(8) Jurisdiction of bishops over bishops. The fully-developed and organised ‘ patriarchal’ system does not meet us in the Nicene age. The bishops of important towns, however, exercise a very real, though not definable authority over their neighbours. This is especially true of Imperial residences. The migration of Eusebius to Nicomedia and afterwards to Constanti- nople broke through the time-honoured rule of the Church, but set the precedent commonly followed ever afterwards. In Egypt, although the name ‘patriarch’ was as yet unheard, the authority of the Bishop of Alexandria was almost absolute. The name ‘archbishop’ is here used for the first time. It is first applied apparently to Meletius (Afo/. Ar. 71) in his list of clergy, but at a later date (about 358) to Athanasius in a contemporary inscription (see p. 564°, note 1). At the beginning of his episcopate (supra, p. xxxvii.) we find him requested to ordain in a diocese of Upper Egypt by its bishop. He sends bishops on deputations (Fest. 2nd. xxv., &c.), and exercises ordinary jurisdiction over bishops and people of Libya and Pentapolis (cf. refer- ence to Synesius, swpv., p. lxii.). This was a condition of things dating at least from the time of Dionysius (p. 178, note 2). In particular he had practically the appointment of bishops for all Egypt, so that in the course of his long episcopate all the Egyptian sees were manned by his faithful adherents (cf. p. 493). The mention of Dionysius suggests the question of the relation of the see of Alexandria to that of Rome, and of the latter to the Church generally. On the former point, what is necessary will be said in the Introd. to the de Sent. Dion. With regard to the wider question, Athanasius expresses reverence for that bishopric ‘because it is an Apostolic throne,’ and ‘for Rome, because it is the metropolis of Romania’ (p. 282). That is his only utterance on the subject. Such reverence ought, he says, to have secured Liberius from the treatment to which he had been subjected. The language cited excludes the idea of any divinely-given headship of the Church vested in the Roman bishop, for his object is to magnify the outrageous conduct of Constantius and the Arians. Still less can anything be elicited from the account given by Ath. of the case of the Dionysii, or of his own relations to successive Roman bishops. He speaks of them as his beloved brothers and fellow-ministers (e.g., p. 489) and cordially welcomes their sympathy and powerful support, without any thought of jurisdiction. But he furnishes us with materials, in the letter of Julius, for estimating not his own view of the Roman see, but that held by its occupant. The origin of the proceedings was the endeavour of the Easterns to procure recognition at Rome and in the West for their own nominee to the bishopric of Alexandria. They had requested Julius to hold a Council, ‘and to be himself the judge if he so pleased’ (Aol. ¢c. Ar. 20). This was intended to frighten Athanasius, but not in the least, as the sequel shews, to submit the decisions of a Council to revision bya single bishop. Julius summoned a Council as described above (p. xlili.), and at the end of a long period of delay and controversy sent a letter expressing his view of the case to the Orientals. This document has been already discussed (p. xliv.). It forms an important landmark in the history of papal claims, standing at least as significantly in contrast with those of the successors of Julius, as with those of his predecessors, (y) Bishops and Councils. The superiority of councils to single bishops (including those 2 What is conspicuously true of the Second General Council; councils lies in reality outside them, in the authority which sancis in reality not less true of the First. Its high authority to later ages is due not to its formal character as a council, but to the character of its work; the consent of the Church, and that not readily given, but as the result of a long process of searching and sifting, has given to it its ‘irreformable’ authority. Its authority zs expressly put on a par with that of the Antiochene Synod of c. 260, by Ath. de Sy. 43 (consult the whole discussion, pp. 473, 475, &c.). Short of a council which should include every bishop ot the entire Church, in unanimous agreement,—an impossible contingency,— the claims of any given council to be truly ecumenical are relative, not absolute; and no consistent theory is possible of the conditions under which a council could dy virtue of its constitution claim infallibility for its decisions. The supposed infallibility of general tions and consecrates their decisions. According to the precedent of Nicza this is the Church ‘diffusive’ (cf. p. 489, and Pusey, Councils, p. 225, sq.), and such consent, again, must necessarily be partial and relative. {fa more tangible and expeditious theory is wanted, we have it in the Roman system, according to which a council is infallible if ratified by the Pope. This at once puts all such councils, whether local or general, on one level, and affords a ready criterion. In other words, the only consistent (mechanical) theory of the infallibility of councils is one which makes councils superfluous. If such a theory had been known to the Church in the age of councils, the councils would not have been held.
