тапо
B 450515
2

་','"་ -,་
1
OF
FROM THE LIBRARY
ROBERT MARK WENLEY
PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY
1896
1922
GIFT OF HIS CHILDREN
TO THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
1978
del els
·
1
RALL
BT
1350
·G98
Сорої

.
ร
STUDIES OF ARIANISM.
Cambridge:
PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SON,
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
STUDIES OF ARIANISM,
CHIEFLY REFERRING TO THE CHARACTER AND CHRONOLOGY
OF THE REACTION WHICH FOLLOWED
THE COUNCIL OF NICEA.
BY
HENRY MELVILL GWATKIN, M.A.
=
LECTURER AND LATE FELLOW OF ST JOHN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.
CAMBRIDGE:
DEIGHTON, BELL, AND CO.
LONDON: GEORGE BELL AND SONS.
ISS2
012-1-38 JA.
TO THE MEMORY OF
MY FATHER,
THE FIRST AND BEST OF MY TEACHERS.
:
!
11.23-39
CONTENTS.
PAGE
CONTENTS
PREFACE
vii
xiii
xxi
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY SKETCH
1-16
The Arian Reaction owed its strength neither to Arian doctrine nor
to court influence
1
Doctrine of the Lord's Person; in its traditional stage and as
based on Scripture. Two elements, and therefore two ele-
mentary errors
4
Too abstract a conception of deity current among (a) later Greeks,
(b) Orientals, and even (c) Jews; confronted by superstition
(de mysteriis), but influences historic Christianity
The Third Century-subordination theories .
CHAPTER II. THE COUNCIL OF NICEA
Arianism an inevitable reaction of heathen thought, not specially
connected with either earlier or later Antiochene school
Arianism as a doctrine
Outbreak of the controversy. Character and policy of Constantine
Meeting of the Council, and hopes gathered round it. Arian creed
9
14
17-51
17
21
29
torn up
35
•
Character and creed of Eusebius of Cæsarea
38
Formation of the Council's creed and objections to it. Conservative
hesitation overcome by inability otherwise to exclude Arianism.
Letter of Eusebius
40
Interference of Constantine and end of the Council. Advantages
and disadvantages of it to the cause of Athanasius .
48
NOTES.
p. 29. Arianism and Supremacy of Alexandria.
"
31. List of early Arians.
32. The Legislation of Constantine.
50. Athanasius on the Council of Nicæa.
viii
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER III. THE LATER YEARS OF CONSTANTINE
Conservatism in East and West. Eastern reaction not Arian but
conservative, supported by (a) heathen, and (b) Jewish in-
fluences, and by (c) the court
Sketch of the Contest to 381
•
PAGE
52-105
52
61
Sequel of the Council. Election and character of Athanasius.
Return and policy of Eusebius of Nicomedia.
Formation of Eusebian party. Exile of Eustathius.
Character and doctrine of Marcellus, and criticism of Eusebius and
Athanasius
6-4
73
75
83
89
The attack on Athanasius. Suspension during the Gothic war.
Councils of Tyre and Jerusalem. Exile of Athanasius to Trier
Wavering of Constantine. Arianizing policy of the emperors
explained by Asiatic influence
NOTES.
p. 54. Julian's generals.
58.
""
""
""
11
66.
68.
The Jewish War in 352.
The Election of Athanasius in 328.
Athanasius and Asceticism.
68. Athanasius as a man of learning.
72. Asterius the Sophist.
73. The Exile of Eustathius.
83. The Gothic War of Constantine.
85. The Council of Tyre.
88. Was Marcellus twice at Rome?
11
A.
The Authority of Rufinus.
B.
The Legend of Antony,
C.
The Index to the Festal Letters.
CHAPTER IV. THE COUNCIL OF SARDICA
106-141
Death of Constantine and division of the Empire. Return of
Athanasius in 337.
106
Character of Constantius. Second exile of Athanasius. Letter of
Julius
109
Council of the Dedication. The Lucianic creed. Alarm in the
West. The Fourth Creed
Councils of Sardica and Philippopolis
114
•
121
•
Scandal of Stephen leads to a reaction. Conciliatory Fifth Creed.
Return of Athanasius in 346.
124
Interval of suspense till 353. Rise of the Anomoans. Illustration
from (a) Cyril's Catecheses, (b) the policy of Leontius at
Antioch.
NOTES.
p. 107. The good faith of Eusebius.
108. Massacre of the House of Theodora.
128
CONTENTS.
p. 112. Expulsion of Athanasius in 339.
115. The Bishops at Antioch in 341.
118. The Creeds of Antioch.
19
120.
122.
,, 126.
""
130.
Date of the Council of Sardica.
The spurious Sardican definition.
Date of the return of Athanasius.
The rebaptism of heretics.
132. Cyril and the Dated Creed.
134. Arian hagiology.
CC.
The Return of Athanasius in 337.
D. The Legislation of Constantius.
ix
PAGE
CHAPTER V. THE HOMEAN VICTORY
142-192
New troubles in the West. Death of Constans. Character and
defeat of Magnentius
142
Eusebian intrigues. Council at Sirmium and appeal of Photinus.
Constantius and the West. Councils of Arles and Milan. Exile
145
of Lucifer, Hilary, Hosius and Liberius .
Third exile of Athanasius in 356. His Apol. ad Ctium. de Fuga
and Hist. År.
147
Remoter consequences of his flight.
151
Break-up of the conservative coalition. Visit of Constantius
to Rome. The Sirmian manifesto.
Alarm in the East. Council of Ancyra.
Reply of Phabadius
Victory and failure of the
156
Semiarians
160
Formation of a new Homoean party. Leaning of Semiarians
to Nicenes
163
Hilary de Synodis .
161
The Dated Creed. Evasion of Valens and minute of Basil and
George
166
Council of Ariminum and Creed of Nicé
170
Council of Seleucia
172
Athanasius de Synodis
175
End of the Council of Ariminum. Fraud of Valens. Council of
Constantinople and deposition of Semiarians.
178
Nature and duration of Homoean Supremacy. Election and exile
of Meletius. Divisions among the Homeans.
181
NOTES.
p. 142. Character of Constans.
>>
145. The appeal of Photinus -
148. Language ascribed to Constantius.
149. Doctrine of Lucifer.
151. Events at Alexandria, 353–356.
153.
163.
"
Athanasius and Constantius.
Persecution in the Nicene age.
172. Isaurian risings.
175. Eudoxius.
X
CONTENTS.
p. 178.
180.
End of the Council of Ariminum.
The Bishops at Constantinople in 360.
E. Date of the Council of Gangra.
F.
The Fall of Liberius.
G. The Bishops at Seleucia.
PAGE
CHAPTER VI. THE REIGN OF JULIAN
193-223
Death of Constantius. Youth and character of Julian. His
apostasy
193
Restoration of heathenism and zeal of Julian. Renegades and
outrages. Education edict strikes at connexion of Christianity
with Hellenic culture. Julian could not lean on the West
Julian's indifference to Christian parties. Recall of the exiles.
Policy of Toleration. Universal hatred of Julian
•
196
201
Return of Athanasius in 362.
Council at Alexandria. Fourth exile
of Athanasius .
201
Advance of Nicene cause, and operations of Homoans and Semi-
arians
207
Julian's Persian War. His heathen pride as an element of the
military position. His death and character.
208
NOTES.
p. 194. Relations of Constantius to Julian.
201. Julian's Christian friends.
H.
The Legislation of Julian.
I. Authorities for Julian's Persecution.
J. The return of Athanasius in 362.
K.
Julian's arrival at Antioch,
CHAPTER VII. THE RESTORED HOMEAN SUPREMACY
224-270
Results of Julian's reign
224
Election and policy of Jovian. Movements of (a) Anomoans and
(b) Acacius
225
Valentinian and Valens. Strife of church and state. Growth of
the ascetic spirit, and its relation to various parties.
Semiarian council of Lampsacus, quashed by Valens. His motives
for a Homean policy. Fresh expulsion of the exiles and
Semiarian embassy to Liberius
227
232
war.
Rising of Procopius. Homan schemes delayed by the Gothic
Peace of 369, and return of Valens to the East
Christianity in Cappadocia. New Nicene party formed of Semiarian
and Homcean malcontents
Basil of Cæsarea. Overawes Valens. His reunion scheme. Its
difficulty, and Basil's own qualifications. Disputes with Anthi-
mus and Eustathius. Recognition of Marcellus by Athanasius,
and extinction of his school
•
237
241
243
CONTENTS.
xi
PAGE
Confusion in Asia. Affairs in 376
The Goths received inside the Empire. War provoked, and battle
of Hadrianople. Its results. Theodosius leans on the Goths
Empire and Church remain, but Arianism disappears
Toleration of Valentinian. Theodosius emperor. End of the
Gothic war
·
Baptism and edicts of Theodosius. Ejection of the Arians.
Council of Constantinople. Semiarians retire. Fall of
247
249
255
257
Arianism in the Empire
259
Teutonic Arianism.
Its weakness
263
Arianism, a failure, doctrinally as well as historically. Badness
of its method
264
•
NOTES.
p. 227. Election of Valentinian.
229. Brigands.
230. Rescript of Valens against the monks.
236. Valentinian's departure from Italy.
239. Exiles of Meletius.
242. Doctrine of Basil.
244.
245.
The new Nicenes.
The Cyzicene formula.
254. Depopulation of the Empire.
259. The Gothic war of Theodosius.
262.
The "Constantinopolitan" creed.
262. The second edict of Theodosius.
M.
The Chronology of the Council of Lampsacus.
N. The story of the eighty Clerics.
0.
Eustathius of Sebastia.
APPENDIX I. The great Officials of the Empire 337-381
271
APPENDIX II. Movements of the Eastern emperors 337-381
291
INDEX
296
G.
Ꮹ .
b
1
PREFACE.
THE present work is not so much a formal history of Arian-
ism as a review of the forces at work in the different stages of
the controversy, traced out with special regard to the sequence
of events and to their connexion with the social characteristics
and political history of the Empire. Thus I have felt at liberty
in most cases to omit detailed accounts of well-known scenes,
and sometimes to leave out subjects of great importance.
Anything indeed pretending to the character of a monograph
would have been quite beyond my power in the fragments of
time which have been at my disposal.
No student is likely to doubt that there is ample room for
such a review. Too many of the current church histories pay
more attention to the lives of individuals than to the deeper
movements of the time, and not unfrequently miss the signifi-
cance even of these by limiting themselves too strictly to
ecclesiastical affairs. Not a few of them also systematically
ignore the discoveries of the last forty years. For example, the
old date for the council of Sardica is still allowed to stultify
history, though it has been untenable since the discovery of the
Festal Letters. The lives of Antony and Hilarion are not yet
recognised to be mere romances and we are still gravely told
that the Nicene creed was formally revised at Constantinople.
Some are not ashamed even to revive the Athanasian author-
ship of the Quicunque. The Benedictines did a noble work in
their generation, but even their oversights are only too faith-
fully copied.
Far be it from us to undervalue the gigantic labours of
b 2
xiv
PREFACE.
Godefroy or Montfaucon, Valesius or Tillemont; but we do
them no honour by slavish copying. What we need is a closer
analysis of our original authorities. What is the exact value for
example of those parts of Socrates or Sozomen which cannot
be traced to Rufinus or Athanasius? What is the relation of
the two historians to each other, and of Theodoret to both, and
what fragments of original matter can be gleaned from the late
Byzantines? It is a mere question of labour to settle these
questions, and it has not been done yet. The little of it which
has fallen to my share mostly concerns Rufinus and the Chro-
nicon Paschale. When once it is completely done, we may hope
to be spared the frequent scandal of seeing the consensus ecclesiæ
resolve itself into some mendacious novel-writer and his tail of
copyists.
Now for my obligations to modern writers'. These are
mostly due to the Germans. The only general history I have
used much is Neander's, though Baur is often suggestive. The
monographs however are numerous and of the highest value.
The chief of them are Zahn's Marcellus, Rode's and Mücke's
Julian, Keim's Constantin, Reinkens' Hilarius, Ullmann's Gre-
gorius, Weingarten's Ursprung des Mönchtums with Keim's
reply and Israël's extension, and especially the laborious works
of Sievers. Doctrine is represented by Dorner, Nitzsch and
Caspari's Quellen, and on Athanasius we have Kölling, and the
complementary works of Voigt and Atzberger. The Roman
Catholic view is given by Möhler and Hefele, and the secular
side of the history by Preuss, Richter, Hertzberg, Pallmann,
von Wietersheim and Kaufmann. Burckhardt's Constantin
and Dahn's Könige der Germanen unfortunately reached my
hands too late to be used. Standard works on antiquities and
literature hardly need mention, such as Marquardt or Kuhn,
Poofd Wattenbach, Ebert or Nicolai, or Herzog's Realencyclo-
or as the new edition is yet published.
glish writers are fewer, and too many of them little better
than copyists or partizans. By far the most suggestive work is
1 Full titles are given on p. xvii.
PREFACE.
XV
Dr Hort's Two Dissertations. Mr Hatch's Organization of the
Early Christian Churches bears more on an earlier period; but
I have learned much from the unrivalled monographs of Bishop
Lightfoot and Mr Rendall on Eusebius of Cæsarea and on
Julian's attack on Christianity, and from the thoughtful articles
of Dr Reynolds and Mr Wordsworth in the Dictionary of
Christian Biography. For chronology we have Clinton's great
Fasti Romani, though a new edition of it is much needed; and
among secular historians, Gibbon is still beyond comparison.
His dislike of Christianity rather limits than distorts his view;
but its outbreaks of Roman Jingoism (if the word may be
allowed) need to be checked at every step by the juster views of
Finlay, Freeman or Professor Seeley. The last original con-
tribution to this part of the subject is Mr Hodgkin's interesting
work on Italy and her Invaders. In case the reader should
notice in the present work coincidences with a review of this
last which appeared in the Church Quarterly, it may be as well
to acknowledge its authorship.
Comparatively little has been done in France since the
Revolution. Of recent writers Broglie is lively enough, but
too much of a special pleader, while Fialon's works are hardly
more than spirited and suggestive sketches. Monographs are
scarce, but we may name Chastel's Destruction du Paganisme
and Couret's Palestine. Montaut's Questions historiques is also
deserving of mention, and the names of some minor works are
given below. Still there are few French students of the Nicene
age who will bear comparison with the best writers of Germany
or England, or with the giant scholars of the Ancien Régime.
My best thanks are due for the sympathy and advice of many
friends, especially Mr Graves and Professors Mayor and Bonney
of St John's College, and Mr W. E. Barnes of St Peter's College;
also for more than one oral hint to Professors Hort and Swainson.
The errors of my predecessors I have usually corrected
in respectful silence, and I trust my own will not be found
unpardonable. I have at least worked over the originals and
endeavoured to make their thoughts my own.
xvi
PREFACE.
I rise from my subject with an ever-deepening sense of its
surpassing grandeur. The Epic of Arianism will task a much
abler hand than mine. But let me claim here a student's
privilege to record my conviction that the old Eastern contro-
versies on the Person of the Lord were not mere word-battles in
their own time. Neither are they obsolete in ours; for they
have a direct bearing on our modern scientific difficulties. In a
few years the theory of evolution may be as firmly established as
that of gravitation. The evidence of genealogy can be applied to
other things beside textual criticism. It has already thrown a
new light on some of the most difficult problems connected with
the history of life, such as those presented by the fauna of New
Zealand or Madagascar; and the method is capable of a vast ex-
tension as materials accumulate. But whatever evolution may
explain, it cannot explain itself. However clearly it may enable
us to trace through past ages the working of a power of life, it
will never tell us what that power is, or how it came upou the
earth. Whatever we may find inside the domain of matter, our
cunning must for ever fail us on the mysterious borderland
where we come face to face with powers of another order. Yet
if our Saviour's resurrection is historic fact, the whole mystery
of the Incarnation must have some true kinship to the laws of
God in nature, and the Person of the Lord must be a solid link
between the world of matter and a world beyond. Now the
definition of Chalcedon was not drawn up by men of science,
but by bishops; neither was it reached by any zoological in-
vestigation, but by the study of Scripture: yet that memorable
formula-ἀληθῶς, τελέως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀσυγχύτως—in which
Hooker sums up the council's work, seems to point to a
universal law which rules at every meeting-point of earth and
heaven, of matter and the spirit world'. Adolphe Monod's
thought will bear extension. The likeness is not merely of the
personal Word of God to his written word. It extends also
to at least the Christian conception of prophecy and miracle,
to the whole problem of grace and freewill, and even to
Swainson Authority of the New Testament 1411
PREFACE.
xvii
this material frame of ours. The unreasoning confusion of
spirit with matter is just as gross a superstition as their
arbitrary separation.
Our first impulse may be to dismiss as fanciful the idea that
there is a true analogy of the Chalcedonian doctrine to the
constitution of nature. Yet the more we ponder it, the more it
seems to challenge explanation. Every disbeliever is at least a
witness that it is no foregone conclusion from fixed laws of
human thought. Little as we know for certain, that little is
full of solemn meaning. It points to much, and may hereafter
be the clue to more. The eyes of sense survey the realm
of matter, the arms of faith stretch outward to the spirit world,
and heavenly light will one day fill the intervening gulf of death.
That light is even now the light of men; and whenever the
scales of sin fall from our darkened eyes, we shall recognize in
it the brightness of immortal Love, the effulgence of his glory
who liveth and was dead, and is alive for evermore, and hath the
keys of death and Hades.
כִּי עַמְךְ מְקוֹר חַיִּים בְּאוֹרְךָ נִרְאֶה אוֹר :
Easter, 1882.
1. Görres, Fr. Kritische Untersuchungen über die Licinianische
Christenverfolgung. Jena 1875.
Klose, C. R. W. Geschichte und Lehre des Eunomius. Kiel
1833.
Israël, W. De Vita Hilarionis in Zeitschrift für wiss. Theologie
for 1880, pp. 129—165.
Keim, Dr Theodor. Der Uebertritt Constantins des Grossen zum
Christenthum. Zürich 1862.
Aus dem Urchristenthum (VII. Ursprung des
Mönchwesens). Zürich 1878.
Lasaulx, E. von. Der Untergang des Hellenismus und die
xviii
PREFACE.
Einziehung der Tempelgüter durch die christlichen Kaiser. München
1854.
Lucius, P. E. Die Therapeuten. Strassburg 1880.
Mücke, J. F. A. Flavius Claudius Julianus, nach den Quellen.
2 Thle. Gotha 1867-9.
Neander, A. Ueber den Kaiser Julianus und sein Zeitalter.
Zweite Aufl. Gotha 1867.
Reinkens, J. H. Hilarius von Poitiers. Schaffhausen 1864.
Rode, Fr. Geschichte der Reaction Kaiser Julians gegen die
christliche Kirche. Jena 1877.
Sievers, G. Das Leben des Libanius. Berlin 1868.
for 1868.
1870.
Historia Acephala in Zeitschr. für die Hist. Theologie
Studien zur Geschichte der Römischen Kaiser. Berlin
Ullmann, C. Gregorius von Nazianz der Theologe. Zweite Aufl.
Gotha 1867.
Weingarten, H. Der Ursprung des Mönchtums im nachconstan-
tinischen Zeitalter. Gotha 1877.
Weiss, H. Die grossen Kappadocier Basilius Gregor von Nazianz
und Gregor von Nyssa als Exegeten. Braunsberg 1872.
Zahn, Dr Theodor. Marcellus von Ancyra. Gotha 1867 (super-
sedes older works like Willenborg's; to some extent even Dorner's
section on Marcellus).
Hannover 1876.
Constantin der Grosse und die Kirche.
2. Caspari, C. P. Ungedruckte, unbeachtete und wenig beachtete
Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols und der Glaubensregel. 3
Bde. Christiania. I. 1866, 11. 1869, 1. 1875.
Alte und Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des Tauf-
symbols und der Glaubensregel. Christiania 1879.
Dorner, J. A.
the Person of Christ.
Edinburgh 1865-68.
History of the development of the Doctrine of
transl. W. L. Alexander and others. 5 vols.
Nitzsch, Fr. Grundriss der Christlichen Dogmengeschichte. Thl. 1.
Berlin 1870.
Atzberger, L. Die Logoslehre des hl. Athanasius. München 1880.
Kölling, W. Geschichte der Arianischen Häresie bis zur Entschei-
dung von Nikäa 325. Gütersloh 1874.
Voigt, H. Die Lehre des Athanasius von Alexandrien. Bremen
1861.
PREFACE.
xix
3. Hefele, C. J. History of the Christian Councils, Vol. 1. to
325 transl. W. R. Clark. Edinburgh 1871. Vol. II. 325-429
transl. H. N. Oxenham. Edinburgh 1876.
Zeit.
Möhler, J. A.
Athanasius der Grosse, und die Kirche seiner
Zweite Aufl. Mainz 1844.
4. Döllinger, J. J. I. Heidenthum und Judenthum Vorhalle zur
Geschichte des Christenthums. Regensburg 1857.
Hertzberg, G. F. Griechenland unter den Römern. Halle 1866
-75.
Geschichte Griechenlands seit dem Absterben des
antiken Lebens bis zur Gegenwart. Thl. 1. Gotha 1876.
Langen, Jos. Johannes von Damaskus. Gotha 1879 (for the
romance of Artemius).
Kaufmann, G. Der Gothenkrieg in Forschungen z. Deutschen Gesch.
XII. 414-438.
Leipzig 1880.
Deutsche Geschichte bis auf Karl den Grossen.
Pallmann, Dr R. Geschichte der Völkerwanderung von der Gothen-
bekehrung bis zum Tode Alarichs. Gotha 1863
Preuss, Th. Kaiser Diocletian und seine Zeit. Leipzig 1869.
Richter, Dr H. Das Weströmische Reich, besonders 375-388.
Berlin 1865.
Wietersheim, E. von. Geschichte der Völkerwanderung. 4 Bde.
Leipzig 1859-64.
ditto Zweite Aufl., besorgt von Felix
Dahn. Leipzig Bd. 1. 1880. Bd. 11. 1881. (Quoted as "Wietersheim-
Dahn.")
5. English books hardly need enumeration, but good work of
varying merit will also be found in Arnold's Roman Provincial
Administration, Bright's Athanasius in Diet. Chr. Biography, His-
torical Treatises of Athanasius and Canons of the First Four General
Councils, Chawner's Legislation of Constantine, Kaye's Council of
Nicæa, Mason's Persecution of Diocletian, Stanley's Eastern Church,
Swainson's Nicene and Apostles' Creeds, and Swete's Doctrine of the
Holy Spirit.
The above will all be found more or less useful to the student.
Of Newman's Arians of the Fourth Century let it suffice to say that
his theories have always been scrupulously examined; so that if they
have not often been accepted, it is only because there is usually good
reason for rejecting them.
XX
PREFACE.
6.
Broglie, Albert de.
siècle. Paris (1856) 1867-8.
L'église et l'empire romain au IVe
Chastel, E. Histoire de la destruction du Paganisme dans
l'Empire d'Orient. Paris 1850.
Couret, A. La Palestine sous les empereurs grecs 326-636.
Grenoble 1869.
Fialon, Eug.
Montaut, L.
Saint Athanase. Paris 1877.
Saint Basile. Second Edition. Paris 1869.
Revue critique de quelques questions historiques se
rapportant à Saint Grégoire de Nazianze et à son siècle. Paris 1878.
Duculot, M. l'abbé. De la Restauration Néoplatonicienne du
Polythéisme sous l'empereur Julien. Louvain 1848.
Revillout, C. J. De l'Arianisme des Peuples Germaniques. Paris
1850.
7. The editions I have used are as follows. For Ammianus,
Gardthausen with Wagner's notes; for Julian, Hertlein and
Neumann with Spanheim's notes; for Eunapius, Wyttenbach; for
Libanius, Wolf and Reiske; for the de mysteriis, Parthey; for
Mamertinus, Arntzen and Jäger; for Themistius, Harduin and after-
wards Dindorf; for Suidas, Bernhardy: also the Byzantine Corpus for
Zosimus and all other writers contained in it, Zonaras excepted.
For the Codex Theodosianus, Godefroy's notes and Haenel's text, with
his Corpus Legum.
The Fathers I have mostly used in Migne's Patrologia. The chief
exceptions are Heinichen and Gaisford for Eusebius, Hussey for
Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret, with Godefroy's notes on Philo-
storgius; Dindorf's Epiphanius, Garnier's Basil (Gaume), and
Schulze's Theodoret.
All the works referred to are quoted from the originals, excepting
(a) a few German works best known in England by translations,
(b) the Syriac Festal Letters of Athanasius from the translations of
Larsow and Burgess, and (c) the Armenian Moses of Chorene from
an Italian translation (Venice 1850).
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.
THE following are the dates adopted. References are given in a
few cases, but only those marked N are specially discussed in the
course of the work.
Defeat of the Goths by Claudius at
Naissus.
Capture of Alexandria by Diocletian.
Outbreak of the Great Persecution.
269
297
cir.
297 N
Birth of Athanasius (p. 67).
Feb. 23
303
May 1
305
July 25
306
Apr. 30
311
Oct. 26
312
Late in
312
Apr. 30
313
Oct. 8
314
Abdication of Diocletian and Maximian.
Constantine emperor in Britain.
First Edict of Toleration issued by
Galerius.
Defeat of Maxentius at Saxa Rubra.
Second Edict of Toleration issued from
Milan (Mason, Persecution of Diocle-
tian 327 n).
Defeat of Maximin at Heraclea.
Defeat of Licinius at Cibalæ. War not
necessarily finished same year, though
Licinius was consul in 315.
Athanasius contra Gentes and de Incarna-
tione Verbi Dei.
Licinian Persecution (Görres Christenver-
folgung 5-29).
cir.
318
Not before
319
cir.
321
Arius excommunicated.
June 27
or
323
Battle of Hadrianople against Licinius.
July 3
Sept. 18
Final defeat of Licinius at Chrysopolis.
xxii
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.
June 16
325
July 25
Summer
326
Apr. 17
cir.
Nov. 6
331
Council of Nicæa. Constantine arrives
after anniversary of victory at Hadrian-
ople.
Vicennalia of Constantine (festival perhaps
held later).
Constantine at Rome. Executions of
Crispus and Fausta.
328 N Death of Alexander at Alexandria, and
(June 8) Election of Athanasius (p. 66).
Council at Antioch. Deposition of Eu-
stathius.
330
Spring
332
Apr. 20
N
334
335
Aug.
Sept.
Oct. 30
Feb. 5
Birth of Julian (Rendall Julian 285—
the day is given by an inaccurate old
calendar in Migne Patrol. xiii. 686, but
cannot be far wrong).
Death of Basilina.
Defeat of the Goths (p. 83).
Council at Cæsarea.
Legendary letter of Constantine to
Antony.
Tricennalia of Constantine.
Council at
Tyre (Athanasius left Alexandria July
11, and the Egyptian bishops date their
protest Sept. 6).
Council at Jerusalem. Niceph. Call.
viii. 30 gives Sept. 17 for the consecra-
tion of the Church ou Golgotha.
Athanasius reaches Constantinople, and
receives a formal audience Nov. 7.
336 N Council at Constantinople. Athanasius
exiled to Trier (p. 136). Death of
Arius a little later.
May 22
337
Nov. 23
Death of Constantine, followed by mas-
sacre of the house of Theodora, and
proclamation of three Augusti Sept. 9.
Qutbreak of the Persian war, followed by
first siege of Nisibis.
N Return of Athanasius to Alexandria
(p. 136).
338 N Eusebius Vita Constantini (p. 107).
July or Aug.
Meeting of the emperors in Pannonia.
Winter
Lent
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.
xxiii
Council at Antioch deposing Athanasius.
Death of Eusebius of Cæsarea about this
time.
339 N Athanasius expelled by Philagrius (p.
104).
340
Autumn
Summer
341
Oct. or Nov.
Death of Constantine II. after Apr. 9
(C. Th. x. 15, 3).
Council at Rome.
Letter of Julius ad
Danium Flacillum, &c.
Council of the Dedication (ή ἐν τοῖς ἐγκαι
víos) at Antioch, held between May 22
and Sept. 31.
342 N Council of Gangra not later than this
year (p. 185).
Death of Eusebius of Nicomedia (Con-
stantinople).
343 N Councils of Sardica and Philippopolis
(p. 120).
344
Summer
Summer
June 26
Spring
345 N
346
Oct. 21
348
314-350
Jan. 18
350
Dec. 25
Mar. 15
Sept. 28
Winter
351
352
Council at Antioch to depose Stephen.
Issue of the μακρόστιχος.
Death of Gregory of Alexandria (p. 105).
Second siege of Nisibis (for three months,
ending before the eclipse of June 6).
N Return of Athanasius to Alexandria
(p. 105).
Great defeat of Constantius at Singara.
Cyril's Catecheses.
Julian at Macellum (Rendall Julian
p. 286).
Rising of Magnentius. Death of Con-
stans. Risings of Vetranio (Mar. 1)
and Nepotianus (June 3).
Third siege of Nisibis.
Deposition of Vetranio.
Elevation of Gallus.
Battle of Mursa.
N Council at Sirmium against Photinus
(p. 145).
Jewish revolt.
Athanasius de Decretis (between 346
and 355).
xxiv
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.
Aug. 13
353
Death of Magnentius.
Oct. (or later)
354
Winter
355
Spring
Nov. 6
Feb. 8
Spring
356
Apr. 28-May 29 357
August ?
August
Lent
358
Summer
Aug. 2
24
Council at Arles.
Constantius on the Rhine-winters at
Milan.
Execution of Gallus.
Revolt of Silvanus.
Julian at Athens.
N Appeal of Photinus (p. 145).
Exile of Hosius and Liberius.
Julian made Cæsar: leaves Milan Dec. 1.
Council at Milan.
Legendary date of Antony's death.
N Athanasius expelled by Syrianus (p. 152).
Council at Biterræ. Hilary exiled.
Julian's unsuccessful campaign in Gaul.
Athanasius Encycl. (between Feb. 8, 356
and George's arrival, Feb. 24, 357').
Constantius at Rome.
N
Oct. 2
Late
N
May 22
27
359
cir. July 27-Oct. 6
Sept. 27-30
Oct.
Dec.?
Dec. 31
Sirmian manifesto issued (p. 157).
Julian's victory at Argentoratum.
Athanasius Apol. ad Ctium (between
Feb. 24, 357 and Oct. 2, 358) and
de Fuga later (p. 153).
Council at Ancyra.
Athanasius Hist. Arianorum ad Monachos
before Oct. 2'.
Renewal of the Persian War.
Return of Liberius to Rome.
Earthquake at Nicomedia.
Bishop George driven from Alexandria.
Hilary de Synodis (p. 164).
Conference at Sirmium. The dated creed.
Council of Ariminum meets, and (July 21)
deposes Ursacius, Valens &c.
Siege and capture of Amida by Sapor.
Council of Seleucia.
Council at Nicé in Thrace.
Athanasius de Synodis.
Acceptance of the Creed of Nicć.
1 Sievers Einl. p. 24.
Jan.
before Feb. 15
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.
360
Jan. 6
361
Early
Nov. 3
Dec. 24
Feb. 22
before Aug. 27.
Oct. 22
N
362)
XXV
Julian proclaimed Augustus at Paris.
Council at Constantinople. Semiarian
leaders deposed. Homcean supremacy.
Capture of Singara and Bezabde by Sapor.
Julian at Vienne.
Elevation and exile of Meletius. Euzoius
bishop of Antioch,
Death of Constantius. Julian enters.
Constantinople Dec. 11.
Murder of George,
Return of Athanasius, ) (p. 220).
Council at Alexandria-Athanasius ad
Antiochenos.
Temple at Daphne burnt.
July 362—Mar. 5 363 N Julian at Antioch (p. 222).
June 20
July 12
after Sept.
Feb. 16
364
Autumn
Spring
Sept. 28
Winter?
Feb. 1
Death of Julian. Election of Jovian next
morning.
Feace with Persia (Ammianus xxv. 6—7
Kalendis Juliis......tritum est quadri-
duum......exacto miserabiliter biduo...
...dies quattuor sunt evoluti).
Council at Antioch.
Death of Jovian. Valentinian elected
Feb. 26. Valens associated as Augustus
March 29.
N Council of Lampsacus (p. 267).
365 N Valens at Antioch (p. 267). Exiles
expelled again. Vexation of Massa-
lians by Lupicinus the magister militum.
N Procopius enters Constantinople (p. 268).
N Letter of Semiarians to Liberius (p. 236).
366 N Final restoration of Athanasius by the
notary Brasidas. Return of other exiles
(p. 238).
May 21
367-369
Spring
367
cir.
369
Summer
370
371
Jan. G
372
Procopius defeated at Nacolia.
The Gothic War. Valens on the Danube.
Council at Tyana.
Athanasius ad Afros.
Basil bishop of Cæsarea.
Death of Marcellus.
Meeting of Basil with Valens, who reaches
xxvi
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.
Antioch in April. Third exile of Mele-
tius (p. 243).
Basil Ep. 92, to the Westerns.
373 N Rescript of Valens against the monks
Jan. 1
May 2
374
Summer
(p. 230).
Death of Athanasius.
Epiphanius Ancoratus.
Ambrose bishop of Milan.
Exile of Eusebius of Samosata.
375 N Eustathius of Sebastia signs at Cyzicus
(p. 245).
Death of Valentinian.
Death of Euzoius.
Reception of the Goths inside the Danube.
Indecisive battle ad Radices.
Nov. 17
376
377
Aug. 9
378
Battle of Hadrianople. Death of Valens.
Jan. 1
379
380
Jan.
381
May
Oct.
382
383
Death of Basil. Elevation of Theodosius
Jan. 19.
Baptism of Theodosius.
Reception and death of Athanaric.
Council of Constantinople.
Council at Aquileia against Palladius and
Secundianus.
Pacification of the Goths by Saturninus.
Last overtures of Theodosius to the
Arians.
.
ERRATA.
p. 23 1. 9, for declaration read declarations.
p. 143 1. 3 of Note, for his guide and read and his guide.
p. 224 1. 2, for clears us read clears up.
p. 252 1. 7 of Note¹, for 400 read 410.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY SKETCH.
ECCLESIASTICAL history is the spiritual counterpart of secular,
running in the same channel all along its course, pervading it
and permeated by it with the subtlest and most various in-
fluences. The worshippers of material progress may ignore the
one, the ascetics of historic study may despise the other, but the
two form one organic and indissoluble whole. History is one.
in breadth as well as length, claiming for a single record every
aspect of human welfare as well as every age of man's existence
on the earth. And if we look to their deeper relations, the
movements of ecclesiastical bistory are of much the same sort as
those of secular, due to similar causes and often fairly coincident
even in date. The wranglings of theologians no more make up
the one than the intrigues of politicians constitute the other.
In both we see periods of splendour and of deep corruption, of
heroic effort and of selfish quarrelling, of creative energy and
of ignoble stagnation. In both we find trains of obscure causes
silently transforming the face of history, or bursting out in
earthquake shocks which seem to break its continuity. These
sudden revolutions are the problems of history, and it is in their
study that we can best trace the forces which in times of quiet
are working underneath.
Such a problem, and one of the most striking in the whole
course of ecclesiastical history, is the reaction which followed
the Council of Nicaea. Arianism had started with a vigour.
promising a great career, and in a few years seemed no unequal.
claimant for the supremacy of the East. But its strength •
collapsed the moment the Council met, withered up by the.
universal reprobation of the Christian world. The fathers at.
G.
1
19
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
• Nicæa condemned it all but unanimously, and their subscription
• held them to their decision. The very creed of Christendom
• was amended in order to exclude the heresy for ever, and its
few faithful defenders were sent into exile as the penalty of
stubborn misbelief. Arianism seemed hopelessly crushed when
. the Council closed.
Yet it instantly renewed the contest, and fought with
orthodoxy on equal terms for nothing less than the dominion
of the world. It was a hard-fought struggle-more than half a
century of ups and downs and stormy controversy-but Arianism
for a long time had the best of it. Even when extinguished
by Theodosius (379–395) as a political power inside the Empire,
it was able to fall back upon its converts among the northern
nations. Its future was far from hopeless till the fall of the
Gothic power in Aquitaine (507) and Italy (553), and the
long contest was ended only by the conversion of the Visigoths
and Lombards at the end of the sixth century.
This is the history as it appears on the surface. But why
was not Arianism crushed at once by its overwhelming defeat at
Nicaea? Where did it find strength for a battle of giants like
this? Where were the elements of moral power which so long
sustained it? These are the questions which force themselves.
upon us; and no true student will be content to pass them by.
Its extent and duration are enough to shew that it was no
mere outbreak of unmeaning wickedness. There must have
been historic causes for its victories, historic causes also for
its decline and fall.
Few will look to Arian doctrine as a source of Arian
strength. Some attractions it certainly had. It seemed simpler
than orthodoxy, and was more symmetrical than Semiarianism,
more human than Sabellianism, while to the heathen it was
very Christian-sounding. But as a system, Arianism was
utterly illogical and unspiritual, a clear step back to heathen-
ism, and a plain anachronism even for its own time. It began
by attempting to establish Christian positions, and ended by
subverting each and all of them. It maintained the unity
of God by opening the door to polytheism. It upheld the
Lord's divinity by making the Son of God a creature, and

1
I.
1.]
ARIANISM NOT A MERE INTRIGUE.
1
3

then worshipped him to escape the reproach of heathenism.
It lost even his true humanity in a phantastic theory of the
Incarnation which refused the Son of Man a human soul.
Above all, no true revelation of love could come from a God
of abstract infinitude and mystery, condemned to stand aloof
for ever from the world lest it perish at his touch; no true
atonement from a created mediator, neither truly God nor truly
man; no true sanctification from a subject Spirit far beneath
the dignity even of the first of creatures. In a word, there
could be no intrinsic strength in a system which covered the
whole field of Christian doctrine with the ruins of its pre-
tentious failures.
Some again will answer that Arianism ceased to be a
religious belief when its defenders signed a creed at the bid-
ding of a heathen emperor, and that it was henceforth nothing
better than a court faction dependent on back-stairs intrigues,
so that we shall waste our time if we condescend to enquire
whether its leaders had any definite belief at all. On this
theory the Arian reaction was nothing more than as it were an
accident of history, an outbreak of imperial wickedness and
tyranny against an orthodox and unoffending church.
There is an element of truth in this, for all authorities are
agreed that Arian successes began and ended with Arian
=eb
в
command of the palace. We might disregard the complaints Humnach
of firebrand zealots like Lucifer of Calaris; but Athanasius
puts the matter quite as plainly in the writings of his exile,
and even Hilary's calmer spirit breaks out a little later in
language scarcely falling short of Lucifer's unmeasured violence.
It is clear that Arianism worked throughout by court intrigue
and military outrage, and that the Semiarian leaders were
all infected with the stain of persecution. In the West
indeed Arianism scarcely had any legitimate footing at all.
The Council of Milan might be overawed with soldiers, that
of Ariminum worn out by delays and cajolery; but the victory
1 So Eustathius of Antioch (Migne
Patrol. xviii. 694). Homini vero hæc
applicanda sunt proprie, qui ex anima
constat et corpore; congruit enim ex
ipsis humanis et innoxiis motibus
demonstrare, quia non phantastice et
putative, sed ipsa veritate totum homi-
nem indutus est Deus perfecte assu-
meus.
1–2
4
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
was ephemeral, and the conquerors remained isolated in a crowd
of hostile bishops.
It is a coarse view of history which can see nothing in it but
the flash of swords. We are told in effect that the Empire was
a despotism, which we knew before; and that the initiative had
to come from the court, which was also clear. But this is all.
We get no account of the forces on which the reaction must
have depended-for even a despot must have a party of some
sort behind him. Nor is it any credit to the Nicene church, or
even bare historic justice, to represent it in this manner as a
crowd of timeservers and emperor-worshippers. The long re-
sistance, for example, of the Semiarians at Seleucia is in striking
contrast to the abject servility of the Eastern bishops in the age
of Justinian or the Iconoclast emperors. If Constantius carried
his point, it was only by deceiving the deputies of the council,
not by overcoming the council itself. The long struggle shews
that the recalcitrant bishops at least had a belief of their own,
independent of the emperor's. Nor are there wanting in the
reaction evidently respectable elements to shew that if it was a
court intrigue, it was also something more. It was not with a
mere synagogue of Satan that men like Cyril of Jerusalem,
Dianius of Caesarea, and Meletins of Antioch so long took part.
Nor is it to a conspiracy of atheists and blasphemers that we owe
almost all the mission work of Christendom in that age of deep
despair when the Empire seemed dragging the whole order of
nature after it to ruin.
This may suffice for the present to shew that the Arian
reaction was more than a mere court intrigue, and needs a
closer analysis of its constituent elements. We must therefore
take up the neglected data, examining the initial relation of
★ Arianism to contemporary thought and education, heathen as
* well as Christian, the actual state of parties in the Nicene Council,
and their mutual reactions as far as the Council of Constantinople.
Our first task is to form a clear conception of the develop-
ment of the doctrine of the Person of Christ at the appearance
▲of Arius-to find out what principles had been already laid down
and how far they were generally accepted; what problems came
next for solution, how far they were already answered, and
1.]
EARLY HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE.
сл
what difficulties stood in the way of further progress. A mere
sketch of results may suffice for the earlier period¹.
In the first place then Christianity inherited from Judaism,
together with the scriptures of the Old Testament, their funda-
mental principle of the unity of God and the distinction of the
divinity from the world, in clear opposition to every Hellenic
confusion of it with the world, whether as pervading the whole
or as distributed among its parts. It was yet to be seen whether
it was possible to rest in earlier views of the divine essence as
lying in abstract infinitude or isolation from the world; but so
far as regards its mere unity and distinction from the world, the
declarations of the Gospel were as emphatic as those of Judaism.
But side by side with the unity of God, Christianity held as
a second fundamental doctrine of its own the historic fact of the
coming of the Lord, the Incarnation and the Resurrection, with all
their momentous consequences. It was not orthodoxy alone •
which felt from the first that the Person of the Lord must have
a universal and eternal meaning, stretching over history
and reaching back to the inmost sphere of the divine.
Ebionism shews us the old Jewish spirit struggling with this
conviction, and Gnosticism itself in all its varied forms is little
more than Oriental thought modified and often mastered by it.
And in the third century, when Christianity had lived down
early scandal, even heathenism became dimly conscious of the
secret of its strength, and would willingly have enrolled the
Crucified in its strange Pantheon of the benefactors of mankind,
along with Orpheus and Moses, Socrates and Abraham. Far •
more did the Christian church feel that the fulness of the Lord•
is more than human fulness, that the life which flows from him.
is more than human life, that the atonement through him is.
with the Supreme himself, that the Person of the Lord is the.
infinite and final revelation of the Father. Thus the Lord's.
divinity was from the first as fixed an axiom of Christianity as▾
the unity of God, while his humanity was plainly declared •
by the original apostolic testimony, and both together were
necessary to give reality to the Incarnation. It remained to
1 Fuller accounts are given in the
histories of doctrine; esp. Dorner,
Nitzsch, and Voigt and Atzberger for
the doctrines of Athanasius,
6
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL IIISTORY.
reconcile this view of the Lord's Person with the first funda-
mental principle of the unity of God.
The earliest Christian writers were hardly conscious of the
problem before them. Their greatness was in life rather than
in thought, and their works are one long hymn of overflowing
thankfulness for the gift of life in Christ. Their task was rather
to repeat the apostolic testimony than to discuss it, to urge
historic facts rather than to deduce their dogmatic consequences.
Hence it is on the Lord's divinity that they lay special stress, as
the obvious distinction of Christian from Judaic and philosophic
belief alike. But they merely insist upon it as a historic fact, and
their utmost endeavour is to prove its correspondence with the
prophecies and types of the Old Testament. They scarcely seem
to see the difficulty of reconciling divinity with suffering-for
this rather than the Resurrection was the stumblingblock of
their time. "If he suffered," said the Ebionites, "he was
• not divine." "If he was divine," answered the Docetists,
"his sufferings were unreal." The subapostolic Fathers were
content to reply that he was divine and that he truly suffered,
without attempting to explain the difficulty. Thus the church
had yet to pass from the traditional assertion of the Lord's full
deity to its deliberate enunciation in clear consciousness of the
difficulties involved in it.
But a firmer base was wanted for research. The Old Testament
needed the teaching of the Lord for its own interpretation, and
even the apostolic tradition became more and more dependent
on the evidence of documents. As soon as Christianity had
Scriptures of its own, Christian research could work upon them,
and soon essayed the central problem of the Person of the Lord.
Even the second century was a period of greater literary activity
than its scanty relics would seem to shew. The last collector of
the Lord's discourses from the lips of his disciples was also the
first orthodox commentator on the Gospels. Apologists started
up in all directions to defend the truth of Christianity or to
reduce it to a philosophic form. Quadratus, Aristides, Justin,
Tatian, Theophilus and Athenagoras all belong to this
period. Christian antiquities called forth the work of Hege-
sippus, Christian controversies those of Agrippa Castor, Melito,
1.]
THE SECOND CENTURY.
t-
Miltiades, Claudius Apollinarius and Dionysius of Corinth; and
even fiction has its representatives in the Shepherd of Hermas,
the Clementine writings, and a host of spurious gospels. Scrip-
ture also was studied then as well as now, as we see from the
commentary of Papias, the diatessaron of Tatian, and the
Muratorian fragment on the Canon. Even the heretics, though
their voluminous writings have mostly perished, contributed the
labours of Marcion and others¹ to its criticism, those of Basilides,
Ptolemæus and Heracleon to its interpretation. And if much
of his literature is unsatisfactory, and scarcely any of it reaches
the highest excellence, it marks at any rate a period of busy
study.
When once investigation reached the doctrine of the Lord's.
Person, its difficulties became apparent. It also became evident.
that the method of the subapostolic Fathers was inadequate.
As heresy was dislodged from its broad denials of the historic▪
facts of the revelation, so it drove orthodoxy from its bare.
assertions of them. The appeal to the "rule of faith" or
historical tradition, which could only urge the reality of the
facts, was useless now that the question was of their interpre-
tation. There was nothing left but to fall back more and
more upon the grammatical meaning of the documents which
embodied it, and trust to the abiding presence of the Holy
Spirit by whose providence they were first written. And this
2
1 Anon. ap. Eus. H. E. v. 28.
>>
Early references to the "rule of
faith' are collected by Swainson
Nicene and Apostles' Creeds pp. 26-47.
It is important to notice their histori-
cal character and cautious adherence
to the bare facts without any attempt
to build dogmatic schemes upon them.
Clement of Alexandria may serve
as an example. He speaks much like
Irenæus of a napádoσis Strom. i. § 11,
p. 322, or of a true yvŵois Strom. vi.
$ 68, p. 774, committed by the Lord to
his disciples, and by them delivered in
due course to the γνωστικοί (not neces-
sarily the bishops) of later times. He
also appeals under variant names to a
κανὼν ἐκκλησιαστικός, through neglect
of which the Gnostic errors had arisen.
But this he defines Strom. vi. § 125,
p. 803, to be "the agreement of the
Law and the Prophets with the cove-
nant given during the Lord's presence
on earth"; or, in other words, the
traditional principle of the continuity
of Scripture. Instead of being an in-
dependent source of doctrine, the karar
ἐκκλησιαστικός is nothing more than
the confession that each part of Scrip-
ture is an authoritative commentary
on the other. Thus when Clement
draws upon tradition, it is only for
allegorical embellishments of the Old
Testament, of which a large store had
by this time been accumulated in the
church. Yet he can scarcely mean to
say that the whole of his mystical
explanation of the decalogue was
received from tradition. On these sub-
jects see Kaye Clement pp. 362—396;
Westcott in Diet. of Chr. Biogr. Art.
Clement of Alexandria.
8
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
is the course taken by all the great leaders of the Eastern
Church from Irenæus' and the Alexandrine School to Athanasius.
and Cyril. As each fresh theory came forward, it was tested'
by a new appeal to the living voice of Scripture; and according.
to the result of that appeal it was either accepted like Origen's
theory of the eternal generation, or rejected like the schemes of
Arius or Sabellius. Conservative ignorance or indolence might
prefer the easier reference to tradition, but only decaying churches
endeavour to return to the childish things which Christianity has
put away.
From this time forward the combatants appear distinctly.
We find two great tendencies, each rooted deep in human nature,
each working inside and outside the church, and each traversing
the whole field of Christian doctrine. And the battle has
lasted from that day to this, beginning with five hundred years
of controversy over the Person of the Lord (say till 717), and
gradually working over every aspect of his teaching.
The first tendency was distinctly rationalist. Its crude form
of Ebionism had denied the Lord's divinity outright. And now
that this was accepted, it was viewed as a mere influence or
power, or in any case as not divine in the highest sense. Thus
the reality of the Incarnation was sacrificed, and the result was
a clear reaction to the demigods of polytheism.
X The other tendency, already roughly shadowed out in the
docetic evasion of the Lord's humanity, was mystic in its
character. Accepting the full deity that was in Christ, it
reduced it to a mere appearance or modification of the One.
Thus the reality of the Incarnation was undermined on the
other side, and the result was a clear step back to pantheism.
The first of these tendencies endangered the Lord's divinity,
the second his distinction from the Father; and the difficulty
was to find some means of asserting both. In the fourth century
it became clear that the problem required a distinction to be
made inside the divine unity: and as the Lord's Baptismal
Formula (Matt. xxviii. 19) associated the Holy Spirit as well
as the Son with the Father, it followed that the God of
Eastern by birth, education, and residence till a mature age.
I.
]
CONTINUITY OF REVELATION.
9
Christianity is not personal only but tripersonal. Arianism
laid down a merely external, Sabellianism a merely economic
Trinity; but neither the one nor the other satisfied the con-
ditions of the problem. It therefore became necessary to fall
back on Scripture to revise the idea of a divine personality,
and acknowledge, not three individuals but three eternal aspects
(ÚπOσтáσeis) of the divine, facing inward on each other as well
as outward on the world ¹.
1
At this point a difficulty was felt, arising from the con-
tinuity of revelation with history and nature. The Lord had
not descended suddenly from heaven as Marcion imagined,
without historic preparation for his coming; neither was Chris-
tianity a magic power independent of the laws of God in nature,
but a heavenly one working subject to them in the world. The
Lord came, as he said, to complete and not to overthrow, to
consecrate and not to revolutionize. The disciple was the child
of earth as well as heaven, for the Lord accepted him in his
ignorance, and left his speculative errors to be dealt with by the
moral power implied in a historic revelation². Even on such a
subject as the nature of the divinity, he was not required to give
up his earlier beliefs except so far as he found them inconsistent
with the teaching of the Lord. Yet, from whatever quarter he
approached the Gospel, he brought with him conceptions
fundamentally at variance with it. So far as the earlier systems
distinguished God at all from the world, they placed his essence
in abstract simplicity-a view consistent with either an Arian
Trinity of one increate and two created beings, or a Sabellian
Trinity of temporal aspects (pоowπа) of the One, but not
with a Trinity of eternal distinctions (ToσTáσes) inside the
divine nature.
This needs closer examination, for the earlier conception
underlay not only Arianism and Sabellianism, but also much
orthodox thought; and its expulsion from the doctrine of the
Trinity is one of our deepest interests in the Arian controversy.
The old Hellenic polytheism was undermined by the
1 Martensen Dogmatics § 56.
2 Readers of Mozley will remember
his splendid contrast of Christianity
with Mohammedanism upon the basis
of the Epistle to the Romans. Miracles,
Lecture vii.
surf
Э

10
[cu.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
commercial empire of Athens, and Alexander's conquests com-
pleted its destruction as a system of serious belief. The ancient
rites went on for centuries, but henceforth they were sustained
by policy or superstition rather than by real belief. Yet even
the philosophers did not venture to abolish the Olympic gods
entirely all they did was respectfully to shift them to a region
of mysterious serenity beyond the reach alike of human troubles
and of human worship. And when the results of the creative
age of Greek philosophy came to be discussed, it was found that
the problem of human life was still unsolved. Plato's dreams of
a future life and of a God and Father of the universe, however
hard to find, fared ill in Aristotle's hands, and were at once too
glorious and too unsubstantial to cast a light of hope upon the
age of anarchy which followed Alexander's death. Their very
splendour shewed the more conspicuously their want of a firm
basis of historic revelation. And Greek thought had lost
nothing of its subtle power of destructive criticism, nothing but
its originality and sunny hopefulness. The old alliance of philo-
sophy with politics was loosened even before the Macedonian
conquest by the increasing confusion of the Hellenic state system;
and when political freedom received its deathblow at Calauria
and Sellasia, the philosophers turned away even from physical
research, for which Alexander's conquests had provided so rich a
store of materials, and betook themselves in sore distress to ethics
as a practical guide for the immediate duties of life. The higher
questions were adjourned by common consent as hopeless. The
Stoics throned Fate, the Epicureans Chance, while the Sceptics
left a vacant space where the gods had been: but all agreed in
the confession of despair, that if there is a God beyond Olympus,
he must be not only hard to find and impossible to explain to
the vulgar, but absolutely beyond the power of man to reach at
all¹.
Oriental thought also contributed its share to the deepening
gloom. Conquered Persia reacted on Greece almost as power-
fully as Greece itself on Rome; and in the further East there
1 Zeller Philosophie der Griechen;
or (E. Tr.) Stoics, Epicureans and
Sceptics 1-36. Lightfoot Philippians
269–275.
I
1.]
ORIENTAL INFLUENCE.
11
was a still mightier spiritual power than Persia. The austerities
of Indian asceticism were a spectacle of unearthly awe to
Alexander's army, and the pyre of Calanus became a classic
marvel. Buddhism also was in the first vigour of that amazing
course of victory which has left it even after its defeat in India
the faith of a full third of mankind. It was a far cry from the
holy land of Kapilavastu to the shores of the Mediterranean,
but trade was active and Greek cities lay all along the route.
Chandragupta's elephants decided the battle of Ipsus, and
the Greek kings of Syria and Egypt are named on Asoka's
monuments in India. And Alexandria lay open even more
than Syria to the superstitions of the furthest East'. Thus
Oriental thought entered largely into Stoicism, formed the
groundwork of all the Gnostic systems and almost dominated
1 Greek influence in further Asia
seriously underestimated by Grote viii.
472-474 (criticized by Freeman Hist.
Essays ser. II. p. 193). If not per-
manent, it had a fair amount of
strength and duration. Against the
mutiny of the colonists after Alex-
ander's death must be set the con-
tinuance of Greek kingdoms in Bactria
and the Punjab as late as в.c. 126.
City of Euthydemia on the Hydaspes.
Bactrian conquest of Guzerat. Me-
nander of Sangala in Buddhist legend.
Greek inscriptions on coins of Cabul,
Guzerat and Magadha. And if the
Parthian government was essentially
as anti-Hellenic as the Turkish (Raw-
linson Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy
12, 60, 88), its administration was as
dependent on Greek help. Yet this is
scarcely just to Parthia: no Turkish
sultan ever listened to Greek plays or
struck Greek money with the legend
φιλέλλην.
For trade, it is enough to compare
the accounts of India given by Hero-
dotus and Strabo.
The period contemplated in the text
is that of the Seleucidæ. The later
intercourse of India with the Roman
Empire is a distinct question on which
opposite views are maintained, on the
one side by Reinaud, Relations Poli-
tiques et Commerciales de l'Empire Ro-
main avec l'Asie Centrale, Paris, 1863,
and the writer of a spirited sketch in
the Quarterly Review for Jan. 1880
(who however seems unaware of the
work next mentioned); on the other
by Friaulx, The Indian Travels of
Apollonius of Tyana and the Indian
Embassies to Rome, London 1873, in-
dependently confirmed by Lightfoot,
Colossians 151–157. Priaulx seems
to have much the best of the contro-
versy, though he is disposed to pass
too lightly over some of the strongest
points on the other side, like the oc-
currence of Roman coins in the ruins
of Kanishka's tower. But he seems to
prove his two main positions-that the
travels of Apollonius are fabulous, and
that the Indian embassies do not prove
the existence of any active intercourse
with the Roman Empire. Yet it must
benoticed-and many of his arguments
imply it-that India was better known
in the time of the Seleucidæ, when the
land route was in use. In any case
Buddhist influence must have been
working in the Greek world (so
Droysen Hellenismus 111. 351 sq.) long
before we come on clear traces of it
in the system of Manes (fact denied
by Priaulx, 177) and the Acts of Thomas
mentioned by Eusebius and Epiphanius
(Hofmann Apokryphen des N. T. in
Herzog-Plitt. Realencykl. i. 525). It
was formally introduced to the Latins
in the romance of Barlaam and Josa-
phat, translated from the Syriac by
John of Damascus.
12
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
the theology of Neoplatonism. Its lofty spirituality and its
sombre view of Nature were equally attractive to minds dis-
gusted with the vulgar polytheism. Its harsh contrast of the
good God with the world of matter was exactly the result
towards which the Greeks were already tending. Its formal
dualism might be qualified, its endless emanations dropped ;
but its conception of the divinity as pure Being high above
the attributes of character, of passion and of contact with our
lower world, remained as an accepted axiom of all philosophy.
Even the stern monotheism of Israel was corroded by
Oriental influences. They are as clear in the philosophic Philo
and even in the orthodox Talmudists as in the contemplative
self-annihilation of the Essenes. An age of growing formalism
put far away the glorious and awful Name, while men of sober
piety retraced the ancient records in quest of mediating angels
or a mystic Word. The Alexandrine translators softened many
of the Old Testament anthropomorphisms, and their ó v was
altered in its turn by Philo to rò ov¹. Even the faithful
Onkelos is ever on the watch to smooth away every semblance
of irreverence to the spirituality and singleness of God. If
Israel never formally forsook Jehovah, we see traces everywhere
of a transcendental deism (easily convertible into a Kabbalistic
pantheism) which "refined away personality itself as too anthro-
pomorphic."
ον
Those therefore of the philosophical systems which connected
God with the world lost their hold on his personality, while
1 It is needless to give more than
a specimen or two of Philo's language:
i. p. 53, δεῖ γὰρ ... ἄποιον αὐτὸν εἶναι.
p. 148, ἀσωμάτων ἰδεῶν ἀσώματος χώρα.
p. 282, ὁ δ' ἄρα οὐδὲ τῷ νῷ καταληπτός,
ὅτι μὴ κατὰ τὸ εἶναι μόνον. p. 425,
πανταχοῦ τε καὶ οὐδαμοῦ συμβέβηκεν
είναι μόνῳ. His Quod omnis probus
liber and (but surely spurious: Lucius,
Die Therapeuten) De Vita Con-
templativa, with their unbounded ad-
miration of Calanus, Diogenes and
the Essenes, are utterly alien from
the spirit of the Old Testament.
ideal is nearer that of the Stoics.
Keim, Jesus of Nazara, E. Tr. i. 280—
296, and works quoted.
His
See
2 Whatever be the date and country
of the Targum of Onkelos, and what-
ever the relation of its text to the
Alexandrine version, its general spirit
shews few traces of Greek influence.
Yet changes traceable to "reverence
for the divine form at least eleven of
the 32 classes of alterations reckoned
up by Luzzatto (11 2718 pp. 1-25;
or Deutsch's compilation in Bible Dict.
Art. Versions). We constantly find
רוחא מן קדם י'י expressions lilke)
וירא for) גלי קדמיותב י"י במימרה
"). The other Targums avoid an-
thropomorphisms more decidedly as
such.
1.]
THE WRITER DE MYSTERIIS.
13
those which insisted on his personality removed him into tran-
scendental isolation. In either case there could be no true
contact of God and man, for the antithesis of infinite and finite
personality was essențial, and neither side could do away with
it. Man as man might perhaps become a human demigod; but
if he was to be united with the divine, he must leave his human
self behind.
But if God is removed far from man, then man will have to
wander in the darkness far from God. Therefore philosophy was
confronted with a more than equal rival in the Eastern supersti-
tions which claimed to satisfy his need of personal communion
with a personal God. Rome fought them manfully till Rome
was lost in the world, and the elevation of Elagabalus and the
Eastern emperors who followed him proclaimed her subjugation.
Philosophy itself was next invaded, and the letter of Porphyry
to Anebon marks the final struggle before the representatives of
Socrates and Plato were brought upon their knees before the
mummeries of Egypt. Nor did those mummeries want for
weighty meaning. The nameless writer de mysteriis Aegypti-
orum' is a strange advocate for Christianity, but some of its
deepest teachings have never been more nobly defended than by
this champion of sorceries and immoralities, of theurgy and brutish
idol-worships. We read with reverence his splendid protests that
the gods have not abandoned earth, but pervade it like the sunlight
(i. 8, p. 28-302); that all worship depends upon and presupposes
a direct affinity (v. 9, p. 209) and true communion of the gods
with man (i. 14, p. 44); that prayer is no battery to force
their will (i. 12, 13, p. 42, 43), but their own good gift (i. 21,
p. 66), to free us from the evil passions which estrange us from
them; that all the gods are good (i. 18, p. 53, iii. 31, p. 176),
all full of graciousness and loving care for men (i. 13, p. 43);
that idols are mere obstructions to the beatific vision (iii. 29,
p. 172); that priests have no prerogative of knowledge (i. 8,
p. 28), for the only inspiration is in complete submission to
a pure and holy will (iii. 31, p. 176—179), and the only perfect
1 It is safer left nameless than
assigned to Iamblichus. See Harless
Das Buch von den ägyptischen Myste-
rien p. 2, 3.
These references are to Parthey's
edition.
14
[CII.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
good is union with the gods, whose service is perfect freedom
from the slavery of fate (viii. 7, p. 270). Of this the philosopher
may see the need, but the theurgist alone can shew the way to
it (x. 4, 5, p. 289-292)¹.
Are not these the loving words of sympathy from heaven
for which the philosophers had cried in vain-the blessings
of the living gods upon their children? Those who looked
to theurgy for guidance were too impatient for a voice from
heaven to see that it came from men like themselves, and
that the whole system was almost avowedly a mass of mere
assertions, encumbered at every turn with the grossest immo-
ralities.
Philosophy on one side, superstition on the other the
ancient world was tossed from side to side between them.
No philosophy could climb the heights of heaven, no incanta-
tions bring down God to earth. No speculation, no intuition-
nothing less than a historic incarnation could firmly link
together earth and heaven, for none but the incarnate Lord
of all could claim to be the Light of East and West alike.
Now historic Christianity leaned to the philosophic side.
Thither it was attracted by high and holy interests, for its
noblest spirits were the most anxious to trace our Master's
teaching in the splendid past of Greece, while those like
Tertullian who most disliked philosophy were even more repelled
by the practical immoralities of magic and polytheism. Hence all
parties held the philosophic view, forgetting that no incarnation
can effectually reveal a God whose essence lies in mystery and
abstract isolation. The struggles of the third century disclosed
the difficulty in all its magnitude. Tertullian shifted the field of
battle, gathering it no longer round the shadowy doctrine of the
Logos but the more definite personality of the Son of God.
Origen cleared up the idea of a divine generation by shewing
that it denotes no finite act either temporal or pretemporal, but
an eternal or intemporal process or relation. The correspond-
1 Professor Maurice almost alone
seems to have done justice to the
ability and importance of the de mys-
teriis. It is discussed by Zeller, but
Ueberweg (Hist. of Phil. § 69) dis
misses it with a summary contempt
it scarcely deserves.
1.]
THE THIRD CENTURY.
15
ence of the Dionysii seemed to settle the unity of essence, the
condemnation of Paul of Samosata to establish the Lord's
divinity as eternal in the past as well as in the future.
But every advance led into fresh difficulties while the base.
of operations was unsecured. No minor successes were of the
least avail as long as heathenism held the key of the position,
and constantly threatened an attack at the decisive point which
might recover all that it had lost. It was impossible to stand
still without falling back into polytheism, impossible to advance
with any safety till the central doctrine of the divine nature had
been remodelled to accord with revelation.
This however was beyond the power of the third century.
The immediate force which shaped all Christian thought upon the
subject was the necessity of reasserting the unity of God'.
Now that heresy had to be confronted with Scripture, it was
found that the plan of insisting on the Lord's divinity without
explaining his relation to the Father was leading back to
polytheism. The movement was wider than the church, and
heathenism itself contributed to it by its persevering efforts to
call forth the shadowy Supreme from the dim background of
mythology'. Hence all parties were monarchian. After a
period of hesitation represented by Tertullian and Zeno of
Verona³, the West settled down towards a view which without
renouncing the subordination of the Son, so emphasized the
eternal unity as to obscure the distinction of Persons. But the
Easterns, also after some hesitation, made theories of subordi-
nation their chief reliance, attempting to distinguish the deriva-
tive from the absolute divine (@eòs from ô Beds or the dóğa from
To ov behind it), and viewing our Lord as a sort of secondary
God, or δευτερεύων θεός.
Such systems rather recognized the difficulty than solved it.
1 Dorner ii. 5.
2 Fialon Saint Athanase 14–19
draws a parallel of the Christian and
Neoplatonic schools of Alexandria from
this point of view. The converse is
well given by Reudall Julian 99.
3 I have not examined the question
of Zeno's date, but place him here.
on Dorner's authority, ii. 187, as a
younger contemporary of Tertullian.
The usual arguments for a later date
(cir. 380: Dorner has not noticed some
of them) seem very weak, and cannot be
reinforced from Symmachus Ep. i. 93.
So Dionysius of Rome, discussed
by Zahn Marcellus 14. Dittrich, Dio-
nysius der Grosse 91-115, is worth
comparison.
16
[CH. I.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
Origen's coordinate principles of the equality and the subordi-
nation of the Son merely shifted it a little further back. All
subordination theories which failed to recognize a distinction.
inside the divine nature were liable to the answer that a
secondary God is a contradiction in terms. If the Father alone
is divine in the highest sense, all other beings must be creatures.
Arius was right so far. The advocates of subordination were
not Arians, recoiling as they did in genuine horror from the
polytheistic tendencies of Arianism; but they had no logical
defence against Arianism, and continually tended to use down-
right Arian expressions which by themselves give a very false
idea of their real leanings. Here was the strong point of
Arianism. The last great controversies before the Nicene age
were those against Sabellius and Paul of Samosata, so that the
Eastern conservatives were endeavouring to maintain the unity
of God upon the basis of the hypostatic distinction of the Son
from the Father, and dreaded nothing so much as the reentrance.
of Sabellian confusion. Thus Arianism contended for the same.
truth as they-the separate personality of the Son of God-and
if it went further than they could follow, it struck at any rate
a manful blow against the common enemy.
CHAPTER II.
THE COUNCIL OF NICEA.
THE appearance then of Arianism about the year 318 was
no historical accident, but a direct result of earlier movements,
and an inevitable reaction of heathen forms of thought against
the definite establishment of the Christian view of God. In the
West the Christians were fewer and more rigid, more practical and
more inclined to stand aloof from heathenism, so that the genuine
Christian conception had more room to unfold itself, and Subordi-
natianism was confined within narrower limits. But in the East,
where the church had always been stronger, more learned and
more disposed to mix with the world', heathen influences found
it easier to assert their power, so that in the second half of
the third century the demoralization of the church kept pace
even with its rapid spread. Persecution might weed out the
timeservers and the weak; but it hardened the strong, and
left behind the abiding mischief of an inhuman ideal of
discipline. We fix our eyes too much on the heroic scenes
enacted in the heathen courts of justice, and forget the odious
assize which followed, when the remnant of the faithful came
1 Notice e.g. the reputation of
Origen's learning and the wider know-
ledge of Christianity, as shewn by
the disappearance of old slanders and
the antagonism of the Neoplatonists.
Notice the splendour of the Churches,
like that of Nicomedia; the increasing
frequency of Christians in high place,
like the ducenarius Paul and the
chamberlains of Diocletian; and above
all, the action of the emperors. On
one side the friendly interest of Alex-
ander Severus and Philip, the conces-
sions of Gallieuns and the favour so
long accorded to the church by Diocle-
tian; on the other, the desperate efforts
of Decius and Galerius, the threatening
tone of Aurelian, and the more system-
atic cruelties of Valerian and Maxi-
min-all combine to shew that Christi-
anity was felt to be a political force of
the first importance, and that the signs
of its approaching victory were plain
enough to all who cared to read them.
Indications of this are summed
up by Dorner ii. 201; but he scarcely
alludes to some of its worst features.
G.
10
18
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
to sit in judgment on the renegades who had denied their Lord.
It was not good for human pride that men should presume
to impose on their fallen brethren long periods of shameful
penance. The Decian persecution stands alone in ecclesias-
tical history for the number of apostates; and if there were
fewer scandals in that of Diocletian, it was only because more
warning was given of its coming. And now that persecution
seemed to have passed away for ever, it was inevitable that
heathen thought inside the church should endeavour to seize for
itself the central doctrine of the faith.
3
Nor was it even accidental that Arianism broke out at
Alexandria rather than elsewhere. Lucian of Antioch was
no heretic, whatever his disciples may have been': and if Arius
carried away questionable opinions from his school, so did others.
If therefore it was at Alexandria that they grew into open
Arianism, we may suppose that circumstances were more
favourable to their growth at Alexandria than elsewhere. And
this was the case. Origen and Dionysius must be acquitted
of heresy as honourably as Lucian; but their language leaned to
Arianism quite as much as his. The Jewish influence was as
strong at Alexandria as at Antioch, the heathen much stronger.
If we contrast the quiet desolation of Apollo's shrine at Daphne
as early as Julian's time with the repeated riots of the heathen
populace at Alexandria, the murder of George of Cappadocia,
and the tumults of 390, culminating in the bloody struggle
1 Against the statement of Alexan-
der of Alexandria (Theod. i. 4), that
Lucian remained outside the church
for a long time under three successive
bishops, we may set (1) his high cha-
racter with all parties-even Athanasius
never attacks him-and (2) in particu-
lar the creed ascribed (it seems rightly)
to him at the Council of the Dedica-
tion. It is substantially as orthodox a
creed as could be written without the
gift of prophecy to foresee the adoption
of the word ouoovσiov. (3) The reckless
tone of Alexander's letter, which throws
serious doubt on statements in which
he might easily have been mistaken.
The further charge of Epiphanius,
Ancoratus 33, that Lucian denied the
Lord's human spirit, may refer to his
disciples, and is no clear case for a
charge of heresy in Lucian's own time.
There is really nothing against him but
the leaning of his disciples to Arianism:
and we shall see presently that this can
be otherwise accounted for. Infra ch.
III.
Kölling 5 discusses Lucian, but
scarcely favourably enough.
2 Especially Dionysius has wolŋua
τοῦ Θεοῦ, ξένον κατ᾿ οὐσίαν, οὐκ ἦν πρὶν
yérnrai-all of them watchwords of
Arianism.
3 Julian Misop. 362. It was burnt
during his visit (Ammianus xxii. 13),
and lay in ruins in the time of Chrysos-
tom (De S. Babyla passim). The case
is not much altered if Christian hands
had helped its decay. Julian would
have found the temples better kept
in Egypt.
11.]
ARIANISM NOT FROM ANTIOCH.
19
round the Serapeum, we shall see which of the two cities offered
more encouragement to a heathenized form of Christianity¹.
No doubt Syria seemed Arian and Egypt orthodox in the later
years of the controversy; but the case was very different at its
outbreak. We underrate the popularity of Arius at Alexandria,
especially among the women and the common people, to whose
decision he appealed in his Thalia. His austere life and novel
doctrines, his dignified character and championship of common
sense in religion, all helped to make him the idol of the multi-
tude. Part of the clergy followed him'; and Alexander's hesita-
tion in so plain a case is enough to shew that the heresiarch's
position was too strong to be rashly attacked. From this point
we can almost statistically trace its decline before the com-
manding influence and skilful policy of Athanasius. The election
in 328 was the work of a section³, possibly a minority, of the
Egyptian bishops, and was for many years disputed by a strong
opposition. However, Arianism was eliminated from the epis-
copate before the year 339, and the last relics of its early
popularity must have been destroyed by Gregory's tyranny
and arbitrary interference with the corn distributions. In any
case, the triumphal return of Athanasius in 346 clearly marks
its extinction as an indigenous power in Egypt. The later
intruders, George and Lucius (356 and 373), appear to have
Notice also the prominent part
taken by the heathen in the Arian
troubles at Alexandria. Also the state-
ment of Libanius (Or. pro Templis
11. 180 sq.), that sacrifice was still
allowed at Rome and Alexandria in
the time of Theodosius. He does not
mention his own city of Antioch.
2 Six presbyters were excommuni-
cated by Alexander: but what propor-
tion of the city clergy did they form?
Comparing the statement of Cornelius
in Eus. H. E. vi. 43, that there were
forty-six presbyters in Rome cir. 260,
with that of Optatus ii. 4, that there
were rather more than forty churches in
Rome some fifty years later, we may
accept the inference of Valesius that
there was a presbyter to each church.
Now Epiphanius Hær. 69. 2 enume-
rates ten churches ("and there were
more") at Alexandria, and tells us
(also Her. 68. 4; so too Soz. i. 15)
that they were assigned separately
to presbyters; while Eutychius (a late
authority) says that there were only
twelve presbyters as late as cir. 300.
If so, the number must since have been
increased: for sixteen presbyters sign
Alexander's encyclical, and sixteen also
sign the Alexandrian protest to the
Mareotic commissioners in 335. If, as
is most likely, the vacancies were al-
ready filled up, we may perhaps take
sixteen for the whole number of presby-
ters in Alexandria, not including the
Mareotis: if not, we must increase the
total to twenty-two. There were sixty
at Constantinople in Justinian's time.
Of course the total staff of ecclesiastics
would be very much larger.
3 Fialon Athan. 104-110.
It is significant that when the
Arians and Meletians were afterwards
fused together, the party was popularly
called by the latter name.
Soz. ii. 21.
2—2
20
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
brought most of their partizans with them'. At Antioch on
the other hand Arianism was instantly confronted with the
most determined opposition from Philogonius and Eustathius,
and this at a time when the Syrian bishops of the second rank
mostly leaned the other way2. Armed force was needed for the
expulsion of Eustathius in 330, and the episcopates of Leontius
and Meletius complete the proof that the Arians were out-
numbered at Antioch from first to last. Thus neither the
orthodoxy of Alexandria nor the heresy of Antioch was an
original feature of the controversy. Alexandria was at first more
favourable to Arianism than Antioch, and might have continued
so but for the influence of Athanasius.
As the earlier school of Antioch was not the germ of Arianism,
so neither was the later school in any sense its outgrowth.
Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia were zealous
defenders of the Nicene faith, and their followers never adopted
any of the characteristic doctrines of Arianism. If it be heresy
to protest against the mutilation of the Lord's humanity, the
Antiochenes are heretics indeed, but the Arians are clear. It
is one thing to invent a heathen idol in order to maintain
a heathenish Supreme in heathen isolation; surely quite another
to insist on the Lord's true manhood in order to prevent
its effacement by the overpowering splendour of his deity.
The Antiochenes erred in their sharp separation of the Lord's
two natures; but the Arians impartially abolished both, and
1 Amongst other indications, the
soldier's words to Jovian. Ath. p. 624,
οὗτοι γάρ εἰσι τὰ λείψανα καὶ ἡ παραβολὴ
τῆς Καππαδοκίας, τὰ ὑπόλοιπα τοῦ ἀνοσίου
ἐκείνου Γεωργίου.
2 On the side of Arius we have
Eusebius of Cæsarea, Paulinus of Tyre,
Theodotus of Laodicea, Gregory of
Berytus (successor and probably nomi-
nee of the other Eusebius), and Patro-
philus of Scythopolis; on the other
only Macarius of Jerusalem and Hel-
lanicus of Tripolis. Magnus of Da-
mascus and Anatolius of Emesa are
not mentioned in this connexion, but
Alphius of Apamea joins (Eus. V. C.
iii. 62) in the deposition of Eustathius.
One may conjecture the existence of a
jealousy of Antioch parallel to the
Meletian schism in Egypt, and equally
struck at by the Council of Nicma
Can. 6; which is followed Can. 7 by a
stipulation in favour of Jerusalem,
practically at the expense of Cæsarea.
3 Infra ch. IV.
The fact would be clearer if the
Arian intruders were either omitted
from the episcopal succession of Antioch
or inserted in that of Alexandria. It
is simply misleading to say that Athana-
sius ruled at Alexandria for nearly fifty
years, and the Arians for about an
equal time at Antioch. Soz. vi. 21 tells
us that Antioch very nearly became
wholly Arian during the residence of
Valens: but the exaggeration is charac-
teristic. So vi. 28 Syria very nearly
Apollinarian, Asia inside Mt Taurus
Eunomian.
11.]
THE ARIAN SYSTEM.
21
left an idolatrous abomination in their place. Again, it was from
very different motives that Arians and Antiochenes rejected the
effeminacies of mystical interpretation. Because Arianism was
essentially heathen, the Arians leaned on philosophy, and kept
up their formal connexion with Christianity by means of the
obsolete appeal to tradition; whereas the Antiochenes made.
revelation supreme, and endeavoured to substitute the scholarly
study of Scripture for the irresponsible vagaries of a zeal
without knowledge. The only real resemblance of the An-
tiochene doctrine to Arianism is on the anthropological ground;
and that is the common property of the whole Eastern church.
So far as regarded the Person of the Lord, they started from
antagonistic positions, worked by different methods and came
to contrary results.
It is now time to state shortly what Arianism was. Our
chief concern is with the form in which it appeared before the
Council of Nicæa; but it will be useful also to indicate the course
of its earlier growth' and history.
Arianism then was almost as much a philosophy as a re-
ligion. It assumed the usual philosophical postulates, worked
by the usual philosophical methods, and scarcely referred to
Scripture except in quest of isolated texts to confirm conclusions
reached without its help. Thus Arianism started from the
accepted belief in the unity of God, as a being not only absolutely
one but also for that reason absolutely simple and absolutely
isolated from a world of finite beings. He is alone ingenerate,
alone eternal, alone without beginning, alone good, alone al-
mighty, alone unchangeable and unalterable, and from the eyes
of every creature his being is hidden in eternal mystery.
3
So far Arianism agreed with the Jews, the philosophers and
the current Christianity of the day, in the common purpose of
1 This is best traced by comparing
the earlier letters of Arius to Eusebius
and Alexander with the fragments of
the Thalia. See Dorner ii. 237. Atz-
berger Logoslehre 23.
2 So Voigt Athanasius 192, not
very seriously qualitied by Atzberger
Logoslehre 30. It is important to
notice the fragmentary treatment of
Scripture resulting from this. Hence
also one cause for the frequent irre-
verence of Arianism. Instances are
collected by Newman Ath. Tr. ii, 213 n. :
but it is hard for "heretics" to escape
condemnation, if legitimate difficulties
are (id. 221) summarily denounced as
"pretences."
3 Dorner ii. 234.
22
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
spiritualizing the idea of deity by opposing it as sharply as
possible to that of manhood. It was not yet clearly seen that
if man was made in the image of God, it follows that God is in
some true sense the archetype of man; so that anthropomorphic
images are not entirely misleading, and even that flesh of sin in
whose likeness the Son of God was sent cannot be entirely
foreign to its creator's goodness.
Next came the problem of creation-how to connect the
unknown God with a material world. Here again Arius started
from philosophic ground. The further the Supreme is removed
from the world of matter, the greater the need of a mediator for
his intercourse with it. Philo had long ago separated the
demiurgic forces as a half personal, half impersonal relation of
Jehovah, and the Gnostics under definite Oriental influences
definitely opposed the demiurge to the Supreme. There is no
real analogy to Christianity in the Neoplatonic Triad¹ of
concentric orders of spiritual existence, but the fragments of
Numenius of Apamea fairly represent a belief widely current
inside and outside the church in the third century. Like Eusebius
of Cæsarea, to whom we owe their preservation, Numenius
confessed a primary God undefiled by active contact with the
world, an author of being whom men cannot know; and a
demiurgic Power as a second God,-an author of becoming,
whom men can know. So far, as Eusebius thought, we have
common ground for philosophers and Christians: and if Nume-
nius completed his Trinity by the addition of the world as a
third God", there is a trace even in Eusebius of this practical limit-
ation of the Omnipotent, when he qualifies the idea of creation è§
οὐκ ὄντων by regarding the will of the Father as a sort of ὕλη.
The outlines of the scheme being received from the philo-
sophers, a place had to be found in it for the historic revelation
of Christianity. Here again Arianism started from conservative
positions. The heavenly Father was casily identified with the
Supreme of the philosophers, and invested with as many as
possible of its attributes of mystery and isolation. That of self-
a travesty of Neoplatonism or of Chris-
tianity?
1 Characteristic is the declaration
of Cyril of Alexandria c. Jul. viii.
p. 270, that it needs nothing but the
óμооúσior to make it Christian. Is this
2 So Proclus tells us.
II.]
THE ARIAN SYSTEM.
23
completeness in particular strictly limited the highest deity, so
that if a Trinity had to be retained, it must be either phenomenal
or heterogeneous. The next step was to connect the demiurgic
Power with the historic Person of the Lord'. The men who
had replaced the Father in heaven by an abstract or would
naturally confess a mere minister of creation rather than a
conqueror of death and sin. Looking back however on their
demiurge in the light of the historic Incarnation and the
declaration of the Lord on earth, it was seen that he must have a
premundane and real personality, on the one side independent
of the Incarnation, on the other distinct from the Father.
This excluded the temporary Tрóσшπоν of Sabellianism, the
ек. πρокоπйя deified man of Paul of Samosata, and the theory
afterwards upheld by Marcellus, of a mere ἐνέργεια δραστικὴ
coming forth to create the world. Whatever be the Lord's true
dignity, it must be his from the beginning of his existence. It
was moreover necessary to represent the Lord's relation to the
Supreme in a manner consistent with the spirituality of God.
This implied the rejection of the Valentinian πроßоλń, of the
Manichean μέρος ὁμοούσιον, and of the old simile of λύχνος
ἀπὸ λύχνου used by Hieracas.
1 Notice the prominence of the idea
in Creeds. We find either di où Tà
πάντα ἐγένετο or some equivalent clause
in every formula of the Nicene period
except the Sirmian manifesto of 357,
the exeσis of Athanasius, and the
confessions of Adamantius and Ger-
minius. It is also wanting in the
Coptic and Ethiopic Confessions.
Thus Arius to Eusebius, That. i. 4,
θελήματι καὶ βουλῇ ὑπέστη πρὸ χρόνων
καὶ πρὸ αἰώνων πλήρης θεὸς μονογενής
ἀναλλοίωτος. This disappears in the
letter to Alexander; and before the
Thalia was written, Arius had essen-
tially modified his system by the intro-
duction of TрETтóν, Dorner ii. 236.
Then the reward merited by the obe-
dience of a creature had to be repre-
sented as bestowed in advance.
3 These three heresies, along with the
Sabellian and Marcellian schemes, are
expressly denounced in the conciliatory
letter of Arius to Alexander (Ath. de
Syn. 16).
The hostile tone of Hilary's com-
ments, de Trin. vi. 7-14, is worth
notice. He treats the disavowals as
fraudulent; maintaining that the real
objection in each case is not to the
error of the heresy, but to the element
of truth contained in it. Thus the
Valentinian prolatio is not rejected for
its polytheistic absurdities, but merely
to discredit the doctrine of a real gene-
ration; and the Manichean pars unius
substantiæ for its recognition of the
unity of essence and not for its material-
ism. Then the offence of Sabellius is
not his confusion of Persons, but the
Lord's divinity implied in his doctrine
of the Incarnation. Hieracas comes
next for condemnation, not on account
of the separation which answers to one
view of his metaphor, but for the con-
tinuity of nature which represents the
other. Lastly, the Marcellian theory
is not rejected for its folly in supposing
that a divine Sonship can be other
than eternal, but merely to make room
for a creation éž oúk övtwv by the will
of the Father.
24
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
The positive meaning of the divine Sonship came next for
consideration. Now Arius never deliberately set himself to
lower the Person of the Lord. He earnestly pressed its reality
as against Sabellianism¹, and was willing to recognize in the Son
of God every diguity compatible with the isolation and spiritu-
ality of the Father. But on these points there could be no
compromise with polytheism. Hence it was necessary to reject
the higher view of the divine Sonship. Ingenerateness being
the very essence of divinity, there can be no Son of God in any
strict and primary sense. Generation moreover implies unity of
nature; which at once destroys the singularity of God. It also
ascribes to the Father corporeity and passion, which are human
attributes, and even subjects the Almighty to necessity, so
that it is on every ground unworthy of the deity. Nor is the
difficulty at all removed by Origen's unintelligible theory of an
eternal generation; much less by the heathen assumption of
preexistent matter. On every ground then there seemed no
escape from the conclusion that the divine generation is a
definite and external act of the Father's will, by which the Son
was created out of nothing.
Yet the Sonship is real. If we
conceptions, two final results are left
1 Dorner ii. 227.
2 The Anoman Candidus de gen.
div. 6 concedes that unity of essence is
the necessary consequence of a real
generation.
3 Thus Eusebius of Nicomedia
(Theodoret i. 6) ἓν μὲν τὸ αγέννητον,
ἐν δὲ τὸ ὑπ' αὐτοῦ ἀληθῶς καὶ οὐκ ἐκ τῆς
οὐσίας αὐτοῦ γεγονός, καθόλου τῆς φύσεως
τῆς ἀγεννήτου μὴ μετέχον, ἢ ὂν ἐκ τῆς
οὐσίας αὐτοῦ· ἀλλὰ γεγονὸς ὁλοσχερῶς
ἕτερον τῇ φύσει καὶ τῇ δυνάμει, πρὸς
τελείαν ὁμοιότητα διαθέσεώς τε καὶ δυνά-
μεως τοῦ πεποιηκότος γενόμενον.
It is needless to accumulate speci-
mens of an argument which runs
through the whole controversy. The
Anomian Candidus puts it as well as
anyone-Omnis generatio mutatio quæ-
dam est. Immutabile autem est omne
divinum, scilicet Deus......Si igitur
Deus, inversibile et immutabile: quod
autem inversibile et immutabile, neque
genitum est neque generat aliquid.
4 Thus the frequent dilemma:-ÈK T₁S
eliminate materializing
that the Son is inferior
δέ
ovolas subjects God to necessity, while
θελήσει γεννηθέντα can only mean crea-
tion. Arius rightly objected to the
fatalism of the Gnostic emanations;
but his freedom is nothing more than
caprice, albeit divine caprice. (Dorner
ii. 239.) However, Eusebius Dem. Ev.
iv. 3, p. 148, ἡ μὲν αὐγὴ οὐ κατὰ προαί
ρεσιν τοῦ φωτὸς ἐκλάμπει, κατά τι δὲ
τῆς οὐσίας συμβεβηκὸς ἀχώριστον· ὁ δὲ
υἱὸς κατὰ γνώμην καὶ προαίρεσιν εἰκὼν
ὑπέστη τοῦ Πατρός. Βουληθεὶς γὰρ ὁ
Θεός γέγονεν υἱοῦ πατήρ, καὶ φως δεύτερον
κατὰ πάντα ἑαυτῷ ἀφωμοιωμένον ὑπεστή
garo, and again de Ecel. Theol. i. p. 67
he emphasizes the distinction of viòs
from κτίσμα.
T
σατο,
Athanasius answers (Or. iii. 62. 66)
by asking whether the divine goodness
is leλýσel or not; and proceeds to shew
that quoe belongs to a higher sphere
than that of choice. Indeed there is
no guarantee for the permanence of
the Trinity, unless it expresses the
divine nature.
11.]
THE ARIAN SYSTEM.
25
in rank to the Father, and that he is not strictly eternal. As
however we must not materialize the divine generation by
introducing the idea of time, all that we can safely say is that
there was, when the Son was not. "There was," though there
was not a time', when the Father was not yet Father, and the
Son existed only potentially (dvváμe) in his counsel, in a sense
in which all things are eternal. The Father alone is God, and
the Son is so called only in a lower and improper sense². He
is not of the essence of the Father, but a creature essentially
like other creatures, albeit povoyevns or unique among them*.
His uniqueness may imply high prerogatives, but no creature
can be a Son of God in the primary sense of full divinity.
Instead of sharing the divine essence, he does not even compre-
hend his own. He must depend like every creature on the
help of grace. In other words, he must have free will like us
and a nature capable like ours of moral change, whether for
evil or for good. He was morally as well as physically liable to
sin; and nothing but his own virtue kept him as a matter of
fact sinless.
1 Hence ἦν ποτὲ ὅτε οὐκ ἦν. Though
Xpóvos is omitted, the argument goes on
as if it were inserted. Athanasius notes
the evasion, e.g. c. dr. i. 14, p. 330.
2 Arius in Thalia Ath. Or. i. 6 ei dè
καὶ λέγεται θεός, ἀλλ' οὐκ ἀληθινός ἐστιν.
3 Notice the space devoted to this
in Alexander's letter in Theodt. i. 4.
It is one of the few points we certainly
know to have been raised at Nicæa, and
figures prominently at Ancyra.
* See Hort Two Diss. 16, 63 on the
meaning of μovoyern's as only-begotten
(unigenitus not unicus). Cases like
Eus. Fr. C. iii. 50 μονογενές τι χρῆμα, οι
Constantine's church at Antioch, are
not common.
The Arians evaded its force mainly
by means of the old confusion between
the ideas of generation and creation
caused by such passages as Prov, viii. 22,
Rom. i. 4. Thus Arius to Eusebius,
Theodoret i. 5, πριν γεννηθῇ ἤτοι κτισθῇ
ἢ ὁρισθῇ ἡ θεμελιωθῇ οὐκ ἦν ἀγέννητος
γὰρ οὐκ ἦν, and his list of synonyms is
almost copied by Eusebius to Paulinus
κτιστὸν εἶναι καὶ θεμελιωτὸν καὶ γεννητὸν
τῇ ουσίᾳ. Their meaning is frequently
discussed by Athanasius, e.g. Fragm.
in Job. III. 1344 Migne. Earlier in-
stances in Möbler 4th, 96.
In this connexion notice the Ano-
maran explanation of μονογενῆ ὺς μόνον
ék μóvov, in the Dated Creed (also those
of Nicé and Constantinople) replacing
the Nicene τούτεστιν ἐκ τῆς ουσίας του
II. The clause occupies a less offensive
position in the Lucianic Creed.
5 The Arians varied in their expla-
nation of this uniqueness. Arius him-
self maintained after Asterius (Ath. de
Deer. 8, p. 169) that he is the only
creature directly created by the Father,
others held that he alone partakes
of the Father. There are traces of
a third view, explaining it by Matt.
xxviii. 18.
6 Eustathius as quoted by Eulo-
gius in Phot. Bibl. Cod. 225 was
perhaps mistaken (one reading inserts
un) in saying that some Arians con-
sidered the Lord sinful; but Athana-
sius of Anazarbus comes very near it
in his comparison (Ath. de Syn. 17,
p. 584) of him to one of the hundred
sheep. So the early Arians unhesi-
tatingly declared that the Lord might
have fallen like the devil.
26
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
Here we get another view of the Pelagianism which is an
essential element of the Arian system. Both schemes depend on
the same false dualism of God and man, the same rigid and
mechanical conception of law, the same heathenizing and
external view of sin, the same denial of the Christian idea of
grace¹ as a true communication of a higher principle of life.
The same false freedom which Arius claims for God he also
vindicates for man; but the liberty of God is nothing but
caprice, the freedom of man a godless independence. God and
man must stand apart eternally; for Arianism can allow no real
meaning to the idea either of a divine love which is the ex-
pression of the divine nature, or of its complement in a human
service which is perfect freedom2.
Arianism did not stop here. It was not enough to do away
from the Person of the Lord every trace of deity but an idle
name. It was not enough to make the Son of God a creature,
and a creature not even of the highest type, but still subject to
the risks of a contingent will³. Even his true humanity was
not to be left intact. Now that the Logos was so far degraded
a human spirit was unnecessary, and only introduced the
needless difficulty of the union of two finite spirits in one
person. It was therefore simpler to unite the Logos directly
to a human body, and sacrifice the last relics of the original
defence of the Lord's true manhood".
Upon the whole the system was at least a novelty. The
1 Möhler Ath. 179.
2 Dorner ii. 239; or for Pelagianism,
Mozley, Predestination 53. Notice the
high view taken by Arianism of the
divine free will in contrast to Neopla-
tonism. Conversely, its assertion of
human freedom comes round to nothing
better than ιδού, τοσαῦτα ἔτη δουλεύω
σοι.
3 Arius ad Alex. in Ath. de Syn.
16, p. 583, els éva Oedv.. γεννήσαντα
δὲ οὐ δοκήσει, ἀλλ' ἀληθείᾳ· ὑποστήσαντα
ἰδίῳ θελήματι άτρεπτον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον
κτίσμα τοῦ Θεοῦ τέλειον, ἀλλ' οὐχ ὡς ἓν
τῶν κτισμάτων κ.τ.λ. Dorner ii. 235
and Hefele Councils § 21 join idi
θελήματι with ὑποστήσαντα, so that
the clause is equivalent to θελήματι καὶ
βουλῇ ὑπέστη πρὸ χρόνων καὶ πρὸ αἰώνων
πλήρης θεὸς μονογενὴς ἀναλλοίωτος οἱ
the letter to Eusebius in Theodoret i. 5.
But a better point is given to 18i
θελήματι if we connect it with ἄτρεπτον
καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον. The result is nu-
gatory; but it exactly agrees with
other expressions of Arius, e. g. Ath. c.
Ar. i. 5, 9, pp. 323, 326 тŵ idių avtežov-
σίῳ ἕως βούλεται μένει καλός, τρεπτός
ἐστι φύσει, τρεπτῆς ὢν φύσεως.
4 Dorner ii. 243.
There is no dispute that this was
the later Arian view. That it dates
from an early period of the controversy
is proved by the fragments of Eusta-
thius, confirmed by the direct state-
ment of Epiphanius that it was derived
from Lucian. Passages are collected
by Möhler Ath. p. 178, Dorner ii.
Note 59.
11.]
ESTIMATE OF ARIANISM.
27
Arian idol was as much "a wonder in heaven" as the Romish.
The Lord's deity had been denied often enough before, and so
had his humanity; but it was reserved for Arianism at once
to affirm and to nullify them both. The doctrine is heathen to
the core, for the Arian Christ is nothing but a heathen demigod.
But of the Jewish spirit it had absolutely nothing. It agreed
with Judaism only where it agreed with philosophy also, while
its own characteristic creature-worship utterly contradicted the
first principles of unbelieving Judaism. A transitory halo of
divinity encircled Messiah's name in the Apocalypse of Enoch;
but it had long since disappeared, and for the last three hundred
years the Jew had stumbled "because thou being a man makest
thyself God." Nor had the Ebionite Christ ever been more
than a mere man. In short, the Arian confusion of deity
and creaturedom was just as hateful to the Jew as to the
Christian. Whatever sins Israel may have to answer for, the
authorship of Arianism is not one of them.
The relation of the Holy Spirit to the Son is scarcely
touched by the early Arians, but so far as we can find, they
considered it not unlike that of the Son to the Father. If they
never drew from St John's "all things were made by him" the
logical inference that the Holy Spirit is a creature of the Son
their whole system required it¹. Thus the Arian Trinity of
divine Persons forms a descending series separated by infinite
degrees of honour and glory, not altogether unlike the Neo-
platonic Triad of orders of spiritual existence extending
outward in concentric circles.
Sooner or later Arius always comes round to a contradiction
of his own premises. He proclaims a God of mystery beyond
the knowledge of the Son himself, yet argues throughout as if
human relations could exhaust the significance of the divine.
He forgets first that metaphor would cease to be metaphor if
1 It was drawn by Eusebius de
Eccl. Theol. iii. p. 174: also by his
disciple Acacius, if we may trust Atha-
nasius ad Serap. iv. 7, p. 560.
2 So Arius himself ap. Ath. c. Ar.
i. 6, p. 323, ὅτι μεμερισμέναι τῇ φύσει,
καὶ ἀπεξενωμέναι καὶ ἀπεσχοινισμέναι,
καὶ ἀλλότριοι καὶ ἀμέτοχοι εἰσιν ἀλλήλων
αἱ οὐσίαι τοῦ Π. καὶ τοῦ Υἱ. καὶ τοῦ ἁγ.
Πν., καὶ, ὡς αὐτὸς ἐφθέγξατο, ανόμοιοι
πάμπαν ἀλλήλων ταῖς τε οὐσίαις καὶ δόξαις
eioìv èn'åmeɩpov. Fialon, Saint Athanase
42, compares the Arian to the Neopla-
tonic Triad, the Sabellian (he means
the Marcellin) πλατυσμός to the Stoic.
The latter point has not escaped
Athanasius, c. Ar. iv. 13, p. 496.
28
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
there were nothing beyond it; then that it would cease to be true
if its main idea were misleading. He begins by pressing the
metaphor of Sonship, and works round to the conclusion that it
is no proper Sonship at all. In his irreverent hands the Lord's
divinity is but the common right of mankind, his eternity no
more than the beasts themselves may claim. The Lord is
neither truly God nor truly man, but a heathen demigod'. He
is the minister of the first creation and the prophet of the
second, but the Lord of life in neither ³.
3
It is not a mere affair of logic when skilled dialecticians
stumble thus from one blunder to another. The Arians had
made their problem impossible by neglecting its spiritual
conditions*. A true creator must be divine, but a created
being cannot be divine. Far from spanning the infinite abyss
which philosophy, not revelation, had placed between God and
sinless man, the Arian Christ is nothing but an isolated pillar
in its midst. His witness is not to the love of God, but
to a gulf beyond the power of almighty Love to close. Hea-
thenism might hope for a true communion with the Supreme,
but for us there neither is nor can be any. Our only privilege
is to know the certainty that God is darkness, and in him is
no light at all. Revelation is a mockery, atonement an idle
phrase; and therefore Christ is dead in vain".
No false system ever struck more directly at the life of
Christianity than Arianism. Yet after all it held aloft the
Lord's example as the Son of Man, and never wavered in its
worship of him as the Son of God. On its own principles, this
was absolutely heathen creature-worship. Yet the work of
Ulphilas is an abiding witness that faith is able to assimilate
1 Arian degradation of the idea of
deity to a heathen scale is frequently
noticed by Athanasius, e. g. Or. i. 10,
p. 327.
2 Ath. Or. ii. 68, p. 424.
3 The self-contradictions of Arian-
ism are summed up by Dorner ii. 243.
4 The poverty of Arian ethics is
most significant. Fragment after frag-
ment of the Monumenta Vetera is
purely polemical; and the Skeireins of
Ulphilas is almost the sole remaining
Arian document which is not so. But
Ulphilas was only accidentally an
Arian. Streams rise above their source
in mission work; and we cannot judge
of Ulphilas by Eudoxius and Demo-
philus, any more than of Wilfrid and
Boniface by the image-worshipping
popes of the eighth century.
Contrast the depth of Athanasius
Or. ii. 69, p. 424 of the Son, and
ad Ser. i. 24, p. 537 of the Holy Spirit,
on the impossibility of any true life or
sanctification through a creature.
So far the case is well put by Baur
Kgsch, ii. 97.
5 Gal. ii. 21, (but dwpeáv).
11.]
RISE OF THE CONTROVERSY.
29
the strangest errors; and the conversion of the northern nations
remains in evidence that Christianity can be a power of life
even in its most degraded forms.
The controversy broke out about the year 318. Arius was
now¹ presbyter at Alexandria, in charge of the outlying church
of Baucalis, and in high favour² with bishop Alexander. He
was a grave ascetic character, a man of learning³ as became a
disciple of Lucian, a skilful dialectician, and a master of dignified
and stately language. When he publicly disputed some of
Alexander's expressions as Sabellian, the quarrel spread at once.
He had many supporters in the city, and Alexander was slow to
move, needing perhaps to be stirred up by younger men', so that
it was not till after a considerable period of disquiet that he
summoned a full council of the bishops of Egypt, by whom his
heterodox presbyter was unanimously excommunicated.
1 We may pass over earlier disputes.
The first stage of the controversy is
discussed by Dorner ii. 231.
2 Soz. i. 15.
3 Theodoret's words, i. 2, Tην TŵV
θείων γραφῶν πεπιστευμένος εξήγησιν do
not necessarily imply that he was ever
president of the catechetical school.
Of his personal disciples we find Ur-
sacius and Valens, Ath. adepise. Eg. 7,
p. 218; also Eustathius of Sebaste, if
we may trust Basil's explicit statements,
Epp. 223, 244, 263.
Newman Hist. Treatises 297, after
Möhler Ath. 174, makes Athanasius
the real author of Alexander's Ency-
clical: the other side is maintained by
Kölling § 14. Newman's arguments
are weighty, but it is not safe to set
down all that resembles Athanasius as
his genuine work. Alexander must
have powerfully influenced his young
deacon, and upon the whole it is
better to accept the Encyclical as in
substance the bishop's own.
5 Arianism seems to have had an
important influence on the history of
Church government in Egypt. The
consecration of the bishop of Alexan-
dria by bishops instead of presbyters,
would appear to have been already
accepted by all parties, for we hear
of no difficulties connected with it at
the election of Athanasius. But the
case of Ischyras, like the ambiguous
position of the chorepiscopi (some sign
at Nicea and Chalcedon: yet stricter
views creeping in Can. Ancyr. 13, An-
tioch 10), seems to shew that the Eastern
conservatives still held no very rigid
views of the need of episcopal ordina-
tion.
Arianism was also by force of cir-
cumstances a protest against the
authority of the patriarchal see; and
therefore easily made common cause
with the Meletians, whose system was
essentially such another protest. The
one was a Greek attack on the doctrine
of Alexandria, the other a Coptic revolt
against its discipline. The Meletian
bishops (Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 71, p. 148)
come from every part of Egypt, but are
more sparsely scattered far up the Nile,
near heathen Philæ.
The Council of Nicea upheld the
authority of Alexandria (Can. 6), and
Athanasius finally established it. It
is curious to notice the marvellous
unanimity which succeeds the discords
of his early years. Every bishop in
Egypt must have signed the Sardican
decisions in 346. Later on, about
369, they all join in the Ep. að Afros.
Some of them, it is true, were not
present; but, as Athanasius adds (c. 10,
p. 718) with charming simplicity, "we
are all agreed, and always sign for
each other if anyone chances to be
absent."
30
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
Arius was too much in earnest to be expelled without
a contest. He held his services in defiance of the bishop, stirred
up the zeal of women, and gained supporters by canvassing (he
would call it pastoral visiting) from house to house'. He next
appealed from the church to the people in a multitude of
theological songs. Their popularity was immense, and cul-
minated in the publication of the Thalia or Spiritual Banquet,
for which he could find no better metre than one commonly
appropriated to the foulest immoralities. The excitement
reached every village in Egypt, and Christian divisions became
a grateful subject for the laughter of the heathen theatres.
Alexandria was no place for an outcast presbyter; and
Arius betook himself like Origen to Caesarea. He next wrote
letters, and with a fair measure of success, to the Eastern bishops
generally. His doctrine fell in with the prevailing dread of
anything like the doctrines of Sabellius and Paul of Samosata,
his personal misfortunes excited interest', his dignified bearing
commanded respect, and his connexion with the school of Lucian
secured him learned and influential sympathy. He received
more or less decided encouragement from the great Syrian
bishops Eusebius of Cæsarea, Paulinus of Tyre and Theodotus of
The supremacy of Alexandria is
clear enough at the well-known scene
in the Council of Chalcedon. Is it too
much to see a foreshadowing of it in
the omission of the Egyptian bishops
from the censures of Seleucia? Ten of
them had signed the Acacian creed,
and some of these, like Seras and
Heliodorus, were decided Anomoans:
yet only George of Alexandria was
deposed, and none of the others were
even suspended.
Many causes prevented the rise of
a similar patriarchal tyranny in Syria.
Instead of standing alone in the land
like Alexandria, Antioch was checked
on every side by the venerable memo-
ries of Cæsarea, Jerusalem and Edessa,
and moreover never had a bishop
whose ability will bear comparison
with that of Athanasius, or even Cyril.
1 Alexander ap. Theodoret i. 4,
δικαστήρια συγκροτοῦντες δι' ἐντυχίας
γυναικαρίων ἀτάκτων ἃ ἠπάτησαν......τὸν
χριστιανισμὸν διασύροντες ἐκ τοῦ περι-
τροχάζειν πᾶσαν ἀγυιὰν ἀσέμνως τὰς παρ'
αὐτοῖς νεωτέρας...... ἑαυτοῖς σπήλαια ληστ
τῶν οἰκοδομήσαντες ἀδιαλείπτως ἐν αὐτοῖς
ποιοῦνται συνόδους. So Theodoret i. 2,
οὐ μόνον ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ...... ἀλλὰ κάν τοῖς
έξω συλλόγοις καὶ συνεδρίοις, καὶ τὰς
οἰκίας περινοστῶν ἐξηνδραπόδιζεν ὅσους
ισχυει. Epiph. Har. 68. 4, πλῆθος πολὺ
...παρθενευουσῶν καὶ ἄλλων κληρικῶν;
so 69, 3.
2 No doubt the meaning Arius.
intended. Sec Fialon Athan. 65, who
lays much stress on the political aspect
of its popularity, and on the offence it
gave to Constantine. "Ce qui excitait
la mauvaise humeur du grand archevê-
que, c'était moins l'indignité que le
succès d'un poème, qui, de son propre
aveu, “donnant à des blasphèmes les
couleurs de la piété," popularisait
l'hérésie......Elle n'était rien moins
qu'une futilité et une bouffonnerie.
Elle n'avait de léger que le titre."
3 Socr. i. 6.
4 Soz. i. 15, ὡς ἠδικημένους ἐλεοῦν-
τες καὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἀκρίτως έκβε
βλημένους.
11.]
:
CONSTANTINE.
31
Laodicea and when Eusebius of Nicomedia, the ablest court-
politician of the East, took up his cause and held a Bithynian
synod¹ to demand his recall, Arius might feel himself Alexander's
equal. Learned men defended and improved his teaching, and
before long he was able to boast that the Eastern bishops held
with him, except a few "heretical and ill-taught" men like
Philogonius of Antioch or Macarius of Jerusalem³.
2
The emperor Licinius let the dispute take its course. He
was a barbarous old heathen soldier, as ignorant of religion as
possible, and drifted into a policy of annoyance to the Christians
late in his reign, and merely out of rivalry to Constantine. If
Eusebius of Nicomedia endeavoured to use his influence in
favour of Arius, it was not to much purpose. But when the
battle of Chrysopolis (Sept. 323) laid the Empire at the feet of
Constantine, he found it necessary for his own purposes to bring
the controversy to some decision.
In some respects he was well qualified for the task. There
1 Soz. i. 15.
2 Arius ad Eus. πάντες οἱ κατὰ τὴν
ἀνατολὴν......δίχα......ἀνθρώπων αἱρετι
κῶν ἀκατηχήτων.
3 The supporters of Arius as far as
the council of Nicæa may be classified
thus: (I) Disciples of Lucian-Eusebius
of Nicomedia, Menophantus of Ephe-
sus, Theognius of Nicæa, Maris of
Chalcedon, Athanasius of Anazarbus,
(Philost. iii. 15), the sophist Asterius
and Leontius (Epiph. Hær. 69. 4) the
future bishop of Antioch. These are
all the Lucianists whom we can trace;
for Antonius and Eudoxius were not
yet promoted to Tarsus and Germanicea
respectively, and we know nothing of
Nuinenius and Alexander. All these
except Athanasius are named by Philos-
torgius ii. 14. (II) Disciples of Doro-
theus-Eusebius of Cæsarea and pro-
bably his friend Paulinus of Tyre.
(III) (a) From Egypt and Libya-
Theonas of Marmarica, Secundus of
Ptolemais, and the presbyter George of
Alexandria. Philostorgius Fragm. ap.
Nicetam adds Daches of Berenice,
Secundus of Tauchira, Sentianus of
Boræum, Zopyrus of Barca, and by a
clear mistake Meletius of Lycopolis.
