¹ Opitz, Urkunde 25 in Opitz, H.-G., Urkunden zur Geschichte des arianischen Streites 318–328. Athanasius Werke 3.1, Berlin-Leipzig 1934.Google Scholar

² Cf. Opitz, Urkunden 25. 4 and 27. 1–6, and Constantine's Speech to the Assembly of the Saints, 11–12.

³ I am aware of the view of Eduard Schwartz (‘Zur Kirchengeschichte des vierten Jahrhunderts7’, Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 34 [1935], 152) that Constantine wanted an inclusive reading of homoousios. I regard this view as incorrect. Under any emperor anyone could interpret the homoousios as he pleased: during Constantine's reign he could not publish an Arian interpretation of it and remain a bishop. I take it that Constantine was able to understand the dispute. Cf. my ‘Constantine's conversion: do we really need it?’, Phoenix xl (1987), 420–38 and ‘Constantine's early religious development’, Journal of Religious History xv (1989), 283–9.

⁴ Philostorgius, Historia Ecclesiastica ii. 10.

⁵ Opitz, Urkunde 27

⁶ Barnes, T. D., Constantine and Eusebius, Cambridge, Mass. 1981 (hereinafter cited as CE), 226–7 n. 14, 2I7 n. 82.Google Scholar

⁷ Opitz, Urkunde 30.

⁸ Opitz, Urkunden 4a, 4b. 6.

⁹ Cf. Philostorgius, HE i. 9–10 and Henry, Chadwick, ‘Faith and order at the Council of Nicaea’, Harvard Theological Review 3 (1960), 171–95.Google Scholar

¹⁰ In HE ii. 15 he said that Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of Chalcedon, Theognis of Nicaea and Asterius the Sophist altered their views (or their statements) at or after Nicaea. It seems to me that Philostorgius and the hypothetical Arian writer of appendix 7 of Joseph Bidez's edition of Philostorgius (Leipzig 1973) were very heavily dependent on Athanasian tradition for the decades after Nicaea, and that the dependence contributes to their unreliability.

¹¹ Confusion soon arose concerning the two councils at Nicaea in 325 and 327. In view of the difficulties which Jerome had with the subject of the Arians in 325–7 (in his Dialogus contra Luciferianos 19–20, PL xxiii. 182–3) I do not think that Philostorgius (if he has been correctly represented) should be believed against Constantine without supporting evidence.

¹² 12 Opitz, Urkunde 28.

¹³ That Constantine did not act as a neutral in 324/5 was seen by Lietzmann, H. (A History of the Early Church, trans. Woolf, B., London 1961, repr. 1967, 3. 115). Constantine's letters to the Alexandrians and to Arius and the Arians (Opitz, Urkunden 25, 34) show that the emperor was anti–Arian and thought that he understood the theological dispute. In my opinion he did understand it.Google Scholar

¹⁴ On the theological views of Eusebius and Arius see Colm, Luibhe´id, ‘The Arianism of Eusebius of Nicomedia’, The Irish Theological Quarterly 13 (1976), 3–23Google Scholar and ‘Finding Arius’, ibid, xlv (1978), 81–101.

¹⁵ It is possible that Constantine made a mistake here by putting the worst possible construction on Eusebius' actions, and that he later decided he had been mistaken.

¹⁶ Opitz, Urkunde 28.

¹⁷ For the phrase sumphonois grammasin I prefer ‘documents to that effect’ to ‘agreed–on documents’.

¹⁸ This translation of fragment 32 (quoted by Theodoret in Historia Ecclesiastica 1. 8.1–5) draws upon those of Barnes, and Hanson, R. P. C.. The text of Theodoret is that of L. Parmentier, Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der erslen drei Jahrhunderle. [Leipzig, Berlin 1897–], xix (1911), revised by Scheidweiler, F.Google Scholar, ibid, xliv (1954).

¹⁹ Philostorgius, HE i. 8–9, ii. 15.

²⁰ Liubhéid, ‘Finding Arius’, 81–101.

²¹ Eusebius, Vila Constantini 3. 66 describes policies with regard to other heretics.

²² Opitz, Urkunde 22. The gain in prestige of the see of Jerusalem at the expense of Caesarea suggests that Eusebius did not fare very well at Nicaea. On canon 7, see Chad wick, ‘Faith and Order’, 173–4. Kelly, J. N. D. has laboured, in his Early Christian Creeds, 3rd edn, New York 1981, 211–26, to show that it is not absolutely necessary to believe that Eusebius was guilty of deliberate misrepresentation of events at Nicaea. He may have created just a fleeting shadow of a doubt.Google Scholar

²³ Eusebius and Theognis were also in exile. They are mentioned separately here because they subscribed the Nicene formula.

