braced the monastical mode of life, and who publicly defended the doctrines of the apostles, exposed the artifices of Leontius against religion, and showed how he had elevated to the rank of deacon a man who had imbibed the most corrupt principles, and who sought to render himself conspicuous by his impiety. They even threatened to withdraw themselves from ecclesiastical communion with him, and to go to the West in order to make known his plots. Leontius was terrified at these threats, and forbade Aëtius from performing the duties of the ministry; but in other respects he continued to patronize him. Although Flavianus1 and Diodorus were not elevated to the rank of the priesthood, but were merely laymen, yet by night and by day they exhorted all men to be zealous in religion. They were the first who divided the choir and taught them to sing the Psalms of David responsively. This custom, which they thus originated in Antioch, spread everywhere, even to the very ends of the habitable world. These two men used to assemble the devout portion 2 of the people around the tombs of the martyrs, to sing throughout the whole night the praises of God. When Leontius became acquainted with this proceeding, he did not dare to prohibit it; for he perceived that these men were held in the highest estimation by the multitude on account of their virtues. He requested them in a mild and specious manner to perform this service in the church. They obeyed this injunction, although they perceived his evil motives, and willingly assembled in the church with those who shared in their love, in order to sing to the praise of the Lord. But nothing could abate the malice of Leontius. Under a mild and plausible exterior he concealed the deep iniquity of Stephen and of Flaccillus. He raised to the rank of priests and of deacons those who had embraced heretical doctrines, and who led a dissolute course of life. Those, on the contrary, who were adorned with every virtue, and who adhered to the apostolical faith, received no promotion from him. Hence many persons infected with heretical errors were thrust into the clerical office. Yet the greater part of the people continued attached to orthodox doctrines. Indeed

1 See Socrates, Eccl. Hist. v. 9, 10, 15; and Theodoret, infr. iv. 25; v. 9.

2 τοὺς τῶν θείων ἐραστάς. Valesius refers this term to the monks, a great body of whom were collected together by Flavian at Antioch. [THEODORET.]


those upon whom the duty of teaching had devolved, did not dare to declare their blasphemous sentiments openly. It would take much space to recount the impiety and the acts of injustice perpetrated by Flaccillus, Stephen, and Leontius; the complaint of David is applicable to them, for he says, ‘Lo, thine enemies make a tumult, and they that hate thee have lifted up the head. They have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and have consulted against thy holy ones. They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation, that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance." We must now continue our history.

[ocr errors]



THE city Germanica is situated in Euphratia, a province bordering on Cilicia, Syria, and Cappadocia. When Eudoxius,' the bishop of this city, heard of the death of Leontius, he took forcible possession of the chief authority in Antioch, and ravaged the vineyard of the Lord like a wild boar. He did not, like Leontius, conceal by artifice the malignity of his disposition; but he openly and violently opposed the doctrines of the apostles, and persecuted all those who dared to resist him. At this period, Basil had succeeded Marcellus in the government of the church of Ancyra; and Eustathius was bishop of Sebaste, the capital of Armenia. These two bishops hearing of the violence and cruelty of Eudoxius, had the courage to write to the emperor Constantius on the subject. The emperor was then in the West, endeavouring to repair the injuries which the tyrants had inflicted on the country. They both possessed the favour and confidence of the emperor on account of their exemplary course of life.



UPON receiving this intelligence Constantius wrote to the citizens of Antioch, to acquaint them that he had not conferred the bishopric of their city upon Eudoxius, although a 1 See Socrates, Eccl. Hist. ii. 19 and 37.

report had been spread to that effect. He ordered him to be expelled from the city, and desired sentence to be passed on him at Nice in Bithynia, where a council had been summoned. Eusebius had artfully arranged, through the intervention of those who held the chief appointments in the palace, that the council should be held at Nice. But the Ruler of the universe, to whom the future is as present as the past, prevented the meeting of the council by a most unexpected earthquake, which overthrew the greater part of the city, and destroyed a great number of the inhabitants. The bishops who had

already arrived at the spot, were seized with terror, and returned to their respective churches. I believe that this was expressly ordained by the wisdom of God. For in this very city, where the doctrines of the apostolical faith had been signed by the Fathers, these latter bishops were about to publish other and contrary doctrines; and as the Arians would have taken advantage of the name of the council, and would have confounded the decrees there enacted with those passed at the ancient council of Nice in order to deceive the simple. He who watches over the interests of the church prevented the council from being held. A short time subsequently, Constantius, at the solicitation of the accusers of Eudoxius, appointed the council to be held at Seleucia, a city which lies near the sea, and which is the capital of Isauria. Thither were summoned the bishops of the East, those of Pontus, and those of Asia. During this period the church of Cæsarea in Palestine was governed by Acacius, who had succeeded Eusebius. Acacius had been deposed at the council of Sardica ; but he, despising the great concourse of bishops assembled at that council, refused to submit to their sentence. Maximus succeeded Macarius, whom we have lately mentioned, in the government of the church of Jerusalem. He had distinguished himself by defending religion during the times of persecution, and had in this cause suffered the loss of his right eye and of his right arm. When he was called to enter upon a higher state of existence, his bishopric was conferred upon Cyril, a zealous defender of the apostolical doctrines. These bishops contended for priority;1 and their contests occasioned

