3 Cf. Dep. Ar.
4 Cf. Ap. Fug. 7. 5 Ap. Fug. 6. g They scourged the widows on the soles of their feet, and hindered them from receiving their alms.
73. Character of Arian nominees.
Such were the iniquities practised by the Arians; and as to their further deeds of impiety, who could hear the account of them without shuddering? They had caused these venerable old men and aged Bishops to be sent into banishment; they now appointed in their stead profligate heathen youths, whom they thought to raise at once to the highest dignity, though they were not even Catechumens?7. And others who were accused of bigamy*®, and even of worse crimes, they nominated Bishops on account of the wealth and civil power which they possessed, and sent them out as it were from a market, upon their giving them gold. And now more dreadful calamities befel the people. For when they rejected these mercenary dependents of the Arians, so alien from themselves, they were scourged, they were proscribed, they were shut up in prison by the General (who did all this readily, being a Manichee), in order that they might no longer seek after their own Bishops, but be forced to accept those whom they abominated, men who were now guilty of the same mockeries as they had before practised among their idols.
44. The Episcopal appointments of Constantius a mark of Antichrist.
Will not every just person break forth into lamentations at the sight or hearing of these things, at perceiving the arrogance and extreme injustice of these impious men? ‘The righteous lament in the place of the impious 9.’ After all these things, and now that the impiety has reached such a pitch of audacity, who will any longer venture to call this 7 Vid. Hallier, de Ordin. part 2. i. 1, art. 2.: 8 Sryvvaiocs, not duydmors. On the latter, vid. Suicer, Thess. 27: voc. Svyopta. Tertull. de Monogam.
9 Prov. xxviii. 28, LXX.
Costyllius*® a Christian, and not rather the image of Antichrist? For what mark of Antichrist is yet wanting? How can he in any way fail to be regarded as that one? or how can the latter fail to be supposed such a one as he is? Did not the Arians and the Gentiles offer those sacrifices in the great Church in the Czesareum*, and utter their blasphemies against Christ as by His command? And - does not the vision of Daniel thus describe? Antichrist; that he shall make war with the saints, and prevail against them, and exceed all that have been before him in evil deeds, and shall humble three kings, and speak words against the Most High, and shall think to change times and laws? Now what other person besides Constantius has ever attempted to do these things? He is surely such a one as Antichrist would be. He speaks words against the Most High by supporting this impious heresy: he makes war against the. saints by banishing the Bishops; although indeed he exercises this power but for a little while? to his own destruction. Moreover he has surpassed those before him in wickedness, having devised a new mode of persecution; and after he had overthrown three kings, namely Vetranio, Magnentius, and Gallus, he straightway undertook the patronage of impiety; and like a giant3 he has dared in his pride to set himself up against the Most High. He has thought to change laws, by transgressing the ordinance of the Lord given us through His Apostles, by altering the customs of the Church, and inventing a new kind of appointments. For he sends from strange places, distant a fifty days’ journey4, Bishops attended by soldiers to people unwilling to receive them; and instead of an introduction to the acquaintance of their people, they bring with them threatening messages and _ letters to the magistrates. Thus he sent Gregory from Cappadocias to Alexandria; he transferred Germinius from Cyzicus to Sirmium; he removed Cecropius from Laodicea to Nicomedia, 75. Arrival of George at Alexandria, and proceedings of Constantius in Italy.
_ Again he transferred from Cappadocia to Milan one -Auxentius®, an intruder rather than a Christian, whom he commanded to to An irregularly formed diminutive, or a quasi diminutive from Constantius, as Agathyllus from Agathocles, Heryllus from Heracles, &c. vid. Matth. Gr. Gramm, § to2. ed. 1820. [Curtius, § 347.] 1 Ap. Const. 14, supr. § 55. t Dan. vii. 25.
