by Remy CEILLIER (Aut. Sacrés, vol. v. 1735). After this nothing remained to be done until the revival of interest in patristic studies during the present century. In 1827 appeared the monograph of MOHLER ‘Ath. der Grosse’ (Mainz), a dogmatic (R.C.) rather than a historical study: in 1862 STANLEY (‘Eastern Church,’ Lect. vii.) BOHRINGER’s life (in vol. 6 of Atrchengesch. in Biographien, 1860—1879) is praised as ‘thoroughly good and nearly exhaustive.’ FIALON S¢. Athanase, Paris, 1877, is a most interesting and suggestive, though rather sketchy, treatment from an unusual point of view. P. BARBIER Vie de St. A. (Tours, 1888) I have not seen. The best English life is that of Dr. BRIGHT, first in the Introd. to the ‘Orations’ (supra, § 1, d. 26), but rewritten for the Dictionary of Christ. Biography. The same writer’s Introd. to the Zest. Writings (supra ib.) is equally good and should also be consulted. A lucid and able sketch by Dr. REYNOLDs has been published by the Religious Tract Society, 1889, and Archd. Farrar, Lives of the Fathers, 1, pp. 445 —571, is eloquent and sympathetic.
§ 4. HISTORY OF THE PERIOD, AND OF THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. (a) Conflict of the Church with Heathenism. On the later persecutiors AuBE, Les Chrétiens dans ’ Emp. romain, Paris, 1881, id. ‘L’église et Pétat,’ ib. 1886, UHLHORN Der Kempf des Christeniums, &c. (4th. ed.), 1886, BERNHARDT, Gesch. Roms von Valerian bis Dioklet., 1876, GORRES, Licinianische Christenverfolgung, 1875. On Diocletian, Mason, Persec. of Diocl., 1876, Monograph; by VoGEL, 1857, PRruss, 1869. On the general subject of the decline of paganism, LASAULX, Untergang tes Hellenismus, 1854, Merivale’s Boyle Lectures, 1864-5, CHASTEL, De- struction du Paganisme, 1850, S-HULTZE, Gesch. des Untergangs des G.-R. Heidentums, 1887 (not praised), DOLLINGER, Gentile and Few (2. Tr.), 1862. On the revival of paganism under Julian, RENDALL, ¥u/ian, 1879, Bp. J. WorDsworri in D.C.B., vol. iii., lives of Julian by NEANDER, 1813, RODE, 1877, MUcKE, 1879, NAVILLE, 1877, Strauss, der Romantiker, u.s.w., 1847, Julian’s works, ed. HERTLEIN, 1875, and NEUMANN, 1880. Monographs by AUER, 1855, MANGOLD, 1862, SEMISCH, 1862, LUBKER, 1864; CAPES, University Life in Ancient Athens, 1877, SIEVERS, Leben des Libanius, 1868.
(b) Zhe Christian Empire. KEim, Uebertritt Konstantins, 1862, BRiEGER, Konst. der G., 1880, GIBBON’s chapters on the subject should be carefully read. CHAWNER’s Legis. of Constantine, DE BROGLIE, Liéglise et Demp. romain, iii., RANKE, Weltgesch. iv. pp. 1—100 (important), 1884, SCHILLER, Gesch. der’ rom. Katserzett (ii.), 1887. See also the full bibliography in vol. 1 of this series, p. 445—465.
(c) General History of the Church. It is unnecessary to enumerate the well-known general histories, all LITERATURE. | xiii of which devote special pains to Athanasius and the Arian controversy. This is especially the case with SCHAFF, Nicene Christ. ii. 616—678, 884—893, with full bibliography. See also supra § 3. BriGut’s Notes on the Canons (Oxf. 1882), and HEFELE, vol. 2 (E. Tra.), are most useful: also KAayE, Council of Nicea (Works, vol. v. ed. 1888). Card. HERGENROTHER’S Avrchengeschichte (allowing for the natural bias of the writer) is fair and able, with good bibliographical references in the notes (ed. 1884). By far the best modern historical monograph on the Arian period is that of GWATKIN, Studies of Arianism, 1882, constantly referred to in this volume, and indispensable. His Arian Controversy, 1889, is an abridgement, but with supplementary dis- cussions of importance on one or two points; very useful bibliography prefixed to both. (Cf. also below, Chap. us § 1) KOLLING’s Geschichte der Arianischen Haresie (1st vol., 1874, 2nd, 1883) is pretentious and uncritical.
