See other formats

Full text of "Early history of the Christian church : from its foundation to the end of the fifth century"

The John W. Graham Library 

TRINITY COLLEGE 

TORONTO 



EARLY HISTORY OF THE 
CHRISTIAN CHURCH 



BY MONSIGNOR LOUIS DUCHESNE 

EARLY HISTORY OF THE 
CHRISTIAN CHURCH 



FROM ITS FOUNDATION TO THF 

END OF THE FIFTH CENTURY. 

RENDERED INTO ENGLISH FROM 

THE FOURTH EDITION 



VOL. L- 

VOL. II.- 
VOL. III. 



To THE END OF THE 
THIRD CENTURY. 

THE FOURTH CENTURY. 
THE FIFTH CENTURY. 



All rights reserved 



EARLY HISTORY OF 

THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 

FROM ITS FOUNDATION TO 

THE END OF THE FIFTH 

CENTURY 



BY MONSIGNOR LOUIS DUCHESNE 

DE L ACADEMIE FRANQAISE 

HON. D.LITT. OXFORD, AND LITT.D. CAMBRIDGE 
MEMBRE DE L lNBTITUT DE FRANOl 



RENDERED INTO ENGLISH 
FROM THE FOURTH EDITION 



VOLUME H 



LONDON 
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET 



FIRST EDITION .... /** 1912 

Reprinted August 1922 

Reprinted April 1931 

Reprinted April 1950 

Reprinted .... December 1957 



Made and printed in Great Britain by Butler & Tanner Ltd., Frome and London 
and published by John Murray (Publishers) Ltd. 



JUI 2 q 2004 



PREFACE 

I PREFACED my first volume with the mention of Eusebius. 
And it is again under the patronage of the Bishop of 
Caesarea that the present one begins. The last three 
books of his Ecclesiastical History, and the four books of 
his Life of Constantine^ deal with nearly the whole of the 
subject-matter of my first five chapters. Faithful to his 
custom of reproducing his authorities, Eusebius has 
preserved to us, for the time in which he himself lived, a 
great number of official documents. We should have been 
glad if he had more often given expression to his own 
recollections and impressions ; but unfortunately, the 
nearer the events which he relates approach to his own 
time, the more afraid he seems to be of seeing them clearly, 
and above all of relating them. With the exception of the 
general glorification of the Church, and the special eulogy 
of Constantine, everything else in his pages is enveloped 
in so much reserve, with so many oratorical safeguards, 
and so many things hinted at rather than affirmed, that 
we have often a difficulty in finding out what he really 
means. 

After Eusebius, the history of the Church remained for 
a long time neglected. Rufinus of Aquileia was the first 
to give himself anew to the task. To his translation of 
the Ecclesiastical History^ executed at the time when 
Alaric was devastating Italy, he added two supplementary 
books, in which the narrative was continued to the death of 
Theodosius (A.D. 395). His work is a sufficiently mediocre 
production, hastily put together and devoid of interest save 
for the last pages, where the author relates events of which 
he had himself been witness. 

Til 



viii PREFACE 

The subject was again taken up at Constantinople, 
shortly before the middle of the 5th century, 1 by two men 
of the world, Socrates and Sozomen. The first of these, 
at least, availed himself of the account of Rufinus, which a 
certain Gelasius had translated into Greek. About the 
same time, Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhos, in the province 
of Euphratesia, also undertook the task of continuing 
Eusebius. And finally, Philostorgius, an Arian of the 
most advanced type, a Eunomian, or Anomcean, applied 
himself to the same work, in the spirit of his own sect. 
His book has not been preserved : we have only extracts 
from it very copious ones, it is true in the Bibliotheca of 
Photius. Philostorgius is interesting in one respect- 
namely, that he allows us to hear the voice of a party 
conquered and thereby reduced to a silence deeper than 
history could have wished. Theodoret preserves to us 
traditions, anecdotes, and legends of Antioch ; Socrates 
and Sozomen render us the same service for Constanti 
nople and its neighbourhood. Socrates had had much 
communication with the Novatians of the capital, and 
they had given him many curious details respecting 
their Church. But the most important point is that 
the three orthodox historians have worked over collec 
tions of official documents, that they often reproduce 
original sources, and that, even when they do not 
reproduce or quote them, they betray the use they have 
made of such documents by the details of their narrative. 
The result of this is, that although when they speak for 
themselves, or as simply following oral traditions, their 
authority is weak, they afford serious guarantees for their 
statements when we are able to recover underlying their 
text the testimony of contemporary documents. This 
distinction must always be made ; it has guided me, it is 
hardly necessary to say, in the use I have made of these 

1 The priest Philip of Side had published, about the year 430, 
under the title of Christian History, an immense compilation, destitute 
of order or method. It is now lost ; but what Socrates (Hist. vii. 
27) and Photius (cod. 35) say of it is not of a character to make us 
regret its loss very keenly. 



PREFACE ix 

authors ; it must never be lost sight of in estimating the 
references which I make to their works. 

If a great many original documents were within the 
reach of these authors, it was because various collections 
of them had been made, in which it was easy to find them. 
St Athanasius compiled one of these, about the year 350, 
in his Apology against the Arians, a pleading pro domo, 
in which reinstalled, in fact, in his see of Alexan 
dria, but deposed in law, in the eyes of his adversaries 
he set himself to show the baselessness of his sentence of 
deposition, and to establish the fact that it had been 
annulled by more authoritative decisions. Other docu 
ments had been added by him to his treatise The Decrees 
of the Council of Niccza, which is of rather later date than 
his Apology)- His History of the Arians, addressed to the 
Monks, also contains more than one document which is 
both authentic and interesting. Finally, in the year 367, 
when he was in the fortieth year of his episcopate, he 
caused to be made a kind of history of the vicissitudes 
through which the Church of Alexandria had passed since 
the Great Persecution. Documents of great interest were 
included in this. The collection has not been preserved in 
Greek ; but, in a collection of canons, known by the name 
of The Collection of the Deacon Theodosius, important 
fragments of a Latin translation remain to us. 2 

Moreover, Athanasius had not been the first, nor was 
he the only person who in this way gathered together 
documents. Even before the Council of Nicaea, Arius and 
Alexander had brought together the letters of their 
respective adherents, and had made use of them in their 
polemics. Towards the end of the 4th century, Sabinus, 
Bishop of Heraclea for the " Macedonian " party, had also 
compiled a collection (2in>ayo>y//) of various documents 
relating to Councils of the Church, fro. .* quite another 
point of view from that of Athanasius. 

1 Cf. G. Loeschcke, in the Rheinischcs Museum, vol. lix., p. 45 1, who 
thinks that he is able to identify this collection with the enigmatical 
Synodicon of Athanasius ; E. Schwartz, in the Gottingen Nachrichten, 
1904, p. 39i. 2 Cf. page 132, infra. 

ii a 2 



x PREFACE 

Socrates was acquainted with this collection and also 
with the others. He openly quotes Sabinus. Sozomen, who 
re-edited Socrates and at the same time completed his work, 
did not confine himself to reproducing his quotations. He 
studied the documents for himself, and made a larger and 
more judicious use of them, but without quoting the 
collection a characteristic method of procedure. We 
know that although he follows Socrates he gives the 
reader no sort of notice of this, so that we cannot spare 
him the reproach of plagiarism. 

It was not only in the East that controversy was 
carried on by means of historical dossiers and collections 
of official documents. In the West also the same method 
was observed. About the time when the long career of 
Eusebius of Cresarea was drawing to its close, the 
Catholics of Africa, harassed by the Donatists, and ill 
defended against them by the imperial authorities, con 
ceived the idea of influencing public opinion by making 
known, through a series of indisputable documents, the 
conditions which had given rise to that lamentable schism. 
With this end in view was drawn up the collection called 
Gesta purgationis Caeciliani et Felicis, which long served 
as a text-book for the anti-Donatist polemics, and was 
made use of afterwards by St Optatus and St Augustine. 
As in the Greek collections, a brief commentary bound the 
pieces together, and formed a kind of historical thread of 
connection/ 

It was a collection of the same kind that St Hilary of 
Poitiers formed in 360, at Constantinople, at the moment 
when the Nicene orthodoxy appeared to have become 
obscured in the unfaithfulness, more or less enforced, alike 
of the Latin and the Greek episcopates. Hilary relates 
once more, in opposition to the partisans of the Council of 
Rimini (Ariminum), the series of events which had 
happened since the Council of Sardica in 343. In the 
fragments of his compilation which have come down to 

1 Sylloge Optatiana, following St Optatus in the Vienna edition, 
vol. xxvi., p. 206 ; tf. my memoir, " Le dossier du Donatisme," in the 
Melanges de fcole de Rome, vol. x. (1890). 



PREFACE xi 

us are to be found documents of later date than the 
original edition, which proves that it must have been 
retouched after 360, no doubt by others than the a-thor 
himself. 

Besides these collections of documents, upon which 
rest, though with gaps, the statements of later his 
torians, the latter had at their disposal, as we ourselves 
have, often in a larger measure, a considerable body of 
literature on these subjects. Hilary, Athanasius, Basil 
the two Gregorys, Epiphanius, Ambrose, and Jerome 
only to mention the most celebrated, have left us an 
entire library on which historical learning has drawn for 
centuries. 

It is upon this whole corpus of texts that my own 
account rests. I refer to them with moderation, confining 
myself, as in the first volume, to indicating, here and there, 
the authorities to be consulted upon certain debatable 
questions. If I had gone more deeply into bibliography 
and critical discussions, the notes would have taken up so 
much room that I do not see what would have been left 
for the text. And yet this includes the whole period 
which corresponds to the six volumes of the late Duke 
Albert de Broglie, LEgiise et f empire remain au 2V iim * 
Sibclc, a book which I have not cited, since I cite only 
first-hand authorities or special treatises ; but one which 
I could scarcely omit to mention here, were it only to beg 
of charitable readers not to remember his book too much 
while they are reading mine, 

ROME, March 25, 190;. 



CONTENTS 



PA.QB 

PREFACE, ........ vii 



CHAPTER I 

THE GREAT PERSECUTION 

Accession of Diocletian : the Tetrarchy. Persecution decided 
upon : the four edicts. Crisis of the Tetrarchy : Con- 
stantine and Maxentius. Application of the first edict in 
Africa. The Terror of 304. The canons of Peter of 
Alexandria. The beginning of Maximin s reign. Death 
of Galerius : his edict of toleration. The religious policy 
of Maximin. His end. Licinius at Nicomedia : edicts of 
pacification. The martyrs of Palestine, of Egypt, and of 
Africa. Literary controversies : Arnobius, Hierocles, 
Lactantius, ....... 



CHAPTER II 

CONSTANTINE, THE CHRISTIAN EMPEROR 

Conversion of Constantine. Religious measures in the West 
The Pagans tolerated and the Christians favoured. Licinius 
and his attitude towards the Christians. The war of 323 : 
Constantine sole Emperor. Development of his religious 
policy. Measures against the temples and the sacrifices. 
Foundation of Churches : the Holy Places of Palestine. 
Foundation of Constantinople. Death of Constantine, . 45 
xiii 



xiv CONTENTS 

CHAPTER III 

THE SCHISMS RESULTING FROM THE PERSECUTION 

PAQB 

Pope Marcellinus and his memory. Disturbances at Rome with 
regard to apostates : Marcellus, Eusebius. Egyptian 
quarrels: rupture between Bishops Peter and Meletius. 
The Meletian schism. Origins of the Donatist schism. 
Council of Cirta. Mensurius and Caecilian, Bishops of 
Carthage. Schism against Caecilian : Majorinus. Inter 
vention of the Emperor. Councils of Rome and of Aries. 
Imperial arbitration. Resistance of the Donatists : organ 
ization of the schism, ...... 7 2 



CHAPTER IV 

ARIUS AND THE COUNCIL OF NIC/EA 

The parishes of Alexandria, Arius of Baucalis : his doctrine. 
Conflict with traditional teaching. The deposition of 
Arius and his followers. Arius is supported in Syria and 
at Nicomedia. His return to Alexandria: his Thalia. 
Intervention of Constantine. Debate on the Paschal 
question. The Council of Nicaea. Presence of the 
Emperor. Arius again condemned. Settlement of the 
Meletian affair, and of the Paschal question. Compilation 
of the Creed. Disciplinary canons. The Hcmoousios. 
First attempts at reaction, ..... 98 



CHAPTER V 

EUSEBIUS AND ATIIANAMUS 

Eusebius of Caesarea : his learning, his relations with Con 
stantine. The Homoousios after the Council of Nicaea. 
Deposition of Eustathius of Antioch. Reaction against 
the Creed of Nicaea. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, 
First conflicts with the supporters of Meletius and of Arius. 
Submission of Arius : his recall from exile. New intrigues 
against Athanasius. Council of Tyre. Deposition of 
Athanasius. His first exile. Death of Arius. Marcellus 
of Ancyra : his doctrine, his deposition. Writings of 
Eusebius of Ccesarea against Marcellus, . . .125 



CONTENTS xv 

CHAPTER VI 

THE EMPEROR CONSTANS 

PAGE 

The heirs of Constantine. Return of Athanasius. Intrigues of 
Eusebius ; the rivalry of Pistus. The Pope is made cog 
nizant of the Alexandrian affair. The intrusion of Gregory. 
Athanasius in Rome. The Easterns and Pope Julius. 
Roman Council in 340. Cancelling of the sentences pro 
nounced in the East against Athanasius and Marcellus. 
Constans sole Emperor in the West. Dedication Council 
at Antioch in 341. Death of Eusebius of Nicomedia. 
Paul of Constantinople. Council of Sardica : the Eastern 
schism. Negotiations. Condemnation of Photinus. 
Athanasius recalled to Alexandria. African affairs. The 
Circumcellians. Mission of Paul and Macarius. Unity 
restored: Council under Gratus, . . . , 153 

CHAPTER VII 

THE PROSCRIPTION OF ATHANASIUS 

Assassination of Constans. The usurper Magnentius. Con- 
stantius makes himself master of the West. The two 
Caesars, Callus and Julian. Deposition of Photinus. 
New intrigues against Athanasius. The Council of Aries. 
Pope Liberius. Councils of Milan and of Beziers. Exile 
of Lucifer, Eusebius, Hilary, Liberius, and Hosius. 
Police riots at Alexandria. Assault on the Church of 
Theonas : disappearance of Athanasius. Intrusion of 
George. Athanasius in retirement, .... 196 



CHAPTER VIII 

THE DEFEAT OF ORTHODOXY 

The Church of Antioch in the time of Bishop Leontius. 
Paulinus : Flavian, and Diodore : Aetius and Theophilus. 
State of parties in 357. The falling away of Liberius. The 
formulary of Sirmium accepted by Hosius. Anomoeans and 
Homoiousians. Western protests. Eudoxius at Antioch: 
triumph of Aetius. Basil of Ancyra and the homoiousian 
reaction Return of Pope Liberius, Success and violence 



xvi CONTENTS 

PAOJc 

of Basil : his defeat by the advanced party. Formula ot 
359. Councils of Ariminum and of Seleucia. Acacius of 
Caesarea. Development of events at Constantinople : 
general prevarication. Despair of Hilary. The Council 
of 360. Eudoxius, Bishop of Constantinople. Meletius 
and Euzoius at Antioch. Julian proclaimed Augustus. 
Death of Constantius, ..... 3i8 



CHAPTER IX 

JULIAN AND THE PAGAN REACTION 

Paganism under the princes of the house of Constantine. The 
sacrifices forbidden. Decline of the ancient religions. 
Julian s youth. His religious development. On becoming 
Emperor, he declares himself a Pagan. Retaliation of the 
conquered religion. Murder of George of Alexandria. 
Writings of Julian : his piety, his attempt to reform Pagan 
ism. His attitude towards the Christians. Recall of the 
exiled bishops. Withdrawal of privileges : teaching pro 
hibited. Conflicts and acts of violence. Rebuilding of 
the temple at Jerusalem. Julian and the people of Antioch. 
His death, .... ... 250 



CHAPTER X 

AFTER ARIMINUM 

The Councils of Paris and of Alexandria. Restoration of the 
lapsed. Lucifer, Eusebius, and Apollinaris. Schism at 
Antioch : Meletius and Paulinus. Athanasius exiled in 
Julian s reign. His relations with Jovian. The "Acacians" 
accept the Creed of Nicaea. Valentinian and Valens. 
The religious policy of Valentinian. Opposition of the 
Right wing : Lucifer and his friends. Opposition of the 
Left : Auxentius of Milan, and the Danubian bishops. 
Valens and the formula of Ariminum. Negotiations 
between the Homoiousians and Pope Liberius. The 
question of the Holy Spirit : the party of Macedonius. 
The Anomoeans : Aetius and Eunomius. Conflicts between 
them and official Arianism. The historian Philostorgius, . 269 



CONTENTS xvii 

CHAPTER XI 

BASIL OF OESAREA 

PAGE 

State of parties in the east of Asia Minor. The youth of 
Basil and of Gregory of Nazianzus. Eustathius, master in 
asceticism, afterwards Bishop of Sebaste. Basil, a soli 
tary, afterwards priest, and Bishop of Caesarea. The 
religious policy of Valens. Death of Athanasius : Peter 
and Lucius. Valens at Caesarea. Basil and Eustathius. 
Basil negotiates with Rome. His rupture with Eustathius. 
Arian intrigues. Dorotheus at Rome. Affairs at Antioch. 
Paulinus recognized by Rome. Vitalis. The heresy of 
Apollinaris. Eustathius goes over to the Pneumatomachi. 
Dorotheus returns to Rome. Evolution of the Marcellians. 
The Goths. Death of the Emperor Valens, . . 301 

CHAPTER XII 

GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS 

Gratian and Theodosius. Return of the exiled bishops. Death 
of Basil. The Easterns accept the conditions of Rome. 
Attitude of Theodosius. Situation at Constantinople. 
Gregory of Nazianzus and his church, the "Anastasis." 
Conflicts with the Arians. Alexandrian opposition : 
Maximus the Cynic. Gregory at St Sophia. The Second 
(Ecumenical Council (381). Obstinacy of the Mace 
donians. Installation of Gregory. Death of Meletius : 
difficulties with regard to his successor. Resignation of 
Gregory. Nectarius, The canons. Hostility against 
Alexandria. Flavian elected at Antioch. Protests of St 
Ambrose. Roman Council in 382. Letter from the 
Easterns, 333 

CHAPTER XIII 

POPE DAMASUS 

The West and the Roman Church before the Emperor Con- 
stantius. Exile of bishops. Intrusion of Felix. The 
Pontifical election of 366 : Damasus and Ursinus. Riots in 
Rome. Rancour of Ursinus against Damasus. The sects 
at Rome. Damasus and the secular arm. Councils against 



xviii CONTENTS 

PAGE 

the Arians. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan. Fresh intrigues 
against Damasus ; Isaac institutes a criminal prosecution 
against him. Roman Council of 378. Gratian s Rescript 
to Aquilinus. Council of Aquileia. Roman Council of 
382. Jerome and his early career : his sojourn in the 
Syrian desert. His relations with Pope Damasus. His 
success m Rome : Paula and Marcella. The inscriptions 
of Damasus, and the cult of the martyrs. Siricius succeeds 
Damasus. Departure of Jerome for Palestine, , . 355 

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, . . 385 

CHAPTER XV 

THE WEST IN THE DAYS OF ST AMBROSE 

St Hilary and his writings. St Martin of Tours. Council of 
Valence. Priscillian and his asceticism. Spanish dis 
putes : Council of Saragossa. Attitude of Damasus, of 
Ambrose, and of Gratian. Maximus in Gaul; the trial at 
Treves. The Ithacians. Reaction under Valentinian 
II. : the schism of Felix ; the rhetorician Pacatus. Pris- 
cillianism in Galicia. Council of Toledo : dissensions in 
the Spanish episcopate. The Priscillianist doctrine. St 
Ambrose and the Court of Justina. Ambrose and 
Theodosius. Pope Siricius. Jovinian and St Jerome, . 414 

CHAPTER XVI 
CHRISTIANITY IN THE EAST UNDER THEODOSIUS 

Christian settlements north of the Danube. Ulfilas and the 
conversion of the Goths. The sects. The assembly in 
383. Divisions amongst the Arians and Eunomians. The 



CONTENTS xix 

PAGE 

Novatians. Fanatical sects : the Massalians. Amphi- 
lochius, Bishop of Iconium. Gregory of Nyssa. Gregory 
of Nazianzus. Epiphanius and the heretics. Apollinaris : 
his teaching and his propaganda. Diodore of Tarsus. 
Flavian and Chrysostom. The schism at Antioch : Council 
of Caesarea. Eusebius of Samosata. Edessa and its 
legends : St Ephrem. Palestine. Cyril of Jerusalem. 
Pilgrimages : visit of Gregory of Nyssa. Rufinus and 
Jerome. Arabia : the cult of Mary. Titus of Bostra and 
his successors. The Council of 394, .... 448 



CHAPTER XVII 

CHRISTIANITY, THE STATE RELIGION 

Paganism after Julian. Attitude of Valentinian and of Valens. 
Gratian. The Altar of Victory. Pagan reaction in Rome 
under Eugenius. Theodosius : the temples closed. The 
temple of Serapis at Alexandria. Popular disturbances. 
Position of the Christian sects at the accession of Con- 
stantine. Laws of repression. The Novatians. The 
Catholic Church alone recognized. Alliance of the Church 
with the State. Liberty, right of property, privileges. 
Intervention of the State in religious disputes, in the 
nomination or the deprivation of bishops. Episcopal 
elections. Civil jurisdiction of the bishops, . . 496 

INDEX, .......... 527 



EARLY HISTORY OF THE 
CHRISTIAN CHURCH 

CHAPTER I 

THE GREAT PERSECUTION 

Accession of Diocletian : the Tetrarchy. Persecution decided upon: 
the four edicts. Crisis of the Tetrarchy : Constantine and 
Maxentius. Application of the first edict in Africa. The Terror 
of 304. The canons of Peter of Alexandria. The beginning of 
Maximin s reign. Death of Galerius : his edict of toleration. 
The religious policy of Maximin : his end. Licinius at 
Nicomedia : edicts of pacification. The martyrs of Palestine, 
of Egypt, and of Africa. Literary controversies : Arnobius, 
Hierocles, Lactantius. 

I. The Emperor Diocletian. 

WHEN Gallienus was assassinated (March 22, 268), the 
Empire, invaded and torn in pieces, was at its lowest. A 
two-fold task was imposed upon the heirs of the son of 
Valerian the reconstruction of the frontier, and the 
restoration of unity. The upright princes who succeeded 
one another during the following sixteen years, Claudius 
II., Aurelian, Tacitus, Probus, and Carus, laboured at this 
task conscientiously and not without success. Aurelian 
recovered Gaul from the native princes whom it had 
chosen, and deprived the Queen of Palmyra of the govern 
ment of the eastern provinces. As to the frontier, its re- 
establishment was without doubt achieved, but only by 
drawing it farther back. The Empire was lopped of 
II A 



2 THE GREAT PERSECUTION [en. i. 

everything beyond the Rhine and the Danube : it lost, in 
Upper Germany, the Agri Dcciunates (Swabia and the 
Black Forest), and in the region of the Carpathians the 
entire province of Dacia, with the parts of the two Moesias 
which lay beyond the Danube. And even after these 
readjustments had been made, a feeling of perfect security 
did not exist in the interior of the Empire. The towns 
surrounded themselves with walls raised in haste ; and it 
was necessary to fortify Rome itself. The enclosure 
which protected it during the whole of the middle ages 
preserves the name of Aurelian. 1 

In the East, war with the Persians was almost in 
cessant. The Emperor Carus perished in it in 284, 
leaving two sons, one of whom, Carinus, entrusted with 
the government of the West, had remained in Italy. The 
other, Numerian, had followed his father beyond the 
Euphrates. He was bringing home the army, when, in the 
neighbourhood of Byzantium, he was found dead in his 
tent. The generals, without troubling themselves about 
Carinus, elected one of their own number in the place of 
Numerian, and it was in this way that Diocletian, com 
mander of the imperial guard (comes domesticorum^ 
was raised to the throne (September 17, 284). Csrinus 
marched against the usurper, came up with him in Mcesia, 
and inflicted a few defeats upon him ; but in the end 
he was abandoned by his troops, who passed over to 
Diocletian. 

Diocletian had long dreamed of the sovereign power. 
Trained in the school of Aurelian and his officers, he was a 
rea soldier and, better still, a clever organizer. When he 
had the Empire in his hands, it was not of enjoying it that 
he thought, but rather of restoring it. Before all things, 
stability was necessary. Diocletian deemed that the 
revolutions and rivalries for power were caused by the 
impossibility of a single man governing a territory of such 
vast extent, and above all directing the operations of 
armies, separated by such great distances from one an- 

1 Homo, Es\ ii sur le rtgne de fempereur Aurelien, p. 214 et seq. 



p. 3] THE TETRARCHY 3 

other. In order to avoid rivals, he gave himself colleagues. 
In the year 285, one of his companions-in-arms, Maximian, 
was adopted by him, invested with the title of Caesar, and 
sent to Gaul to repress the insurrection of the Bagaudae. 
In the following year, he made him Augustus and entrusted 
to him the government of the West. In 293 the system 
was perfected : each of the two Augusti was provided with 
an auxiliary emperor, who had the title of Caesar and a 
definite jurisdiction : Constantius the Pale (Chlorus) in 
this way governed Gaul and Britain, with Maximian ; 
while Galerius relieved Diocletian of the care of watching 
over the Danube frontier. 

All these princes were natives of Illyricum, and of low 
origin. Maximian and Galerius remained under the 
imperial purple the men they had always been, coarse 
soldiers, cruel on occasion, without education and without 
morals; Constantius seems to have been more civilized. 
Diocletian was not anxious that his colleagues should have 
too many recommendations. He had given to Maximian 
the title of Herculius, and assumed for himself that of 
Jovius, thus indicating plainly his own part in the imperial 
Olympus, and the kind of service he expected from his 
assistants. It is assuredly to him that we must refer the 
whole policy of the Dyarchy and the Tetrarchy, especially 
the whole of the reforming legislation, by which he 
endeavoured to restore order in the finances, in the army, 
and in the general management of public affairs. 

The leading idea of his system was an absolute central 
ization, the suppression of all local political life, of every 
vestige of ancient liberties : in one word, Autocracy. Dio 
cletian is the founder of the Byzantine regime. It was 
indeed no very considerable change. The reformer did 
but consecrate by appropriate institutions the tendencies 
of the situation and usages which were already established. 
Such a system had the same results that it always has: 
the centralizing organ was developed at the expense of the 
body which it was supposed to direct ; the fiscal system at 
the expense of general prosperity; and management at 
the expense of energy. The Empire was soon a prey to 



4 THE GREAT PERSECUTION [CH. i. 

the malady of its government ; the time was to come when 
it died of it. 

The supreme head of this immense hierarchy of 
functionaries, all ornamented with the most high-sounding 
titles, was necessarily obliged to rise entirely above the 
ordinary conditions of humanity. The person of the 
Emperor was sacred, divine, eternal ; his house was also 
divine (domns divina). Therein reigned a pomp worthy 
of Susa and of Babylon ; the Jovius of Nicomedia was 
scarcely more accessible than his celestial patron. Things 
had travelled far from the simple life and familiar manners 
which Augustus had maintained in his house on the 
Palatine. 

And it was not in Rome itself that this Asiatic pomp 
was displayed. The ancient mistress of the world was 
nothing now. Her senate, deprived of political power and 
closed, since the time of Gallienus, to veteran warriors, 
was now only a great town council. For the crowd which 
still thronged in the enclosure of Aurelian, games continued 
to be given and baths to be opened ; but they no longer 
saw their emperor. Diocletian reigned at Nicomedia ; his 
lieutenants had their official residences at Milan, at Treves, 
at Sirmium. No doubt it was well that the emperors 
should not be too far away from the frontiers ; but there 
were other reasons. These soldiers of fortune, born in the 
least cultured provinces, and brought up in the camps 
on the Danube, cared nothing at all for Rome. Her 
traditions were tiresome, her populace always ready for 
seditious movements ; her senate might remember that it 
had once been supreme, and might still wish to be of some 
consequence. On the death of Aurelian, it had come to 
life for a brief moment, and had tried to take part in 
public affairs. It was far better to keep at a distance from 
this uncomfortable city of Rome, and, since the Empire 
had become an Oriental monarchy, to instal its capital in 
the Orient. Diocletian well understood this, and so did 
Constantine after him. 

Amongst the reforms introduced at this time, it is 
fitting to mention here the new distribution of the 



p. 5] ORGANIZATION OF THE PROVINCES 5 

provinces. Diocletian increased their number. Before his 
time, there were already sixty of them : he left ninety-six. 
It is true that this partition was compensated for by the 
creation of dioceses, more comprehensive divisions, in each of 
which several provinces were included. Each diocese was 
governed by a vicarius that is to say, by a representative 
of the prefect of the imperial praetorium. This organiza 
tion was in many places appropriated for the ecclesiastical 
use. In the East, from the time of the Council of Nicaea, 
the groupings of bishops corresponded almost every 
where with the new provincial divisions : the bishop of the 
city in which the governor resided, of the metropolis, as it 
was called, was the head of the episcopate of the province. 
It was he who presided over the elections, when a see 
became vacant, who convened his colleagues in council and 
presided over their meetings. This system was adopted 
later on in a great part of the West. These imperial 
dioceses also served, in a certain measure, to settle the 
boundaries of the ecclesiastical jurisdictions. It was in 
this way that Diocletian appears as of some importance in 
the organization of the Church. But he has claims of a 
very different character to figure in its history. 

2. The Edicts of Persecution. 

During the long peace which followed the persecu 
tion of Valerian, the Christian propaganda had made 
enormous progress. Not to speak of Edessa and the 
kingdom of Armenia, where Christianity was already 
the dominant religion, there were regions in the 
Empire in which it was not far from representing 
the half, or even the majority, of the population. This 
was the case, for instance, 1 in Asia Minor. In northern 
Syria, in Egypt, and in Africa, the Christians were also 
very numerous. At the councils of the time of St Cyprian 
we find as many as ninety bishops mentioned, which 

1 Dr Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbrcitung des Christentums^ 
p. 539 tt seq. (2nd ed., vol. ii., p. 276 ft sey.\ gives more precise 
estimates, including a certain amount of conjecture, but of a very 
probable kind. 



6 THE GREAT PERSECUTION [CH. i. 

presupposes a much greater number of churches at 
that time, and in the forty or fifty years which followed 
many more must have been organized. The sixty 
Italian bishops assembled in 251 by Pope Cornelius 
allow of a similar estimate with regard to the Italian 
peninsula. In the south of Spain and of Gaul, in Greece, 
and in Macedonia, the spread of the Gospel, without 
perhaps having made so much progress, must nevertheless 
have obtained important results. In other countries, such 
as central and southern Syria, the north of Italy, the 
north, centre, and west of Gaul, in the island of Britain, 
in the mountains of the Alps, the Pyrenees, and the 
Hemus, the situation was quite different. The ancient 
cults were still in favour, and groups of Christians were 
only to be found by way of exceptions. 

This is a general account of the state of things, but 
in each country the situation varied according to local 
circumstances. Not far from Edessa, notable for its 
Christianity, Harran adhered obstinately to its old Semitic 
religion, which it preserved until the advent of Islam. 
Certain towns of the Lebanon, such as Heliopolis, or of 
the seaboard of Syria, such as Gaza, contained either 
a very small number of the faithful, or none at all. In 
Phrygia were to be found smail towns, where everyone, 
including the magistrates, professed Christianity. Christian 
duumvirs and curators were not rare ; there were even 
Christian flattens. 1 The bishops were in frequent com 
munication with the governors and the financial officials ; 
they were treated with respect; much favour was shown 
them. And further, they had no longer any difficulty 
in rebuilding the old churches, in laying the foundation 
of new ones, and in holding largely attended meetings 
on festivals. 

And there was something more significant still, from 
the point of view of the progress of Christianity and the 
liberty of action which it enjoyed, in the fact that not 
only municipal functions, but even the government of 

1 See vol. i., p. 378. 



p. 8] DIOCLETIAN AND RELIGION 7 

provinces was often entrusted to Christians. The palace 
itself, the divine dwelling of the imperial Jupiter, was 
full of Christians ; they occupied there the superior 
positions of the central administration. Several of 
them Peter, Dorotheus, and Gorgonius figure in the 
number of the persons most highly placed in the favour 
of the emperor. The government offices, and the 
employments attached to the personal service of the 
sovereign, were, to a large extent, occupied by Christians. 
The Empress Prisca herself and her daughter Valeria 
seem to have had very close relations with Christianity. 

But it was not so with Diocletian himself. Whatever 
may have been his toleration for the opinions of his 
subjects, his officials, and his family, he, for his part, 
preserved his attachment to the old customs of the 
Roman worship. He frequented the temples and 
sacrificed to the gods, without any mystic ideas, without 
ostentation, but with a deep devotion, deeming, no doubt, 
that he was thus fulfilling his duty as a man and, above 
all, as a sovereign. Such a state of mind could not make 
him really favourable to rival religions. "The immortal 
gods," he says in his rescript against the Manicheans 
" have condescended, in their providence, to entrust to 
the enlightenment of wise and good men the responsi 
bility of deciding as to that which is good and true. 
No one is allowed to resist their authority : the old 
religion must not be criticized by a new one. It is a 
great crime to go back on anything which, having 
been established by our forefathers, is now in possession 
and in use." 

It was comparatively easy to apply these principles 
to Manicheism, which had been quite recently imported 
from abroad. But with regard to the Christian beliefs 
the same might already be said as of the old Roman 
cults: statum et cursum tenent ac possident. Besides, they 
were already too extensively propagated to allow any 
reasonable hope of extirpating them. Decius and 
Valerian had tried to do so ; and it was known how 
unsuccessful their efforts had proved. Since then the 



8 THE GREAT PERSECUTION [CH. i. 

position of Christians had grown and had been reinforced : 
a new attack upon them could only meet with still 
greater obstacles. 

For a long time the good sense of the emperor led 
him to avoid any kind of persecution. At length, how 
ever, his ideas underwent a change. It is possible that, 
like so many other reformers, he was led astray by the 
chimera of religious unity, a baleful and lusty chimera, 
which still claims its victims. However, the details 
which have remained to us with regard to his attitude 
dj not indicate any such point of view. Diocletian seems 
10 have discovered, from a certain definite point of time, 
that there were too many Christians in his palace and 
in his army. To remedy this inconvenience, there was 
really no necessity to declare a war of extermination 
on Christianity. A few personal measures, a few dis 
missals, would have settled everything. Even among the 
Christians themselves such a course would have found 
supporters. There were not wanting among the faithful 
those who disapproved of military service, 1 and who did 
not look at all favourably upon those of their brethren 
who were engaged in public offices. The matter might 
well have ended here. But Diocletian was old : his power 
of resistance to external influence was enfeebled, and he 
was surrounded by a powerful party which clamoured 
for radical measures. Its head, the ferocious Caesar of 
Illyricum, found means of bending the aged Augustus 
to his ends, and of making him commit the enormity 
to which his name remains attached. 

1 It is to holders of this view that there belong several African 
martyrs of this time, in regard to whom we possess authentic docu 
ments. 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. " 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). 



p. 10] THE BEGINNING OF PERSECUTION 9 

Lactantius l gives as the origin of the persecution an 
event which is said to have happened in the eastern 
provinces. Diocletian was about to sacrifice, and to 
consult the entrails of the .victims, when some Christians 
among his attendants made the sign of the Cross. The 
haruspex, whose operations that day had led to no result, 
observed the gesture, and informed the emperor of it, 
complaining of the profane persons who thus disturbed 
his ceremonies. Diocletian was furious, and at once com 
manded that not only the actual offenders, but all the 
officers of his palace should be compelled to sacrifice, 
and that, in case of refusal, they should be beaten with 
rods. Letters were immediately despatched to the 
various military commanders, to the effect that all 
soldiers were to sacrifice, under pain of being excluded 
from the army. 

Whatever influence the fact just related may have had 
upon the emperor s decision, it is certain that measures 
were taken to eliminate from the army the Christian 
element which it contained. 2 A magister militum, named 
Veturius, was specially appointed to carry out this order 
A very large number of Christians were thus forced to 
renounce the profession of arms and accepted the 
situation. There was no other penalty attached ; only in 
one or two cases, Eusebius tells us, was death inflicted as a 
punishment, no doubt on account of special circumstances. 
This was in the year 302. 

On his return from the East, Diocletian passed the 
whole winter at Nicomedia. Galerius rejoined him there, 
and devoted himself with all his energies to inducing the 
emperor to sanction more severe measures. It is said 
that he was incited to this by his mother, an aged and 
very devout Pagan with an implacable hatred of 
Christians. 8 Diocletian resisted. " What is the use," he 

1 De mortibus perseculorum, 10. 

2 Ibid., 10 ; Eusebius, H. E. viii. i, 4 ; Chronicon, ad ann. 2317. 

3 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 



10 THE GREAT PERSECUTION [en. i. 

said, " of causing trouble everywhere, and shedding 
torrents of blood? The Christians have no fear of 
death. It is quite sufficient to prevent the soldiers and 
the people about the palace from following their religion." 
Galerius persevered, and returned incessantly to the 
subject. At last the emperor made up his mind to 
summon a council of friends, military officers and civil 
functionaries. Opinions were divided. As usual, those 
who were urgent in the matter behind whom might be 
detected the influence of Galerius, the Caesar of to-day, 
the Augustus of to-morrow drew over those who 
hesitated to their side. Yet the wise old emperor still 
refused to yield. It was at last agreed to consult the 
oracle at Miletus, the Didymean Apollo. The priestess, 1 
as can easily be imagined, did not fail to unite her 
inspiration to the wishes of Galerius and his party. And 
the conflict was decided upon. 

If Galerius could have had his own way entirely, 
extreme measures would have been taken at the outset, 
and the stakes would have been lighted everywhere 
But Diocletian did not wish for bloodshed ; and, for the 
moment, his will prevailed. An edict was prepared in 
accordance with his views. On the day before its 
proclamation (February 23, 303), police officers proceeded 
at daybreak to the church of Nicomedia, a large edifice 
in full view of the imperial palace. The sacred books 
were seized and thrown into the fire, the furniture was 
given up to pillage, and the church itself demolished from 
top to bottom. 2 

On the next day (February 24) the edict was 
published. It commanded that throughout the whole 
Empire the churches should be demolished, and the 
sacred books destroyed by fire. All Christians in 

enough to make the ladies of the rival imperial establishment wish 
for the condemnation of Christians to death. 

1 It is, I think, to this consultation that the recollections of 
Conslantine refer, as we have them in Eusebius, Vita Constantini % ii. 
50, 51. 

2 Lactantius, De mort. pers.^ 13 ; Eusebius, //. E. viii. 2 ; Martyr. 
Pa/., preface. 



p. 13] DIOCLETIAN S FIRST EDICT 11 

possession of public offices, dignities, or privileges, were 
deprived of them ; they lost also the right of appearing 
in a court of justice to accuse anyone of injuries, or adultery, 
or theft. Christian slaves might no longer be set free. 1 

No sooner was the edict posted up than it was torn 
in pieces by a Christian of Nicomedia, whose name has 
not been preserved, but who paid for his daring by dying 
at the stake. A few days afterwards a fire broke out 
in the palace. Galerius at once accused the Christians of 
having kindled it ; they repudiated the accusation, saying 
that he wished in this way to excite Diocletian s anger 
against them. While the emperor was making enquiries 
to obtain light on the affair, a second fire broke out. 
Galerius, although it was winter-time, made haste to leave 
Nicomedia, declaring that he did not wish to stay there 
to be burnt alive. 

Convinced at last, Diocletian determined to re 
commence the horrors of Nero s reign. The whole of 
the palace suffered in consequence. His wife and 
daughter were forced to sacrifice ; Adauctus, the head of 
the fiscal administration ; the eunuchs most in favour, 
Peter, Dorotheus, and Gorgonius ; the Bishop of Nicomedia, 
Anthimus ; priests, deacons, Christians of every age, even 
women, were burnt or drowned wholesale. Thus was 
expiated the crime, clearly a faked one, of having set fire 
to the sacred palace and attempted to destroy two 
emperors at once. 

But measures did not stop with this local repression. 
Seditious movements having occurred in the direction 
of Melitene and in Syria, they were declared to be the 
work of Christians. Other general edicts followed the 
first 2 : they began by commanding the arrest of all the 
heads of the Churches, bishops, priests, and other clerics ; 
and then that they should be compelled to sacrifice by 
every means available. 

1 This first edict reached Palestine towards the end of March, just 
when the Feast of Easter was being celebrated (Eusebius, H. E. 
viii. 2). 

2 Eusebius, Martyr. Pa/., preface. 



12 THE GREAT PERSECUTION [CH. L 

On September 17, 303, began the twentieth year of 
the reign of Diocletian. On this occasion an amnesty 
was granted to condemned criminals 1 ; but we have 
no reason to think that it included the imprisoned 
confessors, who, in the eyes of the law, were neither 
prisoners awaiting trial nor condemned criminals, but 
rebels. The aged emperor resolved to celebrate at 
Rome the feast of his vicennalia. It took place on 
November 20. The construction of his celebrated baths 
was not sufficiently advanced for the ceremony of their 
^dedication to be possible ; it was therefore postponed. 
Besides, Diocletian was never happy on the banks of 
the Tiber. His Oriental magnificence, his austere and 
melancholy manners, made no impression on the turbulent 
Roman populace : they wearied him so much with their 
familiarities and pleasantries, that he did not even stay 
in Rome till January I, the day on which he was to 
inaugurate his ninth consulate, but set out, in the depth 
of winter, for Ravenna. In the course of this unseasonable 
journey, he contracted an illness which lasted a long time, 
and became more severe on his return to Nicomedia. In 
this condition of affairs, he himself, the East, and in some 
ways the whole Empire, were in the hands of Galerius. 
The war against Christians was waged with still more fury. 
A fourth edict appeared. This time, there was no longer 
any question of special classes of persons : all Christians, 
without distinction, were commanded to sacrifice. After 
following Nero, a return had been made to the policy of 
Valerian ; now it was the work of Decius that was 
resumed. 

3. The Dislocation of the Tetrarchy. 

It was a terrible year, not only for the Christians, but 
also for the emperor. His health went from bad to worse. 
In the middle of December, it was reported that he was 
dead ; he was not dead, but when he showed himself again 
in public, on March I, 305, he could scarcely be recognized. 
Weakened in body and spirit, he allowed himself to be 

1 Eusebius, Martyr. Pal. 2. 



p. 15] GALERIUS AS EMPEROR 13 

persuaded by Galerius, that the time had come for him 
to resign. Galerius had suggested the same idea to 
Maximian Herculius, at the same time threatening him 
with civil war. This double abdication entailed the 
elevation of Constantius and Galerius to the position of 
Augusti. Galerius appointed the two new Caesars 
Severus, a drunken soldier, and Daia, a rough-hewn 
barbarian, who was called Maximinus to disguise him as 
a Roman. With two such colleagues as these, the new 
Augustus of the East hoped to be almost the sole head of 
the Empire; for Constantius, far away and pacific in 
character, and besides of enfeebled health, would be no 
obstacle. Maximin Daia was set over the diocese of the 
Orient that is to say, over Syria and Egypt. Galerius 
united to his own Illyricum the dioceses of Thrace, Asia, 
and Pontus ; Spain was added to the jurisdiction of 
Constantius ; Italy and Africa fell to the lot of Severus. 

This satisfactory arrangement was disturbed by the 
revolt of the natural heirs. If Diocletian and Galerius had 
no male children, it was not so with Constantius and 
Maximian, and their natural heirs did not at all relish 
the new system of succession. Constantine, the son of 
Constantius, was at Nicomedia when the change was made ; 
he was a hostage given by Constantius. 1 The latter, now 
become Augustus, demanded the return of his son, and 
Galerius was obliged to let him go, though he did it with 
much reluctance. What he feared, actually happened. 
The Emperor Constantius died soon after at York ; in 
his last moments, he commended his son to the soldiers 
as his successor, and these, as soon as he had breathed his 
last, acclaimed the young prince as emperor (July 25, 
306). It was a serious annoyance to Galerius ; but as 
York was a long way from Nicomedia, and as Con 
stantine was not without adherents, he was obliged to re 
cognize him. At the same time, the title of Augustus was 
not conceded ; Galerius proclaimed Severus as Augustus 
in the place of Constantius Chlorus, and Constantine as 

* Eusebius ( V. C. i. 19) had seen him journeying through Palestine 
in the train of the Emperor Diocletian. 



14 THE GREAT PERSECUTION [CH i. 

Caesar in the place of Severus. The Tetrarchy was re 
constituted with the two Augusti, Galerius and Severus, 
and the two Caesars, Maximin and Constantine. 

At the same time as Constantine succeeded his father, 
Maxentius, the son of Maximian, profiting by the state of 
abandonment in which the emperors had left Old Rome, 
seized upon the government there, without troubling 
himself at all about the Tetrarchy. Notwithstanding his 
dissolute morals, which recalled the days of Commodus, 
this young man knew how to please the Romans. As a 
protest against the new capitals, he reinstated the old 
forms of worship and the ancient legends in their former 
position of honour ; he restored the Forum and the Sacred 
Way, and near the latter he raised a magnificent basilica. 
Severus tried in vain to dispute the position with him ; 
his soldiers deserted him. They were soldiers of the old 
Maximian, and rallied all the more readily round his son 
because Maximian himself, issuing from his retreat, had 
just reassumed the purple, with the title of 4 Augustus for 
the second time" (bis Augustus}. This reappearance of 
Maximian put the last touch to the disorder. Severus 
had been driven to suicide ; Galerius hastened to 
avenge him ; but, as he drew near to Rome, the attitude 
of his soldiers decided him to return home. Maxentius, 
now feeling his hands free, proclaimed himself Augustus 
(October 27, 307). However, the old Maximian, having 
now quarrelled with his son, betook himself to Gaul and 
joined Constantine. There he tried, by making use of 
his support, still to play a part ; then abandoned his 
protector, returned to him again, betrayed him, and finally 
was either put to death, or forced to be his own 
executioner by the advice of his host (310). 

Galerius, in search of a second Augustus, had thought 
(November u, 308) of giving this title to Licinius, one 
of his old companions-in-arms. Maximin at once pro 
tested : from his distant diocese, he saw with jealousy 
this newcomer attaining supreme honours at one stroke. 
Constantine might well have raised the same objections. 
Galerius, to pacify them, gave them both the new title of 



p. 18] CONSTANTINE AND HIS AMBITION 15 

" son of the Augusti " ; some months later, he went the 
whole way and made them full August!. There were 
thus four emperors of the first rank. 

When Galerius died, in May 311, Licinius and 
Maximin hastened to claim his inheritance ; however, an 
arrangement was concluded, by virtue of which the 
Bosphorus became their common boundary. In this 
way the empire of Maximin comprehended Asia Minor, 
with Syria and Egypt ; that of Licinius stretched from 
the Bosphorus to the Alps : theoretically, it extended also 
to Italy and Africa ; but, as a matter of fact, these countries 
obeyed Maxentius, an illegitimate emperor from the point 
of view of the law of the Tetrarchy, but in reality firmly 
established in his power. 

Constantine, meanwhile, kept his position in Gaul, 
manoeuvring skilfully in the midst of ail these conflicts, 
and no doubt meditating the design which he soon 
accomplished that of annihilating all his rivals, by 
making use of some in order to rid himself of the others. 

It was with Maxentius that the process of simplification 
began. After making sure of the moral support of 
Licinius, to whom Maximin was causing some useful 
feelings of alarm, Constantine invaded Italy, inflicted 
several defeats upon the partisans of the " tyrant," and 
finally met him in the ever-famous battle near the Milvian 
Bridge (October 28, 312). Maxentius perished in the 
waters of the Tiber ; Constantine entered Rome, and was 
at once recognized throughout the whole of Italy and in 
Africa. The following year, the hands of Licinius were 
free to attack Maximin. The infamous Daia, defeated in 
Thrace on April 30, recrossed the Bosphorus, and then 
the Taurus, and finally poisoned himself at Tarsus. 

There remained now only two emperors, Constantine 
and Licinius, the one at Rome, the other at Nicomedia. 



4. The Persecution down to the Edict of Galerius. 

We must now return to the enactments of persecution. 
The first edict, besides the degradations and disqualifica- 



16 THE GKK AT PERSECUTION [CH. I. 

tions which it pronounced against certain classes of 
Christians, commanded the demolition of the churches 
and the burning of the sacred books. Such are, at any 
rate, the proceedings which are known to us directly ; but 
we know also that the real property of the Christian 
communities was confiscated, and that, ere the religious 
edifices were destroyed, the furniture of them was seized. 
These operations were carried out according to regular 
forms ; in certain places, authentic inventories were made ; 
some of these were preserved for a very considerable 
period. It was thus that the Donatists were able, in 41 1, 
to produce the formal records of the seizure of the churches 
of Rome. 1 These have been lost since then ; but we are 
still able to read those which were drawn up at Cirta in 
Numidia. More summary accounts remain to us with 
regard to the application of the edict in other localities, 
in Africa and elsewhere. It would have been very difficult 
to resist the seizure of the Church properties. But at 
least the clergy did everything in their power to save the 
furniture, and especially to save the Holy Scriptures. 
Some women of Thessalonica fled to the mountains with 
a quantity of books and papers. 2 The Bishop of Carthage, 
Mensurius, had succeeded in concealing the sacred books ; 
in their place, he left in one of his churches a collection of 
heretical books, which were seized and destroyed by the 
unheeding police. The officials, indeed, were not always 
very observant. Some decurions of Carthage, having 
obtained knowledge of Mensurius deception, denounced 
him to the proconsul : the latter took no notice of their 
disclosures. If this was the case in the large towns, we 
can imagine what would happen in the smaller localities. 
There were places where the Christians were in bad repute, 
and where the municipal government was in the hands of 
their adversaries ; but in other places they had to deal 

1 Augustine, Breviculus Collationis cum Donatistis, 34-36. Several 
members of the clergy, among others a deacon Strato, are there 
mentioned as giving up to the magistrates the ecclesiastical furniture ; 
the prefect speaks of them as hortatores vanissimac supers titionis. 

2 The Passion of SS. Agape, Chionia, and Irene (April i) an 
important document. 



p. 21] THE SACRED BOOKS 17 

with magistrates who were Christians themselves, or who, 
at least, were sympathetic. Ways out of the difficulty 
were often found. As in Carthage, other books were 
seized in the church instead of those of the Bible, 1 and if 
the search was extended even to the bishop s house, there 
were still means of evading it. Sometimes, instead of 
entirely destroying the churches, the police contented 
themselves with burning the doors. Moreover, the bishops 
and clergy often showed themselves accommodating, and 
gave up their holy books, thinking, doubtless, that it would 
be easy later on to obtain new copies. But this com 
plaisance was not accepted by general opinion, especially, 
as can readily be understood, when the persecution was 
over, and when one could be unyielding without risk. It 
was then that the heroism of certain bishops was 
remembered, e.g., of Bishop Felix of Thibiuca, who had 
paid with his head for his refusal to give up the Scriptures. 2 
Miracles also, were reported, like that which occurred at 
Abitina, where, as the sacred books, which had been given 
up by the Bishop Fundanus, were thrown into the fire, a 
terrible storm burst over the flames and inundated the 
whole country. 

In those provinces which were governed by the Cresar 
Constantius, the destruction did not extend beyond the 
edifices themselves. The churches were seized and 
destroyed ; but the same treatment was not enforced in 
regard to the Scriptures. 

If destruction thus befell the churches in which the 
Christians assembled under the eye of the authorities 
there was, of course, far more reason for forbidding 
clandestine meetings. This was a necessary consequence 
of the first edict, and we are justified in believing that such 

1 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 Catama, some books on medicine ; 
at Aquae Tibilitanae^ papers of some sort 

2 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, 

11 



18 THE GREAT PERSECUTION [CH. I. 

a prohibition was expressly formulated in it. This follows 
also from an African document, in which figure some fifty 
Christians of the little town of Abitina, who are accused of 
having met for service (" collect ") under the presidency 
of a priest called Saturninus. The second edict, which 
ordered the imprisonment of the clergy, was aimed 
indirectly at the meetings for worship ; for how could 
they be held without religious leaders? 

Up to this time, for those who obeyed the edicts, who 
accepted their legal disqualifications, who allowed their 
Scriptures to be burnt and their churches to be seized, 
who abstained from taking part in the assemblies for 
worship henceforth forbidden, there was still some measure 
of safety. In Nicomedia, it is true, recourse was had at 
once to the most extreme measures; but that was on 
account of special circumstances. The more sanguinary 
foim of persecution had not yet attacked the simple 
profession of Christianity. It was different when the 
government renewed, for the clergy first and then for all 
the faithful, the obligation of taking part in the ceremonies 
of the official form of worship ; when they no longer 
confined themselves to proscribing, but endeavoured to 
convert. 

At this stage the same state of things was repeated as 
had been already experienced in previous persecutions. 
Excited enthusiasts rushed to martyrdom, denounced them 
selves, made an uproar before the tribunals, and insulted 
the police. Wise and strong characters waited quietly 
until they were arrested, and then met the commands of 
authority with a calm and persevering resistance, which, 
in many cases, triumphed over imprisonment and torture, 
and was maintained unto death. There were also many 
apostates, most of them in a great hurry to do whatever 
they were told to do, in order to escape from danger; 
others resisting at first, and then weakening, overcome by 
the horror of the dungeons and the anguish of the 
torture. 

Many fled, or hid themselves, at the sacrifice of all 
their possessions. There was a great difference between 



p. 23] ATTITUDE OF THE AUTHORITIES 19 

various kinds of Christians. We can study them in the 
penitential letter of Bishop Peter of Alexandria, written 
in 306, in the canons of the Council of Ancyra (314), 
in the accounts given by Eusebius, and in certain 
fragments of hagiography. Many deceived the police, 
sent their slaves or their pagan friends to sacrifice in 
their stead, and thus obtained their certificate of sacrifice. 
Others followed a simpler method still, and bought 
this certificate, if they could find anyone disposed to 
sell it to them. Among the stout hearted there were 
some who could not get their confession of faith accepted. 
Some of the magistrates cared far less for executions 
than for apostasies. There were even some who, when 
the term of their office had expired, boasted of not having 
put a single Christian to death. 1 In the matter of the 
pagan actions required, the authorities were very easily 
satisfied ; sometimes they registered people against their 
will as having complied with the law. Sometimes it 
happened that inconsiderate friends, Christians or pagans, 
absolutely determined to save from death a believer whom 
they knew to be resolute, dragged him to the altars, 
with his hands and feet bound, gagged him to stop him 
from crying out, and forced him, even at the cost of 
burning his hands if necessary, to throw a few grains 
of incense upon the sacred fire. 

Lactantius complains, 2 and with reason, of other 
judges, more to be feared on account of their pretended 
clemency, who did not wish to kill their victims, but 
invented tortures so exquisite that they often overcame 
the most intrepid resistance. He prefers those judges 
who were openly cruel, either from natural ferocity, or 
that they might stand well with the superior authorities. 
There were some of them who did not hesitate to go 
beyond their instructions, like the judge in a little town 
of Phrygia, the inhabitants of which were all Christians, 
who set fire to the church in which the whole population 
was assembled, and burnt it to the ground with those in 

1 Lactantius, Institutiones, v. II. 2 Loc. cit. 



20 THE GREAT PERSECUTION [CH. i. 

it, including the town council and the magistrates of the 
place. 1 

The change of emperors, brought about by the abdica 
tion of Diocletian and Maximian,had the effect of extend 
ing, in the West, the field of action of Constantius Chlorus. 
Spain, annexed to his immediate jurisdiction, shared from 
that time in the relative peace which Christians had 
hitherto enjoyed in Gaul and in Britain. His lieutenant 
Severus does not seem to have been distinguished in 
Italy and Africa by a special zeal for the edicts of persecu 
tion. After the death of Constantius, Constantine showed 
himself even more favourable to the Christians than his 
father had been 2 ; Maxentius also was tolerant. We may 
say, then, that rigorous persecution lasted scarcely more 
than two years (303-305) in the western provinces. It 
was quite otherwise in Illyricum, in Thrace, 3 Asia-Minor, 
and the Orient, where nothing was opposed to the will 
of Galerius and of Maximin, his creature. In these men 
natural ferocity was at the service of a kind of religious 
conviction : Galerius was devout, Maximin a fanatic, 
The latter combined an unbridled, brutal, and despotic 
licentiousness with an extraordinary zeal for the worship 
of the gods. At the beginning of his reign, as the 
persecution seemed to him to have somewhat abated. 

1 Lactantius, he. cit.; cf. Eusebius, H. E. viii. u. Eusebius says 
that the town itself (*-oX/x"7 ) was burnt, with the curator, the 
duumvir, 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. 

2 Suscepto imperio Constantinus aug. nihil egit prius quant 
christidnos cultui ac Deo suo redderet. Lactantius, De mort. 
per sec. 24. 

3 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 them 
selves. 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 



p. 26] MITIGATION OF PENALTIES 21 

he took care to revive it at once, and imposed afresh 
the obligation to sacrifice. 1 

The police, armed with lists of names, went from 
street to street calling upon the inhabitants to appear, 
and forcing everyone, even women and children, to repair 
to the temple, and there perform the prescribed ceremonies. 
However, after the lapse of a certain time, dating from 
the year 307, a more lenient state of things was introduced. 
The penalty of death, in ordinary cases, was replaced by 
that of hard labour in the mines, with this aggravation, 
that the confessors were previously deprived of the sight 
of the right eye, and maimed in the left leg by cauterizing 
the tendon. A little later, in 308, after a short respite, 
the provincial and municipal authorities were again set 
to work. The Caesar ordered the old temples to be 
rebuilt everywhere, and everyone, even the little 
children, was obliged to take part .n the sacrifices; the 
wine of the libations was to be poured over the victuals 
in the market ; and at the doors of the public baths 
altars were erected upon which all those who entered 
were compelled to throw incense. There were still many 
evil days to come and go. 

Irene (April i) ; to the martyrs of Dorostorum, Pasicrates, 
Valention (May 25), Marcian, Nicander (June 17), Julius (May 27), 
Hesychius (June 15); to the priest Montanus of Singidunum 
(March 26) ; to the Bishop of Sirmium, Irenasus (April 6) ; to 
the hermit Syneros, belonging to the same town (February 22) ; 
to Pollio, chief of the lectors of Cibales (April 28) ; to the 
Bishop of Siscia, Quirinus (June 5 ; cf. Jerome, Chronicon, a. Abr. 
2324) ; to the Bishop of Poetovio, Victorinus (November 2 ; cf. 
Jerome, De viris illustribus, 74) ; to St Florian, of Lauriacum 
in Noricum (May 4), etc. This enumeration must not be taken 
as exhaustive ; I have only selected some names among those of the 
martyrs of these countries which can be safely referred to the 
persecution of Diocletian rather than to any other. The Hieronymian 
Martyrology contains many other names under the heading of 
the Danubian provinces, especially of the Lower Danube, from 
Sirmium onwards ; it is very probable that the greater part of these 
were victims of the last persecution rather than of the preceding 
ones. 

1 Eusebius, Martyr. Pal. iv. 8. If we were to believe Maximin 
himself (Eusebius, H. E. ix. 9, 13), he was never a persecutor. 



22 THE GREAT PERSECUTION [CH. I. 

However, the first author of the persecution was 
already struggling with the terrible malady which was 
to overcome his ferocity. It began almost with the open 
ing of the year 310; and for some eighteen months the 
wretched Galerius fought against it, wearying his 
physicians with his complaints, and the gods with his 
fruitless supplications. At last there came to him an idea 
surely of all the strangest of interesting in his health 
the Christians, whom for years he had hunted down, and 
the God whose worship he had sworn to exterminate. 
From Sardica, no doubt, where he then was with 
Licinius, a proclamation was sent through all the 
provinces in the name of the four sovereigns. 1 It 
declared that the emperors, with the general intention 
of reform, had wished to bring back the Christians to 
the religious institutions of their ancestors, 2 but that 
they had not been able to succeed, the Christians having 
persisted, in spite of the severities of which they had 
been the victims, in obeying the laws which they had 
made for themselves. Under these conditions, as they 
would not honour the gods of the empire, and since 
they could not practise their own form of religion, it 
was necessary to make provision by indulgence for their 
situation. In consequence, they were allowed to exist 
once more, and to reconstitute their assemblies, on 
condition, however, that they did nothing contrary to 
discipline. 8 The magistrates were informed that another 
imperial letter would explain to them what they were 
to do. " In return for our indulgence," the edict con- 

1 Lactantius (De mart, persec. 34) has preserved the original text, 
but without the title ; this is only known to us through the version 
of Eusebius (ff. 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. 

3 These recitals have a singular resemblance to those of the edict 
with regard to the Manicheans. 

3 Ut dtnuo sint christiani et conventicula sua componant^ ita ut 
ne quid contra disciplinam agant. We must observe that the term 
convcnticulum signifies, like the word ccclcsia, both the assembly 
itself and the place where it is held. 



*. 27-8] RESULTS OF THE EDICT 23 

eluded, " the Christians are to pray to their God for 
our health, for the State, and for themselves, that the 
commonwealth may enjoy perfect prosperity, and that 
they may be enabled to live at home in. security." 

What a change ! The emperor and the empire 
recommended to the prayers of the Christians, and this 
by the very man who was responsible for all the calamities 
which they had endured for eight years ! 

5. The Persecution of Maximin, 

The edict was published at Nicomedia 1 and in all the 
provinces belonging to Galerius, Licinius, and Constantine. 
In the empire of Constantine it was really only an official 
consecration of a liberty already re-established as a matter 
of fact. Maxentius restored to the bishops the places of 
worship which had hitherto remained in the hands of the 
treasury. Maximin showed himself less prompt. He did 
not publish the edict ; but, by his orders, his praetorian 
prefect, Sabinus, communicated it to the governors of the 
provinces, commanding them to let the municipal magis 
trates know that the emperors had given up the idea of 
converting the Christians to the State religion, and that 
they were no longer to be punished for their resistance. 
This was sufficient in the eastern provinces, as in Asia- 
Minor ; the gaols were opened ; the mines yielded up 
their prisoners ; the Christians who had disguised their 
religion, took courage and showed themselves as they 
were. The confessors were welcomed with enthusiasm, 
the penitent apostates were received back to the fold. 
Upon the high roads resounded the joyous canticles of the 
liberated prisoners and the exiles returning to their homes. 
The religious assemblies, after an interval of eight years, 
were held again as of old. The Christians were specially 
attached to those which took place in the cemeteries, over 
the graves of the martyrs. 

But these joys of religious peace were not of long 

1 The publication of the edict at Nicomedia took place on April 
3. 3". 



24 THE GREAT PERSECUTION [CH. L 

duration. No sooner was Galerius dead than Maximin 
transported to Nicomedia the seat of his tyranny and the 
scandal of his debaucheries, and along with them his 
fanatical zeal for the service of the gods. In the preced 
ing years, he had caused all their temples in the Orient to 
be restored ; now he reorganized the priestly colleges. 
Taking a hint from the Christian hierarchy, he established 
in each city a chief priest, and in each province a high 
priest, giving them authority over their colleagues, and 
loading them with honours and dignities. These pagan 
bishops and archbishops 1 were designated, of course, to 
take care that the gods should have no cause to complain 
of the liberty granted to the Christians. Spurious Acts of 
Pilate were fabricated, filled with blasphemies against 
Christ. An official having procured, by infamous means, 
pretended revelations with regard to the morals of 
Christians and the horrors of their assemblies, the greatest 
publicity was given to all these documents; they were 
placarded in all the cities and villages, and were imposed 
as text-books in the elementary schools. 2 

The curator of Antioch, a certain Theotecnus, conceived 
the idea of procuring an oracle against the Christians, by 
means of the god Zeus Philios, whose worship he had 
restored. The god demanded that the impious persons 
should be driven from the city and its surrounding territory. 
This demand, when brought to the knowledge of Maximin, 
pleased him greatly. At Nicomedia a similar request was 
presented to him by the magistrates of the town. The 
people of Tyre were unwilling to be behind-hand ; to the 
petition which they sent him, the emperor replied by a 
letter full of unction and of gratitude. We still possess it, 
for Eusebius procured a copy of it, and inserted it in Greek 
in his History? 

1 This organization had nothing to do with that of the cult of 
Rome and of Augustus. In the latter, the municipal priest of Rome 
and Augustus had no authority over his colleagues of the other cults, 
any more than he was himself under the authority of the provincial 
priest. Here, we are dealing with a general grouping of all the 
priestly colleges : such an attempt had never before been made 

8 Eusebius, H. E. ix. 5. 3 Ibid. ix. 7. 



p. 30-1] PROGRESS OF THE PERSECUTION 25 

The movement spread : the municipal councils and the 
provincial assemblies hastened to follow an example thus 
encouraged in high quarters. The officials, besides, were 
on the spot, to stir up zeal. We still possess, 1 in part at 
least, the text, inscribed on stone, of the petition addressed 
to Maximin by the provincial assembly of Lycia and 
Pamphylia, and also of the emperor s reply. We see in 
the reply, as in the letter to the people of Tyre, that the 
petitioners were regarded with high approval, and that the 
greatest rewards were promised to them. 

Thus strengthened by imperial approbation, the 
municipal magistrates could give themselves up with an 
easy mind to hunting the Christians. Soon troops of 
wretched beings were to be found wandering upon the 
public roads in search of a refuge. Yet still the edict of 
toleration had not been officially recalled. The magistrates 
confined themselves to forbidding meetings in the 
cemeteries, and the rebuilding of churches. 2 The Govern 
ment did not acknowledge that anyone was punished for 
the simple fact of being a Christian. Constantine, more 
over, intervened by means of letters, and set himself to 
restrain the frenzied zeal of his eastern colleague. But ir 
the state of mind in which Maximin was, we can well 
imagine how easily he found pretexts for getting rid of 
the troublesome Christians. It was in this way that the 
Bishop of Emesa, Silvanus, was put to death, being thrown 
to the beasts with two companions ; Peter, Bishop of 
Alexandria, was beheaded, without even the pretence of a 
trial; and several Egyptian bishops were treated in the 
same fashion. Lucian, the celebrated priest of Antioch, 
who had retired to Nicomedia, was arrested there, and, in 

1 Corpus Inscriptionum 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. 

2 Upon this point, the instructions of Maximin to the praetorian 
prefect, Sabinus, went beyond the edict, for the edict allowed the 
Christians componere conventicula sua. 



26 THE GREAT PERSECUTION [CH. I. 

spite of the eloquent speech which he made in his own 
defence, was executed in prison. 

These are examples of the kind of treatment to which 
the Churches of Asia-Minor, of the Orient, and of Egypt 
had to submit, during the two years that the tyranny of 
Maximin lay heavy upon them. To these miseries was 
added also, in Syria at least, the scourge of famine and 
that of contagious disease. Eusebius has left us 1 affecting 
details on this subject. The Christians around him dis 
tinguished themselves at this time by their charity to the 
sick and starving, without any distinction of religion, as 
well as by their assiduous care in burying the dead. They 
thus disarmed the hostility of many of their enemies. 
During this time, Maximin attempted to interfere in the 
religious affairs of the Armenians, who were friends and 
allies of the Empire, 2 and to force them to "sacrifice to 
idols." The Armenians rose in revolt, and war once more 
drenched the eastern frontiers with blood. 

But the days of Maximin were numbered. At the 
beginning of the year 312, he heard that the war between 
Constantine and Maxentius, a war foreseen and expected 
ever since the death of Maximian, 3 had at last broken out ; 
that Constantine was in Italy, marching from one success 
to another ; that he had betrothed his sister to Licinius, 
and concluded an alliance with him. The Nicomedian 
Emperor then understood the danger which threatened 
him. He, the legitimate prince, consecrated by the choice 
of Galerius, and invested with the imperial insignia by 
Diocletian, entered into a secret treaty with the "tyrant," 
against whom had fulminated, for six years, all the 

1 H. E. ix. 8. 

*In these Armenians (Eusebius, //. R. ix. 8) we must recognize, 
I think, the inhabitants of the five satrapies beyond the Tigris, 
annexed to the empire by the treaty of 297 (Mommsen, Ramische 
Geschichte, vol. v. p. 445). They had not been reduced to provinces ; 
they remained under the authority of their national chiefs. These 
were Christians, on account of the change of religion which had for 
some time been in process in the kingdom of Armenia. 

3 Constantine had pronounced against Maximian the damnatio 
memoriae ; on the contrary, Maxentius had declared him divus. 



p. 33] PANIC OF MAXIMIN 27 

thunders of the Tetrarchy. When the news reached him 
of the battle of the Milvian Bridge, he felt that it was he 
himself who was defeated. Constantine had found in 
Rome statues of Maximin placed side by side with those 
of Maxentius, and a more serious matter still he found 
letters which confirmed the alliance and the treason. 
However, he did not at once take up a hostile attitude, but 
he assumed for himself, or allowed the senate to give him, 
the first place in the imperial triumvirate, a place which 
had, until then, been accorded to Maximin. It was an 
evil omen for the latter. He was officially informed of the 
defeat of Maxentius, and at the same time he was invited 
to leave the Christians in peace. He made a pretence of 
compliance. In a new letter, 1 addressed to his praetorian 
prefect, Sabinus, he reminded him that ever since his 
accession to power (305) he had endeavoured to mitigate, 
in the provinces of the Orient subject to his authority, the 
severities enjoined by Diocletian and Maximian against 
the followers of the Christian religion ; that, when he 
became emperor at Nicomedia (in 311), he had, it was true, 
received favourably the requests presented to him against 
the Christians by the inhabitants of that town and of many 
others ; that, nevertheless, he had not intended that anyone 
should be ill-treated on account of his religion, and that it 
was necessary to write to that effect to the officials of the 
provinces. 

This document was lacking in precision. The 
Christians mistrusted it ; they abstained from holding 
assemblies in public, and from rebuilding their churches. 
The new edict did not specify that they were authorized 
to do so. The whole thing did not amount to more than 
a purely formal satisfaction given to Constantine. 2 In 
reality, things remained in the condition in which Maximin 
had maintained them for the past two years. 

1 Eusebius, H. E. ix. 9. 

8 So far as Constantine was concerned, Maximin had not ceased 
to be a regular emperor. On April 15, 313, fifteen days before the 
battle of Adrianople, a letter from the proconsul of Africa to 
Constantine still bears at the head the names of the three emperors 
St Augustine, Ep. 88). 



28 THE GREAT PERSECUTION 7 [CH. I. 

6. The End of the Evil Days. 

This was the position in the spring of 313, when 
Maximin opened his campaign against Licinius. Being 
defeated on April 30, near Adrianople, he recrossed 
the Bosphorus, disguised in borrowed clothes, passed 
through Nicomedia, and did not stop until he reached 
the Taurus. There, in Cilicia, he was again in his 
former empire. But Licinius was following him closely; 
he forced the passes, and at last Maximin, in despair, 
poisoned himself at Tarsus. Me died in frightful 
suffering. Before killing himself, he had thought for a 
moment that resistance was still possible, and, to conciliate 
the Christians whom he had so eagerly persecuted, he 
had an idea of issuing a fresh edict, giving them full and 
complete toleration. 1 But with him cruelty never lost its 
sway. At the same time as he granted liberty to the 
Christians, he ordered the execution of a number of pagan 
priests and diviners, whose oracles had induced him to 
engage in this disastrous war. 

His edict, as regards its practical part, was absolutely 
similar to that which Licinius had hastened to publish at 
Nicomedia, 2 of which the following is the text : 

" Inasmuch as we have long considered that liberty 
of religion could not be refused, and that everyone 
ought to have granted to him, according to his opinions 
and wishes, power to act as he pleases in the practice of 
divine things, we had already given orders that every 
person, including the Christians, 3 may remain faithful 
to his religious principles.* But since different provisions 

1 Eusebius, H. E. ix. 10. 

a The Latin text is in Lactantius, De mart, persec. 48, but without 
the prologue ; a complete translation in Greek is in Eusebius, 
H. E. x. 5. 

3 Greek, \KQ.QTOV /tf/tfXftf/cet/iev, rotj re xpiffTiavoit, rfjt alp^trewj teal TTJJ 
epyfficelas Tr)s ia.\rrC)v r^v iriffnv <t>v\&rrciv. Unless a few words are lost, 
the original Latin ought to run, as nearly as possible, thus : unum- 
quemque iusseramus, non exceptis christianis y sententiae et rcligionis 
propriae fiduciam servare. 

4 The edict of April 311. 



p. 35-6] LIBERTY FOIl THE CHRISTIANS 29 

have been added to the text by which this concession 
was granted to them, 1 it seems speedily to have come to 
pass that some of them have not been able to profit by it. 

" While 2 we were happily together at Milan, namely, I, 
Constantine Augustus, and I, Licinius Augustus, and 
while we were consulting together upon all that relates 
to the public welfare and safety, amongst the things which 
appeared to us useful to the greatest number, we decided 
that the first place must be given to that which concerns 
the worship of the Divinity, by granting to the Christiana 
and to everyone else perfect liberty to follow the religion 
which he prefers, in order that whatsoever Divinity there 
be in the celestial mansions may be favourable and pro 
pitious to us, 3 and to all those placed under our authority. 
Wherefore we have decided, being influenced thereunto 
by wise and just reasons, to refuse liberty to no man, 
whether he be attached to the religious observances of 
the Christians, or to any other religion which he finds 
suitable to him ; in order that the Supreme Divinity, 
whom we serve in all freedom, may grant us, in all things, 
his favour and benevolence. Therefore, be it known to 
Your Devotedness, 4 it has pleased us to remove absolutely 
all the restrictions contained in the letters previously 
addressed to your offices regarding the Christians, as 
odious restrictions, incompatible with our clemency ; and 
to allow every person who wishes to observe the Christian 
religion the pure and simple liberty to do so, without 
being troubled or molested. We have thought fit to 
dignify this expressly to Your Solicitude, that you may 
have full knowledge of our intention to give the Christians 
perfect and entire liberty to practise their religion. 

" In making this concession to them, we wish also, 
and Your Devotedness will understand this, that others 
too should have the same entire liberty with regard to 
their religions and observances, as the peace of our own 
times requires, in order that everyone may have free 

1 The additional and restrictive provisions of Maximin. 

2 Here begins Lactantius text. 3 Placatum ac propitium. 
4 The document is addressed to an official. 



30 THE GREAT PERSECUTION [ca i. 

licence to adore whatever he pleases. We have made this 
rule, in order that no dignity and no religion should be 
diminished. 

" As concerns the Christians, we have decided in 
addition, that the places in which they were accustomed 
to assemble, and regarding which letters addressed to your 
offices have previously given instructions, if some of them 
have been bought by our imperial treasury or by anyone 
else, are to be restored to the Christians gratis and 
without asking any price for them, without seeking any 
pretexts or raising any doubtful questions; and that 
those to whom such places may have been given, must 
also restore them to the Christians, with as little delay as 
possible. These buyers, however, and those who have 
received such places as a gift, may address themselves to 
our benevolence, to obtain some compensation, for which 
our clemency will provide. And since the Christians 
possessed, not only their places of assembly, but others 
also," belonging to their corporate bodies, that is to their 
churches, and. not to private individuals, these properties 
also you will cause all to be restored, on the conditions 
expressed above, without ambiguity or dispute, to these 
same Christians, that is to say to their corporations and 
conventicles, subject to the reservation already announced 
that those who thus restore them, without exacting any 
price for them, may rely upon an indemnity from our 
benevolence. In all this, you are to lend to the said body 
of Christians the most efficient assistance, so that our 
orders may be executed with the briefest possible delay, 
and that thus, through our clemency, provision may be 
made for public tranquillity. Thus, as we have already 
said, the Divine favour, of which we have had experience 
in such grave conjunctures of affairs, will continue to 
sustain our success, for the public weal. 

" In order that the purport of this decision of our 
benevolence may come to the knowledge of all, you shall 
take care to publish this edict by means of placards posted 
up everywhere, and also give notice of it to everyone, that 
no one may be ignorant thereof." 



p. 38] LEGAL RECOGNITION 31 

This edict, in the name of the two emperors, Constantine 
and Licinius, but emanating immediately from Licinius, 
was undoubtedly addressed to the praetorian prefect of 
the Orient, who was charged with the duty of publishing 
it, and communicating it to the governors of provinces 
and other magistrates competent to execute it. It 
represented, first of all, the abolition, by Licinius, of all 
those restrictions by which, for eighteen months, Maximin 
had tried to impede the application of the edict of tolera 
tion ; in the second place, it represented an addition 
decided upon at Milan, between Constantine and Licinius, 
which addition was directed to two points : (i) to religious 
liberty in general, which it declared to be full, entire, and 
absolute for Christians as for others, for others as for 
Christians ; (2) to ecclesiastical properties apart from the 
buildings used for purposes of worship : it prescribed the 
immediate restitution of these, whether they had remained 
in the hands of the imperial treasury or had been disposed 
of, either by sale or gift, to private individuals. 

Following upon the interview at Milan, another edict, 
earlier than this one, must have brought these liberal 
arrangements to the knowledge of the public in the West, 
and in Illyricum : we no longer possess the details of it, 
and it is only by its Eastern adaptations l that we are able 
to judge of it. As a matter of fact, thanks to these 
extensions to the edict of Galerius, the Christians, as 
individuals and as a body, were restored, by a kind of 
restitutio in integrum, to the position in which they found 
themselves before the persecution. But this position they 
had at that time only enjoyed by a tacit toleration : the 
new arrangements gave them a legal title. 

7. The Effects of the Persecution. 

At last, then, religious peace reigned ; it was complete, 
without reservations, and extended to the whole Empire. 

1 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<mi 6 T/j6iroj). 



32 THE GREAT PERSECUTION [CH. i. 

The Christians breathed again ; the Churches were re 
organized in the full light of day ; the sacred edifices were 
rebuilt, and the interrupted meetings were resumed. In 
this re-awakening to life, the memory of the dark days 
was soon obliterated, and then effaced entirely. It would 
almost have been lost to history, if the indefatigable 
Eusebius had not taken care to record some details of it 
at once. And even he did not think it expedient to 
present a general picture of the persecution. Leaving to 
others 1 the task of relating what they had witnessed 
around them, he confined his special enquiries to his own 
province of Palestine, contenting himself, so far as the 
other provinces were concerned, with reporting a few 
names and indicating a few general features of the 
situation. Unfortunately, however, the "others," upon 
whom he had relied, nowhere took up the pen, and it is 
only for Eusebius own province that we possess exact 
information. 

His book, The Martyrs of Palestine, written in the year 
313,^ just when the persecution was drawing to an end, 
enumerates forty-three persons condemned to death and 
executed by order of the governors of Palestine during the 
ten years 303-313. We must remark, first of all, that this 
number does not include the name of a single bishop, 
although there were, at that time, at least some twenty 3 
episcopal sees in the province. The most distinguished of 
these dignitaries, Agapius, Bishop of Caesarea, passed 
through the whole of the crises unscathed Eusebius 4 

1 H. E. viii. 13. 

* There aie two recensions of this book : one, the shorter of the 
two, which in the majority of the manuscripts is attached to Book VIII. 
of the Ecclesiastical History ; the other and longer recension, of which 
the Greek text has only been preserved partially, or in an abridged 
form. There is a Syriac version of it, in a very full form, in a MS. of 
the year 41 1. (W. Cureton, History of the Martyrs in Palestine, 1861). 
Dr Bruno Violet (Die Paldstinischen Martyrer des Eusebius, in the 
TexU u. Unters*<chungen, vol. xiv. 1896) has given a German version 
of it, making use of earlier texts and treatises. It should be completed 
by Anal. Boll., vol. xvi., p. 113. 

8 Eighteen P?Jestinian bishops were present, in 325, at the Council 
of Nicaea. * H. E. vii. 32, 24. 



p. 40-1] THE MARTYRS OF PALESTINE 33 

praises his alms-giving and his talent for administration, 
but that is all. Hermon, Bishop of /Elia, also came safely 
through all. The only Palestinian bishop who made the 
supreme sacrifice at that time was a Marcionite bishop, 
Asclepios, martyred in 309. With regard to priests, we 
hear only of Pamphilus, the learned and celebrated 
disciple of Origen, and a priest of Gaza, called Silvanus. 
Moreover, the last named was only sent to the mines, and, 
if he died there, it was not by sentence of the governor 
of Palestine. Several deacons, exorcists, and readers l 
represent the lower ranks of the clergy rather more 
largely. 

Nevertheless, we must not think that those whose 
names do not appear among the victims, properly so- 
called, remained absolutely untouched. Eusebius, who is 
by no means well disposed to the bishops of his own 
country, relates 2 that, since they had not known how to 
lead the Lord s sheep, they were made leaders of 
camels, or set to look after post-horses. These details 
evidently refer to persons who had survived, and into 
whose history it was better not to enquire. Eusebius 
adds that, as regards the sacred vessels of the churches, 
they were submitted to many outrages on the part of the 
officials of the imperial treasury. 

Another observation which the accounts given by 
Eusebius suggest to us, is that, in many cases, the persons 
executed were executed, not for the simple refusal to 
sacrifice, but for having complicated their refusal by words 
or actions calculated to aggravate it, for instance, by 
having made demonstrations in favour of those condemned, 
or assisting the confessors with too much zeal. Enthusi 
astic believers, as always happens, lost no opportunity of 
distinguishing themselves. Procopius, a reader at Scytho- 
polis, thought it wrong that there should be four emperors, 

1 Romanus, rural deacon of Csesarea, who was martyred at 
Antioch ; Valens, deacon of >lia ; Zacchasus, deacon of Gadara ; 
Romulus, sub-deacon of Diospolis ; Alphaeus, lector of Ca^sarea ; 
Procopius, lector of Scythopolis. 

2 Marfvr. Pal. 12. 

II C 



34 THE GREAT PERSECUTION [CH. i. 

and quoted to the audience a verse from Homer, in 
which monarchy was commended. Others spoke, in this 
connection of Jesus Christ as the only true King. 1 The 
governor, Urbanus, was going one day to the amphitheatre, 
where, it was said, a Christian was to be thrown to the 
beasts ; he met a group of six young men, who presented 
themselves before him with their hands bound, declaring 
that they also were Christians, and ought to be thrown 
into the arena. 2 Eusebius and Pamphilus had received 
into their house a young Lycian, Apphianus by name, a 
prize-winner of the schools of Berytus, and so fervent a 
Christian that he could not endure to live with his parents, 
who were still pagans. Pamphilus used to instruct him in 
the Holy Scriptures ; but, one day, he heard shouting in 
the street. The Christians were being summoned to a 
pagan ceremony. Apphianus could no longer restrain 
himself, made his escape without any warning to his hosts, 
rushed to the temple, where the governor was, sprang upon 
him, seized his hand, and tried to prevent him from offering 
sacrifice to the idols. 3 

Apphianus had a brother, ^desius, a Christian like 
himself and a disciple of Pamphilus, a youth of superior 
culture and an ardent ascetic. He had been several times 
arrested, and was at last condemned to the mines of 
Palestine ; he escaped from them, fled to Alexandria, 
and lost no time in frequenting the audiences of the 
prefect. This official was a certain Hierocles, a great 
devourer of Christians. 4 Appointed to the government 
of Lower Egypt, he there applied his principles with the 
greatest severity. ^Edesius heard him condemn some 
Christian virgins to a treatment which was far worse to 
them than death, and which was, besides, illegal. This 
was quite enough. Protesting against the sentence, he 
sprang upon the tribunal, gave the judge two resounding 
boxes on the ears, threw him on the ground, and trampled 
him under-fooL 5 

1 Martyr. Pal. I. Ibid. 3. s Ibid. 4. 

4 Lactantius, Institutiones. v. 2 ; De mort. persec. 16. 
6 Martyr. Pal. 5. 



p. 43] THE MINES 85 

A virgin of Gaza, threatened with the same shameful 
fate, protested against the tyrant who caused himself to be 
represented by such abominable magistrates. She was 
immediately put to the torture. In indignation a poor 
woman of Caesarea, Valentina by name, caused an uproar 
and overturned the altar. The two women were burnt 
together. 1 Three Christians, Antoninus, Zebinas, and 
Germanus, imitated the exploit of Apphianus, and 
assaulted the governor during a religious ceremony: 
they were beheaded. 2 

From these accounts it may be concluded, I think, 
that the governors of Palestine, though much abused by 
Eusebius, must not be regarded as having displayed any 
special ferocity. They may have made examples, and 
severely chastised several Christians, who were in too 
great a hurry to declare themselves as such, or guilty of 
having infringed some special prohibitions. But we are 
not told of any of those wholesale executions, or of those 
refined and revolting tortures which we find in other 
provinces. 3 

After the year 307, the punishment of death was 
generally replaced by that of condemnation to the mines. 
But, by way of compensation, the punishment was applied 
very largely to considerable bodies of persons : for instance, 
to a whole assembly of Christians, who were surprised by 
the vigilant police of Gaza. The confessors were sent to 
the copper-mines at Phaeno, to the south of the Dead Sea. 
It was a very desolate place. Thither also were sent, in 
large troops of a hundred or a hundred and thirty persons 
at a time, many Egyptian Christians, for whom a place 
could no longer be found in the quarries of their own country. 
Phseno ended by becoming a Christian colony. The con 
demned, apart from their work, enjoyed there a certain 
amount of liberty ; they assembled themselves together in 
various places, transformed into churches. Priests and 

1 Martyr. Pal 8. * Ibid. 9. 

8 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 Caesarea. 



3G THE GKKAT PERSECUTION [CH. i. 

bishops were to be found amongst them, and presided 
over these assemblies. We may mention among them 
the Egyptian bishops, Nilus, Peleus, and Meletius ; and 
also Silvanus, a veteran of the army, who had entered the 
service of the Church. At the time when the persecution 
broke out, he was exercising his priestly functions in the 
neighbourhood of Gaza ; he was a past confessor. He 
was ordained bishop at Ph.Tno itself. 1 There also 
officiated the Reader John, who had long been blind, 
and who knew the whole Bible by heart, and used to 
recite it without a book in the meetings of the 
confessors. These meetings were not always peaceful 
ones: even in prison they found means of quarrelling 
with one another. So much liberty displeased the 
governor, Firmilian. After a visit paid to these quarters, 
he informed Maximin of the state of affairs, and by the 
emperor s command the colony of Ph;i:no was dispersed 
in other mines. Several executions took place at the 
same time ; Xilus and Peleus were burnt, with a priest and 
the confessor Patermouthios, a personage highly esteemed 
for his zeal. This execution was ordered by the military 
commandant. There only remained thirty-nine infirm 
persons, incapable of real work ; in this group were to be 
found the Bishop Silvanus and the Reader John. They 
were got rid of by cutting off their heads. 

In Egypt the persecution was far more severe, especi 
ally in Upper Egypt, in the Thcbai d. Eusebius visited 
these regions while the persecution was still going on. 
He heard of wholesale executions, of thirty, sixty, or 
even a hundred martyrs who died each day, either by 
being beheaded or burnt alive ; he heard of abominable 
tortures of women suspended, naked, by one foot 
only, of confessors attached by their legs to branches 
of neighbouring trees which were forcibly brought close 
together : then, when the rope was cut, the branches 
flew back to their former positions, quartering the poor 
victims. It was all in vain ; no amount of torture could 

1 This was, no doubt, one of the irregular ordinations performed 
by Meletius. 



p. 45-6] EGYFPIAN MARTYRS 37 

terrify these Egyptians, always severe in their life, 
and inspired by their enthusiasm and their resistance. 
The more executions there were, the more eagerly fresh 
victims presented themselves. In Lower Egypt, Peter, 
the Bishop of Alexandria, kept himself hidden, but with a 
watchful eye over his flock ; several of his priests, Faustus, 
Dius, and Ammonius, figured among the victims. The first 
of these had already confessed his faith, nearly half a 
century before, when he was deacon to Bishop Dionysius 1 ; 
he had now attained extreme old age. Some bishops 
also were arrested and put to death, after long confine 
ment in prison. We hear of Hesychius, Pachymius, 
Theodore, and, above all, of Phileas, the learned Bishop 
of Thmuis. Before he became bishop he had filled high 
offices ; he was a very rich man, and was surrounded 
by a numerous family. His relations and friends, and 
even Culcianus, 2 the prefect himself, did all in their 
power to save him from death, but in vain. He remained 
unshaken. With him died also Philoromus, the head of 
the financial administration in Egypt. From his prison, 
Phileas had written to his flock at Thmuis a letter in 
which he described to them the torments suffered by 
the martyrs of Alexandria. Eusebius has preserved a 
fragment of this letter. 3 As in the Thebaid, there were 
executions of numbers at a time. Besides the martyrs of 
whom Phileas speaks, we hear of thirty-seven who, divided 
into four groups, perished on the same day, by means of 
different punishments beheading, drowning, fire, and 
crucifixion. 4 Several of them were clerics, of various orders. 
It was net only in their own country that the Egyptians 

1 Eusebius, H. E. vii. n ; viii. 13. 

2 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. 

