Ἅγιος ὁ Θεός, Ἅγιος ἰσχυρός, Ἅγιος ἀθάνατος, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶςKatholikon

Library › St Photius the Great › Homilies

Homilies

St Photius the Great, tr. Mango, 1958

19. The Arian Heresy

XVI

Of the Same Most-Blessed Photius, Archbishop of Constantinople, Homily Delivered from the Ambo of the Great Church1

The champions of the Church, as I have said before, having been entrapped by the enemies of truth, and the flocks having been deprived of their own shepherds, into whose sees crept in wolves and seducers instead of pastors, the plague of heretical corruption spread all over the East, consuming some men’s souls and other men’s bodies. For those who were infested with the error of impiety suffered the destruction of their souls, while those who placed a far higher value on avoiding this fate and not betraying themselves than on their life had their bodies distressed with violence, lashes and other torments.

When Constantius succeeded to his father’s rule without accepting the right faith, and, being an unstable man gradually filling himself with the Arian madness, he allowed the heretics to do fearlessly whatever they pleased. For Eutocius,2 who had long cherished this impiety, being on terms of great familiarity with him, made him amenable to himself and to those who shared his views. This familiarity he acquired in some such way as this. When Constantine the Great was nearing the end of his life, he had the testament of his last wishes sealed up, and handed it to Eutocius, a man who bore in his breast the poison of the Arian heresy, but as yet painted his exterior with the colours of piety; for this reason he had gained ascendency over the Emperor’s sister (whose name was Constantia), already bereaved of her husband Licinius,3 and was deemed to be a well-disposed, friendly and virtuous person.4 She made him intimate with her brother, as if bestowing a great boon on him. So then, when the ultimate day was standing by the Emperor, this man was considered to be a faithful guardian of his wishes, and was entrusted with the will. There was written in it that the eldest son (who had the same name as his father) should receive upper Gaul, which he had governed beforehand; Constans, the youngest, should rule over the whole of Italy; while Constantius he willed to have the empire of the East (would he had not done so!), which he had administered himself. Others say that different things were inscribed in the testament, and that the eldest son was assigned the first portion of the empire, but that these provisions were falsified by the deceit and machinations of Eutocius.5 For, as Constantius arrived before the others after his father’s death, Eutocius thought it expedient to make the one who had come first his own prey. And so, having bound him by oath to be of the party of Arius, at which price he would be rewarded with the foremost imperial glory, Eutocius changed the testament according to his own desire, and handed it to Constantius, declaring him to have been inscribed Emperor of the East. In this way the seed of impiety was sown in the Emperor’s ears, and having by the might of authority taken root, its offshoots extended to many parts of the world. For the rulers’ evil habits, like a torrent pouring from a mountain-top into the plain, are wont to gush down easily on all the subjects.

Five years had not passed when a synod was convened at Antioch of Syria,6 assuming the specious pretext of an inauguration feast (for the celebrated church of Antioch, a great and most noteworthy pile, had been completed in the tenth year of its construction, the fifth year of the reign of Constantius), but in fact inaugurating the fervour against piety, and preparing the plots against its servants. The number of the assembled amounted to ninety,7 among whom were found not a few of the orthodox (for heterodoxy and orthodoxy were not as yet clearly marked off), but the impious band had the ascendency. For it was Eusebius, formerly of Berytus, thereafter of Nicomedia, and thirdly transferred to Constantinople after the impeachment and retreat of the wondrous Paul—yea, it was he—in the absence of Julius of Rome8 and the bishop of Jerusalem (Maximus it was at that period who, in the times of the tyrant, had distinguished himself by confessing Christ),9 neither of the said taking part, for already they suspected and avoided their heretical band — who, receiving the presidency, cast the dice to further his own wishes, having as fellow-gamesters and contenders Flacillus and Gregory. Of these the former took possession of Antioch at the death of Euphronius,10 while Gregory11 was wooing the throne of Athanasius, against whom the plot was directed. Favourable to them were Theodore of Perinthus (which we now call Heracleia)12 and a few others who loved sedition more than peace. So, having held session in the presence of Constantius himself, they again repudiated Athanasius, who had just been reinstated in Alexandria by a letter of the elder brother,13 and handed his chair over to Gregory. Proceeding from this point, they drew up an apology, as it were, by way of preamble, to the effect that they had never submitted to Arius or deigned to follow him (for how could bishops follow the lead of a presbyter?), but that they had weighed his faith in a true scale, and saw it to be in accordance with the tenets of the Church, wherefore they had mercifully received him in his supplication to the Church, common mother of all. Having mischievously erected such stage-setting, they put on a corresponding mask of confession, and, as it were, drew up a creed, without on the one hand, censuring explicitly anything of the Nicene Council, while, on the other, they did not even mention the essence of the Father or the epithet Homoousios, that great engine against the Arians, nay, but gave by their actions full freedom for anyone who so desired to falsify the definition of the faith, until (and that was their purpose, for which they had equipped themselves from afar) they were altogether drawn to the Arian godlessness.14

