The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus
Advanced Information
Revised, with Notes, by the Rev. A. C. Zenos, D.D.
Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the Theological
Seminary at Hartford, Conn.
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 II.
Chapter I.--Introduction containing the Reason for the Author's
Revision of his First and Second Books.
Rufinus, who wrote an Ecclesiastical History in Latin, [261] has erred
in respect to chronology. For he supposes that what was done against
Athanasius occurred after the death of the Emperor Constantine: he was
also ignorant of his exile to the Gauls and of various other
circumstances. Now we in the first place wrote the first two books of
our history following Rufinus; but in writing our history from the
third to the seventh, some facts we collected from Rufinus, others
from different authors, and some from the narration of individuals
still living. Afterward, however, we perused the writings of
Athanasius, wherein he depicts his own sufferings and how through the
calumnies of the Eusebian fiction he was banished, and judged that
more credit was due to him who had suffered, and to those who were
witnesses of the things they describe, than to such as have been
dependent on conjecture, and had therefore erred. Moreover, having
obtained several letters of persons eminent at that period, we have
availed ourselves of their assistance also in tracing out the truth as
far as possible. On this account we were compelled to revise the first
and second books of this history, using, however, the testimony of
Rufinus where it is evident that he could not be mistaken. It should
also be observed, that in our former edition, neither the sentence of
deposition which was passed upon Arius, nor the emperor's letters were
inserted, but simply the narration or facts in order that the history
might not become bulky and weary the readers with tedious matters of
detail. But in the present edition, such alterations and additions
have been made for your sake, O sacred man of God, Theodore, [262] in
order that you might not be ignorant what the princes wrote in their
own words, as well as the decisions of the bishops in their various
Synods, wherein they continually altered the confession of faith.
Wherefore, whatever we have deemed necessary we have inserted in this
later edition. Having adopted this course in the first book, we shall
endeavor to do the same in the consecutive portion of our history, I
mean the second. On this let us now enter.
Footnotes
[261] Rufinus' Historia Ecclesiastica, in two books, begins with Arius
and ends with Theodosius the Great. It is not very accurate, but
written largely from memory. It is dedicated to Chromatius, bishop of
Aquileja, and translated into Greek by Gelasius and Cyril of
Jerusalem. On the edition used by Socrates, see Introd. and I. 12,
note 1. Cf. also on his knowledge of Latin, II. 23, 30, and 37.
[262] o hiere tou Theou anthrope Theodore; cf. Introd. p. x, also VI.
Introd. and VII. 48.
Chapter II.--Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, and his Party, by again
endeavoring to introduce the Arian Heresy, create Disturbances in the
Churches.
After the death of the Emperor Constantine, Eusebius, bishop of
Nicomedia, and Theognis of Nicæa, imagining that a favorable
opportunity had arisen, used their utmost efforts to expunge the
doctrine of homoousion, and to introduce Arianism in its place. They,
nevertheless, despaired of effecting this, if Athanasius should return
to Alexandria: in order therefore to accomplish their designs, they
sought the assistance of that presbyter by whose means Arius had been
recalled from exile a little before. How this was done shall now be
described. The presbyter in question presented the will and the
request of the deceased king to his son Constantius; who finding those
dispositions in it which he was most desirous of, for the empire of
the East was by his father's will apportioned to him, treated the
presbyter with great consideration, loaded him with favors, and
ordered that free access should be given him both to the palace and to
himself. This license soon obtained for him familiar intercourse with
the empress, as well as with her eunuchs. There was at that time a
chief eunuch of the imperial bed-chamber named Eusebius; him the
presbyter persuaded to adopt Arian's views, after which the rest of
the eunuchs were also prevailed on to adopt the same sentiments. Not
only this but the empress also, under the influence of the eunuchs and
the presbyters, became favorable to the tenets of Arius; and not long
after the subject was introduced to the emperor himself. Thus it
became gradually diffused throughout the court, and among the officers
of the imperial household and guards, until at length it spread itself
over the whole population of the city. The chamberlains in the palace
discussed this doctrine with the women; and in the family of every
citizen there was a logical contest. Moreover, the mischief quickly
extended to other provinces and cities, the controversy, like a spark,
insignificant at first, exciting in the auditors a spirit of
contention: for every one who inquired the cause of the tumult, found
immediately occasion for disputing, and determined to take part in the
strife at the moment of making the inquiry. By general altercation of
this kind all order was subverted; the agitation, however, was
confined to the cities of the East, those of Illyricum and the western
parts of the empire meanwhile were perfectly tranquil, because they
would not annul the decisions of the Council of Nicæa. As this affair
increased, going from bad to worse, Eusebius of Nicomedia and his
party looked upon popular ferment as a piece of good fortune. For only
thus they thought they would be enabled to constitute some one who
held their own sentiments bishop of Alexandria. But the return of
Athanasius at that time defeated their purpose; for he came thither
fortified by a letter from one of the Augusti, which the younger
Constantine, who bore his father's name, addressed to the people of
Alexandria, from Treves, a city in Gaul. [263] A copy of this epistle
is here subjoined.
Footnotes
[263] There is some difference of opinion as to the exact year of the
recall of Athanasius. Baronius and others allege that this took place
in 338 a.d., the year after the death of Constantine; but Valesius
maintains that Athanasius was recalled the year preceding. This he
infers from the words of Athanasius (Apol. c. Arian, 61), and the
title of the letter which Constantine the younger addressed to the
church in Alexandria.
Chapter III.--Athanasius, encouraged by the Letter of Constantine the
Younger, returns to Alexandria.
Constantine Cæsar to the members of the Catholic Church of the
Alexandrians.
It cannot, I conceive, have escaped the knowledge of your devout
minds, that Athanasius, the expositor of the venerated law, was sent
for a while unto the Gauls, lest he should sustain some irreparable
injury from the perverseness of his blood-thirsty adversaries, whose
ferocity continually endangered his sacred life. To evade this
[perverseness], therefore, he was taken from the jaws of the men who
threatened him into a city under my jurisdiction, where, as long as it
was his appointed residence, he has been abundantly supplied with
every necessity: although his distinguished virtue trusting in divine
aid would have made light of the pressure of a more rigorous fortune.
And since our sovereign, my father, Constantine Augustus of blessed
memory, was prevented by death from accomplishing his purpose of
restoring this bishop to his see, and to your most sanctified piety, I
have deemed it proper to carry his wishes into effect, having
inherited the task from him. With how great veneration he has been
regarded by us, ye will learn on his arrival among you; nor need any
one be surprised at the honor I have put upon him, since I have been
alike influenced by a sense of what was due to so excellent a
personage, and the knowledge of your affectionate solicitude
respecting him. May Divine Providence preserve you, beloved brethren.
Relying on this letter, Athanasius came to Alexandria, and was most
joyfully received by the people of the city. Nevertheless as many in
it as had embraced Arianism, combining together, entered into
conspiracies against him, by which frequent seditions were excited,
affording a pretext to the Eusebians for accusing him to the emperor
of having taken possession of the Alexandrian church on his own
responsibility, in spite of the adverse judgment of a general council
of bishops. So far indeed did they succeed in pressing their charges,
that the emperor became exasperated, and banished him from Alexandria.
How indeed this came about I shall hereafter explain.
Chapter IV.--On the Death of Eusebius Pamphilus, Acacius succeeds to
the Bishopric of Cæsarea.
At this time Eusebius, who was bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, and had
the surname of Pamphilus, having died, Acacius, his disciple,
succeeded him in the bishopric. This individual published several
books, and among others a biographical sketch of his master.
Chapter V.--The Death of Constantine the Younger.
Not long after this the brother of the Emperor Constantius,
Constantine the younger, who bore his father's name, having invaded
those parts of the empire which were under the government of his
younger brother Constans, engaging in a conflict with his brother's
soldiery, was slain by them. This took place under the consulship of
Acindynus and Proclus. [264]
Footnotes
[264] 340 a.d.
Chapter VI.--Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople, when at the Point of
Death proposes the Election either of Paul or of Macedonius as his
Successor.
About the same time another disturbance in addition to those we have
recorded, was raised at Constantinople on the following account.
Alexander, who had presided over the churches in that city, and had
strenuously opposed Arius, departed this life, [265] having occupied
the bishopric for twenty-three years and lived ninety-eight years in
all, without having ordained any one to succeed him. But he had
enjoined the proper persons to choose one of the two whom he named;
that is to say, if they desired one who was competent to teach, and of
eminent piety, they should elect Paul, whom he had himself ordained
presbyter, a man young indeed in years, but of advanced intelligence
and prudence; but if they wished a man of venerable aspect, and
external show only of sanctity, they might appoint Macedonius, who had
long been a deacon among them and was aged. Hence there arose a great
contest respecting the choice of a bishop which troubled the church
exceedingly; for ever since the people were divided into two parties,
one of which favored the tenets of Arius, while the other held what
the Nicene Synod had defined, those who held the doctrine of
consubstantiality always had the advantage during the life of
Alexander, the Arians disagreeing among themselves and perpetually
conflicting in opinion. But after the death of that prelate, the issue
of the struggle became doubtful, the defenders of the orthodox faith
insisting on the ordination of Paul, and all the Arian party espousing
the cause of Macedonius. Paul therefore was ordained bishop in the
church called Irene, [266] which is situated near the great church of
Sophia; whose election appeared to be more in accordance with the
suffrage of the deceased.
Footnotes
[265] Socrates is undoubtedly mistaken in setting the date of
Alexander's death as late as 340 a.d. The council convened to examine
and confute the charges against Athanasius met in 339 a.d., and the
record at that date has it (see chap. 7) that Eusebius had taken
possession of the see of Constantinople. Alexander must therefore have
died before 339.
[266] So called, not because there was a saint or eminent person of
that name, but on the same principle as the church called Sophia. For
the history of the latter church, see Dehio and Bezold, Die Kirchliche
Baukuns des Abendlandes, I. p. 21.
Chapter VII.--The Emperor Constantius ejects Paul after his Election
to the Bishopric, and sending for Eusebius of Nicomedia, invests him
with the Bishopric of Constantinople.
Not long afterwards the emperor having arrived at Constantinople was
highly incensed at the consecration [of Paul]; and having convened an
assembly of bishops of Arian sentiments, he divested Paul of his
dignity, and translating Eusebius from the see of Nicomedia, he
appointed him bishop of Constantinople. Having done this the emperor
proceeded to Antioch.
Chapter VIII.--Eusebius having convened Another Synod at Antioch in
Syria, causes a New Creed to be promulgated.
Eusebius, however, could by no means remain quiet, but as the saying
is, left no stone unturned, in order to effect the purpose he had in
view. He therefore causes a Synod to be convened at Antioch in Syria,
under pretense of dedicating the church which the father of the
Augusti had commenced, and which his son Constantius had finished in
the tenth year after its foundations were laid, but with the real
intention of subverting and abolishing the doctrine of the homoousion.
There were present at this Synod ninety bishops from various cities.
Maximus, however, bishop of Jerusalem; who had succeeded Macarius, did
not attend, recollecting that he had been deceived and induced to
subscribe the deposition of Athanasius. Neither was Julius, bishop of
the great Rome, [267] there, nor had he sent a substitute, although an
ecclesiastical canon [268] commands that the churches shall not make
any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome. This Synod
assembled at Antioch in presence of the emperor Constantius in the
consulate of Marcellus and Probinus, [269] which was the fifth year
after the death of Constantine, father of the Augusti. Placitus,
otherwise called Flaccillus, successor to Euphronius, at that time
presided over the church at Antioch. The confederates of Eusebius had
previously designed to calumniate Athanasius; accusing him in the
first place of having acted contrary to a canon which they then
constituted, in resuming his episcopal authority without the license
of a general council of bishops, inasmuch as on his return from exile
he had on his own responsibility taken possession of the church; and
then because a tumult had been excited on his entrance and many were
killed in the riot; moreover that some had been scourged by him, and
others brought before the tribunals. Besides they brought forward what
had been determined against Athanasius at Tyre.
Footnotes
[267] So called in distinction from the "New Rome," or Constantinople.
Cf. Canons of Council of Chalcedon, XXVIII.
[268] The word `canon' here is evidently used in its general sense.
There is no record of any enactment requiring the consent of the
bishop of Rome to the decisions of the councils before they could be
considered valid. There may have been a general understanding to that
effect, having the force of an unwritten law. In any case the use of
the word by Socrates is quite singular, unless we assume that he
supposed there was such an enactment somewhere, as is implied by its
use ordinarily.
[269] 341 a.d.
Chapter IX.--Of Eusebius of Emisa.
On the ground of such charges as these, they proposed another bishop
for the Alexandrian church, and first indeed Eusebius surnamed
Emisenus. Who this person was, George, bishop of Laodicea, who was
present on this occasion, informs us. For he says in the book which he
has composed on his life, that Eusebius was descended from the
nobility of Edessa in Mesopotamia, and that from a child he had
studied the holy Scriptures; [270] that he was afterwards instructed
in Greek literature by a master resident at Edessa; and finally that
the sacred books were expounded to him by Patrophilus and Eusebius, of
whom the latter presided over the church at Cæsarea, and the former
over that at Scythopolis. Afterwards when he dwelt in Antioch, it
happened that Eustathius was deposed on the accusation of Cyrus of
Beroea for holding the tenets of Sabellius. Then again he associated
with Euphronius, successor of Eustathius, and avoiding a bishopric, he
retired to Alexandria, and there devoted himself to the study of
philosophy. On his return to Antioch he formed an intimate
acquaintance with Placitus [or Flaccillus], the successor of
Euphronius. At length he was ordained bishop of Alexandria, by
Eusebius, bishop of Constantinople; but did not go thither in
consequence of the attachment of the people of that city to
Athanasius, and was therefore sent to Emisa. As the inhabitants of
Emisa excited a sedition on account of his appointment,--for he was
commonly charged with the study and practice of judicial astrology,
[271] --he fled and came to Laodicea, to George, who has given so many
historical details of him. George having taken him to Antioch,
procured his being again brought back to Emisa by Placitus and
Narcissus; but he was afterwards charged with holding the Sabellian
views. George more elaborately describes the circumstances of his
ordination and adds at the close that the emperor took him with him in
his expedition against the barbarians, and that miracles were wrought
by his hand. The information given by George concerning Eusebius of
Emisa may be considered reproduced at sufficient length by me here.
Footnotes
[270] Sozom. H. E. III. 6. From the passage in Sozomen it appears that
it was customary in Edessa to teach the Scriptures to boys, and that
many of them thus became quite familiar with the Bible, knowing many
passages by heart.
[271] mathematiken . From its use in astronomy the science of
mathematics soon came to be identified with that counterfeit of
astronomy,--astrology. It is so used by Sextus Empiricus (616. 20;
728. 20) and by Iamblichus, Myrt. 277. 2.
Chapter X.--The Bishops assembled at Antioch, on the Refusal of
Eusebius of Emisa to accept the Bishopric of Alexandria, ordain
Gregory, and change the Language of the Nicene Creed.
Now at that time Eusebius having been proposed and fearing to go to
Alexandria, the Synod at Antioch designated Gregory as bishop of that
church. This being done, they altered the creed; not as condemning
anything in that which was set forth at Nicæa, but in fact with a
determination to subvert and nullify the doctrine of consubstantiality
by means of frequent councils, and the publication of various
expositions of the faith, so as gradually to establish the Arian
views. How these things issued we will set forth in the course of our
narrative; but the epistle then promulgated respecting the faith was
as follows: [272]
`We have neither become followers of Arius,--for how should we who are
bishops be guided by a presbyter?--nor have we embraced any other
faith than that which was set forth from the beginning. But being
constituted examiners and judges of his sentiments, we admit their
soundness, rather than adopt them from him: and you will recognize
this from what we are about to state. We have learned from the
beginning to believe in one God of the Universe, the Creator and
Preserver of all things both those thought of and those perceived by
the senses: and in one only-begotten Son of God, subsisting before all
ages, and co-existing with the Father who begat him, through whom also
all things visible and invisible were made; who in the last days
according to the Father's good pleasure, descended, and assumed flesh
from the holy virgin, and having fully accomplished his Father's will,
that he should suffer, and rise again, and ascend into the heavens,
and sit at the right hand of the Father; and is coming to judge the
living and the dead, continuing King and God for ever. We believe also
in the Holy Spirit. And if it is necessary to add this, we believe in
the resurrection of the flesh, and the life everlasting.'
Having thus written in their first epistle, they sent it to the
bishops of every city. But after remaining some time at Antioch, as if
to condemn the former, they published another letter in these words:
Another Exposition of the Faith.
In conformity with evangelic and apostolic tradition, we believe in
one God the Father Almighty, the Creator and Framer of the universe.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, his Son, God the only-begotten, through
whom all things were made: begotten of the Father before all ages, God
of God, Whole of Whole, Only of Only, Perfect of Perfect, King of
King, Lord of Lord; the living Word, the Wisdom, the Life, the True
Light, the Way of Truth, the Resurrection, the Shepherd, the Gate;
immutable and inconvertible; the unaltering image of the Divinity,
Substance and Power, and Counsel and Glory of the Father; born `before
all creation'; who was in the beginning with God, God the Word,
according as it is declared in the Gospel, [273] and the Word was God,
by whom all things were made, and in whom all things subsist: who in
the last days came down from above, and was born of the virgin
according to the Scriptures; and was made man, the Mediator between
God and men, the Apostle of our Faith, and the Prince of Life, as he
says, [274] `I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the
will of him that sent me.' Who suffered on our behalf, and rose again
for us on the third day, and ascended into the heavens, and is seated
at the right hand of the Father; and will come again with glory and
power to judge the living and the dead. [We believe] also in the Holy
Spirit, who is given to believers for their consolation,
sanctification, and perfection; even as our Lord Jesus Christ
commanded his disciples, saying, [275] `Go and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit'; that is to say of the Father who is truly the Father, of
the Son who is truly the Son, and of the Holy Spirit who is truly the
Holy Spirit, these words not being simply or insignificantly applied,
but accurately expressing the proper subsistence, glory, and order, of
each of these who are named: so that there are three in person, but
one in concordance. Holding therefore this faith in the presence of
God and of Christ, we anathematize all heretical and false doctrine.
And if any one shall teach contrary to the sound and right faith of
the Scriptures, affirming that there is or was a period or an age
before the Son of God existed, let him be accursed. And if any one
shall say that the Son is a creature as one of the creatures, or that
he is offspring as one of the offsprings, and shall not hold each of
the aforesaid doctrines as the Divine Scriptures have delivered them
to us: or if any one shall teach or preach any other doctrine contrary
to that which we have received, let him be accursed. For we truly and
unreservedly believe and follow all things handed down to us from the
sacred Scriptures by the prophets and apostles.
Such was the exposition of the faith published by those then assembled
at Antioch, to which Gregory also subscribed as bishop of Alexandria,
although he had not yet entered that city. The Synod having done these
things, and legislated some other canons, was dissolved. At this time
it happened that public affairs also were disturbed. The nation called
Franks made incursions into the Roman territories in Gaul, and at the
same time there occurred violent earthquakes in the East, and
especially at Antioch, which continued to suffer concussions during a
whole year.
Footnotes
[272] Athanas. de Synodd. 22, 23.
[273] John i. 1.
[274] John vi. 38.
[275] Matt. xxviii. 19.
Chapter XI.--On the Arrival of Gregory at Alexandria, tended by a
Military Escort, Athanasius flees.
After these things, Syrian, the military commander, and the corps of
heavy armed soldiers, five thousand in number, conducted Gregory to
Alexandria; and such of the citizens as were of Arian sentiments
combined with them. But it will be proper here to relate by what means
Athanasius escaped the hands of those who wished to apprehend him,
after his expulsion from the church. It was evening, and the people
were attending the vigil there, a service [276] being expected. The
commander arrived, and posted his forces in order of battle on every
side of the church. Athanasius having observed what was done,
considered within himself how he might prevent the people's suffering
in any degree on his account: accordingly having directed the deacon
to give notice of prayer, after that he ordered the recitation of a
psalm; and when the melodious chant of the psalm arose, all went out
through one of the church doors. While this was doing, the troops
remained inactive spectators, and Athanasius thus escaped unhurt in
the midst of those who were chanting the psalm, and immediately
hastened to Rome. Gregory then prevailed in the church: but the people
of Alexandria, being indignant at this procedure, set the church
called that of Dionysius on fire. Let this be sufficient on this
subject. Now Eusebius, having thus far obtained his object, sent a
deputation to Julius, bishop of Rome, [277] begging that he would
himself take cognizance of the charges against Athanasius, and order a
judicial investigation to be made in his presence. [278]
Footnotes
[276] sunaxeos: literally `congregation,' from sunago; but later
applied to any service held in the church. In mod. Sunaxarion ,
`Prayer-book.'
[277] So also Sozom. III. 7. But according to Valesius, both Socrates
and Sozomen are here mistaken, and Eusebius sent the deputation before
the council at Antioch, as is shown by the words of Athanasius in his
Apol. contra Arian., 21.
[278] See Hammond, Canons of the Church (notes on the Canons of
Nicæa), for the prerogatives of the see of Rome recognized at this
time.
Chapter XII.--The People of Constantinople restore Paul to his See
after the Death of Eusebius, while the Arians elect Macedonius.
But Eusebius did not live to learn the decision of Julius concerning
Athanasius, for he died a short time after that Synod was held.
Whereupon the people introduced Paul again into the church of
Constantinople: the Arians, however, ordained Macedonius at the same
time, in the church dedicated to Paul. This those who had formerly
co-operated with Eusebius (that disturber of the public peace) brought
about, assuming all his authority. These were Theognis, bishop of
Nicæa, Maris of Chalcedon, Theodore of Heraclea in Thrace, Ursacius of
Singidunum in Upper Mysia, and Valens of Mursa in Upper Pannonia.
Ursacius and Valens indeed afterward altered their opinions, and
presented a written recantation of them to bishop Julius, so that on
subscribing the doctrine of consubstantiability they were again
admitted to communion; but at that time they warmly supported the
Arian error, and were instigators of the most violent conflicts in the
churches, one of which was connected with Macedonius at
Constantinople. By this intestine war among the Christians, continuous
seditions arose in that city, and many lives were sacrificed in
consequence of these occurrences.
