EARLY HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH FROM ITS FOUNDATION TO THE END OF THE FIFTH CENTURY. VOLUME 2

He had not the slightest idea of receiving apostates to communion without penitence; but in his judgment on particular cases, and in his estimate of the amends to be made, h6 gave evidence of a certain compassion for the sinners, as well as a certain eagerness to fill up the ranks of his Church, considerably thinned by so many apostasies. The opposition which he foresaw,¹ when publishing his tariff of penance, was not slow in manifesting itself. A bishop of Upper Egypt, Meletius of Lycopolis, well known for his uncompromising severity, protested with considerable vigour, declaring that such a course was inopportune, that, before holding out a welcoming hand to the apostates, the end of the persecution should be waited for, and that then severe conditions should be imposed upon them. He did not go so far, as Novatian had done half a century earlier, as to deny to the fallen any hope of being restored to the communion of the Church. Between him and Bishop Peter there were only questions of degrees and of the proper amount of penance. But they were sufficient to lead to extremities.

After the short respite, which the Bishop of Alexandria had wrongly imagined to be the dawn of real peace, persecution was revived in the East Peter concealed himself again, and his representatives in the "great city" did the same. Meletius travelled through Egypt, went from church to church, stirring up agitation upon the question of penance, and intruding himself to perform ordinations, in place of the Pastors whom the persecution kept in separation from their flocks, and of those whom they had chosen to fulfil their duties. He even ordained bishops, without any respect for the rights of the metropolitan, Peter, who alone had authority in such matters. He thus drew down upon himself a severe letter from four of his colleagues, Hesychius, Pacomius, Theodore, and Phileas, then imprisoned together in Alexandria.²The Bishop of Thmuis and his three companions died soon after. Nevertheless, the unmanageable Bishop of

1 Nachrichten, 1905, p. 168.

2 Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. x., p. 1565.

Lycopolis persisted in his attitude. He came to Alexandria, where he held communication with two ambitious teachers, Isidore and Arius¹—the latter an ascetic, the other of more easy morals²—who disclosed to him the place of concealment of the bishop's vicars. Meletius had the audacity to replace them ; and chose, for that purpose, two confessors, one of whom was in prison, and the other at the mines, circumstances calculated to win for them respect but not to facilitate the exercise of their ministry.

Peter, being soon informed of these vagaries, pronounced an excommunication against the Bishop of Lycopolis, which was to last until a fuller examination of the circumstances could be made. However, Meletius was arrested and sent to the mines of Phaeno, where he found various persons of his own way of thinking, among them another Egyptian bishop, called Peleus. They sowed discord among the Christians of their own country who were working in this prison. These unfortunate beings, after labouring all day long, spent their nights in anathematizing one another. When they were released, in 311, their quarrels were not made up. They returned to Egypt, with their hearts embittered, less against their persecutors than against their brethren who did not share their opinions. The martyrdom of Bishop Peter did not extinguish these angry feelings.³ His successors were restored in the possession of the churches; an opposition to them was started in conventicles, which were called " churches of the martyrs "—a strange title, for, after all, Phileas and his companions, and Bishop Peter himself, credited with being the patrons of apostates, had laid down their lives for the faith; while Meletius, on his return from the mines, ended by dying in his bed.

1 Perhaps the celebrated heretic.

2 Moribus turbulentus, according to the Latin version.

3 Athanasius, Apol. adv. Ar. 59, says that Meletius was condemned in synod by Peter of Alexandria, for various misdeeds and for having sacrificed, ewl 0v<ria,. This last imputation is very improbable. It was not brought forward, or at least was not proved, before the Council of Nicsea, which, if this had been the case, would not have extended to Meletius such lenient conditions.

f. loifi]

THE DONATISTS

The schism continued; it ended in the establishment of an opposition hierarchy, which spread throughout the whole of Egypt, and lasted for one or two generations. We shall soon meet with it again.

3. The Donatist Schism.

Africa also was sorely troubled by schism ; things even went considerably farther there than in Egypt.¹ As a consequence of the abdication of Maximian in 305, the African provinces came under the imperial jurisdiction of the Caesar Severus. It was not without difficulty that Maxentius succeeded in obtaining recognition in that country. The vicarius of Africa, Alexander, vacillated between the "tyrant" of Rome and the other emperors, legitimate but remote. He ended by quarrelling with Maxentius; and, to extricate himself from the difficulties of his position, proclaimed himself emperor in 308. This African reign lasted three years; Maxentius put an end to it in 311, before engaging in his own war against Constantine. His praetorian prefect, Rufius Volusianus, sailed from Italy and overcame Alexander, who was taken prisoner and executed.

The persecution seems to have been quickly over in Africa. When the churches had been destroyed, and the Scriptures burnt (dies tvaditionis, 303), when, for more than a year (304), Christians had been hunted out to compel them to offer incense (dies thurificationis), the government began to leave them comparatively in peace. It was possible for them to assemble in secret without incurring very much danger, and even to provide for the replacing of their bishops who had disappeared. This is what took place at Cirta, in the spring of the year 305 : about ten bishops² met together there in a private house,

1 Upon the documents with regard to this affair, see my memoir, " Le dossier du Donatisme," in the Melanges of the School of Rome, vol. x., 1890.

2 Council of Cirta, formal record read at the conference of 411 (iii. 351-355; 387-400; 408-432; 45²-47o; Aug. Brev. iii. 27,31-33). St Augustine gives a long fragment of it {Adv. Cresc. iii. 30); cf. Ep.

to give a successor to Bishop Paul. The latter, as we learn from the formal record of the seizure of his church, drawn up in 303, had not been a hero. And this was the case with the majority of the persons present. The president of the assembly, Secundus of Tigisi, the senior of the Numidian bishops, conceived the idea, quite praiseworthy in itself, of making enquiries as to the conduct of his colleagues. One of them had refused to burn incense, but, the year before, he had been a traditor; another had thrown the Four Gospels into the fire; others had given up various books to the police, but not the Scriptures. With regard to Purpurius, Bishop of Limata, many damaging rumours were in circulation ; he was accused of having killed two' of his sister's children. He was certainly not at all an estimable person, and his temper was very violent. He was in a great rage with Secundus, who became frightened, cut short his investigations, and passed a general condemnation upon the sins of his brother bishops.

He was not himself above suspicion. It was known that he had been called upon by the curator and the municipality to give up the sacred books; but how he got out of it was less clear. Purpurius, quick of tongue, did not hesitate to tell him so to his face. As for Secundus, he had his own version of the occurrence.¹ To the messengers of the curator, he had replied majestically : " I am a Christian and a Bishop ; I am not a traditor." When still pressed to give up at least something, however small its value, he had equally refused.

It was in this way that he explained the matter to Mensurius of Carthage,² about the time of the meeting at Cirta. Mensurius had written to him—it is not known to what effect—perhaps to consult with him as to the measures

43, 3 ; Contra litt. Petiliani, i. 23 ; De unico bapt. 31 ; Ad Donatistas, 18 ; Contra Gaudentium, i. 47, etc.; Optatus, De schism, i. 14.

1 Aug. Brev. Coll. iii. 25.

2 The letters of Mensurius and Secundus, read at the conference of 411 (iii. 334-343 ; Brev. iii. 25, 27), are also quoted by St Augustine, Ad Don. 18 ; De unico bapt. 29 ; Contra Gaud. i. 47.

r. KW]

MENSURIUS OF CARTHAGE

to be taken after the persecution. The Bishop of Carthage related in his letter how cleverly he had evaded the search and substituted heretical works for the Holy Scriptures.^{^[57]}He spoke also of certain enthusiasts, whom no one asked to give up the Scriptures, but who went to the police, of their own accord, boasting that they possessed the sacred books, and proclaiming that they would never give them up. The ill-treatment they thus drew upon themselves did not at all recommend them to the bishop, who forbade any honour to be paid them. He was not less severe with regard to certain Christians of evil repute, notorious criminals or public debtors, who found during the persecution a respectable way of putting themselves right, gaining an honourable reputation, and even living comfortably in prison, where the generosity of the faithful enabled them to amass a little fortune for themselves.

We know from other documents that Mensurius, whose clever evasions could scarcely have been known to the public, passed at Carthage as a traditor, and that, if the opinion of lax Christians ignored this, he was severely condemned in the prisons, where the confessors were suffering pain and misery while awaiting the last penalty. Mensurius had thought it necessary to interfere actively in restraining the zeal of the faithful. His deacon Caecilian, who was charged with this office, necessary perhaps according to the bishop's ideas, but in any case odious, was accustomed to lay wait for persons at the approaches to the prisons and to intercept the food which was being carried thither. The martyrs retaliated to these harsh measures by the excommunication : " He who is in communion with traditores, shall have no part with us in the Kingdom of Heaven."²

We see, then, that in Carthage the situation was somewhat strained. Once more, as in the time of Decius, the
coBfessors were in conflict with their bishop; and Mensurius was not Cyprian. The senior bishop of Numidia, who was well acquainted with the position of affairs, replied to his colleague by extolling the grand examples given in his own province, the severity of the persecution, the resistance it had met with, the courage of the martyrs who had refused to give up the Holy Scriptures and, on that account, had suffered death. They had a worthy claim to the honour they received. He also spoke of his own conduct, in the terms quoted above. This letter strongly reminds us of the one which Cyprian received from the Roman clergy, after the first days of persecution.^{^[58]} The result was that a certain agreement of view was very soon arrived at between the Numidian episcopate and the most zealous Christians of Carthage, especially with regard to their estimate of Bishop Mensurius and his attitude. The consequences were not slow to disclose themselves.

Among the persons compromised in the " usurpation " of Alexander, and diligently sought for, when the Maxentian reaction ensued, was a certain deacon, Felix, accused of having written a pamphlet against Maxentius ; he took refuge with the bishop. Being called upon to give him up, Mensurius refused.^{^[59]} His position in Carthage must have been an important one, for the proconsul did not feel competent to proceed on his own authority. He sent a report to the emperor, who ordered that, if Mensurius persisted, he was to be sent to Rome. The bishop was actually put on board, pleaded his own cause, and gained it. Obtaining permission to return home, he died before arriving at Carthage.

As soon as the death of Mensurius became known, immediate steps were taken to proceed to the election of his successor. The deacon Caecilian was elected. Three bishops from the neighbourhood of Carthage,^{^[60]} Felix of

p. 106]

CONSECRATION OF CiECILIAN

Aptonga and two others, took part in his ordination. Nothing could have been more regular. But, unfortunately, Caecilian was seriously compromised in the eyes of the fanatics. Like the deceased bishop, he was to them a traditor, an enemy of the saints, an ecclesiastical persecutor. An opposition party was formed at once. Two priests, Botrus and Celestius, were ostensibly at the head of it. It was afterwards related that, before his departure for Italy, Mensurius, anxious about the treasures of his Church, had entrusted a large number of valuable things to two old men, and that, without informing them of the fact, he had also given to an old woman a document mentioning this deposit, with an inventory of the treasures. If any misfortune were to happen to the bishop, she was to wait until his successor was installed, and then to hand over the document to him. She did so, and this greatly annoyed the trustees, who had made up their minds to be unfaithful, and transformed them into enemies of Caecilian. But his most formidable adversary was Lucilla, a lady of high rank, very devout, rich, and influential, of a quarrelsome disposition,¹ and an old enemy of the archdeacon, who, even before the persecution, had opposed her practices of devotion.² She seized the opportunity of doing him an ill turn. We know what people of this kind are capable of.

The opposition party organized itself, refused to recognize Caecilian, and invoked the support of the Numidian bishops, with whom they had long been on friendly terms. One of these prelates, Donatus of Casae Nigrae, had been staying for some time in Carthage ; even

nos quoque et per provincias universas tenetur ut ad ordinationes rite celebrandas ad earn plebcm cui praepositus ordinatur cpiscopi ejusdem provinciaeproximi quiquc conveniant (Ep. lxvii. 5). In Rome also, it was the Bishop of Ostia, assisted^ by several neighbouring prelates, who consecrated the Pope.

1 Potens et factiosa femina.

2 She was accustomed, at communion, before drinking from the chalice, to kiss a bone which, she said, had belonged to a martyr— who in any case had not been recognized as such (•vindicatus) by the Church of Carthage.

before Caecilian's ordination, he had openly professed xhe greatest dislike for him, and had already held aloof. In these early days of the struggle he played an important part. As to the senior bishop, Secundus, he assembled his forces, and hastened to Carthage, to meddle with what was certainly no concern of his.

1'. 108-9] SCHISM iv^AllTMteE

Seventy bishops were thus assembled to wage war against Caecilian. Although he had been regularly installed, they pretended not to consider him a legitimate pastor, and held their meetings outside the ecclesiastical precincts which Maxentius first, and afterwards Constantine, had restored to him. Lucilla and her friends joined them, with all the fanatics and enemies of the acting clergy in Carthage. Caecilian was summoned to appear before them. Naturally, he refused,^{^[61]} not being in any way subject to the jurisdiction of this irregular assembly, whose first duty should have been to recognize him as its head. His case was judged by default. It was decided that Felix of Aptonga, who consecrated him, having been a traditor, his ordination was null and void ; he was also condemned for his attitude, as deacon to Mensurius, with regard to the imprisoned confessors. As at the council of 256, each of the bishops present gave a vote with reasons assigned. Several bishops from the neighbourhood of Carthage were condemned with Caecilian; and first and foremost, Felix of Aptonga; all on the ground that they were guilty of being traditores. Without adjourning, the bishops then elected and ordained, in place of Caecilian, a reader called Majorinus, who belonged to the house of Lucilla. The latter, now finally revenged upon her bishop, did not fail to reward those who had helped her, and sent considerable sums to Numidia.¹

To anyone who really understood the circumstances, this council must have presented a singular spectacle. From authentic documents it is clear that several, and those the most influential, of its members were traditores whose guilt was established ; and that upon others, and upon Secundus himself, rested very grave suspicions in that respect. This did not prevent them from posing as defenders of the saints, full of righteous indignation at the position of Caecilian's consecrator. But their sins were nQt known in Carthage; some ten years had still to elapse before they came to the knowledge of the public. In the eyes of many people at the time, they had the appearance of being upright and zealous judges ; Majorinus was soon surrounded by a powerful party.

However, the churches were in the power of Csecilian. It was he whom the government consulted in all the negotiations relating to the settlement of the last crisis.²In a letter, addressed to him by the emperor,³ Constantine, already acquainted with the divisions in the African Church, invited Csecilian to seek the support of the proconsul Anulinus and the Vicarius Patricius, against those who were the cause of disturbances.

It was then the month of April, 313. One day the proconsul was accosted in the street by a large crowd of persons, the leaders of whom presented him with two documents, one sealed, the other open. The first bore the inscription : " Plaints of the Catholic Church against Caecilian, presented by the party of Majorinus." The other was a brief petition, in the following terms: " We appeal to you, our good Emperor Constantine, for you come of a just race; your father, unlike the other emperors, never practised persecution, and Gaul remained free from that crime. In Africa, quarrels have arisen between us and the other bishops. We implore your

1 Four hundred folles ; nearly sixty thousand francs (,£2,400).

2 Letters in Eusebius, H. E. x. 5, 6, 7.

3 Eusebius, II. E. x. 6.

Thrace, and then to Philippi, with a certain number of priests and deacons. He died shortly afterwards.^{^[100]}

It was not easy to find his successor.^{^[101]} Eustathius had many supporters; he had also bitter enemies, for he had been very severe to the opponents, more or less avowed, of the condemnation of Arius. Antioch was in a state of effervescence ; the curia and the magistrates were divided in their opinions. A little more, and they would have come to blows in the matter. Paulinus, the unattached Bishop of Tyre,^{^[102]} who was a native of Antioch, was for some time at the head of the Church there, perhaps as provisional administrator. He died at the end of six months ; then a certain Eulalius was elected bishop; but his tenure of the see was also short, and the agitation began again. Constantine sent a comes of his personal suite to Antioch, and a comparative calm succeeded ; a great many votes were collected in favour of Eusebius of Caesarea.

i'. 105]

131

THE CHUKCH OF ANTIORl

Eusebius was not at all anxious to leave for the inferno of Antioch his peaceful bishopric and his comfortable library. He protested that the canons of Nicaea, in conformity with sound ecclesiastical usage, forbade the translation of bishops. The emperor commended him much for his modesty and his respect for rules; he signified to the Syrian bishops that they must choose another candidate.^{^[103]} He himself indicated to them two such candidates — Euphronius, a priest of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and George, who was at that time a priest of Arethusa, but who had formerly been ordained, and then deposed, by Alexander of Alexandria.^{^[104]} They decided upon Euphronius. He was a man of the same opinions as Eulalius and Eusebius. The see of Antioch was, therefore, secured for a long time to the adversaries of Council of Nicaea—secret adversaries, of course, for Constantine would never allow it to be attacked openly.

The organizer of this concealed reaction was Eusebius of Nicomedia. His exile had only lasted three years,^{^[105]} and there is no doubt that he and his friend Theognis had already returned at the time when Eustathius was deposed (c. 330). The causes of this return, so big with consequences, are not easily discernible.⁴ A complete change was really brought about in the inclinations of Constantine, with whom, henceforth, Eusebius of Nicomedia appears to have possessed considerable influence.^{^[106]} Not only were the two prelates ^^MHl from exile, but they were also reinstated in their bishoprics, and their temporary successors were ousted.

In Egypt, the aged Bishop Alexander died on April iS, 328.¹ His deacon, Athanasius,² already a very prominent person, both on account of the confidence placed in him by Alexander and the part he had played at Nicasa, was immediately acclaimed as bishop, and consecrated on

from exile. See the discussion in Tillemont, vol. vi., p. 810. On the other hand, it is not easy to explain the origin of this document. Perhaps Socrates may have been deceived with regard to its authors. It would suit well enough Bishops Secundus and Theonas ; in any case, it assumes Arius as rehabilitated by the bishops, an event which only took place in 335.

¹ A passage of St Athanasius (Apol. contra. Ar. 59), in which it is said that Alexander died scarcely five months after the Nicene Council, seems to contradict this date, which is furnished by the Paschal Letters and their Chronicle. On close examination, it seems to me that this interval is indicated as starting, not from the Council of Niccea, but from the reception of the Meletians. Between the decision of Nicfea and the end of the schism in Egypt a certain time may have elapsed, and there is every appearance (vide supra, p. 123), that after the council there were renewed discussions upon this subject. Matters of this kind are always very delicate to arrange. I should allow, then, that the schism may have dragged on until towards the end of 327. Cf. Eusebius, V. C. iii. 23. On the objections made to this date, see Gerhard Loeschcke, Rheinisches Museum, 1906, pp.

45-49² Upon the history of St Athanasius, apart from his Apologies and his History to the Monks, we possess two chronological documents of great importance : the Chronicle of the Festal (Paschal) Letters, and what has been called the Historia acephala. The collection of the Paschal letters of Athanasius has come down to us, in an incomplete form, in a Syriac manuscript. On this text two versions have been made : one in Latin (Mai. Nov.a Patrum Bibliotheca, vol. vi., p. 1 ; Migne, P. G. vol. xxvi., p. 1351)) the other in German (Larsow, Die Festbriefe des heil. Athanasius, 1852); they leave much to be desired. At the head of each letter, various chronological indications are given, as well as the Paschal date ; then, all these chronological prefaces are repeated in another recension, and united at the head of the collection of letters. In this other recension, which has come down to us entire, appear, here and there, historical notes. The Historia acephala was first published by Maffei, from a Latin collection of canons preserved at Verona (Veronensis 60), the collection p. 1G7-8] Till: CHURCH OF ALEXANDRIA 133

June y} " He is an upright man and a virtuous, a good Christian, an ascetic, a real bishop ! " Such were the cries of the multitude. We must notice his description as ascetic. It secured for Athanasius, destined as he was for so much strife, the support of the Egyptian solitaries, who now began to be a religious power in that country. But his greatest source of strength lay in his own character. In addition to his gifts as an experienced pastor, God had endowed him with a clear intellect, and a wide vision of Christian tradition, of current events, and of men; and with all this, he possessed a character of absolutely undaunted courage, tempered by perfect sweetness of manner, but incapable of weakening before anything or anybody. The orthodoxy of Nicaea had found its representative. Already threatened at this time, it was soon to pass through many terrible crises. At certain times, it seemed to have no other support but Athanasius. But that was enough. Athanasius had against him the empire, its police, the councils, and the episcopate: the parties were still equally balanced, while such a man stood firm.

He was neither an unlettered man, nor a professional scholar. At the time when he was elected bishop, he had

known as that of the deacon Theodosius (Migne, P. G. vol. xxvi., p. 1443 ; there is a much better edition by BatifFol, in the Melanges Cabrieres, vol. i., '1899, p. xoo). It is clear, and Mgr. Batiffol has established the fact (Byzantinische Zeitschrift, vol. x., 1901, p. 130 et seq.), that other parts of the Theodosian collection join on to the fragment of Maffei, and, like that, are derived from a sort of apologetic dossier, drawn up at the instigation of Athanasius, in 367, and then continued until his death. Mgr. Batiffol has proposed (Byz. Zeitschr., I. c.) to identify this dossier with the Synodicon of Athanasius, mentioned by Socrates (i. 13) ; this is very disputable. Upon these two documents, see E. Schwartz, Zur Geschichte des Athanasius, in the Gottingen Nachrichten, 1904, p. 333 et seq.

¹ His enemies dared, later on, to raise difficulties with regard to bis election. They are refuted by the Egyptian Council of 340 (Athan. Apol. contra. Ar. 6), which quoted a letter addressed to the emperors by the opposition party ; doubtless the same letter which Sozomen saw (ii. 17). It was a matter of course that Athanasius did not have the votes of the supporters of Arius, of Meletius, and other schismatics.

already published two books of apologetics,¹ r^BH<ably well put together and admirably clear. But he willingly left toothers the task of unravelling philosophical enigmas, or exploring the secrets of learning. It was enough for him to know how to write, and not to lose the documents which interested him. From this talent and this care his enemies fared ill.

The struggle soon commenced. By the beginning of the year 330, Athanasius found himself already at variance with his flock, an estrangement due to the ill-will of the " heretics." He complains of this in his Paschal charge, but without specifying the particular intrigues which were troubling him. The little Meletian Church had joined forces with Bishop Alexander, on the conditions laid down by the Nicene Council. But on Alexander's death ²it did not come to terms with Athanasius, and disagreements made themselves felt. The head of the party, after the death of Meletius, was a certain John Arkaph, Bishop of Memphis. The supporters whom Arius had left in Alexandria also began to agitate. At the beginning of 331, when Athanasius had to write the pastoral letter,³ by which the Bishops of Alexandria were accustomed to announce the Feast of Easter, he again found himself estranged from his flock and once more on account of the " heretics."⁴ Athanasius imposed conditions for their return to the Church which seemed to them extreme. Eusebius

1 The two treatises, Kad' 'EWrjvwv and nepi evavOpwrrria-eui. In the first, he shows the emptiness of paganism ; in the other, he presents the justification of Christianity ; the authenticity of these books has only been disputed on worthless grounds.

2 Five months after the reconciliation, according to Athanasius {Apol. contra Ar. 59), which must, therefore, have taken place towards the end of the year 327. Between the close of the Nicene Council and the reunion of the Meletians there was an interval of about two years.

3 Letter No. 3. The chronicle at the head of these letters says that Athanasius sent this letter during his journey from the court (,comitates) to Alexandria ; but there must be some confusion, on this subject, between the letter of 331 and that of 332.

4 Toi>? irepl "Kpeiov, says St Athanasius {Joe. cit.) ; the reference here cannot be to Arius himself and his companions in exile.

p. 169-170] ATIIANASIUS AND THE MELETIANS 135

of NKmedia encouraged them fromHIis distant diocese, and sent to the young bishop written remonstrances and verbal threats. He contrived to induce Constantine to order Athanasius to readmit to communion all those who desired it, under penalty of being himself banished from Alexandria.¹ Whether these threats were beginning to be executed, or some outbreak warned him to withdraw himself for a short time, it is certain that he was obliged to leave his episcopal city. He wrote to the emperor in justification of his attitude; but the Meletians at once entered the lists. Three of their bishops, Ision, Eudaemon, and Callinicus,² set out for the court to complain of Athanasius. He had, they said, imposed upon the Egyptians, a tribute of linen shirts. Two of his own priests, Apis and Macarius, who happened to be at court, refuted this accusation ; but the emperor commanded the bishop to appear before him. Two other accusations were then brought forward. The priest Macarius, acting upon the responsibility of his bishop, had broken a chalice during a pastoral visitation in Mareotis. And Athanasius himself had sent a large sum of money to a certain Philomenus, a person suspected of evil intentions towards the emperor's person. This last accusation was specially grave.

Athanasius had in Nicomedia one powerful and faithful friend, the praetorian prefect, Ablavius. He was able to justify himself: his accusers were driven from court, and he himself, after suffering from the inclement winter, was able to return to Alexandria before the Easter of 332.2

1Athanasius (Apol. contra Ar. 59) has preserved for us a fragment of this imperial letter ; he says that it was brought to him by the " palatines," Syncletius and Gaudentius. If this is not a lapsus memoriae, we must allow that these officers took the same journey twice, for later on we shall find them the bearers of other imperial letters.

2 Apol contra Ar. 60. Cf. Festal Letter No. 4 ; in this document, he adds to the three other accusers "the ridiculous Hieracammon, who, ashamed of his name, calls himself Eulogius."

3 The Chronicle of the Festal Letters, which advances this journey by a year, mentions a very singular cause for it ; the enemies of Athanasius had accused him of having been made a bishop when too young. That is all that it knows of in the way of accusations. Our best plan is to trust to the Apology against the Arians.

He brougttgwith him a letter from the emperor, in^hich, after a long homily on concord, were to be found a few words of commendation in reference to the bishop, while no definite censure was inflicted on his accusers.¹Athanasius reassumed the government of his Church and the usual course of his visitations as metropolitan.²

During all this time, Constantine still maintained, not only his fidelity to the Nicene Council, but also his absolute repudiation of Arius, his adherents, and his sympathizers. What he wanted in the East was a Christianity at once peaceful and uniform. Shortly after the deposition of Eustathius, he published an edict³commanding severe measures to be taken against the dissenters of long standing, Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulianists, Montanists, and in general against all heretics, forbidding their assemblies and confiscating their places of worship. In 332 or 333, Syncletius and Gaudentius, officials of the imperial secretariat (magistriani), brought to Alexandria two letters from the emperor, addressed, one to the bishops and the faithful,⁴ the other to Arius and the Arians.⁵

The latter, that to the Arians, which was of considerable length, was officially read at the palace of the prefect, whose name at that time was Paterius. It is a very strange document; if its authenticity were not guaranteed by so many outward indications, we should scarcely believe that so violent an invective against an unhappy exile could ever have been written by any sovereign, or in his name. But there is no room for doubt. We learn, in consequence, that at this time Constantine was still as hostile as possible to all those who had caused trouble in the Church of Alexandria, and throughout the Eastern empire. However, at the end, after threatening the heretics with certain penalties of a pecuniary character in

1 Apol. contra Ar. 61, 62.

2 In 329-330, he visited the Thebaid ; in 331-332, the Libyan provinces (Pentapolis, the oasis of Ammon) ; in 333-334? Lower Egypt (<Chronicle of the Festal Letters).

3 V. C. iii. 64, 65.

4 Tews irovr)povs ... ⁵ Ka/cos epfirjvfvs . . .

137

P. 172]

CONSTAJwTNE AND Am lis

case they obstinately continued to support Arius, he addressed himself directly to the latter, inviting him to come and explain his position to the " man of God," as he styled himself.

Arius required pressing before he would comply. He had sources of information at court. The ex-Empress Constantia,¹ widow of Licinius, was well disposed to the protigts of her old friend, Eusebius of Nicomedia. She died about this time; but before her death she recommended to her brother, the emperor, a priest who was in her confidence.² This priest speedily suggested that Arius was not so far from accepting the doctrines of Nicaea as was generally believed. The emperor allowed himself to be convinced, and repeated his invitation in less hostile terms.

Arius came, with Euzoius, one of his companions in exile. He had an interview with Constantine, and at last succeeded in satisfying him by giving him a profession of faith, which, though vague, was comparatively orthodox, and capable of being reconciled with the Creed of Nicaea.³The emperor declared himself satisfied with it. He imagined that, henceforth, everyone being in agreement, nothing more remained to be done than to restore Arius and his followers to communion with the Bishop of Alexandria. But this Athanasius refused,⁴ a refusal which could not fail to be displeasing in high places.

1 Here we are reduced to a narrative by Rufinus, i. II, reproduced by Socrates, i. 25, and Sozomen, ii. 27. Cf. p. 131 of this volume, note 4.

2 Gelasius of Cyzicus (iii. 12) has preserved his name ; he was called Eutocius.

3 This was the beginning of it: "We believe in one God, Father, Almighty, and in the Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, born (ye-yevrintvov) of Him before all ages, God the Word, by Whom everything has been made. . . ." The phrase avroD yeyevqfxtvov, taking account of the synonymy which still prevailed between yevt)T6% and y€wr)T6i_} might be considered as equivalent to £k r^y roO ITar/sds ov<rtas. It certainly excluded creation ex nihilo. The Nicene homoousios is not pronounced, but Arianism is practically excluded.

4 Apol. conira Ar. 59. We are tempted to regret this refusal, when we think of what followed.

The intrigues began again. The story of the broken chalice was revived. This chalice, it was alleged, belonged to a priest, one Ischyras, who had a church in Mareotis. There was actually in those parts a certain Ischyras who had been ordained in former days by Kolluthus, but whose ordination had not been recognized as valid, so that the people of Mareotis would not allow him to exercise his ministry, and he confined himself to officiating in his own family. It was alleged that Athanasius had caused his altar to be overturned, and had broken his chalice. The truth of the matter was that, when the representatives of the bishop went to visit Ischyras, they found him ill and confined to his bed ; there could have been no opportunity for disturbing any form of Divine Service. When Ischyras returned to a better state of mind, he certified in writing that he knew nothing of the whole story. Athanasius was also accused of having put to death a Meletian bishop, Arsenius of Hypsele, after having caused his hand to be cut off. This Arsenius was afterwards found alive and in possession of both his hands. The Meletians had hidden him in a monastery, but Athanasius managed to discover his hiding-place. Arsenius, like Ischyras, asked pardon in writing. It was time, for Constantine had already instructed his half- brother, the censor Delmatius, to hold a criminal investigation in the matter. The trial was abandoned ; a synod which had been summoned in this connection, and had already assembled at Caesarea in Palestine, was also countermanded, after a long delay. The Bishop of Alexandria received a fresh letter from the emperor, couched in more explicit terms, against the intriguers who had tried unsuccessfully to ruin him. It was now the year 334.¹

¹ Documents relating to this affair are to be found in the Afiol. contra Ar: (1) Retractation of Ischyras (c. 64), presented to Athanasius in the presence of six priests and seven deacons ; (2) Letter of Pinnes, a priest of the monastery of Ptemencyris, in the Anteopolitan nome, to John Arkaph (c. 67); (3) Letter of Arsenius to Athanasius (c. 69); (4) Letter of Constantine to Athanasius, To?s irapa ryjs aijs . . . (c. 68); (5) Letter of Alexander of Thessalonica to Athanasius (c. 66) ;

Letter of Constantine to John Arkaph (c. 70).

p. 171-5] CONST A NT INK'S TRICENNA LI A

John Arkaph, the archbishop of the Meletians, had become temporarily reconciled to Athanasius, and was congratulated upon the fact by the emperor, who invited him to court. It was a fatal inspiration. The Meletian chief fell into bad company at court. In the following year (335), the whole business was on the point of beginning again. The Meletians were once more at variance with Athanasius, and leagued in their opposition to him with the Arians and their protectors.

The time was drawing near when the emperor would enter upon the thirtieth year of his reign. He resolved to celebrate this event by a great religious festival, the dedication of the basilica of the Holy Sepulchre, which was at last completed. A great number of bishops were summoned to assist at the ceremony. It was suggested to Constantine that this would be a good opportunity for finally putting an end to the Egyptian dissensions, so continually renewed, and for settling them by an episcopal decision. This had already been contemplated in the preceding year; since the emperor's solution of these affairs had not succceded in restoring peace, it was quite natural that the idea of a council should again be taken up. Was it not much to be desired that, before celebrating this festival at Jerusalem, the ministers of the Lord should first be reconciled with one another? The emperor adopted this idea, and the city of Tyre was proposed as a meeting-place. All the enemies of Athanasius in the whole empire arranged to be present, hoping to obtain at Tyre their revenge for the abortive Council of Caesarea, and to find means of getting rid of the troublesome Bishop of Alexandria. An imperial letter¹ exhorted the council to fulfil its task of peacemaker, assuring it that the resources of the government would ensure that all those whose presence would be useful should appear before it. This assurance referred especially to Athanasius. He was invited to be present, and threatened with compulsion if he refused. The priest Macarius was brought to Tyre, loaded with chains. A ¹ Eusebius, V. C. iv. 42.

high official, Count Dionysius, was sent on a special mission to the council.

Athanasius submitted.¹ Knowing well that he was going to appear before a meeting of his enemies, he took with him about fifty Egyptian bishops. But, as these had not been summoned, their names did not appear amongst the judges.² These had been chosen with care. Not one of the enemies of Athanasius. was absent. Even two young Pannonian bishops were there, Ursacius of Singidunum (Belgrade) and Valens of Mursa (Eszeg), two disciples of Arius himself, who had taken advantage of his exile to recruit adherents in those distant countries. The Bishop of Antioch, Flaccillus, was present, and also Eusebius of Caesarea, very much irritated at the failure of the council the year before. Several other prelates, either neutral or even fairly well disposed towards Athanasius, such as Alexander of Thessalonica, had also been invited. But the majority and the management of the whole affair were secured for the adversaries of the Bishop of Alexandria.

No question of doctrine was raised.³ The Arians and their party did not take part in the proceedings, as such : the whole issue was between Athanasius and the Meletians. The Meletians had a cause of complaint against him which dated back to the time of his election : the bishops who took part in it had agreed not to ordain anyone before their differences had been arranged.⁴ The ordination took

1 His departure for Tyre took place on July 10, 335.

2 According to Socrates, the council comprised (apart from the Egyptians) about sixty members.

3 Sozomen (i. 25) had before him the "acts" of this council; and what he derives from them is very important. Athanasius' version of the facts is given in the Afiol. contra Ar., in which we find first an account of some length, contained in a letter from the Council of Alexandria in 340 (cc. 3-19), then another account by Athanasius himself (cc. 71-87), which contains several contemporary documents. We must not neglect the version of the other side, which we know through the synodal epistle of the Council of the Easterns at Sardica (Hilary, Frag. hist. iii. 6, 7) in 343. This document agrees fairly well with the summary of the "acts" given by Sozomen.

P. 177]

141

COUNCIL OF TYRE, 335

4 At the time of the election, the Meletians were reconciled to the place without any regard being paid to this agreement; and therefore they had separated themselves from communion with the newly-consecrated bishop. To force their return, he had employed violent measures, and in particular imprisonment. Five Meletian bishops, Euplus, Pacomius, Achillas, Isaac, and Hermaeon, accused him of having caused them to be beaten with rods; Ischyras, again changing sides, had joined the Meletians; he complained that his chalice had been broken, and his chair overthrown ; Athanasius had cast him into prison several times, and had calumniated him to the prefect Hyginus, alleging that he had thrown stones at the emperor's statues. Callinicus, the (Meletian) Bishop of Pelusium, having renounced communion with him on account of Ischyras' chalice, Athanasius had deposed him and replaced him by another. Arsenius was again spoken of. And finally, a memorandum was read of the popular outcries raised by persons at Alexandria, who refused to enter the churches on account of the bishop. In fine, what he was reproached for, was the strong measures he had considered himself obliged to take against those of the Meletian party who had relapsed.

Athanasius succeeded in justifying himself with regard to certain points; as to others, he asked for delay. Arsenius was still living, and owing to this fact the worst of the accusations fell to the ground. The council fixed upon the affair of Ischyras, the interrupted religious service and the broken chalice. An enquiry was decided upon. Athanasius offered no opposition to this, but he objected to his most notorious enemies being entrusted with the investigations.

These were exactly the persons who were chosen, not during a general meeting, but in a private conference. Moreover, as Ischyras claimed to be the head of a Meletian Church in Mareotis, and as everyone knew that Mareotis did not contain a single Meletian, the chiefs of this sect sent recruiters throughout Egypt to collect a group of

' Great Church.' It can only be a question here of secondary quarrels, proceeding, however, from the previous separation.

parishioners for him. All these intrigues awakened a protest, not only on the part of the Egyptian prelates, who rallied faithfully around their Pope,^{^[107]} but also from the Bishop of Thessalonica, a highly-respected old man, and from Count Dionysius himself, who held a similar position in this council to that which Constantine had held at the Council of Nicaea. But all protest proved useless; the high commissioner had his hand forced, and the commission set out for Egypt. The enquiry was concerned with the evidence of only one side. Not only was the priest Macarius, who was directly implicated, detained at Tyre, but not a single member of the Athanasian clergy, whether belonging to Alexandria or to Mareotis, was allowed to take part in it. On the other hand, the prefect of Egypt, Philagrius, lent his assistance to the commissioners sent by the council, and conducted matters with so high a hand that they succeeded in obtaining the depositions they wished. The commission of enquiry returned to Tyre with an overwhelming mass of evidence.^{^[108]}

As to the affair of Arsenius, which appeared at first to be going contrary to the accusers of Athanasius, they explained it by saying that a certain Plusianus, a bishop of the party of Athanasius, had, by his orders, burnt the house of Arsenius, caused him to be tied to a pillar and beaten, and then shut him up in a small hovel. Arsenius had escaped through a window, and had succeeded in concealing himself so well that the bishops of John Arkaph's party, regretting the disappearance of a man so distinguished and also a former confessor of the faith, had p. 179-80] DEPOSITION OF ATHANASIUS 143

believed him to be dead, and Rid ca^fcd a search to be made for him by the authorities.^{^[109]} It was therefore quite excusable that they should have been mistaken.

