2. At the Council of Nicaea

Hosius is known also from his relations with the Council of Nicaea. It was natural that the confidential adviser of the emperor should have great influence upon its delibera- of tiona; and, although the expression of Ricaea. Athanasius (art sup., xliv.) which at tributes to him the formulation of the faith there adopted is too strong in its literal meaning, it is in a sense justified. None of the authorities asserts that he presided formally over the council; and the fact that his name appears with the Roman legates first of all does not prove that he did. Still less tenable is the Roman Catholic hypothesis that he presided with the Roman legates as a represent ative of the pope; if he had presided at all, it would have been in virtue of imperial, not papal, delegation. After the Council of Nimes, Hosius disappears from history for nearly twenty years. Presumably he journeyed to the West with Constantine in the spring of 326, and then, even before other influences supplanted his, returned to Spain.

Nothing is definitely known of him until shortly before the Council of Sardica. The statement quoted by Hilary (MPL, x. 667 B) that he was

3. At the Council of Sardica

partially responsible for its calling is at least credible. In any case, with Athanasius, who met him in Gaul, he went to the place of meeting; and there is no doubt that he presided over the sessions of the majority (the Eastern minority excommu nicated him). He seems to have been concerned in drawing up the formula in the manner of a creed which represented the faith of the majority, known

374

as the Creed 'of Sardica, although it is clear from Athanasibs that it was not formally accepted, but only proposed by " some " (" Book to the Antiochians," v.). Hosius and Protogenesof Sardica, who joined with him in the letter to Pope Julius that accompanied the formula, were among those who desired an exposition of the Nicene Creed; and it is probable that this formula was of his composition. Its main interest lies in the fact that it is the nearest approach to an "official" interpretation of the Nicene Creed; and from this point of view it deserves increased attention.

After the Council of Sardica Hosius disappears once more for ten years. The neat heard of him is that in the winter of 353-354 Liberius 4. Unhappy of Rome sent him word of the steps

Close of he was taking in the direction of the Life. convocation of a new, synod, and of the lamentable weakness with which his legate, Vincentius of Capua, had yielded under pressure at the Synod of Arles. A few years later, however, the nestor of orthodoxy was in scarcely better case than Vincent, in spite of the ingenious constructions put upon the data by Roman Catholic controversialists and of some difficulties which must be admitted in the "History of the Arians." Hosius had taken no part in the synods of Arles (353) and Milan (spring of 355); but the bishops of the court party were desirous, after Liberius had fallen a vio tim to their wiles and been banished (summer or autumn of 355), to draw Hosius by hook or by crook into agreement with their course. Incited by them, Conatantius summoned the aged bishop to his presence, undoubtedly at Milan. But Hosius was not to be induced to declare against Athanasius or to hold communion with the " Arians "; and his resistance so impressed the emperor that he allowed him to return home undisturbed. The court bishops again stirred up Constantino to write a threatening letter to him; but Hosius stood firm, and to threats and seductions alike made the brave and well considered answer which Athanasius bas preserved, containing an anathema against the Arians, warm support of Athanasius, and earnest admonitions to the emperor himself. Finally, finding a pretext in the refusal of other Spaniards, presumably influenced by Hosius, to sign against Athanasius, Conatantius summoned him to Sirmium, and kept him there a whole year, beginning (on the best computation) not earlier than July, 357. It is known that Hosius signed the "second Sirmian formula," the com promise proposed by the court bishops which aimed at avoiding "unscriptural" expressions as to the ousia of Christ, and expressed itself in ante-Nicene and Biblical terms which now concealed a decided Arian tendency. Hilary, in his treatise De synodis (beginning of 359), which begins with this " blas phemy at Sirmium," distinctly asserts that Hosius was " carried away by the teaching of a new im piety." It is not necessary to understand by Hilary's strong expressions anything more than Hosius' assent to the compromise formula; but even this meant much. It was sent out far and wide as approved by him; Phoebadius says in his Lila contra Arianos (358) that his name was used an a battering-ram against the Gallic bishops; and,

according to Sozomen (IV., xii. 7), Eudosius had a letter at the Synod of Antioch in the spring of 358 in which, in the spirit of the Sirmian formula, Hosius declared against both hom=1sios and homoioueios, and which was thus taken as favoring the anomoios view. Whether this and other letters were genuine or not, the fact remains that the court bishops did not hesitate to make the aged man their standardbearer. It used to be thought that his yielding took place at the end of the "whole year" mentioned by Athanasius. But the Sirmian "synod" was held before Nov., 357, and Hosius, as has been seen, did not come to Sirmium earlier than July of that year,. He must have given way to the emperor's threats soon after his arrival-according to Faustinus and Marcellinus, " lest he should suffer banishment "; and Athanasius expressly says that his detention at Sirmium was "in place of banishment." It was probably, therefore, to use him in the capacity of a' standard-bearer that Constantius kept him there. The attempts to prove that he died Aug. 27, 357, or that he soon recalled his assent, are unsuccessful.

It is impossible to fix the date of his death; and while the fact of his weak compliance seems only too well proved, it is scarcely safe to attempt to assign its motives, or to reconcile the courageous firmness of the letter to Conetantius with the cour tier-like diplomacy that marks alike his entrance upon, and his departure from the stage of history. He seems to have had no importance as an author. The Bententice published by Pitra (A>tateda sacra, v. 117), under his name can not be shown to be even probably his.

(F. Loofs.)

Bibliography: His letters, prowled 59 a historical notice, are in MPL, viii, 1309-32. Consult: P. B. Game, Xird"n pruhirhte roan Spa»ien, ii. 1-309. H. 2, pp. 484-490· R0' geneburg, 1884-79; A. W. W. Dale, Synod of XWra. London, 1882; O. Bceok, is ZXQ, xvii (1897), 1 71, 319-382; 1511emont, MEnwiros, vii. 300-321, 711-718 of Venice ed.: Ceillier. Auteurs sacrés, iii. 392-398, 418-426; Neander, Christia» Church, vol. ii, passim: Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vol. i, passim, EnB. travel. vols. i-ii. passim: 13arnsck, Dogma, vol. iii. passim: DCB, iii. 182-174 (de. tailed): xL, vi. 290-296.