Translation Hide
The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret (CCEL)

Chapter XXIII. Of what befell the orthodox bishops at Constantinople.

Constantius , on his return from the West, passed some time at Constantinople. There Acacius urged many accusations against the assembled bishops in presence of the emperor, called them a set of vile characters convoked for the ruin and destruction of the churches, and so fired the imperial wrath. And not least was Constantius moved by what was alleged against Cyrillus, “for,” said Acachius, “the holy robe, which the illustrious Constantine the emperor, in his desire to honour the church of Jerusalem, gave to Macarius, the bishop of that city, to be worn when he performed the rite of divine baptism, all fashioned with golden threads as it was, has been sold by Cyrillus. It has been bought,” he continued, “by a certain stage dancer; dancing about when he was wearing it, he fell down and perished. With a man like this Cyrillus,” he went on, “they set themselves up to judge and decide for the rest of the world.” The influential party at the court made this an occasion for persuading the emperor not to summon the whole synod, for they were alarmed at the concord of the majority, but only ten leading men. Of these were Eustathius of Armenia, Basilius of Galatia, Silvanus of Tarsus, and Eleusius of Cyzicus. ¹

P. 88 On their arrival they urged the emperor that Eudoxius should be convicted of blasphemy and lawlessness. Constantius, however, schooled by the opposite party, replied that a decision must first be come to on matters concerning the faith, and that afterwards the case of Eudoxius should be enquired into. Basilius, relying on his former intimacy, ventured boldly to object to the emperor that he was attacking the apostolic decrees; but Constantius took this ill, and told Basilius to hold his tongue, “for to you,” said he, “the disturbance of the churches is due.” When Basilius was silenced, Eustathius intervened and said, “since, sir, you wish a decision to be come to on what concerns the faith, consider the blasphemies rashly uttered against the Only Begotten by Eudoxius,” and as he spoke he produced the exposition of faith wherein, besides many other impieties, were found the following expressions: “Things that are spoken of in unlike terms are unlike in substance:” “There is one God the Father of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things.” Now the term “of whom” is unlike the term “through whom;” so the Son is unlike God the Father. Constantius ordered this exposition of the faith to be read, and was displeased with the blasphemy which it involved. He therefore asked Eudoxius if he had drawn it up. Eudoxius instantly repudiated the authorship, and said that it was written by Aetius. Now Aetius was he whom Leontius, in dread of the accusations of Flavianus and Diodorus, had formerly degraded from the diaconate. He had also been the supporter of Georgius, the treacherous foe of the Alexandrians, alike in his impious words and his unholy deeds. At the present time he was associated with Eunomius and Eudoxius; for, on the death of Leontius, when Eudoxius had laid violent hands on the episcopal throne of the church at Antioch, he returned from Egypt with Eunomius, and, as he found Eudoxius to be of the same way of thinking as himself, a sybarite in luxury as well as a heretic in faith, he chose Antioch as the most congenial place of abode, and both he and Eunomius were fast fixtures at the couches of Eudoxius. His highest ambition was to be a successful parasite, and he spent his whole time in going to gorge himself at one man’s table or another’s. The emperor had been told all this, and now ordered Aetius to be brought before him. On his appearance Constantius showed him the document in question and proceeded to enquire if he was the author of its language. Aetius, totally ignorant of what had taken place, and unaware of the drift of the enquiry, expected that he should win praise by confession, and owned that he was the author of the phrases in question. Then the emperor perceived the greatness of his iniquity, and forthwith condemned him to exile and to be deported to a place in Phrygia. So Aetius reaped disgrace as the fruit of blasphemy, and was cast out of the palace. Eustathius then alleged that Eudoxius too held the same views, for that Aetius had shared his roof and his table, and had drawn up this blasphemous formula in submission to his judgement. In proof of his contention that Eudoxius was concerned in drawing up the document he urged the fact that no one had attributed it to Aetius except Eudoxius himself. To this the emperor enjoined that judges must not decide on conjecture, but are bound to make exact examination of the facts. Eustathius assented, and urged that Eudoxius should give proof of his dissent from the sentiments attributed to him by anathematizing the composition of Aetius. This suggestion the emperor very readily accepted, and gave his orders accordingly; but Eudoxius drew back, and employed many shifts to evade compliance. But when the emperor waxed wroth and threatened to send him off to share the exile of Aetius, on the ground that he was a partner in the blasphemy so punished, he repudiated his own doctrine, though both then and afterwards he persistently maintained it. However, he in his turn protested against the Eustathians that it was their duty to condemn the word “ Homoüsion ” as unscriptural.

Silvanus on the contrary pointed out that it was their duty to reject and expel from their holy assemblies the phrases “ out of the non-existent ” and “ creature ” and “ of another substance, ” these terms being also unscriptural and found in the writings of neither prophets nor apostles. Constantius decided that this was right, and bade the Arians pronounce the condemnation. At first they persisted in refusing; but in the end, when they saw the emperor’s wrath, they consented, though much against the grain, to condemn the terms Silvanus had put before them. But all the more earnestly they insisted on their demand for the condemnation of the “ Homoüsion. ” But then with unanswerable logic Silvanus put both before the Arians and the emperor the truth that if God the Word is not of the non-Existent, He is not a Creature, and is not of another Substance. He is then of one Sub P. 89 stance with God Who begat Him, as God of God and Light of Light, and has the same nature as the Begetter. This contention he urged with power and with truth, but not one of his hearers was convinced. The party of Acacius and Eudoxius raised a mighty uproar; the emperor was angered, and threatened expulsion from their churches. Thereupon Eleusius and Silvanus and the rest said that while authority to punish lay with the emperor, it was their province to decide on points of piety or impiety, and “we will not,” they protested, “betray the doctrine of the Fathers.”

