Letter of the Council of Ariminum to Constantius. 159 prevail, because that, in these your most happy days, so many CHAP. Churches are without Bishops. And on this account we again III. request your humanity, most religious Lord Emperor, that, if it please your religiousness, you would command us, before the severe winter weather sets in, to return to our Churches, that so we may be able, unto God Almighty and our Lord and Saviour Christ, His Only-begotten Son, to fulfil together with our flocks our wonted prayers in behalf of your imperial sway, as indeed we have ever performed them, and at this time make them. NOTE on Chapter II. Concerning the Confessions at Sirmium. NOTE IT has been thought advisable to draw up, as carefully as may ON be, a statement of the various Arian Confessions which issued at COUNC. Sirmium, with the hope of presenting to the reader in a compenARIM. dious form an intricate passage of history. AND SELEU. 1. A. D. 351. Confession against Photinus, (First Sirmian. supr. p. 118.) This Confession was published at a Council of Eastern Bishops, (Coustant in Hil. p. 1174, note 1,) and was drawn up by the whole body, Hil. de Syn. 37. (according to Sirmond. Diatr. 1. Sirm. p. 366. Petavius de Trin. 1. 9. §. 8. Animadv. in Epiph. p. 318 init. and Coustant. in Hil. 1. c.) or by Basil of Ancyra (as Valesius conjectures in Soz. iv. 22. and Larroquanus, de Liberio, p. 147.) òr by Mark of Arethusa, Socr. ii. 30. but he confuses together the dates of the different Confessions, and this is part of his mistake, (vid. Vales. in loc. Coustant. in Hil. de Syn. 1. c. Petav. Animad. in Epiph. 1. c.) It was written in Greek. Till Petavius", Socrates was generally followed in ascribing all three Sirmian Confessions to this one Council, though at the same time he was generally considered mistaken as to the year. E. g. Baronius places them all in 357. Sirmond defended Baronius against Petavius; (though in Facund. x. 6. note c, he agrees with Petavius,) and assigning the third Confession to 359, adopted the improbable conjecture of two Councils, the one Catholic and the other Arian, held at Sirmium at the same time, putting forth respectively the first and second Creeds somewhat after the manner of the contemporary rival Councils of Sardica. Pagi, Natalis Alexander, Valesius, de Marca, Tillemont, S. Basnage, Montfaucon, Coustant, Larroquanus (de la Roque,) agree with Petavius in placing the Council at which Photinus was deposed, and the Confession published by it, in A. D. 351. Mansi dates it at 358. Dicam non jactantiæ causâ, sed ut eruditi lectoris studium excitem, fortassis audacius, ab hinc mille ac ducentis propemodum annis liquidam ac sinceram illorum rationem ignoratam fuisse. Quod nisi certissimis argumentis indiciisque monstravero, nihil ego de precabor, quin id vanissimè à me dictum omnes arbitrentur. Petav. Animadv. in Epiph. p. 306. Nos ex antiquis patribus primum illud odorati sumus, tres omnino conventus Episcoporum eodem in Sirmiensi oppido, non iisdem temporibus celebratos fuisse. ibid. p. 113. This was the Confession which Pope Liberius signed according NOTE to Baronius, N. Alexander, and Coustant in Hil. note n. p. 1335-7, 1. and as Tillemont thinks probable. ON ARIM. In p. 114, note b. supr. the successive condemnations of Pho- COUNC. tinus are enumerated; but as this is an intricate point on which AND there is considerable difference of opinion among critics, it may be SELEU. advisable to state them here, as they are determined by various writers. Petavius, (de Photino Hæretico, 1.) enumerates in all five Councils:-1. at Constantinople, A.D. 336, when Marcellus was deposed, vid. supr. p. 109, note m. (where for "same" year, read "next" year.) 2. At Sardica, A.D. 347. 3. At Milan, A.D. 347. 4. At Sirmium, 349. 