Epigrams 5 part 2/8

'For the imperturbable fame of your faith has, though late, now moved certain of the Eastern bishops to some shame for the heresy they had nourished, and having heard those things which had been most impiously composed at Sirmium, they contradicted the audacity of the irreligious by certain decrees.' The decrees which Hilary mentions are those which the Synod of Ancyra had promulgated. Hence the same Coustant says:

From Hilary's words there must intervene between this synod—the Gallican, namely—and the Ancyran such a lapse of time that the formula of the latter could conveniently be carried into Gaul, then a synod of the Gallican bishops be convened, its decrees be conveyed into Asia to Hilary, and from Hilary to the Easterners, who, stirred by the example of the Gauls, convened the Synod of Ancyra. Yet Coustant is not the only one who confers this glory upon the Gallican bishops, since Tillemont so understands Hilary as to hold that the Eastern bishops convened that Synod of Ancyra after they had learned that the blasphemy had been proscribed in Gaul.

Furthermore, that the Gallican bishops of those times were truly most holy and most learned, and granted by God to guard the faith, no one would deny; I too gladly concede that there were many in this same age—and that there are even now, by the favor of God Most Good and Great—who, as sons and heirs of such great Fathers, have increased their glory; but perhaps the meaning of Hilary in this passage is not what Tillemont and Coustant suppose; for he does not praise the Gallican bishops because, in recalling and condemning this Sirmian formula, they were by their example the instigators to the Easterners—for, as I shall presently say, from Hilary himself it is established that this was false:

but he praises them because, by the fame of their perpetually preserved right faith, they had brought it about that the Easterners were at length ashamed of the heresy they had nourished: which constant fame, as it could easily long before be spread through the East and carried to the bishops of those provinces, so also it ought long before to have moved those very men to shame for the heresy they had nourished—which shame, however, they made public only when, seizing the occasion of the Eudoxian blasphemy, by issuing the Ancyran definitions, they were seen to put from themselves the infamy of the heresy as something alien. Hence it comes about that the reason on account of which Coustant assigned it to the year 357, not yet advanced, may seem not sufficiently solid.

But those who think it was composed in the year 358 rely chiefly on this foundation: that Constantius, who was present at its composition, although he departed from Rome at the end of May in the year 357 in order to hasten into Illyricum, nevertheless seems neither to have left Italy nor to have reached Sirmium before the last days of that year, since we have laws given by him at Milan on the 4th and 6th day of December; but this reasoning too is not free from difficulty. For Ammianus Marcellinus writes that the emperor, having with difficulty left the City, hastened into Illyricum in order to suppress the movements of the Quadi and the Sarmatians:

To Ammianus is added Julian, who says that he sent Chnodomarius, captured in the battle of Argentaria, at once to Constantius, just as he was returning from the Quadi and Sarmatians; then he adds this: 'So it happened that, although I had fought, he had merely made the journey, and although he had spoken peacefully with the dwellers along the Ister, not I but he triumphed.' Now since the battle of Argentaria cannot be removed from the year 357, and in that year Constantius made his journey through Illyricum, nothing prevents him from having been able conveniently to reach Sirmium and to be present at the composition of the formula.

Nor indeed is there need, as some do, to recall the emperor—unwilling and worn out—back from Illyricum to Milan in the month of December, in which we read that laws were given in that city, and then to place him again at Sirmium on the 18th day of the same month, occupied with the publication of other laws. For we easily free him from this difficulty if, with Reinesius, we say that it came about through the unskillfulness of the copyists that 'Medianae,' either written in abbreviation or through the inexperience of the transcribers, was replaced by 'Mediolanum' (Milan). For Mediana was a place, a retreat of the emperors, at the third milestone from Naissus, famous for the division of the empire between Valentinian and Valens.

And this correction will be more easily approved by one who considers with himself that, taking into account the journey and the stages, it could scarcely have happened that the emperor, who was at Milan on the 6th and 7th of December, was occupied on the 18th day of the same month with publishing laws in the city of Sirmium. But if Law 14 on Bishops, which is addressed to Felix the Roman bishop, was given not at Milan but at Mediana, then Liberius at the end of the year 357 had not yet departed from Beroea and let go of his former constancy, since we know that that pontiff, as soon as he seemed to yield, came to the emperor and by him was restored to his see.

