¹ Philostorgius, H.E. i.7.

² Theodoret, H.E. i.8.1–5. The “Eusebius” of this attack is, I think, more likely to be the Caesarean than the Nicomedian. For the policy of Eustathius and the Council of Antioch in 325 see , J. T. S., new series ix (1958), p. 303.Google Scholar

³ Athanasius, de Decretis 33 = Socrates H.E. i.8.35 ff. = Theodoret, H.E. i.12. Athanasius (de Decretis 3, de Synodis 13) observes that Eusebius put his own individual interpretation on the creed, but that at least he accepted the formula (which is more than can be said of his successor Acacius). From de Synodis 37.2 it appears that in 359 at the time of the Council of Seleucia Eudoxius, Acacius and the radical group are using Eusebius's letter as evidence that the Nicene formula could not be conscientiously accepted by honest theologians, and urging that the hesitating homoiousian party could not continue to halt between two opinions on the basis which Eusebius's letter seemed to provide.

⁴ For the lists see Patrum Nicaenorum Nomina, edited by Hilgenfeld, Gelzer, and Cuntz, (Leipzig, Teubner, 1898).Google Scholar The Latin lists, with which the Syriac closely agree, are best set out in C. H. Turner, Ecclesiae Occidentalis Monumenta Iuris Antiquissima, I, pp. 35–102, where the most reliable tradition is represented in column V, as Turner himself later remarked (op. cit., I, fasc. ii, pars 3, praefatio p. xv). His conclusion has been reinforced by the detailed study of Honigmann in Byzantion xiv (1939), pp. 27–44.Google Scholar

⁵ Sozomen, H.E. ii.32.7–8.

⁶ Sozomen, H.E. i.15.11. In his letter to Alexander of Byzantium (Théodoret, H.E. i.4.37), Alexander of Alexandria bitterly complains of the action of “three Syrian bishops,” Eusebius of Caesarea, Paulinus of Tyre, and Patrophilus of Scythopolis, who have communicated with Arius.

⁷ Arius's letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia (Theodoret, H.E. i.5 = Epiphanius, Panarion lxix.6) informs him that he is being supported by Theodotus of Laodicea, Paulinus of Tyre, Athanasius of Anazarbus, Gregory of Berytus, and Aetius of Lydda, while Alexander of Alexandria is supported by Philogonius of Antioch, Macarius of Jerusalem, and Hellanicus of Tripolis.

⁸ See H. G. Opitz, Urkunden zur Geschichte des Arianischen Streites ( = Athanasius Werke, Band III, 1), document 18.

⁹ See especially Telfer, W., “Constantine's Holy Land Plan,” in Studia Patristica, ed. Aland, and Cross, , i (Texte und Untersuchungen lxiii, Berlin, 1957), pp. 696–700.Google Scholar

¹⁰ The dispute between Acacius of Caesarea and Cyril of Jerusalem (Sozomen, H.E. iv.25; Theodoret, H.E. ii.26) left Caesarea in a position of temporary superiority. About 392 the clergy and people of Gaza went to Caesarea for their new bishop (Marcus Diaconus, Vita Porphyrii 11–12). When Theophilus of Alexandria sent round a warning letter against Origenism to the bishops of Palestine and Cyprus, he put first the name of Eulogius of Caesarea, second that of John of Jerusalem; the reply of the synod of Jerusalem follows the same order of precedence (Jerome, Epp. 92–93). In passing, it is noteworthy that Theophilus addressed this letter to those provinces of the diocese Oriens which were never effectively under the control of the patriarch of Antioch (see below, p. 184–5), though at this time, 401, Cyprus and Palestine were understood to belong to Antiochene jurisdiction at least in theory. Add to this observation the Pauline text about “the care of all the churches” quoted in John of Jerusalem's letter to Theophilus (Jerome, adv. Joh. Hier. 37), and it looks as if the Origenist controversy was being exploited by Theophilus to attach Cyprus and Palestine to his own jurisdiction or at least to weaken that of Antioch. The final outcome, of course, was the creation of the independent patriarchate of Jerusalem by Juvenal, whose story has been brilliantly told by Honigmann, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers 5 (1950). Until Juvenal the seventh canon remained effective.Google Scholar

