PAULINUS' SUBSCRIPTION TO THE

TOMUS AD ANTIOCHENOS

PA U L I N U S of Antioch's importance in the church history of thefourth century has occasioned interest in his theological views,and hence in his subscription to the Tomus ad Antiochenos.1 Butit has been debated whether his language there is really what hehimself would have chosen, or whether it was formulated forhim.2 This article, then, will examine the style of the subscription,and in particular that of its rst part containing the Trinitarianterms. It will not deal with the history of the particular theologicalterms, but rather with the conventions of the ancient subscriptionwhich it exhibits, conventions which, as we shall see, were refash-ioned in the long duel between Valens of Mursa and Athanasiusof Alexandria. The study of the use of these conventions willsuggest that the Trinitarian language used by Paulinus in hissubscription was hardly the sort which he himself preferred.But clarity in this matter can only be attained by distinguish-ing sharply between the ancient subscription and the modernsignature, and that is where we shall begin.

I . TH E AN C I E N T SU B S C R I P T I O N

The subscription in the Greco-Roman world was always acomplete sentence or sentences (even if only of a single word, suchas valete or sesgmeivmai); it was never simply a bare name, as withour `signature'. This was always true in the Greco-Roman world,where our modern style of signature was quite unknown.3 Thekinds of conciliar documents we nd being subscribed are letters,creeds, minutes, and decrees (including canons, condemnations,

1 The subscription is in Tomus 11 (PG 26.809), and the Trinitarian part runsas follows: `I Paulinus hold as true what I received from the fathers: that the Fatherexists and subsists as perfect, the Son subsists as perfect, and the Holy Spiritsubsists as perfect. Hence I accept the foregoing interpretation concerning thethree hypostases, and the one hypostasis or ousia, and those who hold to it. For it isorthodox to hold and confess the Holy Trinity in one divinity.'

It is also found in Epiphanius, Panarion 77.21 (with insignicant variations inthe Trinitarian section).

2 E.g. M. Tetz, `Uber nikaische Orthodoxie', ZNW 66 (1975), p. 221.3 For opinions about when the modern signature rst made its appearance

in history, cf. C. Bruns, `Die Unterschriften in den romischen Rechtsurkunden',Abhandlungen der kgl. Ak. d. Wissensch. z. Ber. (Phil./Hist. Kl.), 1876, p. 87;H. Levy-Bruhl, Le temoignage instrumentaire en droit romain (Paris, 1910),p. 167, n. 1.

# Oxford University Press 2002

[ Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Vol. 53, Pt. 1, April 2002]

and depositions). A set of subscriptions may be found detachedfrom its context, as with Socrates' subscription-list for theCouncil of Nicaea.4

Five styles of subscription may be observed in the ecclesiasticaldocuments of the period, the rst three of which are found inother kinds of documents as well. The most laconic, and byfar the rarest, is the simple subscripsi/upecraya/sesgmeivmai, etc.,with or without mention of the document being subscribed.5

The second style may be called `epistolary'; it is used to close let-ters (including those documents cast in the epistolary mold, suchas certain kinds of tenders, receipts, and o"cial orders): a conven-tional farewell or something more singular. The third may becalled `contractual': that used in subscribing agreements andcontracts. Then there is the specically Christian `credal' style;it incorporates the formula `thus I believe' (or something similar)used occasionally to round o^ Christian creeds from the timeat least of 1 Corinthians onward.6 There is nally the`condemnatory' style, which contains words such as anathema sitor anahematifv.7 The di^erent styles are quite promiscuous,happily combining with one another in various ways in theparticular subscriptions of the period. A synodical documentsuch as a letter always had multiple subscriptions (often butnot always in the same form) put both by those attending thecouncil and those subscribing later, and the subscriptionsmight include elements of more than one style (if, for instance,a synodical letter included a creed, some subscriptions mightdraw from both the epistolary and the credal models).

About the subscription of minutes and decrees (as distinct fromthe subscription of the synodicals in which they might beembedded), there is little to be said, as we have no examples of

4 HE 1.13.12. The style of the rst subscription, however, shows that it hadbeen attached either to the creed or to the synodical enclosing it.

5 E.g. Hunt and Edgar, Select Papyri (Loeb, 1932), 2.128 (~P. Oxy. 1411, AD260; o"cial order); 2.130 (~P. Oxy. 65, third-fourth century AD; o"cial order);2.438 (~P. Oxy. 1025, third century AD; tender); Hilary, Collectanea AntiarianaParisina B II 6.2 (subscription to declaration); Athanasius, Apol. c. Arian. 47.6(subscription to synodical).

6 Cf. 1 Cor. 15:11. Cf. also J. Scherer, Entretien dOrige`ne avec Heraclide (Paris,1960), p. 54; Epiphan., Panarion 72.12.5; Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole undGlaubensregeln der alten Kirche (Breslau, 18973), pp. 148f. This does not mean thatdocuments containing creeds were always subscribed in the `credal' style. Anydocument, ecclesiastical or otherwise, when framed as a letter, might be subscribedin the fashion usual with any letter. Thus for instance Marcellus of Ancyraconcludes his credal letter to Pope Julius with a simple errvshe (Pan. 72.3.5).

7 E.g. Mansi 3.4612; Tomus ad Antiochenos 11.

54 P. R. AMIDON, SJ

the subscriptions themselves from the fourth century or earlier.There is one reference to the subscription of canons, those ofthe Council of Carthage of 34548, but the subscriptions them-selves are not preserved.8 Of the subscriptions of minutes thereis su"cient direct evidence from the fth century,9 and one mayassume that the custom goes back to the fourth century, at least;but the direct evidence from that time is of the subscription ofthe decrees originating from the minutes of council meetingsrather than that of the minutes themselves.10 The same goes forthe subscriptions to condemnations and depositions.

The conventional epistolary subscription was a word or twoof farewell, or something more extended. Such is the case with theletters in the classical collections, and papyrus originals are nodi^erent.11 When a letter had been written by someone otherthan the sender, such as a scribe, it was the custom that itshould be subscribed in the former's hand.12 The subscriptionwould run something like et manu domini subscriptio: opto multosannos bene valere. Or the farewell would be followed by thename of the sender, and that in turn by subscripsi. The sameprinciple extended to other sorts of documents, such as con-tracts, declarations, and o"cial orders which had not been writtenout in the hand of the principal party. Some of these were inthe epistolary form. In any case, it was the custom that theresponsible party should subscribe them. Bruns summarizesthe types of o"cial subscriptions found in the Roman empireas those placed under one's own letters or documents andthose attached to others' writings; the latter kind might beendorsements, or attestations or certications, such as thoseof witnesses.13

8 Concilia Africae, ed. C. Munier (CCSL 149, 1974), p. 10.9 It is noted at the Council of Ephesus of 431 that the minutes (upomngmata) are

subscribed by those in attendance as a matter of course (kata` to` sunghez: Schwartz,ACO Ephesus 1.3, p. 62 [106.34]; p. 60 [106.30]). The Gesta Antiochiae readout at the Council of Chalcedon (451) close with a like note (ACO Chalcedon 1.3,p. 81 [147]).

