THE SYNODS OF SARDICA AND PHILIPPOPOLIS
SECTION 68. IS THE SYNOD OF SARDICA OECUMENICAL?
It is, moreover, universally known that the Eusebians first issued their Encyclical not from Sardica, but from Philippopolis, fa326 and the dispute is only as to whether they so far acted bona fide, considering themselves to be the true Sardican Synod, fa327 or whether they purposely intended to deceive and to impose upon the readers of their Encyclical, by
representing their changeling as the genuine offspring of Sardica. fa328 It is usually said that they were successful in this in Africa, where, in
consequence of their cunning, only a Semi-Arian Council of Sardica was known. The case then stands thus: As the orthodox bishop of Carthage, Gratus, was himself present at the Council of Sardica, the Eusebians, as we know, sent their Encyclical to the Donatist bishop of Carthage. To this the Donatists referred later, stating that the Synod of Sardica had recognized them; while S. Augustine, on the other hand, could only remark: Sardicense Concilium Arianorum fuit. fa329 It is concluded from this that he only knew of an Eusebian Synod of Sardica, and nothing of an orthodox Synod. fa330 However true this may be, it was not in consequence of the cunning of the Eusebians in dating their letter from Sardica; for Augustine, in his letter to Eleusius, plainly says, that until then he had not seen the Encyclical in question, and in a hasty reading of it had only observed that the Synod had rejected Athanasius and Pope Julius. He would, however, examine this document at greater leisure. If he did so, he must have found from the Eusebians’ own letter that a Synod of the orthodox had also taken place at Sardica; and as every one who read the Encyclical itself must have arrived at this conclusion, the supposition that the Eusebians wanted thereby quietly and cunningly to put the orthodox Synod out of sight, and substitute themselves, is not borne out. The truth is rather, that, without denying the existence of the opposite party, they laid claim to having formed the true Synod of Sardica themselves.
Sardica, fa331 but we do not find that any such actually took place; and the history of the Church points to many like cases, where a Synod was probably intended to be oecumenical, and yet did not attain that
character. fa332 In the present case, the Eastern and Western bishops were indeed summoned, but by far the greater number of the Eastern bishops were Eusebians, and therefore Semi-Arians, and, instead of acting in a better mind in union with the orthodox, they separated themselves and formed a cabal of their own at Philippopolis.
We cannot indeed agree with those who maintain that the departure of the Eusebians in itself rendered it impossible for the Synod to be oecumenical, or it would be in the power of heretics to make an
Oecumenical Council possible or not. We cannot, however, overlook the fact that, in consequence of this withdrawal, the great Eastern Church was far more poorly represented at Sardica, and that the entire number of bishops present did not even amount to a hundred. fa333 So small a
number of bishops can only form a General Council, if the great body of their absent colleagues subsequently give their express consent to what has been decided. This was not, however, the case at the Synod of Sardica. The decrees were no doubt at once sent for acceptance and signature to the whole of Christendom, but not more than about two hundred of those bishops who had been absent signed, and of these, ninety-four, or nearly half, were Egyptians. Out of the whole of Asia only a few bishops from the provinces of Cyprus and Palestine signed, not one from the other Eastern provinces; and even from the Latin Church in Africa, which at that time numbered at least three hundred bishops, we meet with very few names. fa334 We cannot give much weight to the fact that the Emperor Constantius refused to acknowledge the decrees of Sardica; it is of much greater importance that no single later authority declared it to be a General Council. Natalis Alexander fa335 is indeed of opinion that because Pope Zosimus, in the year 417 or 418, cited the fifth canon of Sardica as Nicene, and a Synod held at Constantinople in 382 cited the sixth as Nicene, the Synod must evidently have been considered as an appendix to that of Nicaea, and therefore its equal, that is, must have been honored as oecumenical. But we have already shown how Zosimus and the bishops of Constantinople had been led into this
confusion from the defects of their manuscript collections of the canons.
fa336
Athanasius, Sulpicius Severus, Socrates, and the Emperor Justinian were cited in later times for the oecumenical character of this Synod.
