Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/703

 EUSEBIUS

625

EUSEBIUS

effected between them by which all exiled bishops re- turned, and Athanasius came back to his flock. Euse- bius was in reality a gainer by the new regime. Con- stantius, who was now lord of all the East, was but twenty years old. He wished to manage the Church, and he seems to have fallen an easy prey to the arts of the old intriguer Eusebius, so that the rest of his fool- ish and obstinate life was spent in persecuting Atha- nasius, and in carrying out Eusebius's policy. Never himself an Arian, Constantius held orthodoxy to lie somewhere between Arianism and the Nicene faith. The .4rians, who were ready to disguise their doctrine to some extent, were therefore able to obtain from him a favour, which he denied to the few uncompro- mising Catholics who rejected his generalities.

The see of Alexandria had remained vacant during the absence of Athanasius. Eusebius now claimed to put the Synod of Tyre in force, and a rival bishop was set up in the person of Pistus, one of the Arian priests whom Alexander had long ago excommunicated. Until now the East alone had been concerned. The Eusebians were the first to try to get Rome and the West on their side. They sent to the pope an embassy of two priests and a deacon, who carried with them the decisions of the Council of Tyre and the supposed proofs of the guilt of Athanasius, of which the accused himself had been unable to get a sight. Instead of at once granting his communion to Pistus, Pope Julius sent the documents to Athanasius, in order that he might prepare a defence. The latter summoned a council of his suffragans. More than eighty atteniied, and sent to Julius a complete defence of their patri- arch. The arrival of Athanasius's envoys bearing this letter struck terror into the minds of the ambassadors of the Eusebians. The priests fled, and the deacon could think of nothing better than to beg Julius to call a council, and be judge himself. The pope consented, on the ground that in the case of one of the chief Churches such as Alexandria, it was right and custom- ary that the matter should be referred to him. He therefore wrote summoning both accusers and accused to a council of which he was willing that they should determine the place and time.

Thus it was not Athanasius who appealed to the pope, but the Eusebians, and that simply as a means of withdrawing from an awkward predicament. Pis- tus was not a success, and Constantius introduced by violence a certain Gregory, a Cappadocian, in his place. Athanasius, after addressing a protest to the whole Church against the methods of Eusebius, managed to escape with his life, and at once made his way to Rome to obey the pope's summons. His accusers took good care not to appear. Julius wrote again, fixing the end of the year (.330) as the term for their arrival. They detained the legates until the fixed time had elapsed, and sent them back in January, 340, with a letter full of studied and ironical politeness, of which Sozomen has preserved us the tenor. He says: "Having as- sembled at .\ntioch, they wrote an answer to Julius, elaborately worded and rhetorically composed, full of irony, and containing terrible threats. They ad- mitted in this letter that Rome was always honoured as the school of the Apostles, and the metropolis of the Faith from the beginning, although its teachers had settled in it from the East. But they thought that they ought not to take a secondary place because they had less great and populous Churches, since they were .superior in virtue and intention. They reproached Ju- lius with having communicated with Athanasius, and complained that this was an insult to their synod, and that their condemnation of him was made null; and they urged that this was unjust and contrary to eccle- siastical law. After thus reproaching Julius and com- plaining of ill usage, they promised, if he would accept the deposition of those whom they had deposed, and the appointment of those whom they had ordained, to grant him peace and communion, but if he with- V.— 40

stood their decrees, they would refuse to do so. For they declared that the earlier Eastern bishops had made no objection when Novatian was driven out of the Roman Church. But they wrote nothing to Ju- lius concerning their acts, which were contrary to the decisions of the Council of Nic^a, saying that they had many necessary reasons to allege in excuse, but that it was superfluous to make any defence against a vague and general suspicion tiiat they had done wrong." The traditional belief that Rome had been schooled by the Apostles, and had always been the metropolis of the Faith, is interesting in the mouths of those who were denying her right to interfere in the East, in a matter of jurisdiction; for it is to be remembered that neither then, nor at any time, was Athanasius accused of heresy. This claim of independence is the first sign of the breach which began with the foundation of Constantinople as New Rome, and which ended in the complete separation of that city and all its dependen- cies from Catholic communion. For Eusebius had not contented himself with Nicomedia, now that it was no longer the capital, but had managed to get St. Paul of Constantinople exiled once more, and had seized upon that see, which was evidently, in his view, to be set above Alexandria and Antioch, and to be in very deed a second Rome.

The Roman council met in the autumn of 340. The Eusebians were not represented, but many Easterns, their victims, who had taken refuge at Rome, were there from Thrace, Coele-Syria, Phoenicia and Pales- tine, besides Athanasius and Marcellus. Deputies came to complain of the violence at Alexandria. Others explained that many Egyptian bishops had wished to come, but had been prevented and even beaten or imprisoned. At the wish of the council the pope wrote a long letter to the Eusebians. It is one of the finest letters written by any pope, and lays bare all the deceits of Eusebius, with a clearness which is as unsparing as it is dignified. It is probable that the letter did not trouble Eusebius much, safe as he was in the emperor's favour. It is true that by the death of Constantine II, Constans, the protector of orthodoxy, had inherited his dominions, and was now far more powerful than Constantius. But Eusebius had never posed as an Arian, and in 341 he had a fresh triumph in the great Dedication Synod of Antioch, where a large number of orthodox and conservative bishops ignored the Council of Nicsea, and showed themselves quite at one with the Eusebian party, though denying that they were followers of Arius, who was not even a bishop!

Eusebius died, full of years and honours, probably soon after the council; at all events he was dead be- fore that of Sardica. He had arrived at the summit of his hopes. He may really have believed Arian doc- trine, but clearly his chief aim had ever been his own aggrandisement, and the humiliation of those who had humbled him at Nicaea. He had succeeded. His ene- mies were in exile. His creatures sat in the sees of Alexandria and Antioch. He was bishop of the im- perial city, and the young emperor obeyed his coun- sels. If Epiphanius is right in calling him an old man even before Nicaea, he must now have reached a great age. His work lived after him. He had trained a group of prelates who continued his intrigues, and who followed the Court from place to place throughout the reign of Constantius. More than this, it may be said that the world suffers to this day from the evil wrought by this worldly bishop.

Baronius. Ann. (1.570), 327-42; Tillemont (1699), VI; Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century (1S33, etc.l; Idem, Traetfi theological and ecclesiastical (1874); Hf.fele. History of the Councils, tr. (Edinburgh, 1876), II; Reynolds in Diet. Christ. Biog.; Loofs in Hkrzog, Realencycl.; Gwatkin. Studies of Arianism, 2nd ed. (London, 1900); Duchesne, llistoire ancienne de V Eolise (P&ris, 1907), II; Chafm\n, Athanasius and Pope Julius I, in Dublin Review (.luly, 190.5); E. Schwartz, ZurGeschichte des Athanasius in Guttinger Nachrichten (1905).

John Chapman.