2 Constantius died at 45, having openly apostatized for about six years. Julian died at 32, after a reign of a year and a re vid. supr.? 32. vid. also Bellarmin. de otis Eccl. 17 and 18.
stay there, after he had banished for his piety towards Christ Dionysius the Bishop of the place, a godly man. But this person was as yet even ignorant of the Latin language, and unskilful in everything except impiety. And now one George, a Cappadocian, who was contractor of stores7 at Constantinople, and having embezzled all monies that he received, was obliged to fly, he commanded to enter Alexandria with military pomp, and supported by the authority of the General. Next, finding one Epictetus® a novice, a bold young man, he loved him9, perceiving that he was ready for wickedness; and by his means he carries on his designs against those of the Bishops whom he desires to ruin. For he is prepared to do everything that the Emperor wishes; who accordingly availing himself of his assistance, has committed at Rome a strange act, but one truly resembling the malice of Antichrist. Having made preparations in the Palace instead of the Church, and caused some three of his own eunuchs to attend instead of the people, he then compelled three ill-conditioned spies? (for one cannot call them Bishops), to ordain forsooth as Bishop one Felix3, a man worthy of them, then in the Palace. For the people perceiving the iniquitous proceedings of the heretics would not allow them to enter the Churches4, and withdrew themselves far from them.
76. Zyrannous banishment of Bishops by Constantius.
Now what is yet wanting to make him Antichrist? or what more could Antichrist do at his coming than this man has done? Will he not find when he comes that the way has been already prepared for him by this man easily to deceive the people? AgainS, he claims to himself the right of deciding causes, which he refers to the Court instead of the Church, and presides at them in person. And strange it is to say, when he perceives the accusers at a 8 Epictetus above, p. 226, is called troxpirns, which Montfaucon translated ‘stage-player.’ It is a question whether more than ‘actor’ is meant by it, alluding to the mockery of an ordination in which he seems to have taken part. Though an Asiatic apparently by birth, he was made Bishop of Civita Vecchia. We hear of him at the conference between Constantius and Liberius. Theod. H. £. i. 13. Then he assists in the ordination of Felix. Afterwards he made a martyr of S. Ruffinian by making him run before his carriage; and he ends his historical career by taking a chief part among the Arians at Ariminum. vid. Tillem. t. vi. p. 380, &c. Ughell. /tad. t. 10. p. 56.
9 The Greek is “Emuxtyrév teva...vedtepoy.. op@v, k.T.A. So in the account of the veavicxos, epPreWas adv7a, nyamnoev adtév. Mark x, or, ti.e. to keep up the canonical number; and cf. the case of Novatian, in Euseb. 4. £. vi. 43. On the custom, vid. Bingh.
3 Cf. Tillemont, Mem. t. 6. p. 778. Bolland. Catal. Ponti. ch. 21. p. 390. [Ddllinger, ‘ Fables respecting the Popes;’ D.C.B. ii. 480, Felix figures in the middle ages as the orthodox rival of the ‘ Arian’ Liberius. ] 4 Cf. Theod. HZs¢. ii. 17.
HISTQRY OF loss, he takes up the accusation himself, so that the injured party may no longer be able to defend himself on account of the violence which he displays. This he did in the proceedings against Athanasius. For when he saw the boldness of the Bishops Paulinus, Lucifer, Eusebius, and Dionysius, and how out of the recantation of Ursacius and Valens © they confuted those who spoke against the Bishop, and advised that Valens and _ his fellows should no longer be believed, since they had already retracted what they now asserted, he immediately stood up? and said, ‘I am now the accuser of Athanasius; on my account you must believe what these assert.’ And then, when they said,—‘ But how can you be an accuser, when the accused person is not present? for if you are his accuser, yet he is not present, and therefore cannot be tried. And the cause is not one that concerns Rome, so that you should be believed as being the Emperor; but it is a matter that concerns a Bishop; for the trial ought to be conducted on equal terms both to the accuser and the accused. And besides, how can you accuse him? for you could not be present to witness the conduct of one who lived at so great a distance from you; and if you speak but what you have heard from these, you ought also to give credit to what he says; but if you will not believe him, while you do believe them, it is plain that they assert these things for your sake, and accuse Athanasius only to gratify you?’—when he heard this, thinking that what they had so truly spoken was an insult to himself, he sent them into banishment; and being exasperated against Athanasius, he wrote in a more savage strain, requiring that he should suffer what has now befallen him, and that the Churches should be given up to the Arians, and that they should be allowed to do whatever they pleased.