10 E.g. Hilary, A V 3.2(6).2; A IX 2; A IX 3.2.11 Cf. Hunt and Edgar, 1.268^.12 Bruns, p. 68.13 Ibid., p. 66. Cf. also H. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae 8380 (155 AD);

P. Lond. 1157 verso (246 AD); P. Tebt. 285~Mitteis, Chrestomathie no. 379(subscriptio given in 239 by Gordian III). On imperial subscriptions generally,cf. F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World (London, 1977), pp. 240^.;H. F. Jolowicz, Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law (Cambridge,19652), pp. 376^.

PAULINUS' SUBSCRIPTION 55

The contractual style of subscription, like the epistolary,always formed a complete sentence or sentences. The great massof contracts, wills, deeds, receipts, and so forth (mostly availablein the papyri) bears this out.14 We shall nd this to be as trueof private documents as of the public sort. Contracts anddeclarations were originally made orally, with a written recordof the transaction drawn up as proof (but not as the juridicalact itself ). The older form presupposes the oral statement:it is in the third person, and includes a phrase such as dixit se(e.g. habere).15 The younger form is the `chirograph', which wascomposed in the rst person, and was required to be subscribedwhen the principal party had not written it out in his ownhand.16 The Donatio Statiae Irenes (Rome, AD 252), for instance,is subscribed by the donor:

Isdem coss. eadem die Statia Irene i(us) lib(erorum) h(abens), donationimonumenti s(upra) s(cripti) sicut scriptum est, consensi, subscripsi _ etatsignavi.17

The subscription in this case is an abbreviated chirograph,written in the rst person in the donor's hand, beginning with thedate, summarizing in a few words the object of the donation,and closing with the consent. Such is the usual form in documentsof this sort. In a marriage contract of the year AD 260, AureliaThaesis gives her daughter in marriage; the document starts o^:

_ ejedeto Aurglia Hagsiz _ tg`n eautgz hucateran Aurglian Tauseirin pro`zcamon andri Aurgliv Arsinov _

and continues with a description of the dowry. Towards the endthere are found, in a second hand, the words:

Aurglia Hagsiz ejedomgn tg`n hucatera mou pro`z camon tJ protetacmenvArsinov kai` prosgnecka autJ tg`n prokeimengn werng`n vz prokeitai kaiepervtgheisa vmolocgsa.18

The subscription sums up the contents of the document towhich it is attached, using even the same words and phrases as arefound in it.

14 A convenient selection is again that of Hunt and Edgar (cf. n. 5), 1.13261passim. Latin material is available in J.-O. Tjader, Die nichtliterarischen lateinischenPapyri Italiens aus der Zeit 445700 (Lund, 1955).

15 For an example, cf. C. G. Bruns, Fontes Iuris Romani Antiqui (Tubingen,1909

7

), vol. 1, p. 329.16 Levy-Bruhl, p. 166.17 Bruns, Fontes, vol. 1, p. 336.18 Hunt and Edgar, 1.1622 (~P. Oxy. 1273).

56 P. R. AMIDON, SJ

At times the summary would be reduced to a bare referenceto the wording of the main body of the text: `I agree to the above',or something similar.19 At other times a subscription wouldreproduce, rather mechanically and at considerable length,the exact wording of the document. Such is P. Tebt. 392 (AD1345), an agreement of indemnity, where the subscription isvery nearly as long as the main body of the document andalmost an exact copy of it. The same tendency is evident in theRavenna Papyri, where the subscriptions are long paragraphswhich repeat clause after clause of the main body of the docu-ments.20 The subscriptions of witnesses tend themselves tolengthen in imitation of that of the chief party, and likewiseresume in more or less summary fashion the provisions of thedocument. Those belonging to an individual document tendto fall into exactly the same wording, without abbreviations, sothat at the very end, after such a long series of paragraphs, thereis often found the notitia testium, a bare listing of the witnesses'names made by the scribe for convenience' sake.21

II . SU B S C R I P TI O N S T O CO N C I L I A RDO C U M E N T S

There were two kinds of synodical letters: those addressed to aparticular person or church and those designed to be circulatedamong a group. Christian circulars, when expounding creeds orcontesting heresies, seem to have invited the subscriptions ofthose to whom they were sent. Serapion of Antioch (199211)wrote to Caricus and Pontius (presumably his colleagues)against the Montanists, joining to his own letter the writings ofApolinarius of Hierapolis against the same sect. It evidentlyenjoyed wide circulation; Eusebius of Caesarea was able to readthe subscriptions of many bishops attached to it. One at least wasthe perfectly ordinary errvshai umaz euxomai, while another took amost peculiar turn.22 But even the usual epistolary subscriptionwas understood as an endorsement of the contents of letters.23

19 E.g., Hunt and Edgar, 1.44 (~P. Oxy. 725, AD 183): G`raklazSarap(ivnoz) _ teheimai to` omolocgma kai` eudokv pasi toiz prok(eimenoiz). 1.48(~BGU 1107, 13 BC): 'Isidvra sunxvrv kata` ta` proce[crammena].

20 E.g., Tjader, 1.332f. On the expansive tendencies of such chirograph-subscriptions, cf. Levy-Bruhl, p. 189.

21 Levy-Bruhl, p. 189.22 Eusebius, HE 5.19.23 Cf. Hilary, A IV 3.

PAULINUS' SUBSCRIPTION 57

To subscribe an Arian letter was to signify one's communion withthe Arians.24

Councils might also solicit subscriptions. An early example isthe letter `sent to Paul of Samosata by the orthodox bishops beforehe was excommunicated' (Mansi, 1.1033). It begins:

Hymenaeus, Theophilus, Theotecnus, Maximus and Bolanus to Paul,greetings in Christ. In our discussions together we have already shownwhat we believe; but in order that what each of us holds may be clearer,and the arguments brought to an end, we have decided to set out inwriting the faith which _ we received in the beginning.

Then comes the exposition, at the end of which (Mansi, 1.1040)we read:

Having summarized these matters briey, we wish to know if you holdand teach the same things as we, or not, and to have you subscribe if youagree with the above.

