After the fiasco of the Dated Creed, the issue of the Councils was not doubtful. The details may be reserved for another place (pp. 448, 453 sgg.), but the general result is noteworthy. At both Councils the court party were in a minority, and in both alike they eventually had their way. (See Bright, Hést. Tr. Ixxxiv.—xc., and Gwatkin, 170—180.) On the whole the Seleucian synod came out of the affair more honourably than the other, as their eventual surrender was confined to their delegates. Both Councils began bravely. The majorities deposed their opponents and affirmed their own faith, the Westerns that of Niczea, the Easterns that of the Dedication. From both Councils deputations from each rival section went to the Emperor, who was now at Constantinople. The deputies from the majority at Ariminum, where the meeting had begun fully two months before the other, were not received, but detained first at Hadrianople, then at Niké in Thrace (chosen, says Socr, ii. 37, to impose on the world by the name), where they were induced to sign a recension of the Dated Creed (the Creed itself had been revoked and recast without the date and perhaps without the kara mdvra before the preliminary meeting at Sirmium broke up, p. 466) of a more distinctly Homcean character. Armed with this document Valens brought them back to the Council, and ‘by threats and cajolery’ obtained the signatures of nearly all the bishops. Yet the stalwart Phcebadius, Claudius of Picenum, the venerable African Muzonius, father of the Council, and a few others, were undaunted. But Valens, by adroit dissimulation and by guiding into a manageable shape the successive anathematisms by which his orthodoxy was tested, managed to deceive these simple-minded Westerns, and with applause and exultation, ‘plausu quodam et tripudio’ (Jer.), amidst which ‘Valens was lauded to the skies’ (!), the bishops were released from their wearisome detention and suspense. But Valens ‘cum recessisset tune gloriabatur’ (Prov. xx. 14). The Western bishops realised too late what they had done, ‘ Ingemuit totus orbis, etse Arianum esse miratus est.” Valens hurried with the creed and the anathemas of Phcebadius to Constantinople, where he found the Seleucian deputies in hot discussion at court. The Eastern bishops at Seleucia had held to the ‘ Lucianic’ creed, and contemptuously set aside not only the Acacian alternative (p. 466), but the whole compromise of Basil and Mark at the Sirmian conference of the preceding May. The ‘ Conservatives’ and Acacians were at open war. But the change of the seat of war to the court gave the latter the advantage, and Valens and Acacius were determined to secure their position at any cost. The first step was to compel the signature of the ‘semi-Arian’ deputies to the creed of Ariminum. This was facilitated by the renewal on the part of Acacius and Valens of their repudiation, already announced at Seleucia (p. 466), of the "Avéuoioy, (of course with the mental reservation that the repudiation referred only to will), Even so, tedious discussions *7, and the threats of Constantius, with whom Basil had now lost all his influence (Thdt. ii. 27), were needed to bring about the required compliance late at night on New Year’s Eve, 359—360 (Soz. iv. 23). In January, at the dedication of the Great Church of Constantine, the second step was taken, The revised creed of Niké was reissued without the anathemas of Ariminum. Aetius was offered by his friend Eudoxius as a sacrifice to the Emperor’s scruples (see the account of the previous debates in Thdt. dz supra), much as Arius had been sacrificed by his fellow-Lucianists at Niczea (§ 2 szpra: nine bishops protested, but were allowed six months to reconsider their objection; the six months lasted two years, and then a reconciliation with Aetius took place for a time, Philost. vii. 6). Next a clean sweep was made of the leading semi- Arians on miscellaneous charges (Soz. iv. 24, sg.), and Eudoxius was installed as bishop of the New Rome in the > place of Macedonius, The sacrifice of Aetius gave the Homeeans a free hand against their opponents, and was compensated by the appointment of numerous Anomceans to vacant sees. In particular Eunomius replaced Eleusius at Cyzicus. In the eastern half of the Empire Homceanism was supreme, and remained so politically for nearly twenty years, But not in the West. Before the Council of Constantinople met, the power of the West had passed away from Constantius. Gaul had acknowledged Julian as Augustus, and from Gaul came the voice of defiance for the Homcean leaders and sympathy for their deposed opponents (Hil. Fvag. xi.). And even in the East, throughout their twenty years the Homceans retained their hold upon the Church by a dead hand, ‘The moral strength of Christendom lay elsewhere;’ on the one hand the followers of Eunomius were breaking loose from Eudoxius and forming a definitely Arian sect, those of Macedonius crystallising their cruder conservatism into the illogical creed of the ‘Pneumatomachi;’ on the other hand the second generation of the ‘semi-Arians’ were, under the influence of Athanasius, working their way to the Greek Catholicism of the future, the Catholicism of the neo-Nicene school, of Basil and the two Gregories.
