The Homoean Creed

1. The traditional term is rejected by E. D. Hunt, 'Did Constantius II Have "Court

Bishops" ?' Studia Patrística 19 (1989), 86-90. Similarly, Klein, Constantes (1977), 86-89, argues thar Constantius was not influenced by Ursacius and Valens. But it is clear that normally bishops were in attendance wherever the imperial court happened to be: when Constantius visited Rome in 357, his entourage included Ursacius, Valens, Basil of Ancyra, and Eudoxius of Germanicia (Chapter XV, at nn. 28, 56).

2. Whence Socrates, HE 2.37.18-24, who notes that the original was in Latin. For the role of Marcus and the names of the bishops present, see Epiphanius, Pan. 73.22.5-8 (letter of George of Laodicea written in 359); CSEL 65.163.10-26 (letter of Germinius written in 366). The list of names in Epiphanius diverges from the bishops named in Germinius' letter in two particulars: Germinius' own name has been corrupted to Germanus, and it has Hypatianus, but omits Pancratius. It is not clear whether that is an error: it is possible that Hypatianus, who is attested as bishop of Heraclea in 364 (Sozomenus, HE 6.7.1), was present as well as Pancratius.

4. It was alleged at Seleucia that Acacius had used the phrase fyioios KGrra nch'Ta to describe the relationship of Father and Son in his published writings (Socrates, HE 2.40.33). It does not appear to occur in the exiguous fragments of his writings that survive (CPG 3510-3512).

5. Epiphanius, Pan. 73.22.6/7 (George of Laodicea).

6. Sozomenus, HE 4.17.1. On George's allegedly very profitable business activities, see Epiphanius, Pan. 76.1.4-7, with A. K. Bowman, Egypt after the Pharaohs, 332 B.C.-A.D. 642 (Berkeley, 1986), 221.

8. Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 2.41.1, cf. App. 10. On the Council of Ariminum, see esp. Y.-M. Duval, 4La "manoeuvre frauduleuse" de Rimini: À la recherche du Liber adversits Ursacium et Valentem; Hilaire et son temps (Paris, 1969), 51-103; Brennecke, Hornoer (1988), 23-40; Hanson, Search (1988), 371-380. An official record of the council was certainly kept: Socrates specifically notes the presence of shorthand writers at the parallel Council of Seleucia (HE 2.39.8). These acta must be the source of the conciliar documents preserved by Hilary: Auxentius of Milan sent to the emperor Valentinian a copy of 'ea quae gesta sunt in concilio Ariniinensi' (quoted by Hilary, Contra Auxentium 15 [PL 10.618]). It is not clear whether Sulpicius Severus drew directly on the acta or knew them only through Hilary's work. Modern discussion has centered on the question of how much use Jerome made of the acta in his Dialogus Luciferiani et Orthodoxi: P. Batiffol, 'Les sources de YAltercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi de St. Jérôme,' Miscellanea Geronimiana (Rome, 1920), 97-114; Y.-M. Duval, 'Saint Jérôme devant la baptême des hérétiques: D'autres sources de YAltercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi,' REAug 14 (1968), 145-180.

9. Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 2.41.2-6, with the creed and condemnation edited by Y.-M. Duval, 'Une traduction latine inédite du symbole de Nicée et une condemnation d'Arius à Rimini: Nouveaux fragments historiques d'Hilaire ou pièces des actes du concile?' Revue bénédictine 82 (1972), 7-25, at 10-12, cf. H. Silvestre, 'À propos d'une récente édition de la "Damnatio Arrii" de Rimini,' RHE 68 (1973), 102-104. The latter was edited by Cousrant as part of Hilary's lost historical work, whence PL 10.698/9, but excluded by A. L. Feder from CSEL 65 (1916) because of its different manuscript attestation: for proof that both documents derive ultimately from Hilary, see Y.-M. Duval, Revue bénédictine 82 (1972), 7-25. The number of four hundred bishops present is confirmed by Athanasius, Syn. 8.1, whence Sozomenus, HE 4.17.2. Philostorgius, HE 4.8, has three hundred.

10. CSEL 65.96/7, partly quoted by Athanasius, Syn. 11.1-3. For Gaius, see Feder, Studien 11(1910), 115 No. 32.

11. CSEL 65.78-85. A Greek version is preserved, with substantial differences from the original, in Athanasius, Syn. 10; Socrates, HE 2.37.54-74; Theodoretus, HE 2.19.1-13; Sozomenus, HE 4.18.

