Church History 4.19–4.24

Such was the letter of those who met at Ariminum. Ursacius's and Valens's party, arriving before the envoys sent by the synod, showed the emperor the document they had read and slandered the synod. He, grieved perhaps that they had not accepted this faith, since it had been confirmed in his own presence at Sirmium, held them in honour, but neglected the envoys and disregarded them as they wore themselves out waiting. At length he wrote to the synod, excusing himself on the ground that an urgent journey against the barbarians pressed him, and for this reason he could not see the envoys; and he ordered them to wait at Adrianople for his return, so that, when public affairs had been well settled, he might, free of cares, hear and examine the envoys' business; for one who is going to deal with divine matters ought to have his soul free of other things. So he wrote. To this the synod replied, insisting that it would in no way depart from what had been decided, that it had written this and charged its envoys accordingly; and it begged him to see them kindly, to hear what it had charged them, and to read what had been written; for he too would find it grievous that so many churches should be without bishops in the time of his reign; and they ought, if he agreed, to return to their churches before winter. Having written this, composing the letter, as was fitting, in the form and language of a petition, they waited a short time; and when he made no reply, they withdrew to their cities. That those who met at Ariminum voted from the beginning for what had been decided at Nicaea, what has been said bears witness. It must now be told how they later agreed to the document brought forward by Valens's and Ursacius's party. Different accounts of this have come to me. Some say that the emperor, making the departure of the bishops from Ariminum against his will a pretext for insult, allowed Valens and those with him to govern the churches of the West as they wished, to publish the faith that had been read at Ariminum, to expel from the churches those who refused to sign it, and to ordain others in their place; and that, taking licence from this, they forced people to sign this faith, and drove from the churches many who would not comply, Liberius, bishop of the Romans, first of all. When they had done this to those in Italy, they planned to arrange the churches of the East in the same way. Passing through Thrace, they came to Nice, a city of that province; holding a council there, they translated the document read at Ariminum into Greek, published it and confirmed it, and spread the story that the faith of Nice had been dictated and approved by the ecumenical synod. They did this at Nice on purpose, and gave it this name, so that the simpler might readily be persuaded to assent to this faith, deceived by the similarity of the names and thinking it the document confirmed at Nicaea. So say some. Others say that when the synod of Ariminum was worn out by waiting, since the emperor neither deigned to answer the bishops nor allowed them to leave, those zealous for the opposite sect sent in certain people to advise them that it was not worth while for the priests everywhere to quarrel over one word, that of essence, when they could say the Son is like the Father and remove the grounds of strife; for those in the East would never be quiet unless the name of essence were removed. When these mediators had made such clever arguments, the synod was persuaded to agree to the document pressed by Ursacius's party. These, fearing that the envoys sent by the synod to the emperor would arrive and make known the original resistance of the Western bishops and the reason for removing the “same essence,” detained the envoys at Nice in Thrace, alleging that because of the winter and the hardships of the public pack animals the journey would not be easy; and they persuaded them to translate the document they had read from Latin, put it into Greek, and send it to the bishops in the East. For in this way the document, composed to suit their purpose, would achieve what they were aiming at, while the deceit would not be detected by those who might refute it, namely that those at Ariminum had not departed from the name of essence willingly, but on the pretext concerning the Easterners, as though these rejected the name. This was plainly false; for all except a few maintained that the Son is like the Father in essence too; they differed only in that some called the Son of the same essence, others of like essence. Some will tell these things one way and some another.