The lack of inner cohesion in the Homoean ranks was exemplified at the start in the election of a new bishop for Antioch. Eudoxius had vacated the see for that of New Rome; Anianus, the nominee of the Homceusian 17 The discussions, reported with every appearance of sub- stantial accuracy by Thdt. ii. 27, may have taken place at this time, or at the council of the succeeding month (Thdt. fails to distinguish the two meetings). Gwatkin, p. 180, appears to be right in adopting the former alternative, viz. that the party of Basil prudently abstained from attending a council in which they would be overpowered: cf. Soz. iv. 24, who however contradicts eee in the next chapter, swim. But the case is not quite clear, WRITINGS DURING THE THIRD EXILE. lvit " majority of Seleucia, was out of the question; accordingly at a Council in 361 the Acacians fixed upon Meletius, who had in the previous year accepted from the Homceans of CP. the See of Sebaste in the room of the exiled Eustathius. The new Bishop was requested by the Emperor to preach on the test passage Prov. viii. 22. This he did to a vast and eagerly expectant congregation. To the delight of the majority (headed by Diodorus and Flavian), although he avoided the duoovciov, he spoke with no uncertain sound on the essential likeness of the Son to the Father. Formally ‘ Nicene,’ indeed, the sermon was not (text in Epiph. er. lxxiii. 29-33, see Hort, p- 96, note 1), but the dismay of the Homoean bishops equalled the joy of the Catholic laity. Meletius was ‘ deposed’ in favour of the old Arian Euzoius (#/r., p. 70), and after his return under Jovian gave in his formal adhesion to the Nicene test.
(3.) The history of Athanasius during this period is the history of his writings. Hidden from all but devotedly loyal eyes, whether in the cells of Nitria and the Thebaid, or lost in the populous solitude of his own city, he followed with a keen and comprehensive glance the march of events outside. Two men in this age had skill to lay the physician’s finger upon the pulse of religious conviction; Hilary, the Western who had learned to understand and sympathise with the East, Athanasius, the Oriental representative of the theological instincts of the West. First of all came the writings of which we have spoken, the circular to the bishops and the Apology to Constantius; then the dignified Apology for his flight, written not long before the expulsion of George late in 358, when he had begun to realise the merciless enmity and profound duplicity of the Emperor. We find him not long after this in correspondence with the exiled confessor, Lucifer of Calaris (pp. 561 sg., 481 sgg.), and warning the Egyptian monks against compromising relations with Arian visitors (Letter 53, a document of high interest), narrating to the trusted Serapion the facts as to the death of Arius, and sending to the monks a concise refutation of Arian doctrine (Leffers 52, 54). With the latter is associated a reissue of the Apology of 351, and, as a continuation of it, the solitary monument of a less noble spirit which Athanasius has left us, the one work which we would gladly believe to have come from any other pen'®. But this supposition is un- tenable, and in the ferocious pamphlet against Constantius known as the Arian History we are reminded that noble as he was, our saint yet lived in an age of fierce passions and reckless