Traduction
Masquer
The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret (CCEL)
Chapter II. Of the return of the bishops and the consecration of Paulinus.
Julian had clear information on these points, and did not make known the impiety of his soul. With the object of attracting all the bishops to acquiescence in his rule he ordered even those who had been expelled from their churches by Constantius, and who were sojourning on the furthest confines of the empire, to return to their own churches. Accordingly, on the promulgation of this edict, back to Antioch came the divine Meletius, and to Alexandria the far famed Athanasius. 1
But Eusebius, 2 and Hilarius 3 of Italy and Lucifer 4 who presided over the flock in the island of Sardinia, were living in the Thebaid on the frontier of Egypt, whither they had been relegated by Constantius. They now met with the rest whose views were the same and affirmed that the churches ought to be brought into harmony. For they not only suffered from the assaults of their opponents, but were at variance with one another. In Antioch the sound body of the church had been split in two; at one and the same time they who from the beginning, for the sake of the right worthy Eustathius, had separated from the rest, were assembling by themselves; and they who with the admirable Meletius had held aloof from the Arian faction were performing divine service in what is called the Palæa. Both parties used one confession of faith, for both parties were champions of the doctrine laid down at Nicæa. All that separated them was their mutual quarrel, and their regard for their respective leaders; and even the death of one of these did not put a stop to the strife. Eustathius died before the election of Meletius, and the orthodox party, after the exile of Meletius and the election of Euzoius, separated from the communion of the impious, and assembled by themselves; with these, the party called Eustathians could not be induced to unite. To effect an union between them the Eusebians and P. 96 Luciferians sought to discover a means. Accordingly Eusebius besought Lucifer to repair to Alexandria and take counsel on the matter with the great Athanasius, intending himself to undertake the labour of bringing about a reconciliation.
Lucifer however did not go to Alexandria but repaired to Antioch. There he urged many arguments in behalf of concord on both parties. The Eustathians, led by Paulinus, a presbyter, persisted in opposition. On seeing this Lucifer took the improper course of consecrating Paulinus as their bishop.
This action on the part of Lucifer prolonged the feud, which lasted for eighty-five years, until the episcopate of the most praise-worthy Alexander. 5
No sooner was the helm of the church at Antioch put into his hands than he tried every expedient, and brought to bear great zeal and energy for the promotion of concord, and thus joined the severed limb to the rest of the body of the church. At the time in question however Lucifer made the quarrel worse and spent a considerable time in Antioch, and Eusebius when he arrived on the spot and learnt that bad doctoring had made the malady very hard to heal, sailed away to the West.
When Lucifer returned to Sardinia he made certain additions to the dogmas of the church and those who accepted them were named after him, and for a considerable time were called Luciferians. But in time the flame of this dogma too went out and it was consigned to oblivion. 6 Such were the events that followed on the return of the bishops.
-
The accession of Julian was made known in Alexandria at the end of Nov. 361, and the Pagans at once rose against George, imprisoned him, and at last on Dec. 24, brutally beat and kicked him to death. The Arians appointed a successor—Lucius, but on Feb. 22 Athanasius once more appeared among his faithful flock, and lost no time in getting a Council for the settlement of several moot points of discipline and doctrine, which Theodoret proceeds to enumerate. ↩
-
i.e. of Vercellæ. Vide p. 76. From Scythopolis he had been removed to Cappadocia, and thence to the Thebaid, whence he wrote a letter, still extant, to Gregory, bp. of Elvira in Spain. ↩
-
Valesius supposes Hilary of Poictiers to be mentioned here, though he recognises the difficulty of the “ ὁ ἐκ τῆς ᾽Ιταλίας ,” and would alter the text to meet it. Possibly this is the Hilary who is said to have been bishop of Pavia from 358 to 376, and may be the “Sanctus Hilarius” of Aug. Cont. duas Epist. Pelag iv. 4. 7. cf. article Ambrosiaster in Dict. Christ. Biog. ↩
-
cf. p. 76, note. Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari, had first been relegated in 355 to Eleutheropolis, (a town of the 3d C., in Palestine, about 20 m. west of Jerusalem) whence he wrote the controversial pamphlets still extant. He vigorously abused Constantius, to whom he paid the compliment of sending a copy of his work. The emperor appears to have retorted by having him removed to the Thebaid, whence he returned in 361. ↩
-
cf. p. 41. Eustathius died about 337, at Philippi,—probably about six years after his deposition. Alexander, an ascetic (cf. post, V. Ch. 35) did not become bishop of Antioch till 413. ↩
-
The raison d’etre of the Luciferians as a distinct party was their unwillingness to accept communion with men who had ever lapsed into Arianism. Jerome gives 371 as the date of Lucifer’s death. “To what extent he was an actual schismatic remains obscure.” St. Ambrose remarks that “he had separated himself from our communion,” (de excessu Satyri 1127, 47) and St. Augustine that “he fell into the darkness of schism, having lost the light of charity.” (Ep. 185 n. 47.) But there is no mention of any separation other than Lucifer’s own repulsion of so many ecclesiastics; and Jerome in his dialogue against the Luciferians (§20) calls him “ beatus and bonus pastor. ” J. Ll. Davies in Dict. Christ. Biog. s.v. ↩
Traduction
Masquer
Histoire de l'Église
CHAPITRE XXIX.