3 Eusebius, //. 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. 

4 Compare the homily published by the Bollandists (January 18), 
and by Ruinart, under the title Passio ss. xxxvii. Martyrum 



38 THE GREAT PERSECUTION [CH I. 

confessed the faith. Several are mentioned by Eusebius 
as having found martyrdom in Palestine and elsewhere. 
He himself saw some of them, in the amphitheatre at 
Tyre, who were thrown to the wild beasts, and whom 
the beasts refused to devour. When it was decided to 
send recalcitrant Christians to the mines, the confessors 
of the Thebaid were despatched to the porphyry quarries, 
near the Red Sea. But this prison was not large enough 
for all of them : and gangs of Christian convicts were 
continually sent to Palestine, to Idumea, to the island of 
Cyprus, and to Cilicia. 

Besides Egypt and the Thebaid, where the persecution 
lasted so long, Eusebius mentions the African and 
Mauritania!! provinces, 1 in which it was of short duration, 
as among the countries where Christians had most to 
suffer. The commentary on these words is furnished to 
us by the long lists of Egyptian and African martyrs, 
preserved in the Martyrology attributed to Saint Jerome. 
With regard to Africa especially, groups of thirty, fifty, 
and a hundred names recur very frequently all through 
the calendar. It is, apparently, to Diocletian s persecution, 
rather than to any of the preceding ones, that these 
hecatombs must be referred. 2 The same impression 
orum, with the text of the Hieronymian Martyrology for February 
9 and 14, as well as for May 18. The charming story of Didymus 
and Theodora (Boll., April 28, and Ruinart) is very doubtful as a fact. 
St Ambrose, who had heard it related (De virginibus, ii. 4) places the 
scene of it at Antioch. Cf. Bibliotheca hagiographica latina % p. 1169, 
1304. 

1 H. E. viii. 6. 

2 In the matter of descriptive documents, the Passion of Crispina 
of Thagura (Theveste, December 5, 304) is the only one from the 
hand of a contemporary. Others, such as those of the three saints, 
Maxima, Secunda, and Donatilla (Tuburbo Lucernaria, July 30, 
mentioned also in the Passio Crispinae ; see Anal. Boll. vol. ix. p. 1 10) ; 
of St Mammarius and his companions (Vagenses, June 10 ; cf. 
Mabillon, Analecta^ iv. 93 ; this Passion is by the same author as 
the preceding one); of St Martienna of Caesarea (July 11); of St 
Fabius of Cartenna (July 31, Anal. Boll. vol. ix. p. 123); of St 
Typasius of Tigava (January u, ibid. p. 116) ; all belong also to the 
persecution of Diocletian, but they were written fairly late in the 
4th century, 



p. 48] MARTYRDOMS AT ANTIOCH 39 

may be deduced from the Martyrology as concerns 
Nicomedia, where the persecution raged very cruelly. 

As to the other countries of the Orient, our informa 
tion is very inadequate. We know from Eusebius that 
Silvanus, the Bishop of Emesa, suffered under Maximin, 
in the amphitheatre of his episcopal city; that Tyrannion, 
the Bishop of Tyre, and Zenobius, a priest of Sidon, 
confessed the faith at Antioch ; that the former was 
thrown into the sea, and that Zenobius died under the 
agonies of the rack. 1 

The Bishop of Laodicea, Stephen, apostatized shame 
fully. Like his predecessor, Anatolius, he was a man of 
great culture, well versed in literature and philosophy, 
but either of weak character or a hypocrite, as his fall 
proved. 2 

At Antioch also suffered, quite at the beginning of the 
persecution (303), a certain Romanus, rural deacon of 
Caesarea in Palestine, who was passing through the 
Syrian metropolis, and made himself conspicuous by his 
vigorous protests against the apostates. As to the 
clergy and the faithful of Antioch, we do not know what 
happened to them. 3 But the persecution was severe. 

1 Tyrannion and Zenobius must have been arrested outside their 
own cities, for they were under the jurisdiction, not of the governor 
of Syria, but of the governor of Phoenicia. It is also strange that 
Eusebius speaks of the Bishop of Tyre as having been thrown into 
the sea (0aXarr/ott irapa&oBfis /Si/flo?*) at Antioch, which was not a 
maritime town. 

2 Eusebius, H. E. vii. 32, 22. 

* Eusebius, in his Chronicle, places the death of Bishop Cyril in 
301-302, before the persecution, and says, in his Ecclesiastical History^ 
vn - 3 2 ! > that the persecution reached a head (^K^O.<JCV) under 
Tyrannus, his successor. It is impossible that he could have been 
mistaken to the extent to which he would have been, if we were to 
admit, on the faith of a document of very little authority, that Cyril 
had been condemned to the mines in 303, and sent to Pannonia to 
work in the marble quarries. The Passion of the Four Crowned Ones 
(October 8) mentions, it is true, a bishop in custodia religatum, 
nomine Cyrillum^ cU A ntiochia adductum, pro nomine Christi vinctum, 
qui iam multis verberibus fuerat maceratus per annos tres, who 
had died in prison at the same quarries. But so grave a fact as the 
confession and exile of the chief Bishop of the Orient could not have 



40 THE GREAT PERSECUTION [CH. i. 

Eusebius l tells us of pyres on which the martyrs were burnt 
gradually over a slow fire, and of the altars on which, when 
commanded to drop grains of incense, they allowed their 
hands, flesh and bone alike, rather to be devoured by the 
flame. Without mentioning the names, he recalls the 
remembrance, apparently known to his readers, of two 
young girls, two sisters, distinguished by their birth and 
fortune as much as by their virtue, who were thrown 
together into the sea; and also the story of a noble lady, 
who, when the persecution broke out, fled with her 
daughters, no doubt beyond the Euphrates. Their retreat 
being discovered, they were being brought back to Antioch. 
But at the crossing of the river, in despair at the thought 
of the treatment, worse than death, which awaited them 
on their return, they escaped from their escort and threw 
themselves into the current. 8 

With regard to other countries, what Eusebius has 
preserved is the recollection of extraordinary punish 
ments ; in Arabia, Christians were killed by being hewn 
in pieces by. a hatchet ; in Cappadocia, their legs were 
broken ; in Mesopotamia, they were suffocated, hung by 
their feet over a brazier ; in Pontus, sharp-pointed reeds 
were driven under their nails, or the most sensitive parts 
of their bodies were sprinkled with molten lead. Certain 
officials distinguished themselves by their ingenuity in 
combining torture and obscenity. 

If such horrors as these had come to our knowledge 

escaped the knowledge of Eusebius, and he had no reason for 
concealing it. We have spoken of his theological animosities. But, 
when he wrote, he could have had no cause for exhibiting them to 
such an extent. Peter of Alexandria was certainly not of his way of 
thinking. But has Eusebius kept silence as to his virtues, his learning, 
and his martyrdom? 

1 H. E. viii. 12. 

9 The lawfulness of suicide, in such a case, was recognized by the 
Church. There is a homily of St John Chrysostom in honour of 
these saints, Horn. 51 ; cf. Augustine, De civitate Dei, i. 26. St John 
Chrysostom gives the name of the mother as Downing and of the 
daughters as Berenice and Prosdocia. St Ambrose, De virginibus, iii. 
7, and Ep. 37, also speaks of this story, with which he associates the 
name of St Pelagia. 



p. 50-1] LITERARY POLEMICS 41 

through legendary stories, we could never have sufficiently 
distrusted the exaggeration of the narrators ; in the 
present case, the man who relates them was in a position 
to be well informed, and little inclined to pervert the 
meaning of the documents which had been transmitted to 
him. When Eusebius wrote, the fires were scarcely 
extinguished : their ashes were still warm. We must 
therefore believe him. And, moreover, have we not other 
stories, less ancient and as well attested, to tell us that 
in matters of this kind anything and everything is 
possible ? 

As regards all the special occurrences, of which the 
recollection was consecrated in each country by religious 
observance, and cultivated by local hagiography, it 
would be impossible to enumerate them here. Among 
the documents which treat of them, there are very few on 
which we can rely for the details of the circumstances. 
Of the features which we can really gain from them, those 
which are of general interest are already known to us 
through Eusebius and Lactantius : the others have no 
importance except for local history. 

8. Literary Polemics. 

To the strife of laws and police was added that of 
literary controversy. This, indeed, had never really 
ceased. After Tertullian, Minucius Felix and St Cyprian 
had again set before public opinion the exposition and 
the defence of Christianity ; to the Greek Apologies 
of the 2nd century had succeeded various writings, of 
which we still possess the text, but without knowing who 
were the authors of them. 1 

When Porphyry s book against the Christians 
appeared, Methodius and Eusebius had answered it at 
once. The persecution had excited the zeal of people 
who delighted it is a characteristic of every age in 
crushing the conquered. An African rhetorician, 
Arnobius, an official professor at Sicca Veneria, had for 

1 Cf. vol. i., pp. 153-4. 



42 THE (iUKAT PERSECUTION [CIL I. 

a long time attacked the Christians, when, suddenly 
touched by divine grace, he became a Christian himself. 
The bishop of that place, who did not believe in his 
conversion, asked him for guarantees of it, and Arnobius 
gave one of the most striking kind, by publishing a 
searching attack upon paganism. 1 While he was thus 
engaged in refuting himself, he seems at the same time 
to have had in view a certain Cornelius Labeo, the author 
of writings hostile to Christianity. His work bears the 
mark of the haste with which it was composed ; the style 
of it is very careless ; and with regard to the soul, its 
origin and its immortality, the language of the author is 
that of a neophyte inadequately instructed. 

Arnobius had among his disciples at Sicca Veneria 
another African who was to take a much more prominent 
place as a Christian apologist. 2 This was Lactantius 
(/,. Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius}, who had acquired as 
a rhetorician a reputation sufficient to induce the Emperor 
Diocletian to invite him to Nicomedia, and to entrust him 
with an official professorship of Latin oratory. He had 
begun life as a pagan, and was so still, to all appearance, 
at the time of his promotion. ^At Nicomedia he was 
converted. The persecution deprived him of his position; 
he was reduced to private teaching, which was little 
remunerative to a professor of Latin in this Greek city, 
and especially to a Christian in such times. He employed 
his enforced leisure in writing in the defence of his 
beliefs. He was a man of ability. Happily for his 
literary fame, he did not take Arnobius as his model, and 
tried rather to imitate Cicero. Of his writings there are 
preserved to us two little treatises : one on the nature of 
man (De opificio Dei}, the other on certain anthropo 
morphisms (De ira Dei) ; but also, and more important, 
a great apologetic work, the Divine Institutions in seven 

1 De errore profanarum religionum. With regard to this book, 
see Monceaux, Histoire litteraire de FAfrique chrttienne, vol. iii., 
p. 241 et seq.; cf. Martin Schanz, Gtschichte der rdm. LitUratur, 
Nos. 6 1 1, 749, et seq. 

8 Monceaux, he. cit., p. 286 ; Schanz, he. cit. t p. 445. 



p. 53] LACTANTIUS AND HIEROCLES 43 

books, of which he himself made a summary (Epitome}. 
It was the attacks of his enemies which made him take up 
his pen. While the executioners were doing their worst 
against the Christians, a certain sophist, whose name he 
has not preserved, attacked them in his lectures. An 
eloquent apostle of theoretical poverty, he could be seen 
walking about in a short mantle, with his hair in disorder ; 
but it was well known that his possessions were constantly 
increasing, thanks to the favour of highly placed person 
ages, that at his house a better dinner was served than in 
the imperial palace, and also that no kind of austerity 
was practised there. He preached to the public that the 
duty of philosophers was to correct the errors of men, 
and to guide them in the right way ; he praised the 
emperors highly for having undertaken the defence of the 
old religion and violently attacked the new, of which he 
knew next to nothing, as was easily perceived. The 
public, moreover, agreed that the time was ill chosen for 
this kind of rhetorical display, and that it was discreditable 
to trample in this way on the fallen. The sophist was 
hissed. 

After him another enemy of Christianity entered the 
lists, Hierocles, formerly governor of Phoenicia, then 
vicarius, and finally governor of Bithynia. He was a 
very great personage and a councillor of the emperor; 
he had been a member of the famous council in which 
the persecution was decided upon. He published a work 
in two books with the title : To the Christians, the friend 
of truth^ Lactantius considers it very well informed, and 
especially familiar with the difficulties of Holy Scripture. 
This can easily be explained. Hierocles had stolen 
largely from Porphyry. On certain points, however, he 
followed his own path. I do not know whence he had 
obtained the information that Jesus, after being driven 
away by the Jews, put Himself at the head of a band of 
nine hundred brigands. The romance of Philostratus had 
suggested to him the idea of making numerous com 
parisons between the Saviour and Apollonius of Tyana. 



44 THE GREAT PERSECUTION [CH. i. 

On this point he was attacked by Eusebius, who devoted 
a special book to him. When, later on, he became 
governor in Egypt, he had to do with an apologist of a 
different kind. 1 

As for Lactantius, a saddened witness of these 
cowardly attacks, they furnished him with the idea, not 
of measuring his own strength against that of the 
aggressors for he did not think they were worth the 
trouble but of taking up again, against all the adversaries 
of Christianity and with an appeal to the opinion of 
cultivated persons, the task which Tertullian and Cyprian 
had assumed before him. The first of these, he thought, 
had written with too much polemical ardour, the second 
had made use of arguments which appealed to Christians 
themselves rather than to their pagan adversaries. A 
calm statement in good style, and resting upon the 
ground of philosophy and literature common to all well- 
educated persons: tin s was what Lactantius intended to 
compose, and what he succeeded in producing. He was 
the Cicero of Christianity. 

He was the Christian Cicero even to the Philippics ; 
for it was certainly he (the fact is now scarcely disputed) 
who was the author of that spirited pamphlet, The Death 
of the Persecutors^ published in 313, just when Licinius was 
posting up, on the walls of Nicomedia, the edict of 
freedom. Lactantius, who during the evil days had seen 
his friends massacred or tortured, and had found himself 
obliged to leave Nicomedia, returned there to enjoy the 
religious peace. He was still unhappy. It was only 
some years later that fortune smiled upon him : 
Constantino summoned him to the West, and entrusted 
him with the education of his son Crispus (about the year 
317). He was then far advanced in years. 

1 This is the same Hierocles of whom we have spoken above, p. 34. 



CHAPTER II 

CONSTANTINE, THE CHRISTIAN EMPEROR 

Conversion of Constantine. Religious measures in the West. The 
Pagans tolerated and the Christians favoured. Licinius and his 
attitude towards the Christians. The war of 323 : Constantine 
sole emperor. Development of his religious policy. Measures 
against the temples and the sacrifices. Foundation of Churches : 
the Holy Places of Palestine. Foundation of Constantinople. 
Death of Constantine. 

I. Constantine, Emperor of the West. 

THE victory of Constantine over Maxentius was universally 
considered as an extraordinary event, in which the 
intervention of the Divinity could scarcely fail to be 
recognized. The senate expressed this idea by causing 
to be engraved upon the arch raised in commemoration 
of the event the two famous words: INSTINCTV 
DIVINITATIS. The pagans, many of whom were also 
fighting under the banners of the conqueror and in his 
train, attributed their success to the abstract Divinity 
which they honoured in their gods, or even to the 
intervention of celestial legions, led by the deified 
Emperor Constantius Chlorus. 1 But the general impres 
sion was that the catastrophe in which Maxentius and his 
brilliant army had perished was the work of the God of 
the Christians. Before the battle, the " tyrant " had 
appealed to all the resources of pagan religion : oracles, 
aruspicy, sacrifices, divination, all had been resorted to 

1 Panegyricon, ix. 2 ; x. 14. M. Boissier justly compares these 
various interpretations with those regarding the Thundering Legion 
(La fin du paganisme, vol. i., p. 44) ; cf. Vol. I. of this History , p. 182. 

45 



46 CONSTANTINK, CHRISTIAN EMPEROR [en. II. 

with extraordinary completeness. While marching against 
him, the soldiers of Constantine had displayed upon their 
shields the sign ^, formed from the first two letters of 
the name of Christ. This was in consequence of a dream 
of their prince, 1 who had commanded them to depict this 
strange emblem upon their arms. Maxentius had relied 
upon the assistance of the ancient gods : Constantine had 
placed himself and his army under the protection of the 
Christian God. 

The battle at the Milvian Bridge confirmed him in 

1 his reliance, and decided his definite adhesion to Christi- 

I anity. But this reliance had its roots already in the past. 

It is probable that Christianity had gained some footing 

in the family of Constantius Chlorus. just as it had in that 

of Diocletian ; one of the sisters of Constantine had received 

the entirely Christian name of Anastasia. Although the 

edicts of persecution had borne the name of Constantius, as 

well as those of his imperial colleagues, he himself in his 

(own dominions 2 had shed no Christian blood. Eusebius 
represents him as being himself a Christian at heart. Yet 
we cannot admit that he had made the formal declarations 
of adhesion involved in admission among the catechumens, 
and especially in baptismal initiation. Brought up in a 
family where Christianity was, if not actually practised, 
at least regarded favourably, Constantine had the 
opportunity during his stay at Nicomedia, of seeing how 
the faithful were treated there. The instigator of the 
persecution, Galerius, was his father s enemy and his own. 

(When he became master in the western provinces, he 
immediately assumed a favourable attitude towards those 
who were being persecuted elsewhere. Nevertheless, it 
was still a long step from these tolerant inclinations to 
personal conversion, and the latter was in no wise 
suggested by the political circumstances. The Christians 
were far less numerous in the West than in Asia-Minor 
and the East. The Emperor of the Gauls, so far as he 
could be affected by the religious opinions of his subjects, 
had no reason for abandoning the old gods, and no j 
1 Lactantius, DC mort. pers. 44. 2 Vita Const, i. 17. 



p. 58] CONVERSION OF CONST ANT1NE 47 

j political interest in declaring himself a Christian. But 
! this is what Constantine did. At the moment when he 
undertook his expedition against Maxentius, anxious to 
enlist on his side, not only all possible military support 
and precaution, but also all divine assistance, he 
bethought himself that the attitude of his father and 
himself had certainly deserved the favour of the God of 
the Christians ; that he had even an assurance of it 
already in the success which had always hitherto attended 
them, while the other sovereigns, the enemies of Christianity, 

IMaximian, Severus, and Galerius, had all met with a most 
tragic end. These reflections, which seem to have been 
familiar to him, for he often refers to them in his letters, 
he communicated to Eusebius later on, adding that, to 
assist him in coming to a decision, he asked God to 
enlighten him by some marvellous sign. Shortly after 
wards, he saw in the sky, and his whole army saw it with 
him, a Cross of light, with these words : " In this sign, 
conquer" 1 ; finally, Christ appeared to him in a dream, 
holding in His hand the same sign which he had seen 
shining in the heavens, commanding him to reproduce it, 
and make use of it as a defence against his enemies. He 
summoned the Christian priests, and asked them what was 
this God who had appeared to him, and what was the mean 
ing of the sign. It was then that he obtained instruction 
in the Christian religion and openly professed it. 

It is difficult to admit that Constantine could have 
been down to that time so ignorant of Christianity. 
The story, on this point at least, reveals a little arrange 
ment. As to the visions, by day and by night, we have 
no reason to doubt Eusebius when he tells us that they were 
related to him by Constantine ; but it is difficult for the 
historian to appreciate the exact value of such testimony, 
and, speaking generally, to investigate with any profit into 
such personal matters. Leaving, therefore, to mystery 
the things which belong to mystery, we will confine 
ourselves here to stating facts known as facts, and 
to acknowledging that Constantine undertook the war 

vixa. 



48 CONSTANTINE, CHRISTIAN EMPEROR [OH. IL 

against Maxentius, and in particular the encounter at the 
Milvian Bridge, in the firm conviction that he was under 
the protection of the Christians God, and that, from that 
time he always spoke and acted, in religious matters, as 
a convinced believer. The monogram of Christ, painted 
upon the shields of his soldiers, displayed at the top of 
the military standards (labaruin)^ soon stamped upon the 
coins, and reproduced in a thousand different ways, gave 
an unmistakeable expression of the opinions of the 
emperor. 1 There were many others. Only a few 
months after the battle at the Milvian Bridge, we find, 
among his personal suite, a sort of ecclesiastical councillor, 
Hosius, Bishop of Cordova. Several letters, despatched 
in the name of the emperor about the year 313, give 
evidence of a lively feeling of Christian piety. 2 

In fact, the event had happened which Tertullian had 
declared to be impossible a Christian emperor. 8 
Constantine could already have signed himself, as his 
Byzantine successors did, TTKTTOS /3aa-t\eus KCL] avroKparwp 
P(jo/j.aiwv, "Christian prince and Emperor of the Romans." 
And it was not merely a question of private and personal 
opinions, the consequences of which might never have 
spread beyond the family circle or the private chapel. 
The change wrought in Constantine, whatever its degree 
of sincerity, was connected with external events of the 
highest importance, the defeat of persecution, and the 
downfall of Maxentius. It was impossible that they 



1 Upon this subject see especially Boissier, La fin du 
vol. i., p. 1 1 et seq. 

8 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. 

1 "Sed et Caesares credidissent super Christo, si aut Caesares non 
essent saeculo necessarii aut si ct christiani potuissent esse Caesares.* 
ApoL 21. 



p. 61] CONSTANTINE AND LICINIUS 49 

should not have produced a reaction in the management 
of the empire, that the " Emperor of the Romans" should 
not be inspired by the " Christian prince." This was felt 
immediately. The pagans deemed themselves threatened ; 
it was necessary to reassure them, and we have a proof 
of this desire in the edict which followed the interview at 
Milan. 1 In this it was expressly declared that religious 
liberty was not intended for the Christians only, but for 
everybody. 

(This was also guaranteed by the very fact that, if one 
of the two emperors was a Christian, the other was not. 
It is true that before the battle of Adrianople Licinius 
himself had also had a dream from heaven, and that in the 
moment of combat, he had caused his soldiers to invoke 
the " Supreme God " (summus Deus}? It is true that on 
the day after his victory he hastened to proclaim religious 
liberty. But, after the year 314, he was at war with 
Constantine, and his devotion to the summus Deus must 
soon have suffered from his irritation against his Christian 
colleague. 

\ We must not think of the empires of Constantine and 
Licinius as two separate states, absolutely independent of 
each other; they were merely two parts of the same 
Roman Empire, governed by two imperial persons as col 
leagues. Under these conditions, if there were differences, 
and even very great ones, in administrative measures and 
in the distribution of favours, there was no result with 
regard to legislation and institutions as a whole. 

Constantine allowed all the old religious institutions 
previously existing to remain as they were the temples, 
the priestly offices, colleges of pontiffs, quindecemvirs, 

| and vestal virgins ; he himself preserved the title of 
Pontifex Maximus, and even the prerogatives of this office, 
in so far as they did not imply any personal compromise 
with pagan ceremonies. The public mint continued for 

1 Supra, p. 29. 

2 Lactantius (De mort. pers. 46) even gives us the words of this 
prayer, which, he says, an angel (angelns Dei] had revealed to 
Licinius during his sleep. 

II D 



50 CONSTANTINE, CHRISTIAN EMPEROR [CH. n. 

some time to strike coins upon which appeared, with the 
imperial effigy, an image of the Sun or some other divinity. 
All this may seem strange, and difficult to reconcile with 
serious convictions. But we must not forget that already, 
under preceding emperors, it was possible to be a 
municipal magistrate, governor of a province, a royal 
chamberlain, the head of the central departments of 
administration, and even ^flamen of a city or a province, 
and at the same time to be a Christian, and that it was 
easy to secure dispensation from any religious ceremony 
incompatible with this profession. It was said that the 
supreme office had already been filled by a Christian in 
the person of Philip. All this was arranged by means of 
contrivances which might displease, and did actually dis 
please, those who took strict views, but they were practised 
all the same. Constantine, who was the master, had no 
difficulty in reconciling his beliefs with his position ; and it 
was from this position that he hastened to enable his 
co-religionists to profit. 

\Ve have already seen that the measures agreed upon 
at Milan between the two emperors assured to the 
, Christians the most complete religious liberty, as well as 
the restoration to the churches of their confiscated posses 
sions. Constantine did not stop there. Understanding 
perfectly that the restitution of their real property was far 
from compensating them for all the havoc caused by the 
persecution, he tried to supply, by generous alms-giving, 
the more pressing needs of the impoverished communities ; 
he also wished that indemnities should be granted to 
persons who had suffered from the persecution. Bishop 
Hc~ius was appointed to arrange the details and to dis 
tribute the funds. 1 

/ Clerics were exempt from burdensome public functions 
I that is to say, especially, from municipal office and from 
I statute labour. 2 Such exemptions had for a long time 

1 Eusebius, H. E. x. 6, Letter from Constantine to Caecilian, 
Bishcp of Carthage : Eimi;rc/> ffpe ; cf. V. C. i. 41, 43. 

2 H. E. x. 7, Letter from Constantine to the proconsul Anulinus : 
*Eirtt5i) IK r\tuvuv. This decided many ecclesiastical vocations ; it 



p. 63-4] CHRISTIAN BUILDINGS IN ROME 51 

been granted to physicians, to professors, and to persons 
who had filled expensive priestly offices. Constantine con 
sidered that the services rendered by the Christian clergy 

deserved the same immunity. 

There is no doubt that from these early days his piety 
was displayed in the foundation of churches. In Rome, 

j the old dwelling-place of the Laterani, on the Ccelian Hill, 
which had several times been confiscated, belonged at this 

[-time to Fausta, the sister of Maxentius and the wife of 
Constantine. The episcopal residence was transferred 
to it: and in the autumn of 313 Pope Miltiades held a 
council there. It was not long before the construction of 
a basilica annexed to this donius ecclesiae was commenced, 
the existing church of the Lateran. Others were raised, 

by the care of the emperor, over the tombs of St Peter, St 
Paul, and St Laurence. 1 The princesses of Constantine s 
family, who willingly took up their abode in Rome, also 
built churches. Helena, the emperor s mother, lived some 
times at the domus Sessoriana, beyond the Lateran, quite 
on the outskirts of the city, sometimes at the villa Ad duas 
Lauras, on the Labican Way. Near the latter was a 
Christian cemetery, in which slept the martyrs Peter and 
Marcellinus, victims of the last persecution ; Helena built 
a small basilica in their honour. When, later on, she 
visited Palestine, and there recovered the relics of the 
Passion, she reserved part of them for the Sessoriuni, which 
soon became like a little Jerusalem, and even took its name. 
Constantina, the daughter of Constantine, had a special 
affection for another imperial villa, situated on the Via 
Nomentana, near the cemetery in which was the tomb of 
St Agnes; she raised a basilica there with a baptistery 2 

became necessary to forbid the clerical profession to members of 
municipal bodies and to persons who were in a position to become 
members. 

1 The Constantinian basilicas of St Paul and St Laurence were 
very small, far below the dimensions of the churches of the Lateran 
and of St Peter. 

2 It was in this baptistery that Constantina and her sister Helena, 
the wife of Julian, were buried, in a large sarcophagus of porphyry, 
which is now in the museum of the Vatican. Another sarcophagus, 



52 CONSTANTINE, CHRISTIAN EMPEROR [CH. 11. 

which still exists. Lastly, it is possible that the church of 
Anastasia, at the foot of the Palatine, derives its name 
from one of the emperor s sisters. This lady very nearly 
became empress. She had been married to an important 
personage, Bassianus, whom Constantine wished to make 
a Caesar. He would have assigned Italy to him as his 
jurisdiction : Anastasia would have sat enthroned on the 
Palatine. Unfortunately, it was soon discovered that 
Bassianus and his brother Senecio were in too close rela 
tions with Licinius. Bassianus was got rid of, 1 and the 
surrender of Senecio, who had taken refuge with Licinius, 
having been demanded in vain, war broke out between 
the two emperors. Licinius was defeated at Cibales, in 
Pannonia, and afterwards in Thrace, and finally purchased 
peace by the sacrifice of Illyricum (end of 314). 

This peace was only a truce. It lasted eight years 
(315-323). Of this period there remain to us several laws 
made by Constantine which testify to his good intentions 
f towards Christians. He forbade the Jews, under penalty 
of being burnt, to stone members of their religion who 
were converted to Christianity 2 ; he allowed the manu 
mission of slaves to be recorded in church in the presence 
of the bishop and the clergy 3 ; he ordered Sunday to be 
kept as a day of rest in all tribunals, public offices, and 
workshops of the cities 4 ; he proclaimed liberty to make a 
will in favour of the churches. 5 As to paganism, he pre 
served to it its freedom, confining himself to the prohibition, 
in private houses, of the practice of divination ; in the 
temples he allowed these ceremonies, and even, in certain 
cases, prescribed them. 6 

exactly similar to this one, received the remains of Helena, the 
empress-mother. This also has been transported to the Vatican. 
There are still to be seen, at Tor Pignattara, on the Labican Way, the 
imposing ruins of the mausoleum of Helena. 

1 "Convictus et stratus est," says the Origo Constantini (Anon. 
Valesii) ed. Momm?en, Chronica minora^ vol. i., p. 8). 

* Ccdtx Theod. xvi. 8, I. 

8 Cod. Just. \. 13, 2 ; cf. Cod. Theod. iv. 7, i. 

4 Cod. Just. iii. 12, 2. 5 Cod. Theod. xvi. 2, 4. 

6 Cod. Theod. ix. 16, i, 2, 3 ; xvi. 10, i. 



p. 66] DISSENSIONS IN AFRICA 53 

But the good will of the emperor was soon sorely tried 
by the internal dissensions amongst his proteges. The 
Church of Africa gave him a great deal of trouble from the 
very beginning. There, two religious parties had been 
formed, both of which claimed to be the Catholic Church. 
The persecuting princes had made no distinction between 
Christians ; heretics and orthodox believers had been 
proscribed together, and more than one among the 
dissidents had given his life for the common faith. But 
Constantine, for his own part, wished to bestow his 
support and favour exclusively upon the authentic 
Church ; he had no wish to protect everyone indiscrimin 
ately. This at once furnished an urgent motive for his 
interest in the African dispute. The " Christian prince " 
wished to know where in Africa his brothers in religion 
were to be found. As to the " Emperor of the Romans," 
he had another reason for intervening, the quarrel having 
reached such proportions that public order was disturbed. 
Therefore it is not astonishing that he did all in his 
power to minimize the quarrel: that he brought about 
assemblies of bishops, and ordered official enquiries ; that 
he himself assumed the position of arbitrator, and then 
carried out the execution of sentences decided upon, with 
mingled leniency and severity. The public officials were 
set to work, and post-carriages were used to carry the 
bishops to the places of the councils. We need not regard 
this as a special mark of favour to the episcopate. It was 
assuredly not for their own pleasure that the bishops 
took long journeys, at his invitation, to Rome, to Aries, 
or Milan; it was to assist the emperor in restoring 
order. In providing carriages for the bishops, Constantine 
was actuated by State reasons, just as Diocletian had 
deemed himself to be in imprisoning them. 

2. T/ie East under the Government of Licinius. 

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 



54 CONSTANTINE, CHRISTIAN EMPEROR [CH. n. 

must have been the dedication festivals at that time, like 
that of the great church of Tyre, at which the historian 
Eusebius, already bishop of Caesarea, was present. He 
pronounced there a great formal oration, and, that this 
might not be lost to posterity, he inserted it in the 
last edition of his Ecclesiastical History}- Of two councils 
held during the reign of Licinius, one at Ancyra, the 
other at Neocaesarea, the canons and the signatures 
remain to us. The canons belong, generally speaking, 
to the ordinary category of ecclesiastical legislation cases 
of penitents, rules with regard to ordinations, and other 
matters of that kind. But more than half the canons 
of Ancyra treat of situations resulting from the recent 
persecution ; it was still quite close, and therefore it is 
probable that this council was held about the year 314. 
In the canons of Neoc.nesarea, there is no longer any 
trace of the persecution. The two councils included the 
bishops of Asia-Minor, Cilicia, and Syria ; at both of 
them there were present the Bishops of Antioch and of 
Ca- sarea in Cappadocia, Vitalis and Leontius. 

The tranquillity, which such assemblages of bishops 
imply, did not last long. Any influence which Constantine 
may have had over Licinius, either directly or by means 
of his sister Constantia, was soon destroyed by jealousy 
and the spirit of intrigue. A time came when Galerius 
old companion-in-arms thought it necessary to prepare 
his revenge for the campaign of 314. Constantine 
became, for him, the enemy. In this state of mind 
he could but distrust the Christians, of whom his rival 
was the benefactor in the West and the hope in the 
East. He began, as Diocletian had done, by dismissing 
all Christians from his personal service and from palace 
appointments. Then came the turn of the army : either 
military service or Christianity must be renounced. 2 

1 H. E. x. 4. 

8 With regard to the persecution of Licinius, see especially 
Eusebius, H. E. x. 8, and V. C. i. .19-56 ; Council of Nicaea, 
c. 11-14; Constantine s edict directing reparation for damages 
caused, in Eusebius, V. C. ii. 24-35. 



p. 69] HOSTILITY OF LICINIUS 55 

Everyone was forbidden to visit or assist the prisoners 
a measure which, especially at such a moment, was a 
serious blow to the free exercise of Christian charity. 
Though little inclined to severity in his own morals, 
Licinius discovered that it was unseemly that women 
should take part in public worship, or be catechized by 
men ; and even when men only were admitted to the 
Christian meetings, they seemed to him too numerous 
to be allowed in the towns : religious services had to 
be conducted outside the walls. He had a particular 
objection to episcopal assemblies as composed of 
persons whom he suspected of being far too favourably 
inclined towards his western colleague : councils were 
forbidden, and many bishops were individually persecuted, 
under various pretexts. 

These regulations and proceedings did not, so far, 
constitute an overt persecution. The profession of 
Christianity and the exercise of public worship, apart 
from certain restrictions, were allowed to private indi 
viduals. But as to soldiers, employes, officials, and 
anyone who desired the imperial favour, it was no longer 
the same. This was enough to cause many apostasies ; 
the Council of Nicaea, after Licinius, like that of Ancyra, 
after Maximin, had to legislate upon this subject. There 
were not only apostates : there were also confessors and 
martyrs. Several bishops lost their lives, notably amongst 
them Basil of Amasia. 1 The region of Pontus was treated 
with special severity ; in many places the churches were 
closed, and even destroyed. It was at Sebaste, in 
Armenia-Minor, that there took place the celebrated 
drama of the forty martyrs of the frozen pool. We 
still possess a touching document, the testament 2 of 
these Christian soldiers; in it they took leave of their 
friends, and bequeathed to them the only thing they 
could dispose of their own remains. Other episodes 
have been preserved and cultivated by hagiogi aphical 

1 Amasia was the metropolis of the province then called 
Diospontus, later Helenopontus. 

1 Gebhardt, Acta mar ty rum selecta^ p. 166. 



56 CONSTANTINE, CHRISTIAN EMPEROR [CH. n. 

tradition; it is safer to confine oneself to generalities, 
as they are enumerated by Eusebius, an eye-witness, and 
by Constantine, in his edict of reparation. 1 Many 
Christians lost their positions and honours, whether in 
the army or in the various public offices ; saw their goods 
confiscated ; were unjustly attached once more to the 
municipal bodies, exiled, banished to the islands, con 
demned to the mines, to the public workshops, to the 
corvtes. They were made slaves of the imperial treasury, 
were even sold to private persons ; and many of them, 
accused under one pretext or another, paid for their 
attachment to Christianity by the sacrifice of their lives. 
The story of these sufferings resounded through the 
West. To borrow the language of Eusebius, that part 
of the empire which was still enveloped in darkness 
turned with longing eyes towards the countries where 
the light shone brightly. The tension between the two 
emperors steadily increased. It was not only the 
Christians who had cause for complaint. Licinius, a 
coarse and brutal soldier, was transforming himself 
more and more into a typical Asiatic tyrant. Con 
stantine uttered remonstrances ; but they were ill 
received. In this state of smothered hostility, peace was 
very precarious. Then an incident occurred. Licinius 
had charge of the frontier on the Lower Danube ; he 
neglected this duty. The Barbarians crossed the river 
and spread themselves throughout Thrace. Constantine 
was then at Thessalonica ; he marched against them, 
drove them back, and forced them to sue for mercy. But 
this operation had brought him into the territory of 
Licinius, to whom the "diocese" of Thrace belonged. 
Licinius was enraged : war broke out. Defeated near 
Adrianople (July 3, 323) and besieged in Byzantium, the 
Emperor of the East watched the arrival of the victorious 
fleet, commanded by Crispus, Constantine s son. He 
recrossed the Bosphorus, and again engaged in battle at 
Chrysopoiis (Scutari) on September 18, 323 ; he was again 
defeated. His wife interceded for him, and his life was 
1 V. C. i. 30-35. 



p. 71-2] NEW EDICTS OF TOLERATION 57 

spared. He was sent to Thessalonica, where doubtless he 
soon resumed his intrigues, for the soldiers demanded his 
head, and Constantine granted their request. 1 

The Emperor of the West entered Nicomedia : we can 
imagine the acclamations of the Christians. 



3. Constantine, sole Emperor. 

Constantine lost no time, and hastened to promulgate 
two edicts. In the first, 2 he provided for the necessities of 
the situation, recalled the exiles, opened the prison doors, 
restored to the confessors the liberty, property, dignities, 
and positions of which they had been deprived ; Christian 
soldiers might, according to their choice, re-enter the 
army or remain at home with the honesta missio ; the 
inheritances of the martyrs and confessors were restored 
to their next-of-kin, or, if there were none, presented to 
the Churches ; the confiscated property of the latter was 
given back to them, but not the profits accrued ; in short, 
everyone was re-established in the state he had been in 
before the persecution, so far as possible. In another 
edict, 3 Constantine openly proclaimed himself a Christian, 
recalling the memory of his victories over the persecuting 
emperors, and attributing them to succour from on High ; 
he expressed his wish to see all his subjects also embrace 
the faith, but declared that he would constrain no one, and 
that those who held other opinions were free to profess 
and practise their forms of worship in the temples, which 
would remain open. At the same time he encouraged* 

1 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. 

2 Eusebius has given this to us, according to the copy addressed 
to the inhabitants of the province of Palestine, tirapxi&ra-u naXattmVTjj 
(V. C. ii. 24*/^.). 

3 Eusebius, V. C. ii. 48-59, has translated it from the Latin 
copy addressed "to the Easterns." 

4 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. 



58 CONSTANT1NK, CHRISTIAN EMPEROR [CH. n. 

the bishops to rebuild their ruined churches, and to con 
struct larger ones ; he gave orders to his financial agents 
to make them large grants from the public funds. Public 
officials were, from that time, principally chosen from 
among Christians ; if they were pagans, they were not 
allowed to take part officially in the ceremonies of their 
religion. 1 

These were the immediate measures. Constantine 
lived for nearly fourteen years longer. Nothing remained 
now of the Tetrarchy. He was henceforth sole master of 
the whole empire. His religious policy showed the effects 
of this. The idea of a certain equilibrium between the 
two religions is often attributed to him ; he maintained 
them both, it is said, holding them in mutual respect for 
each other, and dominating both; being supreme pontiff 
of paganism by the very fact of being emperor, he 
extended his cognizance to Christianity, and thus presided 
over the whole religious system of his empire. This way 
of looking at things does not appear to me to have any 
foundation. Even over the pagan cults the emperor had no 
direct authority : his title of Pontifex Maximus corresponds 
to certain defined prerogatives, sufficiently limited, as a 
matter of fact, and in no way capable, in any case, of being 
extended to the government of the Church. But, apart 
from his sacerdotal titles and his religious sphere, the 
emperor was, for Christians as for pagans, the supreme 
lawgiver, the defender of public order, the distributor of 
favours. It was not an unimportant matter whether this 
enormous power leant towards one side or the other, or 
maintained its equilibrium. 

There may have been equilibrium at the beginning. 
It was a great advantage for the Christians to find them 
selves in the same position as before the persecution, to be 
certain of their liberty, and even of indemnities for the 
losses they had sustained. At first they had no idea of 
claiming any more. This was already one guarantee for the 
pagans, and another was furnished them by their numbers, 
which in many of the western provinces greatly exceeded 
1 Eusebius, V. C. ii. 44. 



p. 74] CONSTANTINF/S DREAM OF UNITY 59 

those of the Christians. Finally, Licinius, who had never 
made k ny adhesion to Christianity, represented, as joint- 
emperor, the followers of the old religious traditions. 
From this resulted a certain parity between the two 
parties, independent of any political design and even 
of the private inclinations of the two imperial rulers. 

I do not know what were the real convictions of 
Licinius. We have not a single writing of his which can 
throw any light upon his religious feelings. The case is 
otherwise with his colleague. Constantine was a con 
vinced Christian, a somewhat lax one, perhaps, and 
holding a rough-and-ready theology. The Supreme 
Being, the summus Deus, the Emperor of Heaven, the 
antithesis to the pagan pantheon, complicated and confused 
as it was, appealed to him far more than speculations with 
regard to the Incarnate Word. But his monotheism was 
not simply a philosophical matter : it was essentially a 
religious monotheism, and religious in a Christian way 
a monotheism revealed and manifested in Jesus Christ, a 
monotheism of salvation, the benefits resulting from which 
the Church preserved and propagated by its teaching, its 
discipline, and its worship. Penetrated by this belief, 
Constantine could see no reason why it should not be 
accessible to and accepted by everyone. Like Diocletian 
and so many others, he dreamed of religious unity. But, 
unlike his predecessors, he no longer deemed it possible 
with paganism, while he thought that it could be realized 
with the religion of Christ. Hence arose the decided and 
declared favour for the latter, which was manifested at 
once and steadily increased, and which was, no doubt, the 
cause of many conversions, thus modifying the numerical 
proportion of the conflicting parties. Hence arose also, to 
a certain extent, the pagan reaction under Licinius in 
the eastern provinces, in spite of the fact that it would 
have been to his interest in every way to conciliate the 
Christians. 

Victorious in the final struggle, Constantine had no 
longer any rival to fear ; in Nicomedia he found himself 
supported by a Christian opinion far more powerful than 



60 CONSTANTINE, CHRISTIAN EMPEROR [CH. IT. 

that of the Latin countries, and this opinion, alienated 
by memories of Galerius and Maximin, and recently 
exasperated by the brutalities of Licinius, was quite ready 
to support the Christian emperor in measures of retalia 
tion. Many at that time must have thought and said that 
it was necessary to make an end of these sacrifices, so 
often insisted upon with violence, of these altars which had 
witnessed so many enforced apostasies, of these temples of 
idols, which were no longer taken seriously by anyone, 
and were now only frequented by persons who engaged in 
questionable conferences or unhallowed orgies. Cesset 
superstitio ! 

It is true that Constantine promised liberty to the 
pagans, but in what terms ! "As to those who hold 
themselves aloof from us, let them keep their lying 
temples, if they wish. . . . There are some, it is said, 
who pretend that the use of the temples is forbidden 
them. . . . Such would have been my wish ; but, to the 
detriment of the public welfare, this lamentable error still 
resists too strongly in certain persons." 1 The liberty thus 
reluctantly granted was evidently, in the mind of 
Constantine, only a precarious and temporary liberty. 
During the years which followed, various partial measures 
were adopted. Certain temples, notorious for the 
immorality of their worship, were prohibited and 
demolished ; such were those of Aphaca, in the Lebanon, 
of Aegae in Cilicia, of Heliopolis (Baalbek) in Phoenicia. 
Others, notably that at Delphi, were deprived of their 
beautiful statues in bronze and marble, and of their other 
artistic treasures ; all of these were transported to 
Constantinople, and served for the embellishment of the 
new capital. 2 

It appears that still further measures were taken. 
Eusebius 8 speaks of a law which forbade the erection of 
idols, the practice of divination, and finally all sacrifices. 4 

1 Eusebius, V. C. ii. 56, 60. 

2 V. C. iii. 54-58 ; cf. the Chronicle of St Jerome, a. Abr. 2346 
(332) : Dedicatur Constantinopolis omnium fiaene urbium nuditate. 

8 V. C. i. 45 ; cf. IV. 23, 25. 4 /iijre /J.TJV 6veiv Kad6\ov /iijS^ra. 



p. 77] THE FATE OF THE TEMPLES 61 

In 341, a rescript of the Emperor Constans, 1 addressed to 
the vicarius of Italy, refers to a law of Constantine against 
those who dared "to offer sacrifices." As we have not 
the text of Constantine s law, it would be difficult to 
affirm that it forbade sacrifices without reserve or distinc 
tion. Perhaps it was a question, as with regard to 
aruspicy, of ceremonies forbidden in private houses, and 
tolerated only in the temples. 

Moreover, in many places, there was no occasion for 
the government to take any steps : the populace, con 
verted en masse to Christianity, themselves broke their 
idols and destroyed their temples. This is what took 
place at Antaradus (Tortosa) on the coast of Phoenicia; 
the emperor strongly approved of this resolution, and 
rebuilt the town, giving it his own name. 2 The port 
(MaYouma) of Gaza did the same ; Constantine gave it 
the name of his sister Constantia, and raised it to the 
rank of city. 3 To renounce the ancient gods was the 
surest way to win the favours of the sovereign. 4 We can 
easily imagine how many conversions, individual or in 
masses, were the natural result of this. Yet there were 
some who resisted. In spite of the example of Mai ouma, 
Gaza preserved its temples and remained pagan. At 
Heliopolis, after having destroyed the temple of Venus, 
the emperor set to work to convert the population. But 
it was in vain that he multiplied his letters of exhortation, 
erected a great church, sent a whole staff of clergy, and 
organized large distributions of charity; it was labour 
lost : no one was converted to Christianity. 

Among the various manifestations of imperial favour, 
one of the most striking was the official honour paid to 
the Holy Places mentioned in the Gospels and the Old 
Testament. Pious curiosity had long been directed 

1 Cod. Theod. xvi. 10, I. Cf. St Jerome, Chrcn.,*, Abr. 2347 (333) : 
Rdicto Constantini templa eversa sunt. 

2 Eusebius, V. C. iv. 39 ; cf. Theophanes, p. 38 (De Boor). 
8 V. C. iv. 38. 

4 It was exactly the same situation as in the last years of Maximin, 
save that the imperial favour was reserved for Christians instead of 
for pagans. 



62 CONSTANT1NE, CHRISTIAN EMPEROR [CH. n. 

towards the places mentioned in the Holy Scriptures. 
Revolutions, wars, vicissitudes of every kind, had never 
succeeded in effacing the memory of the Temple of Israel ; 
notwithstanding all the transformations of Jerusalem, the 
Christians still knew where Jesus had been crucified and 
laid in the tomb. The church of /Elia, the edifice in 
which Narcissus, Alexander, and the bishops who suc 
ceeded them, were wont to assemble the faithful, marked, so 
it was believed, the site of the house where the Lord had 
celebrated the Last Supper, and where the disciples had 
assembled during the early days of Christianity. Other 
traditions were localized around the city, and throughout 
the whole of Palestine. In the 2nd century, Bishop 
Melito came from Asia into the land of the Gospel l ; 
later on, Alexander of Cappadocia and his successor, 
Firmilian, were also attracted by veneration for the Holy 
Places. 2 Julius Africanus, a native of yElia, 3 displayed 
an extraordinary zeal in seeking out Biblical memories in 
Palestine and elsewhere. 4 It was the same with Origen : 
among other monuments of the Gospel, he mentions, at 
Bethlehem, the grotto of the Nativity. 5 At the instigation 
of his friend, Paulinus of Tyre, Eusebius devoted a whole 
series of works to Biblical geography a translation in 
Greek of the names of peoples mentioned in the Hebrew 
Bible; a description of Ancient Palestine, with its distri 
bution into tribes ; a plan of Jerusalem and of the 
Temple ; an explanation of the names of places mentioned 
in Holy Scripture. 6 

1 There is a letter from him in Eusebius, H. E. iv. 26. 

2 H. E, vi. ii ; Jerome, De viris, 54. 

3 Grenfell and Hunt, Oxyrhynchus Papyri, n. 412. 

4 Vol. I., p. 333. 6 In Johanncm, vi. 24 ; Contra Celsum, i. 51. 
6 This last part only has been preserved, in Greek as well as in a 

Latin recension executed by St Jerome (See the edition of Kloster- 
mann in the third volume of the "Eusebius" published by the Berlin 
Academy). The works of Eusebius must have served as a basis for 
the curious map of Palestine, with a plan of Jerusalem, which was 
discovered on a mosaic pavement at Medaba, beyond Jordan 
(Stevenson, Nuovo Bulletino, 1897, p. 45 ; Schulten, " Die Mosaikkartc 
von Madaba," in the Abhandlungen of the Society of Sciences at 
Gottingen, Phil.-hist., new scries, vol. iv. (1900). 



p. 79-80] THE BORDEAUX PILGRIM 63 

The appearance of such works had already shown the 
interest awakened by the Holy Places. Pilgrimages, which 
had, no doubt, begun before the Great Persecution, 1 were 
resumed as soon as peace was restored. About the year 
333, a pilgrim from far-off Gaul compiled, from his 
notes of his journey, a complete itinerary, outward and 
homeward, from Bordeaux to Jerusalem, one of the most 
precious documents of Roman geography. When he 
arrived in Palestine, he took note there of all the sacred 
memories pointed out to him in the different localities. 
He is the most ancient witness of the magnificent buildings 
by which the piety of Constantine and his family had 
enriched the Holy Places at that time. 

The colony of ^lia Capitolina, founded by Hadrian on 
the site of the ancient Jerusalem, consisted of 2 two distinct 
parts, separated by a valley. On the east, upon enormous 
foundations, extended an oblong, rectangular platform, 
surrounded by porticoes ; this comprised the site of the 
ancient Temple, upon which now stood the Capitol 
(rpiKa.iJ.apov} dedicated, as all the provincial Capitols were, 
to the three Roman divinities, Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva. 
On the other side of the valley, upon the western hill, the 
town, properly-so-called, underwent a development almost 
exactly parallel to the birildings of the Temple. Accord 
ing to custom, a wide street, bordered by colonnades, 
traversed it from one end to the other ; at its extremities 
were the public buildings. About the middle, on the 
western side, this colonnade was broken to give access to 
a platform upon which was erected the temple of Venus. 
According to tradition, this platform had been constructed 
immediately over the place consecrated by the Crucifixion 
of the Saviour and by His tomb. The Bishop of vElia, 
Macarius, who was present at the Council of Nicaea, 

1 Observe that Eusebius, in his Dentonstratio Evangelica (vi. 18), 
written before Constantine came to the East, speaks of Christian 
pilgrims, who came from all parts of the world to pray at the cave on 
the Mount of Olives, near which had taken place the Ascension of the 
Saviour. 

2 With regard to the topography of Jerusalem, I refer to the 
excellent articles of P. Germer-Durand in the Echos cTOrient, 1903-4. 



64 CONST ANTINE, CHRISTIAN EMPEROR [CH. n. 

obtained from the emperor the necessary authorization to 
make excavations. The buildings of the temple were 
demolished, as well as the platform which supported 
them ; the earth, which had been used to level the ground, 
was removed ; and finally, a tomb hollowed in the rock 
was brought to light again : it was recognized as that 
which they were seeking. 1 The exact spot of the 
Crucifixion and even the Saviour s Cross were also 
identified. 2 The emperor, informed of these discoveries, 
gave orders for the erection of a monument in this place, 
which should be worthy of such memories. Upon the 
enlarged site of the temple of Venus arose first an 
immense basilica, in front of which was a vestibule ; its 
facade looked towards the East. 3 Behind this came a 

1 In the time of Jesus, Golgotha and the tomb were outside the 
city ; shortly afterwards, the boundaries of the city having been re 
arranged by Herod Agrippa, they were included in it ; they were also 
inside the new enclosure of ^Elia, which, on this side, appears to have 
coincided to a considerable extent with that of Herod Agrippa. With 
regard to questions of topography and history relating to these sacred 
sites, see, amongst others, the work of Major-General Sir C. Wilson, 
Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre, London, 1906. I am less doubtful 
than he is about the value of the tradition. 

2 Eusebius, who in his Life of Constantine describes minutely the 
excavations of Macarius, says not a word of the True Cross. Yet the 
oratory of the Cross was then already in existence ; he had himself 
mentioned it in his discourse of the Tricennalia (De laudibus Con- 
stantini, c. 9, p. 221, Schwartz), as well as the two other parts of the 
monument : olxov evKrripiov -jra/uL^ey^Grj (the basilica), vedjv re ayiov r$ 
ffWTrjpiy ffTjfj.d(f} (the oratory of the Cross), ftvrjud re (the Holy Sepulchre). 
Observe that even here he speaks of the Cross as a sign, not as a 
relic, o-Tj/ictV not &\<?. Perhaps he had some doubt upon the identity 
of the object. But whatever may have been his scruples, the wood of 
the Cross was soon publicly venerated in Jerusalem, and fragments 
of it were detached and dispersed by devotion throughout the whole 
world. This is attested about 347, twenty years after the discovery, 
by the Catecheses of St Cyril, delivered upon the very spot (iv. 10 ; 
x. 19 ; xiii. 4) ; an inscription of the year 359 found at Tixter, in the 
neighbourhood of Setif in Mauritania, mentions, in an enumeration of 
relics, a fragment de ligno cruets (Melanges de t^cole de Rome, 
vol. x., p. 441). Thenceforward, similar testimonies abound. 

3 With regard to this orientation, see Clermont-Ganneau, in the 
Compte-rendus de P Academic des Inscriptions > 1897, p. 552. 



p. 82] SITES AT JERUSALEM AND HEBRON 65 

great square court, ornamented with porticoes, where, in a 
special shrine, the relic of the Cross was preserved ; beyond 
this court, towards the west, was the holy tomb, contained 
in a building of circular form (Anastasis). 

In spite of her great age, the Empress Helena, attracted 
by a pious curiosity, undertook the pilgrimage to Palestine. 
We can imagine her interest in her son s buildings. She 
herself began to search for other holy places. The grotto at 
Bethlehem, and another grotto upon the Mount of Olives, 
where, it was said, the Lord had often conversed with His 
disciples 1 and had taken leave of them just before His 
Ascension, were also enclosed in splendid basilicas. 

Following the example of the emperor s mother, his 
mother-in-law also, Eutropia, 2 widow of Maximian Her- 
culius, and mother of Maxentius and Fausta, was 
distinguished by her devotion to the Holy Places. She 
was especially interested in the monuments of Hebron. 
There were to be found the mysterious tombs of the 
patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with their wives, 
Sarah, Rebecca, and Leah. At some distance from the 
town, on the road to Jerusalem, was shown the well, dug by 
the Father of the Faithful, and also an enormous terebinth, 
so old that it was deemed to go back to the creation of the 
world. 3 It was, according to the legend, the famous oak 
of Mamre, under which Abraham had received the visit of 
the three heavenly messengers, one of whom was none 
other than the Divine Word. This old tree was the object 
of universal veneration. Every summer festivals were 
celebrated there, and a great fair was held: Jews, 
Christians, and pagans also, came thither in crowds. It 
was at this fair that, in the reign of Hadrian, the greater 
part of the prisoners after the Jewish insurrection were 
sold, 4 a bitter remembrance, which did not, however, over- 

1 Supra, page 63, note I. 

2 Eutropia was mother-in-law of Constantius Chlorus, as well as 
of Constantine. To the first, she had given her daughter Theodora, 
the issue of a former marriage ; to the second, Fausta, daughter of 
Maximian. 

3 Josephus, Bell. Jud. iv. 9, 7 ; Chronicon Paschale^ Olymp. 224, 3. 

4 St Jerome, in Jerem. xxxi. 15 ; in Zachar. xi. 5. 

II E 



66 CONSTANTINE, CHRISTIAN EMPEROR [CH. n. 

shadow that of the great patriarch. Eutropia discovered 
that near the sacred terebinth were idols and a heathen 
altar; she informed Constantine of this, and he gave the 
necessary orders to the bishops of Palestine and Phoenicia, 
that these relics of paganism should be replaced by a 
church. 1 

At Antioch also, at Nicomedia, and in many other 
towns, new churches were erected imposing monuments 
of imperial favour. At Antioch, the principal Christian 
place of worship was in the old part of the city 2 ; it was 
believed that this old church 3 dated from the time of 
the Apostles. Constantine constructed another, octagonal 
in form, with a high cupola dominating an immense court 
surrounded by porticoes. 4 

But of all the foundations of Constantine, the most 
important, alike in itself and in its consequences, was 
that of Constantinople. A thousand years before, some 
Greek colonists, coming, it was said, from Megara, had 
discovered, near the opening of the Bosphorus into the 
Propontis, the place where the deep cleft opens which has 
ever since been called the Golden Horn. Upon the 
actual spot where the Seraglio now stands, they traced 
out the place for a settlement, which they called 
Byzantium, from the name of a Thracian hero, no doubt 
honoured in that locality. It was an admirable situation, 
on a promontory easily fortified, surrounded on all sides 
by the deep sea, at the mouth of the Euxine, upon one 
of the most important commercial highways of the 
ancient world! 5 Then began a long history of negotia- 

1 Eusebius, V. C. iii. 51-53 

<J ri]v atro<TTO\iKj]v tKKXyaiav TTJV <r rfl AtaXou/x^ ITaXcup SiaKCiptvijv 

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

3 After the construction of Constantine s basilica, the title of 
Old, Palasa (iraXeud), was transferred from that part of the city to 
the building itself, the ancient church (Ath. Tom. ad Ant. c. 3). 

4 Eusebius V. C. iii. 50. The church was not dedicated until 341. 
6 Some years before Byzantium, Chalcedon had been founded on 

the other side of the Bosphorus, but in a position much less advan 
tageous. Its founders were ridiculed by the whole ancient world for 
not having preferred the situation of Byzantium. 



p. 84-5] CONSTANTINE AND BYZANTIUM 67 

tions and wars, the episodes of which were mixed up 
with the ordinary life of the Greek world, at the time 
of its independence, then under the Macedonian kings, 
and finally under the empire of Rome. Severus, at war 
with Niger, had besieged Byzantium for three years, 
and then, having chastised it, had ended by reconstructing 
and enlarging it. Even in the recent war it had played 
its part ; it had been necessary to oust Licinius from it. 
Constantine resolved to transfer to it the seat of the 
eastern empire, to make it a city really his own ; for he 
would found it afresh, and it should bear his name, and, 
at the same time, it should be a city without a rival, 
a second sanctuary of the Roman power, a new Rome. 
The Tetrarchy had only possessed capitals of the second 
rank : Nicomedia, Sirmium, Milan, Treves. Constantinople 
should be quite another thing, and this sovereign city 
should be a Christian capital. 1 The emperor had seen 
Rome in 312; he had returned there in 315 for his 
Decennalia, in 326 for his Vicennalia. He must have 
discovered that the old cults were still too full of life 
there to be easily uprooted or set aside. Upon the 
Bosphorus his hands would be free. 

Byzantium had already possessed for a long time a 
Christian colony. It was from there that the famous 
heresiarch, Theodotus, 2 came to Rome towards the end 
of the 2nd century. According to somewhat vague 
traditions, the Christian settlements had been at first in 
the outskirts of the city, on the eastern shore of the 
Golden Horn. 3 Later on, these were transferred to the 
city ; at the beginning of the 4th century there was 
a church in those parts called the Church of Peace* 

1 According to accounts collected by Zosimus (ii. 30) and 
Sozomen (ii. 3), he had first thought of the site of Troy. This is 
very improbable. 2 See Vol. I., p. 217. 

3 Socrates, vii. 25, 26 ; cf. Pseudo-Dorotheus in Lequien, Oriens 
christianuS) vol. i., p. 198 ; churches of Argyropolis (Foundoukly), 
of Elea (Pera), of Sycae (Galata). 

4 Socrates, i. 16 ; ii. 16. The church of Hippo also bore the name 
of Church of Peace ; the Council of Hippo, in 393, assembled in 
secretario basilicae Pacts. 



68 CONSTANTINE, CHRISTIAN EMPEROR [CH. n. 

(Irene, St Irene), which was no doubt the seat of the 
first bishops, Metrophanes and Alexander. 1 

The Church of Irene was near the market-place of 
Byzantium (agora}^ not far from which rose two important 
buildings of Severus, the baths of Zeuxippus and the 
Hippodrome; the latter had remained unfinished. 
Constantine carried the market farther west, 2 finished 
the Hippodrome, restored the baths, and, between the 
two, began the construction of his imperial palace, and of 
another palace for the new senate. The Church of Irene 
was restored at first and enlarged ; but it was soon found 
insufficient, and another church was commenced, at a 
short distance, the Church of the Wisdom (Zo^/a, St 
Sophia). St Sophia, the Senate, the Palace, and the 
Hippodrome enclosed a vast square, the Forum of 
Augustus, in which, as at Rome, a milestone of gold was 
erected. A long colonnade, which also dated from the 
time of Severus, led to the new market-place, the Forum 
of Constantine, near the principal gate of the enclosure 
of Severus. Beyond extended the new quarters, traversed 
by two great roads, one of which, parallel with the sea, 
followed westward the l.ne of the old Via Egnatia, and 
ended in the Constantinian enclosure, at the Golden 
Gate ; the other, more to the north, ran in the direction 
of the gate of Adrianople. Near the latter, and within 
it, the emperor built a large church in honour of the 
Apostles 3 ; it was in the form of a cross, and rose in 
the midst of a court surrounded by colonnades. Eusebius, 
who saw it when quite new, was much struck by the 

1 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). 

2 The Forum of Constantine : his statue towered from the 
summit of an enormous column, the ruins of which still remain 
(the Burnt Column). 

3 The mosque Mohammedieh stands now upon this same site. 



p. 87] CHURCHES IN BYZANTIUM 69 

reflection of the sun upon its cupola of bronze. In the 
same court was the imperial mausoleum. Constantine 
had placed there twelve representative tombs, deemed 
to be those of the Twelve Apostles ; his own sarcophagus 
occupied the centre. 1 

Besides these edifices, Eusebius 2 mentions other 
churches, both within and without the city ; these were 
dedicated to the martyrs. He says also that, in this 
city to which he was giving his own name, Constantine 
would not suffer any idols in the temples, or any sacrifices 
upon the altars. 3 But "idols" were not wanting in the 
public squares and elsewhere. Many works of art and 
celebrated statues, the ornaments of temples and of cities, 
were brought to Constantinople at this time and employed 
in its decoration. 4 Some of them still remain ; after so 
many centuries and revolutions, there is still to be seen, 
upon the site of the Hippodrome, the base of the 
celebrated tripod consecrated at Delphi by the Greek 
cities in thanksgiving for their victory at Plataea. 

On May n, 330, the dedication of the new city was 
celebrated with great pomp. Great expedition was shown 
in executing the emperor s orders ; in fact, there was too 
great haste ; for these hasty erections lasted but a 
short time. They were replaced by others, for the city 
" guarded by God " 5 was not destined to an ephemeral 
existence. Energetic measures had been adopted from 
the outset to attract the populace to it, by privileges, 
obligations of residence, official supplies of food, and 
gratuitous distribution of alms. Yet time was necessary 

1 V. C. iv. 58-60. Constantine, in the Greek Church, is a saint ; 
he is given the title of /cm7r6<7ToXos, "equal to the Apostles." 

2 V. C. iii. 48. 

3 This is perhaps an exaggeration, or rather applicable only to 
the new city, the pagan worship being possibly tolerated in the 
ancient parts. 

4 Upon this subject, see Allard, Uarf paien sous les empereurs 
Chretiens (Paris : 1879), p. 73 The Scrip fores crigiuum Constantino- 
politarum have been brought together by Dr Th. Preger, in the 
little Teubner Collection, 1901 (ist part). 



70 CONSTANTINE, CHRISTIAN EMPEROR [on. IL 

before the new Rome could attain the greatness of the 
old. 1 In this, as in other things, Constantine had opened 
the way, leaving to his successors the care of continuing 
his task. In this they succeeded. The original enclosure 
of Constantine was filled ; it became necessary to construct 
another, much larger. The new Rome was developed, to 
confront, to the detriment, and at the expense of the 
ancient one. It furnished a magnificent centre of 
authority and an invincible fortress to the Roman power, 
then broken in the West. Behind its walls, the dynasties 
of the Middle Ages continued the succession of the 
Caesars, and maintained against barbarian Slavs and 
Arabian fanaticism, the tradition of the old mistress of 
the world, a tradition which may have been weakened 
and confused to any extent, but which was a tradition all 
the same. From the religious point of view, it resisted 
Islamism for eight centuries, and propagated the Gospel 
among the invaders who attacked it from the Ural and 
the Danube. Unfortunately, from its very importance, it 
early became a grave menace to Christian unity. The 
Hellenized Rome of the Bosphorus could never succeed 
in coming to an understanding with the old Rome, which 
remained, or had become once more, Latin. History is 
filled with the accounts of their conflicts ; their separation, 
which seems beyond all remedy, is one of the gravest 
disasters which has ever befallen the religion of the 
Gospel. 

After the ceremonies of the dedication, the emperor took 
up his residence in Constantinople, and scarcely ever left 
it again. After the Festival of Easter, in the year 337, 
he experienced certain ailments for which he tried a 
course of hot baths ; afterwards, he visited Helenopolis, 
where the memory of his mother was preserved as well 
as the cult of the martyr Lucian. Here his malady 
assumed such a serious form that he feared his end was 
approaching. 

1 According to Julian, Oral. i. 8, Constantinople as much 
surpassed all other cities as it was itself surpassed by Rome : 
airaauv ^d^ova. 5<ry rqs Pu/^s I\arro\ia9a.i 



p. 90] DEATH OF CONSTANTINE 71 

He removed to the imperial villa of Achyron, near 
Nicomedia, and, as he had not yet received Baptism, he 
asked the bishops to give it to him. The ceremony was 
presided over by the bishop of the place, Eusebius, a 
personage of somewhat grievous notoriety, as we shall soon 
see. 1 Constantine died on May 22. His three surviving 
sons were all absent ; the one nearest to him, Constantius, 
came to superintend his funeral, and carried his body to 
the Apostoleion at Constantinople. The succession was 
not decided without some difficulty ; affairs of State were 
still conducted in the name of the deceased emperor 
until September 9, 337, on which day his three sons were 
proclaimed Augusti. 

Constantine has been, and still is, the subject of various 
estimates. The main fact of his reign, the conversion of 
the emperor and the empire to Christianity, has procured 
for him the enthusiasm of some, and the severity of others ; 
for it is in the nature of men that their present passions 
display their fierceness even in their manner of represent 
ing ancient times. Unfortunately for Constantine, there 
was too much bloodshed in his history. We might pass 
over the death of Maximian and of Licinius, who were 
restless and inconvenient rivals ; but his son Crispus, and 
the son of Licinius, and his wife Fausta ! We have very 
little information with regard to these horrible affairs. 
Constantine wished that the details of them should be 
unknown ; perhaps, by this imposed silence, he may have 
suppressed extenuating explanations. But, whatever may 
be the truth with regard to these domestic tragedies, it 
is not only the Church which has reason to rejoice in the 
first Christian emperor : the Empire also benefited under 
his government. So long as he lived, he secured to it 
religious peace, a wise administration, the safety of the 
frontiers, and the respect of neighbouring nations. It was 
no inconsiderable achievement. 

1 Eusebius, V. C. iv. 60-64. Cf. Jerome, Chron.> a. Abr. 23^,5. 



CHAPTER III 

THE SCHISMS RESULTING FROM THE PERSECUTION 

Pope Marcellinus and his memory. Disturbances at Rome with 
regard to apostates : Marcellus, Euscbius. Egyptian quarrels : 
rupture between Bishops Peter and Meletius. The Meletian 
schism. Origins of the Donatist schism. Council of Cirta. 
Mensurius and Caecilian, Bishops of Carthage. Schism against 
Caecilian : Majorinus. Intervention of the Emperor. Councils 
of Rome and of Aries. Imperial arbitration. Resistance of the 
Donatists : organization of the schism. 

I. The Roman Schism. 

AT the time when the persecution broke out, the 
Roman Church had had at its head, for nearly seven years, 
Bishop Marcellinus. 1 The edict of confiscation of ecclesi 
astical property, whether real or personal, was applied 
without difficulty in Rome. The Christian community 
there was so considerable, and so well known, that any 
kind of disguise would have been not only dangerous but 
impossible. The formal records regarding this seizure 
were preserved for a long time, thanks to the belief of 
the Donatists that they could find weapons in them 
against their adversaries. Certain clerics were called 
upon to make the surrender of the things confiscated 
there is no mention of the Holy Scriptures and, when this 
case of conscience presented itself in Africa, great stress 
was laid upon their share in the transaction. Then came 
the order to arrest the members of the clergy : it appears 

1 His name is mentioned in an inscription of the cemetery of 
Callistus, anterior to the persecution. (De Rossi, Inscription s 
christianae^ vol. i., p. cxv.) 



p. 93] THE CASE OF POPE MARCELLINUS 73 

that they must have evaded a too severe application of 
this order. Only one priest, Marcellinus, and one exorcist, 
Peter, are mentioned as having died at this time. The 
bishop escaped the first measures of severity, as did those 
of Carthage, Alexandria, and Antioch ; but he died on 
October 24, 304, at the moment when Diocletian arrived 
in Rome, and when the persecution was everywhere raging 
in its full severity. 

For a person of such importance, it was sufficiently 
unfortunate, at such a time, to die in his bed. The memory 
of Marcellinus was much ill-treated by the Donatists 
during the course of the 4th century. They included 
him in the number of the traditores without bringing 
forward any very clear proofs. Several of them 1 went 
farther, and charged him with a much more serious offence : 
that he had offered incense upon pagan altars. This last 
accusation seems to have been admitted in Rome, at 
least by the general public, towards the end of the 5th 
century. We have no other documents respecting it than 
two apocryphal ones : the spurious Council of Sinuessa, a 
composition a little later than the year 501, and the Life 
of Marcellinus in the Liber Pontificate. These two docu 
ments agree in representing Marcellinus as having reha 
bilitated himself. According to the council, a numerous 
assemblage of bishops had established his fault and his 
repentance, but had refused to condemn the sovereign 
bishop; according to the legend of the Liber Pontificalis, 
the erring Pope, being once more arrested by his perse 
cutors, showed more courage, and shed his blood for the 
Faith. 

Taken by themselves and reduced to their real value, 
such testimonies would not be very compromising. There 
was in Rome, during the 4th century, a colony of 
Donatists, who may well have spread abroad among the 
people the idea of a Pope unfaithful to his duties at a 
time of persecution, an idea which may have fructified, 
later on, in the hands of those fabricators of false legends 
and false councils, who were so active at the beginning 
1 Aug., Contra litteras Petiliani, ii. 202 ; De unico baptismo^ 27. 



74 THE SCHISMS [CH. in. 

of the 6th century. But we must take account of a fact, 
serious in another way because it throws light, not upon 
popular rumours, but upon the opinions of the superior 
clergy in Rome, and that immediately after the persecution. 
The Roman Church in the time of Constantine possessed 
a calendar in which were marked the anniversaries of the 
Popes and of the principal martyrs. From the time of 
Fabian (250) until that of Mark (335), all the Popes 
appear there, with only one exception, that of Marcellinus. 
Such an omission, 1 which cannot be accounted for by any 
errors in copying or other excuses of the same kind, 
cannot have been without reasons. In his Ecclesiastical 
History Eusebius confines himself to saying that, when 
the persecution began, Marcellinus was bishop; it is a 
simple chronological note. He is, otherwise, very little 
informed of w r hat was taking place in Rome in his own 
time. In fact, something unpleasant must have happened ; 
but we do not know exactly what it was. 

Disorganized by the persecution, and saddened by the 
death of its bishop, the Roman Church passed through a 
crisis of considerable danger, less, perhaps, on account of 
the persecution than of the internal dissensions which 
followed it. The violence of the persecution appears to 
have diminished greatly after the abdication of Diocletian ; 
when Maxentius was proclaimed emperor, it must have 
ceased altogether. 2 Yet the Christians in Rome were in 
no hurry to elect a new bishop. Maxentius was a usurper, 
a rebel. His good-will did not guarantee that of Galerius, 
who was then in open hostility against him and might at 
any moment become once more master of the situation. 
Nevertheless, when, after the death of Severus, Galerius 
had been driven back from Rome, and when Maxentius, 

1 Marcellinus is only omitted in the calendar ; the Philocalian 
collection, which has preserved the calendar for us, contains a 
catalogue of the Popes, in which Marcellinus appears in his proper 
place. 

2 Eusebius, H. E. viii. 14, goes so far as to say that at the outset 
he pretended to be a Christian "to please the Roman people"; he 
adds, what is more probable, that Maxentius commanded his subjects to 
moderate the persecution : Tfo *arct X/nanaywi tottvai T/joordrTf i 



P. 95-6] POPE MARCELLUS 75 

then on fairly good terms with Constantine, appeared to 
have established his power, it was decided to incur the 
risk of the election. Towards the end of June 308, 
Marcellus was enthroned as Pope, after a vacancy of nearly 
four years. 

He found that the question of the apostates had 
already come to the front, and was being discussed. 1 The 
danger over, the apostates were returning to the Church, 
and claiming even to enter it without conditions ; while 
the authorities, the new Pope at their head, faithful to 
traditional principles, insisted that they should submit to 
penitential expiation. The number of apostates was legion, 
and the conflict which they let loose degenerated into a 
kind of sedition. From the temporary edifices where 
Christian assemblies were held, the churches not having 
as yet been given back, the dispute soon spread into the 
street, and public order was endangered. The govern 
ment of Maxentius intervened, and, on the accusation of 
an apostate, 2 Marcellus was adjudged responsible for the 
disorder and banished from Rome. 

He was succeeded, either in the same year (309), or in 
the year following (310), by Eusebius. This time, the 
election was not unanimous. Another candidate, Heraclius, 
was acclaimed by the party opposed to the infliction of 
penance. The schism was complete : troubles began once 
more. At the end of four months, the police again inter 
fered, arrested the two leaders, and drove them out of 
Rome. Eusebius, banished to Sicily, died there shortly 
afterwards. 

The edict of Galerius must have been known in Rome 
by the month of May, 311. Although Maxentius did not 
show himself unfavourable to the Christians, he had 

1 As to what follows, we have no other documents than the 
epitaphs of Popes Marcellus and Eusebius, composed long after 
wards by their successor Damasus. The description they give of the 
state of things in Rome agrees very well with what we know to have 
happened at Carthage and at Alexandria. 

2 Darnasus does not give his name, but says he had denied Christ 
in time of perfect peace (in pace} that is to say, before the persecu 
tion. He was an apostate before the time. 



76 THE SCHISMS [CH. in. 

maintained the confiscations carried out in 303. It seems 
that he did not wish to be behindhand with Galerius in 
the matter of toleration, and that his favourable attitude 
towards Christianity was increased in consequence. The 
Roman Church, after a vacancy of one or two years, again 
gave itself a bishop, in the person of Miltiades (July 
2, 311), and he obtained from Maxentius the restitution 
of the confiscated places. The " tyrant " and his praetorian 
prefect issued letters, with which the deacons of Miltiades 
presented themselves before the prefect of Rome : the 
churches were officially restored to them, and a formal 
record of this proceeding was drawn up. 1 

This time, persecution was really over ; the Roman 
Church enjoyed external peace. It seemed further as 
though internal peace were also successfully established, 
for we hear no more, after that time, of the schism with 
regard to penance. Other Churches were agitated by it 
for a longer period. 

2. The Meletian Schism* 

In Egypt, as elsewhere, the question of the apostates 
gave rise to various opinions, and thereby, having regard 
to the ecclesiastical usages of the time, to quarrels. 
Religious peace was still very far off, when, in the spring 
of 306, the Bishop of Alexandria issued a formal ruling 
upon the matter, inspired by sentiments of mercy. 

1 This formal record, as well as that regarding the confiscation, 
was brought forward by the Donatists at the conference of 411. 
{Coll. 499-514 ; Aug. Brev. iii. 34-36 ; Ad Don. 17.) 

1 Upon the Meletian schism, see (i) The canons in the letter of St 
Peter of Alexandria, with the additions in the Syriac text, edited by 
Lagarde in his Reliquiae iuris ecclesiastici aniiquissimae, and retrans 
lated into Greek by E. Schwartz, "Zur Geschichte des Athanasius," 
in the Gottingen Nachrichten, 1905, p. 166 etseq. ; (2) Several extracts at 
the end of the Historia acephala of St Athanasius contained in the 
collection attributed to the deacon Theodosius (MS. at Verona, No. 
LX.) : (P. Batiffol, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 1901, has carefully 
republished them, and shown the link which connects them with the 
Historia acephala) ; (3) Epiphanius Haer. 68, in which the original 
history is already slightly illustrated with legends ; (4) Athanasius, 
Apol. contra Arianos^ II, 59 ; Ad episcopos Aegypti et Libyae^ 22, 23. 



1 . 98] ST PETER OF ALEXANDRIA 77 

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, he 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 consider 
able 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 metro 
politan, 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. 2 
The Bishop of Thmuis and his three companions died 
soon after. Nevertheless, the unmanageable Bishop of 

1 Nackrichten, 1905, p. 168. 

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



78 THE SCHISMS [CH. in 

Lycopolis persisted in his attitude. He came to Alex 
andria, where he held communication with two ambitious 
teachers, Isidore and Arius 1 the latter an ascetic, the 
other of more easy morals 2 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, pro 
nounced 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. 

* Moribus turbulentus, according to the Latin version. 

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



p. 100-1] THE DONATISTS 79 

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 empercfr 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 traditionis, 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 bishops 2 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 
(i 35 1 355 5 387-400; 408-432; 45 2 -47o; Aug. Brev. iii. 27, 31-33)- 
St Augustine gives a long fragment of it (Adv. Cresc. iii. 30) ; cf. Ep. 



80 THE SCHISMS [CH. in. 

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 praise 
worthy 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 J Contra lift. Petiliani, i. 23 ; De unico bapt. 31 ; Ad Donntistas, 
1 8 ; Contra Gaudentium, i. 47, etc. ; Optatus, De schism, i. 14. 

1 Aug. Brei>. Coll. iii. 25. 

3 The letters of Mensurius and Secundus, read at the conference 
of 41 1 (iii. 334-343 ; Brev. iii. 25, 27), are also quoted by St Augustine, 
Ad Don, 18 ; De unico bapt. 29 ; Contra Gaud. i. 47. 



p. 103] MENSURIUS OF CARTHAGE 81 

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. 1 
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 he 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 com 
fortably 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 some 
what strained. Once more, as in the time of Decius, the 

1 Su^ra, p. 1 6. 

8 Passion of SS. Saturninus, Dativus, etc. (Migne, P. L. vol. viii., 
p. 700, 701). This is a Donatist document, written after the 
beginning of the schism. It is possible that some features in it may 
be exaggerated. I do not accept it entirely. 

II F 



82 THE SCHISMS [CH. in. 

confessors 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. 1 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 " usurpa 
tion " 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. 2 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, 3 Felix of 

1 Vol. I., p. 291. 

2 This circumstance is honourable to Mensurius, and proves that 
he was not deficient in character. 

3 This was already the custom in the time of Cyprian : Quod apud 



p. 106] CONSECRATION OF C^CILIAN 83 

Aptonga and two others, took part in his ordination. 
Nothing could have been more regular. But, unfortun 
ately, 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 ordinationcs rite 
celebrandas ad earn plebem cut praepositus ordinatur episcopi ejusdem 
provinciae proximi quique conveniant (Ep. Ixvii. 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 (vindicates] by the 
Church of Carthage. 



84 THE SCHISMS [CH. in. 

before Caecilian s ordination, he had openly professed the 
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. 

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, 1 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 neighbour 
hood 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 

1 Optatus relates (De 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. 



p. 108-9] SCHISM AT CARTHAGE 85 

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 not 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 Caecilian. 
It was he whom the government consulted in all the 
negotiations relating to the settlement of the last crisis. 2 
In a letter, addressed to him by the emperor, 3 Constantine, 
already acquainted with the divisions in the African 
Church, invited Caecilian to seek the support of the pro 
consul 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 
Ceecilian, 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 /<?// ; nearly sixty thousand francs (,2,400). 

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



86 THE SCHISMS [CH. in. 

Piety to send us judges from Gaul. Given by Lucian, 
Dignus, Nasutius, Capito, Fidentius, and other bishops of 
the party of Majorinus." 1 The proconsul received these 
documents, and forwarded them. Constantine thus found 
himself in the same situation as Aurelian at Antioch, 
forty years before, that of being made cognizant of a 
dispute between two Christian parties, and interested by 
his regard for public order that it should be cut short as 
effectually as possible. But Constantine was personally 
influenced in this affair by sympathies quite different from 
those of Aurelian. Besides, he was not requested to 
pronounce jvidgment himself upon the dispute, but to 
submit it to the consideration of bishops in a specified 
country. The dissenting Africans obtained the judges 
they asked for. The emperor selected Rheticius, Bishop 
of Autun, Maternus of Cologne, and Marinus of Aries. 
At the same time, he thought it his duty to send them to 
Rome, and entrust Pope Miltiades with the office of 
presiding over and controlling the debates. To this end 
he communicated to the Pope 2 the act of accusation 
received by Anulinus, and took measures to arrange that 
Csecilian should come to Rome, with ten African bishops 
of his own party and ten of the adverse party. 

The tribunal assembled in the house of Fausta, at the 
Lateran, 3 on October 2, 313; there were three sittings. 4 
By agreement with the emperor, the Pope had added to 
the bishops from Gaul fifteen Italian prelates 5 ; so that 

1 ...<?/ caeteris episcopis partis Donati, runs the transcription of 
this document in Optatus i. 22. But here, the ending has been 
retouched. 

2 Letter from Constantine to Pope Miltiades in Eusebius, H. E. x. 5* 

3 This is the first time that the Lateran is mentioned in ecclesi 
astical documents. Perhaps the house of Fausta had already been 
ceded to the Roman Church, either as a gracious gift or in compensa 
tion for some confiscated property. 

4 The formal record of the first sitting was read at the conference 
of 411 (iii. 320-336, 403, 540; Brev. iii. 24, 31). A large fragment in 
Optatus, De schism. i. 23, 24 ; cf. Aug. Contra ep. Parmen. i. 10 ; Ep. 
43, 5, 14 ; Ad Donat. 56, etc. 

6 The Bishops of Milan, Pisa, Florence, Sienna, Rimini, Faenza, 
Capua, Beneventum, Quintiana (Labic*m\ Preneste, Tres Tafomae. 



p. ill] ROMAN COUNCIL IN 313 87 

there were nineteen bishops in all. Donatus of Casae 
Nigrae led the chorus of the opposition. Requested to 
state what was their cause of complaint against Caecilian, 
they declared that they had no personal objection to him, 
and postponed to another sitting the statement and the 
proof of the objections which they raised to his ordina 
tion. 1 Donatus, however, formulated some causes of 
complaint which he could not substantiate. This led to 
his being accused himself. It was shown that, even before 
the ordination of Ciecilian, he had been a fomenter of 
schism in Carthage.; he admitted that he had performed 
rebaptism, no doubt upon apostates, 2 and that he had 
laid hands on bishops who were lapsi, both of them things 
contrary to the rules of the Church. No more was done 
on the first day. At the second sitting the adversaries 
of Csecilian refrained from putting in an appearance : 
the third day was given up to the votes, which the judges 
pronounced one after the other, first against Donatus, and 
then in favour of Csecilian. We still possess that of Pope 
Miltiades, who spoke last: "Whereas Caecilian has not 
been accused by those who came with Donatus, as they 
had announced, 3 and as he has not been upon any point 
convicted by Donatus, I think it is right to support him 
entirely in his ecclesiastical communion." * 

The schismatics were thus condemned and by the very 

Ostia, Forum Claudii, Terracina, Ursinum (?) ; this last name may 
perhaps represent bolsena (Vuhinii\ perhaps Urbino (Urvinum). 

1 It is thus that we may reconcile two points in St Augustine s 
summary : ubi accusatores Caeciliani qui missi fuerant negayerunl se. 
habere quod in eum dicerent . . . ubi etiam promiserunt iidem ad- 
versarii Caeciliani alio die se rcpraesentaturos quos causae necessaries 
subtraxisse arguebantur. I think they intended to direct the debate 
upon the consecrator, Felix of Aptonga. 

2 The rebaptism of heretics was still practised by everyone in 
Africa. There was no reason to complain of Donatus on that 
account. As to his laying hands on the bishops, we cannot quite see 
whether it was a case of reordination or readmission of penitents; 
both were inadmissible, according to received custom. 

3 Juxta professionem suam ; these words are not very clear. 

4 That is to say, in his position with regard to communion with 
them, such as he had before the schism. 



88 THE SCHISMS [CH. m. 

judges whom they themselves had demanded. They set 
out on their return to Africa, but did not consider them 
selves beaten, and soon appeared again to assail the 
emperor with their protestations. The affair, they said, 
had not been examined properly, and in detail. From 
that time, Constantine had very little respect for these 
disturbers of the peace ; he had willingly concurred in 
the judgment of the Roman council. But the accounts 
which his officials sent him from Africa were not reassur 
ing. A little spark had kindled a great fire. Division 
was raging everywhere. Some of the bishops recognized 
Majorinus, others Caecilian ; often, in the same town, two 
parties organized themselves, one against the other. There 
were two bishops at Carthage ; and the same state of 
things reproduced itself elsewhere. The minds of men 
were excited to an extreme degree : the followers of 
Majorinus called themselves the Church of the Martyrs, as 
the Meletians of Egypt had done, and described the others 
as the party of " the traitors." In such an over-heated 
atmosphere as this, the Church quarrels soon degenerated 
into acts of violence and street fights. The government 
was therefore justified in interfering in this unfortunate 
affair, however paltry it might seem, and in endeavouring 
to settle it. 

Constantine decided to have the case tried over again. 
To this end he convoked a great council in Gaul, at 
Aries, to meet on August I, 3I4. 1 It actually took 
place. 2 The schismatics supported their cause there 

1 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). 

2 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 



P. 114] COUNCIL OF ARLES, 314 89 

with their usual insolence, which produced a most un 
favourable impression. The bishops could scarcely 
recognize such enraged fanatics as Christians. 1 Not 
only did they refuse to listen to their accusations, but 
they condemned the accusers themselves. They also 
laid down the principles which ought to decide the matter : 
" Whoever shall have given up the Holy Scriptures or 
the sacred vessels, or betrayed the names of his brethren, 
ought to be removed from the ranks of the clergy ; always 
provided that the facts against him be confirmed by 
official documents (actis publicis}^ and not by mere 
rumours. If any such person has conferred ordination, 
and there is no cause of complaint against those he has 
ordained, the ordination so conferred cannot prejudice 
him who has received it. And, as there are some people 
who, against ecclesiastical rule, claim the right of being 
admitted as accusers, while supported by suborned 
witnesses, such persons must not be admitted, unless, 
as we said before, they can produce official documents." 2 

Nothing could be wiser. It was necessary to put 
a stop to the accusations, by which, almost everywhere, 
the clergy were threatened by the discontented, to punish 
those who were really guilty, to secure peace to the 
innocent, and to pass condemnation in doubtful cases. 

