By the synod convened by Acacius, Cyril was condemned and expelled from Jerusalem. He appealed, with more formality, as it appears, than had been usual in such cases, to "a higher court;" proceeded to Antioch, where he found that the patriarch Leontius was dead, and that no one had been appointed his successor; and ultimately found a welcome at Tarsus, where Silvanus, the bishop, one of the best of the semi-Arians, received him, in disregard of the remonstrances from Acacius. This circumstance brought Cyril, for the next few years, into connection with the semi-Arian party; and he illustrates the fact that it contained men of whom Athanasius could say, in his noble readiness to discern substantial unity under verbal difference, "We do not treat as enemies those who accept everything else that was defined at Nicæa, and scruple only about the word consubstantial; for we do not attack them as raging Arians, nor as men who fight against the fathers, but we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers, who mean what we mean, and differ only about the word."
Considerable excitement had been caused in Antioch in 350 by the ordination of Aetius as deacon, by the patriarch Leontius. This man, the most odious of the extreme Arians, had gone through many changes of life, as a vinedresser's slave, a goldsmith, a medical man, a guest and pupil of Arian bishops, and a professor of that disputatious logic in which the heresy was at first embodied. He was the first to affirm openly that the Son was essentially unlike the Father. Leontius intended his diaconate to be a means of propagating Arianism. But Flavian and Diodorus, the pillars of Catholicism in Antioch, had threatened formally to renounce his communion; and he thought it best to depose Aetius. Now Leontius was dead, and his throne was filled by Eudoxius, the intriguing and thoroughly irreligious bishop of Germanicia. He gained his promotion by fraud, and the aid of court eunuchs; and he openly patronized Aetius, whose views he had imbibed. The state of confusion and discord had become intolerable, and a General Council was resolved upon. Consultations were held as to the best place; and Constantius the emperor lent his ear to the mischievous counsel of Acacius and his party, which recommended the breaking the single council into two, in the hopes of being able thereby to "divide and govern." Constantius agreed, and Ancyra and Ariminum were named as the two places. But Ancyra was afterwards thought unsuitable, and it was decided that one portion of the council should meet at Seleucia instead of Ancyra.
The ultra-Arian Valens was governing in the West. Both councils met in 359. Four hundred bishops of the West, including some from Britain, assembled at Ariminum. About eighty were Arians, for the most part of the advanced school.
The Easterns met at Seleucia, and numbered one hundred and sixty; of these the great majority, one hundred and five, were semi-Arians, and of the rest a party were shifty followers of Acacius. Only one small party of Egyptians were loyal to the faith of Nicæa; nevertheless the council of Seleucia restored S. Cyril to his see, annulled his deposition decreed by Acacius, and deposed Acacius himself, and Eudoxius of Antioch.
In the mean time trickery and violence had been at work at Ariminum. A creed approved by the Arian emperor was sent to the bishops, and they were most falsely assured on imperial authority, that the council of Seleucia had accepted it. The bishops' patience began to give way. They shrank from a winter on the shore of the Adriatic; they were utterly weary of so long a sojourn at Ariminum, and their weariness disposed them to concession. Bishop after bishop signed the imperial creed; but about twenty held out, headed by two Gallicans, Phœbadius and Servatius. Taurus, the emperor's officer, appointed to keep order and enforce his object, tried both menaces and tears. At last, by a miserable sophistry, Valens carried his point, and won for Arianism a scandalous victory, whilst it exposed the untruthfulness which characterized the Arian policy.
Acacius had returned to Constantinople with wrath in his heart, resolved to ruin the semi-Arians and Cyril. He persuaded Constantius to allow a council to be summoned to meet at Constantinople next year, January, 360. About fifty bishops were present. Acacius ruled the assembly; Aetius was made a scape-goat by the Acacians for having too boldly given expression to the error which they sought to propagate insidiously. The council then deposed the leading semi-Arians, but not on doctrinal grounds. Cyril of Jerusalem, and Silvanus of Tarsus were deposed, and with the emperor's power to back their decisions, they were driven into banishment. At the same time the unreality of their censure of Aetius was shown by the enthronement of Eudoxius, who was his chief supporter, at Constantinople, on Jan. 27th. On Feb. 15th he dedicated the restored church of the Eternal Wisdom, for the service of which Constantius offered splendid vessels, curtains, altar-cloths, blazing with gold and jewels. In the midst of the ceremonial, Eudoxius began his sermon with these words, "The Father is irreligious, the Son is religious." A commotion followed; the bishop bade the people calm themselves. "Surely the Father worships none, and the Son worships the Father!" A burst of laughter followed this speech, which became a good jest in the society of the capital. This was the man Acacius and his packed council had set up, when they cast down Cyril. Eudoxius was well fitted to hand on the old traditions of Arian profanity.
The emperor Constantius died, Nov. 3rd, 361, and Julian having recalled the exiled bishops, S. Cyril returned to his see.
The unhappy man who was now lord of the empire had been for some ten years a hypocrite in his Christian profession. No sooner was he proclaimed emperor, than he openly professed himself a restorer of the old religion. Then it was that he "washed off the laver" of baptism by a hideous self-immersion in bull's blood,[65] and sought to cleanse his hands from the touch of the bloodless Sacrifice by holding in them the entrails of victims. He set up an image of Fortune in the great church, and while he was sacrificing there, Maris, bishop of Chalcedon, now a blind old man, was led up to him at his own request, and rebuked his impiety. "Will thy Galilæan God cure thy blindness?" asked Julian. "I thank my God," said Maris, "for the blindness which saves me from seeing the face of an apostate."
The last of Julian's attacks upon Christianity was his attempt to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem. He did indeed wish to aid the Jews in their desire of renewing the Levitical sacrifices, and to secure their attachment to his government in spite of its paganism; but his main object was to confound the Gospel by raising up the fabric which it had expressly doomed, and thus reviving the system of which that fabric had been the symbol and centre.
The rapturous hopes of the Jews were expressed in the scene which followed the imperial mandate, when silver spades and mattocks were employed, and earth was carried away from the excavations in the rich dresses of delicate women. The faith of the Christians was expressed by Cyril's denunciations of the predestined failure. Full of confidence he proclaimed that the enterprise, so far from succeeding, would prove to all men the impossibility of resisting the decree of God. Great must have been his faith, for every appearance was against him. The heathen historian, Ammianus Marcellinus, tells us what ensued. After all possible assistance had been given by the authorities, "fearful balls of fire breaking out near the foundations with repeated attacks, scorched the workmen several times, and rendered the place inaccessible; and in this way, after obstinate repulses by the fiery element, the undertaking was brought to a stand." Various details are added by Christian writers, as of an earthquake, a whirlwind, fire from heaven, a luminous cross in the air, and marks of crosses on the garments of the Jews. It is possible that in these particulars there is an element of exaggeration, and that in the fiery eruption itself, natural agencies were employed. But that those agencies should manifest themselves at that particular crisis will appear accidental, as men speak, to those only who do not estimate the exceeding awfulness of the occasion,—the unparalleled historical position of Julian, the mystery of iniquity in his general policy, and the specially anti-Christian malignity of this attempt at a confutation of Christ's words.