The proceedings were taking an unfavourable turn for Athanasius. His enemies cried out upon him as a sorcerer, a brutal ruffian, and declared him unfit to be a bishop. Such a tumult arose against the accused at the hearing that the officials present were obliged to get him away secretly. He himself understood that no good could be expected from such judges, and he embarked for Constantinople. The council pronounced sentence of deposition against him in his absence, and forbade him to remain in Egypt. On the other hand, it admitted John Arkaph and his followers to communion, considering them as victims of an unjust persecution, and reinstated them in their ecclesiastical positions. Formal intimation of these decisions was sent to the emperor, to the Church of Alexandria, and to the episcopate in general. The bishops were entreated to have nothing more to do with Athanasius; he had been convicted upon every point which the council had been able to discuss; as to the others, his flight proved that he did not feel himself in a position to make any defence. Already, during the preceding year, he had refused to appear before the Council of Caesarea; this time, he had come, but surrounded by a numerous and turbulent escort. Sometimes he had refused to defend himself, sometimes he insulted the other bishops, refused to appear before them, and challenged their decision. His guilt in the affair of Mareotis had been established.

fifteenth year. In the course of the summer they all three met at Viminacium, on the banks of the Danube, and agreed together to allow Constans to inherit all the provinces left without a ruler by the death of Delmatius. Thus, the youngest of the three princes was the best provided for; however, Constantine II. claimed a sort of guardianship over him. All three assumed the title of Augustus on September 9, 337.

The sons of Constantine had been brought up in the Christian faith. Their interest was soon excited by religious questions. They agreed together to grant permission to all the exiled bishops to return to their flocks. In its wide extent, this measure of clemency was not without inconvenient consequences. Several of the recalled prelates had already been provided with successors : all had left behind them supporters and opponents; and their reinstatement gave rise to disturbances. This was the case in Adrianople, Constantinople, Ancyra, and Gaza.¹A few days after the death of his father,^{^[125]} Constantine II. had set Athanasius free,and had written to the " Catholic" Church of Alexandria to announce this fact, and to say that the step was only the fulfilment of the wishes of the late emperor. At Viminacium Athanasius met Constantius, the prince with whom henceforward he had specially to deal. Constantius, notwithstanding his youth, was a stiff and solemn person, of overwhelming vanity. He could not have been specially pleased to see the return of a man who, for ten years, had had the reputation in the East of a sower of trouble. It was perhaps on account of his ill-will that Athanasius was so long on his homeward journey. Bishop and prince met again at Caesarea in Cappadocia. Athanasius took good care not to speak to the emperor of his adversaries, Eusebius of Nicomedia and others. On his way to Egypt he was more than once mixed up with the quarrels provoked by the return
of the exiles. Later on, he was accused of taking a prominent part in their reinstallation, and even of ordaining new bishops in place of those already in possession.^{^[126]}At Alexandria the conflict had already begun, even before his arrival, and the authorities were obliged to intervene.^{^[127]}At length Athanasius re-entered the city, on November 23, 337,^{^[128]} after an absence of more than two years.

His enemies took care not to leave him in peace there. Eusebius of Nicomedia was in high favour with the new sovereign of the East. He could not allow his revenge to be snatched from his grasp nor the decisions of the Council of Tyre to be lightly regarded. Athanasius, it was true, had been warmly welcomed by his faithful flock, and his popularity in Egypt was great. It would have been more prudent not to continue the attack on this energetic man, so fertile in resource. But was it possible to think of yielding? "Let us rather annihilate everything: such is the Church's spirit," thought the aged Eusebius, like Boileau's canon.

157

p. 197]

RpUItN OF ATHANjglUS

The firsf measures adopted were of a very elumsy character. The supporters of Arius, even before the death of their master, formed at Alexandria a well- organized group whom the excommunications of Athanasius kept excluded from the Great Church. It was decided ^{^[129]} that they should be given a bishop of their own, and that an effort should be made to secure his recognition abroad as the legitimate head of the Church of Alexandria. With this end in view, they chose one of the earliest converts to Arianism, Pistus, formerly a priest in Mareotis, who had been deposed, at the same time as Arius himself, by Bishop Alexander. Secundus, the ex-Bishop of Ptolemais, condemned at the same time as he was, ordained him on the spot.^{^[130]} Everyone pretended to look upon Pistus as a brother, to conduct a considerable correspondence with him; and letters were written to various bishops, in order to induce them to enter into communion with him.^{^[131]} His friends even addressed themselves to Pope Julius, to whom a deputation was sent consisting of a priest named Macarius, with two deacons, Hesychius and Martyrius. These persons brought to Rome records of the proceedings of the Council of Tyre, in order to make it clear that Athanasius, having been deposed in due form, could no longer be regarded as Bishop of Alexandria.

Athanasius replied to this attack by a synodal letter of all the Egyptian bishops : the story of the Council of Tyre was there related from his point of view, and thoroughly sifted; at the same time, the existing position of affairs was described, the unanimity of the Egyptian episcopate, the reduction of the opposition, as usual, to the Meletian clergy and some few of Pistus' flock. Some Alexandrian priests set out for Italy with this document. They were the bearers of letters not only to the Pope, but also to the

Emperors Constantine II. and Constans, with whom attempts were being made to damage the credit of Athanasius. It was alleged that his return had not been well received at Alexandria, and that the opposition of the people had had to be forcibly overcome by the police; that he was selling, for his own profit, the corn which the emperors were wont to entrust to the Bishop of Alexandria for distribution to the poor of Egypt and of Libya.¹ These innuendoes had been brought to the notice previously of Constantius himself, the more effectually to prejudice him.

It was about this time that Eusebius of Nicomedia, having succeeded for the second time in driving from Constantinople the unfortunate Bishop Paul, translated himself into his place, leaving the see of Nicomedia to Amphion, who had been appointed as a substitute to himself during his own exile. Eusebius of Caesarea was perhaps no longer living; for, after the death of Constantine, we hear of him no more : he appears to have been swallowed up in the funeral oration of the great emperor, and in the observance of his memory.²

The arrival in Rome of the representatives of Athanasius was an unpleasant surprise for Macarius. He at once departed for the East, leaving behind him his two companions. The latter, seeing their assertions contradicted by the Alexandrians, took the initiative in a very grave step: they appealed to the Pope to convoke a synod, and to give judgment on the matter after hearing both sides. Julius would have hesitated to put the Eastern bishops to so much trouble; nevertheless, as the council was asked for in their name, he did not think that he ought to refuse it, and letters of summons were sent to the Bishop of Alexandria as well as to the Bishop of Constantinople and his party.

During these negotiations at Rome, the situation in Egypt was going from bad to worse. Eusebius and his followers, assembled in Antioch at the

1 Apol. C07itra Ar. 3-5, 18 ; Hist. Ar. 9 ; Apol. ad Const. 4.

2Eusebius died on May 30, in a year that may have been 338, 339, or 340.

P. 199]

159

GREGORY THE CAPPABOCIAN

court of the Emperor Constantius, had recognized the impossibility of supporting Pistus, and resolved to send as bishop to Alexandria a man who, while agreeing with their opinions, had not been compromised in the disputes of the previous years. Their choice fell upon a certain Eusebius, a native of Edessa, who, after having studied with Eusebius of Caesarea and sojourned for some time in Alexandria, was living among the dependents of Flaccillus, Bishop of Antioch. Eusebius refused, not wishing to brave the popularity of Athanasius.^{^[132]} Failing him, they agreed upon a native of Cappadocia, called Gregory, who was at once consecrated and then despatched to Egypt.

Nothing could possibly have been more irregular. Even admitting the validity of the sentence of the Council of Tyre, and regarding Athanasius as no longer the lawful bishop, it was necessary at least that his successor should have been elected by the clergy and the faithful of Alexandria, and should then have been installed by the bishops within his jurisdiction as metropolitan. But they did not trouble about one illegality more or less. Philagrius, under the patronage of the aged Eusebius, who had formed a high opinion of his zeal at the time of the Council of Tyre, was once more prefect of Egypt. He announced by edict, about the middle of March, 339, that Alexandria had a new bishop. The Christian population flocked to the churches, raising protests. The churches of Alexandria, in spite of all that had been done against the bishop, had remained in his power; during his exile, his priests continued to perform their functions there. The problem now was to take these from them, in order to hand them over to the intruder.

The church of Quirinus^{^[133]}was the first to be attacked, on March 18 ; as a result, some were killed, others wounded, and lamentable scenes took place : finally, fire seized upon
the building itself, and it was burnt together with the neighbouring baptistery. Four days afterwards, Gregory made his entrance into the city, guarded by an escort, and welcomed with cries of joy by pagans, Jews, and Arians. The bishop's palace was opened to him, but not without scenes of pillage. It was during the season of Lent, and Easter was drawing near. Gregory went from church to church, under police protection, and caused them, one by one, to be handed over to him. In one of them, on Good Friday, he caused thirty-four persons to be arrested, and they were flogged and cast into prison. Even on Easter Day, arrests were made. Athanasius still held out in one church. He knew that it was going to be attacked, and withdrew from it of his own accord, to avoid further scandals. Of course, the official reports laid to his account all the horrors of which Alexandria was at this time the theatre.

We can imagine his intense indignation. But there is not even need to imagine it, for we possess the indignant protest which he addressed at the time to the whole episcopate. It begins with a reference to the story of the Levite of Ephraim, who in days of old cut into small pieces the dead body of his outraged wife, and made use of these mournful fragments to excite the indignation of the tribes of Israel. His own Church of Alexandria, too, had been violated before his eyes : it had been torn from him bit by bit. Then follows the deplorable story of Gregory's intrusion. And finally, addressing himself to his colleagues, Athanasius appeals to them with unstudied eloquence:

p. 201-2]

161

PlfOTEST f)I®TMXASIUS

" Behold the comedy which Eusebius is playing! Behold the intrigue which he has been so long fomenting, and which he has finally brought to a head, thanks to the slanders with which he besets the emperor. But that is not enough for him ; he would have my head; he seeks to frighten my friends by threats of exile and of death. But that is no reason for bowing before his wickedness; on the contrary, I must defend myself, and protest against the monstrous injustice of which I am the victim. ... If, as you sit uyon your thrones, presiding peacefully over the meetings of your flocks,—if all in a moment there came to you a successor appointed by authority, would you endure him? Would you not cry aloud for vengeance? Well ! Now is the time for vigorous action; otherwise, if you keep silence, the present evil will spread to all the Churches; our episcopal seats will be the object of the meanest ambitions, and of disgraceful bargains. . . . Do not suffer such things to be done; do not allow the illustrious Church of Alexandria to be trampled under foot by heretics."

After launching this manifesto, Athanasius embarked for Rome. To do so was not a very easy matter, for the port was well watched; but he was popular among the sailors, and they let him pass. Almost at the same time as himself, Carpones, one of the Alexandrian priests deprived with Arius, also landed in Italy, bearing a letter from Gregory. Such a messenger was well calculated to confirm what was already known—that Gregory and those who had sent him were supporters of Arianism. In Rome, where the Council of Nicaea was alone recognized, that party could not hope for success.

Nevertheless, the Roman legates, Elpidius and Philoxenus, set out for the East. They were detained there for a long time on various pretexts : so much so, that they were not able to start on their return journey until January 340. They had not been much edified by the ecclesiastical world with which they had found themselves in contact. The invitation which they bore was refused ; and they were given a very haughty letter, containing a protest against the idea of revising in the West the decisions of Eastern councils, and hinting that the Pope must choose between the society of such people as Athanasius and Marcellus and communion with the prelates of the East.

This document,¹ which is no longer extant, was dated from Antioch, and written in the name of the Bishops of

¹ Besides what the reply of Pope Julius tells us about it, Sozomen's analysis (iii. 8) should be consulted.

II L

Caesarea in Cappadocia (Dianius), of Antioch (Fl^JJllus),^{^[134]}of Constantinople (Eusebius), and of several other sees. The Pope was highly affronted by it; but it did not prevent him from holding the council. The assemblage, consisting of some fifty bishops, was held in the church (titulus) of the priest Vitus, one of Silvester's legates at the Council of Nicaea, during the summer or autumn of 340. Athanasius had no difficulty in justifying himself and unmasking the intrigues of which he was the victim.

His was not the only case. Every bishop throughout the East who had been deposed and hounded out of his see, hastened to Rome at the first mention of the council. From Thrace, from Asia Minor, from Syria, from Phoenicia, and from Palestine, the exiled bishops and priests alike poured into Rome. Marcellus of Ancyra made a long stay there. He also had been denounced to the Pope, who had invited his accusers, as he had invited those of Athanasius, to appear before him. In their absence, Marcellus explained his belief, and his language seemed satisfactory; Vitus and Vincent, the Roman legates to the Nicene Council, testified to the zeal he had then displayed against the Arians. In short, he was restored to communion and to his episcopal dignity.

1". 20j]

163

LETTER OF POPE JULIUS

These decisions were notified to the Eastern episcopate by a letter which Pope Julius^{^[135]} addressed to those who had signed the one brought by the legates from Antioch. The Pope's letter is one of the most remarkable documents in the whole affair. Although deeply wounded by the bitterness of the Orientals, and the insolent tone they had adopted towards him, he maintained an attitude in keep- ing with his position, and remained calm, pacific, and impartial. If he had summoned the Easterns, it was at the request of their own envoys; he would have done it, in any case, on his own motion, for it was natural to take cognizance of the complaints of bishops who said they had been unjustly deposed. A revision of the decisions of councils was not an unheard-of thing: when the Eastern Churches received Arius and his followers, did they not act in this way towards the Council of Nicaea ? They contested his right, by alleging that the authority of bishops is not measured by the importance of their cities. A strange argument in the mouth of persons who are forever transferring themselves from one capital to another. As for himself, the Pope said, stories about broken chalices interested him much less than the unity of the Church. He cannot fail to perceive that, beneath their condemnation of the misdeeds of Athanasius and the errors of Marcellus, the enemies of these prelates do but ill conceal their intention of declaring the Arians innocent. Yet his desire throughout has been to make a close and thorough examination of the whole question. It is not his fault if the accusers, after having besought his intervention, now try to escape from the enquiry, nor if the prefect of Egypt prevents the bishops of that country from embarking for Rome. He has decided the case upon the information at his command, and in particular upon the documents of the Council of Tyre, furnished by the Easterns themselves. If they think that they can prove that he is mistaken, let them appear; the accused are always ready with an answer. But instead of presenting themselves at the requisition of the Bishop of Rome, they have been guilty of outrageous proceedings, such as the nomination of the intruder Gregory.

If they had been willing to conform to ancient usage,¹and, since the matter concerned bishops of importance —the see of Alexandria, to address themselves at the outset to the Roman Church, with a request that she

¹ "II ayvoeire Sti toCto ZOos i)v, irporepov ypafaffOai rjfjuv kaI ovtws tvOtv oplfcaOai ra 5t/caia (.Apol. contra Ar. 35).

When invited to join themMves to their Western brethren, they protested that they would do nothing of the sort,¹ giving as an excuse that Athanasius, Marcellus, and Asclepas, all three deposed by Eastern councils, were treated by Hosius, by the Bishop of Sardica, Protogenes, and by the rest, as lawful bishops. This scruple was not without some apparent foundation. The Council of Rome had, it was true, quashed the Eastern decisions. But as the Roman Council was not being adhered to, and an attempt was being made to review the proceedings which that council had settled, it would perhaps have been more prudent, considering the unfavourable attitude of their opponents, not to appear to prejudge any of the issues. Hosius tried to arrange matters in a friendly spirit. In order to persuade the Easterns to allow the case to be heard, he promised them that, even if the innocence of Athanasius should be proved, he would relieve them of his unwelcome figure and take him with him to Spain.² The Easterns would listen to nothing : they held a council of their own ; and then retired to Thrace, to Philippopolis, and from thence returned to their homes. But before leaving Sardica,³ they indited an encyclical letter, addressed to the whole episcopate, to the clergy and to the faithful, especially to Gregory of Alexandria, Donatus of Carthage, Maximus of Salona, and several Italian bishops, whom they knew, or imagined, to be favourable to their views.

The letter began with the subject of Marcellus, and a condemnation of his heretical doctrines. Then they gave the history of Athanasius from their own point of view; his condemnation at Tyre, and the scenes of violence for which his own return and that of others—Marcellus, Asclepas, and Lucius—had everywhere been the signal. They protested against the idea that such persons could

¹ According to Sozomen (iii. ii), this protest had been preceded by another, sent from Philippopolis.

- Letter of Hosius, in Athanasius, Hist. Ar. 44.

³ This letter purports to have been written at Sardica : Placnit nobis de Sardica scriberc (Hil., Frag. hist. iii. 23); Socrates (ii. 20) speaks here of Philippopolis, but he deserves no confidence. What he says of the Council of Sardica is a tissue of errors.

be restored to the episcopate, at a distance from thW own sees, by people unacquainted with the facts, and also against the claim of the Westerns to revise decisions of the Eastern bishops. On their arrival at Sardica, the Easterns had been met with the surprising sight of persons whom they had condemned, sitting in the midst of their Western brethren, as if nothing had happened, and as if they and some of their present protectors had not in former years been alike condemned. They had proposed to reopen the enquiry as to the affair in Mareotis; no notice was taken of this proposal.¹ From that time, they had separated from such colleagues as these (among whom, besides, there were several persons of doubtful reputation), and threw upon them the whole responsibility for the schism to which, in order to defend a few wretches, they were about to expose the whole Church. They maintain all the sentences of deposition which they have themselves pronounced ; and in addition they declare the following persons to be deposed and excommunicated—Julius of Rome, Hosius of Cordova, Protogenes of Sardica, Gaudentius of Natssus (Nisch), and Maximin of Treves. Finally, as a protestation against the heresy of Marcellus, patronized by Hosius, they set forth their own faith. Here we find the creed already sent to Constans with a few additional anathemas.²

The Westerns, being abandoned in this fashion, resumed their examination of the proceedings against Athanasius, Asclepas, and Marcellus. So far as Athanasius was concerned, they did not consider that there was any occasion for a new enquiry. That of Tyre was sufficient for them ; it had evidently turned against those who had

1 They were well aware that, with Gregory at Alexandria and the prefect of Egypt on their side, the enquiry could not fail to turn in their favour.

2Similiter et illos qui dicunt tres esse deos, aut Christum ?ton esse Deum ant ante ea unum (?) non fuisse Christum neque filkim Dei, aut ipsum Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum, aut non natum Filiitm, aut non sententia neque voluntate Deum Patrem genuisse Filium (Hil., Frag. hist. iii. 29). This text has been altered—like the whole document, for the matter of that.

175

I'. 219W

CdWl'IL OF SARDICA

instituted it, and had proved the innocence of the Bishop of Alexandria. Asclepas produced the documents relating to his own trial, drawn up at Antioch in the presence of his accusers and of Eusebius of Caesarea: the course of this trial showed that he also was innocent. As to Marcellus, his notorious book was read. It was recognized, with too much leniency, that the objectionable passages were rather tentative propositions than assertions maintained, and that, at bottom, his faith was sound.¹

As to the Easterns, their behaviour was severely judged. In the opinion of the council, their abrupt departure showed that they had but little confidence in their previous decisions, and feared to be accused in their turn ; as would actually have happened, since many plaints had been made against them. Their victims had presented themselves in large numbers, with witnesses, proofs, and even such damning exhibits as the instruments of torture to which they had been subjected. All these alleged wrongs were examined, and the council, so far as was in its power, made provision for the reparation necessary in each case. It also pronounced—for contumacy, just as the Easterns had done—several sentences of deposition and excommunication. These sentences were directed first against the three successors wrongfully appointed in place of the reinstated bishops, Gregory of Alexandria, Basil

¹ That in this Marcellus had imposed on the council is evident from these remarks on his doctrine: " He has not said, as his adversaries allege, that the Word of God derives His origin from the Virgin Mary, nor that His kingdom would have an end ; he wrote that His kingdom is without end, as it is without beginning." What the adversaries of Marcellus really charged him with, was not the denial of the Eternity of the Word, but the assertion that His existence as Son began with the Incarnation. They accused him, not of setting limits to the Kingdom of the Word, as Word, but to His Kingdom as Christ, as the Word Incarnate. On these two points, he was certainly wrong. But Marcellus was skilful in manoeuvring. He had signed the Creed of Nicaea, in which the generation of the Word, before the Incarnation, is clearly affirmed ; he placed an interpretation then on the term yew-qdivra, which, in his system, could only be applied to the Incarnate Word.

of Ancyra, Quintianus of Gaza; then the actual ifadH of the party, Stephen, Bishop of Antioch, Acacius of Caesarea in Palestine, Menophantus of Ephesus, Narcissus of Neronias, Theodore of Heraclea, Ursacius of Singidunum, Valens of Mursa; the last three had taken part in the famous enquiry in Mareotis; Valens, as an aggravation, had just distinguished himself by fomenting a sedition to secure his own election as Bishop of Aquileia. Scenes of violence had taken place there : a certain Bishop Viator had been so seriously injured that he died three days afterwards. To this list of persons proscribed the council added further George, Bishop of Laodicea in Syria, who had not, however, accompanied the other Eastern prelates ; but they had this against him, that, being a priest at Alexandria, he had been deposed by Bishop Alexander.

Besides these questions of individuals, the council also wished, after the example of the Council of Nicaea, and as the Eastern prelates had just done, to draw up a profession of faith. With this intention, a composition of considerable length was prepared, which, for the most part, either justified or disguised certain ideas for which Marcellus had been blamed, and which affirmed the unity of hypostasis, this word being taken, be it understood, in the sense of its Latin equivalent substantia} Hosius and Protogenes, who approved of this rather tenuous creed, had even prepared a letter to Pope Julius, to induce him to give it his approval. However, the proposal miscarried. The council was made to understand, and Athanasius seems to have exerted himself strongly to this end, that there was already quite sufficient difficulty in maintaining the Creed of Nicaea, without complicating it with appendices, which would only increase the centres of opposition to it; and that therefore it was much better to keep to the text

¹ For people who translated o/uLootiaios by constibstantialis, the terms ova la and inThoracis were equivalent. We must note carefully that the word essentia, by which we translate ov<ria, was not at that time in use ; that, for the two Greek words, ovala and virbaTaais, there was but one Latin term, substantia. We can therefore understand the Council of Sardica being tempted to pass from the ⁵ consubstantial' to the unity of hypostasis.

p. 222] PERSON A, HYPOSTASIS, ESSENCE 177

unanimously adoJWed that venerable assembly, and not to imitate the opposing party, who every year brought out a new creed.

Athanasius was quite right, as the sequel showed. The Nicene Council, inspired solely by the desire to save the absolute Divinity of Christ, had accepted the Western homoousios, which really safeguarded the point assailed, but gave no explanation of the personality of the preexisting Christ. Such a formula was incomplete in itself; it was necessary to supplement it by that of the Three Persons. This latter dogma the Western bishops at Nicaea may have held in the spirit: Tertullian and Novatian speak unhesitatingly of the ires personae. But it had not been introduced into the Creed of Nicaea; and, besides, the word persona, wpoa-wirov in Greek, was not sufficiently explicit. Persona has undoubtedly the sense of rational individuality, but it equally well signifies a character, a mask, a personage. The most orthodox among the Easterns clung to a greater precision of language. This they expressed by the term hypostasis, which was itself inadequate, for its proper meaning is substance, and, when one speaks of three divine hypostases, one has the appearance at first of speaking of three divine substances, of three gods. However, without really comprehending what they were trying to explain—and how can anyone comprehend such relations in the Infinite Being?—they ended by acknowledging the one essence and the three hypostases of the Easterns. It was finally agreed that that which, in the Trinity, was common to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, should be called " essence " (ova-la), and that which was proper to each of them should be designated by the terms " hypostasis " or " Person." But, at the time of which we are now writing, that solution was still far off. It would certainly have been compromised, if the Council of Sardica had prejudiced it by proscribing the three hypostases. It was a wise inspiration on the part of Athanasius to oppose such a declaration.

Nevertheless, the idea of a creed was not lost sight of, II M

any more than the text of the letter which was to commend it to Pope Julius^{^[139]}: and, later on, certain enthusiasts found an opportunity for taking advantage of it. But the encyclical addressed by the council to "all the bishops of the Catholic Church," contained nothing of the kind.^{^[140]}It concluded with an invitation to those addressed to confirm by their signatures the definitions of the assembly in which they had not been able to take part. The edition of this encyclical inserted by St Athanasius some years later in his Apology against the Avians actually contains more than two hundred signatures which were thus added, besides those of the members of the council.

179

p. 224-5]

TfffCANON OF APPEALS

The council was unwilling to separate without passing some disciplinary canons. For the most part, these regulations were inspired by existing circumstances. Thus, the first two forbid in the severest terms the translation of bishops from one see to another; we can perceive here the impression left by the affair of Valens.^{^[141]} Others condemn the constant journeys of bishops to the imperial court,^{^[142]} or deal with incidents which had taken place at Thessalonica^{^[143]}; others concern the ordinations of bishops, law-suits of clergy, and the sojourn of bishops outside their dioceses.⁰ The most famous are the canons relating to the condemnation of bishops.⁷ Such condemnations can only be pronounced by the council of the province to which the accused belongs. And if he is not satisfied with the decision given, his fellow-bishops of the province are to write to the Bishop of Rome, who shall decide if there is any occasion for revision, and if so, shall appoint judges of appeal. The appeal shall temporarily suspend proceedings, and the appellant bishop shall not be able to be replaced before the final decision has been pronounced. The judges of appeal must be the bishops of a province near to that of the first judges. The Pope shall be able, at the request of the accused, to cause himself to be represented at their council by legates. Here, what is evidently in mind is the deposition of the Bishop of Alexandria outside his own province, at the request of the Eastern prelates ; the decision given by Pope Julius, and the summoning of the Council of Sardica.

These canons, with the other documents relating to the council, were despatched to Pope Julius,^{^[144]} with a letter^{^[145]}signed by a majority of the members of the assembly ; the legates were to give him information as to details.

Regarded as a whole, the Council of Sardica, which was summoned with such excellent intentions, had failed in its essential task—the pacification of the Church. This failure was primarily due to the unfriendly attitude of the Eastern prelates, led throughout by the supporters of Arianism, and throughout implacable in their animosity against Athanasius. We must also admit that certain blunders had been made by the Western prelates, and especially by Hosius. This " Father of Councils," as he was called, who had had a seat at the Council of Elvira in
the days before the persecution, and who, under Constantine, had taken the principal part in the Council of Nicaea, was, nevertheless, not the kind of man needed to preside over such sessions. He was a true Spaniard, dictatorial, harsh, and inflexible. At Nicaea he had insisted upon the homoousios, without any consideration for the feelings of dislike which such a formula, presented without any saving clause, might excite in the East; now he had furnished his opponents with the very pretext they were seeking against the council, by allowing them to pose as defenders of correctness of procedure and even of orthodoxy.

The whole conduct of the proceedings, in short, represented a bad enough piece of business. Pope Julius ordered the canons of Sardica to be inscribed upon his registers, following those of Nicaea. And there they remained dormant.^{^[146]} After, as before, this legislation with regard to appeals, the Apostolic See continued to receive them ; but there is no evidence to show that in this matter it conformed to the procedure laid down at Sardica. Instead of confining himself to quashing the decisions and appointing new judges, the Pope continued to decide the appeal himself. The West scarcely troubled itself about the new canons; the East only recognized them two or three centuries later, and even then rather as historical documents than as a code to which it owed obedience.

181

P. 227]

RISPLTPOF THE BT)UNCIL

On their return from the council,^{^[147]} the Eastern bishops met with a very cold reception at Adrianople, where Bishop Lucius had already had occasion to complain of them. They were treated as runaways, and the Church refused to hold communion with them. They took their revenge by once more sending the bishop into exile, with a chain around his neck, and manacles upon his hands.^{^[148]}Ten workmen belonging to the armoury, who had been wanting in respect to them, were put to death on the application of their friend, Philagrius, now raised to the dignity of Count. Several years afterwards, Athanasius, passing through Adrianople, had an opportunity of seeing their graves. As to those bishops who had been restored to their former position by Hosius' council, they were forbidden, under pain of death, to show themselves again in their episcopal cities. The Bishops Arius and Asterius, who had forsaken their colleagues to go over to the side of the Westerns, were arrested and banished to the wilds of Libya. Some priests and deacons of Alexandria were deported to Armenia. The condition of affairs throughout the East amounted almost to a reign of terror.

Nevertheless, Constans did not abandon those whom he had promised to protect. No doubt he shared, just as his brother did, the opinions of his own bishops; moreover, he would not be sorry to have a cause of quarrel with his imperial colleague: the exiles furnished him with this. Towards Easter, in the year 344,¹ two Western bishops, Vincent of Capua, the former legate at Nicsea, and Euphratas of Cologne, arrived at Antioch; they were escorted by a general, the magister militurn, Salianus, and were the bearers of letters from their emperor. Bishop Stephen made them the subject of a plot which can only be characterized as abominable.² The house where they stayed was situated in a lonely spot. The bishop's servants engaged the services of a common prostitute, and, making one of the attendants their accomplice, introduced

1 This date follows from a narrative of St Athanasius (Hist. Ar. 21), who places the death of Gregory (June 25, 345) about ten months after certain events which followed closely upon the affair of Euphratas and the deposition of Stephen. This passage, in any case, prevents us from going back as far as the year 343, which would, besides, be inadmissible, if the Council of Sardica had really taken place in that year. If it was held in the autumn of 342, as seems probable, we must admit that the Western authorities waited some months to make sure as to the attitude of the Eastern emperor in regard to the restored prelates.

2 Athan. Hist. Ar. 20 ; cf. Theodoret, ii. 7, 8. Theodoret. who came from Antioch, has preserved some details as to the locality of the affair.

her by night into the chamber where the Bishop of Cologne was sleeping. Euphratas awoke, and at once called for help. The woman, who had expected from what they told her to find a young man, herself took fright when she saw that she was in the presence of an old man whose appearance showed him to be a bishop. She too began to call out. At that moment, some persons, who were secreted in readiness, burst into the house. The bishops did not lose their heads ; their cries for help were answered, the outer door was closed, and the result was the capture of the woman and also of several of the organizers of the plot. The next morning the general, Salianus, who had lodgings elsewhere, appeared on the scene, and, without waiting to listen to the bishops under his charge, who were already beginning to show themselves mercifully inclined, went at once to the palace to make a complaint and to demand a formal enquiry. The Emperor Constantius, greatly shocked, granted his request without demur. Stephen's complicity in the affair was established : steps were speedily taken to gather together a synod of neighbouring bishops, and he was deposed.

His place was filled by a native of Phrygia, Leontius, a staunch supporter of the Arianizing party. Thus, while the direction of ecclesiastical affairs changed hands, the spirit which actuated it was unchanged. However, Constantius, reflecting upon all that had just happened, and listening also to his brother's expostulations, began to relax the severities into which he had been led. The clergy of Alexandria were recalled from their exile in Armenia, and the Egyptian officials received orders to leave the partisans of Athanasius in peace.¹

But the chief matter was the schism, for there was really a schism between the two episcopates. The pass of Tisucis, between Sardica and Philippopolis, formed a boundary between the two communions. On either side of the frontier, people might differ in their opinions, but they remained in religious communion one with another; but, once over the border, it was not so.² Such a state ¹ Athan. Hist. Ar. 21. ² Socrates, ii. 22.

However, a great event happened : Athanasius was reinstated at Alexandria. The intruder Gregory, who had long been ill, finally died on June 25, 345.^{^[152]}Constantius took advantage of this to yield to his
■other's requests. He forbade the appointment of a successor to Gregory, and recalled Athanasius. It was more than a year before Athanasius would comply with the summons. He mistrusted both Constantius and his advisers. Who could tell whether, if the wind happened to change, the memory of the Council of Tyre might not be called up ? No one said anything of formally annulling the decision. But Constantius insisted; he even wrote three times to the bishop, and made many of his intimates write also, even his brother Constans; he swore that everything was forgotten. At last Athanasius made up his mind. From Aquileia, where he was at the time, he journeyed to Rome, to take leave of Pope Julius, who gave him a kind letter for the clergy and faithful of Alexandria; he also went to see the Emperor Constans, who had upheld him so effectually, and at last he set out on his way to the East. His friends received him everywhere with joy; some, who had not been so faithful as the others in upholding him, were rather embarrassed. As to his enemies, they found pretexts for not appearing at all. At Antioch he met the emperor, and requested that advantage might be taken of this opportunity to bring him face to face with his accusers, and investigate once for all their complaints against him.¹ His request was not granted, and he continued his journey. The farther he travelled, the more pronounced was the sympathy shown to him. In Palestine—although the Metropolitan Acacius, who had succeeded Eusebius, was one of his most inveterate enemies — Maximus, the Bishop of Jerusalem, assembled a council of sixteen bishops to do honour to the exile. They gave him letters to the Egyptian bishops and to the faithful of Alexandria. At last he crossed the desert, and his triumph began ; the State officials themselves travelled as much as a hundred miles to meet the outlaw. They had received strict instructions: the emperor had given orders for the destruction, in the official records, of everything which might have been inserted against Athanasius and his ¹ Letter of Hosius, in Athan. Hist. Ar. 44.

p. 234-5]

187

URSACIUS AND VALlBS

followers. On October 21, 346, the victorious bishop found himself once more in the midst of his Alexandrians.^{^[153]}

The wind had decidedly changed. This was the subject of the reflections of Bishops Ursacius and Valens, on the banks of the Danube. They had already made a move at the time of the Council of Milan, which apparently had referred them to Pope Julius. The Pope had demanded substantial pledges, and there is no doubt that the two bishops had hesitated some time before giving them. In the end they submitted, and addressed the Pope, asking pardon for their misdeeds and recognising the decisions of the Council of Sardica. It will be remembered that they had there been deposed. Wishing for peace, Julius thought it best to give them back the government of their Churches; but he summoned them first to his presence, and made them sign a document, in which they retracted everything they had said and done against Athanasius, condemned Arius and his teaching, and promised to have nothing more to do with these affairs, whether at the invitation of the Easterns or of Athanasius, without the consent of the Pope.^{^[154]} They wrote also to the Bishop of Alexandria, in order to put themselves again in communion with him.^{^[155]}

Everything seemed to have been satisfactorily arranged. Nothing remained to be settled, so far as the West was concerned, but the question of Photinus, and this they might hope to dispose of, some time or another, without recourse to strong measures. In the East they had been too badly beaten by Athanasius not to bear him a grudge in consequence. But this also might come to an end, provided the position of external affairs remained unchanged. The Emperor Constans now turned his
attention towards Africa, where, for more than twenty-five years, two religious parties had been in conflict, and indeed in armed conflict, much to the detriment of public order.

p. W]

189

THE CIRCUMCELLIONS

We have already seen that Constantine, after trying his utmost to bring back the Donatists to unity, had ended by leaving them alone—a concession of which they had not failed to take advantage to stir up disturbances on all sides, and to ill-treat their opponents. The latter, left to their own resources, did the best they could, and tried to appeal to the good sense of the public, by enlightening it as to the origins of the dispute. To this end, they drew up a sort of apologetic dossier, in which there figured, side by side with the records of the enquiry on Felix of Aptunga and the trial of Silvanus,^{^[156]} various documents relating to the decisions of Rome, Aries, and Milan.^{^[157]} But the Donatists were hardly in a mood for a discussion of the issues. Entrenched behind the barriers of their sullen obstinacy, their only answer to arguments was in the form of curses or blows. Towards the end of his reign the emperor seems for a moment to have lost patience. The praetorian prefect of Italy, Gregory (336337), undertook some measures of repression. Donatus protested against these with extreme violence : " Gregory, pollution of the senate, and disgrace of the prefecture!" such was the beginning of his letter. The prefect replied with patience, and in a style, says St Optatus, which would befit a bishop.^{^[158]} For all that, the Donatists inscribed his name, after those of Leontius, Ursacius, and Zenophilus, upon the list of their persecutors, and only became more and more insolent.

It was about this time that there was formed under their auspices the strange body called Agonistics, or Circumcellions. This name was given to bands of fanatics, who travelled all over the country, especially in Numidia, to lend a hand to the good cause and wage war against the traditores. They claimed to observe strict chastity, and this was why the Donatists, later on, compared them to the Catholic monks. Armed with stout cudgels, they appeared everywhere, on the public roads and in the markets, prowled about cottages, whence came their name of Circumcellions, and kept a strict watch over farms and country houses. It was not only in the quarrel of Donatus and Caecilian that they interested themselves. Sturdy redressors of wrongs, the enemies of all social inequalities, they eagerly took the part of small holders against proprietors, of slaves against their masters, and of debtors against their creditors. At the first call of the oppressed, or those who pretended to be so, and especially of the Donatist clergy when they found themselves hemmed in at close quarters by the police, the Circumcellions appeared on the scene in fierce gangs, uttering their war-cry: Deo laudes ! and brandishing their famous clubs. One of their chief amusements, when they met a carriage preceded by running slaves, was to put the slaves inside the carriage, and make the masters run in front. Even for those who did not belong to any of the classes regarded with dislike by these extraordinary people, it was not at all pleasant to meet the Circumcellions upon lonely roads. The sons of martyrs often had the intention of being martyrs themselves; and as, to their uneducated minds, the meaning of martyrdom was simply and solely a violent death, they sought for it with the greatest eagerness. When the madness seized them, they appealed to passers-by, and endeavoured to compel them to kill them. If such an one refused, they killed him, and then hastened on to find someone who would be more obliging. If necessary, they procured mmtyrdom for themselves, burnt themselves alive, threw themselves into rivers or, very commonly, from precipices. Once dead, they were buried by their companions with the greatest respect; the plains of Numidia were studded with their tombs, to which the same honours were paid as to those of the real martyrs.