While events in Italy were taking place as described, before the synod at Seleucia met, very great disturbances occurred in the East. Acacius's and Patrophilus's party removed Maximus and entrusted the church of Jerusalem to Cyril. Macedonius, holding Constantinople, troubled the surrounding cities, when he began to ordain, having Eleusius and Marathonius as helpers. Marathonius, formerly a deacon of his church and a zealous administrator of the poor-houses and the monastic communities of men and women, he made bishop of Nicomedia; and Eleusius, who had served with distinction in the palace, bishop of Cyzicus. They say that both were good in their lives, but zealous in ill-treating those who held the Son to be of the same essence as the Father, though not so simply as Macedonius. For he not only drove out those who refused to communicate with him, but imprisoned them and handed them over to judges; others he forced to communicate against their will, seizing uninitiated children and women and initiating them. Moreover he pulled down many churches in many places, putting forward an imperial order commanding that the houses of prayer of those who maintained that the Son is of the same essence as the Father be pulled down. For this reason the church of the Novatians at the place called Pelargus in Constantinople was also pulled down. It is said that on this occasion those of this sect did a brave deed, and perhaps those of the catholic church helped them as being of the same mind. For when those who had been ordered to demolish it gave orders, they came together with their whole households; some took down the timbers, others carried them across to Sycae opposite; and quickly the work was done, for not only men took part, but women and children, each offering the work to God and exceedingly eager. With the same zeal this church was rebuilt in the same way, and from that event has been named Anastasia. For when Constantius died, Julian, succeeding to the empire, gave back the site to the Novatians and allowed them to build the church; this was done, the people helping eagerly and bringing back the same timbers from Sycae. These things happened later. At that time the Novatians and those of the catholic church were almost united. For holding the same views about the Divine, being driven out together and being in the same misfortunes, they were well disposed to each other; they met together and prayed together, since those of the catholic church had no house of prayer, all having been taken away by those who held the views of Arius; and, naturally, reasoning from their constant intercourse that they differed with each other in vain, they planned to communicate with each other. And this would have happened, I think, had not the jealousy of a few, who said that there was an ancient …, harmed the eagerness of the many.

About this time Eleusius too pulled down entirely the church of the Novatians at Cyzicus. Those who lived in Mantinium, and other Paphlagonians, shared most in these evils. For Macedonius, learning that most people there held the views of Novatus, and that the churchmen alone were not enough to drive them out, persuaded the emperor to send four companies of soldiers for this purpose; for he thought that people unaccustomed to arms, if they saw soldiers, would be frightened and at once change to his opinion. But it turned out otherwise. The people of Mantinium armed themselves, each as he could, with sickles, axes and whatever came to hand, and engaged the soldiers. A fierce battle took place, and very many of the Paphlagonians fell, and almost all the soldiers. From then on many of his friends blamed Macedonius as the cause of such great calamities; and the emperor too turned against him and was no longer well disposed toward him. A pretext for greater hostility arose as follows. Macedonius wished to move the coffin of the emperor Constantine elsewhere, since the building that covered it threatened to collapse. Of the people, some agreed to this, others opposed it, thinking it impious, like digging up a grave. Those who upheld the doctrine of the synod of Nicaea joined these, not enduring that the body of Constantine, who had been of their opinion, should be insulted, and eager, I think, to oppose Macedonius. But he, paying no heed, moved the coffin to the church in which is the tomb of Acacius the martyr. The people, some praising what had been done and others blaming it, turned on one another in the church itself, and in the end filled the house of prayer itself and the area round it with blood and slaughter. The emperor, still staying in the western part of the empire, was angry when he learned of this; and as though his father had been insulted, he blamed Macedonius for the misfortunes of the people and was enraged with him. Having decided to go to Constantinople, he set out on the journey, and calling his cousin Julian, he made him Caesar and sent him to the western Gauls.

Meanwhile the bishops of the East, about one hundred and sixty in number, gathered at Seleucia in Isauria. It was the year in which Eusebius and Hypatius were consuls. Leonas, who held a distinguished rank in the palace, had come with them by order of Constantius and was present at the synod, so that the statement of faith about the doctrine might be made in his presence. Lauricius, the commander of the soldiers of the province, was also present, to provide whatever might be needed, for the emperor's letter ordered him to assist. At the first session certain other bishops were absent, as well as Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Macedonius of Constantinople, and Basil of Ancyra. The pretexts were different for the others; for Patrophilus an eye disease, for Macedonius illness. But there was a suspicion that they did not come then for fear of the charges of their accusers. When the others declined to examine the doubtful matters because of their absence, Leonas nevertheless ordered them to raise the questions. From then on some said it was necessary first to examine the doctrine, others to scrutinize the lives of those accused among them, among whom were Cyril of Jerusalem and Eustathius of Sebaste. The emperor's letters gave them a pretext, declaring now one thing and now another. Beginning from this dispute, they were no longer on good terms with one another, but were divided in two. Yet it prevailed that the debate about the doctrine should come first. When they came to such discussions, some thought it right to remove the name of essence altogether, putting forward the faith which Mark had composed not long before at Sirmium, and which those present at the court had accepted, among whom was Basil, bishop of Ancyra. But most were zealous for the faith set out at the dedication of the church of Antioch. Leading the former opinion were Eudoxius, Acacius, Patrophilus, George of Alexandria, Uranius