1 TEрi πρWTείWV. The origin of this contention lay, as Valesius remarks, in the 7th Canon of the Nicene Council, which preserved to the

I 2

the greatest evils throughout the whole church. Acacius had, under a very slight pretext, deposed Cyril, and expelled him from Jerusalem. Cyril, finding that there was no pastor at Antioch, repaired thither; thence he proceeded to Tarsus, and took up his abode with the admirable Silvanus, bishop of the city. Acacius, on being apprized of this circumstance, wrote to Silvanus, to inform him that Cyril had been deposed. But Silvanus revered the character of Cyril, and feared the people, who were much pleased with his teaching: he therefore did not prohibit him from exercising the functions of the ministry. When the council had assembled at Seleucia, Cyril took his place with Basil, Eustathius, and the other bishops. Acacius was also present at this council, which consisted of one hundred and fifty bishops. He stated that he would not assist in any deliberations until Cyril had quitted the council, because he had been deposed from the episcopal office. Some of the bishops who were desirous of peace besought Cyril to retire, promising that as soon as questions respecting doctrine had been determined, they would investigate his case. But Cyril would not accede to this request, and Acacius quitted the council. He went to Eudoxius, quieted his apprehensions, and emboldened him by promising to protect and to assist him. He prohibited him from going to the council, and took him to Constantinople.



CONSTANTIUS had been at Constantinople ever since his return from the West. Acacius laid before him many accusations against the bishops assembled at Seleucia, whom he represented as wicked men who were plotting the ruin and destruction of the church. The emperor was aroused to indignation. But that which most deeply incensed him was a false accusation which Acacius brought against Cyril, who, he said, had sold to an actor the sacred robe of golden cloth which the celebrated emperor Constantine had, to honour the church of Jerusalem, presented to Macarius, then bishop of bishop of Jerusalem his ancient dignity, though it recognised the metropolitan jurisdiction of the bishop of Cæsarea as supreme.

the city, that he might put it on, whenever he administered the holy ordinance of baptism:1 the actor who had purchased this robe appeared in it at the theatre, and suddenly fell down and expired. Acacius also told the emperor that the other bishops had associated this same Cyril with themselves in all their deliberations, and that they passed judgment on others according to his opinion. The principal courtiers seized this pretext to persuade the emperor to send for ten bishops only, and not to summon the whole council; for they were fearful lest unanimity of opinion might prevail in so great an assembly of bishops. Among the ten principal bishops who were summoned, were Eustathius, bishop of Armenia, Basil, bishop of Galatia, Silvanus, bishop of Tarsus, and Eleusius, bishop of Cyzicum. Upon their arrival, they besought permission of the emperor to proceed at once to the investigation of the blasphemy and guilt of Eudoxius. But the emperor, at the instigation of the adverse party, said that it was necessary to deliberate first on matters relating to the faith, and that then his case might be examined. Basil, with the confidence which naturally arose from his former familiarity with the emperor, reproved him for having formed designs against the apostolical doctrines. Constantius became irritated, commanded Basil to be silent, and charged him with being the cause of the tempest which agitated the church. When Basil had thus been silenced, Eustathius exclaimed, "Since you desire, O emperor, that the doctrines of the faith should be examined, turn your attention to the blasphemy against the only begotten Son which Eudoxius has dared to utter; for he has but just presented his formulary of faith, which contains the following among many other impious declarations: Those things which are enunciated by different terms, differ also in substance. Now it is said there is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things. Here the expressions of whom and by whom are not synonymous. The Son, therefore, is dissimilar from God

· ἡ τοῦ θείου βαπτίσματος λειτουργία. Valesius does not understand by these words merely the public administration of baptism, but the celebration of the festival of the Epiphany, in which the baptism of Jesus Christ in the river Jordan by John was specially commemorated, and at which a large number of children were wont to be baptized. From this passage it is clear that the use of ecclesiastical vestments in the church is of very high antiquity.

« ForrigeFortsett »