Such are the tactics of heretics; for they have the serpent for teacher, who, having mixed the poison of death with disobedience, under the guise of solicitude and kindness, filled our common ancestors with that polluted potion, and drove them away to slavery from life in paradise. These men, too, first simulate piety, then, little by little, disclose their irreverence, while dissembling the insolence of their blasphemy with new-fangled and ambiguous words; when they have accustomed their audience to their disguised irreverence, then they spit out into their midst the pure poison of impiety, having prepared disaster for themselves and those that submit to them. One may observe the Iconoclasts using this same device and base artifice like the Arians; for they, too, do not reveal at once or all together the goal of their intention, but devise grades of impiety, until they have reached the very summit of evil. It is fitting to consider here the similarity between the two heresies. The Arians alleged that the word “Homoousios” was a cause of offence to most people; the Iconoclasts started by saying that the depiction of images down below, near the ground, was a cause of error to the more simple-minded. The Arians: hence, instead of “Homoousios,” this corporeal and lowly word, it is proper to say “Homoeousios” of the Son’s relation to the Father, this being somehow elevated and more fitting for the incorporeal, and avoiding the division of essence. The Iconoclasts: hence, instead of depicting images down below, near the ground, they should stand in an elevated position, since this is more appropriate for images, and avoids the reproach of deceit. The Arians: “Homoeousios” is not proper either, but instead of it we must say “homoeos,” having altogether excised “ousia.” The Iconoclasts: it is not proper to reverence even pictures which are high up, but to let them stand only for the sake of the subject represented, adoration being altogether spat upon. The Arians: the word “Homoousios” is without scriptural authority; the Iconoclasts: the worship of images is without scriptural authority. The Arians: the Son should be called “anhomoeos,” a thing created and made, while the words “Homoousios,” “ousia” and “Homoeousios” should be completely banished from the Church. The Iconoclasts: images should be called vain idols, and their making, representation and worship should be altogether banished from the Church. The Arians: neither the Lord’s sayings in the Gospels, nor the divine apostles, nor the Old Testament give any authority at all to say “Homoousios,” “Homoeousios,” or “ousia” about the Father and the Son. The Iconoclasts: neither the Lord’s sayings in the Gospels, nor the divine apostles, nor the Old Testament give any authority for the making, representation, or worship of images. Is it small, do you think, the resemblance and likeness which the sons bear to their fathers, the successors to their leaders, the pupils to their teachers? The former rose arrogantly against Christ; the latter have arrayed themselves against His image. The former set at nought the men with whom they had ratified the first Nicene Council, as well as the Council itself; the latter scoffed at the men with whom they had held the second Nicene Council, as well as at the Council itself. The former charged with impiety the men who had baptized them, and ordained them priests by imposition of hands, and whom they had claimed as their fathers; the latter likewise made up the monstrous tale that the men who had ordained them, and celebrated holy baptism over them were idolaters. The former, progressing by degrees of blasphemy, fell into the ultimate godless-ness, having deprived the Son of the Father’s essence. The latter, having distributed their blasphemy according to the degree of its wickedness, have slipped into the ultimate impiety, having, in their folly against the images, banished from the Church the honour and reverence due to Christ. But these matters have, so to speak, been said by the way; so let the discourse direct itself to the path whence it has deviated.

The council of Antioch having broken up in the circumstances described, they tarried awhile, and becoming, as it were, critical of their declarations (for a lie is unsupported, and can by no means remain constant), they assembled with a view to a second falsification of the creed, in which, as they believed, they indicated with greater fulness and clarity the true relationship of the Son to the Father. But the word “Homoousios,” that invincible citadel of piety, they did not choose to set up here either.15

Three years having already elapsed, the partisans of Arius met again at Antioch to dictate a new creed, and with a view to passing a rightful judgment on Photinus, Marcellus and Sabellius,16 heretics all, so that by their just verdict against them, they might lend dignity to their other acts at the council, which flaunted their illegality in no small measure. Having stripped these men of the priesthood, and set forth the confession of their faith, which they disguised with beauty and abundance of words, thinking to evade sin by prolixity, they sent it over to those in Italy, using as conveyors of their message Eudoxius of Germanicia, Martyrius and Macedonius of Mopsuestia.17 The inhabitants of the West, however, using as an excuse the fact that they spoke another language and were not even able to understand sufficiently the portent of the document, and declaring that they were content with the decrees of Nicaea, did not accept the creed sent by those men.18

When Eusebius had departed from life, and was taken away to his judgment in the other world, those who lived in piety reinstated Paul the Confessor, still surviving, in his own chair. But after a short interval, a violent and tyrannical hand drove him away from his flock, and installed Macedonius, who fought against the Holy Spirit.19 Paul having been again recalled, and again deprived of his see and now of his life, the enemy of the Spirit was for the second time invested with authority over the Imperial City, though he, too, did not long enjoy his rule.20 This man had once appeared to hold a fair position with regard to Christ; for, in accordance with the orthodox, he propounded the tenet that He was consubstantial with the Father. But as time went by, he denied the consubstantiality, and fell into calling Him only “like,” which opinion he and his fellow-thinkers persisted in cherishing for a considerable time. As for the most-holy Spirit, they took up from the first a most wretched and impious position; for the strange distortions which the Arian madmen made about the glory of the Son, they cast at the most-holy and consubstantial Spirit.21

So then, the third council after the one at Antioch broke session in the aforementioned circumstances. Now, in the eleventh year of the reign of Constantius22 there forgathered a most numerous synod (for three hundred and seventy23 made ready to assemble in it), the brothers Constantius and Constans having both manifested exceptional zeal and come to an agreement that the assembly should convene at Sardica (that was a city of Illyricum).24 It was hoped to resolve thereby the bishops’ disputes about their sees, and to check innovations contrary to faith. But the wicked perversity of the heretics contrived that none of the things intended and hoped for should come about. For sixty in number, having seceded from the common body, gathered at Philippi,25 and made it their purpose to act contrariwise to those at Sardica; nor was the latter synod any longer behaving with unbiased judgment and passionless intent in all matters. Wherefore, each synod deposed the outstanding men of the other: that of Sardica deposed Basil of Ancyra, who, in addition to living a life abounding in other good qualities, had an ardent zeal against the madness of Arius, as well as Acacius of Caesarea, neither of whom just mentioned had been detected in having deviated to alien beliefs, although these matters, like much other information more ancient than their time, have been left out, not to say falsified, by Sozomen and Socrates.26 The synod also subjected to a just deposition Gregory, who unlawfully ruled Alexandria, Menophantus of Ephesus, Theodore of Heracleia, and along with them many others.27 It vindicated Athanasius and Paul, the champions, yea, along with Marcellus, Lucius and Asclepas, men of little sanctity.28 In addition, it unnecessarily extended to an inordinate length the Nicene definition of faith, thereby restricting altogether the glory of its own reputation.29 The synod of Philippi,30 on the other hand, most of whose members came forward in rebellion against the very word “Homoousios,” passed deposition in default on Julius of Rome for having received those who had been deposed by it, as well as on Hosius, celebrated and venerable among priests, I mean the one of Corduba,31 and on Protogenes and Gaudentius.32 It also confirmed the deposition of the wondrous Athanasius and Paul, as well as of Marcellus and Asclepas, whom I have mentioned.

