Pat. Ant. than that bishop of Tyre whom I mentioned not far back, Paulinus, and who is mentioned by Arius, in the letter which I have just XXIII. 324. quoted, as one of his friends. It seems that he was a native of Antioch1; and the citizens, says Eusebius, claimed him as their own. However, he could have held the see but a few months, for at the Council of Nicæa it was represented by a far worthier prelate, S. Eustathius. This noble con- s Eustafessor was a native of Side in Pamphylia, and was raised Ant. XXIV. to the bishopric of Berrhoea in Syria. Here he confessed, either under Diocletian or Licinius, and S. Chrysostom has celebrated his suffering and his victory. He had but just ascended the throne of Antioch, when this Council of Nicæa2 commenced. thius, Patr. 325. 97. In commencing my History of the Eastern Church on its present plan, I foresaw the difficulty which would beset its earlier portions-owing to my having to relate, or refer to, the same event. Such is the case with Arianism now. I have already narrated its rise in Egypt, its rapid spread both in the East and West: the vain attempts of the imbecile Constantine to regard the controversy between S. Alexander and Arius as a strife about words: the convocation Council of Nicæa. of the ever-memorable Council of Nicæa: the adoption of the Homoousion, the obstinacy of the five prelates, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognius of Nicæa, Maris of Chalcedon, and the Egyptians, Secundus and Theonas: the constrained submission of the three former, the banishment of the two latter with the arch-heretic: the sum and substance of the principal canons of discipline. 98. Of the Canons, those which more immediately concern us, are the sixth, which confirms Antioch in its exarchal authority and the seventh, which vindicates an especial 1 Euseb. in Marcell. 1. 4. 2 Sozomen asserts that he was translated to Antioch by the fathers of Nicæa. But S. Theophanes, with greater probability, tells us that he was merely confirmed by that synod (kal Èkúρwσe): indeed it is hardly likely that the Council would have originated a translation, when, in tholic of Seleucia. Synod of honour to Ælia, though it is to be without prejudice of the metropolitical rights of Cæsarea. 99. The prelates, who were entrusted with the publication of the decrees of the Council in the dioceses of Antioch and Jerusalem and the dependencies of the former, were S. Macarius of Jerusalem, and Eusebius of Cæsarea, for Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia; S. Eustathius of Antioch for Cœlosyria, Cilicia and Mesopotamia; John for Persia and the far East. 100. To the affairs of that far East I must now turn. In the former half of the third century, Shachlupha was, as we Papas, Ca- have seen, Catholicos of Seleucia. In the year 256, Papas, of Arakan, was raised to that dignity. He held it during the unprecedented length of seventy years; but his longevity was the only noteworthy feature of his administration. Some writers affirm that he was himself present at the Council of Nicæa but it seems more probable that he merely dispatched to it his archdeacon Symeon, afterwards the celebrated Martyr, and Saadost. In the year 314 a synod of Oriental prelates was held at Seleucia, in which, among others, S. Milles of Susa, of whose martyrdom I shall ere long have to tell, was present. The immediate cause was a schism between the Churches of Seleucia and Ctesiphon, originating in the intolerable arrogance of Papas. "Consider, brother," said Milles, "that our LORD Himself, the Bishop and Shep"herd of us all, has left us a command not to domineer over "the Church: He that will be great among you, saith He, "let him be as the least." And so saying, he placed the open codex of the Gospel before the Catholicos. Papas, in a frenzy of rage, struck it with his fist. "Speak, book," he said; "speak, book, as my defence: I have no words from "indignation." S. Milles seized the volume, pressed it to his heart, and then denounced the Divine vengeance on Papas1, 1 The details of the life of Papas are to be learnt, unsatisfactorily enough, from Maruthas, the Nestorian annalist, as quoted by Assemani, B. O. I. 186: from Bar-Hebræus, B. O. II. 397: and from J. A. Assemani, De Catholicis, p. 6. But the dates are very uncertain. Thus Amru gives the Council of Seleucia (J. A. Assemani, p. 7) as I have given it in the text: but Bar-Hebræus postpones it till 334, and places the death of Papas in 335. So uncertain is early Syrian history! Bar-Saboe, Seleucia. in recompence of so ungovernable a rage. At the same moment the right side of the offender was struck with palsy. It would seem, however, that the guilt of the prelate was not universally allowed: and others tell of the insubordination of his suffragans. A letter of S. James of Nisibis is extant in MS. to this synod, exhorting to brotherly love, and to humility. It was moved that Papas should be deposed; but gentler counsels prevailed, and the punishment inflicted by GOD was considered sufficient to obviate the necessity of any ecclesiastical animadversions. S. James of Nisibis and S. Ephraem consoled the aged prelate under his afflictions. S. Symeon Papas died in the year following the Council of Nicea; and Catholic of was succeeded by his celebrated archdeacon S. Symeon. X. 101. Eustathius, whether he filled the office of president of the great Ecumenical Synod or not, was at all events a man of too much mark long to escape the persecution of the Arians. That sect was gathering numbers and acquiring