²⁴ For the date of the deposition of Eustathius cf. Chadwick, H., ‘The Fall of Eustathius at Antioch’, Journal of Theological Studies 49 (1948), 27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar and for tne date (342) of the Council of Serdica, cf. Richard, M., ‘Le comput pascal par octaétéris’, Le Muséon lxxxvii(‘974) 307–39.Google ScholarI have not followed Hanson, R. P. C. (‘The fate of Eustathius of Antioch’, Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte xcv [1984], 171–9) in rejecting all Chadwick's arguments. In any case, the present argument rests upon those of Richard.Google Scholar

²⁵ CSEL lxv. 56.

²⁶ Chadwick, ‘Eustathius’, 31–2. Later efforts to argue for 343 by restating arguments which had already been refuted either by Eduard Schwartz or by Richard have not been successful. Cf. Barnes, T. D., ‘Emperor and bishops, A.D. 324–344: some problems’, American Journal of Ancient History iii (1978), 67–9, and L. W. Barnard, ‘The Council of Serdica – two questions reconsidered’, in A. G. Poulter (ed.), Ancient Bulgaria, University of Nottingham, Dept. of Classical and Archaeological Studies, Archaeology Section, Monograph series 1983, 220–31. I have discussed these later arguments in ‘The date of the Council of Serdica’, The Ancient History Bulletin ii (1988), 65–72.Google Scholar

²⁷ Chadwick, ‘Eustathius’, 27–35.

²⁸ Ibid. 29–30.

²⁹ Opitz, Urkunde 1. 3.

³⁰ Ibid. 8. Cf. Urkunde 9. In spite of Arius' claim, Paulinus had not written on his behalf until pressed by Eusebius of Nicomedia.

³¹ Philostorgius, HE iii. 15.

³² Cf. Eusebius, Vita Constantini iii. 59–62; Chadwick, ‘ Eustathius’, 29–30.

³³ Cf. C. Stead, ‘“Eusebius” and the Council of Nicaea,’ JTS new ser. xxiv (1973), 89–92; Barnes, CE, 99–100.

³⁴ Chadwick, ‘Eustathius’, 35.

³⁵ Vita Conslantini iii. 62. In considering Constantine's recommendations we should keep in mind that he could not have known much about Euphronius and George in 326. Athanasius says later in De Synodis 17 that Alexander deposed George ‘for certain reasons, and among them for manifest irreligion’ (Newman's translation), and in his Letter 47, to the Church of Alexandria from Serdica (i.e. late in 342) he describes George as the worst of the Arians. More important, he says in Historia Arianorum 4 that George was one of the priests whom Eustathius would not admit to the clergy of Antioch. Perhaps George went to Antioch after being expelled by Alexander after the Council of Nicaea. Constantine's letter suggests that his information about George was out-of-date. Cf. K. F. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: the Arian controversy 318–381, Edinburgh 1988. It is doubtful that George was an Arian. Theodoret (HE i. 22. 1–2) says that Euphronius, like Eulalius, Eusebius of Caesarea and Flacitus (i.e. Flacillus), was a secret Arian. The secrecy is significant.

³⁶ That Constantine had a high opinion of Eusebius is implied by Eusebius and is the accepted view of the matter. See Frend, W. H. C., The Rise of Christianity, London 1984, 495–8, 522–3. I think that Barnes was right to caution against too ready an acceptance of what Eusebius implies about his relationship with Constantine (CE, 265–7 n. 66). Eusebius' mhigh praise of Constantine at the end of his HE, written in late 324 or soon thereafter, may have been nothing more than an effort to dispel effects of his own Arian reputation.Google Scholar

³⁷ Of the fifty-six bishops at the council at Antioch early in 325 only Eustathius, Euphrantion and Asclepas were deposed by Eusebius' council. The safety of the rest is surely worth noting.

³⁸ Barnes, ‘Emperor and Bishops’, 60, and nn. 46, 47.

³⁹ HE i. 24. Socrates' account of how the bishops attacked each other has been taken as evidence of an Arian reaction after Nicaea. However, we do not know the dates of the polemics which he was reading, and we do not know whether the ‘Arian' side of the debate was by professing Arians or by persons defending themselves against charges of Arianism.

