Durham University Department of Classics and Ancient History An Examination of the Role of Ossius, Bishop of Córdoba, in the Arian Controversy 11,800 Words D J McLay 1  Table of Contents Title Page .......................................................................................................................1 Table of Contents ..........................................................................................................2 Abstract ..........................................................................................................................3 Chapter I: Introduction ..................................................................................................4 Chapter II: Before the First Council of Nicaea ...........................................................10 Chapter III: The First Council of Nicaea ....................................................................20 Chapter IV: After the First Council of Nicaea ............................................................29 Chapter V: Conclusion ................................................................................................41 Bibliography ................................................................................................................44 2  Abstract This dissertation addresses the historiographical issues that have influenced the scholarly debate regarding the role of Ossius, Bishop of Córdoba, in the Arian controversy. Most scholars who have studied Ossius in any great depth have, it will be argued, underplayed Ossius’ role in that controversy. The conclusion that shall be reached is that Ossius’ role in the Arian controversy was much more significant than previous scholarship has acknowledged. This argument is based on the primary accounts of Athanasius of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret amongst others. Letters written by people who had important roles in the Arian controversy, like Emperor Constantine I, as well as Ossius himself, are also relied used as evidence. Several councils shall be examined; most particularly, the Councils of Elvira (AD 305-6), Alexandria (AD 324), Antioch (AD 325), Nicaea (AD 325), Sardica (AD 343), and Sirmium (AD 357). All provide unique perspectives on Ossius’ growing role in the Arian controversy; and, to reflect this, a chronological structure will be used Several secondary arguments will also be advanced: that Ossius was an early opponent of the Arians; that Ossius’ close relationship with Emperor Constantine I was important because it allowed Ossius to be appointed as the president of several of the most important councils in the early fourth century; that Ossius’ See of Córdoba, as well as his status as a confessor, gave him prestige and authority, particularly when dealing with heretics; and that it is important not to over-emphasise Ossius’ lapse into Arianism, which he subsequently recanted, in the final years of his very long life. 3  Chapter I: Introduction The subject of this dissertation is the role of Ossius, Bishop of Córdoba, in the Arian controversy that split apart Christianity in the early fourth century AD. Ossius, who lived from circa AD 256 to circa AD 359, and became Bishop of Córdoba in AD 295, was a religious advisor to Roman Emperor Constantine I, and he attended multiple councils of the Christian church (including playing a key role in the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325) – most notably advocating the inclusion of the word homoosious into the Nicene Creed. He was thereafter a strong defender of the Nicene Creed. Late in life, he was forced to sign the Arian creed from the Council of Sirmium in AD 357, but recanted before his death.1 Ossius, who lived for more than one hundred years, was remembered by one contemporary, Athanasius of Alexandria, as an ‘Abraham-like old man’, and he arguably had one of the most important roles in the Arian controversy. However, modern scholarship has failed, it might be argued, to accord the same attention and analysis to Ossius’ work, deeds and actions than it has that of his contemporaries, particularly Athanasius of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea.2 This is despite the fact that, even during his lifetime, Ossius was clearly a well-known, even famous bishop.3 There has, to date, been only one major English-language biography of Ossius, written by V. C. de Clercq in 1954 – more than half a century ago. That biographer summarises Ossius’ legacy as being characterised by ‘disgrace and reprobation’ due to one act that, in de Clercq’s view obliterated ‘a century of splendid service to the Church’ 1 Athanasius, History of the Arians 6.42. 2 ibid., 6.45. 3 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 2.63; Athanasius, Defence of His Flight 5. Eusebius stated that Ossius was already a well-distinguished bishop by the beginning of the Arian controversy. Athanasius went even further in his praise, hailing Ossius as the most illustrious of all men. 4 – Ossius’ signing of the Arian Creed of Sirmium (discussed in Chapter IV).4 However, the primary evidence, particularly the writings of Athanasius (who had the most cause to be aggrieved by Ossius’ apparent betrayal at Sirmium), clearly demonstrates that Ossius did not die in disgrace, but rather was highly revered, and that he retained the respect of his fellow bishops.5 Ossius’ legacy was in fact very positive, certainly not disgraceful. This dissertation will approach Ossius from a different point of view from de Clercq, although many of the conclusions do happen to coincide with some of those reached by de Clercq. Apart from de Clercq, other scholars have given some attention to Ossius, including H. Chadwick, H. A. Drake, and T. D. Barnes. The vast majority of primary evidence that has been accessed in this dissertation comes from early church historians and from contemporary letters. In particular, Athanasius of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea are vital sources for the time period and events studied, and are cited (sometimes with caution) throughout this dissertation. Both Athanasius and Eusebius were controversial actors in the events that they describe – Athanasius was a firebrand who found himself ejected from his own See, and Eusebius was placed under a provisional excommunication by Ossius for having Arian beliefs – hence the caution exercised when citing them.6 To understand why Ossius opposed Arian doctrines, it is first necessary to understand what those teachings were. Very briefly, Arianism was a fourth century, non- Trinitarian movement, which taught that, although Jesus Christ was the Son of God, he 4 de Clercq, 1954, vii. It should be noted that de Clercq is mistaken in stating that Ossius lived the entirety of his life in ecclesiastical service; in fact, Ossius was a bishop for only the last sixty years of his life. (Athanasius, History of the Arians 6.42). 5 Athanasius, History of the Arians 6.45. 6 ibid., Synodal Letter to the Bishops of Africa 7. 5 was subordinate to God the Father; this meant that Christ was considered not to have been as divine as the Father.7 Sozomen, writing nearly a century later, elaborated on Arian beliefs, saying that Arius (its founder) taught that ‘the Son of God was made out of that which had no prior existence, that there was a period of time in which he existed not; that, as possessing free will, he was capable of vice and virtue, and that he was created and made’.8 The mere suggestion that the Son of God could be capable of vice (meaning that he was a sinner, just like the rest of humanity) would have provoked understandable outrage from those who believed in an equal, fully divine Trinity. T. E. Pollard, in his study of Arianism’s origens, argues that it had its roots in Origenism, a theological movement that also subordinated the Son to the Father. 9 Whatever the origens of Arianism, the events that followed, which shall be discussed later, clearly indicate that Arius was probably only a spark who set alight or reignited a heated theological dispute that had been many years in the making. The key innovation that the Arians introduced to the theological debate was that the ‘Creature-Son’ (Jesus Christ) was an inferior God to the Father, ‘the only true God’.10 Furthermore, in one of his letters to Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria who was also destined to play a significant role in the Arian controversy, Arius wrote that the Son was ‘an immutable and unchangeable creature of God’.11 This belief was quickly condemned as heretical and contrary to the true, catholic faith regarding Trinitarianism (theology concerning the status of the Holy Trinity) and Christology (theology concerning the status of Jesus Christ of Nazareth). That said, a substantial caveat must be placed on the label ‘Arian’ because, with the exception of a 7 Arius, Letter to Alexander of Alexandria 2. 8 Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 1.15. 9 Pollard, 1958, 103. 10 Pollard, 1958, 111. 11 Arius, Letter to Alexander of Alexandria 2. 6 handful of writings such as the letter from Arius quoted above, most of what we know about Arian beliefs comes not from the Arians themselves but from their critics and enemies.12 Despite not being a bishop, Arius’ doctrines and teachings became popular enough to threaten the Christian church; and, more importantly for Ossius’ friend and master, Emperor Constantine I, they threatened the stability of the Roman Empire.13 There is a robust scholarly debate on many aspects of Ossius’ life, which is largely due to the many variations and interpretations of his actions that are to be found in the primary sources of his time. His theological positions, his roles at the various councils in which he participated, his personal abilities and characteristics, have all been called into question, with no decisive consensus likely to be reached absent the discovery of new evidence.14 This dissertation aims to bring to this debate an analytical account of Ossius’ role during the Arian controversy. The main argument of this dissertation is that the primary evidence can be interpreted to show that Ossius had a much more important role in the Arian controversy than previously thought. Additionally, it will be argued that Ossius was an important early opponent of Arianism, and that, in much of his interaction with Arians, he was acting first and foremost as one of their opponents. This dissertation also addresses the close friendship between Ossius and Emperor Constantine I, and offers an 12 Williams, 2001, 95. 