§ 5. History oF DocTRINE. For ancient sources see articles HERESIOLOGY and PERSON OF CHRIST in D.C.B., vols. iii., iv. The modern classics are the works of PETAVIUS, de Trinitade (in vols. ii. and iii. of his De dogmat. Theol.) of THOMASSINUS, Dogmata Theologica, and of BULL, Defensio fidei Nicene (maintaining against Petay. the fixity of pre-Nicene doctrine). Under this head we include NEWMAN’s Arians of the Fourth Century, an English classic, unrivalled as a dogmatic and religious study of Arianism, although unsatisfactory on its purely historical side. (Obsolete chronology retained in all editions.) The general histories of Doctrine are of course full on the subject of Arianism; for an enumeration of them, see Harnack, § 2 of his Prolegomena. In English we have SHEDD (N. Y., 1863, Edinb., 1884), HAGENBACH (Clark’s Foreign Theol. Lib.), and the great work of DORNER (id.). The most important re¢ent works are those of HARNACK, Dogmengeschichte (1886, third vol., 1890), a most able work and (allowing for the prepossessions of the Ritschl school) impartial and philosophical; and Loors, Lettfaden zur Dogmengeschichte (2 ed., 1890), on similar lines, but studiously temperate and fair. Both works are much used in this volume (quoted commonly as ‘ Harnack,’ ‘ Loofs,’ simply. Harnack, vol. i., is quoted from the /ivs¢ edition, but the later editions give comparative tables of the pages).
For Councils and Creeds, in addition to the works of Hefele and Bright mentioned § 4 c., see HEURTLEY, Harmonia Symbolica; HAHN, Bibliothek der Symbole; Hort, Two Dissertations (1876), indispensable for history of the Nicene Creed; Swartnson, WVicene and Apostles Creed, 1875; CASPARI, UOngedruckte u.s.w. Quellen zum Taufsymbol u.s.w. (3 vols. in 2, Christiania, 1866—1875), and Alte und Neue Quellen, ib. 1879; one of the most important of modern patristic works.
§ 6. PaTristic MonoGRAPHS. (a) Among the very numerous works of this kind, the most useful for our purpose are ZAHN, Marcellus von Ancyra, 1867, very important for doctrinal history; REINKENS, /7larius von Poitiers, 1864; FIALON, St. Basile, 1868; ULLMANN, Gregorius von Nazianz (2 ed., 1867, part of earlier ed. trans. by Cox, 1855); KRrUGER, Lucifer von Calarts (excellent, especially for the Council of 362). Under this head may be mentioned the numerous excellent articles in Dict. Chr. Biog. referred to in their respective connexions.
(b) Ox the doctrine of Athanasius. In addition to the works of Ceillier and Mohler referred to above, ATZBERGER, Die Logoslehre des h. Ath. (Munich, 1880); Vorict, Die Lehre des Athan. (Bremen, 1861); PELL, Lehre des h. Ath. von der Siinde und Erlosung (Passau, 1888, a careful and meritorious analysis, candidly in the interest of Roman Catholicism. Difficulties not always faced).
The above list of authorities, &c., does not pretend to completeness, nor to enumerate the sources for general secular or Church history. But in what relates specially to Athanasius it is hoped that an approximation to either requirement has been attained. Works bearing on more special points are referred to in their proper places. In particular, a special BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY is prefixed to the VITA ANTONII.
CHAPTER II. Lire oF ST. ATHANASIUS AND ACCOUNT OF ARIANISM.
A. §§ 1—3. To THE CoUNCIL OF NICHA, 298—325. § 2. The Arian controversy before Nicza (319—325). § 3. (1.) THe CounciL oF NIc/A (325). § 3. (2) Situation at the close of the Council (325—328).;; a. NOVELTY OF ARIANISM. Its ANTECEDENTS in the history of doctrine. b. The ‘‘Opoodcrov.’. c. Materials for reaction. (1) Persecuted Arians. (2) Eusebius and the Court. (3) Eccle- siastical conservatism. Marcellus and Photinus.