¹¹ Loofs's judgment that the Nicene creed was “intentionally ambiguous” is, I think, an exaggeration (see his paper, “Das Nicänum,” in Festgabe f. Karl Müller, Tübingen, 1922, pp. 68–82), but an exaggeration of a truth: it was the ambiguity of the formula which made it possible for almost everyone to accept it, and had it not possessed that virtue Constantine would not have given the formula the support without which it would hardly have become accepted so generally. But I doubt if Ossius and Alexander drafted the creed with the deliberate purpose of providing a comprehensive statement which the Eusebians would be happy to sign. The statement they produced turned out to be capable of an inclusive interpretation, but that was more accident than design.Google Scholar

¹² See the Life of Constantine in the codex Angelicus which used Philostorgius (ed. Bidez, p. 10). Philumenos played some part also in the Donatist controversy; in 316 he advised Constantine to keep Caecilian of Carthage a prisoner at Brescia (Optatus, i.26).

¹³ See the letter of the Council of Nicaea “to the Church of Alexandria and to the brethren in Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis,” cited by Athanasius, de Decretis 36; Socrates, H.E. i.9; Theodoret, H.E. i.9; Gelasius, H.E. ii.34. (Opitz, document 23 — as above, n.8.)

¹⁴ Philostorgius, H.E. i.10. At i.9 he distinguishes sharply between the Libyan group and “the other block of Arians.”

¹⁵ See the encyclical of Alexander of Alexandria to all bishops, cited by Athanasius, de Decretis 35.6, Socrates H.E. i.6.8; also Athanasius, Historia Arianorum 71.4.

¹⁶ Seeck, Otto, Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt, iii² (Stuttgart, 1921), p. 401.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Nicetas, Thesaur. v. 7 (Migne, P.G. cxxxix. 1368), printed in Bidez's edition of Philostorgius, p. 9.

¹⁸ Procopius, Aedif. vi.2.14 ff.

¹⁹ See Constantine's letter in Athanasius, de Decretis 40.20 = Gelasius, H.E. iii.19.20 (Opitz, document 34). The Arian demand for the toleration of an independent Arian community side by side with the Athanasian churches in Egypt and Libya recurs later. At Antioch on 31 October 363 the Arian bishop of Alexandria, Lucius, one Bernicianus and some others submitted to tlie emperor Jovian charges against Athanasius; when it became clear that Jovian was committed to the support of Athanasius, they asked him to “authorise our meeting together for worship,” complaining that Athanasius harried them as heretics and deprived their churches of endowments of land. The text of the dialogue survives appended to Athanasius, Ep. ad Iovianum (Migne, P.G. xxvi.821 B). The date, 31 October, is given by the Coptic fragment of the Festal Letter for 364 published by Pieper, M. in Z. N. W. xxxvii (1938), p. 75.Google Scholar

²⁰ Synesius, Ep. 67 (Migne, P.G. lxvi.1413 C). It also appears (1417 A) that at the end of his life Siderius returned home to Palaebiscus and Hydrax. It is unlikely that he retired. More probably he was extruded under Arian pressure in the period after Athanasius's death when Peter of Alexandria was a refugee at Rome.

²¹ For the story of the controversy see Opitz, H. G., “Dionys von Alexandria und die Libyer,” in Quantulacumque: Studies presented to Kirsopp Lake (London, 1937), pp. 41–54.Google Scholar

²² A fragment of Athanasius of Anazarbus (Migne, P.L. xiii.621) illustrates the Arian appeal to his authority. See the discussion of the fragment by Bruyne, D. de in Z. N. W. xxvii (1928), p. 110Google Scholar, and by Bardy, G., Recherches sur S. Lucien d'Antioche et son école (Paris, 1936), p. 208.Google Scholar Athanasius not only has to write a special tract to vindicate his revered predecessor from the smear of Arianism (de Sententiis Dionysii), but also has to deal with the matter in later works, de Decretis 26 and de Synodis 43–44. Basil, Ep. 9, is openly critical of much of Dionysius's work.

