Chapter III.—  Paul, Bishop of Constantinople, and Macedonius, the Pneumatomachian .

Alexander died  8  Cf. Soc. ii. 6. While the order of events is the same, Soz. had a different source, for he makes additions. Cf. Athan. Hist. Arian. 7. about this time, and Paul succeeded to the high priesthood of Constantinople. The followers of Arius and Macedonius assert that he took possession at his own motion, and against the advice of Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, or of Theodore, bishop of Heraclea, in Thrace; upon whom, as being the nearest bishops, the right of conferring ordination devolved. Many, however, maintain, on the testimony of Alexander, whom he succeeded, that he was ordained by the bishops who were then assembled at Constantinople.  9  An endemic Synod. For when Alexander, who was ninety-eight years of age, and who had conducted the episcopal office vigorously for twenty-three years, was at the point of death, his clergy, asked him to whom he wished to turn over his church. “If,” replied he, “you seek a man good in Divine matters and one who is apt to teach you, have Paul. But if you desire one who is conversant with public affairs, and with the councils of rulers, Macedonius is better.” The Macedonians themselves admit that this testimony was given by Alexander; but they say that Paul was more skilled in the transaction of business and the art of eloquence; but they put emphasis for Macedonius, on the testimony of his life; and they accuse Paul of having been addicted to effeminacy and an indifferent conduct.  10  ἀδιάφορος βίος, literally “an indifferent life.” St. Nilus, St. Basil, and others of the Christian Fathers use this phrase as opposed to an ascetic life. It appears, however, from their own acknowledgment, that Paul was a man of eloquence, and brilliant in teaching the Church. Events proved that he was not competent to combat the casualties of life, or to hold intercourse with those in power; for he was never successful in subverting the machinations of his enemies,  11  He had been originally accused by his presbyter Macedonius. The accusation, according to Theodoret, after his restoration was sedition (H. E. ii. 5), the crime usually imputed to the homoousians. Cf. Athan. Hist. Arian. like those who are adroit in the management of affairs. Although he was greatly beloved by the people, he suffered severely from the treachery of those who then rejected the doctrine which prevailed at Nicæa. In the first place, he was expelled from the church of Constantinople, as if some accusation of misconduct had been established against him.  12  He had been originally accused by his presbyter Macedonius. The accusation, according to Theodoret, after his restoration was sedition (H. E. ii. 5), the crime usually imputed to the homoousians. Cf. Athan. Hist. Arian. He was then condemned to banishment, and finally, it is said, fell a victim to the devices of his enemies, and was strangled. But these latter events took place at a subsequent period.