B. §§ 4—8. THE CONFLICT WITH ARIANISM (328—361). § 4. Early years of his Episcopate (328—335), and first troubles. § 5. The Council of Tyre and First Exile (335 —337)- § 6. Renewed troubles and Second Exile (337—346)- (1) At Alexandria (337—339). (2) At Rome. Council of Antioch, &c. (339—342)- (3) Constans; Council of Sardica, and its sequel (342 —346). § 7. The golden Decade (346—356). (1) Athanasius as bishop. (2) Sequel of the death of Constans. § 8. The Third Exile (356—-361). 1) Expulsion of Athanasius.; e;, Uy STATE OF THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY:—(a) ‘Anomceans’; (b) ‘ Homeeans’; (c) ‘Semi- Arians.’ (3) Athanasius in his retirement. Gs, 10. ATHANASIUS IN VICTORY (362—373): z i % g. Under Julian and his successors; Fourth and Fifth Exiles (362—366). § 10. Last years. Basil, Marcellus, Apollinarius (366—373).
Xiv: PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER II., § 1.
Id primum scitu opus est in proposito nobis minime fuisse ut omnia ad Arium Arianos aliosque haereticos illius aetatis itidemque Alexandrum Alexandrinum Hosium Marcellum Serapionem aliosque Athanasii familiares aut synodos spectantia recensere sed solummodo ea que uel ad Athanasii Vitam pertinent uel ad eam proxime accedunt. —-MONTFAUCON.
Athanasius was born between 296 and 298". His parents, according to later writers, were of high rank and wealthy. At any rate, their son received a liberal education. In his most. youthful work we find him repeatedly quoting Plato, and ready with a definition from the Organon of Aristotle. He is also familiar with the theories of various philosophical schools, and in particular with the developments of Neo-Platonism. In later works, he quotes Homer more than once (fst. Ar. 68, Orat. iv. 29), he addresses to Constantius a defence bearing unmistakeable traces of a study of Demosthenes de Corona (Fialon, pp. 286 sg. 293). His education was that of a Greek: Egyptian antiquities and religion, the monuments and their history, have no special interest for him: he nowhere betrays any trace of Egyptian national feeling, But from early years another element had taken a first place in his training and in his interest. It was in the Holy Scriptures that his martyr teachers had instructed him, and in the Scriptures his mind and writings are saturated. Ignorant of Hebrew, and only rarely appealing to other Greek versions (to Aquila once in the Ecthesis, to other versions once or twice upon the Psalms), his knowledge of the Old Testament is limited to the Septuagint. But of it, as well as of the New Testament, he has an astonishing command, ’Adeéavdpeds ro yéver, avnp dytos, Suvaris dv ev rais ypadais. The combination of Scriptural study and of Greek learning was what one expects in a pupil of the famous Alexandrian School; and it was in this School, the School of Clement and Origen, of Dionysius and Theognostus, that young Atha- nasius learned, possibly at first from the lips of Peter the bishop and martyr of 3112. The influence of Origen still coloured the traditions of the theological school of Alexandria. It was from Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria 312—328, himself an Origenist ‘of the right wing,’ that Athanasius received his moulding at the critical period of his later teens.
Of his first introduction to Alexander a famous story is told by Rufinus (A/7s¢. Zcc/. I. xiv.). The Bishop, on the anniversary of the martyrdom of his predecessor, Peter, was expecting some clergy to dinner after service in a house by the sea, Out of the window, he saw some boys at play on the shore: as he watched, he saw that they were imitating the sacred rites of the Church. Thinking at last that they were going too far, he sent some of his clergy to bring them in, At first his enquiries of the little fellows produced an alarmed denial. But at length he elicited that one of them had acted the Bishop and had baptized some of the others in the character of catechumens. On ascertaining that all details had been duly observed, he consulted his clergy, and decided that the baptisms should be treated as valid, and that the boy-bishop and his clergy had given such plain proof of their vocation that their parents must be instructed to hand them over to be educated for the sacred profession. Young Athanasius accordingly, after a further course of elementary studies, was handed over to the bishop to be brought up, like Samuel, in the Temple of God. This, adds Sozomen (ii. 17), was the origin of his subsequent attachment to Alexander as deacon and secretary. The story is credited by some writers of weight (most recently by Archdeacon Farrar), but seems highly improbable. It depends on the single authority of a writer not famed for historical judgment, and on the very first anniversary of Peter’s martyrdom, when Alexander had hardly ascended the episcopal throne, Athanasius was at least fourteen years old. The probability that the anniversary would have been other than the first, and the possibility that Athanasius was even older, coupled with the certainty that his theological study began before Peter’s martyrdom, compel us to mark the story with at least a strong note of interrogation. But it may be allowed to confirm us in the belief that Alexander early singled out the promise of ability and devotion which marked Athanasius for his right-hand man long before the crisis which first proved his unique value.
