Page images
PDF
EPUB

PERSECUTION UNDER VALENS AND EUDOXIUS.

259

after, he proclaimed his son Gratian emperor; this prince was born before his father succeeded to the throne.

In the mean time, although hailstones of extraordinary magnitude fell in various places, and although many cities, particularly Nicea in Bithynia, were shaken by earthquakes, yet Valens the emperor, and Eudoxius the bishop, paused not in their career, but continued to persecute all Christians who differed from them in opinion. They succeeded to the utmost of their expectations in their machinations against those who adhered to the Nicene doctrines, for throughout many of the more distant provinces, and particularly in Thrace, Bithynia, and the Hellespont, these Christians were, during the greater part of the reign of Valens, deprived of their churches and of their priests. Valens and Eudoxius then directed their resentment against the Macedonians, who were more in number than the Christians above-mentioned in that reign, and persecuted them without mercy. The Macedonians, in apprehension of further sufferings, sent deputies to various cities, and finally agreed to have recourse to Valentinian and to Liberius, bishop of Rome, rather than conform to the doctrines of Eudoxius and Valens. In prosecution of this design, they selected three of their own number, namely, Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste, Silvanus, bishop of Tarsus, and Theophilus, bishop of Castabalis, and sent them to the emperor Valentinian; they likewise intrusted them with a letter, addressed to Liberius, bishop of Rome, and to the other bishops of the West, in which they entreated them, as prelates who had undeviatingly adhered to the faith of the apostles, and who were peculiarly called upon to watch over the purity of religion, to receive their deputies favourably, and to confer with them concerning the re-establishment of order in the church. When the deputies arrived in Italy, they found that the emperor was in Gaul, engaged in a war against the barbarians. As they considered that it would be perilous to visit the seat of war in Gaul, they delivered their letter to Liberius.1 After having conferred with him concerning the objects of their embassy, they condemned Arius and those who held and taught his doctrines; they renounced all heresies opposed to the faith established at Nicæa; and received the term " consubstantial," as being a word that conveys the same 1 Socrates (Eccl. Hist. iv. 12) places this mission A. D. 368. But Baronius would place it two, or even three, years earlier.

signification as the expression "like in substance." When they had presented a confession of faith analogous to the above to Liberius, he received them into communion with himself, and wrote to the bishops of the East, commending the orthodoxy of their faith, and detailing what had passed in the conference he had held with them. The confession of faith made by Eustathius and his companions was as follows.

CHAP. XI.-THE CONFESSION OF EUSTATHIUS, SILVANUS, AND THEOPHILUS, THE DEPUTIES of the MACEDONIANS, TO LIBERIUS, BISHOP OF ROME.

"To Liberius, our Lord and Brother, and Fellow Minister -Eustathius, Silvanus, and Theophilus, send greeting in the Lord.1

"THE desire of suppressing the absurd dogmas which heretics are perpetually broaching, to the scandal of the Catholic churches, has impelled us to assent to the decrees enacted at Lampsacus, at Smyrna, and at councils in other places, by the orthodox bishops. Having been sent on an embassy to your Holiness, as likewise to all the other bishops of Italy, and of the West, we hereby attest and declare that we adhere to the Catholic faith which was established at the holy council of Nicæa, by the blessed Constantine and three hundred and eighteen inspired fathers. This form of belief has ever since remained inviolate; and it most justly admits the term 'consubstantial,' in testimony against the errors of Arius. We attest, by these our signatures, that we have always held this faith, that we still hold it, and that we shall adhere to it to the last. We condemn Arius, his impious dogmas, and his disciples. We also condemn the heresies of Patropassius, of Sabellius, of Marcion, of Marcellus, of Paul of Samosata, and all who maintain such doctrines, as well as the doctrines themselves. We anathematize all heresies opposed to the holy faith established by the saintly fathers at Nicea. We anathematize Arius, and condemn all such decrees as were enacted at Ariminum, in opposition to the faith established by the holy council of Nicæa. We were formerly deluded by the guile 1 Compare Socrates, Eccl. Hist. iv. 12.

A. D. 366.]

COUNCILS OF SICILY AND TYANE.

261

and perjury of certain parties, and subscribed to these decrees when they were transmitted to Constantinople, from Nicæa, a city of Thrace."

At the conclusion of this document, they subjoined a copy of the entire formulary of Nicæa, and, having received from Liberius a written account of all that they had transacted, they embarked on board a ship then sailing from Sicily.

CHAP. XII.-COUNCILS OF SICILY AND OF TYANE. RENEWED

PERSECUTION
ATHANASIUS.

