__________________________________________________________________

   Title: NPNF2-02. Socrates and Sozomenus Ecclesiastical Histories
   Creator(s): Socrates Scholasticus
   Schaff, Philip (1819-1893) (Editor)
   Print Basis: New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886
   Rights: Public Domain
   CCEL Subjects: All; Proofed; Early Church;
   LC Call no: BR60
   LC Subjects:

   Christianity

   Early Christian Literature. Fathers of the Church, etc.
     __________________________________________________________________

   A SELECT LIBRARY

   OF THE

   NICENE AND

   POST-NICENE FATHERS

   OF

   THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

   SECOND SERIES

   TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WITH PROLEGOMENA AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.

   VOLUMES I-VII.

   UNDER THE EDITORIAL SUPERVISION OF

   PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D.,

   PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW
   YORK.

   AND

   HENRY WACE, D.D.,

   PRINCIPAL OF KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON.

   VOLUME II

   SOCRATES & SOZOMENUS

   ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORIES

   T&T CLARK

   EDINBURGH

   __________________________________________________

   WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY

   GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   THE

   ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

   OF

   SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS.

   Revised, with Notes, by

   The rev. A. C. Zenos, D.d.

   Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the Theological

   Seminary at Hartford, Conn.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Prefatory Note.

   ------------------------

   The basis of the present edition of Socrates' Ecclesiastical History is
   the translation in Bagster's series mentioned in the Introduction, Part
   IV. The changes introduced, however, are numerous. The translation was
   found unnecessarily free; so far as the needs of the English idiom
   require freedom no fault could, of course, have been found with the
   translation; but the divergences from the original in multitudes of
   cases were not warranted by any such need; they were more probably
   induced by the prevailing style of rhetoric common in the days when the
   translation was made. The change which has gradually come about in this
   respect called for modifications in the present edition. Many more
   might have been introduced without damage to the work. But it was felt
   that the scope and purpose of the edition only called for the most
   necessary of these changes.

   In the preparation of the notes the editions of Hussey and Reading,
   containing Valesius' and Reading's annotations, were freely used.
   Whenever a note was taken bodily from these, it has been quoted and
   duly credited. It was thought best, however, usually to condense and
   reduce the number and bulk of these notes and introduce sparingly such
   new notes as were suggested by more recent study in ecclesiastical
   history.

   The Introduction is almost altogether dependent on the literature
   quoted in Part I. The writer claims no original discovery respecting
   Socrates or his work. The facts had been diligently collected by his
   predecessors; he has simply rearranged them and put them into
   expression such as, to his mind, suits the requirements of the plan of
   the series.

   A.C. Zenos.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   Introduction.

   ------------------------

   I. Sources and Literature. [1]

   U. Chevalier in his Repertoire des sources historiques du Moyen Age
   gives the following list of authorities on Socrates Scholasticus.

   Baronius:* Ann. [1593] 439, 39. Cf. Pagi, Crit. [1689] 9, 11, 427,
   15-6.

   Bellarmin Labbe: S. E. [1728] 164.

   Brunet:* Manuel [1864] V. 425.

   Cave:* S. E. [1741] I. 427.

   Ceillier:* Hist. Aut. Eccl. [1747] XIII. p. 669-88. (2 a VIII. 514-25.)

   Darling:* Cyclopaedia Bibliographica; Authors.

   Du Pin:* Bibl. Aut Eccl. [1702] III. ii. 183.

   Ebed-Jesu: Cat. Scr. Eccl 29. (Assemani: Bibl. Orient. III. 141.)

   Fabricius:* Bibl. Graec. [1714] VI. 117-21. (2 a VII. 423-7.)

   Graesse:* Tresor [1865] VI. 1, 429.

   Hoffmann: Lex. Bibl. Gr. [1836] III. 625-6.

   Holzhausen: Commentatio de fontibus quibus Socrates, Sozomenus ac
   Theodoretus usi sunt, &c. Goetting. 1825.

   Joecher.

   Nouvelle Biog. Gen.:* [1868] XLIV. 127-8.

   Nolte: [2] Tuebing. Quartalschrift [1860] 518; [1861] 417-51.

   Patrologia Graeca* (Migne) LXVII. 9-26.

   Sigebert: Gembl. S. E. 10.

   Tillemont: [3] Hist. des Emp. [1738] VI. 119-22.

   Trithemius: Scr. Eccl. 137.

   Vossius: Hist. Graeca [1651] 259.

   Walford: [4] in Bohn's Eccl. Libr. VI. 1853.

   To these there should be added important notices of Socrates or his
   Ecclesiastical History as follows:

   F. C Baur: Die Epochen der Kirchlichen Geschichtschreibung Tuebing.
   1852, p. 7-32.

   J. G. Dowling: An Introduction to the Critical Study of Ecclesiastical
   History.

   Ad. Harnack: In Herzog-Plitt's Real Enkyclop. vol. 14, Sokrates und
   Sozomenos and in Encyclop. Britannica, Socrates.

   K. O. Mueller: History of Greek Literature: English translation and
   continuation by Donaldson, Vol. III.

   Roessler: Bibliothek der Kirchenvaeter.

   Jeep: Quellenuntersuchungen zu der griech. Kirchenhistorikern. Leipsic,
   1884.

   Sarrazin: De Theodoro Lectore, Theophanis Fonte praecipuo, 1881.

   Staeudlin: Gesch. und Literatur der Kirchen-geschichte, 1827.

   Overbeck: Theol. Liter.-Zeitung, 1879. No. 20.

   Also articles on Socrates in Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman
   Biography and Mythology (by John Calrow Means) and Smith & Wace:
   Dictionary of Christian Biography (William Milligan), as well as
   passing notices in standard ecclesiastical histories such as Neander,
   Hase, Killen, Schaff, &c., and Introductory notices of Valesius
   (Hussey), Parker, Bright, &c.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1] All works marked with a star in Chevalier's list were used in the
   present edition, and all but two or three of those added to the list of
   Chevalier.

   [2] Nolte's article is on the textual emendations needed in the edition
   of Socrates. The text of our historian has not been as thoroughly and
   completely examined and corrected as other writings. Valesius' edition
   (Hussey) gives an account of a few mss. examined by himself; nothing
   further has been done of any importance. It is to be hoped that
   Gebhardt and Harnack may find it convenient to incorporate a new
   collation and revision in their Texte und Untersuchungen.

   [3] All works marked with a star in Chevalier's list were used in the
   present edition, and all but two or three of those added to the list of
   Chevalier.

   [4] E. Walford, A.M., appears as the translator of Sozomen, not of
   Socrates. See IV. of Introduction, note 6.
     __________________________________________________________________

   II. Life of Socrates.

   We cannot but regret the fact that the age in which Socrates lived
   cared little, if at all, about recording the lives of its literary men.
   The only sources of information in this respect are the writings
   themselves of these literary men and the public records, in case they
   held the double character of literary men and political or
   ecclesiastical officials. As Socrates did not participate in the public
   affairs of his day, our information respecting him is confined to the
   scanty and incidental items we may gather from his history. As he was
   not very fond of speaking of himself, these data are few and often of
   doubtful significance. In fact, the reconstruction of his biography
   from these scattered items is a matter of difficult critical
   investigation.

   All that these inadequate materials yield of his biography may be
   summed up as follows:

   He was born in Constantinople. [5] He nowhere mentions his parents or
   ancestry, and no information has reached us on this point from any
   other source. The year of his birth is inferred from what he says of
   his education at the hands of the grammarians Helladius and Ammonias.
   [6] These grammarians were originally Egyptian priests living in
   Alexandria--the former of Jupiter, and the latter of Pithecus (Simius);
   they fled from their native city in consequence of the disturbances
   which followed the cleansing of the Mithreum and destruction of the
   Serapeum by the bishop Theophilus. It appears that at that time an open
   conflict took place between the pagans and Christians, and many of the
   pagans having taken part in the tumult, laid themselves open to
   criminal prosecution, and to avoid this, took refuge in other
   cities,--a large number of them naturally in Constantinople.
   TheChronicon of Marcellinus puts this event in the consulship of
   Timasius and Promotus, i.e. 389 a.d. Now, as Socrates was very young
   [7] when he came to these grammarians, and it was the custom to send
   children to the schools at the age of ten, Valesius has reasoned that
   Socrates must have been born in 379; others have named 380 [8] as a
   more probable date for this event. Other data for ascertaining the
   exact date of Socrates' birth are of very doubtful significance. He
   speaks, for instance, of Auxanon, [9] a Novatian presbyter, from whom
   he had received certain information; but as Auxanon lived till after
   the accession of Theodosius the Younger in 408 a.d., it is impossible
   to draw any conclusion from this fact. So again Socrates mentions the
   patriarchate of Chrysostom in Constantinople (398-403) as if he had
   received his information at second hand, [10] and thus implies that he
   was perhaps too young to be an interested eye-witness of the events of
   that period. But how young he was we cannot infer from this fact; and
   so cannot take the patriarchate of Chrysostom as a starting-point for
   our chronology of Socrates' life. Still another item that might have
   served as a datum in the case, had it been definitely associated with a
   known event in Socrates' career, is his mention of a dispute between
   the Eunomians and Macedonians which took place in Constantinople in
   394. [11] If he were an eye-witness of this quarrel, he must have been
   old enough to take an interest in it, hence about fourteen or fifteen
   years of age. But this conclusion, even though it coincides exactly
   with the date found previously (379), is not at all certain, as he does
   not state that he was an eye-witness; and if the reasoning is correct,
   then he was not too young to be interested in the events of
   Chrysostom's patriarchate which occurred a little later. Thus, on the
   whole, while it is extremely probable that Valesius is right in setting
   the date of Socrates' birth in 379, this event may have taken place
   several years later.

   Nothing further is known of Socrates' early life and education except
   that he studied under Ammonius and Helladius, as already noted.
   Valesius has conjectured from the mention of Troilus, the famous
   rhetorician, [12] that Socrates must have received instruction from
   this teacher also, but with no sufficient foundation. [13]

   Socrates always remained a resident of Constantinople, and was
   evidently proud of his native city, and fond of alluding to its history
   as well as its actual condition. He relates how the Emperor Constantine
   enlarged it and gave it its present name in place of the former heathen
   name it bore (Byzantium). [14] He speaks of its populousness, and at
   the same time of its ability to support its many inhabitants from its
   abundant resources. [15] He looks on its public structures very much as
   the ancient Israelite did on the `towers and battlements' of Jerusalem.
   He mentions especially the walls built by Theodosius the Younger, the
   Forums of Constantine and Theodosius, the Amphitheatre, the Hippodrome
   with its Delphic tripods, the baths, especially that called Zeuxippus,
   [16] the churches of which he names at different times as many as five;
   viz.: the church of the Apostles, erected by Constantine especially for
   the burying of the emperors and priests; [17] the church of St. Sophia,
   which he calls `the great church'; the church of St. Irene, [18]
   located in the same enclosure as that of St. Sophia; the church of St.
   Acacius, together with its appendages; [19] and the chapel of St. John,
   built seven miles outside the city. [20] Besides these he also mentions
   circumstantially the porch and shambles and porphyry column near which
   Arius was attacked with his sudden and fatal illness, [21] the region
   called Sycae, and the tomb of Alexander the Paphlagonian, who was
   tortured and died in prison during the temporary supremacy of the
   Arians. [22]

   Although there is no distinct mention of his ever having left the great
   city, [23] it is improbable that, like his great Athenian namesake, he
   was averse to traveling. In fact, his frequent mention of the customs
   of Paphlagonians, Thessalians, Cyprians, and others with minuteness of
   detail, rather gives the impression that he had visited these places.

   According to the preponderance of evidence Socrates was trained as a
   pleader or advocate, and practiced this profession for a time. Hence
   his cognomen of Scholasticus. [24] At the instance of a certain
   Theodorus he undertook to write a continuation of the Ecclesiastical
   History of Eusebius, bringing it down to the seventeenth consulate of
   the Emperor Theodosius the Younger (439 a.d.). [25]

   This year is the last definitely mentioned in his work. He must have
   lived, however, until some time after that date, as he speaks of a
   revision of the first two books of the History. [26] How much later it
   is impossible to tell: it was not certainly till after the end of
   Theodosius' reign; for then he would have brought down his history to
   that event, and thus completed his seventh book according to the plan,
   which is evident in his whole work, of assigning one complete book to
   each one of the emperors comprised in his period.

   Of the character of Socrates as a man we know as little as of the
   events of his life. Evidently he was a lover of peace, as he constantly
   speaks with abhorrence of the atrocities of war, and deprecates even
   differences in theological standpoint on account of the strife and
   ill-feeling which they engender.

   Socrates' knowledge of Latin has been inferred from his use of Rufinus,
   [27] but Dodwell [28] conjectures that Socrates read Rufinus in a Greek
   translation, and that such translation had been made by Gelasius.

