A. D. 342.]

LETTER OF JULIUS.

119

together, it was impossible for them to recede or make way; the soldiers, under the impression that they were met to resist the imperial authority, drew their swords and killed many persons, and several others were slain in the crowd. The edict of the emperor was thus accomplished, and Macedonius reinstated in the government of the church, while Paul, contrary to all previous expectation, was ejected from the church.

Athanasius in the mean time had fled, and concealed himself, dreading to be put to death, according to the menaces of the emperor Constantius; for the heterodox had made the emperor believe that he was a seditious person, and that he had, on his return to the bishopric, occasioned the death of several persons. But the anger of the emperor had been chiefly excited by the representation that Athanasius had sold the wheat which the emperor Constantine had bestowed on the poor of Alexandria, and had appropriated the price.

CHAP. X.-THE BISHOP OF ROME WRITES TO THE BISHOPS OF THE EAST IN FAVOUR OF ATHANASIUS, AND THEY SEND A DEPUTATION TO ROME TO JUSTIFY THEIR PROCEEDINGS. THIS DEPUTATION IS DISMISSED BY CONSTANS CESAR.

THE bishop of Egypt having sent a declaration in writing that these allegations were false, and Julius having been apprized that Athanasius was far from being in safety in Egypt, sent for him to his own city. He replied at the same time to the letter of the bishops who were convened at Antioch, and accused them of having clandestinely introduced innovations contrary to the edicts of the Nicæan council, and of having violated the laws of the church, by neglecting to invite him to join their synod; for there is a sacerdotal canon1 which declares, that whatever is enacted without the sanction of the bishop of Rome is null and void. He also reproached them for having deviated from justice in all their proceedings against Athanasius, both at Tyre and Mareota, and stated that the decrees enacted at the former city had been annulled on account of the calumny concerning the hand of Arsenius,

1 νόμος ἱερατικός. Comp. Socrat. Eccl. Hist. ii. 17. The canon referred to is known as the 6th canon of Nicæa, and the 28th of Chalcedon.

and, at the latter city, on account of the absence of Athanasius. Last of all he reprehended the arrogant style of their epistle.

Julius was induced by all these reasons to undertake the defence of Athanasius and of Paul; the latter had arrived in Italy not long previously, and had complained bitterly of the calamities to which he had been exposed. When Julius perceived that what he had written to those who held the sacerdotal dignity in the East was of no avail, he made the matter known to Constans the emperor. Accordingly, Constans wrote to his brother Constantius, requesting him to send some of the bishops of the East, that they might assign a reason for the edicts of deposition which they had passed. Three bishops were selected for this purpose, namely, Narcissus, bishop of Irenopolis, in Cilicia; Theodore, bishop of Heraclea, in Thrace; and Mark, bishop of Arethusa, in Syria. On their arrival in Italy, they strove to justify their enactments, and to persuade the emperor that the sentence passed by the Eastern synod was just. Being required to produce a statement of their belief, they withheld the formulary they had drawn up at Antioch, and presented another which was equally at variance with the doctrines established at the council of Nicæa. Constans perceived that they had unjustly entrapped the two bishops, and had ejected them from communion, not, as was stated in the sentence of deposition, on account of immorality of life, but simply on account of differences in doctrine; and he accordingly dismissed the deputation without giving any credit to their representations.

CHAP. XI.-THE LONG FORMULARY AND THE ENACTMENTS ISSUED BY THE COUNCIL OF SARDICA. JULIUS, BISHOP OF ROME, AND HOSIUS, BISHOP OF SPAIN, DEPOSED BY THE BISHOPS of THE EAST.

THREE years afterwards the bishops of the East sent to those of the West a formulary of faith, which, on account of its great length and copiousness, has been commonly termed μακρόστιλος ἔκθεσις. In this formulary no allusion is made to the substance of God, and those are excommunicated who maintain that the Son arose out of what had no previous ex

A. D. 345.] DISSENSION BETWEEN THE BISHOPS.

121

istence, or that he is of another hypostasis and not of God, or that there was a time or an age in which he existed not. Eudoxius, bishop of Germanicia, Martyrius, and Macedonius presented this document, but it was rejected by the Western clergy, who declared that they felt fully satisfied with the doctrines established at Nicæa, and were not disposed to inquire further into contested matters.