12. Sulpicius Scverus, Chron. 2.41.1, 43.3. The letter of Constantius quoted by Athanasius, Syn. 55.2, states the number of envoys as twenty (instead of the prescribed ten), cf. below, n. 18.

13. Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 2.41.5. This hostile account implies that it was a pagan shrine and asserts that it had been deliberately left vacant (4aedem turn de industria vacantem orationis loco capiunt').

15. As Sulpicius Severus complained: 'ex parte nostrorum leguntur homines adulescentes, parum docti et parum cauti; ab Arrianis autem missi senes, callidi et ingenio valentes, veterno perfidiae imbuti' (Chron. 2.41.7). All ten names of the members of this delegation are known: they include Ursacius, Valens, Germinius, Gaius, and Epictetus (CSEL 65.174.5-7,87.5/6,cf. Feder, Studien 11(1910], 103/4).

17. Athanasius, Syn. 55.2/3, whence Socrates, HE 2.37.78-81 (letter of Constantius to the bishops at Ariminum); CSEL 65.85.11-18. In his letter Constantius hypocritically apologises for being unable to see the envoys because he was compelled to march against barbarians—so that his soul was not in a pure enough state to deal with matters concerning the law of God. Athanasius also preserves the reply of the bishops from Ariminum, in which they plead to be allowed to return home to their leaderless churches before harsh winter weather commences (Syw. 55.4-7, whence Socrates, HE 2.37.83-87: Theodoretus, HE 2.20, has a slightly different Greek version of the same Latin original).

18. CSEL 65.85.20-86.23. The heading of the document contains fourteen names: apart from Restitutus all appear to be otherwise unknown: see Feder, Studien II (1910), 106.

19. For a comparison of the two documents, see Kelly, Creeds' (1972), 291/2.

21. See, recently, Brennecke, Homoer (1988), 40-56. Socrates, HE 2.39/40, who explicitly acknowledges Sabinus of Hcraclea as his source, provides the principal narrative source on which the following account of the council is based: in principle, references are given only where other sources furnish supplementary details.

22. The total given by Socrates, HE 2.39.5, is confirmed by Athanasius, Syn. 12.1 (where the text states the date on which the bishops assembled as 14 September), but Theodoretus has a total of one hundred and fifty (HE 2.26.9).

23. On the career of Cyril, see Chapter XII, at nn. 53-58; on that of Eustathius, 'The Date of the Council of Gangra,' ;TS, N.S. 40 (1989), 121-124, arguing that the Council of Gangra which condemned him should be dated c. 355 and identified as a provincial synod of Paphlagonian bishops—which lacked the jurisdiction to de pose a bishop whose see (Sebasteia) belonged to the province of Armenia.

24. The list of bishops who subscribed the document which Acacius presented to the council contained forty-three names, though some have been lost in transmission (Epiphanius, Pan. 73.26, with the comments of K. Holl, ad loc.). Socrates, HE 2.39.16, states that the supporters of George, Uranius, and Eudoxius numbered only thirty-two. Hilary of Poitiers has a different division of parties from that of Socrates: according to him, there were one hundred and five homoeousians, while nineteen bishops held the view that the proper term to characterise the relationship of Father and Son was 'anomoeousion, id est dissimilis essentiae,' and only the Egyptian bishops (with the exception of George) defended the homoousion [In Const. 12). The last assertion is one-sided and misleading, since several Egyptian bishops attended and supported Acacius, including Pancratius of Pelusium; the Melitian Ptolemaeus, who had replaced Serapion as bishop of Thmuis; and Apollonius, the Melitian bishop of Oxyrhynchus (Athanasius, Syn. 12.3; Epiphanius, Pan. 73.26).

25. For the full text and subscriptions, see Epiphanius, Pan. 73.25/6. Incomplete versions are quoted in Athanasius, Syn. 29.2-9; Socrates, HE 2.40.8-17 (from Sabmus). For an analysis of its theology, see J. Gummerus, Die homousianische Partei bis zum Tode des Konstantius (Leipzig, 1900), 142-152.

26. Sozomenus, HE 4.22.22, quotes a part of his argument omitted by Socrates, again supplementing his main source from Sabinus.