A few of these may have been Lucianists.
like Arius himself. (b) From vari-
ous parts-Patrophilus of Scythopo-
lis, Narcissus of Neronias, Theodotus
of Laodicea, Gregory of Berytus and
Etius of Lydda. Philostorgius supra
names Tarcodimantus of Egæ, and
Eulalius of Cappadocia : but when he
adds Basil of Amasea, Meletius of
Sebastopolis, Amphion of Cilicia (Sige-
donis Philost.) and Leontius and Longi-
anus of Cappadocia, there must be some
mistake, deliberate or otherwise. Basil
was dead before 323, (Görres Licin.
Chrverf. 115-120, against Valesius),
and all five are expressly claimed as
orthodox by Athanasius ad episc. Eg.
8, p. 220. Leontius also by Greg. Naz.
Or. xviii. 12, p. 338, and Moses of Cho-
rene, ii. 89. Meletius is identified by
Valesius on Eus. Hist. Eccl. vii. 32,
§ 26, with the historian's old teacher
Meletius of Pontus, who was living at
least as late as 310; and with the ortho-
dox Meletius named by Basil de Sp.
Sancto 29.
It was a local policy of annoyance
(Socr. i. 3, τοπικός, ἔνθα γὰρ ἦν Λικίννιος,
ÉKEì μÓVOV ÉYÉVETO), rather than a system-
atic persecution. There were frequent
cruelties against bishops and soldiers,
but the Edict of Milan was never
formally repealed. See Görres Licin.
Chrverf, esp. 56.
32
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
was no want of ability or earnestness in Constantine, or of
genuine interest in Christianity. His life was pure, and his
legislation everywhere shews that he could appreciate its lofty
morals. In political skill he was a match for Diocletian, while
his military successes were unequalled since the triumph of
Aurelian. The heathens saw in him the restorer of the Empire,
the Christians their deliverer from persecution. Even the
feeling of a divine mission which laid him so open to flattery
gave him also a sense of responsibility which lifts him far above
the level of a vulgar Bonaparte. But Constantine had spent
his life in camps, and was above all things a practical statesman
keenly alive to the social miseries of the time. There are few
nobler pages in the statute-book of Rome than those which record
his laws. Their cruelty was a passing evil, while their genuine
Christian aim was a landmark for ever'. He had seen with
his own eyes the martyrs of Nicomedia and as he watched the
1 Constantine's character as a Chris-
tian legislator can scarcely be sustained
by his unsteady policy of toleration;
still less by his elevation of Sunday to
the rank of the heathen feriæ. But
his aim at Christian ends is clear from
his action in social matters.
I. Slavery. Freedom put beyond
prescription (314). Laws against kid-
nappers (315), against extreme cruelty,
&c. (319; yet compare law of 326 Cod.
Theod. IX. xii. 2,-"correction is not
murder') and separation of families by
sale (331? Cod. Theod. II. XXV. 1).
Easy form of manumission (321), placed
under the guardianship of the church.
The Antonine jurists had done some-
thing against excess of cruelty, but Con-
stantine first ventured clearly to reverse
the old heathen policy (vicesima B.c.
357, lex Elia Sentia B. c. 3, lex Furia
Caninia A.D. 7) of checking the growth
of the vile class of freedmen.
retains the old contempt for slaves;
keeps up the system of severer legal
punishments for their offences, and re-
stores to slavery (332) freedmen guilty of
disrespect to their patroni. Mutilation
of runaway slaves. Laws embodying
older ones and substantially repeated
by later emperors against connexion of
senators, priests, &c. with low women
(336). Cod. Theod. Iv. vi. 3, (Haenel) ex
ancilla vel ancillæ filia, vel liberta vel
Yet he
:
libertæ filia, sive Romana facta seu La-
tina, vel scenica vel scenicæ filia, vel ex
tabernaria vel ex tabernaria filia, vel
humili vel abjecta, vel lenonis aut
arenarii filia, vel que mercimoniis
publicis præfuit. The list is quoted
by Marcian in 454 Nov. tit. 4, 1, but
the changed tone of his law is signifi-
cant. Such marriages forbidden also
to curiales under penalty of deportatio
in insulam by law of 319 (Cod. Theod.
XII. i. 6, cum ancillis non potest esse
connubium, nam ex hujusmodi contu-
bernio servi nascuntur). This however
partly a fiscal measure to preventcuriales
from escaping their burdens. Savage
regulations against marriage of free wo-
men with slaves (326; or mitigated 331
by a return to the law of 314).
II. Women. Laws (312) to save
their appearance in court. Restriction
of divorce (331) to three specified cases
on each side, not including the hus-
band's adultery. Prohibition of con-
cubinage (321 or 324) to married men.
Savage though not unprecedented pun-
ishments (320) of fornication. Partial
repeal (320) of the lex Papia Poppaa
(Eus. V. C. iv. 26, Soz. i. 9, and esp.
Niceph. Call. vii. 46) notwithstanding
the Empire's sore need of fighting
men. Yet strong class feeling against
low women-supra, and contemptuous
exemption (326) from the penalties of
11.]
CONSTANTINE.
33
evil ends of the persecutors, the conviction grew upon him
that the victorious antagonist of the Empire must owe its
strength to the protection of the heavenly Power. He learned
to recognize the God of the Christians in his father's God,
and in the Sun-god's cross of light to see the cross of Christ.
Accepting the witness of the gospel to his old belief, he forgot
that a revelation may have new truths to declare as well
as old ones to confirm. He lingered on the threshold of
the church, coining money with the Sun-god's name, and
preaching the vanity of idols to his courtiers. Thus with all his
interest in Christianity, he could never reach the secret of its inner
life. Its imposing monotheism he could appreciate; but surely the
Person of the Lord was something secondary. Constantine under-
stood his own age because he shared its heathen superstitions and
its heathen class-feeling; and Christianity to him was nothing
more than a monotheistic heathenism. Arianism therefore
came up to his ideal of religion, and he could not see what was
lacking in it. The whole question seemed a mere affair of
words.
But if the emperor had no special theological interest in the
matter, he could not overlook its political importance. Old
experience warned him of the danger of a stir in Egypt; and he
adultery of tavern servants, quas vilitas
vitæ dignas legum observatione non cre-
didit.
III. Poor Laws. The hasty edict
(Guizot's note on Gibbon ch. XIV.) of
315, and the more carefully drawn one
for Africa of 322, directing immediate
relief of destitute parents at the expense
of the fiscus. Nerva's law Aur. Victor
Epit. 12, and Trajan's Dio C. 68, 5, were
limited to Italy: they are discussed by
Marquardt Röm. Alterthümer v. 137—
141, and further references given by
Hatch Organization, 34. Whoever rear-
ed a foundling was allowed to retain it
(313, 329) as a slave, or (331) as a son.
IV. Respect for human life. Laws
regulating prisons (320) and prohibiting
branding on the face (315) quæ ad simi-
litudinem pulchritudinis cælestis est
figurata. Gladiatorial games used for
punishment of slaves 315, but ineffec-
tually forbidden 325. Crucifixion of
slaves 314. His abolition of it Soz. i. 8,
Aur. Victor Cas. 41 is very doubtful.
A special account of Constantine's
legislation is given by Chawner. The
laws themselves are mostly collected in
Migne vIII. from the Codex Theodosi-
anus.
1 If the best mirror of the emperor's
mind is found in the language of his
flatterers, it becomes important to notice
the distinctly and increasingly mono-
theistic (not definitely Christian) tone of
his Gaulish panegyrists. See Freeman
Hist. Essays, Third Series, 100, 120.
His Christianity may be compared from
some points of view with the tolerance
of Cyrus or of Messer Marco's Kublai.
On the sun-worship of the time, see
refs. collected by Keim. Uebertritt
Constantins 92-97, and on the cross
Zahn Constantin der Grosse 11-15,
and Wietersheim (Dahn) Völkerwande-
rung i. 406–414. The best general ac-
count of Constantine is by Wordsworth
in Dict. Chr. Biogr.
G.
3
34
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
had himself seen with what difficulty the revolt of Achilleus
had been crushed. These Arian songs might cause a bloody
tumult any day at Alexandria; and if the Christians went down
into the streets, they could hardly be allowed to fight it out like
Jews. Nor was the danger confined to Alexandria. The dis-
pute was not on a question of local interest like the consecration
of Cæcilian, but was already tearing all the East in sunder. The
unity of Christendom was at peril; and with it the support
which the shattered Empire looked for from an undivided
church. Even Aurelian had seemed to feel that a religio licita
must have no divisions; and it was with a united church that
Galerius had endeavoured to make his peace¹. The edict of Milan
indeed had proclaimed toleration for every form of heresy, but
the more substantial gifts of Constantine were the reward of
orthodox belief, or rather of communion with the leading
bishops of the Christian corporation. Law after law gives
honours and immunities to the church, but law after law ex-
cludes the sectaries from its benefits. The Empire could deal
with a church, but not with miscellaneous gatherings of self-
willed schismatics. Thus when Constantine's efforts failed to
satisfy the Donatists of their duty to obey Cæcilian, he next
endeavoured in the interest of unity to crush them, and only
gave up the attempt when experience had shown its uselessness.
In this temper Constantine approached the Arian difficulty.
His first step was to send Hosius of Cordova to Alexandria
with a letter to Alexander and Arius. It presents "a
strange mixture of a master's pride, a Christian's submission,
and a statesman's disdain"." But the very strangeness of the
document guarantees its sincerity. If Eusebius of Nicomedia
had any hand in its despatch, he cannot have done more
1 The rescript of Galerius is given by
Lactantius de mort. pers. 34, or in
Greek by Eusebius, H. E. viii. 17.
It attempts to pass off the persecution
as an attack on schismatic, not on
orthodox Christianity, but the words
ut denuo sint Christiani, make the
awkward admission that Christianity
itself had been illegal. So Mason,
Persecution of Diocletian 300-306,
contrasting the cry non licet esse vos:
whereas Baur E. Tr. ii. 217, Keim and
Heinichen stultify the whole rescript by
making the clause a condition-"pro-
vided the schismatics become orthodox
Christians again."
2 So Broglie i. 380. The best sum-
mary of the letter is given by Baur
E. Tr. ii. 223.
3 As Dr Reynolds thinks, Dict. Chr.
Biogr. Art. Eusebius of Nicomedia.
II.]
THE COUNCIL SUMMONED.
35
than give the final impulse to the emperor's purposes.
Constantine treats the dispute as a mere word-battle about
mysteries beyond our reach, arising out of an over-curious
question asked by Alexander, and a rash answer given by
Arius. They were agreed on essentials, and ought to forgive
each other the past as our holy religion enjoins, and for the
future to avoid these vulgar quarrels'. The dispute was most
distressing to himself, and really quite unnecessary.
At that stage of the controversy such a letter was
unavailing. The excitement at Alexandria grew worse,
though Hosius succeeded in healing one of the minor
schisms. Whether it was during this mission (Socr. iii. 7),
or somewhat later at Nicomedia (Philost. i. 7) that he came
to an understanding with Alexander, we cannot say.
Constantine enlarged his plans. If Arianism divided
Alexandria, the Meletian schism was giving quite as much
trouble bigher up the Nile. The old Easter controversy³
too had not been effectually settled at Arles; and there were
miuor questions about Novatian and Paulianist baptism, and
the treatment of the Licinian lapsi. He therefore issued
invitations to all Christian bishops to meet next summer
at Nicæa in Bithynia (an auspicious name), in order to make
a final end of all the disputes which rent the unity of
Christendom. The restoration of peace was a holy service,
and would be a noble preparation for the solemnities of the
great emperor's Vicennalia.
1 Socr. i. 7, δημώδη ταῦτ' ἐστί, καὶ
παιδικαῖς ἀνοίαις ἁρμόττοντα μᾶλλον, ἢ
τῇ τῶν ἱερέων καὶ φρονίμων ἀνδρῶν συνέσει
προσήκοντα.
2 After this failure Broglie i. 388,
following Tillemont, Mém. vi. 742,
places the emperor's angry letter to
Arius, preserved by Gel. Cyz. iii. 1.
3 The wild theory that the Asiatic
school of Quartodecimans had died out
before 276, and a perfectly new one
arisen since under Jewish influences at
Antioch (mother of all heresies), is
sufficiently refuted by the direct state-
ment of Eusebius V. C. iii. 5 μaкpoîs
ἤδη χρόνοις τῶν ἁπανταχοῦ λαῶν διενην
εγμένων, that the dispute was both
ancient and general. It is the subject
of the very first decision at Arles in 314,
and was quite as conspicuous as Arian-
ism at Nicæa.
4 So Eusebius V. C. iii. 6 πóλs
ἐμπρέπουσα τῇ συνόδῳ, νίκης ἐπώνυμος.
One of Constantine's τιμητικὰ γράμματα
to the bishops is preserved in Syriac;
Cowper Syr. Miscell. 99. On the choice
of Nicæa, Stanley Eastern Church,
88-91.
5 We hear nothing of the Donatists.
They had been tolerably quiet for some
years; and Constantine was wise enough
to leave them out of the Nicene pro-
gramme.
3-2
36
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
The idea of an oecumenical council may well have been
Constantine's own. It bears the stamp of a statesman's
imperial and far-reaching policy, and is of a piece with the whole
of the emperor's life. Smaller councils had been a constant
resource in smaller disputes; and Constantine hoped (notwith-
standing his experience at Arles), that if the bishops could only
be brought to some decision, all the churches would follow it.
It is needless here to analyse the imposing list of bishops
present from almost every province of the Empire', and some
from beyond its frontiers in the far East and North. We
need only note the Eastern character of the assembly, and
the large number of confessors present". And if the bishops
were not usually men of learning, they were not on that
account any the less competent witnesses to the actual belief
of their churches. Little as the issue of the council satisfied
him, Eusebius is full of genuine enthusiasm over his majestic roll
of churches far and near, from the extremity of Europe to the
furthest ends of Asia. Not without the Holy Spirit's guidance
did that august assembly meet. Like the apostolic choir, like
the Pentecostal gathering the fathers of Nicea seemed to their
own contemporaries; and we cannot wonder if the old historian
turned away from the noisy bickerings of after years to recall
the glorious hope which gathered round the council's meeting.
Nor was that day a day of hope for the church of God alone, but
also for the world. The Empire seemed to forget its ancient
sickness now that it was at last confronted with its mysterious
antagonist. The old world faced the new, and all was ready for
1 Every diocese was represented
except Britain, though we know only of
single bishops from Spain, Gaul, Africa,
Italy, Illyricum and Dacia. From
outside the empire we have John the
Persian, Cathirius (name corrupt) of
Bosporus, and Theophilus the Goth.
2 We can only trace seven bishops.
from the West; and in any case there
cannot have been very many.
3 We can name for certain Hosius
of Cordova, Paul of Neocæsarea, Paph-
nutius and Potammon. Eustathius of
Antioch is vouched for by Athanasius,
Hist. Ar. 4, p. 274, Macedonius of
Mopsuestia by the Eusebians at Philip-
popolis (Hilary Fragm. III.); and the
only reflection on the confessorship of
Eusebius of Cæsarea is Potammon's
taunt at Tyre, which is rejected by
Semisch in Herzog Realencycl., and
with emphasis by Lightfoot, Eusebius
of Cæsarea. A few more are given by
Niceph. Call. viii. 14, but some of
them at least are unhistorical.
4 The ignorance of the bishops was
exaggerated (Soer. i. 8) by Sabinus of
Heraclea. It is also alluded to by the
Homoans at Sirmium.
6 Eus. V. C. iii. 5-9.
11.]
MEETING OF THE COUNCIL.
37
the league which joined the names of Rome and Christendom,
and made the sway of Christ and Cæsar one.
All parties seem to have agreed to deal with the controversy
by issuing a new creed; by no means for popular use, but as a
universal test of orthodoxy to be signed by bishops upon occasion.
Christendom as yet had no authoritative creed at all. There
was a traditional Rule of Faith, and there was a final standard
of doctrine in Scripture; but there was no acknowledged and
authoritative Symbol. Different churches had varying creeds
(TíσTEIS¹) for catechetical use, besides the proper baptismal
professions made by the catechumen with his own lips. Some
of these were ancient, and some of widespread use, and all
were couched in the words of Scripture, and all variously
modelled on the Lord's Baptismal Formula (Matt. xxviii. 19).
But there was no universal Symbol. With existing forms it
was not proposed to interfere; but it was none the less a
momentous change to draw up a single document as a standard
of orthodoxy for the whole of Christendom, to put an end not
only to this but to all future controversies. The plan seems
Constantine's own, like that of the œcumenical council itself;
but all parties entered into it, and only the wording remained
to be decided upon.
The Arians had come full of hope to the council. They
were confident that the bishops would accept or at least allow
their doctrine. They had powerful friends at court, and an
influential connexion in the learned Lucianic circle. They
reckoned also on the unwillingness of the conservatives to
exclude opinions which tradition had never expressly condemned.
Their confidence must have received some rude shocks in the
preliminary conferences, but few could have foreseen that on
1 The Nicene Creed itself is regu-
larly called πίστις οι μάθημα : never
oúußolov (except in Can. Laod. 7) till
its conversion into a baptismal pro-
fession in the next century. See Caspari
Quellen i. 24.
2 The Roman creed of Marcellus is
an instance, if we can accept Caspari's
theory (Quellen iii.) of its origin. But
is the Expl. Symb. ad initiandos of
Ambrose altogether beyond suspicion?
The creed is certainly not the work of
Marcellus himself; but the evidence
for a subapostolic date is far from con-
clusive.
3 Required by the duration of the
Council, and implied by Soz. i. 17,
ἡμέραν ὥρισε, καθ' ἣν ἐχρῆν λύσαι τὰ
ἀμφισβητούμενα. πρὸ δὲ τῆς προθεσμίας
συνιόντες καθ' ἑαυτοὺς οἱ ἐπίσκοποι, κ.τ.λ.
So Kölling § 23.
38
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
the day of the decisive meeting, the great heresy could not
muster twenty votes in support of an Arianizing creed presented
by Eusebius of Nicomedia. The bishops raised an angry
clamour, and tore it in pieces. Thereupon we are told that
Arius was abandoned by all but five of his supporters'.
2
This was decisive. Arianism was condemned by a crushing
majority; and it only remained to formulate the decision. But
here began the difficulty. The conservatives were really shocked
at what had been read before them, and could not refuse to
agree with Athanasius, that such 'blasphemies' were not to be
allowed. Their doubt was rather whether sound policy³
required their conclusions to be embodied in the new creed, and
whether any direct condemnation of Arianism might not involve
dangers on the Sabellian side.
At this point Eusebius of Cæsarea came forward. Though
neither a great man nor a clear thinker, he was much the most
learned member of the council. He occupied an important
see, stood high in the emperor's favour, and with regard to
doctrine held a conservative position which commanded general
respect by its safe moderation. He agreed with Arius in the
current belief that God is absolutely one, essentially mysterious
and entirely separate from a world which cannot bear his touch.
He agreed again that the idea of divinity is complete in the
Father, so that the Trinity is from the will only of God. Hence
if the separate personality of the Son is to be maintained against
Sabellius, it was impossible to allow him full eternity. So far
Eusebius went with Arius; but here he stopped. Instead of
1 Eustathius ap. Theodoret, i. 7, 8.
De Broglie ii. 36 has a theory that the
rejected creed was that of Eusebius of
Cæsarea. But this, as Neander iv. 22,
decisively remarks, contained nothing
which could offend the conservatives.
2 It may be convenient here to
dissociate my use of the word conserva-
tive from Dr Abbott's in his Orford
Sermons, 1879. I am transferring to
ecclesiastical matters the broad mean-
ing which the word is supposed to
bear in English politics, as indicating
a class of men more inclined than
others to acquiesce in an existing state
of things. In the Nicene age the new
idea which claimed admittance was
that of hypostatic distinctions: in our
own (according to Dr Abbott) it seems
to be the full coordination of Nature
with Revelation. His division there-
fore turns on questions unknown to the
Nicene age, where he would have to set
down all parties as substantially con-
servative.
3 So Hort Two Diss. 56 n, though
referring to the next stage of the
debate.
His position at the Council is
well drawn from one point of view by
Fialon Saint Ath. 122.
11.]
THE CESAREAN CREED.
39
drawing the inference that the Lord is only a creature, he pre-
ferred to regard him as the personal copy of the divine attributes,
as the devтepeúwv Oeos begotten ineffably of the Father's will
before the ages. Thus the eternal generation was no longer an
intemporal relation as Origen had understood it, but a pretem-
poral act of will; and the only escape from the Arian v TоTÈ
ÖTE OUк v was to lay stress on its mysterious nature, and to con-
template it from the side of cause rather than from that of time.
To a man of this sort it seemed a natural course to fall
back upon the authority of some older creed such as all could
sign. Eusebius therefore laid before the council that of his
own church of Cæsarea, which he had himself learned as a
catechumen and since taught as presbyter and bishop. It is a
short and simple document, admirably recommended to con-
servative feeling by its scriptural language and prudent evasion
of the question before the council. In character¹ it belongs to
the previous century, going back even behind Tertullian in
emphasizing the Logos doctrine rather than the eternal Sonship.
Arianism it ignored. Its πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως and its
πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων might mean begotten (not eternally,
but) before other things were created". Its eòv ex eoû was no
θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ
more than Arius had repeatedly confessed, while its solitary
σαρκωθέντα
σаркwoévта left the whole doctrine of the Incarnation in
uncertainty. To this document Eusebius added a protest of
his own (Πατέρα ἀληθῶς Πατέρα κ.τ.λ., quoting Matt. xxviii.
19) modelled on the creed of Lucian*, and directed mainly
against the Sabellianism he most feared.
1 The Cæsarean creed is best dis-
cussed by Kölling p. 205-212; its
transformation into the Nicene by
Hort, Two Dissertations 54–71. His
account of the Council seems unassail-
able, and we can only regret that a
complete narrative of it was no part of
his plan.
2 προαιώνιον rather than ἀΐδιον.
Kölling's comment p. 210 on the
indefiniteness of γεγενημένον is found-
ed on a mistake, for Eusebius wrote
yeyevvnuévov (Socr. Theod.).
3 The word σαρκωθέντα by itself
is very rare in creeds. It occurs as a
various reading in the confession of
Arius and Euzoius. The other reading
is σάρκα αναλαβόντα, which is found in
the Apostolical Constitutions and (with
a change of construction) in the first
creed of Antioch, and in that of
Seleucia. The dated creed of Sirmium
has γεννηθέντα, to which (τό) κατὰ
σáрka is added at Nicé and Constanti-
nople. It is usually qualified by évav
@рwπýσаvтα, as in the Nicene creed.
The Arian view is clearly given in the
confession of Eudoxius (discussed by
Caspari, Alte u, neue Quellen 176–185),
where we have σαρκωθέντα οὐκ ἐναν
θρωπήσαντα.
+ As Eusebius was dead before 341,
40
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
The creed was at once accepted. Marcellus himself could
find no heresy in it, while the Arians were glad to escape a
direct condemnation. But this was not the result contemplated
by Athanasius and his friends. They had not come to the
council to haggle over compromises, but to cast out the
blasphemer. Personal rancour may have influenced some of
them, but it is clear that the men who best understood Arianism
were most decided on the necessity of its formal condemnation.
In this they were undoubtedly right. It was a dangerous
policy to commit the whole church to measures for which
opinion was not ripe, but it was forced upon them by
Constantine's haste to get the controversy settled. Let the
danger be what it might, they could not leave it an open
question whether the Lord is truly God or not. The age of
Constantine was not a time to trifle with heathenism inside the
church. And the danger was even greater than it seemed.
Most of the bishops had fought through the fiery trials of the
last great persecution, and its scarred and mutilated veterans.
thronged the council hall; but few could trace the signs of the
still mightier conflict on which the church of God was entering.
All hearts overflowed with gratitude to their imperial deliverer,
and few could see that his splendid patronage was linking the
living church to a moribund heathen despotism, and that the
death-clutch of the perishing Empire would almost stifle
Christianity itself.
The Caesarean creed being adopted in substance, the contro-
versy could be fought out in the searching discussion to which
its details were subjected. Constantine proposed only to add
the word oμoovolov, but it was found impossible to stop there.
Ill-compacted clauses invited rearrangement, and older churches.
like Jerusalem or Antioch might claim to share with
this is more likely than the converse,
that the Lucianic passage was adopted
from him at Antioch. He also has it
in view ctra Marcellum 1. p. 4. Asterius
had it id. p. 19.
1 Hort Two Diss. 59 points this out,
and calls attention to the prominent
part taken in the council by Eustathius
and Macarius. It may be added that
1
we find more than one trace of the
Lucianic creed in the discussions at
Nicæa. The protest of Eusebius has
been mentioned before. It would also
seem that one of the forms proposed at
the next stage of the debate was a
modification of the Lucianic creed.
Athanasius speaks of the bishops as
discussing such phrases us ὅς ἐστιν οὐκ
11.]
THE NICENE CREED.
41
Cæsarea the honour of giving a creed to the whole of Christen-
dom. Above all, the Athanasian party could urge that several
of the Cæsarean phrases decidedly favoured the opinions which
it had been agreed to condemn. Ultimately changes were made,
falling conveniently into six groups.
(α) Its τὸν τῶν ἁπάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιήτην,
which might imply the creation of the Son and the Holy Spirit',
was softened by the substitution of πάντων.
(3) The Sonship was thrown to the front, referring all
subsequent clauses to the Son instead of the Logos. We find
no trace of any objection to this, though the council might have
divided strangely on it, with Arius and Athanasius on one side,
Eusebius and Marcellus on the other.
(c) As this brought the words γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς
μονογενῆ next to θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ, it was decided to qualify both by
the insertion of the new clause τούτεστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ
Πατρός, as a parenthesis which while chiefy limiting the sense
οἱ ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, limited also the sense of μονογενή, as against
the Homousians, and at the same time compelled μονογενῆ
into a subsidiary limitation of ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, as against the
Anomeans "2.
(α) Dropping ζωὴν ἐκ ζωῆς and πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως,
the Nicene creed inserts θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ: then,
parallel to γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, it resumes—γεννηθέντα οὐ
ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί, carefully contrasting the two
participles which the Arians so industriously confused.
(e) The dangerous σαρκωθέντα was explained by the addi-
tion of ἐνανθρωπήσαντα. Thus the Lord took something more
than a mere human body: but it was left undecided whether he
ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἀλλ' ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ Λόγος
ἐστὶ καὶ σοφία, ἀλλ' οὐ κτίσμα οὐδὲ
ποίημα, ἴδιον δὲ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γέννημα...
δύναμιν ἀληθινὴν καὶ εἰκόνα τοῦ Πατρὸς
τὸν Λόγον, ὁμοιόν τε καὶ ἀπαράλλακτον
αὐτὸν κατὰ πάντα τῷ Πατρί, καὶ ἄτρεπτον
καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ εἶναι ἀδιαιρέτως de
Decr. 19. 20, and again οὐ κτίσμα ἀλλὰ
δύναμιν, σοφίαν μόνην τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ
εἰκόνα ἀΐδιον απαράλλακτον κατὰ
πάντα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ Θεὸν ἀληθινόν,
ad Afros 5. Is it too much to see
behind these passages a reference to
the Lucianic creed, especially to its
central phrase ουσίας απαράλλακτον
εἰκόνα? Οι course ουσίας would be
dropped at this stage of the debate.
1 The suggestion is due to Swainson
Dict. of Chr. Biogr. Art. Faith. It is
confirmed by the significant avoidance
of ἁπάντων in other documents, except
the Apostolical Constitutions and the
confession of Adamantius. Its impor-
tance is as shewing how carefully the
Council did its work.
2 Hort Two Diss. 69.
42
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
assumed human nature or merely entered into union with a man.
Nestorian error on the Incarnation is still left open, but Arian is
shut out¹.
() The anathemas were added—τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας ὅτι ἦν
ποτὲ ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ
ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας
εἶναι, ἢ κτιστὸν ἢ τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀναθε
ματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία.
Our accounts of the Nicene debates are too fragmentary to
let us trace many of the objections made before the council:
but knowing as we do that they were carefully discussed, we
may presume that they were the standing difficulties of the later
Arianizers. These are four in number-
1. The expressions ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας and ὁμοούσιον are
materialist, tending to a Manichean view of the Son as a part
of the divine essence, or else imply a third essence prior to
both. This objection would carry weight even in the East,
and be a serious difficulty in the West, where ouola was translated
by the materializing word substantia.
2. The word oμoovotos is Sabellian. It implies the common
possession of the divine essence, and fairly admits the doctrine
of Marcellus, that the unity of Person is like that between man
and his reason. If we consider its derivation and follow its use
in the earlier part of the controversy, there is no escape from the
conclusion that the word was Sabellian, and that the sense.
ultimately given to it was a result of Semiarian influence.
the creed however it was balanced by the more important é
1 Swainson Nicene Creed, 77.
2 So Arius ad Al. in Ath. de Syn.
16, p. 583. Arianizers usually press
μέρος ὁμοούσιον.
3 Annulling the idea of yévvnois, as
Hilary notices de Syn. 68.
4 The word is best discussed by
Zahn Marcellus 11-27, 87; against
Dorner ii. 247, Voigt Ath. 46, and
Atzberger Logoslehre 84.
5 Athanasius always laid more stress
on ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Π. than on ὁμοού
σιον. The latter indeed, as is well
known, he uses sparingly. Even in
his Exp. Fidei it comes in only once,
and that indirectly (c. 2, p. 80 is oi
In
Σαβέλλιοι λέγοντες μονοούσιον καὶ οὐχ
ὁμοούσιον—yet ἐκ τῆς ουσίας is replaced
by periphrases in the style of the Luci-
anic creed). In his conciliatory de
Synodis he avoids it: also in his Ora-
tiones (written shortly after: see New-
man Ath. Tr. ii. 227 n) where it is only
found i. 9, p. 325. He uses it freely
elsewhere, esp. Epp. ad Ser., de Inc. et
c. Ar., and ad Afros. One remarkable
passage is ad Ser. Ep. 11. 3, p. 517,
where he says that a father and son are
oμooúσio, also man and man, and hence
the Son is ouooúrios with the Father
(this the meaning of ou.), but not with
created beings (contrast Def. Chalce-
II.]
CONSERVATIVE SCRUPLES.
43
τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός ; and it was soon turned into a compre-
hensive mode of asserting a complete identity of attributes. It
was needed as a direct condemnation of Arianism, and formed a
first approximation to the mysterious doctrine of the Tept-
Xopnois, by which the metaphor of triune personality was after-
wards explained and checked: yet conservative instinct pointed to
a real danger. On the accepted theory of the absolute simplicity
of the divine nature there was no room for a hypostatic Trinity;
and as all parties repudiated tritheism, it was hard to see how
the Lord's full deity admitted of any but a Sabellianizing
defence and if Marcellus shewed his leanings in that direction,
we may presume that he was not condemned at Nicæa by
the party which refused to disavow his developed scheme at
Sardica.
3. The words ovo ía and óµoovσios are not found in Scripture.
This is the argument which seems to have influenced the con-
servatives most of all. The policy of Athanasius was pivoted
on these words: yet the use of aypapa in a creed was a positive
revolution in the church. It was a mere argumentum ad
hominem to answer that the Arians had set the example. At
any rate, they had not attempted to put their ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, ἦν
ποτὲ ὅτε οὐκ ἦν κ. τ. λ. into the creed.
4. The use of óμoovotos is contrary to tradition, having
been condemned by the council of Antioch in 269 against Paul
of Samosata. It is not clear whether he used the word or not²;
but the council certainly rejected it. The danger from the
Manichean side had not passed away in 325; but this the
Arians had already urged. Their insistence on the fact apart
from the motives of the decision at Antioch was an appeal from
Scripture to tradition. In fact, it is not too much to say that
the victors of Nicea leaned on Scripture, the Arians on
don), for no created being is either (1)
παντοκράτωρ, (2) άτρεπτος, (3) increate,
or (4) φύσει θεός, not μετουσίᾳ only. So
de Sent. Dion. 10, p. 197.
1 Athanasius de Syn. 36, p. 600.
2 Athanasius de Syn. 45, p. 606
(followed by Kölling § 24 and Nitzsch
Grundriss 205) says that he objected to
it as implying a prior essence.
On the
other hand, Hilary de Syn. 81, 86, SS
and Epiphanius Her. 65, 5 (followed
by Dorner ii. 12) declare that he
accepted it, apparently in the Sabellia-
nizing sense in which Marcellus under-
stood it. In this case the authority of
Athanasius is impaired by the fact that
he wrote in exile, and without his
books.
44
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
tradition, throughout the controversy¹. Both sides indeed ac-
cepted Scripture as the paramount authority; but when the
interpretation of Scripture was disputed, it became a question
whether a word not sanctioned by tradition could be rightly
made a test of orthodoxy. If tradition gave them a foothold
(and none could deny it), the Arians thought themselves en-
titled to stay in the church. If Scripture condemned them
(and there could be no doubt of that), Athanasius thought him-
self bound to turn them out. His works are one continuous
appeal to Scripture. In this case his principal argument is that
if the word oμoovσios is not found in Scripture, the doctrine is.
This was enough; but if the Arians referred to tradition, they
might be met on that ground also. Athanasius claims the
authority of Origen and Theognostus, and shews that even the
incautious Dionysius of Alexandria freely recognized the
disputed word when it was pressed upon him by his Roman
namesake. With regard to its rejection by the Syrian churches,
he refuses all mechanical comparisons of numbers or antiquity
between the councils of Antioch and Nicaa, and endeavours to
shew that while Paul of Samosata used the word in one sense,
Arius denied it in another+.
The council paused. The confessors in particular were an
immense conservative force. Some of them, like Hosius and
Eustathius, had been foremost in denouncing Arius; but few of
1 Justice is not always done to the
ground of Scripture, on which the fathers
of Nicæa specially took their stand.
Westcott Canon 422–426 need not have
condescended to quote Gelasius of Cyzi-
cus in proof of what we may find on
almost every page of Athanasius. Voigt
Ath. 192-3 is not too decided on this
point, though he seems to forget that
the question was never formally placed
on the ground of Scripture as against
tradition. Athanasius never raises the
question in this exact shape, for he
never contemplates the possibility (how
could he?) of the whole church having
worshipped a mere creature from the
first. On the Council, Stanley Eastern
Church, 117. The case is well put by
Kölling, p. 152.
2 The mere number of his quotations
is significant. The de Decretis con-
tains 105 in 24 pages, the three Ora-
tiones c. Arianos 918 in 181 pages, and
the de Incarnatione et c. Ar. as many
as 186 in 15 pages. The de Synodis is a
narrative of events, so that it contains
fewer; but the instant a doctrine has to
be established (c. 49), he gives a series
of thirty quotations. And these are
not merely ornamental, as when he
quotes Hermas, but substantial parts
of his argument.
3 The traditional side of his teach-
ing is seen in passages like Encycl. 1,
p. 88; de Deer. 27, p. 183; Or. 1. 8,
p. 325; ad Serap. i. 28, p. 540; ad
Afros 7, p. 716. Möbler Ath. 110-117
and Atzberger Logoslehre 46 have
made the most of them.
4 In the conciliatory de Syn. 43,
p. 604 but his arguments at Nicæa
have not come down to us.
II.]
ARIAN EVASIONS.
45
them can have been eager for changes in the faith which had
sustained them in their trial'. Now the plan proposed was
nothing less than a revolution-no doubt in its deepest meaning
conservative, but none the less externally a revolution. So the
council paused. It was an immense change to issue a single test
creed for all the bishops of Christendom: and though the entire
council had agreed to do it, and was actually sitting for the
purpose, the conservatives were sure to make it as innocent as
they could. Again, it was a serious step positively to exclude
Arianism; and though they had consented to this also, they
had not done so without misgiving. But when it was proposed
to make everything depend on a word not found in Scripture,
of materialist tendency and savouring not a little of Sabellian-
ism, and lying moreover under the condemnation of an earlier
council of high and orthodox authority, it would have been
strange indeed if the conservatives had not looked for some
escape.
But there was no other method of excluding Arianism. As
the dispute was not of the canon, but of the interpretation of
Scripture, it was quite indifferent how much Scripture was put
into the creed. If Scripture was to be limited to any particular
meaning, they must go outside Scripture for technical terms to
define that meaning. Athanasius of course understood this³,
but others were less acute, and needed to be convinced of it by
a fruitless search for some alternative. We have a curious
account of the Arian evasions of every Scriptural expression
proposed. If it were Of God, the answer was 'All things are
of God.' If the Lord were described as the Image of God, 'So
are we, for In the image of God made he man.' If as the Son,
'We too are sons of God.' If as the Power of God, 'There are
many such powers, the locust and the caterpillar for example.'
If as True God of True God, even this was evaded, for the
Arians recognized him as true God in their sense from his
4
1 Rufinus i. 2 Cumque in eodem
concilio esset Confessorum magnus nu-
merus sacerdotum, omnes Arii novitati-
bus adversabantur. This may be for-
mally true: but it needs qualification
for Eusebius of Cæsarea and (uo
doubt) Macedonius of Mopsuestia.
2 Soz. i. 17 must be noticed here.
$ The personal influence of Atha-
nasius is recognized by Kölling § 23.
4 Ath. ad Afros 5, p. 714.
5 The allusion is to Joel ii. 25 ǹ
δύναμίς μου ή μεγάλη.
46
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
creation. Thus the conservatives were ultimately driven back
on ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας and ὁμοούσιον only by experience of the
impossibility of excluding the non-Scriptural expressions of
Arianism in any other way.
The reluctance with which they accepted the insertions is
clear from the action of some conspicuous members of the
council. Some subscribed almost openly as a formality to please
the emperor.
The soul," said they, "is none the worse for a
little ink'." Others like Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognius
of Nicea, who were more Arian than conservative, put their own
meaning on the words and signed with a deliberate mental
reservation. This, if we can trust their admirer Philostorgius",
was the course advised by their protector Constantia.
3
The sorest disappointment was reserved for Eusebius of
Cæsarea. Instead of giving a creed to Christendom, he received
back his confession in a form which at first he could not consent
to sign at all. He was not without ground for his complaint
that under pretence of inserting the single word oμooúσiov, the
council had in effect replaced it by a composition of their own ³.
It was a venerable document of stainless orthodoxy; but they
had laid rude hands on almost every clause of t. Instead of a
truly conservative confession which commanded the assent of all
parties by deciding nothing, they forced upon him a stringent
condemnation, not indeed of his own belief, but of opinions held
by many of his friends, and separated by oo clear logical distinction
from his own. He felt that an apology for his signature was
due to the people of his diocese, and explained his conduct in a
letter preserved by Socrates and Theodoret. It was an un-
pleasant necessity 5, but he made the best of it, interpreting the
1 The expression is from Greg.
Naz. Or. xviii. 17, p. 342; quoted by
Fialon Ath. 116.
2 Philostorgius i. 9. He calls her
Constantina: but no doubt the widow
of Licinius is meant. Socr. i. 25.
3 Eus. ap Theodoret i. 12. TaÚTηS
ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἐκτεθείσης τῆς πίστεως, οὐδεὶς
παρῆν ἀντιλογίας τόπος. Αλλ' αυτός τε
πρῶτος ὁ θεοφιλέστατος ἡμῶν βασιλεὺς
ὀρθότατα περιέχειν αὐτὴν ἐμαρτύρησεν·
οὕτω τε καὶ ἑαυτὸν φρονεῖν συνωμολόγησε,
καὶ ταύτῃ τοὺς πάντας συγκατατίθεσθαι
ὑπογράφειν τε τοῖς δόγμασι καὶ συμφρονεῖν
τούτοις αὐτοῖς παρεκελεύετο· ἑνὸς μόνου
προσεγγραφέντος ῥήματος τοῦ ὁμοουσίου,
δ καὶ αὐτὸ ἡρμηνευσε λέγων...... καὶ ὁ
μὲν σοφώτατος ἡμῶν καὶ εὐσεβέστατος
βασιλεὺς τὰ τοιαῦτα διεφιλοσόφει· οἱ δὲ
προφάσει τῆς τοῦ ὁμοουσίου προσθήκης
τήνδε τὴν γραφὴν πεποίηκασιν (followed
by the creed of the council).
4 Socr. i. 8. Theod. i. 12.
5 Notice avaуkalws twice repeated,
as in H. E. iii. 39, where he cannot
escape the subject of Papias. The
11.]
THE LETTER OF EUSEBIUS.
47
council's decisions from his own point of view, to shew that he
had signed it with a good conscience. First he gives the creed
of Cæsarea, then records its unanimous acceptance subject to the
insertion of the word oμoovolov, which Constantine explained as
directed against materializing views. But it emerged from the
debates in a form so altered that he could not sign it without
more precise assurances of its orthodox import. The first
questionable expression was έK Tŷs ovσías; but this he accepted
on the statement that it was not meant in a Manichean sense.
Next γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα was explained as declaring that
the Son has nothing in common with the creatures, but is of a
higher essence ineffably begotten from the Father. Then
ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρὶ implies that the divine generation is not
like that of creatures, allowing as it does of neither division nor
separation, nor change nor passion', but separates the Son from
the creatures as a being in all respects like the Father and from
no other essence than the divine, and really amounts to
no more than EK тоû ПатρÓs. This was reasonable, especially
as there was learned authority2 for using the word. The
anathemas were directed against the non-scriptural expres-
sions whose use had caused nearly all the mischief. Finally,
the denunciation of οὐκ ἦν πριν γεννηθῆναι is discussed.
The paragraph is omitted by Socrates; but as it is given by
Theodoret and alluded to by Athanasius³, we have no reason to
doubt its genuineness. In it he first explains the anathema his
own way as merely asserting the Lord's Sonship even before the
Incarnation, in opposition to the view afterwards taken up by
Marcellus, and already glanced at by Arius. Then he gives a
strange interpretation of the emperor's own, as referring to mere
virtual (dvváμet) existence. On either theory the anathema
asserted what Arius had never attempted to deny³.
prominence given to Constantine's
action will not bear de Broglie's in-
vidious inference (v. 32 n): for it would
not impair the Council's authority with
any but the Donatists.
1 Similarly Dem. Evang. iv. 3, p.
149, and de Eccl. Theol. i. p. 73. Here
however, as he tells us himself (Thdt.
i. 12), Eusebius was following the em-
peror's lead.
2 No doubt Dionysius of Alexandria
was one of the authorities to which
Eusebius most readily deferred. He
was a disciple of Origen, and we know
the weight of his doubts on the author-
ship of the Apocalypse.
3 Athanasius de Decr. 3, p. 166.
4 Ath. de Syn. 16, p. 583.
5 So Ath. de Decr. 3, p. 166. It must
48
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
The case of Eusebius is a fair specimen of the explanations to
which the conservatives were driven before they could accept
the amended creed, for he is all the more representative for his
want of originality.
However, they did accept it. With whatever reluctance and
under whatever reserves, all signed except a few. Then it
was time for Constantine to interpose. He had summoned the
council as a means of union, and opened it with a discourse on
unity enforced by the conflagration of the letters; and to that
text he still adhered. There is no reason to accuse him of any
undue interference with its deliberations up to this point. He
understood too little of the controversy to have any very strong
personal leaning to either side; and the court influence which
might have guided him was divided, for if Hosius of Cordova
leaned to the Athanasian side, Eusebius of Nicomedia was almost
Arian. Constantine had purposes of his own in his comprehen-
sive effort to heal the divisions of Christendom; but we cannot
doubt that he was really aiming to restore the imposing unity
which had more than anything attracted him to Christianity, and
not merely balancing¹ the parties against each other. If he had
any real feeling on the subject-dislike for example of the
popularity of Arius-we may credit him with shrewdness enough
not to risk offence to the council by declaring it too openly. If
he attempted to force a view of his own on the undecided centre,
half Christendom might resent the effort; but if he left the field
clear for the strongest force inside the council to assert its
supremacy, he might safely step in at the end to coerce the
recusants. And this is what he did. Whatever pleased the
council pleased the emperor too. When they tore up the Arian
creed, he approved: when they accepted the Caesarean, he
accepted it too; when the morally strong Athanasian minority
pushed the bishops to insert the disputed clauses, Constantine
did his best to smooth the way. At last, always in the
interest of unity, he proceeded to put pressure on the few who
however be observed that an opinion
resembling the second theory is ascribed
to Theognius by Philost. ii. 15.
1 So Fialon, Saint Athanase.
2 Constantine at least understood
conservative difficulties, as we see from
his explanation of ὁμοούσιον (Eusebius
ap. Thdt. i. 12) ô κal avтò ηpµývevo e
λέγων, ὅτι μὴ κατὰ τὰ τῶν σωμάτων πάθη
λέγοιτο ὁμοούσιος, οὔτε κατὰ διαίρεσιν,
11.]
RESULTS OF THE COUNCIL.
49
still held out. Ultimately
Ultimately all signed except the Egyptian
bishops Theonas and Secundus. These, as well as Arius himself,
were exiled to Illyricum and Galatia; while the subscriptions
of Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognius of Nicæa only saved
them for the moment¹. Constantine also ordered the heretic's
writings to be burnt, and his followers to be called Porphyrians-
a convenient mode of refusing them the Christian name. This
done, and the rest of the business disposed of, the emperor
dismissed the council with the great feast of his licennalia
(July 25, 325), somewhat profanely compared by Eusebius to
the kingdom of heaven.
2
Let us now sum up the results of the council. From
one point of view the victory was complete. Arianism was
defeated all along the line-in logic, on the ground of Scrip-
ture, and even in its chosen domain of tradition. So utterly
was it defeated that even the conservatives recoiled from it;
and its supporters never ventured to avow their real belief
for many years. To the Athanasian cause, on the other hand,
the gain was enormous. It was an invaluable advantage to have
begun the contest by obtaining a definite condemnation of
Arianism from the highest authority. In the West, this was
οὔτε κατά τινα ἀποτομὴν ἐκ Πατρὸς
ὑποστήναι. μηδὲ γὰρ δύνασθαι τὴν ἄϋλον
καὶ νοερὰν καὶ ἀσώματον φύσιν σωματικόν
τι πάθος ὑφίστασθαι· θείοις δὲ καὶ ἀπορ-
ρήτοις λόγοις προσήκει τὰ τοιαῦτα νοεῖν.
1 Dr Reynolds in Dict. Chr. Biogr.
Art. Eusebius of Nicomedia, has shewn
that Eusebius and Theognius must
have signed the whole of the Nicene
formula; and if so we have no choice
but to reject their letter to the bishops
in Socr. i. 14, Soz. ii. 16, in which
they excuse themselves on personal
grounds for not having subscribed the
anathemas. With this letter falls its
reference to Arius as having been
restored before them.
But surely Constantine's allusion
in Theod. i. 20, οὗτοι οἱ καλοί τε καὶ
ἀγαθοὶ ἐπίσκοποι, οὓς ἅπαξ ή τῆς συνόδου
ἀλήθεια πρὸς μετάνοιαν τετηρήκει is to
Eusebius and Theognius themselves
rather than to the Meletians. In the
first place, the Meletians could scarce-
ly have sheltered the Arian heretics
èvтauða, for Constantine was not east
of Nicomedia in Nov. 325: and if they
did, the emperor has not hinted that
Eusebius had anything to do with the
matter. Moreover, the Meletians were
restored on honourable terms, and
not reserved for penance by the
Council
It follows that Eusebius and Theog-
nius were exiled for sheltering the
Arians, not for intriguing with the
Meletians. The plots mentioned by
Socr. i. 27, Soz. i. 21, Epiph. Hær. 68, 5
p. 721 were after the elevation of Atha-
nasius. We can see from Cod. Theod.
ix. 1, 4 dated Oct. 1, 325 that Con-
stantine was already falling into the
mood of morbid suspicion which issued
in the execution of Crispus.
Jerome c. Lucif. (Opp. 11. 193), is
certainly mistaken if he means to say
that Arius himself was received by the
Council.
2 Eus. T. C. iii. 15. The feast
however, like the Tricennalia in 335,
was probably not held till some time
after the anniversary.
G.
4
50
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
enough to array conservative feeling in steady defence of the
great council. Even in the East, the authority of Nicæa
was decisive as against Arians and conservatives alike. Its
creed was a watchword for the next half century. The Athanasian
doctrine could now be made to wear a conservative aspect as the
actual faith of Christendom, and its enemies could always
be represented as disturbers.
On the other hand were serious drawbacks. The victory
of Nicea was rather a surprise than a solid conquest. As
it was not the spontaneous and deliberate purpose of the
bishops present, (almost all Eastern, it must be noticed), but
a revolution which a minority had forced through by sheer
strength of clearer Christian thought, a reaction was inevitable
as soon as the half-convinced conservatives returned home.
This we find joined, not only by the known malcontents of
Nicæa, such as Eusebius of Nicomedia, Menophantus, Maris,
Theognius, Patrophilus, &c. but by men whom the records of
the council never class among the Arianizers, like Macedonius
of Mopsuestia, Flaccus of Hierapolis, and Cyrion of Phila-
delphia¹. In other words, Athanasius had pushed the
Easterns further than they wished to go, and his victory
recoiled on him. But he had made retreat impossible by
inserting the disputed expressions in the creed. They were a
"monument against all heresy "2 in more ways than Athanasius
quite intended; for they could not be effaced, whatever offence
they might give to men who were anything rather than
heretics³.
1 From the Sardican (Philippopolis)
signatures. Hil. Fragm. III.
2 Ath. ad Afros 11 p. 718 σrnλoypa-
φία κατά πάσης αἱρέσεως.
3 With all the veneration of Atha-
nasius for the Nicene decisions, his
writings give us no trace of the me-
chanical theory of conciliar infallibility.
His belief is plainly independent; and
if "the great and holy synod" had
decided the other way, he would un-
doubtedly have treated it as a gang of
blasphemers. So when he discusses
de Syn. 43, 47, pp. 604, 608 the rejec-
tion of dμooúotov by the Council of
Antioch in 269, he says 'it is wrong to
prefer the one council as the larger, or
the other as the earlier, for they are
all fathers and all fell asleep in Christ;'
and proceeds to shew that the word
was used in different senses at Antioch
and Nica. So de Syn. 5, p. 574 aud
ad Afros 2, p. 713 he urges the weighty
reasons for the assembly at Nicea and
the evil designs of its enemies; and
presses its wide reception rather as
a reason against unsettling it, than as
a proof of its infallibility. So de Decr.
4, p. 166.
Nor does he consider it inconsistent
with his respect for the council to
hint Apol. c. Ar. 59, p. 140, and to
11.]
RESULTS OF THE COUNCIL.
51
If the policy which won the victory was doubtful, the
use made of it was deplorable. The exile of Arius and his
friends was the immediate work of Constantine, but we
find no sign of objection to it on the part of the Athanasian
leaders', either at the time or afterwards, so that much of
the discredit must fall on them. Orthodoxy is as responsible
for this persecution as Arianism is for that of Valens.
It was
not a severe one if measured by the barbarous penal code
of the Empire after Diocletian; but it was enough seriously
to embitter the controversy. The example of persecution.
once set by the Nicene party was followed and improved upon
by Arians and conservatives alike, till the whole contest
threatened to degenerate into a series of personal quarrels
and retaliations. The process was only checked by the
common hostility of all parties to Julian, and the growth
of a more moderate spirit among the Nicene leaders, evident
in the later writings of Athanasius and in those of Hilary, and
especially in the decisions of the council of Alexandria (362).
express id. 71, p. 148, ὡς μήποτ' ὠφελον
his decided disapproval of its reception
of the Meletians.
He is as independent of its canons,
and nowhere discusses any of them.
He considers indeed Or. ii. 43, p. 403
Paulianist baptism invalid (Can. XIX.):
but on the same principle extends his
condemnation to Arians, Manichees
and Montanists, as using the name of
an illusory Trinity. He also denounces
the scandal of Leontius e.g. de Fuga,
26, p. 266 (see Can. I. III.) the hasty or
corrupt ordinations of the ignorant
Meletians Hist. Ar. 78, p. 309, 'and
compare Epp. Eg. 19, p. 110 Kaтασ-
τάσεις ἀλόγους καὶ σχεδὸν ἐθνικῶν (see
Can. 11., and also Can. x. Sardica),
and of the Arians Encycl. 2, p. 89
ἐξ ἐμπορίας καὶ προστασίας, and Hist.
Ar. 73, p. 306, and the translations
of bishops, e. g. Eusebius of Nicome-
dia Hist. Ar. 7, p. 275 (see Can. xv.).
But in none of these cases does he
καταστ
appeal to the decisions of the great
council.
Julius of Rome is worth comparison.
His direct purpose (Ep. ad Danium Flac-
cillum, &c.) is to shew that the decisions
of councils are always liable to revision,
and says that this was expressly ad-
mitted at Nicea. If however conciliar
decisions were really final, Nicæa should
be preferred to Tyre. He also attacks
Eusebius for his translation to Nico-
media, Gregory for his intrusion at
Alexandria (μήτε ἐκεῖ βαπτισθέντος), and
comes very near to an appeal to Can. 14.
Yet Vincent the Roman legate at Nicæa
appeared at Sardica as bishop of Capua,
and in that quality consented for a
second time to a canon against episcopal
translations (Can. 1, Sardica).
1 The council itself forbade Arius
to enter Alexandria Soz. i. 20. The
council of Tyre imposed a similar pro-
hibition ten years later on Athanasius
himself, Soz. ii. 25.
4-2
CHAPTER III.
THE LATER YEARS OF CONSTANTINE.
WE are now in a position to see some causes of the reaction
which followed the council. If the church was not definitely
Arian, it does not follow that it was yet definitely Nicene. If
it was Arian, no account can be given of the council itself; if
Nicene, no cause can be shewn for the resistance its decisions
encountered. In fact, Christendom as a whole was neither the
one nor the other. If the East was not Nicene, neither was it
Arian, but conservative: and if the West was not Arian, neither
was it Nicene, but conservative also. Conservatism however had
different meanings in East and West. Heresies in the East had
always gathered round the Person of the Lord, and more than
one had already partly occupied the ground of Arianism, so that
Eastern conservatism inherited its doctrine from the age of
subordination theories, and feared the Nicene definition as a
needless innovation. Thus it was not a fall from the faith but
a hesitation to define it more closely. But the controversy
scarcely reached the Western bishops till it was forced upon
them by Constantius. Warmly as they took up the personal
questions of Marcellus and Athanasius at Sardica, they were
not fully involved in the doctrinal controversy till the reaction
was in a position to persecute them at home. They had no
great literature on the subject, and knew but little of its history
or meaning¹. Even its technical terms were so unfamiliar that
1 Western ignorance of the affairs
of the East is conspicuous throughout
the controversy, and was constantly
taken into account on both sides.
Rufinus puts the council of Tyre in the
reign of Constantius, omits the first
exile of Athanasius, and confuses the
exile of 339 with that of 356. Sul-
picius Severus prolongs the reign of
Constantine to the council of Sardica,
III.]
NATURE OF THE REACTION.
53
many difficulties encumbered their translation into Latin.
Therefore Western conservatism fell back upon the august
decisions of Nicæa. No later meeting could ever rival the
authority of "the great and holy council" where Christendom
had once for all pronounced the condemnation of Arianism.
Thus it was not so much a positive attachment to orthodoxy as
a determination to maintain the existing faith of Christendom
which committed the West to the defence of the Nicene
definition. In other words, East and West were alike conserva-
tive; but while conservatism in the East went behind the
council, in the West it was content to start from it.
The Eastern reaction was therefore in its essence not Arian
but conservative. The Arians were merely the tail of the
party its leaders were either genuine conservatives like
Eusebius of Cæsarea, or court politicians like Ursacius and
Valens, who found it convenient for the time being to profess
conservatism'. As nothing short of the Nicene definition was
of any
avail to exclude the Arians, conservative hesitation kept
open the back door of the church for their return. For a long
time they sheltered themselves behind their powerful protectors,
and only endeavoured to obtain their personal restoration with-
out having to sign the obnoxious formula. It was not till 357
that they could venture to challenge conservative supremacy by
the issue of the Sirmian manifesto.
The contest was not, as some seem to think, between
persecuted innocence and meaningless diabolism, but between a
higher and a lower level of Christian thought and feeling, not
to add of life and practice also. On one side was an advance
into new ground along the lines of Scripture; on the other a
fantastic theory which collected together and brought to their
logical results all the still unrepudiated elements of heathenism
in the current Christian thought. Arianism was supported
partly by conservative timidity, partly by the heathen influences
and confuses the first and second exiles
of Athanasius. Even Hilary de Syn. 91
solemnly declares that he had not
studied the Nicene Creed till shortly
before his exile. His words may mean
more than this, but they cannot mean
less. Augustine repeatedly c. Cres-
conium iii. § 38, iv. § 52 sets aside the
council of Sardica as Arian.
¹ Socr. ii. 37 of Ursacius and Valens,
οὗτοι γὰρ ἀεὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἐπικρατοῦντας
ἐπέκλινον.
54
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
around. Agreeing as it did with the philosophers in its con-
ception of the divinity, and with the vulgar in its worship of a
demigod, it usually found ready sympathy among the heathen.
The case was exceptional when the common oppressor George
of Alexandria was murdered by a heathen mob, or when
Julian attacked both Arians and Nicenes in undistinguishing
hatred of everything that bore the Christian name. And
heathenism was still a living power in the world; strong in
numbers, especially in the West, and even stronger in the
imposing memories of history. Christianity was still an upstart
on Caesar's throne. The favour of the gods had built up the
Empire, and men's hearts misgave them that their wrath might
overthrow it. Heathenism was still an established religion,
receiving state support till the time of Gratian, a vast and
venerable system. The emperor was still its official head during
life; and even Theodosius was formally placed among the gods
at his death'. Old Rome was still devoted to her ancient deities,
her nobles still recorded their priesthoods and augurships among
their proudest honours, and the senate itself still opened every
meeting with an offering of incense on the altar of Victory.
The public service was largely heathen, from its lowest
ranks up to the prefectures of Rome and Constantinople".
The army was full of heathens, both Roman and barbarian,
though Christians were not a few even among the paladins of
Julian³. Education also was mostly heathen, turning on
1 References are given by Sievers
Studien, 333. Claudian's picture of
the apotheosis is a passage few readers
will forget.
2 It will be enough to name the
Roman prefects Vettius Prætextatus,
Olybrius and Symmachus, Themistius.
and Optatus of Constantinople, and the
Eastern prefect Sallust, to whom the
Empire was offered at the death of
Julian.
3 Their coryphæus, the Gothic hero
Arinthæus, died a Christian (Basil
Ep. 269, to his widow). Sebastian the
dux Aegypti in 357, of whom Eunapius
p. 110 and Ammianus xxx. 10, 3 speak
so well, was a Manichee, as Athanasius
continually reminds us (e.g. Hist. Ar.
59, p. 300, Μανιχαῖον ὄντα καὶ ἀσελγῆ
VETEрor), and perished on the field
of Hadrianople just in time to escape
the Theodosian persecution. Victor,
the cautious Sarmatian who almost
alone drew off a remnant from the
slaughter, was a Christian some years
before (Basil Epp. 152, 153); and
Theodoret H. E. iv. 33 joins him with
Arinthæus and Trajan in an orthodox
remonstrance to Valens. Palladius
Hist. Laus c. 145 gives Trajan an
ascetic wife Candida: but Palladius is
more often romancing than not. The
cases of Jovian the primus domesticorum
and of Valentinian are well known: if
their confessorship is doubtful, their
faith is not. With them legend joins
the Persian refugee Hormisdas. Jovi-
nus the magister equitum appears in
111.]
HEATHEN INFLUENCE.
·
55
heathen classics and taught by heathen rhetoricians' like
Themistius, "the king of eloquence," or Libanius, the honoured
friend of Basil as well as Julian'. Above all, society in the
Nicene age was heathen to an extent we can scarcely realize.
The two religions were often so strangely intermingled that it
is hard to say which was which. The heathens on one side never
quite understood the idea of an exclusive worship; while on the
other, crowds of nominal Christians thought it quite enough to
appear in church once or twice a year, and lived exactly like the
heathen round them, steeped in superstitions like their neigh-
bours, attending freely their immoral games and dances, and
sharing in the sins resulting from them. This free intercourse had
its good side in the easy transition from one system to the other*;
but it undoubtedly heathenized the church. The penitential
discipline helped to increase the evil by its impolitic severity.
Flodoardus Hist. i. 6 (quoted by Valesius
on Ammianus, p. 368xxviii. 3, 9, but
doubted by Tillemont Empereurs v. 680)
as the builder of a church at Rheims.
Lupicinus the persecutor of the Massa-
lians in Melitene was a Christian, if we
can trust the allusion of Theodoret Hist.
Rel. p. 1213. Nothing seems recorded of
Dagalaiphus, of the traitor Agilo, or of
Constantine's veteran Arbetio, who rose
from the ranks to be the conqueror of
l'rocopius. Yet the Chalcedon com-
mission (Ammianus xxii. 3, 1) was
hardly the place for a Christian. Julian's
barbarian (Ammianus xxi. 10. 8) consul
Nevitta was pretty certainly a heathen,
and it is not easy to see how his heathen
colleague Mamertinus has found a place
in Migne's Patrologia. We may also set
down Procopius as at least suspected of
heathenism.
Sievers Libanius 109 notices the
barbarian element in the army as a
heathen influence. But it was hardly
so before the battle of Hadrianople.
Bacurius the Iberian was a zealous
Christian; and we have already named
Victor and Arinthæus. The barbarian
generals are more decidedly heathen in
the time of Theodosius. Fravitta,
Bauto, Richomer, Saul and Arbogast
may more than balance the Christians,
Gaïnas, Modarius and Stilicho.
1 Proæresius at Athens and Marius
Victorinus at Rome were the only
Christian rhetoricians of note. Hardly
one of the Bordeaux professors named
by Ausonius can be identified as a
Christian; and the Christianity of
Ausonius himself is the very thinnest
whitewash.
The expulsion of the Apollinarii
Socr. ii. 46, Soz. vi. 25 by Theodotus
of Laodicea will illustrate Christian
scruples.
2 Sievers Libanius 294 accepts part
of the correspondence with Basil as
genuine, and points out p. 291 a letter
to Amphilochius of Iconium.
3 Heathen feasts scandalously im-
moral. Objected to by better class of
heathens Friedländer Sittengesch.i.473,
e.g. Julian at Antioch. Clergy ordered
Can. Laod. 54 to withdraw before the
performers came in. Passages collected
by Mayor on Juv. xi. 162. For the
time of Theodosius, a good summary
of superstitions will be found in P. E.
Muller, Comm. Historica de Genio
Moribus et Luxu ævi Theodosiani,
Hafnia 1797, pp. 34–37.
The change was easy to philoso-
phers like Hecebolius (and plenty more
in Julian's time, if we may trust
Asterius of Amasea), or to men of the
world like Modestus or Elpidius. Re-
versely, Synesius and Chrysostom had
no difficulty in exchanging their am-
biguous life for an unequivocal profes-
sion of Christianity.
56
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
One set of men merely deferred indefinitely the baptism which
brought them under it, while another caused much confusion
by their efforts to escape from it'. Arianism therefore found a
large class of superstitious or undecided men to whom it seemed
to impart the strength of Christianity without requiring them
entirely to abandon their heathen thoughts and lives. So far
then as heathen influences were enlisted in the strife, they
decidedly supported Arianism.
Nor was the leaning of the philosophers a trifling advantage
on the Arian side. We undervalue the philosophy of the
fourth century, if we measure its charm for the imagination by
its want of power to control the multitude. Its chosen
votaries could still compare with the ancient worthies. If
Plotinus and Iamblichus cannot rank with Plato, they rise above
many intervening generations. Nor had it wholly lost its
moral power. With all its wavering superstition and unclean
frivolity", heathen society was hardly so corrupt in the Nicene
age as in that of Tacitus. Humanity and truth still flourished
in the common life of mankind, and vice and cruelty were still
noted by the common conscience of the world. Even from the
gloomy record of Ammianus we can
can see that the Empire
never wanted yet for brave and faithful soldiers to keep
alive the old tradition of Roman discipline and self-devotion
-men too good for a jealous and ungrateful master like
Constantius. Libanius could intercede for Antioch as well as
Flavian; and if we are to honour uprightness and purity, we
must confess that Julian himself was not wholly an unworthy
servant of the Lord he scorned. What philosophy had lost in
originality and vigour, it had gained in antiquity and imposing
comprehensiveness, now that it had leagued together all the
failing powers of the ancient world against a rival not of this
world. The Pantheon of Iamblichus was huge and irregular,
with halls for the philosopher and shrines for the devotee-
1 Arian discipline was probably none
of the strictest: and we hear much of
their reception of black sheep like Aste-
rius and Leontius. Each camp most
likely contained abundance of deserters.
2 It is not for nothing that the
Apostle puts idolatry next to ἀκαθαρσία
and ασέλγεια. On this as the practical
meaning of heathenism, Rendall Julian
255-262.
3 Merivale Romans under the Em-
pire, vi. 454 has a fine protest against
the depreciation of heathen morality
even in the colluvio Neroniani sæculi.
III.]
JEWISH INFLUENCE.
57
buildings of every age piled and heaped together, and forming
a colossal whole whose incongruities are lost in sheer awe of its
stupendous vastness. Its porch bore Plato's name, but Egyp-
tian sphinxes guarded its approach, and clouds of Oriental incense
floated through its endless colonnades. Philosophers of every
school could walk its ample courts, and all the gods of earth
find room in its innumerable sanctuaries. Even the Galilean
God was welcome also to his honourable place in the host of
heaven. Neoplatonism still confronted Christianity on equal
terms. It was not yet clear that heathenism was a beaten
enemy. Its slow retreat was covered by a formidable rearguard;
and on a world-wide field of battle, it was hard to say but that
the chance of war might still sway round again to the side of
the immortal gods. Waverers abounded in an unsettled age of
languid half-beliefs and superstitions lightly held and lightly
thrown aside; and no waverer could face the terrors of that mighty
gathering of infernal powers. Saints and councils strove in vain
to break the spell. Emperors and statesmen dealt with magic,
and sometimes even fathers of the church were not ashamed
to tamper with the spirits of the nether world'.
The Jews also usually took the Arian side. They were still
a power in the world, though it was long since Israel had
challenged Rome to seventy years of internecine contest for the
dominion of the East. Half overcome themselves by the spell
of the eternal empire, they never ceased to look vaguely for
some Eastern deliverer to break the yoke of "Impious Rome","
who had destroyed Jehovah's sanctuary. It was Persia now; in
after ages Islam. Fiercely the great rabbis resented the
advances of the Roman queen Zenobia. "Happy the man that
shall live to see the fall of Tadmor³. And if one Sapor had
not executed Jehovah's vengeance on
1 Notice for example the patronage
of Sopater, Valens and Prætextatus by
Constantine, and the savage laws of
Constantius against magic. Somewhat
later we have Valens meddling with the
black art, and the doings of Pompeianus
with the Etruscan soothsayers in the
siege of Rome-a crisis where Innocent
himself seems to have lost his head.
Many of the later emperors were stu-
dents of omens.
2
"
CC
Edom," the second
.רומי רשיעא
3 Athanasius (Hist. Ar. 71, p. 305:
so Philastrius and Chrysostom) makes
Zenobia a Jewess: but there are many
indications (collected by Grätz Gesch.
d. Juden iv. 336) that Jewish feeling
was on Sapor's side, and against the
destroyer of Nahardea.
So they frequently call Rome, with
a glance at Isa. xxxiv. or Ps. cxxxvii.
58
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
might. The Christian Empire was settling into a steady policy
of persecution, while its wars with Persia were becoming wars
of religion. The revolt of 352 may have been provoked by the
exactions of Gallus, but it was scarcely unconnected with the
disasters on the Eastern frontier. Rome's distress was Israel's
opportunity. While Roman armies destroyed each other on the
Save, the hills of Galilee were held against the weakened
legions, and the flames of war spread south as far as Lydda.
The last of the Jewish wars called for the ablest general of Rome.
to stamp it out; but the books are lost in which Ammianus
recorded the victories of his old friend and captain Ursicinus¹.
The Jewish cities were laid in ruins, and the massacre of
Sepphoris formed no unworthy epilogue even to the overwhelm-
ing tragedy of Bethar 3.
2
The Jews were a sort of caricature of the Christian church.
They made every land their own, yet were aliens in all. They
lived subject to the laws of the Empire, yet gathered into
corporations governed by their own. They were citizens of
Rome, yet strangers to her imperial comprehensiveness-in a
word, they were as a spirit in the body like the Christians¹, but
a spirit of uncleanness and of
1 So T. H. Jebam 15, col. 3, (the
ref. is due to Jost).
ביומי דארסקינס מלכא הוון ציפוראי מתבעין
The magister peditum was more
likely to manage the military than the
fiscal oppression.
2 Sepphoris, Tiberias, Capernaum
and Nazareth were Jewish cities till
the time of Constantine. Epiph. Hær.
30, 11; a good authority here. Eusebius
V. C. iii. 25-53 mentions no new
churches at any of these places, but
surely Peter of Alexandria (ap. Theo-
doret iv. 22) is behind the times in
making Sepphoris a Jewish city as late
as 373. It was destroyed together with
Tiberias, Lydda and other places in 352.
3 Socr. ii. 33, Soz. iv. 7, Jerome
Chron. 355, Aurelius Victor Cæs. 42,
and Jewish authorities in Grätz (Gesch.
d. Juden. iv. 392-396). The rising in
352 bears a close resemblance to Bar
Coziba's, though Jost (Gesch. d. Isr.
iv. 199) and Grätz do not fully recog-
nize its national character. Aurelius
Victor most likely blunders between
sordid gain. If they hated the
patriarcham and Patricium when he
tells us that the insurgents even
proclaimed a king of the Jews—qui
Patricium nefarie in regni specie sustu-
lerant. In any case the victories of
Ursicinus must have been won almost
on the old battlefields of Julius Severus,
for in both wars the revolt had its
headquarters in Galilee and spread far
southward towards Jerusalem, though
in neither case reaching the city itself
(Renan in Revue historique ii.112—120).
May we venture to find traces of a
ferment among the Jews as early as
348 (the year of Singara) in the marked
emphasis of Cyril's warnings?
The attempt on Jerusalem in Con-
stantine's time, mentioned only by the
inaccurate (Renan, supra) Chrysostom
adv. Jud. v. 11, Migue xlviii. 900 (we
need not notice Cedrenus and Nice-
phorus Gregoras) and very vaguely even
by him, may safely be rejected as
unhistorical. So Jost (supra p. 181).
Epist. ad Diognetum 5, 6.
III.]
COURT INFLUENCE.
59
Gentile, they were not above learning his vices'. If the old
missionary zeal of Israel was extinct, they could still purvey
impostures for the world. Jewish superstitions were the plague
of distant Spain, the despair of Chrysostom at Antioch. And
though Arianism sprang from heathen rather than from Jewish
influences, its generally lower moral tone and in particular its
denial of the Lord's divinity were enough to secure it a fair
amount of Jewish support as against orthodoxy. At Alexandria
for example, the Jews were always ready for lawless outrage at
the call of Gregory or George'.
The court also leaned to Arianism. The genuine Arians, to
do them justice, were not more pliant than the Nicenes:
Aetius and Eunomius were as little disposed as Hilary or
Lucifer to accept the dictation of the Emperor in questions
of doctrine. But convinced Arians were only one section
of the motley coalition which endeavoured to reverse the
Nicene decisions. Their conservative patrons and allies were
extremely open to court influence, for some forms of con-
servatism are the natural home of the impatient timidity which
looks round at every difficulty for a saviour of society, and
would fain turn the whole work of government into a crusade
against a series of scarecrows. This time Sabellianism was their
terror, so that as long as the emperor was ready to put it down
1 On the demoralization of the
foreigu Jews even in our Lord's time,
see passages collected by Keim Jesus
of Nazara i. 278 (E. Tr.).
The councils are very earnest in
their efforts to check intercourse with
the Jews. For example, that of Elvira,
forbids eating with Jews, Can. 50,
giving in marriage to Jews or heretics,
Can. 16 (or pagans, Can. 15), or calling
in the Jews to bless the crops, Can. 49.
That of Laodicea prohibits acceptance
of evλóyiai from Jews, Can. 37 (or
heretics, Can. 32), and attendance on
Jewish feasts, Can. 38 (also pagan,
Can. 39). The fourth of Carthage
joins in one denunciation, Can. 89
auguries and incantations, Jewish feasts
and superstitions.
Chrysostom's homilies adv. Judæos
are full of this subject. A few of his
phrases may be noted-"Synagogue no
better than the theatre.
Jewish fasts
only an excuse for gangs of harlots and
stageplayers. A whole day not enough
to tell of their extortions, avarice,
thefts and cheating. Synagogues abode
of demons, full of fornications. Feast of
Trumpets worse than the races."
The last expression means a good
deal from Chrysostom.
3 Jews at Alexandria let loose by
Gregory Ath. Encycl. 3, p. 89; by
George (who even "gave up orthodox
churches for synagogues") Ath. Hist.
Ar. 71, p. 305, Lucifer pro S. Athan.
ii. p. 916; by Lucius Theodoret iv. 21.
It reads like the old days of Polycarp
or Apollinarius of Hierapolis. They
seem also to have taken their share in
outrages under Julian.
Fialon Athan. 115, one of the few
writers who have noticed this important
point.
60
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
for them, the conservatives were glad to make him Pontifex
Maximus for Christianity as well as heathenism. Thus when
Constantius turned against them, their leaders were found
wanting in the clearness of conviction which kept both Nicene
and Anomoan chiefs from condescending to a battle of intrigue
with masters of the art like Valens or Acacius.
But for thirty years the intriguers found it their interest to
profess conservatism. It would be unjust to compare Con-
stantius personally with Louis XV-there was no Parc aux
Cerfs at Constantinople-but his court was as full of selfish
cabals as that of the old French monarchy. Behind the
glittering ceremonial on which the treasures of the world were
squandered were fighting armies of placehunters great and small,
cooks and barbers', women and eunuchs, courtiers and spies and
adventurers of every sort, for ever wresting the majesty of law
to private favour, for ever devising new oppressions for the
single class on whom the exactions of the Empire already fell
with crushing weight. The noblest bishops, the ablest generals,
were their fairest prey; and we have no surer testimony to the
greatness of Athanasius and Hilary, of Julian and Ursicinus,
than the pertinacious hatred of this odious horde. Constantius
was as callous and as selfish as Louis XV; and his court was
like himself. Intriguers of this kind found it a pleasanter and
more promising task to unsettle the Nicene decisions, in the
interest of conservatism forsooth, than to maintain them in the
name of truth. There were many ways of upsetting them, and
each might lead to gain; only one of defending them, and that
through suffering and exile.
Nor were Constantius and Valens without reasons of their
own for the course they took. Established near Constantinople,
Constantius had conservative Asia behind him when he struck
1 Julian's clearance of the palace is
well known. The story is told a little
too favourably for him by Rendall,
Julian 154–156.
We may mention, for cooks, the
case of Demosthenes under Valens.
For barbers, Julian's experience. For
women and eunuchs, Socr. ii. 2, the
interference of Basilina (Ath. Hist.
Ar. 5, p. 274), the women on the
Semiarian side (Philost. iv. 8), and the
repeated complaints of Athanasius,
e.g. Hist. Ar. 6, p. 275 τὴν πρὸς βασιλέα
παρὰ τῶν γυναικῶν σύστασιν, id 38,
p. 290, σπαδόντων αἵρεσιν. For the
curiosi, Godefroy on Cod. Theod. vi.
29, 1. For the adventurers, Ammia.
nus xxii. 4, 3 may suffice.
III.]
SKETCH OF THE CONTEST.
61
on one side at orthodox Egypt, on the other at orthodox
Rome'. No doubt it was a miscalculation when he transferred
his support to the Homoans; but an abler sovereign than
Constantius might have mistaken the strength of parties in 358.
In any case, it was not altogether a mistake. Homoean Arianism
won its victory in 360, and kept it for twenty years.
Upon the whole, we may say that Arian hatred of the council
would have been powerless if it had not rested on a formidable
mass of conservative discontent; while the conservative discon-
tent might have died away if the court had not supplied it with
the means of action. In other words, the ultimate power lay with
the majority, which was conservative, while the initiative rested
with the court, which leaned on Asia; and therefore the reaction
went on as long as they were both agreed against the Nicene
doctrine. It was suspended as soon as Julian's policy turned
another way, and became unreal when conservative alarm
subsided.
The contest may be divided into two main periods, separated
by the council of Constantinople in 360, when the success of
the reaction seemed complete. We have also a minor break at
the death of Constantine in 337, and halts of more importance
at the return of Athanasius in 346 and the death of Julian
in 3632.
Our first period is a fight in the dark, as Socrates calls it³,
where no man knows whether he strikes friend or foe. But
upon the whole the conservative coalition steadily gained
ground, in spite of Nicene reactions after Constantine's death in
337 and the detection of Stephen's plot in 344. We can trace
in it three successive efforts of Eusebian policy, somewhat
overlapping in point of time, but well marked in sequence. At
first, perhaps down to the death of Arius in 336, it was enough
to obtain the recall of the Arian leaders on meagre and evasive
1 This point may be reserved for a
while. See ch. iv.
2 For a sketch of the history, Nitzsch
Grundriss 210-214, or from a more
doctrinal point of view, Dorner ii. 261—
271. Of the general historians, Neauder
is still without a rival for impartiality
and keen appreciation of character.
Baur is careless as usual, but always
suggestive. The Roman catholic ver-
sion is best given by Möhler Athanasius,
or with less of its characteristic unfair-
ness by Hefele Councils.
3 Socr, i. 13 νυκτομαχίας τε οὐδὲν
ἀπεῖχε τὰ γινόμενα· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀλλήλους
ἐφαίνοντο νοοῦντες, ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἀλλήλους
βλασφημεῖν ὑπελάμβανον. The whole
summary is most instructive
62
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
confessions, and general declarations of adhesion to the council.
The next step, first seen in the deposition of Eustathius of
Antioch about 330, was to get rid of the Nicene chiefs on any
convenient charges. First one was exiled, then another, and at
last Athanasius was deposed at Tyre in 335, Marcellus a few
months later. They were both restored after Constantine's
death, and both expelled again in 339. After this the way
stood open for a third advance, dating from the Council of
the Dedication in 341. Hitherto the Nicene definition had
only been threatened from a distance; but it now seemed
possible to replace it by something else. The task however was
not an easy one. The conservatives indeed were not fastidious,
and would have been fairly suited by almost any symbol which
confined itself to the words of Scripture. But if they abolished
the old formula because it had caused divisions, they could not
stultify themselves by failing to secure the consent of all parties
to the new one. Here the Arians gave no difficulty. They
could not expect any direct sanction for their doctrine; but they
could return to the church as soon as it had ceased to be
expressly forbidden. But if the Arians came in at one door, the
Nicenes went out at the other. There was no alternative; for
when once the controversial clauses had been solemnly inserted
in the creed, it was impossible to drop them without making
the Lord's divinity an open question. Athanasius had staked
the future of the church upon them, and cut off all retreat.
The conservative creed of Lucian was therefore as much a
failure as the less orthodox one sent to Constans in Gaul a few
months later.
The council of Sardica in 343 pronounced at all points for
the Nicene party: but its authority was impaired partly by the
Eastern secession to Philippopolis, partly by its own imprudent
support of Marcellus. However, some concessions were made on
both sides, and political events enforced an uneasy truce for
several years, during which conservatism was softening into a
less hostile Semiarian form, while Arianism was growing into a
more offensive Anoman doctrine. Thus the conservatives
were less interested in the contest when Constantius resumed it
in 353, and took alarm outright at the Sirmian manifesto of
III.]
SKETCH OF THE CONTEST.
63
357. Civil war arose in the Eusebian camp; and victory fell
at first to the Semiarians, who utterly abused it. Acacius and
Valens were thus enabled to form a Homœan or professedly
neutral party, supported by the Anomeans and the court.
Repulsed at Seleucia by a new alliance of the Semiarians with
the Eastern Nicenes, they cajoled the orthodox West at
Ariminum, and established their supremacy by the exile of the
Semiarian leaders in 360.
The second period, from the council of Constantinople in
360 to that in 381, falls into two unequal stages. First comes
the reign of Julian (361-363), whose policy was to give the
Galileans full scope for their intestine quarrels by restoring the
exiles. He might have done more mischief by supporting the
faction Constantius had left in power; but if he really intended
to set the Christians by the ears he over-reached himself.
Conservatism, pressed by Homœan tyranny, was already swaying
over to the Nicene doctrine; so that when Julian invited
the Galileans to fight out their differences for themselves,
the reconciliation made rapid progress. Bishop after bishop
over to the Athanasian side, creed after creed was
remodelled on the Nicene, and everything bade fair for the
restoration of peace.
went
The death of Julian deferred it for nearly twenty years.
Disregarding for the present the short career of Jovian, the
remainder of this period is mostly occupied with the reign of
Valens (364-378) in the East. The Western emperor Valen-
tinian let things take their own course; but Valens was a tool
of the Homœans. With a feebler character and a weaker
position, he resumed the disastrous policy of the last years
of Constantius. But even imperial power could not wholly
arrest the natural course of events. The return of the con-
servatives to the Nicene faith was delayed partly by the
continuance of Western sympathy with Marcellus, partly by
personal questions like that of Meletius at Antioch, but chiefly
by the emergence of new difficulties in the doctrine of
Apollinarius and the advance of the Nicene party to the co-
essential deity of the Holy Spirit. Homoean Arianism was
maintained by Eudoxins and Demophilus till the death of
64
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
Valens; but its dominion became purely artificial. The old
age of Athanasius on one side, the life of Basil on the other,
were devoted to the work of conciliation. The issue of the
strife was
a foregone conclusion even before the veteran of
Alexandria was taken to his rest in 373. Afterwards his
Western friends gave up Marcellus and learned to recognize
the newer or modified Nicene conservatism of Antioch and
Cappadocia represented by Meletius and Basil. The schism at
Antioch remained a fertile source of jealousies; but it was not
suffered to disturb the substantial harmony of doctrine which at
last united Rome and Gaul with Pontus and Syria. The instant
the Nicene faith was proclaimed by the Spanish Theodosius,
the Homean supremacy fell of itself and fell for ever.
remnant of the Homoans were reduced to beg for the com-
munion of Eunomius, and henceforth a riot at Constantinople
was the limit of Arian power inside the Empire. A few of the
Semiarians under Eleusius of Cyzicus refused to share the
victory; but when the alliance of orthodoxy and conservatism,
made for a moment at Nicæa, was permanently renewed at
Constantinople, the long contest was at an end. Arianism soon
ceased to be a political power inside the Empire; and if Teu-
tonic converts prolonged its existence till the sixth century,
their fitful persecutions availed little to recover for their faith
its lost dominion of the world.
The
Returning however to the immediate sequel of the council
of Nicæa, let us trace the history more in detail, that we may
see how far it confirms our account of the aims and meaning of
the Arian reaction.
If Constantine expected the Council to restore peace in the
East, he soon found out his mistake. The literary war was re-
sumed almost where his summons interrupted it. Eustathius
of Antioch and Marcellus of Ancyra were opposed by Eusebius
III.
SEQUEL OF THE COUNCIL.
65
of Cæsarea, Patrophilus of Scythopolis and the "many-headed"
sophist Asterius. The battle was still fought round Origen's
name, and charges of heresy were flung in all directions; but
the great council seemed almost forgotten. Its creed was signed
and done with, and for the present we hear more of Lucian's.
To Athanasius and perhaps to Eustathius it may have been a
watchword from the first; but it had scarcely yet become so to
Marcellus, much less to the conservatives. Eusebius for example
had signed it in good faith and still maintained' his adhesion to
it; but henceforth the less said the better about a document of
such questionable policy. Even Marcellus was more inclined to
get rid of all philosophical terms than to lay stress on those the
Council sanctioned. But the creed was nowhere openly repudi-
ated. Both parties had learned caution at Nicæa. Marcellus
disavowed Sabellianism and Eusebius avoided Arianism, as
though it were agreed on all hands that both the rival heresies
had been for ever rejected by the church of Christ.
Meanwhile the contest went on in Egypt. The Arians were
not overawed by the authority of the Council, much less con-
ciliated by the exile of their leaders". The Meletians also
accepted the Council's compromise with no good will, and so
slowly that the list of their clergy was not delivered to Alex-
1 Socr. i. 23, copied by Soz. ii. 18.
2 So well understood was the con-
demnation of Sabellius that Marcellus
Fr. 38, p. 76 thought it necessary ex-
pressly to denounce him, and is accused
by Eusebius p. 60 of inconsistency for
the disavowal.
The other side was equally cautious.
When Marcellus wanted to fix on his
enemies a clear statement that the
Lord is no more than a creature, he
was obliged Fr. 33, p. 27 to go back to
Paulinus of Tyre, who was dead be-
fore the Council met. (Lightfoot Eus.
Cæs. p. 322.)
With regard to Eusebius himself,
it is significant that his loose half-
Arianizing expressions mostly belong
to his earlier works, while his strongest
passages on the Nicene side are mostly
found in his e. Marcellum, de Eccl.
Theol., and the Theophania. Thus
we have pp. 66-69 a direct confuta-
tion of the Arian ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, closely
connected with his explanation of ὁμοού-
G.
Olov at the Council: p. 109 explains
οὐκ ἄναρχον ἐν ἀρχὴν τὸν Π. κεκτημένην ;
hence the Lord's divinity not ditheist:
p. 22 τὸ μὴ χρόνῳ πρὸ πάντων δὲ τῶν
αἰώνων τὸν υἱὸν γεγεννηκέναι : p. 121
πάντη τε καὶ κατὰ πάντα όμοιότατον τῷ
Yeyevvηkóti. Even Möhler Ath. 333 has
noticed his more cautious tone, though
Dorner seems to overlook the change,
and only Lightfoot has given him full
credit for it.
3 Others were exiled besides Arius
and the two bishops. Constantine de-
nounces (Theodoret i. 20) the intrigues
of Eusebius with certain Alexandrian
heretics who had been sent to Nico-
media. As Eusebius was exiled three
months after the Council, his friends
can scarcely have escaped sharing his
fate. Euzoius was undoubtedly a com-
panion of Arius in exile; and the sen-
tence would most likely include Achillas,
Carpones, and the rest of the heretics
deposed by Alexander.
10
5
66
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
ander till November 327. Five months later Alexander died',
and his church was thrown into confusion over the choice of a
successor. The Nicene party put forward the deacon Athana-
1 The election of Athanasius is
clearly fixed for June 8, 328 by the
Index to the Festal Letters. The only
doubt is about his own statement Apol.
c. Αr. 59, p. 140 ἐν τῇ κατὰ Νίκαιαν
συνόδῳ ἡ μὲν αἵρεσις ἀνεθεματίσθη, καὶ
οἱ Αρειανοὶ ἐξεβλήθησαν, οἱ δὲ Μελιτιανοὶ
ὁπωσδήποτε ἐδέχθησαν· οὐ γὰρ ἀναγκαῖον
νῦν τὴν αἰτίαν ὀνομάζειν. οὔπω γὰρ
πέντε μήνες παρῆλθον, καὶ ὁ μὲν
μακαρίτης Αλέξανδρος τετελεύτηκεν
K.T.X., at which Theodoret i. 26 seems
to glance when he dates Alexander's
death five months after the Council.
Epiphanius also Hær. 69, 11 says èv TÔ
αὐτῷ ἔτει.
Putting aside the hopeless theories
of a three years' session of the Council,
or of a two years' interval between
Alexander and Athanasius, we come
to Larsow's conjecture Festbriefe 26
that there was a long delay in the
formal ratification of the Nicene de-
cisions. Sievers Einl. § 20 looks upon
it with some favour, noticing that the
acts of Ephesus were not ratified till
September 443, and that a similar
delay will explain the date 347 assigned
to the Council of Sardica by Socrates
and Sozomen.
But in the cases of Ephesus and
Sardica there are distinct historical
circumstances to explain the long
delay in that of Nica we know of
nothing analogous. It is therefore
better to suppose that Meletius and
Alexander were in no hurry to carry
out a compromise which neither of
them much liked.
2 The various accounts of the elec-
tion may be summarized as follows:-
(1) The bishops of Egypt in Ath. Apol.
c. dr. 5, p. 101, writing to Julius of
Rome in 339. Election regular and
unanimous, though Arians said it was
done secretly by six or seven bishops.
(2) Epiphanius (a) Hær. 68, 7 says
that the Meletians chose Theonas to
succeed Alexander during the absence
of Athanasius, who was elected on the
death of Theonas three months later:
(b) Hær. 69, 11. Meletians chose
Theonas, Arians Achillas, during ab-
sence of Athanasius, who was elected
on the death of Achillas three months
later. (3) Index to Festal Letters.
Alexander died April 17, 328; Athana-
sius chosen to succeed him June 8.
(4) Rufinus i. 14. The boy-baptism:
Athanasius designated by Alexander.
(5) Socrates i. 15 merely copies Rufinus.
(6) Sozomen ii. 17. Longer account
from "Apollinarius the Syrian" of the
designation by Alexander: then Arian
story (? from Athanasius supra): then
copies Rufinus. (7) Theodoret i. 26 is
very meagre. (8) Philostorgius ii. 11.
Athanasius cut short a disputed elec-
tion by coming late one evening to
the church of Dionysius and compelling
a couple of bishops who were there to
consecrate him with closed doors. For
this he was excommunicated by the
other bishops; but he obtained the
emperor's confirmation by means of
forged letters.
There were three parties at Alexan-
dria, for the Meletians had hardly yet
made common cause with the Arians;
and it is not unlikely that there was a
triple election. In that case the Egyp-
tian bishops will by no means be
'telling a public falsehood" but merely
ignoring the acts of minorities. If how-
ever Arianizers and Meletians acted
together, the Nicenes themselves may
have been the minority. Bright Hist.
Treatises p. xxi. seems to have over-
looked this possibility.
Epiphanius is an intolerable blun-
derer: but he has Meletian accounts in
Hær. 68, and his story of the Meletian
election of Theonas is not at all un-
likely. Only Athanasius must have
been chosen in direct opposition to
him, and not after his death. There
is more difficulty in his mention of
Achillas. It may be a truly Epipha-
nian confusion with Alexander's pre-
decessor: but it may (Kölling, § 32)
refer to the presbyter Achillas, who
was twice excommunicated with Arius.
In that case we are in a region of con-
jecture. Was Achillas exiled with
Arius and Euzoius? If so, was he
restored before Alexander's death? If
so, would the Arians have ventured to
elect him?
Upon the whole it seems best to
accept the elections of Athanasius and
III.]
ATHANASIUS.
67
sius, "the people" shouted for him, and he was duly consecrated
in the face of a determined opposition from Meletians and
Arians.
And now that we stand before the greatest of the Eastern
fathers, let us see how he was fitted by his character and train-
ing to fight the hardest of the battle against Arianism.
Athanasius was a Greek by birth and education; Greek also
in subtle thought and philosophic insight, in oratorical power
and supple statesmanship. Though born almost within the
shadow of the mighty Serapeum, he shews hardly a sign of
Coptic influence. His very style is clear and simple, without a
trace of Egyptian involution and obscurity. His character had
nothing of the Egyptian love of mystery and reverential awe;
and his fearless understanding, Greek as that of Arius himself,
recognized the limit of its powers in no superstitious dread of
undefined irreverence, but in the voice of Scripture only¹.
Athanasius was born at Alexandria about the time of its cap-
ture by Diocletian in 2972, so that he must have well remem-
bered the worst days of the persecution under Maximin Daza.
The tales of the boy-baptism³ and of his intercourse with the
legendary Antony' may be safely rejected. He may have been
a lawyer for a short time; but in any case his training was
Theonas, and leave that of Achillas in
uncertainty. This is the conclusion of
Fialon, Saint Athanase 104——–110.
1 The Greek character of Athana-
sius is best drawn by Fialon, Saint
Athanase—a work of marked inde-
pendence, but wanting in detail and
attention to recent research.
2 The date of his birth can be fixed
within very narrow limits. On one
side we have (1) his contra Gentes and
de Incarnatione, written before the rise
of Arianism about 318; and (2) his
statement de Inc. 56, p. 77 that some
of his teachers perished in the persecu-
tion. On the other side we have
(1) the charge of his enemies, Index
to Festal Letters, that he was under
age at his consecration in 328-a
charge which must have had a sem-
blance of truth; and (2) his statement
(implied in Hist. Ar. 64, p. 302 ňkovσa
τῶν πατέρων) that he could not himself
remember the persecution "in the days
of Maximian." So he calls it (and
again de Syn. 18, p. 584 èv TÊ KATÀ
τον πάππον τοῦ Κωνσταντίου; so too
Philost. iii. 12), though the expression
comes more naturally from the West-
ern bishop Hosius, ap. Ath. Hist, Ar.
44, p. 292.
Here then are two lines of argu-
ment, converging pretty nearly on the
year 297.
3 Note A. The Authority of Rufinus,
P. 93.
p. 98.
Note B. The Legend of Antony,
5 This is de Broglie's view, iii. 37.
It is quite possible, though there are
few direct traces of it in his works
and Sulp. Severus ii. 42 episcopum
jurisconsultum is no great authority
for the fact. But if so, he cannot
have been in constant attendance on
Alexander, much less a scholar of
Antony.
5—2
68
[сн.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
neither Coptic nor monastic', but Greek and scriptural, as
became a disciple of the school of Alexandria. In his
earliest works he refers to Plato; in later years he quotes
Homer, and models his notes
Constantius upon Demosthenes.
1 Athanasius is called an ascetic
by the bishops of Egypt and Libya,
Apol. c. dr. 6, p. 102 ένα τῶν ἀσκη
Tv, but the expression need not imply
very much. He had something of the
ascetic spirit of the next generation,
but its traces are remarkably scarce in
his writings, though the subject fre-
quently comes before him. He claims
for example no superiority for the
monastic life in his letter to Dracon-
tius, and betrays no ascetic leanings
at Or. ii. 69, p. 425, or in the discussion
on fasting in his Festal Letter for 329.
He avoids the ascetic interpretations
of 1 Cor. vii. 1, Ps. lxviii. 6, 23, ex-
plaining (Fragm. 111. 1404 Migne) the
first passage spiritually, passing over
the second (Exp. 111. 293), and referring
the dogs in the third (Exp. III. 300) to
the clergy instead of the monks.
Neither can much be made of such
a common-place as Or. iii. 52, p. 476
ἀφίστασθαι τῶν αἰσθητῶν. His praise
of the moral miracles of chastity de
Inc. 48, 51, pp. 71, 73, and ad Drac.
7, p. 210 (see also refs. to doкnois ad
Marcell. 1., Fragm. in Matt. 1. 1381
Migne, where he names the ascete after
the deacon) are no more than anyone
might have written who contrasted
them with the slough of heathen im-
morality. The rejoicing ad Mon. 25,
p. 283 goes a little further. The Vita
Antonii and de titulis Psalmorum being
spurious, the Sermo de Patientia very
doubtful, the strongest passages in his
writings are (1) Exp. in Ps. 1. 7, where
marriage is declared to have been no
part of God's original purpose in para-
dise, but a consequence of sin-the
very opinion so strongly rejected by
Augustine. (2) ad Amunem, p. 766, μaká-
ριος ὃς ἐν νεότητι, ξύγον ἔχων ἐλεύθερον,
τῇ φύσει πρὸς παιδοποιΐαν κέχρηται......
δύο γὰρ οὐσῶν ὁδῶν ἐν τῷ βίῳ περὶ
τούτων, μιᾶς μὲν μετριωτέρας και βιω-
τικῆς, τοῦ γάμου λέγω· τῆς δὲ ἑτέρας
ἀγγελικῆς καὶ ἀνυπερβλήτου, τῆς παρθε
νίας· εἰ μέν τις τὴν κοσμικήν, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι
τὸν γάμον, ἕλοιτο, μέμψιν μὲν οὐκ ἔχει,
τοσαῦτα δὲ χαρίσματα οὐ λήψεται. The
dè
-
on Aristotle, his Apology to
He seldom refers to Egyptian
married man will bear thirtyfold, and
receive gifts in proportion: εἰ δὲ τὴν
ἁγνήν τις καὶ ὑπερκόσμιον ἀσπάσοιτο, his
share will be a hundredfold. To this
we may add his praises of παρθενία,
Fragm. in Luc. 111. 1393 Migne, Tov
νόμον ὑπερβᾶσα... γνώρισμα μέν ἐστι τοῦ
μέλλοντος αἰῶνος, εἰκὼν δὲ τῆς τῶν ἀγγέ
λwv KalαρÓTηTos, Apol. ad Ctium. 33,
p. 251, εἰκόνα τῆς τῶν ἀγγέλων ἁγιότητος
....νύμφας τοῦ Χριστοῦ as the church is
wont to call them, and perhaps Exp. in
Ps. xliv. 16, τῆς γὰρ παρθενίας πλησίον ἡ
éуKρáтela, and the conspicuous position
given to complaints of Arian miscon-
duct towards these μέλη τοῦ Σωτῆρος.
But this is a scanty gleaning from
works of such extent. A glance at a
genuine ascetic like Basil or Jerome is
enough to shew that if Athanasius had
been very zealous in the cause he
would have contrived to let us hear
more of it.
The ascetic spirit is better marked
in Cyril of Jerusalem, in whose Cate-
cheses we find i. 5, iii. 6 general refer-
ences to ἄσκησις. vi. 35 παρθενίας ἰσάγ
γελον ἀξίωμα, xv. 23 τὰ πρωτεῖα ἔχει
Taрlevia. xii. 6, 15 Eve a virgin in
paradise (a frequent inference from
Gen. iv. 1). iv. 24 μοναζόντων καὶ παρ-
Dévwv ráyμa (implied again xii. 33),
τῶν τὸν ἰσάγγελον βίον ἐν κόσμῳ κατορ-
θούντων. xii. 25 ὁ καλῶς ἱερατεύων ἀπέ-
XETAI YUVAIKÓS. xvi. 12, 22 ascetic con-
tinence among the gifts of the Spirit,
even in the case of κόρη παρὰ πασ-
Tádas. Yet neither marriage iv. 25, nor
even second marriage iv. 26 to be de-
spised. Ascetic poverty xvi. 19 a gift
of the Spirit, and xiii. 5 a teaching of
the Lord himself a statement Cyril
has left unproved.
It may be noted here that the pas-
sage above given from ad Amunem is
hardly so strong as the closely allied
statement of Eusebius (Quæstiones ad
Marinum 111. 1007 Migne) which Suidas
under Bios has quoted with it.
2 A few parallels may be given, though
this is no place for a full discussion of
the relation of Athanasius to the great
III.]
ATHANASIUS.
classical writers. His quotations from
them are rare and mostly indirect, but
iraply familiarity so far as they go.
From Homer we have only a few stock
phrases like μοῦνος ἐὼν ἀγαπητός (Or. iv.
29, p. 507) and davaтov Kaкóv. From
Demosthenes a good many expressions
are borrowed in the Apol. ad Ctium: list
in Fialon Saint Athanase 285. For
imitation of Aristotle Newman Ath. Tr.
501. But the most important paral-
lels come from Plato. Thus c. Gentes
41 and de Inc. 3 ὁ θεὸς γὰρ ἀγαθός ἐστι
K.T.. are modelled on Timeus 29 E,
while de Inc. 43 directly quotes Politi-
cus 273 D, and e. Gentes 10 p. 9 alludes
to the opening of the Republic. The
argument c. Gentes 33 for the immor-
tality of the soul from its self-moving
nature is on the model of Phædrus
245 c, or more likely Laws x. 896; that
for the credibility of the Incarnation
de Inc. 41, p. 66 from the analogy of
the world-soul in the Timæus. We
have further direct references to Stoic
pantheism Or. ii. 11, p. 378, cycles and
πλaτνσµol Or. iv. 13, 15, pp. 496, 497;
to pre-existent "Aŋ Or. ii. 22, p. 387;
to the Neoplatonic Triad de Deer. 28,
p. 184. In de Inc. 2, p. 38 he discusses
the Epicurean, Platonic, and Gnostic
theories of the origin of the world, and
alludes again to the former de Decr. 19,
p. 176.
The exegesis of Athanasius is far
from faultless, but it is usually sug-
gestive. He has a greater leaning to
the literal meaning than we should
expect to find at Alexandria. Allegory
with him is secondary and ornamental
(Kölling, p. 153), and never long kept
up.
He frequently urges the necessity of
considering the speaker, the circum-
stances and the context of a passage,
and the general drift (σкoπòs) of Chris-
tian doctrine; thus de Decr. 14, p. 173,
and his complaint ad Episc. Eq. 18, p.
228 of Arian misinterpretation. As a
critic however he does not stand very
high. Various readings he seldom if
ever discusses, though some remarkable
ones might be gathered from his
pages, like Exp. Fid. 4, p. 81 ö éyevvýðn
for ds eyevýon in 1 Cor. i. 30 (noticed
by Swainson p. 78 n), and the addition
Fragm, in Matt. Migne 1. 1380 of the
clause βλέπετε τους χοίρους in Phil. iii.
2-a reminiscence of Matt. vii. 6. Both
readings seem unique.
69
In the Old Testament Athanasius
hardly ever goes behind the words of
the Septuagint version; and of this,
at least in his c. Gentes, he is nearer to
the Vatican than to the Alexandrine
text. We find only an occasional
reference to Aquila Exp. Fid. 3, p. 80,
Erp. in Pss. xxx. 12, lix. 5, lxv. 18; to
Theodotion Exp. in Ps. xvii. 36; or to
Symmachus Exp. in Ps. xxxviii. 6.
His ignorance of Hebrew is evident,
and often causes him serious difficulty.
The whole discussion on Prov. viii. 22,
LXX. Κύριος ἔκτισέ με κ.τ.λ. might have
been avoided by a glance at the original
2. Even Aquila, Theodotion
and Symmachus, all have ÈKTÝJATO,
Eusebius de Eccl. Theol. iii. 2, pp. 152,
153 mentions the fact, refers to the
Hebrew and compares Gen. iv. 1, xlix.
30: so also Dionysius of Rome (Ath.
de Decr. 26, p. 182) and Basil c. Eunom.
ii. 20, p. 256.
T
His mistakes are not uncommonly
grotesque; like de Inc. 37, p. 63, where
Deut. xxviii. 66 (thy life hang in doubt
before thee) is referred to the cruci-
fixion, after the example of Irenæus
IV. xx. 2, and others. In ad Afros 4,
p. 714 he interprets porn vnáрžews (voice
of the cattle) of the divine rapğıs, and
Or. ii. 29, p. 392, refers Isa. i. 11 πλńρns
εἰμὶ ὁλοκαυτωμάτων) to the divine per-
fection.
T
Other instances might be given
from the treatise de titulis Psalmorum,
but this cannot be accepted as a genuine
work of Athanasius. Its translations
of Hebrew words seem derived from
some such onomasticon as Philo's, as
we see from the characteristic render-
ing of Ps. 1. Bnpoaßeè (Bathsheba)
or בְּאֵר שָׂבָע) by
φρέαρ πλησμονῆς
ya); but they are quite inde-
pendent of the Exp. in Pss., and are
not even tolerably consistent with
themselves. For some words indeed a
different rendering is given almost
every time of their occurrence. Eph-
raim for example is translated Ps.
lxxvii. (24) nůžŋuévos, and a few verses
further on (151) каρжодóроs; while of
David's name at least a dozen render-
ings might be collected. Its exegesis
differs widely from the Ep. ad Marcel-
linum, as will be seen in such Messianic
passages as Pss. xliv. 1, 11; cix. 3;
xxxii. 6. It is equally independent of
the Exp. in Pss., and seems to breathe
70
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
idolatry¹, but is quite at home in Greek mythology and Greek
philosophy.
As a man of learning and a skilful party-leader Athanasius
was not beyond the rivalry of Acacius or Cyril. But he was
more than this. He had a deep conviction wanting in Acacius,
and it moulded his character in a way unknown to Cyril. His
whole spirit seems penetrated by his vivid faith in the reality
and eternal meaning of the Incarnation. His earliest works rise
high above the level of Arianism and Sabellianism; and through-
out his long career we catch glimpses of a spiritual depth which
few of his contemporaries could reach. And Athanasius was
before all things a man whose whole life was consecrated to a
single purpose. If it was spent in controversy, he was no mere
controversialist. And if he listened too easily to the stories told
him of Arian misdeeds, his language is at worst excused by
their atrocious treachery". As for the charge of persecution, we
must in fairness set against the Meletians who speak through
Epiphanius the explicit denial of the Egyptian bishops*. And
if we take into account his own pleas for toleration and the
comprehensive charity of his de Synodis and of the council of
Alexandria, we must pronounce the charge unproved. If we
could forget the violence of his friends at Tyre, we might say
more.
Such a bishop was sure to meet and overcome a bitter oppo-
sition. Egypt soon became a stronghold of the Nicene faith, for
another spirit. Specimens will be
found in their comments on viii. vπèp
Tŵv \nvŵv, on xxi. where the Exp. is
more dogmatic throughout, esp. v. 15
ỏσTâ which is Exp. the Jews, de tit.
Christian doctrine. Add the reference
in de tit. of cxxxviii. 11 (21) to baptism,
ciii. (45) σKúμvous to trine immersion;
lxxxviii. 38 (74) of the faithful witness
in heaven to the Trinity; lxvii. 6 (14)
-μоνотрÓπоνs—and 23 (53)—thy dogs
to the monks. All these are wanting
or otherwise explained in the Exp.,
which in its turn has an ascetic com-
ment on 1. 7 (10) not found in the de
tit. The parallels between the de tit.
and the genuine works of Athanasius
collected by Antonelli Pref. xxxviii.
(Migne 11. 643) are mostly obvious
loci communes. Nor can much stress
be laid on Jerome's mention of such a
work de viris illustr. 87, in company
with de virginitate, de persecutionibus
Arianorum, and the Life of Antony.
1 Chiefly c. Gentes 9, 10, 23. Sig-
nificant is the reference to Greek legend
in Or. ii. 32, p. 395 πῶς οὐ κατὰ τοὺς
μυθευομένους γίγαντας καὶ αὐτοὶ νῦν
Deoμaxoûσi; and again Or. iii. 42,
p. 468.
2 We can scarcely blame Athanasius
for his language towards Constantius.
The transition to abuse is not more
sudden than the emperor's treachery:
and that treachery would have done
credit to the vilest of his predecessors.
3 Epiph. Hær. 68, 7.
4 Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 5, p. 100.
III.
[1.]
EUSEBIUS OF NICOMEDIA.
71
Athanasius could sway the heart of Greek and Copt alike. The
pertinacious hatred of a few was balanced by the enthusiastic
admiration of the many. The Meletians dwindled fast', the
Arians faster still, and only outside persecution was wanting to
establish Nicene orthodoxy as the national faith of Egypt².
It is needless to give more than an outline of the events of
the next few years. They concern us chiefly so far as they
explain the formation of a reaction against the great council.
Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognius of Nicæa were exiled
by Constantine in Nov. 325, on the eve of his tragic journey to
Rome. But they had a powerful friend at court in the princess
Constantia; and as they had in fact signed the creed³ and only
been exiled for suspicious intimacy with the Arians, they were
able in course of time to satisfy the emperor of their substantial
orthodoxy. Constantine was not unforgiving, and policy as well
as easy temper forbade him to scrutinize too closely the pro-
fessions of submission laid before him. Once returned from
exile, Eusebius recovered his influence at court, and became the
centre of intrigue against the Council. He was obliged indeed
to abstain from direct attacks upon it as long as Constantine
lived; but as a test of orthodoxy he had disposed of it once for
all by signing it. And if the creed itself could not be assailed,
its defenders might be got rid of one by one.
Eusebius is a man of whom we should like to know more¹.
His influence in his own time was second to none, his part in
history for many years hardly less than that of Athanasius; yet
we have to estimate him almost entirely from the allusions of
his enemies. However, it is clear that Eusebius was one of the
ablest politicians of his time, and that he carried out his policy
by a systematic perversion of justice. His own account, if we
1 Athanasius appears to have gained
over many of the Meletian bishops. Of
the 29 names given in by Meletius in
327 (Ath. Apol. c. dr. 71, p. 148), nine
reappear at Tyre (id. c. 79) in 335, and
three can be traced as far as the Festal
Letter for 347. On the other side was
John Archaph; also Eudæmon, Ision
and Callinicus, who accused Athanasius
in 331 (Festal Letter for 332), and are
found at Philippopolis in 343.
