The Council of Seleucia

About the same time the bishops of the East met at Seleucia, a city of Isauria, about a hundred and sixty of them. This was in the consulship of Eusebius and Hypatius. Leonas, who held a distinguished military office at the palace, came to this council at the command of Constantius, so that the confession of faith might be settled in his presence. Lauricius, the military governor of the province, was there to provide whatever might be needed, for the emperor’s letter had ordered him to give this service. At the first session several of the bishops were absent, among them Patrophilus, bishop of Scythopolis; Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople; and Basil, bishop of Ancyra. They gave various excuses for not attending. Patrophilus pleaded trouble with his eyes, and Macedonius said he was unwell. But it was suspected that they had stayed away for fear that various accusations would be brought against them. Since the other bishops refused to take up the disputed points while these men were absent, Leonas ordered them to go on at once to examine the questions that had been raised. Some thought they had to begin by discussing doctrine. Others held that they should first look into the conduct of those among them who had been accused, as Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste, and others had been. The emperor’s letters caused this dispute, because they were ambiguous, sometimes prescribing one course and sometimes another. The quarrel that arose from it grew so fierce that all unity among them was destroyed, and they split into two parties. In the end, however, the advice of those who wanted to begin with doctrine won. [a]

When they came to examine the terms, some wanted to reject the word “substance.” They appealed to the authority of the creed that Mark had drawn up not long before at Sirmium, which the bishops at the court, Basil, bishop of Ancyra, among them, had accepted. Many others were eager to adopt the creed drawn up at the dedication of the church at Antioch. To the first party belonged Eudoxius, Acacius, Patrophilus, George, bishop of Alexandria, Uranius, bishop of Tyre, and thirty-two other bishops. The second party was supported by George, bishop of Laodicea in Syria; Eleusius, bishop of Cyzicus; and Sophronius, bishop of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia; and the majority agreed with them. It was suspected, and with reason, that Acacius and his party had stayed away because their views differed from those of the bishops just named, and also because they wanted to escape an inquiry into certain accusations that had been brought against them. For although they had earlier acknowledged in writing to Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, that the Son is like the Father in all respects and of one substance, they now backed away entirely from what they had professed. After long arguments and wrangling, Silvanus, bishop of Tarsus, declared in a loud and forceful voice that no new creed should be brought in, only the one approved at Antioch, and that this alone should stand. Since this proposal was unacceptable to Acacius’s followers, they withdrew, and the other bishops read the creed of Antioch. The next day these bishops met in the church, shut the doors, and confirmed this creed in private. Acacius condemned what they had done, and privately laid the creed he favored before Leonas and Lauricius.

Three days later the same bishops met again, and Macedonius and Basil, who had been absent before, joined them. Acacius and his party declared that they would take no part in the council’s proceedings until those who had been deposed and those who had been accused left the assembly. His demand was granted, for the bishops of the other side were determined to give him no excuse for breaking up the council. That was plainly his aim, so as to prevent the coming examination of the heresy of Aetius and of the accusations brought against himself and his party. When all the members had gathered, Leonas said that he had a document which Acacius’s party had handed to him. It was their creed, with an introduction. None of the other bishops knew anything about it, for Leonas shared Acacius’s views and had gladly kept the whole matter secret. When the document was read, the whole assembly was in an uproar. Among other things it stated that although the emperor had forbidden bringing into creeds any term not found in the sacred Scriptures, deposed bishops had been brought to the assembly from various provinces, together with others who had been ordained illegally; that the council had been thrown into confusion; and that some of its members had been insulted and others kept from speaking. It went on to say that Acacius and his party did not reject the creed drawn up at Antioch, although those who met in that city had composed it expressly to meet the difficulty that had arisen at that time. But since the terms “of one substance” and “of like substance” had distressed some people, and since it had lately been asserted that the Son is unlike the Father, it was necessary for this reason to reject the terms “of one substance” and “of like substance,” which do not occur in Scripture, to condemn the term “unlike,” and to confess plainly that the Son is like the Father. For he is, as the apostle Paul says somewhere, “the image of the invisible God.” These opening remarks were followed by a creed that agreed neither with that of Nicaea nor with that of Antioch. It was so cleverly worded that the followers of Arius and of Aetius would not seem to be in error if they stated their faith in these terms. In this creed the words that those who met at Nicaea had used to condemn the Arian teaching were left out. The declarations of the Council of Antioch were passed over in silence: that the divinity of the Son cannot change, and that he is the unchanging image of the Father’s substance, counsel, power and glory. Belief was expressed simply in the Father, in the Son and in the Holy Spirit. Then, after some coarse names had been heaped on a few individuals who had never taken part in any doctrinal dispute on either side, everyone who held any opinion other than those set out in this creed was declared a stranger to the catholic church.

Such was the content of the document Leonas presented, which Acacius and those who shared his views had signed. After it was read, Sophronius, a bishop of Paphlagonia, cried out: “If we accept the opinions of individuals day after day as a statement of the faith, we will never arrive at the exact truth.” Acacius retorted that it was not forbidden to draw up new creeds, since the creed of Nicaea had been altered once, and many times since. Eleusius answered him: “But the council has not met now to learn what is already known, or to accept any creed other than the one already approved by those who met at Antioch. And besides, living or dying, we will hold to this creed.” With the dispute at this point, they took up another question and asked Acacius’s party in what respect they held the Son to be like the Father. They answered that the Son is like him in will only, not in substance. The others insisted that he is like him in substance, and proved from a book Acacius had once written that he had formerly held their view. Acacius replied that he ought not to be judged by his own writings. The dispute had gone on hotly for some time when Eleusius, bishop of Cyzicus, spoke as follows: “It matters little to the council whether Mark or Basil has done wrong in any way, or whether they or Acacius’s followers have any charge to bring against each other. Nor is it the council’s task to examine whether their creed is good or not. It is enough to hold to the creed already confirmed at Antioch by ninety-seven priests. If anyone wants to bring in any teaching not contained in it, he ought to be treated as a stranger to religion and to the church.” Those who shared his view applauded his speech, and the assembly then rose and broke up.

The next day the parties of Acacius and of George refused to attend the council. Leonas, who had now openly declared himself on their side, also refused to come, in spite of all their pleas. Those sent to ask him to attend found Acacius’s party at his house. He declined their invitation, saying that there was too much discord in the council, and that the emperor had ordered him to attend it only if the members were agreed. Much time was spent in this way. The other bishops repeatedly urged Acacius’s party to attend the sessions. But they sometimes demanded a separate conference at Leonas’s house, and sometimes claimed that the emperor had commissioned them to judge those who had been accused. For they would neither accept the creed adopted by the other bishops nor clear themselves of the crimes they were charged with. Nor would they examine the case of Cyril, whom they had deposed; and there was no one to make them do so. In the end, however, the council deposed George, bishop of Alexandria; Acacius, bishop of Caesarea; Uranius, bishop of Tyre; Patrophilus, bishop of Scythopolis; Eudoxius, bishop of Antioch; and several other bishops. Many others were also put out of communion until they could clear themselves of the crimes charged against them. A written account of the proceedings was sent to the parish of each of the clergy. Adrian, a presbyter of Antioch, was ordained bishop of that church in place of Eudoxius. But Acacius’s party arrested him and handed him over to Leonas and Lauricius. They put him in the custody of the soldiers, and afterward sent him into exile.

This is a brief account of how the Council of Seleucia ended. Anyone who wants fuller information must look for it in the acts of the council, which were taken down by the shorthand writers who attended it.