THEOLOGY OF ATHANASIUS. THE UNITY IN TRINITY. Ixxvii of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch) was questioned by no one in this age. Julius claims the support, not of authority inherent in his see, but of cazons, and on the basis of them claims a voice in matters affecting the Church at large, not in his own name, but in that of ‘us all, that so a just sentence might proceed from al’ (Afol.:c. Ar. 35). Again, just as the judgment of his predecessor Melchiades and his council was revised at Arles in 314 (Augustin. ZZ. 105. 8), so the case of Athanasius and Marcellus was reheard at the Council of Sardica three years after the decision of Julius and his council. The council was the supreme organ of the Church for legislative, judicial, and doctrinal purposes; had any other of superior or even equal rank been recognised, or had the authority of councils themselves been defined a friori by a system of Church law, the confusion of the fourth century would not have arisen. Whether or no the age would have gained, we at least should have been the losers.
§ 5. Content of Revelation. God Three in One and the Incarnation.
To dwell at length on the theology of Athanasius under this head is unnecessary here, not because there is little to say, but partly because what there is to say has been to_ some extent anticipated above, §§ 2, 3, and ch. ii. pp. xxxii., xxxvi., partly because the history of his life and work is the best exposition of what he believed and taught. That his theology on these central subjects was profoundly moulded by the Nicene formula is (to the present writer at least) the primary fact (see ch. ii. § 3 (1), and (2) b). This of course presupposes that the Nicene faith found in him a character and mind prepared to become its interpreter and embodiment; and that this was so his pre-Nicene writings sufficiently shew.
For instance, his progressive stress on the Unity of the Godhead in Father, Son, and Spirit is but the following up of the thought expressed de Zucarn. 17. 1 év psvw te éavrod Tarpi 6dos dv xara mdvra. It may be noted that he argues also from the idea of the Trinity to the coessential Godhead of the Spirit, ad Serap. 1. 28, sq., Tpras dé éorw odx ews dvopdros pdvov...GNA adnbeia kat imdpEer tpids’...eimdtwoav Taw...Tplas cot i duds; and that he meets the difficulty (see znfra, p. 438, ten lines from end, also Petav. Zrim. VII. xiv.) of differentiating the relation of the Spirit to the Father from the yéwynovs of the Son by a confession of ignorance and a censure upon those who assume that they can search out the deep things of God (tb. 17—19). The principle might be applied to this point which is laid down de Decr. 11, that ‘an act’ belonging to the essence of God, cannot, by virtue of the simplicity of the Divine Nature, be more than one: the ‘act’ therefore of divine yévynous (the nature of which we do not know) cannot apply to the Spirit but only to the Son. But I do not recollect any passage in which Athanasius draws this conclusion from his own premises. The language of Athanasius on the procession of the Spirit is unstudied. In Ax. fid. 4, he appears to adopt the ‘procession’ of the Spirit from the Father through the Son (after Dionysius, see Sent. Dion. 17). In Serap. i. 2, 20, 32, ili. 1, he speaks of the Spirit as idsoy rod Adyov, just as the Word is ios rod Harpds. His language on the subject, expressing the zdea common to East and West (under the cloud of logomachies which envelop the subject) might possibly furnish the basis of an ‘eirenicon ’ between the two separated portions of Christendom. In explaining the ‘theophanies’ of the Old Testament, Athanasius takes a position intermediate between that of the Apologists, &c. (supr., p. xxiii.) who referred them to the Word, and that of Augustine who referred them to Angels only. According to Athanasius the ‘Angel’ was and was not the Word: regarded as visible he was an Angel simply, but the Voice was the Divine utterance through the Word (see Orat. iii. 12, 14; de Syn. 27, Anath. 15, note; also wisra): oS Bae baci it must again be insisted that in his polemic against Arianism Athanasius is centrally soteriological. It is unnecessary to collect passages in support of what will be fully appreciated only after a thorough study of the controversial treatises. The essence of his position is comprised in his paraphrase of St. Peter's address to the Jews, Orat. 11. 16, sg., or in the argument, 2b. 67, sgg., 1. 43, and ili. 13. With regard to the Incarnation, 1t may be admitted that Athanasius uses language which might have been modified had he had later con- troversies in view. His common use of dv6pemos for the Manhood of Christ (see below, p. 83) might be alleged by the Nestorian, his comparison of it to the vesture of the High Priest (Orat. i. 47, ii. 8, see note there) by the Apollinarian or Monophysite partisan. But at least his use of either class of expressions shews that he did not hold the doctrine associated in later times with the other. Moreover, while from first to last he is explicitly clear as to the seat of personality in Christ, which 1s uniformly assigned to the Divine Logos (p. 40, note 2 xxviii PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER IV, §:5.
