RE-ERECTION OF A NOVATIAN CHURCH. 179 theatre of great disturbances. The adherents of Acacius and Patrophilus, having ejected Maximus, gave the government of the church of Jerusalem to Cyril. Macedonius was, by his severity, the cause of great troubles in Constantinople and the neighbouring cities;2 he was abetted by Eleusius and Marathonius. This latter was originally a deacon in his own church, and was a zealous superintendent of the poor and of the monastical dwellings inhabited by each sex, and Macedonius raised him to the bishopric of Nicomedia. Eleusius, who was formerly attached to the military service of the palace, had been ordained bishop of Cyzicus. It is said that Eleusius and Marathonius were both good men, but that they were zealous in persecuting those who maintained that the Son is of the same substance as the Father, although they never manifested so much cruelty as Macedonius, who not only expelled those who refused to hold communion with him, but imprisoned some, and dragged others before the tribunals. In many cases he had recourse to compulsion, and extorted compliance to his will. He seized women and children who had not been initiated (i. e. baptized) and initiated them, and destroyed many churches in different places, under the pretext that the emperor had commanded the demolition of all houses of prayer in which the Son was recognised to be of the same substance as the Father. Under this pretext, the church of the Novatians at Constantinople, situated in that part of the city called Pelargus, was destroyed. It is related that these heretics performed a courageous action with the aid of the members of the Catholic church, with whom they made common cause. When those who were employed to destroy the church were about to commence the work of demolition, the Novatians assembled themselves together, and conveyed the materials to a suburb of the city called Sycea. They quickly achieved this task, for men, women, and children engaged in it, and gave their labour as an offering to God. By the exercise of this zeal, the church was soon re-erected, and received the name of Anastasia. After the death of Constantius, Julian, his successor, granted to the No 1 Compare Socrates, Eccl. Hist. ii. 38. In the generally received editions here follow the words we paro χειροτονεῖν ὁ Μακάριος ; but they are rejected by Valesius as foreign to the text, interrupting the sense, and involving several difficulties. vatians the ground which they had previously possessed, and permitted them to rebuild their church. The people joyfully took advantage of this permission, and transported the identical materials of the former edifice from Sycea. But this happened at a later period of time than that which we are now reviewing. At this period a union was nearly effected between the Novatian and Catholic churches, for as they held the same opinions concerning the Godhead, and were subjected to a common persecution, the members of both churches assembled and prayed together. The Catholics then possessed no houses of prayer, for the Arians had wrested them from them. It appears too, that from the frequent intercourse between the members of each church, they began to reflect that no solid reason could be adduced for their separation. A reconciliation would certainly have been effected, had not the desire of the multitude been frustrated by the envy of a few individuals, who asserted that there was an ancient law prohibiting the union of the churches. CHAP. XXI.-PROCEEDINGS OF MACEDONIUS IN MANTINIA. MOVAL OF THE REMAINS OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT. RE JULIAN ABOUT the same time Eleusius demolished the church of the Novatians in Cyzicus.' The inhabitants of other parts of Paphlagonia, and particularly of Mantinia, were subjected to similar persecutions. Macedonius, having been apprized that the majority of these people were followers of Novatian, and that the ecclesiastical2 power was not of itself sufficiently strong to expel them, persuaded the emperor to send four cohorts against them. For he imagined that men who are unaccustomed to the use of military weapons, would, on the first appearance of armed soldiers, be seized with terror, and conform to his sentiments. But it happened otherwise, for the people of Mantinia armed themselves with whatever weapons came first to hand, and marched against the military. A sanguinary conflict ensued, and many of the Paphlagonians fell, but all the soldiers were slain. Many of the friends of Macedonius 1 Compare Socrates, Eccl. Hist. ii. 38. 2 He means the clergy of the orthodox party. A.. D. 359.] COUNCIL OF SELEUCIA. 181 blamed him for having occasioned so much bloodshed, and the emperor was displeased, and regarded him with less favour than before. Inimical feelings were engendered still more strongly by another occurrence. Macedonius contemplated the removal of the remains of the emperor Constantine, as the sepulchre in which they had been deposited was falling into ruin. The people were divided in opinion on this subject: some concurred in the design, and others opposed it, deeming it impious to open the sepulchre. Those who maintained the Nicene doctrines were of the latter sentiment, and insisted that no indignity should be offered to the body of Constantine, as that emperor had held the same doctrines as themselves. They were besides, I can readily imagine, eager to oppose the projects of Macedonius. However, without further delay, Macedonius caused the coffin to be conveyed to the same church in which the tomb of Acacius, the martyr, is placed. The people, divided into two factions, the one approving, the other condemning, the deed, rushed upon each other in the church, and so much carnage ensued that the sacred edifice was filled with blood and slaughtered bodies. The emperor, who was then in the West, was deeply incensed on hearing of this occurrence; and he blamed Macedonius as the cause of the indignity offered to his father, and of the slaughter of the people. The emperor was then preparing to return to the East; he conferred the title of Cæsar on his cousin Julian, and sent him to Gaul.1 CHAP. XXII.