THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
as the Creed of Sardica, although it is clear from Athanasius that it was not formally accepted, but only proposed by " some " (" Book to the Antiochians," v.). Hosius and Protogenes^of Sardica, who joined with him in the letter to Pope Julius that accompanied the formula, were among those who desired an exposition of the Nicene Creed; and it is probable that this formula was of his composition. Its main interest lies in the fact that it is the nearest approach to an " official " interpretation of the Nicene Creed; and from this point of view it deserves increased attention.
After the Council of Sardica Hosius disappears once more for ten years. The next heard of him is that in the winter of 353-354 Liberius 4. Unhappy of Rome sent him word of the steps Close of he was taking in the direction of the Life. convocation of a new synod, and of the lamentable weakness with which his legate, Vincentius of Capua, had yielded under pressure at the Synod of Aries. A few years later, however, the nestor of orthodoxy was in scarcely better case than Vincent, in spite of the ingenious constructions put upon the data by Roman Catholic controversialists and of some difficulties which must be admitted in the " History of the Arians." Hosius had taken no part in the synods of Aries (353) and Milan (spring of 355); but the bishops of the court party were desirous, after Liberius had fallen a victim to their wiles and been banished (summer or autumn of 355) , to draw Hosius by hook or by crook into agreement with their course. Incited by them, Constantius summoned the aged bishop to his presence, undoubtedly at Milan. But Hosius was not to be induced to declare against Athanasius or to hold communion with the " Arians "; and his resistance so impressed the emperor that he allowed him to return home undisturbed. The court bishops again stirred up Constantius to write a threatening letter to him; but Hosius stood firm, and to threats and seductions alike made the brave and wellconsidered answer which Athanasius has preserved, containing an anathema against the Arians, warm support of Athanasius, and earnest admonitions to the emperor himself. Finally, finding a pretext in the refusal of other Spaniards, presumably influenced by Hosius, to sign against Athanasius, Constantius summoned him to Sirmium, and kept him there a whole year, beginning (on the best computation) not earlier than July, 357. It is known that Hosius signed the " second Sirmian formula," the compromise proposed by the court bishops which aimed at avoiding " unscriptural " expressions as to the ousia of Christ, and expressed itself in ante-Nicene and Biblical terms which now concealed a decided Arian tendency. Hilary, in his treatise De synodis (beginning of 359), which begins with this " blasphemy at Sirmium," distinctly asserts that Hosius was " carried away by the teaching of a new impiety." It is not necessary to understand by Hilary's strong expressions anything more than Hosius' assent to the compromise formula; but even this meant much. It was sent out far and wide as approved by him; Phcebadius says in his Liber contra Arianos (358) that his name was used as a battering-ram against the Gallic bishops; and, I
according to Sozomen (IV., xii. 7), Eudoxius had a letter at the Synod of Antioch in the spring of 358 in which, in the spirit of the Sirmian formula, Hosius declared against both homoousios and homoiousios and which was thus taken as favoring the anomoio's view. Whether this and other letters were genuine or not, the fact remains that the court bishops did not hesitate to make the aged man their standardbearer. It used to be thought that his yielding took place at the end of the " whole year " mentioned by Athanasius. But the Sirmian " synod " was held before Nov., 357, and Hosius, as has been seen, did not come to Sirmium earlier than July of that year. He must have given way to the emperor's threats soon after his arrival — according to Faustinus and Marcellinus, " lest he should suffer banishment "• and Athanasius expressly says that his detention at Sirmium was " in place of banishment." It was probably, therefore, to use him in the capacity of a standard-bearer that Constantius kept him there. The attempts to prove that he died Aug. 27, 357 or that he soon recalled his assent, are unsuccessful. It is impossible to fix the date of his death; and while the fact of his weak compliance seems only too well proved, it is scarcely safe to attempt to assign its motives, or to reconcile the courageous firmness of the letter to Constantius with the courtier-like diplomacy that marks alike his entrance upon, and his departure from the stage of history. He seems to have had no importance as an author. The Sententice published by Pitra (Analecta sacra, v. 117), under his name can not be shown to be even probably his. (F. Loofs.)
Bibliography: His letters, preceded by a historical notice, are in MPL, viii. 1309-32. Consult: P. B. Gams, Kircha> geschichte von Spanien, ii. 1-309, iii. 2, pp. 484-490, Regensburg, 1864-79; A. W. W. Dale, Synod of Elvira, London, 1882; O. Seeck, in ZKG, xvii (1897), 1-71, 319- 362; Tillemont, Memoires, vii. 300-321, 711-716 of Venice ed.; Ceillier, Auteurs sacres, iii. 392-398, 418-425; Neander, Christian Church, vol. ii. passim; Hefele, ConcilieTigeschichte, vol. i. passim, Eng. transl., vols. i-ii. passim; Harnack, Dogma, vol. iii. passim; DCB, iii. 162-174 (detailed); KL, vi. 290-295.
HOSIUS (HOSS), STANISLAUS: Bishop of Ermland and cardinal; b. at Cracow May 5, 1504; d. at
Capranica (25 m. n.n.w. of Rome),
Earlier Italy, Aug. 5, 1579. He began his
Life. humanistic studies at Cracow, and
appears, even in boyhood, to have turned away from the world in exaggerated fashion. He owed his advancement to Bishop Tomicki of Cracow, whose nephews he instructed as tutor. Among his Epistolce (published by the Cracow Historical Academy, vol. i., 1879; vol. ii., 1888) are several from this period — to Dantiscus, bishop elect of Culm, written at Venice, 1530 (vol. i., Episi. 6); to the governor of Bologna, the celebrated historical writer Francesco Guicciardini (i. <1 written 1532); and to the papal legate Campeggi (i. 8). Upon Hosius' return to Poland Tomicki employed him as secretary, and after the bishops death (1535) he obtained a position in the royal chancery. Though now, by the acquisition of a canonry of Frauenburg, in possession of three benefices, he was not yet a priest; and not until 1543, when still other benefices were added, did he deem it time to receive ordination. He did not officiate