¹ E.g. Armstrong, C. B., ‘The Synod of Alexandria and the Schism at Antioch in AD 362’, JTS xxii (1921), 216.Google Scholar This thesis is asserted despite the interesting correspondence of the 360s between Apollinarius and Basil of Caesarea, which does not suggest that the former had then been condemned. For this correspondence see Prestige, G. L., St Basil the Gnat and Apoliinaris of Laodicea, ed. Chadwick, H., London 1956.Google Scholar

² E.g. Weijenborg, R., Apollinaristic Interpolations in the Tomus ad Antiochenos of 362, Studia Patristica iii (1961), 329.Google Scholar

³ Tomus ix.

⁴ Historia Ecclesiastica (hereinafter cited as HE) v. 12.

⁵ Ibid. iv. 29.

⁶ Ibid. Cf. Socrates, HE ii. 44; Theodor”, HE iii. 2.

⁷ Ibid. iv. 12. i.

⁸ Ibid. iv. 13. 3.

⁹ Socrates, , HE ii. 45.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cf. Theodort, , HE ii. 8. 47.Google Scholar

¹¹ Sozomen, , HE iv. 13.Google Scholar 4, and its reference to the Homoian party of Basil of Ancyra.

¹² Epiphanius, , Haer. lxxiii. 19–33.Google Scholar

¹³ Theodoret, , HE ii. 27Google Scholar; Socrates, , HE ii. 44Google Scholar; Sozomen, , HE iv. 23Google Scholar; Epiphanius, , Haer. lxxiii. 29–33.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Cf. Kopecek, T. A.. A History of Neo Arianism, Philadelphia 1979, ii. 406 n. 1Google Scholar, for arguments that it was indeed George of Laodicea and not his namesake of Alexandria who then preached.

¹⁵ Theodoret, , HE ii. 27.Google Scholar

¹⁶ The same ploy was attempted by the Acacians to depose Eunomius at the Council of Antioch only a year earlier.

¹⁷ Cf. Socrates, , HE ii. 45. gff.Google Scholar Also see ibid. ii. 44; Sozomen, , HE iv. 28Google Scholar; Theodoret, , HE ii. 27Google Scholar; Philostorgius, , HE v. 5.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Kopecek, , op. cit. ii. 407.Google Scholar

¹⁹ De synodis, 31.

²⁰ HE ii. 45.

²¹ HE vi. 3–5.

²² Prestige, , St Basil, 8Google Scholar, suggests that the George mentioned at the council is in fact George of Alexandria, cf. the argument of Kopecek, , Neo Arianism ii. 407ff.Google Scholar

²³ Philostorgius, , HE vi. 5.Google Scholar

²⁴ Socrates, , HE iii. 9. 4.Google Scholar

²⁵ Philostorgius, , HE vii. 6.Google Scholar

²⁶ Ibid. 8. 2.

²⁷ Socrates, , HE iii. 25.Google Scholar

²⁸ HE viii. 2.

²⁹ I Cor. xi. 12.

³⁰ Socrates, , HE ii. 45. 9ff.Google Scholar

³¹ Sozomen, , HE v. 12.Google Scholar

³² Theodoret, , HE iii. 2.Google Scholar

³³ From Nicea to Chalcedon. A guide to the literature and its background, London 1983, 79.

³¹ See the arguments of Armstrong, Synod of Alexandria; Kelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Creeds, 3rd edn, London 1972, 255–6Google Scholar; Leroux, J. M., ‘Athanase et la seconde phase de la crise arienne, 345–373’, in Kannengiesser, C. (ed.), Politique et théologie chez Athanasi d'Alexandrie, Paris 1974, 145–56Google Scholar; Tetz, M., ‘Über Nikäische Orthodoxie. Der sog, Tomu. ad Antiochenos des Athanasios von Alexandrien’, Zeitschrit fär die neulestamentliche Wissenschaf und die unde der älteren Kirche vi (1975), 194–222.Google Scholar

³⁵ Leroux, , op. cit. 145ffGoogle Scholar, argues that this reflects Athanasius' being out of touch with what was happening in Antioch; he was still fighting the old battles against Arius wher everyone else was struggling with the much subtler issues raised by Aetius, and Kelly, Eunomius, op. cit. 257–8Google Scholar, argues, meanwhile, that the Tomus took its stance simply upon the Nicene Creed, refusing to enter endless controversy over vocabulary, when the intentions of the disputants were the same. While Kelly perhaps goes too far in asserting than Athanasius is here showing ‘fine theological tact’, ibid. 26t, he seems more correct in his interpretation than does Leroux. For Athanasius' Ad Rufinianum docs seem aware of some of the thinking of Eudoxius and Euzoios. Kelly's view also accords better with Tomus v where Athanasius notes that ‘it is undesirable for a second creed to be promulgated, les that drafted at Nicaea should be deemed imperfect, and a pretext be given to those who were often wishing to draft and define a creed’. The desire not to introduce a new creed also arose from the fact that both the Meletians and the Eustathians were seen to stand on the Nicene side of the theological debate, over against Euzoios.