   Inasmuch as he lived in, and wrote of, an age of controversies, and his
   testimony must be weighed according to his theological standpoint, this
   standpoint has been made the subject of careful study. There is no
   doubt left by his explicit declarations about his agreement in the main
   with the position of the orthodox or catholic church of his age, as far
   as these are distinguished from those of Arians, Macedonians,
   Eunomians, and other heretics. But as to his attitude towards
   Novatianism there has been considerable difference of opinion. That he
   was a member of the Novatian sect has been held after Nicephorus
   Callisti [29] by Baronius, Labbaeus, and others, and argued from
   various considerations drawn from his work. Some of these are: that he
   gives the succession of the Novatian bishops of Constantinople; [30]
   that he knows and mentions Novatian bishops of other places, e.g. of
   Rome, [31] of Scythia, [32] of Nicaea; [33] that he mentions Novatian
   churches as existing in Phrygia and Paphlagonia, [34] in Lydia, [35] in
   Cyzicum, [36] in Nicaea, [37] in Nicomedia and Cotyaeum, [38] and in
   Alexandria; [39] that he knows and describes their church edifices;
   [40] that he knows their internal troubles and trials, [41] especially
   their position on the Paschal controversy; [42] that he gives vent to
   expressions of a sympathetic nature with the rigor practiced by the
   Novatian church; [43] that he records the criticisms of Novatians on
   Chrysostom and the opinion that his deposition was a just retribution
   for his persecution of the Novatians; [44] that he attributes miracles
   to Paul, Novatian bishop of Constantinople, [45] takes the testimony of
   Novatian witnesses, [46] rejects current charges against them, [47] and
   finally speaks of the death of Novatian as a martyrdom. [48]

   On the other hand, Valesius, followed by most of the more recent
   writers on Socrates, claims that all these facts are due to the extreme
   impartiality of the historian, his sense of the justice due to a sect
   whose good he appreciated, together with his lack of interest in the
   differences between their standpoint and that of the Catholics.
   Socrates treats other heretical sects with the same generous
   consideration, e.g. the Arian Goths, whose death he records as a
   martyrdom; [49] and yet he has never been suspected of inclining
   towards Arianism. At the same time he mentions the Novatians as
   distinct from the Catholic Church, [50] and everywhere implies that the
   Church for him is the latter.

   To account for the apparently different conclusions to which these two
   series of considerations point, some have assumed that Socrates had
   been a Novatian, but before the writing of his history had either
   gradually drifted into the Catholic Church, or for reasons of prudence
   had severed his connection with the lesser body and entered the state
   church, retaining, however, throughout his whole course a strong
   sympathy for the communion of his earlier days. [51] Others attribute
   his favorable attitude towards Novatianism to his general indifference
   for theological refinements, others to mere intellectual sympathy for
   their tenets. In the absence of any definite utterance of his own on
   the subject, a combination of the last two motives comes nearest to
   sufficiently explaining the position of Socrates, although his rather
   unappreciative estimate of Chrysostom [52] and his severe censure of
   Cyril of Alexandria [53] are both more easily accounted for on the
   ground of a more intimate relation between the historian and the
   Novatians, as both of the above-named eminent men were declared enemies
   of Novatianism.

   In other respects it cannot be doubted that the creed of Socrates was
   very simple and primitive. The one essential article in it was the
   doctrine of the Trinity; all others were subordinate. Even as to the
   Trinity, he would have accepted a much less rigid definition than the
   one propounded at Nicaea. As, however, the latter had been generally
   adopted by the church, he finds himself defending it against Arianism
   as well as against all sorts of compromise. He believed in the
   inspiration of the great synods as well as in that of the Scriptures,
   and was satisfied to receive without questioning the decisions of the
   former as he did the teachings of the latter. He was not, however,
   particular about the logical consequences of his theological positions,
   but ready to break off upon sufficient extra-theological reasons. His
   warm defense of Origen and arraignment of Methodius, Eustathius,
   Apollinaris, and Theophilus, [54] for attempting to belittle the great
   Alexandrian, shows how his admiration of a genius came into and
   modified his estimates. He considered all disputes on dogmatic
   statements as unnecessary and injurious, due to misunderstanding; and
   this chiefly because the parties in the dispute did not take pains to
   understand one another, and perhaps did not desire to do so because of
   personal jealousies or previous and private hatreds. [55] He is willing
   to refer such lawful questions on doctrinal points as may come before
   him to the clergy for decision, and is never backward about confessing
   his ignorance and incompetency to deal with theological refinements.

   He makes a cogent defense of the use of pagan writings by Christians,
   [56] alleging that some of the pagan writers were not far from the
   knowledge of the true God; that Paul himself had read and used their
   works; that the neglect or refusal to use them could only lead to
   ignorance and inability to meet pagans in debate; that St. Paul's
   `prove all things, hold fast that which is good,' [57] and Jesus
   Christ's `be ye approved bankers' [58] gave distinct support to the
   study of the whole field of knowledge; and that whatever is worth
   studying in non-Christian literature is capable of being separated from
   the rest and known as the truth. Socrates himself was acquainted more
   or less extensively with the works of Sophocles, Euripides, Plato,
   Xenophon, from among the classic writers, besides those of Porphyry,
   Libanius, Julian, and Themistius of a later period, and perhaps with
   those of many others.

   One more characteristic of Socrates must be mentioned; viz., his
   respect for the church and its institutions. He had a high regard for
   clergymen in virtue of their ordination. And although, as already
   shown, he took occasion to express himself critically of the highest
   dignitaries, such as Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria, yet the person
   of a bishop or presbyter is in a certain sense surrounded by sacredness
   to him. Monks are models of piety. In his eulogy of Theodosius the
   Younger, [59] he compares the emperor's devoutness to that of the
   monks, making the latter, of course, the high-water mark in that
   respect. But even as respects the ordinances of the church, his regard
   for them was not slavish or superstitious. He advocates extremely broad
   views in regard to the observance of Easter, considering a very precise
   determination of it too formalistic to be consistent with the liberty
   of the New Dispensation. So, likewise, in regard to many other of the
   ceremonies of the church, he takes pains to show by a description of
   the various ways in which they were performed in different quarters
   that they were not essential, but of subordinate importance. [60]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [5] So he says in V. 24.

   [6] V. 16. On the destruction of the Serapeum, see Sozom. VII. 15;
   Theodeoret, H. E. V. 22; Nicephor. XII. 25; Eunap. AEdes. par. 77;
   Suidas, Sarapis. Helladius, according to Suidas, wrote a Dictionary,
   besides other works. Cf. s. v. 'Elladios.

   [7] komide neos on.

   [8] Valesius' reasoning is based on the assumption that Socrates was
   sent to the grammarians as soon as they arrived at Constantinople. If,
   however, an interval of several years elapsed before his going to them,
   the date of his birth must be put correspondingly later. The only
   certainty reached through this datum is that he was born nor earlier
   than 379.

   [9] I. 13 and II. 38.

   [10] VI. 3, and hosphasi.

   [11] V. 24.

   [12] VII. 1 and 2. See note on VII. 1. Socrates speaks of Troilus as a
   native of Side in Pamphilia, and mentions Eusebius and Silvanus and
   Alabius (both the latter bishops) as distinguished pupils of Troilus,
   and finally adds that Anthemius, who during the minority of Theodosius
   acted as regent, was dependent on the influence of Troilus; in which
   connection he further adds that Troilus was not inferior to Anthemius
   in political sagacity.

   [13] Professor Milligan, in Smith & Wace's Dictionary of Biography,
   even says that Socrates assisted Troilus, but adduces no proof for the
   statement.

   [14] I. 16.

   [15] IV. 16, end; VII. 37.

   [16] II. 16.

   [17] I. 40.

   [18] II. 16; I. 37.

   [19] II. 38 and VI. 23.

   [20] VI. 6.

   [21] I. 38.

   [22] II. 38.

   [23] V. 8.

   [24] The various meanings of this word may be found in Du Cange's
   Glossarium Mediae et Infimae Graecitates and in Sophocles' Greek
   Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. From its primary meaning of
   `student' it came to be applied to any one who had passed through study
   to the professions, of which the advocate's was one. From the absence
   of the cognomen in Photius' account of Socrates, Bibliotheca Cod. 28,
   as well as in that of Nicephorus Callisti, H. E. I. 1, Hamburger, as
   quoted by Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. VII. p. 423, note g, and Ceillier,
   Auteurs Sacres, XIII. p. 669, doubt whether the title was rightly
   applied to him. Valesius argues from internal grounds that Socrates was
   a layman and a lawyer. Harnack, on the other hand, denies that there is
   any evidence of juristic knowledge in Socrates' History, even in such
   passages as I. 30, 31, and V. 18.

   [25] VII. 48

   [26] II. 1.

   [27] I. 12, 19; III. 19; IV. 24, 26.

   [28] De jure sacerdotali, p. 278. Cf. on translation by Gelasius, Smith
   & Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography, II. p. 621.

   [29] Niceph. H. E. I. 1.

   [30] Cf. V. 21; VII. 6, 12, 17.

   [31] V. 14; VII. 9, 11.

   [32] VII. 46.

   [33] VII. 25.

   [34] IV. 28.

   [35] VI. 19.

   [36] II. 38; III. 11.

   [37] VII. 12.

   [38] IV. 28.

   [39] VII. 7.

   [40] II. 38; VII. 39.

   [41] V. 21.

   [42] V. 22.

   [43] IV. 28; V. 19; VI. 21, 22; VII. 25.

   [44] VI. 19 and 21.

   [45] VII. 17, 39.

   [46] I. 10, 13; II. 38; IV. 28.

   [47] V. 10.

   [48] IV. 28.

   [49] IV. 33.

   [50] VI. 20, 23; IV. 28; V. 19; VII. 3.

   [51] So Harnack in Herzog-Plitt, Real-Encykl. and Encyclop. Britan.

   [52] VI. 3, 4, 5, 15, 18, 19, 21.

   [53] VII. 15.

   [54] VI. 13, 17; VII. 45.

   [55] I. 23; cf. also II. 40, end: all' hopos men tauta echei, &c.

   [56] III. 16.

   [57] 1 Thess. v. 21, with which he combines Col. ii. 8. The latter
   passage can only be acted upon, according to Socrates, as the ground of
   a knowledge of that philosophy which is to be guarded against as vain.

   [58] Ginesthe dokimoi trapezitai. This saying is sometimes attributed
   to Paul, but more usually to Jesus. It occurs in Clem. Hom. II. 51;
   III. 50; XVIII. 20; Ap. Const. 36, 37; Epiph. Haer. 44. 2; Orig. (in
   Joan.) IV. 283; Clem. Alex. Strom. I. 28; Eus. H. E. VII. 7, 3.

   [59] VII. 22.

   [60] V. 22.
     __________________________________________________________________

   III. Socrates' Ecclesiastical History.

   Until the beginning of the fourth century historiography remained a
   pagan science. With the exception of the Acts of the Apostles and its
   apocryphal imitations, no sort of attempt had been made to record even
   the annals of the Christian Church. At the opening of the fourth
   century Eusebius conceived the idea of writing a history which should
   include a complete account of the Church's life to his own days. Hence
   he has correctly been called the Father of Church History. His work was
   done so satisfactorily to his contemporaries and immediate successors
   that none of them undertook to go over the same field again. [61] They
   estimated the thoroughness and accuracy of his work much higher than
   later ages have done. But this respect, which enhanced the magnitude of
   his work in their eyes, at the same time inspired many of them with a
   desire to imitate him.

   Thus a school of church historians arose, and a number of continuations
   of Eusebius' History were undertaken. Of these, six are known to have
   seen the light: three of these again are either in part or wholly lost;
   viz., those of Philippus Sidetes, of Philastorgius, and of Hesychius.
   The first because of internal characteristics which made it difficult
   to use; the second because its author was a heretic (an Arian), and
   with the wane of the sect to which he belonged, his work lost favor and
   was gradually ostracized by the orthodox, and thus was lost, with the
   exception of an abstract preserved by Photius; and the third, for
   reasons unknown and undiscoverable, met with the same fate, not leaving
   even as much as an abstract behind. The remaining three are the
   histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. That of Theodoret begins
   with the rise of Arianism, and ends with Theodore of Mopsuestia (429
   a.d.). That of Sozomen was begun with the purpose of including the
   history of the years between 323 (date of the overthrow of Licinius by
   Constantine) and 439 (the seventeenth consulship of Theodosius the
   Younger), but for some reason was closed with the death of the Emperor
   Honorius (423), and so covers just one hundred years. The work of
   Socrates, being evidently older than either of the other two, is more
   directly a continuation of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. The
   motives which actuated him to continue the narratives of Eusebius may
   be gathered from the work to be his love for history, [62] especially
   that of his own times, [63] his respect for Eusebius, and the
   exhortation of Theodorus, to whom the work is dedicated. [64] The
   author opens with a statement of his purpose to take up the account
   where Eusebius had left it off, and to review such matters as,
   according to his judgment, had not been adequately treated by his
   predecessor. Accordingly he begins with the accession of Constantine
   (306 a.d.), when the persecution begun by Diocletian came to an end,
   and stops with the year 439. He mentions the number of years included
   in his work as 140. As a matter of fact, only 133 years are recorded;
   but the number given by the author is doubtless not meant to be rather
   a round than a precise number. The close of his history is the
   seventeenth consulship of Theodosius the Younger--the same as the
   proposed end of Sozomen's work. Why Socrates did not continue his
   history later is not known, except perhaps because, as he alleges,
   peace and prosperity seemed to be assured to the church, and history is
   made not in time of peace, but in the turmoils and disturbances of war
   and debate. The period covered by the work is very eventful. It is
   during this period that three of the most important councils of the
   church were held: those of Nicaea (325), of Constantinople (381), and
   the first council of Ephesus (431), besides the second of Ephesus,
   called the "Robbers' Council" (lestrike), and that of Chalcedon, which
   were held not much later. It is this period which saw the church coming
   to the ascendant. Instead of its being persecuted, or even merely
   tolerated, it then becomes dominant. With its day of peace from without
   comes the day of its internal strife, and so various sects and heresies
   spring up and claim attention in church history. Socrates appreciated
   the importance which these contentions gave to his work. [65]

   Geographically Socrates' work is limited to the East. The western
   branch of the church is mentioned in it only as it enters into
   relations with the eastern. The division of the history into seven
   books is made on the basis of the succession in the eastern branch of
   the Roman Empire. The seven books cover the reigns of eight eastern
   emperors. Two of these reigns--that of Julian (361-363) and that of
   Jovian (363-364)--were so brief that they are combined and put into one
   book, but otherwise the books are each devoted to the reign of one
   emperor. The first book treats of the church under Constantine the
   Great (306-337); the second, of the period under Constantius II.
   (337-360); the third, of that under Julian and Jovian taken together
   (360-364); the fourth, of the church under Valens (364-378); the fifth,
   of Theodosius the Great (379-395); the sixth, of Arcadius (395-408);
   and the seventh, to those years of Theodosius the Younger (408-439)
   which came within the period of Socrates' work.

