18 Ib. vv. 6, 7.

19 planhqeisan gennhsin.

20 2 Pet. i. 4.

21 Rom. viii. 3.

22 Heb. x. 20.

23 Acts vii. 55.

24 Ib. i. 11.

25 John xvii. 24.

26 Ps. xliii. 3.

27 Matt. i. 23, and Isa. vii. 14.

28 Tit. ii. 13, Tit. ii. 14.

29 Heb. ii. 14.

30 Heb. ix. 5.

31 Cf. Lev. xvii. 9; Num. ix. 13.

32 Matt. xxiv. 2.

33 Mark i. 31.

34 Joh. xi. 43.

35 Eph. ii. 2. Athan. here omits the tou pneumatoj, thus increasing the difficulty of the gen. particp.

36 Heb, ix. 26.

37 John i. 1.

38 Perhaps the `Hierax' of pp. 257, 297, 560, above.

1 Maximus, probably the Cynic philosopher who plays so strange and grotesque a part in the history of S. Gregory Nazianzen's tenure of the see of Constantinople (the identification is questioned by Bright, p. 72, but without very cogent reasons), was the son of Alexandrian parents, persons of high social standing, who had suffered much for the Faith. He himself was an ardent opponent of Arianism and heathenism, and was banished under Valens (further particulars in Dict. Gr. and Rom. Biogr. s. v. Maximus Alexandrinus). The present letter compliments him on his success in refuting heretics, some of whom advocated the Arian Christology; others the doctrine of Paul of Samosata and Photinus. The Epistle has much in common with those to Epictetus and Adelphius; Montfaucon's date tor it is adopted. (see Migne xxvi. 1085; Bright, Lat. Tr., p. 72.)

2 1 Tim. i. 7.

3 Mark xv. 5; Matt. xxvi. 64; Matt. xxvii. 19.

4 Ps. xxxiv. 13.

5 Matt. xxvii. 40; Luke xxviii. 37.

6 Tit. iii. 10, Tit. iii. 11.

7 1 Cor. i. 23.

8 Cf. 1 Cor. i. 24, and 1 Cor. ii. 8.

9 John xx. 28.

10 Ath. quotes John xiii. 13 in this, the order of several mss. and later fathers, both here and elsewhere.

11 1 Pet. ii. 24.

12 Heb. ix. 26.

13 John i. 14.

14 Ib. viii. 40.

15 Cf. Ad Epict. 5 (supr. p. 572.)

16 Cf. Heb. viii. 3.

17 Ib. ii. 15.

18 Gen. iii. 19, LXX.

19 John i. 14 b.

20 Cf. de Incarn. 36. 4.

21 Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 53.

1 Of John and Antiochus nothing is known, unless the latter is the later bishop of Ptolemais and enemy of Chrysostom. Both men seem to belong to the class of well-meaning mischief-makers, given to retailing invidious stories. Hence the polite reserve of our little note (Migne xxvi. 115, and its laconic dismissal of the gossip about Basil, the new bishop of the Cappadocian Caesarea (supr. p. 449). The main interest of this and the following letter, which seem to date from the winter 371-372, consists in the testimony of the high esteem of Athanasius for Basil, as well as his indifference to words where no essential principle was involved. The two recipients of this letter either lived or were visitors at Jerusalem. On Basil's difficulties at this time, see D.C.B. i. 288 a, 293, and on his relations with Athan., cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. §10.

2 2 Tim. ii. 14; Acts xvii. 21.

1 On the general subject and date of this letter see note 1 to Letter 62. Of Palladius, who is clearly a resident at Caesarea, nothing further is known. The tone of this letter is more confiding than that of the previous one. (Migne ib. 1167.)

2 Perhaps a bishop in the neighbourhood of Caesarea. See D.C. B, s.v. Innocentius (4).

3 Namesake of a predecessor of Basil, otherwise unknown.

4 The letter here referred to is lost. The monks in question had raised a cry against Basil on account of the reserve with which he spoke of the Divine Personality of the Holy Spirit. (See supr. p. 481.)

5 1 Cor. ix. 22.

6 oikonmian.

1 This fragment (Migne xxvi. 1261) is given by Facundus, Def. Tr. Cap. iv. 2, who claims it as addressed to Diodorus of Tarsus, the famous Antiochene confessor and master of Chrysostom and Theodore. Unfortunately this is impossible, as Diodore became bishop of Tarsus not before 378, i.e. after Athan. was dead. The letter itself decides for Diodorus of Tyre, whom Paulinus of Antioch had quite unwarrantably ordained to this see (cf. Rufin, H.E. ii. 21). Whether (as has been held on the authority of Rufinus) Diodorus, or (as Le Quien, Or. Chr. ii. 865 sq. holds) Zeno, the nominee of Meletius, was first in the field in the unseemly scramble, is doubtful. Zeno is already bishop in 365 (Soz. vi. 12); the date of the appointment of Diodorus, whose claim is at any rate no better than that of Paulinus himself, is quite uncertain (see also Prolegg. ch. ii. §§9, 10). Diodorus was the friend and correspondent of Epiphanius, and of Timothy, bishop of Alexandria, second from Athanasius. Facundus confuses him in these particulars also with his namesake of Tarsus, but the mistake is thoroughly sifted by Tillemont, Mem. viii. pp. 238, 712. The letter is important, along with Letter 56, and the correspondence of S. Basil, as illustrating the attitude of Athanasius with regard to the unhappy schism of Antioch.