personal violence. The Avian History has its noble features—no work of Athanasius could lack them—but it reveals not the man himself but his generation; his exasperation, and the meanness of his persecutors. (For details on all these tracts see the Introductions and notes to them.) None of the above books directly relate to the doctrinal developments sketched above. But these developments called forth the three greatest works of his exile, and indeed of his whole career. Firstly, the four Adyo or Tracts against Arianism, his most famous dogmatic work. Of these an account will be given in the proper place, but it may be noticed here that they are evidently written with a conciliatory as well as a controversial purpose, and in view of the position between 357 and 359. Vext, the four dogmatic letters to Serapion, the second of which reproduces the substance of his position against the Arians, while the other three are devoted to a question overlooked in the earlier stages of the contro- versy, the Coessentiality of the Holy Spirit. This work may possibly have come after the ¢hird, and in some ways the most striking, of the series, the de Synodis written about the end of 359, and intended as a formal offer of peace to the Homeeusian party. Following as it did closely upon the conciliatory work of Hilary, who was present at Seleucia on the side of the majority, this magnanimous Eirenicon produced an immediate effect, which we trace in the letters of the younger Basil written in the same or following year; but the full effect and justification of the book is found in the influence exerted by Athanasius upon the new orthodoxy which eventually restored the ‘ten provinces’ to ‘the knowledge of God’ (Hil. de Syn, 63. Further details in Introd. to de Syn., infra, p. 448. It may be remarked that the romantic idea of his secret presence at Seleucia, and even at Ariminum, must be dismissed as a too rigid inference from an expression used by him in that work: see note 1 there).
This brings us to the close of the eventful period of the Third Exile, and of the long series of creeds which registers the variations of Arianism during thirty years. We may congratulate ourselves on ‘having come at last to the end of the labyrinthof expositions (Socr. ii. 41), and within sight of the emergence of conviction out of confusion, of order out of chaos. The work of setting in order opens our next period. Of the exile there is nothing more to tell except its close. Hurrying from Antioch on his way from the Persian frontier to oppose the eastward march of Julian, Constantius caught a fever, was baptised by Euzoius, and died at Mopsucrene under Mount Taurus, on Nov. 3, 361. Julian at once avowed the heathenism he had long cherished in secret, and by an edict, published in Alexandria on Feb. 9, recalled from exile all 18 He always used amanuenses, but we have no evidence that he entrusted them with actual composition, p. 242.
lvili PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER IL, § 9.
bishops banished by Constantius. ‘And twelve days after the posting of this edict Athanasius appeared at Alexandria and entered the Church on the twenty-seventh day of the same month, Mechir (Feb. 21). He remained in the Church until the twenty-sixth of Paophi (i.e., Oct. 23) .. eight whole months’ (Ast, Aceph. vii. ‘The murder of George has been referred to above, p. liti.).