Councils seem often to have sent their decrees to bishops who hadbeen called to attend them but had not done so, or to those hold-ing important sees when the matters treated were of generalconcern. Cornelius of Rome sent Fabius of Antioch the docu-ments of the Roman Synod of 251, including a list of the particip-ating bishops. The list had also the names and sees of those notat the synod who had stated their agreement to its decisions inwriting. Apparently copies of its letter were sent throughout Italyfor the bishops' subscriptions, from which a list was made to beincluded with the synodical meant especially for the Easternchurches.25 Mention of the list indicates that the subscriptionsthemselves were not included.

Subscribing a synodical sent round as a circular letter after thesynod was apparently looked upon as the same sort of juridical actas subscribing it at the synod itself. At the end of the Council ofCarthage of 34548, Gratus says, Superest iam ut placita omniumnostrum, quae ad consensum vestrum sunt scripta, vestra quoquesubscriptione firmetis.26 Now a similar expression occurs in thesynodical of Sardica in Hilary's version:

Curate autem vos, dilectissimi fratres et consacerdotes, quasi praesentesspiritu huic interfueritis synodo, omnia, quae a nobis instituta sunt,

24 H.-G. Opitz, Urkunde zur Geschichte des arianischen Streites 318328(Berlin, 1934), 14.9.

25 Eusebius, HE 6.43.2122.26 CCSL 149 (1974), p. 10.

58 P. R. AMIDON, SJ

conrmare per litteras vestras, ut ab omnibus episcopis idem sentireatque unam esse omnium voluntatem ex litterarum consensione sitmanifestum.27

Athanasius' version of per litteras vestras is di'upocrawgz umeteraz:28

the subscriptions of the absentees ratied the decisions of theCouncil in the same way as those of its members, and made itlook as though they had taken part in it.29

Bishops represented by others at councils were bound by theirlegates' subscriptions as rmly as if they had subscribed with theirown hands. Thus Lucifer of Calaris did not wish to accept thedecisions of the Synod of Alexandria of 362, sed constringebaturlegati sui vinculo, qui in concilio ipsius auctoritate subscripserat.abicere namque eum non poterat, qui auctoritatem eius tenebat.30

Pope Liberius likewise came under heavy pressure to subscribeAthanasius' deposition once his legate to the Synod of Arles of353 had done so.31

Subscriptions to synodicals might be long or short, but howevershort they were, they always, following the custom explainedabove, made complete sentences. This custom has not always beenfollowed by modern editors; thus the list of names of the bishopspresent at the Synod of Arles of 314 found in the di^erentcodices following the canons has been entitled subscriptiones inCCSL 148 (1963), p. 14, even though only the bare names aregiven, with no verbs attached. The title comes from the moderneditor; in Turner's edition (EOMIA 1.396) the ancient introduc-tion to the name-list reads: Incipit nomina episcoporum cum clericissuis vel quanti vel ex quibus provinciis ad arelatense synhodo con-venerint _ It seems to have been the custom to attach suchname-lists to synodicals in addition to the subscriptions, perhapson the model of the notitia testium. The synodical of Orange (441)shows this quite neatly: here we see the bishops' subscriptions inone list, and their bare names (together with their accom-panying clergy) in another.32 Sometimes only the name-list ispreserved, without the subscriptions, as with the Synod of

27 Hilary, B II 1.8.4.28 Apol. c. Arian. 47.6.29 For other examples, cf. Hilary, A IV 1.28.3 and Epiphan., Pan. 73.2.11.30 Runus, HE 10.31. The legate in the ancient world fully represented his

principal; cf. J. F. Matthews, `Gesandschaft', RAC 77 (1977), p. 654.31 Hilary, B VII 36; Athan., Hist. Arian. 3537; Ammianus Marcellinus,

15.7.10.32 Concilia Galliae, ed. C. Munier (CCSL 148 (1963)), pp. 87 and 88^.

PAULINUS' SUBSCRIPTION 59

Arles (314) or the Council of Sardica (from the subscriptions towhich Athanasius retains the rst: Osioz episkopoz upecraya).33

The variety and occasional mixture of styles can be easilyexemplied in fourth-century synodicals. At the Synod ofAntioch of 372, Meletius subscribed a synodical from Rome thus:Meletius episcopus Antiochenus consentio omnibus suprascriptis,ita credens et sentiens, et si quis praeter haec sentit anathema sit.The same bishop subscribed his own synodical of 363 (whichcontained the Nicene Creed) to the emperor Jovian as follows:Meletioz episkopoz 'Antioxeiaz edvka sunainvn toiz procecrammenoiz.Asterius of Petra subscribed the Tomus ad Antiochenos (362)with: 'Ecv` 'Asterioz suneudokv toiz procecrammenoiz, kai` errvshaiumaz en Kuriv euxomai. George of Alexandria subscribed the`Acacian Creed' at Seleucia (359) thus: Cevrcioz episkopoz'Alejandreiaz ejehemgn tg`n pistin. outvz omolocv wronein vzprokeitai.34

The contractual style we have already seen in the subscriptionsto agreements and declarations, where the formula consensiet subscripsi is usual. The Greek equivalents are so common inthe papyri that the reader may most easily be referred to thecollection already mentioned in note 5, with two or threeexamples selected at random. A contract from AD 325 is sub-scribed: Au[rglioi 'Alo]iz kai` 'Graklgz [eu]dokoumen pasitoiz prok(eimenoiz) kai` epervtghentez vmol(ocgsamen). At the endof one from 348, we read: 'Aurglia Oualeria _ suneudokv toizencecrammenoiz vz prokitai. Finally, George's subscription aboveis perhaps most closely paralleled by one from the 6th centuryAD (to a public contract):

Wl(auioz) Palladioz kom(gz) o procecrammenoz ehemgn tautgn tg`n omolocian epi`pasgn toiz pr[o]cecr[am]menoiz sumwvnoiz kai` . re __ upecraya xeiri` emg.

35

33 CCSL 148, p. 14; EOMIA 1.546^.; Apol. c. Arian. 47.6. Althoughsubscription-lists and name-lists were originally distinct, the later work of scribesand copyists could whittle down the former until they became virtuallyindistinguishable from the latter. An example is the subscription-list of theCouncil of Nicaea in Soc. 1.13.12, where only the rst entry shows what sort of listthis was originally, before the inevitable process of abbreviation set in. The criticalapparatus ad loc. (G. C. Hansen, Sokrates. Kirchengeschichte [Berlin, 1995], p. 46),reveals the process at work.