Chapter XIII.--Paul is again ejected from the Church by Constantius,
in consequence of the Slaughter of Hermogenes, his General.
Intelligence of these proceedings reached the ears of the Emperor
Constantius, whose residence was then at Antioch. Accordingly he
ordered his general Hermogenes, who had been despatched to Thrace, to
pass through Constantinople on his way, and expel Paul from the
church. He, on arriving at Constantinople, threw the whole city into
confusion, attempting to cast out the bishops; for sedition
immediately arose from the people in their eagerness to defend the
bishop. And when Hermogenes persisted in his efforts to drive out Paul
by means of his military force, the people became exasperated as is
usual in such cases; and making a desperate attack upon him, they set
his house on fire, and after dragging through the city, they at last
put him to death. This took place in the consulate [279] of the two
Augusti,--that is to say, the third consulship,--Constantius, and the
second of Constans: at which time Constans, having subdued the Franks,
compelled them to enter into a treaty of peace with the Romans. The
Emperor Constantius, on being informed of the assassination of
Hermogenes, set off on horseback from Antioch, and arriving at
Constantinople immediately expelled Paul, and then punished the
inhabitants by withdrawing from them more than 40,000 measures of the
daily allowance of wheat which had been granted by his father for
gratuitous distribution among them: for prior to this catastrophe,
nearly 80,000 measures of wheat brought from Alexandria had been
bestowed on the citizens. [280] He hesitated, however, to ratify [281]
the appointment of Macedonius to the bishopric of that city, being
irritated against him not only because he had been ordained without
his own consent; but also because on account of the contests in which
he had been engaged with Paul, Hermogenes, his general, and many other
persons had been slain. But having given him permission to minister in
the church in which he had been consecrated, he returned to Antioch.
Footnotes
[279] 342 a.d. This assassination of Hermogenes was evidently recorded
in that portion of Am. Marcellinus' work which has been lost; at least
a record of it is referred to in that author's Rerum Gestarum, XIV. x.
2 (ed. Eyssenhart).
[280] On the gratuitous distribution of grain or bread practised under
Constantine and later under Theodosius, see Cod. Theod. XIV. tit.
XVI., and cf. Eunap. Aedes. par. 22.
[281] Cf. Bingham, Christ. Antiq. IV. xi. 19, on the control over the
appointment of bishops by the emperor at this time.
Chapter XIV.--The Arians remove Gregory from the See of Alexandria,
and appoint George in his Place. [282]
About the same time the Arians ejected Gregory from the see of
Alexandria, on the ground that he was unpopular and at the same time
because he had set a church [283] on fire, and did not manifest
sufficient zeal in promoting the interests of their party. [284] They
therefore inducted George into his see, who was a native of
Cappadocia, and had acquired the reputation of being an able advocate
of their tenets.
Footnotes
[282] There is an error here, repeated also by Sozomen (III. 7), but
corrected by Theodoret, H. E. II. 4 and 12, without the mention of the
names of his predecessors. The error consists in the statement that
Gregory was ejected at this time. It appears that he remained in his
position until the Council of Sardica, by which he was deposed and
excommunicated. He survived this council by six months.
[283] That of Dionysius.
[284] This is the same Gregory that is mentioned in ch. 10 as
violently put into possession of the see of Alexandria by the Arians.
It is evident that they were disappointed in him.
Chapter XV.--Athanasius and Paul [285] going to Rome, and having
obtained Letters from Bishop Julius, recover their respective
Dioceses.
Athanasius, meanwhile, after a lengthened journey, at last reached
Italy. The western division of the empire was then under the sole
power of Constans, the youngest of Constantine's sons, his brother
Constantine having been slain by the soldiers, as was before stated.
At the same time also Paul, bishop of Constantinople, Asclepas of
Gaza, Marcellus of Ancyra, a city of the Lesser Galatia, and Lucius of
Adrianople, having been accused on various charges, and expelled from
their several churches arrived at the imperial city. There each laid
his case before Julius, bishop of Rome. He on his part, by virtue of
the Church of Rome's peculiar privilege, sent them back again into the
East, fortifying them with commendatory letters; and at the same time
restored to each his own place, and sharply rebuked those by whom they
had been deposed. Relying on the signature of the bishop Julius, the
bishops departed from Rome, and again took possession of their own
churches, forwarding the letters to the parties to whom they were
addressed. These persons considering themselves treated with indignity
by the reproaches of Julius, called a council at Antioch, assembled
themselves and dictated a reply to his letters as the expression of
the unanimous feeling of the whole Synod. [286] It was not his
province, they said, to take cognizance of their decisions in
reference to any whom they might wish to expel from their churches;
seeing that they had not opposed themselves to him, when Novatus was
ejected from the church. These things the bishops of the Eastern
church communicated to Julius, bishop of Rome. But, as on the entry of
Athanasius into Alexandria, a tumult was raised by the partisans of
George the Arian, in consequence of which, it is affirmed, many
persons were killed; and since the Arians endeavor to throw the whole
odium of this transaction on Athanasius as the author of it, it
behooves us to make a few remarks on the subject. God the Judge of all
only knows the true causes of these disorders; but no one of any
experience can be ignorant of the fact, that such fatal accidents are
for the most part concomitants of the factious movements of the
populace. It is vain, therefore, for the calumniators of Athanasius to
attribute the blame to him; and especially Sabinus, [287] bishop of
the Macedonian heresy. For had the latter reflected on the number and
magnitude of the wrongs which Athanasius, in conjunction with the rest
who hold the doctrine of consubstantiality, had suffered from the
Arians, or on the many complaints made of these things by the Synods
convened on account of Athanasius, or in short on what that
arch-heretic Macedonius himself has done throughout all the churches,
he would either have been wholly silent, or if constrained to speak,
would have spoken more plausible words, instead of these reproaches.
But as it is intentionally overlooking all these things, he willfully
misrepresents the facts. He makes, however, no mention whatever of the
heresiarch, desiring by all means to conceal the daring enormities of
which he knew him to be guilty. And what is still more extraordinary,
he has not said one word to the disadvantage of the Arians, although
he was far from entertaining their sentiments. The ordination of
Macedonius, whose heretical views he had adopted, he has also passed
over in silence; for had he mentioned it, he must necessarily have
recorded his impieties also, which were most distinctly manifested on
that occasion. Let this suffice on this subject.
Footnotes
[285] Julius, in his letter to the Eastern bishops (Ep. I. adv.
Eusebianos, 4 and 5), mentions Athanasius and Marcellus, ex-bishop of
Ancyra, as with him at this time, but does not allude to Paul; from
which it has been inferred that Socrates is in error here in setting
the date of Paul's visit to Rome at this time, as otherwise Julius
would have named him also with Athanasius and Marcellus. Sozomen, as
usual, copies the mistake of Socrates; cf. Sozom. III. 15.
[286] It appears from this that there was no recognition of any
special prerogative or right belonging to the bishop of Rome as yet.
The position of that bishop during these agitations in the Eastern
church, when the Western church was in comparative peace, seems to be
that of an arbitrator voluntarily invoked, rather than of an official
judge. Cf. Neander, Hist. of the Christ. Church, Vol. II. p. 171, 172.
[287] i.e. in his Collection of Synodical Transactions, mentioned in
chap. 17.
Chapter XVI.--The Emperor Constantius, through an Order to Philip the
Prætorian Prefect, secures the Exile of Paul, and the Installation of
Macedonius in his See.
When the Emperor Constantius, who then held his court at Antioch,
heard that Paul had again obtained possession of the episcopal throne,
he was excessively enraged at his presumption. He therefore despatched
a written order to Philip, the Prætorian Prefect, whose power exceeded
that of the other governors of provinces, and who was styled the
second person from the emperor, [288] to drive Paul out of the church
again, and introduce Macedonius into it in his place. Now the prefect
Philip, dreading an insurrectionary movement among the people, used
artifice to entrap the bishop: keeping, therefore, the emperor's
mandate secret, he went to the public bath called Zeuxippus, and on
pretense of attending to some public affairs, sent to Paul with every
demonstration of respect, requesting his attendance there, on the
ground that his presence was indispensable. The bishop came; and as he
came in obedience to this summons, the prefect immediately showed him
the emperor's order; the bishop patiently submitted condemnation
without a hearing. But as Philip was afraid of the violence of the
multitude--for great numbers had gathered around the building to see
what would take place, for their suspicions had been aroused by
current reports--he commanded one of the bath doors to be opened which
communicated with the imperial palace, and through that Paul was
carried off, put on board a vessel provided for the purpose, and so
sent into exile immediately. The prefect directed him to go to
Thessalonica, the metropolis of Macedonia, whence he had derived his
origin from his ancestors; commanding him to reside in that city, but
granting him permission to visit other cities of Illyricum, while he
strictly forbade his passing into any portion of the Eastern empire.
Thus was Paul, contrary to his expectation, at once expelled from the
church, and from the city, and again hurried off into exile. Philip,
the imperial prefect, leaving the bath, immediately proceeded to the
church. Together with him, as if thrown there by an engine, Macedonius
rode seated in the same seat with the prefect in the chariot seen by
everybody, and a military guard with drawn swords was about them. The
multitude was completely overawed by this spectacle, and both Arians
and Homoousians hastened to the church, every one endeavoring to
secure an entrance there. As the prefect with Macedonius came near the
church, an irrational panic seized the multitude and even the soldiers
themselves; for as the assemblage was so numerous and no room to admit
the passage of the prefect and Macedonius was found, the soldiers
attempted to thrust aside the people by force. But the confined space
into which they were crowded together rendering it impossible to
recede, the soldiers imagined that resistance was offered, and that
the populace intentionally stopped the passage; they accordingly began
to use their naked swords, and to cut down those that stood in their
way. It is affirmed that about 3150 persons were massacred on this
occasion; of whom the greater part fell under the weapons of the
soldiers, and the rest were crushed to death by the desperate efforts
of the multitude to escape their violence. After such distinguished
achievements, Macedonius, as if he had not been the author of any
calamity, but was altogether guiltless of what had been perpetrated,
was seated in the episcopal chair by the prefect, rather than by the
ecclesiastical canon. Thus, then, by means of so many murders in the
church, Macedonius and the Arians grasped the supremacy in the
churches. About this period the emperor built the great church called
Sophia, adjoining to that named Irene, which being originally of small
dimensions, the emperor's father had considerably enlarged and
adorned. In the present day both are seen within one enclosure, and
have but one appellation.
Footnotes
[288] deuteros meta basilea; not only second in rank, but first after
him in power, `his right-hand man.' Cf. Vergil's alter ab illo, Ecl.
V. 49, and VIII. 39.
Chapter XVII.--Athanasius, intimidated by the Emperor's Threats,
returns to Rome again.
At this time another accusation was concocted against Athanasius by
the Arians, who invented this pretext for it. The father of the
Augusti had long before granted an allowance of corn to the church of
the Alexandrians for the relief of the indigent. This, they asserted,
had usually been sold by Athanasius, and the proceeds converted to his
own advantage. The emperor, giving credence to this slanderous report,
threatened Athanasius with death, as a penalty; who, becoming alarmed
at the intimation of this threat, took to flight, and kept himself
concealed. When Julius, bishop of Rome, was apprised of these fresh
machinations of the Arians against Athanasius, and had also received
the letter of the then deceased Eusebius, he invited the persecuted
Athanasius to come to him, having ascertained where he was secreted.
The epistle also of the bishops who had been some time before
assembled at Antioch, just then reached him; and at the same time
others from the bishops in Egypt, assuring him that the entire charge
against Athanasius was a fabrication. On the receipt of these
contradictory communications, Julius first replied to the bishops who
had written to him from Antioch, complaining of the acrimonious
feeling they had evinced in their letter, and charging them with a
violation of the canons, because they had not requested his attendance
at the council, [289] seeing that the ecclesiastical law required that
the churches should pass no decisions contrary to the views of the
bishop of Rome: he then censured them with great severity for
clandestinely attempting to pervert the faith; in addition, that their
former proceedings at Tyre were fraudulent, because the investigation
of what had taken place at Mareotes was on one side of the question
only; not only this, but that the charge respecting Arsenius had
plainly been proved a false charge. Such and similar sentiments did
Julius write in his answer to the bishops convened at Antioch; we
should have inserted here at length, these as well as those letters
which were addressed to Julius, did not their prolixity interfere with
our purpose. But Sabinus, the advocate of the Macedonian heresy, of
whom we have before spoken, has not incorporated the letters of Julius
in his Collection of Synodical Transactions; [290] although he has not
omitted that which the bishops of Antioch sent to Julius. This,
however, is usual with him; he carefully introduces such letters as
make no reference to, or wholly repudiate the term homoousion; while
he purposely passes over in silence those of a contrary tendency. This
is sufficient on this subject. Not long after this, Paul, pretending
to make a journey from Thessalonica to Corinth, arrived in Italy: upon
which both the bishops [291] made an appeal to the emperor of those
parts, laying their respective cases before him.
Footnotes
[289] Sozom. X. 3 follows Socrates. The contents of the letter written
by Julius to the Eusebians, found in Athanasius' Apologia contra
Arianos, c. 20, are different from those here given by Socrates.
Julius there complains of their ignoring his invitation to the synod
at Rome, but says nothing of any canon such as is mentioned here. Cf.
ch. 8, note 2.
[290] See above, ch. 15.
[291] Athanasius and Paul.
Chapter XVIII.--The Emperor of the West requests his Brother to send
him Three Persons who could give an Account of the Deposition of
Athanasius and Paul. Those who are sent publish Another Form of the
Creed.
When the Western emperor [292] was informed of their affairs, he
sympathized with their sufferings; and wrote to his brother
[Constantius], begging him to send three bishops who should explain to
him the reason for the deposition of Athanasius and Paul. In
compliance with this request, Narcissus the Cilician, Theodore the
Thracian, Maris of Chalcedon, and Mark the Syrian, were deputed to
execute this commission; who on their arrival refused to hold any
communication with Athanasius or his friends, but suppressing the
creed which had been promulgated at Antioch, presented to the Emperor
Constans another declaration of faith composed by themselves, in the
following terms:
Another Exposition of the Faith.
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, the Creator and Maker of
all things, of whom the whole family in heaven and upon earth is
named; [293] and in his only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who
was begotten of the Father before all ages; God of God; Light of
Light; through whom all things in the heavens and upon the earth, both
visible and invisible, were made: who is the Word, and Wisdom, and
Power, and Life, and true Light: who in the last days for our sake was
made man, and was born of the holy virgin; was crucified, and died;
was buried, arose again from the dead on the third day, ascended into
the heavens, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and shall come
at the consummation of the ages, to judge the living and the dead, and
to render to every one according to his works: whose kingdom being
perpetual, shall continue to infinite ages; for he shall sit at the
right hand of the Father, not only in this age, but also in that which
is to come. [We believe] in the Holy Spirit, that is, in the
Comforter, whom the Lord, according to his promise, sent to his
apostles after his ascension into the heavens, to teach them, and
bring all things to their remembrance: by whom also the souls of those
who have sincerely believed on him shall be sanctified; and those who
assert that the Son was made of things which are not, or of another
substance, and not of God, or that there was a time when he did not
exist, the Catholic Church accounts as aliens.
Having delivered this creed to the emperor, and exhibited it to many
others also, they departed without attending to anything besides. But
while there was yet an inseparable communion between the Western and
Eastern churches, there sprang up another heresy at Sirmium, a city of
Illyricum; for Photinus, who presided over the churches in that
district, a native of the Lesser Galatia, and a disciple of that
Marcellus who had been deposed, adopting his master's sentiments,
asserted that the Son of God was a mere man. We shall, however, enter
into this matter more fully in its proper place. [294]
Footnotes
[292] Constantine the Younger. See I. 38, end.
[293] Eph. iii. 15.
[294] See below, ch. 59.
Chapter XIX.--Of the Creed sent by the Eastern Bishops to those in
Italy, called the Lengthy Creed. [295]
After the lapse of about three years from the events above recorded,
the Eastern bishops again assembled a Synod, and having composed
another form of faith, they transmitted it to those in Italy by the
hands of Eudoxius, at that time bishop of Germanicia, and Martyrius,
and Macedonius, who was bishop of Mopsuestia [296] in Cilicia. This
expression of the Creed, being written in more lengthy form, contained
many additions to those which had preceded it, and was set forth in
these words:
`We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the Creator and Maker of
all things, of whom the whole family in heaven and upon earth is
named; and in his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was
begotten of the Father before all ages; God of God; Light of Light;
through whom all things in the heavens and upon the earth, both
visible and invisible, were made: who is the Word, and Wisdom, and
Power, and Life, and true Light: who in the last days for our sake was
made man, and was born of the holy virgin; who was crucified, and
died, and was buried, and rose again from the dead on the third day,
and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the
Father, and shall come at the consummation of the ages, to judge the
living and the dead, and to render to every one according to his
works: whose kingdom being perpetual shall continue to infinite ages;
for he sits at the right hand of the Father, not only in this age, but
also in that which is to come. We believe also in the Holy Spirit,
that is, in the Comforter, whom the Lord according to his promise sent
to his apostles after his ascension into heaven, to teach them and
bring all things to their remembrance, through whom also the souls of
those who sincerely believe on him are sanctified. But those who
assert that the Son was made of things not in being, or of another
substance, and not of God, or that there was a time or age when he did
not exist, [297] the holy catholic Church accounts as aliens. The holy
and catholic Church likewise anathematizes those also who say that
there are three Gods, or that Christ is not God before all ages, or
that he is neither Christ, nor the Son of God, or that the same person
is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or that the Son was not begotten, or
that the Father begat not the Son by his own will or desire. Neither
is it safe to affirm that the Son had his existence from things that
were not, since this is nowhere declared concerning him in the
divinely inspired Scriptures. Nor are we taught that he had his being
from any other pre-existing substance besides the Father, but that he
was truly begotten of God alone; for the Divine word teaches that
there is one unbegotten principle without beginning, the Father of
Christ. But those who unauthorized by Scripture rashly assert that
there was a time when he was not, ought not to preconceive any
antecedent interval of time, but God only who without time begat him;
for both times and ages were made through him. Yet it must not be
thought that the Son is co-inoriginate, [298] or co-unbegotten [299]
with the Father: for there is properly no father of the co-inoriginate
or co-unbegotten. But we know that the Father alone being inoriginate
and incomprehensible, [300] has ineffably and incomprehensibly to all
begotten, and that the Son was begotten before the ages, but is not
unbegotten like the Father, but has a beginning, viz. the Father who
begat him, for "the head of Christ is God." [301] Now although
according to the Scriptures we acknowledge three things or persons,
viz. that of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, we do
not on that account make three Gods: since we know that that there is
but one God perfect in himself, unbegotten, inoriginate, and
invisible, the God and Father of the only-begotten, who alone has
existence from himself, and alone affords existence abundantly to all
other things. But neither while we assert that there is one God, the
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten, do we therefore
deny that Christ is God before the ages, as the followers of Paul of
Samosata do, who affirm that after his incarnation he was by
exaltation deified, in that he was by nature a mere man. We know
indeed that he was subject to his God and Father: nevertheless he was
begotten of God, and is by nature true and perfect God, and was not
afterwards made God out of man; but was for our sake made man out of
God, and has never ceased to be God. Moreover we execrate and
anathematize those who falsely style him the mere unsubstantial word
of God, having existence only in another, either as the word to which
utterance is given, or as the word conceived in the mind: and who
pretend that before the ages he was neither the Christ, the Son of
God, the Mediator, nor the Image of God; but that he became the
Christ, and the Son of God, from the time he took our flesh from the
virgin, about four hundred years ago. [302] For they assert that
Christ had the beginning of his kingdom from that time, and that it
shall have an end after the consummation of all things and the
judgment. Such persons as these are the followers of Marcellus and
Photinus, the Ancyro-Galatians, who under pretext of establishing his
sovereignty, like the Jews set aside the eternal existence and deity
of Christ, and the perpetuity of his kingdom. But we know him to be
not simply the word of God by utterance or mental conception, but God
the living Word subsisting of himself; and Son of God and Christ; and
who did, not by presence only, co-exist and was conversant with his
Father before the ages, and ministered to him at the creation of all
things, whether visible or invisible, but was the substantial Word of
the Father, and God of God: for this is he to whom the Father said,
"Let us make man in our image, and according to our likeness:" who in
his own person appeared to the fathers, gave the law, and spake by the
prophets; and being at last made man, he manifested his Father to all
men, and reigns to endless ages. Christ has not attained any new
dignity; but we believe that he was perfect from the beginning, and
like his Father in all things; and those who say that the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit, are the same person, impiously supposing the three
names to refer to one and the same thing and person, we deservedly
expel from the church because by the incarnation they render the
Father, who is incomprehensible and insusceptible of suffering,
subject to comprehension and suffering. Such are those denominated
Patropassians [303] among the Romans, and by us Sabellians. For we
know that the Father who sent, remained in the proper nature of his
own immutable deity; but that Christ who was sent, has fulfilled the
economy of the incarnation. In like manner those who irreverently
affirm that Christ was begotten not by the will and pleasure of his
Father; thus attributing to God an involuntary necessity not springing
from choice, as if he begat the Son by constraint, we consider most
impious and strangers to the truth because they have dared to
determine such things respecting him as are inconsistent with our
common notions of God, and are contrary indeed to the sense of the
divinely-inspired Scripture. For knowing that God is self-dependent
and Lord of himself we devoutly maintain that of his own volition and
pleasure he begat the Son. And while we reverentially believe what is
spoken concerning him; [304] "The Lord created me the beginning of his
ways on account of his works": yet we do not suppose that he was made
similarly to the creatures or works made by him. For it is impious and
repugnant to the church's faith to compare the Creator with the works
created by him; or to imagine that he had the same manner of
generation as things of a nature totally different from himself: for
the sacred Scriptures teach us that the alone only-begotten Son was
really and truly begotten. Nor when we say that the Son is of himself,
and lives and subsists in like manner to the Father, do we therefore
separate him from the Father, as if we supposed them dissociated by
the intervention of space and distance in a material sense. For we
believe that they are united without medium or interval, and that they
are incapable of separation from each other: the whole Father
embosoming the Son; and the whole Son attached to and eternally
reposing in the Father's bosom. Believing, therefore, in the
altogether perfect and most holy Trinity, and asserting that the
Father is God, and that the Son also is God, we do not acknowledge two
Gods, but one only, on account of the majesty of the Deity, and the
perfect blending and union of the kingdoms: the Father ruling over all
things universally, and even over the Son himself; the Son being
subject to the Father, but except him, ruling over all things which
were made after him and by him; and by the Father's will bestowing
abundantly on the saints the grace of the Holy Spirit. For the Sacred
Oracles inform us that in this consists the character of the
sovereignty which Christ exercises.