$9. Athanasius under Julian and his successors; Fourth and Fifth Exiles. Feb. 21, 362, (a) Zhe Council of Alexandria in 362. The eight months of undisturbed residence enjoyed by Athanasius under Julian were well employed. One of his first acts was to convoke a Synod at Alexandria to deal with the questions which stood in the way of the peace of the Church. The Synod was one ‘of saints and confessors,’ including as it did many of the Egyptian bishops who had suffered under George (p. 483, note 3, again we miss the name of the trusted Serapion), Asterius of Petra and Eusebius of Vercellae, with legates from Lucifer of Calaris, Apollinarius of Laodicea, and Paulinus the Presbyter who ruled the Eustathian community of Antioch. Our knowledge of the proceedings of the Synod (with an exception to be referred to later on) is derived entirely from its ‘Tome’ or Synodal letter addressed to the latter community and to the exiles who were its guests. Rufinus, from whom or from the Tome itself Socrates appears to derive his knowledge, follows the Tome closely, with perhaps a faint trace of knowledge from some other‘ source. Sozomen gives a short and inadequate report (v. 12). But the importance of the Council is out of all proportion either to the number of bishops who took part in it or to the scale of its documentary records. Jerome goes so far as to say that by its judicious conciliation it ‘snatched the whole world from the jaws of Satan’ (Adv. Lucif. 20). If this is in any measure true, if it undid bothin East and West the humiliating results of the twin Synods of 359, the honour of the achievement is due to Athanasius alone. He saw that victory was not to be won by smiting men who were ready for peace, that the cause of Christ was not to be furthered by breaking the bruised reed and quenching the smoking flax. (Best accounts of the Council, Newman, Avzans V.i., Kriiger, Luci/. 41—52, Gwatkin, p. 205, sgg.) The details may be reserved for the Introduction to the Tome, p. 481. But in the strong calm moderation of that document we feel that Athanasius is no longer a combatant arduously contending for victory, but a conqueror surveying the field of his triumph and resolving upon the terms of peace. The Council is the ripe first-fruits of the de Synodis, the decisive step by which he placed himself at the head of the reuniting forces of Eastern Christendom; forces which under the recognised headship of the ‘ Father of Orthodoxy’ were able successfully to withstand the revived political supremacy of Arianism under Valens, and after his death to cast it out of the Church. The Council then is justly recognised as the crown of the career of Athanasius, for its resolutions and its Letter unmistakably proceed from him alone, and none but he could have tempered the fiery zeal of the confessors and taught them to distinguish friend from foe.
It would have been well had Lucifer been there in person and not by deputy only. As it was he had gone to Antioch in fiery haste, with a promise extorted by Eusebius to do nothing rashly. Fanatical in his orthodoxy, quite unable to grasp the theological differences between the various parties (his remonstrances with Hilary upon the conciliatory efforts of the latter shew his total lack of theology: see also Kriiger, pp. 36, sg.), and con- centrating all his indignation upon persons rather than principles, Lucifer found Antioch without a bishop; for Euzoius was an Arian, and Meletius, whose return to the church of the Palzea was (so it seems) daily expected, was to Lucifer little better. What to such a man could seem a quicker way to the extinction of the schism than the immediate ordination of a bishop whom all would respect, and whose record was one of the most uncompromising resistance to heresy? Lucifer accordingly, with the aid we may suppose of Kymatius and Anatolius, ordained Paulinus, the widely-esteemed head of the irreconcileable or (to adopt Newman’s word) protestant minority, who had never owned any Bishop of Antioch save the deposed and banished Eustathius. The act of Lucifer had momentous consequences (see D.C.B. on MELETIUS and FLAVIAN, &c.); it perpetuated the existing tendency to schism between Kast and West; and but for the forbearance of Athanasius it would perhaps have wrecked the alliance of Conservative Asia with Nicene orthodoxy which his later years cemented. Even as it was, the relations between Athanasius and Basil were sorely tried by the schism of Antioch. The Tome however was signed by Paulinus”, who added a short statement of his own faith, which, by recognising the legitimacy of the theological language of the other catholic party at Antioch, implicitly conceded the falseness of his own position.
t He states (z) That a rigorist party in the council were at first opposed to all conciliatory measures; this is highly probable, | see Hieron. adv. Lucif. 203; (2) that former active Arians were to be admitted to lay communion only; this is not unlikely; (3) by implication, that Eusebius and Lucifer went first to Antioch, and agreed to take no step till after the Council which Eus. was to attend in person, and Luc. by deputy, at Alxa., but that Luc. broke his promise. This may contain a grain of truth, Le. that Lucifer promised to do nothing before he heard from Alxa., but Eusebius can scarcely have gone to Antioch. I owe these notices to the excellent analysis of our sources of information in Kriiger, Luci. p. 46 sg.; but he makes an odd slip, p. 48, in saying that Soz. ‘schweigt von der Synode zu Alex. uberhaupt.’
