|
THE emperor soon after convened a council of orthodox bishops, for
the purpose of confirming the decrees of Nicaea, and of electing a
bishop to the vacant see of Constantinople. He likewise summoned the
Macedonians to this assembly; for as their doctrines differed but
little from those of the Catholic Church, he judged that it would be
easy to effect a reunion with them. About a hundred and fifty bishops
who maintained the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity, were
present at this council, as likewise thirty six of the Macedonian
bishops, chiefly from the cities of the Hellespont; of whom the
principal were Eleusius, bishop of Cyzicus, and Marcian, bishop of
Lampsacus. The other party was under the guidance of Timothy, who
had succeeded his brother Peter in the see of Alexandria; of
Meletius, bishop of Antioch, who had repaired to Constantinople a
short time previously, on account of the election of Gregory, and of
Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, who had at this period renounced the
tenets of the Macedonians which he previously held. Ascholius,
bishop of Thessalonica, Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus, and Acacius,
bishop of Berea, were also present at the council. These latter
unanimously maintained the decrees of Nicaea, and urged Eleusius and
his partisans to conform to these sentiments, reminding them, at the
same time, of the embassy they had formerly deputed to Liberius, and
of the confession they conveyed to him through the medium of
Eustathius, Silvanus, and Theophilus, as has been narrated. The
Macedonians, however, declared openly that they would never admit the
Son to be of the same substance as the Father, whatever confession
they might formerly have made to Liberius, and immediately withdrew.
They then wrote to those of their adherents in every city, exhorting
them not to conform to the doctrines of Nicaea.
The bishops who remained at Constantinople now turned their attention
to the election of a prelate to the see of that city. It is said that
the emperor, from profound admiration of the sanctity and eloquence of
Gregory, judged that he was worthy of this bishopric, and that, from
reverence of his virtue, the greater number of the Synod was of the
same opinion. Gregory at first consented to accept the presidency of
the church of Constantinople; but afterwards, on ascertaining that
some of the bishops, particularly those of Egpyt, objected to the
election, he withdrew his consent. For my part, this wisest of men
is worthy of admiration, not only for universal qualifications, but
not the least for his conduct under the present circumstances. His
eloquence did not inspire him with pride, nor did vainglory lead him to
desire the control of a church, which he had received when it was no
longer in danger. He surrendered his appointment to the bishops when
it was required of him, and never complained of his many labors, or of
the dangers he had incurred in the suppression of heresies. Had he
retained possession of the bishopric of Constantinople, it would have
been no detriment to the interests of any individual, as another bishop
had been appointed in his stead at Nazianzen. But the council, in
strict obedience to the laws of the fathers and ecclesiastical order,
withdrew from him, with his own acquiescence, the deposit which had
been confided to him, without making an exception in favor of so
eminent a man. The emperor and the priests therefore proceeded to the
election of another bishop, which they regarded as the most important
affair then requiring attention; and the emperor was urgent that
diligent investigations might be instituted, so that the most excellent
and best individual might be intrusted with the high-priesthood of the
great and royal city. The council, however, was divided in
sentiment; for each of the members desired to see one of his own
friends ordained over the church.
|
|