`We have been compelled, since the publication of our former epitome,
to give this more ample exposition of the creed; not in order to
gratify a vain ambition, but to clear ourselves from all strange
suspicion respecting our faith which may exist among those who are
ignorant of our real sentiments. And that the inhabitants of the West
may both be aware of the shameless misrepresentations of the heterodox
party; and also know the ecclesiastical opinion of the Eastern bishops
concerning Christ, confirmed by the unwrested testimony of the
divinely-inspired Scriptures, among all those of unperverted minds.'
Footnotes
[295] This creed was called makrostichos from its length, and the date
of its promulgation must be put after the Council of Sardica,
according to Hefele. See Hefele, History of the Church Councils, Vol.
II. p. 85, 89, and 180 (ed. T. and T. Clark).
[296] Mopsou hestia, lit. `the hearth of Mopsus,' son of Apollo and
Manto, daughter of Tiresias, according to the Greek mythology.
Mopsuestia has become famous in the history of the church through its
great citizen, Theodore. Cf. Smith and Wace, Dict. of Christ. Biog.
[297] This is the end of the first creed adopted at Antioch, as given
in the preceding Chapter; it is couched in almost identical terms in
both these versions. The rest of the version here given is the
addition that constitutes the characteristic of the `Lengthy Creed.'
[298] sunanarchon . It has been thought advisable to retain the above
uncouth rendering of this word, as also of one or two others
immediately following, on the ground that the etymological precision
at which they aim compensates for their non-classical ring.
[299] sunagenneton .
[300] anephikton.
[301] 1 Cor. xi. 3.
[302] "There has arisen in our days a certain Marcellus of Galatia,
the most execrable of all heretics, who with a sacrilegious mind and
impious mouth and wicked argument will needs set bounds to the
perpetual, eternal, and timeless kingdom of our Lord Christ, saying
that he began to reign four hundred years since, and shall end at the
dissolution of the present world.' This is the description given of
the heresy here hinted at by the synodical letter of the Oriental
bishops at Sardica. On Marcellus and the various opinions concerning
him, see Zahn, Marcellus von Ancyra, Gotha, 1867; also monographs on
Marcellus by Rettberg (1794) and by Klose (1837 and 1859). Cf.
Neander, Hist. of Chr. Ch. Vol. II. p. 394.
[303] Cf. Tertull. Adv. Prax. i. and ii.; Epiph. Hær. LVII.
[304] Prov. viii. 22. The ancient bishops quote the LXX verbatim. The
English versions (Authorized and Revised) follow the Hebrew, `The Lord
possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.'
Chapter XX.--Of the Council at Sardica. [305]
The Western prelates on account of their being of another language,
and not understanding this exposition, would not admit of it; saying
that the Nicene Creed was sufficient, and that they would not waste
time on anything beyond it. But when the emperor had again written to
insist on the restoration to Paul and Athanasius of their respective
sees, but without effect in consequence of the continual agitation of
the people--these two bishops demanded that another Synod should be
convened, so that their case, as well as other questions in relation
to the faith might be settled by an ecumenical council, for they made
it obvious that their deposition arose from no other cause than that
the faith might be the more easily perverted. Another general council
was therefore summoned to meet at Sardica,--a city of Illyricum,--by
the joint authority of the two emperors; the one requesting by letter
that it might be so, and the other, of the East, readily acquiescing
in it. It was the eleventh year after the death of the father of the
two Augusti, during the consulship of Rufinus and Eusebius, [306] that
the Synod of Sardica met. According to the statement of Athanasius
[307] about 300 bishops from the western parts of the empire were
present; but Sabinus says there came only seventy from the eastern
parts, among whom was Ischyras of Mareotes, [308] who had been
ordained bishop of that country by those who deposed Athanasius. Of
the rest, some pretended infirmity of body; others complained of the
shortness of the notice given, casting the blame of it on Julius,
bishop of Rome, although a year and a half had elapsed from the time
of its having been summoned: in which interval Athanasius remained at
Rome awaiting the assembling of the Synod. When at last they were
convened at Sardica, the Eastern prelates refused either to meet or to
enter into any conference with those of the West, unless they first
excluded Athanasius and Paul from the convention. But as Protogenes,
bishop of Sardica, and Hosius, bishop of Cordova, a city in Spain,
would by no means permit them to be absent, the Eastern bishops
immediately withdrew, and returning to Philippopolis in Thrace, held a
separate council, wherein they openly anathematized the term
homoousios; and having introduced the Anomoian [309] opinion into
their epistles, they sent them in all directions. On the other hand
those who remained at Sardica, condemning in the first place their
departure, afterwards divested the accusers of Athanasius of their
dignity; then confirming the Nicene Creed, and rejecting the term
anomoion, they more distinctly recognized the doctrine of
consubstantiality, which they also inserted in epistles addressed to
all the churches. Both parties believed they had acted rightly: those
of the East, because the Western bishops had countenanced those whom
they had deposed; and these again, in consequence not only of the
retirement of those who had deposed them before the matter had been
examined into, but also because they themselves were the defenders of
the Nicene faith, which the other party had dared to adulterate. They
therefore restored to Paul and Athanasius their sees, and also
Marcellus of Ancyra in Lesser Galatia, who had been deposed long
before, as we have stated in the former book. [310] At that time
indeed he exerted himself to the utmost to procure the revocation of
the sentence pronounced against him, declaring that his being
suspected of entertaining the error of Paul of Samosata arose from a
misunderstanding of some expressions in his book. It must, however, be
noticed that Eusebius Pamphilus wrote three entire books against
Marcellus, [311] in which he quotes that author's own words to prove
that he asserts with Sabellius the Libyan, and Paul of Samosata, that
the Lord [Jesus] was a mere man.
Footnotes
[305] Cf. Sozom. III. 11; Theodoret, H. E. II. 7; also Hefele, Hist.
of the Church Councils, Vol. II. p. 87-176.
[306] 347 a.d.
[307] Athanasius' statement is that those who were present at the
Council of Sardica, together with those who afterwards subscribed the
Synodical Epistle sent to them and those who before the council had
written in his behalf out of Phrygia, Asia, and Isauria, were in all
about three hundred and forty. So in his Apol. contra Arianos, c. 50.
In his Ep. ad Solitar. c. 15, he gives the number of those who met at
Sardica as about one hundred and seventy,--no more.
[308] Cf. I. 27.
[309] anomoiou, `different,' `unlike.'
[310] I. 36.
[311] There are two works of Eusebius extant against Marcellus. The
one described here is de Ecclesiastica Theologia adversus Marcellum,
in three books; the other is entitled contra Marcellum, and consists
of two books. As there is no mention of the latter, it is doubtful
whether Socrates had ever seen them. At the end of the second book,
Eusebius asserts that he had written at the request of the bishops who
had excommunicated Marcellus.
Chapter XXI.--Defense of Eusebius Pamphilus.
But since some have attempted to stigmatize even Eusebius Pamphilus
himself as having favored the Arian views in his works, it may not be
irrelevant here to make a few remarks respecting him. In the first
place then he was both present at the council of Nicæa, which defined
the doctrine of the homoousion and gave his assent to what was there
determined. And in the third book of the Life of Constantine, he
expressed himself in these words: [312] `The emperor incited all to
unanimity, until he had rendered them united in judgment on those
points on which they were previously at variance; so that they were
quite agreed at Nicæa in matters of faith.' Since therefore Eusebius,
in mentioning the Nicene Synod, says that all differences were
removed, and that all came to unity of sentiment, what ground is there
for assuming that he was himself an Arian? The Arians are also
certainly deceived in supposing him to be a favorer of their tenets.
But some one will perhaps say that in his discourses he seems to have
adopted the opinions of Arius, because of his frequently saying
through Christ, [313] to whom we should answer that ecclesiastical
writers often use this mode of expression and others of a similar kind
denoting the economy of our Saviour's humanity: and that before all
these the apostle [314] made use of such expressions, and never has
been accounted a teacher of false doctrine. Moreover, inasmuch as
Arius has dared to say that the Son is a creature, as one of the
others, observe what Eusebius says on this subject, in his first book
against Marcellus: [315]
`He alone, and no other, has been declared to be, and is the
only-begotten Son of God; whence any one could justly censure those
who have presumed to affirm that he is a Creature made of nothing,
like the rest of the creatures; for how then would he be a Son? and
how could he be God's only-begotten, were he assigned the same nature
as the other creatures...and were he one of the many created things,
seeing that he, like them, would in that case be partaker of a
creation from nothing? But the Sacred Scriptures do not thus instruct
us.' He again adds a little afterwards: `Whoever then defines the Son
as made of things that are not, and as a creature produced from
nothing pre-existing, forgets that while he concedes the name of Son,
he denies him to be a Son in reality. For he that is made of nothing,
cannot truly be the Son of God, any more than the other things which
have been made; but the true Son of God, forasmuch as he is begotten
of the Father, is properly denominated the only-begotten and beloved
of the Father. For this reason also, he himself is God; for what can
the offspring of God be, but the perfect resemblance of him who begot
him? A sovereign indeed builds a city, but does not beget it; and is
said to beget a son, not to build one. An artificer, also, may be
called the framer, but not the father of his work; while he could by
no means be styled the framer of him whom he had begotten. So also the
God of the Universe is the Father of the Son; but might be fitly
termed the Framer and Maker of the world. And although it is once said
in Scripture, [316] "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways on
account of his works," yet it becomes us to consider the import of
this phrase, which I shall hereafter explain; and not, as Marcellus
has done, from a single passage to jeopardize the most important
doctrine of the church.'
These and many other such expressions Eusebius Pamphilus has given
utterance to in the first book against Marcellus; and in his third
book, [317] declaring in what sense the term creature is to be taken,
he says:
`Accordingly, these things being thus established, it follows that in
the same sense as that which preceded, the words, "The Lord created me
the beginning of his ways, on account of his works," must have been
spoken. For although he says that he was created, it is not as if he
should say that he had arrived at existence from what was not, nor
that he himself also was made of nothing like the rest of the
creatures, which some have erroneously supposed; but as subsisting,
living, pre-existing, and being before the constitution of the whole
world; and having been appointed to rule the universe by his Lord and
Father: the word created being here used instead of ordained or
constituted. Certainly the apostle [318] expressly called the rulers
and governors among men creature, when he said, "Submit yourselves to
every human creature for the Lord's sake; whether to the king as
supreme, or to governors as those sent by him." The prophet also [319]
when he says, "Prepare, Israel, to invoke thy God. For behold he who
confirms the thunder, creates the Spirit, and announces his Christ
unto men": ...has not used the word "he who creates" in the sense of
makes out of nothing. For God did not then create the Spirit, when he
declared his Christ to all men, since [320] "There is nothing new
under the sun"; but the Spirit existed, and had being previously: but
he was sent at what time the apostles were gathered together, when
like thunder "There came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty
wind; and they were filled with the Holy Spirit." [321] And thus they
declared unto all men the Christ of God, in accordance with that
prophecy which says, [322] "Behold he who confirms the thunder,
creates the Spirit, and announces his Christ unto men": the word
"creates" being used instead of "sends down," or appoints; and thunder
in another figure implying the preaching of the Gospel. Again he that
says, "Create in me a clean heart, O God," [323] said not this as if
he had no heart; but prayed that his mind might be purified. Thus also
it is said, [324] "That he might create the two into one new man,"
instead of unite. Consider also whether this passage is not of the
same kind, [325] "Clothe yourselves with the new man, which is created
according to God"; and this, [326] "If, therefore, any one be in
Christ, he is a new creature"; and whatever other expressions of a
similar nature any one may find who shall carefully search the
divinely inspired Scripture. Wherefore, one should not be surprised if
in this passage, "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways," the
term "created" is used metaphorically, instead of "appointed" or
constituted.'
Such words Eusebius uses in his work against Marcellus; we have quoted
them on account of those who have slanderously attempted to traduce
and criminate him. Neither can they prove that Eusebius attributes a
beginning of subsistence to the Son of God, although they may find him
often using the expressions by accommodation; and especially so,
because he was an emulator and admirer of the works of Origen, in
which those who are able to comprehend the depth of Origen's writings,
will perceive it to be everywhere stated that the Son was begotten of
the Father. These remarks have been made in passing, in order to
refute those who have misrepresented Eusebius.
Footnotes
[312] Life of Const.III. 13.
[313] Eusebius was accustomed to end his sermons with the formula
`Glory be to the unborn God through his only-begotten Son,' &c. So
also at the end of his contra Sabell. I.
[314] 1 Cor. i.; Eph. iii. 9.
[315] De Eccl. Theol.I. 8, 9, and 10.
[316] Prov. viii. 22.
[317] De Eccl. Theol.III. 2.
[318] 1 Pet. ii. 13.
[319] Amos iv. 12, 13 (LXX).
[320] Eccl. i. 9.
[321] Acts ii. 2, 4.
[322] Amos iv. 13.
[323] Psalm li. 10 (LXX).
[324] Eph. ii. 15.
[325] Eph. iv. 24.
[326] 2 Cor. v. 17.
Chapter XXII.--The Council of Sardica restores Paul and Athanasius to
their Sees; and on the Eastern Emperor's Refusal to admit them, the
Emperor of the West threatens him with War.
Those convened at Sardica, as well as those who had formed a separate
council at Philippopolis in Thrace, having severally performed what
they deemed requisite, returned to their respective cities. From that
time, therefore, the Western church was severed from the Eastern;
[327] and the boundary of communion between them was the mountain
called Soucis, [328] which divides the Illyrians from the Thracians.
As far as this mountain there was indiscriminate communion, although
there was a difference of faith; but beyond it they did not commune
with one another. Such was the perturbed condition of the churches at
that period. Soon after these transactions, the emperor of the Western
parts informed his brother Constantius of what had taken place at
Sardica, and begged him to restore Paul and Athanasius to their sees.
But as Constantius delayed to carry this matter into effect, the
emperor of the West again wrote to him, giving him the choice either
of re-establishing Paul and Athanasius in their former dignity, and
restoring their churches to them; or, on his failing to do this, of
regarding him as his enemy, and immediately expecting war. The letter
which he addressed to his brother was as follows:
`Athanasius and Paul are here with me; and I am quite satisfied after
investigation, that they are persecuted for the sake of piety. If,
therefore, you will pledge yourself to reinstate them in their sees,
and to punish those who have so unjustly injured them, I will send
them to you; but should you refuse to do this, be assured, that I will
myself come thither, and restore them to their own sees, in spite of
your opposition.'
Footnotes
[327] This separation was only temporary and must be distinguished
from the great schism, which grew slowly and culminated with the
adoption of the expression `filioque' into the Apostles' Creed by the
Western church in the eleventh century. On the various degrees of
unity and communion recognized in the ancient church, see Bingham,
Eccl. Antiq. Bk. XVI. 1.
[328] Tisoukis.
Chapter XXIII.--Constantius, being Afraid of his Brother's Threats,
recalls Athanasius by Letter, and sends him to Alexandria.
On receiving this communication the emperor of the East fell into
perplexity; and immediately sending for the greater part of the
Eastern bishops, he acquainted them with the choice his brother had
submitted to him, and asked what ought to be done. They replied, it
was better to concede the churches to Athanasius, than to undertake a
civil war. Accordingly the emperor, urged by necessity, summoned
Athanasius and his friends to his presence. Meanwhile the emperor of
the West sent Paul to Constantinople, with two bishops and other
honorable attendance, having fortified him with his own letters,
together with those of the Synod. But while Athanasius was still
apprehensive, and hesitated to go to him,--for he dreaded the
treachery of his calumniators,--the emperor of the East not once only,
but even a second and a third time, invited him to come to him; this
is evident from his letters, which, translated from the Latin tongue,
are as follows:
Epistle of Constantius to Athanasius. [329]
Constantius Victor Augustus to Athanasius the bishop.
Our compassionate clemency cannot permit you to be any longer tossed
and disquieted as it were by the boisterous waves of the sea. Our
unwearied piety has not been unmindful of you driven from your native
home, despoiled of your property, and wandering in pathless solitudes.
And although I have too long deferred acquainting you by letter with
the purpose of my mind, expecting your coming to us of your own accord
to seek a remedy for your troubles; yet since fear perhaps has
hindered the execution of your wishes, we therefore have sent to your
reverence letters full of indulgence, in order that you may fearlessly
hasten to appear in our presence, whereby after experiencing our
benevolence, you may attain your desire, and be re-established in your
proper position. For this reason I have requested my Lord and brother
Constans Victor Augustus to grant you permission to come, to the end
that by the consent of us both you may be restored to your country,
having this assurance of our favor.
Another Epistle to Athanasius.
Constantius Victor Augustus to the bishop Athanasius.
Although we have abundantly intimated in a former letter that you
might confidently come to our court, [330] as we are extremely anxious
to reinstate you in your proper place, yet we have again addressed
this letter to your reverence. We therefore urge you, without any
distrust or apprehension, to take a public vehicle and hasten to us,
in order that you may be able to obtain what you desire.
Another Epistle to Athanasius.
Constantius Victor Augustus to the bishop Athanasius.
While we were residing at Edessa, where your presbyters were present,
it pleased us to send one of them to you, for the purpose of hastening
your arrival at our court, in order that after having been introduced
to our presence, you might forthwith proceed to Alexandria. But
inasmuch as a considerable time has elapsed since you received our
letter, and yet have not come, we now therefore hasten to remind you
to speedily present yourself before us, that so you may be able to
return to your country, and obtain your desire. For the more ample
assurance of our intention, we have despatched to you Achetas the
deacon, from whom you will learn both our mind in regard to you, and
that you will be able to secure what you wish; viz., our readiness to
facilitate the objects you have in view.
When Athanasius had received these letters at Aquileia,--for there he
abode after his departure from Sardica,--he immediately hastened to
Rome; and having shown these communications to Julius the bishop, he
caused the greatest joy in the Roman Church. For it seemed as if the
emperor of the East also had recognized their faith, since he had
recalled Athanasius. Julius then wrote to the clergy and laity of
Alexandria on behalf of Athanasius as follows:
Epistle of Julius, Bishop of Rome, to those at Alexandria. [331]
Julius, the bishop, to the presbyters, deacons, and people inhabiting
Alexandria, brethren beloved, salutations in the Lord.
I also rejoice with you, beloved brethren, because you at length see
before your eyes the fruit of your faith. For that this is really so,
any one may perceive in reference to my brother and fellow-prelate
Athanasius, whom God has restored to you, both on account of his
purity of life, and in answer to your prayers. From this it is evident
that your supplications to God have unceasingly been offered pure and
abounding with love; for mindful of the divine promises and of the
charity connected with them, which ye learned from the instruction of
my brother, ye knew assuredly, and according to the sound faith which
is in you clearly foresaw that your bishop would not be separated from
you for ever, whom ye had in your devout hearts as though he were ever
present. Wherefore it is unnecessary for me to use many words in
addressing you, for your faith has already anticipated whatever I
could have said; and the common prayer of you all has been fulfilled
according to the grace of Christ. I therefore rejoice with you, and
repeat that ye have preserved your souls invincible in the faith. And
with my brother Athanasius I rejoice equally; because, while suffering
many afflictions, he has never been unmindful of your love and desire;
for although he seemed to be withdrawn from you in person for a
season, yet was he always present with you in spirit. Moreover, I am
convinced, beloved, that every trial which he has endured has not been
inglorious; since both your faith and his has thus been tested and
made manifest to all. But had not so many troubles happened to him,
who would have believed, either that you had so great esteem and love
for this eminent prelate, or that he was endowed with such
distinguished virtues, on account of which also he will by no means be
defrauded of his hope in the heavens? He has accordingly obtained a
testimony of confession in every way glorious both in the present age
and in that which is to come. For having suffered so many and
diversified trials both by land and by sea, he has trampled on every
machination of the Arian heresy; and though often exposed to danger in
consequence of envy, he despised death, being protected by Almighty
God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, ever trusting that he should not only
escape the plots [of his adversaries], but also be restored for your
consolation, and bring back to you at the same time greater trophies
from your own conscience. By which means he has been made known even
to the ends of the whole earth as glorious, his worth having been
approved by the purity of his life, the firmness of his purpose, and
his steadfastness in the heavenly doctrine, all being attested by your
unchanging esteem and love. He therefore returns to you, more
illustrious now than when he departed from you. For if the fire tries
the precious metals (I speak of gold and silver) for purification,
what can be said of so excellent a man proportionate to his worth, who
after having overcome the fire of so many calamities and dangers, is
now restored to you, being declared innocent not only by us, but also
by the whole Synod? Receive therefore with godly honor and joy,
beloved brethren, your bishop Athanasius, together with those who have
been his companions in tribulation. And rejoice in having attained the
object of your prayers, you who have supplied with meat and drink, by
your supporting letters, your pastor hungering and thirsting, so to
speak, for your spiritual welfare. And in fact ye were a comfort to
him while he was sojourning in a strange land; and ye cherished him in
your most faithful affections when he was plotted against and
persecuted. As for me, it makes me happy even to picture to myself in
imagination the delight of each one of you at his return, the pious
greetings of the populace, the glorious festivity of those assembled
to meet him, and indeed what the entire aspect of that day will be
when my brother shall be brought back to you again; when past troubles
will be at an end, and his prized and longed-for return will unite all
hearts in the warmest expression of joy. This feeling will in a very
high degree extend to us, who regard it as a token of divine favor
that we should have been privileged to become acquainted with so
eminent a person. It becomes us therefore to close this epistle with
prayer. May God Almighty and his Son our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ
afford you this grace continually, thus rewarding the admirable faith
which ye have manifested in reference to your bishop by an illustrious
testimony: that the things most excellent which `Eye has not seen, nor
ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man; even the things
which God has prepared for them that love him,' [332] may await you
and yours in the world to come, through our Lord Jesus Christ, through
whom be glory to God Almighty for ever and ever, Amen. I pray that ye
may be strengthened, beloved brethren.
