among the Antiochene Catholics was more hopeless than ever. The action of Paulinus in ordaining a bishop for Tyre, Diodorus by name (p. 580 note), shews that he had caught something of the spirit of Lucifer, while on the other hand we can well imagine that it was with mixed feelings that Athanasius saw a number of bishops assemble under Meletius to sign the Nicene Creed. To begin with, they explained the éuoovorov to be equivalent to é Tijs ovatas and buotov kat’ odciay. Now this was no more than taking Athanasius literally at his word (de Syn. 41 exactly; the confession, Socr. iii. 25, appears to meet Ath. de Syn. half way: cf. the reference to EAANUIKN Xpijots with de Sy. 51), and there is no reason to doubt that the majority+ of those who signed did so in all sincerity, merely guarding the duoovcoy against its Sabellian sense (which Hilary de Syn. 71, had admitted as possible), and in fact, meaning by the term exactly what Basil the Great and his school meant by it. This 1s confirmed by the express denunciation of Arianism and Anomceanism, But Athanasius may have suspected an intention on the part of some signatories to evade the full sense of the creed, especially as touching the Holy Spirit, and this suspicion would not be lessened by the fact that Acacius signed with the rest. It must remain possible, therefore, that a clausé in the letter to Jovian referred to above, expresses his dipleasureS at the wording of the document. (On the significance of the confession in question, see Gwatkin, pp. 226 sg., 244, note 1.) We gather from language used by St. Basil at a later date (Bas. Zp. 89, 258) that Athanasius endeavoured to conciliate Meletius, and to bring about some understanding between the two parties in the Church. Meletius appears to have considered such efforts premature: Basil writes to him that he understands that Athanasius is much disappointed that no renewal of friendly overtures has taken place, and that if Meletius desires the good offices of the Bishop of Alexandria the first word must come from him (probably seven or eight years later than this date). In justice to Meletius it must be allowed that Paulinus did his best to embitter the schism by ordaining bishops at Tyre and elsewhere, ordinations which Meletius naturally resented, and appears to have ignored (D.C.B. iv. ZENO (3),—where observe that the breach of canons began with the appointment of Paulinus himself). Athanasius returned to Alexandria on Feb. 14 (Ast. Aceph.) or 20 (est. Ind.), and Jovian died, by inhaling the fumes of a charcoal fire in the bedroom of a wayside inn, on Feb. 17.
Valentinian, an officer of Pannonian birth, was elected Emperor by the army, and shorty co-opted his brother Valens to a share in the Empire. Valens was allotted the Eastern, Valentinian choosing the Western half of the Empire. Vvlentinian was a convinced but tolerant Catholic, and under his reign Arianism practically died away in the Latin West (zz/fra, p. 488). Valens, a weak, parsimonious, but respectable and well-intentioned ruler, at first took no decided line, but eventually (from the end of 364) fell more and more into the hands of Eudoxius (from whom he received baptism in 367) and the Arian hangers-on of the Court (a suggestive, if in some details disputable, sketch of the general condition of the Eastern Church under Valens in Gwatkin, pp. 228-—236, 247 sg.). The semi-Arians of Asia were continuing their advance toward the Nicene position, but the question of the Holy Spirit was already beginning to cleave them into two sections. At their council of Lampsacus (autumn of 364) they reasserted their formula of ‘essential likeness ’ against the Homceans, but appear to have left the other and more difficult question undecided. After Valens had declared strongly on the side of the enemy, they were driven to seek Western aid. They set out to seek Valentinian at Milan, but finding him departed on his Gallic campaign (Gwatkin, 236, note) they contented themselves with laying before Liberius, on behalf of the Synod of Lampsacus and other Asiatic Councils, a letter accepting the Nicene Creed. After some hesitation (Soc. iv. 12) they were cordially received by Liberius, who gave them a letter to take home with them, in which the controverted question of the Holy Spirit is passed over in silence. (Letter of the Asiatics in Socr. iv. 12, that of Liberius in Hard. Conc. i. 743-5, the names include Cyril of Jerusalem, Macedonius, Silvanus of Tarsus, Athanasius of Ancyra, &c., and the Pope’s letter is addressed to them ‘ et universis orientalibus orthodoxis’). On their return, the disunion of the party manifested itself by the refusal of several bishops to attend the synod convoked to receive the deputies at Tyana, and by their assembling a rival meeting in Caria to reaffirm the ‘Lucianic’ Creed (Hefele, ii, 287 E. Tr.). Further efforts at reunion were frustrated by the Imperial prohibition of an intended Synod at Tarsus, possibly in 367.
