BOOK II.

FROM CONSTANTINE TO THE DEATH OF THE EMPEROR THEODOSIUS I , A.D. 313-395.

CHAPTER II.

THE SONS OF CONSTANTINE A.D. 337-361.

 

The first Christian emperor was succeeded by his three sons, Constantine, Constantius, and Constans. The eldest, who held the sovereignty of Gaul, Spain, and Britain, was killed in 340, in an invasion of Italy, which was part of the territory of Constans; and Constans took possession of all that belonged to his deceased brother. In 350 Constans himself was put to death by Magnentius; and on the defeat of that usurper, in 353, the whole empire was reunited under Constantius, who had until then been sovereign of the east.

Constantine, it is said, intrusted his testament to the same Arian presbyter who had exerted so important an influence on the religious policy of his last years; and by him it was delivered to Constantius, who happened to be nearer than either of his brothers to the place of their father’s death. By this service Eutocius (if that was his name) obtained free entrance to the palace; and in no long time the Arian doctrine had been embraced by the emperor, the empress, the ladies of her court, and the eunuchs—a class of persons which Constantine had confined to inferior offices, but which in this reign became so important as to justify the sarcasm of a heathen historian, who described the emperor's relation to them by saying that he had considerable interest with their chief. Constantius is characterized as chaste, temperate, and of strict life, but vain and weak, a slave to restless suspicion, and unrelenting in his enmity to those whom he suspected. His interference in the affairs of the church was alike injudicious and unfortunate. Although, like his father, he remained unbaptized until shortly before his death, he pretended to the character of a theologian : his vanity and his ignorance laid him open to the arts in which the leaders of Arianism were skilled; and throughout his reign the empire was incessantly agitated by religious controversy. The highest questions of Christian doctrine became subjects of common talk, and excited the ignorant zeal of multitudes very imperfectly influenced by Christian principle. The synods were so frequent, that the public posting establishment is said to have been ruined by the continual journeyings of the bishops, to whom the emperor gave the privilege of free conveyance to these assemblies.

Constantine had steadily resisted both the importunity of the Arians, who wished that the see of Alexandria should be filled by one of their own party, and the entreaties of the Alexandrians for the restoration of the rightful bishop, although these were supported by the authority of the famous hermit Antony, whom the emperor admitted to a free correspondence with him. It is said, however, that on his death-bed he gave orders for the recall of Athanasius and other banished bishops. His successors, at a conference in Pannonia, agreed to restore the exiles; and Athanasius, after an absence of about two years and four months, returned to Alexandria, bearing with him a letter, in which the younger Constantine assured the Alexandrian laity that the restoration was agreeable to the late emperor's intention. The bishop was received with a joyful welcome by his flock; but the Arian (or Eusebian party) soon renewed its attempts against him. One Pistus, who had been associated with Arius, was set up as a rival bishop. It was represented to Constantius that Athanasius had caused disturbances of the peace; that he had sold the allowance of corn which the emperor had bestowed on the Alexandrian church, and had misappropriated the price; and, further, he was charged with irregularity in resuming his see by the warrant of secular authority alone, whereas he had been deposed by a council of bishops. The same charges, and the old report of the inquiry instituted by his enemies in the Mareotis, were carried to Rome by a deputation of Eusebian clergy, but were there met by some emissaries of Athanasius, who were provided with a synodical letter from nearly a hundred Egyptian bishops, attesting his merits and his innocence.