-COUNCIL OF SELEUCIA. ABOUT the same period the Eastern bishops assembled,2 to the number of about one hundred and sixty, in Seleucia, a city of Isauria. This was during the consulate of Eusebius and Hypatius. Leonas, who held one of the most important offices at the palace, repaired to this council at the command of Constantius, as likewise Laurentius, the military governor of the province, to discharge the duties devolving upon them. At the first session of this council, several of the bishops were absent, and among others, Patrophilus, bishop of Scythopolis; 1 Compare Socrates, Eccl. Hist. ii. 34. It should be added that Sozomen is wrong in placing these events subsequent to the council at Rimini. 2 Compare Socrates, Eccl. Hist. ii. 39. Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople; and Basil, bishop of Ancyra. They resorted to divers pretexts in justification of their non-attendance. Patrophilus alleged in excuse a complaint in the eyes, and Macedonius pleaded indisposition; but it was suspected they had absented themselves from the fear that various accusations would be brought against them. As the other bishops refused to enter upon the investigation of disputed points during their absence, Leonas commanded them to proceed at once to the examination of the questions that had been agitated. Then some were of opinion that it was necessary to commence with the discussion of doctrinal topics, while others maintained that inquiries ought to be first instituted into the conduct of those among them against whom accusations had been laid, as had been the case with Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste, and others. The ambiguity of the emperor's letters, which sometimes prescribed one course and sometimes another, gave rise to this dispute. The contention arising from this source became so fierce, that all union was destroyed between them, and they became divided into two parties. However, the advice of those who wished to commence with the examination of doctrine, prevailed. When they proceeded to the investigation of terms, some desired to reject the use of the term "substance," and appealed to the authority of the formulary of faith which had not long previously been compiled by Mark at Sirmium, and had been received by the bishops who were at the court, among whom was Basil,2 bishop of Ancyra. Many others were anxious for the adoption of the formulary of faith drawn up at the consecration of the church of Antioch. To the first of these parties belonged Eudoxius, Acacius, Patrophilus; George, bishop of Alexandria; Uranius, bishop of Tyre; and thirty-two other bishops. The latter party was supported by George, bishop of Laodicea in Syria; by Eleusius, bishop of Cyzicus; by Sophronius, bishop of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia; and by the majority of the prelates. It was suspected, and with reason, that Acacius and his partisans absented themselves on account of the difference between their sentiments and those of the aforesaid bishops, and also because they desired to evade the investiga1 See above, note on chapter 13. 2 See above, chapter 16. A. D. 359.] COUNCIL OF SELEUCIA. 183 tion of certain accusations which had been brought against them: for, although they had previously acknowledged in writing to Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, that the Son is in all respects like unto the Father, and of the same substance, yet they had had the hardihood to retract this admission. After prolonged disputations and contention, Silvanus, bishop of Tarsus, declared in a loud and peremptory tone, that no other formulary of faith ought to be received but that which had been set forth at Antioch. As this proposition was repugnant to the followers of Acacius, they withdrew, and the other bishops read the formulary of Antioch. The following day, these bishops assembled in the church, closed the doors, and privately confirmed this formulary. Acacius condemned this proceeding, and laid the formulary which he advocated before Leonas and Laurentius. Three days afterwards, the same bishops re-assembled, and were joined by Macedonius and Basil, who had been previously absent. Acacius and his partisans declared that they would take no part in the proceedings of the council until those who had been deposed and accused had quitted the assembly. His demand was complied with; for the bishops of the opposite party were determined that he should have no pretext for dissolving the council, which was evidently his object, in order to prevent the examination of the heresy of Aetius, and of the accusations which had been brought against himself and his partisans. When all the members were assembled, Leonas stated that he held a document which had been handed to him by the partisans of Acacius: it was their formulary of faith, with introductory remarks. None of the other bishops knew anything about it; for Leonas, who was of the same sentiments as Acacius, had kept the whole matter a secret. When this document was read, the whole assembly was filled with tumult: for some of the statements it contained were to the effect that, though the emperor had prohibited the introduction of any term into the formularies of faith which was not found in the Sacred Scriptures, yet that bishops who had been deposed, having been brought from various provinces to the assembly, with others who had been illegally ordained, the council had been thrown into confusion, and that some of the members had been insulted, and others prevented from speaking. It was added, |