of Tyre and thirty-two others; leading the second, George of Laodicea in Syria, Eleusius of Cyzicus, and Sophronius of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, whom the majority followed. Acacius's party were suspected of differing from the others about the doctrine on purpose, and on this pretext of escaping the scrutiny of the charges against them; since earlier, in what they had written to Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, they had agreed that the Son is like the Father in all things and of the same essence, and now they shamelessly fought against their former confessions. When many had been stirred to contention, Silvanus, bishop of Tarsus, cried out that it was intolerable to introduce a new document of another faith besides the one approved at Antioch; this alone ought to prevail. At this Acacius's party, annoyed, rose and left; the others then read what had been decided at Antioch. The next day, meeting in the church, they shut the doors, and by themselves confirmed it. Acacius denounced what had been done in this way, and privately showed Leonas and Lauricius the document he was pressing. On the third day the others met again, with Macedonius and Basil, who had been absent before. Acacius and his party refused to take part in the assembly unless those deposed and accused by them left first; and this was done. For those of the other side agreed, supposing that Acacius was seeking this pretext to break up the synod, so that both the heresy of Aetius and they themselves might escape the present examination and the scrutiny of the charges. When all were present, Leonas said he had a book handed in by Acacius's party; it was a statement of faith with a certain preface, and the others were not aware of it, for Leonas, holding Acacius's views, had deliberately concealed it. When it was read, the assembly was filled with uproar. For it declared that, although the emperor had ordered that nothing be introduced into the faith beyond the sacred Scriptures, certain persons, bringing in men deposed from various provinces and bishops unlawfully appointed, had thrown the synod into confusion, insulting some and not allowing others to speak; that they themselves did not reject the faith set out at Antioch, even though those who met there had introduced this document to meet the inquiry of that time; but since “of the same essence” and “of like essence” still trouble many, and some have lately attempted the innovation that the Son is unlike the Father, therefore “of the same essence” and “of like essence” must be cast out as foreign to the Scriptures, and “unlike” anathematized, and the likeness of the Son to the Father clearly confessed; for he is, as Paul the apostle says somewhere, “the image of the invisible God.” After this preface they attached a document of faith agreeing neither with what was decided at Nicaea nor with what was decided at Antioch, but composed so simply that even those holding the views of Arius and Aetius would not seem to err if they believed thus. For they passed over the terms by which those who met at Nicaea cast out the opinion of Arius, and kept silent also on the Son's being unchangeable in his divinity, the exact image of the Father's essence, will, power and glory, as was said at the synod at Antioch; they confessed that they believe in the Father, and believe also in the Son and the Holy Spirit; and using for each certain common epithets, which conflicted neither with themselves nor with those of the opposite opinion, they voted those who believe otherwise strangers to the catholic church. Such were the contents of the book brought forward by Leonas, signed by Acacius himself and those who followed him. After it was read, Sophronius the Paphlagonian cried out: “If setting out one's own wish each day is an exposition of faith, the exactness of the truth will fail us.” When Acacius maintained that nothing prevented another document being dictated, since the faith of Nicaea too had been altered once and many times afterward, Eleusius took him up and said: “But the synod has been convened now, not to learn what it has not learned, nor to receive another faith besides that already approved by those who met at Antioch”; and he said they would hold to it to life and death. As the debate went on thus, they passed to another question, and asked Acacius's party in what respect they confessed the Son to be like the Father. When they said, in will only, but not in essence, all the others insisted that he is like in essence too; and they refuted Acacius from the treatise he had written and published, as having formerly held the same view as they. When he said that one ought not to bring charges from writings, and the debate grew more contentious, at last Eleusius of Cyzicus said: “Whether Basil or Mark did something on their own, or whether they and Acacius's party accuse one another privately on certain matters, makes no difference to the synod; nor is it necessary to inquire whether the faith set out by them is good or otherwise. But one must follow the faith ratified at Antioch by the ninety-seven priests of older times; and if anyone introduces anything contrary to it, he is a stranger to piety and to the church.” When all with him applauded this, the assembly was then dissolved. The next day Acacius's and George's party would no longer consent to meet together. Nor did Leonas come when summoned; for he now openly held their views. Indeed, those who went to him found Acacius's party in his house. When they begged and summoned him to the assembly, he would not comply, saying that the synod was divided, and that he had been ordered by the emperor to be present when all agreed and met together. As time went by, the others often summoned Acacius's party, who at one time demanded that certain persons meet at Leonas's house, at another insisted that they had been ordered by the emperor to judge the others. They would neither confess the same faith, nor make a defence on the charges, nor consent to come to the examination concerning Cyril, whom they themselves had deposed; and there was no one to compel them. So the others deposed, among some others, George, bishop of Alexandria, Acacius of Caesarea, Uranius of Tyre, Patrophilus of Scythopolis and Eudoxius of Antioch; and they excommunicated most others until they made their defence on the charges brought, and wrote what had been done to the church of each. In place of Eudoxius they ordained Adrian bishop of Antioch, a presbyter of the clergy there. Acacius's party seized him and handed him over to Leonas and Lauricius, who then kept him under military guard, and later condemned him to exile. Such, in brief, was the end of the synod at Seleucia. Anyone who wishes to know each detail exactly will learn it from the records of what was done there, which shorthand writers who were present wrote down.