In the end of 340, or in the beginning of the following year, a council met at Antioch for the dedication of a splendid church which had been founded by Constantine. The number of bishops is said to have been ninety-seven, of whom forty were Eusebians. They passed a number of canons, which have been generally received in the church; one of these, in itself unexceptionable, but framed with a special design that it should become a weapon against Athanasius, enacted that, if any bishop, after having been deposed by a council, should appeal to the temporal power, instead of seeking redress from a higher council, he should forfeit all hope of restoration. It would seem that after a time the Eusebians became dominant in the assembly, either through the retirement of the orthodox bishops, or through reliance on the support of Constantius, who was present. They renewed the charges against Athanasius, condemned him under the canon just mentioned, and, after the bishopric of Alexandria had been refused by Eusebius (afterwards bishop of Emesa), consecrated to it a Cappadocian named Gregory, a man of coarse and violent character. Gregory immediately proceeded to take possession of his see, accompanied by a military escort, under the command of Philagrius, prefect of Egypt, who was an apostate from the faith. The heretical bishopentered the city in the beginning of Lent. Churches were attacked by the soldiers, with a mob of Arians, Jews, and heathens; and horrible outrages and profanations were committed, which reached their height on the solemn days of the Passion and the Resurrection. The Catholics were not only ejected from the churches, but were prevented from holding their worship in private houses. Having thus settled matters in the capital, Gregory set forth on a visitation of his province. A party of soldiers attended on him, and by his orders many bishops, monks, and virgins were beaten—among them the aged Potammon, who was treated with such severity that he died in consequence.

On the arrival of Gregory at Alexandria, Athanasius withdrew to a retreat in the neighbourhood, and after having issued an address to all bishops, desiring them to join in condemnation of the intruder, he betook himself to Rome, where a synod of fifty bishops pronounced him innocent, and confirmed to him the communion of the church. Other expelled bishops also appeared before the same council; among them was Marcellus of Ancyra, who had resumed his see on the death of Constantine, and had been again dispossessed of it, but was now able to satisfy Julius of Rome and his brethren that the charges of heresy on which he had been deprived were founded on misapprehension. A correspondence followed between Julius and the eastern bishops, but without any satisfactory result, as the Eusebians, who had before proposed that the case of Athanasius should be referred to a council, evaded the execution of their own proposal when they found that the Alexandrian bishop had himself appeared at Rome.

The council of Antioch produced four creeds. As the death of Arius had released his partisans from the difficulties which arose out of their personal regard for him, they now endeavoured to give plausibility to their cause by approaching as nearly as possible to the orthodox statements, in the hope that by new formularies the Nicene creed might gradually be obscured. In their attacks on Athanasius during the reign of Constantine, they had been careful to advance charges which did not relate to doctrines, but to practical matters; and the same policy of avoiding the open statement of differences as to doctrine was now continued. The creeds of Antioch were therefore so composed that in ordinary circumstances they would have been received as satisfactory. The more offensive positions of Arianism were distinctly condemned, and the council repudiated the name of Arians,—“for how”, it was asked, “should we, who are bishops, follow a presbyter?”. The dignity of the Saviour was set forth in the highest terms; the studious omission of the word homoousios (co-essential) was all that could excite suspicion as to the orthodoxy of the framers. Of these formularies, the second (which claimed an older author, the martyr Lucian) was that which afterwards became distinguished as the “Creed of the Dedication”.

In the meantime Constantinople had been the scene of repeated disturbances. Bishop Alexander, on his death-bed, being consulted by some of his clergy as to a successor, replied that, if they wished for a man “apt to teach”, and of holy life, they ought to choose Paul; if they wanted a man of business and address, with an appearance of piety, they should choose Macedonius, who was a presbyter of long standing. Paul was elected, but was soon deprived by the Arians on various charges of irregularity in his life and in the manner of his appointment. After the death of Constantine he returned to his see, but was compelled to make way for Eusebius, who was translated from Nicomedia; and on his death, in 342, the ejected bishop and Macedonius were set up by the opposite parties. The city was thrown into violent commotion, and Constantius sent a military force to suppress the disorder; whereupon the populace set fire to the lodgings of the commander, Hermogenes, dragged him about the streets, and murdered him. The emperor, in great indignation, hastened to Constantinople, drove out Paul, and deprived the citizens of half their allowance of corn; but, regarding Macedonius as a sharer in the cause of the tumult, and being also displeased with him for having allowed himself to be consecrated without seeking the imperial permission, he did not establish him as bishop. Paul soon after returned, but, having allowed himself to be decoyed into an interview by Philip, the praetorian prefect, he was seized and privately sent away by sea, while the prefect proceeded to instal Macedonius. The populace flocked together in excitement, and upwards of three thousand perished, either through the pressure of the crowd, or by the weapons of the soldiery. From 342 to 380, with the exception of two years, the bishopric of the eastern capital was in the hands of the Arians.