   As the title of the work ('Ekklesiastike ;;Istoria) indicates, the
   subject is chiefly the vicissitudes and experiences of the Christian
   Church; but the author finds various reasons for interweaving with the
   account of ecclesiastical affairs some record also of the affairs of
   the state. His statement [66] of these reasons puts first among them
   the relief his readers would experience by passing from the accounts of
   the perpetual wranglings of bishops to something of a different
   character; second, the information which all ought to have on secular
   as well as ecclesiastical matters; and third, the interlacing of these
   two lines, on account of which the understanding of the one cannot be
   full without some knowledge of the other. `By a sort of sympathy,' says
   he, `the church takes part in the disturbances of the state,' and
   `since the emperors became Christians, the affairs of the church have
   become dependent on them, and the greatest synods have been held and
   are held at their bidding.' It cannot be said, however, that Socrates
   either thoroughly realized or attempted any systematic treatment of his
   subject from the point of view of the true relations of church and
   state; he simply had the consciousness that the two spheres were not as
   much dissociated as one might assume.

   On the general character of Socrates' History it may be said that,
   compared with those produced by his contemporaries, it is a work of
   real merit, surpassing in some respects even that of his great
   predecessor, Eusebius. The latter has confused his account by adopting,
   under the influence of his latest informant, differing versions of
   facts already narrated, without erasing the previous versions or
   attempting to harmonize or unify them. Compare with this feature
   Socrates' careful and complete revision of his first two books on
   obtaining new and more trustworthy information. [67]

   In the collection of his facts Socrates everywhere tried to reach
   primary sources. A great portion of his work is drawn from oral
   tradition, the accounts given by friends and countrymen, the common,
   but not wild, rumors of the capital, and the transient literature of
   the day. Whenever he depends on such information, Socrates attempts to
   reach as far as possible the accounts of eye-witnesses, [68] and
   appends any doubts he may have as to the truth of the statements they
   make. Of written works he has used for the period where his work and
   that of Eusebius overlap the latter's Ecclesiastical History and Life
   of Constantine; [69] for other events he follows Rufinus, [70]
   abandoning him, however, in his second edition, whenever he conflicts
   with more trustworthy authorities. He has also made use of Archelaus'
   Acts, [71] of Sabinus' Collection of the Acts of the Synods, which he
   criticises for unfairness, [72] Epiphanius' Ancoratus, [73] George of
   Laodicea, [74] Athanasius' Apolog., [75] de Syn., [76] and de Decr.
   Nic., [77] Evagrius, [78] Palladius, [79] Nestorius, [80] and Origen.
   [81] Christian writers before Origen are known to him and mentioned by
   him, such as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Apollinaris the Elder,
   Serapion, and others; but he does not seem to have used their works as
   sources, probably because they threw no light on the subject at hand,
   his period being entirely different from that in which they flourished.
   Besides these writers, Socrates has also used public documents,
   pastoral and episcopal letters, decrees, acts, and other documents not
   previously incorporated in written works. Some of these the author has
   used, but does not quote in extenso, on account of their length. [82]
   Of the sources that he might have used, but has not, may be mentioned
   Dexippus, Eunapius (chronike historia), Olympiodorus (logoi
   historikoi), and especially Zosimus, his contemporary (historia nea).
   Whether these were unknown to him, or whether he deemed it unnecessary
   to make use of the information given by them, or considered them
   untrustworthy, it cannot be ascertained. It is sufficient to say that
   for the period he covers, and the geographical limitation he has put on
   his work, his array of facts is sufficiently large and to the purpose.
   The use he makes of these facts also shows sufficiently the historian
   as thorough as he could be considering the time and environment in
   which he flourished. There is an evident attempt throughout his work at
   precision. He marks the succession of bishops, the years in which each
   event took place by the consulships and Olympiads of Roman and Greek
   history. He has made painstaking investigations on various topics, such
   as the different usages in various localities, respecting the
   observance of Easter, the performance of the rites of baptism and
   marriage, the manner of fasting, of church assemblies, and other
   ecclesiastical usages. [83] His accuracy has been questioned from the
   time of Photius [84] to our own days. It cannot be denied that there
   are a number of errors in the History. He confused Maximian and
   Maximin. [85] He ascribes three `Creeds' to the first Council of
   Sirmium, whereas these belonged to other councils. In general he is
   confused on the individuals to whom he ascribes the authorship of the
   Sirmian creeds. [86] Similar confusion and lack of trustworthiness is
   noticed in his version of the sufferings of Paul of Constantinople and
   the vicissitudes of the life of Athanasius. He has wrongly given the
   number of those who dissented from the decision of the Council of
   Nicaea as five. The letter of the Council only mentions two,--Theonas
   and Secundus. The exile of Eusebius and Theognis is ascribed to a later
   period and a different cause by Jerome and Philostorgius, and it is
   generally conceded that Socrates' information was erroneous on this
   subject also. He is incorrect on several particulars in the lives of
   Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus, as also in assigning the attack at
   night on the church of St. Theonas to the usurpation of Gregory, the
   Arian bishop of Alexandria. [87]

   The chronology of Socrates is generally accurate to about the beginning
   of the sixth book, or the year 398. A number of errors are found in it
   after that. But even before the date named, the dates of the Council of
   Sardica (347) and of the death of Athanasius (373, for which Socrates
   gives 371) are given wrong. St. Polycarp's martyrdom is also put out of
   its proper place by about one hundred years. [88] Valens' stay at
   Antioch and persecution of the orthodox is put too early. [89] The
   Olympiads are given wrong. [90]

   Socrates is generally ignorant of the affairs of the Western Church. He
   gives a cursory account of Ambrose, but says nothing of the great
   Augustine, or even of the Donatist controversy, in spite of all its
   significance and also of the extreme probability that he knew of it; as
   Pelagius and Celestius, who traveled in the East about this time, could
   not but have made the Eastern Church acquainted with its details. In
   speaking of the Arian council of Antioch in 341, he seems to think that
   the Roman bishop had a sort of veto-power over the decisions of
   Occidental councils. The only legitimate inference, however, from the
   language of the bishop's claim is that he thought he had a right to be
   invited to attend in common with the other bishops of Italy. [91] So,
   again, on the duration of the fast preceding Easter among the western
   churches, he makes the mistaken statement that it was three weeks, and
   that Saturdays and Sundays were excepted.

   Finally, the credence which Socrates gives to stories of miracles and
   portents must be noted as a blemish in his history. On the other hand,
   he was certainly not more credulous than his contemporaries in this
   respect; many of them, if we are to judge from Sozomen as an
   illustration, were much more so. The age was not accustomed to sifting
   accounts critically with a view to the elimination of the untrue.
   Socrates shows in this respect the historical instinct in the matter of
   distinguishing between various degrees of probability and credibility,
   but does not seem to exercise this instinct in dealing with accounts of
   the prodigious.

   To offset these faults we must take account, on the other hand, of the
   persistent and successful attempt of our historian at impartiality. Of
   all the Christian writers of his day he is the fairest towards those
   who differed from the creed of his church. No one else has done justice
   to Julian, [92] or to the various heretical sects of the day, as
   Socrates has. To avoid even the appearance of partiality, he makes a
   rule for himself not to speak in terms of praise of any living person;
   [93] and it must be said that he faithfully observes this rule, making
   but one exception in favor of the emperor Theodosius the Younger. [94]
   Of this prince he gives a eulogistic picture, altogether different from
   the representations universally found in the other historians of the
   age. [95] His independence of judgment is more signally manifested in
   his estimates of ecclesiastics, especially the more prominent ones,
   [96] bordering at times on unjust severity. `In short,' says Harnack,
   summing up his estimate of Socrates, `the rule to be applied to
   Socrates is that his learning and knowledge can be trusted only a
   little, but his good will and straightforwardness a great deal.
   Considering the circumstances under which he wrote and the miseries of
   the times, it can only be matter for congratulation that such a man
   should have been our informant and that his work has been preserved to
   us.' [97]

   Socrates' style is characterized by simplicity and perspicuity. From
   the very start he informs us that he is about to make a new departure
   in this respect. [98] Eusebius' language was not entirely satisfactory
   to him, nor that of older writers. [99] Hence his own attempt
   everywhere at plain, unadorned expression. The criticism of Photius,
   [100] that Socrates' style `had nothing remarkable about it,' although
   made in the spirit of censure, is true, and according to Socrates'
   standard (which is also that of modern times) amounts to a
   commendation. Socrates, however, was not lacking in good humor and
   satire, [101] as well as in appreciation of short and pithy utterances;
   he often quotes proverbs and epigrammatic sayings, [102] and knows the
   influence of the anecdote and reminiscence in interesting the reader.

   The value of Socrates' History cannot be overestimated. It will always
   remain a source of primary importance. Though, as already noted, its
   ideal as a history is below that set up by Thucydides, Tacitus, and
   others of an earlier age,--below even that of Eusebius,--yet as a
   collection of facts and documents in regard to some of the most
   important events of the church's life it is invaluable. Its account of
   the great Arian controversy, its details of the Councils of Nicaea,
   Chalcedon, Constantinople, and Ephesus, besides those of the lesser,
   local conventions, its biographical items relative to the lives of the
   emperors, the bishops, and monks--some of whom are of pivotal
   importance in the movements of the times, its sketches of Ulphilas and
   Hypatia, its record of the manner and time of the conversion of the
   Saracens, the Goths, the Burgundians, the Iberians, and the Persians,
   as well as of the persecution of the Jews, the paschal controversy, not
   to mention a vast number of other details of minor importance, will
   always be read and used with the deepest interest by lovers of
   ecclesiastical history.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [61] That this was not due to a general conviction that one history of
   a period rendered another of the same period unnecessary is evident
   from the fact that the period immediately succeeding is treated of by
   three successive historians, and that the second of these, at least,
   knows and uses the work of his predecessor.

   [62] Harnack, however, successfully proves that Socrates' ideal of
   history, in spite of his love for it, was far from being the scientific
   idea which existed among pagan writers even of the age preceding his
   own. Cf. Herzog-Plitt, Real-Encyk. Vol. 14, p. 413 sq.

   [63] VI. 1.

   [64] Cf. II. 1; VI. Int.; VII. 47. This Theodorus is simply addressed
   as hiere tou theou anthrope, from which it has been rightly inferred
   that he was an ordained presbyter. The view that Theodore of Mopsuestia
   is the person addressed has been proved to be erroneous from the date
   of his death, 429 a.d. The Ecclesiastical History was no doubt
   completed after that event, and could not have contained an address to
   the eminent Theodore.

   [65] VII. 47.

   [66] V. Int.

   [67] II. 1. The new information here referred to is drawn from the
   works of Athanasius, which had come into the hands of the author. Cf.
   II. 17.

   [68] I. Int.; V. 19; VI. Int.

   [69] I. 8.

   [70] I. 12, 19; II. 1; III. 19; IV. 24, 26.

   [71] I. 22.

   [72] I. 8; II. 15, 17, 20; III. 10, 25; IV. 12, 22.

   [73] V. 24.

   [74] I. 24.

   [75] II. 28; III. 8.

   [76] II. 37.

   [77] VI. 13.

   [78] III. 7.

   [79] IV. 23.

   [80] VII. 19-24.

   [81] III. 7.

   [82] II. 17.

   [83] V. 22.

   [84] Phot. Biblioth. Cod. 28. alla kai en tois dogmasi ou lian akribes.
   Whether in this phrase he meant to accuse Socrates with inaccuracy in
   the narration of facts or indifference to theological dogma is not very
   clear. Probably the former.

   [85] I. 2.

   [86] II. 30.

   [87] II. 11.

   [88] V. 22.

   [89] IV. 17.

   [90] On the chronology of Socrates, see Harnack and Jeep.

   [91] II. 8 and 17.

   [92] III. 1, 12, 14, 21, 23.

   [93] VI. Int.

   [94] VII. 22.

   [95] Cf. Sozomen, IX. 1, and Gibbon, IV. 163.

   [96] Cf. attitude towards Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria, above
   alluded to; also his censure of pride and contention among members of
   the clergy. See V. Int. 15, 23; VI. 6; VII. 11, 29.

   [97] In Encycl. Britan.

   [98] I. 1, ou phraseos onkou phrontizontes ; so in III. 1, medeis
   epizeteito kompon phraseos; and VI. Int., ,'Isthi de hemas me
   espoudakenai peri ten phrasin, where he adds that if he had attempted a
   different style, he might have failed of his purpose of writing a
   popular history.

   [99] VI. 22; VII. 27.

   [100] Biblioth. Cod. 28.

   [101] III. 16; IV. 22; VI. 13; VII. 21, 34.