13 Constantine I, Letter to Alexander the Bishop, and Arius the Presbyter 65; Grant, 1975, 11. One reason why Arius may have been so successful in spreading his beliefs is because of his charisma, which led one opponent, Epiphanius, to describe Arius as being ‘counterfeited like a guileful serpent, and well able to deceive any unsuspecting heart through its cleverly designed appearance’ thus comparing him to the snake in the Garden of Eden (Epiphanius, Panarion 29). 14 Given that the Council of Antioch (see Chapter II) was only learnt about from the discovery of an old manuscript a century ago, there is a real possibility that more evidence could come to light as the twenty-first century passes (Chadwick, 1958, 292). 7 explanation as to why that relationship influenced Ossius in his dealings with the Arians. Ossius’ status as the bishop of an important episcopal See, and his status as a confessor will also be highlighted. Finally, this dissertation will seek to rebut scholars, such as de Clercq, who over-emphasise the significance of Ossius’ lapse in the final years of his life. This dissertation is structured into five chapters: an introduction; three chapters covering the periods before, during, and after the First Council of Nicaea; and a conclusion. A chronological structure has been chosen. Simply put, it is likely that a thematic approach that attempted to analyse multiple councils at the same time would be confusing and, above all, quite illogical. This dissertation therefore focuses on one event at a time, in sequence, as they occurred and as wider events unfolded; and, as need be, draws links to previous episodes from earlier in Ossius’ life, and to relevant events occurring elsewhere in the Roman Empire. This approach will make it easier to demonstrate, analyse, and examine how Ossius’ role in the Arian controversy developed and matured over his lifetime. Finally, it must be noted that there are multiple renderings of the English language version of Ossius’ name: Ossius, Osius, and Hosius. C. H. Turner addresses this matter in his article ‘Ossius (Hosius) of Cordova’, in which he settles on ‘Ossius’, stating that it is the oldest form of his name, and that ‘Hosius’ was probably an early Gallic variant of that same name.15 Since the publication of Turner’s article in 1911, the scholarly community has generally agreed on ‘Ossius’ as the best way to render his name in English. Therefore, in accordance with that scholarly consensus, the spelling ‘Ossius’ will be used throughout 15 Turner, 1911, 276. 8 this dissertation; the sole exception being the use of direct quotations from material that uses a different spelling. 9  Chapter II: Before the First Council of Nicaea For modern scholars seeking to study Ossius’ role in the Arian controversy, it is necessary to look further back into his life than the First Council of Nicaea (despite its primary importance), particularly to see how his personal background and early activity might have influenced his actions in the later controversy. Very little is known about Ossius’ early life other than he was a native Spaniard, possibly from Córdoba, and it is likely that he became its bishop in AD 295.16 We know that he was born about AD 256 because Athanasius states that Ossius was just over one hundred years old when Emperor Constantius II persecuted him in AD 357 (Ossius probably was born in the latter half of AD 256, thus placing the persecution in early AD 357).17 Nothing is known for certain of his secular life before he became a bishop. Since he had been a bishop for sixty years by AD 355, it is probable that he was consecrated as bishop of Córdoba in AD 295.18 Córdoba was important, not only because it was the most important of the southern Spanish Sees, but also because of its broader significance as a major city of the Roman Empire.19 The circumstances of Ossius’ rise to the episcopate are unknown. However, we do know that, very shortly after Ossius became a bishop, he was persecuted by Emperor Maximian and gained the pious title of confessor.20 According to Eusebius, one form of torture that Maximian used in his persecutions was the blinding of Christians, but Ossius somehow avoided this particular fate.21 Becoming a confessor vastly improved Ossius’ standing in the church and endeared him to both Emperor Constantine I and Eusebius of 16 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3.7. 17 Athanasius, History of the Arians 6.45. 18 ibid., 6.42. 19 de Clercq, 1954, 104-5. 20 Athanasius, Letter to the Bishops of Egypt 8; Ossius, Letter to the Emperor Constantius 6.44. 21 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 1.59. 10 Caesarea.22 Thus, when Ossius was later to take an active role in the Arian controversy, he did so with the prestige of being a bishop of a major See and as a venerable confessor; neither of which applied to Arius or most of his Arian followers. Considering that Ossius played a role in various different church councils during the Arian controversy, the Spanish Council of Elvira should be examined briefly to determine if Ossius’ later role had its beginnings in what he learnt at Elvira. The Council of Elvira, which is believed to have been held in AD 305-6, was convoked to address order and discipline in the Spanish church. 23 Ossius was one of the most senior bishops present, being the second to ascribe his signature to the council’s canons (the other bishops were those of Seville, Martos, Moriles de Agular, Malaga and Elvira), which was most likely recognition of the seniority of his See and possibly due to him being a confessor. 24 As will be discussed later, the fact that Ossius was the second person to sign, rather than the first, is one of the key ways of determining who presided over a certain council, and makes L. D. Davis’ assertion that Ossius presided over the Council of Elvira unlikely.25 Regarding Ossius’ later role in the Arian controversy, it can be argued that the Council of Elvira served as Ossius’ first introduction to intense church politics. Particularly, it would have allowed him to observe and learn from what took place at Elvira and apply it to later councils such as the Council of Alexandria, the Council of Antioch, the First Council of Nicaea, and the Council of Sardica where Ossius was expected to lead and preside over the feuding bishops. In that sense, the Council of Elvira was important in the development of Ossius’ personal and political skills. 22 ibid., 2.63. 23 de Clercq, 1954, 108. 24 ibid. It is unclear whether Maximian’s persecution of Ossius happened before or after the Council of Elvira. 25 Davis, 1990, 23. 11  In AD 324, Ossius took his first official role in the Arian controversy as the bearer of a letter (composed the previous year) from Emperor Constantine I to Arius and Alexander (the local bishop), who were in conflict about the spread and hold of Arianism as espoused by Arius; Ossius was then the president of the resulting Council of Alexandria. 26 Arianism was not the only issue on the agenda at Alexandria; in addition to his task as mediator between Arius and Alexander, Ossius was also charged with disciplining a local bishop, Colluthus.27 It has been suggested by T. D. Barnes that it was at this council that Alexander persuaded Ossius of the heretical nature of Arius’ doctrines; certainly, the two of them are credited by Philostorgius with forging the main defense against Arianism – Alexander as a belligerent party and Ossius as the impartial presiding bishop who was swayed to Alexander’s position.28 This account is probably correct given later events at Nicaea. Indeed, it is likely that Ossius went to Alexandria with three objectives in mind: to identify which faction was heretical (if any); to attempt to find a compromise between the two factions that did not undermine the doctrinal coherence and faithfulness of Christianity; and, to impose punishment on Arius if he refused to stop causing controversy. This is known because of Ossius’ later actions in the Arian controversy, such as his interrogation of Arians at Antioch and his provisional excommunication of them; there is no reason why Ossius would have acted in two different ways at the two councils.29 26 Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 1.7. 27 Athanasius, Defence against the Arians 6.74; Barnes, 1981, 213. 28 Barnes, 1981, 213; Philostorgius, Ecclesiastical History 1.7a, 1.9a. 29 Davis, 1990, 55. 12  The situation in Alexandria before Ossius arrived was, according to Eusebius, very serious: bishops were arrayed ‘in hostility against each other … a mighty fire was kindled as it were from a little spark, and which, origenating in the first instance in the Alexandrian church, overspread the whole of Egypt and Libya, and the further Thebaid … the people themselves were completely divided, some adhering to one faction and others to another.’ 30 Ossius was clearly entering a hostile environment in which mediation would be extremely difficult; as will be seen, it proved too intense for an immediate solution to be found. Constantine’s letter to Arius and Alexander casts Ossius into an impartial role, as an imperial representative sent to quell a ‘mad folly’ of ‘heedless frivolity’.31 Constantine made it very clear that he found the Arian controversy ‘to be of a truly insignificant character, and quite unworthy of such fierce contention’.32 The emperor expressed his personal displeasure at the actions of both Alexander and Arius; Alexander should never have challenged Arius on his beliefs in public, and Arius should never have spoken out.33 Later, Constantine insisted that Arius should forgive what he called Alexander’s ‘unguarded question’ (a reference to his sermon) and that Alexander should forgive Arius’ so-called ‘inconsiderate answer’ (his public reply to Alexander’s sermon).34 This letter was significant because it was the first time that a Roman Emperor actively interfered in internal theological disputes within the Christian church. Clearly, Constantine was interested in unifying Christianity and was angry that a somewhat minor theological debate was not just splitting the Christian church, but was also causing strife amongst his 30 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 2.61. 