His years of study and work in the bishop’s household bore rich fruit in the two youthful works already alluded to. These works more than any later writings of Athanasius bear traces of the Alexandrian theology and of the influence of Origenism: but in them already we trace the independent grasp of Christian principles which mark Athanasius as the representative of something more than a school, however noble and many-sided. It was not as a theologian, but as a believing soul in need of a Saviour, that Athanasius approached the mystery of Christ. Throughout the mazes of the Arian controversy his tenacious hold upon this fundamental principle steered his course and balanced his theology. And it is this that above all else characterises the golden treatise on the Incarnation of the Word. ‘There is, however, one x He was unable to speak from memory of the events of the persecution of 303 (Hist. Ar. 64), but (de Incarn. 56. 2) had been instructed in religion by persons who had suffered as martyrs. This must have been before 311, the date of the last persecution in Egypt under Maximin. Before 319 he had written his first books ‘against the Gentiles,’ the latter of which, on the In- carnation, implies a full maturity of power in the writer, while the former is full of philosophical and mythological knowledge such as argues advanced education. But from several sources we learn that his election to the episcopate in 328 was impugned, at any rate in after years, on the ground of his not having attained the canonical age of thirty, There is no ground for supposing that this was true: but such a charge would not be made without some ground at least of plausibility. We must therefore suppose that on June 8, 328, he was not much beyond his thirtieth year. His parents, moreover, were living after the year 358 (see below, p. 562, note 6); allowing them over fourscore years at that date, we find in 298 a reasonable date for the birth of their son. We must remember that in southern climates mind and body mature somewhat more rapidly than with ourselves, and the ‘contra Gentes’ and ‘ de Incarnatione’ will scarcely appear precocious.
2 The statements of Greg. Naz. that he frequented classes of grammar and rhetoric is probable enough; that of Sulpitius Severus that he was ‘juris consultus’ lacks corroboration.
OUTBREAK OF THE ARIAN TROUBLES. XV ees ee ee icy element in the influence of Origen and and his successors which already comes out, and which never lost its hold upon Athanasius,—the principle of asceticism. Although the ascetic tendency was present in Christianity from the first, and had already burst forth into extrava- gance in such men as Tertullian, it was reserved for the school of Origen, influenced by Platonist ideas of the world and life, to give to it the rank of an acknowledged principle of Christian morals—to give the stimulus to monasticism (see below, p. 193). Among the acclamations which accompanied the election of Athanasius to the episcopate that of «fs rav aoxntdy was Conspicuous (Afo/. Ar. 6). In de Jncarn. 51. 1, 48. 2, we seem to recognise the future biographer of Antony:3.
$2. The Arian Controversy before Nicea, 319—-325.
At the time when Athanasius first appeared as an author, the condition of Christian Egypt was not peaceful. Meletius, bishop of Lycopolis, was accused of having sacrificed during the persecution in gor (pp. 131, 234); condemned by a synod under bishop Peter, he had carried on schismatical intrigues under Peter, Achillas, and Alexander, and by this time had a large following, especially in Upper Egypt. Many cities had Meletian bishops: many of the hermits, and even communities of monks (p. 135), were on his side.
_ The Meletian account of the matter (preserved by Epiphan. Her. 58) was different from this. Meletius had been in prison along with Peter, and had differed from him on the question of the lapsed, taking the sterner view, in which most of the imprisoned clergy supported him. It would not be without a parallel (D.C.B. art. Donatisrs, NovaTian) in the history of the burning question of the /ags7 to suppose that Meletius recoiled from a compromised position to the advocacy of impossible strictness. At any rate (de /ncarn. 24. 4) the Egyptian Church was rent by a formidable schism. No doctrinal question, however, was involved. ‘The alliance of Meletians and Arians belongs to a later date.
It is doubtful whether the outbreak of the Arian controversy at Alexandria was directly connected with the previous Christological controversies in the same Church. The great Dionysius some half-century before had been involved in controversy with members of his Church both in Alexandria and in the suffragan dioceses of Libya (in/fr. p. 173). Of the sequel of that controversy we have no direct knowledge: but we find several bishops and saneeae clergy and laity in Alexandria and Libya‘ ready to side with Arius against his ishop.