In Aures, where they were very numerous, they ended by becoming an organized body. Their principal chiefs, Axido and Fasir, were powers both dreadful and dreaded. But at last they made themselves unbearable, not only to their victims, but to the Donatist clergy themselves, upon whom public opinion fastened the responsibility for this brigandage under the guise of religion. The bishops adopted an attitude of disapproval of them, and then, when they gained nothing by it, made up their minds to declare the Circumcellions incorrigible, and addressed themselves to the military authorities. Count Taurinus sent his troops into the market-places, and made some arrests. In one quarter, called Octava, the soldiers met with determined resistance, as a result of which there were a good many killed and wounded. The dead, of course, were held up as martyrs; but this time the Donatist bishops refused them Christian burial.¹ This local and temporary repression only served to strengthen their fanaticism. The Circumcellions began again to swarm everywhere.

At length the Emperor Constans decided to undertake the work of pacification, which had baffled previous attempts. Two commissioners, Paul and Macarius, were despatched to Africa, well furnished with money, to try first if imperial subsidies, freely distributed among the common people, might not make them favourably disposed. At Carthage the)' presented themselves to Donatus, who received them majestically: " What can the emperor have to do with the Church ?"² he said, and added that he

1 Optatus, iii. 4. This event is not dated with sufficient definiteness ; it seems that it must fall between 340 and 345.

2 Optatus, iii. 3.

p. 239-40] CONSTANS AND THE DONATISTS 191

would write everywhere, commanding his people to refuse the proffered alms.

In spite of the opposition of the " Prince of Tyre," as Optatus calls him, the imperial emissaries began their circuit, which passed off quietly in Proconsular Africa, and was even in many places crowned with success. The alms were distributed, the people were exhorted in the name of the emperor, and an agreement was arrived at, without any too severe measures having been necessary. In Numidia the case was different. There, the Donatist bishops organized a savage resistance.¹ They rallied in great numbers around the Bishop of Bagai', one of the most determined amongst them; his name also was Donatus, like the great primate of Carthage. An appeal was made to the " chiefs of the Saints": and from all the region of Aures the Circumcellions flocked to Bagai', where the church was transformed into a store-house for provisions. Ten bishops were appointed to meet the two commissioners, who arrived by way of Theveste, with instructions to protest energetically against " the sacrilegious union." The meeting took place at Vegesela. The Donatist prelates spoke in such a manner to the emperor's representatives that the latter considered themselves obliged to chastise them without more ado. After being tied up to pillars and flogged, they moderated their tone. One of them, however, a certain Marculus, remained obstinate, and was kept a prisoner.

Being informed of the state of things at Bagai", the commissioners did not think it prudent to venture there without an escort. The Count of Africa, Silvester, put his troopers at their service. Some of these, being sent on in advance to Bagai', were received with showers of stones, and compelled to fall back on the main body, carrying with them a number of wounded. It is quite certain that matters did not end there. We have no exact details, but the measures of repression were prompt and severe.

¹ In what follows, I have combined with the information given in Book III. of Optatus some details from the Passio?i of Marculus.

Donatus of IS%aT lost his life as a result; Marculus,¹after being taken for some time from one town to another, was finally thrown from the top of the rock at Nova Petra. The Donatists, as we may well imagine, honoured them as martyrs : their opponents alleged, on the contrary, that Marculus had cast himself down when there was no one with him, and that Donatus also had thrown himself into a well.²

Henceforth the operations of Macarius and Paul assumed a severer aspect. The imperial envoys travelled from town to town, accompanied by the Count of Africa's troopers. The Donatist clergy fled at their approach ; as to the faithful, they were persuaded to assemble in the church, which they entered not without fear, for they had been led to believe that Paul and Macarius were placing images on the altar—the reference no doubt was to portraits of the emperors—and that the Christian Sacrifice was about to be offered to these new idols.³ Of course, nothing of the kind happened. The commissioners spoke, and explained in appropriate terms the object of their mission. In certain places, their success was

1 " Ecce Marculus de petra praecipitatus est; ecce Donatus Bagaiensis in puteum missus est. Quando potestates Romanae talia supplicia decreverunt, ut praecipitentur homines ? "—Aug. In Joh. xi. 15.

2 Passion of Marculus (Migne, P. L. vol. viii., p. 760). This document itself betrays some perplexity : the Donatist author who compiled it does not disguise that the execution had no other witness but the executioner. Another document dealing with martyrdoms, the work of Macrobius, Donatist Bishop of Rome, relates the death of two Carthaginian Donatists, Isaac and Maximian. The latter had torn up a proconsular edict relating to union ; the other had uttered seditious cries before the judge. They were condemned to exile, and then died in prison. Their bodies were cast into the sea, but this was so unskilfully done that they were thrown back on the shore. The Donatists said that Maximian was still living when cast into the water. This happened, it seems, in August 347 (xviii. kal. sept, die sabbato), when the union, already an accomplished fact in Carthage, was no longer meeting with any difficulties except in Numidia (P. L. vol. viii., p. 767). It is possible that Macrobius may also be the author of the Passion of Marculus.

3 Optatus, iii. 12,; vii. 6.

p. 242] « SUPPRESSION " OF DONATISM 193

complete, and effected a union which even included the Donatist bishop, with whom his Catholic colleague found means of coming to an arrangement, either by a division of the parishes or in some other way.^{^[159]}

But such cases seem to have been rare. There was much local resistance, which was repressed with severity.^{^[160]}The name of Macarius remained an object of hatred among the Donatists, and even the Catholics found the recollection of his military reprisals becoming after a time inconvenient.

Of those members of the clergy who had sought refuge in flight, many died of fatigue and want: others hid themselves, or even succeeded in holding their ground, here and there, under the protection of the Agonistics. Those who were captured—the bishops at least—were banished from Africa. Donatus was among the number ; and he died in exile. Persecution, as it always does, only fanned to fever- heat the anger of the opponents. One of these, a certain Vitellius, published an eloquent book with the title: The Servants of God are hated of the World. This book is unfortunately lost; but we still possess two Passions of Donatist " martyrs," from which we can form an idea of the state of mind of the persecuted sect.^{^[161]}

When, their task accomplished, the operarii unitatis re- embarked for Italy,the Donatist Church had been abolished, outwardly and officially. There remained but one body of clergy and one Bishop of Carthage. Gratus, who was at that time invested with this lofty dignity, called together a great council, in 348, at which there were present several Donatist prelates, who had been brought into union during the preceding years. It is a curious proof of the state of men's minds immediately after the re-union. There had already been partial councils in the provinces; but for this one the letters of summons
embraced the whole of Africa.^{^[162]} The president began by- giving thanks to God, who had inspired the Emperor Constans with the thought of this work of union, and with the choice of his representatives, Paul and Macarius. Then the council adopted several regulations to meet questions which arose from the situation; in particular, the repetition of baptism was forbidden ^{^[163]} and the practice of honouring as martyrs persons who had been assassinated, or those who had killed themselves, either by throwing themselves over precipices or in other ways. Questions of general discipline were also dealt with. In conclusion, Gratus revived and solemnly renewed the condemnations directed long before against the traditores and rebaptizers. The censure of the traditores was a satisfaction granted to the reconciled Donatists; that of the rebaptizers a condemnation, however indirect, of Donatism itself. Old disputes were allowed to sleep in peace. Caecilian, Felix, and Majorinus had long been dead : no further mention was made of them.

The Eastern quarrels were but little familiar to the clergy of Gaul. Ten years previously, at the time of the Council of Sardica, some of the bishops had found themselves mixed up in these affairs: this was the case with Maximin of Treves, Verissimus of Lyons, and Euphratas of Cologne. The first, an avowed partisan of Athanasius, had been dead for some little time, and perhaps the two others also. The signatures, to the number of about thirty, which had been collected in favour of the decisions of Sardica, had no doubt been added, for the most part, on trust, at the request of the Emperor Constans and of important bishops such as those of Treves and Lyons. At the time of Constantius' arrival, all this was already rather ancient history. As to preceding events the bishops had but a faint idea ; even the Council of Nicaea was almost unknown. Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers, although a well- informed man, had never heard of the famous Nicene Creed, until Constantius had come to disturb the peace in which, on this subject, the Gallic episcopate was living. Possessed of but slight information on these matters and those which lay behind them, the bishops could scarce help following their natural inclination to do what so religious an emperor asked them. It was in vain that the Pope's representatives endeavoured to arrest this open action, to reserve the decision for the council which was to come, or, at least, to secure that, before condemning Athanasius, they should begin by reprobating the heresy of Arius. Their efforts were entirely unsuccessful. The eloquence of Valens, the spokesman of the Eastern prelates, and the general enthusiasm for the son of Constantine, overcame all resistance. The Bishop of Aries, Saturninus, one of the first adherents secured, displayed great zeal. The legates themselves were carried away by the stream, and signed the condemnation of Athanasius. The Bishop of Treves, Paulinus, alone had the courage to protest. He was deposed and sent into exile.¹

The vessel which had brought Serapion to Italy had passed on the high seas, after leaving Alexandria, an official galley, from which, on May 22, there disembarked a messenger from the court, named Montanus. He seemed thwarted in his embassy, for his instructions were to bring back Athanasius himself. He handed the bishop an imperial letter by which he was authorized, "according to his request," to appear before his sovereign. Athanasius had made no request. Accustomed to the ways of the court, he scented a trap and excused himself. His own messengers were refused admittance to Constantius, and returned to Alexandria. The bishop no doubt thought that the order would be pressed, and that, sooner or later, he would be forced to appear before the emperor. In view of this contingency, he prepared a defence of himself, in a dignified style, worthy of being pronounced before the court. He had even gone so far as to anticipate the changes of countenance which his eloquence might provoke in his imperial auditor: " You smile, sire, and your smile shows that you agree . . ."² This fine speech was never delivered.³ For more than two years the court pretended to know nothing of Athanasius.

But if, for the present, he was left at peace in Egypt, his enemies in Italy and Gaul continued their efforts to isolate him more and more. Irritated by the opposition

1 Indignus ecclesia ab episcopis, dignus exilio a rege est iudicatus (Hil. Frag. hist. i. 6).

2 Apol. ad Const. 16. Athanasius was very confident; for it was not at all an easy matter to bring a smile to the august lips of the Emperor Constantius.

3 Athanasius took it in hand again later and published it, with additions supplied by the sequel of his tragic history. It is his Apologylto the Emperor Constantius.

of Liberius, the Emperor had sent a proclamation to Rome, in which the Pope was violently abused. He was reproached for his ambition, his boasting, his blind obstinacy, his spirit of discord. Liberius defended himself. Grieved as he was at the hostile attitude of his sovereign and the weakness of his own legates, he did not lose courage; he addressed himself a second time to the emperor, in order to obtain a council, in which, after a confirmation of the faith of Nicaea, all questions relating to persons might be arranged by general consent.¹ His letter was carried by fresh legates, men to whom fear was unknown and from whom no weakness was to be feared, but rather excess of zeal: these were Lucifer, Bishop of Caliaris, the priest Pancratius, and the deacon Hilary. Liberius tried at the same time to fortify around himself the courage of the Italian bishops ; he confided his anxiety to Hosius of Cordova, the veteran warrior in these melancholy conflicts.²

Constantius, who had nothing to fear from so pliable a body of bishops, listened to the Pope's suggestions, and consented to the assembling of a council, which was actually held, not indeed at Aquileia, but at Milan, in the early months of the year 355. Liberius had commended his legates to Eusebius, Bishop of Vercellae, formerly one of the Roman clergy, well known for the holiness of his life and his strength of character. He also relied much upon the Bishop of Aquileia, Fortunatian. When the bishops were assembled, Eusebius, who was not at all easy in mind as to their intentions, was in no hurry to present himself; he needed to be summoned in the name of the emperor, and to be entreated by the Roman legates to appear, " as St Peter formerly did, to expose the wiles of the Magician." At last he presented himself, escorted by the legates. But, for ten days, the bishops had been working incessantly: they were beginning to show signs of weakness. Eusebius was implored to sign the condemnation of Athanasius. He declared that several of

1 Jaffe, 212 (Hil. Frag. hist. v.).

2 Jaffe, 209, 210 (Hil. Frag. hist. vi. 3).

p. 258] COT^CILS OF MILAN JJK) BEZIERS 207

the persons present appeared to him to be heretics, and that, to remove doubts on this point, every one must sign the Creed of Nicaea. As he said this, he drew out a copy of it, and handed it first to the Bishop of Milan, who took a pen and was on the point of signing it, when Valens threw himself on him, and tore pen and paper out of his hands, crying out that such a mode of proceeding could not be allowed. A great disturbance ensued. The faithful appeared on the scene, and threatened to interfere on behalf of their bishop. The deliberations were then transferred from the church to the palace, and soon changed their form. The bishops were asked to choose between signing and exile. Three only accepted exile —Lucifer, Eusebius, and Dionysius; all the others submitted.¹

Further measures were taken with regard to those who were absent. Commissioners went from one Church to another, demanding signatures; some of the clergy of Ursacius and Valens accompanied the imperial envoys. In Gaul a council was held at Beziers in the following year (356), before which several belated laggards were summoned. Among their number was Hilary of Poitiers. Immediately after the Council of Milan, he had organized a protest in Gaul against the sentence of exile on the bishops, and, in general, against the intervention of the civil power in questions of faith and communion. His first Apology to Constantius² may be considered as the manifesto of this opposition. Hilary and his party had separated Ursacius, Valens, and Saturninus from their communion, and had called to repentance others who had given way at their instigation. He was compelled to present himself before the Council of Beziers. He absolutely refused to change his attitude, and carried with him by his example his colleague of Toulouse, Rhodanius,

1 Upon this council, see especially Hilary, Ad Const, i. 8, completed by Athanasius, Hist. Ar. 32-34, Sulpicius Severus, Chron. ii. 39, and the letters collected by Mansi, vol. iii., p. 326 et seq.

2 Of this document we only possess a mutilated text; Sulpicius Severus (Chron. ii. 39) had read the whole of it. The Caesar Julian seems to have attempted to defend Hilary (Hil. Ad Const, ii. 2).

a maB)f a more accommodating disposition, but one who, at the decisive moment, also made his choice in favour of exile.

Pope Liberius was treated in a more ceremonious manner. His attitude had not changed : he was for the exiles against the government. At the outset, he had written to Eusebius, Dionysius, and Lucifer, a touching letter, in which he expressed to them his regret at not being able to follow them yet, and his firm persuasion that his own turn would not be long in coming.^{^[169]} His envoys, the priest Eutropius and the deacon Hilary, were ill received; they were both exiled, and the deacon had in addition to endure the torture of the lash.² The eunuch Eusebius, a trusted agent, was sent to Rome to induce the Pope to yield : his arguments met with no success. In vain he produced his purse; in vain he emptied it at the tomb of St Peter: Liberius caused the money to be cast forth outside. The prefect Leontius was then instructed to send the rebellious pontiff to court. This was not an easy matter, for Liberius was much beloved by the populace; it was necessary to seize him by night, and to adopt great precautions.³

However, it was at last accomplished. Liberius was carried off to Milan. Brought into the emperor's presence, he could only repeat the protest he had been making ever and anon for two years: he could not condemn persons unheard ; the decision at Tyre, not having been based on a discussion in which both sides had been listened to, could be of no value whatever; it was necessary, first of all, to recall the exiles, and to make sure that everyone was in agreement with regard to the faith of Nicsea; then, a meeting should be held at Alexandria, in the actual place where the facts in dispute had taken place. Of this interview we possess a kind of formal record,⁴ in which the figures of the speakers—the

p. 26«]

209

EXILE OF LIBERIUS

Pope,^he Emperor, the eunuch Eusebius, and Bishop Epictetus¹—stand out in striking relief.

"Of what consequence art thou?" said the emperor, "thou, who alone takest the part of an impious man, and dost thus disturb the peace of the whole world ? " " It is no matter if I do stand alone," replied the bishop, " the faith will lose nothing by that. In the days of old, there were but three, and they resisted." " How! f interrupted Eusebius, " dost thou take our emperor for Nebuchadnezzar!" "A great deal he cares," said Epictetus, " for the faith, or for ecclesiastical decisions! What he wants, is to be able to boast to the Roman senators that he has defied his sovereign." The conference ended by a final invitation to sign. The Pope was granted a delay of three days; he refused it, and also refused the financial assistance offered by the emperor and empress. He was then sent to Berea in Thrace, where he was put into the charge of one of the heads of the party, the Bishop Demophilus.

There still remained the " Father of the Councils," the living embodiment of the memories of Nicaea, the centenarian Bishop of Cordova. In spite of his years, Hosius was forced to come to Milan; but he remained deaf to all entreaties, and had perforce to be sent back to his distant diocese. There, he was again attacked by letters and messengers. He resisted them all, and wrote a most touching letter to the emperor. Among other things, he said that, having confessed the faith under the emperor's grandfather Maximian, he was not disposed to deny it now, to please the Arians; that he knew for a certainty the innocence of Athanasius and the bad faith of his accusers; that the emperor ought to occupy himself with his own affairs, and leave the bishops to deal with those of the Church.

But no eloquence was of any avail to move Constantius. He had among the bishops of Spain one man who was

¹ This Epictetus was a young ecclesiastical adventurer, whom the court party had caused to be elected Bishop of Centumcellae (Civitavecchia), and charged to keep an eye on the Pope.

II O

capable of anything, Potamius, the Bishop of LB)on, who played in that country almost exactly the same part as Saturninus in Gaul, and who, for that reason, had been roughly treated by Hosius. When he complained of this, Constantius again summoned the rebellious patriarch before him.¹ They succeeded in transporting him as far as Sirmium, where the court was then in residence, and there he was kept in exile.

Now unity was accomplished. Neither in the West nor in the East was there one single bishop in the possession of his see who had not declared against Athanasius. This was the time to take formal action against him. It seemed that there was nothing more to be done but to send him a sentence of exile, or to carry him off, as they had carried off Liberius. But the Pope of Alexandria had around him a populace even more devoted and more unmanageable than that of Rome; and, besides, he had in his possession official letters, whereby Constantius had solemnly undertaken never to abandon him. To get out of these difficulties, the government conceived the idea of forcing his hand. They resolved to organize at all costs a disturbance in Alexandria.

The project was difficult of execution. An imperial notary, Diogenes, arrived in the month of August 355, advised the bishop to go away, and began to work upon the clergy and the faithful. But Athanasius sheltered himself behind the emperor's letters, protesting that he would not leave Alexandria without formal orders emanating from him; as to the people themselves, it was no use to be harsh with them, they would not submit to it. At the end of four months Diogenes returned, leaving things exactly as when he arrived.

During the winter another attempt was made. Troops were collected from the whole of Egypt, under the command of the Dux Syrianus, who was placed in charge of the business. Athanasius made no movement, declaring

¹ Marcellini et Fetus tint Libellus preewtt, 32 (Coll. Avellana, ed. Giinther, p. 15).

1\ 26:3]

211

TIIE CHURCH OF THEONAS

that a bishop not desert hi^flock, unless for most

serious reasons; but that he would do so, if the emperor really wished it, or even if the "dux" or the prefect of Egypt would give him a written order to that effect. The people supported his attitude, and asked permission to send a deputation to the emperor. The tone of these protests caused Syrianus to reflect; he declared that he would write to the emperor himself, and that, in the meantime, he would take no action against the churches.

This promise was not kept.

On February 8, at midnight, the Church of Theonas was surrounded on all sides. It was still the principal church of the city : Athanasius was celebrating in it one of the nocturnal offices, called vigils (ILavvvx^eg), which only attracted the more devout; hence, there was not a great crowd. The Dux Syrianus caused the doors to be forced; his soldiers, augmented by a disorderly rabble, burst in, with drawn swords and trumpets sounding. Their helmets gleamed in the light of the candles, their arrows flew through the church. We can imagine the tumult which ensued. The consecrated virgins were represented by a large proportion in the devout congregation; they were assailed with obscene cries; several were killed, and others were outraged. Trampled under foot and crushed at the exits, the faithful left many corpses upon the floor. In the midst of all this, the bishop remained upon his seat; monks and devoted laymen surrounded him. They succeeded at last in getting him away, but it was not without being severely bruised that he at last managed to penetrate through the crowd. Those who were seeking for him did not recognize him. Besides, they scarcely wished to take him prisoner ; what they wanted was that he should take himself off, that he should seem to have been driven away by a popular rising. They had their wish. From that hour, Athanasius was seen no more.^{^[170]}

When the day dawned, the Christians of Alexandria hastened to the authorities to protest. But the Dux Syrianus was already preparing the official version of the affair; there had been no occasion for scandal; Athanasius had passed judgment upon himself by leaving Alexandria of his own free will. In attestation of this signatures were demanded, and those who held back were beaten. But, on February 12, the people of Alexandria caused a second ¹ protest to be posted up, in which the number of those killed was given, and the presence of the Dux in the Church of Theonas, accompanied by an imperial notary, Hilary, was stated. The municipal straiegos (duumvir), Gorgonius, was there also ; and his testimony was appealed to. Besides, the swords, javelins, and arrows, which had been used, had been kept in the church; and were still being kept, as a proof of the violence employed. The prefect of Egypt and the police were entreated to bring these facts to the knowledge of the emperor and of the praetorian prefects ; and the captains of vessels were asked to spread the news in other ports. Above all, it was added, let no one think of sending to the Alexandrians another bishop; they would not endure him, and would remain faithful to Athanasius.

No attention was paid to them. A Count Heraclius was sent to Egypt, as bearer of imperial letters to the senate and people of Alexandria. In these Constantius excused himself for having, out of consideration for his brother, tolerated for a time the presence of Athanasius in Alexandria; but now Athanasius was a public enemy; he must be sought for and found, at any cost.² On June

that no one would seek him in the house of a young woman as she then was. This story, improbable in itself, is contradicted by what St Athanasius himself tells us with regard to his wanderings as an exile. But it is possible that the person in question may have served as an intermediary for his correspondence, or may have given him hospitality from time to time during his secret visits to Alexandria (.Historia Lausiaca, c. 64, ed. Butler).

1 The text of this protest has been preserved ; Athanasius included it in his History of the Arians.

2 Hist. Ar. 48, 49

213

r. 265-g] GEORGE OF CAPPADOCIA

219

r. 273]

SCTTISMS AT ANTIOCII

However, if the flock of Christ was receiving constant accessions, it left much to be desired from the point of view of unity and mutual understanding. To say nothing of old schisms, of Marcionites, Novatians, or Paulianists, the theological disputes of the period had resulted in the formation of various ecclesiastical cliques, which could with 218 difficulty be brought to live together in peace. Of course, the mass of the people contented themselves with a rudimentary Christianity; they left " the doctors" to wrangle and hurl texts at each other, and councils to frame and reframe without ceasing the formulas of the creed ; they followed the offices of the Church, and the distributions of alms, without troubling their heads much about the leanings of the superior clergy. When the time came for electing a bishop, they were told which name they ought to acclaim, and they acclaimed it on trust. Since the deposition of Eustathius, the people had taken part, under these conditions, in the installation of several bishops suggested by the Arians. At the time we have reached, they gathered themselves beneath the pastoral staff of Bishop Leontius, a man of scant sympathy with Athanasius, an Arian at bottom, or with Arian tendencies. In bygone days he had had not a few adventures; but age had now overtaken him, and was marked on the bishop's head by a beautiful crown of white hair. Now and again he was seen to pass his hand over it, and was heard to say : " When this snow has melted, there will be mud in Antioch." Who could have been better informed than he upon the divisions in his Church ?

Already, a certain section had for a long time been holding themselves aloof. The deposition of Eustathius, in Constantine's time, had not been accepted by everyone ; a party had been formed to support him and to demand his restoration. Eustathius had died in exile; but the Eustathians had not rejoined the main body. They continued to hold themselves apart, under the direction of a priest named Paulinus. This little group held resolutely to the Council of Nicaea, to the homoousios, without explanations or additions : of the three hypostases, a formula which was brought forward from time to time, they spoke only with horror. At bottom the theological position of this small section was closely akin to that of Marcellus of Ancyra, and the others did not fail to point out this affinity.

Other people, who combined the doctrine of the three hypostases with that of the consubstantiality, and thus anticipated the system of the future, had at their head two laymen, highly distinguished for their knowledge and their eloquence, Diodore and Flavian. They also adhered to the Creed of Nicsea; but, since the official Church did not actually repudiate it in terms, they did not consider themselves justified in separating themselves from that body, and continued in communion with the successors of Eustathius. Nevertheless, when they heard certain preachers endeavouring to reproduce the heretical opinions of Arius, they did not conceal their displeasure. Moreover, in addition to the usual offices of the Great Church, they had others which they celebrated among themselves. They gathered themselves together (apart from the official meetings for service—mass and vigil) in the cemeteries on the outskirts of the city, near the tombs of the martyrs, and spent long hours in chanting psalms antiphonally. These chants, in which, thanks to the use of refrains easily remembered, everyone could take part, met with very great success. The populace of Antioch flocked eagerly to these new psalm-singings. Leontius, disturbed at this rivalry, summoned Flavian and Diodore before him, and persuaded them to transfer their offices to the churches of the city. They accepted his offer, but the bishop was obliged on his side to make several concessions.

Leontius had had for some time among those about him a kind of Christian sophist, named Aetius, whose past adventures and present attitude were not at all reassuring to the orthodox. Born at Antioch or in its neighbourhood, he had pursued many occupations, being, by turns, a coppersmith, a goldsmith, a servant, and a physician. Between times, and here he showed himself a true Greek, he had cultivated his mind, and learnt dialectic and theology. In this latter study, his views were formed by certain survivors of the Lucianic school, who were growing old in the bishoprics of Cilicia, or amongst the clergy of Antioch. His mind was a subtle one, capable of the finest hair-splitting, and of arguing for days together.

221

p. 275]

HBs AM) J (JUAN

In this exercise he was at first beaten by a Borborian, a member of one of the obsolete Gnostic sects (there were still a few of them remaining). But he took his revenge, at Alexandria, upon a celebrated Manichean, a certain Aphthonius, whom he put so shamefully to silence that his opponent died of chagrin at his defeat. Aetius profited by his stay in Alexandria to perfect himself in the philosophy of Aristotle, and, on his return to Antioch, he did not shrink from attacking Basil, the Bishop of Ancyra, who had just covered himself with glory in a successful dispute with Photinus. This time, Basil himself was beaten; and Aetius quickly acquired the reputation of being invincible. To avenge his defeat, Basil tried to ruin him with the Caesar Gallus; but Bishop Leontius intervened, and Gallus, instead of causing his legs to be broken, as he had threatened, admitted the doctor to his friendship; he even entrusted him with the honourable task of completing the religious education of his brother Julian, who was beginning to be a cause of anxiety.¹

Julian was in good hands! We have already seen him borrowing books from George of Alexandria. Aetius was in a position to initiate him into Arianism of the purest and, one may add, the most arid type; for his speciality was to present heresy in syllogisms. We can form an idea of his method from a little treatise,² divided into short sections, in which he defends his opinions. It begins as follows :—

" If it is possible for the Un-begotten God to make the begotten become un-begotten, both substances being un-begotten, they will not differ from each other as to independence. Why, then, should we say that the one is changed, and the other changes it, when we will not allow that God produces (the Word) from nothing ? "

This canticle contains no fewer than forty-seven couplets, all equally dry, all equally devoid of any religious meaning. Aetius, so we gather from St Epiphanius, had composed more than three hundred of them. Such eloquence must have given his ordinary listeners very ¹ Philostorgius, iii. 27. ² Epiph. Haer. lxxvi. II.

severe headaches; it was little suited to draw Julian away from the mysteries of Eleusis and the worship of Apollo.

The doctor returned to Antioch, where the easy-going Leontius at length promoted him to the diaconate, which gave him the right of preaching in church. The orthodox party protested. It was not the first time that they had had imposed upon them clerics of a doubtful past and advanced opinions; it was even traditional that no priest, no deacon, should be chosen from their ranks. But the clergy, thus badly recruited as they were, had still address enough to avoid dogmatic scandals. Aetius was not only a notorious, a professed, a militant Arian : he was known to be inflexible in his obstinacy; at every opportunity he was heard to protest against accommodations and those who made use of them. The bishop recognized that he had gone too far; Aetius was removed, and transferred himself to Alexandria, to the society of the intruder George, to whom he became, for several months, one of his most energetic advisers.

The affairs of his party did not suffer very much from his absence. Besides, he was not the only Anomcean celebrity to be met with at Antioch. There was living there a curious individual, one Theophilus the Indian, as his friends called him, Blemmyas as other people styled him. He came from a distant island, called Dibous, from which he had been sent as a hostage in the reign of the Emperor Constantine. He was then quite young. Eusebius of Nicomedia had taken charge of his education, had initiated him in the purest Arian theology, and had raised him to the diaconate. He led the life of an ascetic, and among his acquaintances passed for a saint. His complexion, which was very dark, drew people's attention to him and made him popular. Long, long after, even in Theodosius' reign, he enjoyed an extraordinary reputation among the Arians. In the time of Bishop Leontius, he was in high favour at court with the Caesar Gallus; Aetius profited greatly from his protection. When Gallus fell into disgrace, Theophilus, whom he treated as a sort of domestic saint, followed him to the

223

p. 278]

HpPntius of antioch

West, and undertook his defence before Constantius, whereby he earned a sentence of exile for himself. But the Empress Eusebia falling ill, it was necessary to recall the holy man ; the empress got better, and Theophilus was sent on a mission to the king of the Homerites (Yemen), and the king of the Axoumites (Abyssinia); on this occasion he was consecrated bishop (about the year 356).

The further he went, the stronger became his Arianism and his obstinacy. He would never have approved of the half-and-half terms to which people resigned themselves at the bishop's palace at Antioch.¹

Poor Leontius was greatly embarrassed by all these disputes. While looking after the affairs of his own party, he tried not to exasperate his opponents too far: the government was anxious that quiet should be maintained in the Churches. In the Divine Office, when the time came to recite the Doxology, the orthodox said, as they do to-day: " Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost"; the others: "Glory be to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Ghost." The bishop, closely watched by both sides, began by saying: " Glory be to the Father" in a loud and intelligible voice; then he coughed or lost his voice for a moment, not recovering it till the conclusion : " world without end." This anecdote is a delightful illustration of the position of affairs.

But "the snow was going to melt, and the mud to appear." Bishop Leontius died towards the end of the year 357.

For some two years, the Church had been passing through a singular crisis. Orthodoxy, as represented by the Council of Nicaea, was everywhere dominant, in the sense that no bishop dared openly to confess himself hostile to that holy assembly ; it was everywhere abolished, in the sense that no bishop in possession of his see dared to defend the creed which it had put forth. The tactics of the aged Eusebius of Nicomedia had completely succeeded.

¹ Upon Theophilus, see Greg. Nyss. AdEunom. (Migne, P. G._yvol. xlv., p. 264 ; Philostorgius, iii. 4-6 ; iv. 1, 7, 8 ; v. 4 ; vii. 6; viii. 2 ; ix. 1, 3, 18.

Pronounce an anathema upon the council! Who would ever have thought of such a thing ? The memory of Constantine forbade it. Besides, did it not bear the signature both of Eusebius himself, of his namesake of Caesarea, of Theognis, of Maris, of Narcissus, of Patro- philus, and the rest ? All the great men of the Arian party figured in the number of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers. But Arianism, banished from the front door, could re-enter by the back, under the cloke of a prudent silence. This plan was adopted. Such dissimulations belong to all times and to all parties.

Prudence, for all that, is a virtue which is practised willingly enough during the time of conflict, but which is generally discarded, once success has been attained. When there were no longer Consubstantialists save in places of exile, people began to feel less acutely the need for remaining united. Up to that time, the battle had been rather for canon law than for theology. The Council of Nicaea was all very well; but there was also the Council of Tyre to be considered. As to Arius and his adherents, condemned at Nicaea, there had come to pass that which had pleased God and the Emperor Constantine. They had offered explanations; these had been accepted ; this account was closed. But the Council of Tyre had condemned Athanasius, and even if he had succeeded in securing his vindication by the bishops,of Egypt, who were suspect, and by the Westerns, who were ill-informed and incompetent, the Easterns had never relaxed the severity of the decisions which they had themselves given against him. Such was the essence of the position. When Athanasius sought to compromise the Eastern bishops by .speaking of their Arian sympathies, there was produced, not exactly the Creed of Nicaea, but a Creed of Antioch, more vague, it is true, and not admitting the much- disputed term homoousios, but orthodox in itself, and having the advantage of being acceptable to almost everyone.

There remained, of course, the question of communion. At Sardica both parties had excommunicated each other.

225

p. 280-81] YIELDING OF LIBERIUS

But in the cdjnse of fifteen years many of the persons specifically condemned had disappeared. Julius of Rome was dead; so also were Theodore of Heraclea, Maximin of Treves, and no doubt several others also. Stephen, the Bishop of Antioch, had been deposed ; the Westerns repudiated Photinus. Moreover, at the Councils of Aries (353) ^and of Milan (355), the two episcopates had fraternized. One after the other the recalcitrants were yielding. Heremiusof Thessalonicahad signed the Eastern formula; Fortunatian of Aquileia likewise, notwithstanding the trust placed in him by Pope Liberius. He had even given Liberius counsels of accommodation—counsels which bore fruit. Once at Berea, in the heart of Thrace, the good Pope ended by feeling himself very far from Rome, from his people, from the senators who loved him, the matrons who received him with so much respect, and the churches where he was wont to deliver moving discourses. His keeper, Bishop Demophilus, also set himself to work upon Liberius. At the end of two years, his resistance was overcome. He did not abandon the Council of Nicaea. He signed, perhaps, a formula; but, at the time at which we have arrived, the formulas which the Easterns were accustomed to tender to the Westerns contained nothing contrary to the faith; the only objection that could be made to them was that they were not sufficiently precise.¹

¹ The document upon which is based the admission that Liberius did sign a formula (see, however, the texts quoted in the following note), is one of the three letters preserved in the Fragments of St Hilary (vi. 5-11). These letters must have been written at Berea by the exiled Pope, to hasten his recall to Rome ; they are addressed to the Eastern Bishops, to Ursacius, Valens, and Germinius, and finally to Vincent of Capua. Liberius reviews in them the concessions he had made, his repudiation of Athanasius, his entering into communion with the Eastern Churches, and the approval given to their formulary. In the Fragments of St Hilary these documents are accompanied by a narrative which condemns them severely ; there are even here and there very harsh notes upon the most reprehensible passages. The author of text and notes evidently considered the letters to be authentic. He identified the formula signed by Liberius with one of the professions of faith previously produced by the Easterns. To II V

Having thus settled the affair in Antioch, Basil busied himself with the formula attributed to Hosius. It was withdrawn from circulation. Until a different one could be put forward by authority, two texts were united which had been adopted earlier, at Sirmium (351) against Paul of Samosata and Photinus and at Antioch (341) at the Dedication Council.^{^[173]} These texts were orthodox ^{^[174]} in the main, except that the homoousios was passed over in silence. Hosius was no longer there to give them authority by his signature ; he had been taken back to Spain, and perhaps was already dead. But Liberius, recalled from Berea, was still waiting at Sirmium for permission to return to Rome. He was asked to sign this third formula of Sirmium which was identical really with the first, already accepted by him. He consented to this, and thereby gave substantial support to the reaction, in an orthodox direction, which was making its appearance against the Anomcean intrigue. He even gave Basil a declaration, in which he excluded from the Church anyone who would not admit that the Son is like to the Father in substance and in everything. This declaration was not unserviceable, for Eudoxius and his followers were circulating the rumour that the Pope had signed the formula of Hosius. It was in these circumstances that the emperor at last made up his mind to yield to the incessant demands of the Romans, and to send them back their bishop. The prelates assembled at Sirmium wrote to Felix and to the clergy to receive Liberius, and to bury in oblivion all the dissensions caused by his banishment. Felix and Liberius governed the Apostolic Church together.

The combination was an extraordinary one ; but the government was too deeply pledged to Felix to be able to oust him openly. It counted, no doubt, upon the populace forcing its hand ; however this may be, this was what actually happened. The system of having two bishops at the same time was hissed in the Circus.^{^[175]} As soon as Liberius presented himself, a riot broke out, and Felix was driven forth; he retired to the outskirts, and after an unsuccessful attempt on the basilica of Julius in Trastevere, he made up his mind to live quietly in retirement. The emperor shut his eyes; it was the best solution of the difficulty.

We must not think that the support given by Pope Liberius to Basil^{^[176]} had been unfavourably regarded in orthodox circles. Like him, the exiled Hilary and the outlawed Athanasius applauded Basil's effort. Upon the ground of doctrine, a reconciliation was in course of being brought about; confronting the strictly Nicene orthodoxy, there was to be seen the gradual formation, in the camp of the enemies of Athanasius, of an orthodoxy almost equivalent to it. The two parties must eventually come to a mutual understanding; and, meantime, they began to confer with each other and even to approve of one another. " Those," said Athanasius at this time,¹" who accept everything that was written at Nicaea, although they may still retain scruples about the term homoousios, must not be treated as enemies. I do not attack them as mad Arians, nor as adversaries of the Fathers: I discuss matters with them as a brother with brothers, who think as we do, and only differ as to one word. . . . Among their number is Basil of Ancyra, who has written upon the Faith." As to Hilary, he was then writing his treatise, " On the Synods and the Faith of the Easterns," addressed to the bishops of Gaul and of Britain, to give them information on the state of controversies in the East. In this he exhibits a very friendly appreciation of the initiative just taken at Sirmium by Bishops Basil, Eustathius, and Eleusius; he shows, by reproducing and commenting upon their earlier formulas, not only that these documents do not represent a perversion of the Faith, but that certain circumstances have justified their existence. He proves the equivalence of the terms homoousios and homo'iousios, provided they are taken in the sense given to them by their respective patrons, the Council of Nicsea, and the friends of Basil. Addressing himself finally to the latter, he gently implores them to take one step more ; since their own technical term is susceptible of the same sense as that of the Great Council, will they not consent to sacrifice it, and accept the formula of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers?

