the charge of heresy and presented a very sound confession of his faith.  The Roman legates at Nicaea had also borne witness to the honourable part he had taken in the council.  Thus the Eusebians could not say that Athanasius and Marcellus had been too hastily received at Rome.  Rather their own doings were the cause of all the troubles, for complaints of their violence came in from all parts of the East.  The authors of these outrages were no lovers of peace, but of confusion.  Whatever grievance they might have against Athanasius, they should not have neglected the old custom of writing first to Rome, that a legitimate decision might issue from the apostolic see.  It was time to put an end to these scandals, as they would have to answer for them in the day of judgment.

[Sidenote:  Criticism of it.]

Severe as the letter is, it contrasts well with the disingenuous querulousness of the Eusebians.  Nor is Julius unmindful to press as far as possible the claims of the Roman see.  His one serious mistake was in supporting Marcellus.  No doubt old services at Nicaea counted heavily in the West.  His confession too was innocent enough, being very nearly our so-called Apostles’ Creed, here met for the first time in history.[12] Knowing, however, what his doctrine was, we must admit that the Easterns were right in resenting its deliberate approval at Rome.

[Footnote 12:  It has even been ascribed to Marcellus; but it seems a little older.  Its apostolic origin is of course absurd.  The legend cannot be traced beyond the last quarter of the fourth century.]

[Sidenote:  Council of the dedication at Antioch (341).]

The Eusebians replied in the summer of 341, when ninety bishops met at Antioch to consecrate the Golden Church, begun by Constantine.  The character of the council is an old question of dispute.  Hilary calls it a meeting of saints, and its canons have found their way into the authoritative collections; yet its chief work was to confirm the deposition of Athanasius and to draw up creeds in opposition to the Nicene.  Was it Nicene or Arian?  Probably neither, but conservative.  The Eusebians seem to have imitated Athanasius in pressing a creed (this time an Arianizing one) on unwilling conservatives, but only to have succeeded in making great confusion.  This was a new turn of their policy, and not a hopeful one.  Constantine’s death indeed left them free to try if they could replace the Nicene creed by something else; but the friends of Athanasius could accept no substitute, and even the conservatives could hardly agree to make the Lord’s divinity an open question.  The result was twenty years of busy creed-making, and twenty more of confusion, before it was finally seen that there was no escape from the dilemma which had been decisive at Nicaea.

[Sidenote:  The Lucianic creed (second of Antioch).]