Athanasius, relying on these letters, arrived at the East. The Emperor
Constantius did not at that time receive him with hostility of
feeling; nevertheless at the instigation of the Arians he endeavored
to circumvent him, and addressed him in these words: `You have been
reinstated in your see in accordance with the decree of the Synod, and
with our consent. But inasmuch as some of the people of Alexandria
refuse to hold communion with you, permit them to have one church in
the city.' To this demand Athanasius promptly replied: `You have the
power, my sovereign, both to order, and to carry into effect, whatever
you may please. I also, therefore, would beg you to grant me a favor.'
The emperor having readily promised to acquiesce, Athanasius
immediately added, that he desired the same thing might be conceded to
him, which the emperor had sought from him, viz.: that in every city
one church should be assigned to those who might refuse to hold
communion with the Arians. The Arians perceiving the purpose of
Athanasius to be inimical to their interests, said that this affair
might be postponed to another time: but they suffered the emperor to
act as he pleased. He therefore restored to Athanasius, Paul, and
Marcellus their respective sees; as also to Asclepas, bishop of Gaza,
and Lucius of Adrianople. For these, too, had been received by the
Council of Sardica: Asclepas, because he showed records from which it
appeared that Eusebius Pamphilus, in conjunction with several others,
after having investigated his case, had restored him to his former
rank; and Lucius, because his accusers had fled. Hereupon the
emperor's edicts were despatched to their respective cities, enjoining
the inhabitants to receive them readily. At Ancyra indeed, when Basil
was ejected, and Marcellus was introduced in his stead, there was a
considerable tumult made, which afforded his enemies an occasion of
calumniating him: but the people of Gaza willingly received Asclepas.
Macedonius at Constantinople, for a short time gave place to Paul,
convening assemblies by himself separately, in a separate church in
that city. Moreover the emperor wrote on behalf of Athanasius to the
bishops, clergy, and laity, in regard to receiving him cheerfully: and
at the same time he ordered by other letters, that whatever had been
enacted against him in the judicial courts should be abrogated. The
communications respecting both these matters were as follows:
The Epistle of Constantius in Behalf of Athanasius. [333]
Victor Constantius Maximus Augustus, to the bishops and presbyters of
the Catholic Church.
The most reverend bishop Athanasius has not been forsaken by the grace
of God. But although he was for a short time subjected to trial
according to men, yet has he obtained from an omniscient Providence
the exoneration which was due to him; having been restored by the will
of God, and our decision, both to his country and to the church over
which by divine permission he presided. It was therefore suitable that
what is in accordance with this should be duly attended to by our
clemency: so that all things which have been heretofore determined
against those who held communion with him should now be rescinded;
that all suspicion against him should henceforward cease; and that the
immunity which those clergymen who are with him formerly enjoyed,
should be, as it is meet, confirmed to them. Moreover, we thought it
just to add this to our grace toward him, that the whole
ecclesiastical body should understand that protection is extended to
all who have adhered to him, whether bishops or other clergymen: and
union with him shall be a sufficient evidence of each person's right
intention. Wherefore we have ordered, according to the similitude of
the previous providence, that as many as have the wisdom to enroll
themselves with the sounder judgment and party and to choose his
communion, shall enjoy that indulgence which we have now granted in
accordance with the will of God.
Another Epistle sent to the Alexandrians. [334]
Victor Constantius Maximus Augustus, to the people of the Catholic
Church at Alexandria.
Setting before us as an aim your good order in all respects, and
knowing that you have long since been bereft of episcopal oversight,
we thought it just to send back to you again Athanasius your bishop, a
man known to all by the rectitude and sanctity of his life and
manners. Having received him with your usual and becoming courtesy,
and constituted him the assistant of your prayers to God, exert
yourselves to maintain at all times, according to the ecclesiastical
canon, harmony and peace, which will be alike honorable to yourselves,
and grateful to us. For it is unreasonable that any dissension or
faction should be excited among you, hostile to the prosperity of our
times; and we trust that such a misfortune will be wholly removed from
you. We exhort you, therefore, to assiduously persevere in your
accustomed devotions, by his assistance, as we before said: so that
when this resolution of yours shall become generally known, entering
into the prayers of all, even the pagans, who are still enslaved in
the ignorance of idolatrous worship, may hasten to seek the knowledge
of our sacred religion, most beloved Alexandrians. Again, therefore,
we exhort you to give heed to these things: heartily welcome your
bishop, as one appointed you by the will of God and our decree; and
esteem him worthy of being embraced with all the affections of your
souls. For this becomes you, and is consistent with our clemency. But
in order to check all tendency to seditions and tumult in persons of a
factious disposition, orders have been issued to our judges to give up
to the severity of the laws all whom they may discover to be
seditious. Having regard, therefore, to our determination and God's,
[335] as well as to the anxiety we feel to secure harmony among you,
and remembering also the punishment that will be inflicted on the
disorderly, make it your especial care to act agreeably to the
sanctions of our sacred religion, with all reverence honoring your
bishop; that so in conjunction with him you may present your
supplications to the God and Father of the universe, both for
yourselves, and for the orderly government of the whole human race.
An Epistle respecting the Rescinding of the Enactments against
Athanasius.
Victor Constantius Augustus to Nestorius, and in the same terms to the
governors of Augustamnica, Thebaïs, and Libya.
If it be found that at any time previously any enactment has been
passed prejudicial and derogatory to those who hold communion with
Athanasius the bishop, our pleasure is that it should now be wholly
abrogated; and that his clergy should again enjoy the same immunity
which was granted to them formerly. We enjoin strict obedience to this
command, to the intent that since the bishop Athanasius has been
restored to his church, all who hold communion with him may possess
the same privileges as they had before, and such as other
ecclesiastics now enjoy: that so their affairs being happily arranged,
they also may share in the general prosperity.
Footnotes
[329] Athan. Apol. c. Arian. 51.
[330] komitaton = Lat. comitatus; by analogy of the New Test. words
kensos koustodia, spekoulator , &c., and frequently in Byzantine Greek
kombineuma souphragion , &c.
[331] Athan. Apol. c. Arian. 52.
[332] 1 Cor. ii. 9
[333] Athan. Apol. c. Arian. 54.
[334] Athan. Apol. c. Arian. 55.
[335] tou kreitonos; cf. I. 7, and note.
Chapter XXIV.--Athanasius, passing through Jerusalem on his Return to
Alexandria, is received into Communion by Maximus: and a Synod of
Bishops, convened in that City, confirms the Nicene Creed.
Athanasius the bishop being fortified with such letters as these,
passed through Syria, and came into Palestine. On arriving at
Jerusalem he acquainted Maximus the bishop both with what had been
done in the Council of Sardica, and also that the Emperor Constantius
had confirmed its decision: he then proposed that a Synod of the
bishops there should be held. Maximus, [336] therefore, without delay
sent for certain of the bishops of Syria and Palestine, and having
assembled a council, he restored Athanasius to communion, and to his
former dignity. After which the Synod communicated by letter [337] to
the Alexandrians, and to all the bishops of Egypt and Libya, what had
been determined respecting Athanasius. Whereupon the adversaries of
Athanasius exceedingly derided Maximus, because having before assisted
in his deposition, he had suddenly changed his mind, and as if nothing
had previously taken place, had voted for his restoration to communion
and rank. When Ursacius and Valens, who had been fiery partisans of
Arianism, ascertained these things, condemning their former zeal, they
proceeded to Rome, where they presented their recantation to Julius
the bishop, and gave their assent to the doctrine of
consubstantiality: they also wrote to Athanasius, and expressed their
readiness to hold communion with him in future. Thus Ursacius and
Valens were at that time subdued by the good fortune of Athanasius and
induced to recognize the orthodox faith. Athanasius passed through
Pelusium on his way to Alexandria, and admonished the inhabitants of
every city to beware of the Arians, and to receive those only that
professed the Homoousian faith. In some of the churches also he
performed ordination; which afforded another ground of accusation
against him, because of his undertaking to ordain in the dioceses of
others. [338] Such was the progress of affairs at that period in
reference to Athanasius.
Footnotes
[336] The bishop of Jerusalem was under the jurisdiction of the
metropolitan bishop of Cæsarea, and according to later usage and
canon, had no right to call a synod without the permission of the
metropolitan. Evidently usage had not yet become fixed into uniformity
in this respect.
[337] Cf. Athan, Apol. c. Arian. 57.
[338] Cf. Apost. Cann. XXXV. `Let not a bishop dare to ordain beyond
his limits, in cities and places not subject to him.' It follows,
therefore, that the whole of Egypt was not under the bishop of
Alexandria; otherwise no such charge as is here mentioned could have
been made against Athanasius. That these ordinations were made in
Egypt is evident from the mention of Pelusium, which Athanasius had
already passed through.
Chapter XXV.--Of the Usurpers Magnentius and Vetranio.
About this time an extraordinary commotion shook the whole state, of
the principal heads, of which we shall give a brief account, deeming
it necessary not to pass over them altogether. We mentioned in our
first book, [339] that after the death of the founder of
Constantinople, his three sons succeeded him in the empire: it must
now be also stated, that a kinsman of theirs, Dalmatius, so named from
his father, shared with them the imperial authority. This person after
being associated with them in the sovereignty for a very little while,
the soldiers put to death, [340] Constantius having neither commanded
his destruction, nor forbidden it. The manner in which Constantine the
younger was also killed by the soldiers, on his invading that division
of the empire which belonged to his brother, has already been recorded
[341] more than once. After his death, the Persian war was raised
against the Romans, in which Constantius did nothing prosperously: for
in a battle fought by night on the frontiers of both parties, the
Persians had to some slight extent the advantage. And this at a time
when the affairs of the Christians became no less unsettled, there
being great disturbance throughout the churches on account of
Athanasius, and the term homoousion. Affairs having reached this pass,
there sprang up a tyrant in the western parts called Magnentius, [342]
who by treachery slew Constans, the emperor of the western division of
the empire, at that time residing in the Gauls. This being done, a
furious civil war arose, and Magnentius made himself master of all
Italy, reduced Africa and Libya under his power, and even obtained
possession of the Gauls. But at the city of Sirmium in Illyricum, the
military set up another tyrant whose name was Vetranio; [343] while a
fresh trouble threw Rome itself into commotion. For there was a nephew
of Constantine's, Nepotian by name, who, supported by a body of
gladiators, there assumed the sovereignty. He was, however, slain by
some of the officers of Magnentius, who himself invaded the western
provinces, and spread desolation in every direction.
Footnotes
[339] I. 38.
[340] The same account is given by Eunap. X. 9, and by Zosimus, II.
40.
[341] Ch. 5, above.
[342] Magnentius was governor of the provinces of Rhoetia, and
assassinated Constans, as above. Cf. Zosimus, II. 43.
[343] This whole affair is treated extensively in Zosimus, II. 43-48.
Chapter XXVI.--After the Death of Constans, the Western Emperor, Paul
and Athanasius are again ejected from their Sees: the Former on his
Way into Exile is slain; but the Latter escapes by Flight.
The conflux of these disastrous events occurred during a short space
of time; for they happened in the fourth year after the council at
Sardica, during the consulate of Sergius and Nigrinian. [344] When
these circumstances were published, the entire sovereignty of the
empire seemed to devolve on Constantius alone, who, being accordingly
proclaimed in the East sole Autocrat, made the most vigorous
preparations against the usurpers. Hereupon the adversaries of
Athanasius, thinking a favorable crisis had arisen, again framed the
most calumnious charges against him, before his arrival at Alexandria;
assuring the Emperor Constantius that he was subverting all Egypt and
Libya. And his having undertaken to ordain out of the limits of his
own diocese, tended not a little to accredit the accusations against
him. Meanwhile in this conjuncture, Athanasius entered Alexandria; and
having convened a council of the bishops in Egypt, they confirmed by
their unanimous vote, what had been determined in the Synod at
Sardica, and that assembled at Jerusalem by Maximus. But the emperor,
who had been long since imbued with Arian doctrine, reversed all the
indulgent proceedings he had so recently resolved on. And first of all
he ordered that Paul, bishop of Constantinople, should be sent into
exile; whom those who conducted strangled, at Cucusus in Cappadocia.
Marcellus was also ejected, and Basil again made ruler of the church
at Ancyra. Lucius of Adrianople, being loaded with chains, died in
prison. The reports which were made concerning Athanasius so wrought
on the emperor's mind, that in an ungovernable fury he commanded him
to be put to death wherever he might be found: he moreover included
Theodulus and Olympius, who presided over churches in Thrace, in the
same proscription. Athanasius, however, was not ignorant of the
intentions of the emperor; but learning of them he once more had
recourse to flight, and so escaped the emperor's menaces. The Arians
denounced this retreat as criminal, particularly Narcissus, bishop of
Neronias in Cilicia, George of Laodicæa, and Leontius who then had the
oversight of the church at Antioch. This last person, when a
presbyter, had been divested of his rank, [345] because in order to
remove all suspicion of illicit intercourse with a woman named
Eustolium, with whom he spent a considerable portion of his time, he
had castrated himself and thenceforward lived more unreservedly with
her, on the ground that there could be no longer any ground for evil
surmises. Afterwards however, at the earnest desire of the Emperor
Constantius, he was created bishop of the church at Antioch, after
Stephen, the successor of Placitus. So much respecting this.
Footnotes
[344] 350 a.d.
[345] Cf. Apost. Cann. XXII. and XXIII.; according to these any cleric
was to be deposed if found guilty of such a crime. The Council of
Nicæa also passed a canon on the subject which is as follows: `If a
man has been mutilated by physicians during sickness, or by
barbarians, he may remain among the clergy; but if a man in good
health has mutilated himself, he must resign his post after the matter
has been proved among the clergy, and in future no one who has thus
acted should be ordained. But as it is evident that what has just been
said only concerns those who have thus acted with intention, and have
dared to mutilate themselves, those who have been made eunuchs by
barbarians or by their masters will be allowed, conformably to the
canon, to remain among the clergy, if in other respects they are
worthy.' Canon I. See Hefele, Hist. of the Councils, Vol. I. p. 375,
376.
Chapter XXVII.--Macedonius having possessed himself of the See of
Constantinople inflicts much Injury on those who differ from him.
At that time Paul having been removed in the manner described,
Macedonius became ruler of the churches in Constantinople; who,
acquiring very great ascendancy over the emperor, stirred up a war
among Christians, of a no less grievous kind than that which the
usurpers themselves were waging. For having prevailed on his sovereign
to co-operate with him in devastating the churches, he procured that
whatever pernicious measures he determined to pursue should be
ratified by law. And on this account throughout the several cities an
edict was proclaimed, and a military force appointed to carry the
imperial decrees into effect. Accordingly those who acknowledged the
doctrine of consubstantiality were expelled not only from the
churches, but also from the cities. Now at first they were satisfied
with expulsion; but as the evil grew they resorted to the worse
extremity of inducing compulsory communion with them, caring but
little for such a desecration of the churches. Their violence indeed
was scarcely less than that of those who had formerly obliged the
Christians to worship idols; for they applied all kinds of scourgings,
a variety of tortures, and confiscation of property. Many were
punished with exile; some died under the torture; and others were put
to death while they were being led into exile. These atrocities were
exercised throughout all the eastern cities, but especially at
Constantinople; the internal strife which was but slight before was
thus savagely increased by Macedonius, as soon as he obtained the
bishopric. The cities of Greece, however, and Illyricum, with those of
the western parts, still enjoyed tranquillity; inasmuch as they
preserved harmony among themselves, and continued to adhere to the
rule of faith promulgated by the council of Nicæa.
Chapter XXVIII.--Athanasius' Account of the Deeds of Violence
committed at Alexandria by George the Arian.
What cruelties George perpetrated at Alexandria at the same time may
be learned from the narration of Athanasius, who both suffered in and
witnessed the occurrences. In his `Apology for his flight,' [346]
speaking of these transactions, he thus expresses himself:
`Moreover, they came to Alexandria, again seeking to destroy me: and
on this occasion their proceedings were worse than before; for the
soldiery having suddenly surrounded the church, there arose the din of
war, instead of the voice of prayer. Afterwards, on his arrival during
Lent, [347] George, sent from Cappadocia, added to the evil which he
was instructed to work. When Easter-week [348] was passed, the virgins
were cast into prison, the bishops were led in chains by the military,
and the dwellings even of orphans and widows were forcibly entered and
their provisions pillaged. Christians were assassinated by night;
houses were sealed; [349] and the relatives of the clergy were
endangered on their account. Even these outrages were dreadful; but
those that followed were still more so. For in the week after the holy
Pentecost, the people, having fasted, went forth to the cemetery to
pray, because all were averse to communion with George: that wickedest
of men being informed of this, instigated against them Sebastian, an
officer who was a Manichæan. He, accordingly, at the head of a body of
troops armed with drawn swords, bows, and darts, marched out to attack
the people, although it was the Lord's day: finding but few at
prayers,--as the most part had retired because of the lateness of the
hour,--he performed such exploits as might be expected from them.
Having kindled a fire, he set the virgins near it, in order to compel
them to say that they were of the Arian faith: but seeing they stood
their ground and despised the fire, he then stripped them, and so beat
them on the face, that for a long time afterwards they could scarcely
be recognized. Seizing also about forty men, he flogged them in an
extraordinary manner: for he so lacerated their backs with rods fresh
cut from the palm-tree, which still had their thorns on, that some
were obliged to resort repeatedly to surgical aid in order to have the
thorns extracted from their flesh, and others, unable to bear the
agony, died under its infliction. All the survivors with one virgin
they banished to the Great Oasis. [350] The bodies of the dead they
did not so much as give up to their relatives, but denying them the
rites of sepulture they concealed them as they thought fit, that the
evidences of their cruelty might not appear. They did this acting as
madmen. For while the friends of the deceased rejoiced on account of
their confession, but mourned because their bodies were uninterred,
the impious inhumanity of these acts was sounded abroad the more
conspicuously. For soon after this they sent into exile out of Egypt
and the two Libyas the following bishops: Ammonius, Thmuïs, Caïus,
Philo, Hermes, Pliny, Psenosiris, Nilammon, Agatho, Anagamphus, Mark,
Ammonius, another Mark, Dracontius, Adelphius, and Athenodorus; and
the presbyters Hierax and Discorus. And so harshly did they treat them
in conducting them, that some expired while on their journey, and
others in the place of banishment. In this way they got rid of more
than thirty bishops, for the anxious desire of the Arians, like
Ahab's, was to exterminate the truth if possible.'
Such are the words of Athanasius in regard to the atrocities
perpetrated by George at Alexandria. The emperor meanwhile led his
army into Illyricum. For there the urgency of public affairs demanded
his presence; and especially the proclamation of Vetranio [351] as
emperor by the military. On arriving at Sirmium, he came to a
conference with Vetranio during a truce; and so managed, that the
soldiers who had previously declared for him changed sides, and
saluted Constantius alone as Augustus and sovereign autocrat. In the
acclamations, therefore, no notice was taken of Vetranio. Vetranio,
perceiving himself to be abandoned, immediately threw himself at the
feet of the emperor; Constantius, taking from him his imperial crown
and purple, treated him with great clemency, and recommended him to
pass the rest of his days tranquilly in the condition of a private
citizen: observing that a life of repose at his advanced age was far
more suitable than a dignity which entailed anxieties and care.
Vetranio's affairs came to this issue; and the emperor ordered that a
liberal provision out of the public revenue should be given him. Often
afterwards writing to the emperor during his residence at Prusa in
Bithynia, Vetranio assured him that he had conferred the greatest
blessing on him, by liberating him from the disquietudes which are the
inseparable concomitants of sovereign power. Adding that he himself
did not act wisely in depriving himself of that happiness in
retirement, which he had bestowed upon him. Let this suffice on this
point. After these things, the Emperor Constantius having created
Gallus his kinsman Cæsar, and given him his own name, [352] sent him
to Antioch in Syria, providing thus for the guarding of the eastern
parts. When Gallus was entering this city, the Savior's sign appeared
in the East: [353] for a pillar in the form of a cross seen in the
heavens gave occasion of great amazement to the spectators. His other
generals the emperor despatched against Magnentius with considerable
forces, and he himself remained at Sirmium, awaiting the course of
events.
Footnotes
[346] Athan. Apol. de Fuga, 6.
[347] Tessarakoste , lit. = `forty days' fast,' formed by mistaken
analogy to pentekoste
[348] Suspending, i.e., all violence during the period of festivity
attending the observance of Easter.
[349] Houses are often sealed by state and municipal officials in the
East, even at the present time, when their contents are to be
confiscated, or for any other reason an inventory is to be made by the
authorities. The sealing consists in fastening and securing the locks
and bolts and attaching the impression of the official seal to some
sealing-wax which is put over them. In this case the object of the
sealing was apparently the confiscation of the contents.
[350] The modern El-Onah or El-Kharjeh, situated west of the Nile,
seven days' journey from Thebes, contains several small streams, and
abounds in vegetation, including palm-trees, orange and citron groves,
olive orchards, &c. See Smith, Dict. of Geogr.
[351] Sozomen (IV. 4) calls him Oueteranion ; cf. also Zosimus, II.
44, on the way in which he was elevated and soon afterwards reduced.
[352] See I. 1, and note on the name of Eusebius Pamphilus; cf. Smith
and Cheetham, Dict. of Christ. Ant. Names.
[353] Similar to the appearance mentioned in I. 2. See note on that
passage.
