|
HAVING therefore convened a Synod at Antioch, they deposed
Eustathius, as a supporter of the Sabellian heresy, rather than of
the tenets which the council at Nicaea had formulated. As some affirm
[this measure was taken] for other and unsatisfactory reasons, though
none other have been openly assigned: this is a matter of common
occurrence; the bishops are accustomed to do this in all cases,
accusing and pronouncing impious those whom they depose, but not
explaining their warrant for so doing. George, bishop of Laodicea in
Syria, one of the number of those who abominated the term homoousios,
assures us in his Encomium of Eusebius Emisenus, that they deposed
Eustathius as favoring Sabellianism, on the impeachment of Cyrus,
bishop of Beroea. Of Eusebius Emisenus we shall speak elsewhere in
due order. George has written of Eustathius [somewhat
inconsistently]; for after asserting that he was accused by Cyrus of
maintaining the heresy of Sabellius, he tells us again that Cyrus
himself was convicted of the same error, and degraded for it. Now how
was it possible that Cyrus should accuse Eustathius as a Sabellian,
when he inclined to Sabellianism himself? It appears likely therefore
that Eustathius must have been condemned on other grounds. At that
time, however, there arose a dangerous sedition at Antioch on account
of his deposition: for when they proceeded to the election of a
successor, so fierce a dissension was kindled, as to threaten the
whole city with destruction. The populace was divided into two
factions, one of which vehemently contended for the translation of
Eusebius Pamphilus from Caesarea in Palestine to Antioch; the
other equally insisted on the reinstatement of Eustathius. And the
populace of the city were infected with the spirit of partisanship in
this quarrel among the Christians, a military force was arrayed on
both sides with hostile intent, so that a bloody collision would have
taken place, had not God and the dread of the emperor repressed the
violence of the multitude. For the emperor through letters, and
Eusebius by refusing to accept the bishopric, served to allay the
ferment: on which account that prelate was exceedingly admired by the
emperor, who wrote to him commending his prudent determination, and
congratulating him as one who was considered worthy of being bishop not
of one city merely, but of almost the whole world. Consequently it is
said that the episcopal chair of the church at Antioch was vacant for
eight consecutive years after this period; but at length by the
exertions of those who aimed at the subversion of the Nicene creed,
Euphronius was duly installed. This is the amount of my information
respecting the Synod held at Antioch on account of Eustathius.
Immediately after these events Eusebius, who had long before left
Berytus, and was at that time presiding over the church at
Nicomedia, strenuously exerted himself in connection to those of his
party, to bring back Arius to Alexandria. But how they managed to
effect this, and by what means the emperor was prevailed on to admit
both Arius and with him Euzoius into his presence must now be
related.
|
|