The origin of the controversy is obscure. It certainly must be placed as early as 318 or 319, to leave sufficient time before the final deposition of Arius in the council of 321 (zufr. p. 234). We are told that Arius, a native of Libya, had settled in Alexandria soon after the origin of the Meletian schism, and had from motives of ambition sided at first with Meletius, then with Peter, who ordained him deacon, but afterwards was compelled to depose him (Epiph. Her. 69, Sozom. i. 15). He became reconciled to Achillas, who raised him to the presbyterate. Disappointed of the bishopric at the election of Alexander, he nurtured a private grudge (Thdt. H. £#. i. 2), which eventually culminated in opposition to his teaching. ‘These tales deserve little credit: they are unsupported by Athanasius, and bear every trace of inven- tion ex post facto. That Arius was a vain person we see from his Thalia (z#/r. p. 308): but he certainly possessed claims to personal respect, and we find him not only in charge of the urban parish of Baucalis, but entrusted with the duties of a professor of scriptural exegesis. There is in fact no necessity to seek for personal motives to explain the dispute. The Arian problem was one which the Church was unable to avoid. Not until every alternative had been tried and rejected was the final theological expression of her faith possible. Two great streams of theological influence had run their course in the third century: the subordinationist theology of Origen at Alexandria, the Monarchian theology of the West and of Asia which had found a logical expression in Paul of Samosata. Both streams had met in Lucian the martyr, at Antioch, and in Arius, the pupil of Lucian, produced a result which combined elements of both (see below, § 3 (2) a). According to some authorities Arius was the aggressor. He challenged some theological statements of Alexander as Sabellian, urging in opposition to them that if the Son were truly a Son He must have bad a beginning, and that there had been therefore a time 4 It is of interest to note the changed conditions. In 260 bishop Dionysius had to check the Monarchian tendency in Libya, and was accused by members of his own flock of separating the Son from the Being (ovcia) of the Father. In 319 a Libyan, Arius, cries out upon the Sabellianism of his bishop, and formulates the very doctrine which Dionysius had been accused of main- taining.
3 The actual connection of Athanasius with Antony at this period is implied in the received text of ‘Vit. Anton.’ Prolog., for it could scarcely fall at any later date. At the same time the youthful life of Athanasius seems fully accounted for in such a way as to leave little room for it (so Tillemont). But our ig- norance of details leaves it just possible that he may for a time have visited the great hermit and ministered to him as Elisha did of old to Elijah. (Cf. p. 195, note 2.)
xvi _ PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER II. § 2.
when He did not exist. According to others (Constantine in Eus. Vit. ii. 69) Alexander had demanded of his presbyters an explanation of some passage of Scripture which had led Arius to broach his heresy. At any rate the attitude of Alexander was at first conciliatory. Himself an Origenist, he was willing to give Arius a fair hearing (Sozom. dz supra). But the latter was impracticable. He began to canvass for support, and his doctrine was widely accepted. Among his first partisans were a number of lay people and virgins, five presbyters of Alexandria, six deacons, including Euzoius, afterwards Arian bishop at Antioch (A.D. 361), and the Libyan bishops Secundus of Ptolemais in Pentapolis (see p. 226) and Theonas of Marmarica (see p. 70). A letter was addressed to Arius and his friends by Alexander, and signed by the clergy of Alexandria, but without result. A synod was now called (ém/r. p. 70, Socr. i. 6) of the bishops of Egypt and Libya, and Arius and his allies deposed. Even this did not.check the movement. In Egypt two presbyters and four deacons of the Mareotis, one of the former being Pistus, a later Arian bishop of Alexandria, declared for Arius; while abroad he was in correspondence with influential bishops who cordially promised their support. Conspicuous among the latter was a man of whom we shall hear much in the earlier treatises of this volume, Eusebius, bishop of Berytus, who had recently, against the older custom of the Church (p. 103, note 6), but in accordance with what has ever since been general in the case of important sees, been translated to the imperial city of Nicomedia. High in the favour, perhaps related to the family, of Constantine, possessed of theological training and practical ability, this remarkable man was for nearly a quarter of a century the head and centre of the Arian cause. (For his character and history, see the excellent article in D.C.B. ii. 360—367.) He had been a fellow-pupil of Arius in the school of Lucian, and fully shared his opinions (his letter to Paulinus of Tyre, Thdt. H. £. i. 6). The letter addressed to him by Arius (ib. 5) is cne of our most important Arian monuments. Arius claims the sympathy of Eusebius of Czesarea and other leading bishops, in fact of all the East excepting Macarius of Jerusalem and two others, ‘heretical and untutored persons.’ Eusebius responded with zeal to the appeal of his ‘fellow-Lucianist.’ While Alexander was indefatigable in writing to warn the bishops every- where against Arius (who had now left Alexandria to seek foreign support, first in Palestine, then at Nicomedia), and in particular addressed a long letter to Alexander, bishop of Byzantium (Thdt. &. Z. i. 4), Eusebius called a council at Nicomedia, which issued letters in favour of Arius to many bishops, and urged Alexander himself to receive him to communion. Meanwhile a fresh complication had appeared in Egypt. Colluthus, whose name stands first among the signatures to the memorandum (to be mentioned presently) of the deposition of Arius, im- patient it would seem at the moderation of Alexander, founded a schism of his own, and although merely a presbyter, took upon himself to ordain. In Egypt and abroad. confusion reigned: parties formed in every city, bishops, to adopt the simile of Eusebius (V2#. Const.), collided like the fabled Symplegades, the most sacred of subjects were bandied about in the mouths of the populace, Christian and heathen.
