1. Eusebius of Caesarea, Life of Constantine, 1.22 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •macedonius of constantinople, bishop Found in books: Klein and Wienand (2022), City of Caesar, City of God: Constantinople and Jerusalem in Late Antiquity, 144 | 1.22. Nor did the imperial throne remain long unoccupied: for Constantine invested himself with his father's purple, and proceeded from his father's palace, presenting to all a renewal, as it were, in his own person, of his father's life and reign. He then conducted the funeral procession in company with his father's friends, some preceding, others following the train, and performed the last offices for the pious deceased with an extraordinary degree of magnificence, and all united in honoring this thrice blessed prince with acclamations and praises, and while with one mind and voice, they glorified the rule of the son as a living again of him who was dead, they hastened at once to hail their new sovereign by the titles of Imperial and Worshipful Augustus, with joyful shouts. Thus the memory of the deceased emperor received honor from the praises bestowed upon his son, while the latter was pronounced blessed in being the successor of such a father. All the nations also under his dominion were filled with joy and inexpressible gladness at not being even for a moment deprived of the benefits of a well ordered government. In the instance of the Emperor Constantius, God has made manifest to our generation what the end of those is who in their lives have honored and loved him. |
|
| 2. Athanasius, History of The Arians, 11.1 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •macedonius of constantinople, bishop Found in books: Amsler (2023), Knowledge Construction in Late Antiquity, 112, 113 |
| 3. Athanasius, De Synodis Arimini In Italia Et Seleuciae In Isauria, 26 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •macedonius of constantinople, bishop Found in books: Amsler (2023), Knowledge Construction in Late Antiquity, 124 |
| 4. Athanasius, Defense Against The Arians, 10-14, 16-20, 3-9, 15 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Amsler (2023), Knowledge Construction in Late Antiquity, 112 |
| 5. Athanasius, Defense of His Flight, 20, 24-25, 33, 7, 3 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Amsler (2023), Knowledge Construction in Late Antiquity, 113 |
| 6. Rufinus of Aquileia, In Suam Et Eusebii Caesariensis Latinam Ab Eo Factam Historiam, 10.28 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •macedonius of constantinople, bishop Found in books: Amsler (2023), Knowledge Construction in Late Antiquity, 113 |
| 7. Palladius of Aspuna, Dialogue On The Life of John Chrysostom, 9.196-9.205 (4th cent. CE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •macedonius of constantinople, bishop Found in books: Amsler (2023), Knowledge Construction in Late Antiquity, 115 |
| 8. Jerome, Chronicon Eusebii (Interpretatio Chronicae Eusebii Pamphili), 324, 342, 359 (5th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Amsler (2023), Knowledge Construction in Late Antiquity, 113 |
| 9. Marcellinus Comes, Chronicon, None (5th cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klein and Wienand (2022), City of Caesar, City of God: Constantinople and Jerusalem in Late Antiquity, 144 |
| 10. Liberatus Carthaginiensis, Breviarium, 11.228 (6th cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •macedonius of constantinople, bishop Found in books: Klein and Wienand (2022), City of Caesar, City of God: Constantinople and Jerusalem in Late Antiquity, 248 |
| 11. Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, 1.2-1.9, 1.20, 1.22-1.23 (6th cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •macedonius of constantinople, bishop Found in books: Klein and Wienand (2022), City of Caesar, City of God: Constantinople and Jerusalem in Late Antiquity, 247, 248, 251, 253 |
| 16. Ps.-Zacharias Rhetor, Ecclesiastical History, 1.2, 1.20 Tagged with subjects: •macedonius of constantinople, bishop Found in books: Klein and Wienand (2022), City of Caesar, City of God: Constantinople and Jerusalem in Late Antiquity, 247, 248 |
| 17. John of Nicou, Pg, 81.29-81.70 Tagged with subjects: •macedonius of constantinople, bishop Found in books: Klein and Wienand (2022), City of Caesar, City of God: Constantinople and Jerusalem in Late Antiquity, 248 |
| 18. Zacharias of Mytilene, Life of Severus, 103, 102 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klein and Wienand (2022), City of Caesar, City of God: Constantinople and Jerusalem in Late Antiquity, 248 |
| 19. Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Sabas, 30, 50-54, 56 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klein and Wienand (2022), City of Caesar, City of God: Constantinople and Jerusalem in Late Antiquity, 248 |
| 20. Theophanes, Chronicle, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klein and Wienand (2022), City of Caesar, City of God: Constantinople and Jerusalem in Late Antiquity, 248 |