Chapter XXIX.--Of the Heresiarch Photinus.
During this time Photinus, [354] who then presided over the church in
that city more openly avowed the creed he had devised; wherefore a
tumult being made in consequence, the emperor ordered a Synod of
bishops to be held at Sirmium. There were accordingly convened there
of the Oriental bishops, [355] Mark of Arethusa, George of Alexandria,
whom the Arians sent, as I have before said, having placed him over
that see on the removal of Gregory, Basil who presided over the church
at Ancyra after Marcellus was ejected, Pancratius of Pelusium, and
Hypatian of Heraclea. Of the Western bishops there were present Valens
of Mursa, and the then celebrated Hosius of Cordova in Spain, who
attended much against his will. These met at Sirmium, after the
consulate of Sergius and Nigrinian, [356] in which year no consul
celebrated the customary inaugural [357] solemnities, in consequence
of the tumults of war; and having met and found that Photinus held the
heresy of Sabellius the Libyan, and Paul of Samosata, they immediately
deposed him. This decision was both at that time and afterwards
universally commended as honorable and just; but those who continued
there, subsequently acted in a way which was by no means so generally
approved.
Footnotes
[354] A disciple of Marcellus (see ch. 18). See Hilar. de Synod. 61,
Cave on Photinus.
[355] The bishops here mentioned, according to Valesius, took part not
in this council, but in another held at the same place nine years
later, under the consuls Eusebius and Hypatius.
[356] 351 a.d. So also Sozomen, IV. 6.
[357] The Ludi circenses, consisting of five games, leaping,
wrestling, boxing, racing, and hurling,--called in Greek pentathlon
,--with scenic representations and spectacles of wild beasts at the
amphitheatre; with these the consuls entertained the people at their
entrance on the consulate. Alluded to by Tacitus (Ann. I. 2) and
Juvenal (Sat. X. 1). Cf. Smith, Dict. of Greek and Rom. Antiq.
Chapter XXX.--Creeds published at Sirmium in Presence of the Emperor
Constantius.
As if they would rescind their former determinations respecting the
faith, they published anew other expositions of the creed, viz.: one
which Mark of Arethusa composed in Greek; and others in Latin, which
harmonized neither in expression nor in sentiment with one another,
nor with that dictated by the bishop of Arethusa. I shall here subjoin
one of those drawn up in Latin, to that prepared in Greek by Mark: the
other, which was afterwards recited at Sirmium, [358] will be given
when we describe what was done at Ariminum. It must be understood,
however, that both the Latin forms were translated into Greek. The
declaration of faith set forth by Mark, was as follows: [359]
`We believe in one God the Father Almighty, the Creator and Maker of
all things, of whom the whole family in heaven and on earth is named,
[360] and in his only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who was
begotten of the Father before all ages, God of God, Light of Light, by
whom all things visible and invisible, which are in the heavens and
upon the earth, were made: who is the Word, and the Wisdom, and the
true Light, and the Life; who in the last days for our sake was made
man and born of the holy virgin, and was crucified and died, and was
buried, and rose again from the dead on the third day, and was
received up into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and
is coming at the completion of the age to judge the living and the
dead, and to requite every one according to his works: whose kingdom
being everlasting, endures into infinite ages; for he will be seated
at the Father's right hand, not only in the present age, but also in
that which is to come. [We believe] also in the Holy Spirit, that is
to say the Comforter, whom, having promised to his apostles after his
ascension into the heavens, to teach them, and bring all things to
their remembrance, he sent; by whom also the souls of those who have
sincerely believed in him are sanctified. But those who affirm that
the Son is of things which are not, or of another substance, and not
of God, and that there was a time or an age when he was not, the holy
and catholic Church recognizes to be aliens. We therefore again say,
if any one affirms that the Father and Son are two Gods, let him be
anathema. And if any one admits that Christ is God and the Son of God
before the ages, but does not confess that he ministered to the Father
in the formation of all things, let him be anathema. If any one shall
dare to assert that the Unbegotten, or a part of him, was born of
Mary, let him be anathema. If any one should say that the Son was of
Mary according to foreknowledge, and not that he was with God,
begotten of the Father before the ages, and that all things were not
made by him, let him be anathema. If any one affirms the essence of
God to be dilated or contracted, let him be anathema. If any one says
that the dilated essence of God makes the Son, or shall term the Son
the dilatation of his essence, let him be anathema. If any one calls
the Son of God the internal or uttered word, let him be anathema. If
any one declares that the Son that was born of Mary was man only, let
him be anathema. If any man affirming him that was born of Mary to be
God and man, shall imply the unbegotten God himself, let him be
anathema. If any one shall understand the text, "I am the first, and I
am the last, and besides me there is no God," [361] which was spoken
for the destruction of idols and false gods, in the sense the Jews do,
as if it were said for the subversion of the only-begotten of God
before the ages, let him be anathema. If any one hearing "the Word was
made flesh," [362] should imagine that the Word was changed into
flesh, or that he underwent any change in assuming flesh, let him be
anathema. If any one hearing that the only-begotten Son of God was
crucified, should say that his divinity underwent any corruption, or
suffering, or change, or diminution, or destruction, let him be
anathema. If any one should affirm that the Father said not to the
Son, "Let us make man," [363] but that God spoke to himself, let him
be anathema. If any one says that it was not the Son that was seen by
Abraham, but the unbegotten God, or a part of him, let him be
anathema. If any one says that it was not the Son that as man wrestled
with Jacob, but the unbegotten God, or a part of him, let him be
anathema. If any one shall understand the words, "The Lord rained from
the Lord," [364] not in relation to the Father and the Son, but shall
say that he rained from himself, let him be anathema: for the Lord the
Son rained from the Lord the Father. If any one hearing "the Lord the
Father, and the Lord the Son," shall term both the Father and the Son
Lord, and saying "the Lord from the Lord" shall assert that there are
two Gods, let him be anathema. For we do not co-ordinate the Son with
the Father, but [conceive him to be] subordinate to the Father. For he
neither came down to the body [365] without his Father's will; nor did
he rain from himself, but from the Lord (i.e. the Father) who
exercises supreme authority: nor does he sit at the Father's right
hand of himself, but in obedience to the Father saying, "Sit thou at
my right hand" [366] [let him be anathema]. If any one should say that
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one person, let him be anathema.
If any one, speaking of the Holy Spirit the Comforter, shall call him
the unbegotten God, let him be anathema. If any one, as he hath taught
us, shall not say that the Comforter is other than the Son, when he
has himself said, "the Father, whom I will ask, shall send you another
Comforter," [367] let him be anathema. If any one affirm that the
Spirit is part of the Father and of the Son, let him be anathema. If
any one say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Gods, let
him be anathema. If any one say that the Son of God was made as one of
the creatures by the will of God, let him be anathema. If any one
shall say that the Son was begotten without the Father's will, let him
be anathema: for the Father did not, as compelled by any natural
necessity, beget the Son at a time when he was unwilling; but as soon
as it pleased him, he has declared that of himself without time and
without passion, he begot him. If any one should say that the Son is
unbegotten, and without beginning, intimating that there are two
without beginning, and unbegotten, so making two Gods, let him be
anathema: for the Son is the head and beginning of all things; but
"the head of Christ is God." [368] Thus do we devoutly trace up all
things by the Son to one source of all things who is without
beginning. Moreover, to give an accurate conception of Christian
doctrine, we again say, that if any one shall not declare Christ Jesus
to have been the Son of God before all ages, and to have ministered to
the Father in the creation of all things; but shall affirm that from
the time only when he was born of Mary, was he called the Son and
Christ, and that he then received the commencement of his divinity,
let him be anathema, as the Samosatan.' [369]
Another Exposition of the Faith set forth at Sirmium in Latin,
and afterwards translated into Greek. [370]
Since it appeared good that some deliberation respecting the faith
should be undertaken, all points have been carefully investigated and
discussed at Sirmium, in presence of Valens, Ursacius, Germinius, and
others.
It is evident that there is one God, the Father Almighty, according as
it is declared over the whole world; and his only-begotten Son Jesus
Christ, our Lord, God, and Saviour, begotten of him before the ages.
But we ought not to say that there are two Gods, since the Lord
himself has said `I go unto my Father and your Father, and unto my God
and your God.' [371] Therefore he is God even of all, as the apostle
also taught, `Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the
Gentiles? Yea of the Gentiles also; seeing that it is one God who
shall justify the circumcision by faith.' [372] And in all other
matters there is agreement, nor is there any ambiguity. But since it
troubles very many to understand about that which is termed substantia
in Latin, and ousia in Greek; that is to say, in order to mark the
sense more accurately, the word homoousion [373] or homoiousion, [374]
it is altogether desirable that none of these terms should be
mentioned: nor should they be preached on in the church, for this
reason, that nothing is recorded concerning them in the holy
Scriptures; and because these things are above the knowledge of
mankind and human capacity, and that no one can explain the Son's
generation, of which it is written, `And who shall declare his
generation?' [375] It is manifest that the Father only knows in what
way he begat the Son; and again the Son, how he was begotten by the
Father. But no one can doubt that the Father is greater in honor,
dignity, and divinity, and in the very name of Father; the Son himself
testifying `My Father who hath sent me is greater than I.' [376] And
no one is ignorant that this is also catholic doctrine, [377] that
there are two persons of the Father and Son, and that the Father is
the greater: but that the Son is subject, together with all things
which the Father has subjected to him. That the Father had no
beginning, and is invisible, immortal, and impassible: but that the
Son was begotten of the Father, God of God, Light of Light; and that
no one comprehends his generation, as was before said, but the Father
alone. That the Son himself, our Lord and God, took flesh or a body,
that is to say human nature, according as the angel brought glad
tidings: and as the whole Scriptures teaches, and especially the
apostle who was the great teacher of the Gentiles, Christ assumed the
human nature through which he suffered, from the Virgin Mary. But the
summary and confirmation of the entire faith is, that [the doctrine
of] the Trinity should be always maintained, according as we have read
in the gospel, `Go ye and disciple all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.' [378]
Thus the number of the Trinity is complete and perfect. Now the
Comforter, the Holy Spirit, sent by the Son, came according to his
promise, in order to sanctify and instruct the apostles and all
believers.
They endeavored to induce Photinus, even after his deposition, to
assent to and subscribe these things, promising to restore him his
bishopric, if by recantation he would anathematize the dogma he had
invented, and adopt their opinion. But he did not accept their
proposal, and on the other hand he challenged them to a disputation:
[379] and a day being appointed by the emperor's arrangement, the
bishops who were there present assembled, and not a few of the
senators, whom the emperor had directed to attend to the discussion.
In their presence, Basil, who at that time presided over the church at
Ancyra, was appointed to oppose Photinus, and short-hand writers took
down their respective speeches. The conflict of arguments on both
sides was extremely severe; but Photinus having been worsted, was
condemned, and spent the rest of his life in exile, during which time
he composed treatises in both languages--for he was not unskilled in
Latin--against all heresies, and in favor of his own views. Concerning
Photinus let this suffice.
Now the bishops who were convened at Sirmium, were afterwards
dissatisfied with that form of the creed which had been promulgated by
them in Latin; for after its publication, it appeared to them to
contain many contradictions. They therefore endeavored to get it back
again from the transcribers; but inasmuch as many secreted it, the
emperor by his edicts commanded that the version should be sought for,
threatening punishment to any one who should be detected concealing
it. These menaces, however, were incapable of suppressing what had
already fallen into the hands of many. Let this suffice in regard to
these affairs.>
Footnotes
[358] There were three councils held at Sirmium: one in 351, as
already indicated in note 3, ch. 29; another in 357, in which Hosius
and Potamius composed their blasphemy; and one in 359. It was in this
last council that that creed was drawn up which was recited in
Ariminum. The confusion of Socrates on this point has been alluded to
in the Introd.
[359] Athan. de Synod. 27.
[360] Eph. iii. 15.
[361] Isa. xliv. 6.
[362] John i. 14.
[363] Gen. i. 26.
[364] Gen. xix. 24: `Then the Lord...rained brimstone and fire from
the Lord out of heaven.'
[365] Athanasius reads epi Sodoma, not eis soma. If this be the true
reading, we should translate `came down to Sodom,' &c.
[366] Ps. cix. 1 (LXX).
[367] John xiv. 16, 26.
[368] 1 Cor. xi. 3.
[369] Paul of Samosata, see I. 36, note 3.
[370] Athan. de Synod. 28, and Hilar. de Synod. calls this creed `The
blasphemy composed at Sirmium by Hosius and Potamius.'
[371] John xx. 17.
[372] Rom. iii. 29, 30.
[373] Of the same substance.
[374] Of similar substance.
[375] Isa. liii. 5.
[376] John xiv. 28.
[377] katholikon , `universally accepted.'
[378] Matt. xxviii. 19.
[379] `Epiphanius relates that Photinus, after he had been condemned
and deposed in the synod of Sirmium, went to Constantius, and
requested that he might dispute concerning the faith before judges
nominated by him; and that Constantius enjoined Basilius, bishop of
Ancyra, to undertake a disputation with Photinus, and gave leave that
Thalassiuss, Datianus, Cerealis, and Taurus should be arbiters'
(Valesius).
Chapter XXXI.--Of Hosius, Bishop of Cordova.
Since we have observed that Hosius the Spaniard was present [at the
council of Sirmium] against his will, it is necessary to give some
brief account of him. A short time before he had been sent into exile
by the intrigues of the Arians: but at the earnest solicitation of
those convened at Sirmium, the emperor summoned him thither, wishing
that by persuasion, or by compulsion he should give his sanction to
their proceedings; for if this could be effected, they considered it
would give great authority to their sentiments. On this ground,
therefore, as I have said, he was most unwillingly obliged to be
present: and when he refused to concur with them, stripes and tortures
were inflicted on the old man. Wherefore he was constrained by force
to acquiesce in and subscribe to their exposition of the faith. Such
was the issue of affairs at that time transacted at Sirmium. But the
emperor Constantius after these things still continued to reside at
that place, awaiting there the result of the war against Magnentius.
Chapter XXXII.--Overthrow of the Usurper Magnentius.
Magnentius in the meanwhile having made himself master of the imperial
city Rome, put to death many members of the senatorial council, as
well as many of the populace. But as soon as the commanders under
Constantius had collected an army of Romans, and commenced their march
against him, he left Rome, and retired into the Gauls. There several
battles were fought, sometimes to the advantage of one party, and
sometimes to that of the other: but at last Magnentius having been
defeated near Mursa--a fortress of Gaul--was there closely besieged.
In this place the following remarkable incident is said to have
occurred. Magnentius desiring to reassure the courage of his soldiers
who were disheartened by their late overthrow, ascended a lofty
tribunal for this purpose. They, wishing to give utterance to the
usual acclamation with which they greet emperors, contrary to their
intention simultaneously all shouted the name not of Magnentius, but
of Constantius Augustus. Regarding this as an omen unfavorable to
himself, Magnentius immediately withdrew from the fortress, and
retreated to the remotest parts of Gaul. Thither the generals of
Constantius hastened in pursuit. An engagement having again taken
place near Mount Seleucus, [380] Magnentius was totally routed, and
fled alone to Lyons, a city of Gaul, which is distant three days'
journey from the fortress at Mursa. Magnentius, having reached this
city, first slew his own mother; then having killed his brother also,
whom he had created Cæsar, he at last committed suicide by falling on
his own sword. This happened in the sixth consulate of Constantius,
and the second of Constantius Gallus, on the fifteenth [381] day of
August. Not long after, the other brother of Magnentius, named
Decentius, put an end to his own life by hanging himself. Such was the
end of the enterprises of Magnentius. The affairs of the empire were
not altogether quieted; for soon after this another usurper arose
whose name was Silvanus: but the generals of Constantius speedily put
him also out of the way, whilst raising disturbances in Gaul.
Footnotes
[380] So in the Allat. ms., with the variant reading in other mss.
Miltoseleukos .
[381] 353 a.d.; but the date is given differently in Idatius' Fasti.
Chapter XXXIII.--Of the Jews inhabiting Dio-Cæsarea in Palestine.
About the same time there arose another intestine commotion in the
East: for the Jews who inhabited Dio-Cæsarea in Palestine took up arms
against the Romans, and began to ravage the adjacent places. But
Gallus who was also called Constantius, whom the emperor, after
creating Cæsar, had sent into the East, despatched an army against
them, and completely vanquished them: after which he ordered that
their city Dio-Cæsarea should be razed to the foundations.
Chapter XXXIV.--Of Gallus Cæsar.
Gallus, having accomplished these things, was unable to bear his
success with moderation; but forthwith attempted innovations against
the authority of him who had constituted him Cæsar, himself aspiring
to the sovereign power. His purpose was, however, soon detected by
Constantius: for he had dared to put to death, on his own
responsibility, Domitian, at that time Prætorian prefect of the East,
and Magnus the quæstor, not having disclosed his designs to the
emperor. Constantius, extremely incensed at this conduct, summoned
Gallus to his presence, who being in great terror went very
reluctantly; and when he arrived in the western parts, and had reached
the island of Flanona, Constantius ordered him to be slain. But not
long after he created Julian, the brother of Gallus, Cæsar, and sent
him against the barbarians in Gaul. It was in the seventh consulate
[382] of the emperor Constantius that Gallus, who was surnamed
Constantius, was slain, when he himself was a third time consul: and
Julian was created Cæsar on the 6th of November in the following year,
when Arbetion [383] and Lollian were consuls; of him we shall make
farther mention in the next book. [384] When Constantius was thus
relieved from the disquietudes which had occupied him, his attention
was again directed to ecclesiastical contentions. Going therefore from
Sirmium to the imperial city Rome, he again appointed a synod of
bishops, summoning some of the eastern prelates to hasten into Italy,
[385] and arranging for those of the west to meet them there. While
preparations were making in the east for this purpose, Julius bishop
of Rome died, after having presided over the church in that place
fifteen years, and was succeeded in the episcopal dignity by Liberius.
Footnotes
[382] 354 a.d.
[383] 355 a.d.
[384] See III. 1.
[385] So rightly in the Allat. ms.; the variant Gallian is
inconsistent with the context.
Chapter XXXV.--Of Aėtius the Syrian, Teacher of Eunomius.
At Antioch in Syria another heresiarch sprang up, Aėtius, surnamed
Atheus. He agreed in doctrine with Arius, and maintained the same
opinions: but separated himself from the Arian party because they had
admitted Arius into communion. For Arius, as I have before related,
[386] entertaining one opinion in his heart, professed another with
his lips; having hypocritically assented to and subscribed the form of
faith set forth at the council of Nicæa, in order to deceive the
reigning emperor. On this account, therefore, Aėtius separated himself
from the Arians. He had, however, previously been a heretic, and a
zealous advocate of Arian views. After receiving some very scanty
instruction at Alexandria, he departed thence, and arrived at Antioch
in Syria, which was his native place, was ordained deacon by Leontius,
who was then bishop of that city. Upon this he began to astonish those
who conversed with him by the singularity of his discourses. And this
he did in dependence on the precepts of Aristotle's Categories; there
is a book of that name, the scope of which he neither himself
perceived, nor had been enlightened on by intercourse with learned
persons: so that he was little aware that he was framing fallacious
arguments to perplex and deceive himself. For Aristotle had composed
this work to exercise the ingenuity of his young disciples, and to
confound by subtle arguments the sophists who affected to deride
philosophy. Wherefore the Ephectic academicians, [387] who expound the
writings of Plato and Plotinus, censure the vain subtlety which
Aristotle has displayed in that book: but Aėtius, who never had the
advantage of an academical preceptor, adhered to the sophisms of the
Categories. For this reason he was unable to comprehend how there
could be generation without a beginning, and how that which was
begotten can be co-eternal with him who begat. In fact, Aėtius was a
man of so superficial attainments, and so little acquainted with the
sacred Scriptures, and so extremely fond of caviling, a thing which
any clown might do, that he had never carefully studied those ancient
writers who have interpreted the Christian oracles; wholly rejecting
Clemens and Africanus and Origen, men eminent for their information in
every department of literature and science. But he composed epistles
both to the emperor Constantius, and to some other persons, wherein he
interwove tedious disputes for the purpose of displaying his sophisms.
He has therefore been surnamed Atheus. But although his doctrinal
statements were similar to those of the Arians, yet from the abstruse
nature of his syllogisms, which they were unable to comprehend, his
associates in Arianism pronounced him a heretic. Being for that reason
expelled from their church, he pretended to have separated himself
from their communion. Even in the present day there are to be found
some who from him were formerly named Aėtians, but now Eunomians. For
some time later Eunomius, who had been his amanuensis, having been
instructed by his master in this heretical mode of reasoning,
afterwards became the head of that sect. But of Eunomius we shall
speak more fully in the proper place. [388]
Footnotes
[386] I. 26.
[387] Diogenes Laertius, Proem. XI (16), says: `Philosophers were
generally divided into two classes,--the dogmatics, who spoke of
things as they might be comprehended; and the ephectics, who refused
to define anything, and disputed so as to make the understanding of
them impossible.' The word `ephectic' is derived from the verb epecho,
`to hold back,' and was used by the philosophers to whom it is applied
as a title because they claimed to hold back their judgment, being
unable to reach a conclusion. Cf. also the name `skeptic,' from
skeptomai . See Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans, and Skeptics, p. 525.
[388] IV. 7.
Chapter XXXVI.--Of the Synod at Milan.
Now at that time the bishops met in Italy, very few indeed from the
East, most of them being hindered from coming either by the firmities
of age or by the distance; but of the West there were more than three
hundred. [389] It was a command of the emperor that they should be
assembled at Milan. On meeting, the Eastern prelates opened the Synod
by calling upon those convened to pass a unanimous sentence of
condemnation against Athanasius; with this object in view, that he
might thenceforward be utterly shut out from Alexandria. But Paulinus,
bishop of Treves in Gaul, and Dionysius, of whom the former was bishop
of Alba, [390] the metropolis of Italy, and Eusebius of Vercellæ, a
city of Liguria in Italy, perceiving that the Eastern bishops, by
demanding a ratification of the sentence against Athanasius, were
intent on subverting the faith, arose and loudly exclaimed that `this
proposition indicated a covert plot against the principles of
Christian truth. For they insisted that the charges against Athanasius
were unfounded, and merely invented by his accusers as a means of
corrupting the faith.' Having made this protest with much vehemence of
manner, the congress of bishops was then dissolved.
