|
ATHANASIUS, meanwhile, after a lengthened journey, at last
reached Italy. The western division of the empire was then under the
sole power of Constans, the youngest of Constantine's sons, his
brother Constantine having been slain by the soldiers, as was before
stated. At the same time also Paul, bishop of Constantinople,
Asclepas of Gaza, Marcellus of Ancyra, a city of the Lesser
Galatia, and Lucius of Adrianople, having been accused on various
charges, and expelled from their several churches arrived at the
imperial city. There each laid his case before Julius, bishop of
Rome. He on his part, by virtue of the Church of Rome's peculiar
privilege, sent them back again into the East, fortifying them with
commendatory letters; and at the same time restored to each his own
place, and sharply rebuked those by whom they had been deposed.
Relying on the signature of the bishop Julius, the bishops departed
from Rome, and again took possession of their own churches,
forwarding the letters to the parties to whom they were addressed.
These persons considering themselves treated with indignity by the
reproaches of Julius, called a council at Antioch, assembled
themselves and dictated a reply to his letters as the expression of the
unanimous feeling of the whole Synod. It was not his province, they
said, to take cognizance of their decisions in reference to any whom
they might wish to expel from their churches; seeing that they had not
opposed themselves to him, when Novatus was ejected from the church.
These things the bishops of the Eastern church communicated to
Julius, bishop of Rome. But, as on the entry of Athanasius into
Alexandria, a tumult was raised by the partisans of George the
Arian, in consequence of which, it is affirmed, many persons were
killed; and since the Arians endeavor to throw the whole odium of this
transaction on Athanasius as the author of it, it behooves us to make
a few remarks on the subject. God the Judge of all only knows the
true causes of these disorders; but no one of any experience can be
ignorant of the fact, that such fatal accidents are for the most part
concomitants of the factious movements of the populace. It is vain,
therefore, for the calumniators of Athanasius to attribute the blame
to him; and especially Sabinus, bishop of the Macedonian heresy.
For had the latter reflected on the number and magnitude of the wrongs
which Athanasius, in conjunction with the rest who hold the doctrine
of consubstantiality, had suffered from the Arians, or on the many
complaints made of these things by the Synods convened on account of
Athanasius, or in short on what that arch-heretic Macedonius himself
has done throughout all the churches, he would either have been wholly
silent, or if constrained to speak, would have spoken more plausible
words, instead of these reproaches. But as it is intentionally
overlooking all these things, he willfully misrepresents the facts.
He makes, however, no mention whatever of the heresiarch, desiring
by all means to conceal the daring enormities of which he knew him to be
guilty. And what is still more extraordinary, he has not said one
word to the disadvantage of the Arians, although he was far from
entertaining their sentiments. The ordination of Macedonius, whose
heretical views he had adopted, he has also passed over in silence;
for had he mentioned it, he must necessarily have recorded his
impieties also, which were most distinctly manifested on that
occasion. Let this suffice on this subject.
|
|