Constantius ought to have admired both their wisdom and their courage, and their bold defence of the apostolic decrees, but he exiled them from their churches, and ordered others to be appointed in their place. Thereupon Eudoxius laid violent hands on the Church of Constantinople; and on the expulsion of Eleusius from Cyzicus, Eunomius was appointed in his place.

Translation Hide
Kirchengeschichte (BKV)

21. Die Synode zu Nice in Thrazien und das von ihr aufgestellte Glaubensbekenntnis¹

Auf dieses Schreiben hin reizten die Arianer den Kaiser zum Zorn darüber, ließen von den Bischöfen die meisten gegen ihren Willen in eine Stadt Thraziens mit Namen Nice bringen, und indem sie die einen, die schlichten Sinnes waren, täuschten und den anderen Furcht einjagten, brachten sie dieselben dahin, daß sie auf die von ihnen schon früher gegen den wahren Glauben ersonnene List eingingen, die Ausdrücke „Wesen“ und „wesensgleich“ aus dem Glaubensbekenntnis strichen und dafür den Ausdruck „ähnlich“ einsetzten. Ich will auch dieses Glaubensbekenntnis in meine Erzählung aufnehmen, nicht als ob es korrekt wäre, sondern weil es die beste Widerlegung der arianischen Partei ist. Denn die Irrgläubigen unserer Zeit wollen nicht einmal mehr an diesem Bekenntnis festhalten, sondern statt des „ähnlich“ predigen sie nunmehr das „unähnlich“.

Das zu Nice in Thrazien aufgestellte Glaubensbekenntnis

„Wir glauben an einen einzigen wahren Gott, den allmächtigen Vater, von dem alles ist; und an den S. 141 eingebornen Sohn Gottes, der vor allen Zeiten und vor jedem Anfang aus Gott gezeugt wurde, durch den alles wurde, das Sichtbare und das Unsichtbare; der geboren wurde als der Eingeborne, als der einzige aus dem Vater allein, Gott von Gott, ähnlich dem Vater, der ihn gezeugt, gemäß der Heiligen Schrift, dessen Erzeugung niemand kennt als der Vater allein, der ihn gezeugt hat. Von diesem eingebornen Sohn Gottes wissen wir, daß er, gesandt vom Vater, herabgekommen ist vom Himmel, wie geschrieben steht, zur Hinwegnahme der Sünde und des Todes, und geboren wurde aus dem Heiligen Geiste und Maria der Jungfrau, wie geschrieben steht, dem Fleische nach; daß er mit seinen Jüngern verkehrte und nach Erfüllung des ganzen Heilswerkes gemäß dem Willen des Vaters an das Kreuz geheftet wurde, starb und begraben wurde und in die Unterwelt hinabstieg, und daß selbst die Hölle vor ihm zitterte; und daß er am dritten Tage von den Toten auferstand, und daß er wieder vierzig Tage lang mit seinen Jüngern verkehrte und aufgenommen wurde in den Himmel und sitzet zur Rechten des Vaters; daß er kommen wird am Jüngsten Tage bei der Auferstehung in der Herrlichkeit des Vaters, zu vergelten einem jeden nach seinen Werken. Wir glauben an den Heiligen Geist, den der eingeborne Sohn Gottes, Jesus Christus, Gott und Herr, verheißen hat, dem Menschengeschlechte zu senden, den Paraklet, wie geschrieben steht, den Geist der Wahrheit, den er auch sandte, nachdem er aufgefahren in den Himmel, seinen Sitz genommen hatte zur Rechten des Vaters, von dannen er kommen wird zu richten die Lebendigen und die Toten. Was aber den Ausdruck Wesenheit betrifft, der von den Vätern in schlichtem Sinne aufgenommen wurde, der jedoch beim Volke Anstoß erregte, weil er demselben unverständlich war und sich auch in den heiligen Schriften nicht findet, so haben wir beschlossen, daß derselbe beseitigt und fernerhin von einer Wesenheit durchaus nicht mehr gesprochen werden solle, hauptsächlich deswegen, weil die heiligen Schriften von Vater und Sohn nirgends eine Wesenheit erwähnen; auch soll bei der Person des Vaters und des Sohnes und des Heiligen Geistes nicht S. 142 mehr von einer Hypostase² geredet werden. Dagegen bekennen wir, daß der Sohn dem Vater ähnlich ist, wie auch die heiligen Schriften sagen und lehren. Alle Häresien aber, sowohl die schon früher verurteilten, wie auch die etwa erst in jüngster Zeit entstandenen, welche mit dem hier aufgestellten Glaubensbekenntnisse im Widerspruch stehen, sollen im Banne sein!“

Dieses Bekenntnis nun unterschrieben die einen aus Furcht, die anderen, weil sie hintergangen worden waren. Diejenigen aber, die nicht zustimmen wollten, wurden an die äußersten Grenzen der Erde in die Verbannung geschickt.