22. Sozomenus, Ecclesiastical History, 1.2, 3.11, 4.17 Tagged with subjects: •macedonius of constantinople, bishop Found in books: Amsler (2023), Knowledge Construction in Late Antiquity, 124; Klein and Wienand (2022), City of Caesar, City of God: Constantinople and Jerusalem in Late Antiquity, 144 | 3.11. Three years afterwards, the bishops of the East sent to those of the West a formulary of faith, which, because it had been framed with verbiage and thoughts in excess of any former confession, was called μακρόστιχος ἔκθεσις . In this formulary they made no mention of the substance of God, but those are excommunicated who maintain that the Son arose out of what had no previous existence, or that He is of Another hypostasis, and not of God, or that there was a time or an age in which He existed not. Eudoxius, who was still bishop of Germanicia, Martyrius, and Macedonius, carried this document, but the Western priests did not entertain it; for they declared that they felt fully satisfied with the doctrines established at Nic a, and thought it entirely unnecessary to be too curious about such points. After the Emperor Constans had requested his brother to reinstate the followers of Athanasius in their sees, and had found his application to be unavailing, on account of the counteracting influence of those who adopted a hostile heresy; and when, moreover, the party of Athanasius and Paul entreated Constans to assemble a Synod on account of the plots for the abolition of orthodox doctrines, both the emperors were of the opinion that the bishops of the East and of the West should be convened on a certain day at Sardica, a city of Illyria. The bishops of the East, who had previously assembled at Philippopolis, a city of Thrace, wrote to the bishops of the West, who had already assembled at Sardica, that they would not join them, unless they would eject the followers of Athanasius from their assembly, and from communion with them, because they had been deposed. They afterwards went to Sardica, but declared they would not enter the church, while those who had been deposed by them were admitted there. The bishops of the West replied, that they never had ejected them, and that they would not yield this now, particularly as Julius, bishop of Rome, after having investigated the case, had not condemned them, and that besides, they were present and ready to justify themselves and to refute again the offenses imputed to them. These declarations, however, were of no avail; and since the time they had appointed for the adjustment of their differences, concerning which they had convened, had expired, they finally wrote letters to one another on these points, and by these they were led to an increase of their previous ill-will. And after they had convened separately, they brought forward opposite decisions; for the Eastern bishops confirmed the sentences they had already enacted against Athanasius, Paul, Marcellus, and Asclepas, and deposed Julius, bishop of Rome, because he had been the first to admit those who had been condemned by them, into communion; and Hosius, the confessor, was also deposed, partly for the same reason, and partly because he was the friend of Paulinus and Eustathius, the rulers of the church in Antioch. Maximus, bishop of Treves, was deposed, because he had been among the first who had received Paul into communion, and had been the cause of his returning to Constantinople, and because he had excluded from communion the Eastern bishops who had repaired to Gaul. Besides the above, they likewise deposed Protogenes, bishop of Sardica, and Gaudentius; the one because he favored Marcellus, although he had previously condemned him, and the other because he had adopted a different line of conduct from that of Cyriacus, his predecessor, and had supported many individuals then deposed by them. After issuing these sentences, they made known to the bishops of every region, that they were not to hold communion with those who were deposed, and that they were not to write to them, nor to receive letters from them. They likewise commanded them to believe what was said concerning God in the formulary which they subjoined to their letter, and in which no mention was made of the term consubstantial, but in which, those were excommunicated who said there are three Gods, or that Christ is not God, or that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the same, or that the Son is unbegotten, or that there was a time or an age in which He existed not. 4.17. The emperor was persuaded that it would not be desirable for the public, on account of the expense, nor advantageous to the bishops, on account of the length of the journey, to convene them all to the same place for the purpose of holding a council. He therefore writes to the bishops who were then at Ariminum, as well as to those who were then at Seleucia, and directed them to enter upon an investigation of contested points concerning the faith, and then to turn their attention to the complaints of Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, and of other bishops who had remonstrated against the injustice of the decrees of deposition and banishment which had been issued against them, and to examine the legality of various sentences which