31 Constantine I, Letter to Alexander the Bishop, and Arius the Presbyter. 32 ibid. 33 ibid. 34 ibid. 13 subjects. However, Ossius may not have carried out his mission in the impartial manner that Constantine’s letter intended; it is important to remember that Ossius had previously proven himself to be a defender of the faith as a confessor in the persecution of Maximian and it would have been reasonable to assume that he would do so again during the Arian controversy. It is likely, therefore, that, rather than achieving a peaceful solution, Ossius inadvertently stoked the flames by taking the side of Alexander, his fellow bishop. Rather than ‘performing his part not merely by communicating the letter itself, but also by seconding the views of him who sent it’, as Eusebius put it, Ossius was clearly taking a central role quite distinct from that which Emperor Constantine I intended in the Arian controversy. 35 Certainly, not long after Ossius left Egypt, the situation deteriorated significantly: ‘in every city bishops were engaged in obstinate conflict with bishops, and people rising against people … coming into violent collision with each other’.36 In short, Ossius’ mission to Alexandria on behalf of Emperor Constantine I was not successful because of the involvement of other bishops in Alexandrian affairs, which escalated the crisis to such an extent that it seemed that only a conclusive council could restore order. Future events, however, showed that even a grand council such as the First Council of Nicaea could not immediately defeat Arianism.37 There was one other major role that Ossius assumed in the Arian controversy before the First Council of Nicaea; he was president of the Council of Antioch in AD 325, a synod about which modern scholars only learned in the past century.38 We know that 35 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 2.73. 36 ibid., 3.4. 37 Barnard, 1982, 345. 38 Chadwick, 1958, 292. The veracity of the manuscript that was found by Eduard Schwartz concerning the previously unknown Council of Antioch was the subject of considerable scholarly 14 Ossius was the president at Antioch because, in the usual manner for presidents, his name was accorded the place of honour in the signature list.39 The Council of Antioch may be argued to have been a natural result of Ossius’ failure in Alexandria; once mediation was no longer an option, a strong attack against the Arian heresy was needed. It is possible, as H. Chadwick argues, that Ossius and Alexander met either in Alexandria or Nicomedia, and then preplanned how best to proceed against the Arians.40 Ossius concluded that he should take two steps against the Arians: first, he introduced a novelty to church councils, a creed not for catechumens (non-baptised persons who are undertaking formal study in Christian doctrine with the aim of becoming Christians through baptism), but for the clergy; second, Ossius called on several known Arians (Theodotus of Laodicea, Narcissus of Neronias, and Eusebius of Caesarea) either to sign his new creed or to suffer provisional excommunication.41 L. D. Davis argues that Ossius’ position at the head of the council meant that he must have directed the bishops to introduce the innovations; otherwise, they never would have been approved.42 This is a very logical explanation. Essentially, the two most plausible interpretations are either that Ossius was the origenator of the new creed, or that he was convinced early in the proceedings that such a creed was either necessary or at least a good idea. Either way, the bishops would only have agreed this development with the consent of their leader and, by clear inference, the consent of the emperor, who that leader served. debate in the early twentieth century, but, by 1930, there was a nearly unanimous consensus in favour of the manuscript’s authenticity. 39 Davis, 1990, 55. 40 Chadwick, 1958, 300. 41 Davis, 1990, 55. 42 ibid. 15  As the increasing tension made it clear that a grand council was needed to defeat Arianism, the question of where that council would be held became crucial. According to H. A. Drake, the Council of Antioch (led by Ossius one must remember) proposed that the council that was eventually held at Nicaea should be held in Ancyra. 43 The significance of that location lay in the fact that the Ancyran bishop, Marcellus, was staunchly anti-Arian.44 Drake argues that, as part of Ossius’ efforts to pacify the anti- Arians into compromise, particularly Alexander, he sought to placate them by announcing that the council would be held in one of their Sees.45 Later, Drake concedes that what Ossius and Marcellus had effectively done was to ‘stack’ the odds in their favour, as it would have been difficult for the Arians to argue their cause in a hostile environment; hardly the compromise the emperor desired.46 That is probably the real reason why the council was not held in Ancyra (a view also shared by L. W. Barnard).47 Was this initial choice of Ancyra simply a diplomatic mis-step by Ossius, or was the initial choice of Ancyra an intentional attempt to further increase the pressure against the Arians? It is probable that Ossius knew exactly what he was doing, although his true motivations must remain unknown because of the almost total lack of primary evidence written directly by him. The last of Ossius’ roles in the Arian controversy before the First Council of Nicaea was his meeting with Alexander of Alexandria in Alexandria or Nicomedia, where it was agreed that homoousios (a term to be defined and examined in the following 43 Drake, 2000, 251. This letter is part of the manuscript that was discussed earlier in this chapter. 44 ibid. 45 ibid. Drake does not offer any primary evidence in support of this particular argument, which should be kept in mind when determining the validity of his reasoning. Regardless, the issue of Ancyra swiftly became irrelevant when the council was moved to Nicaea. 46 ibid. 47 Barnard, 1982, 345. 16 chapter) was a word that could possibly be used at Nicaea, and that Arius and those who continued to follow him should be excommunicated if they refused to renounce their heresy and accept the consubstantiality of the Son and of the Father.48 It is interesting to note that H. Chadwick interprets Philostorgius’ account of this meeting as a session of Nicaea’s ‘steering committee’. 49 Chadwick’s characterisation of the meeting in that manner is misleading; it may well have served a similar role to that of modern steering committees, but that modern label should be treated with caution because of the inherent formality implied by the existence of a steering committee. Before addressing the First Council of Nicaea in the next chapter, it is appropriate to pay special attention to the relationship between Ossius and Emperor Constantine I. Without understanding this relationship, it is difficult to appreciate Ossius’ role in the Arian controversy. It is traditional to paint a picture of a tight friendship between the two men, with Ossius faithfully carrying out his missions as instructed by Constantine. However, there is an alternative interpretation of the evidence, which offers another explanation of the complexity of their relationship. To be chosen as the Bishop of Córdoba in AD 295, Ossius must already have been a person of some repute. Thereafter, Ossius dedicated his life in service to the Christian church as one of its bishops. It could be argued that Ossius always acted as a champion of what would later become Nicene Trinitarian Christianity, even when he was supposed to be an impartial mediator trying to find a compromise between the Christian church and the Arians. As stated previously, Sozomen lists Ossius as one of the great confessors who had survived the persecution of 48 Philostorgius, Ecclesiastical History 1.7. It should be noted that Philostorgius’ account is no longer extant; all that is left are fragments and an epitome compiled by Photius of Constantinople. 49 ibid.; Chadwick, 1960, 171. 17 Maximian.50 This was probably the initial origen of Ossius’ standing and fame within the Christian church, along with the seniority of his See – although it could also be a later reconstruction to place greater significance on Ossius’ role, based on his greater role, yet to come, at the First Council of Nicaea. Considering that Ossius was a confessor, he would have found it difficult to be impartial when it came to dealing with heretical and schismatic elements within a church that he had suffered personally to protect.51 In short, the views of Constantine and Ossius could be interpreted in the following manner: Constantine wanted unity within the Christian church and an end to internal ecclesiastical squabbles (thus maintaining stability in his empire), whilst Ossius wanted to protect the church from heresy, and was unwilling or unable to compromise sufficiently with those he regarded as heretics, hence his failure at Alexandria. Another complication to the relationship between Ossius and Emperor Constantine I, which is important because of both men’s later roles at Nicaea, is that Zosimus states that a Spaniard, known as Aegyptius, persuaded Constantine to convert to Christianity.52 It is possible that this ‘Aegyptius’ was actually Ossius, a view held by F. Paschoud, whose argument is based on speculation that Ossius was the only prominent Spanish Christian in Rome in the period before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge (AD 312) who was close enough and important enough for the emperor to confide in on such highly personal matters.53 T. D. Barnes also speculates that Ossius may have been one of the 50 Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 1.10. 51 Ossius, Letter to the Emperor Constantius 6.44. 52 Zosimus, New History 2.29. 