An Attempt to heal a Division among the Orthodox: The Council of Alexandria (A.D. 362)

 

 

Held in the year 362 by St Athanasius, after return from his third exile, in concert with St Eusebius of Vercelli, to deliberate with him and the other bishops upon the affairs of the Church, and particularly upon the means to be adopted for restoring peace and union to the Church of Antioch, where the Orthodox Christians, who for some time had communicated with the Arians, having at last, in 361, separated from them, and united themselves to St Meletius (elected bishop in the council of Antioch, A. D. 360), could not induce the Eustathians (who were the original Orthodox of the city [1]) to unite with them.

Besides St Athanasius and St Eusebius, we find in Arabia, Paphnutius of Sais, and about twenty others. They applied themselves with great industry to discover the most advisable methods for restoring order in the Church, agitated as it had been by such a tempest of heresy. Emperor Constantius II, the great patron of the Arians, was now dead.

The council settled that those who had been leaders or defenders of the heresy should be admitted to penance, but that they could not be permitted to retain any clerical office; while those who had been led away by the violence of others should be allowed to retain their rank, provided they subscribed the acts of the Council of Nicaea. - Bar. A.D. 362, § 235.

In the next place, the affairs of the Church of Antioch were discussed, where the Eustathians refused to submit to St Meletius, who had been in communion with the heretics, by whom also he had been consecrated bishop. The bishops in council requested St Eusebius and Asterius of Petra to proceed to Antioch in the name of the council; and, further, wrote a letter to the three bishops, Luciferus of Cagliari, Cymatius of Paltus, and Anatolius of Euboea, in which they expressed their joy that the Meletians were willing to unite with the followers of Paulinus, i.e., with the Eustathians; they exhorted them to require nothing further from those who desired to return from Arianism, in order to union, than that, 1st, they should confess the faith of the council of Nicaea; 2nd, they should anathematize the heresy of the Arians, and also that which teaches that the Holy Spirit is a mere creature, and not of the same substance with the Father and the Son. This was a necessary precaution to be taken against the new sect of the Macedonians; against whom it had already been decreed, by this same council, that it is necessary to believe that the Holy Spirit is of the same substance, and equally God with the Father and the Son; and that in the sacred Trinity, no one of the divine persons is either created, or inferior to other, or of later existence than another; lastly, they exhorted them to require that they should anathematize the impieties of Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, Valentinus, Basilides, and the Manicheans, and that having so done, the Meletians ought to be received without suspicion, and that the followers of Paulinus should require nothing more. In this council a discussion was also raised upon the use of the term ὑπόστασις [hypostasis], which subject at that time greatly agitated the whole Church; the Latins understanding by the term the actual "substance," were accordingly unwilling to allow more than one ὑπόστασις in God, and accused those of Arianism who recognized three. The Greeks, on the contrary, using the word in the sense of "person" maintained that it was necessary to admit three, to avoid the error of Sabellianism. St Athanasius, therefore, in order to compose these differences, required from each party a definition of what they believed; and finding from their answers that they, in fact, held precisely the same doctrine, in nothing differing from the Catholic faith, he permitted to each party the use of the term ὑπόστασις, and bound them to receive the definitions of the Nicene council, without confusing themselves with new questions. [2] However, notwithstanding the pains and judicious conduct of Athanasius, the Church was, for a long time, sorely troubled about the use of this word. Another act of this council was a complete declaration of the doctrine of the Incarnation, in opposition to the heresy of Apollinarius, who already, not openly, but in secret, had begun to teach contrary to this truth. It was defined that Jesus Christ was born of Mary; that He was "very man" as to the flesh, and that He did not take to Himself a body only without a soul or mind.

The pains, however, which the council, and Athanasius in particular, had taken to procure peace to the Church of Antioch failed, owing to the intemperate behavior of Luciferus, who, having first consecrated Paulinus, the chief of the Eustathians, withdrew, first from communion with Athanasius, and afterwards from that of the Church: whence arose the schism of the Luciferians, which lasted forty years. – Cave’s Apostolici, p. 444. Tom. ii. Conc. pp. 97. 808.

 

1. When the Arian bishops had taken possession of the see of Antioch, many, both of the clergy and laity, who purposed to abide in the true faith, forsook the public service of the Church, and assembled by themselves for divine service. Those who did so were called Eustathians, because they began first to assemble in this way after the ejection of St Eustathius of Antioch. These men who from the first had boldly contended for the true faith, refused to communicate with those who were called the Orthodox (i.e., those who held the true faith and acknowledged St Meletius for their lawful bishop), because St Meletius, although Orthodox, had been elected by the Arians, and had in some things given way to them. Thus, there were three bishops of Antioch at one time – 1. Paulinus, the bishop of the original Orthodox or Eustathians, a priest, afterwards consecrated by Lucifer of Cagliari (locally venerated by the Orthodox of Sardinia as a saint); 2. St Meletius, the bishop of the Orthodox, elected by the Arians, under the belief that he favored their views; and 3. Euzoius, whom the Arians had subsequently elected.

2. It also rejected the spurious additions of Sardica.

Additional note: according to The Synaxarion of Hieromonk Makarios of Simonos Petra, the division between the Meletians (the followers of St. Meletius) and the Eustathians (the followers of St. Eustathius) was not healed until A.D. 414; see Vol. 3, p. 576. However, according to the late Italian Patristic scholar Manlio Simonetti (+2017), the schism was not completely healed until ca. A.D. 482; see The Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, p. 1:155.

Source: A Manual of Councils of the Holy Catholic Church, by Rev. Edward H. Landon, Vol. 1, Edinburgh: 1909, pp. 19-22 (with slight spelling/format corrections and expansions).