What Happened to the Orthodox Bishops at Constantinople

On his return from the West, Constantius spent some time at Constantinople. There Acacius brought many accusations against the assembled bishops in the emperor’s presence. He called them a gang of vile characters gathered together for the ruin and destruction of the churches, and so he inflamed the emperor’s anger. Constantius was moved not least by what was alleged against Cyril. “The holy robe,” said Acacius, “which the illustrious emperor Constantine, wishing to honor the church of Jerusalem, gave to Macarius, the bishop of that city, to be worn when he performed the rite of divine baptism, a robe worked all over with golden threads, has been sold by Cyril. It was bought,” he went on, “by a stage dancer, and while he was dancing about wearing it, he fell down and died. With a man like this Cyril,” he continued, “they set themselves up to judge and decide for the rest of the world.” The powerful party at court used this as an occasion to persuade the emperor not to summon the whole synod, for they were alarmed at how united the majority were, but only ten leading men. Among these were Eustathius of Armenia, Basil of Galatia, Silvanus of Tarsus and Eleusius of Cyzicus. [a]

When they arrived, they urged the emperor to have Eudoxius convicted of blasphemy and lawlessness. But Constantius, coached by the opposite party, replied that the questions of the faith must be decided first, and the case of Eudoxius looked into afterward. Basil, relying on their former friendship, made bold to object to the emperor that he was attacking the apostolic decrees. Constantius took this badly and told Basil to hold his tongue. “For it is you,” he said, “who are to blame for the disturbance of the churches.” When Basil had been silenced, Eustathius stepped in. “Sir,” he said, “since you wish the questions of the faith to be decided, consider the blasphemies Eudoxius has rashly uttered against the only Son.” As he spoke, he produced the statement of faith in which, besides many other impieties, these expressions were found: “Things that are spoken of in unlike terms are unlike in substance.” “There is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.” Now the phrase “of whom” is unlike the phrase “through whom”; therefore the Son is unlike God the Father. Constantius ordered this statement of faith to be read, and was displeased with the blasphemy it contained. So he asked Eudoxius whether he had drawn it up. Eudoxius at once denied that he was the author, and said that Aetius had written it. Now Aetius was the man whom Leontius, in dread of the accusations of Flavian and Diodorus, had earlier removed from the office of deacon. He had also been the supporter of George, the treacherous enemy of the Alexandrians, both in his impious words and in his unholy deeds. At this time he was associated with Eunomius and Eudoxius. For on the death of Leontius, when Eudoxius had laid violent hands on the episcopal throne of the church at Antioch, Aetius came back from Egypt with Eunomius. Finding Eudoxius to be of the same way of thinking as himself, a lover of luxury as well as a heretic in faith, he chose Antioch as the most congenial place to live, and both he and Eunomius became fixtures at the dining couches of Eudoxius. His highest ambition was to be a successful hanger-on at other men’s tables, and he spent his whole time going off to stuff himself at one man’s table or another’s. The emperor had been told all this, and now ordered Aetius to be brought before him. When he appeared, Constantius showed him the document in question and went on to ask whether he was the author of its language. Aetius knew nothing of what had happened and did not see where the question was leading. Expecting to win praise by owning it, he admitted that he was the author of the phrases in question. Then the emperor saw how great his wickedness was, and at once condemned him to exile and to be deported to a place in Phrygia. So Aetius reaped disgrace as the fruit of blasphemy, and was thrown out of the palace. Eustathius then claimed that Eudoxius held the same views too, since Aetius had shared his roof and his table, and had drawn up this blasphemous formula in deference to his judgment. As proof that Eudoxius had a hand in drawing up the document, he pointed out that no one but Eudoxius himself had attributed it to Aetius. To this the emperor replied that judges must not decide on guesswork, but are bound to examine the facts exactly. Eustathius agreed, and urged that Eudoxius should prove that he rejected the views attributed to him by anathematizing what Aetius had written. The emperor very readily accepted this suggestion and gave orders accordingly. But Eudoxius drew back and used many shifts to avoid complying. When the emperor grew angry and threatened to send him off to share the exile of Aetius, as a partner in the blasphemy that had been punished, he renounced his own doctrine, though both then and afterward he went on holding it. However, he in turn protested against Eustathius and his party that it was their duty to condemn the word homoousion, “of one substance,” as unscriptural. [b]

Silvanus, for his part, pointed out that it was their duty to reject and expel from their holy assemblies the phrases “out of what does not exist,” and “creature,” and “of another substance,” since these terms were also unscriptural and were found in the writings of neither the prophets nor the apostles. Constantius decided that this was right, and told the Arians to pronounce the condemnation. At first they kept refusing. But in the end, when they saw the emperor’s anger, they agreed, much against their will, to condemn the terms Silvanus had put before them. But all the more earnestly they insisted on their demand that the homoousion be condemned. Then Silvanus, with unanswerable logic, set out before both the Arians and the emperor this truth: if God the Word is not out of what does not exist, he is not a creature and is not of another substance. He is then of one substance with God who begot him, as God from God and Light from Light, and has the same nature as the one who begot him. He pressed this argument with power and with truth, but not one of his hearers was convinced. The party of Acacius and Eudoxius raised a mighty uproar. The emperor was angered and threatened to expel them from their churches. At this, Eleusius and Silvanus and the rest said that while the authority to punish lay with the emperor, it was their office to decide what was godly and what was ungodly. “We will not,” they declared, “betray the doctrine of the fathers.” [e]

Constantius ought to have admired their wisdom and their courage, and their bold defense of the apostolic decrees. Instead he exiled them from their churches and ordered others to be appointed in their place. At this Eudoxius laid violent hands on the church of Constantinople, and when Eleusius was expelled from Cyzicus, Eunomius was appointed in his place.