Socrates: Ecclesiastical History I

Posted on

Massacre in the Cathedral

When the Emperor Constantius, who then held his court at Antioch, heard that Paul [bishop of Constantinople] had again obtained possession of the episcopal throne, he was excessively enraged at his presumption. He therefore despatched a written order to Philip, the Prætorian Prefect,… to drive Paul out of the church again, and introduce Macedonius into it in his place. … Philip, dreading an insurrectionary movement among the people, used artifice to entrap the bishop: keeping, therefore, the emperor’s mandate secret, he went to the public bath called Zeuxippus, and on pretense of attending to some public affairs, sent to Paul with every demonstration of respect, requesting his attendance there, on the ground that his presence was indispensable. The bishop came; and as he came in obedience to this summons, the prefect immediately showed him the emperor’s order; the bishop patiently submitted condemnation without a hearing. But as Philip was afraid of the violence of the multitude … he commanded one of the bath doors to be opened which communicated with the imperial palace, and through that Paul was carried off, put on board a vessel provided for the purpose, and so sent into exile immediately. The prefect directed him to go to Thessalonica, the metropolis of Macedonia, whence he had derived his origin from his ancestors; commanding him to reside in that city, but granting him permission to visit other cities of Illyricum, while he strictly forbade his passing into any portion of the Eastern empire. … [Philip] immediately proceeded to the church … as if thrown there by an engine, Macedonius rode seated in the same seat with the prefect in the chariot seen by everybody, and a military guard with drawn swords was about them. The multitude was completely overawed by this spectacle, and both Arians and Homoousians hastened to the church, every one endeavoring to secure an entrance there. As the prefect with Macedonius came near the church, an irrational panic seized the multitude and even the soldiers themselves; … the soldiers imagined that resistance was offered, and that the populace intentionally stopped the passage; they accordingly began to use their naked swords, and to cut down those that stood in their way. It is affirmed that about 3150 persons were massacred on this occasion … Thus, then, by means of so many murders in the church, Macedonius and the Arians grasped the supremacy in the churches.
— Socrates Scholasticus. Ecclesiastical History II.XVI. [1]

Contentious and Litigious Bishops

[At the Synod of Seleucia], Acacius [Bishop of Cæsarea] expressed himself in these words: ‘Since the Nicene creed has been altered not once only, but frequently, there is no hindrance to our publishing another at this time.’ To which Eleusius bishop of Cyzicus, replied: ‘The Synod is at present convened not to learn what it had no previous knowledge of, nor to receive a creed which it had not assented to before, but to confirm the faith of the fathers, from which it should never recede, either in life or death.’ Thus Eleusius opposing Acacius spoke meaning by ‘the faith of the fathers,’ that creed which had been promulgated at Antioch. But surely he too might have been fairly answered in this way: ‘How is it O Eleusius, that you call those convened at Antioch “the fathers,” seeing that you do not recognize those who were their fathers? The framers of the Nicene creed, by whom the homoousian faith was acknowledged, have a far higher claim to the title of “the fathers”; both as having the priority in point of time, and also because those assembled at Antioch were by them invested with the sacerdotal office. Now if those at Antioch have disowned their own fathers, those who follow them are unconsciously following parricides. Besides how can they have received a legitimate ordination from those whose faith they pronounce unsound and impious? If those, however, who constituted the Nicene Synod had not the Holy Spirit which is imparted by the imposition of hands, those at Antioch have not duly received the priesthood: for how could they have received it from those who had not the power of conferring it?’ Such considerations as these might have been submitted to Eleusius in reply to his objections. But they then proceeded to another question, connected with the assertion made by Acacius in his exposition of the faith, ‘that the Son was like the Father’; enquiring of one another in what this resemblance consisted. The Acacian party affirmed that the Son was like the Father as it respected his will only, and not his ‘substance’ or ‘essence’; but the rest maintained that the likeness extended to both essence and will. … As they kept on their discussion on this matter to a most tedious extent, with much acrimonious feeling and subtlety of argument, but without any approach to unity of judgment, Leonas arose and dissolved the council: … ‘I have been deputed by the emperor,’ said he, ‘to attend a council where unanimity was expected to prevail: but since you can by no means come to a mutual understanding, I can no longer be present: go therefore to the church, if you please, and indulge in vain babbling there.’
…
[Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem] had been accused long before, on what grounds however I am unable to state. He had even been deposed, because owing to fear, he had not made his appearance during two whole years, after having been repeatedly summoned in order that the charges against him might be investigated. Nevertheless, when he was deposed, he sent a written notification to those who had condemned him, that he should appeal to a higher jurisdiction: and to this appeal the emperor Constantius gave his sanction. Cyril was thus the first and indeed only clergyman who ventured to break through ecclesiastical usage, by becoming an appellant, in the way commonly done in the secular courts of judicature.
— Socrates Scholasticus. Ecclesiastical History. II.XL. [2]

References:

Have Your Say