The Council of Aries profited by this opportunity 
to regulate various points of discipline. We may note 
here the understanding which was then established, 

at the Council of Aries either by their bishops or by other clerics. 
Italy : Rome, Portus, Centumcellae, Ostia, Capua, Arpi, Syracuse, 
Cagliari, Milan, Aquileia ; Dalmatia : a bishop, whose name is 
lost; Gaul\ Aries, Vienne, Marseille, Vaison, Orange, Apt, Nice, 
Bordeaux, Gabales, Eauze, Lyon, Autun, Rouen, Reims, Treves, 
Cologne ; Britain : London, York, Lincoln, and perhaps a fourth 
Church ; Spain : Emerita, Tarragona, Saragossa, Basti, Ursona, 
and another Church of Baetica ; Africa : Carthage, Caesarea in 
Mauritania, Utina, Utica, Thuburbo, Beneventum (?), Pocofeltis (?), 
Legisvolumini (?), Vera (?). 

1 Graves ac perniciosos legi nostrae atque traditioni effrenataeque 
mentis homines pertulimus. Letter to Silvester. 

a Can. 13. 



90 THE SCHISMS [CH. in. 

upon the question of the baptism of heretics, between 
the Church on the continent of Europe and the Africans, 
those of them, at least, who followed Caccilian. The 
African Church renounced the custom, for which Cyprian 
had fought so ardently sixty years before, and promised 
to conform to the rule observed at Rome and in the 
other Churches of the West. 1 

The decision at Aries was not without effect ; a certain 
number of the dissidents joined themselves to Caucilian-; 
but the leaders remained obstinate. As little satisfied 
with the Council of Aries as they had been with the 
Council of Rome, they again hastened to appeal to the 
prince who had given them this twofold opportunity of 
justifying their position. Constantine was extremely 
irritated at their obstinacy. Nevertheless, he was willing 
to exhaust all means of conciliation, and accepted their 
appeal. 3 

Either before or after the Council of Aries, 4 it had 
been decided by both parties to investigate the affair 
of Felix of Aptonga and his " surrender." The Donatists 5 
had conceived the idea of going to the fountain-head, 
and obtaining a certificate from the municipal magistrates 
of Aptonga to the effect that Bishop Felix had really 
surrendered the Holy Scriptures in 303. The duumvir 
who had then been in office, Alfius Ca_ cilianus, was still 
alive. To him was sent a certain Ingentius, with instruc 
tions to get the necessary document from him. Alfius 
was a respectable pagan, sufficiently astute to guess at 

1 Can. 8. 2 Aug. Brcv. Coll. iii. 37. 

3 Letter of Constantine to the bishops of the Council of Aries, 
Aetcrna, religiosa (Migne, P. L. vol. viii., p. 487). 

4 The date is not so exact as we could wish. We know that the 
Council of Aries was convened for August i, 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 fEcole de Rome> vol. x., 
D. 644). 

6 We may now employ that term, because the celebrated Donatus, 
from whom the party took its name, must by that time have succeeded 
Majorinus. 



p. 116] THE CASE OF FELIX OF APTONGA 91 

once that they desired to take advantage of him, and 
he refused to speak. However, one of his friends, 
Augentius, who had influence over him, was induced to 
intervene, and he was told that Bishop Felix, having 
received in trust several precious books which he did 
not wish to give up, desired a certificate that they 
had been burnt during the persecution. The honest 
Alfius was scandalized at this disclosure : " Here is a 
sample," he said, " of the good faith of Christians ! " But 
he consented to write to Felix a letter in which he recalled 
to him what had happened in 303 ; how he had, in the 
absence of the bishop, seized the church, taken away 
the bishop s throne, burnt the doors and the correspondence 
(epistolas salutatorias). The Donatist agent was obliged 
to be content with this not very compromising document. 
When he returned home, he made haste to complete it 
by a post-script of quite a different meaning. 

This letter, however, did not constitute an official 
document. To give it that character, it was planned to 
obtain its authentication by the curia of Carthage. Tak 
ing advantage of a journey which the dt4umvir Alfius had 
taken to the capital, they summoned him to appear at 
the request of a certain Maximus, another Donatist agent 
before " Aurelius Didymus Speretius, priest of Jupiter 
Optimus Maximus, duumvir of the illustrious colony of 
Carthage," in order to certify the notorious letter. It was 
increased by the post-script ; but whether because he was 
not allowed to read the whole, or from some other cause, 
Alfius declared himself to be the author of the document. 
This formal appearance took place on August 19, 3I4. 1 

The government also instituted enquiries of its own. 
By command of the emperor, the vicarius ^Elius Paulinus 
summoned the ex-duumvir Alfius and his recorder from 
Aptonga. They had to wait a long time at Carthage, 2 
for ^Llius Paulinus had just then been replaced, and his 

1 "Gesta purgationis Felicis"(/*. L. vol. viii., p. 718 etseq. ; Corpus 
zcriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorutn^ vol. xxvi., p. 197 et seg.}. 

2 It was perhaps during this stay that Alfius Cescilianus appeared 
before the duumvir of Carthage. 



92 THE SCHISMS [CH. IIL 

successor, Verus, fell ill, so that the proconsul ^Elianus 
was obliged to take charge of the matter. He summoned 
before him, not only Alfius, but also a centurion named 
Superius ; a former curator, Saturninus ; the curator then 
in office, Calibius ; and a public slave, Solon. These were 
all carefully interrogated at the proconsular audience 
on February 15, 315. Alfius, being summoned to identify 
his letter, examined it more closely, and declared that the 
clauses compromising Bishop Felix had been added later, 
and had not been dictated by him. The forger, Ingentius, 
also appeared ; he was not put on the rack, because he 
happened to be dccurion of a small town ; but he confessed, 
without torture, that he had added the post-script to Alfius 
letter to revenge himself upon Bishop Felix, against 
whom he had some grudge. The report was despatched 
to the emperor, who summoned Ingentius to appear 
before him. 1 

Constantine was much embarrassed by this affair, for 
he saw quite plainly that there was no way of inducing 
such fanatics to submit with a good grace. At first he 
thought of sending some trustworthy persons to Africa, 
after sending back there 2 the Donatist bishops who were 
prosecuting the interests of their own party at his court. 
Some days after, he changed his mind, kept them with 
him, 3 and summoned both parties to Rome, where he 
spent the summer. The Donatists came, but Caecilian, 
we do not know why, did not appear. The emperor was 
very angry at this. He threatened to go himself to 
Africa, and teach both parties " how the Divinity ought 
to be worshipped." 4 

Another year passed by. Constantine succeeded in 
bringing together the two leaders, Caecilian and his rival 
Donatus, the successor of Majorinus as head of the opposi- 

1 Letter of Constantine to the proconsul Probianus, successor of 
/Elianus, P. L. vol. viii., p. 489. 

2 Before April 28, 315, the date of the document " Quomam 
Lucianum," P, L, vol. viii., p. 749 ; Corpus, p. 202. 

8 Letter "Ante paucos," ibid,, p. 489 ; Corpus, p. 210. 
4 Letter "Perseverare Menalium," ibid. ; Corpus, p. 211. 



p. 119] CONSTANTINE AND DONATISM 93 

tion Church. A formal debate took place, at the end of 
which the emperor declared himself in favour of Caecilian. 
A communication of his decision was at once made to 
the vicarius of Africa, Eumelius. 1 

Nevertheless, the emperor wished to see if, in the absence 
of the two bishops, it would not be possible to reunite 
the two Churches. To this end, he kept Donatus and 
Caecilian in Italy, and sent two commissioners to Carthage, 
the Bishops Eunomius and Olympius. 2 These spent forty 
days there, trying their utmost to bring about an under 
standing ; but their mission of peace was opposed by the 
violence of the rebels. The bishops ended by declaring 
that those alone were Catholics who were in agreement 
with the Church spread throughout the whole world, and 
in consequence entered into communion with Csecilian s 
clergy. The wiser spirits of the opposing party also came 
over to their side ; but the majority remained inflexible. 
Donatus managed to elude the watch set over him, and 
returned to Carthage ; Caecilian did the same : and the 
religious war continued as fiercely as ever. 

Constantine tried rude measures. The Donatists had 
possession of a certain number of churches in Carthage. 
He gave orders that these churches should be taken from 
them, 8 and, as they resisted, proceedings manu militari 
were resorted to. Nothing could have suited the enthusiasts 
of the party better: the champions of the martyrs could 
now look forward to becoming martyrs themselves. With 
regard to the impression made upon them by the execution 
of the law, we still possess a curious document relating 
to their eviction from three churches in Carthage. 4 During 
the first eviction, no blood was spilt, but the soldiers 

1 Letter of November 10, 316, produced at the conference of 411 
(iii. 456, 460, 494, 515-517, 520-530, 532, 535 5 Brev. iii. 37, 38, 40- 
Cf. Aug. Contra Cresc. iii. 16, 67, 82 ; iv. 9 ; Ad Don. 19, 33, 56 ; De 
unitate eccl. 46 ; Ep. 43, 20 ; 53, 5 ; 76, 2 ; 88, 3 ; 89, 3 ; 105, 8. 

* Upon this mission, see Optatus, i. 26. 

3 A law mentioned by St Augustine, Ep. 88, 3 ; 105, 2, 9 ; Contra 
lift. Petiliani, ii. 205 ; cf. Cod. Theod., xvi. 6, 2 

4 "Sermo de passione SS. Donati et Advocati," P. L. vol viii., 
p. 753. 



94 THE SCHISMS [CH. in. 

installed themselves in the church, and gave themselves to 
riot and debauchery ; in the second, the Donatists were 
attacked and beaten ; one of them, the Bishop of Sicilibba, 
was wounded ; in the third, there was a veritable massacre ; 
several persons were killed, notably the Bishop of Advocata. 1 
Summary executions of this kind took place, no doubt, in 
many places ; a certain number of people were exiled, 
either by way of precaution, or for having resisted eviction. 2 

But all proved ineffectual. The schism spread from one 
end of Roman Africa to the other, in spite of all the 
decisions, and in spite of the futility of the original strife. 
People made up their minds to being unsupported in 
their opinions ; as to the decisions of emperor or bishop, no 
notice was taken of them ; communion with the Churches 
over the sea counted for nothing. The Church no longer 
existed save in Africa, and in the party over which 
Donatus presided. Donatus was not an ordinary man. 
He was intelligent and well educated, 3 and of ascetic 
morality ; he ruled with a very high hand the strange 
following whose chief he was, and among whom we are 
a little astonished to find him. But, like Tertullian, 
Donatus was very domineering, and in his own world, 
such as it was, he reigned supreme. His followers, who 
were very proud of him, treated him as a being of a 
higher order than themselves. 

If the schism flourished at Carthage, and in the pro 
consular province, this was nothing in comparison with 

1 If strictly pressed, all these things may have happened in the 
same church ; the account is more eloquent than lucid. Cf. the 
conjectures of M. Gauckler (Comptes rendus de C Academic des In 
scriptions, 1898, p. 499), and of M. Gsell (Melanges de Creole de Rome^ 
1899, p. 60) upon the name Advocata and of the bishop killed in this 
affair. 

2 The comes Leontius and the dux Ursacius, who were concerned 
in these reprisals, left a memory odious to the Donatists. Upon 
these personages, see Pallu de Lessert, Pastes des provinces africaines^ 
vol. ii., pp. 174, 233. 

3 No writing of his has been preserved. St Jerome (De viris, 93) 
knew of Donatus many writings pertaining to his heresy (nntlta ad 
suam haeresim pertinent: a), and also a treatise on the Holy Spirit, in 
conformity with Arian doctrine. 



p. 121] DONATISM Itf NUMIDIA 95 

its success in Numidia. There, almost everyone was 
Donatist. The Catholics in those parts had a very hard 
life. They were forced to realize the emptiness of 
official protection. No one wished to have anything to 
do with them, not only from a religious point of view, 
but even in ordinary life. No one spoke to them, no one 
answered their letters ; everyone sought occasions for 
insulting them, and at a pinch for murdering them : 
"What communication can there be between the sons of 
the martyrs and the followers of traitors ? " 

The " sons of the martyrs" had a severe trial in 320. 
In that year, a conflict arose between the Bishop of Cirta 
(called at this time Constantina) and one of his deacons. 
This bishop was Silvanus, one of the original supporters 
and leaders of Donatism. The deacon Nundinarius had 
been excommunicated by him we do not know for what 
reason ; he claimed even to have been pelted to some 
extent with stones. He went to complain to various 
bishops in the district, threatening, if reparation were 
not given him in Constantina, to reveal dangerous secrets. 
The prelates, to whom he appealed, tried to intervene; 
some of them were interested in securing the deacon s 
silence. But they could not succeed in closing his mouth, 
and the dispute ended in an official enquiry, over which 
the consularis of Numidia, Zenophilus, presided in due 
form. The government was not at all sorry to take the 
great Donatist leaders red-handed in this way, and to 
discredit them in the public opinion. The matter was 
examined at a public hearing, at the request of 
Nundinarius, on December 13, 320. 

The formal record respecting the seizure of the church 
at Cirta, in 303, was produced, and it appeared from this that 
Silvanus, then a sub-deacon, had assisted his bishop in 
giving up to the magistrates the sacred vessels of his 
church. This enemy of traditores, who for years was 
engaged in railing against them, had been himself a 
traditor. The fact was established by evidence, that 
Silvanus and Purpurius, the notorious and violent Bishop 
of Limata, were thieves ; that they had appropriated jars 



96 THE SCHISMS [en. in. 

of vinegar belonging to the fiscal authorities and deposited 
in a temple, one taking possession of the contents, and the 
other of the jars; that Lucilla, the great patroness of the 
schism, had rewarded the services of th2 Numidian 
bishops, or (and this was a still more serious matter) that 
some of them had appropriated the alms which she had 
entrusted to them for distribution among the poor ; also, 
that Silvanus had received money for the ordination of 
a priest. Nundinarius also brought forward evidence with 
regard to the election of Silvanus, which proved the strong 
dislike with which it had been regarded by a section of 
the people, and in addition a strange record, in which the 
consecrators of that bishop comessed to having been guilty 
of various acts of traditio}- 

As a result of this, a circumstantial account of the 
whole affair was drawn up, of which only a portion 
remains to us. Silvanus was exiled, it would be hard to 
say exactly for what reason ; the misdeeds with which 
Nuudinarius reproached him were, after all, mostly of an 
ecclesiastical character, 2 and did not fall under the 
operation of legal penalties ; we are led to conclude 
that he was considered as an instigator of disorder, and 
that therefore, like several others, he was banished in the 
interests of public tranquillity. The Donatists in the time 
of St Augustine said that, during the "persecution" of 
Ursacius and Zenophilus, Silvanus was exiled for not 
having wished to unite with the rest of the Church 
(com municare}? 

It was not long before he returned, and with him the 
other exiles. Constantine, finding it impossible to subdue 
them by severe measures, soon decided, on their request, 
to let them alone. The letter of May 5, 321, in which he 
notifies this decision to the vicarius Verinus, 4 is as severe 

1 A document already made use of above, p. 80. 

2 However, the theft of jars of vinegar was a crime according to 
common law. 

3 Aug. Contra Cresc. iii. 30. 

4 Petition of the Donatists, and letter to the vicarius : Coll. iii. 
541-552 ; Bre-u. iii. 39, 40, 42 ; Aug. Ep. 141, 9 ; Ad Ton. 56. 



p. 124] ATTITUDE OF CONSTANTINE 97 

as it could possibly be to the Donatists. It is the same 
with another letter which he wrote, a little later, to the 
Catholic bishops, enjoining them to bear patiently with 
the insults of their liberated enemies. 1 The emperor loved 
to persuade himself that the agitators were but few in 
number, and could easily be gained by methods of 
kindness. A fond illusion in administrative affairs ! He 
discovered only too soon upon what kind of gratitude he 
could rely. At Constantina, the episcopal city of the 
notorious Silvanus, he had constructed, at his own cost, a 
basilica for the use of Catholics. As soon as the building 
was finished, the Donatists took possession of it, and nQ 
official summons, no judicial decisions, no imperial letters, 
could induce them to give it up. Constantine found 
himself obliged to build another church. The best proof 
we have of the supremacy of the Donatist party in 
Numidia is, that they had succeeded in depriving the 
Catholic clergy of their immunity from the duties of the 
curia, and other similar offices, a privilege which had 
already been granted to them by the State. For this 
purpose also the emperor was obliged to interfere. We 
must add that, while he thus left the African Catholics to 
their fate, he carefully preached to them, in the most 
edifying terms, the forgiveness of injuries ! 2 This must 
have been small comfort in tribulations which were only 
too real. 

1 Migne, P. /,. voL viii., p. 491 : Quod fides. 

* Letter "Cum summi Dei," Sardica, February 5, 330 (P. L* vol. 
viii., p. 531) ; law of the same day in the Theodosian Code t xvi. 2, ;. 



II 



CHAPTER IV 

ARIUS AND THE COUNCIL OF NIC/EA 

The parishes of Alexandria. Arius of Baucalis : his doctrine. 
Conflict with traditional teaching. The deposition of Arius and 
his followers. Anus is supported in Syria and at Nicomedia. 
His return to Alexandria : his Thalia. Intervention of Con- 
stantine. Debate on the Paschal question. The Council of 
Nicaea. Presence of the Emperor. Anus again condemned. 
Settlement of the Meletian affair, and of the Paschal question. 
Compilation of the Creed. Disciplinary canons. The Honwousios. 
First attempts at reaction, 

AFTER the martyrdom of Peter (f3i2), the Church of 
Alexandria had for a short time at its head Achillas, one 
of the former masters of the Catechetical School. His 
tenure of office lasted but a few months, and he was 
succeeded by Alexander. Both of them had cause of 
complaint against Meletius and his schism ; but Alexander 
had besides trouble with Arius, one of his priests, and 
this difficulty was a great event in the history of the 
Church. 

The city of Alexandria contained at that time, and 
subsequently, several churches controlled with a certain 
measure of independence by special priests. St Epiphanius 1 
mentions several of these churches e.g., those of Dionysius, 
of Theonas, of Pierius, of Serapion, of Persaea, of Dizya, 
of Mendidion, of Annianus, and of Baucalis, which, perhaps, 
do not all date back to the time of which we are now 
speaking. Over all the members of these churches, both 
clergy and laity, the bishop had superior authority. To 

1 Haer. Ixix. 3, 
98 



p. 126] THE CLERGY OF ALEXANDRIA 99 

ensure the maintenance of this, and to preserve the unity 
of the flock, regular meetings assembled the priests and 
deacons together around the supreme head of the local 
Church. 

But there were decentralizing influences at work. The 
Alexandrian priests remembered the time when they 
themselves ordained their bishop. 1 During the episcopate 
of Alexander, one of them, named Kolluthus, asserted 
once more this power of ordination, and began to hallow 
priests and deacons, without any reference to his ecclesi 
astical superior. But quite another matter presented 
itself. 

About the year 3i8, 2 the priest of Baucalis, Arius, 
began to excite much discussion. He had already been 
talked about with regard to the Meletian schism, with 
which he seems to have been mixed up for some time. 
After somewhat wavering as to his course, during the 
episcopate of Peter and Achillas, he ended by regaining 
his balance under Alexander. He was an elderly man, 
tall and thin, of melancholy looks, and an aspect which 
showed traces of his austerities. He was known to be an 
ascetic, as could be seen from his costume, which consisted 
of a short tunic without sleeves, over which he threw a 
sort of scarf, by way of a cloak. His manner of speaking 
was gentle : his addresses were persuasive. The conse 
crated virgins, who were very numerous in Alexandria, 
held him in great esteem ; among the higher clergy he 
counted many staunch supporters. 3 

1 See Vol. I., p. 69. Some traces of this custom must have 
remained, for it is still mentioned in the 5th century. {Apophthegmata 
Pat rum, ii. 78 ; Migne, P, G. vol. Ixv., p. 341). 

2 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 Nicaea, 
we have to go back to a period before the persecution of Licinius. 

3 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. Ixix.), and especially from Sozomen, i. 15, 



100 ARIUS AND THE COUNCIL OF NIC^EA [CH. iv. 

Indeed, he had a party and a doctrine of his own. In 
Alexandria, it was not at all an exceptional thing to have 
a doctrine of one s own. We have seen before what 
could be taught, in the days when Clement and Origen 
ruled over the Catechetical School. That school was 
still in existence, and had abandoned neither the ideas 
nor the methods of its former masters. But still it was 
only a school ; the teaching of Arius was given in the 
name of the Church. And the Church recognized at once 
that it raised difficulties. Later on, the Meletians claimed 
to have had their part in the recognition of this, and said 
that it was they who had awakened the bishop s attention. 
It seems more probable that the opposition against Arius 
originated with Kolluthus, one of his colleagues, perhaps 
the same man with whom we have just been concerned. 

But however that may be, Arius was called upon for 
an explanation. During his youth, he had attended, in 
Antioch, the school of the celebrated Lucian. It was 
from this quarter that he had derived his system, which 
can be summarized in a few words. 

" God is One, eternal, and unbegotten. 1 Other 
beings are His creatures, the Logos first of all. Like the 
other creatures, the Logos was taken out of nothingness 
(e OVK ovrwv) and not from the Divine Substance ; there 
was a time when He was not (i/ ore OVK tjv) ; He was 
created, not necessarily, but voluntarily. Himself a 
creature of God, He is the Creator of all other beings, 
and this relationship justifies the title of God, which is 
improperly given to Him. God adopted Him as Son in 
prevision of His merits, for He is free, susceptible of 
change (T/DCTTTO?), and it is by His own will that He 

who had before him documents which we do not possess in their 
entirety. According to him, Arius belonged at first to the party of 
Meletius ; having then joined Bishop Peter and been ordained 
deacon, he again quarrelled with his superior. Under Achillas, he 
may have resumed his functions, and may even have been promoted 
to the dignity of the priesthood. Cf. supra, p. 78. 

1 In those days scarcely any difference was recognized between 
7*r7jT6 (become) and ~i*wrrrfa (begotten), any more than between their 
contraries d-^vTjroj and d 



p. 128] THE LOGOS-DOCTRINE AND ARIANISM 101 

determined Himself on the side of good. From this 
sonship by adoption results no real participation in 
the Divinity, no true likeness to It. God can have no 
like. The Holy Spirit is the first of the creatures of the 
Logos ; He is still less God than the Logos. The Logos 
was made flesh, in the sense that He fulfilled in Jesus 
Christ the functions of a soul." 

This idea of the Word as a creature, however remote 
from received tradition, was yet not without connection 
with certain theological systems professed at an earlier 
date. 

From the time of Philo to that of Origen and Plotinus, 
leaving, of course, Gnosticism out of account, all religious 
thinkers formulated the idea of the Word with cosmo- 
logical repossessions in their minds. Their abstract God, 
their Being in Itself, ineffable and inaccessible, was so 
absolutely opposed to the world of sense, that there was 
no means of passing from one to the other, except through 
an intermediary who should participate in both. The 
Word proceeded from God, from the Divine Essence; but 
as He contained in Himself, in addition to the creative 
power, the idea, the pattern of the creation, He fell, in 
certain respects, within the category of the created. How 
ever like the Father He might be represented as being, 
there were none the less between them differences of 
capacities. Under such conditions, the problem was not 
resolved, but merely changed from one point to another. 
The two ideas of Infinite and Finite were confronted with 
each other, and in conflict, in the intermediate Person. 
The Word was linked to God by a mysterious procession, 
upon which there were many discussions with much use 
of figurative language, but which no one could clearly 
define. It could not easily be reconciled either with 
pure Monotheism or with the idea of a distinct Person, 
two essential data furnished by tradition, and based upon 
Scripture. 

At the time of which we are now speaking, it is 
remarkable that everyone seemed to be in agreement to 
escape from this impasse. The followers of Lucian 



102 ARIUS AND THE COUNCIL OF NIC^EA [CH. iv. 

resolutely sacrificed the obscure idea, in favour of a clearer 
one ; they no longer affirmed any Procession from the 
Substance. The whole Divinity was contained in the 
Father; He alone was truly God. The Word was the 
First of creatures, but a creature. He was no longer God, 
He was essentially distinct from God. It was thus that 
they thought to save Monotheism, and also the personality 
of the pre-existing Christ. The philosophical difficulty 
was eliminated, but with it had disappeared the very 
essence of Christianity. In complete contradiction to 
Arius, Alexander and Athanasius held firmly to the 
absolute Divinity of the Word. At the risk of appearing 
to agree with the Modalists, they cut short all idea of 
procession from without, paid no heed to the asserted 
necessities of cosmology, maintained, as best they could, 
the distinction of Persons, but preserved first and foremost 
the identity of the Word with God. The religious aspect 
of the question dominated everything. The heavenly 
Being, incarnate in Jesus Christ, must be God without 
qualification, and not approximately so, or as a way of 
speaking. Otherwise, He would not be the Saviour. 
That such ideas were difficult to translate into the 
philosophical language of that day, is a matter which they 
perhaps took into consideration, but they scarcely troubled 
themselves on that account ; they were not concerned with 
cosmology, but with religion ; not with scientific pro 
prieties, but \vith tradition. 1 Besides, in treating of these 
Divine matters, is one called upon to explain everything? 
Generationcm eius quis cnarrabit ? 

This state of mind was not peculiar to the Bishop of 
Alexandria. We have seen instances of it elsewhere, and 
for a long time past. Side by side with scholastic theories, 
there had always been, even among highly cultivated 
persons, an opinion which respected these mysteries of 

1 Alexander was still influenced, more or less, by his Ongenist 
training. We see traces of this in his two letters. He was like 
Eusebius of Ca_ sarea, 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. 



p. 131] ARIANISM AT ALEXANDRIA 103 

religion, which held fast to the essential doctrines, and 
distrusted persons who threatened to compromise these 
under pretence of reconciling them with other notions, or 
throwing more light upon them. Bishop Peter had 
already given an example of this state of mind, on the 
throne of Alexandria. After Alexander, it was very 
clearly maintained by Athanasius, who was already, at the 
time when our present narrative begins, a deacon and 
adviser of his bishop. 

The doctrines of Arius were discussed first in the 
assemblies of the Alexandrian clergy, under the presidency 
of Alexander, who appears to have directed the debates 
with much moderation and kindness. The teaching given 
in certain churches of the city was brought forward, and it 
was shown to be contrary to tradition. The incriminated 
priests, being first entreated, and then commanded, to 
renounce their innovations, obstinately refused. The 
situation became grave. Upon one point of principal im 
portance, the superior clergy of Alexandria were divided ; 
some, with their bishop, taught the absolute Divinity of 
Christ ; others, with Arius at their head, would only accord 
him a divinity which was relative and secondary. 

Such a state of things could not continue. From the 
moment that Arius and his followers refused to accept the 
teaching of their bishop, they ought to have resigned their 
functions. They did nothing of the kind, imagining no 
doubt that, in view of the independent position of the 
Alexandrian priests, they were rulers of the Church, quite 
as much as their bishop was, and had no need of his 
instructions. And as their number was comparatively 
large, Alexander thought it his duty to reinforce the 
authority of his decision, by summoning the whole of the 
Egyptian episcopate to his assistance. These indeed were, 
beginning to be excited ; Arius had supporters amongst 
them. The affair was not exclusively an Alexandrian 
affair : it was beginning to interest all within the metro 
politan jurisdiction. Nearly a hundred bishops rallied 
round Alexander : two of them, Secundus of Ptolemais in 
Cyrenaica, and Theonas of Marmarica, deserted, and 



104 ARIUS AND THE COUNCIL OF NIC.EA [CH. IT. 

ranged themselves on the side of Arius. They were 
deposed, and with them six priests and six deacons of 
Alexandria : the priests Arius, Achillas, Aeithales, 
Carpones, another Arius, and Sarmatas ; and Euzofus, 
Lucius, Julius, Menas, Helladius, and Gaius, the deacons. 
Mareotis also, a rural district surrounding Lake Mareotis, 
was represented in the list of the proscribed : either at the 
council, or shortly afterwards, two priests from that 
district, Chares and Pistus, and four deacons, Serapion, 
Parammon, Zosimus, and Irenaeus, openly professed their 
sympathy with Arius, and were deposed, as he was. 1 

There were not many defections in the Egyptian 
episcopate as a body ; but the Alexandrian clergy were 
very considerably affected. Arius and his followers, like 
Origen in bygone days, decided to leave Egypt, passed 
over to Palestine and settled at Caesarea. And, still like 
Origen, they met there with a warm welcome. For 
several years the learned Eusebius had presided over that 
Church. His reputation was great : his historical works 
and his apologies had had time to make their way. In 
theology, his Origenism had not remained unyielding. In 
particular, he had sacrificed the eternity of creation, and, 
therefore, Origen s reason for maintaining the eternity of 
the Word. At bottom, he thought like Arius ; but in 
proportion as the latter was clear and precise in his 
explanations, so did the Bishop of Cxsarea excel in cloth 
ing his ideas in a diffuse and flowing style, and in using 
many words to say nothing. We can form an idea of this 
from the elaborations with regard to the generation of the 
Word, which figure at the beginning of his Ecclesiastical 
History?- Other bishops in Palestine, Phoenicia, and 
Syria held the same opinions. 8 

1 See Alexander s encyclical letter, Evbt <rw^aToj, and the document 
annexed, Kard^fo-ty Apdov (Migne, P. G. vol. xviii., pp. 573, 581). The 
encyclical was signed by seventeen priests and twenty-four deacons of 
Alexandria, nineteen priests and twenty deacons of Mareotis. At the 
head of the priests of Alexandria signs a certain Kolluthus, who may 
well have been the person of whom mention has already been made. 

2 H. E. i. 2. 

3 In his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, Arius mentions, besides 



p. 133-4] EUSEBIUS AT NICOMEDIA 105 

The Bishop of Caesarea was not at that time, as he 
became afterwards, a personage in favour at court, and 
of assured position. This part was filled by another 
Eusebius, an aged prelate well versed in intrigue, who had 
succeeded in transferring himself from Berytus, where he 
had first exercised his episcopal functions, to the more 
important see of Nicomedia. There, in close proximity 
to the court, in high favour with the Empress Constantia, 
the sister of Constantine and the wife of Licinius, he had 
made for himself a position, the strength of which was 
soon felt. He was besides a theologian, and a disciple of 
Lucian of Antioch. He shared all the ideas of Arius, and 
for a long time had been on the coldest of terms with his 
colleague of Alexandria. The party could never have 
dreamed of more powerful patronage. Arius wrote to 
Eusebius from Palestine, 1 and lost no time in joining him. 

The Bishop of Nicomedia set himself at once to work : 
he inundated the Orient and Asia-Minor with letters 
addressed to the bishops, 2 in order to persuade them to 
range themselves on the side of Arius, and to support him 
against his own bishop,by demanding of the latter a 
reversal of his decision. Arius drew up an explanation of 
his doctrine, in the form of a letter addressed to Alex 
ander 3 ; and this was circulated in the hope of gaining 
many adhesions. Eusebius of Caesarea interposed several 
times on his behalf with the Bishop of Alexandria. 4 

the Bishop of Csesarea, those of Lydda (Aetius), of Tyre (Paulinus), of 
Berytus (Gregory), of Laodicea (Theodotus), of Anazarba (Athanasius), 
"and all the Easterns." Yet he himself admits that the bishops of 
Antioch (Philogonius), of Jerusalem (Macarius), and of Tripoli 
(Hellanicus) were opposed to him. There were others also. 

1 Epiphanius, Ixix. 6 ; Theodoret, i. 5. It is in this letter that he 
gives Eusebius of Nicomedia the name of collucianist (ffv\\ovKtavio-Ta). 

a One of these letters, addressed to Paulinus of Tyre, has been 
preserved in Theodoret, H. JS. i. 5. Paulinus seems to have had some 
difficulty in taking a side. 

3 Athanasius, De synodis, 16 ; Epiphanius, Ixix. 7, 8. 

4 Letter mentioned by Eusebius of Nicomedia, in the document 
quoted above, note i ; another letter, of which some fragments appear 
in the Acts of the VI 1th (Ecumenical Council, Mansi Concilia^ vol. 
xiii., p. 317. Cf, Sozomen, i, 15 a 



106 ARIUS AND THE COUNCIL OF NKLEA [CH. iv. 

Alexander, meanwhile, had not been idle. He wrote 
to all the bishops, protesting against the interference of 
Eusebius of Nicomedia, "who deems himself entrusted 
with the care of the whole Church, ever since, abandoning 
Berytus, he cast his spell over the Church of Nicomedia, 
without anyone daring to punish him for so doing," and 
poses as the protector of Arius and his party. Alexander 
then gave the names of the condemned persons, and 
summarized, in a brief outline, the principal features of 
their teaching, " more pernicious than the heresies of the 
past, the fore-runner of Antichrist." To this letter were 
added the signatures of all the clergy who had remained 
faithful, both in Alexandria and Mareotis. 1 A copy was 
sent to Pope Silvester-; others to the Bishop of Antioch, 3 
Philogonius, to Eustathius, Bishop of Berea, and to many 
besides. Just as Arius was collecting signatures for his 
profession of faith, so in the same way the messengers of 
Alexander were obtaining signatures everywhere for his 
protest against it. He gained many adherents from Syria, 
Lycia, Pamphylia, Asia, Cappadocia, and the neighbouring 
countries. He wrote 4 a little later to another Alexander, 
Bishop of Byzantium, to obtain his support also. In this 
letter he complains of the disturbances which the followers 
of Arius are causing him in Alexandria. Women were 
mixing themselves up \\ ith the affair ; I have already said 
that Arius was in high favour with the virgins. These 
obstinate and argumentative ladies raised one quibble after 

1 It is this letter ( i>os o-^uoros) (/ . G. vol. xviii., p. 572) which is 
called the Tome of Alexander. Dr E. Schwartz (Nachrichten, 1905, 
p. 265) wishes to reserve this title for a document preserved in a 
Syriac MS. in the British Museum (Add. 12, 156, copied in 562), and 
published by P. Martin (Pitra, Analecta Sacra, vol. iv., p. 196 ; 
Schwartz gives a Greek translation of it). This document seems to 
be derived from a copy of the Tome^ addressed to a Bishop Meletius 
(he can hardly be the person spoken of by Eusebius, H. E. vii. 32, 
who speaks of him as if he were dead ; see rather Athanasius, Ep, 
ad episcopos Aegyptios, 8) ; topographical references of a very doubt 
ful character have been added to it, as well as the signature, also 
suspect, of the Bishop of Antioch, Philogonius. 

* Quoted in a letter of Liberius, in 354 (Jaffe, 212). 

3 Theodoret, //. E. i. 3. 4 P. G. vol. xviii., p. 548 



p. 136] THE THALIA 107 

another against their bishop. They held schismatical 
meetings. In short, the general disorder, which the 
exodus of the condemned persons had not appeased, 
became every day more extreme. 1 

The return of Arius brought matters to a crisis. A 
synod, assembled in Bithynia by the efforts of Eusebius of 
Nicomedia, had pronounced that the dissenting party 
ought to be admitted to communion, and that Alexander 
should be entreated to receive them. As he still refused, 
the supporters of Arius in Phoenicia and in Palestine, 
Eusebius of Caesarea, Paulinus of Tyre, Patrophilus of 
Scythopolis, and several others, in their turn assembled in 
council, and authorized Arius and his adherents to resume 
their functions, while remaining, however, at the same time 
under obedience to their bishop. 2 

This latter condition was difficult to fulfil. Arius and 
his friends returned, counting apparently upon the number 
and energy of their supporters to force the hand of their 
ecclesiastical superior. Nothing was neglected which could 
excite the populace and secure their support for the 
opposition party. Pamphlets were circulated, and even 
songs. Arius had composed a long rhapsody, in which 
the beauties of his metaphysics were extolled. This is 
what is known as his Thalia, and several fragments of it 
have been preserved. It begins as follows : 

According to the faith of God s elect, 

Who comprehend God, 

Of the holy children, 

The orthodox, 

Who have received the Holy Spirit of God, 

This is what I have learnt 

From those who possess wisdom, 

Well-educated people, 

Instructed by God, 

Skilled in all knowledge. 

It is in their footsteps, that I walk, even I, 

That I walk as they do, 

1 Arius had perhaps already returned, when the letter was written. 

2 Sozomen, i. 15, summarizes here synodical documents which 
have not come down to us. 



108 ARIUS AND THE COUNCIL OF NIC.EA [CH. iv. 

I, who am so much spoken of, 

I, who have suffered so much 

For the glory of God, 

I, who have received from God 

The wisdom and knowledge which I possess. 

The dock-labourers, the sailors, all the idle and the 
rabble in the streets, knew these songs, and shouted them 
into the ears of Alexander s faithful followers. Hence 
ensued brawls without end. 

Outwardly, the episcopate was greatly divided. Each 
of the two parties boasted of adhesions received. Letters 
in favour of Arius were formed into a collection 1 ; the 
same was done with those in support of the Bishop of 
Alexandria. 2 A rhetorician of Cappadocia, called Asterius, 
who had apostatized during the persecution, and could not 
enter the ranks of the clergy on that account, spent his 
time travelling through the East, giving lectures to explain 
and defend the new theology. The public began to take 
interest in these questions, even the pagan public, who, 
of course, took advantage of this opportunity to amuse 
themselves at the expense of the Christians and of their 
beliefs. The quarrels of Arius and Alexander were even 
echoed in the theatres. 3 

It was in this state of disturbance that Constantine 
found the Eastern Church, when his victory over Licinius 
brought him into close relations with it. 

On his arrival at Nicomedia, he had at first intended 
to visit the "Orient" 4 immediately; and among the 
reasons which prevented him, these ecclesiastical disputes 
held an important place. The accounts given him with 
regard to that at Alexandria astonished and distressed 
him. He had counted upon the assistance of the Greek 
episcopate to help him in reducing the African schism, 

1 Athanasius, De synodis, 17. 

2 I cannot adcept as authentic the Council of Antioch in 324, of 
which Dr E. Schwartz (Nachrichten t 1905, p. 171 et scq.) publishes a 
supposed synodical letter addressed to Alexander of Byzantium (NVaj 

from a Syriac MS. at Paris, No. 62. 
8 Eusebius, V. C. i. 6r. 
4 By which is meant here, Syria and Egypt 



p. 138] ATTITUDE OF CONSTANTINE 109 

which was a grievous anxiety in his religious policy, 
and lo ! the Greek bishops were themselves divided. And 
why? For a mere nothing. Alexander had been im 
prudent enough to puzzle his priests with idle questions 
respecting a text from the Bible 1 upon subjects of no 
religious importance ; and Arius, instead of keeping his 
own opinions to himself, had expressed and defended 
them with extreme obstinacy. Was this of all others 
the time to devote oneself to such disputations? Could 
they not let such irritating and insoluble questions sleep, 
and live at peace in Christian brotherhood ? 

The emperor wrote a letter in this sense, addressed 
jointly to Alexander and to Arius. It was carried to 
them by the hand of his faithful adviser in matters 
ecclesiastical, Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, who had fol 
lowed him to the East. Constantine implored them both, 
in moving terms, to be reconciled with each other, and 
so to restore peace to the Church, and tranquillity to 
their sovereign. 

In Constantine s method of dealing with this affair, 
we recognize at once the ruler and administrator favour 
able towards the Christian religion, desirous even that 
the whole world should accept it, and that in this way 
a moral unity (he expressly says so) might be established, 
but at the same time quite incapable of interesting him 
self in metaphysical questions. The kind of Christianity 
which the government wanted at the time was the 
religion of the Supreme Being (summa divinitas) y crystal 
lized in the faith in Christ as Revealer and Saviour, and 
in the observance of the religious and moral precepts 
inculcated by the Church in His name. As for puzzling 
one s brains with regard to the summa divinitas, and 
its intimate relationship with Christ, it might be all very 
well as a subject of study for private individuals ; different 
opinions might be held on such a subject ; but what 
was the use of producing them in public, and especially 
with such persistence as to provoke opposition and to 

1 Proverbs viii. 22. 



110 ARIUS AND THE COUNCIL OF NIC.fiA [CH. iv. 

give rise to quarrels? 1 The State could be interested 
in such matters only in so far as they affected the public 
welfare. 

Hosius, who was a practical man, may have been, 
at bottom, of the same opinion as the emperor. Neverthe 
less, when he arrived at his destination, he at once 
perceived that the imperial exhortation was not sufficient 
to calm the troubled spirits. It might perhaps have 
succeeded with Westerns, whose theological needs were 
limited. But with Greeks, who were born thinkers, 
talkers, and wranglers, it was quite another matter. The 
question could not be suppressed ; it was necessary to 
decide it. 

However, advantage was taken of the visit of Hosius, 
to settle certain local affairs. It was undoubtedly at 
that time that Kolluthus was condemned and his ordina 
tions declared invalid. At all events, among them was 
annulled that of a certain Ischyras, who came to the 
surface again later and made some stir. 2 

On his return to Nicomedia, Hosius informed the 
emperor of the state of affairs, and Constantine decided 
to summon a great council, which, as they both thought, 
would succeed in restoring peace. 

The affair of Arius was not the only one which 
excited trouble. There were also the schism of Meletius 
in Egypt and the dispute on the calculation of Easter. 
The substance of the latter question may be stated as 
follows 3 : 

The dispute in Pope Victor s time between the 
Church of Rome and the Churches of Asia had ended in 

1 We may note, in the imperial letter, this curious comparison : 
"Philosophers themselves (of a school) are all in agreement as to 
their way of looking at things (Soy/ma) ; if sometimes they are divided 
with regard to some proof, this difference of opinion does not 
prevent them from agreeing as to essentials" (Eusebins, V. C. ii. 71). 

8 Athanasius, ApoL contra Ar. 74. According to Socrates, iii. 7, 
Hosius was consulted then upon the questions of essence and of 
hypostasis, with regard to the Sabellians and their dogma. 

8 See my memoir, "La question de la Paque au concise de Nicde," 
in the Revue des questions kistoriyues, vol. xxviii. (i8So), p. i. 



p. 141] THE DATE OF EASTER 111 

favour of the Roman use. Everybody agreed that the 
Feast of the Resurrection of Christ should take place 
on the Sunday after the Jewish Passover. At Antioch 
they allowed the Jews to fix the time of the I4th of 
Nisan that is, of the full moon at which the feast 
was celebrated. The month of Nisan being the first 
lunar month, it might be placed differently, according as 
the preceding year had consisted of twelve or thirteen 
months. This latter point was decided by the Jewish 
authorities according to their own methods. At Alex 
andria they did not trouble themselves about the Jews; 
they made their own calculations for Easter, and the 
fluctuation of the first lunar month was put an end to 
by the special regulation that the feast celebrated 
after the full moon must be celebrated also after the 
vernal equinox, fixed at March 21. As the Jews at 
that time, at least took no account of the vernal equinox, 
the result of this was that their I4th of Nisan might occur 
a month before that of the Alexandrians, and that the 
Church of Antioch, which was accustomed to adopt it, 
might also find itself a month in advance of the great 
metropolis of Egypt. Both of the rival methods of 
calculating had their adherents, and, strange as it may 
appear to us, even passionate adherents. 

Great councils were no novelties to the Eastern 
episcopate, 1 They had seen many of them in the middle 

1 The formal records of the Council of Nicaea, if any were drawn 
up, have not been preserved. The account given by Eusebius ( V. C. 
iii. 22), is the only one emanating from a witness who was present ; 
Eustathius of Antioch (Theodoret, i. 7), and Athanasius (especially 
the De decretis Nicaenis and the epistle Ad Afros], who had also 
been present at the council, report but few details regarding it. 
Under the Emperor Zeno (476-491), a certain Gelasius, a native of 
Cyzicus, compiled in Bithynia a history of the council, in which he 
inserted a number of official documents. The narrative part of his 
collection is borrowed from Eusebius, from Rufinus (a Greek 
Rufinus translated by another Gelasius), from Socrates, and horn 
Theodoret. These authors (with the exception of Rufinus) have 
supplied him with many documents ; he has also borrowed a certain 
number from a previous collection, made by a priest named John, 
but otherwise unknown. He had, besides, at his disposal, extracts 



112 ARIUS AND THE COUNCIL OF NIC^A [CH. iv. 

of the 3rd century, and since then, at which the bishops 
of Eastern Asia-Minor and of the Syrian provinces had 
assembled at Antioch or elsewhere. Alexandria itself 
had also witnessed from time to time assemblies of the 
Egyptian and Libyan episcopate ; one of these local 
councils had been summoned specially with regard to 
Arius. These two groups, however, had never been 
united ; the " Eastern" bishops had never deliberated with 
those of Egypt. On the present occasion, the assemblage 
was much larger. To the Egyptians and to the Easterns 
were added bishops from the whole of Asia-Minor, alike 
from the ancient province (now a diocese) of Asia, and 
from Cappadocia, Pontus, and Galatia. The provinces 
beyond the Bosphorus were also represented, although 
in a smaller proportion. Still less numerous was the 
representation of the Latin countries : one Pannonian 
bishop ; one from Gaul, the Bishop of Die ; one bishop 
from Calabria; the Bishop of Carthage; and finally, 

made by himself during his life at Cyzicus, from a book which had 
belonged to Dalmatius, the Bishop of that city, and a member of 
the Council of Ephesus in 431 ; this book was an artificial composi 
tion, claiming to be an exact reproduction of conversations between 
various philosophers and the members of the council. See, on this 
subject, Gerhard Loeschcke, Das Syntagma des Gelasius Cyzicenus^ 
a study which appeared in the Rhcinischcs Museum, 1905, 1906 ; 
the author is much too favourable to Gelasius and to the book of 
Dalmatius. The text of Gelasius was divided into three books ; the 
first two are in Migne s Patrologia gracca, vol. Ixxxv., pp. 1192-1344 ; 
for the third, of which Mai (Spic. Rom. vol. vi., p. 603) has only 
given the table of contents, with some insignificant fragments, we must 
have recourse to Ceriani, Monumenta sacra et projana, vol. i., p. 
129. That which Migne gives as Book III. consists of three letters 
of Constantine, the first of which is really an extract from this book, 
as Mai s index describes it and as Ceriani has published it. It seems 
to have been longer (cf. Photius, cod. 88), and may have comprised the 
two others. As to the signatures of Niccea, of which recensions 
exist in various languages (Pa/rum Nicaenorum nomina^ ed. Teubner 
[Gelzer, Hilgenfeld, Cuntz], 1898), they come to us, when completely 
analyzed, not from an official record simply recopied, but from an 
arrangement in which the names have been distributed in their 
geographical order. This arrangement appears to belong to the 
end of the 4th century. 



p. 143] NUMBERS AT THE COUNCIL 113 

Hosius of Cordova, whom we may consider as the 
representative of the Spanish episcopate, and two Roman 
priests, sent by Pope Silvester. Even from countries 
situated on the extreme frontiers, from the Black Sea 
and from Persia, came several bishops. Thus there 
were to be seen at Nicaea the Bishop of Pityus, in the 
Caucasus, the bishop from the kingdom of Bosphorus, 1 
two from Armenia Magna, and lastly, one from the 
kingdom of Persia. 

The exact number of the members of the Council of 
Nicaea was not fixed at the outset by official documents. 
Eusebius of Cassarea, 2 who took part in this assembly, 
says that there were more than 250 ; another member of 
the council, Eustathius of Antioch, 3 speaks of 270, 
Constantine of more than 300.* This last figure is that 
of St Athanasius, of Pope Julius, and of Lucifer of 
Caliaris. In the course of time it was increased a little, 
to arrive at the symbolic number of 318, which was that 
of the servants of Abraham in his struggle against the 
confederate kings, 5 and tradition has so fixed it. The 
lists which have come down to us only mention 220 
names, fourteen of which are the names of chorepiscopi. 
It is possible that these lists may be incomplete, and, 
in particular, that the names of episcopal sees, the 
occupants of which were only represented by simple 
priests or other clerics, 6 were not preserved at all, except 
in the case of the Church of Rome. 

1 This is no doubt the Scythia of which Eusebius speaks, V. C. 
iii. 7. 

a V. C. iii. 8. 3 In Prov. viii. 22 (Theodoret, i. 7). 

* Letter to the Church of Alexandria, Socrates, i. 6. 

6 Genesis, xiv. 14. 

6 The great authority of the First GEcumenical Council caused it 
soon to become a theme for legends. By the end of the 4th 
century, various things, more or less doubtful, were related with 
regard to it ; and these again, in the following century, already found 
a place in books of history. The private legislators, to whom we 
owe so many apocryphal collections of canon law, at first sheltered 
themselves under the pretended authority of the apostles (i/. Vol. I., 
p. 388) ; now, we shall see them also claim authority from the three 
hundred and eighteen Fathers. 

II H 



114 ARIUS AND THE COUNCIL OF NIC.4EA [CH. iv. 

In the spring of the year 325, all this multitude was 
making its way, either in the carriages of the imperial 
post, or on horses supplied by the emperor, towards the 
appointed meeting-place, which was the town of Nicaea, in 
Bithynia, close to the imperial residence at Nicomedia. 

These prelates were of widely different degrees of 
education. The most learned was undoubtedly Euscbius 
of Caesarea. Several others, such as Alexander, 
Eustathius of Antioch, and Marcellus of Ancyra, are 
known to us from writings in the anti-Arian controversy ; 
these questions, which had already been discussed for 
several years, must have been familiar to the greater 
part of them. Some of the number, like Leontius of 
Caesarea in Cappadocia, and James of Nisibis, were 
celebrated for their virtues. But those who were looked 
for most eagerly were the confessors during the Great 
Persecution, Paul of Neocsesarea in Syria, with his burnt 
hands, Amphion of Epiphania, and the Egyptians 
Paphnutius and Potamon, both blinded in one eye and 
lame from their sufferings in the mines. If this great 
convocation excited the curiosity of the faithful, and even 
of the pagans, it could not have produced a slighter 
impression upon those who composed it. Never before 
had the Church seen such a review of its official rulers. 

But, although he was an actual witness and actor in 
this scene, Eusebius scarcely gives us any information as 
to the details of it. What seems to have struck him most 
of all was the appearance of the emperor at the first 
meeting, and the State banquet at which he entertained 
the members of the council. 

In a great hall of the palace, seats were placed to right 
and left ; the bishops took their places there, and waited. 
Soon appeared several Christian officers, and then the 
emperor, clothed in the purple and in the magnificent 
costume which was then in fashion. It was indeed a 
solemn moment this meeting between the head of the 
Roman State and the representatives of the Christian 
communities, who had been so long and so severely 
persecuted. Now the evil days were over : Galerius, 



p. 146] THE OPENING OF THE COUNCIL 115 

Maximin, Licinius, all the enemies of Christ, were dead. 
But of the blows which they had struck the recollection 
was still vivid, and of those present more than one bore 
the marks of them. The emperor of to-day, the puissant 
prince who for twenty years had defended the frontiers and 
kept the barbarians at a distance, who had but just now 
restored the unity of the empire, and was holding it 
complete and undivided in his hand, was also the restorer 
of religious liberty nay more, he was the protector and 
the friend of the Christians. 

Constantine took his place at the head of the hall. 
The bishop nearest to him, on his right hand, 1 perhaps 
Eusebius of Caesarea, perhaps the Bishop of Antioch, 
better entitled to it by the superiority of his See, then 
spoke, and expressed to him the feelings of the assembly. 
The emperor replied in Latin, and his speech was 
immediately translated into Greek. 2 After this the 
debates began. The emperor followed them carefully, 
and sometimes joined in them. 

In the intervals, the members of the council were his 
guests at the festivities by which he celebrated the 
twentieth year of his reign. On this occasion, Eusebius 
of Caesarea pronounced an eloquent panegyric. The 
emperor gave a great banquet to the bishops. On their 
way to it, the guard presented arms ; the confessors 
saw, as they had seen in other days, the glint of steel 
but now there was no longer cause for fear. Many of 

1 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 
Neocaesarea ; it was natural that he should preside over that of 
Nicaea. 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 O^ ens, a sort of viceroy to whom Egypt was subject as well as 
Syria. 

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



116 ARIUS AND THE COUNCIL OF NIC/EA [en. iv. 

them asked themselves if it were all a dream, or if they 
were already in the kingdom of Christ. 

Apart from these celebrations, the council was busy at 
work. The affair of Arius came first. The question at 
issue was to know whether the sentence already passed 
upon him by his own bishop would be confirmed. Being 
called upon to justify himself, Arius and his followers 
explained their position very frankly, so much so that 
Alexander had no difficulty in proving how well-founded 
his decision was. The support which the Bishop of 
Nicomedia and his other partisans gave to the priest of 
Alexandria proved no help to him. Few persons in that 
assembly were disposed to listen calmly to such proposi 
tions as these : " There was a time when the Son of God 
was not; He was taken out of nothing; He is a creature, 
a being susceptible of change," etc. The sentence of 
Alexander was not only sustained, but confirmed. The 
condemned ecclesiastics held firm ; it was not possible to 
reclaim one of them. 

Another Egyptian affair, that of Meletius and his 
schism, was then examined. The council recognized that 
Meletius was most seriously in the wrong. Nevertheless, 
in its desire for peace a desire which was certainly 
favoured by the emperor an arrangement was adopted, 
by which the Meletian clergy might still be allowed to 
exercise their functions, and to work with Alexander s 
clergy, but in subordination to him. At the same time, if 
the bishop appointed by Alexander were to die, the bishop 
set up by Meletius might replace him, provided always 
that he were elected according to rule, and with the 
approbation of the Metropolitan of Alexandria. As to 
Meletius himself, having regard to his special culpability, 
he was only allowed to retain the title of bishop, but was 
absolutely forbidden to exercise any pastoral functions. 

It was not by the advice of Athanasius that the 
Meletians were treated so mercifully. He knew well the 
kind of people with whom they were dealing, and foresaw 
that there would be trouble on their account in the future. 
The event justified his opinion. 



p. 148] THE CREED OF NIC JSA 117 

As to the reckoning of Easter, the Bishop of Antioch 
and his Eastern colleagues consented to conform to the 
use of Alexandria, and to celebrate Easter at the same 
time as the other Churches. 

These decisions were communicated to all the Churches 
interested in the matter, not only by the council, but also 
by the emperor, 1 who had made it his special duty to 
exercise pressure upon the dissenting party in order to 
bring them back to Catholic unity. 

It also appeared to be necessary, in view of the divisions 
which the affair of Arius had introduced amongst the 
bishops, to come to some mutual agreement upon a 
formula which, being admitted by everyone, might pre 
vent a repetition of the theological movements of 
which there had been reason to complain. The only 
doctrinal synthesis which the Church recognized at that 
time was the baptismal creed, which had its origin in 
Rome, but which had been modified here and there, in 
various ways, since the very early times when it had 
begun to be current. Eusebius of Caesarea thought the 
opportunity a good one for avenging here the defeat 
sustained by his Egyptian friends ; he presented to 
the council the text of the creed in use in his own 
Church. It was accepted, he says, in principle : it con 
tained nothing that could startle anyone. But since in 
regard to the special points which had been matter of 
dispute it remained absolutely indefinite, it was modified 
by introducing into it certain additions, and suppressing 
certain useless words. It was thus 2 that the celebrated 
Creed of Nicaea was drawn up : 

1 Letter of the council to the Church of Alexandria, EireiS^j TTJS rod 
eeou, Socrates, i. 9 ; Theodoret, i. 8 ; Gelasius, ii. 34. Letter of 
Constantine to the Church of Alexandria, Xaipere a.ya.inrrol, Socrates, 
i. 9 ; Gelasius, ii. 37. Letter of Constantine to the Easterns, TLfipbr 
\ap6v, Eusebius, V. C. iii. 17-20 ; Socrates, i. 9 ; Theodoret, i. 9. 

2 According to St Basil, Ep. 81 (</. 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 



118 ARIUS AND THE COUNCIL OF NIC.A [CH. iv. 

" We believe in one God, Father, Almighty, author of 
all things, visible and invisible; and in one Lord, Jesus 
Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten 1 of the 
Father i.e., of the essence of the Feather, God of God, 
Light of Light, Very God of Very God ; begotten and 
not made, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all has 
been made ; Who for us men, and for our salvation 
came down, was incarnate, was made Man, suffered, 
was raised to life the third day, ascended into heaven, and 
will come to judge the living and the dead ; and in the 
Holy Ghost. 

" As to those who say : There was a time when He was 
not ; Before He was begotten, He was not ; He was made 
of nothing, or of another substance or essence 2 ; the Son 
of God is a created being, subject to change, mutable; to 
such persons, the Catholic Church says Anathema," 

In addition to this creed, the council also drew up a 
certain number of ecclesiastical regulations, which it 
formulated in twenty canons. 

The internal crises of the preceding century had left 
in the East traces which the council endeavoured to remove. 
The Novatians were to be met with, more or less, through 
out Asia Minor; at Antioch, and perhaps elsewhere, 
Paulianists were to be found, followers of the doctrines of 
Paul of Samosata, With regard to the Novatians, the 
council (c. 8) showed itself very conciliatory. It enjoined 
that they should be admitted to communion, on the simple 
promise to accept Catholic dogmas and to hold communion 
with persons who had been twice married 8 and apostates 
who had repented. Their clergy might perform their 
duties in places where there were no Catholic clergy, and 
were merged in the latter when there were any. As to the 
Paulianists (c. 19), their baptism was declared invalid ; they 
were obliged to submit to rebaptism. Their clergy also, if 
they wished to continue their functions, which the council 
admitted as a possibility, were obliged to be reordained. 



1 "yfvvyQtvTa. novoyevrj. * ^ irpa.t vi 

3 Of course, it is here a question of two marriages in succession 
of second marriage, and not of simultaneous bigamy. 



p. 151] DISCIPLINARY CANONS 119 

The persecution of Licinius was still of recent date ; 
several canons (cc. 11-14) were devoted to legislation with 
regard to cases of penance arising from it. 

With regard to clerical discipline, the council forbade 
the ordination of voluntary eunuchs (c. i), of neophytes 
(c. 2), or of penitents (cc. 9, 10) ; it forbade priests and 
bishops to transfer themselves from one Church to 
another 1 (cc. 15, 16); it forbade the clergy in general to 
practise usury (c. 17), and to keep under their roof any 
women who might give cause for suspicion (c. 3). Bishops, 
in each province, were to be installed by all their 
colleagues ; and if any of these were unable to be present, 
their approval was at least necessary ; the installation was 
to be confirmed by the bishop of the principal city, the 
metropolitan (c. 4). No bishop was allowed to receive, and 
certainly not to promote, clerics who had deserted their 
own Church (c. 16), or to reinstate persons who had been 
excommunicated by his colleagues. As there might be 
occasion, with regard to this point, to revise the episcopal 
sentences, the bishops of each province were invited to 
assemble twice a year in council to deliver judgment in 
cases of appeal (c. 5). 

In thus laying down its rules for the provincial 
relations of bishops, the council had no intention of 
diminishing the dignity of positions consecrated by long 
custom, notably that of the Bishop of Alexandria 2 with 
regard to the Churches of the whole of Egypt, of Libya 
and the Pentapolis ; for all these Churches the Bishop 
of Alexandria was the immediate superior of the local 

1 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. 

2 Here, the council brings forward the custom of Rome : tireiSl) xal 
rif tv TB Pt&/ifl 4iriffK6ir(f rovro avvriOts tffTLv. 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 juris 
diction of the Pope to the suburbicaria loca that is to say, to those 
Churches not included in the jurisdictions of Milan and Aquileia, 
established after the Council of Nicaea. 



120 AUIUS AM) THE COUNCIL OF NIC.EA [en. iv. 

bishop : there was no other metropolitan but himself. 
The ancient customs of Antioch and elsewhere were also 
to be maintained ; the Bishop of ylia, also, was to preserve 
his traditional prerogatives without prejudice, however, to 
the metropolitical rights of Caesarea (cc. 6, /). 

Such is the ecclesiastical legislation of Xicaia, 1 legislation 
without synthetic character, entirely determined by circum 
stances, as was always the case with the legislation of the 
councils. It represented certainly not the general regula 
tion of ecclesiastical relations, but simply the solution of a 
certain number of cases, to which the attention of the 
assembled members happened to have been called. Up 
to that time the Church had existed either upon un 
written traditions, or upon collections of rules claiming 
the authority of the apostles or their disciples, but without 
any title which could be verified. The Councils of Elvira 
and of Aries were never acknowledged in the East; those 
of Ancyra and Neocassarea waited a long time before 
they were recognized in the West : the canons of Nicaea 
were accepted everywhere, from the first, and were every 
where placed at the head of the authentic records of 
ecclesiastical law. 

The canons relating to discipline do not appear to 
have met with much opposition. It was quite otherwise 
with the creed. The precision of the negative formulae 
with which it concluded, and such expressions as " begotten 
of the Essence of the Father, Very God, begotten and not 
made, consubstantial with the Father," absolutely excluded 
Arianism in doctrine. The supporters of Arius, whether 
they came from the Lucianic school, like Eusebius of 
Nicomedia, or from among the Origenists who had joined 
their forces, like Eusebius of Caesarea, could not sign such 
a profession of faith without detracting from their 
principles. They raised great objection, in particular, to 
the word consubstantial, finding fault with it as not taken 

1 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 Cunday and during the 
Paschal season (c. 20). 



p. 153] THE HOMOOUSIOS 121 

from Scripture, and as having been repudiated by the 
Council of Antioch, in the time of Paul of Samosata. To 
this the orthodox party replied, that several ancient and 
weighty authors, Theognostus, Origen, and especially the 
two Dionysii, the one of Alexandria and the other of 
Rome, had all made use of the word in dispute, which was 
not, it is true, scriptural, but which clearly expressed what 
it was desired to teach. This last point was open to 
dispute, for, in itself, the word " consubstantial " was not so 
very clear, and, as a matter of fact, it has not always been 
taken in the same sense. 1 But, in the creed, the truth 
which it was meant to express was that the Son of God 
belongs in no wise to the category of created beings, and 
that, whatever may be the mystery of His generation, His 
Essence is truly divine. This is the meaning of the 
formula, " begotten of the Essence of the Father," e/c r^? 
rou Ilarpo? oiWa?, which has disappeared from the text 
at present in use, and which forms really a mere repetition 
in conjunction with the oyuoou cno?. Athanasius, to whom 
the formula e/c r^? TOV ITar/oo? ova-la? is very familiar, does 
not often use, for his own part, the word consubstantial. It 
was certainly not he nor his bishop who suggested it to 
the council. It appears rather as if the suggestion came 
from the Roman legates. For in Rome, as a matter of 
fact, the word was in current and official use ; sixty years 
before the Council of Nicaea, Dionysius of Alexandria had 
been reproved for his hesitation in employing it. 2 Since 
the days of Zephyrinus and Callistus, the Roman Church 
had always been more concerned to maintain the doctrine 
of absolute Monotheism and the absolute Divinity of Jesus 
Christ than to develop methods of reconciling these two 
data. This primary concern was shared by the Medalists ; 
and those minds with a tendency towards Sabellianism 
among the members of the council were attached to it 
in advance, notably Marcellus, the Bishop of Ancyra, of 

1 For instance, when it is said that Christ, consubstantial with 
God by His divine nature, is consubstantial with us by His human 
nature. 

2 See Vol. I., p. 352. 



122 ARIUS AND THE COUNCIL OF NIC^A [CH. iv. 

whom we shall soon hear more. Such supporters of the 
homoousios were not very likely, it must certainly be 
admitted, to recommend it to the minds of people who, 
ever since the time of Origen, had waged incessant war 
against Modalism. 

Indeed, the homoousios only won acceptance with 
considerable difficulty ; it was imposed rather than 
received. Hosius patronized it with much energy; and 
so did the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. The 
emperor made no secret of his agreement with it ; and 
this, for many, was a supreme argument. Opposition 
grew weaker ; even that of Eusebius of Ca.-sarea, even that 
of the Bishops of Nicomedia and Nicaia, as well as of the 
whole Lucianic party. Everyone signed, except the two 
Libyans, Theonas and Secundus, who refused to separate 
themselves from their party. And, by the action of the 
government, they were confined in Illyricum, with Arius 
and his Alexandrian followers. 1 

How their former protectors explained their complete 
change of front, we can form some idea from reading the 
pitiful and insincere letter which the Bishop of Ciesarea 
wrote without a moment s delay to his own Church. 
Athanasius, who was no friend of his, and with reason, 
took care to transmit this document to posterity, by 
annexing it to the work which he afterwards published on 
the decrees of Nioea. It must have weighed heavily upon 
the conscience of its author. However, he dared not rebel 
openly, and waited for the hour of retaliation. 

Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea showed 
themselves less prudent. At the actual time of the 
council they had had a narrow escape, for the emperor, 
knowing their responsibility in the disturbances, wished to 
treat them like Arius and the others. However, nothing 
more was done than to force them to sign. But their 
opinions were unchanged ; and this was soon evident. 
The decisions of the council resulted at Alexandria in 
executive action which gave rise to many protests. 
"The Egyptians alone," says Eusebius, "continued, in 
1 Philostorgius, Supp. (Migne, P. G. vol. Ixv., p. 623). 



p. 156] CONST ANTINE AND DISSENTIENTS 123 

midst of the universal peace, to wage war upon each 
other." 1 Like the Donatists, after the Council of Aries, 
those who were condemned, whether Arian or Meletians, 
began afresh to importune the emperor. Constantine 
again assumed the role of arbitrator, summoned the party 
leaders before him, and tried to reconcile them. Eusebius 
and Theognis profited by this opportunity, welcomed the 
dissentients, as they had welcomed Arius, and vigorously 
undertook their defence. This was too much. The 
emperor could not allow a controversy scarcely extin 
guished to be fanned again into flame ; and, besides, he 
had a grudge against Eusebius, who was regarded as having 
shown but a short while before too strong an attachment 
to Licinius, He seized the two bishops and sent them 
to Gaul. Then he wrote to their Churches, proposing that 
new bishops should be chosen 2 ; and this was done. The 
Bishop of Laodicea in Syria, Theodotus, a notorious 
Arian, apparently held anti-Nicene opinions. The 
emperor wrote also to him to explain from the example 
of Eusebius and Theognis what would be the consequences 
of his attitude. 

The emperor had fully made up his mind to admit 
no compromise in regard to the council. It was his very 
own council : he had been present at it ; he had even in 
some measure directed it; he held resolutely to its 
decisions. 

It seemed then that everything was finished, and as if 
there still remained only a small group of opponents, 
upon whom the imperial police had their eye and their 
hand. But it was not so in reality; the real struggle 

1 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 Nicaea. 
Eusebius in no way speaks of a new convocation of the whole 
Episcopate, but merely of an invitation addressed to the " Egyptians." 

2 The letter to the Church of Nicomedia is preserved in 
Theodoret, i. 20, and in Gelasius of Cyzicus, i. 10. 



124 ARIUS AND THE COUNCIL OF NICyEA [en. iv. 

was only beginning. In the 2nd century, after various 
alarms, the Gnostic crisis had ended by subsiding of itself. 
Christianity had eliminated the morbid germs by the 
mere reaction of a vigorous organism. Later on, the 
Modalist movement, after having agitated the Churches 
everywhere to a certain extent, in Asia, at Rome, in 
Africa, Cyrenaica, and Arabia, had gradually been extin 
guished or confined to a few adherents. There had been 
no necessity for council, or emperor, or creeds, or 
signatures. The dispute between Origen and his bishop, 
vigorous enough at the outset, had ended by settling 
itself without external interference. But in this affair with 
Anus the strongest measures were called into requisition ; 
and the only result was a truce of very short duration, 
followed by an abominable and fratricidal war, which 
divided the whole of Christendom, from Arabia to Spain, 
and only ceased at last, after sixty years of scandal, by 
bequeathing as a legacy for generations to come the germs 
of schisms, the effects of which the Church still feels. 



CHAPTER V 

EUSEBIUS AND ATHANASIUS 

Eusebius of Caesarea : his learning, his relations with Constantine 
The hotnoousios after the Council of Nicsea. Deposition of 
Eustathius of Antioch. Reaction against the Creed of Nicasa. 
Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria. First conflicts with the 
supporters of Meletius and of Arius. Submission of Arius : 
his recall from exile. New intrigues against Athanasius. 
Council of Tyre. Deposition of Athanasius. His first exile, 
Death of Arius. Marcellus of Ancyra : his doctrine, his deposi 
tion. Writings of Eusebius of Ccesarea against Marcellus. 

CONSTANTINE, in coming into contact with the episcopate 
of the East, had been able to form a judgment of their 
divisions, of the bitterness with which their disputes were 
maintained, and yet at the same time of the great respect 
which was felt among them for his own person and 
authority. Of this feeling of respect he did not fail to 
take advantage to calm troubled spirits, to waive aside 
inopportune complaints, and in everything to show himself 
favourable to peace and unity. The bishops at Nicaea 
were not dismissed without many exhortations, for 
Constantine was the greatest preacher of sermons in his 
empire. He strongly recommended them not to tear each 
other to pieces, and especially to support those of their 
colleagues who were distinguished by their learning and 
wisdom, and to consider this great gift of some of their 
number as an advantage to them all. 

It is not without cause that Eusebius l has selected for 

1 Eusebius, V. C. iii. 21. 

125 



126 EUSEBIUS AND ATHANASIUS JCH. v. 

notice this detail, which concerned himself so nearly. The 
emperor had immediately singled out this great scholar, 
regarding him with justice as an ornament to Christianity 
and to the episcopate. He could not disguise from 
himself that the Bishop of Ca^sarea s reputation had 
suffered from his defeat at the council, and, no doubt, the 
easy witticisms which were current with regard to him, 
in consequence, had come to the emperor s ears. 
Constantine covered him with unchanging marks of 
favour. 

Eusebius was a man of elaborate learning. He knew 
everything: history, biblical and profane, ancient literature, 
philosophy, geography, mathematical computation, and 
exegesis. In his great works, the Praeparatio Evangelica 
and the Demonstratio Evangelica, he had explained 
Christianity to the educated public ; by his Chronicle and 
his Ecclesiastical History, he had drawn up its Annals ; he 
had defended Christianity against Porphyry and Hierocles. 
And, although already advanced in years, he continued 
to write. He commented upon Isaiah, the Psalter, and 
other books also. Was anyone in need of explanations 
upon the difficult question of Easter, in which exegesis, 
ritual, and astronomy were inextricably involved ? He was 
there to give them. Public attention was then beginning 
to be attracted towards the Holy Places. Eusebius, \vho 
knew Palestine and the Bible thoroughly, explained the 
names of the places and of the peoples who figure in Holy 
Scripture, described Judaea, and reconstructed the ancient 
topography of the Holy City. He excelled in formal 
discourses. He was the orator marked out for great 
ceremonial occasions, for solemn dedications, or imperial 
panegyrics. It was to him that the emperor had recourse, 
whenever he needed copies of the Bible well copied and 
perfectly correct. Once he asked him for fifty of these at 
one time, for the churches of Constantinople. 1 

Thus highly esteemed by his sovereign, Eusebius was 
in no way behindhand on his side, and took little pains 
to conceal his enthusiastic admiration for Constantine. 
1 V. C. iv. 36. 



p. 160] CONSTANTINE AND EUSEBIUS 127 

He has been reproached severely for this, but most 
unjustly, for it was a sincere and disinterested enthusiasm. 
His position had been an assured one before he came in 
contact with Constantine, and the emperor could only add 
his personal favour. Constantine never set foot in 
Palestine. We have no knowledge of Eusebius having 
been near him on any other occasions but those of the 
Council of Nicaea (325), and the Tricennalia (335). 
Caesarea was a long way from Nicomedia, and the bishop 
was no longer of an age to take long journeys without a 
special reason. 

The years following the Council of Nicaea were sad 
enough for him. He could ill stomach his discomfiture, 
and, to speak candidly, he was not the only person who 
looked with a very moderate approval upon the new 
creed. The homoousios insisted upon by the Romans 
had but few adherents in the East, unless it were in the 
ranks of the Sabellians, or those suspected of an inclination 
towards their doctrines. In Egypt, the term had a very 
clear meaning : it signified that the Arians were heretics ; 
but, beyond that, the explanations of it which were given 
did not shine by their lucidity. In the East, properly 
so-called, it had also an independent signification, viz., 
that the seventy or eighty bishops who, in 268, had 
condemned Paul of Samosata, had made a mistake on 
an important point. The result was that, notwithstand 
ing the promises of mutual agreement and discretion 
made to the emperor from various quarters, the quarrels 
soon recommenced. Eusebius of Caesarea and his 
colleague, Eustathius of Antioch, exchanged bitter 
letters, 1 which threw little light upon the debate, and 
soon made it still more venomous. Eustathius was a 
great enemy of Origen, and an enemy of a very mili 
tant kind. This was no recommendation to him at 

1 Socrates, i. 23, says that he had seen episcopal letters on this 
Subject : i2s 5e TJ/zets K dia<t>6puv lirto ToXui evpriKa/u.fv, fis /zero, ^^)v (ruvoSov 
oi firiffKOTTOi irpfo dXXiJXovs typafov, i] rov 6/ioowiov X^ts rivets Sterdparre K. r. ^. 
St Jerome, Zte viris, 85, was also acquainted with letters of Eustathius 
in great numbers, infinitae epistolae. 



128 EUSEBIUS AND ATHANASIUS [CH. v. 

C^esarea. 1 At Antioch the clergy were greatly divided. 
Down to that time, the episcopal throne had been occupied 
by prelates unfavourable to the Arians ; but Antioch was 
the real home of Arianism : it was there that Lucian had 
held his school. His spiritual posterity was not entirely 
dispersed in other dioceses; some had remained on the 
spot. This was clearly to be seen when Bishop Eustathius, 
quick enough himself in retort, 2 began to be a subject 
for discussion. The quarrel grew fiercer, and ended by 
producing between Eustathians and anti-Eustathians a 
conflict of the most savage kind. Accusations of Sabellian- 
ism and of Polytheism were freely flung at each other s 
heads. Eustathius reproached the Bishop of Ca^sarea 
with betraying the faith of Xicaea ; Eusebius protested 
that it was not so at all, and that if Eustathius asserted 
it, it was because he was himself a Sabellian. 

Things came to such a point that a synod appeared 
necessary. We do not know by whom it was convoked. 
It was held at Antioch, and, as in the time of Paul of 
Samosata, the decision was given against the bishop of 
that great city. We do not possess its Acts ; the 
authorities give different accounts of it. 3 According to 
the opponents whom Eustathius had upon the spot, it 
was for his teaching that he was condemned, Cyrus, 
his successor in the see of Berea, having laid against 
him an accusation of Sabellianism. 4 Theodoret, who 
wrote a century after the event, speaks of a woman 
who is represented as falsely accusing the bishop of 

1 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. 

2 Besides the treatise on the Pythian priestess a fragment relating 
lo the Council of Nicaea, preserved by Theodoret, i. 7, enables us to 
form an idea of his style. 

3 Socrates here complains of the bishops, who, he says, deposed 
people as impious, without stating in what their impiety consisted. 

4 Socrates, i. 24, gets this from George of Laodicea, a notorious 
Arianizer who seems to reproduce a remark of Kusebius of Emesa. 
Cyrus himself might have been deposed upon the same doctrinal 
pretext. 



p. 162] EUSTATHIUS OF ANTIOCH 129 

having seduced her. 1 Athanasius gives another reason : 
Eustathius, it is alleged, was accused to the emperor 
of having insulted his mother. In this there may well 
have been a foundation of truth. Helena visited the 
East in the time of Eustathius. We know that she had 
a great devotion to St Lucian, the celebrated priest of 
Antioch, whose body, being thrown into the sea off 
Nicomedia, had been carried by the currents according 
to the legend, by a dolphin to the exact spot on the 
shore at Drepanum, where the empress was born, and 
where, no doubt, she had a residence. Lucian was her 
own special martyr ; she built a magnificent basilica in 
his honour. He had left a memory in Antioch which 
was the subject of controversy : the Arians held him 
in great veneration ; their adversaries were less enthusi. 
astic. It is quite possible that on this subject Eustathius 
may have let fall some indiscreet words. Later on, as 
we shall see, St Ambrose does not hesitate to say that 
Helena had been a servant girl at an inn, stabularia^ 
which, considering the customs of that age in matters 
of hospitality, implied a great many things. In the days 
of Constantine it was not wise to push one s enquiries 
into early history of this kind. 

I should not like to affirm that the council considered 
this a reason for deposition, and I would rather accept, 
as the ground for the ecclesiastical condemnation, the 
motive suggested by George of Laodicea, 7>.,Sabellianism. 
But the measures taken by Constantine lead us to believe 
that he saw in this affair something other than a theo 
logical question, and that he took note of the remarks 
made about his mother. Helena was empress (Augusta) \ 
it was a case of lese-majestt. Eustathius was arrested 
and brought before the emperor, who, after having 
listened to his defence, 2 exiled him to Trajanopolis, in 

1 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. 

11 I 



130 EUSEBIUS AND ATHANASIUS [en. v. 

Thrace, and then to Philippi, with a certain number of 
priests and deacons. He died shortly afterwards. 1 

It was not easy to find his successor. 2 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 tlivided in 
their opinions. A little more, and they would have come to 
blows in the matter. Paulinus, the unattached Bishop of 
Tyre, 3 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. 

Eusebius was not at all anxious to leave for tlie 

1 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. 

2 For this, see especially Eusebius, V. C. iii. 59-62. 

8 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 Nicaea. Eusebius dedicated to him (shortly afterwards, 
it would seem) his Onomasticon, In his work against Marcellus 
(L 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. 



p. 165] THE CHURCH OF ANTIOCH 131 

inferno of Antioch his peaceful bishopric and his comfort 
able 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. 1 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. 2 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 Nicsea secret adversaries, of course, for Con- 
stantine 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, 3 and 
there is no doubt that he and his friend Theognis had 
already returned at the time when Eustathius was deposed 
( c - 33)- The causes of this return, so big with conse 
quences, are not easily discernible. 4 A complete change 
was really brought about m the inclinations of Constantine, 
with whom, henceforth, Eusebius of Nicomedia appears 
to have possessed considerable influence. 6 Not only were 

1 Letters to the people of Antioch, to Eusebius, to the bishops 
(Theodotus, Theodore, Narcissus, Aetius, Alphius, and others), ibid. 

2 It was he who afterwards became Bishop of Laodicea. 

3 This is the number given by Philostorgius. 

4 I should be inclined to suspect that the account of Rufinus 
(i. 11, vide infra), as to the recall of Arius, really refers to that of 
Eusebius. Constantia had no special reason for being interested 
in Arius. On the contrary, Eusebius, as bishop of the city in which 
the emperor lived, must have been known to her for a long time ; he 
was also distantly connected with the imperial family. We can easily 
understand that the widow of Licinius was distressed at the exile of 
Eusebius, her spiritual father and her friend. 

6 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 
(T<H* Kopvfatois ruv trtffxtvw ) to stir them up to demand their recall 



132 EUSEBIUS AND ATHANASIUS [CH. v. 

the two prelates recalled from exile, but they were also 
reinstated in their bishoprics, and their temporary suc 
cessors were ousted. 

In Egypt, the aged Bishop Alexander died on April iS, 
328. l His deacon, Athanasius,- already a very prominent 
person, both on account of the confidence placed in him 
by Alexander and the part he had played at Xicaea, 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 Nicasa, but from the reception of the Meletians. Between the 
decision of Nicaea 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 tiiere 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 Lccschcke, Rheinisches Museum, 1906, pp. 

45-49- 

2 Upon the history of St Athanasius, apart from his Apologies and 
his History to the Afonks, 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, Nova Patruin Bibliotheca, vol. vi., p. i ; 
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 Mafifei, from a Latin collec 
tion of canons preserved at Verona (Vcrvnensis 60), the collection 



p. 167-8] THE CHURCH OF ALEXANDRIA 133 

June 7. 1 " 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 repre 
sentative. 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 
Cabricres, vol. i., 1899, p. 100). It is clear, and Mgr. Batiffol has 
established the fact (Byzantinische Zcitschrift, 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., L 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 y 1904, p. 333 et seq, 

1 His enemies dared, later on, to raise difficulties with regard to 
his 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. 



134 EUSEB1US AND ATHANASIUS |CH. V 

already published two books of apologetics, 1 remarkably 
well put together and admirably clear. But he willingly 
left to others 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 2 
it did not come to terms with Athanasius, and disagiee- 
ments 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, Katf EXX^wv and Ilfpi ^ai-fywjn^uj. 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 laken place towards 
the end of the year 327. Between the close of the Nicene Council 
and the reunion of the Meietians there was an mcerval 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 (fonrifatus) to Alexandria ; but there must be some confusion, 
on this subject, between the letter of 331 and that of 332. 

4 TOL-S irtpl "Ap(toi> t says St Athanasius (loc. cit.) ; the reference 
here cannot be to Arius himself and his companions in exile. 



p. 169-170] ATHANASIUS AND THE MELETIANS 135 

of Nicomedia encouraged them from his 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 chaiice 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. 3 

1 Athanasius (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 
imraoriae, we must allow that these officers took the same journey twice, 
for later on we shall find them the bearers of other imperial letters. 

8 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. 



136 EUSEBIUS AND ATHANASIUS [en. v. 

He brought with him a letter from the emperor, in which, 
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. 1 
Athanasius 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 edict 3 
commanding severe measures to be taken against the 
dissenters of long standing, Novatians, Valentinidns, 
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 (magtstriani), brought to Alexandria two letters 
from the emperor, addressed, one to the bishops and the 
faithful, 4 the other to Arius and the Arians. 6 

The latter, that to the Arians, which was of consider 
able 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. 6r, 62. 

a 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 Utters}. 

8 V. C. iii. 64, 65. 

* Toi)s 



p. 172] CONSTANTINE AND ARIUS 137 

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 recom 
mended 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. 3 
The 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. n, repro 
duced 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 
(yeyevrj/j.tvov ) of Him before all ages, God the Word, by Whom every 
thing has been made. . . ." The phrase *S o-fn-ov yeyevrjutvov, taking 
account of the synonymy which still prevailed between yfvijr^ and 
yewr)T6s t might be considered as equivalent to tic rrjs rod Ilarpdy ofolas. 
It certainly excluded creation ex nihilo. The Nicene homoousios 
is not pronounced, but Arianism is practically excluded. 

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



138 EUSEB1US AND ATHANASIUS [CH. v. 

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 investi 
gation 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 counter 
manded, 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 un 
successfully to ruin him. It was now the year 334. 1 

1 Documents relating to this affair are to be found in the Apol. 
Contra Ar : (i) 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, Toft wapd. TT?$ <^j . . . 
(c. 68) ; (5) Letter of Alexander of Thessaionica to Athanasius (c. 66) ; 
(6) Letter of Consiantine to John Arkaph (c. 70). 



p. 174-5] CONSTANTINO TRICENNALIA 139 

John Arkaph, the archbishop of the Meletians, had become 
temporarily reconciled to Athanasius, and was congratu 
lated 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 succeeded 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 
letter 1 exhorted the council to fulfil its task of peace 
maker, 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. 



140 EUSEBIUS AND ATHANASIUS [CH. v. 

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. 
3 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 Apol. 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. 

4 At the time of the election, the Meletians were reconciled to the 



p. 177] COUNCIL OB- TYRE, 335 141 

place without any regard being paid to this agreement; 
and therefore they had separated themselves from com 
munion 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 over 
thrown ; 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 out 
cries raised by persons at Alexandria, who refused to enter 
the churches on account of the bishop. In fine, what he 
was reproached for, \vas 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. 



142 EUSEBIUS AND ATHANASIUS [CH. v. 

parishioners for him. All these intrigues awakened a 
protest, not only on the part of the Egyptian prelates, who 
rallied faithfully around their Pope, 1 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 com 
mission 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 commis 
sioners 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. 2 
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 

1 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. 

2 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 rfeculatot 
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). 



p. 179-80] DEPOSITION OF ATHANASIUS 143 

believed him to be dead, and had caused a search to be 
made for him by the authorities. 1 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. Some 
times 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. 

When this judgment had been pronounced, the 
council proceeded to Jerusalem, and the dedication of the 
Holy Sepulchre was celebrated, on September 14, with every 
imaginable pomp of worship and eloquence. Eusebius, 

1 In the letter of Arsenius, mentioned before (p. 138, note i), Bishop 
Plusianus is named, but no allusion is made to the story of the dis 
appearance 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. 



144 EUSEBIUS AND ATHANASIUS [CH. V. 

the Metropolitan of Caesarea, as was to be expected, 
particularly distinguished himself. A further session of 
the council was held, at Jerusalem itself, to adjudicate upon 
the affair of Arius and his supporters. The profession 
of faith presented to the emperor by Arius and Euzoius, 
the one which Constantine had considered sufficient, had 
been sent by him to the council : it satisfied the council also. 
The Arians were admitted to communion ; the emperor 
was informed of the fact, and it was also notified both to 
the Church of Alexandria and the bishops of Egypt. 1 

Yet, on his arrival in Constantinople, Athanasius 
succeeded in obtaining an audience. And, impressed by 
his complaints, Constantine summoned the Council of 
Tyre to his presence. 2 But no one obeyed the summons 
except the most determined opponents of Athanasius 
prominent among them being Eusebius of Caesarea, who 
had to pronounce a set oration on the occasion of the 
Tricennalia. Constantine heard them. According to 
Athanasius, they were very careful not to enter on a new 
investigation of the stories discussed during the council, 
and no mention was made of the chalice or of Arsenius : 
they had found something much better. Athanasius, they 
told the emperor, was determined to hinder the transport 
of Egyptian corn to Constantinople. What ! To starve 
his own foundation, his beloved New Rome ! The 
emperor made no further enquiries. Without waiting for 
any new defence, he actually banished the Bishop of 
Alexandria to a distant part of Gaul. Athanasius was 
imprisoned at Treves. 3 

When Athanasius was once more taken into favour, 
people were very ready to say that, if he was exiled, it was 
only to protect him from the fury of his enemies. It is 
not at all probable that Constantine would accept without 
verification the imputation regarding the transport of 

1 Fragment of the synodal letter in Apol. contra Ar. 84. 

8 Letter of Constantine, 70; ^v dyvou (Apol. contra Ar. 86). 

8 This is Athanasius account of this last sudden change of front 
(Apol. contra Ar. 87 ; cf. 9) ; and he adduces the testimony of five 
Egyptian bishops, who heard the assertion of his adversaries. 



p. 182] FIRST EXILE OF ATHANASIUS 145 

corn. The best plan is to see the facts as the public saw 
them at that time, and as Constantine himself explained 
them in very weighty documents. 1 The Bishop of 
Alexandria had been judged and condemned by a great 
assembly of his colleagues. The Council of Tyre had 
deposed him from his episcopal office, and forbidden him 
to remain in Egypt. Following up this sentence, the 
civil government took the measures which were in its 
province : it exiled Athanasius. 

So ends the first act of the Athanasian tragedy. We 
may be tempted to think, at some points in it, that things 
might have taken, both then and afterwards, a better turn, 
if the young Bishop of Alexandria had treated the 
Meletians with less severity, and if he had made it easier 
for the party defeated at the Council of Nicaea to return 
to the bosom of the Church. Without sacrificing any 
essential principle, he might then have avoided exasperat 
ing the opposing parties ; it would not have been so 
easy for his enemies to represent him to the emperor 
as a man impossible to deal with and an instigator of 
troubles. Later on, Athanasius became a man of peace 
and a peace-maker ; but at the time we have now reached 
he was, above all things, a fighter. He was right; but, 
by the very fact that he was right, too many people found 
themselves put in the wrong. 

Arius remained at court. The imperial favour had 
recalled him from exile ; the decision of the Council of 
Tyre had again opened to him the doors of the Church. 
It only remained for him to make his official re-entrance. 
According to later accounts, 2 he did return to 
Alexandria, and then, because of the commotion caused 
by his presence, was recalled to Constantinople. It was 
more in conformity with Constantine s usual ways to 
remove all quarrelsome persons for the time being from 
Alexandria, Arius as well as Athanasius. However, as he 

1 See, below, the letters to St Antony. 

2 Rufinus, i. u, 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 



146 EUSEBIUS AND ATHANASIUS [CH. v. 

considered the declarations of Arius to be sincere and 
sufficient, he exerted his influence to persuade the Bishop 
of Constantinople, 1 Alexander, to admit him. Alexander 
did not look upon him with favour. But Arius died 
suddenly ; and Alexander was thus spared the mortifica 
tion of receiving him in his Church. Athanasius had 
already gone to his place of exile ; but Macarius, one of his 
priests, was at Constantinople at the time. It is from his 
account that, twenty-five years later, Athanasius related 
the mournful end of his adversary. 2 

At Alexandria the bishop s throne remained unoccupied. 
No attempt was even made, for the time being, to appoint 
a successor to the exiled bishop ; either because the emperor 
did not wish it, or more probably because the Christian 
population did not appear disposed to agree to it. 