77. Constantius the precursor of Antichrist.
Terrible indeed, and worse than terrible are such proceedings; yet conduct suitable to him who assumes the character of Antichrist. Who that beheld him taking the lead of his pretended Bishops, and_presiding in Ecclesiastical causes, would not justly exclaim that this was ‘the abomination of cesolation®’ spoken of by Daniel? For having put on the profession of Christianity, and entering into the holy places, and standing therein, he lays waste the Churches, transgressing their Canons, and enforcing the observance of his own decrees. Will any one now venture to say that this is a peaceful time with Christians, and not a time of persecution? A persecution indeed, such as never arose before, and such as no one perhaps will again stir up, except ‘the son of lawlessness9,’ do these enemies of Christ exhibit, who already present a picture of him in their own persons. Wherefore it especially behoves us to be sober, lest this heresy which has reached such a height of impudence, and has diffused itself abroad like the ‘poison of an adder,’ as it is written in the Proverbs, and which teaches doctrines contrary to the Saviour; lest, I say, this be that ‘falling away *!,’ after which He shall be rrevealed, of whom Constantius is surely the forerunner*. Else wherefore is he so mad against the godly? wherefore does he contend for it as his own heresy, and call every one his enemy who will not comply with the madness of Arius, and admit gladly the allegations of the enemies of Christ, and dishonour so many venerable Councils? why did he command that the Churches should be given up to the Arians? was it not that, when that other comes, he may thus find a way to enter into them, and may take to himself him who has prepared those places for him? For the ancient Bishops who were ordained by Alexander, and by his predecessor Achillas, and by Peter before him, have been cast out; and those introduced whom the companions of soldiers nominated; and they nominated only such as promised to adopt their doctrines.
78. Alliance of Meletians with Arians.
This was an easy proposition for the Meletians to comply with; for the greater part, or rather the whole of them, have never had a religious education, nor are they acquainted with the ‘sound faith?’ in Christ, nor do they know at all what Christianity is, or what writings we Christians possess. For having come out, | some of them from the worship of idols, and others from the senate, or from the first civil offices, for the sake of the miserable exemption $ from duty and for the patronage they gained, and having bribed4 the Meletians who preceded them, they have been advanced to this dignity even before they had been under instruction. And even if they pretended to have been such, yet what kind of instruction is to be obtained among the Meletians? But indeed without ‘even pretending to be under instruction, they came at once, and immediately were called Bishops, just as children receive a name, Being then persons of this description, they thought the thing of no great consequence, nor even supposed that piety was different from 10 Prov. xxiii. 32. oe. I De Sym. 5, note to. 2 Cf. Tits i. 23; 9 2 Thess. ii. 8. ir 2 Thess. il. 3.
impiety. Accordingly from being Meletians they readily and speedily became Arians; and if the Emperor should command them to adopt any other profession, they are ready to change again to that also. Their ignorance of true godliness quickly brings them to submit to the prevailing folly, and that which happens to be first taught them. For it is nothing to them to be carried about by every winds and tempest, so long as they are only exempt from duty, and obtain the patronage of men; nor would they scruple probably to change again® to what they were before, even to become such as they were when they were heathens. Any how, being men of such an easy temper, and considering the Church as a civil senate, and like heathen, being idolatrously minded, they put on the honourable name? of the Saviour, under which they polluted the whole of Egypt, by causing so much as the name of the Anan heresy to be known therein. For Egypt has heretofore been the only country, throughout which the profession of the orthodox faith was boldly maintained®; and therefore these misbelievers have “striven to introduce jealousy there also, or rather not they, but the devil who has stirred them up, in order that when his herald Antichrist shall come, he may find that the Churches in Egypt also are his own, and that the Meletians have already been instructed in his principles, and may recognise himself as already formed? in them.
79. Behaviour of the Meletians contrasted with that of the Alexandrian Christians.
Such is the effect of that iniquitous order which was issued by Constantius. On the part of the people there was displayed a ready alacrity to submit to martyrdom, and an increased hatred of this most impious heresy; and yet lamentations for their Churches, and groans burst from all, while they cried unto the Lord, ‘Spare Thy people, O Lord, and give not | Thine heritage unto Thine enemies to reproach*;’ but make haste to deliver us out of the hand of the lawless*. For behold, they have not spared Thy servants, but are preparing the way for Antichrist.’ For the Meletians will never resist him, nor will they care for the truth, nor will they esteem it an evil thing to deny Christ. They are men who have not approached the word with sincerity; like the chameleon 3 they assume every various appear ance; they are hirelings of any who will make use of them. They make not the truth their aim, but prefer before it their present pleasure ‘ they say only, ‘Let us eat and drink, for to- 8 Cf. Apol, Ar. 52. 9 Ctr. Gal. iv. zo. 2 avouwyv, Cf. 2 Thess. ii. 8.