Lettre du Concile contre Αëce.
Le saint Concile assemblé à Constantinople : A George Évêque d'Alexandrie très-honoré Seigneur, salut.
« Les Évêques ont agi conformément aux règles de l'Église quand ils ont condamné les livres scandaleux, et. impies d'Aëce. Ils lui ont aussi défendu d'exercer les fonctions de son ordre de Diacre, et l'ont retranché de l'Église. Ils ont encore ajouté des remontrances pour détourner les Fidèles de la lecture de ses lettres, et pour les exhorter à s'en défaire, comme d'ouvrages inutiles, et dangereux. Que s'il demeure opiniâtrement dans son sentiment, il sera frappé d'anathème, avec tous ceux qui suivront ses erreurs. Il aurait été à souhaiter que tous les Évêques qui ont assisté à ce Concile eussent détesté l'auteur des scandales, des disputes, et des tumultes qui ont troublé la paix de l'Église, et qu'ils eussent 158 approuvé tout d'une voix la condamnation qui a été prononcée contre lui. Mais il est arrivé, contre notre espérance, autant que contre notre intention, que Serras, Etienne, Héliodore, et Théophile, et quelques autres n'ont point voulu approuver notre avis, ni signer la sentence qui a été rendue. Serras accusait cependant Aëce de s'être porté à cet excès d'extravagance, et de témérité de se vanter que Dieu lui avait révélé des secrets, qu'il avait cachés aux Apôtres. Mais bien que Serras eût témoigné qu'Aëce avait tenu des discours remplis d'une si étrange folie, et d'une si horrible insolence, ils n'ont jamais voulu approuver la condamnation, que nous avions prononcée contre lui, de quelques prières dont nous avions usé pour les fléchir, ou quelques raisons que nous ayons employées pour les convaincre.
Nous les avons supportés avec une patience toute extraordinaire, tantôt les exhortant avec douceur, tantôt les reprenant avec indignation, tantôt les priant avec instance de s'accorder avec nous. Nous avons longtemps attendu, pour voir s'ils se rendraient à la raison. Mais lorsque nous avons vu, qu'ils étaient résolus de ne point condamner Aëce, nous avons préféré les règles de l'Église, à leur amitié, et les avons déclarés retranchés de la Communion, si dans six mois ils ne changent de sentiment. Que si dans ce terme, qui leur a été accordé ils se repentent sérieusement de leur faute, qu'ils s'accordent avec leurs frères, et qu'ils consentent à la condamnation qui a été prononcée contre Aëce, ils seront reçus à la communion de l'Egl- 159 se, et ils jouiront dans ses assemblées de la même autorité qu'auparavant. Mais s'ils demeurent opiniâtres dans leur faute, et qu'ils préfèrent l'amitié des hommes, à l'obéissance qu'ils doivent aux Canons au soin qu'ils sont obligés d'avoir d'entretenir avec nous l'union, et la paix, nous les tiendrons alors privés de la dignité Episcopale. Quand ils seront déposés, on en établira d'autres en leur place, afin que l'Église soit unie dans le même sentiment, que les Évêques conservent entre eux le lien de la charité, et qu'ils tiennent tous, et souhaitent les mêmes choses. Voila ce que nous avions à vous mander, touchant ce qui a été résolu dans le Concile, priant Dieu qu'il vous fasse la grâce de l'observer, et de gouverner en paix, et selon les Canons les Églises qui vous sont soumises. »