There were disturbances. 3 The faithful continued to 
demand the restoration of their bishop, both by public 
manifestations and in the churches. Antony, the famous 
hermit of the desert, was called upon to intervene, and 
he wrote several times to the emperor. But all was in 

1 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 : Efire/D ovv T/JS Iv NiKdip tKTfdctffrjs 6pdr)s xal ftVael faxrrjs 
diro<TTO\iKfjs irlffreus diri7rotoi//iVot j ai/roi)$ (GpTjrc TOVTO yap Aral <0 r^j-Csv 
<f>povelv SiapfpaiuffavTO Trpovo-qffare TrdvTwv, TapcwcaXw. 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 717)65 AX^avdpw 
irlffKOTov, without AXetavSpdas. 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. 

s Arius is said to have died in a privy. Upon this event, see 
Ep. ad Serapionem dc morte Arii and Ep. ad cpiscopos Aeg. et Libyae^ 
c 19. 

3 Upon this., see Sozomen, ii. 31 ; cf. Athan. ApoL contra Ar. 17. 



p. 184] THE MELETIANS 147 

vain. Four priests were arrested and exiled. Constantine 
wrote to the people of Alexandria, and especially to the 
clergy and the consecrated virgins, advising them to 
keep quiet, and declaring that he would not go back 
upon his decision or recall an instigator of disturbance 
who had been condemned in proper form by an ecclesi 
astical tribunal. To St Antony he explained that un 
doubtedly some of the judges might have been influenced 
in their decision by hatred or partiality, but that he 
could not believe that so numerous an assembly of wise 
and enlightened bishops could all have been so far 
mistaken as to condemn an innocent man. Athanasius 
was a presumptuous and over-bearing fellow, a man of 
strife. 

The Meletians, restored to their position by the 
Council of Tyre, lost no time in seeking to reap the fruits 
of their success. They certainly did this with little 
restraint, for their leader, John Arkaph, was exiled like 
his opponents. The Egyptians, to whatever party they 
belonged, were certainly very difficult people to deal 
with. Ischyras alone had any reason to congratulate him 
self upon all these changes ; for, as a reward for his 
labours, the Meletian party promoted him to the 
episcopate. In his own village, 1 so small that hitherto 
it had never even possessed a priest, they built him, at the 
expense of the State, a cathedral in which he could play 
the role of a bishop. 

It was not in Egypt only that the victorious party 
followed up the advantage they had gained, assisted here 
and there by the excesses of zeal and the mistakes of 
their adversaries. Since the end of the Great Persecution, 
the Church of Ancyra had had as its bishop a certain 
Marcellus, a good man with some knowledge of theology. 
At the Council of Nicaea, he had attracted notice by the 
vigour of his opposition to the opinions of Arius, and 
so successfully that he had made a very favourable im 
pression upon the legates from Rome. During the years 



SeKovrapotipov. Letter from the Rationalis of Egypt 
to the tax-collector of Mareotis (Athan., Apol. contra Ar. 85). 



148 EUSEBIUS AND ATHANASIUS [CH. v. 

which followed, he continued to assail by his speeches the 
two Eusebii, Paulinus, and other more or less declared 
upholders of the defeated heresy. At that time, people 
did not run the risk involved in expressing their opinions 
in writing. The theology of the Arian party was only 
represented to the public by the addresses of Asterius, 1 
which finally appeared in the form of a small book. As 
no one else seemed inclined to do so, Marcellus took the 
lecturer in hand and, to refute him, compiled a work 
of considerable proportions, in which he vigorously assailed 
the principal leaders of the opposite party, both living 
and dead, Paulinus, Narcissus, Eusebius of Caesarea, 
Eusebius of Nicomedia, and the rest. Even Origen him 
self was not spared. Marcellus was present at the 
Council of Tyre, but refused to join in the condemnation 
of Athanasius and the restoration of Arius ; he even 
refused to take part in the celebrations at the dedication 
of the Holy Sepulchre. 2 On the other hand, his book 
being finished, he went to present it to the emperor, with 
a dedication full of compliments. Constantine perhaps 
looked upon this gift with some suspicion ; at all events, 
he commissioned the bishops who had assembled in 
Constantinople, after the ceremonies at Jerusalem, to 
examine the book and to make him a report upon it. 
This was to deliver Marcellus into the hands of his 
enemies. They discovered in his work lamentable traces 
of the Sabellian heresy. A sentence of deposition was 
pronounced against him, and then communicated to the 
emperor, to the Eastern bishops, and to the Church of 
Ancyra ; Marcellus, after an episcopate of more than 
twenty years, was given a successor in the person of a 
certain Basil. The latter, as we shall see, will himself 
play a part of some importance in the future. However, 
as many people cried out against the proceedings as a 
scandal, and represented Marcellus as an innocent victim, 
the council asked the learned Bishop of Caesarea to justify 
its decision by exposing and refuting the errors of the 
man whom they had condemned. This is the subject 
1 See p. 108 supra, 2 Socrates, i. 36 ; Sozomen, ii. 33. 



p. 187] MARCELLUS OF ANCYRA 149 

of his two books Against Marcellus, which were immedi 
ately published. A short time afterwards, he resumed 
the same subject in a second work, dedicated to Flaccillus, 
the Bishop of Antioch, and divided into three books, 
entitled, The Theology of the Church. 

To judge from Eusebius extracts, which are of 
sufficient length to enable us to base an estimate upon 
them, the system of Marcellus did really approach 
Sabellianism, although, for all that, the two theologies 
were not identical. The Sabellians of that time x imagined 
God as a monad who extends Himself (TrAomWraO in a 
Trinity. The designations, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 
mean three successive manifestations, three roles (-jrpoa- 
o)7ra, personae}. As Father, God is the Law-giver of the 
Old Testament, as Son He manifests Himself in the 
Incarnation, as Holy Spirit in the sanctification of souls. 
These expansions are temporary : they are caused by 
the needs of the creature. When once this need has 
ceased, the expansion equally ceases, and the Divinity 
again draws itself in. This double movement of expansion 
and contraction (TrXarva-jULos, crva-roXri) may be compared 
to an arm which is stretched out and then drawn back 
again. The world, towards which these successive expan 
sions are produced, is the work of God considered under 
another aspect, that of Word. The manifestation Word, 
differing therein from the other manifestations, is permanent: 
it lasts as long as the world lasts. The same cannot be 
said of the Son of God. The Sabellians were not agreed 
upon the subject of the Divine Sonship : some made it 
to consist in the humanity of the Christ (rov avQpMTrov ov 
ave\a/3ev 6 Zamj/o) 2 ; others in the blend of the Word 
and humanity ; others again said that the Word assumes 
the character of Son at the moment of the Incarnation. 
This Incarnation was transitory; it ceased before the 

1 This exposition is based on St Athanasius, in his fourth treatise 
against the Arians. 

a In this explanation, however, the personality is attached to the 
divine element ; it is not to be based upon the character of 
Son. 



150 EUSEBIUS AND ATHANASIUS [CH. v. 

sending of the Holy Spirit 1 ; the manifestation Son then 
came to an end ; the divine arm was drawn back again. 
What, then, became of the humanity of Christ, when the 
Incarnation had once ceased? We have no information 
on this point. 

Marcellus, 2 also, taught a kind of divine expansion 
(TrXarfcr/uoV)- How could the monad have always remained 
a monad, and yet produce the world ? The eternal Reason 
of God (Ao yo?) proceeds forth outside the Godhead in 
some manner (-Trpotp^raC) by an active energy (evepyela 
SpcKTTiKfl) without ceasing to remain in God. In this way 
the Creation and the Incarnation are explained ; a subse 
quent irradiation of the Logos produces the manifestation 
of the Holy Spirit. 3 These irradiations do not give rise to 
the production of distinct hypostases ; there is only One 
divine hypostasis. At the end of all things, when once 
the reign of a thousand years is over, the irradiation will 
cease, and the Logos, as well as the Holy Spirit which 
emanated from Him, will return to the Bosom of God. 
Before the Incarnation, and here Marcellus invoked on his. 
side the language of Scripture, there was only the Word. 
It was by the Incarnation alone that the Word became 
Son 4 ; He will cease to be Son, when His reign on earth 
comes to an end. 

With this system, embracing conceptions which 
were very ancient, and assuredly foreign to Origen s 
theology and anterior to it, Marcellus defended very 
stoutly the idea of the Divine Monarchia, the consubstan- 
tiality ; and in this respect he was, from a polemical point 

1 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 scntentia Dionysii, 5). 

2 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. 

3 Thus, up to this point, Marcellus Trinity has only two terms ; it 
is a " Binity." 

4 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. 



p. 189] THEOLOGY OF MARCELLUS 151 

of view, on the same lines as the Roman Church, the Council 
of Nicaea, and St Athanasius. But these allied forces 
were confronted with an opposition, the claims of which 
were not all destined to be overthrown. Anus, Eusebius, 
and similar theologians had tradition against them, when 
they attacked the eternity of the Word and His absolute 
Divinity ; but tradition was on their side, when they 
defended the real distinction of the hypostases. Upon 
this point, their contention finally gained the day, after 
many struggles and eliminations, when men had at 
last grown weary of an impious warfare, when they con 
sented to give each other the credit of being really sincere, 
and to listen to each other s arguments, and when, without 
actually expressing it in words, without proclaiming them 
selves victors or avowing themselves vanquished, they 
resigned themselves to combine together the consub- 
stantiality and the three hypostases. But that time of 
peace was still far away. At the end of Constantine s 
reign, so far as the fighting propensities of the opposite 
parties had not been stifled by government pressure, they 
were determined to triumph over each other, and to 
exterminate one another per fas or per nefas. 

Eustathius, Athanasius, and Marcellus, three of the 
principal champions of Nicaea, were already disqualified 
from taking further part in the battle, the last of them, at 
least, on account of heresy, a fact which was well calculated 
to throw obloquy on the term * consubstantial, and to 
prove that behind this formula, which was so strongly 
insisted upon, dangerous doctrines might be hidden. 
Other bishops succumbed to the malice of the victorious 
party. 1 But, in spite of all, the Creed of Nicaea still held 
its ground. At Tyre, no steps had been taken directly 
against it The restoration of Arius could not be inter 
preted as an abandonment of the celebrated formula : the 

1 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. 
n), had been condemned seventeen years before, possibly in 
326 ; Hellanicus of Tripoli^ Carterius of Antaradus, Cymatius of 



152 EUSEBIUS AND ATHANASIUS [CH. v. 

profession of faith delivered by the arch-heretic to the 
emperor was held to be equivalent to that of the three 
hundred bishops. Yet we cannot deny that by admitting 
the substitution of one formula for another a door was 
opened to many subterfuges. 

In the meantime, Constantine died, on May 22, 337, 
after having been^baptized in a villa near Nicomedia. It 
was the bishop "of that city, the aged Eusebius, the 
indefatigable champion of Arius, who officiated at the 
final initiation of the first Christian Emperor. His 
colleague and namesake of Caesarea began at once to 
compile the funeral oration in four books, known by the 
name of the Life of Constantine , an evidence of his enthusi 
astic admiration for what he considered the good actions 
of the deceased emperor, and of his skill in disguising the 
others. No trace is found there of the murder of Crispus 
and that of Fausta; the author has discovered a way of 
telling the story of the Councils of Nicaea and of Tyre, 
and the ecclesiastical events connected with them, without 
even mentioning the names of Athanasius and of Arius. 
It is a triumph of reticence and of circumlocution. 

Paltus, Euphration of Balanea, Cyrus of Bcrea, in Northern Syria ; 
Diodorus (of Tenedos\ in Asia ; Theodulus and Olympius (of sn#s\ 
in Thrace, with two successive bishops of Adrianople, Eutropius and 
Lucius : the first was a declared enemy of Eusebius of Nicomedia, 
and Basilina, Constantine s sister-in-law, had a strong grudge against 
him ; Domnio of Sirmium; and finally, the Bishop of Constantinople, 
Paul t who succeeded Alexander in 336. 



CHAPTER VI 

THE EMPEROR CONSTANS 

The heirs of Constantine. Return of Athanasius. Intrigues of 
Eusebius; the rivalry of Pistus. The Pope is made cognizant 
of the Alexandrian affair. The intrusion of Gregory. Athanasius 
in Rome. The Easterns and Pope Julius. Roman Council in 
340. Cancelling of the sentences pronounced in the East against 
Athanasius and Marcellus. Constans sole Emperor in the West. 
Dedication Council at Antioch in 341. Death of Eusebius of 
Nicomedia. Paul of Constantinople. Council of Sardica : the 
Eastern schism. Negotiations. Condemnation of Photinus. 
Athanasius recalled to Alexandria. African affairs. The Circum- 
cellians. Mission of Paul and Macarius. Unity restored : 
Council under Gratus. 

CONSTANTINE had three brothers, the sons of Constantius 
Chlorus and Theodora: Delmatius, Julius Constantius, 
and Hannibalian. Having little in common with the 
Empress Helena, as we can well understand, they remained 
for a long time at a distance from the court. Their 
residence was first at Toulouse, but in the end they drew 
nearer to the emperor, and after the death of Helena 
they attained high honours. Delmatius was appointed 
consul in 333, and even invested with the office of censor, 
which lay outside the ordinary course. In consequence of 
this he had to occupy himself with the accusations made 
against Athanasius. Julius Constantius also received in 
335 the honour of the consulship. In regard to the third, 
Hannibalian, we have no similar information ; and it is 
probable that he died early, and certainly before Con 
stantine. Julius Constantius had four children two sons 
and a daughter by his first wife, and one son of his second 
marriage with Basilina. This last son afterwards became 

16S 



154 THE EMPEROR CONSTANS [CH. vi. 

the Emperor Julian ; and one of the two others, Callus, was 
Caesar under Constantius. These children were still too 
young, at the time of Constantine s death, for him to have 
taken any account of them in his political arrangements. It 
was otherwise with the two sons of Delmatius. The one 
of these, also called Delmatius, was created Csesar in 335 ; 
the other, Hannibalian, was provided, under the title of 
King of Pontus, with a sort of vassal sovereignty in the 
provinces bordering on Armenia. A new tetrarchy was 
to replace the united empire of Constantine. In the West, 
Constantine II. was to reign over Gaul, Britain, and 
Spain ; in the East, Constantius with the vassal king, 
Hannibalian, was to govern Asia Minor, Syria, and 
kgypt; Italy, Africa, and the provinces of the Upper 
Danube were assigned to Constans, the third son of 
Constantine ; and all the rest, as far as the Bosphorus, 
was to be the inheritance of the Caesar Delmatius. 

Such were Constantine s intentions ; but they were not 
entirely realized. After his funeral, events happened in 
Constantinople in regard to which we are badly informed : 
palace intrigues, barrack conspiracies, demonstrations of 
troops, seditions and massacres. Constantius, the only 
one of the three brothers then present in Constantinople, 
allowed many things to be done which he might have 
prevented. The emperor s brothers were massacred ; and 
so were the Caesar Delmatius and King Hannibalian ; 
the eldest son of Julius Constantius shared his father s 
fate; the two others, Gallus and Julian, escaped Julian, 
thanks to the intervention of a Syrian bishop, Mark of 
Arethusa. The praetorian prefect, Ablavius, was also 
murdered, and so was the patrician Optatus, brother-in-law 
of the deceased emperor. 1 The pretext for these horrors 
was that only the sons of Constantine ought to have 
a share in the succession to him. 

There were three children. The eldest, Constantine 
II., was not yet twenty-one: the second, Constantius, 
was twenty : the third, Constans, was entering on his 

1 He had married Anastasia, one of the three daughters of 
Constantius Chlorus. 



p. 194] THE SONS OF CONSTANTINE 155 

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 per 
mission 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 re 
called 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. 1 
A few days after the death of his father, 2 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 

1 Ep. Oriental (Hil. Frag. hist. in. 9). 

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



156 THE EMPEROR CONSTANS [CH. VL 

of the exiles. Later on, he was accused of taking a 
prominent part in their reinstallation, and even of ordain 
ing new bishops in place of those already in possession. 1 
At Alexandria the conflict had already begun, even before 
his arrival, and the authorities were obliged to intervene. 2 
At length Athanasius re-entered the city, on November 23, 
337, 3 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 every 
thing: such is the Church s spirit," thought the aged 
Eusebius, like Boileau s canon. 



1 " 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, desperation! tribuens totum." Ep. Or., 
loc. cit. 8. 

2 Apol. contra Ar. 3. 

3 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). 



p. 197] RETURN OK ATHANASIUS 157 

The first measures adopted were of a very clumsy 
character. The supporters of Arius, even before the 
death of their master, formed at Alexandria a well- 
organized group whom the excommunications of Athan- 
asius kept excluded from the Great Church. It was 
decided 1 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. 2 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. 3 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 
tne bearers of letters not only to the Pope, but also to the 

1 This intrusion of Pistus may very well have been before the 
return of Athanasius. 

2 Supra, pp. 103, 122, and 131 (note 5). 

8 Letter of the Bishops of Egypt, Apol. contra Ar. 19; letter of 
Pope Julius, ibid. 24. 



158 THE EMPEROR CONSTANS [CH. vi. 

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. 1 

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 contra 
dicted 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 Con 
stantinople 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. contra Ar. 3-5, 18 ; Hist. Ar. 9 ; Apol. ad Const. 4. 
3 Eusebius died on May 30, in a year that may have been 338, 
339, or 340. 



p. 199] GREGORY THE CAPPADOCIAN 159 

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. 1 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 2 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 

1 Socrates, H. E. ii. 9, following George of Laodicea, a con 
temporary and friend of Eusebius of Emesa. 

2 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. 



160 THE EMPEROR CONSTANS [CH. vi. 

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 : 

"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, 



p. 201-2] PROTEST OF ATHANASIUS 16] 

as you sit upon 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 



162 THE EMPEROR CONSTANS [CH. vi. 

Cacsarea in Cappadocia (Dianius), of Antioch (Flaccillus), 1 
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 Nicxa, 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 v;ho 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 arid 
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. 

These decisions were notified to the Eastern episcopate 
by a letter which Pope Julius 2 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- 



1 Title of the reply : lovXiot Aavfy xal SXa/cfXXy, Nap*f<rav, 

Mdpi, MaKtSovtV* Qeooupt? Kal rots ffvv ai)ro?s dir& AvTioxflas ypd^aunv yulv. 
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. 

2 Preserved by St Athanasius in his ApoL 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). 



p. 204] LETTER OF POPE JULIUS 163 

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 Nic.nea? 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 inter 
vention, 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 present 
ing 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, 1 
and, 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 *H dyvofire STI TOVTO (9os ty, rpbrcpov ypd<pff0at TJHIV xal ovrw, 
opleff6a.i TO. Slicaia (Apol. contra Ar, 35). 



164 THE EMPEROR CONST ANS [CH. vi. 

would decide what was right, things would not have come to 
this pass. They must get out of these scandalous quarrels, 
in which the bitter grudges of self-love give themselves 
rein at the expense of charity and of brotherly union. 1 

The Pope was abundantly justified. Yet this letter 
marks the beginning of an alliance which was to have 
very troublesome consequences, that of the Roman Church 
and of St Athanasius with Marcellus of Ancyra. Marcellus 
may have had the best intentions : his teaching, as we 
have seen before, laid itself open to criticism, even in 
those times when precision in theological language still 
left much to be desired. Athanasius, tossed about in 
so many storms, has never been accused on the score 
of his belief, even by his bitterest enemies. It was other 
wise with Eustathius and with Marcellus. Eustathius 
soon disappeared ; but Marcellus lived almost as long as 
Athanasius, and it is worthy of notice that not to mention 
the Ariani/ers, whose special aversion he was he was 
almost everywhere looked upon with suspicion. Two 
years after his death, St Epiphanius considered him a 
proper subject for his collection of heretics, and included 
him in it, though, it is true, with some reserve. He had 
questioned Athanasius himself upon the matter, and the 
old warrior, without either attacking or defending his 
former companion-in-arms, replied by a smile, 2 which 
Epiphanius interpreted as meaning that Marcellus had 
gone as near as possible to the danger-point, and had 
been obliged to justify himself. 

He was already in this position at the time of which 
we are now writing. Pope Julius did not allow him to 
leave Rome, without asking him for a written profession 
of faith. 3 This document, skilfully worded, managed to 

1 This letter was carried to the East by a certain Count Gabianus 
(Ap. c. Ar. 20). 

2 Epiph. Haer. Ixxii. 4 : pbvov 5i4 TOU irpovu-rov /xfiSidcros virt<j>r}vc 
fj-oxOypia-s V-T) /J-ciKpav CLVT&V civaL, Kal u>y diro\oyrjffa.u.( vov (tyf. 

3 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 



p. 206-7] MARCELLUS AND ORTHODOXY 165 

conceal the characteristic notes of the doctrine so strongly 
attacked in the previous years by Eusebius of Caesarea. 
On reading it, one might think that Marcellus admitted 
the eternity of the Word, not only as Word but as Son, 
and that he accepted the formula, " His kingdom shall 
have no end," in the same sense as the Gospel. 1 This 
little artifice might succeed with the Western Church, 
little versed in these theological subtleties ; but the 
Easterns, better informed, could not be so easily deceived. 

During these negotiations, a great political change had 
taken place in the West. The Emperors of Gaul and of 
Illyricum, Constantine II. and Constans, were in conflict 
with each other Constantine not being satisfied with his 
share of the empire, nor with the way in which his young 
brother accepted his guardianship. They met in battle 
near Aquileia: Constantine II. was defeated and killed. 
The whole of the West, from the Ocean to Thrace, recog 
nized Constans as its emperor (April 340), and his power, 
being thus doubled, soon forced itself on the attention of 
his Eastern colleague, Constantius. 

The following year (341) there took place at Antioch 
the solemn dedication of the principal church, the building 
of which had been begun by Constantine. The solemnity 
was the occasion of a large assemblage of bishops, about 
a hundred in number 2 ; the Emperor Constantius was 
present. In spite of their attitude of lofty independence, 
Eusebius and his party were exceedingly annoyed at the 
whole course of the recent proceedings in the West. They 
had hoped for, and even solicited, the support of the 
Roman Church, and now that Church was upholding 
their opponents. Their own sovereign, Constantius, was 
favourable to their opinions ; but Rome, the ally of 
Athanasius, was under the protection of a prince of far 
greater power than their own. They saw themselves 
driven to act on the defensive. It was not only in Rome 
that it was actually so attached to the letter of Pope Julius, of which 
we have just spoken. 

1 St Luke i. 33. 

2 Ninety, according to St Athanasius ; St Hilary and Sozomen 
(Sabinus) give ihe total as 97. 



166 THE EMPEROR CONSTANS [CH. vi. 

and at the Court of Constans that they were represented 
as defenders of Arianism and the Arians ; this accusation 
was also circulated in the East, even outside Egypt. 
Everything that was happening in that unfortunate country 
was known, in spite of police precautions ; how the 
intruder Gregory was everywhere waging war with those 
Christians who had remained faithful to Athanasius, 
assailing the churches, and even going so far as to include 
among those thrown into prison confessors of the time of 
Maximin. The aged Eusebius felt that the time was 
come to defend himself. From the Council of the Dedica 
tion (in Encaeniis], there issued various letters, 1 one of 
which contained the following words : 

" We are not followers (aKoXovOoi) of Arius. How 
could we, being bishops, follow in the train of a priest? 
We have no other faith than that which has been handed 
down from the beginning. But having had occasion to 
enquire into his own faith, and to form an estimate of it, 
we have rather admitted it than followed it. You will see 
this by what we are about to say." Then follows a sooth 
ing and conciliatory profession of faith, 2 containing neither 
the technical terms of Nicaea, nor the final anathema ; by 
way of compensation, a few words are inserted with regard 
to the eternal Reign of Christ, evidently directed against 
Marcellus of Ancyra. 

Another profession of faith, emanating from the same 
synod, is more explicit upon the Divine prerogatives of 
the Son of God ; it even heaps up terms calculated to 
enforce them 8 and, in a certain fashion, repudiates the 

1 Athan. De syn 22-25. 

2 Characteristic passages are the following : xal eh tva. i/!6r roO GeoO 

i, irp& irdvruv ruv aluvuv virdpxovra Kal ffvvdvra T<$ yeytvvrjKbn au- 
Harpt . . . 6ia/j.tvovTa. /9otri\^a Kal Qebv e/i TOI T aiiiyai. 

3 T6v ycvvydtvTa. r/>6 r&v aiuvur tic rov Harpbs, 6ebv IK Gfou, S\ov t S\ov t 
OV K /i6voi>, T^Xfiov K rtXelov, /SacrAf a K ^SacriX^wj, Kvpiov dirit Kvpiov, \6yov 

o<t>la.v fwcrav, <f>ut 6.\i)9t.vbv, odbv, d\r)6(iav t dvaffraaiv, voi/j.^va, 6i pav t 
Arpcirrbv re Kal dfaXXofwrov rrjs BfbTijTOS, ovfflat re xal /3ou\^y *cal 5iyvd/xewj 
Kal 56^7ji TOU ITar^6s dirapiXXa/cTov ci\6va, rbv TrpurbroKW trdffrjt Krlatus, rbv 
6vra tv dpXV *?&* r ^> v &(t>v, \6yov Q(bv. . . . Ef rts \4yet rbv Yibv Krifffia u>f 
fv rCiv KTiff/j.6,Tut> } f) ytvvrjfj.0. ut ?i TWP ^fj t Tj/tdrwy, 1) -roirj^o. wj Ir TMV 



p. 209] CREEDS OF ANTIOCH 167 

expressions which were forbidden by the Council of Nicaea. 
We find in it that the Son is " the image of the essence " 
(ovaria) of the Father, not that He is " of the essence " of 
the Father. The three names, Father, Son, and Holy 
Spirit are represented not as terms having no relation 
with realities, but as characterizing the hypostasis 
(vTroVrcwti/), the rank, the dignity of the Persons named ; 
thus, by hypostasis they are Three ; by their mutual 
agreement (o-i>/x^a>ym) they make but One. 1 

A third formula, presented by Theophronius, the Bishop 
of Tyana, was approved of. In its positive statements it 
is absolutely colourless; but at the end it formally re 
pudiates Marcellus of Ancyra, Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, 
"and all those who are in communion with them." 

These formulas certainly indicate a tendency to 
modify in some degree the position of the party. Arius 
was dead ; and they were beginning to find him rather 
embarrassing, and to extricate themselves from too close 
an identification with his views. As a matter of fact, no 
one, except a few fanatical disciples, now maintained his 
system. On this point they drew back, step by step, and 
without regret. They had discovered a better fighting- 
ground the struggle against Marcellus. It was on this 
that the conflict was renewed. " You are Arians," so rose 
the cry, without ceasing, from Rome and from Alexandria. 
" You are Sabellians," was the reply from Antioch. And 
this state of things was all the more serious because 
Marcellus himself was not dead ; and the Westerns kept 
him in their ranks, recognized him as a bishop, and 
defended him. 

Athanasius, who has preserved for us the formulas of 
Antioch, gives us no information as to the way in which 
they were presented to the assembly, and approved by it. 
It is possible that different bishops or different groups 
may have availed themselves of this opportunity to obtain 

1 St Hilary (De synodis, 29, et sey.) 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. 



168 THE EMPEROR CONSTANS [CH. vr. 

certificates of orthodoxy. The Council of Nicaea, while 
decreeing a formula, had decided nothing as to the 
use to be made of it, nor on the question whether it 
was to be substituted for those previously in use in the 
various Churches for the ceremonies of Christian initiation. 
It even seems as if the council had no idea of such 
a substitution, for in that case, it would have completed 
the conclusion of it by mentioning therein the Catholic 
Church, the remission of sins, and the resurrection of the 
flesh. As a matter of fact, the Churches kept their old 
creeds. In the profession of faith which he sent to Pope 
Julius, Marcellus of Ancyra inserted word for word the 
text of the Roman symbol. In other places, the traditional 
text was modified, either according to the formula of 
Nicaea, or to others. Already, even in the time of 
Constantine, jealous as he was of the interests of his 
council, Arius had been able to submit to the emperor 
a profession of faith which did not reproduce word for 
word the symbol of Nic. ta. It is not astonishing, there 
fore, that other formulas should have been presented or 
published. At the same time, it was a dangerous game to 
play a fact which was soon perceived. 

The Dedication Council 1 was the last in which 
1 It is customary to connect with the Dedication Council the 25 
canons of a Council of Antioch which is mentioned in the oldest 
collections of canons. This attribution is very doubtful. According 
to the covering letter sent to those who were absent, and according to 
the signatures, the assembly which promulgated these canons was 
composed exclusively of bishops within the jurisdiction of Antioch, 
Syria, Mesopotamia, and Cilicia ; this was not the case as regards the 
Dedication Council, which certainly included other bishops. We 
know it was held after the Council of Nic?ea, because it mentions 
that council, and before the year 359, when the new province of 
Euphratesia makes its first appearance in the documents. If the 
signatures were, in regard to the particulars given, better supported by 
evidence than they are, we should be inclined to date the Council of 
Antioch very shortly after the Nicene Council, for nearly all the 
signatures are common to the two councils. The enactments furnish 
hardly any indications : anti-Athanasian and anti-Eustathian pre 
possessions were early discovered in them ; but there is not much 
evidence of this. I should be inclined to think that the council was 
before, rather than after, the year 341. 



p. 211-2] EUSEB1US AND HIS POLICY 169 

Eusebius took part. He seems to have died about the 
end of 341, being still in outward communion with the 
Church, for there was, as yet, no open schism between the 
East and Rome. If he had always minded his own 
business, and not had the fatal idea of intervening between 
Arius and his bishop, Arianism would have remained a 
purely Alexandrian controversy, and could have been 
suppressed without much difficulty. But Eusebius let 
loose upon the Bishop of Alexandria, first the Eastern 
episcopate, and then the emperor and the empire. The 
memory of this intriguing prelate, in whom one can find 
no single sympathetic feature, remains weighted with a 
heavy responsibility. 

The Church of Constantinople, which he governed 
during his latter years, had also itself passed through 
strange periods of crisis thanks to him. After the death 
of Alexander (336), a certain Paul, a native of Thessalonica, 
had been elected bishop there. He had been present, 
according to report, at the deposition of Athanasius, 1 
and had associated himself with it by his signature. He 
was himself accused, soon afterwards, by one of his priests, 
Macedonius, deposed by the same council as Marcellus 
of Ancyra, and exiled to Pontus. Plis place had not 
yet been filled when Constantine died. He immediately 
returned to his Church, and for some time Macedonius 
maintained friendly relations with him. But the see of 
Constantinople tempted the ambition of Eusebius. 
The former accusations were again revived at the 
opportune moment. Paul saw himself ousted once more, 
and Eusebius installed in his place (either at the end of 
338 or the beginning of 339). On Eusebius death (341), 
Paul, who had fled to Treves and been warmly welcomed 



1 Pautus vero Athanasii eyposiiioni interfuit manuque 
sententiam scribens, eum ceteris eum etiam ip$e damnavit (Ep. Or. 
Hil. Frag. hist. iii. 13). I cannot adopt the opinion of those who, from 
the evidence of this text, reject entirely the story of the death 
of Arius, in the time of Bishop Alexander, as it is related by St 
Athanasius. It is possible that Paul may have taken part in the 
Council of Tyre as the representative of his bishop, or that his 
signature may have been given at Constantinople a little later. 



170 THE EMPEROR CONSTANS [CH. vi. 

by Bishop Maximin, obtained through his mediation 
permission to return to his episcopal city. Eusebius 
had had time to organize a party, at the head of which 
Macedonius now found himself. The populace were 
divided between Paul and him, and disagreement degener 
ated into scenes of violence. Things went so far that 
a general, the magister militum, Hermogenes, was killed 
in a riot and his body dragged through the streets (342). 
However, the coercive power was still in the hands of the 
authorities. The praetorian prefect Philip succeeded, after 
a struggle, in which more than three thousand persons are 
said to have perished, in installing Macedonius. As for 
Paul, he was arrested, loaded with chains, and sent to Singar 
in the extremity of Mesopotamia on the Persian frontier. 
Thence he was transferred to Emesa, then to Cucusa, 
in the mountains of Cappadocia, where an attempt was 
made to starve him to death ; and finally, as he persisted 
in living, the prefect Philip ordered him to be strangled. 1 

All this time the imperial court of the West continued 
to interest itself in the affairs of the Eastern Church, and 
the proteges of the Apostolic See. In consequence of 
some step on his part, it was decided at Antioch that 
a deputation of bishops should be sent to the young 
Emperor Constans. Four distinguished members of the 
Arianizing party were chosen for this purpose, Narcissus 
of Neronias, Maris of Chalcedon, Theodore of Heraclea, 
and Mark of Arethusa : the first two had taken part in 
the Council of Nicsea. They were the bearers of a creed, 2 
differing from the three approved by the Dedication 
Council, and conceived almost in the same spirit. This 
document is important, for the Easterns adhered to it for 

1 The story of Paul is very difficult to unravel. The synodal 
letter of the Easterns (343) is the most ancient document on the 
subject, but it is inspired by too much passion to be taken literally. 
Next comes St Athanasius (Hist. Ar. 7 ; cf. Apol. de fuga 3), then 
St Jerome (Chron. ad ann. Abr. 2358). Socrates (ii. 6, 7, 12 et seq.\ 
and Sozomen (iii. 3, 4, 7-9) give us the local tradition of Constantinople, 
but with much confusion. See the discussion by Dr Loofs in Hauck s 
Encyclopddie, s. v. " Macedonius." 

2 Athan., De syn, 25. 



p. 214-5] NEW CREED OF ANTIOCH 171 

several years, and often presented it, especially to the 
West, as the expression of their belief. It was vague 
as to the procession of the Son, but precise as to the 
eternity of His Reign, and it repudiated several of the 
Arian expressions. 1 

The bishops were received at the court at Treves, but 
not by the Church. Bishop Maximin was devoted to 
Athanasius : he refused to see his enemies. 

It was no doubt as a sequel to this embassy that 
Constans, on the advice of several Western bishops, came 
to an understanding with his brother Constantius 2 that 
a new council should be convoked, in which the bishops 
of both empires should sit together and arrange their 
differences. The place chosen for this great assembly 
was the town of Sardica, the modern Sofia. 3 It was 
the capital of inland Dacia (mediterraned] and the last 
town of the Western empire on the borders of Thrace, 
itself included in the jurisdiction of Constantius. 4 

Athanasius, apprised by the emperor, came to meet 
him at Milan, afterwards in Gaul, where he had a meeting 
with Hosius. The latter was then far advanced in years. 
But no one had more information than he had upon the 
controversies of the East, and no one was better qualified 



Ibv irpb -irdvTUv r&v atuvuv K TOV HaT/jdr yevvr)6f vTa 6fbv t< Beov, 0wj 
. . . \6yov 6vra Kal ffo<f>iav Kal dvvafj.iv /cat fan?!/ Kal </><$ a\y)6Lvbv . . . 
)t5 TI /3a<uXe/a d/cardXi/roj ovffa 6ia.fj.tvei els TOUJ aireipovs aluvas. . . . Tous dt 
MyovTas OVK 6vTW TOV flbv f) frepas vwoffrdffews ical (AT) tic TOV Qeov t nal 
1jv irorf xpb y * & T V K ^ v i <iXXorpt oi/s oldev 17 Kado\iKT) EKK\rjcria. 
a Athan., Ap. ad Const. 4. 

3 In Bulgarian it is still called Sredec, which is the ancient name. 

4 The date of the Council of Sardica, formerly fixed as 347, 
following a false clue in Socrates, is still not yet quite certain. We 
may hesitate between the years 342 and 343. The first is indicated 
in the Alexandrian section of Theodosius J collection : Congregata est 
synodus consulate Constantini et Constantini (read Constantii et 
Constantis) aput Sardicam (Maassen, Quellen, vol. i., p. 548). The 
Chronicle of the Festal Letters seems to indicate the year 343 (Placido 
et Romulo coss.) ; but as the chronicler often reckons in Egyptian 
years, beginning with Thoth i (August 29), this indication may well 
be identified with the preceding one. There is nothing to prevent 
the council having taken place in the autumn (September October) 
of the year 342. Cf. E. Schwartz, Nachrichten, 1904, p. 341. 



172 THE EMPEROR CONSTANS [CH. vi. 

to negotiate with its bishops. He was deputed to conduct 
the Western bishops to Sardica and to preside over the 
assembly, just as he had directed, more or less, that at 
Nicaea. 

About eighty bishops gathered round Hosius, in the 
autumn of 342 (or 343). Half of them came from Greek 
and Latin Illyricum ; the others from the West properly 
so-called. Pope Julius was represented by two priests, 
Archidamus and Philoxenus, and by the deacon Leo. 
There were at least ten bishops from Italy, and six from 
Spain. The Easterns arrived in about equal numbers. 
They had all travelled together, under the escort of two 
high officials, the Counts Musunianus and Hesychius. 
The new Bishop of Antioch, Stephen, the successor of 
Flaccillus, led this procession. They had not set out in 
very good spirits. Of course it was necessary to obey the 
Emperor Constantius, who was himself, in this matter, 
yielding to the representations of his brother. It is a long 
journey from Antioch to Sardica. In the evening, at 
their various halting places in Asia Minor and Thrace, 
they held consultations upon the attitude to be adopted 
in face of these troublesome Westerns. A large number 
of the travellers were either indifferent, or even favourable 
to Athanasius. But, as always happens, the main body 
was directed by a few leaders. The two Eusebii were 
gone, but there remained some of the early members of 
the Eusebian party, former protectors of Arius, and some 
members of the Council of Tyre. They persuaded the 
others to take no part in the synod, either as parties to 
the disputes, or as judges : they would go as far as 
Sardica, since the emperor wished it, but they would act 
in such a manner as to get out of it as soon as possible, 
and to avoid contact with the Westerns. 1 

This programme was carried out to the letter. On 
their arrival at Sardica, the Eastern bishops were confined 
to their own rooms by their leaders, who feared defections. 2 

1 Apol. contra Ar. 48. 

2 Two of them, however, had the courage to join Hosius : Asterius 
of Petra, and Arius, another Palestinian Bishop. 



p. 217] THE EASTERNS AT SARDICA 173 

When invited to join themselves to their Western breth 
ren, 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. n), this protest had been preceded by 
another, sent from Philippopolis. 

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

3 This letter purports to have been written at Sardica: Placuit 
nobis de Sardica scribere (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. 



174 THE EMPEROR CONSTANS [CH. vi. 

be restored to the episcopate, at a distance from their 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 
thdy declare the following persons to be deposed and 
excommunicated Julius of Rome, Hosius of Cordova, 
Protogenes of Sardica, Gaudentius of Naissus (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. 

2 Similiter et illos qui dicunt tres esse deos, aut Christum non esse 
Deum aut ante ea unum (?) non fuisse Christum neque filium Dei, aut 
ipsum Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum, aut non natum Filium, 
aut nonsententia neque uoluntate Deum Patrem genuisse Filium (Hil., 
Frag. hist. iii. 29). This text has been altered like the whole docu 
ment, for the matter of that. 



p. 219-20] COUNCIL 0F SARDICA 175 

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 objection 
able 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 Qi 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 y 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 ^wr\eivra.^ which, in 
his system, could only be applied to the Incarnate Word. 



176 THE EMPEROR CONSTANS [en. vi. 

of Ancyra, Quintianus of Gaza ; then the actual leaders 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 after 
wards. 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 consider 
able 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 substantial 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 6/j.oovtrios by consubstantialis, the terms 
ova la. and virbaraffi.! were equivalent. We must note carefully that the 
word cssentia^ by which we translate ov<ria, was not at that time in 
use ; that, for the two Greek woids, ovoia. and virbaraais, there was but 
one Latin term, substantia We can therefore understand the Council 
of Sardica being tempted to pass from the * consubstaniial to the unity 
of hypostasis. 



p. 222] PERSONA, HYPOSTASIS, ESSENCE 177 

unanimously adopted by 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 pre 
existing 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 tres personae. But 
it had not been introduced into the Creed of Nicaea ; and, 
besides, the word persona, Trpoarcoirov 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 " (oiWa), 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, 
U M 



178 THE EMPEROR CONSTANS [CH. vi. 

any more than the text of the letter which was to commend 
it to Pope Julius 1 : 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. 2 
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 Arians actually contains 
more than t\vo hundred signatures which were thus added, 
besides those of the members of the council. 

The council was unwilling to separate without pass 
ing some disciplinary canons. For the most part, these 
regulations were inspired by existing circumstances. 
Thus, the first two forbid in the severest terms the transla 
tion of bishops from one see to another ; we can perceive 
here the impression left by the affair of Valens. 3 Others 
condemn the constant journeys of bishops to the imperial 
court, 4 or deal with incidents which had taken place at 
Thessalonica ; others concern the ordinations of bishops, 
law-suits of clergy, and the sojourn of bishops outside 
their dioceses. 6 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 

1 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, //. E. ii. 6, pp. 844-888 : 

AlTOKIlpl TTOV.d 5t ^KeiVOVS K.T.X. 

- IIoXXo. /j.ti> xa.1 iroXXd/m (Athan. Afiol. 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. Ivi., 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). 

3 A special report was addressed to the Emperor Constans upon 
this affair. 

4 Can. 8-12 of the Latin text ; 7, 8, 9, 20 of the Greek text, 

5 Lat. 20, 21 ; Gr. 16-19. 

Lat v 13-19 ; Gr. 10-15. 7 Lat. 3, 4, 7 ; Or. 3, 4, s. 



p. 224-5] THE CANON OF APPEALS 179 

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, 1 with a letter 2 
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 

1 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 sacer dotes. 

2 Letter Quod Semper (Hil. Frag. hist. 5i. 9-15). In this letter we 
must take note of the following phrase, which gives a peculiar signifi 
cance to certain pieces of information : Ipsi religiosissi mi imperatores 
permiserunt ut de integro univcrsa discussa disputarentur, et ante 
omnia de sancta fide et de integritaie 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. 



180 THE EMPEROR CONSTANS [CH. vi. 

the days before the persecution, and who, under Con- 
stantine, 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 homocusios, 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 pre 
text 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, repre 
sented 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. 1 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. 

On their return from the council, 2 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. 3 
Ten workmen belonging to the armoury, who had been 

1 Pope Zosimus revised them a century later ; and then they were 
the cause of a celebrated controversy. 

2 Athan. Hist. Ar. 18-20. 

3 He died shortly afterwards, at the place to which he had been 
exiled* 



p. 227] RESULTS OF THE COUNCIL 181 

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 Nicaea, and 
Euphratas of Cologne, arrived at Antioch ; they were 
escorted by a general, the magister militum, 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. 



182 THE EMPEROR CONSTANS [CH. vi. 

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 neigh 
bouring 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. 



p. 229-30] PHOTINUS OF SIKMIUM 183 

of things was intolerable. The Eastern prelates, no 
doubt as a reply to the affair of Vincent and Euphratas, 
or provoked in another way by delegates from their 
Western brethren, decided to send to the court of Milan 
four bishops Demophilus, Eudoxius, 1 Macedonius, and 
Martyrius with instructions to explain their faith to the 
Emperor Constans and his bishops, and to see if some kind 
of understanding could not be arrived at. They carried 
with them, besides the creed already presented in 
342 and republished at Sardica, a long explanation, 
in ten articles. 2 This contained nothing that was 
unorthodox, and, if it had not been for its silence as 
to the homoousios, it might have given satisfaction. 
Naturally, it expanded at length the points compromised 
by the teaching of Marcellus and his disciple Photinus, 
or, as he was called, by a play upon his name, Scotinus. 3 
This is the first time that we hear of him. Like his 
master, he was a Galatian, and, under Marcellus instruc 
tions, had performed at Ancyra the functions of a deacon. 
He was now at the head of the bishopric of Sirmium, 
a very important position. The members of his diocese 
were much attached to him ; they appreciated his 
learning, his eloquence, and his other qualities. Unfortun 
ately, his doctrine left much to be desired. We may 
describe it with sufficient accuracy by saying that it was 
almost identical with that of Paul of Samosata. Besides, 
the principles of Marcellus, with his impersonal Word 
who became Son and a distinct hypostasis solely by His 
Incarnation, ended logically in the theology of the two 
Theodoti, a theology which was condemned at Rome by 
Pope Victor, and at Antioch in the time of Bishop Paul. 
The Easterns had abundant reasons for rejecting this 
theology, and even for charging the old Bishop of Ancyra 

1 Eudoxius and Demophilns succeeded one another, later on, in 
the see of Constantinople. 

** Athan. De Syn. 26, who gives the date of it as three years after 
the Council of 341. He mentions three of these bishops, Eudoxius, 
Macedonius, and Martyrius. 

3 ^on-ct^y is an adjective meaning "light" ; S/toreivij means "dark" 
or " obscure." 



184 THE EMPEROR CONST A NS [CH. vi. 

with being the father of it. The plain speaking of his 
disciple put Marcellus in a difficult position. Athanasius, 
who was then not very far from Sardica, and was living 
in retirement at Nisch, began to see more clearly into the 
ideas of his colleague, and to recognize that they hardly 
differed from those of Photinus. 

An understanding might have been arrived at in 
Milan. In fact, it was almost attained. The Western 
bishops, assembled around the emperor with the legates 
of the Roman Church, 1 made up their minds to condemn 
Photinus. But in return they demanded of the Eastern 
delegates the condemnation of the doctrines of Arius. 
This was refused, and the Eastern contingent finally 
departed in anger. 2 Ursacius and Valens, subjects of 
the Emperor Constans, had no qualms about it ; they 
sacrificed themselves, and repudiated the Arian heresy. 

Notwithstanding the ill-humour of the Eastern envoys, 
the Council of Milan thought it a duty to notify to 
those whom they represented what had been decided 
upon with regard to Photinus. The receipt of this letter 
was acknowledged ; though, at the same time, it was 
carefully pointed out that, if Photinus was so deplorably 
heretical, it was because his education had been in the 
hands of his former bishop, Marcellus. 3 To revive at 

1 Hil. Frag. hist. ii. 20 ; viii. 2. 

* " 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. 

3 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. 



p. 232] RESTORATION OF ATHANASIUS 185 

such a time the delicate question of Marcellus, was 
evidence of feelings in which friendship was not con 
spicuous. But opposing parties not infrequently have 
too long a memory. 

Athanasius, just about this same time, went some way 
of his own accord to meet the wishes of the Eastern 
prelates. He notified Marcellus that he could no longer 
hold relations with him ; and it is certainly worthy of 
remark that Marcellus accepted the position and 
abstained from any rejoinder. As to Photinus himself, 
Athanasius, whose views had certainly not gone uncon- 
sidered in the deliberations at Milan, could only have a 
highly unfavourable opinion. Hov/ever, the Bishop of 
Sirmium, protected by his local popularity, troubled himself 
very little at the censure of which he had been the subject 
at Milan, and stood his ground in the face of and in spite 
of everyone. 

But at the end of two years, as his attitude was a cause 
of scandal, and as it was important from the point of view 
of relations with the East that the main body should not 
appear to be compromised by his heresy, a council was 
called together at Sirmium itself, with a view to getting 
rid of the bishop. But they tried in vain. Photinus, 
like Paul of Samosata, was a difficult person to dislodge. 
The intervention of the government was neither given 
nor even asked for ; and the bishops, reduced to spiritual 
weapons, were obliged to return home without having 
met with any success. 

However, a great event happened : Athanasius was 
reinstated at Alexandria. The intruder Gregory, who 
had long been ill, finally died on June 25, 345. 1 
Constantius took advantage of this to yield to his 

1 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 21, 
346. We know, from the Historia Arianorum, that Athanasius, who 
was recalled immediately after the death of Gregory, delayed for more 
than a year. 



186 THE EMPEROR CONSTANS [CH. vi. 

brother 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] URSACIUS AND VALENS 187 

followers. On October 21, 346, the victorious bishop 
found himself once more in the midst of his Alexandrians. 1 

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. 2 They wrote also to the 
Bishop of Alexandria, in order to put themselves again in 
communion with him. 3 

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 

1 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. 

2 The letter was written by Valens, with his own hand, and signed 
by Ursacius. 

3 The original letters are in Hil. Frag. hist. 20 j cf. Athan., Apol. 
contra Ar. 58. 



188 THE EMPEROR CONSTANS [CH. vi. 

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. 

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, 1 various 
documents relating to the decisions of Rome, Aries, and 
Milan. 2 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 (336- 
337), 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. 3 For all that, the Donatists 

1 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 
MS. (Parisinus, 1711). But as it was certainly seen by St Optatus 
and St Augustine, who often refer to it, t I have been able to recon 
struct it completely. On this subject, see my Memoir, Le dossier du 
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 scrip forum eccUsiasti- 
*orum latinorunt, vol. xxvi. 

3 Optatus, iii. 3, 10. 



p. 237] THE CIRCUMCELLIONS 189 

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 them 
selves 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 Circum 
cellions 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 



190 THE EMPEROR CONSTANS [CH. VL 

more obliging. If necessary, they procured martyrdom 
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 they 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 sacri 
legious union." The meeting took place at Vegesela. 
The Donatist prelates spoke in such a manner to the 
emperor s representatives that the latter considered them 
selves 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 Passion of Manillas. 



192 THE EMPEROR CONST ANS [CH. VL 

Donatus of Bagai lost his life as a result; Marculus, 1 
after 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. 

8 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 
tne 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. 1 

But such cases seem to have been rare. There was 
much local resistance, which was repressed with severity. 2 
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 them 
selves, 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 3 

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 

1 Council of Gratus, c. 12. 

2 Optatus again and again returns to this : aspcra, aspere gesta. 

8 Gennadius, DC viris, 4. Vitellius had already inveighed against 
the pagans and the Catholics. Upon these two Passions, see p. 192, 
note 2. 

II N 



194 THE EMPEROR CONSTANS [GEL VL 

embraced the whole of Africa. 1 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 2 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 condemna 
tions directed long before against the traditores and 
rebaptizers. The censure of the traditores was a satis 
faction 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. 

With the wise spirit, of which these decisions of the 
council bore witness, peace would in the end have been 
restored, if only, side by side with a close supervision of 
the unquiet element still remaining in the country, and 
the prolongation of the exile of its leaders, time had been 
allowed to extinguish feelings of resentment, and to 
accustom people to live together who had been cursing 
each other for nearly forty years. But unfortunately for 
Africa and we may say so quite apart from any religious 

1 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. 

2 Canons i, i. 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. 



p. 244] JULIAN AND DONATISM 195 

prejudice in the matter the attitude of the government 
was not maintained long enough. The fire was still 
smouldering under the ashes, when Julian, to do an ill 
turn to the Church, released the exiles and once more let 
loose the storm upon the African provinces. 



CHAPTER VII 

THE PROSCRIPTION OF ATHANASIUS 

Assassination of Constans. The usurper Ma^nentius. Constantius 
makes himself master of the West. The two Cncsars, Callus 
and Julian. Deposition of Photmus. New intrigues against 
Athanasms. The Council of Aries. Pope Liberius. Councils 
of Milan and of Beziers. Exile of Lucifer, Eusebius, Hilary, 
Liberius, and Hosius. Police riots at Alexandria. Assault on 
the Church of Theonas : disappearance of Athanasius. Intrusion 
of George. Athanasius in retirement. 

THE religious policy of Constans had in some measure 
succeeded. Order was supreme in Africa. It is true 
that on the Danube frontier the heretical bishop of 
Sirmium still held his ground ; but, as the members of 
his diocese put up with him, the interruption of relations 
between him and his colleagues was only of local interest. 
In the East, the restoration of Athanasius had been 
secured, and this meant the pacification of Egypt. The 
Egyptians, it is true, remained more or less isolated in the 
episcopal world of the East, and the Eastern bishops were 
not in agreement with the Western Church. Hut some 
steps had been taken towards union ; the bishops of 
Palestine and of the island of Cyprus had resumed 
communion with Athanasius ; and there was reason to 
hope that, in process of time, these tendencies towards 
peace would increase, and East and West arrive at last at 
mutual understanding. But to ensure this it would have 
been necessary that the political equilibrium should 
remain such as circumstances had made it. 

Unfortunately this was exactly what did not happen, 

196 



p. 246] USURPATION OF MAGNENTIUS 197 

On January 18, 350, a military conspiracy broke out 
at Autun, and the Count Magnentius was proclaimed 
emperor in place of Constans, who was assassinated a few 
days afterwards at Elna, at the foot of the Pyrenees. 

Against this attack upon the due succession in the 
line of Constantine, all the remaining members of his 
family instinctively set themselves in opposition. In the 
West, two daughters of Constantine were still living, 
Constantina and Eutropia, both of them widows, one of 
King Hannibalian, the other of the consular, Nepotianus. 
Constantina, who was residing at Sirmium, lost no time 
in setting up a rival to Magnentius, and proclaimed as 
Augustus an old general named Vetranio (March i). 
Eutropia, who lived in Rome, was at first out-flanked by 
the rapid movement of Magnentius, who secured his own 
recognition in the ancient capital ; but she quickly rallied, 
and advanced her own son Nepotianus to the imperiaL 
dignity on June 3. So far as he was concerned, 
however, Magnentius had little difficulty in getting the 
upper hand. Before a month had elapsed, his general, 
Marcellinus, recaptured Rome after a fierce conflict, in 
which Nepotianus was killed. The conqueror did not 
show himself disposed to mercy ; Eutropia was put to 
death, and with her a large number of prominent members 
of the Roman aristocracy. 

Constantius also did not lose hope. He had upon his 
hands, besides the catastrophes in the West, a never- 
ending war with the Persians. The city of Nisibis 
endured during this year a heroic siege, and its inhabitants, 
encouraged by their famous Bishop James, resisted for a 
space of four months all the attacks of King Sapor. In 
this quarter, the military operations were under the 
direction of the emperor s lieutenants. Constantius 
himself lost no time in gathering his forces and setting 
out on his march to the West. He had already come 
to some sort of understanding with Vetranio, who allowed 
him to pass through Illyricum. Vetranio did more than 
this: the son of Constantine managed to persuade him 
to resign the purple, succeeded him himself without a 



198 PROSCRIPTION OF ATHANASIUS [CH. vn. 

struggle, and sent him to end his days in peace at Prusias 
in Bithynia. 

By this arrangement, Constantius gained the Balkan 
Peninsula and the Pannonian provinces, supposing always 
that Magnentius did not come to dispute them with him, 
a contingency which there was much reason to fear. In 
the meantime, Constantius took up his winter quarters at 
Sirmium. In the spring, he marched towards the Julian 
Alps; the "tyrant" came to meet him, and obliged him 
to fall back as far as the confluence of the Drave and the 
Danube. There, on September 28, 351, the battle oi 
Mursa was fought, the result of which was unfavourable 
to Magnentius, and compelled him to recross the 
mountains. 

When winter set in, the two rivals remained in their 
positions of the preceding year, Constantius at Sirmium, 
Magnentius at Aquileia. It was not till the following 
summer (352) that Constantius succeeded in crossing the 
passes and making his way into Italy : Magnentius was 
obliged to fall back upon Gaul. The victor entered Milan, 
where he married Eusebia, a beautiful and capable woman, 
who soon gained an immense influence over her husband. 
In 353. Magnentius, who had tried in vain to defend 
the Alps, beat a retreat upon Lyons. Seeing that he was 
on the point of being betrayed by the remnant of his 
forces, he killed himself on August ICL Constantius 
entered Lyons, and the unity of the empire was once 
more re-established. 

None the less, like his predecessors, Constantius felt 
the need of sharing its burden. He could not at the 
same time conquer the West and carry on a struggle with 
the Persians. Already, in 351 (March 15), Callus, one of 
the sons of Julius Constantius, had been brought out of 
his retirement and despatched to Antioch with the rank 
of Caesar ; a wife was found for him in the person of 
the emperor s own sister, Constantina, the widow of 
Hannibalian, the princess who a year earlier had made 
an emperor out of Vetranio. This enterprising person 
helped her husband to transform himself into an Asiatic 



p. 248] DEATH OF GAIXUS, 354 199 

tyrant ; and left to themselves they had soon succeeded in 
subjecting Antioch to an unbearable system of oppression. 
The cries of the victims were at last heard in Milan. 
Being summoned to appear before the master of the 
empire, Gallus sent his wife in advance, knowing her 
fertility in resource. She, however, died on the way, 1 
so that he felt himself obliged to go in person. As he 
had not been able to assume the attitude of a rival, he 
speedily found himself in the position of a culprit before 
his judge. He was taken to Flanona, near Pola, and there 
condemned and executed (at the end of 354). 

He had still one brother remaining, Julian. The latter, 
in the following year, was summoned to court and pro 
claimed Caesar (November 6, 355). Gaul was entrusted to 
him, and he governed it well, gaining the gratitude of its 
people, especially for the bravery and skill with which he 
defended them against the barbarians beyond the Rhine. 

But we must now return to the affairs of the Church. 
The news of the death of Constans had burst upon the 
East like a thunderclap. All the enemies of Athanasius 
in Syria and in Asia Minor had not, indeed, dared to show 
their joy openly (for that might have been imprudent and 
dangerous), but trembled with hopefulness. Some of them 
had even plucked up courage to talk once more of the 
Council of Tyre, and the necessity of adhering to its 
decisions. These were in too great a hurry : Constantius 
refused to listen to them. He wrote to Athanasius and 
assured him that the wishes of his dead brother would be 
respected, and that, whatever rumours might reach him, his 
mind might be at rest : he should always be supported. 2 
The Egyptian officials received instructions to the same 

1 It was she who built at Rome the celebrated basilica of St Agnes, 
where this fact was commemorated by a metrical inscription, the 
text of which is still extant : Constantina Deum venerans Christoque 
dicata, etc. She was buried there, in a mausoleum which is still in 
existence (see above, p. 51, note 2}. It is this Constantina whom 
legend has transformed into a holy Virgin Constantia, in spite of the 
fact that she had been married twice, and that in other ways her life 
bore only the most distant resemblance to the evangelical ideal 

* Athan. Hist. Ar. 23, 51. 



200 PROSCRIPTION OF ATHANASIUS [CH. vn. 

effect. Athanasius, on his part, published in his own 
defence a brochure illustrated by documentary evidence, 
in which he set out, first, the decisions given in his favour 
by the Egyptian episcopate, by the Council of Rome, and 
by that of Sardica ; and then traced once more in a 
series of official documents, joined together by a short 
outline of narrative, the whole story of the intrigues 
directed against him, down to the time of his recall by 
the Emperor Constantius, and the retractation of Ursacius 
and Valens. This is the work which we call the Apologia 
against the Arians. Up to this time, Athanasius had 
abstained from writing anything on the subject, for fear 
that, as had happened in the case of Marcellus, his words 
might be misconstrued. And even now, he himself 
scarcely came into the open, being content to allow the 
documents to speak for themselves. 

There was another important person to whom the 
change of emperors must have seemed very unpleasant, 
namely, the Bishop of Sirmium. If he had become a cause 
of scandal to his colleagues of the West, we can imagine 
with what feelings he was regarded by those in the East. 
And the Eastern bishops were always represented among 
the personal attendants of Constantius. As soon as they 
~,aw him installed at Sirmium, they flocked thither and 
prepared to settle their old scores with " Scotinus," as they 
called him. But " Scotinus " was a man of resource. He 
succeeded at the outset in evading the council, and 
managed to arrange that a commission appointed by the 
emperor should decide between himself and those who 
criticized his teaching. Constantius, who delighted in this 
kind of disputation, appointed an Areopagus of eight 
officials, assisted by a staff of shorthand writers. Photinus 
appeared before them, and the opposing party chose as 
their speaker Basil, Bishop of Ancyra, a man of moderate 
opinions and a great talent for oratory. He, like Photinus, 
was a Galatian, and must have lived for a considerable 
time with him amongst the clergy of Marcellus. The 
story of Paul of Samosata was reproduced in all its 
details Photinus and Basil resumed the duel between 



p. 250-51] COUNCIL OF SIRMIUM 201 

the Bishop of Antioch and the priest Malchion. 1 St 
Epiphanius had before him the formal record of this 
discussion, 2 which makes it possible to form a fairly clear 
idea of the errors of Photinus. Then the council assembled ; 
the Bishop of Sirmium received an additional condemna 
tion from the Eastern episcopate, and the emperor exiled 
him. His place was filled by a certain Germinius, who 
was brought from Cyzicus, and who shared the views of 
the party. The Eastern bishops had recovered, on the 
banks of the Danube, two old friends, Ursacius and 
Valens, who had formerly been forced to desert them, 
but who were now free to display their sympathy, and 
hastened to rejoin the main body. 

A retaliation was being prepared ; but it was necessary 
to display caution. The Emperor Constantius was 
engaged in conquering the West ; and there were good 
hopes that this political victory might result in complete 
assimilation in religious matters. But the Latins, as 
experience had long shown, had prejudices which must be 
reckoned with. The council contented itself with publish 
ing for the fourth time the Creed of Antioch, with an 
appendix of twenty-seven doctrinal canons, specially 
directed against Marcellus and Photinus, but without 
mentioning either of them by name. St Hilary, 3 who, as 
well as St Athanasius, has preserved for us the text of this 
document, finds in it nothing objectionable ; and indeed, 
if this creed had been presented through other hands, it 
might have found acceptance in the West. No doubt 
there is no question in it of the homoousios ; but was it so 
certain that one could not dispense with this formula, 
which gave rise to so many objections, and which, while 
expressing but one aspect of the common faith, always 
required so many additions and explanations ? Even good 

1 See vol. i., p. 342. * Haer. Ixxi. I, 2. 

8 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. 



202 PROSCRIPTION OF ATHANASIUS [CH. vn. 

honest persons might have difficulties in regard to it. It 
is true that the homoousios had been canonized at Nicaea, 
But, without failing in respect for that venerable council, 
which no one then dreamed of doing, was it forbidden to 
interpret a little the words which it had decided upon? 
Such thoughts must have passed through minds like that 
of Basil of Ancyra. They soon gained a great success, 
but it was only a transitory one, for they were the thoughts, 
not of all the Easterns, nor probably of the conscious or 
unconscious majority of that party, but only of a group of 
moderate persons. 

In the meantime, while his enemies were agitating in 
Illyria and preparing for the conquest of the West, 
Athanasius felt their intrigues once more beginning to 
twine around him. The winter of 351-352 seems to have 
been spent in a new attempt to get round the Emperor. 
They assured him that Athanasius, during his stay 
in the West, had maligned him to his brother, and 
that he had concluded an alliance with Magnentius. 1 
Constantius was engaged in building at Alexandria a 
great church, called the Caesareum ; one day, during the 
Easter Festival, the faithful, who were somewhat crowded 
in the ordinary churches, betook themselves to it with 
their bishop. The enemies of Athanasius represented 
this as a great crime ; he ought to have waited until 
the Emperor himself had celebrated its dedication. In 
short, Athanasius again became in his eyes a dangerous 
person. 2 The Eastern bishops ended by finding themselves 

1 An embassy, sent to the Eastern court by Magnentius in 350, 
had, in order to avoid Vetranio, disembarked in Libya, and passed 
through Alexandria. Servasius, Bishop of Tongres, and Maximus, 
another bishop, formed part of it. Apol. ad Const. 9. 

2 Ammianus Marcellinus (xv. 7, 6), who reproduces the gossip of 
the army, represents Athanasius as a sort of political sorcerer : 
" Athanasium episcopum eo tempore apud Alexandriam ultra pro- 

fessionem altius se efferentem scitarique conatum extema, ut prodidere 
rumorts adsidui, coetus in unum quaesitus eiusdem loci multorum, 
sy nodus, ut appellant , removit a sacramento quod optinebat. Dicebatur 
enim fatidicarum sortium fidem, quaeve augur ales portenderent alites 
scientissime c aliens, aliquoties praedixisse futura. Super his intcnde- 
bantur et alia quoque a proposito legis abhorrentia cui praesidebat" 



p. 253] POPE LIBERIUS 203 

in a position to urge once more the idea that Athanasius 
had not in reality any recognized position, since he had 
been deposed by the Council of Tyre. Nothing therefore 
remained to be done but to rid Alexandria of him, and 
to secure his repudiation by the bishops of the West. 

Just at this very moment the Western Church lost its 
head: Pope Julius died on April 12, 352, about the 
time that Constantius was marching against Aquileia. 
His place was rilled, a month later (May 17), by the deacon 
Liberius, destined, under the regime which was beginning, 
to meet with many misfortunes. Shortly after his 
accession, various letters, emanating from Eastern and 
Egyptian bishops, 1 reached him, denouncing Athanasius 
and his crimes. Like all the superior clergy of Rome, 
Liberius must have known what to believe. He read 
the letters of the Eastern bishops " to the Church and the 
Council," 2 and answered them, without accepting accusa 
tions so often contradicted. 3 By " the council " we may 
certainly understand the meeting of bishops which took 
place every year at the Pope s natale ; thus the date of it 
would be May 17, 353. About the same time, there 
arrived a deputation from the Egyptian bishops and the 
clergy of Alexandria, headed by Serapion of Thmuis, 
the most faithful lieutenant of Athanasius. These 
persons brought a protest, signed by eighty bishops, 
in favour of their persecuted brother.* The Pope then 
addressed the Emperor, in the name of a large number of 
Italian bishops, requesting that a great council should be 

1 The Meletians, no doubt. 

2 Hil. Frag. hist. v. 2. Letter from Liberius to Constantius, in 
354(Jaffe, 212). 

3 I omit here, as apocryphal, the famous letter Studens paci^ pre 
served 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. 

4 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. 



204 PROSCRIPTION OF ATHANASIUS [CH. VIL 

convened at Aquileia, to decide anew the controversy 
which was beginning to revive. Constantius had previously 
given him reason to hope for an assembly of this kind. 
The papal legates, Vincent of Capua and Marcellus, 
another Campanian bishop, met the emperor at Aries, 
where he was spending the inclement season (353-4). 
They found him in the middle of the celebration of his 
Tricennalia^ surrounded by the bishops of the country, 
from whom he was demanding signatures against 
Athanasius. 

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 them 
selves mixed up in these affairs: this was the case with 
Maximin of Treves, Verissirr.us 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 



255-6] ATHANASIUS AND CONSTANTIUS 205 

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 
Apology to the Emperor Constantius. 



206 PROSCRIPTION OF ATHANASIUS [CH. vil 

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 him 
self. 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 Nicsea, 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 melan 
choly 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 con 
demnation of Athanasius. He declared that several of 

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

8 Jaffe, 209, 210 (HiL Frag. hist. vi. 3). 



P. 258] COUNCILS OF MILAN AND BEZIERS 207 

(he 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 Constantius* 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, com 
pleted by Athanasius, Hist. Ar. 32-34, Sulpicius Severus, Chron. ii. 
39, and the letters collected by Mansi, vol. in., 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 Cassar Julian 
seems to have attempted to defend Hilary (Hit Ad Const ii. 2). 



208 PROSCRIPTION OF ATHANASIUS [CH. vu. 

a man of 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. 1 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 Nicaea ; 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 

Jaffe", 216 (Hil. Frag. hist. vi. 1-2). * Athan. Hist. Ar. 41. 

8 Ammianus, xv. 7, 6. Cf. Athan. Hist. Ar. 35-40. 
4 Preserved by Theodoret, ii. 13; Sozomen, iv. n, also had it 
before him. Cf. Athan. Hist. Ar. 39, 40. 



p. 260-61] EXILE OF LIBERIUS 209 

Pope, the Emperor, the eunuch Eusebius, and Bishop 
Epictetus 1 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 ! " 
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 (Civita 
vecchia), and charged to keep an eye on the Pope. 

II O 



210 PROSCRIPTION OF ATHANASIUS [CH. vn. 

capable of anything, Potamius, the Bishop of Lisbon, 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 Faustini Libellus precum y 32 (Coll. Avellana^ ed. 
Giinther, p. 15). 



p. 263] THE CHURCH OF THEONAS 211 

that a bishop could not desert his 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 mean 
time, 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 (HavvvxlSes), 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. 1 

1 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 



212 I ROSCKIITION OF ATHANASIUS [CH. vii. 

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 l 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 strategos (duumvir), 
Gorgonius, was there also ; and his testimony v.as 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 j Athanasius included 
it in his History of the A Hans. 

8 hist. Ar. 48, 49. 



p. 265-6] GEORGE OF CAPPADOCIA 213 

14, the churches were taken from Athanasius clergy and 
handed over to the Arians. This was not done, as may 
be imagined, without resistance. In the Caesareum 
especially, there were horrible scenes. 1 The opposing 
party were not satisfied with seizing the churches; an 
address was sent to the emperor, in which they declared 
their readiness to accept any bishop he might deign to 
send them. This petition was covered with signatures 
of pagans and Arians. Strange to say, the pagans had 
been warned that, if they did not take a side, their temples 
would be closed. 

Finally, on February 24, 357, the nominee of the 
emperor and of his religious party made his entrance 
into the city of Alexandria. He came from Antioch, 
where he had been invested by a council of about thirty 
bishops, from Syria, Thrace, and Asia Minor. 2 He was a 
certain George, a native of Cappadocia, like so many 
notable persons of the time. He had formerly held a post 
at Constantinople in the department of finance, and 
there, it was said, he had shown himself so honest that 
they were obliged to part with him. s Since then, he had 
led a wandering life, in the course of which he had come 
into touch with the future Caesar, Julian, and had even 
lent him books. He had the reputation of being exceed 
ingly fond of money. He was, besides, a hard, merciless 
man, capable of going to any imaginable length with a 
brazen face. This character suited well with the demands 
of the situation which awaited him in Alexandria. It 
remained to be seen, which would be stronger, the man or 
these demands. 

At first, all went as he desired. With him had been 
associated a military commander well fitted for rough 
measures, the Dux Sebastian, a Manichean in religion, 
and a man difficult to soften. After a few weeks, the 
ninety bishops of Egypt had become acquainted with 
George : sixteen of them were exiled, thirty of them were 

1 Hist. Ar. 55-58. 2 Sozomen, iv. 8. 

* St Athanasius (Hist. Ar. 51) calls him a devourer of the treasury 
; cf. ibid. 75 : ff<j>eTcjH.<rdiJ.(vov irdvra /cai SC aM TOVTO 



214 PROSCRIPTION OF ATHANASIUS [CH. vn. 

obliged to flee ; and the others were more or less disturbed. 
They were called upon to renounce communion with 
Athanasius, and accept it with George : those who held 
back were replaced without mercy. As to Alexandria 
itself, the slightest opposition was immediately repressed. 
Those of the clergy who remained faithful were sent into 
exile, or condemned to the mines ; the terrible metallum 
of Phaeno once more received confessors, as in the days of 
Maximin Daia. They were forbidden to hold meetings of 
any kind in the city, even for the mere distribution of 
alms. If they tried to assemble in the outskirts, near the 
cemeteries, the Dux Sebastian arrived with his troops ; 
the meeting was broken up ; the women, especially the 
consecrated virgins, who naturally figured at the head of 
the most zealous, were ill-treated, beaten with thorny 
branches, half-roasted on braziers, to make them declare 
allegiance to Arius and George. The dead remained on 
the ground and their relations had difficulty in obtaining 
permission to bury them ; the prisoners, men and women, 
were deported through the desert, as far as the Great 
Oasis. 

This reign of terror lasted eighteen months. The 
Christians were not the only ones who suffered from it. 
The new bishop began to speculate, making a "corner" 
in nitre, the salt works, and the marshes where the papyrus 
and calamus grew ; even organizing a monopoly in 
funeral arrangements. 1 At the end of August 358, the 
Alexandrians, tired of his tyranny, rose in revolt, and 
proceeded to attack him, in the Church of Dionysius. It 
was not without difficulty that his friends succeeded this 
time in rescuing him from those who desired to do him 
injury. He departed a few days later, and for more than 
three years kept away from Alexandria. But the struggle 
continued after his departure. At one moment the 
Athanasians regained possession of their churches ; but 
the Dux Sebastian compelled them to give them up. 
While Constantius lived, the coercive power remained with 
their opponents : so far as the government was concerned, 
1 Epiph. Haer. Ixxvi. I. 



p. 2681 ATHANASIUS IN EXILE 215 



Athanasius had ceased to exist. For all that, from the 
shelter of his hiding-places, he did not fail to disturb from 
time to time the slumbers of those in office. It was in 
vain that Constantius had congratulated the Alexandrians 
on the " alacrity " (!) they had shown in driving Athanasius 
away, and rallying to George. 1 The emperor did not 
really feel comfortable about the matter. And, as a 
stimulus to his uneasiness, Athanasius sent him his 
Apology, which had long been prepared and was now 
supplemented by appendices dealing with the recent 
events. Since his eviction from the Church of Theonas, 
he no longer appeared in public ; for six years the police 
sought for him in vain. Every respectable inhabitant of 
Egypt was on his side. He was the defender of the Faith, 
the lawful Pope, the common father ; he was also and it 
was a great recommendation the enemy, the victim, of the 
government. The desert was kind to him : he could 
knock without fear at the doors of monasteries and 
anchorites cells. With the exception of a few malcontents, 
who only showed themselves under the protection of the 
soldiery, the populace was entirely at his orders. He was 
never betrayed ; his movements were never tracked by 
the police. Like the true Egyptian that he was, he was 
not above playing them a trick now and then. One 
evening as he was going up the Nile in a boat, he heard 
behind him the sound of oars : it was an official galley. 
They hailed his boat: "Have you seen Athanasius?" 
* I think so," he replied, disguising his voice. " Is he 
far off? " " No, he is quite near you, on ahead ; row 
hard." The galley darted southwards, and the outlaw, 
turning about, quietly returned home. 

The rumours from the outer world reached his ears : 
his emissaries kept him carefully informed. He was no 
longer afraid to write. Formerly, he had not done so 
willingly, fearing to give a handle to his enemies and to 
bring about his own ruin. But, now that the ruin had 
come, there was no longer anything to lose. One day he 
heard that at Antioch they were making jokes about his 
1 See the letter H ^v ir^Xts (Athan. Apol. ad Const. 30). 



216 PROSCRIPTION OF ATIIANASIUS [CH. vn. 

flight. He seized his pen : " I hear that Leontius of 
Antioch, Narcissus of Nero s city, 1 George of Laodicea, 
and the other Arians are expending their lewd wit on me 
and tearing me to pieces ; they treat me as a coward 
because I have not allowed them to assassinate me." 
This is how he begins the Apology for his flight , Leontius 
and company would have done better not to provoke its 
publication. The leisure afforded by his exile Athanasius 
employed in combating the heretics ; it was then, I think, 
that he wrote his four treatises against the Arians, the 
fourth of which is really directed against Sabellianism old 
and new. To the good monks, whose guest he often was, 
he relates the life of their patriarch Antony, who had been 
a faithful friend to him, and who had just died. It was 
for them also, to put them in touch with the controversies 
of the time, that he wrote his curious History of the Arians^ 
in a lively and picturesque style, well calculated to please 
those big children. Observe how he dramatizes the 
situations, and makes his characters speak. The Easterns 
are arriving at Sardica : "There is a mistake," they say. 
" We travelled in company with counts, and the case is to 
be judged without them. Certes, we are condemned 
already. You know what the orders are : Athanasius has 
at hand all the documents relating to the Mareotis affair ; 
by their means he will clear himself, and cover us all with 
confusion. Let us hasten to find some excuse, and to 
depart; otherwise, we are lost. It is better to incur the 
shame of a retreat than the confusion of being denounced 
as false accusers." 3 As Atnanasius knows the stories of 
all his enemies, he cannot resist the pleasure of confiding 
some of them to the solitaries. Thus he tells them that if 
the Bishop of Antioch mutilated himself, some time back, 
in the same way as Origen did, it was for less creditable 
reasons. 4 Eunuchs never fail to excite his mordant 
humour. The court is full of them; they have supported 
all the intrigues of which he has been the victim. " How 
can you expect," he says, "such people to understand 

1 Neronias in Cilicia. * The beginning is lost. 

3 Hist. Ar. 15. Hist. Ar. 28. 



p. 271] HISTORY OF THE ARIANS 217 

anything about the generation of the Son of God?" 1 
With the monks Athanasius felt himself entirely at home. 
Of the emperor himself, that solemn and ceremonious 
sovereign, he speaks with a marked absence of ceremony : 
we are very far from the Apology to Constantius, with 
its official adjectives. The emperor is called simply 
Constantius. Athanasius even goes so far as to give him 
a nick-name : " Costyllius," he says, who would dare to 
call him a Christian? Is he not rather the picture of 
Antichrist?" 2 

Language of this sort could not be used anywhere but 
in the desert. 

* Hist. Ar. 38. Hist. Ar. ; cf. 8c, 



CHAPTER VIII 

THE UK K 10 AT OF ORTHODOXY 

The Church of Antioch in the time of Bishop Leontius. Paulinus ; 
Flavian and Uiodore : Aetius and Theophilus. State of parties 
in 357. The failing away of Liberius. The formulary of Sirmium 
accepted by Hosius. Anomceans and Homoiousians. Western 
protests. Eudoxius at Antioch : triumph of Aetius. Basil of 
Ancyra and the homoiousian reaction. Return of Pope Liberius. 
Success and violence of Basil : his defeat by the advanced party. 
Formula of 359. Councils of Ariminum and of Seleucia. Acacius 
of Caesarea. Development of events at Constantinople : general 
prevarication. Despair of Hilary. The Council of 360. Eudoxius, 
Bishop of Constantinople. Meletius and Euzoiui at Antioch. 
Julian proclaimed Augustus. Death of Constantius. 

THE city of Antioch, at the middle of the fourth century, 
was for the most part Christian. There were still temples 
and still pagans ; but the number of the latter was rapidly 
diminishing : the contagion of example especially imperial 
example peculiarly effectual in a city where the court 
often resided, denuded the ancient altars of worshippers, 
and filled the ranks of the Church. The time was already 
in sight when the Church would attract to itself the entire 
population ; and learned pagans, such as the famous 
rhetorician Libanius, already appeared as somewhat 
behind the times. 

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 
us 



r. 273] SCHISMS AT ANTIOCH 219 

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 oi 
Marcellus of Ancyra, and the others did not fail to point 
out this affinity. 

Other people, who combined the doctrine of the three 



220 THE DEFEAT OF ORTHODOXY [CH vin. 

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 Nicaea ; but, since the official Church did not 
actually repudiate it in terms, they did not consider them 
selves 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 neighbour 
hood, 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. 



p. 275] AETIUS AND JULIAN 221 

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 religi 
ous 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. Ixxvi. u. 



222 THE DEFEAT OF ORTHODOXY [CH. VIIL 

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 Antrach. 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 educa 
tion, 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 extra 
ordinary 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 



P. 278] LEONTIUS OF ANTIOCH 223 

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. Ad Eunom. (Migne, P. G., 
vol. xlv., p. 264 ; Philostorgius, iii. 4-6 ; iv. I, 7, 8 ; v. 4 j vii. 6 ; viii. 
2 ; ix. i, 3, 18). 



224 THE DEFEAT OF ORTHODOXY [CH. vm. 

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 y 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. 



p. 280-81] YIELDING OF LIBERIUS 225 

But in the course 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 frater 
nized. One after the other the recalcitrants were yielding. 
Heremiusof Thessalonica had signed the Eastern jformula; 
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 dis 
courses. His keeper, Bishop Demophilus, also set him 
self 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 ii 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 P 



226 THE DEFEAT OF ORTHODOXY [cu. vui. 

A matter which seems of graver character is the fact 
that he repudiated communion with Athanasius, and 
allied himself with that of the Easterns people of every 
shade of opinion, we must confess, among whom were 
to be met, side by side with Ursacius and Valens, others 
like Basil of Ancyra and Cyril of Jerusalem, whose ideas 
were much less advanced. 

This proceeding of Liberius involved the re-establish 
ment of relations with the advocates of prudent silence. 
It meant the abandonment of the position which the 
Pope had maintained hitherto with most signal distinction 
a position for which he had braved the anger of the 
emperor and the sorrows of exile. It was a weakening, 
a downfall. 1 

judge from the signatures which it bore and which the writer enumer 
ates, it can scarcely be different from the formula put forth at 
Sirmium in 351. In any case, neither these signatures nor the date 
of the Pope s weakening allow us to believe that the formula sub 
scribed by him could have been the one which Hosius signed during 
the summer of 357. When it was drawn up, the Plasterns were still 
united, and their official creed was the fourth formula of Antioch. 
(Vide supra, p. 170.) It is surprising that St Hilary, elsewhere so 
well disposed to this formula (see p. 234), here treats it with such 
severity, and without any qualification or restriction includes among 
the heretics, Basil of Ancyra, one of its signatories. Thus we may 
ask ourselves if it is really St Hilary who is speaking in this passage. 
It might possibly be that this portion of the historical Fragments 
has been interpolated by some Luciferian. M. L. Saltet has put 
forward reasons for believing in such an interpolation (Bulletin de 
litter. eccUs. 1905, p. 222 et seq.\ In that case, the letters would 
come to us from people to whom Liberius was specially hateful. But 
this would not prevent them being authentic ; we do not expect that 
such documents would have been published by Liberius or his friends- 
1 Not to speak of the Fragments of St Hilary, mentioned in the 
preceding note (cf. in Const, u), the weakening of Liberius is 
attested by St Athanasius (Apol. contra Ar. 89), a passage added 
as a supplement, and Hist. Ar. 41. St Jerome, in his Chronicle, does 
not hesitate to speak of a formula signed : in haereticam pravitatem 
subscribens. The same is true of the Roman author of the preface to 
the Libellus precum ; " manus perfidiae dederat? From this docu 
ment, and from St Athanasius, we learn that the Pope s action took 
place at the beginning of 357, about two years after his departure 
for exile. 



p. 283] HOSIUS AND THE ARIANS 227 

The Emperor Constantius already knew of it when 
he came to Rome in May 357. A very short time after 
wards, either in the summer or the autumn, the prince s 
visit to Sirmium was taken advantage of by the three 
doughty leaders of the Arian party in those parts, 
Ursacius, Valens, and Germinius, to aim a decisive blow 
at the Creed of Nicaea. Such an attempt had already 
been made at Milan, two years before ; there had been 
produced, in the guise of an imperial edict, a theological 
statement so clearly heterodox that the people had 
perceived the heresy, and their protests had caused the 
failure of the attempt. 1 This time it took the form of 
an episcopal declaration, which, emanating from the 
bishops then at court, should afterwards be presented, 
in every province, for the acceptance of their colleagues. 
And a thing scarcely to be believed they selected as 
the person to " launch " this anti-Nicene document, a 
document in which the homoousios was demolished, none 
other than the great man of the Council of Nicaea, the 
inventor, if we may be permitted the expression, of the 
homoousios the aged patriarch, Hosius of Cordova. 
Assisted by the Bishop of Lisbon, Potamius, apparently 
reconciled to him, 2 by Germinius of Sirmium, and the 
inevitable Ursacius and Valens, Hosius appended, at 
the end of this impious declaration, the same signature 
that had headed those of the three hundred and eighteen 
Fathers of the Council of Nicaea. It is evident that an 
unfair advantage had been taken of his great age and 
of the enfeeblement of his faculties, and that personally 
he was hardly a responsible agent in this sad story. 8 
This is all the more probable because a touching detail 
no one could ever succeed in making him anathematize 
Athanasius. His poor brain grew confused, no doubt, 

1 Sulpicius Severus, Chron. ii. 39. Sulpicius here seems to be 
relying upon a lost passage of the Fragments of St Hilary. 

3 Supr^ p. 210. 

* Athanasius speaks of acts of physical violence used to the old 
man. He says also that he protested at the moment of death 
(Apol. contra Ar. 89, an appendix added subsequently, when the 
work was already published ; Hist. Ar. 45). 



228 THE DEFEAT OF ORTHODOXY [CH. vm. 

by theological questions ; but Athanasius remained for 
him a concrete personality, a friend, a companion in 
conflict; he clung to that, and they could not make him 
relax his hold. 

The document in question l was not a confession 
of faith, but a simple theological declaration. " Some 
dissension having arisen in regard to the Faith, all the 
questions have been carefully considered and discussed, at 
Sirmium, in the presence of the holy bishops, our brethren, 
Valens, Ursacius, and Germinius. We believe that there 
is but One God, etc." The idea of the existence of two 
gods is set aside, and the terms "substance" and "essence" 
are repudiated ; there must no longer be a question either 
of homoousios or homoiousios, expressions which are not 
in Scripture, and which, besides, presume to express in 
words relations which are inexpressible. The Father is 
greater than the Son ; His attributes are described as 
those of the One Only God, while the Son is always placed 
below Him. 

This document is, in episcopal language, a sufficiently 
clear expression of the doctrine which Arius had taught 
in bygone days, and which Aetius at Antioch was engaged 
in translating into syllogisms. At the period of which we 
are now speaking, attention was directed towards the idea 
of resemblance. In the time of Arius, they preferred 
rather to say that the Word was not eternal, that He was 
a creature ; now stress was laid on the point that He did 
not resemble the Father ; He was unlike Him (ai/o/xo/o?) 
from whence was derived the name of Anomceans applied 
to the new Arians. Ranged against them, in the Christian 
world of the East, besides the general tone of feeling, 
which was little favourable to any one who attacked the 
absolute Divinity of Christ, were theological opponents, 
strong in numbers and of high authority. They rallied 
round the word homoiousios, "like in essence," a term 

1 The original Latin text is in Hilary (De syn. u): 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. 



p. 285-6] HOMOOUSIOS, HOMOIOUSIOS 229 

sometimes employed by Alexander and Athanasius, and 
one which, if it differed slightly from the Nicene homoousios, 
embodied almost, granted the circumstances in which it 
was employed, the same connotation. Those who made 
use of it through preference, and through fear of the 
Sabellian meaning of which the homoousios remained 
susceptible, had been at first confused with the Arians ; 
several among them, including the most distinguished, had 
been waging war for thirty years against Athanasius, in 
the ranks of the " Easterns." But this personal hostility, 
which drew upon them, from the orthodox party, rather 
more hard knocks than they deserved for it, must not 
prejudice us with regard to their theology. People who 
declared that the Son was, in essence, like to the Father, 
and who meant to be and to remain Monotheists, found 
themselves, when everything is considered, at the same 
point as those who proclaimed the identity of essence 
between the Father and the Son, while maintaining at the 
same time the distinction of one from the other. Ursacius 
and Valens knew perfectly well what they were doing 
when they clamoured for the repudiation of the homoiousios 
as well as the homoousios. As a protest against Arianism, 
the two terms were of equal weight. 

The astute impudence which made Hosius appear to 
support an Arian interpretation of the Creed of Nicaea had 
only a small success. In Gaul and Britain it provoked a 
very lively revulsion. In these countries, where the 
theology of the Emperor Constantius did not find a very 
enthusiastic upholder in Julian, the bishops had a certain 
latitude to say what they thought. Ever since the 
occurrences at Aries and Milan, they had a bitter grudge 
against Saturninus of Aries, the courtier who was respons 
ible for the disgrace which had befallen several of their 
colleagues ; they maintained no semblance of communion 
with him. When the declaration of Sirmium reached 
them, one of their number, Phoebadius of Agen, published 
a criticism of it, 1 of considerable vigour, undeterred by the 
recommendation which the signature of Hosius seemed to 
1 Migne. P. L., vol. xx. pp. 13-30. 