Alexandria included.
2
Stanley
Eastern Church 230 makes Arianism
chiefly Greek and Alexandrian, ortho-
doxy Coptic and Egyptian. For his fact
he leans too much on the Coptic names
of apocryphal monks; but so far as
Arianism was an exotic in Egypt, it
was necessarily Greek and Alexan-
drian.
3 Supra, p. 49.
4 Much the best account of him
is given in the thoughtful article of
Dr Reynolds in Dict. Chr. Biogr.
72
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
had it, could hardly excuse his conduct, though it might help to
explain it. But given his nefarious means, we have still to find
the purpose they were meant to serve. Mere revenge on the
authors of his exile is not a likely aim for a great diplomatist
like Eusebius. Mere ecclesiastical rivalry between the capital'
and Alexandria belongs rather to the next generation, and might
have been satisfied with fewer victims. Mere sycophancy and
emperor-worship might surely have let the creed alone and
found itself less dangerous fields of action. The court chaplain
for example might have raised a cry against the Jews. Upon
the whole it seems that even the unjust judge had a conscience
of some sort. Arius and he were Lucian's disciples; and the
Lucianists had a strong esprit de corps. Asterius' for one was
far from full agreement with Arius, and others may have cared
more for their old companion than for his doctrine. And when
the Lucianists as a body defended him before the Council, the
Council trod them underfoot. They felt his exile as a common
wrong, and naturally made his
1 It will be remembered that Nico-
media was the capital till 330, and that
Eusebius obtained Constantinople at
the first vacancy. But it was some
time before Constantinople fairly as-
serted its position. It did not become
the settled residence of the emperors
till the time of Theodosius.
2
α
Our knowledge of Asterius is
soon summed up. He was a con-
verted sophist who sacrificed in the
persecution "of Maximian", and was
restored to the faith (Philost. ii. 10)
by his master Lucian. Some years.
later he composed a ouvrayμáтiov in
favour of Arius, and made many
journeys on behalf of his old friend.
He also defended (Marcellus Fr. 29)
the letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia
to Paulinus. Afterwards we find
him using the Lucianic creed, and
(so his enemies said) in great hope of
a bishopric for his services. We last
meet him at Antioch (339 or 341), in
attendance on Dianius of Cæsarea
Mazaca.
The fragments of the συνταγ
µáriov are decidedly Arianizing. We
have from Athanasius, (a) Or. i. 30, p.
343 sq.-the Lord woinua by impli-
doctrine their common faith.
cation, and contrasted with the êv åyévn-
τον and the divine σοφία on the strength
of the anarthrous Θεού δύναμις καὶ
ecoû σopía in 1 Cor. i. 24. (b) de
Syn. 18, p. 584-ancther contrast
with the oogía. Socrates i. 36 seems
dependent on this passage. (c) Or.
ii. 28, p. 392-the Lord Kтioμa, kal
τῶν γενητών, and learned as a workman
to create: where however we must
take into account the disavowal of
the word by Eusebius de Eccl. Theol.
i. 9, p. 67.
On the other hand, all this was
written before the Council, and is
hardly consistent with his later views.
He spoke certainly of the Father as o
μόνος ἀληθινός Θεός; but Eusebius
also defended this. But no thorough
Arian could have come forward so
conspicuously in defence of the Luci-
anic creed as even to be accused by
Philostorgius of interpolating the de-
cisive ουσίας απαράλλακτον εἰκόνα. Το
also on the Nicene side Epiphanius
Hær. 76, 3 contrasts him with the
Anomœaus. Account in Zahn Mar-
cellus 38-41, who takes the same
view of him.
So
III.
[1.]
EXILE OF EUSTATHIUS.
73
Eusebius himself was the ablest of the Lucianists, and had fared
the worst of all. He had strained his conscience to sign the
creed, and it had not even saved him from exile. What marvel
if he brought back a firm determination to restore his less for-
tunate friends and to abolish the Council's hateful creed?
A party was easily formed. The Lucianists were its nucleus,
and all sorts of malcontents gathered round them. The Mele-
tians of Egypt joined the coalition, and the unclean creatures of
the palace rejoiced at the prospect of fresh intrigue. Above all,
the conservatives gave extensive help. The charges against the
Nicene leaders were often more than plausible, for men like
Asterius or Eusebius of Cæsarea dreaded Sabellianism above all
heresies, whereas Marcellus of Ancyra was practically Sabellian,
and the others aiders and abettors of his misbelief. Some even
of the darker charges may have had some ground, or may at
least have seemed truer than they were. Thus Eusebius had a
very heterogeneous following; and it would be scant charity if
we transferred its leader's infamy to all its members.
They began with Eustathius of Antioch—“the great Eusta-
thius," as Theodoret calls him. He was an old confessor and a
man of eloquence, and enjoyed great and lasting popularity in
the city. He was a strong opponent of Origen' and one of the
foremost enemies of Arianism at Nicea, and had since waged
an active literary war with Eusebius, Patrophilus and the
Arianizing clique in Syria. In one respect they found him a
specially dangerous opponent, for his connexion with Antioch
enabled him to insist on the important consequences of the
Arian denial of the Lord's true human soul. Eustathius
was therefore deposed in 330, and exiled with many of his
clergy to Thrace2. The vacant see was offered to Eusebius
1 Socrates vi. 13 couples him with
Methodius, Apollinarius and Theo-
philus to form a κακολόγων τετρακτύς for
their attacks on Origen.
The chief passages bearing on the
deposition of Eustathius are Ath. Hist.
Ar. 4, p. 274 (where Tillemont and
Neale were misled by the reading Kwv-
OTаVTίw), Socrates i. 24, ii. 9, Sozomen
ii. 18, Theodoret i. 21, 22, Philostor-
gius ii. 7. Eusebius I. C. iii. 59–62
(as Photius remarks) gives us little
help, Chrysostom de S. Eustathio still
less.
The subject is beset with difficulties,
but they are mostly connected with
the nature of the charge against him.
Of this four different accounts are
given. Athanasius speaks only of dis-
respect to Helena, who was now some
years dead. Socrates, on the authority of
George of Laodicea, mentions a charge
74
[CII.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
of Cæsarea, and finally accepted by the Cappadocian Euphro-
nius¹.
Party spirit ran high at Antioch, and the count Musonianus
was hardly able to prevent a bloody riot. Armed force was
needed for the removal of Eustathius; and his departure was
followed by an open schism when the Nicene party refused to
communicate with Euphronius. Nor were they conciliated by a
of Sabellianism made by Cyrus of
Beroa, but demurs to it on the ground
that Cyrus himself was deposed for
Sabellianism, according to George. He
therefore prefers another account, that
it was δι' ἄλλας οὐκ ἀγαθὰς αἰτίας φανε-
ρῶς γὰρ οὐκ εἰρήκασιν, as was usual
when bishops were deposed. Sozomen
has οὐχ ὁσίαις πράξεσι, but afterwards
alludes to the literary quarrel with
Eusebius of Cæsarea. Philostorgius
mentions a charge of seduction, al-
luded to by Jerome, c. Ruf. iii. 42
(11. 569 Migne); and Theodoret records
it in full detail, at the same time indi-
cating a fourth accusation of episcopal
tyranny (ώς μοιχὸν ὁμοῦ καὶ τύραννον),
possibly akin to the case of Ischyras.
At least we are told by Ath. Hist. Ar.
v. p. 274 that Eustathius refused to
ordain Leontius, Eudoxius and others.
We hear nothing of his translation
from Beroa.
These various accounts are not in-
consistent with each other, for the
Eusebians were quite in the habit of
stringing together heterogeneous accu-
sations. But it would seem that the
charge of fornication was really made.
Theodoret indeed is not the soberest of
historians; and in this case his credit
is specially damaged by his tale of the
journey of Eusebius of Constantinople
and the rest to Jerusalem. Still, his
evidence is often important for the
affairs of Antioch, and his account is
confirmed by the cautious words of
Socrates and Sozomen, by the less
important allusions of Philostorgius
and Jerome, and perhaps by the ex-
pression of Constantine (Eus. V. C. iii.
60) τὸν ῥύπον ἐκεῖνον ἀπωσάμενοι.
The silence of Athanasius is a serious
difficulty; but we may connect it with
the further question, why the council
of Sardica did nothing for Eustathius.
The Eusebian charge from Philippopolis
(Hil. Fragm. iii., sed et Eustasio et
Quimatio Hosius adhærebat pessime
et carus fuit, de quorum vitæ infamia
turpi dicendum nihil est: exitus enim
illórum eos omnibus declaravit) may be
accepted in proof that Eustathius was
a personal friend of Hosius, perhaps
even that the question was raised at
Sardica, as it ought to have been when
Stephen of Antioch was deposed. Yet
nothing was done. Was his case only
not formally brought before the coun-
cil? Was there truth in one or another
of the charges against him? The
simplest solution is that he was dead;
but even this is not free from difficulty.
Jerome and Chrysostom (De S. Eusta-
thio 2, Opp. ii. 600) place his death in
Thrace, i.e. before Julian's recall of the
exiles in 362. Theodoret iii. 4 puts it
before the consecration of Meletius in
361. In any case Socrates iv. 14, 15
and Sozomen vi. 13 are clearly mis-
taken in telling us that he was alive in
370. Yet Athanasius in 356 (De Fuga
3, p. 253) gives no hint of his death,
though he notices that of Eutropius in
the same list of exiles. There is no
mention of him at Seleucia in 359,
when the Semiarians deposed Eudoxius;
but this is not surprising. The passage
already quoted from the encyclical of
Philippopolis would settle the question
(so Tillemont vII. 654) if his name were
not coupled with that of Cymatius (of
Paltus-an exile, Ath. supra), who was
certainly (Ath. ad Antiochenos 19, p.
619) alive in 362. We also have some
fragments from a work of his against
Photinus (Cowper Syr. Misc. 60) who
did not come into prominence till near
343. Moreover it is not likely that his
adherents at Antioch remained head-
less for twenty years before the conse-
cration of Paulinus in 362. These
considerations would seem to place
his death about 356-360, and reopen
the question why the council of Sardica
neglected him.
¹ So Lightfoot, Eusebius of Cic-
sarea.
III.]
MARCELLUS OF ANCYRA.
75
wholesale promotion of the Arianizers Eustathius had refused to
ordain¹.
Once begun, the system was vigorously followed up. Ascle-
pas of Gaza may have been exiled about the same time as
Eustathius, Eutropius of Hadrianople shortly after. Other
bishops shared their fate within the next few years'.
But Alexandria and Ancyra were the real strongholds of the
Nicene party; and the Eusebians still had their hardest work
before them, to obtain the expulsion of Athanasius and Marcellus.
The natural course would have been to raise a charge of heresy;
but Athanasius might have met the intriguers with a dangerous
retort. Doctrinal questions were therefore avoided except in
the case of Marcellus, whom they found it possible to assail
without an open disavowal of the Council. As Marcellus even
more than Athanasius was the champion of the Nicene party in
the period preceding the council of Sardica, it will be convenient
here to review his peculiar doctrinal position.
Marcellus of Ancyra was already in middle life when he came
forward as a resolute enemy of Arianism at Nicæa. Nothing
1 Athanasius Hist. dr. 4, p. 274
names Stephen and Leontius of Antioch,
George of Laodicea, Theodosius of
Tripolis, Eudoxius of Germanicea and
Eustathius of Sebaste. George how-
ever was originally ordained by Alex-
ander of Alexandria, and seems from
Eus. V. C. iii. 62 to have been serving
in 330 as presbyter at Arethusa. Here
again I cannot feel satisfied with the
authority of the Hist. Ar.
2 Athanasius Hist. Ar. 5, p. 274
names ten in all. Macarius of Jerusa-
lem was the only leading member of
his party who seems to have been left
unmolested. His influence with Con-
stantine would partly shield him; and
(Soz. ii. 20) he did not altogether
escape annoyance. On the see of Jeru-
salem in the Nicene age, Couret La
Palestine sous les empereurs grecs 10-82.
In the case of Eutropius we get a
note of time, for the princess Basilina,
whose influence was used against him,
only survived a few months her son
Julian's birth, Nov. 6, 331.
The only difficulty about Asclepas.
is the statement of the Easterns at
Philippopolis (Hilary Fragm. 11. 11)
that he was deposed seventeen years
before. But there must be some error
in the numeral, for the council of
Sardica cannot be dated after 343.
3 The fragments of Marcellus are
mostly contained in the replies of
Eusebius c. Marcellum and de Eccl.
Theol. They are collected by Rettberg,
Marcelliana. The best modern account
of him is the monograph of Zahn, Mar-
cellus von Ancyra; and to this work I am
much indebted in the next few pages.
His Eastern origin is discussed by Cas-
pari Quellen iii. 44 n. He is also dis-
cussed by Dorner ü. 271-285, and an
excellent summary of the controversy
is given by Nitzsch Grundriss 223–225.
Passages are also collected by Newman
4th. Treatises 504–511.
The data for his age are (1) his
share in the council of Ancyra about
314, confirmed by a doubtful signature;
(2) his presence at Nicæa; (3) Eusebius
de Eccl. Theol. ii. p. 140 ei kai katayŋ-
ράσας ἐν ἐπισκοπη, written about 333;
(4) Athanasius Hist. Ar. 6, p. 275 Tòv
yéporra, written in 358 but referring to
his exile in 336, or more likely 339;
(5) his death in 373, Epiph. Hær.
76
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
is known of his early life and education, but we can see some of
the influences which surrounded him in riper years. Ancyra
was a strange diocese, full of uncouth Gauls and chaffering Jews,
and overrun with Montanists and Borborians and Manichees and
votaries of endless fantastic heresies and superstitions'. In the
midst of this turmoil Marcellus spent his life; and if he learned
too much of the Galatian party spirit, he learned also that the
Gospel is wider than the forms of Greek philosophy, and that its
simpler aspects may better suit a rude flock. The speculations
of Alexandrian theology were hardly better appreciated by the
Celts of Asia than the stately churchmanship of England by the
Celts of Wales. They were the foreigner's thoughts, too cold
for Celtic zeal, too grand for Celtic narrowness. Fickleness is
not inconsistent with a true and deep religious instinct, and we
may find something austere and high behind the ever-changing
phases of spiritual excitement. Thus the ideal holiness of the
church contended for by Montanists and Novatians attracted
kindred spirits at opposite ends of the Empire, among the
Moors of the Atlas' and the Gauls of Asia; and thus too
Augustine's high Calvinism proved a dangerous rival to the
puritan exclusiveness of the African Donatists. Such a people
will have sins and scandals like its neighbours, but there will be
very little indifference or cynicism. It will be more inclined to
make the liberty of Scripture an excuse for strife and debate.
The zeal for God which carries the Gospel to the loneliest
72, 1. We may therefore fix his birth
280-290.
In any case the allusions of Euse-
bius and Athanasius to his old age are
remarkable. Zahn Marcellus 84 sup-
poses the latter somehow ironical; but
Marcellus, like Latimer, may have
looked much older than he was.
1 So Eusebius c. Marcellum, p. 1 tò
πολὺ στίφος τῶν αἱρεσιωτών, Jerome vii.
429 and other passages collected by
Lightfoot Galatians, p. 32, to which
add Greg. Nyss. Ep. xix. (Migne 111.
1076) τὸ σύνηθες αὐτοῖς περὶ τὰς αἱρέσεις
ἀρρώστημα. His popularity in his diocese
is clear from the trouble it took to eject
him (so Julius ap. Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 33,
p. 119), from the continual references
of Eusebius to his supporters, and from
the attachment of his followers till the
end of his life.
He was perhaps not born of Chris-
tian parents. The Greek learning
shewn in his discussions of heathen
proverbs may not be very deep; but his
ignorance of Scripture seems to indi-
cate a heathen origin. Deductions
must be made from the list of errors
collected by Eusebius, pp. 10-14; but
it is clear that Marcellus was not
merely entangled in a bad exegesis,
but had not even a student's knowledge
of the text as a whole.
Fragm. 52, p. 40 can hardly be
taken to shew an acquaintance with
Athanasius de Inc. Such speculations
were not much to the mind of Mar-
cellus.
2 Allusions to the leves Mauri are
not unfrequent.
111.]
MARCELLUS OF ANC YRA.
77
mountain villages will also fill them with the jealousies of
endless quarrelling sects. And the Galatian clung to his scrip-
tural separatism with all the more tenacity for the secret
consciousness that his race was fast dissolving in the broader
and better world of Greece. Thus Marcellus was essentially a
stranger to the wider movements of the time. His system was an
appeal from Origen to St John, and a defence of the simplicity
of Scripture from philosophical refinement or corruption'. Nor
can we doubt the high character and earnest zeal of the man
who for years stood side by side with Athanasius. The more
significant therefore is the failure of his bold attempt to cut the
knot of controversy.
Marcellus agreed with Arius that the idea of sonship involves
those of beginning and inferiority, so that a Son of God is neither
eternal nor equal to the Father. Now that which is not eternal
is creature, and that which is inferior to the Supreme is also
creature. On both grounds therefore Arius drew the conclusion
that the Son of God must be a creature. The conservatives
replied that the idea of sonship excludes that of creation, and
implies a peculiar relation to and origin from the Father. But
they could form no consistent theory of their own. Let them
say what they might, their secondary God was a second God,
and their eternal generation seemed no real generation at all,
while their concession of the Son's origin from the will of the
Father made the Arian conclusion irresistible.
But Marcellus was as far as possible from accepting any such
result. The Lord's true deity was none the less an axiom of
faith because the conservative defence of it had broken down.
It was only necessary to review the position and take back the
admissions which led to creature-worship. Turn we then to
Scripture. "In the beginning was" not the Son, but the
Logos. And who can tell us of the Lord so well as his own
disciple and evangelist, the inspired apostle John? It is no
secondary or accidental title which St John throws to the front
of his Gospel, and repeats with deliberate emphasis three times
1 Notice his attacks on Origen Fr.
32-78, p. 23. Here he agreed with
Eustathius, and consequently both
were opposed to Eusebius.
2 Eusebius, pp. 66–68.
3 Eus. pp. 20, 27, 29.
78
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
over in the first verse. In other words, the primary relation of
the Lord to the Supreme is as the Logos. This is his strict
and proper title and the only one which expresses his eternity,
so that it must govern the meaning of such merely secondary
names¹ as the conservatives had accumulated in their Lucianic
formula. Then the Logos will not be only the silent' thinking
principle which is in God, but also the active creating principle,
the évéρyeia SpaσTIK) which comes forth from God, and yet
ἐνέργεια δραστική
remains with God'. That is to say, the Logos is not only
eternally immanent (for the Father alone does not complete the
idea of deity any more than the Logos alone"), but also comes
forth for the dispensation of the world". In this Sabellianizing
3
1 Fr. 28, 36-46 are devoted to
this one doctrine, which is indeed the
key of the Marcellian position. Thus
Fr. 28, p. 37 τῆς ἀϊδιότητος αὐτοῦ μνημο-
νεύων......οὐδὲν γεννήσεως ἐνταῦθα μνη-
μονεύων του Λ., ἀλλ' ἐπαλλήλαις τρισὶ
μαρτυρίαις χρώμενος ἐβεβαίου ἐν ἀρχῇ
τὸν Λ. εἶναι. Fr. 37, p. 81 ὥστε παν-
ταχόθεν δηλόν ἐστι, μηδὲν ἕτερον τῇ
ἀϊδιότητι τοῦ Λόγου ἁρμόττειν ὄνομα, ἢ
τοῦθ᾽ ὅπερ ὁ ἁγιώτατος τοῦ Θεοῦ μαθήτης
καὶ ἀπόστολος Ιωάννης ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ
εὐαγγελίου εἴρηκεν. Fr. 40, p. 116 οὐ
καταχρηστικῶς ὀνομασθεὶς ἀλλὰ κυρίως
καὶ ἀληθῶς ὑπάρχων Λ. Fr. 41, p. 36
quotes Old Test. passages.
Eusebius answers pp. 83 sq.-
(1) St John avoids the word elsewhere,
and does not even keep to it in his
prologue. (2) Our Lord calls himself
by other names, even in St John's
Gospel. (3) It is also avoided in other
parts of Scripture. Elsewhere he com-
plains p. 116 that Marcellus has seized
upon a single word, and that not even
the Lord's own. Similarly p. 68 the
Arians have made the most of the
single word ektiσev in Prov. viii. 22.
Rettberg complains of this "longa
ac nugacissima diatribe." The discus-
sion might have been shorter: but
surely it was important to reduce to
its proper place as one title amongst
others the name on which the whole
Marcellian system depended. If all
titles but one were used καταχρηστικώς,
we should expect to hear more of the
single exception.
Matt. xi. 27 πάντα μοι παρεδόθη ὑπὸ
τοῦ Πατρός μου was limited by Marcellus
and Athanasius (In illud 1, p. 82) to
the Incarnation. On the other side,
Asterius and the Eusebians (Eus. p. 6)
connected it with the δόξα προαιώνιος οι
πроkóσμios of John xvii. 5, for the pur-
pose of establishing (1) the premundane
reality of the Sonship as against Mar-
cellus, and (2) the inferiority of the
Son, to whom things rapeôó0n. See
Marcellus Fr. 93, pp. 39, 104; Fr. 97,
p. 49.
2 Hence Eusebius p. 114 invidi-
ously compares the Valentinian Σιγή.
3 Fr. 55, p. 39 parallels the divine
with the human Logos. The compari-
son is taken up by Eusebius p. 4 from
a hostile point of view.
Thus Fr. 47, p. 37 dvváμel Ev Tŵ
Πατρὶ…..... ἐνεργείᾳ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. This
last point Eus. p. 113 fails to under-
stand, when he asks τί οὖν ἐν τῷ μεταξὺ
χρόνῳ, ὅτε ἐκτὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ,
προσήκει νοεῖν ;
Notice the advance of Marcellus
on both Arians and conservatives, in
that he does not identify the Father
with the Monas. See Fr. 58, p. 138,
and passages discussed by Zahn, 142.
In the same sense Eugenius uses
language closely allied to that of the
creed ascribed to Gregory of Neoca-
sarea-οὐδὲν ἐπεισακτὸν οὐδὲ κτίσμα ἐστὶν
ἐν τῇ Τριάδι.
A
6 Thus he says Fr. 31, 32, pp. 22, 36
προελθόντα, καὶ τοῦτον (Gaisford omits
μὴ εἶναι τὸν τῆς γεννήσεως ἀληθῆ τρόπον,
and agrees with Arius in rejecting the
Valentinian роßоλn as implying cor-
poreity, though it seems alluded to by
Ath. Or. iv. 11, p. 495. Fr. 54, p. 41;
π
III.]
THE SYSTEM OF MARCELLUS.
79
sense Marcellus accepted the Nicene óμoovσtov', holding that
the Logos is one with God as man with his reason³.
The divine Sonship presents no difficulty now that it can be
limited to the Incarnation. The Logos as such is pure spirit,
invisible and ingenerate; and it was only as the Son of Man that
the Logos became the Son of God. Even the Arian identi-
fication of generation with creation only needed to be trans-
ferred from the Lord's higher nature to the flesh, which was
undoubtedly created. Then too the invisible Logos first became
the visible "Image of the invisible God." In the same way the
"Firstborn of all Creation," as well as other titles which seem to
contradict the Lord's eternity, are explained as denoting relations
which had no existence before the Incarnation".
The eternal Logos then came forth from the Father to realize
the idea of creation, though yet remaining in inseparable union
with the Father, and in due time descended into true created
human flesh. It was only in virtue of this humiliating separa-
tion from the Father that the Logos acquired a sort of inde-
pendent personality. Thus the mediator of God and man was
truly human as the apostle declared, but not a mere man as
Fr. 62, p. 107 ένεργείᾳ μόνῃ πλατύνεσθαι
doke, where note the Stoic (not Sabel-
lian : Zahn, 203) πλατυσμός.
Eusebius p. 108 turns round the
charge of materialism on this πλατυσ-
μός, as a slander ἐπὶ τῆς ἀσωμάτου καὶ
αλέκτου καὶ ἀνεκφράστου ουσίας, and
again pp. 114, 167 on the VTÒS KAÌ ÈKTÒS
as breaking up the divine simplicity.
Athanasius Ör. iv. 14, p. 497 also takes
the deeper argument (already urged
against the Arians, Or. i. 17, p. 333)
that distinctions inside the divinity
are either materializing or meaningless
unless they express the divine nature.
1 The word is not found in the
fragments preserved by Eusebius, but
Marcellus must have used it on occa-
sion.
It must be noted that one main
object of Marcellus was to obliterate
every trace of Subordination. In Fr.
64, p. 37 he presses John x. 30 as im-
plying something more than the unity
of will imagined by Asterius. Euse-
bius p. 211 argues on the other side
from John xiv. 28, v. 30.
3 Fr. 42, p. 35. In Fr. 36, p. 81 and
often elsewhere he explains Old Test.
references to the Sonship as prophecy.
Thus Ps. cx. 3 is a prophecy of the
Incarnation. So Prov. viii. 22 is of
the flesh created, the Logos established
(not begotten) before this present age
(not before all ages) as the ground of
the church. So here Athanasius; ex-
cept that yevra with him refers to the
eternal generation.
Eusebius p. 7 rightly quotes Gal. iv.
4 to shew that the Sonship was previous
to the Incarnation.
Fr. 44, p. 43, and the comment
of Eusebius. Fr. 10, p. 41.
5 He argues Fr. 80, 82, pp. 47, 15
that whereas the Logos as such is in-
visible, an eik is necessarily visible.
Eusebius pp. 47, 142, 175 endeavours
by a gross misunderstanding to fix upon
him the absurdity of making the mere
oaps the eixiv. See Zahn, 110. It is
not a fair inference from Fr. 83, p. 47.
6 Fr. 4-8, pp. 20, 43, 44. Compare
Zahn, 102.
80
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
Eusebius (so he says) maintained'; for the Logos was not joined
to a man but assumed impersonal human nature, and therefore
remained the mediating person'.
And though the whole work of mediation was conditioned.
by the presence of this human nature, the Logos remained
unchanged. Not for his own sake but merely for the conquest
of Satan was the Logos incarnate. "The flesh profiteth nothing;"
and even the gift of immortality cannot make it worthy
of permanent union with the Logos. God is higher than im-
mortality itself, and even the immortal angels cannot pass the
gulf which separates the creature from its Lord. The Logos
cannot wear a servant's form for ever. That which is of the
earth is unprofitable for the age to come. Hence it must be
laid aside when its work is done and every hostile power over-
thrown. Then the Son of God shall deliver up the kingdom.
to the Father, that the kingdom of God may have no end³; and
then the Logos shall return, and be immanent as before.
A universal cry of horror rose from the conservative ranks
to greet the new Sabellius or Samosatene, the Jew and worse
than Jew, the shameless miscreant who had forsworn the Son of
God, made indiscriminate war upon his servants and assailed
even the sainted dead with every form of slander and reviling'.
1 Fr. 89, p. 29 he accuses Eusebius
of confessing μόνον ἄνθρωπον. Eusebius
replies p. 29 that he has not gone be-
yond 1 Tim. ii. 5, and retorts p. 51
that Marcellus said πρὸ ἐτῶν οὐδ᾽ ὅλων
τετρακοσίων διὰ τῆς ἀναλήψεως τῆς σαρκὸς
γεγεννήσθαι κάτω of the Son of God.
The phrase may be chosen as an allusion
to the karweer of Paul of Samosata.
2 Compare Zahn, 164. Eusebius
p. 8 replies from Gal. iii. 20 and 1 Tim.
ii. 5 that a ψιλός Θεού Λόγος ἀνυπόστα
τος, ἓν καὶ ταὐτὸν ὑπάρχων τῷ Θεῷ could
not be a mediator.
3 Fr. 107, 104, pp. 52, 177. Con-
trast Ath. de Inc.
4 This was one of the worst offences
to the conservatives. Did Marcellus
abandon it as Rettberg p. 105 suggests?
It is omitted in the Sardican letter, nor
is it found either in the Roman con-
fession, or in that of Eugenius; yet it
seems essential to his system.
5 1 Cor. xv. 28. This (not Lu. i. 33)
is the passage alluded to in his Roman
confession. In Fr. 101, p. 50 he puts
his doctrine clearly. Zahn, 182.
6 Fr. 108, p. 41.
7 Even the bad language of Eusebius
will repay study. Thus pp. 18 μovo-
νουχί πάμμαχον συνιστάμενος ἀγῶνα πρὸς
πάντας, 14 εἶτα ἐπὶ τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἄνθρω-
πον, τὸν ὡς ἀληθῶς τρισμακάριον, τρέπε-
ται Παυλίνον......καὶ τοῦτον μακαρίως μὲν
βεβιωκότα, μακαρίως δὲ πεπαυμένον, πάλαι
τε κεκοιμημένον, 42 γυμνῇ τῇ κεφαλῇ τὸν
Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐξωμόσατο, 85 ὁ νέος Σαβέλ-
λιος, 105 Ιουδαῖον ἄντικρυς, 63 πόσῳ δὲ
ἑκατέρων βελτίων ὁ Ἰουδαῖος;
Acacius is even more violent than
his master. A few fragments of his
work against Marcellus are preserved
by Epiph. Hær. 72, 6-10.
It was not unprovoked. Marcellus
is accused by Eus. p. 1 of "cursing like
quarrelling women," and puts into the
mouth of Eusebius of Nicomedia a
bitterly ironical confession Fr. 88, p. 26
ἡμάρτομεν, ἠσεβήσαμεν, ήνομήσαμεν, καὶ
τὸ πονηρὸν ἐνώπιόν σου ἐποιήσαμεν.
III.]
REVIEW OF MARCELLIAN SYSTEM.
81
The system of Marcellus was a confusion of heterogeneous errors.
From the mire of Sabellianism came his doctrine of a single
divine essence under a triple name and triple mask. Paul of
Samosata contributed the heresy of an impersonal Logos de-
scending into human flesh, while the idea of a Son of God no
better than a Son of Man was nothing but a Jewish dotage¹. The
Trinity becomes an idle name, and the Lord is neither God nor
man, nor even a personal being of any sort. The faith itself
was at peril if blasphemies like these were to be sheltered behind
the rash decisions of Nicea.
The conservative panic was undignified from the first, and
became a positive calamity when it was taken up by political
adventurers for their own disinterested purposes. Yet the
danger from Marcellus was not imaginary. As far as doctrine
went, there was not much to choose between him and Arius.
Each held firmly the central error of the conservatives and
rejected as illogical the modifications and side-views of it by
means of which they were finding their way to something
better. If Eusebius hung back from the advance of Athanasius,
Marcellus receded even from the position of Eusebius. Instead
of destroying Arianism by the roots, he returned to something
very like the obsolete error of Sabellianism². In his doctrine
the Son of God is a mere phenomenon of time; and even the
Logos is as external to the divine essence as the Arian Son.
"He that hath seen me hath seen the Father:" but if the Arian
Son can only reveal in finite measure, the Marcellian Logos
gives only broken hints of an infinity beyond. Yet this
shadowy doctrine was the key of his position. For it he
rejected not only Origen's theory of the eternal generation, but
even Tertullian's establishment of the divine Sonship as the
1 Eus. p. 175. Μάρκελλος δὲ πάντα
φύρας, ποτὲ μὲν εἰς αὐτὸν ὅλον τοῦ Σα-
βελλίον βυθόν χωρεῖ, ποτὲ δὲ Παύλου
τοῦ Σαμοσατέως ἀνανεοῦσθαι πειρᾶται
τὴν αἵρεσιν, ποτὲ δὲ Ἰουδαῖος ὢν ἄντικρυς
ἀπελέγχεται μίαν γὰρ ὑπόστασιν τρι
πρόσωπον ώσπερ καὶ τριώνυμον εἰσάγει,
τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι λέγων τὸν Θεὸν, καὶ τὸν
ἐν αὐτῷ Λόγον, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα.
So also p. 33.
* Marcellus Fr. 38, p. 76 disavows
Sabellianism, but his system is essen-
tially much the same, and Eusebius
was not likely to be conciliated by
the statement that "Sabellius knew not
the Son, that is the Logos." So Atha-
nasius calls the Marcellians not indeed
Σαβελλιανοί but Σαβελλίζοντες.
3 Compare the ἀναλόγως τοῖς ἰδίοις
μέτροις οἶδε of Arius with the σημαντική
δύναμις of Marcellus.
G.
6
82
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
centre of the Christian problem. Resting on the doctrine
of the Logos like the apologists and Irenæus', Marcellus aban-
doned the eternal Sonship-the one solid conquest of the last
generation, and brought back the whole question into the old
indefiniteness from which a century of toil had hardly rescued it.
He scarcely even kept his hold on the Lord's humanity. He
confessed it indeed, but the incarnation became a mere theo-
phany with him, the flesh a useless burden to be one day laid
aside. Marcellus reaches no true mediation, no true union of
God and man, only a oŋµavtikǹ dúvaμis taking human flesh for
a time. The Lord is our redeemer and the conqueror of death
and Satan, but there is no room for a second Adam, the organic
head of regenerate mankind. The deliverance becomes a mere.
intervention from without, not also the planting of a power of
life within, which will one day quicken our mortal bodies too.
If the body is for the Lord, the Lord is also for the body, and
even our life in the flesh is wholly consecrated by the resurrec-
tion of the Son of Man.
No doubt Eusebius has the best of the dispute, so far as
concerns the mere proof that the theory of Marcellus was
a failure. Yet he laid himself open to more than one keen
retort when the controversy came before a master's eye. The
gleanings of Athanasius' are better than the vintage even of
Eusebius. Both parties, he says, are equally inconsistent. The
conservatives who refuse eternal being to the Son of God will
not endure to hear that his kingdom is other than eternal,
while the Marcellians who deny his personality outright are
equally shocked at the Arian limitation of it to the sphere of
time. One party rests on the Sonship, the other on the doctrine
of the Logos; so that while each accepts one half of the truth,
neither can attack the other without having to confess the other
half also. Athanasius then goes on to shew that the Marcellian
system is involved in much the same difficulties as Arianism.
3
1 This is noted by Zahn Marcellus
227, Nitzsch Grundriss 224.
His return to the old distinction of
the Logos as ἐνδιάθετος and προφορικὸς
is significant.
The reference of Ath. Or. iv. 8-
24 to the Marcellian controversy was
long ago pointed out by Rettberg. It
is illustrated by Newman Ath. Treatises
497-511, and has recently been more
satisfactorily discussed by Zahn 198-
208, who adds an analysis of the whole
book.
3 Eusebius, pp. 34, 55.
III.]
THE ATTACK ON ATHANASIUS.
83
If for example the idea of an eternal Son is polytheistic, nothing
is gained by transferring the eternity to an impersonal Logos¹.
If a divine generation is materializing, so also is a divine expan-
sion. If the work of creation is unworthy of God, it matters
little whether it is delegated to a created Son or to a transitory
Logos. The one theory logically requires an infinite series
of mediators, the other an infinite series of cycles of creation;
for if the procession of the Logos was needed for the work
of creation, it follows that the present cycle must come to an
end with the return of the Logos.
Marcellus had fairly exposed himself to a doctrinal attack;
but other methods were used against Athanasius. There
was abundant material to work upon in the disputed election,
the complaints of the Meletians and miscellaneous charges (they
were all found useful) of oppression, of magic and of political
intrigue. At first the Meletians could not even obtain a
hearing from the emperor; and even when Eusebius took
up their cause, they found it prudent to defer the main attack to
the winter of 331. Even then their charges were partly refuted
by two presbyters of Athanasius who chanced to be at Nicomedia;
and when the bishop himself was summoned to the comitatus, it
was only to complete the discomfiture of his enemies and return
in triumph to Alexandria shortly before Easter 332. The
intriguers had to wait awhile, especially as Constantine was
occupied on the frontiers.
We are not here concerned with the intricate details of the
Gothic war'; but the peace which ended it claims our attention
1 So Eusebius, p. 29.
2 Ammianus xv. 7, 7 sums them up
in the form which reached the heathen.
He notices (1) ambition, ultra profes-
sionem altius se efferentem; (2) magie,
scitarique conatum externa, ut prodi-
dere rumores adsidui, mentioning his
skill in augury— quere augurales por-
tenderent alites scientissime callens,
aliquotiens prædixisse futura (compare
his interpretation of the crow's cras
in Soz. iv. 10); (3) alia quoque a pro-
posito legis abhorrentia, cui præsidebat,
which may mean immorality, or per-
haps oppression.
3 Epiph Her. 68, 5—6.
4
The Anon. Valesii relates the
Gothic war after 330, and Jerome and
Idatius fix the decisive battle for Apr.
20, 332. The Anon. Fal. and Julian,
Or. I., p. 9 D (see Spanheim's note),
ascribe the victory to the younger Con-
stantine. This is not unlikely, for we
have no trace of him in the West
between July 1, 331 and July 27, 332 :
yet we find his father dating a law
Apr. 12, 332 from Martianopolis, the
headquarters of Valens in the Gothic
war of 367, and of Lupicinus in 376.
It is the repeated complaint of
Joannes Lydus de magistr. ii. 10, iii.
31, 40 that Constantine's removal of
6-2
84
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
as the last of Constantine's great services to the Empire. The
Edict of Milan had removed the standing danger of Christian
disaffection in the East, the reform of the administration com-
pleted Diocletian's work of reducing the army to permanent
obedience, the foundation of Constantinople made the seat of
power safe for centuries; and now the consolidation of the
northern frontier seemed to enlist all the most dangerous
enemies of Rome in her defence. The Empire gained three
hundred thousand settlers for its Thracian wastes, and a firm
peace of more than thirty years with the greatest of the northern
nations. Henceforth the Rhine was guarded by the Franks,
the Danube covered by the Goths, and the Euphrates flanked
by the Christian kingdom of Armenia. The Empire already
leaned too much on barbarian help within and without its
frontiers; but the Roman peace was never more secure than
when the skilful policy of Constantine had formed its barbarian
enemies into a ring of friendly client states'.
The emperor returned to his well-earned rest, the intriguers
to their work of mischief. Athanasius was ordered in 334 to
appear before a new council. As the trial was to be held
at Cæsarea, we may suppose that the bishop of the place was
intended to preside over it. But Athanasius was far from
sharing the emperor's confidence in the moderation of Eusebius.
He treated the assembly as a cabal of his enemies and declined
its jurisdiction.
Next year (335) the Eastern bishops gathered to Jerusalem
the frontier troops from the Danube
to lower Asia left Europe open to the
barbarians; and with this step Schmidt
De auct. Zosimi 16 proposes to connect
the outbreak of the Gothic war. Now
Joannes says that it was done äkwv…………….
ἄκων
δέει τυραννίδος, which can only mean
the Persians, and fixes the date by the
words Κωνσταντίνου μετὰ τῆς τύχης τὴν
Ρώμην ἀπολιπόντος, which points to
the year 326. Cedrenus p. 516 Bonn
edition, who also denounces the trans-
fer, puts the Persian war in 326-7,
and relates at length its origin through
a fraud of the philosopher Metrodorus.
He seems dependent on Joannes, and
has his date ten years too early; but
we may very well suppose that a Per-
sian war was threatening in 326—7,
and that the withdrawal of troops from
the Danube gave an opening to the
Goths.
1 Compare Bethmann-Hollweg, Rö-
mische Civilprozess, iii. 25.
This is the reason given by Soz.
ii. 25 for his refusal to attend. It is
confirmed from his own hints by Light-
foot, Eusebius of Cæsarea, whose narra-
tive is very suggestive about this part.
Hefele, Councils, § 48 has entirely failed
to explain the thirty months' delay
mentioned by Sozomen. The council
of Cæsarea may have been held in the
autumn of 333, but no manipulation
will bring it thirty months before that
of Tyre.
III.]
THE COUNCIL OF TYRE.
£5
to keep the Tricennalia of Constantine and to dedicate
the splendid church on Golgotha, which Eusebius enthusiastically
compares¹ to the new Jerusalem of prophecy. But first it was
a work of charity to restore peace in Egypt. A synod of about
1502 bishops was therefore held at Tyre; and this time the
attendance of Athanasius was secured by peremptory orders
from the emperor. The Eusebians had the upper hand in
it, though there was a strong minority. Athanasius had brought
forty-eight bishops from Egypt: and others like Maximus
of Jerusalem and Alexander of Thessalonica were willing
to hold an impartial trial. Athanasius was not accused of
heresy, but with more plausibility of episcopal tyranny.
His friends replied with reckless violence, and the Eusebians.
might have crushed him altogether if they had only kept
up a decent semblance of truth and fairness. But nothing was
further from their thoughts than an impartial trial. Scandal
succeeded scandal³, till the iniquity culminated in the despatch
1 Eusebius, I. C. iii. 33.
The number is nowhere given,
but 150 seems a fair estimate. The
council at Jerusalem consisted accord-
ing to the Acts of Basil of Ancyra of
230 bishops: and this number exactly
suits the language of Eusebius, which
implies that the gathering was a very
large one, not indeed equal to that of
Nica, but quite beyond comparison
with any other meeting of his times.
Now the council of Tyre was a mere
preliminary to the eykaivia at Jerusa-
lem, and must have been considerably
smaller.
;
On the other hand it is clear that
the Eusebians had a real majority.
Athanasius had at least fifty friends
and if there had been only a knot of
intriguers on the other side, he would
have been quite able to defend himself.
Indeed, we nowhere find any indication
that the council was coerced by a mere
minority. Its misdeeds were at least
its own.
These considerations require fully
double the number of sixty bishops
given by Socrates i. 28.
It is therefore not likely that Atha-
nasius brought with him eighty-nine
Egyptian bishops to Tyre as early as
335. As there were in all ouly “about
ninety" (Ath. ad Afros c. 10, p. 718) or
(
nearly a hundred” (Ath. Apol. c. Ar.
c. 71, p. 147) bishops in Egypt and
Libya, they cannot have been so nu-
merous at Tyre, even if the Meletians
and Arians had been already weeded out
of the list. In fact, their protest to the
Count Dionysius (Ath. Apol. c. dr. c.
78, p. 154) is signed by only forty-eight.
Socrates i. 28 gives sixty as the total
number of the council; but this is too
low. Even if the Egyptians are not
included, as Hefele (Councils § 49)
evidently supposes, Athanasius' treat-
ment of it as a mere cabal of his
enemies is not easy to explain, especially
as he had supporters or at least neutrals
outside Egypt, like Maximus of Jeru-
salem and Alexander of Thessalonica.
And if he brought with him an actual
majority of the council, his conduct
becomes simply foolish.
3 The charge of fornication seems
apocryphal. It is found in Rufinus
i. 17, and from him in Soz. ii. 25 (not
in the synodical acts, for it was too
absurd to insert"), and heavily re-
touched in Theod. i. 30. Philostorgius
ii. 11 has it with the parts reversed.
This is outweighed by the silence
of Athanasius himself, of later councils,
and of Socrates, who had it before
him in Rufinus, and deliberately left
it out.
86
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
1
of an openly partizan commission to superintend the manufacture
of evidence in the Mareotis. Maximus of Jerusalem left the
council, the Egyptian bishops protested, and Alexander of
Thessalonica warned the imperial commissioner of the plot.
Athanasius himself took ship for Constantinople, and the council
condemned him by default. This done, the bishops went
on to Jerusalem for the proper business of their meeting.
The concourse on Golgotha was a brilliant spectacle. Ten
years had passed since the still unrivalled gathering at Nicæa,
and the veterans of the great persecution must have been deeply
moved at their meeting once again in this world. The stately
ceremonial suited the old confessors of Jerusalem and Cesarea
much better than the noisy scene at Tyre, and may for the
moment have soothed the swelling indignation of Potammon
and Paphnutius. It was the second time that Constantine had
plastered over the divisions of the churches with a general
reconciliation; but this time Athanasius was condemned and
Arius received to communion.
The heretic had long since left Illyricum, though it seems
impossible to fix the date of his recall. However, one winter
Dr Lightfoot notices the suspicious
circumstance that Eusebius of Cæsarea
appears as the presiding bishop, both
in the incident of Potammon (Epiph.
Hær. 68, 7) and in the story of the
seduction (Philost. ii. 12). If Athana-
sius had objected to him the year before,
Constantine would not have committed
so open a piece of injustice as to put
him at the head of the council. It
seems indicated by Ath. Apol. c. Ar.
81, p. 156 that Flacillus presided, to
whom Eusebius delicated his three
books de Eccl. Theol.
Athanasius stayed at Tyre as
long as possible. The Egyptian pro-
test is dated Sept. 7, and was written.
before he left.
The fact of his condemnation at
Tyre is established by Socr. i. 32, Soz.
ii. 25, though no stress can be laid on
the encyclical of Philippopolis (Hil.
Fragm. 11. in præsentem Ath.) or on
the apocryphal dialogue in Theodoret
ii. 16. If Julius of Rome ap. Ath. Ap. c.
Ar. 23, p. 113 seems to deny it, he only
means (as the next sentence shews)
that the decision was invalid. A con-
demnation by default at Tyre would
be a useful præjudicium when the merits
of the case were supposed to be discuss-
ed on the return of the Marcotic com-
mission to Jerusalem.
2 It seems impossible with our
present materials to clear up the chro-
nology of the few years which followed
the Nicene council. We have not a
single certain landmark till we reach
the election of Athanasius in 328, his
stay at Nicomedia in 332, and the exile
of Eutropius before Basilina's death.
Rejecting the apparently spurious
letter of Eusebius and Theognius in
Socr. i. 14, Soz. ii. 16, the following are
our chief data. (1) The recall of Euse-
bius and Theognius, which most likely
preceded that of Arius. Philostorgius
ii. 7 dates it in 328, and this is likely
enough but he stands alone, and the
chapter is a jumble of blunders. (2) The
letter of Constantine to Arius and
Euzoius, which bears date Nov. 27.
But we cannot fix the year, for the
emperor seems to have been at or near
1.]
III.
THE COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM.
87
the emperor invited Arius and Euzoius to Constantinople, where
they laid before him their confession of faith. It was a simple
document, which observed a prudent silence on all the disputed
questions¹. If it abstained from contradicting the Nicene
decisions, it also failed to withdraw the Thalia. However,
it was enough for Constantine. It was not unorthodox as far as
it went nor were they bishops, that the Nicene symbol should
be forced upon them. They were therefore sent to lay it
before the council at Jerusalem, which in due course approved
it, and received its authors to communion. In order to
complete the work of peace, Athanasius was condemned
afresh upon the return of the Mareotic commission, and
proceedings were begun against Marcellus of Ancyra, who
had alarmed the whole conservative party by his attack
upon Asterius, and might also be supposed to have given
personal offence to the emperor by his absence from the
council.
Meanwhile Constantine's dreams of peace had been rudely
dissipated by the sudden appearance of Athanasius before him
in the streets of Constantinople. Whatever the bishops had
done, it had plainly caused dissensions just when the emperor
was most anxious for harmony. An angry letter summoned the
whole assembly straight to court.
But there came only a
Constantinople every winter from 327
to 334 inclusive. Socrates i. 26 gives
the letter after the exile of Eustathius,
while Sozomen ii. 27 connects it more
nearly with the council of Tyre. In
this he may be right, for we know that
Arius went to Jerusalem with a confes-
sion of faith. But the friendly tone of
Constantine's letter to him suggests
that it was written after his recall.
Altogether, our data are hopelessly
deficient.
We may perhaps get a glimmer of
light from the mention of Ursacius and
Valens as personal disciples of Arius,
and as young men in 335, though
already bishops. But where did Arius
meet with them? Their dioceses were
in Pannonia; but we see from the
cases of Photinus and Germinius that
they were not necessarily themselves.
Pannonians. At the same time there
is nothing to connect them with Egypt:
and if we take into account the uncer-
tain life of Arius, it will be most likely
that they were his disciples during his
exile. If so, he must have spent some
time in Illyricum.
1 Socr. i. 26, Soz. ii. 27. They
merely say εἰς κύριον Ἰ. Χ. τὸν υἱὸν
αὐτοῦ, τὸν ἐξ αὐτοῦ πρὸ πάντων τῶν
αἰώνων γεγενημένον θεὸν λόγον...τὸν
κατελθόντα καὶ σαρκωθέντα (σάρκα αναλα
βόντα Soz.) καὶ παθόντα κ.τ.λ. They end
with desires for peace, &c. which might
almost have been copied from Constan-
tine's letter to Alexander and Arius.
2 The bishops (Socr. i. 36) refused
to discuss the counter-charge against
Asterius, on the ground that he was
only a layman. It is well to notice the
numerous indications that the Nicene
faith was not intended to bind in
all its strictness any but the bishops.
88
[CII.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
deputation'; and in truth it would have been very inconvenient
to transfer so large a council to the palace. Once confronted
with the accused, the Eusebians dropped the old charges
of sacrilege and tyranny, and brought forward a new one of
political intrigue. Athanasius was allowed no reply to this, but
summarily sent away to Trier in Gaul, where he was honourably
received by the younger Constantine. The emperor refused
either to restore him to Alexandria or to fill his place, and
exiled the Meletian John Archaph "for causing divisions."
Upon the whole, success was not unequally divided between the
two parties. To Constantinople also came Marcellus. He had
avoided the councils at Tyre and Jerusalem, and only appeared
now to invite the emperor's decision on his book. Constantine
as usual referred the case to the synod, which at once condemned
it and deposed the author³.
There remained only the formal restoration of Arius to the
1 As the church was consecrated in
September, and Athanasius only re-
ceived formal audience Nov. 7, it is
likely that the council had mostly dis-
persed before the emperor's letter ar-
rived. In that case the relics of it
would largely consist of Eusebians,
who would at least wait for the return
of the Mareotic commissioners.
2 Soz. ii. 33 says that Marcellus
objected to the proceedings at Tyre,
and left Jerusalem before the dedica-
tion, while Socr. i. 36 tells us that he
promised at Jerusalem to burn his
book. The silence of Eusebius (Zahn
45) seems to disprove both accounts.
Eus. c. Marcellum, p. 56 “ when
nobody asked him." It must have
been a strange book if Eusebius of all
men could denounce its flattery of
Constantine.
3 Was Marcellus twice in Rome?
Caspari Quellen 111. 28–30 assigns him
a stay of fifteen months in 336-7,
in addition to a somewhat longer one
in 339-341.
Marcellus presents a Creed of his
own accord to Julius in Epiph. Hær.
69, 2 ἀναγκαῖον ἡγησάμην..... ὑπομνῆσαί
σε,
ἐμοῦ ἐνιαυτὸν καὶ τρεῖς ὅλους
μῆνας ἐν τῇ Ρώμῃ πεποιηκότος, ἀναγκαῖον
ἡγησάμην, μέλλων ἐντεῦθεν ἐξιέναι, ἔγ
γραφόν σοι τὴν ἐμαυτοῦ πίστιν. ἐπι-
Souvai; whereas Julius in Ath. Apol. c.
Αν. 32, p. 118 απαιτούμενος παρ' ἡμῶν
εἰπεῖν περὶ τῆς πίστεως, οὕτως μετὰ παρ-
ρησίας απεκρίνατο δι' ἑαυτοῦ, ὡς κ.τ.λ.
tells us that Marcellus made his de-
fence when called upon. So Athanasius
himself Hist. Ar. 6, p. 275 Kal auris
μὲν ἀνελθὼν εἰς τὴν Ρώμην ἀπελογήσατο.
καὶ ἀπαιτούμενος παρ' αὐτῶν, δέδωκεν
ἔγγραφον τὴν ἑαυτοῦ πίστιν. Caspari
declares this a contradiction, and
refers the Epiphanian document to an
earlier visit.
The necessity of this arrangement
is not very clear. Marcellus was ready
enough for another fray with the mis-
believers he "had exposed at Nicwa";
and if pressure had to be put upon him
to declare his belief, he was not bound
to tell us the fact. Even if Julius had
required him to make a plain state-
ment before leaving Rome, he might
still prefer to say only that he himself
thought one necessary. A couple of
minor points may be noticed-(1) The
words of Athanasius suρια δέδωκεν
ἔγγραφον τὴν ἑαυτοῦ πίστιν may be an
echo of the Epiphanian document, (2)
as Marcellus cannot have reached Rome
before the spring of 336, an interval of
fifteen months will bring us some time
past the death of Constantine. Would
Marcellus have merely said μéλwv
ἐντεῦθεν ἐξιέναι, without a hint of his
expected restoration?
Zahn Marcellus 64 passes over Cas-
pari's difficulty in silence.
III.]
THE WAVERING OF CONSTANTINE.
89
communion of Constantinople; for it seems¹ that Alexandria had
once again refused him since the council of Jerusalem. This
was prevented by his sudden death the evening before the ap-
pointed day².
The chief interest of these events is in the strange wavering
of Constantine. Had he really deserted the Nicene faith?
Had the fatigues of the Gothic war broken down his strength,
and left him an impatient invalid? Was be at the mercy of
the last speaker? Was he merely balancing parties in order
fully to control them all? Or was he still deliberately acting in
the interest of unity?
He had not turned Arian. Whatever might be his policy
towards the outside sects, there is no indication that he ever
allowed the authority of the Nicene decisions to be openly re-
pudiated inside the church. If he exiled Athanasius, it was
not for heresy; if he invited Arius and Euzoius to court, it was
only that they might clear themselves from the imputation. In
this case no doctrinal charge came before him. The quarrel
ostensibly lay amongst orthodox bishops, for the Eusebian leaders
had all signed the Nicene decisions. Nor indeed does any
writer accuse him of Arianism. There is more to be said for
the theory that he was balancing the parties against each other;
and if he had not struck so hard at Nicaea, we might be inclined
1 Soz. ii. 29.
The earliest account of the death
of Arius is given in the letter of Atha-
nasius de morte Arii; the next is an
allusion of Epiphanius Har. 68, 6.
Rufinus i. 13 improves the story by
putting the catastrophe during the
procession on the Sunday morning.
Socrates i. 38 is independent, and
avoids the error; while Sozomen ii.
29, 30 and Theodoret i. 14 quote Atha-
nasius.
3 Thus Sozomen iii. 1 says that the
Nicene doctrine only came into dispute
again after Constantine's death, TOUTO
γὰρ εἰ μὴ πάντες ἀπεδέχοντο, Κωνστ. ἔτι
περιόντος τῷ βίῳ οὐδεὶς περιφανῶς ἐκβα
λεῖν ἐτόλμησεν. Even the Antiochene
council of 341 adopted a respectful tone
(Soer. ii. 10) to that of Nicea--the com-
pliment was repaid to itself by the
Acacians at Seleucia.
It is too much to say (Chawner,
p. 71) that he made the Nicene symbol
the test and touchstone of orthodoxy.
The Novatians were perfectly orthodox
in doctrine yet they are included in
the severe law given by Eus. Iˇ. C. iii.
64 and alluded to by Soz. ii. 32, which
seems to have been issued about 332. In
this notice the omission (1) of the
Donatists, whose dangerous temper
was well known, (2) of the Manichees.
This must have been deliberate, for
Constantine took pains (Ammianus, xv.
13, 2) to have their books translated
for him by Strateg us (Musonianus).
Except Jerome Chron. for 337,
Constantinus extremo vitæ suæ tempore
ab Eus. Nicom, episcopo baptizatus, in
Arianum dogma declinat: and Lucifer
pro. S. Ath. p. 857, Migne, Athanasium
perosum habitum a patre tuo. These
however are scarcely serious excep-
tions.
5 Fialon, Saint Athanase 114, 113.
90
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
to adopt it. Perhaps again¹ he was really irresolute, and at the
mercy of the last speaker. But Constantine was still in vigorous
health; and there is no need to throw away the clue which has
guided us through his policy hitherto. Upon the whole, he
seems to have aimed at unity throughout. If he had believed
the charge of delaying the corn ships, he would have sacrificed
Athanasius as he sacrificed Sopater. Better risk a rebellion at
Alexandria than a riot at Constantinople. His refusal to listen
to any defence looks like a decision already made rather than a
real explosion of rage. Athanasius was sent out of the way as
a troublesome person. It was not easy to find out the merits of
the case; but he was plainly, for some reason or other, a centre
of disturbance. The Asiatic bishops disliked him; and this was
enough for Constantine. As we have here a clue to the Arian-
izing policy of Constantius and Valens, it will be well to explain
it further.
Nature has indeed marked out Constantinople as the head of
a great empire; but in some respects it matters little whether
the body is European or Asiatic. It may make a great difference
to the happiness of Europe; but the state itself may flourish in
either case. In Roman times the heart of the Empire was the
tract of country from Mount Taurus to the Bosphorus and the
wall of Anastasius; and as long as that was unsubdued by its
invaders, the Empire remained upon the whole the strongest
power on earth. It outlived the rise and fall of kingdoms with-
out number; and even the greatness of Charlemagne was hardly
more than a meteor-flash across the all but everlasting firmament
of the eastern Roman Empire. Visigoths, Avars, Bulgarians
and Russians³ might sweep the European provinces from end to
end; they only dashed themselves in pieces on the walls of
Constantinople. As long as the Empire had the solid strength
of Asia to fall back upon, it never failed to recover its losses.
Even in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Roman army
held the Danube for Basil II or Manuel Comnenus much as it
1 Lightfoot, Eus. Cæs.
2 Eusebius V. C. iv. 53, 61 parti-
cularly notices that Constantine enjoyed
unbroken health till the spring of 337.
3 The Russians mostly came by sea:
yet Sviatoslav (Zpevdoo@λáßos) reached
Arcadiopolis before his repulse by Bar-
das Sclerus, and would undoubtedly
have driven almost any emperor but
John Zimisces to the shelter of Con-
stantinople.
III.]
THE ASIATIC INFLUENCE.
91
had done for Constantine or Julian. The recovery of Asia from
the European side was a harder task; yet this too was more
than once accomplished. The Persians held Chalcedon for years
together, but it was not long before Heraclius returned their
defiance on the battlefield of Nineveh. The Saracens besieged
Constantinople twice; but within a few years the Iconoclasts.
were defending the old frontier of Mount Taurus, and a time
was yet to come when the Byzantine labarum was borne in one
victorious campaign from the sources of the Tigris through the
Lebanon passes to the walls of Berytus. The Empire sustained
its first irreparable injury in the establishment of the Seljukian
Turks at Iconium; and its fate was never hopeless till the ravages
of Michael Palæologus deprived it of its last firm resting-ground
in Asia, among the Bithynian archers who had rescued it from
its deep humiliation, and won back Constantinople from the
chivalry of Latin Europe.
Now Asia in 336 was neither Nicene nor Arian, but con-
servative. There was a good deal of Arianism in Cappadocia,
but we hear little of it in Asia. We find indeed a knot of
Asiatic Lucianists at Nicæa, who held prominent sees and must
have had much influence; but they left no successors. Cecropius
and Germinius are the only Asiatic bishops denounced by
Athanasius, and even they seem (like Eugenius of Nicea) to
have been violent men rather than extreme in doctrine. Much
less was Asia Nicene. Setting aside Marcellus as Sabellian, we
can hardly name an Asiatic Nicene before the reign of Valens.
Thrace and Syria contribute largely to the lists of exiles deplored
by Athanasius, but there is only one obscure name from Asia.
The ten provinces "verily knew not God"" in Hilary's time,
and even the later Cappadocian orthodoxy rested on a con-
servative rather than a Nicene basis. Upon the whole, Asia
seems to have been indifferent to the controversy. And indif-
ference is always conservative. If it will not fight for creeds, it
is usually willing to strike at such a "disturber" as Athanasius.
In the unconscious predominance of Asia we find a clue to
the policy of the Arianizing emperors. There was no Greek
national feeling in the matter, for such Greek national feeling
Hilary de Syn. 63.
92
[CH. III.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
as existed in the Nicene age was certainly not Arian. Con-
stantine moreover was as Western as an emperor could be, while
Julian's Greek tastes led to an entirely different line of action.
Neither was the Arianizing policy originally due to any Byzan-
tine jealousy of Alexandria. The New Rome was at first hardly
more than a great and favoured colony of the Old; and the con-
sciousness of its imperial mission took fully half a century to
gather shape. The city was neither a permanent residence of
the emperors nor a patriarchal see of Christendom till the age of
Theodosius'; and in the Arian controversy it played a very
secondary part before the elevation of Eudoxius in 360. Mean-
while Constantius and his eunuchs pursued for many years a
distinctly Asiatic policy, striking with one hand at orthodox
Egypt, with the other at orthodox Rome. Even the change of
front at Sirmium in 359 corresponded to a change in Asiatic
feeling, and was no unskilful bid for support in Asia. The
camarilla was dispersed and the Asiatic policy broken off by
Julian, but Valens restored both; and when a greater than
Valens came in as a stranger from the Spanish West, he too
soon fell under the Asiatic influence².
The action of Constantine is therefore best explained by a
reference to the conservatism of Asia. The bishops were not all
of them either Arians or intriguers. The Asiatics were hardly
prepared to reverse the Nicene decisions, much less to record
themselves followers of Arius. It was not always furtive sym-
pathy with heresy which led them to regret the heresiarch's
expulsion for doctrines he had disavowed: neither was it always
partizanship which could not see the innocence of Athanasius.
Constantine's vacillation is intelligible, if his policy was to seck
for unity by letting the bishops guide him".
1 It will be noticed that Constan-
tius lived a very wandering life, and
that Valens avoided Constantinople
throughout his reign. On the gradual
rise of the city, Hertzberg Gesch.
Griech. i. 28, or more fully in his
Griech. u. d. Römern iii. 252–272.
At this point I owe a special obli-
gation to Dr Hort, whose indication of
Asiatic influence at work on Theodosius
has been the clue to many other parts
of the history. In February 380, the
emperor names Damasus of Rome and
Peter of Alexandria as his standards of
orthodoxy; but in July 381 he replaces
Damasus of Rome by Nectarius of
Constantinople, and adds other Eastern
bishops (Cod. Theod. xvi. 1, 1 and 2).
We cannot mistake the Asiatic in-
fluence; which by this time had found
a centre in Constantinople. Hort, Two
Diss. 97 n.
3 Note C. The Index to the Festal
Letters of Athanasius.
:
NOTE A.
THE AUTHORITY OF RUFINUS.
We shall be in a better position to estimate the credibility of
Rufinus after a review of the legends and uncertain stories copied by
later writers from his Historia Ecclesiastica. It will be borne
in mind that copying is no confirmation if there is no trace
of independent knowledge. Omitting then all reference to the
Historia Monachorum, which is past defence except as a novel,
the following are the chief contributions of Rufinus to history.
(1) Conversion of the Philosopher at Nicæa. Ruf. i. 3; copied
by Soz. i. 18, and much expanded by Gel. Cyz. ii. 13—23. Omitted
by Socrates and Theodoret.
(2) Spyridon and the miracles of the Thieves and the Deposit.
Ruf. i. 5; Socr. i. 12 (names Ruf., and mentions hearsay in Cyprus);
Soz. i. 11 more fully, and adds two other stories. Gel. Cyz. ii. 10, 11
follows Ruf., but could have told more stories.
(3) Inventio Crucis, with miracle of the sick woman. Ruf. i. 7, 8,
copied by Socr. i. 17, Soz. ii. 2, Theod. i. 19. Eusebius and the
author of the Itinerarium Burdigalense say nothing of the cross;
Cyril, Ambrose and Chrysostom, nothing of the miracle. Yet
Sulpicius Severus Chron. ii. 34 and Paulinus of Nola have a variant
account of the raising of a dead man.
(4) Conversion of Ethiopia. Ruf. i. 9, copied by Socr. i. 19
(naming Ruf.), Soz. ii. 24, Theod. i. 23. According to "this delightful
history" (Ebrard Kgsch. i. 166), the philosopher Meropius went on a
scientific voyage to India (some confused geography here) in imitation
of Metrodorus, who had made a similar journey a few years before.
On his return he was killed in Ethiopia with the whole ship's
company except two boys (puerulos, or in one MS. pueros), Frumentius
and Edesius. When Frumentius was grown up, he became regent of
94
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
the country; and when his ward was grown up too, he returned to
Egypt, where Athanasius, nam is nuper sacerdotium acceperat,
consecrated him as bishop for Ethiopia. These words point to a date
cir. 329; but one MS. of Rufinus omits them. Meanwhile Edesius
became a presbyter at Tyre; and from his lips Rufinus professes to
have heard the story, not before 378.
Bearing on this narrative are (a) The letter of Constantius in 356
(given by Ath. Apol. ad Ctium, 31, p. 250) to the Ethiopian kings
Aizanas and Sazanas, which implies that Frumentius had recently
(say 354 or 355) been consecrated by Athanasius, and would need
fresh instruction from "the most reverend bishop George." Constan-
tius seems Cod. Theod. xii. 12, 2 to have sent an embassy to
Ethiopia in Feb. 356, and forbids it to delay at Alexandria.
(B) Ammianus xxv. 4, 23 sciant docente veritate perspicue, non
Julianum sed Constantinum ardores Parthicos succendisse, cum
Metrodori mendaciis avidius acquiescit, ut dudum retulimus plene (in
lost books), unde cæsi ad internecionem exercitus nostri, d'c., referring
to the disasters of 359–363. Here Tillemont Mémoires vii. 710 and
Priaulx Indian Travels of Apollonius of Tyana 180-188 argue upon
the reading Constantium of Valesius p. 295 and Wagner. Gardt-
hausen however silently substitutes Constantinum: and internal
evidence is on his side, for events connected with the outbreak of
the war in 358 ought not to have been related in the lost books of
Ammianus. (y) Jerome Chronica names Metrodorus as flourishing
in the year 328. Joannes Lydus frequently refers to him, but I
cannot find that he gives us any hint of his date. (8) Photius Bibl.
Cod. 116 tells us that one Metrodorus (of whom he knows nothing
more) drew up a Paschal canon for 533 years from the time of
Diocletian. If we may assume that the writer lived when the
controversy was at its height, we have a tempting identification.
Jerome's date may even be that of the work in question. (e) Cedrenus
p. 516-7, and from him (Leo Grammaticus) p. 86, Bonn edition,
relate at length the fraud of Metrodorus, but the former puts the
outbreak of the war in the year 326-7, which is ten years too early.
I cannot but suspect that the story comes from Joannes Lydus.
The narrative of Rufinus requires an interval of fully twenty
years from the capture of Edesius to the consecration of Frumentius
about 329. But if he was already puerulus about 305, he can
scarcely have lived to converse with Rufinus after 378. One chief
difficulty is the clause nam is nuper sacerdotium acceperat, which
III.]
NOTE A. THE AUTHORITY OF RUFINUS.
95
On this point the letter of
seems genuine, but cannot be true.
Constantius and the silence of Eusebius are decisive. If however
we venture to set it aside and to read Constantinum in Ammianus
(it is a bold venture), we may put the return of Metrodorus about
335, the voyage of Meropius soon after (not earlier as in Benedictine
Life of Athanasius 330, and as suggested by Tillemont), and the
consecration of Frumentius in 355, so that the age of Edesius in 378
would be about 50.
This is at best a harsh scheme, but it seems considerably better
than the duplication of Frumentius by Baronius: yet it may well be
doubted whether even in this case the interval of twenty years
from the return of Metrodorus to the consecration of Frumentius
is enough for all that has to be crowded into it. There is still a
minor difficulty in the letter of Constantius, which is addressed to
two kings, whereas Rufinus speaks of one only. However, we know
from an inscription (Boeckh 5128) that Aizanas reigned alone in the
days of his heathenism, and Sazanas his brother was his general. In
any case the error is trifling.
Upon the whole, the story is very doubtful, but if we make these
two alterations, it may just fall short of physical impossibility.
(5) Conversion of Iberia, with two miracles. Ruf. i. 10, from
the lips of Bacurius, then Palæstini limitis dux at Jerusalem.
Copied by Socr. i. 20, (naming Ruf.), Soz. ii. 7, with considerable
variation by Theod. i. 24, and almost too independently by Moses of
Chorene ii. 86. As Bacurius fought at Hadrianople (Ammianus
xxxi. 12, 6), he cannot have told the story to Rufinus in Palestine
till his return from the Gothic war. A dozen years or so later he
was at Antioch (Libanius Epp. 963, 964, 980). He perished in the
battle of the Frigidus in 394.
(6) Constantine's Will entrusted to the Arian presbyter. Ruf.
i. 11, copied by Soer. i. 39, Soz. ii. 34. Philostorgius ii. 16 has a
story that it was committed to Eusebius of Nicomedia. But Con-
stantine's arrangements had been publicly made long before, and
there is no sign that he wished to alter them. So Manso Leben
Constantins 163, and de Broglie ii. 376 n ; but the silence of Eusebius
V. C. iv. 55-70 is of little weight, if we consider how delicately he
passes over the dangerous interval which followed Constantine's death,
without anywhere even naming Dalmatius and Hannibalianus.
(7) The boy-baptism of Athanasius. First by Rufinus i. 14,
who relates it sicuti ab his qui cum illo vitam duxerant accepimus.
96
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
Quoted from him by Socr. i. 15, with the remark, "and not unlikely,
for other cases of the sort have been known." Copied in full by Soz.
ii. 17, who improves Antony's single visit to Alexandria into several.
Besides minor difficulties, the story involves a fatal anachronism, for
the anniversary of Peter's death cannot have been earlier than 313,
when Athanasius must have been too old for such childish games.
Had the great bishop's surviving companions nothing better to tell of
him than this? Even Tillemont Mém. viii. 651 rejects the story.
(8) The story of Arsenius is in outline undisputed. But de
Broglie ii. 331 urges the silence of Athanasius in disproof of the
dramatic scene at Tyre related by Ruf. i. 17.
Here however Socrates i. 29 does not mention Rufinus, and has
not copied him. His account seems discriminating and independent,
omitting the charge of fornication and the final tumult. Soz. ii. 25,
and Theod. i. 30, relate the affair shortly, but follow Rufinus. Upon
the whole, it seems safer to reverse de Broglie's decisions, and reject
the charge of fornication while we accept the scene with Arsenius on
the authority of Socrates and leave it an open question whether the
charge of murder was formally repeated at Tyre.
(9) Rufinus confuses the two first exiles of Athanasius and puts
the council at Tyre in the time of Constantius, the third exile during
the Magnentian troubles. After this comes the story of Theodore in
Julian's time. Rufinus i. 36 relates it (with a miracle) from the
confessor's own lips. From Rufinus it is quoted by Socr. iii. 19,
(naming Rufinus), and copied by Soz. v. 20, Theod. iii. 11. It is also
alluded to by Augustine de Civ. Dei xviii. 52.
The story is likely enough in itself, for Ammianus xxii. 13, 2
tells us that Julian was furious, used torture freely, and closed the
great church at Antioch. Still the tale rests entirely on the evidence
of Rufinus; and we may set against him the silence of Gregory and
Chrysostom, who were credulous enough as against Julian. The
miraculous part must be an invention either of Theodore himself
(Rode), or more likely of Rufinus.
(10) Refusal of Jovian to rule a heathen army, and cry of the
soldiers—et nos Christiani sumus. Rufinus ii. 1; copied by Soer. iii.
22, Soz. vi. 3, Theod. iv. 2. If the story be taken seriously, it is
disposed of (so Gibbon, not Wagner) by a single phrase of Ammianus
XXV. 6, 1, hostiis pro Joviano extisque inspectis.
(11) Stories of monks. Ruf. ii. 4, quæ præsens vidi loquor,
et eorum gesta refero, quorum in passionibus socius esse promerui.
111.]
NOTE A. THE AUTHORITY OF RUFINUS.
97
Quoted by Socr. iv. 23, but simply on the testimony of Rufinus.
These however we may pass over, though they make a greater figure
in the histories than all the rest put together.
(12) Account of the woman at Edessa. Ruf. ii. 5, copied by
Socr. iv. 18 (omitting paganism of Modestus), Soz. vi. 18 (calling him
ÉTЄpódoέos), Theodoret iv. 17 (shorter, and adding a long story of
one Eulogius).
(13) The peace with Mavia and consecration of Moyses as bishop
for the Saracens. Ruf. ii. 6, copied by Socr. iv. 36, who adds that
Count Victor married Mavia's daughter. Also by Soz. vi. 18, with
a long account of the Saracens, who were his neighbours in Palestine;
also by Theodoret iv. 23, who shortens the whole story.
Some of these tales appear to be true enough, and it would
be most uncritical to charge Rufinus with deliberate invention in
every case of error. But it cannot be denied that his history contains
a large element of mere romance. Credulity and carelessness of
truth are here; but do they amount to downright falsehood? If
Rufinus was a man of truth, he met with a strange series of deceivers;
for we can only clear him by throwing the blame on his informants—
Edesius, Theodore and Bacurius, a man in whose praise all writers
(including Libanius and Zosimus) are agreed. Rufinus reached
Egypt before the death of Athanasius, and claims to have enjoyed
the intimacy and shared the sufferings of the great archbishop's
surviving friends. Their hearts must have been full of the
hero they had lost yet Rufinus retails nothing but the boy-baptism,
two or three scandals, and a wretched muddle of the bishop's exiles.
Jerome ctra Ruf. ii. 3, scoffs at the confessorship of Rufinus-miror
quod non adjecerit: Vinctus Jesu Christi, et liberatus sum de ore leonis,
et Alexandriæ ad bestias pugnavi, et cursum consummavi, fidem
servavi, superest mihi corona justitiæ. Quæ exsilia, quos iste carceres
nominat? Pudet me apertissimi mendacii; quasi carceres et exsilia
absque judicum sententiis irrogentur. Volo tamen ipsos scire carceres,
et quarum provinciarum se dicat exsilia sustinuisse, &c.
This time perhaps Jerome's quidquid in buccam venerit is not far
wrong, though the charge comes with a bad grace from the writer of
the Vita Pauli. Meanwhile it is important to notice that, with the
exceptions already mentioned, these stories are absolutely un-
corroborated. Rufinus must stand or fall by them, and they by him.
Socrates follows Rufinus, but with some discretion; omitting for
example the miracles of Paphnutius, the conversion of the philosopher
G
7
98
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
at Nicæa, the paganism of Modestus, and the charge of fornication
against Athanasius at Tyre. But he follows with evident uneasiness,
roundly denouncing (ii. 1) Rufinus for his gross mistakes of chronology,
and carefully throwing back upon him the responsibility of the more
romantic stories.
Sozomen is less cautious, usually following Socrates with slight
revision. He never names Rufinus, but seems to have had indepen-
dent access to his work, giving for example (i. 18) the story of the
philosopher at Nicæa, and restoring more than one account judiciously
passed over by Socrates. Theodoret usually follows in the same
track, commonly adding many rhetorical improvements to the account
before him.
If Rufinus is a liar at all, he is a liar circumstantial. And it is
just this wealth of detail which has enabled him to deceive better
men than himself, from Socrates and Sozomen to Neander and Keim.
Uncritical historians to whom the Fathers are nothing but "the
Fathers" from Clement of Rome to Bernard of Clairvaux can hardly
be expected to distinguish Rufinus from the rest; and writers of
another sort who have their doubts are too often daunted by the
spurious authority of a long line of copyists. Perhaps the climax
of the mischief is reached when a historian like Keim (Aus dem
Urchristenthum 204-211) quotes Socrates and Sozomen as independ-
ent evidence for his most important facts when they are merely
retailing the stories of Rufinus.
NOTE B.
THE LEGEND OF ANTONY.
Professor Weingarten of Breslau Ursprung des Mönchthums im
nachconstantinischen Zeitalter (first in Zeitschrift f. Kirchengesch.
for 1876, and since separately) has shewn that Antony as we know
him is no more than an ideal of the generation after Athanasius.
His results are discussed by Hilgenfeld Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol.
xxi. 139-150, Gass Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. ii. 254-275, and
Cropp Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. for 1878, p. 342, but without any
very serious modifications on this question. Even Keim Ursprung
des Mönchswesens in Aus dem Urchristenthum 204-220 depends much
on statements ultimately derived from Rufinus and Jerome; and if
these be omitted, his case assumes a very different aspect. As no
III.]
NOTE B. THE LEGEND OF ANTONY.
99
English writer (except references by Hatch Organization 155-157)
seems yet to have noticed these important researches, it will be
convenient to give a summary of his arguments, with such changes
and additions as have fallen in my way in the course of a review
of the subject.
Weingarten begins by shewing that Jerome's accounts of Paul of
Thebes and Hilarion of Gaza are mere romances unconfirmed by any
independent evidence; and in this he has since been supported
by W. Israël in Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol. for 1880, p. 129–165.
This done, he goes on to the life of Antony. Here our knowledge
ultimately depends on Eusebius and Athanasius, for there is no trace
of Antony's existence in any other writer of that generation. The
silence of Cyril of Jerusalem (not without significance in passages
like Cat. xvi. 19) may be allowed to pass; and even that of Didymus,
though the legend more than once connects his name with Antony.
But it is remarkable that the ascetic Basil never mentions the great
anchorite, even in Epp. 207, 227, where he is expressly speaking of
monasticism in Egypt. Later references are abundant, but there is
nothing of any consequence which can be considered independent
evidence. These allusions we can take into account in the course of
our investigations.
Now (I.) with regard to Eusebius. The existence of monastic
communities in Egypt seems unknown to him. (1) He mentions
none in his Life of Constantine, and has to go back to the apostolic
communism in his defence (H. E. ii. 17) of the Therapeute, whom he
discusses without any suspicion that Philo's de Vita Contemplativa is
only a novel of the third century. (2) Carefully as he describes the
persecution of Maximin at Alexandria, he says nothing of Antony's
visit, though Vita c. 4 implies that it was not a short one. In
fact, he nowhere seems aware of the great saint's existence. (3) The
references in his Chronica to Constantine's letter in 335 and to
Antony's death in 356 are due to Jerome, who inserted them to suit
the Vita Antonii.
Next (II.) as regards Athanasius. The account given Hist. Ar. 14,
p. 278 of Balacius, of his contempt (καтажтúσai) for the letter of (the
illiterate) Antony and of his sudden death, is dependent on the
Vita c. 86, and scarcely consistent with facts. Nestorius of Gaza did
not become Prefect of Egypt till after Easter (or more likely
August) 344 (Index to Festal Letters), and the summer of
the same year is the extreme limit for the duration of Gregory's
7-2
100
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
persecutions. The whole incident is wanting in the parallel narratives
of the Ep. Encycl.
In the rest of the works of Athanasius, there is no trace of
Antony's existence. Considering the grandeur of the saint's position
and his intimate relations with the bishop of Alexandria, this fact
alone should be decisive. Even in the letter to Dracontius, written
within a year of Antony's death, where Athanasius gives a list
of ascetics who had not thought ecclesiastical preferment any hindrance
to the highest sanctity, there is not a word of the great hermit's
deep reverence (Vita c. 67) for the lowest clerics, though his authority
would have been conclusive. There remains only the Vita Antonii:
and this, though in substance written, and perhaps at Alexandria
(c. 12 πéрav), and even translated before 375 (Jerome Vita Pauli), is
not a genuine work of Athanasius, much less an authentic history.
(1) It is inscribed πρὸς τοὺς ἐν ξένῃ μοναχούς—namely to the
Westerns, as is clearly shewn in the Benedictine preface. Some may
set aside this passage as a later addition, though it is found in
the Evagrian translation; but c. 93 agrees with it in assuming
the existence of numerous monks in the West as early as 356–362,
the professed date of the Vita Antonii (c. 82 ἡ νῦν ἔφοδος τῶν ᾿Αρειανῶν).
Now monasticism was not imported to Rome by Athanasius in 339.
Jerome indeed Ep. 127, ad Principiam has a very confused statement
which seems to say so, but he is plainly romancing when he introduces
the name of his friend Marcella, who survived the capture of Rome
in 410, and died in no extreme old age. Athanasius moreover gives
a very different account Apol. ad Ctium 4, p. 236 of his stay in Rome
τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμαυτὸν παραθέμενος (τούτου γαρ μόνου μοι φροντὶς
ἦν), ἐσχόλαζον ταῖς συνάξεσι. Indeed monasticism was unknown in
Europe in the reign of Valentinian (Soz. iii. 14), and at Rome in
particular when Jerome went into the East in 373; and at Milan it
had only lately been introduced by Ambrose at the time of Augustine's
visit in 385 (Aug. Conf. vii. 6).
(2) Apart from its numerous miracles, the general tone of the
Vita is unhistorical. It is a perfect romance of the desert, without
a trace of human sinfulness to mar its beauty. The saint is an
idealized ascetic hero, the mons Antonii a paradise of peaceful
holiness (c. 44, 49). We cannot pass from the Scriptores Erotici
to the Vita Antonii without noticing the same atmosphere of
unreality in both. From Athanasius there is all the difference
of the novel writer from the orator,—of the Cyropædia from the
III.]
NOTE B. THE LEGEND OF ANTONY.
101
de Corona. Accordingly Gregory of Nazianzus Or. 21, p. 383 calls.
it τοῦ μοναδικοῦ βίου νομοθεσίαν ἐν πλάσματι διηγήσεως. So Fialon Saint
Ath. 237, 249, "c'est l'épopée du désert...... Telle est cette vie, ou
plutôt ce panégyrique, ou mieux encore, puisque j'ai risqué le mot,
ce poëme de saint Antoine: c'est moins, en effet, la vie et l'éloge
d'un homme, qu'un tableau idéal d'une grande institution." Yet he
writes without any suspicion of its spuriousness.
(3) Though Athanasius had ample room for miracles in the
adventures of his long life, he never records anything of the sort.
The death of Arius is not a case in point, not being in itself
miraculous; the revelation of Julian's death to the abbot Theodore
is integrally connected with the Vita Antonii; and the onμcîa
mentioned ad Drac. 9, p. 211, are the moral miracles of continence
id. 7, p. 210: compare also de Inc. 48, p. 71. But miracles, often
of the most puerile description, are the staple of the Vita Antonii,
and some of them, c. 70, 71, are said to have been done before
the eyes of Athanasius himself, who could not have omitted all
reference to them in the writings of his exile.
(4) Antony is represented (c. 1, and everywhere implied) as
an illiterate Copt, dependent on memory even for his knowledge
of Scripture (c. 3, ὥστε...λοιπὸν αὐτῷ τὴν μνήμην ἀντὶ βιβλίων
yeréσbai: so understood by Augustine de Doctr. Chr. Prol. 4,
discussed by Neander E. Tr. ii. 325). He preaches in Coptic
(c. 16), and needs an interpreter (c. 72, 74, 77) for his conversation
with the Greeks. Yet be alludes to Plato (c. 74, τὴν ψυχὴν φάσκετε
πεπλανῆσθαι καὶ πεπτωκέναι ἀπὸ τῆς ἁψίδος τῶν οὐρανῶν εἰς σῶμα
a plain reference to the language of Phaedrus 247), combats an
abstruse doctrine of Plotinus (c. 74 ὑμεῖς δὲ εἰκόνα τοῦ νοῦ τὴν ψυχὴν
Aéyortes), discusses Stoic or rationalizing theories of Greek mythology
(c. 76), investigates Arianism (c. 69), explains the origin of oracles
(c. 33), speculates on the Incarnation (c. 74), and in general reasons
like a learned philosopher. Much of this display may be due to his
biographer, but it all helps to form the great Antony with whom
we are familiar. And in this case it is worth notice that Athanasius
would scarcely quote the Phædrus in preference to the Timæus,
which refers the descent of the soul to a universal cosmic law (Zeller
E. Tr. Plato 391, or Plotinus Enn. IV. viii. 1). The Phædrus would
seem in the fourth century to have been much less used than the
Timaus. Eusebius Præp. Ev. quotes it twice, the Timaeus 21
times, while the Laws appear in Gaisford's index no less than
102
CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
57 times. The proportion is similar in Plotinus, as regards the
Phædrus and the Timæus. It is therefore reasonable to refer the
argument in Ath. c. Gentes 33 to Plato Laws x. 896 rather than to
Phædrus 245 c.
(5) The Vita Antonii has coincidences with Athanasius in
language and doctrine, as we should expect in any professed work
of his : e.g. "the very uncatholic-sounding declaration of the
sufficiency of Scripture" (Schaff E. Tr. ii. 182), which begins the
c. Gentes (c. 1), as well as Antony's sermon (Vita c. 16). But the
divergences are serious. Athanasius does not speak of IIpóvoιa like
the Vita c. 49, 66, 74, for de Fuga 25, p. 265 specially refers to his
providential escape from Syrianus, and c. Gentes 47, p. 37 рóvolα
Tŵv TávтWV is very incidental; and Antony's shame of the body
is not in the spirit of the writer of ad Amunem. The stress on
piλoптwɣía, c. 17, 30, is more like Cyril of Jerusalem. The
demonology in particular resembles (c. 22, 35) that of the de
mysteriis, and is utterly foreign to Athanasius, who keeps the
powers of evil in the background instead of allowing them familiar
intercourse with men. In his writings there is nothing in the least
resembling the varied and grotesque appearances of evil spirits.
and the substantial combats with them which fill the pages of the
Vita Antonii.
(6) The early intercourse of Athanasius with Antony is un-
historical. The saint loved dirt (c. 47, 93) much too well to endure
the defilement of water poured on his hands (Procem. p. 632, reading
πар' aνтоû). Athanasius on his part shews neither trace nor recol-
lection of it in his works, nor is there any room for it (Tille-
mont viii. 652) in his early life. This however we have discussed
elsewhere.
(7) It is implied throughout the Vita Antonii (e.g. c. 41, 44)
that the monks were extremely numerous throughout the East during
Antony's lifetime. Now there were monks in Egypt, monks of
Serapis, long before; but Christian monks there were none. Rufinus
of course has novels in abundance, but Eusebius (supra) mentions no
monks, nor Athanasius in 338 (Festal Letter); and they seem new to
Basil Ep. 207 as late as 375. And if Athanasius speaks of monks
in 355 ad Dracontium 9, p. 211, the context shews that they were
ascetics of the old type, who refrained neither from marriage nor from
social life. Nor can anything else be inferred from the inscription
of Ath. Hist. Ar. p. 271, тoîs άπaνтaɣOû KATà TÓTOν-referring to the
ка
·
III.]
NOTE C. INDEX TO THE FESTAL LETTERS.
103
TÓTTα of Egypt (Kuhn Verfassung ii. 495, Marquardt Rom. Alterth. iv.
291). As regards Syria and Pontus, it may be that Weingarten has
gone too far in denying the existence of monks outside Egypt before
the reign of Julian. (Gass, p. 266–271 or Keim, p. 204-211.) The
council of Gangra, which may be as early as 340, defeated an attempt
to introduce the monastic life into Pontus; but the vexation of the
Massalians by Lupicinus Epiph. Hær. 80, 2, shews it actually esta-
blished in Melitene about 365. But the rescript of Valens Cod.
Theod. xii. 1, 63, in 373 is one of our first signs that the monks were
becoming numerous enough to attract the attention of a jealous
administration in the direst want of fighting men.
Against all this there seems nothing but the ascription of the
Vita Antonii to Athanasius by Gregory of Nazianzus Or. 21, written
soon after 380. But this seems copied from the work itself. It
is anonymous to Augustine in 385, to Rufinus, and to Jerome in
375-6, who first names Athanasius as its author de Scriptt. Eccl.
about 393. Its translation into Latin by Evagrius before 389,
or perhaps before 375, proves nothing but its antiquity, which is fully
conceded. Of other writers who ascribe it to Athanasius, Socrates
(appealed to by Keim, p. 207) is not independent. About the
allusions of Ephraem Syrus I can find nothing certain; but even
Tillemont viii. 138 seems doubtful of them.
It will be noticed that many of these difficulties belong to the
structure of the Vita Antonii, and are not removed by any theory of
interpolations.
NOTE C.
THE INDEX TO THE FESTAL LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
The value of the Index to the Festal Letters of Athanasius has
hardly been sufficiently recognized. It has its numerical slips and
occasional traces of legend; but its general good faith and accuracy
seem unimpeachable. Hefele, Councils § 54 (whom others seem to
copy), has collected a serious list of errors; but a little care in
reading the Index itself will shew that they are all his own. We
may take the opportunity to discuss some of the chief dates con-
nected with the two first exiles of Athanasius (335-346). There
are two points to be noticed.
104
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
(1) Cassian's statement, that the Festal Letter was not sent till
after Epiphany, may be true for his own time, but needs modifica-
tion for that of Athanasius. The Letters for 330, 345 and 346 were
written as early as the preceding Easter; but we cannot say the
same of those for 333 and 334. The Letter for 329 was written
after his election the preceding June 8, that for 347 after his return
the preceding Oct. 21, that for 338 after his release from Trier in
June 337. That for 332, which begins with an apology for its late-
ness, is dated from the court at Nicomedia, whence he reached
Alexandria about the middle of March. As it records the failure of
the Meletian plots, it probably arrived only a little in advance of the
writer. Similarly, the Letter for 363 was sent after his flight to
Upper Egypt, the preceding Oct. 24, and that for 364 was written
from Antioch, for which he started Sept. 5, 363, and whence he
returned Feb. 20.
It follows that we must date his expulsion by Philagrius in 339,
not in 340. We have the Letters for 338 and 339, and one from
Rome for 341; but that for 340 is expressly stated to be wanting,
and the Index tells us that none was written. As Athanasius fled
only three weeks before Easter, the Festal Letter for the year must
have been already sent. Hence it was in 339. This agrees with the
statement of the Hist. Acephala, §§ 1, 12 (both passages as emended
by Sievers, Einl. § 19) that the second exile of Athanasius lasted
seven years and six months, not six years. So also Jerome Chron.,
but he is full of mistakes. We reach the same result if we compare
Theodoret's account H. E. ii. 4, that Gregory "devastated the flock
worse than a wild beast" for six years, with the notice in the Index
of Gregory's death June 26; which, as we shall see, will have to be
placed in the year 345. It is possible however that Theodoret is
confusing Gregory with George, who really was murdered.
(2) The writer of the Index not only counts by the Egyptian
months, but usually follows the Egyptian reckoning of the year,
beginning it Aug. 29. He also loosely groups together connected
events without caring whether they are strictly included in any
single year, whether Julian or Egyptian.
Thus (a) under the consuls of 336 we find the departure of
Athanasius July 11 for Tyre, his arrival at Constantinople Oct. 30,
and his exile to Gaul Nov. 7. But these events are given as the
reason why no Festal Letter was written for 336, and are therefore
clearly intended to belong to our year 335. Again (b), under the
111.]
NOTE C. INDEX TO THE FESTAL LETTERS.
105
consuls of 338, we are told that Constantine having died May 22,
Athanasius returned from Gaul to Alexandria Nov. 23, and that
Antony paid a two days' visit to the city, leaving it July 27. As
Athanasius was there to receive him, according to the legend in the
Vita Antonii 69-71, Constantine's death as well as the bishop's
return must be intended for 337. Again (c) under the year 343, we
have first the Council of Sardica, then the notice of continued
troubles; then the recantation of Ursacius and Valens, which cannot
well be dated on any theory within twelve months of the meeting
at Sardica. Similarly (d), Gregory's death June 26 and the return
of Athanasius from Italy Oct. 21 are both recorded under the year
346. Now there was an interval of more than a year between these
events. Gregory's death being (Ath. Hist. Ar. 21, p. 282) ten
months after the deposition of Stephen, which was itself three years
after the Council of the Dedication in the summer of 341, is firmly
fixed for 345. On the other hand, the return of Athanasius is settled
for 346 by the concurrent evidence of the Hist. Aceph. § 1, 12,
emended as before, and the Letters themselves—that for 347 having
been finished after his arrival. Hence it follows that the whole of
the Egyptian year beginning Aug. 29, 345 falls within the interval.
One more instance (e) may be given. Under the year 363 we have
the flight of Athanasius Oct. 24 (no doubt 362), the death of Julian
"eight months later," and the departure of Athanasius Sept. 5 (a new
Egyptian year begun) to meet Jovian.
On the other hand, it is the Letter for 332, not that for 331
as the Index tells us, which was written from the Comitatus.
There is an error also in the elevation of Gallus, which the Index
places in 352.
The Chron. Pasch. dates it Mar. 15, 351; and in
any case it was before and not after the battle of Mursa,
CHAPTER IV.
THE COUNCIL OF SARDICA.
BUT Constantine's part on earth was done. His worldly dispo-
sitions were already made; and when the hand of death was on
him, the great emperor laid aside the purple, and the ambiguous
position of a Christian Cæsar with it, and passed away (May 22,
337) in the white robe of a simple neophyte. In that last
impressive scene we hardly recognize the man who had shocked
heathenism itself with the great beast-fights at Trier thirty years
before. Darkly as his memory is stained with isolated crimes,
Constantine must for ever rank among the greatest of the em-
perors. If it were lawful to forget the names of Licinius and
Crispus, we might also let him take his place among the best.
Others equalled-few surpassed-his gifts of statesmanship and
military genius. Fewer still had his sense of duty, though here
he cannot rival Julian or Marcus. But as an actual benefactor
of mankind Constantine stands almost alone in history. It was
a new thing for an emperor to declare himself a lover of peace for
its own sake, and not merely because the Empire needed peace.
The heathens could not understand it, and Zosimus¹ calls it
sloth or cowardice-a strange reproach to bring against a soldier
like Constantine, who had fought in almost every country from
Caledonia to Egypt. Constantine had seen too much of war and
social misery not to be a reformer and a man of peace. He was
no mere administrator like Tiberius, but seemed to feel that
Christianity had laid on him a new duty and given him a new
power to strike at the root of social evils. Nor were his efforts
wholly vain. The Nicene Council is unique in history; for its
1 Zos. ii. 32. He repeats against
Theodosius this unfortunate charge of
sloth and cowardice. His own narra-
tive is enough to refute it in either
case.
IV.]
CONSTANTINE.
107
record really sounds as if for a moment Constantine had roused the
East from the deep despair of ages. In that great crisis every eye
was fixed on the strange upstart church which had fought its
way from the mines and the catacombs to the throne of
the world, and in every heart the question rose, whether the
power which had overcome the Empire had also a spell from
heaven to cure its ancient sickness. Statesmen and soldiers had
tried in vain, and it was now the bishops' turn. The flattery
of Eusebius is not indiscriminate', and is at least disinterested
after his master's death. It may sound fulsome to us, but we
have not lived in times like his. We might not think it over-
strained if our eyes had seen like his the years of shame and
outrage when the Evil Beast ran riot in the slaughter of the
saints of God, and every whelp of Satan drank his fill of Christian
blood. Even our cold spirit might kindle with enthusiasm if we
had shared like him the final victory, and stood like him by
Constantine's side on the great day when hope for the world
for once flashed out like a burst of sunlight on the sombre glory
of the Lower Empire.
1 Thus Eusebius V. C. iv. 54 speaks
of the ἄλεκτος ειρωνεία of the courtiers,
and condemns the easy temper of Con-
stantine in listening to flatterers.
In his Chronica we find Licinius
contra jus sacramenti privatus occiditur
and Crispus et Licinius junior crudelis-
sime interficiuntur: but these entries
seem the work of Jerome, like the
mentions of Antony, of Quirinus of
Siscia, and of Helena (concubina, con-
trast Eus. H. E. viii. 13, Ħaida yrýolor).
2 The orthodoxy and good faith of
Eusebius have recently been defended
by a much abler hand than mine; and
I cannot pretend to add much to Bishop
Lightfoot's argument. It will however
be somewhat strengthened if we adopt
the dates really given by the Index to
the Festal Letters.
No complaint of the historian's
enemies is more frequent than that if
he had not been secretly inclined to
Arianism, he would have given more
prominence to the subject in his Life
of Constantine. In answer to this, it
would be enough to refer to the purpose
of the work, or to the distinctly ortho-
dox declarations scattered through his
writings. But if Eusebius was of
opinion that Sabellianism was the
more pressing danger of the two, he is
fully justified in assigning to Arianism
the secondary position he does. It will
not be denied that such was his belief:
and it was not unreasonable at the
time he wrote. We may question his
foresight, but we are not therefore
entitled to dispute his orthodoxy.
The Life of Constantine was written
between September 337 and the death
of Eusebius. This Dr Lightfoot dates
probably May 30, 339, or not later than
the beginning of 340. We may shift
it a year earlier, for the ejection of
Athanasius by Philagrius must be
placed in March 339 (not 340); and no
writer connects Eusebius with the ap-
pointment of Gregory shortly before
it. Upon the whole, we may pretty
safely place the Life of Constantine
somewhere in the course of 338, during
an interval of the strife.
Looking back from that date, he
might almost think Arianism an ex-
tinct controversy. The matter had
always been very much of a personal
quarrel, Arius himself long ago had
108
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
The sons of Constantine shared the world among them like
an ancestral inheritance¹. Thrace and Pontus had already been
assigned to their cousins Dalmatius and Hannibalianus; but the
army at Constantinople promptly rose and gave them six feet
of earth apiece. With them perished almost the whole family
of Constantius Chlorus by his second marriage. From the
confusion three Augusti emerged, to represent on earth the
Trinity in heaven. The division of the Empire was completed
some time later. Constantine II. added Africa to his Gaulish
prefecture, the legions of Syria obtained the East for Con-
stantius, and Italy and Illyricum were left as the share of
Constans. Thus neither Rome nor Constantinople fell to the
eldest brother.
renounced his heresy, and Eusebius
had seen his restoration by the coun-
cil at Jerusalem. It had a few ad-
herents left at Alexandria, whom it
might be well some day to restore to
communion; but for thirteen years it
had scarcely troubled the peace of
Christendom. Athanasius on the other
hand had gravely misconducted him-
self at Alexandria; and not the least
of his offences was the attempt to raise
a cry of heresy against his accusers.
However, even he had been allowed
by imperial clemency to return (Novem-
ber 337, not 338), and might rule better
in the future. There had also been a
terrible scandal at Antioch, where a
great bishop had been deposed for
fornication. But the doctrinal troubles
(so Eusebius would say) had come
entirely from the Sabellians; and the
chief offender was the universal enemy
Marcellus.
1 So Eusebius V. C. iv. 51, 63 wσтeр
τινὰ πατρικὴν ὕπαρξιν.
2 Six princes were killed (Rendall
Julian 36). Of the whole house of
Theodora none escaped but Gallus,
Julian and Nepotianus.
3 Such was the demand of the
army (Eus. V. C. iv. 68), curiously
repeated in the time of Constantine IV.
(668-685).
4 Questions of chronology become
very intricate about this point, and I
have given no more than a summary
of results.
Constantine's death is settled firmly
enough for May 22, 337, and Idatius
names September 9 for the proclama-
tion of the three Augusti, while the
meeting in Pannonia (Julian Or. i.
p. 22) is fixed for the summer of 338
by the laws (a) Cod. Theod. x. 10, 4
dated by Constantine II. from Vimina-
cium June 12, and (b) Cod. Theod. xv.
1, 5 dated by Constans from Sirmium
July 27.
The massacre is placed by de Broglie
iii. 10 soon after Constantine's death,
while Tillemont (Empereurs, iv. 664)
defers it to the next year. Now Euse-
bius V. C. iv. 68 tells us that as
soon as the soldiers heard of the em-
peror's death, they decided unani-
mously that none but his sons should
succeed him, and that not long after-
wards they demanded three Augusti to
represent on earth the heavenly Trinity.
Reading between the lines, we may
pretty safely assume that the massacre
was the form in which the army ex-
pressed its decision, and that it took
place some time before September 9.
So Zosimus ii. 40.
The outbreak is only too easy to
account for. The soldiers were de-
voted to Constantine's memory; and
if the inheritance of his sons was any
way threatened by the house of Theo-
dora, the sooner it was exterminated
the better. Hatred of Ablavius may
also have played a part in the matter,
if we can trust a hint of Greg. Naz.
Or. iv. 21 ἥνικα τὸ στρατιωτικὸν ἐξω-
πλίσθη κατὰ τῶν ἐν τέλει, καινοτομούν
φόβῳ καινοτομίας, καὶ διὰ νέων προστα
τῶν καθίστατο τὰ βασίλεια (discussed
Iv.]
CONSTANTIUS.
109
The exiled bishops were restored before these things were
settled. The younger Constantine had received Athanasius in
all honour, and now released him the moment his father's death
was known at Trier. Athanasius travelled by way of Ha-
drianople, and reached Alexandria Nov. 23, 337', to the joy of
Greeks and Copts alike. Marcellus, Paul and the rest were re-
stored about the same time, but not without much disturbance
at Ancyra, which each party ascribed to its enemies².
The reign of Constantius lies before us. But before we trace
a miserable record of oppression and exhaustion in the state, of
confusion and misrule in the church, let us cast a glance at the
emperor himself.
Constantius had something of his father's character. In
temperance and chastity, in love of letters and in dignity
of manner, in social charm and pleasantness of private life,
he was no unworthy son of Constantine; and if he in-
herited no splendid genius for war, he had a full measure of
soldierly courage and endurance. Nor was the statecraft con-
temptible, which might have boasted that no mutiny had
disturbed the East for four and twenty years, and no revolt
except the Jewish war. It was no trifling merit to have main-
tained the Roman peace so well without undue favour to the
army.
But Constantius was essentially a little man, in whom his
father's vices took a meaner form. Upon occasion Constantine
by Wietersheim Völkerwanderung iii.
Anm. 91). Ablavius may also be the
unworthy favourite of Constantine
whose punishment is cautiously al-
luded to by Eus. V. C. iv. 54, 55.
Beugnot's theory of a pagan reaction
is needless; and is moreover contra-
dicted by the curiously theological form
in which the army couched its demand
for three Augusti.
The share of Constantius in it is
another disputed question. Rendall
Julian 36 sums up the evidence and
declares his guilt unproved. It may be
added that the silence of Lucifer is a
strong argument for a complete acquit-
tal;
but it is weakened by the fact that
he does not refer to the murder of
Gallus-unless an allusion be found
in Cain, carnifex, homicida, &c. In
any case it makes little difference to
our estimate of Constantius.
1 Note CC.
nasius in 337.
The Return of Atha-
2 Zahn Marcellus 65.
3 Considering that no mutiny fol-
lowed his defeats in the East, we may
safely reject (Tillemont notwithstand-
ing) the story of his abject cowardice
at Mursa, told by Sulpicius Severus,
Chron. ii. 38.
Ammianus xxi. 16, 2-3 notices his
care to secure a due supremacy to the
civil power. The consular Fasti in his
reign are in striking contrast to the ap-
pointments of Valentinian, for Arbetio
is the only general we find in them.
Men of letters on the other hand often
reached the highest offices, like Anato-
lius and Musonianus.
110
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
3
could break his oath and strike with ruthless cruelty; but the
whole spirit of Constantius was corroded with fear and jealousy
of every man better than himself. The executioner had a busy
time, and the assassin' was always in reserve. Thus the easy
trust in unworthy favourites which marks even the ablest Flavian
emperors became in Constantius nothing less than a public cala-
mity. It was bad enough when the uprightness of Constantine
or Julian was led astray by Sopater or Maximus, Ablavius or
Mamertinus; but it was incomparably worse when Eusebius and
Florentius found a master too weak in moral courage to stand
alone, too jealous and too vain to allow an able counsellor about
him, too easy-tempered and too indolent to care what oppres-
sions were committed in his name. In war it was the standing
weakness of the Empire, that a good general was nowhere safe
but on the throne*; and in peace imperial suspicion made a
paradise for the spies and eunuchs of the palace. The peculiar
repulsiveness of Constantius, like that of Charles I., is not due to
flagrant personal vice, but to the combination of cold-blooded
treachery with the utter want of any inner nobleness of character.
But Constantius was altogether an abler plotter. Instead of
playing with half a dozen schemes of treachery at once, he
aimed his blow at Athanasius once for all, and with a consum-
mateness of perfidy Alexius Comnenus might have envied. Al-
most alone of the Christian emperors, he scarcely made an
effort to check the decay which Diocletian had bequeathed to
his successors. More than one noble law of Constantine was
aimed at the evil, Julian fought it with unremitting energy,
Valentinian and Theodosius have left an honourable record,
and the Empire may owe something even to Honorius, but the
1 As in the case of Silvanus.
2 For the chamberlain Eusebius,
the sarcastic reference of Ammianus
xviii. 4, 3 apud quem, si vere dici debeat,
multa Constantius potuit. For Floren-
tius, the indignant words of Julian
Ep. 17, rightly referred by Rendall
Julian 131 to the Gaulish prefect
rather than the chamberlain. Julian
ad S. P. Q. R. Athen. scarcely bears out
Clinton's objection that Florentius was
on good terms with Julian till after the
recall of Sallust in the autumn of 357.
3 Theodoret H. E. v. 7 contrasts
the evкoxía of Constantius with the
μοχθηρία of Valens and ii. 2 εὐρίπιστον
τοῦ Κ. τὴν γνώμην. So Epiph. Har.
69, 12. Eutropius x. 15 ad severitatem
tum propensior, si suspicio imperii mo-
veretur, mitis alias. His unsteady
purpose is clear enough in the history:
but see Ath. Hist. Ar. 69 p. 304.
Theodoret ii. 3, 31.
4 Silvanus, Julian and Ursicinus
may serve as examples for the reign of
Constantius.
IV.]
CONSTANTIUS.
111
services of Constantius are overshadowed by the iniquities of
miscreants like Apodemius and Paul Catena¹.
Yet Constantius was a pious emperor in his own way. He
loved the ecclesiastical game, and was easily won over to
the conservative side. The growing despotism of the Empire
and the personal vanity of Constantius were equally suited by
the episcopal timidity which cried for an arm of flesh to fight its
battles. It is not easy to decide how far he acted on his own
preferences and superstitions, how far he merely allowed his
flatterers to guide him, and how far he saw that it was good
policy to follow them; but so far as we can see, his opinions
seem to have kept pace with those professed by Acacius of
Cæsarea. Thus without ever being a genuine Arian, he began
with a thorough dislike of the Nicene council, continued for
many years to hold conservative language, and ended by adopt-
ing the vague Homoean compromise".
3
Eusebian intrigues were soon resumed. Fresh troubles
were raised at Alexandria, and a new prefect sent to make the
most of them. Now that Constantine was dead, a schism could
be established; so the Arians were encouraged to hold assemblies
of their own, and provided with a bishop in the person of Pistus,
one of the original heretics deposed by Alexander. No fitter
consecrator could be found for him than Secundus of Ptolemais,
one of the final recusants at Nicæa. Charges new and old were
made against Athanasius, and the presbyter Macarius was sent
on behalf of Pistus to lay them before Julius of Rome. Atha-
nasius on his side assembled the Egyptian bishops at Alexandria,
and forwarded to Rome their solemn witness in his favour.
Macarius fled at the first rumour of its coming, and his deacons
could only escape exposure for the moment by asking Julius.
to hold a council, and undertaking to produce full evidence
before it.
Meanwhile the Eusebians had deposed Athanasius in a
1 Note D. The Legislation of Con-
stantius.
2 The character of Constantius is
drawn by Ammianus xxi. 16, of the
moderns by Reinkens Hilarius 86–99,
Wietersheim (Dahn) i. 461.
3 Correcting the title of the Festal
Letter for 338 after Sievers, Hist.
Aceph. § 7. Philagrius must have
been appointed for a second term (Ath.
Hist. Ar. 51, p. 296), before the end of
the Egyptian year in August, 338. The
disturbances are alluded to in the
Index for 338 and in the Letter for 339.
112
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
council held at Antioch, where Constantius had fixed his
quarters for the winter of 338-9¹. But we hear nothing of
heresy-only the old charges of sedition and intrigue, with a few
more of the same sort, and a new one of having allowed the
civil power to restore him after his deposition at Tyre². Pistus
was not appointed in his place. The see of Alexandria was
offered to the learned Eusebius of Edessa, afterwards bishop of
Emesa. But Eusebius had seen with his own eyes the popu-
larity of Athanasius in Egypt, and had no mind to challenge his
supremacy. The council therefore chose Gregory of Cappadocia,
a student of Alexandria like Eusebius, and a fitter agent for the
rough work to be done. Athanasius was expelled by the
apostate prefect Philagrius in Lent 339, and Gregory installed
by military violence in his place. Scenes of outrage were
enacted all over Egypt.
8
Athanasius fled to Rome, and his example was followed by
Marcellus of Ancyra, and ejected clerics from all parts of the East.