²³ Procopius, Aedif. vi.2.3.

²⁴ For the variants see the critical text of Beneševič, V., Ioannis Scholastici Synagoga L Titulorum (Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil. hist. Abt., N. F. 14, 1937), p. 32.Google Scholar

²⁵ See Schulthess, F., Die syrischen Kanones der Synoden von Nicaea bis Chalcedon (Abhandlungen der königl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Phil. hist. Kl., N. F. X, 2, 1908), p. 18.Google Scholar

²⁶ Eccl. Occid. Mon. Iur. Ant. I, pp. 120–121. Schwartz was the first to draw attention to the importance of these translations (cf. below, n. 45).

²⁷ See Turner, C. H. in J. T. S. xxxi (1930), pp. 9 ff.Google Scholar

²⁸ The text cited by Paschasinus is preserved by the Latin version, printed by Schwartz, Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum II.iii.548. The second half of the sixth canon follows not the Chieti manuscript's form but that of the “Isidorian” version.

²⁹ Rhalles-Potles, , Syntagma Canonum ii (Athens, 1852), p. 129: “This sixth canon and the seventh lay down that the four patriarchs, viz., Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem (for Constantinople will be treated in other canons) must be honoured according to the ancient customs.”Google Scholar

³⁰ The best study remains that of Lübeck, Konrad, Reichseinteilung und kirchliche Hierarchie des Orients bis zum Ausgange des vierten Jahrhunderts (Münster, 1901).Google Scholar

³¹ The recognition by the Council of Constantinople that the bishop of the capital of the civil diocese is exarch for the provinces belonging to that diocese is nominally reaffirmed at Chalcedon. But the great patriarchates were already making the Constantinopolitan arrangement superseded, and this is virtually admitted in the ninth and seventeenth canons of Chalcedon which allow any dispute with the metropolitan to be taken either to the exarch of the diocese or to the patriarch of Constantinople. The system of organization by dioceses never took root.

³² Domnus of Antioch's letter to Dioscorus of Alexandria, extant in the Syriac version of the Acts of the second Council of Ephesus, 449, attests the fact that “Flavian accepted the exarchate.” See the edition of the Syriac text, with Hofmann's German translation, by Flemming, J., Akten der Ephesinischen Synode vom Jahre 449 (Abhandlungen der königl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Phil, hist. Kl., N. F. XV, 1, 1917), pp. 146–147.Google Scholar In the English translation by Perry, (The Second Synod of Ephesus, 1881), the letter is on pp. 352–356.Google Scholar

At one point in the proceedings of the synod of Antioch of 444, the acts of which are transcribed in the Acts of Chalcedon, Domnus of Antioch is entitled “exarch of the Oriental diocese” (Act. Chalc. xv. 135; Schwartz, A. C. O. II.i.438). Jerome assumes that the Nicene canons make Jerusalem subject to Caesarea as metropolis of the province and the whole of the diocese Oriens subject to Antioch; see his adv. Ioh. Hier. 37: “Tu qui regulas quaeris ecclesiasticas et Nicaeni concilii canonibus uteris … responde mihi, ad Alexandrinum episcopum Palaestina pertinet? ni fallor hoc ibi decernitur, ut Palaestinae metropolis Caesaria sit et totius orientis Antiochia” (Vallarsi², ii. 447). It is noteworthy that the Latin version of the Nicene canons called Gallo-Hispana interprets the limits of Antiochene jurisdiction as being “the whole of Coele-Syria”: “Et ut antiquos mos maneat, Aegyptum Liben Pentapolin Alexandriae episcopus habeat potestatem; sicut urbis Rome episcopus habit uicinas sibi prouincias et Anthiocie totam Coelem.” (Turner, Monumenta i. 196).

