§ 121. TOE AKIAN AND 8EMI-AKIAN EEACTION. 635
by two Italian priests. The Spanisli bishop Hosius presided The Nicene doctrine was here confirmed, and twelve canons were at the same time adopted, some of which are very important in reference to discipline and the authority of the Roman see. But the Arianizing Oriental bishops, dissatisfied with the admission of Athanasius, took no part in the proceedings, held an opposition council in the nei|^hboring city of Philvppopolis, and confirmed the decrees of the council of Antioch. The opposite councils, therefore, inflamed tlie discord of the church, instead of allaying it.
Constantius was compelled, indeed, by his brother to restoi'e Athanasius to his ofiice in 346 ; but after the death of Constans, A. D. 350, he summoned tliree successive synods in favor of a moderate Arianism ; one at Sirmium in Pannonia (351), one at Arelate or Aries in Gaul (353), and one at Milan in Italy (355) ; he forced the decrees of these councils on the Western church, dej)osed and banished bishops, like Liberius of Rome, Hosius of Cordova, Hilary of Poictiers, Lucifer of Calaris, who resisted them, and drove Athanasius from the catliedral of Alexandria during divine service with five thousand armed soldiers, and supplied his place with an uneducated and avaricious Arian, George of Cappadocia (356). In these violent measures the court bishops and Eusebia, the last wife of Constantius and a zealous Arian, had great influence. Even in their exile the faithful adherents of the Nicene faith were subjected to all manner of abuse and vexation. Hence Constantius was vehemently attacked by Athanasius, Hilary, and Lucifer, compared to Pharaoh, Saul, Ahab, Belshazzar, and called an inhuman beast, the forerunner of Antichrist, and even Antichrist himself.
Thus Arianism gained the ascendency in the whole Roman empire; though not in its original rigorous form, but in the milder form of homoi-ousianism or the doctrine of similarity of essence, as opposed on the one hand to the Nicene homo-ounanism {sameness of essence), and on the other hand to the Arian hetero-ousianisun {difference of essence). |
Even the papal chair was desecrated by heresy during this Arian interregnuni ; after the deposition of Liberius, the deacon
636 TniKD PERIOD. A.D. 311-590.
Felix II., "by aiitichristian wickedness," as Athaiasiiis ex presses it, was elected his successor,' Many Roman historians for this reason regard him as a mere anti-pope. But in the Roman churcli boohs this Felix is inserted, not only as a legitimate popej but even as a saint, because, according to a mucli later legend, he was executed by Constantius, whom he called a heretic. Ilis memory is celebrated on the twenty-ninth of July. His subsequent fortunes are very differently related. The Roman people desired the recall of Liberius, and he, weary of exile, was prevailed upon to apostatize by subscribing an Arian or at least Arianizing confession, and maintaining church fellowshij) with the Eusebians.' On this condition he was restored to his papal dignity, and received with enthusiasm into Rome (358). He died in 366 in the orthodox faith, which he had denied through weakness, but not from conviction.
Even the almost centennarian bishop Hosius was induced by long imprisonment and the threats of the emperor, though not himself to compose (as Hilary states), yet to subscribe (as Athanasius and Sozomen say), the Arian formula of the second council of Sirmium, a. d, 357, but soon after repented his unfaithfulness, and condemned the Arian heresy shortly before his death.
Tlie Nicene orthodoxy was thus apparently put down. But now the heretical majority, having overcome their common enemy, made ready their own dissolution by divisions among themselves. They separated into two factions. The
' Comp. above, § TS, p. 371.
* The apostasy of Liberius comes to us upon the clear testirnony of the most orthodox fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Jerome, Sozomen, &c., and of three letters of Liberius himself, which Hilary admitted into his sixth fragment, and accompanied with some remarks. Jerome says in his Chronicle: " Liberius, tsedio victus exilii, in hffireticam pravitatem subscribens Romam quasi victor intravlt." Comp. his Catal. script, eccl. c. 01. He probably subscribed what is called the third Sirmian foi-mula, that is, the collection of Semi-Arian decrees adopted at the third council iif Sirmium in 858. Hefele (i. 6Y3), from his Roman point of view, knows no way of saving him but by the hypothesis that he renounced the Nicene word {6noov<rini), but not the Nicene faith. But this, in the case of so current a pai>y term aa iaouviTios, which Liberius himself afterwards dcclai'ed " the bulwark igainst all Arian heresy" (Socr. II. E. iv. 12), is entirely ui tenable.