In all this confusion Athanasius was ready with his convictions. His sure instinct and powerful grasp of the centre of the question made him the mainstay of his Bishop in the painful conflict. At a staget of it difficult to determine with precision, Alexander sent out to the bishops of the Church at large a concise and carefully-worded memorandum of the decision of the Exyptian Synod of 321, fortified by the signatures of the clergy of Alexandria and the Mareotis (see zfra, pp. 68—71).
This weighty document, so different in thought and style from the letter of Alexander pre- served by Theodoret, bears the clear stamp of the mind and character of Athanasius: it contains the germ of which his whole series of anti-Arian writings are the expansion (see introd. and notes, pp. 68—71), and is a significant comment on the hint of the Egyptian bishops (Afo/. ¢c. Ar. 6 ad init.).
Early in 324 a new actor came upon the scene. Hosius, bishop of Cordova and con- fessor (he is referred to, not by name, Vit. Const. ii. 63, 73, cf. ili. 7, 6 mdvv Bodpevos; by name, Socr. 1. 7), arrived with a letter from the Emperor himself, intreating both parties to make peace, t The chronology cannot be determined with precision, The] Arius in correspondence with Eusebius, &c. Leaves Alexandria Memorandum is signed by Colluthus and therefore precedes his | for Palestine and Nicomedia. Letters sent abroad by Alexander. schism. The letter to Alex. Byzant. was written after the Col- | Eusebius holds council and writes to Alexander. 322: Memor- luthian schism had begun. But the proceedings of Eusebius | andum drawn up; Alexandrian clergy assembled to sign it; pre- described above had at least begun when the Memorandum was | fatory address to them by Alexander with reference to the Ma- circulated, which must, therefore, have been some time after | reotic defection which has just occurred; circulation of Memor- the Synod of 321. The letter of Alexander to his clergy prefixed | andum; schism of Colluthus. | 323: Letter of Alexander to Alex- to the defosttio was drawn up after it, and includes the names | ander of Byzantium; (Sept.) Constantine, master of the East, of the Mareotic seceders, We may, theref>.e, tentatively adopt | and ready to intervene in the controversy. the following series:—321 A.D.: Egyptian Synod deposes Arius.
NICAA. PARTIES IN THE COUNCIL. XVii and treating the matter as one of trivial moment. The letter may have been written upon information furnished by Eusebius (D.C.B. s.v.); but the anxiety of the Emperor for the peace of his new dominions is its keynote. On the arrival of Hosius a council (p. 140) was held, which produced little effect as far as the main question was concerned: but the claims of Colluthus were absolutely disallowed, and his ordination of one Ischyras (czfr. § 5) to the presbyterate pronounced null and void. Hosius apparently carried back with him a strong report in favour of Alexander; at any rate the Emperor is credited (Gelas. Cys. ii., Hard. Conc. i. 451—458) with a vehement letter of rebuke to Arius, possibly at this juncture. Such was the state of affairs which led to the imperial resolve, probably at the suggestion of Hosius, to summon a council of bishops from the whole world to decide the doctrinal question, as well as the relatively lesser matters in controversy.