Athanasius calls it a mega>lh su>nodov; fa337 Sulpicius Severus says it was ex toto orbe convocata; fa338 and Socrates relates that “Athanasius and other bishops had demanded an Oecumenical Synod, and that of Sardica had been then summoned.” fa339 It is clear at the first glance that the two last authorities only prove that the Synod had been intended to be a general one, and the expression “great Synod,” used by Athanasius, cannot be taken as simply identical with oecumenical. While, however, the Emperor Justinian, in his edict of 346, on the three chapters, calls the Synod of Sardica oecumenical, fa340 he yet in the same edict (p. 303), as well as in other places, does not reckon it among the General Councils, of which he counts four. To this must be added, first, that the Emperor is not the authority entitled to decide as to the character of an Oecumenical Synod; and secondly, that the expression universale concilium was employed in a wider sense in speaking of those Synods which, without being general, represented a whole patriarchate, as we have already explained above. fa341
The Trullan Synod and Pope Nicholas the First are further appealed to.
The former in its second canon approved of the Sardican canons, fa342 and Pope Nicholas said of them: omnis Ecclesia recipit eos. fa343 But this in no way contains a declaration that the Synod of Sardica was
oecumenical, for the canons of many other Councils also — for instance, Ancyra, Neocaesarea, and others — were generally received without those synods themselves being therefore esteemed oecumenical. Nay, the Trullan Synod itself speaks for us; for had it held the Synod of Sardica to be the second General Council, it would have placed its canons
immediately after those of Nicaea, whereas they are placed after the four ancient General Councils, and from this we see that the Trullan Synod did not reckon the Sardican among those Councils, but after them.
To this it must be added, that the highest Church authorities speak most decidedly against the Synod being oecumenical. We may appeal first to Augustine, who only knew of the Eusebian assembly at Sardica, and nothing at all of an orthodox Synod in that place; fa344 which would have been clearly impossible, if it had at that time been counted among the oecumenical synods. fa345 Pope Gregory the Great and S. Isidore of Seville speak still more plainly. They only know of four ancient General Councils — those of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon.
fa346
The objection of the Ballerini, fa347 that Gregory and Isidore did not intend to enumerate the most ancient general synods as such, but only those which issued important dogmatic decrees, is plainly quite arbitrary, and therefore without force.
Under such circumstances, it is natural that among the later scholars by far the greater majority should have answered the question, whether the Synod of Sardica is oecumenical, in the negative, as have Cardinal Bellarmin, fa348 Peter de Marca, fa349 Edmund Richer, fa350 Fleury, Orsi, Sacharelli, Tillemont, Du-Pin, Berti, Ruttenstock Rohrbacher, Remi Ceillier, fa351 Stolberg, fa352 Neander, fa353 and others.
On the other hand, Baronius, fa354 Natalis Alexander, fa355 the brothers Ballerini, fa356 Mansi, fa357 and Palma, fa358 have sought to maintain the oecumenical character of the Synod; but as early as the seventeenth century the Roman censors condemned the direct assertion of Natalis Alexander fa359 on the subject.
BOOK 5
The Interval Between the Council of Sardica and the Second General Council.
SECTION 69. RETURN OF S. ATHANASIUS FROM HIS SECOND EXILE. SYNODS OF ANTIOCH, JERUSALEM, AND ALEXANDRIA.
THE SYNOD OF COLOGNE AGAINST EUPHRATES.
IT was clearly impossible that the events at Sardica could again restore to the Church the peace disturbed since the appearance of Arius. On the contrary, the division now became still greater than at the time of the Synod of Nicaea. Then, the number of actual Arians was still small, and the semi-Arian Eusebians would not, outwardly at least, separate themselves from the Church; now, however, at Sardica, they came forward in open opposition to the Church, and thus strengthened the party to which, from the beginning, they had felt themselves drawn by a spiritual affinity. Their object was to obtain by force the universal recognition of Semi-Arianism (this name, however, was not in existence at that time) throughout the whole East, as far as the dominion of the Emperor Constantius extended; and they could the better hope for this, as in fact a far greater number of Eastern bishops stood on the Eusebian and Arian side than on the Nicene and Sardican.
In order to gain this end, on their departure from Sardica, before, during, and immediately after their stay at Philippopolis, they began a great persecution of the Nicene-minded bishops in the East-Roman Empire, which Athanasius describes in his Historia Arianorum ad Monachos, fa360 though not in exact chronological order, so that he combined in one what occurred during the (orthodox) Synod of Sardica, and what took place afterwards. fa361 While the Synod of Sardica was still assembled,
Constantius, on the complaints of the Eusebians, sentenced to deposition and banishment the two bishops, Asterius of Arabia and Arius (according to others Macarius) of Palestine, who had separated themselves from the Eusebians at Sardica, fa362 as well as the bishops, Lucius of Adrianople and Diodorus of Tenedos, who had also distinguished themselves at Sardica; but Theodulus of Trajanople and Olympius of Eno Rodope they had so calumniated to the Emperor, that he pronounced the sentence of
death upon both, and they were only able to save themselves by flight.