230 THE DEFEAT OF ORTHODOXY [en. vm. 

give it He and his colleagues came to an agreement, 
either in council or otherwise, to repudiate it. They 
communicated their decision to Hilary, the exiled Bishop 
of Poitiers, who, from his prison in Phrygia, was anxiously 
watching all these events. 1 The African bishops, also, 
protested in writing. 2 

It was just at this moment that the crisis foreseen by 
Bishop Leontius occurred in Syria. The see of Antioch 
was aimed at by two candidates, Eudoxius, Bishop of 
Germanicia, and George, Bishop of Laodicea. Eudoxius 
was the first to arrive on the scene. As soon as Leontius 
was dead, he secured fur himself the provisional adminis 
tration of the vacant Church, and managed things so 
well that he was acclaimed as bishop of the see. He 
installed himself without heeding the protests which were 
raised from Laodicea, Arethusa, and other neighbouring 
bishoprics. Eudoxius was, from a religious point of view, 
a very extraordinary person. There are still extant 
several samples of his eloquence, which are of a really 
scandalous character. St Hilary reports 3 the following 
statement of his, which was taken down in shorthand, and 
presented to the Council of Selcucia: "God was what He 
is. He was not Eather, for He had not a Son. To have 
had a son, He must have had a wife. . . ."* His opinions 
had undergone some fluctuation : a homoiousian for one 
moment, he had allowed himself to be led back to the 
pure Arian doctrine, 5 which he knew how to dissemble 

1 We see, from the title of Hilary s reply (De syn. i), that, with the 
exception of the district of the Rhone, of Vienne, and of Narbonne, the 
whole episcopate of Gaul was on the orthodox side. Toulouse had 
remained faithful to Rhodanius in exile, as Poitiers had to Hilary. 

2 Hil. Adv. Const. 26. It was Basil of Ancyra who had provoked 
this manifesto (Sozomen, H. E. iv. 24). 3 Adv. Const. 13. 

4 The rest cannot be translated. The Latin text of St Hilary is as 
follows : ut et femina sit, et colloquium et sermocinatio et coniunctio 
coniugalis verbi et blandimentum et postremum ad generandum 
naturalis machinula. What bishops ! 

6 Philostorgius, iv. 4. This historian tells us that Eudoxius was 
the son of a certain Caesarius of Arabissos, in Armenia Minor, a man 
of profligate life, but one who, none the less, ended by dying a martyr, 
as we are told in regard to St Boniface. 



p. 288] EUDOXIUS AT ANTIOCH 231 

when necessary. Just now there was no occasion to 
put a restraint upon himself. Eudoxius sent his adhesion 
to the new formula of Sirmium, and for his own part lost 
no time in promoting to ecclesiastical positions, not only 
Aetius himself, but a great number of his partisans or 
disciples. Among the latter figured a certain Eunomius, 
whom he ordained deacon, and who speedily became one 
of the pillars of the party. The moderates, on the other 
hand, and the orthodox, were at the same time very badly 
treated. George of Laodicea undertook their defence. 
He addressed to Bishops Macedonius of Constantinople, 
Basil of Ancyra, Cecropius of Nicomedia, and Eugenius of 
Nicaea, a letter in most urgent terms, adjuring them to 
come to the assistance of the Church of Antioch, and by 
an episcopal demonstration as numerous as possible, to 
force Eudoxius to get rid of Aetius and his gang. 1 

At this very moment Basil was holding a council at 
Ancyra, on the occasion of a dedication festival. He had 
little need to be exhorted to march against Aetius and his 
champions. The sophist of Antioch was an old adversary 
of his. A formulary was speedily drawn up, approved in 
council, despatched to the bishops of the various provinces, 2 
and finally conveyed to the court at Sirmium by Basil 
himself and his colleagues, Eustathius of Sebaste and 
Eleusius of Cyzicus. It was then the spring of 358, for 
the council had assembled just before Easter. Basil, in 
the presence of Constantius, met with an extraordinary 
success. The emperor had just given his approval of the 
installation of Eudoxius at Antioch ; he had even sent 
letters to that effect to his delegate, a priest named 
Asphalius. He allowed himself to be turned completely 
round. Asphalius was enjoined to return the letters in 
his possession ; and in their stead others were sent to 

1 Sozomen, iv. 13. 

2 St Epiphanius, Haer. Ixxiii. 2-11, has preserved to us the text of 
the copy addressed to the bishops of Phoenicia, and in addition, cc. 
12-22, that of another letter on the same subject, written in the name 
of Basil and George. St Hilary (De syn. 12-25) gives only part of the 
document, twelve anathemas, which were detached from the whole, 
and which received special publicity at Sirmium (cf. ibid. 90). 



232 THE DEFEAT OF ORTHODOXY [CH. vm. 

him, of a tenour highly unpleasant for Eudoxius, Aetius, 
and their party : " We did not send Eudoxius ; let no one 
imagine such a thing. We are very far from wishing to 
support people of this kind." The emperor went on to 
express disapproval of bishops who changed their sees, 
and of adventurers like Aetius, who are bent upon 
corrupting the people by their heresies. As for himself, 
he had always been a homoiousian. The people of Antioch 
must remember the speeches he had made to them to 
that effect. They must banish the false doctors from 
ecclesiastical assemblies, and from the ranks of the clergy. 
If they persisted, they would see what would happen to 
them. 

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. 1 These texts were orthodox 2 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 

1 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. 

8 See the way in which St Hilary (lot. cit.} explains them. 



p. 290-91] LIBERIUS AND FELIX 233 

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 banish 
ment. 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. 1 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 retire 
ment. 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 2 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 

1 Theodoret, ii. 14. 

* 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 Letoios, evidently the same, according to this 
supposition, as the Letoios who figures among the signatories of the 
synodical letter of Ancyra, in 358 (supra> p. 251). This Letoios 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 tfhist. eccl. (Louvain, 1905), p. 5 et seq. 



234 THE DEFEAT OF ORTHODOXY [CH. via 

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 
homoousws, 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 contro 
versies 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 homowusios, provided they are 
taken in the sense given to them by their respective 
patrons, the Council of Nicaea, 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. 

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



p. 293] BASIL OF ANCYRA 235 

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 Homofousian 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 (Ecumenical 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 homoiousios, 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 
h?,d 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 them 
selves to all the intrigues hatched for his restoration: 

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



236 THE DEFEAT OF ORTHODOXY [CH. VIIL 

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 transport 
ing 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 Anomoeanism, 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 it 1 : 

" 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 Atiian. De syn. 8 ; the signatures are in Epiph. Ixxiii. 22. 



p. 296] DATED CREED OF SIRMIUM 237 

"As to the term 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 
homowusios. 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 Trdvra, "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 
Kar ova-lav (in essence); but as this was forbidden, he 
piled up synonymous expressions, /caret rtjv vTrocrraa-iv 
Ka\ KOTO. TVJV virap^iv KOI Kara TO elvat. 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 l 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, Continent priora (Hil. Frag. hist. vii. I, 2), 



238 THE DEFEAT OF ORTHODOXY [CH. 

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 Ariminum 1 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 dis 
tinguished person seems to have been the Bishop of 
Carthage, Restitutus. The Roman Church was not repre 
sented ; 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 repre 
sentatives a very clear and firm protest 2 against any idea 
of touching the Creed of Nicaea, and repudiated the 
declaration of May 22. Eour 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. 

* St Athanasius adds here the names of Auxentius and Demo- 
phi lus (De syn. 9). 



p. 298-9] COUNCIL OF ABIMINUM 239 

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 Nicaea, 
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 success 
fully. 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 
I K<ebadius, Bishop of Agen, and Servasius of Tongres, 
x .elded at last to his exhortations. They were given 
arther 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. 



240 THE DEFEAT OF ORTHODOXY [CH. VIIL 

less cleverness, of this concession ; but they signed with 
out 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 Seleucia* 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 governor 3 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. R. 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. HiJ. 
Adv. Const. 12-15. 

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



p. 301] COUNCIL OF SELEUCIA 241 

at Court since Easter 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 metro 
politan, 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. Ixxiii. 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 



242 THE DEFEAT OF ORTHODOX V [CH. via 

restored. On the contrary, George, Eudoxius, Acacius, 
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 accusa 
tions 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. 

Acacius, their leader, was a person of no small import 
ance. Already mixed up, for many years, in all the 
theological intrigues of the Court, he now assumed the 
principal part. He was an intelligent, eloquent, and 
persevering man. To his personal gifts was added a 
high ecclesiastical position. Metropolitan of Palestine, 
successor of the illustrious Eusebius, heir to the famous 
library of Origen, he passed as being himself also a person 
of great learning. His opinions at bottom differed very 
little from those of Arius and Aetius ; but he knew how 
to clothe them with an impressive and sparkling style, 
and above all how to disguise them under learned formulas. 
When he arrived at Constantinople, the first delegates 
from Ariminum had already yielded, and steps were being 
taken to deal with the Western council. While this 
operation was in process, Acacius conceived the idea of 
bringing Aetius to court, and trying if it would not be 
possible to manage a success for him, which would have 
greatly forwarded the affairs of the party. Constantius 
was favourable to his proposals. An Areopagus of laymen, 
presided over by Honoratus, the prefect of Constantinople, 
and sometimes by the emperor himself, listened to the 
arguments of the famous sophist, who, on this occasion, 
made but a poor figure, and thus disappointed the 
expectations of his patrons. They then formed a plan of 
making a scapegoat of him, and of proving their own good 



p. 303-4] INDIGNATION OF HILARY 243 

intentions by the anathemas with which they loaded 
him. 

Meanwhile there arrived the delegates from Ariminum. 
Those of Selei a were counting upon their support in a 
common resistance ; they hastened to inform them of the 
plot which was hatching 1 : the person of Aetius was to be 
condemned, but not his doctrine ; the Latins, they argued, 
ought to abstain, as they themselves were going to do, 
from any ecclesiastical relations with the supporters of the 
intrigue. The good Easterns were only wasting their 
time. Guided by their new leaders, Ursacius and Valens, 
the delegates from Ariminum at once proceeded to join 
the party of Acacius. 

Hilary himself had also come to Constantinople. He 
saw the despair of the delegates from Seleucia ; he saw 
his fellow-countrymen, those Western bishops, whose 
orthodoxy he had so highly extolled, betray it before 
his very eyes, and deliver themselves over to the court 
party. He lost his patience, and lashed them soundly : 
" What ! " he said, " On arriving at Constantinople after the 
Council of Seleucia, you go at once and join yourselves to 
the heretics, which it has condemned ! You do not delay 
a moment, you do not take time to deliberate or to gain 
information ! The delegates of the Eastern synod, who 
hold no communion with the bishops here, come in search 
of you ; they try to put you in possession of the facts, and 
show you that the heresy has just been condemned. Was 
it not the time then, at any rate, to hold yourselves aloof, to 
reserve your judgement? ... A slave, I do not say a 
good slave, but an average one, cannot bear to see his 
master insulted : he avenges him, if he can do so. A 
soldier defends his king, even at the peril of his life, even 
by making for him a shield of his own body. A watch-dog 
barks at the least scent, he flies out at the first suspicion. 
But you you hear it said that Christ, the Very Son of 
God, is not God ; your silence is an adhesion to this 
blasphemy, and you hold your peace ! What am I saying ? 

1 Letter in Hil. Frag. hist. x. I. 



244 THE DEFEAT OF ORTHODOXY [on. via 

You protest against those who cry out, you join your voices 
with those which wish to stifle theirs." 1 

Hilary did not confine himself to this eloquent invective. 
He demanded an audience of the emperor, 2 he insisted 
upon it, twice, and thrice. He was not heeded. The 
delegates from Scleucia, who stood alone in the breach, were 
attacked individually. They made a long resistance ; 
they were pressed more and more forcibly. The 1st of 
January was approaching. Constantius wished to in 
augurate his tenth consulate by the proclamation of 
religious peace. He just managed to succeed. It was 
not until the night between December 31 and January I, 
that the last signatures were obtained by force. 

Nothing more remained to be done but to clothe with 
conciliar authority the decisions agreed upon with the 
delegates, and to settle certain personal questions. This 
was the task of the Council of Constantinople, 3 which was 
held during the first days of January 360, with the 
co-operation of various bishops of Thrace and Bithynia ; 
about fifty members in all. Acacius presided over the 
debates. Among those who were present we may notice 
the aged Maris of Chalcedon, one of the Fathers of Nicaca 
and of the protectors of Arius, and Ulfilas, the national 
bishop of a colony of Goths established on the banks of 
the Danube, who happened to be present in the capital 
just then ; he too was an Arian, and one of long standing. 

The formula of Ariminum was approved : it declared 
that the Son is like to the Father, forbade the terms 
"essence" and "substance" (hypostasis), repudiated all 
earlier creeds, and condemned beforehand all those which 
might be suggested subsequently. It is the official 
formulary of what was henceforth known as Arianism, in 
particular of that Arianism which spread itself among the 
barbarian peoples. The two creeds of 325 and 360, those 

* Hil. Frag. hist. \. 2-4. * Ad Const, ii. 

8 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). 



p. 306] COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE, 360 245 

of Nicaea and Ariminum, are in opposition and each 
excludes the other. We cannot, however, say that the 
Creed of Ariminum contains an explicit profession of 
Arianism. It does not reproduce any of the technical 
terms of the primitive heresy ; and as to the new Arianism, 
Anomceanism it expressly excludes it : it is not the 
avo/uLoios, the unlike, which is proclaimed, it is the ojmoios, 
the like, its contrary. Nevertheless, the vagueness of the 
formula allowed it to be understood in the most different 
and even the most directly opposite senses : with a little 
complaisance, Athanasius and Aetius might have repeated 
it together. This is why it was so perfidious and so 
useless, and why no Christian worthy of the name, holding 
truly to the absolute Divinity of his Master, could hesitate 
for a moment to condemn it. 

Aetius was deposed from the diaconate, and excom 
municated conditionally, that is to say, if he persisted in 
his opinions, " as having, in his books and discussions, 
made a display of a philosophy full of quibbles and foreign 
to the ecclesiastical mind, of having made use of blasphe 
mous expressions, and so troubled the Church." 

This sentence, however, was not universally approved : 
about ten 1 bishops who were frankly Anomcean refused to 
throw Jonah into the sea 2 ; they were given six months 
to make up their minds. 

So much for the treatment of friends. Now came the 
turn of the others ; it was a wholesale slaughter. Sentence 
of deposition was pronounced against Macedonius of 
Constantinople, Eleusius of Cyzicus, Heortasius of Sardis, 
Dracontius of Pergamum, Basil of Ancyra, Eustathius of 
Sebaste in Armenia, Sophronius of Pompei opolis in 
Paphlagonia, Helpidius of Satala, Neon of Seleucia in 

1 Sozomen, iv. 25 ; cf. Philostorgius, vii. 6 ; viii. 4. 

2 These were, first, Theophilus the Indian, the wonder-worker of 
the party (Aetius too, in spite of his scholastic learning, sometimes 
posed as inspired), next Seras of Parsetonium in Libya, Stephen of 
Ptolemais, and Helidorus of Sozousa in Cyrenaica ; a Phrygian, 
Theodulus of Keretapa ; three Lydians, Leontius of Tripoli, 
Theodosius of Philadelphia, Phoebus of Polycalanda, and two 
others. 



246 THE DEFEAT OF ORTHODOXY [CH. VIIL 

Isauria, Silvanus of Tarsus, and Cyril of Jerusalem. The 
reason assigned for their condemnation had nothing to do 
with doctrine ; apart from the general reproach of having 
in thq past two years gravely troubled the peace of the 
Church, each of them was made the object of special 
complaints of a disciplinary character. Basil, in particular, 
found thrown at his head all the strong measures and undue 
exercise of authority, which he had allowed himself during 
the few months he was in favour. 1 

The government took action in its turn. Aetius was 
imprisoned at Mopsuestia, and his works were proscribed. 
Basil was despatched to Illyria, the others to different 
places of exile. They were provided with successors. For 
Constantinople choice was made of Eudoxius, whom it 
would have been difficult to re-establish at Antioch ; and, 
without delay (on February 15, 360) they proceeded with 
the dedication of the great Church of the Divine Wisdom 
(St Sophia), which had been building for the last twenty 
years. The council took part in the ceremony. Eudoxius 
was spokesman ; " The Father," he said, " is impious 
(acr/3w\ the Son is pious (ViW/3;/?)." To the murmurs 
which followed this strange language, he replied by 
explaining that the Son reverences the Father, while the 
Father has no one to reverence. This miserable quip, the 
memory of which was preserved in Constantinople, gives 
us a fair idea of the situation. We see what kind of 
priests were filling the higher positions in the Church 
of the East. 2 

Hilary was still in Constantinople, overwhelmed and 
exasperated. To give vent to his anger, he set himself to 

1 The details of all this are contained in Sozomen, H. E. iv. 24, 
who here summarizes the official Acts. 

2 Eudoxius, moreover, clung to this idea. We meet with it again 
in his profession of faith, published by Caspari, Alte und neue Quellen 
zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols (Christiania, 1879), p. 179. We must 
even restore there the word "impious," the omission of which in 
Caspari s text makes the passage incoherent : [d<re/S^] Sri w&tva. atpav 
*t<j>uK(v. Cf. Bulletin critique^ vol. i. p. 169. It was undoubtedly on 
the occasion of his installation at Constantinople that Eudoxius pro 
duced this singular formula, 



p. 308] THE POSITION IN THE EAST 247 

write his book " Against Constantius," a terrible invective, 
which he had the good sense to keep to himself. He was 
allowed to return to the West 

The formula of Ariminum-Constantinople was carried 
from one bishopric to another, in order that those who 
had not taken part in the councils might have an oppor 
tunity of setting their signatures to it. In the West, this 
was scarcely necessary, so numerous had the representa 
tion of the episcopate been at Ariminum. In Asia Minor, 
in Syria, and in Egypt, the case was different. It was 
then that St Athanasius, from the recesses of some desert, 
addressed to the bishops of Egypt and of Libya, an urgent 
exhortation to remain true to their duty, and to refuse 
their signatures. We do not know what was the result of 
this step. There is small probability that the official 
agents could have had much success within the jurisdiction 
of Athanasius. The clergy remained devoted to him ; in 
Libya, a considerable part of the episcopate had passed 
over to Anomceanism ; and they too were hardly more 
likely to sign. 

At Caesarea in Cappadocia, the aged Bishop Dianiup, 
who had held the see for twenty years and scarcely 
ever took a prominent part, was accustomed to sign all 
the official formulas ; he signed this one too. 

At Antioch the see was vacant : it was necessary to 
elect a new bishop. The choice fell upon Meletius, an 
unattached bishop. Meletius belonged to Melitene, in 
Armenia Minor. A council held in that city in 358 had 
deposed from the episcopate the Bishop of Sebaste > 
Eustathius, a man who was prominent on account of 
his zeal in propagating the ascetic life and monastic 
institutions. In his youth he had studied them in Egypt. 
It was said that he had been intimate with Arius, and 
had imbibed his teaching. However this may be, it is 
certain that at the time when the sentence of the Council 
of Melitene struck him in his episcopal position, Eustathius, 
like Basil of Ancyra, professed doctrines closely approxi 
mating to Nicene orthodoxy. Meletius, then one of the 
clergy of Melitene, agreed to replace him. He was a 



248 THE DEFEAT OF ORTHODOXY [CH. VIIL 

man In high repute for his piety, his gentle affability 
and his uprightness of mind. But Eustathius himself 
also was very popular ; the people of Sebaste refused, 
to accept the successor whom it was proposed to give 
them. Meletius had to retire ; he settled at Berea in 
Syria (Aleppo). In the following year (359) Eustathius 
took part in the Council of Seleucia, in the ranks of 
the homolousian majority ; Meletius, either at the 
council 1 or afterwards, signed the Acacian formula. He 
was thus, at the time when (in the winter of 360-361) 
the see of Antioch was entrusted to him, the man of the 
Council of Ariminum - Constantinople, like Acacius of 
Caesarea and George of Alexandria who assisted at his 
installation. On that occasion he pronounced a very 
clever discourse in which, while adhering to the official 
formulas, in that he spoke neither of essence nor hypostasis, 
he allowed it to be seen that at bottom he was not far 
from thinking like the Nicenes. 2 The latter did not 
conceal their joy. The Arians understood ; and at the 
end of a month they had found means to rid themselves 
of the new bishop. Without subjecting him to a suit 
on points of doctrine, they attacked him upon certain 
acts of his administration, especially with regard to the 
restoration of clergy ejected by his predecessors. In 
his place they put Euzoius, the former companion of 
Arius, who had been deprived of the diaconate forty years 
before by Alexander of Alexandria. 

The Emperor Constantius had returned to Antioch, 
and was presiding over these changes. The victory 
remained with him with him and his ecclesiastical 
counsellors. Nicaea and Ancyra Athanasius and Basil 
were overwhelmed in the same disaster. " The world 
groaned," says St Jerome, "and was astonished to find 
itself Arian." It was not astonished for very long. The 
yoke under which the episcopate bent itself was soon to be 
broken. At the end of the previous winter, in April 360, 

1 Socrates (ii. 44) expressly mentions him. 

8 St Epiphanius, who has preserved to us this discourse (Haer. 
Ixxiii. 29-33), does not find much in it to correct. 



p. 311] JULIAN PROCLAIMED EMPEROR 249 

the finest troops in Gaul had been summoned by Con- 
stantius to serve on the Persian frontier. They had been 
assembled in Paris. When the time came for them to 
set out, the soldiers refused to leave Gaul. One evening 
they left their camp, 1 advanced towards the palace where 
the Caesar was living, and acclaimed him Augustus, in 
spite of his resistance and his protests. Constantius had 
ceased to reign in the West. The high officials who 
represented him in the entourage of the young Caesar 
withdrew, and Julian wrote to his imperial cousin to 
excuse himself for what had happened. Constantius 
was at Caesarea in Cappadocia when he received these 
letters. The war with the Persians occupied him during 
this year and for the greater part of the following one. 
However, Julian, Augustus in spite of himself, made up 
his mind to defend by force of arms his enforced usurpa 
tion. In 361 he set out on his march towards the East 
Constantius, free at last to act, left Antioch to fight the 
rival whom the West was sending him. But sickness 
stayed him at the foot of the Taurus. EuzoTus, the 
official Bishop of Antioch, was on the spot to baptize 
him, for this great composer of theological formulas was 
still only a catechumen ; he died on November 3, 361. 
Julian received the news in Thrace; on December II 
he entered Constantinople: the destinies of the whole 
empire were placed within his grasp. 

1 Situated on the western slope of the hill since called Montagne 
Sain te-Genevi eve, under the present Rue Soufflot. As to Julian s 
palace, considerable ruins of it still remain. 



CHAPTER IX 

JULIAN AND THE PAGAN REACTION 

Paganism under the princes of the house of Constantine. The 
sacrifices forbidden. Decline of the ancient religions. Julian s 
youth. His religious development. On becoming Emperor, he 
declares himself a Pagan. Retaliation of the conquered religion. 
Murder of George of Alexandria. Writings of Julian : his piety? 
his attempt to reform Paganism. His attitude towards the 
Christians. Recall of the exiled bishops. Withdrawal of 
privileges : teaching prohibited. Conflicts and acts of violence- 
Rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem. Julian and the people 
ofAntioch. His death. 

ALREADY, under Constantine. especially after he became 
sole emperor, the State had sided against paganism. 
However, no general ordinance had closed the temples: 
the State no longer offered sacrifices in them ; but, except 
perhaps at the end of his reign, private persons had 
retained their liberty to celebrate them. This toleration 
was not destined to be long in disappearing, for the sons 
of Constantine showed themselves even more determined 
than their father to have done with the old religion. In 
the year 341, Constans had addressed the following 
rescript to the Vicarius of Italy : "Let superstition cease ! 
Let the folly of the sacrifices be abolished ! Whoever, 
contrary to the law of the divine prince, our father, and this 
present command of our Clemency shall dare to celebrate 
sacrifices, must be judged and punished." l Other decrees 

1 "Cesset superstitio, sacrificiorum aboleatur insania. Nam 
quicumque contra legem divi principis parentis nostri et hanc nostrae 
mansuetudinis iussionem ausus fuerit sacrificia celebrare, competens 
in cum vindicta et praesens sententia exeratur." Cod. Theod. xvi. 10, I. 
SM 



p. 314] THE POSITION OF PAGANISM 251 

repeat this prohibition, specifying that the temples must 
everywhere be closed, and the sacrifices forbidden, under 
pain of death and confiscation. 1 Magnentius, although 
himself a Christian, had allowed, as an exception, that 
sacrifices might be celebrated during the night; but 
Constantius revoked this permission. 2 

However, we may notice that the only act of worship 
proscribed by this legislation is sacrifice. But the pagan 
religions comprised also many other religious ceremonies, 
and these do not appear to have fallen under the ban of 
the law. An imperial rescript of 342 3 expressly specifies 
that suburban temples connected with the circus and other 
games are not to be touched ; it was the superstition that 
was attacked, and not the amusements of the public. The 
processions, the sacred feasts, the mysteries, and many 
other religious celebrations, went on as before. In Rome, 
the Taurobolia were celebrated down to the time of 
Theodosius. The initiations connected with Eleusis were 
practised in the reign of Constantius, and even after 
Julian s death. At Antioch, the famous sanctuary of 
Daphne was still thronged, and that with purposes the 
very reverse of austere. Instead of forbidding it absolutely, 
as public morality seemed to demand, the Caesar Gallus 
confined himself to setting up a rival to it. He translated 
to the sacred grove the remains of St Babylas, the martyr 
bishop ; henceforth, respectable people might venture to 
take the road to Daphne. 

Moreover, the question for consideration here is much 
less the legislation than the actual practice. Of the 
legislation we can say at least that the terrible threats 
of the Emperor Constantius did not produce, so far as we 
know, a single victim. We never hear of pagan martyrs. 
Undoubtedly, there were in many places conflicts between 
the supporters of the two cults; certain histories of 
Christian martyrs are accounts of disturbances on a 

1 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. 

8 Cod. Theod. xvi. 10, 5, of 353. * Cod. Theod. xvi. 10, 3. 



252 JULIAN AND THE PAGAN REACTION [OH. ix. 

religious pretext. Too zealous preachers, going to preach 
the Gospel to rural populations little prepared to receive 
it, are subjected to rough handling, and sometimes 
murdered. Battles took place around temples which 
bodies of fanatical Christians took upon themselves to 
destroy; the buffets, of course, were distributed among 
assailants and defenders. At Tipasa, in Mauritania, a 
little girl, called Salsa, crept into a temple, seized a bronze 
god and threw him from the top of a cliff; the pagans 
caught her and sent her to rejoin the idol at the bottom 
of the sea. Such occurrences have evidently nothing to 
do with the laws ; they are mere accidents. 

As to the laws themselves, their application naturally 
varied very much. When any district passed over entirely 
to Christianity, it was quite natural that it should dispose 
as it pleased of the buildings of the ancient cult. The 
temples were then closed without any difficulty, the priest 
hoods were abolished, the gods appropriated to the adorn 
ment of public places, or stored in some corner. The 
property of the temples reverted to the municipalities, if 
it was not seized upon by the State, as often happened. 
In other parts, on the contrary, in towns or country 
places which refused to hear of Christianity, temples 
and priesthoods were preserved ; they kept up the festivals, 
the games, the processions, and other external manifesta 
tions ; as to the sacrifices, if they ever ventured to hold them, 
they took good care to arrange matters so that the police 
should know nothing about it. The police, in fact, often 
shut their eyes when they did not connive. Towards the 
end of Constantius reign, Tertullus, prefect of Rome, 
disturbed at the delay of a convoy of corn, offered in a 
temple at Ostia a sacrifice to Castor and Pollux. 1 Most 
often, and especially in large cities, opinions were divided 
between the two forms of worship. There were certainly 
many people who were interested in both at once. The 
Christian assemblies, the vigil, the liturgy were rather 
exacting, and did not offer much food for excitement. 
The populace found more to enjoy in the meetings which 
1 Ammianus Marcellinus, xix. 10. 



p. 316-7] FIRMICUS MATERNUS 253 

were held outside the town, near the tombs of the martyrs. 
These included the agapes, from which, in spite of all the 
efforts of the clergy, a certain cheerfulness, often pro 
ceeding to excess, was not excluded. But all this could 
not be compared with the pomp of pagan ceremonies. 
The latter continued to exist, as a rule, so long as no 
means of replacing them could be found, so long as those 
of the religious ceremonies which appealed most to the 
heart of the people had not been adapted by them to the 
religion of Christ. 

Generally speaking, and taking the empire as a whole, 
paganism was in a deep decline. It was giving way under 
imperial dislike, and the prohibition of its form of worship. 
Of the many educated writers who still professed it, not 
one undertook its defence. On the contrary, there was 
found one of them who, having recently abandoned it, 
drew up a terrible indictment of it. Firrnicus Maternus 
was an advocate of Syracuse, who sought distraction from 
the cares of his profession in the study of astrology. 
Towards the end of Constantine s reign, he went to 
Campania, where he published a treatise upon that science. 
Some ten years later, having in the meantime renounced 
paganism and the study of the stars, he addressed to 
the Emperors Constantius and Constans, a book upon 
" The Falsehood of the Profane Religions," in which, with 
doubtful learning and the use of strange etymologies, he 
draws up an accusation against the pagan cults. 1 He 
demands their abolition, an abolition final and without 
mercy : " For we must make an end of them, Most Sacred 
Emperors, you must cut short all this by severe legisla 
tion. It is for this cause that God has given you the 
empire, and has led you on from one success to another. 
Remove, remove without fear, the ornaments of the 
temples; send the gods to the mint, and appropriate for 
yourselves their possessions. . . ." Such are the exhorta- 

1 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. 



254 JULIAN AND THE PAGAN REACTION [CH. ix. 

tions which reappear on every page under this fanatical 
pen. We are far from the time when Justin was content 
with imploring the emperors not to shed the blood 
of the Christians. 

At this period, it seemed scarcely possible that such 
a state of things could ever return : the victory of 
Christianity was a brilliant one, and the total disappear 
ance of the old religions might be considered as near at 
hand. Suddenly, however, the wind changed ; the 
forsaken gods again ascended the altars, and the 
Christians felt themselves threatened anew by the power 
of the State which had once more become hostile. 

Julian 1 was born at Constantinople in 331; he was 
the son of Julius Constantius, Constantine s brother, and 
of Basilina, a Roman lady of high family, who died shortly 
after his birth. He was six years old when his father and 
one of his brothers perished in the massacres which 
followed the death of Constantine. He himself escaped, 
with his other brother Gallus. He was reminded later on, 
that, in this hour of danger, he had had reason to be 
grateful for the devotion of certain ecclesiastics. When 
calm was restored, and Constantius had decided to take 
the two children under his protection, Julian was entrusted 
to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, a distant relative, who 
had already exercised influence over his mother. He 
remained with him, at Nicomedia and at Constantinople, 
for five years. On the death of Eusebius, Julian and 
Gallus, hitherto separated, were reunited and placed in a 
villa called Makellon, at the foot of Mount Argeus, not 
far from Caesarea in Cappadocia. They remained there 
nearly eight years, until the time (351) when Gallus was 
appointed Caesar, and went away to reign at Antioch. 
As for Julian, he was allowed to finish his education by 
attending the lectures of distinguished masters. For 
this purpose he stayed in Constantinople, in Bithynia, 
and in Asia. Being implicated in the affair of Gallus, 
in 354, he was summoned to Italy, to the presence of the 
emperor. The Empress Eusebia interceded in his favour; 
1 P. Allard, Julien FApostat (1900-1903), 



P. 319] JULIAN S EDUCATION 255 

and he was allowed to resume his studies. It was then 
that he visited Athens, and made the acquaintance of 
Gregory and Basil, two young Cappadocians, destined to 
win distinction as bishops. He did not remain there long, 
and was recalled in 355 to the court at Milan, to be 
associated in his turn in the government of the empire, 
and was charged to watch over the defence of the Western 
provinces. We know that he acquitted himself conscienti 
ously and successfully of this task, that he shrank from 
none of the duties, great or small, which it imposed upon 
him, and that the impression which he left in Gaul was a 
favourable one. 

Yet, under this defender of the Roman fatherland, 
was concealed a Greek sophist ; this representative, this 
colleague of the pious Emperor Constantius was at heart 
a convinced and devout pagan. His inward development, 
known or suspected by a few persons only, was a thing 
of long standing. The circumstances of his education 
explain it in some degree. 

His parents were Christians, like all the imperial 
family. When quite a little child, he had danced on 
the knees of Constantine, " the external Bishop " of the 
Christian Church. He was baptized while still young, 
and, until he left the villa of Makellon, we see him always 
surrounded by ecclesiastical personages. It is true that 
these were distinguished members of the Arian group, 
and that, in this school of religious sophistry, the Gospel 
was largely concealed by metaphysics. Occupied in 
cessantly with questions as to the Divine relationships 
and processions, they lost sight of the message of Christ, 
of His history, and of His work of salvation. In the 
conflict of the creeds, in the intrigues of the court bishops, 
and their eagerness to overthrow each other, the Church 
lamentably frittered away its prestige. Men like Eusebius, 
George, and Aetius did but feebly commend Christianity. 
Yet the convictions of the faithful were, as a rule, stronger 
than this state of things ; it did not check the progress of 
conversions, even among the well-educated classes. And 
besides, Julian s criticism of the Christian religion did not 



256 JULIAN AND THE PAGAN REACTION [CH. ix. 

attack this or that particular shade of opinion. It was 
with the whole of it that he found fault; it was from 
Christianity as such that he broke himself free. And 
he broke himself free, because he had developed a 
different religious conscience. 

He knew Latin, and spoke it "sufficiently," says 
Ammianus. 1 We should scarcely suspect it in reading 
his books and his letters ; learned as he was in literature, 
he never quotes a Latin author, not even Vergil. Rome 
scarcely seems to exist for him ; it is Athens which is 
the centre of things. 

In heaven he saw only the gods of Greece; and in this 
world only the memories or the present interests of 
Hellenism, and of religious Hellenism. Julian was a 
devotee of the old cult, an enthusiastic adept in the 
mysteries and the pagan theology. Of the ancient poets, 
he knew scarcely any save the sacred poets, Homer and 
Hesiod. More eclectic in philosophy, he at first read 
Plato, Aristotle, and other authors ; but as soon as he 
gained some measure of freedom from his teachers, his 
natural bent diverted him from the logicians and led him 
to the mystics, to the neo-Platonists ; and even in this, 
not to those among them who, like ^Edesius of Pergamum 
and Eusebius of Myndos, followed the philosophy of 
Plotinus, but rather to the disciples of lamblichus, to 
those who practised magic and occultism. It was in this 
way that he fell into the hands of Maximus of Ephesus, 
who introduced him into the secret mysteries of his own 
philosophy, and put him in touch with the gods. Julian 
was twenty years old ; his life, having always been 
carefully watched over by trustworthy persons, had 
remained serious and even austere. He had no passion 
save for the mystery of things, especially of things 
unseen. And in these pursuits the remainder of his 
Christianity vanished away. He had been instructed in 
its doctrine ; he had been made to read the Bible, and 
to listen to catechetical lectures. But now, Moses, 
Jeremiah, Luke, and Matthew seemed to him but fustian 

1 xvi. 5, 7. 



p. 321-2] JULIAN S BELIEFS 257 

authors in comparison with Homer, Plato, and lamblichus. 
His relations with the philosophers having caused some 
talk, his brother Callus, disturbed with good reason as 
to their consequences, thought it expedient to send to him 
the most celebrated of the Christian sophists, Aetius, who 
was then astonishing Antioch by the success of his 
disputations. It was a mere waste of time. Against the 
mysticism which enthralled the soul of Julian of what 
avail was the arid and empty scholasticism of the masters 
in Arianism ? 

The disciple of Maximus of Ephesus endured the 
disputations of Aetius as he endured many other things : 
Constantius, as he knew well, was not a man to be trifled 
with in that quarter. Julian detested his cousin, whom 
those about him had not failed to represent to him as the 
assassin of his family. But this hatred did not prevent 
him from dedicating to Constantius a fulsome panegyric ; 
he composed another in honour of the Empress Eusebia. 
In these compositions, it was still the fashion 1 to make 
use of pagan legends. This was a consolation to Julian : 
he extolled his cousin a thing most distasteful to him ; 
but he was also able to extol his gods, and this delighted 
him. 

With the exception of these formal exercises, he was 
obliged, notwithstanding his ardour as a neophyte, to 
continue to profess himself a Christian a Galilean, as he 
began to say to take part in the religious assemblies 
presided over by the official clergy, and to conceal his 
devotion to the proscribed gods under an apparent zeal 
for the religion which persecuted them. It was a difficult 
and cruel position ; for there is no doubt whatever that 
Julian s new convictions were profoundly sincere. God 
knows what would have been the issue of this inward 
struggle, if it had been protracted as long as the respective 
ages of Julian and Constantius seemed to foreshadow. 
The circumstances, which soon brought the two cousins 

1 This lasted for a very long time. In the 5th century, the 
panegyrics of Sidonius Apollinaris still make the corps of ancient 
Olympus perform their customary manoeuvres. 

II R 



258 JULIAN AND THE PAGAN REACTION [CH. IJL 

into conflict, allowed Julian to show himself in his true 
colours. He was not in any hurry. On January 6, 361, 
he was still to be seen at Vicnne, where he was spending 
the winter, taking part in the Christian mysteries. It was 
for the last time : the following summer, in his march 
through Pannonia, he threw off all disguise, and celebrated 
with full ceremonial, before the whole army, the sacrifices 
which hitherto he had concealed in the secrecy of his 
private life. His enthusiasm for the ancient gods quickly 
burst forth in his speeches and in his official correspond 
ence, as did also his rage against Constantius. 1 

The two cousins were marching against each other. 
The situation was becoming tragic. They were approach 
ing to a second battle of the Milvian Bridge, to an encounter 
between a pagan and a Christian army. However, things 
took another turn. The death of Constantius allowed 
Julian to enter Constantinople in peace (December 1 1, 361). 
Instead of joining battle with his rival, Julian presided 
over his obsequies. 

He took his revenge upon the ministers. A special 
court was set up, and balanced with much severity the 
accounts of the new Augustus. Among his victims 
figured the prefect Taurus, the hero of the Council of 
Ariminum, and the high chamberlain, Eusebius, whose 
baleful figure crosses now and again the story of St 
Athanasius and of Pope Liberius. Eusebius 1 was put to 
death ; he had played a part in the affair of Callus which 
Julian did not forgive. Taurus was only exiled. 2 

But the chief care of the new sovereign, the ruling 
conception of the reign which was beginning, was to give 
paganism its revenge. Julian at once outlined his policy, 
and displayed in his person the Constantine of the old 
religion. An edict ordered the re-opening of the temples, 
and the renewal everywhere of the sacrifices. 3 This 
ordinance could not fail to be received with a wide 
divergence of opinion. There were some places in which 
it gave pleasure to the populace, which had remained 

1 See especially his letter to the Athenians, 
8 Ammianus, xxii. 3. * Ibid. xxii. 5. 



p. 324] THE TEMPLES REOPENED 259 

faithful to the gods of old. Elsewhere, it appeared ill- 
timed, the majority of the people having passed over to 
Christianity. Many municipalities had begun to demolish 
the temples ; their endowments in land and their furniture 
had been either confiscated by the State, or alienated by 
the local authorities. Julian soon ordered everything to 
be put in the same position as before. A similar order 
had been given in 312 by Constantine and Licinius, in 
favour of the Christian churches. We do not gather that 
at that time it raised any serious difficulties ; besides, 
when it was a question of private persons being dis 
possessed, the emperors, in 312, indemnified them. Julian 
considered himself dispensed from doing so much. 
According to his ideas, the fact of having concurred in 
the destruction and spoliation of the temples constituted 
a crime for which it was natural to take vengeance. He 
did not go so far doubtless as to enjoin personal punish 
ment for this ; but he showed great harshness in his claims 
to restitution, condemning bishops, who had more or less 
favoured the destruction of the temples, to rebuild them, 
if necessary ; and above all showing the greatest indulg 
ence towards popular riots in favour of his pagan 
reaction. 

The first victim was the intruded Bishop of Alexandria, 
George the Cappadocian. Driven from Alexandria in 358, 
this not ve.y attractive individual had trailed from council 
to council, mixing in every intrigue against orthodoxy and 
its defenders. Finally, just at the moment when Con- 
stantius was leaving Antioch to pursue hostilities against 
Julian, he regained possession, after three years absence, 
of the metropolis of Egypt, where the police had prepared 
the way for him. Quite apart from the horror which he 
inspired in the adherents of Athanasius, George was 
universally detested. Many Alexandrians had cause to 
complain of his denunciations to the government and his 
acts of greed. The temples, which were still standing, 
exasperated him ; he never ceased to utter threats 
regarding them. It was on November 26, 361, that the 
Alexandrians once more beheld the bishop whom they 



260 JULIAN AND THE PAGAN REACTION [CH. ix. 

loathed. Four days later, the prefect published the news 
of the death of the emperor, and the accession of Julian 
Instantly, the population rose in rebellion. George was 
not killed that day, but only imprisoned. On December 
25, another outbreak tore him from his prison. He was 
murdered, with an official named Dracontius, against 
whom the pagans had had cause of complaint. The dead 
body of the bishop was hoisted upon a camel ; several 
fanatics harnessed themselves to the body of Dracontius. 
Both corpses were thus dragged round the town ; then 
they were burnt, and the ashes were scattered to the 
winds. Such was at Alexandria the ceremonial of 
executions, when the populace took them into their 
own hands. 

Julian, on being informed of the affair, confined 
himself to scolding the people of Alexandria. They 
ought to have reserved George for the justice of the 
courts. Apart from this question of procedure, he could 
not but approve of their action : George was an enemy of 
the gods. Afterwards he remembered that the deceased 
prelate possessed a very fine library, of which he had 
formerly profited to cheat the tedium of Makellon : the 
officials were ordered to recover it, and send it to the 
court. 1 

The emperor in Julian had not destroyed the man of 
letters. He always loved books ; he found time to read, 
and even to write. His nights, which were not shortened 
by worldly festivities, were for the most part consecrated 
to study. It is from this time, the time when he was 
burdened with the empire, that there dates almost all his 
literary work, his theological treatises upon the King Sun, 
and upon the Mother of the Gods, his writings against the 
Cynics and the Christians, his satires, the Caesars, the 
Misopogon, and lastly, letters of importance, such as that 
to the Athenians, that to Themistius, and a long religious 
manifesto, of which only fragments remain. From the 
outset he had summoned to his court rhetoricians and 
philosophers, Libanius, Themistius, Maximus of Ephesus, 
1 Juliani epp. 9, 10, 36. 



p. 327] IDEALS OF JULIAN 261 

and honoured them as demi-gods. To converse with them 
was his greatest pleasure. It was of no moment that he 
had reached his thirtieth year ; he was always a disciple. 

He was also a religious zealot. There had been other 
emperors who were attached to the old national religion, 
and some of them had even busied themselves with ardour 
in trying to bring back to it the Christians who had strayed. 
But such piety, such eagerness for holy things, for the 
sacrifices, the processions, and the temples, no one had 
ever displayed. The only one of his predecessors who 
could be at all compared with Julian in this respect was 
Maximin, the Maximin after the time of Galerius, who could 
no longer persecute openly, but who found means of doing 
so indirectly, by exciting the religious zeal of the muni 
cipalities. Julian made it known throughout the empire 
that his favour would be proportioned to the enthusiasm 
shown for the service of the gods. If people would re 
build the temples, provide the ministrations in them and 
frequent them, they could obtain anything they wished ; 
if not, they should have nothing, not even a garrison to 
protect them when the enemy was approaching. 

Like Maximin again he was to be seen organizing the 
priestly colleges, grouping the priests of the different 
sanctuaries around a high priest for each district, and 
above these establishing provincial high priests ; in other 
words, creating pagan bishops and archbishops. But and 
here there is a striking difference which it is only fair to 
notice whilst Maximin chose for these positions people 
who were rich and ennobled, Julian desired a body of 
men who were virtuous. He required from them good 
examples ; the high priests were to watch over the conduct 
of their subordinates, to reprimand, and to punish them, if 
necessary. His bishops were to be pious and of good 
character, like those of the Christians. He even went so 
far as to urge them to organize charitable foundations 
and systems of relief, such as existed everywhere in the 
Christian communities. 

These were the dreams of a student! Paganism, 
especially in the East, did not lend itself to such reforms. 



262 JULIAN AND THE PAGAN REACTION [CH. ix. 

The idea which Julian formed for himself of the priesthood 
and its duties was a Christian idea. Never did a pagan 
priest dream that he was under an obligation to live a 
more ascetic life than other men, or that the care of the 
needy had a special connection with his functions. Julian 
was pouring the new wine into the old bottles, and seeking 
to introduce the Christian spirit into the disinterred corpse 
of paganism. His success was indifferent. Those about 
him soon grew weary of his devotion, his pious exercises, 
his continual sacrifices. His clergy, among whom he had 
included several apostates from Christianity, were far from 
giving him satisfaction. When he had established himself 
at Antioch, he wished to conform to the religious observ 
ances of the country. But the cult of the Syrian gods 
was not made for people of austere morals. Julian 
appeared at the consecrated ceremonies with a retinue 
which would have deeply distressed his old teachers. He 
only made himself ridiculous, and compromised atone and 
the same time his philosophy and his dignity as emperor. 

Of course this restoration of paganism excluded all 
Christians from the imperial favour, even before it rendered 
them outlaws. But they were numerous in the East, and 
Julian was obliged to proceed gradually in his manifesta 
tions of ill-will. The day after he entered Constantinople, 
the heads of the different Christian confessions Arians, 
Anomoeans, Macedonians, orthodox, and Novatians were 
summoned to the palace, to listen to a declaration that 
there was no longer any official Christianity, and that no 
form of it was proscribed by the State. No more fair- 
sounding statement could have been found ; but the inten 
tion which dictated this toleration was to set the different 
sects by the ears, and in this way to weaken the resistance 
to paganism. 1 It was for the same end that the sentences 
of exile or imprisonment, pronounced as the sequel to 
the decisions of councils, were revoked. The orthodox 

1 It is Ammianus (xxii. 5) who discloses to us this intention. 
Julian knew, he says, that there -e 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. 



p. 329] RETURN OF THE EXILES 263 

bishops, those who adhered to the Nicene Confession of 
Faith, profited by this permission, and returned to their 
dioceses. So too did Basil of Ancyra and his friends, who 
had been so harshly treated by the Council of 360 ; and so 
did several stubborn Anomceans. We can readily imagine 
the disturbances likely to be caused by the return of these 
bishops, who found their sees occupied by successors. 
Such was not, it is true, the case of Alexandria, where 
Athanasius reappeared on February 21, and found his 
place vacant. But, in Africa, the return of the Donatist 
leaders was a veritable plague, which a statesman worthy 
of the name would never have thought of letting loose. 

Unfortunately, in Julian, the statesman was stifled by the 
sectarian. The recall of the exiled bishops, whatever may 
have been the secret motive for it, was justifiable in theory ; 
and in practice, if some of its consequences were bad, 
others were good. But it was followed by other measures, 
justified by no theory of toleration. The Christian clergy, 
exempted from obligations of municipal service by Con- 
stantine, were now once more put upon the list ; all 
their privileges were abolished. The bishops were deprived 
of the civil jurisdiction which Constantine had granted 
them. 1 Shortly afterwards, Christians were excluded from 
all positions in the imperial household, from all high 
administrative posts, and even from the army, so far as 
that was possible. Finally, the teaching of grammar and 
of rhetoric was forbidden to Christian masters. 2 

All these measures, the last especially, were cruelly 
felt. The prohibition to Christians of the teaching of 
literature and philosophy, 3 affected masters of distinction. 

1 We shall speak of this later on. 

2 Ammianus (xxii. 10) blames this measure very much : Illud 
autem erat inclemem, obruendum perenni silentio, quod arcebat docere 
magistros rhetoricos et grammaticos rif-us christiani cultores. 

3 Philosophy is not mentioned in Ammianus text given in the 
last note, but Julian expressly mentions it in his edict (Ep. 42) 
eJJre {irjropfs eire ypafjifj-ariKol Kal TI irX^oy of crotyiffrai. 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 



264 JULIAN AND THE PAGAN REACTION [CH. ix. 

Victorinus at Rome, Prohaeresius in Athens descended 
from their professorial chairs, the latter in spite of the 
entreaties of Julian who would have made an exception 
in his favour. 

All the cultured members of the Christian ranks 
felt themselves placed in a position of ostracism. In 
the emperor s name they were excluded from the 
Hellenic tradition and from intellectual culture. Two 
Christians of Laodicea in Syria, the two Apollinarii, 
father and son, endeavoured to replace the authors 
snatched from their hands, by compositions in verse and 
prose upon subjects derived from the Bible and the 
Gospel. Their zeal, seconded by an extraordinary facility 
of composition, was fortunately useless. They had not 
finished putting Genesis into the form of an epic, and 
the Gospel into Socratic dialogues, when the wind 
changed. They returned to Homer and Plato. 

All this manifestation of ill-will on the part of Julian 
stopped short, however, of actual persecution. A Christian 
who had finished his education, who was neither an 
official nor a soldier, and who was able to live without 
asking anything from the government, was not threatened 
with death by the authorities of the State for the mere 
fact of professing the Christian religion. The churches 
still remained open, and worship was carried on there 
as in the past. But the attempt to revive paganism in 
a country where almost everyone was a Christian could 
not fail to produce numerous protests, and these were 
severely requited. This fact was responsible for executions, 
such as that of the priest Basil, at Ancyra, 1 the soldier 
^Emilianus, who was burnt alive at Dorostorum, on the 
Lower Danube, for an insult to pagan worship, 2 and of 
three Christians of Meros in Phrygia Macedonius, 
Theodulus, and Tatian 3 who were guilty of having broken 

view, a religious character in a pagan sense, it would have been very 
difficult for Christians to attend them. 

1 Sozomen, H. E. v. n. 2 Jerome, Chron. a. Abr. 2379. 

3 It was to these that there was at first attributed the celebrated 
mot afterwards put into the mouth of the Roman deacon Laurence. 



p. 332] PAGANS AND CHRISTIANS 265 

some newly restored idols. The people of Caesarea in 
Cappadocia had in the reign of Constantius destroyed 
nearly all their temples : there still remained one of these, 
the Temple of Fortune : they decided upon its destruc 
tion. The time was ill-chosen. The wrath of Julian 
fell upon the audacious city, which lost its municipal 
rights ; upon the Church of Caesarea, which he subjected 
to an enormous fine ; and upon the clergy, whom he 
caused to be enrolled in the police bands, a laborious and 
degrading service. Several citizens, who had been more 
especially responsible for the destruction of the temple, 
were exiled or put to death ; among the latter have been 
preserved the names of Eupsychius and Damas. 1 

Moreover, in those countries where pagans were in 
the majority and now felt themselves the masters, they 
had no obligation to restrain themselves in taking their 
revenge upon the Christians for the slights of which their 
own form of worship had been the object during the 
preceding reigns. In Syria, where the proportion of 
Christians varied very much in different places, we hear 
of deplorable scenes. At Emesa, and at Epiphania, 
Bacchanal processions streamed into the church bearing 
a statue of Dionysos, which they installed upon the 
altar. 2 The Christian cemetery at Emesa was given to 
the flames. 8 The old Bishop of Arethusa, Mark, the 
same who had saved Julian at the time of the massacres 
f 337 found himself denounced to the emperor for 
having ill-treated pagans and destroyed a temple. When 
condemned to rebuild it he refused. He was then given 
over to the mob, who dragged him through the streets, 
tearing out his beard, and tormenting him in a thousand 
ways; then he was given over to the school children, 
who amused themselves by tossing him in the air to 

Stretched upon a burning gridiron, they called out to the judge : 
"We are cooked enough on this side ; now turn us, and you will eat 
us better done." (Socrates, iii. 15 ; cf. Sozomen, v. n.) 

1 Sozomen, v. 4, i x. St Basil often speaks of them. 

* Chron. Pasch., pp. 295, 296. 

3 Julian, Misopogon, p. 461 (ed. Hertlein). 



266 JULIAN AND THE PAGAN REACTION [CH. IT. 

catch him on their sharp-pointed styluses ; finally, he 
was smeared with honey, bruised as he was, and exposed 
to the wasps. Yet they did not finish him ; he survived 
this abominable treatment. At Alexandria, Ascalon, 
Gaza, and Heliopolis, the pagan population was continu 
ally breaking out into disturbances. Priests and virgins 
were massacred with horrible refinements of cruelty ; their 
bodies were cut open, and upon their quivering entrails 
barley was thrown that they might be devoured by 
swine. Julian did not interfere. He even encouraged 
the populace guilty of these atrocities. Constantine had 
made Maiouma, the port of Gaza, an independent city. 
Maiouma was Christian: Julian deprived it of its 
autonomy, and subjected it once more to the pagans of 
Gaza. The governor of Palestine, having tried to punish 
the instigators of a riot in which four Christians of that 
city had perished, the emperor deprived him of his 
position and sent him into exile. 

Everything that could worry the Christians was good 
in his eyes. It was nearly three centuries since the 
temple of Jerusalem had been destroyed, and the Jews 
deprived of access to their former holy city ; the new 
town of Aelia was peopled with Christians. The idea 
came to Julian of rebuilding the Temple of Israel, and 
reviving a cult for which personally he felt nothing but 
contempt. His intention was evident : he wished to do 
an injury to the great Christian pilgrimages, and to set 
up a rival to the beautiful churches of Constantine. The 
undertaking, though entrusted to an official of high rank 
and supported with large sums of money, had for all that 
no result. As soon as the foundations of the old building 
were disturbed, flames burst from them which burnt 
several of the workmen and, what is more, terrified the 
agents of Julian, who were apparently as superstitious 
as their master. 1 

At Antioch, where nearly everyone was a Christian, 
the emperor did not get much satisfaction. He tried to 
restore the vanished cults, especially that of Daphne. The 
1 Ammianus, xxiii. i. 



p. 334] SCENES AT ANTIOCH 267 

martyr Babylas, installed in the Sacred Wood by the 
Caesar Gallus, was an obnoxious neighbour for Apollo. 
Julian ordered his remains to be carried back to the 
cemetery. The Christians obeyed, but the translation 
took place in the midst of a great gathering of the faithful, 
and had the appearance of a formal protest. Antioch, 
as its inhabitants boasted, remained loyal to the X and 
the K, that is to say to Christ (X/oto-ro?) and to Constantius 
(KtDwrrai/rto?). The news soon followed that a fire had 
broken out in the sanctuary of Daphne, and that the idol 
was burned. Julian was furious, and gave orders for the 
closing of the Great Church, the church which Constantine 
had built, and which the council of 341 had dedicated. 
It was even stripped of its sacred furniture. The officials, 
who on this occasion invaded the sacred edifice, headed 
by Julian, Count of the Orient, uncle of the emperor, and, 
like him, a renegade, behaved themselves like blackguards, 
and did not hesitate at indescribable profanations. The 
aged Bishop Euzoius tried to protest : they boxed 
his ears. 

These acts of violence did but increase the unpopularity 
of the apostate emperor. He was conscious of it, but his 
stubborn disposition resisted all opposition, even the 
appeals of his most intimate friends, such as the prefect 
Sallust, and the rhetorician Libanius. His hatred for the 
Galileans overflowed into all his acts, his letters, and 
his conversations. He ended by writing against them a 
work in three books, afterwards refuted by Cyril of 
Alexandria, who has thus preserved to us a part of it. 
He also wrote, against the people of Antioch, his celebrated 
Misopogon, in which he answers the criticisms of which 
his personal appearance, and especially his long beard, had 
been the constant butt. The people of Antioch loved him 
little, and he returned their dislike. He concluded by 
promising them that, on his return from the Persian War, 
for which he was making preparations at the time, he 
would deprive them of his presence, and would establish 
himself at Tarsus. 

This was as a matter of fact what happened ; but not as 



268 JULIAN AND THE PAGAN REACTION [CH. ix, 

the emperor intended. Julian, after having invaded the 
Persian empire and led his army as far as the walls 
of Ctesiphun, found himself compelled to retrace his 
steps. In the course of a disastrous retreat, he was 
mortally wounded by an arrow, on June 26, 363; his 
body was carried to Tarsus. The leaders of the army 
immediately chose as his successor the commander of the 
guard, Jovian. The famous expedition ended in a shame 
ful peace, by which the empire lost, not only part of the 
satrapies beyond the Tigris, annexed under Diocletian, 
but the fortress of Nisibis and the surrounding country, 
a district which had long been included in the province 
of Mesopotamia. 

The new emperor was a Christian. Everyone realized 
that the festival of paganism was at an end. The 
supporters of the Hellenic restoration suffered many 
anxious moments. But they escaped with a good fright. 
Jovian persecuted no one ; as to the Christians, they 
naturally saw the hand of Providence in the death of the 
apostate, and lavished on his memory the most heart-felt 
maledictions. But they went no further, and their leaders 
were the first to preach to them forgetfulness of injuries. 



CHAPTER X 

AFTER ARIMINUM 

The Councils of Paris and of Alexandria. Restoration of the lapsed. 
Lucifer, Eusebius, and Apollinaris. Schism at Antioch : Meletius, 
and Paulinus. Athanasius exiled in Julian s reign. His relations 
with Jovian. The "Acacians" accept the Creed of Nicasa. 
Valentinian and Valens. The religious policy of Valentinian. 
Opposition of the Right wing : Lucifer and his friends. 
Opposition of the Left : Auxentius of Milan and the Danubian 
bishops. Valens and the formula of Ariminum. Negotiations 
between the Homoiousians and Pope Liberius. The question 
of the Holy Spirit : the party of Macedonius. The Anomoeans : 
Aetius and Eunomius. Conflicts between them and official 
Arianism. The historian Philostorgius. 

BETTER for the Church is a government which ignores or 
even persecutes it than a government which interferes too 
much in its affairs. Under Constantius the care of the 
Faith had entered more than it ought to have done into 
the province of the State. When the police were no 
longer at the service of the various formulas, and at the 
heels of the bishops, the bishops breathed more freely. 
The bent heads were raised, and the attitudes once more 
became natural. 

It was at Paris that the first evidence of this was seen. 
The episcopate of the Gauls had in the last few years gone 
through many trials. The Emperor Constantius had 
urged the bishops, ever since the year 353, to subscribe 
to the condemnation of Athanasius, and to accept 
communion with the bishops of his court. As a rule, 
they had yielded, but with very bad grace. If some of 
them only had refused their signatures and accepted 



270 AFFER ARIMINUM [CH. x. 

exile, as did the Bishops of Treves, Poitiers, and Toulouse, 
the greater part had seen with disapproval the acts of 
violence used towards their colleagues. The Bishop of Aries, 
Saturninus, the instrument of the emperor s displeasure, 
was kept by them in quarantine. When they received 
from Sirmium the formula attributed to Hosius (357), 
with a request that they should approve it, they jibbed. 
The Bishop of Agen, Phoebadius, wrote to attack it. 
Signatures were refused, and they renewed the excommuni 
cation against Saturninus. Hilary, who was exiled in the 
heart of Phrygia, when informed of this state of things, 
warmly congratulated his colleagues on their attitude, and 
endeavoured to arrange an understanding between them 
and the semi-orthodox party, of which Basil of Ancyra 
was at this moment leading the triumph. This is the 
subject of his book on The Synods^ 

Then followed the Council of Ariminum, where, thanks 
to the pressure put upon them by the prefect Taurus, and 
to the intrigues of the court prelates, the bishops of the 
Gauls allowed themselves to be led like the rest to a 
deplorable capitulation. Even the firmest among them, 
Servasius of Tongres and Phoebadius himself, compromised 
themselves, and co-operated either directly or indirectly 
in what was to be for a long time the formula of the Arian 
dissenters. When they returned home, very sad at heart, 
as we may well believe, they soon heard the news that 
Julian had been proclaimed Augustus, and that the high 
officials of Constantius, notably the praetorian prefect 
Florentius, with whom they had much more to do than 
with the Caesar, had set out to rejoin their master. While 
these things were happening, Hilary arrived 2 with news 
from Constantinople, and letters addressed to the Western 
prelates by those of their Greek colleagues, upon whom 

1 Supra, p. 234. 

* Hilary had not been pardoned ; this return to Gaul was, in the 
intention of the government, only a change of exile. They held that, 
being dangerous in the East, he would be less so in his own country. 
This, at least, is what Sulpicius Severus says, Chron. ii. 45 : postremo 
quasi discordiae seminarium et perturbator Orientis redire ad Gallias 
iubetur^ absque exilii indulgentia. 



p. 339] COUNCIL OF PARTS, 360 271 

Eudoxius, Acacius, and other victors of the day, had just 
been showering sentences of deposition. A meeting was 
held at Paris, probably in the summer of 360, and from 
thence an answer was despatched to the Easterns in a 
letter 1 full of sympathy, which censured Auxentius, 
Ursacius, Valens, and the other supporters of the intrigues 
at Ariminum, as well as the successors of the deposed 
bishops and, lastly, Saturninus, who was already con 
demned and always active on the side of wrong. They 
recognized, in accordance with the explanations of the 
Easterns, that they had been wrong in allowing themselves 
to be deceived 2 into the tacit suppression of the term 
" essence " (ova-la) ; henceforth, they promised to be more 
strict. 

This letter represents apparently all that it was 
possible to do at a time when Constantius was still 
master in the East, and there was nothing to show that he 
would not also regain the mastery in the West. The 
orthodoxy of Nicaea possessed scarcely any representatives 
at that time. Paulinus and Rhodanius had died in exile ; 
Athanasius had disappeared. In Rome, besides the fact 
that the political situation was not so free from complexity 
as in Gaul, Pope Liberius, who owing to unknown 
circumstances had remained aloof from the affair of 
Ariminum, was not entirely rehabilitated. Hilary could 
scarcely think of relying upon him. All that it was 
possible for him to do was to lead back the bishops of 
the Gauls into the right path, and make use of them to 
support the remnant in the East whose views were 
orthodox. The attitude adopted at the Council of Paris 
was a repudiation of the Council of Ariminum, a return 
to the position as it was before that assembly the 
Nicene party in the West in alliance with the quasi- 
orthodox party in the East to fight against Arianism. 
It was little enough. 

The position grew more clearly defined in 362, when 

1 Hil. Frag. hist. xi. 

2 "Cum ex litteris vestris in usiae silentio fraudem se passam 
simplicitas nostra cognoscat." 



272 AFTER ARIMINUM [CH. x. 

Julian, who had become sole emperor, had thrown over 
the official clergy, and recalled the exiles. Athanasius 
returned to Alexandria, Meletius to Antioch. It was on 
February 21, 362, that the Alexandrians beheld once more 
their indomitable bishop, after six years of absence and of 
outlawry. Other exiles, recalled by the same decrees, 
found themselves for the moment grouped around him. 
The greater part of them were Egyptians, but there was 
also one bishop from Palestine, Asterius of Petra, who 
had no doubt been imprisoned in Egypt, as Lucifer of 
Caliaris (Cagliari) and Eusebius of Vercellae had been in 
the ThebaYd. 

Lucifer, a man of ardent soul and indomitable 
character, had passed his time of exile in writing 
pamphlets of extreme violence. They were all aimed 
at Constantius, and the bishop took care that they should 
reach him. The Christian Ahab let the new Elias 
have his say. He had at first entrusted Lucifer to 
Eudoxius, Bishop of Germanicia ; when Eudoxius was 
transferred to Antioch, Lucifer was sent to Eleutheropolis 
in Palestine, where the bishop, Eutychius, treated him 
harshly. Afterwards, as no one was able to silence him, 
he was finally sent to the recesses of the Thebaid. The 
mere titles of his writings give an idea of his state of 
mind : " No agreement with heretics," " Apostate Kings," 
" No quarter for the enemies of God," " Let us die for 
the Son of God." 

Eusebius was not less firm in his principles, but he 
knew how to control himself. He also had at first been 
placed under the charge of an Arian bishop, the aged 
Patrophilus of Scythopolis, who made incredible efforts to 
persuade his prisoner to enter into relations with him ; but 
the Bishop of Vercellae preferred rather to die of hunger 
than to submit to contact with his persecutors. 1 As a 
matter of fact, he did very nearly succumb. He was 
removed from Scythopolis, perhaps after the death of 

1 Letter from Eusebius to his flock in Italy, during his sojourn at 
Scythopolis (Migne, P. L., vol. xii., p. 947). 



p. 341-2] LUCIFER AND APOLLINARIS 273 

Patrophilus, 1 and was transferred to Cappadocia, and 
finally to the Thebai d. 

The two Latin bishops were invited by Athanasius to 
stay at Alexandria, and to join himself and his council in 
settling certain urgent questions. Lucifer declined the 
invitation, but sent two deacons as his representatives. 
He was in a hurry to return to Antioch where, he said, the 
affairs of that Church required his presence. He was 
entreated not to aggravate, by untimely measures, the 
troubles which divided it. He promised what they asked, 
but with such a man, and in such a state of irritation, there 
was everything to fear. 

Two other persons, also absent, caused themselves to 
be represented at the council, the Bishop Apollinaris of 
Laodicea in Syria, and the priest Paulinus, head of the 
little Eustathian Church of Antioch. Of the latter body 
we have spoken already. It now remains to explain the 
ecclesiastical position of Apollinaris. 

Towards the end of the 3rd century, Alexandria had 
provided . Laodicea with two very distinguished bishops, 
Eusebius and Anatolius. 2 Shortly after the Council of 
Nicaea, another Alexandrian, the grammarian Apollinaris, 
took up his abode there, after having taught for some time 
at Berytus. He met with a good reception, and was even 
ordained priest ; his son, called like himself Apollinaris, also 
entered the ranks of the clergy, in the capacity of a 
reader. This did not prevent either of them from 
continuing the cult of the Muses; they even pursued it 
with some degree of exaggeration. They were always 
to be seen at the- lectures of a pagan sophist, named 
Epiphanius, 3 and their example brought thither many of 
the faithful. The Bishop Theodotus looked upon this 
with a disapproving eye. One day, Epiphanius began to 
recite a hymn in honour of Bacchus, and, according to 

1 Patrophilus, although he died before Constantius, had to suffer 
from the pagan reaction under Julian. The pagans of Scythopolis 
disinterred his body, scattered his bones, and made a lamp of his 
skull (Chron. Pasch. a. 362). 

2 Vol. i., pp. 354-5- 

8 Often mentioned by Eunapius, in his Lives ofJhe Philosophers. 
II S 



274 AFTER ARIMINUM [CH. x. 

custom, he began by enjoining unbelievers to retire. 
No one stirred, the Christians any more than the rest. 
Theodotus, being informed of this scandal, censured the 
action so far as concerned the ordinary Christians present, 
but he took rigorous measures against the two Apollinarii ; 
he reprimanded them publicly, and excommunicated them. 
The culprits gave evidence of their repentance, did 
penance, and finally the bishop pardoned them. Theo 
dotus was soon succeeded (about 335) in the see of 
Laodicea by a priest named George, also an Alexandrian, 
who had formerly been deposed by Bishop Alexander, and 
had come to seek his fortune in Syria. Theodotus had 
been one of the first defenders of Arius. George was, or 
had become, more moderate in his theological opinions : in 
358 we find him among the opponents of Eudoxius and 
of the Anomoean party. But he was an inveterate enemy 
of Athanasius. At the Council of Sardica he appeared on 
the list of the bishops deposed by the Westerns. When, 
three years later, Athanasius, being recalled to Alexandria 
in spite of the sentences of George and his friends, stopped 
at Laodicea, there were no exchanges of courtesy between 
them. 1 The two Apollinarii, on the other hand, made a 
show of welcoming to their home the outlaw of the 
Council of Tyre, and posed henceforth as upholders of 
Athanasius and of Nicaea. As soon as Athanasius was 
gone, they had to reckon with George, who excommuni 
cated them once more. This time, the separation was 
decisive. But the moral support of Athanasius enabled 
them to resist this blow. A Nicene party was organized 
around them, and Apollinaris the younger became its 
bishop. We do not know exactly when, but it was probably 
after the death of George and of Constantius, for we can 
scarcely conceive that in the lifetime of the latter such a 
proceeding could have been risked. 2 

1 Athanasius had a special horror of George, and even with his 
own party, he had not a good reputation. Zwv d<rwrwj OVK t\a6ti>, dXXA 

Kal Tapd rdv olicfluv KarayivufficfTai, rd rAoj rov $T)V /cat TT\V ev6vfj.lav tv 
Toti aio x/orots ncrpwv (Athan De fuga, 26). 

1 We hear no more of George after the Council of Seleucia (in 
359) The Council of Constantinople (360) would certainly have 



p. 344] RETURN OF THE WAVERERS 275 

Thus the body of persons united or represented, in 362, 
round Athanasius was exclusively composed of pure 
Nicenes, who had never wavered, and who on that 
account had had more or less to suffer under Constantius. 
They fully realized that they and those of their opinion 
formed but a very feeble minority in the empire, but that, 
now that religious liberty was restored, many others, who 
had not exhibited the same constancy, would be desirous 
of joining them and resuming the old tradition. On what 
conditions ought they to welcome such persons ? Here 
there presented itself a question both of practice and 
expediency, precisely analogous to that raised at the end 
of the persecutions by the repentance of the apostates. 
Already, in the West, Hilary had seen no objection to 
associating with those who had fallen into error at 
Ariminum as soon as they openly disclaimed their 
weakness. A like solution was adopted by Athanasius, 
Eusebius, and the rest. They decided that all the bishops 
of orthodox faith from whom signatures had been extorted, 
could, on repudiating them, still be maintained in their 
former positions. As to their leaders, they should be 
pardoned, if they repented, but they should be excluded 
from the ranks of the clergy. 1 

This measure could have but little effect outside the 
West and Egypt. 2 There, all or very nearly all were 
Nicenes at heart and supporters of Athanasius. Violence 
alone had made them yield. It was coming to an end : 
they returned quite naturally to their former attitude, like 

deposed him, if he had been still living. But as there is no mention 
of its having done so, there is ground for thinking that George died 
about that time. The George of whom St Basil speaks (Ep. 251, 2) in 
connection with the Council of Constantinople is certainly George oi 
Alexandria. Philostorgius (v. i) says that Acacius of Caesarea, on 
returning from that council, ordained bishops for the vacant sees ; 
amongst them he mentions Pelagius for Laodicea. Pelagius was 
Bishop of Laodicea in 363, in the reign of Jovian. It would be in 
opposition to him, therefore, that Apollinaris created a schism. 

1 Athan. Ep. ad Rufinianum. 

8 However, there were in Palestine, in the island of Cyprus, in 
Lycia, in Pamphylia and in Isauria, a certain number of supporters 
of Athanasius. 



276 AFTER ARIMINUM ICH. x. 

those Christians, whom, persecution forced into sacrificing, 
but whose hearts, in no way separated from the Church, 
returned to it at the first glimmer of peace. In Syria, in 
Asia Minor, and in Thrace, the case was different. Nearly 
all the bishops there had assailed Athanasius and supported 
formulas more or less heterodox, which conflicted one with 
another, but agreed at least in passing over in silence 
the essential formulas of Nicaea. The fact that Constantius 
was no longer there to impose the Creed of Ariminum- 
Constantinople did not entail in these countries the 
return to pure orthodoxy. They reverted, not to the 
position of 325, but to that of 359. 

In this Eastern world, the most interesting situation 
was that of the Church of Antioch, as much on account of 
the importance of the town as of the complexity of the 
position. 

There was at Antioch a group of Anomceans, as 
determined opponents of the Council of Ariminum as 
they were of the Council of Nicaea, and irreconcilable 
supporters of Aetius. The leaders had been exiled ; the 
rest did not enjoy, under Constantius, the right of holding 
assemblies. After them, on the doctrinal ladder, came the 
official Church, attached to the confession of Ariminum- 
Constantinople, and presided over by the aged Euzoius, 
one of the original Arians, who had retracted under 
Constantine, and had never ceased since to appear in the 
ranks of the opportunists. These, at the time of Julian s 
accession, kept possession of the Great Church, the 
cathedral of Antioch. Next came the orthodox party, 
who had long submitted, and down to the time of Leontius 
inclusively had accepted bishops pleasing to the court 
and to the Arianizing party, without, however, abandon 
ing anything of their correctness of doctrine. Rallied at 
first by Flavian and Diodore, they had accepted with 
enthusiasm the election of Meletius, and remained faithful 
to him, despite the fact that exile had separated him far 
from them. They no longer took part, as they had formerly 
done, in the congregations of the official Church ; they 
formed a group apart, and met together in the most ancient 



p. 346-7] PARTIES AT ANTIOCH 277 

church in Antioch the Apostolica, the Ancient, the Palaea 
(iraXaia) as it was called which Constantine s beautiful 
Basilica had robbed of its rank as the Cathedral. Last 
of all, came the group of Paulinus, separated from the 
official Church for a very much longer period than the 
preceding one, ever since the deposition of Eustathius 
(about 330). Between these two varieties of orthodox 
Christians there were several shades of difference in regard 
to formulas : the first held to the three hypostases, the 
others did not approve of this mode of expression. At 
bottom they were in agreement. They were only separated 
because they had been so, because circumstances had led 
them to live apart from each other for some thirty years. 
It only needed a little tact and consideration to secure 
undoubtedly a complete reconciliation between them. 
And this was the more easy, because only one of the two 
parties was provided with a bishop. 

The council held by Athanasius devoted itself very 
seriously to this situation. The only one of its documents 
which has come down to us is a letter relating to the 
differences at Antioch. 

It is addressed, so far as its form goes, to the Nicene 
bishops who happened to be in Antioch, or were about 
to go there Eusebius, Lucifer, Asterius, Cymatius, 1 and 
Anatolius but in reality to Paulinus and his community. 
The council indicates on what conditions the dissenting 
party of the Palaea (Meletians), and even the Arians, may 
be received to communion. They must accept the Creed 
of Nicaea, and condemn those who say that the Holy 
Spirit is a creature, a being separated from the Essence 
of Christ. 2 That was all. The representatives of the 
council were to admit anyone to communion who would 
accept this programme, and to unite them to the followers 

1 Cymatius was Bishop of Paltus, a small port on the Syrian coast ; 
it was more than twenty years since the Arians had deprived him of 
his see (Athan. De fuga. 3 ; Hist. Ar. 5). As to Anatolius, he is 
styled, at the end of the letter, Bishop Ed/fofat. There was at Berea in 
Syria a bishop called Anatolius, who signed in 363 a letter to Jovian ; 
but he did not belong to the same party as Cymatius and the others. 

8 Krfcrfta cfrat <ai Si-optj^vov IK rfy oixriat TOW XpiarroS. 



278 AFTER ARIMINUM [CH. x. 

of Paulinus. Paulinus himself must not exact anything 
more; above all, no mention was to be made of a spurious 
Creed of Sardica in which the unity of hypostasis is 
affirmed. This Creed had been presented to the council, 
it was true, but it was rejected by it, in order not to set up 
any rival to that of Nicaea, the only one which ought to be 
recognized. Besides, Athanasius and his supporters had 
satisfied themselves that those who spoke of three hypostases 
were in agreement with those who only acknowledged one, 
the one party applying the term, "hypostasis" to the 
Persons, the other to the Divine Essence. 

Another dispute was beginning to divide men s minds 
at Antioch and elsewhere. It was the prelude to the 
celebrated controversies of the 5th century upon the 
Incarnation of the Son of God. Some seemed to admit 
only a moral union between the historic Christ and the 
Divine Word ; others maintained that the Word exercised, 
in Christ, the functions of a thinking soul (i/ou?). The 
council listened to representatives of each opinion. 1 It 
came to the conclusion that everyone was really agreed 
upon two points : first, that the Incarnation was quite a 
different thing from the indwelling of the Word in the 
soul of the prophets, and secondly, that the Saviour 
possessed an animate body, endowed with feeling and 
intelligence. Under these conditions, there was no occasion 
for division. All these questions, moreover, ought to be 
laid on one side that they might adhere to the faith of 
Nicaea, and thus restore unity to the Church. 

This programme of doctrine was simple, and the plan 
of union seemed quite natural. There were in Syria 
some faithful adherents of Nicaea ; it was these who ought 
to form the rallying-point. The difficulty was, that these 
Nicenes were very few in number, and that they were 
represented principally by the two Little Churches of 
Antioch and of Laodicea, hitherto considered as schis- 

1 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. 



p. 349] COUNCIL OF ALEXANDRIA 279 

matical by the bishops of the country and by the generality 
of the faithful. Instead of addressing themselves directly 
to Meletius and Pelagius and negotiating with them for a 
collective reunion, the council tried to detach from them 
their followers in order to rally them round Paulinus and 
Apollinaris. It was a fatal error, the consequences of 
which made themselves felt for more than half a century 
at Antioch, and for very much longer by the Church at 
large. 

Perhaps, Eusebius and Asterius might on the spot 
have succeeded in understanding this situation, and in 
finding some remedy. But when they arrived at Antioch, 
they found the position seriously changed for the worse. 
Lucifer, without waiting for the decision at Alexandria, 
had compounded with Paulinus, and had ordained him 
Bishop of Antioch. After that there was no longer any 
means of coming to an understanding with Meletius, 
whether by recognizing him as sole bishop, or persuading 
him to renounce the bishopric of Antioch, in order that 
they might proceed in concert to a new election. Although 
deeply grieved, Eusebius did not think it incumbent on 
him to condemn this action of Lucifer. He recognized 
neither Paulinus 1 nor Meletius, and returned to Italy, 
making public, on his way, the merciful provisions of the 
Council of Alexandria in regard to those who had fallen 
into error at Ariminum. As to Lucifer, furious at the 
indirect censure entailed upon himself by the action of 
Eusebius, and embarrassed by the adhesion given by his 
deacons to Athanasius Council, he also retired from the 
scene, fortified in his uncompromising attitude and no 
longer disposed to hold communion with anybody. 
According to him, by accepting the repentance of the 
lapsed, the confessors themselves had participated in their 
fall. Certain fanatics, very few in number, adopted the 
same attitude. 

1 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. Defuga. 3 ; Hist. Ar. 5). 



280 AFTER ARIMINUM [CH. x. 

However, the severe measures of Julian soon put an 
end to these private quarrels. We have seen how 
Euzofus was treated at Antioch. Athanasius had scarcely 
been reinstalled, when the emperor ordered him to be 
driven out upon the pretext that a man loaded with 
condemnations could not return without a special order ; 
and further that it was all very well for the exiled 
bishops to have been recalled, but it was not lawful for 
them to resume their official duties. 1 The magistrates, 
however, required much urging : the proceeding was too 
unpopular. Julian was angry ; he was greatly incensed 
against Athanasius who had dared " in his reign to baptize 
noble ladies." 2 The prefect, being frightened, submitted 
and published the edict of proscription, which Athanasius 
immediately obeyed (October 21, 362). Some time after 
two priests, Paul and Astericius, were exiled on the 
representations of some influential pagans. A petition 
addressed to the emperor in favour of the bishop had 
no other result but to draw down upon those who had 
signed it a very severe rating, and upon Athanasius an 
order of expulsion, not from Alexandria only as before, 
but from the whole of Egypt. 8 

Athanasius remained in concealment. Everywhere in 
the East Christians had several trying months to pass 
through. On August 18, 363, the news of Julian s death 
was published at Alexandria, together with an announce 
ment of the accession of his successor. Athanasius was 
at Antinoe. He immediately re-entered Alexandria, and, 
without making any stay there, embarked on a voyage 
to Antioch. 

Jovian had hastened to recall him from exile by a 
decree couched in very flattering terms, the text of which 
has been preserved 4 ; he gave Athanasius a most cordial 
welcome. About the same time a certain number of 
bishops belonging to Syria and Asia Minor, headed by 
Meletius and Acacius of Caesarea, were collecting at 
Antioch to discuss the situation. Finally, Basil of Ancyra 

1 Julian, Ep. 26. * Ep. 6, to the prefect Ecdicius. 

8 Ep. 51. * Migne, P. G., vol. xxvi., p. 813. 



p. 351-2] JOVIAN AND ATHANASIUS 281 

and his party l sent a petition there. The new emperor, 
beginning a reign which opened so sadly, found himself 
as a climax to his trials involved in theological disputes. 
He had no intention of bringing together in one assembly 
all this crowd of bishops. Athanasius presented him with 
a memorial in which he commended the Creed of Nicaea 
to the exclusion of all others, with one small addition 
relating to the Holy Spirit. Acacius, Meletius, and their 
section also declared to him that the best thing to do 
was to adhere to the faith of Nicaea ; however, they went 
on to explain that if the term homoousios had excited 
scruples, it was because people had not at first seen clearly 
what it meant, namely, that the Word proceeds from the 
Essence of the Father, and is like to Him in Essence. 2 
The Homo iousians. who were not present in person, 
demanded either a return to the first decisions of Ariminum 
and of Seleucia those before the capitulations, i.e., a return 
to the homoousios and the homo iousios or that all should 
be granted freedom to hold religious meetings. 

The proceedings of these last two groups prove in 
short that the fusion had taken place between the two 
shades of doctrine. The sympathy of Hilary and of 
Athanasius for the opinions of Basil, Eustathius, Eleusius, 
and others was clearly shown at the Council of Paris first, 
and afterwards at that of Alexandria. We cannot say 
that the homowusios had triumphed over the homoousios. 
The Nicene term was in no way ousted ; it was even it 
which prevailed to the exclusion of the other. But the 
idea which the homtiousios accentuated was admitted, 

1 Socrates (If. E. iii. 25; mentions Basil of Ancyra, Silvanus of 
Tarsus, Sophronius of Pompeiopolis (in Paphlagonia), Pasinicus of 
Zela, Leontius of Comana, Callicrates 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 

9 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). 



282 AFTER ARIMINUM [CH. x. 

under another formula that of the three hypostases as 
a useful and even necessary explanation of the homoousios. 
Orthodoxy thus expressed was that soon to be repre 
sented by Basil of Caesarea and his friends, Gregory of 
Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Amphilochius of 
Iconium. 

But if there was a tendency to a rapprochement between 
doctrines, it was not so with regard to persons. There 
was a fine opportunity for reconciliation when, in October 
363, Athanasius came into contact at Antioch with 
Meletius, Acacius, and the rest. The overture of peace 
was made by the Bishop of Alexandria ; he held out 
his hand to the representatives of that Eastern episcopate 
which had persecuted him for thirty years. Acacius and 
his friends had the bad taste to stand upon their dignity, 
and not to accept at once a reconciliation so desirable. 
Athanasius, deeply grieved, re-embarked without having 
been admitted to communion with them. 1 

The favour of Jovian was plainly bestowed upon all 
these representatives of the orthodoxy, whether of yester 
day or to-morrow. In a pre-eminent degree Athanasius 
was his favourite. None the less he refrained from 
taking a side, and demanded only one thing peace. We 
cannot see that he ever did anything to disturb Eudoxius, 
Euzo ius, and other representatives of the settlement 
of Ariminum-Constantinople. They found themselves 
diminished in number by the defection of Acacius and 
his section, who had passed all at once over to the side 
of the Council of Nicaea. The positions which they had, 
they kept ; they retained in particular the important sees 
of Antioch and Constantinople which were long to remain 
in their possession. The Anomceans in the same way 
were not interfered with. The Arians of Alexandria, 
with a certain Lucius at their head, made an attempt 
to secure the ear of the emperor and to excite him 
against Athanasius. They wasted their time and were 
even dismissed with some manifestation of displeasure. 2 

1 Basil, Ep. 89, 258. 

1 See the very curious records of their interviews with the emperor 



p. 354] VALENTINIAN AND VALENS 283 

During his brief stay in Antioch, 1 the new emperor 
had hardly time to go very deeply into these questions. 
He set out for Constantinople but died on the way, 
on February 17, 364, and was immediately replaced 
(February 26) by Valentinian, an officer of his guard, 
who like him had been harassed in the reign of Julian 
for his religious opinions. Valentinian, on his arrival 
in Constantinople, associated his brother Valens with 
himself (March 28), and entrusted him with the govern 
ment of the East, with the same area as had been 
possessed by Licinius (314-323), and by Constantius 
(337-350). Thus, there was once more an Emperor of 
the West and an Emperor of the East. If both main 
tained practically the same attitude towards paganism, 
they did not agree as to the course to be pursued in 
face of the parties which divided the Christian Church. 

Valentinian, like Jovian, was personally attached to 
the faith of Nicaea, so far as a soldier whose first thought 
was his profession and his career, could have a preference 
in that kind of thing. He, too, wished before everything 
for peace. He had not the slightest intention that this 
peace should be disturbed for the sake of disputes about 
creeds, nor a fortiori that the civil power should be made 
to take part in these questions. His attitude much re 
sembles that of the Emperor Constans. If, during the 
last months of the year 363, the attitude of Jovian had 
given rise to some hope of an official restoration of 
the Council of Nicaea, Valentinian for his part opened 
up but moderate prospects. Some significant words, soon 
translated into definite actions, taught the religious world 
that it must rely, not upon the emperor, but solely on 
itself, and that before all things, it must arrange its 
affairs in such a manner as not to compromise public 
order. 

annexed to the letter of St Athanasius to Jovian (Migne, P. G., vol. 
xxvi., p. 820). 

1 Scarcely a month ; he was at Edessa on September 27 ; and by 
November 12 we find him at Mopsuestia on his way to Constantinople 
(Cod. Theod. vii. 4, 9 ; xi. 20, i). 



284 AFTER ARIMINUM [CH. x. 

The position in the West was, generally speaking, 
simple enough. In the year 360, the bishops of the Gauls, 
assembled in Paris, had, at Hilary s instigation, settled 
matters as they were to be settled two years later at 
Alexandria by Athanasius and Eusebius of Vercellae. 
Pope Liberius who, as we have seen, had had no share in 
the Council of Ariminum, hastened for his own part also 
to make use of the new liberty, in order to quash the 
decisions of that assembly. Like Hilary, he conceded 
that their position should be preserved to those bishops 
who should rehabilitate themselves by adherence to the 
Creed of Nicaea. 1 On hearing what had been done at 
Alexandria, the bishops of Greece and of Macedonia 2 
declared themselves to the same purpose: Pope Liberius 
wrote to the Italian bishops, 3 and they, in their turn, to 
those of Illyria. 4 Councils were held in Gaul, Spain, and 
almost everywhere. The Western episcopate breathed 
again and resumed its normal attitude, which had been 
completely upset by the interference of the Emperor 
Constantius and the prelates of his court. 

The centres of opposition were very few indeed. There 
were two of them, one on the Right wing, as we should say, 
and one on the Left. The opposition from the Right 
were represented by Lucifer, who returned from the East 
in a humour of inflexible obstinacy, and refused absolutely 
any relations with those who had erred at Ariminum, and 
with those who accepted their repentance. He shut 
himself up in his own diocese of Caliaris (Cagliari), "con 
tenting himself with his own communion." His attitude 
was imitated in Spain by the Bishop of Illiberris (Granada), 
a certain Gregory, who even before the Council of 
Ariminum had found himself in conflict with Hosius. 6 In 

1 Jaflfe 220, a lost letter, but presupposed by that contained in the 
twelfth Fragment of St Hilary (J. 223) ; cf. J. 255, a decretal of 
Siricius, c. I. 

* Basil, Ep. 204, 5 ; cj. Athan. ad Rufin.^ and J. 223. 

3 Jaffe 223. 

4 Hil. Frag. hist. xii. 

6 Upon this affair, see the narrative (strongly coloured and already 
containing legendary elements) in the Libcllus precum Marcellini et 



p. 357] THE RIGHT AND LEFT WINGS 285 

Rome, several persons held the same opinions; they 
rallied round the deacon Hilary, the man whom Liberius 
had sent with Lucifer to the Council of Milan. Like 
Lucifer, he had just returned from exile. He was the 
most uncompromising of all, for he even went so far as 
to require that the transgressors of Ariminum and their 
supporters should be subjected to a second baptism. 

On the Left there were several determined Arians. In 
Gaul, we hear of Saturninus of Aries and Paternus of 
Pe>igueux ; Hilary succeeded in obtaining their deposition, 
and it appears that these sentences were carried out. In 
Milan, Auxentius still held his own. Eusebius and Hilary 
set themselves to dislodge the Cappadocian intruder from 
his see. 1 But they had to deal with one who was more 
than their match. The former bishop, Dionysius, whom 
Auxentius had replaced, had died in exile : hence 
Auxentius had no Catholic rival. Moreover, he was a 
clever man ; he had almost been accepted at Milan. The 
Emperor Valentinian had just arrived in that city ; and 
everyone knew that he did not like clamour. But Hilary 
and Eusebius could not forego making it. Their only 
method of action was an uprising of the populace against 
the bishop. At the first outburst, an imperial edict com 
manded silence ; then, as Hilary continued to protest, 
treating Auxentius as a blasphemer and an enemy of 
Christ, Valentinian ordered the quaestor and the Master of 
the Offices, assisted by about ten bishops, to hold an inquiry 
on this point. Auxentius began by declaring that there 
was no occasion to go back on the decisions arrived at 
by six hundred bishops, 2 and especially at the request of 
persons who had been condemned for the last ten years. 3 

Faustini (Collectio Avellana, No. 2, p. 14 (Ed. Giinther) ; cf. Migne, 
P. L., vol. xiii., p. 89). Letter from Eusebius of Vercellae to Gregory 
(about 360) in Hil. Frag. hist. xi. 