34 Mansi, 3.461 and 372; PG 26.809A; Epiphan., Pan. 73.26.2. For otherexamples, cf. Pan. 73.11.11; 73.22.5.

35 P. Oxy. 1626 (~Hunt and Edgar, 2.443; the same formula is found in P. Oxy.1627, AD 342~Hunt and Edgar, 2.445); BGU 405 (~Hunt and Edgar, 1.170);P. Cairo Masp. 67032, AD 551 (~Hunt and Edgar, 2.453).

60 P. R. AMIDON, SJ

III . CO N S T A N T I U S , VA L E N S , A N DAT H A N A S I U S

Whichever formula was used in subscribing synodicals, the resultwas, as usual, a complete sentence, however short. But whenthe religious policy of the emperor Constantius forced somebishops to subscribe documents to which they could not easilyassent, the exibility of the conventions of subscription wasput to the test. His determination to have the Western bishopscondemn Athanasius appears at the Synod of Arles of 353, wherea letter was handed round to be subscribed in which Photinus,Marcellus, and Athanasius were condemned together. Paulinusof Trier in subscribing tried to distinguish among them: Oblatasibi epistola ita subscripsisse traditur, se in Photini atque Marcellidamnationem praebere consensum, de Athanasio non probare.36

It did not save him from exile.The papal legates at the same synod tried to tie the case of

Athanasius to the `Arian question': they agreed to subscribe hisdeposition if the `Orientals' (the court bishops) would condemnArius. The latter at rst agreed, but at the following sessionchanged their minds and called the deal o^.37 The same sort ofproposal appeared two years later at the Synod of Milan, whichsent its deposition of Athanasius to Eusebius of Vercelli for hissubscription. He refused to give it and came himself to Milan,where the court bishops, wary of his resolve, forbade him accessto the synod for ten days.38 Finally admitted, he tried to strikethe same bargain as the papal legates at Arles:

When [Eusebius] was brought in to subscribe against Athanasius, he saidthat rst the faith of the bishops should be established _ The creedpublished at Nicaea _ he placed in their midst, promising that he woulddo all they requested, if they subscribed the creed. Dionysius, bishopof Milan, was the rst to take the paper. When he began to write hisdeclaration [ubi profitenda scribere coepit], Valens [of Mursa] snatchedthe pen and paper from his hands, shouting that nothing was going tobe accomplished by such a procedure.39

36 Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 2.37.7.37 Hilary, A VII 5.38 Cf. Mansi, 3.236f.; Hilary, Liber I ad Const. 3(8).1.39 Hilary, op. cit. 3(8).2. The parallel account in Sulp. Sev., Chron. 2.39.4

(Dionysius, Mediolanensium sacerdos, in Athanasii damnationem se consentiresubscripsit, dummodo de fide inter episcopos quaereretur) is not quite clear, and saysnothing of Eusebius' part at the synod. Dionysius in its rst sessions certainlysubscribed Athanasius' deposition (cf. Lucifer of Calaris, De sancto Athanasio 2.8),but later, alerted by Eusebius to the real issues at play, he repudiated the assemblyand was exiled (Chron. 2.39.6).

PAULINUS' SUBSCRIPTION 61

Valens was to proceed more adroitly at the Council of Ariminumfour years later, at a time when the extended subscription wasappearing in some interesting new forms; perhaps his experiencesat the earlier councils gave him occasion to reect upon the pos-sibilities lurking in the conventions. Subscriptions to contractsand declarations aimed in principle, as we have seen, to reproduceor resume in more or less summary fashion the contents ofthe documents. Occasionally they did so without abbreviation,although usually they summarized them drastically, so that theentire body of the agreement was referred to as `the above', andthe subscription would read something like, `I agree to the above',rather than `I agree to _ ' followed by a word-for-word copy ofthe contents of the agreement. Under pressure of dire necessity,some bishops' subscriptions showed a new air for remarkablycreative `summations'. The homoeousian essay known as the`Letter of George' (Panarion 73.1222) describes the subscribingof the `Fourth Creed of Sirmium' at the imperial court in 359; thecreed confessed that the Son is like the Father `in every way (kata`panta), as the holy Scriptures say', but forbade further use ofthe word ousia to describe the relationship between Fatherand Son, since such usage was foreign to Scripture and causedscandal.40 After the words `they subscribed as follows' (73.22.5)comes the unexceptional subscription of the drafter of the creed,Mark of Arethusa: outv pisteuv kai` wronv nkai` suneudokvo toizprocecrammenoiz. But Valens of Mursa, when his turn came,began with some words suggesting his reservations about theformula, and then, our source continues,

Valens subscribed in his own fashion and added to his subscription ``theSon is like the Father'', but did not add ``in every way''; and he did nnotoshow how he agreed with the words preceding or how he understood``consubstantial''. The devout emperor noticed this and forced him to add``in every way'', which he then added. Basil, suspecting that he had givenhis own interpretation to the words `in every way' which he had added tothe copies _ subscribed as follows:

Basil, bishop of Ancyra: nThuso I believe and agree with what is writtenabove, confessing the Son to be like the Father in every way. ``In everyway'' means not just in his will, but in substance and in existence andin being [kata` tg`n upostasin kai` kata` tg`n uparjin kai` kata` to` einai], asSon according to the sacred Scriptures, spirit from spirit, life from life,light from light, God from God, true Son from true nFathero, Son as

40 Athan., De synodis 8.7. The meeting at which this creed was subscribed wasnot a synod, it is true, but it o^ers an instructive example of what could be meantby subscription.

62 P. R. AMIDON, SJ

Wisdom from the wise God and Father; the Son is absolutely and com-pletely like the Father, as Son in relation to Father. Whoever says thathe is similar [only] in some respect, as is said above, is foreign to theCatholic Church as not acknowledging the Son to be like the Fatheraccording to the sacred Scriptures.41

The emperor evidently did not regard Valens' subscription asbeing a true summary of the creed, but he did accept Basil's, sinceour source says that after it had been read out, the document washanded over to be delivered to the Council of Ariminum. Basil'slanguage shows that as long as the outlawed word was avoided,the summary could use terms not found in the main body of thecreed. The result was a sort of `split-level' creed accommodatinga variety of theological expressions.