Julius at once took up the high tone of judicial impartiality which
became an arbiter of Christendom. He received the fugitives
with a decent reserve, and invited the Eusebians to the council
they had asked him to hold. For a long time there came no
1 As the departure of Athanasius
for Rome is clearly fixed for 339, we
must distinguish this council from
that of the Dedication, which is as
clearly fixed for 341. So in the main
Hefele Councils § 54: but both he and
de Broglie iii. 33 are led astray by the
initial error of placing his first return
from exile in 338 instead of 337.
Hence de Broglie brings him to Rome
first in 339, in obedience to the pope's
summons, and again in 341, on his
expulsion by Philagrius. For the re-
turn from Rome between the Council
of the Dedication and the beginning of
Lent 342, he gains time by the unique
mistake (iii. 38, 47, 53) of dating the
Council "dès les premiers jours de 341."
2 Soz. iii. 2. Socrates and So-
zomen confuse the council with that
of the Dedication. But a charge plain-
ly alluded to by the latter (Can. 4 and
12) was probably raised at the earlier
assembly.
209.
On Philagrius, Sievers Libanius
In the Index to the Festal Letters
it is said that Athanasius "fled from
the church of Theonas" on the morning
of March 19, three days before Gregory's
arrival. Athanasius himself, Encycl. 5,
p. 91, says that he stayed in the city
for some time after the outrages had
begun, whereas Hist. Ar. 10, p. 277,
we are told that Athanasius fled to
Rome, πριν γενέσθαι ταῦτα, καὶ μόνον
ἀκούσας.
The last statement may be explained
by referring Taûra to the general sum-
mary of outrages made just before,
while the other two are quite consistent
with each other. If Athanasius went
into hiding (υπέκλεψα ἐμαυτὸν τῶν λαῶν
Encycl.) Mar. 19, it might be April
before he found a ship of Alexandria
sailing into Italy.
4 Athanasius (Hist. Ar. 11, p. 277)
had his accounts from his partizans at
Alexandria. They would not lose in
the telling; but there is no reason to
doubt their substantial truth.
IV.]
THE LETTER OF JULIUS.
113
answer from the East. The old heretic Carpones appeared at
Rome on Gregory's behalf; but the envoys of Julius were
detained at Antioch till January (340), and at last dismissed
with an unmannerly reply¹. After some further delay, a synod
of some 50 bishops met at Rome in the autumn of 340. The
cases were examined, Athanasius and Marcellus acquitted; and
it remained for Julius to report their decision to the Easterns.
His letter to Dianius', Flacillus, Eusebius and the rest is
one of the ablest documents of the entire controversy. Nothing
can be more skilful or more prudent than the calm and high
judicial tone in which he lays open every excuse of the Euse-
bians. He was surprised, he says, to receive so discourteous an
answer to his letter, and had kept it to himself for some time,
in hopes that some of them might even yet return to a better
mind. But what was their grievance? If it was (1) his invita-
tion to a synod, they could not have much confidence in their
cause. Even the great council of Nicæa had decided (and not
without the will of God) that the acts of one synod might be
revised by another. Their own envoys had asked him to hold a
council; and the men who set aside the authority of Nicea by
using the services of heretics like Secundus, Pistus and Carpones
were hardly entitled to claim finality for their own decisions at
Tyre. If the decisions of the councils against Novatus and Paul
of Samosata are to be respected, much more those of the great
council against the Arians. They complained (2) that he had
given them too short a notice-a very good reply, if only the
appointed time had found them on the road to Rome. "But
this also, beloved, is only an excuse." They had detained his
envoys for months at Antioch, and plainly did not wish to come.
As for (3) the reception of Athanasius, it was neither lightly nor
unjustly done. The Eusebian letters against him were inconsis-
1 Reconstructed by Bright Hist.
Treatises, xxiv. from the answer of
Julius.
2 The letter ad Danium Flacillum
&c. is given by Ath. Apol. c. dr. 21, p.
111. Montfaucon identifies the un-
known Danius with Theognius of Nicæa;
but it seems better to follow Tillemont
Mém. vi. 322, who understands the
venerated bishop of Cæsarea Mazaca.
Dianius was present at Philippopolis ;
G.
and also (Soz. iii. 5) at the Council of
the Dedication, or more likely that
which deposed Athanasius in 339. He
is not indeed named as an enemy by
Athanasius, but from all accounts ap-
pears to have been rather conservative
than Arian.
Hefele Councils § 55 gives a sum-
mary of the letter. I have omitted a
few of the minor arguments.
S
114
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
tent, for no two of them ever told the same story; and were
moreover contradicted by letters in his favour from Egypt and
elsewhere. The Mareotic commission was a travesty of justice;
and with regard to the murder of Arsenius, he was alive and
well, and actually a friend of Athanasius. The accused had
come to Rome when summoned, and waited for them eighteen
months in vain; whereas the Eusebians had uncanonically
appointed an utter stranger in his place at Alexandria, and sent
him with a guard of soldiers all the way from Antioch, to break
up the peace of Egypt with horrible outrages. With regard to
(4) Marcellus, he had denied the charge of heresy and presented
a very sound confession of his faith. The Roman legates at
Nicea had also borne witness to the honourable part he had
taken in the council. Thus the Eusebians had no ground for
their complaint that Athanasius and Marcellus had been hastily
acquitted at Rome. Rather their own doings had caused the
division, for complaints of their violence arrived from all parts of
the East. In this state of things it was strange to hear that
there was peace in the church. The authors of these outrages -
rumour said they were all the work of a few intriguers—were
no lovers of peace, but of confusion. It was sad that petty
quarrels should be allowed to go on till bishops drove their
brethren into exile. If there were any complaint against the
bishop of Alexandria, 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
outrages, as we must answer for it in the day of judgment.
Severe as the letter is, it is free from needless irritation, and
in every way contrasts well with the disingenuous querulousness
of the Eusebians. Nor is Julius unmindful of his own authority.
The only weak point in it is its support of Marcellus; for Julius
must have deliberately intended to accept his teaching as at
least permissible.
The Eusebians replied in the summer of 341', when some
1 In the fifth year after Constan-
tine's death (Socr. Soz.), and in the
14th Indiction (Ath.): i.e. some time
between May 22 and September 1.
Hefele Councils $ 56. We might fix it
at once for May 22 if we could assume
with Möhler Ath. 350 that it was the
fifth anniversary of the accession of
Constantius.
v.]
COUNCIL OF THE DEDICATION.
115
ninety bishops' met at Antioch to consecrate the Golden Church
of Constantine". Hence the council is usually called that of the
Dedication (ή ἐν τοῖς ἐγκαινίοις. Its character is one of the
most disputed points of the history before us. Hilary calls it
an assembly of saints; and its canons were not only ranked
with those of the cecumenical councils, but largely drawn upon
in the collection ascribed to the apostles. Yet its chief work
was to confirm the deposition of Athanasius and to draw up
creeds in opposition to the Nicene. Was it orthodox or Arian?
As its canons contain nothing distinctive, the question must be
decided by an examination of its creeds. As we find no com-
plaints of court influence, we may fairly assume that the
Council represented the real belief of a majority of the bishops
present. Its successive creeds admirably reflect the anarchy of
parties in it.
The first of these is an encyclical of the Eusebians. They
1 Schelstraten's list Sacr. Ant.
Conc. 58--98 of 51 bishops needs
much revision. Of his authorities,
the letter of Julius ad Danium Flacil-
lum &c. refers to the earlier council,
and the later Latin translations of the
Synodical Acts are worthless, the sees
being copied from the Nicene signa-
tures. We may also omit the name of
Marcellus, who had indeed left Rome
more than a year before, but would
hardly have ventured into the lion's
mouth at Antioch. Gregory of Alex-
andria (expressly named also by Socr.
ii. 10: but contrast Festal Letters) and
Eusebius of Emesa seem also due to
the confusion between the two coun-
cils.
There remain from Sozomen the
names of Dianius of the Cappadocian
and Acacius of the Palestinian Cæsarea,
Eusebius of Constantinople, Theodore
of Heraclea, Eudoxius of Germanicea,
Patrophilus of Scythopolis and George
of Laodicea; and from Ath. de Syn.
24, p. 588, Theophronius of Tyana.
The Prisca, which is usually confirmed
by the Syriac list in Cowper Syr.
Miscell. 43, mentions also Tarcon-
dimantus (of Ege in Cilicia Philost.
ap. Nicetam Thès, Ord. Fid, v. 7, and
signs at Nicæa), Eustathius (signs at
Philippopolis for Epiphania in Syria),
Anatolius (not of Emesa-Schelstra-
ten's ingenious theory Sacr. Ant. Conc.
674 is not convincing) and 14 others.
To these we may reasonably add the
name of Flacillus of Antioch; also
those of Narcissus of Neronias, Maris
of Chalcedon and Mark of Arethusa,
who were certainly present a few
months later. And if the corrupt lists
are to be used at all, they may be
allowed to suggest the Mareotic com-
missioner Macedonius of Mopsuestia,
who is addressed by Julius ad Danium
&c., and is favourably mentioned in
the Encyclical of Philippopolis, signed
by him alone under the honourable
title of confessor.
2 It was to be μονογενές τι χρήμα
ἐκκλησίας μεγέθους ἕνεκα καὶ κάλλους
άpiépov, Eus. V. C. iii. 50, and had
taken at least ten years in building.
The sister church at Constantinople
was not consecrated till 360. Chron.
Pasch.
* Hilary de Syn. 32 Sanctorum
synodus.
Nothing can be inferred from the
confirmation of the Nicene rule respec-
ting Easter in the first canon, except
that the Quartodecimans were still
flourishing in Syria.
5 Socr. ii. 10 says ovdèv μèv TŴV ÈV
Νικαία μεμψάμενοι κ.τ.λ. So Soz. iii. 5,
who notices the evasive character of
the document.
S_2
116
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL IIISTORY.
begin by declaring themselves not followers of Arius (for that
would be inconsistent with episcopal dignity), but his indepen-
dent adherents. The creed itself is meagre and evasive, much
resembling the confession of Arius and Euzoius. The main
controversy is dismissed with the words εἰς ἕνα Υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ
μονογενῆ, πρὸ πάντων αἰώνων ὑπάρχοντα, καὶ συνόντα τῷ
γεγεννηκότι αὐτὸν Πατρί.
The Arianizers had overshot their mark, and brought
suspicion on themselves. It was not by this sort of evasion
that a great controversy could be settled. Moreover, the con-
servatives had older standards of their own, and were not pre-
pared obediently to record themselves adherents of Arius.
Instead therefore of composing a new creed, they put forward
a work of the venerated martyr Lucian of Antioch. Such at
least it was said to be, and such in the main it probably was.
In any case it was the creed of Lucian's disciple Asterius, which
Eusebius had defended from the attacks of Marcellus".
5
It is an elaborate and highly scriptural creed, in some
respects akin to that which bears the name of Gregory of
Neocæsarea¹. Its most prominent feature is a direct attack
on Arianism in the words ατρεπτόν τε καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον, τὸν
τῆς θεότητος οὐσίας τε καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ βουλῆς καὶ δόξης τοῦ
Πατρὸς ἀπαράλλακτον εἰκόνα. So strong are these that
Athanasius himself might have been glad to accept them if
there had been any possibility of retreat from the Nicene
1 Socr. ii. 10. Soz. iii. 5, who
notices its evasive character. The
only other clauses which call for any
remark are the Arianizing σápка………….
áveiλnpóra, and the attack on Marcel-
lus in διαμένοντα βασιλέα καὶ θεὸν εἰς
τοὺς αἰῶνας.
2 Hilary de Syn. 29 heads it Ex-
positio......cum in suspicionem venisset
unus ex episcopis, quod prava sentiret.
Baronius conjectures that this was
Gregory of Alexandria; Schelstraten
p. 118, Marcellus. One guess is usu-
ally as good as another; but these
are certainly wrong: so Tillemont vi.
757.
3 We can recognize its characteristic
sentences in Eus. c. Marcell. esp. p. 24.
Philostorgius ii. 15 accuses Asterius
of interpolating the clause οὐσίας ἀπαρ
άλλακτον εἰκόνα. So also the Mace
donian is charged with adding to it in
Pseudo-Ath. Dial. iii. p. 441 (= Theo-
doret v. p. 992)—a work claimed by
Garnerius (ditto p. 420) for Theodoret,
but in any case later than 451 from its
mention of orthodox additions to the
Nicene creed.
Caspari Alte u. Neue 42 discusses
Lucian's authorship, but without posi-
tively deciding the question.
Caspari Alte u. Neue 42.
5 So Zahn Marcellus 73; against
Hefele Councils § 56, who follows
Hilary de Syn. 32, in supposing it
directly aimed at Marcellus. Such
was hardly its main purpose; but it
might have been a useful sideblow at
Marcellus to ratify the creed of Aste-
rius.
IV.]
THE LUCIANIC CREED.
117
decisions. The clause bore the stamp of Origen, and had been
used by Alexander in an early stage of the controversy; Hilary
accepted it in after years, while Athanasius himself had used it
before and was to use it yet again'. However, there are a few
points to be noticed.
(1). It was illogical for men who objected to the Nicene
ὁμοούσιον as not found in Scripture themselves to use the
cqually non-scriptural οὐσίας ἀπαράλλακτον εἰκόνα. Athanasius
takes full advantage of the mistake'.
(2). Arius himself had used the words ἄτρεπτον καὶ
ἀναλλοίωτον in his letter to Alexander, but with the all-impor-
tant qualification ἰδίῳ θελήματι οι τῷ ἰδίῳ αὐτεξουσίῳ. In the
Lucianic creed they are a direct denial of the Arian τρεπτός
καὶ ἀλλοιωτός.
(3). The phrase οὐσίας ἀπαράλλακτον εἰκόνα emphasizes the
absence of any change of essence in the transition from the
Father to the Son; and is therefore equivalent to ὁμοούσιον,
though the conservatives only intended by it the unphilosophical
ὁμοιούσιον. Thus they not only meant to say what was illogical,
but they did not even succeed in expressing it.
There were two features of the Lucianic creed which might
of themselves have indisposed the Nicenes to accept it, notwith-
standing the strength of the controversial clause. The first of
these is the expression τῇ μὲν ὑποστάσει τρία, τῇ δὲ συμφωνίᾳ
1 We have Origen Comm. in Joann.
xiii. 36 (quoted by Caspari) ὥστε είναι
τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν τῷ θελήματι τοῦ
υἱοῦ ἀπαράλλακτον τοῦ θελήματος τοῦ
πατρός, εἰς τὸ μηκέτι εἶναι δύο θελήματα,
ἀλλ᾽ ἓν θέλημα...... καὶ τάχα διὰ ταῦτα εἰ-
κών ἐστι τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου· καὶ γὰρ τὸ ἐν
αὐτῷ θέλημα εἰκὼν τοῦ πρώτου θελήματος,
καὶ ἡ ἐν αὐτῷ θεότης εἰκὼν τῆς ἀληθινῆς
θεότητος. Alexander (to Alexander of
Byzantium) in Theodoret i. 1 ἀπαράλ
λακτος εἰκὼν τοῦ Π. τυγχάνων, καὶ τοῦ
πρωτοτύπου ἔκτυπος χαρακτήρ......τρεπ-
τον τοῦτον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον ὡς τὸν Π.,...
εἰκὼν γάρ ἐστιν ἀπηκριβωμένη καὶ ἀπαρ-
άλλακτος τοῦ II. Hilary de Syn. 33.
Athanasius c. Gentes 41, p. 32, and esp.
his peroration 46, 47, p. 37 συνελόντι
φράσαι, εἰκὼν ἀπαράλλακτος τοῦ ΙΙ.......
ἔστι γὰρ ὥσπερ τοῦ Π. λόγος καὶ
σοφία, οὕτω καὶ γίνεται αυτοαγιασ
. γίνεται...αὐτοαγιασ
μὸς καὶ αὐτοζωὴ καὶ θύρα καὶ ποιμὴν
καὶ ὁδὸς καὶ βασιλεὺς καὶ ἡγεμὼν καὶ
ἐπὶ πᾶσι σωτήρ, καὶ ζωοποιὸς καὶ φῶς,
καὶ πρόνοια τῶν πάντων. Or. i. 26, p.
339 ἴδιον τῆς ουσίας καὶ ἀπαράλλακτον
čoxer eiкóra, ii. 33, p. 396, iii. 5, p. 439
ἀπαράλλακτος γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ἐν τῇ εἰκόνι
τοῦ βασίλεως ὁμοιότης, and iii. 11, p.
443 he argues that if the unity is not
of nature, the Son is not ἀπαράλλακτος
εἰκών. But he avoids the phrase in
his equally conciliatory de Synodis,
except to point out its inconsistency
with the objection to aypapa, for him-
selt preferring ίδιον τῆς οὐσίας γέννημα.
Ath. de Syn. 36. So also Soz.
iii. 5.
3 Hilary de Syn. 33, discussing es-
sentiæ incommutabilem imaginem.
+ This is well put by Pseudo-Ath.
supra.
118
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
ev, which recalls the Arian evasion of Juo. x. 34 ẻyw kai i
Пaтηρ év éσμev as a mere reference to unity of will'. The other
is the weakness of the anathemas. The insertion of xpóvos in
that against ἦν ποτὲ ὅτε οὐκ ἦν seemed a loophole expressly
made for the escape of the blasphemers; while the addition of
ὡς ἓν τῶν κτισμάτων to that against κτίσμα might have been
copied from the letter of Arius to Alexander2.
The conservatives were well content with the Lucianic creed,
and more than once referred to it in after years with a venera-
tion akin to that of Athanasius for the Nicene. But the wire-
pullers were determined to upset it. Their chief argument was
the danger from Sabellianism, as we see from the direct attack
on Marcellus in the confession next presented by Theophronius
of Tyana. It obtained a momentary approval, but the meeting
broke up without adopting it in the place of the Lucianic for-
mula*.
¹ Hilary in his conciliatory de Syn.
32 explains it by reminding us that
the council was convened (so he says)
solely against Sabellianism. He also
calls attention to the difference be-
tween ὑπόστασις and substantia (=ού
ola); and suggests that the reference
to will might have been thought a
more spiritual way of expressing the
likeness. This would agree with the
conservative rejection of ἐκ τῆς ουσίας
as unspiritual in favour of θελήσει
γεννηθέντα.
It was the usual conservative ex-
planation of Jno. x. 30 ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ
Ev èoμev. Thus in Eus. c. Marcellum
pp. 28, 37, Asterius says ka0' ô èv nâoɩ
συμφωνοῦσιν, and διὰ τὴν ἐν ἅπασιν
λόγοις τε καὶ ἔργοις ἀκριβῆ συμφωνίαν;
and Marcellus replies that this is not
the force of the words, and that there
was no such ovμpwría at Gethsemane.
Athanasius de Syn. 48, p. 608 objects
on the ground that mere agreement of
wil might be claimed by a creature.
In the spurious Sardican definition
(Theodoret ii. 8) we find dià TǹV σVµOW-
νίαν καὶ τὴν ὁμόνοιαν set aside in favour
οἱ διὰ τὴν τῆς ὑποστάσεως ενότητα, ἥτις
ἐστὶ μία τοῦ 11. καὶ μία τοῦ Υἱου.
The phrase, as Huet points out
Origeniana 111. ii. 3, is derived from
Origen c. Celsum viii. 12 Opnoкevoμev
οὖν τὸν πατέρα τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ τὸν υἱὸν
τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ὄντα δύο τῇ ὑποστάσει
πράγματα, ἐν δὲ τῇ ὁμονοίᾳ, καὶ τῇ συμ-
φωνίᾳ, καὶ τῇ ταυτότητι τοῦ βουλήματος.
The Sabellianizing counterpart
would be such a phrase as that used
(perhaps άywvIOTIKŵs only: Caspari
Alte u. Neue 37) by Gregory of Neoca-
sarea, as quoted by Basil Ep. 210
ἐπινοίᾳ μὲν εἶναι δύο, υποστάσει δὲ ἕν, οι
on the Marcellian ουσίᾳ καὶ ὑποστάσει
Ev denounced by Eusebius e. Marc.
p. 5, and glanced at by Athanasius.
Or. iv. 3, p. 491.
• Ath. de Syn. 16, p. 583.
3 Notice the words of Silvanus and
of Sophronius at the council of Seleu-
cia, Socr. ii. 39, 40: also those of the
Semiarian synod in Caria, Soz. vi. 12.
They all ignore the other Antiochene
creeds.
The above view of the Council of
the Dedication seems best to suit the
facts of the case. If we consider (1)
that the majority must have been cou-
servative, (2) that there are no direct
complaints of court influence, (3) that
the Arianizing first creed was decided-
ly rejected, (4) that the conservatives
in later times constantly refer to the
Lucianic creed as the permanent work
of the council, (5) that the meeting
broke up without accepting that of
Theophronius in its place, (6) that the
next step of the wirepullers was to
IV.]
THE FOURTH CREED.
119
Defeated in a free council, the wirepullers a few months
later assembled a cabal of their own (d0ev Teρì πíστews, com-
ments Athanasius') and drew up a fourth creed, which a depu-
tation of notorious Arianizers presented to Constans in Gaul as
the genuine work of the council'. It seems to have suited them
better than the Lucianic, for they repeated it with ever-increas-
ing anathemas at Philippopolis in 343, at Antioch the next
year, and at Sirmium in 351. It was not till 359 that the
dated creed was drawn up to supersede it,
We can see why it suited them. While in substance it is
less opposed to Arianism than the Lucianic, its form is a close
copy of the Nicene, even to the adoption of the anathemas in a
weakened form. Upon the whole it might fairly pass for such
a revision of the Nicene as Eusebius of Cæsarea might have
been glad to see.
On one side it omitted Lucian's controversial
clauses and dropped the word ovoía³; on the other it left out
draw up a fourth creed-the inference
seems irresistible, that the Council
substantially resulted in a conservative
victory over the intriguers.
Zahn Marcellus 74 regards the Luci-
anic creed as decidedly anti-Nicene, but
agrees that it went far enough for the
majority, and that it was and remained
the confession of the Council. He also
declares it more than doubtful whether
the fourth creed came from the Council;
but does not press the question further.
Ebrard Kgsch, i 212 maintains a
peculiar theory. He makes the first
creed Semiarian or Eusebian (con-
vertible terms with him), the second
absolutely orthodox, the third inter-
mediate, and the fourth a formula of
concord agreed upon by all parties in
the presence of Constantius. This last
detail by the way has no support from
Ath. de Syn. 25, p. 589.
1 Ath. de Syn. 25, p. 589.
2 There are several indications that
the fourth creed of Antioch was drawn
up in opposition to the conservative
Lucianic, and in the interest of a more
decided though still cautious opposi-
tion to the Nicene.
As Athanasius wrote de Syn. 25,
p. 589, in exile, he might well have
failed to distinguish the different classes
of "Arian maniacs." Yet he notices
the interval of time, gives the names
of the envoys, and uses language (us
3
ἀπὸ συνόδου πεμφθέντες) not inconsistent
with the direct charge of fraudulent sup-
pression made by Socr. ii. 18 and Soz.
iii. 18. Hilary de Syn. gives the Lu-
cianic creed alone as the work of the
council, and then passes on to that of
Philippopolis. So also c. Ctium 23.
It was the Lucianic creed which Silva-
nus and Sophronius defended (Socr. ii.
39, 40, Soz. iv. 22) at Seleucia. It is
also mentioned with a certain respect
by the Acacians, though they amended
the dated creed by inserting a clause
from the fourth of Antioch; and to
the Lucianic creed does Athanasius
de Syn. 36, p. 600 refer in his address
to the Semiarians. The Lucianic creed
was also ratified (Soer. iii. 10) by fre-
quent councils in the reign of Julian,
and a few years later (Soz. vi. 12) by
one in Caria about 366. Epiphanius
Hær. 73, 1 is therefore quite entitled to
treat it as the recognized creed of the
Semiarians. We may also infer from
Pseudo-Ath. de S. Trinitate Dial. iii.
p. 441 that it was long retained by the
Macedonians.
There seems nothing on the other
side but the argument of the Semiarians
at Ancyra from Eph. iii. 15 è¿ où râʊa
πатρià K.T.λ., which may suggest the
fourth creed rather than the Lucianic.
3 This must be taken in connexion
with the Western destination of the
creed.
120
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
the offensive reference of the unity to will. It also rounded off
the abrupt statement on the Holy Spirit and inserted an
anathema on Marcellus and all who had communicated with
him.
The wording of the last clause was a direct blow at Julius of
Rome, and is quite enough to shew that its authors had no wish
to conciliate the West. But Western suspicion was already
roused by the issue of the Lucianic creed. There could be no
doubt now that the intriguers were striking at the Nicene
faith. Before the Eastern envoys reached Constans in Gaul, he
had already written to his brother from Milan to demand that a
new general council should be assembled. As Constantius was
occupied with the Persian war, he was in no condition to refuse.
After some delay, it was summoned to meet in the summer of
343'. To the dismay of the Eusebians, the place chosen was
Sardica in Dacia, just inside the dominions of Constans, where
they could not ply their usual court intrigues. After their
failure at Antioch, they could not hope for success if the council
was allowed to debate freely.
1 The Council of Sardica is placed in
the year 343 (beginning Aug. 29, 342) by
the Index to the Festal Letters, and seems
fixed for the summer of that year by
several convergent lines of argument.
(1) Athanasius having completed
his Letter for 347 after his arrival at
Alexandria, we must place his return
in the autumn of 346, independently
of the direct statement of the Index.
As Constantius wrote at one time that
he had already waited a whole year for
him, the negotiations for his return
must have occupied at least a year and
a half. We must therefore carry buck
Stephen's plot, which we know was
laid at Easter, to the year 344, and
consequently the Council of Sardica
cannot be placed later than the autumn
of 343.
(2) It is not clear whether Atha-
nasius Apol. ad Ctium 4, p. 236 reckons
from his leaving Alexandria in April,
339 or from his arrival at Rome during
the summer, but he tells us that
three years had passed and a fourth
was begun when Constans sent for him
to Milan and told him that it was pro-
posed to hold a council. Its meeting
therefore cannot be placed before the
spring of 343.
(8) We reach the same result
another way if we assume that the
negotiations for a council were not
begun till news reached the West that
the intriguers at Antioch had been
tampering with the faith. The Coun-
cil of the Dedication was held between
May 22 and September 1, 341, the
fourth creed drawn up a few months
later. As however it only reached
Constans in Gaul, it would seem that
he took action on the Lucianic creed
in the winter of 341--2 or following
spring, and sent for Athanasius before
starting on his Frankish war. As cam-
paigns often began late (e.g. Probus in
277, or Constantius in 354) there is no
difficulty in placing the Milan inter-
view in May. The ludi Francici of
the Calendar of 354 seem to indicate a
victory of Constans on July 15, and it
seems in this year. Mommsen Ueber
den Chronographen vom J. 354, p. 571
places it in 345, but Jerome Chron.
connects it with the murder of Hermo-
genes in 342. In any case it need
cause no difliculty.
IV.]
COUNCIL OF SARDICA.
121
So to Sardica the bishops came. The Westerns were about
96' in number, "with Hosius of Cordova for their father","
bringing with him Marcellus, Athanasius, and Asclepas³, and
supported by the chief Westerns-Gratus of Carthage, Protasius
of Milan, Maximus of Trier, Fortunatian of Aquileia and
Vincent of Capua, the former legate at Nicæa. For once the
Easterns were outnumbered. They therefore travelled together
in one body, lodged together in one house at Sardica and
agreed to act together under the protection of the accomplished
count Musonianus. Their first demand was that the deposition
of Marcellus and Athanasius at Antioch should be accepted
without discussion. They urged that one council had no right
to revise the acts of another, and that in this case many of the
witnesses were dead. But on any theory of the authority of
councils, there was no reason why the deposition at Antioch
should be ratified rather than the acquittal at Rome. They had
an express commission to reopen the whole case; and if they
were not to do so, they might as well go home'. The demand
1 The number of the majority is
reckoned by Socr. ii. 20 and Soz. iii.
12 at about 300 ὥς φησιν ᾿Αθανάσιος; υγ
Theodoret ii. 17 at 250, ws didáσkel Tà
πάλαια δηλήματα. But Athanasius Apol.
c. Ar. 50, p. 132 expressly includes later
subscriptions in his list of 282 signa-
tures. This is also clear from internal
evidence. The Palestinians for example
(as Athanasius notices supra 57, p. 139)
are just those whom Maximus assembled
to meet him at Jerusalem on his return
in 346. The Egyptians again could
not possibly have mustered 94 at
Sardica, for there were not more than
100 bishops in the whole of Egypt, so
that the number leaves no margin for
the infirm who could not have under-
taken so long a journey. The list
moreover corresponds with the new
bishops mentioned by Athanasius in
his Festal Letter for 347, and not
with the old ones whose places they
took.
Elsewhere Athanasius (Hist. Ar. 15,
p. 278) gives "170, more or less, from
East and West together" as the num-
ber actually present; and Sabinus of
Heraclea (Socr. supra, confirmed by
Hilary. Fragm. 1.-see also Hefele
Councils § 60) estimates the Eusebians
6
at 76. The majority was therefore
about 94. Piecing all authorities to-
gether, the Ballerini (Migne Patrol. LVI.
53-61) reach a list of 96, which cannot
be far wrong. The distribution is natu-
ral: we have from Spain seven, Gaul
three, Britain none, Africa four, Italy
eight, Illyricum three, Dacia nine, Mace-
donia (as far as Crete) thirty-three,
Thrace four, Asia one, Pontus one
(Marcellus), Syria three, Egypt one
(Athanasius), Unknown nineteen.
2 Ath. Hist. dr. 15, p. 278.
3 Not Paul of Constantinople.
+ Ath. 17. Μon. 15 ἀποκλείουσιν
ἑαυτοὺς ἐν τῷ παλατίῳ. As Dacia be-
longed to the Western part of the Em-
pire, the Palatium at Sardica was under
the control of Constans, and they must
have been lodged in it merely for con-
venience.
5 On Musonianus Reinkens Hi-
larius 124. Sievers Libanius 222. He
had assisted at the deposition of Eus-
tathius in 330, Eus. I. C. iii. 62, and
afterwards held the Eastern prefecture
351-358.
6 As Hefele points out Councils
$61.
7 Julius of Rome ad Danium &c.
(Ath. Apol. e. Ar. 22, p. 112) says that
122
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
was clearly unreasonable, and its only interest is as shewing the
peculiar view of conciliar authority which the Eastern conserva-
tives were expected to support.
The Westerns were determined to sift the whole matter to
the bottom. But they invited the attendance of the Eusebians
in vain-none came but Asterius of Petra and Arius of Palestine¹.
It was in vain that Hosius asked them to communicate their
proofs at least privately to himself; in vain he promised that if
Athanasius were acquitted and they were still unwilling to
receive him, he would take him with him away to Spain.
There was no choice but to let the accused take their seats and
stand their trial. The Easterns left Sardica by night in haste,
under pretence of news arrived from Constantius of a victory on
the Persian frontier.
The Westerns examined the charges afresh, and acquitted
all the accused. Doctrinal questions were formally raised only
in the case of Marcellus; but when his work was read before the
council, it was found that the Eusebians had quoted as his
deliberate opinions views which, as the context shewed, he had
put forward merely for examination (Sŋτŵv), and thus falsely
charged him with denying the eternity of the Logos in the past
and of his kingdom in the future. Did the council forget to ask
whether he also confessed the eternal Sonship, or were they
indifferent about it? In either case the Eastern grievance was.
ignored.
Though the charges against Athanasius were not doctrinal,
they notoriously indicated a doctrinal quarrel. One party
therefore in the council was for issuing a new creed, fuller than
the Nicene; but the proposal was wisely rejected. It would
have made the fatal admission that Arianism had never yet
been clearly condemned, and thrown upon the Westerns the
odium of innovation, and all to no purpose, for the council
could no longer look for acceptance in the East. All that could
the Council of Nicea expressly ad-
mitted that its decisions might be
revised. No traces of the fact remain;
but the mere assertion must have had
weight at Sardica. The Easterns men-
tioned (id. c. 25) the councils against
Novatus and Paul of Samosata: the
latter may glance at ὁμοούσιον.
1 Unless we reckon Olympius of
Aenos among the Easterns.
This is the account given by
Athanasius ad Antiochenos 5, p. 616
Iv.]
COUNCIL AT PHILIPPOPOLIS
123
be done was to pass a series of canons to check the worst
scandals of late years'. This done, the council issued an ency-
clical letter, another to the church of Alexandria, and a report
to Julius of Rome.
Meanwhile the Easterns (such was their haste) halted for
some weeks at Philippopolis to issue their own encyclical,
falsely dating it from Sardica. It is addressed to Gregory
of Alexandria, Donatus of Carthage, and others. They begin
with their main argument, that the decisions of one council
cannot be revised by another. They then recount the charges
and confirmed id. 10, p. 619 by Euse-
bius of Vercellæ in his subscription.
The story of Socrates ii. 20 and
Sozomen iii. 12, that the council issued
an explanation of the Nicene definition,
is therefore erroneous; and that ap-
pended to the encyclical by Theodoret
ii. 8 and in Latin by the Ballerini
from the Maffeian MSS. (Leo iii. 605
= p. 840 Migne) cannot be accepted as
an official document of the council,
though it may be that against which
Athanasius warns the church of Antioch.
It ascribes to Ursacius and Valens
a strange mixture of heresies, őr ö
Λόγος καὶ ὅτι τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ ἐσταυρώθη
καὶ ἀπέθανεν καὶ ἀνέστη· καὶ ὅπερ τὸ
τῶν αἱρετικῶν σύστημα φιλονεικεῖ, διαφό
ρους εἶναι τὰς ὑποστάσεις τοῦ Π. καὶ τοῦ
Υί. καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πν., καὶ εἶναι κεχωρισ
μévas. The former clause, so distinctly
separated from the rest as a private
opinion of their own, is Sabellian,
unless we follow Newman Ath. Tr. ii.
123 in referring it to the Arian doctrine
of the passibility of the Logos. The
council of Sardica was not impartial,
but it does not follow that there is
any
mistake here. Timeservers like Ursa-
cius and Valens may very well have
professed to hold as confused a doctrine
as the Homoean they afterwards de-
fended; Socr. ii. 37 ouro yàp àεì πрòs
τοὺς ἐπικρατοῦντας ἐπέκλινον.
We may notice the clause μίαν είναι
ὑπόστασιν, ἢν αὐτοὶ οἱ αἱρετικοὶ οὐσίαν
προσαγορεύουσιν, for which the Latin
has unam esse substantiam, quam ipsi
Græci Usiam appellant. This and
other references to the μία υπόστασις
seem directly aimed at the Lucianic T
μὲν ὑποστάσει τρία, τῇ δὲ συμφωνία
ev, with a further allusion to the
original passage of Origen c. Cels. viii.
12, whom they follow in quoting Jno.
x. 30, and in restoring the word ouó-
νοια. But the main attack is not on
the Antiochian creeds. We cannot
fully trace the allusions, but the first
position condemned (ὅτι Θεός ἐστιν ὁ
Χριστὸς δηλονότι, ἀλλὰ μὴν ἀληθινὸς
Θεὸς οὐκ ἔστιν was an expression of
Eusebius of Cæsarea (ap. Ath. de Syn.
17, p. 584 and Or. i. 37, p. 348, also ap.
Marcellum Fr. 74, p. 27). The stress
laid on the Incarnation shews that the
writers had in view the Christological
side of the controversy; but their lan-
guage is very undeveloped. The Bal-
lerini consider it a draft prepared by
Hosius and Protogenes, rejected by the
council but erroneously attached to
some copies of the encyclical. The
curious equation auroi oi aipeTIkoi=
Græci may be illustrated from Hosius
ad Ctium ap. Ath. Hist. Ar. 43, p. 292
μὴ φρόνει τὰ ᾿Αρείου, μηδὲ ἄκουε των
ανατολικών ; or on the other side from
the Semiarian Sophronius of Pompeio-
polis (Soer. iii. 10) οἱ κατὰ τὴν δύσιν
ἐνόσουν τὸ ὁμοούσιον.
1 Can. 1 against translations of
bishops, refusing offenders even lay
communion. 3-6 against unjust de-
positions. 10 against hasty ordina-
tions. They are not mentioned by
Athanasius, but I have not examined
recent doubts of their genuineness.
They must have stayed some
time, for their encyclical relates the
Western decisions.
8 Notice the bid for African sup-
port. It was not ineffectual. Augus-
tine ctr. Cresconium iii. § 38 iv. § 52
and elsewhere has to set aside the
Council of "Sardica" as Arian. But
there are very few traces of Arianism
in Africa. See Hefele Councils § 67.
124
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
against Marcellus and Athanasius. Next they record the action
of the Westerns at Sardica, denouncing Hosius', Julius and
others (not including Gratus of Carthage) as associates of heretics
and patrons of the detestable errors of Marcellus; and adding
against some of them a few of the charges of immorality which
the Eusebians always had at hand. They conclude with a
confession of faith substantially identical with the fourth creed
of Antioch, but enriched with a longer series of denunciations,
against several Arianizing positions, against tritheism³, against
confusion of the Persons, and against those who deny that the
Son is of the will of the Father. The last is aimed at the
Nicene ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός. At the head of the signatures
is the name of Stephen of Antioch, followed by Acacius of the
Palestinian and Dianius of the Cappadocian Cæsarea, and most
of the Eusebian leaders except George of Laodicea, who had
kept away from the council.
The quarrel was worse than ever. The Eusebians had made
a discreditable exhibition of themselves, but they had at least
escaped the condemnation of a general council, and secured for
the first time a recognition of the fourth creed of Antioch from
a large body of Eastern conservatives. They now went home
to devise extreme measures. They exiled the deserter Asterius
of Petra to the unhealthy mine of Phæno, forbade all communi-
cation with Julius of Rome, and seemed resolved to push the
contest to extremities.
But a reaction followed. When the Western envoys Vincent
of Capua and Euphrates of Cologne reached Antioch towards
Easter 344, their "truly diabolical" reception' by bishop Stephen
1 Eusebius V. C. ii. 63, 73 alludes
to Hosius in terms of high praise.
But this was in 338: the change marks
the increasing bitterness of the con-
troversy.
2 Dorner ii. 182 and Note 38 con-
nects tritheism with Marcion. To his
refs. add the direct statement of Cyril
Cat, xvi. 7.
* Dion in the corrupt Latin text of
Hilary Fragm. III.
• This may be why Hilary (de Syn.
34) omits it at its first composition,
and only gives it as issued at Philippo-
polis.
5 Stephen's nefarious attempt to
get up a charge of fornication against
them is related by Ath. Hist. Ar. 20, p.
281, and more fully by Thdt. ii. 8—10.
Theodoret's account seems indepen-
dent and it is worth notice that if the
council of Sardica had been held in
347, we should scarcely have found the
next year's consul Salia described mere-
ly as σтрaтηyds during his term of office.
I cannot follow Sievers Einl. § 11 in
doubting whether Salia was sent to
Antioch.
On the pretended Synod of Cologne
against Euphrates Hefele Councils § 69.
IV.]
THE FIFTH CREED.
125
was too gross an outrage for the Eastern conservatives. A new
council was called, by which Stephen was deposed' and Leontius
the Lucianist, himself the subject of an old scandal, raised
to the vacant see. At the same time a creed was issued, the
fifth of the Antiochene series, called also μakpóσTixos from its
excessive length. It is a reissue (with a few tenses varied) of
the creed of Philippopolis, including (1) its condemnation of Arian
positions, (2) its anathemas against those of the Tritheists, Paul
of Samosata, Marcellus and Sabellius, and (3) indirectly against
the Nicene ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός. It is however followed
by long conciliatory explanations for the Westerns. In these
they begin (1) by maintaining the Lord's eternal Sonship
against the Arians, whose favourite phrases ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, ἐξ
ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως and ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν are rejected as non-
scriptural and dangerous; the latter as also inconsistent with
the mystery (ανεφίκτως καὶ πᾶσιν ἀκαταλήπτως) of the divine
generation. And if the subordination is also asserted, it is
balanced by the strong words θεὸν κατὰ φύσιν τέλειον καὶ
aλnon, where the opportunity is taken to strike a blow at the
old enemy Paul of Samosata for saying ὕστερον αὐτὸν μετὰ τὴν
ἐνανθρώπησιν ἐκ προκοπῆς τεθεοποιῆσθαι, τῷ τὴν φύσιν ψιλὸν
ävОρwπоv yeyоvéval. Next (2) Marcellus and "Scotinus"
(they seem unaware of the difference between them) are anathe-
matized by name for their denial of the Son's true and pre-
existent personality³ (Gen. i. 26) and eternal kingdom; the
Sabellians or Patripassians, to use their Western name, for
their subjection of the Father to passion and limitation. This
forms the transition to (3) a denunciation of où deλýσeɩ yevvn-
θέντα (an inference from the Nicene ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρὸς)
1 Chrysostom de S. Babyla 22 (ii.
568 Migne) says that Julian restored
him after the Babylas riot in 362.
* Σκοτεινού Ath., but Φωτεινού Socr.
The Syriac fragments in Cowper Syr.
Misc. 60 translate his name by Mu-
rinus. Undignified puns of this sort
best suited Lucifer, though he may
have mistaken the name; thus de non
parc. p. 972 conscotinum tuum, quem
verso ordine Sirmienses vocant Photinum,
also 990, 996 qui vere dicitur Scotinus ;
and even Athanasius c. Apoll, ü. 19, p.
762 has τοῦ λεγομένου Φωτεινού. So
Moriendum 830, 1028 Germanicensium
Adorius and others. Athanasius avoids
them, though he has Κοστύλλιον and
Κωνσταντίου τοῦ ἀσεβεστάτου in the
writings of his exile. Controversy
had scarcely yet descended to the level
of Jerome's Dormitantius.
8 Here we first find the Semiarian
ὅμοιον κατὰ πάντα; but it is used only
against the Marcellian doctrine that
the Sonship is not eternal.
126
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
as a most impious subjection of the divine generation to ne-
cessity; whereas it is voluntary (ékovoiws kaì éleλovτǹv) and
absolutely different from mere creation. Yet (Par. ix.) it is not
to be understood as impairing the unity of God. Instead of the
older τέλειον ἐκ τελείου, we have a strong declaration that the
Father and the Son are mutually, inseparably, and as it were
organically united in a single deity'.
This conciliatory move was not without effect. Marcellus
indeed was not abandoned by the Westerns; and if Athanasius.
separated himself" from his communion for a time, he was
far from explicitly renouncing it. But Photinus of Sirmiuin had
given a new turn to his master's system. He dropped the vital
distinction between the two aspects of the Logos as dúvapis and
as ενέργεια, gave up the whole theory of πλατυσμοί and
abandoned the supernatural birth, making the Lord a mere man
like Paul of Samosata or the Ebionites³. There was no excuse
to be made for him, so he was frankly given up by Julius
of Rome, and condemned by a Western council held at Milan.
Two years later (347) his rejection was confirmed by another
Milanese council, at which Valens and Ursacius took the oppor-
tunity to make their peace with Julius, confessing the falsehood
of their charges against Athanasius.
The way stood clear for a general cessation of hostilities.
Stephen's misconduct had thrown discredit on the whole gang
of Eastern court intriguers, and the genuine conservatives
recovered some of their power. The latest measures of perse-
cution were reversed, and the condemnation of Photinus by the
Westerns accepted as a sort of compensation for their continued
support of Marcellus. Constans pressed the execution of the
decrees of Sardica; and Constantius with a Persian
1 No translation can fully express
the Greekὅλον μὲν τοῦ πατρὸς ἐνστερ
νισμένου τὸν υἱόν, ὅλου δὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐξηρ
τημένου καὶ προσπεφυκότος τῷ πατρὶ καὶ
μόνου τοῖς πατρῴοις κόλποις αναπαυομένου
διηνεκώς.
The μаkρóστixos is also worth com-
parison with Cyril's Catecheses. In
each document Marcellus is denounced
by name, Arius in silence. Conversely
Athanasius attacks Marcellus and Apol-
linarius without naming them.
2 Hilary Fragm. III.
3 Zahn Marcellus 189-194.
4 Zahn Marcellus 80.
war
5 Weingarten Ursprung 23 sum-
marily rejects the story of Rufinus,
Socrates, Sozomen, Lucifer and Philo-
storgius, that the recall of Athanasius
was due to the threats of Constans,
wie die Fabel seit Rufinus bis zu Hefele
geht, alluding to Hefele Councils § 69.
Rufinus has fables enough to answer
for; but this is not one of them. No
IV.
v.]
THE RECALL OF ATHANASIUS.
127
impending¹ was in no condition to refuse compliance. Athanasius
and he had fought "like rival kings," and the emperor was
utterly defeated. There was no alternative; and Constantius.
made up his mind to submission even before the last obstacle
was removed by Gregory's death in June 3452. It was not till
the third invitation that Athanasius condescended to return
"from his wanderings among the trackless haunts of wild beasts,"
as Constantius is pleased to call the hospitable West. He had
to take leave of his Italian friends; and the tone of the
emperor's letters might well have seemed suspicious. However,
Constantius received him graciously at Antioch, ordered the
destruction of all the charges against him, gave him a solemn
promise of full protection for the future, and restored to his
stress can be laid on the dialogue in
Theodoret ii. 13, and not much on
Ath. Hist. Ar. 49, p. 296 where Con-
stantius says that he recalled Athana-
sius merely to avoid a quarrel with his
brother. On the other hand, the pas-
sage (Ath. Apol. ad Ctium 4, p. 236),
on which Weingarten relies, carries
little weight, being addressed to Con-
stantius himself.
1 The second siege of Nisibis was
early in 346; and Constantius was in
the city in May 345, so that the war
must have been seriously threatened, if
not actually begun.
2 Theodoret's account H. E. ii. 4,
12 of Gregory's murder after six years'
tyranny, may be a relic of the old con-
fusion with George. There is no hint
of violence in Ath. Hist. Ar. 21, p. 282,
or in the Index to the Festal Letters,
where we find the beginning of Gre-
gory's illness noticed in 341, its con-
tinuance in 342, and its natural result
in 345.
There are some difficulties here
about the exact chronology. Accepting
as fixed points already discussed the
death of Gregory June 26, 345 and
the return of
of Athanasius October
21, 346, we are obliged to place
his interview with Constantius at
Antioch (Ath. Apol. ad Ctium 5, p. 236 :
also referred to Hist. Ar. 22, p. 282)
in March or April 346. This gives six
months for his journey through Syria.
But the emperor was at Nisibis in
May 345, and not likely to leave the
East while the siege was pending in
the next spring. We also find him at
Constantinople in May and August
346, and at Ancyra moving eastward
in March 347. It is therefore im-
possible to fix the interview at Antioch
in the summer without assuming an
unrecorded and very hurried journey
of Constantius to Syria and back; nor
can we place it in September, as Sie-
vers Einl. § 11 prefers, without the
additional objection that no time is
left for the meeting at Jerusalem.
Athanasius must have been invited
to return before the death of Gregory.
One or other of the emperor's letters
reached him at Aquileia (Apol. c. Ar.
51, p. 135), where (Index to Festal Let-
ters) we know that he spent the Easter
of 345. Thence he went (pol. c.
Ctium 4, p. 235) to see Constans in
Gaul (whom we find at Trier May 15),
and Julius at Rome. No wonder Con-
stantius told his brother (Ath. Hist.
Ar. 21, p. 282) that Athanasius had
kept him waiting for more than a
year.
The passage just mentioned seems
to imply that the negotiations for the
return of Athanasius were not begun
till after Gregory's death, and is so
understood by Hefele and Sievers. If
so, we have another indication that
the Hist. Ar. is not an uncorrupted
work of Athanasius.
3 Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 51, p. 134. See
Fialon, Saint Ath. 158, 159.
128
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
adherents at Alexandria the substantial privileges accorded by
the state to orthodox belief. Athanasius went forward on his
journey; and the old confessor Maximus assembled a council of
Palestinian bishops' to meet him at Jerusalem and to sign the
decrees of Sardica. But his entry into Alexandria (Oct. 31,
346) was the crowning triumph of his life. For miles along
the road, the whole city streamed out to meet him with
enthusiastic welcome; and the jealous police of Constantius
could raise no tumult to mar the universal harmony of that
great day of national rejoicing.
The next few years were an uneasy interval of suspense,-
hardly of peace, for the contest had ended in a compromise.
which decided nothing. The Nicene confessors were restored,
but the Eusebian disturbers were not deposed. One side had
to put up with Acacius at Cæsarea, the other with Marcellus at
Ancyra. Thus while Nicene animosity was not satisfied, the
permanent grounds of conservative distrust were not removed.
Above all, the return of Athanasius was a personal humiliation
to Constantius; and he could not be expected to accept it
without watching his opportunity for a final struggle to decide
the mastery of Egypt. Still there was tolerable quiet for the
present. The court intriguers could do nothing without the
emperor; and Constantius was fully occupied with the disastrous
Persian war. The defeat of Singara marks the summer of
348, the defence of Nisibis the spring of 350; and the rest of
the interval is filled up with the civil war against Magnentius.
If there was not peace, there was a fair amount of quiet till the
emperor's hands were freed by the victory of Mount Seleucus in
the summer of 3532.
The truce was hollow and the rest precarious, but the merc
suspension of hostilities was not without its influence. Nicenes
1 It was but a small gathering of
16 bishops (Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 57, p.
139), whereas 19 at least had appeared
at Nicæa.
2 Hilary's excuse for him de Syn.
78 homines perversi......fefellerunt ig-
norantem regem, ut istiusmodi perfidiæ
fidem bellis occupatus exponeret, et cre-
dendi formam ecclesiis nondum impone-
ret—is unfortunate. Constantius made
the ecclesiastical game the occupation
of his years of peace and the amuse-
ment of his winter quarters, and the
Sirmian manifesto of 357 fairly marks
the culmination of his prosperity. It
was only bellis occupatus that he could
keep out of mischief.
IV.]
SEMIARIANS AND ANOMEANS.
129
and conservatives were fundamentally agreed upon the reality
of the Lord's divinity; and minor jealousies began to disappear
as soon as they were less busily encouraged. The Eusebian
phase of conservatism, which emphasized the distinction of the
Lord's personality, was giving way to the Semiarian, where
stress was rather laid on his essential likeness to the Father.
The old τέλειον ἐκ τελείου of the Lucianic creed disappears,
and ὁμοιούσιον and ὅμοιον κατὰ πάντα become more and more
decidedly the watchwords of conservatism. The Nicenes on the
other side, warned by the excesses of Marcellus, began to fear
that there might be some ground for the conservative dread of
óμоovσiov as Sabellian. The expression could not be withdrawn,
but it might be put forward less conspicuously, and explained
rather as an authoritative and emphatic form of oμotovσiov than
as a rival doctrine, as denoting absolute likeness rather than
common possession of the divine essence'. So by the time the
war is renewed, we can already see the possibility of a new
alliance between Nicenes and conservatives.
2
We also see the rise of a new and more defiant Arian
school, more in earnest than the older generation, impatient of
their shuffling diplomacy, and less pliant to imperial dictation³.
1 Thus Athanasius constantly uses
Semiarian paraphrases in the writings
of his exile (ὁμοίας ουσίας, ὅμοιος κατ'
οὐσίαν, and his own favourite ἴδιον τῆς
οὐσίας γέννημα). The word όμοούσιον is
found but once in his Or. e. Ar., at i. 9,
p. 325.
So Hilary de Syn. 68 adopts Semi-
arian objections, allowing that ouoou-
σlov admits of a wrong use (a) in a
Sabellian sense-ut hic subsistens, sub
significatione licet duum nominum, unus
ac solus sit; (b) in a materializing
sense-ut divisus a se Pater inte li-
gatur, et partem exsecuisse quæ esset
sibi Filius; or (c) as implying a prior
essence-ut significari existimetur sub-
stantia prior, quam inter se duo pares
habeant.
2 We may question how far it was
really new. The tone of Philostorgius
is significant; and Ruf. i. 25 tells us
that some of the extreme men refused
to receive Arius on his return from
exile.
3 Möhler Ath. 405 (whom others
seem to copy) thinks that Arianism
necessarily leaned on the state. "Every
sect has in virtue of its separation
from the church a tendency to become
a mere state religion. In the case of
Arianism, a limited Saviour corre-
sponds to a limited church (viz. a
state church), and in the lowering
of his dignity is implied the deprecia-
tion of his work, which is the church.
If men cannot find anchorage on the
catholic church, they will seek it on a
state church."
The theory is as unhistorical as
it can well be. Had Möhler never
heard of English or American sects.
which abhor the idea of a state church
as much as he did? In the Nicene age
the whole existence of Anomoan Arian-
ism is a standing protest against it.
What else again was orthodoxy from the
time of Theodosius but a state church?
It is not sectarians but conservatives
who lean upon the state.
G.
9
130
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
The Anomoan leaders took their stand on the doctrine of Arius
himself, dwelling with special emphasis on those offensive
aspects of it which had since been prudently kept in the
background. Arius had clearly laid down the absolute unlike-
ness of the Son to the Father'; but for years past the Arianizers
had softened it down. Now however avóμolov became the
watchword of Eunomius, and his followers delighted to shock all
sober feeling by the harshest and profanest declarations of it.
The scandalous jests of Eudoxius must have given deep offence
to thousands. But the most striking novelty of the Anomoan
doctrine was its audacious self-sufficiency, unrivalled since the
days of Gnostic speculation. Arius was merely illogical in
reasoning as though human analogies could exhaust the mystery
of divine relations, for he still regarded the divine nature
as essentially incomprehensible even to the Son himself. But
the Anomoans boldly laid down that a God of simplicity cannot
be a God of mystery at all, for even man is as competent as God
to comprehend simplicity, not to say to rise above it. Such was
the new school of Arianism-presumptuous and shallow, quarrel-
some and heathenizing, yet not without a directness and a
firmness of conviction which gives it a certain dignity in spite
of all its wrangling and irreverence. Its conservative allies it
despised for their wavering and insincerity: to its Nicene ene-
mies it repaid hatred for hatred, and flung back with retorted
scorn their denial of its right to bear the Christian name².
1 In his Thalia (Ath. Or. i. 6, p. 323,
and de Syn. 15, p. 582). He does not
press it in his letters to Eusebius
(Theodoret i. 5) and to Alexander (Ath.
de Syn. 16, p. 583). His confession
presented to Constantine (Socr. i. 26)
of course avoids the subject.
2 Epiphanius Hær. 76, 5. Evvóµiós
τις......ἀναβαπτίζει τοὺς ἤδη βαπτισθέν
τας, οὐ μόνον τοὺς ἀπὸ ὀρθοδόξων πρὸς
αὐτὸν ἐρχομένους καὶ αἱρέσεων, ἀλλὰ καὶ
τοὺς ἀπ' αὐτῶν τῶν ᾿Αρειανών, with
strange forms and ceremonies, perhaps
not very exactly reported. So Augus-
tine (perhaps alluding to this very
statement) vi. 1008 c, 1030 A, viii. 54 B
Rebaptizari quoque ab his catholicos
novimus; utrum et non catholicos,
nescio. On the other hand Philostor-
gius x. 1 seems to imply that Eunomius
demanded nothing of the sort from
the Homeans of Antioch in 381,
though he mentions x. 4 the rebaptism
of some Arians by his own party. The
reordination of Theodorus of Oxyryn-
chus (Faustinus Libell. 26) by George
of Alexandria is not a case in point,
for George was not an Anomœan.
The Nicene view of the question
is not free from difliculty. The nullity
of heretical baptism was a settled
question in the East during the earlier
part of the fourth century, and general
declarations of it are frequent, like
Apostolic Canons 46, 47 (Drey. Unter-
suchungen 260, where refs. are given).
Cyril Procatech. 7 (discussed by Touttée
p. cci.). Athanasius Or. ii. 42, 43,
IV.]
CYRIL OF JERUSALEM.
131
Let us now examine two subjects which will throw some
light on the character of the interval of rest.
1
The first of these is the Catecheses of Cyril of Jerusalem.
In 348 Cyril was presbyter in charge of the catechumens in
Constantine's great church on Golgotha, and within a couple of
years bishop of the city. If it is not a work of any great
originality ¹, it will shew us all the better what was passing in
the minds of men of practical and simple piety who had no taste
for the controversies of the day. All through it we see the
earnest pastor who feels that all his strength is needed to combat
the practical immoralities of a holy city, and never lifts his
eyes to the wild scene of theological confusion round him but in
p. 403. Gregory of Nazianzus Or.
xxxiii. 16, 17 (specifying Valentinians,
Marcionites, Montanists, Manichees,
Novatians, Sabellians, Arians and
Photinians). Didymus de Trin. ii. 15
(Eunomians as using one immersion,
Montanists for confusing the Persons).
The same doctrine is found even in
the West, as Hilary de Trin. viii.
40 and other writers, though the
Council of Arles Can. 8 had enjoined
the Roman practice as early as 314.
Thus when that of Nicea (Can. 19,
where the difficulty is passed over by
Hefele Councils § 42) rejected the bap-
tism of the Paulianists, it cannot have
been intended to make them the soli-
tary exception to a general rule of
acceptance. It might as well be argued
that the acceptance of the Novatians
in Can. 8 was meant as the only excep-
tion to a rule of rejection. If heretical
baptism was to be admitted at all, no
reason could be given for refusing the
Paulianists which did not apply to
others also. Thus when Athanasius
supra denounces their baptism as mere
defilement because given in the name
of an illusory Trinity, he extends his
condemnation to Arians, Manichees
and Montanists.
But if orthodox principles were
clear, orthodox practice wavered. Nei-
ther the Nicene Council itself nor that
of Alexandria in 362 required the re-
baptism of Arians, and Liberius of
Rome post cassatum Ariminense conci-
lium expressly forbade it. The Council
of Laodicea (Can. 7 and 8) exempts
Novatians, [Photinians], and Quarto-
decimans, but insists on it in the case
of Montanists. Basil Ep. 188 main-
tains the general rule, though without
express mention of Arians; but by
drawing a distinction between heresy
and schism, he is enabled to leave the
case of the Novatians to local custom.
So again substantially Ep. 199, reading
où T air. Epiphanius, whose errors
οὐ αὐτῷ.
are not usually on the side of liberality,
objects (Hær. de fide 13, p. 1095) to the
rebaptism of Arians by a Lycian pres-
byter (1) that no oecumenical council
had yet specially decided their case,
(2) that parties being still so confused
converts frequently had no more
Arianism than the misfortune of
having met with a heretical teacher.
So too the seventh canon of Constanti-
nople, which though spurious is not so
much as a century later than its pro-
fessed date, states that the custom is
to rebaptize Eunomians (who use but
one immersion), Montanists, Sabellians,
and all other heretics except Arians,
Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians,
Quartodecimans and Apollinarians.
Hefele's assertion (Councils $98), that
the Montanists, &c. had given up the
Lord's baptismal formula since 325,
seems a mere guess copied from Mattes
(Theol. Quartalschr. for 1849, p. 580).
¹ Cyril's draysaîa dóyμara are close-
ly modelled on Origen de Principiis.
Caspari Alte u. Neue 146-160.
Students will not forget the pic-
ture drawn by Gregory of Nyssa de
euntibus Hierosolymam. It is amply
borne out by later experience of holy
places like Grätz (Mariazell) or Loretto.
9-2
132
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
fear and dread that Antichrist is near. I fear the wars of
the nations; I fear the divisions of the churches; I fear the
mutual hatred of the brethren. Enough on this. God forbid
it come to pass in our days; yet let us be on our guard. Enough
concerning Antichrist'." Jews, Samaritans and Manichees' are
his chief opponents, yet he does not forget to warn his hearers
against the doctrines of Sabellius and Marcellus. Arius he
occasionally contradicts in set terms, but without naming him.
Of the Nicene party too we hear nothing directly; but it seems
glanced at in the complaint that whereas in former times heresy
was open, the church is now full of secret heretics". The
Nicene creed again he never mentions: but we cannot mistake
the allusion when he tells his hearers that their own creed of
Jerusalem was not put together by the will of men, and impresses
on them that every word of it can be maintained by Scripture º.
But the most significant feature of his language is its close
relation to that of the dated creed of Sirmium. Nearly every
point where the latter differs from the Lucianic is one specially
emphasized in Cyril's work'. Yet the bishop of Jerusalemi
1 Cat. xv. 18. Compare also xv. 7,
9, xvii. 33 on the divisions of the
churches as the sign of Antichrist's
coming. Of the Apocalypse however
we hear nothing, unless xv. 16 ouk ěž
ἀποκρύφων λέγομεν, ἀλλ' ἐκ τοῦ Δανιὴλ
be an allusion to it.
Epiph. Her. 66, 21 names as
writers against the Manichees-Ar-
chelaus, Origen as άkýkoa, Eusebius of
Cæsarea (doubted by Lightfoot Eus.
Cas. p. 345), Eusebius of Emesa, Sera-
pion of Thmnis, Athanasius, George
of Laodicea, Apollinarius of Laodicea,
and Titus (of Bostra).
3 Cat. xv. 27 τοῦ δράκοντός ἐστιν
ἄλλη κεφαλή, προσφάτως περὶ την Γαλα
τίαν ἀναφθεῖσα. ἐτόλμησέ τις λέγειν, ὅτι
κ.τ.λ.
4 Cat. vi. 6, vii. 5, xi. 8.
5 Cat. xv. 10. So Touttée under-
stands it, p. xi. and ad loc.
6 Cat. v. 12. The bearing of this
passage has been pointed out by
Professor Swainson. Nicene and Apo-
stles' Creeds p. 17 n. The appeals to
Scripture are continual in Cyril, e.g.
Catech. iv. 17, xit. 5.
7 The following are the chief novel-
ties of the dated erced as contrasted
with the Lucianic :--
τὸν μόνον καὶ ἀληθινὸν θεόν] logically
implying that the Son is not ảλŋ@wòs
θεός. This however was the doctrine
of Asterius, and Eusebius had defended
it against Marcellus.
τὸν πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων καὶ πρὸ
πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ πρὸ παντὸς ἐπινοουμένου
χρόνου καὶ πρὸ πάσης καταληπτῆς ουσίας
γεγεννημένον ἀπαθὼς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ......
ὅμοιον τῷ γεννήσαντι αὐτὸν πατρί, κατὰ
τὰς γραφάς· οὐ τὴν γέννησιν οὐδεὶς ἐπίση
ταται εἰ μὴ μόνος ὁ γεννήσας αὐτὸν
Tarnp] Compare Cyril, Cat. iv. 7,
τὸν ὅμοιον κατὰ πάντα τῷ γεννήσαντι
τὸν οὐκ ἐν χρόνοις τὸ εἶναι κτησάμενον,
ἀλλὰ πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων ἀϊδίως καὶ
ακαταλήπτως ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγεννημένον
(where Touttée quotes parallels). vi. 6 ó
γεννηθεὶς ἀπαθῶς πρὸ χρόνων αιωνίων
οἶδε τὸν γεννήσαντα, καὶ ὁ γεννήσας οἶδε
τὸν γεγεννημένον. xi. 4 υἱὸν ἀεὶ γεννη-
θέντα ἀπεριεργάστῳ καὶ ἀκαταλήπτῳ τῇ
YEVUησEL; So next section, where he
quotes Isa. liii. 8. xi. 20 cpn tài viên
ἄχρονος, ἀκατάληπτος, ἄναρχος, ὁ πατήρ,
...ὁ γεννήσας αὐτὸν καθὼς οἶδεν αὐτὸς
μόνος; so id. xi. 9, 11. xi. 10 ἐκ πατρὸς
IV.]
ANTIOCH UNDER LEONTIUS.
133
cannot be supposed to have had any direct hand in it. If there-
fore the Lucianic creed represents the earlier conservatism, it
follows that Cyril expresses the later views which the Acacians
were endeavouring to conciliate.
The other subject is the state of the church at Antioch
under the episcopate of Leontius (344-357). The Nicene
faith was quite as strong in the city as Arianism had ever been
at Alexandria. The Eustathians formed a separate and strongly
Nicene congregation under the presbyter Paulinus, and held
their meetings outside the walls. Athanasius communicated
with them on his return from exile; and consented to give
the Arians a church in Alexandria as Constantius desired, if
only the Eustathians might have one inside the walls of Antioch'.
His terms were prudently declined, for the Arians were in a
minority even in the larger congregation which adhered to
Leontius. The old Arian needed all his caution to avoid offence.
"When this snow melts," touching his white head, "there will
be much mud." When the doxology was sung, Leontius dropped
his voice so that it was impossible to guess whether his version
of it was Nicene or Arian. His policy was so far successful
that he was able to keep out of the Eustathian communion not
only the large numbers who had no fixed convictions at all,
but also many whose sympathies were decidedly Nicene, like
his own
successors Meletius and Flavian, and Diodorus the
disciple and successor of Silvanus of Tarsus. But they always
ἀϊδίως καὶ ἀνεκφράστως, καὶ ἐν ὑποστάσει
γεννηθέντα. vii. Ο πρὸ πάσης υποστά
σεως, καὶ πρὸ πάσης αισθήσεως, πρὸ χρο-
νων τε καὶ πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, τὸ
πατρικὸν ἀξίωμα ἔχει ὁ Θεός... οὐ πάθει
Πατὴρ γενόμενος.
:
νεύματι πατρικῷ παραγενόμενον... εἰς
àðéтnow àµaprias] This may be Aca-
cian but Cyril has Cat. x. 9 viòs evπet-
Ons; and reûua is a frequent word of
his, e.g. Cat. x. 5, xi. 22, xv. 25, xvii. 31.
He also speaks xv. 30 of his auтompоai-
ρετος ευπείθεια.
πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκονομίαν πληρώσαντα
κατὰ τὴν πατρικὴν βούληση] Acacian
again? Yet Ath. Or. iii. 31, p. 460.
εἰς τὰ καταχθόνια κατελθόντα καὶ τὰ
ἐκεῖσε οἰκονομήσαντα· ὃν πυλωροὶ ἄδου
ἰδόντες ἔφριξαν] Cyril mentions this
amongst his ten αναγκαία δόγματα-
Cat. iv. 11 κατῆλθεν εἰς τὰ καταχθόνια,
ἵνα κἀκεῖθεν λυτρώσηται τους δικαίους,
and explains it fully xiv. 19, where
both clauses are found. The doctrine
does not figure among the necessaria
of Origen de Principiis, which Cyril
is closely following. See Caspari Alte
u Neue 152.
καθεζόμενον (instead of καθεσθέντα]
frequent in Cyril, who lays much stress
on the eternity of the session, e.g.
Cat. iv. 7, xi. 17, xiv. 27.
ἐλευσόμενον. τῇ δόξῃ τῇ πατρικῇ] This
also may be Acacian in the emphasis
again laid on his derivative glory and
subordinate action. The words come
from Mark viii. 3.
1 The story comes from Rufinus i.
19, but is not otherwise improbable.
2 Sozomen iii. 20. Theodoret ii.
24.
134
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
considered him an enemy, and all the more dangerous for
his moderation, so different from the violence of Macedonius
at Constantinople. His appointments were Arianizing, and
he gave deep offence by the ordination of his old disciple the
detested Aetius. It was doubtless under the influence of their
common Lucianist friends¹; but no genuine conservative would
have done it, and indeed even Euphronius or Flacillus (whichever
it was) had refused to do it. So great was the outcry that
Leontius was forced to suspend him, though he continued to do
him all the service he could in other ways. The opposition.
was led by two ascetic laymen, Flavian and Diodorus, who both
became distinguished bishops in later time. They kept alive
orthodox feeling by a vigorous use of hymns, keeping vigil
frequently with night-long services round the tombs of the
martyrs. The practice became so popular that Leontius could
not venture to suppress it. His order to transfer the services
to the church may have been designed quite as much for good
order as for surveillance.
The case of Antioch was not exceptional. Arians and
Nicenes were still parties inside the church rather than distinct
sects. They still used the same prayers and the same hymns,
still worshipped in the same buildings, still commemorated the
same saints and martyrs, and still considered themselves
1 Aetius was a disciple of Paulinus
of Tyre, of Athanasius of Anazarbus,
and Antonius of Tarsus (both Lucian-
ists); a friend also of Acacius of Cæ-
sarea, and of Eudoxius of Germanicia
(another Lucianist). Epiphanius Hær.
76, 1 makes George of Alexandria or-
dain Aetius.
2 This is the reason given by Sozo-
men ii. 32 for the omission of the
Arians in Constantine's law, dated
about 331 and given in full by Euse-
bius V. C. iii. 64, 65, in which we
find enumerated as distinct sects the
Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionists,
Paulianists, Montanists, Kal TȧVTES
ἁπλῶς οἱ τὰς αἱρέσεις διὰ τῶν οἰκείων
πληροῦντες συστημάτων, which Sozomen
refers to the relics of earlier heresies.
πάντες
The relations of Arians and Nicenes
are well given by Fialon Saint Athanase
124-129.
3 The Arian acceptance of the ear-
lier orthodox saints is occasionally
turned against them by Athanasius,
e.g. de Syn. 13, p. 581 mŵs Ilarépas
ὀνομάζουσιν οὓς διεδέξαντο, ὧν αὐτοὶ τῆς
γνώμης κατήγοροι γίνονται; but it was
only made a primary argument in the
time of Nectarius (381-397), by the
advice of the Novatian reader Sisinnius,
Socr. v. 10.
We may note here a few points of
Arian hagiology, and some legends
which seem traceable to Arian sources:
I. (Third century).
Penance of the emperor Philip, a
current story in the time of Eusebius
(H. E. vi. 34), but first connected (so
far as we know) with Babylas by Leon-
tius the Eusebian (ap. Chron. Pasch.
254). The legend is discussed by Gör-
res in Zeitsch. f. wiss. Theologie for
1880, p. 191-195.
Lucian of Antioch, martyr under
Maximin. His body carried in true
heathen style by a dolphin to Heleno-
polis (Drepana), Philost. ii. 13.
Iv.]
ANTIOCH UNDER LEONTIUS.
135
members of the same church'. The example of separation set
by the Eustathians at Antioch and the Arians at Alexandria2
was not followed till a later stage of the controversy, when
Diodorus and Flavian on one side and the Anomoans on the
other began to introduce their own peculiarities into the service.
The lawless alteration of the common worship was the last and
not the first resource of party malice in the Nicene age. And
if the bitterness of intestine strife was increased by a state of
things which made every bishop a party nominee, there was
some compensation in the free intercourse of parties afterwards
separated by barriers of persecution. Nicenes and conservatives
mingled freely in most places long after Leontius was dead;
and the Novatians of Constantinople threw open their churches
to the victims of Macedonius in a way which drew his per-
secution on themselves, and was remembered in their favour in
the reign of Theodosius, and even by liberal men like Socrates
in the next century³.
II. (Licinian Persecution).
Agapetus confessor and bishop of
Synuada, and worker of miracles.
Philost. ii. S. Rejected by Görres
Licin. Christenverfolgung 231–234.
Procopius of Synnada signs at Nicæa,
and Agapetus does not appear at
Sardica.
Aurentius confessor and μετά τινα
χρόνον ὕστερον bishop of Mopsuestia,
where he kindly received Aetius in 360.
Philost. v. 2, and in Suidas Augévтios.
Discussed by Görres 234-236. Mace-
donius signs for Mopsuestia at Nicæa
and Philippopolis, while Auxentius
does not sign the Acacian creed at
Seleucia in 359. However, the Nicenes
adopted both him and Agapetus.
III. (Reigns of Constantius and
Julian).
Philostorgius ascribes miracles to
Eusebius of Nicomedia (Photius Bibl.
Cod. 40), to Theophilus the Indian
(esp. iv. 7), to Aetius, Eunomius, Leon-
tius of Tripolis, and most of the Ano-
mean leaders. He is also the chief
authority for the legend of Artemius.
From the Homean writer of the
time of Valens we have the stories of
the officers of Leontius of Antioch, the
exhumation of Patrophilus, the death
of Eustathius of Epiphania, and per-
haps the evil end of the apostates Hero
and Theotecnus, which is also told by
Philost. vii. 13.
By George of Laodicea (Socr. ii. 9,
Soz. iii. 6) miracles were ascribed to
his friend Eusebius of Emesa. Augusti
(Eus. Em. Opuscula 72—82) connects
them with the doubtful reputation of
Eusebius as a student of the black
art.
1 This is well put by Fialon Saint
Athanase 127—129.
As the early insubordination of
the Arians at Alexandria (Alexander
ap. Theodoret i. 4) was only tem-
porary, their separation is best dated
from the consecration of Pistus about
338.
3 Socrates records the persecutions
of his Novatian friends ii. 38 by Mace-
donius, iii. 12 by Eleusius of Cyzicus,
iv. 9 by Valens. They were left undis-
turbed (Socr. v. 10, 14, 20) by Theodo-
sius. Persecution from the Nicene side
was begun by Chrysostom (Soer. vii. 7:
compare C. Th. xvi. 5, 34 against the
Montanists in 398) and Cyril (Socr. vii.
7), and at Rome by Innocent or Celes-
tine (Socr. vii. 9, 11). They are not
expressly named in any of the persecu-
ting laws (except the anomalous re-
script of Constantine in Eus. V. C. iii.
64) before C. Th. xvi. 5, 59, dated in
423.
NOTE CC.
THE RETURN OF ATHANASIUS IN 337.
Athanasius was exiled to Gaul shortly after the assembly at
Jerusalem; which Eusebius V. C. iv. 40, 47 connects with the
Tricennalia of Constantine, July 25, 335, though without fixing it
for the anniversary. Indeed there is reason to think it took place a
ew weeks later. This is indicated by the departure of Athanasius
July 11 for Tyre, by his unexpected arrival October 30 at Constan-
tinople, and by the protest, Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 75, p. 152 of the
Mareotic presbyters, dated September 7. The dedication of the great
church is variously fixed for September 13 (Greek Menologion), Sep-
tember 14 (Chron. Pasch.; but in the year 333) and September 17
(Niceph. Call. viii. 30).
After relating the arrival of Athanasius October 30 at Constan-
tinople, the Index to the Festal Letters records his exile November 7.
Since, however, this allows no time for the journey of the bishops
summoned by Constantine (Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 86, p. 159) from Tyre,
we may accept the emendation of Sievers Einl. § 5, and shift the date
to February 5, 336, by reading Mechir 10 for Athyr 10.
The return of Athanasius, as we have seen elsewhere, is fixed for
the autumn of 337 by the concurrent evidence of the Festul Letter for
328, the Index, the Hist. Aceph. and Theodoret. The only difficulty
is in the letter of the younger Constantine, first given by Athanasius
Apol. c. Ar. 87, p. 160. It is written after his father's death and
dated from Trier, June 17, but the year is not given. Valesius
assigns it to 337; and Sievers Einl. § 6 follows him, adding (a) that
Constantine II would have called himself Augustus after September
9, 337, (b) that he would have no right to meddle with Alexandria
after it had been definitely assigned to Constantius.
IV.]
NOTE CC. RETURN OF ATHANASIUS IN 337.
137
Hefele Councils § 52 follows Tillemont, Mémoires, viii. 671, and
is himself followed by Bright Hist. Treatises, in shifting the letter to
338; and his arguments need examination. He declares it impossible,
considering the imperfect state of the roads and means of communi-
cation at that time," for the news of Constantine's death at Nicomedia
May 22, 337 to have reached Trier so early as June 17. I venture
to think otherwise. The distance is about 1300 English miles in
a straight line, with the Bosphorus and the Balkans to cross on the
way. As the Rhætian frontier was quiet in 337, the couriers would
be able to avoid the Alps by entering Gaul at Arbor Felix on the
Bodensee, so that they would have no higher pass than that of Succi,
which is hardly 1800 feet above the sea. The necessary speed would
therefore average less than 80 Roman miles daily; and Constantine's
care of the cursus publicus (e.g. C. Theod. viii. 5, 2) must have been
to very little purpose if it could not carry news of the first importance
at this rate.
Passing over instances from earlier times (Friedländer Sittengesch.
ii. 16-19), Sievers mentions the extraordinary journey of Cæsarius
in 387, from Antioch to Constantinople in less than five days. But
the best comparison occurs during the revolt of Procopius, whose
occupation of the capital September 28, 365 was announced to
Valentinian as he entered Paris November 1. Here the direct
distance is a trifle shorter, and the time somewhat longer than in 337;
but the Alemanni were sweeping over Gaul and Rhætia, so that the
news must have come round by Italy and over the Alps. Again,
when Constantius died at Mopsucrenæ November 3, 361, the news
reached Julian at Naissus (Ammianus xxi. 10, 5. Zosimus iii. 11).
The distance is about 850 miles in a straight line the Bordeaux
pilgrim counts 1163 Roman miles by the road-yet he was able
to complete an ordinary march of 400 miles to Constantinople by
December 11.
Two modern cases may be worth comparison: (1) In 1788 Fox
came from Bologna to London (Stanhope, Life of Pitt i. 317) in nine
days-800 miles, with the Alps and the Channel to cross.
(2) In
1741 the Indian who bore Don Joseph Pizarro's letter (Anson's
Voyage, p. 34) crossed the Pampas and the Cordilleras in thirteen
days from Buenos Ayres to Santiago in Chili-800 miles in a straight
line. This was an extraordinary speed; but it was accomplished in
the depth of winter, and the route would cross the Andes southward
of Aconcagua by the dangerous Uzpallata pass, at a height of 12,800
138
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
feet above the sea.
The Portillo is a little lower and a little nearer,
but I believe it was not in use in Spanish times.
There is one more argument for the year 337. We have a law
Cod. Theod. x. 10, 4 Imp. Constantius A. Celsino Pf. P., dated from
Viminacium, June 12, 338. If it could be shewn that Celsinus held
the Gaulish prefecture, the law would belong to the younger Constan-
tine, and the letter dated from Trier, June 17, would be positively
fixed for 337.
The evidence on this point is nearly conclusive. Cod. Theod. xii.
1, 27, also addressed to Celsinus, concerns the curiales of Carthage,
which usually belonged to the Italian prefecture. Its date however
from Trier, January 8, 339, shews that he was Constantine's subject,
and therefore held the Gaulish prefecture. Upon the whole it is
much more likely that Constantine made the authority of the Gaulish
prefect coextensive with his own than that he allowed Africa to be
ruled by a subject of Constans. The Illyrian prefecture was united
with the Italian by Mamertinus 361-365, and his silence Gratiarum
Actio 22 shews that he was not the first who enjoyed the double honour.
The two prefectures were also held together by Rufinus 365—368,
by Probus 368-383 (though not continuously), by a series of five
others 387-393, and by Nicomachus Flavianus as late as 431.
We may therefore suppose that there were only three prefects during
the interval 337-340. This will give one for each emperor, according
to Diocletian's original arrangement.
Hefele finds a difficulty in the statement of Athanasius Hist. Ar.
8, p. 276, that the exiles were recalled by the three emperors. But
the edict of recall would bear the names of all three; and in any case
we need not defer it till after the meeting in Pannonia, which seems
fixed for the summer of 338 by Constantine's presence at Vimina-
cium.
Tillemont raises a more serious objection from the interview
of Athanasius (Apol. ad Ctium 5 p. 236) with Constantius at
Viminacium, which must have been on his return from Trier. But
even this is not insuperable. The movements of Constantius are too
imperfectly known to exclude the possibility of an earlier meeting in
the autumn of 337 between him and Constans at Viminacium.
Epiphanius Hær. 69, 10 is quoted by Hefele Councils § 52: but
the passage is absolutely useless-a confusion worthy of Rufinus
between the returns of 337 and 346. There is not even a various
reading to justify Hefele's use of it.
IV.]
NOTE D. THE LEGISLATION OF CONSTANTIUS.
139
NOTE D.
THE LEGISLATION OF CONSTANTIUS.
It may be useful to give a general view of the legislation of
Constantius. The references are to the Codex Theodosianus, unless
otherwise stated.
I. Laws consolidating or extending the machinery of government.
C. Just. ii. 58, 1 (342) strengthens the hands of provincial governors
by doing away such remains of the formula system as had escaped
the rescript of Diocletian (C. Just. iii. 3, 2) in 294. The rest of the
laws in this class are more or less financial. xi. 22, 1 (346) forbids
the transfer of assessments to districts less heavily taxed.
xi. 36,
6-13 comprise five laws (342-358) disallowing appeals contrary to
the interest of the fiscus or the res privata. ix. 42, 2 (356) waives
the right of the fiscus to claim the property of criminals executed
for offences other than treason or magic; but is repealed by ix. 42, 4
(358). In xii. 1, 25—49 we find as many as ten laws (338–361) on
the curiales, fixing the qualification at 25 jugera of land, and refusing
exemption to the plea of honours real or pretended, to sham soldiers,
and even to the sons of the veterani who neglected to follow the
calling of their fathers, while the last law of the series regulates the
claims of the curia on the property of ordained curiales. Similarly
xi. 24. 1 (360) recalls to their burdens the numerous coloni in Egypt
who had placed themselves under the protection of officials.
To the same class of laws rather than to the department of re-
ligious policy we may refer xvi. 8, 6 (ad Evagrium P. O, and there-
fore best dated in 353), forbidding Jews to marry Christian women
from the gynæcea.
It should be compared with xiv. 3, 10 (355),
subjecting sons in law of pistores to the burdens of pistores, or with
the law of Valentinian (x. 20, 5) in 371, reducing the man who
married a murilegula to the condition of a murilegulus.
II. Laws alleviating the public burdens, or aimed at the mis-
conduct of officials. Of these ix. 1, 7 (338) is against delays of trial,
and C. Just. vii. 37, 1 (ad Orfitum P. U, and therefore 353-359)
gives up the claims of the fiscus to property after four years interval.
We may also claim for Constantius xi. 7, 7 (353 Haenel. 346 Godefroy,
breaking the order), which forbids the use of torture in collecting the
revenue.
But the most characteristic of these laws are the five vi.
140
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
29, 1—5 (353—359), which forbid the curiosi to abuse the evectiones,
to lay false charges, or to imprison anyone on their own authority.
To these add ii. 1, 3 (357), against extortions and gross outrages by
the agentes in rebus.
But the reign of Constantius is not productive in laws of this
kind. His activity will bear no comparison with that of Valen-
tinian; much less with the fifteen months of Julian.
III. Laws enacted in the interest of public morals, or with a
more or less distinct religious aim. ix. 3, 3 (340) orders the separation.
of the sexes in prisons; iii. 12, 1 (342) forbids the marriage of an
uncle with his niece; xv. 8, 1 (343) and ix. 25, 1 (354) deal with
the rape of consecrated women, whether virgins or not; iii. 12, 2
(355) prohibits marriage with a deceased brother's wife or a deceased
wife's sister; and ix. 17, 3; 4 (both of 357) denounce the quarrying
of stones from tombs for private use; while xv. 12, 2 (357, after
leaving Rome) forbids soldiers and palatini to hire themselves
out as gladiators.
Heathenism is first struck at by xvi. 10, 2, an isolated prohibition
of sacrifice (no penalty specified) issued in 341, but not again till
after the Magnentian war. In one group of laws we have xvi. 10, 4
(353), which closes the temples and makes sacrifice a capital crime.
The latter part is found again in the same title, l. 6 (356); while
7. 5 (353) repeals the permission given by Magnentius for nocturnal
sacrifices. The other group is ix. 16, 4-6 (357-8) against the use
of magic. The relation of Constantius to heathenism is discussed by
Chastel Destruction du Paganisme 77—95; and a few more points are
given by Lasaulx Untergang des Hellenismus 52-58, and Wordsworth
in Dict. Chr. Biogr. Art. Constantine.
Two laws are devoted to Jewish affairs. xvi. 8, 7 (357) confiscates
the property of renegades, and xvi. 9, 2 (ad Evagrium: best dated
353) forbids the Jews to hold slaves of any other sect or nation. The
latter law is usually assigned to the year 339. But (a) it is indefi-
nitely ascribed to the sons of Constantine by Soz. iii. 17 and Niceph.
Call. ix. 20, while Constantius and Constans are specified by Theo-
phanes p. 54 and Cedrenus i. p. 522 (Bonn editions) (b) the corrupt
inscription points to a joint consulship of Constantius and Constans
(or Gallus), which might fall in 339, 342, 346, 352, 353 or 354. The
first three dates are excluded by the prefectures of Acindynus, Leon-
tius and Philippus; but there is little choice among the rest. It is
however best placed after the Jewish war of 352.
IV.]
NOTE D. THE LEGISLATION OF CONSTANTIUS.
141
Nine laws (xvi. 2, 8—15) regulate the immunities of the clergy.
By l. 8 (343) they are freed from extraordinary taxes, from billeting,
and (if traders for their living) from trade taxes; by l. 9 (349) from
all the burdens of the curia, the exemption extending to their sons if
clerics also. In l. 10 (353) is a general exemption, specially including
the parangariæ, and protected by l. 11 (354). The bishops are next
exempted by 7. 12 (355) from the secular courts, while l. 13 (ad
Leontium: hence 356) and l. 14 (Felici episcopo, 357) confirm the
privileges of the Roman clergy. But l. 15 (360) refuses the petition
of the bishops at Ariminum for personal exemption from the land
tax, and subjects their lands to the usual burdens. The last of the
series is l. 16, (361), which extends the exemptions to the village
clergy. The language is obscure, but it can hardly refer to monks.
It will be noticed that the important title xvi. 5—de hæreticis is
a blank throughout the reign of Constantius. The iniquities of
Gregory, Macedonius and George have left no trace in the Codex
Theodosianus.
CHAPTER V.
THE HOMEAN VICTORY.
In the mean time new troubles were gathering in the
West. While the Eastern churches were distracted with the
crimes or wrongs of Marcellus and Athanasius, Europe re-
mained at peace from the Atlantic to the pass of Succi. The
western frontier of Constantius was also the western limit
of the storm. Africa had a chronic
Africa had a chronic trouble of its own in
the alternate outbursts of Donatist fanaticism and imperial
intolerance, but the distant rumours of the Eastern controversies
were very faintly heard in Gaul and Spain. The churches
of Europe are lost for awhile in tranquil obscurity.
Constans was not ill disposed, but prosperity did not
improve him. For a few years his government was just and
firm; but afterwards—it might be that his health was failing—
he lived in seclusion among his Frankish guards, and left his
subjects to the oppression of unworthy favourites'. Rumours of
nameless orgies crept abroad, and few regretted their weak
1 We are not told much about Con-
stans, but his character seems too
favourably drawn by Broglie iii. 58.
Athanasius is the only writer who
could have told us anything from per-
sonal knowledge; but he gives us little
more than vague regrets for his bene-
factor. Eutropius x. 9 gives Constans
credit for good government in his earlier
years, but adds that weak health and
bad company caused a change for the
worse. All authorities are agreed that
he had his full share of the Flavian
weakness for unworthy favourites. Au-
relius Victor pronounces him minis-
trorum pravitate exsecrabilis, atque
præceps in avaritiam, the younger Vic-
tor complains that he sold promotions,
and Libanius 1. 426 mentions a specific
case of oppression at Corinth by his
magister oficiorum (Sievers Libanius
94) Eugenius.
In perfect harmony with these ac-
counts are the allusions which remain
to us from the work of Ammianus, to
the effect (xxx. 7, 5) that Constans was
the terror of the Franks, and (xvi. 7, 5)
that he would have committed but
venial offences at the worst if he had
followed the advice of his virtuous
chamberlain Eutherius.
Notwithstanding his weak health,
which the younger Victor and Zonaras
xiii. 6 tell us was owing to a chronic
pain in the joints, Constans was de-
voted to hunting (so, also Zos. ii. 42,
47), and often spent whole days to-
gether in the woods with his Frankish
v.]
MAGNENTIUS.
143
master's fate when the army of Gaul proclaimed Magnentius
Augustus (Jan. 350). But the memory of Constantine was
still a power which could set up emperors and pull them down.
Vetranio at Sirmium received the purple from Constantine's
daughter, and Nepotianus claimed it at Rome as Constantine's
nephew. The Magnentian generals scattered the gladiators of
Nepotianus, and disgraced their easy victory with long-re-
membered slaughter and proscription. Meanwhile Constantius
came up from Syria, won over the legions of Illyricum, reduced
Vetranio to a peaceful abdication, and pushed on with augmented
forces towards the Julian Alps, there to decide the strife
between Magnentius and the house of Constantine.
Magnentius was on one side a Frank by birth, and appears
entitled to the credit of a bold and able general'. Severely as
the historians condemn his government, it does not seem to
have been much worse than that of Constans. Oppressive no
doubt it was, and full of cruelty. But the Empire was
terribly oppressive at its best; and the needs of a great
war were not likely to abate the taxgather's demands. His
cruelty again would weigh less heavily upon him if it had
not made Rome his enemy. The ancient Mother of the Nations
had no forgiveness for the intruder who had disturbed her
queenly rest with civil war, and filled her streets with blood-
lest forsooth she should forget his hateful barbarian birth. It
may be that even the impartial narrative of Ammianus is
tinged with prejudice by Rome's abiding hatred of Magnentius.
Towards heathenism he was something more than neutral.
guards. Hence arose grave suspicions,
confirmed by Zosimus, Aurelius Victor
(pro certo), Zonaras his guide and the
Passio S. Artemii, which seems not en-
tirely contemptible as an authority for
this part of the history.
The fate of Constans much resem-
bles that of Gratian; but the choice of
Magnentius is enough to shew that the
mutiny was not originally due to Roman
impatience of his barbarian favourites.
1 We cannot lay any stress on the
account in Julian Or. i. p. 38 of his
luxury at Aquileia-οὐδὲ ὑπαίθριος
ἐτόλμα στρατεύειν. It may however be
noticed that Ep. 59 twice joins Con-
stans and Magnentius.
His exactions in Julian Or. i. p. 34
are authenticated by the remarkable
fact that the citizens resisted him at
Mursa (Zos. ii. 49) and at Trier (Am-
mianus xv. 6, 4). His cruelty in Julian
Or. i. 39 may have been on some
particular occasion of which we know
nothing.
3 The sarcasm is due to Julian Or.
i. p. 33 ὥσπερ οἶμαι δεδιὼς μή τις αὐτὸν
πολίτην μοχθηρόν, ἀλλ' οὐχὶ βάρβαρον
υπολάβῃ φύσει. The slaughter made a
deep impression-Ammianus xxviii. 1,
1 counts the sixteenth year from it to
the persecution of the Roman nobles
by Maximin.
144
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
Constans had been so decided a persecutor that his successor
naturally leaned the other way. Magnentius however was not
himself a heathen; and it cannot be said that he went beyond
the limits of a just toleration in repealing the persecuting laws
of the last twenty years and returning to the broad religious
freedom of the edict of Milan. This was the policy of common
sense adopted by Julian and Valentinian, and it was an evil
day for Rome when Gratian and Theodosius departed from
it. The crimes of Magnentius admit of no defence; yet it
was hardly a mere tyranny which commanded the support
of old officials like Titianus and Celsinus, and even of Vulcatius
Rufinus the uncle of Gallus, a Roman noble whom every
emperor from Constans to Valentinian delighted to honour.
The government of Magnentius was regretted in the days of
Florentius and Paul Catena. Julian unwillingly allows its
merits, and years afterwards Valentinian found it worth his
while to marry the usurper's widow'.
But for the present all was forgotten in the din of war.
Each of the combatants tried the resources of intrigue; but
while Constantius won over the Frank Silvanus from the
Western camp, the envoys of Magnentius who sounded Athana-
sius gained nothing from the wary Greek². The armies touched
each other near Siscia, and Constantius was driven back upon
the scene of his father's victory over Licinius at Cibalæ. Not
there however but near the adjoining town of Mursa the
decisive battle was fought (Sept. 28, 351). Both armies well
sustained the honour of the Roman name, and it was only
after a frightful slaughter that the usurper was thrown back on
1 Pagan discontent may have had
its share in the overthrow of Constans,
but it does not appear upon the whole
that the reign of Magnentius was a
pagan reaction.
We cannot infer much on one side
from the accounts of Athanasius, Apol.
ad Ctium, 7, p. 237 that Magnentius
was given to magic, of Libanius Or.
fun. in Jul. p. 268 that he kept the
old laws of the Empire, or of Philo-
storgius iii. 21 that his army was full
of pagans, and iii. 26 himself a wor-
shipper of the demons: or on the other
from the Christian coins issued by Mag-
nentius and Decentius; and for that
matter by Eugenius also, whose reign
was undoubtedly a pagan reaction.
More significant are his restoration
of the altar of Victory in the curia
(Symmachus, Ep. x. 61; Sievers Stu-
dien, 470), and his permission even for
nocturnal sacrifices (repealed in 353
by C. Th. xvi. 10, 5).
2 The intrigue is discussed by Fialon
Saint Athanase 170; but he has not
shewn that Constantius went round by
Alexandria in 350.
v.]
EASTERN REACTION.
145
Aquileia. Next summer' he was forced to evacuate Italy, and
in 353 his destruction was completed at Mount Seleucus in the
Cottian Alps. Magnentius fell upon his sword, and Constantius
remained the master of the world.
2
The Eusebians were not slow to take advantage of the
confusion. The fires of controversy in the East were smoul-
dering through the years of rest, and it was no hard task
to make them blaze afresh. Maximus of Jerusalem had wel-
comed Athanasius on his return in 346; but Acacius and
Patrophilus kept aloof, and before long contrived to establish
Cyril in his place as their own nominee. And since the recall
of the exiles was due to Western influence, the death of
Constans in 350 left the field clear for further operations.
Already at Sirmium in 3473 they had accepted the condem-
nation of Photinus at Milan as involving that of his teacher
Marcellus, and by consequence reopening all the questions which
had been decided at Sardica. The next step was to hold
a new council at Sirmium after the battle of Mursa, at which
Marcellus and his disciple Photinus were again and finally
deposed. Ancyra was restored to Basil, while Germinius of
Cyzicus, an active friend of Ursacius and Valens, was trans-
lated to Sirmium. Of Marcellus we hear no more for many
years; but Photinus hazarded an appeal to the emperor, which
was decided against him in the spring of 355.
1 We may take the appointment of
Neratius Cerealis as præfectus urbi
(Sept. 26, 352) to shew when Rome
fell into the hands of Constantius.
2 Maximus was dead according to
Jerome and Theodoret, while Socrates
and Sozomen tell us that he was ex-
pelled. See Touttée p. xviii. Hort
Two Diss. 92 leaves the question open;
and I have followed his example.
To this period we may also refer
the expulsion of the Apollinarii (Soz.
vi. 25) by George of Laodicea.
3 For the date, Zahn Marcellus 80.
In the winter of 351-2. So
Hefele Councils § 73, but without sup-
port from Ath. Hist. Ar. 30, p. 285
διερχόμενος, ὅτε πρὸς Μαγνέντιον ἔσπευδε,
which may suit either date. Broglie
iii. 212 places it in 350-1, but without
discussion.
Other bishops
The case is not clear, but we may
argue for the later date (1) that Con-
stantius deposed Vetranio ten months.
after March 350, and therefore cannot
have held the Sirmian council much
before the beginning of the campaign
of 351. At Sirmium however we find
him as late as March 15. (2) It is
better left till the battle of Mursa had
cleared the situation,
Hefele's narrative is very careless.
There is no trace for example of Con-
stantius at Rome in 352.
5 Ath. Hist. dr. 74, p. 307.
6 Socr. ii. 30 and Socr. iv. 16 seem
to put the appeal of Photinus after the
Sirmian manifesto of 357; but there is
nothing in their accounts to prevent us
from carrying it as far back as the
winter of 351.
Epiphanius Hær. 71, 1 tells us that
G.
10
146
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
appear to have been expelled in the East before this, but only
Paul of Constantinople' is known to us by name. Athanasius
however was too strong to be disturbed: so he was reserved for
the present.
A new creed was also issued, commonly known as the First
of Sirmium. It begins by repeating the Fourth of Antioch,
with the addition of as many as 27 anathemas. Its interest lies
partly in its direct attack on Marcellus, partly also in its
indications of the rise of new questions. Three of the anathe-
mas (20-22) are on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit; while two
the disputation with Basil of Ancyra
was held, apparently at Sirmium, in
the presence of Thalassius, Datianus,
Cerealis, Taurus, Leontius and others,
and that the notes taken by a clerk of
the prefect Rufinus were sealed up and
sent to the emperor. These data secm
to point to the beginning of 355.
Valesius prefers the winter of
351-2. This date cannot be posi-
tively disproved; but it does not seem
likely. For (1) Constantius was then
at Sirmium, and could not have re-
sisted the attractions of a great theo-
logical debate. (2) Thalassius seems
to have been sent with Gallus into
Syria in March 351, not returning
before the appointment of Domitian in
353. In Ammianus xiv. 7, 9 eum odisse
(Gardthausen) seems the true read-
ing, though eum obisse, on which Va-
lesius argues, may be supported by S.
Artemii Passio 13. But on this see
Sievers Libanius 227. (3) The appeal
must have taken time, and is better
not placed so soon after the council of
351.
If the Valesian date is rejected,
there is no halting-place till the begin-
ning of 355. Thalassins could not
have been present before 353, and
Cerealis could hardly have been spared
from Rome during the critical time of
his prefecture (Sept. 352-Dec. 353).
Leontius was sent as quæstor to Syria
after the murder of Montius in 353,
and accompanied Gallus on his fatal
journey westward in the winter of 354,
reappearing after July 355 as præfectus
urbi for nearly two years. In the first
months of 355 we have also a gap in
the official life of Taurus, who seems
to have held the Illyrian prefecturo in
353-4, and the Italian from Apr. 355
to his flight in 361. It may be added
that Constantius was then at Milan,
and that Datianus was with him in the
summer of 356 (evidence in Sievers
Libanius p. 218).
Vulcatius Rufinus appears to have
held the Gaulish prefecture from his
appointment by Constans in 349 (with
perhaps an interval in the Magnentian
war) till 355-6, his successor Honor-
atus being replaced by Florentius before
the battle of Argentoratum in 357.
Rufinus then retired from official life
till 366. These circumstances seem to
exclude the date 357-8 for the dispu-
tation. It may further be noted that
Basil was in Asia for at least a year
before the summer of 358, and that
the whole year 358 seems negatived (in
an official document like this) by the
omission to designate Datianus and
Cerealis as consuls.
1 Sozomen iv. 2 may be guilty of
confusion between two of Paul's exiles,
but there can be no question that Paul
was restored after the council of Sar-
dica, and only now finally expelled.
His last exile is universally connected
with the prefecture of Philippus, and
by Ath. Hist. Ar. 7, p. 275 with its
last year. Now Philippus was prefect
about 3-15-—351, and as he accompanied
Constantius to Sirmium, Paul's execu-
tion will be fixed for 350.
2 Or rather that of Philippopolis,
with which it is twice directly con-
nected by the Semiarians at Ancyra
(Epiph. Her. 73, 2). They do not
notice the μακρόστιχος.
3
c. 5-7. Photinus is not touched
till c. 9.
v.]
CONSTANTIUS IN THE WEST.
147
more (12, 13) deny the passibility of the divine element of the
Lord's Person, and shew us that the Christological side of the
controversy was beginning to attract attention. They at least
amount to a direct denial of the Arian theory of the Incar-
nation'.
Magnentius had not meddled with the controversy. To
him indeed it would rather seem to offer the chance of an ally
in the East than as a matter of practical interest in the West.
But as soon as Constantius was in possession of Gaul, he deter-
mined to force on the Westerns an indirect but effectual
condemnation of the Nicene faith in the person of Athanasius.
There could be no serious hope of securing any direct approval
of Arianism in the West, for conservative feeling was firmly set
against it by the councils of Nicea and Sardica. The bishops
were almost uniformly resolute against it, and Gaul itself was
the centre of the Nicene resistance. Liberius of Rome followed
the steps of his predecessor Julius. Hosius of Cordova was
still the patriarch of Christendom, while Paulinus of Trier,
Rhodanius of Toulouse and Dionysius of Milan proved their
faith in exile. Creatures of the palace like Saturninus of
Arles and the Cappadocian Auxentius were no counterpoise to
men like these.
2
Doctrine was therefore kept in the background for the
present. Constantius began by demanding from the Western
bishops a summary condemnation of Athanasius, coming forward
A light is thrown on the conser-
vative character of the Sirmian creed
by its interpretations of Scripture.
Four passages from Genesis are quoted
against Marcellus in Anathemas 14-17;
-viz. (a) i. 26, (b) xviii. 1, (c) xxxii. 24,
(d) xix. 24. In the mere interpretation
the other parties were agreed against
him. Thus from Athanasius we have
for (a) c. Gentes 46, p. 36. Or. iii. 29,
p. 459; for (b) Or. i. 38, p. 349, ii. 13,
p. 379; for (c)
for (e) Or. iii. 12, p. 445, iii. 16,
p. 448; for () Or. ii. 13, p. 380. The
point to notice is the selection of the
texts. We find (b) (c) (d) in the An-
tiochene letter of 269, (a) (b) (c) (d) in
Eus. H. E. i. 2, and (b) (c) (d) in Eus.
Ecl. Proph, i. 3—7 : also (a) (d) in Eus.
Præp. vii. 12, p. 322, (d) Ecl. Proph. iii.
13. Only (a) is examined in the μакрóσтi-
xos.
On the Arian side we find scarcely
any but Ursacius, Germinius and Va-
lens on the Danube, Saturninus of
Arles, and the renegade Potamius of
Lisbon. A few years later we glean
the names of Cains in Illyricum and
Paternus of Petrocorii, and Sulpicius
Severus Chron. 38 adds that nearly all
the bishops of Pannonia (there were
only half-a-dozen or so) were Arians.
We may also set down the nominees of
the court-Auxentius of Milan, Felix
of Rome, and Epictetus of Centumcellæ
Ath. Hist. Ar. 74, p. 307. Euphrates
of Cologne was not an Arian (Hefele
Councils, § 69).
10-2
148
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
himself as the accuser at a time when Athanasius was ruling
Alexandria in peace upon the faith of his solemn and repeated
promises of protection. We may be sceptical as to some
of the outrageous declarations put into his mouth by Lucifer
and Athanasius¹, but there can be no doubt of his utter lawless-
ness in resting everything on his own command, without even
condescending to repeat the comparatively decent argument
used at Sardica, that councils ought to respect each other's
decisions.
The first step was to hold a synod at Arles (Oct. 353), as
soon as Constantius was settled there for the winter. It soon
appeared that the bishops were not unwilling to take the
emperor's word for the crimes of Athanasius, provided the
court party cleared itself from the suspicion of heresy by
anathematizing Arianism. It needed much management and
no little violence to get rid of the condition, but in the end the
council yielded. The Roman legate Vincent of Capua had
been at Sardica, and had signed the original Nicene creed
itself; but this time he gave way with the rest. Paulinus of
Trier alone stood firm, and was sent into exile among the
Phrygian Montanists.
There was a sort of armed truce for the next two years.
Liberius of Rome disavowed the weakness of his legates and
besought the emperor to hold a new council. But Constantius
1 The language ascribed to Constan-
tius is no unfair account of his conduct
from the Nicene point of view; but he
cannot have used it himself. We
have:-
Athanasius Hist. Ar. 33, p. 287
εὐθὺς ἐκεῖνος. 'Αλλ' ὅπερ ἐγὼ βούλομαι
τοῦτο κανών, ἔλεγε, νομιζέσθω οὕτω γάρ
μου λέγοντος ἀνέχονται οἱ τῆς Συρίας
λέγομενοι ἐπίσκοποι......'Αλλ' οὔτε ἤκουεν
ἐκεῖνος, οὔτε τι πλέον αὐτοὺς λέγειν ἐπέ-
τρεπεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ μᾶλλον ἠπείλει, καὶ
ξίφος ἐγύμνου κατ' αὐτῶν (will any one
take this literally?) καὶ ἀπάγεσθαι δέ
τινας ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐκέλευσε· καὶ πάλιν ὡς ὁ
Φαραὼ μετεγίνωσκεν.
Lucifer De regibus apostaticis p. 798
Si male, inquis, egissem, si quomodo
dicit Lucifer essem hæreticus, jam mihi
abstulisset Deus regnum. p. 807 Si
non bene servirem Deo, si non recte
credens fuissem, nunquam regnum Ro-
manorum vidissem in mea potestate col-
locatum, aut sic diu fuissem vivens in
regno. p. 813 Bene facimus......consti-
tuere eos [episcopos] qui confiteantur
sicuti confitebatur Arius. De non Con-
veniendo p. 776 Dixisti, Facite pacem
cum episcopis sectæ meæ Ariane, et
estote in unum.
More might be added, but these are
clearly hostile renderings of the em-
peror's words. Athanasius scarcely
pretends to report them exactly, and
Lucifer is too scurrilous to carry much.
weight. Even the rich collections of
his editors do scanty justice to his
unrivalled mastery of abusive language.
The point is important because it
has been neglected. Even Rendall
Julian 32 quotes Lucifer without
hint of suspicion.
v.]
LUCIFER AND HILARY.
149
was occupied with the barbarians in Rhætia and on the
Danube, and had to leave the matter till he came to winter at
Milan in the autumn of 355. There Julian was invested with
the purple and sent as Cæsar to drive the Alemanni out of
Gaul, or as intriguers hoped, to perish in the effort. The
council however for a long time was quite unmanageable, and
only yielded at last to open violence. Dionysius of Milan,
Eusebius of Vercellæ and Lucifer of Calaris were the only
bishops who had to be exiled.
The appearance of Lucifer is enough to shew that the
controversy had entered on a new stage. The lawless despotism
of Constantius had roused an aggressive fanaticism which went
far beyond the Donatist claim of independence for the church.
In dauntless courage and determined orthodoxy Lucifer may
rival Athanasius himself; but any cause would have been
disgraced by his narrow partizanship and outrageous violence.
He had nothing of the Greek's wary self-respect, nothing of the
spirit of love which avoids offence even to the fallen brethren.
Indignation every now and then supplies the place of eloquence,
but more often common sense itself is almost lost in the weary
flow of vulgar scolding and interminable abuse. He scarcely
condescends to reason, scarcely even to define his own belief¹, but
revels in the more congenial occupation of denouncing the fires
of damnation against the disobedient emperor. It was well for
Christendom that violence worthy of Peter Damiani was not
sustained by a genius like that of Hildebrand².
The victory was not to be won by an arm of flesh like this.
Arianism had a more dangerous enemy than Lucifer. From
the sunny land of Aquitaine, the firmest conquest of Roman
1 Lucifer's chief doctrinal state-
ments may be found in (a) pro S. Ath.
i. pp. 864, 875. (b) pro S. Ath. ii. p. 898
cumte contra et contra omnes Dei inimicos
clamet sanctæ ecclesiæ fides, credere se
in Deum verum Patrem innatum, et in
unicum Filium ejus natum ex innato et
vero Patre, hoc est de substantia Patris,
Deum de Deo, lumen de lumine, Deum
verum de Deo vero, natum non factum,
unius substantiæ cum Patre, quod Græci
dicunt omousion, per quem omnia facta
sunt, et sine quo factum est nihil, et in
Spiritum paracletum verum Dei Spiri-
tum. There seems to be no creed
exactly like this; and it may pass for
a paraphrase of the Nicene like that of
Damasus. (c) de non parcendo p. 973—
the Nicene creed in full. (d) ditto p.
987. (e) Moriendum p. 1013. (f) ditto
p. 1015-part of the Nicene creed,
followed by an allusion to the Sirmian
manifesto. Compare also pp. 781, 854,
934, 1032 for further statements.
2 Lucifer's character is well drawn
by Neander Ch. Hist. iv. 54.
150
[CII.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
civilization in Atlantic Europe, came Hilary of Poitiers, the
noblest representative of Western literature in the Nicene
age. Hilary was by birth a heathen, and only turned in
ripe manhood from philosophy to Scripture, coming before us in
355 as an old convert, and a bishop of some standing. He was
by far the deepest thinker of the West, and equally at home in
Scripture and philosophy. In depth of earnestness and massive
strength of intellect he is a match for Athanasius himself, and
in powers of orderly arrangement decidedly superior. But
Hilary was a student rather than an orator, a thinker rather
than a statesman like Athanasius. He had not touched
the controversy till it was forced upon him, and would much
have preferred to keep out of it. But when once he had studied
the Nicene Creed and found its correspondence with his own.
conclusions from Scripture, a clear sense of duty forbade him to
shrink from manfully defending its endangered truth'.
