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.