³⁶ Tomus iii. The italics are mine.

³⁷ Ibid., iii, cf. ibid. v–vi. The thinking that the Spirit was a creature and separate fron the essence of the Christ probably is that of Acacius. For in Ad Serapionem iv Athanasiu couples together Acacius and Patrophilus as Pneumatomachi.

³⁸ Sozomen, , HE v. 12Google Scholar; cf. Socrates, , HE iii. 7.Google Scholar

³⁹ This was the common usage in the Bast and followed Origen's use of the term; see Contra Celsum viii. i2. The Eustathians, however, used the term ύπóστασις in the sense of substantia, following the common practice of the West, a practice exemplified in Jerome's letter of 376 to Pope Damasus, ep. xv. 4.

⁴⁰ Tomus v. The italics are mine. Cf. Athanasius, , De synodis xviGoogle Scholar, where Arius himself is portrayed as using ύπóστασις in the sense of substantia in his assertion of ‘three hypostaseis’.

⁴¹ Ibid. vi.

⁴² Cf. Athanasius, Ad Rufinianum; Tomus iii.

⁴³ Kidd, B. J., A History of ike Church to AD 461, ii, Oxford 1922, 214.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Stephenson, J., Creeds, Councils and Controversies, London 1973, 56.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Chadwick, H., The Early Church, London 1967, 148.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Socrates, , HE ii. 45. 9–10.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Cf. the argument of H. Chadwick, in Prestige, , St Basil, pp. viii–ixGoogle Scholar, that ep. ccclxiv does not refer to the Tomus. Further, it seems highly improbable that Apollinarius would write in ep. ccclxiv to Basil, in the manner that he did, of ‘a visit…paid us by bishops coming from Egypt, and a letter…distributed in harmony with ancient formularies, both those of divine authority and those drawn up at Nicea in unison with these’, if this refers to the Council of Alexandria. For here he writes as though the visitation and the letter were unexpected. If both refer to the visit of Eusebius of Vercellae and Asterius of Petra, two of the bishops who attended the Alexandrian synod, such unexpectancy seems strange. For Apollinarius had his very own representatives at that very same council.

⁴⁸ Prestige, , op. cit. 14.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Leonitius, Fraud. Apoll., to end, PG lxxxvi. 1976A. Note there the approval by Athanasius at least of Timothy ‘on the grounds that he was opposing the profanity of Anus’.

⁵⁰ In the light of Basil's later embarrassed denials, this correspondences' authenticity was doubted. Now it is rightly defended by Prestige, op. cit.; de Riedmatten, H., ‘La Correspondence entre Basile de Césarée et Apollinaire de Laodicée’. JTS, NS vii (1956), 199–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and NS viii (1957), 53–70.

⁵¹ Jerome, , ep. lxxxiv. 3.Google Scholar

⁵² Prestige, G. L., God in Patristic Thought, 2nd edn, London 1952, 213–22, 231–3.Google Scholar

⁵³ Leitzmann, H., Apollinaris und seine Schule, Tübingen 1904, 195.Google ScholarDe fide et incamatione iv.

⁵⁴ Ibid. 213, fr. 38.

⁵⁵ See Young, , Nicea to Chalcedon, 184ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Leitzmann, , op. cit. 255–6Google Scholar, ‘The letter to the bishops of Diocaesarea’; cf. ibid. 273, Cyril of Alexandria. De recta fide ad reg. x.

⁵⁷ Tomus iii; vi.

