Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| The Partial Council of Antioch; it deposed Athanasius; it substituted Gregory; its Two Statements of the Faith; those who agreed with them.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter V.—The Partial Council of Antioch; it
deposed Athanasius; it substituted Gregory; its Two Statements of the
Faith; those who agreed with them.
Soon after these occurrences,
the emperor went to Antioch, a city of Syria.1221
Here a church had already been completed, which excelled in size and
beauty. Constantine began to build it during his lifetime, and as the
structure had been just finished by his son Constantius, it was deemed
a favorable opportunity by the partisans of Eusebius, who of old were
zealous for it, to convene a council. They, therefore, with those from
various regions who held their sentiments, met together in Antioch;1222
| 1222Soc. ii. 8–10. Soz. with independent matter
borrows from the same sources as Soc., one of which is Athan. de
Synodis, 22–25.
|
their bishops were about ninety-seven in number. Their professed object
was the consecration of the newly finished church; but they intended
nothing else than the abolition of the decrees of the Nicæan
Council, and this was fully proved by the sequel. The Church of Antioch
was then governed by Placetus,1223
| 1223Also called Flaccillus. Soc. ii. 8.
|
who had succeeded Euphronius. The death of Constantine the Great had
taken place about five years prior to this period. When all the bishops
had assembled in the presence of the emperor Constantius, the majority
expressed great indignation, and vigorously accused Athanasius of
having contemned the sacerdotal regulation which they had enacted,1224
and taken possession of the bishopric of Alexandria without first
obtaining the sanction of a council. They also deposed that he was the
cause of the death of several persons, who fell in a sedition excited
by his return; and that many others had on the same occasion been
arrested and delivered up to the judicial tribunals. By these
accusations they contrived to cast odium on Athanasius, and it was
decreed that Gregory should be invested with the government of the
Church of Alexandria. They then turned to the discussion of doctrinal
questions, and found no fault with the decrees of the council of Nice.
They dispatched letters to the bishops of every city, in which they
declared that, as they were bishops themselves, they had not followed
Arius. “For how,” said they, “could we have been
followers of him, when he was but a presbyter,1225
| 1225Athan. de Synodis, 22.
|
and we were placed above him?” Since they were the testers of his
faith, they had readily received him; and they believed in the faith
which had from the beginning been handed down by tradition. This they
further explained at the bottom of their letter, but without mentioning
the substance of the Father or the Son, or the term consubstantial.
They resorted, in fact, to such ambiguity of expression, that neither
the Arians nor the followers of the decrees of the Nicæan Council
could call the arrangement of their words into question, as though they
were ignorant of the holy Scriptures. They purposely avoided all forms
of expression which were rejected by either party, and only made use of
those which were universally admitted. They confessed1226
| 1226This creed is given in Athan. de Synodis, 23.
Cf. Soc. ii. 10; here only in a suggestion and criticism.
|
that the Son is with the Father, that He is the only begotten One, and
that He is God, and existed before all things; and that He took flesh
upon Him, and fulfilled the will of His Father. They confessed these
and similar truths, but they did not describe the doctrine of the Son
being co-eternal or consubstantial with the Father, or the opposite.
They subsequently changed their minds, it appears, about this
formulary, and issued another,1227
| 1227Theophronius’ statement is passed over, and
the final creed is here given in summary. Athan. de Synodis, 24,
25.
|
which, I think, very nearly resembled that of the council of Nice,
unless, indeed, some secret meaning be attached to the words which is
not apparent to me. Although they refrained—I know not from what
motive—from saying that the Son is consubstantial, they confessed
that He is immutable, that His Divinity is not susceptible of change,
that He is the perfect image of the substance, and counsel, and power,
and glory of the Father, and that He is the first-born of every
creature. They stated that they had found this formulary of faith, and
that it was entirely written by Lucianus,1228
| 1228This person was a presbyter of Antioch. Cf. vi. 12;
Philost. ii. 12–14; Eus. H. E. ix. 6.
|
who was martyred in Nicomedia, and who was a man highly approved and
exceedingly accurate in the sacred Scriptures. I know not whether this
statement was really true, or whether they merely advanced it in order
to give weight to their own document, by connecting with it the dignity
of a martyr. Not only did Eusebius (who, on the expulsion of Paul, had
been transferred from Nicomedia to the throne of Constantinople)
participate in this council, but likewise Acacius, the successor of
Eusebius Pamphilus, Patrophilus, bishop of Scythopolis, Theodore,
bishop of Heraclea, formerly called Perinthus, Eudoxius, bishop of
Germanicia, who subsequently directed the Church of Constantinople
after Macedonius, and Gregory, who had been chosen to preside over the
Church of Alexandria. It was universally acknowledged that all these
bishops held the same sentiments, such as Dianius,1229
| 1229He is also called Dianœus.
|
bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, George, bishop of Laodicea in
Syria, and many others who acted as bishops over metropolitan and other
distinguished churches.
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
