The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret.
The ECCLESIASTICAL HistorY of Theodoret.
Chapter I.— Origin of the Arian Heresy.
Chapter II.— List of the Principal Bishops
Chapter IV.— The Letter of Arius to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia
Chapter V.— The Letter of Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, to Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre .
Chapter VI.— General Council of Nicæa .
Chapter VII.— Confutation of Arianism deduced from the Writings of Eustathius and Athanasius .
Chapter XIII.— Extract from the Letter of Athanasius on the Death of Arius .
Chapter XIV.— Letter written by the Emperor Constantine respecting the building of Churches .
Chapter XVIII.— The Unlawful Translation of Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia .
Chapter XXII.— Conversion of the Indians .
Chapter XXIII.— Conversion of the Iberians .
Chapter XXV.— An account of the plot formed against the Holy Athanasius .
Chapter XXVI.— Another plot against Athanasius .
Chapter XXVII.— Epistle of the Emperor Constantine to the Council of Tyre .
Chapter XXVIII.— The Council of Tyre .
Chapter XXIX.— Consecration of the Church of Jerusalem.—Banishment of St. Athanasius .
Chapter XXX.— Will of the blessed Emperor Constantine .
Chapter XXXI.— Apology for Constantine .
Chapter XXXII.— The End of the Holy Emperor Constantine .
Chapter II.— Declension of the Emperor Constantius from the true Faith .
Chapter III.— Second Exile of St. Athanasius.—Ordination and Death of Gregorius .
Chapter IV.— Paulus, Bishop of Constantinople .
Chapter V.— The Heresy of Macedonius .
Chapter VI.— Council held at Sardica .
Chapter VIII.— Stephanus Deposed .
Chapter IX.— The Second Return of Saint Athanasius .
Chapter X.— Third exile and flight of Athanasius .
Chapter XI.— The evil and daring deeds done by Georgius in Alexandria.
Chapter XII.— Council of Milan .
Chapter XIII.— Conference between Liberius, Pope of Rome, and the Emperor Constantius .
Chapter XIV.— Concerning the Banishment and Return of the Holy Liberius .
Chapter XV.— Council of Ariminum .
Chapter XVIII.— The Letter of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, concerning the same Council.
Chapter XX.— Concerning the innovations of Eudoxius, of Germanicia, and the zeal of Basilius .
Chapter XXI.— Of the Second Council of Nicæa .
Chapter XXII.— Of the Council held at Seleucia in Isauria .
Chapter XXIII.— Of what befell the orthodox bishops at Constantinople .
Chapter XXIV.— Synodical Epistle written against Aetius .
Chapter XXV.— Of the causes which separated the Eunomians from the Arians .
Chapter XXVII.— Of the Council of Antioch and what was done there against the holy Meletius .
Chapter XXVIII.— About Eusebius, Bishop of Samosata .
Chapter II.— Of the return of the bishops and the consecration of Paulinus .
Chapter IV.— Of the laws made by Julian against the Christians .
Chapter V.— Of the fourth exile and flight of the holy Athanasius .
Chapter VI.— Of Apollo and Daphne, and of the holy Babylas .
Chapter VII.— Of Theodorus the Confessor .
Chapter VIII.— Of the confiscation of the sacred treasures and taking away of the allowances .
Chapter IX.— Of what befell Julianus, the Emperor’s Uncle, and Felix .
Chapter X.— Of the Son of the Priest .
Chapter XI.— Of the Holy Martyrs Juventinus and Maximinus .
Chapter XII.— Of Valentinianus the great Emperor .
Chapter XIII.— Of other confessors .
Chapter XIV.— Of Artemius the Duke. Of Publia the Deaconess and her divine boldness .
Chapter XVI.— Of the expedition against the Persians .
Chapter XVII.— Of the boldness of speech of the decurion of Berœa .
Chapter XVIII.— Of the prediction of the pedagogue .
Chapter XIX.— Of the Prophecy of St. Julianus the monk .
Chapter XX.— Of the death of the Emperor Julian in Persia .
Chapter XXII.— Of the heads discovered in the palace at Antioch and the public rejoicings there .
Chapter II.— Of the return of Athanasius .
Chapter III.— Synodical letter to the Emperor Jovian concerning the Faith .
Chapter IV.— Of the restoration of allowances to the churches and of the Emperor’s death.
Chapter V.— Of the reign of Valentinianus, and how he associated Valens his brother with him.