⁵⁸ Hanson, R. P. C., ‘Arian doctrine of the incarnation’, in Gregg, R. C. (ed.), Arianism. Historical and theological reassessments, Philadelphia 1985, 192.Google Scholar Hanson mentions the denial of a human soul by Asterius (see Hahn, A., Bibliothek der Symbole und Glaubenregeln der alten Kirke, rev. and enlarged Hahn, G. L., Breslau 1897, 261–2)Google Scholar; Eunomius (see Gregory of Nyssa, Refutatio confessionis Eunomii, ed. Jaeger, V.V., Leiden 1960, 172, 545Google Scholar; Pseudo-Ignatian letters ‘To the Philadelphians’ vi and ‘To the Philippians’ v, in Curcton, W., Corpus Ignatianum, London 1849.Google Scholar Attention may also be drawn to Eudoxius' denial of the soul in Doctr. de incarn. ix, and to Epiphanius' reference to the Arians' formal denial of the soul in Ancoralus xxxiii. 4 and Panarion haer. lxix. 19, 48–9.

⁵⁹ Hahn, , op. cit. 191.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Spanneut, M., Recherches sur les écrits d'Eustache d'Antioche, Lille 194B, 15, 100.Google Scholar Cf. idem, ‘La Position théologique d'Eustache d'Antioche’, JTS v (1945), 223.

⁶¹ On Psalm xv sec Thcodoret, , Dial. i. 56.Google Scholar

⁶² Tomus vii. Raven, C. E., Apollinarianism. An essay on the Christology of the Early Church. Cambridge 1923, 113–14Google Scholar, Kelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Doctrines, 4th edn, London 1968, 288–9Google Scholar, and Young, Nicea to Chalcedon, 77, all believe that the words are not an assertion that the Saviour had a human soul. Yet note the argument of Grillmeier, A., ‘it can be assumed with some certainty that wc have a statement [in Tomus vii] on the soul of Christ as a physical factor’: Christ in Christian Tradition, 2nd rev. edn, Oxford 1975, 325.Google Scholar For the Church's tradition of άΨυΧον as ‘without a soul’, see Sozomen, , HE v. 12Google Scholar; Socrates, , HE iii. 7Google Scholar; Rufinus, HE i. 29Google Scholar; Coptic acts of Revillout, ‘Rapport sur une mission’, Archives des Missions Scientifiques et Littéraires, 3me sér. (1879) 1 iv. 462Google Scholar, which gives part of a letter of Rufinianus.

⁶³ Raven, , op. cit. III.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Wiles, M. F., ‘The nature of the early debate about Christ's human soul’, this JOURNAL xvi (1965), 147.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Athanasius, , Contra Arianos iii. 30Google Scholar, ‘the Logos became man and did not come into man’.

⁶⁶ See, Tamus vii: ‘it was not possible, when the Lord had become man for us, that his body should be without intelligence, nor was the salvation effected in the Logos himself a salvation of the body only but of the soul also’. Cf. Wiles, , op. cit. 147Google Scholar, ‘those who, like Eustathius, had found the concept of Christ's human soul necessary for the refutation of Arianism had not wholly ignored its particular soteriological emphasis, but the idea had not been greatly stressed’. Cf. Eustathius, , Fr. xviiGoogle Scholar, in Spanneut, , Recherches, 100.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Tomus vii.

⁶⁸ Ibid.

⁶⁹ Socrates, , HE i. 8Google Scholar, cf. Athanasius, , De decretis xix–xxGoogle Scholar; Ad Afros Epist. v–vi; Theodoret, , HE i. 8. 1–5.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Ibid. i. 8. When we say that Nicaea seems deliberately to have altered the incarnational indefiniteness of such creeds as that of Caesarea, we do not mean to imply that Caesarea was, or was intended by Eusebius to be, the basis of the Nicene Creed. Indeed, Kelly, , Early Christian Creeds, 220ffGoogle Scholar, points out that there is no suggestion in Socrates that either Eusebius or Constantinc thought that the final document of the Council of Nicea should be the actual Caesarean Creed, with the Nicene key words included. Rather, the alteration in the incarnational formulae in Nicaea is probably more a reaction on anthropological grounds to those local creeds of which Caesarea is but one example than to Caesarea in particular.

⁷¹ Ibid. i. 26.

⁷² Epiphanius, , Ancor, xxxiii.Google Scholar Cf. Lucian's confession of faith apud Rufinus on Eusebius, , HE ix. 6Google Scholar, in Routh, , Rel. Sacr. 3. 286.Google Scholar

⁷³ Hahn, , Bibliothek, 261–2.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Ibid. 261.

⁷⁵ Weijenborg, , Apollinaristic Interpretations, 324ff.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Cf. Fragments of the letter of Serapion of Thmuis, in Leontius, , Adv. Fraud, cxxixGoogle Scholar, cxxxviii, in Leitzmann, , Apollinaris, 253–4.Google Scholar