had severed his connection with the lesser body and entered the state church, retaining, however, throughout his whole course a strong sympathy for the communion of his earlier days.51 Others attribute his favorable attitude towards Novatianism to his general indifference for theological refinements, others to mere intellectual sympathy for their tenets. In the absence of any definite utterance of his own on the subject, a combination of the last two motives comes nearest to sufficiently explaining the position of Socrates, although his rather unappreciative estimate of Chrysostom52 and his severe censure of Cyril of Alexandria53 are both more easily accounted for on the ground of a more intimate relation between the historian and the Novatians, as both of the above-named eminent men were declared enemies of Novatianism. In other respects it cannot be doubted that the creed of Socrates was very simple and xiii primitive. The one essential article in it was the doctrine of the Trinity; all others were sub- ordinate. Even as to the Trinity, he would have accepted a much less rigid definition than the one propounded at Nicæa. As, however, the latter had been generally adopted by the church, he finds himself defending it against Arianism as well as against all sorts of com- promise. He believed in the inspiration of the great synods as well as in that of the Scriptures, and was satisfied to receive without questioning the decisions of the former as he did the teachings of the latter. He was not, however, particular about the logical consequences of his theological positions, but ready to break off upon sufficient extra-theological reasons. His warm defense of Origen and arraignment of Methodius, Eustathius, Apollinaris, and Theophilus,54 for attempting to belittle the great Alexandrian, shows how his admiration of a genius came into and modified his estimates. He considered all disputes on dogmatic statements as unnecessary and injurious, due to misunderstanding; and this chiefly because the parties in the dispute did not take pains to understand one another, and perhaps did not desire to do so because of personal jealousies or previous and private hatreds.55 He is willing to refer such lawful questions on doctrinal points as may come before him to the clergy for decision, and is never backward about confessing his ignorance and incompetency to deal with theological refinements. He makes a cogent defense of the use of pagan writings by Christians,56 alleging that some of the pagan writers were not far from the knowledge of the true God; that Paul himself had read and used their works; that the neglect or refusal to use them could only lead to ig- 51 So Harnack in Herzog-Plitt, Real-Encykl. and Encyclop. Britan. 52 VI. 3, 4, 5, 15, 18, 19, 21. 53 VII. 15. 54 VI. 13, 17; VII. 45. 55 I. 23; cf. also II. 40, end: ἀλλ᾽ ὅπως μὴν ταῦτα ἔχει, &c. 56 III. 16. 11 Life of Socrates.