The events at the court meeting make one wonder if there wasany customary way of deciding who should subscribe in whatway at councils, whether briey or with some elaboration. Theevidence from the meeting, which was hardly a typical council,must of course be treated with caution. The only other councilof the period for which there is evidence that the wording of thesubscriptions was dictated is that of Nicaea, about which we aretold that the `Arians' subscribed using the word homoousios42

(doubtless not their choice). But not all the members of the Coun-cil of Nicaea subscribed thus. Hosius of Cordova wrote simplyoutvz pisteuv vz procecraptai.43 Likewise Mark of Arethusa,the author of the creed ratied at court in 359, subscribed withoutelaboration, as we have just seen.44 Perhaps there was a customthat the authors or sponsors of creeds were exempt from elab-orated subscriptions of it. But they were not the only ones soexempted, for we nd Asterius of Petra subscribing the Tomus

41 Epiphan., Panarion 73.22.68. A comparison of the language of Basil'ssubscription with the text of the creed to which it was subjoined (cf. Athan., Desynodis 8) will show how far the convention of the contractual style was stretchedon this occasion.

42 Jerome, Dialogus contra Luciferianos 20 (PL 23.174). On the pressure put onthe `Arians' at Nicaea to subscribe the creed and the condemnation of Arius, cf.Runus, HE 10.5; Soc. 1.14.3; Soz. 3.19.34. In Philostorg. 1.9a it should be notedthat Constantine's decree o^ering a choice of subscription or exile touched onlypresbyters, deacons, and other clergy (in the usage of the time, the alloi tou klgroucan hardly mean the bishops), although the bishops who refused to subscribe thecreed were exiled as well (Philostorg. 1.10). The story about Eusebius ofNicomedia smuggling in the word homoiousios in place of homoousios in hissubscription (Philostorg. 1.9c), although obviously false, can only have acquiredcredibility if it had been known that he and his party had been required to usehomoousios in subscribing.

43 Soc. 1.13.12.44 On Mark as author of the creed, cf. Hilary, Collectanea B VI 3.1.

PAULINUS' SUBSCRIPTION 63

ad Antiochenos briey and without doctrinal elaboration.45 Wasthere in fact a custom that council presidents decided which mem-bers might or should subscribe in which way? If so, it obviouslyformed a considerable part of their power. And what happenedat the Council of Ariminum suggests that this was indeed the case.

At the Council of Ariminum Valens repaid the emperor in kindfor his humiliation at court. When the majority of the bishopsat the Council rejected the creed and excommunicated his party,he presented it once again to their delegates a few months laterat Nike in a revised form (from which he had stricken the verywords Constantius had made him add). Pressed by the court,they subscribed, and were in their turn duly excommunicatedby their principals at Ariminum when they returned. But as theautumn wore on (and no one was allowed to go home), the res-istance of the majority to the `Creed of Nike' wore down.46 Thoseremaining obstinate dwindled to twenty, under the leadershipof Phoebadius of Agen and Servation of Tongres, whose stub-bornness was nally overcome when the `Homoeans' proposedthat they might add to the creed whatever they liked to silencetheir scruples:

If the creed as it stood seemed to lack anything, they might add what theythought they should, and they promised to agree to what was added. Thisconciliatory proposal won everyone over, worn out as they were _

[Now when] the professiones drafted by Phoebadius and Servation beganto be declared, they rst condemned Arius and all of his perdy, and thena"rmed that the Son of God was equal to the Father and without begin-ning and without time. Then Valens, as though helping our party, addeda sentence which was a trick: it said that the Son of God was not a crea-ture like other creatures. The deceit in this professio escaped the listeners,for the words which denied that the Son was like other creatures a"rmedthat he was nonetheless a creature, however superior he might be to theothers. Thus neither side could regard itself as having won or lost every-thing, since the creed itself [ fides ipsa] favored the Arians, while theprofessiones added later favored our side, except for the one put in byValens _

47

Sulpicius says that with the addition of the subscriptions, theCouncil came to an end. Another account of its nal days isprovided by Jerome in his Dialogus contra Luciferianos 18f.48

45 Tomus 10.46 Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 2.43.4. On Valens' authorship of the `Creed of

Nike', cf. Jerome, Dialogus 18.47 Sulpicius, 2.44.58.48 PL 23.171f.

64 P. R. AMIDON, SJ

It was at the time when the people were spreading the rumour that thecreed contained something deceitful, that Valens, bishop of Mursa, whohad composed it _ declared that he was not an Arian and in fact quiteabhorred their blasphemies. The proceedings, held in private, did notquiet the people's suspicions.

On a subsequent day therefore in the church in Ariminum, which wascrowded with bishops and laity alike, Muzonius, a bishop from theprovince of Byzacium, to whom all yielded precedence on account of hisage, spoke thus:

`With regard to those matters which have been aired in public andbrought to our attention as well, we order that they be read by one ofus to your holiness, that those which are evil and deservedly abhorrentto our ears and our heart may be unanimously condemned.'

All the bishops replied: So be it. Thus when Claudius, a bishop from theprovince of Picenum, began to read the blasphemies reputed to be thoseof Valens, as they had all ordered, Valens denied that they were his,exclaiming, `If anyone denies that Christ the Lord, the Son of God, wasbegotten of the Father before the ages, let him be anathema!' Everyonecried, `Let him be anathema!' `If anyone denies that the Son is like theFather according to the Scriptures, let him be anathema!' All replied, `Lethim be anathema.' `If anyone does not say that Son of God is eternal withthe Father, let him be anathema!' Everyone cried, `Let him be anathema!'`If anyone says that the Son of God is a creature, as are other creatures, lethim be anathema!' The reply came likewise, `Let him be anathema.' `Ifanyone says that the Son is from what is not [ex nullis extantibus] andnot from God the Father, let him be anathema!' All shouted, `Let himbe anathema!' `If anyone says that there was a time when the Son wasnot, let him be anathema!' By this time all the bishops and the rest ofthe church together were echoing Valens, clapping and stamping _

While everyone, then, was praising Valens to the skies and regrettingand condemning their suspicions of him, Claudius, the same one who hadbegun reading before, said,

`There are still some items which have escaped my lord and brotherValens; if it please, let us condemn them together, lest any scrupleremain. If anyone says that the Son of God is before all the ages, but notbefore all time whatsoever, so that there is something which precedesHim, let him be anathema.' Everyone said, `Let him be anathema.'