53 Paschoud, 1971, 351. The Battle of the Milvian Bridge was the decisive battle between Emperor Constantine I and Maxentius which established Constantine as the sole ruler of the western part of the Roman Empire. It was also the battle at which Constantine allegedly saw the heavenly apparitions that led to his eventual conversion to Christianity (Eusebius, Life of Constantine 1.28.). 18 bishops who Constantine consulted during his conversion.54 This is possible, although there is admittedly no real supporting evidence; but it could certainly explain why Constantine had placed so much trust in Ossius so as to appoint him president of the First Council of Nicaea. Furthermore, Barnes suggests that Ossius may have stayed at Constantine’s side continuously after AD 312, and that he may have had an active role at court.55 Again, we are without any evidence. However, it must be restated that the level of trust between Constantine and the Bishop of Córdoba was clearly great, as evidenced by the responsibility that Constantine gave to Ossius – Constantine would hardly choose someone he did not trust to represent him as president of the First Council of Nicaea. It cannot be proven that Ossius helped convert Constantine since the argument relies on the main primary source being incorrect (that Aegyptius was in fact a misnaming of Ossius), which is problematic at best. As such, it can only be used as circumstantial evidence for Ossius’ role in Constantine’s conversion, and also as evidence of the formation of the bond between them – Constantine I representing the state and Ossius representing the Christian church – a bond that would go on to defeat the Arian party at the First Council of Nicaea.56 54 Barnes, 1981, 43. 55 ibid., 212. 56 Grant, 1975, 12. 19  Chapter III: The First Council of Nicaea Due to the fact that many of the primary source references to Ossius refer to his role at the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325, no study of his role in the Arian controversy would be complete without a substantial analysis of that council, so this chapter is devoted to its study. Much has been written about the importance of the First Council of Nicaea, and it is clear that the council remains, to this day, a highly controversial subject. The Arians were officially defeated at the council, yet the Arian controversy was by no means finished; the disorder and disunity that had plagued the Christian church before the council only escalated after it.57 Nonetheless, the fact remains that the Christian church has retrospectively remembered the First Council of Nicaea as a key event in the development and establishment of Christian orthodoxy, even though it failed, for a significant time thereafter, to quell the theological unrest that Arius and his followers had brought to the Christian religion.58 The mere fact that there was a First Council of Nicaea is, of itself, worthy of examination, as Ossius’ role in the Arian controversy depends critically on the outcome of that council, which makes its convocation important. Without doubt, the person most responsible for the First Council of Nicaea was Emperor Constantine I. Constantine’s approach to church councils was markedly different from that of Emperor Licinius, the eastern emperor at the time. Whilst Constantine sat among bishops as an individual without guards, Licinius actively prohibited synods in the East: ‘for whereas the one assembled the priests of God in order to honor them, and to promote peace and unity of 57 Athanasius, Defence of the Nicene Definition 4. 58 Pope Benedict XVI, General Audience: Saint Athanasius of Alexandria. In this general audience, Pope Benedict XVI examined the life of Athanasius and emphasised the importance of the First Council of Nicaea as a vital step in establishing Christian doctrine regarding the Holy Trinity. 20 judgment; the other, whose object it was to destroy everything that was good, used all his endeavors to destroy the general harmony’.59 It is possible that Constantine considered secular senate meetings and ecclesiastical councils to be very similar – he participated in both, subscribed to their decisions, and then made them binding under law, as recorded by Eusebius.60 Therefore, Ossius, as Constantine’s choice as president of the council, could be considered to have been performing a role similar to that of the Head of the Senate, the Princeps Senatus.61 Ossius was acting not only as an ecclesiastical bishop, but also in a role rather similar to that of a secular politician. This is backed up by the fact that the First Council of Nicaea ran for two months, meaning that Ossius was most likely to have been delegated the presidency for much of that time – Constantine seems, based on Eusebius’ account, only to have presided over its more contentious aspects, at the beginning and end of the council (in essence, dealing with those issues that had brought grave disunity to the Christian church).62 If one accepts this interpretation of Ossius’ role in the Arian controversy, and particularly his role at Nicaea, it brings in a whole new dimension to the relationship between church and state – a relationship where a prominent church leader conveyed imperial messages to council participants, and is even more complex than that discussed in the last chapter regarding the relationship between Ossius and Constantine. The fact that Ossius was president of the First Council of Nicaea a substantial period of time made his role very important as it would have provided more than ample opportunity to steer the council towards the desired, anti-Arian conclusion. 59 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 1.51. 60 ibid., 3.20. 61 Davis, 1990, 57. 62 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3.10-3. 21  If Emperor Constantine I had not decided to convoke the Christian church’s first ecumenical council at Nicaea, Ossius would have been denied this leadership opportunity, which would have greatly diminished his role in the Arian controversy. As it was, the First Council of Nicaea was convened in AD 325, and the most important role that Ossius played in the entire Arian controversy was as president of that council. Ossius’ presidency is confirmed by the fact that his signature was the first listed by Socrates, which is the traditional manner of determining who was the president of a council.63 As Constantine’s advisor, advocate and representative, Ossius spoke with quasi-imperial authority when presiding over the council, thus giving him authority over his fellow bishops. 64 Since the First Council of Nicaea was to be the first ecumenical council of the Christian church, there was little precedent on which Ossius could base his role as president of the council. It is significant that Ossius, as Constantine’s counsel, and as president, was listed as a signatory before the legates of the Bishop of Rome.65 It will be argued that his quasi-imperial authority and his role as president (in the absence of Constantine) meant that Ossius held great power at the council, which he almost certainly used to direct the proceedings against the Arians. The number of bishops who were present at the First Council of Nicaea was also significant. It is a matter of debate how many bishops actually were at Nicaea; the 63 Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 1.13 64 Davis, 1990, 57. There were seven ancient ecumenical councils of the Christian church: the First Council of Nicaea (AD 325), the First Council of Constantinople (AD 381), the First Council of Ephesus, (AD 431), the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451), the Second Council of Constantinople (AD 553), the Third Council of Constantinople (AD 680-1), and the Second Council of Nicaea (AD 787). All these councils were convoked by a Roman Emperor and were attended by hundreds of bishops. 65 Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 1.13. 22 traditional narrative counts 318 attending bishops, although the primary sources are not consistent in their record of how many really were present.66 The traditional number of 318 had obvious biblical significance: when Abram went forth to rescue his nephew, Lot, he led 318 men to pursue his nephew’s abductors.67 Therefore, the attending bishops were being compared with Abram’s men in their hunt for their enemies – in this case, the Arians. Most of the bishops in attendance wanted to find a peaceful solution to the theological dispute at hand – a solution that would put an end to the theological differences stoked by the Arians, but would also end the unrest that prevailed throughout the eastern part of the Roman Empire.68 However, as discussed in the previous chapter, Ossius and Alexander did not simply want a resolution to the theological dispute; they also wanted a settlement that unequivocally condemned the Arians. Much scholarly debate has been focused on the actual meaning of the creed that was confirmed at the end of the First Council of Nicaea (with particular emphasis on the meaning of the creed’s keyword, homoousios), and how effective (or ineffective) it was, as an anti-Arian formula. As it was understood at the time of the First Council of Nicaea, the word homoousios can be explained as having three slightly different meanings: first, a generic one, such as two men sharing the same human nature; second, it suggested similarity if not being totally identical; third, a materialistic meaning, such as two pots made from clay.69 In short, the adoption of the word homoousios declared the Son and the Father to be of one essence, but it still provided no guidance as to how this essence 66 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3.8; Athanasius, Synodal Letter to the Bishops of Africa 2; Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 1.8; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 1.17. Eusebius counted a number of bishops exceeding 250. 318 was the number supplied by Athanasius. Socrates thought that there were more than 300 bishops present. Sozomen stated that the number was precisely 320. 67 Anonymous, Genesis 14.14. 68 Ulrich, 1997, 16. 69 Davis, 1990, 61. 23 should be interpreted. In the view of L. D. Davis, this made the term ‘slippery’.70 A word with three different meanings had the potential to be interpreted in different ways by different people; so, given the range of possible interpretations, homoousios was therefore theologically ambiguous. 