|
ATHANASIUS, on leaving Alexandria, had fled to Rome.
Paul, bishop of Constantinople, Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, and
Asclepas, bishop of Gaza, repaired thither at the same time.
Asclepas, who was opposed to the Arians and had therefore been
deposed, after having been accused by some of the heterodox of having
thrown down an altar; Quintianus had been appointed in his stead over
the Church of Gaza. Lucius also, bishop of Adrianople, who had
been. deposed from the church under his care on another charge, was
dwelling at this period in Rome. The Roman bishop, on learning the
accusation against each individual, and on finding that they held the
same sentiments about the Nicaean dogmas, admitted them to communion
as of like orthodoxy; and as the care for all was fitting to the
dignity of his see, he restored them all to their own churches. He
wrote to the bishops of the East, and rebuked them for having judged
these bishops unjustly, and for harassing the Churches by abandoning
the Nicaean doctrines. He summoned a few among them to appear before
him on an appointed day, in order to account to him for the sentence
they had passed, and threatened to bear with them no longer, unless
they would cease to make innovations. This was the tenor of his
letters. Athanasius and Paul were reinstated in their respective
sees, and forwarded the letter of Julius to the bishops of the East.
The bishops could scarcely brook such documents, and they assembled
together at Antioch, and framed a reply to Julius, beautifully
expressed and composed with great legal skill, yet filled with
considerable irony and indulging in the strongest threats. They
confessed in this epistle, that the Church of Rome was entitled to
universal honor, because it was the school of the apostles, and had
become the metropolis of piety from the outset, although the
introducers of the doctrine had settled there from the East. They
added that the second place in point of honor ought not to be assigned
to them, because they did not have the advantage of size or number in
their churches; for they excelled the Romans in virtue and
determination. They called Julius to account for having admitted the
followers of Athanasius into communion, and expressed their
indignation against him for having insulted their Synod and abrogated
their decrees, and they assailed his transactions as unjust and
discordant with ecclesiastical right. After these censures and
protestations against such grievances, they proceeded to state, that
if Julius would acknowledge the deposition of the bishops whom they had
expelled, and the substitution of those whom they had ordained in their
stead, they would promise peace and fellowship; but that, unless he
would accede to these terms, they would openly declare their
opposition. They added that the priests who had preceded them in the
government of the Eastern churches had offered no opposition to the
deposition of Novatian, by the Church of Rome. They made no
allusion in their letter to any deviations they had manifested from the
doctrines of the council of Nice, but merely stated they had various
reasons to allege in justification of the course they had pursued, and
that they considered it unnecessary to enter at that time upon any
defense of their conduct, as they were suspected of having violated
justice in every respect.
|
|