THE NEW SCHAEF-HERZOG
posed at a synod at Antiochin 330 (Socrates, i. 23), the charge being that he advocated Sabellianism. Marcellus of Ancyra, another vigorous defender of the Nicene symbol, was also deposed at a synod in Constantinople. Arius's death occurred a little later, but the work of punishing his opponents went on. Athanasius was deposed a second time (339), and took refuge with Julius of Rome, who, with the great body of the Western Church, believed him a martyr. It is unnecessary to follow the varying fortunes of the two parties, and the history of councils, which neutralized one another, without materially advancing the points in dispute. The most important are the synod of Antioch, 341 (q.v.), which set forth an orthodox creed, but deposed Athanasius; the orthodox synod of Sardica, which declared Athanasius and Marcellus orthodox, and the Arian counter-synod of Philippopolis, 343; the
6. Various synods of Sirmium, 351, which pro- Synods and tested against Athanasius's reinstate-
Parties. ment at Alexandria; Aries, 353; Milan, 355, which condemned Athanasius in obedience to Constantine; the second synod at Sirmium, 357; the third, 358; at Antioch, 358; at Ancyra, 358; at Constantinople, 360; at Alexandria, 362. Aided by Constantius, Arianism, under the modified form represented by the term homoiousios (" similar in essence," as distinct from the Nicene homoousios and the strictly Arian heteroousios), gained the power in the empire; and even the papal chair in Rome was for a while desecrated by heresy during the Arian interregnum of Felix II. But the death of Constantius in 361, the indifference of his successor, the Emperor Julian, to all theological disputes (the exiled bishops were at liberty to return to their sees, though he afterward banished Athanasius), the toleration of Jovian (d. 364), and especially the internal dissensions of the Arians, prepared the way for a new triumph of orthodoxy. The Eusebians, or semi-Arians, taught that the Son was similar in substance Qiomoiousios) to the Father; while the Aetians (from Aetius, a deacon of Antioch who revived Arianism) and the Eunomians (from Eunomius, Bishop of Cyzicus in Mysia) taught that he was of a different substance (heteroousios), and unlike (anomoios) the Father in everything as also in substance (hence the names Heteroousiasts and Anomoians or Anomceans). A number of compromising synods and creeds undertook to heal these dissensions, but without permanent effect.
On the other hand, the defenders of the Nicene Creed, Athanasius, and, after his death in 373, the three Cappadocian bishops, — Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa, — triumphantly vindicated the catholic doctrine against all the arguments of the opposition.) The Cappadocians made the homoousios the startingpoint of their discussions, as is apparent from the correspondence of Basil with Apolli-
7. Vindica- naris. Damasus, the Roman bishop, tion of Or- true to the general policy of his pred-
thodoxy. ecessors and of Julius in particular, had Arianism condemned at two Roman synods, 369, 377. When Gregory of. Nazianzus was called to Constantinople in 379, there was but
one small congregation in the city which had not become Arian; but his able and eloquent sermons on the deity of Christ, which won him the title oi " the Theologian," contributed powerfully to the resurrection of the catholic faith. The rising influence of monasticism, especially in Egypt and Syria, was bound up with the cause of Athanasius and the Cappadocians; and the more conservative portion of the semi-Arians gradually approached the orthodox in spite of the persecutions of the violent Arian emperor, Valens.
4. The Pinal Triumph of the Nicene Orthodoxy under Theodosius the Great, 381 : Theodosius was a Spaniard by birth, and reared in the Nicene faith. On entering Constantinople he removed the Arians from the charge of the churches and substituted the orthodox party. During his reign (379-395) he
completed externally the spiritual and 8. The intellectual victory of orthodoxy al- Council of ready achieved. He convened the Constanti- second ecumenical council at Connople, 381. stantinople in 381, which consisted of only one hundred and fifty bishops, and was presided over successively by Meletius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Nectarius of Constantinople. The council condemned the Pneumatomachian heresy (which denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit), the Sabellians, Eunomians, Apollinarians, etc., and virtually completed the orthodox dogma of the Holy Trinity. The Nicene Creed now in common use (with the exception of the Latin clause filioque, which is of much later date and rejected by the Greek Church) can not be traced to this synod of Constantinople, but existed at an earlier date; it is found in the Ancoratus of Epiphanius (373), and derived by him from a still older source, namely, the baptismal creed of the Church of Jerusalem. It is not in the original acts of the Council of Constantinople, but was afterward incorporated in them and may have been approved by the Council. Dr. Hort derives it mainly from Cyril of Jerusalem, about 362-364 (cf . his Dissertations and see the article Constantinopolitan Creed). The emperor gave legal effect to the doctrinal decisions and disciplinary canons, and in July, 381, he enacted a law that all church property should be given up to those who believed in the equal divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Bishops like Ambrose of Milan supported the emperor and did much to bring the Nicene doctrine into complete acceptance. After Theodosius, Arianism ceased to exist as an organized moving force in theology and church history; but it reappeared from time to 9. The La- time as an isolated theological opinion, ter Arian- especially in England. Emlyn, Whisism. ton, Whitby, Samuel Clarke, Lardner,
and many who are ranked among Socinians and Unitarians, held Arian sentiments; but Milton and Isaac Newton, though approaching the Arian view on the relation of the Son to the Father, differed widely from Arianism in spirit and aim.
5. Arianism among the Barbarians: The church legislation of Theodosius was confined, of course, to the limits of the Roman Empire. Beyond it, among the barbarians of the West, who had received Christianity in the form of Arianism during the