THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY--BY SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS, REST OF BOOK II
CHAPTER XIX.
Of the Creed sent by the Eastern Bishops to those in Italy, called the Lengthy
Creed. (1)
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 (2) 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, (3) 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-exist-ing 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, (4) or co-unbegotten (5) 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, (6) 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." (7) 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. (8) 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 (9) 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; (10) "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.'
CHAPTER XX.
Of the Council at Sardica.
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,
(2) that the Synod of Sardica met. According to the statement of Athanasius (3)
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, (4) 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 (5) 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. (6) 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, (7) 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.
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 Nicaea, 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: (1) '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
Nicaea 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, (2)
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 (3) 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: (4)
'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?I 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, (5) "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, (6) 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 (7) 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 (8) 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 (9) "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." (10) And thus they declared
unto all men the Christ of God, in accordance with that prophecy which says,
(11) "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," (12) said not this as if he
had no heart; but prayed that his mind might be purified. Thus also it is said,
(13) "That he might create the two into one new man," instead of unite.
Consider also whether this passage is not of the same kind, (14) "Clothe yourselves
with the new man, which is created according to God"; and this, (15) "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.
CHAPTER XXII.
The Council of Sardica restores Paul and Athanasius to their Sees; and an 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; (1) and the boundary of communion
between them was the mountain called Soucis, (2) 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.'
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. (1)
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, (2) 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. (3)
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,' (4) 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? (5)
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. (6)
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 l 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, (7) 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, Thebais, 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.
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, (1) 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 (2) 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.(3) Such was the progress of affairs at that period in
reference to Athanasius.
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, (1) 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, (2) 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 a 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, (4) 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; (5) 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.
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. (1) 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 Laodicaea, and Leontius who then had the oversight of the
church at Antioch. This last person, when a presbyter, had been divested of his
rank, (2) 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.
CHAPTER XXVII.
Macedonius having possessed himself of the See of Canstantinople inflicts much
Injury an 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 con-substantiality 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,' (1) 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 Lentil George, sent from
Cappadocia, added to the evil which he was instructed to work. When Easter-week a was
passed, the virgins were east 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; (4) 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 Manichaen. 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? 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, Thmuis, Caius, 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 (6) 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 are 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 Caesar, and given him his
own name, (7) 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: (8) 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.
CHAPTER XXIX.
Of the Heresiarch Photinus.
During this time Photinus, (1) 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, (2) 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, (3)
in which year no consul celebrated the customary inaugural (4) 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.
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, (1)
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: (2)
'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, (3) 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 thinks 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," (4) 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," (5) 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,'' (6) 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,'' (7) 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 (8) 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" (9) [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," (10) 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.'' (11) 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.'
(12) Another Exposition of the Faith set forth at Sirmium in Latin, and
afterwards translated into Greek. (13)
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.' (14) 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.' (15) 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 (16)
or homoiousion, (17) 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? (18) 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. (19) And no one is ignorant that this is also catholic
doctrine, (20) 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 impossible: 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.'(21) 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: (22) 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.
CHAPTER XXXI.
Of Hosius, Bishop of Cardova.
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, (1) 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 Caesar, 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 (2) 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.
CHAPTER XXXIII.
Of the Jews inhabiting Dio-Caesarea in Palestine.
ABOUT the same time there arose another intestine commotion in the East:
for the Jews who inhabited Dio-Caesarea 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 Caesar, had sent into the East,
despatched an army against them, and completely vanquished them: after which he
ordered that their city Dio-Caesarea should be razed to the foundations.
CHAPTER XXXIV.
Of Gallus Caesar.
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 Caesar, 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 Praetorian prefect of
the East, and Magnus the quaestor, 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,
Caesar, and sent him against the barbarians in Gaul. It was in the seventh
consulate (1) of the emperor Constantius that Gallus, who was surnamed Constantius,
was slain, when he himself was a third time consul: and Julian was created
Caesar on the 6th of November in the following year, when Arbetion (2) and Lollian
were consuls; of him we shall make farther mention in the next book? 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, (4) 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.
CHAFFER XXXV.
Of Aetius the Syrian, Teacher of Eunomius.
At Antioch in Syria another heresiarch sprang up, Aetius, surnamed Athens.