And there were many other formulations regarded as suspicious whichClaudius read out and Valens condemned _ And when these things hadbeen done, the council broke up.49

In order to understand what happened at the Council, it is usefulto observe the close connection between professio, the declaration

49 Dialogus 1819.

PAULINUS' SUBSCRIPTION 65

of one's view or decision, and subscription. At the session wherethe Homoeans were excommunicated, for instance, Grecianus ofCalles, in calling for the vote, had said, Nunc iterum quid vobisplacet, iterum dicite, ut singulorum suscriptione firmetur.50 At themeeting of the council delegates at Nike, Restitutus of Carthage,after proposing that communion with the Homoeans should berestored, had added, [Unusquisque] debet dicere, an rectum sit,quod prosecutus sum, et manu sua suscribere.51 Hilary in 358had noted that because of the situation of his time, when heresyand schism were prevalent, [hinc] illud est, ut ad professionem sub-scribendae fidei aliqui eorum, qui ante aliud scripserant, cogerentur.52

The connection is evidenced in the custom of reading sub-scriptions aloud. This is mentioned explicitly in Panarion73.22.8, and is implied in Hilary's words further on in the passagejust quoted, where, in addressing his colleagues, he cries,

Sed inter haec, O beatos vos in Domino et gloriosos, qui perfectam atqueapostolicam dem conscientiae professione retinentes, conscriptas deshuc usque nescitis! Non enim eguistis littera, qui spiritu abundabatis.Neque o"cium manus ad scribendum desiderastis, qui quod cordea vobis credebatur, ore ad salutem protebamini. Nec necessariumhabuistis episcopi legere, quod regenerati neophyti tenebatis. Sednecessitas consuetudinem intulit, exponi des, et expositis subscribi _

Now when Valens proposed that something might be added tothe Creed of Nike, one might at rst suppose he meant somethinglike the additions made to the `Dedication Creed' which resultedin the `Macrostich' and the `First Sirmian' Creeds,53 especiallysince the addition in question may, it seems, have been a seriesof anathemas, such as we nd in the First Sirmian Creed or the`Semiarian' Confession in Panarion 73.311. But there are severalreasons for thinking that this is not so. In the rst place, Sulpiciusdistinguishes between the fides ipsa and the professiones, a strange

50 Hilary, A IX 3.2.51 A V 3.2(6).2.52 De synodis 63. Professio in the language of law can mean the subscription to

a libellus or written accusation, of which the Digest 48.2.3pr. o^ers an example:

Consul et dies. Apud illum praetorem vel proconsulem Lucius Titius professus est se

Maeviam lege Iulia de adulteriis ream deferre, quod dicat eam cum Gaio Seio in civitate illa,

domo illius, mense illo, consulibus illis adulterium commisisse.

D.48.2.3.2 says, Subscribere debebit is qui dat libellos se professum esse, vel alius proeo, si litteras nescit. The exact form of such a professio is not preserved, but it musthave resumed, however briey, the content of the libellus and acceptedresponsibility for it. The reason was that the libellus was prepared by an expert,while the accuser appropriated it by his subscription. Cf. Bruns, Abhdlg., p. 58.

53 Cf. Athan., De synodis 2527.

66 P. R. AMIDON, SJ

thing to do if he meant to refer simply to an expanded creed.Then, too, the plural noun professiones would not seem to meana block of additional material subjoined to the original text.Also, professio smacks strongly of subscription, as we have seen.And nally, the professio that `the Son of God is not a creaturelike other creatures'54 could later be identied as that of Valensand his party: as Jerome says, `Later Valens and Ursaciusbegan _ to crow about their victory, claiming that they had notdenied that the Son was a creature, but only that He was likeother creatures.'55 Evidently this professio was marked in theCouncil records as belonging to Valens, and that cannot have hap-pened if it had stood there as one of a number of anonymous art-icles subjoined to the original text; it could only have happened ifit was in his subscription. And here we begin to see how astutelyhe managed the closing days of the Council.

The emperor wanted the court-appointed creed subscribed bythe bishops at Ariminum: praefecto mandatum, ut synodum not antelaxaret, quam conscriptae fidei consentire se omnes subscriptionibusprofiterentur.56 When Valens told the Nicene loyalists that hewould agree to whatever they added to it, he should be understoodas meaning that they might subscribe with whatever doctrinal elab-oration they liked (always with the understanding that thedreaded word ousia, or its Latin translation, should be allowedno entrance, as Basil also had understood when he subscribed atcourt). The subscriptions themselves have not been preserved,but Sulpicius, as we have seen, summarizes the professiones theycontained as follows: _ primum damnatus Arrius totaque eiusperfidia ceterum etiam patri aequalis et sine initio, sine tempore Deifilius pronuntiatur. To which Valens added: filium Dei non essecreaturam sicut ceteras creaturas.57 Now a comparison of thissummary with Jerome's list of the doctrines professed by Valensat the nal sessions of the Council will show that they have thesame basis. Valens, says Jerome, professus est se Arianum nonesse, et penitus ab eorum blasphemiis abhorrere. Then at the follow-ing session he acknowledged God's Son as ante saecula ex Patregenitum, similem Patri secundum Scripturas, and aeternum cumPatre, and condemned the statements that He was creaturam _ utsunt caeterae creaturae or de nullis exstantibus _ et non de DeoPatre; and that erat tempus, quando non erat Filius.

54 Sulpicius, 2.44.7.55 Dialogus 19.56 Sulpicius, 2.43.3.57 2.44.67.

PAULINUS' SUBSCRIPTION 67

It is, of course, impossible to tell in any detail what happenedat the Council of Ariminum in its closing days, even by compar-ing Sulpicius and Jerome; apart from the sketchiness of theiraccounts, we know nothing about the conventions surroundingthe recitation of subscriptions or about the powers of councilpresidents to permit or order doctrinal elaboration within sub-scriptions. And in any case the usual conventions might not haveheld full sway at a council closely supervised by a civil o"cial.

What is, however, evident is that Valens and his associates wereable to nd a way to win the subscriptions of the Nicene loyalistsand to allow them to express, as an addition to the creed, suchdoctrines as would, they thought, supply for its deciencies(barring the explicitly outlawed word ousia). When Sulpicius,then, says that Valens and company agreed to their additions([armant] praebituros se in his quae essent adiecta consensum58)this will mean that he allowed them these doctrinal claricationsin their subscriptions. Whether or not the recitation, at thepublic session, of the professiones contained in the subscriptionswas in any way like the usual reading of subscriptions at othercouncils, is quite unclear. The public session was especiallydesigned to calm the suspicious public, and Valens (who, as wehave noticed, seems to have had no scruples about taking sens-itive documents from the hands of his colleagues in council)assumed the task of reading in a dramatic gesture. His homoeanspectacles, however, did not perhaps allow as faithful a renditionof the text as might have been wished: we see how Claudius had toread the rst item again, and how the words this time correspondrather more closely to Sulpicius' sine initio, sine tempore Dei filiuspronuntiatur.

