Cyril of Jerusalem, and Eusebius of Samosata, are both Saints in the Roman Calendar, though connected in history with the Semi-Arian party. Eusebius was the friend of St. Basil, surnamed the Great; and Cyril is still known to us in his perspicuous and eloquent discourses addressed to the Catechumens.

Others might be named of a like respectability, though deficient, with those above-mentioned, either in moral or in intellectual judgment. With these were mingled a few of a darker character. George of Laodicea, one of the genuine Eusebians, joined them for a time, and took a chief share together with Basil in the management of the Council of Ancyra. Macedonius, who was originally an Anomoan, passed through Semi-Arianism to the heresy of the Pneumatomachists, that is, the denial of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, of which he is theologically the founder.

3.

The Semi-Arians, being such as above described, were at first both in faith and conduct an ornament and recommendation of the Eusebians. But, when once the latter stood at variance with the Latin Church by the event of the Sardican Council, they ceased to be of service to them as a blind, which was no longer available, or rather were an incumbrance to them, and formidable rivals in the favour of Constantius. The separation between the two parties was probably retarded for a while by the forced submission and recantation of the Eusebian Valens and Ursacius; but an event soon happened, which altogether released those two Bishops and

the rest of the Eusebians from the embarrassments, in which the influence of the West and the timidity of Constantius had for the moment involved them. This

was the assassination of the Catholic Constans which took place A.D. 350; in consequence of which (Constantine, the eldest of the brothers, being already dead) Constantius succeeded to the undivided empire. Thus the Eusebians had the whole of the West opened to their ambition; and were bound by no impediment, except such as the ill-instructed Semi-Arianism of the Emperor might impose upon them. Their proceedings under these fortunate circumstances will come before us presently; here I will confine myself to the mention of the artifice, by which they succeeded in recommending themselves to Constantius, while they opposed and triumphed over the Semi-Arian Creed.

This artifice, which, obvious as it is, is curious, from the place which it holds in the history of Arianism, was that of affecting on principle to limit confessions of faith to Scripture terms; and was adopted by Acacius, Bishop of Cæsarea, in Palestine, the successor of the learned Eusebius, one of the very men, who had advocated the Semi-Arian non-scriptural formularies of the Dedication and of Philippopolis. From the earliest date, the Arians had taken refuge from the difficulties

7 [The Eusebians, or political party, were renewed in the Acacians, immediately to be mentioned, Athanasius calling the latter the heirs of the former, Hist. Arian. §§ 19 and 28; (vid. also Ath. Tr. p. 7.) He ever distinguishes the Arians proper from the Eusebians (in his Ep. Enc. and Apol. Contr. Arian.), as afterwards the Anomoans were to be distinguished from the Acacians.]

9 Athan. de Syn. 36-38.

of their own unscriptural dogmas in the letter of the sacred writers; but they had scarcely ventured on the inconsistency of objecting to the terms of theology, as such. But here Eusebius of Cæsarea anticipated the proceedings of his party; and, as he opened upon his contemporaries the evasion of Semi-Arianism, so did he also anticipate his pupil Acacius in the more specious artifice now under consideration. It is suggested in the apology which he put forth for signing the Nicene anathema of the Arian formule; which anathema he defends on the principle, that these formula were not conceived in the language of Scripture'. Allusion is made to the same principle from time to time in the subsequent Arian Councils, as if even then the laxer Eusebians were struggling against the dogmatism of the Semi-Arians. Though the Creed of Lucian introduces the "usia," the three other Creeds of the Dedication omit it; and this hypothesis of differences of opinion in the heretical body at these Councils partly accounts for that hesitation and ambiguity in declaring their faith, which has been noticed in its place. Again, the Macrostich omits the "usia," professes generally that the Son is "like in all things to the Father," and enforces the propriety of keeping to the language of Scripture'.

About the time which is at present more particularly

9 Vid. also Theod. Hist. ii. 3. [who tells us that the objection of "unscripturalness" had been suggested to Constantius by the Arian priest, the favourite of Constantia, to whom Constantine had entrusted his will. Eusebius, in his Letter about the Nicene Creed, does scarcely more than glance at this objection.]

Vid. Athan. de Synod.

before us, that is, after the death of Constans, this modification of Arianism becomes distinct, and collects around it the Eastern Eusebians, under the skilful management of Acacius. It is not easy to fix the date of his openly adopting it; the immediate cause of which was his quarrel with the Semi-Arian Cyril, which lies between A.D. 349–357. The distinguishing principle of his new doctrine was adherence to the Scripture phraseology, in opposition to the inconvenient precision of the SemiArians; its distinguishing tenet is the vague confession that the Son is generally "like," or at most "in all things like" the Father,-"like" as opposed to the "one in substance," "like in substance," and "unlike","-that is, the vague confession that the Son is generally like, or altogether like, the Father. Of these two expressions, the "in all things like" was allowed by the Semi-Arians, who included "in substance" under it; whereas the Acacians (for so they may now be called), or Homcans (as holding the Homœon or like), covertly intended to exclude the "in substance" by that very expression, mere similarity always implying difference, and "substance" being, as they would argue, necessarily excluded from the "in all things," if the "like" were intended to stand for any thing short of identity. It is plain then that, in the meaning of its authors, and in the practical effect of it, this new hypothesis was neither more nor less than the pure Arian, or, as it was after

2 ὅμοιον οι κατὰ πάντα ὅμοιον is the tenet of the Acacians or Homæans, as opposed to Catholic ὁμοούσιον, the Semi-Arian ὁμοιούσιον, and the ávóμolor of the Eunomians or Aetians. [St. Cyril, however, adopts the κατὰ πάντα ὅμοιον, us does Damcene.]

wards called, Anomoan, though the phrase, in which it was conveyed, bore in its letter the reverse sense.

Such was the state of the heresy about the year 350; before reviewing its history, as carried on between the two rival parties into which its advocates, the Eusebians, were dividing, the Semi-Arian and Homoean, I shall turn to the sufferings of the Catholic Church at that period.