7 Cf. James ii. 7. T Joel ii. 17. 3 de Decr. 1, note 3.
morrow we die.’ Such a profession and faithless temper is more worthy of Epicritian players than of Meletians. But the faithful servants of our Saviour, and the true Bishops who believe with sincerity, and live not for themselves, but for the Lord; these faithfully believing in our Lord Jesus Christ, and knowing, as I said before, that the charges which were alleged against the truth were false, and plainly fabricated for the sake of the Arian heresy (for by the recantation ® of Ursacius and Valens they detected the calumnies which were devised against Athanasius, for the purpose of removing him out of the way, and of introducing into the Churches the impieties of the enemies of Christ); these, I say, perceiving all this, as defenders and preachers of the truth, chose rather, and endured to be insulted and driven into banishment, than to subscribe against him, and to hold communion with the Arian madmen. They forgot not the lessons they had taught to others; yea, they know well that great dishonour remains for the traitors, but for them which confess the truth, the kingdom of heaven; and that to the careless and such as fear Constantius will happen no good thing; but for them that endure tribulations here, as sailors reach a quiet haven after a storm, as wrestlers receive a crown after the combat, so these shall obtain great and eternal joy and delight in heaven;—such as J osephobtained after those tribulations; such as the great Daniel had after his temptations and the manifold conspiracies of the courtiers against him; such as Paul now enjoys, being crowned by the Saviour; such as the people of God everywhere expect. They, seeing these things, were not infirm of purpose, but waxed strong in faith 7, and increased in their zeal more and more. Being fully persuaded of the calumnies and impieties of the heretics, they condemn the persecutor, and in heart and mind run together the same course with them that are persecuted, that they also may obtain the crown of Confession.
80. Duty of separating from heretics.
One might say much more against this detestable and antichristian heresy, and might demonstrate by many arguments that the practices of Constantius are a prelude to the coming of Antichrist. But seeing that, as the Prophet® has said, from the feet even to the head there is no reasonableness in it, but it 1sfull of all filthiness and all impiety, so that the very name of it ought to be avoided as a dog’s vomit or the aa Cor. XV. 32. ’ 5 Histrionum genus, Montf. [The allusion is obscure. Epicrates was a comedian of the 4th, cent.
HIS TORYVTOR -THEVARIANS.
I cr ra poison of serpents; and seeing that Costyllius openly exhibits the image of the adversary 9; in order that our words may not be too many, it will be well to content ourselves with the divine Scripture, and that we all obey the precept which it has given us both in regard to other heresies, and especially respecting this. That precept is as follows; ‘ Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of them, and be ye separate, that bear the vessels of the Lord?.’ This may suffice ** to instruct us all, so that if any one has been deceived by them, he may go out from them, as out of Sodom, and not return again unto them, lest he suffer the fate of Lot’s wife; and if any one has continued from the beginning pure from this impious heresy, he may glory in Christ and say, ‘We have not stretched out our hands to a strange god ™; neither have we worshipped the works of our own hands, nor served the creature?3 more than Thee, the God that hast created all things through Thy word, the Only-Begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom to Thee the Father together with the same Word in the Holy Spirit be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.’
The Second Protest.
The Second Protest.
81. The people of the Catholic Church in Alexandria, which is under the government of the most Reverend Bishop Athanasius, make this public protest by those whose names are under-written.
We have already protested against the nocturnal assault which was committed upon ourselves and the Lord’s house; although in truth there needed no protest in respect to proceedings with which the whole city has been already made acquainted. For the bodies of the slain which were discovered were exposed in public, and the bows and arrows and other arms found in the Lord’s house loudly proclaim the iniquity.
But whereas after our Protest already made, the most illustrious Duke Syrianus endeavours to force all men to agree with him, as though no tumult had been made, nor any had perished (wherein is no small proof that these things were not done according to the wishes of the most gracious Emperor Augustus Constantius; for he would not have been so much afraid of 9 Cf. 2 Thess. il. 4. 10 Js. lil. rt.
1t [A somewhat characteristic phrase of Athanasius.]
