Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Council of Seleucia.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter XXII.—Council
of Seleucia.
About the same period the
Eastern bishops assembled,1335
| 1335Soz. alludes to the original acts of the Synod at
the end, and Soc. ii. 39, to Sabinus’ collection. Sabinus
probably reported the exact originals. Athan. de Synodis, 12,
13; Hil. contra Constantium, 12; Philost. iv. 11; Sulp. Sev.
H. S. ii. 42. Cf. Theodoret, H. E. ii. 26; Athan. de
Synodis, 29.
|
to the number of about one hundred and sixty, in Seleucia, a city of
Isauria. This was during the consulate of Eusebius and Hypatius.
Leonas, who held a brilliant military office at the palace, repaired to
this council at the command of Constantius, so that the doctrinal
confession might be conducted in his presence. Lauricius, the military
governor of the province, was present to prepare whatever might be
necessary; for the letter of the emperor had commanded him to render
this service. At the first session
of this council, several of the bishops were absent, and among others,
Patrophilus, bishop of Scythopolis; Macedonius, bishop of
Constantinople; and Basil, bishop of Ancyra. They resorted to divers
pretexts in justification of their non-attendance. Patrophilus alleged
in excuse a complaint in the eyes, and Macedonius pleaded
indisposition; but it was suspected they had absented themselves from
the fear that various accusations would be brought against them. As the
other bishops refused to enter upon the investigation of disputed
points during their absence, Leonas commanded them to proceed at once
to the examination of the questions that had been agitated. Thus some
were of the opinion that it was necessary to commence with the
discussion of doctrinal topics, while others maintained that inquiries
ought first to be instituted into the conduct of those among them
against whom accusations had been laid, as had been the case with
Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste, and others.
The ambiguity of the emperor’s letters, which sometimes
prescribed one course and sometimes another, gave rise to this dispute.
The contention arising from this source became so fierce, that all
union was destroyed between them, and they became divided into two
parties. However, the advice of those who wished to commence with the
examination of doctrine, prevailed. When they proceeded to the
investigation of terms, some desired to reject the use of the term
“substance,” and appealed to the authority of the formulary
of faith which had not long previously been compiled by Mark1336
| 1336The author of the first formulary of Sirmium is here
given by Soz. Soc. stated it, ii. 30.
|
at Sirmium, and had been received by the bishops who were at the court,
among whom was Basil,1337
bishop of Ancyra. Many others were anxious for the adoption of the
formulary of faith drawn up at the dedication of the church of Antioch.
To the first of these parties belonged Eudoxius, Acacius, Patrophilus,
George, bishop of Alexandria, Uranius, bishop of Tyre, and thirty-two
other bishops. The latter party was supported by George, bishop of
Laodicea, in Syria; by Eleusius, bishop of Cyzicus; by Sophronius,
bishop of Pompeiopolis, in Paphlagonia; with these the majority agreed.
It was suspected, and with reason, that Acacius and his partisans
absented themselves on account of the difference between their
sentiments and those of the aforesaid bishops, and also because they
desired to evade the investigation of certain accusations which had
been brought against them; for, although they had previously
acknowledged in writing to Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, that
the Son is in all respects like unto the Father, and of the same
substance, now they fought entirely shy of their former professions.
After prolonged disputations and contention, Silvanus, bishop of
Tarsus, declared, in a loud and peremptory tone, that no new formulary
of faith ought to be introduced but that which had been approved at
Antioch, and this alone ought to prevail. As this proposition was
repugnant to the followers of Acacius, they withdrew, and the other
bishops read the formulary of Antioch. The following day these bishops
assembled in the church, closed the doors, and privately confirmed this
formulary. Acacius condemned this proceeding, and laid the formulary
which he advocated before Leonas and Lauricius privately. Three days
afterwards the same bishops reassembled, and were joined by Macedonius
and Basil, who had been previously absent. Acacius and his partisans
declared that they would take no part in the proceedings of the council
until those who had been deposed and accused had quitted the assembly.
His demand was complied with; for the bishops of the opposite party
were determined that he should have no pretext for dissolving the
council, which was evidently his object, in order to prevent the
impending examination of the heresy of Aëtius, and of the
accusations which had been brought against himself and his partisans.
When all the members were assembled, Leonas stated that he held a
document which had been handed to him by the partisans of Acacius; it
was their formulary of faith, with introductory remarks. None of the
other bishops knew anything about it; for Leonas, who was of the same
sentiment as Acacius, had willingly kept the whole matter a secret.
