Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis Bishop of Nicæa, having recovered Confidence, endeavor to subvert the Nicene Creed, by plotting against Athanasius.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter
XXIII.—Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis
Bishop of Nicæa, having recovered Confidence, endeavor to subvert
the Nicene Creed, by plotting against Athanasius.
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,232
| 232Euseb. Life of Const. III. 23.
|
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 Nicæa. Yet as we ourselves have discovered
from various letters which the bishops wrote to one another after the
Synod, the term homoousios 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 Sabellius233
and Montanus;234
| 234It is not clear why Socrates joins the name of
Montanus to that of Sabellius; the former was undoubtedly in accord
with the common doctrine of the church as to the Trinity. Cf. Epiphan.
Hær. XLVIII. and Tertullian ad. Praxeam. It was,
however, frequently alleged by various writers of the age that Montanus
and the Montanists held erroneous views concerning the Godhead. See
Eus. H. E. V. 16.
|
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.
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