IV. AT H A N A S I U S A N D T H E SY N O D O FAL E X A N D R I A

It seems clear, then, that at Ariminum, as at other councils, therecitation was connected with the nal approval of the subscrip-tions. Valens' own ambiguous subscription was designed toappear at rst sight to favour the pro-Nicene party. But his trickwas to prove fatal to his own interests in the end. Rarely has anyctional villain received his recompense as elegantly as did Valensof Mursa at the hands of Athanasius, who appears to havefollowed his old foe's manoevres with keen appreciation from his

58 2.44.5.

68 P. R. AMIDON, SJ

place of hiding. It is one of the ironies of the theological history ofthe time that it seems to have been Valens who showed Athanasiushow to use the technique of what might be called reciprocity ofsubscription to forge just the doctrinal alliance which he had mostdreaded and worked against while he enjoyed patronage at court.And when he lost that patronage, Athanasius turned his trickagainst him at the Synod of Alexandria in 362.

During Julian's general amnesty of exiled bishops, Athanasiuswas able to return to Alexandria in February of 362 and to calla council to deal with the church schisms, potential or actual,resulting from the pressure exerted by Constantius to conformto the court-appointed creed. The rst part of its general letterto that end has now been identied with the so-called EpistulaCatholica, traditionally relegated to the spurious Athanasianworks.59 In addition to that general purpose, Athanasius alsohoped to compose the divisions among the `anti-Arians' in thechurch in Antioch, and thus after the Council he had a specialcommission stay on to draft the so-called Tomus ad Antiochenos60

to the bishops who were to visit that church.E. Schwartz called into question the textual integrity of the

Tomus, pointing out that Paulinus did not style himself `bishop'in his subscription, as was usual, even though he had alreadybeen consecrated by the time he received the document.61

But then, neither did the other bishops designate their rank intheir subscriptions, except Eusebius of Vercelli.62 Perhaps thiswas a show of humility to encourage the rival pretenders tothe throne of Antioch to sacrice their claims to the quest forunity. Athanasius subscribed rst in this fashion, and the Greek-speaking bishops, at any rate, seem to have followed his example.Eusebius, says Tomus 10, subscribed in Latin, the Greek trans-lation of which it gives. If he read or understood Greek poorly,he might not have caught the hint, as the Eastern bishops whofollowed him did.

59 Cf. M. Tetz, `Ein enzyklisches Schreiben der Synode von Alexandrien (362)',ZNW 79 (1988), pp. 26281.

60 On the Tomus, cf. M. Tetz, `Uber nikaische Orthodoxie', ZNW 66 (1975),pp. 194222; R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God(Edinburgh, 1988), pp. 64252; A. Pettersen, `The Arian Context of Athanasiusof Alexandria's Tomus ad Antiochenos VII', JEH 41.2 (1990), pp. 18398;M. Simonetti, `Il concilio di Alessandria del 362 e l'origine della formulatrinitaria', Augustinianum 30 (1990), pp. 35360.

61 Gesammelte Schriften 4.46 (Berlin, 1960), n. 1.62 Cf. Tomus 911. Tetz (1975), p. 219, n. 77, noted this.

PAULINUS' SUBSCRIPTION 69

Paulinus' subscription is also preserved by Epiphanius(Panarion 77.21); here he does style himself `bishop'. He pre-sented it to Epiphanius as a certicate of his orthodoxy when in376 the latter travelled to Antioch to try to reconcile him withthe Apollinarians. We may conjecture that Paulinus, in subscrib-ing the copy he gave to Athanasius when he visited Antioch inthe autumn of 363, followed the peculiar style he found there;but in the copy which he retained for his own archive, he didnot neglect to establish his claim in the dispute which the Tomuswas intended to settle. The words kai` en tg xeiri` tou episkopou'Ahanasiou, which occur in the middle of the Christologicalsection of the Panarion version of his subscription, have beenplausibly explained by Tetz as a mistaken insertion made by Epi-phanius from a note Paulinus had attached to his subscription tosay that he had drawn his wording from what Athanasius him-self had put in the Tomus; Epiphanius assumed he meant thatAthanasius had actually written this part of the subscription.63

The version of the Tomus found in the Athanasian corpusshows the hand of the later editor; it is abridged from the original,lacking some of the subscriptions of those listed in section 9 ashaving subscribed, and contains glosses in section 11. There is,however, no reason to doubt the authenticity of Paulinus' sub-scription, whatever may be the textual di"culties with the onewhich follows.64

It has not proved easy to identify in each case the parties atvariance mentioned by the Tomus, which speaks of di^erencesof opinion about the propriety of speaking of the Trinity asone hypostasis or as three, and about the language suited to speak-ing of the incarnation (57). The identity of those divided overthe Christological language is unclear, since the denial of ahuman soul in Christ has been ascribed to both `Arians' andApollinarians. The latter were also represented at the synod, buttheir teachings were apparently not perceived as deviant untilafter 362, and they are not listed among the subscribers of theTomus. Hence some have wondered if the Christological disputewas between those suspected of `Arian' leanings in this matter(perhaps Tomus 3 suggests that some former `Arians' attendedthe synod) and the party of Paulinus, the leader of the Antiocheneminority loyal to the teachings of the former bishop Eustathius,who preferred LogosAnthropos language.

63 Tetz (1975), pp. 21921.64 Tetz (1975), pp. 221f.

70 P. R. AMIDON, SJ

Of those di^ering over Trinitarian terms, it is also unclear whorepresented the confession of the three hypostases, since Meletius,the rival claimant to the leadership of the `anti-Arians' in Antioch,was only one of many, `Arians' and `anti-Arians' alike, whoprofessed this language. Some have wondered if he even sentrepresentatives to the synod (he is not mentioned in the Tomus),or if rather the willingness expressed by the Tomus to acceptinto communion those confessing the three hypostases was notperhaps an attempt to detach from him those of his ock seekingunion with Paulinus.

Of the identity of those favoring the one-hypostasis language,however, there is no doubt: Paulinus and his associates followedEustathius' pro-Nicene doctrine here as well,65 and they wererepresented at the synod, as Tomus 9 explicitly says. And thislets us understand Athanasius' method of reconciling those at vari-ance over the Trinitarian language. Tomus 5 says that a declara-tion of loyalty to the Creed of Nicaea should have su"ced toreunite the di^ering sides, but that since an argument hadarisen over the use of the term `three hypostases' in speaking ofthe Trinity, those who preferred this language were asked`whether, like the Arians, they meant hypostases alien to oneanother.' They of course replied that they did not, and explainedhow they meant the term. Next the Paulinians were asked if theyused the term `one hypostasis' in a Sabellian sense, to deny theinner reality of the Trinity (Tomus 6). They in turn could onlydeny that this was so, and o^ered their own account of their posi-tion. As a result, says the Tomus, `those who had been criticizedfor speaking of three hypostases agreed with the others; andthose who had spoken of one ousia confessed what the rstgroup did as they had explained their language', and both sidesanathematized Arius, Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, and severalother notable heresiarchs.

