66

PAUL, BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE.

109

when Alexander, who was eighty-nine years of age, and who had held the episcopal office for twenty-three years, was at the point of death, his clergy asked him whom he wished to succeed him in the government of his church. "If," replied he, 'you seek a good man, and one who is apt to teach you, have Paul. But if you desire one who is conversant with public affairs, and able to confer with rulers, Macedonius is, in these respects, more qualified than Paul." The Macedonians themselves admit that this testimony was given by Alexander; but they say that Paul was the more skilled of the two in the transaction of business and the art of eloquence, and that Macedonius was celebrated on account of the purity of his life and conduct; and they accuse Paul of having been addicted to luxury and licentiousness.1 It appears, however, from their own acknowledgment, that Paul was a man of great eloquence, and highly renowned on account of his skill in teaching the church. Events proved that he was not competent to combat the casualties of life, or to hold intercourse

with those in power. He was never successful in subverting the machinations of his enemies, like those who are adroit in the management of such affairs. Although he was greatly beloved by the people, he suffered severely from the artifices of those who rejected the doctrines established by the council of Nicæa. In the first place, he was expelled from the church of Constantinople, as if some accusation had been established against him. He was then sent into banishment, and finally, it is said, fell a victim to the devices of his enemies, and was strangled. But these latter events took place at a subsequent period.

CHAP. IV.-A SEDITION WAS EXCITED ON THE ORDINATION

OF PAUL.

THE ordination of Paul occasioned a great commotion in the church of Constantinople. During the life of Alexander, the Arians did not venture to excite any insurrection, for the

ἀδιάφορος βιός, literally an indifferent life." St. Basil and others of the Christian Fathers use the word in the same sense.

2 He had been originally accused by the presbyter Macedonius. The accusation, according to Theodoret, was that of sedition. See Athanasius, Ep. ad Solit.

people were implicitly obedient to their bishop, and attached to his sway, and, moreover, regarded the extraordinary and unexpected death of Arius as a manifest indication of divine wrath, drawn down upon him, so to speak, by the prayers and virtues of Alexander. After the death of this bishop, however, the people became divided into two parties, and disputes and contests concerning doctrines were openly carried on. The adherents of Arius desired the ordination of Macedonius, while those who maintained that the Son is consubstantial with the Father wished to have Paul as their bishop; and this latter party prevailed. After the ordination of Paul the emperor returned to Constantinople, and manifested as much displeasure at what had taken place as if Paul had been unworthy of the bishopric. Through the machinations of the enemies of Paul a synod was convened, and he was expelled from the church. Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, was installed in the bishopric of Constantinople.

CHAP. V.-COUNCIL OF ANTIOCH; DEPOSITION OF ATHANASIUS; INSTALLATION OF GREGORY; TWO FORMULARIES OF FAITH.

SOON after these occurrences, the emperor went to Antioch, a city of Syria. Here a large and beautiful church had been founded by the late emperor Constantine; and as the structure had been just completed by his son Constantius, it was deemed a favourable opportunity by the partisans of Eusebius to convene a council. They, therefore, with those from various regions who held their sentiments, met together in Antioch; their bishops were about ninety-seven in number. Their professed object was the consecration of the new church; but they intended nothing else than the abolition of the decrees of the Nicæan council, and this was fully proved by the sequel. The church of Antioch was then governed by1 Flacillus, who had succeeded Euphronius. The death of Constantine the Great had taken place about five years prior to this period. When all the bishops had assembled in the presence of the emperor Constantius, the majority expressed great indignation against Athanasius for having contemned the sacerdotal regulation

1 1Пλάкηто. Placitus or Flacillus. See Socrates, Eccl. Hist. ii. 8.

A. D. 341.]

COUNCIL OF ANTIOCH.

111

which they had enacted,' and taken possession of the bishopric of Alexandria without first obtaining the sanction of a council. They also deposed that he was the cause of the death of several persons who fell in a sedition excited by his return; and that many others had on the same occasion been arrested, and delivered up to the judicial tribunals. By these accusations they contrived to cast odium on Athanasius, and it was decreed that Gregory should be invested with the government of the church of Alexandria. They then turned to the discussion of doctrinal questions, and found no fault with the decrees of the council of Nice. They despatched letters to the bishops of every city, in which they declared that, as they were bishops themselves, they had not followed Arius. "For how," said they, "could we have been followers of him, when he was but a presbyter, and we were placed above him?" They affirmed that they received the faith which had, from the beginning, been handed down by tradition. This they further explained at the bottom of their letter, but without alluding to the substance of the Father or the Son, or to the term consubstantial. They resorted, in fact, to such ambiguity of expression, that neither the Arians nor the followers of the decrees of the Nicæan council could call their assertions into question, or affirm that they departed from the doctrines of the Holy Scriptures. They purposely avoided all forms of expression which were rejected by either party, and only made use of those which were universally admitted. They confessed that the Son is with the Father, that he is the only begotten One, and that he is God, and existed before all things; and that he took flesh upon him, and fulfilled the will of his Father. They admitted these and similar truths, but neither affirmed nor denied the doctrine of the Son being co-eternal and consubstantial with the Father. They subsequently disapproved, it appears, of this formulary, and issued another, which, I think, very nearly resembles that

