|
ACACIUS and his adherents criticised what was done: because,
that is to say, they closed the church doors and thus affixed their
signatures; declaring that 'all such secret transactions were justly
to be suspected, and had no validity whatever.' These objections he
made because he was anxious to bring forward another exposition of the
faith drawn up by himself, which he had already submitted to the
governors Leonas and Lauricius, and was now intent on getting it
alone confirmed and established, instead of that which had been
subscribed. The second day was thus occupied with nothing else but
exertions on his part to effect this object. On the third day Leonas
endeavored to produce an amicable meeting of both parties; Macedonius
of Constantinople, and also Basil of Ancyra, having arrived during
its course. But when the Acacians found that both the parties had
come to the same position, they refused to meet; saying that not only
those who had before been deposed, but also such as were at present
under any accusation, ought to be excluded from the assembly.' And
as after much cavilling on both sides, this opinion prevailed; those
who lay under any charge went out of the council, and the party of
Acacius entered in their places. Leonas then said that a document had
been put into his hand by Acacius, to which he desired to call their
attention: but he did not state that it was the drought of a creed,
which in some particulars covertly, and in others unequivocally
contradicted the former. When those present became silent, thinking
that the document contained something else besides an exposition of a
creed, the following creed composed by Acacius, together with its
preamble, was read.
'We having yesterday assembled by the emperor's command at
Seleucia, a city of Isauria, on the 27th day of September,
exerted ourselves to the utmost, with all moderation, to preserve the
peace of the church. and to determine doctrinal questions on prophetic
and evangelical authority, so as to sanction nothing in the
ecclesiastic confession of faith at variance with the sacred
Scriptures, as our Emperor Constantius most beloved of God has
ordered. But inasmuch as certain individuals in the Synod have acted
injuriously toward several of us, preventing some from expressing their
sentiments, and excluding others from the council against their wills;
and at the same time have introduced such as have been deposed, and
persons who were ordained contrary to the ecclesiastical canon, so that
the Synod has presented a scene of tumult and disorder, of which the
most illustrious Leonas, the Comes, and the most eminent
Lauricius, governor of the province, have been eye-witnesses, we
are therefore under the necessity of making this declaration. That we
do not repudiate the faith which was ratified at the consecration of the
church at Antioch; for we give it our decided preference, because it
received the concurrence of our fathers who were assembled there to
consider some controverted points. Since, however, the terms
homoousion and homoiousion have in time past troubled the minds of
many, and still continue to disquiet them; and moreover that a new
term has recently been coined by some who assert the anomoion of the
Son to the Father: we reject the first two, as expressions which are
not found in the Scriptures; but we utterly anathematize the last,
and regard such as countenance its use, as alienated from the church.
We distinctly acknowledge the homoion of the Son to the Father, in
accordance with what the apostle has declared concerning him, "Who is
the image of the invisible God."
'We confess then, and believe in one God the Father Almighty, the
Maker of heaven and earth, and of things visible and invisible. We
believe also in his Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten of
him without passion before all ages, God the Word, the
only-begotten of God, the Light, the Life, the Truth, the
Wisdom: through whom all things were made which are in the heavens and
upon the earth, whether visible or invisible. We believe that be took
flesh of the holy Virgin Mary, at the end of the ages, in order to
abolish sin; that he was made man, suffered for our sin, and rose
again, and was taken up into the heavens, to sit at the right hand of
the Father, whence he will come again in glory to judge the living and
the dead. We believe also in the Holy Spirit, whom our Lord and
Saviour has denominated the Comforter, and whom he sent to his
disciples after his departure, according to his promise: by whom also
he sanctifies all believers in the church, who are baptized in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Those who
preach anything contrary to this creed, we regard as aliens from the
Catholic Church.'
This was the declaration of faith proposed by Acacius, and subscribed
by himself and as many as adhered to his opinion, the number of whom we
have already given. When this had been read, Sophronius bishop of
Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, thus expressed himself: 'If to
express a separate opinion day after day, be received as the exposition
of the faith, we shall never arrive at any accurate understanding of
the truth.' These were the words of Sophronius. And I firmly
believe, that if the predecessors of these prelates, as well as their
successors, had entertained similar sentiments in reference to the
Nicene creed, all polemical debates would have been avoided; nor
would the churches have been agitated by such violent and irrational
disturbances. However let those judge who are capable of understanding
how these things are. At that time after many remarks on all sides had
been made both in reference to this doctrinal statement,. and in
relation to the parties accused, the assembly was dissolved. On the
fourth day they all again met in the same place, and resumed their
proceedings in the same contentious spirit as before. On this occasion
Acacius expressed himself in these words: 'Since the Nicene creed
has been altered not once only, but frequently, there is no hindrance
to our publishing another at this time.' To which Eleusius bishop of
Cyzicus, replied: 'The Synod is at present convened not to learn
what it had no previous knowledge of, nor to receive a creed which it
had not assented to before, but to confirm the faith of the fathers,
from which it should. never recede, either in life or death.' Thus
Eleusius opposing Acacius spoke meaning by 'the faith of the
fathers,' that creed which had been promulgated at Antioch. But
surely he too might have been fairly answered in this way: 'How is it
O Eleusius, that you call those convened at Antioch "the
fathers," seeing that you do not recognize those who were their
fathers? The framers of the Nicene creed, by whom the homoousian
faith was acknowledged, have a far higher claim to the title of "the
fathers"; both as having the priority in point of time, and also
because those assembled at Antioch were by them invested with the
sacerdotal office. Now if those at Antioch have disowned their own
fathers, those who follow them are unconsciously following parricides.