Thus, instead of the settlement and peace of the churches, the whole world was filled with confusion and disorder. The evil attacked everyone and did not halt anywhere. Every day some were deposed by others and acquitted by others, and whom some vindicated others again, or the very same, condemned; great and variable was the mutual conflict and the war against the churches, and until the Second Oecumenical Council no remedy was found for this most distressing illness. Hosius convened again a synod at Corduba, which proclaimed the same tenets as the one of Sardica, and, as he had hoped, confirmed the latter, but no account of either of them was taken at all by the opposing party.33 Maximus of Jerusalem, a man outstanding in confessing Christ, whose right eye had been gouged out in the times of the tyrant, convened forthwith another synod at Jerusalem, vindicated Athanasius, and joined in upholding previous councils, insofar as they were in accordance.34 But the other side not only made these null and void, but, casting accusations at Maximus himself, which they had made up on their own, subjected him to deposition, replacing him in the church of Jerusalem by Cyril, a man who at that time had not as yet been purified of the error of Arius, but who later manifested great ardour on behalf of piety, and edified many a man with his catechetical speeches; because of this practice, he is known in the Church by the name Catechete.35

Thereafter, that I may not weary your ears by relating all the particulars severally, another council was assembled at Sir-mium,36 then at Ariminum,37 yea, and another one at Nike of Thrace,38 and later at Seleucia again,39 then at Constantinople,40 by all of which the word “Homoousios” was altogether banished. At Constantinople, internecine strife, breaking forth from Seleucia and from those whose profession it was to govern others in peace, burst upon the defenders of “Homoousios” themselves, and caused total confusion.41 By the efforts of Acacius of Caesarea, Basil, Eustathius and Silvanus of Tarsus42 were deposed, men whom Constantius punished with exile abroad because of their splendid struggle for piety at that time, even though they were inspired with Novatianism;43 just as others are attracted to the opinions of those they have denounced, so these men were attracted towards the opponents against whom they had proved their valour. Nor—although some of them, as they say, were known later to have changed their position with readiness—is there reason to show that what had happened had not happened. Deposed also was Cyril of Jerusalem, whom we have mentioned. On his account44 Acacius was inflamed with a smouldering enmity against those men, and the perversion of his faith was taking shape; his tongue, but not his mind, he misused for the heretics, as both his previous and his subsequent actions, starting from this point, demonstrate. At his instigation, Aetius45 was also deprived of the deaconship, the successor to Arius’ impiety, the teacher of Eunomius and Eudoxius, who pushed beyond all impiety, together with whom and on whose account were also deposed Serras, Stephen and Heliodorus, who had attained the rank of bishops, but were ardent supporters of the error of Aetius;46 yea, also that famous Theophilus,47 whom the bold tongue of heretics proclaims to be the author of miracles, no less than what the Acts proclaim concerning the apostles.48 Yet all these men, along with Aetius, were each stripped of his office, Eudoxius being, even against his will, one of the judges who condemned the impiety of Aetius, of which he, no less than they, was a notorious lover. For he was easily pressed into doing even what he did not believe in, so as not to lose the see of Constantinople; for already he ruled over Constantinople, having beforehand seized Antioch from Germanicia.49 Cyzicus was unlawfully assigned50 to Eunomius, as a prize for his impiety, its previous pastor Eleusius having undergone condemnation along with the aforementioned athletes of true religion.51 Macedonius, the enemy of the Spirit, was banished even earlier, as being responsible for many murders, and paying the penalty for the transportation of the Emperor’s body, which he had carried out in spite of the opposition of many persons and without the reigning son’s approval.52

Constantius having survived but for a short time after these events, was taken away from among men at Mopsucrenae, as he was preparing to oppose Julian who was already in full rebellion.53 Thus the fluctuating opinion of the ruler and the precariousness of his beliefs confounded everything. Thus, little by little, did the contingent of the impious progress. Thus mutual discord and wrangles upset life, and rent the faith asunder. For discord in an animal’s body results in dissolution and death, while in the Church it results in the scattering of her members, and the dissolution of the harmony which attends piety, and the rending and disaster of the soul.

Those things were thus badly and confusedly carried out at that time, and the Church was borne along in a great storm and turmoil. As for us, beloved ones, worshipping with our heart and lips the Father, Son and Holy Ghost in one essence, glory, kingdom and divinity, let us neither blaspheme by saying that the Son is different in kind from the Father, thus insulting the Begetter, nor banish the Holy Ghost from dominion and equipollent authority to the maiming, debasement and amputation of the stainless and complete Godhead, by including a thing created, made and subservient in the suprasubstantial and almighty Trinity. But piously professing the Trinity to be consubstantial, jointly throning and of the same nature to itself, let us maintain in correct faith the identity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost unmingled, believing the Father to be unbegotten, the Son begotten, and the Holy Ghost emanated, and proclaiming them to be not jointly without beginning as to cause (for the Father is the beginning and cause of the Son, as begetter; for the latter is begotten, One out of One; and as producer, He is the cause of the Holy Ghost; for that, too, is produced, One out of One), but jointly without beginning in time: for the One gave birth, the Other was born, and the Third has proceeded beyond time and age, and beyond comprehension, neither the Spirit being included in the birth of the Son, nor the Son having a share in the procession of the Ghost,54 but each preserving His identity pure and unmingled, inasmuch as the diversity of identity and of name does not introduce a diversity of essence but shows the difference of persons, and silences the blasphemy of Sabellius.55

