Chapter 7: Athanasius’s First Return
7
Athanasius’s First Return
While Athanasius was on his imperially imposed “vacation” in Treves, Constantine was taken ill. The church historian, Theodoret, described the succeeding events rather succinctly: “A year and a few months afterwards [Athanasius’s exile] the emperor was taken ill at Nicomedia, a city of Bithynia, and knowing the uncertainty of human life, he received the holy rite of baptism, which he had intended to have deferred until he could be baptized in the river Jordan.”302 Shortly before his death, in 335, Constantine had assigned parts of the governance of the empire to his three sons, Constantine II, Constantius II, and Constans, as well as his nephews Dalmatius and Hannibalian. His sons ruled the main part of the empire, and his nephews the frontier outposts. Constantine’s will perpetuated this division of the empire. Upon his death, however, the army would have no one over them but the sons of Constantine. Constantius II (hereafter, Constantius), being the closest to Constantinople, marched on the capital and had all other relatives—excepting his own brothers—put to death. Only Gallus and Julian (sons of Julius, Constantine I’s half-brother) and Nepotian (son of Eutropia, Constantine I’s half-sister) escaped the slaughter. Constantius then met with his two brothers on September 9, 337, whereupon they agreed to a new partition of the Christian Roman Empire—Constantine II would rule Gaul and Africa, Constantius would lead Thrace and the East, while Constans would govern Italy and Illyricum. Of these three rulers, Constantine II and Constans were already baptized Catholic Christians, whereas Constantius was not baptized and had sympathies for Arianism.303 Prior to his death, Constantine had ordered that, in the words of Theodoret, “the great Athanasius should return to Alexandria, and expressed this decision in the presence of Eusebius [of Nicomedia], who did all he could to dissuade him.”304
Constantine II, the eldest son of the deceased emperor, who ruled Gaul at this time, provided Athanasius with a letter of commendation to the church of Alexandria. It is carried in full in Theodoret’s Church History. It reports, in part: “Constantine, my lord and my father, of blessed memory, intended to have reinstated him [Athanasius] in his former bishopric, and to have restored him to your piety; but as the emperor was arrested by the hand of death before his desires were accomplished, I, being his heir, have deemed it fitting to carry into execution the purpose of this sovereign of divine memory.”305 Athanasius had been absent for two years and four months by the time he reentered his home city. Constantine II, in the same letter, explained that he had treated Athanasius well during his exile because it was clear he was a man of great virtue and true piety. “I was moved to this line of conduct,” the emperor wrote, “by his own great virtue, and the thought of your affectionate longing for his return. May Divine Providence watch over you, beloved brethren!”306
Athanasius left Gaul immediately upon receiving news of his restoration, but he traveled home by an indirect route, stopping in Constantinople and in Antioch and elsewhere along the way to drum up support for the Nicene theology and for his own restoration. Robertson suggests that he traveled east in the company of Constantine II, and met Constantius at Viminacium and then again at Caesarea, as the emperor of the East hurried off to the Persian front.307 Furnished with the letter from Constantine II, Athanasius returned from exile and went home to Alexandria, where he was, in the words of Theodoret, “welcomed both by the rich and by the poor, by the inhabitants of cities, and by those of the provinces. The followers of the madness of Arius were the only persons who felt any vexation at his return. Eusebius, Theognis, and those of their faction resorted to their former machinations, and endeavored to prejudice the ears of the young emperor against him.”308
B. J. Kidd compiled a verbal portrait of Constantius based upon his research in several contemporary sources:
He had his good points. He was pure in life; sober in habits; a good soldier, with some taste for learning; by no means wanting in statecraft, for he kept peace in his own share of the Empire for four and twenty years; and in social charm and pleasantness of private life he was no unworthy son of Constantine. But he was essentially a little man. Small in stature, with short and crooked legs, his mental capacity was small too. Vacillating as a reed, he was so ridiculously conceited that he thought it dignified to sit motionless in public, and would not even clear his throat or blow his nose. He swallowed flattery wholesale; was timorous, and therefore cruel; adept at plotting, but himself the prey of scheming and unworthy favorites.309
Under his rule the Christian church would be plunged into further controversy and division. Ammianus Marcellinus, a Roman historian of the period, reported, “The plain and simple religion of the Christians was bedeviled by Constantius with old wives’ fancies. Instead of trying to settle matters he raised complicated issues which led to much dissension, and as this spread more widely he fed it with verbal argument. Public transport hurried throngs of bishops hither and thither to attend what they call synods, and by his attempts to impose conformity Constantius only succeeded in hamstringing the post service.”310 Among Consantius’s flattering favorites was Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had emerged as one of Athanasius’s chief theological and ecclesiastical opponents.