⁴⁰ Cf. Constantine's speeches at Nicaea, conveniently collected by Coleman-Norton, P. R. in Roman Slate and Christian Church, London 1966, i. 127–33, and Eusebius' account of his efforts in VC iii. 5–23.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Athanasius, Hisloria Arianorum 5, inil.

⁴² In Apologia contra Arianos 59–60 Athanasius describes his exchange with Constantine on the subject of readmission of heretics. This must have occurred soon after Athanasius became bishop.

⁴³ For the date (originally given by Baronius), see Barnes, ‘Emperor and bishops’, 64–5 and for the reason, Barnes, CE, 240–2.

⁴⁴ He was deposed by the Council of Constantinople in 336, according to the Libellus Synodicus of the council (J. D. Mansi [ed.], Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima Collectio, Florence 1759, ii. 1170). Athanasius says in Historia Arianorum 5 that ‘since he often rebuked (or refuted) Eusebius, and advised those passing through his city not to believe his impious words, he suffered as did Eustathius, and was cast out of his city and the Church; it was Basilina who was most active against him’. Basilina, who died soon after Julian's birth (Julian, Misopogon 352B) presumably was not alive after 333.

⁴⁵ Either of Paltus or of Gabala. Cf. Honigmann, E., ‘Patristic Studies’, Studi e Testi clxxiii (1953), 36–8.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ibid.

⁴⁷ It is claimed in the letter of the eastern bishops from Serdica in CSEL lxv. 66. The Cymatius mentioned there is coupled with Eustathius. Honigmann says that neither Cymatius can have been referred to in that passage: ‘Patristic Studies’, 38. I cannot follow Honigmann's reasoning on the point. I take it that the mention of an accusation of immorality is not necessarily significant. A Cimates and a Euphrates of Antardus were mentioned as deposed in 336 by the Council of Constantinople in the Libellus Synodicus of the council (Mansi, ii. 1170).

⁴⁸ The fragments of this are Opitz, Urkunde 3, which Opitz dated to about 318. It seems that Eusebius knew that he and Euphrantion did not agree on the subject.

⁴⁹ Opitz, Urkunde 18. 1.

⁵⁰ Cf. Barnes, CE, 228.

⁵¹ Sellers, R. V., Eustathius of Antioch and his Place in the Early History of Christian Doctrine, Cambridge 1928, 82–120.Google ScholarCf. Hanson, , ‘The fate of Eustathius’, 178–9.Google Scholar

⁵² Canon 19 of Nicaea shows that the bishops had not lost their dislike of Paul's doctrine.

⁵³ They were all close enough to Antioch to have been under Eustathius' influence.

⁵⁴ I think it unlikely that large numbers of secretly-Arian bishops watched for opportunities to travel about to councils in order to pick off this or that orthodox bishop who had got into trouble.

⁵⁵ Eusebius' presidency of this council is usually taken as an indication that he was a trusted advisor of Constantine. However, we do not know that Constantine chose him. Eusebius was representing himself as quite orthodox, and there were other reasons for his prestige.

⁵⁶ Opitz, Urkunde 32. The text will be translated below.

⁵⁷ Opitz, Urkunde, 34. 5, 8–11, 39–41.

⁵⁸ Cf. Codex Theodosianus 16. 2. 2, 16. 2. 1.

⁵⁹ The letters are Opitz, Urkunden 29, 30, 32. Urkunde 31 is the letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea to the Second Council of Nicaea: it does not provide evidence for thechronology.

⁶⁰ Those who think that the council of 327 was at Nicaea and that the letter was written later must be troubled by Constantine's failure in it to distinguish between the two councils at Nicaea.

⁶¹ For Constantine's movements see Barnes, T. D., The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine, Cambridge, Mass. 1982, 77. Constantine seems to have been in Aquileia on 22 Nov.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶² Philostorgius, HE i. ga, gave Illyricum as the place of exile.

⁶³ I think it unlikely that Constantine had begun these efforts as early as 325. Seeck, O., in Regesten der Kaiser und Papste, Stuttgart 1919, 176–8 had dated Urkunde 29 to 326. Cf. R. Lorenz, ‘Das Problem der Nachsynode von Nicaa (327)’, Zitschrijtfur Kirchengeschichte xc (1979), 30–2.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Opitz, Urkunde 29.

⁶⁵ Ibid. 30.

