the Father." The emperor, after having this confession of faith read to him, was moved to indignation by the impiety it contained, and asked Eudoxius whether it had been composed by him. Eudoxius affirmed that it was not written by him, but by Aëtius. This was the same Aëtius who some time previously had been deprived of the office of deacon by Leontius, from the dread of the accusations of Flavianus and Diodorus: he had also been the accomplice of George, bishop of Alexandria, and had taken an active part in all his impious discourses and unholy enterprises. Aëtius was then residing with Eunomius at the house of Eudoxius: for, at the death of Leontius, Eudoxius having seized the government of the church of Antioch, Aëtius had returned from Egypt, and had brought Eunomius with him. When he discovered that Eudoxius held the same sentiments as himself, and that his impious principles were combined with the luxurious habits of the Sybarites, he preferred to reside in Antioch rather than in any other city. He and Eunomius frequented the table of Eudoxius, and led the life of parasites, going hither and thither with the sole intent of gormandizing. These things coming to the knowledge of the emperor, he desired Aëtius to be brought before him, and, showing him the formulary, asked him whether he was the author of it? Aëtius, being totally ignorant of what had transpired, and unaware of the cause of the question being put to him, and expecting also that his confession of the fact would elicit applause, said that he was indeed the author of the document. The emperor, having thus detected his great impiety, immediately condemned him to banishment, and sent him to a region of Phrygia. Thus Aëtius reaped disgrace as the fruit of his blasphemy, and was thrust out of the palace. Eustathius deposed that Eudoxius held the same views as Aëtius who had indited these blasphemies, that he had been an inmate of the same house, and had sat down at the same table, and had been subservient to all his designs. Eustathius added, that this writing could not have been drawn up without the knowledge and concurrence of Eudoxius; and that this was proved by his having declared that it was written by Aëtius. The emperor said that the decision of judges ought not to rest upon conjectures, but upon the results of close and accurate examination. To this observation Eustathius made the following reply:-"Let Eu

doxius convince us that he does not hold these sentiments, by pronouncing an anathema against the formulary of Aëtius." The emperor having agreed to this proposal, Eudoxius endeavoured by various artifices to evade pronouncing the condemnation to which he had been challenged. But when the emperor became irritated, and threatened to send him into banishment with Aëtius as the accomplice in his impiety, he publicly renounced his own doctrines, which, however, he never desisted from defending. Eudoxius then objected to Eustathius that he and the other bishops ought to condemn the word con-substantial, as it is not to be found in Scripture. Silvanus replied, that, as the statements that the Son was called out of nothing into being, that he is a creature, and of a different substance from the Father, do not occur in Scripture, nor in the writings of prophets, nor of the apostles, it was but just that such statements should be condemned and expunged by those who held them. The emperor assented to this, and commanded the partisans of Eudoxius to condemn these expressions. At first they made some objections, but at length perceiving the indignation of the emperor, they reluctantly condemned the statements cited by Silvanus, and they demanded with greater vehemence than before that the term con-substantial should likewise be condemned. But Silvanus addressed both them and the emperor with subtlety as well as with truth. If the Word who is God was not created, if he is not a creature, if he is not of a different substance, he must be of the same2 substance as God who begat him; for he is God of God and Light of Light, and of the same nature as the Father who begat him." But though he maintained these arguments with power and with truth, he did not succeed in convincing any one. The partisans of Acacius and Eudoxius raised loud shouts against him; and the emperor, being angry, threatened to expel him from the church. Eleusius, Silvanus, and others, told the emperor that he had the right of inflicting punishment, but that the right of judging between. piety and impiety was theirs, and that they would never swerve from the doctrines of the Fathers. Constantius, instead of applauding their wisdom and courage, and their defence of the apostolical doctrines, banished them from their churches and appointed others in their place. Eudoxius then seized the go1 Εἰ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων οὐκ ἔστι. 2 'Oμoovσios. See Soc. Ec. Hist. b. i. passim.

1

vernment of the church of Constantinople; and Eunomius took possession of the bishopric of Cyzicum, whence Eleusius had been ejected. The emperor then commanded a written condemnation of Aëtius to be prepared, so that his associates in impiety were compelled to condemn one holding the same sentiments as themselves. They wrote to George, bishop of Alexandria, informing him of what had been done against Aëtius. In proof of their malice I shall here insert their letter, for they treated those who coincided in their opinions and those who opposed them in the same manner.

CHAP. XXVIII.-SYNODICAL EPISTLE WRITTEN AGAINST AETIUS. COPY of the letter written by all the council to George, concerning the atrocious blasphemy of his deacon Aëtius. "The holy synod assembled at Constantinople saluteth the much-honoured George, bishop of Alexandria.