The early church historians were divided in their opinions about Emperor Constantius’s theological views. Socrates simply refers to him as “an Arian,” and one who “had been long since imbued with Arian doctrine.”311 Philostorgius, the Arian, reported that Constantius “went over to the Arian sect” under the influence of Eusebius.312 Sozomen, perhaps showing more theological acumen, described Constantius as one who embraced the middle position, between the extreme Arians and the orthodox, in that the term homoiousios (“of similar substance”) was used to describe the relationship between the essence of the Father and the essence of the Son.313 But Sozomen also added a testimonial to his assessment of Constantius, saying that he was certain that Constantius “retained the same doctrines as those held by his father and brother,”314 and that he was “induced to adopt the use of the term ‘homoiousios,’ for it was admitted by many priests who conformed to the doctrines of the Nicaean council.”315 In the final analysis Sozomen’s assessment is somewhat ambiguous, since he implies that the emperor held to the Nicene theology but used semi-Arian terms to express it. It might also have been true that, like Constantine himself, Constantius was trying mightily to unify the Christians under his rule into one theological perspective, and in this regard his antipathy towards Athanasius may have been more deeply rooted in the bishop’s holy intransigence than in doctrinal differences between their views.316
With the imposing presence of Emperor Constantine gone from the scene, the fragile ecclesiastical peace and theological compromises that had been hammered out at Nicaea (325) began to break down. Socrates, the church historian, perhaps following the writings of Athanasius himself, wrote, “After the death of the Emperor Constantine, Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis of Nicaea, imagining that a favorable opportunity had arisen, used their utmost efforts to expunge the doctrine of homoousion [same substance], and to introduce Arianism in its place. They, nevertheless, despaired of effecting this, if Athanasius should return to Alexandria . . .”317 Socrates described at some length how “that presbyter by whose means Arius had been recalled from exile a little while before”—presumably Eusebius of Nicomedia himself—ingratiated himself to the royal household of Constantius and managed to convert the chief eunuch of the imperial bed-chamber (also named Eusebius) and the empress to Arian views.318 Gradually, as Socrates described it, Arianism descended like a deadly plague upon the court till it was slowly diffused throughout the administration, the capital city, and other cities of the empire.319 Hence, Socrates reported, “As this affair increased, going from bad to worse, Eusebius of Nicomedia and his party looked upon popular ferment as a piece of good fortune. For only thus they thought they would be enabled to constitute someone who held their own sentiments bishop of Alexandria. But the return of Athanasius at that time defeated their purpose . . .”320
Athanasius arrived back in Alexandria on November 23, 337, amidst much joy and celebration.321 Subsequently, in his eulogy, Gregory of Nazianzus compared Athanasius’s return to Alexandria to the “triumphant entry” of Jesus Christ into Jerusalem (Matt 21:6–11) on Palm Sunday. “All the means of testifying to a city’s joy,” he wrote, were bestowed upon him “in lavish and audible profusion.”322 Socrates also reported that Athanasius “was most joyfully received by the people of the city. Nevertheless as many in it had embraced Arianism, combining together, entered into conspiracies against him, by which frequent seditions were excited, affording a pretext to the Eusebians for accusing him to the emperor of having taken possession of the Alexandrian church on his own responsibility, in spite of the adverse judgment of a general council of bishops.”323
In his lengthy Festal Letter 10, which he seems to have begun writing while in exile in Treves (Trier), and then completed either on the road or back in Alexandria in the year 338, Athanasius lamented his recent persecutions and separation from the brethren. But he anticipated a joyous and grateful Easter celebration despite current and past troubles: “For although I have been hindered by those afflictions of which you have doubtless heard, and severe trials have been laid upon me, and a great distance has separated us; while the enemies of the truth have followed our tracks, laying snares to discover a letter from us, so that by their accusations, they might add to the pain of our wounds; yet the Lord, strengthening and comforting us in our afflictions, we have not feared, even when held fast in the midst of such machinations and conspiracies, to indicate and make known to you our saving Easter-feast, even from the ends of the earth.”324 Reminding them of the unfathomable love of Christ, he exhorted them—in the words of St. Paul—that “‘nothing separates us from the love of Christ; neither affliction, nor distress, nor persecution, nor famine, nor nakedness, nor peril, nor sword’ [Rom 8:35]. Thus, keeping the feast myself, I was desirous that you also, my beloved, should keep it . . .”325
