Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Of the Synod held at Antioch, which deposed Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, on whose account a Sedition broke out and almost ruined the City.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter XXIV.—Of the
Synod held at Antioch, which deposed Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, on
whose account a Sedition broke out and almost ruined the City.
Having therefore convened a
Synod at Antioch, they deposed Eustathius, as a supporter of the
Sabellian heresy, rather than of the tenets which the council at
Nicæa had formulated. As some affirm [this measure was taken] for
other and unsatisfactory reasons, though none other have been openly
assigned: this is a matter of common occurrence; the bishops are
accustomed to do this in all cases, accusing and pronouncing impious
those whom they depose, but not explaining their warrant for so doing.
George, bishop of Laodicea in Syria, one of the number of those who
abominated the term homoousios, assures us in his Encomium of
Eusebius Emisenus, that they deposed Eustathius as favoring
Sabellianism, on the impeachment of Cyrus, bishop of Berœa. Of
Eusebius Emisenus we shall speak elsewhere in due order.235
George has written of Eustathius [somewhat inconsistently]; for after
asserting that he was accused by Cyrus of maintaining the heresy of
Sabellius, he tells us again that Cyrus himself was convicted of the
same error, and degraded for it. Now how was it possible that Cyrus
should accuse Eustathius as a Sabellian, when he inclined to
Sabellianism himself? It appears likely therefore that Eustathius must
have been condemned on other grounds. At that time, however, there
arose a dangerous sedition at Antioch on account of his deposition: for
when they proceeded to the election of a successor, so fierce a
dissension was kindled, as to threaten the whole city with destruction.
The populace was divided into two factions, one of which vehemently
contended for the translation of Eusebius Pamphilus from Cæsarea
in Palestine to Antioch; the other equally insisted on the
reinstatement of Eustathius. And the populace of the city were infected
with the spirit of partisanship in this quarrel among the Christians, a
military force was arrayed on both sides with hostile intent, so that a
bloody collision would have taken place, had not God and the dread of
the emperor repressed the violence of the multitude. For the emperor
through letters, and Eusebius by refusing to accept the bishopric,
served to allay the ferment: on which account that prelate was
exceedingly admired by the emperor, who wrote to him commending his
prudent determination, and congratulating him as one who was considered
worthy of being bishop not of one city merely, but of almost the whole
world. Consequently it is said that the episcopal chair of the church
at Antioch was vacant for eight consecutive years after this period;236
| 236Socrates is in error here, as according to Eusebius
(H. E. X. 1), immediately after the deposition of Eustathius and
his own refusal of the bishopric of Antioch, Paulinus was transferred
there from the see of Tyre. This was in 329 a.d., so that no vacancy of eight years intervened.
|
but at length by the exertions of those who aimed at the subversion of
the Nicene creed, Euphronius was duly installed. This is the amount of
my information respecting the Synod held at Antioch on account of
Eustathius. Immediately after these events Eusebius, who had long
before left Berytus, and was at that time presiding over the church at
Nicomedia, strenuously exerted himself in connection to those of his
party, to bring back Arius to Alexandria. But how they managed to
effect this, and by what means the emperor was prevailed on to admit both Arius and with him
Euzoïus into his presence must now be related.
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
