Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Of the Synod at Seleucia, in Isauria.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter XXXIX.—Of the
Synod at Seleucia, in Isauria.
But I must now give an account
of the other Synod, which the emperor’s edict had convoked in the
east, as a rival to that of Ariminum. It was at first determined that
the bishops should assemble at Nicomedia in Bithynia; but a great
earthquake having nearly destroyed that city, prevented their being
convened there. This happened in the consulate417
of Tatian and Cerealis, on the 28th day of August.418
| 418In this calamity Cecropius, the bishop of Nicomedia,
perished, and the splendid cathedral of the city was ruined; both of
which misfortunes were attributed by the heathen to the wrath of their
gods. See Sozom. IV. 16.
|
They were therefore planning to transfer the council to the neighboring
city of Nicæa: but this plan was again altered, as it seemed more
convenient to meet at Tarsus in Cilicia. Being dissatisfied with this
arrangement also, they at last assembled themselves at Seleucia,
surnamed Aspera,419
| 419Τραχεῖα, on account of
the neighboring steep mountains. This Seleucia was the capital of
Isauria.
|
a city of Isauria. This took place in the same year [in which the
council of Ariminum was held], under the consulate of Eusebius and Hypatius,420
| 420359 a.d. See, on this
double council of Ariminum and Seleucia, Hefele, Hist. of the Ch.
Councils, Vol. II. p. 346–371.
|
the number of those convened being about 160. There was present on this
occasion Leonas, an officer of distinction attached to the imperial
household, before whom the emperor’s edict had enjoined that the
discussion respecting the faith should be entered into. Lauricius also,
the commander-in-chief of the troops in Isauria, was ordered to be
there, to serve the bishops in such things as they might require. In
the presence of these personages therefore, the bishops were there
convened on the 27th of the month of September, and immediately began a
discussion on the basis of the public records, shorthand writers being
present to write down what each might say. Those who desire to learn
the particulars of the several speeches, will find copious details of
them in the collection of Sabinus; but we shall only notice the more
important heads. On the first day of their being convened, Leonas
ordered each one to propose what he thought fit: but those present said
that no question ought to be agitated in the absence of those prelates
who had not yet arrived; for Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople,
Basil of Ancyra, and some others who were apprehensive of an
impeachment for their misconduct, had not made their appearance.
Macedonius pleaded indisposition, and failed to attend; Patrophilus
said he had some trouble with his eyes, and that on this account it was
needful for him to remain in the suburbs of Seleucia; and the rest
offered various pretexts to account for their absence. When, however,
Leonas declared that the subjects which they had met to consider must
be entered on, notwithstanding the absence of these persons, the
bishops replied that they could not proceed to the discussion of any
question, until the life and conduct of the parties accused had been
investigated: for Cyril of Jerusalem, Eustathius of Sebastia in
Armenia, and some others, had been charged with misconduct on various
grounds long before. A sharp contest arose in consequence of this
demur; some affirming that cognizance ought first to be taken of all
such accusations, and others denying that anything whatever should have
precedence of matters of faith. The emperor’s orders contributed
not a little to augment this dispute, inasmuch as letters of his were
produced urging now this and now that as necessary to be considered
first. The dispute having arisen on this subject, a schism was thus
made, and the Seleucian council was divided into two factions, one of
which was headed by Acacius of Cæsarea in Palestine, George of
Alexandria, Uranius of Tyre, and Eudoxius of Antioch, who were
supported by only about thirty-two other bishops. Of the opposite
party, which was by far the more numerous, the principal were George of
Laodicea in Syria, Sophronius of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, and
Eleusius of Cyzicus. It being determined by the majority to examine
doctrinal matters first, the party of Acacius openly opposed the Nicene
Creed, and wished to introduce another instead of it. The other
faction,421
| 421Cf Athan. de Synodd. 12.
|
which was considerably more numerous, concurred in all the decisions of
the council of Nicæa, but criticised its adoption of the term
homoousion. Accordingly they debated on this point, much being
said on each side, until late in the evening, when Silvanus, who
presided over the church at Tarsus, insisted with much vehemence of
manner, ‘that there was no need of a new exposition of the faith;
but that it was their duty rather to confirm that which was published
at Antioch,422
at the consecration of the church in that place.’ On this
declaration, Acacius and his partisans privately withdrew from the
council; while the others, producing the creed composed at Antioch,
read it, and then separated for that day. Assembling in the church of
Seleucia on the day following, after having closed the doors, they
again read the same creed, and ratified it by their signatures. At this
time the readers and deacons present signed on behalf of certain absent
bishops, who had intimated their acquiescence in its form.
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
