|
MACEDONIUS on being ejected from Constantinople, bore his
condemnation ill and became restless; he therefore associated himself
with the other faction that had deposed Acacius and his party at
Seleucia, and sent a deputation to Sophronius and Eleusius, to
encourage them to adhere to that creed which was first promulgated at
Antioch, and afterwards confirmed at Seleucia, proposing to give it
the counterfeit name of the 'homoiousian' creed. By this means he
drew around him a great number of adherents, who from him are still
denominated 'Macedonians.' And although such as dissented from the
Acacians at the Seleucian Synod had not previously used the term
homoiousios, yet from that period they distinctly asserted it. There
was, however, a popular report that this term did not originate with
Macedonius, but was the invention rather of Marathonius, who a
little before had been set over the church at Nicomedia; on which
account the maintainers of this doctrine were also called
'Marathonians.' To this party Eustathius joined himself, who for
the reasons before stated had been ejected from the church at
Sebastia. But when Macedonius began to deny the Divinity of the
Holy Spirit in the Trinity, Eustathius said: 'I can neither
admit that the Holy Spirit is God, nor can I dare affirm him to be
a creature.' For this reason those who hold the homoousion of the
Son call these heretics 'Pneumatomachi.' By what means these
Macedonians became so numerous in the Hellespont, I shall state in
its proper place. The Acacians meanwhile became extremely anxious
that another Synod should be convened at Antioch, in consequence of
having changed their mind respecting their former assertion of the
likeness 'in all things' of the Son to the Father. A small number
of them therefore assembled in the following consulate which was that of
Taurus and Florentius, at Antioch in Syria, where the emperor was
at that time residing, Euzoius being bishop. A discussion was then
renewed on some of those points which they had previously determined,
in the course of which they declared that the term 'homoios' ought to
be erased from the form of faith which had been published both at
Ariminum and Constantinople; and they no longer concealed but openly
declared that the Son was altogether unlike the Father, not merely in
relation to his essence, but even as it respected his will i asserting
boldly also, as Arius had already done, that he was made of nothing.
Those in that city who favored the heresy of Aetius, gave, their
assent to this opinion; from which circumstance in addition to the
general appellation of Arians, they were also termed 'Anomoeans,'
and 'Exucontians,' by those at Antioch who embraced the
homoousian, who nevertheless were at that time divided among themselves
on account of Meletius, as I have before observed. Being therefore
questioned by them, how they dared to affirm that the Son is unlike
the Father, and has his existence from nothing, after having
acknowledged him 'God of God' in their former creed? they
endeavored to elude this objection by such fallacious subterfuges as
these. 'The expression, "God of God,"' said they, 'is to be
understood in the same sense as the words of the apostle, " but all
things of God.'' Wherefore the Son is of God, as being one of
these all things: and it is for this reason the words "according to
the Scriptures" are added in the draught of the creed.' The author
of this sophism was George bishop of Laodicea, who being unskilled in
such phrases, was ignorant of the manner in which Origen had formerly
explained these peculiar expressions of the apostle, having thoroughly
investigated the matter. But notwithstanding these evasive cavilings,
they were unable to bear the reproach and contumely they had drawn upon
themselves, and fell back upon the creed which they had before put
forth at Constantinople; and so each one retired to his own district.
George returning to Alexandria, resumed his authority over the
churches there, Athanasius still not having made his appearance.
Those in that city who were opposed to his sentiments he persecuted;
and conducting himself with great severity and cruelty, he rendered
himself extremely odious to the people. At Jerusalem Arrenius was
placed over the church instead of Cyril: we may also remark that
Heraclius was ordained bishop there after him, and after him Hilary.
At length, however, Cyril returned to Jerusalem, and was again
invested with the presidency over the church there. About the same
time another heresy sprang up, which arose from the following
circumstance.
|
|