|
BUT I must now give an account of the other Synod, which the
emperor's edict had convoked in the east, as a rival to that of
Ariminum. It was at first determined that the bishops should assemble
at Nicomedia in Bithynia; but a great earthquake having nearly
destroyed that city, prevented their being convened there. This
happened in the consulate of Tatian and Cerealis, on the 28th day
of August. They were therefore planning to transfer the council to
the neighboring city of Nicaea: but this plan was again altered, as
it seemed more convenient to meet at Tarsus in Cilicia. Being
dissatisfied with this arrangement also, they at last assembled
themselves at Seleucia, surnamed Aspera, a city of Isauria. This
took place in the same year [in which the council of Ariminum was
held], under the consulate of Eusebius and Hypatius, the number of
those convened being about 160. There was present on this occasion
Leonas, an officer of distinction attached to the imperial household,
before whom the emperor's edict had enjoined that the discussion
respecting the faith should be entered into. Lauricius also, the
commander-in-chief of the troops in Isauria, was ordered to be
there, to serve the bishops in such things as they might require. In
the presence of these personages therefore, the bishops were there
convened on the 27th of the month of September, and immediately
began a discussion on the basis of the public records, shorthand
writers being present to write down what each might say. Those who
desire to learn the particulars of the several speeches, will find
copious details of them in the collection of Sabinus; but we shall
only notice the more important heads. On the first day of their being
convened, Leonas ordered each one to propose what he thought fit: but
those present said that no question ought to be agitated in the absence
of those prelates who had not yet arrived; for Macedonius, bishop of
Constantinople, Basil of Ancyra, and some others who were
apprehensive of an impeachment for their misconduct, had not made their
appearance. Macedonius pleaded indisposition, and failed to attend;
Patrophilus said he had some trouble with his eyes, and that on this
account it was needful for him to remain in the suburbs of Seleucia;
and the rest offered various pretexts to account for their absence.
When, however, Leonas declared that the subjects which they had met
to consider must be entered on, notwithstanding the absence of these
persons, the bishops replied that they could not proceed to the
discussion of any question, until the life and conduct of the parties
accused had been investigated: for Cyril of Jerusalem, Eustathius
of Sebastia in Armenia, and some others, had been charged with
misconduct on various grounds long before. A sharp contest arose in
consequence of this demur; some affirming that cognizance ought first
to be taken of all such accusations, and others denying that anything
whatever should have precedence of matters of faith. The emperor's
orders contributed not a little to augment this dispute, inasmuch as
letters of his were produced urging now this and now that as necessary
to be considered first. The dispute having arisen on this subject, a
schism was thus made, and the Seleucian council was divided into two
factions, one of which was headed by Acacius of Caesarea in
Palestine, GeOrge of Alexandria, Uranius of Tyre, and Eudoxius
of Antioch, who were supported by only about thirty-two other
bishops. Of the opposite party, which was by far the more numerous,
the principal were George of Laodicea in Syria, Sophronius of
Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, and Eleusius of Cyzicus. It being
determined by the majority to examine doctrinal matters first, the
party of Acacius openly opposed the Nicene Creed, and Wished to
introduce another instead of it. The other faction, which was
considerably more numerous, concurred in all the decisions of the
council of Nicaea, but criticised its adoption of the term
homoousion. Accordingly they debated on this point, much being said
on each side, until late in the evening, when Silvanus, who presided
over the church at Tarsus, insisted with much vehemence of manner,
'that there was no need of a new exposition of the faith; but that it
was their duty rather to confirm that which was published at Antioch,
at the consecration of the church in that place.' On this
declaration, Acacius and his partisans privately withdrew from the
council; while the others, producing the creed composed at Antioch,
read it, and then separated for that day. Assembling in the church of
Seleucia on the day following, after having closed the doors, they
again read the same creed, and ratified it by their signatures. At
this time the readers and deacons present signed on behalf of certain
absent bishops, who had intimated their acquiescence in its form.
|
|