Alarmed by the scenes which had taken place at Constantinople, and by similar tumults in other places, Constantius agreed with Constans, who steadily adhered to the cause of Athanasius, that a general council should be summoned. The place appointed for its meeting was Sardica (now Sophia), in Illyria, a city which stood on the borders of east and west, but within the western division of the empire. Athanasius was desired by Constans to wait on him at Milan, and, through the emperor's arrangement, proceeded to Sardica in company with Hosius. About the same time a deputation of oriental bishops appeared at Milan—bearing with them a new creed which had lately been drawn up by a council at Antioch. This document, which from its length was styled macrostiche, was in form rather an argument than a definition ; and like other late creeds of the same party, it was sound in itself, but provoked suspicion by avoiding the term co-essential. The western bishops were dissatisfied with it, partly because their ignorance of Greek made them distrustful, and partly from a wish to adhere to the Nicene creed as sufficient. At Sardica seventy-six eastern and about a hundred western bishops attended, and Hosius presided over the assembly—not as legate of the Roman see, but in right of his age, character, and influence.

The orientals at the outset protested against the admission of Athanasius, Marcellus, and other deposed bishops as members of the council. It was answered that these bishops were not to be regarded as deposed, since the latest decisions were in their favour; that they were ready to meet all charges; and that the council might reopen the whole question from the beginning. But the orientals adhered to their objection, and, finding that it was firmly resisted, they withdrew across the border of the empires to Philippopolis, in Thrace, where they held a separate synod under the presidency of Stephen, bishop of Antioch. Two eastern bishops remained at Sardica, while Ursacius of Singidunum (Belgrade), Valens of Mursa (Essek), and three other Arians of the west, took part in the council of Philippopolis. The western council declared the Nicene creed to be sufficient; the orientals drew up a fresh creed, more Arian than those of Antioch; and each assembly passed a sentence of deposition against the most conspicuous members of the other, while Julius of Rome was included amongst those with whom the orientals forbade all communion. The western bishops also enacted a number of canons, and again pronounced Athanasius and Marcellus innocent; but their judgment was not of itself enough to reinstate Athanasius in his see, and he retired to Naissus, in Dacia.

The party which enjoyed the favour of Constantius continued to occupy the sees of the east, and to exercise fresh violences against the orthodox. After a time, however, the emperor changed his policy—partly in consequence of a threat of war from Constans, who required the restoration of Athanasius, partly through disgust at the detection of an infamous plot which had been laid by Stephen, bishop of Antioch, against some envoys of the western church; and he wrote thrice to Athanasius, inviting him to resume his see. Athanasius complied with this invitation, and on his way visited Antioch, where he had an interview with Constantius. The emperor begged him, as a favour, to allow one church at Alexandria to those who were not of his communion, and the bishop expressed his willingness to do so, on condition that the members of his communion should receive a like indulgence at Antioch. But Constantius, on conferring with the Arians who had suggested his proposal, found that they were not disposed to make the exchange, as at Antioch orthodoxy was dangerously strong among the laity, whereas at Alexandria both the temper of the people and the abilities of the bishop forbade them to expect any great success.

Athanasius was admitted to communion by a council at Jerusalem, and was recommended to his flock by an imperial letter, which ordered that the record of former proceedings against him should be cancelled. The intruder Gregory had died, or had been killed, a short time before; and Athanasius, on his return to Alexandria, was received with universal rejoicing. The thankfulness of his people was shown in bountiful works of charity, and many persons of both sexes embraced a monastic or ascetic life on the occasion.

His enemies felt that their power was at an end. Ursacius and Valens, the most noted supporters of Arianism in the west, went to Rome, and, with a profession of regret for the part which they had been induced to take against the bishop of Alexandria, entreated a council to receive them into communion. But the hopes of the Arians were speedily revived by the murder of Constans, although Constantius wrote to assure Athanasius that he should find from him the same support as from his brother : and they renewed their machinations against the Alexandrian bishop by attacking his adherents in other quarters. This policy was favoured by the circumstance that some of their opponents had lately run into serious errors. Marcellus of Ancyra was again deposed— having, it would seem, developed his heterodoxy more distinctly. His pupil Photinus, bishop of Sirmium, went so far as to teach palpable Sabellianism: that there was no personal distinction in the Godhead; that the Logos was nothing else than the Divine attribute of wisdom, which at length was manifested in Jesus, whom he regarded as a mere man, although supernaturally born; and that the Holy Ghost was only an influence. For these tenets Photinus was repeatedly condemned, and in 351 he was deposed by a synod held in his own city.