⁶⁶ Perhaps at Sirmium, where his presence is attested by Codex Justinianus 10. 1. 7, 31 December 326.

⁶⁷ Cf. Schwartz, E., Gesammelte Schriften, Berlin 1959, 6. 205–8; H.-G. Opitz, ‘Die Zeitfolge des arianischen Streites von den Anfangen bis zum Jahre 328’, Zeitschrift fiir neutestamentliche Wissenschaft xxxiii (1934), 56–9; Barnes, ‘Emperor and bishops’, 60–1, and CE, 229. Barnes's view that the council met at Nicomedia rests on the evidence of Philostorgius, which is not good enough for this purpose. Similarly, the view that there were 250 bishops at this council is doubtful. See Colm Luibheid, ‘The alleged second session of the Council of Nicaea’, this JOURNAL xxxiv (1983), 165–74.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ I take it that opposition by Alexander is the basis for the wild claim of Philostorgius, in HE ii. 7a that the council excommunicated Alexander and all the homoousians.

⁶⁹ Opitz, Urkunde 31. They asked this of the council. Presumably they knew that Arius' case was coming before the council, and wrote the letter in case he should be readmitted. Perhaps, however, an exchange of letters was necessary during the council.

⁷⁰ Athanasius, Apologia contra Arianos 59–60.

⁷¹ PG xxv. 356–7. PG xxv. 247–410 = Opitz II, 1, 87–168 Apologia secunda. The dates for these texts are those given by Quasten, J., Patrology, Utrecht–Antwerp 1966, iii. 21–79, except as otherwise indicated.Google Scholar

⁷² PG xxv. 580–1

⁷³ PG xxv. 792. PG xxv, 691–796 = Opitz II, 1, 183–230.

⁷⁴ PG xxvi. 1188.

⁷⁵ PG xxv. 685–90 = Opitz II, 1 178–80.

⁷⁶ PG xxvi. 797–800.

⁷⁷ PGxxvi. 1179–82.

⁷⁸ Jerome's evidence regarding the Nicene decisions is in his Dialogus contra Luciferianos 19–20, PL xxiii. 182–3. Lucifer's De non conveniendo cum haereticis was edited by Hartel in CSEL xiv, Vienna 1886, 3–34.

⁷⁹ PL xxiii. 182–3.

⁸⁰ PL xxiii 182.

⁸¹ If both Eusebius and Arius had subscribed the Nicene creed in 325, Constantine would have had no reason to exile either for associating with the other.

⁸² PL xxiii. 173, n.a. I have not seen Batiffol, P., ‘Les sources de l’ Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi', in Miscellanea Geronimiana, Rome, 1920.Google ScholarAccording to Y.-M., Duval, who found the article very difficult to obtain prior to 1968, Batiffol argued that Jerome got all his material on the acta of Nicaea from Athanasius: ‘La manoeuvre frauduleuse de Rimini’, in Hilaire et son temps, Paris 1968, 81. I do not know where in Athanasius Jerome could have found this material.Google Scholar

⁸³ Jerome, , Dialogus contra Luciferianos 21–28, PL 23. 184–92.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ In his HE i. 38 Socrates says that he had learned by an examination of the emperor's own letters that Arius had declared on oath that he accepted the homoousios. Socrates thought that Constantine's statement referred to events of 336.

⁸⁵ Arius was not an Arian counterpart of Athanasius.

⁸⁶ This was extremely unlikely. It was only a year since he had accused Eusebius of having deceived him: Opitz, Urkunde 27. 14. Kraft, H. has correctly observed, in Kaiser Konstantins religiöse Entwicklung, Tübingen 1955, 50, 136, 143–4, that Eusebius' presence near the court does not prove that he had any influence over Constantine.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ On the incompleteness of the Nicene formula: Duchesne, L., Early History of the Christian Church, London 1912, repr. 1957, 2. 177.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ 85 Ibid. 145.

⁸⁹ Athanasius, Ad episcopos Aegypti 18, quotes the emperor's remark to Arius.

⁹⁰ His letter to the eastern bishops before the synod at Antioch in 341 is quoted by Athanasius in Apologia contra Arianos 20–35. See especially 23, 25.

⁹¹ His letter shows that he knew nothing whatever of the council at Nicaea in 327.1 take it that his confidence in his position, and his ignorance of the important facts, were both the work of Athanasius.

