course originated with Eusebius of Nicomedia, its ad- herents were called Fusebians. The Council of Anti- och deposed Athanasius, who went to Rome, and was fully recognized as orthodox by the Synod of Fome, A.D. 342. Another Arian council met at Antioch, A.D. 345, and drew up what was called the long Creed {j.iaKp6arL\0Q, to be found in Socrates, Hist. Eccl. ii, 18), leaving out the homoousion, which the}' sent to the council of Western bishops summoned by Constans at Milan (A.D. 346). The Milan council not only rejected this creed, but required the deputies who brought it to sign a condemnation of Arianism. Of course they left the council in wrath. The emperors Constantius and Constans endeavored to reconcile the combatants for Oriental and Occidental orthodoxy by calling a general council of both East and West at Sardica, in Illyricum, A.D. 347 (according to Mansi A.D. 344, putting back also the preceding dates) ; but the Eusebians refused to remain in the council unless Athanasius and other heterodox bishops were excluded. Failing in this, the}' retired to the neighboring city of Philippopolis, leaving their opponents alone at Sardica. Eusebian- ism was, under Constantius, as victorious in the East as the Nicene Creed was, under Constans, in the West. The Eusebians procured the deposition of Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, on a charge of Sabellianism. After the death of Constans, A.D. 350, and the victory ove» Matrnentius, A.D. 353, Constantius endeavored to es- tablish Arianism by force in the West. In the synods of Aries, A.D. 354, and of Milan, A.D. 355, he com- pelled the assembled bishops to sign the condemnation of Athanasius, though most of them were, it is thought, orthodox. Hosius of Cordova and Liberius of Rome, refusing to sign, were deprived of their sees. Atha- nasius was expelled from Alexandria (A.D. 356), and George of Cappadocia put in his place, not without force of arms. Constantius persecuted the orthodox relentlessly, and it seemed for a time as if their cause were irretrievably ruined. Even Hosius (now a cen- tury old) and Liberius were brought to sign a con- fession which excluded the homoousion.
3. Divisions among the Arians: History to the Council of Constantinople. — A new era now began with this ap- parent triumph of Arianism. Heretofore the various classes of opponents of the orthodox doctrine had been kept together by the common bond of opposition. Now that the state and church were both in their power, their differences of doctrine soon became ap- parent. The reins of government were really in the hands of the Eusebians (q. v.), whose opinions were a compromise between strict Arianism and orthodoxy. The strict Arians were probably in a minority during the whole period of the strife. Their leaders at this period were Aetius of Antioch, Eunomius of Cappado- cia,* and Acacius of Cajsarea ; and from them the parties were called Aetians, Eunomians, Acacians. They were also called avopoun (Anomoeans), because they denied the sameness of the essence of the Son with the Fa- ther ; and also Heterousians, as they held the Son to be tnnoovaioc (of different essence), inasmuch as the un- begotten, according to their materialistic way of judg- ing, could not be similar in essence to the begotten. Actins and Eunomius sought, at the first Council of Sirmium (A.D. 351), to put an end to all communion between Arians and orthodox; but they were vigor- ously met by the Semi-Arians, led by "Basilius, bish- op of Ancyra, and Georgius, bishop of Laodicea, who held fast by the position of the Eusebians, viz. that the Son is of similar essence with the Father (i^toiov- (tioc), and were hence called Homoiousiaus and Snni- Arians. Constantius was attached to the Semi-Arians, but a powerful part}' about his court exerted them- selves with no less cunning than perseverance in favor of the Anomoeans. And because they could not pub- licly vindicate their formula, they persuaded the em- peror that, in order to restore peace, the formulas of the two other parties also must be prohibited, which
ARIANISM
391
ARIANISM
measure they brought about at the second synod of Sirmium (A.D. 357. The formula is given in Waleh, Bibl. iSymb. p. 133). On the other hand, Ba- sil, bishop of Aneyra, called together a synod at An- cyra (35*), which established the Semi-Arian creed, and rejected the Arian (see the decrees in Epiphan. Hcer. 73 ; the confession of faith adopted by the syn- od, in Athanas. de Syn. § 41). Constantius allowed himself to be easily convinced that the Sirmium for- mula favored the Anomceans, and the confession of faith adopted at the second was now rejected at a third synod of Sirmium (358), and the anathemas of the Synod of Aneyra were confirmed. The Ano- moeans, for the purpose of uniting in appearance with the Semi-Arians, and yet establishing their own doctrine, now adopted the formula tov v'ibv ufioiov rqi -trarpi Kara Trdvra wc. at liyica ypa<pai Xsyovai re kal diSdffKovai (the Son is similar to the Father in all respects, as the Scriptures say and teach), and succeeded in convincing the emperor that all parties might be easily united in it. For this all bishops were now prepared, and then the "Westerns were summoned to a council at Ariminum, the Easterns to another at Seleucia, simultaneously (359). After many efforts, the emperor at last succeeded in getting most of the bishops to adopt that formula. But, along with this external union, not only did the internal doctrinal schism continue, but there were besides differences among such as had been like-minded, whether they had gone in with that union or not. Thus Constan- tius, at his death, left all in the greatest confusion (A.D. 360). The new emperor, Julian (361-303), was, as a Pagan, of course equally indifferent to all Chris- tian dogmas, and restored all the banished bishops to their sees. Jovian also (f 364), and his successors in the West, Valentinian (f 375), then Gratian and Val- entinian II, maintained general toleration. On the contrary, Valens, emperor of the East (364-378), was a zealous Arian, and persecuted both orthodox and Semi-Arians.