DEPOSITION OF SEVERAL BISHOPS.

189

knowledge opposed to the ecclesiastical vocation; because he had used in writing and in disputation several impious expressions; and because he had been the cause of troubles and seditions in the church. It was alleged by many that they did not depose him willingly, but merely because they wished to remove all suspicion from the mind of the emperor that they favoured his doctrines. Those who held these sentiments took advantage of the resentment with which, for reasons above mentioned, the emperor regarded Macedonius, and they accordingly deposed him, and likewise Eleusius, bishop of Cyzicus; Basil, bishop of Ancyra; Heortasius, bishop of Sardis; and Dracontius, bishop of Pergamus. Although they differed in opinion from these prelates, yet they did not assign dissimilarity of religious sentiment as the cause of their deposition, but merely stated, in general terms, that they had disturbed the peace and violated the laws of the church. They specified, in particular, that when the presbyter Diogenes was travelling from Alexandria to Ancyra, Basil seized his papers, and struck him; they also deposed that Basil had unjustly delivered over many of the clergy from Antioch, from the banks of the Euphrates, and from Cilicia, Galatia, and Asia, to the rulers of the provinces, to be exiled and subjected to cruel punishments; so that many had been loaded with chains, and compelled to bribe the soldiers who held them in custody not to ill-use them. They added that, on one occasion, when the emperor had commanded Aetius and some of his followers to be conducted before Cecropius, that they might answer to him for various accusations laid to their charge, Basil recommended the person who was intrusted with the execution of this edict to act according to the dictates of his own judgment. They said that he wrote directions to Hermogenes, the prefect and governor of Syria, stating who were to be banished, and whither they were to be sent; and that, when the exiles were recalled by the emperor, he would not consent to their return, but opposed himself to the wishes of the rulers and of the priests. They further deposed that Basil had excited the clergy of Sirmium against Germanius; and that, although he stated in writing that he had admitted Germanius, Valens, and Ursacius into communion, he had placed them as criminals before the tribu

Further mention is made of this Hermogenes by Ammianus Marcellinus, b. xix.

nal of the African bishops; and that, when taxed with this deed, he had denied it, and perjured himself; and that, when he was afterwards convicted, he strove to screen himself by sophistical reasoning. They added, that he had been the cause of contention and of sedition in Illyria, Italy, Africa, and in the Roman church; that he had thrown a servant into prison to compel her to bear false witness against her mistress; that he had baptized a man of loose life, who lived in illicit intercourse with a woman, and had promoted him to be a deacon; that he had neglected to excommunicate a quackdoctor who had occasioned the death of several persons; and that he and some of the clergy had bound themselves by oath before the holy altar, not to bring accusations against each other. This, they said, was an artifice adopted by the clergy to shield themselves from the condemnation they deserved. In short, such were the reasons they specified for the deposition of Basil. Eustathius, they said, was deposed because, when a presbyter, he had been condemned, and put away from the communion of prayers by Eulalius, his own father, who was bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia; and, also, because he had been excommunicated by a council held at Neocæsarea, a city of Pontus, and deposed by Eusebius, bishop of Constantinople, for unfaithfulness in the discharge of certain duties that had devolved upon him. He had also been deprived of his bishopric by the council of Gangres on account of his having believed, taught, and acted contrary to sound doctrine. He had been convicted of perjury by the council of Antioch.2 He had likewise endeavoured to reverse the decrees of the bishops convened at Melitina; and, although he was guilty of many crimes, had the assurance to aspire to be judge over the others, and to stigmatize them as heretics. They deposed Eleusius because he had raised one Heraclius, a native of Tyre, to be a deacon; this man had been a priest of Hercules at Tyre, had been accused of sorcery, and had retired to Cyzicus, and feigned conversion to Christianity; and moreover, Eleusius, after having been apprized of these circumstances, had not excommunicated him. He had also

1 πepiodevτýv. Lat. "circumforaneum," an empiric. 2 Of this council Valesius remarks, "mihi prorsùs ignota est." The council at Melitina, a few lines below, is mentioned by Basil, Epistle 79, ad Occident. In this synod, most probably, Eustathius was deposed.

DEPOSITION OF VARIOUS BISHOPS.