While Hilary was writing this message of peace, Basil, who was by nature combative, was taking steps against the Anomceans.² He had succeeded in making Constantius believe that Aetius and his followers had, in the time of Gallus, been the supporters of intrigues against the

1 De syn. 41.

2 Upon what follows, see Sozomen, H. E. iv. 16.

P. 293]

BASIL OF ANCYRA

supreme emperor.¹ Constantius gave him the most extensive powers. Aetius was banished to Pepuza, among the Montanists; Theophilus to Heraclea in Pontus; Eunomius, arrested at Ancyra, was imprisoned at Midaeon in Phrygia; Eudoxius retired to Armenia. Numerous incidents of this kind were later brought up against the leader of the Homoi'ousian party; we hear of more than seventy sentences of exile, given at his request. Ursacius and Valens, in a good position to see which way the wind blew, had been among the first to submit, and, like Pope Liberius, had signed Basil's declarations. In short, for some months there was a reign of terror in the East, in the interest of the orthodoxy of Ancyra and of Laodicea.

Basil took advantage of his favourable opportunities to secure the assembling of a great CEcumenical Council, which should revive the work of Nicaea and bring peace to the Church. The first idea was to hold it at Nicaea itself; then Nicomedia was suggested; but this town was destroyed on August 24 (358) by an earthquake, and the church collapsed upon the head of the Bishop, Cecropius. There was no doubt, since the intervention of Hilary, that this council would have brought to Basil the support of a very large number of Westerns. Thus reinforced, the right wing of the Eastern episcopate would assuredly have prevailed : an understanding would have been arrived at, in one way or another, upon the question of the homoousios and the homo'iousios, and Arianism would have been routed. This result would have been obtained quite apart from Athanasius, ever proscribed by the government, assailed by one section of the episcopate, and abandoned by the other. But it was written that the brave warrior who had borne the brunt of the conflict should also share in its honours. Basil's plan ended in a most lamentable failure.

There still remained, in the East, two Arian bishops of the first generation, two personal friends of Arius, who had indeed forsaken him at Nicaea, but had lent themselves to all the intrigues hatched for his restoration:

¹ This was probable enough, in view of the relations of Theophilus and Aetius with the^Eesar of Antioch. Vide supra, p. 222.

these were Patrophilus of Scythopolis in Palestine, and Narcissus of Neronias in Cilicia. These two Nestors were sent as deputies to the court of Constantius, where they set themselves to represent Basil of Ancyra as a stirrer-up of strife, which was partly true, and to demand that, instead of one council, two should be assembled, one in the East, and the other in the West. The difference of languages justified this course, and also the consideration of the great expense which would be incurred by the transporting to the East of so many Latin bishops. Their appeal was listened to. The town of Ariminum (Rimini), on the Italian coast of the Adriatic, was selected for the Western council, and that of Seleucia in Isauria, near the seaboard of Cilicia, for that of the East. The Arians knew, from the experience of past years, that the Westerns were not proof against weaknesses and mystifications; in the East they felt pretty certain of obtaining a majority, not, of course, for a crude and undisguised Anomceanism, but for one of those non-committal declarations which had served them so well for the last thirty years.

Agreeably to this, the formula was prepared and accepted at a meeting of the court bishops, shortly before the time fixed for the opening of the councils, to both of which it was to be presented. It was Mark, the Bishop of Arethusa, who was appointed to draw it up. We possess the text of it¹:—

" The Catholic Faith has been set forth, in the presence of our Master, the most pious and triumphant Emperor Constantius Augustus, eternal and venerable, in the consulate of the most illustrious Fl. Eusebius and Fl. Hypatius, at Sirmium, the xi. of the Kalends of June (May 22, 359).

" We believe in One Only True God . . . and in One Only Son of God, Who, before all ages, before all power, before all conceivable time, before all imaginable substance, was begotten of God, without passion . . . like to the Father who begat Him, according to the Scriptures. . . .

¹ Athan. De syn. 8 ; the signatures are in Spiph. Ixxiii. 22.

l'. ma]

237

daiMPcreed of sirmium

" As^o the tprm Essence (ova-la) which the Fathers have employed in good faith, but which, being unknown to the faithful, has been the cause of scandal to them, since the Scriptures do not contain it, it has seemed good to suppress it, and to avoid entirely for the future all mention of Essence in reference to God, the Scriptures never speaking of Essence in reference to the Father and the Son. But we say that the Son is like to the Father in all things, as the Scriptures say and teach Him to be."

This formula no longer affirmed, like that of 357, the superiority of the Father over the Son ; but, like the former creed, it repudiated the use of the terms homoousios and homoiousios. A serious blow, not only for the old Nicene orthodox party, but also for the neo-orthodox party, whose triumph Basil of Ancyra had brought about the year before! That prelate's influence had evidently declined in the changeable mind of the Emperor Constantius. However, the pure Arians had not obtained complete success: this was clearly seen, when the time for signature came. Valens of Mursa objected to employ the words Kara iravra, " in all things," which seemed to him to include implicitly the likeness in essence. The emperor was obliged to insist on his introducing these words into his expression of adhesion. As to Basil, he would willingly have spoken of likeness tear ova-lav (in essence); but as this was forbidden, he piled up synonymous expressions, Kara rnv viroa-racrLv Kol Kara ri]v inrap^cv Ka\ /cara to etvai. The unhappy man snatched at the branches. At bottom, the only thing that mattered was his signature, and the official text: amendments did not count.

Not only was the doctrinal task for the two councils prepared beforehand in this careful fashion : it was also decided ¹ that, when their work was finished, each of them should appoint a deputation of ten members, and that the two deputations should meet in the emperor's presence for the final declaration of agreement. Thus the prince and his theological advisers were really

¹ Letter of May 27, Continentpriora (Hil. Frag. hist. vii. 1, 2).

the beginning and the end of this great consultation. The episcopate was shut in on both sides. It was also enacted that, with regard to questions as to persons, each of the two councils should deal only with its own part of the empire—the Eastern prelates with Eastern disputes, the Westerns with those of the West.

The Council of Ariminum¹ was the first to open, about the beginning of July 359. It was very numerously attended. Imperial agents had beaten up all the provinces, and had recruited voluntarily or by force more than four hundred bishops. The supporters of the Council of Nicaea were in an enormous majority; they took up their quarters in the church of the city; the others, eighty at the most, in a separate building. With them were Ursacius, Valens, Germinius, Auxentius, Epictetus, Saturninus, etc. On the orthodox side, the most distinguished person seems to have been the Bishop of Carthage, Restitutus. The Roman Church was not represented ; at this moment the government was recognizing two Popes, between whom it was difficult for it to make a choice. After several fruitless conferences, the two parties in the council decided to send separate delegates to the emperor. The orthodox party entrusted to their representatives a very clear and firm protest² against any idea of touching the Creed of Nicaea, and repudiated the declaration of May 22. Four bishops, Ursacius, Valens, Germinius, and Gaius,³ who had presented it to them, had been excommunicated by them. Their opponents, on the other hand, sent in their agreement with the emperor's formula. Constantius was then in Thrace, drawing slowly near the frontiers of Persia, whither other

1 A narrative account is given in Sulpicius Severus, Chron. ii. 41, 45 ; cf. Jerome, Adv. Lucif. 17, 18 ; documents in Hil. Frag. hist. vii.-ix. ; cf. Athan. De synodis. This book was written in the autumn of 359, when Athanasius still knew nothing about the two Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, except their orthodox manifestoes, and was ignorant of the defections which followed them.

2 Hil. Frag. hist. viii. 1-3 ; cf. vii. 3 et seq.

3 St Athanasius adds here the names of Auxentius and Demo- philus (De syn. 9).

f. 298-!)]

239

pbUNCWL OF ARIMINUM

affairs were calling him. He gave a good reception to the delegates of the opposition, and, on the contrary, put off those of the majority.¹ The latter had at their head the Bishop of Carthage; neither he nor they were equal to the importance of their mission. They were so surrounded and lectured that they ended by betraying their trust, and took upon themselves not only to resume communion with the four deposed bishops who formed part of the opposing deputation, but to rescind, broadly speaking, everything done by those who had sent them. This proceeding, though strangely irregular, was confirmed by a protocol dated from a posting station called Niceea, near Adrianople, on October 10.

It remained to secure its acceptance by the council itself. The twenty delegates returned to Ariminum in a condition of unexpected unanimity. Their example soon caused many defections; the meeting in the church began to grow thinner, to the benefit of the other building. The praetorian prefect Taurus, to whom was entrusted the duty of looking after the council and bringing it to the point the emperor wished, accomplished his task successfully. The bishops, penned up for seven months in the narrow limits of a small town, where they had nothing to do, grew weary, and demanded permission to go. Taurus remained deaf to their appeals. They would be allowed to go when everyone had signed. Also, his orders were, not to wait for absolute unanimity; when the number of those who refused to sign fell below fifteen, he was to send them into exile, and to set the others at liberty.

There was no one left to exile. The opposition, reduced to about twenty, under the leadership of Phoebadius, Bishop of Agen, and Servasius of Tongres, yielded at last to his exhortations. They were given further a sort of half-concession, by being allowed, provided they signed the formula, to expand it in the declaration of their adhesion. They took advantage, with more or

¹ See the emperor's letter addressed at that time to the council, and the reply of the latter, at the end of the De synodis of Athanasius.

less cleverness, of this concession; but they signed without exception. Ten new delegates, chosen this time by the whole council, went to carry to Constantinople, the documentary proof of this falling away.¹

In the meantime, the other Council at Seleucia² was beginning its deliberations. Leonas, "quaestor of the sacred palace," like the prefect Taurus at Ariminum, represented the emperor, and exercised official oversight; the military governor³ of the province, the Dux Lauricius, had orders to assist him with troops if necessary. About a hundred and fifty bishops were present, among others the two intruded primates of Alexandria and Antioch, George and Eudoxius; Acacius, the metropolitan of Palestine, a very influential person; Basil of Ancyra, Macedonius of Constantinople, Patrophilus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Eleusius of Cyzicus, Silvanus of Tarsus, etc. Hilary of Poitiers had also been sent there. The vicarius of the diocese of Asia, whose business it was to despatch the bishops to the council, had not taken into consideration Hilary's position as an exile, and had packed him off with the others.

From the very first sitting (September 27), the parties were clearly defined. After a confused debate upon the order of proceeding, they decided to begin with the question of faith. Basil was absent on this particular day. He found himself afterwards among the number of persons in dispute, an accusation having been laid against him. Furthermore, he played scarcely any part in the council; it was Eleusius and Silvanus who directed his party at that time. Silvanus proposed that no new creed should be accepted, and that they should adhere to that of Antioch, which was called the Dedication Creed. In this way everything was set aside that had been done

1 Hil. Frag, hist. ix.

2 Socrates gives (H. E. ii. 39, 40) an analysis of its Acts which he had read in the collection of Sabinus. Sozomen (iv. 22) read them subsequently, and drew from them several new details; cf. Hil. Adv. Const. 12-15.

3 Isauria, a province thinly populated, had no civil governor ; it was administered by a dux.

p. 301]

241

COUNCIL OF SELEUCIA

at Court since Hffster 358, whether at Basil's instigation or that of the Arians. His proposition was accepted by a hundred and five votes: Acacius then retired with his followers; they were nineteen in all. Apart from these two groups, there were some Egyptian bishops who, like Hilary, adhered to the Council of Nicaea; but in such surroundings they could scarcely have any influence.

On the next day, while the hundred and five, shut up in the church, proceeded to sign the formula of Antioch, the Acacians, protesting strongly against this sitting in camera, presented to the quaestor a declaration agreeing with that of Sirmium, but so far amended that in it was condemned the anomoios no less than the homoousios and the homo'iousios. This document,¹ adorned with thirty-two signatures, was discussed on the two following days, by a sitting of the whole council, but nothing was decided ; Silvanus, Eleusius, and their party remained inflexible, and refused to hear of any other creed but that of the Dedication.² Seeing this, Leonas declared that he had been delegated to a unanimous council, and not to a divided one. He took leave of the bishops, saying to them: " Now, go and quarrel with each other in the church." Following his example, the Acacians refused to take any part in the subsequent meetings.

The majority, however, met together, and discussed the questions affecting individuals. Cyril of Jerusalem, who had been deposed two years before by his metropolitan, Acacius, had lodged an appeal, and the emperor had referred his case to the Council of Seleucia : he was

1 Athan. De syn. 29; Epiph. Haer. lxxiii. 25, 26, with the signatures, to the number of 43. The number of the supporters of Acacius varies, as we see, according to the documents.

2 They refused explicitly to endorse the formulas of 358 and 359, i.e., those of Basil and that of Mark. " If Basil and Mark," says Eleusius, " have done anything in their private capacity, if they and the Acacians choose to go on accusing each other on one point or another, that is no business of the synod ; it has not to examine if their exposition of the Faith is or is not satisfactory." Sozomen, H. E. v. 22, p. 165.

ii q

restored. On the contfarj^Geofge, Eudoxius, Ajacius, Patrophilus, and five others were declared to be deprived of their episcopal rank; in the case of nine others, the council confined itself to breaking off relations with them, until they should have satisfactorily answered the accusations laid against them. A bishop was even consecrated for Antioch, in place of Eudoxius; but the candidate selected by the council, Annianus, immediately he was consecrated, was carried off by the Dux Lauricius and sent into exile.

Finally, the assembly separated, after having nominated its ten delegates to the emperor. The Acacians, as one may imagine, were already on the way to Constantinople.

CHAPTER XIV

the monks of the east

Egypt, the fatherland of the monks. Antony and the Anchorites. The monks of Nitria. Pacomius and Cenobitism. Schnoudi. Monastic virtues. Pilgrimages to the Egyptian solitaries. The monks of Palestine: Hilarion and Epiphanius. Sinai and Jerusalem. Monks of Syria and of Mesopotamia. Monasticism in Asia Minor: Eustathius and St Basil. Attitude of the Church and of the Government.

The heresy of Arius, the schism of Meletius, the long conflicts and the fidelity of Athanasius, make Egypt stand out in special relief in the Christian history of the 4th century. The great Councils of Nicaea, of Tyre, of Sardica, and of Ariminum; the Church torn by divisions, bishops deposed, exiled, and hunted down by the police of the Most Christian Emperor; the Faith betrayed by creeds; religion perverted amid inexpiable strife; all these calamities took their origin in the land of the Nile. And yet, Egypt was not a byeword and a scandal; in spite of all the difficulties which he caused, Athanasius by reason of his lofty and unruffled virtue, above all by his indomitable courage, ever remained the object of universal admiration. All respectable people flocked round him by instinct. It was well known that he did not stand alone ; that all the bishops, all the faithful of Egypt supported him by their devotion, and that this devotion cost them dear; that they had paid for it by persecutions incessantly renewed, from the time of Constantine to the end of the reign of Valens. Egypt was the sanctuary of orthodoxy, the classic ground of confessors of the faith.

II 385 2 B

But it had another title to respect: it was the fatherland of the monks. To the revered name of Athanasius were united in pious stories the names of Antony and Pacomius, of Ammon, of the two Macarii, and those of many other personages in whom piety soon embodied the ideal of Christian heroism. The country in which these holy men lived, and where the institutions which sprang from them flourished, soon became a second Holy Land. Pilgrimages were made there, not to visit celebrated tombs, or places which bore witness to the great facts of Bible history, but to venerate living saints, to gaze upon their faces emaciated by austerity, and to listen to their edifying conversation. In the year 373, a great Roman lady, Melania the elder, inaugurated in this respect the series of Western pilgrims. But long before this, Hilarion, Eustathius, and Basil had travelled thither from Palestine and Asia Minor. As a result of these journeys, the renown of the Egyptian monks was spread abroad ; their example encouraged imitation, their way of living inspired the reforms which were already beginning to influence the old form of asceticism, more or less everywhere.

Indeed, there were almost everywhere Christian ascetics ; there had been so from the outset. I have already said that asceticism is not a peculiarity of Christianity; it existed before it, and apart from it, among certain religious or philosophical sects¹; and the Church has never accepted it as an essential and obligatory form of the Christian life; she has always shown herself mistrustful of it when there was the slightest reason for suspicion that austere practices were connected with unorthodox doctrines.²

1 The Therapeutae of Philo, if the book "On the Contemplative Life" is really his, were Jewish ascetics, living in communities. Some thirty years ago, an attempt was made to connect all Egyptian forms of monasticism with certain cases of voluntary seclusion from the world which are known in the worship of Serapis. This absurd idea had some success at first; no one maintains it now.

2 An instance of this kind was represented in Egypt by the asceticism of Hieracas of Leontopolis, who, about the beginning of the 4th century, founded a sect into which no one could be

P. 487]

387

THE MONKS OF EGYPT

Far from condemning such practices, however, in themselves, she has considered them as meritorious, edifying, and worthy of honour. In the 3rd century there were many ascetics of either sex living in their families, or at least in ordinary society, and having no idea of separating themselves from it in order to lead a life of isolation. Here and there, they did group themselves together, either for religious exercises, or for a community life.¹ In Egypt, as elsewhere, there were both men and women who embraced a life of celibacy, " apotaktikoi" as they were sometimes called; they are often mentioned, especially the virgins, in the stories of martyrs, and the accounts of religious disturbances. They dwelt in towns and villages, sometimes in the suburbs, in some quiet place, where they lived alone; but they took part in the ordinary religious life and especially in meetings for public worship, where they showed themselves more regular than others.

The first person² who conceived the idea of isolating himself entirely, of fleeing from the inhabited world and

admitted unless he renounced marriage, and adopted a vegetarian diet. According to his teaching, marriage, which was permitted in the Old Testament, is forbidden in the New, because the teaching of the New Testament must be higher than that of the Old. Hieracas was a very learned man, well acquainted with Egyptian and Greek literature. He had also cultivated medicine, astronomy, and other sciences. In theology, he depended in some respects upon Origen, in rejecting the Resurrection. Children according to him could not be saved. He had strange ideas with regard to the Trinity : he identified Melchizedec with the Holy Spirit. Arius quotes a proposition of his which would seem somewhat akin to Modalism (letter to Alexander, Epiph. Haer. lxix. 7). St Epiphanius, who gives us information (Haer. lxviii.) upon the heresy of Hieracas, was acquainted with commentaries by him upon the six days of Creation and on other parts of the Bible. He also composed many sacred poems in Greek and Egyptian. He died at the age of ninety, still exercising his profession as caligraphist.

1 Such was the irapOevwv in which St Antony placed his sister (Athan. Vita Ant. 3).

2 I pass over St Paul of Thebes, who, according to St Jerome, must have fled to the desert in the time of the Emperor Decius, This story is not very well established.

even from the ordinary society of the faithful, was St Antony.^{^[229]}

He was born in 251 in a village of the norne of Heracleopolis, in Middle Egypt. His parents were not poor. From his earliest childhood he showed a great aversion to intercourse with his fellows; he could never be persuaded to go to school; and hence he remained all his life an unlettered man, not understanding Greek, and not knowing how to read even in Coptic. On the death of his parents (about 270) he sold his property, placed a sister who remained to him and who was younger than himself in a house of consecrated virgins (etY 7rapOevcom), and began to live as an ascetic, first at the door of his own house, afterwards in the outskirts of the village, and finally in a tomb at a great distance from it. Fifteen years passed away, during which time, although preferring the intercourse with hermits in the neighbourhood or those passing by, he yet kept in touch with the people of his village. But in 285, yielding to the attraction of a more complete solitude, he crossed the Nile and directed his steps towards the mountains on the right bank (the Arabian chain), where, in the heart of a terrible desert, he discovered the ruins of a fortified castle. A spring of water gushed near. The name of the place was Pispir^{^[230]}; and there he took up his abode. Every six months his provision of bread was brought to him. He passed his time in prayer or in making mats. Separated from men he lived with God, and also with demons whose assaults hold a prominent place in his history.

389

p. 489]

ST ANTONY

After twenty years of solitude, Antony found himself one day besieged in his fortBss; his door was forced ; they were disciples who came to him and thus vanquished their master. His example had been contagious. Many Christians, abandoning family, country, and Church, and flying also from judges and tax collectors,^{^[231]} now populated the desert of Pispir and the neighbouring mountains. Antony gave them a welcome and plenty of good advice.

This happened at the time of the Great Persecution. The solitaries were too far off to be affected by it. They went to meet it: in the reign of Maximin, Antony went down to Alexandria with several of his disciples, and busied himself in serving and encouraging the confessors. This journey did not fail to increase his fame. He soon found that there were too many monks at Pispir, and certainly too many visitors. A caravan of Bedouin Arabs passed by, going in the direction of the Red Sea: he joined them. After a journey of several days he discovered in the mountains near the seashore a spot which possessed water, palm-trees, and a small tract of land which could be cultivated. This was his second and last refuge.^{^[232]} To go and look for him in such a place, it was necessary to undergo more than ordinary fatigue. And so he was left there in peace. Sometimes, however, he descended towards the Nile valley and went to spend a few days at Pispir.

He lived to a very great age; he did not die until 356, at the age of a hundred and five. When he was almost ninety he took a second journey to Alexandria, in 33s,^{^[233]} to greet Athanasius on his return from his first exile and to lend him aid against the Arians. They were old acquaintances. Athanasius had been for some time Antony's disciple, and afterwards they had met again several times. In the ecclesiastical quarrels which tore Egypt asunder, the great solitary had always taken the part of his friend : neither Arians nor Meletians had ever been able to
detach him from his side. When Antony died, he showed a last mark of regard for Athanasius and bequeathed to him, besides an old tunic of sheepskin, the well-worn mantle which had long served him for a bed, and which had been in the first instance Athanasius' own gift. Serapion, Bishop of Thmuis, also received a remembrance of the same kind.

These relics were a symbol of the perfect and cordial agreement which existed between the heads of the Egyptian Church and the patriarch of the anchorites. Neither of them seems to have realized that these flights to the desert might have had some drawbacks. Yet, when we look closely into the matter, the hermit was a living criticism of ecclesiastical society. The mere fact of his retirement proved that in his estimation the Church had become an impossible dwelling-place for anyone who wished to lead a really Christian life, and this judgment was founded upon an ideal of religious life which differed markedly from that of the Church. For him the very essential of Christianity was asceticism. Fraternal union, meetings for public worship, the liturgy, and instruction from the bishop, all these things were of secondary importance in comparison with that cultivation of the soul which consists above all in personal mortification and continual prayer. We cannot see how Antony, during his twenty years of seclusion, can ever have been enabled to receive the Eucharist.

391

P. 492]

THE MONKS OE NITllIA

Such a mode of life would have astonished St Ignatius of Antioch and St Clement of Rome. Even in the 4th century the exodus to monasticism alarmed in more places than one the representatives of tradition. The Bishops of Alexandria, Peter, Alexander, and Athanasius, were not disturbed by it; they even looked with favour upon this new form of piety, which preached so eloquently to the general run of lukewarm Christians. The ecclesiastical danger could be guarded against by keeping the hermits under the direction of episcopal authority. This was a matter of organization. Those recluses who were out of reach were, and could only be, exceptions to the rule. The general body of hermits were not too much scattered; each of them had his hut or his cave, his cell as it was called, but they were not very far from one another. It was easy to arrange a spiritual centre for them—a church—round which they organized themselves into a sort of country parish.

Thus in Egypt there was no difficulty about the matter: bishops and monks arranged things between themselves, and the new kind of life soon became very popular. As early as the reign of Constantine, there were monks throughout the whole of Egypt. One of their most celebrated colonies was that of Nitria. To the west of the Delta, at a considerable distance south of Alexandria, a large valley opens out from the north-west to the south-east, at the bottom of which are salt lakes which produce nitre. It is a very melancholy place, and its name in our day is Wadi-Natroun, the Valley of Nitre. Here, about the time of the Council of Nicsea, a certain Amoun^{^[234]} came to lead the life of an ascetic. He had left behind him in Egypt a wife with whom he had lived for eighteen years in a celibate union. His wife collected virgins around her; while Amoun on his part soon saw solitaries flocking to his retreat in Nitria. Twice a year the husband and wife visited each other. When Amoun died, St Antony, who was still alive, saw the angels descend from heaven and receive his soul. His spiritual posterity soon increased to considerable proportions: forty years after his death there were more than five thousand monks in the grim valley of Nitria. Like Antony's hermits, each lived in a separate cell; in the middle of the valley rose a church where they all assembled on Saturday and Sunday; eight priests, who owed obedience to the Bishop of Hermopolis Minor, were attached to this church. It was the centre of government and discipline. Three palm trees shaded
the court of the church; to each of them was attached a whip, which was made use of to chastise the evil doings of offenders from outside or, if there were need, of the solitaries themselves. With the exception of their weekly meetings, the monks passed their time as they liked in their cells, working for their living at basket-work, sometimes two together, sometimes three together, often alone. Morning and evening there sounded from one end of the valley to the other the chanting of psalms. Beyond the Wadi-Natroun stretched a still more frightful desert, that of the Cells where the more courageous had made their retreat. Farther still, the solitude of Scetis, a country of sand and of hunger, received the most renowned connoisseurs of Nitrian asceticism.

393

p. 495]

LIFE IN THE DESERT

For there was a certain connoisseurship, a virtuosite in asceticism, an open rivalry between the monks, not only of this district but throughout the whole of Egypt. Pambo, Or, Nathanael, Benjamin, Macarius of Egypt and Macarius of Alexandria, appear in the number of Nitrian celebrities. Macarius of Alexandria could never hear of any feat of asceticism without at once trying to surpass it. The monks of Tabenna ate no cooked food during Lent; Macarius thought fit to observe this rule for seven years, from one end of the year to another. He was to be seen frantically endeavouring for twenty consecutive nights to keep himself awake. He was already an old man when he conceived the idea of visiting Tabenna itself, to give a lesson to those famous ascetics, who spent their nights standing upright, and during Lent only ate once in every five days. He presented himself, disguised, at the door of a monastery and, when Lent came, passed the whole of it standing upright, without even bending his knees either by day or night, without drinking and even without eating, except that on Sundays he swallowed, quite uncooked, a few cabbage leaves. During the whole of this fast he continued to work with his hands at the trade of basket-making, and when he was not working, he prayed. The monks of Tabenna rose in revolt against this formid- able rival, but therr superior thanked him for having humbled the pride of his disciples.¹

It was not always the mere attraction to asceticism which drove men into the desert. Some came there to do penance. In Nitria, a certain negro called Moses was long spoken of; he had formerly been a slave whom no one would put up with and, being driven away by his masters for that reason, he then became a brigand-chief. In this latter capacity he acquired a terrible reputation. At last he decided to change his life, and took possession of a cell in the holy valley. One night he was attacked there by four robbers. They had come to the wrong man : the recluse had not lost his former vigour; he knocked his assailants down, tied them up, took all the four upon his broad shoulders, and went like this to the church, asking what he should do with them. During the explanations which followed, the name of Moses was pronounced. Moses for the brigands was the great celebrity of their profession. Without hesitation they too became monks.²

In those days, the desert was supposed to be full of demons. The hermits, notwithstanding their austerities, often experienced attacks from them. We have already seen what a place is filled in the life of St Antony by the struggle against the temptations of evil spirits. In Nitria, in the same way, the monks complained of them greatly; the demon of avarice prowled round the alms sometimes left by well-to-do pilgrims; but it was especially the demon of the flesh which came to trouble the nights of the ascetics. They fought it as best they could, sometimes by means scarcely sane. One of them, Pachon, thought he would seek to be devoured by wild beasts. So he sat down at the entrance to a cave which he knew to be inhabited by hyenas. At night-fall, these animals really did come out, and smelt him for a long time; but they went away without doing him any harm. Another day, he applied a serpent of a venomous kind to his stomach ; but he was not bitten.³

¹ Hist. Laus. 18 (19-20). - Ibid. 19 (22). ³ Ibid. 23 (29)

The disciples of St Antony, the monks of Nitm, and of many other places in Lower or Middle Egypt, were not, strictly speaking, subject to any rule or any superior. The priests who served their churches had only liturgical functions: they were not monastic superiors. The whip which hung from the palm-tree, near the Church of Nitria, was merely an instrument of general government, in no way a symbol of conventual discipline. New-comers attached themselves to some experienced hermit, who guided their first steps in the ascetic career; afterwards, they arranged themselves how they liked, sanctifying themselves according to the received methods, and perfecting these according to their taste.

Such independence made access to the desert-life easy for persons of every variety of culture and condition. Among the monks of Nitria were men of the world, former members of the clergy, people of high and distinguished education. In certain cells were to be found not only copies of the Sacred Books, beautifully transcribed by the solitaries themselves,¹ but the works of the ancient doctors —of Clement of Alexandria,² and above all of Origen, who although he was not regarded with favour, it is true, in Pacomian monasteries,³ preserved elsewhere many faithful adherents. These later on, under the patriarch Theophilus, had to endure evil times.

Far away from Nitria, and even from Pispir, in the heart of Upper Egypt, there sprang up about the time of Licinius another efflorescence of monasticism, which finally developed in institutions widely different from the primitive form of hermit life. A young peasant named Pacomius, (Ltaxou/xio?) who had been called up for military service and disbanded shortly afterwards (314), had occasion, during his short stay in the army, to experience the charity of the Christians. His family were pagans, and

1 It is highly probable that the fine MS. H of the Epistles of St Paul, of which we still possess some fragments, was the work of Evagrius of Nitria. Upon this, see A. Ehrhard, Centralblatt fiir Bibliothekswesen, 1891, p. 385, and Armitage Robinson in the Historic/, Lausiaca of Dom Butler, vol. i., pp. 103-106.

2 Palladius, Hist. Laus. 60. ³ Life of Pacomius, c. 21.

p. 497-8]

395

ST PACOMIUS

lived in the neighbourhood of Esneh (Latopolis), to Bfc south of Thebes. He never saw them again. As soon as he was free from the army he asked for baptism, and then devoted himself to asceticism under the direction of a solitary named Palaemon, who had his hermit's cell upon the right bank of the Nile, opposite Denderah. Soon he felt himself drawn to gather other ascetics round him, and to lead with them a life in community. He was the inventor¹ of what we wrongly call the monasteries,² and of the cenobitic life. The first monastery was founded at a place called Tabennesis.

Disciples flocked there in hundreds; whole groups of hermits—this form of asceticism was very widespread in that district—placed themselves under the discipline of the new master. A second monastery was organized, at an hour's distance from the first, at a place called Peboou (JIafiav, now Faou) ; but that soon proved insufficient. Other monasteries were built, either in the neighbourhood, or a little lower down or higher up the river, in the outskirts of Achmin (Panopolis) and Esneh (Latopolis). In the lifetime of Pacomius there were at least nine of them. These monasteries were not independent of each other; they formed what we should now call an Order, a Congregation. All of them followed the same mode of life, were subject to the same rule, to the same temporal administration, and obeyed the same superior. The superior, after having at first resided at Tabennesis, soon fixed the seat of his government at Peboou.

Each of the monasteries comprised a closed area, in which were built several houses, each sheltering some forty monks, grouped according to the nature of their manual labour.³

1 An attempt of this kind had been made before him, but without success, by a certain Aotas ( Vita Pachomii, 77).

2 MovatTrripiov means properly a place where one lives alone ; this is exactly the contrary of the usually received meaning ; Koivbfiiov, of which we have no literal equivalent in French, means a place where men live in common ; this is the correct term, but it is Greek.

3 Upon the documents relating to St Pacomius and his monasteries, see Ladeuze, Etude sur le cenobitisme Pakhomien

Their Rule, which we still possess, was comparatively endurable. The Pacomian monks worked with their hands, and even with their heads, for they were obliged to learn by heart at least the Psalter and the New Testament. They were allowed to feed themselves as they liked, that is to say, to eat more or less often, though of course of fare which had small claim to be called delicate; those who fasted more, worked less. While eating, they covered their heads with their hoods; In this way they disguised an operation which apparently seemed to them unbecoming, or, at any rate, kept to themselves the secret of the privations which they voluntarily endured. Pacomius was soon joined by his sister, who, on her brother's advice, established for her part monasteries for women.

Pacomius had many visions, of which the monks,

penda,7it le IVe siecle et la premiere moitie du V^e. The best biographical document is the Greek Life, published (shockingly: this work ought to be done again) by the Bollandists (Acta SS. mail, vol. iii., p. 22 * et seq.); it has been supplemented and retouched, subsequently, in Coptic as well as in Greek (Boll. loc. cit., pp. 44 *-53 * ^and 54 *-⁶¹ * [letter of Ammon to Theophilus]). The other accounts {Hist. mon. 3; Hist. Laus. 32-34; cf. 7, 18; Sozomen, iii. 14 ; vi. 28) are only of minor importance, and can scarcely count with regard to the earliest beginnings. As to the text of the Pacomian Rule, many recensions of it exist; but these documents are liable to be modified considerably in the course of time. It is very difficult to distinguish, in those which we possess, what goes back to Pacomius himself from what has been added gradually by the care of his successors. A considerable number of texts of it go back to a summary given by Palladius {Hist. Laus. 32); according to him {cf. Gennadius, De viris, 7) an angel brought this text to St Pacomius, engraved upon a table of brass. Sozomen (iii. 14) even says that this table was preserved in his own time at Tabennesi. The best edition is still that which has come down to us in a Latin version by St Jerome (Migne, P. L., vol. xxiii., p. 61), which had certainly not been translated from the original Coptic, but from a Greek text coming from the monastery of Canope. Upon all this, see Ladeuze, op. cit., p. 256, et seq. Jerome also translated twelve letters of Pacomius (Migne, op. cit., p. 87), in which we meet with Greek characters employed as cryptographic signs. According to Palladius {loc. cit.) these characters seem to have served also to designate various classes of monks : but this is not absolutely certain.

397

p. 500]

ATHANASIUS AND PACOMIUS

naturally, made a great deal. He was cotecious of possessing in certain cases the power of sounding the consciences of people, and treated them in accordance with the impression he thus received. The bishops of the neighbourhood were disturbed in mind by this singular gift, and Pacomius had to explain himself before a synod held at Latopolis. Apart from this, the episcopate does not seem to have thrown any obstacle in the way of the development of his communities; far from it. The " Pope," Athanasius, was their friend : he visited Tabennesi, in 333, during his pastoral journey through the Thebai'd. The monks kept up a regular communication with Alexandria: they had boats which plied between their various colonies and went down the river as far as the capital, in order to sell the produce of their labour there, and to buy things of which they were in need. In 346, several of them found themselves just in time to welcome the bishop on his return from exile. On their way, they had disembarked at Pispir, to visit St Antony. Pacomius had only been dead a few months : the patriarch of the anchorites received them warmly, and extolled the merits of the founder of monastic houses. Later on, when exile had brought Athanasius back to Upper Egypt, the monks saw him once more among them, proscribed and pursued by the police of Constantius. Pacomius had been succeeded, after a short interval, by Orsisius, one of his first disciples, an excellent man, but one who found himself somewhat disconcerted when for the first time centrifugal tendencies began to manifest themselves in the congregation. He at once chose a coadjutor in the person of another Tabennesian monk of the early days, one Theodore, thanks to whom the Pacomian foundations multiplied. Soon they reached as far as Hermopolis Magna, opposite Antinoe. It was there that in the reign of Julian, Theodore, while on a tour of inspection, met for the last time Athanasius, the perpetual exile. Foreseeing that this might happen, he had brought many followers with him. Athanasius was received in triumph, with the chanting of psalms. The " Abbot"

Theodore conducted him, holding the bridlelof his ass. Acclamations echoed from shore to shore. In this land of the upper river, there was no occasion to trouble oneself about the police of Alexandria.

It was another world. The people from the great town were like foreigners there ; they were called the Alexandrians, the city folk (ttoXltlkoI), the Hellenes. In the monasteries, they were treated as guests, and grouped separately. Their first care, if they wished to join the community, was necessarily to learn the Coptic of Thebes (Sahidic).

Theodore died about 368. The aged Orsisius, who had taken him as coadjutor, was still alive. Athanasius advised him to resume the reins of government. Here we come to an end of the information furnished by the Life of Pacomius, an interesting document, which seems to have been compiled immediately after the death of Theodore, by one of the few Greek or Greek-speaking monks then living in the chief monastery. Later on, a colony of Pacomians was established close to Alexandria, at Canope. It was from this colony that St Jerome got his information with regard to Pacomius and his Rule ; and it was from this that the greater part of the visitors, whether Greek or Latin, were able to form a judgment on the Pacomian institutions.