   [102] II. 8; III. 21; V. 15; VII. 29, 31.
     __________________________________________________________________

   IV. History of Socrates' Work.

   A. Uses made before the First Printed Edition of the Greek Text.

   Socrates' Ecclesiastical History was used, according to the best
   authorities, by Sozomen in the composition of his parallel history.
   [103] It was certainly used by Liberatus, the Carthaginian deacon, in
   his Breviarium caussae Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum, and by Theodorus
   Anagnostes (Lector) in his Ecclesiastical History. [104] It was also
   quoted in the second Council of Nicaea, under the name of Rufinus, and
   also under its author's name. [105]

   Epiphanius, surnamed Scholasticus, translated the history of Socrates,
   together with those of Sozomen and Theodoret, under the auspices of
   Cassiodorus, about the beginning of the sixth century. This
   translation, under the name of Historiae Ecclesiasticae Tripartitae,
   consists of twelve books, and was printed at Paris, without date, by
   Regnault in 8vo; afterwards also at Bale in 1523, 1528, 1533, 1539, and
   1568. It was revised by Beatus Rhenanus, and published in Frankfort on
   the Main in 1588, together with the history of Eusebius, which was
   translated and continued by Rufinus. It is also found in the new
   edition of Cassiodorus printed at Rouen by Jo. Garetius in 1679 and in
   Venice, 1729. It served as a basis for a French translation by AEgidius
   Gourlinus (Gille Gourlin), published in Paris in 1538 (cited by
   Cyaneus), and of a German translation by Caspar Hedio at Strasburg,
   1545.

   B. Editions.

   There are two independent editions of Socrates' Ecclesiastical History,
   each of which has served as a basis for reprints, secondary editions,
   and translations. These are:

   I. Eusebii Pamphili: Hist. EccI. LL. X.; ejd. de Vita Constantini LL.
   V.; Socratis Hist. Eccl. LL. VII.; Theodoreti Episc. Cyrensis Hist.
   EccI. LL. V.; Collectaneum ex hist. eccl. Theodori Lectoris LL. II.;
   Hermiae Sozomeni Hist. EccI. LL. IX.; Evagrii Hist. Eccl. LL. VI. Lut.
   Paris, ex off. Rob. Stephani 1544 pridie Cal. Jul.

   a. Upon this edition is based a Latin translation by Wolfgang Musculus,
   Bale 1544, 1549, 1557, 1594, and one by J. J. Christophorson, bishop of
   Chichester, Paris 1571, Cologne 1581, Bale 1570; with notes by Grynaeus
   and by Henricus Petri 1611; incorporated into the Bibliotheca Patrum,
   ed. Cologne 1618 as Vol. V. and ed. Lyons 1677 as Vol. VII.

   b. The Greek text of Stephens and the Latin translation of
   Christophorson were published together in Geneva, 1612.

   c. An English translation of Socrates' Ecclesiastical History was made
   by Meredith Hanmer, [106] and is contained in his Ancient
   Ecclesiastical Histories of the first six hundred years after Christ,
   written in the Greek tongue by three learned Historiographers,
   Eusebius, Socrates and Evagrius. London 1577. [This work also contains
   Dorotheus' Lives of the Prophets, Apostles, and Seventy Disciples
   reprinted in 1585 and 1650.]

   2. The second independent edition of Socrates is that which has been
   received as standard and served as a basis for all subsequent uses,
   viz.:

   Historia Ecclesiastica Socratis, Scholastici, Hermiae, Sozomeni, &c.,
   ed. Henricus Valesius. Paris 1668. Valesius ostensibly revised the text
   of Stephens, but as a matter of fact he made a new collation of the ms.
   used by Stephens, and compared this with mss. in the Vatican, so that
   his edition amounts to an entirely new work. He also made a new Latin
   translation and appended numerous notes. This edition was reprinted in
   Mayence in 1677. Its Latin portion was reprinted in Paris also in 1677.
   The reprint of Mayence was reproduced under a new title, as if in
   Amsterdam in 1675.

   a. Gul. Reading appended additional notes, and together with the Latin
   translation of Valesius, published the work in Cambridge in three vols.
   1720. Reading's edition was reprinted at Turin in 1746. Valesius'
   original edition was again reprinted in Oxford by Parker in 1844 and
   Cura Buckley in London, also in 1844. It was revised and published in
   Oxford in 3 vols. by R. Hussey in 1853, and again in 1860 and in 1879.
   Again it was incorporated into Migne's Patrologia Graeca as Vol. LXVII.
   (Petit Montrouge) in 1859, and finally the Greek text alone was revised
   and published in a single volume by William Bright in Oxford 1878.

   b. The translations based on Valesius' edition exclusive of those in
   Latin mentioned above are as follows:

   In French by L. Cousin: Histoire de l'Eglise ecrite par Eusebe,
   Socrate, Sozomene, Theodoret, &c. 4 vols. Paris 1675, and 6 vols.
   Amsterdam 1686. [Containing also Photius' abstract of Philostorgius.]

   In English by Shorting: [107] The History of the Church as written in
   Greek by Eusebius, Socrates, and Evagrius [contains also the four books
   of the Life of Constantine, Constantine's Oration to the Convention of
   the Saints, and Eusebius' speech in praise of Constantine], translated
   from the edition of Valesius, with a translation also of Valesius'
   notes and his account of the lives and writings of those historians.
   Cambridge 1683, 1692, 1709.

   By S. Parker: The Ecclesiastical Histories of Eusebius, Socrates,
   Sozomen, and Theodoret....abridged from the originals. London 1707, 3rd
   ed. 1729.

   And Anonymously [E. Walford] [108] The Greek Ecclesiastical Historians
   of the first six centuries of the Christian Era in 6 vols. [Socrates
   Scholasticus' History forms Vol. III. of this series]. London, Samuel
   Bagster and Sons, 1843-46. This translation was reprinted in Bohn's
   Ecclesiastical Library, 4 vols., 1851 and 1888, and by Bagster in 1868.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [103] So Harnack and Jeep. Cf. also Hartranft in the present vol., p.
   00.

   [104] Theodorus' works were two: (1) An epitome of the histories
   written previous to his time, and (2) an original history continuing
   the narrative to the days of Justinian I.

   [105] Cf. Mansi, Concil. XII. Coll. 1035 and 1042.

   [106] Cf. Woods, Athenae Oxonienses, Vol. I. p. 326.

   [107] So Cruse.

   [108] The volume containing Sozomen in this series bears the name of
   Walford. The translation of Socrates is anonymous, but generally
   ascribed to Walford also. This cannot be a matter of inference from the
   appearance of the two historians in the same series, as Eusebius, also
   in the same series, is translated by Cruse. Those who attribute the
   translation to Walford give no reason for doing so.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   The

   ECCLESIASTICAL HistorY,

   BY

   SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS.

   ------------------------

   Book I.

   Chapter I.--Introduction to the Work.

   Eusebius, surnamed Pamphilus, [109] writing the History of the Church
   [110] in ten books, closed it with that period of the emperor
   Constantine, when the persecution which Diocletian had begun against
   the Christians came to an end. Also in writing the life of Constantine,
   this same author has but slightly treated of matters regarding Arius,
   being more intent on the rhetorical finish of his composition and the
   praises of the emperor, than on an accurate statement of facts. Now, as
   we propose to write the details of what has taken place in the churches
   since his time to our own day, we begin with the narration of the
   particulars which he has left out, and we shall not be solicitous to
   display a parade of words, but to lay before the reader what we have
   been able to collect from documents, and what we have heard from those
   who were familiar with the facts as they told them. And since it has an
   important bearing on the matter in hand, it will be proper to enter
   into a brief account of Constantine's conversion to Christianity,
   making a beginning with this event.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [109] Eusebius seems to have adopted this name as a token of friendship
   and respect for Pamphilus, bishop of Caesarea. See McGiffert,
   Prolegomena in Vol. I., Second Series of Post-Nicene Fathers.

   [110] Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History ends with the death of Licinius
   in 323. His Life of Constantine is in a sense a continuation of the
   History, and yet as it is very well characterized by Socrates, it is a
   eulogy and therefore its style and selection of facts are affected by
   its purpose, rendering it too inadequate as a continuation of the
   Ecclesiastical History; hence Socrates' constraint to review some of
   the events which naturally fall in Eusebius' period.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter II.--By what Means the Emperor Constantine became a Christian.

   When Diocletian and Maximian, [111] surnamed Herculius, had by mutual
   consent laid aside the imperial dignity, and retired into private life,
   Maximian, surnamed Galerius, who had been a sharer with them in the
   government, came into Italy and appointed two Caesars, Maximin in the
   eastern division of the empire, and Severus in the Italian. In Britain,
   however, Constantine was proclaimed emperor, instead of his father
   Constantius, who died in the first year of the two hundred and
   seventy-first [112] Olympiad, on the 25th of July. And at Rome
   Maxentius, the son of Maximian Herculius, was raised by the praetorian
   soldiers to be a tyrant rather than an emperor. In this state of things
   Herculius, impelled by a desire to regain the sovereignty, attempted to
   destroy his son Maxentius; but this he was prevented by the soldiery
   from effecting, and he soon afterwards died at Tarsus in Cilicia. At
   the same time Severus Caesar being sent to Rome by Galerius Maximian,
   in order to seize Maxentius, was slain, his own soldiers having
   betrayed him. At length Galerius Maximian, who had exercised the chief
   authority, [113] also died, having previously appointed as his
   successor, his old friend and companion in arms, Licinius, a Dacian by
   birth. Meanwhile, Maxentius sorely oppressed the Roman people, treating
   them as a tyrant rather than as a king, shamelessly violating the wives
   of the nobles, putting many innocent persons to death, and perpetrating
   other similar atrocities. The emperor Constantine being informed of
   this, exerted himself to free the Romans from the slavery under him
   (i.e. Maxentius), and began immediately to consider by what means he
   might overthrow the tyrant. Now while his mind was occupied with this
   great subject, he debated as to what divinity's aid he should invoke in
   the conduct of the war. He began to realize that Diocletian's party had
   not profited at all by the pagan deities, whom they had sought to
   propitiate; but that his own father Constantius, who had renounced the
   various religions of the Greeks, had passed through life far more
   prosperously. In this state of uncertainty, as he was marching at the
   head of his troops, a preternatural vision, which transcends all
   description, appeared to him. In fact, about that part of the day when
   the sun after posing the meridian begins to decline towards the west,
   he saw a pillar of light in the heavens, in the form of a cross, on
   which were inscribed these words, By This Conquer. [114] The appearance
   of this sign struck the emperor with amazement and scarcely believing
   his own eyes, he asked those around him if they beheld the same
   spectacle; and as they unanimously declared that they did, the
   emperor's mind was strengthened by this divine and marvelous
   apparition. On the following night in his slumbers he saw Christ who
   directed him to prepare a standard according to the pattern of that
   which had been seen; and to use it against his enemies as an assured
   trophy of victory. In obedience to this divine oracle, he caused a
   standard in the form of a cross to be prepared, which is preserved in
   the palace even to the present time: and proceeding in his measures
   with greater earnestness, he attacked the enemy and vanquished him
   before the gates of Rome, near the Mulvian bridge, Maxentius himself
   being drowned in the river. This victory was achieved in the seventh
   year of the conqueror's reign. [115] After this, while Licinius, who
   shared the government with him, and was his brother-in-law, having
   married his sister Constantia, was residing in the East, the emperor
   Constantine, in view of the great blessing he had received, offered
   grateful thanksgivings to God as his benefactor; these consisted in his
   relieving the Christians from persecution, recalling those who were in
   exile, liberating such as were imprisoned, and causing the confiscated
   property of the prescribed to be restored to them; he moreover rebuilt
   the churches, and performed all these things with the greatest ardor.
   About this time Diocletian, who had abdicated the imperial authority,
   died at Salona in Dalmatia. [116]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [111] `Socrates is here in error; for Maximianus Herculius, who was
   otherwise called Maximian the Elder, was, by Constantine's command,
   slain in Gallia in 310 a.d. But Maximius Caesar, two years after, being
   conquered by Licinius, died at Tarsus.' (Valesius.) On the confusion of
   Maximian and Maximin, see Introd. III.

   [112] 305 or 306 a.d.

   [113] panta periepon, not to be taken literally, inasmuch as there were
   two other Augusti--Constantine and Maxentius; and hence though senior
   Augustus, he was not sole ruler. On the appointment of the Augusti
   under Diocletian, and meaning of the title, see Gibbon, Decline and
   Fall, chap. xiii.

   [114] 'En touto nika. For an extensive and satisfactory treatment of
   this famous passage in the life of Constantine, see Richardson,
   Prolegomena to the Life of Const., Vol. I., Second Series, Post-Nicene
   Fathers.

   [115] 312 a.d.

   [116] Cf. an account of these events in Sozomen, I. 3. See also on the
   persecution instituted by Diocletian Neander, Hist. of the Christ. Ch.
   Vol. I. pp. 143-156; Schaff, Hist. of the Christ. Ch. Vol. I. pp.
   174-177; Euseb. H. E., Books VIII.-X. Lactantius, de Mortibus persec.
   c. 7 seq. Diocletian abdicated in 305 a.d.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter III.--While Constantine favors the Christians, Licinius, his
   Colleague, persecutes them.