191

rashly ordained certain individuals who had been condemned by Maris, bishop of Chalcedonia, who was present at this council. Heortasius was deposed because he had been ordained bishop of Sardis without the sanction of the bishops of Lydia. They deposed Dracontius, bishop of Pergamus, because he had previously held another bishopric in Galatia, and because, they stated, he had on both occasions been unlawfully ordained. After these transactions, a second assembly of the council was held, and Silvanus, bishop of Tarsus, Sophronius, bishop of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, Elpidus, bishop of Satalis, and Neonas, bishop of Seleucia in Isauria, were deposed. The reason they assigned for the deposition of Silvanus was, that he had constituted himself the leader of a party, and had deceived many in Seleucia and Constantinople: he had, besides, bestowed the bishopric of Castabalis on Theophilus, who had been previously ordained bishop of Eleutheropolis by the bishops of Palestine, and who had promised upon oath that he would never accept any other bishopric without their permission. Sophronius was deposed on account of his avarice, and on account of his having sold some of the offerings presented to the church, for his own profit; besides, after he had received three commands to appear before the council, he could, at last, be scarcely induced to make his appearance, and then, instead of replying to the accusations brought against him, he appealed to other judges. Neonas was deposed for having resorted to violence in his endeavours to procure the ordination in his own church of Annian, who had been appointed bishop of Antioch,1 and for having ordained as bishops certain individuals who had previously been decemviri, and who were utterly ignorant of the Holy Scriptures and of ecclesiastical canons, and who, after their ordination, preferred the enjoyment of their property to that of the priestly dignity, and declared in writing that they would rather take charge of their own possessions, than devote themselves exclusively to episcopal duties. Elpidus was deposed because he had participated in the mal-practices of Basil, and had occasioned great disorders, and because he had, contrary to the decrees of the council of Melitina, restored to his former rank in the presbytery a man named Eusebius, who had been desposed for having created Nectaria a deaconess, after ' Namely, upon the deposition of Eudoxius.

she had been excommunicated on account of perjury; and to confer this honour upon her was clearly contrary to the laws of the church.

CHAP. XXV.-CAUSES OF THE DEPOSITION OF CYRIL, BISHOP OF JERUSALEM. MUTUAL DISSENSIONS AMONG THE BISHOPS. MELETIUS IS ORDAINED BY THE ARIANS, AND SUPPLANTS EUSTATHIUS IN THE BISHOPRIC OF SEBASTE.

BESIDES the prelates above mentioned, Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, was deposed,' because he had admitted Eustathius and Elpidus into communion after they had opposed the decrees enacted by the bishops at Melitina, among whom was Cyril himself; and because he had also received Basil, and George, bishop of Laodicea, into communion after their deposition in Palestine. When Cyril was first installed in the bishopric of Jerusalem, he had a dispute with Acacius,2 bishop of Cæsarea, concerning his right to the title of a Metropolitan, which he claimed on the ground of his bishopric being an apostolical see. This dispute excited feelings of enmity between the two bishops, and they mutually accused each other of unsoundness of doctrine concerning the Godhead. In fact, they had both been suspected, the one, that is, Acacius, of favouring the heresy of Arius, and the other, of siding with those who maintain that the Son is in substance like unto the Father. Acacius being thus inimically disposed towards Cyril, and finding himself supported by the bishops of Palestine, who were of the same sentiments as himself, contrived to depose Cyril under the following pretext. Jerusalem and the neighbouring country was at one time visited with a famine, and the poor appealed in great multitudes to Cyril, as their bishop, for food. As he had no money to purchase the requisite provisions, he sold for this purpose the veil and sacred ornaments of the church. It is said, that a man having recognised an offering which he had presented at the altar, as forming part of the costume of an actress, made it his business to inquire whence it was procured, and ascertained that a merchant had sold it

Compare Socrates, Eccl. Hist. ii. 40.

2 Acacius grounded his claims as metropolitan over Jerusalem, on ancient custom, and the 7th canon of the council of Nicæa, which ordained that Jerusalem should be subject to Cæsarea.

A. D. 359.]

DEATH OF MACEDONIUS.

193

to the actress, and that the bishop had sold it to the merchant. It was under this pretext, I understand, that Acacius deposed Cyril. It is said that the Acacians then expelled all the bishops who had been deposed from Constantinople. Ten bishops of their own party, who had refused to subscribe to these edicts of deposition, were separated from the others, and were interdicted from performing the functions of the ministry or ruling their churches until they consented to give their signatures. It was enacted that unless they complied within six months, and yielded their assent to all the decrees of the council, they should be deposed, and that the bishops of every province should be summoned to elect other bishops in their stead. Letters were then sent to all the bishops and clergy, detailing the transactions of the council, and exhorting them to observe and obey his decrees. Soon afterwards a fresh election of bishops took place, in the room of those who had been deposed. Eudoxius took possession of the bishopric of Macedonius; Athanasius was placed over the church of Basil; and Eunomius, who was subsequently the leader of a faction, and the originator of a heresy which bears his name, was appointed to the bishopric of Sebaste, instead of Meletius.

CHAP. XXVI.-DEATH OF MACEDONIUS, BISHOP OF CONSTANTI

NOPLE. EUDOXIUS AND ACACIUS STRENUOUSLY SEEK THE ABOLITION OF THE FORMULARIES OF FAITH SET FORTH AT NICEA AND AT ARIMINUM; TROUBLES WHICH THENCE AROSE IN THE CHURCH.

MACEDONIUS,' on his expulsion from the church of Constantinople, retired to one of the suburbs of the city, where he died. Eudoxius took possession of his church in the tenth year of the consulate of Constantius, and the third of Julian, surnamed Cæsar. It is related that, at the consecration of the great church called "Sophia," when he arose to teach the people, he commenced his discourse with the following proposition: "The Father is impious, the Son is pious;" and that, as these words excited a great commotion among the people, he added, "Be calm; the Father is impious, because he worships no one; the Son is pious, because he worships the 1 Compare Socrates, Eccl. Hist. ii. 43.

[SOZOMEN.]