Athanasius remained in peace in his see until the spring of 365, when on May 5 a rescript was published at Alexandria, ordering that all bishops expelled under Constantius who had returned to their sees under Julian should be at once expelled by the civil authorities under pain of a heavy fine. The announcement was received with great popular displeasure. The officials were anxious to escape the fine, but the Church-people argued that the order could not apply to Athanasius, who had been restored by Constantius, expelled by Julian in the interest of idolatry, and restored by order of Jovian. Their remonstrances were backed up by popular riots: when these had lasted a month, the Prefect quieted the people by the assurance that the matter was referred back to Augustus (Hist. Aceph. x., followed by Soz. vi. 12). But on Oct. 5 an imperative answer seems to have come. The Prefect and the Commandant broke into the Church of Dionysius at night and searched the apartments of the clergy to seize the bishop. But Athanasius, warned in time, had escaped from the town that very night and retired to a country house which belonged to him near the ‘New River’?, This was the shortest and mildest of the five exiles of Athanasius. In the autumn the dangerous revolt of Procopius threw the Eastern Empire into a panic. It was no time to allow popular discontent to smoulder at Alexandria, and on Feb. 1, 366, the notary Brasidas publicly announced the recall of in putting it in 365. But Mr. Gwatkin, p. 267, has carefully sifted the evidence with the above result.
7 So Hist. Aceph., Fest. Ind. Socrates iv. 13 says he hid four months ‘in his Father’s tomb.’ Soz. vi. 12, mentions the story, but finding it contradicted by the Hist. Aceph., adopts the vague compromise eis 71 xwptov expvnreto. The ‘New River’ divided Alexandria from its Western suburbs, 4 This is certainly true of men like Athanasius of Ancyra, Eusebius of Samosata, Pelagius of Laodicea, Titus of Bostra, &c.
5 The tract de Hypocrist Meletii et Euselit printed among the ‘dubious’ works of Athanasius may well express the senti- ments of some of his friends of the party of Paulinus on this occa- sion. (Tillem. viii. 708.)
6 Tillem, vi 780, follows Socrates (a bad leader in chronology) lxti PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER IL, § to.
Athanasius by Imperial order. The notary and ‘curiales’ went out to the suburb in person and escorted Athanasius in state to the Church of Dionysius.
810. Last Years, Feb. 1, 366-=May 2,°373: _ Athanasius now entered upon the last septennium of his life, a well-earned Sabbath of honoured peace and influence for good. Little occurred to disturb his peace at home, and if the confusion and distress of the Eastern Church under Valens could not but cause him anxiety, in Egypt at any rate, so long as he lived, the Catholic Faith was secure from molestation. ‘ In 367 Lucius, who had been ordained Bishop of Alexandria by the Arian party at Antioch, made an attempt to enter the city. He arrived by night on Sept. 24, but on the following day the public got wind of his presence in Alexandria, and a dangerous not was imminent. A strong military force rescued him from the enraged mob, and on Sept. 26 he was escorted out of Egypt. In the previous year a heathen riot had taken place and the great Church in the Czesareum had been burned. But in May, 368, the building was recommenced (the incendiaries having been punished) under an Imperial order.
On Sept. 22, 368, Athanasius began to build a Church in the quarter ‘Mendidium’ (perhaps in commemoration of his:completion of the 4oth year of his Episcopate, see Hest. Aceph. xii.), which was dedicated Aug. 7, 370, and called after his own name.
In 368 or the following year we place the Synod at which Athanasius drew up his letter to the bishops of Africa giving an account of the proceedings at Niczea, and mentioning his dissatisfaction at the continued immunity enjoyed by Auxentius at Milan (see p. 488).