Chapter VI.— Of the election of Ambrosius, the Bishop of Milan .
Chapter VIII.— Synodical Epistle of the Synod in Illyricum concerning the Faith .
Chapter IX.— Of the heresy of the Audiani .
Chapter X.— Of the heresy of the Messaliani .
Chapter XI.— In what manner Valens fell into heresy .
Chapter XII.— How Valens exiled the virtuous bishops .
Chapter XIII.— Of Eusebius, bishop of Samosata, and others .
Chapter XIV.— Of the holy Barses, and of the exile of the bishop of Edessa and his companions .
Chapter XVII.— Of the death of the great Athanasius and the election of Petrus .
Chapter XVIII.— On the overthrow of Petrus and the introduction of Lucius the Arian .
Chapter XX.— Of Mavia, Queen of the Saracens, and the ordination of Moses the monk.
Chapter XXII.— How Flavianus and Diodorus gathered the church of the orthodox in Antioch .
Chapter XXIII.— Of the holy monk Aphraates .
Chapter XXIV.— Of the holy monk Julianus .
Chapter XXV.— Of what other monks were distinguished at this period .
Chapter XXVI.— Of Didymus of Alexandria and Ephraim the Syrian .
Chapter XXVII.— Of what bishops were at this time distinguished in Asia and Pontus.
Chapter XXIX.— Of the piety of Count Terentius .
Chapter XXX.— Of the bold utterance of Trajanus the general .
Chapter XXXI.— Of Isaac the monk of Constantinople and Bretanio the Scythian Bishop.
Chapter XXXIII.— How the Goths became tainted by the Arian error .
Chapter II.— Of the return of the bishops .
Chapter IV.— Of Eusebius Bishop of Samosata .
Chapter V.— Of the campaign of Theodosius .
Chapter VI.— Of the reign of Theodosius and of his dream .
Chapter VII.— Of famous leaders of the Arian faction.
Chapter VIII.— The council assembled at Constantinople .
Chapter IX.— Synodical letter from the council at Constantinople .
Chapter X.— Synodical letter of Damasus bishop of Rome against Apollinarius and Timotheus.
Chapter XII.— Of the death of Gratianus and the sovereignty of Maximus
Chapter XIII.— Of Justina, the wife of Valentinianus, and of her plot against Ambrosius.
Chapter XIV.— Of the information given by Maximus the tyrant to Valentinianus .
Chapter XV.— Of the Letter written by the Emperor Theodosius concerning the same .
Chapter XVI.— Of Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium .
Chapter XVIII.— Of the Empress Placilla .
Chapter XIX.— Of the sedition of Antioch .
Chapter XX.— Of the destruction of the temples all over the Empire.
Chapter XXI.— Of Marcellus, bishop of Apamea, and the idols’ temples destroyed by him.
Chapter XXV.— Of the death of the Emperor Theodosius .
Chapter XXVI.— Of Honorius the emperor and Telemachus the monk .
Chapter XXVII.— Of the piety of the emperor Arcadius and the ordination of John Chrysostom.
Chapter XXVIII.— Of John’s boldness for God .
Chapter XXIX.— Of the idol temples which were destroyed by John in Phœnicia .
Chapter XXX.— Of the church of the Goths .
Chapter XXXI.— Of his care for the Scythians and his zeal against the Marcionists
Chapter XXXII.— Of the demand made by Gainas and of John Chrysostom’s reply .
Chapter XXXIII.— Of the ambassage of Chrysostom to Gainas .
Chapter XXXIV.— Of the events which happened on account of Chrysostom .
Chapter XXXV.— Of Alexander, bishop of Antioch .
Chapter XXXVII.— Of Theodotus bishop of Antioch .
Chapter XXXVIII.— Of the persecutions in Persia and of them that were martyred there.
Chapter XV.—Council of Ariminum311 a.d. 359..