About the same time many orthodox bishops were also ejected from their sees. Paul of Constantinople, who had recovered his bishopric before or soon after the council of Sardica, was again driven out, and was carried off to Cucusus, a savage place in the lesser Armenia, where, after having been for some time deprived of food, he was strangled. Macedonius was intruded into the see, and behaved with such violence—branding, fining, banishing, and even putting to death, those who were opposed to him, both in Constantinople and in other places to which his power extended,—that the emperor himself found it necessary to remonstrate with him. The Novatianists, who had retained their orthodoxy as to the doctrines impugned by Arius, were exposed to the same persecution with the Catholics; and when these were deprived of their own churches, they resorted to the three which the Novatianists possessed within the city. But, although a temporary connection was thus established by the community of suffering, the principles of the sect prevented its permanent reconciliation with the church.

On the 8th of September 351 a great battle was fought between the troops of Constantius and Magnentius near Mursa (now Essek), the episcopal city of Valens. During the engagement, Constantius was praying in a church, with the bishop at his side; and it is said that Valens, having learnt the defeat of the enemy by means of a chain of scouts, announced it as having been revealed to him by an angel. By this artifice, or by some other means, Valens gained an influence over the emperor's mind, and he diligently used it for the furtherance of the opinions which he had for a time pretended to disown. Constantius was assailed with a multitude of charges against Athanasius. He was persuaded that the bishop was proceeding tyrannically in Egypt and Libya against all who would not submit to him. Much was made of the fact that on his way to Alexandria, after his late exile, he had conferred ordination in dioceses where the bishops were opposed to his opinions. It was said that he had caused the death of the younger Constantine; that he had exasperated Constans against Constantius; and—a charge which he repelled with especial horror and indignation—that he had corresponded with the murderer of Constans, the usurper Magnentius.

Liberius, who in April 352 succeeded Julius as bishop of Rome, was immediately beset by complaints of the orientals against Athanasius; but a letter from an Egyptian synod determined him to disregard them as unfounded. In the following year (355), however, the power of the Alexandrian bishop's enemies was increased by the final defeat of Magnentius, in consequence of which Constantius came into undisputed possession of the west. Their object now was to procure a condemnation of him from the western bishops, who, although sound in faith, were for the most part liable to be imposed on through their ignorance of the Greek theological subtleties, and through fear of their new sovereign, by whom the matter was studiously represented as a personal question between himself and a refractory bishop. A synod was held at Arles, where Liberius was represented by Vincent, bishop of Capua (perhaps the same who, as a presbyter, had been one of the Roman legates at Nicaea), and by another Campanian bishop.

The emperor insisted on the condemnation of Athanasius, and Vincent, on proposing, by way of compromise, that the opinions of Arius should at the same time be anathematized, was told that these were not then in question. The legate at length yielded and subscribed. Liberius, in deep distress on account of his representative's compliance, requested the emperor to call a free council for the investigation of the case; and the Eusebians, although with very different objects, also pressed for the assembling of a council. The petition thus urged from different quarters was granted, and in 355 about three hundred western bishops, with a few from the east, met at Milan. The sessions of the council were held in the palace, and its deliberations were overawed by Constantius and his soldiers. An edict of Arian purport was read, the substance of which the emperor professed to have received by revelation; and he dwelt on the success of his arms as a proof that the Divine blessing rested on his opinions. The attempts of some orthodox bishops to obtain an inquiry into the question of faith was met by Ursacius and Valens with a peremptory demand that they should join in the condemnation of Athanasius and should communicate with the dominant party; and the sentence was signed by all but three bishops, Eusebius of Vercelli, Lucifer of Cagliari, and Dionysius of Milan. To the objection that the acts required of the orthodox were unwarranted by the rules of the church, the emperor replied, “Whatever I will, let that be esteemed a canon; for the bishops of Syria allow me to speak so”. The three recusants were banished, many other bishops were sent into exile, and their places were filled with intruders, whose heterodoxy was their only qualification for the episcopate. A general persecution was carried on for the purpose of enforcing conformity to the emperor’s will, while the orthodox cried out that the days of Nero and of Decius had returned.