³³ According to the canon of Constantinople (381) “the bishops of the Orient are to control only the Orient, the privileges accorded to the church of Antioch by the canons of Nicaea being preserved.” Domnus of Antioch appeals to this canon in his letter to Flavian of Constantinople (=Theodoret, ep. 86) protesting against Alexandrian interference in 448.

³⁴ Innocent, Ep. xxiv (Migne, P.L. xx. 547–551).

³⁵ Epiphanius, Panarion lxxvii. 20 ff. (concerning his negotiations at Antioch about the Apollinarian group).

³⁶ Jerome, Ep. 108.6; 127.7 (Paulinus and Epiphanius at Rome in 382). For the general situation see a brief account in Lietzmann, Hans, Geschichte der alten Kirche iv (1944), pp. 34, 56 =Google Scholar The Era of the Church Fathers, translated by Bertram Lee Woolf (1951), pp. 45, 65 f.; more detail in Schwartz, , Z. N. W. xxxiv (1935), pp. 196–213Google Scholar, or in Cavallera, , Le Schisme d'Antioche (Paris, 1905), pp. 245–262.Google Scholar

³⁷ Collectio Atheniensis 81, A.C.O. I.i.7, pp. 118–122. See a summary of the debate in Kidd, B. J., A History of the Church to A.D. 461, iii (Oxford, 1922), pp. 248–249.Google Scholar

³⁸ Cf. Act. Chalc. viii.17, A.C.O. II.i.366.

³⁹ Collectio Atheniensis 62.4, A.C.O. I.i.7, p. 73.

⁴⁰ Cyril, Ep. 56 (Migne, P.G. lxxvii.320); critical edition in Schwartz, , Codex Vaticanus gr. 1431 (Abh. Bayer. Akad. d. Wiss. XXXII, 6, 1927), p. 17. Leo, Ep. 119, shows that Cyril wrote in the same sense to Rome. But about four or five years later John of Antioch writes to Proclus of Constantinople enumerating provinces subject to his obedience: he does not include either Cyprus or the Palestines (A.C.O. I.iv.210).Google Scholar

⁴¹ At the second Council of Ephesus, 449, it was among the charges against Domnus of Antioch that he had invaded Juvenal's rights in Palestine. He was also accused on the ground that, when appointing a bishop for Antaradus in Phoenice I, he merely sent the mandate by post instead of going in person to enthrone the bishop, a complaint which may reveal something of Juvenal's methods in stealing the hearts of the men of Phoenicia and Arabia. See the Syriac Acts of Ephesus, ed. Flemming, pp. 126 f., tr. Perry, pp. 313 ff.

⁴² At Chalcedon on 23 October 451 a private agreement between Maximus and Juvenal was made, which was given official sanction by the synod and the emperor on 26 October. The official proceedings of 26 October survive in Greek in Act. Chalc. viii (A.C.O. II.i.362–6); the whole story is only known from the Latin version, A.C.O. II.ii.109 ff., and is subjected to a masterly discussion by Schwartz, in Abh. Bayer. Akad. d. Wiss. XXXII, 2 (1925).Google Scholar

⁴³ Leo, Ep. 119. It is only fair to add that the Roman legates at Chalcedon had fatally compromised him by formally assenting to the agreement between Maximus and Juvenal on 26 October 451. To Maximus Leo protests that he disowns any action of his legates which exceeded their brief, but it was awkward for him in the circumstances.

⁴⁴ This story, solemnly recorded in the Roman Martyrology (11 June), is attested by Theodoras Lector, H.E. ii.2 (P.G. lxxxvi.1, 184); Victor Tunnensis, Chron. (P.L. lxviii.947); and among other late writers by Cedrenus (I pp. 618–19 ed. Bonn). See Downey, G., “The Claim of Antioch to Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over Cyprus,” Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc. 102 (1958), pp. 224–28.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ “Der sechste nicaenische Kanon auf der Synode von Chalkedon,” Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1930, Phil. hist. Kl., pp. 611–40, especially at pp. 633 ff.