⁹² It is not impossible that Julius suspected that he could increase the prestige of his own see by supporting Athanasius against the eastern bishops.

⁹³ Socrates, HE i. 35; cf. Sozomen, HE ii. 28. 14. I think that if the writers cited by Socrates had been Arians Socrates would have said so. I believe that the explanation offered by those writers was the original orthodox account of the matter.

⁹⁴ Barnes, CE, 230.

⁹⁵ Frend, W. H. C., ‘Athanasius as an Egyptian Christian leader in the fourth century’ The New College Bulletin, 8 (1974), 20–37; The Rise of Christianity, 525; ‘The Church in the reign of Constantius 11 (337–361): mission-monasticism-worship’, Léglise el I'empire au IVe siécle. Entretiens Fondation Hardt pour l' étude de l' empire au IV siécle. Entretiens Fondation Hardt pour l' étude de l' antiquité classique xxxiv (1989), 94–9.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Frend, ‘Athanasius’, 37. Cf. Rowan, Williams, Arius, London 1987, 67–91.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Barnes, CE, 230.

⁹⁸ I note that Athanasius' difficulties with the Meletians could produce a very awkward situation for both Constantine and himself, because he might disregard directions of the First Council of Nicaea as well as the second.

⁹⁹ Chadwick, ‘Faith and Order’, 192–3.

¹⁰⁰ Ibid, citing the letter of Julius of Rome quoted by Athanasius in Apologia contra Arianos 24. See Hanson, Christian Doctrine of God, 263 n. 98.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ This will be discussed below.

¹⁰² See Luibhéid, ‘ Alleged second session’, on number of bishops present.

¹⁰³ Epiphanius, Panarion lxviii. 6. 1–6 said that Eusebius promised his support in return for a promise by the Meletians to receive Arius into communion. This has seemed wicked to some, but Eusebius was not asking for anything more than obedience to the council of 327.

¹⁰⁴ Opitz, Urkunde 34.

¹⁰⁵ Ibid. 33. Cochrane, C. N. thought (Christianity and Classical Culture, New York 1944, 234) that the epithet Porphyriani was chosen because ‘ the intellectual affiliations of Arius were with Philo, Origen and the Neoplatonists’. Another reason seems to be that a ban on the books of Porphyry was the precedent for this punishment of Arius. Cf. Codex Theodosianus 16. 5. 66. In Vita Constantini 3. 64–6 Eusebius concealed both the fact that Constantine regarded the Arians as heretics and the ban on Arius' books. Regarding Porphyry cf. Barnes, CE, 174–82; Frend, Rise of Christianity, 477–9; idem. ‘Prelude to the great persecution: the propaganda war’, this JOURNAL xxxviii (1987), 8–17.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Opitz, Urkunde 34.

¹⁰⁷ Cf. Chadwick, , ‘Faith and Order’, 177.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ In section 38 one of the more indignant and abusive outbursts ends on a calm note: ‘You brought us into the light; you cast yourself, wretched fellow, into darkness. This appears to be the end of your labours. ‘Constantine seems to have thought that Arius’ work had caused progress in theology, and that Arius had failed to take advantage of this.

¹⁰⁹ Opitz, Urkunde 34. 17.

¹¹⁰ I take it that this would have been irregular, if there had been any rules.

¹¹¹ Athanasius quotes Constantine's letter to him in Apologia contra Arianos 68.

¹¹² Quasten, Patrology iii. 13 says that ‘the number of Arian writings which have perished must be considerable. See J. De, Ghellinck, ‘En marge des controverses ariennes. Quelques allusions à des écrits disparus. Réminiscences d'écrits d'adversaires’, Miscellanea Historica Alberti De Meyer, Louvain 1946, 159–80.Google Scholar I have the impression from reading De Ghellinck that Quasten overestimated the amount of this Arian literature. It seems quite possible that none dates from the period 325–37. Asterius the Sophist (cf. Real-Enzyclopadie II/2, 1786–7) may be an exception. Jerome dated his works (presumably referring to his homilies on the Psalms) to the reign of Constantius. His Arian tract was probably written before Nicaea. Cf. Philostorgius' complaint about Asterius in HE ii. 14–15. The difficulty with this subject is caused by Athanasius' persistent attacks on pre-Nicene Arian statements. These give the impression that Arianism remained a going concern. The real situation seems to be indicated in his encyclical letter of 356 Ad episcopos Aegypti 18: after Nicaea the Arians did not dare to put an Arian proposition into writing. There is a recent discussion of Asterius by Wiles, M. F., in collaboration with Gregg, R. C.: ‘Asterius: a new chapter in the history of Arianism?’, in Gregg, R. C. (ed.), Arianism: historical and theological reassessments (Papers from the Ninth International Conference on Patristic Studies, Oxford 1983), Cambridge, Mass. 1985, 111–51. The authors do not deal with the question of the dates of Asterius' writings.Google Scholar

¹¹³ This is in Apologia contra Arianos 59. As it stands the passage confuses the Council of Nicaea in 325 with the council of 327.