1 Of the two Protests referred to supr. § 48, the first was omitted by the copyists, as being already contained, as Montfaucon seems to say, in the Apology against the Arians; yet if it be the one to which allusion is made in the beginning of the Protest which follows, it is not found there, nor does it appear what document of a.p. 356 could properly have a place in a set of papers which end with A.D. 350.
the consequences of this transaction, had he acted therein by command); and whereas also, when we went to him, and requested him not to do violence to any, nor to deny what had taken place, he ordered us, being Christians, to be beaten with clubs; thereby again giving proof of the nocturnal assault which has been directed against the Church:— We therefore make also this present Protest, certain of us being now about to travel to the most religious Emperor Augustus: and we adjure Maximus the Prefect of Egypt, and the Controllers?, in the name of Almighty God, and for the sake of the salvation of the most religious Augustus Constantius, to relate all these things to the piety of Augustus, and to the authority of the most illustrious Prefects3. We adjure also the masters of vessels, to publish these things everywhere, and to carry them to the ears of the most religious Augustus, and to the Prefects and the Magistrates in every place, in order that it may be known that a war has been waged against the Church, and that, in the times of Augustus Constantius, Syrianus has caused virgins and many others to become martyrs.
As it dawned upon the fifth before the Ides of February4, that is to say, the fourteenth of the month Mechir, while we were keeping vigil 5 in the Lord’s house, and engaged in our prayers (for there was to be a communion on the Preparation ®); suddenly about midnight, the most illustrious Duke Syrianus attacked us and the Church with many legions of soldiers” armed with naked swords and javelins and other warlike instruments, and wearing helmets on their heads; and actually while we were praying, and while the lessons were being read, _ they broke down the doors. And when the doors were burst open by the violence of the multitude, he gave command, and some of them were shooting; others shouting, their arms rattling, and their swords flashing in the light of the lamps; and forthwith virgins were being slain, many men trampled down, and falling over one another as the soldiers came upon them, and several were pierced with arrows and perished. Some of the soldiers also were betaking themselves to plunder, and were stripping the virgins, who were more afraid of being even touched by them than they were of death. The Bishop continued sitting upon his throne, and exhorted all to pray. The Duke led on the attack, having with him Hilarius the notary, whose part in the proceedings was shewn in the 2 Ap. Ar. 73, note. 3 i.e. Pretorian.. 4 Febr. 9. OE Ap. Const. 25; Ap. Fug. 24. 6 Friday yid. Encyc. 4, note 9. 7 i.e. more than 5,000, Af. Fug. 24.
sequel. The Bishop was seized, and barely escaped being torn to pieces; and having fallen Into a state ‘of insensibility, and appearing as one dead, he disappeared from among them, and has gone we know not whither. They were eager to kill him. And when they saw that many had perished, they gave orders to the soldiers to remove out of sight the bodies of the dead. But the most holy virgins who were left behind were buried in the tombs, having attained the glory of martyrdom in the times of the most religious Constantius. Deacons also were beaten with stripes even in the Lord’s house, and were shut up there.
Nor did matters stop even here: for after all this had happened, whosoever pleased broke open any door that he could, and searched, and plundered what was within. ‘They entered even into those places which not even all Christians are allowed to enter. Gorgonius, the commander of the city force ®, knows this, for he was present. And no unimportant evidence of the nature of this hostile assault is afforded by the circumstance, that the armour and javelins and swords borne by those who entered were left in the Lord’s house. They have been hung up in the Church until this time, that they might not be able to deny it: and although they sent several times Dynamius the soldier 8, as well as the Commander 9 of the city police, desiring to take them away, we 8 otpatynyod. There were two ozparnyot or duumvirs at the head of the police force at Alexandria; they are mentioned in the plural in Euseb. vii. rr, where S. Dionysius speaks of their seizing him. vid. Du Cange, Gloss. Graec. in Voc.
9 Tov Tis Tafews, Supr. § 61, TTpaTLwToV.
would not allow it, until the circumstance was known to all.
Now if an order has been given that we should be persecuted we are all ready to suffer martyrdom. But if it be not by order of Augustus, we desire Maximus the Prefect of Egypt and all the city magistrates to request of him that they may not again be suffered thus to assail us. And we desire also that this our petition may be presented to him, that they may not attempt to bring in hither any other Bishop: for we have resisted unto death °, desiring to have the most Reverend Athanasius, whom God gave us at the beginning, according to the succession of our fathers; whom also the most religious Augustus Constantius himself sent to us with letters and oaths. And we believe that when his Piety is informed of what has taken place, he will be greatly displeased, and will do nothing contrary to his oaths, but will again give orders that our Bishop Athanasius shall remain with us.