Thinking and believing in this wise, let us spit upon all heretical company, and abominate every schismatic wickedness. Let us hate mutual dissensions, remembering the foregoing, and how great a harvest of evils internal seditions begat. Let none among you say, “I am of Paul, and I of Cephas,56 and I of this man or of that.” Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law57 by His own blood: of Christ we both are and bear the name. Christ was crucified for us, suffered death, was buried and arose, that He may unite them that stand wide and far apart, having divinely established one baptism, one faith, and one Catholic and Apostolic Church. This is the core of Christ’s coming among men. This is the achievement of that extreme and ineffable humiliation.58 He who attempts to tear asunder or cut to pieces any one of these things, either by the love of a most impious heresy, or the pride of schismatic madness, such a man arrays himself against Christ’s incarnation, arms himself against the common salvation, opposes His deed, and, broken off from union with Him, and torn away from the Lord’s body, the Church, enrolls himself on the side of the enemy. Having rent his members away from the Bride Church, he makes them members of the harlot conventicle. The latter, sitting high on the tribune of sin, crowned with unchaste flowers, and besmeared with artificial paints, addresses them that walk the road of life in a loud, shameless and alluring voice: “Whoso of you is foolish, let him turn aside to me, and ye that lack understanding,59 approach and rest on my bosom. Life with me is relaxed and unbridled. Luxury, drunkenness and pleasure are my struggles, toils and rewards. Here the slave of pleasure is not afraid, the detected perjurer is not condemned, he who sharpens his tongue against his neighbour and hides the asp’s poison under his lips60 is not convicted of having committed any wrong; for such are the common deeds of my lovers. A splendid table of rich meats and delicacies is set before you. You should fill and glut yourselves, and arm your tongue against those who pity you for being miserable. You should do everything that desire suggests to you. For the meddlesome and severe rulings of the apostles and the councils do not look in here, nor do the verdicts and gatherings of bishops correct the sinners, and, suffocating, so to speak, their wishes, make life grievous; for that, too, I promised you from the start, while tearing you away from thence, and embracing you in my arms. Nay, nor is it our custom to steer life by the canons, or to punish the desire of our heart with fortitude of reason; those are the commandments of the Church, unnecessary, hard to bear, and hard to achieve. Hers it is to do nothing without reason, mine to grant everything to passion and desire; hers to conduct those who obey her through the strait gate, mine to drag my lovers after me through the wide and broad;61 hers to disregard the present and reach out for the future, mine to neglect none of the pleasures of life, nor to be deprived of the enjoyment of what we see by the expectation of the future.”

Such and the like things has the harlot conventicle been crying out and doing62 for a long time, and many until now has she drawn to the pit of perdition. Let us all, however, flee as far from her as possible, and be guarded and cherished continuously by the most-pure arms of the Church, Christ’s bride; so that through her we may walk a straight course and be guided to the heavenly path, in Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom be glory and power, together with the eternal Father and the consubstantial and life-giving Ghost, now and for ever and ever. Amen.

