Page 206

Page 206

mmnaomins Euphrates

in Alexandria, recommended, according to Philostorgius, by the Arian teacher Secundus, who was then in Antioch, whose secretary he had been. He gained the favor of Eudoxius, bishop of Antioch (see Eunoxiua op GERMANICIA), who made him a deacon. When Eudoxius was suspended but not yet banished, Eunomius was sent to the emperor in his behalf, but was taken prisoner by the Homoiousians on the road and banished to Midxa in Phrygia in the autumn of 358. After the Synod of Seleucia, with Aetius, he followed the aemiArian bishops to Constantinople, and took a prominent part in the theological disputations there which ended in the defeat of the semi-Arians.

Early in 360 Eunomius was made bishop of Cyzicus by Eudoxius, accepting the office, it would seem, partly in the hope of facilitating the recall of his old teacher AStius, while Eudoxius may have hoped to win Eunomius for his conciliatory type of Arianism. Complications followed, but they are hard to trace in detail. According to Theodoret, whose account is followed by Tillemont and HIoae as well as by most modern scholars, the people of

Cyzicua succeeded in inducing EuBishop of nomius to emerge from his doctrinal

Cyzicus. reticence and declare himself; they

then accused him before Eudoxius, who, after long hesitation, deposed Eunomius from his bishopric, and thus determined him to found a party of his own-at first in Pamphylia, whither he retired. Philostorgiua knows of the accusation of the Cyzicenes, but asserts that Eunomius was wholly cleared; that nevertheless, being unwilling to assent either to the condemnation of AStius or to the decrees of Rimini, he voluntarily resigned his bishopric and retired to his birthplace; that Acacias then calumniated him before Constantius, with the result that he was cited to appear at the synodal negotiations at Antioch in the winter of 360-361; that Acacias did not press his charges, and the matter was thus postponed to a larger synod, the convocation of which was prevented by the emperor's death. On the whole the latter account seems preferable in that the probably independent narrative of Sozomen is more easily' reconcilable with it than with Theodoret's.

Under Julian the Anomoean party was able once more to raise its head. Eunomius went to Constantinople, and there, in concert with AStius, attempted to establish an Anomaean church. Euzoius of Antioch and even Eudoxius, now bishop of Constantinople, seemed, now that court influence was no longer to be considered, not indisposed to join the more radical Arians; but under Julian's

successors they perceived the danger Breach of such sympathies and drew back.

with the Eunomius and his friends were thus Semi- driven to the formation of an inde Arians. pendent ecclesiastical organization.

They consecrated bishops for Lydia, Ionia, Palestine, and Constantinople. From this time (about the end of 363) dates the definitive breach between the conciliatory Arians (Homoeana) anal the Anomaeans. Eudoxius seized with avidity the occasion offered by these proceedings and refused to acknowledge the consecrations, strengthened in

THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG

his policy by the favor which Valens showed him in the first period of his residence at Constantinople; and Euzoius recognized the logic of events. A15tius and Eunomius left the representation of their cause in the capital to Florentius, and retired, the former to the neighborhood of Mytilene, the latter to Chalcedon. Here they lived for a while without exercisinb ecclesiastical functions. On the proclamation as emperor of Procopius, Eunomius, with whom he had previously had friendly relations, returned to Constantinople with Aetius before the downfall of Procopius (May 27, 366), and remained there after the death of Aetius, which can not have occurred before the next spring. In the winter of 367 Eunomius was banished to Mauretania on account of his relations with the usurper; but influence was brought to bear upon Valens, which resulted in his recall in the autumn of 369.

After this he lived apparently at Chalcedon; but little is known of the last years of his life. Socrates relates that when Theodosius called a conference of the leaders of various religious parties in Constantinople (June, 383) Eunomius represented his associates there. But his cause was hopeless. Immediately before the accession of Theodosius, Gratian had expressly excluded the Eunomians, with the Photinians and Manicheans, from the toleration which he pro-

His Later claimed. The edict of Theodosius on Life. Feb. 27, 380, had indirectly proscribed them, and that of Jan. 10, 381, di rectly. On July 25, 383, after the conference men tioned above, the emperor issued a similar edict against a wider range of heresies. Eunomius, the only leader to incur personal punishment, was banished once more. He resided for a time at Chalcedon, still exercising a certain influence in Constantinople, was then sent to Halmyris in Maeaia, and when this place was taken by the bar barian invaders, to Caesarea in Cappadocia. He was finally allowed to retire to his estate at Dakora.

His party did not long survive him. Imperial edicts ordered the banishment of their leaders and the burning of their books, and denied them the right of testamentary disposition. And divisions occurred within their own ranks, apparently connected with baptismal customs. The Eunomians did not recognize the baptism or ordination even of the Ariana, and substituted single for trine immersion.

The importance of Eunomius may be measured by the number of antagonists he found on the orthodox side, including Apollinaris, Didymus, Andronicianua, Theodore of Mopauestia, Sophro nius, Basil, and Gregory of Nyssa. Of his own works only five are known-besides a Works. lost commentary on the Romans and collection of letters, a small apologetic book (the one controverted by Basil, Apollinaris,

and Didymus), written probably soon after 360; a rejoinder to Basil, written just before the tatter's death; and an " Exposition of the Faith," probably taken from the last-named to some extent, about 383. Epiphanius says that Eunomiua and his followers went more widely astray than Arias; but this is a mistake. Arias was an Anomcean; and the agen-