1 Valentinian spent at Milan the last two months of 364, and the 
following year until the autumn. It was during that time that the 
conflict took place between Auxentius and St Hilary. 

2 That is, the councils of Ariminum and Seleucia added together 
and considered as favourable, en masse, to the theology of Auxentius. 

* Hilary and Eusebius. 



286 AFTER ARIMINUM [CH. x. 

However, since the emperor insisted on it, he did not 
hesitate to declare that Christ was truly God, of the same 
Divinity and Substance as God the Father. 1 He was 
made to repeat this profession of faith, quite unexpected 
from the lips of a notorious Arian ; he was even required 
to put it in writing. He did so, but his edition of it was 
so cleverly put together that it was capable of meaning 
the contrary to what he had been made to say. 2 Hilary 
perceived the equivocation, and protested energetically. 
But the emperor showed himself satisfied, accepted com 
munion with Auxentius, and commanded Hilary to leave 
Milan. The intrepid bishop was obliged to abandon the 
struggle ; but he did not do so without a solemn warning 
to the people of Milan that their bishop was an ill-disguised 
heretic, and they should flee from him as they would 
Antichrist. 3 Eusebius, who in this business had only 
played the second part, had already left Milan. He 
confined himself henceforth to the care of his enormous 
diocese, which included the whole of the present Piedmont, 
as far as the Alps, and even beyond. Auxentius, on his 
part, contented himself with governing his Church of 
Milan, without posing as a party leader. Besides, he 
seems to have been, in Italy, the sole representative of the 
tradition of Ariminum ; we hear no more of Epictetus, 
the Arian Bishop of CentumcelL E, so disgracefully involved 
in the affair of Pope Libcrius ; he was no doubt dead. 

By way of retaliation, in Pannonia and in the Latin 
provinces of the Lower Danube, the episcopal body 
remained faithful to their attitude in the time of the 
Emperor Constantius. Ursacius and Valens always 
possessed much influence there ; Germinius still held the 
most important episcopal see, that of Sirmium. The 
orthodox party, in these countries, had a hard life. St 
Martin, who belonged to Pannonia, visited about that 

1 Christum Deum verum et unius cum Deo Patre divinitatis et 
substantiae est profcssus (Hil. Adv. Aux: 7). 

- Christum ante omnia saecula et ante omne principium natum ex 
Patre Deum verum filium ex Deo Patre {Ibid. 14). According as one 
puts a comma before or after verum, the sense is Arian or Catholic;. 

3 This is the subject of his Liber contra Auxentium. 



p. 359] GERMINIUS OF SIRMIUM 287 

time his native country of Sabaria. A disciple of St 
Hilary, he did not hesitate to declare his orthodox 
opinions, and to protest against the heresy taught by the 
clergy. He was beaten with rods, and driven from the 
town. 1 At Sirmium, three Catholics, Heraclian, Firmian, 
and Aurelian were imprisoned for the same reason. We 
still possess a curious record 2 of their appearance before 
Bishop Germinius, and of the dispute between Heraclian 
and the bishop. The document is dated January 13, 366. 
" It is Eusebius," said the bishop, " that returned exile, and 
Hilary, who has also been in exile, who have put these ideas 
into thy head." And as Heraclian tried to defend himself, 
Germinius said : " See what a long tongue he has. You 
will not be able to break his teeth." Immediately, a 
deacon and a reader flew at the accused and struck him 
in the face. However, the conversation was resumed : 
"Tell me, Heraclian it was I who baptized thee; how 
didst thou receive baptism ? " Heraclian answered : " You 
gave it me, in the Name of the Father, of the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost, and not in the name of one God 
who is greater and one God who is lesser and created." 
This Heraclian was well known in Sirmium ; he had in 
former days opposed Photinus. Germinius at bottom did 
not wish him much harm. He tried to win him over to his 
own side, even pretending that he had had an explanation 
in regard to his faith with Eusebius, who had declared 
himself satisfied. At the end of the audience, the clergy 
of Germinius spoke of indicting the dissentients before the 
Governor (Consularis) of Pannonia, and demanding their 
heads. The bishop contented himself with presenting to 
them the Creed of Ariminum and, when they refused to 
sign it, with giving them his blessing, to receive which 
they consented to bow their heads. 

Perhaps there was some element of truth in what 

1 Sulpicius Severus, Vita Martini, 4 ; Auxentius also drove him 
from Milan. 

2 Altercatio Heracliani laid cum Germinio episcopo Sirmiensi^ 
published by C. P. Caspar!, Kirchenhistorische Anecdota (Christiania, 
1883), p. 133. 



288 AFTER ARIMINUM [CH. x. 

Germinius told them of his communications with Eusebius 
of Vercellae. He did not go so far as the others ; his 
ideas seem to have somewhat resembled those of Basil 
of Ancyra. We still possess a formula, 1 which he drew up, 
apparently shortly after the affair of Heraclian. Without 
employing the term substance, he teaches in this the like 
ness in Divinity, splendour, majesty, power, etc., and in 
everything, per omnia similem. This language disturbed 
the Arians. Valens and another bishop, called Paul } 
demanded explanations. Germinius began by not giving 
any, confining himself to saying that he remained united 
in heart with his colleagues. Still, they were not satisfied. 
Four of them, Ursacius, Valens, Paul, and Gaius, 2 meeting 
at Singidunum, insisted 3 iupon his retraction of the per 
omnia similem. But the Bishop of Sirmium held his 
ground. He wrote to another group of bishops in the 
district 4 to explain his doctrine to them, and to protest 
against Ursacius and his three colleagues. He knew at 
first hand, he said, exactly what had been agreed upon 
before the Council of Ariminum, because he was present 
at the preliminary conference, at which the formula of 
agreement had been discussed. It was Mark of Arethusa 
who had held the pen : and it certainly tolerated the 
words, Filium similem Patri per omnia. 

While in the West they were thus returning to the 
faith of Nicasa, and the fires of opposition were decreasing 
or gradually cooling down, the Eastern empire continued 
to pass from one crisis to another. We have already seen 
that in Western Asia Minor and the neighbouring 
districts a good many bishops, united round Basil of 
Ancyra and Eleusius of Cyzicus, professed a doctrine 

1 Hil. Frag. hist. xiii. 

2 This Gaius had played a part at the Council of Ariminum by the 
side of Ursacius and Valens (Hil. Frag. hist. vii. 4 ; viii. 2,-5 ; x. i.). 

s Hil. Frag. hist. xiv. 

4 Hil. Frag. hist. xv. Those to whom it is addressed are : 
Rufianus, Palladius, Severinus, Nichas, Heliodorus^ Romulus, 
Mucianus, and SUrcorius. The Palladius here named is doubtless 
the Bishop of Ratiaria, who will be heard of again in the time of 
St Ambrose, 



p. 362] COUNCIL OF LAMPSACUS 289 

equivalent on the whole, apart from certain qualifications, 
to the orthodoxy of Nicaea. Persecuted and exiled, in 
360, by the exertions of the official clergy, that is to say 
of more or less avowed Arians who sheltered themselves 
behind the confession of Ariminum, they profited in their 
turn from the circumstances of the time. Already they 
had sent their profession of faith to Jovian. At the 
moment when Valentinian, escorted back by his brother 
Valens, was leaving Constantinople for the West, they 
sent as a deputation to him Hypatian, the Bishop of 
Heraclea in Thrace, to ask for permission to assemble 
in council. 1 Valentinian declared that he saw no objec 
tion. They therefore met together at Lampsacus, on the 
Hellespont. As the result of these deliberations which 
lasted for two months, there issued a new condemnation 
of the Council of Ariminum-Constantinople, its formulas 
and its decisions against individuals. They proclaimed 
once more the homotousios, necessary, as they said, to 
indicate the distinction between the Divine Persons ; and 
the Dedication Creed of Antioch was canonized afresh. 
They also took measures with a view to ensuring, without 
the assistance of the government, the restoration of those 
bishops who had been superseded in their sees as a 
consequence of the council of 360. Eudoxius and his 
followers were invited to rejoin them, retracting of course 
all that they had done contrary to the opinions of the 
present council. 

The Bishop of Constantinople, as no one could doubt, 
was not a man to submit to be condemned without 
defending himself. He had forestalled his opponents, 
and his credit was already assured with the Emperor 
Valens when the latter saw the arrival of the delegates 
from the Council of Lampsacus. They were unfavourably 
received. Valens exhorted them to come to an under 
standing with Eudoxius. He had taken up his position, 
and was determined to consider as official the doctrine of 
the Council of Ariminum. This, at first sight, may seem 

1 The best account is that of Sozomen, H. E. vii. 7, who here 
reproduces for us the documents of Sabinus better than Socrates. 
II T 



290 AFTER ARIMINUM [CH. x. 

extraordinary. It would have been more natural, so it 
seems, that Valens should have acted like his brother, 
and preserved neutrality amidst the various Christian 
confessions. Still, for Valentinian the problem was far 
more simple than for him. In the West save at Milan, 
where the dispute had been cut short in the way we have 
seen the differences of confession did not entail any 
serious discord. There was no Catholic rival against 
Ursacius or Germinius, any more than there was any 
Arian rival against Eusebius or Hilary. It was not so 
in the East. There, the division of the parties had given 
rise in many places to local schisms ; several bishops 
disputed among themselves the same see. Valens may 
have thought that the public welfare required that he 
should take a side, and adopt one of the conflicting 
confessions. That of Nicara had up to that time scarcely 
had any supporters but the Egyptians. In the reign of 
Jovian, it is true, a certain number of bishops of Syria or 
Asia Minor had signed the Nicene formulary. But they 
still remained on distant terms with Athanasius and his 
followers. In Asia Minor, there had just been witnessed 
the coalition against Eudoxius of all the opponents of 
Anomceanism, but amongst the party thus formed there 
still existed distrust of the homoousios. As a formula of 
conciliation between so many dissenting factions the 
Creed of Nicaea was scarcely recommended. Valens 
thought it preferable to make up his mind in favour of 
that of Ariminum, of which the official ratification was 
still fresh, while those who professed it occupied the great 
sees of Constantinople and Antioch, not to speak of many 
others. It was in this way that support was continued to 
the tradition of Constantius. 

In the spring of 365 appeared an edict, commanding 
all the bishops who had been deposed under Constantius 
and reinstated under Julian, to withdraw once more. This 
edict was published at Alexandria on May 4. It imposed 
a fine of 300 pounds in gold upon the municipal authorities 
who should fail to obey it. The Alexandrians pleaded as 
a ground of exception the peculiar position of Athanasius. 



p. 364] ATHANASIUS FINALLY RESTORED 291 

It appeared that the author of his last expulsion was not 
Constantius but Julian, and that the last decree for his 
recall bore the name of Jovian. The prefect temporized, 
for the populace were weary of all these intrigues. 
Athanasius on his part offered no resistance, and withdrew 
(October 5). Finally, it was decided to recall him once 
more. On February I, 366, an imperial notary formally 
reinstated him in the Church of Dionysius. This was 
the last time. In the following year, it is true, Lucius 
attempted to show himself in Alexandria, and to pose as 
a rival ; but he had scarcely arrived, when he was nearly 
torn to pieces : the police had great difficulty in saving 
his life, and sending him back to Palestine. Athanasius 
remained master of the field of battle. After forty years 
of struggle, the old warrior was to spend in peace the few 
years which remained to him of life. 

Meletius at Antioch was evicted, 1 as Athanasius had 
been. Paulinus, being of less importance, was left 
undisturbed. He was on fairly good terms with Euzoi us, 
who was henceforth the official bishop of the metropolis of 
the East. 

However, the Homoiousians of the Council of 
Lampsacus did not resign themselves to their dis 
comfiture. Being repulsed by the Emperor Valens, 
they decided to appeal to his colleague the Emperor 
Valentinian and to the bishops of the West. 2 It was the 
course adopted by Athanasius, twenty years before. The 
bishops of Asia assembled at Smyrna ; other meetings 
took place in Lycia, in Pamphylia, and in Isauria. 3 Three 

1 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. 

2 Socrates, iv. 12 ; Sozomen, vi. 10, ir. 

3 These southern provinces of Asia Minor are mentioned several 
times by St Athanasius as containing bishops in communion with him- 



292 AFTER ARIMINUM [CH. x. 

delegates were chosen : Eustathius of Sebaste, Silvanus of 
Tarsus, and Theophilus of Castabala in Cilicia. They were 
given letters to the Emperor Valentinian and to Pope 
Liberius. Valentinian at that time happened to be in 
Gaul ; they were not able to join him, probably because 
he did not consent to receive them. Liberius, however, 
gave them a reception, not without some hesitation, and 
received the letters that they brought. The three envoys 
had been authorized by those who commissioned them to 
accept the Creed of Nicaea, which was known to be the 
indispensable condition of communion with the Roman 
Church. They did this in a document couched in 
very explicit terms, in which they condemned besides 
the Sabcllians, the Patripassians, the Marcellians, the 
Photinians, and the Council of Ariminum. Liberius, on 
his part, wrote to the bishops whose names appeared 
on the papers which had been presented to him (they 
were sixty-four in number), 1 and to all the orthodox 
prelates of the East. 2 

Communion was re-established with Rome. On their 
homeward journey, 3 the delegates halted in Sicily, where 
the bishops of the country, assembled in council, 
fraternized with them ; in like manner they received 
testimonies in sympathetic terms from those of Italy, 
Africa, and Gaul. Fortified with these documents, they 
held a meeting at Tyana, in conjunction with certain 
bishops of Syria or Eastern Asia Minor, several of whom 
had already accepted the homoousios in 363.* The fusion 

1 Among these prelates appears a certain Macedonius, Bishop of 
Apollonias in Lydia, whose epitaph I have identified and commented 
upon. He was, like many other bishops of that party, a great ascetic ; 
he had much to endure at the hands of the Anomoeans {Bulletin de 
correspondence helltnique, vol. xi. (1887), p. 311). 

2 These two documents are given by Socrates, iv. 12 ; cf. Sozomen, 
vi. n. In the letter of Liberius the Sabellians and Patripassians 
appear "with all the other heresies" in the list of persons to be con 
demned ; but the Marcellians and Photinians are not mentioned by 
name. 

3 For what follows, see Sozomen, vi. 12. 

4 Sozomen (vi. 12), who gives us information as to the Council of 
Tyana, evidently following Sabinus account, mentions Eusebius of 



p. 367] DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 293 

between the neo-Catholics of the East and the old 
HomoYousians of Asia was in a fair way of being 
accomplished, under the auspices of Rome and the Latin 
episcopate. The assembly at Tyana despatched to all 
quarters the documents brought from the West, and 
summoned all the bishops to a great council which was 
to be held at Tarsus in the following spring. But 
Eudoxius put himself in the way of this project. The 
Emperor Valens forbade the council. 1 

In addition to the acceptance of the Creed of Nicaea, 
there was yet another point upon which difficulties were 
now beginning to show themselves. Amongst those 
persons who were willing to grant to the Son likeness 
absolutely and in essence to the Father, and even to 
accept, with regard to the first two Persons of the Trinity, 
the term consubstantial, there were some who refused to 
make the same concession as to the Holy Spirit. Gradu 
ally, as the dispute spread itself from this side, the positions 
adopted grew more definite in character. 

The question was first raised in Egypt. Athanasius, 
during the last years of the reign of Constantius, had dealt 
with it fully in his letters to Serapion. He had cut it 
short in 362, by the Council of Alexandria ; in the follow 
ing year, he had declared to the Emperor Jovian that the 
Creed of Nicaea must be completed, so far as concerns the 
Holy Spirit. Following his example, the neo-orthodox 
of Syria and Asia Minor laid stress upon this point, either 
by expressly affirming the consubstantiality of the Holy 

Caesarea in Cappadocia, Athanasius of Ancyra, Pelagius of Laodicea, 
Zeno of Tyre, Paul of Emesa, Otreos of Melitene, and Gregory of 
Nazienzus (the father). 

1 There is a little uncertainty as to the exact date of these last 
councils. That of Lampsacus belongs certainly to 364. It is possible 
that the journey of the three bishops to Rome may have been deferred 
till 366. Liberius died in that year, on September 24. But it is 
difficult to suppose that such a step should have been taken just at 
the time of, or immediately after, the rivalry of Procopius (September 
28, 365-May 27, 366). I should be inclined to think rather that the 
bishops set out in the summer of 365, before Procopius had created 
his disturbance. 



294 AFTER ARIMINUM [CH. x. 

Spirit, or by producing formulas calculated to establish 
the dignity of the Third Divine Person. St Basil took 
up both attitudes in turn, teaching the consubstantiality 
in his books, but not going quite so far in his discourses in 
church. The creed then in use at Jerusalem, that which 
is still in use under the name of Nicene Creed, is not more 
explicit than the official eloquence of St Basil. It says 
of the Holy Spirit, that He is " the Lord and Life-giver, 
that He proceeds from the Father; that He is adored and 
glorified with the Father and the Son, that He has spoken 
by the prophets." Nothing more ; it is not a vote inscribed 
against the " Enemies of the Holy Spirit." 

This term (Pneumatomachi) was speedily made use of 
to describe the new party. They were also called " Semi- 
Arians," which meant that, while orthodox in the main as 
to the Second Person of the Trinity, they were Arians so 
far as concerned the Third Person. But the title which 
continued in general use is that of Macedonians, from the 
name of Macedonius, the former Bishop of Constantinople. 
This came about as follows. Macedonius had been elected 
in earlier days in opposition to Bishop Paul by the 
Eusebian party, and had been imposed, not without 
difficulty, upon the populace of Constantinople. At tirst, 
he made life very hard for the defenders of Nicene 
orthodoxy, who remained faithful to his predecessor. 
When the anti-Athanasian party became divided (in 
357), he took up a decided position in favour of the 
moderates, and supported the opinions of Basil of Ancyra. 
We have no proof that he was distinguished by any 
special doctrine with regard to the Holy Spirit. He died 
in retirement in the neighbourhood of the capital, shortly 
after his deposition by the council of 360. But his 
followers did not all abandon him. There were a great 
number of them who did not wish to join themselves to 
Eudoxius, and who organized themselves, as well as they 
could, in a community of their own. The pure Nicenes, 
since the deposition of Bishop Paul, in 342. formed a 
group apart, without a bishop of their own, a position 
closely resembling that of the Eustathians of Antioch, 



p. 369] THE PNEUMATOMACHI 295 

before the ordination of Paulinus. The supporters of 
Macedonius, the Macedonians as they were called, did 
not merge themselves with them. They had, outside 
Constantinople, the support of a large number of bishops, 
especially in the provinces of Thrace, Bithynia, and 
the Hellespont. In these countries the Nicenes were 
scarce : nowhere did they possess churches. It was the 
Macedonians who represented in those quarters the 
opposition to official Arianism. 

This was not their sole recommendation. The best 
known of this group of bishops were, owing to the dignity 
of their lives, their asceticism and their zeal in organizing 
works of charitable relief, the objects of high esteem 
among the common people. From this point of view, 
they were honourably distinguished from votaries of 
ambition and of pleasure like Eudoxius and his associates. 
Among them we have the names of two of Macedonius 
former clergy, Eleusius of Cyzicus, a man much esteemed 
by St Hilary, and Marathonius of Nicomedia. 1 The 
latter was a man of great wealth : after having made his 
fortune in the offices of the praetorian prefect, he founded 
at Constantinople hospitals and refuges for the poor ; 
afterwards, by the advice of Eustathius of Sebaste, he 
embraced the ascetic life and established a monastery, 
which long retained the name of its founder. 2 

Eleusius was adored by the people of Cyzicus. We 
are told that, Valens having succeeded, by dint of entreaties 
and threats, in extorting from him a discreditable signa 
ture, the bishop on his return home protested before his 
people that violence had been used towards him, but 

1 We must add to the list the name of Macedonius of Apollonias 
in Lydia, according to the inscription quoted above, p. 292, note I. 

3 Sozomen, iv. 27. Socrates (ii. 38, followed by Sozomen, iv. 20), 
on the authority of a Novatian source, apparently, says that he had 
been installed by Macedonius at Nicomedia. We cannot quite see 
where to place him. Cecropius was Bishop of Nicomedia from 351 
to 358, when he was killed in the great earthquake on August 24, 
which destroyed the town. Acacius in 360 ordained a successor 
to him called Onesimus (Philostorgius, v. i). Tillemont, vol. vi., 
p. 770, proposes to place him in Julian s reign ; this would make him 



296 AFPER ARIMINUM [CH. x. 

that he no longer thought himself worthy to remain in 
office ; and that they must therefore elect another bishop 
in his place. His flock refused to listen any further 
to the suggestion ; they declared that they wished for 
no one but him, and that they would keep him. And so 
they did. 1 

The Homoi ousian bishops on either side of the 
Bosphorus were thus in communion with the group at 
Constantinople, to whom it was customary to give the 
name of Macedonians. At the time of which we are now 
speaking, they had, for the most part, adopted the 
formula of Nicola, and found themselves on terms of 
friendship with the Roman Church. A day came when 
the question of the Holy Spirit which had not been 
presented to them by Pope Liberius, brought them into 
conflict with the neo-orthodox of Upper Asia Minor. 
Being thus formed into a dissenting party, they were 
designated by the name of Macedonians, which was borne 
by their supporters at Constantinople. It was in this 
way that Macedonius became, after his death, the patron 
who gave his name to a special form of dissent, of which 
he had probably never dreamed. 

It was not only with these dissentients on the right wing 
that the official clergy had to reckon. The irreconcil- 
ables on the extreme left also troubled their peace. After 
the council of 360, Aetius, as we have seen, had been 
exiled to Mopsuestia ; as he was treated too well there 
by the bishop, he was transferred to Amblada, a gloomy 
and unhealthy place in Lycaonia. As to Eunomius, his 

an anti-bishop set up in opposition to Onesimus by Macedonius or 
by his party. However this may be, the activity of Marathonius 
was exercised rather at Constantinople than at Nicomedia ; whether 
because being prevented for one reason or another from residing in 
the latter city he had established himself in the capital, or because 
there has been attributed to his name the influence exercised by his 
monastery. The " semi-Arians" of Constantinople have been called 
Marathonians as well as Macedonians, which gives some ground 
for thinking that Marathonius may have been the real author of the 
doctrine of the Pneumatomachi. 

1 Socrates, iv. 6 ; Sozomen, vi. 9 ; Philostorgius, ix. 13. 



p. 372] AETIUS AND EUNOMIUS 297 

celebrated disciple, he consented to sign the formula of 
Ariminum-Constantinople, and in consideration of this 
Eudoxius caused h.m to be installed as Bishop of Cyzicus, 
in place of the exiled Eleusius. Between Eudoxius and 
Eunomius there had been, so it was reported, secret 
agreements ; the new Bishop of Constantinople had 
pledged himself to bring about the reinstatement of Aetius ; 
in return, Eunomius had consented to moderate his 
language. He did not succeed in doing this sufficiently ; 
the people of Cyzicus travelled to Constantinople to 
denounce him, and, as Eudoxius did not make up his 
mind to rid them of their bishop, they complained to 
the Emperor Constantius. Eunomius relieved all parties 
of trouble by abandoning his bishopric. He then fell 
into the hands of Acacius, who looked with an unfavour 
able eye upon Eudoxius dallyings with the Anomoeans. 
Being summoned to Antioch, he was subjected to an 
enquiry, but his trial was still going on when Constantius 
died. 

The accession of Julian gave liberty to the sectarians. 
Aetius, who had had former relations with the new 
emperor, was summoned to court 1 ; and Julian, in spite 
of his scant sympathy with the " Galileans" of any descrip 
tion, made him a present of a small estate in the island 
of Lesbos. The Anomcean party found itself better off 
than the official clergy to whom the support of the govern 
ment was now lacking. Eudoxius and EuzoTus, after 
having often cursed those tiresome persons, now thought 
it prudent to draw closer to them. Eudoxius would 
have wished Euzoius to reinstate them ; Euzoi us that 
Eudoxius should do so ; they kept on passing from one to 
the other this compromising task. At length the Bishop 
of Antioch made up his mind to annul everything that 
had been done by the Council of Constantinople against 
the Anomoeans. But he was in no hurry to publish his 
decision ; so little so that Aetius and his followers, grow 
ing impatient, decided to organize themselves separately 
and to create a schism. Aetius was ordained bishop ; other 
1 Julian, Ep. 31. 



298 AFTER ARIMINUM [CH. x. 

members of the party also received episcopal consecration, 
and were sent into the provinces to preside over the 
adherents of Anomceanism. Eudoxius took no notice. 
Besides, what hindrance could he have offered ? They 
went so far as to set up a rival to himself, by organizing 
in Constantinople itself an Anomcean Church, the first 
bishops of which were Poemenius and Florentius. Towards 
Euzoi us they used rather more ceremony : Theophilus, 
the saint of the party, was sent to Antioch to try to 
arrange matters with the bishop, in default of which he 
was to organize against him all the Anomceans that 
the great city contained. 

This fine frenzy was allayed when, at the end of 364, 
Eudoxius had succeeded in installing himself in the good 
graces of Valens, and in inducing him to return to the 
tradition interrupted by the death of Constantius. At 
Antioch, Euzoi us took up a hostile attitude ; he no longer 
hesitated to call Theophilus a blackamoor, and his 
disciples emissaries of darkness. Eudoxius himself called 
them plagues. Aetius returned to his island of Lesbos; 
Eunomius retired to an estate which he possessed at 
Chalcedon. They had both renounced the exercise of 
sacerdotal functions ; but they remained none the less 
the leaders and, as it were, the prophets of the party. 

A little later came the usurpation of Procopius. 1 The 
pretender, at the time (363 to 364) when he was leading 
the life of an adventurer, had found refuge with Eunomius 
at Chalcedon. When he had gained possession of power, 

1 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. 



p. 374] DEATH OE AETIUS 299 

several of the friends of Eunomius and Aetius himself 
were accused of having sided against his usurpation ; 
Eunomius intervened and succeeded in clearing them. 
But Valens returned, and they had to pay dearly for 
this momentary enjoyment of favour. Hardly used by 
the reaction, the Anomcean leaders invoked the support 
of Eudoxius, who, having nc longer any need of them, 
treated them with disdain ; far from commiserating them, 
he told them that they deserved much worse punish 
ments. Aetius, who had retired some time before to 
Constantinople, to the company of Florentius, now died : 
Eunomius closed his eyes, and his supporters gave him 
a magnificent funeral. 

As to Eunomius himself, being implicated in a political 
case, he was exiled to Mauritania. On his journey 
thither, he passed through Mursa in Pannonia, where 
Bishop Valens, a former disciple of Arius, took him 
under his protection. This protection was so successful 
that Eunomius was recalled. But it was not for long. 
Eunomius did not know how to keep himself quiet. He 
continued to direct and to defend his party, engaging in 
an incessant polemic with the orthodox doctors Didymus, 
Apollinaris, Basil, and the two Gregorys. Under Valens, 
the prefect Modestus, with whom St Basil also had to deal, 
banished him, as a stirrer-up of ecclesiastical disturbances, 
to an island in the Archipelago. Under Gratian and 
Theodosius, the Eunomians lost the right of holding 
assemblies. Their leader was exiled anew to Halmyris 
on the Lower Danube, and afterwards to Caesarea in 
Cappadocia, where the remembrance of his conflicts with 
St Basil brought upon him so much unpleasantness that 
he was forced to retire to Dakora, in a country place. He 
was still living in 392, when St Jerome published his 
catalogue of ecclesiastical writers. After his death, he 
was buried at Tyaria. It was in Cappadocia Secunda, 
of which this place was the metropolis, that there was 
born, in the little town of Verissos, the historian 
Philostorgius. His parents were Eunomians. He was 
brought up in the doctrines of that sect, and it was from 



300 AFTER ARIMINUM [CH. x- 

their point of view that he wrote during the reign of 
Theodosius II. an ecclesiastical history, of which only 
some extracts remain. During his youth he had known 
Eunomius, who made a deep impression upon him. 
Though afflicted with a slight stammer, and with a face 
disfigured by a skin disease, the prophet none the less 
possessed charm and eloquence. Aetius, keen in intellect 
and quick at repartee, was a master in debate ; Eunomius 
himself was renowned for the lucidity of his exposition. 

It is thanks to Philostorgius that we know the history, 
and even the historiettcs, of Anomceanism. Notwithstand 
ing the religious reputation enjoyed by some of its leaders, 
such as Aetius, Eunomius, and Theophilus, this party 
had never much practical importance. However, as it 
represented, from the doctrinal point of view, the clearest 
expression of Arianism, it figured for a very long time 
in the discourses and writings of controversialists, prone 
even from those far-off days to try their skill against the 
dead. 



CHAPTER XI 

BASIL OF C.ESAREA 

State of parties in the east of Asia Minor. The youth of Basil and 
of Gregory of Nazianzus. Eustathius, master in asceticism, 
afterwards Bishop of Sebaste. Basil, a solitary, afterwards 
priest, and Bishop of Caesarea. The religious policy of Valens. 
Death of Athanasius : Peter and Lucius. Valens at Caesarea. 
Basil and Eustathius. Basil negotiates with Rome. His rupture 
with Eustathius. Arian intrigues. Dorotheus at Rome. Affairs 
at Antioch. Paulinus recognized by Rome. Vitalis. The 
heresy of Apollinaris. Eustathius goes over to the Pneuma- 
tomachi. Dorotheus returns to Rome. Evolution of the Marcel- 
lians. The Goths. Death of the Emperor Valens. 

THE ancient provinces of Galatia and Cappadocia, which 
under the early empire included the whole of Eastern 
Asia Minor, had been carved up under Diocletian. Out 
of their mountainous districts and those on the sea-board 
in fact the part known as Pontus three provinces had 
been made, Paphlagonia, the Pontus of Jupiter 
(Diospontus)} and the Pontus of Polemon, their capital 
cities being respectively Gangra, Amasia, and Neo- 
caesarea. In the interior, Ancyra continued to be the 
Galatian metropolis, and Caesarea that of Cappadocia ; 
but, to the east of Cappadocia, Armenia Minor formed a 
special province, of which Sebaste was the capital. 2 

Christianity, since the days of Firmilian and Gregory 
Thaumaturgus, had made great progress in these countries. 

1 Later Helenopontus, or Pontus of Amasia. 

2 All these cities have preserved their names, under forms slightly 
altered by Turkish pronunciation : Kanghri, Amasia, Niksar, 
Angora, Kaisarie, Sivas. 

801 



302 BASIL OF C^SAREA [CH. XL 

Yet, as towns there were few, there were not a great 
number of bishoprics. It is with difficulty that, in an 
extent of country as large as the Italian peninsula, we 
can prove or presume the existence of as many as forty 
episcopal sees. The most important were always those 
of Cajsarea and Ancyra. As in the third century, the 
bishops of Upper Asia Minor were always ready to 
assemble in council, with the co-operation of their 
colleagues of Syria. We have spoken above of the 
synods of Ancyra and of Neocresarea. earlier in date 
than the great Council of Niaea. Later on, other councils 
were held at Gangra, at Ancyra again, at Melitene, 
Tyana, and Zela. 

Arianism did not, so far as we know, make any very 
notable recruits among this body of bishops. Cappadocia 
whose hour had come, rather late in the day, to attract 
attention to itself, produced at that time a great number 
of ecclesiastical adventurers, who distinguished themselves 
elsewhere, under the protection of the imperial police : 
men like Gregory and George, the two anti-popes of 
Alexandria, and Auxentius of Milan. Asterius, the 
lecturer in the time of Arius, and Kunomius, the last 
oracle of the sect, had seen the light in Cappadocia. But 
these worthies do not seem to have attracted much 
sympathy in their native country. The men whom 
election called to the exercise of episcopal functions were 
of less advanced views. At the time of the Council of 
Nicaea, the Bishops of Ancyra and Caesarea, Marcellus and 
Leontius, showed themselves the determined opponents of 
Arius. In the Churches of Tyana, Amasia, Neocaesarea, 
Sebaste, and in general throughout Pontus and Armenia 
Minor, the same doctrinal standpoint was maintained. 1 
After Marcellus of Ancyra, who pushed consubstantialist 
doctrine too far, they elected Basil, who at first fought 
in the ranks opposed to St Athanasius, but ended by 

1 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 Nicsea (Migne, P. 6"., vol. Ixv., 
p. 623), is quite destitute of value. 



p. 379] GREGORY AND BASIL 303 

becoming the leader of a reaction against Arianism, and 
was persecuted for that reason. His successor, another 
Athanasius, took the first opportunity to declare his 
fidelity to the faith of Nicaea, and never wavered in that 
attitude. At Caesarea, Bishop Leontius had been replaced 
by one of his clergy, Hermogenes, 1 the man who had been 
entrusted at Nicaea with the task of drawing up the 
famous creed. 2 Dianius, who succeeded him (before 340), 
was not a man of strong character ; he was orthodox at 
bottom, but was never able to refuse his signature when 
it was demanded in the name of the party or of the 
government. He figures at the head of those " Easterns " 
who wrote from Antioch an insolent letter to Pope Julius, 
in 340, and who deposed him at the schismatical Council 
of Sardica. 8 We do not hear that he put himself forward 
either for or against Basil of Ancyra, in 358; but, two 
years later, he signed, like so many others, the formula of 
Ariminum-Constantinople. One of his suffragans, also a 
very worthy man, Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus the 
father of that Gregory who afterwards made the name of 
this little place immortal was guilty of the same weakness. 
When, in 355, Julian was staying in Athens, he made 
the acquaintance there of two young Cappadocians of 
high distinction, Gregory and Basil, both destined to 
become shining lights in the Church. The first was the 
son of the Bishop of Nazianzus, of whom I have just been 
speaking. His father was a saintly man of an original 
turn of mind, who had been at first a member of a 
confraternity of Hypsistarians, or worshippers of Zeus 
Hypsistos 4 ; he had been converted by the entreaties of 

1 Eulalius, of whom Socrates speaks (ii. 43 ; cf. Sozomen, iv. 24), 
was not Bishop of Caesarea, but of Sebaste. His name appears among 
the signatories of the Councils of Nicaea and of Gangra. 

2 Basil, Ep. 8 1. 

3 In this same council there took part the Bishops of Juliopolis in 
Galatia, of Sinope and Neocaesarea. 

4 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, Hypsistos (Brussels, 1897). 



304 BASIL OF C^ESAHEA [en. XL 

his wife Nonna, and had been elected bishop very soon 
after his baptism. At that time, celibacy was not yet 
obligatory everywhere, even for the bishops. Gregory 
and Nonna continued to live together, and it was then 
that their son Gregory was born. The family of Basil 
came originally from Neocaesarea in Pontus, and had 
long been Christian. His grandmother Macrina had 
witnessed the persecution of Diocletian, during which 
she had fled to the woods with her husband ; she had 
many memories of long ago, and had many things to tell 
of St Gregory Thaumaturgus. The father, Basil, was an 
advocate of high repute ; the mother, Emmelia, was the 
daughter of a martyr ; one of St Basil s uncles was a 
bishop at the same time as himself. Like his friend 
Gregory, the future Bishop of Caesarea was born in 329. 
The two young people met first of all in the schools of 
Caesarea, and later found themselves together in Athens, 
where they were united in close friendship. 

At that time, a great deal was heard in Asia Minor of 
an ascetic named Eustathius, 1 who was propagating every 
where the practices, then quite novel, of the monastic life. 
In his youth he had stayed in Alexandria, and had 
attended the preaching of Arius 2 ; also, and this was the 
most, important fact, he had been initiated into asceticism. 
On his return to his own country, his father Eulalius, who 
was bishop at Sebaste, 3 displeased at seeing him parade 
an extraordinary costume, drove him from his Church. 
Eustathius then attached himself to Hermogenes, Bishop 
of Caesarea, who, having doubts as to his orthodoxy, made 
him sign a profession of faith. After the death of Hermo 
genes, Eustathius sought the company of Eusebius of 

1 In regard to this personage, see Fr. Loofs, Eustathius von Sebaste 
und die Chronologie des Basilius-Briefe (Halle, 1898) and the article, 
" Eustathius of Sebaste," in Hauck s Encyclopadie. In some places, 
the author goes a little too far, being led on by his great desire to 
rehabilitate Eustathius. 

a Basil, Ep. 130, i ; 223, 3; 244, 3; 263, 3; cf. Athan. Hist. 
Arianorum 4. 

3 Socrates, ii. 43, and Sozomen, iv. 24, say that Eulalius was Bishop 
of Caesarea. See p. 303, note i. 



p. 381-2] EUSTATHIUS OF SEBASTE 305 

Nicomedia, with whom he fell out on account of matters 
of administration. His mode of life and his propaganda 
of asceticism gave offence to everyone, and raised up 
enemies against him everywhere. He had already been 
condemned by a council held at Neocaesarea. Eusebius 
pursued him before another assembly of bishops which 
was held at Gangra in Paphlagonia, about 340. We still 
possess the letter which this council addressed on the 
subject of Eustathius to the bishops of Armenia Minor. 
To judge from this document, Eustathius had gone 
beyond all bounds, and had revived the exaggerated 
practices, already condemned, of the ancient Encratites. 
But the subsequent development of his career gives 
ground for thinking that the council is extravagant in its 
censures, either because it was ill informed as to the abuses 
which it condemns or, more probably, because it attributed 
to Eustathius the excesses of too zealous followers. By 
dint of discrediting marriage, the innovators had made the 
faithful believe that there was no possibility of salvation in 
that state ; hence came separations, and then falls. They 
despised assemblies in church, but held private ones, at 
which they dispensed special instructions. They had 
invented extraordinary costumes ; the women clothed 
themselves in these like the men, and cut off their hair ; 
when the slaves adopted this style of dress, their masters 
were no longer able to secure respect. In the matter of 
abstinence, they despised the rules of the Church, fasting 
on Sundays, and eating on fast-days. They dissuaded the 
faithful from making offerings to the Church, inviting 
them to assist their own communities instead. Some of 
them refused to eat meat, and would have no religious 
communion with married people, especially with married 
priests ; they despised meetings for devotion at the tombs 
of the martyrs, and proclaimed to the rich that, if they did 
not rid themselves of all their wealth even to the last 
stiver, they had no hope of salvation. The council 
censured in vigorous terms these extravagances and 
others of the same kind, for they saw in them a criticism 
of the religious life as it was practised in the Church. 
II U 



306 BASIL OF C^ESAREA [CH. xi. 

This attitude of dislike is always the consequence of 
undertakings such as that of Eustathius. He, no doubt, 
made some promises of submission ; but he can only have 
kept them very imperfectly, for he was afterwards con 
demned as a perjurer by a council at Antioch. 

The movement, for all that, did not cease to advance. 
Eustathius, powerfully assisted in Constantinople by 
Marathonius, a former official, introduced into the capita 1 
the monastic forms of the ascetic life. 1 Marathonius had 
become deacon to Bishop Macedonius. Eustathius, 
absorbed in his propaganda, scarcely thought of troubling 
himself at that time about the theological preferences of 
the official clergy, or about the war which they were 
waging against St Athanasius. Athanasius knew him, 
and did not love him. 2 Years passed away. Einally, 
about the year 356, Eustathius was elected Bishop at 
Sebaste, the metropolis of Armenia Minor. It was about 
this time (357) that Basil returned from Athens to 
Cappadocia. He had often heard Eustathius spoken of; 
perhaps he had already had some communication with 
him. At this moment he was hesitating between the 
world and the religious life. It was no doubt by the 
advice of the Bishop of Sebaste that he undertook a long 
journey in Egypt, Syria, and Mesopotamia, to visit for 
himself the most renowned solitaries. Fascinated with 
this ideal of life, he returned to his own country, and 
attached himself definitely to the man who was venerated 
there as the great master of asceticism. Eustathius was, 
and long remained, for him a mirror of perfection, a being 
almost divine. His relations and friends, especially his 
sister Macrina, who was already a religious, and Gregory, 
his companion in study, also urged him to forsake the 
world. He found in the valley of the Iris, not far from 
Neocaesarea, a solitude green and wild, where he took up 
his abode with several companions. Eustathius came 
from time to time to see his new disciples, and together 
they paid a visit to Emmelia, Basil s mother, who was 
living in a neighbouring town. 
1 Supra, p. 295. 2 Ep. ad episcopos Aeg. et Libyae, 70 ; Hist. Ar. 5. 



p. 384] EXILE OF EUSTATHIUS 307 

War at this time had broken out in the Eastern 
episcopate : Eustathius, obliged by his new position as a 
bishop to take a side, played a very active part in it. In 
conjunction with Basil of Ancyra and Eleusius of Cyzicus, 
he led the Homo iousian Right Wing, and contended with 
the greatest energy against Aetius and his supporters. 
After a brief success, he saw the opposing party regain its 
foothold, and he received one of the first attacks. A 
council, assembled at Melitene in 358, under the influence 
of Eudoxius, declared him to be deposed from the 
episcopate, we know not for what reason, but no doubt on 
some pretext furnished by his ascetical extravagances. 
A priest of Melitene, Meletius, agreed to succeed him, and 
was ordained in his place. But the people of Sebaste 
would have none of it, and Eustathius remained bishop, 
declaring that, as those who had deposed him were heretics, 
there was no need for him to pay any attention to their 
sentences. 

A crisis which affected him more severely was that 
which ended, at the beginning of the year 360, in the 
condemnation of the homoiousios, and the deprivation of 
its adherents. Like the other leaders of his party 
Eustathius was forced to submit at the last minute, and to 
put his signature at the end of the formula of Ariminum ; 
like them, in spite of this sacrifice, he was deposed for 
other reasons. With him fell Sophronius, Bishop of 
Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, and Helpidius, Bishop of 
Satala in Armenia Minor, the latter guilty, like the 
Metropolitan of Sebaste, of having paid no attention to the 
sentences of Melitene. Eustathius was exiled to Dardania. 
The young Basil, who had followed him to Constantinople, 
returned to his own country. He had the grief of seeing 
the Bishop of Caesarea, Dianius, for whom he professed a 
respectful affection, sign like everyone else the confession 
of Ariminum. Deeply distressed at this exhibition of 
weakness, he fled to his solitude in Pontus, and only 
returned to Caesarea to be present at the last moments of 
the old bishop, who declared to him that, notwithstanding 
his signatures, he remained in his heart loyal to the faith 



308 BASIL OF C.ESAREA [CH. xi. 

of Nicaea. It was then the year 362 ; Julian was emperor ; 
even if he had been well, Dianius could without danger 
have confessed himself a Homoiousian. He died, regretted 
by his disciple, and in his place there was finally elected, 
after disorderly debates, one of the notabilities of the city, 
named Eusebius, a man estimable for his uprightness and 
piety, but still a catechumen and very little versed in 
ecclesiastical affairs. Basil was still only a reader ; 
Eusebius raised him to the dignity of priest, to the great 
satisfaction of everyone, especially of the monks and their 
following. It was difficult for a priest so distinguished not 
to excite jealousy; his enemies succeeded in stirring up 
strife between him and his bishop. The monastic party 
was already taking their stand at his back, when he wisely 
made up his mind to leave Gusarea and to take refuge 
once more in his beloved solitude of Pontus. However, 
the times were once more beginning to become difficult. 
Everywhere there was being published the edict of Valcns 
against those prelates who had been restored to their sees 
in spite of their deposition in the time of Constantius. 
This was the case with Eustathius, but not with Eusebius. 
But the emperor and his immediate circle, whether 
episcopal or secular, were openly conducting a propaganda 
in favour of the confession of Ariminum. Valcns, on his 
way to Antioch, appeared at Ca^sarea, The bishop 
recalled Basil, who, aided by his friend Gregory, gave 
him energetic support at this delicate crisis. The storm 
passed, and peace was preserved. Basil was concerned 
in the negotiations of Eustathius with the West. They 
went together to see the Bishop of Tarsus, Silvanus, in 
order to come to some understanding with regard to the 
Council of Lampsacus; Eustathius even wished to take 
Basil there with him. He remained at Gesarea, but on 
the return of Eustathius and Silvanus from Rome he 
followed his bishop to the Council of Tyana, at which the 
letters of Pope Liberius were presented. 

Several years passed away, during which Basil, who 
from this time had enjoyed the confidence of Eusebius, 
governed in his name the Church of Caesarea. At last, in 



p. 387] BASIL, BISHOP OF C.ESAREA 309 

370, the bishop died, and Basil, after numerous oppositions, 
was elected in his place. The aged Bishop of Nazianzus 
and Eusebius of Samosata figured among his consecrators. 

It was impossible to make a better choice. Basil 
had everything in his favour : personal holiness, which 
was widely recognized, a highly cultivated mind, eloquence, 
Christian knowledge, and political ability. From the 
point of view of orthodoxy, he was absolutely irreproach 
able, never having been compromised by parties or 
signatures. He represented the old and simple faith of 
Pontus, transmitted and practised in the piety of his 
home. His ordination was perfectly regular. In his 
episcopal house at Alexandria, the illustrious Athanasius 
leapt for joy at the news ; at the first opportunity he was 
heard to give thanks to heaven for having given to 
Cappadocia such a bishop as should be desired everywhere, 
a true servant of God. The old champion of the faith 
could now leave this world ; he had someone to whom to 
hand on the torch. 

If the man himself was of the highest order, the 
position, by reason of the difficulties which it presented, 
was worthy of him. Valens was about to return to 
Caesarea. In 365, he had been suddenly called away 
from it by the rival claims of Procopius ; when this 
business was ended, he had been obliged to carry on 
a war for three or four years on the Lower Danube. 
Now, his hands were free, as regarded the pretenders 
and the Goths ; he intended to settle at Antioch. 
Valens was a man, masterful, brutal, and dogged. In 
the conflict between various religious parties, he had 
made up his mind from the first year of his reign ; he 
remained to the end faithful to this attitude, and resolutely 
supported Eudoxius, Euzoi us, and their followers. The 
see of Constantinople became vacant in 370, about the 
same time as that of Caesarea ; he. summoned to it the 
Bishop of Berea, in Thrace, Demophilus, the man who 
had been at one time the evil angel of Pope Liberius. 
This choice did not pass without opposition. When the 
name of Demophilus was pronounced in the presence of 



310 BASIL OF C.flSAKEA [CH. xi. 

the faithful of the capital, in place of the usual acclamation 
"Worthy," there were heard many voices which cried 
"Unworthy!" Those who thus protested were punished 
with great severity. Some of them having decided to go 
to Nicomedia and to appeal to the emperor in person, he 
answered them by a sentence of exile. Eighty of them 
were put on board a ship ; then, when they were out 
at sea, the crew set fire to the vessel and escaped in the 
boats. 

Such an execution might well excite alarm in the 
episcopate of Asia Minor. The Goths were subdued ; 
it was now the turn of the bishops ; it was evident that 
they might expect harsh treatment. The method of 
procedure, as we can see from a large number of instances, 
was very simple. The prelates were presented, if they 
had not already signed it, with the formulary of Ariminum- 
Constantinople, and steps were taken to make sure that 
they accepted communion with the leaders of the party. 
In case of refusal, the churches were taken from the 
recalcitrant clergy ; they lost all their privileges, especially 
with regard to municipal service ; the monks were sent 
to the barracks. If there were disturbances, or if 
there were any reason to apprehend these, the bishops 
and the clergy were deported to distant provinces. Local 
opposition was broken down by force. The result was 
deplorable scenes, churches attacked and profaned, blood 
shed, and sentences of extreme severity. 

This regime was applied everywhere, not however at 
the same time. In Egypt, they waited for the death 
of Athanasius (May 2, 373). The clergy and faithful 
of Alexandria had made haste to elect in his place his 
brother Peter, 1 whom he had marked out as his successor. 
But the government refused to ratify this choice : they 
meant to secure the induction of Lucius, the leader of 
the Arians of Alexandria. To this end, the police, under 
the command of the prefect Palladius, and reinforced by 
the vilest of the rabble, once more invaded the Church of 

1 Peter was forthwith recognized by St Basil (Ep. 133) and by 
Pope Damasus, 



p. 389] DISTURBANCES AT ALEXANDRIA 311 

Theonas. The consecrated virgins were insulted, assassin 
ated, violated, and carried naked through the city. A 
young man, rouged and dressed as a woman, was hoisted 
on to the altar, where he performed suggestive dances, 
while another youth, seated stark naked upon the throne 
of Athanasius, gave utterance from it to obscene homilies. 
Thus profaned, the venerable basilica welcomed the 
nominee of Valens. Lucius made his entry into it, 
escorted by the Count of the Largesses, Magnus, and 
the aged EuzoYus. The latter had come post haste from 
Antioch to be guilty of this final outrage against the 
Church of Alexandria; it was thus that he took his 
revenge for the sentence by which, fifty years before, 
Bishop Alexander had expelled him in company with 
Arius. On the following days, formal proceedings were 
taken against the clergy. Some twenty priests and 
deacons, several of whom were over eighty, were thrown 
into prison, and then despatched by sea to Syria, where 
they were confined in the pagan town of Heliopolis 
(Baalbek). The populace protested, more especially the 
monks ; the most enthusiastic of these, to the number of 
twenty-three, were arrested and sent to the mines of 
Phaeno and of Proconnesus. Amongst those who went 
to Phaeno was a Roman deacon, an envoy from Pope 
Damasus to congratulate Peter on the occasion of his 
accession. 

These severities extended throughout the whole of 
Egypt. Magnus, acting as imperial commissioner, went 
from one bishopric to another to compel the recognition 
of the official patriarch, meting out ill-usage with a 
generous hand to anyone who offered resistance. Eleven 
bishops were removed from their sees and despatched to 
Palestine, to Diocaesarea, a town of Galilee, where there were 
only Jews. Some of those who protested, having travelled 
to Antioch to appeal to the emperor, received a decree 
of exile which banished them to Neocaesarea, far away 
in Pontus. Bishop Peter, a despairing witness of these 
horrors, did not long succeed in remaining concealed in 
Egypt; he made up his mind to take refuge in Rome, 






312 BASIL OF C^ESAREA [CH. xr. 

where he waited in the society of Pope Damasus for the 
return of happier days. So had his brother Athanasius 
acted, at the time of Gregory s usurpation (339); Peter 
initiated him further by bringing to the knowledge of 
the Catholic episcopate the violent measures which had 
compelled him to leave his see of Alexandria. 1 

With regard to other countries we have fewer details; 
but the Catholics were everywhere treated with the same 
severity. Meletius, for the third time, 2 was driven from 
Antioch. Flavian and Diodore, now ordained priests, 
undertook the government of his Church. The places 
of worship had been handed over to Euzoius and his 
clergy. The Catholics, hunted from one cover to another, 
ended by meeting in the open country, to which they 
owed the name given to them of "countrymen" (Campenses). 
Their courage was sustained by the exhortations of their 
brave leaders and of several celebrated monks, who 
hastened from the neighbouring deserts to join in the 
resistance. Pelagius of Laodicea, Eusebius of Samosata, 
Barses of Edessa, Abraham of Batna, and others besides 
were exiled together with numbers of the inferior clergy. 
The desolation was universal. 

Nevertheless there were but few complaints from 
Western Asia Minor, or from Bithynia. In these 
countries the "Macedonians" held the upper hand; we 
do not know what was their attitude, nor if they were 
persecuted like the others. 3 In Galatia and in Paphlagonia 
the resistance does not seem to have been strong. The 
Bishop of Gangra, Basilides, was an Arian ; Athanasius 
of Ancyra who died about this time (371) was provided 
with a successor agreeable to the government. Thence- 

1 See the letter preserved to a large extent in Theodoret, H. E. 
iv. 19 ; cf. Socrates, iv. 22. Upon these events, see Rufinus, ii. 3, 4; 
cf. Socrates, iv. 20-24 ; Sozomen, vi. 19, 20. 

2 His first exile was that in the time of Constantius (361) ; the 
second must doubtless have been caused by the edict of 365. It 
lasted but a short time, for the story of St John Chrysostom pre 
supposes the presence of Meletius at Antioch from 367 to 370. 

* See, however, the epitaph of Macedonius of Apollonias cited 
above, p. 292, note i. 



p. 392] VALENS AND BASIL 313 

forward the bonds of communion were broken between 
Galatia and Cappadocia. In the latter country Basil, 
taken in hand first by the prefect Modestus, and then 
by the emperor in person, opposed them with admirable 
determination during the winter of 371-372. Tempering 
his firmness with prudence, 1 strong in his personal dignity, 
his unsullied character and his popularity, he succeeded 
in preserving the government of his Church. Valens did 
not impose upon him either formulas or communion with 
bishops who were suspected. He confined himself to 
being present in person at the religious services presided 
over by the Archbishop of Caesarea. He deemed no 
doubt that such a bishop would have been very difficult 
either to depose or to replace. But whatever his reason 
may have been, an exception was made for Basil 2 ; he 
was allowed to live at Caesarea, as Athanasius had been 
allowed to die at Alexandria. He even received an 
official commission in 372 to set in order the religious 
affairs of the kingdom of Armenia and to ordain bishops 
there. It also appears that, in the early days at least, 
they left in peace the other bishops of Cappadocia, those 
of Armenia Minor and of the Pontic provinces. We do 
not find, for example, that they disturbed Eustathius 
of Sebaste at that time, who was most certainly not in 
line with the council of 360; nor the bishops of Neo- 
cxsarea and Nicopolis who were still less so. 

In the spring of 372 Valens set out for Antioch, 
and the people of Caesarea breathed more freely. It 
was not only on account of religion that they were 
harassed. The government of Valens was engaged at 
this time in altering the boundaries of the provinces. 
Cappadocia, at the expense of which they had already 

1 It appears that his refusal was rather temporizing than cate 
gorical In 375, in a letter to the Vicarius Demosthenes (Ep. 255), 
he begs him not to force a meeting between himself and bishops, 
with whom "we are not yet (o07rw) in agreement on ecclesiastical 
questions." The reference is to Arian bishops who accepted the 
confession of Ariminum. 

2 Basil was treated by Valens very much as Auxentius had been 
treated by Valentinian. 



314 BASIL OF CJESAREA [CH. XL 

created the province of Armenia Minor and those of 
Pontus, was now to be divided yet again. A Cappadocia 
Secunda was formed, comprising the western and 
southern part of the ancient province, with the 
cities of Tyana, Colonia (Archelaifs), Cybistra, Fausti- 
nopolis and, to the north of the Halys, the districts of 
Mokissos and of Doara. To this same division belonged 
also the postal stations of Sasima, Nazianzus, 1 and 
Parnassos, the last two of which already possessed 
bishoprics. Another postal station, Podandos, situated 
in the middle of the Taurus, at the opening of the 
Cilician Gates, remained outside the new province. It 
was decided to create a new city there, to which were 
to be attached a certain number of the municipal magis 
trates of Caesarea. But these persons, not at all pleased 
at going to live in such an out-of-the-way place, had 
recourse to the influence of their bishop, who succeeded in 
causing the proposal to be withdrawn. Podandos, therefore, 
always remained a district or region (peycwv) belonging to 
Cappadocia Prima. 

Basil might have intervened in this last business, 
which directly affected his own flock ; but he had 
evidently no valid reason to oppose to the division of 
the province, and so refrained. 2 Tyana thus became 
a civil metropolis. Its bishop, Anthimus, lost no time 
in availing himself, in the ecclesiastical sphere, of the 
consequences of this administrative separation : he set 
up to be the metropolitan, the ecclesiastical superior of 
the bishops included in the new civil jurisdiction. 
Basil set himself in opposition. Hence arose a quarrel, 
in which the Metropolitan of Caesarea defended himself 
to the best of his ability, especially by organizing new 

1 Nazianzus had perhaps possessed, under the name of Diocaesarea, 
a municipal organization. 

8 It has often been said that this dismemberment of Cappadocia 
was a blow aimed at Basil, whose sphere of influence it was sought 
in this way to limit. But the influence of such a man could not be 
confined to the greater or less extent of his metropolitical jurisdiction. 
The government had more direct and more effectual ways of being 
disagreeable to him. 



p. 394] BASIL AND THE GREGORYS 315 

bishoprics. Nazianzus remained faithful to him ; he 
installed his brother Gregory at Nyssa, a little place 
to the west of Caesarea ; in the south he wished to have 
a bishopric at Sasima, on the road to Cilicia, and forced 
his friend Gregory to accept that title. The Church 
of Caesarea possessed considerable property in the Taurus, 
the natural products of which had to pass through the 
new province in order to reach Caesarea. Anthimus 
intercepted these convoys. It was in vain that Gregory 
protested that he had no wish to interfere in the matter, 
or to make war upon Anthimus in defence of Basil s 
chickens and mules : the Bishop of Caesarea was deter 
mined, and " laid hands upon " his unwilling friend. But 
he could not induce him to fulfil his episcopal duties 
at Sasima. Gregory never celebrated divine service 
there, nor ordained a single clerk. He had a horror 
of Sasima. It was a desolate place, only a few houses 
round a posting station. There was no water, no vegeta 
tion : nothing but dust, and the never-ceasing noise of 
passing carts. 1 As to inhabitants, there were only vaga 
bonds, strangers, or executioners with their victims who 
could be heard groaning and clanking their chains. This 
melancholy bishopric was naturally the cause of many 
troubles to the unhappy Gregory. 

As for Basil, at first he met with some unpleasant 
opposition among the bishops of Cappadocia, but in 
the long run he triumphed over this. At Caesarea his 
position was very strong. It became still more so when 
he had endowed that great city with an enormous 
establishment for relief, the buildings of which formed 
in the suburbs practically a new town ; it was known 
as Basilias. The Emperor Valens had assisted him in 
its construction by granting him demesne lands, 

Basil had kept on very good terms with Eustathius, 
his neighbour at Sebaste. Eustathius himself had also 
founded near his episcopal city, a kind of "grand 
hospice," which served as a model for the Basilias at 
Caesarea. At the beginning of his episcopate, he had 
1 Greg. Naz., Carm. de vita sua, vv. 439-446. 



316 BASIL OF C/ESAREA [CH. XL 

entrusted the charge of it to a certain Aerius, 1 one of 
his companions in the ascetic life, who, it was commonly 
said, bore a grudge against Eustathius because he had 
been preferred before himself for the office of bishop. 
Their relations, far from improving, became so greatly 
embittered that one fine day Aerius finally threw up 
his duties and set himself to uttering abuse against 
Eustathius, accusing him of avarice, and assailing him 
for the most legitimate acts of his administration. Aerius 
had supporters ; they joined him in creating a schism, 
and followed him to the meetings which he held in the 
caves of the neighbourhood. He taught them that priests 
were not inferior to bishops, that the Paschal Feast 
(Easter) was only an old remnant of Judaism, that there 
ought to be no fixed times for fasting, and that it was 
useless to pray for the dead. 

The Aerians must have been few in number, for at a 
time and in a country where many pens were active, St 
Epiphanius is the only author who mentions them, lament 
ing their errors, it is true, but well pleased in his heart of 
hearts at having, thanks to them, one item more for his 
collection of heresies. In his estimation, undoubtedly too 
severe, Aerius and Eustathius were both of them Arians, 
Aerius openly, Eustathius with some measure of circum 
spection. It is certain that Eustathius was regarded with 
sufficient disfavour not only by the old Nicenes, such as 
Athanasius, Epiphanius, and Paulinus, but by the neo- 
orthodox themselves. The latter, with Meletius at their 
head, had accepted all Athanasius 1 conditions, i.e., not only 
the Creed of Nicaea, but also an explicit profession of the 
absolute Divinity of the Holy Spirit. Eustathius, always 
fond of compromise, did not say that the Holy Spirit 
was a created being, but neither did he affirm that He 
was God. It is possible that such a reserve appeared to 
him necessary. I have already said that it was observed 
by many others, and that Basil himself, although holding 
a very definite doctrine on this point, was accustomed to 
a certain economy in presenting it to his flock. 

1 In regard to Aerius see Epiphanius, Haer. 74. 



p. 397] BASIL AND EUSTATHIUS 317 

This similarity of attitude was calculated to strengthen, 
in the eyes of the colleagues of the Bishop of Caesarea, the 
bad impression already produced by his great friendship 
for his neighbour at Sebaste. Eustathius, who looked 
upon Basil as his disciple, had lent him several of his 
monks to assist him in the organization of his projects. 
Through these agents, Sebaste kept a watchful eye upon 
Caesarea. Eustathius monks soon allowed themselves to 
criticize Basil ; this gave rise to various cases of friction, 
with reports more or less truthful. 1 The final result was 
a situation of considerable difficulty, which became more 
and more strained and, as we shall see, ended in a 
rupture between the two friends. 

The religious policy of the Emperor Valens was a 
melancholy, contrast to that of his brother Valentinian. 2 
Many people in the East might well say that they lived 
there under an evil star. Even in the now far-off times of 
the Great Persecution, the West had scarcely had two years 
of suffering ; in some countries, persecution had hardly 
touched them at all ; whilst the East, from Diocletian to 
Galerius, from Galerius to Maximin, had. had ten years of 
misery. Licinius and Julian had only shown their severity 
in the East. The Western bishops had only had to endure 
Constantius in the last years of his reign. And from 
the time of Julian s accession no one any longer thought 
of molesting them. Was it not natural that, being thus 
favoured by Providence, the Westerns should set them 
selves to work to rescue from affliction their brethren in 

1 Ep. 11.9. 

2 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. 



318 BASIL OF C^ESAREA [CH. xi. 

the East? When persecuted by Constantius, Athanasius 
had found among them refuge and support. They had 
interested in his cause their own Emperor Constans. 
Was there not ground for hope, now that Constantius was 
living again in Valens, that Valentinian too might 
intervene effectually with his brother ? He would certainly 
do so, if the Western episcopate made energetic repre 
sentations on behalf of the persecuted. And they certainly 
owed it to them to do so, for after all the orthodox and 
the well disposed had done their duty at Seleucia, and, if 
they did yield at Constantinople, it was because the other 
side had been able to urge upon them the appalling 
defection at Ariminum. In the West, they had reversed 
their opinions the moment a respite came, and in this new 
attitude perseverance was easy. It was upon the East 
that the error at Ariminum was pressing; and it was 
pressing severely. 

Full of such thoughts as these, Basil, from the begin 
ning of his episcopate, took measures to excite the Western 
Church to interest herself in the sufferings of her sister in 
the East. The best intermediary for such negotiations 
was plainly the Bishop of Alexandria. Athanasius does 
not appear to have had very friendly relations with Pope 
Liberius during the Pope s last years. 1 He found himself 
on better terms with the new Pope, Damasus, from whom 
in 371 he demanded the condemnation not only of 
Ursacius and Valens, but also of Auxentius, Bishop of 
Milan, who of all the adherents of Ariminum stood highest 
in the favour of the Emperor Valentinian. Basil wrote to 
Athanasius, 2 begging him to stir up the West in favour 
of an improvement of the general state of things, and to 
bring about, as he alone could do, the union of the 
orthodox at Antioch. Antioch was, in his eyes, the 
Mother-Church of the East. 3 Universal reconciliation 

1 If they had been on good terms, Liberius would not have given 
so warm a welcome to the envoys of the Council of Lampsacus. 
Damasus showed himself far more circumspect in his dealings with 
the Easterns. 2 Ep. 66. 

3 Even of the whole world, if one were to press too closely one of 
his expressions : Tf 5" &v ytvoiro rcuy /card TTJV oiKOVfdrrjv tKK\r)ffiaa rrft 



p. 400] BASIL AND ATHANASIUS 319 

depended upon its internal unity, which had been gravely 
compromised by the schism between Paulinus and Meletius. 

The reply of Athanasius was conveyed by one of his 
priests. It encouraged Basil to decide definitely upon 
his course. He took counsel with Meletius ; a Meletian 
deacon of Antioch, Dorotheus, was chosen to go to Rome. 1 
He was the bearer of a letter, 2 couched in general terms, 
in which the Romans were reminded of their duties 
with regard to the Churches of the East, assisted in by 
gone days by Pope Dionysius. 3 What they asked of 
them at the present was the despatch of orthodox and 
peaceable persons, capable of restoring the concord which 
had been disturbed. Dorotheus was commended to the 
Bishop of Alexandria, 4 to whom Basil confided his desires. 
The Westerns were to send all the documents relating to 
the steps they had themselves taken since Ariminum, to 
condemn Marcellus, and to settle the difficulty at Antioch. 
Up to the present, they had only condemned Arius ; this 
they continued to do on every occasion ; but of Marcellus 
they said nothing. As to Antioch, it must be understood 
that the only term of reconciliation admissible was the 
recognition of Meletius. 

In the meantime, Athanasius was entreated to grant 
to the Eastern bishops the privilege of communion with 
himself. 6 To make quite sure of not compromising him, 
he was to send his letters of communion to Basil, who 
would only deliver them to the right persons. 

But all this seemed to have remained fruitless. 
Dorotheus, on arriving at Alexandria, was dissuaded from 
embarking for Italy. The condemnation of Marcellus 
would have been, for the Westerns, a formal revocation 
of their previous judgment. 6 As to recognizing Meletius, 

%.vTioxdas liriKaipdyrfpov ; the context shows that he was speaking 
especially of the East. 

1 Ep. 68. Ep. 70. Cf. Vol. I. p. 311. 

4 Ep. 69, 67. 6 Ep. 82. 

* Basil is fully conscious of this, when he says (Ep. 69, 2) that 
the heresy of Marcellus is proved by his books ; but it was after 
having taken cognizance of these books that the Councils of Rome 
and Sardica had reinstated him. 



320 BASIL OF CLESAREA [CH. xi. 

they might as well not recognize Athanasius, who, it was 
well known in Rome, openly lent his support to Paulinus. 

However, Athanasius thought it possible to bring 
about intercourse between Rome and Basil. A deacon of 
Milan, evidently unattached, for he was not in the service 
of Auxentius, landed at Alexandria, bearing a synodal 
letter in which Damasus, at the head of ninety-two 
bishops, notified to Athanasius the condemnation of 
Auxentius and of the Council of Ariminum. Sabinus, as 
the deacon was called, was sent on to Causarea with his 
document. It was not calculated to please Basil ; for it 
said that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are 
all of one sole Divinity, one sole virtue, one sole image, 
one sole substance. But the word substance in Latin is 
equivalent to Jiypostasis in Greek. The Bishop of Caesarea 
could not possibly admit this statement except by a liberal 
interpretation. But Basil knew that Latin was a com 
paratively poor language, and in particular that the term 
essence (oi)<r/a) was lacking in it. Instead of raising 
objections, he took time by the forelock, and gave 
Sabinus a packet of letters, 1 addressed to the Westerns 
in general, to Valerian of Aquileia, and to the Bishops 
of Italy and of Gaul. The last letter was in the name 
of Meletius, Eusebius of Samosata, Basil, Gregory of 
Nazianzus (the father), Anthimus of Tyana, Pelagius of 
Laodicea, Eustathius of Sebaste, Theodotus of Nicopolis, 
and others, thirty-two Eastern prelates in all. They had 
taken great care, this time, to avoid awkward refinements 
of expression, and to confine themselves to invoking the 
compassion of their Western colleagues, simply asking 
them to send some persons authorized to investigate the 
position and to bring about peace. 

Basil did not fail to urge Meletius to adopt a 
respectful attitude towards Athanasius ; he would have 
liked Meletius also to despatch an envoy to the West 2 ; 
but Meletius sent no one. 

Sabinus set out once more in the spring of 372. A 
year, at least, passed away, and no news came from the 
1 Ep. 90, 91, 92- * Ep. 89. 



p. 402-3] ROME AND THE EAST 321 

Western Church. At last, in the summer of the following 
year (373), they saw the arrival from Italy of a priest 
of Antioch, Evagrius, who, eleven years earlier, had 
followed to Italy the celebrated confessor, Eusebius of 
Vercellae. After the latter s death, Evagrius was returning 
to his own country. He brought back with him from Rome 
a formula for signature, in which not a single word might 
be changed ; and also the letters which had been entrusted 
the year before to Sabinus : they had not given satis 
faction. These proceedings, we must admit, were scarcely 
friendly. They were not softened by a demand that the 
Eastern prelates should themselves repair to Rome, 1 in 
order that there might be some reason for making them a 
return visit. 

Basil was offended ; from that time forward he had 
only a poor opinion of the Westerns, and their chief, 
Pope Damasus, impressed him as a man of haughty and 
merciless temper. And moreover, the death of Athanasius 
had just deprived him of his best base of operations. 
Alexandria was in the hands of the Arians, and the 
episcopate of Egypt was a prey to the most cruel 
persecution. The negotiations with the West were 
broken off. And, to crown all, Evagrius, on his arrival at 
Antioch, refused to ally himself with the Meletians, and 
entered into communion with Paulinus. 2 

It was at this moment that there took place at last the 
complete rupture between Basil and Eustathius. 

Eustathius, apart from Basil, had few friends. One 
party detested him on account of his monks, another 
because of his doctrine. It was impossible to get him to 
take a side in the dispute about the Holy Spirit; notwith 
standing his reticences, it was seen that he inclined to 
the opinion adverse to His absolute Divinity. In the 
provinces of Asia, the Hellespont, and Bithynia, he would 
have been in agreement with the other bishops. In the 
heart of Pontus, however, the loudest voices were in favour 
of the opposite doctrine, and some who would not, perhaps, 
of themselves have defended the Holy Spirit with so 
1 Ep. 138, 2. Cf. 140, 156. Ep. 156. 

II X 



322 BASIL OF C^ESAREA [CH. XL 

much vigour, ranged themselves on His side in order 
not to be on the side of Eustathius. Basil, to whom this 
dangerous friendship caused every day fresh anxieties, 
made up his mind to put an end to it, and to induce 
Eustathius to explain himself clearly. In the spring of 
372 he repaired to Sebaste and, after prolonged confer 
ences, persuaded his old master to embrace his own 
opinions. He proposed to continue his journey and to 
visit Theodotus, Bishop of Nicopolis, the declared 
opponent of Eustathius, in order to arrange with him 
and Meletius, \vho happened to be in that neighbourhood, 
a formula which should be signed by the Bishop of Sebaste. 
But, from information which reached him, he had reason 
to fear that Theodotus, disturbed by the conference at 
Sebaste, would give him an unfavourable reception. He 
therefore returned home, only to resume the same journey 
a few weeks later, the emperor having sent him on a 
mission in Armenia Major. For the business of this 
mission Basil needed the co-operation of Theodotus. He 
therefore had an interview with him, at the country house 
to which Meletius had retired ; they succeeded in coming 
to a temporary understanding in the matter of Eustathius. 
But Theodotus, after he had returned home, changed his 
opinion completely ; and when Basil came to conduct him 
to Armenia Major, he would not even admit him into his 
church. 

The mission to Armenia failed on that account. But 
Basil and Theodotus ended by being reconciled ; they 
even came to an agreement as to the formula l which was 
to be presented to Eustathius, and the latter consented to 
sign it. 

One might think that everything was accomplished, 
and that nothing remained but to shake hands. A 
meeting-place was appointed : Eustathius was to be there 
with Basil and his friends. They waited for him in vain. 
Hib companions had turned him back ; it is quite possible, 
too, that Basil s friendship for Meletius, his former rival, 
may have seemed to him inordinate; one fact is certain, 

1 Ep. 125. 



p. 405] EUSTATHIUS AND BASIL 323 

that thenceforward he entertained a deadly hatred for his 
former disciple. On his return from a journey in Cilicia 
which he made at this time, he wrote to Basil, declaring 
that he renounced all communion with him. 

The pretext was a letter from Basil to Apollinaris, a 
letter twenty years old, which contained no question of 
dogma whatever. Apollinaris and Basil were still laymen 
at the time of this correspondence. No matter : Basil had 
written to Apollinaris ; therefore, he was an Apollinarian, 
a heretic. Another letter, soon spread broadcast through 
out the whole of Asia Minor, denounced Basil as an 
intriguer ; it painted in the blackest colours the part he 
had played in the matter of the signature. Thus began a 
deplorable controversy, in the course of which Basil and 
Eustathius exchanged the bitterest accusations. Basil was 
treated as a Sabellian, on account of his relations with 
Apollinaris. There was even circulated under his name a 
document in which his orthodoxy, on this head, was con 
siderably compromised. 1 Basil, on his side, revived the old 
story of the relations of Eustathius with Arius, and recalled 
that he had been the master of Aetius ; as if anyone could 
be responsible for his masters or for his disciples. 

The Arian party profited by this quarrel. From the 
outset Eustathius had found in the Cilician episcopate 
supporters whose orthodoxy was doubtful. In the 
following year (374) the Bishop of Samosata, Eusebius, the 
friend and adviser of Basil, was exiled to Thrace. Shortly 
afterwards, the Vicarius of Pontus, one Demosthenes, who 
did not love Basil, and with reason, 2 undertook a cam 
paign against the orthodox Churches of Cappadocia and 
Armenia Minor. There was held in Galatia, towards the 
end of the year, a council of official bishops, under the 
direction of Euhippius, one of the influential members 

1 Ep. 129. The complete text was published at Rome, in 1796, by 
L. Sebastiani, Epistola ad Apollinarem Laodicenum celeberrima^ etc., 
and reproduced by Loofs, Eustathius von Sebastia, p. 72. 

2 At the time of Valens visit to Caesarea, Demosthenes was still 
only chefoi the imperial kitchens. As he made a show of meddling 
in the affairs of the Church, Basil had sent him back to his pots and 
pans. This was the cause of much talk at Caesarea. 



324 BASIL OF (LESAREA [CH. XL 

of the synod of 360. The Bishop of Parnassos, Hypsis, 
the nearest at hand, was deposed, and replaced by 
Ecdicius, a safe man. Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, Basil s 
brother, being accused by a private individual, was 
summoned to appear and was brought under escort; 
but he escaped on the way. Demosthenes next visited 
Csesarea, where he sentenced the clergy to municipal 
service ; then he went to Sebaste, and did the same to 
those who supported Basil against Eustathius. Finally, he 
called together at Nyssa a council of bishops of Galatia 
and Pontus, who deposed Gregory and appointed his 
successor. The same proceeding was carried out at 
Doara. 

Just at this time, Theodotus, Bishop of Nicopolis, 
died. The official council transferred itself to Sebaste : 
Eustathius, who had already had at Ancyra itself some 
relations with these prelates, now fraternized openly with 
them. From Sebaste, they pushed on to Nicopolis. 
There, with Basil s approbation, the Bishop of Satala had 
already installed his colleague of Colonia, Euphronius 1 ; 
Eustathius had another candidate, a priest called Fronto. 
Euphronius was sent back to Colonia, and Fronto was 
put in possession of the churches ; those who objected 
were evicted and had to hold their meetings in the 
open country, as the Meletians were wont to do at 
Antioch. 2 

It was while under the impression of these melancholy 
occurrences that Basil wrote a letter 3 to the bishops of 
Italy and of Gaul. After the reception given to his 
correspondence, he was scarcely disposed to resume 
negotiations with Rome. Nevertheless, in the preceding 
year (374) 4 he had assisted with his recommendation a 

1 Nicopolis, Satala, and Colonia formed part ot the province of 
Armenia Minor, of which Eustathius was metropolitan. 

2 Epp. 225, 237-240, 244, 251. 3 Ep. 243. 

4 The date is given by Epp. 120 and 121, which show us 
Sanctissimus as in Armenia Minor, at the time when Anthimus, 
Bishop of Tyana, had just ordained Faustus, rbv awbvra. T lid*?. 
This Papas is none other than the Armenian King Pap, called Para in 
Ammianus Marcell nus (xxx. i), who was assassinated in 374. The 



p. 408] RETURN OF DOROTHEUS 325 

certain priest Sanctissimus, who was very well informed 
as to the state of feeling in the West, and was travelling 
through Armenia Minor and Syria, 1 collecting signatures. 
Basil gave him his patronage. When he had finished his 
round, he set out for Italy (375), accompanied by 
Dorotheus, now promoted to the priesthood. They 
carried with them, fortified by the signatures collected 
by Sanctissimus, the formula which Evagrius had brought 
over in 373 and Basil s letter. 

The result was not that which was desired. No one 
came from the West ; however, Dorotheus brought back 
a letter 2 in which his zeal was acknowledged, and it was 
stated that a strong effort had been made to assist him. 
So far as doctrine was concerned, the letter condemned 
the errors of Marcellus and of Apollinaris, but without 
mentioning them by name. The term una substantia was 
no longer employed ; for it was substituted that of una 
usia, in Greek, since Latin did not possess the equivalent 
of this term. 3 Attention was also called to the fact that 
the canonical rules as to the ordination of bishops and 
clergy (sacerdotum vel clericoruni] must be observed, and 
that those who failed to do so could not be admitted 
easily to communion. This seems clearly aimed at 
Meletius. 

To show this intention more plainly, a letter was 
written to Paulinus, and he, when he received it, hastened 
to make a boast of it.* Peter, the new Bishop of 
Alexandria, was installed in Rome; and although he, 

fact that Faustus " was with Pap," gives reason for thinking that he 
had followed that prince in his journey to Cilicia, and that he was 
living with him at Tarsus. Sanctissimus then set out for Armenia 
Minor, where he made a long stay with Meletius. He did not go 
to Syria until the following year. I do not think that this chrono 
logical datum has been made use of previously. 

1 Epp. 120, 121, 132, 253-256. 

2 Constant, Ep. Rom. Pontif., p. 495 : " Ea gratia." 

3 Basil (Ep, 214, 4) mentions this change. Henceforward, the 
Western Church will be found making the distinction between usv* 
and hyflostasis. 

214, 216, 



326 BASIL OF C.ESAREA [CH. XL 

personally, was on good terms with Basil, 1 he in no wise 
shared Basil s sympathies with Meletius. 

The letter 2 received by Paulinus was, I think, brought 
to him by Vitalis, a priest of Antioch, who down to 
that time had been one of Meletius clergy, but who 
had now decided to forsake him, because his ideas as to 
the Incarnation were not well received in that quarter 
Vitalis was an adherent of Apollinaris. I have explained 
above what constituted the peculiar doctrine of that learned 
man. Since the time of the Council of Alexandria (362)^ 
the opposition between the two opinions represented by 
Apollinaris and by Diodore had not ceased to accentuate 
itself. 

In the Church of Meletius, Apollinarianism was 
energetically repudiated. Apollinaris, although bishop 
at Laodicea, kept school for all that at Antioch. Among 
his hearers he had had in the course of the preceding 
years a Latin monk of considerable scholarship, named 
Jerome, who, after having studied in the schools at 
Rome and cultivated asceticism with the clergy of 
Aquileia, had made up his mind to make trial of the 
hermit s life in the deserts of the East But before 
burying himself there he stayed some time at Antioch, 
where he initiated himself in exegesis under the guid 
ance of Apollinaris while avoiding his theological views. 
He had not thought it his duty to take a side between 
the two rival churches, and had confined himself in 
the matter of ecclesiastical communion to that of the 
Egyptian confessors, exiled to Syria for the Catholic 
Faith. At Rome also there had been a long hesitation 
between Meletius and Paulinus ; but it was inevitable 
that the Alexandrian connections of the latter should 
turn the scale in his favour. This actually happened 
in the same year, 375. Through " his son " Vitalis, 
Pope Damasus had written officially to Paulinus, giv 
ing him power to deal with questions of communion. 
Damasus was badly informed ; he did not know at 
this time that Vitalis was on the side of Apollinaris. 
1 Epp. 133, 266. a A lost letter, mentioned in Jaffe, 235. 



p. 410] DAMASUS AND PAULINUS 327 

Pieces of information reached him, perhaps through 
Dorotheas; and he changed his mind. While Paulinus 
was boasting at Antioch that he had been recognized 
by Rome, new messengers were on their way to him ; 
one, to warn him that difficulties had supervened l ; 
the other, 2 to give him in relation to Vitalis more com 
plete instructions. Vitalis and his followers must only 
be admitted into communion after an explicit repudiation 
of the doctrine according to which Christ had not been 
a perfect Man the Divine Word having taken the place 
in Him of the intelligent soul (sensus, 1/01/9). Apollinaris 
was not mentioned by name. Rome and Alexandria 
still retained some feelings of respect for the illustrious 
theologian. 8 The affair of Vitalis brought matters to a 
crisis. The Meletians already considered Apollinaris 
and Vitalis as heretics ; after the letter of Damasus it 
was impossible for Paulinus to receive them into his 

1 Per Petronium presbyterum, Jarfe*, 235. 

* Jarfe", 235, but of course without the anathemas, and only as far 
as the words in suscipisndo tribuat exemplum. Following this letter, 
certain collections of canons (see Maassen, Quellen^ vol. i., p. 232 
et sey.) give a document, also addressed to Paulinus of Antioch : 
Post concilium Nicaenum. Other collections place it after the Council 
of Nicaea ; Theodoret (If. E. v. n) gives it by itself, translated into 
Greek. This document contains two series of anathemas ; the first 
mentions by name Sabellius, Arius, Eunomius, the Macedonians, and 
Photinus. Without naming Eustathius or Apollinaris or Marcellus, 
it proscribes their principal errors, and concludes with a censure 
of those who migrate from one Church to another ; it is no doubt 
Meletius who is aimed at. The second part of the document : Si 
quis non dixerit, etc., has in view neither Marcellus nor Apollinaris ; 
it is concerned almost entirely with the Holy Spirit. I think that we 
have here before us two documents of different date which have 
been joined together later, without any regard to the chronological 
order. The second is really earlier than the first. It might well go 
back to the time (about 371) when St Athanasius wrote his letter to 
Epictetus. The errors with regard to the Incarnation which are 
mentioned in it are more closely akin to those that he refutes in 
that letter than to Apollinarianism properly so-called. 

3 We must remember that Apollinaris belonged to the "Little 
Church," and was the rival of Pelagius at Laodicea, as Paulinus was 
of Meletius at Antioch. 



328 BASIL OF C^SAREA [CH. XL 

Church. They founded another Church, and Vitalis him 
self became its bishop. 

While these things were happening at Antioch, 
Eustathius, isolated in his own country where his 
suspicious dealings with the official bishops had still 
further deprived him of sympathizers, conceived the idea 
of making overtures to his old friends, the " Macedonians." 
This party held in 376 a council at Cyzicus ; Eustathius 
went to it. At this meeting a new confession of faith 
was adopted, in which the homoousios was repudiated 
afresh and replaced by the homoiousios ; the Holy Spirit 
was also placed by it in the number of created beings. 
Eustathius signed this formula, and thus defined his 
attitude by ranking himself among the Pneumatomachi. 

From Basil s point of view, these events were well suited 
to enlighten the Westerns as to the worth of the persons 
who were sheltering themselves in the East under their 
patronage. Eustathius had been received at Rome by the 
previous Pope ; he had bragged of it for a very long time. 
Apollinaris and Paulinus, the heads of the Little Church, 
were prottgts of Rome; so was Vitalis. No party was 
untarnished save Meletius and his followers, the very 
persons with whom the Romans would have nothing to 
do. Advantage was taken of this position of affairs to try 
a new course of action. In the spring of 377 Dorotheus 
and another priest, perhaps Sanctissimus again, set out for 
Rome with a letter addressed " to the Westerns," in the 
name of the Easterns collectively. 1 This time things were 
stated exactly. The Romans were informed that it was 
no longer the Arians who needed to be repudiated ; their 
excesses were rendering them more odious than ever. Other 
enemies were threatening the Church, enemies all the more 
dangerous because to treat them kindly was to allow 
doubts to rise as to the pernicious nature of their doctrine. 
It was necessary to condemn in express terms Eustathius, 
the chief of the Pneumatomachi ; Apollinaris, who taught 
the Millenial reign and disturbed everyone by his doctrine 

1 Ep. 263 ; cf. Ep. 129, in which Basil explains to Meletius the 
plan of this new step. 



p. 413] THE NEW SITUATION 329 

as to the Incarnation ; and finally, Marcellus, whose 
disciples found too much support from Paulinus. 

This new embassy of Dorotheus had only, and could 
only have, partial success. That the Roman Church re 
pudiated the errors attributed to Eustathius, Apollinaris, 
and Marcellus, there could be no manner of doubt. It 
had already expressed itself clearly on that point. It 
had done so especially in the letter which Dorotheus had 
brought back to the East. It did so once more, to satisfy 
the Easterns, in another letter which Dorotheus carried 
back on his return from this new journey. 1 As to con 
demning by name absent persons, such as Eustathius, 
Apollinaris, or Paulinus, without even giving them a 
chance of explaining themselves in a debate in which 
both sides were heard, this could scarcely be asked of the 
Apostolic See. The utmost that it could have done would 
have been to ratify a sentence pronounced after such a 
discussion by the lawful authorities of the East But this 
debate had not taken place, nor did such a sentence exist. 

The situation was one from which there was no way 
out. On the men of this time who were well intentioned 
there weighed the consequences of the long war in which 
Eusebius of Nicomedia had embroiled the Easterns, first 
against Alexandria, and then against the Roman Church 
Moreover, everyone was not well intentioned. Paulinus 
ought to have retired. But even when rid of the embar 
rassment of his personality, the position would have re 
mained critical, for opinion in Egypt would still have 
seen, behind Meletius, the shades of his former patrons, 
Eudoxius and Acacius and their like. However, as Meletius 
was personally very popular, things would have settled 
themselves at Antioch, and elsewhere people would have 
ended by taking his side in the matter. In any case, 
Rome and Alexandria would have ceased to tow in their 
wake the cumbersome wreck of the old Marcellian party ; 
and union would have been restored between them and 
the Churches of the East. This may be said in order to 

1 The Fragments, lllud sane miramur and Non nobis quidquam 
(Constant, Ep. Rom. Pont, pp. 498, 499). 



330 BASIL OF CJESAREA [CH. XL 

indicate more clearly the lines and necessities of the 
situation, for I do not consider that it is the province of 
the historian to occupy himself with things which might 
have happened : he has quite enough to do with those 
that did happen as a matter of fact 

The interviews which Meletius envoy had in Rome 
with Pope Damasus were not always of a very peaceable 
character. Peter of Alexandria was present at them. 
When it was a question of Meletius and of Eusebius of 
Samosata, he did not hesitate to display his aversion for 
them, and went so far as to treat them as Arians. 
Dorotheus at last lost patience, and attacked the Pope 
of Alexandria with some vehemence. Peter complained 
of this to Basil. Basil expressed his regret, 1 but at the 
same time drew his attention to the fact that Meletius and 
Eusebius, two confessors of the faith, who had been exiled 
by the Arians, deserved the respect of their colleagues ; as 
to their orthodoxy on all the disputed points, he was 
certain of it, and would guarantee it. 

Meletius, Basil, and their party represented, generally 
speaking, an evolution to the right by the old party of 
opposition to the Council of Nicaea. It was not the only 
party which circumstances had led to moderate their first 
attitude. At the opposite extreme, the old adversary of 
the " Easterns," the man against whom, from Eusebius of 
Cxsarea to St Basil, they had never ceased to fight, 
Marcellus of Ancyra, Marcellus the " Sabellian," was going 
through an evolution on his side or, rather, an evolution 
was going on around him. He was not yet dead when 
Basil became bishop. He was living in retirement at 
Ancyra, with a few clergy and a certain number of 
adherents, who formed around him a Little Church. The 
official bishop, Athanasius, he who gave his adhesion, in 
363, to the Council of Nicaea, thought it his duty to harass 
this little group. Marcellus had long been estranged from 
the Bishop of Alexandria, his former companion in the 
struggles at Rome and at Sardica. But this did not 
hinder him from appealing to him. One of his clergy, 

1 Ep. 266. 



p. 415] DEATH OF MARCELLUS 331 

the deacon Eugenius, was sent to Alexandria with 
recommendations furnished by the Bishops of Greece 
and of Macedonia. He presented a profession of faith, 1 
in which the former doctrines of Marcellus were either 
toned down or cloaked ; however, it did not go so far 
as to speak of the three hypostases. Athanasius, as we 
have seen, if he did not rule out this expression, certainly 
did not lay stress on it. He gave letters of communion 
to Marcellus deacon and to his Little Church. This 
happened, I think, at the same time as the Council of 
Alexandria, in 362. Marcellus died about the year 375 ; 
he must have been over ninety, 2 and it is perhaps on 
account of his great age that we hear no more of him in 
these latter days. Thus deprived of its head, and repulsed 
by Basil and his supporters, who continually invoked 
against it the anathemas of the West, his party addressed 
themselves to the Egyptian bishops, who were living in 
exile at Diocaesarea in Palestine. These confessors, to 
whom they presented, together with a profession of faith, 3 
the letters of communion given them in former days by 
St Athanasius, made no difficulty about admitting them. 
But Basil, to whom they next addressed themselves, 
thought that the exiles had been too hasty in the matter, 
and such was also the opinion of Peter of Alexandria. 4 
Basil asked for nothing better than to welcome the 
Galatians ; but he wished them to come to him, and not 
that they should presume to draw him to themselves. 