Why therefore I should consider truer the opinion of those who think that the Sirmian formula was written in the first or second month of the year 358, the twofold testimony of Hilary brings about—one in his book On the Synods, the other in his work against Constantius. For in the first place, when he was informing the Gallican bishops about the definitions of the Synod of Ancyra, he says this: 'And this indeed, dearest brethren, all the doctrine of faith which was published by a few Easterners according to the standard of the whole Church, emerged in these very nearly same days in which you rejected the heresy thrust upon you; the reason for which had to be set forth, namely that silence concerning the one substance was being decreed.'

By these words, therefore, which are truly decisive, it is plainly evident that at almost one and the same time anathema was pronounced upon it by the Gallican and the Ancyran bishops. But if we know that this was done by the Ancyrans about the feast of Easter, which in that year fell on the twelfth of April, it must be seen to have been done by the Gauls in the same month also; which kind of argument Sirmond uses, so that he rightly judges that the synod by which he thinks the Sirmian blasphemy was condemned by the Gauls was assembled at almost the same time. But how great a span of time could have intervened, in order that this impious formula could be carried from the place where it was written into Gaul? For as soon as it was received and made known, Hilary indicates that it was condemned:

(a) But would the space of a single month have been by no means sufficient, with Ursacius especially and Valens striving to have it transmitted as quickly as possible? Therefore it can scarcely be placed outside the first or second month of that same year. The second testimony of Hilary—these words of his to Constantius supply it: 'For we wander with an uncertain wind of doctrines.... Now indeed, what does the faith of the recent year not contain by way of change? The first, which decrees the homoousion ('of one substance'), is torn to pieces. The next again, which decrees and proclaims the homoeousion ('of like substance'). The third, which by indulgence excuses the term ousia (substance) as simply presumed by the Fathers. The last, which does not excuse but condemns it.'

He was writing while stationed at Constantinople, when the year 359 was now nearly ending, or the next one already beginning. Now nearest to this is the year which had preceded: this, therefore, had given birth to the Sirmian blasphemy and to the Ancyran exposition which is contrary to it; which formulas were then followed not long after by the third Sirmian formula, which excuses the term ousia, and then by that of the Acacians at Seleucia, which was afterward endowed by them with a new appendix at Constantinople, and openly condemns the term ousia. That this monstrosity, then, was sent into Gaul as soon as it came forth into the light, Hilary and Phoebadius do not allow us to doubt. But since Hilary says that it was sent not by a synod—which there had been none—not by bishops, but only from the town of Sirmium,

he indicates not obscurely the way by which it had been sent. Ursacius therefore and Valens, being masters of affairs, employed the service of a Magistrianus (that is, of the public courier), with this intent, that it might be carried most swiftly, and moreover that it might bear before it the name and command of the emperor, so that it might be received the more easily: for Gothofredus observes that the Magistriani were chosen to convey the great mandates of princes, and from Theodoret we gather that it was not unusual for Constantius to use them in disturbing the affairs of the Church. And this is what the same Hilary explains more openly in another place, and in these words:

Formerly in obscurity and in corners the Lord Christ was denied to be the Son of God according to nature, and, destitute of the paternal essence, He was proclaimed to have received, together with the other creatures, His being out of things non-existent. But now, by the PROFESSION OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY, the heresy bursts forth; that which formerly muttered furtively now, no longer in secret, gloried as victor. Then, accusing Ursacius and Valens as the authors, as it were, of this impiety, he says, 'they deceived the ignorant king, so that, occupied with wars, he set forth a creed of perfidy of this kind, and—himself not yet regenerated—set forth a form of believing to the Churches'; for from this you gather that all things were then accomplished under the single name of the emperor.

They had used this same fraud—which turned out badly—in the bandit Synod of Milan, assembled in the year 355. For, not daring out of fear of the people to bring forth their own expiatory offenses, they sent a letter under the emperor's name, filled with every depravity, with this intent, that if the people received it with favorable ears, they might by PUBLIC AUTHORITY obtain their desires; but if it had been received otherwise, all the odium would fall on the king, and even that pardonable, because, being then still a catechumen, he might justly be thought to have been able to be ignorant of the sacrament of faith. And from this passage of Severus you understand also what 'the profession of public authority' means to Hilary.

But there is also another reason why that formula ought to be seen as sent not in the name of a synod or of bishops, but only in the single name of the emperor. For if you except Hosius, the other four whom Hilary asserts to have been its authors were outside the communion of the Church: this at least the Gallic bishops had certainly determined concerning Ursacius and Valens. Wherefore, since by the canons all commerce of letters with orthodox bishops was forbidden them, there was no reason why those Arians should write to them in the customary manner and about matters pertaining to the faith; and this one way remained, which they also used, to see to it that the formula was sent by Constantius and promulgated through the magistrates—which we read was sometimes done by Constantius.