and reff.), the integrity of the manhood of Christ is no less distinctly asserted (cf. de Jncarn, 18. I, 21.7). He uses capa and é&Oparos indifferently during the earlier stages of the conflict, ignoring or failing to notice the peculiarity of the Luciano-Arian Christology. But from 362 onward the full integrity of the Saviour’s humanity, cap§ and wWuxy AoyiKy OF mvevpa, 1S energetically asserted against the theory of Apollinarius and those akin to it3 (cf. Letters 59 and 60, and « Afoll.). Some corollaries of this doctrine must now be mentioned. __ The question of the sénlessness of Christ is not discussed by Athanasius ex professo until the controversy with Apollinarianism. In the earlier Arian controversy the question was in reality involved, partly by the Arian theory of the rpemrérns of the Word, partly by the correlated theory of mpoxomy (cf. Orat. ii. 6, sgg.), and Athanasius instinctively falls back on the considera- tion that the Personality-of the Son, if Divine, is necessarily sinless. In ¢. Afoll.i. 7, 17, 1. 10 the question is more thoroughly analysed. The complete /sychological identity of Christ’s human nature with our own is maintained along with the absolute morad identity of His will (Aédnots, the determination of will, not the 6eAnua otcdes or volitional faculty) with the Divine will, With regard to the Auman knowledge of Christ, the texts Mark xiii. 32, Luke ii. 52, lie at the foundation of his discussion Orat. iii. 42—53. The Arians appealed to these passages to support the contention that the Word, or Son of God in His Divine nature, was ignorant of ‘ the Day,’ and advanced in knowledge. The whole argument of Athan. in reply is directed to shewing that these passages apply not to the Word or Son in Himself, but to the Son Jucarnate. He knows as God, is ignorant as man. Omniscience is the attribute of Godhead, ignorance is proper to man. The Incarnation was not the sphere of advancement to the Word, but of humiliation and condescension; but the Manhood advanced in wisdom as it did in stature also, for advance belongs to man. ‘That is the decisive and clear-cut position of Athanasius on this subject (which the notes there vainly seek to accommodate to the rash dogmatism of the schools), Athanasius appeals to the utterances of Christ which imply knowledge transcending human limitations in order to shew that such knowledge, or rather all knowledge, was possessed éy the Word, in other words such utterances belong to the class of ‘ divine’ not to that of ‘human’ phenomena in the life of Christ. So far as His human nature was concerned, He assumed its limitations of knowledge equally with all else that belongs to the physical and mental endowments of man. Why then was not Divine Omniscience exerted by Him at all times? This question is answered as all questions must be which arise out of any limitation of the Omnipotence of God in the Manhood of Christ. It was ‘for our profit, as I at least think’ (2. 48). The very idea of the Incarnation is that of a /imzting of the Divine under human conditions, the Divine being manifested in Christ only so far as the Wisdom of God has judged it necessary in order to carry out the purpose of His coming. In other words, Athanasius regarded the ignorance of Christ as ‘economical’ only in so far as the Incarnation is itself an otkovopia, a measured revelation, at once a veiling and a manifestation, of all that is in God. That the divine Omniscience wielded in the man Christ Jesus an adequaie instru- ment for its own manifestation Athanasius firmly holds: the exact extent to which such manifestation was carried, the reserve of miraculous power or knowledge with which that Instrument was used, must be explained not by reference to the human mind, will, or character of Christ, but to the Divine Will and Wisdom which alone has both effected our redemption and knows the secrets of its bringing about. With Athanasius, we may quote St. Paul, tis €yvw vodv Kupiov.