¹¹⁴ Apologia contra Arianos 59.

¹¹⁵ In HE ii. 22. 1 Sozomen says that Theognis of Nicaea accused him before Constantine of causing all the troubles of the Church and of excluding persons who wanted to join the Church.

¹¹⁶ Athanasius, Apologia contra Arianos 62.

¹¹⁷ Barnes, CE, 239–40. I have not accepted Barnes' view that Constantine had by implication annulled the decisions made by the bishops at Tyre. Constantine did not know what had been decided, or what he would think of the decisions if he heard a justification of them. Furthermore, the question was not necessarily whether he would annul the decision of the council. He might simply have refused to enforce it. I accept H. A. Drake's argument (‘Athanasius’ first exile', Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies xxvii [1986], 199–200), that Constantine had assured the Council of Tyre that he would act against those who resisted its decisions.

¹¹⁸ Sozomen, HE ii. 31.

¹¹⁹ Constantine's caution when confronted with the choice between allowing bishops to continue the excommunication of Arius and forcing Arius on them was again demonstrated just before Arius' death. Cf. Athanasius, Ad episcopos Aegypti 18, PG xxv. 580–1 and the Letter to the monks, PG xxv. 696.

¹²⁰ Cf. Rufinus, HE i. 11. 12; Socrates, HE i. 37; Sozomen, HE ii. 29; cited in Duchesne, Christian Church ii. 145 n. 2.

¹²¹ A close working relationship seems to be ruled out by such things as Constantine's death sentence for those concealing Arius' books, which were to be burned, or his persistent defence of Athanasius.

¹²² Socrates, HE i. 23. On theological views of Eusebius see Luibhéid, ‘The Arianism of Eusebius’, 3–23. I do not regard Philostorgius' belief that Eusebius was an Arian as important, because it is clear that Philostorgius had swallowed a great deal of Athanasian polemic on the subject of Eusebius. Hence the fictions regarding Eusebius' secret substitution of homoiousios for homoousios in the formula which he signed in 325 (i. 9) and the Arian creed disseminated by Eusebius after his restoration in 327. The Arian efforts of the emperor's sister described in i. 9 would have suited Athanasians much better than it did the Arians, so that the story found in Rufinus, HE x. 12, Socrates, HE i. 25, Sozomen, HE ii. 27, Theodoret, HE ii. 3, Gelasius of Cyzicus, HE iii. 12 probably had an orthodox source.

¹²³ In Vita Constantini iv. 61–2 Eusebius uses the plural of clergy who baptised Constantine. It is Jerome, in Chron. 2253, who names Eusebius of Nicomedia.

¹²⁴ Ammianus Marcellinus (in xxii. 9) describes Julian the Apostate as ‘ Nicomediae ab Eusebio cducatus episcopo, quern genere longius contingebat’.

¹²⁵ When it became apparent at the Council of Serdica that the bishops would not agree, the council divided into two councils. At that time, however, each side had its own emperor. A council meeting with Constantine present could not split up like that. Philostorgius' claim, in HE ii. 7, that Alexander was excommunicated by that council may be founded on a dissent by Alexander from the decision of the council.

¹²⁶ Apologia contra Arianos 60.

¹²⁷ This is shown by his letter of 333 to Arius and the Arians with him (= Opitz, Urkunde 34).m

¹²⁸ Opitz, Urkunde 32. 4.

¹²⁹ Articles cited by Frend, Chadwick, Barnes, and Stead are also available in the Variorum Reprints volumes: Frend, W. H. C., Religion Popular and Unpopular in the Early Christian Centuries, London 1976Google Scholar; Henry, Chadwick, History and Thought of the Early Church, London 1982Google Scholar; Barnes, T. D., Early Christianity in the Roman Empire, London 1984Google Scholar; and Stead, C., Substance and Illusion in the Christian Fathers, London 1985.Google Scholar