1 The canon here alluded to (the twelfth of the council of Nicæa) forbade a priest or deacon, when deposed by a synod, to seek restoration from the emperor, but enjoined him to appeal in such a case to a larger and fuller synod of bishops. There seems to be good ground for believing that this canon was aimed at Athanasius, when he had been restored to Alexandria by a proclamation of the emperor. Hence St. Chrysostom, on a somewhat similar occasion, declares that the canon quoted above is one of the Arians, and not of the Catholic church. See Socrates, Eccl. Hist. vi. 18.

of the council of Nice, unless, indeed, some secret meaning be attached to the words which is not apparent to me. Although they refrained, I know not from what motive, from saying that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, they confessed that he is immutable, that his Divinity is not susceptible of change, that he is the perfect image of the substance, and counsel, and power, and glory of the Father, and that he is the first-born of every creature. They stated that they had found this formulary of faith, and that it was written by Lucinius,' who was martyred in Nicomedia, and who was a man of great celebrity and remarkably conversant with the Sacred Scriptures. I know not whether this statement was really true, or whether they merely advanced it in order to give weight to their own document, by connecting with it the name of an illustrious martyr. Not only was Eusebius (who, on the expulsion of Paul, had been transferred from the bishopric of Nicomedia to that of Constantinople) present at this council, but likewise Acacius, the successor of Eusebius Pamphilus, Patrophilus, bishop of Scythopolis, Theodore, bishop of Heraclea, formerly called Perinthus, Eudoxius, bishop of Germanicia, who succeeded Macedonius in the government of the church of Constantinople, and Gregory, who had been appointed bishop of the church of Alexandria. It was universally acknowledged that all these bishops held the same sentiments. Dianius,2 bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, George, bishop of Laodicea in Syria, and many other metropolitan bishops and primates of renowned churches were also present at this council.

CHAP. VI.-EUSEBIUS, SURNAMED EMESIUS; GREGORY ACCEPTS THE BISHOPRIC OF ALEXANDRIA; ATHANASIUS SEEKS REFUGE IN ROME.

EUSEBIUS, surnamed Emesius, likewise attended the council. He sprang from a noble family of Edessa, a city of Osdroëna. According to the custom of his country, he had,

This person was a presbyter of Antioch. This symbol or formulary of faith may be seen in Socrates, Eccl. Hist. ii. 10. He was suspected of Arianism; but this imputation has been removed from his name by the learned Bull. Def. Fid. Nic. s. ii. cap. 13, n. 4. 2 He is also called Dianæus.

A. D. 341.]

EUSEBIUS, SURNAMED EMESIUS.

113

from his youth upwards, been instructed in the knowledge of Sacred Scripture, and was afterwards made acquainted with the learning of the Greeks by the doctors who then frequented his native city. He subsequently acquired a more intimate knowledge of sacred literature, under the guidance of Eusebius Pamphilus and Patrophilus, bishop of Scythopolis. He went to Antioch at the time that Eustathius was deposed on the accusation of Cyrus, and lived with Euphronius, his successor, on terms of intimacy. He fled to escape being invested with the priestly dignity, went to Alexandria, and frequented the schools of the philosophers. After acquainting himself with their mode of discipline, he returned to Antioch, and dwelt with Flacillus, the successor of Euphronius. During the time that the council was held in that city, Eusebius, bishop of Constantinople, entreated him to accept the bishopric of Alexandria; for it was thought that, by his great reputation for sanctity and consummate eloquence, he would easily supplant Athanasius in the esteem of the Egyptians. He, however, refused the bishopric, on the plea that he could otherwise only incur the hatred of the Alexandrians, who would have no other bishop but Athanasius. Gregory was, therefore, appointed bishop of Alexandria, and Eusebius was ordained over the church of Emessa.

A sedition was excited on the inauguration of Eusebius; the people accused him of being addicted to the practice of judicial astronomy, and, being obliged to seek safety by flight, he repaired to Laodicea, and dwelt with George, bishop of that city, who was his particular friend. He afterwards accompanied this bishop to Antioch, and obtained permission from the bishops Flacillus and Narcissus to return to Emessa. He was much esteemed by the emperor Constantine, and attended him in his military expeditions against the Persians. It is said that God wrought miracles through his instrumentality, as is testified by George of Laodicea, who has related many instances of this nature besides those which I have recorded.

But although he was endowed with so many exalted qualities, he could not escape the jealousy of those who are irritated by witnessing the virtues of others. It was insinuated that he had embraced the doctrines of Sabellius. At the same time, however, he voted with the bishops who had been con[SOZOMEN.]

I