It may be observed before leaving this point that Athanasius takes occasion (§ 43, jin., cf. 45) to distinguish two senses of the words ‘the Son,’ as referring on the one hand to the eternal, on the other to the human existence of Christ. To the latter he limits Mark xiii. 32: the point is of importance in view of his relation to Marcellus (supra, p. xxxvi.).
As a further corollary of the Incarnation we may notice his frequent use (Oraz. ili. 14, 20, 33, lv. 32, ¢. Afoll. i. 4, 12, 21) of the word Oeordkos as an epithet or as a name for the Virgin Mary. The translation ‘Mother of God’ is of course erroneous. ‘God-bearer’ (Gottes-barerin), the literal equivalent, is scarcely idiomatic English. The perpetual virginity of Mary is maintained incidentally (¢ Aol. i. 4), but there is an entire absence in his writings not only of worship of the Virgin, but of ‘ Mariology,’ z.e., of the tendency to assign to her personality in man; the human personality which therefore belongs to it zdeadly, being zz fact merged in the Divine per- sonality of the Son. The ‘zmpersonality, as it is sometimes called, of Christ gwd man is therefore better spoken of as His Divine Personality.. Personality and will are correlated but not identical ideas.
3 The doctrine of Athanasius is, not formally but none the less really, the doctrine of Chalcedon, which again stands or falls together with that of Niczea. Like the latter, it transcends the ower of human thought to do more than state it in terms which exclude the (Nestorian and Monophysite) alternatives. The Man Jesus Christ is held to have /acked nothing that constitutes ATHAN. ON THE COROLLARIES OF THE INCARNATION. Ixxix: Se ee eee a personal agency, or any peculiar place, in the work of Redemption (Gen, iil. 15, Vlg). Further, the argument of Orar. i. 51 jin., that the sending of Christ in the flesh for the first time (dourdr) hberated human nature from sin, and enabled the requirement of God’s law to be fulfilled in man (an argument strictly within the lines of Rom. viii. 3), would be absolutely wrecked by the doctrine of the freedom of Mary from original sin (‘immaculate con- ception’). If that doctrine be held, sin was ‘ condemned in the flesh’ (z.¢., first deposed from its place in human nature, see Gifford or Meyer-Weiss Joc.), not by the sending of Christ, but by the congenital sinlessness of Mary. If the Arians had only known oi the latter doctrine, they would have had an easy reply to that powerful passage.
§ 6. Derivative doctrines. Grace and the Means of Grace; the Christian Life; the last things.