Our knowledge of the last years of the life of Athanasius is derived partly from his own letters (59—64), partly from the scanty data of his latest works, partly from the letters of Synesius and Basil. From Synesius (ZZ. 77) we hear of the case of Siderius, a young officer from the army who was present in Libya on civil duty. The Bishop of Erythrum, Orion by name, was in his dotage, and the inhabitants of two large villages in the diocese, impatient of the lack of supervision, clamoured for a bishop of their own, and for the appointment of Siderius. Siderius was accordingly consecrated by a certain Bishop Philo alone, without the canonical two assistants, and without the cognisance of Athanasius. But in view of the immense utility of the appointment Athanasius overlooked its irregularity, and even promoted Siderius to the Metropolitan see of Ptolemais, merging the two villages upon Orion’s death once more into their proper diocese. (Fuller details D.C.B. iv. 777, sg.) But if Athanasius was no slave to ecclesiastical discipline when the good of the church was in question, he enforced it unsparingly in the interest of morality. An immoral governor of Libya was sternly excommunicated and the fact announced far and wide. We have the the reply of BAsIL the Great, who in 370 had become Bishop of Czesarea in Cappadocia, to this notification, and from this time frequent letters passed between the champions of the Old and of the New Nicene orthodoxy.
Unhappily we have none of the letters of Athanasius: those of Basil shew us that the loss is one to be deplored. The correspondence bore partly on the continuance of the unhappy schism at Antioch. Basil asks for the mediation of Athanasius; if he could not bring himself to write a letter to the bishops in communion with Meletius, he might at least use his influence with Paulinus and prevail upon him to withdraw. He also presses Meletius to take the initiative in conciliation: possibly he did so, at least one of Basil’s letters is sent by the hand of one of Meletigs’ deacons (Bas. ZZ. 60, 66, 69, 80, 82, 89). But ‘nothing came of the application:* Meletius probably felt injured at the strong support Athanasius had given to Paulinus, even in so questionable an affair as that of Diodorus of Tyre (szpra, § 9, and cf. Letter 64); while Athanasius was too deeply committed to surrender Paulinus, who again was the last man to yield of his own accord (Thdt..Z. v. 23).: Basil obtained the good offices of Athanasius in his attempt to induce the bishops of Rome and the West to give him some support in his efforts against heresy in the East; but the failure here was due to the selfishness and arrogance of the Westerns. (Z//. 61, 67.)
Basil was also troubled with the continued refusal of Athanasius and the Westerns to repudiate Marcellus, who was still living in extreme old age, and to whom the mass of the people at Ancyra were attached (Bas. Ep. 266, Zegat. Lugen. 1, dvapiOunrov mdHO0s). This state of things, he urged, kept alive the prejudice of many against the Nicene decrees (Z/. 60). But the Marcellians, perhaps aware of the efforts of Basil, sent a deputation, headed by the deacon Eugenius, and fortified by letters from ‘the bishops’ of Macedonia and Achaia, to Alexandria. A synod was apparently in readiness to receive them, and upon demand they produced a statement of their faith, emphatically adopting the Nicene creed, condemning Sabellius, but affirming an ev troordce: rpidda. The distinction between the Aédyos and the Son is rejected, and the idea that the Monad existed before the Son anathematised. Photinus is classed as a heretic with Paul of Samosata. Only the eternal duration of Christ’s kingdom is not mentioned. (It may be noted that while this letter gives up many points of the theology of Marcellus, the process is quite completed in a letter submitted by the Marcellian community in 375 to some exiled Egyptian bishops at Diocesarea *; Epiph. Hacr. 72, 11.) Athanasius accepted the confession, and the assembled bishops subscribed their names (only a few 8 For the best treatment of the document, see Zahn, p. 95. | 812; least of all the writer’s suggestion that Athanasius was I am quite unable to follow the theory advanced in D.C.B. iii. | ‘egregiously duped’ (!) by Marcellus.