There were still two important persons in the west to be gained by the victorious party—Liberius, conspicuous for his position, and Hosius, the “father of the bishops”, who had been a confessor under Maximin, had sat in the council of Illiberis half a century before, and had been president of the council of Sardica,—perhaps even of the great council of Nicaea. After some fruitless overtures had been made to Liberius, the influential chief of the eunuchs, Eusebius, was sent to Rome, for the purpose of tempting him by offers and by threats; and, as the bishop refused to wait on Constantius, he was forcibly carried off from his city in the middle of the night. On his arrival at Milan, he was admitted to several interviews with the emperor, of whom he demanded that a council unrestrained by the imperial influence should be summoned to investigate the case of Athanasius. Constantius reproached him as being the only bishop who still adhered to the Egyptian primate, whose removal the emperor professed to regard as more important to himself than the victories which he had gained over Magnentius and other pretenders to the throne. Liberius was firm; he refused the offer of three days for consideration; and, on receiving sentence of banishment to Beroea, in Thrace, he indignantly rejected large sums of money which were sent to him by the emperor, the empress, and the chief of the eunuchs, as contributions towards the expenses of his journey. Hosius also withstood all attempts to shake his constancy, and, after having been kept under restraint a year, was banished to Sirmium. In the room of Liberius, the archdeacon Felix (who, however, is said by some authorities to have been orthodox in faith) allowed himself to be consecrated by three foreign bishops, the chief of whom was Acacius of Caesarea, in Palestine.

The Arians now thought themselves strong enough to proceed to the ejection of Athanasius. Several attempts were made to draw him away from his see by the use of the emperor’s name; but he refused to attend to anything short of a warrant as express as that which had authorized his restoration, or as the assurance of protection which Constantius had voluntarily given him after the death of Constans. As the emperor was reluctant to grant such a warrant (apparently out of fear that it might provoke an insurrection of the Alexandrians and a stoppage of the corn supplies on which Constantinople depended), another course of proceeding was adopted. Syrian, general of Egypt, who was charged to effect the removal of the bishop, (A.D. 356), lulled him and his flock into security by promising to write to the emperor for distinct instructions, and about three weeks later proceeded to execute his purpose. In the night of the 9th of February, 356, as Athanasius with many of the Alexandrians was preparing for a celebration of the Eucharist by keeping vigil in the church of St. Theonas, the general, with 5000 soldiers and a mob of Arians, surrounded the building. The bishop, hearing the none without, calmly seated himself on his throne, and desired that the 136th Psalm should be sung—the whole congregation joining in the response “For his mercy endureth for ever”. The soldiers forced the doors, and a fearful confusion ensued. Many persons were trodden under foot, crushed to death, or pierced with javelins; the consecrated virgins were stripped and beaten; the soldiers pressed onwards to the choir, and Athanasius was urged to save himself by flight. But he declared that he would not depart until his people were safe, and, rising, desired them to join in prayer, and to withdraw as quickly as possible. The bishop himself was determined to remain to the last; but as the danger became more urgent, the clergy, when the greater part of the congregation had escaped, closed round him, and carried him away, exhausted and in a swoon. The soldiery and the mob continued their outrages, and the ornaments of the church were plundered or defaced. The Catholics of Alexandria addressed the emperor in a protest against the violence which had been committed; but he replied by justifying Syrian, and ordering them to discover and give up Athanasius.

In the beginning of Lent, a new Arian bishop, named George, a Cappadocian, like his Arian predecessor Gregory, arrived at Alexandria. This intruder, although he was recommended in extravagant terms by imperial letters, is described by the catholic writers as a man who had behaved discreditably in low secular employments; rude, illiterate, and disdaining even to put on an outward show of piety. The reproach of gross ignorance is hardly consistent with the fact of his possessing a library so rich both in Christian and in heathen literature, that after his death it excited the interest of the emperor Julian; but the other charges are confirmed by the testimony of the pagan Ammianus Marcellinus; indeed George, by his exactions, became no less odious to the pagans than he was to the orthodox. Supported by the civil power, he raged against the Catholics of every class—bishops, clergy, monks, virgins, and laity—plundering, scourging, mutilating, banishing, and committing to the mines. Some bishops died in consequence of the cruelties which were inflicted on them. One renegade, who joined the usurper’s party, submitted to re-ordination. After a time George was driven out by his people, and took refuge with the emperor; but he returned with ampler powers, and made himself more detested than ever.