Monasticism continued to flourish in the country of its origin; but it appears that, gradually, people came to think of it as capable of realization apart from the grouping of communities, which was the ideal of St Pacomius. He was still living, when, about the year 343, a child of nine years of age, called Schnoudi, embraced not far from Tabennesi the profession of a monk. This child was destined to become one of the most original figures in the history of Egyptian cenobitism.

p. 503]

399

SCIINOUDI OF ATRIPE

Upon a spur of the Libyan chain, opposite the town of Achmin (Chtmnis), there stands a kind of fortress of imposing appearance with its high and massive walls. This is the White Monastery — the monastery of St Schnoudi. In former days there was near it a village called j^ripe. Towards the middle of the 4th cotT!^, an anchorite called Bgoul allowed several disciples to gather round him there, and amongst them his nephew Schnoudi was soon to be found. Bgoul had organized his followers into a monastery, adopting the cenobitic system of Pacomius. After his death, about 388, the government of the community passed into the hands of Schnoudi, under whom it assumed extraordinary proportions. On the outskirts of the great monastery arose branch- establishments; convents for women were added to the congregation. A man of ardent soul, served by a will of iron and most remarkable common sense, Schnoudi was a born leader of men. His monks, who were numbered by hundreds, were entirely in his hands. He led them with severity ; any infringement of the Rule was punished with blows of whip or of stick. Schnoudi was himself the operator, and he struck hard; one day he struck so hard that the sufferer died in consequence, a circumstance which was not allowed to trouble him. His influence soon extended throughout the whole countryside, where his hand, when it was kind, was stretched out to every sort of suffering to relieve it; when it was angry, it fell with terrible force upon evil-doers, upon bad priests, upon unjust judges, upon any pagans who still existed, and upon their temples. He lived to the incredible age of one hundred and eighteen years, venerated and feared by all the Thebaid and even by the barbarians, against whom his monastery offered to the Roman soldiers an unassailable retreat. Antony had given good example and advice; Pacomius rules; Macarius at Scetis and John at Lycopolis astonished the world by marvels of austerity; Schnoudi, in his White Monastery, was like Elijah on Carmel, an inspired administrator of justice, a redoubtable man of God. In the social and political confusion which prevailed in those desolate regions, it was not difficult for him to assume a kind of divine lieutenancy, and to exercise it in his own fierce way.¹

¹ In addition to his Life, by his disciple Besas (Amelineau, Mt'm aires de la mission archc'ol. du Caire, vol. iv. 1), we possess letters

It was not only in Nitria, upon St Antony's mountain, and in the Pacomian or Schnoudist monasteries, that asceticism flourished. Egypt was filled with monks. In the reign of Theodosius, the entire town of Oxyrhynchus¹belonged to them. Their cells invaded the towers of the encircling walls, the gates of the town, the temples, and other unused public buildings. In Antinoe, Palla- dius counted as many as twelve convents of women.²From Syene to the Delta, in the deserts that lie between the cultivated lands and the barren mountains which enclose them to east and west, hermitages succeeded one another in an unbroken chain. Many were to be seen also in Lower Egypt, towards the desert of Suez and of Pelusium as far as Lake Menzaleh and the sea. Here and there, famous characters attracted attention. Some of the anchorites had lived retired from the world ever since the days of persecution or the first years of peace. To begin with, they had lived on roots amid frightful solitudes; then disciples gathered around them. These they directed, teaching them, by brief maxims or long conversations, the discipline of a solitary life, and giving them by their own life the most eloquent of examples. Their austerity shone throughout the neighbourhood, serving as a lesson to the clergy and the faithful who remained in the world, and also as an argument to overcome the obstinacy of the pagans. Every kind of miracle was of course attributed to them ; some, like John of Lycopolis, were reputed to be prophets. Their renown even reached the Court, which did not disdain, when necessity arose, to consult them as though they were oracles.³

and sermons of Schnoudi himself which help us to form a good idea of this personage. All these documents are in Sahidic Coptic. Schnoudi knew Greek, but he only spoke it when necessary. His surroundings were essentially Coptic, and so was his literature. This is why Greek and Latin authors, even those who, like Palladius, visited the Thebaid in his lifetime, betray no knowledge of him. The best monograph on Schnoudi is that of Herr Joh. Leipoldt, SchemUe von Atripe, in the Texte und Untersuchungen, vol. xxv. (1903). See also Ladeuze, op. cit.

¹ Hist. mon. 5. ² Hist. Laus. 59 (137).

³ John of Lycopolis was supposed to have predicted to Theodosius

P. 505]

401

PAFHNUTIUS

We must not think that austerity was their only virtue. Their maxims, many of which have been preserved to us, indicate a great concern for interior perfection; they can readily be adapted to conditions of life very different from the terrible asceticism from whence they proceeded. Many generations of holy souls, in every class of Christian society, have profited by them for centuries, and still do so. They knew well, or if all of them did not, at least some of them did, that their fasts and mortifications of every kind were after all but one way amongst many others; and that even those people who remained in the world could sanctify themselves in another manner.

Paphnutius of Heracleopolis ¹ or, rather, of the desert near that town, had mortified himself for a long time, when the idea came to him to ask God to what degree of merit he had attained. The answer was that he had arrived at the same stage as a man who followed in the nearest village the profession of a flute-player. Paphnutius wished to see him ; the man told him that, before cultivating music, he had been a brigand. This was not very reassuring. However, the hermit, by dint of questioning his flute-player, learned that once, during his career as a brigand, he had been able to save the life and the honour of a virgin consecrated to God. Paphnutius returned to his desert and renewed his mortifications, accompanied by his brigand musician, whom he had made his disciple. The disciple became an excellent monk, but he died. Left alone, his master made an effort to lead a life even more severe than before. After long years had passed, he again felt the desire to estimate his progress, and again asked God to tell him how far he had gone. " Exactly as far," he was told," as the mayor of such and such a village." This man was a good peasant, an excellent father of a family, an upright and benevolent administrator who enjoyed universal esteem. A third attempt carried Paphnutius to the same level as a merchant

his victories over Maximus and over Eugenius ; and also, after the latter victory, his approaching end.

¹ Hist. mon. 16.

II 2 C

of Alexandria, an honest and charitable man, who was not unmindful of the hermits and used to make them presents of dried vegetables.

Such lessons were not thrown away upon a humble and intelligent monk such as Paphnutius was. He took pleasure in impressing upon others the doctrine derived from his own experiences, and in proclaiming the truth that in every state of life it is possible to please God and attain to a high degree of holiness. When he died, his disciples saw him enter Heaven, and receive a welcome from the angels and the prophets.

Visitors, as I have already said, were not lacking to these holy people.¹ Some came from far—from Constantinople, Rome, Gaul, and Spain. All of these did not go so far as the Thebaid. As a general rule, they confined themselves to the valley of Nitria and to the monasteries of Lower Egypt. This was what was done by the two Melanias, and Silvania, the half-sister of Rufinus, the celebrated minister; and by St Paula and St Jerome himself—the latter, I fear, being rather more attracted by the libraries and learned men of Alexandria than by the heroes of the desert. Cassian went no further. With

p. 508]

403

ETHERIA

¹ Besides the lives of Antony, Pacomius, and Schnoudi, the Egyptian monks of the 4th century are known to us from the following documents : 1st—The journey of 394, the Greek text of which, separate and entire, has not yet been published, although several manuscripts of it have been noted ; Sozomen derived information from it ; it is also to be found, blended with that of Palladius, in what was called until recent days the Historia Lausiaca. Rufinus made a translation of it, under the title Historia Monachorum, which gave it wide currency among the Latins. 2nd—The Historia Lausiaca of Palladius, the story of a hermit who later became a bishop, after having spent eleven years in Egypt (388-399), chiefly among the monks of Nitria. Dom Butler has succeeded in distinguishing the true text of Palladius from the interpolations of the Historia Monachorum (See The Lausiac History of Palladius, vol vi. of the Cambridge Texts and Studies, 1898-1904). 3rd—The " Institutes " and "Conferences" of Cassian who was living in Egypt at the same time as Palladius, and who, like him, waited at least some twenty years before publishing his recollections. 4th—In these narrative documents we have already a good many mentions of the holy monks, and anecdotes concerning them. Others have come to us directly, in the letters of Pacomius greater determination Rufinus of Aquileia, who, besides, spent six years in Egypt, pushed on as far as Pispir. Posthumianus, one of the speakers in the Dialogues of Sulpicius Severus, was not satisfied even with that: he desired to visit the far-distant monasteries of St Antony and of St Paul, near the Red Sea.

The Thebaid of that day comprised the present Fayoum, which from the time of Theodosius possessed, under the name o( Arcadia, a separate provincial organization. Rufinus and Posthumianus went to the Thebaid. The pilgrim Etheria (or Eucheria¹), whose account of her journey has unfortunately not come down to us in a complete form, also visited the Thebaid. In 394, a party of travellers ventured as far as Lycopolis; Rufinus has translated an account of their journey. About the same

and of Schnoudi, and above all in what is called "The Maxims of the Fathers," several collections of which are extant: one, in the alphabetical order of the "Fathers" (Migne, P. G., vol. lxv., pp. 72-440), has been preserved in Greek ; two others, Rosweyde's Vitae Patrum, Books v.-vi. and Book vii. (Migne, P. L., vol. lxxiii.) are known to us through ancient Latin versions. These collections belong to a time well on in the 5th century; but in many cases they are taken from older collections. Upon this, see Butler, op. cit., part i., p. 208. Indeed, for the whole literature of this subject, recourse should be had for information to Dom Butler's book. It must be added, however, that a synthetic work, and even a clear and convenient classification of the sources of information still remains a want to be supplied. This subject, treated with marvellous perception, but without a clear conspectus of the matter as a whole, by the venerable Tillemont, has been complicated in recent times by unjustifiable hypotheses and allegations as absurd as they are ill-natured. It has been necessary also to fight against the tendency of the upholders of Coptic to claim originality and authority exclusively to the advantage of documents in the Egyptian language, and to depreciate the Greek texts.

¹ It is she who was at first confused with the Silvania or Silvia, mentioned above. On this question, see the memoir of Dom Ferotin, in the Revue des Questions historiques, 1903, vol. lxxiv., p. 367. In the Revue augustinienne, 1903 and 1904, Pere Edmond Bouvy, starting from the spelling Eucheria (the MSS. give the readings Etheria, Echeria, Eiheria, Egeria) identifies the pilgrim with a daughter of Fl. Eucherius, who was consul in 381, and uncle of Theodosius. In any case, Dom Ferotin has proved that she was a native of Galicia, and belonged to a community of religious in that country.

time, Palladius himself went to see John the propM. Later on, the persecution which he had to suffer as the friend of Chrysostom, forced him to make a closer acquaintance with Upper Egypt. Being banished to Syene, he embraced the opportunity of visiting several Pacomian communities, notably that of Panopolis.

These journeys were not very easy ones. All along the marshes of the Nile, the pious travellers were liable to encounter sleeping crocodiles, which woke up at their approach and frightened them terribly. Leviathan and Behemoth then still dwelt in the great river: hippopotamuses sometimes came out of it, and roamed about the fields. In the deserts, certain caves gave shelter to enormous serpents. And lastly, the whole country was more or less infested with brigands. The severity of the imperial taxes ruined so many folk that the desert was peopled with starving highwaymen. When there was no one else to pillage, they pillaged the abodes of the solitaries. The monks converted some of them from time to time; and several of these recruits even attained to a high degree of sanctity. But many remained in the world, and upon the roads.

What most contributed to render the pilgrimage to Upper Egypt difficult was the barbarians of the south. In the reign of Diocletian, the Empire had retreated before them from the Second Cataract to the First. Not content with this success, they continued to extend their ravages into the part of the country which the Romans had reserved to themselves. In spite of the garrisons which the military commandant (dux Theba'idos) had established all along the river-bank and in the oases, they were everywhere to be seen, from Syene to Lycopolis. It was not without reason that the Pacomian monasteries were surrounded by high walls.

40")

p. 510-11]

ME LA-NT A IN EGYPT

Visitors, if they were rich, willingly left alms behind them. But the hermits were men of few wants; and besides, it was seldom that they had not some form of manual labour, the product of which sufficed to supply the cost of such needs. In return for the marks of respect shown to them, they offered exhortations, good advice, and sometimes little presents. The elder Melania, who was very generous to them, brought back with her from Egypt many tokens of remembrance. Pambo of Nitria, whose death she witnessed, made her a present of a basket, the last work which had occupied his hands.^{^[235]} The gift of Macarius the Alexandrian to her was a sheep-skin, which had a very strange history. One day, the hermit had seen a hyena enter his cell, carrying her little one between her teeth ; she laid it at his feet, and gave him to understand by her attitude that she desired some favour of him. Macarius looked at the little creature, perceived that it was blind, and restored its sight. The hyena took it up again, and departed ; but some time after she returned to the hermit's abode carrying a sheep-skin, as a proof of her gratitude.²

Melania found Egypt a prey to a very grave religious crisis. It was just at that time that the government of Valens was endeavouring to secure to the Arians the succession to Athanasius, and to impose its candidate Lucius as Bishop of Alexandria. The monks of Nitria were prominent among the opponents of this course. Several of the most venerable Fathers were arrested, and transported to an island in the middle of one of the great lakes on the coast.³ Others were joined to the company of the bishops deported to Diocsesarea. Melania accompanied them, and provided for their material wants. Her zealattracted attention; the consularis of Palestine being ignorant of her rank had her arrested, meaning to extort money from her. The Patrician lady allowed herself to be put in prison; but as soon as she was there, she disclosed her rank; the government officials abased themselves.

Egypt did not long preserve the monopoly of anchoritism and cenobitism. The East soon entered upon the paths opened by Antony and Pacomius.

It was Hilarion who first introduced into Palestine the mode of life of the Egyptian solitaries.⁴ He was born in a pagan family at Gaza, and sent to Alexandria to pursue his studies. He became a Christian; and then as he heard a great deal of Antony, who had just left his fortress at Pispir and begun to receive disciples, Hilarion visited him, and, after a short stay, returned to his own country accompanied by a few companions who, like himself, were attracted by a hermit's life.¹ He took up his abode on the lonely coast to the south of Gaza, and lived there a long time in the practice of extraordinary asceticism. From time to time he preached to the pagans of the Philistine country, waged war against the temples, and converted the Arabs of the neighbouring tribes. His disciples soon numbered several thousands.

Like Antony, Hilarion was a hermit, the master and director of hermits. Not far from him Epiphanius of Eleutheropolis organized a real monastery, following the model of Pacomius. He, too, had formed his projects in Egypt, where he had made some stay during the last years of Constantine's reign. His monastic colony was established in the place called Old Ad, near his native village of Besandouk.²

1 According to St Jerome's account, Hilarion would seem to have been born in 291 ; at the time of his stay with St Antony he could only have been fifteen years of age. This visit would thus be placed in 306, when the persecution was in full vigour. It is strange that the persecution should not have left any trace in the narrative.

2 Hilarion and Epiphanius, who had no doubt already been acquainted with each other in Palestine, met much later in the island of Cyprus, where Epiphanius became a bishop about 367. Hilarion, being disturbed in his austerities by the constant influx of visitors, betook himself to Egypt about 356. Some years after, Julian's police, excited by the people of Gaza, who were no friends of a hermit opposed to the gods, forced him to fly to a greater distance. He then stayed in Sicily, afterwards in Dalmatia, and finally at Paphos in Cyprus. The pretty legend of his meeting with Epiphanius was well known. The bishop having set before him some fowl, the hermit protested that never in his life had he touched such food. To this Epiphanius is said to have replied that he himself had never lain down to rest without being reconciled to any person with whom he might have had some disagreement. "My father," said Hilarion, "your philosophy is worth more than mine. . . ." (Vitac Patrum, v. 4.)

SINAI

407

p. 513>f]

Farther to the south, the holy mountain of Sinai attracted pilgrims and solitaries. To these the intricate valleys at the end of the peninsula offered retreats suitable to their manner of life. They quickly multiplied. The Biblical memories of which these places were full could not fail to be eagerly cherished by these holy people. They soon set themselves to discover the exact situation of all the scenes of the Exodus. The sacred topography of SinaT was fixed for centuries.

Very soon the summit of Djebel Mousa was crowned by a chapel: another oratory arose on the place of the burning bush, the spot on which visitors now find the celebrated monastery of St Catherine.^{^[236]} In the present Wadi-Feiran, the inhabited place which used to be called the town of Pharan was, alike for the wandering tribes of the peninsula and for the hermits, a centre of commerce and administration. Hermitages and chapels were to be found even as far as the seashore, in terrible places where nevertheless, thanks to some poor little stream of water and to the modesty of their requirements, the monks succeeded in supporting life.

It was in this maritime region that there lay the ^ desert of Rai'thu, the monks of which were massacred in 373 by Blemmyan pirates who came from the extreme end of the Red Sea.^{^[237]} On the same day, we are told, a band of Saracens fell upon the hermitages above Pharan; some of the solitaries were able to take refuge in a tower; the others were butchered.^{^[238]} Such raids were frequent. They produced but little booty. But

the monks themselves had a certain marketable value for the Bedouins. They sold them as slaves, or sacrificed them to their goddess Ouazza, the Morning-Star.

In Palestine and in Syria, as in Egypt, the district of the monks was also that of the brigands. From the Red Sea to the Euphrates, solitaries and Bedouins encountered each other in the deserts on the frontier. From time to time, incidents such as I have just been describing took place as the result. By degrees, however, their relations improved. The virtues of these holy men, their austerity and their charity at last ended by making an impression, at any rate to some extent, even upon barbarians, who were little enough disposed to gentle emotions. Little by little the monks led them to Christianity. But of this we shall have to speak later.

Jerusalem and the whole of Palestine¹ were filled with monks. In the Holy City, the mouazontes et parthenae, whom we find such regular attendants at the services of Bishops Cyril and John, represent undoubtedly an efflorescence of the ancient local asceticism. But very early, around Jerusalem, there were 'monasteries where the religious lived in community, and swarms of hermits of the Egyptian types. There were some of all languages. The Latin establishments over which Rufinus presided on the Mount of Olives, and Jerome at Bethlehem, are representatives to us of many others of the same type, inhabited by male or female religious of Greek language or Syriac speech.

In Phoenicia, where Christianity had still made but little progress, settlements of ascetics were much less frequent. A few isolated hermits, however, were to be found there; amongst them we hear of two disciples of St Antony, Cronius and James the lame. In this country

Theodulus, the son of St Nilus, related by his father himself (.Narrationes, Migne, P. G., vol. lxxix., p. 589). This history belongs to the early years of the 5th century.

¹ Palladius, Hist. Laus. 43-46 (103, 104, 113, 117, 118), 48-55 (106-112); Sozomen, H. E. vi. 32. See also the Peregrinatio.

p. 516] MONKS OF FALESTINE^ND SYRIA 409

the monks had much to suffer; they encountered continually the ill-will of the pagan population.^{^[239]}

It was otherwise in Northern Syria, around the Christian cities of Antioch, Berea, and Chalcis ; and in the country beyond the Euphrates, in the neighbourhood of Edessa, Batna, and even Harran. Although the inhabitants of this town had remained unsubmissive to the preaching of the Gospel, the places consecrated by memories of Abraham, Laban, and Rebecca possessed their chapels, just as did those of Moses and Elias. The Syrian desert, from Lebanon as far as the mountains of Armenia, was full of solitaries. Aones was considered the oldest of all these. He lived for a long time near Harran, by the well at which Jacob and Rachel had first met. These solitaries led a life still more severe than their brethren of Egypt; some of them were to be found who lived like wild beasts, in the heart of the forest, without any provisions, their only food being uncooked herbs. They were called shepherds (/SoctkoI) by their neighbours— a charitable name, for they might more justly have been described as sheep. Others bound themselves to chains made fast in the rock, carried enormous weights, and gave themselves up to all the extravagances of Indian fakirs. Sometimes the bishops tried to persuade them to moderation; but they were scarcely listened to. As a contrast, the Arabs of the desert and the Syrian peasants had the greatest veneration for these extraordinary beings. Their popularity even extended to the towns. In times of crisis, the clergy did not fail to avail themselves of their prestige. It was thus that, in the reign of Valens, we find Aphraates and Julian Sabbas leaving their solitudes in Mesopotamia, and going to Antioch to take sides with Flavian and Diodore, and to assist them in their struggle against heresy in official quarters.^{^[240]}

Several highly cultivated men, such as JeWne and Chrysostom, carried their admiration for this mode of life so far as to wish to practise it themselves. Jerome soon lost his taste for it; Chrysostom only left the desert when illness, the natural consequence of his ascetical indiscretions, finally triumphed over his courage.

We do not find that the pious extravagances of the solitaries of the East had any definite connection with the movement in Egypt. The Eastern monks were not much inclined to a life in common. The grouping in monasteries or colonies of anchorites was only established amongst them by slow degrees. We never hear of any actual rules by which they were guided. It is not surprising that, having no superiors to direct them, living far from one another, and each of them according to his own will, they should have allowed themselves to be carried into real excesses.

Quite otherwise was the form of monasticism which we meet with in Asia Minor. Here, Egyptian influence is evident. Eustathius first, and Basil afterwards, were disciples of the Egyptian monks. In the hands of Eustathius asceticism immediately assumed distinctive forms, which, whether through the master's own fault or that of imprudent disciples, offended the customs of the country and excited very lively protests. The nature of the country, in Pontus and Cappadocia, did not allow of the same liberty as in Egypt and in the Orient. In those regions, the desert was never very far off; and when once persons had found their way there, they could practise any extremes in the way of asceticism that they wished, without incommoding anyone else. Cold, too, was a hardship which they seldom had to fear, and the temperature in those parts moderates the appetite. If necessary, it is quite possible to live there on a few dates. It was quite different north of the Taurus. In that cold climate, the desert meant the bare mountain-side, fatal to human life in winter. It was absolutely necessary that the ascetics

Historia religiosa of Theodoret that we derive our information as to the monks of Syria.

decided upon ; it was entrusted to the praetorian prefect, Euodius,^{^[250]} a harsh and severe man, who succeeded in convicting Priscillian of witchcraft. He made his report to the emperor, and Maximus decided that the accused deserved the penalty of death.

The trial was formally resumed. It was not without difficulty that they succeeded at last in tearing Ithacius away from the accusers' bench. Priscillian was condemned to death and executed with six others, the deacons Asarbius and Aurelius ; then Felicissimus and Armenius, who had quite recently joined the sect; finally, Latronianus, a distinguished poet,^{^[251]} and the matron Euchrotia. Bishop Instantius escaped with sentence of exile, as did also the rhetorician Tiberianus³; they were banished to the Scilly Isles.

The affair did not end there. A military commission was appointed to go to Spain, with instructions to seek out the accomplices of Priscillian on the spot, and to try them summarily. Such atrocities filled all good people with loathing. Against the feeling of the majority of the bishops, one of their number, Theognis, ventured to excommunicate Ithacius. Martin returned to Treves. Bishop Britto had just died ; his colleagues assembled to choose his successor ; the choice had fallen upon a certain Felix, who was personally of good repute. On his arrival at the imperial Court, Martin refused to hold communion with the bishops, amongst whom he saw the blood-stained Ithacius. The latter tried hard to compromise Martin along with the condemned, but it was not possible for him so to deceive the emperor. Martin never ceased to protest against the
blood which had been shed, and to demand that there a stay should be finally made, and that the tribunes should not be sent to Spain. He absolutely refused on any consideration to listen to any proposal for entering into communion with those who were already beginning to be called the Ithacians. He yielded, however, when he was given the choice between his participation in the ordination of Felix and the immediate despatch of the commissioners. But to the end of his life he lamented this necessity of interrupting for a moment his protest against the blood which had been shed.

He was not the only one to protest. The new Pope Siricius seems certainly to have asked for explanations, for we find Maximus in a hurry to offer them, by pretending to liken the Priscillianists to the Manicheans, which made them fall under the penalties of extremely severe laws. He also ordered all the documents of the trial to be sent to the Pope to show him that there had not been a condemnation of innocent men.¹ Notwithstanding these explanations, Siricius did as St Martin had done, and refused communion with himself to the supporters of Ithacius. Ambrose adopted the same attitude.² This was plainly to be seen when he visited Treves, in 387, as ambassador from Valentinian II. He presented himself at the Court of Maximus, but not at the Church of Felix, as he did not wish to have any relations with bishops " who had demanded the death of the heretics."

But Ambrose, as the representative of a prince against whom armed preparations were already being made in the Gauls, was not in a position to put a stop to the severities ordered at Treves. The pursuit of Priscillianists continued. On his journey home, the Bishop of Milan met an old man, who was being led into exile; it was his colleague of Cordova, Hyginus, the man who, having first denounced the Priscillianists, had ended by showing them goodwill. In vain Ambrose entreated that at least respect should be shown to his age, that he should

¹ Coll. Avell. n. 40.

■ Council of Turin, c. 6. Cf. Ambrose, Ep. 2,6.

p. 539]

427

THE REACTION

be given proper clothing and other necessaries. He was rebuffed.

As long as Maximus lasted, i.e., until the summer of 388, the Priscillianists continued to be harassed, and the ascetics in general to be looked upon with suspicion. It was not wise, at that time, to appear with a face emaciated by fasting, or 'to devote one's nights to pious reading. The worldly prelates—Ithacius at their head—were on the alert and suppressed devotion. But all this was changed when Valentinian II. was restored in 388. There was a reaction as well; and Ithacius v/as attacked. In vain he protested that he had not been the only one to take proceedings against Priscillian: his former accomplices made haste to desert him, and suffered him to be deposed from the episcopate. Ydacius of Emerita, his Metropolitan, had not waited for this, but had sent in his resignation. Unfortunately for him he changed his mind, and wished to return to his Church, which gave rise to disturbances. The government imprisoned the two bishops at Naples.^{^[252]}

However, the friends of those who had been put to death obtained permission to give them honourable burial. The remains of the Priscillianist leaders were transported to Spain, and buried with the greatest pomp, amid the enthusiasm of their followers. In Gaul, Priscillianism retained adherents in certain parts of Aquitaine ; but the most serious consequence of the whole affair was the discord it introduced among the bishops. Felix of Treves, ordained by the Ithacians, possessed the sympathies of the prelates who were hostile to asceticism. The others, without having any objection to him personally, avoided him as though he had the plague. It would have been better for him if he had been exiled, like the bishops of Emerita and Ossonova. In his own country, party-spirit had transformed him into a scapegoat ; the blood of Euchrotia and of Priscillian appeared to many eyes to
stain his episcopal mantle, and could never be removed. Siricius and Ambrose¹ would have nothing to do with him ; they had declared in express terms, by letter, that people must choose between communion with them and with him.² The schism was still existing in 396, for it was with the main object of remedying it that there was held, in that year, a great council at Nimes³; and in 401, just when Sulpicius Severus, who complains bitterly about it, was finishing his Chronicle. Several years later the Italian Council, assembled at Turin, repeated the condemnation. The quarrel was only stilled with the death of the unhappy Felix.

Of course political matters played their part in this affair, and the Ithacians had to suffer for having been protected by Maximus. In 389, the rhetorician Pacatus Drepanius, an envoy from the Gauls to Theodosius, pronounced before that prince and before the Roman senate a panegyric in which the execution of the Priscillian- ists, especially of the matron Euchrotia, figured among the crimes of the usurper. With what were these people reproached ? For being too pious: nimia religio et diligent ins cm It a divinitas. It was for that reason they were persecuted, and by informers who were priests only in name, and whom men saw, not without feelings of horror, pass from the trials by torture to sacred ceremonies.⁴

In Spain, the reaction against Maximus had very different consequences. Priscillian became a demi-god; his followers now swore only by his name. It was especially in Galicia, where, apparently, his tomb was situated, that the enthusiasm of his disciples broke forth. The anniversary of the new martyrs was celebrated, their

1 The matter appears to have been investigated in a council at Milan, held in 390, propter adventum Gallorum episcoporum (Ambrose, Ep. 51).

2 Council of Turin, c. 6.

3 Upon the Council of Nimes, besides the Synodal Letter (Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vol. ii., p. 62), see Sulpicius Severus, Dial. i. 13.

4 Pacatus, Paneg. 29.

p. 541-2] THE»OSIUS AND PRISCILLIANISM 429

books were eagerly read, and their doctrines openly preached. Several bishops joined the movement, some from conviction, others because they were forced to do so, that they might not offend their fanatical people. The most important among them was Symposius of Astorga, the bishop who had been present at the Council of Saragossa; with him were Vegentinus, Herenas, and some others as well. As soon as a bishop died, the people acclaimed a Priscillianist candidate. Symposius, who was apparently the senior or the metropolitan of the province, lent his co-operation for the ordination. Thus he consecrated Paternus in the important town of Bracara Augusta (Braga); other bishops, such as Isonius, Donatus, Acurius, iEmilius, and his own son, Dictinius, received imposition of hands from him. These comprised almost the whole episcopate of Galicia^{^[253]}; the province seemed lost to orthodoxy.

Such a scandal could not last long. It excited no doubt the attention of Theodosius who, having been born in Galicia, could not fail to take an interest in his native country. The bishops of the other provinces assembled at Saragossa,^{^[254]} and afterwards at Toledo, and summoned their Priscillianist colleagues to appear before them. They refused. In the interval between the two councils, Symposius and Dictinius, who until then had only received priest's orders, travelled to Milan, hoping that Ambrose, so severe to the Ithacians, would give them some help. They were deceived. Ambrose decided that they must condemn Priscillian and his doctrine; and in return for this they might be received to communion ; also Dictinius must give up all idea of being made a bishop. They promised to comply. Ambrose and Pope Siricius then wrote to the Spanish bishops to receive them on the conditions agreed upon. But such conditions were easier to accept in Milan than to keep in Galicia. On his return home, Symposius attempted to remove the name of Priscillian from the catalogue of the Martyrs, and Dictinius pretended to refuse the episcopate. But the people protested ; and so things were restored to the old footing, and letters from Dictinius were even soon found in circulation, in which the proscribed observances were more or less justified.

Ambrose died in 397, and two years afterwards, Pope Siricius followed him to the grave. In the following year, the orthodox bishops of Spain met once more at Toledo. This time, the prelates of Galicia put in an appearance; the secular authority had no doubt intervened. The situation was a very complicated one. Among the accused, some gave signs of repentance; they condemned Priscillian, his books, and his doctrine, signed every retractation which was asked of them, declared that they had only sinned by mistake, and that, although their opinions remained orthodox, they had been forced to yield to the violence of the people. Others declared that Priscillian was a martyr, the victim of the jealousy of the bishops, and they would never forsake him. Vegentinus and Symposius were the leaders of the first party ; the other rallied behind Herenas. As to the orthodox party, they were themselves greatly divided ; the bishops of Betica and the district of Carthagena would not hear of a compromise; they demanded the deprivation en masse of the whole Galician episcopate, or at all events that they should be put in a state of siege. The Lusitanians and the Tarragonese, though less implacable, were, nevertheless, not greatly inclined to leniency. After much consideration, they began by deposing the refractory bishops—Herenas at their head. As to the others, one alone was admitted to communion, Vegentinus, who p. 544] PRISCILLIANISM AFTER AMBROSE 431

appeared to have compromised himself least. The Bishop of Bracara, Paternus, was allowed to enter into relations with him ; Paternus was thus admitted by an intermediary. The others, Symposius, Dictinius, Isonius, and all those in communion with Symposius, were invited to sign a formula, and, if they did so, they were to be allowed to retain their sees. But as it was impossible to come to an understanding on the question of what kind of relations were to be held with them, it was decided that the question should be referred to the new Pope, Anastasius, and to the new Bishop of Milan, Simplicianus. Until their decision was received, the reconciled bishops were to refrain from holding ordinations.¹

The reply² of the two Italian primates was not long delayed; it was favourable to the moderate orthodox party and to the penitent prelates. Communion was therefore re-established between them and the rest of the Catholic world. But there always remained in Galicia a nucleus of unyielding Priscillianists; they held their ground there in spite of the imperial laws which quickly fell upon them³; and, moreover, the Swabian invasion soon gave them full liberty. We still hear of them for a long time afterwards. Gradually, the cult of Priscillian was concentrated towards the extremity of the province, in the diocese of Iria Flavia, where some adherents were still to be found towards the end of the 6th century. It was in this very country, the last refuge of Priscillianism, that the Spaniards in the time of the Asturian kings were to "re-discover" the tomb of the Apostle James, the son of Zebedee, and to found a celebrated cult.

As to the orthodox bishops, the reconciliation of the Priscillianists was to them "a stone of stumbling." The prelates of Baetica and of the district of Carthagena,

1 The document for all this is the Council of Toledo in 400, the record of which has come down to us only in fragments, inserted in the formal minute of another council held in 447. Cf. the Chronicle of Idacius, under the year 399.

2 Presupposed by a letter of Pope Innocent, Jaffe, 292.

3 Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, 40, 43, 48.

irritated at the indulgence shown by the Italians, refuseJ all relations with those who accepted communion with the reconciled party. The spirit of Gregory of Illiberris moved them. In vain did Pope Innocent intervene¹ to censure the rigorists. They paid no attention to him; their schism lasted until the invasion of the barbarians * in 409.

Such is the external history of the Priscillianist movement. At the present day, how are we to think precisely of the doctrine taught by Priscillian ? Sulpicius Severus condemns it very harshly, but without explaining himself. He seems to see in it a species of immoral Gnosticism. Since the rediscovery of several writings of Priscillian, it is the custom to oppose them to Sulpicius, and to represent Priscillian as a mere preacher of asceticism, who can be reproached at most only for his taste for apocryphal writings; his affair was merely an episode in the continual battle between an episcopate corrupted by worldliness and the ascetic party. I cannot accept such a vindication. Undoubtedly, no heretical thesis is maintained in the writings of Priscillian which have come down to us. But it is well to remember that this literature is composed of three memoirs of self- justification, written for presentation to the ecclesiastical authorities, and of a few sermons preached to the faithful of Avila, at a time when the teaching of Priscillian was already looked upon with suspicion, and could scarcely have been exposed to the public.² It is not in compositions of this kind that we can expect to find definite heresies. The author, it is true, declares repeatedly that he condemns all heresies—the Ophites, the Nicolaitans, the Patripassians, the Manicheans, etc.; but his anathemas always avoid the real point of the matter. Thus, for example, he sees in Manicheism only the worship of

1 Jaffe, 292.

2 What are called the Canones Priscilliani were already known ; these are a sort of exposition of Christian doctrine in ninety articles, with a note of the texts from St Paul which prove them. But we have only an orthodox recension of them due to a bishop called Peregrinus.

433

p. 547] PRISCILLIANIST DOCTRINE

the sun and moon ; and the Patripassians are for him people who could not discover in the Gospel any mention of the Son of God. A man must be a mere tiro in investigation, if he allows himself to be taken in by such anathemas. Ambrose, Damasus, and Martin, persons whom no one would rank among the enemies of asceticism, regarded Priscillian with mistrust. The reception which they gave to the Spanish mystics is in this respect very significant, even though we do not quite understand what exactly they reproached them with. It is certain that it was not easy for them to be enlightened. The sect was a very mysterious one; it was, not merely from the time when it had to endure suffering but from the outset, a secret society. In the meetings of the initiated clearly things were said which it was not considered proper to entrust to ordinary believers, even to ascetics of the old type. More than this, the Priscillianists admitted that they lied to disguise the doctrines of their sect. Dictinius, before his conversion, had composed a treatise called " The Scale " (Libra), in which is explained the theory of useful lying.^{^[255]} People do not take so many precautions unless there is something to conceal.

It is certain also that the Priscillianist initiates— like the Valentinian " pneumatici" and the Manichean "elect"—formed, according to the views of the sect, a class superior to the rest of the faithful. They alone possessed the fulness of the doctrine and perfection of life. The latter was realized in asceticism, an asceticism resting on a dualistic basis. In man there is an element which is divine in the proper sense of the word ; by this element God and man are of the same nature.^{^[256]}The world is the work of another principle. It was in vain that Priscillian condemned Patripassianism ; the doctrine of the Films iWnascibilis, professed by his
disciples,¹ presupposes a Trinity purely nominal; and I do not see in what other sense we can interpret the formula tres unum sunt in Christo Jesu, which appears in one of his apologies.

It is not without reason that the first persons who have described Priscillianism have presented it as a form of asceticism inspired by Gnostic ideas. It is thus that it is spoken of by Philastrius of Bresica² shortly after the events at Treves. St Jerome in 392 had not yet studied the question for himself.³ He only knew that Priscillian had left certain writings; that some persons represented him a Gnostic, and others defended him from that error.⁴ Very little was then known of the Councils of Saragossa and Bordeaux, in which the questions of doctrine must have been discussed. The sect still kept its books secret.

But it did not always do so. Orosiusand St Augustine were acquainted with them⁵; the extracts which they give from them and the information which they derive from them agree entirely with the idea of an ascetic Gnosticism. Little by little opinion gained in precision in regard to them. Direct study came to strengthen the impression left by the proceedings of the Council of Toledo, and by the recantation which it secured from several Priscillianist leaders. It would be vain to allege a development in doctrine, presumably produced in the sect after the death of its founder. The bishops Symposius

1 Symposius, at the same council, repudiated the doctrine of the two principles, and that of the Filius innascibilis, but admitted that they were accepted in the sect.

2 Haer. 84. ³ De viris, 121.

4 Several years afterwards, about 399, St Jerome, writing to a noble Spanish lady, takes sides definitely against Priscillian ; but he does not seem to have studied his doctrine very deeply. What he says of it refers only to the memoir of Ithacius ; and in regard to this he makes a strange blunder, confusing Mark of Memphis, of whom Ithacius speaks, with Mark the Gnostic, a contemporary of St Irenaeus. Jerome, Ep. Ixxv. 5 ; cf. Adv. Vigilantium, 7, and In Esaiam, lxiv. 5.

5 See the Commonitorium of Orosius, and the reply of St Augustine, P. L., vol. xlii., p. 665 et seq.

435

p. 549]

POSITION OF ST AMBROSE

and Dictinius who abjured in 400 were not recent initiates ; there is nothing to prove that their Priscillianism differed in any respect whatsoever from that of Priscillian himself.

In fact, horrible as the executions at Treves were, and strongly as they have been condemned in the Church, it was impossible for the Church to recognize its own traditions in the religious system of the victims.