Such was the man whom the brutal policy of Constantius
forced to take his place at the head of the Nicene opposition.
He was not present at Milan, but the courtiers were determined
to get rid of him. He was therefore brought before Saturninus
of Arles in the spring of 356. The charge seems to have been one
of immorality, but we are not told exactly what it was. How-
ever, it served its purpose. Hilary was exiled to Asia.
2
Meanwhile Hosius of Cordova was ordered to Sirmium and
there detained. His protest was disregarded, and the creatures
of the palace were left to do their will upon him. After this
there was only one power in the West which could not be
summarily dealt with. The grandeur of Hosius was merely
personal, but Liberius claimed the universal reverence due to the
apostolic and imperial' see of Rome. It was a great and
wealthy church, and during the last two hundred years had
won a noble fame for world-wide charity. Its orthodoxy was
1 As Hilary's works are not of much
value for controversial purposes, very
few English writers seem to have
studied them. The chief monograph
is Reinkens Hilarius ron Poitiers.
His doctrine is discussed by Möhler
Athanasius, 449-183, and with special
success by Dorner, ii. 399-121.
2 His letter to Constantius is given
by Ath. IIist Ar. 44, p. 292.
3 Ath. Hist. Ar. 34, p. 288 μéxpi
τῶν ἐκεῖ τὴν μανίαν ἐξέτειναν· καὶ οὐχ
ὅτι ἀποστολικός ἐστι θρόνος ᾐδέσθησαν,
οὐθ᾽ ὅτι μητρόπολις ἡ Ρώμη τῆς Ρωμανίας
ἐστὶν εὐλαβήθησαν.
v.]
LIBERIUS OF ROME.
151
without a stain, for whatever heresies might flow to the great
city, no heresy had ever issued thence. The strangers of every
nation who found their way to Rome were welcomed from
Saint Peter's throne with the majestic blessing of an universal
father'. "The church of God which sojourneth in Rome" was
the immemorial counsellor of all the churches; and now that the
voice of counsel was passing into that of command, bishop
Julius had made a worthy use of his authority as a judge
of Christendom.
Such a bishop was a power of the first importance, especially
when Arianism was dividing the Empire round the hostile
camps of Gaul and Asia. If the Roman church had partly
ceased to be a Greek colony in the Latin capital, it was still the
connecting link of East and West, the representative of Western
Christianity to the Easterns and the interpreter of Eastern to
the Latin West. Liberius could therefore treat with the
emperor almost on the footing of an independent sovereign.
He could not condemn Athanasius unheard, and after so many
acquittals. The charges might indeed be re-examined, but only
in a free council, and only if the Arians were first expelled. To
this demand he steadily adhered. When his legates yielded at
Arles, he publicly disavowed their action. The emperor's
threats he disregarded, the emperor's gifts he flung out of the
church. Such a defiance could have but one result; and it
was not long before the world was scandalized by the news that
Constantius had arrested and exiled the bishop of Rome.
The way was clear for a final attack on Athanasius. At-
tempts had already been made to dislodge him from Alexandria,
1 This aspect of the Roman church
is as conspicuous as its charity even in
Soter's time, about A.D. 170. Dionysius
of Corinth in Eus. Hist. Eccl. iv. 24.
Ath. Hist. Ar. 37, p. 289. Theo-
doret ii. 16 has a good deal of rhetoric,
which needs no notice.
3 The sequence of events may be
set down as follows, chiefly from the
Index and the Hist. Aceph, on which
Sozomen depends.
Athanasius became seriously alarm-
ed in May 353, as shown by the mission
of Serapion. To the same period we
may refer the letter of the eighty Egyp-
3
tian bishops to Liberius (Hil. Fragm.
5). One alarming sign may have been
the removal of Nestorius of Gaza in
352-3, who had been prefect since
344-5, and was therefore apparently
friendly, as is further hinted by the
strange order of Constantius in Ath.
Hist. Ar. 51, p. 296. Four days after
Serapion's departure comes Montanus
with orders forbidding him to go to the
comitatus, and also an answer to the
forged request of Athanasius to visit
the emperor. On this Ath. Apol, ad
Ctium 19, p. 243. After an interval of
more than two years, Diogenes arrived
152
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
but he had defeated them by refusing obedience to anything
short of written orders from the emperor. As Constantius had
given him a solemn promise of protection in 346 and three
times written to repeat it since his brother's death, duty es
well as policy forbade him to credit the mere assertions of
Montanus or Diogenes. The most pious emperor could not be
supposed to mean such treachery; but he must send a plainer
message if he did.
But treachery was just what his holiness intended; and the
message was plain enough when it came. Soldiers were col-
lected from all parts of the country, and when all was ready
Syrianus the dux Egypti surrounded the church of Theonas
with a force of more than five thousand men. It was a night of
vigil on Thursday, Feb. 8¹, 356. The doors were broken open
and the troops pressed up the church, enclosing the whole con-
gregation as in a net. Athanasius fainted in the tumult; yet
somehow before they reached the bishop's throne, its occupant
had been safely conveyed away.
If the soldiers connived at the escape of Athanasius, they
were all the less disposed to spare his flock. The outrages of
Philagrius and Gregory were repeated by Syrianus and the
prefect Cataphronius; and the evil work went on apace when
the new bishop George arrived in Lent 3573, and was vigorously
seconded by the Manichee Sebastian, who had succeeded
Syrianus in the command of the army. Indiscriminate oppres-
sion of Nicenes and heathens provoked retaliation from the
in August 355, and besieged the church
of Theonas from Sept. 3 to Dec. 23,
but was defeated by the opposition of
the people (populo et judicibus). Syri-
anus came Jan. 5, 356, with an over-
whelming force, but soon agreed to
refer the question to the emperor. The
decisive attack on the night of Thurs-
day, Feb. 8, was a direct breach of the
arrangement.
1 The irruption of Syrianus is fixed
for the night of Thur.-Fri., Feb. 8-9,
356 (Mechir 13-14), by the con-
current statements of the Index, the
Hist. Aceph, and the Egyptian bishops
in Ath. Hist. Ar. 80, p. 311, who
further date their protest Feb. 12
(= Mechir 17).
The
Bright Hist. Treatises lxix. shifts it
to Feb. 7, objecting that (1) Easter fall-
ing Apr. 7, Thursday would be Feb. 7.
Here he forgets that 356 was a leap
year. (2) Mechir 1-Jan 26, therefore
Mechir 14-Feb. 8, not Feb. 9.
arithmetic is correct this time, and I
cannot fully clear up the difficulty.
But Galle in Larsow Festbriefe 51,
plainly makes Mechir 1= Jan 27 in
leap years only. And an astronomer
can be trusted to know the reckoning.
3 The arrival of George is deferred
to 357 (Feb. 24) in the circumstantial
narratives of the Index and the Hist.
Aceph, and we may follow them in the
absence of anything directly contrary
in Ath. de Fuga 6, p. 256.
v.]
THE FLIGHT OF ATHANASIUS.
153
fierce populace of Alexandria. George escaped with difficulty
from one riot in August 358, and was fairly driven from the city
by another in October. A commission of blood was held by
Paul Catena, but henceforth it is likely that some check was
put on the worst licence of the Arian gang.
Meanwhile Athanasius had disappeared from the eyes of
men. A full year after the raid of Syrianus he was hardly con-
vinced of the emperor's treachery. Outrage after outrage might
be the work of underlings, and there was room even yet for a
personal appeal to their master's piety. Constantine himself
had not despised his cry for justice; and if he could but stand
within the vail, his presence might even yet confound the gang
of eunuchs¹. Even the weakness of Athanasius is full of
grandeur; and it has given us the noble Apology to Con-
stantius. But the bitterness of exile was growing on him.
When his old enemies Narcissus and Leontius and George of
Laodicea presumed to mock at the fugitive bishop, he turned
fiercely on them with his de Fuga. Only when the work of
outrage had gone on for many months did Athanasius return
the emperor's challenge in a secret libel. But then he threw
off all restraint. Even George the pork-contractor is not as-
sailed with such a storm of merciless invective as his holiness
1 Ath. Hist. Ar. 38, p. 290 omadóv-
των αἵρεσιν.
2 The respectful tone of his Apol.
ad Ctium sufficiently guarantees its
own sincerity. Athanasius surely was
not fool enough to sit on two stools.
If he had ceased to trust Constantius,
there was nothing to be gained by
flattering him. Even Athanasius had
his day-dream of an appeal unto Cæsar:
but he was not one of the men who
cling to what they know to be dreams.
How he came to cherish it so long is
another question, nowhere better traced
out than by Bright Hist. Treatises lxi.—
lxv.
The chronology needs attention.
Dating the Apol. ad Ctium "in the
spring or early summer of 356” and
connecting the de Fuga with the death
of Leontius (not yet known to Athana-
sius) "about the end of 357," we get a
safe interval between them. But (1)
both works fall within the period of
George's tyranny, Feb. 24, 357-Oct. 2,
358: (2) the death of Leontius must be
placed in the summer of 357, if we are
to leave room first for the Acacian
synod held by his successor Eudoxius
and then for the letter of George of
Laodicea, before the council of Ancyra
in Lent 358.
These changes bring the de Fuga
much nearer to the Apol. ad Ctium.
If it was written first, Gibbon's charge
of duplicity will be established after
all. This however is most unlikely.
We cannot convict Athanasius on ab-
solutely open evidence. It
It may how-
ever be noticed that the de Fuga seems
more allied to the Apol. ad Ctium than
to the fierce Hist. Ar. It generally
avoids personal attacks on Constantius;
and the single exception (c. 26, p. 266,
K. ò aipetikos) is not certainly genuine.
3 Fialon Saint Ath. 193–199, re-
marks on the frequency of such secret
pamphlets.
154
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
Constantius Augustus. George might sin "like the beasts who
know no better""; but no wickedness of common mortals could
attain to that of the new Belshazzar or Maximian, of the Lord's
anointed "self-abandoned to eternal fire."
The exile governed Egypt from his hiding in the desert.
Alexandria was searched in vain; in vain the malice of Con-
stantius pursued him to the court of Ethiopia. Letter after
letter issued from his inaccessible retreat to keep alive the
indignation of the faithful, and invisible hands conveyed them
to the furthest corners of the land. We may still read his
words among the tombs of the Pharaohs in the cave of Ab-
delkurna. The great archbishop was never greater than
when he seemed to stand alone in defence of the great council.
Constantius had his revenge, but it shook the Empire to its
base. Even the catastrophe of Hadrianople was hardly more
disastrous than the flight of Athanasius. Egypt had not escaped
its share of provincial disturbance and confusion. As early as
the reign of Marcus, the savage herdsmen of the Delta had
daunted even Avidius Cassius by their numbers and despera-
tion. Riots at Alexandria were continual and bloody, and the
desolation of Bruchion still recalled the dreadful tumults of the
days of Gallienus. Against the Illyrian emperors there had
been at least two great national revolts. The first was that of
Firmus the merchant-prince-the brigand, as his conqueror
Aurelian so carefully describes him, as if to shew that he headed
a real Coptic rising, not a mutiny of the usual sort. The revolt
of Achilleus, quelled in 296 by Diocletian, centred in Alex-
andria, but reached far beyond the Greek city to Busiris and
Coptos, was connected with movements of the Blemmyes, and
1 Ath. de Synodis 37, p. 601.
2 Boeckh 8607 (quoted by Fialon
Saint Ath. 133) is a letter of Athanasius.
from the ruins of Thebes.
3 Dio Cassius lxxi. 4. They had
cut up and eaten a Roman centurion.
They are frequent characters in the
novels.
4 Latronem Egyptium, barbaricis
motibus æstuantem...latronem impium,
in Vop. Firmus 1, 2. It reminds us of
the Jewish Anoraí. Vopiscus himself
ranks him among the tyranni, on the
ground that he assumed the titles of
Imperator and Augustus, coined money
and wore the purple. But statements
of his own confirm Aurelian's words-
e.g. Alexandriam Egyptiorum incitatus
furore pervasit...cum Blemyis societatem
maximam tenuit, et cum Saracenis.
So also Finlay Greece i. 116.
The fullest account of these events
is given by Preuss, Kaiser Diocletian
68-76. From another point of view
Priaulx, Apollonius of Tyana 165.
v.]
THE FLIGHT OF ATHANASIUS.
155
seems much like that of Firmus. But this was the last of the
Coptic risings. Africa was full of revolts', but there were none
in Egypt. It was not that the Empire was less oppressive after
Diocletian had based it on the terrorism of a host of predaceous
officials, but because the flight of Athanasius revealed the secret
that disaffection may have surer weapons than the sword of
rebellion. For the first time since the fall of Israel a nation
defied the Empire in the name of God; for Christianity was
raising a new Coptic nation on the ruins of the various worships
which had kept apart the nomes of Egypt. It was a national
rising, none the less real for not breaking out in formal war.
This time Greeks and Copts were united by a common love of
the Nicene faith; so that the contest was at an end when the
Empire surrendered Arianism. But Athanasius had shewn the
way for meaner men like Cyril and Mokaukas to play their part
in the decline and fall of Rome. In the next century the
councils of the church became the battlefield of nations, and the
victory of Hellenic orthodoxy implied sooner or later the separa-
tion of Monophysite Egypt and Nestorian Syria. Their dis-
affection was a recognized and standing danger to the Empire
from the Council of Chalcedon onward. Effort after effort of the
ablest emperors failed to avert it-Marcian and Anastasius, Jus-
tinian and Heraclius failed alike, and the Roman power beyond
Mount Taurus fell because the provincials refused to lift a hand
against the Saracens. The remoter consequences of the flight
of Athanasius must be sought on the battlefields of Adjnadin
and Yermouk, at the mosque of Omar and among the ruins of
Alexandria.
1 In one century we find those of
Alexander, Firmus, Gildo and Hera-
clian. The first however was rather a
mutiny. Meanwhile in Egypt, there is
a charge Socr. i. 27 against Athanasius
in 335 of sending money to one Philu-
menus for seditious purposes; but we
hear no more of him. He has been
identified with Calocerus in Cyprus.
2 On the variety of Gods in Egypt,
see Kuhn Verfassung i. 455 &c., also
Mayor on Juv. xv. 36. Ath. e. Gentes
23, p. 18-one of the few passages where
he has Egypt in view.
3 The general fact is not seriously
qualified by the resistance of the Mono-
thelete Mardaïtes of the Lebanon, or
of the Greek city of Alexandria; or
even by the difficulties experienced by
Mokaukas amongst the Copts them-
selves.
On this subject cf. Freeman Hist.
Essays (Third Series) p. 253-256:
also a striking series of articles on
Algeria in La République Française for
Sept. 1875. I cannot learn that they
have been republished.
156
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
The flight of Athanasius rather than the death of Con-
stantius marks the lowest depression of the Nicene cause. But
it was far from hopeless even then. Its position was not unlike
that of the French republic after 1873. It seemed quite in the
hands of its enemies, and was really surrounded with dangers
which only the most cautious moderation could escape; yet its
enemies with all their seeming power could do nothing to
prevent its final victory. Three groups of conspirators agreed
to profane the honourable name of conservatism, but could
agree in nothing else, and could hardly even adjourn their
mutual quarrels till the victory was safe. As with the French
republic, it might have been foreseen that the prize would fall to
the genuine conservatives. The danger to the Nicene side was
not in the mere tyranny of the court, which only worked against
its authors', but in the excesses of irreconcilables like Marcellus.
or Lucifer, which gave a colour of truth to the systematic
slanders spread by the moral order adventurers in power.
It was not the Nicene cause but the conservative coalition
which the flight of Athanasius destroyed. The victory seemed
won when the last great enemy was driven into the desert; and
the intriguers hasted to the spoil. They forgot that the West
was merely terrorized for the moment, that Egypt was devoted
to its patriarch, that there was a strong opposition in the East,
and that even the conservatives who had won the battle for
them were certain to desert their unworthy leaders the moment
they declared for Arianism. Of that however there was little
danger. It was not for Arianism that Ursacius and Valens,
Eudoxius and George of Alexandria were fighting, but simply
for themselves. There is much to be said for some of their
allies, possibly something even for Acacius of Caesarea; but if
these four men had any nobler purpose in their lives, no trace of
it is left in history. Nor do we judge them merely by the
denunciations of their enemies. They are sufficiently con-
demned by their own words, and by the broad outlines of their
policy. And in the case of George, to whose learning Athanasius
does clear injustice, we have the decisive evidence of "the cool
and impartial heathen" Ammianus².
1 Thus Ath. Hist Ar. 34, p. 288.
3 Ammianus xxii. 11, 3-7.
v.]
THE SIRMIAN MANIFESTO.
157
All bade fair for the intriguers. The visit of Constantius to
Rome in the summer of 357 fairly marks the culmination of his
prosperity. It was a happier visit than his father's tragic
Vicennalia. He was assailed indeed with cries for the recall of
Liberius; but the heathen populace was well pleased with
a sovereign who admired the majesty of Rome and could
respect her ancient faith, albeit not his own'. He viewed the
temples with placid curiosity, gratified the senators by dis-
tributing the vacant priesthoods, and forbore to scoff at the
immemorial procession of the kuights. No marvel if he left a
pleasant memory behind him in his heathen capital.
During the summer Ursacius and Valens held a conference
of Western bishops at Sirmium. It was only a small synod,
and we are not even told whether Constantius himself was
present. A manifesto was drawn up, perhaps by Potamius of
Lisbon, to the following effect. "We acknowledge with the
whole church one God almighty, the Father: also his only
(unicum) Son Jesus Christ, the Lord our Saviour. But two
Gods cannot and must not be preached (Jno. xx. 17, Rom. iii. 29,
&c). Of the word ovcía and its compounds óμoovσiov and
óμotovσtov, which have disturbed the minds of some, no mention
sha 11 henceforth be made, for (1) the word is not found in
Scripture: (2) the subject is beyond our understanding (Isa. liii. 8).
No doubt the Father is greater than the Son in honour, rank,
glory, majesty' and the very name", as the Son himself declares
(Jno. xiv. 28). There are two Persous of the Father and the
Son; of which the Father is the greater, the Son subject,
together with all that the Father has subjected to him. The
Father is without beginning, invisible, immortal, impassible.
The Son is born of the Father, God of God, light of light, by an
1 Symmachus Ep. x. 61.
2 This was the special offence given
by Constantine in 326 (Zos. ii. 29).
3 Constantius was at Milan in June
and July, and proceeded over the Bren-
ner (Ammianus xvi. 11, 20) into Illyri-
cum. Thence he sent Severus into
Gaul, and ordered Ursicinus to court,
who at once repaired to Sirmium.
Thus Constantius was pretty certainly
at Sirmium in August; and is not
likely to have missed a theological de-
bate. We find him again at Milan in
Nov. and Dec., and at Sirmium Dec. 18.
The question is discussed by Tillemont
Empereurs, iv. 685.
Athanasius de Syn. 28, p. 595
translates these two words by θεότητι.
5 This may allude to the spurious
Sardican confession in Theodoret ii. 8.
6 To this clause Marius Victorinus
adv. Ar. 1. 9 opposes Phil. ii. 6.
158
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
inscrutable generation, and took flesh or body, that is man
of the Virgin Mary, and through this man he suffered with
him (compassum). The Holy Spirit is through the Son, and
came according to his promise to teach and sanctify all be-
lievers."
The Sirmian manifesto is the turning-point of the whole
contest. Arius had been so utterly defeated at Nicea that the
leaders of his party were forced to throw him over and keep his
doctrines in the background for a whole generation; and even
when the cause of the great council seemed hopelessly lost, not
one of them ventured to confess himself an Arian. But the
Anomans disdained to hide their belief in holes and corners;
and now that they had succeeded in challenging the light of day
with an imperial proclamation', the Eastern conservatives were
obliged in self-defence to look for a Nicene alliance. Suspicions
and misunderstandings, and at last mere force delayed its
consolidation till the reign of Theodosius; but the Eusebian
coalition fell to pieces the moment Arianism ventured to have a
policy of its own.
Ursacius and Valens had blown a trumpet which was heard
from one end of the Empire to the other. The Sirmian mani-
festo unveiled the heresy as it had never been unveiled before.
Its avowal of Anomoan doctrine caused a stir even in the West,
where Arians were only a handful of intruders. Unlike the
creeds of Antioch, it was a Western document, drawn up
in Latin by Western bishops. Besides this, the high-handed
violence of Constantius had made it clear that the battle was no
longer for the personal case of Athanasius, but for the faith
itself. The spirit of the West was fairly roused; and the
Gaulish bishops, now partly shielded from persecution by the
varying fortunes of Julian's Alemannic war², were watching in
1 Hilary de Syn. 78, Antea enim
in obscuro atque in angulis Dominus
Christus Dei esse secundum naturam
filium negabatur...At vero nunc pub-
licæ auctoritatis professione hæresis
prorumpens, id quod antea furtim mus-.
sitabat, nunc non clam victrix gloria-
batur.
2 Julian's first campaign in 356 was
not very successful. He was even be-
sieged for a month in his winter-quar-
ters with the Senones. Even his second
campaign in 357 was seriously ham-
pered by the misconduct of Barbatio,
and the decisive battle of Argentoratum
was not fought till about August.
There is a recent monograph on it by
Felix Dahn, Die Alamannenschlacht bei
Strassburg, Braunschweig 1880.
v. ]
PIEBADIUS.
159
moody anger' for the next steps of the gang of court intriguers.
Thus everything increased the ferment. Phoebadius of Agen
took the lead, and a Gaulish synod at once condemned the
Sirmian manifesto.
The pamphlet of Phoebadius deserves attention as giving
a purely Western view of the Sirmian manifesto, free from the
semiarian influence so visible in the de Synodis of Hilary,
and even in his own later work'. He begins with a complaint
of Arian subtlety-"there is nothing straightforward in it,
nothing but diabolical fraud." Next he lays down his positions.
Even the unity of God is maintained only in order to deny the
Lord's divinity, and reduce the Saviour to the level of a
creature. The word essence is denounced in order to establish
a difference of essence. He is said to have a beginning; yet his
generation is declared unknown in spite of his own and other
plain statements that it is from the Father. All they care for
is to limit it to time, as we see from their impudent omission.
of the final clause of Mt. xi. 27, “no man knoweth the Son save
the Father, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal
him." Next the Son's inferiority and subjection are not filial
only, but that of a creature absolutely separate from God.
Beginning is denied of the Father merely that it may be
ascribed to the Son; from which it follows that he may also
have an end. Finally the Father's superiority in the attributes
of deity is insisted on merely in order to insinuate the absence
of them in the Son. Now all these doctrines are flatly contrary
to Scripture. Half the error comes from the Arian habit
of ascribing to the Logos what is spoken de homine ejus, aud in
every way confusing the two. After a passionate appeal to the
Nicene fathers, he explains substantia of a self-existent being,—
1 Not less dangerous for the loss of
their natural leaders. The bishops of
Rome (Liberius returned only in Aug.
358), Cordova, Trier, Toulouse and
Milan were in exile, also Lucifer,
Hilary and Eusebius of Vercella: Arles
was held by the Arian Saturninus, and
Fortunatian of Aquileia had yielded
with African levity to the tempters of
the palace.
There are traces of obscurer con-
fessors in Anatolius of Euboea (Ath, ad
Antiochenos 10, p. 619), and the four
African bishops who sign the Sirmian
creed with Liberius (Soz. iv. 15).
Phoebadius de Filii divinitate Trac-
tatus, esp. Proam-non aliunde natum
quam proprie de Patre, totum de toto,
integrum de integro, perfectum de per-
fecto, consummatamque virtutem.
3 Phœbadius e. dr. 4, 15.
4 c. dr. 9-11.
e. Ar. 12-14.
5
6
c. dr. 19.
160
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
which is God alone'. The word is scriptural, its meaning well
known; and there can be no reasonable objection to it. He
ends with an allusion to Hosius, "whose name they use against.
us like a battering-ram." If he has been wrong for ninety
years, he is not likely to be right now.
If the Sirmian manifesto caused a stir even in the West, it
spread dismay through the ranks of the Eastern conservatives.
Plain men were weary of the strife, and only the fishers in troubled
waters cared for more of it. They had hoped, say the bishops
at Ancyra³, that after the fiery trials of the faith, after the
repeated councils of Antioch, Sardica (they mean Philippopolis)
and Sirmium, now that Marcellus and Photinus (they do not add
Athanasius and Liberius) were at last expelled, the weary church
would have the rest it needed, and leisure for more peaceful
work. But the Sirmian manifesto opened an abyss at their
feet. They had put down Sabellianism after more than twenty
years of contest; but the fruits of their hard-won victories were
falling to the Anomoans. It was time to defend themselves, for
Ursacius and Valens had the emperor's ear. And as if to bring
the danger nearer home, a Syrian synod was convened by
Eudoxius the new bishop of Antioch, and his friends Acacius of
Cæsarea and Uranius of Tyre, and a letter of thanks addressed
to the authors of the manifesto.
4
No time was to be lost, so the conservative counterblow
was struck at once. The first move was a letter from George
of Laodicea to Basil of Ancyra, Macedonius of Constantinople,
Eugenius of Nicaæa and the rest. So in Lent 358, Basil summoned
a small synod for the dedication of a church at Ancyra. Only
twelve bishops were present. Even George was absent (no great
loss), and his place was taken by Eustathius of Sebastia". But
1 Compare Tractatus 4, Que est enim
substantia Dei? Ipsum quod Deus est
simplex, singulare, purum, nulla con-
cretione permixtum, limpidum, bonum,
perfectum, beatum, integrum, sanctum-
totum.
Among the passages quoted in c.
Ar. 7, notice P's. lxviii. (= lxix Hebr.) 3
infixus sum in limo profundi, et non est
substantia (), and Jer. xxiii. 22,
si stetissent in substantia mea ("TID?).
.(בְּסוֹדִי)
2 c. Ar. 23.
3 Epiph. Her. 72, 2.
4 Soz. iv. 13.
5 The names are given by Epiph.
Hær. 73, 11, but without their sees.
We can certainly recognize only Basil
and Eustathius; but Eutyches and Eu-
tychianus (but more likely the Homean
of Eleutheropolis) recur at Constanti-
nople Chron. Pasch. 360, and Hypere-
chius and Alexander in the letter of
Liberius to the Semiarians Socr. iv. 12
v.]
THE COUNCIL OF ANCYRA.
161
its weight was far beyond its numbers. Basil's name stood high
for learning; and he more than any man could sway the
vacillating emperor. Eustathius also was a man of mark, and
his ascetic eccentricities long ago condemned at Gangra seem by
this time to have been forgotten'. Above all, the council was
known to state the opinions of a large majority of the Eastern
bishops. Pontus was devoted to conservatism, and the more
decided Arianizers were hardly more than a busy clique even in
Asia and Syria. They had everything in their favour in 359 at
Seleucia, yet they were outnumbered by three to one. The
council of Ancyra might therefore be understood to speak for the
East in general.
Its decisions are clumsily expressed, and shew the embarrass-
ment of men whom the appearance of a new enemy has forced
to execute a complete and hasty change of front. First comes
a long synodical letter to the following effect. "We had hoped
for peace after the fiery trials of the church; but since the
devil has invented fresh heresies, we must make fresh decla-
rations of our faith. We were baptized then accordingly to
the Lord's command into the name of the Father, the Son and
the Holy Spirit, not of an ἄσαρκος and a σαρκωθείς, an αγέννητος
and a γεννητός, or a κτίστης and a κτίσμα. These names
imply a difference of essence, whereas the very purpose for
which we speak of Father and Son is to enforce the likeness.
Rejecting materializing views of the divine Sonship (málos,
ἀπόρροια, μερισμός), and rejecting also the Marcellian ἐνέργεια,
there remains only similarity, ἐπειδὴ πᾶς πατὴρ ὁμοίας αὐτοῦ
οὐσίας νοεῖται πατήρ : and if this be rejected too, the Sonship
becomes an idle name. On the contrary, the divine is (kupíws) the
true paternity, and its confession is the distinction of the church
from Jews and heathen, who know only of a Creator*. It is
the ideal of the human, as we read ἐξ οὗ πᾶσα πατριὰ ἐν
οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς ὀνομάζεται, and κυρίως implies μόνον ἐκ
1 Note E. The date of the Council
of Gangra.
2 Hefele Councils, § 80 gives a
short analysis of it.
3 So Ath de decr. 31, p. 186.
4 This is a commonplace, but Eus.
Eccl. Theol. i. 8, p. 65 is worth com-
5
parison.
5 Eph. iii. 15: found in creeds only
in the fourth of Antioch and its re-
issues. Athanasius quotes it only Or.
i. 23, p. 337 a passage where he is
laying down the same principles.
G.
11
162
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
μόνου ὅμοιον κατ᾽ οὐσίαν τέλειον ἐκ τελείου. An impassible
generation is a mystery, but not to be rejected on that account
any more than the scandal of the cross. The Son is no mere
quality or creature but Wisdom personal, and like in essence
to the wise Father. The Lord's divinity is on the same footing
with his manhood, implying the same essential likeness and
similar limitations¹."
Then follow eighteen anathemas, aimed alternately at
Marcellus and Actius. Here again we see the transition from
Eusebian to Semiarian conservatism. They start from the pro-
test of the Lucianic creed that the divine sonship is no idle
phrase, and amount to a declaration that the Son is no creature,
and that "wisdom" or "image" to whom it was given to have
life in himself, is not on that account unlike in essence to the
Father. The divine generation is also put outside time, and
referred not to the power, but to the power and essence
together (éžovoíą óμoû kai ovcía) of the Father. On the
other hand, ὁμοούσιον is included with ταυτοούσιον in one
denunciation, which implies that it is Sabellian.
The synod broke up. Basil and Eustathius proceeded to the
court at Sirmium, taking with them Eleusius of Cyzicus. It
must have been to conciliate the Nicenes that they suppressed
six of the anathemas of Ancyra. They were just in time to
prevent Constantius from declaring for Eudoxius and the
Anomoans. After some more intrigues, a new council was
called, and peace made on the Semiarian terms. A collection
was made of the decisions against Paul of Samosata and Photinus
of Sirmium, together with the Lucianic creed. This was signed
by Liberius of Rome and four African bishops, by Ursacius and
Valens, and by all the Easterns present.
2
The Semiarians had won a complete victory, and were strong
enough to let Liberius return to Rome in August³. Their next
step was a fatal error. Eudoxius, Aetius, and (so we are told) no
1 The parallel is repeated in the
minute of Basil and George, Epiph.
Hær. 73, 18.
2 Soz. iv. 15. τὴν ἐν τοῖς ἐγκαινίοις
τῆς ᾿Αντιοχέων ἐκκλησίας ought in ac-
cordance with Semiarian opinions to
be the Lucianic creed. Hefele Councils
§ 81 prefers the fourth creed as having
been repeated at Philippopolis and
Sirmium.
3 Note F. The Fall of Liberius.
v.]
FORMATION OF A NEW PARTY.
163
less than seventy others were sent into exile'. After all, the
Semiarians only aimed at replacing one tyranny by another. The
exiles were soon recalled, and the strife began again with increased
bitterness.
Here was an opening for a new party. Neither Semiarians
nor Nicenes nor Anomoans seemed able to bring this intermin-
able controversy to a decision. The Anomoans indeed almost
deserved success for their boldness and activity, but pure
Arianism was hopelessly discredited throughout the Empire.
Egypt and the West were devoted to the Nicene cause, but they
could not expect for the present to overcome the opposition of
Asia and the camarilla. The Eastern Semiarians might have.
played the part of mediators; but men who began with
wholesale deportations were not likely to secure a lasting domi-
nation. No man was safe if zealots like Eleusius or Marathonius
were to have their own way. In this deadlock better men than
Ursacius and Valens might have been tempted to devise some
scheme of compromise. But if all the existing parties were to
be disavowed, there was nothing left but specious charity and
1 The number is given by Philost.
iv. 8. It must be much exaggerated, but
we can well believe that the exiles were
not a few.
Few of the Semiarian leaders can
escape the charge of persecution. The
exile of the Arians in 358 fixes it on
Basil and Eustathius. The cruelties of
Macedonius against the Nicenes and No-
vatians of Constantinople are record-
ed by Socrates ii. 38, and were blamed
even by Constantius (Soz. iv. 2). The
demolition of a Novatian church (Socr.
iii. 11) shews that Eleusius was as busy
at Cyzicus, and a similar outrage a-
gainst the pagans is recorded (Soz. v.
10) of Mark at Arethusa. Julian Ep.
52 speaks of multitudes of heretics
slaughtered, as at Samosata and Cyzi-
cus, in Paphlagonia, Bithynia and
Galatia. The references will be to
Eleusius of Cyzicus, possibly to Euse-
bius of Samosata and Sophronius of
Pompeiopolis, and pretty certainly to
Marathonius of Nicomedia (Socr. ii. 38)
and Basil of Ancyra. He may be
overstating their misdeeds, but his
account is fairly confirmed by Soer. ii.
38. He also speaks Ep. 43 of Arian
outrages against the Valentinians at
Edessa; but the bishop's name is un-
known. To this list we may perhaps
add the expulsion of the Apollinarii by
George of Laodicea.
The Nicenes upon the whole can
shew a better record, though persecution
began on their side in the exile of
Arius. The only charges against them
are in the cases (a) of the Meletians,
denied by the Egyptian bishops (Ath.
Apol. c. Ar. 5 p. 100), and (b) of Ursa-
eius and Valens, denied by Hosius,
and also by Athanasius (Ath. Hist. Ar.
44, 27 pp. 292, 285). Athanasius him-
self not only objects to persecution in
the writings of his exile (de Fuga 23,
p. 265; Hist. Ar. 33, 67 pp. 287, 301),
but shews a spirit of comprehensive
charity in his de Synodis and at the
council of Alexandria. The great per-
secutor was Theodosius; but even he
scarcely attempted to carry out some
of his worst laws. There was not
much vigorous and indiscriminate per-
secution of individuals (except of Pris-
cillianists and Donatists) before the
fall of Stilicho.
11-2
164
[cn.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
colourless indefiniteness. And this was the plan of the new
Homean party formed by Acacius in the East, Ursacius and
Valens in the West.
Now that the Semiarians were forced to treat with their
late victims on equal terms, it became necessary to hold a
general council. All parties agreed to the scheme, for all had
hopes of success. If the Homocan influence was increasing at
court, the Semiarians were strong in the East, and might count.
on more or less help from the Western Nicenes. But the court
was resolved to secure a decision to its own mind. A single
council would have represented the whole Empire and might
have been too independent. It was therefore divided. After
a few changes of plan, it was settled that the Westerns were
to meet at Ariminum, the Easterns at Seleucia in Cilicia. As
the councils might be expected to disagree, it was ordered that
in that case ten deputies from each should report at court and
hold a conference before the emperor.
Parties began to group themselves afresh. The Anomoans
naturally leaned to the Acacian side. They could expect no
favour from Nicenes or Semiarians; but to the Ilomeans they
might look for at least connivance. The Semiarians therefore
were obliged to draw still closer to the Nicenes.
The chief mediator of the new alliance was Hilary of
Poitiers. If his exile had shewn him the practical worldli-
ness of the Asiatic bishops, he had found among them men
of character and learning who were in earnest against Arianism,
and not so far from the Nicene faith as was supposed. Heresy
was often the result of ignorance or misunderstanding rather
than of genuine ill will. It was in order to remove the mutual
suspicions of East and West that he addressed the treatise de
Synodis' to his friends in Gaul about the end of 358. After
some high praise of their firm resistance to the violence of
Saturninus, he tells them that the example of Gaulish orthodoxy
had brought some of the Eastern bishops to a better mind.
Some forms had been drawn up which if not altogether satis-
factory, at all events clearly repudiated the Sirmian manifesto.
1 The work is discussed by Reinkens
Hilarius 171-184. I modify his dato
a little it seems to make a needless
allowance of time for the negotiations
after the carthquake at Nicomedia.
v.]
HILARY DE SYNODIS.
165
Next, after asking his readers to reserve their judgment for
awhile, he gives the Blasphemia in full, and explains twelve of
the anathemas issued in reply from Ancyra. But since these
were the work of a few bishops only, the general drift of opinion
in the East would be made clearer by a review of some other
creeds which had been drawn up at various times. He therefore
submits for consideration the Lucianic formula, the creed of
Philippopolis and the First of Sirmium "against Photinus".
he says nothing of Marcellus. Each of these he discusses to the
general effect that its doctrine is not unsound, if only its
questionable clauses are interpreted with a due regard to their
original purpose. Thus the Lucianic per substantiam tria, per
consonantiam vero unum was only aimed at Sabellian confusion;
and even the Sirmian non enim exæquamus vel comparamus
Filium Putri, sed subjectum intelligimus does not imply any
difference of essence.
This multitude of written creeds was un-
known in the West; but the less fortunate Easterns were more
troubled with heresies, and could not avoid the necessity.
closes the first part of the de Synodis.
This
The next step is to clear the way by a statement of his own
belief. This made, he repeats his caution to the reader, and
proceeds to examine (a) the word oμoovolov. Without formally
admitting the validity of the conservative objections, he shews
that it is capable of misuse in either a Sabellian or a Manichean
sense, or again as implying a prior essence. It is not the sole
and necessary talisman of sound belief, as if there could be no
true faith without it. There are many questions to be settled
and many cautions to be attended to before its use becomes of
any value as a test of orthodoxy. It may be rightly used, and
it may be rightly forborne. Next (b) éμolovotov is shewn to be
ὁμοιούσιον
similarly capable of a right and a wrong use. The former is
partly equivalent to oμoovolov, for complete likeness un-
doubtedly implies equality, and indeed is based on it. What
the word fails to express is the numerical unity and as it were
organic cohesion of the divine nature.
Lastly he turns to the Semiarians themselves with warm
praise for their noble resistance at Ancyra to the Anomean
outbreak. It was as a light in the darkness, and gave a good
166
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
hope of recovering the true faith. After running over some of
the absurdities of the Sirmian manifesto, "which Valens and
Ursacius are old enough to comprehend," he examines the Semi-
arian objections to the word ouoovσtov. Sabellius and Paul of
ὁμοούσιον.
Samosata are no doubt heretics; but if things are to be rejected
merely for their abuse, we shall need a penknife to criticize the
Gospels¹. A third argument, that the word is not found in
Scripture, is really surprising, for it will bear hard on their own
óμolovσlov. If it was condemned at Antioch by eighty bishops,
ὁμοιούσιον.
it was sanctioned at Nicea by the holy number of three hundred
and eighteen. The conservatives are not Arians, but they will
be counted for Arians as long as they refuse the Nicene watch-
word. Their own ópotovotov is just as dangerous a word to use
alone, and is moreover defective and ambiguous. The missing
anathemas of Ancyra he is willing to believe were removed in
order to avoid offence: but in that case care must be taken that
they did not reappear. The rival watchwords were identical if
rightly used; for there is no likeness but that of unity, and no
use in the idea of likeness except to exclude Sabellian confusion.
Only the one word guards against evasion and the other does
not. It was therefore time frankly to accept the unequivocal
one; and then they could all consult in common on the faith.
Meanwhile the intriguers were busy at the court. In order
to complete the subjection of the councils, it was decided to
compose a creed before their meeting and lay it before them for
acceptance. The "dated creed" or fourth of Sirmium was
drawn up in Latin2 on Pentecost Eve, May 22, 359, by Mark of
Arethusa, on behalf of a convention of Acacian and Semiarian
leaders held before the emperor. The only various reading
of importance concerns the words κаτà Táνra in the last clause.
They do not appear in the revisions of the dated creed at Nicé
3
1 Here (c. 85) he gives a most inter-
esting collection of Scripture difficulties.
2 Socr., Soz. The silence of Atha-
nasius is of no weight here.
3 On the Semiarian side we can
name Basil and Mark, Hypatianus of
Heraclea, and (if present) George of
Laodicea. That Hypatianus was on
this side may be presumed from his
mission to Valentinian in Soz. vi. 7:
K
also by his deposition (Hist. Aceph. § 9,
p. 157) in company with Seleucius
(Eleusius?) and Macedonius.
On the Acacian side were George
of Alexandria, Pancratius of Pelusium
(signs at Seleucia too, Epiph. Hær. 73,
26) and οἱ πλεῖστοι ἐπίσκοποι τῆς δύσεως,
(Epiph.), meaning Ursacius, Valens,
Germinius and a few more.
v.]
THE DATED CREED.
167
and Constantinople'; and a few years later Valens and Ursacius.
denied their existence in the original document at Sirmium.
Their presence however is proved by the minute of Basil and
George, and by the direct testimony of Germinius 2.
3
Its language is upon the whole conservative. If a few of its
expressions indicate the inferiority of the Son, they do not pass
the bounds of conservative comprehension. It has been already
noticed that nearly every phrase not found in the Lucianic
creed has close parallels in the work of Cyril. Western in-
fuence may have contributed to the insertion of εἰς τὰ κατα-
χθόνια κατελθόντα, a clause on which stress was laid in the
West in order clearly to state the truth of our Lord's death, but
which is found in no other Eastern creed but those of Nicé and
Constantinople. It disappears even from that of Seleucia.
the prevailing character of the dated creed is conservative,
as we see from its repeated appeals to Scripture, its solemn
tone of reverence for the Person of the Lord, its rejection of
ovola on the old conservative ground that it is not found in
Scripture, and above all from the unexampled emphasis it lays
on the mystery of the eternal generation. Surely no Anomoan
would have the impudence to sign ὅμοιον κατὰ πάντα. It
seemed as if the conservatives had won another victory.
But
So Valens also thought, when he attempted to omit karà
πáντа from his subscription. This however was too much for
Constantius, who forced (avayкάσavтos) him to restore the
clause. In order to guard against any evasion of its meaning,
Basil added to his own signature the strong words kaтà Távтa
1 At Seleucia the whole passage was
cast in a different form.
2 The correspondence is given by
Hilary Fragm. xiii.-xv. Ursacius and
Valens must have lied.
3 As τὸν μόνον καὶ ἀληθινὸν Θεὸν οἱ
the Father-νεύματι πατρικῷ κατὰ τὴν
πατρικὴν βούλησιν τῇ δόξῃ τῇ πατρικῇ
-all of them new in the conservative
series of creeds, though the first is
found in the Antiochene creed of
Cassian, and was used by Asterius and
defended by Eusebius.
On the other hand μόνον ἐκ μόνου
is shifted from its place in the Lucianic
creed and used to explain μovoyevŷ in
accordance with the new views of
Eunomius, so that the Sirmian μovoyevî
μόνον ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ
corresponds to the Nicene μονογενῆ τού-
τεστιν ἐκ τῆς ουσίας τοῦ Πατρὸς θεὸν ἐκ
Θεοῦ. The clause is dropped at Selen-
cia, but reappears at Nicé and Constan-
tinople.
Supra, p. 132.
5 Its language on this subject seems
suggested by C. Ancyra, Can. 15, with
possibly a less direct allusion to Cyril,
Cat. vii. 5. Compare also Eusebius c.
Marc. i. 12 p. 71.
Epiphanius (or possibly Basil)
Hær. 73, 22.
168
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
δὲ οὐ μόνον κατὰ τὴν βούλησιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν ὑπόστασιν καὶ
κατὰ τὴν ὕπαρξιν καὶ κατὰ τὸ εἶναι. In this form the document
was given to Valens to be read before the Western council.
ป
In order to remove all ambiguity, Basil and George of
Laodicea¹ issued a minute' of their own on the subject. "The
word ouola," they say, "is not found in Scripture, but is every-
where implied, as for example in the sacred name ó v. It was
also used by the Fathers against Paul of Samosata to shew that
the Son has a separate personal existence³, and is not a mere pîµa
or ἐνέργεια λεκτική. The new heresy confesses his likeness to
the Father in will and operation only, and maintains him to be
in himself (avròs) unlike God, being a mere creature differing
from others only in that he is the immediate instrument
of their creation. We catholics however have learned from
Scripture that the Father and the Son are like each other except
as regards the incarnation, which does not affect the deity, for
ἀγεννησία is not its essence. The heretics at Sirmium thought
they could advance their views by getting rid of ovoía; but
they have gained nothing, for ouоlоv Kатà Távта includes every-
thing, if only it be honestly accepted. Neither let the Westerns
be troubled by our Eastern use of vπоσтáσes to denote not
three first principles (apxás), but the permanence and reality of
the Personal distinctions (τὰς ἰδιότητας τῶν προσώπων ὑφεστώ
σας καὶ ὑπαρχούσας), which does not controvert either the
unity or the distinct personality (τέλειον ἐκ τελείου) implied in
the Lord's Baptismal Formula. As his coming 'in the likeness'
of flesh of sin does not destroy his humanity, so neither does his
'likeness' to the Father negative his deity. As he assumed true
human flesh, differing from men only in his miraculous birth
and sinless action, so also he is true divine spirit, differing from
the Father only in his ineffable generation and ministerial
working. Their favourite word tò ayévvnтov is not found in
1 He is nowhere mentioned as pre-
sent at the conference, but may have
been one of the unnamed bishops (Epiph.
supra). George of Alexandria was there
but he belonged to the other party.
2 It is given by Epiphanius IIær. 72,
c. 12—22, and was formerly supposed
to be his own work. Its true authorship
π
was determined by Petavius ad loc.
Baur Dreieinigkeit i. 487 has strangely
overlooked this, quoting it as "Epipha-
nius," and complaining of seine ver-
worrene Polemik gegen die Semiurianer.
3 Their words are ουσίᾳ καὶ ὑπο-
στάσει θεόν. Notice the reference to the
old enemy Paul of Samosata.
v.]
THE MINUTE OF BASIL AND GEORGE.
169
Scripture any more than ovcía, for his proper relation to the
Son is denoted by Father', and the two words are strictly
correlative. It was they who introduced the word ovoía
in order to say ἀνόμοιον κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ; but if they wish to drop
it, we shall be content, provided they are willing to accept oμolov
Kaтà πáνта in the inclusive sense required to constitute a
genuine sonship."
The Nicene exiles might well hail Basil's manifesto with de-
light, for it was a surrender at discretion. The stubborn fight
of thirty years had collapsed in a moment. So completely was
the old conservative position given up, that even the Lucianic
τέλειον ἐκ τελείου was turned round against the common enemy.
Basil had not only borrowed Nicene arguments in all directions,
but shewn that even he could do nothing without them. His
rejection of the Arian use of ȧyévvntov implied a revision of the
very idea of deity. His defence of the word ovoía in spite of
its absence from Scripture gave up the right to object on that
ground to ouoovσiov. Even his abandonment of it served the
Nicene cause by bringing forward with clear emphasis the
common doctrine of the strict and primary sense of the divine
Sonship, and reducing the difference to the question whether ex
Tĥs ovoías would guard it any better than the equally non-
scriptural ὅμοιον κατὰ πάντα. Athanasius need not have gone
back to the Lucianic οὐσίας ἀπαράλλακτον εἰκόνα to shew the
inconsistency of the conservative objection to oμoovσɩov as foreign
to the letter of Scripture.
3
ὁμοούσιον.
The dated creed seemed conservative enough; but the
Anomoans soon found plenty of loopholes in it. For example,
the careful reference to Scripture might be taken as limiting
KATÀ TÁVTA, SO as merely to forbid any extension of the likeness
beyond what Scripture allows. Again it might be said, as by
the Arian at Seleucia", "like the Father if you will, but not
like God, for no creature can be." But the chief evasion was
that by the force of language öµоlov катà пávта cannot refer
1 So Athanasius de Decr. 31 p. 186;
Or. i. 34 p. 345.
2 Hilary, c. Ctium, 17-22.
3 Ath. de Syn. 36, p. 600.
Hilary c. Ctium 14. It was the
old argument of Arius himself, as
given by Ath. Or. i. 6 p. 323 kai
πάντων ξένων καὶ ἀνομοίων ὄντων του
Θεοῦ κατ᾿ οὐσίαν, οὕτω καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἀλλό-
τριος καὶ ἀνόμοιος, κ. τ.λ.
170
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
to essence, for all likeness which is not identity implies differ-
ence, if the comparison is only pushed far enough. Here, at
any rate, as Athanasius points out', the Anomoans had sound
logic on their side, so that they were fully justified in their
acceptance of the Sirmian formula.
The Semiarian leaders had ruined their position. By con-
senting to treat with the Anomoans, they lowered the contest
to a mere court intrigue, in which the victory was sure to rest
with the least scrupulous competitor. There is grandeur in the
flight of Athanasius, and dignity in the exile of Eunomius; but
the conservatives fell ignobly and unregretted, the victims of
their own violence and unprincipled intrigue.
The conference broke up, and Ursacius and Valens proceeded
to Ariminum. With them they took the new creed, and also
the emperor's letter, which directed that doctrinal questions
were to be settled first, and that the bishops were not to meddle
with Eastern affairs.
Ursacius and Valens found the Westerns waiting² for them,
to the number of more than two hundred³. They were in no
courtly temper, and it was already clear that the intimidation.
would prove no easy task. They had even refused the usual
imperial help for the expenses of their journey. The new creed
was very ill received; and when the Homoean leaders refused
to anathematize Arianism, they were deposed (July 21) "as well
for their present conspiracy to introduce heresy as for the con-
fusion they had caused in all the churches by their repeated
changes of faith." Ursacius and Valens would appreciate the
last clause. The Nicene definition was next confirmed, and a
1 Ath. de Syn. 53, p. 612.
2 Somewhere between Oct. 10 and
Dec. 31, Taurus says jam septimum
mensem (Sulp. Sev. Hist. ii. 44). We
need not suppose that they had all
been there since April.
3 Athanasius de Syn. 8 p. 576, 33
p. 598 says "more than 400;" but ad
Afros 3 p. 713 he reckons a Nicene
majority of about 200. Damasus Ep.
ap. Thdt. ii. 22 implies a larger council
than that of Nicma. Auxentius ap. Hil.
ctra Aux. 13 says 600; but it was his
interest to exaggerate. Sulpicius Seve-
rus Chron. ii. 41 counts rather more
than 400" in all; but his minority of
80 Arians is quite incredible. The Arian
Maximin ap. Aug. vii. 1001 claims only
330, while Julian of Eclanum ap. Aug.
Opus imperf. i 75 seems to imply 650.
Most of these numbers must be exag-
gerated, especially if the plan was carried
out of summoning only one or two
bishops from each province of Gaul.
Hil. de Syn. 8.
4 Three British bishops accepted it
on the ground of poverty, but only in
order that they might not be burdensome
to the rest.
v.]
COUNCIL OF ARIMINUM.
171
statement added to defend the use of ovoia and anathematize
the doctrines of Arius. This done, envoys were sent to report at
court and ask the emperor to dismiss them to their dioceses,
from which they could ill be spared. The Homœans also sent
a deputation in their own behalf. Meanwhile the bishops at
Ariminum occupied themselves with questions of clerical privi-
lege, vainly endeavouring to obtain exemption from the crushing
land-tax which Constantius had imposed on the exhausted
Gaulish provinces¹.
The emperor's presence was urgently needed in Syria, for
the Persians had broken out afresh in 358, and Sapor's host
was now besieging Amida. He seems to have left Sirmium
in June', but other cares detained him through the winter at
Constantinople. The fall of Amida in October was the greatest
disaster which the Empire had met with on the Euphrates
since Valerian's time; but it was not before the spring of 360
that Constantius took the field in Syria.
The emperor "was busy with his preparations," and refused
to see the envoys of the council. They were sent to wait
his leisure, first at Hadrianople, then at the neighbouring town
of Nicé, where Ursacius and Valens induced them to sign
(Oct. 10) a revised translation of the dated creed. We are told³
that Nicé was chosen in order to cause confusion with Nicæa.
The changes made were not extensive. The unlucky date was
omitted, the clauses on the eternal generation much shortened,
those on the Holy Spirit extended, vπóστaσis forbidden as well
1 This is not mentioned by the
historians, but comes out incidentally
in C. Th. xvi. 2, 15, where Constantius
replies by abolishing the exemption
from the parangariæ granted in 353.
Some idea of the taxation may be
formed from the statement of Ammia-
nus xvi. 5, 14, that Julian found a
poll-tax (if this was its nature) of
twenty-five aurei to the caput, and re-
duced it to seven.
2 Ammianus xix. 11, 17 seems to
say that Constantius left Sirmium on
the news of the fall of Amida, which
would be late in October. But we
find him at Singidunum June 18, and
he may have gone on to Constantinople.
It is also more natural to suppose (a)
that the deputies nearing the capital
in August were ordered to halt at Ha-
drianople, than (b) that they were re-
fused an audience at Sirmium and
ordered right away to Hadrianople.
The one course would be evasive like
the emperor's letter, the other would
be needlessly discourteous, which the
emperor's letter is not.
3 Soer. ii. 37, Soz. iv. 19. It is a
hostile account; but Ursacius and
Valens were quite equal to the fraud.
It also explains why it was thought
worth while to remove the deputies
for so short a distance from Hadrian-
ople.
172
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
as οὐσία, κατὰ πάντα left out, and a few verbal changes made to
adapt the creed for Western use.
Meanwhile the Easterns assembled at Seleucia near the
Cilician coast, a fairly central place, and accessible enough from
Egypt and Syria by sea, but otherwise most unsuitable for such
a meeting. It was a mere fortress, not lying in the level plain
of Tarsus, but in the rugged country further west, where the
spurs of Mount Taurus reach the sea; and the inland road from
Laranda was infested by the ever-restless marauders of Isauria.
They had attacked Seleucia itself that spring, and it was still
the head-quarters of the count Lauricius, who had been sent
against them. Tarsus would have been every way a better
meeting-place; and the access to it was safe, for the Isaurians
do not seem this time to have reached the eastern pass from
Tyana through the Cilician Gates. However, the court party'
preferred to have plenty of troops at hand.
To this wild mountain fortress only 150 or 160 bishops.
came—a small fraction of the eastern episcopate. Of these about
110 were conservatives, or Semiarians as we must henceforth
call them; and there may have been a few Nicenes from
Egypt. The Acacians and Anomoans were about forty, and a
good many of these were mere intruders. But they had a
clear policy, and the court in their favour, while the Semiarian
chiefs had put themselves in a false position by signing the
dated creed, so that the conservative defence had to be left to
leaders of the second rank like Silvanus of Tarsus, Eleusius of
Cyzicus and Sophronius of Pompeiopolis. With them how-
ever came a greater than any of the Semiarians, for Hilary of
Poitiers had somehow received orders to attend the council with
the rest. He found there "as many blasphemers as it pleased
1 Philost. iv. 11, names Eudoxius
and Aetius.
2 On the Isaurians, Finlay i. 199,
Reinkens Hilarius 185-188, and espe-
cially Sievers Studien 489-502. On
the passes of Mount Taurus, Lewin
Life of St Paul, i. 165.
The original authorities for the
Isaurian risings within our period are
as follows-(a) Rising in 353 and
destruction of Isaura, Ammianus xiv.
2, 1:8, 2. (b) Rising of 359, Ammia-
nus xix. 13, 1. (c) Rising of 368 and
defeat of Musonius the Vicarius Asiæ,
Ammianus xxvii. 9, 6, Eunapius p. 77,
Bonn. (d) Rising about 376, Zosimus,
iv. 20. Sievers p. 494 refers this to
(c); but it is fixed for a later date by
the mention of Valens at Antioch,
None of these risings seem to have
been so destructive as that of 405.
3 Note G. The Bishops at Seleucia.
v.]
COUNCIL OF SELEUCIA.
173
Constantius' to assemble; but the Semiarians welcomed him,
and he skilfully used his opportunity of cementing their new
alliance with the Nicenes. After clearing the Gaulish bishops
from the current charge of Sabellianism', he was received by the
majority to full communion-no doubt on Sunday, Sept. 26.
Next morning the first sitting was held, in the presence of
the counts Leonas and Lauricius. The emperor's uncertain
directions caused a good deal of trouble in settling the order of
proceedings; but in the end the Acacians carried their point,
that questions of faith should be taken first. They therefore
began by proposing the abolition of the Nicene definition in
favour of one to be drawn up in scriptural language. But the
courtiers impatiently threw off the restraints of consistency,
arguing in defiance of their own Sirmian creed, that "nothing
can be like the divine essence, and that generation is quite un-
worthy of the Father. The Lord is creature, not Son, and his
generation is nothing but creation." The Semiarians however
had no objection to the Nicene creed, beyond the obscurity of
the word ὁμοούσιον: the still more important ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ
Пarpòs they seem to have accepted without any scruples.
Towards evening Silvanus of Tarsus proposed to confirm the
Lucianic creed. The Acacians left the church by way of pro-
test. Next morning, when the Semiarians signed it with closed
doors, Acacius could only remind them that "deeds of darkness
were of no validity." On Wednesday Basil of Ancyra and
Macedonius of Constantinople arrived. The Acacians refused to
take their seats till the accused bishops had withdrawn; and
after much discussion this was agreed to. Leonas then read
before the council a document he had received from Acacius,
which proved to be a new creed. After some complaints of
Monday's violence, the Acacians say that they are far from
despising the Lucianic formula, though it was composed with
5
1 Hilary, c. Ctium, 12.
2 No doubt resting on the Western
use of μία ὑπόστασις.
3 Hilary, supra.
4 Ath. de Syn. 12, p. 580 S EK TŶS
ἀσαφείας ὕποπτον. We hear of no ob-
jection to it as not found in Scripture.
5 Supra p. 119. It was also rati-
6
fied at Lampsacus.
6 Cyril, Hilary and Eustathius for
certain perhaps also Basil and Mace-
donius.
Cyril's appeal is discussed by Couret
Palestine sous les Empereurs grecs 55.
He refers it to Cod. Just. vii. 62, 20,
issued by Constantius in 341.
174
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
reference to other controversies. The disputed words ὁμοούσιον
and ópolovσiov are next rejected as non-scriptural', and the
newly-invented ανόμοιον anathematized-“but we clearly confess
the likeness of the Son to the Father according to the apostle's
words, Who is the image of the invisible God." Then follows
the dated creed revised for Eastern acceptance. The eternal
generation is more shortly though still distinctly stated, the
descent into Hades left out, and many minor omissions made.
The most important further changes are the substitution of
σάρκα ανειληφέναι for γεννηθέντα, no doubt in a purely Arian
interest, and the insertion of φῶς, ζωήν, ἀλήθειαν, σοφίαν,
δύναμιν, after the fourth creed of Antioch, where we find λόγον
ὄντα καὶ σοφίαν καὶ δύναμιν καὶ φῶς ἀληθινόν. They finish
with a statement that the above creed is equivalent to that
lately put forth at Sirmium.
Next morning (Thursday, Oct. 1) Acacius defended himself
by arguing that the Nicene creed had often been altered before,
so that there was no reason why it should not be altered again
now. To this Eleusius could only reply that the faith of the
fathers had already been sufficiently set forth at Antioch. The
next step was to ask the court party how they reconciled the
likeness of the Son to the Father as laid down in their creed
with their declarations at the first session of his absolute unlike-
ness. Acacius answered that the likeness is only one of will,
and does not extend to essence. It was strange language from
the eager defender of the Lucianic creed against Marcellus;
1 The Nicene creed is however
treated with more respect than at
Sirmium and Nicé, by the omission of
the clause διὰ τὸ ἁπλούστερον ὑπὸ τῶν
πατέρων τεθεῖσθαι.
The expression is found elsewhere
only in the first creed of Antioch, and
perhaps (the reading is uncertain) in
the confession of Arius and Euzoius.
Other crceds keep inside the orthodox
circle of σαρκωθέντα, ἐνανθρωπήσαντα,
γεννηθέντα though (τό) κατὰ σάρκα is
added to the last in the creeds of Nicé
and Constantinople, and by Auxentius.
3 Even the fragments preserved by
Epiph.(Har.72,6-10) are clear enough.
Acacius explains ουσίας ἀπαράλλακτον
εἰκόνα by τὸ ἔκτυπον καὶ τρανὲς ἐκμαγεῖον
τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς οὐσίας......ἐκτυπῶς καὶ
ἀκριβῶς ὡμοιωμένην πρὸς πατρικὴν ἀγα
θύτητα καὶ θεότητα καὶ πᾶσαν ἐνέργειαν
οὐ γὰρ ἔξωθεν τὸ ἀξίωμα, εἰς οὐσίαν
δὲ αὐτῷ συντελεῖ, ὁμοίως πατρὶ γεννήσαν-
τι .....ουσίας εἰκόνα λέγομεν, οὐκ ἄψυχον
καὶ νεκράν, ἀλλ' οὐσιώδη ουσίας αὐτοου-
σίαν εἰκόνα...ουσίας οὖν κ.τ.λ. ἀπαράλο
λακτον λέγων 'Αστέριος εἰκόνα τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ
πατρός, πάντως οἱονεὶ τοὺς πατρικοὺς
χαρακτήρας ἐκεῖναι λέγει τῷ υἱῷ ἐν τῷ
εἶναι αὐτοῦ οἱ χαρακτηρές εἰσι, καὶ ἐν τοῖς
χαρακτήρσι τὸ εἶναι αὐτοῦ. Eudoxius
had also followed Asterius in holding
these views, according to Philost. iv. 4.
Acacius had also written (Soz. iv.
22) to Macedonius κατὰ πάντα ὅμοιον...
τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας.
v.]
ATHANASIUS DE SYNODIS.
175
but Acacius replied that "men were not to be judged by their
writings." So indeed it would seem. A stormy controversy
followed, in the course of which conservative horror was raised
to the utmost by an extract which was read from a sermon of
Eudoxius at Antioch'. At last Eleusius broke in with soldierly
bluntness on the sophistries of Acacius-"It is no concern
of ours if Mark or Basil have made agreements with you in holes
and corners, or whether it was you or they who broke them.
We need not even take the trouble to discuss your creed,
for whoso teaches any other than the Lucianic is an enemy of
the church."
Next morning Acacius and George refused to appear; and
when Leonas was sent for, he too declined to come. The
majority therefore assembled without them and deposed Acacius,
Eudoxius, George and six other contumacious Arians, at the
same time suspending nine more from communion. It is worth
notice that none of the eighteen came from Egypt except
George'. Leonas seems to have regarded the proceedings as
altogether irregular. "They might go and chatter in the
church if they pleased, but he was not sent to preside at
a council which could not agree."
could not agree." When however they
ventured to appoint the Antiochene presbyter Anianus in
the place of Eudoxius, the Homeans had him sent into
exile, so that we hear no more of him for the present.
The exiled patriarch of Alexandria was watching from his
refuge in the desert; and this was the time he chose for an
overture of friendship to his old conservative enemies. Though
Basil's manifesto had not reached his hiding-place, he knew its
purport and had full accounts of the hopeful opening of the
1 The fragment may be found in
Hilary c. Ctium 13: fortunately it
need not defile these pages.
It may
however have been read at the first
sitting.
Eudoxius is perhaps the worst of
the whole gang, adding his own pro-
fanity to the untruthfulness of the
others. His well-known jest at the
consecration of the great church at
Constantinople (Socr. ii. 43, Soz. iv. 26
ὁ Πατὴρ ἀσεβής, ὅτι οὐδένα σέβει· ὁ δὲ
Υἱὸς εὐσεβής, ὅτι σέβει τον Πατέρα) is
authenticated as to doctrine by the
peculiar turn of his own confession
(ap. Caspari Alte u. neue Quellen p.
179 εἰς ἕνα, τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ
πατέρα, τὴν μόνην φύσιν αγέννητον καὶ
ἀπάτορα, ὅτι μηδένα σέβειν πέφυκεν
ὡς ἐπαναβεβηκυία καὶ εἰς ένα κύριον τὸν
υἱόν, εὐσεβὴ ἐκ τοῦ σέβειν τὸν πατέρα
and with regard to irreverence by other
cases, like his profane use of 1 Cor. ix.
3 (Philost. vi. 1), and the obscene ser-
mon at Antioch.
2 Supra, p. 30 n.
176
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
councils. If he was slow to see his opportunity, at least he used
it nobly. The Eastern church has no more honoured name
than that of Athanasius; yet even Athanasius rises above him-
self in his de Synodis. He had been a champion of controversy
since his youth, and spent his manhood in the forefront of its
hottest battle. The care of many churches rested on him, the
pertinacity of many enemies wore out his life. Twice he had
been driven from his see and twice come back in triumph, and
now far on in life he saw his work again destroyed, himself once
more a fugitive. We do not look for calm impartiality in a
Demosthenes or a Mazzini, and cannot wonder if even Athanasius
grows more and more bitter and unjust to the authors of his
exile. Yet no sooner is he cheered with the news of hope than
the importunate jealousies of forty years are hushed in a
moment, as though the Lord had spoken peace to the tumult
of the grey old exile's troubled soul. To the impenitent Arians
he is the same as ever, but for old enemies returning to a
better mind he has nothing but brotherly consideration and
respectful sympathy.
The de Synodis¹ begins with an exposure of court intrigues.
There was no good reason for holding a council at all, much less
for suddenly dividing it into two. All that the schemers cared
for was to upset the condemnation of their own heresies at
Nicæa. Next he quotes the dated creed and holds it up to
ridicule, adding an account of its ignominious rejection by both
councils in their earlier sittings. After this he reviews eleven
successive Arian documents in chronological order, from the
Thalia of Arius as far as the creed of Seleucia'. He is not how-
ever selecting documents like Hilary to shew the real drift of
opinion in the East, but merely throwing them together as a
satire on Arian vacillation, and commenting on them like an old
disputer who knows the early history of the controversy much
better than its later phases. Next he discusses the current
objections to the Nicene doctrine.
1 Only a short account is needed
here of the de Synodis. Bright Hist.
Treatises, lxxix-xcvi, has given an
excellent analysis of it.
2 In a postscript (c. 30, 31), inserted
some years later, he adds to the series
the Homoan creeds of Nicé and Con-
stantinople, and alludes to an Anomoan
formula put forth at Antioch.
v.]
ours.
ATHANASIUS DE SYNODIS.
177
Passing over his reply to the Homœans (c. 33-40), we have
to note his treatment of the Semiarians who accepted the Nicene
anathemas and the decisive è Tŷs ovcías, and doubted only of
the word oμoovotov. Men like Basil of Ancyra are not to be set
down as Arians or treated as enemies, but to be reasoned with
as brethren who differ from us only about the use of a word
which will be found to sum up their own teaching as well as
When they confess that the Lord is a true Son of God
and not a creature, they grant all that we care to contend for.
Their own ὁμοιούσιον without the addition of ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας does
not effectually exclude the idea of a creature; but the two
together are precisely equivalent to oμoovσiov. And if they
accept our doctrine, they cannot in consistency refuse the word
which best expresses it. Do they fear that the term subjects
the divine generation to human conditions? Basil himself has
not hesitated to compare the divine relation with the human.
He has pointed out the limits of the illustration; and if the
metaphor of Sonship still suggests any materializing views, it
must be checked by the complementary metaphors of the Word
and the Wisdom. Our brethren mean just what we mean: do
they hesitate because the word sanctioned at Nicea had been
condemned before at Antioch in 269? Well, the Dionysii were
still earlier. But let that pass: they were all fathers and all
fell asleep in Christ, so we must not make them contradict each
other. The fathers at Antioch set aside the word because Paul
of Samosata threatened a materializing inference from it,
whereas those of Nicea adopted it in order to condemn the
Arian denial of the Sonship. We however are not bound by
Paul's sophistries; though even in that case, we may fairly
contend that if two essences are derived from a prior essence,
each of them is necessarily co-essential with its parent. Neither
does the word imply any dualism; for here again it is checked
by the metaphors of the Logos and Wisdom. The Semiarian
óμοιοúσιov is moreover misleading, for likeness and unlikeness
refer to properties and qualities', and not to essence. The
word therefore rather suggests than excludes the idea of a
1 For the same reason Basil Ep. 8. § 63 rejects both, preferring κar
οὐσίαν Θεός.
G,
12
178
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL IIISTORY.
Sonship which means no more than a share of grace; whereas
our óμoovσiov shuts it out effectually. Sooner or later they
will see their way to accept a term which is after all no more
than a necessary safeguard of the belief they hold in common
with ourselves.
Athanasius wrote at a crisis when affairs seemed more
hopeful than they really were. The councils had both refused
the dated creed, but the Homoan intriguers had not exhausted
their resources. The Western deputies were sent back to
Ariminum; and the bishops, already reduced to great distress
by their continued detention, were plied with threats and
cajolery till most of them yielded. Phœbadius and a score
of others remained firm, and their resistance had to be
overcome by a piece of villany almost without a parallel
in history. Valens came forward and declared that he was
not one of the Arians, but detested their blasphemies from
the bottom of his heart. There need be no objection to
the creed as it stood, especially as (so he said) the Easterns
had accepted it already. However, if any of them were not
satisfied, they were welcome to propose additions. Phœbadius.
accordingly drew up a stringent series of anathemas against
Arius and all his misbelief, Valens himself contributing one
against "those who say that the Son of God is a creature
like other creatures." The court party accepted everything, and
the council assembled for a final reading of the amended creed.
Shout after shout of joy rang through the church as Valens
protested that the heresies were none of his, and with his own
lips pronounced the whole series of anathemas. And when
Claudius of Picenum produced a few more rumours of heresy
against him “which my lord and brother Valens has forgotten,"
they were disavowed with equal readiness. The hearts of all
men melted towards the veteran dissembler, and the bishops
dispersed in the full belief that the council of Ariminum would
take its place in history among the bulwarks of the faith'.
1 The above account is fully given
only by Jerome adv. Lucif. p. 189, who
appeals to the records of the churches
and the notoriety of the events. Не
is not the most accurate of historians;
but in this case his narrative is con-
firmed by Sulpicius Severus Chron. ii.
44, and by the allusions of Hilary
Fragm. x. to the anathemas of Phœba-
dius, for it is only in them that we
v.]
SEQUEL OF THE COUNCILS.
179
The Western council was dissolved in seeming harmony, but
a strong minority disputed the conclusions of the Easterns at
Seleucia. Both parties therefore hurried to Constantinople to
decide the strife. But there Acacius was in his element. He held
a splendid position as the bishop of a venerated church, the disciple
and successor of Eusebius, and himself a patron of learning
and a writer of high repute. His fine gifts of subtle thought
and ready energy, his commanding influence and skilful policy,
marked him out for a glorious work in history, and nothing
but his own falseness degraded him to be the greatest living
master of backstairs intrigue. If Athanasius is the Demos-
thenes of the Nicene age, Acacius will be its Eschines.
He had found his account in abandoning conservatism for
pure Arianism, and was now preparing to complete his victory
by a new treachery to the Anomoans.
If Basil and Eustathius were to be overthrown, the
prohibition of óμolovσiov would have to be enforced but
since Constantius objected to the Anomoans, nothing could
be done without also disavowing àvópotov. The Homoeans had
denounced it at Seleucia, and repeated their rejection of it
at Constantinople, sacrificing Aetius also to prove their sincerity.
After this it became possible to expel the obstinate defenders of
ὁμοιούσιον.
Meanwhile the final report arrived from the council of
Ariminum. Valens at once interpreted the anathemas of
Phœbadius in an Arian sense. "Not a creature like other
creatures."
"Not from nothing." Quite
Then creature he is.
find the clauses non esse creatum velut
cæteras facturas, de nullis exstantibus
sed ex Deo, and æternum cum Patre.
The silence of other writers is of less
consequence on so unpleasant a subject.
Hilary ctra Auxentium 8 dismisses it
with de Ariminensi synodo, que ab
omnibus est religiose dissoluta, nihil
dicamus: tantum diaboli commenta pan-
denda sunt.
As the words velut cæteras facturas
are wanting in the anathemas of the
council as given by Hilary Fragm. vii,
we have the alternative of supposing
them a fraudulent insertion of Valens.
This is no unlikely charge against the
man who fraudulently omitted karà
Táνтα from the dated creed. Nor does
Jerome's account of Claudius of Picenum
give us the idea that he was one of the
homines adulescentes, parum docti et
parum cauti (Sulp. Sev.), the plumbei
animi (Aug.) who could not be expected
to recognize the old evasion κτίσμα τοῦ
Θεοῦ τέλειον, ἀλλ' οὐχ ὡς ἐν τῶν κτισμάτ
των.
I have not thought it necessary to
work through the controversies con-
nected with the name of Gregorius
Baeticus. They are summed up in Mr
Daniel's article on him in the Diet.
Chr. Biogr.
12-2
180
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
so: from the will of the Father, not from his essence. "Eternal.”
Of course, as regards the future. However, the Homœans
repeated the process of swearing that they were not Arians, the
emperor was threatening, and at last the Seleucian deputies.
signed the decisions of Ariminum late on the
on the night of
Dec. 31, 359.
Acacian policy had triumphed, and a single decisive ma-
nœuvre was needed to complete the victory. As the dedication
of Constantine's great church was approaching, the bishops
mostly stayed for the occasion. But first (Jan. 360) a council
was held. As the Semiarians of the Hellespont prudently
declined to attend it', the Homoans were completely dominant.
Only seventy-two bishops were present. Its first care was to
reissue the creed of Nicé, of course omitting the anathemas of
Phœbadius, which had served their purpose. We find as many
as twenty-nine variations from its original text, but they are
mostly verbal, sometimes improving the sense but upon the
whole shewing no clear doctrinal aim. Only a few of them are
borrowed from the creed of Seleucia.
The next step was to degrade and anathematize Aetius for
his impious and heretical writings, and as "the author of all the
scandals, troubles and divisions." This was needed to satisfy
Constantius; but nothing more clearly shews the Anomaan
leanings of the council than the fact that as many as nine³
1 Soz. iv. 24.
2 Socrates and Sozomen speak of
fifty. The number in the text is from the
Chronicon Paschale, where a list of
fifty-four bishops is given, but without
their sees. Among these we may safely
identify most of the Eastern Acacians,
including Maris of Chalcedon, Theodore
of Heraclea, Demophilus of Berea, and
George (of Laodicea,-the Alexandrian
George was not present, Theodoret ii.
28), besides some twenty who had sign-
ed at Seleucia. To these we may add
Theophilus of Libya (Theodoret ii. 28,
Philost. vii. 6), Ulphilas the Goth (Soz.
iv. 24), Euippius from Galatia (Basil
Ep. 251), and most likely a few of the
Westerns. Saturninus of Arles was in
the city (Hilary ad Ctium ii. 2) about
this time, and we may presume that
Valens and Ursacius would be shrewd
enough not to miss so important a
meeting. The account in the Chronicon
Paschale is mostly concerned with the
dedication of the great church, and
therefore only mentions the deposition
of Macedonius. Of the Anomœan
schism nothing is said, though the
list seems to include five of the mal-
contents.
3 Sozomen iv. 25 carelessly relates
the story as if the depositions objected
to were those of the Semiarians. For-
tunately Theodoret ii. 28 has preserved
the letter in which the council notifies
to George of Alexandria (then perhaps
at Antioch-his movements are traced
by Sievers Einl. § 25) its decision with
regard to the four Egyptians, Seras,
Stephen, Heliodorus and Theophilus.
To these we may add from Philostor-
gius vii.6 Leontius and Theodulus, viii. 4
l'hoebus, viii. 3 Theodosius (? of Phila-
delphia).
v.]
THE HOMEAN SUPREMACY.
181
bishops were found to protest against it. They were allowed
six months to reconsider the matter, and soon began to form
communities of their own.
Having cleared themselves from the charge of heresy by
laying the foundation of a permanent schism, the Homoeans
were able to undertake the expulsion of the Semiarian leaders.
As men who had signed the creed of Nicé could not well be
accused of heresy, they were deposed for various irregularities.
Macedonius, Basil, Eleusius, Eustathius, Cyril, Sophronius,
Silvanus and three others were displaced'. Mark of Arethusa is
not mentioned; and George of Laodicea had gone over in good
time to the winning side, and is next found forcing the creed of
Nicé on Dianius of Cæsarea.
The Homoean supremacy established at Constantinople was.
limited to the East. Violence was its only hope beyond the
Alps; and violence was out of the question after the mutiny at
Paris. Now that Julian was free to act for himself, common
sense as well as inclination forbade him to continue the mis-
chievous policy of Constantius. It must have been almost under
the protection of his army that the Gaulish bishops met at Paris
to ratify the Nicene faith and excommunicate the Western
Arians. After this there was no further question of Arian
domination. Very few bishops were committed to the losing
side, and those few soon disappeared in the course of nature.
Auxentius the Cappadocian, who held the see of Milan till his
death in 374, must have been one of the last survivors of the
victors of Ariminum.
3
But in the East the Homoean supremacy lasted for nearly
twenty years. It was interrupted for a short time by Julian
and Jovian, but Eudoxius and Demophilus maintained it through-
1 Some of these however were not
removed till a later synod. On the
depositions at Constantinople there is
an invective in Basil c. Eunom. i. p. 210.
2 Their letter to the Easterns is
given by Hilary Fragm. 11. They
specially complain of the fraus diaboli
which had divided the council and
falsely used the authority of the
Easterns to secure the rejection of
ovola by the deputies of Ariminum.
Broglie iv. 93 dates the council in
361, and points out that it was part of
Julian's conciliatory policy to allow it.
See Reinkens Hilarius 246–251.
3 We hear only of Saturninus of
Arles and Paternus of Petrocorii.
Epictetus of Centumcelle was with Con-
stantius, if we read with Petavius in
Julian ad Ath. 286 Kerтovukɛ\\ŵr for
τινὰ τῶν Γαλλιών. Sulpicius Severus
Chron. ii. 41 brings no less than eighty
Arians to Ariminum: but this must
be a gross exaggeration.
182
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
out the reign of Valens. It seems at first sight a purely
artificial power, resting partly on court intrigues, and partly
on the divisions of its enemies. Upon the whole this may be
the fact: yet even the Homoans had some support for their
long dominion. Eusebian conservatism was fairly worn out, but
the Nicene doctrine had not yet replaced it. Men were tired of
the philosophical word-battles', and ready to ask whether the
difference between Nicé and Nica was worth fighting about.
The Homan formula seemed reverent and safe, and its bitterest
enemies hardly ventured to dispute its abstract truth. When
even the court preached peace and charity, the sermon was not
likely to want an audience.
The Homoans were at first less hostile to the Nicene faith
than the Eusebians had been. After casting off the Anomoans
and declaring war on the Semiarians, they were obliged to bid
for Nicene support. In this they succeeded quite as well as
they deserved; for they had a creed worthy of better men than
Valens or Eudoxius. Thus the appointments of Acacius, as
Philostorgius complains, were mostly Nicene, like those of
Athanasius at Ancyra and of the ascetic Pelagius at Laodicea.
Some will draw another inference from the enthronement of
Eudoxius at Constantinople and the consecration of Eunomius
the Anomoan in the see of Cyzicus: but these appointments
would seem to represent a different section of the Homoan party.
The most important nomination directly ascribed to Acacius
is that of Meletius at Antioch. The election was a stormy one,
for party quarrels were raging with increased fury after their
long repression by Leontius. The new bishop was a man of
distinguished eloquence and undoubted piety, and further suited
for a dangerous elevation by his peaceful temper and winning
manners. He was counted among the Homœans³, and they had
1 Their weariness of controversy
finds expression in the writings of
Cyril, and remarkably in the de fide
adv. Sabellium ii. (p. 1070 of Migne's
Eusebius vi)-a work against Marcel-
lus ascribed by Thilo Ueber die Schriften
des Eus. von Alexandrien u. Eus. von
Emisa 64 to Eusebius of Emesa.
2 Philost. v. 1. He adds the names
of Onesimus of Nicomedia and Acacius
of Tarsus, but we do not find them
elsewhere. Zahn Marcellus 89 has a
theory that Ancyra was divided into
three parties like Antioch, Athanasius
being the Nicene bishop, Basil the
Semiarian, and the Arian unknown.
In this case Marcellus ought to be a
fourth.
3 Philost. v. 1 τὸ ἑτεροούσιον ὑπεκρί-
VETO: but we need not believe this.
v.]
MELETIUS OF ANTIOCH.
183
chosen him a year before to replace Eustathius at Sebastia in
Armenia; and his uncanonical translation to the apostolic see of
Antioch engaged him all the more to remain on friendly terms with
them'. Such a man-and no doubt Acacius was shrewd enough
to see it would have been a tower of strength to them. Unfor-
tunately for once, Acacius was not all-powerful. Somebody
put Constantius on demanding from the new bishop a sermon on
the crucial passage-Prov. viii. 22, κύριος ἔκτισέ με, κ.τ.λ.
Acacius might evade the test, but Meletius as a man of honour
could not refuse to declare himself, especially when George of
Laodicea had just openly preached Arianism. To the delight
of the populace, the sermon proved decidedly Nicene. It was
a test for his hearers as well as for himself. It carefully avoided
technical terms, repudiated Marcellus, and repeatedly depre-
cated controversy on the ineffable mystery of the divine gene-
ration. It closely followed the lines of the Sirmian creed, and
the reception given to it by the Homeaus is a decisive proof of
their insincerity.
The people applauded, but the courtiers were covered with
shame. There was nothing for it but to exile Meletius at once
and proceed to a fresh election. This time they made sure of
their man by choosing Euzoius the old companion of Arius.
But the mischief was already done. The old congregation of
Leontius was broken up, and a new schism more dangerous
than the Eustathian formed round Meletius. Many jealousies
still divided him from the Nicenes, but his bold confession
1 Its inconsistency was flagrant, for
the Homeans had deposed Dracontius
of Pergamus a year before on the ground
that he had formerly held a see in
Galatia.
2 As the nomination of Meletius is
ascribed to Acacius by Epiphanius,
Jerome and Philostorgius, we may pre-
sume that his sudden removal was the
work of another party. Acacius must
have been more or less aware of his lean-
ings before the election, and is found on
friendly terms with him for some years
after his expulsion, whch we may there-
fore ascribe to Homoan divisions rather
than to the duplicity of Acacius.
3 The expression of Theodoret ii.
31 τὴν αἱρετικὴν ἐξήμεσε δυσοσμίαν is
more abusive than definite, but this
may be its meaning. If so, it was the
last of the long series of George's
misdeeds. He was succeeded within a
few months by Pelagius.
It is preserved by Epiphanius
Hær. 73, 29-33.
5. A few of its leading phrases may be
noted here. We have deòs èk Dɛoû, els
θεός Θεοῦ,
ἐξ ἑνός, ἐξ ἀγεννήτου μονογενής, ἐξαίρετον
γέννημα του γεγεννηκότος. . . γέννημα
τέλειόν τε καὶ μένον...ἀπαθὼς καὶ ὁλοκλή
ρως προελθόν. οὐδὲ κίνησις τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ
καὶ ἐνέργεια (against Marcellus) ... διὰ μὲν
τοῦ ἔκτισε τὸ ἐνυπόστατον καὶ μόνιμον,
διὰ δὲ τοῦ ἐγέννησε τὸ ἐξαίρετον τοῦ μονο-
γενοῦς καὶ ἰδιάζον παριστᾷ.
184
[CH. V.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
proved to be the first effective blow at the Homœan supre-
macy.
The idea of conciliating Nicene support was not entirely
given up. Acacius remained on friendly terms with Meletius,
and was still able to name Pelagius for the see of Laodicea.
But Euzoius was an avowed Arian, Eudoxius differed little
from him, and only the remaining scruples of Constantius
delayed the final victory of Anomoan Arianism.
NOTE E.
DATE OF THE COUNCIL OF GANGRA.
Socrates ii. 43 and Sozomen iii. 14, iv. 24 are fully agreed that
the Eustathius whose followers were condemned by the council of
Gangra was no other than the well-known Semiarian leader, the
ascetic bishop of Sebastia in Armenia. The identification has been
doubted by Baronius and others, but seems fully established by
Neander (E. Tr. iii. 346), and Benedictines in their life of Basil (p.
lviii. of Gaume's Basil).
On the date however of the Council the two historians differ
by more than twenty years. Socrates twice expressly puts it after
that of Constantinople in 360, while Sozomen seems to date it
before that of Antioch, meaning probably that of the Dedication in
341. In this case the evidence is in favour of the earlier date. Sozo-
men indeed seems everywhere much better acquainted with Semiarian
movements than Socrates.
Thirteen bishops met at Gangra under the presidency of a
Eusebius; but the sees not being given, we cannot identify a single
name with positive certainty. In the absence however of the usual
clause ἐκ διαφόρων ἐπαρχιών, found even at the small gathering of
Ancyra, we may take for granted that they all came from the great
Pontic diocese. If it be possible then let us assume with Tillemont
as a first hypothesis that Sozomen's date is the true one. In this
case we find a natural president for the Council in Eusebius of
Nicomedia. We also have Gregory, bishop of Nazianzus since 329
or (Montaut Quest. hist. 10) 334, and may perhaps identify Eulalius
with the bishop of Sebastia. Only ten Pontic bishops (including Maris
of Chalcedon) are distinctly named at Philippopolis; but adding two
or three more as a reasonable proportion of the fourteen signatures we
cannot trace, we get 12 or 13 for the total number present. Of these
186
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
we may reasonably identify Basil of Ancyra, Proæresius of Sinope,
Philetus of Juliopolis or of Cratia, Bithynicus of Zela, and perhaps
an unknown Eugenius. To these the admirers of legend might add
Hypatius of Gangra, on whom see Tillemont, Mém. vi 642. On the
other hand, "Bassus a Car" is more likely from Carrhæ in Osrhoene,
Eugenius of Eucarpia (signs at Nicæa) is just outside our limits, and
Olympius of Aenos was moreover at Sardica. Thus we get from six
to eight coincidences, of which three involve names (Proæresius,
Bithynicus, Philetus) which scarcely recur in the episcopate of
Christendom-at least I have not noticed them elsewhere in running
over the pages of Le Quien's Oriens Christianus.
The force of this argument is best seen by applying it to other
dates. Assuming then with the Ballerini as a second hypothesis
that Socrates is right, we get a natural president again in Eusebius
of Cæsarea Mazaca (362-370). We also have for comparison as
many as 250 names (repetitions included) connected with the councils
of Ancyra, Seleucia and Constantinople (360), the petitions to Jovian.
Socr. iii. 25, the letter of the Semiarians to Liberius Socr. iv. 12, and
(if we date it about 371) the encyclical to the Italians in Basil Ep.
92. Of these fully seventy must have come from Pontus. Yet the
only possible identifications are Eugenius of Nica, Eulalius of
Amasea, an unknown Bassus, and Gregory,-either Basil's uncle or
the bishop of Nazianzus. Only four or five coincidences, and these
far from cogent.
Next we have for consideration the tempting theory of Dr
Reynolds Dict. of Chr. Biogr. Art. Eusebius of Samosata. He dates
the council in the year 372 or 373, making Eusebius of Samosata its
president, and identifying amongst its members Basil of Caesarea,
with Hypatius (Ep. 31; hardly the Hypatius of Nicæa mentioned
by Philost. ix. 19, who was most likely a disciple of Aetius-Epiph.
Hær. 73, 38) "and others of his friends." But these others are not
easily traced. His brother Gregory (of Nyssa 372) may be one of
them; or his uncle Gregory, though the estrangement must have
been about this time: but the bishop of Nazianzus was now too
infirm to appear at Gangra. Bassus is also named next to Basil in
Ep. 92 (though the Benedictines prefer to identify him with Barses of
Edessa), and Olympius of Neocesarea in Bithynia signs at Constan-
tinople. On the other hand, Eugenius of Nicæa was dead in 370
(Philost. ix. 8), Eulalius of Amasea probably in exile, Eulalius of Doara
(Greg. Naz. Or. xii.) and Olympius of Pernasus not yet appointed. The
last signs at Constantinople, but in Basil's time (comparing Epp. 237,
v.]
NOTE E. THE COUNCIL OF GANGRA.
187
239) we find first Hypsis, then Ecdicius in possession of the see.
Thus we have four or five coincidences, but none of them very clear
-nothing like the triple knot of names at Philippopolis.
The next date proposed is 376, by Remi Ceillier, but the only
reasonable identifications are of Basil, Hypatius and Olympius.
Eusebius of Samosata, the two Eulalii, and Gregory of Nyssa were in
exile.
Comparing then the four dates proposed, which may be approxi-
mately given as 340 (Tillemont), 365 (the Ballerini), 372 (Reynolds),
and 376 (Ceillier), we find the evidence of names decidedly in
Tillemont's favour, though there is also a fair case for Dr Reynolds.
Ceillier's theory is almost hopeless. Now for wider considerations.
Dr Reynolds' theory seems to force the chronology. Basil be-
came bishop of Cæsarea in the autumn of 370, and was then
on good terms with Eustathius. The quarrel broke out later, and
must have lasted some time before the Council met. Eusebius
was exiled after this; and we have still to find room for the
episcopates of Eunomius and Lucius before the death of Athanasius
in May 373, when Euzoius installed Lucius of Samosata (Theodoret
iv. 21) at Alexandria.
We are not dependent on Theodoret's questionable identification
of Lucius with the Alexandrian intruder. The Benedictines shift the
exile of Eusebius to the summer of 374, but their own chronology
leaves no room for a previous journey to Gangra. He was present
indeed at Basil's election in the autumn of 370, but was never able to
repeat his visit to Cæsarea, so that Basil (Ep. 138) had to seek him
out at Samosata in 372. And if he did not even reach Cæsarea, we
cannot suppose that he found his way as far as Gangra. In that case
Dr Reynolds' date must be given up.
It may further be noted as against both Dr Reynolds and the
Ballerini that we miss the signature of Basilides, who (Basil Ep. 226)
held the bishopric of Gangra from 362 at least as late as 375.
Basil never mentions the Council of Gangra in the course of his
disputes with Eustathius. His silence must be deliberate on any
theory but Ceillier's: yet I venture to think it accords best with the
earliest date. The stigma of heresy, if that was his reason, would
attach better to Eusebius of Constantinople (Ep. 244 årdpa kopv-
φαῖαν τοῦ κατὰ ῎Αρειον κύκλου, ὡς οἱ πειραθέντες φάσιν : also Ep. 263,
infra) and Basil of Ancyra, than to Eusebius of Cæsarea, Eulalius of
Amasea and the saintly Gregory. Mere lapse of time might throw
into the shade a council held more than thirty years before, when
188
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
Basil was quite young; but it is hard to understand his silence
on the theory of the Ballerini, impossible on that of Dr Reynolds,
especially as Epp. 237, 239 were written to Eusebius of Samosata in his
exile. And if the ascetic Basil was half inclined on some points to
sympathize with Eustathius as against the Council, we may perhaps
find an allusion to it in Ep. 263, where he tells us that Eustathius
after the death of Hermogenes εὐθὺς ἔδραμεν πρὸς τὸν ἐπὶ τῆς Κωνσταν
τινουπόλεως Εὐσέβιον, οὐδενὸς ἔλαττον καὶ αὐτὸν τὸ δυσσεβὲς δόγμα τοῦ
᾿Αρείου πρεσβεύοντα· εἶτα ἐκεῖθεν διὰ οἵας δήποτε αἰτίας ἀπελαθείς,
ἐλθὼν τοῖς ἐπὶ τῆς πατρίδος αὐτοῦ ἀπελογήσατο πάλιν, and afterwards
obtained a bishopric. Accordingly the Council never speaks of him
as a bishop; and the charge Can. 5, 6, of encouraging conventicles, is
more suitable to a presbyter. On the other hand, Sozomen iv. 24
seems to distinguish the deposition of Eustathius by Eusebius
of Nicomedia from that by the Council of Gangra.
In any case the career of Eustathius was a long one, for Athana-
sius Hist. Ar. 5, p. 274 names him as one of the heretics whom
Eustathius of Antioch refused to ordain. This must have been
before 330.
The Syriac list in Cowper Syr. Miscell. 42 increases the number
of bishops to 15 by repeating the name of Eugenius and adding that
of Heraclius. Similarly an inscription (Boeckh 8955) from Helena's
church at Bethlehem, dating certainly (Boeckh 8964) after 680, but
perhaps before the repair of the church (Boeckh 8736) in 1167.
Cowper notices seven coincidences with the Nicene signatures; but
only two of these come from Pontus.
NOTE F.
THE FALL OF LIBERIUS.
I have not worked through the immense literature of the Liberian
controversy; nor is it necessary to do so for the present subject. The
general bearing of the evidence is easily stated.
It is clear from the language of Athanasius and Hilary that
Liberius signed some more or less compromising document or other,
and that if it was not the second Sirmian formula, it was the first or
third. Sozomen distinctly says it was the third; and this (if drawn
up before his release) he would most likely be required to subscribe.
in any case. But is this enough to account for the strong words of
Athanasius, Hilary, Faustinus and Jerome?
v.]
NOTE F. THE FALL OF LIBERIUS.
189
He
Now we have to take into account the three letters of Liberius
preserved and commented on by Hilary Fragm. 6. Hefele Councils
§ 81 rejects them as spurious, but without making out any strong
case against them. (1) Their poverty of style is not unnatural after
two years of exile, perhaps also of ill health. Neither have we much
undoubted Liberian matter to compare them with; for "the eloquent
dialogue with the emperor" is mostly due to Theodoret. Besides, as
one writer remarks, popes do not always write the letters for which
they are responsible. (2) There is no difficulty in Fortunatian's
presence at Beroa, for we cannot prove that he was elsewhere.
may have been there either accidentally or on a mission to Liberius:
and in any case he was a natural mediator even if the letter had to
go round to Aquileia in search of him. (3) It is said to be strange
that Liberius was not released at once if he really signed the
Blasphemia, especially as the Roman populace was so threatening.
Yet it must be remembered that a bishop of Rome was no ordinary
offender; and that the disturbance of the capital might seem all the
more reason for keeping him away from his diocese. (4) The letters
are no credit to Liberius, but they are not on that account doubtful.
Two years of exile might have bent even the speaker of Theodoret's
dialogue. And if there is nothing specially discreditable about the
later years of Liberius, there is also nothing specially heroic about
them. He was not in the front of danger at Ariminum; and after-
wards he appears rather as a peacemaker than a hero of the faith.
(5) The comments of the Fragmentist may be "unworthy of Hilary,"
and are certainly violent enough. But they are quite in the spirit
of Hilary's attack on Constantius. (6) The statement that Athana-
sius had already been removed from the communion of the Roman
church is easily understood. Even if we adopt the reading of
Baronius, which implies that it had been done "before Liberius
reached the court," it may very well refer (as the Benedictines
notice) to his arrival at Sirmium in 357 or 358. (7) The list
of bishops only suits the first Sirmian formula, though the perfidia
Ariana can only be the second and this is a difficulty. Easterns
may have been present in 357; but Theodore of Heraclea was dead,
Basil of Ancyra quite opposed to the Blasphemia Potamii. On the
other hand, Hilary (in the de synodis, be it remembered) judges the
first Sirmian formula so mildly that Hefele is quite justified in
refusing to believe that Liberius signed this document alone, which
was moreover obsolete in 357. But his arguments are just as valid
against his own theory, which limits the signature of Liberius to the
:
190
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
third Sirmian formula. It is more likely that the subscriptions are
misplaced than that Hilary has stultified himself.
But the case would be clear even if these letters were spurious.
Four writers independently mention the fall of Liberius; and there
is nothing to set against them but the silence of Socrates and
Theodoret. Believers in papal infallibility may hesitate, but the
historian cannot.
NOTE G.
THE BISHOPS AT SELEUCIA.
All authorities agree that the council consisted of from 150 to
160 bishops, and that the Semiarians were in a large majority. But
what were the actual numbers on each side? Hilary c. Ctium 12 gives
105 Semiarians, nineteen Anomoans, and the Egyptians (number not
stated) orthodox except George of Alexandria. Socrates ii. 39 and
Sozomen iv. 22 estimate the Anomeans at thirty-six, and Epiphanius.
Hær. 72, 26 gives a list of thirty-eight signatures (not forty-three: see
Petavius ad loc. whom Hefele and others have neglected) to the Acacian
creed, including ten from Egypt as far up the Nile as Oxyrynchus.
Athanasius de Syn. 13, p. 580 merely says that the malcontents were
ὀλίγος παντελῶς.
Hilary was an eyewitness of the council, and most writers follow
him. Thus Reinkens Hilarius 190 computes 105 Semiarians, nineteen
Anomoans and thirty-six orthodox Nicenes to make up a total of 160
bishops, and Bright Hist. Treatises lxxxvi. supposes him to ignore
the Acacians.
Yet at least two out of Hilary's three statements are certainly
incorrect. The list in Epiphanius bears every mark of truth. Five
of the ten Egyptian bishops (Seras, Stephen, Pollux, Pancratius and
the Meletian Ptolemy) are named as present by Athanasius supra:
and Seras was an old enemy of his. A few months later (Theodoret
ii. 28) Stephen, Seras and Heliodorus refuse to concur in the con-
demnation of Aetius. A little later still we find them (Philost. viii. 2)
set over Libya and Egypt by the Anomoans. Stephen and Helio-
dorus are also connected with the Anomaan creed in the list.
Aceph. § 9, p. 157 Sievers; and Apollonius of Oxyrynchus is named
by the Luciferians Marcellus and Faustinus Libell. 27 as a Meletian
adherent of George. So much for Hilary's story that the rest of the
Egyptians were Nicenes.
v.]
NOTE G. THE BISHOPS AT SELEUCIA.
191
The only escape is to suppose that the Epiphanian list is half
made up of unwilling Semiarian signatures. But this too is inad-
missible. For (1) There was no serious intimidation at Seleucia.
Leonas hardly seems even to have attempted it; and if there was
any, it came from quite the other direction. (2) The distribution of
the bishops is natural, nineteen coming from the Oriental diocese, ten
from Lower Egypt, eight from Asia, and one (Elissæus of Diocletiano-
polis) from Thrace. It will be noticed that there are none from Pontus
or even from Cilicia itself. Eustathius seems settled for the Syrian
Epiphania by the story in the Chronicon Paschale 362, and we hear
nothing of Narcissus of Neronias, or even of the old confessor
Auxentius of Mopsuestia. (3) Scarcely any of them can be traced
as bearing a hand in later moderate movements. Only four of the
names recur in the letter of Liberius to the Macedonian bishops
(Soer. iv. 12) where the sees are unfortunately not mentioned. Of
these Eusebius is too common a name to be identified, and Leontius of
Tripolis in Lydia was at this time an active Anomoan. Uranius
was the bishop of Apamea, or even of Adraa, for the old Arians of
Tyre and Melitene were now replaced by moderates: we find Zeno
and Otreius at Tyana in 367, Soz. vi. 12. Charisius is left as the
only identification possible. (4) As many as twenty-three can be more
or less certainly recognized in later Arianizing movements. Of the
remainder, old Patrophilus of Scythopolis was in bad health at
Seleucia (Soz. iv. 22), absent from Constantinople (Socr. ii. 43), and
dead before 362 (Chron. Pasch.); while the others mostly came from
distant parts.
The Semiarian list is in a much less satisfactory state. It has to
be pieced out chiefly from Sozomen iii. 22 and the letter in Hilary
Fragm. x. where we cannot be sure that all who signed were present
at Selencia. However, the contrast is instructive. Assuming a few
probable identifications, we find twenty-four bishops mentioned by
name, of whom seven can be traced to the Oriental diocese, five to Pon-
tus and only two to Asia, while Macedonius alone represents Europe.
Thirteen of the names recur in the letter of Liberius: and of the
other eleven, Macedonius, Eleusius and Sophronius appear to have
kept aloof from the reunion schemes, while George of Laodicea,
Basil of Ancyra and Dracontius of Pergamus were no longer in
possession of those sees.
Upon the whole we may estimate the Semiarians from 110 to 120,
and the minority thirty-eight. Hilary seems to have been misled by
the official documents of the council, which must indeed have been
192
[CH. V.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
his only definite source of information. If a few of the Semiarians
evaded the responsibility of signing the Lucianic creed at the second
sitting-we may safely name George of Laodicea for one-their
numbers might fall to 105. Again, his estimate of nineteen Anomœans
would seem to represent the list given by Athanasius and Socrates of
nine deposed and nine excommunicated; and in this case his state-
ment that the Egyptians were all orthodox but George of Alexandria
will be a mere inference from the fact that none of the others were
included in the censures of the council.
CHAPTER VI.
THE REIGN OF JULIAN.
BUT the misgovernment of Constantius was coming to its end.
Nearly two years had been spent in vain negotiations with the
Gaulish Cæsar since the mutiny at Paris. Julian had no mind
to share the fate of Gallus, and there was no other escape from
civil war. During the campaign of 360 the rival emperors
were occupied with the enemies of Rome on the Euphrates and
the Rhine, so that it was not till the summer of 361 that
Julian pushed down the Danube. His march was a triumphal
progress. The prefects of Italy and Illyricum fled before him,
the count Lucillianus was surprised at Sirmium, and one more
daring blow secured the pass of Succi. He was master of three
prefectures when he halted at Naissus. But the victory was
not yet secure. Two legions in his rear had seized Aquileia for
Constantius; before him lay the Eastern cavalry commanded
by the veteran Arbetio, and the main army of Syria under
Agilo the Frank was coming up from Hierapolis and Antioch.
Yet the strife was not decided by the chance of war. While
Julian was anxiously taking omens and inspecting entrails at
Naissus, two barbarian counts rode into his camp with the news
that Constantius was dead. A sudden fever had carried him
off at Mopsucrenæ beneath Mount Taurus, and the Eastern
army presented its allegiance to Julian Augustus.
It is no part of our purpose to write a history of Julian's
reign, or even fully to discuss his policy towards the Christians
as a body. Our special concern is with the bearings of his
reign upon the Arian reaction.
The life of Julian is one of the noblest wrecks in history.
G.
13
194
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
The years of painful self-repression and forced dissimulation
which had turned his bright youth to bitterness and filled his
mind with angry prejudice had only consolidated his self-reliant.
pride and firm determination to walk worthily before the gods.
Small chance was his of escaping the "purple death" of Gallus
and Silvanus when Constantius took him from the schools of
Athens and sent him, more like a prisoner of state than an
emperor, to clear the Germans out of Gaul. Success against
the barbarian would only expose him to the informer, or (a better
fate) to the assassin. But Julian brought to his task versatility
worthy of Hadrian himself. His splendid energy commanded
victory in spite of the intrigues of the ring of traitors whom
Constantius allowed to thwart him'. Within four years all
Gaul was at his feet. The army was devoted to its brilliant
general, and the overburdened provincials were won by the
unaffected sympathy of the young Caesar who had ventured to
check the exactions of Florentius. And Julian relaxed nothing
of his faithful self-devotion to the Empire when he found him-
self master of the world at the age of thirty. Kindly to
others and rigid to himself, he needed no more warnings against
Asiatic levity. The impatience of youth was only seen in his
restless fussiness, for nothing could exceed the assiduity of his
1 Though the apologist of Constan-
tius will hardly venture to defend his
treatment of Julian, he may fairly
point out a few extenuating circum-
stances.
In the first place, our accounts of
it come mostly from Julian himself
and his admirer Ammianus, who are
not likely to be entirely impartial. It
must also be noted that if any con-
fidence between Constantius and Julian
survived the massacre of 337, it must
have been destroyed by the execution
of Gallus.
This being premised, the emperor's
action will not be quite so bad as we
should suppose from Julian's com-
plaints. He allowed him a decent
state at Macellum, and placed him in
possession of Basilina's Asiatic pro-
perty before the legal age at which the
duties of a curator ended. As for
the charge of surrounding him with
spies, Constantius was honestly inca-
pable of finding men who were not
spies. He gave him the best education
of the time; and though he was for-
bidden to attend Libanius, his inter-
course with the philosophers at Nico-
media, Pergamus and Athens does not
seem to have been much hampered
with spies.
With regard to the Gaulish Cæsar-
ship, Julian's escort was a small one,
but perhaps it was never intended for
an army. He was also put under close
restrictions; but а more generous
master than Constantius might have
imposed them on so inexperienced a
youth as Julian was in 355. At any
rate they were relaxed after his first
campaign, when Marcellus was replaced
by a capable general.
Nor can we blame Constantius for
the demand of reinforcements which
led to the mutiny. Julian had quieted
the Rhine, whereas troops were urgent-
ly required in Syria after the fall of
Amida.
vi.]
JULIAN'S APOSTASY.
195
attention to an endless round of business. If his legislation
shews little of the farsighted patience which marks the highest
statesmanship, it is at least vigilant and strong, public-spirited
and far from undiscriminating'. We cannot doubt that he began
his reign in the full determination to do right and justice to
all his subjects.
But here came in that fatal heathen prejudice which put
him in a false relation to all the living powers of his time,
and was the direct cause even of his military disaster in Assyria.
Heathen pride came to him with Basilina's Anician blood, and
the dream-world of his lonely youth was a world of heathen
literature 2. Meanwhile Christianity was nothing to him but the
slavery of a Persian prison³. Fine preachers of the kingdom of
heaven were those fawning eunuchs and episcopal sycophants,
and the arch-murderer Constantius behind them. Even Arianism
had worthier representatives than these, but Julian seems never
to have met with better men till it was too late. As it was, every
force about him worked for heathenism. The influence of his
old pedagogue Mardonius was practically heathen; and the rest
were as heathen as utter worldliness could make them*. And
Julian was not deceived by their hypocrisy. He may have been
too young to appreciate Eusebius of Constantinople, but he
formed even at Macellum a very clear idea of George the pork-
contractor, and cannot have found much difficulty in under-
standing Hecebolius a few years later.
Full of thoughts like these, which corroded his mind all the
more for the danger of expressing them, Julian was easily and
permanently won to the cause of heathenism by the fatherly
1 Note H. The Legislation of Ju-
lian.
2 Rendall Julian 240–243.
3 Julian ad S. P. Q. Athen. p. 271.
Duculot Restauration Neoplatonicienne
14-17 discusses this well, though he
is too much inclined to take his history
from Gregory's στηλιτευτικός. The
charge for example that Julian apos-
tatized (in 351, be it observed), from
ambitious motives, is ridiculous.
4 Rode Julian 32 notes the bad
character of the Arian bishops known
to Julian.
Dianius of Cæsarea was another
sort of man, but not one likely to
do Julian much good if they met at
Macellum. Was he the bishop whom
Julian (c. Chr. p. 347) puzzled over
Gen. iv. 7 (Lxx) οὐκ ἐὰν ὀρθῶς προσε-
νέγκης, ὀρθῶς δὲ μὴ διέλῃς, ἥμαρτες?
Among the eunuchs an exception
may have to be made in favour of the
virtuous Eutherius (Ammianus xvi. 7,
5), who being an Armenian by birth
and educated in Constantine's palace
was probably a Christian. But his
intercourse with Julian belongs to a
later period.
13-2
196
[CH⚫
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
welcome he received from the philosophers at Nicomedia.
Like a voice of love from heaven came the teaching of Chrysan-
thius and Maximus; and Julian gave himself up heart and soul
to the mysterious fascination of their lying theurgy. For ten
more years of painful dissimulation he "walked with the gods
in secret; and it was not till the spring of 361 that the young
lion of heathenism could venture openly to throw off the
"donkey's skin" of Christianity.
")
Once undisputed master of the world, Julian could take his
own view of its needs, without seeing through the eyes of the
Asiatic camarilla. Informers and bishops had fattened on the
spoils of the temples, and not a department of the government
was free from jobbery and malversation. And Constantius was
utterly callous to the universal oppression, to spoliations and
wrong which cried to the immortal gods for vengeance. It was
high time to put an end to this Christian tyranny, which had
brought the Empire to the verge of ruin.
But Julian had no desire to raise a savage persecution. He was
no Galerius to sup on human blood, but a philosopher who pro-
fessed to commiserate' even the misguided Christians. Cruelty
had failed on ample trial; and after all it would be a poor success
to stamp out the Galilean imposture without putting something
better in its place. As the Christians had filled the world with
their 'tombs,' so must it be filled with the knowledge of the
living gods. The aim therefore of Julian's policy was the refor-
mation of heathenism rather than the suppression of Christi-
anity. Freedom of worship was proclaimed for all, but the
emperor's favour was reserved for the servants of the gods³.