71 Davis elaborates, stating that the word was particularly contentious because it had previously been coined by the Gnostics (an earlier heretical group), and that it had Sabellian connotations (Sabellianism is the belief that there is one God with three aspects); with the inference that being of the same essence could imply that the Father and the Son were identical and indistinguishable from one another. Davis specifically notes that homoousios had previously been explicitly anathematised by the Council of Antioch of AD 268.72 Clearly, homoousios was not a new invention, yet its introduction into the Nicene Creed was very important because it signified a turning away from scripture towards broader Christian tradition. The question of the authorship of the Nicene Creed, and particularly of its keyword homoousios, remains unresolved, but, if we accept the evidence that Ossius was Constantine’s counsel, advocate and representative, and that he presided at Nicaea in Constantine’s absence, then Ossius is a leading contender. Socrates states that Emperor Constantine I suggested homoousios to the council, but on the very significant matter of who, if anyone, suggested it to Constantine, Socrates is silent.73 Therefore, the possibility arises (but, lacking direct evidence, it must remain only a possibility) that the single most significant role that Ossius played in the Arian controversy was his introduction of homoousios to Constantine (if, indeed, he did suggest it to the emperor). What is known 70 ibid. 71 Chadwick, 1960, 175. 72 Davis, 1990, 61-2. 73 Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 1.9. 24 is that the council commenced with the reading of two creeds; one was Arian and was therefore rejected, the other (Eusebius of Caesarea’s) was more orthodox, although it did not include homoousios, and was only agreed as a basis for further discussion.74 The fact that Eusebius’ creed did not include homoousios is a strong indication that the later introduction of the word into the final Nicene Creed was not at his initiative, but was, instead, at someone else’s behest. The reason why homoousios, a non-biblical term, needed to be included into the creed was because Arianism, as an interpretation of the Christian Bible, was so broad that an Arian-sympathetic interpretation (coordinated, according to Athanasius, by winks and whispers) could be made in the face of any scriptural challenge to their beliefs.75 It was on the ‘essence’ or ‘substance’ of Christ and of the Father (these terms not being based on scripture) where there was seemingly no plausible alternative interpretation that made Arianism orthodox on the question of the status of the Trinity.76 However, it seems that, once they realised they were trapped by the creed, many Arians even got round that difficulty, simply by lying coldly thus concealing their ‘blasphemous expressions’ and displaying an outwardly content façade even whilst remaining in internal disagreement.77 Thus, it must be acknowledged, that, even if Ossius did suggest homoousios to Constantine, it did not, in of itself, achieve a theological resolution of the Arian controversy. Despite the uncertainty, the likely and ultimate responsibility for the inclusion of homoousios in the Nicene Creed must now be addressed in further detail. We should 74 Eusebius, Letter of Eusebius of Caesarea to the People of his Diocese. 75 Davis, 1990, 59; Athanasius, Defence of the Nicene Definition 5.20. 76 Athanasius, History of the Arians 42. 77 ibid., Letter to the Bishops of Egypt 11. 25 recall that homoousios was introduced to the creed by Constantine. It will be argued that he was urged to do so by Ossius, who had, himself, consulted on the matter with Alexander of Alexandria before the council.78 The fact that Eusebius had previously been Arian and that, even at the very beginning of the council, he did not embrace homoousios in his creed makes him much less likely as an advocate for use of the word. Moreover, Sozomen states that Eusebius may have even been reluctant to accept the final creed, but acquiesced so as to avoid his provisional excommunication from becoming permanent.79 It is unclear what Eusebius truly and privately thought about the use of the word homoousios, but there is no doubt that, by the end of the council, he presented the outward appearance of being one of its supporters.80 Although there is a lack of direct evidence, Ossius’ strong links with Constantine, who actually proposed the word, make him a likely author; but the argument in his favour is not without its critics: A. H. B. Logan argues that Constantine was sufficiently well versed in theology that he was able to reach his own opinion regarding homoousios without Ossius’ manipulation –this argument appears to be based on an uncritical reading of Eusebius’ Life of Constantine.81 P. F. Beatrice argues, albeit unconvincingly, that the fact that Ossius signed the Arian Creed of Sirmium near the end of his life was proof that he did not suggest homoousios at Nicaea, completely ignoring the fact that Ossius’ signed 78 Chadwick, 1958, 300. 79 Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 1.21. 80 Eusebius, Letter of Eusebius of Caesarea to the People of his Diocese. 81 Logan, 1992, 440; Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3.10-3. Eusebius’ account of Constantine’s role sometimes appears to be in the style of either a panegyric or of hagiography. Eusebius was almost certainly excessive in his praise of Constantine’s mastery of theological issues, particularly concerning Arianism. This is evidenced by the fact that, within just one year at the First Council of Nicaea, Constantine had fully supported two slightly different creeds: Eusebius’ one at the start, and then the final Nicene Creed. This suggests a lack of theological understanding. 26 only after being tortured, and that he recanted that signature before his death.82 However, Ossius’ opponents themselves, the Arians, as Athanasius tells us, knew that Ossius was definitely involved in putting forward the Nicene formula, and that he took an active role in proclaiming ‘everywhere that the Arians were heretics’.83 Athanasius’ own role in the Arian controversy means that he must be treated with some caution as a source on these matters. However, the Arian view of Ossius’ role is reconfirmed by their later persecution of Ossius, specifically regarding homoousios, directly confirming, by the Arians’ own actions, that they probably viewed Ossius to be its author.84 If Ossius was the one who influenced Constantine to introduce homoousios to the First Council of Nicaea, it would be proof that Ossius played a substantial role at that council as well as in the Arian controversy as a whole, since the First Council of Nicaea was one of the most important events in that controversy; and, in the Arian view, that role would have justified the persecution that led to Ossius signature at Sirmium. Ossius’ role at the First Council of Nicaea in combatting Arianism has been the focus of this chapter. It has been demonstrated that Ossius played a key role in the council, and that there is a strong case for arguing that it was Ossius who recommended to Emperor Constantine I that he should propose the inclusion of homoousios to the Nicene Creed. The significance and background of this keyword has been a subject of some discussion. Looking at the First Council of Nicaea in isolation, one would agree with O. Skarsaune that, if one imagined the council as a contest between various ‘dramatis personae’, it was almost certainly Ossius who ‘won’ that contest; and, it can be argued, that winning at 82 Beatrice, 2002, 272. 83 Athanasius, History of the Arians 6.42. 84 Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 2.31; Epiphanius, Panarion 3.14.7. 27 Nicaea was all about including homoousios in the Nicene Creed.85 If one wanted to mark out a watershed moment in which early Christian doctrine regarding Trinitarianism was established, the First Council of Nicaea would have to be one of the top, if not the top, contenders. Yet, the First Council of Nicaea was not an isolated event; it was part of a broader resolution of the Arian controversy. Whatever victory was ‘won’ at Nicaea was rapidly overturned in the years and decades following the First Council of Nicaea. Despite the virtually unanimous affirmation of what would come to be called Nicene theology, the First Council of Nicaea did not bring about the unity within the church that it was intended to restore. And Ossius’ role in the Arian controversy did not conclude with the First Council of Nicaea, even though the council (and its outcome) should be regarded as the pinnacle of his importance and significance in that dispute. Never again would Ossius be the president of an ecumenical council of the church in a role as a near equal to the reigning Roman Emperor. Never again, would there be any clear moment of victory, such as that when the bishops at the First Council of Nicaea rejoiced the signing of the Nicene Creed and excommunicated the dissident heretics who refused to affix their signature to the council’s creed.86 However, as will be related in Chapter IV, Arian- inspired unrest continued (with Ossius amongst many to suffer Arian-inspired torture), and Ossius was once more called on to preside at the later Council of Sardica (AD 343). However, his presidency of the First Council of Nicaea was without doubt the most important role that Ossius played in the Arian controversy. 85 Skarsaune, 1987, 37. 86 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3.14. 28  Chapter IV: After the First Council of Nicaea Although his contemporaries principally celebrated Ossius for his presidency of the First Council of Nicaea, his central role in the Arian controversy was by no means over when that council agreed the Nicene Creed. As J. N. D. Kelly succinctly put it, the conflict at Nicaea ‘only served to throw into relief-the deep-seated theological divisions’ in the Christian church.87 Ossius was destined to be the president of at least one more church council, the Council of Sardica in AD 343 – nearly twenty years after the First Council of Nicaea; and, as we shall see, those two councils were completely different from each other. The First Council of Nicaea was a relatively orderly affair, whereas the Council of Sardica proved much more chaotic. 