Ambrose at Milan was, for the whole of the West, a kind of oracle; even in the East his was a power to be reckoned with. He was truly the sacerdos magnus of the Bible, the "gran prete" of the poet. A Roman by birth, by tradition, and by education, government was natural to him. He governed the Church fearlessly, as he would, had need been, have governed the State. Bishop of the Latin capital, he had the emperor within reach of his exhortations. And all went well in that quarter so long as Gratian lived. That amiable prince was to him an obedient son. War, the chase, and State affairs did not prevent him from taking an interest in matters of religion. He plied Ambrose with questions, and the bishop, absorbed as he too was by many cares foreign to pure speculation, was called upon to find time to write whole treatises of theology¹ for the information of his imperial disciple.

It was a terrible blow for Ambrose, when he heard that Gratian, forsaken by the army of the Gauls, had been treacherously assassinated. To regret for the loss of the young and sympathetic emperor were added grave fears alike for the empire and for orthodox religion. Now, it was with Valentinian M. that he would have to deal, or rather with his mother, Justina, the friend and patroness of the Arians. However, at first, Justina had more serious anxieties than that for the Creed of Ariminum. Ambrose saw her come to him with her son, a child of twelve years old; she put the child forward and placed him in his arms. The bishop promised to go over the mountains to negotiate with Maximus, and to save what

¹ Treatises, De fide, De Spiritu Sane to, De incarnatiotris dominicae sacra?nento.

could still be saved. Maximus just then showed himself in a very haughty mood; and the negotiations were somewhat stormy. However, they came to an understanding at last; the envoys of Valentinian II. consented to recognize the usurper, who, for his part, promised not to cross the Alps.

On his return to Milan, Ambrose had at first no cause for anything but satisfaction with the court. He was energetically supported in his dispute with Symmachus (384) in the matter of the altar of Victory. But, in the following year (385), the Arian question came forward again, and relations became gravely strained. There had remained at Milan, ever since the time of Auxentius, several persons who were attached to the confession of Ariminum, including even some clerics, although the new bishop had been wise enough to accept en bloc the ecclesiastical personnel of his predecessor. Ursinus, the pretender to the see of Rome, had made use of these people to stir up scandal against Ambrose^{^[257]}; an unattached Pannonian Bishop, Julianus Valens, busied himself in the same quarters, at Milan and in the neighbouring towns. He had been ordained at Pettau (Poetovio) by the Arian party, in opposition to Mark, the Catholic bishop of that place. When the Goths showed themselves upon the Upper Drave, Valens put himself on their side and helped them to make themselves masters of his episcopal city. He had made himself half a Goth, and wore a necklace and bracelets, in the manner of the barbarians. The city was pillaged, but the people of Pettau continued to refuse to have anything to do with Valens, and he was obliged to take his departure.^{^[258]} Peace was concluded with the Goths in 382 : many of them then gained a footing in Court circles; the army was recruited more and more from among the barbarians; their leaders attained the highest dignities. All this tended to form round the empress an Arian circle which was a cause of much anxiety to p. 552] A1JXENTIUS OF DOROSTOllUM 437

AmtMse. It Kame still more so when circumstances provided the party with a religious leader, in the person of a second Auxentius. This man, I think, must be identified with Auxentius, the Arian Bishop of Doro- storum on the Lower Danube.^{^[259]} He was a disciple of Ulfilas, and had even written the Life of that famous personage. If he was to be found at the Court of Milan, it was no doubt because the determined attitude of Theodosius would not allow a prelate who was notoriously Arian to continue to exercise his office in the Eastern Empire.^{^[260]} Auxentius wished to have a church of his own ; the Court asked Ambrose for the Portian Basilica (St Victor ad corpus), which was situated outside the walls. Ambrose refused. The demand was pressed ; it was even proposed, at one time, to take from him the new Basilica, i.e., one of the buildings of his own cathedral.^{^[261]}

The Feast of Easter (385) was approaching. The emperor caused the Portian Basilica to be seized, and then, in face of the attitude of the bishop and the people, relinquished his design.^{^[262]} This defeat exasperated the Court extremely. Auxentius took advantage of this fact to obtain a law granting the right of meeting to the faithful who adhered to the Creed of Ariminum ; the opposing party, viz., the Catholics, thus suffered a severe rebuke.^{^[263]} On the other hand we find Maximus intervening in the matter—Maximus, the usurper of

Gaul, the murderer of Gratian. The Court of Milan received from him a letter, in very vigorous terms, in which he took up the defence of the persecuted Catholics.^{^[264]}Such a proceeding could not fail to embitter the dispute. When the Easter celebrations came round again (386), Ambrose was once more summoned to give up one of his churches, and was then formally bidden to leave Milan. He refused to abandon his flock, who, besides, were determined not to allow him to go, and remained on the alert, spending whole days and nights in the church. He also refused to take part in a conference with Auxentius.^{^[265]}There was nothing for it but to leave him in peace. And it seemed also as if Heaven itself came to his aid. On June 17, 386, he discovered the remains of two Milanese martyrs, Gervase and Protasius; no sooner were they exhumed than they caused miracles of so signal a character that not only the city of Milan, but the whole of Christendom rang with the tidings.^{^[266]} Ambrose acquired in matters of this kind an unexpected success. Before his time, only three martyrs had been known at Milan— Victor, Nabor, and Felix ; but, after Gervase and Protasius, he discovered at Bologna, in 393, the tombs of SS. Vitalis and Agricola, and again at Milan, in 395, those of SS. Nazarius and Celsus.^{^[267]}

In the meantime, Maximus, the by no means disinterested protector of the Catholics of Italy, was causing the Court of Milan more and more serious uneasiness. In the spring of 387® Ambrose, who had been reconciled with Valentinian and his mother, made his way once more to Gaul, with the ostensible object of recovering Gratian's remains, but evidently with the view to arrange matters, if

439

p. 554-5] AMBROSE AND THEODOSIUS

the same. In Pannonia, as in Mcesia, the churches had long been governed by Arian prelates. If on this side we do not find any bishop who was equal to Ulfilas, we must certainly acknowledge that the example of the Goths contributed greatly to determine the views of the other Germanic nations. Arianism enters at this moment upon a new career. Goths of the West and of the East, Burgundians, Swabians, Vandals, and Lombards begin to make it their national religion ; in the provinces wrested from the empire they are to restore to honour the confession of Ariminum ; down to the 6th and 7th centuries we shall see it holding the faith of Nicaea in check. But these are later and Western developments. For the moment all that we need notice particularly is that even in the interior of the empire, whether in the East or in the West, and among Roman populations, Arianism was to profit by the prestige of its new adherents. It was useless to think of eradicating it from the army; the Goths henceforth added themselves to this as auxiliary troops, and that under the command of their national chiefs; and besides, even in the ranks of the regular army and its senior staff, they were largely represented. The Goths had to be reckoned with in this respect as in so many others.

People were beset with it in the streets and in the public squares. There was not a street-corner at which men were not to be found furiously discussing the most abstruse matters. The money-changer whom you asked for some money spoke to you of the Begotten and of the Unbegotten; the baker, instead of telling you the price of bread, declared that the Father is greater than the Son, and that the Son is subject unto Him. If you asked for a bath, "the Son comes certainly from nothing," would be the reply of the bath-keeper—an Anomoean.

Theodosius had a great desire to put an end to these divisions, instead of having to punish the dissentients, who, after all, were mostly conscientious and peaceful folk. He persuaded himself that by his personal intervention he would obtain some results.^{^[276]} After the two councils of 381 and 382 he convoked a third in 383, which was to take the form of a conference between the leaders of the different confessions; the emperor was to take part in it, and to endeavour to arrange an understanding.

The meeting actually took place³; it was held in the month of June. Ulfilas, notwithstanding his great age, travelled to Constantinople, where he died on his arrival. We still possess the confession of faith which he intended to present to the emperor. Eunomius at this time was living at Chalcedon; he came to present his own confession of faith, which has also been preserved.⁴The others, Demophilus, on behalf of the Arians, and Eleusius, on behalf of the Macedonians, did the same. To judge from the documents of Eunomius and of Ulfilas, each of them confined himself to stating his own belief,

1 Gregory of Nyssa, Or. de Deitate Filii et Spiritus Sancti (Migne, P. G. vol. xlvi., p. 557).

2 A legendary account related by Sozomen (H. E. vii. 6) and Theodoret (H. E. v. 16), who makes Amphilochius of Iconium take part in it, represents Theodosius as hesitating, even at that time, between Arianism and orthodoxy. Nothing is more improbable.

3 Kauffmann, A us der Schule des Wulfila, p. 76.

4 Migne, P. G. vol. Ixvii., p. 587, note 34 ; Mansi, Concilia, vol. iii.,

p. 645.

457

p. 577]

ARIAN DISPUTES

without making the slightest step towards cBciliation. The explanations by word of mouth gave no more sign of any desire for an understanding. There is a tradition that the orthodox party proposed that they should adhere to that formula, out of all of them, which should represent the teaching of the ancient Fathers, i.e., of those who lived before the appearance of Arianism ; and that this proposal was not accepted.^{^[277]} In these circumstances there was nothing to be done but to persevere in severe measures; and this is what actually happened. A new law^{^[278]} forbade all meetings for worship — public or private—of the Eunomians, Arians, and Macedonians, in exactly the same way as those of the Manicheans and similar sects. The Novatians alone obtained toleration for their churches.

There is every appearance also that, if not in law at any rate in fact, it was the same with the Macedonians and the Arians. Their meetings were prohibited; but they held them all the same, and the police shut their eyes ^{^[279]} in spite of the complaints of some of the bishops. What object was to be served by severity ? The sects of themselves were journeying to their end. Every day they were losing adherents; those who remained got excited among themselves, quarrelled, and created new schisms. When Demophilus died they sought for his successor in Thrace, a certain Marinus; other Arians acclaimed Dorotheus who had been dispossessed of his bishopric of Antioch. At one on the fundamental principle of Arian dogma, the two parties had discovered points on which they could not agree. Before the creation of the Son could God have been called Father? Yes, said Marinus : No, declared Dorotheus. A Syrian pastry-cook, Theoctistus, warmly defended the ideas of Marinus ; hence the disciples of the latter received the nickname of pastry-
cooks (Psathyriani). They had also the support of the Bishop of the Goths, Selenas, the successor of Ulfilas. This gave them a certain standing, but did not prevent them from forming fresh divisions. The Psathyrian Bishop of Ephesus, a certain Agapius, had disputes with Marinus. It was not until 419 that these internal quarrels were reconciled.¹

The Eunomians, who indeed were no less divided amongst themselves, were pursued with more severity. I have spoken before of the successive periods of exile of their prophet, Eunomius. His followers seem to have taken pleasure in increasing the differences which separated them from orthodoxy. They even went so far as to change the ritual of baptism, from which they eliminated both the triple immersion and the enumeration of the Divine Persons. No sooner were they provided with a special baptism, than they hastened to declare it to be the only efficacious one, and to rebaptize those who joined them from the other sects. It was against them that legislation was directed, in rescripts continually renewed,² and that orthodox theologians directed their efforts from all sides. St Basil of Csesarea had inherited this controversy from Basil of Ancyra and his friends; his brother, Gregory of Nyssa, took it up after him.³ Chrysostom, at Antioch, pronounced a large number of discourses against the Anomceans.

1 Socrates, H. E. v. 23.

2 Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, 8, 11-13, 17, 23, 25, 27, 31, 32, 34, 36, 49, 60, 65.

3 The Apologeticus of Eunomius, an explanation of doctrine, published by that doctor during the early years of his career as a theologian, was refuted by St Basil, who has thus preserved the text of it for us, before his elevation to the episcopate. Eunomius replied to Basil; but he took his time, and his reply had only just been published when Basil died. In it, the Bishop of Csesarea was attacked personally and with much bitterness. His brothers, Peter of Sebaste and Gregory of Nyssa, thought there was occasion for an answer. This was the origin of the twelve books of Gregory against Eunomius. Apollinaris and Didymus had also written against the Apologeticus.

p. 579] THE NOVATIANS AT CONJHFwTNOpB: 459

3. Asia .HVzor.

It was not only with these recent forms of dissent, all more or less derived from the heresy of Arius, that Theodosius' bishops had to concern themselves. The old sects which had been organized since the second and third centuries, continued to exist and to divide the Church. The Novatians, who had enjoyed toleration for a considerable period,¹ were very numerous in Constantinople and in the Asiatic provinces of Bithynia, Paphlagonia, and Phrygia. In these countries of simple habits a severe form of religion was always popular. The most powerful Novatian communities, those which influenced all the others, were those of Constantinople, Nicomedia, Nicaea, and Kotyaeon (Kutahie). The historian Socrates, who is very well informed as to this religious sect, relates various particulars of the Novatian bishops of Constantinople— Acesius,² who was alive at the time of the Council of Nicaea, and who had, it appeared, borne testimony to the homoousios; and afterwards Agelius, persecuted as well as the Catholics during the reigns of Constantius and Valens. Agelius was still living in 383 ; he took part in the religious conference in that year.³ In this little circle of rigorists there were a few distinguished men, who, either through family tradition, or from an attraction to a more refined form of piety, found themselves more at home there than among the multitudes of the Great Church. During Valens' reign one of them, Marcian, after a career in the imperial palace, was elevated to the priesthood ; he was very learned, and his beliefs did not prevent the emperor from entrusting to him the education of his daughters, Anastasia and Carosa. Marcian profited by this favour to secure a mitigation of the severe measures from which his co-religionists were at that time called upon to suffer.⁴ His son Chrysanthus was also a prominent man ; under Theodosius, he filled

¹ With regard to their position under Constantine and Constantius, see the next chapter. ² Socrates, H. E. i. 10.

³ Ibid., ii. 38 ; iv. 9 ; v. 10. ⁴ Ibid., iv. 9.

the office of cw^it/^H of Italy, and Vicarius of the Britains.^{^[280]} Another Novatian priest, Sisinnius, had formerly attended in company with Julian the lectures of Maximus of Ephesus. Agelius, before his death, consecrated Marcian and Sisinnius bishops, stipulating, however, that Marcian should exercise episcopal functions first, and that Sisinnius should be his successor.

The plan was carried out. Marcian had a good deal of difficulty with one of his priests, Sabbatius, who set himself to create a schism with regard to the date of Easter. This was an old quarrel. Among the Novatians, as among the Catholics before the Council of Nicaea, there had been two ways of fixing the Paschal date: some persons decided it by the equinox, and these were the more numerous; on this point, the Novatians of Rome and of Constantinople were in agreement with the Great Church; others, like the Easterns before Nicaea and the Audians afterwards, followed the calculations of the Jews. This latter use had been accepted, in the time of Valens, at a council held in the little town of Pazos, near the sources of the Sangarius, by a certain number of Novatian bishops belonging to the Phrygian region. Marcian dared not put himself in conflict with them ; he caused it to be decided in a synod, that each might celebrate Easter according to the use which he preferred.^{^[281]}

p. 582]

461

THE MASSALIANS

In Phrygia, the Montanist centre at Pepuza still existed; its influence even extended far enough to provoke repressive legislation. The Montanists, Priscillianists,^{^[282]}Phrygians, Pepuzians, and Tascodrugitee are mentioned from time to time in the Theodosian Code.^{^[283]} Every year they celebrated, on April 6, a great ceremony, which was their Feast of Easter.^{^[284]} Some of them were converted from time to time⁶; but the further progress was made, the more these old sects tended to shut themselves off in grim exclusiveness. There were also the devotees of compulsory encratism, isolated at first, but now grouped together in propagandist confraternities, varying in nomenclature and in observances—Encratites, Hydroparastatae, Apotactici, Saccophori.¹ These last, as their name indicates, were clothed in sacks. Another species of fanatics appeared at the time of which we are now speaking. These were the Massalians or Euchites. These two denominations, the first of which was Semitic, the other Greek, may be defined by the name Prayers (those who pray). The movement which they represent came originally from the region where the country of Syria borders on Armenia, and their numbers rapidly increased in Syria and in Asia Minor. Epiphanius mentions them in his Panarion, written before the death of the Emperor Valens. At the outset, the Massalians had no organization. They were people who had renounced all their possessions; they lived entirely upon alms, and came and went, always praying and doing nothing else. When night came they slept anyhow, men and women together, and in the open air as far as possible. With the offices of the Church and its fasts they concerned themselves not at all. It was by prayer alone, and by an absolute detachment from the goods of this world, that they held communion with God and His saints—a communion so close that they did not hesitate to attribute to themselves the designations of angels, prophets, patriarchs, and Christs. According to them, baptism only effaces past sins; it does not prevent the indwelling in every man, from the time of his birth, of an evil spirit with whom he has to struggle incessantly. This struggle against the evil spirits filled their minds to the exclusion of everything else ; when it became very violently within them, they were seen to make gestures as though shooting arrows, or to jump into the air with enormous leaps, sometimes even beginning to dance.

These Christian dervishes were eminently calculated to cause alarm to the episcopate of that day, the whole energies of which were devoted to the task of restoring ¹ Basil, Epp. 188, 199.

peace to the Church, and keeping it in ™od order. first bishop to concern himself with them was the Metropolitan of Iconium, Amphilochius. Presiding over a council held at Side in Pamphylia, he severely condemned such a manner of life. Information of this condemnation was given to Flavian, the Bishop of Antioch, who with the support of several bishops summoned before him one of the Massalian leaders, Adelphius, an old man of very advanced age. Flavian succeeded by strategy in making him disclose his secrets, for the sect had secrets and disguised them with the greatest care. For the second time the Massalians were condemned. Flavian besides took the necessary steps to secure the acceptance of his sentence by the bishops of Mesopotamia and Armenia Minor, the country in which this strange sect had first taken root.¹

But these disciplinary measures, and the legal prohibitions which followed them, were far from putting an end to Massalianism. This heresy still flourished in Pamphylia and in the east of Asia Minor ; and in Armenia also it long gave cause for anxiety.

Amphilochius of Iconium, whom we have just seen appearing in this affair, was during the reign of Theodosius the most important ecclesiastical personage in the whole of Asia Minor. In him, far more than in his own kin, Basil had found an heir. And, in fact, it was Basil who had made Amphilochius what he was. Educated in the school of Libanius, who always preserved a great affection for him, and afterwards an advocate at Constantinople, Amphilochius did not remain long in the world. He was living in retirement in Cappadocia with his invalid father, when, towards the end of the year 373, Basil was begged by the people of Iconium to choose for them a bishop. His choice fell upon Amphilochius, who had scarcely passed his thirtieth year. Just at this time, the town of Iconium became the metropolis of a new province, that of Lycaonia, formed at the expense of Pisidia and

¹ Upon this affair see Photius, cod. 52, who gives the gist of a collection of official documents ; cf. Theodoret, Haer. fab. iv. 11.

p. 58f-5] AMPHILOCHIUS OF ICONIUM 463

Isauria. This gave rise to certain special difficulties, which obliged the new bishop to have frequent recourse to the wisdom of his illustrious protector. Basil did not fail him. A number of his letters are addressed to Amphilochius, notably his three synodical letters,^{^[285]}which were included later on in the Greek codes of canons with an authority similar to that which clothes, in the Latin collections, the Decretals of the Popes. The Bishop of Caesarea, besides finding in this direction food for his zeal, was glad to have, in the heart of Asia Minor, a man whom he could thoroughly trust, and who was full of energy and devotion. Through him, Basil could command the persons of goodwill scattered throughout Phrygia, Pisidia, and even in the more distant provinces of Lycia and Pamphylia. Amphilochius came from time to time to Caesarea, in spite of the difficulty of a journey across the central steppe of Asia Minor. Basil also put in an appearance at Iconium. In 376, he sent there his Treatise on the Holy Spirit, which was read in synod, and sent by Amphilochius' exertions to the most distant provinces, as a preservative against the propaganda of the Pneumatomachi.

Under such guidance, Amphilochius, who before becoming a bishop had scarcely troubled himself at all about theology, soon developed into a man of large doctrinal knowledge, and became a kind of oracle. Of his writings, however, we possess little more than fragments.^{^[286]} As we saw, in 381 he was chosen, with his neighbour Optimus, the Metropolitan of Pisidia, as the centre of all ecclesiastical relations in the western "diocese" of Asia Minor. They both appear to have lived to the end of the reign of Theodosius.^{^[287]} They were closely allied friends with Basil's brothers and also with Gregory of Nazianzus; and in Constantinople they also enjoyed a valuable friendship,
that of the celebrated matron Olympias, who afterwal^H rendered so many services to Chrysostom.^{^[288]} It was in her house that Optimus died.

In Cappadocia and the neighbouring countries, the memory of Basil was always cherished, being represented by his family and his friends. Emmelia had lived long enough to see her son a bishop; when she was gone, her eldest daughter, Macrina, was superior of the monastery of Annesi, on the Iris, which had been established by them both, opposite the place where Basil himself had his hermitage. Macrina survived her mother for several years, but only lived a few months after Basil's death. Her youngest brother, Peter, had been brought up under her care, and shortly after her death he was elected Bishop of Sebaste. Her other brother, Gregory of Nyssa, was present during her dying hours; their last conversations formed the groundwork for his dialogue on " The Soul and the Resurrection."

The Bishop of Nyssa who, up to that time, had been treated somewhat loftily by his great brother, Basil, now obtained considerable importance. He was an orator, and was much in request for great funeral orations, and other ceremonial discourses. He, whom Basil had thought too simple to be sent to negotiate with Pope Damasus, found himself entrusted by the Council of 381^{^[289]}with an extremely confidential mission to the bishops of Arabia and Palestine; it is true that he returned from it without having met with success. He was a theologian : he wrote against Eunomius^{^[290]} and against Apollinaris; we owe to him a remarkable exposition of doctrine, called the Great Catechism, and many other slighter treatises. His Lives of Saint Gregory the Wonder-worker, and of Saint Macrina, gives him a place among hagiographers.

465

p. 587]

THE TWO GREGORYS

Like all the preachers of that time, he discoursed much upon Holy Scripture. In exegesis, all the Cappadocians were debtors to Origen. Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus had compiled together, under the title of Philocalia, a collection of the choicest passages of the great Alexandrian Doctor. However, they had abstained from adopting those of his opinions which went beyond the accepted teaching. Gregory of Nyssa was less careful. He allowed himself to be led astray by the doctrine of the final restoration (aTroKardcrracrtg), i.e., of universal salvation as destined to extend at last to the worst of men, and even to the evil spirits themselves.

The other Gregory, the ex-Bishop of Constantinople, had retired to his own country of Nazianzus. Before leaving the capital, he had made his will — a curious document, which is preserved amongst his works. There was no bishop then in Nazianzus. Since the death of the elder Gregory, the see had remained unfilled. His son had not the least idea of establishing himself in it: his alleged translations from one see to another had brought him too many vexations for him to dream of allowing himself another. Nevertheless, it was impossible to him not to take an interest in this Church. He governed it from Arianzus, an estate belonging to his family, where he usually lived. His ill-luck had eaten into his heart. The bitter memory which he retained of it is reproduced in his letters and verses. For he wrote a great deal; nearly all his letters belong to these closing years. He now had to spend Lent without uttering a single word, and this was certainly a heavy penance both for himself and for others; but his pen was never at rest.

Among the clergy of Nazianzus there was an Apollinarian party: and this complicated the situation. The bishops of that region—with Theodore, the new Metropolitan of Tyana, at their head—saw no objection to the vacancy being prolonged under such an administrator, and it was this which made it so difficult for Gregory to find a successor to his father; but there was further the fear that even if the bishops consented to an election, a candidate would be proposed to them whose ii 2 g orthodoxy was doubtful. It was in these cfBumstanceB that Gregory wrote to Cledonius, one of the priests of Nazianzus, two letters in which he deals, in opposition to the Apollinarians, with the subject of the Incarnation. These letters became later as famous as his discourses upon the Trinity; in the controversies of later centuries we find them continually appealed to. But, at the time, they produced no effect at Nazianzus. The Apollinarians, taking advantage of an illness which kept Gregory at a distance, succeeded in appointing a bishop of their own. This was too much: Gregory protested; the governor rid him of the intruder, and the bishops of Cappadocia at length filled up the vacancy in the threatened Church.

Gregory lived for some years longer in retirement and the practice of austerities, but never ceasing to interest himself in local affairs, nor even in the general interests of the Church. By his poetical compositions he sought to counteract those of Apollinaris; he ever kept a watchful eye upon that party, which was then very active in spite of all the condemnations which had been heaped upon it. The Apollinarians took advantage of the toleration of Theodosius, who gladly allowed the laws with regard to heretics to lie dormant, and of the indolence of Nectarius, who seemed never inclined to reawaken them. Gregory thought it his duty, from the depth of his retirement, to address expostulations to his successor¹ for this. It was undoubtedly to his intervention that the Apollinarians owed the law made in 388 by which their religious organization was once more proscribed. Gregory died in 389 or 390.

The island of Cyprus held constant communication with Southern Asia Minor. At the time of which we are now treating, this island formed in civil matters a province by itself, and its metropolis, Salamis, had as bishop, Epiphanius,² a holy man, who was renowned throughout the East. The unanimous vote of the Cypriots, in 367, had drawn him from his monastery at Eleutheropolis in Palestine, where he had long led a life of austerity and ¹ Ep. 202. ² Supra, p. 406.

467

p. 590] EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS

Ambrose, St Uttyfinued)— death, 430, 440, 441 position of, 435, 436 and Theodosius, 438-40 and Jovinian, 445 schism at Antioch, 481 and Gratian, 498 and Symmachus, 502 Ammianus Marcellinus, historian, on Julian, 256, 262 n. attack on the Ursinians, 364 Ammonius, 357 n., 494 Amoun, an ascetic, 391 Amphilochius of Iconium at Counc. of Aquileia, 350 history of, 462, 463 Amphion of Epiphania, 114 Anastasis, Church of the, 338, 339, 341

Anastasius, Pope, 431 Anatolius, Bp. of Laodicea, 39, 277 Ancyra, 54, 301, 302 Anemius, Bp. of Sirmium, 39, 277 Annianus, Bp. of Antioch—exile of, 242

Anomoeans, doctrine of, 228, 234 Council of Con^pIe, 245 at Antioch, 276 under Jovian, 282 under Julian, 297 canons of Con^ple against, 348 Anthimus, Bp. of Tyana, and Basil,

314, 315, 320 Antinoe, convents of women at, 400

Antioch in Syria, martyrdoms at, 39

new churches at, 66

date of Easter, 111

Church of, 128 et seq., 165, 218 et

seq., 318, 319 councs. at, 161, 162, 168, 247 creeds of, 166, 167, 171, 201, 224, 289

oppression under Gallus, 199 schisms at, 218 et seq. Eudoxius at, 231 paganism at, 251, 266-268 parties at, 276, 277, 337 the succession at, 345 Antoninus, death of, 35 Antony, St, the famous hermit, 146, 357, 386 history and life of, 388-90, 490

Aones, a Syrian monk, 409 Apollinaris, Bp. of Laodicea — ecclesiastical position, 273 and Basil, 323 school at Antioch, 326 condemned by Pope Damasus, 334

the canons of Con^p,e, 348 and St Jerome, 379 doctrine, 469 et seq. Apollinarianism, at Nazianzus, 466

description of, 469 et seq. Appeals of Sardica, the canon of,

178 et seq. Apphianus, a fervent Christian, 34 Aquileia, Councs. of, 351, 352, 373376

Arabia, persecutions in, 40 Christianity in, 491, 492, 495 a new cult, 492 Arbogast, Count, and the assassination of Valentinian, 504 and Theodosius, 506 Arianism (see also Arius) in Alexandria, 103 et seq., 282, 321 and Athanasius, 213, 282 and Julian, 221 and Hosius, 227, 228 in Con^ple, 338 councs. against, 368 intrigues against St Ambrose,

37o, 436 Counc. of Aquileia, 377 revival of, 454 et seq. disputes, 457 Arians, Apology against the, by St

Athanasius, 178, 200 Arians, History of the, by St

Athanasius, 216 Ariminum, Western Counc. at, 236,

238, 239, 361 Arius (see also Arianism), priest of Baucalis, history of, 99 doctrine, 100 et seq. deposition, 104 settles in Caesarea, 104 return to Alexandria, 106, 107 his Thalia, 107, 108 and Counc. of Nicaea, 114 etseq., 227

and Constantine, 136 et seq. death, 146

Counc. of Dedication, 166, 167 proscription of his books, 517

Arkaph, John, Bp. of Memphis, Archbishop of Meletians, 134,

J39, M3 exile of, 147 Aries, Counc. of, 88 etseq., 225, 355, 356

Armenia, Christianity in, 5, 26, 313, 314, 325

Armenius, a Priscillian, execution of, 425

Arnobius, a converted pagan, 41, 42

De errore profanarum re- ligionum, 42 n. Arsenius of Hypsele and Athanasius, 138, 141, 142 Asceticism, 386 et seq. in Spain, 419 reaction after, 443 Asclepas, proceedings against, 173, 174, 175

Asclepios, Marcionite bp., martyrdom of, 33 Asia Minor, Christianity in, 5, 20, 26

monasticism in, 410 et seq. different sects in, 459 et seq. Asterius of Cappadocia, 108, 148 banishment of, 181 at Antioch, 277, 279 Athanasius, St, Bp. of Alexandria, and consubstantial, 121, 122 and Eustathius, 129 election as bp., 132 character, 133

struggle with Meletians, 134 et seq.

and Constantine's tricennalia, 139, 140

his defence at Counc. of Tyre,

141 etseq. deposition of, 143 first exile, 145 return, 155 et seq. protest of, 161 and Marcellus, 164, 184 and Counc. of Sardica, 171 etseq. and Nicene Creed, 176, 177, 293 restoration of, 185 and Constantius, 199, 205 Counc. of Sirmium, 201 etseq. proscription of, 205 disturbance at Alexandria, and flight, 211 II

Athanasius, St {continued)— exile, 215-17

exhortation to Eastern bps., 247

return from exile, 263, 272

exiled by Julian, 280

return to Alexandria, 280

and Jovian, 280-82

final restoration of, 291

and Basil, 319, 320

and the hermits, 357

and Pope Damasus, 368

and Restitutus, 375

fidelity of, 385

and St Antony, 389, 390

and Pacomius, 397

early Christology, 471

Works quoted:—

Apology against the Arians,

132 n., 138, 174, 178, 200 History to the Monks, 132 n. Chronicle of the Festal letters, 132 n.

Historia acephala, 132 n. Apology for his flight, 216 History of the Arians, 216 Audius, Bp., a Mesopotamian

ascetic, 451, 452 Augustine, St, 434, 441 Aurelian recovers Gaul, 1, 2

and the Roman Church, 521 Aurelius, execution of, 425 Ausonius, the instructor of Gratian, 498

Auxentius, Bp. of Milan, and the Counc. of Ariminum, 238, 285, 286

and Basil, 218 death, 368 Auxentius, the Arian Bp. of Doros-

torum, 437 Axido, a Circumcellion, 190

Bagadius, Bp. of Bostra, 493 Bagai, Donatists at, 191 Bardesanes, 485

Barses, Bp. of Edessa, a monk,

312, 485 Basil, Bp. of Amasia, death, 55 Basil, Bp. of Ancyra, 175, 176 at Counc. of Sirmium, 200 and Aetius, 221, 231 Counc. of Ancyra, 231 et seq. and Anomoeans, 234 and Constantius, 235 et seq.

2 L

Basil, Bp. of Ancyra {continued)— dated creed of Sirmium, 236, 2 37

Counc. of Seleucia, 240 et seq. exiled to Illyria, 245, 246 and Athanasius, 281 and Arianism, 302, 303 and Eunomians, 458 Basil, St, Bp. of Cassarea, on the Holy Spirit, 294 history of, 303, 304, 308 et seq. elected bp., 309 and Valens, 313

and the Gregorys, 314, 315) 344, 465

and Eustathius, 317, 322, 323, 411

and Athanasius, 318 et seq. new situation, 328-30 death, 334 character, 334, 335 and Eunomians, 458 and Amphilochius, 462, 463 and Docetism, 471 Basilides, Bp. of Gangra, 312 Bethlehem, grotto at, 65 Beziers, Counc. of, 207 Bgoul, an anchorite, 399 Bishop's tribunal, the, 525 Boissier, La Jin du Paganisme, 48 n.

Books, the Sacred, destruction and

concealment of, 10, 16 Bordeaux pilgrim, the, 63

Counc. of, 423 Bosphorus, 449

Byzantium and Constantine, 66 et seq.

churches in, 68, 69

Chilian, consecration of, 83 Ccesarea in Cappadocia, St Basil at,

301, 302, 308, 313, 315 Valens arrives at, 308

Cappadocia under Diocletian, 301,

302, 313

and St Basil, 464 Capua, Counc. of, 440, 481 Carinus and Diocletian, 2 Carthage, schism at, 81 et seq. Carus, Emp., 1 death, 2

Cecropius, Bp., killed by earthquake, 235

Cenobites. SeBlONKS Cherson, 449

Christology, early, 470 et seq. Chrysanthus, son of Marcian, 459, 460

Chrysostom, St John, Bp. of ConP^le, the orator, practices asceticism, 410 and Diodore, 476, 477 his early life, 477, 478 his writings, 478

comforts Christians at Antioch, 479

and paganism, 511 Circumcellions, the, or Agonistics,

189 et seq. Cirta, Counc. of, 79 Constans, Emp., rescript on sacrifices, 61, 250 history and religious policy of,

154 et seq., 196 sole emp. of the West, 165 the Dedication Counc.at Antioch,

168 et seq. Counc. of Sardica, 175 et seq. and Photinus, 183, 184 restoration of Athanasius, 185, 186

and the religious parties in Africa,

188 et seq. suppression of Donatism, 193 assassination of, 197 Constantina, daughter of Constantine, and Magnentius, 197 marriage, 198 death, 199 Constantine, the Christian emp., early history, 13-15 his ambition, 15

defeats Maxentius at Milvian

Bridge, 15, 26, 27, 45, 48 favours the Christians, 20, 21,

57 et seq. his edict, 28-31 conversion of, 46 et seq., 57 and Licinius, 49 Christian buildings in Rome, 51 legislation, 52 dissensions in Africa, 53 sole emp., 57 et seq. new edicts of toleration, 57, 513 policy, 58 dream of unity, 59 and paganism, 60, 61

Constantine, Christian emp. (cotit.) pays honour to holy places of Gospels and Old Testament, 61 et seq. builds churches at Antioch and

Nicomedia, 66 founder of Con^ple, 66-70 and Byzantium, 67-69 baptized by Eusebius, 71 death, 71, 152 estimate of his reign, 71 Roman Counc., 86-88 Counc. of Aries, 88 et seq. and Donatism, 92 et seq. and dissentients, 123 and Eusebius of Cresarea, 125

et seq. and Arius, 136 et seq. his tricennalia, 139 banishes Athanasius, 144 his heirs, 153, 154 Constantine, Life of by Eusebius,

64 n., 152 Constantine II., 154, 155 defeat and death, 165 Constantinople, founded by Constantine, 66 et seq. the Church of, 338 et seq., 494 councs. of, 342 et seq., 482, 487, 488

the canons of, 348, 349 Arian disputes, 455, 456 Constantius I., the Pale (Chlorus), description, 3 dislocation of Tetrarchy, 12, 20 death, 13 Constantius, Julius, son of the above, 153, 154 murder of, 154 Constantius II., son of Constantine, 71, 154 description of, 155 and Athanasius, 155, 186, 199, 202

dedication at Antioch, 165 and Bp. Stephen, 182 usurpation and defeat of Magnentius, 197, 198 marriage, 198

exile of Liberius, 208, 209, 227 instals Eudoxius at Antioch,

231

declares himself a homo'iousian,

232

Constantius II. (continued)— and Counc. of Ariminum, 238, 239

defeat of orthodoxy, 248 death, 249 and Julian, 257, 258 troubles under, 358 et seq. and paganism in Rome, 500, 502 Consubstantial, disputes as to use

of word, 120, 121, 357 Creed of Nicrea. See Nictea Crispince Passio, 38 n. Crucifixion, site of the, 64 Culcianus, Prefect, and Bp. Phileas, 37

Cymatius, Bp. of Paltus, 277 Cynegius, Praetorian Prefect of the

Orient, 509 Cyprian, St, 41, 44 Cyprus, Island of, 466, 467 Cyriacus, 353

Cyril, Bp. of Jerusalem, 39 n. Catecheses of, 64 n. Counc. of Seleucia, 240, 241 deposed, 246 history of, 486, 487 Cyzicus, counc. at, 328

Daia, Maximin, his empire, 13, 15 made Augustus, 14, 15 death of Galerius, 15 defeat and death, 15, 28 persecution under, 20, 22 et seq. panic of, 26, 27 Damasus, Pope, and Basil, 318, 321

and Paulinus, 326 et seq. edict of Theodosius, 336 election, 362, 363 and Ursinus, 363 sects at Rome, 367, 368 intrigues against, 370 letter "to the Africans," 375 and Jerome, 380, 381 inscriptions of, 383 death, 383

the Counc. of Saragossa, 421 and Priscillian, 424 condemns Apollinarianism, 474 Danubian settlements, 449 et seq. Daphne, sanctuary of, at Antioch, 251, 267

Dedication Counc., the, 168, 169, 232, 240

Delmatius, consul and censor, 153

death of, 154 Delmatius, Caesar, son of the above,

death, 154 Demophilus, Bp., 183 and Pope Liberius, 209, 225, 309 disputes at Antioch, 337 and creed of Nicaea, 341 Dianius, Bp. of Caesarea, deposed at Counc. of Sardica, 303 signs the confession of Ariminum, 3°7

Dictinius, Bp., and Priscillianism, 429, 431, 435 "The Scale," 433 Didymus, the ascetic, 490 Diocletian, Emperor, rise and accession of, 1 et seq. the Tetrarchy, 3 Rome under, 4 and religion, 7

persecution of Christians, 8 et seq. first edict, 10, 11 illness, 12 resignation, 13 Diodore, Bp. of Tarsus, 220 at Antioch, 312 and Apollinaris, 326 his character and doctrine, 347,

476, 477 Counc. of Aquileia, 350 Disciplinary canons, 119, 178 et seq.

