|
Soon after these occurrences, the emperor went to Antioch, a city of
Syria. Here a church had already been completed, which excelled in
size and beauty. Constantine began to build it during his lifetime,
and as the structure had been just finished by his son Constantius, it
was deemed a favorable opportunity by the partisans of Eusebius, who
of old were zealous for it, to convene a council. They, therefore,
with those from various regions who held their sentiments, met together
in Antioch; their bishops were about ninety seven in number. Their
professed object was the consecration of the newly finished church; but
they intended nothing else than the abolition of the decrees of the
Nicaean Council, and this was fully proved by the sequel. The
Church of Antioch was then governed by Placetus, who had succeeded
Euphronius. The death of Constantine the Great had taken place
about five years prior to this period. When all the bishops had
assembled in the presence of the emperor Constantius, the majority
expressed great indignation, and vigorously accused Athanasius of
having contemned the sacerdotal regulation which they had enacted, and
taken possession of the bishopric of Alexandria without first obtaining
the sanction of a council. They also deposed that he was the cause of
the death of several persons, who fell in a sedition excited by his
return; and that many others had on the same occasion been arrested and
delivered up to the judicial tribunals. By these accusations they
contrived to cast odium on Athanasius, and it was decreed that
Gregory should be invested with the government of the Church of
Alexandria. They then turned to the discussion of doctrinal
questions, and found no fault with the decrees of the council of
Nice. They dispatched letters to the bishops of every city, in which
they declared that, as they were bishops themselves, they had not
followed Arius. "For how," said they, "could we have been
followers of him, when he was but a presbyter, and we were placed
above him?" Since they were the testers of his faith, they had
readily received him; and they believed in the faith which had from the
beginning been handed down by tradition. This they further explained
at the bottom of their letter, but without mentioning the substance of
the Father or the Son, or the term consubstantial. They resorted,
in fact, to such ambiguity of expression, that neither the Arians nor
the followers of the decrees of the Nicaean Council could call the
arrangement of their words into question, as though they were ignorant
of the holy Scriptures. They purposely avoided all forms of
expression which were rejected by either party, and only made use of
those which were universally admitted. They confessed that the Son is
with the Father, that He is the only begotten One, and that He is
God, and existed before all things; and that He took flesh upon
Him, and fulfilled the will of His Father. They confessed these
and similar truths, but they did not describe the doctrine of the Son
being co-eternal or consubstantial with the Father, or the opposite.
They subsequently changed their minds, it appears, about this
formulary, and issued another, which, I think, very nearly
resembled that of the council of Nice, unless, indeed, some secret
meaning be attached to the words which is not apparent to me. Although
they refrained, I know not from what motive, from saying that the
Son is consubstantial, they confessed that He is immutable, that
His Divinity is not susceptible of change, that He is the perfect
image of the substance, and counsel, and power, and glory of the
Father, and that He is the first-born of every creature. They
stated that they had found this formulary of faith, and that it was
entirely written by Lucianus, who was martyred in Nicomedia, and who
was a man highly approved and exceedingly accurate in the sacred
Scriptures. I know not whether this statement was really true, or
whether they merely advanced it in order to give weight to their own
document, by connecting with it the dignity of a martyr. Not only did
Eusebius (who, on the expulsion of Paul, had been transferred from
Nicomedia to the throne of Constantinople) participate in this
council, but likewise Acacius, the successor of Eusebius
Pamphilus, Patrophilus, bishop of Scythopolis, Theodore, bishop
of Heraclea, formerly called Perinthus, Eudoxius, bishop of
Germanicia, who subsequently directed the Church of Constantinople
after Macedonius, and Gregory, who had been chosen to preside over
the Church of Alexandria. It was universally acknowledged that all
these bishops held the same sentiments, such as Dianius, bishop of
Caesarea in Cappadocia, George, bishop of Laodicea in Syria, and
many others who acted as bishops over metropolitan and other
distinguished churches.
|
|