2 This is placed later in 363 by Dr. Bright, D.C.B. i. 190, on the ground of a statement of Epiphanius, He”. 77. 20, which, however is not quite decisive on the point.
‘ ATHANASIUS UNDER JULIAN. tix Eusebius and Asterius of Petra carried the letter to Antioch, where they found the mischief already done. In deep pain at the headstrong action of his fellow-countryman, Husebius gave practical assurance to both parties of his full sympathy and recognition, and made his way home through Asia and Illyria, doing his best in the cause of concord wherever he came. Lucifer renounced communion with all the parties to what he considered a guilty compromise, and journeyed home to Sardinia, making mischief everywhere (terribly so at Naples, according to the grotesque tale in the Lib. Prec. » see D.C.B. iv. 1221 under Zosimus (2)), and ended his days in the twofold reputation of saint and schismatic (Kriiger, pp. 55, 116 sg.)
__ It may be well to add a few words upon the supposed Coptic acts of this council, and upon their connection with the very ancient Synxtagma Doctrine, wrongly so named, and wrongly ascribed to Athanasius. These acts” are in reality a series of documents consisting of (1) The Nicene Creed, Canons, and Signatures; (2) A Coptic recension of the Sytagma Doctrine; (3) the letter of Paulinus from Zom. Ant., sub fin., a letter of Epiphanius, and a fragmentary letter of ‘ Rufinus,’ i.e. Rufinianus (see mfr. p. 566, note 1). Revillout, who pub- lished these texts from a Turin and a Roman (Borgia) manuscript in 1881 (Ze Conctle de Nicée a apres les textes Coptes) jumped (Archives des missions scientifiques et littéraires, 1879) at the conclusion that the whole series emanated from the council of 362, from whose labours all our copies of the Nicene canons and signatures are supposed by him to emanate. His theory cannot be discussed at length in this place. It is worked out with ingenuity, but with insufficient knowledge of general Church history. It appears to be adopted wholesale by Eichhorn in his otherwise critical and excellent Athanaséi de vita ascetica testimonia (see below, p. 189); but even those whose scepticism has not been awaked by the hypothesis itself must I think be satisfied by the careful study of M. Batiffol (Studia Patristica, fasc. ii.) that Revillout has erected a castle in the air. Of any ‘acts’ of the Council of 362 the documents contain no trace at all. It is therefore out of place to do more than allude here to the great interest of the Syxtagma in its three or four extant recensions in connection at once with the history of Egyptian Monasticism and with the literature of the Away} Tay 18’ aroordAwv (see Harnack in Theol. Litze. 1887, pp: 32, sgg-, Eichhorn, 20. p. 569, Warfield in Andover Review, 1886, p. 81, sgq.) and other American literature referred to by Harnack a.a.O).
All over the Empire the exiles were returning, and councils were held (p. 489), repu- diating the Homcean formula of union, and affirming that of Nica. In dealing with the question of those who had formerly compromised themselves with Arianism, these councils followed the lead of that of Alexandria, which accordingly is justly said by Jerome (adv. Luctf. 20) to have snatched the world from the jaws of Satan, by obviating countless schisms and attaching to the Church many who might otherwise have been driven back into Arianism.