He argued strenuously that suffering in this life does not signal God-forsakenness; quite the contrary, our suffering becomes an opportunity and area for God’s triumphant love and sustaining grace. Indeed, it is in the midst of our suffering, at times, that God’s loving-kindness is most emphatically recognized and decisively known. In this, Athanasius saw himself and his beloved colleagues following in the way of the sufferings of Jesus Christ, “Who when He was smitten bore it patiently, being reviled He reviled not again, when He suffered He threatened not, but He gave His back to the smiters, and His cheeks to buffetings, and turned not His face from spitting; and at last, was willingly led to death, that we might behold in Him the image of all that is virtuous and immortal, and that we, conducting ourselves after these examples, might truly tread on serpents and scorpions, and on all the power of the enemy.”326
Thus, it is through triumphant faith in Christ that the persecuted Christian finds her sanctification enhanced. Here, St. Paul becomes the Christian’s example as well:
Thus too Paul, while he conducted himself after the example of the Lord, exhorted us, saying, “Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ” [1 Cor 11:1]. In this way he prevailed against all the divisions of the devil, writing, “I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Jesus Christ” [Rom 8:38–39]. For the enemy draws near to us in afflictions, and trials, and labors, using every endeavor to ruin us. But the man who is in Christ, combating those things that are contrary, and opposing wrath by long-suffering, contumely by meekness, and vice by virtue, obtains the victory, and exclaims, “I can do all things through Christ Who strengtheneth me”; and “In all these things we are conquerors through Christ Who loved us” [Phil 4:13; Rom 8:37]. This is the grace of the Lord, and these are the Lord’s means of restoration for the children of men.327
Athanasius’s own sufferings and those of his fellow Christians became a lens through which he came to interpret and (in his mind) better understand the gospel of Jesus Christ.
But “the Ario-manaics,” who do not truly follow Jesus Christ, writes Athanasius, are devoid of these spiritual comforts in the midst of their afflictions, because they do not properly honor Christ. They “smite Him who is their Helper with their tongue, and blaspheme Him who set [them] free, and hold all manner of different opinions against the Savior.”328 Hence Athanasius urged them, “hadst thou considered what the Father is, and what the Son, thou wouldst not have blasphemed the Son, as of a mutable nature. And hadst thou understood His work of loving-kindness towards us, thou wouldst not have alienated the Son from the Father, nor have looked upon Him as a stranger, Who reconciled us to His Father.”329
“What then is our duty,” Athanasius asked his brethren, “for the sake of these things, but to praise and give thanks to God, the King of all? And let us first exclaim in the words of the Psalms, ‘Blessed be the Lord, Who hath not given us over as a prey to their teeth’ [Ps 124:6]. Let us keep the [Easter] feast in that way which He hath dedicated for us unto salvation—the holy day of Easter—so that we may celebrate the feast which is in heaven with the angels.”330
When Athanasius finally arrived in Alexandria, conflict in the city between the Nicene Christians (Catholics) and Arians soon erupted. It was further fueled by the intrigues of the Eusebians, from long distance, and the hostility of the Meletians within the city. Soon the saintly Antony the Hermit and the popular desert monks were rumored to support the Arian cause as well. This falsehood was quickly put to rest by personal visit of St. Antony in July 338. While he stayed only two days (departing on July 27, 338), he denounced the Arians emphatically, taught from the scriptures, and healed many.331
In his Life of Antony, which he wrote in 356, Athanasius presented three separate instances in which the saint of the desert addressed the Arian controversy. These passages, while written as Antony’s own words, must also be seen as the words of Athanasius himself. The first of these occurs in paragraph 69, which is given here in its entirety:
On another occasion when the Arians falsely claimed that he [Antony] held the same view as they, he was quite irritated and angry at them. Then, summoned both by the bishops and all the brothers, he came down from the mountain, and entering into Alexandria, he publicly renounced the Arians, saying that theirs was the last heresy and the forerunner of the Antichrist. He taught the people that the Son of God is not a creature, and that He did not come into existence from nonbeing, but rather that He is eternal Word and Wisdom from the essence of the Father. “So,” he asserted, “it is sacrilegious to say ‘there was when he was not’ for the Word coexisted with the Father always. Therefore you are to have no fellowship with the most ungodly Arians, for there is no ‘fellowship of light with darkness.’ You are God-fearing Christians, but they, in saying that the Son and Word of God the Father is a creature, differ in no way from the pagans, who ‘serve the creature rather than the Creator.’ Be assured that the whole creation itself is angrered at them, because they number among the creatures the Creator and Lord of all, in whom all things were made.”332
We notice this brief homily stresses three of Athanasius’s own chief criticisms against the Arians: (1) they say that the Son of God, the Word, is a creature; (2) they affirm that the Son had a beginning; and (3) they argue that the Logos—as a creature—is not “from the essence” of the Father. There is no indication, among the sayings of the Desert Fathers, that these kinds of theological fine points were important parts of St. Antony’s own teaching (though they might have been), but it is undeniably clear that they were features of Athanasius’s critique of Arianism. This makes one wonder to what extent Athanasius was putting his own words in Antony’s mouth when he wrote the Life of Antony. In this same speech Antony also advocated for and supported Athanasius’ss own policy of separation and non-communion with theological heretics (Arians) and schismatics (Meletians).333 The visit of St. Antony might have brought a modicum of peace to the tumultuous ecclesiastical situation in Alexandria, but trouble was brewing elsewhere.334
Meanwhile, the saintly and orthodox Paul had been ordained to the leadership of the churches of Constantinople. This was more or less in keeping with the wishes of the populace and those of his deceased predecessor. But soon thereafter, Constantius arrived in Constantinople and “was highly incensed at the consecration [of Paul]; and having convened an assembly of bishops of Arian sentiments, he divested Paul of his dignity, and translating Eusebius from the see of Nicomedia, he appointed him bishop of Constantinople. Having done this the emperor proceeded to Antioch.”335 Eusebius, late of Nicomedia and now of Constantinople, went with Constantius to Antioch of Syria, and together they convened a synod, ostensibly to dedicate a new church to the memory of the emperor’s father, Constantine the Great, which had been completed by his son, a full ten years after the foundation had been laid. But the real reason for the synod, opined Socrates, was to subvert the doctrine of the homoousion (“same substance”) and to depose Athanasius from Alexandria.336
A council at Antioch was called in the fifth year after the death of Constantine, or 340; Socrates reported that ninety bishops attended, though several important and influential bishops were absent, including Julius of Rome, Maximus of Jerusalem, and Athanasius himself.337 The Eusebians had previously planned among themselves to bring charges against Athanasius at this gathering, and this they did, “accusing him in the first place of having acted contrary to a canon which they then constituted, in resuming his episcopal authority without the license of a general council of bishops, inasmuch as on his return from exile he had on his own responsibility taken possession of the church; and then because a tumult had been excited on his entrance and many were killed in the riot; moreover that some had been scourged by him, and others brought before the tribunals. Besides they brought forward what had been determined against Athanasius at [the council of] Tyre.”338
Under the leadership of Eusebius, the Council of Antioch elected and ordained Gregory to become bishop of Alexandria. They then undertook to alter the Nicene Creed. As Socrates explained, “They altered the creed; not as condemning anything in that which was set forth at Nicaea, but in fact with a determination to subvert and nullify the doctrine of consubstantiality by means of frequent councils and the publication of various expositions of the faith, so as gradually to establish the Arian views.”339 Socrates included the creed of the council in his chronicle. It began with a strong denunciation of the notion that the bishops had become followers of Arius. This was probably in response to a letter of condemnation that had been received from Bishop Julius of Rome. The fathers gathered at Antioch wrote, “We have neither become followers of Arius—for how should we who are bishops be guided by a presbyter?—nor have we embraced any other faith than that which was set forth from the beginning. But being constituted as examiners and judges of his [Arius’s] sentiments, we admit their soundness, rather than adopt them from him . . .”340 They then proceeded to present an affirmation that avoided the language of the homoousia (“same substance”) when speaking of the relationship of the Father and the Son. The creed also avoided saying that the Son was a creature of the Father, and therefore had a beginning. The actual creed, apart from the preamble about not following Arius and a concluding clause about the Holy Spirit, was given as follows:
We have learned from the beginning to believe in one God of the Universe, the Creator and Preserver of all things both those thought of and those perceived by the senses: and in one only-begotten Son of God, subsisting before all ages, and co-existing with the Father who begat him, through whom also all things visible and invisible were made; who in the last days according to the Father’s good pleasure, descended, and assumed flesh from the holy virgin, and having fully accomplished his Father’s will, that he should suffer, and rise again, and ascend into the heavens, and sit at the right hand of the Father; and is coming to judge the living and the dead, continuing King and God for ever.341
After this confession was sent out in an encyclical letter, those who remained in Antioch drafted a second, much more extensive “Exposition of the Faith.” While it contained many more scriptural analogies for describing God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son, it also avoided openly contradicting the Nicene Creed. But it also avoided directly stating that Jesus Christ, the Son, is of the same substance (homoousia) as God the Father, nor did it state that the Son is not in any sense made, as a creature, or that He did not have a beginning. Sozomen opined that much of the phraseology of this creed was taken from an earlier creed composed by Lucianus of Antioch,342 who had been the teacher of Arius and the Eusebians. After they all subscribed to the new creed, had confirmed Gregory as bishop of Alexandria, and established some other canons, the Council of Antioch was dissolved.
In the spring of the same year, during Lent, Gregory along with Syrianus (the military governor) and five thousand heavily armed troops marched on Alexandra, in order to take charge of the church and the city. They arrived on the night of March 18, 339, and began to look for Athanasius secretly. They just missed capturing him that night. They failed again two days later in the church of Theonas, where he had baptized many believers. On the fourth day, March 22, 339, Gregory entered the city as bishop, and Athanasius went into hiding. From his seclusion Athanasius drafted an encyclical letter to the “Bishops of the World,” which detailed the illegal and abusive actions that had been taken against him and urged his readers not to succumb to the attractions of Arianism.
In this lengthy epistle, which is preserved among his own written works, Athanasius detailed the forced intrusion of Gregory into his episcopal see, with the help of Philagrius, the new imperial governor:
With these acts of violence has the Governor seized upon the churches, and has given them up to Gregory and the Arian madmen. Thus, those persons who were excommunicated by us for their impiety, now glory in the plunder of our churches; while the people of God, and the Clergy of the Catholic Church are compelled either to have communion with the impiety of the Arian heretics, or else to forbear entering into them. Moreover, by means of the Governor, Gregory has exercised no small violence towards the captains of ships and others who pass over sea, torturing and scourging some, putting others in bonds, and casting them into prison, in order to oblige them not to resist his iniquities, and to take letters from him. And not satisfied with all this, that he may glut himself with our blood, he has caused his savage associate, the Governor, to prefer an indictment against me, as in the name of the people, before the most religious Emperor Constantius, which contains odious charges from which one may expect not only to be banished, but even ten thousand deaths.343
This letter was written and disseminated either just before or just after Easter (April 15, 339).344 The letter is silent about the violence that must have also occurred when Athanasius’s followers opposed the usurpation of their beloved bishop, and in the larger scheme of things the Encyclical Letter depicts the removal of Athanasius as being part of a larger plot to undermine the orthodox (Nicene) theology of the entire church.345 Almost immediately after issuing this encyclical letter, Athanasius and a small company of associates left Alexandria and headed for safety in Rome.