When all who defended the faith had been removed, those who moulded the mind of the emperor according to their own will, flattering themselves that the faith which they opposed might be easily subverted, and Arianism established in its stead, persuaded Constantius to convene the Bishops of both East and West at Ariminum312 The eastern bishops were summoned to Seleucia, in Cilicia; the western to Ariminum, (Rimini). “A previous Conference was held at Sirmium, in order to determine on the creed to be presented to the bipartite Council.…The Eusebians struggled for the adoption of the Acacian Homœon, which the Emperor had already both received and abandoned, and they actually effected the adoption of the ‘like in all things according to the Scriptures,’ a phrase in which the semi-Arians, indeed, included their ‘like in substance’ or Homœüsion, but which did not necessarily refer to substance or nature at all. Under these circumstances the two Councils met in the autumn of a.d. 359, under the nominal superintendence of the semi-Arians; but, on the Eusebian side, the sharp-witted Acacius undertaking to deal with the disputatious Greeks, the overbearing and cruel Valens with the plainer Latins.” (Newman, Arians, iv. §4.) At Seleucia there were 150 bishops; at Ariminum 400., in order to remove from the Creed the terms which had been devised by the Fathers to counteract the corrupt craft of Arius,—“substance313 οὐσία,” and “of one substance314 ὁμοούσιον.” For they would have it that these terms had caused dissension between church and church. On their assembling in synod the partizans of the Arian faction strove to trick the majority of the bishops, especially those of cities of the Western Empire, who were men of simple and unsophisticated ways. The body of the Church, they argued again and again, must not be torn asunder for the sake of two terms which are not to be found in the Bible; and, while they confessed the propriety of describing the Son as in all things “like” the Father, pressed the omission of the word “substance” as unscriptural. The motives, however, of the propounders of these views were seen through by the Council, and they were consequently repudiated. The orthodox bishops declared their mind to the emperor in a letter; for, said they, we are sons and heirs of the Fathers of the Council of Nicæa, and if we were to have the hardihood to take away anything from what was by them subscribed, or to add anything to what they so excellently settled, we should declare ourselves no true sons, but accusers of them that begat us. But the exact terms of their confession of faith will be more accurately given in the words of their letter to Constantius.
Letter315 This letter exists in Ath. de Syn. Arim. et Seleu., Soc. ii. 39, Soz. iv. 10, and the Latin of Hilarius (Fr. viii.), which frequently differs considerably from the Greek.written to the Emperor Constantius by the Synod assembled at Ariminum.
“Summoned, we believe, at the bidding of God, and in obedience to your piety, we bishops of the Western Church assembled in synod at Ariminum in order that the faith of the Church Catholic might be set forth, and its opponents exposed. After long consideration we have found it to be plainly best for us to hold fast and guard, and by guarding keep safe unto the end, the faith established from the first, preached by Prophets, and Evangelists, and Apostles, through our Lord Jesus Christ, warden of thy empire, and champion of thy salvation. For it is plainly absurd and unlawful to make any change in the doctrines rightly and justly defined, and in matters examined at Nicæa with the cognisance of the right glorious Constantine, thy Father and Emperor, whereof the teaching and spirit was published and preached that mankind might hear and understand. This faith was destined to be the one rival and destroyer of the Arian heresy, and by it not only the Arian itself, but likewise all other heresies were undone. To this faith to add aught is verily perilous; from it to subtract aught is to run great risk. If it have either addition or loss, our foes will feel free to act as they please. Accordingly Ursacius and Valens, declared adherents and friends of the Arian dogma, were pronounced separate from our communion. To keep their place in it, they asked to be granted a locus penitentiæ and pardon for all the points wherein they had owned themselves in error; as is testified by the documents written by themselves, by means of which they obtained favour and forgiveness. These events were going on at the very time when the synod was meeting at Milan, the presbyters of the church of Rome being also present. It was known that Constantine, who, though dead, is worthy of remembrance, had, with all exactitude and care, set forth the creed drawn up: and now that, after receiving Baptism, he was dead, and had passed away to the peace which he deserved. We judged it absurd for us after him to indulge in any innovation, and throw a slur on all the holy confessors and martyrs who had devised and formulated this doctrine, in that their minds have ever remained bound by the old bond of the Church. Their faith God has handed down even to the times of thy own reign, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by Whose grace such empire is thine that thou rulest over all the world. Yet again those pitiable and wretched men, with lawless daring, have proclaimed themselves preachers of their unholy opinion, and are taking in hand the overthrow of all the force of the truth. For when at thy command the synod assembled, then they laid bare their own disingenuous desires. For they set about trying through villany and confusion to make innovation. They got hold of certain of their own