On Philagrius entering into Alexandria the second time, so extraordinary was the concourse of citizens to welcome him, that one of the spectators said to another standing by him, "Did you ever see such a multitude so united in their expressions of honour?" The reply was, "No." The first spokesman rejoined, "Even if Constantius were to come, it would not be equalled." "Constantius!"

was the reply; "nay, if even Athanasius were to enter, it would scarcely be equalled." Let the reader compare this with the Athanasian documents. I think on every ground it will be conceded to me, that the writer of that oration had never seen them.

I will now present what Jerome has inserted in his "Chronicle" on this subject. He places Constantine's death A.D. 340, instead of A.D. 337. I shall, therefore, not use his dates, but take his facts. in their relative order.

In the second year after the death of Constantine he says, the Arian impiety, supported by the royal power, persecuted with exile, prison, and in various ways, first Athanasius, and then all the other bishops of his party.

In the fifth year after the death of Constantine was the dedication of the Church at Antioch.

In the sixth year after the death of Constantine lived Maximinus, bishop of Treves, in great repute, who honourably received Athanasius when Constantine was seeking after his life.

In the tenth year after the death of Constantine, Athanasius returned to Alexandria through the interference of Constans; that is, A.D. 347.

Twenty-five years after the death of Constantine, Athanasius returned again to Alexandria, on the murder of George, who had been consecrated in his place by the Arians; that is, A. D. 362.

These are all the facts stated by Jerome. It will be seen that he mentions no trial of Athanasius in the lifetime of Constantine; that the persecution arose in the second year of Constantius; that, in the fourth year of the persecution, Athanasius found a home at Treves, in the dominions of Constans; and that, A.D. 347, in the eighth year of the persecution, he returned to Alexandria through the influence of Constans. The date of the second persecution, when George was sent, is not mentioned, but the return of Athanasius is placed in A. D. 362.

Jerome, therefore, had never seen the Athanasian documents. There is no allusion to this extraordinary Council of Sardica.

I will now examine Ruffinus, who wrote his history in the first quarter of the fifth century. He, it will be remembered, was a presbyter of Aquileia, and a learned man. Unfortunately his work is interpolated; but the interpolation in his case, as in Jerome's, took place prior to the composition of the Athanasian documents. He says he will insert into his history all the great events relative to Athanasius, and yet he makes no mention of the Sardican Council.

He states that Constantius, seduced by the eunuchs, was made to believe Athanasius guilty of all manner of crimes; and that, for magical pur

poses, he had cut off the hand of one Arsenius; that, in consequence, the Council of Tyre was summoned; that Archilaus, a count then governing Phoenice, was the president; and thither Athanasius was carried. He further states that Arsenius had been a reader of Athanasius, but having committed some fault, and fearing correction, he had withdrawn himself from Alexandria. The opponents of Athanasius took advantage of this circumstance, and kept Arsenius under the care of one of their party. The plot reached Arsenius in his retreat; he escaped from his hold by night, and presented himself at Tyre to Athanasius the day before the last day of the trial, and told him all that had befallen him. Athanasius desired him to keep at home, and tell no one of his presence. When the trial commenced, a charge of rape was first made and failed. Then came the charge of cutting off the hand of Arsenius. Arsenius was presented having two hands. A clamour arose. Athanasius, it was said, deals in magic. His enemies fell upon him. Archilaus took him out of their hands, conveyed him away by private passages, and counselled him to fly. The synod, however, met again; and, as if nothing had happened, condemned him as self-condemned; and, sending this account throughout the world, compelled, with the emperor's assistance, other bishops to condemn him also.

Athanasius was now an exile. No place was safe for him. Search was made everywhere. Rewards were offered for his capture, dead or

alive; and for six years he was hidden in a dry cistern.

He then fled to Constans, and was honourably received. Constans caused an inquiry to be made respecting Athanasius, and then he wrote to his brother, saying, that if he would not willingly allow him to return, he would compel him. Constantius, being alarmed, granted permission; and, having quietly reproved Athanasius, sent him to his see. They met at Antioch.

On the death of Constans he was again expelled, and George was sent in his room. They had formerly sent Gregory. Again there was a flight, and hiding-place, and edicts. Constantius then attacked the Western prelates, and required from them, first, the condemnation of Athanasius as the removal of a preliminary obstacle. Ruffinus then mentions the Council at Milan, the refusal of Dionysius of Milan, Eusebius of Vercelli, Paulinus of Treves, Rodanus, and Lucifer of Carali, to subscribe to Athanasius's condemnation. To these should be added, also, Hilary of Poitiers. All the rest consented.*

He then describes the Councils of Rimini and Seleucia, the exile of Liberius, and consecration of Felix.

It will be seen here, too, that although the times and facts of the persecutions are confounded, yet that, previous to Julian, only two exiles are named: the one after the Council of Tyre, and the other when George was sent. If Ruffinus had ever heard of the cecumenical Council of Sardica, it *Hist. Eccl. xi. 15-20

must have been mentioned among the important facts relating to Athanasius, all which he had promised to record.

No dates are given by Ruffinus; but it is clear that the Council of Tyre was held in the reign of Constantius. Supposing it to have occurred at the time Jerome has stated the persecution arose against Athanasius, it would have been held A.D. 339; add to it the six years of concealment, and the flight into the West, and the time of Athanasius's re-assuming the chair at Alexandria will be about A.D. 347.

There is also another statement under the name of Sulpicius Severus, a Gaul; but it is such a manifestly ignorant and late forgery, that it is undeserving of notice. Although it mentions the council, the writer entirely opposes the documents. Copying from one of the Hilarian spurious documents, soon to be noticed, he affirms that there were two persons named Arrius; that the heresy arose at the end of Constantine's reign, and that he was perverted by it, and expelled the bishops and clergy that would not adopt it; that, on account of these proceedings, the Council of Nice was called; that Arianism was condemned by it, and the emperor changed his views, and subscribed the Nicene Creed; that the Arians soon after began to forge charges against their opponents, and first attacked Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, who was a jurisconsult, and had been present at the Council at Nice as a deacon, and condemned him in his absence, asserting, among his other crimes and misdemeanours, that