   Now Constantine, the emperor, having thus embraced Christianity,
   conducted himself as a Christian of his profession, rebuilding the
   churches, and enriching them with splendid offerings: he also either
   closed or destroyed the temples of the pagans, [117] and exposed the
   images which were in them to popular contempt. But his colleague
   Licinius, holding his pagan tenets, hated Christians; and although from
   fear of the emperor Constantine he avoided exciting open persecution,
   yet he managed to plot against them covertly, and at length proceeded
   to harass them without disguise. This persecution, however, was local,
   extending only to those districts where Licinius himself was: but as
   these and other public outrages did not long remain concealed from
   Constantine, finding out that the latter was indignant at his conduct,
   Licinius had recourse to an apology. Having thus propitiated him, he
   entered into a feigned league of friendship, pledging himself by many
   oaths not to act again tyrannically. But no sooner did he pledge
   himself than he committed perjury; for he neither changed his
   tyrannical mood nor ceased persecuting Christians. Indeed, he even
   prohibited the bishops by law from visiting the uncoverted pagans, lest
   it should be made a pretext for proselyting them to the Christian
   faith. And the persecution was thus at the same time well known and
   secret. It was conceded in name but manifest in fact; for those who
   were exposed to his persecution suffered most severely both in their
   persons and property.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [117] ;;Ellenon: the word is used without the sense of nationality. So
   also in the New Testament often: Mark vii. 26; Gal. ii. 3 and iii. 28,
   where the Syriac (Peschitto) version renders, more according to sense
   than according to the letter, `an Aramaean.'
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter IV.--War arises between Constantine and Licinius on Account of
   the Christians.

   By this course he drew upon himself the emperor Constantine's heaviest
   displeasure; and they became enemies, the pretended treaty of
   friendship between them having been violated. Not long afterwards they
   took up arms against each other as declared enemies. And after several
   engagements both by sea and land, Licinius was at last utterly defeated
   near Chrysopolis in Bithynia, a port of the Chalcedonians, and
   surrendered himself to Constantine. Accordingly he having taken him
   alive, treated him with the utmost humanity, and would by no means put
   him to death, but ordered him to take up his abode and live in
   tranquillity at Thessalonica. He having, however, remained quiet a
   short time, managed afterwards to collect some barbarian mercenaries
   and made an effort to repair his late disaster by a fresh appeal to
   arms. The emperor being made acquainted with his proceedings, directed
   that he should be slain, which was carried into effect. Constantine
   thus became possessed of the sole dominion, and was accordingly
   proclaimed sovereign Autocrat, [118] and again sought to promote the
   welfare of Christians. This he did in a variety of ways, and
   Christianity enjoyed unbroken peace by reason of his efforts. But an
   internal dissension soon succeeded this state of repose, the nature and
   origin of which I shall now endeavor to describe.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [118] After a victory the soldiers greeted their prince with
   acclamations of `Emperor!' `Augustus!' So also did the citizens on his
   triumphal entry into the city. So it appears Constantine was formally
   greeted on assuming the sole control of affairs.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter V.--The Dispute of Arius with Alexander, his Bishop.

   After Peter, bishop of Alexandria, had suffered martyrdom under
   Diocletian, Achillas was installed in the episcopal office, whom
   Alexander succeeded, during the period of peace above referred to. He,
   in the fearless exercise of his functions for the instruction and
   government of the Church, attempted one day in the presence of the
   presbytery and the rest of his clergy, to explain, with perhaps too
   philosophical minuteness, that great theological mystery--the Unity of
   the Holy Trinity. A certain one of the presbyters under his
   jurisdiction, whose name was Arius, possessed of no inconsiderable
   logical acumen, imaging that the bishop was subtly teaching the same
   view of this subject as Sabellius the Libyan, [119] from love of
   controversy took the opposite opinion to that of the Libyan, and as he
   thought vigorously responded to what was said by the bishop. `If,' said
   he, `the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of
   existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the
   Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his
   substance [120] from nothing.'
     __________________________________________________________________

   [119] Though Sabellius was the originator of one of the earliest and
   most plausible attempts at explanation of the mystery of the Trinity
   (for which see life of Sabellius in Smith and Wace, Dict. of Christian
   Biog., and Hodge, System. Theol. Vol. I. p. 452, 459), nothing is known
   of him, not even why he is called a Libyan here (also by other ancient
   writers, e.g. Philastrius, de Haeres. 26, and Asterius, quoted by Phot.
   Biblioth. Cod. 27). Some say that he was a native and resident of
   Libya, others that he was an ecclesiastic appointed to some position
   there; nor is it known whether the Libya meant is the Libyan Pentapolis
   or the Pentapolitan Ptolemais.

   [120] hupostasin. Through the Arian controversy this word is used in
   its metaphysical sense of `real nature of a thing as underlying and
   supporting its outward form and properties'; hence it is equivalent to
   the Latin substantia, Eng. essence and Greek ousia. Cf. below III. 7.
   Later it was applied to the `special or characteristic nature of a
   thing,' and so became the very opposite of ousia (the general nature);
   hence equivalent to person.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter VI.--Division begins in the Church from this Controversy; and
   Alexander Bishop of Alexandria excommunicates Arius and his Adherents.

   Having drawn this inference from his novel train of reasoning, he
   excited many to a consideration of the question; and thus from a little
   spark a large fire was kindled: for the evil which began in the Church
   at Alexandria, ran throughout all Egypt, Libya, and the upper Thebes,
   and at length diffused itself over the rest of the provinces and
   cities. Many others also adopted the opinion of Arius; but Eusebius in
   particular was a zealous defender of it: not he of Caesarea, but the
   one who had before been bishop of the church at Berytus, and was then
   somehow in possession of the bishopric of Nicomedia in Bithynia. When
   Alexander became conscious of these things, both from his own
   observation and from report, being exasperated to the highest degree,
   he convened a council of many prelates; and excommunicated Arius and
   the abettors of his heresy; at the same time he wrote as follows to the
   bishops constituted in the several cities:--

   The Epistle of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria.

   To our beloved and most honored fellow-Ministers of the Catholic Church
   everywhere, Alexander sends greeting in the Lord.

   Inasmuch as the Catholic Church is one body, and we are commanded in
   the holy Scriptures to maintain `the bond of unity and peace,' [121] it
   becomes us to write, and mutually acquaint one another with the
   condition of things among each of us, in order that `if one member
   suffers or rejoices, we may either sympathize with each other, or
   rejoice together.' [122] Know therefore that there have recently arisen
   in our diocese lawless and anti-christian men, teaching apostasy such
   as one may justly consider and denominate the forerunner of Antichrist.
   I wished indeed to consign this disorder to silence, that if possible
   the evil might be confined to the apostates alone, and not go forth
   into other districts and contaminate the ears of some of the simple.
   But since Eusebius, now in Nicomedia, thinks that the affairs of the
   Church are under his control because, forsooth, he deserted his charge
   at Berytus and assumed authority over the Church at Nicomedia with
   impunity, and has put himself at the head of these apostates, daring
   even to send commendatory letters in all directions concerning them, if
   by any means he might inveigle some of the ignorant into this most
   impious and anti-christian heresy, I felt imperatively called on to be
   silent no longer, knowing what is written in the law, but to inform you
   of all of these things, that ye might understand both who the apostates
   are, and also the contemptible character of their heresy, and pay no
   attention to anything that Eusebius should write to you. For now
   wishing to renew his former malevolence, which seemed to have been
   buried in oblivion by time, he affects to write in their behalf; while
   the fact itself plainly shows that he does this for the promotion of
   his own purposes. These then are those who have become apostates:
   Arius, Achillas, Aithales, and Carpones, another Arius, Sarmates,
   Euzoius, Lucius, Julian, Menas, Helladis, and Gaius; with these also
   must be reckoned Secundus and Theonas, who once were called bishops.
   The dogmas they have invented and assert, contrary to the Scriptures,
   are these: That God was not always the Father, but that there was a
   period when he was not the Father; that the Word of God was not from
   eternity, but was made out of nothing; [123] for that the ever-existing
   God (`the I AM'--the eternal One) made him who did not previously
   exist, out of nothing; wherefore there was a time when he did not
   exist, inasmuch as the Son is a creature and a work. That he is neither
   like the Father as it regards his essence, nor is by nature either the
   Father's true Word, or true Wisdom, but indeed one of his works and
   creatures, being erroneously called Word and Wisdom, since he was
   himself made of God's own Word and the Wisdom which is in God, whereby
   God both made all things and him also. Wherefore he is as to his nature
   mutable and susceptible of change, as all other rational creatures are:
   hence the Word is alien to and other than the essence of God; and the
   Father is inexplicable by the Son, and invisible to him, for neither
   does the Word perfectly and accurately know the Father, neither can he
   distinctly see him. The Son knows not the nature of his own essence:
   for he was made on our account, in order that God might create us by
   him, as by an instrument; nor would he ever have existed, unless God
   had wished to create us.

   Some one accordingly asked them whether the Word of God could be
   changed, as the devil has been? and they feared not to say, `Yes, he
   could; for being begotten, he is susceptible of change.' We then, with
   the bishops of Egypt and Libya, being assembled together to the number
   of nearly a hundred, have anathematized Arius for his shameless avowal
   of these heresies, together with all such as have countenanced them.
   Yet the partisans of Eusebius have received them; endeavoring to blend
   falsehood with truth, and that which is impious with what is sacred.
   But they shall not prevail, for the truth must triumph; and `light has
   no fellowship with darkness, nor has Christ any concord with Belial.'
   [124] Who ever heard such blasphemies? or what man of any piety is
   there now hearing them that is not horror-struck, and stops his ears,
   lest the filth of these expressions should pollute his sense of
   hearing? Who that hears John saying, `In the beginning was the Word,'
   [125] does not condemn those that say, `There was a period when the
   Word was not'? or who, hearing in the Gospel of `the only-begotten
   Son,' and that `all things were made by him,' will not abhor those that
   pronounce the Son to be one of the things made? How can he be one of
   the things which were made by himself? Or how can he be the
   only-begotten, if he is reckoned among created things? And how could he
   have had his existence from nonentities, since the Father has said, `My
   heart has indited a good matter'; [126] and `I begat thee out of my
   bosom before the dawn'? [127] Or how is he unlike the Father's essence,
   who is `his perfect image,' [128] and `the brightness of his glory'
   [129] and says: `He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father'? Again how
   if the Son is the Word and Wisdom of God, was there a period when he
   did not exist? for that is equivalent to their saying that God was once
   destitute both of Word and Wisdom. How can he be mutable and
   susceptible of change, who says of himself, `I am in the Father, and
   the Father in me'; [130] and `I and the Father are one'; [131] and
   again by the Prophet, [132] `Behold me because I am, and have not
   changed'? But if any one may also apply the expression to the Father
   himself, yet would it now be even more fitly said of the Word; because
   he was not changed by having become man, but as the Apostle says, [133]
   `Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, and forever.' But what could
   persuade them to say that he was made on our account, when Paul has
   expressly declared [134] that `all things are for him, and by him'? One
   need not wonder indeed at their blasphemous assertion that the Son does
   not perfectly know the Father; for having once determined to fight
   against Christ, they reject even the words of the Lord himself, when he
   says, [135] `As the Father knows me, even so know I the Father.' If
   therefore the Father but partially knows the Son, it is manifest that
   the Son also knows the Father but in part. But if it would be improper
   to affirm this, and it be admitted that the Father perfectly knows the
   Son, it is evident that as the Father knows his own Word, so also does
   the Word know his own Father, whose Word he is. And we, by stating
   these things, and unfolding the divine Scriptures, have often confuted
   them: but again as chameleons they were changed, striving to apply to
   themselves that which is written, `When the ungodly has reached the
   depths of iniquity, he becomes contemptuous.' [136] Many heresies have
   arisen before these, which exceeding all bounds in daring, have lapsed
   into complete infatuation: but these persons, by attempting in all
   their discourses to subvert the Divinity of The Word, as having made a
   nearer approach to Antichrist, have comparatively lessened the odium of
   former ones. Wherefore they have been publicly repudiated by the
   Church, and anathematized. We are indeed grieved on account of the
   perdition of these persons, and especially so because, after having
   been previously instructed in the doctrines of the Church, they have
   now apostatized from them. Nevertheless we are not greatly surprised at
   this, for Hymenaeus and Philetus [137] fell in like manner; and before
   them Judas, who had been a follower of the Saviour, but afterwards
   deserted him and became his betrayer. Nor were we without forewarning
   respecting these very persons: for the Lord himself said: `Take heed
   that no man deceive you: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am
   Christ: and shall many deceive many'; [138] and `the time is at hand;
   Go ye not therefore after them.' [139] And Paul, having learned these
   things from the Saviour, wrote, `That in the latter times some should
   apostatize from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits, and
   doctrines of devils,' [140] who pervert the truth. Seeing then that our
   Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has himself enjoined this, and has also
   by the apostle given us intimation respecting such men, we having
   ourselves heard their impiety have in consequence anathematized them,
   as we before said, and declared them to be alienated from the Catholic
   Church and faith. Moreover we have intimated this to your piety,
   beloved and most honored fellow-ministers, in order that ye might
   neither receive any of them, if they should presume to come to you, nor
   be induced to put confidence in Eusebius, or any other who may write to
   you about them. For it is incumbent on us who are Christians, to turn
   away from all those who speak or entertain a thought against Christ, as
   from those who are resisting God, and are destroyers of the souls of
   men: neither does it become us even `to salute such men,' [141] as the
   blessed John has prohibited, `lest we should at any time be made
   partakers of their sins.' Greet the brethren which are with you; those
   who are with me salute you.