LAST YEARS OF ATHANASIUS. Ixiii signatures are preserved). While we understand Basil’s regret at the refusal of Athanasius to condemn Marcellus, we can scarcely share it. If Athanasius shewed partiality toward his old ally, it was an error of generosity, or rather let us say a recognition of the truth, too often forgotten in religious controversy, that mistakes are not necessarily heresies, and that a man may go very far wrong in his opinions and yet be entitled to sympathy and respect.
Basil speaks of Athanasius in terms of unbounded veneration and praise, and Athanasius in turn rebukes those who attempted to disparage Basil’s orthodoxy, calling him a bishop such as any church might desire to call its own (p. 579 s9.).
During the last decade of his life the attention of Athanasius was drawn to the questions raised by the Arian controversy as to the human nature of our Lord. The Arian doctrine on this subject was apparently as old as Lucian, but the whole subject received little or no atten- tion in the earlier stages of the controversy, and it was only with the rise of the Anomcean school that the questions came into formal discussion. In the later letters of Athanasius we see the traces of wide-spread controversy on the matter (especially in that to Epictetus, No. 59), and Apollinarius, bishop of the Syrian Laodicea, and a former close friend of Athanasius, whose legates in 362 had joined in condemning the Arian Christology, broached a peculiar theory on the subject, viz., that while Christ took a human sow] along with His Body, the Word took the place of the human scr7?, rvedua (1 Thess. v. 23). The details of the system do not belong to our subject (an excellent sketch in Gwatkin’s Avian Controversy, pp. 136—141); in fact it was two years after the death of Athanasius when Apollinarius definitely founded a sect by consecrating a schismatic bishop for the already distracted Church of Antioch. But Athanasius marked with alarm the tendency of his friend, and in the very last years of his life wrote a tract against his tenet in two short books, in which, as in writing against Marcellus and Photinus 15 years before, he refrains from mentioning Apollinarius by name. It may be observed that at the close of the second book he brings himself for the first time to censure by name ‘him they call Photinus,’ classing him along with Paul of Samosata.
Athanasius was active to the last; spiritually (we are not able to say physically) ‘his. eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.’ In his seventy-fifth year he entered (Ruf. ii. 3) upon the forty-sixth year of his episcopate. Feeling that his end was near, he followed the example of his revered predecessor Alexander, and named Peter as the man whom he judged fittest to succeed him; then ‘on the seventh of Pachon 9 (May 2, 373) he departed this life in a wonderful manner.’
CHARTEReaLIT WRITINGS AND PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF S. ATHANASIUS.
§1. Ir will be attempted to give a complete list of his writings in chronological order; those included in this volume will be marked with an asterisk and enumerated in this place without remark. The figures prefixed indicate the probable date. - S (1) 318: *Lwo books ‘contra Gentes,’ viz. Cc, GENT. and DE INCARN. (2) 321-2: *Depositio Ari (on its authorship, see Introd.). (3) 328—373: *FEsTaL Lerrers. (4) 328—335? *Ecthesis or ExposiTio FIDEI. (5) Id.? *IN ILLUD OMNIA, etc. (6) 339: *ENCyYCLICA ad Episcopos ecclesiz catholic. (7) 343: *SARDICAN LETTERS (46, 47, in this vol.). (8) 351? *APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS, (9) 352? *DE DECRETIS Concilii- Niczni, with the *EpPisToLA EUSEBII (A.D. 325) as appendix. (10) Id? “DE SENTENTIA DIONYSII. (11) 350—353? *AD AMUN, (Letter 48). (12) 354: *AD DRACONTIUM (Letter 49 in this vol.). (13) 356—362? *VITA ANTONI. (14) 356: *Epistola ad Episc. “Ecypri et Libyz. (15) 356-7: *APOL. AD CONSTANTIUM. (16) 357: *APOL. DE FuGa. (17) 358: *EPIST. AD SERAPIONEM DE MorTE Arit (Letter 54). (18) Id. *Two Letters TO MONKS (52, 53). (19) 358? *HiIsTORIA ARIANORUM ‘ad monachos.’ (20) Id. “ORATIONES ADVER- sus Arranos IV. (21) 359? *AD LuciFERuM (Letters 50, 51). (22) Id.? AD SERAPIONEM Orationes IV. (Migne xxvi. 529, sgg.). These Adyar or dogmatic letters are the most important work omitted in the present volume. Serapion of Thmuis, who appears from the silence respecting him in the lists of exiles to have escaped banishment in 356-7, reported to Athanasius the growth of the doctrine that, while the Son was co-essential with the Father, the Spirit was merely a creature superior to Angels. Athanasius replied in a long dogmatic letter, upon receiving which Serapion was begged to induce the author to abridge it for the benefit of the simple. After some hesitation Athanasius sent two more letters, the second drawing out the proofs of the Godhead of the Son, the third restating more concisely the argument of the first. The objections by which these letters were met were replied to in a fourth letter which Athanasius declared to be his last word. The persons combated are not the Macedonians, who only formed a party on this question at a later date, and whose position was not quite that combated in these letters, Athanasius calls them Tpomuol, or ‘ Figurists,’ from the sense in which they understood passages of Scripture which seemed to deify the Holy Spirit. It is not within our compass to summarise the treatises, but it may be noted that Ath. argues that where mvedua. is absolute or anarthrous in Scripture it never refers to the Holy Spirit unless the context already supplies such reference (i. 4, sgg.). He meets the objection that the Spirit, if God and of God, must needs be a Son, by falling back upon the language of Scripture as our guide where human analogies fail us. He also presses his opponents with the consequence that they substitute a Dyad for a Trinity.
9 Fest. Ind. xlv. The Hist. Aceph. give May 3; probably he died after midnight: but May 2 is kept as his feast by the Copts and by the Western Church.
Ixiv PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER IIL, § 1.
a er In the fourth letter, at the request of Serapion, he gives an explanation of the words of Christ about SIN AGAINST THE SPIRIT. Rejecting the view (Origen, Theognostus) that post-baptismal sin is meant (§§ 9, sgg.), as favouring Novatianist rigour, he examines the circumstances under which our Lord uttered the warning. The Pharisees refused to regard the Lord as divine when they saw His miracles, but ascribed them to Beelzebub. They blasphemed ‘ the Spirit,’ i.e. the Divine Personality of Christ (§ 19, cf. Lam. iy. 20, LXX.). So far as the words relate to the Holy Spirit, it is not because the Spirit worked through Him (as through a prophet) but because He worked through the Spirit (20). Blasphemy against the Spirit, then, is blasphemy against Christ in its worst form (see also below, ch. iv., § 6). It may be noted lastly that he refers to Origen in the same terms of somewhat measured praise (5 roAvpabhs kal piAdrovos), as in the De Decretzs.
(23) 359-60. *De Synopis Arimini et Seleuciz celebratis. (24) 362: *Tomus AD ANTIOCHENOS. (25) Id. SyntacMa Docrrin& (?) see chapter ii. § 9, above. (26) 362: *Letter to RUFINIANUS (Letter 55). (27) 363-4: *Letter to Jovian (Letter 56). (28) 364? *Two small Letters to Orstsius (57, 58). (29) 369? **Synodal Letter aD AFRoS. (30) Id.? *Letter to EPICTETUS (59). (31) Id.? *Letters to ADELPHIUS and Maximus (60, 61). (32) 363-372? *Letter to Dioporus or Tyre (fragment, Letter 64). (33) 372: *Letters to JOHN AND ANTIOCHUS and to PALLADIUS (62, 63). (34) 372? Two books against Apollinarianism (Migne xxvi. 1093, sgg. Translated with notes, &c., in Bright, Later Treatises of St. Athan.). The two books are also known under separate titles: Book I. as ‘DE INCARNATIONE D.N.J.C. CONTRA APOLLINARIUM,’ Book II. as ‘pE SALUYARI ADVENTU D.N.J.C.’? The Athanasian authorship has been doubted, chiefly on the ground of certain peculiar expressions in the opening of Book I.; a searching investigation of the question has not yet been made, but on the whole the favourable verdict of Montfaucon holds the field. He lays stress on the affinity of the work to letters 59-61. I would add that the studious omission of any personal reference to Apollinarius is highly characteristic.) In the first book Athanasius insists on the reality of the human nature of Christ in the Gospels, and that it cannot be co-essential with the Godhead. ‘We do not worship a creature?? No; for we worship not the Flesh of Christ as such but the Person who wears it, viz. the Son of God. Lastly, he urges that the reality of redemption is destroyed if the Incarnation does not extend to the spirit of man, the seat of that sin which Christ came to atone for (§ 19), and seeks to fasten upon his opponents a renewal (§§ 20, 21) of the system of Paul of Samosata.