An ecumenical council was a new experiment. Local councils had long since grown to be a recognised organ of the Church both for iegislation and for judicial proceedings. But no precedent as yet prescribed, no ecclesiastical law or theological principle had as yet enthroned, the ‘General Council’ as the supreme expression of the Church’s mind. Constantine had already referred the case of the Donatists first to a select council at Rome under bishop Miltiades, then to what Augustine (Z/. 43) has been understood to call a ‘plenarium ecclesiz universe concilium’ at Arles in 314. This remedy for schism was now to be tried on a grander scale. That the heads of all the Churches of Christendom should meet in free and brotherly deliberation, and should testify to all the world their agree- ment in the Faith handed down independently but harmoniously from the earliest times in Churches widely remote in situation, and separated by differences of language, race and civilisation, is a grand and impressive idea, an idea approximately realised at Niczea as in no other assembly that has ever met. The testimony of such an assembly carries the strongest evidential weight; and the almost unanimous horror of the Nicene Bishops at the novelty and profaneness of Arianism condemns it irrevocablyas alien to the immemorial belief of the Churches. But it was one thing to perceive this, another to formulate the positive belief of the Church in such a way as to exclude the heresy; one thing to agree in condemning Arian formulz, another to agree upon an adequate test of orthodoxy. This was the problem which lay before the council, and with which only its more clearsighted members tenaciously grappled: this is the explanation of the reaction which followed, and which for more than a generation, for well nigh half a century after, placed its results in jeopardy. The number of bishops who met at Niczea was over 250%. ‘They represented many nationalities (Euseb. “dz supra), but only a handful came fiom the West, the chief being Hosius, Czcilian of Carthage, and the presbyters sent by Silvester of Rome, whose age prevented his presence in person. The council lasted from the end of May till Aug. 25 (see D.C.A., 1389). With the many picturesque stories told of its incidents we have nothing to do (Stanley’s Zastern Church, Socr.1. to—12, Soz. i. 17, 18, Rufin. H.Z. i. 3—5); but it may be well to note the division of parties. (1) Of thoroughgoing partisans of Arius, Secundus* and Theonas alone scorned all compromise. But Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis, Bishop of Nicza itself, and Maris of Chalcedon, also belonged to the inner circle of Arians by conviction (Socr. i. 8; Soz. i. 21 makes up the same number, but wrongly). The three last-named were pupils of Lucian (Philost. ii. 15). Some twelve others (the chief names are Athanasius of Anazarbus and Narcissus of Neronias, in Cilicia; Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Aetius of Lydda, Paulinus of Tyre, Theodotus of Laodicea, Gregory of Berytus, in Syria and Palestine; Menophantus of Ephesus; for a fuller discussion see Gwatk.’p. 31, n. 3) completed the strength of the Arian party proper. (2) On the other hand a clearly formulated doctrinal position in contrast to Arianism was taken up by a minority only, although this minority carried the day. Alexander of Alexandria of course was the rallying point of this wing, but the choice of the formula proceeded from other minds. ‘Ymécraous and ovcia are one in the Nicene formula: Alexander in 323 writes of rpeis irocrdcets.
The test formula of Niczea was the work of two concurrent influences, that of the anti- Origenists of the East, especially Marcellus of Ancyra, Eustathius of Antioch, supported by Macarius of ‘ Atlia,’ Hellanicus of ‘Iripolis, and Asclepas of Gaza, and that of the Western bishops, especially Hosius of Cordova. ‘The latter fact explains the energetic intervention of nee ee ee t So Eus. Vit. Const. iii. 8,—over 270, Eustath. in Thdt. i. 8,—, andria, 362, then in the Letter of Liberius to the bishops of Asia in fact more than 300 (de Decr. 3), according to Athanasius, who} in 365, infr. § 9), on grounds perhaps symbolical rather than again, toward the end of his life (ad. A/r. 2) acquiesces in the historical. as precise figure 318 (Genesis xiv. 14; the Greek numeral ty’ com- 2 The name of Secundus appears among the subscriptions bines the Cross with the initial letters of the Sacred Name) which | (cf. Soz. i. 21), but this is contradicted by the primary evidence a later generation adopted (it occurs already in Hilary de Syn. (Letter of the Council in Soc. i. 9, Thdt. i. 9); cf. Philost. i. 9, to. 86, afterwards in the alleged Coptic acts of the Council of Alex- | But there is evidence that there were two Secundi.
VOL. IV. b Xviil PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER IIL. § 3 (£).