Indeed, when the matter of Athanasius was at issue, he had written to the magistrates and threatened a fine, unless someone had compelled the bishop of his own city to subscribe against him. Since this is so, the opinion of those who call that Sirmian blasphemy 'synodical' and say it was framed in a synod seems to me paradoxical, since moreover neither was the number of bishops necessary for defining so great a matter present, nor were synodical letters in the customary manner either written or sent, nor were those convoked who had the right of attending:

although, if you should wish to call that fortuitous and clandestine meeting of four or five bishops by the name of a synod, and the formula issued by it 'synodical,' I would by no means object—yet in that sense in which the Council of Sardica wrote that the Arians coming to Sardica held synods among themselves in various places, and made pacts with threats, so that they should by no means come to Sardica for the judgment, nor assemble into one with the holy synod—by that word expressing their private and clandestine meetings. But, to return to my purpose: although these things are by no means wholly foreign to it, as soon as this formula was announced and made known to the Gallic bishops, it was openly rejected, openly condemned:

whether by an assembled synod, as Sirmond holds, or by the circulating letters of the bishops, as could also have happened, it matters nothing to inquire. But now see to what the argument comes back: if you assert that it was written in the year 357, if you see it promulgated and supported by the authority of Constantius, why was nothing done by him in the meantime against the resisting bishops? Hilary indeed reproaches Ursacius and Valens because, when it was promulgated, they had driven the contradicting bishops into exile. 'For they have compelled us,' he says, 'to the wish for exile, while they impose the necessity of impiety.' But to those men, prepared for every audacity and cruelty, neither counsel nor spirit was lacking, but time.

For meanwhile the Synod of Ancyra was held at the beginning of the month of April, which had pierced through the Sirmian blasphemy lurking beneath the Eudoxian heresy. The legates who had gone from it to Constantius—Basil of Ancyra, Eleusius and Eustathius—and who had been able conveniently to reach Sirmium at the beginning of May, drove the emperor away from his former opinion. Ursacius himself, Valens, and Germinius were compelled to comply with Constantius, to abjure the Sirmian formula, and to profess the Ancyran exposition, which was then promulgated. Hence all the sinews of their power to do harm were suddenly, and beyond all expectation, cut off. The matter is related by Hilary, Socrates, and Sozomen, who may be consulted.

Do you not see that all is clear and plain, and that what Hilary says—that the Gauls and the Ancyran bishops condemned that impiety at almost one and the same time—is most true? But let us proceed to bring light to the matter at hand. It may therefore be asked whether that formula was sent into the East, just as into Gaul, and promulgated? Some think so; for my part, I would not easily grant that Ursacius, Valens, Germinius, and Potamius, its authors—being Westerners, and lacking the consent of all the other Churches—set forth their own creed to the Easterners, that it might be common to them also, and promulgated it, so that it might be received by all as a certain and established dogma.

This view, moreover, the following considerations confirm, unless I am mistaken. First, that George of Laodicea, in the letter which was read at the Synod of Ancyra, names only Aetius and Eudoxius as the authors of the heresy then arising. Second, that Basil of Ancyra, in the encyclical written from the synod which he himself held, both censures only these men, and also writes that he had learned from reports from the Illyrians that that ruin was creeping and spreading more widely, after the manner of leaven: therefore the Easterns had not seen it, nor had it been customarily made known in those regions. Third, I do not deny that it had become known to Eudoxius, who had recently crept into the see of Antioch:

but I maintain that it was made known to Eudoxius alone, and only through the private letters of Ursacius, Valens, and Germinius, because it was not hidden from them what mind that most wicked man possessed, and that they held a common cause with him: hence he alone gave thanks to Ursacius himself, to Valens, and to Germinius, because through their ministry the Westerns had begun to think rightly; expressing in these words that Hosius had been forced to profess that blasphemy: and those to whom he writes back, as you see, are only three. Fourth, Constantius, the heresy having been disclosed to him through the legates who had come from Ancyra, both condemned the innovators to exile—namely Aetius, Eudoxius, and their associates—and by written letters warned the Antiochenes not to abandon the faith promulgated at the Dedication (Encaenia):

and that they should execrate the Eudoxian heresy as impious, new, and lately emerged from the abyss of error. But would he have been so shameless as to do and write these things, if that formula had previously been approved by himself, if it had been promulgated throughout the East by his order and by encyclical letters of the bishops, so that it might be received? But, you will say, it could have been spread privately and by familiar letters: yet what will you conclude from this? Had Demophilus on that account certainly seen it? Could he, moreover, expound to Liberius a faith which he had received only by rumor and by an uncertain report secretly put forth, and which he did not sufficiently understand?