The second book is addressed to the question of the compatibility of the entire manhood with the entire sinlessness of Christ. This difficulty he meets by insisting that the Word took in our nature all that God had made, and nothing that is the work of the devil. This exeludes sin, and includes the totality of our nature.
This closes the list of the dated works which can be ascribed with fair probability to Athanasius.
The remainder of the writings of Athanasius may be enumerated under groups, to which the ‘dated’ works will also be assigned by their numbers as given above. Works falling into more than one class are given under each.
(35.) De Trinitate et Spiritu Sancto (Migne xxvi. 1191). Preserved in Latin only, but evidently from the Greek. Pronounced genuine by Montfaucon, and dated (?) 365.
(36) De Incarnatione et Contra Arianos (ib. 984). The Athanasian authorship of this short tract is very questionable. It is quoted as genuine by Theodoret D7a/. ii. and by Gelasius de duabus naturis. In some councils it is referred to as ‘On the Trinity against Apollinarius;’ by Facundus as ‘On the Trinity.’ The tract is in no sense directed against Apollinarius. In reality it is an argument, mainly from Scripture, for the divinity of Christ, with a digression (13—19) on that of the Holy Spirit. On the whole the evidence is against the favourable verdict of Montfaucon, Ceillier, &c. That Athanasius should, at any date possible for this tract, have referred to the Trinity as ‘ the three Hypostases ’ is out of the question (§ 10): his explanation of Prov. viii. 22 in Orat. ii. 44 sgg. is in sharp contrast with its reference Zo the Church in § 6; at a time when the ideas of Apollinarius were in the air and were combated by Athanasius (since 362) he would not have used language savouring of that system (§§ 2, 3, 5, 7, &c.). It has been thought that we have here one of the Apollinarian tracts which were so industriously and successfully circulated under celebrated names (2/ra, on No. 40); the express insistence on Zwo weé/s in Christ (§ 21), if not in favour of Athanasian might seem decisive against Apol- linarian authorship, but the peculiar turn of the passage, which correlates the one will with od&pé the other with mvedua ana eds, is not incompatible with the latter, which is, moreover, supported by the constant insistance on God having come, év capi and ev duoimuatt avOpmmov. The &vépwmros téAccos of § 8 and the duoiden Kara mdvra of § 11 lose their edge in the context of those passages. The first part of § 7 could scarcely have been written by an earnest opponent of Apollinarianism. This evidence is not conclusive, but it is worth considering, and, at any rate, leaves it very difficult to meet the strong negative case against the genuineness of the Tract. (Best discussion of the latter in Bright, Later Treatises of St. A., p. 143; he is supported by Card. Newman in a private letter.)