fa363
Moreover, at Adrianople, because the congregation of that place, adhering to their bishop, Lucius, refused communion to the Eusebians, ten laymen were executed, and two priests and three deacons exiled to Armenia. fa364
Whilst this took place in Thrace, the Eusebians had obtained from the Emperor a decree concerning Egypt also, that watches should be set at the gates of the towns to hinder by force the entrance of those who had received from the Synod of Sardica permission to return. Should, however, Athanasius and any of his priests mentioned by name in the decree dare to return to Alexandria, they were to be seized, and
sentenced to death. Athanasius, in relating this, adds, “Thus has the new heresy not only denied the Lord, but also taught murder.” fa365
Under such circumstances, Athanasius could, of course, not return to his diocese. He went instead from Sardica to Naissus in Dacia (the birthplace of Constantine the Great), and from thence to Aquileia, whither he had been summoned by his protector the Emperor Constans, fa366 who also arrived there at that time. fa367 The Synod of Sardica, however, sent two legates, the Bishops Vincent of Capua and Euphrates of Cologne, to Constantius, to obtain his permission for the return of Athanasius. The Emperor Constans gave them a magister militum, named Salias, as an escort, and letters of recommendation to his brother. fa368 Theodoret says that they also contained the threat that if Constantius did not recall Athanasius, Constans would himself conduct him back to Alexandria, and drive away his enemies. Philostorgius, Socrates, and Sozomen fa369 also speak of this threat; but the two latter say that Constans had first entreated his brother in friendly words to recall Athanasius, and only when this proved fruitless, menaced war. Tillemont thinks, however, we should give the preference to Theodoret’s account, and adds that even if Athanasius is silent on this point, it would still seem to be true, for Lucifer of Cagliari also asserted afterwards in presence of Constantius that “only fear had moved him to recall Athanasius.” And Constantius himself declared, “That only in order to preserve friendship with his brother had he done so.” fa370
The two legates, Vincent and Euphrates, immediately set off for the East, to meet the Emperor Constantius; but at Antioch the Arian-minded bishop, Stephen, played them a villanous trick, which has scarcely its
equal in history. Through a certain Onajer he appointed a prostitute to come to the inn where the two bishops were staying, under the pretext that a young traveler who had arrived there wanted her. She came the next night (it was Eastertide, 344), and was shown by Onajer into the room where the aged Euphrates slept. He awoke at her entrance, asked who had come, and believed, when he heard a female voice and the nature of her answer, that it could be none other than the devil. The girl was equally astonished when she saw an old man, and recognized him for a bishop. Both made a noise, at which several servants came, and a great tumult followed: the whole wicked trick was discovered, especially by the open avowal of the girl. The Emperor himself summoned a synod to try the case, and Bishop Stephen was deposed. fa371
This is, doubtless, the same Synod of Antioch which drew up a new confession of faith, called, on account of its length, makro>sticov, fa372 and of which Athanasius fa373 speaks. He says that it was held three years after the Antiochian Synod in Encoeniis, and therefore in the summer of 344; and this is exactly the time when a synod met at Antioch, assembled about the deposition of Stephen. The fact that all former Synodal
historians place this new Synod before that of Sardica, must not mislead us, as the true date of the Sardican assembly was unknown. The formula makro>sticov first repeats the fourth Antiochian Creed of 341 almost word for word, and like it anathematizes the chief Arian propositions, but adds more detailed explanations, directed partly against the Arians, the Sabellians, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Scotinos (i.e. Photinus fa374 ), but also partly against Athanasius, because he had disputed the sentence: “the Father begat the Son of His will.” fa375 It is especially worthy of notice that already in this creed the Semi-Arian Shibboleth, “the Son resembles the Father in all things” (kata< pa>nta o[moiov), finds expression. The Eusebians sent this new formula by the Bishops Eudoxius of Germanicia, Martyrius, and Macedonius of Mopsuestia, to the West, and they arrived there just as the Latin bishops were holding a synod in Milan. The former erroneous date of the Synod of Sardica gave rise to the opinion that this Synod of Milan also had preceded that of Sardica, and had taken place at the very time that Athanasius was summoned by the Emperor Constans to Milan, before his departure for Sardica. fa376 But it is in fact a later Synod of Milan, after that of Sardica, which is here mentioned, and of which we shall shortly fa377 give a more particular account.