   Upon Alexander's thus addressing the bishops in every city, the evil
   only became worse, inasmuch as those to whom he made this communication
   were thereby excited to contention. And some indeed fully concurred in
   and subscribed to the sentiments expressed in this letter, while others
   did the reverse. But Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, was beyond all
   others moved to controversy, inasmuch as Alexander in his letter had
   made a personal and censorious allusion to him. Now at this juncture
   Eusebius possessed great influence, because the emperor resided at
   Nicomedia. For in fact Diocletian had a short time previously built a
   palace there. On this account therefore many of the bishops paid their
   court to Eusebius. And he repeatedly wrote both to Alexander, that he
   might set aside the discussion which had been excited, and again
   receive Arius and his adherents into communion; and also to the bishops
   in each city, that they might not concur in the proceedings of
   Alexander. By these means confusion everywhere prevailed: for one saw
   not only the prelates of the churches engaged in disputing, but the
   people also divided, some siding with one party, and some with the
   other. To so disgraceful an extent was this affair carried, that
   Christianity became a subject of popular ridicule, even in the very
   theatres. Those who were at Alexandria sharply disputed about the
   highest points of doctrine, and sent deputations to the bishops of the
   several dioceses; while those who were of the opposite faction created
   a similar disturbance.

   With the Arians the Melitians mingled themselves, who a little while
   before had been separated from the Church: but who these [Melitians]
   are must now be stated.

   By Peter, bishop of Alexandria, who in the reign of Diocletian suffered
   martyrdom, a certain Melitius, bishop of one of the cities in Egypt, in
   consequence of many other charges, and more especially because during
   the persecution he had denied the faith and sacrificed, was deposed.
   This person, being stripped of his dignity, and having nevertheless
   many followers, became the leader of the heresy of those who are to
   this day called from him Melitians throughout Egypt. And as he had no
   rational excuse for his separation from the Church, he pretended that
   he had simply been wronged and loaded Peter with calumnious reproaches.
   Now Peter died the death of a martyr during the persecution, and so
   Melitius transferred his abuse first to Achillas, who succeeded Peter
   in the bishopric, and afterwards again to Alexander, the successor of
   Achillas. In this state of things among them, the discussion in
   relation to Arius arose; and Melitius with his adherents took part with
   Arius, [142] entering into a conspiracy with him against the bishop.
   But as many as regarded the opinion of Arius as untenable, justified
   Alexander's decision against him, and thought that those who favored
   his views were justly condemned. Meanwhile Eusebius of Nicomedia and
   his partisans, with such as favored the sentiments of Arius, demanded
   by letter that the sentence of excommunication which had been
   pronounced against him should be rescinded; and that those who had been
   excluded should be readmitted into the Church, as they held no unsound
   doctrine. Thus letters from the opposite parties were sent to the
   bishop of Alexandria; and Arius made a collection of those which were
   favorable to himself while Alexander did the same with those which were
   adverse. This therefore afforded a plausible opportunity of defense to
   the sects, which are now prevalent, of the Arians, Eunomians, and such
   as receive their name from Macedonius; for these severally make use of
   these epistles in vindication of their heresies.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [121] Eph. iv. 3.

   [122] 1 Cor. xii. 26.

   [123] ex ouk onton gegonen, lit. `came into existence from nothing.'

   [124] 2 Cor. vi. 14.

   [125] John i. 1-3, 18.

   [126] Ps. xliv. 1, according to the LXX.

   [127] ;;Eosphoron, the morning-star; taken from Ps. cix. 3. Cf. the
   LXX, quoted from Ps. lxxii.

   [128] Col. i. 15.

   [129] Heb. i. 3.

   [130] John xiv. 10.

   [131] John x. 30.

   [132] Mal. iii. 6.

   [133] Heb. xiii. 8.

   [134] Heb. ii. 10.

   [135] John x. 15.

   [136] Prov. xviii. 3, according to the LXX.

   [137] 2 Tim. ii. 17, 18.

   [138] Matt. xxiv. 4.

   [139] Luke xxi. 8.

   [140] 1 Tim. iv. 1; Tit. i. 14.

   [141] 2 John 10, 11.

   [142] Valesius makes the assertion that Socrates is mistaken here, that
   the Melitians joined themselves to the Arians after the council of
   Nicaea, and were induced by Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, to cast
   slanderous aspersion upon Athanasius, as he himself testifies in his
   second apology against the Arians. It appears unlikely that the Fathers
   of the Nicene Council would have treated the Melitians as leniently as
   they did had they sided with Arius before the council.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter VII.--The Emperor Constantine being grieved at the Disturbance
   of the Churches, sends Hosius the Spaniard to Alexandria, exhorting the
   Bishop and Arius to Reconciliation and Unity.

   When the emperor was made acquainted with these disorders, he was very
   deeply grieved; and regarding the matter as a personal misfortune,
   immediately exerted himself to extinguish the conflagration which had
   been kindled, and sent a letter to Alexander and Arius by a trustworthy
   person named Hosius, who was bishop of Cordova, in Spain. The emperor
   greatly loved this man and held him in the highest estimation. It will
   not be out of place to introduce here a portion of this letter, the
   whole of which is given in the life of Constantine by Eusebius. [143]

   Victor Constantine Maximum Augustus to Alexander and Arius.

   I am informed that your present controversy originated thus. When you,
   Alexander, inquired of your presbyters what each thought on a certain
   inexplicable passage of the written Word, rather on a subject improper
   for discussion; and you, Arius, rashly gave expression to a view of the
   matter such as ought either never to have been conceived, or when
   suggested to your mind, it became you to bury it in silence. This
   dispute having thus been excited among you, communion [144] has been
   denied; and the most holy people being rent into two factions, have
   departed from the harmony of the common body. Wherefore let each one of
   you, showing consideration for the other, listen to the impartial
   exhortation of your fellow-servant. And what counsel does he offer? It
   was neither prudent at first to agitate such a question, nor to reply
   to such a question when proposed: for the claim of no law demands the
   investigation of such subjects, but the idle useless talk of leisure
   occasions them. And even if they should exist for the sake of
   exercising our natural faculties, yet we ought to confine them to our
   own consideration, and not incautiously bring them forth in public
   assemblies, nor thoughtlessly confide them to the ears of everybody.
   Indeed how few are capable either of adequately expounding, or even
   accurately understanding the import of matters so vast and profound!

   And even if any one should be considered able to satisfactorily
   accomplish this, how large a portion of the people would he succeed in
   convincing? Or who can grapple with the subtilties of such
   investigations without danger of lapsing into error? It becomes us
   therefore on such topics to check loquacity, lest either on account of
   the weakness of our nature we should be incompetent to explain the
   subject proposed; or the dull understanding of the audience should make
   them unable to apprehend clearly what is attempted to be taught: and in
   the case of one or the other of these failures, the people must be
   necessarily involved either in blasphemy or schism. Wherefore let an
   unguarded question, and an inconsiderate answer, on the part of each of
   you, procure equal forgiveness from one another. No cause of difference
   has been started by you bearing on any important precept contained in
   the Law; nor has any new heresy been introduced by you in connection
   with the worship of God; but ye both hold one and the same judgment on
   these points, which is the Creed. [145] Moreover, while you thus
   pertinaciously contend with one another about matters of small or
   scarcely the least importance, it is unsuitable for you to have charge
   of so many people of God, because you are divided in opinion: [146] and
   not only is it unbecoming, but it is also believed to be altogether
   unlawful.

   In order to remind you of your duty by an example of an inferior kind,
   I may say: you are well aware that even the philosophers themselves are
   united under one sect. Yet they often differ from each other on some
   parts of their theories: but although they may differ on the very
   highest branches of science, in order to maintain the unity of their
   body, they still agree to coalesce. Now, if this is done amongst them,
   how much more equitable will it be for you, who have been constituted
   ministers of the Most High God, to become unanimous with one another in
   such a religious profession. But let us examine with closer
   consideration, and deeper attention, what has been already stated. Is
   it right on account of insignificant and vain contentions between you
   about words, that brethren should be set in opposition against
   brethren; and that the honorable communion should be distracted by
   unhallowed dissension, through our striving with one another respecting
   things so unimportant, and by no means essential? These quarrels are
   vulgar and rather consistent with puerile thoughtlessness, than
   suitable to the intelligence of priests and prudent men. We should
   spontaneously turn aside from the temptations of the devil. The great
   God and Saviour of us all has extended to all the common light. Under
   his providence, allow me, his servant, to bring this effort of mine to
   a successful issue; that by my exhortation, ministry, and earnest
   admonition, I may lead you, his people, back to unity of communion.
   [147] For since, as I have said, there is but one faith among you, and
   one sentiment respecting religion, [148] and since the precept of the
   law, [149] in all its parts, combines all in one purpose of soul, let
   not this diversity of opinion, which has excited dissension among you,
   by any means cause discord and schism, inasmuch as it does not affect
   the force of the law as a whole. Now, I say these things, not as
   compelling you all to see exactly alike on this very insignificant
   subject of controversy, whatever it may be; since the dignity [150] of
   the communion may be preserved unaffected, and the same fellowship with
   all be retained, even though there should exist among you some
   dissimilarity of sentiment on unimportant matters. For, of course, we
   do not all desire the same thing in every respect; nor is there one
   unvarying nature, or standard of judgment in us. Therefore, in regard
   to divine providence, let there be one faith, one sentiment, and one
   covenant of the Godhead: [151] but those minute investigations which ye
   enter into among yourselves with so much nicety, even if ye should not
   concur in one judgment in regard to them, should remain within the
   sphere of your own reflection, kept in the secret recesses of the mind.
   Let then an ineffable and select bond of general friendship, with faith
   in the truth, reverence for God, and a devout observance of his law,
   remain unshaken among you. Resume mutual friendship and grace; restore
   to the whole people their accustomed familiar embraces; and do ye
   yourselves, on the strength of having purified your own souls, again
   recognize one another. For friendship often becomes sweeter after the
   removal of animosity. Thus restore to me tranquil days, and nights free
   from care; that to me also some pleasure in the pure light may be
   preserved, and a cheerful serenity during the rest of my life:
   otherwise, I must necessarily groan, and be wholly suffused with tears;
   neither will the remaining period of my earthly existence be peacefully
   sustained. For while the people of God (I speak of my fellow-servants)
   are severed from one another by so unworthy and injurious a contest,
   how is it possible for me to maintain my usual equanimity? But in order
   that you may have some idea of my excessive grief on account of this
   unhappy difference, listen to what I am about to state. On my recent
   arrival at the city of Nicomedia, it was my intention immediately after
   to proceed into the East: but while I was hastening toward you, and had
   advanced a considerable distance on my way, intelligence of this affair
   altogether reversed my purpose, lest I should be obliged to see with my
   own eyes a condition of things such as I could scarcely bear the report
   of. Open to me therefore by your reconciliation henceforth, the way
   into the East, which ye have obstructed by your contentions against one
   another: and permit me speedily to behold both you and all the rest of
   the people rejoicing together; and to express my due thanks to the
   Divine Being, because of the general harmony and liberty of all
   parties, accompanied by the cordial utterance of your praise. [152]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [143] Euseb. Life of Const. II. 64-72.

   [144] sunodos; lit., `coming together.'

   [145] koinonias sunthema = sumbolon tes pisteos. Cf. Eus. Life of
   Const. II. 10.

   [146] For the textual variation at this place, see Valesius, note.

   [147] sunodou koinonian.

   [148] haireseos sunesis: lit. `understanding of heresy.' On the various
   uses of the word hairesis, see Sophocles, Greek Lex. of the Rom. and
   Byz. Periods. Here it evidently means the common creed of the whole
   Church looked at as a sect.

   [149] nomos, used in analogy to the law of the Old Testament. The law
   here is the ethical system of Christianity.

   [150] timion, `honor.'

   [151] tou kreittonos : for this use of the word, see Eus. Life of
   Const. II. 24 et al.; Greg. Naz. III. 1101 B; Jul. 398 A; Clem. Hom. V.
   5.

   [152] Socrates' lack of theological training can be inferred from his
   admiration for this rather superficial letter of Constantine's; so also
   the rudimentary character of Constantine's views of Gospel truth and
   his want of appreciation for the vital nature of the question in the
   Arian controversy. It may be noted, however, that the statesmanship
   shown in the tone and recommendations of the letter is just as
   farsighted as the theology of it is superficial. Constantine had sought
   to unite the empire through the church, and now that very church
   threatened to disrupt the empire; and this, at the very time, when by
   his final victory over Licinius and the foundation of his new capital,
   he seemed to have realized the ideal of a reunited empire.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter VIII.--Of the Synod which was held at Nicaea in Bithynia, and
   the Creed there [153] put forth.