5. At Sirmium, when he was deposed, A.D. 351. Of these the 4th and 5th were first brought to light by Petavius, who omits mention of the Macrostich in 345. Petavius is followed by Natalis Alexander, Montfaucon, (vit. Athan.) and Tillemont; and by De Marca, (Diss. de temp. Syn. Sirm.) and S. Basnage, (Annales,) and Valesius, (in Theod. Hist. ii. 16. p. 23. Socr. ii. 20.) as regards the Council of Milan, except that Valesius places it with Sirmond in 346; but for the Council of Sirmium in 349, they substitute a Council of Rome of the same date, while de Marca considers Photinus condemned again in the Eusebian Council of Milan in 355. De la Roque, on the other hand, (Larroquan. Dissert. de Photino Hær.) considers that Photinus was condemned, 1. in the Macrostich, 344 [345]. 2. at Sardica, 347. 3. at Milan, 348. 4. at Sirmium, 350. 5. at Sirmium, 351. Petavius seems to stand alone in assigning to the Council of 2. A.D. 357. The Blasphemy of Potamius and Hosius, Hilary calls it by the above title, de Syn. 11. vid. also Soz. iv. 12. p. 554. He seems also to mean it by the blasphemia Ursacii et Valentis, contr. Const. 26. This Confession was the first overt act of disunion between Arians and Semi-Arians. Sirmond, de Marca and Valesius, (in Socr. ii. 30,) after Phabadius, think it put forth by a Council; rather, at a Conference of a few leading Arians about Constantius, who seems to have been present; e. g. Ursacius, Valens, and Germinius. Soz. iv. 12. Vid. also Hil. Fragm. vi. 7. It was written in Latin, Socr. ii. 30. Potamius wrote very barbarous Latin, judging from the Tract ascribed to him in Dacher. Spicileg. t. 3. p. 299, unless it be a translation from the Greek. vid. also Galland. Bibl. t. v. p. 96. Petavius thinks the Creed not written, but merely subscribed by Potamius. de Trin. i. 9. §. 8. and Coustant. in Hil. p. 1155, note f, that it was written by Ursacius, Valens, and Potamius. It is remarkable that the Greek in Athanasius is clearer than the original. This at first sight is the Creed which Liberius signed, because M ARIM. NOTE S. Hilary speaks of the latter as "perfidia Ariana," Fragm. 6. I. Blondel, (Prim. dans l'Eglise, p. 484.) Larroquanus, &c. are of this ON opinion. And the Roman Breviary, Ed. Ven. 1482, and Ed. COUNC. Par. 1543, in the Service for S. Eusebius of Rome, August. 14. AND says that "Pope Liberius consented to the Arian misbelief," SELEU. Launnoi. Ep. v. 9. c. 13. Auxilius says the same, ibid. vi. 14. Animadv. 5. n. 18. Petavius grants that it must be this, if any of the three Sirmian, (Animadv. in Epiph. p. 316,) but we shall see his own opinion presently. 3. A.D. 367. The foregoing interpolated. A creed was sent into the East in Hosius's name, Epiph. Hær. 73. 14. Soz. iv. 15. p. 558, of an Anomœan character, which the blasphemia" was not. And S. Hilary may allude to this when he speaks of the "deliramenta Osii, et incrementa Ursacii et Valentis," contr. Const. 23. An Anomoan Council of Antioch under Eudoxius of this date, makes acknowledgments to Ursacius, Valens, and Germinius. Soz. iv. 12 fin. as being agents in the Arianising of the West. 66 Petavius and Tillemont considers this Confession to be the blasphemia" interpolated. Petavius throws out a further conjecture, which seems gratuitous, that the whole of the latter part of the Creed is a later addition, and that Liberius only signed the former part. Animadv. in Epiph. p. 316. 4. A.D. 358. The Ancyrene Anathemas. The Semi-Arian party had met in Council at Ancyra in the early spring of 358 to protest against the "blasphemia," and that with some kind of correspondence with the Gallic Bishops who had just condemned it, Phæbadius of Agen writing a Tract against it, which is still extant. They had drawn up and signed, besides, a Synodal Letter, eighteen anathemas, the last against the "One in substance." These, except the last, or the last six, they submitted at the end of May to the Emperor who was again at Sirmium. Basil, Eustathius, Eleusius, and another formed the deputation; and their influence persuaded