Notes

  1. In the MSS the title is given as follows: Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἁγιωτάτου Φωτίου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, ὁμιλία λεχθεῖσα ἐν τῷ ἄμβωνι τῆς μεγάλης ἐκκλησίας. Ar adds τρίτη κατὰ τῶν αἱρέσεων after ὁμιλία.
  2. The name of Constantia’s chaplain has been preserved only by Gelasius III. 12. 2, from whom Photius borrowed it (cf. Biblioth., cod. 88, p. 66 b). This cleric (whom the other sources refer to merely as an Arian presbyter) is said to have convinced Constantia that the faith of Arius was perfectly orthodox. As the Princess was dying, she recommended her chaplain to Constantine, over whom the wily Arian won considerable influence. The story of Constantine’s testament is wrapt in obscurity. When the Emperor died, none of his sons was present, and there was certainly scope for intrigue. See Socr. I. 39 and II. 2; Soz. III. 1; Thdt. II. 3; Ruf. I. 11. Philost. II. 16 alleges that Constantine was poisoned, and that he delivered his will, in which he requested the punishment of his murderers, to Eusebius of Nicomedia.
  3. Constantia, Constantine’s step-sister, was married to Licinius in 313. After Licinius was defeated by Constantine in Sept., 324, she pleaded for her husband’s life. Licinius was, however, executed a few months later at Thessalonica. In spite of this, Constantia remained on good terms with her brother. She died some time after the Council of Nicaea, ca. 333, according to Piganiol (L’Empire chrétien, Paris, 1947, p. 59).
  4. Cf. Socr. I. 25, PG 67, 148 B.
  5. This story is derived from hagiographical sources. See the Life of Metrophanes and Alexander, Biblioth., cod. 256, p. 473 a; Life of Paul, ibid., cod. 257, p. 474 a; Life of Athanasius, ibid., cod. 258, p. 479 b.
  6. The Council of Antioch in encaeniis was held in the summer of 341 in the presence of the Emperor Constantius. Photius is here following Socr. II. 8.
  7. Ninety according to Socr. II. 8 and Athan. De synodis 25, PG 26, 725 A; ninety-seven according to Sozomen III. 5 and Hilary, De synodis 28, PL 10, 502.
  8. Pope Julius I (337–52) was not represented at the Council of Antioch, which consisted exclusively of eastern bishops. Socr. II. 8; Soz. III. 6.
  9. Maximus, Bishop of Jerusalem (336–ca. 348), had been a confessor in one of the persecutions, that of Maximian according to Philost. III. 12, in which he lost his right eye and had the sinews of one arm severed (Theodoret II. 26). Through weakness, he subscribed to the deposition of Athanasius at the Council of Tyre, but later repented of it. Fearing that he would be carried away again, he abstained from the Council of Antioch. Socr. II. 8; Soz. III. 6. See also below, notes 34, 35.
  10. Euphronius (332–33) was succeeded by Flacillus (333–42?), who took part in the Councils of Tyre and Jerusalem, and may have presided over the Dedication Council at Antioch. His name appears in different forms: Jerome calls him Placillus (Olymp. 277), Socrates Placitus (II. 8, 9), Sozomen Placetus (III. 5, 6), Theodoret (I. 22, II. 24, etc.) and Theophanes (pp. 37, 38, 41, ed. De Boor), Flacitus. Note that Photius gives the correct form, as found in Athan., Apol. c. Ar. (PG 25, 281 A, 392 C, 393 D) and Eusebius (dedication of Theol. eccles.).
  11. In actual fact, Gregory of Cappadocia was consecrated Bishop of Alexandria at a previous council held, at Antioch in the winter of 338–39. He was installed on March 22, 339 with the help of armed force, while Athanasius made good his escape to Rome. After perpetrating various outrages, Gregory died in 345. Photius is following the erroneous accounts of Socr. II. 10–11 and Soz. III. 6, who say that Gregory was appointed at the Dedication Council.
  12. Theodore of Heracleia (in Thrace), a writer of some note, took part later in an embassy to the Emperor Constans (342), the object of which was to present the so-called Fourth Antiochene Creed, and to explain the exile of Athanasius. He was deposed at the Council of Sardica, but remained in possession of his see († ca. 355).
  13. Athanasius returned to Alexandria in November, 337. On the date, see Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism2, pp. 140–42. The letter of Constantine II to the people of Alexandria is given by Athan., Apol. c. Ar., § 87, PG 25, 405.
  14. This is the encyclical of the Eusebians, known as the First Antiochene Creed. Photius is following closely Socr. II. 10 and Soz. III. 5. Cf. Athan. De syn., § 24, PG 26, 724–25.
  15. It is not quite clear whether Photius is referring here to the Second (also known as the Lucianic) or the Fourth Antiochene Creed. Photius’ wording of this passage is certainly derived from Socr. II. 10 (PG 67, 201 B), who is speaking of the Second Creed; the Second was also the longest of the four Creeds propounded at the Dedication Council. It was a semi-Nicene and, at the same time, a semi-Arian document, which did not contain the word Homoousios, but said nearly as much using a different phraseology (Soz. III. 5). The Second Creed, however, far from having been drawn up after the Council had broken up, as Photius would have it, was the official creed adopted by the Council. The Fourth Creed, according to Athanasius (De syn., § 25, PG 26, 725) was drawn up by the Eusebians a few months after the Council had dissolved; Socrates, on the other hand, whom Photius had been following in describing these events, implies that the Fourth Creed was privately concocted by the four semi-Arian bishops, who had been deputed to carry the creed of the Council (presumably the Second) to the Emperor Constans (II. 18).
  16. Sabellius was active in Rome at the beginning of the 3rd century. His name is associated with a heresy, which was part of the larger movement of Monarchianism, and taught that the Father was the Son, that the Logos was the aspect under which God acted in the Creation and Incarnation, and that there were not three persons in the Godhead, but three aspects or modalities. Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra († 374), while he disavowed Sabellianism, taught much the same thing, viz. that the Logos, impersonal and immanent in God, was operative in the Creation and the Incarnation by a process of expansion, while He would contract again when His work was done, thus restoring the Divine Unity. Photinus, Bishop of Sirmium (ca. 343–51) was a disciple of Marcellus, but went beyond his master in insisting, like Paul of Samosata, that the Lord was a mere man.