⁴⁶ This is argued with great ingenuity by Schwartz, , “Die Kanonessammlungen der alten Reichskirche,” in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, lvi, Kan. Abt. xxv (1936), pp. 1–114.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Palladius, Dial, de Vita Joh. Chrys. ix (ed. Coleman-Norton, p. 52), mentions Theophilus's appeal to the Antiochene canons. For Innocent's protest see ibid, iii (p. 17); the full text of Innocent's letter to the clergy and people of Constantinople in Sozomen, H.E. viii.26.7–18.

⁴⁸ Act. Chalc. xii.24–5 cites the 16th and 17th canons of Antioch as “canons 95 and 96” (A.C.O. II.i.407); xviii.9–10 cites the 4th and 5th canons of Antioch as “canons 83 and 84” (A.C.O. II.i.459–60). These and other examples are collected by Schwartz, Zeitschrift der Savigny Stiftung, art. cit. (above, n. 46), p. 1.

⁴⁹ For Apiarius and the consequences of his moral obliquities see B. J. Kidd, History of the Church to A.D. 461, iii, pp. 162 ff.

⁵⁰ Boniface, Ep. xiv.i (P.L. xx.777 B): “Institutio uniuersalis nascentis ecclesiae de beati Petri sumpsit honore principium, in quo regimen eius et summa consistit. Ex eius enim ecclesiastica disciplina per omnes ecclesias, religionis iam crescente cultura, fonte manauit. Nicaenae synodi non aliud praecepta testantur, adeo ut non aliquid super eum ausa sit constituere, cum uideret nihil supra meritum suum posse conferri; omnia denique huic nouerat domini sermone concessa. Hunc ergo ecclesiis toto orbe diffusis uelut caput suorum certum est esse membrorum; a quo se quisquis abscidit, fit christianae religionis extorris, cum in eadem non coeperit esse compage.”

⁵¹ See especially Leo's letters of 22 May 452 addressed to Marcian, Pulcheria, and Anatolius (Epp. 104–106).

⁵² Rufinus, H.E. x.6 (ed. Mommsen, pp. 966 f.).

⁵³ Above, n. 28.

⁵⁴ The text of Damasus's statement is printed in Turner's Monumenta, i.157, in J. T. S. i (1900), p. 560Google Scholar, and in Dobschütz, E. von, Das Decretum Gelasianum (Texte und Untersuchungen xxxviii. 4, 1912), p. 7.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ The only certainties are Ossius the Spaniard, the two Roman presbyters representing Silvester, a couple of bishops from Dacia and one from Moesia. A rather improbable Calabrian and Caecilian of Carthage appear in some less trustworthy lists. Caecilian, of course, may well have been there — at least the Council of Carthage in 419 thought he was present and Donatism would not keep him at home. His successor Gratus was able to go to Serdica. Caecilian's troubles at home would have given him good reason to make (at imperial expense) a journey that would again bring him into direct touch with Constantine to whose support he owed so much.

⁵⁶ Bright, William, The Canons of the first four General Councils with Notes² (Oxford, 1892), p. 22Google Scholar; Kidd, op. cit., ii, p. 46; Jones, A. H. M., Constantine and the Conversion of Europe (London, 1948), p. 170.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See the list of Melitian clergy given to Alexander of Alexandria, preserved by Athanasius, Apol. c. Arianos 71. There are nine from Thebais, twenty-five from Aegyptus, and a few presbyters and deacons actually at Alexandria.

⁵⁸ The Laterculus Veronensis is printed by Seeck in his edition of the Notitia Dignitatum, and its evidence discussed by Jones, A. H. M., “The Date and Value of the Verona List,” in Journal of Roman Studies, xliv (1954), pp. 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁹ Amm. Marc, xxii.16.4.