Dius, an Egyptian martyr, 37 Divinity of Christ, 177 Docetism, 471 Donatism, 72, 73, 76 ?i. schisms, 79 et seq., 90 and Constantine, 92, 93, 188, 514 in Numidia, 95 and Constans, 190, 191 suppression of, 192 et seq. return of the leaders, 263, 516 at Rome, 366 Donatus of Cas<z Nigra (see also Donatism) the schism at Carthage, 83 et seq. Roman Counc., 86, 87 and Constantine, 92 et seq., 188 death, 193 Donatus, Bp. of Bagai, 191, 192 Dorotheus, the eunuch, and Diocletian, 7 death, 11

Dorotheus, Bp. of Antioch, sent tJ Rome by Basil, 319, 328 his return, 325 Arian disputes, 457 Dracontius of Pergamum, 245 Drus, Rufinus' basilica at, 494

Easter, date of, 110 et seq., 460 Eastern Church, 170 et seq. and canon of appeals, 179, 180 and Arianism, 184 under Valens, 317 and Rome, 320, 321, 352, 353 and Paulinus, 346 and canons of Con^ple, 348, 349 Counc. of Aquileia, 357, 377 under Theodosius, 448 et seq. Ecclesiastical authority, 520, 521 Ecdicius, Bp. of Parnassos, 324 Edessa, notable for its Christianity, 5,6

and Ephrem, 484, 485 Egypt, Christians in, 5, 26 persecutions in, 36, 37, 321 Meletian schism, 76 et seq. disturbances at Alexandria, 310,

fatherland of the monks, 385 et seq.

religious crisis, 405 et seq. Eleusius of Cyzicus, 231, 240, 241 Counc. of Con^ple, 245, 343 doctrine, 288 and Valens, 295 Elvira, Counc. of, 419 Emerita, 421

Emesa, burning of Christian cemetery at, 265 Ephrem and Edessa, 484, 485 Epictetus, Bp. of Centumcellae, 209, 359

Counc. of Ariminum, 238, 286 Epiphanius, Bp. of Salamis,98,99 n. Counc. of Sirmium, 201 his monastery, 406, 466 his Panarion, 461, 467 hatred for heretics, 467 and Paulinus, 468, 474 and Vitalis, 474 "Essence," meaning of, 177, 228, 237, 278, 281, 320 term forbidden, 244 Etheria, the pilgrim, visits the Thebaid, 403

Euchites. See Massalians Eudoxius, Bp. of Germanicia and Con^ple, an Arian, 183 curious views, 230, 246 at Antioch, 231, 232, 242 retires to Armenia, 235 Counc. of Seleucia, 240 at Con^ple, 246 and Lucifer, 272 Counc. of Lampsacus, 289 and Counc. at Tarsus, 293 and Eunomius, 297, 298 intrigues, 483 Eugenius, the Usurper, 440 policy, 504, 505 defeat of, 506 Euhippius, 323 Eulalius, Bp. of Antioch, 130 Eulogius, banishment and return,

484

Euodius convicts Priscillian, 425 Eunomius, Bp., at Carthage, 93 and Eudoxius, 231 retires to Armenia, 235 and Aetius, 296 et seq. Arian disputes, 456-458, 517 Euphratesian Province, 483 Euphronius, Bp. of Antioch, 131 Euphronius of Colonia, 324 Eusebia, Empress, and Julian, 254, 257

Eusebius, Bp. of Caesarea—writings and influence, 32, 104, 125-127 on martyrs of Palestine, 32 et seq.

on bishops of his own country, 33

discourse at Tyre, 54 identification of holy sites, 64 n. state of Rome, 74 n., 75 n. at Nicomedia, 105 synod in Bithynia, 107 Counc. of Nicaea, 111 n., 114 Egyptian disputes, 122, 123 and Athanasius, 125 ct seq. and Eustathius of Antioch, 127, 128

and church at Antioch, 130, 131 Counc. of Tyre, 140 and Marcellus of Ancyra, 148, 149

death, 158, 169

and Eusebius of Edessa, 159

Dedication Counc., 168, 169

Eusebius, Bp. of Caesare&cont.)— Works quoted—

The Martyrs of Palestine, 11 n.-13, 20 described, 32 et seq. Ecclesiastical History, 22, 24, 26,27,28, 31, 32, net seq., 50, 54, 62, 74, 85, 86, 88, 104, 126 Vicennalia of Constantine, an oration, 56 n.-6i n., 64 n., 69, 71, 108, in et seq., 123, 130, 136, 139 Demotistratio Evangelica, 63 n., 126

Works on biblical geography, 62

Preparatio Evangelica, 126 Against Marcellus, 149 The Theology of the Church, 149

Eusebius, Bp. of Nicomedia, 71 history of, 105 and Arius, 105 et seq. and Counc. of Nicaea, 122, I23 and Constantine, 131 and ex-Empress Constantia, 137 and Athanasius, 156 becomes Bp. of Con^ple, 158 defence at Counc. of Dedication,

166 et seq. policy and death, 169 education of Theophilus, 222 and Julian, 254 and Ulfilas, 451 Eusebius of Edessa, 159 Eusebius, Pope, 75 Eusebius, Bp. of Samosata, 312 and Basil, 320 exiled to Thrace, 323, 483 return of, 333 character, 483 perished at Dolicha, 484 Eusebius, Bp. of Vercellae, at Counc. of Beziers, 206, 207 imprisoned in the Thebaid, 272 and Athanasius, 277 Counc. of Alexandria, 279 and Auxentius, 285, 286 and Germinius, 287, 288 and Evagrius, 321 Eusebius, Grand Chamberlain under Constantius II.—his death, 258

Eustathius, Bp. of Antioch, and Counc. of Nicsea, 113, 151 and Arians, 114 and Eusebius of Caesarea, 127 exiled to Trajanopolis, 129, 219 death, 130, 219 Eustathius, Bp. of Sebaste—Counc. of Ancyra, 231 deposed, 245, 307 monastic life and doctrines, 247,

248, 304 et seq., 410, 411 delegate to Valentinian and Liberius, 292 and Eusebius, 304, 305 Counc. of Gangra, 305, 411 and Basil, 315 et seq., 411 Counc. at Cyzicus, 328, 343 death, 343 Eutropia, mother of Maxentius, 65

put to death, 197 Eutychius, Bp. of Eleutheropolis, 272

Euzo'ius, Arian Bp. of Antioch, 248 baptizes Constantius, 249 scenes at Antioch, 267, 276, 280 and Paulinus, 291 and Theophilus, 298 revenge on Church of Alexandria, 311, 312 death, 337 Evagrius, Bp. of Antioch, and Eusebius of Vercellae, 321, 479 Rome and the East, 321 imprisonment and death, 337 consecration, 479, 480 and Flavian, 483

Fasir, the Circumcellion, 190 Faustus, an Egyptian martyr, 37 Felix, Bp. of Aptonga, and Maxentius, 82 condemnation of, 84 enquiry on, 90-92, 188 Felix, Bp. of Rome, and Liberius, 233, 359, 360 death, 361 Felix, Bp. of Thibiuca, 17 Felix, Bp. of Treves, 425, 427 Firmian, imprisonment of, 287 Firmicus Maternus, an advocate of Syracuse—The Falsehood of the Profane Religions, 253 Firmilian, Bp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, 62

Flaccillus_v Bp. of Antioch, 140 The Theology of the Church, dedicated to, 149 Flavian, Bp. of Antioch, champion of orthodox faith—and Leontius, 220 and Diodore, 312, 350, 476 succeeds Meletius, 350 character, 477 and Meletius, 478 goes to Con^ple, 479 and Evagrius, 479 et seq. schism at Antioch, 480, 481 Counc. of Con^ple, 482 death, 483 Flavianus, Nicomachus, Prefect of

Rome, 503, 506 Fortunatian, Bp. of Aquileia, 206, 225

Fronto of Nicopolis, 324 Fundanus, Bp., burning of the sacred books, 17

Gaius, Bp., excommunication of, 238

and Germinius, 288 Galatia, under Diocletian, 301 and Cappadocia, 312, 313 Counc. held in, 323 Galerius, Emp., character, 3, 20 persecution of Christians, 9 et

seq., 21 7i., 46 as emp., 13, 14 death, 15, 24

illness, and edict in favour of Christians, 22, 23 Galicia, asceticism in, 421

birthplace of Theodosius, 429 Gallienus, Emp., assassinated, 1 Gallus, Emp.—early life, 154, 254 marriage, 198 execution of, 199 and Aetius, 221, 257 and paganism, 251 Gangra, Counc. of, 305, 411 Gaudentius of Na'issus, 174 Gaul, Christianity in, 6

troubles under Constantius, 359

orthodox party, 374 Counc. of Aquileia, 376 monastery of Liguge, 417 landing of Maximus, 423 Priscillianism in, 427

^{^[1]} Cf. G. Loeschcke, in the Rheinisches Museum, vol. lix., p. 451, who thinks that he is able to identify this collection with the enigmatical Synodicon of Athanasius ; E. Schwartz, in the Gottingen Nachrichten, 1904, p. 391- ²^Cf• P^aS^e
x3²> ⁱⁿf^ra-

^{^[2]} Homo, Essai sur le regne de Vempereur Aurelien> p. 214 et seq.

^{^[3]} See vol. i., p. 378.

^{^[4]} It is to holders of this view that there belong several African martyrs of this time, in regard to whom we possess authentic documents. Maximilian, a conscript, was executed for refusing military service, at Theveste, on March 12, 295. The proconsul Dion in vain adduced in opposition to him the Christians who served in the imperial army, f They know what they ought to do," replied Maximilian. " I am a Christian, and I cannot do what is wrong." At Tangier, the centurion Marcellus who refused to continue his military service, and the clerk of the court, Cassian, who refused to write the sentence rendered against Marcellus, also suffered (October 30 and December 3 : the year is uncertain).

^{^[5]} De mortibus persecutorum, 10.

^{^[6]} Ibid., 10; Eusebius, H. E. viii. 1, 4 ; Chronicon, ad arm. 2317.

^{^[7]} Lactantius does not say, but we may suspect, that there was here a conflict of feminine influences. The princesses of Nicomedia were Christians or favourable to the Christians; this was quite

^{^[8]} This first edict reached Palestine towards the end of March, just when the Feast of Easter was being celebrated (Eusebius, H. E. viii. 2).

^{^[9]} Eusebius, Martyr. Pal., preface.

^{^[10]} At Aptonga (for the orthography of the name of this town, see the texts collected in the Latin Thesaurus), some epistolae salutato- riae (?) were seized in this way ; at Calatna, some books on medicine ; at Aquae Tibilitanae, papers of some sort.

^{^[11]} The Passion of this Saint, authentic on the whole, was provided, later on, with additions, which transferred its denouement to Italy. See Analecta Bollandiana, vol. xvi., p. 25.

ii b

^{^[12]} Lactantius, Instituiioncs, v. 1 r.

^{^[13]} Lactantius, loc. cit.j cf. Eusebius, H. E. viii. 11. Eusebius says that the town itself (iroXlxvw) was burnt, with the curator, the ditumvir, and the other magistrates ; Lactantius speaks only of the church, but he also relates that the whole population perished: universum populum cum ipso pariter conventiculo concremavit.

^{^[14]} With regard to the victims of the persecution in the dominions of Galerius we possess several important and trustworthy traditions, contained in documents sufficiently near the date of the events themselves. They allow us to determine the current application of the edicts, but they cannot be used to define the special action of the prince who presided over their execution in these countries. I am speaking here of the accounts relating to St Philip of Heraclea, with the priest Severus and the deacon Hermes (October 22); to the three holy women of Thessalonica, Agape, Chionia, and

^{^[15]} Lactantius {De mort. persec. 34) has preserved the original text, but without the title ; this is only known to us through the version of Eusebius (H. E. viii. 17). It only mentions Galerius, Constantine, and Licinius; the name of Maximin is omitted, either because his memory was officially abolished, or from the fault of the copyists.

^{^[16]} These recitals have a singular resemblance to those of the edict with regard to the Manicheans.

^{^[17]} Ut denuo sint christiani et conventicula sua componant, ita ut ne quid contra disciplinam agant. We must observe that the term conventiculum signifies, like the word ecclesia, both the assembly itself and the place where it is held.

^{^[18]} Corpus Inscrifitionum Latinarum, vol. iii. No. 12132, found at Arycanda in Lycia. The petition is addressed, according to the opening, to the three legitimate emperors, Maximin, Constantine, and Licinius. Yet the name of Constantine has not been reproduced on the marble : the place for it is left blank.

^{^[19]} Upon this point, the instructions of Maximin to the pnetorian prefect, Sabinus, went beyond the edict, for the edict allowed the Christians comfionere conventicula sua.

^{^[20]} Eusebius has preserved to us a letter addressed by the emperors to the proconsul of Africa, Anulinus, relating to the restitution to the churches of their confiscated properties (//. E. x. 5,"E<ttiv 6 Tp6irot).

^{^[21]} Romanus, rural deacon of Caesarea, who was martyred at Antioch ; Valens, deacon of JEWa; Zacchaeus, deacon of Gadara ; Romulus, sub-deacon of Diospolis ; Alphaeus, lector of Cresarea; Procopius, lector of Scythopolis.

- • Martyr. Pal. 12.

^{^[22]} Martyr. Pal 8. ² Ibid. 9.

³ We may notice also, that in addition to the forty-three martyrs mentioned by Eusebius, there were about ten Egyptians, who were

arrested accidentally at Ascalon or at Ctcsarea.

^{^[25]} Eusebius, H. E. vii. ii ; viii. 13.

^{^[26]} This Culcianus was prefect from the year 303, as we learn from a papyrus published in 1898 by Grenfell and Hunt, Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part I., p. 132. Hierocles, of whom we have spoken above, must have been his successor.

^{^[27]} Eusebius, H. E. viii. 9, 10. The Passion of SS. Phileas and Philoromus, published by Ruinart, may have been retouched here and there from Rufinus, but it contains parts which are certainly genuine.

^{^[28]} Compare the homily published by the Bollandists (January 18), and by Ruinart, under the title Passio ss. xxxvii. Martyrum AZgypti-

^{^[29]} De errore profanarum religioniun. With regard to this book, see Monceaux, Histoire liitcraire de FAfrique chretienne, vol. iii., p. 241 et seq.; cf. Martin Schanz, Geschichte der rom. Litieratur, Nos. 611, 749, et seq.

■ Monceaux, he. cit., p. 286 ; Schanz, loc. cit., p. 445.

^{^[31]} Upon this subject see especially Boissier, La f,7i du paganisme, vol. i., p. 11 et seq.

^{^[32]} We cannot admire too much the artless simplicity of certain critics, who approach this imperial literature with the preconceived idea that it was impossible for an emperor to have religious convictions ; that men like Constantine, Constantius, or Julian, were in reality free-thinkers, who, for political exigencies, openly proclaimed such and such opinions. In the 4th century, free-thinkers, if there were any, were rarae aves, whose existence could not be assumed or easily accepted.

^{^[33]} " Sed et Caesares credidissent super Christo, si aut Caesares non essent saeculo necessarii aut si et christiani potuissent esse Caesares." —Apol. 21.

^{^[34]} Supra, p. 29.

^{^[35]} Eusebius, H. E. x. 6, Letter from Constantine to Caecilian, Bishop of Carthage : 'EireiS^irep i}pe<T€ ; cf. V. C. i. 41, 43.

^{^[36]} Lactantius {De mort. fiers. 46) even gives us the words of this prayer, which, he says, an angel {angelus Dei) had revealed to Licinius during his sleep.

II D

[37] The East under the Government of Lirinius.

Under Licinius also there were meetings of bishops. The Christians, finally delivered from Maximin, breathed again, resumed their assemblies, restored the ruins of their churches—ruins both material and moral. Numerous

^{^[38]} Origo Constantini (Anon. Valesii), M. G. Auct. Ant. vol. ix., p. 9 ; cf. p. 232. With regard to the year, see Mommsen, Hermes, vol. xxxii., p. 545, and E. Schwartz, Nachrichten, p. 540 et seq.

^{^[39]} Eusebius has given this to us, according to the copy addressed to the inhabitants of the province of Palestine, inapx^Tais IlaXaionV^s (V. C. ii. 24 et seq.).

^{^[40]} Letter to Eusebius, V. C. ii. 46 ; this is only a specimen. Eusebius says that he was the first person to receive such a letter.

^{^[41]} Eusebius, V. C. ii. 56, 60.

^{^[42]} V. C. iii. 54-58 ; cf. the Chronicle of St Jerome, a. Abr. 2346 (332): Dedicator Constantinopolis omnium paene urbium nuditate.

^{^[43]} V. C. i. 45 ; cfiv. 23, 25. ⁴ /J-i)re Ji.i]v Oveiv KadoXov fnjSeva.

^{^[44]} Eusebius, V. C. iii. 51-53.

"² tt]v a.tt0<rT0\iK7)u iKKXr)<Tiai> TTjv ev Tjj KaXovf/.^vrj ITaAcup diaKei/meurju

(Theodoret, H. E. ii. 27).

^{^[46]} After the construction of Constantine's basilica, the title of Old, Palsea (naXaia), was transferred from that part of the city to the building itself, the ancient church (Ath. Tom. ad Ant. c. 3).

^{^[47]} Eusebius V. C. iii. 50. The church was not dedicated until 341.

^{^[48]} Some years before Byzantium, Chalcedon had been founded on the other side of the Bosphorus, but in a position much less advantageous. Its founders were ridiculed by the whole ancient world for not having preferred the situation of Byzantium.

^{^[49]} These are the bishops whose names appear at the head of the most ancient episcopal lists ; other catalogues are suspect, especially that of the Pseudo-Dorotheus, which gives Metrophanes twenty-one predecessors. There is every appearance that before Metrophanes the Christians of Byzantium were attached to the Church of Perinthus-Heraclea. The union of two towns under one bishop lasted for a long time in these parts (Vol. I., p. 382).

^{^[50]} The Forum of Constantine: his statue towered from the summit of an enormous column, the ruins of which still remain (the Burnt Column).

^{^[51]} The mosque Mohammedieh stands now upon this same site.

^{^[52]} V. C. iv. 58-60. Constantine, in the Greek Church, is a saint ; he is given the title of l<rav6(rro\os, "equal to the Apostles."

^{^[53]} V. C. iii. 48.

^{^[54]} This is perhaps an exaggeration, or rather applicable only to the new city, the pagan worship being possibly tolerated in the ancient parts.

^{^[55]} Upon this subject, see Allard, Vart pai'cn sous les empercurs Chretiens {Paris: 1879), p. 173. The Scriptores originum Constantino- politarum have been brought together by Dr Th. Preger, in the

little Teubner Collection, 1901 (1st part).

^{^[57]} Supra, p. 16.

^{^[58]} Vol. I., p. 291.

^{^[59]} This circumstance is honourable to Mensurius, and proves that he was not deficient in character.

^{^[60]} This was already the custom in the time of Cyprian : Quod apud

^{^[61]} Optatus relates (Be schism, i. 19) that Caecilian, learning that the power of his consecrators to ordain him was disputed, exclaimed : " Very well! Let them ordain me themselves, then, if they think I am not a bishop." Purpurius had then thought of allowing him to come, and of laying his hands upon him, not as a bishop, but as a penitent, which would have meant excluding him from the clergy altogether. These ideas, or that of Purpurius at least, are sufficiently probable.

^{^[62]} We still have the letter of summons, addressed to the Bishop of Syracuse, Chrestus (Eusebius, H. E. x. 5), and the order given to the Vicarius of Africa, ^Elafius, to send to Aries a certain number of African bishops of both parties (Migne, P. L. vol. viii.,

p. 483).

^{^[63]} With reference to this council, we possess a letter addressed to Pope Silvester, of which several recensions exist. That of the Sylloge Optatiana (Vienna Corpus scriptorum eccl. latinorum, vol. xxvi., p. 206) gives the convening letter in full, and an abridgment of the canons of the council ; it is otherwise in the recension of the collections of canons which also contains the signatures of the members of the assembly. The following Churches were represented

[64] Can. 8. ² Aug. Brev. Coll. iii. 37.

Aetema, religiosa (Migne, P. L. vol. viii., p. 487).

^{^[66]} The date is not so exact as we could wish. We know that the Council of Aries was convened for August 1, 314; but there is nothing to prove that it assembled exactly at that time, and we do not know how long the bishops remained assembled. However, it was certainly held in 314. {Melanges de PEcole de Rome,vo\. x.,

p. 644)-

^{^[67]} We may now employ that term, because the celebrated Donatus, from whom the party took its name, must by that time have succeeded Majorinus.

^{^[68]} " Gesta purgationis Felicis"(/>. L. vol. viii., p. 718 etseq. ; Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum, vol. xxvi., p. 197 et seq.).

^{^[69]} It was perhaps during this stay that Alfius Cascilianus appeared before the duumvir of Carthage.

^{^[70]} Letter of Constantine to the proconsul Probianus, successor of ^Elianus, P. L. vol. viii., p. 489.

^{^[71]} Before April 28, 315, the date of the document " Quoniam Lucianum," P. L. vol. viii., p. 749 5 Corpus, p. 202.

^{^[72]} Letter "Ante paucos," ibid., p. 489 ; Corpus, p. 210.

^{^[73]} Letter " Perseverare Menalium," ibid. ; Corpus, p. 211.

^{^[74]} However, the theft of jars of vinegar was a crime according to common law.

^{^[75]} Aug. Contra Cresc. iii. 30.

^{^[76]} Petition of the Donatists, and letter to the vicarius : Coll. iii. 541-552 ; Brev. iii. 39, 40, 42 ; Aug. Ep. 141, 9 ; Ad Don. 56.

^{^[77]} See Vol. I., p. 69. Some traces of this custom must have remained, for it is still mentioned in the 5th century. (Apophthegmata Patrum, ii. 78 ; Migne, P. G. vol. lxv., p. 341).

^{^[78]} This is all we can say, for the chronology of these early times is very inexact. As it is impossible to place all the events between the victory of Constantine over Licinius and the Council of Nicasa, we have to go back to a period before the persecution of Licinius.

^{^[79]} With regard to the beginnings of the affair of Arius, apart from the official documents, which will be quoted later, we have hardly any serviceable information. The historical accounts are generally of late date, hasty, and confused. Yet some details can be gleaned from St Epiphanius (ffaer. lxix.), and especially from Sozomen, i. 15

^{^[80]} Alexander was still influenced, more or less, by his Origenist training. We see traces of this in his two letters. He was like Eusebius of Ceesarea, an Origenist who had sacrificed one of the two halves of the system ; but he had kept the good half—that which was commended by its agreement with tradition.

^{^[81]} Arius had perhaps already returned, when the letter was written.

^{^[82]} Sozomen, i. 15, summarizes here synodical documents which have not come down to us.

^{^[83]} Proverbs viii. 22.

^{^[84]} Eusebius does not specify the name. The author of the index of the chapters of his Life of Constantine (iii. n) thought that it was the Bishop of Caesarea himself; Theodoret (i. 6) mentions Eustathius of Antioch. Hosius, as one of the immediate attendants on the emperor, was scarcely marked out for this honour. The Bishop of Antioch had already presided over the Councils of Ancyra and Neocassarea ; it was natural that he should preside over that of Niceea. There were not yet any fixed rules of precedence ; later on, Alexandria, in these meetings, took precedence of Antioch. At the time we are now speaking of, Antioch was the residence of the Comes of the Oriens, a sort of viceroy to whom Egypt was subject as well as Syria.

- Eusebius, V. C. iii. 12, has preserved the emperor's speech.

^{^[86]} Letter of the council to the Church of Alexandria, 'E7ra57j r?)s roO GfoO, Socrates, i. 9; Theodoret, i. 8; Gelasius, ii. 34. Letter of Constantine to the Church of Alexandria, Xaipere ayavi]Tol, Socrates, i. 9; Gelasius, ii. 37. Letter of Constantine to the Easterns, Ilftp&v Xa/3wv, Eusebius, V. C. iii. 17-20; Socrates, i. 9; Theodoret, i. 9.

^{^[87]} According to St Basil, Ep. 81 (cf. 244, 9), the drawing up of this creed was entrusted to Hermogenes, who became later Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. He was undoubtedly a priest or deacon of that Church, who had, like Athanasius, accompanied his bishop to the council.

^{^[88]} This decision affected the Bishops of Nicomedia and Antioch, transferred, one from Berytus, the other from Berea ; but the law had not a retrospective effect.

^{^[89]} Here, the council brings forward the custom of Rome : teal iv rrj 'vufirj iiricncdTra} tovto crvvr)9h icrriv. Actually, the Pope exercised

at that time the authority of a metropolitan over the bishops of the whole of Italy. In certain Latin versions of this canon a closer definition has been attempted by restricting the metropolitical jurisdiction of the Pope to the subitrbicaria loca—that is to say, to those Churches not included in the jurisdictions of Milan and Aquileia, established after the Council of Nicrca.

^{^[90]} For the sake of completeness, we may mention further two other canons, one against the encroachments of deacons (c. 18), the other against the custom of kneeling at prayers on Sunday and during the Paschal season (c. 20).

^{^[91]} For instance, when it is said that Christ, consubstantial with God by His divine nature, is consubstantial with us by His human nature.

^{^[92]} See Vol. I., p. 352.

^{^[93]} Eusebius mentions this affair, V. C. iii. 23 ; the general terms of which he makes use hardly allow us to discover whether it was a question of Arians or Meletians, or of both parties together. The same indefiniteness is displayed in the letter of Constantine mentioned below. There has been much exaggeration, in our own times, in assuming from this incident a second session of the Council of Nicosa. Eusebius in no way speaks of a new convocation of the whole episcopate, but merely of an invitation addressed to the " Egyptians."

^{^[94]} Socrates, i. 23, says that he had seen episcopal letters on this subject: 'fis Si rj/ieis £k diatpdpuv iiriffToXQv eupTjKa.fj.ev, &s fiera tijv avvodov 0i ekiakoirot irpbs aWrjXovs 'eypa<pov, 17 tov 6fioov<riov rtfas SierdpaTre k. t. e. St Jerome, De viris, 85, was also acquainted with letters of Eustathius in great numbers, infinitae epistolae.

^{^[95]} See the treatise of Eustathius upon the Pythian priestess and Origen's explanations with regard to that story. Cf. Bulletin critique, vol. viii., p. 5.

^{^[96]} Besides the treatise on the Pythian priestess, a fragment relating to the Council of Niccea, preserved by Theodoret, i. 7, enables us to form an idea of his style.

^{^[97]} Socrates here complains of the bishops, who, he says, deposed people as impious, without stating in what their impiety consisted.

^{^[98]} Socrates, i. 24, gets this from George of Laodicea, a notorious Arianizer who seems to reproduce a remark of Eusebius of Emesa. Cyrus himself might have been deposed upon the same doctrinal pretext.

^{^[99]} Theodoret, i. 20, 21. The council seems to have admitted this assertion without any other guarantee but the woman's oath ; and she confessed later that her child was indeed the son of a Eustathius, but a blacksmith and not the bishop. All this is very doubtful, and reads like legend. ² V. C. iii. 39.

^{^[100]} St Jerome, in his De viris, says that Eustathius was exiled to Trajanopolis, and that his tomb was still to be seen there. It was, however, from Philippi (see the chronicles of Victor and Theophanes) that the remains of Eustathius were brought back to Antioch about the year 482. Socrates (iv. 14), followed by Sozomen (vi. 13), represents him as living till the time of Valens ; but there must be a confusion in this. Eustathius is never mentioned again in the documents of the time of Constantine and Constantius, in which appear the names of so many bishops in a similar situation ; besides, we know, from Theodoret (iii. 2), that Eustathius was dead when Meletius was elected Bishop of Antioch in 360.

^{^[101]} For this, see especially Eusebius, V. C. iii. 59-62.

^{^[102]} Paulinus had been, we know not why, replaced by another as Bishop of Tyre ; it was Zeno who signed in that capacity at the Council of Nicsea. Eusebius dedicated to him (shortly afterwards, it would seem) his Onomasticon. In his work against Marcellus (i. 4), Eusebius says that the Church of Antioch had claimed him as a possession of its own ; the lists of bishops of Antioch agree in placing, either before or after Eustathius, a certain Paul or Paulinus to whom they assign an episcopate of five years ; St Jerome, in his Chronicle, also mentions a Paulinus, and places him before Eustathius. Theodoret (i. 24) does not speak of him. Philostorgius (iii. 15) is very precise : he places Paulinus immediately before Eulalius, and says that he died after six months of authority.

^{^[103]} Letters to the people of Antioch, to Eusebius, to the bishops (Theodotus, Theodore, Narcissus, Aetius, Alphius, and others), ibid.

- It was he who afterwards became Bishop of Laodicea.

^{^[105]} This is the number given by Philostorgius.

^{^[106]} Following Tillemont and many others, I feel myself obliged to reject the letter, which Socrates (i. 14) gives us as having been written by Eusebius and Theognis to the most important bishops (rots Kopv<f>alois t^v iiriak6ttwv') to stir them up to demand their recall

^{^[107]} This term was at that time, and long remained, employed to denote bishops, whoever they might be. Later on, it was reserved for the Bishop of Rome in the West, and the Bishop of Alexandria in the East. He still takes the title of Pope in his official style.

^{^[108]} At the same time, the records of this enquiry were so little to the honour of the commissioners that the anti-Athanasian party tried to conceal them as much as possible ; but it was known that they were drawn up by a certain Rufus, who afterwards became speculator to the Augustal prefecture. Athanasius was able to invoke his testimony. Pope Julius also, to whom the documents were sent, himself communicated them to Athanasius (Apol. contra Ar. 83).

^{^[109]} In the letter of Arsenius, mentioned before (p. 138, note 1), Bishop Plusianus is named, but no allusion is made to the story of the disappearance of Arsenius himself. If Athanasius (c. 69) did not expressly say so, we should not believe the letter to have been written after his adventure.

^{^[110]} Fragment of the synodal letter in Afiol. contra Ar. 84.

^{^[111]} Letter of Constantine, 'E7d> fih dyvoQ (Afiol. contra Ar. 86).

^{^[112]} This is Athanasius' account of this last sudden change of front (Afiol. contra Ar. 87 ; cf. 9) ; and he adduces the testimony of five Egyptian bishops, who heard the assertion of his adversaries.

^{^[113]} See, below, the letters to St Antony.

^{^[114]} Rufinus, i. ii, 12 ; Socrates, i. 37 ; Sozomen, ii. 29. Athanasius, even in his letter to Serapion on the death of Arius, does not speak of this journey.

II K

^{^[115]} A letter of Constantine to Alexander, relating to this affair, has been preserved in the collection of Gelasius of Cyzicus (iii. 15, in Ceriani, Monumenta sacra., vol. i., p. 145), not entire, but only in extracts : Wirep o5v tt}s ii> Siicalq. iKTedeltrrjs 6p6ijs ical eltrael airo<rTo\tK7)S irlurews di>Ttirotov/xivovs aiirovs evptjre—tovto yap kal e<}> Tj/xCbv (ppoveiv 5iaj3el3a.id}<7avTo—irpovo7)<raTe ttAvtuv, irapaicaXui. In the title, the document is represented as addressed to Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria. Ceriani, for this reason, pronounces it apocryphal; Loeschcke (Rheinisches Museum, 1906, p. 44 et seq.) accepts it as authentic, and tries to reconcile it with the facts known regarding the episcopate of Alexander. But this is difficult, especially in view of the fact that Arius and Euzoius are mentioned together in this letter, just as they appear together in the proceedings of the year 333. The best course, as it seems to me, is to remove the Gelasian rubric, or to conjecture that, in its original form, it read only irpbs 'AX^avdpov iirIukottov, without 'AAefarSpei'as. Neither the fragments of the text, nor the place it occupies in the collection of Gelasius, give any indication that it was addressed to Athanasius' predecessor.

^{^[116]} Arius is said to have died in a privy. Upon this event, see Ep. ad Serapionem de morte Arii and Ep. ad episcopos Aeg. et Libyae, c. 19.

^{^[117]} Upon this, see Sozomen, ii. 31 ; cf. Athan. Apol. contra Ar. 17.

^{^[118]} This exposition is based on St Athanasius, in his fourth treatise against the Arians..

^{^[119]} In this explanation, however, the personality is attached to the divine element; it is not to be based upon the character of Son.

^{^[120]} We may notice how this feature agrees with the fact that, in Cyrenaica, at the time of St Dionysius of Alexandria, the Son of God was no longer preached (Athan. De sentctitia Diotrysii, 5).

^{^[121]} On Marcellus, see the book of Th. Zahn, Marcellus von Ancyra (Gotha, 1867), and especially the memoir of Loofs in the Reports of the Berlin Academy, 1902, p. 764.

^{^[122]} Thus, up to this point, Marcellus' Trinity has only two terms ; it is a " Binity." _m

^{^[123]} This opinion had the advantage of cutting short the Arian arguments as to the necessary priority of the begetter to the begotten ; but it did away with any idea of Divine generation.

^{^[124]} St Athanasius {Apologia de fuga, 3 ; Hist. Ar. 5) mentions several of these : Asclepas of Gaza, who, according to the synodal letter of the Easterns at the Council of Sardica (Hil. Frag. hist. iii. 11), had been condemned seventeen years before, possibly in 326 ; Hellanicas of Tripoli, Cartcrius of Antaradus, Cymatius of

^{^[124]} Eft. Oriental. (Hil. Frag. hist. iii. 9).

" The letter is dated from Treves, xv. kal.jul. (June 17); Constantine II. still bears in it the title of Caesar, which he relinquished three months later for that of Augustus.

^{^[126]} " Per omnem viam reditus sui Ecclesiam subvertebat; damnatos episcopos aliquos restaurabat, aliquibus spem ad episcopatus reditum promittebat; aliquos ex infidelibus constituebat episcopos, salvis et integris permanentibus sacerdotibus, per pugnas et caedes gentil- ium, nihil respiciens leges, desperationi tribuens totum."—Ep. Or., loc. cit. 8.

^{^[127]} Apol. co7itra Ar. 3.

^{^[128]} The Festal Chronicle seems to indicate the year 338. Such a delay would be inexplicable : but, as the Chronicle assigns to the same year the death of Constantine and the return of Athanasius, it is possible that it really refers to the year 337, just as, a little before, it places the Council of Tyre in 336 instead of 335. The Xth Festal Letter, for the Easter of 338, begins by complaints of the afflictions to which Athanasius is exposed on the part of his enemies, who are detaining him at the ends of the world, and prevent him from celebrating Easter with his flock. It would seem, therefore, as if during the winter, 337-338, Athanasius were still at Treves. But the letter ends by expressing the joy which the bishop feels at the end of his persecution and the prospect of celebrating the feasts in company with his Church as they had been wont to do. It is evident that the beginning of one letter (that of 337) has been joined on to the end of another (that of 338).

^{^[129]} This intrusion of Pistus may very well have been before the return of Athanasius.

^{^[130]} Supra, pp. 103, 122, and 131 (note 5).

^{^[131]} Letter of the Bishops of Egypt, Apol. contra Ar. 19 ; letter of Pope Julius, ibid. 24.

^{^[132]} Socrates, H. E. ii. 9, following George of Laodicea, a contemporary and friend of Eusebius of Emesa.

^{^[133]} Hist. Ar. 10. The Chronicle of the Festal Letters gives the church of Theonas, which was, in 356, the theatre of similar scenes. There is perhaps some confusion here.

^{^[134]} Title of the reply : 'IouAios Aav'tcp *at ^XaKi'XXy, Xap/cta<r(p, ~Ev<rej3it{}, Mapi, MaKeSovitf), Qeodwpq} Kai tois <tvv avrois and 'Atmoxdas ypafaaiv rj/juv. Flaccillus and Dianius appear to have been rather poor creatures ; Narcissus of Neronias and Macedonius of Mopsuestia, Cilician Bishops, as well as Maris of Chalcedon and Theodore of Heraclea in Thrace, were pillars of Eusebius' party.

^{^[135]} Preserved by St Athanasius in his Afiol. contra Ar. 20-25. Sabinus the Macedonian had inserted in his collection the letter of the Eastern prelates to Julius, but not the latter's reply (Socrates, ii. 17).

^{^[136]} This letter was carried to the East by a certain Count Gabianus (Ap. c. Ar. 20).

2 Epiph. Haer. Ixxii. 4 : /j.6vov dia tov wpoawirov ii.ei5i6.oas viri<(>i)ve HOx6y]p'uis /jltj /ji&Kpav aiirov eivai, /cat ws airdKoyTfixa^evov el%e.

^{^[137]} The text is preserved by Epiphanius, Haer. Ixxii. 2-3 It should be read in connection with the letters addressed to the bishops, evidently on the subject of Marcellus, and there is reason to believe

^{^[138]} St Hilary {De synodis, 29, et seq.) gives a Latin text of this formula, and explains it favourably ; as does also Sozomen (iii. 5), from whom we learn that this formula was, in the party, attributed to the martyr Lucian.

^{^[139]} Both these are preserved in the Alexandrian dossier, which the collection of the deacon Theodosius has preserved to us in Latin. The Greek text of the creed is in Theodoret, H. E. ii. 6, pp. 844-888 :

'AiTOKrjpvTTOfiev di indvovs k.t.X.