  17. So Socr. II. 19, PG 67, 224 C; Soz. III. 11, ibid., 1060 B; Athan., De syn., § 26, PG 26, 728 A. A fourth legate, Demophilus, is mentioned in a letter of Pope Liberius (Hilary, Fragm. V § 4, PL 10, 684 B). Eudoxius later became Bishop of Antioch (358–60) and of Constantinople (360–70).
  18. The Macrostich, or Fifth Antiochene Creed, was probably drawn up by the same Council that deposed Stephen in the summer of 344 (see above, p. 257). The text of the Macrostich is given by Athanasius, De syn., § 26, PG 26, 728 sq.; Socr. II. 19; summary in Soz. III. 11. The Macrostich, like the Fourth Antiochene which it followed closely, was a compromise creed; on the one hand, it disavowed Arianism, while, on the other, it made a covert attack on Athanasius by condemning Marcellus and the Sabellians.
  19. Eusebius died towards the end of 341 or early in 342, whereupon the Orthodox party brought back Paul (who had been previously elected at Alexander’s death, ca. 337, but deposed by an Arian council), while the Arians appointed Macedonius. The Emperor Constantius sent his general Hermogenes to eject Paul, but popular riots broke out and Hermogenes was killed (342). Greatly incensed, Constantius exiled Paul, while refusing to endorse Macedonius for the part he had taken in the disturbances. Though blamed, Macedonius seems to have been left in possession of the see (Socr. II. 12–13; Soz. III. 7).
  20. There is great uncertainty about these events. According to Socrates, Sozomen and the Life of Paul (Biblioth., cod. 257), Paul, after being expelled in 342, went to Rome, and was returned to Constantinople thanks to the support of Pope Julius (Socr. II. 15; Soz. III. 8). Constantius was, however, as unwilling as ever to admit him. A trap was set for Paul by Philip, prefect of the East, and the Bishop removed to Thessalonica, while Macedonius was re-instated with military help (Socr. II. 16; Soz. III. 9). Paul went again to Italy and, after the Council of Sardica, was returned to his see under threat of war by the Emperor Constans (Socr. II. 23; Soz. III. 20, 24). On the death of Constans (350), Paul was exiled to Cucusus in Cappadocia and strangled (Socr. II. 26; Soz. IV. 2 and III. 3), while Macedonius remained Bishop until 360, when he was deposed by a council at Constantinople. It would appear that Paul’s two sojourns in Italy should be reduced to one, and the incident involving Philip should be connected with the last exile in 350. See discussion of sources by G. Bardy, s. v. “Macédonius et les Macédoniens,” Dict. de théol. cath., IX 2, 1468 sq.; W. Telfer, “Paul of Constantinople,” Harvard Theological Review, XLIII (1950), pp. 31–92.
  21. If Macedonius was ever a Nicene (which does not appear to be stated in our other sources), it was probably in Alexander’s lifetime; for we have seen that Macedonius was the candidate of the Arians on Alexander’s death. Later on, he appears as a Homoean and a partisan of Basil of Ancyra, to whose party he remained attached. As for the heresy that bears his name, we are told that he began propounding it about the time of his deposition in 360 (Socr. II. 45; Soz. IV. 27); while in other sources there is no evidence for the existence of Macedonianism before 380. The doctrine of this heresy was, apparently, that the Holy Ghost held an intermediate position between God and creature; although Macedonius himself is accused of saying that the Holy Ghost was a “servant,” in fact something like an angel (Soz., loc. cit.).
  22. ἐν δεκάτῳ δὲ [Ar: ἐν ιῳ δὲ A and B] should probably be changed to ἑνδεκάτῳ δέ, because both Socr. II. 20 (PG 67, 236 A) and Soz. III. 12 (ibid., 1065 B) assert that the Council of Sardica took place in the 11th year after Constantine’s death (hence in 347, after May 22nd). It is well known that this date is incorrect, and that the Council of Sardica actually took place in the summer of 343.
  23. Photius is here following Socr. II. 20 (col. 236 B) and Soz. III. 12 (col. 1065 B) who say that there were about 300 Western bishops and 76 Eastern ones. For the figure 300, Socr. quotes the authority of Athanasius who, however, does not say anything of the sort: in Apol. c. Ar. § 1, PG 25, 249 A, he says, it is true, that more than 300 bishops had signed in his favour at Sardica, but that includes absentees; in Apol. c. Ar. § 50, PG 25, 337 sq. he lists 282 signatures, again including absentees; while in Hist. Ar. § 15, PG 25, 709 B, he reckons there were about 170 both from East and West. Theodoret II. 7 places the total at 250.
  24. Read: Κωνσταντίου [omit δὲ, added by Ar] καὶ Κώνσταντος τῶν ἀδελφῶν σπουδὴν οὐ τὴν τυχοῦσαν συνεισαγαγόντων καὶ συμψήφων γενομένων ἐν Σαρδῷ [Σαρδικῇ Ar] ... τὸν σύλλογον [omit φασιν, added by Ar] ἁλισθῆναι.
  25. εἰς Φιλίππους codd: εἰς Φιλίππου πόλιν Ar. The Council met at Philippopolis in Thrace (modern Plovdiv), not at Philippi in Macedonia. It is not unlikely, however, that Photius wrote “Philippi,” being perhaps misled by the Life of Paul (Biblioth., cod. 257, p. 476a) which says τὴν ἐν Μακεδονίᾳ Φιλίππου. Confusion between the two cities is very frequent.
  26. The deposition of Basil of Ancyra (336–343, 350–360) and Acacius of Caesarea (340–366) is briefly mentioned by Socr. II. 20, col. 237 B and II. 23, col. 257 A; Soz. III. 12, col. 1064. For Photius’ censure of Socr., cf. Biblioth., cod. 28, p. 6a. It is not perhaps so strange that Photius should vindicate the orthodoxy of Basil, leader of the Homoeousian or Semi-Arian party, since even Athanasius took a fairly favourable view of him (De syn., § 41, PG 26, 765; a severer judgment in Epist. ad. episc. Aeg., § 7, PG 25, 553 B), while Philost. IV. 9, p. 62 (ed. Bidez) treats him as a Nicene. Basil was a learned and respected prelate, whose subsequent opposition to the extreme Arianizers, like Aetius and Acacius, was to his credit. More puzzling is the vindication of Acacius, the shifty leader of the Homoeans, unless it has something to do with his refutation of Marcellus (Epiph. Haer. 72. 5–10). Note that in Soz. III. 14, col. 1081 C both Basil and Acacius are singled out among the distinguished churchmen of the time.
