command. Lauricius, the commander of the troops in Isauria, had also been ordered to be present, to assist the bishops if it should be necessary. Having assembled for this purpose on the twenty-seventh of the month of September, they held discussions according to the public records. For indeed stenographers were also present, taking note of what was said by each one; let the studious seek the details of which in the Collection of Sabinus, where they are set forth at greater length; but we, briefly running over only the main points, will set them forth. When they had assembled on the first day, Leonas ordered each to propose what he thought fit; but those present said they would not raise any question before those who were absent should come together; for there were bishops who were absent, Macedonius of Constantinople, Basil of Ancyra, and some others who were suspicious of accusations. Macedonius, then, had been absent, saying he was ill; and Patrophilus said he was suffering from an eye inflammation, and for this reason had to stay in a suburb of Seleucia; and each of the others also offered some excuse for their absence. But when Leonas said that they must proceed with the inquiry even though these were not present, those present again urged that they would not raise any question unless the lives of the accused were first examined. For Cyril of Jerusalem, Eustathius of Sebastia in Armenia, and some others had already been accused previously. From this a contention arose among those present; for some said that the lives of the accused should be investigated first; but others, not to put any issue before that of the faith. The varying opinion of the emperor stirred up the contention; for his letters were produced, at one time ordering this to be investigated first, at another time the other. As the contention over this, therefore, was taking place, a schism proceeded among those present; and this became the beginning of the pretext for the synod in Seleucia also to be divided into two parts. The leaders of the one part were Acacius of Caesarea in Palestine, George of Alexandria, Uranius of Tyre, Eudoxius of Antioch; with whom only thirty-two others agreed. Of the other, George of Laodicea in Syria, Sophronius of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, Eleusius of Cyzicus; whom the majority followed. As it therefore prevailed that the question of faith should be investigated first, those of the party of Acacius openly rejected the faith of Nicaea, and hinted at dictating another faith; but those of the other part, who were more numerous, accepted all the other things of the synod in Nicaea; but they only found fault with the word "homoousios." So, after they had contended much with each other until late evening, finally Silvanus, who presided over the church of Tarsus, cried out loudly, saying "that it was not necessary to dictate a new version of the faith, but that the one already formerly dictated in Antioch at the dedication ought to prevail." When this was said, those around Acacius withdrew; but those of the other part brought forward the faith of Antioch, and after reading it, they dismissed the assembly for that day. On the next day, having gathered in the oratory in Seleucia, and having closed the doors, they ratified the creed that had been read by subscribing to it. Readers and deacons who were present signed on behalf of some who were absent, through whom the absent had agreed to accept the definition. 2.40 That in the synod at Seleucia Acacius of Caesarea dictated another exposition of the faith. But Acacius and those of his party found fault with what was being done, because they had closed the church and were subscribing; "for things done in a corner," he says, "are unapproved and under suspicion." He said these things, wishing to introduce another version of the faith, having one prepared, which he had read to the officials Lauricius and Leonas, and was eager to have it prevail alone. Therefore, nothing more than these things happened on the second day; but on the third, Leonas was again eager to bring the parties together; on which day Macedonius of Constantinople was not absent, nor indeed the

