|
IN the meantime the contention which had been stirred in the beginning
among the Egyptians, could not be quelled. The Arian heresy had
been positively condemned by the council of Nice, while the followers
of Melitius had been admitted into communion under the stipulations
above stated. When Alexander returned to Egypt, Melitius delivered
up to him the churches whose government he had unlawfully usurped, and
returned to Lycus. Not long after, finding his end approaching, he
nominated John, one of his most intimate friends, as his successor,
contrary to the decree of the Nicaean Council, and thus fresh cause
of discord in the churches was produced. When the Arians perceived
that the Melitians were introducing innovations, they also harassed
the churches. For, as frequently occurs in similar disturbances,
some applauded the opinion of Arius, while others contended that those
who had been ordained by Melitius ought to govern the churches. These
two bodies of sectarians had hitherto been opposed to each other, but
on perceiving that the priests of the Catholic Church were followed by
the multitude, they became jealous and formed an alliance together,
and manifested a common enmity to the clergy of Alexandria. Their
measures of attack and defense were so long carried on in concert, that
in process of time the Melitians were generally called Arians in
Egypt, although they only dissent on questions of the presidency of
the churches, while the Arians hold the same opinions concerning God
as Arius. Although they individually denied one another's tenets,
yet they dissimulated in contradiction of their own view, in order to
attain an underhanded agreement in the fellowship of their enmity; at
the same time each one expected to prevail easily in what he desired.
From this period, however, the Melitians after the discussion on
those topics, received the Arian doctrines, and held the same opinion
as Arius concerning God. This revived the original controversy
concerning Arius, and some of the laity and clergy seceded from
communion with the others. The dispute concerning the doctrines of
Arius was rekindled once more in other cities, and particularly in
Bithynia and Hellespontus, and in the city of Constantinople. In
short, it is said that Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, and
Theognis, bishop of Nicaea, bribed the notary to whom the emperor
had intrusted the custody of the documents of the Nicaean Council,
effaced their signatures, and attempted openly to teach that the Son
is not to be considered consubstantial with the Father. Eusebius was
accused of these irregularities before the emperor, and he replied with
great boldness as he showed part of his clothing. "If this robe,"
said he, "had been cut asunder in my presence, I could not affirm
the fragments to be all of the same substance." The emperor was much
grieved at these disputes, for he had believed that questions of this
nature had been finally decided by the council of Nicaea, but contrary
to his hopes he saw them again agitated. He more especially regretted
that Eusebius and Theognis had received certain Alexandrians into
communion, although the Synod had recommended them to repent on
account of their heterodox opinions, and although he had himself
condemned them to banishment from their native land, as being the
exciters of sedition. It is asserted by some, that it was for the
above reasons that the emperor in anger exiled Eusebius and Theognis;
but as I have already stated, I have derived my information from
those who are intimately acquainted with these matters.
|
|