Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Historical Introduction. PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP
Historical Introduction.
With regard to the Synod of Gangra we know little beside
what we learn from its own synodal letter. Three great questions
naturally arise with regard to it.
1. What was its date?
2. Who was the Eustathius it condemned?
3. Who was its presiding officer?
I shall briefly give the reader the salient points with
regard to each of these matters.
1. With regard to the date, there can be no doubt
that it was after Nice and before the First Council of Constantinople,
that is between 325 and 381. Socrates131
131 Socrat. H. E., Lib. II., cap. xliij. |
seems to place it about 365; but Sozomen132
132 Sozomen. H.
E., Lib. IV., cap. xxiv. |
some twenty years earlier. On the other hand, Remi
Ceillier133
133 Remi
Ceillier. Hist. Générale des Auteurs
Sacrés, Tom. IV., p. 735. | inconsistently
with his other statements, seems to argue from St. Basil’s
letters that the true date is later than 376. Still another
theory has been urged by the Ballerini, resting on the supposition that
the Eusebius who presided was Eusebius of Cæsarea, and they
therefore fix the date between 362 and 370. With this Mr.
Ffoulkes agrees, and fixes the date,134
134 E. S. Ffoulkes, in
Smith and Cheetham, Dict. Christ. Antiq., s. v.
Gangra. | with Pagi, at
358, and is bold enough to add, “and this was unquestionably the
year of the Council.” But in the old collections of canons
almost without exception, the canons of Gangra precede those of
Antioch, and Blondel and Tillemont135
135 I am indebted to
Hefele for this reference, and he gives Mémoires, note
xxvij., sur St. Basile. | have sustained
this, which perhaps I may call the traditional date.
2. There does not seem to be any reasonable ground
to doubt that the person condemned, Eustathius by name, was the famous
bishop of Sebaste. This may be gathered from both
Sozomen136
136 Sozom. H.
E., III., xiv. | and Socrates,137
137 Socrat. H. E., II., xliij. |
and is confirmed incidentally by one of St. Basil’s
epistles.138
138 S. Basil.
M.,Ep. ccxxiij. | Moreover,
Eustathius’s See of Sebaste is in Armenia, and it is to the
bishops of Armenia that the Synod addresses its letter. It would
seem in view of all this that Bp. Hefele’s words are not too
severe when he writes, “Under such circumstances the statement of
Baronius, Du Pin, and others (supported by no single ancient testimony)
that another Eustathius, or possibly the monk Eutactus, is here meant,
deserves no serious consideration, though Tillemont did not express
himself as opposed to it.”139
139 Hefele.
Hist. Councils, Vol. II., p. 337. |
The story that after his condemnation by the Synod of
Gangra Eustathius gave up wearing his peculiar garb and other
eccentricities, Sozomen only gives as a report.140
140 Soz. H. E.,
Lib. III., cap. xiv. It is curious that Canon Venables in his
article “Eustathius” in Smith and Wace, Dict. of Christ.
Biog., gives the story on Sozoman’s authority as quoted by
Hefele, but without giving Hefele’s warning that it was a mere
rumour. It would seem that Canon Venables could not have
consulted the Greek, where the word used is λόγος; Hefele gives no
reference. I have supplied this in the beginning of this
note. |
3. As to who was the president, it seems tolerably
certain that his name was Eusebius—if Sozomen141
141 Sozomen. H.
E., Lib. IV., cap. xxiv. |
indeed means it was “Eusebius of Constantinople,” it is a
blunder, yet he had the name right. In the heading of the Synodal
letter Eusebius is first named, and as Gangra and Armenia were within
the jurisdiction of Cæsarea, it certainly would seem natural to
suppose that the Eusebius named was the Metropolitan of that province,
but it must be remembered that Eusebius of Cappadocia was not made
bishop until 362, four years after Mr. Ffoulkes makes him preside at
Gangra. The names of thirteen bishops are given in the Greek
text.
The Latin translations add other names, such as that of
Hosius of Cordova, and some Latin writers have asserted that he
presided as legate à latere from the pope, e.g.,
Baronius142
142 Baronius.
Annal., Tom. iii., ad ann. 361, n. 44. | and
Binius.143
143 Binius.
Annotat. in Synod. Gang. | Hefele denies this and says:
“At the time of the Synod of Gangra Hosius was without doubt dead.”144
144 Hefele. Hist.
Councils, Vol. II., p. 327. | But such has not been the opinion of
the learned, and Cave145
145 Cave. Hist.
Lit., Lib. I., cap. v. | is of opinion that
Hosius’s episcopate covered seventy years ending with 361, and
(resting on the same opinion) Pagi thinks Hosius may have attended the
Synod in 358 on his way back to Spain, an opinion with which, as I have
said, Mr. Ffoulkes agrees. It seems also clear that by the
beginning of the sixth century the Synod of Gangra was looked upon at
Rome as having been held under papal authority; Pope Symmachus
expressly saying so to the Roman Synod of 504. (Vide Notes
on Canons vij. and viij.)
It remains only further to remark that the Libellus
Synodicus mentions a certain Dius as president of the Synod.
The Ballarini146
146 S. Leon., M.,
Opp., ed. Ballerini, Tom. III., p. xxiv. | suggest that it
should be Βίος, an abbreviation of
Eusebius. Mr. Ffoulkes suggests that Dius is “probably
Dianius, the predecessor of Eusebius.” Lightfoot147
147 Smith and Wace.
Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v. Eusebius of Cæsarea. | fixes the episcopate of Eusebius Pamphili
as between 313 and 337; and states that that of Eusebius of
Cæsarea in Cappadocia did not begin until 362, so that the
enormous chronological difficulties will be evident to the reader.
As all the proposed new dates involve more or less
contradiction, I have given the canons their usual position between
Neocæsarea and Antioch, and have left the date
undetermined. E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|