Footnotes
[389] So also Sozomen, IV. 9; but the number appears exorbitant.
Valesius conjectures that the texts of Socrates and Sozomen are
corrupted, and that we must read thirty instead of three hundred. The
smaller number agrees exactly with the list given in the epistle of
this council to Eusebius of Vercellæ; in this list thirty bishops are
named as agreeing to the condemnation of Athanasius, Marcellus, and
Photinus. Cf. Baronius, Annal. year 355.
[390] Sozomen (IV. 9) agrees here also with Socrates; but Athanasius,
in Epist. ad Solitar., and after him Baronius and Valesius, make Milan
and not Alba, the metropolis of Italy, and Dionysius bishop of Milan,
and not of Alba.
Chapter XXXVII.--Of the Synod at Ariminum, and the Creed there
published. [391]
The emperor on being apprised of what had taken place, sent these
three bishops into exile; and determined to convene an ecumenical
council, that by drawing all the Eastern bishops into the West, he
might if possible bring them all to agree. But when, on consideration,
the length of the journey seemed to present serious obstacles, he
directed that the Synod should consist of two divisions; permitting
those present at Milan to meet at Ariminum in Italy: but the Eastern
bishops he instructed by letters to assemble at Nicomedia in Bithynia.
The emperor's object in these arrangements was to effect a general
unity of opinion; but the issue was contrary to his expectation. For
neither of the Synods was in harmony with itself, but each was divided
into opposing factions: for those convened at Ariminum could not agree
with one another; and the Eastern bishops assembled at Seleucia in
Isauria made another schism. The details of what took place in both we
will give in the course of our history, [392] but we shall first make
a few observations on Eudoxius. About that time Leontius having died,
who had ordained the heretic Aėtius [393] as deacon, Eudoxius bishop
of Germanicia--this city is in Syria--who was then at Rome, thinking
no time was to be lost, speciously represented to the emperor that the
city over which he presided was in need of his counsel and care, and
requested permission to return there immediately. This the emperor
readily acceded to, having no suspicion of a clandestine purpose:
Eudoxius having some of the principal officers of the emperor's
bedchamber as coadjutors, deserted his own diocese, and fraudulently
installed himself in the see of Antioch. His first desire was to
restore Aėtius; accordingly he convened a council of bishops for the
purpose of reinvesting Aėtius with the dignity of the diaconate. But
this could in no way be brought about, for the odium with which Aėtius
was regarded was more prevalent than the exertions of Eudoxius in his
favor. When the bishops were assembled at Ariminum, those from the
East declared that they were willing to pass in silence the case of
Athanasius: a resolution that was zealously supported by Ursacius and
Valens, who had formerly maintained the tenets of Arius; but, as I
have already stated, had afterwards presented a recantation of their
opinion to the bishop of Rome, and publicly avowed their assent to the
doctrine of consubstantiality. For these men always inclined to side
with the dominant party. Germinius, Auxentius, Demophilus and Gaius
made the same declaration in reference to Athanasius. When therefore
some endeavored to propose one thing in the convocation of bishops,
and some another, Ursacius and Valens said that all former draughts of
the creed ought to be considered as set aside, and the last alone,
which had been prepared at their late convention at Sirmium, regarded
as authorized. They then caused to be read a paper which they held in
their hands, containing another form of the creed: this had indeed
been drawn up at Sirmium, but had been kept concealed, as we have
before observed, until their present publication of it at Ariminum. It
has been translated from the Latin into Greek, and is as follows:
[394]
'The catholic faith was expounded at Sirmium in presence of our lord
Constantius, [395] in the consulate [396] of the most illustrious
Flavius Eusebius, and Hypatius, on the twenty-third of May.
`We believe in one only and true God, the Father Almighty, the Creator
and Framer of all things: and in one only-begotten Son of God, before
all ages, before all beginning, before all conceivable time, and
before all comprehensible thought, begotten without passion: by whom
the ages were framed, and all things made: who was begotten as the
only-begotten of the Father, only of only, God of God, like to the
Father who begat him, according to the Scriptures: whose generation no
one knows, but the Father only who begat him. We know that this his
only-begotten Son came down from the heavens by his Father's consent
for the putting away of sin, was born of the Virgin Mary, conversed
with his disciples, and fulfilled every dispensation according to the
Father's will: was crucified and died, and descended into the lower
parts of the earth, and disposed matters there; at the sight of whom
the (door-keepers of Hades trembled [397] ): having arisen on the
third day, he again conversed with his disciples, and after forty days
were completed he ascended into the heavens, and is seated at the
Father's right hand; and at the last day he will come in his Father's
glory to render to every one according to his works. [We believe] also
in the Holy Spirit, whom the only-begotten Son of God Jesus Christ
himself promised to send to the human race as the Comforter, according
to that which is written: [398] "I go away to my Father, and will ask
him, and he will send you another Comforter, the Spirit of truth. He
shall receive of mine, and shall teach you, and bring all things to
your remembrance." As for the term "substance," which was used by our
fathers for the sake of greater simplicity, but not being understood
by the people has caused offense on account of the fact that the
Scriptures do not contain it, it seemed desirable that it should be
wholly abolished, and that in future no mention should be made of
substance in reference to God, since the divine Scriptures have
nowhere spoken concerning the substance of the Father and the Son. But
we say that the Son is in all things like the Father, as the Holy
Scriptures affirm and teach.'
These statements having been read, those who were dissatisfied with
them rose and said `We came not hither because we were in want of a
creed; for we preserve inviolate that which we received from the
beginning; but we are here met to repress any innovation upon it which
may have been made. If therefore what has been recited introduces no
novelties, now openly anathematize the Arian heresy, in the same
manner as the ancient canon of the church has rejected all heresies as
blasphemous: for it is evident to the whole world that the impious
dogma of Arius has excited the disturbances of the church, and the
troubles which exist until now.' This proposition, which was not
accepted by Ursacius, Valens, Germinius, Auxentius, Demophilus, and
Gaïus, rent the church asunder completely: for these prelates adhered
to what had then been recited in the Synod of Ariminum; while the
others again confirmed the Nicene Creed. They also ridiculed the
superscription of the creed that had been read; and especially
Athanasius, in a letter which he sent to his friends, wherein he thus
expresses himself: [399]
`What point of doctrine was wanting to the piety of the catholic
church, that they should now make an investigation respecting the
faith, and prefix moreover the consulate of the present times to their
published exposition of it? For Ursacius, Valens, and Germinius have
done what was neither done, nor even heard of, at any time before
among Christians: having composed a creed such as they themselves are
willing to believe, they prefaced it with the consulate, month, and
day of the present time, in order to prove to all discerning persons
that theirs is not the ancient faith, but such as was originated under
the reign of the present emperor Constantius. [400] Moreover they have
written all things with a view to their own heresy: and besides this,
pretending to write respecting the Lord, they name another "Lord" as
theirs, even Constantius, who has countenanced their impiety, so that
those who deny the Son to be eternal, have styled him eternal emperor.
Thus are they proved to be the enemies of Christ by their profanity.
But perhaps the holy prophets' record of time afforded them a
precedent for [noticing] the consulate! Now even if they should
presume to make this pretext, they would most glaringly expose their
own ignorance. The prophecies of these holy men do indeed mark the
times. Isaiah and Hosea lived in the days of Uzziah, Joatham, Ahaz,
and Hezekiah; [401] Jeremiah in the time of Josiah; [402] Ezekiel and
Daniel in the reign of Cyrus and Darius; and others uttered their
predictions in other times. Yet they did not then lay the foundations
of religion. That was in existence before them, and always was, even
before the creation of the world, God having prepared it for us in
Christ. Nor did they designate the commencement of their own faith;
for they were themselves men of faith previously: but they signified
the times of the promises given through them. Now the promises
primarily referred to our Saviour's advent; and all that was foretold
respecting the course of future events in relation to Israel and the
Gentiles was collateral and subordinate. Hence the periods mentioned
indicated not the beginning of their faith, as I before observed, but
the times in which these prophets lived and foretold such things. But
these sages of our day, who neither compile histories, nor predict
future events, after writing, "The Catholic Faith was published,"
immediately add the consulate, with the month and the day: and as the
holy prophets wrote the date of their records and of their own
ministration, so these men intimate the era of their own faith. And
would that they had written concerning their own faith only--since
they have now begun to believe--and had not undertaken to write
respecting the Catholic faith. For they have not written, "Thus we
believe"; but, "The Catholic Faith was published." The temerity of
purpose herein manifested argues their ignorance; while the novelty of
expression found in the document they have concocted shows it to be
the same as the Arian heresy. By writing in this manner, they have
declared when they themselves began to believe, and from what time
they wish it to be understood their faith was first preached. And just
as when the evangelist Luke says, [403] "A decree of enrolment was
published," he speaks of an edict which was not in existence before,
but came into operation at that time, and was published by him who had
written it; so these men by writing "The faith has now been
published," have declared that the tenets of their heresy are of
modern invention, and did not exist previously. But since they apply
the term "Catholic" to it, they seem to have unconsciously fallen into
the extravagant assumption of the Cataphrygians, asserting even as
they did, that "the Christian faith was first revealed to us, and
commenced with us." And as those termed Maximilla and Montanus, so
these style Constantius their Lord, instead of Christ. But if
according to them the faith had its beginning from the present
consulate, what will the fathers and the blessed martyrs do? Moreover
what will they themselves do with those who were instructed in
religious principles by them, and died before this consulate? By what
means will they recall them to life, in order to obliterate from their
minds what they seemed to have taught them, and to implant in its
stead those new discoveries which they have published? So stupid are
they as to be only capable of framing pretenses, and these such as are
unbecoming and unreasonable, and carry with them their own
refutation.'
Athanasius wrote thus to his friends: and the interested who may read
through his whole epistle will perceive how powerfully he treats the
subject; but for brevity's sake we have here inserted a part of it
only. The Synod deposed Valens, Ursacius, Auxentius, Germinius, Gaïus,
and Demophilus for refusing to anathematize the Arian doctrine; who
being very indignant at their deposition, hastened directly to the
emperor, carrying with them the exposition of faith which had been
read in the Synod. The council also acquainted the emperor with their
determinations in a communication which translated from the Latin into
Greek, was to the following effect: [404]
Epistle of the Synod of Ariminum to the Emperor Constantius.
We believe that it was by the appointment of God, as well as at the
command of your piety, that the decrees formerly published have been
executed. Accordingly we Western bishops came out of various districts
to Ariminum, in order that the faith of the catholic church might be
made manifest, and that those who held contrary views might be
detected. For on a considerate review by us of all points, our
decision has been to adhere to the ancient faith which the prophets,
the gospels, and the apostles have revealed through our Lord Jesus
Christ, the guardian of your empire, and the protector of your person,
which faith also we have always maintained. We conceived that it would
be unwarrantable and impious to mutilate any of those things which
have been justly and rightly ratified, by those who sat in the Nicene
council with Constantine of glorious memory, the father of your piety.
Their doctrine and views have been infused into the minds and preached
in the hearing of the people, and found to be powerfully opposed, even
fatal, to the Arian heresy. And not only this heresy, but also all
others have been put down by it. Should therefore anything be added to
or taken away from what was at that time established, it would prove
perilous; for if either of these things should happen, the enemy will
have boldness to do as they please. [405]
Wherefore Ursacius and Valens being heretofore suspected of
entertaining Arian sentiments, were suspended from communion: but in
order to be restored to it they made an apology, and claimed that they
had repented of their shortcoming, as their written recantation
attests: they therefore obtained pardon and complete absolution.
The time when these things occurred was when the council was in
session at Milan, when the presbyters of the church of Rome were also
present.
At [406] the same time, having known that Constantine, who even after
his death is worthy of honorable mention, exposed the faith with due
precision, but being born of men was baptized and departed to the
peace due to him as his reward, we have deemed it improper to innovate
after him disregarding so many holy confessors and martyrs, who also
were authors of this confession, and persevered in their faith in the
ancient system of the catholic church. Their faith God has perpetuated
down to the years of your own reign through our Lord Jesus Christ,
through whose grace it also became possible for you to so strengthen
your dominion as to rule over one portion of the world.
Yet have these infatuated and wretched persons, endued with an unhappy
disposition, again had the temerity to declare themselves the
propagators of false doctrine, and even endeavor to subvert the
constitution of the Church. For when the letters of your piety had
ordered us to assemble for the examination of the faith, they laid
bare their intention, stripped of its deceitful garb. For they
attempted with certain craft and confusion to propose innovations,
having in this as allies Germinius, Auxentius, [407] and Gaius, who
continually cause strife and dissension, and their single teaching has
surpassed the whole body of blasphemies. But when they perceived that
we had not the same disposition or mind as they in regard to their
false views they changed their minds during our council and said
another expression of belief should be put forth. And short indeed was
the time which convinced them of the falsity of their views.
In order, therefore, that the affairs of the Church may not be
continually brought into the same condition, and in order that trouble
and tumult may not continually arise and confuse all things, it
appeared safe to preserve the previously determined views firm and
unalterable, and to separate from our communion the persons above
named; for which reason we have despatched to your clemency delegates
who will communicate the opinion of the council to you. And to our
delegates we have given this commission above all, that they should
accredit the truth taking their motive from the ancient and right
decisions. They will inform your holiness that peace will not be
established as Ursacius and Valens say when some point of the right be
overturned. For how can those be at peace who destroy peace? Rather
will strife and tumult be occasioned by these things in the church of
Rome also, as in the other cities. Wherefore, now, we beseech your
clemency that you should look upon our delegation with a calm eye and
listen to it with favor, and not allow that anything should be
changed, thus bringing insult to the deceased, but permit us to
continue in those things which have been defined and legislated by our
ancestors; who, we should say, acted with shrewdness and wisdom and
with the Holy Spirit. For the innovations they introduce at present
fill the believing with distrust and the unbelieving with cruelty.
[408] We further implore you to instruct that the bishops who dwell in
foreign parts, whom both the infirmity of age and the ills of poverty
harass should be assisted to return easily and speedily to their own
homes, so that the churches may not remain bereft of their bishops.
Still further we beg of you this also, that nothing be stricken off,
nor anything be added, to the articles [of faith] remaining over from
the times of your pious father even until now; but that these may
continue inviolate. Permit us not to toil and suffer longer, nor to be
separated from our dioceses, but that together with our own peoples we
may in peace have time to offer prayers and thanksgiving, supplicating
for your safety and continuance in the dominion, which may the
divinity grant unto you perpetually. Our delegates bear the signatures
and greetings of the bishops. These [delegates] will from the Divine
Scriptures themselves instruct your piety.
The Synod then thus wrote and sent their communications to the emperor
by the bishops [selected for that purpose]. But the partisans of
Ursacius and Valens having arrived before them, did their utmost to
calumniate the council, exhibiting the exposition of the faith which
they had brought with them. The emperor, prejudiced beforehand towards
Arianism, became extremely exasperated against the Synod, but
conferred great honor on Valens and Ursacius and their friends. Those
deputed by the council were consequently detained a considerable time,
without being able to obtain an answer: at length, however, the
emperor replied through those who had come to him, in the manner
following:
`Constantius Victor and Triumphator Augustus to all the bishops
convened at Ariminum.
`That our especial care is ever exercised respecting the divine and
venerated law even your sanctity is not ignorant. Nevertheless we have
hitherto been unable to give an audience to the twenty bishops sent as
deputation from you, for an expedition against the barbarians has
become necessary. And since, as you will admit, matters relative to
the divine law ought to be entered on with a mind free from all
anxiety; I have therefore ordered these bishops to await our return to
Adrianople; that when all public business shall have been duly
attended to, we may be able then to hear and consider what they shall
propose. In the meanwhile let it not seem troublesome to your gravity
to wait for their return; since when they shall convey to you our
resolution, you will be prepared to carry into effect such measures as
may be most advantageous to the welfare of the catholic church.'
The bishops on receipt of this letter wrote thus in reply: [409]
`We have received your clemency's letter, sovereign lord, most beloved
of God, in which you inform us that the exigencies of state affairs
have hitherto prevented your admitting our delegates to your presence:
and you bid us await their return, until your piety shall have learnt
from them what has been determined on by us in conformity with the
tradition of our ancestors. But we again protest by this letter that
we can by no means depart from our primary resolution; and this also
we have commissioned our deputies to state. We beseech you therefore,
both with serene countenance to order this present epistle of our
modesty to be read; and also to listen favorably to the
representations with which our delegates have been charged. Your
mildness doubtless perceives, as well as we, to how great an extent
grief and sadness prevail, because of so many churches being bereft of
their bishops in these most blessed times of yours. Again therefore we
entreat your clemency, sovereign lord most dear to God, to command us
to return to our churches, if it please your piety, before the rigor
of winter; in order that we may be enabled, in conjunction with the
people, to offer up our accustomed prayers to Almighty God, and to our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, his only-begotten Son, for the
prosperity of your reign, as we have always done, and even now do in
our prayers.'
The bishops having waited together some time after this letter had
been despatched, inasmuch as the emperor deigned no reply, they
departed to their respective cities. Now the emperor had long before
intended to disseminate Arian doctrine throughout the churches; and
was anxious to give it the pre-eminence; hence he pretended that their
departure was an act of contumely, declaring that they had treated him
with contempt by dissolving the council in opposition to his wishes.
He therefore gave the partisans of Ursacius unbounded license to act
as they pleased in regard to the churches: and directed that the
revised form of creed which had been read at Ariminum should be sent
to the churches throughout Italy; ordering that whoever would not
subscribe it should be ejected from their sees, and that others should
be substituted in their place. [410] And first Liberius, bishop of
Rome, having refused his assent to that creed, was sent into exile;
the adherents of Ursacius appointing Felix to succeed him, who had
been a deacon in that church, but on embracing the Arian heresy was
elevated to the episcopate. Some however assert that he was not
favorable to that opinion, but was constrained by force to receive the
ordination of bishop. After this all parts of the West were filled
with agitation and tumult, some being ejected and banished, and others
established in their stead. These things were effected by violence, on
the authority of the imperial edicts, which were also sent into the
eastern parts. Not long after indeed Liberius was recalled, and
reinstated in his see; for the people of Rome having raised a
sedition, and expelled Felix from their church, the emperor even
though against his wish consented. The partisans of Ursacius, quitting
Italy, passed through the eastern parts; and arriving at Nice, a city
of Thrace, they dwelt there a short time and held another Synod, and
after translating the form of faith which was read at Ariminum into
Greek, they confirmed and published it afresh in the form quoted
above, giving it the name of the general council, in this way
attempting to deceive the more simple by the similarity of names, and
to impose upon them as the creed promulgated at Nicæa in Bithynia,
that which they had prepared at Nice in Thrace. [411] But this
artifice was of little advantage to them; for it was soon detected,
they became the object of derision. Enough now has been said of the
transactions which took place in the West: we must now proceed to the
narrative of what was done in the East at the same time.
Footnotes
[391] Cf. Sozomen, III. 19; IV. 15-19; Theodoret, H. E. II. 18-21;
Rufin. II. 21; Philostorgius, IV. 10. Also Hefele, Hist. of the Ch.
Councils, Vol. II. p. 246-271.
[392] Ch. 39.
[393] According to Theodoret (H. E. II. 19) Aėtius was promoted to the
diaconate under Leontius at Antioch; but Leontius, on being censured
by Flavian and Diodorus for ordaining one who was notorious for his
blasphemous utterances, divested him of his diaconate. Hence, later,
Eudoxius attempted to restore him, as is here said.
[394] Athan. de Synod. 8; but Athanasius does not say that this creed
was translated from Latin, as he does whenever he produces any
document put into Greek from Latin; whence it appears, according to
Valesius, that this is the form drawn up in Greek by Marcus of
Arethusa, and submitted to the third Sirmium council in 359, but read
at Ariminum as here said (cf. ch. 30, and note). The argument is not
considered conclusive by Reading as far as it regards the original
language of the creed; that it was written by Marcus of Arethusa,
however, seems to be proved.
[395] The title of the emperor in Athanasius' version is `The most
pious and victorious emperor Constantius Augustus, eternal Augustus,'
&c., which agrees with the representations of the ancients on the
vainglory of Constantius. Cf. Amm. Marcellin. Rerum Gestarum, XVI. 10.
2, 3 (ed. Eyssenhardt).
[396] 359 a.d.
[397] Job xxxviii. 17 (LXX).
[398] John xiv. 16; xvi. 14.
[399] Athan. de Synod. 8.
[400] This appeal to antiquity, as the test of truth, is very common
with the earlier Fathers; cf. Eusebius' treatment of the Scriptures of
the New Testament, H. E. III. 3, 24, 25, et al.
[401] Isa. i. 2; Hos. i. 1.
[402] Jer. i. 2.
[403] Luke ii. 1.
[404] Athan, de Synod. 10. The Latin original which is given in Hilar.
Fragm. 8, was adopted by Valesius in this place, and subsequently also
by the English translators. We have followed the Greek of Socrates,
giving the most important differences in the following four notes;
viz. 15, 16, 17, and 18. How these variations originated it is
impossible to tell with assurance; but it is not improbable that they
may represent two drafts, of which one was originally tentative.
[405] The Latin original here contains the following paragraph not
reproduced by Socrates: `These matters having been strictly
investigated and the creed drawn up in the presence of Constantine,
who after being baptized, departed to God's rest in the faith of it,
we regard as an abomination any infringement thereon, or any attempt
to invalidate the authority of so many saints, confessors, and
successors of the martyrs, who assisted at that council, and
themselves preserved inviolate all the determinations of the ancient
writers of the catholic church: whose faith has remained unto these
times in which your piety has received from God the Father, through
Jesus Christ our God and Lord, the power of ruling the world.'
[406] The Latin original omits the following paragraph, ending with
the words `over our portion of the world.'