Sacrifices were encouraged, the good things of Christianity
borrowed in all directions, and a pagan hierarchy with a regular
system of canonical discipline established in opposition to the
1 Julian Epp. 7, 42 (end).
2 Julian c. Chr. p. 335 πávтα éπλŋ-
ρώσατε τάφων καὶ μνημάτων.
3 Julian lays down his policy clear-
ly enough in Ep. 7 ἐγὼ μὲ τοὺς θεοὺς
οὔτε κτείνεσθαι τους Γαλιλαίους οὔτε
τύπτεσθαι παρὰ τὸ δίκαιον οὔτε ἄλλο τι
πάσχειν κακόν βούλομαι, προτιμᾶσθαι
μέντοι τοὺς θεοσεβεῖς πάνυ φημὶ δεῖν· διὰ
δὲ τὴν Γαλιλαίων μωρίαν ὀλίγου δεῖν
ἅπαντα ανετράπη, διὰ δὲ τὴν τῶν θεῶν
εὐμένειαν σωζόμεθα πάντες. Similarly
Ep. 43, though he cannot repress a
sneer at the "most admirable law" of
poverty. He repudiates persecution
even in his disgraceful Epp. 42 (on
education) and 52 (on Titus of Bostra).
No fault can be found with his lan-
guage so far; nor can we doubt its
sincerity.
v1.]
RESTORATION OF HEATHENISM.
197
Christian. Heathen schools were to confront the churches in
every town, and heathen almshouses to grow up round them.
Heathen sermons were to refute the Christian, and a daily ritual
of prayers and hymns was to enshrine the mysteries (whatever
they might be) of a purified heathen worship. Above all, the
priests were to cultivate temperance and hospitality, and to
devote themselves to grave and pious studies'. The good cause
must no longer be disgraced by the evil lives of its defenders.
Julian was following the policy of Maximin Daza's last year, both
in coupling a general toleration with a strenuous endeavour to
organize the chaos of heathen worships into something like a
rival church², and in turning education into a means of attack on
Christianity. But Daza would have much preferred to perse-
cute openly; whereas Julian returned of his own free will to the
edict of Milan, and had no deliberate purpose of evading it.
The spirit of his policy was very different from Daza's.
His personal character differed still more. Julian was a
model of heathen piety and purity, and spared no pains to
infect his wondering subjects with his own enthusiasm for the
cause of the immortal gods. The emperor sacrificed like a
devotee, and inspected entrails with unwearied assiduity. Not
a temple missed its visit, not a high place near his line of march
was left unclimbed. But it was all in vain. Crowds of course
applauded Cæsar; but only with the empty cheers they gave
the jockeys and the preachers. Multitudes came to see an
emperor's devotions; but they only quizzed his shaggy beard or
1 Chastel Destr. du Paganisme 132,
Rendall Julian 251–254. Duculot
Rest. Neopl. 128-137. Lasaulx Unterg.
des Hellenismus 66-70.
Significant is the agreement (noted
by Ullmann Gregorius 368) of Julian
with his Christian enemies in the idea
of the priestly office. Some will trace
it to the unconscious influence of his
Christian education; others with more
reason to the prevalence of heathen
thought within the churches. Julian's
idea is beyond doubt good heathenism,
whatever be said of its Christianity.
The demands he makes of his
priests (Ep. 49 and Fragm.) are most-
ly common in the councils, though re-
versely Canon 18 of Carthage (none to
be ordained till they have converted
their own families) might have been
copied from Julian.
2 Maximin's policy is well appre-
ciated by Mason Persecution of Dio-
cletian 308–320.
3 Rendall Julian 214 has over-
looked the operations of Maximin and
Theotecnus in Eusebius H. E. ix. 5.
4 The case is reviewed by Rendall
Julian 132. Even de Broglie iv. 51
admits it, after a vain attempt to
weaken the evidence of Ammianus.
If the old soldier's censure of vice
would have been milder than a Chris-
tian bishop's, his eye would have been
just as keen to note a failure in the
imperialis verecundia. With one ex-
ception, nine successive emperors from
Constantine to Marcian seem so far
198
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
tittered at the antiquated ceremonies'. The army was devout
enough; but only while the sacrificial dinners lasted. Rene-
gades came in too, and some of them very promptly. Some
were already heathens at heart like Pegasius of Ilium, while
Elpidius and others needed Julian's pardon for their intrigues
against him; but the larger number were mere timeservers
like Modestus or Hecebolius. Men of this sort returned to the
church as soon as Julian was dead. The cause of the gods was
hopeless, by the confession of its own adherents. Leaders like
Chrysanthius and Libanius held cautiously aloof from Julian's
reforms; and if meaner men paused in their giddy round of
pleasure, it was only to amuse themselves with the strange
spectacle of imperial earnestness.
Christianity then was rather discouraged than persecuted by
Julian. The authentic outrages of his reign are limited to the
East, and seldom implicate him personally. Allowance must
be made for local savagery, for Christian provocation and for the
increasing bitterness of Julian as he saw the failure of his plans.
But after all allowance is made, we shall find that Julian went
much further on one side than Constantine had done on the
other. So far as concerns the use of court favour and every
sort of worldly influence to obtain proselytes, there is little to
choose between them. Julian's bribes attracted just as odious
a set of flatterers as Constantine's; and if "the hypocrisy was
indescribable¹," the historian will care as little as themselves
whether the hypocrites were philosophers or bishops. But
while Constantine despised idolatry, Julian hated Christianity
too much to be impartial. Other worships were the gifts
of heaven, that all the nations might serve the gods according
to their ancestral traditions: Christianity alone was not divine
at all, but a base imposture which combined the perversity
blameless. Can any state of modern
Europe shew the like?
Julian's detractors might have made
something more of Ammianus xvi. 7,
8 Asiaticis coalitum moribus, ideoque
levem.
1 Rendall Julian 225 for a lively
picture of his annoyances at Christian
Antioch.
His zeal is condemned even by
Ammianus xxv. 4, 16 superstitiosus
magis quam sacrorum legitimus obser-
vator.
It may have been a "pitiful
superstition," but we have seen some-
thing worse at Lourdes.
2 Julian Ep. 78.
3 Note I. Our Authorities for Ju-
lian's Persecution.
4 Eusebius V. C. iv. 54, ǎλeкTos
elpwvela, of Constantine's court.
VI.J
EDUCATION AND ARIANISM.
199
of Jewish barbarism with the lowest degeneracy of Greek vul-
garity¹. An emperor's public and repeated denunciations of the
impious Galileans were sure to lead to violence against them²;
and Julian cared little to prevent it. If he never failed to dis-
approve of lawless outrages, his frequent remissness in punishing
them must have been very like a proclamation of impunity. If he
did not formally dismiss his Christian generals, he imposed on his
household troops a heathen offering of incense. Sometimes
his animosity takes the form of downright malice, as when he
gives the people of Bostra a plain hint to drive out their bishop
Titus. Above all, his education edict forbidding Christians to
teach the classics was condemned by the heathens themselves.
It was a barbarous deed, says Ammianus, and worthy to be
buried in perpetual silence*.
3
The truth is that there was even more fanaticism than spite
in the matter: and heathen fanaticism was a mystery even to
the heathen Ammianus. Mere literature is doubtless the com-
mon property of mankind; but on Julian's ground that Homer
and Plato were also prophets of the gods, there is no denying
that a Christian rhetorician is as great a scandal as a heathen
bishop. This may clear Julian so far as the edict refers to the
state professors, though its relaxation in favour of Proæresius
was illogical; but its further extension was pure malice and
intolerance. We may ourselves be thankful to him for giving
a much needed notice to the world that Christianity is some-
thing more than an offshoot of philosophy. In this way he
struck a heavy blow at Arianism, which was nothing else than
philosophic heathenism inside the church. Eunomius threw
This is a favourite thought of
Julian c. Chr. pp. 39, 43, 238.
2 Chastel Destr. du Paganisne 140:
but his picture is too darkly drawn.
It may
3 I cannot follow Rendall Julian
173 in his view of the matter.
be true that "the ceremony was made
easy to the most scrupulous. No Pagan
image was there, no Pagan God invoked.
There was mere compliance with a
piece of military etiquette." So Julian
himself might have said: but the fact
remains that this piece of military eti-
quette was usually understood to imply
a denial of Christianity, and therefore
did imply it. Shall we require an oath
of the Quakers, of course explaining that
it is a mere compliance with a piece of
legal etiquette?
That the ceremony was imposed
only on the domestici is shewn by Rode
Julian 63 n. Sozomen v. 17 rois év
τοῖς βασιλείοις στρατευομένων may pos
sibly include officials, but cannot be
extended to the army in general.
Ammianus xxii. 10, 7 Illud au-
tem erat inclemens, obruendum perenni
silentio and again xxv. 4, 20 in
nearly the same words.
;
200
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
away his eloquence on men who began to see how little ground
is really common to Christianity and Neoplatonism. Greek
culture was far too weak to sustain the burden of a sinking
world; and its guardians could have devised no more fatal.
policy than that of setting it in direct antagonism to the living
power of Christianity.
Could Julian have leaned on Rome instead of Greece? He
seemed to court defeat at Constantinople and Christian Antioch,
where even the professional defenders of heathenism hardly
took the trouble to support him. The contest was still doubtful
in the West, whereas his Eastern enemies could already take the
conservative ground, that an attack on Christianity threatened
nothing less than confusion to the world, and destruction to the
Roman power¹. All this we may grant; yet the answer is easy.
In the first place, it was more than Julian could do. Whatever
he might owe to his mother's Roman blood, he was by taste and
education a genuine enthusiast of Hellenic culture'. His studies
were Greek, his writings are Greek, and the very soldiers called
him Græculus and Asianus. His religion too was not Roman,
but Greek and Neoplatonic. King Sun was his guardian deity
and Greece his Holy Land, and the philosopher's mantle dearer
to him than the diadem of empire. In other words, Julian's
character forbade him to lean on Rome. We may also doubt
whether the contest was really undecided even in the West.
Heathenism was still enthroned in lordly state at Rome; but it
was like some ancient warrior seated in his tomb, who crumbles
into dust at the touch of living men. Julian could not have
1 Lasaulx Untergang des Hellenis-
mus 77 quotes Julian Misop. 360 πаρ' èµè
τὰ τοῦ κόσμου πράγματα ἀνατέτραπται,
[add Misop. 370 os dǹ Tous Tavοúρyous
καὶ κλέπτας οὕτω κολάζων εἰκότως ὑμῖν
φαίνομαι τὸν κόσμον ἀνατρέπειν], also
Greg. Naz. Or. iv. 74 Tò Tεiрâσlαι тà
Χριστιανῶν μετατιθέναι καὶ παρακινεῖν,
οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἦν ἢ τὴν Ῥωμαίων παρα-
σαλεύειν ἀρχὴν, καὶ τῷ κοινῷ παντὶ
κινδυνεύειν.
ㅠ
​These passages may be balanced
by others from Libanius, but they shew
how solidly Constantine's work was
done.
2 So Chastel Destr. du Paganisme
152.
3 Julian's laws may sometimes be
his own composition (though C. Th.
xiii. 3, 4 seems a draft of Jovius from
Ep. 25), and are our only specimen of
his Latin style. We notice the in-
trusion of Greek words even in these.
Thus C. Th. vi. 24, 1 ad pleromos
(Godefroy explains #λnpúμara fornume-
ros) suos ac terminos redire; xii. 7,
2 quem sermo Græcus appellat zygo-
staten; and xi. 39, 5 is the only law of
the whole Codex which is written in
Greek.
4 Ammianus xvii. 9, 3.
VI.]
JULIAN AND CHRISTIAN PARTIES.
201
fared much better than Maxentius. At any rate, his success
would have been the total ruin of the Empire. Apart from the
proved incapacity of beathenism to regenerate a corrupt society,
it is clear that for better or for worse the East was already com-
mitted to Christianity, so that no real victory could have been
won for paganism in the West but at the cost of a civil war of
religion. Western heathenism in the hand of Arbogast was
strong enough to do irreparable mischief to the Empire; and if
it had caught one spark of Julian's enthusiasm, it would have
involved both East and West in common ruin. Christianity
was still as closely leagued with Greek civilization as with the
Roman Empire, and Julian struck equally at both of these
alliances. Hellenic culture was destroyed by its identification
with the cause of heathenism, but the Christian Empire was
able to survive the downfall of the ancient world.
Every blow struck by Julian at Christianity fell first on the
Arianizers whom Constantius had left in power; and the re-
action he provoked against Hellenic culture directly threatened
the philosophic postulates of Arianism within the church. In
both ways he powerfully helped the Nicene cause. Yet he
cared little for the quarrels of the Christians among them-
selves. His personal acquaintance with Aetius and George of
Alexandria on one side, Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus on
the other¹, had no influence on his public policy. Instead of
condescending to take a side, he told them that they would not
be allowed to bite and devour one another any longer, so that
they had better keep the peace³. His rule of contemptuous
1 Julian Ep. 9 knows most of
George's library from the loan of books
to copy when he was in Cappadocia
(344-350). Aetius was an old friend
of Julian (Ep. 31 παλαιᾶς γνώσεώς τε
καὶ συνηθείας μεμνημένος), and of Gallus
(Soz. v. 5), whose wrongs Julian never
forgot. Aetius received from Julian
an estate in Lesbos Philost. ix. 4; but
the letter of Gallus (p. 454, Spanheim)
seems spurious. Julian was also on
friendly terms with Photinus, to judge
from his letter quoted by Facundus
of Hermiane (p. 605, Hertlein). This,
from the mention of Diodorus Nazaræi
magus, we may date during Julian's
stay at Antioch.
His intimacy with Basil and Gregory
is well known. Amongst his fellow-
pupils under Maximus was also (Soz. v.
21) the learned Novatian Sisinnius,
bishop of Constantinople 395–407.
2 Rendall Julian 229 seems to take
another view. But in the first place,
Aetius was not yet a bishop even of his
own party, and seems never to have
held any particular see: in the second,
we need not believe all the scandals
told of him by Athanasius of Ancyra.
It may also be added that there is no
sign of any intention on Julian's part
to play the Arians against the Nicenes.
3 Julian Ep. 52, c. Chr. p. 206.
Ammianus xxii. 5, 3.
202
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
impartiality was only broken when he instinctively recognized a
greater than himself in "the detestable " Athanasius.
His first move was to proclaim full toleration for all sorts and
sects of men. This was in itself no more than a return to the
edict of Milan; but it was enough to cause a serious fear that
his ultimate purpose was to recede one step further, to the
persecution of Galerius. State support and immunities were
also withdrawn from the impious Galileans, so that heathenism
was left the only endowed religion of the Empire. There was
good financial reason for making the clergy take their share of the
public burdens; but it was hardly Julian's reason, as he shewed
by his liberal gifts to the priests³. At the same time came out a
restitution edict, throwing open the temples and ordering the
restoration of their confiscated property. It was often enforced
on innocent and friendly purchasers with a pedantic harshness
which shocked the better class of heathens. But nothing
embitters religious hatred like the alternate seizure and resto-
ration of sacred things. The reformers found it to their cost
when moderate men like Heath and Tonstal joined the Marian
reaction as the only hope of checking the systematic pillage of
the church by King Edward's nobles. The situation was not
so very different in Julian's time. Only Constantius had not
organized the plunder so successfully as Northumberland.
It was only too easy to strike at the church by doing
common justice to the sects. A few days later came another
law, by which all the exiled bishops were recalled, and their
confiscated property restored to them. They were not however
replaced in their churches. Others were usually in possession, and
1 Julian Epp. 6, 26, 51 calls Atha-
nasius as many bad names as he can
well find room for.
2 Sievers Libanius 103 points out
from the Hist. Aceph. that it was made
before the designation of consuls for
362, so that it must have been one
of Julian's first acts at Constanti-
nople.
3 In this respect it makes little
difference whether these gifts were
intended for the priests themselves
or for charitable uses. The burden
on the exchequer was the same in
either case.
4 Instances are given by Rendall
Julian 166.
Thus Socr. ii. 38, iii. 11 he com-
pels the Semiarian Eleusius to rebuild
the Novatian church at Cyzicus, and
Ep. 43 confiscates Arian property at
Edessa, in punishment of lawless at-
tacks on the Valentinians. Similarly
he restores churches to the African
Donatists.
6 It was known at Alexandria (Hist.
Aceph.) four days after the other.
Socrates iii. 1 assigns it to its
place as part of an extensive policy of
conciliation.
VI.
1.]
UNIVERSAL HATRED OF JULIAN.
203
it was no business of Julian's to turn them out. The Galileans
might look after their own squabbles'. This sounds fairly well,
and suits Julian's professions of toleration; but even Ammianus
tells us that his exhortations to peace were given with a
malicious hope of still further embroiling the ecclesiastical
confusion. If the Christians were only left to themselves, they
were sure to “quarrel like beasts"."
2
Julian was gratified with a few unseemly wrangles; but the
general effect of his policy was something very unexpected. It
took the Christians by surprise, and fairly shamed them into
a sort of truce. Julian could not see that the very divisions
of the churches were in one sense a sign of life. If men do not
care for religion, they will find something else to quarrel over.
"Nations redeem each other," and so do parties; so that the
dignified slumber of a catholic uniformity may be more fatal to
spiritual life than the vulgar wranglings of a thousand sects.
Nicenes and Arians closed their ranks before the common enemy.
However they might hate each other, they hated the renegade
emperor still more. Julian was encountered with fanaticism equal
to his own. A yell of execration ran all along the Christian line,
from the extreme Apollinarian right to the furthest Anoman
left. Basil of Cæsarea renounced the apostate's friendship, and
the populace of Antioch assailed him with scurrilous lampoons'
and antipagan riots. Nor were the Arians behind in hate-blind
old Maris of Chalcedon cursed him to his face. Nor has literature
been kinder to his memory. Heathens like Libanius or Ammia-
nus might regret his fate, but the Christians are utterly merci-
less. Gregory of Nazianzus forgets his gentleness, Theodoret his
Christian charity. One writer collects uncertain stories, another
decks them out with rhetoric, and the Anomoan Philostorgius
gives his ready help in adding to the heap of slanders. The
heathens mocked, the Christians cursed, and Israel alone remem-
1 So Julian Ep. 26 тoîs Taλıλalois
τοῖς φυγαδευθεῖσιν ὑπὸ τοῦ μακαρίτου
Κωνσταντίου οὐ κάθοδον εἰς τὰς ἐκκλησίας
αὐτοῖς, ἀλλὰ τὴν εἰς τὰς πατρίδας συνε-
χωρήσαμεν.
xwpnoaμev. So Ep. 52. The point
has not always been understood.
2 The irreverent comparison is due
to Ammianus xxii. 5, 3, or perhaps to
Julian himself.
3 Rendall Julian 184.
4 One of their devices is worth
notice for its malicious ingenuity.
“Felix Julianus Augustus" looks in-
nocent enough. But Felix was dead,
count Julian was dead, and they hoped
the emperor would follow (Ammianus
xxiii. 1, 4).
204
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY,
bered Julian for good. "Treasured in the house of Julianus
Cæsar," the vessels of the temple still await the day when
Messiah ben Ephraim shall take them thence'. Nor has Julian
escaped a share of Israel's doom, to be an astonishment, a
proverb and a byword among the nations. It was in no spirit
of unworthy timeserving that the medieval churches dealt so
tenderly with the imperial dead, but in the solemn faith that
a power ordained of God is holier than the erring men to
whom it is committed. The Lord himself shall judge the Lord's
anointed. Sin may be borne with in the living, and even heresy
forgiven to the dead; but an apostate emperor is a defiance to
mankind, a more unnatural monster than Nero or Domitian.
Constantine Copronymus is a name of horror to the Eastern
Church, Sicilian Frederick to the Western'; and the curse of
the Iconoclast meets that of the Hohenstaufen on the head of
Julian.
Back to their dioceses came the survivors of the exiled
bishops, no longer travelling to their noisy councils with the
pomp and circumstance of the cursus publicus, but bound on the
nobler errand of seeking out their lost or scattered flocks.
Eusebius and Lucifer left upper Egypt, Marcellus and Basil
returned to Ancyra, while Athanasius reappeared at Alexandria.
(Feb. 22, 362³). The unfortunate George had led a wandering
life since his expulsion by the mob in the autumn of 358. We
find him first at the Sirmian conference, then at the council of
Seleucia, and it was not till late in 361 that he ventured
to leave the shelter of the court. It was a rash move, for
his flock had not forgotten him. Three days he spent in safety,
but on the fourth came news that Constantius was dead and
Julian master of the Empire. The heathen populace was wild
with delight, and threw George straight into prison. Three
weeks later they dragged him out and lynched him. Thus when
Julian's edict for the return of the exiles was published (Feb.
9, 362), Athanasius was doubly prepared to take advantage of it.
1
גנוזים בבית יולינוס קיסר
I have
seen the legend somewhere. Grätz
does not mention it.
2 Constantine V is the only out-
cast from the Apostles' Church, Frede-
rick II the only emperor placed in hell
by Dante.
3 Note J. The Return of Atha-
nasius in 362.
VI.]
THE COUNCIL OF ALEXANDRIA.
205
It was time to resume the interrupted work of the council.
of Ancyra. The Semiarian misuse of victory in 358 had dis-
credited in advance the new conservatism on which Hilary had
attempted to lean at Seleucia. Athanasius had circumstances
more in his favour, for Julian's reign had sobered Christian
partizanship. The apostate was not more hostile to the Nicene
cause than Constantius had been; and if he wished the
Galileans to quarrel, he also left them free to combine. Twenty-
one bishops met at Alexandria in the summer of 362. They
were most of them returned exiles', and the most conspicuous
of them after Athanasius himself are Eusebius of Vercelli and
Asterius of Petra, the old deserter from the Eusebian camp at
Philippopolis. Firebrand Lucifer was better occupied at Antioch,
and only sent a couple of deacons to the meeting. We shall
presently see what he was doing.
Four subjects claimed the council's attention. The first was
the reception of Arians who came over to the Nicene side.
The stricter party was for making it an ordinary case of
penance, which would for ever exclude them from the clerical
office. Ultimately however it was agreed that they might re-
tain their rank on condition of accepting the Nicene council
and anathematizing not only open Arianism but the more
specious form of it which was content to speak of the Holy
Spirit as a creature. On these terms all comers were to be
gladly received, and none but the chiefs and active defenders of
Arianism were to be reduced to lay communion2.
This reference to the Holy Spirit marks a new turn of the
controversy. Hitherto the question had been on the Person of
the Lord, while that of the Holy Spirit had scarcely yet come
into the dispute. Significant as is the tone of Scripture on the
subject, the proof from Scripture does not lie on the surface.
The divinity of the Holy Spirit is shewn by many convergent
1 Athanasius, Eusebius and Aste-
rius for certain. Seven other names
recur in the list of Egyptian exiles
Ath. Hist. Ar. 72, p. 305–6.
The decisions were sent to Euse-
bius, Lucifer, Asterius, Cymatius of
Paltus (an exile-Ath. de Fuga 3, p.
255-Patricius in Soer. iii. 25, must
have been an intruder), and Anatolius of
Euboea. They were afterwards signed
by Paulinus of Antioch (an exile, if we
may trust Philost. iii. 18) and Carterius
(another exile, if of Antaradus Ath.
supra).
2 The last detail is expressly given
only by Rufinus i. 28.
206
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
lines of evidence; but whether it amounts to coessential and
coequal deity was still an open question. Thus Origen leaned
to some theory of subordination, while Hilary limits himself¹
with the utmost caution to the words of Scripture. If neither
of them lays down in so many words that the Holy Spirit is
God, much less does either of them class him with the creatures.
The difficulty was the same as with the Person of the Lord—
that while the Scriptural data clearly pointed to his deity, its
admission involved the dilemma of either Sabellian confusion or
polytheistic separation. As soon as attention was fully directed
to the subject, it became clear that the theory of hypostatic
distinctions must either be extended to the Holy Spirit or
entirely abandoned. Athanasius took one course, the Anomœ-
ans the other; but the Semiarians endeavoured to draw a
distinction between the Lord's deity and that of the Holy
Spirit. With them for the moment went Acacius, who had
formerly² taken a clearly Arian position on the subject, and still
thought fit to qualify his acceptance of the Nicene faith by a
denial of the deity of the Holy Spirit. We cannot therefore
doubt that the decision of the bishops at Alexandria was
specially aimed at Acacius rather than against the Semiarians.
A second subject of debate was the rise of Apollinarianism.
Against the nascent system it was declared that the Incarnation
implied the assumption of a human soul as well as a human
body. The bishops would seem to have been thinking quite as
much of Arianism, and to have overlooked the triple division
of man adopted by the Apollinarians from 1 Thess. v. 23, which
enabled them to concede a human yuxǹ while still denying a
human πνεῦμα.
The third subject before the council was the old misunder-
standing of the word úπóσTaσis. The Easterns usually followed
ὑπόστασις.
1 Hilary's chief statements on the
subject will be found in his de Trin. ii.
29-35, viii. 25, ix. 73, neque enim de
creaturis sumebat Spiritus sanctus, quia
Spiritus Dei est, xii. 55, where he re-
jects the word creatura. Hilary's be-
lief in the deity of the Holy Spirit is
hardly more doubtful than St John's:
yet he nowhere states it in so many
words.
The remaining step is taken in the
de fide orthodoxa ascribed to Phœba-
dius, where the coessential deity of the
Holy Spirit is distinctly stated. So
also Lucifer de non conveniendo, p. 781,
de regibus apostaticis, p. 807, and else-
where.
2 Ath. ad Serap. iv. 7, p. 560 couples
Acacius and Patrophilus as πVEνμатÓ-
μαχοι.
VI.]
THE COUNCIL OF ALEXANDRIA.
207
Origen's use of it in the sense of the Latin Persona, of the
deity of the Persons of the Trinity in contrast to each other;
whereas the Latins employed it as the etymological representa-
tive of substantia, to express what the Greeks called ovoía-
the common deity of all the Persons of the Trinity. Thus the
Westerns who spoke of µía vπóoraσis regarded the Eastern
Tрεîs úπоστáσεis as tritheist, while the Easterns in their turn
suspected μía vπÓσтаσis of Sabellianism. In this difficulty
Athanasius was the natural mediator. He had connexions with
both parties, and agreed with the Westerns in using ovcía and
ÚπóσTaσis as synonymous terms. As soon as both parties had
stated their views before the council, it appeared that both
were perfectly orthodox. Since neither was μía iñóσтaois
meant to be Sabellian nor 7ρEÎS ÚTTOσTÁσEISs Arian, it was
decided that each party might retain its own usage.
The fourth subject which claimed attention was the schism
at Antioch. Now that Meletius was free to return, some
decision had to be made. The Eustathians had been faithful
through thirty years of trouble, and Athanasius was specially
bound to his old friends; yet on the other hand some recognition.
was due to the honourable confession of Meletius. As the
Eustathians had no bishop, the simplest course was for them
to accept Meletius. This was the desire of the council, and
might have been carried out, if Lucifer of Calaris had not taken
advantage of his stay at Antioch to denounce Meletius as an
associate of Arians, and to consecrate the presbyter Paulinus as
bishop for the Eustathians. When the mischief was done it
could not be undone. Paulinus added his signature to the
decisions of Alexandria, and Meletius was thrown back upon his
old alliance with Acacius. Henceforth the rising Nicene party
of Pontus and Asia was divided from the older Nicenes of Rome
and Egypt by this unfortunate personal question.
Julian could not but see that Athanasius was virtually the
king of Egypt. He may not have cared about the council, but
the baptism of some heathen ladies at Alexandria was enough
to rouse his fiercest anger. Athanasius was an exile again before
the summer was over. But his work remained. The lenient
policy of the council was most successful, notwithstanding the
208
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
calamity at Antioch. It gave offence indeed to zealots like
Lucifer, and may have admitted more than one unworthy
Arianizer¹; but upon the whole it was a great success. Bishop
after bishop gave in his adhesion to the Nicene faith, till
Athanasius could boast to Jovian that it was the belief of
nearly all the churches. Friendly Semiarians came in like
Cyril of Jerusalem, old conservatives followed like Dianius of
Cæsarea, and at last the arch-heretic Acacius himself gave in
his signature. Even the creeds of the churches were remodelled
in all directions. To this period we may refer the revision in a
Nicene interest of the local forms in use at Jerusalem and
Antioch, in Cappadocia and Mesopotamia².
Nor were the other parties idle. The Homœan coalition
was even more unstable than the Eusebian. Already before the
death of Constantius there had been quarrels over the consecra-
tion of Meletius by one section of the party, of Eunomius by the
other. Neither was any agreement to be expected on the de-
position of Aetius. Hence the league broke up of itself as soon
as opinion was free. Acacius and his friends drew nearer to
Meletius, while Eudoxius and Euzoius annulled the deposition
of the Anomoan bishops. But Aetius and Eunomius do not
seem to have organized their schism before the time of Jovian.
The Semiarians for their part were busy also. Guided by
Macedonius and Eleusius, they took a middle course between
Nicenes and Anomoans, confessing the Lord's deity with
the former, and denying that of the Holy Spirit with the latter.
But they were far from accepting the Nicene formula or
revising their local creeds to suit it. Like true legitimists
who had learned nothing and forgotten nothing, they were
satisfied with confirming the Seleucian decisions and reissuing
their old Lucianic Creed. Had they ceased to care for the
Nicene alliance, or did they fancy the world had stood still since
the Council of the Dedication?
Meanwhile Julian had left Constantinople in May 362, and
1 This is the characteristic objection
of Montaut Questions historiques 135,
who makes it largely answerable for
the low tone of the Eastern bishops of
the next generation.
2 Hort Two Dissertations 108-111
-a suggestive review of the controversy
under Valens. He adds as a fifth
revised creed that read by Charisius.
at Ephesus; and others may have
perished.
VI.]
JULIAN AT ANTIOCH.
209
reached Antioch about the middle of July'. His stay was not a
pleasant one. Julian was heathen and serious, Antioch was
Christian and frivolous. Nicenes and Arians forgot their
enmity in the pleasant task of reviling the gods and cursing
Julian; and even the heathens jeered at his ridiculous earnest-
ness, or grumbled more seriously at the rise of prices caused by
the presence of so large an army as he brought with him.
All his philosophy was needed to contend against the multiplied
vexations of his residence at Antioch2.
But the Persian war demanded Julian's attention. An
emperor so full of heathen enthusiasm was not likely to forego
the dreams of conquest which had brought so many of his
predecessors on the path of glory in the East. Nor was it
mere enthusiasm, for the disasters of the last few years had
laid open the Euphrates frontier, and seemed to call for
the invader's immediate punishment. And now that the Goths
were quiet (they were not likely always to be quiet'), Julian
thought it a good opportunity to strike a decisive blow at
Persia.
So it was: yet something also may be said for a less
ambitious policy. The immediate and crying need of the
Empire was a reform of the administration; and though he had
done good work at Constantinople, even Julian could hardly
clean the Augean stables in a day. He had raised the dust, but
he had not given himself time to do much more. Perhaps
he could not have done much more, for the work needed
the plodding industry of Anastasius rather than the impatient
energy of Julian. On the other hand, the danger from Persia
1 Note K. Julian's arrival at
Antioch.
2 Rendall Julian 225 has an ap-
preciative account of them, and notes
the emperor's increasing bitterness
during his stay.
3 Ammianus xxii. 12, 1 impatiens
otii lituos somniabat et prælia…..orna-
mentis illustrium gloriarum inserere
Parthici cognomentum ardebat.
So Julian himself in Eunapius
p. 68, Bonn, though we need not see in
it a prophecy of Hadrianople, for the
emperor (like a true heathen) had a
very ignorant contempt of the Goths
(Ammianus xxii. 7, 8). When he wants
an example of barbarian valour (c. Chr.
pp. 116, 138 Cyril) he prefers to name
the Germans. Yet he well knew the
merits of his Gothic generals, and had
just escorted the first barbarian consul
to the curia.
Ammianus is worth comparison.
The Franks in Amida sadly cumbered
the defence; yet he does full justice to
the daring valour with which they very
nearly killed Sapor in the midst of his
host. On the other hand, he grumbles
not a little at Nevitta's consulship.
G.
14
210
[CB.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
was less pressing than it seemed. The legions had not degene-
rated, and under a decent leader were still invincible'. What-
ever Ursulus might say, the fall of Amida was no more than an
accident of Sabinian's incompetence. And after all his defeats,
Constantius had lost neither of the real bulwarks of the Roman
power. With one flank guarded by the fortress of Nisibis and
the other covered by the mountains of Armenia, any tolerable
general should have been able, to hold the rugged district
of Arzanene against the Persian cavalry. Unfortunately these
bulwarks were no longer intact. The Roman eagles still
gleamed on the unconquered wall of Nisibis; but Julian's
apostasy shook the Armenian alliance to its base, and his failure
was mainly caused by the disaffection of Tiranus. The Christians
of Armenia were not wanting in bravery to defend their
own frontier—only in good will for a heathen emperor starting
on a war of conquest. The alliance formed by Constantine was
necessarily lost by Julian.
All preparations completed, the emperor left ungrateful
Antioch (Mar. 5, 363) for the scene of war.
The main army of
65,000 men was to march through the desert, supported by
a fleet on the Euphrates; while 30,000 more under Procopius
and Sebastian were to operate from Nisibis with the help
of 20,000 Armenians. It is dangerous to criticize the operations
of so good a general, but the march through the desert seems to
have been a military error. It is clear that the Empire hardly
ever struck an effective blow at Persia except through Armenia.
Trajan, Avidius Cassius, Galerius in 297 and Heraclius all
secured Armenia before descending on the Tigris; Crassus and
Julian, and Galerius in 296 all struck across the desert. Julian
indeed was not ignorant of his danger from Armenian disaffec-
tion; but with his usual contempt of barbarians, he seems
to have thought a haughty message enough to secure the
obedience of Tiranus. Here was another characteristic error
of his heathen pride. Constantine might have fallen into
it, but Julian could scarcely have escaped it. The Armenian
1 Some writers are ready to explain
everything by "the degeneracy of the
army"; but there cannot have been
much degeneracy in the armies which
fought at Mursa and Argentoratum.
The truth is nowhere better put
than by Professor Seeley Lectures and
Essays, p. 47.
VI.]
JULIAN'S PERSIAN WAR.
211
contingent deserted; and without it the army of Nisibis
could hardly venture through Assyria. Julian's own part of
the campaign was a splendid success. But when he had fought
his way to the Tigris, he looked in vain for succours from
the north. Repulsed from the walls of Ctesiphon and foiled in
his effort to penetrate eastward, there was nothing left but a
hasty retreat on Carduene. His march lay through a wasted
country, and the Persian cavalry hovered round. Even Saracens
attacked his rear'. Every day the distress increased; but the
army made steady progress, and Roman discipline beat off every
attack. Julian redoubled his efforts, and nobly redeemed his
promise to the legions, to be their general, their leader and
their comrade. If he had lived, we cannot doubt that he
would have brought back a remnant safe to Nisibis. The
campaign would have been at best a brilliant failure; but it was
only converted into absolute disaster by the chance arrow (June
26, 363) which cut short his busy life. After all, he was only in
his thirty-second year.
Christian charity will not delight in counting up the out-
breaks of petty spite and childish vanity³ which disfigure a noble
character of purity and self-devotion. Still less need the histo-
rian presume to speculate what Julian would have done if he had
returned in triumph from the Persian war. We can only say
that he would have had to take a more decided policy—that if
he had not bowed his neck to the yoke of Christ, he would have
been driven on to persecute like Decius. His bitterness at
Antioch might have hardened into a renegade's malice, or it
might have melted at our Master's touch. But apart from what
he might have done, there is matter enough for the gravest
blame in what he did. The scorner must not pass unchallenged
to the banquet of the just. Yet when Silenus has done his
worst and all is said against him, the clear fact remains that
1 It is characteristic of Julian that
he made these Saracens his enemies
by stopping their pensions, and answer-
ing their complaints with the remark
that he had iron for them, but not
gold (Ammianus xxv. 6, 10).
2 Ammianus xxiii. 5, 19 adero ubi-
que vobis adjumento numinis sempiterni
imperator et antesignanus et contur-
malis.
3 Ammianus XXV. 5, 18 laudum
etiam ex minimis rebus intemperans
adpetitor. Yet we must make some
allowance for the awful loneliness of
his imperial position. Julian needed
human sympathy more than a philo-
sopher should.
14-2
212
[CH. VI.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
Julian lived a hero's life. He might be blinded by his impatience
and sometimes hurried into clear injustice by his heathen
prejudice, but we cannot mistake a spirit of self-sacrifice and
earnest piety as strange to worldling bishops as to the
pleasure-loving heathen populace. Mysterious and full of tragic
pathos is the irony of God in history, which allowed one of
the very noblest of the emperors to act the part of Jeroboam,
and brought the false intriguer Maris of Chalcedon to cry
against the altar like the man of God from Judah. But Maris
was right, for Julian was the blinder of the two.
The corpse of Julian was hastily embalmed, and in due time
brought by Procopius from Nisibis to be deposited in the resting-
place of emperors, the church of the Twelve Apostles at Con-
stantinople. There in his tomb of porphyry the great Constan-
tine was already laid; and there, conspicuous above the crowd
of meaner emperors afterwards assembled round him—there for
long centuries slept Theodosius and Anastasius at Constantine's
feet, with Justinian on the other side, and near him Heraclius
and the Isaurian Leo. In the shady northern aisle of this
imperial mausoleum the Apostate found that rest which the call
of duty had denied him in his life on earth.
NOTE H.
THE LEGISLATION OF JULIAN.
The following may serve as a conspectus of Julian's legislation :
a fuller discussion will be found in Rendall Julian 150-175. The
references are to the Codex Theodosianus, unless otherwise stated.
:
I. Laws facilitating the course of justice. i. 16, 8 (also inscription
at Amorgos quoted by Haenel Corpus Legum) give fuller powers
to the judices pedanei. xii. 7, 2 establishes zygostata in every city to
settle coinage disputes. ii. 5, 1 also ii. 12, 1 and C. Just. viii. 36, 2
strike at various legal delays. xi. 30, 30 allows appeals only within
a reasonable time, while (7. 29) those made to the vicarius urbis or
(7. 31) to other officials are to be sent to the comitatus within thirty
days, under a heavy penalty.
II. Laws directly aimed at the misconduct of officials.
v. 12, 1
orders long custom to be followed-perhaps as against the meddling
of men in power. xi. 16, 10 forbids the imposition or remission of
taxes without the emperor's knowledge, while vii. 1, 6-8 orders
numerarii to make true returns of the taxes (an old difficulty of
Constantine's) on penalty of torture, and puts them out of office
every sixth year in order to give room for complaints against them.
ii. 29, 1 refuses to recognize corrupt purchases of office, and ix. 42, 5
denounces embezzlement of the property of proscripti-such no
doubt as Eusebius or Florentius.
viii. 5, 12-15 check the abuse of the cursus publicus by "prefects,
governors and consulars," by abolishing (Socr. iii. 1) the service of
mules, oxen and donkeys, and limiting the use of horses (except under
the emperor's own hand) to certain officials on serious occasions. The
prætorian prefects might use it at their discretion, and were to give a
couple of passes yearly to the præsides, while Julian himself would
214
[CH
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
grant ten or a dozen to each of the vicarii, and allow the præsides
to refer to the comitatus in case of need. 7. 16 abolishes the cursus in
Sardinia as needless.
By ix 2, 1 accused senators are not to be molested before
conviction.
III. Alleviations of public burdens. xii 13, 1 gives up the
benevolence of aurum coronarium. So Ammianus xxv. 4, 15, adding
remissa debita longa diuturnitate congesta. We find no general
abatement of taxation such as Valens made, but there were many
local remissions. Thus xi. 28, 1 (where see Godefroy's notes) remits
the arrears of Africa, except gold and silver; Ep. 47 half the arrears
of Thrace. At Antioch he gave up (Misop. p. 365) one fifth of the
taxes, besides the whole of the arrears.
In this connexion we may note his clearance of the palace, his
attempt to establish a maximum at Antioch, and his regulation
(xiv. 4, 3) of the supply of swine's flesh at Rome. He was not very
successful in these matters; but the case of Cæsarius is enough to
shew that his summary reformation of the palace was not absolutely
undiscriminating.
IV. Endeavours to put the municipalities on a sounder footing,
especially by doing away with exemptions. xii. 1, 50 and xiii. 1, 4
abolish the immunities of the clergy, xv. 1, 10 the personal privileges
granted by preceding emperors. Here again hasty legislation may
well (Ammianus xxv. 4, 21) have caused much hardship. xi. 19, 2
subjects patrimoniales fundi to the extraordinary taxes levied on
those held by emphyteusis. xi. 3, 3 and 4 order the taxes on land
to be paid by the person in possession. xii. 1, 54 regulates the
debts of the new curiales, and 1. 51 (so Zos. iii. 11) confirms the
old privilege by which Antioch added to its album anyone not
already inscribed elsewhere, whose grandfather was a citizen. By
vi. 26, 1 he frees the imperial clerks from liability to the curia after
fifteen years' service, while vi. 27, 2 gives the same immunity to
agentes in rebus after three years, xii. 1, 56 to soldiers of curial
descent after ten, xiii. 3, 4 confirms the exemption of medical men,
and xii. 1, 56 frees even from assessment the fathers of thirteen
children.
V. Religious Legislation. We may begin with his marriage
laws. Augustine quæstt. ex utr. Test. 115 complains that Julian
allowed women liberty of divorce. The allusion may be to iii. 13, 2,
which Godefroy explains as intended to facilitate divorce. ii. 5, 6
VI.]
NOTE H. JULIAN'S LEGISLATION.
215
and iv. 11, 6 are also marriage laws; but Julian's aims on this
subject are more legal than moral.
We need only allude to his reopening of the temples and
restoration of the idols, his clearance of the palace and his expulsion
of the Christians from his household, his recall (Epp. 26, 31) of the
exiles and his restitution of churches to Novatians and Donatists.
We have (Soz. v. 1, also Ep. 49) his restoration of privileges to the
priests, especially their corn allowances. x. 19, 2 seems to belong
to Julian, and to be intended to facilitate the rebuilding of the
temples. ix. 17, 5 (compare Ep. 77) forbids the desecration of
tombs, and also the inauspicious habit of conducting funerals by day.
It may glance at the Babylas riot three or four months before.
xiii. 3, 5 orders the teachers of rhetoric to be chosen by the curia
subject to an imperial veto: but Ep. 42 absolutely forbids Christians
to teach the classics. The former law bears date June 17, 362; and
might be issued from somewhere near Pessinus. Rendall Julian 209
seems to doubt whether the second was a law for the Empire, on
the ground that we have it only among his letters. But though
Ep. 25 is repeated in C. Th. xiii. 3, 4, we cannot be surprised at
the omission of an edict corresponding to Ep. 42.
NOTE I.
OUR AUTHORITIES FOR JULIAN'S PERSECUTION.
The charges of persecution made by various writers against Julian
may be conveniently grouped in four classes, thus:
I. Local outrages, apparently connected with the restoration of
heathenism; and if so, mostly to be placed early in his reign.
II. Events at Antioch.
III. Attempts to heathenize the army; where the charge of
persecution is complicated with questions of military discipline.
IV. Affairs of civil administration and policy, including the
clearance of the palace, the execution of Artemius, the Maiuma award,
the disgrace of Cæsarea Mazaca, the settlement of religious disputes
at Bostra, Cyzicus, Tarsus and Edessa, affairs at Alexandria, the
withdrawal of state support from Christianity, the recall of the exiles,
the education edicts, and general charges of oppression and partiality.
A few monstrous rumours we may safely neglect.
216
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
This is a long catalogue; but large deductions must be made from
it. Some of the charges rest on errors of fact, others need not imply
persecution, and others again cannot be connected with Julian
personally. On these points it will be enough to refer to the dis-
cussion of Rendall Julian esp. 176-216, whose lively sympathy
with the heathen emperor seldom seems productive of injustice to
wards the other side. Here we may notice a few points with regard
to the original authorities for the facts.
I. Many of our first class seem derived from an unknown
Homean writer used by Theodoret, whose work extended at least
over several years ending with the death of Julian. His traces are
clearest in the Chronicon Paschale, and will be shewn best by a few
extracts.
337. Courtly tone towards Constantius. 350 his great care for
the churches. 360 his munificence.
350. ὁ μακάριος Λεόντιος ὁ ἐπίσκοπος Αντιοχείας της Συρίας, ἀνὴρ
κατὰ πάντα πιστός τε καὶ εὐλαβὴς καὶ ζηλωτὴς ὑπάρχων τῆς ἀληθοῦς
TíσTews, introducing a silly miracle. No orthodox writer has a good
word for Leontius, unless we accept the equivocal praise of Soz. iii. 20.
The Chronicon elsewhere (254) quotes Leontius for a legendary ac-
count of his predecessor Babylas.
360. Careful account of the deposition of Macedonius and en-
thronement of Eudoxius. Not a word of the Anoman schism which
figures so largely in Philostorgius.
362. After Julian entered Constantinople (Dec. 361) the peace
of the churches was broken up, καὶ ἔστιν τὰ παρακολουθήσαντα ταῦτα.
Here then begins a long extract from the Homoan writer, extending
at least as far as the mention of Meletius. Theodoret has omissions
and additions, but with one exception his order exactly coincides.
We find then in the Chronicon Paschale,
(a) Edict for restoration of idols. So Theodoret.
(b) Murder of George of Alexandria. Omitted by Theodoret.
(c) At Sebaste-John the Baptist dug up. Theodoret puts
it after (e), Rufinus ii. 28 gives it in a different connexion. Philo-
storgius adds the relics of Elisha. He also tells us that the heathens
sometimes offered Christian victims on their altars, and that Julian
was much delighted with these sacrifices.
(d) At Scythopolis"the holy Patrophilus" dug up. Theodoret
omits this, knowing better who Patrophilus was.
(e) At Ascalon and Gaza--the virgins. So Theodoret. Sozomen
v. 9, who had family connexions with Gaza, substitutes a story of
VI.]
NOTE I. JULIAN'S PERSECUTION.
217
Eusebius, Zeno, &c., reserving that of the virgins for Heliopolis, and
adding his belief that the outrage was in revenge for Constantine's
endeavour (Eus. V.C. iii. 58; L.C. 13 § 7; Theophania ii. 14) to
suppress the licentious worships practised in the city. So too,
Peter of Alexandria
perhaps independently, Nicephorus Callistus.
(Theodoret iv. 22) names Heliopolis as a stronghold of heathenism,
though with evident exaggeration. Gregory of Nazianzus Or. iv. 87
seems to mix up this story with the next. Upon the whole Heliopolis
would seem more likely than Gaza. Compare Rendall Julian 178.
The general picture of outrages and exhumations in Syria is fully
confirmed by the faint disapproval of Julian Misopogon 361.
(f) At Heliopolis-murder &c., of Cyril the deacon. So Theo-
doret, retouching the narrative at every point, and especially re-
placing ὁ δὲ ἀνατεμὼν κ.τ.λ. by ὅσοι γὰρ δὴ ἐκείνου τοῦ μύσους με-
τέλαχον.
(9) At Emesa-image of Dionysius set up in the church. So
Theodoret, retouching again. Δ. τῷ γύννιδι τὴν νεόδμητον ἀφιέρωσαν
ἐκκλησίαν κ. τ. λ. Julian Misop. 355 tells us that they burnt the
Christian "tombs," i.e. the splendid church mentioned by Soz. iii. 17.
At this point the narratives diverge. Theodoret gives first the
story of Emilianus at Dorostolum, then that of Mark of Arethusa.
Meanwhile in the Chronicon Paschale,
(h) At Epiphania in Syria-an obscene idol brought with much
pomp into the church; the blessed bishop Eustathius, arp evλaßn's
καὶ εὐσεβής,...ζῆλον ἔχων ἐν εὐσεβεία, dies of horror at the news.
This must be the Eustathius of Epiphania who signed the encyclical
of Philippopolis (Hil. Fragm. 3), and afterwards the Homoean creed
at Seleucia (Epiph. Hær. 73, 26).
(i) Julian lets loose upon the churches ἅπαντας τοὺς καθαιρεθέντας
πρὸ τούτου ἐπὶ διαφόροις ατόποις κακοδοξίαις, in order to cause con-
fusion. Meletius in particular who was deposed for heresy (Eπì
ảʊeßeía) and other misdeeds returned to Antioch and seized the Old
Church by violence, with the help of clerics who had been regularly
deposed by the holy synod...and of the layman Vitalis who after-
wards formed a schism, and was joined by Apollinarius of Laodicea.
(j) Fate of the apostates Theotecnus and Hero. So Philost.
vii. 13. The stories may belong to Maximin's time.
(k) Case of Valentinian. So Soer. iv. 1 (adding Valens), Soz,
Theodt, and Philost. Rendall Julian 198 follows Mücke Julian
249, 282 in doubting the whole story. Rode Julian 69 is willing
to suppose that Valentinian was too decided a Christian to be
218
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
allowed near Julian's person, and was therefore removed to another
station.
(7) Case of Artemius. So Theodoret and Philostorgius (romance
in Joann. Damasc.): and for the fact of his execution, Ammianus.
xxii. 11, 2.
(m) Æmilianus of Dorostolum and the fate of the infamous
Thalassius, also called Magnus. Peter of Alexandria (Theodt. iv. 22)
mentions Magnus comes largitionum in Egypt in 373, who burnt the
church at Berytus in Julian's time, and was compelled by Jovian to
rebuild it.
(n) The hermit Dometius; an incident of Julian's march in 363.
From a separate account, and previously given only by Malalas.
From this point the Chronicon becomes meagre and seems to follow
Nicene authorities, as in the vision (given also by Malalas, traced by
John of Damascus de Imaginibus i. p. 327 to Helladius of Cæsarea,
and said by Glycas to come from a panegyric ascribed to Amphilochius
of Iconium) where "the most holy Basil of Cæsarea" sees the Lord
commanding Mercurius to slay Julian. Mercurius the comes somnio-
rum is coupled by Ammianus xv. 3 with Paul Catena as an informer,
by Niceph. Call. x. 35 with Artemius as a saint. He may have been
executed with him by Julian. Even the chamberlain Eusebius has
been turned into a martyr by (Leo Grammaticus) p. 94: but modern
credulity has fortunately stopped just short of "S. Eusebius."
These stories are not of Nicene origin. Neither are they Mace-
donian. Sabinus of Heraclea seems to have written only on the
councils; and no Macedonian writer would have stigmatized the
exiles as deposed ἐπὶ διαφόροις ατόποις κακοδοξίαις. Neither do they
seem to come from Anomoan sources. We cannot argue from the
silence of Philostorgius: but besides differences of detail and arrange-
ment, there is no effort to glorify the Anomoans, no sign of the
bitterness caused by the Theodosian persecution. The writer then
was a Homœan, and therefore of the reign of Valens, or very little
later, before Homeans ceased to be. Theodoret seems to have
followed him for some distance, omitting the Arian Patrophilus, and
diverging when he reached the Arian Eustathius.
Valesius (on Theodoret iii. 4) has noticed the generic Arian
character of the account in the case of Meletius, Ducange in that
of Leontius, but the specific Homœan turn of the narrative has
escaped them.
II. Events at Antioch (entirely omitted by the Chronicon
Paschale) fall into four series:-
VI.]
NOTE I. JULIAN'S PERSECUTION.
219
(a) Profanation of the great church and evil end of Julian,
comes Orientis and the emperor's uncle. Most simply told by
Sozomen. Theodoret adds the remonstrances of Euzoius and of
Julian's wife, relates the horrible death of Felix, and connects
Elpidius with the desecration. Philostorgius is silent on the first
point, but records the death of Felix, and adds how the divine
vengeance overtook Elpidius a few years later. The story may be a
little overcoloured, but of its substantial truth there is no reason to
doubt. The transaction is fixed for some time during Julian's stay at
Antioch by the mention of Felix the comes S.L. who was at Constan-
tinople (Cod. Theod. xi. 39, 5) March 23. It is specially connected
with the Babylas riot in October by Julian's closure (Ammianus) of
the church, as well as by the consideration that he could not under
ordinary circumstances connive at outrages committed under his eyes
by some of his highest officers; also perhaps by the attempt to restore
Stephen ascribed to the emperor by Chrysostom de S. Babyla 22
(ii. 568 Migne). In this case Count Julian's death before the end
of the year, and that of Felix profluvio sanguinis a few weeks later,
might well have seemed a blow from heaven. See Ammianus xxiii. 1,
4, 5, where the two Julians must be distinguished, Julian Misop.
365, and the allusion of Chrysostom supra. It must have been
another Felix who was also comes S. L. under Valens (C. Th. x. 17, 2)
in 365, or rather in 368 or 370. The fate of Elpidius is nowhere
confirmed; but the fall of Procopius was an evil day for Julian's
renegades.
Theodoret iii. 12 has the curious error of making Count Julian
prætorian prefect, though in the previous chapter he has rightly
named Sallust as the holder of that office. Rode Julian 69 has
similarly misunderstood ô rîs éwas apxwv in Philost. vii. 10. So also
Rendall Julian 269.
(b) Theodore. The use of torture is recorded by Ammianus
xxii. 13, 2, but the story of Theodore rests on the authority of
Rufinus, and is therefore suspicious. Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret
and Augustine merely copy him; and the inscription at Gerasa
(Boeckh 8654) is somewhat later. The miraculous part is vouched
for by the ipsi nos vidimus of Rufinus, which usually prefaces his
own inventions. We need not saddle it on Theodore, as is done by
Rode Julian 74.
(c) Juventinus and Maximinus. Fairly established by the con-
current evidence of Chrysostom and Theodoret.
220
[сн.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
(d) Meletius and the youth. Personally vouched for by Theo-
doret (¿yw akýkoa), and may be accepted.
III. IV. The third class of charges has been discussed else-
where; nor will the fourth detain us long. The only case deserving
of notice (if only for its impudence) is the account of Dorotheus of
Tyre in Theophanes Chron. p. 74. It appears that Dorotheus was
a confessor under Diocletian, and returned to rule the church of
Tyre in peace till his execution at Lisbon under Julian, at the age
of 107. We can trace six historical bishops of Tyre during the inter-
val-Methodius 312, Paulinus about 323, Zeno 325 (signs at
Nicæa), Paul (at Tyre) 335, Vitalis 343 (signs at Philippopolis), and
Uranius 357-359. The tale is worthy of Dexter the Jesuit.
NOTE J.
THE RETURN OF ATHANASIUS IN 362.
There are some difficulties about this date. Ammianus xxii. 11
§§ 2-8 relates first the execution of Artemius in connexion with
Julian's arrival at Antioch in July 362, then the murder of his as-
sociate George as soon as the news reached Alexandria. The return
therefore of Athanasius cannot be placed earlier than August 362.
On the other hand the following series of dates is given in
Maffei's Historia acephala (Athanasius ii. 1443-1450 Migne: or a
better and completer text by Sievers Athanasii vita acephala in
Zeitschr. f. die hist. Theol. xxxviii. p. 89-164)-a document dating
from the episcopate of Theophilus (385-412):
361 Nov. 30 (Cyac 4). Accession of Julian proclaimed at Alex-
[News in twenty-seven days from Mopsu-
Arrest of George.
andria.
crena.]
Dec. 24 (Cyac 28).
362 Feb. 4 (Mechir 10).
""
idols, &c.
Murder of George.
Edict published for restoration of
9 (Mechir 15). Edict published for return of the
exiles.
""
21 (Mechir 27).
Return of Athanasius.
Oct. 24 (Phaophi 27).
full months at Alexandria.
Flight of Athanasius after eight
VI.]
NOTE J. THE RETURN OF ATHANASIUS IN 362.
221
363 Aug. 20 (Mensore 26). Death of Julian and accession of
Jovian proclaimed at Alexandria. [News in fifty-
five days from Persia, or more likely in thirty-nine
days, counting from the peace of July 12.]
The news of Julian's accession must have been delayed or come
further than from Mopsucrenæ. Otherwise this is a compact and
consistent account, and is further supported by (1) The computation
Vita Aceph. p. 161 that Athanasius was in hiding seventy-two months
and fourteen days :-viz. from Feb. 7 (Mechir 13) 356. (2) The Index
to the Festal Letters of Athanasius places his flight Phaophi 27, while
Epiph. Hær. 76. 1, Soz. v. 7 and Niceph. Call. x. 6 agree that
George was seized as soon as the death of Constantius was known at
Alexandria. Sievers (supra) has shewn that Sozomen and the writer
of the Index frequently use the Hist. Aceph., and they may have done
so in this case; but Epiphanius is certainly independent, and indeed
our earliest authority. (3) The Chronicon Paschale, copying from an
old Homcan writer of the time of Valens (see Note I), places
the murder of George among the heathen atrocities immediately con-
nected with Julian's restoration of the idols. On the other hand, in
the S. Artemii Passio included in the works of John of Damascus
(iii. 1251-1320 Migne and discussed by Langen Johannes von
Damaskus 255-263), but mostly derived from Philostorgius, the
scene is laid at Antioch, and the proceedings extend from Julian's
arrival to the fire at Daphne in October.
Internal probability is divided. Mr Rendall (Julian 289) urges
that we should not expect Julian to let Athanasius remain eight months
in Alexandria. On the other side, we should not expect the mob to
wait for the execution of Artemius in July. His recall or the mere
succession of a hostile emperor would have been signal enough for
the attack on George.
The evidence of Ammianus is not hastily to be set aside; though
there is no reason for Mücke's theory (Julian ii. 326), that he was in
Egypt at the time. His geographical digressions are the least origi-
nal parts of his work. Ammianus however is not always careful of
the exact sequence of events; and in this case there cannot be much
doubt that he is wrong in dating the murder of George after the
execution of Artemius. So Sievers Einl. § 22. On the side of
Ammianus there is at worst an oversight: whereas the Hist. Aceph.
would need to be rewritten.
222
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
NOTE K.
JULIAN'S ARRIVAL AT ANTIOCH.
CLINTON F. R., Rode Julian 68, Rendall Julian 289 and others
place his arrival some three weeks earlier "at the end of June or the
very beginning of July." But there are a few minor difficulties
here, which even the indefatigable Sievers Libanius 247 has hardly
settled.
First let us clear the ground. We have (1) the stay of ten
months at Constantinople ascribed to Julian by Zoz. iii. 11. Mücke
Julian 106 has accepted this, but it hardly needs discussion. (2) C.
Th. viii. 4, 7 is dated from Nicomedia,... Kal. Aug.; but Godefroy
rightly sets aside the date as corrupt. (3) C. Th. i. 16, 8 is dated
from Antioch July 28. Haenel rejects it, but it matters little.
Setting these aside, our last trace of Julian at Constantinople is
C. Th. xiii. 3, 4, which is dated May 12. Thence he came (Ammia-
nus xxii. 9) past Nicomedia and Nicæa, turned aside to the temple of
Cybele at Pessinus, and circuited back (redit) to Ancyra. He re-
sumed bis journey June 29 according to the Acts of Basil of Ancyra
(quoted by Tillemont Empereurs iv. 519, 698), and went on by way
of Cæsarea (Soz. v. 4 and others, rejecting Julian Ep. 75 with
Rendall, though the suspicious ending seems spurious), Tyana (Ep. 4),
and Tarsus. This part of the journey was done quickly (properans),
though Libanius says oxoλ beyond Cilicia. He reached Antioch
during the mourning for Adonis, and there we find him Aug. 1 (Ep.
52 ad Bostrenos). He was also present (Misop. 361) at a feast
during Lous; and Libanius tells us that he was at Antioch "nine
months" or "the whole summer and winter." This however is clearly
inaccurate, for he cannot however have arrived for some weeks after
June 5.
Now the Adonis feast or weeping for Tammuz cannot well be
placed before the middle of July. Ammianus xix. 1, 11 and xxii.
9, 15 seems to connect it with the harvest, Julian Or. iv. p. 155
with the vintage. The one indication would point to June, the other
to July. Elsewhere Julian Misop. 361 seems to fix it a little before
the month of Lous, which means August in the Chron. Pasch, Malalas
(e.g. p. 284 Bonn) and Suidas. Jerome on Ez. viii. 14 puts the
weeping in June; but Tammuz being the tenth month extended over
most of July, so that Godefroy Chronol. lxiv. reads Julio for Junio.
There remains Macrobius Sat. i. 21, 2, whose words seem at first
VI.]
NOTE K. JULIAN'S ARRIVAL AT ANTIOCH.
223
sight to fix it after the autumnal equinox. This however is so clear
a mistake that we shall do better if we understand him as referring
to the time after the summer solstice, "when the days begin to
shorten." And this period may very well cover the whole of July,
for at Antioch (Lat. 36° 11') sunset recedes only from 7 h. 15 min. to
6 h. 59 min. after apparent noon between the solstice and July 30, so
that the shortening of the days would be very little noticed before
August.
Upon the whole the data before us are best harmonized by placing
the Adonis feast, and Julian's arrival with it, about the middle of
July.
CHAPTER VII.
THE RESTORED HOMEAN SUPREMACY.
THE reign of Julian seems at first sight no more than a sudden
storm which clears us and leaves everything much as it was
before. Far from restoring heathenism, he could not even
seriously shake the power of Christianity. No sooner was he
dead than the philosophers disappeared, the renegades did
penance, and even the reptiles of the palace came back to their
accustomed haunts. There was not much gained when Demos-
thenes the cook succeeded Eusebius the chamberlain, and
Modestus reigned at Antioch instead of his fellow-renegade
Elpidius. Yet Julian's work was not in vain, for it tested both
heathenism and Christianity, and in their strength as well as in
their weakness. All that Constantine had given Julian could
take away, but the living power of faith was not at Cæsar's
beck and call. Heathenism was really strong in its associations
with Greek philosophy and culture, with Roman law and social
life;
but as a moral force among the common people, its weak-
ness was contemptible. It could sway the wavering multitude
with superstitious fancies, and cast a subtler spell upon the
noblest Christian teachers; but its own adherents it could hardly
lift above their petty quest of pleasure. Julian called aloud,
and called in vain. A mocking echo was the only answer from
that valley of dry bones.
Christianity on the other hand had won the victory almost
without a blow. When the great army of heathenism turned
out to be a crowd of camp-followers, the alarm of battle died
away in peals of defiant laughter. Julian's renegades were a
CH. VII.]
JOVIAN.
225
sorry comedy', his hecatombs a broad farce of impious pre-
sumption. Instead of ever coming to grapple with its mighty
rival, the great catholic church of heathenism hardly reached
the stage of apish mimicry. Yet the alarm was real, and its
teachings were not forgotten. It broke up the revels of party
strife, and partly roused the churches to the dangers of a purely
heathen education. Above all, the near approach of danger
shewed that the life of Christianity is not in the multitude of
converts, or in the privileges accorded by the state. Renegades
on one side, fanatics on the other, were ancient scandals of the
Christian cause; and signs were not wanting that the touch of
persecution would wake up the old heroic spirit which had
fought the Empire from the catacombs and overcome it.
Julian was the last survivor of the house of Constantine³, so
that his lieutenants were free to choose the worthiest of their
comrades. Victor and Arinthæus formed a Syrian, Daga-
laifus and Nevitta a Gaulish faction. It was well that the four
barbarian generals were agreed in deference for the prefect
Sallust. But when Sallust declined the purple, the debate
went on. Suddenly one or two voices hailed the primus
domesticorum Jovian as emperor. The cry was taken up;
and in a few moments the young officer found himself the
successor of Augustus.
4
The stately form of Jovian was animated by a spirit of
cowardly selfishness. His only thought was to make sure of his
undeserved election. Perhaps even that end might have been
better served if he had fought his way to the mountains of
Carduene. But Jovian preferred to save the relics of an army
he might need for civil war by patching up a disgraceful peace
with Persia. The five provinces conquered by Galerius were
1 So Asterius of Amasea, p. 208.
2 Greg. Naz. Or. iv. p. 139.
3 Only his distant relative Proco-
pius was left, besides the infant daugh-
ter of Constantius. But Procopius
may have been a connexion of Basilina,
and therefore not a Flavian at all.
• Ammianus XXV. 5, 4. Later
writers make him comes domesticorum :
but that high office was occupied at
the time by Dagalaifus and Arinthæus.
5 We may say broadly that the
heathen writers blame Jovian for con-
senting to a disgraceful peace, while
the Christians clear him on the ground
of hard necessity.
Opposite prejudices must be taken
into account, for if one side is too
ready to convict Jovian of cowardice,
the other is equally determined to
throw the blame on Julian's rashness.
In this case we must decide for the
G.
15
226
[CII.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
restored to Sapor, and the impregnable fortress of Nisibis given
up to his commissioner by Jovian's own imperial command.
Jovian was a decided Christian, though his morals illustrated
neither the purity of the gospel nor the dignity of his imperial
position'. The immunities abolished by Julian were restored
to the churches, but fiscal necessity allowed only a partial
restitution of the endowments. No attempt however was made
to disturb the general toleration. If Athanasius was graciously
received at Antioch, even the Arians were told with scant
ceremony that they could hold their meetings as they pleased
at Alexandria 2.
•
About this time the Anomoans organized their schism.
Nearly four years had been spent in uncertain negotiations since
the condemnation of Aetius at Constantinople. Eudoxius does
not seem to have been very much in earnest about the matter,
but it was not till Jovian's time that the Anomoans made up
their minds to set him at defiance by consecrating Pomenius to
the bishopric of Constantinople. Other appointments were made
at the same time, and Theophilus the Indian was sent to
Antioch in the hope of winning over Euzoius. Henceforth the
Anomoans were an organized sect.
But the most important document of Jovian's reign is the
acceptance of the Nicene creed by Acacius of Caesarea and
heathens. The difficulty indeed was
so great that we cannot blame Jovian
merely for not having been able to
overcome it: but it is clear from the
circumstantial narrative of Ammianus
that he made supine delays, and that
he scarcely attempted to keep up the
discipline of the army. And this is
enough to condemn him.
Philostorgius viii. 1 tells us that the
army was reduced to a tenth of its
numbers before the peace was made;
but this is not likely.
1 Ammianus XXV. 10, 15 is per-
fectly clear on this point, and it is
mere special pleading to set aside his
evidence as hearsay.
Bishop Wordsworth Ch. Hist. ii.
186-196 writes of Jovian with almost
unqualified admiration. Is fornication
and all other deadly sin so light a mat-
ter in his eyes that a Christian bishop
needs to soften the mild censure of the
heathen soldier? Truly I did injustice
to Ammianus in my note on p. 197.
Jovian's immorality was open and scan-
dalous, and it must not be condoned
for the sake of his formal orthodoxy.
We hardly find so clear a case among
his successors before that of Michael
the Drunkard.
2 The story is given in some frag-
ments printed in the works of Athana-
sius; and their authenticity is fairly
vouched for by the undignified conduct
ascribed to Jovian.
3 Philost. viii. 2. The distribution
of the Anomoan bishoprics is instruc-
tive. They were constituted for (1)
Constantinople, (2) Lydia and Ionia,
(3) Lesbos, (4) Pontus and Galatia,
(5) Cilicia, (6) Syria, (7) Palestine,
(8) Libya and Egypt. The sect must
have been strongest in the Asiatic and
Syrian dioceses, weak in the Pontic
and Egyptian.
VII.]
VALENTINIAN.
227
more than twenty of his friends, amongst whom we find
Meletius of Antioch and Athanasius of Ancyra'. Acacius was
only returning to his master's steps when he explained óμoovσtov
in the sense of oμotovσtov, and laid stress on the care with which
"the Fathers" had guarded the meauing of the word: but the
transaction helped to widen the breach between Meletius and
the older Nicenes.
All these movements came to an end at the sudden death of
Jovian (Feb. 16, 364). Once more the prefect Sallust reconciled
contending factions'; and this time it was with full consent and
after full debate that the army chose the Pannonian Valen-
tinian for emperor. A month later he assigned the Eastern
prefecture to his brother Valens, and the two Augusti went on
together as far as Sirmium before they parted, reaching Milan
and Constantinople before the end of that strange consulship of
Divus Jovianus and Varronianus.
Valentinian decidedly belongs to the better class of em-
perors. We cannot but approve the preference of Ammianus*
for his old commander; yet history is bound to confess that
Julian's philosophy was not ill replaced by a soldier's sense of
duty. If Valentinian had little of Julian's brilliancy and none
of his kindliness, he was a stranger also to Julian's Quixotic
enthusiasm and fussy restlessness. Instead of plunging into the
desert in quest of Sapor, he was content to keep a sober watch
on the Rhine and the Danube. His reign was a laborious and
honourable struggle with the enemies of the republic; and
when the Alemanni claimed his presence on the Rhine, he left
his brother to make head alone against Procopius. An unculti-
1 Of the others we may notice
Pelagius of Laodicea, Titus of Bostra,
Isaac of Armenia, and Eusebius of
Samosata. We shall see presently the
light this list throws on the rise of the
new Nicenes in Cappadocia. It is
given by Socr. iii. 25 from the collec-
tion of Sabinus.
2 Socr. iii. 25 ασφαλούς τετύχηκε
παρὰ τοῖς πατράσιν ἑρμηνείας is a strange
contradiction of the Sirmian dia To
ἁπλούστερον ὑπὸ τῶν πατέρων τεθεῖσθαι.
* Philostorgius viii. 9 has a touch
of truth when he names Dagalaifus
and Arinthæus as the chief agents
after Sallust and Datianus. We have
only to note that Victor was by this
time sent to Egypt, and Nevitta re-
moved from office. Valentinian's
elevation on a shield is one more hint
that the empire was already in the gift
of the barbarians. The ceremony
seems first recorded in Julian's case,
and is afterwards found even in the
East, as in that of Justin II.
+ Ammianus xxvi. 10, 9 nec similes
ejus nec suppares, of Valentinian and
Valens.
5 Except that Aequitius in Illyricum
must have acted on orders from Paris.
15-2
228
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
vated man himself, he still could honour learning and carry
further the legislative reforms of Constantine. In religious
matters his policy was a comprehensive and honourable tolera-
tion'. If he refused to displace the few Arian bishops like
Auxentius of Milan in possession of Western sees, he left the
churches free to choose Nicene successors. Under his wise rule
the West soon recovered from the strife Constantius had in-
troduced.
Valens was altogether a weaker character-timid, suspicious.
and inert, yet not without a certain gentleness in private life.
He was as uncultivated as his brother, but not inferior to him
in scrupulous care for the interests of his subjects. Only
Valens was no soldier, so that he preferred remitting taxation.
to taking a personal share in the defence of his frontiers. In
both ways he is entitled to head the series of financial rather
than unwarlike sovereigns whose cautious policy brought the
Empire safely through the great barbarian invasions of the fifth
century.
The contest entered on a new stage in the reign of Valens.
The friendly league of church and state established at Nicæa
had given place to a struggle for supremacy. On the one
hand Constantius endeavoured with high-handed violence to
dictate the faith of Christendom according to the pleasure of
his eunuchs; on the other, the fathers of Ariminum stood out
for clerical privileges, and Athanasius reigned in Egypt like a
rival for the Empire. The tyranny of Paul Catena and the
outrages of George contributed to make Nicenes and Luciferians.
nearly as rebellious as the Donatists: and if Julian's reign
sobered party spirit, it brought home to all the possibility that
an emperor could sit again in Satan's seat. Valens had an
obedient Homœan clergy, but the moral strength of Christen-
dom lay elsewhere. No trappings of official splendour could
enable Eudoxius or Demophilus to rival the imposing personality
of Athanasius or Ambrose. Thus the Empire lost the moral
help it looked for, and the church became embittered with its
wrongs.
1 Of course de Broglie v. 111 views
it unfavourably, though Hertzberg
Gesch. Griechenlands 33 forgets Theo-
doric when he speaks of Valentinian as
für lange Jahrhunderte der letzte fürst-
liche Vertreter allgemeiner Religions-
freiheit.
VII.]
CHURCH AND STATE UNDER VALENS.
229
The breach involved a deeper evil. The Roman world had
been decaying through four hundred years of hopeless servitude.
Vice and war and latterly taxation had steadily dried up the
sources of prosperity, and even of population, till Rome was
perishing for lack of men. Cities had dwindled into villages,
and of villages the very names had often disappeared. The stout
Italian yeomen had been replaced by gangs of slaves, and these
again by thinly scattered serfs. In vain the Empire hired Teu-
tonic swords to fight its battles, and even Saracens and Moors
and Persians helped to swell its motley armies. In vain whole
nations were brought over from the wastes of Germany to fill
the solitudes of Gaul. But if Rome grew weaker every day,
her power for oppression seemed only to increase. Ruthless
and crushing like the laws of Nature, her legislation coiled
tighter and tighter round the unfortunate curiales, till they fled
in all directions from her tyranny. Numbers of them took to
the road; and the Alps, the Taurus and the Balkans swarmed
with robbers'. The outlaws of Gaul flourished beyond the
Rhine till it was hard to tell the Roman from the German bank,
while the provincials of Spain were ready to welcome even the
Vandals as deliverers. It was time for the Empire to give
place to something better. But in the East men were more
inclined to look for refuge to the desert, where as many a legend
told, there was neither oppressor nor oppressed, nor rumour of
the dreadful tax-gatherer, but a people of brethren dwelling
together in unity and serving God in peace³.
We have no occasion here for any full discussion of the early
history of monachism. Let it suffice to say that the ascetic
1 Brigands were a chronic nuisance
even in the better times of the Empire.
Thus Juvenal iii. 307 of the Pomptine
marshes, and Jul. Capitolinus M. Ant.
Phil. 21, where Marcus arms the la-
trones of Dalmatia and Dardania, and
sends Avidius Cassius against the buco-
lici of the Delta. The Gaulish Ba-
gaude are well known.
The evil had not diminished in the
fourth century. Besides the usual
sources of brigandage in runaway
slaves and such like desperadoes, there
were the marauding veterani (C. Th.
vii. 20, 7), and the misuse of the cursus
publicus by abactores. Brigands are
expressly mentioned in Lucania (C.
Th. ix. 30, 1), the Alps (C. Th. vii. 18,
1), the Taurus (Isaurians till Zeno's
time), and the Balkans (Ammianus
xxxi. 6, 5, and even Basil Ep. 268);
and the laws against latrones and their
abettors are too numerous to quote.
Here again we are reminded of
France before the Revolution.
2 Orosius vii. 41-before the expedi-
tion of Castinus: Salvian de Gub. Dei
V. 5.
3 Vita Antonii 44.
230
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
spirit which "hovered on the outskirts of Christianity" long
before the Nicene age' was only then beginning to assume the
familiar shape of monasticism. Earlier ascetics knew how to
devote themselves to fasting and prayer without renouncing the
natural duties of social life. Before the end of the third century
we come upon an occasional hermit like Narcissus of Jerusalem,
and in Egypt there were perhaps the beginnings of ascetic com-
munities; but monks are not a power the historian has to reckon
with till late in the reign of Valens². Even then the wildest
austerities belong to the novels rather than to real life. The
Clementines and the romance of Paul and Thecla were succeeded
by the foolish tales of Jerome and Palladins. Clement of
Alexandria's wise rebuke was soon forgotten; and by Julian's
time the successors of Marcion and Montanus had already
¹ Hatch Organization 152.
2 C. Th. xii. 1, 63 is our first trace
of monks in the law books, and must
be dated in 373.
As it stands in the Coder, it is ad-
dressed through the Prefect Modestus
to the comes Orientis, and dated from
Berytus Jan. 1, in the consulship of
Valentinian and Valens. This will be
365-a date further supported (a) by
the order of the Codex, (b) by our know-
ledge from Epiphanius Her. 80, 2 of
the vexation of the Massalians about
365 by Λουππικιανὸς ὁ στρατηλάτης.
Now if the rescript had really been
issued in 365, the magister militum
Lupicinus was the very person who
would have had to carry it out.
On the other hand, Modestus was
not Prefect before 370, and Valens was
not at Berytus at the beginning of 365,
but at Constantinople (Ammianus xxvi.
5,6). Replacing then a numeral (which
must have fallen out before 438), in
order to refer the law to one of his
later consulships, we find him on the
Danube in the winter of 367-8, and
at Constantinople at the end of 369
(C. Th. v. 1, 2-Dec. 29). Hence we
must fall back with Godefroy on the
consulship of 373, when we know that
he was in Syria.
Sievers Einl. p. 119 puts it in 370,
of course altering data to reddita, and
reading Auxonium for Modestum. For
this bold course his only reason is that
a law against Egyptian monks would
not be addressed to the comes Orientis
while there was a prefect in Egypt.
This by the way rests on an evident
misunderstanding of Larsow's Fest-
briefe.
Rufinus ii. 1 first fixes the "perse-
cution" for the years 367-370 by
naming the prefect Tatianus, then adds
sed hæc omnia post Athanasii obitum in
May 373, "for Valens attempted no-
thing of the sort while Athanasius
lived.'
3 Novel-writing formed a part of the
ascetic movement. It came from the
same quarters, bore the same heathen
characters, and was adopted by the
churches about the same time.
last fragments of the Monumenta Vetera
are Arian novels, though they may fall
outside our period.
The
The writing of these ἄτοπα πάντη
καὶ δυσσεβῆ was not always considered
innocent. The Asiatic presbyter who
forgel the Acts of Paul and Thecla
was deposed for his pains; and the
writer of the Acts of Andrew is known
in history by the title of discipulus
diaboli. Jerome and Palladius have
been fortunate enough to escape the
censures of the church.
* Julian Fragm. p. 288 elol dè ol kal
τὰς ἐρημίας ἀντὶ τῶν πόλεων διώκουσιν,
ὄντος τἀνθρώπου φύσει πολιτικοῦ ζώου καὶ
ημέρου, δαίμοσιν ἐκδεδομένοι πονηροῖς,
ὑφ' ὧν εἰς ταύτην ἄγονται τὴν μισανθρω-
πίαν. ἤδη δὲ καὶ δεσμὰ καὶ κλοιούς
ἐξηῦρον οἱ πολλοὶ τούτων. Also Or. vii.
p. 224.
VII.]
RISE OF ASCETICISM.
231
made good their footing in the churches. Inside Mount Taurus
the movement came chiefly from the Semiarian side. Eustathius
of Sebastia has the doubtful credit of starting it in Pontus',
while Eleusius and Marathonius were as busy on the Hellespont.
Acacians and Anomoans held more aloof, though they could
not escape an influence which even Julian felt. Their Nicene
opponents tax them with indifference to the good cause; but the
charge is hardly borne out by what we know of their hagiology.
Widely as the loving sympathy of Christian self-denial is
opposed to the selfish cowardice of the monastic life, the two
are often strangely intermingled. In an age of indecision and
frivolity like the Nicene, the most earnest striving after Chris-
tian purity will often degenerate into its ascetic caricature.
Thus there was an element of true Christian zeal in the
enthusiasm which swept over the Eastern churches at the end
of the fourth century; and thus it was that the rising spirit of
asceticism naturally attached itself to the Nicene faith as the
strongest moral power in Christendom. It was a protest against
the whole framework of society in that age; and therefore
the alliance was cemented by a common enmity to the Arian
Empire. It largely helped to conquer Arianism, but it left
a lasting evil in its lowering of the Christian standard. Hence-
forth the victory of faith was not to overcome the world but
to flee from it. Far be it from us to apologize in the least for
heathen immorality: yet it was hardly more ruinous to both
church and state than the unclean ascetic spirit which defames
God's holy ordinance, and sees in it nothing essentially better
than a form of sinning which a too indulgent Lord will
overlook³.
1 Hatch Organization 155 says that
"there are some, though not con-
siderable, traces of monasticism in
Armenia at the beginning of the fourth
century." If so, it must have existed
still earlier in Pontus. But can we
fully trust the history of Agathangelus
in its present form? The life of
Gregory the Illuminator is embellished
with almost as many legends as that
of Gregory the Wonderworker.
2 We have touched on Arian hagi-
ology at p. 134. The special charge of
despising saints and relics is found in
Jerome c. Vigilantium 8 and Asterius
of Amasea p. 324.
There seems little ground for it,
except that the exaggerated estimate
of knowledge by the Anomoans would
tend to a Gnostic contempt of practice.
So Epiph. Hær. 76, 4, Aug. de Hær.
51. Yet Philostorgius the Anomœan
is much more credulous than the or-
thodox Socrates.
3 Thus Tert. Exh. Cast. 9 quod
quæritur in matrimonio stuprum est.
Baur's strictures E. Tr. ii. 257-269
are not too severe. Like a good ad-
vocate, Tertullian has phrases on the
other side: but it is easy to see which
of his two inconsistent principles he
held more firmly.
232
[CII.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
It was some time before Valens had a policy to declare. He
was only a catechumen, and perhaps cared little for the con-
troversies before his elevation. Even then he needed caution,
depending as he did upon his brother instead of inheriting an
assured position like Constantius'. So for the present there was
peace in the churches.
Events continued to develop naturally. The Homoan
bishops retained their sees, but their influence was fast declining.
The Anomoans were forming an extensive schism on one side,
the Nicenes recovering power on the other. Episcopal belief
resumed its natural course when Julian took off the pressure of
the court. Unwilling signatures to the Homœan creed were
disavowed in all directions: while some even of its authors
declared for Arianism with Euzoius, and others drew nearer to
the Nicene faith like Acacius. On all sides the simpler doc-
trines were driving out the compromises. It was time for even
the Semiarians to bestir themselves. A few years before they
were an undoubted majority in the East; but this was not so
certain now. The Nicenes had made an immense advance since
the council of Ancyra, and assumed a less conciliatory tone.
Lucifer had compromised them by excess of zeal in one direction,
Apollinarius in another, and even Marcellus had never been
explicitly disavowed: yet the Nicene cause advanced. But the
controversy was beginning to turn on the doctrine of the Holy
Spirit. While the Semiarians were coming to accept the
Athanasian proof of the Lord's divinity, the Nicenes were be-
ginning to see that similar reasoning proved the same for the
Holy Spirit. It was hard on the Semiarians who were making
up
their minds for one advance, to find that the Nicenes were
meditating another, and would be as far in front of them as ever.
This question however was only now beginning to emerge
from obscurity. The first note of alarm was sounded by Atha-
nasius during his third exile (356-362), in his letters to
Serapion. In 362 the council of Alexandria is sometimes
1 Broglie v. 79.
2 The Letters to Serapion are dis-
cussed by Nitzsch Grundriss 294.
They are partly directed against Patro-
philus and Acacius. The latter was
following his master (Eus. Eccl. Theol.
p. 174) in declaring the Holy Spirit a
creature.
So reckless is the assertion of Basil
c. Eunom. ii. 33, that Eunomius in-
vented the heresy.
VII.]
COUNCIL OF LAMPSACUS.
233
understood to have demanded from the returning Arianizers not
only a subscription to the Nicene creed, but also a condemnation
"of those who say that the Holy Spirit is a creature and
distinct from the essence of the Son¹." But the last was not
made a formal condition of their reception. Though it must
have been well known to Liberius, we find no mention of it in
his correspondence with the Semiarians, and Athanasins himself
seems to have waived it in his directions to the bishops of
Pontus. We may therefore conclude that the question was
not yet considered one of primary importance.
For the present then their chief efforts were directed against
the Homeans. Under the guidance of Eleusius of Cyzicus and
Hypatianus of Heraclea, they endeavoured to establish the
decisions of Seleucia. Permission to hold a council was easily
obtained from Valentinian as he left Constantinople in April
364. It sat two months at Lampsacus, and reversed the acts of
the Homoans at Constantinople four years before. Eudoxius
was deposed, and the Semiarian exiles declared entitled to
resume their sees. With regard to doctrine they adopted the
formula ὅμοιον κατ' ουσίαν, on the ground that while likeness
was needed to exclude a Sabellian (Nicene) identity, its express
extension to essence was required as against the Arians. Nor
did they forget to reissue the Lucianic creed for the acceptance
of the churches. They also discussed the deity of the Holy
Spirit, but it seems without coming to any formal conclusion.
Eustathius of Sebastia for one was not prepared to commit him-
self to any decision on the matter³. As soon as the council
broke up, its decisions were laid before Valens, who was by this
time at Heraclea on his return from Sirmium*.
1 Ath. ad Ant. 3, p. 616.
2 Basil Ep. 204 tells us in 375 that
Athanasius directed him "to receive
without hesitation all who confessed
the Nicene creed." This implies that
nothing further was to be required.
That Athanasius considered the
deity of the Holy Spirit implicitly
contained in the Nicene creed is clear
from ad Ant. 3, p. 616, Ep. ad Jovia-
num p. 623 and Ep. ad Airos 11,
p. 718. But there is all the difference
between logical implication and formal
requirement. Even in his ad Antio-
chenos he repeatedly denounces any
attempt to go beyond the Nicene
creed, "as if it was in any respect
deficient"; and it is also clear not
ouly that Basil did not refuse com-
munion to the Pneumatomachi, but
that he was blamed by the stricter
Nicenes for his osovouia in avoiding
any open attack on them.
This note may be taken as a cor-
rection of the statements made supra,
p. 295.
Soer. ii. 45.
• Note M. The Chronology of the
Council of Lampsacus.
234
[cu.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
But Valens was already falling into bad hands. Julian had
scattered the vultures of the court; but Jovian restored the
eunuchs¹, and under Valens the unclean tribe came back in
multitudes. Amongst these intriguers Eudoxius had already
obtained a decisive influence. The emperor ordered the deputies
of Lampsacus to hold communion with the bishop of Constanti-
nople, and exiled them on their refusal².
Looking back from the nineteenth century, we should say
that Valens chose an unpromising policy in his support of the
Homœans. They had been in power before; and if they had
not then been able to establish peace in the churches, they were
not likely to succeed any better after their heavy losses in
Julian's time. It is therefore the more important to see how
the emperor's decision is to be explained.
In the first place, personal influences must count for a good
deal with a man like Valens, whose private attachments were so
steady³. Eudoxius was after all a man of experience and
learning, whose mild prudence¹ was just the help which Valens
needed. The empress Dominica was also a zealous Arian, so
that the courtiers were Arians too. It is not surprising to find
their master sincerely attached to the doctrines of his friends.
But Valens was not strong enough to impose his own
likings on the Empire. No merit raised him to the throne, but
only his brother's favour; and his dependence was so open that
the courtiers could even turn it into a compliment". Neither
education nor experience prepared him for the august dignity
he only reached in middle life; so that he was more dependent
on official help than most of his predecessors. With all his
exertions he could never firmly control the administration. His
very conscientiousness increased his irresolution, so that it was
not an unmixed evil when Modestus persuaded him to give up
hearing causes in person. He had no Flavian prestige to fall
1 Athanasius p. 626.
* Soz. vi. 7 τοὺς μὲν ὑπερορίαν οἰκεῖν
προσέταξε. It was a mild exile which
allowed Eustathius to go to Rome next
year on behalf of the Semiarians. So
also in 372 Meletius is living undis-
turbed on his estate at Getasa in
Armenia, notwithstanding his vπepopía
φυγή.
It is therefore clear that exile
under Valens was sometimes no more
than an order to find some other
residence.
3 Ammianus xxxi. 14, 2.
4 Philostorgius iv. 4-we may ac-
cept an enemy's evidence in his favour.
5 Themistius Or. ix. p. 126 & пáνтα
σὺ τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἐξηλωκώς.
6 Ammianus xxx. 4, 2. In many
ways Valens reminds us of Claudius.
But he was no pedant, and Dominica
was not a Messalina.
VII.]
POLICY OF VALENS.
235
back upon, and Valentinian's toleration prevented him from
buying support with the spoils of the temples.
Under these circumstances it is hard to see what other
policy was open to him. Heathenism had failed in Julian's
hands, and an Anomoan course was still more hopeless. A
Nicene policy might do well enough in the West, but it was not
likely to find much support in the East outside Egypt. The
only alternative was to favour the Semiarians; and even this
was full of difficulties. After all, the Homoans were still the
strongest party in 365. They were in possession of the churches
and commanded most of the Asiatic influence, and had no
enmity to contend with which was not quite as bitter against
the other parties. They also had astute leaders, and their
doctrine had not lost its attractions for the quiet men who were
tired of controversy. Upon the whole, the Homoean policy was
the easiest for the moment.
Some will find a close connexion between the despotism of
the Empire and the Arian doctrine of the unity of God', which
is very much a deification of despotic caprice. The Empire
then was Arian in the same way as Mohammedan kings are
despots. But in that case why did it ever cease to be Arian?
Why at least did it never for a moment return to Arianism?
Monotheletism and Iconoclasm had their revivals under Phi-
lippicus Bardanes and the Amorians, and Monophysitism at
least neutralized the council of Chalcedon with the Henoticon
of Zeno; but when Arianism fell, it fell for ever. Neither is
there a true parallel in Mohammedan despotism, for the Arians
were no fatalists. Without denying the existence of such a
connexion, we may fairly say that we see very little of it in
history. The Empire did not become less despotic even in
spiritual matters after the fall of Arianism. If the Homoeans
obeyed Valens too implicitly, the conservatives were quite as
servile to Constantius, and the Nicenes hardly less so under
Theodosius, whereas Aetius and Eunomius with the genuine
1 Chastel Destr. du Paganisme 58.
2 Here we may be reminded of the
penance of Theodosius. But if the
Arians never had a bishop like Am-
brose, neither did Constantius or Valens
ever perpetrate a massacre like that of
Thessalonica. Perhaps Demophilus
would not have been found wanting if
Valens had ever descended to so brutal
a crime as this of Theodosius.
236
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
Arians entirely repudiated the emperor's interference. It is a
strange reading of history which turns Ambrose and Basil into
champions of liberty.
In the spring of 365 an imperial rescript commanded the
municipalities under a heavy penalty to drive out from the
cities the bishops who had been exiled by Constantius and
restored by Julian. The order may have been carried out
under the emperor's eyes at Antioch, but the attempt was
a failure at Alexandria. The populace declared that the law
did not apply to Athanasius, who certainly had not been
restored by Julian. A series of dangerous riots followed, which
obliged the prefect Flavianus to refer the question back to
Valens. Other bishops however were less fortunate. The per-
secution fell chiefly on Semiarians and Nicenes, but the Nova-
tians were not forgotten, and even the Massalian enthusiasts
of Melitene failed to escape the band of Lupicinus the magister
militum.
The Semiarians looked to Valentinian for help. He had
received them favourably the year before and if they could
obtain his intercession now, it was not likely to be in vain.
Eustathius of Sebastia was therefore sent to the court at Milan
together with Silvanus of Tarsus and Theophilus of Castabala.
Unfortunately Valentinian had started on his Gaulish campaign
before their arrival', and they were not prepared to follow him
across the Alps. The envoys therefore presented to Liberius of
1 The primary date for this part of
the history is that of Valentinian's
departure from Italy in 365. Unfor-
tunately it is not an easy one to settle.
Valentinian entered on his consul-
ship at Milan, and was at Paris by
the end of October (Ammianus xxv.
5, 6; 8). Nevertheless in the corrupt
inscriptions of the Codex Theodosianus
he dates from Milan throughout the
year. We therefore have to disentangle
his stay at Milan in the earlier part of
365 from another visit in one of his
later consulships.
Now Symmachus was P.U. in 365
at least till Mar. 10. Laws are ad-
dressed to him from Aquileia Sept. 27,
and from Milan Oct. 23, Nov. 18, Dec.
20; but these are inconsistent with
the emperor's arrival in Paris. Know-
ing then (Ammianus xxvii. 3, 5) that
Lampadius succeeded Symmachus, we
may safely refer to the second visit of
Valentinian the laws of Apr. 3, June
28, Aug. 10, addressed ad Volusianum
P.U. And these must be placed in
373. In 368 the emperor was in Gaul;
and 370 is excluded by laws dated
Mar. 10, Apr. 4, from Trier to Olybrius
P.U.
If this be the case, the last of the
Milan laws which can be assigned with
certainty to 365 are those of May 25
and 31, to Jovinus the magister equi-
tum, who was succeeded by Theodosius
in 369 or 370. The rescripts of July
19 and 31 must be left uncertain.
Valentinian therefore did not leave
Italy in 365 before June; perhaps not
till August.
VII.]
RISING OF PROCOPIUS.
237
Rome an acceptance of the Nicene creed', signed by fifty-
nine Semiarians and purporting to come from the council of
Lampsacus and other Asiatic synods. The deputation was well
received at Rome, and in due time returned to Asia to complete
their reconciliation with the West.
Meanwhile the journey of Valens eastward was interrupted
in October (and his schemes of persecution with it) by the news
that Julian's relative Procopius had declared himself emperor
and seized Constantinople. There was a stir among the heathens,
who still hoped to see another emperor like Julian. Procopius
won over to his side some of the best legions of the Empire,
while his connexion with the house of Constantine secured him
the formidable alliance of the Goths. But the great generals
kept their faith to Valens. Arbetio and Arinthæus led his army
and Lupicinus hurried up the Syrian troops, while Aequitius
in Illyricum checked the westward spread of the revolt. The
usurper's power melted away before them. His Gothic soldiers
gave up their commander to the Gothic hero Arinthæus, and
his Frankish generals Gumoarius and Agilo deserted to their
old battle-mate Arbetio. The decisive battle was fought in
May 366 at Nacolia in Phrygia, and the next consulship reward-
ed the victors of the year-Lupicinus in the East, and Jovinus
in the West.
The war being ended, the executions began, for Valens
had been too thoroughly frightened to think of mercy. The
slaughter fell heavily on Julian's heathen favourites. Phro-
nemius the prefect was exiled, the philosopher Maximus and
They give it in full. The only
variation of consequence is μονογενῆ
θεὸν before κύριον I. X., which of course
alters the connexion of τούτεστιν ἐκ τῆς
ουσίας τοῦ II. It seems to have caused
no difficulty. Hort Two Diss. 23.
Procopius may or may not have
been an avowed heathen; but he cer-
tainly surrounded himself with hea-
thens, such as his prefects Araxius and
Phronemius (both of them friends of
Julian-Ep. ad Themistium p. 259,
Ammianus xxvi. 10, 8), and Heraclius
the Cynic (Eunapius p. 73), to whom
Julian inscribes Or. vii. On this Sievers
Libanius 141.
5
3 Ammianus xxvi. 10, 3 Gothorum
tria millia ad auxilium erant missa
Procopio, Constantianam prætendenti
necessitudinem: also xxvii. 5.
The conjecture seems reasonable,
and will fairly explain an incident we
should be inclined to reject as legendary
if it were not related by Ammianus
xxvi. 8, 5.
5 The imprisonment of Maximus is
fixed for 366 by Eunapius Max. p. 60
(proconsulship of Clearchus, and pre.
fecture of Sallust); his execution was
after 372 (proconsulship of Festus, and
Valens at Antioch).
238
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
the renegade Elpidius imprisoned, and Aetius the Anomoan
narrowly escaped the executioner. Still no attempt was made
to alter the general system of toleration which Julian had
established. Even magic was not interfered with till the end of
370¹, and heathen rites were performed under the eyes of Valeus
at Antioch till the end of his reign².
Events could hardly have fallen out better for Eudoxius and
his friends. Valens had already taken their side; and now his
zeal was quickened by the mortal terror he had undergone. In
an age when perhaps the larger number of professing Christians
were content to spend most of their lives as catechumens, it was
a decided step for an emperor to come forward and apply for
baptism³. This however was the step taken by Valens in 367,
before the opening of the Gothic war: and it finally committed
him to the Homoean side. The policy of Constantius was to be
definitely resumed, and the teachers of false doctrine to be
driven out at the dictation of Eudoxius.
The blow fell most heavily on the Semiarians. Their district
had been the seat of the revolt, and their disgrace had not been
removed by the embassy to Rome. So divided also were they
that while some of them assembled a synod at Tyana to welcome
the return of the envoys, others met in Caria to ratify the
Lucianic creed again. Everything therefore seemed to favour
the complete establishment of the Homoan supremacy.
Unfortunately however for Eudoxius, Valens had already
entangled himself in a war with the Goths, which left him no
leisure to revisit Asia before 370. Meanwhile there was not
much to be done. Athanasius had been formally restored to his
church during the Procopian panic by Brasidas the notary
1 The only law of Valens on the
subject is C. Th. ix. 16, 8. This is
usually dated in 365, but is fixed for
370 by its address from Constantinople
to Modestus. Godefroy connects it
with the persecution of the philoso-
phers; but the affair of Theodorus was
after Valens came to Antioch in April
372.
2 This is the complaint of Theo-
doret iv. 24, and again v. 21.
3 Constantine, Constantius and
Theodosius were baptized in dangerous
illnesses, from which only the last re-
covered. Constans also (Ath. Apol. ad
Ctium 7, p. 237) was baptized, and
there is nothing to connect his baptism
with any illness. Of Valentinian and
the younger Constantine there seems
no record in this connexion; and
Jovian was probably never baptized at
all.
4 Whatever were the earlier relations
of Valens to Eudoxius, we need not
doubt the explicit statement of Jerome
Chronica and Theodoret iv. 12, that
he was baptized just before the Gothic
war.
VII.]
THE GOTHIC WAR OF 367.
239
(Feb. 1, 366), and was too strong to be molested again. Meletius
also¹ and probably others had been allowed to return about
the same time, and the emperor was not strong enough to
disturb them. Thus there was a sort of truce for the next
three years. Of Syria we hear scarcely anything, and even in
Pontus the strife must have been abated by the famine of 368.
The little we find to record seems to belong to the year 367.
On one side Eunomius the Anomoan was sent into exile,
but before long recalled on the intercession of the old Arian
Valens of Mursa'. On the other the Semiarians were not allowed
to hold the great synod at Tarsus which was intended to com-
plete their reconciliation with the Western Nicenes.
For three years the emperor was busy on the Danube. The
war proved a more serious task than he had expected. It was
not very hard to drive the Goths into the Transylvanian.
mountains, but Athanaric was not reduced to ask for peace till
the third campaign. The terms granted were not dishonourable
to the Empire, but they were such as did it rather harm than
good. The Gothic chiefs lost the pensions which controlled
them in the Roman interest, and the Gothic people saw its
civilizing commerce with the Empire limited to two cities on
the Danube. The parsimony of Valens was never more mis-
placed. Roman pride might cry out at the idea of "tribute to
1 Socrates iv. 2 and Sozomen vi. 7
expressly state that Meletius was
exiled during this visit of Valens to
Antioch, and the fact is also implied
by his three exiles (in 360, 365 and
372) mentioned by Greg. Nyssa de S.
Meletio ii. 857 Migne. The question.
is discussed by Tillemont Mem. viii.
764, but he is much hampered by the
old chronology which placed the re-
script of Valens in 367.
The recall of Meletius is nowhere
formally recorded, but it is proved (a)
by the three exiles mentioned supra by
Gregory of Nyssa, (b) by Chrysostom's
baptism about 370, after three years'
teaching. No time can be named
more likely than the winter of 365-6.
In this case there would be a general
amnesty for the exiles, as is further
indicated by the return of Eustathius
to Sebastia.
2 From Philost. ix. 8 we find that
Eunomius was exiled by Auxonius
during winter, and while Eudoxius
was at Marcianopolis. These three
data fix the event for the end of 367.
Valens of Mursa was still active in the
defence of Arianism, as we know from
his controversy with Germinius the
year before. Eunomius was exiled a
second time (Philost. ix. 11) by Mo-
destus, and therefore not before 370;
but in 380 we find him living near
Constantinople.
3 Aschbach Gesch. d. Westgothen 27
puts them too favourably for the Goths.
Contrast Wietersheim-Dahn Völker-
wanderung i. 546, and Gibbon.
The conditions are given by The-
mistius Or. 10, p. 135. Zosimus iv. 11
merely says they were "not disgrace-
ful," and Ammianus xxvii. 5, 9 does
not tell us what they were.
240
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL IIISTORY.
barbarians;" but the trifling sums stigmatized with this name
could hardly have been better spent than in restoring the
alliance which had already secured a hundred years of almost
unbroken peace on the lower Danube'.
Valens was glad of peace; but we can see by the light of
Hadrianople that the friendship of the Goths was fast becoming
a question of life and death for Rome. Nothing indeed more
clearly shews the exhaustion of the Empire than the increasing
importance of the free peoples on its borders. The advance of
Sapor after Julian's death was checked more by the valour
of the Armenians than by the discipline of the legions behind
them. The Roman power along the Rhine depended on the
Franks, and the Goths themselves had repeatedly tasked the
utmost efforts of Constantine. Even the puny state of Cherson
was strong enough to give him welcome and long remembered
help'. The Empire still bore up manfully and still had vast
reserves of strength, but its elaborate officialism was no match
for the living spirit of freedom in the last of the Greek republics.
Valeus might thank the generalship of Arinthæus and Victor,
and still more the financial skill of his prefect Auxonius, for the
successful ending of the Gothic war.
3
Though Valens returned to Constantinople before the end of
369, he was still detained for another year in the Hellespontine
district before he could resume his schemes of persecution.
Meanwhile he lost two of his best advisers. The prefect
Auxonius was succeeded by the vulgar flatterer Modestus, and
Eudoxius of Constantinople was ill replaced by the rash
Demophilus. But before we trace the emperor's eastward
journey, let us glance at the condition of the churches.
The Homoean party was the last hope of Arianism. The
original doctrine of Arius had been decisively rejected at Nicæa,
the Eusebian coalition was broken up by the Sirmian manifesto;
and if the Homoean union also failed, the fall of Arianism could
not be much longer delayed.
1 Gibbon is a thorough heathen in
this matter. Finlay i. 166 takes the
truer view, that the payment of a
subsidy is not always a confession of
weakness. If the American govern-
ment allows a few blankets by the year
to Sitting Bull to keep him quiet, some
of our fire-eaters will tell us that Sitting
Bull is the real master of America.
2 The story is told by Constantine
Porphyrogenitus de Admin. Imp. 53.
3 Note N. The Story of the Eighty
Clerics.
VII.]
2
CAPPADOCIA.
241
The real weakness of the Homoean power is shewn by the
growth of a new Nicene party in the most Arian province of the
Empire. Cappadocia is an exception to the general rule that
Christianity flourished best where cities were not numerous.
The polished vice of Antioch or Corinth presented fewer diffi-
culties in its way than the rude ignorance of country villages.
Now Cappadocia was essentially a country district. The walls
of Cæsarea lay in ruins since its capture by Sapor in the reign
of Gallienus, and the other towns were small and few, so that
the province chiefly consisted of thinly-peopled regiones. Yet
Julian found it incorrigibly Christian', and we hear very little
of heathenism from Basil. The chorepiscopi who abounded in
the Pontic diocese were often ignorant or corrupt: but Chris-
tianity was nevertheless supreme. Yet we cannot suppose that
the Cappadocian boors were civilized enough to be out of the
reach of heathen influences. It rather seems that the paganismus
of the West was partly represented by Arianism. In Cappadocia
the heresy found its first great literary champion in the
'many-headed" sophist Asterius. Dianius of Cæsarea was
his patron, and from Cæsarea came also Euphronius of Antioch³.
Gregory and George were brought to Alexandria from Cappa-
docia, and afterwards Auxentius to Milan, and Eudoxius to
Constantinople. Philagrius also, the prefect who drove out
Athanasius in 339, was another of their countrymen. Above
all, the heresiarch Eunomius came from Cappadocia, and found
abundance of admirers in his native district.
In this old Arian stronghold the league was formed which
decided the fate of Arianism. Earnest men like Meletius had
only been attracted to the side of the Homoeans by their pro-
fessions of reverence for the Person of the Lord. When there-
fore it appeared that Eudoxius and his friends were only Arians
after all, these men began to look back to the decisions of "the
1 Julian Ep. 4. Compare Greg.
Nyss. de euntibus Hierosolymam.
2 Eleven signatures of chorepiscopi
at Nicæa come from the Pontic diocese
and the adjacent province of Isauria:
the other three from Syria. The chor-
episcopi are frequent in Basil's letters.
The Benedictines say that those men-
tioned on Ep. 53 must be bishops,
because only bishops can ordain pres-
byters. But this is begging the ques-
tion.
Eusebius T. C. iii, 62.
4 Eudoxius was a native of Arabis-
sus in Cappadocia, and held for many
years the see of Germanicea, just
across the mountains.
G.
16
242
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
great and holy council" of Nicæa. There at any rate they
would find something independent of eunuchs and cooks. Of
the old conservatives also, who were so strong in Pontus, there
were many who felt that the Semiarian position was unsound,
and yet could find no satisfaction in the indefiuite doctrine pro-
fessed at court. Here then was one split in the Homœan,
another in the conservative party. If only the two sets of
malcontents could form a union with each other and with
the older Nicenes of Egypt and the West, they would ultimately
be the arbiters of Christendom. And if they could secure
Valentinian's intercession, they might even be able to obtain
religious freedom at once.
Such seems to have been the plan laid down by the man who
was now succeeding Athanasius in the leadership of the Nicene
party'. Basil of Cæsarea was a disciple of the Athenian schools,
and a master of heathen eloquence and learning. In later years
he still cultivated the friendship of rhetoricians like Libanius
and Sophronius, and even of the double renegade Modestus.
Notwithstanding his want of interest in political matters, he was
man of the world enough to secure the friendly interest of men
of all sorts. The connexions however of his earlier years
were mostly with the conservatives. He owed his baptism
to Dianius of Cæsarea, and much encouragement in asceticism
to Eustathius of Sebastia. The young deacon was soon recog-
nized as a power in Asia. He accompanied Basil of Ancyra
from Seleucia to the conferences at Constantinople, and on his
return came forward as a firm opponent of Arianism at Cæsarea³.
1 Fialon Basile 120 for Basil's
plans.
2 His relations were somewhat mis-
cellaneous. We also find him on
friendly terms with the generals Arin-
thæus, Terentius and Victor, the
præsides Elias and Maximus, Harma-
tius the heathen citizen of Cæsarea,
and for some time even with the
respected Arian Euippius.
3 Basil Epp. 8, 9 are doctrinal
statements written in 360. They shew
some connexion with the de Synodis
of Athanasius. A few leading phrases
may be set down.
Ep. 8.
ἕνα Θεόν, οὐ τῷ ἀριθμῷ ἀλλὰ
dvó-
τῇ φύσει ὁμολογοῦμεν. ὁ γὰρ ἀριθμός
ἐστι τοῦ ποσοῦ...... οὔτε ὅμοιον οὔτε ἀνό-
μοιον...ὅμοιον γὰρ καὶ ἀνόμοιον κατὰ τὰς
ποιότητας λέγεται (de Syn. 53, p. 612)...
ὁ γὰρ κατ' ουσίαν Θεὸς τῷ κατ' ουσίαν
Θεῷ ὁμοούσιος.
Ερ. 9. ἐγώ δέ, εἰ χρὴ τούμὸν ἴδιον
εἰπεῖν, τὸ ὅμοιον κατ᾿ οὐσίαν, εἰ προσκεί-
μενον ἔχει τὸ ἀπαραλλάκτως, δέχομαι τὴν
φωνὴν ὡς εἰς ταὐτὸν τῷ ὁμοουσίῳ φέρου
σαν, κατὰ τὴν ὑγιῆ τοῦ ὁμοουσίου διάνοιαν
...εἰ δέ τις τοῦ ὁμοίου τὸ ἀπαράλλακτον,
ὑποπτεύω τὸ ῥῆμα.. ἐπεὶ οὖν ἧττον οἶμαι
κακουργεῖσθαι τὸ ὁμοούσιον, οὕτω καὶ
αὐτὸς τίθεμαι. We may trace the in-
fluence of Basil of Ancyra in the ac-
VII.
BASIL OF CESAREA.
243
He received the dying recantation of Dianius, and guided the
choice of his successor in 362. Yet he still acted with the
Semiarians, and helped them with his counsel at Lampsacus and
Heraclea'. In his own city of Cæsarea the bishop Eusebius
found Basil indispensable. When he attempted to do without
him, he was forced by the popular clamour to recall him on the
approach of Valens in the spring of 365. Thenceforth Basil
practically governed the church of Cæsarea, till in the summer
of 370 he succeeded to the bishopric himself.
The crisis was near. By the spring of 371 Valens had fairly
started on his progress to the East. He travelled slowly through
the famine-wasted provinces, only reaching Ancyra in July, and
Cæsarea in time for the great winter festival of Epiphany 372.