The above-mentioned Euphrates of Cologne is the same who was said to have been deposed at a Synod of Cologne in 346, for his attachment to the Arian heresy. The chief objection which had hitherto been brought against the genuineness of these Acts of Cologne was built upon the fact that the Council of Sardica had only taken place in 347, and that
Euphrates was still at that time a most zealous opponent of the Arians.
This chief objection has now, indeed, disappeared, and it may be that Euphrates, while at the Synod of Sardica, and at the time of his journey as ambassador in 344, still belonged entirely to the Orthodox side, but soon after went over to Arianism. The Acts of Sardica, however, say very expressly that Euphrates had already, long before his deposition, shown a leaning towards Arianism, and had been on that account repeatedly warned by his colleagues, and even in the presence of Athanasius (therefore probably during the latter’s stay in Gaul).
According to this, his fall had been by no means a sudden one. But this is directly contradicted by his behavior at Sardica, and by his being chosen as Synodal legate. To this must be added, that if this really had taken place, Athanasius would have displayed less sympathy for Euphrates in his Historia Arianorum ad Monachos, which he wrote after his return to Alexandria, therefore later than October 346, fa378 and would hardly have been silent concerning his fall. There are, besides, many other reasons against this Synod of Cologne, especially the total silence of all
contemporary and of all ancient writers, even of the special historians of heresy, for instance, Philastrius, up to the ninth century. A circumstantial proof of the spuriousness of the Acts of the Council of Cologne was given by Harzheim, Concil. Germ.. t. 1.; Binterim, Pragmatische Gesch. der
Deutschen Concilien; fa379 and Rettberg in his Kirchengesch. Deutschlands;
fa380
against whom the learned Jesuit de Buck and Dr. Friedrich of Munich have lately argued in favor of this Synod of Cologne. fa381
After the deposition of Stephen, another Eusebian, Leontius Castratus, fa382 received the See of Antioch. What had occurred, however, caused the Emperor Constantius to recall many banished orthodox priests, to forbid further persecution of Athanasius and his adherents, and, ten months later, after the death of the pseudo-Bishop Gregory, even to invite him to return to his bishopric, while he allowed no one else to occupy the See of Alexandria. fa383
Constantius now addressed three short letters, which are still extant, to Athanasius, to the effect that “he should come to him at the Court, that
he might be from thence reinstalled in his bishopric. He might undertake this journey without any fear or scruple, for the Emperor would have even before reinstated him if he had requested it; and the public carriages were also assigned to his use for the journey.” fa384 The third letter, especially, shows that Athanasius did not at the first invitation immediately set out, but, on the contrary, hesitated a long time. fa385 Constantius wrote at the same time to his brother Constans that “he had waited for Athanasius already a whole year, and had not allowed the See of Alexandria to be again filled. fa386
When these letters arrived Athanasius was still at Aquileia. At the command of his well-wisher Constans, he visited him again in Gaul, fa387 and went then to Rome, where exceeding joy reigned on account of his recall. fa388 At his departure Pope Julius gave him letters of congratulation to the diocese of Alexandria; fa389 and all other bishops also, whom he met on his journey, held communion with him. fa390
At Antioch he met the Emperor Constantius, was very kindly received, obtained permission for his return, and begged that his accusers might be brought face to face with him. To this last the Emperor did not agree, but he caused all the written charges against Athanasius then in existence to be destroyed, and promised not to believe any fresh charges against him.
fa391
At the same time, he sent letters to all the bishops of Egypt, to the diocese of Alexandria, to his Prefect in that place, Nestorius, and other officials, with regard to the return of Athanasius. fa392
During his stay in Antioch, Athanasius took no part in the service held by the Eusebian bishop of that city, Leontius, but joined the Eustathians in a private house; and when the Emperor once expressed the wish that he should leave the Arians at least one church in Alexandria, Athanasius replied that he would do so as soon as the same was granted to the Catholics in Antioch. The Arians, however, did not agree to this proposal. fa393
On his further journey to Alexandria, Athanasius also visited Jerusalem, where Bishop Maximus was then holding a synod, which solemnly acknowledged him as a member of the Church, and sent a letter of congratulation to the Alexandrians. fa394 At last, towards the end of 346, after more than six years’ absence, Athanasius once more reached his own diocese, and on the 21st October 346 was received with very great rejoicings. fa395 He at once held a synod for the confirmation of the