The idea of Grace is important to the theological system of Athanasius, in view of the central place occupied in that system by the idea of restoration and new creation as the specific work of Christ upon His fellow-men (supra, § 2; cf. Orat. ii. 56, Exp. in Pss. xxxiti. 2, cxviii. 5, LXX.). But, in common with the Greek Fathers generally, he does not analyse its operation, nor endeavour to fix its relation to free will (cf. Orat. i. 37 /in., iii. 25 sub jin.). The divine predestination relates (for anything that Ath. says) not to individuals so much as to the Purpose of God, before all ages, to repair the foreseen evil of man’s fall by the Incarnation (Orat. li. 75, sg.). On the general subject of Sacraments and their efficacy, he says little or nothing. The initiatory rite of Baptism makes us sons of God (de Decr. 31, cf. Orat. i. 37 ut supra), and is the only complete renewal to be looked for in this life, Seva. iv. 13). It is accompanied (de Trin. et Sp. S. 7) by confession of faith in the Trinity, and the baptism administered by Arians who do not really hold this faith is therefore in peril of losing its value (Orat, ii. 42, fin.). The grace of the Spirit conferred at baptism will be finally withdrawn from the wicked at the last judgment (Zx/. in Ps. Ixxv. 13, LXX.). In the de Trin. et Sp. S. 21 baptism is coupled with the imposition of hands as one rite. On the Eucharist there is an important passage (ad Serap. iv. 19), which must be given in full. He has been speaking of sin against the Holy Spirit, which latter name he applies [see above, ch. iii. § 1 (22) ] to the Saviour’s Divine Personality. He proceeds to illustrate this by John vi. 62—64.
‘For here also He has used both terms of Himself, flesh and spirit; and He distinguished the spirit from what is of the flesh in order that they might believe not only in what was visible in Him, but in what was invisible, and so understand that what He says is not fleshly, but spiritual. For for how many would the body suffice as food, for it to become meat even for the whole world? But this is why He mentioned the ascending of the Son of Man into heaven; namely, to draw them off from their corporeal idea, and that from thenceforth they might understand that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly from above, and spiritual meat, to be given at His hands. iB or ‘what I have said unto you,’ says He, ‘is spirit and life;’ as much as to say, ‘ what is manifested, and to be given for the salvation of the world, is the flesh which I wear. But this, and the blood from it, shall be given to you spiritually at My hands as meat, so as to be imparted spiritually in each one, and to become for all a preservative to resurrection cf life eternal.’
Beyond this he does not define the relation of the outward and visible in the Eucharist to the spiritual and inward. The veality of the Eucharistic gift is insisted on as strongly. as its spirituality in such passages as ad Max. (Letter 61) 2 sub fin., and the comment on Matt. vil. 6 (Migne xxvil. 1380), ‘See to it, therefore, Deacon, that thou do not administer to the unworthy the purple of the sinless body,’ and the protest of the Egyptian bishops (Afo/. ¢ Ar. 5) that their churches ‘are adorned only by the blood of Christ and by the pious worship of Him.’ The Holy Table is expressly stated to have been made of wood (//zs¢. ATi&6.); and was situated (Aol. Fug.) in a space called the iepareiov. The Eucharist was celebrated in most places every Sunday, but not on week-days (Afol. ¢. Ar. 11). But in Alexandria we hear of it being celebrated on a Friday on one occasion, and this was apparently a normal one (Afol. Fug. 24, Apol. Const. 25). To celebrate the Eucharist was the office of the bishop or presbyter (Apol. c. Ar. 11). Ischyras (supr. p. xxxvill.) was held by Athanasius to be a layman only, and therefore incapable of offering the Eucharist The sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist is not touched upon, except in the somewhat strange fragment (Migne xxv. 1259) from an Oratio de defunctis, which contains the words 1 O€ ye dvaipaxros Ouaia efiaopss. He insists on the finality of the sacrifice of the Cross, Orat. 11. 9, ai pev yap kara vopov...ouK etxoy TO moTOY, Kab npepav mapepxouevar 7 d€ TOU Serjpos Ovoia ana& yevopévn tetehelwke TO may. On repentance and the confession of sins there is little to quote. He strongly asserts the efficacy of repentance, and explains Heb. vi. 4, of the wnzgue cleansing and restoring power of baptism (Serap. iv. 13, as cited above.) A catena on Jeremiah preserves a fragment [supra, ch. iil. o I (38), which compares the ministry of the priest in baptism to that in confession: ovr@s kai o ce PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER V.
eSozoroyovpevos ev peravdia Sia Tod i¢peas AapPaver rHv adeowv Xapire Xpior od. _Of compulsory con- fession, or even of this ordinance as an ordinary element of the Christian life, we read nothing.