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, (1) entertaining one opinion in his
heart, professed another with his lips; having hypo-critically assented to and
subscribed the form of faith set forth at the council of Nicaea, in order to
deceive the reigning emperor. On this account, therefore, Aetius 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 Leontins, 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, (2) who expound
the writings of Plato and Plotinus, censure the vain subtlety which Aristotle
has displayed in that book: but Aetius, 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,
Aetius 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 Aetians, 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. (3)
CHAPTER XXXVI.
Of the Synod 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. (1) 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, (2)
the metropolis of Italy, and Eusebius of Vercellae, 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.
CHAPTER XXXVII.
Of the Synod at Ariminum, and the Creed there published. (1)
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, (2) but we shall first
make a few observations on Eudoxius. About that time Leontius having died, who
had ordained the heretic Aetius (3) 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 Aetius; accordingly
he convened a council of bishops for the purpose of reinvesting Aetius with the
dignity of the diaconate. But this could in no way be brought about, for the
odium with which Aetius 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: (4)
'The catholic faith was expounded at Sirmium in presence of our lord
Constantius, (5) in the consulate (6) 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 (7)): 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: (8) "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 under- stood 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 Gaius, 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: (9)
'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. (10) 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; (11) Jeremiah in the time of Josiah;
(12) 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, (13)
"A decree of enrol-merit 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, Gaius, 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: (14) 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. (15)
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 (16) 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, (17) and Gains, 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.
(18) 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:
(19)
'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 yon
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. (20) 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. (21)
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.
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. (1) 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, (2) 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 communi-care
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? 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
(4)--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, test 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 trans- ported
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 Caesar 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. (5)
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 (1) of Tatian and Cerealis, on the 28th
day of August. (2) They were therefore planning to transfer the council to the
neighboring city of Nicaea: 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, (3) 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, (4) 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 Caesarea 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, (5)
which was considerably more numerous, concurred in all the decisions of the council
of Nicaea, 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,
(6) 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.
CHAPTER XL.
Acacius, Bishop of Caesarea, dictates a new Farm 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; (1) 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, (2) "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 be 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, (3) 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: (4)
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 Chaeretapi 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.
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. (1)
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, (2) connected both with the city magistracy, and in
subordination to the presidents and governors of provinces. (3) 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. (4) 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?
'We believe in one God the Father Almighty, of whom are all things. And in
the only-begot-ten 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, (6) "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
Nicaea, two others were proposed at Antioch at the dedication of the church
there. (7) A third was presented to the Emperor in Gaul by Narcissus and those who
accompanied him. (8) The fourth was sent by Eudoxius into Italy. (9) There
were three forms of the creed published at Sirmium, one of which having the
consuls' names prefixed was read at Ariminum. (10) The Acacian party produced an
eighth at Seleucia. (11) 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 Nicaea; 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.
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. (1) 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. (2) 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.
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 Caeasarea in Cappadocia, for dressing in a style
unbecoming the sacerdotal office. (1) 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 Caesarea, done many things repugnant
to the ecclesiastical canons. For he had forbidden marriage,' (2) 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 (30 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, (4) in the tenth consulate (5) of Constantius, and the
third of Julian Caesar, 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.
CHAPTER XLIV.
Of Meletius (1) 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 Euzoius, 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.
CHAPTER XLV.
The Heresy of Macedanius.
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 (1) name of the 'homoiousian' creed. (2) 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.'
(3) By what means these Macedonians became so numerous in the Hellespont, I
shall state in its proper place. (4) 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 (5) which was that of Taurus and Florentius, at Antioch
in Syria, where the emperor was at that time residing, Euzoius 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 i asserting boldly also, as Arius had already
done, that he was made of nothing. Those in that city who favored the heresy of
Aetius, gave, their assent to this opinion; from which circumstance in addition to
the general appellation of Arians, they were also termed 'Anomoeans,' (6) and
'Exucontians,' (7) 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, (8)" 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 (9) 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.
CHAPTER XLVI.
Of the Apollinarians, and their Heresy. (1)
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?
CHAPTER XLVII.
Successes of Julian; Death of the Emperor Constantius.
WHILE the Emperor Constantius continued his residence at Antioch, Julian
Caesar 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 Euzoius, 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, (1) 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.