In place of Efstathuis was Pavlinus, Bishop of Tyre and friend of Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine. But he died after six months. He was succeeded by Eflalius, and his place was vacated in the second and third years.

Saint Lavostathius had many supporters in Antioch and its dioceses. He also had fanatical enemies. His followers refused to submit to the Arian leaders, so they isolated themselves from them under the leadership of the priest Pavlinus and prayed in the old church.

When Euphalia's place became vacant, the dissension in the church increased. Matters became complicated and it became difficult to find a successor who would be acceptable to the people. Constantine intervened and wrote to his friend Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, to take charge of the affairs of the Church of Antioch. Eusebius was a flatterer and pretended to maintain the canon law that forbade the transfer of bishops from one diocese to another and apologized. Constantine accepted his apology. He wrote to the bishops suggesting Father George, the minister of the Church of Rastan, and Euphronius, the minister of the Church of Caesarea in Cappadocia. The former had been excommunicated by Alexander of Alexandria. The latter belonged to the Jesubians, the secret enemies of Nicaea. The bishops elected Euphronius as bishop of Antioch in 333.

Despite the division that had taken place in the Church of Antioch over the issue of Arius and Arianism and the need of the two conflicting parties for civil authority, the bishops of Antioch feared the interference of this authority in the affairs of the Church and were apprehensive and in the same year in which they installed Euphronius as their president they took decisions that would put an end to this interference. The reference here is to the twenty-five Antiochian canons which were formerly considered to be the works of the Antiochian Consecration Council (341). The fourth of these canons forbids any subsequent council from restoring a bishop to his office if this bishop had been previously excommunicated by a previous council and continued to exercise his powers despite this excommunication. The eleventh canon forbids any cleric from bringing his case to the emperor without the consent of the bishops of the diocese and its metropolitanate. The twelfth canon obliges bishops who are under the excommunication of a council not to trouble the emperor by bringing their case to him. If they do so, they commit an unpardonable sin and lose all hope of being restored to their office. Although there is nothing in these decisions that prevents the councils from presenting their affairs to the Emperor, these decisions are rightly considered the first official step towards the independence of the Church in managing its affairs.