|
THE partisans of Acacius remained some time at Constantinople, and
invited thither several bishops of Bithynia, among whom were Maris,
bishop of Chalcedon, and Ulfilas, bishop of the Goths. These
prelates having assembled together, in number about fifty, they
confirmed the formulary read at the council of Ariminum, adding this
provision, that the terms "substance " and "hypostasis" should
never again be used in reference to God. They also declared that all
other formularies set forth in times past, as likewise those that might
be compiled at any future period, should be condemned. They then
deposed Aetius from his office of deacon, because he had written works
full of contention and of a species of vain knowledge opposed to the
ecclesiastical vocation; because he had used in writing and in
disputation several impious expressions; and because he had been the
occasion of troubles and seditions in the Church. It was alleged by
many that they did not depose him willingly, but merely because they
wished to remove all suspicion from the mind of the emperor which be had
with regard to them, for they had been accused of holding Aetian
views. Those who held these sentiments took advantage of the
resentment with which, for reasons above mentioned, the emperor
regarded Macedonius, and they accordingly deposed him, and likewise
Eleusius, bishop of Cyzicus; Basil, bishop of Ancyra;
Heortasius, bishop of Sardis; and Dracontius, bishop of
Pergamus. Although they differed about doctrine from those bishops,
yet in deposing them, no blame was thrown upon their faith, but
charges were alleged against them in common with all, that they had
disturbed the peace and violated the laws of the Church. They
specified, in particular, that when the presbyter Diogenes was
traveling from Alexandria to Ancyra, Basil seized his papers, and
struck him; they also deposed that Basil had, without trial,
delivered over many of the clergy from Antioch, from the banks of the
Euphrates, and from Cilicia, Galatia, and Asia, to the rulers of
the provinces, to be exiled and subjected to cruel punishments, so
that many had been loaded with chains, and had been compelled to bribe
the soldiers, who were conducting them away, not to illuse them.
They added that, on one occasion, when the emperor had commanded
Aetius and some of his followers to be led before Cecropius, that
they might answer to him for various accusations laid to their charge,
Basil recommended the person who was intrusted with the execution of
this edict, to act according to the dictates of his own judgment.
They said that he wrote directions to Hermogenes, the prefect and
governor of Syria, stating who were to be banished, and whither they
were to be sent; and that, when the exiles were recalled by the
emperor, he would not consent to their return, but opposed himself to
the wishes of the rulers and of the priests. They further deposed that
Basil had excited the clergy of Sirimium against Germanius; and
that, although he stated in writing that he had admitted Germanius,
Valens, and Ursacius into communion, he had placed them as criminals
before the tribunal of the African bishops; and that, when taxed with
this deed, he had denied it, and perjured himself; and that, when he
was afterwards convicted, he strove to justify his perjury by
sophistical reasoning. They added, that he had been the cause of
contention and of sedition in Illyria, Italy, Africa, and in the
Roman church; that he had thrown a servant into prison to compel her
to bear false witness against her mistress; hat he had baptized a man
of loose life, who lived in illicit intercourse with a woman, and had
promoted him to be a deacon; that he had neglected to excommunicate a
quack doctor who had occasioned the death of several persons; and that
he and some of the clergy had bound themselves by oath before the holy
table, not to bring accusations against each other. This, they
said, was an artifice adopted by the president of the clergy to shield
himself from the accusations of his plaintiffs. In short, such were
the reasons they specified for the deposition of Basil. Eustathius,
they said, was deposed because, when a presbyter, he had been
condemned, and put away from the communion of prayers by Eulalius,
his own father, who was bishop of the church of Caesarea, in
Cappadocia; and also because he had been excommunicated by a council
held at Neocaesarea, a city of Pontus, and deposed by Eusebius,
bishop of Constantinople, for unfaithfulness in the discharge of
certain duties that had devolved upon him. He had also been deprived
of his bishopric by those who were convened in Gangroe, on account of
his having taught, acted, and thought contrary to sound doctrine. He
had been convicted of perjury by the council of Antioch. He had
likewise endeavored to reverse the decrees of those convened at
Melitina; and, although he was guilty of many crimes, he had the
assurance to aspire to be judge over the others, and to stigmatize them
as heretics. They deposed Eleusius because he had raised
inconsiderately one Heraclius, a native of Tyre, to be a deacon;
this man had been a priest of Hercules at Tyre, had been accused of
and tried for sorcery, and, therefore, had retired to Cyzicus and
feigned conversion to Christianity; and moreover, Eleusius, after
having been apprised of these circumstances, had not driven him from
the Church. He had also, without inquiry, ordained certain
individuals, who had come to Cyzicus, after they had been condemned
by Maris, bishop of Chalcedonia, who participated in this council.
Heortasius was deposed because he had been ordained bishop of Sardis
without the sanction of the bishops of Lydia. They deposed
Dracontius, bishop of Pergamus, because he had previously held
another bishopric in Galatia, and because, they stated, he had on
both occasions been unlawfully ordained. After these transactions, a
second assembly of the council was held, and Silvanus, bishop of
Tarsus, Sophronius, bishop of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia,
Elpidius, bishop of Satala, and Neonas, bishop of Seleucia in
Isauria, were deposed. The reason they assigned for the deposition
of Silvanus was, that he had constituted himself the leader of a
foolish party in Seleucia and Constantinople; he had, besides,
constituted Theophilus as president of the church of Castabala, who
had been previously ordained bishop of Eleutheropolis by the bishops of
Palestine, and who had promised upon oath that he would never accept
any other bishopric without their permission. Sophronius was deposed
on account of his avarice, and on account of his having sold some of
the offerings presented to the church, for his own profit; besides,
after he had received a first and second summons to appear before the
council, he could, at last, be scarcely induced to make his
appearance, and then, instead of replying to the accusations brought
against him, he appealed to other judges. Neonas was deposed for
having resorted to violence in his endeavors to procure the ordination
in his own church, of Annianus, who had been appointed bishop of
Antioch, and for having ordained as bishops certain individuals who
had previously been engaged in politics, and who were utterly ignorant
of the Holy Scriptures and of ecclesiastical canons, and who, after
their ordination, preferred the enjoyment of their property to that of
the priestly dignity, and declared in writing that they would rather
take charge of their own possessions than to discharge the episcopal
functions without them. Elpidius was deposed because he had
participated in the malpractices of Basil, and had occasioned great
disorders; and because he had, contrary to the decrees of the council
of Melitina, restored to his former rank in the presbytery a man named
Eusebius, who had been deposed for having created Nectaria a
deaconess, after she had been excommunicated on account of violating
agreements and oaths; and to confer this honor upon her was clearly
contrary to the laws of the Church.
|
|