When this had happened, Acacius's party hastened to the palace, and the others each went home. The ten who, as had been ordered, had been entrusted by common decision to go to the emperor found there the ten sent by those who had met at Ariminum, and found that Acacius's party had already brought the powerful men in the palace round to their views and through them had secured the ruler's goodwill. For, as was said, some of these were of their opinion, others had been corrupted by church property, and others deceived by flattering words and by the standing of the persuader. For Acacius was not thought an ordinary man: he was by nature able in thought and speech and in carrying out what he planned; he presided over a distinguished church; and boasting of Eusebius son of Pamphilus, whom he succeeded in the episcopate, as his teacher, he claimed by reputation and by succession to his books to know more than others. Being such a man, he easily arranged what he wished. When the twenty from both synods were at Constantinople, together with others who happened to be staying there, the question concerning Aetius was first entrusted to them to judge, in the presence of the leading members of the great council, Honoratus, whom the emperor, on returning not long before from the western part of the empire, had appointed first prefect of Constantinople. Afterward, when Constantius himself examined it with the magistrates, Aetius was found to be ill-minded about the faith, so that the emperor and the others were angered at his blasphemous words. It is said that Acacius's party, who pretended at first not to know of this heresy, deliberately pressed for the emperor and those about him to judge it, thinking that Aetius would be invincible in argument and able to win his hearers by the force of persuasion, so that they might strengthen the heresy without effort. When this turned out contrary to their hopes, they brought forward the document brought from Ariminum and asked the envoys of the synod at Seleucia to accept it. When these insisted that they would by no means leave out the name of essence, they persuaded them with oaths that they did not hold the Son to be unlike in essence, and were ready to anathematize this heresy. But since the Westerners at Ariminum had unexpectedly left out the name of essence, they insisted that this document was much to be desired; “for if it prevails,” they said, “then together with the name of essence the ‘same essence’ will be silenced, which the priests of the West valued highly out of respect for the synod of Nicaea.” Besides this, the emperor himself was persuaded to approve this document, considering the great number of those who had met at Ariminum, and reckoning that one would not err in confessing “like” instead of “of the same essence,” and that it made no difference to the meaning if one did not use terms unknown to sacred Scripture, but confessed the same meaning in the equivalent and undisputed term “like.” Being of this mind, he ordered the bishops to agree on the document set out by those who had met at Ariminum. Preparing on the next day for the consular procession, as is the Roman custom on the first day of their month January, he spent the whole day and much of the following night among the bishops, examining the matter, until those who had come from Seleucia signed the document brought from Ariminum.

