|
CONSTANTIUS, on his return from the West, passed some time
at Constantinople. There Acacius urged many accusations against the
assembled bishops m presence of the emperor, called them a set of vile
characters convoked for the ruin and destruction of the churches, and
so fired the imperial wrath. And not least was Constantius moved by
what was alleged against Cyrillus, "for," said Acachius, "the
holy robe, which the illustrious Constantine the emperor, in his
desire to honour the church of Jerusalem, gave to Macarius, the
bishop of that city, to be worn when he performed the rite of divine
baptism, all fashioned with golden threads as it was, has been sold by
Cyrillus. It has been bought," he continued, "by a certain stage
dancer; dancing about when he was wearing it, he fell down and
perished. With a man like this Cyrillus," he went on, "they set
themselves up to judge and decide for the rest of the world." The
influential party at the court made this an occasion for persuading the
emperor not to summon the whole synod, for they were alarmed at the
concord of the majority, but only ten leading men. Of these were
Eustathius of Armenia, Basilius of Galatia, Silvanus of Tarsus,
and Eleusius of Cyzicus.
On their arrival they urged the emperor that Eudoxius should be
convicted of blasphemy and lawlessness. Constantius, however,
schooled by the opposite party, replied that a decision must first be
come to on matters concerning the faith, and that afterwards the case
of Eudoxius should be enquired into. Basilius, relying on his former
intimacy, ventured boldly to object to the emperor that he was
attacking the apostolic decrees; but Constantius took this ill, and
told Basilius to hold his tongue, "for to you," said he, "the
disturbance of the churches is due." When Basilius was silenced,
Eustathius intervened and said, "since, sir, you wish a decision to
be come to on what concerns the faith, consider the blasphemies rashly
uttered against the Only Begotten by Eudoxius," and as he spoke he
produced the exposition of faith wherein, besides many other
impieties, were found the following expressions: "Things that are
spoken of in unlike terms are unlike in substance:" "There is one
God the Father of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ
through whom are all things." Now the term "of whom" is unlike the
term "through whom;" so the Son is unlike God the Father.
Constantius ordered this exposition of the faith to be read, and was
displeased with the blasphemy which it involved. He therefore asked
Eudoxius if he had drawn it up. Eudoxius instantly repudiated the
authorship, and said that it was written by Aetius. Now Aetius was
he whom Leontius, in dread of the accusations of Flavianus and
Diodorus, had formerly degraded from the diaconate. He had also been
the supporter of Georgius, the treacherous foe of the Alexandrians,
alike in his impious words and his unholy deeds. At the present time
he was associated with Eunomius and Eudoxius; for, on the death of
Leontius, when Eudoxius had laid violent hands on the episcopal
throne of the church at Antioch, he returned from Egypt with
Eunomius, and, as he found Eudoxius to be of the same way of
thinking as himself, a sybarite in luxury as well as a heretic in
faith, he chose Antioch as the most congenial place of abode, and
both he and Eunomius were fast fixtures at the couches of Eudoxius.
His highest ambition was to be a successful parasite, and he spent his
whole time in going to gorge himself at one man's table or another's.
The emperor had been told all this, and now ordered Aetius to be
brought before him. On his appearance Constantius showed him the
document in question and proceeded to enquire if he was the author of
its language. Aetius, totally ignorant of what had taken place, and
unaware of the drift of the enquiry, expected that he should win praise
by confession, and owned that he was the author of the phrases in
question. Then the emperor perceived the greatness of his iniquity,
and forthwith condemned him to exile and to be deported to a place in
Phrygia. So Aetius reaped disgrace as the fruit of blasphemy, and
was cast out of the palace. Eustathius then alleged that Eudoxius too
held the same views, for that Aetius had shared his roof and his
table, and had drawn up this blasphemous formula in submission to his
judgement. In proof of his contention that Eudoxius was concerned in
drawing up the document he urged the fact that no one had attributed it
to Aetius except Eudoxius himself. To this the emperor enjoined that
judges must not decide on conjecture, but are bound to make exact
examination of the facts. Eustathius assented, and urged that
Eudoxius should give proof of his dissent from the sentiments
attributed to him by anathematizing the composition of Aetius. This
suggestion the emperor very readily accepted, and gave his orders
accordingly; but Eudoxius drew back, and employed many shifts to
evade compliance. But when the emperor waxed wroth and threatened to
send him off to share the exile of Aetius, on the ground that he was a
partner in the blasphemy so punished, he repudiated his own doctrine,
though both then and afterwards he persistently maintained it.
However, he in his turn protested against the Eustathians that it was
their duty to condemn the word "Homousion" as unscriptural.
Silvanus on the contrary pointed out that it was their duty to reject
and expel from their holy assemblies the phrases "out of the
non-existent" and "creature" and "of another substance," these
terms being also unscriptural and found in the writings of neither
prophets nor apostles. Constantius decided that this was right, and
bade the Arians pronounce the condemnation. At first they persisted
in refusing; but in the end, when they saw the emperor's wrath, they
consented, though much against the grain, to condemn the terms
Silvanus had put before them. But all the more earnestly they
insisted on their demand for the condemnation of the "Homousion."
But then with unanswerable logic Silvanus put both before the Arians
and the emperor the truth that if God the Word is not of the
nonExistent, He is not a Creature, and is not of another
Substance. He is then of one Substance with God Who begat Him,
as God of God and Light of Light, and has the same nature as the
Begetter. This contention he urged with power and with truth, but
not one of his hearers was convinced. The party of Acacius and
Eudoxius raised a mighty uproar; the emperor was angered, and
threatened expulsion from their churches. Thereupon Eleusius and
Silvanus and the rest said that while authority to punish lay with the
emperor, it was their province to decide on points of piety or
impiety, and "we will not," they protested, "betray the doctrine
of the Fathers."
Constantius ought to have admired both their wisdom and their courage,
and their bold defence of the apostolic decrees, but he exiled them
from their churches, and ordered others to be appointed in their
place. Thereupon Eudoxius laid violent hands on the Church of
Constantinople; and on the expulsion of Eleusius from Cyzicus,
Eunomius was appointed in his place.
|
|