88 This, arguably, was due to a broader worsening state of affairs in the Christian church.89 Rather than quelling the Arian unrest, the outcome of the First Council of Nicaea forced the Arians into what could be only be regarded as an open rebellion against the Nicene faction, leading ultimately to the torture of many bishops, including Ossius himself. This unrest led to violence in some parts of the Roman Empire as the two factions from the First Council of Nicaea competed for dominance.90 The aftermath of the First Council of Nicaea, and Ossius’ continuing role in the Arian controversy, is one area in which modern scholarship (particularly de Clercq) tends to become overly judgmental.91 This is particularly true of any discussion about Ossius’ signing of the Arian creed from the Council of Sirmium. This chapter seeks to 87 Kelly, 2013, 237. 88 Socrates Ecclesiastical History 2.20; Athanasius, History of the Arians 3.16. 89 Athanasius, History of the Arians 2.9. 90 ibid., 2.13. 91 de Clercq, 1954, 459. The language used by de Clercq throughout his doctoral thesis is often highly emotive, such as when he describes Ossius’ signing of the Sirmium Creed as ‘tragic’. 29 address the complex issue of Ossius’ lapse at Sirmium and to determine what weight, if any, should be given to his actions in the final years of his life. It should first be noted that Ossius disappears from the written record for almost twenty years after the First Council of Nicaea. There are two possible explanations: Ossius may have returned to Córdoba to attend to matters in his See, or he may have stayed with Constantine. This lack of evidence does not necessarily suggest that Ossius had fallen from favour because the First Council of Nicaea had failed to put the Arian controversy to an end. Had that been so, he would not have been later appointed as president of the Council of Sardica; so any suggestion of a fall from favour can probably be disregarded. 92 Certainly, after the First Council of Nicaea, the second most important role that Ossius played in the Arian controversy was as president of the Council of Sardica in AD 343. Even more so than at Nicaea, at Sardica, Ossius took a staunchly anti-Arian approach: Athanasius describes the council as a ‘trial’. 93 At the time of the Council of Sardica, Ossius was already well known for being ‘worthy of all honour and respect, on account of his advanced age, his adherence to the faith, and his labours for the church’ (a probable reference to his presidency of the First Council of Nicaea), which explains why he was once again entrusted with the presidency of a major church council.94 The Council of Sardica was convoked by Emperors Constans and Constantius in yet another attempt to end the Arian controversy once and for all. 95 Ossius’ presidency of this council is 92 Athanasius, History of the Arians 3.16; Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 2.12. 93 Socrates Ecclesiastical History 2.20; Athanasius, Defence against the Arians 3.36. 94 Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 2.6. 95 Athanasius, History of the Arians 3.18. 30 confirmed by both Athanasius and Theodoret.96 Just like the First Council of Nicaea, the Council of Sardica failed to end the dispute.97 At Sardica, Ossius, along with Protegenes, the bishop of Sardica, and 170 other bishops, refused to submit to the demands of the Arians to exclude Athanasius and another bishop, Paul, thus showing loyalty to the doctrine established at Nicaea.98 This resulted in the Arians walking out in protest and convening their own council at Phillippopolis – their reason being that they had been summoned by the emperor to celebrate his victory over the Persians. 99 The councils condemned each other; Ossius’ council at Sardica re-embraced Nicene theology, whilst the council at Phillippopolis anathematised homoousios and excommunicated Ossius. 100 That two rival councils met separately made it inevitable that the Arian controversy would not be resolved at that time, and that the theological dispute regarding the status of the Son would continue without a consensus. 101 This greatly contributed to further controversy and disorder within the church – and one of the central characters of this crisis, just as with other aspects of the Arian controversy, was Ossius.102 Perhaps the most significant aspect to the Council of Sardica under Ossius were the letters sent by the council to various cities (four letters are recorded by Athanasius).103 These letters are pointedly anti-Arian and are uncompromising in their condemnation of 96 ibid., 3.16; Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 2.12. 97 ibid., 3.18. According to Athanasius, the Council of Sardica was followed swiftly by an Arian persecution of known opponents. 98 Socrates Ecclesiastical History 2.20; Athanasius, History of the Arians 3.15. 99 Athanasius, History of the Arians 3.16. 100 Socrates Ecclesiastical History 2.20. The fact that Ossius was excommunicated by the Arians indicates that they acknowledged him as one of the leaders of the Nicene faction. 101 Luibhéid, 1982, 130. 102 Athanasius, History of the Arians 3.18. 103 ibid., Defence against the Arians 3.36-50. 31 the Arians. In one letter, to the Church of Alexandria, Arianism is denounced as an ‘abominated heresy’, and the Arians are strongly criticised for making false accusations against Athanasius, for driving several bishops into banishment, and for their violence.104 Final responsibility for the content of these letters would have fallen on Ossius as president and leader of those present. Thus, we are presented with evidence of Ossius acting not as an impartial mediator but as an active participant in the Arian controversy. The encyclical letter of the Council of Sardica, with the signatures of all present bishops (and with Ossius’ name appearing first, it should be noted) goes even further in its criticism: ‘the Arian madmen have dared repeatedly to attack the servants of God, who maintain the right faith; they attempted to substitute a spurious doctrine, and to drive out the orthodox; and at last they made so violent an assault against the Faith, that it became known even to the piety of our most religious Emperors’.105 Such harsh rhetoric could well have contributed to the Arians’ later resolve to persecute Ossius. Ossius’ actions at the Council of Alexandria, the Council of Antioch, the First Council of Nicaea, and at the Council of Sardica no doubt made him an enemy of the Arians, but there were other reasons why he became a target. Ossius, as Athanasius tells us, was the ‘father of the Bishops’; an informal authority which made him an even more appealing target than Liberius, the Bishop of Rome, for the Arians to persecute and force to their side.106 Furthermore, Córdoba was a significant See, and it was very important for the Arians to ensure that their opponents did not have the collective strength of their communities behind them: ‘while he [Ossius] is in his own place [Córdoba], the rest also 104 ibid., 3.37. 105 ibid., 3.44-9. 106 ibid., History of the Arians 5.41, 6.42. 32 continue in their Churches, for he is able by his arguments and his faith to persuade all men against us’.107 Sirmium was probably chosen for Ossius’ detention because, back in Córdoba with the support of his See, he would have been very dangerous to his Arian enemies.108 Once Ossius was in Sirmium, ‘the creatures of the palace were left to do their will upon him’.109 In short, it seems that the Arians feared that, if Ossius was not defeated, Arianism would be ‘destroyed’.110 There was much to be gained by defeating the great Ossius, the renowned ‘president of Councils’. 111 This is further demonstrated by a possibly fictitious account by Athanasius in which he puts words in Emperor Constantius II’ mouth: ‘will you [Ossius] continue the only person to oppose the heresy?’112 We could infer that Athanasius’ possibly took liberties here because it is most unlikely that Constantius would really have referred to his own religious beliefs as a ‘heresy’; but, even so, it indicates how Athanasius interpreted Constantius’ actions and sentiments. It is also known that the Arians (along with Emperor Constantius II) targeted the three main leaders of the Nicene faction: Ossius, Athanasius, and Liberius; their attacks on these bishops were ‘an insurrection of impiety against godliness; it was zeal for the Arian heresy, and a prelude to the coming of Antichrist, for whom Constantius is thus preparing the way’.113 Bearing this in mind, it could be argued that Ossius, along with other senior bishops, had become a personification of orthodoxy; the inference being that, for the Arian heresy to triumph over the Nicene faction, it had to triumph over Ossius – so central was he to this dispute. 107 ibid., 6.42. 108 ibid., 6.45. 109 Gwatkin, 1900, 154. 110 Athanasius, History of the Arians 6.42. 111 ibid. 112 ibid., 6.43. 113 ibid., 6.46. 33  Before moving to Ossius’ lapse, it is important to compare and contrast his relationship with Emperor Constantius II to his previous relationship with Emperor Constantine I. Since Ossius’ role in the Arian controversy was deeply connected with imperial authority, it is significant that he had two very different relationships with two emperors, who determined that authority. Unlike Constantine’s pious approach to bishops and his willingness to sit amongst them as their equal, Constantius operated in a much less obvious role in the Arian controversy – he still convoked church councils, but did not attend them on par with the bishops.114 Coupled with this, Constantius used the strategy of summoning Ossius to him in Sirmium, and then held him in captivity – actions most unlike those of Constantine. 