Constantius to accept the Anathemas, and even to oblige the party of Valens, at whose "blasphemia" they were levelled, to recant and subscribe them. 5. A.D. 358. Semi-Arian Digest of Three Confessions. The Semi-Arian Bishops, pursuing their advantage, composed a Creed out of three, that of the Dedication, the first Sirmian, and the Creed of Antioch against Paul 264-270, in which the " One in substance" is said to have been omitted or forbidden. Soz. iv. 15. This Confession was imposed by Imperial authority on the Arian party, who signed it. So did Liberius, Soz. ibid. Hil. Fragm. vi. 6. 7; and Petavius considers that this is the subscription by which he lapsed. de Trin. i. 9. §. 5. Animadv. in Epiph. p. 316. and S. Basnage, in Ann. 358. 13. It is a point of controversy whether or not the Arians at this time suppressed the "blasphemia." Socrates and Sozomen say p. 543. ON that they made an attempt to recall the copies they had issued, NOTE and even obtained an edict from the Emperor for this purpose, I. but without avail. Socr. ii. 30 fin. Soz. iv. 6. Athanasius, on the other hand, as we have seen, supr. p. 123, ARIM. relates this in substance of the third Confession of Sirmium, not AND of the "blasphemia" or second. Tillemont follows Socrates and Sozomen; considering that Basil's influence with the Emperor enabled him now to insist on a retractation of the " blasphemia." And he argues that Germinius in 866, being suspected of orthodoxy, and obliged to make profession of heresy, was referred by his party to the formulary of Ariminum, no notice being taken of the "blasphemia," which looks as if it were suppressed; whereas Germinius himself appeals to the third Sirmian, which is a proof that it was not suppressed. Hil. Fragm. 15. Coustant. in Hil. contr. Const. 26, though he does not adopt the opinion himself, observes, that the charge brought against Basil, Soz. iv. 132. Hil. l. c. by the Acacians of persuading the Africans against the second Sirmian is an evidence of a great effort on his part at a time when he had the Court with him to suppress it. We have just seen Basil uniting with the Gallic Bishops against it. 6. A.D. 359. The Confession with a date, The Semi-Arians, with the hope of striking a further blow at their opponents by a judgment against the Anomoans, Soz. iv. 16 init. seem to have suggested a general Council, which ultimately became the Councils of Seleucia and Ariminum. If this was their measure, they were singularly out-manoeuvred by the party of Acacius and Valens, as we have seen in Athanasius's work. A preparatory Conference was held at Sirmium at the end of May in this year; in which the Creed was determined which should be laid before the great Councils which were assembling. Basil and Mark were the chief Semi-Arians present, and in the event became committed to an almost Arian Confession. Soz. iv. 16. p. 562. It was finally settled on the Eve of Pentecost, and the dispute lasted till morning. Epiph. Hær. 73. 22. Mark at length was chosen to draw it up, Soz. iv. 22. p. 573. yet Valens so managed that Basil could not sign it without an explanation. It was written in Latin, Socr. ii. 30. Soz. iv. 17. p. 563. Coustant, however, in Hil. p. 1152, note i, seems to consider this dispute and Mark's confession to belong to the same date (May 22,) in the foregoing year; but p. 1363, note b, to change his opinion. Petavius, who, Animadv. in Epiph. p. 318, follows Socrates in considering that the second Sirmian is the Confession which the Arians tried to suppress, nevertheless, de Trin. i. 9. §. 8. yields to the testimony of Athanasius in behalf of the third, attributing the measure to their dissatisfaction with the phrase "Like in all things," which Constantius had inserted, and with Basil's explanation on subscribing it, and to the hopes of publishing a bolder creed which their increasing influence with Constantius inspired. He does COUNC. SELEU. |