The aged Hosius, worn out by exile, imprisonment, privation, and even torture, at length gave way, and in 357 subscribed at Sirmium a heterodox creed, of which it was even pretended that he was the author; but he did not, apparently, sign the condemnation of Athanasius. By this submission he recovered his see; and he died shortly after at the age of a hundred or upwards. Athanasius, who speaks of him with tenderness and pity, states that on his death-bed he protested against the violence to which he had been subjected, and abjured the errors to which he had yielded a forced assent.

The fall of Hosius was speedily followed by that of Liberius. In April 357, Constantius visited Rome, where no emperor had been seen since 326. A number of ladies of rank, after having in vain endeavoured to persuade their husbands to undertake the office of intercession, waited on him with a petition for the recall of Liberius. Constantius answered that the bishop might return if he could agree with his brethren of the court party, and proposed that he and Felix should jointly govern the church. This compromise, on being announced in the circus, was received with a derisive cry, that it would suit well with the factions into which the frequenters of that place were divided—that each of the colours might have a bishop for its head; and the whole assembly burst into a shout, “One God, one Christ, one bishop”. But in the following winter Liberius, weary of his Thracian exile, entreated in abject terms that he might be recalled. He professed to concur heartily with Ursacius, Valens, and their oriental partisans; he appeared even greedy of humiliation in disavowing his former opinions; and, after subscribing an Arian or Semiarian creed, he was allowed to return to Rome. Felix was expelled, not without bloodshed between the parties of the rival bishops, according to some accounts; and the remaining eight years of his life were spent in peaceful obscurity.

Arianism appeared to be everywhere triumphant; but in this time of triumph internal differences, which had hitherto been concealed, began to show themselves openly.

It had been the policy of the Arians or Eusebians to veil their heresy by abstaining from any distinct declaration on the most critical points, and putting forth professions which in themselves were sound, although short of the full catholic belief. And now an unexpected result of this system appeared: the formulas which had been intended speciously to cover the heterodoxy of their framers had in the course of years trained up a party which honestly held them, without the errors which the more advanced Arians had been careful to keep in reserve. The Semiarians or homoiousians (as they are styled) believed that the Son was “like in all things” to the Father; that his essence was like that of the Father—differing from it only in not being identical with it; that he was truly a Son, begotten beyond time and before all worlds. Eusebius of Caesarea was the precursor of Semiarianism; but its appearance as the distinctive doctrine of a party did not take place until long after his death. There was much of personal respectability and of piety among the Semiarians. Athanasius and Hilary speak of them as brethren—being willing to believe that they were not really heterodox, but only scrupled at the use of the word “co-essential”, as apparently savouring of Sabellianism, and as having been condemned in Paul of Samosata. To this party—of which Basil of Ancyra and George of Laodicea were the leaders—the majority of the eastern bishops now belonged.

On the other hand, Arianism for the first time came forth without disguise in the doctrines of Aetius and his pupil Eunomius. The former, a man of very low origin, who in early life had been a goldsmith, was ordained deacon by Leontius of Antioch, and was afterwards deposed by him. Aetius is described as notorious for his disputatious character. His early education had been scanty; but at a later time he acquired from a philosopher of Alexandria a knowledge of geometry and dialectics, and, without having any proper acquaintance with ecclesiastical learning, he insisted on applying the rules of these sciences as the measure of religious truth.