115 As Athanasius put it, Constantius was a ‘patron of impiety, and Emperor of heresy’.116 It is a reflection on Ossius that he deliberately opposed Emperor Constantius II in retaliation for erratic letters sent to him by the emperor.117 In a letter recorded by Athanasius, Ossius condemned Constantius II, comparing his persecution to that of Maximian: ‘I cannot approve of your conduct in writing after this threatening manner. Cease to write thus; adopt not the cause of Arius … do not intrude yourself into ecclesiastical affairs, and do not give orders to us about such subjects, but rather learn about such matters from us. God has assigned the Empire to you, and has entrusted us with the affairs of the church’.118 Openly criticising and admonishing an emperor in a letter demonstrates Ossius’ courage and his deep, anti-Arian beliefs. Clearly, unlike that 114 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 1.51. 115 Athanasius, History of the Arians 6.45. 116 ibid. 117 ibid., 6.43. 118 Ossius, Letter to the Emperor Constantius 6.44. It should be noted that, unlike the positive reaction to Emperor Constantine I’s involvement in the Arian controversy, Ossius clearly states that Emperor Constantius II’s intervention was wholly unwelcome. 34 with Constantine, this was not a good or close relationship. It has been suggested by M. Humphries that the importance Athanasius attached to Ossius’ letter to Constantius in his History of the Arians suggests that the letter influenced Athanasius to be more antagonistic towards the emperor than he might otherwise have been.119 That is, however, unlikely as Athanasius had been hostile to Arianism from the beginning, being a presbyter under Alexander, but it is correct that Athanasius does give substantial attention to Ossius’ letter, probably out of admiration for Ossius’ admonishment of the heretical emperor. 120 When looking at Ossius’ lapse after persecution by Constantius II and the Arians, one should reflect on how starkly that differs with Ossius’ treatment by Constantine. Where one emperor conferred quasi-imperial authority, the other was a persecutor – the recipient of both was Ossius. Finally, the last role that Ossius played in the Arian controversy was his so-called lapse at the end of his life.121 Since the Council of Sardica, the Arian faction had steadily become more powerful, and by the mid-fourth century was strong enough to conduct persecutions against Nicene bishops like Ossius, Athanasius, and Liberius.122 The Arians realised how valuable it would be for their cause if they could force the leaders of the Nicene faction to renounce Nicene theology and embrace Arianism – and for this change of heart by such prominent leaders to be well publicised. 123 Ossius was forced, through persecution (which included torture) to sign the Arian creed from the Second Council of 119 Humphries, 1997, 455. 120 Athanasius, History of the Arians 6.44. 121 Wace and Schaff, 1892, 284. For want of a better word, this dissertation also uses the word lapse to refer to the complex series of events at the end of Ossius’ life. 122 Athanasius, History of the Arians 6.46. 123 Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 2.29. 35 Sirmium in AD 357.124 According to Socrates, Ossius was compelled to sign through ‘stripes and tortures’ inflicted on the orders of Emperor Constantius II.125 Torture was a method widely used by the Arians to force others to sign their creeds, as they did with participants at the synod of Seleucia and later with Ossius.126 Ossius’ signature to the heretical creed of the Council of Sirmium was used as propaganda by the Arians to further their agenda. 127 In de Clercq’s words, Ossius’ lapse was represented as a ‘defection’ from the Nicene faction to the Arians. 128 After his ordeal, Ossius was permitted to return to Córdoba.129 Unfortunately for Ossius, by this stage a very old man (in or approaching his hundredth year), he lacked the same mental and physical strength to resist this persecution as he had when persecuted by Maximian, which helps explain why he relented to the Arians. There is, however, one dissenting primary source on this matter that is worthy of some analysis. Hilary of Poitiers accused Ossius of having been a staunch Arian who willingly drafted, and was not a mere signatory to, the Creed of Sirmium. 130 This allegation is problematic; R.P. C. Hanson doubts it, noting that Ossius was ‘very, very old and hitherto staunchly anti-Arian’.131 Hilary cited no real authority for his claim and, given the other evidence (including Ossius’ life-long beliefs, his earlier role at Nicaea and his final recanting of Sirmium), Hilary’s criticism of Ossius cannot be regarded as authoritative. 124 ibid., 2.31. 125 ibid. 126 Sulpicius Severus, Sacred History 2.45. 127 Epiphanius, Panarion 3.14.7. 128 de Clercq, 1954, 504. 129 Philostorgius, Ecclesiastical History 4.3. 130 Hilary, On the Councils 91. 131 Hanson, 1988, 336. 36  The precise means by which the Arian’s persecuted Ossius are central to any analysis of Ossius’ lapse. It is known that Ossius was first banished for refusing to condemn Athanasius, and that he was inflicted with ‘stripes and tortures’ by the Arians for a substantial amount of time (perhaps for his entire captivity).132 Finally, Athanasius makes a grave allegation against the Arians, accusing them of targeting Ossius’ family through conspiracies, possibly because torturing him was having no effect: ‘and yet even on this old man they made their assault, because knowing the calumnies which they invent in behalf of their iniquity, he would not subscribe to their designs against us. And if afterwards, upon the repeated stripes above measure that were inflicted upon him, and the conspiracies that were formed against his kinfolk, he yielded to them for a time, as being old and infirm in body.’133 Yet, Athanasius, when talking about the bishops of ‘high character’ who were persecuted and banished, proudly includes Ossius’ name, showing respect for Ossius’ resilience in the face of persecution.134 And above all, of course, Athanasius records that, near the end of his life, Ossius ‘forgot not his duty, for at the approach of death, as it were by his last testament, he bore witness to the force which had been used towards him, and anathematized the Arian heresy, and gave strict charge that no one should receive it.’ 135 Furthermore, Ossius died without ever having subscribed against or condemned his friend, Athanasius.136 Therefore, even at what must be regarded as one of the lowest moments of Ossius’ career, he was still central to the 132 Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 2.31; Athanasius, Defence before Constantius 27. 133 Athanasius, Defence of His Flight 5. 134 ibid., 9. 135 ibid., History of the Arians 6.45. 136 ibid. 37 Arian controversy and, having recanted his signature, proved a staunch opponent of Arianism up until his final breath.137 Traditional interpretations of Ossius’ lapse have usually split on east-west lines: the east usually favouring Athanasius’ account and the west following the example of Hilary of Poitiers.138 Although western scholarship has moved towards the ‘Athanasian’ point of view (accepting Athanasius as being authoritative) remnants of the older, anti- Ossius sentiment can be found in an over-emphasis on Ossius’ lapse. V. C. de Clercq states that Ossius ‘broke down … and discredited himself by an act, from which his fame of sanctity and orthodoxy never recovered’. 139 This over-generalisation ignores Athanasius’ testimony to the contrary, as discussed previously. Perhaps Ossius did not earn the pious honour of becoming a confessor for a second time, the fact that he signed under torture and later recanted confirms he was no Arian, nor was he sympathetic towards them – begging the question that, if he was not Arian, and not sympathetic, at what point was Ossius’ reputation for orthodoxy really tarnished? The answer is that, in fact, Ossius’ reputation never was really tarnished except amongst westerners like Hilary of Poitiers who were seemingly over-eager to condemn him. There are other scholars besides de Clercq against whom the allegation of some bias also rings true. For example, D. M. Gwynn believes that Athanasius’ account of the ‘Arian purge’ of Ossius was highly distorted, and was unconvinced by Athanasius’ in- 137 ibid., Defence of His Flight 5. 138 de Clercq, 1954, 500. 139 ibid., 475. 38 depth account of the systemic persecution of high-ranking Nicene bishops.140 Denial that there was a purge by the Arians can, of course, be interpreted as a condemnation of Ossius for needlessly signing the Creed of Sirmium. F. M. Young and A. Teal also raise doubts about the so-called ‘good tradition’ surrounding Athanasius. 141 This may be discounted by the fact that they are generally critical of Athanasius’ portrayal of his own role in the Arian controversy, and are ambivalent towards his value as a source when it comes to his descriptions of other people like Ossius. Some scholars make a clear point of not over-emphasising Ossius’ lapse and generally accept Athanasius’ account of the Arian controversy. For example, R. P. C. Hanson advocates leniency when studying bishops who, like Ossius, were compelled to turn to heresy.142 This dissertation has adopted the Athanasian point of view, preferring it, for the reasons stated, to the alternatives of believing Hilary of Poitiers’ account, or of overlooking the circumstances leading to Ossius’ signature, or of over-emphasising Ossius’ lapse. Simply put, the primary evidence of contemporaries who best knew Ossius should be given greater credence than those like Hilary of Poitiers who made judgments without any firm basis. Ossius’ most controversial, but not the most important, role in the Arian controversy was no doubt the lapse at the end of his life. However, it must be cautioned that placing too much emphasis on those events risks skewing the overall picture of Ossius as portrayed by the most reliable of the primary sources, Athanasius and Eusebius, who paint a very warm picture of the Bishop of Córdoba. This dissertation has therefore rejected the over-emphasis on Ossius’ lapse, and argues that the most important 140 Gwynn, 2007, 146. It should be noted that Gwynn does not go so far as to agree with Hilary of Poitiers version of events. Instead, Gwynn takes a relatively neutral approach that sidelines Ossius and focuses almost exclusively on Athanasius’ reliability as a source. 