|
THE reputation of Athanasius was, however, especially increased by
the Arians and Melitians; although always plotting, they never
appeared rightly to catch and make him a prisoner. In the first
place, Eusebius wrote to urge him to receive the Arians into
communion, and threatened, without writing it, to ill-treat him
should he refuse to do so. But as Athanasius would not yield to his
representation, but maintained that those who had devised a heresy in
innovating upon the truth, and who had been condemned by the council of
Nice, ought not to be received into the Church, Eusebius contrived
to interest the emperor in favor of Arius, and so procured his
return. I shall state a little further on how all these events came to
pass.
At this period, the bishops had another tumultuous dispute among
themselves, concerning the precise meaning of the term
"consubstantial." Some thought that this term could not be admitted
without blasphemy; that it implied the non-existence of the Son of
God; and that it involved the error of Montanus and Sabellius.
Those, on the other hand, who defended the term, regarded their
opponents as Greeks (or pagans), and considered that their
sentiments led to polytheism. Eusebius, surnamed Pamphilus, and
Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, took the lead in this dispute. They
both confessed the Son of God to exist hypostatically, and yet they
contended together as if they had misunderstood each other. Eustathius
accused Eusebius of altering the doctrines ratified by the council of
Nicaea, while the latter declared that he approved of all the Nicaean
doctrines, and reproached Eustathius for cleaving to the heresy of
Sabellius.
|
|