"The bishops, by condemning the unlawful and scandalous writings of Aëtius, have acted in conformity with the canons of the church. They have likewise ejected him from the office of deacon, and have excommunicated him. They admonished us to refrain from reading his letters, and desired us to destroy his writings on account of their inutility and pernicious tendency. They also enacted that a sentence of condemnation should be issued against him and his adherents if he persisted in his error. It would have been well if the author of all the offences, troubles, schisms, and tumults which have agitated the whole world, and of the disputes which have divided the members of the church, had been regarded with aversion by all the bishops assembled at the council, so that they might have unanimously concurred in the sentence pronounced against him. But, contrary to all our hopes and expectations, Serras, Stephen, Heliodorus, Theophilus, and others refused to assent to our decision, or to sign the sentence which we had adjudged. Yet Serras accused Aëtius of the grossest infatuation, alleging that he had had the presumption and audacity to declare that God had revealed to him what had been kept concealed from the apostles. Even after proof of the infatuation and arrogance of Aëtius had been adduced by Serras, they could not be led either by entreaties or by arguments to sign the sentence which we had decreed against him. We bore with them patiently

for a long time, addressing them alternately in tones of indignation, of entreaty, and of rebuke, and then beseeching them to agree with us and with the whole council. We waited a long time to see if they would yield to the force of our arguments. But when we had borne with them during so long a period, and had found that they would not yield nor assent to the condemnation of the aforesaid individual, we testified that we held the canons of the church in higher estimation than the friendship of men, and we excluded them from communion; we gave them, however, six months for repentance and amendment, and for reconciliation with the synod. We determined that if within the time appointed they repented of their error, became united in opinion with their brethren, and assented to the decree against Aëtius, they should be admitted into communion with the church, and should receive from us, in all the synods, the authority and the love which they had previously enjoyed; but that if, regarding the friendship of men more than the laws of the church and unity with us, they persisted in refusing to repent of their temerity, that we should then consider them unworthy of the episcopal dignity. Upon their deposition, it became requisite that other bishops should fill their offices, in order that the church may be united in opinion, that the bonds of love may be preserved between the bishops of every region, and that they all may declare the same truths, and be of one mind and of one opinion. This is what we had to mention to you respecting the decrees of the council. We pray that you may be enabled to observe them; and that you may, by the grace of Christ, peaceably and lawfully govern the church which is under you.”

CHAP. XXIX.-CAUSE OF THE RUPTURE BETWEEN THE EUNO

MIANS AND THE ARIANS.

EUNOMIUS, in his writings, highly extolled Aëtius, styled him the man of God, and bestowed many encomiums on him; still he did not refrain from intimacy with those who had condemned him; and he even received ordination from them, being raised by them to the episcopal dignity. The partisans of Eudoxius and of Acacius, who had approved of the formulary compiled at Nice in Thrace, of which mention has already been made, ordained two bishops in the room of Basil and

The

Eleusius whom they had deposed. As I think it would be superfluous to enter into particulars respecting the other bishops, I shall only relate what concerns Eunomius. government of the church of Cyzicum being seized by Eunomius while Eleusius was still living, Eudoxius, who perceived the attachment of the people to sound doctrine, and who was also aware that the emperor had expressed indignation against those who said that the only begotten Son of God had been created, counselled Eunomius to conceal his sentiments, and not to let them be known to those who were earnestly seeking "At an opportunity for framing accusations against him. some future period," said he," we will preach that which we now conceal, we will instruct the ignorant, and will silence our opponents either by arguments, by force, or by vengeance." Eunomius, in accordance with this advice, concealed his impiety by involving his doctrines in obscure phraseology. But those who were well instructed in the Holy Scriptures perceived the fraud, and felt it deeply; but they conceived that the manifestation of any opposition would be more rash than prudent. Under the pretence of having imbibed heretical opinions, they went to his house, and besought him to expound to them the truth which he maintained, that they might not be driven hither and thither by contrary doctrines. He was led to place confidence in them, and disclosed to them the doctrines which he had till then concealed. They then told him that it would be exceedingly unjust and impious if he did not communicate the truth to all men. Eunomius was deceived by these and other similar arguments, and accordingly divulged his blasphemous opinions in the public assemblies of the church. They then, transported with zeal, hastened to Constantinople, and laid their accusation against Eunomius, in the first place, before Eudoxius; but as he would not receive it, they repaired to the emperor to complain to him of the injury committed by Eunomius, whom they accused of advancing doctrines more impious than the blasphemies of Arius. The emperor was much incensed on receiving this information; and he commanded Eudoxius to send for Eunomius, and upon his conviction to deprive him of the sacerdotal office. Finding that Eudoxius persisted in delay, notwithstanding their numerous solicitations, the accusers again repaired to the emperor, and declared that Eudoxius had disobeyed the command imposed