinces. For their
mode of life had no little influence, and to this do the people give
special attention. They assumed great gravity of demeanor, and their
discipline was like that of the monks; their conversation was plain
and of a style fitted to persuade. It is said that all these
qualifications were united in Marathonius. He originally held a public
appointment in the army, under the command of the prefect. After
amassing some money in this employment, he quit military science, and
undertook the superintendence of the establishments for the relief of
the sick and the destitute. Afterwards, at the suggestion of
Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste, he embraced an ascetic mode of life,
and founded a monastical institution in Constantinople which exists to
the present day. He brought so much zeal, and so much of his own
wealth to the support of the aforesaid heresy, that the Macedonians
were by many termed Marathonians, and it seems to me not without
reason; for it appears that he alone, together with his institutions,
was the cause that it was not altogether extinguished in
Constantinople. In fact, after the deposition of Macedonius, the
Macedonians possessed neither churches nor bishops until the reign of
Arcadius. [1353]
The Arians, who drove out of the churches and rigorously persecuted
all who held different sentiments from themselves, deprived them of
all these privileges. It would be no easy task to enumerate the names
of the priests who were at this period ejected from their own cities;
for I believe that no province of the empire was exempted from such a
calamity.
Footnotes
[1351] Soc. ii. 45; Ruf. H. E. ii. 25; Theodoret, H. E. ii. 6. Soz.
independent.
[1352] Cf. Philost. iv. 9.
[1353] After a.d. 395. Yet according to vii. 2, the Macedonians took
advantage of the Gratian law and repossessed the churches from which
Valens had ejected them.
Chapter XXVIII.--The Arians, under the Impression that the divine
Meletius upheld their Sentiments, translate him from Sebaste to
Antioch. On his Bold Confession of the Orthodox Doctrines, they were
confounded, and after they had deposed him they placed Euzoïus in the
See. Meletius formed his own Church: but those who held to
Consubstantiality turned away from him because he had been ordained by
Arians.
At the period that Eudoxius obtained the government of the church of
Constantinople, [1354] there were many aspirants to the see of
Antioch; and as is frequently the case under such circumstances,
contentions and seditions divided the clergy and the people of that
church.
Each party was anxious to commit the government of the church to a
bishop of its own persuasion; for interminable disputes concerning
doctrine were rampant among them, and they could not agree as to the
mode of singing psalms; and, as has been before stated, psalms were
sung by each individual, in conformity with his own peculiar creed.
Such being the state of the church at Antioch, the partisans of
Eudoxius thought it would be well to intrust the bishopric of that
city to Meletius, then bishop of Sebaste, he being possessed of great
and persuasive eloquence, of excellent life, and all, as they
imagined, being of like opinions with themselves. They believed that
his reputation would attract the inhabitants of Antioch and of the
neighboring cities to conform to their heresy, particularly those
called Eustathians, who had adhered invariably to the Nicene
doctrines. But their expectations were utterly frustrated. It is said
that on his first arrival in Antioch, an immense multitude, composed
of Arians, and of those who were in communion with Paulinus, flocked
around him. Some wished to see the man because his fame was great,
even before his coming; others were anxious to hear what he had to
say, and to ascertain the nature of his opinions; for a report had
been spread abroad which was afterwards proved to be true, that he
maintained the doctrines of those convened at Nicæa. In his first
discourses he confined himself to instructing the people in what we
call ethics; afterwards, however, he openly declared that the Son is
of the same substance as the Father. It is said that at these words,
the arch deacon of the church, who was then one of the clergy there,
stretched out his hand, and covered the mouth of the preacher; but
that he continued to explain his sentiments more clearly by means of
his fingers than he could by language. He extended three fingers only
towards the people, closed them, and then allowed only one finger to
remain extended, and thus expressed by signs what he was prevented
from uttering. As the archdeacon, in his embarrassment, seized the
hand, he released the mouth; the tongue was free, and Meletius
declared his opinion still more clearly and with a loud voice, and
exhorted his auditors to adhere to the tenets of the council of Nicæa,
and he testified to his hearers that those who held other views
deviated from the truth. As he persisted in the enunciation of the
same sentiments, either by word of mouth or by means of signs, when
the archdeacon closed his mouth, a contention between both sides
occurred, not unlike that of the pancratium; the followers of
Eustathius shouted aloud and rejoiced and leaped, while the Arians
were cast down. Eudoxius and his partisans were transported with
indignation at this discourse, and contrived by their machinations to
expel Meletius from Antioch. Soon afterwards, however, they recalled
him, for they fancied he had renounced his former sentiments and had
espoused theirs. As, however, it soon became apparent that his
devotion to the Nicene doctrines was firm and unalterable, he was
ejected from the church, and banished by order of the emperor; and the
see of Antioch was conferred on Euzoïus, who had formerly been
banished with Arius. The followers of Meletius separated themselves
from the Arians, and held their assemblies apart, for those who had
from the beginning maintained that the Son is consubstantial with the
Father refused to admit them into communion, because Meletius had been
ordained by Arian bishops, and because his followers had been baptized
by Arian priests. For this reason they were separated, although
holding the same views.