Such were the more enduring results of the recall of the exiled bishops by Julian; results very different from what he contemplated in recalling them. Apparently before the date of the council he had written to the Alexandrians (Z/. 26), explaining that he had recalled the: exiles to their countries, not to their sees, and directing that Athanasius, who ought after so many sentences against him to have asked special permission to return, should leave the City at once on pain of severer punishment. An appeal seems to have been made against this order by the people of Alexandria, but without effect. Pending the appeal Athanasius apparently felt safe in remaining in the town, and carrying out the measures described above. In October (it would seem) Julian wrote an indignant letter to the Prefect Ecdikius Olympus (Sievers, p. 124), threatening a heavy fine if Athanasius, ‘the enemy of the gods,’ did not leave not only Alexandria, but Egypt, at once. He adds an angry comment on his having dared to baptize ‘in my reign’ Greek ladies of rank (4. 6). Another letter (ZZ. 51) to the people of Alexandria, along with arguments in favour of Serapis and the gods, and against Christ, reiterates the order for Athanasius to leave Egypt by Dec. 1. Julian’s somewhat petulant reference to the bishop as a ‘contemptible little fellow’ ill conceals his evident feeling that Athanasius, who had ‘coped with Constantius like a king battling with a king’ (Greg. Naz.), was in Egypt a power greater than himself. But no man has ever wielded such political power as Athanasius with so little disposition to use it. He bowed his head to the storm and prepared to leave Alexandria once more (Oct. 23). His friends stood round lamenting their loss, ‘Be of good heart,’ he replied, ‘it is only a cloud, and will soon pass away’ (Soz. v.14). He took a Nile boat, and set off toward Upper Egypt, but finding that he was tracked by the government officers he directed the boat’s course to be reversed. Presently they met that of the pursuers, who suspecting nothing asked for news of Athanasius. ‘He is not far off’ was the answer, given according to one account by Athanasius himself (Thdt. iii. 9, Socr. 1. 14). He returned to Cheereu, the first station on the road eastward from Alexandria (as is inferred from the Thereu or Thereon of Hist. Aceph. vii., viii.; but the identification is merely conjec- tural; for Cheereu cf. /é#in. and Vit. Ant. 86), and after danger of pursuit was over, ‘ ascended to the upper parts of Egypt as far as Upper Hermupolis in the Thebaid and as far as Antinoupolis; and while he abode in these places it was learned that Julian the Emperor was dead, and that Jovian, a Christian, was Emperor’ (Hist. Aceph.). Of his stay in the Thebaid (cf. Fest. Ind. xxxv.) some picturesque details are preserved in the life of Pachomius and the letter of Ammon (on which see*below, p. 487). As he approached Hermupolis, the bishops, clergy, and monks (‘about roo in number’) of the Thebaid lined both banks of the river to welcome him. ‘Who are these,’ he exclaimed, ‘that fly as a cloud and as doves with their » ix PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER IL, § 0.
young ones’ (Isa. lx. 8, LXX). Then he saluted the Abbat Theodore, and asked after the brethren. ‘ Bythy holy prayers, Father, we are well.” He was mounted on an ass and escorted to the monastery with burning torches (they ‘ almost set fire to him’), the abbat walking before him on foot. He inspected the monasteries, and expressed his high approval of all he heard and saw, and when Theodore, upon departing for his Easter (363) visitation 3 of the bre- thren, asked ‘the Pope’ to remember him in his prayers, the answer was characteristic: If we forget thee, O Jerusalem’ (Vit. Pachom. 92, see p. 569). About midsummer he was near Antinoupolis, and trusted messengers warned him that the pursuers were again upon his track. Theodore brought his covered boat to escort him up to Tabenne, and in company with an ‘abbat’ called Pammon they made their way slowly against wind and stream. Athanasius became much alarmed arid prayed earnestly to himself, while Theodore’s monks towed the boat from the shore. Athanasius, in reply to an encouraging remark of Pammon, spoke of the peace of mind he felt when under persecution, and of the consolation of suffering and even death for Christ’s sake. Pammon looked at Theodore, and they smiled, barely restraining a laugh. ‘You think me a coward,’ said Athanasius. ‘Tell him,’ said Theodore to Pammon. ‘No, you must tell him.’ Theodore then announced to the astonished archbishop that at that very hour Julian had been killed in Persia, and that he should lose no time in making his way to the new Christian Emperor, who would restore him to the Church. The story (below, p. 487) implies rather than expressly states that the day and hour tallied exactly with the death of Julian, June 26, 363. This story is, on the whole, the best attested of the many legends of the kind which surround the mysterious end of the unfortunate prince. (Cf. Thdt. & Z. iii. 23, Soz. vi. 2. For the religious policy of Julian and his relation to Church history, see Rendall’s /uZiaxz and the full and excellent article by Wordsworth in D.C.B. iii. 484—525.)