   Such admirable and wise counsel did the emperor's letter contain. But
   the evil had become too strong both for the exhortations of the
   emperor, and the authority of him who was the bearer of his letter: for
   neither was Alexander nor Arius softened by this appeal; and moreover
   there was incessant strife and tumult among the people. Moreover
   another local source of disquietude had pre-existed there, which served
   to trouble the churches,--the dispute namely in regard to the Passover,
   which was carried on in the regions of the East only. [154] This arose
   from some desiring to keep the Feast more in accordance with the custom
   of the Jews; while others preferred its mode of celebration by
   Christians in general throughout the world. This difference, however,
   did not interfere with their communion, although their mutual joy was
   necessarily hindered. When, therefore, the emperor beheld the Church
   agitated on account of both of these causes, he convoked a General
   Council, [155] summoning all the bishops by letter to meet him at
   Nicaea in Bithynia. Accordingly the bishops assembled out of the
   various provinces and cities; respecting whom Eusebius Pamphilus thus
   writes, word for word, in his third book of the life of Constantine:
   [156]

   `Wherefore the most eminent of the ministers of God in all the churches
   which have filled Europe, Africa, and Asia, were convened. And one
   sacred edifice, dilated as it were by God, contained within it on the
   same occasion both Syrians and Cilicians, Phoenicians, Arabs and
   Palestinians, and in addition to these, Egyptians, Thebans, Libyans,
   and those who came from Mesopotamia. At this synod a Persian bishop was
   also present, neither was the Scythian absent from this assemblage.
   Pontus also and Galatia, Pamphylia, Cappadocia, Asia and Phrygia,
   supplied those who were most distinguished among them. Besides, there
   met there Thracians and Macedonians, Achaians and Epirots, and even
   those who dwelt still further away than these, and the most celebrated
   of the Spaniards himself [157] took his seat among the rest. The
   prelate [158] of the imperial city was absent on account of age; but
   some of his presbyters were present and filled his place. Such a crown,
   composed as a bond of peace, the emperor Constantine alone has ever
   dedicated to Christ his Saviour, as a thank-offering worthy of God for
   victory over his enemies, having appointed this convocation among us in
   imitation of the Apostolic Assembly. [159] For among them it is said
   were convened "devout men of every nation under heaven; Parthians,
   Medes and Elamites, and those who dwelt in Mesopotamia, Judaea and
   Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the part
   of Libya which is toward Cyrene, strangers from Rome also, both Jews
   and proselytes with Cretans and Arabs." That congregation, however, was
   inferior in this respect, that all present were not ministers of God:
   whereas in this assembly the number of bishops exceeded three hundred;
   [160] while the number of the presbyters, deacons, and acolyths [161]
   and others who attended them was almost incalculable. Some of these
   ministers of God were eminent for their wisdom, some for the strictness
   of their life, and patient endurance [of persecution], and others
   united in themselves all these distinguished characteristics: some were
   venerable from their advanced age, others were conspicuous for their
   youth and vigor of mind, and others had but recently entered on their
   ministerial career. [162] For all these the emperor appointed an
   abundant supply of daily food to be provided.'

   Such is Eusebius' account of those who met on this occasion. The
   emperor having completed the festal solemnization of this triumph over
   Licinius, came also in person to Nice.

   There were among the bishops two of extraordinary celebrity,
   Paphnutius, bishop of Upper Thebes, and Spyridon, bishop of Cyprus: why
   I have so particular referred to these two individuals, I shall state
   hereafter. Many of the laity were also present, who were practiced in
   the art of reasoning, [163] and each eager to advocate the cause of his
   own party. Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, as was before said, supported
   the opinion of Arius, together with Theognis and Maris; of these the
   former was bishop of Nicaea, and Maris of Chalcedon in Bithynia. These
   were powerfully opposed by Athanasius, a deacon of the Alexandrian
   church, who was highly esteemed by Alexander his bishop, and on that
   account was much envied, as will be seen hereafter. Now a short time
   previous to the general assembling of the bishops, the disputants
   engaged in preparatory logical contests before the multitudes; and when
   many were attracted by the interest of their discourse, one of the
   laity, a confessor [164] , who was a man of unsophisticated
   understanding, reproved these reasoners, telling them that Christ and
   his apostles did not teach us dialectics, art, nor vain subtilties, but
   simple-mindedness, which is preserved by faith and good works. As he
   said this, all present admired the speaker and assented to the justice
   of his remarks; and the disputants themselves, after hearing his plain
   statement of the truth, exercised a greater degree of moderation: thus
   then was the disturbance caused by these logical debates suppressed at
   this time.

   On the following day all the bishops were assembled together in one
   place; the emperor arrived soon after and on his entrance stood in
   their midst, and would not take his place, until the bishops by bowing
   intimated their desire that he should be seated: such was the respect
   and reverence which the emperor entertained for these men. When a
   silence suitable to the occasion had been observed, the emperor from
   his seat began to address them words of exhortation to harmony and
   unity, and entreated each to lay aside all private pique. For several
   of them had brought accusations against one another and many had even
   presented petitions to the emperor the day before. But he, directing
   their attention to the matter before them, and on account of which they
   were assembled, ordered these petitions to be burnt; merely observing
   that `Christ enjoins him who is anxious to obtain forgiveness, to
   forgive his brother.' When therefore he had strongly insisted on the
   maintenance of harmony and peace, he sanctioned again their purpose of
   more closely investigating the questions at issue. But it may be well
   to hear what Eusebius says on this subject, in his third book of the
   Life of Constantine. [165] His words are these:

   `A variety of topics having been introduced by each party and much
   controversy being excited from the very commencement, the emperor
   listened to all with patient attention, deliberately and impartially
   considering whatever was advanced. He in part supported the statements
   which were made on either side, and gradually softened the asperity of
   those who contentiously opposed each other, conciliating each by his
   mildness and affability. And as he addressed them in the Greek
   language, for he was not unacquainted with it, he was at once
   interesting and persuasive, and wrought conviction on the minds of
   some, and prevailed on others by entreaty, those who spoke well he
   applauded. And inciting all to unanimity at length he succeeded in
   bringing them into similarity of judgment, and conformity of opinion on
   all the controverted points: so that there was not only unity in the
   confession of faith, but also a general agreement as to the time for
   the celebration of the feast of Salvation. [166] Moreover the doctrines
   which had thus the common consent, were confirmed by the signature of
   each individual.'

   Such in his own words is the testimony respecting these things which
   Eusebius has left us in writing; and we not unfitly have used it, but
   treating what he has said as an authority, have introduced it here for
   the fidelity of this history. With this end also in view, that if any
   one should condemn as erroneous the faith professed at this council of
   Nicaea, we might be unaffected by it, and put no confidence in Sabinus
   the Macedonian, [167] who calls all those who were convened there
   ignoramuses and simpletons. For this Sabinus, who was bishop of the
   Macedonians at Heraclea in Thrace, having made a collection of the
   decrees published by various Synods of bishops, has treated those who
   composed the Nicene Council in particular with contempt and derision;
   not perceiving that he thereby charges Eusebius himself with ignorance,
   who made a like confession after the closest scrutiny. And in fact some
   things he has willfully passed over, others he has perverted, and on
   all he has put a construction favorable to his own views. Yet he
   commends Eusebius Pamphilus as a trustworthy witness, and praises the
   emperor as capable in stating Christian doctrines: but he still brands
   the faith which was declared at Nicaea, as having been set forth by
   ignorant persons, and such as had no intelligence in the matter. And
   thus he voluntarily contemns the words of a man whom he himself
   pronounces a wise and true witness: for Eusebius declares, that of the
   ministers of God who were present at the Nicene Synod, some were
   eminent for the word of wisdom, others for the strictness of their
   life; and that the emperor himself being present, leading all into
   unanimity, established unity of judgment, and agreement of opinion
   among them. Of Sabinus, however, we shall make further mention as
   occasion may require. But the agreement of faith, assented to with loud
   acclamation at the great council of Nicaea is this:

   `We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things
   visible and invisible:--and in one [168] Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of
   God, the only-begotten of the Father, that is of the substance of the
   Father; God of God and Light of light; true God of true God; begotten,
   not made, consubstantial [169] with the Father: by whom all things were
   made, both which are in heaven and on earth: who for the sake of us
   men, and on account of our salvation, descended, became incarnate, and
   was made man; suffered, arose again the third day, and ascended into
   the heavens, and will come again to judge the living and the dead. [We]
   also [believe] in the Holy Spirit. But the holy Catholic and Apostolic
   church anathematizes those who say "There was a time when he was not,"
   and "He was not before he was begotten" and "He was made from that
   which did not exist," and those who assert that he is of other
   substance or essence than the Father, or that he was created, or is
   susceptible of change.' [170]

   This creed was recognized and acquiesced in by three hundred and
   eighteen [bishops]; and being, as Eusebius says, unanimous is
   expression and sentiment, they subscribed it. Five only would not
   receive it, objecting to the term homoousios, `of the same essence,' or
   consubstantial: these were Eusebius bishop of Nicomedia, Theognis of
   Nice, Maris of Chalcedon, Theonas of Marmarica, and Secundus of
   Ptolemais. `For,' said they `since that is consubstantial which is from
   another either by partition, derivation or germination; by germination,
   as a shoot from the roots; by derivation, as children from their
   parents; by division, as two or three vessels of gold from a mass, and
   the Son is from the Father by none of these modes: therefore they
   declared themselves unable to assent to this creed.' Thus having
   scoffed at the word consubstantial, they would not subscribe to the
   deposition of Arius. Upon this the Synod anathematized Arius, and all
   who adhered to his opinions, prohibiting him at the same time from
   entering into Alexandria. At the same time an edict of the emperor sent
   Arius himself into exile, together with Eusebius and Theognis and their
   followers; Eusebius and Theognis, however, a short time after their
   banishment, tendered a written declaration of their change of
   sentiment, and concurrence in the faith of the consubstantiality of the
   Son with the Father, as we shall show as we proceed.

   At this time during the session of the Synod, Eusebius, surnamed
   Pamphilus, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, who had held aloof for a
   short time, after mature consideration whether he ought to receive this
   definition of the faith, at length acquiesced in it, and subscribed it
   with all the rest: he also sent to the people under his charge a copy
   of the Creed, with an explanation of the word homoousios, that no one
   might impugn his motives on account of his previous hesitation. Now
   what was written by Eusebius was as follows in his own words:

   'You have probably had some intimation, beloved, of the transactions of
   the great council convened at Nicaea, in relation to the faith of the
   Church, inasmuch as rumor generally outruns true account of that which
   has really taken place. But lest from such report alone you might form
   an incorrect estimate of the matter, we have deemed it necessary to
   submit to you, in the first place, an exposition of the faith proposed
   by us in written form; and then a second which has been promulgated,
   consisting of ours with certain additions to its expression. The
   declaration of faith set forth by us, which when read in the presence
   of our most pious emperor, seemed to meet with universal approbation,
   was thus expressed:

   `"According as we received from the bishops who preceded us, both in
   our instruction [171] [in the knowledge of the truth], and when we were
   baptized; as also we have ourselves learned from the sacred Scriptures:
   and in accordance with what we have both believed and taught while
   discharging the duties of presbyter and the episcopal office itself, so
   now we believe and present to you the distinct avowal of our faith. It
   is this:

   `"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things
   visible and invisible:--and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Word of God,
   God of God, Light of light, Life of life, the only-begotten Son, born
   before all creation, [172] begotten of God the Father, before all ages,
   by whom also all things were made; who on account of our salvation
   became incarnate, and lived among men; and who suffered and rose again
   on the third day, and ascended to the Father, and shall come again in
   glory to judge the living and the dead. We believe also in one Holy
   Spirit. We believe in the existence and subsistence of each of these
   [persons]: that the Father is truly Father, the Son truly Son, and the
   Holy Spirit truly Holy Spirit; even as our Lord also, when he sent
   forth his disciples to preach the Gospel, said, [173] `Go and teach all
   nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
   of the Holy Spirit.' Concerning these doctrines we steadfastly maintain
   their truth, and avow our full confidence in them; such also have been
   our sentiments hitherto, and such we shall continue to hold until death
   and in an unshaken adherence to this faith, we anathematize every
   impious heresy. In the presence of God Almighty, and of our Lord Jesus
   Christ we testify, that thus we have believed and thought from our
   heart and soul, since we have possessed a right estimate of ourselves;
   and that we now think and speak what is perfectly in accordance with
   the truth. We are moreover prepared to prove to you by undeniable
   evidences, and to convince you that in time past we have thus believed,
   and so preached."

   `When these articles of faith were proposed, there seemed to be no
   ground of opposition: nay, our most pious emperor himself was the first
   to admit that they were perfectly correct, and that he himself had
   entertained the sentiments contained in them; exhorting all present to
   give them their assent, and subscribe to these very articles, thus
   agreeing in a unanimous profession of them, with the insertion,
   however, of that single word "homoousios" (consubstantial), an
   expression which the emperor himself explained, as not indicating
   corporeal affections or properties; and consequently that the Son did
   not subsist from the Father either by division or abscission: for said
   he, a nature which is immaterial and incorporeal cannot possibly be
   subject to any corporeal affection; hence our conception of such things
   can only be in divine and mysterious terms. Such was the philosophical
   view of the subject taken by our most wise and pious sovereign; and the
   bishops on account of the word homoousious, drew up this formula of
   faith.

   The Creed. [174]

   `"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things
   visible and invisible:--and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
   the only-begotten of the Father, that is of the substance of the
   Father; God of God, Light of light, true God of true God; begotten not
   made, consubstantial with the Father; by [175] whom all things were
   made both which are in heaven and on earth; who for the sake of us men,
   and on account of our salvation, descended, became incarnate, was made
   man, suffered and rose again on the third day; he ascended into the
   heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead. [We believe]
   also in the Holy Spirit. But those who say `There was a time when he
   was not,' or `He did not exist before he was begotten,' or `He was made
   of nothing' or assert that `He is of other substance or essence than
   the Father,' or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or
   susceptible of change, the Catholic and apostolic Church of God
   anathematizes."