OF THE ORTHODOX. EXILE AND RETURN OF

A COUNCIL was convened in Sicily; and, after the same doctrines had been confirmed as those set forth in the confession of the deputies, the assembly was dissolved. At the same time, a council was held at Tyane;1 and Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, Athanasius, bishop of Ancyra, Pelagius, bishop of Laodicea, Zeno, bishop of Tyre, Paul, bishop of Emesa, Otreius,2 bishop of Melitine, and Gregory, bishop of Nazianzen, were present, with many other prelates who, during the reign of Jovian, had assembled at Antioch, and determined to maintain the doctrine of the Son being consubstantial with the Father. The letter of Liberius and that addressed to the Western bishops were read at this council. These letters af

forded high satisfaction to the members of the council; and they wrote to all the churches, desiring them to peruse the decrees of the Western bishops, and the documents written by Liberius and the bishops of Italy, of Africa, of Gaul, and of Sicily, which had been intrusted to the deputies of the council of Lampsacus. They urged them to reflect on the great number of prelates by whom these documents had been drawn up, and who were far more in number than the members of the council of Ariminum, and exhorted them to be of one mind, and to enter into communion with them, to signify the same by writing, and finally to assemble together at Tarsus in Cilicia, before the end of the spring. On the approach of the appointed day, when these bishops were accordingly on the point of repairing to Tarsus, about thirty-four of the Asiatic bishops assembled

This council was held probably A. D. 367, or early in 368. 2 He is mentioned by Basil the Great in his 316th Epistle.

in Caria, commended the design of establishing uniformity of belief in the church, but objected to the term “consubstantial," and insisted that the formularies of faith set forth by the councils of Antioch and Seleucia, and maintained by Lucian the martyr, and by many of their predecessors, in the midst of great tribulations, ought to obtain the ascendency over all others. The emperor, at the instigation of Eudoxius, prevented the council from being convened in Cilicia, and even prohibited it under severe penalties. He also wrote to the governors of the provinces, commanding them to eject all bishops from their churches who had been banished by Constantine and recalled by Julian. Those who were at the head of the government of Egypt were anxious to deprive Athanasius of his bishopric, and expel him from the city for, according to the edict of the emperor, pecuniary and other punishments were to be visited upon all magistrates and officers who neglected the execution of the mandate. The Christians of the city, however, assembled, and besought the governor not to banish Athanasius without further consideration of the terms of the mandate, which merely specified all bishops who had been banished by Constantine and recalled by Julian; and it was manifest that Athanasius was not of this number, inasmuch as he had been recalled by Constantius, and banished by Julian at the very time that all the other bishops had been recalled, and had been finally recalled by Jovian. The governor was by no means convinced by these arguments; but, perceiving that Athanasius could only be conveyed away by force, as the people assembled in crowds, and as commotion and perturbation prevailed throughout the city, he began to apprehend an insurrection, and therefore wrote to the emperor, without making any attempt against the bishop. Some days afterwards, when the popular excitement had abated, Athanasius secretly quitted the city at dusk, and concealed himself. The very same night, the governor of Egypt and the military chiefs took possession of the church in which Athanasius generally dwelt, and sought him in every part of the edifice, and even on the roof, but in vain; for they had calculated upon seizing the moment when the popular commo

It is probable that we should read here Antioch for Caria, as Valesius suggests. Another synod held at Antioch in Caria is mentioned by Sozomen below, vii. 2.

A. D. 367.]

ESCAPE OF ATHANASIUS.

263

tion had partially subsided, and when the whole city was wrapt in sleep, to execute the mandate of the emperor, and to transport Athanasius quietly from the city. The disappearance of Athanasius excited universal astonishment: some attributed his escape to a special revelation from above; others, to the advice of some of his followers; but more than human prudence seems to have been requisite to foresee and to avoid such imminent danger. Some say, that as soon as the people gave indications of being disposed to sedition, he concealed himself among the tombs of his ancestors, being apprehensive lest he should be regarded as the cause of any disturbances that might ensue: and that he afterwards retreated to some other place of concealment. The emperor Valens soon after granted permission for him to return to his church. It is very doubtful whether, in making this concession, Valens acted according to his own inclination. I rather imagine that, on reflecting on the esteem in which Athanasius was universally held, he feared to excite the displeasure of the emperor Valentinian, who was well known to be attached to the Nicene doctrines, if he proceeded to violent measures against the prelate; or, perhaps, he might have been apprehensive lest the people, who were much attached to their bishop, should be impelled to a line of conduct prejudicial to the interests of the empire. I also believe that the Arian bishops did not, on this occasion, plead very vehemently against Athanasius; for they considered that, if he were ejected from his church, he would probably repair to the emperor, and might possibly succeed in persuading Valens to adopt his own sentiments, and in arousing the anger of Valentinian against themselves. They were greatly troubled by the evidences of the virtue and courage of Athanasius, which had been afforded by the events which transpired during the reign of Constantius. He had, in fact, so skilfully evaded the plots of his enemies, that they had been constrained to consent to his re-installation in the government of the churches of Egypt; and yet he could be scarcely induced to return from Italy, although letters had been despatched by Constantius to that effect. I am convinced that it was solely from these reasons that Athanasius was not expelled from his church like the other bishops, who were subjected to as cruel a persecution as was ever inflicted by Pagans. Those who would not change their doctrinal tenets were banished;

« PreviousContinue »