following—one Germanius316 Germanus (Ath. and Soz.), Germinius (according to Hilarius), bishop of Cyzicus, was translated to Sirmium, a.d. 356. The creed composed by Marcus of Arethusa with the aid of Germinius, Valens and others, is known as “the dated creed,” from the minuteness, satirized by Athanasius, with which it specifies the day (May 22, a.d. XI. Kal. Jun.), in the consulate of Eusebius and Hypatius (Ath. de Syn. §8)., and Auxentius317 Auxentius, the elder, bishop of Milan, succeeded Dionysius in 355, and occupied the see till his death in 374, when Ambrose was chosen to fill his place. Auxentius, the younger, known also as Mercurinus, was afterwards set up by the Arian Court party as a rival bishop to Ambrose. A third Auxentius, a supporter of the heretic Jovinianus, is mentioned in the Epistle of Siricius. Vide reff. in Baronius and Tillemont. An Auxentius, Arian bishop of Mopsuestia, is mentioned by Philostorgius, v. 1. 2., and Caius318 A Pannonian bishop. Ath. ad Epict., promoters of heresy and discord, whose doctrine, though but one, transcends a very host of blasphemies. When, however, they became aware that we were not of their way of thinking, nor in sympathy with their vicious projects, they made their way into our meeting as though to make some other proposal, but a very short time was enough to convict them of their real intentions. Therefore in order to save the management of the Church from falling from time to time into the same difficulties, and to prevent them from being confounded in whirlpools of disturbance and disorder, it has seemed the safe course to keep what has been defined aforetime fixed and unchanged, and to separate the above-named from our communion. Wherefore we have sent envoys to your clemency to signify and explain the mind of the synod as expressed in this letter. These envoys before all things we have charged to guard the truth in accordance with the old and right definitions. They are to inform your holiness, not as did Ursacius and Valens, that there will be peace if the truth be upset; for how can the destroyers of peace be agents of peace? but rather that these changes will bring strife and disturbance, as well on the rest of the cities, as on the Roman church. Wherefore we beseech your clemency to receive our envoys with kindly ears and gentle mien, and not to suffer any new thing to flout the dead. Suffer us to abide in the definition and settlement of our Fathers, whom we would unhesitatingly declare to have done all they did with intelligence and wisdom, and with the Holy Ghost. The innovation now sought to be introduced is filling the faithful with unbelief, and unbelievers with credulity319 The word in the text is ὠμότητα, which is supposed to have stood for crudelitatem, a clerical error for credulitatem in the Latin original..
“We beg you to order bishops in distant parts, who are afflicted alike by advanced age and poverty, to be provided with facilities for travelling home, that the churches be not left long deprived of their bishops.
“And yet again this one thing we supplicate, that nothing be taken from or added to the established doctrines, but that all remain unbroken, as they have been preserved by your father’s piety, and to our own day. Let us toil no longer nor be kept away from our own dioceses, but let the bishops with their own people spend their days in peace, in prayer, and in worship, offering supplication for thy empire, and health, and peace, which God shall grant thee for ever and ever. Our envoys, who will also instruct your holiness out of the sacred Scriptures, convey the signatures and salutations of the bishops.”
The letter was written, and the envoys sent, but the high officers of the Imperial Court, though they took the despatch and delivered it to their master, refused to introduce the envoys, on the ground that the sovereign was occupied with state affairs. They took this course in the hope that the bishops, annoyed at delay, and eager to return to the cities entrusted to their care, would at length be compelled themselves to break up and disperse the bulwark erected against heresy. But their ingenuity was frustrated, for the noble champions of the Faith despatched a second letter to the emperor, exhorting him to admit the envoys to audience and dissolve the synod. This letter I subjoin.
The Second Letter of the Synod to Constantius.
“To Constantius the Victorious, the pious emperor, the bishops assembled at Ariminum send greeting.
“Most illustrious lord and autocrat, we have received the letter of your clemency, informing us that, in consequence of occupations of state, you have hitherto been unable to see our envoys. You bid us await their return, that your piety may come to a decision on the object we have in view, and on the decrees of our predecessors. But we venture in this letter to repeat to your clemency the point which we urged before, for we have in no way withdrawn from our position. We entreat you to receive with benign countenance the letter of our humility, wherein now we make answer to your piety, and the points which we have ordered to be submitted to your benignity by our envoys. Your clemency is no less aware than we are ourselves how serious and unfitting a state of things it is, that in the time of your most happy reign so many churches should seem to be without bishops. Wherefore once again, most glorious autocrat, we beseech you that, if it be pleasing to your humanity, you will command us to return to our churches before the rigour of winter, that we may be able, with our people, as we have done and ever do, to offer most earnest prayers for the health and wealth of your empire to Almighty God, and to Christ His Son, our Lord and Saviour.”