|
About this time, Eunomius, who had held the church in Cyzicus in
place of Eleusius, and who presided over the Arian heresy, devised
another heresy besides this, which some have called by his name, but
which is sometimes denominated the Anomian heresy. Some assert that
Eunomius was the first who ventured to maintain that divine baptism
ought to be performed by one immersion, and to corrupt, in this
manner, the apostolical tradition which has been carefully handed down
to the present day. He invented, it is said, a mode of discipline
contrary to that of the Church, and disguised the innovation under
gravity and greater severity. He was an artist in words and
contentions, and delighted in arguments. The generality of those who
entertain his sentiments have the same predilections. They do not
applaud a good course of life or manner or mercy towards the needy,
unless exhibited by persons of their own sect, so much as skill in
disputation and the power of triumphing in debates. Persons possessed
of these accomplishments are accounted pious above all others among
them. Others assert, I believe more truthfully, that
Theophronius, a native of Cappadocia, and Eutychius, both zealous
propagators of this heresy, seceded from communion with Eunomius
during the succeeding reign, and innovated about the other doctrines of
Eunomius and about the divine baptism. They asserted that baptism
ought not to be administered in the name of the Trinity, but in the
name of the death of Christ. It appears that Eunomius broached no
new opinion on the subject, but was from the beginning firmly attached
to the sentiments of Arius, and remained so. After his elevation to
the bishopric of Cyzicus, he was accused by his own clergy of
introducing innovations in doctrine. Eudoxius, ruler of the Arian
heresy at Constantinople, summoned him and obliged him to give an
account of his doctrines to the people; finding, however, no fault in
him, Eudoxius exhorted him to return to Cyzicus. Eunomius,
however, replied, that he could not remain with people who regarded
him with suspicion; and, it is said, seized the opportunity for
secession, although it seems that, in taking this step he was really
actuated by the resentment he felt at the refusal which Aetius, his
teacher, had met with, of being received into communion. Eunomius,
it is added, dwelt with Aetius, and never deviated from his original
sentiments. Such are the conflicting accounts of various individuals;
some narrate the circumstances in one way, and some in another. But
whether it was Eunomius, or any other person, who first made these
innovations upon the tradition of baptism, it seems to me that such
innovators, whoever they may have been, were alone in danger,
according to their own representation, of quitting this life without
having received the divine baptism; for if, after they had been
baptized according to the mode recommended from the beginning, they
found it impossible to rebaptize themselves, it must be admitted that
they introduced a practice to which they had not themselves sub mitted,
and thus undertook to administer to others what had never been
administered to them by themselves nor by others. Thus, after having
laid down the dogma by some non-existent principle and private
assumption, they proceeded to bestow upon others what they had not
themselves received. The absurdity of this assumption is manifest from
their own confession; for they admit that the uninitiated have not the
power to baptize others. Now, according to their opinion, he who has
not been baptized in conformity with their tradition is unbaptized as
one not properly initiated, and they confirm this opinion by their
practice, inasmuch as they rebaptize all those who join their sect,
although previously initiated according to the tradition of the
Catholic Church. These varying dogmas are the sources of innumerable
troubles to religion; and many are deterred from embracing
Christianity by the diversity of opinion which prevails in matters of
doctrine.
The disputes daily became stronger, and, as in the beginning of
heresies, they grew; for they had leaders who were not deficient in
zeal or power of words; indeed, it appears that the greater part of
the Catholic Church would have been subverted by this heresy, had it
not found opponents in Basil and Gregory, the Cappadocians. The
reign of Theodosius began a little while after; he banished the
founders of heretical sects from the populous parts of the empire to the
more desert regions.
But, lest those who read my history should be ignorant of the precise
nature of the two heresies to which I have more especially alluded, I
think it necessary to state that Aetius, the Syrian, was the
originator of the heresy usually attributed to Eunomius; and that,
like Arius, he maintained that the Son is dissimilar from the
Father, that He is a created being, and was created out of what had
no previous existence. Those who held these views were formerly called
Aetians; but afterwards, during the reign of Constantius, when, as
we have stated, some parties maintained that the Son is consubstantial
with the Father, and others that He is like in substance to the
Father, and when the council of Ariminum had decreed that the Son is
only to be considered like unto the Father, Actius was condemned to
banishment, as guilty of impiety and blasphemy against God. For some
time subsequently his heresy seemed to have been suppressed; for
neither any other man of note, nor even Eunomius, ventured openly
upon undertaking its defense. But when Eunomius was raised to the
church of Cyzicus in place of Eleusius, he could no longer quietly
restrain himself, and in open debate he brought forward again the
tenets of Aetius. Hence, as it often happens that the names of the
original founders of heretical sects pass into oblivion, the followers
of Eunomius were designated by his own name, although he merely
renewed the heresy of Aetius, and promulgated it with greater boldness
than was done by him who first handed it down.
|
|