After the emperor Constans had requested his brother to reinstate Athanasius in his bishopric, and had found his application to be unavailing on account of the opposition of heretics who were hostile to this restoration; and when, moreover, Athanasius and Paul entreated Constans to assemble a council on account of the machinations which had been set on foot against orthodox doctrines; both the emperors were of opinion that the bishops of the East and of the West should be convened on a certain day at Sardica, a city of Illyria. The bishops of the East, who had previously assembled at Philippopolis, a city of Thrace, wrote to the bishops of the West, who had repaired to Sardica, that they would not join them, unless they would eject Athanasius from their assembly and from communion with them, he having, they said, been legally deposed. They afterwards went to Sardica, but declared they would not enter the church while those who had been deposed were admitted thither. The bishops of the West replied, that they never had ejected them, and that they would not do so now, particularly as Julius, bishop of Rome, after having investigated the case, had not condemned them, and as, besides, they were present and ready to justify themselves a second time of the offences imputed to them. These declarations, however, were of no avail, and served only to increase the mutual dissatisfaction of the two parties; and when at length the time they had appointed for the adjustment of their differences had expired, they assembled separately, and issued edicts of condemnation against each other. The Eastern bishops confirmed the sentences they had enacted against Athanasius, Paul, Marcellus, and Asclepas, and deposed Julius, bishop of Rome, because he had been the first to admit those who had been condemned into communion; and Hosius, the confessor, was also deposed, partly for the same reason, and partly because he was the friend of Paulinus1 and Eustathius, bishops of 1 Valesius doubts who this Paulinus was; but is inclined to believe him

Antioch. Maximus, bishop of Treves, was deposed, because he had been among the first who had received1 Paul into communion, and had been the cause of his returning to Constantinople, and because he had excluded from communion thé Eastern bishops who had repaired to Gaul. Besides the above, they likewise deposed Protogenes, bishop of Sardica, and Gaudentius ; the one because he favoured Marcellus, although he had previously condemned him, and the other because he had adopted a different line of conduct from that of Cyriacus, his predecessor, and had supported many individuals whom the former had deposed. After issuing these sentences, they made known to the bishops of every region, that they were not to hold communion with those who were deposed, and that they were not to write to them, nor to receive letters from them. They likewise commanded them to believe what was said concerning God in the formulary which they subjoined to their letter, and in which no mention was made of the term " consubstantial," but in which those were excommunicated who said there are three Gods, or that Christ is not God, or that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost form but one and the same Person, or that the Son is unbegotten, or that there was a time or an age in which he existed not.

CHAP. XII.-DEPOSITION IN THEIR TURN OF THE EASTERN BISHOPS BY THE BISHOPS OF THE WEST, WHO COMPILE A FORMULARY OF FAITH.

THE adherents of Hosius, in the mean time, assembled together, and declared that Athanasius was innocent, and that unjust machinations had been carried on against him by those who had been convened at Tyre. They likewise attested the innocence of Marcellus, who deposed that he did not hold the opinions which were attributed to him; of Asclepas, who proved by authentic documents that he had been re-established in his diocese by the decree of Eusebius Pamphilus, and of

to have been the immediate successor of Philogonius in that see, and to have been soon afterwards expelled.

1 Valesius remarks that these words are taken from the decree of the Eastern bishops at Sardica.

? He was bishop of Naïsus, in Dacia.

A. D. 345.] DISSENSION BETWEEN THE BISHOPS.

123

many other bishops; and lastly, of Lucius, whose accusers had fled. They wrote to the people of each of their churches, commanding them to receive and to recognise their bishops. They stated that Gregory had not been appointed by them bishop of Alexandria; nor Basil, bishop of Ancyra; nor Quintin, bishop of Gaza; and that they had not received these men into communion, and did not even account them Christians. They deposed Theodore, bishop of Thrace; Narcissus, bishop of Irenopolis; Acacius, bishop of Cæsarea, in Palestine ; Menophantes, bishop of Ephesus; Ursacius, bishop of Sigidon, in Mæsia; Valens, bishop of Mursia, in Pannonia; and George, bishop of Laodicea, although this latter had not attended the synod with the Eastern bishops. They ejected the above-named individuals from the priesthood and from communion, because they separated the Son from the substance of the Father, and had received those who had been deposed on account of their holding the Arian heresy, and had, moreover, promoted them to the highest offices in the service of God. They afterwards wrote to the bishops of every nation, commanding them to confirm these decrees, and to be of one mind on doctrinal subjects with themselves. They likewise compiled another formulary of faith, which was more copious than that of Nicæa, although the same signification was carefully preserved, and the precise terms, in many cases, retained. Hosius and Protogenes, who held the first rank among the Western bishops assembled at Sardica, fearing lest they should be suspected of making any innovations upon the doctrines of the Nicæan council, wrote to Julius, and testified that they were firmly attached to these doctrines, but that they had endeavoured to convey their precise signification in more perspicuous language, in order that the Arians might not take advantage of the brevity of the original document, and affix some absurd meaning to the words in which it was couched.

1

When what I have related had been transacted by each party, the synod was dissolved, and the members returned to their respective homes. This synod was held during the consulate of Rufinus and Eusebius, and about eleven years after

1 This formulary is extant, appended to the synodal epistle of the council of Chalcedon, in Theodoret, Eccl. Hist. ii. Baronius, however, maintains that the formulary itself is spurious.

2 This epistle is nowhere extant.