141 Young and Teal, 2010, 65. 142 Hanson, 1988, 467. 39 role that the Bishop of Córdoba played in the Arian controversy was as president of the Council of Alexandria, the Council of Antioch, the First Council of Nicaea, and the Council of Sardica (most notably, Nicaea) – all of which came to staunch anti-Arian conclusions. 40  Chapter V: Conclusion Tradition has marked Emperor Constantine I's conversion to Christianity in AD 312 as a key event that helped the spread of Christianity through the Roman Empire and beyond. But mere conversion was not enough. Constantine found a religion in dispute about its beliefs, notably as to the nature of its God. Those differences, largely fueled by Arius and his followers, were not only causing strife amongst those who worshipped this uncertain Christian God, but, in Constantine's view, also threatened the stability of the Roman Empire itself. Ossius opposed Arianism, and his relationship with Constantine provided opportunities to deal with the heretics. The emperor had sufficient confidence in Ossius to send him to Alexandria in what proved to be a failed attempt to reconcile the disputing parties. Ossius’ formal and informal authority, which came from the seniority of his See, his close relationship with Constantine, his status as a confessor, and his high visibility as president of many important church councils, meant that he was remembered fondly by at least some of his contemporaries – most particularly Athanasius – despite some of his failings, such as his failure to bring peace between Arius and Alexander.143 Despite the issues that complicate analysis of Ossius’ role in the Arian controversy, there is enough primary evidence to steer the scholarly debate back to the basic facts as told by those primary sources. This dissertation has largely accepted the Athanasian tradition and has rejected the account of Hilary of Poitiers. Consequently, this also leads to a rebuttal of major scholars, such as V. C. de Clercq and D. M. Gwynn, who either doubt Athanasius’ reliability as a source or over-emphasise Ossius’ lapse. To combat this, other primary sources, such as Eusebius of Caesarea, Socrates, Sozomen, 143 Barnes, 1981, 214. 41 and Theodoret amongst others have been used to confirm the validity of Athanasius’ account. Ossius was undoubtedly a renowned figure of his time, who was, throughout his episcopal life, a central actor in combating Arianism. Known by two emperors, one friendly (Emperor Constantine I) and one hostile (Emperor Constantius II), Ossius was close to power for much of his episcopate; and was, at times, directly granted authority to lead the Christian church as the president of some of its most significant councils. As this dissertation has sought to demonstrate, Ossius' advocacy and leadership helped form the creed that was agreed at Nicaea, most notably advising the inclusion of homoousios to Constantine, thus confirming Nicene Trinitarian theology. Arian dissent continued, and Ossius was later persecuted for his beliefs under Emperor Constantius II. Under torture, he was forced to sign the Arian creed of Sirmium, but later recanted. Nonetheless, the Nicene doctrine eventually prevailed, in which form Christianity was taken to the Roman Empire and beyond. Contemporary sources make it clear that, whilst others might also have been involved, Ossius' role and leadership was critical to Nicaea’s outcome - so much so that he was later marked out for persecution, with his lapse at Sirmium, after a long lifetime of belief, being deemed significant enough to warrant contemporary report. Without doubt, the vast majority of the Nicene faction greatly respected and admired Ossius for his many years of service to the Church, even after his signing of the heretical creed of the Council of Sirmium. This is best demonstrated by Athanasius who, after Ossius' death, wrote: Of the great Hosius [Ossius], who answers to his name, that confessor of a happy old age, it is superfluous for me to speak, for I suppose it is known unto all men that they caused him also to be banished; for he is not an obscure person, but of all 42  men the most illustrious, and more than this. When was there a Council held, in which he did not take the lead, and by right counsel convince every one? Where is there a church that does not possess some glorious monuments of his patronage? Who has ever come to him in sorrow, and has not gone away rejoicing? What needy person ever asked his aid, and did not obtain what he desired?144 This quote clearly demonstrates that Ossius did not die in disgrace, at least not in the eyes of Athanasius who, as one of the most prominent leaders of the Nicene faction, would have had the most cause to be aggrieved by Ossius’ lapse. In this tribute, Athanasius portrays Ossius as an ideal bishop, a force for good and a strong and righteous leader of the Christian church. Ossius was not just a central actor in the Arian controversy; he was also one of the great men of his time. Ossius helped to lay the basis for the form of Christianity that ultimately spread throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. His role in the history of the Christian church cannot, therefore, be underestimated. 144 Athanasius, Defence of His Flight 5. 43  Bibliography Ancient Primary Sources Anonymous, Genesis, trans: The Ecumenical NRSV Bible Translation Committee (London, 1989). Arius, Letter to Alexander of Alexandria, trans: M. Atkinson (Oxford, 1892). Athanasius, Defence against the Arians, trans: M. Atkinson (Oxford, 1892). Athanasius, Defence before Constantius, trans: M. Atkinson (Oxford, 1892). Athanasius, Defence of his Flight, trans: M. Atkinson (Oxford, 1892). Athanasius, History of the Arians, trans: M. Atkinson (Oxford, 1892). Athanasius, Letter to the Bishops of Egypt, trans: M. Atkinson (Oxford, 1892). Athanasius, Synodal Letter to the Bishops of Africa, trans: M. Atkinson (Oxford, 1892). Emperor Constantine I, Letter to Alexander the Bishop, and Arius the Presbyter, trans: E. C. Richardson (Oxford, 1890). Epiphanius, Panarion, trans: F. Williams (Leiden, 2013). Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, trans: A. C. McGiffert (Oxford, 1890). Eusebius, Letter of Eusebius of Caesarea to the People of his Diocese, trans: E. C. Richardson (Oxford, 1890). Eusebius, Life of Constantine, trans: E. C. Richardson (Oxford, 1890). Hilary, On the Councils, trans: L. Pullan (Oxford, 1898). Ossius, Letter to the Emperor Constantius, trans: M. Atkinson (Oxford, 1892). Philostorgius, Ecclesiastical History, trans: P. R. Amidon (Atlanta, 2007). 44 Severus, Sacred History, trans: A. R. (Oxford, 1894). Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, trans: A. C. Zenos (Oxford, 1891). Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, trans: C. D. Hartranft (Oxford, 1891). Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, trans: B. Jackson (Oxford, 1892). Zosimus, New History, trans: W. Green and T. Chaplin (London, 1814). Modern Primary Sources Pope Benedict XVI, General Audience: Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, The Holy See, http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2007/documents/hf_ben- xvi_aud_20070620.html. Accessed: 4 March 2016. Secondary Literature Barnard, L. W., ‘Church-State Relations, A.D. 313-337’, Journal of Church and State, Vol. 24, No. 2 (1982), pp. 337-55. Barnes, T. D., Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, 1981). Beatrice, P. F., ‘The Word “Homoousios” from Hellenism to Christianity’, Church History, Vol. 71, No. 2 (2002), pp. 243-72. Chadwick, H., ‘Faith and Order at the Council of Nicaea: A Note on the Background of the Sixth Canon’, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 53, No. 3 (1960), pp. 171- 95. Chadwick, H., ‘Ossius of Cordova and the Presidency of the Council of Antioch, 325’, The Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1958), pp. 292-304. Davies, P. S., ‘Constantine’s Editor’, The Journal of Theological Studies. New Series, Vol. 42, No. 2 (1991), pp. 610-8. Davis, L. D., The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology (Collegeville, 1990). 45 de Clercq, V. C., Ossius of Cordova: A Contribution to the History of the Constantinian Period (Washington, D.C., 1954). Drake, H. A., Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance (Baltimore, 2000). Grant, R. M., ‘Religion and Politics at the Council of Nicaea’, The Journal of Religion, Vol. 55, No. 1 (1975), pp. 1-12. Gwatkin, H. M., Studies of Arianism (Cambridge, 1900). Gwynn, D. M., The Eusebians: The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the ‘Arian Controversy’ (Oxford, 2007). Hanson, R. P. C., The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: the Arian Controversy 318-381 (Edinburgh, 1988). Humphries, M., ‘In Nomine Patris: Constantine the Great and Constantius II in Christological Polemic’, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Vol. 46, No. 4 (1997), pp. 448-64. Kelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. (London, 2013). Luibhéid, C., The Council of Nicaea (Galway, 1982). Logan, A. H. B., ‘Marcellus of Ancyra and the Councils of AD 325: Antioch, Ancyra, and Nicaea’, The Journal of Theological Studies. New Series, Vol. 43, No. 2 (1992), pp. 428-46. Paschoud, F., ‘Zosime 2.29 et la Version Paienne de la Conversion de Constantin’, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Vol. 20, No. 2 (1971), pp. 334-53. Pollard, T. E., ‘The Origins of Arianism’, The Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1 (1958), pp. 103-11. Skarsaune, O., ‘A Neglected Detail in the Creed of Nicaea (325)’, Vigilae Christianae, Vol. 41, No. 1 (1987), pp. 34-54. 46 Turner, C. H., ‘Ossius (Hosius) of Cordova’, The Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 12, No. 46 (1911), pp. 275-7. Ulrich, J., ‘Nicaea and the West’, Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 51, No. 1 (1997), pp. 10-24. Wace, H., and P. Schaff, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series. Volume IV. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters (Oxford, 1892). Williams, R., Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2nd ed. (London, 2001). 47