[407] The Latin original in Hilar. omits the name of Auxentius.
[408] Instead of the Greek words here translated, `fill the believing
with distrust and the unbelieving with cruelty,' the Latin original
reads `verum etiam infideles ad credulitatem vetantur accedere.'
[409] Cf. Theodoret, H. E. II. 20.
[410] Cf. Theodoret, H. E. II. 16.
[411] Hilar. Fragm. 8; Hefele, Hist. of Ch. Councils, Vol. II. p. 257.
Chapter XXXVIII.--Cruelty of Macedonius, and Tumults raised by him.
The bishops of the Arian party began to assume greater assurance from
the imperial edicts. In what manner they undertook to convene a Synod,
we will explain somewhat later. Let us now briefly mention a few of
their previous acts. Acacius and Patrophilus having ejected Maximus,
bishop of Jerusalem, installed Cyril in his see. Macedonius subverted
the order of things in the cities and provinces adjacent to
Constantinople, promoting to ecclesiastical honors his assistants in
his intrigues against the churches. [412] He ordained Eleusius bishop
of Cyzicus, and Marathonius, bishop of Nicomedia: the latter had
before been a deacon under Macedonius himself, and proved very active
in founding monasteries both of men and women. But we must now mention
in what way Macedonius desolated the churches in the cities and
provinces around Constantinople. This man, as I have already said,
[413] having seized the bishopric, inflicted innumerable calamities on
such as were unwilling to adopt his views. His persecutions were not
confined to those who were recognized as members of the catholic
church, but extended to the Novatians also, inasmuch as he knew that
they maintained the doctrine of the homoousion; they therefore with
the others underwent the most intolerable sufferings, but their
bishop, Angelius by name, effected his escape by flight. Many persons
eminent for their piety were seized and tortured, because they refused
to communicate with him: and after the torture, they forcibly
constrained the men to be partakers of the holy mysteries, their
mouths being forced open with a piece of wood, and then the
consecrated elements thrust into them. Those who were so treated
regarded this as a punishment far more grievous than all others.
Moreover they laid hold of women and children, and compelled them to
be initiated [by baptism]; and if any one resisted or otherwise spoke
against it, stripes immediately followed, and after the stripes, bonds
and imprisonment, and other violent measures. I shall here relate an
instance or two whereby the reader may form some idea of the extent of
the harshness and cruelty exercised by Macedonius and those who were
then in power. They first pressed in a box, and then sawed off, the
breasts of such women as were unwilling to communicate with them. The
same parts of the persons. of other women they burnt partly with iron,
and partly with eggs intensely heated in the fire. This mode of
torture which was unknown even among the heathen, was invented by
those who professed to be Christians. These facts were related to me
by the aged Auxanon, the presbyter in the Novatian church of whom I
spoke in the first book. [414] He said also that he had himself
endured not a few severities from the Arians, prior to his reaching
the dignity of presbyter; having been thrown into prison and beaten
with many stripes, together with Alexander the Paphlagonian, his
companion in the monastic life. He added that he had himself been able
to sustain these tortures, but that Alexander died in prison from the
effects of their infliction. He is now buried on the right of those
sailing into the bay of Constantinople which is called Ceras, close by
the rivers, where there is a church of the Novatians named after
Alexander. Moreover the Arians, at the instigation of Macedonius,
demolished with many other churches in various cities, that of the
Novatians at Constantinople near Pelargus. Why I particularly mention
this church, will be seen from the extraordinary circumstances
connected with it, as testified by the same aged Auxanon. The
emperor's edict and the violence of Macedonius had doomed to
destruction the churches of those who maintained the doctrine of
consubstantiality; the decree and violence reached this church, and
those also who were charged with the execution of the mandate were at
hand to carry it into effect. I cannot but admire the zeal displayed
by the Novatians on this occasion, as well as the sympathy they
experienced from those whom the Arians at that time ejected, but who
are now in peaceful possession of their churches. For when the
emissaries of their enemies were urgent to accomplish its destruction,
an immense multitude of Novatians, aided by numbers of others who held
similar sentiments, having assembled around this devoted church,
pulled it down, and conveyed the materials of it to another place:
this place stands opposite the city, and is called Sycæ, and forms the
thirteenth ward of the town of Constantinople. This removal was
effected in a very short time, from the extraordinary ardor of the
numerous persons engaged in it: one carried tiles, another stones, a
third timber; some loading themselves with one thing, and some with
another. Even women and children assisted in the work, regarding it as
the realization of their best wishes, and esteeming it the greatest
honor to be accounted the faithful guardians of things consecrated to
God. In this way at that time was the church of the Novatians
transported to Sycæ. Long afterwards when Constantius was dead, the
emperor Julian ordered its former site to be restored, and permitted
them to rebuild it there. The people therefore, as before, having
carried back the materials, reared the church in its former position;
and from this circumstance, and its great improvement in structure and
ornament, they not inappropriately called it Anastasia. The church as
we before said was restored afterwards in the reign of Julian. But at
that time both the Catholics and the Novatians were alike subjected to
persecution: for the former abominated offering their devotions in
those churches in which the Arians assembled, but frequented the other
three [415] --for this is the number of the churches which the
Novatians have in the city--and engaged in divine service with them.
Indeed they would have been wholly united, had not the Novatians
refused from regard to their ancient precepts. In other respects
however, they mutually maintained such a degree of cordiality and
affection, as to be ready to lay down their lives for one another:
both parties were therefore persecuted indiscriminately, not only at
Constantinople, but also in other provinces and cities. At Cyzicus,
Eleusius, the bishop of that place, perpetrated the same kind of
enormities against the Christians there, as Macedonius had done
elsewhere, harassing and putting them to flight in all directions and
[among other things] he completely demolished the church of the
Novatians at Cyzicus. But Macedonius consummated his wickedness in the
following manner. Hearing that there was a great number of the
Novatian sect in the province of Paphlagonia, and especially at
Mantinium, and perceiving that such a numerous body could not be
driven from their homes by ecclesiastics alone, he caused, by the
emperor's permission, four companies of soldiers to be sent into
Paphlagonia, that through dread of the military they might receive the
Arian opinion. But those who inhabited Mantinium, animated to
desperation by zeal for their religion, armed themselves with long
reap-hooks, hatchets, and whatever weapon came to hand, and went forth
to meet the troops; on which a conflict ensuing, many indeed of the
Paphlagonians were slain, but nearly all the soldiers were destroyed.
I learnt these things from a Paphlagonian peasant who said that he was
present at the engagement; and many others of that province
corroborate this account. Such were the exploits of Macedonius on
behalf of Christianity, consisting of murders, battles,
incarcerations, and civil wars: proceedings which rendered him odious
not only to the objects of his persecution, but even to his own party.
He became obnoxious also to the emperor on these accounts, and
particularly so from the circumstance I am about to relate. The church
where the coffin lay that contained the relics of the emperor
Constantine threatened to fall. On this account those that entered, as
well as those who were accustomed to remain there for devotional
purposes, were in much fear. Macedonius, therefore, wished to remove
the emperor's remains, lest the coffin should be injured by the ruins.
The populace getting intelligence of this, endeavored to prevent it,
insisting `that the emperor's bones should not be disturbed, as such a
disinterment would be equivalent, to their being dug up': many however
affirmed that its removal could not possibly injure the dead body, and
thus two parties were formed on this question; such as held the
doctrine of consubstantiality joining with those who opposed it on the
ground of its impiety. Macedonius, in total disregard of these
prejudices, caused the emperor's remains to be transported to the
church where those of the martyr Acacius lay. Whereupon a vast
multitude rushed toward that edifice in two hostile divisions, which
attacked one another with great fury, and great loss of life was
occasioned, so that the churchyard was covered with gore, and the well
also which was in it overflowed with blood, which ran into the
adjacent portico, and thence even into the very street. When the
emperor was informed of this unfortunate occurrence, he was highly
incensed against Macedonius, both on account of the slaughter which he
had occasioned, and because he had dared to move his father's body
without consulting him. Having therefore left the Cæsar Julian to take
care of the western parts, he himself set out for the east. How
Macedonius was a short time afterwards deposed, and thus suffered a
most inadequate punishment for his infamous crimes, I shall hereafter
relate. [416]
Footnotes
[412] From this place it plainly appears, as Valesius remarks, that
the authority of the see of Constantinople was acknowledged, even
before the council of Constantinople, throughout the region of the
Hellespont and Bithynia, which conclusion is also confirmed by the
acts of Eudoxius, bishop of Constantinople, who made Eunomius bishop
of Cyzicus. Two causes co-operated to secure this authority, viz. (1)
the official establishment of the city as the capital of the empire by
Constantine, and (2) the transference to it of Eusebius of Nicomedia,
a most vigorous and aggressive bishop, who missed no opportunity for
enlarging and consolidating the power of his see.
[413] See above, ch. 16.
[414] I. 13.
[415] According to Valesius it appears incredible that the Catholics
should have done what Socrates says they did. `For there is nothing
more contrary to ecclesiastical discipline than to communicate with
heretics either in the sacraments or in prayer.' Hence `Socrates was
probably imposed upon by the aged Auxano, who fixed upon all the
Catholics what was perhaps done by some few Christians who were less
cautious.' But Socrates' own attitude towards the Novatians (cf.
Introd. p. x.) shows that the difference between them and the
Catholics (hoi tes ekklesias) was not universally regarded as an
absolute schism forbidding communication even during such times of
trial as these described here, which might certainly have drawn
together parties already as near to one another as the Novatians and
Catholics.
[416] See below, ch. 42.
Chapter XXXIX.--Of the Synod at Seleucia, in Isauria.
But I must now give an account of the other Synod, which the emperor's
edict had convoked in the east, as a rival to that of Ariminum. It was
at first determined that the bishops should assemble at Nicomedia in
Bithynia; but a great earthquake having nearly destroyed that city,
prevented their being convened there. This happened in the consulate
[417] of Tatian and Cerealis, on the 28th day of August. [418] They
were therefore planning to transfer the council to the neighboring
city of Nicæa: but this plan was again altered, as it seemed more
convenient to meet at Tarsus in Cilicia. Being dissatisfied with this
arrangement also, they at last assembled themselves at Seleucia,
surnamed Aspera, [419] a city of Isauria. This took place in the same
year [in which the council of Ariminum was held], under the consulate
of Eusebius and Hypatius, [420] the number of those convened being
about 160. There was present on this occasion Leonas, an officer of
distinction attached to the imperial household, before whom the
emperor's edict had enjoined that the discussion respecting the faith
should be entered into. Lauricius also, the commander-in-chief of the
troops in Isauria, was ordered to be there, to serve the bishops in
such things as they might require. In the presence of these personages
therefore, the bishops were there convened on the 27th of the month of
September, and immediately began a discussion on the basis of the
public records, shorthand writers being present to write down what
each might say. Those who desire to learn the particulars of the
several speeches, will find copious details of them in the collection
of Sabinus; but we shall only notice the more important heads. On the
first day of their being convened, Leonas ordered each one to propose
what he thought fit: but those present said that no question ought to
be agitated in the absence of those prelates who had not yet arrived;
for Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, Basil of Ancyra, and some
others who were apprehensive of an impeachment for their misconduct,
had not made their appearance. Macedonius pleaded indisposition, and
failed to attend; Patrophilus said he had some trouble with his eyes,
and that on this account it was needful for him to remain in the
suburbs of Seleucia; and the rest offered various pretexts to account
for their absence. When, however, Leonas declared that the subjects
which they had met to consider must be entered on, notwithstanding the
absence of these persons, the bishops replied that they could not
proceed to the discussion of any question, until the life and conduct
of the parties accused had been investigated: for Cyril of Jerusalem,
Eustathius of Sebastia in Armenia, and some others, had been charged
with misconduct on various grounds long before. A sharp contest arose
in consequence of this demur; some affirming that cognizance ought
first to be taken of all such accusations, and others denying that
anything whatever should have precedence of matters of faith. The
emperor's orders contributed not a little to augment this dispute,
inasmuch as letters of his were produced urging now this and now that
as necessary to be considered first. The dispute having arisen on this
subject, a schism was thus made, and the Seleucian council was divided
into two factions, one of which was headed by Acacius of Cæsarea in
Palestine, George of Alexandria, Uranius of Tyre, and Eudoxius of
Antioch, who were supported by only about thirty-two other bishops. Of
the opposite party, which was by far the more numerous, the principal
were George of Laodicea in Syria, Sophronius of Pompeiopolis in
Paphlagonia, and Eleusius of Cyzicus. It being determined by the
majority to examine doctrinal matters first, the party of Acacius
openly opposed the Nicene Creed, and wished to introduce another
instead of it. The other faction, [421] which was considerably more
numerous, concurred in all the decisions of the council of Nicæa, but
criticised its adoption of the term homoousion. Accordingly they
debated on this point, much being said on each side, until late in the
evening, when Silvanus, who presided over the church at Tarsus,
insisted with much vehemence of manner, `that there was no need of a
new exposition of the faith; but that it was their duty rather to
confirm that which was published at Antioch, [422] at the consecration
of the church in that place.' On this declaration, Acacius and his
partisans privately withdrew from the council; while the others,
producing the creed composed at Antioch, read it, and then separated
for that day. Assembling in the church of Seleucia on the day
following, after having closed the doors, they again read the same
creed, and ratified it by their signatures. At this time the readers
and deacons present signed on behalf of certain absent bishops, who
had intimated their acquiescence in its form.
Footnotes
[417] 358 a.d.
[418] In this calamity Cecropius, the bishop of Nicomedia, perished,
and the splendid cathedral of the city was ruined; both of which
misfortunes were attributed by the heathen to the wrath of their gods.
See Sozom. IV. 16.
[419] Tracheia, on account of the neighboring steep mountains. This
Seleucia was the capital of Isauria.
[420] 359 a.d. See, on this double council of Ariminum and Seleucia,
Hefele, Hist. of the Ch. Councils, Vol. II. p. 346-371.
[421] Cf Athan. de Synodd. 12.
[422] See chaps. 8 and 10.
Chapter XL.--Acacius, Bishop of Cæsarea, dictates a new Form of Creed
in the Synod at Seleucia.
Acacius and his adherents criticised what was done: because, that is
to say, they closed the church doors and thus affixed their
signatures; declaring that `all such secret transactions were justly
to be suspected, and had no validity whatever.' These objections he
made because he was anxious to bring forward another exposition of the
faith drawn up by himself, which he had already submitted to the
governors Leonas and Lauricius, and was now intent on getting it alone
confirmed and established, instead of that which had been subscribed.
The second day was thus occupied with nothing else but exertions on
his part to effect this object. On the third day Leonas endeavored to
produce an amicable meeting of both parties; Macedonius of
Constantinople, and also Basil of Ancyra, having arrived during its
course. But when the Acacians found that both the parties had come to
the same position, they refused to meet; saying that not only those
who had before been deposed, but also such as were at present under
any accusation, ought to be excluded from the assembly.' And as after
much cavilling on both sides, this opinion prevailed; those who lay
under any charge went out of the council, and the party of Acacius
entered in their places. Leonas then said that a document had been put
into his hand by Acacius, to which he desired to call their attention:
but he did not state that it was the drought of a creed, which in some
particulars covertly, and in others unequivocally contradicted the
former. When those present became silent, thinking that the document
contained something else besides an exposition of a creed, the
following creed composed by Acacius, together with its preamble, was
read.
'We having yesterday assembled by the emperor's command at Seleucia, a
city of Isauria, on the 27th day of September, exerted ourselves to
the utmost, with all moderation, to preserve the peace of the church,
and to determine doctrinal questions on prophetic and evangelical
authority, so as to sanction nothing in the ecclesiastic confession of
faith at variance with the sacred Scriptures, as our Emperor
Constantius most beloved of God has ordered. But inasmuch as certain
individuals in the Synod have acted injuriously toward several of us,
preventing some from expressing their sentiments, and excluding others
from the council against their wills; and at the same time have
introduced such as have been deposed, and persons who were ordained
contrary to the ecclesiastical canon, so that the Synod has presented
a scene of tumult and disorder, of which the most illustrious Leonas,
the Comes, and the most eminent Lauricius, governor of the province,
have been eye-witnesses, we are therefore under the necessity of
making this declaration. That we do not repudiate the faith which was
ratified at the consecration of the church at Antioch; [423] for we
give it our decided preference, because it received the concurrence of
our fathers who were assembled there to consider some controverted
points. Since, however, the terms homoousion and homoiousion have in
time past troubled the minds of many, and still continue to disquiet
them; and moreover that a new term has recently been coined by some
who assert the anomoion of the Son to the Father: we reject the first
two, as expressions which are not found in the Scriptures; but we
utterly anathematize the last, and regard such as countenance its use,
as alienated from the church. We distinctly acknowledge the homoion of
the Son to the Father, in accordance with what the apostle has
declared concerning him, [424] "Who is the image of the invisible
God."
`We confess then, and believe in one God the Father Almighty, the
Maker of heaven and earth, and of things visible and invisible. We
believe also in his Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten of him
without passion before all ages, God the Word, the only-begotten of
God, the Light, the Life, the Truth, the Wisdom: through whom all
things were made which are in the heavens and upon the earth, whether
visible or invisible. We believe that he took flesh of the holy Virgin
Mary, at the end of the ages, in order to abolish sin; that he was
made man, suffered for our sin, and rose again, and was taken up into
the heavens, to sit at the right hand of the Father, whence he will
come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. We believe also
in the Holy Spirit, whom our Lord and Saviour has denominated the
Comforter, and whom he sent to his disciples after his departure,
according to his promise: by whom also he sanctifies all believers in
the church, who are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Those who preach anything contrary to this
creed, we regard as aliens from the catholic church.'
This was the declaration of faith proposed by Acacius, and subscribed
by himself and as many as adhered to his opinion, the number of whom
we have already given. When this had been read, Sophronius bishop of
Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, thus expressed himself: `If to express a
separate opinion day after day, be received as the exposition of the
faith, we shall never arrive at any accurate understanding of the
truth.' These were the words of Sophronius. And I firmly believe, that
if the predecessors of these prelates, as well as their successors,
had entertained similar sentiments in reference to the Nicene creed,
all polemical debates would have been avoided; nor would the churches
have been agitated by such violent and irrational disturbances.
However let those judge who are capable of understanding how these
things are. At that time after many remarks on all sides had been made
both in reference to this doctrinal statement, and in relation to the
parties accused, the assembly was dissolved. On the fourth day they
all again met in the same place, and resumed their proceedings in the
same contentious spirit as before. On this occasion Acacius expressed
himself in these words: `Since the Nicene creed has been altered not
once only, but frequently, there is no hindrance to our publishing
another at this time.' To which Eleusius bishop of Cyzicus, replied:
`The Synod is at present convened not to learn what it had no previous
knowledge of, nor to receive a creed which it had not assented to
before, but to confirm the faith of the fathers, from which it should
never recede, either in life or death.' Thus Eleusius opposing Acacius
spoke meaning by `the faith of the fathers,' that creed which had been
promulgated at Antioch. But surely he too might have been fairly
answered in this way: `How is it O Eleusius, that you call those
convened at Antioch "the fathers," seeing that you do not recognize
those who were their fathers? The framers of the Nicene creed, by whom
the homoousian faith was acknowledged, have a far higher claim to the
title of "the fathers"; both as having the priority in point of time,
and also because those assembled at Antioch were by them invested with
the sacerdotal office. Now if those at Antioch have disowned their own
fathers, those who follow them are unconsciously following parricides.
Besides how can they have received a legitimate ordination from those
whose faith they pronounce unsound and impious? If those, however, who
constituted the Nicene Synod had not the Holy Spirit which is imparted
by the imposition of hands, [425] those at Antioch have not duly
received the priesthood: for how could they have received it from
those who had not the power of conferring it?' Such considerations as
these might have been submitted to Eleusius in reply to his
objections. But they then proceeded to another question, connected
with the assertion made by Acacius in his exposition of the faith,
`that the Son was like the Father'; enquiring of one another in what
this resemblance consisted. The Acacian party affirmed that the Son
was like the Father as it respected his will only, and not his
`substance' or `essence'; but the rest maintained that the likeness
extended to both essence and will. In altercations on this point, the
whole day was consumed; and Acacius, being confuted by his own
published works, in which he had asserted that `the Son is in all
things like the Father,' his opponents asked him `how do you now deny
the likeness of the Son to the Father as to his "essence"?' Acacius in
reply said, that `no author, ancient or modern, was ever condemned out
of his own writings.' As they kept on their discussion on this matter
to a most tedious extent, with much acrimonious feeling and subtlety
of argument, but without any approach to unity of judgment, Leonas
arose and dissolved the council: and this was the conclusion of the
Synod at Seleucia. For on the following day [Leonas] being urged to do
so would not again meet with them. `I have been deputed by the
emperor,' said he, `to attend a council where unanimity was expected
to prevail: but since you can by no means come to a mutual
understanding, I can no longer be present: go therefore to the church,
if you please, and indulge in vain babbling there.' The Acacian
faction conceiving this decision to be advantageous to themselves,
also refused to meet with the others. The adverse party left alone met
in the church and requested the attendance of those who followed
Acacius, that cognizance might be taken of the case of Cyril, bishop
of Jerusalem: for that prelate had been accused long before, on what
grounds however I am unable to state. He had even been deposed,
because owing to fear, he had not made his appearance during two whole
years, after having been repeatedly summoned in order that the charges
against him might be investigated. Nevertheless, when he was deposed,
he sent a written notification to those who had condemned him, that he
should appeal to a higher jurisdiction: and to this appeal the emperor
Constantius gave his sanction. Cyril was thus the first and indeed
only clergyman who ventured to break through ecclesiastical usage, by
becoming an appellant, in the way commonly done in the secular courts
of judicature: [426] and he was now present at Seleucia, ready to be
put upon his trial; on this account the other bishops invited the
Acacian party to take their places in the assembly, that in a general
council a definite judgment might be pronounced on the case of those
who were arraigned: for they cited others also charged with various
misdemeanors to appear before them at the same time, who to protect
themselves had sought refuge among the partisans of Acacius. When
therefore that faction persisted in their refusal to meet, after being
repeatedly summoned, the bishops deposed Acacius himself, together
with George of Alexandria, Uranius of Tyre, Theodulus of Chæretapi in
Phrygia, Theodosius of Philadelphia in Lydia, Evagrius of the island
of Mytilene, Leontius of Tripolis in Lydia, and Eudoxius who had
formerly been bishop of Germanica, but had afterwards insinuated
himself into the bishopric of Antioch in Syria. They also deposed
Patrophilus for contumacy, in not having presented himself to answer a
charge preferred against him by a presbyter named Dorotheus. These
they deposed: they also excommunicated Asterius, Eusebius, Abgarus,
Basilicus, Phoebus, Fidelis, Eutychius, Magnus, and Eustathius;
determining that they should not be restored to communion, until they
made such a defense as would clear them from the imputations under
which they lay. This being done, they addressed explanatory letters to
each of the churches whose bishops had been deposed. Anianus was then
constituted bishop of Antioch instead of Eudoxius: but the Acacians
having soon after apprehended him, he was delivered into the hands of
Leonas and Lauricius, by whom he was sent into exile. The bishops who
had ordained him being incensed on this account, lodged protests
against the Acacian party with Leonas and Lauricius, in which they
openly charged them with having violated the decisions of the Synod.