Nicene misbelief in Cappadocia was not the least of the abuses.
he had undertaken to reform. Many of the lesser bishops
yielded, but their metropolitan remained unshaken. The rough
threats of Modestus succeeded no better than the fatherly
counsel of Euippius; and when Valens himself and Basil met
face to face, the emperor was overawed. More than once the
order was prepared for the obstinate prelate's exile, but for one
reason or another it was never issued. Valens went forward on
his journey, leaving behind a princely gift for Basil's hospital.
He reached Antioch in April' and fixed his quarters there for the
rest of his reign, never again leaving the Oriental diocese till
the disasters of the Gothic war called him back to Europe.
Armed with spiritual power which in some sort extended over
Galatia and Armenia, Basil could now endeavour to carry out his
ceptance of the Athanasian definition
(de Syn. 41, p. 603) of 81010V KAT,
οὐσίαν together with ἐκ τῆς ουσίας ας
amounting to ὁμοούσιον. The letter
however is addressed to Maximus,
whom the Benedictines identify with
the Egyptian Cynic, and discusses
Dionysius of Alexandria in a slightly
different tone from that of Ath. de Syn.
45, p. 605. Altogether we see a Semi-
arian position modified by an Athana-
sian influence.
On the new meaning given to
duoovσtor by Basil and the later Nicenes,
Zahn Marcellus 87.
1 The Benedictines (Life p. 87) do
not allow that Basil was present him-
self; but he seems to say so in Ep. 223.
2 Gibbon complains with justice of
the "thick coat of rhetoric and mira-
cle" with which this famous story has
been invested. Perhaps the influence
of Terentius and Arinthæus is enough
to explain the unexpected mildness of
Valens.
3 To this period belongs the third
exile of Meletius. Basil Ep. 68 seems
to shew that he was still at Antioch in
371, whereas in Epp. 99, 128 we find
him at Getasa in 372. Eusebius of
Samosata was not exiled till the sum-
mer of 374 at earliest.
16-2
244
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
plan. Homoan malcontents formed the nucleus of the league,
but conservatives soon began to join it, and Athanasius gave his
patriarchal blessing to the scheme'. But the difficulties were
immense. It was not merely that the whole enterprise was a
secret plot, so that every step had to be taken in personal
interviews or committed to the care of trusty messengers'. The
league was full of jealousies. Athanasius indeed might frankly
recognize the orthodoxy of Meletius, though he was committed
to the other side at Antioch. But others were less liberal, and
Lucifer of Calaris was even forming a sort of Donatist schism
upon the question of his recognition. Some again were luke-
warm in the cause and others sunk in worldliness, while
men like Eustathius of Sebastia or Anthimus of Tyana were
easily diverted from their purpose. But the sorest trial of all
was the selfish coldness of the West. Basil might find here
and there a kindred spirit like Ambrose of Milan or Valerianus
of Illyricum; but the confessors of 355 were mostly gathered to
their rest, and the church of Rome paid no regard to sufferings
which were not likely to reach herself.
Nor was Basil quite the man for such a task as this. His
courage indeed was indomitable. He ruled Cappadocia from a
sick bed, and bore down opposition by sheer strength of his
inflexible determination. The very pride with which his enemies
reproached him was often no more than a strong man's conscious-
ness of power. And to this unwearied energy he joined an
1 Basil Ep. 92 is a circular to the
Westerns, signed by thirty-two bishops.
The sees are not given, but Tillemont
(Mémoires ix. 172) traces fifteen of
them.
Accepting his identifications, add-
ing the name of Paul of Emesa, and
neglecting a few whom we know only
by their possible signatures at Con-
stantinople, we have—
(1) Six Homean malcontents, re-
cognized as such by their signatures at
Seleucia or in the address to Jovian-
Meletius of Antioch, Eusebius of Sa-
mosata, Paul of Emesa, Pelagius of
Laodicea, Abraham of Urimi and Isaac
of Armenia. To these we may perhaps
add Gregory of Nazianzus, who had
signed the creed like the rest.
(2) Six new Nicenes, recognized as
such by their conduct before 378-
Basil of Cæsarea, Zeno of Tyre, An-
thimus of Tyana, Otreius of Melitene,
Theodotus of Nicopolis, and Barses of
Edessa. On the other hand, Gregory
of Nyssa cannot have signed the docu-
ment with Anthimus of Tyana, unless
we alter the date.
The only possible Semiarian is Eus-
tathius of Sebastia, who may have been
willing to sign in 372, but not later.
2 Basil Ep. 48 complains that he
could hardly get a messenger to go to
Samosata, "for our countrymen are
too much afraid of the winter to set foot
out of doors." Yet Ep. 156 he tells
us that the Armenian passes in winter
are too much for even a strong man,
But on this occasion the excuse is for
himself.
VII.]
BASIL AND EUSTATHIUS.
245
ascetic fervour which secured the devotion of his friends, and a
knowledge of the world which often turned aside the fury of his
enemies. Yet after all we miss the lofty self-respect which
marks the later years of Athanasius. Pride and suspicion were
constant sources of difficulty to Basil. We cannot imagine
Athanasius turning two presbyters out of doors as "spies,"
or allowing himself to be entangled in an undignified affair like
that of the convoy. But the ascetic is usually too full of his own
purposes to feel sympathy with others, too much in earnest to
feign it like a diplomatist. Basil had enough worldly prudence
to dissemble his belief in the Holy Spirit', but not enough
to protect his closest friends from the outbreaks of his imperious
temper. Small wonder if the great scheme met with many
difficulties.
The dispute with Anthimus was little more than a personal
quarrel, so that it was soon forgotten. The old Semiarian
Eustathius of Sebastia was able to give more permanent annoy-
ance. It was difficult indeed to deal with a man too active to be
ignored, too unstable to be trusted, and yet too famous for ascetic
piety to be lightly made an open enemy. His friendship was com-
promising, his enmity dangerous. We left him in 367, professing
the Nicene faith before the council of Tyana. For the next three
years we lose sight of him. He reappears as a friend of Basil
in 370, and the bishop of Cæsarea long clung to his old ascetic
teacher, though the increasing distrust of staunch Nicenes like
Theodotus of Nicopolis was beginning to attack himself. His
efforts at pacification in 372-3 were worse than a failure. First
he offended Theodotus, then he alienated Eustathius. The
suspicious zeal of Theodotus was soothed; but Eustathius never
1 Greg. Naz. Ep. 20.
2 Greg. Naz. Ep. 33.
3 It appears from Basil Ep. 241
εἶδον γὰρ Κύζικον, καὶ μετ' ἄλλης πίστεως
ἐπανῆλθον that Eustathius of Sebastia
signed an Arian formula at Cyzicus
some time or other before 376. The
event has been placed either after his
return from Rome in 366, or during
the stay of Valens at Cyzicus in 370;
but it is best connected with his over-
tures to the Arians in 375. For (1)
Basil knows the formula imperfectly,
and lays stress on τὰ νῦν περιφερόμενα ;
(2) he would scarcely have been on
friendly terms with Eustathius in 370,
if the latter had so lately signed a
heretical creed; and (3) he would not
have omitted so damaging a fact in the
hostile account he gives in Ep. 263 of
the past life of Eustathius. Nor is it
needed to explain the latter's return
to his diocese.
The Cyzicene formula seems allud-
ed to again by Basil Ep. 251 ý vềv
περιφερομένη in 376.
246
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
forgave the imperious determination which forced on him
a stringently Nicene confession¹.
The declining years of Athanasius were spent in peace. Valens
had restored him in good faith, and never afterwards molested
him. If the heathens burnt the Cæsarium, they were severely
punished for the outrage. If Lucius returned to try his fortune,
he met with no connivance from the officials-nothing more
than sorely needed shelter from the fury of the mob. Heathenism
was still a living force at Alexandria, but the Arians were nearly
extinct.
One of the last public acts of Athanasius was his reception of
an embassy from Marcellus, who was still living in extreme old
age at Ancyra. About the year 3712 the deacon Eugenius
presented a confession at Alexandria on behalf of the "innumer-
able multitude" who still owned Marcellus for their father.
"We are not heretics as we are slandered. We specially
anathematize Arianism, confessing like our fathers at Nicæa
that the Son is no creature, but of the essence of the Father and
coessential with the Father. And by the Son we mean no
other than the Logos. Next we anathematize Sabellius, con-
fessing as we do the eternity and reality (úþeσTòs) of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit; for we do not maintain an unreal
(άVUTÓσTATOV) Trinity. Also we anathematize the Anomoans,
who profess not to be Arians. We are confident that there is
nothing superinduced and nothing created in the Trinity; and
therefore we anathematize both the Sabellian doctrine of a
solitary Monas, and the Arian of a solitary Father. With
regard to the Incarnation, we believe that the Logos did not
come down as on the prophets, but really became flesh and took
a servant's form, and as regards flesh was born as a man.
believe that the Trinity is perfect and eternal, and therefore in-
divisible. We anathematize also the doctrines of Photinus and
Paul of Samosata, and also the Arianizers who separate the
Logos from the Son, giving the latter a beginning at the
Incarnation because they do not confess him to be very God."
1 Note O. Eustathius of Sebastia.
2 The Benedictines (Life of Basil p.
225) date the Marcellian embassy in
363, and it must be confessed that
We
there is no very strong case on either
side.
3 Zahn Marcellus 88-94.
The confession of Eugenius has
VII.]
MARCELLUS.
247
To Basil's great sorrow, Athanasius accepted the confession,
and could not be induced to sacrifice the old companion of his
exile. Even the great Alexandrian's comprehensive charity is
hardly nobler than his faithfulness to erring friends. Meaner
men might cherish the petty jealousies of controversy, but the
veterans of the great council once more recognized their fellow-
ship in Christ. They were joined in life; and in death they
were not divided.
The school of Marcellus expired with him. Four years later
(in 375) his surviving followers drew up a memorial¹ in a
different spirit, studiously confessing the eternal Sonship so
long evaded by their master. Being an overture for closer
union with the Nicenes, it was naturally addressed to the sur-
viving friends of Athanasius in exile at Sepphoris. Basil took
no small offence at their reception of the memorial. "They were
not the only zealous defenders of the Nicene faith in the East,
and should not have acted without the consent of the Westerns
and of their own bishop Peter. In their haste to heal one
schism they might cause another, unless they made it clear that
the heretics had come over to them, and not they to the
heretics." Nevertheless the Marcellians had taken the de-
cisive step, so that their formal reconciliation cannot have been
a matter of difficulty. The West held out for Marcellus after
his own disciples had given up his teaching, so that he was not
condemned at Rome till 380, nor by name till 381.
Meanwhile the churches of Asia seemed in a state of uni-
versal dissolution. Disorder under Constantius had become
confusion worse confounded under Valens. The exiled bishops
were so many centres of disaffection, and personal quarrels had
full scope everywhere. When for example Basil's brother
Gregory was expelled from Nyssa by a riot got up by Anthimus
of Tyana, he took refuge under the eyes of Anthimus at Doara,
some significant coincidences with the
creed ascribed to Gregory of Neocæsa-
rea. Thus πατέρα αΐδιον υἱοῦ αϊδίου
ὄντος καὶ ὑφεστῶτος... οὐδὲν ἐπείσακτον
οὐδὲ κτίσμα ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ Τριάδι. πνεῦμα
γὰρ ἁγιωσύνης ἐστὶν ...τελεία καὶ ἀϊδιός
ἐστιν ἡ Τριάς. Other traces of it may
be found in Ep. 105.
1 Epiphanius Har. 72, 10-12:
discussed by Zahn Marcellus 95.
2 Basil Epp. 265, 266.
3 Basil's works are full of the sub-
ject. It will be enough to mention Ep.
92 (in 372) and de Sp. Sancto 77 (in
375).
248
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
where another riot had driven out the Arian bishop'. Pastoral
work was carried on under the greatest difficulties. What
indeed could be expected from exiles like Cyril and Meletius,
or from such selfish schemers as Fronto and Atarbius?
Creeds were in the same confusion. The Homoans as
a body had no consistent principle at all beyond their rejection
of technical terms, so that their doctrinal statements are of the
most multifarious character. They began with the indefinite
Sirmian creed, but the confession they imposed on Eustathius
of Sebastia was purely Macedonian. Some of their bishops
were genuine Nicenes, others genuine Anomoans. There was
room for all in the happy family presided over by Demophilus.
In this anarchy of doctrine the growth of irreligious carelessness
kept pace with that of party bitterness. Ecclesiastical history
records no clearer period of decline than this. There is a plain
descent from Athanasius to Basil, a rapid one from Basil
to Theophilus and Cyril. The victors of Constantinople were
only the Epigoni of a mighty contest, though they still rank far
above the combatants of Ephesus.
Hopeful signs indeed were not entirely wanting. If the
Nicene cause did not seem to gain much ground in Pontus, it
was at least not losing. While Basil held the court in check,
the rising power of asceticism was declaring itself every day
more plainly on his side. One schism was healed by the recep-
tion of the Marcellians; and if Apollinarius was forming another,
he was at least a determined enemy of Arianism. The sub-
mission of the Lycian bishops in 375 helped to isolate the
phalanx of Macedonians in Asia, and the Illyrian council held
in the same year by Ambrose³ was the first effective help from
the West. It secured a rescript from Valentinian in favour of
the Nicene doctrine; and if he did not long survive, his action
was enough to shew that Valens might not always be left to
carry out his plans undisturbed.
The fiftieth year from the great council came and went, and
brought no relief to the calamities of the churches. Meletius
1 Montaut Questions historiques 91.
2 Basil Ep. 218. He is thankful to
hear that orthodox bishops are to be
found at all in Asia.
3 Theodoret iv. 8, 9. It seems
rightly dated by Theophanes in 375.
So Swete Doctrine of the Holy Spirit
58.
VII.]
THE GOTHIC WAR.
249
and Cyril were still in exile, East and West were still divided over
the consecration of Paulinus, and now even Alexandria had be-
come the prey of Lucius. The leaden rule of Valens still
weighed down the East. Upright and moderate as he was, his
economy could scarcely lighten the heavy fiscal burdens of the
Empire, while his fears allowed a reign of terror to grow up
round him. And Valens was scarcely yet beyond middle life,
and might reign for many years longer. The deliverance came
suddenly, and the Nicene faith won its victory in the confusion
of the greatest calamity which had ever yet befallen Rome.
In the year 376 the Empire still seemed to stand unshaken
within the limits of Augustus. If the legions had surrendered
the outlying provinces of Dacia and Carduene, they more than
held their ground on the great river frontiers of the Euphrates,
the Danube and the Rhine. Julian's death had seemed to let
loose on Rome all her enemies at once: but they had all been
repulsed. While the Persian advance was checked by the
obstinate patriotism of Armenia, Valens reduced the Goths
to submission, and his Western colleague drove the Germans
out of Gaul and recovered Britain from the Picts. The Empire
had maintained itself through twelve years of incessant warfare.
And if there were serious indications of exhaustion in the
dwindling of the legions and the increasing numbers of the
barbarian auxiliaries, in the troops of brigands who infested
every mountain district, in the alarming decrease of population,
and above all in the ruin of the provinces by excessive taxation,
it still seemed inconceivable that danger could ever really
menace Rome's eternal throne.
But while the imperial statesmen were watching the Eu-
phrates', the storm was gathering on the Danube. The blow
which shook the Empire was to come from a nobler enemy than
Persia. The Goths in Dacia had been learning husbandry
and Christianity ever since Aurelian's time, and bade fair soon
to become a civilized people. Heathenism was already half
abandoned and their nomad habits half laid aside. But when
1 Hodgkin Italy 92 notices that
Valens gave his chief attention to the
eastern frontier. Such a policy was
natural after Julian's failure; and Va-
lens moreover personally disliked Con-
stantinople.
250
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
the Huns came up suddenly from the steppes of Asia, the stately
Gothic warriors fled almost without a blow from the hordes of
wild dwarfish horsemen. Such miscreated forms could only
spring, as legends told, from some infernal birth. The Ostro
goths became the servants of their conquerors, and the heathens
of Athanaric betook themselves to the recesses of the Tran-
sylvanian forests. But Fritigern was a Christian, and looked
southward. A whole nation of panic-stricken warriors crowded
to the banks of the Danube. There was but one inviolable
refuge in the world, and that was beneath the shelter of
the Roman eagles. Only let them have some of the waste lands
in Thrace, and they would be glad to do the Empire true and
faithful service.
With such an opportunity as this before him, a statesman in
the place of Valens might have outdone the work of Constantine.
The Vandals in Pannonia were among the quietest subjects
of the Empire; and there was nothing to prevent the success of
a new Teutonic colony in Thrace. The Goths were not mere
barbarians, but might have been trusted to settle down peace-
ably for the present. Fritigern had the more civilized part of
the nation with him, and they would certainly have assimilated
to the Empire more quickly in Thrace than under jealous
restrictions of commerce beyond the Danube.
In one sense the opportunity was not unrecognized. The
flatterers of Valens told him that his army would be more
invincible than ever when he had secured (and that for nothing)
the services of two hundred thousand Goths; while officials of
the school of Sallust or Auxonius hoped to lighten the crushing
taxation of the Empire by an extensive substitution of barbarian
colonists for conscript serfs in the Roman army'.
The scheme was wrecked partly by the excessive caution of the
court, partly by official corruption and rapacity. First imperial
timidity imposed hard and degrading conditions on the panic-
stricken host waiting by the Danube. Every free Gothic
warrior was required to give up his arms before crossing. Then
the details of the arrangements were left to miscreants like
Maximus and Lupicinus, whose only thought was to make the
1 The abuses of the conscription (prototypiæ, &c) may be seen in C. Th.
xi. 23, 2.
VII.]
THE GOTHIC WAR.
251
famished barbarians a prey to their own rapacity and lust. Be-
fore long the Goths were congregated south of the Danube, an
armed multitude full of indignation at the sacrifices to which
they had been reduced in order to retain their weapons. The
commissariat was utterly neglected, famine arose, and still
organized plunder went on through that miserable winter.
Well did the Goths keep their allegiance to the emperor whose
bread they were not allowed to eat. But it was not in human
nature to endure this for ever. When discontent arose, Maxi-
mus and Lupicinus could devise no better expedient than the
assassination of the Gothic chiefs at a banquet. But Fritigern
had not drunk deep like Para, and cut his way out sword in
hand.
The die was cast, and there was war with the Goths. Once
more Lupicinus tried to stop the conflagration. He was hope-
lessly defeated, and the Goths marched on Hadrianople. But
they could do nothing against the stone walls of a city fortified
by Roman engineers.
Repulsed from Hadrianople, the Gothic host spread over
Thrace and Dacia, destroying whatever cultivation had survived
the desolating misgovernment of the Empire. Crowds of out-
laws and deserters volunteered to guide them, and only the
most inaccessible recesses escaped their devastations. Valens
patched up a truce in all haste with Persia, and sent the Asiatic
troops under Trajan and Profuturus into Thrace. They were
supported for awhile by a small force of Western cavalry under
the comes domesticorum Richomer'-as large as Merobaudes could
spare from the defence of the Rhine. But the legions of Armenia
were overborne in a stubborn fight beneath the Balkans; and
though a reinforcement of cavalry under the veteran Saturninus
enabled the imperial generals to keep the field, fresh hordes of
barbarians came in across the Danube, found their way through
the unguarded pass of Succi, and swept over Thrace.
2
1 Richomer's military services are
traced by Godefroy on C. Th. vii. 1,
13.
2 This is my interpretation of the
rumour (Ammianus xxxi. 7, 4) that it
was Merobaudes who induced most of
them to desert.
3 Ammianus xxxi. 7, 5 prope op-
pidum Salices. This would indicate a
site in the Dobrudscha; but Wieters-
heim (Völkerwanderung iv. 80 Anm.
14) shews that the battle must have been
fought ad Radices, between Philippo-
polis and the Danube.
252
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
The victories of Claudius and Aurelian had stayed for a
century the tide of northern war; but now the Empire was
reduced again to fight on its own territory, no more for glory
but for bare existence. For awhile her rulers seemed to under-
stand the crisis. Rome could still fight with iron and not
with gold. The East was drained of all available troops; and
Sebastian the Manichee, the idol of the Western army', was
summoned from Italy to take the command in Trajan's place.
Gratian hurried Thraceward with the Gaulish legions, and even
Valens thought it time to leave his pleasant home at Antioch
for the field of war. Clamours of impatience and alarm greeted
his return to Constantinople. "Only give us arms," the whole
circus shouted, "and we will fight the Goths ourselves."
Hunted from his capital by the jeers of the rabble, Valens
devoted a few weeks at Melanthias to the cultivation of popu-
larity with the army, and before long found himself encamped
at Hadrianople, with the Goths hovering round him. Evil
omens beset his march, but no omen could be worse than his
own impulsive rashness. Valens at Hadrianople was reduced
to no such distress as Claudius before Naissus. He had with
him an ample force, and generals of no mean ability, who had
kept the Goths in check with fair success. Sebastian had made
a good beginning, and every day's delay was so much gain.
The Gaulish legions were marching to his aid, their vanguard
under Richomer had already joined him, and Gratian earnestly
besought him to await their coming. But Valens was only
anxious to snatch an easy victory before his Western colleague
could arrive to share it. In vain the Sarmatian Victor gave
his voice for the delay which common sense required. Sebastian
and the courtiers overruled him, and on the ninth of August
Valens left the shelter of Hadrianople to attack the Gothic
camp. It was a rugged march, and the legions fell into disorder.
1 Jerome Ep. 123 ad Ageruchiam.
Quis hoc credet?...Romam in gremio
suo, non pro gloria, sed pro salute pug-
nare? imo ne pugnare quidem, sed auro
et cuncta supellectile vitam redimere?
Hodgkin Italy i. 379 seems to date this
after the capture of Rome in 400, but
the allusion is only to the capitulation
of 408. The letter however more or
less refers to the whole period since
376. Epp. 127, 128 were written later.
2 Ammianus xxx. 10, 3 militari
favore sublatum in 375, and therefore
removed from his command as a pos-
sible rival to Gratian.
VII.]
BATTLE OF HADRIANOPLE.
253
Fritigern negotiated, wasting the day in useless embassies,
while his famished enemies, burdened with heavy armour, were
fainting in the noonday heat. Tracts of burning grass delayed
their progress; and it was past two in the afternoon when they
neared the line of waggons. It was later still before the Gothic
trumpet sounded; but the Roman army was in hopeless rout
at sundown, outgeneralled, surrounded and overpowered. The
Goths came down "like lightning on the mountain-tops,” and
in a moment all was lost. The cavalry had fled; and far into
the night sword and fire completed the destruction of the
jammed and helpless infantry. It was a butchery like Canna,
with the added horrors of the conflagration. The emperor had
fallen-a soldier's death like that of Decius', and his corpse was
never found. Full two-thirds of the Roman army perished in
the slaughter. There fell Sebastian the Manichee, the old
enemy of Athanasius, and the orthodox Trajan with him;
Potentius the son of Ursicinus, illustrious for his father's merits
and his own; and as many as five and thirty officers of rank.
Richomer and Victor drew off a remnant of the broken army;
and with them, under cover of the moonless night, escaped
Saturninus and the Iberian Bacurius3.
Beneath that crushing blow the everlasting Empire shook
from end to end. The whole power of the East had been
mustered with a painful effort to the struggle; and the whole
power of the East had been shattered in a summer's day. Down
the Morava valley fled Victor's broken cavalry; and when the
tidings of disaster reached him, Gratian fell back on Sirmium.
For the first time since the days of Gallienus, the Empire could
place no army in the field. The mere loss of men was more
than could be replaced by an administration which more and
more preferred to lean on barbarian mercenaries, and anxiously
forbade its taxpayers the use of arms. The Empire was still
1 History may perhaps be allowed
to draw an impartial vail over the diris
pavoribus circums@ptus of Ammianus
xxxi. 13, 8 and the panegyric of Li-
banius. The main point is that Valens
fell in battle: his conduct is a very
minor matter. It was four hundred
years before another emperor shared
his fate.
2 Tribuni vacantes Ammianus xxxi.
13, 18.
* The new moon fell on the after-
noon of the battle. Bacurius is not
named by Ammianus, but his escape is
proved by later notices of him, such as
Zosimus iv. 57, 58.
254
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
3
populous enough to crush its enemies, if only the provincials
had been allowed to take some interest in their own defence'.
Instead of this, the codes are full of laws which bind the
curialis to his town, the workman to his guild, and the labourer
to his master's farm2. And therefore other laws had to denounce
the severest penalties against deserters-as many as six were
issued during the Gothic war. This rather than the mere loss
of men was the worst effect of the defeat of Hadrianople. The
great cities were in no immediate danger. Fritigern had long
ago made his peace with stone walls, and the empress Dominica
found a few Saracen cohorts enough to secure the capital, while
a treacherous massacre freed Asia from the fear of a Gothic
rising. Hadrianople itself repulsed the conquerors the morning
after the battle. But the Goths ranged over the open country
from Sirmium to Thessalonica; and as they could not be
dislodged, there was nothing for it but to let them settle there.
As Aurelian surrendered Trajan's Dacia, so Theodosius gave up
Aurelian's Dacia to the Goths-a position which equally com-
manded Rome and Constantinople, and almost cut the Empire
in two. Theodosius was a brilliant soldier, and almost stepped
into Athanaric's place as a chief of the Goths. Constantine
himself would have disdained to fill the legions with barbarians,
1 It is possible to lay too much
stress on the depopulation of the Em-
pire as a cause of its fall. No doubt
there were immense wastes in every
province, and some provinces were little
else than waste. But were they all in
as bad a state as Lucania or Etruria?
Were the great cities cmpty too? How
many thousand men of fighting age
could Rome or Antioch have turned
out? Such lazzaroni might not be
the best of raw material, but even the
rabble of Constantinople did good ser-
vice when they were allowed to fight
the Goths. The difficulty of keeping
up the army was due not so much to
absolute want of men as to the neces-
sity of leaving taxpayers enough to
maintain them. This was what made
it so much cheaper to hire barbarian
mercenaries than to arm the taxpaying
provincials. And the difficulty was in-
creased far beyond its legitimate di-
mensions by the wasteful caste system
which had become the corner-stone of
the imperial finance.
Broglie ii. 256 on this policy of
the Empire. Even the sons of the
veterani were required to be soldiers.
It was not for nothing that re-
cruits were branded to prevent escape
from their hereditary servitude. The-
mistius (quoted by Reitemeier on Zo-
simus ii. 34) has a dreadful picture of
the Russian peculation which con-
sumed the Roman armies. No doubt
it was at its worst under such scoundrels
as Maximus and Lupicinus, A few
years later, the title de desertoribus of
the Codex Theodosianus swells out
suddenly during the Gothic war.
C. Just. vii. 134 (380) sets slave-
informers free.
Cod. Theod. VII. xviii. 2-7, all
dated 379-383.
4 Ammianus xxxi 6, 4 pacem sibi
esse cum parietibus memorans, after his
first repulse from Hadrianople.
VII.]
POLICY OF THEODOSIUS.
255
and it was even now a dangerous policy; but after the calamity
of Hadrianople the Empire was forced to lean upon its con-
querors. Once more the Goths became the servants and allies
of Rome, the clients of Theodosius as they had been of Con-
stantine. And a mere tincture of Roman discipline was enough
to make them irresistible. They drove the mutineers of Britain
over the Julian Alps, and triumphantly scaled the impregnable
walls of Aquileia to seize the tyrant Maximus. A worthier
enemy met them on the Frigidus and more than held his
ground through one whole day of stubborn fighting, but in the
end even the Franks of Arbogast went down before the Gothic
onset. The legions never fought with more splendid valour
than when their ranks were filled with Goths. Twice they
conquered Italy for Theodosius; but the third time it was for
themselves and for Alaric their king.
Had Theodosius possessed a statesman's genius in addition
to his Spanish courage', he would have called his people to his
aid and formed a new army of provincials. Money for it might
have been found by a clearance of the palace like Julian's and
a remorseless abolition of the corn largesses. It would have
been a harder task to interest the people in their own fate; but
even this might have been done by freeing the curiales from
their servitude and reducing the heavy taxes which impeded
commerce. Nor was the Empire too effete for such reforms.
It was yet a thousand years above the wretched civil wars of
Palæologus and Cantacuzene. The reforms were all more or less
carried out by Zeno and Anastasius; and their issue was the
splendid power wasted by Justinian. Had they been accom-
plished by Theodosius a century earlier, the Empire might have
become Greek and homogeneous, not merely from Mount Taurus
to the wall of Anastasius, but over the whole extent of the
Macedonian conquests, from Antioch to Belgrade, and from the
waters of the Hadriatic to the cliffs of Anium. Belisarius
would at least have been able to fight Zabergan on the Danube
instead of in the suburbs of Constantinople.
Even as it was, the Illyrian emperors had not fought in
vain; nor were the hundred years of respite lost. If the
1 Hodgkin Italy 197 for the Spanish character of Theodosius.
256
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
dominion of Western Europe was transferred for ever to the
northern nations, the walls of Constantinople had risen to
bar their eastward march, and Christianity had shewn its power
to awe their boldest spirits. The Empire rose again with
almost undiminished majesty from the catastrophe of Hadriano-
ple. Centuries of splendour were still before it; and the
Hannibalic war itself can scarcely shew a more heroic record than
that last great strife of Rome and Persia, when the Christian
legions drove the King of Kings in headlong rout before them
from Chalcedon to the gates of Ctesiphon, and dictated peace
from the fort which crowns the sevenfold wall of old Ecbatana¹.
Fast rose the storm which overthrew the ancient world.
The old barriers of civilization on the Danube and the Rhine were
broken through at Hadrianople, and thenceforth for six hundred
years the barbarians poured in like a flood of mighty waters
overflowing. Wave after wave engulfed some relic of antiquity;
and when the waters of the deluge abated hardly a wreck was
left which recalled the old heathen world of Julian and Ammia-
The Roman Empire and the Christian Church alone stood
unshaken, though strangely metamorphosed by Teutonic in-
fluences; but the Christian Church was founded on the everliving
Rock, the Roman Empire rooted deep in history. Arianism was a
thing of yesterday and had no principle of life, and therefore it
vanished in the crash of Hadrianople. The Homaan supremacy
had come to rest almost entirely on imperial misbelief. The
mob of the capital might be in its favour, and the virtues of
isolated bishops might win it some support elsewhere; but
serious men were mostly either Nicenes or Anomoans. Demo-
philus of Constantinople headed the party, and his blunders did
it almost as much harm as the profanity of Eudoxius. At
Antioch the last of the early Arians had been replaced by
Dorotheus. Milan under Ambrose was aggressively Nicene, and
before long the Homeans at Alexandria hardly ventured to dis-
pute the rule of Peter. On the other hand, the mightiest cham-
pions of the Nicene cause too had passed away, and few were left
nus.
1 It is fair to add that Rawlinson's
identification of Ganzaca with the
Ecbatana of Herodotus i. 90 has been
disputed: e.g. by Bunbury, Hist. Anc.
Geography i. 258. Its currency in the
fourth century is proved by Moses of
Chorene ii. 87.
VII.]
TOLERATION UNDER VALENTINIAN.
257
besides Auxano who could remember the great council's meeting.
Athanasius and Hilary were dead, and even Basil hardly lived to
greet an orthodox emperor. Meletius of Antioch was in exile,
and Cyril of Jerusalem, and the venerated Eusebius of Samosata.
If none of the living champions of the Nicene cause could
pretend to rival Athanasius, they at least outmatched the
Arians.
The first results of the battle of Hadrianople were in favour
of toleration. Whether Gratian ascribed the catastrophe to the
divine wrath (as Ambrose put it) against his uncle's persecutions,
we cannot say; but he had sense enough to see that it was no
time to cultivate religious quarrels when the Empire was fighting
for existence. The heathens had not very much to complain of.
If Gratian had disestablished them in the West, and Valens had
made bloody inquisition for magic in Syria, both emperors had
upon the whole adhered to Valentinian's policy of toleration.
Sacrifices were still offered publicly, even at Rome and
Alexandria, and victors at Olympia were still recorded, the
Eleusinian mysteries still celebrated. Though the schools of
Athens were declining, education still remained very much in
heathen hands, for monastic jealousy was not yet fully roused
against the ancient classics. Heathenism was rather perishing
of neglect than sinking under persecution. It was beginning
its final retreat to the rude villages and country districts, where
it held its ground for a surprising length of time', till in the
end it was quite as much adopted or absorbed as overcome by
Christianity.
There was no legal persecution even in the East. Toleration
was still the general theory of imperial policy, though Valens
had infringed it by frequent exiles of individual bishops².
None therefore but the Nicenes gained anything when Gratian
1 Notice for example the prohibi-
tion of sacrifices by Anthemius in 472,
the suppression of the temples at
Augila and Phile in Justinian's time,
the continuance of open heathenism
in Italy during Gregory's pontificate,
and in Spain in the seventh century,
and in particular the conversion of
the Mainotes in Laconia near the end
of the ninth.
G.
2 C. Th. xvi. 5, 3 is the only perse-
cuting law dated between 326 and 375.
It is an edict of Valentinian against
the Manichees: yet Sebastian the Ma-
nichee was not displaced from his com-
mand in Illyricum. Persecution how-
ever, as we have seen in the reign of
Constantius, is not always traceable in
the law books.
17 '
258
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
proclaimed liberty for all but Anomoans and Photinians. The
exiles found little difficulty in resuming the government of their
flocks, and even in attacking Arian strongholds with missions
like that undertaken by Gregory of Nazianzus at Constantino-
ple. The Macedonians were divided. Large numbers of them
joined the Niceres, and the remainder took up an independent
position. Thus the Homoan power in the provinces collapsed
of itself before it was touched by persecution. Nor did it
even struggle very hard against its fate. Though party spirit
ran as high as ever at Jerusalem, and local outrages were
perpetrated like the murder of Eusebius of Samosata or the
desecration of Gregory's chapel at Constantinople, we find few
traces of serious resistance on the part of Arianism.
The young emperor's next step was to share his burden with
a colleague. If the care of the whole Empire had been too
heavy for Valentinian or Diocletian, Gratian's were not the
Atlantean shoulders which could bear its undivided weight.
Couriers were sent to Spain in quest of Theodosius, the son of
the magister militum who had been so unworthily rewarded for
his recovery of Britain and Africa'. Early in 379 Gratian
entrusted to him the conduct of the Gothic war. With it went
the Empire of the East, this time including the Illyrian dioceses
of Macedonia and Dacia.
Though Theodosius had seen service before in Mosia, we
may upon the whole regard him as a Western stranger, endued
with a full measure of Spanish courage and intolerance. As a
general he was the most brilliant Rome bad seen since Julian's
death. Men compared him to Trajan, and in a happier age he
might have rivalled Trajan's fame. But the Empire could not
now aspire to wars of conquest. The beaten army was hope-
lessly demoralized, and could not do more than watch the
Goths from Thessalonica and cut off stragglers as occasion
served. It was not till Theodosius had formed a new army
1 The execution of the elder Theo-
dosius is by some ascribed to the influ-
ence of Valens. Richter Weström.
Reich 410 points out that the jealousy
of Merobaudes may have had some-
thing to do with it. We know that the
Frankish general favoured Romanus;
and he may well have thought strong
measures needed against a more active
rival than Sebastian. We find no
resentment against Merobaudes on the
part of Theodosius; but he never was
in a position to shew any.
VII.]
THEODOSIUS AND THE GOTHS.
259
of barbarian legionaries that the old tradition of Roman
superiority resumed its wonted sway. It soon appeared that
if the Goths could do nothing with their victory, they would
sooner or later have to make their peace with Rome. Theo-
dosius drove them inland in the first campaign; and while
he lay sick at Thessalonica in the second, Gratian or his
generals received the submission of the Ostrogoths. Fritigern
died the same year, and his old rival Athanaric was a fugitive
before it ended. When the returning Ostrogoths drove him
out from his Transylvanian forests, he was welcomed with
honourable courtesy by Theodosius in person at Constantinople.
But the old enemy of Rome and Christianity had only come to
lay his bones on Roman soil. In another fortnight the bar-
barian chief was carried out with kingly splendour to his
Roman funeral. Theodosius had nobly won Athanaric's in-
heritance. His wondering Goths at once took service with
their conqueror: chief after chief submitted, and the work
of peace was completed by Saturninus on the Danube in the
autumn of 382 ¹.
We can now return to ecclesiastical affairs. The dangerous
illness of Theodosius in 380 led to important consequences, for
his baptism by Ascholius of Thessalonica was the natural signal
for a more decided policy. Its first result was a law dated
Feb. 27, commanding all men to follow the Nicene doctrine,
"committed by the apostle Peter to the Romans and now
professed by Damasus of Rome and Peter of Alexandria," and
threatening to impose temporal punishments on the heretics.
In this it will be noticed that Theodosius abandons Constantine's
test of orthodoxy by subscription to a creed, returning to
1 The Gothic war of Theodosius is
one of the most intricate parts of our
history, and I have done no more than
trace
I course. The accounts of Gib-
bon, of Pallmann Völkerwanderung i.
139-144 and of Wietersheim-Dahn
Völkerwanderung ii. 64-67 are all
corrected by Kaufmann in Forschungen
z. Deutschen Gesch. xii. 414-438.
One disputed point is whether
Athanaric had succeeded Fritigern as
chief of the Goths. Here Pallmann
and Dahn seem to have the best of it.
Kaufmann shews clearly enough that
he reached Constantinople as a fugi-
tive; but this does not prove that the
Goths generally did not profess to ac-
knowledge him. On the other hand
Dahn points out that his treatment by
Theodosius implies that he was the
real chief. And this consideration seems
decisive.
2 C. Th. xvi. 1, 2. Socrates v. 6
puts the baptism of Theodosius “a few
days" before Nov. 24: but Soz. vi. 4
dates it before Feb. 27. This seems a
more natural arrangement, and is fol-
lowed by Gibbon and by Wietersheim-
Dahn ii. 65.
17-2
260
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
Aurelian's requirement' of communion with the chief bishops
of Christendom. The choice of Rome is natural, the addition
of Alexandria shews that the emperor was still a stranger to the
mysteries of Eastern partizanship.
2
There was no further reason for delay when the worst
dangers of the Gothic war had been overcome. Theodosius
made his formal entry into Constantinople Nov. 24, 380, and at
once required the bishop either to accept the Nicene faith or
to leave the city. Demophilus honourably refused to give up
his heresy, and adjourned his services to the suburbs. But
the mob of Constantinople was still Arian, and their stormy
demonstrations when the cathedral of the Twelve Apostles was
given up to Gregory of Nazianzus were enough to make
Theodosius waver. A milder rescript was issued, and the
emperor even consented to an interview with the heresiarch
Eunomius, who was then living near Constantinople. This
however was prevented by the empress Flacilla, and before long
Theodosius took another step. A second edict in Jan. 381 for-
bade all heretical assemblies inside cities, and ordered the
churches everywhere to be given up to the Nicenes'.
Thus was Arianism put down as it had been set up, by the
civil power. Nothing was left now but to clear away the dis-
orders which the strife had left behind. Once more an imperial
summons went forth for a council of the Eastern bishops, to
meet in May 381. It was a sombre gathering. The bright
hope which lighted the Empire at Nicæa had long ago died out,
and the conquerors themselves had no more joyous feeling than
that of thankfulness that the weary strife was coming to an
end". Only 150 bishops were present, and none of these were
1 Eus. H. E. vii. 30 oîs âv ol KaTà
τὴν Ἰταλίαν καὶ τὴν ῾Ρωμαίων πόλιν ἐπί-
σκοποι τοῦ δόγματος ἐπιστέλλοιεν.
2 Ullmann Gregorius 153 for the
proof that this was then the cathedral
of Constantinople.
3 Soz. vii. 9. Valesius sets this
down for a piece of Anoman scandal,
forgetting that Theodosius hesitated
more than four years before finally
committing himself to a policy of per-
secution, and married an Arian wife as
late as 387. Kaufmann Deutsche Gesch.
i. 294 appreciates the position much
better.
+ C. Th. xvi. 5, 6. Heretics of all
sorts are denounced, but only "Photin-
ians, Arians and Eunomians" are
specially named. The "Arians" are
the Homeans, as in Can. 1 Ctp. Tηv
τῶν ᾿Αρειανῶν, εἴτουν Εὐδοξιανών.
Godefroy discusses a possible trans-
fer of the edict to June or July. But
this breaks the order, and has nothing
in its favour.
This is very conspicuous in their
letter to Damasus, Theod. v. 9.
VII.]
THEODOSIUS AND THE ARIANS.
261
Westerns'. The Macedonians however mustered 36, under
Eleusius of Cyzicus.
The bishops were greeted with much splendour, and received
a truly imperial welcome in the form of a new edict against
the Manichees. Meletius of Antioch presided in the council,
and Paulinus was ignored. Theodosius was no longer neutral.
The Egyptians were not invited to the earlier sittings, or at
any rate were not present. The first act of the assembly was
to ratify the choice of Gregory of Nazianzus as bishop of
Constantinople. The next move was to find out whether the
Semiarians were willing to share in the Nicene victory. They
were still a strong party in the Hellespontine district, so that
their friendship was important. Theodosius also was less of a
zealot than some of his admirers imagine. The sincerity of
his desire to conciliate Eleusius is fairly guaranteed by his effort
two years later to find a scheme of comprehension even for the
Anomoans.
But the old soldier was not to be tempted by hopes of
imperial favour. However he might oppose the Anomoans, he
could not forgive the Nicenes their inclusion of the Holy Spirit
in the sphere of co-essential deity. Those of the Semiariaus
who were willing to join the Nicenes had already done so, and
the rest were obstinate. They withdrew from the council and
gave up their churches like the Arians".
Whatever jealousies might divide the conquerors, the Arian
contest was now at an end. Pontus and Syria were still
divided from Rome and Egypt on the question of Paulinus, and
there were the germs of many future troubles in the disposition
of Alexandria to look for help to Rome against the upstart see
of Constantinople. If Peter had been disappointed by his
Western allies in the intrigue of Maximus the Cynic, hist
successors might hope to be more fortunate another time. But
1 Rejecting the signature of Agrius
Immontinensis, Thessalonica is the
most western see represented. There
is really nothing to distinguish the
council from many others; and how it
was discovered to be cecumenical is not
easily explained. It is however so
called even in the letter to Damasus.
2 C. Th. xvi. 5, 7.
The intrigue of Maximus the Cynic
is discussed by Montaut Quest. hist.
97-131. It need not detain us now.
4 Sozomen iv. 27 says that they
had neither church nor bishop at Con-
stantinople till the reign of Arcadius.
A modern writer repeats his strange.
statement that this was "owing to the
intolerance of the stricter Arians".
under Theodosius, doubtless.
262
[CII.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
against Arianism the council was united. Its first canon was a
solemn ratification of the Nicene creed in its original shape',
and a formal condemnation of all the Arianizing parties. The
remainder of the canons deal with various irregularities which
had been overlooked during the recent troubles².
The council having ratified the emperor's work, it only
remained for the emperor to complete that of the council.
Another edict in the middle of July³ forbade Arians of all sorts
to build churches even outside cities; and at the end of the
month Theodosius issued an amended definition of orthodoxy.
The true faith was henceforth to be guarded by the demand of
communion, no longer with Rome and Alexandria, but with
Constantinople, Alexandria, and the principal bishops of the
East.
As far as mere numbers went, the cause of Arianism was
not hopeless even yet. It was still fairly strong in Asia, and
counted adherents as far west
1 We surely need not condescend to
discuss the story that the council of
Constantinople solemnly revised the
Nicene creed. Dr Hort Two Disserta-
tions has conclusively shewn that the
document in question is not a revision
of the Nicene creed at all, but of Cyril's
Jerusalem formula, and that it can-
not have had any sanction from the
council beyond an incidental approval
when Cyril's case came before them.
Bishop Wordsworth Ch. Hist. ii.
332-5 tells the old story all the better
for his ignorance that it had ever been
disputed. He only alludes to recent
doubts in a postscript. Recently it
has found a more serious defender in
Bright Canons of the First Four General
Councils, 80–82. But he lays un-
accountable stress on the assertion of
Aetius at Chalcedon, makes no new
point whatever, and seems not to have
met with Dr Hort's decisive work. At
any rate, he absolutely fails to touch
its arguments. Nor is his own account
of the matter free from serious objec-
tion. When he tells us that "this
creed was in effect the Nicene confes-
sion expanded," he forgets that there is
something more than expansion in it.
Surely Athanasius would have had an
anathema for the men who left out
the all-important ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας.
2 Canon 2 deserves notice, for the
intrusion of bishops in other men's
as the banks of the Danube.
dioceses was a chronic difficulty in
times of persecution. The Meletian
schism in Egypt had arisen from just
this cause, and the council was fortu-
nate in escaping a repetition of it.
3 C. Th. xvi. 5, 7.
4 C. Th. xvi. 1, 3. The choice of
bishops appears to be determined partly
by their own importance, partly by that
of their sees. Gregory of Nyssa may
represent one class, Helladius of Casa-
rea the other.
Some of the omissions are remark-
able. Antioch and Jerusalem may have
been left out on account of the special
relation of the council to Flavian and
Cyril, though this would have been as
good a reason for omitting Constanti-
nople itself. Ephesus again may have
hail a Semiarian bishop, but Euphrasius
of Nicomedia signs the canons.
shall hardly go far wrong if we suppose
that he was omitted in order to leave a
clear field for the supremacy of Con-
stantinople. In the same way Mar-
cianopolis and Tomi are represented,
but no bishopric south of the Balkans.
We
5 Palladius and Secundianus were
mere outliers, as is stated by the Aqui-
leian bishops in Ambrose Ep. 12 per
Occidentales partes duobus in angulis
tantum, hoc est in latere Dacia Ripen-
sis ac Mæsiæ, fidei obstrepi videbatur,
and more than once elsewhere.
VII.]
TEUTONIC ARIANISM.
263
At Constantinople it could raise dangerous riots, and at the
court of Milan it had a strong supporter in the empress Justina.
But its fate was none the less a mere question of time. Its cold
logic generated no such fiery enthusiasm as sustained the
African Donatists, and its recent origin allowed no venerable
traditions to grow up like those of heathenism, while its imperial
claims and past successes cut it off from the appeal of Nestorians
and Monophysites in the next century to provincial separatism.
When therefore the last overtures of Theodosius fell through
in 383, the heresy was quite unable to bear the strain of
persecution.
But if Arianism ceased in a few years to be a power inside
the Empire, it still remained the faith of the barbarian invaders.
The work of Ulfilas was not in vain. Roman law concerned the
Romans only, for even Justinian never ventured to meddle with
the belief of his Gothic soldiers. They remained privileged
heretics in the midst of the orthodox Empire, for the most
intolerant of Byzantine sovereigns never disdained the services
of stout misbelievers like Aligern or Harold Hardrada¹.
In the fifth century the Teutonic conquest of the West gave
Arianism another lease of power. Once more the heresy was
supreme at Ravenna, Toulouse and Carthage. To the barbarian
as well as to the heathen it was a half-way halting place on the
road to Christianity. Yet to the barbarian also it proved only
a source of weakness. It lived on and in its turn perpetuated
the feud between the Roman and the Teuton which involved.
the destruction of the earlier Teutonic kingdoms in Western
Europe. The provincials or their children might forget the
wrongs of conquest, but heresy was a standing insult to the
Roman world. Religious disaffection was a growing trouble
even to Theodoric, and his successors were much less able than
himself to overcome it. Totila was a model of barbarian
justice; yet even Totila could never venture to arm the provin-
cials against the orthodox oppressor. And if the isolation
of Arianism fostered the beginnings of a native literature",
1 Kaufmann Deutsche Gesch. ii. 95.
2 The scholar will hardly need to
be reminded that the noble Codex Ar-
genteus appears to date from the reign
of Theodoric in Italy. A Roman edu-
cation was not unfrequent: King Theo-
dahad was respectable for his learning,
if for nothing else.
264
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
it also blighted every hope of future growth. The Goths were
not inferior in capacity to the English, yet their history can
boast no native names to compare with those of Bede or
Cadmon. Jordanis is not much to set against them, and even
Jordanis was not an Arian.
The sword of Belisarius did but lay open the internal
disunion of Italy and Africa. The Vandal kingdom disappeared
at a blow, and all the valour of the Ostrogoths availed only to
win for theirs a downfall of heroic grandeur. As the last
desperate struggle for a nation's life, the battle of the Lactarian
mountain may take its place in history beside the fall of
Carthage or Jerusalem. Ildibad and Totila, Teja and Aligern
fought in vain. Sooner or later every Arian nation had to
purge itself of heresy or vanish from the earth. Even the
distant Visigoths were forced to see that Arians could not hold
Spain. Franks and Romans together almost overcame the
strong Leovigild, and his successor prudently gave up the
hopeless cause. The Lombards in Italy were its last defenders:
and they too yielded a few years later to the efforts of
Gregory and queen Theodelinda. Of continental Teutons the
Franks alone escaped the plague of Arianism. It was in
the strength of orthodoxy that they drove the conquerors
of Rome before them on the field of Vouglé, and brought the
green standard of the Prophet to a halt upon the Loire. The
Franks were neither better nor more civilized than the Ostro-
goths and Lombards; so that it was nothing but their orthodoxy
which won for them the prize Theodoric and Aistulf had missed,
and brought them through a long career of victory to that
proud day of culminating triumph when the strife of ages was for-
gotten, and Arianism with it, when after three hundred years of
desolating anarchy the Latin and the Teuton joined to vindicate
for Old Rome her just inheritance, and to set the holy diadem
of empire on the head of Charlemagne the Frank.
Now that we have traced the history of Arianism to its final
overthrow, let us once more glance at the causes of its failure.
Arianism was an illogical compromise. It went too far for
heathenism, not far enough for Christianity. It conceded
Christian worship to the Lord, though it made him no better
VII.]
ARIANISM A FAILURE.
265
than a heathen demigod. As a scheme of Christianity it was
overmatched at every point by the Nicene doctrine, as a con-
cession to heathenism it was outbid by the growing worship of
saints and relics. Debasing as was the error of turning saints
into demigods, it seems to have shocked Christian feeling less
than the Arian audacity which degraded the Lord of Saints to
the level of his creatures.
The crowning weakness of Arianism was the incurable
badness of its method. Even apart from Christianity, we may
well believe that some mysterious plan runs through the vast
complex of life around us, and that some high power watches
over its majestic evolution. Nature indeed may not know
that power's name; but if we are verily the sons of God in
Christ, we know that truth in all its forms in more than world-
wide range expresses but a single purpose of eternal Love.
Thus the theologian's problem is not so far removed from that
of the historian or the zoologist, or any other man of science.
His data are partly the same, his method is wholly analogous.
He has treasures which peradventure they have not; but he
is unworthy of his prerogative among them if he ventures to
imagine that their work does not concern him. Even the
theologian must be a learner like the rest, and if need be
learn from them the scientific spirit of patient reverence and
wary independence. The Lord's freedman cannot lord it over
others without himself becoming the slave of men. "Unanimous
consent of Fathers" can no more "prove
more "prove" the Chalcedonian
system than the Ptolemaic; and it is mere irreverence to
look upon the fluctuating majorities of arbitrarily selected
councils as the proper mouthpiece of God's Holy Spirit. The
Gnostic had some excuse for making nature and history give
place to dogma; but for Christians to do the same is to glory in
the falsehood of our dogma, to renounce our Master's teaching,
and to make our God a liar. Not even a revelation from above
can dispense us from the elementary duty of receiving truth
from whatever quarter it may come to us.
Now whatever were the errors of Athanasius-and on
details they were not a few-his work was undoubtedly a
faithful search for truth by every means attainable to him.
266
[cu. VII.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
Little as he knew of nature, that little has its place in his
theology. In breadth of view as well as grasp of doctrine
he is beyond comparison with the rabble of controversialists
who cursed or still invoke his name. It was far otherwise with
the Arians. On one side their doctrine was a mass of pre-
sumptuous theorizing, supported by alternate scraps of obsolete
traditionalism and uncritical text-mongering, on the other it
was a lifeless system of unspiritual pride and hard unlovingness.
And therefore Arianism perished.
So too every system of science or theology must likewise
perish which presumes like Arianism to discover in the feeble
brain of man a law to circumscribe the revelation of our
Father's love in Christ.
NOTE M.
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE COUNCIL OF LAMPSACUs.
THE above account of the council of Lampsacus is mostly derived
from Sozomen vi. 7. He seems usually well informed on the
Semiarian movements, and in this case is incidentally supported by
Philostorgius ix. 3, who complains that Valens "honoured Eudoxius"
on his return from Illyricum before the rising of Procopius, and
therefore towards the end of 364.
Socrates iv. 2-4 gives a different account. He tells us that the
Macedonians came and asked Valens for a new council shortly after
his return from Illyricum. The emperor gave permission in ignor-
ance of their quarrel with Eudoxius, and hurried (ǹ ráxos) to Antioch,
where he carried on a vigorous persecution of the Nicenes. The
council was held in 365 (consuls named), during the Procopian
troubles, in the seventh year from the council of Seleucia, and Valens
quashed its decisions after the civil war.
Before discussing this further, let us note the agreement of
Socrates with Sozomen in telling us that Valens reached Antioch in
365 and carried on a persecution there. They may give an exaggerated
account of it, but there seems no reason to doubt the fact. In Ammianus
xxvi. 6, 11: 7, 2 Valens is consumpta hieme festinans in Syriam,
and yet in October we find him at Cæsarea Mazaca, waiting for
cooler weather to cross the Cilician marshes. Ammianus therefore
leaves ample time for the spring visit to Antioch recorded by
Socrates and Sozomen.
Other traces of such a visit may be pointed out. (1) C. Th. xii.
6, 5 is dated from Cæsarea, July 4. If Valens left the capital when
the winter was over, he must have reached Cæsarea before July; and
if he was in a hurry, he would hardly wait there three months longer.
The law is therefore best assigned to his return from Syria. (2) C.
Th. xii. 6, 8 (= C. Just. x. 70, 2) is dated from Constantinople, July
30. The date is faulty, for the law before it is dated Aug. 4; but
268
[CH.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
Godefroy Chronol. lxxiv. does not mend the matter by reading reddita
for data. However this may be, the order of the Codex positively fixes
it somewhere between July 18 and Aug. 31. During this interval
then Valens must have visited Constantinople. We have also (3)
the account of the Hist. Aceph. on which (Sievers Einl. § 18) Sozomen
is possibly dependent. According to this, a rescript of Valens.
reached Alexandria May 5, which ordered the expulsion of all
bishops "who had been ejected by Constantius and restored by
Julian." The populace maintained that this did not apply to
Athanasius, and the question was referred back to Valens, whose
answer was received June 8. From this we may infer (a) that the
rescript was issued either before Mar. 19 (when Valens was still at
Constantinople) or not long after, (b) that it was aimed at Semiarians
as well as Nicenes, (c) that Valens was most likely in Asia towards
the end of May, for time must be allowed for the riots at Alexandria
before Flavianus ventured to send off the appeal.
These conclusions harmonize perfectly with all our data except
the time fixed by Socrates for the operations of the Semiarians. If
Valens was under the influence of Eudoxius at Antioch, that influence
must have been established before he left Constantinople, as it might
well have been during a stay of more than three months.
It may further be noted (a) that Socrates is frequently inaccurate
when he ventures to fix a consulship, (b) that Basil Ep. 223 seems to
imply that some conference at Heraclea succeeded the council of
Lampsacus.
It may also be well to add that Hefele Councils § 88 has made no
serious attempt to observe any chronological order.
There is not much to be said on the other side. Godefroy (on
Philost. ix. 5) has a theory that Procopius seized the capital as
early as July or August, but the Idatian Fusti give Sept. 28 for the
date; and this is confirmed by the statement of Ammianus xxvi.
5, 8 that the news reached Valentinian near Paris at the end of
October.
NOTE N. THE STORY OF THE EIGHTY CLERICS.
To this period belongs the story of the eighty clerics burnt at sea
by Modestus. It is the worst story connected with the reign of
Valens. Fortunately it seems unhistorical.
Socrates iv. 16 and Sozomen vi. 14 relate it between the death of
Eudoxius in 370 and the meeting of Basil and Valeus in 372; and it
VII.]
NOTE N. THE EIGHTY CLERICS.
269
is further determined for 370-1 by the emperor's presence at
Nicomedia, and by the attendance of Modestus, who only became
prefect at the end of 369. Theodoret iv. 24 lays the scene at
Constantinople, and puts it later. An allusion may be found (so
Zonaras xiii. 16) in Greg. Naz. Or. xliii. 46, πрeσßvtépwv éµñpnoµoi
Palárтio, perhaps also in Greg. Nyss. in Eunomium i. p. 289,
μετὰ τὰς τραγῳδίας ἐκείνας, ἃς κατὰ Βιθυνίαν ἐξειργάσατο. Some will
discover yet another in Epiph. Hær. 69, 13 ὅσα γέγονε... ἐν Νικομηδείᾳ.
We may add that the famine in Phrygia which followed may be
that of 373; and that Modestus was aptus ad hæc et similia, as
Ammianus xix. 12, 6 says of his doings on the Scythopolis com-
mission in 359.
S
There
Richter Weström. Reich (note 132) rejects the whole story with-
out discussion: but so far all seems clear and circumstantial.
are only two objections; and these seem fatal.
In the first place the story is one of the very worst on record.
Such a wholesale butchery of ecclesiastics might have staggered
Galerius himself, and could scarcely have failed to bring a curse
on Valens from every writer of the time. Ammianus and Libanius
were not wanting in humanity, Rufinus and Chrysostom in hatred
of the persecutors; yet one and all they pass it over.
Still more
unaccountable is the silence of Basil if so monstrous a crime was
really carried out; and his friendly correspondence with Modestus is
surely something worse than unaccountable.
Another difficulty is pointed out by Sievers Libanius 231. When
Gregory of Nazianzus Or. xxv. 10 is saying the worst he can of
Valens, he distinctly tells us that a single presbyter (Tv peσẞUTÉρWV
eva) was burnt at sea. The plural in Or. xliii. will therefore be a
rhetorical flourish. Ultimately then the whole story comes to rest
on the single authority (not Rufinus this time) followed by Socrates
and Sozomen.
Upon the whole it seems to be a true story grossly exaggerated—
one victim grown into eighty. Bad as it is at best, it is no more
than the ordinary barbarity of the criminal law; and in the absence of
better information, we cannot even be sure that religion had any.
thing to do with the matter more than in the case of Artemius.
NOTE O. EUSTATHIUS OF SEBASTIA.
THE common account of Eustathius is an enigma. Such a record
of meaningless instability in a man of his high character reads more
270
[CH. VII.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
like satire than history. Perhaps however he was not so fickle after
all. His changes become fairly intelligible if we suppose that his
adoption of Macedonian views was gradual. He started from a
neutral position (Socr. ii. 45) about 364, and by 377 had become
(Basil Ep. 263) "a ringleader of the Macedonians." Towards Basil
he was drawn by old friendship and a common love of asceticism,
but equally repelled by the imperious orthodoxy of a stronger will
than his own. Two ascetics are sure to have misunderstandings;
and in this case there was a growing difference of doctrine to widen
the breach.
Some such view of him is suggested by the following con-
siderations-
(1) Eustathius was not at all "one of those who are usually to
be found on the side of authority." We cannot set down as a mere
timeserver the man who defended Semiarianism at Seleucia and Tyana,
who supported Basil (Ep. 79) in the crisis of his strife with Valens,
and who was content to remain for nearly ten years in consistent
opposition to the court. If he ultimately yielded at Constantinople.
in 360, we have already seen that he did not sign another Homean
creed before his quarrel with Basil.
(2) We really cannot ascribe to Eustathius the unmeaning folly
of coming to Nicopolis in 373 with the deliberate purpose of first
signing and then disavowing the stringent confession we find in Basil
Ep. 125. His relations with his old friend were already seriously
strained by the affair of Sophronius (Basil Ep. 119) and by the
misunderstanding of the year before; and if he was now persuaded
by importunity to sign for the second time in his life what he ought
not to have signed, we know that there were plenty of mischief-
makers at Sebastia ready to inflame his resentment into an open
quarrel.
(3) And such a quarrel might easily carry him over to the
Homoean side. However rudely Basilides and Ecdicius might treat
him, they did not ask him like Basil to strain his conscience. The
formula laid before him at Cyzicus contained nothing offensive to
him. Its ὅμοιον κατ᾿ οὐσίαν was exactly the Nicene ὁμοούσιον in the
sense adopted by the Semiarians, and its denial of the Holy Spirit
was quite consistent with his confession to Liberius. Rather the
Nicene doctrine on the subject was a growing offence to the pcσótηs
on which Eustathius (Basil Ep. 128) prided himself as much as
Sophronius of Pompeiopolis and the rest of the Macedonians.
APPENDIX I.
THE GREAT OFFICIALS OF THE EMPIRE DURING THE REIGNS OF
CONSTANTIUS AND VALENS. A. D. 337-378.
In the absence of any indication to the contrary, it will be
understood that the data of the following table are derived from
the inscriptions of the laws in the Codex Theodosianus. These
however have come down to us in a very corrupt state, and the
errors not unfrequently seem beyond the reach of critical emendation.
Account however has been taken of the labours of Godefroy, Tillemont,
Clinton and Haenel, of the Benedictine life of Basil, and of the
admirable Leben des Libanius of Sievers.
Of contemporary writers Ammianus and Libanius are by far the
most important, though much help has been derived from the in-
scriptions collected by Boeckh and Orelli. A secondary rank may
be assigned to Athanasius and the ecclesiastical historians, to Julian
and Eunapius, while stray facts may be gleaned from almost every
writer of our period, from the late Byzantines, and even from Moses
of Chorene and the Jerusalem Talmud.
There are few special helps for the individual sections of the table.
In the case however of the urban prefects we have a list as far
as 354 in the Ravenna Chronographer of that year, with Mommsen's
discussion of it; also monographs by Corsini and Leotard; and in that
of the magistri militum the tangle is partially unravelled by Bethmann-
Hollweg Römischer Civilprozess, iii. 81-83; but there is still much
wanting.
The sign † denotes a Christian, ‡ a heathen; the remainder are
unknown, except that Sebastian was a Manichee. Renegades are
noted according to their profession for the time being, and barbarian
magistri militum are given in italics.
272
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
$ 1.
PR.EFECTUS URBIS ROME.
L. Aradius Valerius Proculus Populonius, Mar. 337-Jan. 338'.
Mecilius Hilarianus, Jan. 338-July 339°.
L. Turcius Apronianus, July-Oct. 3393.
+
+ Tib. Fabius Titianus, Oct. 339-Feb. 341°.
Aurelius Celsinus, Feb. 341-Apr. 342.
Fl. Lollianus Mavortius, Apr.-July 342'.
? Aconins Catullinus, July 342-Apr. 3445.
Quintus Junius Rusticus, Apr. 344-July 345.
Petronius Probinus, July 345-Dec. 346°.
M. Mæcius Memmius Furius Balbinus Cæcilianus Placidus,
Dec. 346-June 3177.
Ulpius Limenius, June 347-Apr. 349º.
(Interval of 41 days).
Hermogenes, May 349-Feb. 27, 350.
+
Tib. Fabius Titianus II., Feb. 27, 350—Mar. 1, 351º.
Aurelius Celsinus II., Mar. 1—May 351.
Cœlius Probatus, May-June 3519.
Clodius Adelfius, June-Dec. 35110.
Valerius Proculus II., Dec. 351-Sept. 9, 352.
1 Consul 341. He seems from
Orelli 3672 (where the date is wrong)
to have held also a prætorian prefec-
ture at some time or other.
2 Consul 342.
3 The prefecture of Apronianus is
mentioned in Orelli 603, 1099, 1100,
6475. C. Th. xi. 30, 18 Anicio Juliano
P.U. June 339 belongs to 326.
4 On Lollianus, § 35.
5 Consul 349. Mentioned Orelli
2361: Prætextatus married his daugh-
ter. Some error in the title of C. Th.
xv. 8, 1 ad Severum P. U., which being
dated from Hierapolis in July 343,
cannot refer to Rome at all.
6 Consul 341. Orelli 4035.
7 Consul 343. Augur in Orelli 3191,
where his name is given at length.
C. Th. xvi. 10, 3 ad Catullinum P. U.
in Nov. 346 must be removed to 342.
Henzen distinguishes the Placidus of
Orelli 5699.
8 Corsini de Præf. Urb. notices the
remarkable union of the urban and
Italian prefectures by Limenius and
his successor Hermogenes. We have
a Limenius proconsul of Constanti-
nople, who expelled Libanius early in
343, and a Limenius consul in 349.
Sievers Libanius 53 identifies the two:
but since the other consul Catullinus
was a western official, it is safer (so
Corsini) to keep them distinct.
9 Titianus in Orelli 17 repairs a
temple as P. U. in 341 or 350. Henzen
refers to him the lacuna in Orelli 5587
Præf. urbi iterum, apparently under
Magnentius: but it would equally suit
Proculus or Celsinus.
9a Aurelius Victor Cs. 42 caso
Urbi præfecto in the riot of Nepoti-
anus. The time of year would suit
Cœlius Probatus, and so Valesius un-
derstands it. But the riot is firmly
settled for 350 (Zos. ii. 48-Magnentius
not left Gaul; Jerome Chron., Idat.
Chron. Pasch.), and Ammianus xxviii.
1, 1 sexto decimo anno et eo diutius
(referring to 368) is too vague to war-
rant us in putting it later.
10 Ammianus xvi. 6, 2.
APPENDIX I.
Septimius Mnasea, Sept. 9-26, 352.
Neratius Cerealis, Sept. 26, 352-Dec. 353".
ተ
+ Memmius Vitrasius Orfitus, Dec. 353—Mar. July 355'.
Leontius, 355, Nov. 35613.
1 Decimus Simonius Julianus, Feb. 357¹¹.
273
Memmius Vitrasius Orfitus II., June, July, Oct. 357, June 358,
Mar. 359¹².
† Junius Bassus, died Aug. 25, 359.
+
Tertullus, Oct. 359, Dec. 361.
Clytholias Maximus, Dec. 361, Feb. 363".
Apronianus, Feb. 363, 36418.
11 Consul 358. Uncle of Gallus
(Ammianus xiv. 11, 27) C. Th. vii. 20,
7 Evagrio P. U. in Aug. 353 must be
altered to Pf. P. (of Italy). We have
Orelli 1101 to Constantius by Cerealis.
Jerome Ep. 127 ad Principiam
names him as a suitor of Marcella.
The first prefecture of Orfitus
seems fairly marked. Removing to
354 a few laws addressed to him in 353,
we find the other limit of his tenure in
C. Th. xiv. 3, 2, in June 355. C. Th.
ix. 17, 3 must be removed to 357.
Then C. Th. xi. 34, 2 (Jan. 355) and
C. Just. vi. 22, 6 (Feb. 355) in which
Volusianus is addressed as P. O. and
P. U. are to be explained by iii. 12, 2
(April 355), where he is only Vicarius
urbis. Probably also C. Th. xi. 36,
11, and two other laws dated in July:
but Volusianus may have held the
prefecture for a short time before
Leontius. There is more difficulty in
Orelli 5587 Fabius Felix Pasiphilus
Paulinus P.U., dated May 31, 355,
which seems to require a change in
C. Th. xiv. 3, 2.
The second prefecture of Orfitus is
clear enough at the visit of Constantius
to Rome, and may have extended to
Mar. 359. In C. Th xiii, 5, 9 Olybrio
P. U. Godefroy reads Orfito. To the
second term of Orfitus belong Orelli
3184 (Orf. priest of Vesta), 3185, 5585,
Q. Aur. Symmachus P.U. 384, 418
(Epp. ix. 131, x. 54) married Rusticiana
the daughter of Ortitus. Orelli 3181 is
a few years earlier.
13 Leontius first appears C. Th.
viii. 18, 5 in Apr. 349 as comes Orientis.
In 353 he was sent out to replace
Montius as quæstor in Syria (Ammi-
anus xiv. 11, 14), and no doubt re-
turned with Gallus to Europe in the
autumn of 354.
We find him (Ammi-
anus xv. 7, 1; 6) P. U. after the revolt
of Silvanus in the spring of 355, and
again at the exile of Liberius.
C. Th. xvi. 2, 13 ad Leontium P. U.
must be removed to 356, for Leontius
was no longer P. U. in Nov. 357.
14 Corsini de Præf. Urbana 215—
220, on the authority of (a) Inscription
at Thermae which calls him præses
Daciarum. (b) Inscription in Etruria
which calls him P. U. (e) C. Th. xiv.
1, 1 sublimitas tua suits the dignity of
P. U. If so, Julianus will divide the
second prefecture of Orfitus in two.
15 Ammianus xvii. 11, 5. Orelli,
2527 Junius Bassus in ipsa præjectura
urbis neofitus iit ad Deum, dated Aug.
25, 359. Hence not the Terracius
Bassus P. U. of Orelli 6430, Ammi-
anus xxviii. 1, 27, Symm. Ep. x. 43.
16 Ammianus xix. 10, 1; xxi. 10, 7.
His heathenism is shewn by Ammia-
nus xix, 1, 4.
17 Symmachus Ep. x. 54. He was
a nephew of Vulcatius Rufinus (Ammi-
anus xxi. 12, 24), and therefore a first
cousin of Gallus. Probably heathen,
being Julian's nominee.
18 The appointment of Apronianus
is recorded by Ammianus xxiii. 1, 4
after the death of Julian the comes
Örientis: but C. Th. v. 12, 1 ad Maxi-
mum P. U., dated Feb. 26, 363, shews
that it must have been one of the
emperor Julian's last acts before quit-
ting Antioch. Ammianus xxvi. 3. 1
names him again in 364. Orelli 3166
is referred to this Apronianus rather
than to his father (P. U. in 339). His
second prefecture in 372 depends on
C. Just. i. 40, 5, ad Apronianum P. U.
where however Godefroy Prosopogr.
conjectures Ampelium.
G.
18
274
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
‡ L. Aur. Avianius Symmachus, Apr. 364-May 365 (or later)"".
Lampadius 366 ºº.
80
Viventius, Dec. 366, Apr., May 367".
+
36822.
370
++
Vettius Agorius Prætextatus, Aug., Oct., Dec. 367, Jan., Sept.
Clodius Hermogenianus Cæsarius Olybrius, Jan. 369-Aug.
Ampelius, Jan. 371-July 372 24.
Bappo, Aug. 372.
? Apronianus II., 372".
+
Ceionius Rufius Albinus Volusianus, Feb.-Sept. 373.
19 The offices held by Symmachus
are recounted by Orelli 1186, but his
consulship is not easily dated. As
he succeeded Apronianus (Ammianus
xxvii. 3, 3), we may presume that
Volusianus was only Vicarius Præfec-
turæ Urbis in April 364, when C. Th.
xi. 14, 1 was addressed to him. We
may also safely follow Godefroy in
reading Symmachum in the title of
C. Th. xiv. 3, 7 ad Viventium P. U.,
dated Oct. 361.
Next comes the usual medley of
laws which ought not to be dated
in 365. We may refer C. Th. viii.
5, 25 ad Symmachum correctorem
Lucania to his son Q. Aur. Symma-
chus. Sundry laws addressed between
Feb. and Sept. to Volusianus may
be removed to 373. Next C. Th. i.
6, 6 ad Prætextatum P. U. in Sept.
must be transferred to 368, while
C. Th. xi. 31, 3 and others ad Oly-
brium P. U. between March and Aug.
will belong to 370.
20 Ammianus xxvii. 3, 5 Lampadius
ex-Pf. P. (Italy in 354).
i Succeeded Lampadius before
Dec. 366 (Ammianus xxvii. 3, 11:
mentioned by Symmachus Ep. x. 50).
Then C. Th. ix. 40, 10 ad Prætextatum
P. U. must belong to Oct. 367.
There is more difficulty in C. Th.
ix. 1, 9 ad Valerianum P. U. in Dec.
366. It is not likely that Ammianus
has overlooked him. Corsini de Præf.
Urb. 239 calls him Severianus and
doubts him: indeed there is no proof
from Symm. Ep. iii. 87 that a Severi-
anus was P. U. about this time. Nor
can we read Volusianum and shift to
371. Upon the whole Godefroy's view
is the best, that Valerianus (C. Th.
i. 16, 10 ad Valerianum Vicarium
Hispaniarum in 365) was Vicarius
Præfecturæ urbi in the interval be-
tween Lampadius and Prætextatus.
See Haenel's notes.
Prætextatus is mentioned Boeckh
2594, Orelli 2362 (priest of Bacchus)
2354 (augur, tauroboliated, &c. and
twice Pf. P. of Italy and Illyricum
before 387). Then C. Th. xiii. 3, 8 ad
Prætexiatum P. U. must be thrown
back to Jan. 368.
23 We must remove to 370 all the
laws addressed to Olybrius in 365 ; also
C. Th. xi. 31, 5, dated in Aug. 373. C.
Th. xii. 1, 72 ad Olybrium consularem
Tusei also needs correction: but it
may best be placed in 373, in order to
keep the order.
Olybrius was in weak health during
his prefecture, so that his power was
mostly exercised by the savage Maxi-
min. Ammianus xxviii. 1, 4; 12, xxix.
2, 3 distinctly marks the vicarious
character of Maximin's authority, and
the Chron. Pasch. puts the severities
of Valentinian in 369. Similarly wo
may explain C. Th. xiii. 3, 10 ad Prin-
cipium P. U. in Apr. 370 (removing a
difficulty of Clinton F. R. ii. 118).
Orelli 4321 gives his name LS
Pf. P. and P. U. on a dog's collar (noli
me tenere : non exped(i)et). The for-
mer dignity is not easy to verify.
Olybrius was consul with Ausonius in
379. The name Cæsarius comes from
Orelli 1900. It scarcely refers to Oly-
brius the son of Probus, consul 395.
24 C. Just. i. 40, 5 ad Apronianum
P. U. in May 372. Godefroy reads
Ampelium.
25 The years 365, 368, and 370 being
occupied by Symmachus, Prætextatus
and Olybrius, the laws addressed be-
tween Feb. and Sept. 365 to Volusianus
must be referred to 373.
A genealogy of Volusianus is given
APPENDIX I.
275
Enpraxius, Feb. 374.
Claudius, May 37427.
? Maximinus, Nov. 374, Apr. 3762.
Rufinus, July 376.
† Publicola Gracchus, Dec. 376, Jan. 3772.
Probianus, Sept. 37730.
Marinus, Mar. 378.
§ 2.
PRÆFECTUS PRÆTORIO GALLIARUM.
Aurelius Celsinus, June 338, Jan. 339'.
? Antonius Marcellinus, Apr., June 340º.
by Itasius Lemniacus on Rutilius
Namatianus de reditu suo i. 168. We
find him in Orelli 2305 priest of Sun,
in 2355 P. U. and Pf. P. and taurobo-
liated in 370. The Rufia Volusiana
tauroboliated in the same year with
her husband (Orelli 6040) may have
been his daughter. There is no other
trace of him as Pf. P. except C. Just. i.
19, 5, ad Volusianum P. O. dated from
Rome, Sept. 18, 365. As Valentinian
never visited Rome, and 365, 368, 370
and 373 are all for various reasons
inadmissible, there seems no choice
but to alter the inscription.
26 Also Orelli 1116, as Henzen sup-
plies the lacuna.
27 Allusions in Ammianus xxvii. 3,
2, xxix. 6, 17; perhaps also Symmachus
Ep. i. 28. There seems to be some
error in C. Just. i. 4, 2 (copied vii. 65,
4) ad Claudium P. P. in July 369.
Similarly C. Th. xi. 36, 20 ad Claudia-
num P. U. of the same date and on
the same subject. Can they be for
Clodius Herm. Olybrius?
28 If Maximin (or Maximus) was
ever P. U. he may come in here. His
career is traced by Ammianus xxviii. 1.
In the C. Th. we find him ix. 1, 8,
corrector Tuscia in Nov. 366, and
præf. annonæ at Rome 368-370. He
seems also to have been vicarius urbis
during the illness of Olybrius, and
Cod. Vatic. in Haenel Index Legum
224 as late as 371, when Ampelius was
P. U. In 372 he was Pf. P. (Ammia-
nus xxix. 3, 1; 4: 6, 3. Jerome
Chron. 372) in Gaul (Jurisdiction at
Mogontiacum), while at Rome he was
replaced by Ursicinus as prej, annonæ
(C. Th. xiv. 3, 14, in Feb. 372) and by
Simplicius as vicarius urbis (Ammianus
xxviii. 1, 45, C. Th. ix. 29, 1, in Mar.
374).
The question is closely connected
with that of the prefecture of Gracchus,
on which see Godefroy on C. Th. ii. 2,
1; and for the other side Vallarsi on
Jerome Ep. 107 ad Latam, where
Gracchus is dated after 378. In any
case the present is the latest possible
date of Maximin as P. U., for (Ammia-
nus xxviii. 1, 53) he was executed by
Gratian. Corsini de Præf. Urb. 239
puts him in 366, which cannot be
admitted. The error comes from
Rufinus ii. 10, copied by Socr. and
Soz.
Here Corsini inserts Rufinus the
ex-P. U. mentioned by Symmachus,
Ep. vii. 126. So also C. Th. i. 6, 7.
Vindaonius Magnus (another of Cor-
sini's prefects) belongs to Constanti-
nople.
30 On Petronius Probianus some
indifferent verses of the elder Symma-
chus Ep. i. 2.
¹ Godefroy leaves it undecided which
prefecture Celsinus held. But from
C. Th. xii. 1, 7, Have Celsine, which
concerns the curiales of Carthage, and
is dated by Constantine II. from Trier
in Jan. 339, it seems safest to assign
him the Gaulish prefecture, for the
moment including Africa.
2 With some hesitation I place here
the name of Marcellinus, to whom C.
Th. xi. 12, 1, and vi. 22, 3, are ad-
dressed. The former law seems from
its allusion to publicus et noster inimicus
18-2
276
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
+
Ti. Fabius Titianus, June 343, 344, May, Nov. 3493.
Vulcatius Rufinus, Dec. 349, summer 350, summer 354, 356*.
Honoratus".
Florentius, summer 357, 359, Jan. 360'.
(which Godefroy refers to Constan-
tine II.) to suit the Gaulish prefecture.
Antonius Marcellinus (Orelli 4035, for
the prænomen) was consul in 341.
This Marcellinus will be distinct
from the contriver of the Magnentian
plot, who was comes S. L. in Jan. 350,
(Zos. ii. 41), magister officiorum a few
months later (Zos. ii. 43: defeat of
Nepotianus), and disappeared at Mursa.
The office indeed of comes S. L. was
sometimes held by ex-prefects (Germa-
nianus and perhaps Florentius under
Valentinian); but in this case the in-
terval of time seems too great.
A third Marcellinus was præses
Phoenicia in 342, and comes Orientis
in 349.
Paulinus Vita Ambrosii 3, gives the
Gaulish prefecture to the saint's father
Ambrosius at the time of his birth.
This may fall in 333, or more likely
340. But Paulinus is very inaccurate,
and may have placed Ambrosius in a
higher rank than he really held. In
the same way Jerome, Chron. 335 as-
signs it to Tiberianus, who appears in
C. Th. iii. 5, 6, as Vicarius Hispania-
rum in 335-6.
3 Consul 337. C. Th. xii. 1, 36,
ad Titianum (rank omitted) in June,
343, supported by Jerome Chron. 344.
The other dates (May, Nov. 349)
depend on C. Th. vii. 1, 2, and ix. 24,
2, emended. We have C. Th. ii. 1, 1,
ad Eustathium P. O., dated March 349,
and published at Rome. Here however
(Tillemont Empereurs, iv. 672) we must
read C. R. P. for (a) the prefectures of
Rome and Italy are accounted for in
349, (b) we find Eustathius comes R. P.
about 345 in Philost. iii. 12, and C. Th.
x. 10, 7.
4 Uncle of Gallus (Ammianus xiv.
11, 27). Orelli 5583 seems to imply
that he was Pf. P. (of Italy, to judge
from the allusion of C. Th. xi. 1, 6,
where see Godefroy's note) before his
consulship in 347. The dates given
depend-Dec. 349, on C. Just. vi. 62,
3 (when Hermogenes held Italy); 350
on Peter Patricius, p. 129, Bonn Edi-
tion; 354 and 356 on Ammianus, xiv.
10, 4 and xvi. 8, 13. Rufinus seems to
have been an unpolitical character,
acceptable both to Magnentius and to
Constantius, and afterwards to Valen-
tinian; hence it is not unlikely that he
remained in office from 349 to 356
without a break.
Godefroy transfers to 352 the laws
C. Th. vi. 35, 3 and iii. 5, 2 ad Rufinum
P. P., dated in April and May, 319.
But thus he breaks the order. He for-
gets moreover that Constantius could
have had no power over the Gaulish
prefect in 352.
The following genealogy may be given :
CONSTANTIUS
CHLORUS
NN
† 306
Anicius
Julianus
PU, 326.
רי
Neratius
Cerealis
PU, 352.
Vulcatius
Rufinus
Pf. P, 349, 366
NN
(1) Galla.
Julius
Constantius
† 337.
(2) Basilina
† 332.
Julianus
Comes Orientis, 362.
Clytholias
Maximus
PU, 361-3.
GALLUS
1354-5.
JULIAN
† 363.
Rufinus and Cerealis were certainly brothers of Galla; but perhaps only
by marriage.
5 Libanius Ep. 389, and Jerome
Chron. 360, imply that Honoratus held
the Gaulish prefecture. If so, it must
have been between his proconsulship
at Constantinople in 354 and his ap-
pointment to the East in 359. Then
he must come before Florentius, who
was prefect (Ammianus xvi. 12, 14),
before the battle of Argentoratum in
357, and remained in office till his
flight in Jan. 360 (Ammianus xx. 8,
20.)
APPENDIX I.
277
Nebridius, 360, summer 361".
+
afe
Fl. Sallustius, 361, Jan.-Sept. 3627.
+
‡ Germanianus, Dec. 362-Apr. 366".
fr
+
? Probus, May 366°.
Florentius, June 367.
Viventius, Apr.? Sept. 368-May 371%.
Maximinus, 371-373".
Antonius, Sept. 376-Dec. 378.
+ D. Magnus Ausonius, 378'2.
+
$ 3.
PR.EFECTUS PRETORIO ITALIE.
Aconius Catullinus, June 341'.
Placidus, May 344°.
It is not likely that Sallust held the
office when he was sent with Julian to
Gaul. Zosimus iii. 1; 5 only calls him
ἕνα τῶν συμβούλων αὐτοῦ, and wrongly
puts his recall before the battle of
Argentoratum about August, 357. Ju-
lian ad S. P. Q. Athen. p. 282, leaves
an interval; and elsewhere (Or. viii.
p. 251-2) mentions his journey to the
emperor in Illyricum, where we find
Constantius in December certainly,
perhaps also about August.
6 Ammianus xx. 9, 5, xxi. 5, 11.
Nebridius was appointed by Constan-
tius after the mutiny at Paris, and
allowed by Julian to remain till he op-
posed the eastward march in 361.
7 Fl. Sallustius (so Orelli 6471) was
Julian's friend in Gaul, and by him
appointed to succeed Nebridius in 361.
He can be traced in C. Th. xii. 1, 53 as
late as Sept. 362. Next year he was
consul (Ammianus xxiii. 1, 1). De-
spatches from him reached Julian at
Circesium (Ammianus xxiii. 5, 4). We
may safely set him down as a heathen,
and Germanianus with him.
If there be any truth in the story of
Rhodanius, it must be connected with
the Gaulish Sallust, though Chron.
Pasch. 369, Moses of Chorene iii. 26,
and Malalas, 340, Bonn Edition, tell it
of the Eastern prefect, and Zonaras
xiii. 15 does not mention Sallust at all.
The story is quite in character with
Valentinian (compare the case of Dio-
cles in Ammianus xxvii. 7, 5), and there
may be a trace of reality in the desig-
nation of Sallust as patrician, though
some of the late Byzantines give that
title to the Eastern Sallust. Moses
•
and Malalas (the two often run very
much together) seem to have taken it
from the same authority as the Chron.
Pasch. If this be the old Homean
writer, it will be contemporary. On
the other side we may set the silence
of Ammianus, Zosimus and the eccle-
siastical writers. Nor does the story
seem to come from Eunapius.
s The prefecture of Germanianus
can be traced in the Cod. Theod. from
Dec. 362, (xi. 30, 30-reading Jan, for
Jul.) to Apr. 366, (viii. 7, 9). Next
month (v. 13, 20) we find him comes
S. L.
Then C. Th. vii. 13, 5 and xiii. 10,
4, ad Viventium P. 0. Galliarum in
Apr. and Nov. 365 must be removed
to 368 or 370. And as Ammianus
xxvi. 5, 5 expressly tells us that Ger-
manianus was ruling Gaul at the elec-
tion of Valentinian, we must not add
Pf. P. (as Godefroy does) to C. Th.
viii. 5, 17 ad Menandrum in March
(rather May), 364.
Then Viventius first appears as Pf.
P. in April, 368. From this point we
can trace him as far as C. Th. xii. 1,
75 in May, 371.
9 On Probus, § 38.
10 Ammianus xxvii. 7, 7. Better
not identified with Julian's enemy,
the consul of 361.
11 On Maximinus, § 128.
12 On Ausonius, § 39.
1 C. Th. viii. 2, 1; xii. 1, 31, both
dated from Lauriacum. On Catullinus
see (I) (5).
2 Consul 343.
Placidum Pf. P.
C. Th. xii. 1, 37 ad
Placidus did not
278
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
? Vulcatius Rufinus, 3467.
Ulpius Limenius, June 317-Apr. 349.
Hermogenes, May 349-Feb. 350³.
Anicetus, spring 350.
Evagrius, Aug. 353, Sept. 354".
Q. Flavius Macius Cornelius Egnatius Severus Lollianus
Mavortius, July 355.
Taurus, Sept. 355, July, Dec. 356, Apr. 356-July 358, Feb.,
June 359, June, July 360, Aug. 361: flees before Julian's advance.
‡ Claudius Mamertinus, Dec. 361—Aug. 365º.
hold the urban prefecture till Dec.,
346. We find Anatolius in Illyricum.
in May, 346, and Placidus may have
preceded him there. But Italy is more
likely from Orelli 3191, Placidus Pf.
P. at Naples after 343. He is Pf. P.
again in Orelli 6472.
3 On Limenius see § 18, and on
Hermogenes § 5º.
Zos. ii. 43. Appointed by Mag-
nentius before the rising of Nepoti-
anus.
5 Lollianus was P. U. in 342,
consul in 355. In Orelli 2284, 6481
he appears as an augur. His full
name in Orelli 3162, 3163. The
heathen Julius Firmicus Maternus
dedicated his Astrology to Lollianus
about 355.
Now
His prætorian prefecture is beset
with difficulties, and I cannot flatter
myself that I have fully disentangled
them. It is alluded to in 355 by
Ammianus xvi. 8, 16, and seems fixed
for Italy by C. Th. xi. 30, 25 P. P.
Capua, and dated in July, 355.
let us note first (a) that Volusianus, to
whom laws are addressed in Feb. Apr.
July, Dec. 355, was only Vicarius
urbis; and (b) that the prefectures
of Gaul, the East and Rome are
accounted for. We have then laws
addressed (a) to Evagiius, Aug. 353,
(C. Th. vii. 20, 7; xvi. 8, 6 and 9, 2
are also best shifted here) and Sept.
354, (b) to Taurus, July 353, Dec. 346
(C. Th. xvi. 10, 4-should be 353),
Apr., July, Sept. 355, and from June,
356 onward; also (c) allusions to Lam-
padius as Pf. P. at the beginning
(Zos. ii. 55) and end (Ammianus xv.
5, 3) of 354.
Given these data, there is but one
solution. Taurus must have been
three times prefect-twice of Illyricum
in 353 and 355, with Lampadius inter-
posed in 354 and Anatolius succeeding
in 356-the third time in Italy, with
Evagrius and Lollianus for his prede-
cessors. The beginning of this term
of office will be marked by C. Th. xi.
7, 8, which was received at Carthage in
Nov. 355.
The prefecture of Evagrius depends
on (a) C. Th. vii. 20, 7, where Gode-
froy reads Pf. P. for P. U., and fixes
on Gaul as the part of the Empire
most likely to be troubled with ma-
rauding veterani in 353-a chronic
evil by the way, as is plainly hinted
even in Constantine's quieter time by
C. Th. vii. 20, 3: also (b) C. Just.
ii. 20, 11, where there is nothing to fix
the prefecture.
We find Taurus at Ariminum in
359, and consul 361, but whether
he was the Taurus quæstor sent into
Armenia in 354 (Ammianus xiv. 11,
24) is best left open.
6 The Illyrian prefecture was given
by Julian to Mamertinus before the
end of 361 (Ammianus xxii. 12, 25;
Mamertinus Gr. Actio 22-in c. 17 he
gives his prænomen). As Taurus fled
together with Florentius, the Italian
prefecture was vacant also. Its tenure
by Mamertinus is proved by Ammianus
xxii. 12, 20 (jurisdiction at Aquileia).
He held both prefectures at Jovian's
death in 364 (Ammianus xxvi. 5, 5),
and retained his office (C. Th. xii. 6, 7)
as late as Aug. 365. In C. Th. viii.
11, 3, dated Feb. 369, we must read
ad Probum P. 0.
Mamertinus was consul in 362.
At this point we have serious diffi-
culties arising from the perpetual con-
fusion of the successive consulships of
Valentinian and Valens in 365, 368,
370 and 373. The best solution may
APPENDIX I.
279
Vulcatius Rufinus, Nov. 366, May 367, Jan., June, Sept. 3687.
Sextus Anicius Petronius Probus, Nov. 368, 370–373, Feb.-
Dec. 374*.
++
+ D. Magnus Ausonius, 376".
Hesperius, Jan. 377-380".
+-
$ 4.
PRÆFECTUS PRÆTORIO PER ILLYRICUM.
Anatolius, May 346, Apr. 349'.
be to remove C. Th. xii. 6, 10 ad Ma-
mertinum P. O., dated Oct. 31, 365, to
an earlier month, while C. Th. viii.
6, 1 Rufino P. O., dated Jan. 365
is shifted to 368. Sundry laws ad
Probum P. O. in 365 must be placed
later.
7 Vulcatius Rufinus succeeded Ma-
mertinus (Ammianus xxvii. 7, 2), ap-
parently in both prefectures, and died
in 363. On his earlier prefecture,
see § 2+.
We lose sight of him for nearly ten
years before 366, unless C. Th. xv. 1,
10 (so Godefroy) gives us a trace of
him at Aquileia in 362.
* Probus first appears in C. Th.
xi. 36, 13, as proconsul of Africa
in 358. He was summoned from
Rome on the death of Rufinus in
368 (Ammianus xxvii. 11, 1; also
C. Th. i. 29, 3, if we shift it to
Nov. 368), and held the double pre-
fecture of Italy and Illyricum. Am-
brose was a member of the prefect's
council before his promotion to be
consularis of Liguria (Paulinus Tit.
Ambr. 5), and (id. 25) remained on
friendly terms with him afterwards.
Probus was also prefect for Valen-
tinian II., and fled eastward in 384,
when Maximus entered Italy (Soer.
v. 11).
His Gaulish prefecture in 366 is
established by (a) C. Th. xi. 1, 15,
dated May 366, (b) C. Just. iv. 60, 1:
vii. 38, 1 addressed to him by Valen-
tinian and Valens, and therefore (if
correct) before Aug. 24, 367. Orelli
1130 shews that he had been four
times prefect before the consulship of
his sons in 395, and had held Italy,
Illyricum, Africa and Gaul. The last
however is not clear in Claudian in
cons. Prob. et Olybr. 168, and is not
mentioned in Orelli 3063, dated 378.
It might be placed in 380-383, when
Italy was held by others: but best
suits 366.
Boeckh 2593 names a Probus three
times Pf. P.; but he seems a gene-
ration later.
9 Ausonius Gratiarum Actio, and
frequently. Gratian made his old tutor
first Quæstor, then Pf. P. of Illyricum
and Italy (we may presume he held
them together), then Pf. P. of Gaul
and finally consul in 379. His Italian
prefecture therefore follows that of
Probus.
It may be noted that his appoint-
ment to Illyricum proves that Greece
was not annexed by Valens in 375. The
case is not altered if his office was
merely titular, as Tillemont Empereurs
v. 149 supposes.
10 C. Th. i. 32, 2 Hesperius was
proconsul of Africa in July 376. Hence
Shift C. Th. xvi. 5, 4 ad Hesperium
P. O. in April 376 to 378, and omit
proc. Africa in C. Just. xi. 65, 3, dated
after Aug. 378.
1 C. Th. xii. 1, 38; 39. Anatolius
is discussed by Sievers Libanius 235—
238. The story in Eunapius of the
rhetorical contest before him at Athens
in the time of Constans shews that he
held the Illyrian prefecture. There
must therefore be some mistake in C.
Th. xii. 1, 39, which is dated from
Antioch in 349, when Philippus un-
doubtedly held the Eastern prefecture.
We hear nothing for certain of
Anatolius during the Magnentian trou-
bles; and the city prefecture assigned
to him by Sievers in the spring of 355
must be rejected, for the dignity was
then held by Orfitus. He returned to
office early in 356 (Sievers), or at least
280
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
? Taurus I., 353°.
? Lampadius, 354°.
Taurus II., Apr. July, Aug. 355º.
+
Anatolius II., 356, to his death in 360' (p. 279).
Florentius, 361.
+
Claudius Mamertinus, 361-Oct. 365.
Vulcatius Rufinus, Nov. 366-Sept. 368.
+
Sextus Anicius Petronius Probus, Nov. 368, 370-373, Feb.-
Dec. 374.
+ D. Magnus Ausonius, 376.
? Hesperius, 377-380.
$ 5.
PRÆFECTUS PRÆTORIO PER ORIENTEM.
+ Ablavius, May 337'.
Dometius Leontius, Oct. 338°.
Acindynus, Dec. 338, Apr. 340°.
Dometius Leontius II., May 342-June 343, July 344º.
Philippus, July 346, Sept. 349, 350¹.
in the course of the year, as prefect of
Illyricum. As such we find him (Am-
mianus xix. 11, 2) in 359, and in that
office he died (Ammianus xxi. 6, 5) in
361.
On Lampadius and Taurus, § 120
and § 35.
1 Zos. ii. 40.
2 The first prefecture of Leontius
depends on C. Th. ix. 1, 7; the second
is marked by i. 5, 4 (July 342), xii. 1,
35 (June 343) and xiii. 4, 3 (June 344).
There must be some error in the title
of xv. 8, 1 ad Severum P. U. from
Hierapolis in June 343.
3 Consul 340. The prefecture of
Acindynus has a famous story connect-
ed with it, and is therefore frequently
referred to. Its termination may be
marked by C. Th. xvi. 8, 2 ad Mada-
lianum agentem vicem Pj. P., in 341.
4 Consul 348. We have two difli-
culties here. The first is C. Th. xi. 30,
20 Philippo Pƒ. P....P.P. V Id. Jun.
(surely Jan.)post cons. Constantii iterum
et Constantis A. 4. (340). Godefroy
transfers it to 347, breaking the order.
Rather the inscription Pf. P. is corrupt.
The other is C. Th. xvi. 10, 4 ad Tau-
rum Pf. P., Dec. 346. But this may
perhaps be shifted to 353, reading...
Kal. Dec. and Constante Cæs. i.c.
Gallus.
The date 351 is given by the final
expulsion of Paul from Constantinople.
Socrates ii. 16 seems to distinguish it
from the exile ii. 13 of 342, and ex-
pressly says that Philippus was prefect
at the time. Sozomen iv. 2 relates it
after the rising of Magnentius; and so
(with much confusion) the worthless
Vita Pauli in Photius Cod. 257. We
also find Philippus in high favour
(Zos. ii. 46) just before the battle of
Mursa in Sept. 351: whereas Athana-
sius Hist. dr. 7 p. 275 tells us that
he was disgraced within a year of
Paul's death. He was certainly pre-
fect in 350 (Ath. Hist. Ar. 51 p. 296).
Sievers Libanius 55 11. A statue of
Philippus was standing at Chalcedon
in the time of Joannes Lydus de
magistr. iii. 9, p. 175.
C. Th. viii. 7, 2 ad Philippum Pf.
P. is dated by Constantine from Arles,
Nov. 3, 326. As Philippus was not
then Pf. P., Godefroy removes it to 353,
and reads Philagrius for Philippus in
Athan. supra. But thus he breaks the
APPENDIX I.
281
Thalassius, 351–353.
Domitianus, 353.
† Musonianus (Strategius), winter 353-June 358".
Hermogenes, Aug. 358, May 359".
† Elpidius, Feb. Nov. 360, Nov. 361".
+
Sallustius Saturninius Secundus, Dec. 361-July 3657.
Nebridius, Sept. 3657.
[Araxius, Sept. 365.]
+
3677.
Sallustius Saturninius Secundus II., Dec. 365, Apr. 366, May
Auxonius, May 367, Sept. 368-Dec. 369º.
† Domitius Modestus, June 370–Nov. 377.
Nor
order and leaves no time for the pre-
fecture of Thalassius before 353.
is anything gained by removing to
Arelape in Noricum, or dating in 346.
The law is therefore best referred to
another Philippus, who appears in C.
Th. x. 4, 1 as Fi-arius urbis in 313,
or rather (being dated from Heraclea)
in 315.
5 Ammianus xiv. 1, 10; 7, 9 (where
Gardthausen reads eum odisse for ob-
iise). Thalassius was apparently sent
into the East with Gallus, and replaced
in 353. He was still alive in 362 (Am-
mianus xxii. 9, 16). But Libanius Ep.
1209 seems to speak of his death before
that of Anatolius in 360. Sievers
Libanius p. 227. In any case there is
an error in C. Th. xvi. 8, 7, addressed
to Thalassins as Pf. P. in May 357.
6 The prefectures of Musonianus,
Hermogenes and Elpidius are fully
discussed by Sievers Libanius 222–227.
To his refs, add the allusion to
Hermogenes in Soz. iv. 24, which may
be as early as June 358.
7 The career of Sallustius Saturni-
nius Secundus is traced in Orelli 3192.
He was appointed by Julian in Dec.
361 (Ammianus xx. 3, 1), negotiated
together with Arinthæus the peace of
363, and remained in office at least till
July 4, 365. The Chron. Pasch, 364
has a story (also in later writers) of his
momentary displacement by Valen-
tinian; but it looks rather legendary.
Nebridius (perhaps the faithful Gaulish
prefect of 361) succeeded him shortly
before the rising of Procopius, Sept 28,
365 (Ammianus xxvi. 7, 4, Zos. iv. 4):
but Sallust was restored before Dec. 1,
365 (C. Th. vii. 4, 14). His final re-
tirement is fixed for May 367 by the
presence of Valeus at Martianopolis
and the preparations (Zos. iv. 10) for
the Gothic war. His death before 374
is intimated (Sievers Libanius 185) by
Ammianus XXX. 2, 3.
8 Appointed by Procopius (Ammi-
anus xxvi. 7, 6; 10, 7). He was a
favourite of Julian (Ep. ad Themistium
P. 259), but escaped with a short exile
in the proscription of 366. This good
fortune he owed to the good offices of
his son-in-law, the traitor Agilo.
The prefectures of Anxonius and
Modestus are seriously confused by the
difficulty of distinguishing the joint
consulships of Valentinian and Valens
in 365, 368, 370 and 373. However,
we have some firm ground to go upon.
Auxonius was still Pf. P. (C. Th. v. 1,
2) in Dec. 369, whereas Valens found
him dead (Zos. iv. 11) on his return.
from the Gothic war, which is fixed by
the death of Eudoxius to the beginning
of 370. Hence we must remove to 368
certain laws addressed to Auxonius—
C. Th. x. 16, 1; vii. 6, 2; x. 20, 1
(dated Sept. Nov. Dec. 365); also xi.
24, 2 (dated Nov. 370).
Similarly we must remove from the
year 365 three laws addressed to Mo-
destus, placing C. Th. xi. 36, 17
(Cyzicus) in June 370, ix. 16, 8 (Con-
stantinople) in Dec. 370, and xii. 1, 63
(Berytus-against the monks) in Jan.
373.
There is more difficulty in C. Th.
xi. 30, 35 (Martianopolis, Aug. 365),
for Valens was not at Martianopolis
in 370 or 373, or (Ammianus xxvii. 5,
5) in the summer of 368. Haenel
therefore reads Hierapoli, and places
282
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
§ 6.
PRÆEFECTUS URBIS CONSTANTINOPOLITANÆ.
[Proconsuls only:-'
Alexander, 342.
Aurelius Limenius, 343, 346.
? Montius,
}
349-353.
+? Anatolius, S
Honoratus, 354.
Justinus, Sept. 355.
+ Araxius, 356.
+ Themistius, 358, 359.]
Honoratus, Dec. 11, 359°.
小
​Themistius, 362³.
‡ Domitius Modestus, 363³.
+
?‡Jovius, Mar., Apr. 364.
Cæsarius, Sept. 365 ¹.
it in 370. It might however be shifted
with a group of others to the Syrian
Hierapolis in 373.
There remains C. Th. xi. 1, 14, ad
Modestum Pf. P., and dated May 1, 366,
from Constantinople, then held by
Procopius. Godefroy shifts it to 371;
but in that case the next three laws
must also be transferred. The date
seems correct; but Valens was not
then at Constantinople, and Modestus
was neither Pf. P. nor P.U.
Thus we first find Modestus Pf. P.
in June 370, and can trace him in C.
Th. xi. 61, 5 at least as late as Nov.
377. He was consul 372.
On Modestus, Sievers Libanius 227
-234. Auxonius being corrector Tuscia
under Julian, and also a favourite of
Eunapius (Zos. iv. 10), we may set
him down as a heathen.
1 The list of proconsuls is given for
the sake of completeness. It is copied
from Sievers Libanius, 213–215. I
have however considered C. Th. xi. 39, 4
sufficient proof that Limenius was
proconsul in 346 also.
2 Godefroy on C. Th. vi. 4, 16, and
Bethmann-Hollweg Römische Civil-
prozess, iii. 66, suppose the proconsuls
to have been the ordinary duumviri of
a Roman colony. Kuhn Verfassung,
i. 181, (and apparently Hertzberg,
Griech. u. d. Römern, iii. 265) makes
them the proconsuls of Europa; but
Sievers supra gives reasons for the
theory that the city had a proconsul of
its own from the first. We may how-
ever accept (Sievers notwithstanding)
the mention by Constantine Porph.
de Them. p. 45 Bonn of a Taurus
proconsul of Thrace in Constantine's
time.
Honoratus appears as comes Orien-
tis under Gallus in 353, proconsul at
Constantinople in 354, Pf. P. of Gaul
356 (see § 6º), and P. U. Dec. 11, 359.
So Socr. ii. 41 (τῶν ἀνθυπάτων κατα
πaúσas áρxýν), Soz. iv. 23, and with
much confusion the Chron. Pasch. 359,
where read δεκεμβρίων fur σεπτεμβρίων.
3 Themistius was appointed by
Julian (Suidas, Oeu.), and therefore
held the office in 262; for Libanius.
Epp. 701, 1429 shews that Modestus
came after him. Jovius may be Julian's
quæstor in 361-2.
4 Cæsarius was imprisoned with Ne-
bridius by Procopius in Sept. 365 (Am-
mianus xxvi. 7, 4). Not to be identified
with the brother of Gregory of Nazian-
zus, who in 368 was only quæstor of
Bithynia. So Sievers Libanius, 107,
n. 24.
APPENDIX I.
283
[Phronemius, Sept. 365.]
† Domitius Modestus II., 369".
Sophronius, 370 or 371°.
Clearchus, Apr., May 372, Aug. 373".
Vindaonius Magnus, 375, May 3767.
$ 7.
VA
COMES REI PRIVATÆ.
West.
Eusebius, Apr. 342'.
Eustathius, May 345, Mar. 349.
East.
Orion, Mar. 353.
Arcadius 360°
Cæsarius, Feb.? 364*.
Florianus, Sept. 364, May 365,
Oct. 367, Mar. 368,
Mar. 368, Nov. 3735.
5 Appointed by Procopius, and after-
wards exiled by Valentinian. Ammia-
nus, xxvi. 7, 4; 10, 8. Heathen, as
being divo Juliano acceptus.
6 These three names must be taken
together.. C. Th. xiv. 13, ad Clearchum
P. U. in Aug. 365 must be transferred
to 373, when Valens was at Hierapolis.
Clearchus also appears in the Cod.
Theod. as P. U. in April and May 372,
and Jerome Chron. names him in 373.
The second prefecture of Modestus
is assigned to 369 by the Idatian Fasti,
and cannot be placed later. On the
other hand, the earthquake at Nicæa
was in the autumn of 368, Cæsarius
the quæstor died soon after, and in the
course of the ensuing litigation, Gre-
gory, Epp. 21, 29, wrote to the prefect
Sophronius (Ammianus, xxvi. 7, 2),
whom we may therefore place in 370
or 371.
7 Corsini inserts Vindaonius Magnus
among the Roman prefects; and C.
Th. vii. 13, 3, Magnus is Vicarius
Evagrius, Nov. 361.
of
Elpidius, Oct. 3623.
Alexandrinus, May 367, Sept.-
Dec. 369.
Fortunatianus, Apr. 369, 372?
July 377°.
Urbis Romæ iu 367. But Chron.
Pasch. 375 relates the opening of the
Carosian Baths at Constantinople, and
C. Th. i. 28, 3 (unknown to Godefroy)
is dated from Antioch.
Magnus may be the comes largi-
tionum in Egypt in 373, who burnt the
church at Berytus in Julian's time.
Corsini takes Ambrose Off. iii. 7, ille
maguus vere probatus as & proper
name.
15.
1 Also Ammianus xv. 5, 4.
2 Arcadius C. R. P. in Basil Ep.
Evagrius C. R. P. in Ammianus
xxii. 3, 7—exiled by Julian.
3 Philost. viii. 10-at closing of the
church at Antioch.
+ C. Th. x. 1, 8: but Feb. is wrong.
5 C. Th. ix. 1, 10: but Valentinian
was not at Martianopolis.
6 Also Zos. iv. 14, at the affair
of OEOA.
284
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
§ 8.
COMES SACRARUM LARGITIONUM.
West.
Marcellinus, 350'.
East.
Domitianus, before 3532.
? Fl. Sallustius 355-357³.
+
+
Ursulus, 356, 360, Nov. 361'.
Claudius Mamertinus, summer 361³.
Felix, Mar., Oct. 362, died early in 363°.
+
Julianus, Feb. 363".
Florentius, Sept. 364, Feb. 365,
Sept. 366.
Germanianus, May 366, Jan.,
Apr. 367, Jan., Sept. 368'.
Philematius, May 371, Aug. 372?
Montius, 353',
Leontius, 353-42)
Taurus, 353-42.
Nebridius,
Leonas, 360¹.
Felix, Mar. 368".
Archelaus, May, July 369".
Tatianus, Feb., Mar., May 374,
Jan. 377.
§ 9.
QUÆSTOR.
with Gallus in Syria.
to 360³ with Julian.
Zos. ii. 42. Godefroy should not add
com. S. L. in C. Th. xi. 12, 1, dated 342.
Ammianus xiv. 7, 9.
3 Orelli, 6471, comes consistorii,
more likely before than after 363; and
in Julian's case more likely comes S.
L. than comes R. P., though not cer-
tainly either. See § 27.
4 Ammianus xx. 11, 5 (where see
note of Valesius): xxii. 3, 7 (execution
by Julian).
5 Ammianus xxi. 8, 1-Julian at
Rauracum.
6 Ammianus xxiii. 1, 5. Scarcely
the Felix refused by Julian in 360
(Ammianus xx. 9, 5), as mag. off., and
noted as an informer ad S. P. Q. Ath.
273. If so, his apostasy (Deois de
reworl plλos) was prompt. Philost. vii.
10 (where sce Godefroy's note)-at
closing of the church at Antioch.
7 This implies two comites S. L. in
the summer of 366. It is not likely,
but I do not see how to escape it.