influence daily; and Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognius Eusebius of Nicæa resolved on an united effort to remove the great nius supporters of the Catholic faith in the East'. The former prelate, then high in the emperor's favour, was seized with a sudden desire of visiting a magnificent church nearly finished at Antioch, in part through the munificence of Constantine himself, and of the consecration of which we shall have more to say2; and having obtained from the imperial liberality the carriage and its expenses, necessary to reach that city, he invited his brother bishop to share his pious expedition. Eustathius, the most simple-hearted of men, received them with open arms; accompanied them to every spot most worthy of note-the "Confession" of Babylas, the church of S. Euodius, and, more especially, that which was the particular object of their journey. In the meanwhile they were not losing time. They enquired into the numbers, resources and influence of the Arians of Antioch; obtained an introduction to the prin 1 Theodoret, H. E. 1. 21. 2 For this, as Baronius observes, is much more likely than, as Theodoret tells us, that it was the new church of Jerusalem, at the dedica- and Theog Antioch, intrigue at cipal leaders of that sect; and with their assistance framed the plot that was to deprive Eustathius of his reputation and of his throne. obtain assistance at A.D. 331; 102. From Antioch Eusebius and Theognius proceeded to Jerusalem, whither they summoned Eusebius of Cæsarea, Patrophilus of Scythopolis or Bethshan, Aetius of Lydda, Theodorus of Laodicea, all Arians of the deepest dye, and Jerusalem, having settled with them a plan of operations, the whole party returned to Antioch. Under what colour we are not informed, they proceeded to hold a synod; but some whisper of their intentions had gone abroad, and several of the nearest Catholic prelates came into the city, and insisted on their own right of assembling with the others in synod1. The proceedings having been opened, strangers were commanded to withdraw, and a wretched prostitute was introduced to the and in the fathers with an infant at her breast. By her Eustathius was named as the father of the child; and summary punishment was demanded by his adversaries for so great a crime. “What witnesses have you to the fact?" it was next enquired. “I have none," replied the woman, "save GOD, who knoweth all things." "Let her then be sworn," said Eusebius of Nicomedia. But here a great tumult arose. 'Against a presbyter," exclaimed the Catholic portion of the assembly, "receive not an accusation, save by two or three witnesses;" how much more against a bishop! how, most of all, against one of the first bishops of the church! and a man against whom calumny had never dared to breathe a whisper. The Council of Antioch accuse S. Eustathius of fornication. 1 Few dates are more difficult of satisfactory settlement than this. Baronius places it in 340: Pagi, in 327; Cartagorius in 330; Le Quien and Tillemont in 331; and with them, as out of a choice of difficulties, I am inclined to agree. But S. Athanasius, in his History of the Arians, § 5, expressly says that S. Eustathius was deposed under Constantius, and adds, that one accusation employed to embitter the emperor against him was the charge that the bishop of Antioch had spoken harshly of the licentious life of Fausta his mother. As it is impossible to believe S. Athanasius on such a point mistaken, we must conclude with Tillemont, that S. Eustathius, having been deposed in 331, endeavoured to reascend the throne of Antioch in 340: that then this charge about Fausta was made, and that Constantius confirmed the deposition pronounced first by his father. woman, however, was sworn; but it would seem that the Catholics commanded a majority in the synod, and the bishop came scatheless from its investigation. The old accusation of Sabellianism was attempted with as little effect; and the Arians saw that they must have recourse to a different method of attack. posed by tine. 103. The Emperor happened to be in that part of Asia; and to him the chiefs of the fathers instantly repaired. The He is deimbecile Constantine forthwith gave orders for the deposition Constanof Eustathius, and he was accordingly exiled to Trajanopolis1. It will be well to finish the history of this great confessor here, as he was never restored to the episcopal throne of which he had been so unjustly deprived. He appears to have spent many years in the place of his banishment; but at length, when the Catholic church seemed almost extinct at Constantinople, he was requested by the few remaining believers in the faith of the Consubstantial, to perform episcopal offices for them. He led a concealed life in that city till the year 3703, when an opportunity seeming open for the consecration of a Catholic bishop, he raised Evagrius-it would appear somewhat irregularly, but the exigencies of the times excused much-to that dignity. The immediate result was His banishthe banishment of the good man to Bizua in Thrace, whence he appears to have removed to Philippi, and to have ended and death, his long and afflicted life in that city. The exact year of his death is uncertain; but a century afterwards, his remains were translated by Calandion, patriarch of Antioch, to that city. Calandion sat, as we shall see, from A.D. 482 to 486; S. Eustathius therefore must have died, in extreme old age, about 380. 104. ment A.D. 380. The enforced leisure of the latter part of the life of His works. |