Acacius's party stayed for some time at Constantinople and summoned the bishops of Bithynia, among whom were Maris of Chalcedon and Ulfilas of the Goths. Being fifty in number, they met together and confirmed the document read at Ariminum, adding that thenceforth neither essence nor subsistence should be named at all in speaking of God, and that every other document besides this one, whether already made or to come, was anathematized. When they had done this, they deposed Aetius from the diaconate, as one who wrote and held discussions contentiously, with a display of wisdom foreign to the church's purpose, and blasphemously, and as a cause of turmoil and strife to the churches. It is said by some that they deposed him not from conviction but to clear themselves and their reputation with the emperor, for they were accused of holding his views. Taking advantage of the emperor's anger, which he had against Macedonius for the reasons stated above, they deposed him, and Eleusius, bishop of Cyzicus, Basil of Ancyra, Heortasius of Sardis, and Dracontius of Pergamum. Though they differed with them about the doctrine, in deposing them they did not find fault with their faith, but brought charges: in common against all, that they had troubled the churches and sinned against the laws of the church; and particular charges against each. Against Basil, that when Diogenes, a presbyter from Alexandria, was passing through Ancyra, he took his papers from him and beat him; and that he ordered the magistrates to punish without trial, with exile and other penalties, clergy from Antioch and the region of the Euphrates, Cilicians, Galatians and Asians, so that they experienced iron chains and had to give up their property to the soldiers who led them away, so as not to be ill-treated. They charged him also that when the emperor ordered Aetius and some of his companions to be brought to Cecropius to answer the charges he made, he persuaded the man entrusted with the ruler's order to do what he himself thought fit; that he wrote to Hermogenes the prefect and to the governor of Syria saying who should be deported and where; and that when the emperor recalled them from exile, he did not allow it, opposing magistrates and priests. They added that he had stirred up the clergy of Sirmium against Germinius; that, writing that he was in communion with him and with Valens and Ursacius, he slandered them to the bishops of Africa; that when accused he denied it and perjured himself, and when caught tried to quibble about the perjury; and that he had been a cause of dissension and strife to the Illyrians, Italians and Africans and of what happened to the church of the Romans. That he had a slave-girl put in chains and tried to force her to give false testimony against her mistress; that he baptized a man who had lived shamefully, living with a woman not by the law of marriage, and counted him worthy to serve God as a deacon; that he did not cut off from the church a periodeutes who had caused deaths; and that at the holy table he made conspiracies, cursing and making the clergy swear not to accuse one another, which was a device for him, as head of the clergy, to escape the charges of accusers. Such, in brief, were the reasons they gave for the deposition of Basil. Of Eustathius: first, that while he was a presbyter, his father Eulalius, being bishop of the church of Caesarea in Cappadocia, had condemned him and excluded him from the prayers; after this he had been excommunicated by a synod at Neocaesarea in Pontus; and he had been deposed by Eusebius, bishop of Constantinople, being condemned in certain administrations entrusted to him; then, for teaching, doing and thinking what he ought not, he was removed from the episcopate by those who met at Gangra; at the synod at Antioch he was convicted of perjury; and he was trying to overturn what had been decided by those who met at Melitene; and though liable to very many charges, he claimed to be a judge and called the others heterodox. Eleusius they deposed because he had thoughtlessly admitted to the ministry of God a certain Heraclius, a Tyrian by race, who had been priest of Heracles there, had been indicted for sorcery and was wanted, and for this reason was living as a fugitive at Cyzicus, pretending to be a Christian; and after learning that he was not such, he did not separate him from the church; and because he ordained without examination men condemned by Maris, bishop of Chalcedon, a member of this synod, who had come to Cyzicus. Heortasius they deposed because he had become bishop of Sardis without the consent of the bishops of Lydia; and Dracontius of Pergamum because he had formerly been bishop in Galatia; and they annulled the ordination of each as unlawful. After this they met again and deposed Silvanus, bishop of Tarsus, Sophronius of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, Elpidius of Satala, and Neon of Seleucia in Isauria. They deposed Silvanus as leader of folly to the others, at Seleucia and at Constantinople, and because he had set Theophilus over the church of Castabala, who had earlier been ordained bishop of Eleutheropolis by the bishops of Palestine and had sworn not to enter another episcopate without their consent. Sophronius, because he tried to make gain and traffic with what was offered to the church, and after a first and a second summons, when he barely came, would not defend himself before them on the charges, but chose outside judges. Neon, because he had been eager to have Annianus ordained bishop of Antioch in his own church, and had made bishops of certain people inexperienced in the sacred Scriptures and the laws of the church, who were engaged in civic affairs, who afterward preferred the possession of money to the priesthood and chose in writing to serve while keeping their property rather than be bishops without it. Elpidius, because he had joined with Basil to make trouble and was a leader of disorder; and because, contrary to what had been decided at the synod at Melitene, he restored to the presbyterate one Eusebius, a man who had been deposed, and admitted to the diaconate one Nectaria, who had been excommunicated for breaking agreements, though she had no claim to this honour according to the laws of the church.