EUDOXIUS OF GERMANICIA: Arian bishop of Constantinople, not improperly called the father of the Arianism which in the Arian churches so long outlasted the Arian controversy; b. at Arabissus (the modern Yarpuz, 50 m. n. of Marash), in Cappadocia, c. 300; d. 370. He was the son of a certain Cæsarius who because of his death as a martyr is considered a saint of the Roman Church. During his theological education Eudoxius imbibed the ideas of Lucian the Martyr (q.v.), probably at Antioch; for according to Athanasius (Hist. Arianorum ad monachos, iv., MPG, xxv. 700 , Eng. transl., NPNF, 2 ser., iv. 271) he belonged to the followers of Arius in Antioch whom Bishop Eustathius refused to receive into the clergy between 325 and 330. After the overthrow of Eustathius (330) he became bishop of Germanicia (in Commagene, near the Cappadocian-Cilician-Syrian boundary). He took part in the Synod of Antioch in 341 as a partizan of the Eusebians; he also attended the synod of the Oriental clergy in Sardica in 343. He first became generally known in 344, when, as one of the envoys he brought the Formula macrostichos into the West--a mission for which his polite and obliging manners must have especially recommended him. He was one of the few Orientals who participated in the Synod of Milan in 355. In the following two years he seems to have remained, like Acacius (see ACACIUS of CÆSAREA), at the court or in the company of the court bishops, since he took part in the negotiations at the court in Sirmium in 357 in which the second formula of Sirmium was composed.
About this time Bishop Leontius of Antioch died, and Eudoxius immediately returned to the East and took his place, apparently with the consent of Acacius, Ursacius, and Valens, not later than the beginning of 358. As bishop he accepted at a synod in Antioch the "Formula of Peace" of Sirmium, but soon showed that he intended to explain it in the Arian sense. According to Athanasius (De synodis, xxxviii., MPG, xxvi. 761 ), Aëtius taught Eudoxius the "Arian impiety" about this time, and it is true that the Arianism of Eudoxius in former days was less radical and pronounced, but it is possible that Aëtius influenced him at an earlier time. The extreme Arian tendencies of Eudoxius called forth the opposition of the Homoiousians, and this party gained for a short time the upper hand. Emperor Constantius now disowned Eudoxius; apparently he was exiled and retired to his native country. He returned and took part in the Synod of Seleucia in 359. Later he went to Constantinople, under the protection of Acacius, but only after long negotiations and after his renunciation of the teachings of Aëtius was he able to regain the favor of the emperor. On Jan. 27, 360, he was enthroned as bishop of the capital. It is true, he broke with Eunomius and Aëtius, but the enmity between him and the Homoiousians remained and directed the course of his theology and church polity. In the time of Valens, this tendency regained the ascendency. The Synod of Lampsacus in 364 compelled the emperor to choose between the Homoiousians and the Homans of the last two years of Constantius. Valens declared himself in favor of the Homans, probably not without the influence of Eudoxius.
The most lasting result of the activity of Eudoxius was the Arianism of the Germans; for the Goths did not receive uncompromising Arianism, but that Homan form of it which was sanctioned at the Synod of Constantinople in 360 and became court religion under Valens. To the council of 381 and the orthodox theologians of that time "Arians" and "Eudoxians" were synonymous conceptions. Eudoxius wrote a "Discourse on the Incarnation," which has perished; certain fragments, attributed to him, may point also to other writings.