8 C. Th. x. 17, 2, from Martiano-
polis in 365 is best removed to 368.
9 C. Th. iv. 12, 6, comes Orientis :
and Haenel on C. Th. x. 16, 2, prefers
comes Orientis there also.
1 Ammianus xiv. 7, 12. Sievers
Libanius, 216.
* Ammianus xiv. 11, 14.
3 Ammianus xx. 9, 5-named Pf.
P. by Constantius. Orelli 3192, names
Sallustius Saturninius Secundus as
having been quæstor before 367.
+ Ammianus xx. 9, 3,-at Seleucia in
359,Leonas is called comes, but it does not
follow that he was not already quæstor.
APPENDIX I.
285
Jovius, summer 361, Mar. 3625.
Viventius, summer 364–366.
Fl. Eupraxius, 367-after Sept. 3687.
†D. Magnus Ausonius, 375".
§ 10.
MAGISTER OFFICIORUM.
West.
East.
Eugenius, 342' or 345.
Marcellinus, 350°.
Palladius, 353³.
Musonius, 357*.
Florentius, 355? 360°.
Evagrius, Nov. 361 ³.
? Anatolius, 360-3637.
Pentadius, 360º.
Ursatius, Summer 3648.
Remigius, 368? 370, replaced by
10
Leo before 373¹º.
5 C. Th. xi. 39, 5. Ammianus xxi.
8, 1,-appointed by Julian (therefore
heathen) at Rauracum: § 49 postea
quæstorem in Dec. 361 must be an
oversight.
6 Ammianus xxvi. 4, 4; xxvii. 3, 11.
7 Orelli 1116? Ammianus xxviii.
1, 25,--Prætextatus ex P. U.
8 Ausonius, Gratiarum Actio-ap-
pointed by Gratian.
1 Eugenius μaycorpos in 342, at the
interview of Athanasius with Constans,
and still living in 357 (Ath. Apol. ad
Etium, 3, p. 235). Compare also Sievers
Libanius, 94.
2 Marcellinus was the contriver of
the Magnentian plot (Zos. ii. 43), and
disappeared at Mursa (Julian, Ór. ii.
p. 58 sq.).
3 Palladius was only notarius in
350 (Ath. Hist. Ar. 52, p. 296), though
soon afterwards mag. off. for Gallus
(Ath. Apol. ad Ctium, 10, p. 239. Am-
mianus xxii. 3, 3).
C. Th. viii. 5, 8.
(Euphrasius), 365º.
? Sophronius, 371–374"
5 Florentius perhaps only pro mag.
off. in 355 (Ammianus xv. 5, 12: no
proof to the contrary in Libanius Ep.
424, dated by Sievers in 355). For
360, Ammianus xx. 2, 2, and cor-
respondence in Lucifer, p. 935 Migne.
For Evagrius, Ammianus xxii. 3, 7.
6 Ammianus xx. 8, 19.
7 Anatolius served Julian from 360
onwards, and was killed in Persia the
same day. Ammianus xx. 9, 8 (Felix
refused) xxv. 3, 14. Zos. iii. 29. Mala-
las p. 329-who depends on Magnus
of Carrhæ, an eyewitness. Not the
Пlyrian prefect, who died in 360.
Sievers Libanius, 235.
8 Ammianus xxvi. 4, 4: 5, 7.
9 To Procopius, Ammianus xxvi.
7, 4: 10, S.
10 Remigius is named C. Th. vii. 8,
2, which may belong to 368 or 370.
He was in office in 370, and Leo did
not succeed him before Maximin's pre-
fecture (Ammianus xxvii. 9, 2, xxviii.
1, 41: 6, 8).
11 Basil, Epp. 76, &c.
286
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
$ 11.
MAGISTER MILITUM.
The series of magistri militum is so difficult to trace that it
seems the safest plan to set down a mere list of names and references.
The signs prefixed are as follows:-
eq., ped., utr., = M. equitum, peditum, utriusque militiæ.
præs. - M. M. præsentalis. (Eastern or Western).
Gall. or Ill. = M. M. per Gallias or per Illyricum.
Or. or Thr.
M. M. per Orientem or per Thracias.
Hermogenes, Nov. 342'.
(?) Sccundus, 3452.
Silvanus, May 349-355.
Vetranio, March 350°.
eq.
Or
Or.
eq.
Bonosus, May 3473.
præs.
ped.
Ill.
ped.
Or.
(?) Lucillianus, 350°.
(?) Marcellinus, 3517.
Or.
ped.
Gall.
præs.
eq.
Ursicinus 352–355*.
Arbetio, 354—361 º.
1 Killed in the riot at Constantino-
ple after the death of Eusebius-Am-
mianus xiv. 10, 2, Socr. ii. 13, and
others.
For
2 Chrysostom's father-Palladius,
Vita c. 40: not a careful writer.
the date, Stephens Life of Chrys. 9.
3 C. Th. v. 4, 1.
4 Appointed by Constans C. Th.
viii. 7, 3. M. peditum Aur. Victor
Cæs. 42. A Frank won over from
Magnentius before the battle of Mursa,
and rewarded with this rank. See
Ammianus xv. 5, for his history.
Tillemont Empereurs, iv. 674 has some
minor difficulties on it.
5 So called by Aur. Victor, Cæs.
41, and Epit. 41. For his religion,
Chron. Pasch.: it is also fairly settled
by the action of so zealous a Christian
as Constantina appears in Orelli, 1097.
6 Left in command against the
Persians in 350-Zos. ii. 45, probably
as M. M. per Orientem, and defended
Nisibis-Zos. iii. 8.
7 For Magnentius, Poter Patricius
p. 129 Bonn, uses the decisive word
στρατηλάτης.
8 Ursicinus may have been sent to
the East in 349 (Ammianus xviii. 6, 2
per decennium in 359); but we first
clearly trace him in the Jerusalem
Talmud Jebam Col. 15, as commander
in the Jewish war of 352; next as
mag. militum in the East (Ammianus
xiv. 9, 1), whence he was recalled by
the eunuchs in 354. After his mission
next year to assassinate Silvanus in
Gaul, he was placed under the orders
of Marcellus (Ammianus xvi. 2, 8),
and summoned to court on his recall,
though not till he had taken a share
in the campaign of 357 (Ammianus
xvi. 10, 21: 12, 1). From Sirmium he
was sent back to Syria quasi penuria
meliorum, and in the winter of 358-9,
became mag. peditum præsentalis in
the room of Barbatio (Ammianus xviii.
4, 25, 5). He was finally removed
from office after the fall of Amida (Am-
mianus xx. 2, 1).
He is probably the Ursicinus comes
on whose representation Valentinian
at Bonamansio in May 364 (C. Th. vii.
4, 12) forbade the exaction of cenatica.
Godefroy gives an alternative of Ursi-
cinus the Alemannic king, but it is not
likely.
9 Arbetio was a veteran of Constan-
tine's wars, and rose from the ranks to
his consulship in 355. We find him
mag. equitum in 354 (Ammianus xv.
4, 1), and from this time onward to
the death of Constantius in 361 (Am-
APPENDIX I.
præs.
Gall.
ped. Barbatio, 355-3591,
utr.
Marcellus, 355–356¹¹.
Gall.
Severus, 357—358 22.
præs.
ped.
Ursicinus, 359".
Or.
ped.
Sabinianus, 35913.
Gall
ped.
287
præs.
Lupicinus, 359¹—360.
ped. Agilo, 360-36115.
mianus xxi. 13, 3). After sitting on
the Chalcedon commission (Ammianus
xxii. 3, 1) he retired from the service.
Roused from his retreat by Procopius,
who plundered his house, he repaired
to the camp of Valens (Ammianus,
xxvi. 8, 13: 9, 4), and took a leading
part (Zos. iv. 7, from Eunapius, p. 73,
Bonn) in the usurper's overthrow.
19 Barbatio was comes domesticorum
to Gallus, and took an active part in
his murder. He succeeded Silvanus
as mag. peditum in the spring of 355,
and gave Julian much trouble by his
misconduct in the campaign of 357.
He was executed on suspicion of treason
in the winter of 358-9. (Ammianus
xiv. 11, 19; 24. xvi. 11, 2—8; xviii.
3, 1-6: Philost. iv. 1).
Libanius Epp. 470, 492, 1032, 1215,
were written to Barbatio in Syria: but
Sievers Libanius 218, can hardly be
right in his identification of him with
Bardio, a comes in attendance on Con-
stantius (Ath. Hist. Ar. 22, p. 282) in
346. In Ath. p. 626 we find a eunuch
Bardio.
11 Marcellus was sent into Gaul with
Julian (Zos. iii. 2) to supersede Ursici-
nus. He contributed much to the
disasters of 356, and was recalled at
the end of the campaign for his neglect
to relieve Julian at Sens. Ammianus
xvi. 2—7.
12 Severus succeeded Marcellus in
the summer of 357, commanded the
left wing at Argentoratum, and helped
to defeat the Franks in 358, but held
back from the advance into Germany
(Ammianus xvi. 10, 21: 12, 27; xvii.
10, 1).
Severus seems to have returned
to active service under Valentinian.
He was sent into Britain as comes
domesticorum; apparently in 366, for
we find him mag. peditum in the next
summer (Ammianus xxvii. 8, 2: 6, 3).
In his new rank he shared in the cam-
paigu of 368, was sent again into
Britain in 370, and fought on the
Rhine in 371 (Ammianus xxvii. 10, 6;
xxviii. 5, 2; xxix. 4, 3). Our last
trace of him is C. Th. vii. 1, 11, in
April, 372. C. Th. viii. 7, 11 is a
general law, and may have been sent
by Valentinian to Syria.
Libanius Epp. 50, 66, 67 (Sievers
dates them in 361) speaks of a "cursed
Severus" at Constantinople. But this
is more likely the vicarius urbis of C'.
Th. i. 6, 3, in 364; to whom perhaps
also C. Th. xvi. 2, 12, Severo suo is
addressed.
13 Sabinianus was mag. peditum in
Syria during 359, and by his mis-
conduct caused the loss of Amida
(Ammianus xviii. 5, 5; xix. 3, 1; xx.
2, 3).
is Lupicinus succeeded Severus as
magister peditum in Gaul, and was
sent into Britain against the Picts in
the winter of 359. The mutiny at
Paris occurred during his absence, but
Lupicinus was superseded before the
news reached Constantius (Ammianus
xviii. 2, 7; xx. 1, 2 : 4, 3: 9, 5). He
was one of Julian's enemies, as we see
from the hints in Julian að S. P. Q.
Ath. 281-283, and from the special
precautions (Ammianus xx. 9, 9), taken
against his return from Britain.
As Valens frequently employed Ju-
lian's enemies, we may presume that
this is the Lupicinus whom Jovian
made magister equitum in Syria, and
who brought up the Eastern troops
against Procopius in 366 (Ammianus
xxvi. 5, 2: 8, 4: 9, 1). We find him
in Epiph. Hær. 80, 2, persecuting the
Massalians of Melitene, and Libanius
(I. 108 Reiske) was relieved by him
sometime later from a vexatious accu-
sation. Consul 367; but hardly to be
identified with the infamous comes
Thraciæ in 376.
Lupicinus is discussed by Sievers
Libanius, 145 n.
15 Agilo the Frank succeeded Ur-
sicinus as mag. peditum præsentalis
after the campaign of 359. He was
288
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
Gall.
Ill.
(Gumoarius), 36016.
Lucillianus, 361.
Ill.
eq.
? Valens Jovinus, 362-369¹.
Gall.
eq.
Nevitta, 360-36319.
utr.
Lucillianus, 363—4 ¹.
Ill.
(Malarich), 363-418.
Januarius, 363—4 20.
eq. Dagalaifus, 363-3662
sent by Julian' to assure the garrison
of Aquileia of the death of Constantius,
and served on the Chalcedon commis-
sion (Ammianus xx. 2, 5; xxi. 12, 16:
8, 49). After this he retired from the
army in 362. He was recalled to active
service in 365 by Procopius, with whom
he had great influence, but whom he
betrayed at Nacolia (Ammianus xxvi.
7, 4: 9,7 also 7, 6: 10, 7; Zos. iv. 8).
16 Gumoarius the Frank was ap-
pointed to succeed Lupicinus in Gaul
in 360, but Julian refused him on
account of his old treachery to Vetranio.
He was therefore sent with Arbetio to
defend the pass of Succi (Ammianus
xx. 9, 5; xxi. 8, 1: 13, 16). After this
he retired from the army in 362. He
was recalled to active service in 365 by
Procopius, whom he betrayed before
the battle of Nacolia. (Ammianus
xxvi. 7, 4: 9, 6; Zos. iv. 8).
17 Lucillianus was comes domestico-
rum to Gallus in 354, and ambassador
to Sapor in 358. He was mag. militum
(Wietersheim-Dahn i. 459, strangely
makes him pro Pf. P.) in Illyricum at
the time of Julian's advance in 361,
and we find him in command of Julian's
fleet in 363 (Ammianus xiv. 11, 14;
xvii. 14, 3; xxi. 9, 5; xxiii. 3, 9).
Lucillianus, the father-in-law of Jo-
vian, was in retirement at Sirmium
in 363. He was sent to Milan as mag.
equitum et peditum, and perished in a
tumult of the soldiery (Ammianus xxv.
8, 9: 10, 6).
18 Valens Jovinus was appointed
mag. equitum in Illyricum by Julian
in 361, and sat on the Chalcedon com-
mission; but was very soon removed
to Gaul (Ammianus xxi. 8, 3: 12, 2;
3; xxii. 3, 1). Jovian was jealous of
his merit, and named Malarich the
Frank to supersede him, who however
declined the office. Jovinus greatly
He
distinguished himself in 366 and re-
ceived the consulship next year.
was sent into Britain, apparently in
367. We meet him again in 358, and
find him finally replaced in 369 or 370
by Theodosius (Ammianus xxv. 8, 11;
xxvii. 2, 16, 3: 10, 6; xxviii. 3, 9).
Hardly the Jovinus mentioned by Li-
banius in 355 (Sievers Libanius, 221);
nor is there any evidence to identify
him with the Jovinus comes addressed
by Basil Ep. 163.
19 Nevitta was a rough barbarian,
but a good cavalry oflicer. We first
hear of him in 358. He succeeded
Lupicinus as mag. equitum in 360, and
next year seized the pass of Succi for
Julian, whom he also accompanied on
his Persian expedition. He sat on the
Chalcedon commission, and to the dis-
gust of Ammianus, received the consul-
ship in 362 (Ammianus xvii. 6,
xxi. 8, 1; 3: 10, 2; 8; xxii. 3, 1;
xxiv. 1, 2; xxv. 5, 2). As the name
of Flavius Gaiso (colleague of Magnen-
tius in 351) was erased from the Fasti,
Nevitta is the first barbarian we find
in them.
3 ;
20 Januarius being a relation of
Jovian, was no doubt Jovian's appoint-
ment as mag. militum in Illyricum.
He was one of the candidates discussed
on Jovian's death (Ammianus xxvi.
1, 4).
21 Dagalaifus appears to have been
another barbarian. He was comes do-
mesticorum under Julian, whom he
followed from Gaul to Persia; and
received his promotion from Jovian.
He returned to Gaul with Valentinian,
and was made consul in 366.
campaign however in that year was
not very successful (Ammianus xxi. 8,
1; xxv. 5, 2; xxvi. 4, 1: 5, 2; xxvii.
2, 1).
His
APPENDIX I.
Or.
eq.
ped.
eq.)
præs.
eg.
Ill.
præs. W. ped.
præs. W
eq.
289
† Lupicinus, 363—4, 366, and later".
† Arinthæus, 364, 367—369, 37322?
i Victor, 364 (?) 367, 378.
Aequitius, 365, 375"
Severus, 367-37212
†Theodosius, 369-37525.
22 Arinthæus the Gothic Hercules
served in Gaul as tribunus militum in
355, and afterwards in the East (Am-
mianus xv. 4, 10; xxv. 5, 2). He ac-
companied Julian as comes domesti-
corum in the Persian war, and was
a chief negotiator of the peace (Am-
mianus xxiv. 1, 2; xxv. 7, 7; Philost.
viii. 8; Zos. iii. 31; Chron. Pasch.
and Malalas p. 335 Bonu, who both
call him patrician). He was sent on
a special mission to Gaul by Jovian,
and appointed mag. peditum by Valens
at Mediana (Ammianus xxv. 10, 9 ; xxvi.
5, 2). He distinguished himself in the
civil war of Procopius (Ammianus xxvi.
8, 4), served against the Goths as mag.
equitum in 367-9, and was afterwards
sent into Armenia (Ammianus xxvii.
5, 4: 12, 13). Consul 372. Basil, Ep.
179 is addressed to Arinthæus, Ep.
269 to his widow. As this last must
have been written before 379, we may
set aside (or transfer to the war of
367-369) the story of Theodoret H. E.
iv. 33, of Trajan's remonstrance in
378, seconded by Arinthæus and Vietor.
Arinthæus at one time owned Eutro-
pius (Claudian in Eutr. i. 63).
23 Victor the Sarmatian commanded
the rearguard in Julian's Persian ex-
pedition, and was made mag, militum
by Jovian (Ammianus xxiv. 1, 2; xxvi.
5, 2). He was stationed in Egypt in
364 (C. Th. vii. 4, 12, from Bona-
mansio, therefore in May: C. Th. xii.
12, 5, in Dec.), and was still at Alex-
andria from Oct. 365 to Jan. 366 (Hist.
Aceph.). He served in the Gothic war
of 367-369, and afterwards in Ar-
menia, apparently remaining in the
East till 378 (Ammianus xxvii. 5, 1;
XXX. 2, 4; xxxi. 7, 1). This last de-
tail is another argument against the
story supra of Theodoret iv. 33. About
374 we must place his marriage with
Mavia's daughter (Soer. iv. 36, who
however seems to date it after 378).
Xxx.
Victor was consul in 369, and is
complimented on it by Themistius Ør.
ix. p. 120, who also p. 128 claims him
as a citizen of Constantinople. He
voted for delay at Hadrianople, and
escaped the slaughter after a brave
effort to rescue Valens (Ammianus xxxi.
12, 6: 13, 9, where it is idle to dis-
tinguish Victor comes from the magis
ter militum). Greg. Naz. Epp. 133,
134, are addressed to him in 352.
24 Aequitius was mentioned as a
candidate on Jovian's death, but con-
sidered too rough (Ammianus xxvi.
1, 4). Valentinian stationed him in
Illyricum as comes in 364, and promoted
him to be magister militum during the
revolt of Procopius (Ammianus xxvi.
5, 3; 11: 7, 11: 10, 4: so also C. Th.
vii. 1, 8, if we may shift the date from
Sept. 365 to Nov. or Dec.,-but we
must in any case read reddita and
understand the Macedonian Heracles).
Aequitius was honoured with the
enmity of Maximin, but received the
consulship notwithstanding in 374,
and remained in office till Valentinian's
death (Ammianus xxix. 6, 3; xxx. 3,
1: 6,2). He joined with Merobaudes
in the elevation of the younger Valen-
tinian in 375 (Jerome Chronica, Zos.
iv. 19).
1, 8.
Compare Godefroy on C. Th. vii.
25 Theodosius was sent as dur into
Britain in 367-8, and only replaced
Jovinus as mag, equitum in 369 or 370
(Ammianus xxvii. 8, 3; xxviii. 3, 9).
He fought against the Alemanni in
370, on the Rhine in 372 (Ammianus
xxviii. 5, 15; xxix. 4. 5), and seems
to have ended his exploits with the
conquest of Africa (Ammianus xxviii.
6, 26; xxix. 5, 1). About this time
date Symmachus, Ep. x. 1. He was
still at Carthage when he was executed
in 375-6.
C. Th. iii. 14, 1, ad Theodosium
mag, equitum is dated in May 365, but
may very well be removed to 370 or
373.
G.
19
290
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
Or.
W. ped. Merobaudes, 375-24.
ped.
Trajan, 377, 37827.
(3) Profuturus, 37728,
ped. Sebastian, 368 375 3789.
Julius, 37830.
26 Merobaudes the Frank (Richter
Weström. Reich, 283) is first found
(Philost. viii. 1), in charge of Julian's
corpse at Tarsus; apparently under
the orders of Procopius. He was com-
mander in chief in 375 (Zos. iv. 17),
and consul 377 and 383. He was
doubtless magister militum, though the
fact is nowhere expressly stated by
Ammianus.
27 Trajan was dux Egypti in Sept.
367 and May 368 (Hist. aceph. and
index to Festal Letters), and seems
to have gained the rank of mag. mili-
tum by later service in Armenia (Am-
mianus xxix. 1, 2; xxx. 1, 18). To
this period (say 373) belong Basil Epp.
148, 149, and the murder of Para. He
was sent into Europe against the Goths
in 377 and commanded at Salices. He
fell fighting at Hadrianople (Ammianus
xxxi. 7, 1: 13, 8).
28 Profuturus may have been mag.
militum in 377 (Ammianus xxxi. 7, 1,
ambo rectores).
Sebastian the Manichee (Richter
Weström. Reich, 282) was dux Egypti
in Lent, 357. (Ath. de Fuga 6, p. 256,
Hist. Ar. 59, p. 300, Manıxaîov övтa
καὶ ἀσελγή νεώτερον.) He was replaced
by Artemius before 360 (Index to
Festal Letters), and was sent with
Procopius to operate from Nisibis in
363. He commanded the Illyrian anl
Italian troops in the campign of 368,
and took his share with Merobaudes in
that of 375 (Ammianus xxvii. 10, 6;
xxx. 5, 13). On Valentinian's death
he left the service. Richter supra
thinks he was very nearly chosen
emperor; and Ammianus xxx. 10, 3,
militari favore sublatum seems to favour
the theory.
Sebastian was commander in chief
in the Gothic war of 378, and voted to
give battle at Hadrianople, where he
perished (Ammianus xxxi. 11, 1: 12,
6: 13, 18).
Ammianus and Eunapius, p. 110,
(copied by Zosimus iv. 23, and Suidas)
speak well of Sebastian; and one of
the worst charges of Athanasius a-
gainst him is curiously cleared up
(Bright, Hist. Treatises, lxxi.) from
Augustine de Mor. Manich, 36, 53.
30 Julius was mag. militum trans
Taurum in 378, and planned the
butchery of the Gothic hostages (Am-
mianus xxxi. 16, 8).
We may perhaps add the name of
Majorianus, grandfather of the emperor
Majorian, as mag, utr. mil, at Sirmium
in Jan. 379, on the authority of Sid.
Apoll. Carm. v. But his appointment
was probably after the battle of Hadria-
nople.
APPENDIX II.
MOVEMENTS OF THE EASTERN EMPerors.
THE following table shews the movements of the eastern emperors,
so far as I have been able to determine them for the period 337–381.
They are chiefly taken from the Codices as given in Haenel's Index
Legum; but the dates have needed a good deal of revision. When
therefore laws are "rejected," it is only intended to set them aside
as through some inaccuracy or other useless for the immediate
purpose of fixing a date.
Fuller discussions are given by preference elsewhere. If then
some changes seem arbitrary, the student may be warned that a very
little examination will often shew the need for them.
CONSTANTIUS.
337. May 22 in the East (Chron. Pasch.); perhaps at Antioch
(Zonaras xiii. 4). Thence to CP, probably till after Sept. 8, and
back to the East.
338. Meeting in Pannonia during the summer, but the laws all
belong to Constantine II. Sept. 27 Antioch. Oct. 28 Emesa. Dec.
27 Antioch, wintering there.
339. Gregory sent from Antioch άñò TOû Koµirátov (Ath. Encycl.
2, p. 89) in Jan. Feb. 1 Laodicea. Mar. 14 Heliopolis. Mar. 31
Antioch.
340. Sept. 9, 13 Antioch.
341. Feb. 12 Antioch also at the Council of the Dedication
some time between May 22 and Sept 1.
342. Mar. 31, Apr. 5, 8, May 11 Antioch. Also in Nov. or
Dec, at the time of the riot at CP. Thence (Soer. ii. 13) a hurried
journey to CP and back to Antioch.
19-2
292
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
343. Feb. 18 Antioch. June 27, July 4 Hierapolis.
344. Antioch or thereabout after Easter, when Stephen was
deposed.
345. May 12, Nisibis. At Edessa (Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 51, p. 134)
about this time.
346. April? Antioch (third meeting with Athanasius'). May
7, Aug. 23 CP.
347. Mar. 8 Ancyra. May 11 Hierapolis.
348.
At the battle of
Singara.
349. Apr. 1 Antioch. Reject law dated Oct. 3 CP.
350. Jan. Feb. Edessa (Philost. iii. 22). Thence to Europe (by
way of Alexandria, as some infer from Ath. Hist. Ar. 30, p. 285).
Receives envoys of Magnentius and Vetranio at Heraclea (Zonaras
xiii. 7), and Dec. 25 deposes Vetranio, probably (Zonaras) near
Sardica.
351. Sept. 28 near Mursa.
352. Feb. 25, Mar. 5, June 24 Sirmium. Nov. 3 Milan.
353. July 21 Ravenna. Sept. 6 Lugdunum. Oct. 10 Arles,
wintering there. Reject laws dated Dec. 3 Sirmium, and Dec. 6
Thessalonica.
354. Spring at Valentia (Ammianus xiv. 10, 2). Thence to
Rauracum on the Rhine (snow still). Sept. 22 Aquileia. Winter
at Milan. Reject laws dated Jan. 18 CP, May 22 Milan, Aug. 3
Antioch.
355. Jan. 1, Feb. 18 Milan. Mar. 3 Sirmium.
Mar. 3 Sirmium. Short cam-
paign in Rhætia, halting at the Campi Canini. July 6, 17, 21, 22,
25 Milan. July 25 Messadensis close to Milan (Tillemont Empereurs
iv. 683). Aug. 6 Milan. Sept. 2 (more likely June 2 or May 4)
Dinumma in Rhætia. Oct. 31, Nov. 6, 30 Milan. Dec. 1 accom-
panies Julian (Ammianus xv. 8, 18) as far as Pavia.
356. Jan. 15, 19, Feb. 9, Mar. 8, Apr. 11, July 5 Milan; also
late in the year, while Julian was besieged in his winter-quarters
at Sens.
357. Jan. 25, Apr. 1, 2, 17 Milan. Apr. 28 till May 29 Rome
(Ammianus xvi. 10, 20). June 13, 24, July 3 Milan, and thence
by Trent into Illyricum. Nov. 10, Dec. 4, 6 Milan again. Dec. 18
1 I can find no ground for the state-
ment of Sievers Studien 228 (followed
by Rendall Julian 286), that Constan-
tius was never at Cæsarea between the
limits 344-350, except in March 347.
This was on his return from Constan-
tinople: by what route did he go there
the year before?
This is better than reading the
impossible I. Non. Jun.
APPENDIX II.
293
Sirmium. Reject laws dated Feb. 24 CP, June 27 Valla in Africa,
Apr. 29 Milan, June 1 Rome. In the last two there may be no more
than a slip in the numeral.
358. Jan. 4, Mar. 3 Sirmium; there receiving Sapor's ambassa-
dor, who reached CP Feb. 23. After vernal equinox crosses the
Danube (Ammianus xvii. 12, 4), and returns to Sirmium, where the
envoys from Ancyra found him. May 22 Sirmium. June 7
Haerbillus. June 22, 23 Sirmium. June 27 Mursa, and about the
same time (Philost. iv. 10) at Singidunum. Oct. 27, Dec. 19
Sirmium. Reject laws dated May 22, Jan. 11 Milan, July 5
Ariminum, and that of Dec. 29, whether issued from Doris or
Dorylæum.
359. In early spring meets the Limigantes at Acimincum. May
22, 23 Sirmium. June 18 Singidunum, and thence (supra, p. 171)
to Constantinople. Dec. 31, CP, wintering there. Reject laws
dated Mar. 14 CP and Nov. 1 Rome.
2
360. Feb. 4, 15, 24 CP.
24 CP. Late in spring moves eastward.
May 17 Hierapolis.' May 30 Synnada. By Melitene, Lacotena
thence after the equinox towards
Repulsed from Bezabde. Winters
and Samosata to Edessa, and
Amida (Ammianus xxii. 4).
at Antioch. Reject laws dated May 31 Milan.
361. Feb. 14 Antioch; and thence to Edessa. May 3 Gyfyra.
Summer at Hierapolis, returning in late autumn to Antioch, and so
by Tarsus to Nov. 33 Mopsucrence.
361.
JULIAN.
Dec. 11, enters CP.
362. Jan. 1, 17, Feb. 1, Mar. 13, 23, Apr. 30, May 12 CP.
Thence through Nicea and Pessinus, leaving Ancyra June 29,
passing through Tyana (Ep. 4), arriving at Antioch in July. Aug.
1 (Ep. 52), 18, 28, Sept. 3, 9, 18, 22, 25, Oct. 22, 26, Dec. 2, 6, 7
Antioch. Dec. 18 Emesa. Reject C. Th. vii. 4, 8, dated……. Kal.
Aug. from Nicomedia, and perhaps C. Th. i. 16, 8, dated from
Antioch, July 28.
This Hierapolis (Clinton) must be
in Phrygia. Can the détour be con-
nected with Eusebia's death about this
time? Tillemont Empereurs iv. 688
removes it to the Syrian Hierapolis,
and dates it Dec. 17.
2 So Clinton. Godefroy alters Sir-
mio to Syrimio somewhere near An-
•
tioch. Clinton questions the date,
observing that Julian was not Cæsar
in December. But Constantius would
not recognize him as more than Cæsar.
3 Ammianus xxi. 15, 3 says Oct. 5.
To other proofs that this is a mere slip,
add the entry Kustanteinaus thiudanis
under Nov. 3, in the Gothic calendar.
294
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
363. Feb. 12, 16, 21, Mar. 1 Antioch, leaving Mar. 6 (Am-
mianus xxiii. 1, 2) by Hierapolis to Callinicum Mar. 27, and
Circesium Apr. 1. Killed in Persia June 26. Reject laws dated
Feb. 26 CP, Mar. 9 Antioch (or shift to Jan. 7), Apr. 23 Salona.
JOVIAN.
363. June 27 elected in Persia. Sept. 27 Edessa, Oct. 23
Antioch. Nov. 12 Mopsuestia. Nov. 25, Dec. 9, 21 Antioch:
thence by Tyana.
364.
Jan. 1 Ancyra. Feb. 17 Dadastana.
VALENS.
364. Mar. 28 CP (Ammianus xxvi. 4, 3). Apr. 11, 17 CP.
Apr. 29, May 13 Hadrianople. May 24, 25 Philippopolis (reading
Philippopoli for Philippis in C. Th. xv. 1, 11, and ix Kal. Jun. for
Jul. in C. Th. viii. 5, 19). May 27 Bonamansio (under the pass of
Succi, Iter Burdigal: reading vi Kal. Jun. for Jan. in C. Th. vii. 4,
12, and prefixing vi to Kal. Jun. iu C. Th. xiv. 2, 1). June 2, 8,
11 Naissus. June 19 Mediana (so Ammianus xxvi. 5, 1). July 10
Naissus. July 29, Sirmium. Dec. 16 CP. Reject laws dated
Apr. 22 Antioch, May 6 Nicomedia, June 26 CP. Sept. 27
Edessa. Oct. 31 Philippopolis. Dec. 9 Naissus. The two last are
addressed to Mamertinus, and therefore belong to Valentinian.
365. Jan. 1 CP (Ammianus xxvi. 5, 6). Feb. 16, Mar. 19
CP, then consumpta hieme (Ammianus xxvi. 6, 11) hurries to Syria.
July 4 Cæsarea. July 30 CP. Oct. Cæsarea (Ammianus xxvi. 7, 2).
Transfer (a) the laws of Jan. 31, Mar. 9, Nov. 18 to 368, (b) those
of June 10, 27, July 5, Dec. 12 to 370, (c) that of Aug. 4 to 373.
Those of July 30 and Sept. 25 (to Aequitius) must also be rejected.
366. Removing C. Th. xi. 1, 14 ad Modestum P. O. to 371, no
law of Valens can be assigned to this year.
367. May 10, 30 Martianopolis. Sept. 25, Dorostolum. Reject
law dated Oct. 25 Nicomedia.
368. Jan. 31, Mar. 9 Martianopolis (both transferred from 365,
though the latter breaks the order). In summer on the Danube,
returning (Ammianus xxvii. 5, 5) from Carporum vicus to winter at
Martianopolis, where we find him Nov. 9 (from 373), Nov. 12
(from 370), Nov. 18 (from 365), Dec. 13. C. Th. xi. 30, 35 ad
Modestum P. 0. dated Aug. 1, 365, from Martianopolis is best
:
APPENDIX II.
295
removed (Tillemont Emp. v. 697) to Hierapolis in Syria, and dated
in 373.
369. Mar. 11, May 3, Dec. 11 Martianopolis. Dec. 29 CP. In
C. Th. x. 19, 5 and xv. 2, 2 (Antioch, Apr. 30 and Oct. 29) read
reddita for data.
370. Some time at Nicomedia, then June 10, 27 Cyzicus. July 5
Heraclea. Dec. 8, 11 CP.
371. Jan. 16, Feb. 11, Mar. 1, Apr. 7 CP. July 13 Ancyra.
Reject C. Th. viii. 7, 11 dated Dec. 23 from Emesa. Being addressed
Severo magistro militum, it must be assigned to Valentinian.
372. Jan. 6 Cæsarea. Apr. 4 Seleucia. Apr. 13 Antioch.
June 5 Berytus. Aug. 21 in Cilicia. Visit to Edessa perhaps this
year, or in 375.
373. Jan. 1 Berytus. Aug. 4, 10, Sept. 18, Oct. 17 Hierapolis.
Winter at Antioch (Zos. iv. 13).
374.
Feb. 16, Mar. 11, May 21 Antioch.
375. June 2, Dec. 3 Antioch.
Ep. 213) during this year.
376. May 29, 30 Antioch.
Perhaps in Mesopotamia (Basil
377. Jan. 25, Apr. 4 Antioch. July 6, Aug. 9 Hierapolis.
Reject law dated Oct. 17 CP.
378. May 30 reaches CP. Thence June 11 by Melanthias and
Nicé to Aug. 9 Hadrianople.
THEODOSIUS.
379. Jan. 19 Sirmium. June 17 Thessalonica. July 6 Scopi.
C. Th. vi. 30, 1, dated from Sirmium Feb. 24, seems Gratian's: see
Hänel's note.
380. Jan. 15, 26, 30; Feb. 2, 27; Mar. 17, 27; Apr. 3; June
12, 16, 17, 18, 24; July 8, 24, Thessalonica. Aug. 17 Hadrianople.
Aug. 31, Sept. 20, Nov. 16 Thessalonica. Nov. 24 enters CP (Socr.
and Chron. Pasch.: the Idatian Fasti have Nov. 14). Dec. 30 CP.
Reject laws dated Jan. 29 and July 27 CP, and refer Sept. 8
Sirmium to Gratian.
381. Jan. 10, Feb. 3, Mar. 31, May 2 CP.
1
INDEX OF NAMES.
Names marked * are discussed in Appendix I; but names ONLY found in the
Appendix are not included here.
The semicolon separates references to distinct subjects.
Ablavius, 108n, 110
Acacius, bp of Cæsarea, 27n; 60;
attack on Marcellus, 80n; 110; 115n;
124; appoints Cyril at Jerusalem,
145; 156; 160; forms Homoean
party, 163; at Seleucia, 173-5;
character, 179; appointments Nicene,
182; evasive sermon, 183; on doc-
trine of Holy Spirit, 206, 232; joins
Nicenes, 208, 226, 232
Achillas the Arian, perhaps exiled, 65n;
perhaps elected bp of Alexandria, 66n
Achilleus rebel in Egypt, 34; 154
Aequitius (mag. mil.), in Procopian
war, 227n, 237
Aetius the Anomoean, 59; ordained by
Leontius, 134; 135n; condemned at
Ancyra, 162; exiled, 162; exiled
again, 179-80; connexion with Julian,
201; 208; narrow escape, 238
Aetius, archdeacon of Constantinople,
262n
Agapetus, bp of Synnada: legend of,
135n
Agathangelus, history of, 281n
Agilo (mag. mil.), 193; betrays Pro-
copius, 237
Alaric, 255
Alexander, bp of Alexandria: outbreak
of the controversy, 19; 29; date of
his death, 66n
Alexander, bp of Thessalonica at Tyre,
85, 86
Aligern, 263-4
Alphius, bp of Apamea, 20n
Ambrose, bp of Milan, 228; 235n;
244; holds Illyrian council, 248;
257
Ammianus Marcellinus, 56; sums up
charges against Athanasius, 83;
account of Magnentius, 143; of
Constantius, 194n; of Julian, 197n;
on the barbarians, 209n; on Jovian,
226n; on Valentinian and Valens,
227
Amphilochius, bp of Iconium, 55n
Amphion, bp in Cilicia: no Arianizer,
31n
Anastasius (Emperor 491-518), 90;
155; 209; 212; 255
Anatolius, bp of Emesa, 20n
Anatolius, bp in Euboea, 205n
Anatolius, Pf. P., 109n
Anianus (bp) of Antioch, 175
Anthemius (Emperor 467-472), 257n
Anthimus, bp of Tyana joins Basil,
244; quarrels with him, 245, 247
Antony legend of, discussed, Note B.
Apodemius, 111
Apollinarius of Laodicea; expulsion by
Theodotus, 55n, by George, 145,
163n; 232; 248
*
Araxius, Pf. P., 237n
* Arbetio (mag. mil.), 109n; 193; in
Procopian war, 237
Arbogast, 201; 255
Arinthæus (mag.mil.) died a Christian,
54; at election of Jovian, 225, and
of Valentinian, 227n; in Procopian
war, 237; in Gothic war, 240; 242n;
243n
Arius disciple of Lucian, 18; his
system, 21-29; outbreak of the con-
troversy, 29-31; personal disciples
of, 29n; abandoned at Nicma, 38;
exiled to Illyricum, 49; recalled
INDEX.
86: confession of, 87; sudden death,
89
Arsenius, bp of Hypsele at Tyre, 96;
114
Ascholius, bishop of Thessalonica, 259
Asclepas, bp of Gaza, exiled, 75; at
Sardica, 121
Asterius, bp of Amasea, 55n; 225n
Asterius, bp of Petra at Sardica, 122;
exiled, 124 at Alexandria, 205
Asterius the Sophist, 25n; Arianizes
31n; 40n; joins reaction, 61; doc-
trine, 72; at Jerusalem, 87; defends
Lucianic creed, 116, 167; from Cap-
padocia, 241
Atarbius, bp of Neocæsarea, 248
Athanaric, the Visigoth: war with
Valens, 230; flight from the Huns,
250; reception and death of, 259
Athanasius, bp of Alexandria: whether
author of Alexander's encyclical,
29n; estimate of Nicene Council,
50n;
error concerning Zenobia,
57n; election and character, 66-70;
date of election, 66n; date of birth,
67; ascetic leanings, 68n; quo-
tations, 68n; de titulis Psalmorum
spurious, 69; success against Me-
letians, 71; criticism of Marcellian
controversy, 82; at the comitatus,
83; charges against him, 83; at
Tyre, 81; condemned at Jerusalem,
87; exiled to Trier, 88; his list of
exiles, 91; the boy-baptism, 95;
story of Arsenius, 96; never men-
tions Antony, 99; index to the
Festal Letters discussed Note C;
date of expulsion by Philagrius,
104, 112n; return from Trier, 109;
expelled by Philagrius and flees to
Rome, 112; defended by Julius, 113;
at Sardica, 121-2; return to Alex-
andria, 127; use of Semiarian para-
phrases, 129; on rebaptism of
heretics, 130; 132n; 133; return
(in 337) discussed Note CC; on Con-
stans, 142n; intrigue of Magnentius,
144; accused at Milan, 148; ex-
pulsion (in 356), 152; his de Fuga
and Hist. Ar., 153; results of his
flight, 154-5; objects to persecution,
163n; on dated creed, 170; his de
Synodis, 175-8; Julian's hatred of
him, 202; reappears at Alexandria,
204; holds council, 204-207; exiled
by Julian, 207; return in 362 dis-
cussed, Note J; reception by Jovian,
226; letters to Serapion, 232; on
reception of Arians, 233; attempts
of Valens to expel him, 236; restored
by Brasidas, 239; supports Basil,
297
244; last years, 246; recognition of
Marcellus, 247; his method con-
trasted with the Arian, 265
Athanasius, bp of Anazarbus, 25n;
Arianizes, 31n
Athanasius, bp of Ancyra, 182; 201;
signs Nicene creed, 227
Aurelian (Emperor 270-275), relation to
the Christians, 34, 259; to the
Goths, 249, 254; 252
*
Ausonius, 55n
Auxano Novatian, presbyter, 257
Auxentius I., bishop of Milan: 147;
170n; 181; left by Valentinian,
228; from Cappadocia, 241
Auxentius, bp of Mopsuestia: legend
of, 135n
* Auxonius, Pf. P., 239; 240; 250
Avidius Cassius, 154; 210; 229n
Babylas, legend, 134u
Bacurius the Iberian: a Christian 55n;
informant of Rufinus, 95; escapes
from Hadrianople, 253
Balacius, dux Egypti, 99
Barses, bp of Edessa, 244n
Basil II. (Emperor 963-1025): 90
Basil, bp of Amasea: no Arianizer,
31n
Basil, bp of Ancyra, 145; 146n; at
Ancyra, 160-2; persecutes, 163n; at
Sirmian conference, 166n; minute of,
168-9; at Seleucia, 173; 177; de-
posed, 181; returns from exile, 204;
242
Basil, bp of Cæsarea Mazaca: corre-
spondence with Libanius, 55n; on
rebaptism of heretics, 131n; con-
nexion with Julian, 201, 203; plan
of, 242; pride of, 245; on restoration
of Marcellians, 247; 248
Basilina, mother of Julian, 75n; 86n
Belisarius, 255; 264
Brasidas (notary) restores Athanasius,
239
Cæcilian, bp of Carthage, 34
Caius, bp in Illyricum, 147n
Calanus, 11
Candidus the Anoman, quoted, 24n
Carpones the Arian, perhaps exiled
65n; at Rome, 113
Castinus, 229u
Cecropius, bp of Nicomedia, 91
Celsinus, P. U., 144
* Cerealis (Neratius), P.U. 145n
Charisius, creed of, 208n
Charlemagne, 96; 264
Chrysanthius, philosopher. 196; 198
Claudius Gothicus (Emperor 268-270):
252
298
INDEX.
Claudius, bp of Picenum, 178
*
Clearchus, proconsul of Asia, 237n
Clement of Alexandria, on tradition,
7n
Constans (Emperor 337-350), 108; de-
mands a council, 120; presses de-
crees of Sardica, 126; reign and
character, 142; baptism, 238u
Constantia, widow of Licinius, 46;
friendly to Eusebius of Nicomedia,71
Constantine I. (Emperor 306-337):
view of Arianism, 31-34; legis-
lation, 32n; letter to Alexander and
Arius, 34; summons council at
Nicwa, 35; explains ouoovotov, 47;
interferes at Nicæa, 48; exiles Arius
and Eusebius, 49, 51; services to
the Empire, 83, 210, 250; summons
councils at Cæsarea and Tyre, 84;
Tricennalia at Jerusalem, 85; exiles
Athanasius to Trier, 88; wavering
due to Asiatic influence, 82-92; per-
secution, 89n; death of, 106; bap-
tism, 238n; test of orthodoxy by
subscription, 259
Constantine II. (Emperor 337-340):
receives Athanasius at Trier, 88;
108; releases Athanasius, 109, 136;
Constantine Copronymus (Emperor
741-775): 204
Constantius II. (Emperor 237-361):
his court, 60; leans on Asia, 60,
90-92; 108; share in the massacre
10Sn; character, 109; recalls Atha-
nasius, 127; legislation discussed,
Note D; victory of Mursa, 144, 145n;
accuses Athanasius at Milan, 148;
language ascribed to, 14Sn; attacked
by Lucifer, 149; by Athanasius, 153;
visit to Rome, 157; Sirmian mani-
festo, 157n; at Sirmian conference,
166-7; evades Ariminian deputation,
171; not Anoman, 179; exiles
Meletius, 183; death, 193; plunder
of temples, 202
Cymatius, bp of Paltus, 205n
Cyril, bp of Alexandria, 22n; 70; 155;
248
Cyril, bp of Jerusalem, 4; ascetic
leanings, 68, 102; compared with
μакроσтixos, 126; his Catecheses, 131-
133; compared with the dated creed,
132n; bishop, 145; at Seleucia, 173n;
deposed, 181; joins Nicenes, 208;
248; 257; at Constantinople, 262n
Cyrion, bp of Philadelphia, joins re-
action, 50
* Dagalaifus (mag. mil.), 54n; at elec-
tion of Jovian, 225, and of Valenti-
nian, 227n
Damasus, bp of Rome, 170n; 259
Danius, bp, identified with Dianius or
Theognius, 113
Datianus, 146n; at election of Valen-
tinian, 227n
Demophilus, bp of Constantinople,
180n; 181; 228; 235n; succeeds
Eudoxius, 240; 248; blunders, 256;
gives up his churches, 260
Demosthenes the cook, 60n; 224
Dianius, bp of Caesarea, Mazaca, 4;
letter of Julius, 113; 115n; 124;
signs creeds of Nicé, 181; 195; 208;
patron of Asterius, 241; and Basil
242-3
Diocletian (Emperor 284-305),
quest of Egypt, 154-5
Diodorus, bp of Tarsus, 20; 133, 134
Diogenes (notary), 151n, 152
Dionysius, bp of Alexandria, 15; 44;
47n
Dionysius, bp of Milan, 147; exiled,
149
Dominica, empress: Arian, 234; de-
fends Constantinople, 254
*Domitian, Pf. P., 146n
Donatus, bp of Carthage, 123
Dorotheus of Antioch: disciples of,
31n
Dracontius, bp of Pergamus, deposed
183n
Edesius, 93
Eleusius, bp of Cyzicus, persecutes
Novatians, 135n, 163n, 202; at
Sirmium, 162; at Seleucia, 172-5;
deposed, 181; 208; and monks, 231;
at Lampsacus, 233; at Constanti-
nople, 261
Elias præses Cappadociæ, 242n
*Elpidius, renegade 55n; 198; 224;
imprisoned, 238
Epictetus, bp of Centumcellæ, 117n;
181
Epiphanius, bp of Salamis on re-
baptism by Arians, 130n, 131n
Eudoxius, bp of Constantinople:
Arianizes, 31n; confession of, 39n,
175n; refused ordination by Eu-
stathius, 75n; elevation of, 92;
115n; rebaptizes, 130; 153n; 160;
exiled, 162; scandalous profanity,
175; 181; translation to Constan-
tinople, 182; 208; not zealous for
Aetius, 226; 228; influence over
Valens, 234, 238; death, 240;
from Cappadocia, 241
Eugenius, bp of Nicæa, 91; 160
Eugenius, deacon of Ancyra, 246
Euippius, Arian bp at Constantinople.
180n; and Basil, 242n. 243
INDEX.
Eunomius the Anomoan, 59; 130;
135; 167; bishop of Cyzicus,
182; 199; 232n; exiled by Aux-
ouius and Modestus, 239; from
Cappadocia, 241; and Theodosius,
260
Euphrasius, bp of Nicomedia, 262n
Euphrates, bp of Cologne, at Antioch,
124; not an Arian, 147n
Euphronius, bp of Antioch, 73; from
Cappadocia, 241
Eusebius, bp of Cæsarea: Arianizes,
20n; 31; on Numenius, 22; con-
fessor, 36n; presents conservative
creed at Nicæa, 38-42; 45n; letter
to his diocese, 46; signs Nicene
Creed, 48; caution after Nicæa, 65n;
refuses see of Antioch, 73; attack
on Marcellus, 80-83; at councils of
Tyre and Jerusalem, 84-86; silence
on Antony, 99; flattery of Constan-
tine, 107; orthodoxy and good faith,
107n; 123n; 167
Eusebius. bp of Cæsarea Mazaca, 243
Eusebius, bp of Emesa, declines see of
Alexandria, 112; not at Antioch,
115n; 132n; 135n
Eusebius, bp of Nicomedia : Arianizes,
31n; presents Arianizing creed at
Nicæa, 38; signs Nicene Creed, 46;
48; exiled, 49, 65u; spurious letter
of, 49n, 86n; joins reaction, 50;
translation from Berytus denounced,
51n; return from exile, 71; charac-
ter and policy, 71-73; 135n; bp of
Constantinople, 195
Eusebius, bp of Samosata, signs Nicene
Creed, 227; joins Basil, 244n; mur-
der, 258
Eusebius, bp of Vercellæ, 123n; exiled,
149; returns, 204
Eusebius (chamberlain), 110; 224
Eustathius, bp of Antioch, 3n; 20;
25n; confessor, 36n; at Nicæa, 40n,
44, 64; exile, 73; date of death, 74n
Eustathius, bp of Epiphania, 115n
Eustathius, bp of Sebastia, 29n; at
Ancyra, 160; at Sirmium, 162;
deposed, 181; succeeded by Meletius,
183; his deposition at Gangra,
Note E; and monks, 231; unde-
cided at Lampsacus, 233; exile,
234, 236; mission to Rome, 236;
relations with Basil, 242, 245; signs
at Cyzicus, 245u, 248; conduct dis-
cussed, Note O
Eutherius, Armenian eunuch, 142u;
195n
Eutropius, bp of Hadrianople, exiled,
74n; 75; 86n
Euzoius the Arian exiled, 65n; con-
299
fession of, 87; bishop of Antioch,
183; 208; 226; decided Arian, 232
Felix, bp of Rome, 147n
Festus, proconsul of Asia, 237n
Firmus (in Africa), 155n
Firmus (in Egypt), 154
Flaccus, bp of Hierapolis, joins re-
action, 50
Flacilla, empress, 260
Flacillus, bp of Antioch, 113; 115n
Flavian, bp of Antioch, 56; 133, 134;
262n
Flavianus, Pf. of Egypt, 236
*
Florentius, Pf. P.. 110; 144; 146n; 194
Fortunatian, bp of Aquileia, at Sardica,
121; 159n
Fritigern the Visigoth, takes refuge in
the Empire, 250; at Hadrianople,
253; 254; death, 259
Fronto, bp of Nicopolis, 248
Frumentius, 93
Galerius rescript of, 34; 107; 210
Galla, empress: an Arian, 260n
Gallus (Emperor 351-354): 58; 146n;
194
George of Cappadocia, (bp of Alex-
andria): 18; 20; 59n; arrival at
Al., 152; expulsion, 153; not un-
learned, 156; at Sirmian conference,
166n; at Seleucia, 175; letter of
Homoans to, 180n; 195; 201; mur-
der of, 204; 228
George, bp of Laodicea: Arianizes,
31n; refused ordination by Eus-
tathius. 75n; 115n; not at Sardica,
124; 132: 135; 155n; mocks at Ath.
153; letter to Basil of Ancyra. 160;
expels Apollinarii, 163n; if at Sir-
miau conference 166n; minute of
168-9; at Constantinople. 180n: not
deposed, 181; Arian sermon, 183
Germinius, bp of Sirmium: S7n: 91;
145; at Sirmian conference, 166n;
controversy with Valens, 239n
Gratian (Emperor, 375-383): 143n;
252-3; edict of toleration 257; pro-
claims Theodosius, 258; 259
Gratus, bp of Carthage, 121
Gregory of Cappadocia, 19; 59n; date
of his death. 105; chosen bp. of
Alexandria. 112; not at Antioch
115n; receives Philippopolis encycli-
cal, 123; 152
Gregory, bp of Berytus: Arianizes.
20n, 31n
Gregory of Nazianzus. (bp. of Con-
stantinople), 201; 203; 258; in-
stalled at Constantinople, 260
300
INDEX.
Gregory, bp of Neocæsarea, creed of,
116, 118, 247n
Gregory, bp of Nyssa, 247; 262
Gregory (Pope 590.604): 257n; 264
Gumoarius (mag. mil.) deserts Pro-
copius, 237
Harmatius, 242n
Hecebolius, renegade, 55n; 195; 198
Helladius, bp of Cæsarea, 262n
Heraclius (Emperor 610-641): 91;
155; 210; 212
Heraclius the Cynic, 237n
Hieracas, 23
Hilary, bp of Pictavium: comments
on letter of Arius, 23n; 59; on
rebaptism of heretics, 131n; character
and exile, 150; his de Synodis, 164-
166; at Seleucia, 172-3; 176; on
bishops at Seleucia, Note G; ou doc-
trine of Holy Spirit, 206
Honoratus, 146n
Hormisdas, 54n
Hosius, bp of Cordova: sent to Alex-
andria, 34; confessor, 36n; 44; 48;
accused from Philippopolis, 74n; at
Sardica, 121-2; 147; exiled 150;
160
Hypatianus, bp of Heraclea: at Sir-
mian conference, 166n; at Lampsa-
cus, 233
(Iamblichus), de mysteriis, 13
Ildibad, 264
Innocent, bp of Rome, 57n
Isaac, bp of Armenia signs Nicene
Creed, 227; joins Basil, 244n
Joannes Lydus on
Gothic war, 83n
Constantine's
John Archaph, the Miletian, exiled, 88
John the Persian, bp at Nicæa, 36n
John Zimisces (Emperor 969-976):
90n
Jordanis, 264
Jovian (Emperor 363-4): primus domes-
ticorum, 54n; story of his refusal to
rule a heathen army, 96; reign and
character, 225-227; restores
restores the
eunuchs, 234
* Jovinus (mag. mil.), 54n; 236n; con-
sul, 237
*Jovius. quæstor, 200n
Julian (Emperor 361-363), his generals
partly Christian, 54; 56; tole-
ration, 144; Caesar, 149; Alemannic
war, 158, 181; reign of, 193-212;
legislation of, Note H; authorities
for his persecution, Note 1; arrival
at Antioch, Note K; results of his
reign, 224; 226; on the monks,
230n; found Cappadocia Christian,
241; 249
Julianus, comes Orientis, 203n
Julius, bp of Rome: his estimate of
the Nicene Council, 51n; 86n; and
Marcellus, 88n; receives Athanasius
and Marcellus, 111-2; letter to
Danius Flacillus &c., 113; gives up
Photinus, 126; 151
Justina empress, 263
Justinian (Emperor, 527-565): 155;
212; 257n
Lampadius, P.U. 236n
Lauricius, comes, 172-3
Leo the Isaurian (Emperor 716-741):
212
*
Leonas, comes at Seleucia, 173-5
Leontius, bp of Antioch, 20; Arianizes
29n; scandal, 51n; refused ordi-
nation by Eustathius, 74n; 75n;
chosen bp of Antioch, 125; his
policy at Antioch, 133; legend of
Babylas, 134n; mocks at Ath. 153;
death of, 153n; 182
Leontius, bp of Tripolis, 135n
Leontius, 146n
Leovigild, 264
Libanius, his friends, 55, 56; his
caution, 198; 242
Liberius, bp of Rome, 147-151; re-
turn, 159n, 162; signs Sirmian con-
fession, 162; his fall discussed, Note
F; receives Semiarian mission, 236
Licinius, Emperor, persecution of, 31n
Lucian of Antioch, no heretic, 18n;
disciples of, 31n, 72, creed, 65, 116;
legend of, 134n
Lucifer, bp of Calaris, 3; 59; puns,
125n; character and doctrine, 149;
159n; return from exile, 204; con-
secrates Paulinus, 207; on doctrine of
Holy Spirit, 206n; schism of, 232, 244
* Lucillianus, comes, 193
Lucius (bp of Alexandria), 20; 59n;
246; 219
*Lupicinus (mag.mil.), 55n; vexation
of Massalians, 103, 230n, 236; in
Procopian war, 237
Lupicinus, comes Thraciæ, 250; 254n
Macarius, bp of Jerusalem, 20n; at
Nicæa, 40n; influence with Con-
stantine, 75n
Macarius the Arian, 111
Macedonius, bp of Constantinople,
134; 160; persecutes, 163n; at
Seleucia, 173; deposed, 181; 208
Macedonius, bp of Mopsuestia, con-
fessor, 36n; 45n; joins reaction, 50;
115n; 135n; deposed, 181
INDEX.
Magnentius (Emperor 350-353): his
reign and policy, 143-5; neutral on
Arianism, 147
Magnus, bp of Damascus, 20n
Mamertinus, Pf. P: a heathen, 55n;
110
Manuel Comnenus (Emperor 1143-
1180): 90
Marathonius, bp of Nicomedia, 163;
and monks, 231
:
Marcella Jerome's romance of, 100
Marcellus, bp of Ancyra, 23; 41; 42;
caution after Nicæa, 65; his age,
character and system, 75-83; pro-
ceedings against at Jerusalem, 87;
and at Constantinople, 88; not
twice in Rome, 88n; 91; return
from exile, 109; flees to Rome, 112;
defended by Julius, 114; not at C.
Antioch, 115n; attacks Lucianic
creed, 118n; at Sardica, 121-2;
condemned at Sirmium, 145; con-
demned at Ancyra, 162; repudiated
by Meletius, 183; returns from exile,
204; embassy to Athanasius, 246;
extinction of his school, 247
*Marcellus, mag. mil. in Gaul, 194n
Marcian (Emperor 450-458), 155
Mardonius, tutor of Julian, 195
Maris, bp of Chalcedon: Arianizes,
31n; joins reaction, 50n; 115n; at
Constantinople, 180n; curses Julian,
203, 212
Mark, bp of Arethusa, 115n; 163n;
draws up dated creed, 166; 181
Mavia, Saracen queen,
97
Maxentius (Emperor 306-312), 201
Maximin Daza (Emperor 305-313),
policy of, 197
Maximin the Arian, 170n
Maximus (Emperor 383-388), 255
Maximus præses Cappadocia, 242n
Maximus, philosopher 110; 196; im-
prisoned, 237
Maximus the Cynic, 243n; 261
Maximus, general in Thrace, 250
Maximus, bp of Jerusalem at Tyre,
85, 86; 121n; succeeded by Cyril,
145
Meletius, bp of Antioch, 4; 20; 133;
appointment and exile, 182-3; re-
turn, 207; signs Nicene Creed, 227;
second exile, 236; recall, 239; dis-
appointed in Homeans, 241; third
exile, 243n; joins Basil, 244n; 248;
257; presides at Constantinople,
261
Meletius, bp of Lycopolis no Arianizer,
31n
Meletius, bp of Sebastopolis no Arian-
izer, 31n
301
Menophantus, bp of Ephesus: Arian-
*
izes, 31n; joins reaction, 50
Merobaudes (mag. mil.), 253; jealousy
of Theodosius, 258n
Metrodorus the philosopher, 93, &c.
Michael III. (Emperor 842-867) 226n
Michael Palæologus (Emperor 1261-
1282), 91
Modestus (Domitius), renegade, 55n;
at Edessa, 97; 198; 224; 230; in-
fluence on Valens, 234; a friend of
Basil, 242; threats, 243
Mokaukas, 155
Montanus notary, 151-2
* Montius, quæstor, 146n
Moses of Chorene quoted, 31n
Moyses, bp of the Saracens, 97
Musonianus, comes, keeps order at
Antioch, 74; 89n; 109n; at Sardica,
121
Narcissus, bp of Jerusalem, 230
Narcissus, bp of Neronias: Arianizes,
31n; 115n; mocks at Ath., 153
Nepotianus, 143
Nestorius of Gaza, prefect of Egypt,
99, 167n
*Nevitta (mag. mil.), a heathen, 55n;
at election of Jovian, 225; absent
from Valentinian's, 227
Numenius of Apamea, 22
*
Olybrius (Clodius Herm.), P.U., 54
Olympius, bp of Aenos, 122n
Onkelos, Targum of, 12 and n
Optatus P.U., 54
Origen: doctrine of eternal generation,
14; contrast with Eusebius, 39;
attacked by Marcellus, 77n; 81;
117; on use of ὑπόστασις, 207
Otreius, bp of Melitene, 244u
Palladius Arian, 262n
at
Pancratius, bp of Pelusium, at Sir-
mian conference, 166n
Paphnutius, bp and confessor:
Nicea, 36n; at Tyre, 86
Para, king of Armenia, 251
Paternus, bp of Petrocorii, 147n; 181
Patrophilus, bp of Seythopolis: Arian-
izes, 20, 31n; joins reaction, 50;
1151; 145; among πνευματόμαχοι,
206n, 232n
Paul, bp of Constantinople, 121; 146
Paul, bp of Emesa, 244n
Paul, bp of Neocæsarea: confessor 36n
Paul of Samosata, bp of Antioch, 15;
16; 23; use of ouoovator, 43, 177;
condemned by Basil and George,
168
Paul Catena, 111; 228
302
INDEX.
Paulinus, bp of Antioch: Eustathian
presbyter, 133; consecrated by Lu-
cifer, 207; 249; ignored at Constan-
tinople, 261
Paulinus, bp of Trier, 147; exiled, 148
Paulinus, bp of Tyre: Arianizes, 20n,
31n; attacked by Marcellus, 65n
Pegasius, bp of Ilium, renegade, 198
Pelagius, bp of Laodicea, 182; signs
Nicene creed, 227; joins Basil, 244n
Peter, bp of Alexandria, 247; 256;
259; and Maximus the Cynic, 261
Philagrius, dux Egypti, expels Athana-
sius, 112; 152; from Cappadocia, 241
Philip (Emperor 244-249), legend of,
134n
Philippicus Bardanes (Emperor 711-
713), 235
*
Philippus P.U., 146n
Philo, 12
Phœbadius, bp of Agen: his pamphlet,
159-160; at Ariminum, 178; 200n
Photinus, bp of Sirmium: 87n; con-
demnation, 126; 145; appeal, 145n
* Phronemius P.U., 237
Pistus, bp of Alexandria, 111-13
Pomenius, Anomaan bp of Constanti-
nople, 226
Pompeianus P. U. in 410, 57n
Potamius, bp of Lisbon, 147n; 157
Potentius, son of Ursicinus, 253
Potammon, bp and confessor, at Nicæa,
36n; at Tyre, 86
* Prætextatus (Vettius): P.U. 54
Proæresius, 55n
Procopius (Emperor 365-6): 210; 212;
225n; rising of, 237
*Profuturus, 251
Rhodanius, bp of Toulouse, 147
Richomer, comes domesticorum, 57n ; in
Thrace, 251; escapes from Hadria-
nople, 253
Romanus, comes, 258n
Rufinus, the historian, credibility dis-
cussed, Note A.
* Rufinus (Vulcatius): supports Mag-
nentius, 144; 146n
* Sabinian (mag. mil.), 210
Sabinus, bp of Heraclea, 36n
Salia, sent to Antioch, 125
*Sallustius Saturninius Secundus, Pf.
P., 54; declines the Empire, 325; at
election of Valentinian, 227; 237;
250
Saturninus, bp of Arles, 147; 150; at
Constantinople, 180n; 181
Saturninus, in Thrace, 251; escapes
from Hadrianople, 253; finishes
Gothic war, 259
Scotinus," 125
*Sebastian (mag. mil.), a Manichee,
51n; dux Egypti, 152; at Nisibis,
210; commands in Thrace, 252;
killed at Hadrianople, 253; not dis-
placed by Valentinian, 257n; jealousy
of Merobaudes against, 258n
Secundianus, Arian, 262n
Secundus, bp of Ptolemais: Arianizes,
31n; exiled, 49; consecrates Pistus,
111, 113
Serapion, bp of Thmuis, 132n; 196n
* Severus (mag. mil.), 157n
Silvanus, bp of Tarsus, 118n; 133; at
Seleucia, 172-3; deposed, 181; mis-
sion to Liberius, 236
Silvanus (mag. mil.), 110; 144; 194
Sisinnius, Novatian bp of Constanti-
nople, 134n
Sopater, philosopher, 57n; 90; 110
Sophronius, P.U., 242
**
Sophronius, bp of Pompeiopolis, 118n;
123n; 163n; at Seleucia, 172; de-
posed, 181
Soter, bp of Rome, 151n
Spyridon, bp of Cyprus, 93
Stephen, bp of Antioch Arianizes,
75n; 124; plot and deposition, 124;
Julian contemplates restoring him,
125n
Symmachus (Q. Aurelius): P.U. 54;
236n
Syrianus, dux Egypti, 152
Tarcondimantus, bp of Ege, 115n
Tatianus, Pf. of Egypt, 230n
* Taurus, Pf. P., 146n; 170
Teja, 264
Terentius, comes, 243n
Tertullian, on the divine Sonship, 14;
39; 81; 231n.
*Thalassius, 146n
*
Themistius, P.U., 54
Theodahad, 263n
Theodelinda, 264
Theodora, massacre of her house, 108
Theodore, confessor under Julian, 96
Theodore, bp of Heraclea, 115n; 180n
Theodore, bp of Mopsuestia, 20
Theodorus, bp of Oxyrynchus, 130n
Theodorus (EOA.), 238n
Theodosius (mag. mil.), 236n; his
execution, 258n
Theodosius (Emperor 379-395): apo-
theosis of, 54; leans on Asia, 92;
persecutor, 163n; 212; 235; baptism,
238n; 259; gives up Dacia, 254;
associated by Gratian, 258; edicts
against heresy, 259, 261-2; summons
council of Constantinople, 260; last
overtures to Arians, 263
INDEX.
Theodotus, bp of Laodicea: Arianizes,
20n, 31n; expels Apollinarii, 55n
Theodotus, bp of Nicopolis, 244n;
suspects Basil, 245
Theognius, bp of Nicæa: Arianizes,
31n; signs 46; duváμel error, 48n;
exiled, 49; joins reaction, 50; return
from exile, 71
Theonas, bp of Alexandria: elected by
Meletians, 66n
Theonas, bp of Marmarica: Arianizes,
31n; exiled, 49
Theophilus the Goth, bp of Nicæa,
36n
Theophilus, bp of Castabala, 236
Theophilus the Indian, 136n; 226
Theophilus of Libya, 180n
Theophronius, bp of Tyana, 115n; con-
fession of, 118
Tiranus, K. of Armenia, 210
Titianus, Pf. P., 144
Titus, bp of Bostra, 132n; 196n; 199;
signs Nicene Creed, 227
Totila, 263-4
Trajan (Emperor 98-117): 210; Theo-
dosius compared to, 258
*Trajan (mag. mil.), 54n; in Thrace,
251; killed at Hadrianople, 253
Ulfilas, Skeireins, 28n; at Constanti-
nople, 180m
Ursacius, bp of Singidunum.
Valens
See
* Ursicinus (mag. mil.), destroys Sep-
phoris, 58; 60; 110; at Sirmium,
157n; 253
* Ursulus, comes s. 7., 210
Valens (Emperor 364-378): inquisition
for magic, 57n, 238, 257; leans on
Asia, 60, 90-92; rescript against the
monks, 103, 230n; emperor, 227;
character, 228; Homoan policy, 234;
expels exiles again, 236; and Pro-
copius, 237; baptism by Eudoxius,
238; Gothic war, 239; peace, 240;
303
meeting with Basil, 243; confusion
in Asia, 247; work of his reign, 249;
reception of the Goths, 250; leaves
Antioch, 252; killed at Hadrianople,
253; toleration of, 257; council of
Lampsacus, Note M; the Eighty
Clerics, Note N.
at
Valens, bp of Mursa, 29n; court poli-
tician, 53, 60; disciple of Arius, 87n;
confused doctrine, 123n: recants,
126; 147n; Sirmian manifesto,
157-8; 162; 163n; forms Homean
party, 163; at Sirmian conference,
166n; fraudulent signature, 167-8;
at Ariminum, 168; at Nicé, 169;
villany at Ariminum, 178-9;
Constantinople, 180n; intercedes
for Eunomius, 239
Valentinian (Emperor, 364-375): 54n;
144; election, 227; compared with
Julian, 227; toleration, 228; permits
council of Lampsacus. 233; departure
for Gaul, 236n; work of his reign,
247; edict against Manichees, 257n
Valerianus, bp of Aquileia, 244
Varronianus, son of Jovian, consul,
227
* Vetranio (Emperor 350), 143
* Victor (mag. mil.): a Christian, 54n;
marries Mavia's daughter, 97; at
election of Jovian, 225; in Egypt,
227; in Gothic war, 240; 242n;
caution before Hadrianople, 252;
escapes the slaughter, 253
Victorinus (Marius), 55n
Vincent, bp of Capua: legate at Nicæa,
51n; at Sardica, 121; sent to Antioch,
124; yields at Arles, 148
*Volusianus, P.U., 236n
Zeno (Emperor 474-491): Henoticon,
235; reforms, 255
Zeno, bp of Verona, 15
Zeno, bp of Tyre, 244n
Zenobia, rabbis unfriendly to, 57n
CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY & SON, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
LIST OF
THEOLOGICAL & GENERAL WORKS
PUBLISHED BY
DEIGHTON, BELL AND CO.
Agents to the University, Cambridge,
AND G. BELL AND SONS, LONDON.
ALFORD (DEAN) The Greek Testament: with a critically revised
Text; a Digest of Various Readings; Marginal References to Verbal
and Idiomatic Usage; Prolegomena; and a Critical and Exegetical
Commentary. For the use of Theological Students and Ministers. By
the late HENRY ALFORD, D.D., Dean of Canterbury.
Vol. I. Seventh Edition, containing the Four Gospels. 11. 8s.
Vol. II.
Sixth Edition, containing the Acts of the Apostles, the
Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians. 17. 4s.
Vol. III. Fifth Edition, containing the Epistle to the Galatians,
Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians,-to Timotheus,
Titus, and Philemon. 18s.
Vol. IV. Part I. Fourth Edition, containing the Epistle to the
Hebrews, and the Catholic Epistles of St. James and St. Peter. 18s.
Vol. IV. Part II. Fourth Edition, containing the Epistles of St.
John and St. Jude, and the Revelation. 14s.
Vol. IV. Parts 1 and 2, complete in one volume. 17. 12s.
The New Testament for English Readers. Contain-
ing the Authorised Version, with additional corrections of Readings and
Renderings; Marginal References; and a Critical and Explanatory
Commentary. By the late HENRY ALFORD, D.D. In two volumes.
Vol. I. Part I,
tion. 128.
Vol. I. Part II.
10s. 6d.
Vol. II. Part I.
tion. 16s.
Containing the First Three Gospels. Third Edi-
Containing St. John and the Acts. Second Edition.
Containing the Epistles of St. Paul. Second Edi-
Vol. II. Part II. Containing the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Catholic
Epistles, and the Revelation. Second Edition. 16s.
The Queen's English; a Manual of Idiom and
Usage. By HENRY ALFORD, D.D. Small 8vo. Tenth Thousand. 5s.
BANISTER (H. C.) Text Book of Music, with Exercises in
Harmony and Counterpoint, specially adapted for Candidates for the
Local Examinations. By H. C. BANISTER, Professor of Harmony and
Composition at the Royal Academy of Music. Ninth Edition, revised,
Small 8vo. 53.
2
DEIGHTON, BELL & CO.'S LIST-continued.
BARRETT (A. C.) Companion to the Greek Testament. For
the use of Theological Students and the Upper Forms in Schools. By
the late A. C. BARRETT, M.A., Caius College; Author of "A Treatise
on Mechanics and Hydrostatics." Fourth Edition, revised. Feap.
8vo. 5s.
This volume will be found useful for all classes of Students who re-
quire a clear epitome of Biblical knowledge. It gives in a con-
densed form a large amount of information on the Text, Language,
Geography, and Archæology; it discusses the alleged contradic-
tions of the New Testament and the disputed quotations from the
Old, and contains introductions to the separate books. It may be
used by all intelligent students of the sacred volume; and has been
found of great value to the students of Training Colleges in pre-
paring for their examinations.
BEAMONT (W. J.) A Concise Grammar of the Arabic Lan-
guage. Revised by SHEIKH ALI NADY EL Barrany.
W. J. BEAMONT, M.A. 78.
By the late
BENSON (E. W.) Work, Friendship, Worship. Three Ser-
mons preached before the University of Cambridge in October and
November, 1871. By E. W. BENSON, D.D., Lord Bishop of Truro.
Small 8vo. 2s. 6d.
BONNEY (T. G.) The Geology of Cambridgeshire.
A Short
Sketch for the Use of Students. By T. G. BONNEY. 8vo. 3s.
Death and Life in Nations and Men. Four
Sermons preached before the University of Cambridge, in April, 1868.
By T. G. BONNEY. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Sermons on some Questions of the Day, preached
before the University of Cambridge, and in the Chapel Royal, White-
hall; with an Appendix, containing correspondence with Lord Shaftes-
bury. By T. G. BONNEY. Small 8vo. 58.
BONWICKE (AMBROSE), Life of, by his father.
JOHN E. B. MAYOR, M.A., Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge.
Small Svo. 68.
Edited by
A
BROWNE (BP.) Messiah as Foretold and Expected.
Course of Sermons relating to the Messiah, as interpreted before the
Coming of Christ. Preached before the University of Cambridge in
the months of February and March, 1862. By the Right Reverend
E. HAROLD BROWNE, D.D., Lord Bishop of Winchester. 8vo. 48.
BURN (R.) Rome and the Campagna.
An Historical and
Topographical Description of the Site, Buildings and Neighbour-
hood of Ancient Rome. By R. BURN, M. A., Fellow and late Tutor of
Trinity College, Cambridge. With Eighty-five Engravings by JEWITT,
and Twenty-five Maps and Plans, and Appendix containing an Ad-
ditional Plan, and bringing the work down to 1875. 4to, cloth. £3 3s.
The purpose of this work is to furnish students of the History
and Literature of Rome with a description of the chief features of
the site and buildings of the city during the regal, republican,
and imperial eras, with a view especially to illustrate the writings
of the principal Latin historians and poets. In the Introduction
a sketch is given of the more prominent developments of ancient
Roman architecture, and the illustrations they afford of Roman
national character. Complete Indices are added of all the subjects
discussed and of all passages quoted from classical authors, and
also a list of modern works on Roman topography and an-
tiquities.
[Deighton, Bell and Co., Cambridge
3
DEIGHTON, BELL & CO.'S LIST-continued.
BURN (R.) Old Rome, a Handbook to the Ruins of the City
and the Campagna. By ROBERT BURN. 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d.
CALVERLEY (C. S.) Verses and Translations. Seventh
Edition. Feap. 8vo. 58.
3s. 6d.
8vo. 7s. 6d.
Crown Svo.
Fly Leaves. Ninth Thousand. Fcap. 8vo.
Translations into English and Latin. Crown
Theocritus translated into English Verse.
[New Edition in the Press.
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY CALENDAR. Published
Annually. 6s. 6d.
CAMPION (W. M.) Nature and Grace. Sermons preached
in the Chapel Royal, Whitehall, in the years 1862-3-4. BY WILLIAM
MAGAN CAMPION, B.D., Fellow and Tutor of Queens' College, Cam-
bridge, Rector of St. Botolph's, Cambridge, and one of her Majesty's
Preachers at Whitehall. Small Svo. 68. 6d.
CANONESS (The). A Tale in verse of the Time of the First
French Revolution. Small Svo. 5s.
CATALOGUE of Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Library of
Trinity College, Cambridge. By T. H. AUFRECHT, Professor of
Sanskrit and Comparative Philology in the University of Edinburgh.
Svo. 78. 6.
CATALOGUE of the Arabic, Persian, and Turkish Manuscripts
in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge. By E. H. PALMER, MA.
Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. With an Appendix contain-
ing a Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan MSS. in the same Library.
Svo. 10s. 6d.
CATALOGUE of the Fifteenth Century Printed Books, in the
Library of Trinity College, Cambridge. By R. SINKER, M.A., Librarian
of the College. 8vo. 7s. 6d.
CECIL (W.) Elementary Religious Truths gathered from the
Five Books of Moses, forming a suitable foundation for a solid religious
education among the rising population, and more especially that of the
Jews. In a Course of Sermons compiled from the original Sermon
Notes of the Rev. Richard Cecil, late Minister of St. John's Chapel,
Bedford Row, London, and by him committed in sole trust to the
present Editor, his son, the late Rev. WILLIAM CECIL, M.A., Rector of
Longstanton St. Michael, Cambs. 2 vols. 8vo. 21s.
CHALLIS (J.) A Translation of the Epistle of the Apostle
By
Paul to the Romans, with an Introduction and Critical Notes.
J. CHALLIS, M. A., Fellow of Trinity College, and Plumian Professor of
Astronomy in the University of Cambridge. Svo. 4s. 6d.
COOPER, (C. H.) Memoir of Margaret, Countess of Richmond
and Derby. By the late C. H. COOPER. Edited for the Two Colleges
of her Foundation. Svo. 78. 6d.
COOPER (C. H. and THOMPSON). Athenae Cantabrigienses.
By C. H. COOPER, F.S.A., and THOMPSON COOPER, F.S.A.
Volume I. 1500-1585. Svo, cloth. 18s. Volume II. 1586-1609. 18s.
G. Bell and Sons, London.]
4
DEIGHTON, BELL & CO.'S LIST-continued.
DENMAN (G.) The First Book of Pope's Homer's Iliad.
Translated into Latin Elegiacs. By Hon. GEORGE DENMAN, M.A.,
formerly Fellow and Auditor of Trinity College, now one of the Judges
of the Court of Common Pleas. 38. 6d.
DE SOYRES (J.)
Pascal's Provincial Letters. Edited by
JOHN DE SOYRES, M. A., of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge.
8vo. 12s.
"Mr. De Soyres has done well in providing an edition so accurate as
regards the text, so careful in all its details, and so completely
equipped with the necessary explanations for the English reader.
The introduction and notes are in English, and they contain every-
thing that the ordinary reader will require."-Daily News.
Montanism and the Primitive Church. By
JOHN DE SOYRES, Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. 8vo. 6s.
DONALDSON (J. W.) Classical Scholarship and Classical
Learning considered with especial reference to Competitive Tests and
University Teaching. A Practical Essay on Liberal Education.
By
J. W. DONALDSON, D.D., formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cam-
bridge. Crown 8vo. 5s.
ELLIS (A. A.) Bentleii Critica Sacra. Notes on the Greek
and Latin Text of the New Testament, extracted from the Bentley
MSS. in Trinity College Library. With the Abbé Rulotta's Collation
of the Vatican MS., a specimen of Bentley's intended Edition, and an
account of all his Collations. Edited, with the permission of the
Master and Seniors, by A. A. ELLIS, M.A., late Fellow of Trinity
College, Cambridge. 8vo. 88. 6d.
ELLIS
(ROBERT LESLIE). The Mathematical and other
Writings of ROBERT LESLIE ELLIS, M.A., formerly Fellow of Trinity
College, Cambridge. Edited by WILLIAM WALTON, M. A., Trinity
College, with a Biographical Memoir by the Right Reverend HARVEY
GOODWIN, D.D., Bishop of Carlisle. Portrait. 8vo. 168.
EWALD (H.) Life of Jesus Christ. By the late H. EWALD.
Edited by OCTAVIUS GLOVER, B.D., Emmanuel College, Cambridge.
Crown 8vo. 9s.
The Prophet Isaiah.
Chapters I-XXXIII.
From the German of the late H. EWALD. BY OCTAVIUS GLOVER, B.D.
Crown 8vo. 68.
FAMILY PRAYERS from or in the Style of the Liturgy ;
with Occasional Prayers and Thanksgiving. By Dr. HAMMOND, Bishop
ANDREWS, and others. Crown Svo. 3s.
FURIOSO, or Passages from the Life of LUDWIG VAN
BEETHOVEN. From the German. Crown 8vo. 68.
GLOVER (0.) A Short Treatise on Sin, based on the Work of
Julius Müller. By O. GLOVER, B.D., Fellow of Emmanuel College,
Cambridge. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Doctrine of the Person of Christ, an Historical
Sketch. By OCTAVIUS GLOVER, B.D., Fellow of Emmanuel College,
Cambridge. Crown 8vo. 3s.
GOODWIN (H., D.D., Bishop of Carlisle). Essays on the
Pentateuch. Fcap. 8vo. 58.
[Deighton, Bell and Co., Cambridge.
5
DEIGHTON, BELL & CO.'S LIST—continued.
GOODWIN (H., D.D., Bishop of Carlisle). Plain Sermons on
Ordination and the Ministry of the Church.
occasions. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Preached on divers
"The suggestions offered in these pages are all in good taste, and
inspired by a true regard for the interest of the Church."-English
Churchman.
"Very simple in their teaching, direct, unadorned, and not doc-
trinal."-Literary Churchman.
Sermons preached before the Universities of Oxford
and Cambridge. Crown 8vo. 68.
Parish Sermons. 1st Series. Third Edition. 6s.
2nd Series (out of print), 3rd Series. Third Edition. 78. 4th Series. 7%.
5th Series. With Preface on Sermons and Sermon Writing. 78.
Four Sermons preached before the University of
Cambridge in February, 1869. I. Parties in the Church of England.
II. Use and Abuse of Liberty in the Church of England. III. The
Message of the Spirit to the Church of England. IV. Discussions
concerning the Holy Communion in the Church of England. Small
Svo. is.
Four Sermons preached before the University of
Cambridge in the Season of Advent, 1858. 12mo. 38. 6d.
Christ in the Wilderness. Four Sermons preached
before the University of Cambridge in the month of February, 1855.
By H. GOODWIN, D.D. 12mo. 48.
Lectures upon the Church Catechism. 12mo. 4s.
A Guide to the Parish Church. Ninth Edition,
revised. Fcap. 8vo. 3s 6d.
Plain Thoughts concerning the meaning of
Holy Baptism. Second Edition. 2d., or 25 for 3s. 6d.
Confirmation Day. Being a Book of Instruction
for Young Persons how they ought to spend that solemn day, on which
they renew the Vows of their Baptism, and are confirmed by the Bishop
with prayer and the laying on of hands. Eighth Thousand. 2d.,
or 25 for 3s. 6d.
The Worthy Communicant; or, "Who may
come to the Supper of the Lord?' Eighth Thousand, 2d, or 25 for 3s. 6d.
The Doom of Sin, and the Inspiration of the
Bible. Two Sermons preached in Ely Cathedral: with some Pre-
fatory Remarks upon the Oxford Declaration. Feap. 8vo. 18. 6d.
In
Hands, Head, and Heart; or the Christian Re-
ligion regarded Practically, Intellectually, and Devotionally.
Three Sermons preached before the University of Cambridge. Feap.
8vo. 2s. 6d.
Commentaries on the Gospels, intended for the
English Reader, and adapted either for Domestic or Private Use.
Crown Svo.
S. MATTHEW, 128. S. MARK, 7s. 6d. S. LUKE, 68.
The Ministry of Christ in the Church of Eng-
land. Four Sermons Preached before the University of Cambridge.
I. The Minister called. II.-The Minister as Prophet. III.-The
Minister as Priest. IV.-The Minister Tried and Comforted. By H.
GOODWIN, D.D. Feap. 8vo. 2s. 6d.
G. Bell and Sons, London.]
6
DEIGHTON, BELL & CO.'S LIST—continued.
GOODWIN (BP.) The Appearing of Jesus Christ. A short
Treatise by SYMON PATRICK, D.D., formerly Lord Bishop of Ely, now
published for the first time from the Original MS, Edited by H.
GOODWIN, D.D. 18mo. 3s.
On the Imitation of Christ. A New Translation.
By H. GOODWIN, D.D. Third Edition. With fine Steel Engraving,
after GUIDO, 3s. 6d.; without the Engraving, 2s. 6d. Cheap Edition,
19. cloth, 6d. sewed.
GRADUATI Cantabrigienses: sive Catalogus Exhibens Nomina
eorum quos ab Anno Academico Admissionum MDCCC usque ad Decimum
Diem Octobris MDCCCLXXU grada quocunque ornavit Academia Canta-
brigiensis, e Libris Subscriptionum Desumptus. Cura HENRICI
RICHARDS LUARD, A. M., Coll. SS. Trin. Socii atque Academiæ Regis-
trarii. Svo, cloth. 10s.
9s.
GROTE (J.) Exploratio Philosophica. Rough Notes on Modern
Intellectual Science. Part I. By the late J. GROTE, B.D., Fellow of
Trinity College and Professor of Moral Philosophy at Cambridge. 8vo.
An Examination of the Utilitarian Philosophy, by
the late JOHN GROTE, B. D. Edited by JOSEPH B. MAYOR, M.A., Pro-
fessor of Classical Literature at King's College, London, late Fellow of
St. John's College, Cambridge. 8vo. 123.
A Treatise on the Moral Ideals. By the late
JOHN GROTE, B.D. Edited by J. B. MAYOR, M.A. 8vo. 12s.
Sermons by the late JOHN GROTE, B.D. Fcap. 8vo.5s.
GUILLEMARD (W. H.) Hebraisms in the Greek Testament.
Exhibiting and Illustrating by Notes and Extracts from the Sacred
Text. The Influence of the Septuagint on its character and construc-
tion, and the deviations in it from pure Greek style. By WILLIAM
HENRY GUILLEMARD, D.D., sometime Fellow of Pembroke College,
Cambridge. 8s. 6d.
GWATKIN (H. M.)
The Arian Reaction: An Historical
Analysis of its Aims and Character. By H. M. GWATKIN, M.A.,
Lecturer and late Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge.
HUMPHRY (W. G.) An Historical and Explanatory Treatise on
the Book of Common Prayer. By W. G. HUMPHRY, B.D., late Fellow
of Trinity College, Cambridge. Sixth Edition, revised. Small post
8vo. 4s. 6d.
The New Table of Lessons Explained,
with the Table of Lessons and a Tabular Comparison of the Old
and New Proper Lessons for Sundays and Holy-days. By W. G.
HUMPHRY, B. D., Prebendary of St. Paul's, and Vicar of St. Martin's-in-
the-Fields, Westminster. Feap. 18. 6d.
HUMPHRY (A. P.) The Student's Hand-Book to the Uni-
versity of Cambridge, for the use of persons intending to enter the
University. By A. Р. HсMPHRY, Trinity College, Esquire Bedell.
Cloth. 13. 6d.
HUNT (Rev. H. G. Bonavia). A Concise History of Music,
from the commencement of the Christian Era to the present time. For
the use of Students. By Rev. II. G. BONAVIA HUNT, Warden of Trinity
College, London; and Lecturer on Musical History in the same College.
Small 8vo, cloth. Fifth Edition, revised. 3s. 6d.
(Deighton, Bell and Co., Cambridge.
7
DEIGHTON, BELL & CO.'S LIST-continued.
KENNEDY (B. H.) Occasional
Occasional Sermons preached before the
University of Cambridge and elsewhere, with an appendix of Hymns.
By BENJAMIN HALL KENNEDY, Regius Professor of Greek in the
University of Cambridge, and Canon of Ely. 38. 6d.
Between Whiles, or Wayside Amusements
of a Working Life. By B. H. KENNEDY, D.D. Small Svo. 6s.
Studia Sophoclea.
Part I. Being a
Critical Examination of Professor Lewis Campbell's Edition of Sopho-
cles. By B. H. KENNEDY, D.D. 8vo. 5s.
KENT's Commentary on International Law.
Edited by J. T.
ABDY, LL.D., Judge of County Courts, and Law Professor at Gres-
ham College, late Regius Professor of Laws in the University of Cam-
bridge. Second Edition, revised and brought down to 1877. Crown
8vo. 10s. Gd.
LATHAM (H.) On the Action of Examinations considered as
By H. LATHAM, Fellow and Tutor of Trinity
a means of Selection.
Hall. 10s. 6d.
"Mr. Latham has placed before us, in a volume full, but not heavy,
one of the most valuable collections of facts, opinions, and conclu-
sions on the subject of examinations which we have ever seen."-
Educational Times,
"Mr. Latham's book is, as we have already said, certainly worth
reading by all who are interested in examinations.”—Pall Mall
Gazette.
LATHAM (P. W.) On the Symptomatic Treatment of Cholera
with especial reference to the importance of the Intestinal Lesion. By
Dr. FELIX VON NIEMEYER, Professor of Pathology and Therapeutics,
etc., in the University of Tübingen. Translated from the German by
P. W. LATHAM, M.A., M.D., Downing Professor of Medicine in the
University of Cambridge. Small Svo. 2s. 6d.
On Nervous or Sick-Headache: its Varieties
and Treatment. Plates. Small Svo. 3s.
LEAPINGWELL (G.) Manual of the Roman Civil Law,
arranged according to the Syllabus of Dr. HALLIFAX. Br. G. LEAPING-
WELL, LL.D. Designed for the use of Students in the Universities and
Inns of Court. Svo. 12s.
LEATHES (STANLEY). The Birthday of Christ, its Preparation,
Message, and Witness. Three Sermons preached before the University
of Cambridge, in December, 1865. By STANLEY LEATHES, M.A.,
Preacher and Assistant Minister, St. James's, Piccadilly Professor of
Hebrew, King's College, London. Fcap. 8vo. 2s.
LEVIN (T. W.) Six Lectures Introductory to the Philo-
sophical Writings of Cicero. With some Explanatory Notes on the
subject-matter of the Academics and De Finibus. By T. W. LEVIN,
M.A., St. Catharine's College, Inter-Collegiate Lecturer on Logic and
Moral Philosophy. 1 vol. Svo. 7s. 6d.
LITTLEJOHN (A. R.). Individualism: Its Growth and
Tendencies, with some Suggestions as to the Remedy for its Evils. By
the Right Rev. A. R. LITTLEJOHN, D. D., LL.D., Bishop of Long Island,
Small 8vo. 68.
LUMBY (J. RAWSON). The History of the Creeds-I. Ante
Nicene. II. Nicene and Constantinopolitan. III. The Apostolic
Creed. IV. The Quicunque, commonly called the Creed of St. Athana-
sius. By J. RAWSON LUMBY, D.D., Norrisian Professor of Divinity,
and late Fellow of Magdalene College, Cambridge. Second Edition.
Crown Svo. 78. 6d.
G. Bell and Sons, London.]
8
DEIGHTON, BELL & CO.'S LIST—continued.
LUMBY (J. R.) The Confessions of the Sixteenth Century with
special reference to the Articles of the Church of England. By J. R.
LUMBY, D.D.
[In the Press.
A Sketch of a Course of English Reading (with
Specimens of Examination Papers). Intended as a guide to Students.
By J. R. LUMBY, D.D. 1s.
MACMICHAEL (W. F.)
The Oxford and Cambridge Boat
Races. A Chronicle of the Contests on the Thames in which University
Crews have borne a part from A.D. 1829 to a.d. 1869. Compiled from
the University Club Books and other Contemporary and Authentic
Records, with Maps of the Racing Courses, Index of Names, and an
Introduction on Rowing and its value as an Art and Recreation. By
W. F. MACMICHAEL, B.A., Downing College. Feap. 8vo. 6s.
MACKENZIE (BISHOP), Memoir of the late. By the BISHOP
OF CARLISLE. With Maps, Illustrations, and an Engraved Portrait from
a painting by G. RICHMOND. Dedicated by permission to the Lord
Bishop of Oxford. Second Edition. Small 8vo. 3s. 6d.
MASKEW (T. R.) Annotations on the Acts of the Apostles.
Original and selected. Designed principally for the use of Candidates
for the Ordinary B.A. Degree, Students for Holy Orders, &c., with
College and Senate-House Examination Papers. By T. R. MASKEW,
M.A. Second Edition, enlarged. 12mo. 5s.
MASON (ARTHUR JAMES). The Persecution of Diocletian, an
Historical Essay. By ARTHUR JAMES MASON, M.A., Fellow of Trinity
College, Cambridge. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
MILL (W. H.) Observations on the attempted Application
of Pantheistic Principles to the Theory and Historie Criticism of the
Gospels. By W. H. MILL, D.D., formerly Regius Professor of Hebrew
in the University of Cambridge. Second Edition, with the Author's
latest notes and additions. Edited by his Son-in-Law, the Rev. B.
WEBB, M.A. 8vo. 14s.
Lectures on the Catechism. Delivered in the Parish
Church of Brasted, in the Diocese of Canterbury. By W. H. MILL,
D.D. Edited by the Rev. B. WEBB, M.A. Feap. 8vo. 6s. 6d.
Sermons preached in Lent 1845, and on several former
occasions, before the University of Cambridge. By W. H. MILL, D.D.
8vo. 12s.
Four Sermons preached before the University on the
Fifth of November and the three Sundays preceding Advent, in the
year 1848. By W. H. MILL, D.D. Svo. 5s. 6d.
Our Lord in the Wilderness. Five Sermons on
the Temptation. Preached before the University of Cambridge in Lent,
1814. By WILLIAM HODGE MILL, D.D., F.R.A.S., formerly Fellow of
Trinity College, Cambridge. Second Edition, Edited by his Son-in-Law,
the Rev. BENJAMIN WEBE, M. A., F.S. A., Vicar of St. Andrew's, Wells-
street, St. Marylebone. 8vo, cloth. 6s.
MOULE (H. C. G.) Poems on Subjects selected from the Acts
of the Apostles; with other Miscellaneous Pieces. By H. C. G.
MOULE, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Fcap. 8vo. 4s.
NEWTON (SIR ISAAC) and Professor Cotes, Correspondence
of, including Letters of other Eminent Men, now first published from
the originals in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge; together
with an Appendix containing other unpublished Letters and Papers by
Newton; with Notes, Synoptical View of the Philosopher's Life, and
a variety of details illustrative of his history. Edited by the Rev. J.
EDLESTON, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 8vo. 10s.
[Deighton, Bell and Co., Cambridge.
9
DEIGHTON, BELL & CO.'S LIST-continued.
OBBARD (AUG. R.) The Prophecy of Jacob. Notes critical
and Exegetical on Genesis xlix. By AUG. R. OBBARD, M.A., St. John's
College, Cambridge. Small 8vo. cloth. 48.
PALMER (E. H.) The Desert of the Exodus. Journeys on
Foot in the Wilderness of the Forty Years' Wanderings, undertaken
in connection with the Ordnance Survey of Sinai and the Palestine
Exploration Fund. By E. H. PALMER, M.A., Lord Almoner's Pro-
fessor of Arabic and Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, Member
of the Asiatic Society, and of the Société de Paris. With Maps, and
numerous Illustrations from Photographs and Drawings taken on the
spot by the Sinai Survey Expedition and C. F. TYRWHITT DRAKE.
2 vols. 8vo. 28s.
Oriental Mysticism. A Treatise on the
Suflistic and Unitarian Theosophy of the Persians. Compiled from
Native Sources by E. H. PALMER, Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
PEARSON (J. B.) Disciples in Doubt. Five Sermons preached
before the University of Cambridge in May, 1876, and February, 1879.
By J. B. PEARSON, LL. D., Lord Bishop of Newcastle, New South
Wales. Feap. Svo. 3s. 6d.
PEROWNE (Dean). The Book of Psalms. A new Transla-
tion, with Introductions and Notes, Critical and Explanatory. By the
Very Rev. J. J. STEWART PEROWNE, D.D., Dean of Peterborough.
Demy Svo. Vol. I. Fourth Edition. 18s. Vol. II. Fourth Edition. 16s.
ABRIDGED EDITION FOR SCHOOLS. Third Edition. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.
Immortality.
Four Sermons preached
before the University of Cambridge. Being the Hulsean Lectures for
1868. By the Very Rev. J. J. S. PEROWNE, D.D. Svo. 7s. 6d.
PEROWNE (E. H.) The Godhead of Jesus; being the
Hulscan Lectures for 1866; to which are added Two Sermons preached
before the University of Cambridge on Good Friday and Easter Day,
1866. By E. H. PEROWNE, D.D., Master of Corpus Christi College.
8vo. 5.s.
PHILLIPS (GEO.) Short Sermons on Old Testament Messianic
Texts, preached in the Chapel of Queens' College, Cambridge. By Geo.
PHILLIPS, D.D., President of the College. 8vo. 5s.
A Syriac Grammar. By the Rev. G. PHILLIPS,
D.D. Third Edition, revised and enlarged. 8vo. 78. 6d.
PROWETT (C. G.) Translations and Original Pieces. By the
late C. G. PROWETT, M. A., formerly Fellow of Caius Coll. Feap. Sro. 68.
PSALTER (The) or Psalms of David in English Verse. With
Preface and Notes. By BENJAMIN HALL KENNEDY, D.D., Canon of
Ely. New Edition. 3s. 6d.
RENDALL (G. H.)
The Emperor Julian: Paganism and
Christianity. By G. H. RENDALL, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College.
8vo. 7s. 6d.
RUST (J. C.) The Revelation of Saint John compared with
other Apocalyptic Writings. Svo. 2s.
SCHOLEFIELD (PROF.) Hints for some Improvements in
the Authorised Version of the New Testament. By J. SCHOLEFIELD,
M.A., formerly Professor of Greek in the University of Cambridge.
Fourth Edition. Feap. 8vo. 4s.
SCOTT (G. G.) The Argument for the Intellectual Character
of the First Cause as it is Affected by the more Recent Investigations
of Physical Science. Being the Burney Prize Essay for the year
'CIO"IDCCC'LX'VIII. By GEORGE GILBERT SCOTT, jun., B.A., F.S.A.,
of Jesus College, Cambridge. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.
G. Bell and Sons, London.]
10
DEIGHTON, BELL & CO.'S LIST-continued,
SCRIVENER (F. H.) Plain Introduction to the Criticism of
the New Testament. With 40 Facsimiles from Ancient Manuscripts,
containing also a Chapter on the Egyptian Versions, contributed by
Bishop Lightfoot, D.D. For the Use of Biblical Students. By Rev.
F. H. SCRIVENER, M. A., Trinity College, Cambridge. Revised Edition.
8vo. 168.
Six Lectures on the Text of the New
Testament and the Ancient Manuscripts which contain it, chiefly
addressed to those who do not read Greek. With Facsimile Illustra-
tions. By F. H. SCRIVENER, M.A. Crown 8vo. 6s.
A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus
with the Received Text of the New Testament; to which is prefixed a
Critical Introduction. By F. II. SCRIVENER, M. A. Second Edition,
revised. Feap. 8vo. 5s.
Codex Bezæ Cantabrigiensis. Edited, with Pro-
legomena, Notes, and Facsimiles. By F. H. SCRIVENER, M. A. 4to. 26s.
An Exact Transcript of the CODEX AUGIENSIS,
Græco-Latina Manuscript in Uncial Letters of S. Paul's Epistles, pre-
served in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge. To which is
added a Full Collation of Fifty Manuscripts containing various portions
of the Greek New Testament deposited in English Libraries: with a
full Critical Introduction. By F. H. SCRIVENER, M.A. Roy, 8vo. 26s.
Novum Testamentum Græcum, Textus Stepha-
nici, 1550. Accedunt variæ lectiones editionem Beza, Elzeviri, Lach-
manni, Tischendorfii, et Tregellesi. Curante F. H. SCRIVENER, A.M.
16mo. 4s. 6d.
New Edition embodying all the readings of Tregelles and of Tischen-
dorff's last Edition.
An Edition with wide Margin for Notes. Half bound, 12s.
SEELEY (H. G.) Index to the Fossil Remains of Aves, Orni-
thosauria, and Reptilia, from the Secondary System of Strata, arranged
in the Woodwardian Museum of the University of Cambridge. By
HARRY GOVIER SEELEY, of St. John's College, Cambridge. With a
Prefatory Notice by the Rev. ADAM SEDGWICK, LL.D., F.R.S., Wood-
wardian Professor and Senior Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
Svo. 2s. 6d.
Ornithosauria, an Elementary Study of the Bones of
Pterodactyles, made from Fossil Remains found in the Cambridge
Upper Greensand, and Arranged in the Woodwardian Museum of the
University of Cambridge. By HARRY GOVIER SEELEY, of St. John's
College, Cambridge. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
SELWYN (W.) Excerpta ex reliquiis Versionum, Aquila,
Symmachi, Theodotionis, a Montefalconio aliisque collecta.
GENESIS.
Edidit GUL. SELWYN, S.T.P., Regiæ Majestati e Sacris, Dominæ
Margareta in Sacra Theologia Lector, Coll. Div. Johann. olim, socius.
8vo.
18.
Notæ Critica in Versionem Septuagintaviralem.
EXODUS, Cap. I.—XXIV. Curante GUL. SELWYN, S.T.P. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Nota Critica in Versionem Septuagintaviralem.
Liber NUMERORUM, Curante GUL, SELWYN, S.T.P. 8vo. 4s. 6d.
Notæ Critica in Versionem Septuagintaviralem.
Liber DEUTERONOMII. Curante GUL. SELWYN, S.T.P. 8vo. 4s. 6d.
Origenis Contra Celsum. Libri I. II. III. IV.
Recensuit et cum delectu notarum. Edidit GUL. SELWYN. 8vo. 128.
Testimonia Patrum in Veteres Interpretes,
Septuaginta, Aquilam, Symmachum, Theodotionem, a Montefalconio
aliisque collecta paucis Additis. Edidit GUL, SELWYN, S.T.P. 8vo. 6d.
[Deighton, Bell and Co., Cambridge.
11
DEIGHTON, BELL & CO.'S LIST—continued.
SELWYN (W.) Hora Hebraicæ. Critical and Expository Ob-
servations on the Prophecy of Messiah in Isaiah, Chapter IX., and on
other Passages of Holy Scripture. By W. SELWYN, D.D., Lady Mar-
garet's Reader in Theology. Revised Edition, with Continuation. 88.
Pastoral Colloquies on the South Downs. Pro-
phecy and Miracles. By W. SELWYN, D.D.. with a Sketch of the
Author's Life, by J. S. Wood, D.D. Post 8vo. 3s.
44
The Creeds of Nicaea; Constantinople; Atha-
nasius; with Extracts and Remarks bearing on the Warning
Clauses" and the
and the "Procession." By WILLIAM SELWYN, D.D. 2s. 6d.
Waterloo. A Lay of Jubilee for June 18,
A.D. 1815. By W. SELWYN, D.D." Second Edition. 35.
Winfrid, afterwards called Boniface.
A.D. 680-
755. By W. SELWYN, D.D. Fep. 4to. 28.
SINKER (R.) The Characteristic Differences between the
Books of the New Testament and the immediately preceding Jewish,
and the immediately succeeding Christian Literature, considered as an
evidence of the Divine Authority of the New Testament. Br R.
SINKER, M.A., Librarian of Trinity College, Cambridge. Small Svo.
3s. 6d.
Testamenta XII Patriarcharum; ad fidem Codicis
Cantabrigiensis edita: accedunt Lectiones Cod, Oxoniensis. The
Testaments of the XII Patriarchs: an attempt to estimate their Historic
and Dogmatic Worth. By R. SINKER, M.A. Small SVO. 7s. 6d.
Testamenta XII Patriarcharum. Appendix con-
taining a collation of the Roman and Patmos MSS., and Bibliographical
Notes. By R. SINKER, M.A., Librarian of Trin. Coll. Small 8vo. 58.
A Catalogue of the Fifteenth Century Printed
Books, in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge. By R. SINKER,
M.A., Librarian of the College. 8vo. 7s. 6d.
SORLEY (W. R.) Jewish Christians and Judaism. A Study
in the History of the First Two Centuries. By W. R. SORLEY, Scholar
of Trinity College, Cambridge; Shaw Fellow of the University of
Edinburgh. Demy 8vo. 48. 6d.
STUDENT'S GUIDE (The) to the University of Cambridge.
Fourth Edition, revised. Part I. Introduction; Expenses; Non-Col-
legiate Students. 2s. 6d. Part II. Mathematical Tripos. 1s. Part III.
Classical Tripos, 1s. Part IV. Theological Examinations. 1s. Part V.
Law. 18. Part VI. Degrees in Medicine and Surgery. 1s. Part VII.
Natural Sciences Tripos. 1s. Part VIII. Moral Sciences Tripos. 1s.
Part IX. Historical, Oriental Triposes; Poll Degree; Local Exams. ls.
"Partly with the view of assisting parents, guardians, school-masters,
and students intending to enter their names at the University-
partly also for the benefit of undergraduates themselves-a very
complete, though concise, volume has just been issued, which
leaves little or nothing to be desired. For lucid arrangement, and
a rigid adherence to what is positively useful, we know of few
manuals that could compete with this Student's Guide. It reflects
no little credit on the University to which it supplies an unpretend-
ing, but complete, introduction.”—Saturday Review.
SWAINSON (C. A.) A Plea for Time in dealing with the
Athanasian Creed. A Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury in anti-
cipation of the Meeting at Lambeth on Dec. 4, 1872. With Postscripts.
By C. A. SWAINSON, D.D., Canon of the Cathedral Church of Chichester,
and Norrisian Professor in the University of Cambridge. Small Svo. 3.
G. Bell and Sons, London.]
12
DEIGHTON, BELL & CO.'S LIST—continued.
SWETE (H. B.) On the Early History of the Doctrine of the
Holy Spirit, with special reference to the Controversies of the Fourth
Century. By H. B. SWETE, B.D., late Fellow and Tutor of Gonville
and Caius College. 8vo. 3s.
On the History of the Doctrine of the Procession
of the Holy Spirit from the Apostolic Age to the death of Charlemagne.
By H. B. SWETE, B.D. 8vo. 7s. 6d.
TAYLOR (C.) The Gospel in the Law.
A Critical Examina-
tion of the Citations from the Old Testament in the New. By CHARLES
TAYLOR, D.D., Master of St. John's College. 8vo. 128.
TERTULLIANI Liber Apologeticus. The Apology of Ter-
tullian. With English Notes and a Preface, intended as an Intro-
duction to the Study of Patristical and Ecclesiastical Latinity. By
H. A. WOODHAM, LL.D. Second Edition, 8vo. 88. 6d.
TREVELYAN (G. O.) The Ladies in Parliament, and other
Pieces. Republished with Additions and Annotations. By G. O.
TREVELYAN, late Scholar of Trinity College, Cambridge. 68. 67.
CONTENTS:-The Ladies in Parliament-Horace at Athens-The
Cambridge Dionysia-The Dawk Bungalow-A Holiday among
some Old Friends.
WEST (J. R.) The Doctrine of the Most Holy Eucharist as
28.
it is contained in the Words of Institution. By the Rev. J. R. WEST,
M.A., Vicar of Wrawby, late Fellow of Clare College. Feap. 8vo.
WHEWELL (Dr.) Elements of Morality, including Polity.
By W. WHEWELL, D.D., formerly Master of Trinity College, Cam-
bridge. Fourth Edition, in 1 vol. 8vo. 15s.
Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy
in England. By the Rev. W. WHEWELL, D.D. New and Improved
Edition, with additional Lectures. Crown 8vo. 8s.
The Additional Lectures are printed separately in Octavo for the con-
venience of those who have purchased the former Edition. 3s. 6d.
Astronomy and General Physics considered
with reference to Natural Theology (Bridgewater Treatise). By W.
WHEWELL, D.D. New Edition, small 8vo. (Uniform with the Aldine
Editions.) 5s.
Sermons preached in the Chapel of Trinity
College, Cambridge. By W. Whewell, D.D. Svo.~ 10s. 6d.
Butler's Three Sermons on Human Nature,
and Dissertation on Virtue. Edited by W. WHEWELL, D.D. With
a Preface and a Syllabus of the Work. Fourth and Cheaper Edition.
Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d.
WILLIS (R.) The Architectural History of Glastonbury
Abbey. By the late R. WILLIS, M.A., F.R.S., late Jacksonian Pro-
fessor. With Illustrations. 8vo. 78. 6d.
WILLIAMS (ROWLAND). Rational Godliness. After the Mind
of Christ and the Written Voices of the Church. By the late RowLAND
WILLIAMS, D.D., late Prof. of Hebrew at Lampeter. Crn. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
WOOD (W.S.) An Eastern Afterglow, or the Present Aspects
of Sacred Scenery. By W. S. WOOD, M.A., Fellow of St. John's
College, Cambridge. 8vo. 16s.
WORDSWORTH (C.) Social Life at the English Universities
in the Eighteenth Century. By CHR. WORDSWORTH, B.A., late Fellow
of St. Peter's College, formerly Scholar of Trinity College. 15s.
CAMBRIDGE: DEIGHTON, BELL AND CO.
LONDON: GEORGE BELL AND SONS.

- ;
3 9015 00695 4302

દર મૂકવા જો