Aetius unflinchingly carried out the principles of Arianism to their conclusions, so as to offend and annoy the more cautious of its professors, who spoke of him as “the godless”. He maintained that the Son, as being a creature, was necessarily unlike the Father, not only in substance but in will; and from this tenet his party got the name of anomoeans. Eunomius, who attained to the bishopric of Cyzicum, went still further in the same direction. Although he professed to refer to Scripture, his system was not founded on it, but was merely a work of reasoning. It was purely intellectual, excluding all reference to the affections. He discarded the idea of mystery in religion; he held that God knows no more of his own nature than man may know of it; that the Son resembles the Father in nothing but his working; that the Holy Spirit was created by the Son. He denied all sacramental influences, and—unlike Arius, who was himself a man of rigid life—he opposed everything like asceticism.

Between the Anomoeans and the Semiarians stood the crafty, secular, and unscrupulous party which was now called after Acacius, the successor of Eusebius in the see of Caesarea. Agreeing in principles with the anomoeans, they by turns favoured them when it was safe, and disavowed them when it would have been inconvenient to show them countenance; and for a time they endeavoured to conceal the difference between themselves and the Semiarians as to the essence (ousia) of the Son by proscribing the term as unscriptural, and as having been the source of trouble to the church. The emperor's own opinions were Semiarian; but the policy of Acacius and the personal influence of Valens counterbalanced his doctrinal convictions.

Leontius, who had been appointed bishop of Antioch on the deprivation of Stephen in 349, and had endeavoured to preserve peace in his church by an equivocating policy, died in the end of 357. On being informed of his death, Eudoxius, bishop of Germanicia, who was in attendance on the emperor in the west, requested leave to go into Syria under false pretences, and got possession of the vacant see. The favour which the new bishop openly showed to Aetius provoked the Semiarians to hold a council at Ancyra, where they condemned the anomoean doctrine and the second creed of Sirmium; and their decisions were ratified by the emperor, who, at their desire, resolved to summon a general council for the final settlement of the questions which had so long distracted the church. On this the Acacians took the alarm, and, fearing that both catholics and Semiarians might unite to condemn them, they fell on the expedient of dividing the council, in the hope that they might be able to manage its separate portions. Their arguments as to the difficulties and the expense of bringing bishops from all parts of his dominions to one place were successful with Constantius. It was resolved that the western branch of the church should be cited to Rimini, and the eastern to Nicaea; and that ten deputies from each division should afterwards meet in the presence of the emperor.

About four hundred and fifty bishops assembled at Rimini in May 359, under the presidency (as is supposed) of Restitutus, bishop of Carthage. A creed, drawn up by some Acacians and Semiarians at a previous meeting, and known as the Third Creed of Sirmium, was offered to the council by Valens and Ursacius. It proscribed the term essence as unscriptural and liable to misapprehension, and declared the Son to be “like the Father in all things, as the Holy Scriptures say and teach”. The Acacians hoped that the catholics would be drawn to subscribe by taking these words according to their most obvious sense, while for themselves they interpreted them as meaning like in all things to which Scripture extends the likeness; but the bishops, although for the most part unskilled in theological subtleties, were animated by a strong distrust of the party, and declared that the Nicene creed was sufficient. Ursacius, Valens, and four others were excommunicated for refusing to sign it; and deputies of each party were sent off to the emperor, with a request that no innovation on the faith might be attempted, and that the members of the council might be allowed to return to their homes. Constantius, who was on the point of setting out for the seat of the Persian war, deferred seeing the envoys until his return, on the ground that his mind was so occupied by political business as to be unfit for the due consideration of Divine things. During his absence, the representatives of the council, who were detained at Nice in Thrace, were practised on by his courtiers; and thus after a time they were drawn into signing the same creed which had been offered for acceptance at Rimini, but rendered more objectionable by the omission of the words “in all things”. In the meantime, their brethren who had remained at Rimini were sedulously plied with arguments from the emperor's character and intentions, from the desirableness of peace, the inexpediency of contending about (as was said) a mere question of words, the hopelessness of bringing the orientals to adopt the term co-essential. Valens, by way of dissipating their suspicions, uttered anathemas which seemed to be altogether irreconcilable with Arianism; and at length, pressed by solicitations, desirous to return to their homes before winter, and deluded as to the meaning of their act, they also subscribed the formula which was presented to them. “The whole world” says St Jerome, “groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian”. On returning to their dioceses, the bishops began to understand the import of their submission. Many of them then repudiated the creed which they had signed, and wrote letters of sympathy to Athanasius.