Sozomen described this exodus at some length: “Athanasius, fearful lest the people should be exposed to suffering on his account, assembled them by night in the church, and when the soldiers came to take possession of the church, prayers having been concluded, he first ordered a psalm to be sung. During the chanting of this psalm the soldiers remained without and quietly awaited its conclusion, and in the meantime Athanasius passed under the singers and secretly made his escape and fled to Rome.”346 The people of Alexandria were so angry at the forced expulsion of Bishop Athanasius that they rioted throughout the city and burned down the church that bore the name of Dionysius, one of their former bishops.347
Athanasius’s selection of Rome as the location for his self-chosen exile speaks volumes about the growing affinity between his Nicene theology and the theology of the Latin West. It also reflects well on the relationship that he had begun building with Bishop (Pope) Julius of Rome. And finally, it also indicates something of Rome’s growing dominance as the seat of Catholic Christianity, and a church that was “first among equals” and vying for leadership of the Christian movement. Theodoret indicates that Athanasius’s enemies had written false accusations about him to Julius, the bishop of Rome, and that Julius had summoned both the accused and the accusers to come before him. Theodoret opined that it was for this reason that the Alexandrian bishop fled to Rome.348 This rationale provided by Theodoret, long after the fact, may have been concocted to provide a cloak of honor to Athanasius’s secret and sudden departure from Alexandria. But, as Athanasius would subsequently write, in 357, describing another forced departure from his see, if it is wrong to flee, it is even worse to persecute: “They bitterly bewail themselves, that they have not effectually put me out of the way; and so they pretend to reproach me with cowardice, not perceiving that by thus murmuring against me, they rather turn the blame upon themselves.”349
302. Theodoret, Church History I.30, NPNF, vol. III, 63.
303. Kidd, History of the Church, 2:69. The depth of Constantius’s Arianism has been debated in recent years. Cf. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius.
304. Theodoret, Church History I.30, NPNF, vol. III, 63–64. Cf. Socrates, Church History II.39, NPNF, vol. II, 35.
305. Theodoret, Church History II.1, NPNF, vol. III, 65.
306. Ibid.
307. Archibald Robertson, “Prolegomena,” NPNF, vol. IV, xli.
308. Theodoret, Church History II.1, NPNF, vol. III, 65.
309. Kidd, History of the Church, 69–70. Cf. Ammianus Marcellinus, Later Roman Empire, ch. 21, “The Character of Constantius,” 229–32.
310. Ammianus Marcellinus, Later Roman Empire, 232.
311. Socrates, Church History II.26, NPNF, vol. II, 54.
312. Philistorgius, Church History III.2a, 39.
313. Church History III.18, NPNF, vol. II, 297.
314. Church History III.19, NPNF, vol. II, 298.
315. Ibid.
316. Frances Young and Andrew Teal (From Nicaea to Chalcedon, 25–26) are also of this opinion. But Jaroslav Pelikan, in his magisterial Christian Tradition, clearly locates Constantius in the Arian camp. Cf. Pelikan, Christian Tradition, 1:209–10.
317. Socrates, Church History II.2, NPNF, vol. II, 36.
318. Ibid.
319. Ibid., 36–37.
320. Ibid., 37.
321. Robertson, “Prolegomena,” NPNF, vol. IV, xli.
322. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 21.29, NPNF, vol. VII, 277–78.
323. Socrates, Church History II.3, NPNF, vol. II, 37.
324. Athanasius, Festal Letter 10, NPNF, vol. IV, 527.
325. Ibid., 528.
326. Ibid., 530.
327. Ibid., 530–31.
328. Ibid., 531.
329. Ibid.
330. Ibid.
331. Robertson, “Prolegomena,” NPNF, vol. IV, xli.
332. Gregg, Life of Antony, 82.
333. Cf. ibid., 89 and 91.
334. Robertson, “Prolegomena,” ch. II, NPNF, vol. IV, xli.
335. Socrates, Church History II.7, NPNF, vol. II, 38.
336. Socrates, Church History II.8, NPNF, vol. II, 38.
337. Ibid.
338. Ibid., 38–39. Cf. Sozomen, Church History III.5, NPNF, vol. II, 285.
339. Socrates, Church History II.10, NPNF, vol. II, 39.
340. Ibid.
341. Ibid.
342. Sozomen, Church History III.5, NPNF, vol. II, 285.
343. Athanasius, Encyclical Epistle to the Bishops, NPNF, vol. IV, 95.
344. Barnes surmises that the encyclical was written soon after Athanasius arrived in Rome (Athanasius and Constantius, 50–51).
345. Athanasius, Encyclical Epistle to the Bishops, NPNF, vol. IV, 95–96.
346. Sozomen, Church History III.6, NPNF, vol. II, 286.
347. Ibid.
348. Theodoret, Church History II.2, NPNF, vol. III, 96.
349. Athanasius, Defense of His Flight 8, NPNF, vol. IV, 257.