|
THE partisans of Eusebius and Theognis having returned from their
exile, these latter were reinstated in their churches, having
expelled, as we observed, those who had been ordained in their stead.
Moreover, they came into great consideration with the emperor, who
honored them exceedingly, as those who had returned from error to the
orthodox faith. They, however, abused the license thus afforded
them, by exciting greater commotions in the world than they had done
before; being instigated to this by two causes -- on the one hand the
Arian heresy with which they had been previously infected, and bitter
animosity against Athanasius on the other, because he had so
vigorously withstood them in the Synod while the articles of faith were
under discussion. And in the first place they objected to the
ordination of Athanasius partly as a person unworthy of the prelacy,
and partly because he had been elected by disqualified persons. But
when Athanasius had shown himself superior to this calumny (for having
assumed control of the church of Alexandria, he ardently contended for
the Nicene creed), then Eusebius exerted himself to the utmost
insidiously to cause the removal of Athanasius and to bring Arius back
to Alexandria; for he thought that thus only he should be able to
expunge the doctrine of consubstantiality, and introduce Arianism.
Eusebius therefore wrote to Athanasius, desiring him to re-admit
Arius and his adherents into the church. Now the tone of his letter
indeed was that of entreaty, but openly he menaced him. And as
Athanasius would by no means accede to this, he endeavored to induce
the emperor to give Arius an audience, and then permit him to return
to Alexandria: and by what means he attained his object, I shall
mention in its proper place. Meanwhile before this another commotion
was raised in the church. In fact, her own children again disturbed
her peace. Eusebius Pamphilus says, that immediately after the
Synod, Egypt became agitated by intestine divisions: not assigning,
however, the reason for this, so that hence he has won the reputation
of disingenuousness, and of avoiding to specify the causes of these
dissensions, from a determination on his part not to give his sanction
to the proceedings at Nicaea. Yet as we ourselves have discovered
from various letters which the bishops wrote to one another after the
Synod, the term hamoousios troubled some of them. So that while they
occupied themselves in a too minute investigation of its import, they
roused the strife against each other; it seemed not unlike a contest in
the dark; for neither party appeared to understand distinctly the
grounds on which they calumniated one another. Those who objected to
the word homoousios, conceived that those who approved it favored the
opinion of Sabellius and Moatanus; they therefore called them
blasphemers, as subverting the existence of the Son of God. And
again the advocates of this term, charging their opponents with
polytheism, inveighed against them as introducers of heathen
superstitions. Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, accuses Eusebius
Pamphilus of perverting the Nicene Creed; Eusebius again denies
that he violates that exposition of the faith, and recriminates,
saying that Eustathius was a defender of the opinion of Sabellius.
In consequence of these misunderstandings, each of them wrote as if
contending against adversaries: and although it was admitted on both
sides that the Son of God has a distinct person and existence, and
all acknowledged that there is one God in three Persons, yet from
what cause I am unable to divine, they could not agree among
themselves, and therefore could in no way endure to be at peace.
|
|