The place of the eastern council's meeting had been transferred from Nicaea to Nicomedia; but in consequence of an earthquake, by which that city was reduced to ruins, a further change became necessary, and Seleucia, the capital of Isauria, was eventually fixed on. The whole number of bishops who attended was about a hundred and sixty, of whom a hundred and five were Semiarians, thirty-five Acacians, and the rest orthodox. The last of these parties was composed of Egyptians, together with Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, one of the most powerful champions of the catholic faith, who had been banished into Phrygia in the year 356, and was now summoned to take part in the deliberations of his eastern brethren. The Acacians, finding themselves outnumbered, attempted under various pretences to break up the assembly; and the dissensions which arose were so violent that the imperial commissary, Leonas, found himself obliged to dissolve it. The majority signed the creed of the dedication; the Acacians condemned both homoousion (of the same essence) and homoiousion (of like essence) as inexpedient, and anathematized the term anomoion (unlike). Both Semiarians and Acacians sent off deputies to the court; and, although Constantius agreed in opinion with the Semi-arians, and the council had been convened for the purpose of establishing their ascendency, the Acacians, by contriving to be the first to reach him, succeeded in winning his ear. A council was held at Constantinople in the emperor's presence, where each party preferred charges against its opponents. Aetius was deposed from the diaconate, being given up by the Acacians as a scapegoat, while, on the other hand, Basil of Ancyra and other Semiarians were deposed and banished as insubordinate. It was ordered that the creed of Rimini should be signed everywhere, and all who refused compliance were treated with severity.

Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, had rendered himself obnoxious to the Acacian party by showing an inclination towards the Semiarians. It was therefore resolved to get rid of him; and in order to his removal, advantage was taken of the emperor's displeasure, which had been justly excited by the bishop's violent proceedings, and was now swelled by a fresh offence. As the church in which the body of the great Constantine had been deposited—hastily and unsubstantially erected, like the buildings of the new capital in general—was already likely to fall, Macedonius removed the coffin to another church; and Constantius was irritated, both by his presuming to take such a step without the imperial permission, and because the factions of Constantinople had made the removal the occasion for a serious disturbances The bishop was therefore deposed on various charges of misconduct (for the Acacians, out of fear lest the emperor's sympathy should be excited, were careful to avoid the question of doctrine in their proceedings against the Semiarians); and Eudoxius of Antioch was appointed his successor, while the bishopric of Antioch was bestowed by a council on Meletius, formerly bishop of Sebaste, a man of high reputation who had until then been reckoned among the Arian party. Meletius, it is said, on taking possession of his new see, at first confined his preaching to practical subjects; but when he had thus gained some hold on his flock, he began openly to teach the Nicene doctrine. For this the council, which was still sitting, deposed and banished him within thirty days after his installation, and in his room appointed Euzoius, formerly a deacon of Alexandria, who had been the associate of Arius in the early stages of the heresy. Ever since the deprivation of Eustathius, an orthodox party had been kept up within the church of Antioch, notwithstanding the Arianism of the bishops. This party now formed a separate communion, which regarded Meletius as its head; but the old Eustathians, who had throughout stood aloof, refused to communicate with them, on the ground that Meletius had received his appointment from Arians, and that his followers had been baptized into heresy

The council of Antioch set forth an undisguisedly anomoean creed, declaring the Son to have been created out of nothing, and to be unlike the Father both in substance and in will. St. Athanasius reckons this as the eleventh creed to which the variations of Arianism had given birth : Tillemont makes it the eighteenth. Amidst such a continual manufacture of new standards of doctrine, it was no wonder that the heathens derided the Christians as having still to learn in what their faith consisted.

The reign of Constantius was now near its end. The Caesar Julian had been proclaimed Augustus by his troops in Gaul, and had advanced far towards the eastern capital. Constantius set out to meet him, but was arrested by illness at Mopsucrenae, in Cilicia, where he died on the 3rd of November 361, at the age of forty-four, and in the twenty-fifth year of his reign. A short time before his death, but whether at Antioch or at Mopsucrenae is uncertain, he was baptized by the Arian bishop of Antioch.

 

CHAPTER III. JULIAN A.D. 361-363.