The emperor having been informed that an Insurrection was about to
arise in Persia, repaired to Antioch.
Footnotes
[1354] Soc. ii. 44. The order is the same in Soz., but with many new
details. Philost. v. 1, 5; Ruf. H. E. i. 24. Cf. Theodoret, H. E. ii.
31.
Chapter XXIX.--The Partisans of Acacius again do not remain Quiet, but
strive to abolish the Term "Consubstantial," and to confirm the Heresy
of Arius.
The partisans of Acacius [1355] were not able to remain in
tranquillity; and they therefore assembled together with a few others
in Antioch, and condemned the decrees which they had themselves
enacted. They decided to erase the term "similar" from the formulary
which had been read at Ariminum and at Constantinople, and affirmed
that in all respects, in substance and in will, the Son is dissimilar
from the Father, and that He proceeded from what had no previous
existence, even as Arius had taught from the commencement. They were
joined by the partisans of Aëtius, who had been the first after Arius
to venture openly upon the profession of these opinions; hence Aëtius
was called atheist, and his approvers, Anomians and Exucontians.
When those who maintained the Nicene doctrines demanded of the
Acacians how they could say that the Son is dissimilar from the
Father, and that He proceeded out of nothing, when it was affirmed in
their own formulary that He is "God of God," they replied that the
Apostle Paul had declared that "All things are of God," [1356] and
that the Son is included in the term "all things"; and that it was in
this sense, and in accordance with the Sacred Scriptures, that the
expressions in their formulary were to be understood. Such were the
equivocations and sophistry to which they had recourse. At length,
finding that they could advance no efficient argument to justify
themselves in the opinion of those who pressed them on this point,
they withdrew from the assembly, after the formulary of Constantinople
had been read a second time, and returned to their own cities.
Footnotes
[1355] Soc. ii. 45. Soz. and he are much alike, but yet each has
independent statements; both evidently draw from the same source.
Athan. de Synodis, 31; Ruf. H. E. i. 25.
[1356] 1 Cor. xi. 12.
Chapter XXX.--George, Bishop of Antioch, and the Chief-Priests of
Jerusalem. Three Chief-Priests successively succeed Cyril; Restoration
of Cyril to the See of Jerusalem.
During this period, [1357] Athanasius was obliged to remain in
concealment, and George returned to Alexandria, and commenced a cruel
persecution against the pagans, and against the Christians who
differed from him in opinion. He compelled both parties to offer
worship in the mode he indicated, and where opposition was made, he
enforced obedience by compulsion. He was hated by the rulers because
he scorned them and was giving orders to the officers; and the
multitude detested him on account of his tyranny, for his power was
greater than all the rest. The pagans regarded him with even greater
aversion than the Christians, because he prohibited them from offering
sacrifices, and from celebrating their ancestral festivals; and
because he had on one occasion, introduced the governor of Egypt
[1358] and armed soldiery into the city, and despoiled their images,
votives and temple ornaments. This was, in fact, the cause of his
death, on which I will dwell.
On the deposition of Cyril, Erennius obtained the church of Jerusalem;
[1359] he was succeeded by Heraclius, and to Heraclius succeeded
Hilarius; for we have gathered from tradition that in that period
these persons administered the church there, until the reign of
Theodosius, when Cyril was once more restored to his own see.
Footnotes
[1357] Soc. ii. 45. Soz. has some order, but varying points.
[1358] Namely, Artemius, who was afterwards martyred under Julian. Am.
Marcel. xxii. 11. 3-8.
[1359] Soc. iv. 25. Epiphanius (adv. Hæres, ii. 3, 10; Hæres, lxvi.),
places another Cyril after Herennius. Soc. calls Erennius, Arrenius.
Also, see links to 3500 other Manuscripts:
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txv/earlychv.htm
E-mail to: BELIEVE1@mb-soft.com
The main BELIEVE web-page (and index to subjects) is at:
http://mb-soft.com/believe/