(37) The Sermo Mator de Fide. (Migne xxvi. 1263 sgg., with an additional fragment p. 1292 from Mai Bibl. nov.). This is a puzzling document in many ways. It has points of contact with the earliest works of Ath. (especially pieces nearly verbatim from the de /nca7'n., see notes there), also with the Expos. Fid. Card. Newman calls it with some truth, ‘Hardly more than a set of small fragments from Ath.’s other works.’ However this may be, it is quoted by Theodoret as Athanasian more than once. The peculiarity lies in the constant iteration of ~Av@pwmos for the Lord’s human nature (see note on #xf. Fid.), and in some places as though it were merely the equivalent to cua or odpé, while in others the”Av@pwros might be taken as the seat of Personality (26, 32). Accordingly the tract might be taken advantage of either by Nestorians, or still more by Apollinarians. The ‘syllogistic method,’ praised in the work by Montfaucon, was not unknown to the last-mentioned school. (Prov. viii. 22 is explained in the Athanasian way. For a fuller discussion, result unfavourable, see Bright, 27 sup7. p. 145.); (38) FRAGMENTs against Paul of Samosata, Macedonians, Novatians (Migne xxvi. 1293, 1313—1317). The first of these may well be genuine. It repeats the (mistaken) statement of Hist, Ar. 71, that Zenobia was a Jewess. Of the second, all that can be said is that it attacks the Macedonians in language borrowed WRITINGS OF ATHANASIUS. Ixv from Zp, 4@g. 11. The third, consisting of a somewhat larger group of five fragments, comprise a short sentence comparing the instrumentality of the priest in absolving to his instrumentality in baptizing.
It may be observed that fragments of this brevity rarely furnish a decisive criterion of genuineness.
_ (39) Luterpretatio Symboli (ib. 1232, Hahn, § 66). Discussed fully by Caspari, Ungedruckte u.s.w. Quellen 1, pp. I—72, and proved to be an adaptation of a baptismal creed drawn up by Epiphanius (Axcor. ad fin.) in 374. It maybe Alexandrian, and, if so, by Bishop Peter or Theophilus about 380. It is a ‘Epunveta, or rather an expansion, of the Nicene, not as Montf. says, of the Apostles’ (!), Creed.
(40) De Zncarnatione Verbi Dei (Migne xxviii. 25—29). Quoted as Athanasian by Cyril of Alex., &c., and famous as containing the phrase Miav gow tov Adyou cécapkwmevyny. Apollinarian; one of the many forgeries from this school circulated under the names of Athanasius, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Julius, &c. See Caspari, wb supra 151, Loofs, Leontéus, p. 82, sgg. Caspari’s proof is full and conclusive. See also en oa Creed (Hahn, § 41, g.v.), a Latin fragment of a Western creed; nothing Athanasian but the . title.
(42) ‘Damasine’ Creed (Opp. ed. Ben. ii. 626, Migne P.L. Ixii. 237 in Vig. Thaps.) forms the ‘ eighth’ of the Lzbrz de Trinttate ascribed now to Athan. now to Damasus, &c., &c.: see Hahn, § 128 and note.
(44) FRAGMENT concerning Stephen and the Envoys at Antioch (Migne xxvi. 1293). Closely related (relative priority not clear) to the account in Thdt. W.Z., ii. 9. d. AroLoceTic. To this class belong only the works under No. (1). e. EXEGETICAL (5). The other exegetical works attributed to Athan. are mainly in Migne, vol. xxvii.
(45) AD MARCELLINUM de Interpretatione Psalmorum. Certainly genuine. A thoughtful and devout tract on the devotional use of the Psalter. He lays stress on its universality, as summing up the spirit of all the other elements of Scripture, and as applying to the spiritual needs of every soul in all conditions. He remarks that the Psalms are sung not for musical effect, but that the worshippers may have longer time to dwell upon their meaning. The whole is presented as the discourse tivds piAomévov “yéportos, possibly an ideal character.
(46) EXxPOsITIONES IN PSALMOS, with an Argumentum (é7é0ec1s) prefixed. The latter notices the arrangement of the Hebrew Psalter, the division into books, &c., and accounts for the absence of logical order by the supposition that during the Captivity some prophet collected as best he could the Scriptures which the carelessness of the Israelites had allowed to fall into disorder. The titles are to be followed as regards author- ship. Imprecatory passages relate to our ghostly enemies. In the Expositions each Psalm is prefaced by a short statement of the general subject. He occasionally refers to the rendering of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus.
(47) FRAGMENTA IN PsALMOs. Published by Felckmann from the Catena of Nicetas Heracleota, who has used his materials somewhat freely, often combining the comments of more than one Father into a single whole.