On the Christian ministry again there is little direct teaching. The ordinations by the presbyter Colluthus (Afol. Av. 11, 12) are treated as null. The letter (49) to Dracontius contains vigorous and beautiful passages on the responsibility of the Ministry. On the principles of Christian conduct there is much to be gathered from odzter dicta in the writings of Athanasius. His description (cf. swpra, p. xlvii.) of the -revival of religious life at Alexandria in 346, and the exhortations in the Easter letters, are the most conspicuous passages for this purpose. In particular, he insists (¢.g., p. 67) on the necessity of a holy life and pure mind for the apprehension of divine things, and especially for the study of the Scriptures. He strongly recommends the discipline of fasting, in which, as compared with other churches (Rome especially), the Alexandrian Christians were lax (Letter 12), but he warns them in his first Easter letter to fast ‘not only with the body, but also with the soul.’ He also dwells (Zetéer 6) on the essential difference of spirit between Christian festivals and’ Jewish observance of days. Christ is the true Festival, embracing the whole of the Christian life (Zefters 5,14). He lays stress on love to our neighbour, and especially on kindness to the’ poor (Zetier'i. “11, Hist. Ar. 61, Vir. Ant. 17, 30). On one important practical point he is very emphatic: ‘Persecution is a device of the devil’ (ist. Av. 33). This summary judgment was unfortunately less in accordance with the spirit of the times than with the Spirit of Christ.
The ascetic teaching of Athanasius must be reserved for the introduction to the Vita Antoni (cf. Letters 48, 49, also above, p. xlviii.). His eschatology calls for discussion in connection with the language of the de Zncarnatione, and will be briefly noticed in the intro- duction to that tract. With regard to prayers for the departed, he distinguishes (on Luke xiil, 21, &c., Migne xxvii. 1404) the careless, whose friends God will move to assist them with’ their prayers, from the utterly wicked who are beyond the help of prayer.
CHAPTERS V; CHRONOLOGY AND TABLES.
§1. Sources. (1) The Festal Letters of Athanasius with their Zvdex and the Historia Acephata constitute our primary source for chronological details (see below, § 2). (2) Along with these come the chronological notices scattered up and down the other writings of Athanasius. ‘These are of course of the utmost importance, but too often lack definiteness. (3) The chronological data in the fifth-century historians, headed by Socrates, are a mass of confusion, and have been a source of confusion ever since, until the discovery of the primary sources, No. (1) mentioned above. They must, therefore, be used only in strict subordination to the latter. (4) More valuable but less abundant secondary notices are to be derived from the Life of Pachomius, from the letter of Ammon (fra, p. 487), and from other writers of the day. (5) For the movements of the Emperors the laws in the Codex Theodosianus (ed. Hanel in Corpus Juris Ante-Justiniant) give many dates, but the text is not in a satisfactory condition.
(6) Modern discussions. ‘Vhe conflicting attempts at an Athanasian chronology prior to the discovery of the Festal Letters are tabulated in the Appendix to Newman’s Arians, and discussed by him in his introduction to the Wistortcal Tracts (Oxf. Lib. Fathers). The notes to Dr. Bright’s article ArHanastus in D.C.B., and his introduction to the Hist. Writings of S. Ath., may be profitably consulted, as also may Larsow’s Fest-briefe (Leipz., 1852), with useful calendar information by Dr. J. G. Galle, the veteran professor of Astronomy at Breslau, and Sievers on the Hist. Aceph. (Supr. ch. i. § 3.)