⁶⁰ Cf. Basil, Ep. 98. That the first sentence of the sixth canon is directed against a division consequent upon Diocletian's splitting of Egypt into provinces is already seen by Schwartz, , Zur Geschichte des Athanasius VIII, in Gesammelte Schriften iii (1959), pp. 213 f.Google Scholar; Gaudemet, J., L'église dans l'empire romain (Paris, 1958), p. 91.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Synesius, Ep. 67 init. (P.G. lxvi.1412 A) addressing Theophilus: “It is my personal wish, and a divine necessity is upon me, that I should deem as law any instruction from your throne.”

⁶² Ep. 66 (1409 B).

⁶³ Ep. 66 (1409 A).

⁶⁴ Ep. 105.

⁶⁵ Sozusa is mentioned first of the cities of the Pentapolis by Hierocles, Synecdemus (ed. Honigmann, pp. 47–48), copied by Cyprius, Georgius, Descriptio Orbis Romani, ed. Gelzer (Leipzig, Teubner, 1890), p. 41.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Procopius, Aedif. vi.2.9–11.

⁶⁷ See the letter from Constantine II to Alexandria in Athanasius, Apol. c. Arianos 87. For the date cf. Telfer, W., H. T. R., xliii (1950), pp. 59–60.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Philostorgius, H.E. ii.i, records the fact that Constantine ordered the recall of τοὺς περὶ Σεκοῦνδον but gives no hint of the date. Athanasius, Ep. ad episc. Aeg. et Lib. 7 and 19, likewise records Secundus's reconciliation, but not its occasion.

⁶⁹ The Jerusalem encyclical in Athanasius, Apol. c. Arianos 84 and de Synodis 21, addressed to the churches of Alexandria, Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, mentions the restoration of the Arian “presbyters,” but there is no word about any bishops.

⁷⁰ Julius of Rome in Athanasius, Apol. c. Arianos 24.

⁷¹ The dates are recorded in the Festal Index for Athanasius's Festal Letters.

⁷² Athanasius, Apol. c. Arianos 3 and 19.

⁷³ Ibid. 41.

⁷⁴ Ibid. 49 (with the commentary thereon in Opitz's edition).

⁷⁵ Ibid. 1 and 71. Cf. Ep. ad Afros 10 (“about 90”).

⁷⁶ Migne, P.G. xxvi.1414 A.

⁷⁷ Athanasius, Tomus ad Antioch. 1 and 10.

⁷⁸ Historia Arianorum 51 ff.

⁷⁹ Ibid. 65; cf. de Synodis 12.

⁸⁰ Historia Arianorum 71.

⁸¹ Philostorgius, H.E. iii.19 (cf. Sozomen, H.E. iv.12.2, for independent attestation of this puritan attitude of Aetius). Philostorgius (iii.20) goes on to say that it was Secundus who had introduced Eunomius to Aetius. He also remarks (ii.3) that Secundus's theology was more purely Eunomian than that of Arius himself.

⁸² Epiphanius, Panarion 73.26 (ed. Holl, iii.300 f.). Stephen and Heliodorus also turn up in the Historia Acephala 13–14 (Turner, Monumenta I, pp. 667 f.).

⁸³ Chronicon Paschale, P.G. xcii.736 (in Bidez's edition of Philostorgius, pp. 244 f.).

⁸⁴ Synodical letter to George of Alexandria in Theodoret, H.E. ii.28.3.

⁸⁵ Cf. Epiphanius, Panarion lxviii.i (ed. Holl, iii.141): “It is customary that the archbishop in Alexandria has ecclesiastical control over all Egypt and Thebais, Mareotis, Libya, Ammoniake, Mareotis (read Marmarica), and Pentapolis.”

⁸⁶ Migne, P.G. lxxvi.385; A.C.O. I.i. 6, p. 110.

⁸⁷ The only evidence of later tension between Libya and the Alexandrian patriarch is the charge against Dioscorus at Chalcedon in 451 that he had not allowed the Libyan churches their share of the government grant of corn (A.C.O. II.i.213). It is likely that this was also a source of trouble in the time of Athanasius (cf. Apol. c. Ar. 18).