This affair, like several others, was still pending, when, 
in 378, events of great importance occurred to modify the 
political and religious situation in the Eastern empire. 
Two years before, the Goths established beyond the 
Danube had found themselves attacked by the Huns who 
came from the Ural. Driven back by these savage hordes, 
they had asked for shelter on imperial territory, and had 
been allowed to settle in Thrace, upon certain conditions, 

1 Mansi, Concilia, vol. iii., p. 469. 

2 He was already bishop in 314, at the time of the Council of 
Ancyra. 

3 Epiphanius, Haer. Ixxii. II. 4 Basil, Ep. 266, 



332 BASIL OF C^SAREA [CH. XL 

among which was a promise to furnish them with means 
of support. The government of Valens organized this 
supply with so little conscience and humanity, that the 
immigrants revolted (376). It was necessary to under 
take a regular campaign against them, which finally took 
such a turn for the worse that Valens was obliged to 
intervene in person. Before he left Antioch, moved by a 
wise clemency, he revoked the sentences of exile pronounced 
against ecclesiastical persons. 1 

Valens arrived at Constantinople on May 30, and 2 set 
out again a few days later to direct the military operations 
in Thrace. On August 9 he delivered battle. The Roman 
army suffered a terrible defeat, in which the emperor 
disappeared either because his corpse could not be 
recognized among the dead, or because, according to a 
rumour which gained credence, he had perished in the 
burning of a cottage, to which he had been carried in 
order that his wounds might be cared for. 

1 Jerome, Chron. : "Valens de Antiochia exire compulsus sera 
poenitentia nostros de exilio revocat." Rufin. H. E. ii. 13: "Turn 
vero Valentis bella quae ecclesiis inferebat in hostem coepta convert!, 
seraque poenitentia episcopos et yresbyteros relaxari exiliis ac de 
metallis resolvi monachos iubet." 

3 According to a legend related by Sozomen (vi. 40), and adopted 
also, with some alteration, by Theodoret (iv. 31), a monk of 
Constantinople, Isaac, had in vain adjured him to restore the churches 
to the Catholics. This story, doubtful enough in itself, cannot be set 
against the testimonies of St Jerome and Rufinus, who were living at 
that time in the East, as to the recall of the exiles by Valens him 
self ; besides, the recall of the exiles is quite a different thing from 
their reinstatement in the place and position of the official clergy 



CHAPTER XII 

GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS 

Gratian and Theodosius. Return of the exiled bishops. Death of 
Basil. The Easterns accept the conditions of Rome. Attitude 
of Theodosius. Situation at Constantinople. Gregory of 
Nazianzus and his church, the " Anastasis." Conflicts with the 
Arians. Alexandrian opposition : Maximus the Cynic. Gregory 
at St Sophia. The Second (Ecumenical Council (381) 
Obstinacy of the Macedonians. Installation of Gregory. 
Death of Meletius : difficulties with regard to his successor. 
Resignation of Gregory. Nectarius. The canons. Hostility 
against Alexandria. Flavian elected at Antioch. Protests of 
St Ambrose. Roman Council in 382. Letter from the Easterns. 

GRATIAN, warned of the danger, but detained in Gaul by 
an invasion of the Alamanni, which was stayed by the 
battle of Colmar, arrived in time, in spite of all difficulties, 
on the Lower Danube. Valens should have awaited his 
arrival, in order that the Goths, being caught between 
the two armies, might have been easily overcome. After 
the disaster, the young emperor of the West he was not 
twenty first of all took steps to improve the situation ; 
and then, not feeling strong enough to govern by him 
self both parts of the empire, shifted the burden of 
the East from his own shoulders to those of one of his 
generals, Theodosius, who was proclaimed Augustus at 
Sirmium on January 16, 379. Some time ere this Gratian 
had hastened to ratify and to extend the measures already 
taken by Valens for the recall of the exiled bishops. 
Meletius reappeared at Antioch, Eusebius at Samosata ; 
all the confessors reassumed the government of their 
churches. 



334 GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS fen. xn. 

One of the first to return was Peter of Alexandria. 
Before allowing him to leave Rome, Damasus had 
caused him to be present at a council, at which it was 
finally decided to condemn by name Apollinaris and one 
of his principal lieutenants, Timothy, who had just been 
made Bishop at Berytus. Peter set out immediately 
after. No sooner had he disembarked at Alexandria 
than a popular outbreak drove Lucius from the city ; 
he hastened to take refuge at Constantinople, where, 
although the Emperor Valens was gone, he found at 
any rate the hospitality of the Bishop Demophilus, still 
as always holding his position, and determined not to 
give it up till the last moment. 

It was just at this time that Basil died, on January i, 
379. He had not completed his fiftieth year; his career 
might well have been a more protracted one ; his endur 
ance of adversity gave reason to look forward to what he 
would have been in prosperity. But his health, always 
poor, had not been made any stronger by the imprudences 
of asceticism and the fatigues of his episcopate. Among 
all his sufferings, he complains specially of a liver 
complaint, which we might suspect, apart from this 
testimony, from the restless and embittered tone of his 
correspondence. Exposed to the often brutal ill-will of 
the government, to opposition from ecclesiastics, opposition 
for the most part stupid but arising from several different 
causes, and, for that very reason, difficult to overcome; 
deprived of coadjutors of any value, for notwithstanding 
their friendship and their ability, his brother Gregory of 
Nyssa and his friend Gregory of Nazianzus were more 
of a hindrance than a help to him; Basil brought to the 
service of a programme of reconciliation, a natural 
temperament at once too sensitive and too pugnacious. 
Hence arose an endless series of failures. In the affair 
of Eustathius, we see him, to satisfy the fierce consubstan- 
tialists, holding a knife to the throat of an old friend, a 
venerable bishop, and the result which he achieved was 
that, in spite of this sacrifice, the irreconcilable Atarbius 
of Neocaesarea could not endure him, fled at his approach, 



p. 420] CHARACTER OF BASIL 335 

and kept his flock in such a state of terror by his 
threatening dreams, that they revolted against the 
Bishop of Caesarea, their compatriot and the glory of 
their country, Basil desired that Meletius should be 
recognized as Bishop of Antioch, and fought doggedly to 
that end, without considering the difficult position in 
which such an event would place the Churches of Rome 
and Alexandria. He was opposed ; and he lost his 
temper, and expressed himself in no measured terms. 
Even in his own country and his own ecclesiastical circle, 
his influence was vigorously opposed. Some people have 
wished to see in him the founder of a kind of Patriarchate, 
with a jurisdiction conesponding to the "diocese" of Pontus. 
But it is evident that he had no authority in the Western 
provinces, those of Bithynia, Galatia, and Paphlagonia. 
The bishops of the sea-board of Pontus 1 did not 
trouble themselves about him. 2 In the interior, when 
the sees were not occupied by Arians, as at Amasia and 
in the Armenian Tetrapolis, their occupants were quarrel 
ling with each other ; some approved of the monks, others 
would have none of them ; some thought that, on the 
question as to the Trinity, Basil inclined too much to 
the right ; others deplored his making concessions to 
the left. Had he been blessed with good health, the 
noble soul of the Bishop of Caesarea might perhaps have 
risen above all these miseries. But the bodily machine 
refused to act; the pilot died, worn out, just when the 
tempest was abating. 

It was a bitter day for the pontiffs of official Arianism 
when they heard of the recall of their exiled rivals! 
Besides, this was only a preliminary measure. They 
knew the sympathies of the young emperor, and they 
had doubts as to what would come next. At Antioch, 
Meletius, confronted by special difficulties, quickly grasped 
a situation now much simplified. To come to an under 
standing with Rome had been, under Valens, a thing 
greatly to be desired ; under Gratian and Theodosius, it 

1 Sinope, Amisos (Samsoun), Polemonion, Kerassond, Trebizond. 
8 Ep. 203. 



336 GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS [CH. xn. 

was the one and only solution. Basil, who perhaps 
might have had scruples, was no longer there to suggest 
conditions. A council of one hundred and fifty -three 
bishops assembled in the Syrian metropolis during 
the autumn 1 of 379, and voted an unqualified adhesion 
to the Roman formularies. 2 

They thus anticipated the intentions of Theodosius. 
The new emperor had settled at Thessalonica. He fell 
ill there during the winter, and was baptized by Bishop 
Acholius, a decided Nicene. In an edict, 3 dated February 
27, 380, Theodosius declared to his people that they must 
all profess the religion which "the Apostle Peter had 
taught in days of old to the Romans, and which was now 
followed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of 
Alexandria, a man of Apostolic sanctity." That party 
alone had any right to the title of "Catholics"; all others 
were heretics ; their conventicles were not regarded as 
churches, and they were threatened with penalties. 

1 Nine months after the death of Basil, says Gregory of Nyssa, 
De vita Sanctae Macrinae (Migne, P. C7., vol. xlvi., p. 973). 

2 We still possess (Constant, Ep. Rom. Pontif., p. 500) the 
signatures (seven formally set out, the others summarized) which 
were appended to this document. There is no doubt about the 
meaning of the formulary. As to the terms of it, that is not so easy 
to decide. The signatures are attached, in the MSS. where they are 
found, to a collection composed of the letter of Damasus, Confidimus 
quidem, and of the three fragments, Ea gratia, lllud sane rniramur, 
and Non nobis quidquam (see above, pp. 320, 325, 329). But this 
collection of documents is very incoherent. It is clear that it only 
represents an extract from a more extensive collection. The Easterns 
would assuredly not have signed the letter Confidimus if it stood 
alone, for in it we find the term una substantia (=/^a vT<50Ta(m), 
against which they had always protested. But this term might be 
considered as explained by the subsequent letters, in one of 
which it is replaced by the expression una usia. It is possible, 
therefore, that they may have given their adhesion to the views 
contained in the dossier as a whole. In any case their adhesion 
must have been drawn up in a special formula, which the author of 
our extracts has neglected. The formula by which he introduces 
the signatures, and the explicit which comes after, presuppose a 
close connection between the Council of Antioch and the Roman 
documents which precede it. 

* Cod. Theod. xvi. i, 2. 



p. 422-3] POSITION UNDER THEODOSIUS 337 

At Antioch, the orthodox, both those who belonged to 
the Great Church (the party of Meletius) and those who 
belonged to the Little Church (the party of Paulinus) 
were numerous. They could await with quiet confidence 
the executive measures which would hand over to them 
the ecclesiastical buildings still held from them, no longer 
by Euzofus, who had been dead some time, but by his 
successor, Dorotheus. The situation was not so clear at 
Constantinople. There, the Arian party was strong. Its 
leader, Demophilus, was enthroned at St Sophia ; the 
clergy under his orders were in possession of all the 
churches. Those in opposition to him, whether Mace 
donians or Nicenes, were rigorously excluded from them, 
just as the adherents of Meletius and Paulinus were at 
Antioch. At the advent of Demophilus, the Nicenes had 
tried to appoint a bishop of their own, in the person of a 
certain Evagrius ; he was immediately seized by the police, 
and imprisoned at Berea, where he seems to have died, 
for we hear of him no more. Now that the times had 
become more favourable, the Nicenes felt the necessity of 
union and organization. The neo-orthodox party of 
the East hastened to assist them, being anxious that the 
place of Demophilus should be given to one of their own 
friends, and above all to prevent the Apollinarians, who 
were already on the move, from seizing upon it for them 
selves. Negotiations followed, at the conclusion of which, 
Gregory, the son of the old Bishop of Nazianzus, was 
chosen as the Shepherd of this little flock. 

Ever since the death of his parents in 375, Gregory, 
free at last to follow his vocation to asceticism, had fled 
from Nazianzus. Leaving Basil to extricate himself as 
best he could from the difficulties which besieged him on 
every side, he had taken refuge in the monastery of St 
Thecla at Seleucia in Isauria. It was there that he heard 
of the defeat of Valens and the death of Basil. After 
refusing many entreaties, he at last consented to the 
request made to him, and went to Constantinople, where 
he opened a Little Church in the house of one of his 
relations. The orthodox party gathered round him. 
II v 



338 GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS [CH. XIL 

His signal uprightness of character and, above all, his 
wonderful eloquence, soon drew together a considerable 
body of hearers. The Church of Constantinople, oppressed 
for forty years by violence and intrigue, came to life again 
in that humble edifice. Gregory himself had given to his 
chapel the name of Resurrection (Anastasis). It was there 
that, among so many other homilies, he pronounced his 
five Discourses upon the Trinity classic specimens of 
Greek theology. The dissenting oratory, thanks to the 
golden eloquence of this first of Chrysostoms, became 
more frequented and better attended than the official 
basilicas. The Arians were much disturbed. During the 
night before Easter Sunday (379) a furious crowd rushed 
from St Sophia to attack the Anastasis, where Gregory 
was baptizing his neophytes. The crowd consisted of the 
virgins and monks of the Arian Church, drawing in their 
wake the poor assisted by their charity, a docile following 
of the dominant clergy. It seemed to Gregory as if he 
saw a party of Corybants with Fauns and Maenads. 
Stones flew through the air against the Catholics ; some of 
them struck the bishop ; one of his people was beaten 
and left for dead. 1 Yet none the less he himself was held 
responsible for the disorder, and dragged before the 
courts. 

He could make light of this ill-treatment from a 
quarter from which it was only to be expected. But far 
more grievous to him were the internal disputes of his 
little community. The reaction from the schism of Antioch 
was felt there. Gregory, who held strongly to the three 
hypostases, found himself treated as a tri-theist. He was 
asked if he were for Paul or for Apollos, i.e., for Meletius or 
for Paulinus. He would have preferred to be only for 
Christ ; but that was difficult 

Far away in Alexandria, the Patriarch Peter was 
keeping a watchful eye upon what was happening at 
Constantinople, and, being always dominated by his old 
resentment against the Easterns, the former persecutors 
of his brother Athanasius, he was disturbed to see the 
1 Details in Or. 35 ; Ep. 77 ; Carmen de Vita, vv. 652-678. 



p. 425] MAXIMUS THE CYNIC 339 

Cappadocian orator, the friend of Basil and of Meletius, 
in a fair way to inherit at Constantinople the succession 
of the Arians. At the outset he had written to Gregory 
in very friendly tones ; Gregory, on his part, preached 
a panegyric on Athanasius. At the Anastasis, they felt 
quite secure about Alexandria. Hence they gave a warm 
welcome to a person, albeit a very extraordinary one, who 
came from that country. This was a certain Maximus, a 
Cynic philosopher, who had found a way to combine the 
observances of his sect with the profession of Christianity. 
Athanasius had corresponded with him. 1 He had had in 
more than one place difficulties with the police ; but, as he 
said that he had been persecuted for the faith, that fact 
only gave him another claim on the good-will of guileless 
people. Among their number, we must admit, might be 
included the illustrious man whom circumstances had 
placed at the head of the Catholics of Constantinople. In 
spite of his staff, his philosopher s cloak, and his long hair, 
Maximus was treated by Gregory as a confessor of the 
faith, and as an intimate friend ; he took him into his 
house, gave him a place at his table, and trusted him with 
his complete confidence. That nothing might be wanting 
to these friendly demonstrations, Gregory also honoured 
him by a fine panegyric, pronounced in church in the 
presence of its hero. 2 On his side, Maximus was most 
attentive to Gregory s sermons, applauded him in church, 
and supported him outside by the popularity which he 
enjoyed in certain circles. 

Now this Maximus was Bishop Peter s candidate for 
the see of Constantinople. If he was now with Gregory, 
it was to rob him of his bishopric. One night the doors 
of the Church of the Anastasis, thanks to the complicity 
of a priest, were opened to give admission to a strange 
assembly. Sailors from the corn ships, just arrived from 
Alexandria, escorted a group of bishops of their country, 
who at once proceeded to the task of the election and 
consecration of Maximus as Bishop of Constantinople. 

1 Ep. ad Maximum philosophum (Migne, P. G. t vol. xxvi., p. 1085). 

* Or. 2$. 



340 GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS [CH. XII. 

Gregory, some distance away, was sleeping uneasily, for 
he was ill ; his faithful clergy too were slumbering. The 
ceremony began. The custom of that day did not allow 
clerics to wear their hair long. It was necessary, therefore 
as Gregory said when he told the story later in the 
language of satire, "to shear the dog upon the episcopal 
throne." The result of this operation was the discovery 
that much of this celebrated head of hair was artificial, 
The ceremony was not over when the dawn brought people 
to the church. A fine tumult ensued. The Egyptians, 
terrified, retired in disorder, and only found refuge with 
a musician in the neighbourhood. There, in a wretched 
hovel, they finished their ceremony. 

One can imagine the position of Gregory. He was, 
greatly distressed, angry with himself for his simplicity, 
and he wished to go away. But his faithful flock watched 
him carefully. In one of his discourses, they thought 
they discovered an intention to fly. They surrounded 
him and beset him with a thousand entreaties. As he 
still seemed determined, they said, " If you go, you will 
take the Trinity with you." Gregory understood, and 
remained. In the meantime the new bishop, accompanied 
by his consecrators, repaired to Thessalonica to obtain the 
recognition of Theodosius. He was quite mistaken. The 
emperor knew everything, and repulsed him harshly. 
Maximus then embarked for Alexandria, where he 
solicited the support of Bishop Peter. The latter was 
in a very difficult position. The matter had not gone 
well at Constantinople ; the emperor was displeased ; and, 
as a climax, Pope Damasus, being informed by Acholius 
and his Macedonian colleagues, protested strongly against 
the attempt. 1 Peter s punishment came from the same 
quarter as his sin. His Bishop of Constantinople stirred 
up a riot against him at Alexandria to force his support 
The prefect had to intervene, and banished the episcopal 
Cynic to a place where he could no longer disturb the 
tranquillity of the streets. 

We learn from these events that Gregory, notwith- 
1 Jaflfe, 237, 238. 



p. 428] AFFAIRS AT CONSTANTINOPLE 341 

standing his indisputable sanctity and his eloquence, was 
a little wanting in practical common sense. He was 
certainly not pleasing to Peter of Alexandria, whose merits 
the imperial rescript of February 27 had so highly praised. 
Was he really the man needed, just then, at the head 
of the Church of Constantinople ? Theodosius, a strong 
man himself, must have had doubts like these. But, for 
the moment, he refrained from settling the matter. He 
could not, however, allow an indefinite prolongation of 
the state of uncertainty which existed in the capital 
with regard to religious affairs. He had hitherto been 
detained at Thessalonica by his military operations 
against the Goths. As soon as his hands were free there, 
he turned towards Constantinople, which he entered on 
November 24, 380. 

Two days afterwards, the churches were taken from 
the Arians and restored to the Catholics. Demophilus 
showed no more inclination at the last moment than 
previously to accept the Creed of Nicaea. He left the 
city. On November 26, the emperor conducted Gregory 
to St Sophia. An enormous crowd congregated on the 
route not altogether a friendly crowd, far from it, but a 
large display of military force secured order. Behind the 
vigorous and imposing prince, the blue bird of Cappadocia 
led the triumph of orthodoxy. The weather was grey ; 
autumn clouds veiled the morning sky. Was the rain 
going to fall upon the Council of Nicaea? Arians and 
Catholics looked up to the heavens with very different 
desires. Gregory entered the darkened basilica, and, 
while the imperial procession took its place in the 
tribunes, he sat down in the apse beside the episcopal 
throne. Just at that moment, the sun, bursting through 
the clouds, shed its rays through all the windows ; it 
saluted the victory. Shouts rang out : " Gregory, Bishop ! " 
But Gregory, bewildered and speechless, proved unequal 
to the greatness of the occasion. In his stead, another 
bishop called upon all those present to recall their thoughts 
for the celebration of the sacred mysteries. 

From that day forward the Anastasis was abandoned ; 



342 GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS [CH. ill 

it was at St Sophia that the eloquence of orthodoxy 
resounded. Under the roof which had once sheltered 
Eudoxius, the Saint of Nazianzus set in order his life 
of austerity and devotion. It was not without difficulty 
that he could set his hand to the reorganization of his great 
church. Many interests found themselves injured ; and 
Gregory was the object of an attempt at assassination. 
But the local opposition was gradually disarmed ; and the 
illustrious bishop saw the moment arriving when his 
position was finally to be regularized and strengthened. 
Theodosius had decided to gather together in a great 
council the episcopate of the Eastern empire. To this 
assembly he had committed the task of providing, in a 
definite manner, for the government of the Church of 
Constantinople. 

Notices of convocation were sent out. There is every 
appearance that at first invitations were not sent to the 
bishops of Egypt, nor to those of Eastern Illyricum, 
of whom the most distinguished was the metropolitan of 
Thessalonica. At all events these bishops did not arrive 
till much later than the others. Paulinus did not appear 
at all ; nor did the few bishops in communion with him, 
such as Diodore of Tyre and Epiphanius of Salamis. 
Meletius arrived early, escorted by seventy bishops from 
the "diocese" of the Orient. Helladius, the new Bishop 
of Caesarea in Cappadocia, also came, with the two brothers 
of Basil, Gregory and Peter ; then came his friends, 
Amphilochius of Iconium and Optimus of Antioch in 
Pisidia ; and last, some fifty bishops from Southern Asia 
Minor, Lycia, Pamphylia, Pisidia, and Lycaonia. On the 
whole, this assemblage of bishops represented fairly well 
the immediate followers of Basil. His bodily presence 
was wanting to his victory ; but his spirit pervaded the 
assembly. From Galatia and from Paphlagonia, where the 
bishoprics were still occupied by Arians, there came no 
one. Neither do we find among the signatories the name 
of any bishop of Western Asia Minor. In these countries 
there prevailed the semi-Arian or Macedonian confession, 
promulgated anew in the recent councils held at Cyzicus 



t>. 430] COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE, 381 343 

and at Antioch in Caria. 1 Yet Theodosius had thought 
it his duty to summon also the bishops of that shade of 
opinion. Some of them came, thirty-six in all, headed 
by their old leader, Eleusius of Cyzicus, the famous 
champion of the homoiousios, and by his colleague, Marcian 
of Lampsacus. Eustathius of Sebaste was no longer alive 
to join them. His death took place either shortly before 
or after that of his old friend Basil ; it was Basil s youngest 
brother, Peter, who had replaced him as Bishop of Sebaste. 

It was in vain that the orthodox party discussed 
matters long and amicably with their opponents, and that, 
in a homily 2 delivered at St Sophia on the Feast of 
Pentecost (May 16), Gregory treated with the utmost 
circumspection the subject of the Holy Spirit; Eleusius 
and his followers obstinately maintained their attitude. 
It was necessary to make up one s mind to a separation 
from them. This was done with all the more regret, 
because, whether at Constantinople or elsewhere, the 
"Macedonians" numbered in their ranks many estimable 
persons. 

The question of the Bishop of the see of Constantinople 
was easily settled in a friendly assembly. It was only a 
matter of form, for Gregory was very evidently, and had 
long been, the candidate of Meletius ; the support of all 
the Easterns was assured to him. We can imagine how 
glad the brothers and the friends of Basil were to give him 
their votes. No opposition was manifested. No one 
could take seriously the claims of Maximus the Cynic, 
repudiated as he was in the East by everyone, even by 
the Egyptians. As to the forced consecration which 
Gregory had received from Basil, everyone knew that it 

1 On the Council of Cyzicus (supra, p. 328) see Basil, Ep. 244, 9. 
That of Antioch in Caria is placed by Socrates (//. E. v. 4, with the 
mistake -rm 2i>/jJaj) 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. 

Or. 41. 



344 GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS [CH. xn. 

had not been followed by any taking possession of his 
diocese ; that the so-called Bishop of Sasima had continu 
ally protested against the violence done to him ; that he 
had never exercised any episcopal functions at Sasima ; 
and that, if he had exercised them at Nazianzus, it was 
only as assistant to his father, never as bishop of the see. 
It could not therefore be said that he was transferring 
himself from one diocese to another. It was from solitude, 
and not from another bishopric, that he had come to 
Constantinople. 

All this was clear as daylight. Gregory was fully 
installed by the council, and by its chief, Mcletius. Twenty 
years had passed away since the latter had himself been 
called to the see of Antioch by the leaders of the Arian 
party of that time, the friends of Euzofus and of Acacius, 
of Dorotheus and Demophilus. If Gregory had not signed 
the Creed of Ariminum, his father, the Bishop of 
Nazianzus, had done so. If the council was not an 
assembly of converts, at least many of its members must 
have had embarrassing memories. As a whole, they 
were returning from afar. But they had suffered enough 
under Valens not to be troubled under Theodosius by 
a past which was already distant. Although they had 
formerly been obliged either to keep silence or to sign, 
they had none the less kept the true faith ; they had known 
how to maintain it at the cost of the severest sacrifices ; 
and it was with sincere hearts that they acclaimed it in 
times of peace. And what they had done, they had done 
quite alone, kept at a distance and distrusted by the 
Western Church and the Egyptians. They were even 
conscious of having defended against their misgivings the 
formula of the three hypostases, the necessary complement 
to the Homoousios of Nicaea. Basil was victorious all 
down the line. When his friend Meletius, whom he had 
so perseveringly defended, took the hand of Gregory to 
lead him to the episcopal throne of St Sophia, how many 
must have called to mind the great Bishop of Cxsarea ! 
The Church of Antioch paid its debt to Basil, while 
making a magnificent atonement for its former persecu- 



p. 433] THE SUCCESSION AT ANTIOCH 345 

tion of his heart s brother. No better honour could have 
been paid to his illustrious memory. 

Meletius died during these days of triumph. The 
installation of the Bishop of Constantinople was the last 
ceremony over which he presided. His obsequies were 
celebrated with the greatest pomp; Gregory of Nyssa 
pronounced the funeral oration. 

His removal from the scene re-opened a question of 
the greatest difficulty. On his return to Antioch, towards 
the end of the year 378, Meletius had tried to come to an 
arrangement with Paulinus. As to the proceedings or 
agreements which resulted in this connection, our informa 
tion is derived only from legends. 1 Is it true that 
Meletius suggested to Paulinus that they should sit 
together, with the Book of the Gospels between them? 
Or that, at any rate, it was agreed that the first of them to 
die should have no successor ? We do not know. As to 
the last point, the pious desires of sensible persons of 
every opinion must have agreed. It is certain that 
suggestions to that effect had come from the West, 
especially from the circle of St Ambrose. 2 But in the 
West they only concerned themselves with theoretical 
right, and with regard to details they accepted the 
Alexandrian views of the situation. On the spot, it was 
evident that the community attached to Paulinus was of 
little importance, that Meletius was the real bishop, and 
that the rival Church only existed by the favour of 
Alexandria and of the West. 

The fact that the question of the succession to Meletius 
was raised at Constantinople, and during a great council,com- 
posed almost entirely of his partisans, was not calculated to 

1 Socrates, H. E. v. 5 (cf. Sozomen, H. E. vii. 3), combines together 
two accounts one favourable to Paulinus, the other in which his 
followers are treated as Luciferians. Theodoret (H. E. v. 3) gives us 
no firmer ground. It is not even certain that the magister militum 
Sapor, who was instructed to conduct the restoration of the churches 
of Antioch to the Catholics, acted in the time of Meletius, rather than 
in that of Flavian. 

2 Letter of the Council of Aquileia, Ambrose, Ep. 12, 5 ; cf. 



346 GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS [OH. X1L 

advance the solution which was desired, not only by the 
Western Church but by sensible people in the East. The 
latter found a spokesman in the new Bishop of Constanti 
nople. Gregory insisted strongly that they should unite 
themselves to Paulinus. He was not listened to. The 
circumstances of the Meletians, the new favour shown to 
them, the successes they had obtained, all served to enkindle 
them. As in the days of Eusebius of Nicomedia and the 
Council of Sardica, they vaunted their points of superiority 
as contrasted with the West. " Was it not in the East," 
they said, "that Christ was born?" "Yes," replied 
Gregory ; " and it was in the East also that He was 
slain." His efforts were in vain ; the bishops decided that 
Paulinus should not be recognized, and that a successor 
must be appointed to Meletius. Gregory was much dis 
tressed. This council, over which he had presided since 
the death of Meletius, was beginning to irritate him. " The 
youngest of them," he said, 1 "chattered like a flock of jays, 
and were as furious as a swarm of wasps ; as to the old 
men, they made no attempt to control the others." 

In these ungrateful surroundings his beloved solitude 
returned to his mind, with memories of peace and religious 
meditation. He began to declare that, since no one 
would listen to him, it was better for him to go away. 
But this was not the wish of the bishops ; they insisted 
strongly upon his remaining at the post where they had 
placed him. In the meantime, there arrived the Bishop of 
Thessalonica, Acholius, and the new Pope of Alexandria, 
Timothy, who some months before had succeeded his 
brother Peter. " They blew with the rough wind of the 
West," said Gregory, 2 meaning that they favoured 
Paulinus. From that point of view, it was the arrival of 
a reinforcement for the Bishop of Constantinople. But 
unfortunately they did not quite like Gregory, or rather 
they could not resign themselves to the fact that the see 
of Constantinople had been filled up by the successors of 
Eusebius of Nicomedia and Leontius of Antioch, They 
took their stand on ecclesiastical rules, raised objections 

1 Carmen de Vita, w. 1680-1699. * Ibid.) verse 1802. 



p. 436-6] RESIGNATION OF GREGORY 347 

as to Sasima and Nazianzus, and protested against 
translations from one bishopric to another. 

These absurdities exasperated Gregory. Enough of 
these triflings, enough of these hypocritical disputes ! In 
a final address, he gave an account of his spiritual steward 
ship, and bade a most touching farewell to his people, to 
the city of Constantine, to his Church the Anastasis, to St 
Sophia, to the Holy Apostles, to the Council, to the East, 
and to the West the West, for which and through which 
he suffered persecution. Then he set out for Nazianzus. 
Acholius and Timothy had done a fine piece of work ! 

To his vacant place there was elected a man of the 
world, a certain Nectarius, a Cilician by birth, who had 
been a government official at Constantinople. His past 
had not been distinguished for austerity; but his beard 
had grown white; he was now both affable and grave. 
The Bishop of Tarsus, Diodore, a celebrated ascetic, 
thought that he had a sacerdotal mien, and added his 
name to the list of candidates presented to the ernperor. 
Theodosius nominated him. 1 It was then discovered that he 
had not yet been baptized. It was the case of St Ambrose 
over again, minus the lofty virtue and the capabilities 
of the Bishop of Milan. Perhaps the emperor thought 
that Nectarius would turn out a second Ambrose. If so, 
he was mistaken ; but, at a moment when the Church of 
Constantinople, after so many dissensions, had so great 
a need of rest, Nectarius, who was not inclined to 
fret himself too much about delicate shades of difference, 
was perhaps, in spite of or even on account of his 
deficiencies, the man demanded by the situation. 

Under his presidency, evidently an honorary one, 
the council concluded its labours. These may even have 
been finished earlier. The four canons in which they are 
summed up show no signs of Alexandrian influence. We 
can scarcely believe that Timothy had had a share in 
their composition. 2 
1 Sozomen, H. E. vii. 8. 

* Nevertheless, his name appears, with that of a Bishop of Oxyrhyn- 
chus, in the list of signatories, which is in some places of a rather 
artificial character. 



348 GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS fen. xn 

The first of these canons proclaims once more the faith 
of Nicaea, and anathematizes all heresies, mentioning by 
name those of the Eunomians or Anomoeans, of the Arians 
or Eudoxians, of the Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi, and 
of the Sabellians.Marcellians, Photinians,and Apollinarians. 
The second canon forbids prelates to meddle with the 
affairs of other civil <l dioceses " than their own ; the Bishop 
of Alexandria must confine his anxious care to Egypt ; the 
religious administration of the East concerns only the 
bishops of the Orient, who shall bear in mind what was 
decided at Nicrea with regard to the prerogatives of the 
Church of Antioch ; the same shall hold good of the 
dioceses of Asia, Pontus, and Thrace. As for Christian 
bodies situated beyond the frontiers of the empire, they 
shall be governed according to established custom. By 
the third canon, the Bishop of Constantinople finds himself 
attributed the pre-eminence of honour (ra 7rpecr/3e<a rw 
Ti/mrjs) after the Bishop of Rome "because Constantinople 
is a new Rome." Finally, the last canon decides the case 
of Maximus the Cynic : he is not recognized as a bishop f 
and all his acts, especially his ordinations, are declared 
null and void. 1 

For anyone who can read between the lines, these 
decisions of the council represent so many acts of hostility 
against the Church of Alexandria and its claims to 
hegemony. It is orthodox in tone there is no doubt of 
that, and it condemns all the heretical movements of the 
time; but care is taken, in enumerating them, to include 
among them the Marcellians, old dependants of Alexandria, 
to whom it had still, quite recently, extended its protection. 
If so much stress is laid on each bishop occupying himself 
only with his own affairs and remaining within the "dio 
cesan " area to which he belongs, it is from a desire to pre 
vent the interference of the Egyptian Pope in the affairs 
of Constantinople, Antioch, and other places. If the pre 
eminence of Constantinople is asserted, without disputing 
that of Rome, it is in order to escape from that of 

1 The three canons, which follow these in collections of canons, 
represent later additions. 



p. 438] THE CANONS OF CONSTANTINOPLE 349 

Alexandria. It might have seemed perhaps of little use 
to allude to the blundering affair of Maximus ; but, as the 
recollection of it was disagreeable to the Alexandrians, the 
council did not fail to bring it to life again. 

In fact, old quarrels were remembered too well. 
Gregory had been quite right to flee ; it was not a time 
for peaceful souls. If the members of the council had 
been wiser, they might have asked themselves from which 
quarter Alexandria or the East interferences with the 
affairs of others had been more frequent and more 
harmful. Was it not an Egyptian affair, that matter of 
Arius? Who had added venom to it? Eusebius of 
Nicomedia, and his accomplices in Bithynia and Syria. 
Were they Egyptian bishops who had led the chorus at 
the Council of Tyre ? Whence came the rivals of 
Athanasius, men like Gregory and George? In this 
outbreak of passion against him, had Athanasius ever 
given a pretext by entrenching upon the rights of others ? 
They mistrusted the superior power of Alexandria. Had 
they not used and abused that of Antioch ? 

But all this was forgotten under the influence of 
present resentment. They even sacrificed the ancient 
prestige of Antioch. The traditional metropolis of the 
East, the second cradle of Christianity, weakened at that 
moment by schism, did not seem to be a sufficient bulwark 
against the Alexandrian peril. As a rallying centre, they 
preferred to it Constantinople, the city of Constantine, the 
new Rome. Constantius, Julian, and Valens had usually 
resided at Antioch : military exigencies called them on 
the side of the Persian frontier. But now the Danube 
was a greater cause for anxiety than the Euphrates ; and 
it was easy to foresee the abandonment of Antioch for 
Constantinople. The bishop of this great city was called 
upon to profit, so far as his influence was concerned, by 
the vicinity of the imperial court and the chief seat of 
government From this point of view, he inherited the 
position of the Bishop of Antioch. Never did he forget this 
origin. The ecclesiastical history of the East was long to 
resound with his rivalry with his colleague of Alexandria, 



350 GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS [CH. xn. 

Besides these practical decisions, the bishops drew up 
a doctrinal statement, which we no longer possess. It no 
doubt took the form of a letter addressed either to the 
whole episcopal body, or to certain churches. 1 

While the bishops were on their way home, Theodosius 
published, on July 30, 381, a law ordering the churches to 
be restored everywhere to the orthodox party, and, that 
there might be no occasions for doubt, he specified, in 
each civil " diocese," those prelates with whom communion 
would be a guarantee of orthodoxy for the guidance 
of his officials. For Thrace, besides Nectarius of 
Constantinople, there were the Bishops of Scythia 
and Marcianopolis ; for Egypt, Timothy ; for Pontus, 
Helladius of Caesarea, Otreius of Melitene, and Gregory 
of Nyssa ; for Asia, Amphilochius of Iconium and 
Optimus of Antioch in Pisidia ; for the Orient, Pelagius 
of Laodicea, and Diodore of Tarsus. The capital cities of 
the dioceses of Asia and the Orient Ephesus and Antioch 
had no bishop, or rather the Bishop of Ephesus was a 
" Macedonian," and in Antioch they were still waiting for 
a successor to Meletius. One was elected shortly after 
wards : this was Flavian, the former companion in 
conflict of Diodore, who himself was now Bishop of 
Tarsus. Flavian had every possible claim and every 
necessary quality. But unfortunately his election took 
place under such conditions that it was not possible for 
either Rome or Alexandria to accept him. 

However, the wind from the West, the roughness of 
which was so unpleasant to the Easterns, began to blow 
once more. The Emperor Theodosius received letters 2 

1 The synodal letter of 382, which will be quoted presently, is the 
only document which mentions this statement (TWOS). It pre 
supposes, 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 
Anomoeans, 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, sec the article of Harnack, in Hauck s Encyclopddie^ 
voL xi., pp. 12-28. * Ambrose, Ep. 12, Quamlibet. 



p. 441] COUNCIL OP AQUILEIA 351 

from a council held at Aquileia almost at the same time as 
that of Constantinople. This council had been attended 
by a certain number of bishops from North Italy, amongst 
others Valerian of Aquileia and Ambrose of Milan, with 
delegates from the episcopate of the Gauls and from that 
of Africa. They thanked the Eastern emperor for having 
restored the churches to the Catholics, but they deplored 
the fact that there was still no peace amongst the latter. 
Timothy of Alexandria and Paulinus of Antioch, who 
had always been in communion with the orthodox party, 
had cause of complaint against those " whose faith had, in 
the past, shown itself unstable." 1 It was desirable that 
this matter should be decided by a great council : and it 
might be held in Alexandria itself. 

Shortly afterwards, the wretched Maximus arrived at 
Aquileia, where the council was still assembled 2 ; he 
succeeded in insinuating himself into the good graces of 
Ambrose, showed him letters from Peter of Alexandria, 
and told him in his own way the story of his ordination. 
The Bishop of Milan did not wait for information from 
Rome: he believed what he was told, and new letters 8 
from the bishops of Italy conveyed to Constantinople a 
protest in favour of this strange client, whose rights, in 
the eyes of Ambrose, exceeded those of Gregory of 
Nazianzus. According to Ambrose, the council assembled 
in the capital of the Eastern empire ought at least to have 
suspended its judgment until the great council, demanded 
in the previous letter. No attention was paid to him ; 
perhaps his protest arrived too late. He soon heard 
that Maximus had been deposed, Gregory installed, and 
even provided with a successor in the person of Nectarius. 
In like manner at Antioch Meletius had been replaced, 
in spite of all agreements or suggestions in a contrary 
sense. For the third time, Ambrose addressed himself 

1 " Quorum fides superioribus temporibus haesitabat" 

9 This seems implied by the letter, No. 13, of St Ambrose, 

(Sanctum, c. 4), the text of which is corrupt. 

8 A lost letter, mentioned in the following one, Ep. 13, Sanctum 

animum. 



352 GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS [CH. XIL 

to Theodosius, in his own name and in the name of the 
bishops of the "diocese" of Italy, 1 by the advice, as he 
said, of the Emperor Gratian. He declared that such 
affairs ought not to be decided apart from the Western 
episcopate, which had a right to know with whom it 
ought to be on terms of communion. 

These protests, probably supported by Pope Damasus 
and by the Emperor Gratian, induced 2 Theodosius to 
accept the idea of a joint council, in which should be 
united the two episcopates of the East and the West. 
He invited the Eastern episcopate to send delegates to 
Constantinople, with that intention ; and it was decided 
that the meeting should be held in Rome. 

We have but little information with regard to this 
council. Paulinus of Antioch was present, accompanied 
by Epiphanius, the metropolitan of the island of Cyprus. 
Acholius of Thessalonica also went to it. We may 
conclude that the Bishop of Alexandria was, at least, 
represented. As to the " Easterns," properly so called, 
the people who had held a council the year before at 
Constantinople, they avoided it, as their spiritual ancestors 
had done at Sardica forty years before. However, we 
must acknowledge that they did so more formally. 
Three of them were sent to Rome, bearing a letter in 
mingled tones, the text of which we still possess. 8 It 
opens with a description of the melancholy state to which 
the religious policy of Valens had reduced the Eastern 
Church ; then comes a delicate reminder that the Westerns 
had troubled themselves little about their unfortunate 
brethren ; then they are thanked for the interest which, 
in happier days, they are beginning to evince. The 

1 Ep. 13, Sanctum animum. By its title and its text, this letter 
betrays a date subsequent to the Council of Aquileia. The group of 
bishops in whose name Ambrose writes is that of the bishops of the 
diocese" of Italy, which we must carefully distinguish from the 
group of bishops of the suburbicarian diocese, who depended directly 
upon the Pope, and had nothing to do with the Bishop of Milan. 

2 He seems to have made some objections ; Letter 14 of St 
Ambrose, Fidei tuac, has preserved a trace of this. 

s Theodoret, H. E. v. 9. 



p. 443-4] THE EAST AND THE ROMAN COUNCIL 353 

Eastern delegates would have had much pleasure in 
attending the Council of Rome ; but they had come to 
Constantinople without suspecting that it was a question 
of so long a journey, for which they had no instructions 
from their colleagues. It was now too late to consult 
them. " These reasons, and many others, prevent us from 
coming to you in a greater number. Nevertheless, to 
improve the position, and to show our affection for you, 
we have entreated our brothers in the episcopate, Cyriacus, 
Eusebius, and Priscian, to be so good as to undertake 
this journey. Through them, we manifest to you our 
desires as being peaceable and in the direction of unity, 1 
as well as our zeal for the true faith." At this point 
there was set out the faith of the Eastern Church, in 
conformity with the Creed of Nicaea, the Trinity con- 
substantial with three hypostases, the Incarnation of the 
Word perfect with a perfect humanity. For details, the 
Westerns were referred to the confession (roVo?) of 
Antioch, 2 and to that of the "CEcumenical " Council, 
held the year before at Constantinople. As to questions 
relating to individuals, they had been decided according 
to traditional rules and the decree of Nicaea, which 
committed the care of them to the bishops of the different 
provinces. It was in this way that Nectarius had been 
established at Constantinople, Flavian at Antioch, and 
that Cyril had been recognized at Jerusalem. All this 
had been done in a regular manner, and the Western 
Church had only to rejoice thereat. 

It came to this, that the Easterns, while showing that 
no difference with regard to the faith any longer divided 
them from the Westerns, refused the latter any right to 
interfere in their internal affairs. And it is true that the 
circumstances were calculated to justify in their eyes such an 
attitude. The peace of the East could not be indefinitely 
compromised for the sake of Paulinus and his Little Church. 
They had been wrong perhaps not to win over this old 
irreconcilable by giving him the succession to Meletius ; 

1 TV T)(JLfTtpa.v irpoalpriv tlpr}t>iKT)V otiaav Kal atibvQV 
* That of 379 ; supra, p. 336. 
II 



364 GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS [CH. xil. 

but was it possible to forget that, if he had become so 
troublesome, it was the fault of the Westerns who had 
consecrated and supported him ? It was for them to get 
rid of him and to rid others of him. It would, besides, 
have been very dangerous to go and plead against 
Paulinus before those who were defending him with a firm 
determination not to reverse their own action. Were 
they, in a matter which concerned Constantinople, to 
face the decision of Ambrose, who, only the year before, 
had allowed himself to be deceived by that imposter of 
a Maximus, and who had not yet dreamed of abandoning 
him ? No, no. People capable of supporting Paulinus 
against Meletius, Maximus the Cynic against Gregory 
of Nazianzus ; peuple whose dependents had been 
Marcellus, Eustathius, Apollinaris, 1 and Vitalis could 
not really be conversant with Eastern affairs and persons. 
The best thing to do was to arrange matters among 
themselves, and to allow Time, that wise physician, to 
heal the wounds which here and there were still bleeding. 
So thought the Easterns. Hence, the Council of 
Rome, being held without them, could have no effect. 
Yet it does not appear that this assembly supported the 
demands of Ambrose in favour of Maximus the Cynic. 
We must conclude that the Bishop of Milan, when better 
informed, had abandoned them himself. Theodosius 
insisted at this time, I think, that Nectarius should be 
recognized at Rome. High officials from his court, 
supported by the delegates from the Eastern episcopate, 
took the necessary steps with the Pope, and induced him 
to send letters of communion to Constantinople. 2 As for 
the business at Antioch, things remained as they were. 

1 In his letter Fidei tuae (Ep. 14), Ambrose still claims for 
Apollinaris judgment after a full hearing of the case. 

a A fact recalled by Pope Boniface, in a letter belonging to the 
year 422 (Jafte, 365). 



CHAPTER XIII 
POPE DAMASUS 

The West and the Roman Church before the Emperor Constantino 
Exile of bishops. Intrusion of Felix. The Pontifical election 
of 366 : Damasus and Ursinus. Riots in Rome. Rancour of 
Ursinus against Damasus. The sects at Rome. Damasus and 
the secular arm. Councils against the Arians. Ambrose, Bishop 
of Milan. Fresh intrigues against Damasus ; Isaac institutes 
a criminal prosecution against him. Roman Council of 378. 
Gratian s Rescript to Aquilinus. Council of Aquileia. Roman 
Council of 382. Jerome and his early career : his sojourn in 
the Syrian desert. His relations with Pope Damasus. His 
success in Rome : Paula and Marcella. The inscriptions of 
Damasus and the cult of the martyrs. Siricius succeeds Damasus. 
Departure of Jerome for Palestine. 

WITH the exception of Africa, where irreligious discord 
still raged, peace reigned in the Churches of the Latin West 
down to the time when the Emperor Constantius trans 
ferred to it the quarrels of the East. It had previously 
been quietly occupied in binding up the wounds made 
by persecution, in restoring the sacred edifices, enlarging 
them to contain the very numerous recruits whom 
Christianity was receiving ; and finally, in completing 
what was lacking in organization. New bishoprics were 
being founded almost everywhere in proportion as the 
bodies of Christians increased in importance. Councils 
were undoubtedly held, though we only hear of those 
convoked on account of the Donatists and the Arians. 
The Council of Aries, in 314, was of special importance. 
It was a kind of CEcumenical Council, as was speedily said, 
in which the bishops assembled from all parts of 
Constantino s empire. The Pope was not present; he 
sent in his stead two Roman priests. This was the 

865 



356 POPK DAMASUS [CH. xm. 

inauguration of a practice which was long observed. 
Very few were the Popes who quitted Rome, especially 
for ecclesiastical affairs : maior a longinquo rcvercntia. 

At the time of the Council of Aries, Pope Miltiades 1 
had just been succeeded by Silvester. The latter held 
the see almost to the end of the reign of Constantine. 
He appears as an important figure in legends, but his 
real history is unknown. All that we know of him 
is that he was accused by " sacrilegious persons," and 
that the emperor removed the case to his own personal 
tribunal. 2 Julius, who replaced him after the short 
episcopate of Mark, would be not less forgotten if he 
had not been mixed up with Eastern affairs. The 
internal history of the Roman Church during this first 
half of the 4th century seems to have run its course 
without incident. The number of the Christians increased 
to an enormous extent. The ancient places of worship, 
hastily restored when the persecution was over, received 
constant additions by the erection of new churches. 3 
Search was made in the cemeteries of the suburbs for the 
tombs of the martyrs ; the faithful delighted to adorn 
them ; often, they even erected over them chapels of 
more or less magnificence. In these were celebrated 
their anniversary feasts, of which a calendar was soon 
drawn up. 4 As the number of believers increased, there 

1 Milriadfs, July 2, 3ii-January u, 314; Silvester, January 31, 
314-December 31, 335; Mark, 336 (January iS-October 7); Julius, 
February 6, 337-April 12, 352. 

" Letter of the Roman Council of 378 to the Emperors Gratian 
and Valentinian II. It undoubtedly refers to some criminal process 
instigated by the Donatists. It was a very ordinary move on the part 
of persons who disagreed with their bishops on religious grounds, to try 
to bring obloquy upon them by dragging them before secular tribunals. 

3 Titulus Equitii (S. Martino ai Monti), under Silvester ; titulus 
Marci($>. Marco) under Mark ; titulus Julii (S. Maria in Trastevere), 
with another basilica (SS. Apostoli) near the Forum of Trajan, under 
Juhus; basilica Liberiana (S. Maria Maggiore), under Liberius ; 
titulus Damasi (S. Lorenzo in Damaso) under Damasus. 

4 The Philocalian " Ferial " belongs to the year 336 ; it is probable 
that the one which is included in the compilation of the Hieronymian 
martyrology went back still earlier. 



p. 449] THE ROMAN CHURCH AND DOCTRINE 357 

naturally resulted also a great development in religious 
observances and in the number of ecclesiastics. 

St Athanasius, who came to Rome in 339, made a 
great sensation in the best society. He was in a position 
to relate to the Roman ladies the extraordinary life of 
the hermits Antony and Pacomius and their followers. 1 
So was sown the first seed of many aristocratic vocations 
which soon bore fruit. 

The Roman Church had received in the days of 
Silvester, official intimation of the condemnation of 
Arius by the Bishop of Alexandria. Being invited 
to the Council of Nicsea, the Pope had sent there, as in 
the case of the Council of Aries, two priests to represent 
him. With regard to doctrinal questions, the Roman 
Church was at peace. The days of Hippolytus, Callistus, 
and Tertullian were now far away. In the matter of 
formulas, when any need was felt for making use of them, 
there was that of Tertullian and of Novatian, " One Sub 
stance, Three Persons," which seemed sufficient for every 
need. Formerly, when Greek was spoken, the term 
homoousios had been made use of; it was now translated 
by consubstantialis, thus identifying the two words oiWa 
and uTToVrao-t?. This was the terminology which Silvester s 
legates recommended to the Council of Nicaea, and of 
which they secured the adoption. 

When, in 340, the Roman Council, presided over by 
Pope Julius, saw the appearance before it, in one of the 
basilicas of the city, of the Bishops of Alexandria, Ancyra, 
and Gaza, the question of dogma raised no difficulty. 
Of the three appellants, Marcellus of Ancyra was the 
only one who had been condemned in the East for his 
doctrine. And he, also, upheld the Unity of Substance 

1 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. 



368 POPE DAMASUS [CH. XIIL 

and the Trinity of Persons ; the Romans had no difficulty 
about coming to an understanding with him. 

All this produced no effect on Roman, we may almost 
say on Latin, opinion, unless it were in producing the 
impression that the Church in the Empire of Constantius, 
just as in Africa, was troubled by profound dissensions. 
And it was impossible to devote an unlimited amount 
of attention to these distant troubles. However, certain 
differences of opinion had been brought officially before 
the Roman Church : the bishops of the West began to 
realize that it would be necessary for them to concern them 
selves with these Eastern affairs. A certain number of 
them took part in the Council of Sardica, the result of 
which, as we have previously seen, did not answer to 
the hopes of those who had called it together. Being 
angry with the defenders of Athanasius, the Easterns 
pronounced sentences of deposition against Pope Julius, 
against Maximin, Bishop of Treves, Hosius of Cordova, 
and several others. It is true that these sentences had 
no effect ; neither they nor the counter ones pronounced 
from the side of the Latins prevented the resumption 
of negotiations, in the following year, between the two 
episcopates. The bishops went and came from Milan 
to Antioch, and from Antioch to Milan. These negotia 
tions, however, were the business of the leaders ; the 
episcopate as a body was but scantily concerned in them ; 
and the general mass of the faithful and of the clergy took 
absolutely no interest in them. 

The position was no longer the same from the begin 
ning of 353 when the Emperor Constantius, master of 
both halves of the empire, sought to engage the Western 
episcopate in the crusade then going on in the East 
against Athanasius and against the Creed of Nicaea. 
He succeeded, but not without exciting opposition in 
some cases which was severely put down. Ever since 
the Great Persecution, people had been accustomed to 
see the bishops govern their churches in peace. The 
list of exiles and of confessors was unrolled once more 
under the government of Constantine s son. Several 



p. 451-3] TROUBLES UNDER CONSTANTIUS 359 

churches found themselves deprived of their heads; for 
instance in Gaul, those of Treves, Poitiers, and Toulouse ; 
in Sardinia, that of Cagliari; in Italy, those of Milan and 
Vercellae. The exiles were sometimes replaced by persons 
who came from Cappadocia or some other Eastern country 
who could scarcely speak Latin. Auxentius of Milan was 
the most celebrated of these immigrants. We must also 
mention Epictetus,who was installed at Centumcellae(Civita- 
Vecchia), and who was a very undesirable character. 

But the place where the trouble was most grievous was 
Rome. At the moment when Constantius entered Italy, 
during the summer of 352, Pope Julius had just been 
succeeded by Liberius (May 17). We have already seen 
what his attitude was in this melancholy business, how he 
was banished from Rome, and exiled to the remote parts 
of Thrace. 

The violence shown to him was much resented by the 
Christian populace. At first, the clergy made great 
demonstrations of fidelity. In a solemn assembly, priests, 
deacons, and other clerics took an oath in the presence of 
the faithful that, so long as Liberius lived, they would accept 
no other bishop. 1 Among the most determined figured 
the archdeacon Felix, and the deacon Damasus, the latter 
of whom had set out with Liberius, but had returned 
shortly after. This fiery zeal soon died out. The Court 
resolved to appoint a successor to Liberius. This time it 
was not considered wise to have recourse to the Cappa- 
docian band : the new Bishop of Rome was chosen from 
the ranks of the Roman clergy. The archdeacon Felix 
was summoned to Milan and, notwithstanding his oath, 
accepted the succession to the exile. Acacius of Caesarea 
superintended the whole affair * ; Epictetus was also mixed 
up in it. 8 They no doubt figured at the ordination 
ceremony, performed, says Athanasius, by three spies * in 

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

8 Jerome, Dt viris y 98. * Athan. Hist. Ar. 73. 

* KTia*oToi, a play upon words, in contradiction to M<TKOT<H. 



360 POPE DAMASUS [CH. xm. 

the palace, in the presence of three eunuchs, who filled the 
part of the Christian people. On his return to Rome, 
Felix was welcomed by the majority of the clergy ; but 
the people would not hear of him, and held aloof, seizing 
every opportunity of expressing their displeasure and 
demanding the return of Liberius. In May 357, 
Constantius visited Rome. Then their efforts increased. 
Christian matrons presented themselves at the palace 1 ; 
and in the circus the crowd demanded their bishop. 
"You shall have him," replied the emperor; "and he 
will return to you better than he left you." He knew 
already that Liberius had not held out, and that the 
Bishops of Aquileia and Berea had persuaded him to for 
sake Athanasius and accept communion with the Easterns. 
But this proceeding on the part of Liberius put the 
government in a position of very great embarrassment 
He might now be reinstated at Rome, since he had done 
what he was asked to do. But what was to be done with 
Felix? 2 After long hesitation, the Court at last decided 
to entrust the government of the Roman Church to two 
bishops at the same time. I have said before that this 
scheme was refused by the people who, now that Liberius 
was restored to them, made it their own business to get 
rid of his rival. This solution, however, was not 
nplished without scenes of brawling. 3 Somewhat 
; recollections 4 represent Liberius to us as installed 
on the Via Nomentana near Sta Agnese, and Felix as 
taking refuge on an estate which belonged to him, on 
the road to Portus. It is certain that the former Pope 
gained the victory, that the faithful flocked to his presence, 
and arranged for him a triumphal entry. 6 Shortly after- 

1 Theodoret, //. E. ii. 14. 

2 A law as to the immunities of the inferior clergy (Cod, Theod. xvi. 
2, 14) was addressed to him. The date which it bears in the 
Theodosian Code (December 6, 357) is open to challenge. 

3 Regrettable incidents, which occurred on this account, were 
referred to, in 360, in the condemnation of Basil of Ancyra (Sozomen, 
H. E. iv. 24). 

4 Liber rontificalis^ Lives of Liberius and of Felix II. 
6 Jerome, Chron. a. Abr. 2365 ; Coll. Avcll., loc. cit. 



p. 464] LIBER1US AND FELIX 361 

wards, Felix returned to contest the position, and tried to 
regain possession of the basilica of Julius, in Trastevere, 
with the assistance of the clergy of his party. But the 
faithful, including both the aristocracy and the common 
people, interfered a second time, and the intruder, being 
decisively repulsed, made up his mind to take no further 
steps. 1 

One serious indication of this troubled state of things 
was that the Roman Church was not represented at the 
Council of Ariminum. This was a piece of good fortune 
for it, since the result was that, when the council broke up, 
it had had no share in the " falling-away " of that assembly. 
The year 360 passed by without Liberius having recognized 
its decrees, against which protests were already being 
uttered in Gaul. In the spring of 361 the officials of Con- 
stantius disappeared : the reign of Julian was beginning. 
The West was scarcely aware of it. There, Christians were 
accustomed to live with pagans, who were still numerous 
and influential and were largely represented in govern 
ment offices and in the ranks of the aristocracy. Besides, 
the Christians seldom allowed themselves to be carried away 
into those excesses of zeal which, in Julian s reign, served 
as a pretext for so many reactions. Liberty was restored 
completely under Jovian and Valentinian. On December 
22, 365, Felix died. His party was wise enough not to 
give him a successor, and Liberius to show the greatest 
indulgence towards those persons who had taken his rival 
as their leader. The unity of the clergy was re-established. 
Yet bitter memories remained : everyone had not 
approved of the merciful conduct of Liberius ; Liberians 
and Felicians continued to look at each other askance. 
The death of Liberius (September 24, 366), following 
almost immediately after that of Felix, opened the 

1 We knowthat legend gave Felix a striking revenge, and that it even 
sacrificed to him the memory of Liberius. Upon this, see my edition 
of the Liber Pontificalis, vol. i., p. cxx. flf. In this pontifical chronicle 
Felix figures, as the result, I think, of a later editing, in the number 
of the Popea. He is also included in the same way in other 
catalogues of rather earlier date. Of all the anti-popes of antiquity, 
Felix is the only one to be so favoured. 



362 POPE DAM ASUS [CH. xm. 

conflict between the two currents of opinion. Scarcely 
was the Pope buried than two parties formed themselves. 
The one established itself at the end of the Campus 
Martius, in the basilica of Lucina (S. Lorenzo in Lucina) ; 
the other in the basilica of Julius (S. Maria) in Trastevere. 
The latter were the irreconcilables, the adversaries of the 
pacific policy of the dead Pope. They included only 
seven priests and three deacons ; and one of the latter, 
Ursinus, was acclaimed as bishop and ordained on the 
spot by the Bishop of Tibur. It was on Sunday, and the 
custom already existed of choosing that day for episcopal 
ordinations. In the Church of Lucina, the deacon 
Damasus, an adherent of Felix who had come over to the 
other side, was elected by a large majority of clergy and 
laity. Damasus was a Roman. His father before him had 
passed through all the degrees of the hierarchy. 1 He was 
a man of high character and some literary knowledge, 2 and 
was favourably regarded by the Christian aristocracy. His 
enemies were wont to cast at him as a reproach the 
popularity he enjoyed with the matrons 8 ; they had not 
forgotten his readiness to accept Felix, after having made 
some show of zeal at the moment of the departure of 
Liberius. Once elected, he took no immediate steps to 
obtain ordination: no doubt, it was too late in the day. 
The ceremony was therefore deferred until the following 
Sunday. 

The meeting in the Church of Lucina had hardly 
broken up, when news was brought of what had just taken 
place in Trastevere. Feelings, as is always the case 
in these popular elections, were in a highly excitable 
condition. The most ardent, among whom were included, 
we are told, the circus-drivers and other persons of the 
same type, rushed en masse towards the basilica of Julius. 
The followers of Ursinus offered resistance. A battle 

1 Inscription (Ihm. No. 57) in S. Lorenzo in Damaso, a church 
which was erected, it would seem, upon the site of his father s house. 

"His verses display some knowledge of Vergil. We shall have 
to speak later of his relations with St Jerome. 

1 They called him the ear-scratcher of the ladies, auriscalpius 
matronarum (Coll. Avell., loc. cit). 



p. 457] DAMASUS AND URSINUS 363 

ensued : cudgels were brought into play, some were 
wounded, some even killed. The riot lasted three days. 
On the following Sunday, October I, the basilica of the 
Lateran which had been put in a state of defence by the 
adherents of Damasus witnessed the consecration of the 
lawful bishop. It was the Bishop of Ostia who, according 
to custom, took the chief part in this ceremony. 

What were the forces of authority doing in the midst 
of all this disorder ? The Prefect of Rome, Viventius, was 
a wise and conscientious man, but of a disposition not 
easily roused to action. He made laudable efforts to 
appease the populace ; but failing of success, he made 
up his mind to leave the city and retire to a country- 
house some way off, hoping, no doubt, in this way to 
shelter his person and his authority. Gradually, his mind 
regained the calm which had been disturbed ; he recognized 
the regularity of the ordination of Damasus, and decided 
that Ursinus should be exiled from Rome, with the two 
deacons, Amantius and Lupus, who were, after him, the chief 
leaders of his party. This was done. But the dissenting 
party held out ; the seven priests who were with them 
continued to bring them together in schismatical meetings. 
Damasus then appealed to authority. The seven priests 
were arrested ; but, as the guards were conducting them 
out of Rome, the partisans of Ursinus fell upon the 
escort, set the prisoners free, and led them in triumph to 
the basilica of Liberius, 1 where they installed themselves 
as in a fortress. 

But the adherents of Damasus did not leave them to 
enjoy their success. On October 26, an opposition mob, 
in which several of the clergy were mixed up, proceeded 
to lay siege to the basilica on the Esquiline. The doors 
were closed and strongly defended. While these were 
being assailed with hatchets and fire, the most nimble of 
Damasus supporters climbed on to the roof, effected an 
opening in it, and through this poured down a hail of 

1 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. 



364 POPE DAMASUS [OH. XIIL 

tiles upon the partisans of Ursinus. At last the doors 
gave way ; and an appalling conflict ensued. When order 
was re-established, a hundred and thirty-seven dead 
bodies were taken up. 1 We may well believe that the 
Ursinian party made the most of these victims ; it was 
admitted that the besiegers had not lost a single man. 
Although much damaged, the basilica continued to be 
the scene of schismatical meetings : in these protests 
were made against the violence done, the assistance of 
the emperor was invoked, and a council was demanded. 
But gradually the guards of the prefect succeeded in 
restoring outward order. 

A year after these events, Valentinian, thinking that 
the passions of the parties were now sufficiently allayed, 
allowed Ursinus and the other exiles to return to Rome. 
On September 15, 367, the anti-pope made a solemn 
re-entry into the city, amid the acclamations of his 
supporters, who lost no time in renewing the disturbance, 
with the result that the emperor, finding his hopes were 
mistaken, caused Ursinus to be expelled again (November 
16). The prefect Viventius had been replaced by Vettius 
Agorius Praetextatus, a man much esteemed for his amiable 
character and highly cultivated mind. He was a pagan, 
and a very zealous one. The inscriptions which mention 
him, together with his wife Aconia Paulina, 8 extol his 
piety towards the gods, and enumerate in stately terms 
the priestly offices which he held. It was he who, when 
Pope Damasus urged him to be converted, replied : 
Willingly, if you will make me Bishop of Rome." 4 
Ammianus Marcellinus makes a similar reflection, in close 
connection with the rival claims of Ursinus. He thinks 
it very natural that there should be a contest for such a 
position as that of bishop of the capital, "for," he says, 
1 if that post is once gained, a man enjoys in peace a 

1 This is the number given by Ammianus Marcellinus ; the Gesta 
speaks of one hundred and sixty dead ; the Chronicle of St Jerome 
(a. Abr. 2382), mentions only crudelissimae interfectiones diversi sexus. 

* Coll. AvelL 5. Letter to the prefect Praetextatus. 

Corpus Inscript. Lat., vol. vi., Nos. 1777-1781. 
4 Jerome, Contra Job. Hieros. 8. 



p. 459] LUXURY IN THE ROMAN CHURCH 365 

fortune assured by the generosity of the matrons ; he can 
ride abroad in a carriage, clothed in magnificent robes, 
and can give banquets, the luxury of which surpasses that 
of the emperor s table." He adds that it would be better 
to imitate the poverty and simplicity of certain provincial 
bishops, whose virtue is a recommendation for Christianity. 1 
Ammianus was not the only man to deplore the progress 
of comfort among the Roman clergy. St Jerome has 
censured with much vigour the strange abuses which the 
increasing prosperity of the Church of Rome introduced 
Into its midst. But we must return to the schismatics. 

The basilica of Liberius had remained in their hands. 
Damasus laid claim to it through the " protector " of his 
Church, and Valentinian, who did not wish for disorders 
in Rome, caused this edifice to be restored to him. 2 At 
the same time, the priests, who presided over the meetings 
of the Ursinians, were banished. 3 But the ferment took 
some time in subsiding. They assembled, on Sundays 
and Feast-days, in the cemeteries in the outskirts of 
the city, and the Office was celebrated as well as it 
could be in the absence of clergy. The Church of St 
Agnes, on the Via Nomentana, was one of the meeting- 
places of the dissentients. One day, a terrible affray took 
place there, in which the Ursinians got the worst of it, 
and were ejected. After this it was necessary to forbid to 
the promoters of disturbance, not only the city but the 
outskirts as well, within a radius of twenty miles. 4 
Ursinus himself was sent off to Gaul. Some time after 
wards, permission was granted to him and to certain of his 
supporters to reside in Northern Italy 5 ; but they were 
forbidden to come near Rome. The imperial rescripts 
relating to this affair show us Valentinian for ever 
divided between a dread of interfering too vigorously in 
a religious dispute and his anxiety for public tranquillity, 
which was very difficult to maintain in the midst of the 
unoccupied and restless populace of the ancient capital. 

1 Ammianus, xxvii. 3, 14. * ColL Avell. 6 (end of 367). 

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

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



366 POPE DAMASUS [CH. xm. 

As for Damasus, his victory had cost him too dear : 
his promotion had been accompanied by too much police 
action, too many imperial rescripts, too many corpses. 
The whole of his Pontificate felt the effects of it. And 
besides, Ursinus had never laid down his arms ; as long 
as he lived, he never ceased his implacable hostility to 
his rival. As he could not dethrone him, he tried to 
get rid of him by means of criminal prosecutions. There 
was already a question of an attempt of this kind about 
the year 37O, 1 and another, as we shall see, happened later. 

It was not only with the schism of Ursinus that the 
Pope had to deal. Rome was full of * Little Churches. 
Not to speak of such remnants as there might be of old 
sects, such as Valentinians, Marcionites, Montanists, and 
Sabellians, the Novatian Church still continued to exist, 
governed by a series of bishops, who linked themselves 
on to the old episcopal succession, from St Peter to 
Fabian. The African Christians, who had found a home 
in Rome, if they belonged to the Catholic confession, that 
of Caecilian, attended the same churches as the Catholics of 
Rome ; but the Donatists were organized separately, under 
bishops of their own country. 2 They were called Moun 
taineers, Montenses, no doubt on account of some local 
peculiarity. There w r ere also the Luciferians, so-called, 
those who had taken the same attitude as Lucifer of 

1 Gratian alludes to this in his rescript to Aquilinus (Coll. 
Avell. No. 13, p. 57, Giinther) : iudiciorum examine exploratum 
mentis sanctissimae virum (Damasus), ut etiam di-vo 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 Pra^fectus Annonas 
in 369-370 ; he replaced the prefect of Rome who was ill, 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, 
*".*., of the Dioecesis suburbicaria. 

3 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. 



P. 462] SECTS AT ROME 867 

Caliaris (Cagliari) and Gregory of Illiberris against 
the defaulters of Ariminum, men to whom Liberius, 
Hilary, Eusebius of Vercellae, and even Athanasius him 
self, were palterers with the truth. They had a bishop 
who was named Aurelius ; but the most renowned 
personage of their party was a priest called Macarius, 
whose austerities were famous. The meetings of these 
dissentients were held, for lack of churches, in private 
houses. The police, stimulated by denunciations from the 
Lateran, made life hard for the schismatics. Macarius, 
who was arrested during a religious service, suffered much 
from the brutality of the common people. Being con 
demned to exile, he died at Ostia from a wound which he 
had received when he was arrested. The Bishop of Ostia, 
Florentius, apparently more moved by his virtues than 
shocked by his uncompromising obstinacy, gave him 
honourable burial in the basilica of the martyr Asterius. 1 
His party rallied again under the leadership of a certain 
Bishop Ephesius. Damasus had some trouble in getting 
rid of this new rival. 2 

The Bishop of Ostia, although he had presided at the 
ordination of Pope Damasus, does not seem to have had 
much taste for his continual appeal to the secular arm. 
We can easily understand what would be thought of this, 
alike by those who had consecrated Ursinus and by the 
other bishops who had approved of his ordination. 
Damasus had therefore to struggle, not only against a 
Roman party, determined and always ready for disturbance, 
but also against a strong opposition among the Italian 
bishops. He tried, we are told, to obtain the condemna 
tion of Ursinus from a council assembled in honour of his 
natale, in 367 or 368 ; but the bishops, although remaining 
in communion with the Pope, seem to have refused to 
pronounce a sentence against an absent man. 3 

1 Libell. precum. 77-82. 

* Ibid. 84-91, 104-107. The prefect Bassus, mentioned in this 
account, belongs to the year 382. 

3 Gesta inter Lib. et FeL 13, an Ursinian document, we must 
remember. 



368 POPE DAMASUS [CH. xia 

Also, as the favour of the government was so necessary 
to him, he was not disposed to cause difficulties in that 
direction. The Emperor Valentinian, as we have seeni 
would not admit that the State was justified in taking 
measures against those prelates who had remained faithful 
to the confession of Ariminum. It would have been a 
delicate matter for Pope Damasus to set himself counter 
to this policy of pacification. Athanasius also had some 
difficulty in inducing him to take action against the few 
Arian bishops who remained in the Western Empire. He 
tried it first 1 with regard to Ursacius, Valens, and the 
other " Illyrians." It was a more difficult matter as to 
Auxentius, who had been specially authorized by the 
Emperor Valentinian. At last the Pope made up his 
mind to act, and in a second council, held at the 
instigation of Athanasius, he declared 2 that the Creed of 
Nicaea was the only authorized Creed, and that that of 
Ariminum could not replace it. In an incidental phrase 
he speaks of a condemnation already pronounced against 
Auxentius, quoting as authorities the Bishops of Gaul and 
Venetia, behind whom he entrenches himself. At the end 
of the synodical letter, he expresses a hope that the 
irreconcilables will speedily lose the title of bishops, and 
that their churches will be delivered from them. 

This was not very explicit. But perhaps Damasus 
was right not to run any risk. What would have been 
the use? It was certain that Valentinian would take no 
steps to dispossess bishops already recognized by him, 
and accepted by their people. Therefore, the best thing 
to do was to wait till they died, and then replace them by 
orthodox successors. 

Auxentius did not put the patience of the Pope to too 
long a test : he died in the autumn of 374. The business 
of replacing him gave rise to serious conflicts between the 
orthodox party, determined to secure possession of the 
bishopric, and the Arians, equally determined to keep it 

1 A than. Ep. ad Afros 10. 

f Jaflfe, 232, Confidimus quidem ; cf. Sozomen, H. E. vi. 23 ; 
Theodoret, H. E. ii. 22. 



P464] CHILDHOOD OF AMBROSE 369 

The province of /Emilia-Liguria had as its consular at 
this time a Roman nobleman named Ambrose. 1 At the 
time of his birth, his father, also called Ambrose, was 
praetorian prefect of the Gauls. He already had other 
children, a daughter, named Marcellina, and a son, Satyrus. 
The young Ambrose was brought up in Rome by his 
mother and sister, his father having died soon after his 
birth. The family, one of the most illustrious in Rome, 
had long been Christian ; one of its members, St 
Soteris, had suffered martyrdom in the time of Maximian. 
The Pope sometimes came to their house; the ladies 
received him with the greatest respect, and kissed his 
hand. As soon as he had departed, young Ambrose, 
still at a roguish age, would begin to imitate his grave 
walk and his stately gestures ; he even attempted to make 
Marcellina kiss his hand, but his sister laughingly refused 
As soon as his education was finished, he became attached 
to the secretariat of the praetorian prefect, Probus, the 
most important Christian nobleman in Rome. Probus 
appointed him governor of ^Emilia-Liguria, advising him 
to treat the people under his administration with gentle 
ness, like a bishop, not like a magistrate. Probus was a 
prophet. The episcopal election having, as I said before, 
much excited the minds of the populace, a great com 
motion took place in the church, and the governor thought 
it his duty to go there. Suddenly, a child s cry was 
heard : " Ambrose Bishop ! " Both parties at once took up 
the cry with a united acclamation. It was in vain that 
Ambrose protested, and employed every effort to escape 
from the popular favour, declaring that he had not been 
baptized. He was not listened to. The bishops who 
were present deemed that his name was the only one on 
which agreement was possible. They passed over the 
rules which forbade the ordination of neophytes. Ambrose 
was baptized on November 30, and ordained eight days 
afterwards (December 7). 

1 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. 

II 2 A 



370 POPE DAMASUS [CH. MIL 

Thus suddenly raised to the episcopate, he had much 
to learn, if not of Christianity in general, at any rate, of 
theology. As he had studied Greek, he set himself to 
read the works of Philo, Origen, Basil, and Didymus. 
Immediately after his consecration, he had occasion to 
correspond with the illustrious Bishop of Caesarea, who 
congratulated him upon his appointment. 1 The Church of 
Milan had soon cause for satisfaction at having secured 
such a pastor. But it was not only to this Church that he 
had been given ; it was to the whole body of Christians of 
that time. This soon became evident. 

However, the Emperor Valentinian died suddenly at 
Brigetio, in Pannonia, on November 17, 375. He left two 
sons : Gratian, the elder, aged sixteen, who had been 
associated with his father in the Empire for some years, 2 
was at Treves when his father died ; the other, Valentinian, 
still quite young, was living at Sirmium with his mother, 
the Empress Justina. The army on the Danube, without 
consulting Gratian, associated his younger brother with 
him in the government ; Gratian confirmed this arrange 
ment, but without depriving himself of the government of 
the whole of the West. Ambrose, whose election had 
been received by the dead emperor with great satisfaction, 
remained always devoted to his family. So long as 
Gratian lived, the bishop was his trusted adviser. 

Italy was still disturbed by the obstinacy of Ursinus. 
The suburbicarian provinces being forbidden to him, he 
stirred up strife at Milan, joining his efforts to those of the 
Arians, who had now passed into the condition of dis 
senters, troubling Ambrose in his official duties, and 
thwarting his plans. His hand was seen once more at 
Rome in various intrigues. In 374, the emperor was 
obliged to write on this subject to the Vicarius Simplicius. 1 
Powerless, in spite of all his efforts, to gain possession of 
the Lateran, the anti-pope set himself to drive his rival 

1 Basil, Ep. 197. 

1 Gratian was born on April 18, 359 ; he was associated in the 
empire on August 24, 367. 

$ The letter is lost, but it is quoted in Coll. Ai/ell. No. 13. 



p. 467] INTRIGUES AGAINST DAMASUS 371 

out of it A criminal process was undertaken against 
Damasus by Isaac, a converted Jew. At this time, the 
Roman magistrates prided themselves, following the ex 
ample of Valentinian, on their extreme severity. We do 
not know of what crime Damasus was accused, 1 but it 
was evidently of some capital offence, and the affair, being 
vigorously pursued before the prefect of Rome, was threaten 
ing to end in a condemnation, when Gratian was induced 
to intervene. The emperor tried the case himself, gave 
judgment, and sent the venerable Pontiff away acquitted 
of the charge. Isaac was exiled to Spain ; Ursinus 
was imprisoned at Cologne. Isaac shortly afterwards 
renounced Christianity and returned to the synagogue. 8 
Such attempts were characteristic of the ethics of the time. 
We may judge what security could be enjoyed by bishops, 
especially bishops of great towns, exposed as they were, 
in the exercise of their multifarious functions, to the 
danger of offending so many people and of making so 
many enemies. 

Damasus was not satisfied with the testimony which the 
imperial decision had just given in favour of his innocence ; 
he wished the whole affair to be discussed in a council. A 

1 The legend of the Liber Pontificalis speaks of adultery ; but, as 
Damasus was nearly eighty years of age, such a charge would have 
been far too improbable. 

2 This Isaac, during his Christian period, published several works 
of theology and exegesis. Gennadius (De viris^ 26) knew o and we 
still possess (Migne, P. Z,., 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 
(Kirchcnhistorische Anecdota, vol. i., p. 304). Dom G. Morin (Revue 
(fhist. et de litt. relig. 1899, p. 97 et scq.} 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. Testanunti^ 
both written in Rome in the time of Pope Damasus. This hypothesis 
is very probable, and still remains so, although (Revue B^n^dictine^ 
1 93> P- IJ 3) i ts author has abandoned it. I think, with Martin 
Schanz (Gesch. der rom. Litteralur^ 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 



372 POPE DAMASUS [CH. xm. 

meeting of bishops from all parts of Italy assembled in 
Rome in 378. l They presented to the emperor a petition, 
which we still possess as well as Gratian s reply. The 
bishops reminded him that, during an earlier phase of the 
affair of Ursinus, the sovereign had decided that, while the 
police concerned themselves with the banishment of the 
author of the disturbances, it was the Pope s fuiu\ion to 
take measures against the bishops who had espoused 
his cause. This was perfectly just. Granted the attitude 
adopted in religious matters by the Kmperor Valcntinian, 
the State could have no idea of interfering in ecclesiastical 
decisions; its special duty was to guard against public 
order being compromised. Nevertheless, contingencies 
might arise, when the efficacy of ecclesiastical sentences, 
and the sen ices which they were called upon to render 
from the point of view of good order, might be com 
promised by too complete an abstention on the part of the 
State. Therefore, the bishops demanded the assistance of 
the strong arm of the law, first in securing the appearance 
of the rebellious prelates, and afterwards in preventing 
the deposed bishops from stirring up strife in the churches 
which the ecclesiastical judge had withdrawn from their 
jurisdiction. Several cases are specified. The Bishops of 
Parma and Puteoli refused to submit to the sentences of 
deposition passed against them ; an African Bishop, 
Restitutus, and Claudian, the Donatist Bishop of Rome, 
are also mentioned. 

But this council was chiefly occupied with Isaac s 
affair, still quite recent. It endeavoured to secure that the 
Pope at any rate should be protected against such attempts. 
The emperor, it said, has investigated the conduct of 
Damasus ; false accusers ought henceforward to be for 
bidden to drag him before the magistrate. If there was 
any occasion for a trial, and if the case was not within 
the competence of the council, at least it ought to be 
carried before the emperor in person. In addition to 
the recent case, there was another precedent: Pope 

1 In the collections of councils ; see also Constant, Ep. Rom. 
Pont. p. 523. 



p. 469] DEATH OF URSINUS 373 

Silvester, being accused by sacrilegious persons, was 
judged by the Emperor Constantine. 

In consequence of these representations Gratian 
addressed to the Vicar Aquilinus a rescript, 1 in which 
on all these points he expresses agreement with the views 
of the council. However, so far as regards the exceptional 
jurisdiction claimed for the Pope, he confines himself to 
enjoining that the accusations or testimony of persons of 
doubtful character or well known as calumniators are not 
readily to be admitted. 2 This is equivalent to a refusal. 
The Pope remained, like his flock, subject theoretically 
to the jurisdiction of the prefect of Rome. We must 
add, however, that after the pontificate of Damasus there 
is no mention of such jurisdiction being exercised over 
any of his successors. 

It might have been thought that things were now 
arranged, and that Ursinus would remain quiet. But 
it was not so. The young emperor was good-natured 
and weak, and he allowed himself to be appealed to and 
beguiled. The agents of the anti-pope, in particular a 
eunuch called Paschasius, were furiously active in Rome. 
In 381 the prefect sent to Court a report, in which the 
whole matter seemed to have been reopened. Just at 
that time a council met at Aquileia. Ambrose, who 
was its moving spirit, obtained from it a very urgent 
application to Gratian. 3 It is the last time we hear of 
Ursinus. He died, no doubt, soon afterwards. 

When appealed to, as he constantly was, by the Eastern 
bishops to pity their position, Damasus might well have 
replied that his own was scarcely to be envied, and that 
he found himself no more than they on a bed of roses ! 

The Council of Aquileia,* of which I have just been 

1 Coll. Aveil. n. 13: Ordinariorum sententias^ in the last months 
of 378. 

8 " Ne facile sit cuicumque perdito notabili pravitate morum aut 
infami calumnia notato personam criminatoris assumere aut testimonii 
dictionem in accusationem episcopi profiteri." 

3 Ambrose, Ep. n. 

4 Upon the Council of Aquiieia, see the record preserved amongst 
the letters of St Ambrose (after letter 8), letters 9-12 of the same 



374 POPE DAMASUS [CH. xra. 

speaking, is connected with a whole campaign, undertaken 
and resolutely carried out by Ambrose, to extinguish 
in the Western empire the last fires of Arianism. We 
have seen that the Emperor Valentinian s neutrality 
in regard to creeds allowed certain bishops who had 
remained loyal to the " faith " of Ariminum to retain 
possession of their sees. The orthodox bishops had to 
protect themselves as well as they could. In Spain, in 
Gaul, and in Italy, from the days of Eusebius of Vercellae 
and of Hilary, the orthodox party had held council after 
council, and had multiplied declarations in favour of 
the Creed of Nicaea; it was everywhere proclaimed 
as the only one to be accepted. When Damasus had 
solemnly taken up his position against Ursacius, Valens, 
and even Auxentius, other episcopal meetings were held 
in Sicily, Dalmatia, Dardania, Macedonia, the two Epiri, 
in Achaia and in Crete l ; in short, in all the provinces 
of Illyricum, always excepting those nearest to the 
Danube, 2 where the movement in favour of Nicrea was 
thwarted by a certain amount of resistance. In Africa 
also there seems to have been some hesitation. The 
Bishop of Carthage, Restitutus, 3 had played an important 
part in the "betrayal" of 359; the Creed of Ariminum 
had its defenders in Africa, and Restitutus himself seems 
to have remained attached to it for a long time. Athan- 
asius was uneasy at this state of things. Although the 

author, and the fragments of Maximin s book against Ambrose in 
Fr. Kauflfmann, Aus cUr Schule des Wulfila (Strassburg, 1899). 

1 Athan., Ep. ad Afros. I. 

The two Dacias, Upper Mesia, and the Pannonian provinces. 

* This is, I think, the same Restitutus mentioned in the council s 
letter to the emperor (c. 6 see above, p. 372). It is generally allowed 
that the person referred to there is a Donatist ; but the Donatists 
are mentioned separately in the phrase which follows. The rescript 
to Aquilinus does not speak of him and could not have done so, because 
the case of that bishop belonged to the jurisdiction of the African 
authorities, and had nothing to do with the Italian officials. Besides, 
if the Bishop of Carthage had once more become favourable to the 
Creed of Nicaea, there would have been no need for St Athanasius 
to interfere ; at any rate he would not have tailed to mention in his 
letter so important a fact. 



p. 471] ATHANASIUS AND RESTITUTUS 375 

affairs of Africa belonged rather to the jurisdiction of 
Rome than to his own, he thought it his duty to come 
to the assistance of Pope Damasus, and wrote a cele 
brated letter " to the Africans " in which he inculcated upon 
them the necessity of abandoning the formula of Ariminum 
and adopting that of Nicaea. Restitutus refused to be 
convinced and maintained his position. Proceedings 
were taken against him from Rome; an attempt was 
made to compel him to appear before a tribunal of 
bishops, and a rescript was even obtained to that effect 
from the Emperor Gratian ; but the accused disobeyed 
and did not appear. The matter, however, was arranged 
shortly afterwards, either by the death of Restitutus 
or by his return to orthodoxy. 

There remained the Danubian provinces where the 
opposition to Nicaea was deeply rooted, and was maintained 
in spite of all exhortations from councils. It would only 
have been labour lost if Athanasius had written to them 
But gradually death thinned the ranks of the opposing 
bishops ; and the new holders of the sees were of con 
forming opinions. 

When Germinius died, Ambrose succeeded in placing 
in the important see of Sirmium an orthodox bishop 
named Anemius. It was not without difficulty that he 
achieved this; for the Empress Justina, who lived at 
Sirmium, was an enthusiastic Arian and fought with 
all her might against the intention of the Bishop of 
Milan. Even before the consecration of Anemius, two 
Danubian bishops, Palladius of Ratiaria, 1 and Secundianus, 
who had been disturbed apparently on account of their 
doctrine and threatened with the loss of their bishoprics, 
had obtained the consent of Gratian to their cause being 
judged by an CEcumenical Council which was to be held 
at Aquileia. Delayed for some unknown reasons, amongst 
which, however, we may certainly include the ravages 
made by the invasion of the Goths, the council opened 
at last on September 3, 381. It included a certain number 
of bishops from Upper Italy (dioecesis Italiae} and from 
1 Artcher, south of Vidin, in the modem Bulgaria. 



376 POPE DAMASUS [ce. xm. 

the "diocese" of Pannonia ; from three other "dioceses," 
Africa, Gaul, and the Five Provinces, representatives had 
been appointed by the body of bishops. Pope Damasus j 
seeing no necessity for such a display of ecclesiastical 
forces, sent no representatives, ami even opposed the idea 
of his own immediate suffragans taking part in the 
council. No one came from Britain or from Spain, or 
from the Orient either, alihough an invitation couched in 
general terms had been circulated there. The Eastern 
prelates had just held a meeting at Constantinople; they 
did not disturb themselves. Erom Eastern Illyricum, 
which included the "dioceses" of Dacia and of Macedonia, 
there came only the two bishops concerned whose sees 
were in the " diocese " of Dacia. Acholius of Thessalonica i 
and no doubt several other prelates from his district, 
had already taken part, as we have seen, in the Council 
of Constantinople. 1 

After several rather confused discussions, the debates 
presided over by Ambrose, with the decision and 
clearness of an official judge were concentrated upon 

1 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 (Jaflfe, 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 in partibus 
Occidentalibus, and even that the secular authority which could main 
tain 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 : IXXi /uous fai rd vpbt ijXiov dvlffx " TTJS apxn* 
QfoSoeiy tir<.Tpt\l/a.t. Sozomen in speaking of IXXi^ioi was undoubtedly 
thinking of the Illyricum Orientale of the Notitia Di%nitatum; but 
there is nothing to show that the boundaries established on that side 
bctweeen 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. \. 10, i; xii. I, 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. 



p. 474-5] COUNCIL OF AQUILEIA, 381 377 

an Arian document, a letter of Arius himself, in which his 
heretical doctrine was set out without any ambiguity. 
This letter was read, and upon each of the disputed points 
the dissentients were required to declare whether they 
accepted or rejected the expressions of the arch-heretic. 
They lost themselves in evasions, in subtle distinctions, in 
disputes as to the competence of the tribunal, which they 
did not consider of sufficient importance. Ambrose told 
them that it was impossible for all that to put hundreds of 
bishops to inconvenience, as had been done at the time of 
the Council of Ariminum, merely to clear up an individual 
case which was so simple. As to the root of the matter, 
what Palladius and Secundianus said and what they left 
unsaid alike combined to disclose their real opinions. It 
is evident that they were Arians : that, for them, the 
Father was the only true God ; and the Son and the Holy 
Spirit were beings clearly inferior to Him. The council 
decided that there was reason for deposing the two 
bishops. They informed the emperor of their sentence, 
begging him to carry it out. 