Besides how can they have received a legitimate ordination from those
whose faith they pronounce unsound and impious? If those, however,
who constituted the Nicene Synod had not the Holy Spirit which is
imparted by the imposition of hands, those at Antioch have not duly
received the priesthood: for how could they have received it from those
who had not the power of conferring it?' Such considerations as these
might have been submitted to Eleusius in reply to his objections. But
they then proceeded to another question, connected with the assertion
made by Acacius in his exposition of the faith, 'that the Son was
like the Father'; enquiring of one another in what this resemblance
consisted. The Acacian party affirmed that the Son was like the
Father as it respected his will only, and not his 'substance 'or'
essence'; but the rest maintained that the likeness extended to both
essence and will. In altercations on this point, the whole day was
consumed; and Acacius, being confuted by his own published works, in
which he had asserted that 'the Son is in all things like the
Father, 'his opponents asked him 'how do you now deny the likeness
of the Son to the Father as to his "essence"?' Acacius in reply
said, that 'no author, ancient or modern, was ever condemned out of
his own writings.' As they kept on their discussion on this matter to
a most tedious extent, with much acrimonious feeling and subtlety of
argument, but without any approach to unity of judgment, Leonas arose
and dissolved the council: and this was the conclusion of the Synod at
Seleucia. For on the following day [Leonas] being urged to do so
would not again meet with them. 'I have been deputed by the
emperor,' said he, 'to attend a council where unanimity was expected
to prevail: but since you can by no means come to a mutual
understanding, I can no longer be present: go therefore to the
church, if you please, and indulge in vain babbling there.' The
Acacian faction conceiving this decision to be advantageous to
themselves, also refused to meet with the others. The adverse party
left alone met in the church and requested the attendance of those who
followed Acacius, that cognizance might be taken of the case of
Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem: for that prelate had been accused long
before, on what grounds however I am unable to state. He had even
been deposed, because owing to fear, he had not made his appearance
during two whole years, after having been repeatedly summoned in order
that the charges against him might be investigated. Nevertheless,
when he was deposed, he sent a written notification to those who had
condemned him, that he should appeal to a higher jurisdiction: and to
this appeal the emperor Constantius gave his sanction. Cyril was thus
the first and indeed only clergyman who ventured to break through
ecclesiastical usage, by becoming an appellant, in the way commonly
done in the secular courts of judicature: and he was now present at
Seleucia, ready to be put upon his trial; on this account the other
bishops invited the Acacian party to take their places in the
assembly, that in a general council a definite judgment might be
pronounced on the case of those who were arraigned: for they cited
others also charged with various misdemeanors to appear before them at
the same time, who to protect themselves had sought refuge among the
partisans of Acacius. When therefore that faction persisted in their
refusal to meet, after being repeatedly summoned, the bishops deposed
Acacius himself, together with George of Alexandria, Uranius of
Tyre, Theodulus of Chaeretapi in Phrygia, Theodosius of
Philadelphia in Lydia, Evagrius of the island of Mytilene,
Leontius of Tripolis in Lydia, and Eudoxius who had formerly been
bishop of Germanica, but had afterwards insinuated himself into the
bishopric of Antioch in Syria. They also deposed Patrophilus for
contumacy, in not having presented himself to answer a charge preferred
against him by a presbyter named Dorotheus. These they deposed: they
also excommunicated Asterius, Eusebius, Abgarus, Basilicus,
Phoebus, Fidelis, Eutychius, Magnus, and Eustathius;
determining that they should not be restored to communion, until they
made such a defense as would clear them from the imputations under which
they lay. This being done, they addressed explanatory letters to each
of the churches whose bishops had been deposed. Anianus was then
constituted bishop of Antioch instead of Eudoxius: but the Acacians
having soon after apprehended him, he was delivered into the hands of
Leonas and Lauricius, by whom he was sent into exile. The bishops
who had ordained him being incensed on this account, lodged protests
against the Acacian party with Leonas and Lauricius, in which they
openly charged them with having violated the decisions of the Synod.
Finding that no redress could be obtained by this means, they went to
Constantinople to lay the whole matter before the emperor.
|
|