^{^[140]} IloXXa fikv /cat iroWdKis (Athan. Apol. contra Ar. 44 et seq.). The council wrote also to the Church of Alexandria (ibid. 37), as well as to the bishops of Egypt and Libya (ibid. 41), and finally to the Churches of Mareotis, Etiam ex his (Collection of the deacon Theodosius, Migne, P. L. vol. lvi., p. 848). Athanasius himself wrote to the priests and deacons of Alexandria, as well as to the priests and deacons of Mareotis (ibid., pp. 852 and 850).

^{^[141]} A special report was addressed to the Emperor Constans upon this affair.

^{^[142]} Can. 8-12 of the Latin text; 7, 8, 9, 20 of the Greek text.

⁶ Lat. 20, 21 ; Gr. 16-19.

^{^[144]} Optimum et valde congruentissimum esse videtur, says the council (letter to Julius), si ad caput, id est ad Petri apostoli sedem, de singulis quibusque provinciis Domini referant sacerdotes.

^{^[145]} Letter Quod Semper {Hil. Frag. hist. ii. 9-15). In this letter we must take note of the following phrase, which gives a peculiar significance to certain.pieces of information :—Ipsi religiosissimi imperatores permisermit ut de integro universa discussa disputarentur, et ante omnia de sattcta fide et de integritate veritatis. Thus the two emperors themselves decided the programme of the council. Besides the question of faith, there was that of the sentences unjustly passed and that of the acts of violence attributed to the Easterns.

^{^[146]} Pope Zosimus revised them a century later ; and then they were the cause of a celebrated controversy.

^{^[147]} Athan. Hist. Ar. 18-20.

^{^[148]} He died shortly afterwards, at the place to which he had been exiled.

^{^[149]} Hil. Frag. hist. ii. 20 ; viii. 2.

^{^[150]} "Quattuor episcopi, Demophilus, Macedonius, Eudoxius, Mar- tyrius, qui ante annos octo, cum apud Mediolanum Arii sententiam haereticam noluissent damnare, de concilio animis iratis exierunt." Letter of Liberius written in 354 (Jaffe, 212; Hil. Frag. hist. v. 4). "[Photinus] qui ante biennium iam in Mediolanensi synodo erat haereticus damnatus" (Hil. Frag. hist. ii. 19). Observe the expression Arii sententiam haereticam. It was scarcely possible to ask the Eastern delegates to condemn Arius in person, since, after he had given a satisfactory explanation to them, they had readmitted him to ecclesiastical communion.

^{^[151]} Hil. Frag. hist. ii. 22. St Hilary weakens his position here to show that Marcellus had not been formally condemned by any council since that of Constantinople. Unfortunately he was right. The Latins would have acted wisely in following the example of Athanasius, and refusing to recognize a compromising person. The support they gave him is a proof of their lack of insight.

^{^[152]} As to this date there can be no doubt. The Chronicle of the Festal Letters mentions the day (2 epiphi = June 25). It is true that it speaks of the event under the year 346, but in relation to the return of Athanasius to Alexandria—which actually occurred on October 2r, 346 We know, from the Historia Arianoru/n, that Athanasius, who was recalled immediately after the death of Gregory, delayed for more than a year.

^{^[153]} Upon this, see Apol. contra Ar. 51-57 ; Hist. Ar. 21-23, with the official documents ; cf. Apol. ad Const. 4. The exact date is given by the Alexandrian chronicles. ,

^{^[154]} The letter was written by Valens, with his own hand, and signed by Ursacius.

^{^[155]} The original letters are in Hil. Frag. hist. 20 ; cf. Athan., Apol. contra Ar. 58.

^{^[156]} Supra, pp. 90, 95.

- This is what I have called the Sylloge Optatiana, because it figures at the end of the work of St Optatus upon the Donatist schism. It is preserved, in a very incomplete form, in a Cormery AIS. (Parisinus, 1711). But as it was certainly seen by St Optatus and St Augustine, who often refer to it, I have been able to reconstruct it completely. On this subject, see my Memoir, Le dossier die Donatisme, in the Melanges of the French School at Rome, vol. x. 1890. The fragments contained in the Cormery MS. appear at the end of the text of Optatus in the Vienna Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasti- corum latinorum, vol. xxvi.

^{^[158]} Optatus, iii. 3, 10.

^{^[159]} Council of Gratus, c. 12.

^{^[160]} Optatus again and again returns to this : aspera, aspere gesta.

^{^[161]} Gennadius, De viris, 4. Vitellius had already inveighed against the pagans and the Catholics. Upon these two Passions, see p. 192, note 2.

II N

^{^[162]} It is vexatious that we have not a complete list of signatures in connection with this council: it would have been of quite unusual interest.

^{^[163]} Canons I, 2. The Donatists maintained the old Cyprianic principle, that there is no baptism outside the true Church. And as they did not accord this title to the Catholic Church, they were, of course, obliged, when a Catholic became a Donatist, to confer upon him the only baptism valid in their eyes, namely, their own. We have already seen that the Catholic Church of Africa had abandoned, at the Council of Aries in 314, the custom formerly upheld by St Cyprian. In these circumstances, it could not but recognize Donatist baptism.

^{^[164]} See vol. i., p. 342. ² Haer. lxxi. 1, 2.

³ Hil. De syn. 38-62 ; Athan. De syn. 27. Socrates, H. E. ii. 29, gives the date (351) of the assembly; and, notwithstanding the monstrous blunders which he makes here, we must acknowledge that the date he gives fits in well with the sequence of the facts as ascertained.

^{^[165]} The Meletians, no doubt.

^{^[166]} Hil. Frag. hist. v. 2. Letter from Liberius to Constantius, in 354 (Jaffe, 212I

^{^[167]} I omit here, as apocryphal, the famous letter Siudens pad, preserved in the historical fragments of St Hilary {Frag. hist. iv.). It cannot be reconciled with the attitude of Liberius in the following years, and there is every appearance that St Hilary gives it as a document fabricated by some member of the Eastern party.

^{^[168]} I connect the sending of this letter with the mission of Serapion and his companions, which left Alexandria on May 18, 353, according to the Athanasian Chronicle; see also the Chronicle of the Festal Letters.

^{^[169]} Jaftd, 216 (Hil. Frag. hist. vi. 1-2). ² Athan. Hist. Ar. 41.

3 Ammianus, xv. 7, 6. Cf. Athan. Hist. Ar. 35-40.

4 Preserved by Theodoret, ii. 13; Sozomen, iv. xi, also had it before him. Cf. Athan. Hist. Ar. 39, 40.

^{^[170]} Later on (about 388), Palladius saw in Alexandria an old nun, who, it was said, had given shelter to Athanasius, during the six years of his disappearance. He had been concealed in her house, certain

^{^[171]} Hist. Ar. 55-58. ² Sozomen, iv. 8.

³ St Athanasius (Hist. Ar. 51) calls him a devourer of.the treasury

(tafiei6<payo%) ; cf. ibid. 75 : <r<f>€Tepi<ra/jLa'ov wavra Kat Si' avrb tovto tpvyivra.

^{^[172]} The original Latin text is in Hilary (De syn. ii): the Greek in Athan. De syn. 28. This is what is often called the second formula of Sirmium ; the first being represented by the profession of faith of the synod of 351.

^{^[173]} St Hilary, De syn. 29-60, reproduces the Creed in Encaeniis, the text of the (Eastern) Council of Sardica, and finally that of 351. The last two are identical with regard to the affirmative part (Credimus, etc.); they only differ in the anathemas.

^{^[174]} See the way in which St Hilary (loc. cit.) explains them.

^{^[175]} Theodoret, ii. 14.

^{^[176]} Basil of Ancyra seems very probably to have been the author of a treatise " On Virginity," which forms part of the apocryphal writings of St Basil of Caesarea (Migne, P. G. vol. xxx., p. 669). It is addressed to a certain Bishop Letoi'os, evidently the same, according to this supposition, as the Letoi'os who figures among the signatories of the synodical letter of Ancyra, in 358 (supra, p. 251). This Letoi'os is described in the title of the treatise as Bishop of Melitene, and there is nothing to prevent this being so, although we find another bishop of that name, later on, in the list of bishops of Melitene. See the memoir of Cavallera, " Le De Virginitate de Basile d'Ancyre," in the Revue d'/iist. eccl. (Louvain, 1905), p. 5 et sea.

^{^[177]} Letter in Hil. Frag. hist. x. i.

^{^[178]} Hil. Frag. hist. x. 2-4. ² Ad Const, ii.

³ Upon this council, see Sozomen, iv. 24, who has gleaned from official documents. Only one of these has been preserved, a letter to

George of Alexandria upon the condemnation of Aetius (Theodoret, ii. 24).

^{^[181]} " Cesset superstitio, sacrificiorum aboleatur insania. Nam quicumque contra legem divi principis parentis nostri et hanc nostrae mansuetudinis iussionem ausus fuerit sacrificia celebrare, competens in eum vindicta et praesens sententia exeratur." Cod. Theod. xvi. 10, 1.

250

^{^[182]} Cod. Theod. xvi. 10, 4 and 6 ; the exact date of law 4 is a subject of dispute ; law 6 belongs to 356 ; it was promulgated in the name of Constantius and Julian.

^{^[183]} Cod. Theod. xvi. 10, 5, of 353. ³ Cod. Theod. xvi. 10, 3.

^{^[183]} Thus he professes to find in Serapis a reproduction of the patriarch Joseph. The sheaf of corn which the god bore on his head seems to him to be a memorial of the ministrations of Joseph during the years of plenty and of famine.

^{^[184]} It is Ammianus (xxii. 5) who discloses to us this intention. Julian knew, he says, that there are no savage beasts more ferocious than the Christians are one to another. Such was the impression given to enlightened pagans by the theological quarrels of that time.

^{^[185]} We shall speak of this later on.

^{^[186]} Ammianus (xxii. 10) blames this measure very much : Illud autem erat inclemens, obruendum pcrc7i?ii silentio, quod arcebat docere magistros rhetoricos et grammaticos ritus christiani cultores.

^{^[187]} Philosophy is not mentioned in Ammianus' text given in the last note, but Julian expressly mentions it in his edict (Ep. 42) dre pv)Topes ei're ypa/x/jiaTiKol Kai Zti tt\^ov oi <ro<p«TTal. In this edict he leaves to young Christians permission to obtain instruction in the official schools. There are certain indications that he withdrew it afterwards. In any case such schools having necessarily, in his

^{^[187]} Letter from Eusebius to his flock in Italy, during his sojourn at Scythopolis (Migne, P. L., vol. xii., p. 947).

^{^[188]} The council gives no names, but the first explanation was understood to be represented at Antioch by the Meletian priest Diodore, the other by Vitalis, one of his colleagues, and especially by Apollinaris of Laodicea.

^{^[189]} Paulinus signed the Tome of Alexandria, but with lengthy explanations. Other signatures were, no doubt, affixed to it. We now possess only that of Carterius, Bishop of Antaradus, long ago deposed by the Arians (Athan. De fuga. 3 ; Hist. Ar. 5).

^{^[190]} Socrates {H. E. iii. 25) mentions Basil of Ancyra, Silvanus of Tarsus, Sophronius of Pompeiopolis (in Paphlagonia), Pasinicus of Zela, Leontius of Comana, Calibrates of Claudiopolis, Theophilus of Castabala. This is the last time we hear of Basil of Ancyra. The subject of the letter is badly described by Socrates. Sozomen (vi. 4) gives a detailed analysis of it.

^{^[191]} This explanation appeared suspicious to Paulinus and his party. It was clearly from this quarter that there originated the protest entitled "Refutation of the hypocrisy of Meletius and Eusebius of Samosata," which is preserved in the appendices to St Athanasius {P. G., vol. xxviii., p. 85).

^{^[192]} Sulpicius Severus, Vita Martini, 4 ; Auxentius also drove him from Milan.

^{^[193]} Altercatio Heracliani laid cum Gcrminio episcopo Sirmiensi, published by C. P. Caspari, Kirchenhistorische Atiecdota (Christiania, 1883), p. 133.

^{^[194]} Meletius was three times driven from Antioch ; this is expressly mentioned in his funeral oration by St Gregory of Nyssa (Migne, P. G., vol. xlvi., p. 857). The first exile is that which followed almost immediately his election in 361 ; the third that which lasted till the death of Valens (378) ; we are not quite certain where to place the second, perhaps in Julian's reign, perhaps under Valens, in which case Meletius would have been, like Athanasius, first driven out, and then recalled. Later on, he would then have been driven out again.

^{^[195]} Socrates, iv. 12 ; Sozomen, vi. 10, 11.

^{^[196]} These southern provinces of Asia Minor are mentioned several times by St Athanasius as containing bishops in communion with him.

^{^[197]} Procopius, a distant kinsman of Julian, was raised by him to important offices of State, and even, rumour said, chosen as his eventual successor. He appears to have been a pagan, or at least to have posed as such, for the time, to please his cousin. Shortly after the accession of Jovian, he thought it well to conceal himself for fear of being considered as a pretender to the throne, and treated accordingly. After many adventures, he ended by causing himself to be proclaimed emperor at Constantinople (September 28, 365) and secured at the outset some successes, which caused him to be acknowledged in the Asiatic provinces nearest to the Bosphorus. In the spring of 366, Valens gained the mastery over his rival, who was taken prisoner and beheaded on May 27.

^{^[198]} Athan. Ep. ad episcopos Aeg. et Libyae, 8. The testimony of Philostorgius upon the quarters from which Arius is alleged to have met with support at the Council of Nicaea (Migne, P. G., vol. lxv., . 623), is quite destitute of value.

^{^[199]} Eulalius, of whom Socrates speaks (ii. 43 ; cf. Sozomen, iv. 24), was not Bishop of Cresarea, but of Sebaste. His name appears among the signatories of the Councils of Nicaea and of Gangra.

^{^[200]} Basil, Ep. 81.

^{^[201]} In this same council there took part the Bishops of Juliopolis in Galatia, of Sinope and Neocaesarea.

^{^[202]} On this cult, in which we can recognize elements derived from Jewish Monotheism, see E. Schiirer, Die Juden im Bosporanischen Reiche, in the Proceedings of the Berlin Academy, vol. xiii. (1897), p. 200, et seq. ; and Fr. Cumont, Ilypsistos (Brussels, 1897).

^{^[203]} Ep. 119.

- We must not judge of this, however, from the letter reproduced by Theodoret, H. E. iv. 7, a letter plainly apocryphal as well as the synodal epistle (iv. 8), which follows it. The imperial letter, headed with the names of the Emperors Valentinian, Valens, and Gratian, is addressed to the Pneumatomachi of Asia, and preaches to them the Trinity consubstantial in three hypostases, with a proclamation of anathema, which is scarcely in the imperial style. It incites the subjects of Valens to despise the commands of their sovereign, whom the forger apparently looks upon as the special protector of the heresy against the Holy Spirit. It is strange that Tillemont should have accepted such incongruities.

^{^[204]} Mansi, Concilia, vol. iii., p. 469.

^{^[205]} He was already bishop in 314, at the time of the Council of Ancyra.

^{^[206]} Epiphanius, Hacr. lxxii. 11. ⁱ Basil, Ep. 266.

^{^[207]} On the Council of Cyzicus (supra, p. 328) see Basil, Ep. 244, § 9. That of Antioch in Caria is placed by Socrates (H. E. v. 4, with the mistake rrjs Siyn'as) and by Sozomen (H. E. vii. 2) shortly after the accession of Gratian. Sozomen mentions elsewhere (vi. 12) another council held in Caria by thirty-four bishops, at the time fixed for the meeting of the Council of Tarsus (supra, p. 293), i.e., about twelve years earlier. It is probable that these two assemblies were really only one, and that it should be placed in 378 or 379.

^{^[208]} Or. 41,

^{^[209]} The synodal letter of 382, which will be quoted presently, is the only document which mentions this statement (ro/xos). It presupposes, as it seems to me, that Pope Damasus had the text of it. There is certainly no connection between this document, which contained anathemas against the new doctrines (those of the Anomceans, Macedonians, and Apollinarians), and the creed called

Niceno-Constantinopolitan, which is now sung in the Mass. The latter has nothing to do with the council of 381. Upon this often debated question, see the article of Harnack, in Hauck's Encyclopadie, vol. xi., pp. 12-28. ² Ambrose, Ep. 12, Quamlibet.

^{^[210]} " Quorum fides superioribus temporibus haesitabat."

^{^[211]} This seems implied by the letter, No. 13, of St Ambrose, (Sanctum, c. 4), the text of which is corrupt.

^{^[212]} A lost letter, mentioned in the following one, Ep. 13, Sanctum animum.

^{^[213]} It was said afterwards that he brought some of these ascetics to Rome. Palladius (Historia Lausiaca, i.) mentions Isidore, the hospitaller of Alexandria, and Socrates (H. E. iv. 23) mentions Ammonius Parotes. But, even from the account of Palladius, Isidore could only have been twenty-one years of age at the time of the journey of Athanasius ; and Ammonius, who died in 403, could not have been much older.

^{^[214]} Upon this, see Collectio Avellana, n. 1 : Quae gesta sunt inter Liberium et Felicevi episcopos. The oath is attested also by St Jerome, in his Chronicle, a. Abr. 2365.

ⁱ Ivard(TK07r0t, a play upon words, in contradiction to eiriaKonoi.

^{^[216]} In its main structure, including the colonnades and the mosaics which crown them, the basilica of Liberius has been preserved down to our own day.

^{^[217]} Ammianus, xxvii. 3, 14. ² Coll. Avell. 6 (end of 367).

³ Ibid. 7, January 12, 368. ⁴ Ibid. 8, 9, 10 (end of 368).

⁵ Ibid. 11,12 (end of 370 to summer of 372).

^{^[218]} Gratian alludes to this in his rescript to Aquilinus (Coll. Avell. No. 13, p. 57, Giinther): iudiciomm examine exploratum mentis sanctissitnae virion (Damasus), ut etiam divo patri nostro Valentiniano est comprobatum. It is no doubt to this affair that Rufinus alludes, in the passage (ii. 10) in which he speaks of the ill-will of the prefect Maximin. This official was Prasfectus Annonas in 369-370 ; he replaced the prefect of Rome who was iii, and showed a severity during this provisional tenure of office which made him hated by everyone. A little later (371-372), he was Vicar of Rome, i.e., of the Dicecesis suburbicaria.

^{^[219]} This episcopal succession was known to Optatus, ii. 4. It began with a certain Victor, who was present as Bishop of Garba at the Council of Cirta (305) and later on established himself in Rome. He was succeeded by Boniface, Encolpius, Macrobius, known by some of his writings, Lucian, and Claudian. This Claudian gave a great deal of trouble to Damasus, as we shall see later.

^{^[220]} Libell. precum. 77-82.

^{^[221]} Ibid. 84-91, 104-107. The prefect Bassus, mentioned in this account, belongs to the year 382.

^{^[222]} Gesta inter Lib. et Fel. 13, an Ursinian document, we must remember.

^{^[223]} Aurelius Ambrosius. The biographical details as to St Ambrose come to us through his secretary, the deacon Paulinus, who wrote the life of his master at the request of St Augustine.

^{^[224]} The legend of the Liber Pontijicalis speaks of adultery ; but, as Damasus was nearly eighty years of age, such a charge would have been far too improbable.

^{^[225]} This Isaac, during his Christian period, published several works of theology and exegesis. Gennadius {De viris, 26) knew of, and we still possess (Migne, P. L., vol. xxxiii., p. 1541), a small treatise on the Trinity and the Incarnation. To Isaac must also be attributed an "Explanation of the Catholic Faith," published in 1883 by Caspari {Kirchenhistorische Anecdota, vol. i., p. 304). Dom G. Morin {Revue dhist. et de litt. relig. 1899, p. 97 et seq.) has proposed to attribute to him two important works, the Commentary known as Ambrosiaster's upon the Epistles of St Paul, and the Quaestiones V. et N. Testamenti, both written in Rome in the time of Pope Damasus. This hypothesis is very probable, and still remains so, although {Revue BtnMictine, 1903, p. 113) its author has abandoned it. I think, with Martin Schanz {Gesch. derr'dm. Litteratur, part iv., p. 455), that Dom Morin has not succeeded in refuting himself, and that the new solution which he proposes for this literary problem is far from possessing the same value as the first.

^{^[226]} They took part in it, however, on a special and, in some ways, an unusual summons. The manner in which Gregory of Nazianzus speaks of them, calling them "Westerns" (Carm. de vita sua, line 1802 ; cf. Ambrose, Ep. xiii. 7), and their relations with Pope Damasus (Jaffe, 237, 238) clearly places them among the Western episcopate. This is still more evident with regard to the bishops of the diocese of Dacia ; from documents of the Council of Aquileia it is plain that Palladius and Secundianus had their sees inpartibus Occidentalibus, and even that the secular authority which could maintain them there or banish them thence by force was that of the Emperor Gratian. It is admitted on the evidence of Sozomen (H. E. vii. 4) that Gratian entrusted to Theodosius the care of governing Illyria with the Orient: 'IWvpious Kal ra irpbs ijXiov dvl<xx^{oi,Ta T}v^s d.pXV^s0eodovlqi tirirptyas. Sozomen in speaking of 'IWvpioi was undoubtedly thinking of the Illyricum Orientate of the Notitia Dignitatumj but there is nothing to show that the boundaries established on that side betweeen the imperial jurisdictions of Arcadius and Honorius date back to the time when Theodosius was associated in the empire. In July 381 Gratian issued enactments in Mesia, at Viminacium (Cod. Theod. i. 10, 1; xii. 1, 89). Moreover, these provinces, although they belonged politically to the Eastern empire, continued none the less to form part of the ecclesiastical body of the West.

^{^[227]} It is Jerome himself who gives us this piece of information (Ep. 1. 4): Quoties me iste (he is speaking of another monk) in circulis stomacharifecit et adduxit ad cholerani I Quoties conspuit et computus abscessit /

^{^[228]} Ep. 22 ; see especially c. 25. Omnia munda mundis; but we are astonished at some of the language which this holy man uses to a young girl of eighteen. The pagans, as we may well believe, read these pamphlets with zest, and were highly amused by them.

^{^[229]} After a great deal of dispute as to the authenticity of the life of St Antony, critics have ended by accepting it once more. And it is upon that document that the account which follows is based. As to the other testimonies to St Antony, see Dom E. C. Butler, The Lausiac History of Paltadius, i. p. 220, in the Cambridge Texts and Studies, vol. vi.

^{^[230]} Der-el-Meimoun, on the right bank of the Nile, between Atfih and Beni-Souef (Amelineau, G/og. de PEgypte, p. 353 ; cf. Anecd. Oxon., Semitic series, part vii. map).

^{^[231]} Vila Ant. 44.

^{^[232]} This is the monastery of St Antony, still in existence, as is also that of St Paul at some distance from it.

^{^[233]} This date is supplied by the Chronicle of the Festal Letters.

^{^[234]} Historia Lausiaca, 8. This work is always quoted here according to Dom Butler's edition. See below, p. 402 (note). But I put in parentheses the numbers of the chapters in the old editions when they differ from the new numbers.

^{^[235]} Hist. Laus. io. ² Ibid. 18 (19-20). ³ Rufinus, H. E. ii. 4.

⁴ Upon St Hilarion, see his life written by St Jerome. Cf. Sozomen, H. E. iii. 14.

^{^[236]} The publication of the Peregrinatio has definitely put an end to the theory according to which these identifications only date back as far as the time of Justinian, Serbal having been, before the Djebel Katarin, the sacred mountain visited by Christian pilgrims. The lady pilgrim of the time of Theodosius does not trouble herself about Serbal; the holy places she visits are the same that we visit now.

^{^[237]} These pirates did not attack the monks only. The people of Pharan who tried to stop them were beaten by them, and their wives and children made prisoners.

^{^[238]} So the account of Ammonius, an eye-witness, in Combefis, Illustrium martyrum lecii triumphi (1660), p. 88. Cf. the story of

^{^[239]} Palladius, Hist. Laus. 47 (90-95); Sozomen, H. E. vi. 34.

^{^[240]} Upon Aphraates, see Theodoret, Hist, relig. 8 ; upon Julian, see his panegyric by St Ephrem (Assemani, S. Ephraemi Syri Opera, gr.- lat., vol. iii., p. 254); Palladius, Hist. Laus. 42 (102); Theodoret, Hist, relig. 2 ; Sozomen, H. E. iii. 14. It is especially from the

^{^[241]} See above, p. 305. ² Migne, P. G., vol. xxxi.

3 The affKr/riKhv of Basil is already mentioned, in 392, in the De

viris of St Jerome (c. 116).

^{^[244]} iii. M, § 3¹-

^{^[245]} " Fratribus per Gallias et quinque provincias constitutis episcopis."

^{^[246]} See above, p. 284.

^{^[247]} Three letters to a Novatian called Sympronianus (Migne, P. L., vol. xiii., p. 1051 et seq.). Pacian also left two homilies, one on baptism, the other on penitence. In a work which is lost, the Cervulus, he preached against certain pagan superstitions, in particular against the masquerades of January 1. His success was small; we even find him lamenting that his descriptions had given a taste for the Carnival to persons who had never heard of it before (.Paraenesis, c. 1 ; Migne, op. at., p. 1001).

^{^[248]} Upon the Priscillianist movement, see Sulpicius Severus, Chron. ii. 46-51 (cf. Dial. ii. 6, 11), whose account must be corrected sometimes by notes of Priscillian himself, in his apologetical memoirs, especially the second treatise addressed to Pope Damasus [Corpus script, eccl. (Vienna), vol. xviii.] ; cf. the Council of Saragossa in 380 ; letter of Maximus to Pope Siricius (Coll. Avell. 40); Philastrius, De Haeresibus, 84 ; Pacatus, Panegyric of Theodosius, 29 ; Jerome, De viris, and letter 75 ; Council of Toledo in the year 400.

^{^[249]} From December 17 to January 6, says the Council of Saragossa (canon 4). It is possible that at the time of the council the feast of Christmas had not yet been introduced into Spain.

^{^[250]} Is (Euodius) Priscillianum gemino iudicio auditum convictumque maleficii nec diffitentem obscenis se studuisse doctrinis, nocturtios etiam turpium feminarum egisse convent us nudumque orare soli turn nocentem promintiavit (Sulpicius Severus, Chron. ii. 50). The crime of witchcraft by itself was a capital crime. For the rest we must remember that all extreme doctrines easily become obscenae, and women turpes, when malevolence is concerned in the matter ; the nudus orare might have been a form of asceticism. Besides, none of this was any concern of a secular judge.

^{^[251]} Jerome, De viris, 122. ³ Ibid. 123.

^{^[252]} Ithacius (Ithacius Clarus) seems certainly to have written, besides the memorandum already mentioned, a treatise on Arianism, in which he refuted an Arian deacon named Varimadus (Migne, P. Ll vol. lxii., p. 351).

^{^[253]} We do not know at this particular time of any other orthodox bishop besides Ortygius ot Aquae Celaenae. And even he was driven away by the sectaries. He was present at the Council of Toledo in 400, when his restoration to his see was determined upon.

^{^[254]} We must not confound this new Council of Saragossa with that of 380, the attitude of which obliged Symposius and Dictinius to have recourse to St Ambrose and the Pope. The Pope at that time was Siricius, and no longer Damasus ; among the conditions imposed by St Ambrose on the two Galician bishops was a provision that they should erase Priscillian and his companions from the number of the Martyrs. All this indicates a date later than 385.

^{^[255]} St Augustine speaks of it at great length in his book Contra mendacinm.

^{^[256]} Dictinius, at the council in 400, expressly admitted that he had held that doctrine.

II 2 r;

^{^[257]} Ambrose, Ep. 11 ; see above, p. 370.

^{^[258]} Ambrose, Ep. 12. This letter and the preceding one are written in the name of the Council of Aquileia (381).

^{^[259]} See below, Chapter XVII.

^{^[260]} I am not aware that this identification of Auxentius of Dorostorum with the Auxentius of Milan—the contemporary of St Ambrose—has been made before. Ambrose says (Sermo contra Aux. 22) that he came from Scythia, where he was called Mercurinus. Dorostorum was in Lower Moesia, but on the frontier between that province and that of Scythia.

^{^[261]} There were at this time in Milan two cathedral basilicas ; the ancient church, which was preserved down to the 16th century, bore the name of St Thecla : it was demolished in 1548 to enlarge the piazza of the Duomo ; the other was quite new in the time of St Ambrose ; it was the predecessor of the present cathedral.

^{^[262]} All this is related, with profuse detail, in a letter of Ambrose to his sister Marcellina (Ep. 20).

^{^[263]} Cod. Theod. xvi. 1, 3.

^{^[264]} Coll. Avell. 39. ² Ep. 21 ; Serrno contra Aux. ³ Ep. 22.

4 Paulinus, Vita Ambrosii, 14, 29, 32. Ambrose, Exhort, virgin, il —On the Saints of Milan, see the works of P. F. Savio, Ambrosia

1897 (Nazarius j and Celsus); Nuovo bull, di archeol. crist., 1898, p. 153 (Gervase and Protasius); Rivista di scienze storiche_s Pavia,

1906 (Victor, Nabor, and Felix).

^{^[268]} Ep. 51. This story has been very dramatically told by Sozomen {H. E. vii. 25), and especially by Theodoret (H. E. v. 17). These authors add, following Rufinus (//. E. ii. 18), that Theodosius after this affair ordered by a special law that the execution of imperial sentences should always be deferred for a month, if they involved severe penalties (vindicari severius). This is the law, Cod. Theod. ix. 40, 13, which is wrongly dated in the Theodosian Code, as is shown by the observations of Mommsen with regard to another law, vii.

18, 8. ² See below, Chapter XVII.

^{^[270]} Upon Jovinian, see Haller, lovinianus in the Texte unci Untersuchungen, vol. xvii. (1897).

^{^[271]} Jovinian did not deny the Virginal Conception of Christ.

^{^[272]} Philostorgius (ii. 5) and Sozomen (ii. 6) agree as to this. One of these captives perhaps was the Eutyches of Cappadocia who is mentioned in a letter of St Basil (Ep. 165).

^{^[273]} In the time of St John Chrysostom, these Goths received their bishops from Constantinople. He himself consecrated for them one of these who was called Unila, and of whom he speaks very favourably {Ep. 14). Unila died during his exile, which caused Chrysostom much anxiety, because he did not wish the successor to be consecrated by the intruder Arsacius (Epp. 206, 207). This mission was connected with a Gothic monastery at Constantinople—that of Promotus. In 547, certain Goths of the Crimea, whom Procopius calls Tetraxites, {Bell. Goth. iv. 5) asked a bishop from Justinian. They lived on the shores of the Sea of Azov. Other Goths are mentioned by the same writer (De aedij. iii. 7) as settled peoples, agriculturists, and allies of the empire, to which they were able to furnish 3000 fighting-men. They lived in the maritime region, in the neighbourhood of a place called Dory. It was on this side, i.e., to the east of Cherson, that there was situated the bishopric of Gothia which is noticed in Byzantine annals from the 10th century onwards (N<?a tolktiko.) ; more ancient records do not mention it. It is possible that all these pieces of information refer to one and the same bishopric, which, since the time of Theophilus, may have represented the religious organization of the Goths and other barbarians who had settled in the

^{^[274]} Philostorgius, ii. 5. He seems only to have omitted the Books of Kings, thinking it would be unwise to put so many descriptions of battles before the eyes of people who were only too much inclined to warfare. This is what Philostorgius says. If this was really the case, Ulfilas must have had to make other "cuts" in the Old Testament.

^{^[275]} To the information gained from historians of the 5th century (Philostorgius, ii. 5 ; Socrates, H. E. ii. 41, iv. 33 ; Sozomen, H. E. iv. 24, vi. 37), we can now add contemporary documents, preserved in the treatise of the Arian Bishop Maximin against St Ambrose. This treatise, transcribed in the margins of the Paris MS. 8907, was first studied by Waitz, Ueber das Leben iind die Lehre des Ulfilas, Hanover, 1840 ; then by Bessell, Ueber das Leben des Ulfilas, etc., Gottingen, i860. It has been published entirely—so far as the state of the MS. permits—by Fr. Kauffmann, A us der Schitle des Wulfila, in vol. i. of Texte und Untersuchungen zur altgermanischen Religionsgeschichte, Strassburg, 1899. It contains (pp. 73-76) a long extract from a letter

[276] Theodosius and the Sects.

The barbarian adherents of Arianism were not the only ones to demand the attention of the Emperor Theodosius. It had been comparatively easy to restore the churches to the orthodox prelates, and to rain the condemnations of councils upon the followers of Demophilus and of Eunomius. Agreement in spirit between the two parties was not secured so quickly. Banished from the official buildings, the heretical teaching was still carried on in conventicles; the spirit of Aetius still breathed there; it was useless to exile Eunomius ; he found means everywhere to carry on the controversy. It was at Constantinople more than anywhere else that it raged

^{^[277]} Socrates, H. E. v. io, who evidently exaggerates the part played at that time by the Novatians.

^{^[278]} Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, 11, of July 25, 383; cf. xvi. 5, 12, and 13, which belong to December 3 and January 21 following.

^{^[279]} Socrates, H. E. v. 20.

^{^[280]} Socrates, H. E. vii. 12. ² Ibid., iv. 28 ; v. 21.

3 Disciples of the prophetess Priscilla : not to be confounded with

the Priscillianists of Spain.

^{^[283]} xvi. 5, 10, 40, 48, 57, 65. ⁶ Sozomen, H. E. vii. 18.

⁶ Basil, Ep. 188.

[285] Epp. 188, 199,217.

^{^[286]} Upon Amphilochius, see the monograph of Karl Holl, Amphilochius von Iconium, Tubingen, 1904. Cf. G. Ficker, Amphilochiatia, part i., Leipzig, 1906.

^{^[287]} Amphilochius was also present at the council of 394.

^{^[288]} Palladius, Dial. 17.

^{^[289]} It is not quite certain if this mission was from the Council of Antioch in 379, or from that of Constantinople, two years later. I think it was from the latter.

^{^[290]} Supra, p. 458, note 3.

^{^[291]} Greek, Egyptian, Syriac, Hebrew, and Latin. As to his Latin, Jerome {Adv. Ruf. ii. 22) says that he knew this last language ex parte. In actual fact, he never wrote except in Greek, and that very badly.

^{^[292]} Basil, Ep. 258.

^{^[293]} Supra, p. 273.

^{^[294]} According to Epiphanius, Haer. lxxvii. 24, he would seem to have been exiled by the Arians.

^{^[295]} Basil, Ep. 129.

^{^[296]} Cod. Theod. xvi., 5, 12, 13, 14, 33.

^{^[297]} Leontius of Byzantium (?) Adv. fraudes Apollinaristarum, Migne, P. G. vol. lxxxvi.², p. 1948.

^{^[298]} "Two Natures" was the technical phrase of Diodore; "A single Nature," that of Apollinaris (fila (j>6<ns tov Qeov Aiyov <re<rapku/xivrf), who left it as a legacy to Cyril of Alexandria and the Monophysites.

^{^[299]} Supra, p. 384. 2 Supra, pp. 321, 379.

³ It would doubtless have been difficult for him to find other bishops in Syria, where everyone was in union with Flavian. To have recourse to Epiphanius or the Egyptians would have been

^{^[300]} Theodoret, H. E. v. 23, can only give us here general outlines, for his account is inexact and confused.

^{^[301]} Ambrose, Ep. 56.

II 2 II

^{^[302]} Laws of 391 and 392 ; Cod. Theod. xvi. 10, 10-12.

^{^[303]} Cod. Theod. xvi. 10, 8, in 382 (the law deals with a temple situated in Osrhoene ; I think that it refers to the town of Harran) ; xvi. 10, 15-18, in 399.

^{^[304]} The leader of the revolt, Olympius, retired to Italy ; two others, two men of letters, Helladius and Ammonius, who were pagan priests, became teachers of grammar at Constantinople. The historian Socrates attended their lectures. Helladius in later years used to tell of his own free will how, at the time of the troubles in Alexandria, he had killed with his own hand as many as nine Christians.

^{^[305]} On all this, see Rufinus, H. E. ii. 22-30 ; cf. Sozomen, H. E. vii. 15, and Socrates H. E. v. 16.

^{^[306]} See Vol. I., p. 410.

^{^[307]} The summum supplicium only reappeared once in the Theodosian Code (xvi. 5, 9), in connection with certain classes of persons who appear to correspond to the Manichean " elect."

^s Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, r.

ii 2 k

^{^[309]} In the present village of Deir-Ali, to the south of Damascus (the ancient Ituraea). We may still read, above the door, the inscription Zvvaywyr) MapKiuviffruv kwhV* Ae/3rf/3wy, tov Kvplov Kal aurrjpos 'Ir)<rov XpiffToO, irpovolg. IlatfXou irpe^vripov, tov trovs. This year 630 of the Seleucid era corresponds to the year 318 of our own era.

^{^[310]} Supra, p. 93.

^{^[311]} Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, 2.

* " Novatianos non adeo comperimus praedamnatos ut his quae petiverunt crederemus minime largienda."

^{^[313]} Vita Const, iii. 64, 65.

^{^[314]} Vita Const, iii. 66.

^{^[315]} The details collected by Socrates (H. E. ii. 27, 38 ; cf. Sozomen, H. E. iv. 2, 3) upon the ill-treatment to which the followers of Paul were exposed at this time, refer rather to private acts of violence than to formal acts of the government.

^{^[316]} Julian alludes to these facts in his letter 52, in which he speaks of massacres of heretics which took place under Constantius

iv Zafioaarois Kal Kvftku> Kal TLa<f>\ayovl</i Kal BtQvvlq. Kal TaXarlq..

^{^[317]} Prohibition referred to in a law of Valens and Gratian (375-378), Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, 4. Apparently suspended for a short time, it was re-established by a law of August 3, 379 (Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, 5).

^{^[318]} Of course there were certain exceptions, in times of crisis, like those in which it imposed the usurpers Gregory, George, Felix, and Lucius.