   `Now this declaration of faith being propounded by them, we did not
   neglect to investigate the distinct sense of the expressions "of the
   substance of the Father, and consubstantial with the Father." Whereupon
   questions were put forth and answers, and the meaning of these terms
   was clearly defined; when it was generally admitted that ousias (of the
   essence or substance) simply implied that the Son is of the Father
   indeed, but does not subsist as a part of the Father. To this
   interpretation of the sacred doctrine which declares that the Son is of
   the Father, but is not a part of his substance, it seemed right to us
   to assent. We ourselves therefore concurred in this exposition; nor do
   we cavil at the word "homoousios" having regard to peace, and fearing
   to lose a right understanding of the matter. On the same grounds we
   admitted also the expression "begotten, not made": "for made," said
   they, "is a term applicable in common to all the creatures which were
   made by the Son, to whom the Son has no resemblance. Consequently he is
   no creature like those which were made by him, but is of a substance
   far excelling any creature; which substance the Divine Oracles teach
   was begotten of the Father by such a mode of generation as cannot be
   explained nor even conceived by any creature." Thus also the
   declaration that "the Son is consubstantial with the Father" having
   been discussed, it was agreed that this must not be understood in a
   corporeal sense, or in any way analogous to mortal creatures; inasmuch
   as it is neither by division of substance, nor by abscission nor by any
   change of the Father's substance and power, since the underived nature
   of the Father is inconsistent with all these things. That he is
   consubstantial with the Father then simply implies, that the Son of God
   has no resemblance to created things, but is in every respect like the
   Father only who begat him; and that he is of no other substance or
   essence but of the Father. To which doctrine, explained in this way, it
   appeared right to assent, especially since we knew that some eminent
   bishops and learned writers among the ancients have used the term
   "homoousios" in their theological discourses concerning the nature of
   the Father and the Son. Such is what I have to state to you in
   reference to the articles of faith which have been promulgated; and in
   which we have all concurred, not without due examination, but according
   to the senses assigned, which were investigated in the presence of our
   most highly favored emperor, and for the reasons mentioned approved. We
   have also considered the anathema pronounced by them after the
   declaration of faith inoffensive; because it prohibits the use of
   illegitimate [176] terms, from which almost all the distraction and
   commotion of the churches have arisen. Accordingly, since no divinely
   inspired Scripture contains the expressions, "of things which do not
   exist," and "there was a time when he was not," and such other phrases
   as are therein subjoined, it seemed unwarrantable to utter and teach
   them: and moreover this decision received our sanction the rather from
   the consideration that we have never heretofore been accustomed to
   employ these terms. We deemed it incumbent on us, beloved, to acquaint
   you with the caution which has characterized both our examination of
   and concurrence in these things: and that on justifiable grounds we
   resisted to the last moment the introduction of certain objectionable
   expressions as long as these were not acceptable; and received them
   without dispute, when on mature deliberation as we examined the sense
   of the words, they appeared to agree with what we had originally
   proposed as a sound confession of faith.'

   Such was the letter addressed by Eusebius Pamphilus to the Christians
   at Caesarea in Palestine. At the same time the Synod itself also, with
   one accord, wrote the following epistle to the church of the
   Alexandrians, and to believers in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [153] Cf. the parallel account in Sozom. I. 17.

   [154] In a single sentence this controversy was as to whether the
   Easter should be observed on a fixed day in every year or on the 14th
   of the lunar month Nisan of the Jews, on whatever day of the week that
   might happen to fall. For a fuller discussion of the controversy, see
   Smith's Dict. of the Bible, and the literature there referred to.

   [155] oikoumeniken : hence this is called the first Ecumenical Council.

   [156] Euseb. Life of Const. III. 7-9.

   [157] Hosius mentioned before in chap. 7.

   [158] According to Valesius, who follows Musculus, the prelate here
   meant was the bishop of Rome. The reason alleged is that at the time of
   the meeting of the council, Constantinople had not yet been made the
   `imperial city.' But considering the general indifference of Socrates
   to the affairs of the Western Church, and the fact that when he wrote,
   the imperial city was actually Constantinople, it is very probable that
   it is the bishop of that city he means to name here, and not the bishop
   of Rome.

   [159] Acts ii. 5-11.

   [160] The exact number is variously given as 250 by Eusebius (Life of
   Const. III. 8); 270 by Eustathius; 318 by Evagrius (H. E. III. 31);
   Athanasius (Ep. to the African bishops); Hilarius (Contra Constantium);
   Jerome (Chronicon), and Rufinus.

   [161] Young priests; lit. `followers,' from akolouthos.

   [162] to meso tropo: besides the meaning given to these words here they
   may be taken (1) as describing the temperate and genial character of
   the men so characterized, on the assumption that mesos = metrios as
   often elsewhere, or (2) as applicable to those who occupied the middle
   ground in the controversy; of these, (2) is not admissible, as nothing
   has been said in the immediate context about the controversy, and as
   age is the main basis of classification in the passage; (1) also is
   less probable than the rendering given above.

   [163] Dialectics.

   [164] heis ton homologeton : the term homologetes was applied to those
   who during the persecutions had refused to sacrifice to idols,
   persisting in his profession of Christianity in spite of suffering. Cf.
   Clem. Strom. IV. 12; Petr. Alex. Epist. Can. 14.

   [165] Euseb. Life of Const. III. 13.

   [166] The Passover, or Easter.

   [167] Macedonian = follower of Macedonius, not a native resident of
   Macedonia. Sabinus was the author of a collection of the acts of the
   Synod used by Socrates quite freely (cf. I. 9; II. 15, 17 et al.).
   Socrates, however, criticises him for prejudice against the orthodox.
   Sabinus was bishop of the church of the Macedonians in Heraclea, a city
   in Thrace.

   [168] This is according to the reading of Valesius, Hussey, and Bright.
   The reading, `our Lord,' &c., of the English translations in Bagster
   and Bohn's series is probably a typographical error, though strangely
   perpetuated down to the reprint of 1888.

   [169] omoousion , `of the same essence'; the word has become a historic
   landmark in theological debate, and one of the stock words of
   theological terminology.

   [170] This creed is found twelve times in eleven ancient sources, two
   versions being given in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. The
   second version of the Council of Chalcedon contains certain additions
   from the creed of Constantinople; all the rest substantially agree. Cf.
   Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, Vol. I. p. 24, and Vol. II. p. 60, 91;
   Walch, Antiquitates Symbolicae (1772), p. 87 seq.; Hahn, Bibliothek der
   Symbole, p. 40-107, and other literature referred to in Schaff's
   Creeds, &c.

   [171] katechesei ; the word is used of the steps preliminary to
   baptism, chief among which was instruction in the truth. Cf. VII. 17,
   and Smith's Dict. of the Bible.

   [172] prototokon pases ktiseos, taken from Col. i. 15. For the uses of
   protos instead of proteros, see John i. 15.

   [173] matheteusate , from Matt. xxviii. 19.

   [174] to mathema: lit. `lesson.'

   [175] Through.

   [176] agraphois: lit. `unwritten,' but defined by Hesychius as above.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter IX.--The Letter of the Synod, relative to its Decisions: and
   the Condemnation of Arius and those who agreed with him.

   To the holy, by the grace of God, and great church of the Alexandrians,
   and to our beloved brethren throughout Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis,
   the bishops assembled at Nicaea, constituting the great and holy Synod,
   send greeting in the Lord.

   Since, by the grace of God, a great and holy Synod has been convened at
   Nicaea, our most pious sovereign Constantine having summoned us out of
   various cities and provinces for that purpose, it appeared to us
   indispensably necessary that a letter should be written to you on the
   part of the sacred Synod; in order that ye may know what subjects were
   brought under consideration and examined, and what was eventually
   determined on and decreed.

   In the first place, then, the impiety and guilt of Arius and his
   adherents were examined into, in the presence of our most religious
   emperor Constantine: and it was unanimously decided that his impious
   opinion should be anathematized, with all the blasphemous expressions
   he has uttered, in affirming that `the Son of God sprang from nothing,'
   and that `there was a time when he was not'; saying moreover that `the
   Son of God, because possessed of free will, was capable either of vice
   or virtue; and calling him a creature and a work. All these sentiments
   the holy Synod has anathematized, having scarcely patience to endure
   the hearing of such an impious opinion, or, rather, madness, and such
   blasphemous words. But the conclusion of our proceedings against him
   you must either have been informed of already or will soon learn; for
   we would not seem to trample on a man who has received the chastisement
   which his crime deserved. Yet so contagious has his pestilential error
   proved, as to drag into perdition Theonas, bishop of Marmarica, and
   Secundus of Ptolemais; for they have suffered the same condemnation as
   himself. But when the grace of God delivered us from those execrable
   dogmas, with all their impiety and blasphemy, and from those persons,
   who had dared to cause discord and division among a people previously
   at peace, there still remained the contumacy of Melitius [to be dealt
   with] and those who had been ordained by him; and we now state to you,
   beloved brethren, what resolution the Synod came to on this point. It
   was decreed, the Synod being moved to great clemency towards Melitius,
   although strictly speaking he was wholly undeserving of favor, that he
   remain in his own city but exercise no authority either to ordain or
   nominate for ordination; and that he appear in no other district or
   city on this pretense, but simply retain a nominal dignity. That those
   who had received appointments from him, after having been confirmed by
   a more legitimate ordination, should be admitted to communion on these
   conditions: that they should continue to hold their rank and ministry,
   but regard themselves as inferior in every respect to all those who
   have been ordained and established in each place and church by our
   most-honored fellow-minister, Alexander, so that they shall have no
   authority to propose or nominate whom they please, or to do anything at
   all without the concurrence of some bishop of the Catholic Church who
   is one of Alexander's suffragans. On the other hand, such as by the
   grace of God and your prayers have been found in no schism, but have
   continued in the Catholic Church blameless, shall have authority to
   nominate and ordain those who are worthy of the sacred office, [177]
   and to act in all things according to ecclesiastical law and usage.
   When it may happen that any of those holding preferments in the church
   die, then let these who have been thus recently admitted be advanced to
   the dignity of the deceased, provided that they should appear worthy,
   and that the people should elect them, the bishop of Alexandria also
   ratifying their choice. This privilege is conceded to all the others
   indeed, but to Melitius personally we by no means grant the same
   license, on account of his former disorderly conduct, and because of
   the rashness and levity of his character, in order that no authority or
   jurisdiction should be given him as a man liable again to create
   similar disturbances. These are the things which specially affect
   Egypt, and the most holy church of the Alexandrians: and if any other
   canon or ordinance has been established, our Lord and most-honored
   fellow-minister and brother Alexander being present with us, will on
   his return to you enter into more minute details, inasmuch as he has
   been a participator in whatever is transacted, and has had the
   principal direction of it. We have also gratifying intelligence to
   communicate to you relative to unity of judgment on the subject of the
   most holy feast of Easter: for this point also has been happily settled
   through your prayers; so that all the brethren in the East who have
   heretofore kept this festival when the Jews did, will henceforth
   conform to the Romans and to us, and to all who from the earliest time
   have observed our period of celebrating Easter. Rejoicing therefore in
   these conclusions and in the general unanimity and peace, as well as in
   the extirpation of all heresy, receive with the greater honor and more
   abundant love our fellow-minister and your bishop Alexander, who has
   greatly delighted us by his presence, and even at his advanced age has
   undergone extraordinary exertions in order that peace might be
   re-established among you. Pray on behalf of us all, that the things
   decided as just may be inviolably maintained through Almighty God, and
   our Lord Jesus Christ, together with the Holy Spirit; to whom be glory
   for ever. Amen.

   This epistle of the Synod makes it plain that they not only
   anathematized Arius and his adherents, but the very expressions of his
   tenets; and that having agreed among themselves respecting the
   celebration of Easter, they readmitted the heresiarch Melitius into
   communion, suffering him to retain his episcopal rank, but divesting
   him of all authority to act as a bishop. It is for this reason I
   suppose that even at the present time the Melitians in Egypt are
   separated from the church, because the Synod deprived Melitius of all
   power. It should be observed moreover that Arius had written a treatise
   on his own opinion which he entitled Thalia; but the character of the
   book is loose and dissolute, similar in its style and metres to the
   songs of Sotades. [178] This production also the Synod condemned at the
   same time. Nor was it the Synod alone that took the trouble to write
   letters to the churches announcing the restoration of peace, but the
   emperor Constantine himself also wrote personally and sent the
   following address to the church of the Alexandrians.

   The Emperor's Letter.

   Constantine Augustus, to the Catholic church of the Alexandrians.
   Beloved brethren, hail! We have received from Divine Providence the
   inestimable blessing of being relieved from all error, and united in
   the acknowledgment of one and the same faith. The devil will no longer
   have any power against us, since all that which he had malignantly
   devised for our destruction has been entirely overthrown from the
   foundations. The splendor of truth has dissipated at the command of God
   those dissensions, schisms, tumults, and so to speak, deadly poisons of
   discord. Wherefore we all worship one true God, and believe that he is.
   But in order that this might be done, by divine admonition I assembled
   at the city of Nicaea most of the bishops; with whom I myself also, who
   am but one of you, and who rejoice exceedingly in being your
   fellow-servant, undertook the investigation of the truth. Accordingly,
   all points which seemed in consequence of ambiguity to furnish any
   pretext for dissension, have been discussed and accurately examined.
   And may the Divine Majesty pardon the fearful enormity of the
   blasphemies which some were shamelessly uttering concerning the mighty
   Saviour, our life and hope; declaring and confessing that they believe
   things contrary to the divinely inspired Scriptures. While more than
   three hundred bishops remarkable for their moderation and intellectual
   keenness, were unanimous in their confirmation of one and the same
   faith, which according to the truth and legitimate construction of the
   law of God can only be the faith; Arius alone beguiled by the subtlety
   of the devil, was discovered to be the sole disseminator of this
   mischief, first among you, and afterwards with unhallowed purposes
   among others also. Let us therefore embrace that doctrine which the
   Almighty has presented to us: let us return to our beloved brethren
   from whom an irreverent servant of the devil has separated us: let us
   go with all speed to the common body and our own natural members. For
   this is becoming your penetration, faith