When this document1338
| 1338Given by Soc. ii. 40.
|
was read, the whole assembly was filled with tumult; for some of the
statements it contained were to the effect that, though the emperor had
prohibited the introduction of any term into the formularies of faith
which was not found in the Sacred Scriptures, yet that bishops who had
been deposed, having been brought from various provinces to the
assembly, with others who had been illegally ordained, the council had
been thrown into confusion, and that some of the members had been
insulted, and others prevented from speaking. It was added that Acacius
and his partisans did not reject the formulary which had been compiled
at Antioch, although those who had assembled in that city had drawn it
up for the express purpose of meeting the difficulty which had just
then arisen; but that, as the terms “consubstantial” and
“of similar substance” had grieved some individuals, and
that, as it had been recently asserted that the Son is dissimilar from
the Father, it was necessary, on this account, to reject the terms
“consubstantial” and a
“similar substance,” which do not occur in Scripture, to
condemn the term “dissimilar,” and to confess clearly that
the Son is like unto the Father; for He is, as the Apostle Paul
somewhere says, “the image of the invisible God.” These
prefatory observations were followed by a formulary, which was neither
conformable with that of Nicæa, nor with that of Antioch, and
which was so artfully worded that the followers of Arius and of
Aëtius would not appear to be in error if they should thus state
their faith. In this formulary, the words used by those who had
convened at Nicæa, in condemnation of the Arian doctrine, were
omitted, and the declarations of the council of Antioch, concerning the
immutability of the Deity of the Son, and concerning His being the
unchangeable image of the substance, the counsel, and the power, and
the glory of the Father, were passed over in silence, and belief was
simply expressed in the Father, in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost; and
after bestowing some vulgar epithets on a few individuals who had never
entered into any doctrinal contention on one side or the other, all
those who entertained any other opinions than those set forth in this
formulary were declared to be aliens to the Catholic Church. Such were
the contents of the document presented by Leonas, and which had been
signed by Acacius, and by those who had adopted his sentiments. After
it had been read, Sophronius, a bishop of Paphlagonia, exclaimed,
“If we daily receive the opinions of individuals as a statement
of the faith, we shall fail in attaining precision of the truth.”
Acacius having retorted that it was not forbidden to compile new
formularies, as that of Nicæa had been once and frequently
altered, Eleusius replied as follows: “But the council has not
now met for the purpose of learning what is already known, or of
accepting any other formulary than that which has been already approved
by those who assembled at Antioch; and, moreover, living and dying, we
will adhere to this formulary.” The dispute having taken this
turn, they entered upon another inquiry, and asked the partisans of
Acacius, in what they considered the Son to be like unto the Father.
They replied that the Son is similar in will only, but not in
substance, and the others thereupon insisted that He is similar in
substance, and convicted Acacius, by a work which he had formerly
written, that he had once been of their opinion. Acacius replied that
he ought not to be judged from his own writings; and the dispute had
continued with heat for some time, when Eleusius, bishop of Cyzicus,
spoke as follows: “It matters little to the council whether Mark
or Basil has transgressed in any way, whether they or the adherents of
Acacius have any accusation to bring against each other; neither does
the trouble devolve upon the council of examining whether their
formulary be commendable or otherwise; it is enough to maintain the
formulary which has been already confirmed at Antioch by ninety-seven
priests; and if any one desire to introduce any doctrine which is not
contained therein, he ought to be held as an alien to religion and the
Church.” Those who were of his sentiments applauded his speech;
and the assembly then arose and separated. The following day, the
partisans of Acacius and of George refused to attend the council; and
Leonas, who had now openly declared himself to be of their sentiments,
likewise refused, in spite of all entreaties, to repair thither. Those
who were deputed to request his attendance found the partisans of
Acacius in his house; and he declined their invitation, under the plea
that too much discord prevailed in the council, and that he had only
been commanded by the emperor to attend the council in case of
unanimity among the members. Much time was consumed in this way; and
the partisans of Acacius were frequently solicited by the other bishops
to attend the assemblies; but they sometimes demanded a special
conference in the house of Leonas, and sometimes alleged that they had
been commissioned by the emperor to judge those who had been accused;
for they would not receive the creed adopted by the other bishops, nor
clear themselves of the crimes of which they had been accused; neither
would they examine the case of Cyril, whom they had deposed; and there
was no one to compel them to do so. The council, however, eventually
deposed George, bishop of Alexandria; Acacius, bishop of Cæsarea;
Uranius, bishop of Tyre; Patrophilus, bishop of Scythopolis; and
Eudoxius, bishop of Antioch; and several other prelates. Many persons
were likewise put out of communion until they could purge themselves of
the crimes imputed to them. The transactions were conveyed in writing
to the parish of each of the clergy. Adrian,1339
| 1339Mistake for Annianus, as given in 24.
|
a presbyter of Antioch, was ordained bishop over that church, in room
of Eudoxius; but the partisans of Acacius arrested him and delivered
him over to Leonas and Lauricius. They committed him into the custody
of the soldiers, but afterwards sent him into exile.
We have now given a brief account of the termination of
the council of Seleucia. Those who desire more detailed information
must seek it in the acts of the council,1340
| 1340Soc. refers anxious readers to the collection by
Sabinus, ii. 39.
|
which have been transcribed by attendant shorthand writers.
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