But by far the most valuable chronological discussions are those of Prof. Gwatkin in his Studies of Arianism. He has been the first to make full use of the best data, and more- over gives very useful lists of the great officials of the Empire and of the movements of the Eastern Emperors. Mr. Gwatkin’s results were criticised in the Church Quarterly Review, vol. xvi. pp. 392—398, 1883, by an evidently highly-qualified hand. The criticisms of the Reviewer have been most carefully weighed by the present writer, although they quite fail to shake him in his general agreement with Mr. Gwatkin’s results.
t The candid, but friendly, and often just, criticisms on Mr. | without criticism, and falls far short of Mr. Gwatkin’s standard Gwatkin’s book do not concern us here. But the Reviewer's of searching historical method chronological strictures are his weakest point: he uses his texts CHRONOLOGY. PRINCIPLES ADOPTED. Ixxxi For the general chronology of the period we may mention Weingarten’s Ze:¢-tafeln (ed. 3, 1888) as useful, though not especially so for our purpose, and above all Clinton’s Fasti Romani, which, however, were drawn up in the dark ages before the discovery of the Festal Letters, and are therefore antiquated so far as the life of Athanasius is concerned.: § 2. PRINCIPLES AND MetHop. The determination of the leading Athanasian dates depends mainly on the value to be assigned to the primary sources, § 1 (1). Reserving the fuller discussion of these texts for the Introduction to the Zeéters (pp. 495 sg., 500 sg.), it will suffice to state here what seem to be the results of an investigation of their value. (1) The Historia Ace- phala and Festal Index are independent of each other (cf. Sievers, p. 95, misunderstood, I think, by Mr. Gwatkin, p. 221). (2) They both belong to the generation after the death of Athanasius, the A.A. being apparently the earlier. (3) The data as to which they agree must, therefore, come from a source prior to either, i.e, contemporary with Athanasius. (4) In several important particulars they are confirmed by our secondary Egyptian sources, such as the Letter of Ammon and Life of Pachomius. (5) They verify most of the best results arrived at independently of them (of this below), and (6) In no case do they agree in fixing a date which can be proved to be wrong, or which there are sound reasons for distrusting. On these grounds I have classed the Astoria and Jndex as primary sources, and maintain that the dates as to which the two documents agree must be accepted as certain. ‘This principle at once brings the doubtful points in the chronology within very moderate limits. The general chrono- logical table, in which the dates fixed by the agreement of these sources are printed in black type, will make this plain enough. It remains to shew that the principle adopted works out well in detail, or in other words, that the old Alexandrian chronology, transmitted to us through the twofold channel of the Astoria and the /nudex, harmonises the apparent discrepancies, and solves the difficulties, of the chronological statements of Athanasius, and tallies with the most trustworthy information derived from other sources. In some cases it has been found desirable to discuss points of chronology where they occur in the Life of Athanasius; what will be attempted here is to complete what is there passed over without thorough discussion, in justification of the scheme adopted in our general chronological table.
§ 3. Appiications. (a) Death of Alexander and Election of Athanasius. That the latter took place on June 8, 328, is established by the agreement of our sources, together with the numbering of the Festal Letters. Theodoret (4 Z. i. 26) and others, misled by some words of Athanasius (Afol. ¢. Ar. 59), handed down to later ages the statement that Alexander died five months after the Council of Nicea. It had long been seen that this must be a mistake (Tillemont, vi. 736, Montfaucon, Monit. in Vit. S. Athan.) and various suggestions? were made as to the Zerminus a quo for the ‘five months’ mentioned by Athanasius; that of Montfaucon remains the most probable (see ch. ii. § 3 (1), p. xxi.). But the field was left absolutely clear for the precise and concordant statement of our chroniclers, which, therefore, takes undisputed possession. (Further details, sup7. p. xx. sg.; Introd. to Letters, pp. 495, 303).