Athanasius entered Alexandria secretly and made his way by way of Hierapolis (Sept. 6, Lest. Ind.) to Jovian at Edessa, and returned with him (apparently) to Antioch. On Feb. 14 (or 20, Fest. Zndex) he returned to Alexandria with imperial letters and took possession of the churches, his fourth exile having lasted ‘fifteen months and twenty-two days’ (/is¢. Aceph.). The visit to Antioch was important.
Firstly, it is clear from the combined and circumstantial testimony of the Festal Index, the Hist. Aceph., and the narrative of Ammon, that Athanasius hurried to meet Jovian on his march from Persia to Antioch, and visited Alexandria only in passing and in private. He appears to have taken the precaution (see below) of taking certain bishops and others, representing the majority (7760s) of the Egyptian Church, along with him. Accordingly the tale of Theodoret (iv. 2), that he assembled a council (rods Noyypwrepovs Ta emioKdT@y eye(pas), and wrote a synodal letter to Jovian, in reply to a request from the latter to furnish him with an accurate statement of doctrine (followed by Montt., Hefele, &c.) must be set aside as a hasty conjecture from the heading of the Le¢ter to Jovian (see below, ch. v. § 3 (h), and cf. Vales. on Thdt. iv. 3, who suspected the truth).
Athanasius, secondly, had good reason for hurrying. The Arians had also sent a large deputation to petition against the restoration of Athanasius, and to ask for a bishop. Lucius, their candidate for the post, accompanied the deputation. But the energy of Athanasius was a match for their schemes. He obtained a short but emphatic letter from Jovian, bidding him return to his see, and placed in the Emperor’s hands a letter (below, Letter 56, p. 567), insisting on the integrity of the Nicene creed, which it recites, and especially on the Godhead of the Holy Spirit.
Meanwhile at Antioch, where the winter was spent (Jovian was mostly there till Dec. 21), there was much tc be attended to. Least important of all were the efforts of the Arian deputation to secure a hearing for their demands. Jovian’s replies to them on the repeated occasions on which they waylaid him are perhaps undigni- fied (Gwatkin) but yet shew a rough soldier-like common sense. ‘ Any one you please except Athanasius’ they urged. ‘T told you, the case of Athanasius is settled already:” then, to the body-guard ‘ Feri, feri’ (i.e. use your sticks!) Some of the rA#@os of Antioch seized Lucius and brought him to Jovian, saying, ‘Look, your Majesty, at the man they wanted to make a bishop!’ (See p. 568 sg.)
Athanasius appears to have attempted to bring about some settlement of the disputes which distracted the Church of Antioch, _ The Hist. Aceph, makes him ‘ arrange the affairs’ of that Church, but Sozom. (vi. 5), who copies the phrase, significantly adds és ofév re #v—‘ as far as it was feasible.’ The vacillations (Philost. viii. 2, 7, ix. 3, &c.) of Euzoius between Eudoxius on the one hand, and the consistent Anomceans on the other, and the formation of a definite Anomcean sect, represented in Egypt by Heliodorus, Stephen, and other nominees of the bitter Arian Secundus (who appears to be dead at last) probably concerned Athanasius but little. But the breach Se ee ee ee ee Pree Theol. Litzg. 1890, p. 620 sgg., fixes the death | The question is too intricate to discuss here, but with all deference ee eodore for Easter 363, on the ground, as I venture to think, | to so competent a critic, I am confident that Theodore lived till of a date (345) for the death of Pachomius too early by one year, | at any rate the following Baster. See 7z/r. p. 560, note 3.
ATHANASIUS UNDER VALENS. Ixi