(48) DE TiTuLis PsALMoRUM. First published by Antonelli in 1746. This work, consisting of very brief notes on the Psalter verse by verse, 1s spoken of disparagingly by Alzog, Patrol., p. 229, and regarded as spurious, on good prima facie grounds, by Gwatkin, p. 69, note. Eichhorn, de Vet. Ascet., p. 43, note, threatens the latter (1886) with a refutation which, however, I have not seen.
(49) FRAGMENTUM IN CANTICA. (Photius mentions a Commentary on Eccles. and Cant.) From a Catena published by Meursius in 1617. Very brief (on Cant. i. 6, 7, iii. 1, 2, vi. 1). A spurious homily is printed (pp. 1349-1361) as an appendix to it.
(50) FRAGMENTA IN Evanc. MarTH@1. Also from MS. catenze, Contain a remarkable reference to the Eucharist (p. 1380, on Matt. vii. 6) and a somewhat disparaging reference to Origen (zmfr. p. 33) in reference to Matt. xii. 32, which passage is explained as in Serap. iv. (vide supra 22). The extracts purport in some cases to be taken from a homiletical or expository work of Athanasius divided into separate Adyo. The passage ‘on the nine incurable diseases of Herod’ is grotesque (Migne xxvi. 1252), but taken from Joseph., B. /. I. xxiii. 5. Cf. Euseb. HZ. Z.i. 8.
(51) FRAGMENTA IN LucaM. Also from MS. caten. At the end, a remarkable passage on the extent to which prayers can heip the departed. j ' (52) FRAGMENTA IN JoB. From Nicetas and MS. catenz. Contains little remarkable. ‘ Behemoth’ is Satan, as elsewhere in Athan. y (53) FRAGMENTUM IN I Cor. A short paragraph on 1 Cor. vii. I, or rather on vi. 18, somewhat in- adequately explained.
(54) SERMO DE PATIENTIA. (Migne xxvi. 1295.) Of doubtful genuineness (Montf., Gwatkin).; (55) DE VIRGINITATE. (Migne xxviii. 251). Pronounced dubious by Montf., spurious by Gwatkin, genuine by Eichhorn (u/7 supr., pp. 27, 59g.), who rightly lays stress on the early stage of feminine asceti- cism which is implied. But I incline to agree with Mr. Gwatkin as to its claims to come from Athanasius. ‘ Three hypostases’ are laid down in a way incompatible with Athanasius’ way of speaking in later life.
(56) MIscELLANEOUS FRAGMENTS. These are too slight and uncertain to be either classed or discussed here. De Amuletis (xxvi. 1319); de Azymis, (1327), very dubious; Jn Ramos palmarum (1319), also dubious; various small homiletical and controversial pieces (pp. 1224—1258) of various value and claims to genuineness. (See also Migne xxv. p. xiv. No. XX. ) i; Of (57) Los Works (in addition to those of which fragments have been mentioned above) a Refutation of Arianism is referred to in Lecter 52. We also hear of a treatise against heresies (a fragment above, No. 56). A ‘Synodicon,’ with the names of all Bishops present at Nicaea, is quoted by Socr. i. 13, but is referred by Revillout to his alleged Acts of the Synod of Alexandria in 362, which he supposes to have reissued the Acts of Nica. See above, p. lix. A consolatory address to the Virgins maltreated by George is mentioned by Theodoret, H. Z. ii. 14; he quotes a few words, referring to the fact that the Arians would not even allow them peaceable burial, but ‘sit about the tombs like demons’ to prevent it. The Ovatzo de defunctis (infra, ch. iv. § 6, fragment above, 56) is ascribed to him by John Damasc., but by others to Cyril of Alexandria, VOL, IV, € Ixvi PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER IIL, 8§ 2, 3.
, «| Many of his letters must have been lost. The Festal Letters are still very incomplete, and his letters eo S. Basil would be a welcome discovery if they exist anywhere. A doctrinal letter against the Arians, no preserved to us, is mentioned de Dev. 5, (See also Montfaucon’s Pref. ii. (Migne xxv. p- XXV., 599 ), and Jerome, de Vir. tllustr. 87, a somewhat careless and scanty list.) ~,