  27. Gregory, the Arian Bishop of Alexandria, who superseded Athanasius in 339 (see above, n. 11); Menophantus of Ephesus took part in the Councils of Nicaea (to which he subscribed, though being an Arian), Philippopolis and subsequently that of Antioch (356) which intruded George into the see of Alexandria. On Theodore, see above, n. 12.
  28. On Marcellus, see above, n. 16. Lucius, Bishop of Adrianople, was a victim of Arian persecution, against which he appealed to Pope Julius. Having been pronounced innocent at Sardica, he was returned to his see, but soon banished again; he died in prison. The Roman Church celebrates his memory on Feb. 11th (Acta Sanctorum, Feb. II, pp. 519–20). Asclepas, bishop of Gaza, was deposed by the Arians some time after the Council of Nicaea; he also appealed to Pope Julius, and was rehabilitated both at the Roman Council of 340 and at Sardica, though, apparently, he was never able to return to his see. It is not clear on what grounds Photius disapproves of Lucius and Asclepas. The Arians at Philippopolis charged Asclepas with having thrown the eucharistic elements to the dogs, and Lucius with having broken an altar and instigated riots (Mansi III, 130 B–C).
  29. The creed in question is the one preserved by Thdt. II. 8. 39–52 and mentioned by Soz. III. 12, col. 1065 A, which was probably drafted by Hosius and Protogenes. It was not, however, officially adopted by the Council.
  30. ἐν Φιλίπποις codd: ἐν Φιλίππου πόλει Ar. See above, n. 25.
  31. Hosius († ca. 358) was the most venerable bishop of his time. A confessor under Maximian, he was Constantine’s chief religious counsellor up to the time of the Nicene Council, over which he is said to have presided. He likewise presided at Sardica, being then nearly ninety years old. In 357 he was compelled by force to communicate with the Arians at Sirmium, and died shortly afterwards.
  32. Cf. Soz. III. 11, col. 1061 C. Protogenes had been Bishop of Sardica from before 316, and had taken part in the Council of Nicaea. Gaudentius was Bishop of Naissus (Niš).
  33. This Council is known only through the Synodicon Vetus, an anti-Photian document of the late 9th century (Mansi III, cols. 177–8; Fabricius –Harles, Bibl. graeca, XII, p. 377). Cf. V. C. De Clercq, Ossius of Cordova (The Catholic Univ. of America Studies in Christ. Ant., 13), Washington, D.C., 1954, pp. 407–8. It cannot, therefore, be ascertained what source Photius is using here.
  34. This gathering of bishops was assembled by Maximus (on whom see above, n. 9) in 346 to welcome Athanasius when the latter was passing through Jerusalem on his way to resume his seat at Alexandria. See Socr. II. 24; Soz. III. 21, 22; Athan. Apol. c. Ar., § 57, PG 25, 352; Hist. Ar., § 25, ibid., 721; Life of Athanasius, Biblioth., cod. 258, p. 482 b.
  35. Photius is here following Socr. II. 38, col. 324 B, Soz. IV. 20, col. 1173 A, and the Life of Athanasius, loc. cit., in saying that Maximus was expelled by Acacius of Caesarea, his metropolitan, and replaced by Cyril; as against Thdt. II. 26. 6 and Jerome, Olymp. 282, who report that Cyril was appointed on the death of Maximus. Cyril (348–386) was at first a Homoeousian (Soz. IV. 25) of the party of Basil of Ancyra (Epiphan., Haer. 73. 23, 27), and did not embrace the Nicene faith until the time of the Second Oecumenical Council, according to Socr. V. 8 and Soz. VII. 7.
  36. Four Councils appear to have taken place at Sirmium between the years 350–360, and each of them produced a creed of its own. The First (351) is a repetition of the Fourth Antiochene, followed by 27 anathemas (text in Athan., De syn., § 27, PG 26, 736–40 and Socr. II. 30); the Second (357) is the Anhomoean manifesto, rejecting both the words homoousios and homoeousios, and proclaiming the Son to be inferior to the Father (text in Athan. De syn., § 28; Socr. II. 30); the Third (358) was the homoeousian reaction to the Second, due to Basil of Ancyra (Soz. IV. 15); the Fourth, or Dated Creed (359) was thoroughly Arian, and represented a partial return to the Second (Athan. De syn., §§ 8, 29; Socr. II. 37).
  37. The Council of Ariminum (Rimini) met in the summer of 359. The Catholics were in the majority, and they ratified the Nicene formula, while the Arians met separately and adopted the Dated Creed. Each party sent a deputation to the Emperor, who was then busied with the renewal of hostilities with Persia. See Socr. II. 37; Soz. IV. 17–19; Thdt. II. 18–20; Athan. De syn., §§ 8–11.
  38. Constantius refused to see the envoys of the Council of Rimini. They were instructed to await his leisure, first at Adrianople, and then at Nike (in Thrace), where, under pressure of violence, they were obliged to sign a revised version of the Dated Creed (Oct. 10, 359). See Thdt. II. 21; Socr. II. 37, cols. 321–24; Soz. IV. 19; Athan. De syn., § 30.
  39. The Council of Seleucia (in Isauria) met in Sept.–Oct., 359, and was composed predominently of Homoeousians. In spite of the opposition of Acacius, who led the Arianizing minority, the Dedication Creed of Antioch was adopted. See Socr. II. 39–40; Soz. IV. 22; Thdt. II. 26. 4–11; Athan. De syn. § 12.
  40. The Council of Constantinople (January 360) marked the victory of the Arians in the East. It ratified the creed of Nike and destituted the more prominent Homoeousian bishops, who were replaced by Homoeans and even Anhomoeans. See Socr. II. 41; Soz. IV. 24; Thdt. II. 28–29.
  41. It would be more accurate to say that the strife that had come into the open at Seleucia broke upon the Homoeousian leaders at Constantinople; Photius, however, treats Basil and his party as being practically orthodox, so there is no need to change the reading. The Acacian deputation from Seleucia reached the Emperor first. When the ten Homoeousian delegates (Basil, Eustathius, Eleusius, Silvanus and others) arrived at Constantinople, they had an unfavourable reception. They did, it is true, succeed in having Aetius, that extreme Anhomoean, exposed and banished; but as Silvanus and Eleusius persisted in defending homoeousios in preference to homoeos, the Emperor ordered them to be deposed, while the rest of the delegation was constrained, on the night of Dec. 31, 359, to sign the Arian creed of Rimini. See Thdt. II. 27; Soz. IV. 23–24.