27. Athanasius, Syn. 12.5, confirms all eighteen names given by Socrates, HE 2.40.43-45.

30. Sulpicius Severus, Cbron. 2.43.1-44.8, naming Phoebadius of Agen and Servatius of Tongres as leaders of the opposition to Constantius' demands. On the extremely obscure question of exactly what constituted the alleged fraus, see Y.-M. Duval, Hilaire et son temps (1969), 84-103.

31. Sulpicius Severus, Cbron. 2.44.1, makes the prefect Taurus say that the bishops are in their seventh month of confinement in Ariminum—which implies that the final capitulation did not occur until January 360.

32. Sulpicius Severus, Cbron. 2.45.1; Theodoretus, HE 2.27.7-12; Sozomenus, HE 4.23.1-7.

33. CSEL 65.174.3-175.4. The heading contains eighteen names, on which see Feder, Studien II (1910), 104-106. The absence of Basil of Ancyra, Eustathius of Sebasteia, and Elcusius of Cyzicus, who are known to have been among the ten envoys of the majority (Theodoretus, HE 2.27.3-6), implies that the letter was written by the supporters of Acacius.

35. The Paschal Chronicle (543/4 Bonn) states that seventy-two bishops were present when Eudoxius was enthroned on 27 January 360 and names more than fifty of them (unfortunately without their sees). For accounts of the council, see Socrates, HE 2.41.5/6; Philosrorgius, HE 4.12; Sozomenus, HE 4.24.1.

36. The creed is transmitted independently of Athanasius by Socrates, HE 2.41.8-17; Theodoretus, HE 2.21.3-7. For brief comment on the document as a whole, see Kelly, Creeds3 (1972), 293-295.

37. For the names of the bishops deposed and details of the charges against them, which arc not relevant here, see Socrates, HE 2.42/3; Sozomenus, HE 4.24/5 {with some discrepancies).

38. Theodoretus, HE 2.28, preserves a letter of the council to George of Alexandria 'in condemnation of his deacon Aetius on account of his unlawful blasphemy.'

39. Hilary, In Const. 26, reports that the African bishops had set their names to a formal condemnation of the blasphemy of Ursacius and Valens.

42. For complementary accounts of the situation in the church of Antioch in 360, see Socrates, HE 2.44; Theodoretus, HE 2.31; Sozomenus, HE 4.28; for other evidence and full discussion, Brennecke, Homôer (1988), 66-81.

43. John Chrysostom, In Meletium (PG 50.515-520).

45. See the excellent survey by K. Schâferdiek, 'Germanenmission,' RAC 10 (1978), 492-548.

46. Syn. 28-63 (PL 10.501-523). Hilary describes the council of 341 as a gathering of saints (Syn. 32). Similarly, he salutes the eastern bishops in general and Basil of Ancyra, Eustathius of Sebasteia, and Eleusius of Cyzicus by name as sanctissimi viri (80, 90).

47. Sulpicius Severus, Cfjron. 2.42.2.

48. Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 2.42.3-5, gives him an implausibly prominent role.

49. Sulpicius Severus, O?ron. 2.45.3.

50. Edited by A. L. Fedec, CSEL 65.197-205. The earliest and best manuscript, of the sixth century (Vatican, Archivo di San Pietro D 182), states that Hilary presented the work to the emperor in Constantinople ('quem et Constantinopoli ipse tradidit'), perhaps echoing Jerome's description of the work as 4ad Constantium libellus quem vivent» ei Constantinopoli porrexerat' (De. vir. ill. 100). The text fully bears out these statements, but there has been some uncertainty over the precise date. Feder, Studien III (1912), 12-14, argued for December 359. However, the fact that Hilary calls the dated creed of 22 May 359 proximi anni fides (5.2, cf. 3.3) implies that he is writing in January 360.

51. Compare Syn. 78, where Hilary presents Constantius as being deceived by bishops with erroneous views.

52. Ad Const. 1-3. The context clearly indicates that it is unwise to take what Hilary says here about his condemnation and exile in 356 au pied de la lettre.

55. In Const., esp. 1/2, 5-11, 27. Hilary predictably compares Constantius to Herod and Antiochus (6): on his vocabulary of abuse, see I. Opelt, 'Hilarius von Poitiers als Polemiker,' Vig. Chr. 27 (1973), 203-217.

56. Chapter XIV.

57. On the unity of the work, see JTS, N.S. 39 (1988), 610, criticising the complicated theory of composition in stages spread over almost two years advanced in the recent edition by A. Rocher, Sources chrétiennes 334 (Paris, 1987), 29-38.

0 0

Post a comment