To the Consuls to be elected. after the Consulship of the most illustrious Arbzethion and Collianus?*, on the seventeenth Mechir*3, which is the day before the Ides of February.
to Apol. Ar. 38.
1x Since the Consuls came into office on the first of January, and were proclaimed in each city, it is strange that the Alexandrians here speak in February as if ignorant of their names. The phrase, however, is found elsewhere. Thus in this very year the Chron. Aceph. dates Jan. 5 as ‘post Consulatum Arbitionis et Loliani.’ And in Socr. Hist. ii. 29, in the instance of the year 351, when there were no Consuls, and in 346, when there was a difference on the subject between the Emperors who were eventually themselves Consuls, the first months are dated in like manner from the Consuls of the foregoing year.
12 Lollianus. 13 Feb. 12, Leap year; see note below, at the end of Introd. to Letters.
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST eT eNO ANS: WRITTEN BETWEEN 356 AND 360.
THERE is no absolutely conclusive evidence as to the date of these Discourses, in fact they would appear from the language of ii. 1 to have been issued at intervals. The best judges, however, are agreed in assigning them to the fruitful period of the ‘ third exile.’ The Discourses cannot indeed be identified with the lost account of the Arian heresy addressed to certain Egyptian monks (see Introd. to Arian Hist. swprva); but the demand for such a treatise may have set Athanasius upon the composition of a more comprehensive refutation of the heresy. It was only at this period (‘ Blasphemy’ of Sirmium, 357) that the doctrinal controversy began to emerge from the mass of personalities and intrigues which had encumbered it for the first generation after the great Council; only now that the various parties were beginning to formulate their position; only now that the great mass of Eastern ‘Conservatism’ was beginning to see the nature of the issue as between the Nicene doctrine and the essential Arianism of its more resolute opponents. The situation seemed to clear, the time had come for gathering up the issues of the combat and striking a decisive blow. To this situation of affairs the treatise before us exactly corresponds. Characteristic of this period is the anxiety to conciliate and win over the so-called semi-Arians (of the type of Basil of Ancyra) who stumbled at the épootcwv, but whose fundamental agreement with Athanasius was daily becoming more clear. Accordingly we find that Athanasius pointedly avoids the famous test word in these Discourses? (with the exception of the fourth: see Oraz. i. 20, note 5, 58, note £0: it only occurs i. 9, note 12, but see Ovat. iv. 9, 12), and even adopts (not as fully adequate de Sy. 53, but as true so far as it goes), the ‘semi-Arian’ formula ‘like in essence’ (Or. 1. 21, note 8, 20, 26, ili. 26, he does not use the single compound word épouoteros: see further, Introd. to de Synodis). Although, therefore, demonstrative proof is lacking, there is tolerable certainty as to the date of our Discourses. And their purpose is no less manifest: they are a decisive blow of the kind described above, aimed at the very centre of the question, and calculated to sever the abnormal alliance between conservatives who really thought with Athanasius and men like Valens or Eudoxius, whose real convictions, so far as they had any, were Arian. Moreover they gather up all the threads of controversy against Arianism proper, refute its appeal to Scripture, and leave on record for all time the issues of the great doctrinal contest of the fourth century. ‘They have naturally become, as Montfaucon observes, the mine whence subsequent defenders of the Divinity of our Redeemer have drawn their material. There are doubtless arguments which a modern writer would scarcely adopt (e.g. ii. 63, il. 65 zmt., &c.), and the repeated labelling of the Arians as madmen (‘ fanatics’ in this translation), enemies of Christ, disciples of Satan, &c., &c., is at once tedious and by its very frequency unimpressive (see ii. 43 note 8 for Newman’s famous list of animal nicknames). But the serious reader will pass sicco pede over such features, and will appreciate ‘the richness, fulness, and versatility’ of the use of Scripture, ‘the steady grasp of certain primary truths, especially of the Divine Unity and of Christ’s real or genuine natural and Divine Sonship (1. 15, i. 2—5, 22, 23, 73, jii. 62), the keen penetration with which Arian objections are analysed (i. 14, 27, 29, lL 26, iii, 59), Arian imputations disclaimed, Arian statements old and new, the bolder and the more cautious, compared, Arian evasions pointed out, Arian logic traced to its conclusions, and Arianism sbewn to be inconsistent, irreverent’ (Bright, Introd. p. Ixvii.). Above all, we see in