had been enacted against other bishops. There were, in fact, several accusations pending against different bishops. George was accused by the Egyptians of rapine and violence. Finally, the emperor commanded that ten deputies should be sent to him from each council, to inform him of their respective proceedings. In accordance with this edict, the bishops assembled at the appointed cities. The Synod at Ariminum first commenced proceedings; it consisted of about four hundred members. Those who regarded Athanasius with the greatest enmity, were of opinion that there was nothing further to be decreed against him. When they had entered upon the investigation of doctrinal questions, Valens and Ursacius, supported by Germenius, Auxentius, Caius, and Demophilus, advanced into the middle of the assembly, and demanded that all the formularies of the faith which had been previously compiled should be suppressed, and that the formulary which they had but a short time previously set forth in the Latin language at Sirmium should be alone retained. In this formulary it was taught, according to Scripture, that the Son is like the Father; but no mention was made of the substance of God. They declared that this formulary had been approved by the emperor, and that it was incumbent upon the council to adopt it, instead of consulting too scrupulously the individual opinions of every member of the council, so that disputes and divisions might not spring up, were the terms to be delivered up to debate and accurate proof. They added that it would better enable those who were more ignorant of the art of discourse to have a right conception of God, than were they to introduce novelties in terms, so akin to disputatious jugglery. By these representations, they designed to denounce the use of the term consubstantial, because they said it was not found in the Holy Scriptures, and was obscure to the multitude; and, instead of this term, they wished to substitute the expression that the Son is like the Father in all things, which is borne out by the Holy Scriptures. After they had read their formulary containing the above representations, many of the bishops told them that no new formulary of the faith ought to be set forth, that those which had been previously compiled were quite sufficient for all purposes, and that they were met together for the express purpose of preventing all innovations. These bishops then urged those who had compiled and read the formulary to declare publicly their condemnation of the Arian doctrine, as the cause of all the troubles which had agitated the churches of every region. Ursacius and Valens, Germenius and Auxentius, Demophilus and Caius, having protested against this protestation, the council commanded that the expositions of the other heresies should be read, and likewise that set forth at Nic a; so that those formularies which favored various heresies might be condemned, and those which were in accordance with the Nicene doctrines might be approved; in order that there might be no further ground for dispute, and no future necessity for councils, but that an efficient decision might be formed. They remarked that it was absurd to compose so many formularies, as if they had but just commenced to become acquainted with the faith, and as if they wished to slight the ancient traditions of the Church, by which the churches had been governed by themselves, and by their predecessors, many of whom had witnessed a good confession, and had received the crown of martyrdom. Such were the arguments adduced by these bishops, to prove that no innovations ought to be attempted. As Valens and Ursacius and their partisans refused to be convinced by these arguments, but persisted in advocating the adoption of their own formulary, they were deposed, and it was decided that their formulary should be rejected. It was remarked that the declaration at the commencement of this formulary, of its having been compiled at Sirmium, in the presence of Constantius, the eternal Augustus, and during the consulate of Eusebius and Hypatius, was an absurdity. Athanasius made the same remark, in a letter addressed to one of his friends, and said that it was ridiculous to term Constantius the eternal emperor, and yet to shrink from acknowledging the Son of God to be eternal; he also ridiculed the date affixed to the formulary, as though condemnation were meant to be thrown on the faith of former ages, as well as on those who had, before that period, been initiated into the faith. After these events had transpired at Ariminum, Valens and Ursacius, together with their adherents, irritated at their deposition, repaired with all haste to the emperor. |
|
| 23. Anon., Life of Matrona, 29, 33, 38 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klein and Wienand (2022), City of Caesar, City of God: Constantinople and Jerusalem in Late Antiquity, 144 |
| 24. Justinian, Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae, 238 Tagged with subjects: •macedonius of constantinople, bishop Found in books: Klein and Wienand (2022), City of Caesar, City of God: Constantinople and Jerusalem in Late Antiquity, 144 |