The Eastern prelates, whose presence Palladius and 
his colleague demanded at Aquileia, would not have 
treated them otherwise. They had not condemned the 
Arians or Eudoxians, replaced Dorotheus by Meletius 
and Demophilus by Gregory of Nazianzus, to give any 
one a ground to claim their support against Latin 
orthodoxy. From this time forward, there was no longer 
any loophole through which it was possible to creep 
between the Churches of the East and those of the West 
in order to introduce or to support the heresy of Arius : 
both were agreed to get rid of it. 

There still remained, however, between the two 
Churches some personal disputes, which were very difficult 
to smooth down. I have already mentioned in the last 
chapter, how Ambrose had been the means of bringing 
about the assembling at Rome of a great council in which 
he hoped that these matters would be settled. This 
council was actually held, but without result, unless it 
were to exhibit to the pious curiosity of the Romans an 



378 POPE DAMASUS [CH. XIIL 

assemblage of celebrated bishops, Acholius of Thessalonica, 
Paulinus of Antioch, Epiphanius of Cyprus, and Ambrose 
of Milan. This time, Marcellina had good reason to kiss 
her brother s hand. 1 Other noble ladies were eager to 
offer to the foreign prelates the hospitality of their 
luxurious mansions. Besides the bishops, much notice 
was taken of a Latin monk, named Jerome, who had 
just been spending several years in the East. A native 
of Dalmatia, 2 he had come to Rome to pursue his 
studies, and after a somewhat dissipated youth had been 
baptized there. 8 In the course of a journey in Gaul, 
when he stopped for some time at Treves, he felt himself 
called to a life of retirement, prayer, and intellectual work. 
One of his companions in study, Rufinus, who was from 
Aquileia, induced Jerome to visit his native town, and 
there he met with several persons possessed by the same 
desires as himself the priest Chromatius, Heliodorus of 
Altinum, Bonosus, Rufinus, Niceas, and others. In their 
company, he imagined himself already " in the kingdom of 
the blest." 4 In 373, this edifying company broke up for 
what reason we do not know. Whilst Bonosus went to 
lead a hermit s life upon a rock on the Dalmatian coast, 
Rufinus embarked for Alexandria, and Heliodorus, Jerome, 

1 It was not the first time that Marcellina had seen him since his 
elevation to the episcopate. She was with him at Milan in 378 during 
a severe illness which he had in that year. Marcellina had been 
consecrated as a virgin by Pope Liberius, one Christmas day, in the 
basilica of St Peter (Ambrose, De Virginibus^ iii. i). She died at 
Milan, after Satyrus and Ambrose. 

9 Stridon, his native town, was destroyed during his lifetime, about 
the year 378, by the Goths. Its situation remains uncertain ; see, 
however, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum^ vol. iii., No. 9860 ; and 
Bulic, Bull. Datm. vol. xxii. (1899), P- 37- Upon St Jerome, see 
the excellent monograph of George Griitzmacher, in the Studien Mur 
Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche^ vols. vi. (1901) and x. 
(1906). 

* It is impossible to admit that the indiscretions, the memory of 
which troubled Jerome in after years, could have been subsequent to 
his baptism. In that case, he would never have been ordained 
priest 

4 "Aquileienses clerici quasi chorus beatorum habentur." Chron, 
a. Abr., 2390. 



p. 477] ST JEROME 379 

and several others fixed their choice upon the Syrian 
desert. There also there were famous solitaries, of whom 
they must have heard from Evagrius, a priest of Antioch, 
who had just made a long stay in Italy. At this time he 
was returning to his own country ; perhaps they travelled 
together. In any case, it was from him that, on his arrival 
at Antioch, Jerome received hospitality. As to his 
companions, two lost courage and returned to Venetia ; 
two others died ; Jerome himself fell sick. It was then 
that he had his celebrated dream, in which he heard 
himself reproached for his attachment to pagan authors, 
and promised never again to open any book by a profane 
orator or poet. As soon as his health was restored, he 
hastened to learn Greek, and began the study of exegesis 
under the guidance of the famous Apollinaris. Finally, 
screwing up his courage, he buried himself in the desert of 
Chalcis, and at first attempted to imitate the extreme 
asceticism of the most renowned monks. But he was not 
of the stuff of which fakirs are made l ; he returned to his 
books. Shortly afterwards, he compiled the Life of Paul, 
the first hermit of Egypt a composition with a large 
element of myth and began his exegetical works by inter 
preting the prophet Obadiah. He also devoted himself 
to Hebrew, a hard penance for a disciple of Cicero. 

His relations with Apollinaris had not led him into 
heresy, nor had it even made him a theologian. He was 
a rhetorician and not a philosopher, and theology had but 
little attraction for him. Upon that subject he always 
depended on the opinion of someone else. But dogmatic 
disputes followed him even into the desert. The Meletians 
tormented him about the three hypostases. For a Latin 
such as he was, three hypostases meant three substances 
in other words, three Gods. Such polytheism was 
repugnant to him in the last degree. These perplexities 
were increased by his uncertainty as to the ecclesiastical 
position. He repudiated, needless to say, the official 
Church of Antioch, that of the Arians, which was then 

1 Upon the extreme austerities of the monks of this country, see the 
next chapter. 



380 POPE DAMASUS [CH. xm. 

strong in the favour of the emperor. But among the others, 
to which was he to go ? There were three Bishops of 
Antioch Meletius, Paulinus, and Vitalis, all anti-Arians, 
all claiming to be in communion with the Apostolic See 
of Rome. Jerome did not hesitate to make direct appeal 
to Pope Damasus, 1 who did not reply to his first letter, 
perhaps not to his second, but who let it be seen plainly 
enough by his actions that Paulinus alone enjoyed his 
confidence. The Mcleti.in clergy redoubled their impor 
tunities. Worn out with these continual suspicions as 
to orthodoxy, Jerome made up his mind to abandon the 
desert, leaving the monks to their chains, their dirt, and 
their claim to rule the Church from the depths of their 
caves. 2 At Antioch. Pau .inus wished to ordain him 
priest. He submitted, but with the stipulation that he 
should remain a monk, and be free to go wherever he 
might think fit. Shortly afterwards (3^0-381) he was in 
Constantinople, with Gregory of Nazianzus, who was his 
second master in exegesis. Gregory was a great admirer 
of Origen ; Jerome became one also, under his teaching, 
and set himself to translate the works of the celebrated 
Alexandrian. It was at this time also that he translated 
the Chronicle of Eusebius, completing it and continuing 
it down to the death of Valens. It is surprising that he 
never makes any mention of the council of 381, which 
took place during his stay in Constantinople. This 
council, which had repudiated Paulinus, and disgusted 
Gregory of Nazi.inzus, could certainly not have enlisted 
his sympathies in any way. It was in these circumstances 
that, Pope Damasus having obtained permission from the 
emperors for the assembling of a new council in Rome, 
Jerome once more beheld the old metropolis. Damasus 
knew him. In addition to his letters from the desert, 
he had received from him a little exegetical treatise on 

> Ep. 15, 16. 

1 Ep. 17: " Pudet dicere : de cavernis cellularum damnamus 
orbem. In sacco et cinere volutati, de episcopis sententiam ferimus. 
Quid facit sub tunica poenitentis regius animus ? Catenae, sordes, 
ct comae non sunt diadematis signa, sed fletus." 



p. 479] JEROME AND DAMASUS 381 

the vision of Isaiah. 1 The Pope had his curiosity 
awakened as to the difficulties of Scripture. No one 
was better qualified than Jerome, steeped as he was in 
the knowledge of languages and the study of interpreters 
ancient and modern, to give him the necessary information. 
When the Pope had Jerome in Rome entirely at his beck 
and call, he began to overwhelm him with questions upon 
the difficult points of the Bible ; he encouraged him, with 
an eagerness that was almost indiscreet, to translate 
the Greek interpreters; he urged him to revise or re 
write on the basis of the Hebrew or Greek originals 
the Latin version of Holy Scripture. Jerome gently 
protested, but he did it ; and in doing it, he enjoyed 
the purest pleasure possible to persons of his character 
that of seeing his learning of some use. As he was well 
acquainted with the East, both with regard to men and 
books, the Pope had recourse to him for his correspondence 
with those lands. In the whole life of Damasus, nothing 
makes him more pleasing to us than this friendship with 
Jerome, and the broadness of mind which it betokens. 
But we must add at once that such favour, and for such a 
reason, was eminently calculated to expose the learned 
monk to the jealous malevolence of the Roman clergy. 
They concealed it at first ; for Jerome was in favour. 
Compliments were paid him ; he was called saintly, 
humble, eloquent ; he was spoken of for the papal chair. 
But this did not last long. Objections were discovered 
to his renderings ; they upset what had become familiar. 
He was envied for the success he met with in high 
society. Christian matrons of real devotion looked with 
favour upon this austere and learned man, who without 
any falling away in doctrine or in conduct guided them 
with sincerity and dignity in the most exalted paths of 
the religious vocation. Amongst these ladies was 
Marcella, left a widow when quite young, who lived in 
retirement in a palace on the Aventine ; another widow, 
Lea; a virgin, Asella ; and lastly, Paula, also a widow. 
Paula had several children : one of them, Eustochium, 
1 Ep. 1 8. 



382 POPE DAM ASUS [CH. xm. 

remained a virgin, and lived always with her mother ; 
another daughter, Blaesilla, after a short married life, 
hesitated for some time between the world and retirement. 
Jerome was the friend of these holy women. He explained 
the Scriptures to them, and encouraged them in their 
pious exercises. Could any further reason be wanted? 
The worldly set was speedily hostile to him: the 
fashionable ladies, who even in those far-off days, knew 
how to reconcile pleasantly the Gospel and a life of amuse 
ment ; the curled and scented ecclesiastics who were 
attached to their society, who flocked to their pttits 
laers, were the eager recipients of their presents, and 
lived in expectation of their property; in short, "the 
whole council of the Pharisees " was all agog. We must, 
however, confess, that it was not only Jerome s virtues 
which so exasperated them. He had his faults also, and 
very patent ones, amongst others an extreme irritability, 
which made him intolerant of the slightest criticism, and 
led him into extreme violence of language. The blows 
which were struck at him, he returned with enormous 
interest. He fought with words, as well as with his pen, 
allowing himself to be drawn into disputes, in which the 
parties grew so warm that they ended by spitting into 
each other s faces. 1 Marcella was frightened sometimes : 
such proceedings offended her dignity. Paula, on the 
contrary, never made any objections ; she was a model 
sheep. Nothing alarmed her. One day, Jerome addressed 
to her daughter Eustochium a treatise on virginity, 
marked by an extraordinary freedom of style. 2 Other 
mothers were scandalized at it ; Paula approved 
of everything, and allowed herself to be called the 

1 It is Jerome himself who gives us this piece of information 
(Ep. 1. 4) : Quoties me iste (he is speaking of another monk) in 
circuits stomachari fecit et *dduxit ad choleram ! Quoties conspuit et 
consputus abscessit ! 

2 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. 



p. 482] INSCRIPTIONS OF DAMASUS 383 

"mother-in-law of God," since her daughter was, by her 
vow, " the spouse of Christ." 

It was during this period also that Jerome wrote his 
dialogue against the Luciferians, in which he makes a 
formal indictment against the Little Church, founded more 
or less intentionally by the celebrated Bishop of Sardinia. 
He also attacked a certain Helvidius who, as a protest 
against the attraction of vocations to virginity, had set 
himself to prove that Mary, the Mother of the Lord, had 
had other children afterwards by her marriage with 
Joseph. It cost him dear, for Jerome, thus attacked on 
a tender spot, made him atone very severely for his hasty 
exegesis. 

So long as Pope Damasus lived, Jerome was able to 
labour, to teach, and to fight, as he pleased. But he had 
only lived three years in Rome when his protector, who 
had attained a very advanced age, passed from life to 
life beyond (December 1 1, 384). 

Pope Damasus is very popular with the archaeologists 
of our own days, on account of the beautiful inscriptions 
with which he adorned the tombs of the Roman martyrs. 
Pilgrims, at the beginning of the Middle Ages, copied 
them eagerly ; several of them have been preserved 
entire ; others are found in fragments in the excavations 
of the catacombs. Everyone knows their admirable 
caligraphy. Never have worse verses been transcribed 
so exquisitely. And if the verses were only bad ! But 
they are empty of history, they are obscure, and contain 
scarcely anything but commonplaces. Thus, they bear 
witness that the local tradition with regard to the martyrs 
was almost obliterated at the time when the pious pontiff 
sought to preserve it. Nevertheless, his intention deserves 
praise. Stoutly opposed as he was, and bitterly assailed 
by persons who prided themselves on their superior zeal, 
Damasus felt the necessity of conciliating the feeling of 
the common people. Now the populace was beginning 
to take more and more interest in the heroes of ancient 
days. To recover their true history would have been 
almost impossible. And besides, it had been almost always 



384 POPE DAMASUS [CH. xm. 

the same. But the ecclesiastical authorities were in a 
position to know where the martyrs had been buried ; it 
was their duty to guide in the direction of the authentic 
tombs a pious enthusiasm which might have wandered 
elsewhere; and by associating themselves closely with 
it, they maintained an indispensable communion of feeling 
between themselves and the generality of the faithful. 

On the death of Damasus,a former deacon of Liberius, 
named Siricius, was chosen as his successor. This new 
Pharaoh had not known Joseph, or rather was not at all 
inclined to be friendly to him. Jerome soon saw that to 
stay in Rome would become difficult for him. In the 
meantime, Bkesilla, after some months as a fashionable 
widow, had been induced by him to embrace, as her 
mother and sister had done, a life of retreat and privation. 
She only lived four months afterwards. Her " conversion " 
had already been a shock to her worldly friends ; her 
death was a desolation. Society was furious against the 
monks. It was then that Jerome experienced a revival of 
the former attraction of the Holy Places, which twelve 
years before had carried him from Aquileia to Antioch, 
but without inducing him to complete the journey. 
Paula also had wished, for many years, to follow the 
example of Melania, and to visit the monks of Egypt 
and the sanctuaries of Palestine; she told Jerome that 
she would follow him. Jerome sailed first; Paula and 
Eustochium followed in another ship. In Cyprus they 
met once more Bishop Epiphanius, and at Antioch 
Paulinus, two friends dating from the last council. It was 
at Antioch that they made their preparations, under the 
guidance of Paulinus, for the journey to the Holy Places. 



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 : Eubtathius 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 386 2 B 



386 THE MONKS OF THE EAST [CH. xiv. 

But it had another title to respect : it was the father 
land 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 sects l ; 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 ascetks, 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. 

8 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] THE MONKS OF EGYPT 387 

Far from condemning such practices, however, in them 
selves, 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 person 2 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 pro 
position of his which would seem somewhat akin to Modalism (letter 
to Alexander, Epiph. Haer. Ixix. 7). St Epiphanius, who gives us 
information (Haer. Ixviii.) 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 iripQfvuv in which St Antony placed his sister 
(Athan. Vita Ant. 3). 

8 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. 



388 THE MONKS OF THE EAST [CH. xiv. 

even from the ordinary society of the faithful, was 
St Antony. 1 

He was born in 251 in a village of the name 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 (e<V 
TrapOewva), 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 2 ; 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. 

After twenty years of solitude, Antony found himself 

1 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 Palladius, i. p. 220, in the Cambridge Texts and 
Studies, vol. vi. 

8 Der-el-Meimoun, on the right bank of the Nile, between Atfih 
and Beni-Souef (Amelineau, Gtog. de FEgypte, p. 353 ; cf. Anecd. 
Qxon., Semitic series^ part vii. map). 



P. 489] ST ANTONY 389 

one day besieged in his fortress ; 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, 1 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. 2 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 338, 3 to 
greet Athanasius on his return from his first exile and to 
lend him aid against the Arians. They were old acquaint 
ances. 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 

1 Vita Ant. 44. 

2 This is the monastery of St Antony, still in existence, as is also 
that of St Paul at some distance from it. 

3 This date is supplied by the Chronicle of the Festal Letters. 



390 THE MONKS OF THE EAST [CH. xiv. 

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 judg 
ment 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 mortifica 
tion and continual prayer. We cannot see how Antony, 
during his twenty years of seclusion, can ever have been 
enabled to receive the Eucharist. 

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 ecclesi 
astical 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 



p. 492] THE MONKS OF NITRIA 391 

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 Nicaea, 
a certain Amoun l 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 con 
siderable 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 

1 Historia Lauaiaca^ 8. This work is always quoted here accord 
ing 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. 



392 THE MONKS OF THE EAST [CH. xiv. 

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 chant 
ing 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. 

For there was a certain connoisseurship, a virtuosity in 
asceticism, an open rivalry between the monks, not only of 
this district but throughout the whole of Kgypt. Pambo, 
Or, Nathanael, Benjamin, Macarius of Egypt and Macarius 
of Alexandria, appear in the number of Xitrian 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- 



p. 495] LIFE IN THE DESERT 393 

able rival, but their 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 some 
times 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). a Ibid. 19 (22). 8 Ibid. 23 (29). 



394 THE MONKS OF THE EAST [CH. xiv. 

The disciples of St Antony, the monks of Nitria, 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 arid 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, 8 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, 
(llaxoJ/xto?) 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 
Historia, Lausiaca of Dom Butler, vol. i., pp. 103-106. 

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



p. 497-8] ST PACOMIUS 395 

lived in the neighbourhood of Esneh (Latopolis), to the 
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 Denderali. Soon he 
felt himself drawn to gather other ascetics round him, 
and to lead with them a life in community. He was the 
inventor l 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 
(Ha/Sav, 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 out 
skirts 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 Peb6ou. 

Each of the monasteries comprised a closed area, in 
which were built several houses, each sheltering some 
forty monkv 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). 

a Movaffrfyiov means properly a place where one lives alone ; this is 
exactly the contrary of the usually received meaning ; Kotvd/StoK, 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. 

8 Upon the documents relating to St Pacomius and his 
monasteries, see Ladeuze, Etude sur le ctnobitismt Pakhomiert 



396 THE MONKS OF THE EAST [CBL xiv. 

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, 

Pendant le IV* sih le ft In premiere moitif du V . The best 
biographical document is the (ircek Life, published (shockingly: 
this work ought to be done again) by the Bollandists (Ada SS. maii, 
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*> anf l 54*~ DI * [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 b ick 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. Z,., 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. y 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. 



p. 500] ATHANASIUS AND PACOMIUS 397 

naturally, made a great deal. He was conscious 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 Thebafd. 
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 " 



398 THE MONKS OF THE EAST [CH. xiv. 

Theodore conducted him, holding the bridle of his ass. 
Acclamations echoed from shore to shore. In this land 
of the upper river, there was no occasion to trouble one 
self 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 (TTOX/T/KO/), 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, 
ac 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. 

Upon a spur of the Libyan chain, opposite the town 
of Achmm (CJumnis), 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 



p. 503] SCHNOUDI OF ATRIPE 399 

called Atripe. Towards the middle of the 4th century, 
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 existedi 
and upon their temples. He lived to the incredible age 
of one hundred and eighteen years, venerated and feared 
by all the Thebatd 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 (Ame"lineau, 
Mtmoires de la mission archtol. du Caire t vol. iv. i), we possess letters 



400 THE MONKS OF THE EAST [CH. xiv- 

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 Oxyrhynchus 1 
belonged 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. 2 
From 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 con 
versations, 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, Schenute von Atripe, in the 
Texte und Untersuchungen, vol. xxv. (1903). See also Ladeuze, op. cit. 

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

1 John of Lycopolis was supposed to have predicted to Theodosius 



p. 505] PAPHNUTIUS 401 

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 decree 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. 

" 2C 



402 THE MONKS OF THE EAST [OH. xiv. 

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 oflife 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 Constanti 
nople, 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 

1 Besides the lives of Antony, Pacomius, and Schnoudi, the 
Egyptian monks of the 4th century are known to us from the follow 
ing documents : ist 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 wo 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 



p. 508] ETHERIA 403 

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 Thebald of that day comprised the present 
Fayoum, which from the time of Theodosius possessed, 
under the name of Arcadia, a separate provincial organiza 
tion. Rufinus and Posthumianus went to the Thebaifd. 
The pilgrim Etheria (or Eucheria x ), whose account of her 
journey has unfortunately not come down to us in a com 
plete form, also visited the Thebai d. 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 alpha 
betical order of the "Fathers" (Migne, P. ., vol. Ixv., pp. 72-440), has 
been preserved in Greek ; two others, Rosweyde s Vitae Patrum, Books 
v.-vi. and Book vii. (Migne, P. L., vol. Ixxiii.) 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 informa 
tion 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 con 
spectus of the matter as a whole, by the venerable Tillemont, has been 
complicated in recent times by unjustifiable hypotheses and allega 
tions 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 FeVotin, 
in the Revue des Questions historiques, 1903, vol. Ixxiv., p. 367. In the 
Revue augustinienne, 1903 and 1904, Pere Edmond Bouvy, starting 
from the spelling Eucheria (the MSS. give the readings Etheria, 
Echeria, Eihcria, 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. 



404 THE MONKS OF THE EAST [CH. xiv. 

time, Palladius himself went to see John the prophet. 
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 en 
counter sleeping crocodiles, which woke up at their approach 
and frightened them terribly. Leviathan and Behemoth 
then still dwelt in the great river : hippopotamuses some 
times 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 con 
verted 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 Thebatdos] 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. 

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, 



p. 510-11] MELANIA IN EGYPT 405 

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. 1 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 under 
stand 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. 8 Others were joined to the 
company of the bishops deported to Diocsesarea. Melania 
accompanied them, and provided for their material wants. 
Her zeal attracted 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 

1 Hist. Laus. 10. * Ibid. 18 (19-20). Rufinus, H. E. ii. 4. 
4 Upon St Hilarion, see his life written by St Jerome. Cf. Sozomen, 
H. E. iii. 14. 



406 THE MONKS OF THE EAST [CH. xiv. 

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 extra 
ordinary 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. 

3 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. . . ." (Vitae 
Patrum, v. 4.) 



p. 513-4] SINAI 407 

Farther to the south, the holy mountain of Sina i 
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 SinaTf 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. 1 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 Raithu, the monks of which were massacred 
in 373 by Blemmyan pirates who came from the extreme 
end of the Red Sea. 2 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. 8 Such raids 
were frequent. They produced but little booty. But 

1 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. 

2 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. 

8 So the account of Ammonius, an eye-witness, in Combe fis, 
lllustrium martyrum lecti trium^hi (1660), p. 88. Cf. the story of 



408 THE MONKS OF THE EAST [CH. xiv 

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 en 
countered 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 chanty 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 Palestine 1 were filled 
with monks. In the Holy City, the monazontes 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 $th century. 

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



p. 516] MONKS OF PALESTINE AND SYRIA 409 

the monks had much to suffer ; they encountered continually 
the ill-will of the pagan population. 1 

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 (/Soovcot) 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. 2 

1 Palladius, fit s t. Laus. 47 (90-95) ; Sozomen, H. E. vi. 34. 

a 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 



410 THE MONKS OF THE EAST [CH. xiv. 

Several highly cultivated men, such as Jerome and 
Chrysostom, carrier 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 indis 
cretions, 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 



p. 518-9] EUSTATHIUS AND BASIL 411 

should not go very far from inhabited places, and, as 
their wants were not so few as those of their brethren in 
the Thebald, they were obliged to enter into closer 
communication with the rest of mankind. 

Eustathius, notwithstanding his Egyptian experiences, 
does not appear, at first, to have propagated either 
monasticism nor anchoritism. The criticisms addressed 
to him by the Council of Gangra, about 34O, 1 are directed, 
not against an exotic form of asceticism, nor even against 
a gross exaggeration of the ancient and traditional 
asceticism, but rather against a tendency to represent 
it as obligatory, as the Encratites did. Whether 
Eustathius was judged too unfavourably at that time, 
or whether he corrected his ideas afterwards, one thing 
is certain, namely, that at the time when he allied himself 
with St Basil, his asceticism no longer excited on the part of 
the Church any objection founded on principle. Upon that 
ground master and disciple always walked hand in hand. 
The quarrel which separated them in their later years did 
not affect this point. A large number of ascetical works, 2 
Great and Little Rules, Constitutions, etc., were soon 
collected together, under the name of St Basil, 3 in a 
special collection, which was afterwards considerably 
enlarged by numerous additions. In the time of 
Sozomen, 4 some people attributed the paternity of them 
to Eustathius. This is extremely doubtful. But, what 
ever may be the truth about this question of literary 
history, the spirit, being assuredly that of Basil, can scarcely 
differ from that of Eustathius. What is of importance, 
though for quite other reasons, is that we possess in these 
books the monastic code of the Byzantine East. It is 
under the Rule of St Basil that all the monasteries of the 
Graeco-Slavonic world have lived for centuries, and still 
live at the present day. 

In spite of its Egyptian connections, Basilian monas- 

1 See above, p. 305. 2 Migne, P. G., vol. xxxi. 

* The dffKrjTiK6v of Basil is already mentioned, in 392, in the De 
viris of St Jerome (c. 116). 

* iii. 14, 31. 



41 : THE MONKS OF THE EAST [CH. xir. 

rds moderation and 
t is made >!fe in com- 

- _ " - T . _ 5 . . - 

~.~ ~: ~. . - ~.~ ~~. i 5-Tr r sc ~:: 

- a^.d 

- :: .- - 

T " " " : 

_ . 

- - - : - : - 1 - 7 - ~ .- .: : . 

:- R i - *r.i comparat 

7 - ^LIS and Caopad -.ies 

- ; r-ead 

.. - - - - 

episcopa rpinicr rculd not 

t than to ] ts. It was even 

gratefcJ :: : ^ the cere ancient 

-- 

[ r : r ies the en th us iasm : ^1 ibates 

: r 3 t::=:t : 

: - r n them 

=-.-_: at difficult T.-r r- : . es, it is 

: - _ t -. -. : - : - r : - _ : . t n reconc 

: - 1 - - : - - r i - 



- - 7-7 : L :. 
>L:.^ talance Lr i::i-r: and 

- r - - r -i by can onica] 
:^r.= i 

A: to the c v ever made 

na::>- and tc 

-re: :L.-..:_.L: ::_- .--i les. Vale- 5 being =-.^r>- with 
:-r~: - 1 ; 5 : t : : r. t _ E _ - ~ i :.:-.:: 

!_.: _s ponisbed i ^rtain number of them, and even 
-~L:C = .i . " :~t~ r : = r/ service. 

7 5 law, which 5: Jerome n-.er.tions in the year 377, 
conM not have hid any lasting effects. And besides, we 
have good reassn for beiievir^ that it only affected those 
d .r.Li who had iven cause for comlaint. Tbeodosius 



Sec iLcre, pp. ^>5 ia 



p. 521] THEODOSIU5 AVD THE MONKS 413 



al = o ::-..-: me=:--e: --:-- -:t t.-.e " : :-. : :- some t.~e - 
\~ -. --.-. then- t: live ir. the towns 1 wh ere their crers^er.ce 
i -.:":;-. - --: _ . i : i. to ;*-. oo Drdei Pioos -.- be u 
t^is emperor had little taste for the ir.terferer.ee cf the 
monks in the affairs, ever, the religious affairs, cf the 
world which they claimed to have rer. ur.ced A d 
indeed we do net s-ee what a-i ir.i-stratio- ecu id have 
consented to a .isv. the wardencg through the tcwr.s 
and on the high-rsads cf these undiscipimed bs.r.d.5 -f 
professed redressors of wrongs, whc *-ere always rea.d>- to 
interfere with sentences ar.d with the acc/iication o: the 
laws, to ill-use anyone who did not share their o pin: ins. and 
t: destroy ith vioience the ed ocea \ proscribed formf " 
worship. Monacki mu Ita lu .e rz fa,?iu n :. sa i d : 7 heod : s i us 
to St Ambro-se, It was a still m:re series noar.er that, 
with their austerity, their fre-e-dcm of speech and their 
boldness, they were extremely popular. From this point of 
view, the government could not but io-ok with a favourable 
eye upon their connnenoent in noonasterles, where, th.ar.ks 
t: the rC-le and t: the iuthorit) : :" the superiors there 
was reason to h:pe that the;/ would preserve the spirit 
of their vo-caticr. and not transform themselvea intc 
disturbers of the public peace. But, ir. the time of 
Theodosius, the institution cf the monasteries was verv 
far from being sufficiently widespread, to produce thes-e 
;- en-tit: ever, rhere It L5 still r.ecessar.- for L 
time :: re:-::n .th the enthusiasm : : the 
minks ino their o :ular:r. 



Ambrose, ^>. 4^1 27. 



CHAPTER XV 

THE \YKST IN THE DAYS OF ST AMBROSE 

$t Hilary and his writings. St Martin of Tours. Council of Valence. 
Priscillian and his asceticism. Spanish disputes : Council of 
Saragossa. Attitude of Damasus, of Ambrose, and of Gratian. 
Maximus in Gaul ; the trial at Troves. The Ithacians. Reaction 
under Valentinian II.; the schism of Felix ; the rhetorician 
Pacatus. Priscillianism in Galicia. Council of Toledo : dissen 
sions in the Spanish episcopate. The Prise illianist doctrine. St 
Ambrose and the Court of Justina. Ambrose and Theodosius. 
Pope Siricius. Jovinian and St Jerome. 

HILARY of Poitiers died in 366, 1 leaving behind him a 
great memory. Of all the bishops of the West, it was 
he who, throughout the final struggles, had played the 
greatest part, and that not only in Gaul but in the East 
and in Italy. He derived no special authority from the 
situation of his see, but his soul was the soul of a leader 
of men ; and in times of crisis they rallied round him 
as by instinct. High-spirited and determined, able to 
form a quick and confident judgment of a situation, he 
knew how to resist, and his resistance was not to be 
overcome ; ne knew also how to open up ways of arrange 
ment when any were to be found. The impression made 
by his actions was strengthened, for later generations, by 
the witness of his writings. To Christianity, which he did 
not embrace till the prime of life, he had brought a culture 
which was already very considerable. When banished 
to Asia, he found in study an employment for his enforced 
leisure : it was then that he made himself familiar with 

1 On January 14, following the tradition of the liturgical 
anniversary. 

414 



p. 524] HILARY OF POITIERS 415 

the Greek language, and gained acquaintance with the 
Doctors of the East, especially with Origen, whose 
figurative exegesis, always concerned to rediscover the 
New Testament in the Old, squared with what Hilary 
was familiar with in others and had himself attempted. 
But it was in theology especially that Hilary learnt from 
the Easterns. He had left Gaul with very vague ideas 
on the controversies of the day l ; he returned, bringing 
not only his De Synodis, in which are treated questions 
of great subtlety, but also a great work, in twelve books, 
on the Trinity. These compositions display a very 
considerable advance upon his " Commentary on St 
Matthew," which was written before 356. In that, 
Hilary was still influenced by the ideas of Tertullian 
and Novatian : the Word is Eternal as Word, not as 
Son. 2 The difficulty of this language of a bygone age 
was revealed to him by a deeper examination. We meet 
with it no more in the writings of his exile. 

Hilary also took an interest in poetry. He had com 
posed a collection of hymns. One of these compositions, at 
least, has come down to us : it is an alphabetical 
canticle, 3 in the Horatian metre Sic te diva potens Cypri. 
I have already mentioned his requests to the Emperor 
Constantius, and the terrible pamphlet he directed at him, 
in 360, during a moment of despair. It was at that 
time, too, that Hilary determined to expose to the public, in 
a narrative well supported by proofs, the origin and actual 
state of the episcopal disputes. Of this work, analogous 
in form and intention to the Apology of Athanasius 
against the Arians, we only possess now a few fragments 4 
and a prologue, evidently imitated from the Histories of 
Tacitus. 5 And even the fragments which have survived are 
those of a revised edition, for we find in them documents 

1 " Regeneratus pridem et in episcopatu aliquantisper manens, 
fidem Nicaenam numquam nisi exsulaturus audivi " (De Synodis^ 91). 

2 In Mattk. xvi. 4 ; xxxi. 3. 

3 Published by Gamurrini, from a MS. at Arezzo (Sancti Hilarii 
tractates, etc., Rome, 1887, p. 28). 

4 These are what are called his Fragmenta historica. 
6 Cf. Fragm. i. 4, with Tacitus, Hist. i. 2. 



416 IN THE DAYS OF ST AMBROSE [CH. xv. 

of a date later not only than 360, but also than Hilary s 
death. 

It is a singular thing that this great champion of 
Nicene orthodoxy, who fought and suffered so much for 
Athanasius, seems to have remained unknown to him. 
Not once is he mentioned in the writings of the Bishop 
of Alexandria. The other Easterns are not less ignorant 
of him. Theodoret never speaks of him ; if Socrates, and 
Sozomen after him, tell us something about Hilary, it is 
thanks to Rufinus whose ill-constructed history was trans 
lated into Greek. It was quite otherwise in the West. 
The memory of the struggles against the Arians upheld by 
the Emperor Constantius soon passed into oblivion ; but 
Hilary s books did not perish. He was always considered 
a master in doctrine, even when men had Ambrose, 
Jerome, and Augustine. 

Among the friends of Hilary there had long been 
found a strange ascetic called Martin, who, after having 
served in the army, discharged for some time at Poitiers 
the office of exorcist. Martin s parents were pagans ; 
his father, an officer in the army, made him serve under 
the standards ; later he retired of his own accord from 
the service and settled at Sabaria, in Pannonia, of which 
he was a native. Martin, when only twelve years old, 
had secured admission as a catechumen, at Pavia, where 
his parents then resided. We find him, later on, at 
Amiens, 1 and then at Worms, where he asked for his 
discharge from the army, acting under an inward prompt 
ing to renounce the world and lead the life of an ascetic. 
Shortly after his establishment at Poitiers, he repaired 
to Pannonia in the hope of converting his parents. In 
the case of his mother he succeeded ; but the old tribune 
remained faithful to his gods. It was during this time 
that Hilary was beginning his journey into exile. Martin 
protested with as much vigour as he could in his position, 
strenuously undertaking the defence of his master, of 
the others who were proscribed, and of the faith of 

1 It is with Amiens that the celebrated story of the divided cloak 
is connected. 



p. 526] ST MARTIN OF TOURS 417 

Nicaea. He had much to endure on this account, for the 
bishops of Pannonia were all more or less on the opposite 
side. In Milan, where he wished to settle, Auxentius 
made his life so hard that he sought refuge in the little 
island of Gallinaria, on the coast of Liguria. On Hilary s 
return he rejoined him at Poitiers, where he was allowed 
to live as he liked. In the neighbourhood of the town 
he chose for himself a hermitage, round which other 
ascetics soon gathered. This was the origin of the 
monastery of Liguge, the first of the kind in Gaul and 
even in the West. These holy people, and especially 
their master, soon attracted attention. Seven years after 
the death of Hilary (in 373), the Church of Tours having 
lost its bishop, the voice of the people made itself heard 
to acclaim the Saint of Poitiers as his successor. There 
was some opposition, especially among the bishops, who 
did not like the idea of having as a colleague a monk 
who did not wash himself or dress properly. In this 
we see already the conflict between popular enthusiasm 
which thinks more of character than of appearance and 
the worldly considerations which prevail, and will do so 
more and more, with the superior clergy. Martin was 
consecrated in spite of this opposition, albeit reinforced 
by his own ; but he found means to combine the monastic 
life with the duties of his new position. Another monastery 
was founded by him near Tours, on the cliffs which 
overhang on the north the bank of the Loire. 1 There 
he took up his abode with his disciples, and there he 
spent all the time which was not occupied by his pastoral 
cares. In his life, which we owe to the enthusiasm of 
one of his friends, Sulpicius Severus, a great nobleman 
who had been converted to asceticism, we find mention, 
in the midst of many miracles, of a characteristic trait 
the war which he waged against the rural paganism. 
Martin had a difficult task in endeavouring to Christianize 
the peasants of Gaul, who were strongly attached to their 
ancient religious usages, to the worship associated with 
their rustic temples and the sacred trees. 

1 This is Marmoutier (Martini monasterium). 
\\ 2D 



418 IN THE DAYS OF ST AMBROSE [CH. xv. 

This struggle against declining paganism was at this 
time the chief concern of the bishops. In other respects 
we do not find that in these districts of the Far West 
the twenty years which followed the Council of Ariminum 
were fertile in incident. Of the island of Britain we hear 
nothing until the 5th century. In Gaul, Martin was 
already a bishop, when a council assembled at Valence 
(in 374) to settle some dispute of which we know no 
particulars. We only possess some disciplinary regulations 
communicated in the form of a letter to the bishops of 
the two administrative dioceses 1 between which the 
Gallican provinces were divided. The first of the 
signatories, among whom appear the Bishops of Treves, 
Vienrie, Aries, and Lyon, is the Bishop of Agen, 
Fcegadius or Phoebadius, of whom we have heard in 
the time of the Emperor Constantius. 

In Spain, the little fire of schism which Bishop 
Gregory was feeding at Illiberris (Granada) 2 it was 
not a fire which burnt very brightly was extinguished 
with him. Certain Novatians afforded occupation to the 
pen of Pacian,* Bishop of Barcelona. All this was of 
little consequence. But the moment was approaching 
when Spain would attract men s attention and set all the 
West in commotion. 

About the beginning of the reign of Gratian, a great 
deal was heard of an ascetic movement of a peculiar 
character, directed by an expert theologian called 

1 " Fratribus per Gallias et quinque provincias constitutis 
episcopis." 

2 See above, p. 284. 

3 When St Jerome wrote his De viris (in 392) Gregory appears 
to have been still alive. 

4 Three letters to a Novatian called Sympronianus (Migne, P. L. t 
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 
CcrvuluS) he preached against certain pagan superstitions, in particular 
against the masquerades of January I. 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 i ; 
Migne, op. cit., p, 1001). 



p. 529] PRISCILLIAN 419 

Priscillian. 1 He was a rich man, distinguished by birth 
and education, well versed in Christian and other literature, 
even in astrology and the occult sciences, endowed with 
a keen intellect and a persuasive eloquence ; and all these 
gifts were at the service of an ardent zeal for the propaga 
tion of his own ideas. These were chiefly connected 
with the right mode of life : Priscillian was a preacher 
of asceticism. 

Asceticism was not unknown in Spain. The Council 
of Elvira speaks much of celibates (confessores) and conse 
crated virgins, meaning by those terms persons who 
practised continence and abstinence according to the 
already tirne-honoured customs of the Church, and within 
the bounds of its organization. The disciples of Priscillian 
went further in marking themselves out as distinct from 
these. In the first place they were disciples of a particular 
man, and of a man who had no mission to teach from 
the Church, who claimed to some extent an inspiration 
of his own and took his stand in his teaching, not only 
upon the received Scriptures, but also upon the apocryphal 
writings, and notably upon those lives of the Apostles 
Peter, John, Andrew, and Thomas, which were so strongly 
imbued with the Encratite spirit opposed to marriage, 
to wine, and to any kind of substantial food. Moreover, 
there prevailed among them a tendency to despise 
other Christians. They separated themselves at cer 
tain times of the year, during Lent and in the days 
before the Epiphany 2 ; at such times they disappeared 
from sight ; no one saw them ; they kept themselves 

1 Upon the Priscillianist movement, see Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 
ii. 46-51 (cf. Dial. ii. 6, n), whose account must be corrected some 
times 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 virz s, and letter 75 ; Council of Toledo in the year 400. 

a 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. 



420 IN THE DAYS OF ST AMBROSE [CH. xv. 

shut up in their own houses or in the mountains. It 
was known that they held secret meetings in lonely villas, 
and it was remarked that they generally walked bare 
footed. They fasted on Sundays. If they came to 
Church they allowed the Eucharist to be given to them ; 
but no one saw them communicate. Finally, and this 
was a more serious matter still, women who are always 
delighted with any novelty, even and especially of a relig 
ious character, fluttered continually round the celebrated 
teacher. He held meetings for women only, over which 
he presided, either in person or by means of his assistants. 

All this was calculated to cause anxiety. A proselytiz 
ing asceticism has always excited ill-feeling on the part of 
ordinary Christians. And, at the time of which we are 
now speaking, the clergy lent it little support or rather 
offered resistance to it, whether from bad motives, 
through attachment to a somewhat self-indulgent form of 
life, or from good, such as a care for unity, and a fear lest 
such observances might conceal some reprehensible 
doctrine. On this last point their fears were not without 
foundation ; from the very beginning, discreditable 
rumours were in circulation with regard to the new sect. 
Nothing, however, was as yet proved : criticism could only 
take hold of what was seen from the outside seclusion, 
teachers without authority, meetings of women, and the 
use of apocryphal books. 

The first protest came from the Bishop of Cordova, 
Hyginus, who set in motion his colleague of Emerita, 
Ydacius. The latter at once entered upon a campaign. 
Among the adepts of the movement there was prominent 
a woman of considerable position, a certain Agape, who, 
in conjunction with a rhetorician named Helpidius, had 
communicated to Priscillian, so it was rumoured, the 
doctrines of a Gnostic, Mark of Memphis, an emigrant 
from Egypt to Spain. The Priscillianists were not with 
out supporters among the episcopal body, Two of their 
friends, Instantius and Salvian, had become bishops and 
openly supported the party ; Symposius, Bishop of Astorga 
in Galicia also joined them, and soon the number was 



p. 531-2] COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA IN 380 421 

reinforced by the adhesion of the Bishop of Cordova, who 
had changed his mind and had finally convinced himself 
that the new ascetics were in no way dangerous. It was 
in the Western provinces, tnose of Lusitania and Galicia, 
that the movement appears to have been most definite, 
Ydacius, Metropolitan of Lusitania, thought it his duty to 
inform Pope Damasus. The Pope replied in a letter 
which we no longer possess ; in this, foreseeing that the 
Spanish bishops would assemble to deal with the matter, 
he advised them not to deliver any personal condemnation 
in the absence of those accused, and without having heard 
their explanation. 1 A council was actually held at 
Saragossa in 380; we possess a formal account of its 
decisions divided into disciplinary canons, which have in 
view the points on which complaint was made of the 
Priscillianists. Two bishops from Gaul, Foegadius of 
Agen and Delphinus of Bordeaux, took part in its meet 
ings and signed first. With them were ten Spanish 
prelates, one of whom, Symposius, was favourable to the 
innovators. 

The latter, meanwhile, not being attacked by any 
direct condemnation, 2 suffered their adversaries to say 
what they pleased, and continued their propaganda. They 
even assumed the offensive. The bishopric of Avila, in 
Ydacius province, having become vacant, they secured the 
election of Priscillian there, and tried in other places to 
obtain colleagues who shared their opinions. Accusa 
tions were laid against Ydacius ; and these excited great 
scandal in the Church of Emerita. Priscillian and his 
two friends entertained the charges, denounced Ydacius to 
the Spanish episcopate, and even went to Emerita to 

1 M Ne quid in absentes et inauditos decerneretur " (Prtscill^ 
Treatise ii., p. 35). 

2 Sulpicius Severus (Chron. ii. 47) says in so many words that the 
council condemned the Bishops Instantius and Salvian, as well as the 
laymen Helpidius and Priscillian. But this is refuted by the account 
which the latter has left of this stage of the business. However, it is 
possible that something of the kind was attempted, for a rumour of 
the condemnation was circulated in Spain (Priscill.^ Treatise ii., 
p. 40). 



422 IN THE DAYS OF ST AMBROSE [CH. rv. 

declare themselves openly against him. There was already 
talk of a new council. Ydacius took the initiative ; and, 
thanks to the support of Ambrose, whose sympathy he 
had managed to win, he obtained from the emperor a 
rescript, couched in general terms, against " the false 
bishops and the Manicheans." He prepared to make 
use of this against his opponents, although they were not 
mentioned by name in the rescript. Priscillian and his 
two colleagues, uneasy at the turn which affairs were taking, 
made their way in person to Milan, furnished with letters 
testimonial from their clergy and flocks, to prove that 
they were true bishops ; as to the accusation of Mani- 
cheism, they would be able to get rid of that by the 
language they adopted. The imperial Quaestor listened 
to them and answered them kindly ; but Ambrose 
remained ill-disposed to them : no settlement was arrived 
at. They pushed on to Rome, and sent to Pope 
Damasus a memorial of justification, which we still possess. 
Damasus refused to receive them. One of them, Salvian, 
died in Rome. Instantius and Priscillian returned to 
Milan, where, in spite of Ambrose s opposition, they 
succeeded in obtaining, through Macedonius, the Master 
of the Offices, a decree with which they returned to Spain, 
and reinstalled themselves in their bishoprics. 

The Bishop of Emerita had now to act with energy. 
In his campaign against the Priscillianists he had enlisted 
the assistance of his colleague of Ossonova, Ithacius, who 
claimed to have been commissioned by the Council of 
Saragossa to follow this matter up. Ithacius was by no 
means a model prelate ; he was worldly, luxurious, shame 
less, addicted to the pleasures of the table, just the kind of 
person, in fact, to be obnoxious to holy people. Priscillian 
set the proconsul Volventius in motion against him, and 
the latter, on an accusation of attempting to disturb the 
public peace, was about to take steps against Ithacius 
when he succeeded in escaping to Gaul. There he was 
warmly welcomed by the praetorian prefect. This high 
official, whose name was Gregory, was taking steps to call 
the matter before his own tribunal, when a new rescript 



p. 634] THE ADVENT OF MAXIMUS 423 

arrived from Milan, due, like the preceding one, to the 
friendly intervention of Macedonius. This time, the 
decision was ordered to be given in Spain ; the case was 
referred to the Vicarius of this " diocese " ; and an order 
was given for the banishment of Ithacius beyond the 
Pyrenees. The Bishop of Ossonova found himself in a 
most critical situation ; he vanished from the scene. 

It was the best thing he could have done. At 
that very moment, Maximus was declaring himself 
emperor in the island of Britain ; shortly afterwards he 
landed in Gaul ; Gratian, deserted by his troops, was 
killed at Lyon on August 25, 383. The "tyrant" made 
his entry into Treves, and his authority was recognized 
from the Ocean to the Alps. 

It v/as a disaster for the Priscillianists. Their friends 
in Milan could no longer avail at the new court at Treves. 1 
The bishop of that place, Britto by name, had been a 
helper of Ithacius ; he lent him support with the new 
emperor. Maximus naturally desired to make himself 
popular, especially with the bishops, whose influence over 
the people he knew. He had practised every sort of 
cajolery with St Martin. Ithacius profited by these 
inclinations, and persuaded Maximus to regard his 
adversaries as the most dangerous of evil-doers. The 
leaders of the Spanish movement were invited to appear 
before a council assembled at Bordeaux. Ithacius there 
assumed the part of accuser ; the document which he 
presented against his adversaries was long preserved. 2 
The accused replied in the same manner: Tiberianus, 
Asarbus, and several others read a defence ; we still 
possess that of Priscillian and of Instantius. 8 The 
tribunal showed itself unfavourable to them : Instantius 
was deposed from the episcopate. They were about to 
turn to Priscillian, when he conceived the fatal idea of 

1 Macedonius, besides, had fallen into disgrace (Paulinus, Vita 
Ambr. 37). He was not a friend of Ambrose. 

2 Isidore, De viris ill. 15. It was undoubtedly from this source 
that Sulpicius Severus obtained the information which he relates as 
to Mark of Memphis as the master of Priscillian. 

1 Priscilliani tract, i. 



424 IN THE DAYS OF ST AMBROSE [CH. xv. 

appealing to the imperial tribunal. The bishops con 
sented, 1 and the trial was transferred to Treves. 

The Gallican episcopate at that time showed no 
enthusiasm for asceticism ; and the Priscillianist bishops, 
compromised as they were by the disputes to which 
they had given rise in Spain, had against them, besides 
suspicions more or less clearly defined, the distrustful 
attitude of the two great ecclesiastical authorities of the 
West Pope Damasus and Bishop Ambrose. Their pro 
paganda was considered dangerous ; it had already made 
inroads into Aquitaine. In the district of Bordeaux, 
a great lady, Euchrotia, and her daughter Procula, 2 lent it 
substantial patronage. The faithful of Eauze, so it was 
complained, had embraced Priscillianism in a body. Such 
circumstances as these produced a state of opinion which 
was not of a character to enlist for the innovators the 
sympathies of the new government. 

Supported by his metropolitan Ydacius, the Bishop of 
Ossonova played once more at Treves, before the criminal 
magistrate, the part of accuser. Now that he felt himself 
the stronger, he adopted a high tone ; it was not only 
against the Priscillianists that he inveighed ; every form of 
asceticism was detestable to him. He even found fault 
with St Martin and attempted to accuse him of heresy. 
Martin, on his side, besought Ithacius to abandon a hateful 
part, and protested to the emperor against the intervention 
of a criminal judge in a question of doctrine. " No 
shedding of blood ! " he said, " Ecclesiastical penalties, 
such as deposition, are quite enough." Maximus finally 
promised him that no extreme measures should be taken. 
And therewith St Martin departed. Freed from his 
presence, the bishops resumed their unhallowed work ; 
two of them, Magnus and Rufus, succeeded in converting 
the emperor once more to their opinion. An enquiry was 

1 There were involved in the matter accusations belonging to 
the ordinary criminal law, which were not within ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction. 

* With regard to Procula, Sulpicius Severus does wrong in 
relating a petty story which is improbable and incapable of 
verification (Chron. ii. 48). 



P. 536-7] EXECUTION OF PRISCILLIAN 425 

decided upon ; it was entrusted to the praetorian prefect, 
Euodius, 1 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, 2 and the matron Euchrotia. Bishop 
Instantius escaped with sentence of exile, as did also the 
rhetorician Tiberianus 3 ; 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 

1 Is (Euodius) Priscillianum gcmino iudicio auditum convictumque 
maleficii nee diffitentem obscenis se studuisse doctrinis^ iiocturnos etiam 
turpium feminarum cgisse conventus nudumque orare solitum 
nocentem pronuntiavit (Sulpicius Severus, Chron. \\. 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 turpcs, 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. 

2 Jerome, Dt virt s, 122. Ibid. 123. 



426 IN THE DAYS OF ST AMBROSE [ca xv. 

blocxi 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 pre 
tending 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 Notwith 
standing 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 him 
self 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 

Coll. Avcll. n. 40. 

Council of Turin, c. 6. Cf. Ambrose, Ep. 26. 



P. 639] THE REACTION 427 

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

As long as Maxim us lasted, *.*., 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 was 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 resignatioa 
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. 1 

However, the friends of those who had been put to 
death obtained permission to give them honourable burial. 
The remains of the Prisciliianist leaders were transported 
to Spain, and buried with the greatest pomp, amid the 
enthusiasm of their followers. In Gaul, Priscillian ism 
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 

1 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. L*. 
vol. Ixii., p. 351;. 



428 IN THE DAYS OF ST AMBROSE [CH. xv. 

stain his episcopal mantle, and could never be removed. 
Siricius and Ambrose l 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 Nimes 3 ; 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 con 
demnation. 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 Theodosiu?, 
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 
diligentius culta 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). 

* Council of Turin, c. 6. 

* Upon the Council of Nimes, besides the Synodal Letter 
(Hefele, Conciliengeschichti^ vol. ii., p. 62), see Sulpicius Severu*, 
Dial. i. 13. 

* Pacatus, Paneg. 29. 



p. 541-2] THEODOSIUS 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, ^Emilius, and his own son, Dictinius, received 
imposition of hands from him. These comprised almost 
the whole episcopate of Galicia l ; 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, 2 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 

1 We do not know at this particular time of any other orthodox 
bishop besides Ortygius of 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. 

2 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. 



430 IN THE DAYS OF ST AMBROSE [CH. xv. 

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, never 
theless, 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 reply 2 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 them 3 ; 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- disco ver " 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. 

3 Presupposed by a letter of Pope Innocent, Jaflf<6, 292. 

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



432 IN THE DAYS OF ST AMBROSE [CH. xv. 

irritated at the indulgence shown by the Italians, refused 
all relations with those who accepted communion with 
the reconciled party. The spirit of Gregory of Illiberris 
moved them. In vain did Pope Innocent intervene 1 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 move 
ment. 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- 
justifkajion, 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 con 
demns 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. 

9 What are called the Canonts 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. 



p. 547] PRISCILLIANIST DOCTRINE 433 

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. 1 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. 2 
The world is the work of another principle. It 
was in vain that Priscillian condemned Patripassianism ; 
the doctrine of the Filius innascibilis, professed by his 

1 St Augustine speaks of it at great length in his book Contra 
mendacium. 

2 Dictinius, at the council in 400, expressly admitted that he had 
held that doctrine. 

II 2 E 



434 IN THE DAYS OF ST AMBROSE [CH. xv 

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 Chnsto 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 Bresica 2 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 them 5 ; 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 Ftlius innascibilis, but admitted that 
they were accepted in the sect. 

" Haer, 84. 3 De viris, 121. 

* 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, Ixiv. 5. 

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



p. 549] POSITION OF ST AMBROSE 435 

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 theology x 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 II. that he would have to deal, 01 
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, Defide, De Spiritu Sancto, De incarnationis dominicae 
Sacramento. 



436 IN THE DAYS OF ST AMBROSE [CH. xv. 

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 under 
standing 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 1 ; 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. 2 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 

1 Ambrose, Ep. 1 1 ; see above, p. 370. 

1 Ambrose, Ep. 12. This letter and the preceding one are written 
in the name oi the Council of Aquileia (381). 



p. 552] AUXENTIUS OF DOROSTORUM 437 

Ambrose. It became 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. 1 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. 2 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. 3 

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.* 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. 5 On the other hand we find Maxirnus 
intervening in the matter Maxim us, the usurper of 

> See below, Chapter XVII. 

2 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 Mcesia, but on the frontier between that province and 
that of Scythia. 

8 There were at this time in Milan two cathedral basilicas ; the 
ancient church, which was preserved down to the i6th century, 
bore the name of St Thecla : it was demolished in 1 548 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. 

* All this is related, with profuse detail, in a letter of Ambrose to 
his sister Marcellina (Ep. 20). 

6 Cod. Theod. xvi. i, 3. 



438 IN THE DAYS OF ST AMBROSE [CH. xv. 

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. 1 
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. 2 
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. 3 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. 4 

In the meantime, Maximus, the by no means dis 
interested protector of the Catholics of Italy, was causing 
the Court of Milan more and more serious uneasiness. 
In the spring of 3S7, 5 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 

1 Coll. Avell. 39. J Ep. 21 ; Sermo contra Aux. * Ep. 22. 

4 Paulinus, Vita Ambrosii^ 14, 29, 32. Ambrose, Exhort, "virgin. I. 
On the Saints of Milan, see the works of P. F. Savio, Ambrosiana^ 
1897 (Nazarius and Celsus); Nuvuo bull, di archeol. crist., 1898, 
p. 153 (Gervase and Protasius) ; Rivista di scienze storiche t Pavia, 
1906 (Victor, Nabor, and Felix). 

After Easter, which fell that year on April 25 ; it was at this 
time that Augustine received baptism at Milan, from the hands of 
Ambrose. 



p. 554-5] AMBROSE AND THEODOSIUS 439 

it were still possible to do so. But it was no longer 
possible. Some months later, Maximus entered Italy; 
Valentinian, Justina, and the whole of their court fled by 
sea, and found refuge at Thessalonica. 

Theodosius received them kindly, and set himself to 
put in order again the affairs of his youthful colleague. 
This he succeeded in doing in the following summer. 
Maximus, being defeated on the Save and the Drave, took 
refuge at Aquileia ; the troops of the Eastern emperor came 
up with him there, and made themselves masters of his 
person. He was executed without delay, on July 28, 388, 
and Valentinian II. was recognized as Emperor of the whole 
of the West. It was about this time that he lost his 
mother, the last hope of the Arian party : Valentinian now 
passed under the moral guardianship of Theodosius, and 
under the religious influence of Ambrose. 

Moreover, Theodosius stayed nearly three years in 
the West. During this time he held frequent communica 
tion with Ambrose. The esteem which they professed for 
each other did not prevent them from finding themselves 
sometimes at variance. The people of Callinica 1 on the 
Euphrates had sacked a synagogue, at the instigation, so 
it appeared, of their bishop. In the same country, a 
procession of monks having encountered a party of 
Valentinians, a fight took place, at the end of which the 
monks, having vanquished the heretics, fell upon their 
temple and burnt it to ashes. Theodosius ordered that 
the disorder should be severely repressed, and was 
especially urgent that the Bishop of Callinica should 
rebuild the synagogue at his own expense. Ambrose 
intervened, and succeeded in putting a stop to all reprisals. 
In these cases Theodosius allowed himself to yield, but 
he did so with much ill-temper, and complained bitterly 
of the monks. 1 Ambrose declared that Jews and pagans 
had been guilty of many acts of the kind in Julian s reigni 
and no one had interfered with them. It was, it must be 
confessed, a poor argument. 

1 Upon this affair, see letters 40 and 41 of St Ambrose. 
Ep. 41, 27. 



440 IN THE DAYS OF ST AMBROSE [CH. xv. 

On the other hand, he had reason on his side when 
he protested against the massacre of the people of 
Thessalonica who had been guilty of sedition, and 
required the emperor to do penance. 1 Theodosius con 
sented ; he had, indeed, been the first to regret his 
outburst of passion, and to deplore the frightful con 
sequences which had resulted from it. Before he set out 
on his return to the East in 391, Ambrose again made 
strong representations to him in order to obtain a settle 
ment of the affair at Antioch, in which he hnd never 
ceased to take an interest. The result of this application 
was that a great council assembled at Capua in 391. 
Pope Siricius must have been represented there, and the 
Bishop of Milan must have been the moving spirit in it ; 
but with regard to this assemblage we have only a small 
number of pieces of information which refer quite as much 
to certain local affairs, of which we shall hear later on, as 
to the principal business. 

In the following year, the young Emperor, Valentinian 
1 1., was assassinated in Gaul. His place was taken by a new 
usurper, Eugenius, under whose patronage a last revival of 
paganism was beginning to take shape, at any rate at 
Rome, 2 when Theodosius reappeared on the scene in 394. 
Ambrose, broken-hearted at Valentinian s death, had held 
himself aloof from the new government. He did not long 
enjoy the pleasure of seeing Theodosius again, for that 
prince died on January 17, 395. His remains were 
transported from Milan to Constantinople. 

The great bishop followed him soon afterwards, on 
April 4, 397, which was Easter eve. Ten years before, 
at the same Paschal festival, he had poured the water of 

1 Ep. 51. This story has been very dramatically told by Sozomen 
(H. E. vii. 25), and especially by Theodoret (//. E, v. 17). These 
authors add, following Rufinus (H. 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. * See below, Chapter XVII. 



p. 557] DEATH OF ST AMBROSE 441 

baptism on the forehead of Augustine. At the time of 
his death, his neophyte was already Bishop of Hippo : one 
light succeeded the other. And, moreover, Ambrose did 
not entirely pass away. Besides the brightness of his 
memory, he left many books pastoral works, sermons on 
the Bible, transformed for publication into exegetical 
treatises ; funeral orations ; hymns and liturgical com 
mentaries ; theological dissertations against Arianism, 
upon the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, upon the Incarna 
tion ; moral exhortations on the duties of the clergy and 
on the profession of virginity ; and letters on the questions 
with which day by day his experience was called upon to 
deal. All these were written quickly in the midst of the 
cares of a devoted ministry. Ambrose did not mind 
availing himself of assistance from previous works. He 
knew Greek very well, and borrowed largely from Origen, 
Didymus, and Basil. In his treatise on duties he set 
himself to follow Cicero. He had no literary vanity. In 
his writings, he thought only of their practical utility, not 
at all of the lustre they might bring him. Whether they were 
of greater or less originality, he cared little, provided that 
they fulfilled the purpose for which he published them. Who 
could blame such a man for having saved his time for action? 
Although somewhat eclipsed by his distinguished 
colleague, Pope Siricius was worthily administering the 
Apostolic Church. Like the majority of the Popes 
of these early days, he seems to have been of moderate 
abilities, abilities which were above all practical. At Rome 
it was the custom to choose the bishop among the local 
clergy ; the Pope invariably came from the professional 
ministry. An election like that of Ambrose was impossible. 
This system involved the loss of the chance of obtaining 
leaders of wide range of ideas, but it was almost certain 
that they would be always wise and experienced. The 
schism of Ursinus was suppressed. When assembled to 
choose a successor to Damasus, the faithful of Rome had 
protested against the usurper. 1 The Roman Church 

Letter of Valentinian II. to the Prefect Pinianus (Coll. Avell. 4), 
Feb. 24, 385. 



442 IN THE DAYS OF ST AMBROSE [CH. xv. 

under Siricius lived almost in peace, recruiting itself more 
and more at the expense of paganism, and multiplying or 
enlarging its sacred buildings. It was at this time that 
the Basilica of St Paul l was rebuilt, with the proportions 
in which we see it at the present day. With regard to 
internal conflicts, we hear of none except quarrels between 
the monks and their opponents. Siricius, a man who 
loved order, supported the general principles of Christian 
asceticism, but looked with no favourable eye upon people 
who caused disturbance. In the very first days of his 
Pontificate, Jerome had felt that the air of Rome was becom 
ing unhealthy for him. But he was not the only one who 
might be a cause of uneasiness. Jerome, at least, was an 
honest man ; his austerity was not feigned, his life was 
pure, and occupied in useful work. But at a time when 
no monastery existed in Rome, when the monks were 
left to themselves, and wandered all day long through the 
streets, we can imagine the eccentricities, and even the 
disorders, against which the ecclesiastical authorities had 
to keep a watchful eye. So-called celibates (continentes) 
were to be seen vicing with the most exquisitely scented 
clerics in the assiduity with which they danced attendance 
upon great ladies, and in the skill with which they angled 
for legacies. 2 It became necessary to repress abuses of 
this kind by a law, 3 which was posted up in all the churches 
in Rome ; and this severe law, which forbade anyone to 
make a will in favour of Christian priests and monks 
while pagan priests preserved the right of inheritance was 
declared by the ecclesiastical authorities of the time to be 
just and necessary. 

These abuses, however, had not the effect of bringing 
the religious profession into disrepute. Quite the con 
trary ; for the bishops, manifestly supported by public 

1 Letter of Valentinian II. to the Prefect Sallust. (Coll. A-vell. 3). 

2 It is with this, I think, that there is connected the composition of 
certain liturgical forms included later in the collection called the 
* Leonian Sacramentary." See my Origines du culte chretien^ jid 
edition, p. 142. 

8 C*d. Theod, xvi. 2, 20 ; cf. Ambrose, Ep. xvni. 14 ; Jerome, Ep. 
lii.6. 



p. 559-60] REACTION FROM ASCETICISM 443 

opinion, had never set themselves more eagerly to raise it. 
They continually repeated that, all things being equal in 
other respects, virginity is superior to marriage, repre 
sents a higher condition, and is more meritorious for the 
life to come. I have said " all things being equal in other 
respects," for no one dreamed of placing a bad monk or 
an indiscreet virgin above a father or mother of a family, 
who was faithful to his or her duties. But, with this one 
reservation, there is no kind of praise which was not 
bestowed on a life of continence and abstinence; and, 
as was inevitable, the enthusiasm displayed for it some 
times passed all bounds. Hence arose in some persons a 
tendency to reaction, which, when translated into words, 
was liable in its turn to be lack ; ng in restraint. 

At the period at which we have arrived (about 390), 
this tendency was represented at Rome by a certain 
Jovinian, 1 who, after having lived for many years as a 
monk dishevelled in hair and in clothing, absorbed 
in fasting and mortification had ended by convincing 
himself of the uselessness of his observances, and by 
returning to the ordinary conditions of life, without going 
so far, however, as to marry. If he had stopped there, 
there would have been nothing to say ; but he soon 
passed from practice to theory and to spreading his ideas 
abroad. According to the teaching of himself and his 
disciples to anyone who would listen to them, there was 
no moral difference between the life of celibates and that 
of married people ; abstinence and other ascetic practices 
were equally useless ; in the other world no special 
recompense would reward these observances ; all this, 
they declared, clearly followed from the stories of the 
Bible in regard to the patriarchs, the prophets, and the 
apostles themselves ; as to the Virgin Mary, she had 
ceased to be a virgin in bringing her Son into the world 2 ; 
after Him, she had had other children. All this was 
consistent enough, once the premises were granted. 

1 Upon Jovinian, see Haller, lovinianus in the Texte und 
Untersuchungen, vol. xvii. (1897). 

2 Jovinian did not deny the Virginal Conception of Christ. 



444 IN THE DAYS OF ST AMBROSE [CH. xv. 

Jovinian had another doctrine, according to which true 
Christians could not possibly sin ; those who do so have 
not been truly baptized ; they have only received the 
outward part of the Sacrament, without experiencing its 
inward efficacy. 1 

These ideas were propagated by disputations and 
addresses; atflast they were set forth in a book, and this 
was a misfortune for Jovinian, because henceforth his 
opponents had a basis for operations against him. 
Among the most active opponents were the friends of 
Jerome, especially the Senator Pammachius, a very pious 
man, who had renounced the world and devoted himself 
to works of charity. They denounced Jovinian to Pope 
Siricius ; he in his turn gathered his clergy together ; and 
when it had been proved that the new doctrines were 
incompatible with the " Christian Law," Jovinian and 
eight of his followers were excommunicated as propagators 
of heresy. News of this sentence was immediately 
given to Milan by three Roman priests, whom Siricius 
entrusted with the duty of carrying thither a sort of 
circular letter. 2 Jovinian was already there, hoping no 
doubt to arrange matters in his own favour with the 
assistance of the Court. He was mistaken. Ambrose 
needed little rousing against the enemies of virginity. 
He assembled some bishops around him, and pronounced 
against Jovinian an additional condemnation, 3 The 
emperor, warned by the legates, gave no reception to the 
heretics ; they were even driven from Milan. 4 A little later, 

1 Thanks to this doctrine, Jovinian (or rather, his memory), 
played a part later on in the controversies between Pelagians and 
anti-Pelagians, who each hnrled him at the others heads 

a Jaffe, 260. 

* Letter 42, addressed to Pope Siricius. The Council of Milan 
goes a little too far in comparing the opinions of Jovinian to 
Manicheism. So far as we are informed, there is nothing in common 
between the two systems. 

4 In a law of the Theodosian Code (xvi. 5, 53), Jovinian is 
represented as holding meetings in the outskirts of Rome. Orders 
are given for the deportation of himself and his adherents to different 
islands. The law is dated in 412 ; but the name of the prefect to 
whom it is addressed would point rather to the year 398. Besides, 



p. 562] JOVINIAN AND JEROME 445 

in 396, two monks of Vercellae, having broken their vows, 
began to preach against asceticism. Ambrose wrote to 
the Church of Vercellae in the severest terms, speaking of 
the innovators as Epicureans. 1 Augustine also had 
occasion to write against the doctrines of Jovinian. 2 

But these refutations were of somewhat later date. 
At the time, Pammachius, whom the sentences of Rome 
and Milan had not sufficed to appease, took it into his 
head to secure the intervention of Jerome. Of the latter, 
for several years nothing had been heard. He was 
immersed at Bethlehem in his Biblical studies, and seemed 
to have turned his back for ever upon the Babylon of 
Italy. If he ever wrote there it was to implore his friends 
to rejoin in Palestine the colony he had founded in it 
with Paula and Eustochium, and to extol the sanctity of 
the Holy Places. However, there still remained to him 
memories. Neither St Paul, nor the prophets, upon whom 
he was diligently commenting, nor Origen, whom he was 
translating so eagerly, caused him to forget Cicero ; and 
loudly as he celebrated the charms of the Holy Land or 
the virtues of the hermits of Palestine, 3 Rome ever lived 
in the background of his memories. Pammachius sent 
him Jovinian s book. 

What a piece of good fortune! Virginity, and 
asceticism as a whole to be defended, and that before 
the Roman public, and against an adversary who did not 
know how to write ! 4 Jerome let himself go. In a few 
weeks he had composed his two books against Jovinian, 
and Rome soon rang with them. Unfortunately, he had 
gone too far, and it was not against Jovinian, already 
crushed by official sentences, that public opinion was 
excited, but against the imprudent controversialist, who, 

the name of the heretic in the MS. tradition \sjovianus, not Jovinianus. 
It is, in fact, very doubtful if our Jovinian is in question here. 

1 Ep. 83, about 396. 

a This is the subject of his De bono coniugali. 

His Lives of Malchus and of Hilarion belong to this period. 

4 He quotes from Jovinian, while refuting him ; his extracts 
really give the impression of an author who cared little about his 
style. 



446 IN THE DAYS OF ST AMBROSE [CH. xv. 

under pretext of defending asceticism, placed married 
people in a most awkward position. Pammachius was 
sorry for having invoked such a helper. He did all he 
could to withdraw the unfortunate philippic from circula 
tion. The priest Domnio, another of Jerome s friends, 
for his part removed from it the most objectionable 
passages, and both of them wrote to the hermit. Jerome 
at once assumed the defensive. He began by modestly 
explaining to his friends that his books were not the kind 
which could be suppressed or expurgated at pleasure ; 
that the public gave them so great a reception that they 
were no sooner written than they were in everybody s 
hands. As to the objections made against him, he was 
naturally of opinion there was no common sense in them. 

In Jerome, the "old man" died hard. At the 
moment when he was embarking on the campaign 
against Jovinian, he had just published his De viris 
illustribus, in which his literary judgments manifest so 
strongly his friendships and his animosities. Thus he 
contents himself with mentioning Ambrose by name, 
without saying one word about his writings, " for fear he 
might be accused of flattery or suspicion cast upon his 
veracity." There was no fear of flattery, for, apart from 
a few common-place mentions, he never spoke of Ambrose 
except to decry him. Amply provided himself by the 
pens of Origen and of Eusebius, he finds fault with 
Ambrose s borrowings from Greek authors. He had 
even taken the trouble to translate the work of Didymus 
upon the Holy Spirit, in order that the Latin public 
might judge what, on a similar subject, a miserable 
crow (informis cornicula, for which read " St Ambrose") 
owed to the Alexandrian Doctor. It was with an equally 
charitable intention that he had translated into Latin the 
homilies of Origen upon St Luke. In his Chronicle he 
had abused Cyril of Jerusalem and St Basil, treating the 
first as an Arian, and asserting that the merits of the 
Bishop of Caesarea were annihilated by his pride. Of 
John Chrysostom, whose eloquence at the moment when 
Jerome was writing his De viris held Antioch spellbound 



p. 564-5] JEROME S LITERARY JEALOUSY 447 

and illuminated the whole of the East, he knew only a 
little treatise on the Priesthood. Later on, he was to 
aggravate in a signal degree the injustice of which he 
was guilty towards that illustrious man. But Basil had 
been the friend of Meletius, and Chrysostom was one of 
Flavian s priests : the relations of Jerome with the Little 
Church of Antioch would explain, in some measure, the 
bad temper which he displays when they are concerned. 
It is more difficult to understand why he showed so little 
goodwill to the Bishop of Milan, who was himself a 
supporter of Faulinus, himself a champion of asceticism, 
and a patron of virginity. Could there have been some 
unpleasantness between the pious salons of Marcella and 
of Marcellina? Or could Ambrose, who went to Rome 
in 382, at a time when Jerome was also there, have 
inadvertently inflicted a scratch upon that most sensitive 
of skins? Of all this we know nothing. 

Very discreet in his mention of Ambroses literary 
efforts, and in general as to those of authors who did not 
please him, Jerome is fortunately less reserved as to his 
own. His De viris concludes with a long chapter, in 
which he draws up a complete catalogue of all that he had 
published down to the year 392. It was no small amount. 
If Jerome was bad-tempered, at any rate he did not waste 
his time. 



CHAPTER XVI 

CHRISTIANITY IN THK FAST UNDER THEODOSIUS 

Christian settlements north of the Danube. Ulfilas and the conver 
sion of the Goths. The sects. The assembly in 383. Divisions 
among the Arians and Eunomians. The Novatians. Fanatical 
sects: the Massalians. Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium. 
Gregory of Nyssa. Gregory of Nazianzus. Epiphanius and 
the heretics. Apollinaris : his teaching and his propaganda. 
Diodore of Tarsus. Flavian and Chrysostom. The schism 
at Antioch : Council of Ciusarea. Eusebius of Samosata. 
Edessa and its legends : St Ephrem. Palestine. Cyril of 
Jerusalem. Pilgrimages : visit of Gregory of Nyssa. Rufinus 
and Jerome. Arabia : the cult of Mary. Titus of Bostra and 
his successors. The Council of 394. 

I. Arianism among the Goths. 

CHRISTIAN propaganda in the West had scarcely extended 
beyond the frontiers ; there still remained too much 
to be done in the interior without engaging in distant 
missions. Besides, the Scots and Picts to the north of 
Roman Britain, the Saxons, Franks, and Alamanni, in 
independent Germany, were in a state of continual hos 
tility to the empire. There was quite enough difficulty 
already in preventing them from ravaging it, without 
thinking of going to them in order to preach the Gospel. 
At certain points, in Upper Germany (Agri Decumates) 
and beside the Carpathians (Mcesia and Dacia), Roman 
settlements had already passed the line of the Rhine and 
of the Danube ; but they had all been swamped by the 
invasions in the middle of the 3rd century; and then, 
finally, the -empire had abandoned positions which stood 
out of all relation to the centre of government It is 



p. 567] DANUBIAN SETTLEMENTS 449 

possible that Christianity had already been planted there 
in a few places ; but of this we have neither indication nor 
testimony. 

Such was the state of things down to the end of the 
4th century. Except near the mouths of the Danube, 
we hear nothing of the establishment of churches beyond 
the frontiers, but much on the other hand of churches 
destroyed on Roman territory by the invasions of 
barbarians. 

Beyond the Lower Danube, the legatus of Moesia 
Inferior had long watched over the passage between the 
south-east angle of the Transylvanian plateau and the 
Black Sea. His protection extended along the shore of 
the latter to various Greek settlements, such as the towns 
of Tyra and Olbia, at the mouth of the Tyras (Dniester) 
and of the Borysthenes (Dnieper), the town of Cherson 
(Sebastopol), and the little kingdom of Bosphorus (Kertch) 
at the entrance to the Sea of Azov. Tyra and Olbia, 
ancient colonies of Miletus, were, under the empire, in 
a state of great decay. Hellenism there found itself 
more and more ground down by barbarism. We hear 
nothing more of them after the reign of Alexander 
Severus, which leads us to conclude that they were 
destroyed by the Goths. It was not so with Cherson 
and Bosphorus : these two cities, so different in their 
origin and institutions the one democratic, the other 
monarchical had no doubt to suffer a good deal from 
the new barbarians, both in their commerce and in the 
political influence which they exercised with the Scythians 
and Sarmatians ; but they held their ground and con 
tinued to exist until the Middle Ages. Christianity was 
established there at an early period : a Bishop of 
Bosphorus was present at the Council of Nicaea in 325,* 
a Bishop of Cherson at that of Constantinople in 381. 

1 ~K.d5fj.os Boffir&pov. Another bishop of this see perished in 358 at 
Nicomedia, under the ruins of the church which was overthrown by 
an earthquake. Sozomen (H. E. iv. 16) mentions him without giving 
his name. Upon the Christian antiquities of Kertch, see the article 
of J. Kulakowsky, in the Romische Quartalschrift % voL viiu (1894), 
p. 309 et seq. 

II 2F 



450 THE EAST UNDER THEODOSIUS [CH. XVL 

The Goths themselves were reached by the spreading 
of the Gospel as soon as they began to live in the 
neighbourhood of the Black Sea. We might almost say 
that the beginning of their Christianity dated from the 
terrible invasions by which they harassed the empire 
towards the middle of the 3rd century. From their 
expeditions into Asia Minor they brought back with 
them, amongst other captives, several Christians who 
taught them with success the doctrine of Christ. 1 Clergy 
were to be found amongst the captives ; and these 
organized the first groups of converts. The churches 
of Bosphorus and Cherson, as well as those on the Lower 
Danube, could not fail to serve as bases for propaganda. 
At the Council of Nic.-ea there was a bishop of " Gothia," 
called Theophilus. Certain indications lead us to connect 
him with a group of Germanic peoples who finally 
established themselves in the Crimea, abandoning their 
wandering life, while the main body of the Goths and 
their dependents flowed towards the West. 2 

1 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). 

2 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 favour 
ably (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. hi 
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 aedif. 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, *>., to the east of Cherson, that 
there was situated the bishopric of Gothia which is noticed in 
Byzantine annals from the loth century onwards (N^a raKmcd) 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 



p. 569-70] ULFILAS 451 

Several Mesopotamia!! ascetics had been exiled to 
Scythia during the last years of Constantine s reign, 
perhaps a little later. Their leader was a certain Audius. 
The official clergy charged them (apart from their extra 
ordinary mode of life) with an insolent insubordination 
towards the hierarchy, with various erroneous doctrines, 
anthropomorphism amongst others, and, finally, with their 
opposition to the Paschal decree of the Council of Nicaea. 1 
They were very zealous folk ; the idea of evangelizing 
the Goths attracted them. They threw themselves into 
it with enthusiasm, and obtained considerable success ; they 
even went so far as to organize monasteries. After the 
death of Audius, another Mesopotamian, Uranius, under 
took the government of the sect. Both of them were 
bishops, although by irregular ordination. They also in 
their turn ordained some of their own converts, notably 
a certain Silvanus. 

But the most considerable effort was that made by 
Bishop Ulfilas. Notwithstanding his Germanic name, he 
was descended from a family of Cappadocian captives f 
carried away from their homes in the reign of Valerian. 2 
At about the age of thirty, Ulfilas was fulfilling the duties 
of a reader, no doubt in some mission-church, when he 
was chosen by the king of the Goths to form one of an 
embassy to the Court of Constantius. Eusebius of 
Nicomedia saw him, and thinking that his abilities gave 
hope for the future, consecrated him bishop for his nation. 
When Ulfilas returned home, he set himself to fulfil his 
duties with the most intelligent ardour. It was he who 

Crimea. But this is not certain ; and in any case we should have 
to allow change of residence and perhaps interruptions in the 
succession. 

1 This decree was again confirmed by the Council of Antioch 
(canon i). On the Audians our best source of information is 
Epiphanius (Haer. Ixx.). Theodoret (H. E. iv. 9) adds some new 
particulars which apparently correspond to a further development. 
Upon the attitude of the Audians on the Paschal question, see my 
memoir, "La question de la Pique au concile de Nic6e," in the 
Revue des questions hist.^ vol. xxviii. (1880), p. 29. 

* In the little town of Sadagolthma, on the skirts of Parnassus. 



452 THE EAST UNDER THEODOSIUS [OH. xvi. 

initiated the Gothic nation into Roman and Christian 
civilization. He formed an alphabet, which replaced with 
considerable advantage the old Runic script; and he 
translated into Gothic the greater part of the Holy 
Scriptures. 1 A large number of his fellow-countrymen 
embraced Christianity. King Hermanaric at length grew 
uneasy at seeing so many of his companions-in-arms pass 
over to the religion of the Romans. He grew angry, 
and ordered all the missionaries, those of Audius as well 
as those of Ulfilas, to recross the Danube. The Audians 
returned to the East ; Ulfilas and his disciples, who had 
followed him in great numbers, were permitted to settle in 
the province of Mcesia Inferior, near the town of Nicopolis. 
This exodus took place in 349 or thereabouts. Ulfilas lived 
thirty-three years longer. He was an Arian. In 360, he 
was present at the Council of Constantinople, and gave his 
vote with those who approved of the Creed of Ariminum. 
In 383, being summoned by the Emperor Theodosius, with 
the leaders of other dissenting groups, he again travelled 
to the capital, and died on his arrival there. The con 
fession of faith which he had prepared, and which was his 
spiritual testament, we still possess. It is Arianism pure 
and simple. 2 

The step taken by the king of the Goths against 
Bishop Ulfilas did not completely put an end to the 

1 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. 

a 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 und die Lehre des Ulfilas, Hanover, 
1840 ; then by Bessell, Ueber das Leben des Ulfilas, etc., Gottingen, 
1860. It has been published entirely so far as the state of the MS. 
permits by Fr. Kauffmann, Aus der Schule des Wulfila, in vol. i. of 
Texte und Untersuchungen zur altgermanischen Religionsgeschichte y 
Strassburg, 1899. It contains (pp. 73-76) a long extract from a letter 



p. 572] THE GOTHS AND THE EMPIRE 453 

propaganda beyond the Danube. The Bishop of 
Thessalonica, Acholius, took an effective interest in it. 
But the times became more and more difficult. The 
Goths near the Danube had supported the claims of 
Procopius against Valens ; hence, when the latter had got rid 
of his rival, ensued a war which lasted for three years (367- 
369). The preachers of the Roman religion bore the 
brunt of the recoil of these hostilities. Several stories of 
martyrs belong to this period. The best authenticated is 
that of a St Sabas, who was drowned in the river Buseu 1 
in 372. Others were burnt, sometimes en masse, in the 
tents which served them for churches. 2 

The way being thus prepared, a general conversion to 
Christianity took place as the consequence of a grave 
political event. The Huns, crossing the line of the Don, 
forced the Goths back, upon the Dniester first, afterwards 
upon the Sereth, threatening to drive them still farther. 
Being brought to a stand at the Danube, the vanquished 
Goths determined to ask for a refuge in the Roman 
empire. They were welcomed there as guests and 
auxiliaries (376) ; but very soon they conducted them 
selves in it like masters ; and after the disaster at 
Adrianople, in 378, their history follows them, no longer 
to the vicinity, but into the very heart of the empire. At 
the time when they penetrated there, the confession of 
Ariminum represented official Christianity ; the Church of 

in which Auxentius, Bishop of Dorostorum and a disciple of Ulfilas, 
relates the life of his master. It is at the end of this little document 
that we find the "Credo" of Ulfilas: "Ego Ulfila episkopus et 
confessor semper sic credidi et in hac fide sola et vera transitum facio 
ad dominum meum." 

1 MojJ<reo?, a tributary on the right of the Sereth, This event took 
place on April 12, which is the day of his Feast. 

2 Socrates, H. E. iv. 34 ; Sozomen, H. E. vii. 37 ; Basil, Ep. 164, 
165 ; Ambrose, Ep. 15, 16 ; in Luc. ii. 37 ; Aug. De civ. Dei xviii. 52 ; 
see also the hagiographical traditions relating to SS. Bathusius and 
Vereas (March 26), St Nicetas (September 15), and St Sabas (April 
12). The remains of these martyrs were translated respectively to 
Cyzicus, to Mopsuestia, and to Caesarea in Cappadocia. The remains 
of St Sabas were collected and sent to St Basil by the Dux of Scythia, 
Junius Soranus, his fellow-countryman. 



454 THE EAST UNDER THEODOSIUS [CH. xvi. 

Constantinople was governed by an Arian bishop. But 
this only lasted for a short time ; the government of 
Gratian and of Theodosius took up a decided position on 
the side of the faith of Nicaea. From that quarter the 
barbarians would not undergo any serious pressure. But 
the members of the episcopate were divided amongst 
themselves. If the Bishops of Tomi l and Marcianopolis 2 
were pillars of orthodoxy, Auxentius of Dorostorum 8 was 
a fervent disciple of Ulfilas ; Palladius of Ratiaria 4 had 
long records of service in the Arian camp; and they were 
not the only ones. But it is Ulfilas more than any one 
else who has to be reckoned with in this matter. What 
instructor could commend himself more highly to the 
Gothic nation and to its leaders ? With him, Christian 
worship was clothed in national forms ; it was conducted 
in Gothic ; Gothic was the language for preaching and for 
prayer. It was true that, as regarded the Creed, he was 
not in agreement with the actual possessors of imperial 
authority ; but he had been so under the government of 
Constantius and Valens. Who could say that a new 
change was impossible ? And after all, was it such an 
urgent matter to obli crate all religious distinction between 
Goths and Romans ? 

Whether or no people reasoned in this way on the 
situation, the fact remains that it settled itself in such 
a way that Arianism in proportion as it lost ground among 
the subjects of the empire gained it amongst its " allies." 

It was not only upon the Lower Danube that this 
was the case. Along the whole length of that river 
the barbarians who lived on the frontier passed over, one 
after another, to Christianity, and to Christianity in an 
Arian 5 form. The circumstances were almost exactly 

1 The Bishop of Tomi was the only bishop in his province of 
Scythia. 2 Cod. Theod. xvi. i, 3. 

3 Upon Auxentius, see above, p. 437. 4 Supra, pp. 375 et seq. 

6 We must notice, however, the story of Fritigil, Queen of the 
Marcomanni, to whom St Ambrose had given religious instruction 
by letter (Paulinus, Vita Ambr. 36). She persuaded the king, her 
husband, to give himself to the Romans, and went herself to Milan, 
where St Ambrose had just died. 



p. 574-5] THE REVIVAL OF ARIANISM 455 

the same. In Pannonia, as in Moesia, 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. 



2. 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. 



456 THE EAST UNDER THEODOSIUS [CH. XVL 

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. 2 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 under 
standing. 

The meeting actually took place 3 ; 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. 4 
The 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 Deitatc Filii tt Spiritus Sancti 
/Mignc, P. G. vol. xlvi., p. 557). 

8 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. 

8 Kauffmann, Aus der Schule des Wulfila^ p. 76. 

4 Migne, P. G. vol. Ixvii., p. 587, note 34 ; Mansi, Concilia^ vol. iil, 
p. 645. 



p. 577] ARIAN DISPUTES 457 

without making the slightest step towards conciliation. 
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. 1 In these circumstances 
there was nothing to be done but to persevere in severe 
measures; and this is what actually happened. A new 
law 2 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 8 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- 

1 Socrates, H. E. v. 10, who evidently exaggerates the part played 
at that time by the Novatians. 

a Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, u, of July 25, 383; cf. xvi. 5, 12, and 13, 
which belong to December 3 and January 21 following. 

3 Socrates, H. E. v. 20. 



458 THE EAST UNDER THEODOSIUS [CH. xvi 

cooks (P sathyriant). 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 Caesarea 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, 58. 
60,65. 

8 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 Caesarea 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. 



*. 579] THE NOVATIANS AT CONSTANTINOPLE 459 

3. Asia Minor. 

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 consider 
able 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 Valeris 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 educa 
tion 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 Constantineand Constantius, 
see the next chapter. a Socrates, H. E. i. 10. 

3 Ibid., ii. 38 ; iv. 9 ; v. 10. * Ibid. t iv. 9. 



460 THE EAST UNDER THEODOSIUS [CH. xvi. 

the office of Consularis of Italy, and Vicarius of the 
Britains. 1 Another Novatian priest, Sisinnius, had 
formerly attended in company with Julian the lectures of 
Maximus of Ephesus. Agelius, before his death, conse 
crated 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. 2 

In Phrygia, the Montanist centre at Pepuza still 
existed ; its influence even extended far enough to pro 
voke repressive legislation. The Montanists, Priscillianists, 3 
Phrygians, Pepuzians, and Tascodrugitee are mentioned 
from time to time in the Theodosian Code. 4 Every year 
they celebrated, on April 6, a great ceremony, which was 
their Feast of Easter. 6 Some of them were converted 
from time to time 6 ; but the further progress was made, 
the more these old sects tended to shut themselves off in 

1 Socrates, H. E. vii. 12. * Ibid., iv. 28 ; v. 21. 

Disciples of the prophetess Priscilla : not to be confounded with 
the Priscillianists of Spain. 

4 xvi. 5, 10, 40, 48, 57, 65. * Sozomen, H. E. vii. 18. 

Basil, Ep. 1 88. 



P. 582] THE MASSALIANS 461 

grim exclusiveness. There were also the devotees of 
compulsory encratism, isolated at first, but now grouped 
together in propagandist confraternities, varying in nomen 
clature 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 speak 
ing. 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 origin 
ally 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, Eft>. 1 88, 199. 



462 THE EAST UNDER THEODOSIUS [CH. XVL 

peace to the Church, and keeping it in good order. The 
first bishop to concern himself with them was the 
Metropolitan of Iconium, Amphilochius. Presiding over 
a council held at Side in Pamphylia, he severely con 
demned 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 pro 
hibitions 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 sern 
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. u. 



p. 584-6] AMPH1LOCHIUS 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, 1 
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 devot