A closer look at the text suggests how the agreement was formu-lated. Those who spoke of three hypostases, rst of all, whenasked why they did so, replied,

Because we believe in the Holy Trinity, not a Trinity in name only, butone which really exists and subsists. We recognize the Father as reallyexisting and subsisting, the Son as really and substantially existing andsubsisting, and the Holy Spirit as subsisting and existing (Patera tealghvz onta kai` uwestvta, kai` Uio`n alghvz enousion onta kai` uwestvta, kai`Pneuma acion uwestvz kai` uparxon). Nor do we speak of three Gods or

65 Cf. Basil, Ep. 263.5; Palanque, Bardy, de Labriolle, Histoire de lEglise (Paris,1936), 3.242, n. 3.

PAULINUS' SUBSCRIPTION 71

three principles or tolerate in any way those who speak or think so. But weacknowledge the Holy Trinity, one divinity, and one principle, the Sonconsubstantial to the Father, as the fathers say, and the Holy Spirit nota creature or alien, but proper to and undivided from the ousia of theSon and the Father (Tomus 5).

The Paulinians' account of their use of `hypostasis' was as follows:

When we use the word `hypostasis', we consider that `hypostasis' and`ousia' mean the same thing. We hold that there is one [hypostasis]because the Son is from the Father's ousia, and because of the identityof nature. We believe that there is one divinity having one nature, notthat there is one which belongs to the Father and another foreign to itbelonging to the Son, and another to the Holy Spirit (Tomus 6).

And nally, the rst part of Paulinus' own subscription reads:

I Paulinus hold as true what I received from the fathers: that the Fatherexists and subsists as perfect, the Son subsists as perfect, and the HolySpirit subsists as perfect ( Onta kai` uwestvta Patera teleion kai` uwestvtaUio`n teleion kai` uwestgko`z to` Pneuma to` acion teleion). Hence I accept theforegoing interpretation concerning the three hypostases, and the onehypostasis or ousia, and those who hold to it. For it is orthodox to holdand confess the Holy Trinity in one divinity _ (Tomus 11).

In comparing the three citations, we see at once that Paulinus'subscription contains the substance of his opponents' confession.The only allusion to his own party's formula is the phrase `hypo-stasis or ousia'; the profession of the one divinity was common tothem both, and about the identity of nature there is not a word.This is doubtless not simply a generous gesture on Paulinus' part,but stems from the procedure used at the synod: when the Tomusspeaks of the agreement between his opponents and him, it mustmean that each side incorporated in its subscription the centralterms of the other. We do not have the other party's subscription,which apparently did not survive the later editorial abridgment.But the reciprocity of profession appears clearly in Tomus 6: oiaitiahentez vz eirgkotez treiz upostaseiz sunetihento toutoiz. kai`autoi` de` oi eirgkotez mian ousian ta` ekeinvn vsper grmgneusan kai`vmolocoun. And the fragmentary information we have about theother subscriptions suggests that they breathed compromise,like Paulinus'; Eusebius of Vercelli disowned the creed of theCouncil of Sardica (Tomus 10), and the subscriptions of Lucifer'sdelegates, whatever they contained, were not at all to his liking.66

So much can be said about the composition of the Trinitarianpart of Paulinus' subscription; the origin of its Christological part

66 See n. 30.

72 P. R. AMIDON, SJ

is less clear, both because one is even less sure of the parties atodds in this matter, and because Tomus 7 is vaguer about the pro-cedure used to reconcile them. It should be evident by now, how-ever, that what Paulinus wrote about the Trinity and theincarnation is hardly some sort of additional paragraph to theTomus expressing his own views or creed; what he wrote is, instyle and extent, perfectly understandable within the conventionsof the ancient subscription as those had been reshaped in the heatof the theological battles of the last years of Constantius' reign.His words cannot be taken as an example of his own preferencein theological expression; like Lucifer of Calaris, he was boundby the actions of his legates, who subscribed for him accordingto the technique of reciprocity taken over by Athanasius fromValens and used to propose a new theological alliance.

V. CON C L U S I ON

We do not know when, in the course of church history, thecustom arose of subscribing creeds (and letters containing them)with elements of the contractual style of subscription (togetherwith elements of other styles, as we have seen). But once it wasestablished, and the convention of the contractual subscriptionwas joined to the traditional credal form, then the way was openfor trying new methods of uniting di^erent parties within thechurch; it only wanted the right minds to understand the possib-ilities. Reciprocity of subscription, the procedure by which each oftwo parties at variance validates or endorses the other's positionby subscription, had probably rst been suggested at the Synodof Arles of 353, although the references to that council are toobrief for one to be sure (cf. nn. 36 and 37); it certainly was atthe Synod of Milan two years later, where it was proposed thatthe two parties should each subscribe the other's document aswell as its own (the Creed of Nicaea with its condemnation ofArius on the one hand, and the condemnation of Athanasiuson the other). Valens, we have seen, vehemently refused, and soended the rst phase, the `two-document' phase, of reciprocalsubscription.

But he himself revived it at the Council of Ariminum in a di^er-ent form when he induced the pro-Nicene party to subscribe thehomoean creed by formulating his own subscription along appar-ently pro-Nicene lines, a fresh evolution in reciprocity. In this,the `single-document' phase, the two parties at variance bothsubscribed the creed of one of them, with the leader of the partywho sponsored the creed using language representing the doctrine

PAULINUS' SUBSCRIPTION 73

of his opponents (or so they thought). Athanasius, apparently aswell-informed as usual even in his place of concealment, seemsto have been able to follow Valens' adventures closely as thatastute prelate learned to wield ever more deftly the pen ofsubscription which he had snatched from Dionysius at the Synodof Milan. And at the Synod of Alexandria, where each of theparties at odds over Trinitarian language subscribed with theother's terms, he brought the single-document phase of the tech-nique into better balance: the two parties at variance used each theother's preferred language to subscribe a document whichendorsed the language of both as compatible within the doctrinalframework of the creed of one of them.

The method, however, had no chance of developing further inthe time of the emperors Valentinian and Valens, in whose churchpolicy the subscription of creeds lost its importance.67

PHILIP R. AMIDON, SJ

67 Cf. C. H. Turner, The History and Use of Creeds and Anathemas in the EarlyCenturies of the Church (Oxford, 19102), p. 31.

74 P. R. AMIDON, SJ