Finding that no redress could be obtained by this means, they went to
Constantinople to lay the whole matter before the emperor.
Footnotes
[423] Athanas. (de Synodd. 29) gives the following portion of this
creed apparently as the only declaration made by the council.
[424] Col. i. 15.
[425] See Chrysostom, Homilies 9 and 27, on Acts, and Hom. 1, on 2
Tim., for the belief of the ancient Church in the descent of the Holy
Spirit on the ordained in and through ordination.
[426] He was the only one, inasmuch as the General Synod of
Constantinople (381 a.d.) expressly forbade all appeals from the
ecclesiastical to the civil courts, attaching severe penalties to the
violation of its canon on this subject. Cf. Canon 6 of Council of
Constantinople. Hefele, Hist. of the Ch. Councils, Vol. II. p. 364.
Chapter XLI.--On the Emperor's Return from the West, the Acacians
assemble at Constantinople, and confirm the Creed of Ariminum, after
making Some Additions to it.
And now the emperor returned from the West and appointed a prefect
over Constantinople, Honoratus by name, having abolished the office of
proconsul. [427] But the Acacians being beforehand with the bishops,
calumniated them to the emperor, persuading him not to admit the creed
which they had proposed. This so annoyed the emperor that he resolved
to disperse them; he therefore published an edict, commanding that
such of them as were subject to fill certain public offices should be
no longer exempted from the performance of the duties attached to
them. For several of them were liable to be called on to occupy
various official departments, [428] connected both with the city
magistracy, and in subordination to the presidents and governors of
provinces. [429] While these were thus harassed the partisans of
Acacius remained for a considerable time at Constantinople and held
another Synod. Sending for the bishops at Bithynia, about fifty
assembled on this occasion, among whom was Maris, bishop of Chalcedon:
these confirmed the creed read at Ariminum to which the names of the
consuls had been prefixed. [430] It would have been unnecessary to
repeat it here, had there not been some additions made to it; but
since that was done, it may be desirable to transcribe it in its new
form. [431]
`We believe in one God the Father Almighty, of whom are all things.
And in the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of God before all ages,
and before every beginning; through whom all things visible and
invisible were made: who is the only-begotten born of the Father, the
only of the only, God of God, like to the Father who begat him,
according to the Scriptures, and whose generation no one knows but the
Father only that begat him. We know that this only-begotten Son of
God, as sent of the Father, came down from the heavens, as it is
written, for the destruction of sin and death: and that he was born of
the Holy Spirit, and of the Virgin Mary according to the flesh, as it
is written, and conversed with his disciples; and that after every
dispensation had been fulfilled according to his Father's will, he was
crucified and died, and was buried and descended into the lower parts
of the earth, at whose presence hades itself trembled: who also arose
from the dead on the third day, again conversed with his disciples,
and after the completion of forty days was taken up into the heavens,
and sits at the right hand of the Father, whence he will come in the
last day, the day of the resurrection, in his Father's glory, to
requite every one accord-to his works. [We believe] also in the Holy
Spirit, whom he himself the only-begotten of God, Christ our Lord and
God, promised to send to mankind as the Comforter, according as it is
written, [432] "the Spirit of truth"; whom he sent to them after he
was received into the heavens. But since the term ousia [substance or
essence], which was used by the fathers in a very simple and
intelligible sense, but not being understood by the people, has been a
cause of offense, we have thought proper to reject it, as it is not
contained even in the sacred writings; and that no mention of it
should be made in future, inasmuch as the holy Scriptures have nowhere
mentioned the substance of the Father and of the Son. Nor ought the
"subsistence" of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit to
be even named. But we affirm that the Son is like the Father, in such
a manner as the sacred Scriptures declare and teach. Let therefore all
heresies which have been already condemned, or may have arisen of
late, which are opposed to this exposition of the faith, be anathema.'
These things were recognized at that time at Constantinople. And now
as we have at length wound our way through the labyrinth of all the
various forms of faith, let us reckon the number of them. After that
which was promulgated at Nicæa, two others were proposed at Antioch at
the dedication of the church there. [433] A third was presented to the
Emperor in Gaul by Narcissus and those who accompanied him. [434] The
fourth was sent by Eudoxius into Italy. [435] There were three forms
of the creed published at Sirmium, one of which having the consuls'
names prefixed was read at Ariminum. [436] The Acacian party produced
an eighth at Seleucia. [437] The last was that of Constantinople,
containing the prohibitory clause respecting the mention of
`substance' or `subsistence' in relation to God. To this creed Ulfilas
bishop of the Goths gave his assent, although he had previously
adhered to that of Nicæa; for he was a disciple of Theophilus bishop
of the Goths, who was present at the Nicene council, and subscribed
what was there determined. Let this suffice on these subjects.
Footnotes
[427] On the distinction between the prefect and proconsul and the
different functions of each, see Smith, Diction. of Greek and Roman
Ant. The statement of Socrates here that Constantius first put
Constantinople under a prefect is borne out by Athanasius' mention of
Donatus as proconsul of Europe, with Constantinople as chief city.
[428] The General Synod of Chalcedon, 451 a.d., in its seventh canon
forbade, under pain of anathema, the mixing of the clerical office
with political and worldly matters.
[429] The taxeis here mentioned were classes of officials appointed
under a sort of military law, to serve for a given length of time as
agents of the presidents and governors of provinces. Cf. Justin. Cod.
12, tit. 52-59.
[430] Cf. chap. 37.
[431] Athanas. de Synodd. 30.
[432] John xv. 26.
[433] Chap. 10.
[434] Chap. 18.
[435] Chap. 19.
[436] Chaps. 30, 37.
[437] Chap. 41.
Chapter XLII.--On the Deposition of Macedonius, Eudoxius obtains the
Bishopric of Constantinople.
Acacius, Eudoxius, and those at Constantinople who took part with
them, became exceedingly anxious that they also on their side might
depose some of the opposite party. Now it should be observed that
neither of the factions were influenced by religious considerations in
making depositions, but by other motives: for although they did not
agree respecting the faith, yet the ground of their reciprocal
depositions was not error in doctrine. The Acacian party therefore
availing themselves of the emperor's indignation against others, and
especially against Macedonius, which he was cherishing and anxious to
vent, in the first place deposed Macedonius, both on account of his
having occasioned so much slaughter, and also because he had admitted
to communion a deacon who had been found guilty of fornication. [438]
They then depose Eleusius bishop of Cyzicus, for having baptized, and
afterwards invested with the diaconate, a priest of Hercules at Tyre
named Heraclius, who was known to have practiced magic arts. [439] A
like sentence was pronounced against Basil, or Basilas,--as he was
also called,--who had been constituted bishop of Ancyra instead of
Marcellus: the causes assigned for this condemnation were, that he had
unjustly imprisoned a certain individual, loaded him with chains, and
put him to the torture; that he had traduced some persons; and that he
had disturbed the churches of Africa by his epistles. Dracontius was
also deposed, because he had left the Galatian church for that of
Pergamos. Moreover they deposed, on various pretenses, Neonas bishop
of Seleucia, the city in which the Synod had been convened, Sophronius
of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, Elpidius of Satala, in Macedonia, and
Cyril of Jerusalem, and others for various reasons.
Footnotes
[438] Cf. Apost. Canon, XXV.
[439] Cf. Tertull. de Idol. IX.: Post evangelium nusquam invenies aut
sophistas, aut Chaldæos, aut Incantatores, aut Conjectores, aut magos,
nisi plane punitos. See also Bingham, Eccl. Antiq. XVI. 5.
Chapter XLIII.--Of Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia.
But Eustathius bishop of Sebastia in Armenia was not even permitted to
make his defense; because he had been long before deposed by Eulalius,
his own father, who was bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, for dressing
in a style unbecoming the sacerdotal office. [440] Let it be noted
that Meletius was appointed his successor, of whom we shall hereafter
speak. Eustathius indeed was subsequently condemned by a Synod
convened on his account at Gangra in Paphlagonia; he having, after his
deposition by the council at Cæsarea, done many things repugnant to
the ecclesiastical canons. For he had `forbidden marriage,' [441] and
maintained that meats were to be abstained from: he even separated
many from their wives, and persuaded those who disliked to assemble in
the churches to commune at home. Under the pretext of piety, he also
seduced servants from their masters. He himself wore the habit of a
philosopher, and induced his followers to adopt a new and
extraordinary garb, directing that the hair of women should be
cropped. He permitted the prescribed fasts to be neglected, but
recommended fasting on Sundays. In short, he forbade prayers to be
offered in the houses of married persons: and declared that both the
benediction and the communion of a presbyter who continued to live
with a wife whom he might have lawfully married, while still a layman,
ought to be shunned as an abomination. For doing and teaching these
things and many others of a similar nature, a Synod convened, as we
have said, at Gangra [442] in Paphlagonia deposed him, and
anathematized his opinions. This, however, was done afterwards. But on
Macedonius being ejected from the see of Constantinople, Eudoxius, who
now looked upon the see of Antioch as secondary in importance, was
promoted to the vacant bishopric; being consecrated by the Acacians,
who in this instance cared not to consider that it was inconsistent
with their former proceedings. For they who had deposed Dracontius
because of his translation from Galatia to Pergamos, were clearly
acting in contrariety to their own principles and decisions, in
ordaining Eudoxius, who then made a second change. After this they
sent their own exposition of the faith, in its corrected and
supplementary form, to Arminium, ordering that all those who refused
to sign it should be exiled on the authority of the emperor's edict.
They also informed such other prelates in the East as coincided with
them in opinion of what they had done; and more especially Patrophilus
bishop of Scythopolis, who on leaving Seleucia had proceeded directly
to his own city. Eudoxius having been constituted bishop of the
imperial city, the great church named Sophia was at that time
consecrated, [443] in the tenth consulate [444] of Constantius, and
the third of Julian Cæsar, on the 15th day of February. It was while
Eudoxius occupied this see, that he first uttered that sentence which
is still everywhere current, `The Father is impious, the Son is
pious.' When the people seemed startled by this expression, and a
disturbance began to be made, `Be not troubled,' said he, `on account
of what I have just said: for the Father is impious, because he
worships no person; but the Son is pious because he worships the
Father.' Eudoxius having said this, the tumult was appeased, and great
laughter was excited in the church: and this saying of his continues
to be a jest, even in the present day. The heresiarchs indeed
frequently devised such subtle phrases as these, and by them rent the
church asunder. Thus was the Synod at Constantinople terminated.
Footnotes
[440] On the prescribed dress of the clergy, and the punishment of
those who did not constantly adopt it, see Bingham, Eccl. Antiq. VI.
4. 15.
[441] 1 Tim. iv. 3. Cf. Euseb. H. E. IV. 29, on the earliest forms of
expression against marriage in the Christian Church; also Apost.
Canon, LI. and Augustine, Hærr. XXV., XL., XLVI. See Bingham, Eccl.
Antiq. XXII. 1.
[442] On Synod of Gangra, see Hefele, Hist. of the Ch. Councils, Vol.
II. p. 325-339. Almost all the canons of the synod seem to be
addressed against the teachings of Eustathius. The fourth canon is
expressly on the celibacy of the clergy, as follows: `If any one
maintains that, when a married priest offer the sacrifice, no one
should take part in the service, let him be anathema.'
[443] This was evidently the second consecration of the earlier church
of St. Sophia (cf. I. 16, II. 6); the first consecration was
celebrated in 326 a.d. Later, the structure was destroyed in a fire,
in connection with a popular uprising; and the great church of St.
Sophia, at present a Mohammedan mosque, was erected by Justinian, with
Isidore of Miletus and Anthimius of Tralles as architects.
[444] 360 a.d.
Chapter XLIV.--Of Meletius [445] Bishop of Antioch.
It becomes us now to speak of Meletius, who, as we have recently
observed, was created bishop of Sebastia in Armenia, after the
deposition of Eustathius; from Sebastia he was transferred to Beroea,
a city of Syria. Being present at the Synod of Seleucia, he subscribed
the creed set forth there by Acacius, and immediately returned thence
to Beroea. When the convention of the Synod at Constantinople was
held, the people of Antioch finding that Eudoxius, captivated by the
magnificence of the see of Constantinople, had contemned their church,
they sent for Meletius, and invested him with the bishopric of the
church at Antioch. Now he at first avoided all doctrinal questions,
confining his discourses to moral subjects; but subsequently he
expounded to his auditors the Nicene creed, and asserted the doctrine
of the homoousion. The emperor being informed of this, ordered that he
should be sent into exile; and caused Euzoïus, who had before been
deposed together with Arius, to be installed bishop of Antioch in his
stead. Such, however, as were attached to Meletius, separated
themselves from the Arian congregation, and held their assemblies
apart: nevertheless, those who originally embraced the homoousian
opinion would not communicate with them, because Meletius had been
ordained by the Arians, and his adherents had been baptized by them.
Thus was the Antiochian church divided, even in regard to those whose
views on matters of faith exactly corresponded. Meanwhile the emperor
getting intelligence that the Persians were preparing to undertake
another war against the Romans, repaired in great haste to Antioch.
Footnotes
[445] The name has been written `Melitius' thus far, but is found as
`Meletius' from this point, and through Bk. III. Cf. Euseb. H. E. VII.
32.
Chapter XLV.--The Heresy of Macedonius.
Macedonius on being ejected from Constantinople, bore his condemnation
ill and became restless; he therefore associated himself with the
other faction that had deposed Acacius and his party at Seleucia, and
sent a deputation to Sophronius and Eleusius, to encourage them to
adhere to that creed which was first promulgated at Antioch, and
afterwards confirmed at Seleucia, proposing to give it the counterfeit
[446] name of the `homoiousian' creed. [447] By this means he drew
around him a great number of adherents, who from him are still
denominated `Macedonians.' And although such as dissented from the
Acacians at the Seleucian Synod had not previously used the term
homoiousios, yet from that period they distinctly asserted it. There
was, however, a popular report that this term did not originate with
Macedonius, but was the invention rather of Marathonius, who a little
before had been set over the church at Nicomedia; on which account the
maintainers of this doctrine were also called `Marathonians.' To this
party Eustathius joined himself, who for the reasons before stated had
been ejected from the church at Sebastia. But when Macedonius began to
deny the Divinity of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, Eustathius said:
`I can neither admit that the Holy Spirit is God, nor can I dare
affirm him to be a creature.' For this reason those who hold the
homoousion of the Son call these heretics `Pneumatomachi.' [448] By
what means these Macedonians became so numerous in the Hellespont, I
shall state in its proper place. [449] The Acacians meanwhile became
extremely anxious that another Synod should be convened at Antioch, in
consequence of having changed their mind respecting their former
assertion of the likeness `in all things' of the Son to the Father. A
small number of them therefore assembled in the following consulate
[450] which was that of Taurus and Florentius, at Antioch in Syria,
where the emperor was at that time residing, Euzoïus being bishop. A
discussion was then renewed on some of those points which they had
previously determined, in the course of which they declared that the
term `homoios' ought to be erased from the form of faith which had
been published both at Ariminum and Constantinople; and they no longer
concealed but openly declared that the Son was altogether unlike the
Father, not merely in relation to his essence, but even as it
respected his will; asserting boldly also, as Arius had already done,
that he was made of nothing. Those in that city who favored the heresy
of Aėtius, gave their assent to this opinion; from which circumstance
in addition to the general appellation of Arians, they were also
termed `Anomoeans,' [451] and `Exucontians,' [452] by those at Antioch
who embraced the homoousian, who nevertheless were at that time
divided among themselves on account of Meletius, as I have before
observed. Being therefore questioned by them, how they dared to affirm
that the Son is unlike the Father, and has his existence from nothing,
after having acknowledged him `God of God' in their former creed? they
endeavored to elude this objection by such fallacious subterfuges as
these. `The expression, "God of God,"' said they, `is to be understood
in the same sense as the words of the apostle, [453] "but all things
of God." Wherefore the Son is of God, as being one of these all
things: and it is for this reason the words "according to the
Scriptures" are added in the draught of the creed.' The author of this
sophism was George bishop of Laodicea, who being unskilled in such
phrases, was ignorant of the manner in which Origen had formerly
explained these peculiar expressions of the apostle, having thoroughly
investigated the matter. But notwithstanding these evasive cavilings,
they were unable to bear the reproach and contumely they had drawn
upon themselves, and fell back upon the creed which they had before
put forth at Constantinople; and so each one retired to his own
district. George returning to Alexandria, resumed his authority over
the churches there, Athanasius still not having made his appearance.
Those in that city who were opposed to his sentiments he persecuted;
and conducting himself with great severity and cruelty, he rendered
himself extremely odious to the people. At Jerusalem Arrenius [454]
was placed over the church instead of Cyril: we may also remark that
Heraclius was ordained bishop there after him, and after him Hilary.
At length, however, Cyril returned to Jerusalem, and was again
invested with the presidency over the church there. About the same
time another heresy sprang up, which arose from the following
circumstance.
Footnotes
[446] parasemos ; just as a counterfeit coin has the appearance of the
genuine, and is meant to deceive those who do not investigate its
genuineness, so the term `homoioousios' (homoioousios ), the author
implies, was meant to deceive the popular ear by its likeness to the
genuine `homoousios.'
[447] See Theodoret, H. E. II. 6.
[448] Pneumatomachoi , lit. `active enemies of the Spirit.'
[449] I. 4.
[450] 361 a.d.
[451] 'Anomoioi, because they held that the essence of the Son was
`dissimilar,' anomoios, to that of the Father.
[452] 'Exoukontioi , from the phrase ex ouk onton = `from [things] not
existing,' because they asserted that the Son was made ex nihilo. The
term might be put roughly in some such form as `Fromnothingians.'
[453] 1 Cor. xi. 12.
[454] Written `Errenius' in the Allat. ms.
Chapter XLVI.--Of the Apollinarians, and their Heresy. [455]
There were two men of the same name at Laodicea in Syria, a father and
son: their name was Apollinaris; the former of them was a presbyter,
and the latter a reader in that church. Both taught Greek literature,
the father grammar, and the son rhetoric. The father was a native of
Alexandria, and at first taught at Berytus, but afterwards removed to
Laodicea, where he married, and the younger Apollinaris was born. They
were contemporaries of Epiphanius the sophist, and being true friends
they became intimate with him; but Theodotus bishop of Laodicea,
fearing that such communication should pervert their principles, and
lead them into paganism, forbade their associating with him: they,
however, paid but little attention to this prohibition, their
familiarity with Epiphanius being still continued. George, the
successor of Theodotus, also endeavored to prevent their conversing
with Epiphanius; but not being able in any way to persuade them on
this point, he excommunicated them. The younger Apollinaris regarding
this severe procedure as an act of injustice, and relying on the
resources of his rhetorical sophistry, originated a new heresy, which
was named after its inventor, and still has many supporters.
Nevertheless some affirm that it was not for the reason above assigned
that they dissented from George, but because they saw the
unsettledness and inconsistency of his profession of faith; since he
sometimes maintained that the Son is like the Father, in accordance
with what had been determined in the Synod at Seleucia, and at other
times countenanced the Arian view. They therefore made this a pretext
for separation from him: but as no one followed their example, they
introduced a new form of doctrine, and at first they asserted that in
the economy of the incarnation, God the Word assumed a human body
without a soul. Afterwards, as if changing mind, they retracted,
admitting that he took a soul indeed, but that it was an irrational
one, God the Word himself being in the place of a mind. Those who
followed them and bear their name at this day affirm that this is
their only point of distinction [from the Catholics]; for they
recognize the consubstantiality of the persons in the Trinity. But we
will make further mention of the two Apollinares in the proper place.
[456]
Footnotes
[455] Cf. Sozom. VI. 25; Schaff, Hist. of the Christ. Ch., Vol. III.
p. 708 seq.; Walch, Ketzerhistorie, III. p. 119-229.
[456] III. 16.
Chapter XLVII.--Successes of Julian; Death of the Emperor Constantius.
While the Emperor Constantius continued his residence at Antioch,
Julian Cæsar engaged with an immense army of barbarians in the Gauls,
and obtaining the victory over them, he became extremely popular among
the soldiery and was proclaimed emperor by them. When this was made
known, the Emperor Constantius was affected most painfully; he was
therefore baptized by Euzoïus, and immediately prepared to undertake
an expedition against Julian. On arriving at the frontiers of
Cappadocia and Cilicia, his excessive agitation of mind produced
apoplexy, which terminated his life at Mopsucrene, in the consulate of
Taurus and Florentius, [457] on the 3d of November. This was in the
first year of the 285th Olympiad. Constantius had lived forty-five
years, having reigned thirty-eight years; thirteen of which he was his
father's colleague in the empire, and after his father's death for
twenty-five years [sole emperor], the history of which latter period
is contained in this book.
Footnotes
[457] 361 a.d.
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/