57 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Uhlhorn Ulfilas
most friendly terms for more than a generation; and before the issue was decided, he had passed away. The cause and progress of these events are wrapped in obscurity. From the
3. Later letter of Auxentius, the sole document
Years. dealing with the death of Ulfilas, it would appear that, shortly after the council of Aquileia, Ulfilas and other bishops went to the imperial court, where, at their request, Theodosius promised to convene another synod for the settlement of the Arian controversy. This journey apparently took place in the autumn of 381 or the winter of 381-382, and somewhat later Ulfilas was summoned by the emperor to return to Constantinople to take part in a disputation on the problems at issue, or, in other words, to attend the synod convened at Constantinople by Theodosius in June, 383. Bishops of every shade of doctrine had already assembled when Nectarius, patriarch of Constantinople, succeeded in preventing the open debate promised by the emperor, who, instead, required each of the theological factions to present its own creed. This done, Theodosius gave his approval to the Nicene formula, tore up the others, and sent the bishops to their homes. It would accordingly seem that Ulfilas had reached the capital in June, 383, had fallen ill shortly afterward, and, though able to take part in the deliberations of his faction concerning the formulation of their creed, so that he himself drew up one for this purpose, had died before the imperial decision was received.
According to Socrates (Hist. eccl., ii. 41), Ulfilas, as a pupil of the Crimgothic bishop Theophilus, was primarily an adherent of the Nicene Creed, be-
coming an Arian only at the synod 4. Theology. held at Constantinople early in 360.
This account is followed in the main by Sozomen (Hist. eccl., vi. 37), while 'Theodoret (Hist. eccl., iv. 37) makes the Arianism of Ulfilas date from 376. The Acta Nicete, on the other hand, represent him as a true Catholic throughout his life, and as the founder of none but orthodox communities among the Goths. The creed drawn up by Ulfilas himself runs thus: ‘I, Ulfilas, bishop and confessor, have ever thus believed, and in this sole true faith I pass unto the Lord: I believe that there is one only God, unbegotten and invisible; and in his only begotten Son, our Lord and God, creator and maker of every creature, not having his like. Therefore, God is one, who is also God of our God. And in one Holy Ghost, virtue illuminating and sanctifying . . . neither God nor Lord, but the [faithful] minister of Christ, not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son; and the Son subject and obedient in all things to God the Father.’”’ Of the following lines of this creed only the words ‘‘ through Christ ” and ‘“‘ by the Holy Ghost,”’ as well as a few letters, have survived. It is clear, however, that Ulfilas was unconscious of ever haying changed his theological position, and the statements of Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and the Acta Nicete must, therefore, be rejected. On the other hand, the creed seems to contain no clue as to the anti-Nicene group in which Ulfilas is to be reckoned. But the very fact that Ulfilas avoids all reference to the essence shows that he was a ho-
moian. This is borne out by a number of other facts: Auxentius testifies that he ‘‘ said the Son was like the Father . . . according to the divine Scriptures and traditions’; he was one of the fortysix bishops who condemned and deposed Aitius at Constantinople early in 360; his pupil Auxentius, his partizans Palladius of Ratiaria, Secundianus, Demophilus of Berea, and Maximinus, and his successor Selinas were all homoians, as was the entire Gothic church. It is true that the homoians first appeared as a distinct faction at a synod held at Sirmium in 357; but the rapidity with which they became dominant along the lower Danube shows that their views had there long met favor, so that they were speedily adopted officially by the majority of the bishops. The homoian rejection of every dogma that could not be proved from the Bible won the hearty support of such a conservative and traditionalist as Ulfilas, who, as Auxentius tells, regarded the Nicene Creed as a “‘ devilish innovation,” sided with the anti-Nicene party at Antioch in 341, and, when the A‘tians and homoousians began to draw apart, joined the homoians, whose watchword was “ according to the Scriptures.” Herein he could follow not merely his own inclination, but the example of almost all the bishops and churches of the Danube regions, where Arianism of this sort was so firmly intrenched that orthodoxy was forced to struggle with it until late in the fifth century.
Auxentius reports that Ulfilas ‘‘ proved by sermons and treatises that there is a difference between the divinity of the Father and of the Son. He preached continually in the one and only Church of Christ in the Greek, Latin, and Gothic tongues,
and he also left behind him a number
5. Works; of treatises and many interpretations Bible in these same three languages.”’ None Translation. of these productions has survived under the name of Ulfilas, although it
is not impossible that fragments may be included among the numerous remnants of Arian (or, rather, homoian) literature that are still extant. A number of works—the fragments of a homoian commentary on Luke (ed. A. Mai, Nova collectio, iii. 2, pp. 191- 207, 10 vols., Rome, 1825-38) and of the Opus imperfectum in Mattheum, and the Gothic Skeireins aiwaggeljons thairh Johannen (‘‘ Interpretation of the Gospel according to John ’’)—have indeed been ascribed to him, but on insufficient basis. The sole fragment of Ulfilas now extant is his incomplete confession of 383, and even this was probably written in Greek, not in Latin, as it now stands. The fame of Ulfilas is chiefly due, however, to two facts: his creation of a Gothic alphabet from modifications and adaptations of the Greek, Latin, and runic alphabets; and his Gothic translation of the Bible. Philostorgius and Socrates exaggerate his services when they ascribe to him the absolute invention of this new script; but there is little doubt that he formed it expressly to commit to writing his version of the Bible. This was intended primarily for the liturgy, not for private devotion; and as there were then no lectionaries, he was obliged to translate the entire Bible. How far he was able to execute this plan is unknown. Philo-
Ulfilas Ulrich of Wuerttemberg