πρόσταγμα. Προστέτακτο παρεῖναι καὶ Λαυρίκιος, ὁ τῶν κατὰ τὴν Ἰσαυρίαν στρατιωτῶν ἡγούμενος, ὑπουργήσων εἰ δεήσοι τοῖς ἐπισκόποις. Ἐπὶ τοῦτον δὴ συνελθόντες τῇ ἑβδόμῃ καὶ εἰκάδι τοῦ Σεπτεμβρίου μηνὸς, ἐπὶ δημοσίων ὑπομνημάτων διελέγοντο. Παρῆσαν γὰρ δὴ καὶ ὀξυγράφοι τὰ παρ' ἑκάστου λεγόμενα σημειούμενοι· ὧν τὰ μὲν καθ' ἕκαστον ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ Σαβίνου ζητείτωσαν οἱ φιλομαθεῖς διὰ μακροτέρων ἐγκείμενα· ἡμεῖς δὲ τὰ κεφαλαιώδη μόνον ἐπιτρέχοντες ἐκθησόμεθα. Ἐν δὲ τῇ πρώτῃ ἡμέρᾳ συνελθόντων, ὁ Λεωνᾶς τὰ ἑκάστῳ δοκοῦντα προθεῖναι ἐκέλευσεν· οἱ δὲ παρόντες οὐ πρότερον ἔφασάν τινα κινῆσαι ζήτησιν, πρὶν ἂν οἱ ἀπολειφθέντες συνέλθωσι· καὶ γὰρ ἦσαν ἀπολειφθέντες ἐπίσκοποι, Μακεδόνιος ὁ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, Βασίλειος Ἀγκύρας, καὶ ἄλλοι τινες κατηγορίας ὑφορώμενοι. Μακεδόνιος μὲν οὖν νοσεῖν εἰπὼν ἀπολέλειπτο· Πατρόφιλος δὲ ὀφθαλμιᾷν ἔλεγε, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐν προαστείῳ τῆς Σελευκείας ἀνάγκην ἔχειν διάγειν· καὶ τῶν ἄλλων δὲ ἕκαστος πρόφασίν τινα τῆς ἀπολείψεως προεβάλλοντο. Ἐπεὶ δὲ ὁ Λεωνᾶς καὶ τούτων μὴ παρόντων δεῖν προτιθέναι τὰ τῆς ζητήσεως ἔλεγεν, οἱ παρόντες αὖθις ἐπῆγον, ὡς οὐδ' ἥν τινα κινήσωσι ζήτησιν, εἰ μὴ πρότερον τῶν κατηγορουμένων οἱ βίοι ἐξετασθῶσι. Κατηγόρηντο γὰρ ἤδη πρότερον Κύριλλος ὁ Ἱεροσολύμων, Εὐστάθιος Σεβαστίας τῆς ἐν Ἀρμενίᾳ, καὶ ἄλλοι τινες. Ἐκ τούτου φιλονεικία εἰς τοὺς παρόντας ἐνέπεσεν· οἱ μὲν γὰρ τοὺς βίους τῶν κατηγορουμένων πρότερον ἐρευνᾶσθαι ἔλεγον· οἱ δὲ πρὸ τῆς πίστεως μὴ προτιθέναι ζήτημα. Ἐκίνει δὲ τὴν φιλονεικίαν ἡ διάφορος τοῦ βασιλέως γνώμη· γράμματα γὰρ αὐτοῦ προεφέρετο, νῦν μὲν πρότερον τοῦτο ζητεῖσθαι κελεύοντα, νῦν δὲ τὸ ἕτερον. Περὶ τούτου οὖν τῆς φιλονεικίας γινομένης, σχίσμα εἰς τοὺς παρόντας ἐχώρησε· καὶ αὕτη γέγονε προφάσεως ἀρχὴ τοῦ καὶ τὴν ἐν Σελευκείᾳ εἰς δύο μέρη διαιρεθῆναι σύνοδον. Ἡγοῦντο δὲ τοῦ μὲν ἑνὸς μέρους Ἀκάκιος ὁ τῆς ἐν Παλαιστίνῃ Καισαρείας, Γεώργιος Ἀλεξανδρείας, Οὐράνιος Τύρου, Εὐδόξιος Ἀντιοχείας· οἷς τριάκοντα δύο μόνον συνῄνουν ἄλλοι. Τοῦ δὲ ἑτέρου, Γεώργιος Λαοδικείας τῆς ἐν Συρίᾳ, Σωφρόνιος Πομπηϊουπόλεως τῆς ἐν Παφλαγονίᾳ, Ἐλεύσιος Κυζίκου· οἷς ἠκολούθουν οἱ πλείονες. Ὡς οὖν ἐπεκράτει τὸ πρότερον ζητεῖσθαι περὶ τῆς πίστεως, οἱ μὲν τοῦ μέρους Ἀκακίου τὴν ἐν Νικαίᾳ πίστιν φανερῶς ἠθέτησαν, ἄλλην τε πίστιν ὑπαγορεύειν ᾐνίττοντο· οἱ δὲ τοῦ ἑτέρου μέρους, οἱ τῷ ἀριθμῷ πλεονάζοντες, τὰ μὲν ἄλλα πάντα τῆς ἐν Νικαίᾳ συνόδου ἀπεδέχοντο· μόνην δὲ τὴν τοῦ «ὁμοουσίου» λέξιν ἐμέμφοντο. Πολλὰ οὖν ἄχρι δείλης ὀψίας πρὸς ἀλλήλους φιλονεικούντων, τέλος Σιλβανὸς τῆς Ταρσοῦ προεστὼς ἐκκλησίας μέγα ἀνέκραγε, λέγων «μὴ χρῆναι καινὴν ὑπαγορεύειν πίστεως ἔκδοσιν, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἤδη πρότερον ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ τοῖς ἐγκαινίοις ὑπαγορευθεῖσαν ὀφείλειν κρατεῖν.» Τούτου λεχθέντος, οἱ μὲν περὶ Ἀκάκιον ὑπεξῆλθον· οἱ δὲ τοῦ ἑτέρου μέρους προεκόμισαν τὴν ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ πίστιν, καὶ ἀναγνόντες διέλυσαν ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τὸν σύλλογον. Τῇ δὲ ἑξῆς εἰς τὸν ἐν Σελευκείᾳ εὐκτήριον συνελθόντες οἶκον, καὶ τὰς θύρας ἀποκλείσαντες, τὴν ἀναγνωσθεῖσαν πίστιν ὑπογράφοντες ἐκύρουν. Ὑπέγραφον δὲ ὑπὲρ ἀπολειφθέντων τινῶν παρόντες ἀναγνῶσται καὶ διάκονοι, δι' ὧν στέρξειν τὸν ὅρον οἱ ἀπολειφθέντες ὡμολόγησαν. 2.40 Ὅτι ἐν τῇ κατὰ Σελεύκειαν συνόδῳ Ἀκάκιος ὁ Καισαρείας ἄλλην ὑπηγόρευσεν ἔκθεσιν πίστεως. Ἀκάκιος δὲ καὶ οἱ τοῦ μέρους αὐτοῦ τὰ γινόμενα διεμέμφοντο, διότι τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἀποκλείσαντες καθυπέγραφον· «τὰ γὰρ ἐν παραβύστῳ,» φησὶ, «γινόμενα ἀδόκιμα καὶ ὑποψίας ἐντός.» Ταῦτα ἔλεγε, βουλόμενος ἑτέραν ἔκδοσιν πίστεως ἀντεισενεγκεῖν, ἔχων εὐτρεπισμένην, ἣν ἀνεγνώκει μὲν τοῖς ἄρχουσι Λαυρικίῳ καὶ Λεωνᾷ, μόνην δὲ αὐτὴν κρατήσειν ἐσπούδαζε. Τούτων μὲν οὖν πλέον οὐδὲν κατὰ τὴν δευτέραν ἡμέραν ἐγίνετο· κατὰ δὲ τὴν τρίτην ὁ Λεωνᾶς αὖθις τὰ μέρη συναγαγεῖν ἐσπούδαζε· καθ' ἣν οὐκ ἀπελείφθη καὶ Μακεδόνιος ὁ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, οὐδὲ μὴν ὁ