  42. On Basil see above, n. 26. Eustathius, Bishop of Sebaste in Armenia (ca. 356–ca. 377), is the famous ascetic and friend of St. Basil’s, who later broke with him on dogmatic grounds. Silvanus of Tarsus, one of the most creditable figures in the semi-Arian party, stood out against Acacius both by befriending Cyril of Jerusalem and by his opposition at Seleucia. The deposition of these Bishops at the Council of Constantinople was based not on questions of faith, but on alleged infringements of ecclesiastical discipline.
  43. εἰ καὶ τοῖς τὰ Ναυάτου ὑποθειάζουσι [εἰ καὶ τὰ Ναυάτου ὑποθειάζοντας Ar]. Unless this phrase is used in some special idiomatic sense (cf. τὰ Ναυάτου φυσᾶν, a proverb = “to be arrogant,” discussed by R. Strömberg, Greek Proverbs, Göteborg, 1954, p. 18), it is not at all clear how these semi-Arian Bishops could be said to have been tainted with Novatianism. The Novatians professed the consubstantiality of the Son just as the Orthodox did, while differing from the latter in matters of discipline and ethics. The Novatians were in fact severely persecuted by Macedonius, a member of the semi-Arian party (Socr. II. 38). As regards the dogmatic vacillations of the semi-Arian bishops, Basil was among those who, under pressure from Constantius, signed the Arian Creed of Rimini-Nike, although he is later represented, along with Silvanus, as proclaiming his adherence to the Nicene Creed (Socr. III. 25); while Eustathius, though he subscribed to the Catholic doctrine on several occasions, ended up in the Macedonian camp.
  44. The text should certainly be emended to read δι᾽ ὃν [διὸ codd: δι’ ὃ Ar], since the hostility of Acacius towards the semi-Arian leaders was due to his personal dislike of Cyril. It was Acacius who, as metropolitan of Caesarea, had consecrated Cyril to the see of Jerusalem, but the two fell out over the question of their respective precedence. In 358 Cyril was deposed by the efforts of Acacius; he was restored at Seleucia, but banished again by the Council of Constantinople (Socr. II. 42; Soz. IV. 25; Thdt. II. 26). Philostorgius, whom Photius is using in this connection, likewise says that Acacius was revenging himself on the followers of Basil, because they held Cyril in esteem, διότι κἀκεῖνοι Κύριλλον, τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ παυθέντα τοῦ ἱερᾶσθαι, διὰ τιμῆς ἔφερον (IV. 12, p. 64). The reading διὸ (=“for which reason”) would imply that the hostility of Acacius was inflamed by Cyril’s deposition, which is contrary to the known facts.
  45. Aetius carried the teaching of Arius to its logical conclusion by maintaining that the Son was utterly unlike the Father. A man of humble birth and a chequered past, successively a tinker, a goldsmith, a physician and a theologian, Aetius was ordained deacon at Antioch by the bishop Leontius. At the Council of Constantinople the Acacians sacrificed him as a scapegoat in the following circumstances. When the Homoeousian delegation came before the Emperor, Eustathius produced a clearly Anhomean statement of faith which he attributed to Eudoxius (on whom see n. 49). Its contents incensed Constantius, whereupon Eudoxius immediately disowned it and designated Aetius as its author. On being summoned to the palace, Aetius, who was unaware of what had occurred, readily acknowledged his profession of faith. He was forthwith banished and stripped of the deaconship. Pressing his advantage, Eustathius demanded a formal repudiation of Aetius’ views, which Eudoxius, though sharing them, was obliged to make (Thdt. II. 27. 5–16).
  46. Thdt. II. 28. 3. Serras, Stephan and Heliodorus were all three Bishops from Libya, of whom very little is known. They were excommunicated for refusing to sign the condemnation of Aetius.
  47. Theophilus the Indian is known chiefly through Philost. (II. 6; III. 4–6; IV. 1, 7, 8; V. 4; VII. 6; VIII. 2; IX. 1, 3, 18). A native of Ceylon, he came as a hostage in the days of Constantine, and was educated as an Arian by Eusebius of Nicomedia, who ordained him deacon. Later he was made a bishop, and sent as a missionary to the Himyaritic kingdom. He is said to have worked miracles among the Sabaeans, to have raised a dead woman at Antioch (Suidas, s. v. Θεόφιλος, Θ 197) and to have cured the Empress Eusebia of a malady. Cf. Photius, Biblioth., cod. 40, p. 8 b).
  48. The reading of the MSS, ἢ τοὺς ἀποστόλους αἱ πράξεις ... ἀνακηρύττουσιν may be kept [τῶν ἀποστόλων Ar].
  49. Eudoxius, the “worst of the Arians” and friend of Aetius, was first Bishop of Germanicia (ca. 350–358). On the death of Leontius, he succeeded in making himself Bishop of Antioch (358–360). Deposed by the Council of Seleucia, he sought shelter at Constantinople, and was made, in spite of his notorious profanities, Bishop of that city (Jan. 27, 360–†370).
  50. Read Εὐνομίῳ ... ἡ Κύζικος καταδικάζεται with Pg instead of the meaningless καταδύεται.
  51. Eleusius, a prominent and upright semi-Arian, who had done much to stamp out paganism and Novatianism at Cyzicus, was deposed by the Council of Constantinople, and replaced by Eunomius, the disciple and secretary of Aetius. Eunomius was soon, however, driven out by popular opposition, and founded a sect of his own that taught the complete comprehensibility of God by all men. Photius was acquainted with several works of Eunomius, upon which, in the words of Venables, he “exhausts a whole vocabulary of vituperation” (Biblioth., codd. 137–38, pp. 97–8).
  52. The Emperor’s hostility towards Macedonius is partly attributed to the fact that the latter had transported without authorisation the body of Constantine the Great from the church of the Holy Apostles to that of St. Acacius, an act that had caused popular riots and much bloodshed (Socr. II. 28; Soz. IV. 21).
  53. Constantius died at Mopsucrenae, in Cilicia, on Nov. 3, 361 (Socr. II. 47; Soz. V. 1).
  54. See above, p. 21.
  55. Cf. above, n. 16.
  56. 1 Cor. 1. 12.
  57. Galat. 3. 13.
  58. Read κενώσεως with A and B (cf. Phil. 2. 7): καινώσεως Ar.
  59. Prov. 9. 4.
  60. Cf. Ps. 139. 4.
  61. Mt 7. 13.
  62. Read ἐμβοῶσα καὶ πράττουσα with the MSS: πλάττουσα Ar.

· Contents ·