On the contrary, the Ancyran definitions, by which the Antiochene and Sirmian exposition was expressly confirmed, had at once been promulgated by encyclical letters, as is customary: Constantius, moreover, had then ordered that these alone should prevail. Scarcely, therefore, could Demophilus have expounded to Liberius any faith other than the one that then prevailed. Since these things are so, there is by no means any need for me to linger longer in refuting Du Pin, and the anonymous writer who, in years past, again set Du Pin before us, translated into the French language under the title Treatise on Ecclesiastical and Secular Power.

This writer first confidently places Demophilus among the Anomoeans, then dreams up a double formula signed by Liberius—one, namely, at Beroea, wholly Arian and conformed to the opinion of the Anomoeans, the other at Sirmium, with this very intent and design, that he might clear himself concerning that former one signed at Beroea, and dispel before Basil of Ancyra and the other Semiarians—who had been legates to Constantius while he was staying at Sirmium—the rumor, spread abroad, that he had professed the Son to be unlike the Father.

For what I have hitherto said and argued, and what besides still remains to be said again, clearly demonstrate that Du Pin rashly fabricates as facts things that never were, and confirms them with false testimonies, in order, as is his custom, to throw dust in the reader's eyes. § VI.—The whole sequence of what was done by Liberius is set forth, and his letters to the Easterns and to Ursacius and Valens are explained. The expounded sequence of what was then done is confirmed by the authority of Sozomen, and by the testimony of Acacius and of the other Arians gathered at Constantinople, a testimony not previously noticed.

What I have hitherto said and argued, therefore, both shows what faith was undertaken by Liberius, and also offers the whole sequence of events as now easy to perceive. Basil, then, after the Synod of Ancyra was completed, and perhaps during the days of Easter, set out to the emperor who was staying at Sirmium; and there, as I have said, he could easily arrive at the beginning of May: that he accomplished his affairs with equal speed and success we know from Hilary and Sozomen: for the Sirmian blasphemy was abrogated and the Antiochene faith of the Dedication was again confirmed; Ursacius, moreover, and Valens, authors of that same blasphemy, professing ignorance, revoked what they had done, being compelled to subscribe to the Antiochene and Ancyran ecthesis (statement of faith):

Eudoxius and Aetius, and the other manifest followers of that impiety, were made exiles: the Basilians, finally, as victors, traversed all places to confirm the homoeousian or Ancyran faith, which is the same as the Sirmian. I therefore do not at all doubt that they at once took care to scatter letters in every direction, by which all the bishops throughout the East—and especially those who professed the Sirmian faith—should be informed of this matter; among whom Demophilus must rightly be counted, because he was not far off, and had been present at the drawing up of that same Sirmian faith, and, as we have seen, openly professed it together with the Semiarians.

Now when Basil had related and explained all these things to Liberius in person, he obtained that the latter—broken by exile and desirous of seeing the City again—should write to the Easterns who were in the imperial court and held sway over affairs with the emperor, namely Basil, as Nicephorus explains, and his associates. Nor does it seem to overturn this view of mine that the same pontiff also wrote to Ursacius and Valens, the authors and champions of that Sirmian blasphemy:

for since they had by then revoked that formula, and had been compelled to profess the same faith as Basil and the other Semiarians, there was no evident reason why the same pontiff, who had written to the Easterns, should have shunned communion also with those Westerns—whose favor with Constantius was great, and whose faith was then the same as that of the others. Hence you understand why, in the letters written to the Easterns, Liberius says that he accepts the faith expounded to him by Demophilus, but made no word of this matter in the others drawn up to Ursacius himself, and to Valens and Germinius.

For who would not see from this that, when the same Liberius drew up those letters, the faith of all of them was one, and that consequently both letters were sent after Valens, Ursacius, and Germinius had subscribed to the definitions of the Synod of Ancyra, and there seemed to be no outward discord of opinions between them and the Easterns? Now, however, we must see what Liberius did after he came to Sirmium. Athanasius and Hilary, as I have said, indeed express nothing that makes us know this matter clearly. Socrates touched not at all upon the fall of this pontiff; since Rufinus, whom he generally follows, writes that he had ascertained nothing certain on this subject.

