67 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Uhlhoa
sia
most friendly terms for more than a generation;
and before the issue was decided, he had passed
away. The cause and progress of these events
are wrapped in obscurity. From the
3. Later letter of Auxentius, the sole document
Years. dealing with the death of Ulfilas, it
would appear that, shortly after the
council of Aquileia, Ulfilas and other bishops went
to the imperial court, where, at their request, Theo
dosius promised to convene another synod for the
settlement of the Arian controversy. This journey
apparently took place in the autumn of 381 or the
winter of 381-382, and somewhat later Ulfuas was
summoned by the emperor to return to Constanti
nople to take part in a disputation on the problems
at issue, or, in other words, to attend the synod
convened at Constantinople by Theodosius in June,
383. Bishops of every shade of doctrine had already
assembled when Nectarius, patriarch of Constanti
nople, succeeded in preventing the open debate
promised by the emperor, who, instead, required
each of the theological factions to present its own
creed. This done, Theodosius gave his approval to
the Nicene formula, tore up the others, and sent the
bishops to their homes. It would accordingly seem
that Ulfilas had reached the capital in June, 383,
had fallen ill shortly afterward, and, though able
to take part in the deliberations of his faction con
cerning the formulation of their creed, so that he
himself drew up one for this purpose, had died be
fore the imperial decision was received.
According to Socrates
(Hilt. eccl., ii. 41),
Ulfilas,
as a pupil of the Crimgothie bishop Theophilus,
was primarily an adherent of the Nicene Creed, be
coming an Arian only at the synod
4. Theology. held at Constantinople early in 360.
This account is followed in the main
by Sozomen
(Hilt, eccl.,
vi. 37), while Theodoret
(Hist. eccl., iv.
37) makes the Arianism of Ulfilas
date from 376. The
Acta Nicetx,
on the other hand,
represent him as a true Catholic throughout his life,
and as the founder of none but orthodox communi
ties among the Goths. The creed drawn up by
Ulfilas himself runs thus: " I, Ulfilas, bishop and
confessor, have ever thus believed, and in this sole
true faith I pass unto the Lord: I believe that there
is one only God, unbegotten and invisible; and in
his only begotten Son, our Lord and God, creator
and maker of every creature, not having his like.
Therefore, God is one, who is also God of our God.
And in one Holy Ghost, virtue illuminating and
sanctifying . , neither God nor Lord, but the
[faithful] minister of Christ, not equal, but subject
and obedient in all things to the Son; and the Son
subject and obedient in all things to God the Fa
ther." Of the following lines of this creed only the
words " through Christ " and " by the Holy Ghost,"
as well as a few letters, have survived. It is clear,
however, that Ulfilas was unconscious of ever hav
ing changed his theological position, and the state
ments of Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and the
Acts Nicene
must, therefore, be rejected. On the
other hand, the creed seems to contain no clue as
to the anti-Nicene group in which Ulfilas is to be
reckoned. But the very fact that Ulfilas avoids all
reference to the essence shows that he was a ho-
moian. This is borne out by a number of other
facts: Auxentius testifies that he " said the Son
was like the Father . . . according to the divine
Scriptures and traditions "; he was one of the fortysix bishops who condemned and deposed tEtius at
Constantinople early in 360; his pupil Auxentius,
his partizans Palladius of Ratiaria, Secundianus,
Demophilus of Berea, and Maximinus, and his successor Selinas were all homoians, as was the entire
Gothic church. It is true that the homoians first
appeared as a distinct faction at a synod held at
Sirmium in 357; but the rapidity with which they
became dominant along the lower Danube shows
that their views had there long met favor, so that
they were speedily adopted officially by the majority
of the bishops. The homoian rejection of every
dogma, that could not be proved from the Bible
won the hearty support of such a conservative and
traditionalist as Ulfilas, who, as Auxentius tells,
regarded the Nicene Creed as a " devilish innovation," sided with the anti-Nicene party at Antioch
in 341, and, when the tEtians and homoousians began to draw apart, joined the homoians, whose
watchword was " according to the Scriptures."
Herein he could follow not merely. his own inclination, but the example of almost all the bishops and
churches of the Danube regions, where Arianism of
this sort was so firmly intrenched that orthodoxy
was forced to struggle with it until late in the fifth
century.
Auxentius reports that Ulfilas " proved by sermons and treatises that there is a difference between the divinity of the Father and of the Son.
He preached continually in the one and only Church
of Christ in the Greek, Latin, and Gothic tongues,
and he also left behind him 'a number
g. Works; of .treatises and many interpretations
Bible in these same three languages." None
Translation. of these.. productions has survived
under the name of Ulfilas, although it
is not impossible that fragments may be included
among the numerous remnants of Arian (or, rather,
homoian) literature that are still extant. A number
of works-the fragments of a homoian commentary
on Luke (ed. A. Mai,
Nova collectio, iii. 2, pp. 191
207, 10 vole., Rome, 1825-38) and of the Opus im
perfectum in Matth,ceum,
and the Gothic
Skeireins
aiwaggeljons t3uxir)x Johannen ("
Interpretation of
the Gospel according to John ")-have indeed been
ascribed to him, but on insufficient basis. The sole
fragment of Ulfila,a now extant is his incomplete
confession of 383, and even this was probably written in Greek, not in Latin, as it now stands. The
fame of Ulfilas is chiefly due, however, to two facts:
his creation of a Gothic alphabet from modifications and adaptations of the Greek, Latin, and
runic alphabets; and his Gothic translation of the
Bible. Philostorgius and Socrates exaggerate his
services when they ascribe to him the absolute invention of this new script; but there is little doubt
that he formed it expressly to commit to writing
his version of the Bible. This was intended primarily for the liturgy, not, for private devotion;
and as there were then no lectionaries, he was
obliged to translate the entire Bible. How far he
was able to execute this plan is unknown. Philo-