Sozomen alone, therefore, remains, who transmitted to posterity the memory of what was then done, and that so accurately described, that whoever is unwilling to follow his authority in this matter must have utterly cast off all shame. It is therefore worth our while to hear him. 'Not long after, the emperor, having returned from the city of Rome to Sirmium, when the Western bishops had sent a legation to him, summoned Liberius to himself from Beroea: and when the legates of the bishops of the East were present, having convened the priests who were in the court, he began to compel Liberius to profess that the Son is not consubstantial with the Father.'

Now Basil, Eustathius, and Eleusius, who wielded chief authority with him, were pressing and urging the emperor to this. When they had then gathered into one document those things which had been decreed against Paul of Samosata and against Photinus, bishop of Sirmium, and besides the formula of faith issued at the dedication of the Antiochene basilica—as though, under the pretext of the word 'consubstantial,' certain persons were trying to establish their own heresy—they brought it about that Liberius and Athanasius, Alexander, Severianus, and Crescens, bishops of Africa, assented to that formula. Likewise Ursacius and Germinius, bishop of Sirmium, and Valens of Mursa, and as many bishops as were present from the parts of the East, assented.

But they also in turn received from Liberius a confession, in which he declared those who asserted that the Son is not similar to the Father in substance and in all things to be alienated from the Church..... These things having been accomplished through the legates of the Westerns, the emperor granted permission to return to Rome. The bishops who had convened at Sirmium also wrote to Felix, who then presided over the Roman Church, and to the clergy of that same city, that they should receive Liberius, and that both should govern the apostolic see and together exercise the priesthood without any dissension. So says Sozomen: but as for those whom Valesius—whose translation I use—sets forth as legates of the Westerns, I for my part think there were none:

since the Greek word πρεσβεύω expresses both those who are sent as legates, and sometimes those who approach as intercessors on another's behalf: in this sense at least Langus, the translator of Nicephorus, and Fronto Ducaeus understood that word. Therefore I understand to be designated in this passage Fortunatianus of Aquileia, whom Liberius had sent with letters to the emperor, and also Ursacius and Valens themselves, whom he had bound to himself, and the others then placed in the court: for the brief delay did not allow that those whom the same pontiff had wished to be sent from Campania through Vincentius of Capua could then be present.

You see, then, that Liberius was recalled from exile through the agency of Basil, after he had written that he had accepted the Sirmian faith: and then, after he had actually subscribed to that same faith together with some African bishops, he was granted the power of going to Rome and of recovering his see. But since he, on the testimony of Anastasius, entered the City on the third day before the Nones of August, he must have come to Sirmium in the month of June, and, his affairs there being completed as that month was already waning, have set out on the journey to Rome. Everything, indeed, if you take it thus, rightly coheres for itself: for the clandestine formula of Ursacius and Valens, at Basil's insistence, is abrogated, and the Sirmian ecthesis against Photinus is again promulgated while May was not yet far advanced:

Liberius, not far absent, accepts the faith expounded by Demophilus, and announces this to Basil of Ancyra and the other Easterns placed in the court, by those letters which I have recalled. He is therefore called from exile to the emperor, and, having professed in writing the faith which he had said he accepted, returns to his see. For no one could deny that all these things could conveniently have taken place within the space of three months. Moreover, Sozomen is not the only witness of this matter; since they are confirmed by the not obscure testimony of Acacius of Caesarea. He had been—along with the others of the Arian dregs who had resolved that 'substance' (ousia) was to be rejected from the faith—deposed in the Synod of Seleucia by the Semiarians, the champions of 'substance':

but the Acacians, a little later being stronger, in order to repay like with like in the robber council of Constantinople, expelled the leaders of the Semiarians from their sees: and since they wished to seem to have done this justly, when they deal with Basil of Ancyra they set forth these causes, among some others—namely, that he had been the cause of dissension and tumult for the Illyrians, Italians, and Africans, and had been the author of those things which had befallen the Roman Church. Why, then, he is said to have been the cause of dissension and tumult for the Illyrians, Italians, and Africans, I shall by no means inquire, although my mind inclines to believe that these words express that zeal with which he had labored, that in those regions the Ancyran definitions might be received and the Anomoeans condemned.